id|nct_id|outcome_id|non_inferiority_type|non_inferiority_description|param_type|param_value|dispersion_type|dispersion_value|p_value_modifier|p_value|ci_n_sides|ci_percent|ci_lower_limit|ci_upper_limit|ci_upper_limit_na_comment|p_value_description|method|method_description|estimate_description|groups_description|other_analysis_description|ci_upper_limit_raw|ci_lower_limit_raw|p_value_raw
84602512|NCT03571672|168956006|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.98||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.868
84602513|NCT03571672|168956006|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.445||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.606
84602514|NCT03571672|168956006|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.212||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.224
84602515|NCT03571672|168956007|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.682||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.715
84602516|NCT03571672|168956007|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.526||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.956
84602517|NCT03571672|168956007|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.584||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.771
84602518|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.970|0.944|
84726614|NCT05356130|169205064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We conducted the same two independent planned comparisons: Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to Minimal BLT Encouragement; Minimal BLT Encouragement and Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to TAU."||||0.014
84726615|NCT02169089|169205085|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.78||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0293
84726616|NCT02169089|169205086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -3.5 and 2.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||<0.0001
84540968|NCT06075277|168833332|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|143.08|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.8|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||143.08|112.09|
84540969|NCT06075277|168833333|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.34|149.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 27.9.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||149.58|106.34|
84571013|NCT01075048|168892996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 25 Jul 2013||||0.1334
84571014|NCT01075048|168892996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2159|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 20 Feb 2015||||0.2159
84602519|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.964||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.964|0.931|
84602520|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.969||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.941|
84726617|NCT02169089|169205087|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-40.7||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -10.3 and 17.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.0189
84726618|NCT02169089|169205088|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -5.95 and 2 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.1276
84602521|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.909|
84602522|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.946|
84602523|NCT03571672|168956008|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|0.954||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.913|
84602524|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
84602525|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|0.99||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.990|0.981|
84602526|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|0.971||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.971|0.945|
84664466|NCT00254540|169062538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|48.0||||||95.0|27.8|68.7||||||||68.7|27.8|
84726619|NCT03614923|169205123|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints would be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.25||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.25|-1.01|0.2364
84752198|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|16.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|30.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||30.0|3.4|0.015
84752199|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|10.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|23.9|||ANOVA|||at 4h||23.9|-2.2|0.103
84540970|NCT06075277|168833334|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.7|142.21|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.6.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||142.21|111.70|
84540971|NCT02603146|168833335|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.459|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.459|0.213|
84540972|NCT02603146|168833335|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.519|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.519|0.268|
84540973|NCT02603146|168833335|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.058||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.22||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.220|-0.336|0.522
84540974|NCT02603146|168833336|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.225|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.225|0.076|
84540975|NCT02603146|168833336|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
84540976|NCT02603146|168833336|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.131||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.131|-0.188|0.668
84540977|NCT02603146|168833337|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.273|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.273|0.088|
84540978|NCT02603146|168833337|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
84540979|NCT02603146|168833337|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.014||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.15||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.150|-0.177|0.840
84540980|NCT02603146|168833338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.652
84602527|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.945||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.897|
84478894|NCT02061748|168709117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0111
84540981|NCT02603146|168833339|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.482|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.482|0.230|
84540982|NCT02603146|168833339|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.551|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.551|0.298|
84602528|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
84478895|NCT02061748|168709118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0861|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0861
84478896|NCT02061748|168709119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0011
84478897|NCT02061748|168709120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0019
84478898|NCT02061748|168709121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0808
84478899|NCT02061748|168709122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3502
84664467|NCT00254540|169062538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|46.2||||||95.0|26.6|66.6||||||||66.6|26.6|
84478900|NCT02061748|168709123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0068
84540983|NCT02603146|168833339|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.069||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.226|-0.363|0.452
84540984|NCT02603146|168833340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.928
84540985|NCT02603146|168833340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
84540986|NCT02603146|168833341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
84540987|NCT02603146|168833341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
84540988|NCT02603146|168833342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.576
84540989|NCT02603146|168833342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
84540990|NCT02603146|168833343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
84540991|NCT02603146|168833343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
84540992|NCT02603146|168833344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.634
84540993|NCT02603146|168833344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.574
84540994|NCT02603146|168833345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.724
84602529|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.934||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.934|0.876|
84478901|NCT02061748|168709124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0271
84478902|NCT02061748|168709125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0749
84478903|NCT02061748|168709126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0072
84478904|NCT02061748|168709127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0055
84478905|NCT02061748|168709128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0284
84478906|NCT02061748|168709129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.907
84478907|NCT02061748|168709130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8208|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8208
84540995|NCT02603146|168833345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
84540996|NCT02603146|168833349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
84540997|NCT01130532|168833381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84478908|NCT02061748|168709131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1534|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.1534
84478909|NCT02061748|168709132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3055
84478910|NCT02061748|168709133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.9573
84478911|NCT02061748|168709134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8465|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8465
84478912|NCT02061748|168709135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0006
84478913|NCT02061748|168709136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||<0.0001
84540998|NCT01130532|168833381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84540999|NCT01130532|168833382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541000|NCT01130532|168833382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541001|NCT01130532|168833383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541002|NCT01130532|168833383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541003|NCT01130532|168833384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84602530|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
84478914|NCT02061748|168709137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0185
84478915|NCT02061748|168709138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0138
84541004|NCT01130532|168833384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541005|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541006|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541007|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84752200|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|5.9||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||17.5|-5.6|0.311
84541008|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541009|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541010|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541011|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541012|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541013|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541014|NCT01130532|168833385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541015|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541016|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541017|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541018|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541019|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84602531|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.989|0.979|
84478916|NCT02061748|168709139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.261
84602532|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
84602533|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.961||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.961|0.927|
84602534|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
84478917|NCT02061748|168709140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.4407
84478918|NCT02061748|168709141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2665|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.2665
84478919|NCT02061748|168709142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8017
84752201|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||14.5|-9.0|0.638
84726620|NCT03614923|169205123|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.22||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.22|-1.03|0.2024
84726621|NCT03614923|169205124|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|2.06||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||2.06|-15.34|0.1330
84541020|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84726622|NCT03614923|169205124|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|6.67||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||6.67|-10.70|0.6464
84541021|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541022|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541023|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541024|NCT01130532|168833386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541025|NCT01130532|168833387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84541026|NCT01130532|168833387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84752202|NCT03836807|169259595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||in the ITT population||||0.007
84752203|NCT03836807|169259595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||in the PP population||||0.009
84541027|NCT01130532|168833388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541028|NCT01130532|168833388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541029|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541030|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541031|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541032|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541033|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84602535|NCT03571672|168956009|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.954||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.914|
84602536|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.967||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.967|0.909|
84752204|NCT03836807|169259596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
84541034|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541035|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541036|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541037|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541038|NCT01130532|168833389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84541039|NCT01130532|168833390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84752205|NCT03836807|169259597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84541040|NCT01130532|168833390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84541041|NCT01130532|168833392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84541042|NCT01130532|168833392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84541043|NCT01130532|168833392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84541044|NCT01130532|168833393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.002
84541045|NCT01130532|168833393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
84541046|NCT01130532|168833393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84541047|NCT03041311|168833426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect.||||<0.0001
84541048|NCT03041311|168833427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to1 vs. 2) and brain metastases (Yes vs. No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of # of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||<0.0001
84541049|NCT03041311|168833428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|negative binomial regression|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||||||0.0195
84541050|NCT03041311|168833429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1335||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model. The model included baseline hemoglobin as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No) and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of the number of weeks on treatment was included as an offset variable in the model.||||0.1335
84541051|NCT03041311|168833430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline absolute neutrophil count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of number of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0686
84752206|NCT03836807|169259598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.480
84541052|NCT03041311|168833431|SUPERIORITY|For time-to-event variable, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate its within group median value, 25% and 75% percentile values.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52||The 2-sided p-value was obtained from the stratified log-rank test to account for the stratification factors.|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test|The HR and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment and stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and presence of brain metastases (Yes versus No).|||1.52|0.64|0.9942
84541053|NCT01783990|168833490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.33
84541054|NCT01783990|168833491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.80
84541055|NCT01783990|168833492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.87
84541056|NCT01783990|168833493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.28
84541057|NCT01783990|168833494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.31
84478920|NCT02061748|168709143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||<0.0001
84541058|NCT01783990|168833495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.04
84541059|NCT01038336|168833496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
84602537|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.95||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.950|0.864|
84602538|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.900|
84602539|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.935||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.935|0.827|
84602540|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.971||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.971|0.920|
84602541|NCT03571672|168956010|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.939||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.939|0.838|
84541060|NCT01038336|168833497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84541061|NCT01038336|168833498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
84541062|NCT01038336|168833499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.030
84541063|NCT01038336|168833500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
84602542|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|0.986||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.986|0.961|
84602543|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.991||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.991|0.974|
84602544|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.960|0.890|
84602545|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.912||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.912|0.770|
84602546|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.914|
84602547|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.892||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.892|0.721|
84602548|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.970|
84602549|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.985||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.985|0.957|
84602550|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.915|
84602551|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.933||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.933|0.822|
84602552|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.975||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.975|0.932|
84602553|NCT03571672|168956011|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.922||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.922|0.794|
84541064|NCT01038336|168833501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.832
84602554|NCT03095027|168956012|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 10, there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.0474 (one-sided alpha=0.05)|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||||||||0.01||
84541065|NCT01038336|168833502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
84541066|NCT01038336|168833503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.128
84541067|NCT02366689|168833504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.04
84541068|NCT02366689|168833505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||< 0.001
84541069|NCT02366689|168833506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84541070|NCT02366689|168833507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.432
84602555|NCT00395291|168956013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The IGF-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IGF-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Power calculation: We assumed that the IGF-I data will be lognormally distributed and thus the parameter of interest will be the IGF-1 geometric mean. If n=22 individuals complete the study and the intervention effect is 48% greater for one intervention than the other we will have at least 0.80 power to reject the null hypothesis."||||<0.001
84602556|NCT00395291|168956014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|The Acyl-Ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Acyl-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.169
84602557|NCT00395291|168956015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|The Leptin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in leptin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Leptin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.063
84726623|NCT01882088|169205127|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.000002
84726624|NCT01882088|169205128|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.2
84726625|NCT01882088|169205129|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.002415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002415
84726626|NCT01882088|169205130|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.000438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000438
84726627|NCT01882088|169205131|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84726628|NCT01882088|169205132|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84726629|NCT01882088|169205133|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84664468|NCT01287897|169062554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.3406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|21.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||21.7|-13.0|0.3406
84602558|NCT00395291|168956016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|The insulin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in serum-insulin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because serum-insulin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.075
84602559|NCT00395291|168956017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.782
84726630|NCT01882088|169205134|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84726631|NCT01882088|169205135|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84726632|NCT01882088|169205136|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
84602560|NCT00395291|168956018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||ANCOVA|The TNF-a data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in TNF-a is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.385
84602561|NCT00395291|168956019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||ANCOVA|The CRPs data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in CRPs is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because CRPs is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.929
84602562|NCT00395291|168956020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-1 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted"||||0.905
84602563|NCT00395291|168956021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
84602564|NCT00395291|168956022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-10 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-10 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-10 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.277
84726633|NCT00125619|169205137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group comparison of Robot (Lokomat) vs. Manual (therapist-assisted) training.||||0.72
84726634|NCT00125619|169205137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
84726635|NCT00125619|169205137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Manual (Therapist Assisted) training.||||>.05
84541071|NCT02366689|168833508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84602565|NCT00395291|168956023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||ANCOVA|The esterase data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in esterase is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.875
84602566|NCT00395291|168956024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|The adiponectin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in adiponectin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.545
84602567|NCT00395291|168956025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Total ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Total-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.900
84602568|NCT01962987|168956026|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of patients between Test and Reference to be contained within -20%, + 20%, using the Per-Protocol Population.|(Test-Ref) Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|9.42|||||Applicable to Percentage of Subjects with Cure (100% complete AK clearance at day 90)|||9.42|-8.06|
84602569|NCT01962987|168956026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0010
84664469|NCT01287897|169062554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.7|0.0438
84726636|NCT00125619|169205138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of Robot vs. Manual training.||||>0.05
84726637|NCT00125619|169205138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison (pre- vs. post-treatment) due to Manual (therapist-assisted) treatment.||||>.05
84726638|NCT00125619|169205138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within-groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
84726639|NCT00125619|169205139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
84726640|NCT00125619|169205139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for manual training.||||>.05
84726641|NCT00125619|169205139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||>.05
84726642|NCT00125619|169205140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of effects of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
84726643|NCT00125619|169205140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of manual training.||||>.05
84602570|NCT00132691|168956077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|6.68||unadjusted|Generalized estimating equations, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|"Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in change in visual acuity between treatment groups.~Assuming 67% bilateral disease, between eye correlation of 0.4, SD of 16 letters' change over 2 years and two-sided type 1 error rate of .05, a sample size of 250 provided 91% power (assuming 10% crossover) to detect a treatment difference of 7.5 standard ETDRS letters' change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months."||6.68|-1.16|0.16
84602571|NCT00132691|168956078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of macular edema at 2 yrs as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect is the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||1.03|0.34|0.071
84602572|NCT00132691|168956079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of uveitis activity at 2 years as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect represents the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||.60|.13|0.001
84602573|NCT00132691|168956080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.15||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 30 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||11.15|3.32|<.0001
84602574|NCT00132691|168956081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.5||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 24 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group|||5.50|2.34|<.0001
84726644|NCT00125619|169205140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||<.05
84602575|NCT00132691|168956082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.58||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards with RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP that was 10mmHg or greater than the baseline value. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.58|2.78|<.0001
84664470|NCT01287897|169062555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|32.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||32.6|-12.1|0.2258
84726645|NCT00125619|169205141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
84726646|NCT00125619|169205141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within groups comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
84726647|NCT00125619|169205141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||>.05
84726648|NCT00125619|169205142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
84726649|NCT00125619|169205142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
84726650|NCT00125619|169205142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
84664471|NCT01287897|169062556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|23.9||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||23.9|-10.6|0.2627
84664472|NCT01287897|169062556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.8|0.0425
84726651|NCT00125619|169205143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
84726652|NCT00125619|169205143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||<.05
84726653|NCT00125619|169205143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
84726654|NCT00065611|169205150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9074
84726655|NCT00065611|169205151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4566||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4566
84726656|NCT00065611|169205152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3792
84478921|NCT02061748|168709144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2083
84726657|NCT01951105|169205153|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84726658|NCT05072795|169205163|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84726659|NCT01601821|169205169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test superiority of arm CsA+Rapamune+CS versus arm CsA+MMF+CS.||1.5|-5.5|0.341
84726660|NCT01601821|169205170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference.||||0.870
84726661|NCT01601821|169205170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.381
84664473|NCT01287897|169062557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|37.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||37.6|-7.5|0.1362
84664474|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||18.6|-4.3|0.1527
84726662|NCT01601821|169205170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.096
84726663|NCT01601821|169205171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.979
84726664|NCT01601821|169205171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.660
84726665|NCT01601821|169205171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.518
84726666|NCT01601821|169205172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.786
84726667|NCT01601821|169205172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.738
84726668|NCT01601821|169205172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.977
84726669|NCT01601821|169205173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
84726670|NCT01601821|169205175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.276
84726671|NCT01601821|169205176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
84726672|NCT01601821|169205177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.868
84726673|NCT01601821|169205178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
84726674|NCT01601821|169205179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.985
84726675|NCT01601821|169205180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.172
84726676|NCT01601821|169205181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.978
84726677|NCT00422162|169205192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. A priori alpha threshold was 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment for MDD) and MADRS baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as the main factor.||||||0.88
84478922|NCT02061748|168709145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0023
84726678|NCT00422162|169205202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84602576|NCT00132691|168956083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.63||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing glaucoma. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||9.63|1.82|0.0008
84602577|NCT00132691|168956084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.47||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of using an IOP-lowering therapy. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.47|2.67|<.0001
84602578|NCT00132691|168956085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|20.82||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of having surgery to lower IOP. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||20.82|3.39|<0.0001
84602579|NCT00132691|168956086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.67||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing a cataract. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||7.67|2.21|<0.0001
84726679|NCT00422162|169205202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.001
84726680|NCT00422162|169205202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84726681|NCT00422162|169205202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
84726682|NCT02066389|169205241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.153
84726683|NCT02066389|169205241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
84726684|NCT02066389|169205241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84726685|NCT02066389|169205241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84602580|NCT00132691|168956087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.15||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||9.15|0.14|0.043
84602581|NCT00132691|168956088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.76||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic)|||6.76|0.49|0.023
84602582|NCT00132691|168956089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.36||unadjusted|Generalized Estimating Equations||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||5.36|0.54|0.016
84602583|NCT00132691|168956090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hyperlipidemia for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.15|0.39|0.84
84602584|NCT00132691|168956091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hypertension for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||1.29|0.13|0.13
84602585|NCT00132691|168956092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.44||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of diabetes mellitus for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.44|0.03|0.24
84602586|NCT04098367|168956098|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.34|46.79|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||46.79|13.34|
84726686|NCT02066389|169205241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84726687|NCT02066389|169205242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.034
84726688|NCT02066389|169205242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84726689|NCT02066389|169205242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84726690|NCT02066389|169205242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84602587|NCT04098367|168956098|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.54|46.68|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||46.68|12.54|
84726691|NCT02066389|169205242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
84602588|NCT04098367|168956099|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.91|17.42|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||17.42|-21.91|
84602589|NCT04098367|168956099|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|27.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||27.80|-12.00|
84602590|NCT04098367|168956100|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.66|40.86|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||40.86|4.66|
84602591|NCT04098367|168956100|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.16|57.22|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||57.22|21.16|
84602592|NCT00322023|168956122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 30 mg/kg dose||||||<0.0001
84602593|NCT00322023|168956122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 60 mg/kg dose||||||<0.05
84602594|NCT00322023|168956122|SUPERIORITY|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 120 mg/kg dose|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84602595|NCT00322023|168956123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 30mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84602596|NCT00322023|168956123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 60mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84602597|NCT00322023|168956123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 120mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84602598|NCT01509677|168956190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7922||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided test at 5% significant level||||0.7922
84602599|NCT01509677|168956190|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||||1.30|0.82|0.7917
84726692|NCT02066389|169205243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84726693|NCT02066389|169205243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84726694|NCT02066389|169205243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.145
84726695|NCT02066389|169205243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84726696|NCT02066389|169205243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.014
84726697|NCT02066389|169205244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84726698|NCT02066389|169205244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84726699|NCT02066389|169205244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
84726700|NCT02066389|169205244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84602600|NCT01509677|168956191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided, 5% test||||0.7145
84602601|NCT01509677|168956192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.30|0.83|0.7136
84602602|NCT01509677|168956193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.4606||95.0|-19.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||42.1|-19.2|0.4606
84664475|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|33.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||33.2|3.1|0.0235
84664476|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|30.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||30.2|-2.3|0.0792
84664477|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.1909||90.0|-8.4|27.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||27.6|-8.4|0.1909
84664478|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|17.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||17.0|-5.4|0.1981
84664479|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|35.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||35.8|5.3|0.0132
84664480|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.6|41.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||41.7|8.6|0.0063
84664481|NCT01287897|169062558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|43.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||43.1|6.2|0.0138
84664482|NCT01287897|169062559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||32.1|-1.4|0.0662
84602603|NCT01509677|168956194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.64|0.87|0.2744
84602604|NCT01509677|168956195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.04|0.70|0.1128
84602605|NCT01509677|168956196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Linear|Poisson regression model||2-sided 5% test||1.31|0.66|0.6740
84602606|NCT01509677|168956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.01|0.69|0.0677
84602607|NCT01509677|168956198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.25|0.54|0.3566
84726701|NCT02066389|169205244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84726702|NCT02066389|169205245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
84664483|NCT01287897|169062559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|25.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||25.8|-6.9|0.1708
84726703|NCT02066389|169205245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84726704|NCT02066389|169205245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.029
84541072|NCT02366689|168833509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84602608|NCT01509677|168956199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30185||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9429|6.2137|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||6.2137|-2.9429|0.4794
84602609|NCT01509677|168956200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32866||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|1.1264|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||1.1264|-0.1810|0.1541
84602610|NCT01509677|168956201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03681||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.0106|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0106|-0.1358|0.0927
84602611|NCT01509677|168956202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01647||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0435|0.022|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0220|-0.0435|0.5175
84602612|NCT01509677|168956203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3253||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|8.757|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||8.757|-4.466|0.5205
84726705|NCT02066389|169205245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84726706|NCT02066389|169205245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.343
84726707|NCT02066389|169205246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
84602613|NCT01509677|168956204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0057||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.835|7.117|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||7.117|-4.835|0.7052
84602614|NCT01509677|168956205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7331||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.324|-0.409|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||-0.409|-3.324|0.0127
84602615|NCT01509677|168956206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.321|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||0.321|-0.423|0.7862
84602616|NCT01509677|168956207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.15|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.15|-1.84|0.8769
84602617|NCT01509677|168956208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|711.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2768.79||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4778.3|6200.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||6200.5|-4778.3|0.7978
84602618|NCT01509677|168956209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.26||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|245.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||245.6|-68.6|0.2669
84602619|NCT01509677|168956210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.78||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|108.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||108.5|-160.3|0.7033
84664484|NCT01287897|169062559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|26.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.0|-10.5|0.2416
84664485|NCT01287897|169062559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|42.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||42.3|-4.1|0.0880
84664486|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||7.2|-3.2|0.2610
84664487|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||7.0|-5.6|0.4291
84664488|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|8.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||8.6|-11.0|0.5791
84664489|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|7.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||7.7|-18.8|0.7544
84664490|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.2308||90.0|-8.3|21.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||21.9|-8.3|0.2308
84664491|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.5038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|11.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||11.7|-11.8|0.5038
84726708|NCT02066389|169205246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
84726709|NCT02066389|169205246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.046
84478923|NCT02061748|168709146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.5331
84602620|NCT01509677|168956211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.039||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|63.55|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||63.55|-7.97|0.1264
84602621|NCT01509677|168956212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|296.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.07||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|542.7|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||542.7|50.9|0.0185
84602622|NCT01509677|168956213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.17|-0.17|0.9989
84602623|NCT01509677|168956214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.309||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.03|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.03|-3.15|0.6701
84602624|NCT01509677|168956215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||3.9|-0.4|0.1105
84602625|NCT01509677|168956216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|29.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||29.5|-32.4|0.9261
84602626|NCT01509677|168956217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.0|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||19.0|1.2|0.0257
84602627|NCT01509677|168956218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|168.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||168.6|-3.0|0.0728
84602628|NCT01509677|168956219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.122|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.122|0.004|0.0380
84602629|NCT01509677|168956220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.173|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.173|-0.045|0.2482
84602630|NCT01509677|168956221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between treatment difference||2 sided 5 % test||1.00|-2.00|0.2629
84664492|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|16.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||16.0|0.0|0.0498
84726710|NCT02066389|169205246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84664493|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|28.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||28.7|3.9|0.0155
84664494|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|28.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||28.9|0.9|0.0399
84664495|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|24.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||24.3|-7.2|0.1866
84541073|NCT03503669|168833542|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84541074|NCT03503669|168833543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84541075|NCT03503669|168833544|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84541076|NCT03503669|168833545|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84541077|NCT03503669|168833546|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84541078|NCT01295112|168833557|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00002
84541079|NCT01295112|168833558|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be described by the 95% upper bound of the confidence interval on the difference in the improvement from baseline in BCVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.96||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.43|9.74||The p-value is assume superiority. The 95% upper confidence (upper end of the 90% Confidence interval) interval for the non-inferiority analysis is provided below.|t-test, 1 sided|||||9.74|-4.43|0.53
84541080|NCT01068262|168833559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.9|80.2|||Linear mixed effect model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||80.2|50.9|
84664496|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|34.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||34.7|0.9|0.0415
84478924|NCT02061748|168709147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0003
84541081|NCT01068262|168833559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|14.9|||Linear mixed effects model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||14.9|-14.7|
84541082|NCT01068262|168833560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07||Hypothesis: Following 4 weeks of Qw oral dosing of Odanacatib 50 mg, there is no clinically important difference in the true GMR (male/postmenopausal female) of the AUC0-168hr. The GMR is contained within the interval (0.4, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR); male/female|||||1.07|0.75|
84541083|NCT01068262|168833561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.04|||GMR|||||1.04|0.82|
84541084|NCT01068262|168833562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.35|||GMR|||||1.35|0.66|
84541085|NCT02719184|168833583|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.45|-5.32|0.0202
84541086|NCT02719184|168833583|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.19|-7.36|0.0003
84541087|NCT02719184|168833583|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.50|-7.44|0.0033
84541088|NCT02719184|168833583|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.47|-11.26|0.0334
84571015|NCT02741284|168893006|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of 30% (mean difference \<1.0 mmol/l) was pre-specified as it corresponds to an upper umbilical artery lactate cut-off value of 4.5 mmol/L, above which there is an increased risk of neonatal morbidity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.5|0.69
84726711|NCT02066389|169205246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.096
84726712|NCT02066389|169205247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.269
84664497|NCT01287897|169062560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||32.1|0.9|0.0408
84664498|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|14.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||14.5|-2.8|0.1342
84726713|NCT02066389|169205247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
84726714|NCT02066389|169205247|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84664499|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||9.8|-4.3|0.2623
84664500|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|13.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||13.2|-7.7|0.3324
84664501|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|9.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||9.1|-15.5|0.6637
84664502|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.2721||90.0|-9.3|20.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||20.2|-9.3|0.2721
84726715|NCT02066389|169205247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
84664503|NCT01287897|169062561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|16.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||16.9|-8.8|0.3022
84664504|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|15.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||15.8|-7.2|0.2687
84664505|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|17.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||17.3|-7.1|0.2460
84664506|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|29.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||29.5|-1.1|0.0633
84726716|NCT02066389|169205247|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84726717|NCT01755598|169205248|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|49.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.1|71.2|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, as compared to placebo.||71.2|12.1|0.0430
84726718|NCT01755598|169205249|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. If the primary objective is met, this secondary objective is to be analysed using the following success criterion: The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV infection, meeting the case definition 2, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|61.67||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.084|80.647|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite Xpert MTB/Rif positive pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 2, as compared to placebo.||80.647|24.084|0.0210
84752207|NCT03531788|169259605|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor provide data per participant during testing of upper extremity activities/tasks and were collected while wearing the device (Kinova and WREX) and without the device (Kinova and WREX). For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|Due to the small sample size, we utilized change in activity count data when comparing two upper limb testing sessions: one without the use of an arm support device (Kinova or WREX) and one while using the arm support device. For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|||
84664507|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||18.6|-13.8|0.4036
84571016|NCT02741284|168893007|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin 30%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||pH||0.03|-0.01|<0.05
84478925|NCT02061748|168709148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2646
84664508|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.1921||90.0|-7.9|25.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||25.6|-7.9|0.1921
84664509|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|27.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||27.5|-6.5|0.1541
84664510|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|10.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||10.9|-10.5|0.4893
84664511|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|27.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||27.4|-0.9|0.0619
84664512|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|33.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||33.1|2.3|0.0290
84664513|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|31.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||31.4|-3.8|0.0988
84664514|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|35.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||35.0|-0.5|0.0549
84664515|NCT01287897|169062562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|31.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||31.3|-3.3|0.0920
84664516|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||12.9|-9.5|0.4031
84664517|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|26.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.8|-4.6|0.1219
84664518|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|26.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.4|-6.5|0.1600
84664519|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|14.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||14.2|-19.5|0.6019
84752208|NCT03531788|169259606|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor were collected during baseline (without a device) and throughout the 4 week device trial (with the device). For each time period, activity count data were averaged across the day. We then compared the baseline time period to the device trial period to understand the difference in movement and upper extremity positioning during the device trial. Data presented are within group change scores and not between group data comparisons.|Counts from each axis (x, y, z) were measured across baseline and during the 4-week trial to explore arm movement and positioning during the use of an upper extremity arm device. Counts (within each participant) were summed. A change score from trial minus baseline was calculated for each axis. We provide an average change score and standard deviation across participants with Kinova and participants with WREX.|||
84541089|NCT02719184|168833584|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|29.7|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||29.7|-27.2|0.9306
84664520|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.1601||90.0|-8.0|32.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||32.5|-8.0|0.1601
84664521|NCT01287897|169062563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|26.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||26.6|-11.8|0.2622
84664522|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|10.6|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||10.6|-29.8|0.2173
84664523|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.4|9.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||9.4|-33.4|0.1778
84664524|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.0|11.2|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||11.2|-43.0|0.1661
84664525|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.1|14.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||14.3|-44.1|0.1993
84664526|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.7|2.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||2.3|-62.7|0.0632
84664527|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|15.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||15.8|-49.4|0.1975
84664528|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.25||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|22.9|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||22.9|-17.6|0.5868
84664529|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.93||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||-4.3|-47.0|0.0243
84664530|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.12||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.0|4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||4.3|-49.0|0.0834
84664531|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.7|0.0|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||-0.0|-57.7|0.0499
84478926|NCT02061748|168709149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0004
84664532|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.45||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.1|-12.7|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||-12.7|-77.1|0.0111
84664533|NCT01287897|169062564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.49||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.7|-7.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||-7.3|-71.7|0.0221
84752209|NCT03531788|169259607|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Three goals were identified for each participant and scored without using an arm support device to serve as a baseline measure of abilities. These scores were compared to the scores achieved on the same goals using the arm support device.|We compared the change in GAS scores when using an arm support device on three goal areas identified as important for each participant. For each goal, we measured abilities at baseline and with the device (Kinova and WREX). We calculated the change in score for each goal and averaged these change scores across all participants. While our groups are too small to complete statistical tests to estimate the significance of the differences participants noted in activity and independence while using both arm supports, our results quantify the amount of increased success participants noted with the use of the arm support device.|||
84478927|NCT02061748|168709150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0004
84478928|NCT01673490|168709178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84478929|NCT01673490|168709179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84478930|NCT01673490|168709179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84478931|NCT04914819|168709182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in weight among participants who completed final assessment||10.8|0.04|0.048
84478932|NCT04914819|168709183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
84664534|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.0|21.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||21.4|-39.0|0.3157
84664535|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.28||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|26.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.4|-34.0|0.4171
84478933|NCT04914819|168709184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.331
84478934|NCT04914819|168709185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.734
84571017|NCT02741284|168893008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery||1.48|0.07|<0.05
84664536|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.6|25.5|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||25.5|-36.6|0.3837
84664537|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.8|22.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||22.8|-40.8|0.3204
84664538|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.64||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.3|2.6|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||2.6|-62.3|0.0649
84664539|NCT01287897|169062565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.9|1.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||1.8|-63.9|0.0598
84664540|NCT02902965|169062570|OTHER||median PFS|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||10.8|6.2|
84664541|NCT02902965|169062571|OTHER||ORR in %|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|68.2|||||Overall response = confirmed sCR + CR + VGPR + PR with corresponding 95% Exact binomial Cl|||68.2|44.7|
84664542|NCT02902965|169062572|OTHER||PFS rate|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.9|||||Kaplan-Meier method used for PFS rate and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||16.9|1.6|
84664543|NCT02902965|169062575|OTHER||median TTP|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|12.0|||||KM estimates for median TTP with associated 95% CI|||12|7.8|
84664544|NCT02451839|169062634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
84664545|NCT02451839|169062635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84478935|NCT03961295|168709197|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.2984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0786|1.5486||||||Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5486|1.0786|
84478936|NCT03961295|168709198|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.3274|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1147|1.5807||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5807|1.1147|
84664546|NCT02451839|169062636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664547|NCT02451839|169062637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664548|NCT02451839|169062638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84478937|NCT03961295|168709199|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.1978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0394|1.3804||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.3804|1.0394|
84478938|NCT02007252|168709284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1037|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||= 0.1037
84664549|NCT02451839|169062639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664550|NCT02451839|169062640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.015
84664551|NCT02451839|169062641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664552|NCT02451839|169062642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
84664553|NCT02451839|169062643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664554|NCT02451839|169062644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664555|NCT02451839|169062645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
84664556|NCT02451839|169062646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664557|NCT02451839|169062647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664558|NCT02451839|169062648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664559|NCT02451839|169062649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84664560|NCT01949051|169062652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.943|-0.756|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.756|-1.943|<0.0001
84664561|NCT01949051|169062652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.525|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.525|-1.712|0.0003
84664562|NCT01949051|169062652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Levocabastine OD would be declared as non-inferior to levocabastine BID if upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference estimate (OD vs BD) was less than 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.823||||||||0.823|-0.361|
84664563|NCT01506479|169062660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.6|12.0|<0.0001
84664564|NCT01506479|169062661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.34|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.10|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the vigorous exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference between the mean change in the control group and the mean change in the vigorous exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that vigorous exercise does not warrant further investigation.||4.6||0.34
84664565|NCT01506479|169062661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.10. If the p-value is less than 0.10, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative (moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation).|t-test, 1 sided||"The estimate is the difference between the control group and the moderate exercise group.~The upper bound of the confidence interval should be compared to the futility threshold of 3.5 to reject or not reject the null hypothesis."|The null hypothesis is that the moderate exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference in the mean change between the control group and the moderate exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation .||2.8||0.03
84664566|NCT01506479|169062662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1334
84664567|NCT00147199|169062692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|20.0||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.8|||ANCOVA|Lowest rank was assigned for death, discontinuation due to disease progression, and for patients who initiated additional approved PAH therapy.||Sample size was calculated based on the primary endpoint; change in 6MWD at Week 12. Assuming a between-treatment difference of 35m, a standard deviation of 75m, and a type I (alpha) error of 0.05 (i.e., two-sided p-value of less than 0.05), in order to have 90% power to detect this difference, 100 subjects per treatment group were required for this trial (total n=200). This allowed for a dropout rate of 10% as 110 subjects per group was planned.||32.8|8.0|0.00044
84664568|NCT00147199|169062694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-0.5|0.623
84664569|NCT00147199|169062695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for 16 inhaled treprostinil subjects and 9 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 12|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.807
84664570|NCT00147199|169062696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.8|||ANCOVA|||||24.8|4.0|0.007
84664571|NCT00147199|169062697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|28.3|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||28.3|8.5|0.0003
84664572|NCT00147199|169062698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-4.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Global Score||0|-8.0|0.027
84664573|NCT00147199|169062698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Physical Dimension||0.0|-3.0|0.037
84664574|NCT00147199|169062698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-1.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Emotional Dimension Score||0.0|-2.0|0.173
84664575|NCT00147199|169062700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-167.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.0|-64.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-64|-333|0.001
84664576|NCT01850524|169062719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.018|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.||||1.018|0.676|0.073
84664577|NCT01850524|169062720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.261|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an Unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.261|0.790|0.988
84664578|NCT01850524|169062721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||3.09|1.43|<0.001
84571018|NCT02741284|168893008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery for non reassuring fetal status||0|0|<0.05
84752210|NCT02469896|169259608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.377|||Fisher Exact|||||1.377|0.556|0.602
84478939|NCT02007252|168709284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.4806|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 12||||= 0.4806
84664579|NCT01850524|169062722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with prognostic factor: age (\<75 years vs \>=75) and ISS (stage I or II vs stage III).|Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib+LenDex versus LenDex alone.|||1.463|0.656|0.9195
84664580|NCT01850524|169062723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||1.70|0.79|0.436
84664581|NCT01850524|169062724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|1.659|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.659|1.185|<0.001
84664582|NCT01850524|169062726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.925|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||0.925|0.589|0.008
84664583|NCT01850524|169062727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.078|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.078|0.684|0.189
84664584|NCT01850524|169062733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.845|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|OS in High-risk Population Carrying Del(17p), Amp(1q21), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.845|0.678|0.662
84752211|NCT02469896|169259609|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||No statistical data was obtain because no patients died during the trial.|||
84752212|NCT02469896|169259610|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.099||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.902|2.099||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.099|-1.902|0.922
84752213|NCT02469896|169259611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of slopes|-0.008||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.745|-0.761|0.983
84664585|NCT01850524|169062734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|PFS in High-risk Population Carrying del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.240|0.466|0.271
84664586|NCT01850524|169062736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.12|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Time to Pain Progression||1.120|0.661|0.260
84664587|NCT03171415|169062760|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||>0.05
84664588|NCT03171415|169062760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups, at day 28 and Day 56||||<0.05
84664589|NCT03171415|169062760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
84664590|NCT03171415|169062760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
84664591|NCT03171415|169062761|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84664592|NCT03171415|169062761|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84664593|NCT03171415|169062761|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84664594|NCT03171415|169062761|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84664595|NCT03171415|169062767|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84664596|NCT00459667|169062789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|17.4||||||95.0|14.4|20.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||20.7|14.4|
84478940|NCT02657434|168709285|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio, log|0.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.671|||Log Rank|||||0.671|0.471|<0.0001
84664597|NCT00459667|169062789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|15.8||||||95.0|13.1|18.9||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||18.9|13.1|
84664598|NCT00459667|169062789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|31.1||||||95.0|24.4|38.4||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||38.4|24.4|
84664599|NCT00459667|169062790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|28.0|35.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||35.7|28.0|
84664600|NCT00459667|169062790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|26.2||||||95.0|22.8|29.8||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||29.8|22.8|
84664601|NCT00459667|169062790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|24.9|39.0||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||39.0|24.9|
84664602|NCT01846611|169062825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925|||=|0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.177|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.177|0.727|= 0.5236
84664603|NCT01846611|169062826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935|||=|0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.147|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.147|0.762|= 0.5174
84664604|NCT01846611|169062827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.523|||=|0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.158|||Fisher Exact|||||2.158|1.075|= 0.0142
84664605|NCT03061331|169062839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.7|-2.5|0.9277
84478941|NCT02657434|168709286|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.709|0.1559
84478942|NCT02657434|168709286|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.707|0.1546
84478943|NCT02657434|168709287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event free rate|4.68||||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|12.83|||z test|||||12.83|-3.47|0.2606
84664606|NCT01905657|169062840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.38|0.00024
84664607|NCT01905657|169062840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.70|0.36|0.00002
84664608|NCT01905657|169062840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.88|0.58|0.00076
84664609|NCT01905657|169062840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.75|0.49|<0.00001
84664610|NCT01905657|169062841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.43|0.00009
84752214|NCT02469896|169259613|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.15||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|2.337|||t-test, 2 sided|||PBMC IL-6 fold-change||2.337|0.566|0.684
84664611|NCT01905657|169062841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.78|0.45|0.00007
84664612|NCT01905657|169062841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||1.04|0.73|0.06758
84478944|NCT02657434|168709288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.12||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|13.11|||Z-test|||||13.11|-2.87|0.2090
84478945|NCT02657434|168709289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|14.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|5.9|0.0005
84478946|NCT02657434|168709290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.45|0.0024
84478947|NCT00511108|168709302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.7||||0.002||95.0|-48.7|-10.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-10.6|-48.7|0.002
84478948|NCT00511108|168709303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|73.8|||<|0.001||95.0|44.2|104.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and log-scaled baseline value as a covariate|The outcome was analyzed by ANCOVA on the log scale. Results have been back-transformed to the original scale.|||104.4|44.2|<0.001
84478949|NCT00511108|168709304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-407.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-513.4|-302.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-302.1|-513.4|<0.001
84664613|NCT01905657|169062841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.00462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.94|0.66|0.00462
84478950|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for RVR at Week 4.||||0.000
84664614|NCT01905657|169062844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.66608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.2||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage not equal to 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||8.2|-12.7|0.66608
84664615|NCT01905657|169062844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|22.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|30.7||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||30.7|14.0|<0.00001
84478951|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 4.||||0.018
84478952|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 4.||||0.062
84672286|NCT01120210|169080036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.879||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.879|-2.527|0.7682
84752215|NCT02469896|169259613|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.344||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.331|0.663
84478953|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for HCV genotype at Week 4.||||0.050
84478954|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 4.||||0.001
84478955|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 4.||||0.001
84478956|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for EVR at Week 12.||||0.037
84478957|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 12.||||0.018
84478958|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 12.||||0.092
84478959|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 12.||||0.001
84478960|NCT01392742|168709339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 12.||||0.042
84478961|NCT01181141|168709379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-18.8|
84478962|NCT01628393|168709381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84478963|NCT01628393|168709381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84478964|NCT01628393|168709382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84478965|NCT01628393|168709382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84752216|NCT02469896|169259613|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.198||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.691|0.500
84478966|NCT01628393|168709383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84478967|NCT01628393|168709383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84478968|NCT01628393|168709384|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.01|0.22|0.0531
84478969|NCT01628393|168709384|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.34|0.36|0.2714
84478970|NCT00763243|168709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.31||Change during waiting period (no intervention); no change was hypothesized||1.89|-1.44|0.766
84752217|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.010|<0.001
84752218|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.306||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.059|0.828|0.247
84664616|NCT01905657|169062844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|8.7||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|13.9||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||13.9|3.6|0.00045
84478971|NCT00763243|168709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=5.0||Change during the training period||2.44|0.90|<0.001
84664617|NCT01905657|169062844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|9.1||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.3||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||14.3|4.1|0.00024
84664618|NCT02607033|169062877|OTHER|Wilxocon signed Rank test||||||0.028|||||||Wilxocon signed Rank test|||Wilxocon signed Rank test to compare pre to post onset of pain time in the Exercise + Weight loss group. Due to low sample size were unable to compare changes between the Exercise + Weight Loss group and the Exercise only groups.||||0.028
84478972|NCT00763243|168709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.87||Change from pre-training through follow-up period||3.20|0.35|0.021
84478973|NCT00763243|168709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||Change from pretraining to 6 month follow up||1.19|-0.53|0.40
84478974|NCT00763243|168709398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.79||Change during waiting period of no intervention||3.05|-0.39|0.11
84664619|NCT06092710|169062881|OTHER|Then, to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.||||||0.05572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-parametric tests on patient sensitivity, given the non-normal distribution, (based on the median of the data) were applied to analyse the diﬀerences between the groups (ST1+ ST2 according to the STATUS3 and STATUS4 classification criteria). To analyse any diﬀerences in sensitivity between patient groups, Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. In this type of analysis, having a p-value greater than 1% and ideally greater than 5% would indicate the absence of diﬀerences between groups.||||0.05572
84478975|NCT00763243|168709398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=4.05||Change during training period||3.84|1.05|0.004
84571019|NCT02741284|168893008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|45.2|||Chi-squared|||Operative vaginal delivery||45.20|0.71|<0.05
84478976|NCT00763243|168709398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.07||1 Month Follow Up change from pre-training||4.46|-0.24|0.072
84478977|NCT00763243|168709398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.02||6 month follow up change from pre-training||2.53|-0.97|0.34
84478978|NCT00763243|168709399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.36||Waiting period - no treatment||1.65|-1.20|0.729
84478979|NCT00763243|168709399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.46||Training Period - Pretraining to Post-Training Visit||-0.11|-3.44|0.039
84478980|NCT00763243|168709399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.90||1 Month Follow Up Period from Pretraining||1.40|-3.17|0.40
84478981|NCT00763243|168709399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||6 Month Follow Up period from pretraining||1.26|-2.59|0.40
84571020|NCT02741284|168893009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-5.4|0.44
84752219|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|19.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.143|34.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.446|11.143|<0.001
84752220|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.264||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.791|0.892|0.185
84752221|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.396||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|3.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.206|0.608|0.427
84478982|NCT01248364|168709404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group, and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.55|-0.16|0.2790
84478983|NCT01248364|168709405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.62|-0.16|0.2438
84478984|NCT01248364|168709406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.79|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||1.79|-1.19|0.6931
84664620|NCT06092710|169062881|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.|||||<|8e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000008
84664621|NCT06092710|169062881|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.|||||<|1e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000001
84664622|NCT06092710|169062882|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.06e-06||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFI (Intermediate Final Score) For these analyses, as the SFI score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another.||||0.00000106
84726719|NCT04016415|169205263|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided tests with the null hypothesis of no difference in chg from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms. The power calculation assumed a clinically meaningful diff of 0.5% and standard deviation of 0.9%. Assuming an avg class cohort size of 18 pts and an intraclass correlation coefficient estimate of 0.08 for correlation within cohorts yielded a design effect that inflated the sample size by 1+((18-1) multiplied by 0.08)=2.36. A 15% dropout rate was assumed. 145 pts per arm yielded 80% power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.34|-0.36|0.96
84726720|NCT04016415|169205264|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.25||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.25|-0.38|0.68
84726721|NCT04016415|169205265|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.21|-0.09|0.41
84726722|NCT04016415|169205266|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.12|-0.22|0.59
84752222|NCT02469896|169259614|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.893||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.100|0.725|0.285
84752223|NCT02469896|169259615|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.167||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.643|0.043|0.011
84478985|NCT01248364|168709407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||4.07|-0.38|0.1028
84571021|NCT02741284|168893010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-9.6|0.06
84726723|NCT04016415|169205267|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.06||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||3.06|0.07|0.04
84726724|NCT04016415|169205268|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.4||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||2.40|-0.74|0.30
84726725|NCT00828178|169205269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis system (SAS) software was used (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, SAS 9.2). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics and compared across treatment groups using Chi-square. Two-sample t tests were used in the statistical analysis of the FMD outcomes. ANCOVA was used to compare the groups with respect to changes in clinical variables adjusting for baseline values.||||0.87
84726726|NCT00828178|169205270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1801||||||This Statistical Analysis applies category SELENA-SLEDAI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1801
84726727|NCT02429115|169205272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84726728|NCT02429115|169205273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84726729|NCT02429115|169205274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84726730|NCT03905512|169205363|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was tested at a level of 0.05.||||||0.181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.181
84726731|NCT03293238|169205374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
84726732|NCT03293238|169205375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
84726733|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay||1.01|0.72|
84726734|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in postvaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs(cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.72|0.49|
84726735|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.68|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against influenza B strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.68|0.46|
84726736|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.08|0.79|
84726737|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0.78|0.54|
84726738|NCT00645411|169205411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV)was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.06|0.71|
84571022|NCT02741284|168893011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.0|0.99
84571023|NCT03098979|168893074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5183||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques.||||||0.5183
84664623|NCT06092710|169062882|SUPERIORITY|||||||48||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFT score (Final Total score):~For these analyses, as SFT score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0000000048
84726739|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference in % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||binomial or the method of Miettinen and|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||1|-4|
84752224|NCT02469896|169259615|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.741||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.405|0.228|0.604
84664624|NCT06092710|169062882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFI:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000077
84726740|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV - eTIV)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0|||binomial or Miettinen & Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-4|-13|
84664625|NCT06092710|169062882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||6.9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFT:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000069
84726741|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-9|-21|
84726742|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||2|-3|
84726743|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0|-9.5|
84726744|NCT00645411|169205412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||6|-6|
84726745|NCT05062343|169205453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84726746|NCT05062343|169205454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84726747|NCT05062343|169205455|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84726748|NCT05062343|169205456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84726749|NCT05062343|169205457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84726750|NCT05062343|169205458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.045
84726751|NCT05062343|169205459|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84664626|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142266|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0142266
84664627|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
84664628|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
84664629|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915779|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9915779
84726752|NCT05062343|169205460|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84726753|NCT01307800|169205461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.8||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|-0.5|0.994
84726754|NCT01307800|169205461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.9||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-1.9|0.973
84752225|NCT02469896|169259615|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.740|1.823|<0.001
84664630|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999943|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9999943
84664631|NCT06092710|169062883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9905111|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9905111
84664632|NCT04434092|169062916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|11.14|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants with TA is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||11.14|-15.67|
84726755|NCT01307800|169205461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.896
84726756|NCT01307800|169205462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.3||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-0.7|0.955
84664633|NCT04434092|169062917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio is above 0.2|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.82||||||||1.82|0.57|
84664634|NCT04434092|169062918|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI for the difference between crovalimab and eculizumab in the proportion of participants with BTH is less than the non-inferiority margin of 20%|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|5.26|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||5.26|-14.82|
84664635|NCT04434092|169062919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|16.31|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||16.31|-11.37|
84726757|NCT01307800|169205462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.4|-1.6|0.912
84726758|NCT01307800|169205462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|-1.8|0.223
84664636|NCT04434092|169062920|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was a -5 point score, where higher scores indicated less fatigue, and hence non-inferiority hypothesis was tested comparing the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference with a non-inferiority margin of -5 points.|Difference in Adjusted mean|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.6|||||Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -5.|||4.60|0.68|
84478986|NCT01248364|168709408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.5|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||10.50|0.47|0.0326
84478987|NCT01248364|168709409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.04|-3.20|0.0552
84478988|NCT01248364|168709410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.27|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||2.27|-1.66|0.7561
84664637|NCT02879305|169062934|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|
84664638|NCT02879305|169062935|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline Hgb, dialysis type and region along with 95% CI for treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO).|||0.24|0.12|
84726759|NCT01307800|169205463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-3.5|0.610
84478989|NCT01248364|168709411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||6.90|-0.64|0.1024
84478990|NCT01248364|168709412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|7.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||7.14|-4.53|0.6576
84478991|NCT01248364|168709413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.05|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||3.05|-10.41|0.2795
84478992|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
84478993|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
84664639|NCT02879305|169062936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.156123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||The p-value was compared against 0.0125 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|0.156123
84664640|NCT02879305|169062937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.023539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The p-value was compared against 0.006250 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.00|0.78|0.023539
84478994|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
84478995|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0713
84478996|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0002
84478997|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
84478998|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
84664641|NCT02879305|169062938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.325797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.325797
84664642|NCT02879305|169062939|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1||||0.026947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.2||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|ANCOVA||Analysis was carried out by using ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline monthly IV iron dose, dialysis type and region.|||0.2|-18.4|0.026947
84664643|NCT02879305|169062940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.82|0.3281
84664644|NCT02879305|169062941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.74|0.3553
84478999|NCT02193828|168709422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0446
84479000|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.2431
84479001|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0625
84479002|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.3409
84479003|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.7040
84479004|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||0.3556
84479005|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.1275
84479006|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.7883
84664645|NCT02879305|169062942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.63|0.0524
84664646|NCT02879305|169062943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.25|0.56|0.1927
84726760|NCT01307800|169205463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-2.0|0.223
84479007|NCT02193828|168709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.9123
84479008|NCT02193828|168709424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0002
84479009|NCT02193828|168709424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
84479010|NCT02193828|168709424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0002
84479011|NCT02193828|168709424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0139
84479012|NCT02193828|168709425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0004
84479013|NCT02193828|168709425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0075
84479014|NCT02193828|168709425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84479015|NCT02193828|168709425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0031
84479016|NCT02193828|168709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.3135
84479017|NCT02193828|168709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.7249
84479018|NCT02193828|168709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1573
84479019|NCT02193828|168709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1234
84479020|NCT02193828|168709427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0006
84479021|NCT02193828|168709427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0014
84479022|NCT02193828|168709427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0012
84479023|NCT02193828|168709427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.1298
84479024|NCT02193828|168709428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0048
84479025|NCT02193828|168709428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0034
84479026|NCT02193828|168709428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0079
84479027|NCT02193828|168709428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3216
84479028|NCT02193828|168709429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0065
84479029|NCT02193828|168709429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0349
84664647|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.01|0.80|0.0351
84479030|NCT02193828|168709429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0033
84479031|NCT02193828|168709429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3423
84479032|NCT04046341|168709434|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|McNemar|||||||.008
84479033|NCT04046341|168709435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
84479034|NCT04046341|168709436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
84479035|NCT04046341|168709437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84479036|NCT04046341|168709438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.209
84479037|NCT05109702|168709442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.157|||MMRM|||The Least Square (LS) means, LS mean difference, Standard Errors (SEs), two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.157|-0.214|0.764
84479038|NCT05109702|168709443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.483|10.155|||MMRM|||The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.155|-1.483|0.144
84479039|NCT05109702|168709444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.363|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.363|-0.005|0.056
84664648|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
84664649|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.98|0.58|0.0158
84664650|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.17|0.47|0.0981
84664651|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
84479040|NCT05109702|168709444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.359|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.359|-0.010|0.064
84479041|NCT05109702|168709444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.279|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.279|-0.093|0.328
84479042|NCT05109702|168709444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.168|-0.208|0.837
84479043|NCT05109702|168709445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.123|0.686
84497652|NCT01418365|168746354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.951|
84664652|NCT02879305|169062944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.94|0.60|0.0058
84664653|NCT02879305|169062945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.06|0.73|0.0872
84752226|NCT02469896|169259615|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.431|0.813|0.587
84479044|NCT05109702|168709445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.188|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.188|-0.123|0.680
84479045|NCT05109702|168709445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.207|-0.107|0.529
84479046|NCT05109702|168709445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.185|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.185|-0.132|0.745
84479047|NCT05109702|168709446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.192|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.192|-0.141|0.765
84479048|NCT05109702|168709446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.331|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.331|-0.002|0.053
84479049|NCT05109702|168709446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.219|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.219|-0.117|0.552
84479050|NCT05109702|168709446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.124|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.124|-0.216|0.593
84479051|NCT05109702|168709447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.158|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.158|-0.183|0.884
84479052|NCT05109702|168709447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.233|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.233|-0.109|0.474
84479053|NCT05109702|168709447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.285|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.285|-0.060|0.202
84664654|NCT02879305|169062946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.87|0.1540
84664655|NCT02879305|169062947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.77|0.1244
84664656|NCT02879305|169062948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.81|0.0540
84664657|NCT02879305|169062949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.45|0.84|0.7658
84664658|NCT02879305|169062950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.69|0.0425
84664659|NCT02879305|169062951|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||||||||0.21|0.03|
84726761|NCT01307800|169205463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-4.2|0.414
84479054|NCT05109702|168709447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.396|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.396|0.047|0.013
84479055|NCT05109702|168709448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.224|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.224|-0.131|0.604
84479056|NCT05109702|168709448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.236|-0.119|0.519
84571024|NCT03098979|168893074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.3300
84664660|NCT02879305|169062952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for dialysis type, and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||7.1|-0.1|0.0367
84664661|NCT02879305|169062953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.86|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||3.86|0.00|
84664662|NCT02879305|169062954|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.52||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.54|0.49|0.0805
84664663|NCT02879305|169062955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.05|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||4.05|0.28|
84664664|NCT02879305|169062956|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.53||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.55|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.55|0.50|0.0139
84726762|NCT01307800|169205464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-3.7|0.603
84726763|NCT01307800|169205464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-1.9|0.192
84726764|NCT01307800|169205464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.619
84726765|NCT01307800|169205465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.6||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.6|1.4|0.022
84726766|NCT01307800|169205465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.8|-0.4|0.061
84726767|NCT01307800|169205465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.3|-3.9|0.304
84726768|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.1|0.036
84726769|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.0||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.2|0.616
84726770|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-0.7|0.307
84726771|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.8|0.382
84726772|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.3|0.107
84726773|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.9|0.436
84752227|NCT02469896|169259615|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.595|0.728|0.697
84726774|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.9||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-0.2|0.073
84726775|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-1.2|0.280
84664665|NCT02879305|169062957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.94|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||1.94|-1.28|0.6551
84726776|NCT01307800|169205466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0|-0.9|0.209
84726777|NCT01307800|169205467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.137||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
84726778|NCT01307800|169205467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.824||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
84726779|NCT01307800|169205467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84664666|NCT02879305|169062957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.44|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.44|-1.36|0.1586
84664667|NCT02879305|169062957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.84|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.84|-1.20|0.3646
84664668|NCT02879305|169062958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.54|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.54|-1.54|0.5012
84664669|NCT02879305|169062958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.31|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.31|-0.42|0.8451
84664670|NCT02879305|169062958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.28|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.28|-0.67|0.7312
84664671|NCT02879305|169062959|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.0||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.11|0.91|0.5290
84726780|NCT01307800|169205469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.38||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.13|0.340
84726781|NCT01307800|169205469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.659
84726782|NCT01307800|169205469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-0.14|0.413
84726783|NCT01307800|169205470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.1|0.910
84726784|NCT01307800|169205470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.9|0.265
84726785|NCT01307800|169205470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-3.7|0.531
84726786|NCT01307800|169205471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||5.10|-5.21|0.983
84726787|NCT01307800|169205471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|2.83||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||2.83|-7.94|0.351
84726788|NCT01307800|169205471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|7.11||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-2.86|0.403
84664672|NCT02879305|169062961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and region.|||1.52|0.71|0.5772
84726789|NCT01307800|169205474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-10.4|0.021
84726790|NCT01307800|169205474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-3.3|0.487
84726791|NCT01307800|169205474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.6|0.693
84726792|NCT01307800|169205475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.661
84726793|NCT01307800|169205475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.14|0.201
84726794|NCT01307800|169205475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.09|0.697
84726795|NCT01307800|169205476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.20|0.694
84479057|NCT05109702|168709448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.275|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.275|-0.085|0.299
84479058|NCT05109702|168709448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.324|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.324|-0.039|0.124
84479059|NCT05109702|168709449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.647|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.647|-0.196|0.293
84479060|NCT05109702|168709449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.783|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.783|-0.062|0.094
84541090|NCT02719184|168833584|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|10.1|||Random slope and intercept model|The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.||||10.1|-48.5|0.1983
84726796|NCT01307800|169205476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.34|0.596
84479061|NCT05109702|168709449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.608|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.608|-0.245|0.404
84726797|NCT01307800|169205476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.00|0.055
84726798|NCT01307800|169205477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.27|0.929
84726799|NCT01307800|169205477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.519
84726800|NCT01307800|169205477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.4||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.13|0.323
84726801|NCT01307800|169205478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84752228|NCT02469896|169259616|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.121|1.502|<0.001
84752229|NCT02510560|169259618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.115
84752230|NCT02510560|169259618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
84752231|NCT02510560|169259619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.714
84752232|NCT02510560|169259619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
84479062|NCT05109702|168709449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.377|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.377|-0.485|0.806
84479063|NCT05109702|168709450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.343|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.343|-0.273|0.824
84664673|NCT02879305|169062962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.86|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-0.29|0.1620
84479064|NCT05109702|168709450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.431|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.431|-0.186|0.437
84479065|NCT05109702|168709450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.519|-0.105|0.193
84664674|NCT02879305|169062962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.18|0.04|0.0180
84664675|NCT02879305|169062962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.97|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.97|-0.31|0.1530
84664676|NCT02879305|169062962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.22|-0.17|0.0686
84664677|NCT02879305|169062963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.54|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.88|0.6807
84479066|NCT05109702|168709450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.679|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.679|0.048|0.024
84571025|NCT03098979|168893074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.6232
84664678|NCT02879305|169062963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.91|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.91|-0.57|0.3256
84664679|NCT02879305|169062963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.81|0.5144
84664680|NCT02879305|169062963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.27|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.27|-1.47|0.9120
84664681|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.5|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.50|-0.99|0.7432
84664682|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.33|-0.16|0.0631
84664683|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.87|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.87|-0.79|0.4604
84479067|NCT05109702|168709451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.907|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.907|-0.386|0.430
84479068|NCT05109702|168709451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|1.132|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.132|-0.164|0.143
84479069|NCT05109702|168709451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|1.042|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.042|-0.267|0.245
84479070|NCT05109702|168709451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.970|-0.352|0.359
84479071|NCT05109702|168709452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.292|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.292|0.030|0.016
84479072|NCT05109702|168709452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.242|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.242|-0.021|0.099
84479073|NCT05109702|168709452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.179|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.179|-0.086|0.493
84479074|NCT05109702|168709452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.135|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.135|-0.133|0.987
84479075|NCT05109702|168709453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.173|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.173|-0.109|0.655
84479076|NCT05109702|168709453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.125|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.125|-0.157|0.826
84664684|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.15|-0.60|0.2688
84479077|NCT05109702|168709453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.130|-0.155|0.861
84496870|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84726802|NCT01307800|169205478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
84479078|NCT05109702|168709453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.101|0.556
84479079|NCT05109702|168709454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.226|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.226|-0.116|0.527
84479080|NCT05109702|168709454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.418|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.418|0.077|0.005
84479081|NCT05109702|168709454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.181|||MMRM|||Wek 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.181|-0.164|0.920
84479082|NCT05109702|168709454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.269|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.269|-0.080|0.286
84479083|NCT05109702|168709455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.369|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.369|-0.015|0.071
84479084|NCT05109702|168709455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.278|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.278|-0.107|0.384
84479085|NCT05109702|168709455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.280|-0.109|0.391
84479086|NCT05109702|168709455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.222|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.222|-0.171|0.802
84479087|NCT05109702|168709456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.178|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.178|-0.206|0.884
84496871|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
84571026|NCT03098979|168893074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.0918
84664685|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||MMRM||General health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.84|-0.32|0.1918
84664686|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.04|||MMRM||General health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.04|-0.14|0.0677
84664687|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.32|||MMRM||General health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.98|0.8386
84479088|NCT05109702|168709456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.293|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.293|-0.091|0.303
84479089|NCT05109702|168709456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.253|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.253|-0.135|0.554
84479090|NCT05109702|168709456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.391|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.391|-0.001|0.051
84479091|NCT05109702|168709457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.591|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.591|-0.077|0.131
84479092|NCT05109702|168709457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.685|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.685|0.016|0.040
84479093|NCT05109702|168709457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.389|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.389|-0.287|0.767
84479094|NCT05109702|168709457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.198|0.410
84479095|NCT05109702|168709458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.501|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.501|-0.166|0.324
84571027|NCT03098979|168893074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.2701
84664688|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||MMRM||General health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-0.99|0.7928
84664689|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.71|||MMRM||Mental health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.71|-0.63|0.4537
84664690|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.65|||MMRM||Mental health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.65|-0.74|0.5548
84664691|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||MMRM||Mental health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.88|-0.61|0.3626
84664692|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.02|||MMRM||Mental health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-1.64|0.9721
84664693|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.96|0.5789
84726803|NCT01307800|169205478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.425||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
84479096|NCT05109702|168709458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.525|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.525|-0.143|0.262
84479097|NCT05109702|168709458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.190|0.391
84479098|NCT05109702|168709458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.568|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.568|-0.114|0.192
84479099|NCT05109702|168709459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.999|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.999|-0.141|0.140
84479100|NCT05109702|168709459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|1.117|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.117|-0.025|0.061
84479101|NCT05109702|168709459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.78|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.780|-0.374|0.490
84479102|NCT05109702|168709459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.953|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.953|-0.212|0.212
84479103|NCT05109702|168709460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.101|-0.134|0.784
84479104|NCT05109702|168709460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.176|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.176|-0.058|0.324
84479105|NCT05109702|168709460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.210|-0.027|0.130
84541091|NCT02719184|168833584|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-1.9|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.9|-65.4|0.0381
84664694|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.24|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.51|0.2054
84664695|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.89|-0.98|0.5389
84664696|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.09|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.09|-0.91|0.4289
84479106|NCT05109702|168709460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.350|0.110|0.000
84479107|NCT05109702|168709461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|1.613|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.613|-0.834|0.532
84479108|NCT05109702|168709461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.959|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.959|-0.515|0.252
84479109|NCT05109702|168709461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.231|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||3.231|0.732|0.002
84479110|NCT05109702|168709462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.268|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.268|-0.386|0.723
84479111|NCT05109702|168709462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.137|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.137|-0.519|0.254
84479112|NCT05109702|168709462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.028|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||-0.028|-0.690|0.034
84479113|NCT05109702|168709462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.414|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.414|-0.255|0.640
84664697|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.75|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.75|-0.60|0.4096
84479114|NCT05109702|168709463|SUPERIORITY|Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.|LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.893||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.223|7.133|||MMRM|||||7.133|-4.223|0.615
84664698|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.07|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.07|-0.27|0.1196
84664699|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.01|-0.42|0.2093
84479115|NCT05109702|168709463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.894||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.866|10.494|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.494|-0.866|0.097
84571028|NCT02419807|168893079|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as the difference in the proportions of nodes flagged between the Tc and ICG methods falling within an interval (-δ, +δ), where δ is taken to be 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.151||||||||0.151|0.036|
84664700|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.19|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.19|-0.40|0.1674
84479116|NCT05109702|168709463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|6.81|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.810|-4.690|0.718
84479117|NCT05109702|168709463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.963||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|8.903|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.903|-2.728|0.298
84479118|NCT05109702|168709464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.854|8.191|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.191|-2.854|0.343
84479119|NCT05109702|168709464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|9.232|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.232|-1.813|0.188
84479120|NCT05109702|168709464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.849||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|8.143|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.143|-3.040|0.371
84496872|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-1.4|6.8||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (17.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||6.8|-1.4|
84541092|NCT02719184|168833584|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.3|-2.3|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.3|-121.3|0.0419
84541093|NCT03105518|168833592|SUPERIORITY||1 way test, chisquare approximation|7.188||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 0; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.007
84664701|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.54|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.82|0.6585
84541094|NCT03105518|168833592|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|3.6396||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 15; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.056
84541095|NCT03105518|168833592|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|15.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 30; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
84541096|NCT03105518|168833592|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|16.0972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 60; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
84664702|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.4|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.40|-0.03|0.0293
84726804|NCT01307800|169205481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.444||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.444
84541097|NCT03105518|168833593|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|2.7205||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 1; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.0991
84541098|NCT03105518|168833593|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|1.5654||||0.2109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 2; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.2109
84541099|NCT03105518|168833593|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|0.008||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 3; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.9287
84541100|NCT05024747|168833629|OTHER||Ratio T/R|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.0|103.85||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||103.85|90.00|
84541101|NCT05024747|168833630|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.45|99.84||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||99.84|85.45|
84541102|NCT05024747|168833631|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.63|100.01||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||100.01|85.63|
84541103|NCT05024747|168833632|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-0.0192||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0542|0.0044|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0044|-0.0542|0.0833
84664703|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.11|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.11|-0.45|0.2057
84541104|NCT05024747|168833633|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-6.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0000|-10.5000|0.0205
84541105|NCT05024747|168833634|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|0.3225||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.681|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.6810|-0.0949|0.0946
84541106|NCT02556801|168833689|SUPERIORITY||Test statistic|1.823||||0.057|ONE_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Method|The primary dose-response analysis was performed by applying linear, Emax, logistic and exponential models.The p-value was based on Emax model.||||||0.057
84541107|NCT02556801|168833689|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-3.89|
84541108|NCT02556801|168833689|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|0.06||||||||0.06|-3.72|
84541109|NCT02556801|168833689|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|-0.43||||||||-0.43|-4.23|
84541110|NCT02556801|168833690|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-3.85|=0.051
84664704|NCT02879305|169062964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.9|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.90|-0.86|0.4849
84479121|NCT05109702|168709464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|12.573|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||12.573|1.259|0.017
84479122|NCT05109702|168709465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.452|6.147|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.147|-4.452|0.754
84541111|NCT02556801|168833690|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.68|0.059
84541112|NCT02556801|168833690|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-4.20|0.024
84541113|NCT02556801|168833691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.19|-2.39|0.291
84664705|NCT02879305|169062965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.64|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.64|-0.58|0.4621
84664706|NCT02879305|169062965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.98|-0.29|0.1439
84541114|NCT02556801|168833691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.60|=0.042
84541115|NCT02556801|168833691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-3.56|0.050
84541116|NCT02556801|168833692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-1.93|=0.079
84541117|NCT02556801|168833692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.89|=0.076
84541118|NCT02556801|168833692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|0.62|-2.13|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.13|=0.038
84541119|NCT02556801|168833693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.03|=0.451
84541120|NCT02556801|168833693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.55|=0.137
84541121|NCT02556801|168833693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-1.45|=0.195
84541122|NCT02556801|168833694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|-0.05|||ANOVA|||||-0.050|-0.657|=0.028
84541123|NCT02556801|168833694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.702|-0.086|||ANOVA|||||-0.086|-0.702|=0.018
84541124|NCT02556801|168833694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.581|0.021|||ANOVA|||||0.021|-0.581|=0.063
84541125|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.60|1.41|<0.001
84541126|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.27|1.80|<0.001
84541127|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.15|1.73|<0.001
84571029|NCT02202252|168893081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.490
84664707|NCT02879305|169062965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.92|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.92|-0.43|0.2392
84541128|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.42||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.93|1.05|0.029
84664708|NCT02879305|169062965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.60|-0.90|0.6545
84664709|NCT02879305|169062966|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.31|-0.02|0.0290
84664710|NCT02879305|169062966|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.24|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.11|0.0509
84664711|NCT02879305|169062966|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.53|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.53|0.01|0.0237
84726805|NCT01307800|169205481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.799
84479123|NCT05109702|168709465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.865|7.731|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.731|-2.865|0.368
84479124|NCT05109702|168709465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.014|6.715|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.715|-4.014|0.621
84479125|NCT05109702|168709465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|10.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.168|-0.688|0.087
84479126|NCT05109702|168709466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|9.425|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.425|-0.958|0.110
84479127|NCT05109702|168709466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.535|7.855|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.855|-2.535|0.315
84479128|NCT05109702|168709466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.678||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|7.928|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.928|-2.582|0.318
84479129|NCT05109702|168709466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|8.111|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.111|-2.525|0.303
84541129|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.25|1.24|0.003
84541130|NCT02556801|168833695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.85|1.01|0.042
84541131|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.23|1.00|0.057
84664712|NCT02879305|169062966|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.39|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.39|-0.24|0.0828
84664713|NCT02879305|169062967|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0003||||0.4939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0326|0.0331|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0331|-0.0326|0.4939
84479130|NCT05109702|168709467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.975||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|10.273|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||10.273|-1.402|0.136
84479131|NCT05109702|168709467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.972||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.966|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.966|-1.700|0.165
84479132|NCT05109702|168709467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.008||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.207|-4.600|0.665
84479133|NCT05109702|168709467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.043||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|10.995|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.995|-0.950|0.099
84479134|NCT05109702|168709468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.926||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.232|6.254|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.254|-5.232|0.861
84479135|NCT05109702|168709468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.925||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.983|7.497|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.497|-3.983|0.548
84479136|NCT05109702|168709468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.839|9.777|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.777|-1.839|0.180
84479137|NCT05109702|168709468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.993||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.941|9.807|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.807|-1.941|0.189
84479138|NCT05109702|168709469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.608||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.799|6.438|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.438|-3.799|0.613
84479139|NCT05109702|168709469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|9.653|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.653|-0.586|0.083
84479140|NCT05109702|168709469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.508|8.851|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.851|-1.508|0.165
84664714|NCT02879305|169062968|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.6|-4.2|0.9292
84664715|NCT02879305|169062969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.01|-0.13|0.0428
84479141|NCT05109702|168709469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.964|9.522|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.522|-0.964|0.110
84479142|NCT05109702|168709470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|6.994|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.994|0.154|0.041
84479143|NCT05109702|168709470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|6.118|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.118|-0.723|0.122
84479144|NCT05109702|168709470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|8.056|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.056|1.146|0.009
84479145|NCT05109702|168709470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|7.536|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.536|0.544|0.024
84479146|NCT05109702|168709471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.115|0.282
84541132|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.43|1.17|<0.001
84541133|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.37|1.12|<0.001
84664716|NCT02879305|169062969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1155
84541134|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.05|0.015
84541135|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.87|1.37|<0.001
84541136|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.62|1.19|<0.001
84541137|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.99||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.04|0.93|0.341
84541138|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.16|1.04|0.003
84541139|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.08|0.97|0.269
84541140|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.10|0.95|0.312
84541141|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.31|1.13|<0.001
84541142|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.20|1.03|0.008
84541143|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.04||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.14|0.96|0.212
84541144|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.27|1.07|0.002
84541145|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.25|1.06|0.004
84541146|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.09||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.24|0.96|0.126
84541147|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.13|<0.001
84571030|NCT02202252|168893082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84541148|NCT02556801|168833696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.43|1.11|0.002
84541149|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.70|1.03|0.032
84541150|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.74|1.68|<0.001
84541151|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.59|1.59|<0.001
84541152|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.48||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.06|1.07|0.024
84541153|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.98|2.09|<0.001
84541154|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.93|1.54|<0.001
84541155|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.18||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.47|0.95|0.102
84541156|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.46|1.61|<0.001
84541157|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.94|1.27|<0.001
84664717|NCT02879305|169062969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.12|0.1426
84541158|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.81|1.07|0.019
84541159|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.08|1.84|<0.001
84541160|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.19|1.31|<0.001
84541161|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.52||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.31|1.01|0.048
84541162|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.53|1.56|<0.001
84541163|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.88|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||4.24|1.88|<0.001
84541164|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.69|1.03|0.040
84541165|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.30|1.67|<0.001
84541166|NCT02556801|168833697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.62|1.80|<0.001
84541167|NCT05274178|168833700|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84541168|NCT05274178|168833700|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84541169|NCT02515331|168833702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9077||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.388|-2.722||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-2.722|-14.388|0.002
84541170|NCT02515331|168833702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.852|-8.602||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-8.602|-20.852|<0.001
84541171|NCT03983980|168833732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84541172|NCT03983980|168833733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84541173|NCT03983980|168833734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84541174|NCT03983980|168833735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84541175|NCT03983980|168833736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84541176|NCT01783886|168833763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|17.2|||ANCOVA||Least Square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||17.2|10.9|<0.0001
84541177|NCT01783886|168833763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.2|16.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||16.9|10.2|<0.0001
84541178|NCT01783886|168833764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.0|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH). The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||59.9|35.0|<0.0001
84541179|NCT01783886|168833764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.3|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.1|26.3|<0.0001
84541180|NCT01783886|168833765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||43.0|19.2|<0.0001
84541181|NCT01783886|168833765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||35.9|12.6|<0.0001
84541182|NCT01783886|168833766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.0|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.2|26.0|<0.0001
84541183|NCT01783886|168833766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.6|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||53.7|27.6|<0.0001
84541184|NCT01783886|168833767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-171.2|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-171.2|<0.0001
84541185|NCT01783886|168833767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-172.8|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-172.8|<0.0001
84541186|NCT01783886|168833768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|11.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||11.97|-0.41|0.0364
84541187|NCT01783886|168833768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.87||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|12.94|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||12.94|0.80|0.0113
84541188|NCT01783886|168833769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|8.53|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||8.53|-2.90|0.2688
84541189|NCT01783886|168833769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.01||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|13.37|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||13.37|2.64|0.0009
84541190|NCT02273388|168833777|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.59|1.48|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 5 minutes before infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||1.48|-10.59|
84541191|NCT02273388|168833777|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|-1.11|||||Comparison vs. 1hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 1 hour after infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-1.11|-13.18|
84541192|NCT02273388|168833777|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|2.46|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 4 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||2.46|-9.61|
84541193|NCT02273388|168833777|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|-2.63|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 24 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-2.63|-14.70|
84541194|NCT01184079|168833815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size: (1 + 1/u)(Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMT) -δ0\] u= ratio of the size of the Standard schedule to Alternate schedule groups (u =1, for equal size groups); one-sided alpha (0.025)/4 for multiplicity of serotypes. Average log-transformed and geometric mean titers (GMTs) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs were used.~Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard group to alternate group \< 1.5."|largest upper bound GMT ratio|0.82|||||||||||||Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard 6 month group to alternate 12 month group \< 1.5.|The primary endpoint would demonstrate noninferiority if the upper bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMT for Standard schedule group divided by that of Alternate schedule group is \<1.5.||||
84541195|NCT01184079|168833817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothsesis: no difference in proportion of side effects reported between groups||||0.26
84541196|NCT03172494|168833818|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin degludec was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 0.4%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Mean treatment difference|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-0.46|-0.73|<0.0001
84541197|NCT03172494|168833818|SUPERIORITY||Mean treatment difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and previous OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.49|-0.76|<0.0001
84541198|NCT00143390|168833882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.317|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.317|0.771|
84571031|NCT02202252|168893083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.819
84541199|NCT00143390|168833883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.374|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.374|0.816|
84541200|NCT03417687|168833888|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-14.7%, +14.7%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.6||||||The primary efficacy analysis tested the mean difference in the predicted percentage of remaining pulmonary function as measured by 129Xe MRI relative to the value as measured by 133Xe scintigraphy (reference standard) if a pre-defined section of lung were resected.||3.60|-0.75|
84664718|NCT02879305|169062969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.13|0.1152
84664719|NCT00501293|169062995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.028
84664720|NCT00501293|169062995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
84664721|NCT00501293|169062996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.027
84664722|NCT00501293|169062996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
84664723|NCT00501293|169062999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.071
84664724|NCT00501293|169062999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||0.017
84664725|NCT02127567|169063021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.5|<0.001
84664726|NCT02127567|169063022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|1.1|<0.01
84664727|NCT02127567|169063023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.7|0.44
84602631|NCT02780856|168956231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
84664728|NCT02127567|169063024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|0.8|<0.01
84664729|NCT02127567|169063025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.7|<0.01
84664730|NCT02127567|169063026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.0|0.78
84541201|NCT03417687|168833890|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|5.29||||||||5.29|2.12|
84664731|NCT02127567|169063027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|4.1|<0.01
84664732|NCT02127567|169063028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.5|0.002
84541202|NCT03417687|168833891|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.26||||||||1.26|-0.476|
84664733|NCT00786487|169063054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84664734|NCT00786487|169063054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84664735|NCT02259582|169063055|SUPERIORITY|Based on RECIST v1.1. Response outcomes from an assessment done anytime less than Day 35 were considered as not evaluable unless the response assessment was progress disease.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.095|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate both the survival curves and the median survival time. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the median survival time was calculated. A p-value for treatment effect was generated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.||.095|.013|=0.0401
84664736|NCT03518073|169063056|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.265|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.265|0.959|
84664737|NCT03518073|169063056|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.209|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.209|0.907|
84664738|NCT03518073|169063057|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.29|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.290|0.943|
84664739|NCT03518073|169063057|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.053|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.053|0.737|
84664740|NCT03518073|169063058|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.284|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.284|0.873|
84664741|NCT03518073|169063058|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|1.453|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.453|1.006|
84664742|NCT03518073|169063059|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.3|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.300|0.963|
84664743|NCT03518073|169063059|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.119|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.119|0.805|
84664744|NCT03518073|169063060|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.221|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.221|0.880|
84664745|NCT03518073|169063060|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.065|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.065|0.742|
84664746|NCT03518073|169063061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.01|0.253
84664747|NCT03518073|169063061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.02|0.354
84664748|NCT03518073|169063062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-2.44|0.691
84664749|NCT03518073|169063062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.599||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.66|-2.64|0.749
84664750|NCT03045081|169063065|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. GEE allows for the analysis of repeated measures with unknown covariance structure and uses all available data that participants provide, even if follow-up data are missing (ie, intent-to-treat analysis). Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; i.e., as treated 'completer' analysis) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in pain self efficacy over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
84664751|NCT03045081|169063065|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain self-efficacy over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer analysis').||||<0.05
84664752|NCT03045081|169063066|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; 'study completers') were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.068||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group. Note: this questionnaire has 2 subscales, Activity Engagement and Pain Willingness. Intent-to-treat and as treated analyses were conducted for each subscale.||||0.068
84664753|NCT03045081|169063066|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \<0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group.This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||<0.05
84541203|NCT03417687|168833892|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.505||||||||2.505|0.184|
84664754|NCT03045081|169063066|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.173||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.173
84664755|NCT03045081|169063066|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.167||||||Wald χ2 \>0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.167
84664756|NCT03045081|169063067|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.176||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.176
84664757|NCT03045081|169063067|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.143||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.143
84664758|NCT03045081|169063068|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
84664759|NCT03045081|169063068|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.001||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant for the group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points (i.e., 'completer' analysis).||||<0.001
84664760|NCT03045081|169063070|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.102||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.102
84664761|NCT03045081|169063070|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each time point (as treated, 'completer' analysis).||||<0.05
84664762|NCT01853046|169063073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.63||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of regorafenib calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.63|0.796|
84664763|NCT01853046|169063073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.397|1.18||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-2 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.18|0.397|
84664764|NCT01853046|169063073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.996||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-5 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs||0.996|0.200|
84541204|NCT03417687|168833893|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.101|0.181||||||||0.181|-2.101|
84541205|NCT03417687|168833894|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.721|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|-1.345||||||||-1.345|-4.096|
84541206|NCT03417687|168833895|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|-0.335||||||||-0.335|-3.192|
84664765|NCT02436889|169063113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.949
84541207|NCT00681031|168833926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (CMFR) from pre-vaccination to 4 weeks postvaccination is \>1.4.|GMFR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.8|||||GMFR = GMT postdose divided by GMT predose|||3.8|2.6|
84541208|NCT02487225|168833937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5796|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.5796
84541209|NCT02487225|168833937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8415|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.8415
84541210|NCT02487225|168833938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1109
84541211|NCT02487225|168833938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4619
84541212|NCT02487225|168833939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1236
84541213|NCT02487225|168833939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9468|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.9468
84541214|NCT02487225|168833940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.157
84541215|NCT02487225|168833940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.3173
84541216|NCT00852202|168833955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7408|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7408
84541217|NCT00852202|168833955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9961|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9961
84541218|NCT00852202|168833956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3441
84541219|NCT00852202|168833956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2683|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2683
84541220|NCT02854527|168833957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|105.33|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||105.33|88.22|
84541221|NCT02854527|168833958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|93.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|103.97|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||103.97|83.49|
84571032|NCT04459338|168893084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All continuous data are summarized as means ± SEM. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule. A paired, two-way Student t-test (parametric) or a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (non-parametric) was used to examine differences between study days. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
84664766|NCT02436889|169063114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.31|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||8.31|-2.09|0.2415
84664767|NCT02436889|169063115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-5.87|||ANCOVA|||||-5.87|-18.16|0.0001
84664768|NCT02436889|169063116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.59|0.1956
84664769|NCT02436889|169063117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.40|0.34|0.0168
84664770|NCT02436889|169063118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||ANCOVA|||||3.71|0.50|0.0101
84664771|NCT02746874|169063158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
84664772|NCT02746874|169063160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
84664773|NCT02746874|169063161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.371
84664774|NCT02746874|169063162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.325
84664775|NCT02746874|169063163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.466
84664776|NCT02746874|169063164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.368
84664777|NCT02746874|169063165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.509
84664778|NCT02746874|169063166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.593
84664779|NCT02746874|169063167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
84664780|NCT02746874|169063168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
84664781|NCT02746874|169063169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.687
84664782|NCT02746874|169063170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.840
84664783|NCT02746874|169063171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.913
84664784|NCT02746874|169063172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.301
84664785|NCT02746874|169063173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
84664786|NCT02746874|169063174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
84664787|NCT02746874|169063176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.047
84664788|NCT02746874|169063177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.115
84664789|NCT02746874|169063178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.349
84664790|NCT04483011|169063179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Dave 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.034
84664791|NCT04483011|169063179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.79||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of Comparator.||||0.265
84664792|NCT04483011|169063179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.044
84664793|NCT04483011|169063180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of RiaGev.||||0.008
84664794|NCT04483011|169063180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.297
84664795|NCT04483011|169063180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.04
84664796|NCT04483011|169063181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in the RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.004
84664797|NCT04483011|169063181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.640
84664798|NCT04483011|169063181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.014
84664799|NCT04483011|169063182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1037.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1590.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.013
84664800|NCT04483011|169063182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-302.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1427.42||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.382
84664801|NCT04483011|169063183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2153.66||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.793
84664802|NCT04483011|169063183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-134.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1830.16||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.758
84664803|NCT04483011|169063184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.89||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.003
84664804|NCT04483011|169063184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.62||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.766
84664805|NCT04483011|169063185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups after 7-day supplementation.||||0.029
84541222|NCT02854527|168833959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|102.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|112.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||112.25|93.82|
84541223|NCT02854527|168833960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|103.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||115.46|93.60|
84541224|NCT02854527|168833961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|101.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.61|93.54|
84541225|NCT02854527|168833962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|98.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|105.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||105.09|91.85|
84541226|NCT02854527|168833963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|105.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|114.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.40|96.39|
84541227|NCT02854527|168833964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|104.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|114.53|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.53|94.95|
84541228|NCT02854527|168833965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.08|101.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R1.||101.20|92.08|
84541229|NCT02854527|168833966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|104.41|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R2.||104.41|90.87|
84541230|NCT02854527|168833967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.58|101.58|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.58|93.58|
84664806|NCT04483011|169063186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.034
84664807|NCT04483011|169063187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.014
84664808|NCT04483011|169063187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.049
84664809|NCT01896531|169063250|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.55|0.81|= 0.56
84664810|NCT01896531|169063250|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.11|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||2.11|0.54|= 0.86
84664811|NCT01896531|169063251|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||=|0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.07|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||2.07|1.12|= 0.0234
84664812|NCT01896531|169063251|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|3.65|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||3.65|0.75|= 0.2867
84664813|NCT01896531|169063251|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.93|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||2.93|0.94|= 0.1369
84664814|NCT01896531|169063252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.2|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.46|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All randomized participants||8.06|-18.46|= 0.5202
84541231|NCT02854527|168833968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|107.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|119.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R4.||119.39|97.04|
84541232|NCT04927845|168833969|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.41|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.41|0.06|.008
84541233|NCT04927845|168833969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: comparing the waitlist condition versus only intervention group participants who were program initiators||||.03
84541234|NCT04927845|168833969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: concurrent service use was added as a covariate to models.||||.009
84541235|NCT04927845|168833970|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||||.21
84541236|NCT04927845|168833971|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.36|0.02|.046
84664815|NCT01896531|169063252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-23.33|||=|0.2035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.24|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||5.58|-52.24|= 0.2035
84664816|NCT01896531|169063252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.35|||=|0.7697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.48|19.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||19.79|-28.48|= 0.7697
84664817|NCT01896531|169063253|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.5974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.73|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.73|0.76|= 0.5974
84664818|NCT01896531|169063253|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.79|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||1.79|0.28|= 0.5385
84664819|NCT01896531|169063253|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.6097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.75|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||1.75|0.35|= 0.6097
84664820|NCT00268996|169063256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-11.717||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.995|14.607|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||14.607|-31.995|0.348
84664821|NCT00268996|169063257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.082||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.049|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means is shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.049|-0.214|0.220
84664822|NCT00268996|169063258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|3.977||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.331|32.379|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||32.379|-18.331|0.751
84664823|NCT00268996|169063259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-60.737|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.486|-57.78|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 26 (LOCF)||-57.780|-63.486|<0.001
84664824|NCT00268996|169063259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-59.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.21|-56.222|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 52 (LOCF)||-56.222|-62.210|<0.001
84541237|NCT03283566|168834050|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 20-30% difference in outcome (CP/G quotient) between study arms, which is equivalent to 0.08-0.12 CP/G difference and a 0.07 standard deviation, a sample size of 6 subjects (1:1 randomization) will detect a CP/G difference of at least 0.12, assuming 80% power, with a 0.05 significance level.||||||0.739|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.739
84541238|NCT02045446|168834069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.304||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.113|.01
84541239|NCT00276484|168834079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-19.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||-13.2|-19.4|<0.001
84541240|NCT00276484|168834080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.551||95.0|-1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value||||2.1|-1.1|0.551
84541241|NCT00276484|168834081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value||||-11.6|-17.1|<0.001
84541242|NCT00276484|168834082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-7.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value||||-7.9|-12.0|<0.001
84541243|NCT00276484|168834083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.|||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
84541244|NCT00276484|168834084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.7|-7.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value||||-7.6|-12.7|<0.001
84664825|NCT00268996|169063260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.253||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.998|7.504|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||7.504|-6.998|0.945
84541245|NCT00276484|168834085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.313||95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value||||2.5|-0.8|0.313
84541246|NCT00276484|168834086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-12.6|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value||||-8.2|-12.6|<0.001
84541247|NCT00276484|168834087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-19.9|-13.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value||||-13.1|-19.9|<0.001
84541248|NCT00276484|168834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value||||-8.2|-13.8|<0.001
84541249|NCT00276484|168834089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-17.7|-11.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value||||-11.3|-17.7|<0.001
84541250|NCT00276484|168834090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.174||95.0|-17.1|3.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.|||3.4|-17.1|0.174
84541251|NCT00276484|168834091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||12.84|5.45|<0.001
84541252|NCT04688671|168834118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.32|0.5605
84541253|NCT01525329|168834136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.007
84541254|NCT01525329|168834136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
84664826|NCT00268996|169063261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-0.062||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|0.886|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.886|-1.009|0.898
84541255|NCT01525329|168834137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84541256|NCT01525329|168834137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84541257|NCT00780338|168834139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.58
84541258|NCT00780338|168834141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
84541259|NCT00780338|168834142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.09
84541260|NCT00780338|168834143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.01
84541261|NCT00780338|168834144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
84602632|NCT02780856|168956231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
84664827|NCT00268996|169063262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-5.165||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|-1.145|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-1.145|-9.185|0.012
84664828|NCT00268996|169063263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-1.967||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.912|-0.022|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-0.022|-3.912|0.047
84541262|NCT00780338|168834145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.45
84541263|NCT00780338|168834146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.65
84541264|NCT00780338|168834147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
84541265|NCT00780338|168834148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
84541266|NCT00780338|168834149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.02
84541267|NCT02023983|168834151|OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
84541268|NCT02023983|168834152|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84541269|NCT02105467|168834153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided, one-sample exact test|||Superiority of SVR12 in the Immediate Treatment group was tested against the historical response rate of 73%.||||<0.001
84541270|NCT02105467|168834154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.6|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-10.8|
84541271|NCT02105467|168834155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||2.0|-4.4|
84541272|NCT01690117|168834158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|11.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.12|3.82|<0.001
84541273|NCT01690117|168834159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.86|1.00|<0.05
84541274|NCT01690117|168834160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.97|1.01|<0.01
84664829|NCT00268996|169063264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|6.958||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.568|29.364|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 26 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||29.364|-11.568|0.487
84541275|NCT01690117|168834161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|3.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.45|-0.05|0.06
84541276|NCT01690117|168834162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-0.65|0.30
84541277|NCT01690117|168834163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.59||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-0.66|0.24
84541278|NCT01690117|168834164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.62|-2.50|<0.05
84541279|NCT01690117|168834165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.25|-2.63|0.88
84541280|NCT01690117|168834166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-1.11||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-8.74|<0.05
84541281|NCT01690117|168834167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-3.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.66|-13.31|<0.001
84541282|NCT01690117|168834168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-7.86|0.05
84541283|NCT01690117|168834169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.96|0.91
84541284|NCT01690117|168834170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.81|-0.01|0.05
84541285|NCT01690117|168834171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|0.68|<0.05
84541286|NCT01690117|168834172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-8.40|<0.01
84541287|NCT01690117|168834173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|10.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.83|4.78|<0.01
84541288|NCT02676882|168834174|OTHER|A Chi Squared analysis was performed to determine how the rate of relapse in Group 1 (27.3%) compared to that of historical controls in the literature (67.7%). (Cohen, JAMA 2006)||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84541289|NCT02676882|168834175|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the overall course of Group 2 participants' MADRS scores. (F(6, 29)=5.16, p=0.001).||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84541290|NCT01288807|168834178|OTHER|repeated measure ANOVA|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
84664830|NCT00268996|169063264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|12.255||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.725|36.562|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 52 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo Vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||36.562|-7.725|0.247
84664831|NCT00268996|169063265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-1.112||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|4.433|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||4.433|-6.363|0.687
84541291|NCT01288807|168834179|OTHER|two-tailed paired t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the cold threshold measured in degrees celcius before and after treatment.||||< 0.05
84541292|NCT01288807|168834180|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the pressure threshold measured in pounds per square inch before and after treatment||||> 0.05
84541293|NCT01288807|168834181|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||one-way repeated measure ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
84541294|NCT01518322|168834184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0895|0.1875||||||Kappa statistics were used to determine the level of agreement between FeNO measurements and asthma diagnosis using the a dichotomous schemes a measurement greater than 35 ppb for children under the age of 12 years or greater than 50 ppb for subjects at least 12 years of age was considered high.||0.1875|-0.0895|
84541295|NCT01269918|168834188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-5|-13|< 0.001
84541296|NCT01269918|168834188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-4|-13|< 0.001
84541297|NCT01269918|168834189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 1 point. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-1.1|-2.7|< 0.001
84541298|NCT01269918|168834189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-0.9|-2.8|< 0.001
84541299|NCT01269918|168834190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority delta = 2 mg opioid|Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-5|-10|< 0.001
84541300|NCT01269918|168834190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-3|-10|< 0.001
84541301|NCT01269918|168834191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on heart rate was assessed using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline heart rate.||3|-10|< 0.001
84541302|NCT01269918|168834192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on SOMCT estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline SOMCT score.||0.5|-2.6|0.16
84726806|NCT01307800|169205481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.073
84541303|NCT01269918|168834193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Aldrete score estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline Aldrete score.||0.03|-0.6|0.07
84541304|NCT01269918|168834194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Nursing workload comparison estimated using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||-0.001|-1|0.009
84541305|NCT01269918|168834195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to open eyes estimated using Cox regression.||0.18|0.07|< 0.001
84541306|NCT01269918|168834196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus dexmedetomidine on time to recall assessed using Cox regression.||0.19|0.07|< 0.001
84541307|NCT01269918|168834197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to fitness discharge estimated using Cox regression.||0.95|0.48|0.022
84541308|NCT01269918|168834198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to PACU discharge estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression||1.62|0.81|0.45
84541309|NCT01269918|168834199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative nausea estimated from chi squared test.||2.2|0.5|0.91
84541310|NCT01269918|168834200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative vomiting estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.07|0.16
84541311|NCT01269918|168834201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on incidence of shivering estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.1|0.21
84541312|NCT00811733|168834204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|73.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||73.4|21.3|
84541313|NCT00811733|168834204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||86.1|45.1|
84664832|NCT00268996|169063265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-3.237||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.976|2.865|||ANOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||2.865|-8.976|0.290
84541314|NCT00811733|168834205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|61.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||61.6|11.8|
84541315|NCT00811733|168834205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||82.8|40.7|
84541316|NCT02777372|168834237|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||Effect of group on differences in ASR t scores from follicular to luteal.||||0.139
84541317|NCT02777372|168834238|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Effect of group on ASR t score in the first luteal phase (no medication) to the second luteal phase (sertraline).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.843
84541318|NCT02777372|168834239|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84541319|NCT04542057|168834241|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1236||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1236|0.0647|<0.0001
84541320|NCT04660331|168834285|OTHER||||||||||||||||||2-sided t-test conducted for pre- and post-training results.|||
84541321|NCT04660331|168834286|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
84541322|NCT04660331|168834287|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
84541323|NCT01870778|168834295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||Adjusted alpha p-value based on multiple testing procedure.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value||||1.15|0.83|0.3857
84541324|NCT01870778|168834296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|One-sided p-value||||1.07|0.75|0.0968
84541325|NCT01870778|168834297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||||1.08|0.81|0.3890
84541326|NCT01870778|168834298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2204||||||Based on multiple testing procedure|Wilcoxon rank sum test|One-sided p-value||||||0.2204
84541327|NCT01870778|168834299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.88|0.2744
84541328|NCT01870778|168834300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|2-sided p-value||||||0.2103
84541329|NCT01870778|168834301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Exertional dyspnea||1.14|1.02|0.0050
84541330|NCT01870778|168834301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Orthopnea||1.14|1.02|0.0051
84541331|NCT01870778|168834301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Rales||1.05|0.95|0.9962
84541332|NCT01870778|168834301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Jugular venous pressure||1.15|1.01|0.0196
84541333|NCT01870778|168834301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Peripheral edema, pre-sacral edema||1.10|0.98|0.2158
84541334|NCT01870778|168834302|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9401||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8921|0.9907|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9907|0.8921|0.0209
84541335|NCT01870778|168834302|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.898||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8358|0.9649|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||0.9649|0.8358|0.0034
84541336|NCT01870778|168834302|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9074||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8355|0.9854|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||0.9854|0.8355|0.0209
84541337|NCT01870778|168834303|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.8597||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7876|0.9385|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9385|0.7876|0.0007
84541338|NCT01870778|168834303|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9539||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0579|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0579|0.8600|0.3709
84541339|NCT01870778|168834303|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9543||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8578|1.0617|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0617|0.8578|0.3893
84541340|NCT01870778|168834304|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9637||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9447|0.983|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9830|0.9447|0.0003
84664833|NCT00268996|169063266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|16.725||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.232|33.271|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||33.271|2.232|0.022
84541341|NCT01870778|168834304|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9922||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9677|1.0172|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0172|0.9677|0.5361
84541342|NCT01870778|168834304|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9863||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9567|1.0169|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0169|0.9567|0.3750
84541343|NCT00708110|168834326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-2.00|<0.001
84541344|NCT00708110|168834326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-2.52|<0.001
84541345|NCT00708110|168834326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||||-2.02|-2.94|<0.001
84541346|NCT01866098|168834370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.83
84541347|NCT01866098|168834371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84541348|NCT01866098|168834372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.19
84541349|NCT01866098|168834373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.96
84541350|NCT01866098|168834374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.92
84541351|NCT01866098|168834375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.98
84541352|NCT01866098|168834376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.95
84541353|NCT01866098|168834377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.43
84541354|NCT03649347|168834378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.720|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.798; main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.711||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
84541355|NCT03649347|168834379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.542|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.598; and main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.439||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 96%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
84541356|NCT03649347|168834381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||Interaction effect: p\<.005, np2=.481|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.572; and main effect of group p\<.001, np2=.626||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=3.49.||||<.005
84541357|NCT00489255|168834398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for treatment was stratified by site.||The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||1.11|0.17|0.09
84664834|NCT00268996|169063266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|9.256||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.136|27.172|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||27.172|-6.136|0.252
84541358|NCT00489255|168834399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.90|0.21|0.025
84541359|NCT00489255|168834400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.70|0.09|0.005
84541360|NCT00489255|168834401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.48|0.23|0.65
84541361|NCT00489255|168834402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21|||ANOVA|Treatment effect in ANOVA was adjusted for site.||||0.21|-0.64|0.32
84541362|NCT00489255|168834403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.43|||ANOVA|||||-0.43|-1.71|0.001
84541363|NCT00489255|168834404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.95
84541364|NCT00489255|168834405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.88
84541365|NCT00489255|168834406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.019
84541366|NCT00489255|168834407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.29
84541367|NCT00489255|168834408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.5|0.17
84541368|NCT00489255|168834409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||0.7|0.1|0.008
84541369|NCT00489255|168834410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.6|0.49
84664835|NCT00268996|169063267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|15.449||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.204|43.632|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26||43.632|-7.204|0.196
84541370|NCT00489255|168834411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|0.4
84541371|NCT00489255|168834412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.62||95.0|0.6|2.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||2.3|0.6|0.62
84541372|NCT00489255|168834413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.76|||ANOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline score (score at Visit 1/Screening) as a covariate, and site and treatment as factors.||||3.76|-3.59|0.96
84541373|NCT00489255|168834414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.02|||ANOVA|||||4.02|-4.37|0.93
84541374|NCT00489255|168834415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.34|||ANOVA|||||3.34|-4.12|0.84
84541375|NCT00489255|168834416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.11|||ANOVA|||||8.11|-2.17|0.25
84541376|NCT00489255|168834417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.40|-2.47|0.46
84541377|NCT00489255|168834418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.06|||ANOVA|||||9.06|-3.13|0.33
84541378|NCT00489255|168834419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|6.11|||ANOVA|||||6.11|-5.57|0.93
84541379|NCT05287230|168834466|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.061
84541380|NCT03493685|168834478|OTHER||Slope difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.74|0.7491
84541381|NCT03493685|168834479|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|28.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.04|3.96|0.0094
84541382|NCT03493685|168834480|OTHER||Slope difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-1.27|0.4203
84541383|NCT03493685|168834481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|-1.39|0.2708
84541384|NCT06418529|168834484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
84541385|NCT06418529|168834485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||||||||1.07|0.83|
84541386|NCT06418529|168834486|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||||0.99|0.79|
84541387|NCT06418529|168834487|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04||||||||1.04|0.79|
84541388|NCT06418529|168834488|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||||1.05|0.81|
84541389|NCT06418529|168834489|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09||||||||1.09|0.79|
84541390|NCT05525520|168834507|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided equivalence test|Least square mean difference (LSMD)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.68|||MMRM|Treatment, type of cholestatic disease, week, and treatment-by-week interaction were fixed effects, and Baseline WI-NRS score was a covariate.|LSMD=EP547 minus placebo|||1.68|-0.77|0.4577
84541391|NCT05878093|168834525|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.15|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-1.15|-2.53|<0.0001
84664836|NCT00268996|169063267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|38.567||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.355|83.997|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52||83.997|4.355|0.024
84664837|NCT00268996|169063268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-2.098||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.303|14.517|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||14.517|-16.303|0.790
84541392|NCT05878093|168834526|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.54||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.12|-0.97|0.0126
84541393|NCT05878093|168834527|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.69|-2.67|0.0008
84541394|NCT05878093|168834528|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.62||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.17|-1.08|0.0072
84541395|NCT05878093|168834529|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-9.52||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-2.24|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-2.24|-16.81|0.0104
84541396|NCT04479852|168834541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||0.5|-4.1|0.133
84541397|NCT04479852|168834542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.0|-0.5|0.059
84541398|NCT04479852|168834543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in HAM-D score from baseline.|||0.4|-2.7|0.159
84541399|NCT04479852|168834544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in SDS score from baseline.|||0.5|-2.5|0.188
84541400|NCT04479852|168834545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in QIDS score from baseline.|||0.2|-2.0|0.091
84541401|NCT04479852|168834546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater increase in Q-LES-Q score from baseline.|||4.6|-1.2|0.243
84541402|NCT04479852|168834547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||-1.0|-6.8|.008
84541403|NCT04479852|168834548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.006
84541404|NCT04479852|168834549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||6.3|-0.8|0.134
84541405|NCT04479852|168834550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.6|-0.3|0.437
84541406|NCT04100018|168834554|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.19||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.01|Log Rank|Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.||||1.19|0.77|0.5901
84541407|NCT04100018|168834555|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|99.41|0.84|1.43||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0059. Additional accuracy for p-value: 0.005866.|Log Rank||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.43|0.84|0.3572
84541408|NCT04100018|168834556|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||12.1|-4.5|
84541409|NCT04100018|168834559|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.0|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||7.0|-5.2|
84541410|NCT04100018|168834560|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.16|0.86|
84541411|NCT00818766|168834589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26||95.0|-11.3|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.7|-11.3|.26
84541412|NCT00818766|168834590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.3|||Fisher Exact|||||4.3|-6.1|0.77
84541413|NCT00818766|168834591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|.21
84541414|NCT00818766|168834592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
84541415|NCT00818766|168834594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
84541416|NCT00818766|168834595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
84541417|NCT00970593|168834608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.29||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||0.29|-1.79|
84541418|NCT00970593|168834608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.83||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-0.83|-2.98|
84541419|NCT00970593|168834608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.24||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.24|-3.06|
84541420|NCT00970593|168834609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.22||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.22|-3.52|
84541421|NCT00970593|168834609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.2||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.20|-4.16|
84541422|NCT00970593|168834609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.28||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.28|-4.01|
84541423|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9048|0.9604||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9604|0.9048|
84541424|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9081|0.9782||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9782|0.9081|
84541425|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9419|0.9857||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9857|0.9419|
84541426|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8914|0.948||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9480|0.8914|
84541427|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8986|0.9712||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9712|0.8986|
84541428|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|0.9805||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9805|0.9190|
84541429|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9102|0.9722||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9722|0.9102|
84541430|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9041|0.9796||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9796|0.9041|
84479147|NCT05109702|168709471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.375|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.375|-0.134|0.353
84541431|NCT01608100|168834615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9046|0.9852||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9852|0.9046|
84541432|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
84541433|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.31||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
84541434|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.95||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||5.95|1.59|0.0011
84541435|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541436|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541437|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.21|<0.0001
84541438|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541439|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541440|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.87||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.87|1.84|0.0002
84541441|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541442|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541443|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.25|<0.0001
84541444|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|6.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
84541445|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
84541446|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|1.41|0.0050
84541447|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541448|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
84541449|NCT01608100|168834616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.03||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.03|2.08|<0.0001
84541450|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|84.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.28|91.23||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.23|75.28|
84541451|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.21|||||TWO_SIDED|83.81|83.81|97.09||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.09|83.81|
84541452|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.34|97.99||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.99|86.34|
84541453|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|85.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.51|91.7||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.70|76.51|
84541454|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|91.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.95|96.66||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||96.66|83.95|
84541455|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|94.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.61|98.34||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||98.34|88.61|
84541456|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|87.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.3|94.04||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||94.04|77.30|
84541457|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.01||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.01|83.40|
84541458|NCT01608100|168834617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.74|97.74||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.74|84.74|
84541459|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.18|88.03||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.03|83.18|
84541460|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.66|87.5||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||87.50|82.66|
84541461|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|82.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.99|85.4||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||85.40|79.99|
84541462|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.12|86.17||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||86.17|81.12|
84541463|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.09|86.11||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||86.11|81.09|
84726807|NCT01307800|169205482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.04||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.76|0.761
84726808|NCT01307800|169205482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.06||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.78|0.761
84726809|NCT01307800|169205482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-1.17|0.489
84726810|NCT02255474|169205500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons, treatment group p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in analysis adjusting for correlation.||||<0.01
84541464|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|80.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.82|83.39||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||83.39|77.82|
84541465|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|86.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.79|88.63||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.63|83.79|
84541466|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.31|88.07||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||88.07|83.31|
84541467|NCT01608100|168834618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.31|86.54||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||86.54|81.31|
84541468|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.82|
84541469|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.25|99.7||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.70|98.25|
84541470|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
84541471|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.81|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.81|
84541472|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.05|99.62||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.62|98.05|
84541473|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
84541474|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.61|99.42||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||99.42|97.61|
84541475|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.27|99.71||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.71|98.27|
84541476|NCT01608100|168834619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.26|99.76||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.76|98.26|
84541477|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|38.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.92|45.98||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||45.98|31.92|
84541478|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|42.76||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.76|29.03|
84541479|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|43.38||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||43.38|29.99|
84541480|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|43.56||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.56|30.43|
84541481|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.43|42.45||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.45|29.43|
84541482|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|37.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|44.09||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||44.09|31.71|
84541483|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|43.47||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.47|28.70|
84541484|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|43.16||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||43.16|29.16|
84541485|NCT01608100|168834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|42.21||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||42.21|28.36|
84541486|NCT04055740|168834627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2201|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This test measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total time of lead extraction. Average ILA grade of all patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grade and total time of lead extraction||||0.2201
84541487|NCT04055740|168834627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total laser pulsations used for extraction. Avg ILA grade of patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman Correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grades and laser pulsations||||0.5157
84541488|NCT05767905|168834658|OTHER||ratio|108.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|117.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||117.05|100.55|
84541489|NCT05767905|168834658|OTHER||ratio|106.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||114.54|98.39|
84541490|NCT05767905|168834658|OTHER||ratio|228.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.67|293.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||293.48|178.67|
84541491|NCT05767905|168834658|OTHER||ratio|207.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.41|261.09||||||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||261.09|164.41|
84541492|NCT05767905|168834658|OTHER||ratio|102.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment||109.30|95.55|
84541493|NCT05767905|168834659|OTHER||ratio|145.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.29|174.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||174.53|121.29|
84541494|NCT05767905|168834659|OTHER||ratio|122.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.24|147.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||147.12|102.24|
84541495|NCT05767905|168834659|OTHER||ratio|284.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|226.39|358.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||358.06|226.39|
84541496|NCT05767905|168834659|OTHER||ratio|327.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.9|418.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||418.44|256.90|
84541497|NCT05767905|168834659|OTHER||ratio|118.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.36|146.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||146.06|96.36|
84541498|NCT02635984|168834666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on an 80 % power and an alpha of 0.05, we estimated a need for 49 patients in each treatment arm. From a review of existing literature, the sample size was based on an estimated CR achieved in 65 % of patients on triplet therapy alone and a hypothesized clinically relevant increase of 25 % for the treatment group to 90 %.||||0.003
84541499|NCT02635984|168834667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84541500|NCT02635984|168834668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84541501|NCT02635984|168834669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84541502|NCT02635984|168834670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84541503|NCT02635984|168834671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84541504|NCT02635984|168834672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84541505|NCT02635984|168834673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84541506|NCT04583735|168834678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.69||MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix including change from Baseline value as dependent variable \& covariates: Baseline value, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment \& visit-by-Baseline value interactions.|MMRM|||||-0.69|-2.28|0.0004
84541507|NCT01197911|168834680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.4182||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.4182|0.9293|
84541508|NCT01197911|168834680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2468|1.9314||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9314|1.2468|
84541509|NCT01197911|168834682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.9477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7908|1.1356||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.1356|0.7908|
84541510|NCT01197911|168834682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8941|1.3002||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.3002|0.8941|
84541511|NCT01197911|168834696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9618|1.5789||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.5789|0.9618|
84541512|NCT01197911|168834696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2165|1.9971||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9971|1.2165|
84541513|NCT01197911|168834697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8049|1.2492||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.2492|0.8049|
84541514|NCT01197911|168834697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GeometricLeast-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9836|1.5266||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.5266|0.9836|
84541515|NCT03282916|168834708|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were used to assess the treatment effects on the outcome with change score from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment, study time point, and their interaction as predictors, adjusting for baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusting for baseline value of ADAS-Cog11||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in change in ADAS-Cog11 between valacyclovir and placebo treatment.~A sample size of 130 participants (65 per arm) was originally projected to detect Cohen's d of 0.50 with 80% power at 5% significance level. Recruitment target was reduced to 120 participants due to pandemic-related recruitment delays and required study completion within the extended funding timeline. For n=120, the minimum detectable effect size increased slightly to Cohen's d of 0.52."||6.80|1.03|<0.05
84541516|NCT04331808|168834744|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|3.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||3.1|-21.0|
84541517|NCT04331808|168834745|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.0||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.00|0.33|
84541518|NCT04331808|168834746|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|17.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||17.1|-13.6|
84541519|NCT04331808|168834747|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.04||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.04|0.71|
84541520|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.55|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||Day 14||3.55|0.40|
84541521|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.53|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.53|0.33|
84726811|NCT02255474|169205501|SUPERIORITY||quadratic coefficient|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Individual subject eye length profiles were fit using quadratic equations as a function of gaze angle. The analysis of quadratic coefficients included treatment group, study year (categorical variable), and their interaction adjusted for age, study site, and ethnicity.||||0.05
84541522|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.65|0.25|
84541523|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 14||1.15|0.12|
84726812|NCT02255474|169205502|SUPERIORITY||regression coefficient|-0.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, axial length at baseline, race, treatment group, treatment group by race interaction.||This analysis looks at the three-year change in spherical equivalent refractive error for different eccentricities of peripheral defocus measured with contact lenses in place||||0.05
84726813|NCT02255474|169205503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in the analysis controlling for the correlation.||||0.05
84541524|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.47|0.32|
84541525|NCT04331808|168834748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.49|0.30|
84541526|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.28|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||1.28|0.27|
84541527|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.71|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 7|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.71|0.43|
84541528|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.42|0.40|
84541529|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.82|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 4|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.82|0.39|
84541530|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||1.47|0.32|
84541531|NCT04331808|168834749|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.32|
84541532|NCT04331808|168834750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.7||adjusted on age and centre||||||1.7|-6.9|
84541533|NCT04331808|168834751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.01|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.01|0.98|
84541534|NCT04331808|168834751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.52|0.82|
84541535|NCT04331808|168834751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.03|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.03|0.80|
84541536|NCT04331808|168834752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.27|1.02|
84541537|NCT04331808|168834752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.63|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.63|0.80|
84541538|NCT04331808|168834752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.17|0.84|
84541539|NCT04331808|168834753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.81|0.73|
84541540|NCT04331808|168834753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.24|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.24|0.73|
84541541|NCT01808573|168834795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.926|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||0.926|0.626|0.0059
84541542|NCT01808573|168834796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.073|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||1.073|0.723|0.2086
84541543|NCT01808573|168834797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Gray's test|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral disease.||||||0.043
84541544|NCT01808573|168834798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.1201
84541545|NCT01808573|168834799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.0328
84541546|NCT01808573|168834800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.736|||Log Rank||Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference.|||0.736|0.332|0.0004
84541547|NCT03953612|168834804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
84541548|NCT03953612|168834805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
84541549|NCT03953612|168834806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||0.7
84541550|NCT03953612|168834807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84541551|NCT03953612|168834808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.042
84541552|NCT03953612|168834809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.125
84541553|NCT02028676|168834828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 1.64, see other analysis for this endpoint for details|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.73|0.73|0.59
84541554|NCT02028676|168834828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions detailed above, \>90% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 1160 children would be required to exclude an increase in progression rate of 1.6% from 2.5% to 4.1% per year in the CDM arm (upper 95% confidence limit of LCM: CDM hazard ratio 1.64).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.12|||Comparison of poisson rates|Statistical analysis plan specified that p-value was to be calculated from the log-rank test, so not provided for the risk difference|Difference is CDM minus LCM|"Assumptions:~* control group (LCM) event rate 3% per year~* rates are reduced to 2% per year in the best of the induction-maintenance arms leading to an overall rate of progression to new WHO stage 4 or death of 2.5%~* recruitment is over 1.5 years and follow-up for a minimum further 3.5 years.~* cumulative loss to follow-up is 10% at 5 years. See below for rest of sample size as this box is not big enough."||1.12|-0.47|0.43
84541555|NCT02028676|168834829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.16|0.83|0.83
84541556|NCT02028676|168834830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||Assuming a standard deviation for the change in CD4 percentage from baseline to 72 weeks of 10% (slightly higher than that observed in the PENTA 5 trial) 1200 children would provide at least 80% power to detect a difference in change in CD4% from baseline of more than 2.5% across the 3 groups (F-test with 2-sided alpha=0.05) assuming 20% missing data (loss to follow-up during the first year plus failure to attend the week 72 visit/missing sample).||||0.33
84541557|NCT02028676|168834831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.69
84541558|NCT02028676|168834832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.0001
84541559|NCT02028676|168834832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.63|||Regression, Cox||HR is Arm B vs A|||1.63|1.07|0.01
84541560|NCT02028676|168834832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|1.29|<0.001
84541561|NCT02028676|168834833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|631 children would be required to exclude a 12% lower suppression rate in the once daily group with at least 90% power and two-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 95% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -12%, the non-inferiority margin). 630 children retains at least 80% (rather than 90%) power to exclude a 10% (rather than 12%) lower suppression rate in the once daily group with one-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 90% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in suppression \<80 copies/ml in once-daily minus twice-daily|||5.2|-8.4|0.65
84571033|NCT00853385|168893117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.18|35.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||35.31|13.18|<0.0001
84541562|NCT02028676|168834835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough"||2.37|1.14|0.007
84541563|NCT02028676|168834835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2|||Poisson regression for risk difference||Risk difference is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough."||7.2|0.8|0.006
84541564|NCT02028676|168834836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|||1.72|0.83|0.33
84541565|NCT02028676|168834837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.44|0.49|0.45
84541566|NCT02028676|168834837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.43
84541567|NCT02028676|168834837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.31|0.33|0.23
84541568|NCT02028676|168834837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.81|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.81|0.52|0.93
84726814|NCT00780741|169205506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the proportion with success in immediate group minus proportion with success in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||0.21|-0.01|0.09
84541569|NCT02028676|168834838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.89
84541570|NCT02028676|168834838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.48|0.53|0.64
84541571|NCT02028676|168834838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.52|0.54|0.71
84541572|NCT02028676|168834839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.38|0.73|0.98
84541573|NCT02028676|168834839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.44
84541574|NCT02028676|168834839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.20|0.55|0.30
84541575|NCT02028676|168834839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.17|0.54|0.24
84541576|NCT02028676|168834840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM.|||1.49|0.82|0.52
84541577|NCT02028676|168834840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|||||||0.34
84541578|NCT02028676|168834840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.13|0.54|0.19
84541579|NCT02028676|168834840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.16|0.56|0.25
84541580|NCT02028676|168834841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.71
84541581|NCT02028676|168834841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.58
84541582|NCT02028676|168834842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
84541583|NCT02028676|168834842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.90
84541584|NCT02028676|168834843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.64
84541585|NCT02028676|168834843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.30
84541586|NCT02028676|168834844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.45
84541587|NCT02028676|168834845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.70
84541588|NCT02028676|168834846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||0.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.59
84541589|NCT02028676|168834846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.01
84541590|NCT02028676|168834847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.81
84541591|NCT02028676|168834847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.03
84541592|NCT02028676|168834848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
84541593|NCT02028676|168834848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84541594|NCT02028676|168834849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84541595|NCT02028676|168834849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84541596|NCT02028676|168834850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.29|0.48|0.22
84541597|NCT02028676|168834851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.075|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.075|0.420|0.09
84726815|NCT00780741|169205507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-139.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|94.0|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average cost in immediate group minus average cost in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||94|-377|0.24
84541598|NCT02028676|168834851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.04
84541599|NCT02028676|168834851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||4.08|1.15|0.017
84541600|NCT02028676|168834851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||3.80|1.05|0.034
84541601|NCT02028676|168834852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.66|1.02|0.04
84541602|NCT02028676|168834852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.53
84541603|NCT02028676|168834852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.25|0.68|0.60
84541604|NCT02028676|168834852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.46|0.81|0.56
84541605|NCT02028676|168834853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.56|0.58|0.84
84541606|NCT02028676|168834853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.002
84541607|NCT02028676|168834853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|8.29|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||8.29|1.74|0.001
84541608|NCT02028676|168834853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.85|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||6.85|1.39|0.006
84541609|NCT02028676|168834854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.53
84541610|NCT02028676|168834854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.46
84541611|NCT02028676|168834855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|-9.3|0.52
84541612|NCT02028676|168834856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.5|-1.2|0.39
84541613|NCT02028676|168834857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.9|-0.9|0.98
84541614|NCT02028676|168834858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.2|-1.9|0.12
84541615|NCT02028676|168834859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|76.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||76|-60|0.82
84541616|NCT02028676|168834860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|38.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||38|-104|0.36
84541617|NCT02028676|168834861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.0|46.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||46|-220|0.20
84541618|NCT02028676|168834863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.64|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.64|0.11|0.20
84541619|NCT02028676|168834864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.77|0.31|0.51
84541620|NCT02028676|168834865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.16
84541621|NCT02028676|168834866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.54
84541622|NCT02028676|168834867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.08
84541623|NCT02028676|168834868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.52|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.52|0.72|0.82
84541624|NCT02028676|168834869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.27|0.48|0.31
84541625|NCT02028676|168834870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
84541626|NCT02028676|168834871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84541627|NCT02028676|168834872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.93
84541628|NCT02028676|168834873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.25|1.50|<0.001
84541629|NCT02028676|168834874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.85|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.85|0.56|0.44
84541630|NCT02028676|168834875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.48|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||5.48|1.05|0.03
84541631|NCT02028676|168834876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|35.7|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||35.7|0.44|0.18
84541632|NCT02028676|168834877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.17|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||6.17|0.53|0.34
84541633|NCT02028676|168834878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.15|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||4.15|0.12|0.68
84541634|NCT02028676|168834879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
84541635|NCT02028676|168834880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.19
84541636|NCT02028676|168834881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.34
84541637|NCT02028676|168834882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||0.2|-1.4|0.13
84541638|NCT02028676|168834883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|42.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||42|-65|0.68
84541639|NCT02028676|168834884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.5|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||2.50|1.02|0.04
84541640|NCT02028676|168834885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Generalised estimating equation|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.21
84541641|NCT00141778|168834888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Discrete variables were compared among treatment groups with a chi-square test.||||0.95
84541642|NCT00141778|168834889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84541643|NCT00141778|168834890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84541644|NCT00141778|168834891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84541645|NCT00141778|168834892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
84541646|NCT00141778|168834893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
84541647|NCT00141778|168834894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84541648|NCT00141778|168834895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84541649|NCT04467840|168834903|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.86||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|12.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Opaganib - Placebo|||12.65|-4.93|0.391
84541650|NCT04467840|168834904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|12.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.60|-4.78|0.380
84541651|NCT04467840|168834905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.45|0.91|0.231
84541652|NCT04467840|168834906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.87|0.472
84541653|NCT04467840|168834907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.378||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.378|0.846|0.521
84541654|NCT04467840|168834908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.51||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|6.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.19|0.701
84541655|NCT04467840|168834909|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.99|0.043
84541656|NCT04467840|168834910|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|18.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.65|-2.05|0.118
84541657|NCT04467840|168834914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.28||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|23.5||unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.50|1.06|0.033
84541658|NCT04467840|168834915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.75||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.17|-18.67|0.500
84541659|NCT04467840|168834916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.60|1.90|0.023
84541660|NCT04467840|168834917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.12||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|-18.07|0.561
84479148|NCT05109702|168709471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.218|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.218|-0.297|0.764
84541661|NCT04467840|168834918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.07|0.01
84541662|NCT04467840|168834919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.58|0.545
84541663|NCT04467840|168834920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.276||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.732|||Log Rank|||||1.732|0.940|0.100
84541664|NCT04467840|168834922|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.57|-18.44|0.012
84541665|NCT04467840|168834923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-6.46|0.304
84541666|NCT04467840|168834924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|-1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.80|-16.63|0.019
84541667|NCT04467840|168834925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.37||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|20.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.39|-5.66|0.273
84541668|NCT03514459|168834979|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Poisson regression|Robust standard errors||||2.20|1.54|<0.001
84541669|NCT01321749|168835014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||5.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84541670|NCT04179838|168835023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons in piriform cortex|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in decoding accuracy between sleep-deprived and non-sleep deprived interventions. Paired t-test on decoding accuracy from both phases (sleep-deprived minus non-sleep deprived) against the null hypothesis of no difference.||||0.001
84541671|NCT04179838|168835024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.021
84541672|NCT04179838|168835025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.63
84541673|NCT04179838|168835026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.08
84541674|NCT04179838|168835027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.28
84541675|NCT04179838|168835028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.50
84541676|NCT04179838|168835029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.58
84541677|NCT02763046|168835031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.74|0.3512
84541678|NCT02763046|168835032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.60|0.68|0.4010
84541679|NCT02763046|168835032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.55|0.67|0.4382
84541680|NCT02763046|168835032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||3.50|0.91|0.0934
84541681|NCT02763046|168835032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||2.90|0.75|0.2619
84541682|NCT02763046|168835033|SUPERIORITY||LS (least square) Mean|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|1.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.96|-22.55|0.0997
84541683|NCT02763046|168835033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|1.87|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.87|-26.47|0.0888
84541684|NCT02763046|168835033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|5.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||5.79|-22.36|0.2484
84541685|NCT02763046|168835034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.06||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|11.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||delayed tapering (W12) vs early tapering (W16)||11.98|-16.11|0.7735
84541686|NCT02763046|168835035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1926
84541687|NCT02763046|168835035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.23|-1.14|0.1914
84541688|NCT02763046|168835035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.35|-1.01|0.3397
84541689|NCT02763046|168835035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.04|-1.33|0.0384
84541690|NCT02763046|168835035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||0.23|-1.05|0.2116
84541691|NCT02763046|168835036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.63|-1.38|0.5384
84541692|NCT02763046|168835036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.21|-2.43|0.9251
84541693|NCT02763046|168835036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.66|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||3.66|-0.93|0.2432
84541694|NCT00080912|168835037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The original sample size was determined based on the non-inferiority. The original sample size is based on assumption of response rate on the multiple fraction arm is 70%, 260 patients were required in each treatment arm to have 80% power to exclude, with a one sided alpha of 0.05, a response rate of 60% or less in the single fraction radiation group (non-inferiority margin =10%). Given an inevaluability rate of 30%, 850 patients (425 for each treatment arm) were randomized to the study.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.2||p-value is for one-sided non-inferiority test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The upper limit of one-sided 95% CI for the response rate difference was 9.2%, which was below the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority boundary|||9.2||0.03
84541695|NCT02203357|168835074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84541696|NCT01495000|168835086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|1.91|<0.0001
84541697|NCT00116779|168835121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0||||||95.0|73.0|94.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|73|
84541698|NCT00116779|168835121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.0||||||95.0|64.0|88.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|64|
84541699|NCT00116779|168835122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|90.0||||||95.0|79.0|96.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|79|
84726816|NCT00780741|169205508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average months of symptoms in immediate group minus average months of symptoms in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||-1.8|-4.0|<0.0001
84541700|NCT00116779|168835122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|89.0||||||95.0|78.0|95.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|78|
84541701|NCT00116779|168835122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8413
84541702|NCT00116779|168835123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|93.0||||||95.0|82.0|99.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|82|
84541703|NCT00116779|168835123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|98.0||||||95.0|87.0|100.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|87|
84541704|NCT00116779|168835124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to 50% reduction||||.904
84541705|NCT00116779|168835124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Days to 90% reduction||||.778
84541706|NCT00707239|168835143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-21.6|10.9||||||Cure: Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70 percent (%) CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||10.9|-21.6|
84541707|NCT00707239|168835143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-6.1|24.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||24.8|-6.1|
84541708|NCT00707239|168835144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-14.3|14.0||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||14.0|-14.3|
84541709|NCT00707239|168835144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|4.3|31.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||31.8|4.3|
84541710|NCT00707239|168835147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-39.6|4.2||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||4.2|-39.6|
84541711|NCT00707239|168835147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-23.8|20.9||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||20.9|-23.8|
84541712|NCT00707239|168835148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Nausea: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.527
84541713|NCT00707239|168835148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.390
84541714|NCT00707239|168835149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
84541715|NCT00707239|168835150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
84541716|NCT00707239|168835156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0479||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced nausea and did not experience nausea.||1.46|0.754|0.78
84541717|NCT00707239|168835156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84644||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced vomiting and did not experience vomiting.||1.21|0.593|0.356
84541718|NCT00707239|168835157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0054||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, cure and failure/indeterminate.||1.06|0.956|0.836
84541719|NCT00707239|168835161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Intravenous antibiotic treatment: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.245
84726817|NCT01867307|169205528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-220.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.6|-202.7||P-value is from a paired t-test.|Paired t- test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-202.7|-440.6|<0.0001
84479149|NCT05109702|168709471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.476|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.476|-0.044|0.104
84541720|NCT00707239|168835161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Hospital stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.484
84541721|NCT00707239|168835161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||ICU stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.192
84541722|NCT01400477|168835164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A priori vape was \<0.05|ANOVA|df 1, 37||||||0.89
84541723|NCT03442751|168835166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.4|-1.5|0.0004
84541724|NCT03442751|168835167|SUPERIORITY|last observation carried forward was used to impute missing Month 12 data|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
84726818|NCT01867307|169205528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.3|-201.5||P-value is from a paired t-test|Paired t-test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-201.5|-312.3|<0.0001
84726819|NCT01082159|169205535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|3.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.42|2.76|<0.0001
84541725|NCT05807828|168835183|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the cup angle of the Control Group for Cup Training and the cup angle of VR Group for Cup Training.||||<0.05
84541726|NCT05807828|168835183|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|291.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the stem angle of the Control Group for Stem Training and the stem angle of VR Group for Stem Training.||||<0.05
84541727|NCT05807828|168835184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|106.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student with VR training.||||<0.05
84541728|NCT05807828|168835184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|133.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student without VR training (control).||||<0.05
84541729|NCT05807828|168835185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for cup implantation for Control cup group and the time needed for cup implantation for VR cup group||||<0.05
84541730|NCT05807828|168835185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for stem implantation for Control stem group and the time needed for stem implantation for VR stem group||||<0.05
84541731|NCT00262028|168835200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A||44|29|
84541732|NCT00262028|168835200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C||26|12|
84541733|NCT00262028|168835200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W||29|17|
84541734|NCT00262028|168835200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||No inferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y||38|25|
84541735|NCT00262028|168835200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||44|29|
84541736|NCT00262028|168835200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||26|12|
84541737|NCT00262028|168835200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||29|17|
84541738|NCT00262028|168835200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||38|25|
84541739|NCT02015611|168835243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.63
84541740|NCT02015611|168835244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, race, season, and baseline value||||||0.64
84541741|NCT02015611|168835245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.08
84541742|NCT02015611|168835246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.53
84541743|NCT02015611|168835247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.75
84726820|NCT01082159|169205536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|12.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|17.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.71|6.64|<0.0001
84541744|NCT02015611|168835248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.92
84541745|NCT02015611|168835249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.94
84541746|NCT02015611|168835250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.61
84541747|NCT02015611|168835251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.59
84726821|NCT02009865|169205540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-26.2|0.017
84541748|NCT02015611|168835252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.21
84541749|NCT03737357|168835312|NON_INFERIORITY|The tolerance range or non-inferiority margin characterizes the largest absolute difference which is considered to be dismissible. A MBL of less than 0.5mm within the first year after implant loading constitutes an acceptable clinical standard(10, 18, 19). In this clinical trial, a non-inferiority margin of 20% of the acceptable clinical standard was chosen, which amounts to 0.1mm.|paired difference|0.01||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Non-inferiority one-sided paired t-tests using a non-inferiority margin of -0.10mm.|The paired difference is (SLActive® bone level change from baseline (CFB) - SLA® CFB (i.e. resorption))||In the PP population, the paired difference between SLActive® and SLA® bone level change from baseline (CFB) was estimated at 0.01 mm with a standard deviation of 0.444 mm (95% CI: -Inf, 0.11; p = 0.074), based on a one-sided paired t-test with a non-inferiority margin of 0.10 mm.|||0.074
84541750|NCT00951496|168835317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm II reduces the progression free survival event rate 20%. The critical p-value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance Threshold = 0.027|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival of arm II relative to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual size.|P value.(an P value is used to determine statistical significance in a hypothesis test). from a stratified log rank test to assess equality of progression free survival hazards of arm II and arm I||1.09|0.81|0.341
84571034|NCT00853385|168893117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|34.29||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.29|12.16|<0.0001
84541751|NCT00951496|168835317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm III reduced the true progression free survival event rate. 20% compared to arm I. Critical p value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance threshold = 0.027 accounting for 2 correlated primary hypotheses.|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival hazard of arm III to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual disease size.|P value from a log rank test comparing the progression free survival hazards of arm III to arm I.||1.15|0.86|0.587
84541752|NCT01526057|168835341|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time (AUC 0-inf) are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|115.21|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.21|96.91|
84541753|NCT01526057|168835341|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|106.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|116.41|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||116.41|97.65|
84541754|NCT01526057|168835341|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.38|110.2|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||110.20|92.38|
84541755|NCT01526057|168835342|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|104.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|117.06||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||117.06|92.75|
84541756|NCT01526057|168835342|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|113.11||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.11|89.20|
84541757|NCT01526057|168835342|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.57|108.6||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||108.60|85.57|
84541758|NCT01526057|168835343|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|113.12|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.12|95.10|
84541759|NCT01526057|168835343|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.64|115.3|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.30|96.64|
84541760|NCT01526057|168835343|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.18|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data.||111.18|93.13|
84541761|NCT01526057|168835344|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.81|115.12||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.12|92.81|
84541762|NCT01526057|168835344|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|113.04||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.04|90.82|
84541763|NCT01526057|168835344|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.83|109.4||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||109.40|87.83|
84541764|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.78|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.78|0.31|
84726822|NCT02009865|169205541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Main analysis with missing values imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-11.5|-40.5|0.0008
84541765|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.88|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.88|0.60|
84541766|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.73|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.73|0.66|
84541767|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.56|0.73|
84541768|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.62|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.62|0.68|
84541769|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.69|0.66|
84541770|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.00|0.70|
84541771|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.73|0.28|
84726823|NCT02009865|169205542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-2.8||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-14.8|0.0180
84541772|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.54|0.43|
84541773|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.42|0.49|
84541774|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.22|0.50|
84541775|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.44|0.57|
84541776|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.1|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.10|0.88|
84664838|NCT00268996|169063268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|1.986||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.807|20.673|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||20.673|-13.807|0.818
84479150|NCT05109702|168709472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.288|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.288|-0.300|0.969
84541777|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.18|0.78|
84541778|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.45|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||2.45|0.36|
84541779|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||1.44|0.41|
84541780|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.31|0.47|
84541781|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.13|0.48|
84541782|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.36|0.55|
84541783|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||1.95|0.85|
84541784|NCT01526057|168835363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.73|0.70|
84541785|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.79|0.12|
84541786|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.26|0.20|
84541787|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.41|0.43|
84541788|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.74|0.61|
84541789|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.74|0.56|
84541790|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.36|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.36|0.34|
84541791|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.63|0.46|
84541792|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.6|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||2.60|0.27|
84541793|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.62|0.31|
84541794|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.40|0.41|
84541795|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.57|0.51|
84541796|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.68|0.51|
84541797|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.19|0.68|
84541798|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.62|0.44|
84541799|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|7.2|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||7.20|0.44|
84541800|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.86|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||3.86|0.52|
84541801|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.87|0.51|
84541802|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.50|0.50|
84541803|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.69|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.69|0.52|
84541804|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||3.50|0.93|
84541805|NCT01526057|168835364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.89|0.51|
84541806|NCT01875978|168835373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value \<0.05 is significance meaningful.|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols improve metabolic status||||<0.05
84726824|NCT02009865|169205543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.9||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||4.9|-3.5|0.7117
84726825|NCT02009865|169205544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.5||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||3.5|-23.9|0.3034
84726826|NCT04198428|169205575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
84541807|NCT01875978|168835374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols increase the anti-oxidative capacity.||||<0.05
84541808|NCT01875978|168835375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Phytosterols increase IGF-1||||<0.05
84541809|NCT01875978|168835376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis:phytosterols increase endothelial progenitor cells to provide endothelial repair and vessel protection||||<0.05
84541810|NCT05724589|168835399|SUPERIORITY|A repeated measures ANOVA was selected to analyze changes in skin hydration across four time points within the same participants..|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.671||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects the overall test for difference in hydration over time and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The pre-defined threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|No additional adjustments were applied. Degrees of freedom and sphericity assumptions were checked.|The mean difference was calculated based on changes in skin hydration from baseline to Week 16 using repeated measures ANOVA, in accordance with the pre-specified statistical analysis plan.|Skin hydration was evaluated longitudinally using repeated measures ANOVA at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. This pre-specified statistical test assessed within-subject changes over time to determine the efficacy of the serum.|The overall p-value corresponds to the repeated measures ANOVA evaluating changes over four time points. No multiplicity adjustments were applied.|||1.000
84541811|NCT05724589|168835400|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis in this study to assess changes in Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) after serum application involved a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This approach allows for the examination of differences in TEWL across multiple time points (baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks) within the same individuals. The use of repeated measures ANOVA accounts for the correlated nature of the data, as multiple measurements are obtained from each participant over time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.656||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess changes in hydration over time. The mean difference between baseline and 16 weeks was -3.656 (arbitrary units). Results are presented in the corresponding outcome measure table.|ANOVA|||||||0.096
84726827|NCT04198428|169205576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
84726828|NCT04198428|169205577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
84726829|NCT04198428|169205578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
84726830|NCT04198428|169205579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
84541812|NCT05724589|168835401|SUPERIORITY|The chosen test was designed to assess whether application of the intervention resulted in any statistically significant differences over time in the primary outcome measure, assuming superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|||||The pre-specified significance threshold was set at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied.|ANOVA|Sphericity tested; Greenhouse-Geisser applied if needed. Repeated measures ANOVA accounted for within-subject correlations.|The estimation parameter reflects the change in the R2 elasticity measure from baseline to 16 weeks. The direction of change is based on the final minus baseline value, with baseline serving as the reference point.|The statistical analysis utilized repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate changes in facial skin elasticity (R2 parameter) across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants. This approach accounts for the correlation of repeated measures over time.||||0.169
84541813|NCT05724589|168835402|SUPERIORITY|This study aimed to evaluate changes in wrinkle scores using a 4-grade percentage wrinkle improvement scale across different time points, including baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The Mean Difference represents the change in wrinkle scores from baseline (Day 0) to follow-up at Week 8, Week 12, or Week 16. For example, a Mean Difference of 1.0 indicates a 1-point improvement from baseline to Week 16 (Week 16 - baseline score).|||||1.000
84541814|NCT05724589|168835403|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to detect any change in facial melanin levels due to the intervention.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.458||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value indicates no statistically significant change in facial melanin index over time. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was pre-specified at p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|Sphericity assumptions were checked and addressed as needed (e.g., Greenhouse-Geisser correction).|The estimation parameter reflects the mean change in melanin index from baseline to week 16. Baseline was used as the reference point in the analysis.|The statistical analysis assessed changes in facial melanin index after serum application using repeated measures ANOVA. This method evaluated differences across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants, accounting for the correlated nature of repeated measures.||||1.000
84541815|NCT05724589|168835404|SUPERIORITY|A descriptive analysis was performed. No hypothesis testing or power calculation was conducted for this outcome.|percentage of participants at week 16|44.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects descriptive analysis of SGAIS improvement scores; no statistical testing for significance was conducted.|Descriptive|The evaluation involved categorical SGAIS ratings assigned by two independent dermatologists.|This estimate reflects the proportion of participants rated as showing mild improvement on the SGAIS at Week 16, as detailed in the tabular data.|Improvement in facial appearance was assessed using the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (SGAIS), rated independently by two board-certified dermatologists at multiple time points (8, 12, and 16 weeks).||||1.000
84541816|NCT05724589|168835405|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive summary statistics were used to report satisfaction at multiple time points. No inferential testing was performed.|percentage of participants at week 16|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed.|The estimated percentage reflects participants who reported a satisfaction score of 2 or 3 at week 16.|"Satisfaction was assessed at weeks 8, 12, and 16 using a quartile scale:~0 = Unsatisfied, 1 = Slightly satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Very satisfied. One participant was lost to follow-up after week 12."||||
84541817|NCT05724589|168835406|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive safety analysis. No inferential hypothesis testing was conducted.|Percentage adverse events by week 16|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical test was conducted.|Descriptive summaries of adverse event incidence are reported in the results tables.|The analysis population includes 28 participants. One subject was lost to follow-up at week 12. Adverse events were assessed through video calls at weeks 2 and 4, and in-person visits at 2, 3, and 4 months.||||
84541818|NCT03051672|168835460|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.||||The study uses a Simon 2-stage design. In stage 1, if \>/=1 of 8 achieved OR then continue to stage 2 (enroll 19 more). If \>/= 3 of 27 respond, the regimen would be considered promising. The null ORR\<= 3% and alternative ORR\>/=20%. With this design, the probability of stopping the trial early is 58% if the true ORR is 3%. This design at 80% power to declare the combination effective, while controlling for less than 5% 1-sided type I error under the null hypothesis.|The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.|||
84541819|NCT01328184|168835464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.58|108.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||108.35|97.58|
84541820|NCT01328184|168835465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|105.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.47|98.54|
84726831|NCT04198428|169205580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
84541821|NCT01328184|168835466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|105.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.39|93.40|
84541822|NCT01328184|168835467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.47|112.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||112.55|99.47|
84726832|NCT04198428|169205581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1068.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index costs in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
84726833|NCT04198428|169205582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84541823|NCT02360215|168835492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Gray's test|||Null hypothesis: the addition of HA-WBRT as compared to WBRT will increase time to neurocognitive failure from 53.8% in the WBRT arm to 42.8% in the HA-WBRT arm at 6 months. Treating death as a competing risk and using a Gray's test with two-sided α=0.05 to test for statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times, it was calculated that 230 events over both arms would provide 90% statistical power.||0.96|0.59|0.029
84541824|NCT02360215|168835493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0586
84541825|NCT02360215|168835493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\>61 year vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0048
84541826|NCT02360215|168835493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Total Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541827|NCT02360215|168835494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2656
84541828|NCT02360215|168835494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0067
84541829|NCT02360215|168835494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541830|NCT02360215|168835495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0993
84541831|NCT02360215|168835495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541832|NCT02360215|168835495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recognition is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541833|NCT02360215|168835496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.5988
84541834|NCT02360215|168835496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0005
84541835|NCT02360215|168835496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part A is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541836|NCT02360215|168835497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9226|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9226
84541837|NCT02360215|168835497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0024
84541838|NCT02360215|168835497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part B is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541839|NCT02360215|168835498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline COWA is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541840|NCT02360215|168835498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9749
84541841|NCT02360215|168835498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here. is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541842|NCT02360215|168835499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2552
84541843|NCT02360215|168835499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541844|NCT02360215|168835499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline composite score is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541845|NCT02360215|168835500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.57
84664839|NCT00268996|169063269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-0.252||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.151|21.561|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||21.561|-18.151|0.980
84726834|NCT04198428|169205583|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
84726835|NCT04396860|169205584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank|Reference level = Arm 1|For the phase II endpoint, observation of 100 PFS events among the 150 randomized patients (from both arms) provides 95% statistical power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 5.7 months in the control arm to 9.7 months in the experimental arm, corresponding to a hazard reduction of 42% (hazard ratio 0.58) at one-sided significance level of 0.15 (and 87% power for hazard ratio of 0.65 at this same alpha).||2.21|0.98|0.96
84541846|NCT02360215|168835500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Severity score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline symptom severity is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541847|NCT02360215|168835500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A two-sample t-test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05 provides \>90% statistical power to detect a medium effect size of 0.5 for a comparison of the change from baseline to 6 months from the start of treatment. The comparison at six months was tested within a mixed effects model with covariates age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection, baseline score, treatment arm, and time was used.||||0.083
84541848|NCT02360215|168835501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9118
84541849|NCT02360215|168835501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline interference score is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541850|NCT02360215|168835502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1964|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.1964
84541851|NCT02360215|168835502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline cognitive factor score is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541852|NCT02360215|168835502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Prior radiotherapy (yes vs. no) is reported here.||||0.0032
84541853|NCT02360215|168835503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.8877
84541854|NCT02360215|168835503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline neurologic factor is reported here.||||<0.0001
84541855|NCT02360215|168835503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0078
84541856|NCT02360215|168835504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84541857|NCT02360215|168835506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84541858|NCT02360215|168835507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84541859|NCT02360215|168835508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84541860|NCT02360215|168835509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84541861|NCT02360215|168835510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84541862|NCT02360215|168835511|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84541863|NCT02360215|168835512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantine|||1.47|0.98|0.076
84541864|NCT02360215|168835513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantin|||1.43|0.91|0.242
84541865|NCT02360215|168835514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Two-sided p-value = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84541866|NCT05411991|168835526|SUPERIORITY||Net treatment benefit|10.5||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9|||General pairwaise comparison|||||31.9|-11.9|0.357
84541867|NCT05016960|168835540|OTHER|one group paired samples t test to compare scores at pre vs. post treatment||||||0.503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.503
84541868|NCT05016960|168835541|NON_INFERIORITY|one group paired samples t test||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.230
84541869|NCT05016960|168835542|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.061
84541870|NCT05016960|168835543|OTHER|one group paired samples t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84541871|NCT05016960|168835544|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84541872|NCT05016960|168835545|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.625
84541873|NCT05016960|168835546|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
84541874|NCT05016960|168835547|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.515
84541875|NCT05016960|168835548|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.410
84541876|NCT05016960|168835549|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.706
84541877|NCT05016960|168835550|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
84541878|NCT05016960|168835551|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.390
84541879|NCT05016960|168835552|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
84541880|NCT05016960|168835553|OTHER|One group paired samples t test||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
84541881|NCT02218463|168835563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessment of complete resolution between the 2 study arms.||||0.206
84541882|NCT02218463|168835564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Time Effect||||0.0001
84541883|NCT02218463|168835564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment Effect||||0.370
84541884|NCT02218463|168835564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment by time interaction||||0.425
84541885|NCT02059512|168835576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.24
84541886|NCT02059512|168835577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of hospital stay.||||0.1
84541887|NCT02059512|168835577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of stay in the intensive care unit.||||0.1
84541888|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4
84541889|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 0-6 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.8
84541890|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 12-18 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.9
84541891|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 18-24 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.2
84541892|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 48 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.5
84541893|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 72 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.4
84541894|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 96 hours of the postoperative period/||||0.6
84541895|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 7 days of the postoperative period.||||0.4
84541896|NCT02059512|168835578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 14 days of the postoperative period.||||0.5
84541897|NCT02059512|168835579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP initially.||||0.1
84541898|NCT02059512|168835579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 4-6 days.||||0.4
84541899|NCT02059512|168835579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 12-14 days.||||0.99
84541900|NCT02059512|168835580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the first day after surgery.||||0.2
84541901|NCT02059512|168835580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the second day after the operation.||||0.3
84541902|NCT02059512|168835581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 1.||||0.6
84541903|NCT02059512|168835581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 3.||||0.4
84541904|NCT02059512|168835581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 1.||||0.8
84541905|NCT02059512|168835581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 3.||||0.7
84541906|NCT02059512|168835582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 1.||||0.7
84541907|NCT02059512|168835582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 3.||||0.8
84541908|NCT02059512|168835583|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB).||||1.0
84541909|NCT02059512|168835583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb at the end of the operation.||||0.4
84541910|NCT02059512|168835584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.8
84541911|NCT02059512|168835584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT at the end of the operation.||||0.3
84541912|NCT02059512|168835585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.4
84541913|NCT02059512|168835585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ at the end of the operation.||||0.1
84541914|NCT02059512|168835586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
84541915|NCT02059512|168835587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
84541916|NCT02059512|168835588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydrothorax / postoperative period.||||0.6
84541917|NCT02059512|168835588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydropericardium / postoperative period.||||0.2
84541918|NCT02059512|168835588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Resternotomy / postoperative period.||||0.6
84541919|NCT02059512|168835588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial fibrillation / postoperative period.||||0.06
84541920|NCT02059512|168835588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial flutter / postoperative period.||||0.06
84541921|NCT02059512|168835589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.4
84541922|NCT02059512|168835590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic size index.||||0.5
84541923|NCT02059512|168835590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.5
84541924|NCT02059512|168835590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - Left Atrial Size Index Assessment.||||0.6
84541925|NCT02059512|168835591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.4
84541926|NCT02059512|168835591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESV MOD BP ind.)||||0.3
84541927|NCT02059512|168835592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84541928|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Physical Functioning SF-36. Comparison of patients of group 1 and group 2 with the control group - group 0.||||0.7
84726836|NCT01838499|169205618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.051|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.067|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||MEDI8968 - placebo|Analysis of proportion of Responders for Physician's Global Assessment (PGA score 0, 1 or 2) at Week 12 - LOCF. Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.169|-0.067|>0.05
84541929|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role-Physical Functioning SF-36||||0.8
84541930|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Bodily pain SF-36||||0.7
84541931|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||General Health SF-36.||||0.6
84541932|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Vitality SF-36.||||0.8
84602633|NCT04270682|168956238|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed urine 23S-pentol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.794|-2.331|||paired t-test|||||-2.331|-3.794|<0.0001
84541933|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Social Functioning SF-36.||||0.7
84541934|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role- Emotional SF-36.||||0.7
84541935|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Mental Health SF-36.||||0.96
84541936|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Minnesota Quality of Life (MHFLQ).||||0.7
84541937|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Seattle QuestionnairePhysical limitation.||||0.6
84541938|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina stability.||||0.4
84541939|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina frequency.||||0.6
84541940|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireTreatment satisfaction.||||0.7
84541941|NCT02059512|168835594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaire Disease perception.||||0.3
84541942|NCT02059512|168835595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84541943|NCT02059512|168835596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84541944|NCT02059512|168835597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.35
84541945|NCT02059512|168835598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA) - left ventricular end-diastolic size index. All patients included in the study.||||0.2
84541946|NCT02059512|168835598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.2
84541947|NCT02059512|168835598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - left atrial index.||||0.5
84541948|NCT02059512|168835599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.6
84541949|NCT02059512|168835599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVESV MOD BP ind. (LVESV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic volume index.||||0.2
84541950|NCT02059512|168835600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow||||0.35
84541951|NCT02059512|168835600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak A of transmitral flow.||||0.7
84541952|NCT02059512|168835601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow/ Peak A of transmitral flow (E/A).||||0.5
84541953|NCT02059512|168835602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||DT (Half-time of wave E).||||0.9
84541954|NCT02059512|168835602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||time of isovolumic relaxation of the left ventricle||||0.9
84541955|NCT02059512|168835603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0367
84541956|NCT02059512|168835604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Assessment of the functioning of grafts. Patency of grafts within a specified time of treatment (angiography).||||0.04
84541957|NCT02059512|168835605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84541958|NCT02059512|168835606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||||||0.05
84541959|NCT02059512|168835607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||Mononuclear fraction %||||0.05
84541960|NCT02059512|168835607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||CD34+ %||||0.057
84541961|NCT02059512|168835607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||CD133+ %||||0.05
84541962|NCT02059512|168835608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Factor analysis|||Factor analysis - determining the influence of a factor, in this case, smoking, on the deficit in the number of meters passed according to the test with a 6-minute walk.||||0.046
84541963|NCT05201794|168835609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.3|||=|0.1409|ONE_SIDED|80.0|15.2|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for proof-of-concept (PoC) when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||15.2|=0.1409
84541964|NCT05201794|168835609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.2|||=|0.1418|ONE_SIDED|80.0|14.9|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||14.9|=0.1418
84541965|NCT05201794|168835610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.8|||=|0.0192|ONE_SIDED|80.0|58.1|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||58.1|=0.0192
84541966|NCT05201794|168835610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.9|||=|0.1131|ONE_SIDED|80.0|20.0|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||20|=0.1131
84541967|NCT05201794|168835611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.4|||=|0.0302|ONE_SIDED|80.0|62.6|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||62.6|=0.0302
84541968|NCT05201794|168835611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.5|||=|0.2239|ONE_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||-6.3|=0.2239
84541969|NCT03848715|168835618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.16
84541970|NCT04653454|168835631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
84541971|NCT04653454|168835631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84541972|NCT04653454|168835632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
84541973|NCT04653454|168835632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84541974|NCT04653454|168835634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>180 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
84541975|NCT04653454|168835634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>250 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84541976|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Creatinine|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84541977|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||139GFR|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0002
84541978|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Bicarbonate|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.22
84541979|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Hemoglobin|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.48
84541980|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||MAP|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.77
84541981|NCT04653454|168835635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516||||||SpO2|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0516
84541982|NCT01111318|168835646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.89|153.36|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||153.36|98.89|
84541983|NCT01111318|168835646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|146.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.02|183.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||183.02|118.02|
84541984|NCT01111318|168835646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|174.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.29|217.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||217.55|140.29|
84541985|NCT01111318|168835647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|103.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|130.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||130.95|82.29|
84541986|NCT01111318|168835647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.74|155.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||155.55|97.74|
84541987|NCT01111318|168835647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|148.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|187.23|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||187.23|117.65|
84541988|NCT01866826|168835660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84541989|NCT01866826|168835661|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||We calculated the proportion of pts with elevated viral levels \>50 copies/ml at each phase of the study.|We estimated that four of the seven patients would have an elevation in viral Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) level \>50 copies/ml.|||
84541990|NCT01866826|168835663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the Wilcoxon test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control and Rifaximin groups.||||
84541991|NCT01866826|168835663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon|||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing the activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the T-test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control group and Rifaximin groups.||||0.54
84541992|NCT02493660|168835665|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints. The primary analysis method was a multilinear regression model for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), gender, and treatment as the model covariates for the PP population for noninferiority testing.||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Logistic|Primary analysis method was for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), sex, and treatment as the model covariates.||||||0.0049
84541993|NCT02493660|168835668|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results from logistic regression model.||||<0.05
84541994|NCT01050530|168835695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.93|-2.08|<0.0001
84541995|NCT01050530|168835696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-300.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.2|-75.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-75.1|-526.2|0.0093
84541996|NCT00725491|168835717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Whitehead|||||||<0.001
84541997|NCT02321111|168835719|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84726837|NCT01838499|169205619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.065|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.205|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.076|-0.205|>0.05
84541998|NCT02200055|168835794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This measurement was collected for each participant. A pre-operative and post-operative bioimpedance measurement was taken.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84541999|NCT00776035|168835800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial blood flow, men versus women||||<0.005
84542000|NCT00776035|168835801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial fatty acid utilization, men versus women||||<0.05
84542001|NCT01015534|168835827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.9||The sample size was calculated with a two-sided test,a type-I error probability of 0.05 and a power of 0.80,Twenty- eight patients in each treatment arm were required to detect a difference in ORR of 0.29|Chi-squared|||||12.9|1.3|0.019
84542002|NCT01015534|168835828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|3.422|||Fisher Exact|||||3.422|.138|.704
84542003|NCT01015534|168835829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
84542004|NCT04870710|168835831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman||||Non-parametric tests were used consisting of Friedman and Durbin Conover tests|||0.10
84542005|NCT02189837|168835891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|88.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.67||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.73|161.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||161.80|15.73|0.018
84542006|NCT02189837|168835891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|236.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.02|308.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||308.69|164.02|<0.001
84542007|NCT02189837|168835891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|147.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|250.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||250.38|44.80|0.005
84542008|NCT02189837|168835892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|-65.91|-48.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-48.38|-65.91|<0.001
84542009|NCT02189837|168835892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-29.34|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-29.34|-46.55|<0.001
84542010|NCT02189837|168835892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|31.47|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||31.47|6.93|0.003
84542011|NCT02189837|168835893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.37|4.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||4.08|-37.37|0.11
84542012|NCT02189837|168835893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-12.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-12.13|-53.19|0.002
84542013|NCT02189837|168835893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|13.16|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||13.16|-45.18|0.28
84542014|NCT02189837|168835894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|24.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|-28.94|0.87
84542015|NCT02189837|168835894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|39.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.52|64.59|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||64.59|13.52|0.003
84542016|NCT02189837|168835894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|41.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|78.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||78.20|4.15|0.030
84542017|NCT02189837|168835895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-16.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-16.21|-62.66|0.001
84542018|NCT02189837|168835895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|45.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||45.40|1.16|0.039
84542019|NCT02189837|168835895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|62.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.65|94.79|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||94.79|30.65|<0.001
84542020|NCT00619060|168835903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Binomial|||||||0.01
84542021|NCT00683657|168835917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.5||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pre treatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin.|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-8.5|-25.1|0.0001
84726838|NCT01838499|169205620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline (at week 12)|-0.03||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|0.57|||ANCOVA||MEDI8968 - Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline (Week 12) estimated from ANCOVA model with tmt group and PGA stratum at randomisation included in the model and average daily pain at baseline as a covariate||0.57|-0.63|0.945
84542022|NCT00683657|168835918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-16.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-16.1|-44.4|<0.0001
84542023|NCT00683657|168835919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-14.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-14.7|-56.2|0.0010
84542024|NCT00683657|168835920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-10.3||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-10.3|-27.1|<0.0001
84542025|NCT00683657|168835921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.4||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-7.4|-23.3|0.0002
84542026|NCT02085447|168835932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.012
84542027|NCT02085447|168835933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.028
84542028|NCT02085447|168835934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.162
84542029|NCT02085447|168835935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.021
84542030|NCT02085447|168835936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.005
84542031|NCT02085447|168835937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84542032|NCT02085447|168835938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.197
84542033|NCT02085447|168835939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84542034|NCT02085447|168835940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84542035|NCT02085447|168835941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84542036|NCT02085447|168835942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.053
84542037|NCT02085447|168835943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84542038|NCT02085447|168835944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.821
84542039|NCT02085447|168835945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
84542040|NCT02085447|168835946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.425
84542041|NCT02085447|168835947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.577
84542042|NCT02085447|168835948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
84542043|NCT02085447|168835949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.706
84542044|NCT02085447|168835950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.481
84542045|NCT02085447|168835951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.020
84542046|NCT02085447|168835952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.103
84542047|NCT02085447|168835953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.063
84542048|NCT01112059|168836033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.633|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.633|0.128|<0.05
84542049|NCT02575833|168836043|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was -90 seconds.|Treatment Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|22.9||||||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model with terms for treatment group and randomization strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes). If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in change from baseline in exercise duration was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, then the hypothesis that erenumab does not decrease exercise duration would be supported.||22.9|-44.9|
84542050|NCT02575833|168836044|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|1.55||||0.69|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.69
84542051|NCT02575833|168836044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.73|0.69
84542052|NCT02575833|168836044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.26|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.26|0.52|0.44
84542053|NCT02575833|168836044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.28|0.52|0.47
84542054|NCT02575833|168836045|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|2.2||||0.59|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.59
84542055|NCT02575833|168836045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.76|0.59
84542056|NCT02575833|168836045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.60|0.73|0.75
84542057|NCT02575833|168836045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.87|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.87|0.82|0.39
84542058|NCT00967330|168836074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84542059|NCT00967330|168836075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.588||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.817|||Chi-squared|||||0.817|0.423|0.0012
84542060|NCT00967330|168836076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.354|||Chi-squared|||||1.354|0.684|0.8283
84542061|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.06||||0.34745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.14|-0.02|0.34745
84542062|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.09||||0.17923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.17|0.00|0.17923
84542063|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at Month 6.||0.08|-0.08|1.00000
84542064|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.38|0.12|0.00210
84542065|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1||||0.18761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR and PR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.23|-0.02|0.18761
84542066|NCT00967330|168836078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.05||||0.38974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at Month 6.||0.07|-0.18|0.38974
84542067|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.1002||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9855|8.186|||ANOVA|||Physical Functioning. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||8.1860|-3.9855|0.4975
84726839|NCT00168805|169205631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.3||||0.6648||95.0|-7.3|4.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.6|-7.3|0.6648
84496873|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
84542068|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4704||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9358|7.9951|||ANOVA|||Role Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||7.9951|-10.9358|0.7600
84542069|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02278||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.035|6.9895|||ANOVA|||Emotional Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9895|-7.0350|0.9949
84542070|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8213||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.155|5.5125|||ANOVA|||Cognitive Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.5125|-9.1550|0.6253
84542071|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6126||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2953|10.5205|||ANOVA|||Social Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||10.5205|-7.2953|0.7219
84542072|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4989||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4046|9.4023|||ANOVA|||Global Health Status /QoL. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||9.4023|-2.4046|0.2443
84542073|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3449||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0739|3.3841|||ANOVA|||Fatigue. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.3841|-10.0739|0.3287
84542074|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.196||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3635|-0.0285|||ANOVA|||Nausea/Vomiting. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.02850|-8.3635|0.0485
84542075|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.095||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5629|-0.6271|||ANOVA|||Pain. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.6271|-17.5629|0.0354
84542076|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2088||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2784|3.8608|||ANOVA|||Dyspnoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8608|-10.2784|0.3724
84542077|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.876||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9002|4.1482|||ANOVA|||Insomnia. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||4.1482|-13.9002|0.2884
84542078|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.782||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3926|3.8282|||ANOVA|||Appetite loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8282|-9.3926|0.4081
84542079|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9375||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0245|3.1495|||ANOVA|||Constipation. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.1495|-11.0245|0.2750
84542080|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1685||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4129|-0.9241|||ANOVA|||Diarrhoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.9241|-11.4129|0.0213
84542081|NCT00967330|168836080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7295||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0727|5.6137|||ANOVA|||Financial Problems. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.6137|-11.0727|0.5201
84542082|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2699||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2983|3.7585|||ANOVA|||Future uncertainty. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7585|-10.2983|0.3613
84542083|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1159||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4654|3.2336|||ANOVA|||Visual disorder. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.2336|-5.4654|0.6146
84542084|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1014||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2449|6.4477|||ANOVA|||Motor dysfunction. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.4477|-4.2449|0.6860
84542085|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1009||||0.9706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.468|5.2663|||ANOVA|||Communication deficit. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.2663|-5.4680|0.9706
84542086|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3294||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.855|-1.8037|||ANOVA|||Headaches. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-1.8037|-14.8550|0.0124
84542087|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0054||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7654|2.7545|||ANOVA|||Seizures. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||2.7545|-4.7654|0.5997
84542088|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4399||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6002|3.7204|||ANOVA|||Drowsiness. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7204|-10.6002|0.3458
84542089|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5908||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2279|3.0464|||ANOVA|||Hair loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.0464|-12.2279|0.2383
84542090|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9807||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0373|6.9988|||ANOVA|||Itchy skin. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9988|-5.0373|0.7491
84542091|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0341||||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1508|6.0827|||ANOVA|||Weakness of legs. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.0827|-8.1508|0.7755
84542092|NCT00967330|168836081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.469||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1211|5.0591|||ANOVA|||Bladder control. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.0591|-4.1211|0.8410
84542093|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1933||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.02438|||ANOVA|||Orientation to time and place. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.02438|-0.4110|0.0817
84542094|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02955||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06234|0.003241|||ANOVA|||Immediate recall. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.003241|-0.06234|0.0773
84542095|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1429||||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.3924|||ANOVA|||Repetitions required. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3924|-0.1065|0.2608
84542096|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.003262||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3092|0.3158|||ANOVA|||Calculations. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3158|-0.3092|0.9836
84542097|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03782||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2071|0.1315|||ANOVA|||Short-term verbal memory. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1315|-0.2071|0.6610
84542098|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08037||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2875|0.1268|||ANOVA|||Language and construct ability. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1268|-0.2875|0.4464
84542099|NCT00967330|168836082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3128||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1658|0.5402|||ANOVA|||Total score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.5402|-1.1658|0.4717
84542100|NCT00967330|168836083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.151||||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4983|1.1963|||ANOVA|||KPS score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||1.1963|-5.4983|0.2078
84542101|NCT00610428|168836094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||0.0840
84542102|NCT00610428|168836094|SUPERIORITY|Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||||0.0383||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||||||0.0383
84542103|NCT04871776|168836101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||How vs Usual Care|We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.14|0.67|
84542104|NCT04871776|168836101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.28|0.81|
84542105|NCT04871776|168836101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.51||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.51|0.96|
84542106|NCT04871776|168836102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.01|0.67|
84542107|NCT04871776|168836102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.23|0.87|
84542108|NCT04871776|168836102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.49||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.49|1.06|
84542109|NCT01958437|168836114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for cognitively intact groups||||.048
84542110|NCT01958437|168836114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for MCI group||||.063
84542111|NCT01958437|168836115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of stimulation covarying session order||Change between active and sham tDCS sessions for allocentric blocks||||.27
84542112|NCT01958437|168836115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84542113|NCT01958437|168836116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||<.001
84542114|NCT01958437|168836116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||.046
84542115|NCT01958437|168836117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA (covarying stimulation order)||||.497
84542116|NCT01958437|168836117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.599
84542117|NCT04620746|168836123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.98
84542118|NCT04620746|168836124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84542119|NCT03535740|168836149|OTHER|||||||0.0763||||||P-value was based on the comparison of the confirm ORR among the 90/180mg group against a fixed response rate of 20%.|Exact Binomial Test|The calculation was based on an exact binomial test with a total 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 at primary analysis.||||||0.0763
84542120|NCT03135015|168836194|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-14.09||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.1146
84542121|NCT03135015|168836194|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-17.42||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0519
84542122|NCT03135015|168836194|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||
84542123|NCT03135015|168836195|OTHER|||||||0.1146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.1146
84542124|NCT03135015|168836195|OTHER|||||||0.0519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.0519
84542125|NCT03135015|168836196|OTHER|||||||0.5827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
84542126|NCT03135015|168836196|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
84542127|NCT03135015|168836197|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.53||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
84542128|NCT03135015|168836197|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|9.32||||0.5485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
84542129|NCT03135015|168836198|OTHER|||||||0.1234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1234
84542130|NCT03135015|168836198|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0331
84542131|NCT03135015|168836199|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0500
84542132|NCT03135015|168836199|OTHER|||||||0.0568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0568
84542133|NCT03135015|168836200|OTHER|||||||0.0509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0509
84542134|NCT03135015|168836200|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5016
84542135|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8444
84542136|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER|||||||0.9681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9681
84542137|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1022
84542138|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER|||||||0.3738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.3738
84542139|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542140|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542141|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.463|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542142|NCT03135015|168836201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.282|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542143|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0111
84542144|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER|||||||0.1684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1684
84542145|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.722|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542146|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.489|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542147|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.664|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542148|NCT03135015|168836202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.813|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
84542149|NCT03135015|168836203|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-21.09||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0374
84542150|NCT03135015|168836204|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-24.22||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0098
84542151|NCT03135015|168836204|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-25.02||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0391
84542152|NCT03135015|168836205|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.28||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0034
84542153|NCT03135015|168836205|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-33.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0058
84542154|NCT03135015|168836205|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-53.27||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0016
84542155|NCT03135015|168836205|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.19||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0125
84542156|NCT03135015|168836206|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-31.36||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0788
84542157|NCT03135015|168836206|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-30.32||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0887
84542158|NCT03135015|168836206|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-39.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0266
84542159|NCT03135015|168836206|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0455
84542160|NCT03135015|168836207|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.82||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0261
84542161|NCT03135015|168836207|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0391
84542162|NCT03135015|168836207|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-82.11||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0372
84542163|NCT03135015|168836207|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-55.81||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.1631
84726840|NCT00168805|169205631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.3553||95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.7|-3.1|0.3553
84496874|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
84542164|NCT03135015|168836208|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.43||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0303
84542165|NCT03135015|168836208|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-19.64||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.4283
84542166|NCT03123068|168836234|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||>0.05
84542167|NCT04782076|168836238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)||||1.55|1.33|
84542168|NCT04782076|168836239|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|1.30|
84542169|NCT07034820|168836246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.0||A priori statistical significance threshold for the primary endpoint was set at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied to the primary outcome analysis, as it was the sole primary endpoint.|Chi-squared||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the absolute difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between the Nimsai Herbal Group and the Placebo Group. Calculation: Nimsai Herbal (78%) - Placebo (22%) = 56%.|Powered for 56% difference (80% power, alpha=0.05) to detect the anticipated difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between groups. The sample size of N=300 (150 participants per arm) was calculated based on an expected regression rate of 22% in the placebo group and 78% in the Nimsai Herbal group. This ensured sufficient statistical power for the primary efficacy analysis.||64|48|<0.001
84542170|NCT03787134|168836306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||cued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.335
84542171|NCT03787134|168836306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||uncued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.016
84542172|NCT03281876|168836322|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group. The objective is to be considered a success if the lower limit of the 87% CI is above 0%.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|87.0|-18.27|11.58|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||11.58|-18.27|0.8157
84542173|NCT03281876|168836323|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|15.29|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||15.29|-23.45|0.8157
84542174|NCT03281876|168836330|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the control group.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-2.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.19|||Negative Binomial regression|||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of AECOPDs of any severity- upto 12 months follow up period||14.19|-22.95|0.7700
84542175|NCT03281876|168836332|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.166|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.166|0.758|0.5751
84542176|NCT03281876|168836333|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.934||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.15|0.758|0.5194
84542177|NCT03281876|168836334|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.791|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.791|0.616|0.8581
84542178|NCT03281876|168836334|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.249|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.249|0.792|0.9634
84542179|NCT03281876|168836334|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.722||||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.157|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.157|0.45|0.1755
84542180|NCT03281876|168836341|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.477|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.477|0.73|0.9463
84542181|NCT03281876|168836342|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.528|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.528|0.782|0.6042
84479151|NCT05109702|168709472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.194|0.504
84542182|NCT03281876|168836343|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.243||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|5.504|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||5.504|0.914|0.0777
84542183|NCT03281876|168836343|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.467|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.467|0.71|0.9121
84542184|NCT03281876|168836343|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|4.502|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||4.502|0.278|0.8737
84542185|NCT02208089|168836355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = TransPRK produced no gains in vision over and above those produced by CXL only||||0.03
84542186|NCT02208089|168836356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = an equal proportion of patients in both study arms have clinically significant visual gains||||0.005
84542187|NCT02208089|168836357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority = no significant difference between rates of clinically significant visual loss between groups at the p≤0.05 level||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis = rates of clinically significant visual loss are equal for TransPRKCXL and CXL only||||0.13
84542188|NCT02443740|168836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|39.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.14|51.99|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||51.99|30.14|
84542189|NCT02443740|168836370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|108.75|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.75|59.74|
84542190|NCT02443740|168836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.92|108.94|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.94|58.92|
84542191|NCT02443740|168836376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|65.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.18|69.16|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||69.16|62.18|
84542192|NCT02443740|168836377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.27|74.41|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||74.41|63.27|
84542193|NCT02443740|168836378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.17|36.64|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||36.64|24.17|
84542194|NCT02443740|168836380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.35|18.18|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||18.18|15.35|
84542195|NCT02443740|168836382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.29|17.42|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||17.42|13.29|
84542196|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||"Day 1, 30 min post dose.~SpO2/FiO2 and FiO2 (%) over the first 24 hours: analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, investigational site and gestational age (GA) group as fixed effects, and predose values as covariates. The adjusted mean difference between treatments, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and averaged over the first 24 hours were estimated by the model."||0.44|-0.40|0.930
84542197|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||0.21|-0.59|0.346
84542198|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.549
84496875|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0||||||95.0|-8.0|2.5||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (75.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.5|-8.0|
84542199|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.539
84542200|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.43|-0.21|0.491
84542201|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.37|-0.22|0.623
84542202|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||0.43|-0.25|0.608
84542203|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||0.30|-0.35|0.869
84542204|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||0.31|-0.38|0.833
84542205|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||0.29|-0.39|0.772
84542206|NCT02452476|168836385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||0.35|-0.33|0.963
84542207|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.99|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 30 min post dose||3.99|-7.87|0.519
84542208|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.93|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||6.93|-2.04|0.282
84542209|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.86|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||4.86|-4.04|0.854
84542210|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||4.19|-5.00|0.861
84542211|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.70|-6.24|0.117
84542212|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.94|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.94|-4.79|0.185
84542213|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.8|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||3.80|-5.82|0.678
84542214|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||3.67|-3.49|0.961
84542215|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||3.46|-6.53|0.544
84542216|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||6.76|-3.28|0.492
84542217|NCT02452476|168836386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||6.36|-3.90|0.634
84542218|NCT02452476|168836387|SUPERIORITY|Mortality or BPD incidence at 36-week PMA was compared by treatment, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH), adjusting for stratification gestational age (GA) group. Relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval are also provided.|Relative risk|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of BPD||1.32|0.81|0.811
84542219|NCT02452476|168836387|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of Mortality/BPD||1.25|0.81|0.972
84542220|NCT02452476|168836387|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.74||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Mortality||2.42|0.23|0.619
84542221|NCT02452476|168836387|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.46||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|6.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28 PNA Mortality||6.09|0.35|0.602
84542222|NCT02452476|168836387|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.56||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14 PNA RDS-associated mortality in 14 days of life||5.29|0.06|0.606
84542223|NCT02452476|168836388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57|||Fisher Exact|||||1.57|0.30|0.409
84542224|NCT02452476|168836389|SUPERIORITY|The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose were compared by treatment group using the Fisher's exact test at 5% significance interval. Odds ratio (OR) and related exact 95% CI are also provided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose.||2.67|0.55|0.689
84542225|NCT02452476|168836390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.935
84542226|NCT01074944|168836408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Eliglustat QD treatment was declared non-inferior to BID treatment if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of -0.15 (or -15%).|Difference in Percentage Stable|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|11.9||||||||11.9|-17.7|
84542227|NCT02348112|168836453|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing a 50% or greater reduction in pad weight at 6 months were compared, and non-inferiority assessed using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) was less than 0.15.|Difference in Proportions|-0.054||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.031|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.031|-0.139|0.013
84542228|NCT02348112|168836454|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing device- and/or procedure-related serious adverse events were tabulated for each study group. Non-inferiority through 36 months was calculated using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) is greater than -0.10 in the mITT analysis population.|Difference in Proportions|0.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.048|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.048|-0.023|<0.0001
84542229|NCT03714828|168836468|OTHER||Overall Response Rate|100.0||||0.0005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||One-sample binomial test|One-sample binomial test versus null hypothesis value of 0.50.|||||76.2|0.0005
84542230|NCT03714828|168836470|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Mean|48.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84542231|NCT03714828|168836472|OTHER|Binomial proportion of TILs|Percentage|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84542232|NCT03714828|168836475|OTHER|Counts of TILs|Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84542233|NCT03714828|168836476|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84542234|NCT01998841|168836478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.13|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on random coefficient regression model (RCRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: API Composite Endpoint=Treatment \* Analysis Year + interactive voice or Web-based response system (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||1.13|-0.48|0.43
84542235|NCT01998841|168836479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.02|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FCSRT Cueing Index = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.02|-0.003|0.16
84542236|NCT01998841|168836480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.52|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Global Score.||1.52|0.41|0.48
84542237|NCT01998841|168836481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status.||1.59|0.53|0.76
84542238|NCT01998841|168836482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CDR-SB = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.64
84542239|NCT01998841|168836483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.75|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: RBANS Total Score = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.75|-0.40|0.55
84542240|NCT01998841|168836484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.0006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.0024|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: PET SUVR = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.0024|-0.0037|0.69
84542241|NCT01998841|168836485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.007|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FDG-PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.007|-0.002|0.25
84542242|NCT01998841|168836486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|107.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|290.05|||RCRM|||Whole Brain: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Whole Brain (Derived) = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||290.05|-74.5|0.25
84542243|NCT01998841|168836486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|43.94|||RCRM|||Bilateral Hippocampus: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Bilateral Hippocampus = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||43.94|-24.74|0.58
84542244|NCT01998841|168836486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|213.08||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.78|440.62|||RCRM|||Ventricles: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Ventricles = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||440.62|-400.78|0.93
84542245|NCT01998841|168836487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|4.23|||RCRM|||tTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF tTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||4.23|-8.17|0.53
84542246|NCT01998841|168836487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43|||RCRM|||pTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF pTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.43|-1.43|0.28
84542247|NCT01998841|168836495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|7522.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|313.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6903.44|8141.65|||RCRM|||Aβ1-40: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: APlasma Amyloid Beta 1-40 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||8141.65|6903.44|<0.0001
84542248|NCT01998841|168836495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|556.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|508.63|603.44|||RCRM|||Aβ1-42: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Plasma Amyloid Peptid Beta 42 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||603.44|508.63|<0.0001
84542249|NCT00972595|168836500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.03|0.93|
84542250|NCT00972595|168836501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.99||||||90.0|0.93|1.05||||||"Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom~(U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the~United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally"||1.05|0.93|
84542251|NCT01263938|168836502|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
84542252|NCT01263938|168836502|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
84542253|NCT01263938|168836502|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
84542254|NCT01263938|168836503|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
84542255|NCT01263938|168836504|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
84726841|NCT00168805|169205632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.0||||0.376||95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.2|-3.1|0.3760
84542256|NCT01263938|168836505|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
84542257|NCT04211831|168836506|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.29|||=|0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.58|||mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 24 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||0.58|-3.16|=0.1722
84542258|NCT04211831|168836506|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.24|||=|0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 48 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.|||-0.43|-4.04|=0.0159
84542259|NCT01243957|168836508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.0|||ANOVA|||||2.00|1.61|
84542260|NCT01243957|168836509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|1.79|||ANOVA|||||1.79|1.49|
84542261|NCT01243957|168836510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.5459
84542262|NCT01243957|168836511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.04|0.99|
84542263|NCT01243957|168836511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.06|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.06|1.01|
84542264|NCT01243957|168836512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684||1.03|0.97|
84542265|NCT01243957|168836512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.07|1.00|
84542266|NCT01243957|168836513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.42|-3.00|0.4230
84726842|NCT00168805|169205632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.8151||95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.6|-2.0|0.8151
84726843|NCT00168805|169205633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.4715||95.0|-2.8|1.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.3|-2.8|0.4715
84542267|NCT01243957|168836513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||-1.00|-6.50|0.0293
84542268|NCT05620082|168836553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84542269|NCT05620082|168836554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84542270|NCT05620082|168836555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84542271|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Appearance of supplements||||0.10
84542272|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Smell of supplements between groups||||0.10
84542273|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Taste of supplements||||0.08
84542274|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Sweetness of supplements||||0.70
84542275|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Texture of supplements||||0.02
84542276|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Thickness of supplements||||0.45
84542277|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Aftertaste of supplements||||0.25
84542278|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Feeling in mouth' of supplements||||0.45
84542279|NCT05620082|168836556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Future choice' of supplements||||0.06
84726844|NCT00168805|169205633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.9325||95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.3|-2.1|0.9325
84542280|NCT05620082|168836557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed a significant increase in total daily energy intake from baseline to porridge timepoints (p\<0.001).|Related samples Friedman's Two-Way ANOVA|||||||0.004
84542281|NCT00070564|168836573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|1.04|0.022
84542282|NCT00070564|168836573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.98|0.072
84542283|NCT00070564|168836573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.87|0.38
84542284|NCT00070564|168836573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84542285|NCT00070564|168836573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.61|0.733
84542286|NCT00070564|168836574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.08|0.013
84542287|NCT00070564|168836574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|1.09|0.011
84542288|NCT00070564|168836574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.91|0.17
84542289|NCT00070564|168836574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
84542290|NCT00070564|168836574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.54|0.724
84542291|NCT00070564|168836576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment differences.||||0.67
84542292|NCT00070564|168836576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.42
84542293|NCT00070564|168836577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.90
84542294|NCT00070564|168836577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.52
84726845|NCT00168805|169205634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.4||||0.6463||95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.5|-7.3|0.6463
84479152|NCT05109702|168709472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.314|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.314|-0.281|0.915
84542295|NCT00070564|168836578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.076
84542296|NCT00070564|168836578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.018
84542297|NCT00070564|168836579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.062
84542298|NCT00070564|168836579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.010
84542299|NCT00070564|168836580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.69
84542300|NCT00070564|168836580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.66
84542301|NCT00070564|168836581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences||||0.40
84542302|NCT00070564|168836581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.28
84542303|NCT04796961|168836582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||||||||0.7|0.1|
84542304|NCT04796961|168836583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||||||smoking screening||1.1|-0.1|
84542305|NCT04796961|168836583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||readiness to quit assessments||1.2|-0.1|
84542306|NCT04796961|168836583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||||||smoking cessation counseling||2.0|0.8|
84542307|NCT04796961|168836583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||smoking cessation pharmacotherapy||1.7|-0.5|
84542308|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.37
84542309|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.40
84542310|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.63
84542311|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.72
84542312|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.88
84542313|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.85
84542314|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.72
84542315|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.57
84542316|NCT03593473|168836611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. Times are restricted to times 0, +10, +15, and +28, which reflect the measures taken during the Trier Social Stress Test. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.96
84542317|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.71
84542318|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.92
84542319|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.92
84726846|NCT00168805|169205634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.7||||0.374||95.0|-3.2|8.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.6|-3.2|0.3740
84726847|NCT00168805|169205635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0385||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0385
84542320|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.40
84542321|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.97
84542322|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.71
84542323|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.78
84542324|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.63
84542325|NCT03593473|168836612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. This is the p-value for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.11
84542326|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -40 minutes and Cortisol at -20 minutes.||||0.07
84542327|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -20 minutes and Cortisol at 0 minutes.||||0.22
84542328|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at 0 minutes and Cortisol at +10 minutes.||||0.14
84542329|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +10 minutes and Cortisol at +15 minutes.||||0.14
84542330|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +15 minutes and Cortisol at +28 minutes.||||0.05
84542331|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +28 minutes and Cortisol at +38 minutes.||||0.10
84542332|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +38 minutes and Cortisol at +48 minutes.||||0.90
84542333|NCT03593473|168836613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol at time j+1 as the outcome with ACTH at time j, study arm, and an interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm as the exposure variables. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm.||||0.21
84542334|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -40 to -35||||0.8441
84542335|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -35 to -30||||0.7919
84542336|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -30 to -25||||0.5639
84542337|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -25 to -20||||0.3139
84542338|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -20 to -15||||0.4222
84542339|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -15 to -10||||0.834
84542340|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -10 to -5||||0.7562
84542341|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -5 to 0||||0.4245
84542342|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 5 to 8||||0.1425
84542343|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 13||||0.7175
84542344|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 13 to 18||||0.1417
84542345|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 18 to 23||||0.0514
84542346|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 23 to 28||||0.1507
84542347|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 33||||0.4204
84542348|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 33 to 38||||0.4209
84542349|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 38 to 43||||0.2569
84542350|NCT03593473|168836614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 43 to 48||||0.0828
84542351|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -40 to -35||||0.6452
84542352|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -35 to -30||||0.3228
84542353|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -30 to -25||||0.3541
84542354|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -25 to -20||||0.4311
84542355|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -20 to -15||||0.3349
84542356|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -15 to -10||||0.2646
84542357|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -10 to -5||||0.1095
84542358|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -5 to 0||||0.0194
84542359|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 5 to 8||||0.473
84542360|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 8 to 13||||0.5768
84542361|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 13 to 18||||0.3477
84542362|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 18 to 23||||0.1413
84542363|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 23 to 28||||0.2128
84542364|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 28 to 33||||0.1415
84542365|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 33 to 38||||0.1126
84542366|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 38 to 43||||0.1647
84542367|NCT03593473|168836615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 43 to 48||||0.088
84542368|NCT06700512|168836624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired||"H0 (Objective 1) SRT (study HA) is either not significantly different from SRT without HAs or significantly worse than SRT without HAs.~H1(Objective 1) SRT(study HA) is significantly better than SRT without HAs. A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement."||||<0.001
84542369|NCT06700512|168836624|NON_INFERIORITY|A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test (Wagener et al, 1999a-c), can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement (Kollmeier et al, 2011). Thus if SRT with study hearing aids is 1dB or more worse than with subjects' own hearing aids and the difference is significant (p\<0.05), inferiority of study hearing aid is assumed otherwise study hearing aids are considered non-inferior|||||<|0.001||||||paired|t-test, 1 sided|||H0 (Objective 2) SRT (study HA) is significantly worse than SRT(own HAs). H1(Objective 2) There is no difference between SRT(study HA) and SRT(own HAs) or SRT (study HA) is significantly better than SRT (own HAs) SRT= Speech Reception Threshold in dB||||<0.001
84542370|NCT00931528|168836694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||Sample size calculations were based on the hypothesis that the use of tadalafil would statistically significant increase the proportion of patients maintaining spontaneous erectile function compared to the use of placebo. Based on a 2-sided Fisher exact test with alpha=0.05, 91 patients/arm would provide 80% statistical power to detect an increase from 20% to 40% in spontaneous erectile response at weeks 28-30. Although designed for the Fisher exact test, Chi-square was used and reported.||9|1|0.49
84542371|NCT00931528|168836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA).) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2386
84542372|NCT00931528|168836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7908|||||||Regression, Linear|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.)The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.7908
84542373|NCT00931528|168836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.0467
84542374|NCT00931528|168836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.0068
84542375|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
84542376|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.58
84542377|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.9501
84542378|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.1020
84542379|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.1855
84542380|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.5739
84542381|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.0422
84542382|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.5237
84542383|NCT00931528|168836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.4770
84542384|NCT00931528|168836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.97
84542385|NCT00931528|168836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.99
84542386|NCT00931528|168836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.24
84542387|NCT00931528|168836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.70
84542388|NCT00931528|168836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.65
84726848|NCT00168805|169205635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1414||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1414
84542389|NCT00931528|168836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.72
84542390|NCT00931528|168836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.14
84542391|NCT00931528|168836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.64
84542392|NCT00931528|168836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.18
84542393|NCT00931528|168836699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.67
84542394|NCT00931528|168836699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.98
84542395|NCT00931528|168836699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.96
84542396|NCT00931528|168836700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.86
84542397|NCT00931528|168836700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
84542398|NCT00931528|168836700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.52
84542399|NCT01730053|168836703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|-19.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.3|-49.2|<0.0001
84726849|NCT00168805|169205636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84726850|NCT00168805|169205636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84542400|NCT01730053|168836703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-51.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-20.7|-51.5|<0.0001
84542401|NCT01730053|168836703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||=|0.0453|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.8|5.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||5.1|-45.8|=0.0453
84542402|NCT01730053|168836703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-50.9|0.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||0.3|-50.9|=0.0136
84542403|NCT01730053|168836704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1.25 % level.||-23.0|-47.4|<0.0001
84542404|NCT01730053|168836704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.9|-20.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-20.5|-45.9|<0.0001
84542405|NCT01730053|168836704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||=|0.0131|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|0.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||0.2|-49.2|=0.0131
84542406|NCT01730053|168836705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-17.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-17.9|-47.4|<0.0001
84542407|NCT01730053|168836705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.0|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-47|<0.0001
84726851|NCT00168805|169205637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84726852|NCT00168805|169205637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84726853|NCT00168805|169205639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8209||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.8209
84726854|NCT00168805|169205639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84542408|NCT01730053|168836706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-48.2|-22.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.5|-48.2|<0.0001
84542409|NCT01730053|168836706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.6|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.0|-45.6|<0.0001
84542410|NCT01730053|168836707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.3|-40.1|<0.0001
84542411|NCT01730053|168836707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.9|-15.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.7|-37.9|<0.0001
84542412|NCT01730053|168836708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-21.3|-40.1|<0.0001
84542413|NCT01730053|168836708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.0|-18.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.7|-38.0|<0.0001
84542414|NCT01730053|168836709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.9|-43.9|<0.0001
84542415|NCT01730053|168836709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-42.1|<0.0001
84542416|NCT01730053|168836710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.2|-22.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.4|-43.2|<0.0001
84542417|NCT01730053|168836710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.1|-17.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.3|-39.1|<0.0001
84542418|NCT01730053|168836711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-11.8|-29.4|<0.0001
84542419|NCT01730053|168836711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.3|-11.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.2|-29.3|<0.0001
84542420|NCT01730053|168836712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.7|-16.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.5|-39.7|<0.0001
84542421|NCT01730053|168836712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-35.7|-12.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.3|-35.7|<0.0001
84542422|NCT01730053|168836713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.9|-42.1|<0.0001
84726855|NCT01114217|169205643|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84542423|NCT01730053|168836713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.7|-12.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.2|-37.7|<0.0001
84542424|NCT01730053|168836714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-10.7|-29.4|<0.0001
84542425|NCT01730053|168836714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-26.7|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-26.7|<0.0001
84542426|NCT01730053|168836715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.6|59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||59.5|2.6|<0.0001
84542427|NCT01730053|168836715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.8|40.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||40.5|1.8|=0.0007
84542428|NCT01730053|168836716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.58|88.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||88.2|2.58|<0.0001
84726856|NCT00848198|169205666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|90.9||||||||90.9|83.2|
84726857|NCT00848198|169205666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|77.1||||||||77.1|66.9|
84542429|NCT01730053|168836716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.7|56.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||56.7|1.7|=0.001
84542430|NCT01730053|168836717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|3.6|96.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||96.2|3.6|<0.0001
84542431|NCT01730053|168836717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.5|53.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||53.1|2.5|<0.0001
84542432|NCT01730053|168836718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||67.7|2.4|<0.0001
84542433|NCT01730053|168836718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||67.7|2.4|=0.0002
84542434|NCT01730053|168836719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.6|-9.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-9.1|-38.6|<0.0001
84542435|NCT01730053|168836719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.0|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-39.0|=0.0001
84542436|NCT01730053|168836720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.4|||=|0.0311|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-1.2|16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||16.1|-1.2|=0.0311
84542437|NCT05085834|168836731|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zinc, μg/dL)||0.98|0.43|<0.01
84542438|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(hsCRP ng/mL)||0.57|-0.57|1.00
84542439|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD14, ng/mL)||0.01|-0.18|0.08
84542440|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD163, ng/mL)||0.15|-0.21|0.77
84542441|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(D-dimer, ng/mL)||0.50|-0.10|0.19
84542442|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VCAM, ng/mL)||0.04|-0.41|0.10
84542443|NCT05085834|168836732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.19||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|39.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(ICAM, ng/mL)||39.98|-39.16|0.98
84664840|NCT00268996|169063269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-8.585||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.007|37.012|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||37.012|-39.007|0.663
84726858|NCT00848198|169205667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|45.3||||||||45.3|34.2|
84726859|NCT00848198|169205667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
84726860|NCT00848198|169205668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|77.0||||||||77.0|66.8|
84542444|NCT05085834|168836733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RI , pg/mL)||0.16|-0.09|0.55
84542445|NCT05085834|168836733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RII, pg/m)||0.13|-0.13|0.95
84542446|NCT05085834|168836733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IL-6, pg/mL)||0.43|-0.30|0.73
84542447|NCT05085834|168836733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IP-10, pg/mL)||0.47|-0.22|0.48
84542448|NCT05085834|168836734|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|1819.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8530.03||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14899.37|18537.74|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(OxLDL, U/L)||18537.74|-14899.37|0.83
84542449|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Non-HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.12|0.84
84542450|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(HDL (mg/dL))||0.04|-0.19|0.18
84542451|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LDL (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.19|0.84
84542452|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VLDL (mg/dL))||0.29|-0.15|0.55
84542453|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Cholesterol (mg/dl))||0.09|-0.11|0.78
84542454|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Triglycerides (mg/dL))||0.31|-0.17|0.58
84542455|NCT05085834|168836735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.48|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Metabolic Syndrome||0.48|-1.36|0.35
84542456|NCT05085834|168836736|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Chol:HDL Ratio)||0.20|-0.07|0.36
84726861|NCT00848198|169205668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
84726862|NCT00848198|169205669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|27.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|32.3||||||||32.3|22.2|
84726863|NCT00848198|169205669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100.0|97.4|
84542457|NCT05085834|168836737|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|3.6|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on BMI (kg/m2)||3.60|-4.29|0.86
84542458|NCT05085834|168836738|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Waist-umbilicus (cm))||0.05|-0.08|0.74
84542459|NCT05085834|168836739|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|20.99|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Weight (lbs)||20.99|-26.97|0.81
84542460|NCT05085834|168836740|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Systolic blood pressure (mmHg))||0.03|-0.07|0.41
84542461|NCT05085834|168836740|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.36|||linear combination of coeff|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)||2.36|-5.71|0.42
84542462|NCT05085834|168836741|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(10 year ASCVD (%))||0.17|-0.26|0.70
84542463|NCT05085834|168836742|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Reactive Hyperemic Index||0.10|-0.17|0.62
84542464|NCT05085834|168836742|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|5.36|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Augmentation Index||5.36|-4.19|0.81
84542465|NCT05085834|168836743|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IFAB (pg/mL))||0.30|-0.26|0.90
84542466|NCT05085834|168836743|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(BDG (pg/mL))||0.47|-0.12|0.24
84542467|NCT05085834|168836744|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||v|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LBP (ng/mL))||0.32|-0.21|0.69
84542468|NCT05085834|168836744|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zonulin (ng/mL)||0.34|-0.16|0.49
84542469|NCT05842967|168836752|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|1.759|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||1.759|1.396|
84571035|NCT00853385|168893117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.93||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.96||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||29.96|7.90|0.0007
84542470|NCT05842967|168836752|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.725|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||1.725|1.333|
84542471|NCT05842967|168836753|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||9.2|1.2|
84542472|NCT05842967|168836753|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.6|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||12.6|4.2|
84542473|NCT03657797|168836780|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.31||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 470 0.21% was compared to latanoprost.||0.31|-1.11|0.2666
84542474|NCT03657797|168836780|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.09||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.09|-1.52|0.0281
84542475|NCT03657797|168836780|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.51||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.51|-1.96|0.0009
84542476|NCT03657797|168836781|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.9788||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.51 (week 1), 0.68 (week 2), 0.75 (exit visit); p-values were 0.5560 (week 1), 0.9788 (week 2), 0.8796 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.9788
84542477|NCT03657797|168836781|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.3863||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.20 (week 1), 0.38 (week 2), 0.11 (exit visit); p-values were 0.1556 (week 1), 0.3863 (week 2), 0.0912 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.3863
84542478|NCT03657797|168836781|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.0174||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were -0.35 (week 1), -0.15 (week 2), -0.27 (exit visit); p-values were 0.0040 (week 1), 0.0174 (week 2), 0.0093 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.0174
84542479|NCT03103087|168836783|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.45|66.49||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||66.49|46.45|<0.0001
84542480|NCT03103087|168836784|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|47.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|56.56||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference is based on the normal approximation.||||56.56|38.04|<0.0001
84726864|NCT00848198|169205670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|57.0||||||||57.0|45.7|
84726865|NCT00848198|169205670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|97.2||||||||97.2|92.1|
84726866|NCT00848198|169205671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|66.7||||||||66.7|55.6|
84726867|NCT00848198|169205671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|83.3||||||||83.3|74.0|
84726868|NCT00848198|169205672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|58.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|64.1||||||||64.1|52.9|
84726869|NCT00848198|169205672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|78.3||||||||78.3|68.3|
84542481|NCT03103087|168836785|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-54.3||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||-54.3|-84.1|<0.0001
84542482|NCT03103087|168836786|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|55.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|74.52||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||74.52|37.25|<0.0001
84542483|NCT03103087|168836787|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|44.38||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||44.38|15.6|<0.0001
84542484|NCT03103087|168836788|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03|=|0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.8||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|-25.8|=0.2153
84542485|NCT03103087|168836789|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-3.2||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-21.3|=0.0078
84542486|NCT03103087|168836790|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-25.5||Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-25.5|-41.2|<0.0001
84542487|NCT03103087|168836793|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||Fisher Exact|||||0.33|0.07|<0.0001
84542488|NCT03103087|168836798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84542489|NCT03103087|168836799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84542490|NCT03103087|168836800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84542491|NCT03103087|168836801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84542492|NCT03103087|168836802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84542493|NCT03103087|168836803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus Placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542494|NCT03103087|168836804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84542495|NCT03103087|168836805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542496|NCT03103087|168836806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542497|NCT03103087|168836807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542498|NCT03103087|168836808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542499|NCT03103087|168836809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84542500|NCT03103087|168836810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542501|NCT03103087|168836811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84542502|NCT03103087|168836812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542503|NCT03103087|168836813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542504|NCT03103087|168836815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84542505|NCT03103087|168836822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84542506|NCT03511105|168836861|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-30.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.662|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.07|65.51|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI has been presented.|||65.51|-127.07|
84542507|NCT03511105|168836861|OTHER||Percentage change|8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|31.3|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||31.30|-21.41|
84542508|NCT03511105|168836862|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|22.87|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||22.87|-31.49|
84542509|NCT03511105|168836862|OTHER||Percentage change|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.837|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|41.64|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||41.64|-48.20|
84542510|NCT03511105|168836863|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.2|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||6.20|-6.28|
84542511|NCT03511105|168836863|OTHER||Percentage change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|10.16|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||10.16|-11.15|
84542512|NCT02810457|168836887|EQUIVALENCE|A 90% CI for the ORR ratio between FKB238 and Avastin was estimated and compared to the margin (0.73 to 1.38), which was deemed to represent a clinically acceptable difference with respect to ORR. If the 90% CI was within the equivalence margin (0.73 to 1.38), an equivalence between FKB238 and Avastin, with respect to the ORR, was confirmed.|Ratio in ORR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.08||||||||1.08|0.86|
84542513|NCT02810457|168836888|OTHER|Ratio in ORR analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Ratio in ORR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||Comparison between groups: Risk ratio in ORR at Week 19 by BICR.||1.06|0.83|
84542514|NCT02810457|168836889|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.16|0.82|
84542515|NCT02810457|168836890|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.45|0.96|
84542516|NCT02810457|168836891|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.23|0.74|
84542517|NCT02810457|168836892|OTHER|Comparison between arms: Odds ratio.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||||Odds ratio \>1 favors FKB238.|The DCR was compared between treatment arms using logistic regression adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age).||1.58|0.64|
84542518|NCT01402570|168836903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.95||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline PROMIS physical functioning, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.95|-0.67|0.66
84726870|NCT02604199|169205687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.011||Mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit.|MMRM|Within-subject covariance is unstructured.||||0.011|-0.183|0.0810
84542519|NCT01402570|168836904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline sleep efficiency, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.02|-0.01|0.44
84542520|NCT01402570|168836905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|145.54||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.93|470.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline steps per day, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||470.02|-178.93|0.35
84542521|NCT01402570|168836906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.1||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline fatigue, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.10|-2.21|0.07
84542522|NCT02750618|168836938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||GEE model|||||1.19|0.73|< 0.0001
84542523|NCT02750618|168836940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.35|||GEE model|||||2.35|2.07|< 0.0001
84542524|NCT02750618|168836941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.45|||GEE model|||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), 95% confidence interval (CI) and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||2.45|2.01|< 0.0001
84542525|NCT02750618|168836942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.53|||GEE model|||||-1.53|-1.98|< 0.0001
84542526|NCT02750618|168836943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||||-1.80|-2.25|< 0.0001
84542527|NCT02750618|168836944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||GEE model|||||1.51|0.90|< 0.0001
84542528|NCT02750618|168836945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.76||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE|||||1.76|1.27|< 0.0001
84542529|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-82.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.68|-37.15|||GEE model|||Week 4||-37.15|-128.68|0.0004
84542530|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-83.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.55|4.88|||GEE model|||Week 12||4.88|-172.55|0.0640
84542531|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-161.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.7|-136.05|||GEE model|||Week 20||-136.05|-186.70|< 0.0001
84542532|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-214.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.7|-188.28|||GEE model|||Week 40||-188.28|-241.70|< 0.0001
84542533|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-226.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.11|-204.06|||GEE model|||Week 48||-204.06|-249.11|< 0.0001
84542534|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.13|-184.77|||GEE model|||Week 56||-184.77|-248.13|< 0.0001
84542535|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.66|-191.86|||GEE model|||Week 64||-191.86|-241.66|< 0.0001
84542536|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-231.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.51|-199.93|||GEE|||Week 76||-199.93|-262.51|< 0.0001
84542537|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-237.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.94|-212.62|||GEE|||Week 88||-212.62|-262.94|< 0.0001
84542538|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-218.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.21|-188.08|||GEE|||Week 100||-188.08|-248.21|< 0.0001
84542539|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-233.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.66|-212.16|||GEE|||Week 112||-212.16|-255.66|< 0.0001
84542540|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-252.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.51|-235.93|||GEE|||Week 124||-235.93|-268.51|< 0.0001
84664841|NCT00268996|169063271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment Difference|1.758||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.675|16.192|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For vessel volume||16.192|-12.675|0.811
84664842|NCT00268996|169063271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.627||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.171|16.425|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For lumen volume||16.425|-11.171|0.708
84542541|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-267.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.61|-242.16|||GEE|||Week 136||-242.16|-293.61|< 0.0001
84542542|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.85|-223.25|||GEE|||Week 148||-223.25|-272.85|< 0.0001
84542543|NCT02750618|168836949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-270.01|-226.93|||GEE|||Week 160||-226.93|-270.01|< 0.0001
84542544|NCT02019472|168836960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.07|< 0.001
84542545|NCT02019472|168836960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.39|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.69|=0.013
84542546|NCT02019472|168836961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.8||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-14.1|0.306
84542547|NCT02019472|168836961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-6|0.464
84542548|NCT02019472|168836962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|-0.7|0.086
84542549|NCT02019472|168836962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|5.9|< 0.001
84542550|NCT02019472|168836963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.4|-12.8|0.603
84542551|NCT02019472|168836963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.3|-7.6|0.644
84542552|NCT02157935|168836970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.76||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||||0.92|0.62|0.0059
84542553|NCT02157935|168836971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
84542554|NCT02157935|168836972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|-0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.368|-2.318|0.0070
84542555|NCT02157935|168836973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.053|0.008|0.0091
84542556|NCT02157935|168836974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.203||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-0.353|0.0082
84542557|NCT02157935|168836975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-0.048|0.0048
84672287|NCT01120210|169080036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|4.235||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||4.235|-1.764|0.4107
84542558|NCT01760304|168836985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||2-sided paired t-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||0.769
84542559|NCT01760304|168836985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired T-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||<0.0001
84542560|NCT01760304|168836987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.05
84542561|NCT00742209|168836993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||A combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure has been used to maintain the overall experiment-size alphas level of 0.05 for the comparison of GEn vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with baseline number of MHD and IHS Headache Classification for presence or absence of aura as covariates was used.|Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|||1.1|-0.6|0.579
84542562|NCT01332487|168837012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Acute Urinary Retention|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84542563|NCT01332487|168837012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.000
84542564|NCT01332487|168837012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Emergency Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.597
84542565|NCT02440464|168837014|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.10.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in progression-free survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||1.0
84542566|NCT02440464|168837015|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with acute grade III-IV GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 100 days post-randomization, with death prior to acute GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
84542567|NCT02440464|168837016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to chronic GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
84542568|NCT02440464|168837017|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.||Participants in sCR/CR at Randomization||||0.890
84542569|NCT02440464|168837017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants not in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.754
84542570|NCT02440464|168837019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with progression between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
84542571|NCT02440464|168837020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.174
84542572|NCT02440464|168837021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment-related mortality between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.173
84542573|NCT02440464|168837023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
84542574|NCT02440464|168837023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.252
84542575|NCT02440464|168837023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
84664843|NCT00268996|169063272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.012||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.136||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.136|-0.160|0.873
84542576|NCT02440464|168837025|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
84664844|NCT00268996|169063272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.048||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.354|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.354|-0.258|0.756
84664845|NCT00268996|169063272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.36|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean lumen area||0.360|-0.237|0.687
84664846|NCT00268996|169063273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.584||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.819|5.65|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue volume||5.650|-6.819|0.854
84664847|NCT00268996|169063273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.926||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.748|6.6||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty volume||6.600|-2.748|0.418
84664848|NCT00268996|169063274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|3.701|||ANOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue as % of VH plaque||3.701|0.299|0.021
84664849|NCT00268996|169063274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.739||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|3.114|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty as percentage of VH plaque||3.114|-1.635|0.540
84664850|NCT02956486|169063275|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (mild cognitive impairment \[MCI\]/Prodromal, mild alzheimer's disease \[AD\]), concurrent AD medication use, region, apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.57|0.385
84664851|NCT02956486|169063277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.06|0.345
84664852|NCT02956486|169063278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.88|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||-6.88|-18.79|<.001
84664853|NCT02956486|169063279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.67|0.316
84664854|NCT02956486|169063280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.254
84664855|NCT02956486|169063281|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Mean Slope|-0.008||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.129|||Linear mixed effects model|||Based on the linear mixed effects model, which included assessment time and treatment group by assessment time interaction as covariate with random intercept and slope.||0.129|-0.145|0.9088
84664856|NCT02956486|169063282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.16|0.77|0.6155
84664857|NCT02956486|169063283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.35|0.96|0.1281
84664858|NCT02956486|169063284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.90|-1.75|0.525
84726871|NCT02604199|169205687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.212||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.212|-0.406|<.0001
84542577|NCT02440464|168837025|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
84542578|NCT02440464|168837025|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
84542579|NCT01999920|168837028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
84542580|NCT01999920|168837029|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|12.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.32|-1.32|0.11
84542581|NCT01999920|168837030|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Confidence variable||5.53|-4.85|0.89
84542582|NCT01999920|168837030|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|10.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort with Closeness variable||10.58|-8.21|0.79
84542583|NCT01999920|168837030|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|12.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relationships as Secondary variable||12.01|-4.12|0.31
84542584|NCT01999920|168837030|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Need for Approval variable||0.58|-5.79|0.10
84542585|NCT01999920|168837030|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Preoccupation with Relationships variable||6.72|-5.30|0.80
84542586|NCT01999920|168837031|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.23|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-34.23|0.008
84542587|NCT01999920|168837032|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.42|0.026
84664859|NCT02956486|169063285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.62|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.62|-0.64|0.977
84726872|NCT02604199|169205687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.124||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.124|-0.322|<.0001
84542588|NCT01999920|168837033|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|37.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.11|5.64|0.01
84542589|NCT02058069|168837036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Alternative Hypothesis: The Investigational Device (RIO) true event rate is non-inferior to 0.066 (event rate for manual TKA) with a non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The 0.066 rate is based on literature and 0.06 was determined in consultation with FDA.|Rare Adverse Event Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0331|||||If the upper bound is \<0.126 then the primary composite safety endpoint is met. After the surgeon completed the procedure, at the conclusion of the participant's hospital stay, and 3 months post-operative were used in this single analysis.|||0.0331||
84542590|NCT02058069|168837038|OTHER|The analysis was performed using standard OC curves generated using Sample Size Analyzer® version 2.0 by Taylor Enterprise Inc. (Dr. Wayne A. Taylor).|Alignment Difference <4.38 Degrees|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.966||||||Estimation Parameter is: proportion of participants with limb alignment difference \<4.38 degrees If the lower bound is \>0.95 then the assessment passes.||||0.966|
84542591|NCT02058069|168837039|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper bound for the one-sided 95% confidence interval will be compared with -9. If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-29.6|||t-test, 2 sided||If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Change from pre-op to 3 months||-29.6||<0.001
84542592|NCT02222922|168837085|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|79.38||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.01|116.65|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||116.65|54.01|0.3105
84542593|NCT02222922|168837086|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|77.23||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|110.87|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||110.87|53.80|0.2316
84542594|NCT02222922|168837087|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.97||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.05|120.22|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||120.22|60.05|0.4264
84542595|NCT02222922|168837088|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.32||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.03|121.82|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||121.82|64.03|0.5123
84542596|NCT02222922|168837089|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.15||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|185.5|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.50|44.79|0.8240
84542597|NCT02222922|168837090|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|89.58||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.94|182.62|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||182.62|43.94|0.7922
84542598|NCT02222922|168837091|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.17||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.87|185.25|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.25|44.87|0.8240
84542599|NCT02222922|168837092|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|102.31||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.08|204.9|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||204.90|51.08|0.9553
84542600|NCT02222922|168837093|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|81.14||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|113.54|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||113.54|57.99|0.2951
84542601|NCT02222922|168837094|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.02||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|117.19|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||117.19|60.24|0.3769
84542602|NCT02222922|168837095|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|86.15||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.2|119.32|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||119.32|62.20|0.4385
84542603|NCT02222922|168837096|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.75||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.24|126.56|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||126.56|62.24|0.5678
84542604|NCT03290378|168837128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.005
84542605|NCT02002221|168837129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||H0: δ vildagliptin 50 mg bid = δ placebo versus H1: δ Vildagliptin 50 mg bid \< δ placebo,||-0.73|-1.08|< 0.001
84542606|NCT03743051|168837155|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.971|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MW; H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.971|0.718|<0.0001
84542607|NCT03743051|168837156|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|1.472|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||1.472|-0.228|0.1514
84542608|NCT03743051|168837157|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|3.453|||ANOVA|||||3.453|1.367|<0.0001
84542609|NCT03743051|168837158|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.284|||ANOVA|||||2.284|0.388|0.0057
84542610|NCT03743051|168837159|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|1.816|||ANOVA|||||1.816|0.238|0.0108
84542611|NCT03743051|168837160|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|1.466|||ANOVA|||||1.466|-0.397|0.2605
84542612|NCT01422200|168837161|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84542613|NCT01113892|168837166|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate at 6 months for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate at 6 months for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products."|Mean Difference (Net)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.9||The threshold for significance was p = .05|Exact 1-sided test||Difference = Patency (Fusion Bioline) - Patency (EXXCEL)|It was calculated that 200 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the number of participants with primary patency between FUSION Bioline and EXXCEL groups at 6 months. It was assumed that the ratio of Above-Knee to Below-Knee procedures was 60:40; based on this, the primary patency rate for the combined Above-Knee and Below-Knee patients was 79%. Assumptions included a 10% withdrawal rate prior to the 6-month evaluation.||29.9|2.7|<.0001
84542614|NCT01113892|168837167|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used to evaluate whether subjects with any MALE event or POD were homogeneous across the treatment arms.||||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of subjects with a MALE or POD event were summarized by treatment group.||||.033
84542615|NCT01113892|168837168|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieved primary assisted patency for both treatment groups were compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.017
84542616|NCT01113892|168837169|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.137
84542617|NCT01113892|168837170|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||<.0001
84542618|NCT01113892|168837172|NON_INFERIORITY|"Repeated 6 month analyses for 12 month results.The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products, with a p-value ≤ .05 indicating significance."|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.0|||Exact 1-sided test|||||23.0|-4.8|.0001
84542619|NCT01113892|168837174|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve primary assisted patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.181
84542620|NCT01113892|168837176|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi Square test||||||.68
84542621|NCT04886596|168837177|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above 20%.|VE|82.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.95|57.89|94.08|||Poisson regression method||VE in terms of occurrence of RSV-confirmed LRTD was evaluated using the conditional exact binomial method based on the Poisson model|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD during the first season in adults ≥ 60 YOA||94.08|57.89|
84542622|NCT04886596|168837178|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|46.74|74.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||74.79|46.74|
84542623|NCT04886596|168837178|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.19|80.04|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.04|48.19|
84542624|NCT04886596|168837179|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.82|79.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||79.11|51.82|
84542625|NCT04886596|168837179|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.09|80.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.00|48.09|
84542626|NCT04886596|168837180|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|69.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|42.18|85.72|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.72|42.18|
84602634|NCT04270682|168956239|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed plasma cholestanol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.399|||paired t-test|||||-0.399|-1.640|0.0083
84602635|NCT04270682|168956240|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed Plasma 7αC4 in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-3.207|||paired t-test|||||-3.207|-4.193|<0.0001
84602636|NCT04270682|168956241|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.077||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36|||Prescott's|||||0.36|0.00|0.0006
84664860|NCT02956486|169063286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.32|-1.09|0.854
84602637|NCT04270682|168956241|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||Prescott's|||||0.86|0.32|0.0006
84664861|NCT02956486|169063287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.26|-0.79|0.314
84602638|NCT03894969|168956245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PD is \> 0.667. The anti-PD GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.765|1.159|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.159|0.765|
84602639|NCT03894969|168956245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PE is \> 0.667. The anti-PE GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.719|1.093|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.093|0.719|
84602640|NCT03894969|168956245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PilA is \> 0.667. The anti-PilA GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.884|1.474|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.474|0.884|
84602641|NCT03894969|168956245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-UspA2 is \> 0.667. The anti-UspA2 GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.948|1.245|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.245|0.948|
84602642|NCT04762043|168956276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|59.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size used for mixed effects model is partial eta-squared (ηp2).||||59.76|53.33|<.001
84602643|NCT02308163|168956277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.58||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.58|1.76|<0.001
84602644|NCT02308163|168956277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|12.2||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.20|3.56|<0.001
84602645|NCT02308163|168956279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.75||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.75|2.14|<0.001
84602646|NCT02308163|168956279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|17.5||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.50|3.53|<0.001
84602647|NCT02308163|168956281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|301.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR70-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||301.61|5.29|<0.001
84602648|NCT02308163|168956283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.71|-1.41|<0.001
84602649|NCT02308163|168956283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.24|-1.86|<0.001
84602650|NCT02308163|168956285|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.67|-1.38|<0.001
84542627|NCT04886596|168837180|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|58.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.9|74.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||74.11|35.90|
84542628|NCT04886596|168837181|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|55.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.52|77.52|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||77.52|16.52|
84542629|NCT04886596|168837181|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|73.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|55.1|85.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.40|55.10|
84542630|NCT04886596|168837182|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|44.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season)|To evaluate vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hMPV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine up to the end of Season 1.||44.33|-19.10|
84542631|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.73|71.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.96|40.73|
84542632|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.32|80.16|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||80.16|44.32|
84542633|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|36.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.99|82.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.47|-93.99|
84542634|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|78.64|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.64|49.33|
84542635|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.49|79.55|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||79.55|40.49|
84542636|NCT04886596|168837183|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|32.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.42|81.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||81.73|-108.42|
84542637|NCT04886596|168837184|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|80.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|92.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||92.73|55.90|
84664862|NCT02956486|169063288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.07|-0.93|0.895
84542638|NCT04886596|168837184|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|77.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.70|36.44|
84542639|NCT04886596|168837184|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|71.59|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.59|7.06|
84542640|NCT04886596|168837184|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|54.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.85|72.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||72.98|27.85|
84542641|NCT04886596|168837184|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|88.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.79|22.35|
84542642|NCT04886596|168837185|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.62|90.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.48|57.62|
84542643|NCT04886596|168837185|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|75.1|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||75.10|34.00|
84542644|NCT04886596|168837185|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|71.97|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.97|8.51|
84542645|NCT04886596|168837185|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.59|74.94|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.94|33.59|
84542646|NCT04886596|168837185|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|89.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||89.08|24.64|
84542647|NCT04886596|168837186|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.95|89.26|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 1.||89.26|57.95|
84542648|NCT04886596|168837186|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.47|77.95|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.95|52.47|
84542649|NCT04886596|168837186|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.76|74.11|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.11|46.76|
84542650|NCT04886596|168837186|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.27|77.86|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.86|52.27|
84542651|NCT04886596|168837186|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.71|78.34|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.34|51.71|
84542652|NCT04886596|168837187|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.54|79.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.40|47.54|
84542653|NCT04886596|168837187|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.81|74.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.98|34.81|
84542654|NCT04886596|168837187|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|72.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.34|84.37|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.37|54.34|
84542655|NCT04886596|168837187|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.17|78.01|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.01|37.17|
84542656|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|76.74|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||76.74|38.62|
84542657|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|78.14|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.14|45.10|
84571036|NCT00853385|168893118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.25|-0.50|<0.0001
84664863|NCT02956486|169063289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.17|-0.09|0.542
84542658|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.71|82.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.33|45.71|
84542659|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|82.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.48|31.35|
84542660|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|79.17|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.17|41.08|
84542661|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|71.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.92|83.65|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.65|51.92|
84542662|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.11|88.54|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition,following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.54|54.11|
84542663|NCT04886596|168837188|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|69.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.51|87.05|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||87.05|37.51|
84542664|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-153.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16322.97|88.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.00|-16322.97|
84542665|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|70.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.89|85.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.33|43.89|
84542666|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.89|74.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.08|42.89|
84542667|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|13.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6751.38|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||98.91|-6751.38|
84664864|NCT02956486|169063290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.01|-0.02|0.380
84542668|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|88.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.31|49.33|
84542669|NCT04886596|168837189|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.1|77.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.75|46.10|
84542670|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
84542671|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
84542672|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|59.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|95.93|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to the case definition 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.93|-119.60|
84542673|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
84542674|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
84542675|NCT04886596|168837190|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|20.27|
84542676|NCT04886596|168837191|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|51.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.31|60.21|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||60.21|40.31|
84542677|NCT04886596|168837191|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|66.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||66.96|48.10|
84602651|NCT02308163|168956285|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.31||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.31|-1.96|<0.001
84542678|NCT04886596|168837192|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||5.99|-1.47|
84542679|NCT04886596|168837192|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||6.98|-0.50|
84542680|NCT04886596|168837192|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.63|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||8.63|-1.55|
84542681|NCT04886596|168837192|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.9|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||11.90|1.81|
84542682|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
84542683|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
84542684|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
84542685|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
84542686|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV seson in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
84542687|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
84664865|NCT02956486|169063291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.02|-0.82|0.063
84726873|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.003||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.003|-0.181|0.0583
84542688|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
84542689|NCT04886596|168837193|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
84602652|NCT02308163|168956287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
84602653|NCT02308163|168956287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.0|-8.1|<0.001
84602654|NCT02308163|168956289|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.4|-4.6|<0.001
84602655|NCT02308163|168956289|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.9|-6.8|<0.001
84602656|NCT02308163|168956291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.67|2.31|<0.001
84602657|NCT02308163|168956291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|27.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.27|3.76|<0.001
84602658|NCT02308163|168956293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|166.66||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||166.66|2.83|0.003
84602659|NCT02308163|168956295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|12.29||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.29|2.74|<0.001
84602660|NCT02308163|168956295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|20.41||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||20.41|4.57|<0.001
84602661|NCT02308163|168956297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.12||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.12|1.29|0.012
84726874|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.085||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.085|-0.267|0.003
84726875|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.006||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.006|-0.181|0.0670
84726876|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.011||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||0.011|-0.151|0.0875
84602662|NCT02308163|168956297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|3.42|19.63||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.63|3.42|<0.001
84602663|NCT02308163|168956299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|-0.679||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.679|-1.546|<0.001
84602664|NCT02308163|168956299|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|-1.241||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.241|-2.114|<0.001
84602665|NCT02308163|168956301|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-5.84||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.84|-15.95|<0.001
84602666|NCT02308163|168956301|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-21.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-16.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.27|-26.01|<0.001
84602667|NCT02308163|168956303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|14.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.83|2.98|<0.001
84602668|NCT02308163|168956303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|24.03||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||24.03|4.91|<0.001
84602669|NCT02308163|168956305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.04||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.04|2.38|<0.001
84602670|NCT02308163|168956305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|38.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.51|7.31|<0.001
84602671|NCT02308163|168956307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|12.08||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.08|1.52|0.006
84602672|NCT02308163|168956307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|11.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|29.74||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.74|4.07|<0.001
84602673|NCT02308163|168956309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.001||95.0|2.11|6.93||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.93|2.11|<0.001
84726877|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.100|-0.259|<.0001
84602674|NCT02308163|168956309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.17||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.17|6.39|<0.001
84602675|NCT02308163|168956315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-6.22||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-6.22|-13.66|<0.001
84602676|NCT02308163|168956315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.15||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.15|-17.71|<0.001
84602677|NCT02308163|168956319|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-5.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.20|-12.19|<0.001
84602678|NCT02308163|168956319|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|-9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.71|-15.96|<0.001
84602679|NCT02308163|168956321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.00|-21.40|<0.001
84602680|NCT02308163|168956321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-17.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.51|-28.78|<0.001
84602681|NCT02308163|168956323|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.81|-9.95||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.95|-23.81|<0.001
84602682|NCT02308163|168956323|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-17.28||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.28|-29.83|<0.001
84602683|NCT02308163|168956325|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-10.81||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.81|-24.36|<0.001
84602684|NCT02308163|168956325|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-17.57||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.57|-30.24|<0.001
84602685|NCT02308163|168956327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.033
84602686|NCT02308163|168956327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.035
84602687|NCT02308163|168956328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
84602688|NCT02308163|168956328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
84664866|NCT02956486|169063292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.01|-1.11|0.045
84602689|NCT02308163|168956330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.05||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.05|3.69|<0.001
84602690|NCT02308163|168956330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|9.85||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.85|4.11|<0.001
84664867|NCT02956486|169063293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.799
84672288|NCT01120210|169080036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|5.372||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||5.372|-1.046|0.1811
84726878|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.027||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.027|-0.191|0.0099
84542690|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|17.49|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||17.49|-25.43|
84542691|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|14.61|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||14.61|-28.26|
84542692|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|16.38|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine||16.38|-28.20|
84542693|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|15.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||15.98|-27.55|
84542694|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||23.99|-23.52|
84542695|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.56|19.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||19.70|-28.56|
84542696|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|26.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||26.00|-22.14|
84542697|NCT04886596|168837194|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|25.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||25.48|-21.73|
84542698|NCT04886596|168837195|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|82.15|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.15|28.91|
84542699|NCT04886596|168837195|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|83.2|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.20|28.50|
84542700|NCT04886596|168837195|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|85.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.47|28.56|
84542701|NCT04886596|168837195|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.45|84.29|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.29|21.45|
84542702|NCT04886596|168837196|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|12.42|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||12.42|-8.29|
84542703|NCT04886596|168837196|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|16.39|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||16.39|-4.05|
84542704|NCT04886596|168837196|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||21.31|-0.68|
84542705|NCT04886596|168837196|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|12.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|22.58|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||22.58|0.32|
84542706|NCT02756611|168837244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
84542707|NCT02756611|168837255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
84726879|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.057||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.057|-0.229|0.0017
84542708|NCT02586155|168837281|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.044|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.044|0.649|0.1070
84542709|NCT02586155|168837282|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.849||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.061|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.061|0.679|0.1495
84542710|NCT02586155|168837283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||Stratified long-rank|||||0.94|0.38|0.03
84542711|NCT02586155|168837284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.24|0.62|0.44
84542712|NCT02586155|168837295|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.03
84602691|NCT02308163|168956332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.87||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.87|0.91|0.004
84602692|NCT02308163|168956332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.19||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.19|1.30|0.001
84602693|NCT02308163|168956334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.83|-1.29|0.210
84602694|NCT02308163|168956334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.71|2.74|<0.001
84602695|NCT02308163|168956336|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.00|-16.11|0.027
84602696|NCT02308163|168956336|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-2.47||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.47|-17.88|0.010
84602697|NCT02308163|168956338|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|-10.89||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.89|-30.44|<0.001
84602698|NCT02308163|168956338|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-22.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-11.97||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.97|-32.06|<0.001
84602699|NCT02308163|168956340|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.38|-10.06||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.06|-30.38|<0.001
84602700|NCT02308163|168956340|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-13.17|||Covariance model|No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.17|-34.16|<0.001
84602701|NCT02308163|168956342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-10.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.61|-24.00|<0.001
84602702|NCT02308163|168956342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-14.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.24|-26.59|<0.001
84602703|NCT00118846|168956355|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope = Mean difference in annualized rate of change|||1.05|-2.86|0.35
84602704|NCT00118846|168956356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.13|0.36
84602705|NCT00522418|168956357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||F Test|||||||.01
84602706|NCT00522418|168956360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
84602707|NCT00522418|168956363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
84602708|NCT00522418|168956364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.28
84602709|NCT00522418|168956365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.03
84602710|NCT00522418|168956366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.26
84602711|NCT01574157|168956379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|40.1||||||The primary analysis compared the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||40.1|-9.6|
84602712|NCT01574157|168956380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|30.8||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||30.8|-38.2|
84602713|NCT01574157|168956381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|4.2||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||4.2|-56.3|
84602714|NCT01574157|168956382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|36.5||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||36.5|-15.1|
84602715|NCT01574157|168956383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|35.9||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||35.9|-24.6|
84602716|NCT01574157|168956384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|6.79||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||6.79|-0.05|
84602717|NCT01357161|168956434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.89|0.45|0.080
84602718|NCT01357161|168956436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.79|0.39|0.030
84602719|NCT01357161|168956438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.4||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||11.4|-2.9|
84602720|NCT01357161|168956439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.6||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||13.6|-16.2|
84602721|NCT01357161|168956440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rat|5.2||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|21.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method with a two-sided p-Value for testing was used for comparison of the ORRs between the treatment groups in Part 2 portion of the study. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was provided.||21.1|-10.9|0.5247
84602722|NCT01357161|168956441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||3.34|0.40|0.800
84602723|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.35|125.3|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean was used as PK parameters||125.30|94.35|
84602724|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.73|106.63|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.63|84.73|
84602725|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.39|113.65|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||113.65|70.39|
84602726|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|129.19|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||129.19|97.02|
84602727|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|126.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.08|143.17|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||143.17|112.08|
84602728|NCT02956044|168956442|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|114.23|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||114.23|84.90|
84602729|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|87.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.02|95.38|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||95.38|80.02|
84602730|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|112.68|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||112.68|94.59|
84602731|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.34|111.06|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||111.06|80.34|
84602732|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|127.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.33|146.62|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||146.62|110.33|
84542713|NCT00550459|168837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.5||Secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers to be analyzed only when \>=1 of the endpoints in the prior tier were significant. Since primary endpoint not stat significant, analyses of secondary endpoint tiers presented for exploratory purposes only|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age(6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline to fit primary endpoint using the ITT dataset.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment,disease severity (\<130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] or ≥130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] at baseline),age (\<65, ≥65 to \<75,and ≥75 years) (factor with 6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline used to fit primary endpoint using the intent-to-treat (ITT) dataset. Estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) provided under the model with p-value. A 2-sided alpha (0.05) applied to the primary analysis. Primary analysis based on observed cases (OC).||0.50|-0.03|0.08
84542714|NCT00550459|168837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|-0.12|0.21
84542715|NCT00550459|168837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|0.04|0.02
84542716|NCT00550459|168837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.67||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.67|-0.15|0.21
84602733|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|113.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.61|118.86|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||118.86|107.61|
84602734|NCT02956044|168956445|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|107.17||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|107.17|99.30|
84602735|NCT03832114|168956447|OTHER|Log Ratio to Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.65|0.46|0.0003
84602736|NCT03832114|168956448|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.75|-0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.75|-3.75|0.0313
84602737|NCT03832114|168956449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.65|0.46|0.0003
84602738|NCT03832114|168956449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.28|0.49|0.4766
84602739|NCT03832114|168956449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.69|0.51|0.0002
84602740|NCT03832114|168956450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM|||Day 84||0.68|0.47|0.0011
84602741|NCT03832114|168956450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.33|0.75|0.9998
84602742|NCT03832114|168956450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.77|0.56|0.0016
84602743|NCT03832114|168956451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MRM)|||Day 84||0.64|0.47|<0.0001
84602744|NCT03832114|168956451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.27|0.30|0.3707
84602745|NCT03832114|168956451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.71|0.51|0.0002
84602746|NCT03832114|168956452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.70|0.47|0.0018
84602747|NCT03832114|168956452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|0.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.98|0.67|0.1632
84602748|NCT03832114|168956452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|0.79|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.79|0.57|0.0040
84602749|NCT03832114|168956453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|5.06|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||5.06|0.12|0.1795
84602750|NCT03832114|168956453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7763|TWO_SIDED|0.7763|-3.36|2.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||2.15|-3.36|0.7763
84602751|NCT03832114|168956453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|3.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||3.22|-0.59|0.3754
84602752|NCT03832114|168956454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.04||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.36|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measuers (MMRM)|||Day 84||-0.72|-9.36|0.1364
84479153|NCT05109702|168709472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.499|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.499|-0.102|0.195
84602753|NCT03832114|168956454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|16.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||16.13|-1.79|0.3038
84602754|NCT03832114|168956454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.56|4.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||4.01|-5.56|0.8352
84602755|NCT03832114|168956455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.17|0.99|0.2752
84602756|NCT03832114|168956455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.72|0.83|0.476
84602757|NCT03832114|168956455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||1.20|1.00|0.1963
84602758|NCT03832114|168956457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.65|0.48|<0.0001
84602759|NCT03832114|168956457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.28|0.76|0.9544
84602760|NCT03832114|168956457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.72|0.56|<.0001
84602761|NCT03832114|168956458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.69|0.50|<.0001
84602762|NCT03832114|168956458|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.26|0.60|0.6209
84602763|NCT03832114|168956458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.73|0.54|0.0002
84602764|NCT00098748|168956475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For hypothesis of superiority, if upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of TX difference was \<0 log10 copies/mL, it was concluded that MVC regimen was superior to PBO meaning that MVC added to Optimized Background Therapy (OBT) provides an additional reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA compared to OBT alone. If superiority could not be concluded, then a hypothesis of noninferiority was tested. If upper bound of CI is \<0.25 log10 copies/mL, noninferiority of MVC regimen to placebo was claimed.|Least squares mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2575|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.528|0.638|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC versus (vs) PBO=advantage of MVC.|Maraviroc (MVC) QD versus placebo (PBO) treatment (TX) difference at Week 24. If upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval is \<0, it is concluded that dose is superior to PBO. If upper bound is \<0.25, it is concluded that MVC is non-inferior to PBO. Assumption: 79% of subjects are dual-tropic; total N=192 needed to be randomized to get N=150 dual-tropic. Standard deviation=0.8 with 2-sided p-value=0.025: 80% power for TX difference of 0.5 for change from baseline in log10-transformed viral load.||0.638|-0.528|
84602765|NCT00098748|168956475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.829|0.364|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.364|-0.829|
84602766|NCT00098748|168956475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2567|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.351|0.81|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.810|-0.351|
84602767|NCT00098748|168956475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2628|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.856|0.333|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.333|-0.856|
84602768|NCT00098748|168956476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.18|-0.12|
84602769|NCT00098748|168956476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.23|-0.08|
84542717|NCT00550459|168837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.30|-0.05|0.16
84542718|NCT00550459|168837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.0||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||1.00|-4.02|0.23
84542719|NCT00550459|168837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.38|-2.04|0.18
84542720|NCT00550459|168837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.6||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||6.60|2.89|<0.0001
84542721|NCT00572936|168837351|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
84542722|NCT00572936|168837352|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84542723|NCT00572936|168837353|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.93||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
84542724|NCT00572936|168837354|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.84||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.84
84542725|NCT00572936|168837355|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84542726|NCT00572936|168837356|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.89
84542727|NCT00572936|168837357|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences between outflow facility for the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84542728|NCT00572936|168837358|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences in uveoscleral outflow between the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical analysis was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84542729|NCT01634048|168837364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84542730|NCT02806908|168837367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0022
84542731|NCT02806908|168837368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0416
84542732|NCT02806908|168837369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
84542733|NCT02806908|168837370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3018|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3018
84542734|NCT02806908|168837371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4240
84542735|NCT02806908|168837372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
84542736|NCT02806908|168837373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
84542737|NCT02806908|168837374|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84542738|NCT02806908|168837375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6291
84542739|NCT02806908|168837376|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84542740|NCT02806908|168837377|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84542741|NCT02806908|168837378|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84542742|NCT02806908|168837379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7744
84542743|NCT02806908|168837380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
84542744|NCT02806908|168837381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1141
84542745|NCT02806908|168837382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4441
84542746|NCT02806908|168837383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3423
84542747|NCT02806908|168837384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9384
84542748|NCT02806908|168837385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0939
84542749|NCT02806908|168837386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0246
84542750|NCT02806908|168837387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1475
84542751|NCT02806908|168837388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1513
84542752|NCT02806908|168837389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84542753|NCT02806908|168837390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84542754|NCT02806908|168837391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4774|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4774
84542755|NCT02806908|168837392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3801|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3801
84542756|NCT02806908|168837393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84542757|NCT04429503|168837395|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq12 minus 2q8|||1.13|-2.26|<0.0001
84542758|NCT04429503|168837395|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq16 minus 2q8|||0.39|-3.27|0.0031
84542759|NCT04429503|168837396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%|Adjusted Difference (%)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|10.57|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||10.57|-6.61|
84542760|NCT04429503|168837396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.|Adjusted Difference (%)|-7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|1.84|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||1.84|-16.88|
84542761|NCT05516108|168837417|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.004
84542762|NCT05516108|168837418|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.020
84542763|NCT05516108|168837419|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata melogit||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.74
84542764|NCT05516108|168837420|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.10
84542765|NCT05516108|168837421|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.009
84542766|NCT02717507|168837461|OTHER||Slope|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.383|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVWT/Dz was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVWT/Dz was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVWT/Dz across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 0.6-0.8 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVWT/Dz at 24m.||0.383|-0.057|0.15
84542767|NCT02717507|168837462|OTHER||Slope|-3.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.105|-0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.424|-7.105|0.03
84542768|NCT02717507|168837463|OTHER||Slope|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.001|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.001|-0.09|0.05
84542769|NCT02717507|168837464|OTHER||Slope|-2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.951|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVESV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVESV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||0.951|-5.34|0.17
84542770|NCT02717507|168837465|OTHER||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.0|-0.024|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.024|-0141|0.01
84542771|NCT02717507|168837466|OTHER||Slope|-2.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.603||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.499|2.704|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEDV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEDV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||2.704|-7.499|0.36
84542772|NCT02717507|168837467|OTHER||Slope|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.134|1.999|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||1.999|-1.134|0.59
84542773|NCT02717507|168837468|OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|0.532|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is positive|||0.532|-0.652|0.84
84542774|NCT02717507|168837469|OTHER||Slope|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.991|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEF was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEF was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVEF across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 1.2-1.6 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVEF at 24m.||0.991|-0.472|0.49
84542775|NCT02717507|168837470|OTHER||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.082|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.082|-0.065|0.82
84542776|NCT02717507|168837471|OTHER||Slope|2.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.387|5.63|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||5.63|-1.387|0.24
84542777|NCT02717507|168837472|OTHER||Slope|5.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.608|21.835|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||21.835|-11.608|0.55
84602770|NCT00098748|168956476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.17|-0.12|
84602771|NCT00098748|168956476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.25|-0.07|
84602772|NCT00098748|168956477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.15|
84602773|NCT00098748|168956477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
84602774|NCT00098748|168956477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.22|
84602775|NCT00098748|168956477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.28|-0.07|
84602776|NCT00098748|168956478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.12|-0.21|
84726880|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|-0.18||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.180|-0.349|<.0001
84602777|NCT00098748|168956478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
84602778|NCT00098748|168956478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.13|-0.18|
84602779|NCT00098748|168956478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.29|-0.04|
84602780|NCT00098748|168956479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.07|
84602781|NCT00098748|168956479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.03|
84602782|NCT00098748|168956479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.18|
84602783|NCT00098748|168956479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.21|-0.10|
84602784|NCT00098748|168956480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|23.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|49.213|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||49.213|-1.359|
84602785|NCT00098748|168956480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|26.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|52.49|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||52.490|0.869|
84726881|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.035|-0.209|0.0072
84542778|NCT02717507|168837473|OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.002|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.002|-0.004|0.51
84542779|NCT02717507|168837474|OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.424|-0.468|0.92
84542780|NCT02717507|168837476|OTHER||Slope|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.229|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|||0.229|-0.18|0.82
84542781|NCT02717507|168837477|OTHER||Slope|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.877|4.685|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||4.685|-4.877|0.97
84542782|NCT02717507|168837478|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.491||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.595|8.091|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|The null hypothesis is that change in Average Alanine aminotransferase across time-points described above does not differ by treatment arm, tested using a longitudinal GEE analysis of Average Alanine aminotransferase with a treatment by time interaction.||8.091|-5.595|0.72
84542783|NCT05017246|168837481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-5.8|||Two-sample t-test|Unadjusted analysis|Intrathecal - Epidural|||-5.8|-84.0|0.0249
84542784|NCT05017246|168837482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||3.01|0.36|0.94
84542785|NCT05017246|168837483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Bootstrap resampling method|Bootstrap resampling method based on raw data was applied for due to highly right-skewed data (5,000 Bootstrap samples were selected).|Intrathecal - Epidural|||0.48|-1.01|0.59
84542786|NCT05017246|168837484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||1.48|0.61|0.82
84542787|NCT05017246|168837487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|8.95|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||8.95|0.27|0.67
84542788|NCT05017246|168837488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.2|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||22.2|0.19|0.61
84542789|NCT02562066|168837500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.085
84542790|NCT02562066|168837500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with SGI raw scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||2.09|-0.97|
84542791|NCT02562066|168837501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.376
84542792|NCT02562066|168837501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-32 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||4.58|-2.31|
84542793|NCT02562066|168837502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.800
84542794|NCT02562066|168837502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-20 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||6.50|-5.25|
84542795|NCT03500198|168837547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84542796|NCT03500198|168837549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84542797|NCT03500198|168837550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided logistic regression|||||||<0.0001
84542798|NCT01514461|168837551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-28.78||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|14.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||14.46|-55.69|0.0538
84542799|NCT01514461|168837551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-40.88||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||-2.94|-63.99|0.0182
84602786|NCT00098748|168956480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.412|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|47.03|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||47.03|-17.80|
84602787|NCT00098748|168956480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|27.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.754|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|60.8|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||60.80|-5.38|
84602788|NCT00098748|168956481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|234.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.913|394.084|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||394.084|74.913|
84602789|NCT00098748|168956481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|188.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.999|353.635|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||353.635|23.999|
84602790|NCT00098748|168956481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|155.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|328.37|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||328.37|-16.49|
84602791|NCT00098748|168956481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|182.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|361.02|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||361.02|4.81|
84602792|NCT00098748|168956482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.7524
84602793|NCT00098748|168956482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.2540
84602794|NCT00098748|168956482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.8243
84602795|NCT00098748|168956482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6657||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.6657
84602796|NCT00098748|168956483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.535|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.535|-0.396|
84602797|NCT00098748|168956483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|0.258|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.258|-0.694|
84602798|NCT00098748|168956483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2388|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.681|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.681|-0.262|
84602799|NCT00098748|168956483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.199|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.199|-0.767|
84602800|NCT00433160|168956491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement Point. No adjustments for multiplicity was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine (L2-L4) after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602801|NCT00433160|168956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602802|NCT00433160|168956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602803|NCT00433160|168956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602804|NCT00433160|168956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602805|NCT00433160|168956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602806|NCT00433160|168956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602807|NCT00433160|168956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602808|NCT00433160|168956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602809|NCT00433160|168956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wicoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.060
84602810|NCT00433160|168956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||0.130
84602811|NCT00433160|168956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.976
84602812|NCT00433160|168956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602813|NCT00433160|168956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602814|NCT00433160|168956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602815|NCT00433160|168956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84602816|NCT03222973|168956516|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||P-values are based on the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) adjusted for background DMT group, baseline magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)/diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) category and baseline component assessments.|MMRM|||Over 72 weeks: Overall Response Score||0.35|-0.05|0.1479
84602817|NCT03222973|168956518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.79||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.65|0.7682
84602818|NCT03222973|168956519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.41|0.2131
84602819|NCT03222973|168956520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.41||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.47|0.4654
84602820|NCT03222973|168956521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.11||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.02|0.0417
84602821|NCT03222973|168956522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.33||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.78|0.2908
84602822|NCT03998670|168956534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The primary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean distance control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control. The planned convenience sample size of 64 was expected to provide outcome data for at least 60 participants (30 per group).||1.1|-0.5|
84602823|NCT03998670|168956535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|32.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||32|-17|
84602824|NCT03998670|168956536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||19|-27|
84602825|NCT03998670|168956538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The secondary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean near control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control.||0.7|-0.7|
84602826|NCT05858450|168956580|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|1.205||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.205|1.018|
84602827|NCT05858450|168956580|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.664||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.664|0.606|
84602828|NCT05858450|168956581|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.107||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.107|1.016|
84602829|NCT05858450|168956581|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|0.919||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.919|0.875|
84602830|NCT05858450|168956582|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|2.1||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.1|1.133|
84602831|NCT05858450|168956582|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.206||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.206|1.014|
84602832|NCT05858450|168956583|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.217||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.217|0.903|
84602833|NCT05858450|168956583|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.973||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.973|0.846|
84602834|NCT05858450|168956584|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.211||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.211|1.068|
84602835|NCT05858450|168956584|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.11||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.11|1.007|
84602836|NCT05858450|168956585|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|0.807||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.807|0.718|
84602837|NCT05858450|168956585|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.907||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.907|0.811|
84602838|NCT05858450|168956586|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.731||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.731|0.88|
84602839|NCT05858450|168956586|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.238||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.238|0.865|
84602840|NCT05858450|168956587|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|0.687|
84602841|NCT05858450|168956587|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.945||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.945|0.722|
84602842|NCT05858450|168956588|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.264||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.264|1.088|
84602843|NCT05858450|168956588|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|1.015|
84602844|NCT05858450|168956589|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.286||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.286|0.911|
84602845|NCT05858450|168956589|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.01||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.01|0.859|
84602846|NCT00642174|168956590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|61.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|53.83|69.31||P-value is for 4 Hours After Loading Dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (i.e. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 4 hours after administration of loading dose. Assuming 90% power, 2-sided alpha of 0.05, and a 17.5% difference in IPA between treatment groups with a standard deviation of 20, a total of 15 completed subjects per sequence group (i.e., 15 subject who receive prasugrel first, then clopidogrel; and 15 subjects who receive clopidogrel first, then prasugrel) was determined.||69.31|53.83|<0.0001
84602847|NCT00642174|168956591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.43|45.52||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 1 hour after administration of the loading dose.||45.52|27.43|<0.0001
84602848|NCT00642174|168956591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|49.56|66.19||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours after administration of the loading dose.||66.19|49.56|<0.0001
84602849|NCT00642174|168956591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.27|25.04||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours post-Last Maintenance Dose (LMD).||25.04|10.27|<0.0001
84602850|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.5466||95.0|-3.66|1.97||P-value for Baseline (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||1.97|-3.66|0.5466
84664868|NCT02956486|169063294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.56|0.012
84602851|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.45|-17.55||P-value for 1 After Post Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.55|-28.45|<0.0001
84602852|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.18|-22.02||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statisitical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-22.02|-31.18|<0.0001
84602853|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.42|-19.17||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-19.17|-27.42|<0.0001
84602854|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0001||95.0|-12.78|-4.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-4.58|-12.78|0.0001
84602855|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8779||95.0|-2.8|3.26||P-value for Baseline (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||3.26|-2.80|0.8779
84602856|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.43|-17.87||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.87|-32.43|<0.0001
84602857|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.32|-29.78||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-29.78|-40.32|<0.0001
84602858|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.32|-25.66||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-25.66|-36.32|<0.0001
84602859|NCT00642174|168956592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.19|-7.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-7.58|-17.19|<0.0001
84602860|NCT00642174|168956593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.3692||95.0|-3.6|9.44||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||9.44|-3.60|0.3692
84602861|NCT00642174|168956593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.43|-24.98||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-24.98|-47.43|<0.0001
84602862|NCT00642174|168956593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-61.89|-44.02||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-44.02|-61.89|<0.0001
84542800|NCT00897715|168837595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||For the primary specific aim, we will compare the mean percent change on hsCRP between the intervention arm and the placebo arm using linear regression. We anticipate that the intervention will conservatively decrease hsCRP by 54%; whereas, placebo will have no effect. Accordingly, we have estimated that we will need 24 subjects in the experimental arm and 24 controls to have an 80% power, with an alpha of 0.05 to detect the above mentioned effect size.||||0.03
84542801|NCT00897715|168837596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84542802|NCT02714218|168837607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.90|0.38|0.0144
84542803|NCT02714218|168837607|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-2.6|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-2.6|-22.7|
84542804|NCT02714218|168837608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.84|0.36|0.0059
84542805|NCT02714218|168837608|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-4.3|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-4.3|-24.5|
84542806|NCT02714218|168837609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||p-value from CMH Test for the comparison of the odds ratio of N3I1 over N1I3|||1.21|0.53|0.2923
84542807|NCT02714218|168837610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||||Hazard Ratio is N3I1 over N1I3. (NIVO 3 + IPI 1 (N3I1) over NIVO 1 + IPI 3 (N1I3))|||1.47|0.79|
84542808|NCT02714218|168837611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.84|0.4512
84542809|NCT00860795|168837627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
84542810|NCT00860795|168837628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
84542811|NCT00860795|168837629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
84542812|NCT00860795|168837631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.51
84542813|NCT00860795|168837632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.43
84542814|NCT00860795|168837633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
84542815|NCT02550561|168837639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||Subjects that reported either moderately or markedly improved on the GRA scale at 6 weeks compared to 12 weeks.|McNemar|||||||0.317
84542816|NCT02550561|168837640|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-tests|||The mean change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for bladder pain||||0.47
84542817|NCT02550561|168837640|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in Pelvis Pain and Urgency/Frequency Patient Symptom (PUF) score||||0.17
84542818|NCT02550561|168837640|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change for O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI)||||.08
84542819|NCT02550561|168837640|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI)||||0.51
84542820|NCT02550561|168837640|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in 24-h urinary frequency||||0.22
84542821|NCT00791778|168837644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of PFS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 65% increase in median PFS. With one-sided alpha of 0.10, power of 90% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib and Placebo, a total of 105 PFS events were required.||1.63|0.72|0.655
84542822|NCT00791778|168837645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.2|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||2.20|0.93|0.951
84542823|NCT00791778|168837646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.23|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization.|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||3.23|0.69|0.84
84542824|NCT02291237|168837684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.55||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.78|||ANCOVA|P-value and Least Squares (LS) Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.78|-1.87|0.416
84542825|NCT02291237|168837685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.42||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.85|-1.68|0.517
84542826|NCT02291237|168837686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|1.54||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.19|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||6.19|-3.11|0.513
84602863|NCT00642174|168956593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-50.03|-35.55||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-35.55|-50.03|<0.0001
84602864|NCT00642174|168956593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.0012||95.0|-23.42|-6.37||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-6.37|-23.42|0.0012
84602865|NCT00642174|168956594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5238||95.0|-5.35|2.78||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||2.78|-5.35|0.5238
84602866|NCT00642174|168956594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.15|-11.33||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-11.33|-21.15|<0.0001
84602867|NCT00642174|168956594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.67|-18.11||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-18.11|-29.67|<0.0001
84602868|NCT00642174|168956594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.97|-14.9||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-14.90|-24.97|<0.0001
84602869|NCT00642174|168956594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.3725||95.0|-8.46|3.26||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||3.26|-8.46|0.3725
84602870|NCT00896363|168956595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|3.32|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||3.32|-1.62|
84602871|NCT00896363|168956595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|2.78|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||2.78|-2.12|
84602872|NCT00896363|168956595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|5.14|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||5.14|-2.01|
84602873|NCT00896363|168956595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|5.13|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||5.13|-1.81|
84726882|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.039||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.039|-0.197|0.0043
84602874|NCT00896363|168956596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.56|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||1.56|-0.93|
84602875|NCT00896363|168956596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.75|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.75|-0.73|
84602876|NCT00896363|168956596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.42|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.42|-1.10|
84726883|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.221||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.221|-0.376|< 0.0001
84602877|NCT00896363|168956596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.48|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.48|-0.93|
84602878|NCT00896363|168956597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|2.37|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||2.37|-0.94|
84602879|NCT00896363|168956597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.21|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.21|-2.10|
84602880|NCT00896363|168956597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.90|-1.22|
84602881|NCT00896363|168956597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.85|-1.22|
84602882|NCT01730339|168956612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.16|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.16|0.19|0.0219
84602883|NCT01730339|168956612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.72|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.72|-0.24|0.4038
84602884|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.2||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.20|-0.43|
84602885|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.11||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.11|-0.43|
84602886|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.15|
84602887|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.36||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.36|-0.22|
84602888|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.77||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.77|0.07|
84602889|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.65||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.65|0.05|
84726884|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.100|-0.261|<.0001
84602890|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.68||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|-0.03|
84602891|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.09|
84602892|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.42||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.18|
84602893|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.22||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.22|-0.35|
84602894|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.24||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.47|
84602895|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.06||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.06|-0.60|
84602896|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.41||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.41|-0.35|
84726885|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.035|-0.228|0.0084
84602897|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.37||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.37|-0.33|
84602898|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.53||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.53|-0.24|
84602899|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.32||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.39|
84602900|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.58||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.58|-0.22|
84602901|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.35||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.42|
84664869|NCT00862745|169063309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, threshold for significance is P \< .05|ANCOVA|Mean difference=Drug A minus Drug B||Null hypothesis: fesoterodine treatment is not associated with greater reduction in urgency incontinence frequency compared to placebo in women diagnosed using the 3IQ||||<0.001
84664870|NCT00732615|169063349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|64.0||A fixed sequence test procedure was used to control the study level type I error. Order of test sequence started with the primary efficacy endpoint and proceeded to the 3 secondary efficacy endpoints, in the order defined in the protocol.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between NPSP558 and the placebo treatment groups.|The above two sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis is that the % of subjects meeting primary efficacy endpoint criteria are the same for both tmt arms. The sample size was determined based on the assumption that 40% and 10% of subjects for NPSP558 and pbo arms would meet the endpt criteria, respectively. Based on 2-tailed test, alpha of 0.05 and 2-to-1 randomization ratio, 84 (56 NPSP558, 28 pbo) subjects who completing the study would achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusted for dropouts, planned enrollment was 110 subjects.||64.0|40.6|<0.001
84664871|NCT00732615|169063350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the primary endpoint reached statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis conducted using percentage change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline calcium dose as covariate.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the percentage changes from baseline for the two treatment arms.||||<0.001
84664872|NCT00732615|169063351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.711|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.619|52.363||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the first secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the proportions of subjects (who achieved this secondary endpoint) from the two treatment arms.||52.363|2.619|<0.001
84664873|NCT00732615|169063352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.922||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the second secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of subjects with any reported clinical symptoms for the two treatment arms are the same.||1.922|0.402|0.747
84664874|NCT04446377|169063356|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would induce greater changes in viral load from Day 1 to Day 4 than would Placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.53||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.20|Mixed Models Analysis|ANCOVA linear mixed model to evaluate the relative differences between the LAM-002A and Placebo groups in the log10 viral load from Day 1 to Day 4.|The difference between the groups (LAM-002A vs Placebo).|The analysis tested whether the viral load in nasopharyngeal samples was lower at Day 4 in those receiving LAM-002A compared to Placebo.||0.53|-1.47|0.35
84602902|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.84||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.84|-0.05|
84602903|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.23||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.62|
84602904|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.49||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.49|0.40|
84602905|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.72||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|-0.30|
84602906|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.24||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.24|0.13|
84602907|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.67||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.38|
84602908|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.78||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.78|-0.01|
84664875|NCT04446377|169063358|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would reduce the cumulative rate of hospitalization or death during the 28-day period comprising 10 days of study drug administration and a further 18 days of observation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.89|||Log Rank|||||22.89|0.18|0.55
84726886|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.243||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.243|-0.433|<.0001
84726887|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|-0.108||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.108|-0.304|0.0001
84664876|NCT04446377|169063360|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression at Baseline||||
84664877|NCT04446377|169063360|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE Logistic Regression at Day 1||||
84602909|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.28||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.28|-0.50|
84602910|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.67||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.23|
84602911|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.24||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.63|
84602912|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.26||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.26|0.21|
84602913|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.59||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.59|-0.41|
84602914|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.02||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.02|0.02|
84602915|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.63||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.33|
84602916|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.67||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.09|
84602917|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.34||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.34|-0.39|
84602918|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.74||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.74|-0.12|
84602919|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.05||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.05|-0.76|
84602920|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.2||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.25|
84602921|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.46|
84602922|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|1.05||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.05|0.01|
84602923|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.98||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.98|0.00|
84602924|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.62||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.62|-0.29|
84602925|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.43||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.43|-0.28|
84602926|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.0||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.00|0.02|
84602927|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.23||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.53|
84602928|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.2||||||Surface Area: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.08|
84602929|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.42||||||Surface Area : Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.44|
84726888|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.004||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||0.004|-0.195|0.0589
84602930|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.28||||||Surface Area: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.28|0.09|
84602931|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.69||||||Surface Area: week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.69|-0.23|
84602932|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.6|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Week 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.60|-0.12|0.2778
84602933|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.45|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.45|-0.28|0.6888
84602934|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.65|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.65|-0.18|0.3515
84602935|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.19|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.19|-0.64|0.3788
84602936|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.29|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.29|0.35|0.0044
84602937|NCT01730339|168956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.58|-0.35|0.6848
84602938|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.64|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.64|-0.44|0.7552
84602939|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.52|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.30|0.6605
84602940|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.56|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.56|-0.55|0.9842
84602941|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.63|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.21|0.4010
84602942|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.07|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.07|-0.19|0.2491
84602943|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.47|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.47|-0.47|0.9980
84602944|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.93|-0.37|0.4730
84602945|NCT01730339|168956614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.31|-0.67|0.5413
84664878|NCT04446377|169063360|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 4||||
84664879|NCT04446377|169063360|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 11||||
84664880|NCT04446377|169063361|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that, relative to Placebo, LAM-002A would result in a greater proportion of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 viral load \<LLOQ on Day 4.|Relative Risk|2.51||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Prespecified significance level of 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||8.48|0.74|0.20
84664881|NCT00530764|169063378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each of the Sativex treatment groups and placebo. The estimated response rates, odds ratios, 95% CIs for the odds ratios and p-values were presented.||2.60|0.72|0.33
84664882|NCT00530764|169063378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||1.76|0.46|0.62
84664883|NCT00530764|169063378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||2.28|0.62|0.61
84664884|NCT00530764|169063379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|-3.33|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||Each of the active treatment groups were compared with placebo using pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The Hodges-Lehmann estimates and 95% CI for the median differences were also presented.||-3.33|-21.35|0.0077
84664885|NCT00530764|169063379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|7.14|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||7.14|-11.04|0.67
84664886|NCT00530764|169063379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|0.0|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.00|-17.14|0.039
84664887|NCT00530764|169063380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.75||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.22|-1.28|0.006
84664888|NCT00530764|169063380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.44|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.44|-0.62|0.75
84664889|NCT00530764|169063380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.36||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.18|-0.89|0.19
84664890|NCT00530764|169063381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.73||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (worst pain) was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.17|-1.30|0.011
84664891|NCT00530764|169063381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.35||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.11|-0.81|0.14
84664892|NCT00530764|169063381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.24||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.32|-0.81|0.40
84664893|NCT00530764|169063382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean sleep disturbance NRS score was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.31|-1.45|0.003
84664894|NCT00530764|169063382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.49|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.49|-0.65|0.78
84664895|NCT00530764|169063382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo.||0.24|-0.90|0.26
84664896|NCT01414075|169063387|OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0757
84664897|NCT01414075|169063387|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0630
84664898|NCT01414075|169063387|OTHER|||||||0.8653||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8653
84664899|NCT01414075|169063387|OTHER|||||||0.8982||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8982
84664900|NCT00923598|169063431|EQUIVALENCE|A method by Armitage et al was used, where by equivalence of treatments would be concluded if the 95% CI for the difference fell within the prespecified tolerated interval. Under these assumptions, a trial with 36 subjects (72 limbs) would correctly conclude there is no treatment difference with probability 80%, and incorrectly conclude equivalence when there is a difference of 20% with probability 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17|-10|0.05
84664901|NCT00467259|169063449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
84602946|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|5.92||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.92|-3.28|
84602947|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|2.91||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.91|-3.63|
84602948|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|10.24||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||10.24|-2.60|
84602949|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|4.68||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||4.68|-4.37|
84602950|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|2.95||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.95|-4.34|
84602951|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|1.45||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.45|-4.53|
84602952|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|5.58||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.58|-2.07|
84602953|NCT01730339|168956615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|1.99||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.99|-4.24|
84602954|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.35||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.15|
84602955|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.29||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.29|-0.22|
84602956|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.54|0.04|
84602957|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.15||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.15|-0.36|
84602958|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.82||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.82|0.32|
84602959|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.3||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.21|
84602960|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.68||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|0.18|
84602961|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.32||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.18|
84602962|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.39|-0.20|
84602963|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.28|
84602964|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.3||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.29|
84602965|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.33||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.33|-0.18|
84602966|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.72||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|0.12|
84602967|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.24||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.27|
84602968|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.5||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.50|-0.09|
84602969|NCT01730339|168956616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.40|-0.11|
84602970|NCT03920293|168956647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7||Statistical significance was tested at α=0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.7|-2.6|=0.0009
84602971|NCT03344549|168956662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshoid for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||0.37
84602972|NCT03344549|168956663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||||0.46
84602973|NCT03344549|168956664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84602974|NCT01679600|168956665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||F1-LD-F1 model by Brunner and Langer|||||||0.53
84726889|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.236||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.236|-0.433|<.0001
84602975|NCT00108303|168956666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log (odd ratio)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84602976|NCT00108303|168956666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This parameter was estimated by simulating 1000 samples with random genotypes and finding no value equal to or greater than 5.2.|Simulation|||||||<0.001
84602977|NCT00108303|168956667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Firsher's transform r to Z|||The coefficient of segregation versus no segregation of the P50 sensory gating percent in families with schizophrenia.||||0.001
84602978|NCT01685801|168956669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean|2.251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|4.144|||||The posterior distribution of overall treatment difference was obtained using the Bayesian hierarchical model and 95% credible interval of the treatment effect (posterior mean) was calculated.|"This statistical analysis is for Overall category."||4.144|0.383|
84602979|NCT00934947|168956707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.36
84602980|NCT00934947|168956708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.32
84602981|NCT00934947|168956709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
84602982|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.22|-0.26|0.025
84602983|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects after 12 weeks||0.09|-0.43|0.025
84602984|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.38|-0.11|0.025
84602985|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.29|-0.23|0.025
84602986|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 4 weeks||0.04|-0.45|0.025
84602987|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater change when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 12 weeks||0.07|-0.45|0.025
84602988|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
84602989|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||0.42|-0.62|0.025
84602990|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.62|-0.36|0.025
84602991|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|-0.02|0.025
84602992|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
84602993|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.39||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.91|-0.13|0.025
84602994|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.24|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.74|-0.24|0.025
84602995|NCT02868034|168956786|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.92|-0.12|0.025
84602996|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.67|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.||SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|1.52|-2.67|0.025
84602997|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.76|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||2.02|-2.76|0.025
84602998|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.03|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||2.16|-2.03|0.025
84602999|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||3.11|-1.68|0.025
84603000|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.94|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 4 weeks||1.25|-2.94|0.025
84603001|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.97|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 12 weeks||1.82|-2.97|0.025
84603002|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.39|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||4.99|-3.39|0.025
84603003|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.47|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||4.11|-5.47|0.025
84603004|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-1.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.75|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||2.63|-5.75|0.025
84603005|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.42||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||6.21|-3.37|0.025
84603006|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.63|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||3.75|-4.63|0.025
84603007|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|2.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.77|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.80|-2.77|0.025
84603008|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.37|4.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.01|-4.37|0.025
84603009|NCT02868034|168956787|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.22|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||5.35|-4.22|0.025
84603010|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||1.68|-4.0|0.025
84603011|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.46|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 12-weeks||3.07|-3.46|0.025
84603012|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.2|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||1.48|-4.2|0.025
84603013|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 12-weeks||1.55|-4.99|0.025
84603014|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.18|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||0.50|-5.18|0.025
84603015|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.89|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Treatment Component Main Effect after 12-weeks||-0.35|-6.89|0.025
84603016|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|3.24||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.45|8.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||8.92|-2.45|0.025
84603017|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|10.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||10.87|-2.19|0.025
84603018|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.12|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||6.25|-5.12|0.025
84603019|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||5.87|-7.20|0.025
84603020|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||10.32|-1.04|0.025
84603021|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.04|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||8.02|-5.04|0.025
84603022|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.86||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.54|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.82|-6.54|0.025
84603023|NCT02868034|168956788|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.5|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.57|-6.50|0.025
84603024|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||0.32|-0.60|0.025
84603025|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.61|-0.44|0.025
84603026|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.92|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.0|-0.92|0.025
84603027|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.34|-0.70|0.025
84603028|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.30|-0.62|0.025
84603029|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.33|-0.71|0.025
84603030|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.30|-0.54|0.025
84603031|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.49|-0.60|0.025
84603032|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.04|-0.80|0.025
84603033|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.23||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.28|-0.81|0.025
84603034|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-0.03|0.025
84603035|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.07|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.02|-1.07|0.025
84603036|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||1.63|-0.21|0.025
84603037|NCT02868034|168956789|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.04|-1.05|0.025
84603038|NCT03022097|168956790|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.124||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.124|0.060|<0.001
84603039|NCT03022097|168956791|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.117||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.117|0.053|<0.001
84603040|NCT03022097|168956792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.166||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.166|0.103|<0.001
84603041|NCT03022097|168956793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.25||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.250|0.184|<0.001
84664902|NCT00467259|169063450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
84664903|NCT00467259|169063451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's Exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
84664904|NCT02028065|169063485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||10.7|-0.9|
84664905|NCT02028065|169063485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.2|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen(Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||14.2|1.7|
84664906|NCT02028065|169063486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||2.5|-4.8|
84664907|NCT02028065|169063486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||3.7|-4.2|
84664908|NCT00576927|169063496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|8.717||p-value suspect because of sparse cell counts|Chi-squared|||||8.717|0.156|0.655
84664909|NCT04059094|169063520|OTHER||Adjusted means difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.5|||Mixed model with repeated measurements||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, and random effect for patient was applied. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. MMRM only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-3.5|0.5468
84664910|NCT04059094|169063521|OTHER||Adjuste means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANCOVA||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|ANCOVA based on analysis of covariance with fixed effects for baseline and treatment was applied. Statistical analysis was performed for 200μg BI and placebo groups only. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. ANCOVA only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-2.4|0.3039
84664911|NCT00680043|169063536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-0.79|
84664912|NCT00680043|169063536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.56|0.52|||ANOVA|||||0.52|-0.56|
84664913|NCT00680043|169063538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.84|
84664914|NCT00680043|169063538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.92|
84726890|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.137||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.137|-0.340|<.0001
84664915|NCT00513474|169063551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Gray's test for competing risks|||||||.036
84664916|NCT01662908|169063583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|30.2||||||||30.2|-12.7|
84664917|NCT03274687|169063596|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -5.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 90% power for this endpoint and 91% power for the bowel endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.98
84672289|NCT01120210|169080037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|4.718||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||4.718|-6.060|0.8030
84603042|NCT03022097|168956794|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.3|0.2|0.005
84603043|NCT03022097|168956794|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.0|-0.1|0.132
84603044|NCT03022097|168956795|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-1.4|-6.7|0.003
84603045|NCT03022097|168956795|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-0.3|-5.5|0.031
84603046|NCT05479097|168956816|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.5||||0.03232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Systolic blood pressure was not normally distributed in the study sample, so nonparametric analysis was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in systolic blood pressure.||-1.0|-12.0|0.03232
84603047|NCT05479097|168956817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|As diastolic blood pressure was normally distributed in our sample, we used a paired t-test to evaluate the mean difference in measurements.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.1|-6.1|0.045
84603048|NCT05479097|168956818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was no change in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure well-controlled (\<=140 mmHg) from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
84603049|NCT05479097|168956819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to their personalized goal from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
84603050|NCT01468233|168956843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|42.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|20.7|<0.001
84603051|NCT01468233|168956843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|40.5||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|10.5|<0.001
84603052|NCT01468233|168956843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|53.3||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|22.8|<0.001
84603053|NCT01468233|168956844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|19.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.2||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||34.2|4.7|=0.01
84603054|NCT01468233|168956845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.6||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||37.6|12.7|<0.001
84603055|NCT01468233|168956846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.1||P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum (baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use), baseline value, and treatment as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||-10.1|-28.6|<0.001
84603056|NCT00457821|168956850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
84603057|NCT00457821|168956851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
84603058|NCT00457821|168956853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
84603059|NCT03549871|168956898|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.389|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.675||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Repeated measures NB regression model|||Analyzed using repeated measures NB model with fixed effect of treatment period (fitusiran efficacy period or factor/BPA prophylaxis period) and robust sandwich covariance matrix was constructed to account for within participant dependence, logarithm of duration (in years) that each participant spends in each study period matching BE data being analyzed as an offset variable.||0.675|0.224|=0.0008
84603060|NCT03549871|168956900|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.842||||||||0.842|0.234|
84603061|NCT03549871|168956902|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.91||||||||0.910|0.259|
84603062|NCT00737568|168956913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was controlled for strata (HBeAg status and ALT level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. These hypotheses were evaluated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for randomization strata, with the missing = failure method in which participants with missing data were considered to have failed to achieve the endpoint.||||0.43
84603063|NCT01133626|168956928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of a two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP HFA 320 mcg/day to placebo was greater than 0.80.|geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.87|
84664918|NCT03274687|169063597|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -6.||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 91% power for this endpoint and 90% power for the urinary endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.96
84664919|NCT03274687|169063598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.70
84664920|NCT03274687|169063598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.67
84664921|NCT03274687|169063598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.66
84664922|NCT03274687|169063599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.0011
84664923|NCT03274687|169063599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.93
84664924|NCT03274687|169063599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.30
84664925|NCT03274687|169063600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Protocol definition of biochemical failure||||0.29
84664926|NCT03274687|169063600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Phoenix definition of biochemical failure||||0.22
84664927|NCT03274687|169063601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.96
84664928|NCT03274687|169063602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.35
84664929|NCT03274687|169063603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.41
84664930|NCT03274687|169063604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.60
84664931|NCT03274687|169063606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.47||Two-side significance level 0.05|Log Rank||Reference = COPORT|||9.47|0.26|0.61
84664932|NCT03274687|169063607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher adverse event of any attribution||||0.53
84664933|NCT03274687|169063607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal adverse event of any attribution||||0.6929
84664934|NCT03274687|169063607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2605|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher genitourinary adverse event of any attribution||||0.2605
84664935|NCT00613938|169063608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9|<|0.001||95.0|39.01|85.73||Comparisons of tapentadol dose groups and placebo was performed with Hochberg procedure for adjustment for the multiple tests.|ANCOVA||The results shown are the treatment group differences between Tapentadol IR 50mg group and placebo.|Null hypothesis: There are no differences in pain intensity measured by SPID-48 hours between any of tapentadol dose groups and placebo. ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, center and baseline pain intensity score was used for the primary analysis.||85.73|39.01|<0.001
84664936|NCT02636868|169063614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.363
84664937|NCT02636868|169063614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.360
84726891|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.028||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.028|-0.236|0.0138
84664938|NCT02636868|169063614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.461
84664939|NCT02636868|169063615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.401
84664940|NCT02636868|169063615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.372
84664941|NCT02636868|169063615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.648
84664942|NCT02636868|169063616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference across treatments||||0.996
84664943|NCT02636868|169063616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.951
84664944|NCT02636868|169063616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.995
84664945|NCT02636868|169063617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.312
84664946|NCT02636868|169063617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.094
84664947|NCT02636868|169063617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model.||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.414
84664948|NCT02636868|169063618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.099
84664949|NCT02636868|169063618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.090
84664950|NCT02636868|169063618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.461
84664951|NCT02636868|169063619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no treatment between treatments||||0.534
84664952|NCT02636868|169063619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.480
84664953|NCT02636868|169063619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.313
84664954|NCT00312494|169063672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1077||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||N=135/arm (405 total) for 85% power for 2-sample t-test (2-sided alpha=0.05) based on true mean difference=3.5 and SD=10. Interim Analysis (IA) to validate sample-size assumptions and adjust sample-size if needed. Based on IA results total sample-size increased to N=223/arm (669 total) to maintain desired power. Null Hypothesis=No statistically significant difference between add-on ziprasidone (higher, lower dose) and add-on placebo groups with respect to the population mean for primary endpoint||||0.1077
84664955|NCT00312494|169063672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score. Tests were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.4274
84664956|NCT00312494|169063673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4025
84664957|NCT00312494|169063673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.2830
84664958|NCT00312494|169063673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4125||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4125
84664959|NCT00312494|169063673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1527||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.1527
84664960|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0101||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0101
84664961|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0694
84664962|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0183
84664963|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0176
84664964|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2302||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.2302
84664965|NCT00312494|169063674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0796||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0796
84664966|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6191||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6191
84664967|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5629||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.5629
84664968|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.9049
84664969|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7153||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.7153
84603064|NCT00855933|168956929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||2-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||0.24|-0.03|0.126
84603065|NCT01960998|168956931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||||Data were not collected beyond the 12-month follow up, at which point fewer than 50% of participants in both groups had achieved continence. Thus, their time to continence could not be determined and the medians could not be calculated.|||0.22
84603066|NCT01960998|168956932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not corrected for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Baseline score was included as a covariate in analysis.|||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the ICIQ-SF are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean ICIQ-SF score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 7.0 (standard deviation 4.4) and in the telehealth group was 7.1 (SD 4.3). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline ICIQ-SF score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
84603067|NCT01960998|168956933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the EPIC-UI are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPIC-UI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 63.5 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 63.9 (SD 22.1). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline EPIC-UI score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
84664970|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.2420
84664971|NCT00312494|169063675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6121||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6121
84664972|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6138||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6138
84664973|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6536||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6536
84664974|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4758||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.4758
84664975|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7581||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.7581
84664976|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2221||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.2221
84664977|NCT00312494|169063676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5665||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.5665
84664978|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.1063
84664979|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2499||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.2499
84664980|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0876||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.0876
84664981|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3623||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.3623
84542827|NCT02291237|168837687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|4.56|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||4.56|-4.36|0.964
84542828|NCT02291237|168837688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.04||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||1.10|-1.18|0.944
84664982|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4686||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.4686
84664983|NCT00312494|169063677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2202||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.2202
84664984|NCT00312494|169063678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0728||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.0728
84664985|NCT00312494|169063678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3174||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.3174
84664986|NCT00312494|169063679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.4460
84664987|NCT00312494|169063679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3253||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.3253
84664988|NCT03316131|169063689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|9.22||||||||9.22|-8.67|
84664989|NCT03316131|169063690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.25||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.25|1.03|
84664990|NCT03316131|169063690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.07||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.07|0.88|
84664991|NCT03316131|169063690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.08|0.91|
84664992|NCT03316131|169063691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
84664993|NCT03316131|169063691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
84664994|NCT03316131|169063691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
84664995|NCT03316131|169063695|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
84664996|NCT03316131|169063695|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
84664997|NCT03316131|169063695|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
84664998|NCT00708162|169063700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG group was at least 10% worse than the RAL group with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG group was less than 10% worse than the RAL group.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions and normal approximation.|The planned sample size of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, (350 in each group) was estimated to provide at least 85% power to establish noninferiority in the percentage of participants achieving and maintaining confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both elvitegravir and raltegravir arms have a response rate of 0.74, that a noninferiority margin was 0.10, and that the significance level of the test was 1-sided 0.025 level.||8.2|-6.0|
84664999|NCT00708162|169063701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG arm was at least 10% worse than the RAL arm with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG arm was less than 10% worse than the RAL arm.|Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.9|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.9|-4.6|
84665000|NCT00708162|169063702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.7|-6.0|
84665001|NCT00708162|169063703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||8.2|-6.4|
84665002|NCT00708162|169063704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.3|-5.0|
84665003|NCT00708162|169063705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||6.8|-7.9|
84665004|NCT00708162|169063710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.3|-6.9|
84665005|NCT00708162|169063711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.4|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.4|-10.2|
84665006|NCT00708162|169063712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.7|-8.6|
84665007|NCT00708162|169063713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||5.5|-8.8|
84665008|NCT00708162|169063714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||||The difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were obtained using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.19|-0.16|
84665009|NCT00708162|169063715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.22|-0.12|
84665010|NCT00708162|169063716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|16.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||16|-33|
84665011|NCT00708162|169063717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|39.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||39|-25|
84665012|NCT02493608|169063786|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84542829|NCT02291237|168837689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||0.97|-0.96|0.993
84665013|NCT02493608|169063787|OTHER|||||||0.218||||||POD 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
84665014|NCT02493608|169063787|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||POD 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
84665015|NCT02493608|169063788|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
84665016|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 2||||0.55
84665017|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 8||||0.54
84665018|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 1||||0.54
84665019|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 8||||0.54
84665020|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 1||||0.54
84665021|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 8||||0.57
84665022|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 1||||0.54
84665023|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 2||||0.52
84665024|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 4||||0.52
84665025|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 8||||0.61
84665026|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 1||||0.54
84665027|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 8||||0.52
84665028|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 1||||0.52
84665029|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 6: Day 4||||0.52
84665030|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 8||||0.52
84665031|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7: Day 1||||0.52
84665032|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7 - Day 8||||0.52
84665033|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 1||||0.52
84665034|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 8||||0.52
84665035|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 9: Day 1||||0.52
84665036|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 9: Day 8||||1.00
84665037|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 10: Day 1||||0.52
84665038|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 2||||0.52
84665039|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 4||||0.52
84665040|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 8||||0.52
84665041|NCT03060447|169063790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 14||||0.52
84665042|NCT03060447|169063791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 50 Copies/mL||||0.035
84665043|NCT03060447|169063791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 200 Copies/mL||||0.024
84665044|NCT03060447|169063792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.67
84665045|NCT03060447|169063793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.78
84665046|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Baseline||||0.34
84665047|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.11
84665048|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.81
84665049|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.83
84665050|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.12
84542830|NCT03741400|168837713|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.88
84665051|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.45
84665052|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
84665053|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.053
84665054|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.16
84665055|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, ATI Remission Visit||||0.27
84665056|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Baseline||||0.35
84665057|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.013
84665058|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.15
84665059|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.30
84665060|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
84665061|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.49
84665062|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
84665063|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.055
84665064|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.90
84665065|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, ATI Remission Visit||||0.39
84665066|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Baseline||||0.75
84665067|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
84665068|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.69
84665069|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.15
84665070|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
84665071|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.030
84665072|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.087
84665073|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
84665074|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.066
84665075|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, ATI Remission||||0.86
84665076|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Baseline||||0.19
84665077|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.021
84665078|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.31
84665079|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.10
84665080|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
84665081|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.69
84665082|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.46
84665083|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.21
84665084|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.67
84665085|NCT03060447|169063794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, ATI Remission||||0.60
84665086|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.002
84665087|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.58
84665088|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
84665089|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|ISG15, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.031
84665090|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.001
84665091|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.003
84665092|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.057
84665093|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
84665094|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.057
84665095|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.005
84665096|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
84665097|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.17
84665098|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
84665099|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY|MX1, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.100
84665100|NCT03060447|169063795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
84665101|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.7469
84665102|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1207
84665103|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.4113
84665104|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1113
84665105|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.2410
84665106|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
84665107|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.0369
84665108|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
84665109|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.1658
84665110|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.9431
84665111|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.6514
84665112|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.0821
84665113|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2353
84665114|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1779
84665115|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
84665116|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
84665117|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.3711
84665118|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
84665119|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
84665120|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.8303
84665121|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Baseline||||0.9530
84665122|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1735
84665123|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2971
84665124|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 4||||1.0000
84665125|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 1||||1.0000
84665126|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.3374
84665127|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
84665128|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
84665129|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.3374
84665130|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.4320
84665131|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Baseline||||0.8597
84665132|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 1||||1.0000
84665133|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.0306
84665134|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.8345
84665135|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.9151
84665136|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
84665137|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 1||||1.0000
84665138|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
84665139|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.4555
84665140|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.6171
84665141|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Baseline||||0.0677
84665142|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.4712
84665143|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.6889
84665144|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1437
84665145|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
84665146|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
84665147|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
84665148|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.1752
84665149|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
84665150|NCT03060447|169063796|SUPERIORITY|CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 14||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.2246
84665151|NCT00810407|169063839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was diagnosis. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between diagnosis and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
84665152|NCT00810407|169063840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between gender and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
84665153|NCT00810407|169063841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between age of participants and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||0.587
84665154|NCT00810407|169063841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events across the age at baseline."||||0.428
84665155|NCT04008030|169063858|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.81||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0095.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.81|0.48|0.0003
84665156|NCT04008030|169063859|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0209.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.32|0.14|<0.0001
84665157|NCT04008030|169063861|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
84665158|NCT04008030|169063862|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.46|0.23|
84665159|NCT04008030|169063864|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.45|0.8|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.80|0.45|
84665160|NCT04008030|169063865|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.48|0.83|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.83|0.48|
84665161|NCT04008030|169063866|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
84665162|NCT04008030|169063867|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
84665163|NCT04008030|169063868|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||||95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
84665164|NCT04008030|169063869|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||||95.0|0.48|0.8|||||Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.80|0.48|
84665165|NCT04008030|169063871|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.5||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.006|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value from stratified CMH Test.|||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT|2.50|1.26|0.0011
84665166|NCT04008030|169063872|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||||95.0|3.91|12.62|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||12.62|3.91|
84665167|NCT04008030|169063872|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||||95.0|1.06|2.63|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||2.63|1.06|
84665168|NCT04008030|169063873|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.83|0.45|
84665169|NCT04249310|169063878|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox-regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|||2.46|0.32|
84665170|NCT04249310|169063879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.15|0.63|
84665171|NCT04249310|169063879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate COPD Exacerbation||1.01|0.43|
84542831|NCT03741400|168837713|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.99
84665172|NCT04249310|169063879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.31|0.62|
84665173|NCT01454947|169063882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P values computed using difference between proportions (z value) with Bonferroni correction.|2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.007
84665174|NCT03108027|169063883|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.6811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6811|0.5380|
84665175|NCT03108027|169063883|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5437|0.6868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6868|0.5437|
84665176|NCT03108027|169063883|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0057|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.0647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0647|-0.0760|
84665177|NCT03108027|169063884|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5335|0.7077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7077|0.5335|
84665178|NCT03108027|169063884|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7347|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6469|0.8225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8225|0.6469|
84665179|NCT03108027|169063884|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.197|-0.0311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0311|-0.1970|
84665180|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|82.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||82.9|61.3|
84665181|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|86.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.1|97.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||97.8|76.1|
84665182|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||-4.1|-25.6|
84665183|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.9|84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||84.2|61.9|
84665184|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|58.7||||||90.0|47.5|69.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||69.9|47.5|
84665185|NCT03108027|169063885|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||25.5|3.3|
84665186|NCT02574247|169063887|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -9 dB SNR||||0.34
84665187|NCT02574247|169063887|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -6 dB SNR||||0.64
84665188|NCT02574247|169063887|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -6 dB SNR||||0.24
84665189|NCT02574247|169063887|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -3 dB SNR||||0.20
84665190|NCT02574247|169063890|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM slope||||0.03
84665191|NCT02574247|169063890|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for row IEEE slope||||0.04
84665192|NCT00770289|169063914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.911||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.911|0.886|<0.0001
84665193|NCT00770289|169063914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.797|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|0.82||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.820|0.771|<0.0001
84665194|NCT00770289|169063914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.791||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.791|0.736|<0.0001
84665195|NCT02733991|169063916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-2.25|-3.51|<0.0001
84542832|NCT03741400|168837713|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.80
84726892|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.252||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.252|-0.458|<.0001
84726893|NCT02604199|169205688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.117||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.117|-0.329|0.0001
84542833|NCT03741400|168837714|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.61
84665196|NCT02733991|169063917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-33.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-33.19|-52.01|<0.0001
84665197|NCT02733991|169063918|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 40 min/day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.46|||||Model based Estimated mean; difference = control arm - treatment arm|||-0.46||
84665198|NCT02733991|169063918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.8||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Difference = Treatment arm - Control arm|||77.11|0.46|0.0474
84665199|NCT04191499|169064009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. Hazard ratios and log-rank p-values are using stratified methods by stratifying Visceral Disease, Endocrine Resistance, and Region.||0.59|0.32|<0.0001
84665200|NCT00680745|169064023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0867|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
84726894|NCT02342275|169205706|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the atenolol on the propranolol response rate does not fall by greater than 15%, the noninferiority margin was selected to be -15%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference=Propranolol vs Atenolol|The sample size required to compare propranolol and atenolol at month 6 was calculated before enrollment. Assuming the ulceration rate in both groups to be 10%, a sample size of180 patients was required for each group to show the noninferiority ofatenolol treatment with a 2-sidedα level of .05 and approximately 90% power||||<0.05
84726895|NCT02100189|169205712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.72|||Sensitivity||Exact Binomial confidence interval.|||30.72|3.76|
84726896|NCT02100189|169205713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.97|99.87|||Specificity||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.87|73.97|
84726897|NCT01357564|169205716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.13|-1.23|.02
84726898|NCT01357564|169205717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.01|-0.14|.03
84726899|NCT01842360|169205738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84726900|NCT01842360|169205739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
84726901|NCT01842360|169205740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean of health care consumption was 17.5±34.7 points in the placebo group versus 9.2±27.9 points in the MV130 group.||||0.0094
84726902|NCT01842360|169205741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3917
84726903|NCT01842360|169205742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As for the previous index the number of days with any of these drugs is used.||||0.0232
84726904|NCT01842360|169205743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0319
84726905|NCT01842360|169205744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
84726906|NCT01842360|169205745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of emergency room visits was 0.37 (±1.15) for the MV130 group and 0.87 (±1.61) for the placebo group.||||0.0037
84726907|NCT01842360|169205746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of medical consultations was 0.08 (±0.31) for the MV130 group and 0.31 (±0.88) for the placebo group.||||0.1008
84726908|NCT01842360|169205747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0367
84726909|NCT01842360|169205749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3234
84726910|NCT01842360|169205750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84726911|NCT02991456|169205768|OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2734
84726912|NCT02991456|169205769|OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7091
84726913|NCT02991456|169205770|EQUIVALENCE|This was tested as patients who preferred rolapitant + ondansetron vs. patients who did not prefer rolapitant + ondansetron. Patients who reported no preference and preference to Ondansetron were combined.||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Binomial|||||||0.0004
84726914|NCT02991456|169205770|EQUIVALENCE|Three outcomes tested by sequence.||||||0.5207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5207
84726915|NCT02991456|169205771|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.0406
84726916|NCT02991456|169205772|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0541|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0541
84726917|NCT02991456|169205773|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0781
84726918|NCT02991456|169205774|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.4146|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.4146
84726919|NCT02991456|169205775|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.2214
84726920|NCT02991456|169205776|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.2028
84726921|NCT02907489|169205802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||0.083 for 24 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
84726922|NCT02907489|169205802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||0.041 for 48 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.041
84726923|NCT02907489|169205802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||0.063 for 72 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
84726924|NCT02907489|169205803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||0.982 for S1, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
84726925|NCT02907489|169205803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||0.467 for S2, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.467
84726926|NCT02907489|169205803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||0.01 for S3 Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84726927|NCT00762853|169205804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84726928|NCT01885559|169205805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and clinical site|ACE+ARB (Lisinopril-telmisartan) compared to ACE+placebo (Lisinopril-placebo)|||1.42|0.82|0.58
84726929|NCT01885559|169205806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||shared parameter model|shared parameter models used due to informative censoring that occurred when patients did not have secondary outcomes measured after reaching endpoint||||2.8|-3.2|0.88
84726930|NCT01885559|169205807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7||controlling for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis||ACE-I+ARB annual percent change minus ACE-I + placebo annual percent change|||0.7|-3.9|0.17
84726931|NCT01885559|169205808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and recurrent events|Hazard ratio compares ACE-I + ARB compared to ACE-I + placebo|||1.32|0.80|0.85
84726932|NCT01885559|169205809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and accounting for recurrent events|Hazard ratio is comparing ACE-I + ARB to ACE-I + placebo|||1.6|0.42|0.57
84726933|NCT01885559|169205810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to informed censoring when patients who reached the primary endpoint were no longer assessed on the measure.||||0.16|-0.23|0.75
84726934|NCT01885559|169205811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to the informative censoring when patients who reached endpoint were not longer assessed on this measure.||||0.16|-0.26|0.66
84726935|NCT01885559|169205812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models are used with a logit link. Model controlled for baseline age, sex, race, and clinical site.|"Odds ratio represents the multiplicative effect of ACE-I + ARB group compared to the ACE-I + placebo group in change in pain over time.~ACE-I + ARB OR per month was 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) and ACE-I + placebo OR was 1.01 (1.01, 1.01)."|||1.01|0.99|0.64
84726936|NCT00424502|169205822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||2.64|1.39|<0.0001
84726937|NCT00424502|169205823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||0.401|0.151|<0.0001
84726938|NCT00424502|169205826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|25.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||25.28|3.52|0.012
84726939|NCT00424502|169205827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.21||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||5.65|-2.03|0.337
84726940|NCT06091982|169205874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.2|||Chi-squared|||Bivariable analysis of both groups||16.2|7.0|<0.0001
84726941|NCT06091982|169205874|OTHER|Multiple logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable analysis||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
84726942|NCT06091982|169205875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|17.1|||Chi-squared|||||17.1|9.1|<0.0001
84726943|NCT06091982|169205875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
84726944|NCT06091982|169205876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.6|||Chi-squared|||||21.6|11.3|<0.0001
84726945|NCT06091982|169205876|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|3.3|<0.0001
84726946|NCT02123797|169205906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.06||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (denominator=168/180) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.06|1.35|0.0007
84726947|NCT02123797|169205907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients with and without mediastinal invasive staging (denominator=126/222) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.80|1.25|0.0022
84726948|NCT02123797|169205908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.85||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=267/81) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.85|1.67|0.0004
84726949|NCT02123797|169205909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.36||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=132/216) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.36|1.50|<0.0001
84726950|NCT02123797|169205910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.665|3.996||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive staging (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.996|1.665|0.0366
84726951|NCT02123797|169205910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.621||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|4.665||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without invasive staging (numerator=46/30) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||4.665|1.473|0.0779
84726952|NCT02123797|169205911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.358||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.621||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.621|1.536|0.0703
84726953|NCT02123797|169205911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.535||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.446|4.444||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=40/36) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.444|1.446|0.0631
84665201|NCT00680745|169064023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
84665202|NCT00680745|169064023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0873|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.51|-0.86|<0.0001
84665203|NCT00680745|169064024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3153||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.15||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.15|-1.08|0.1410
84665204|NCT00680745|169064024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3217||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.21|-1.47|0.0091
84665205|NCT00680745|169064024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.92||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.92|-2.17|<0.0001
84665206|NCT00680745|169064025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-18.0||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-18.0|-45.0|
84665207|NCT00680745|169064025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-12.3||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.3|-39.7|0.0002
84665208|NCT00680745|169064025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-15.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.6|-42.2|<0.0001
84665209|NCT00680745|169064026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||22.1|5.4|
84665210|NCT00680745|169064026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||25.9|8.7|0.0001
84665211|NCT00680745|169064026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|27.4||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||27.4|9.9|<0.0001
84665212|NCT00680745|169064027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.45|-1.19|
84665213|NCT00680745|169064027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4234||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.11||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.11|-1.78|0.0262
84726954|NCT02123797|169205912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.191||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.093||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||6.093|1.671|0.0010
84726955|NCT02123797|169205912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.314||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=62/14) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.314|0.526|0.1972
84726956|NCT02123797|169205913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|4.203|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.203|1.785|0.0055
84726957|NCT02123797|169205913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|3.905||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=39/37) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.905|1.287|0.2572
84726958|NCT02123797|169205914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.25||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=232/106) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.25|1.24|0.0045
84726959|NCT02123797|169205915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.249||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|3.699||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|We examined treatment selection practices with or without MD care in a single healthcare system.||3.699|1.368|0.0474
84726960|NCT02123797|169205915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.751||||0.6353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.37||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing SC patients in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=58/15) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.370|0.910|0.6353
84665214|NCT00680745|169064027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|-0.84||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.84|-2.50|<0.0001
84665215|NCT00680745|169064028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-7.9|-21.8|
84726961|NCT02123797|169205917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.955||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.747||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=140/37) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=45/30) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.747|1.520|0.0014
84726962|NCT02123797|169205918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|6.299||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=145/32) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=49/26) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.299|1.519|0.0019
84726963|NCT02123797|169205919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.892||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|999.999||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=174/3) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=71/4) after adjustment for matched study design.|||999.999|1.002|0.0499
84479154|NCT05109702|168709473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.449|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.449|-0.133|0.287
84726964|NCT02123797|169205920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|6.319||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=158/19) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=60/15) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.319|1.123|0.0263
84752233|NCT04722250|169259623|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint is designed to test whether the Medtronic SE TAV is non-inferior to Edwards BE TAV in the composite event rate of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months post-procedure with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 8.0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.5|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||2.5|-4.9|<0.001
84542834|NCT03741400|168837715|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.47
84752234|NCT04722250|169259624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-25.6|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||-25.6|-38.7|<0.001
84496876|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-8.0||||||95.0|-14.9|-1.2||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||-1.2|-14.9|
84672290|NCT01120210|169080037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.781|3.801||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.801|-7.781|0.4923
84752235|NCT04556396|169259650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Chi-squared|||||0.4|0.1|<0.01
84672291|NCT01120210|169080037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.251|3.708||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.708|-11.251|0.3152
84672292|NCT01120210|169080038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.1561||95.0|-8.047|1.331||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.331|-8.047|0.1561
84672293|NCT01120210|169080038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.482|-0.622||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-0.622|-10.482|0.0282
84672294|NCT01120210|169080038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.818|-2.332||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-2.332|-11.818|0.0043
84672295|NCT01120210|169080039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.347|16.823||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||16.823|-16.347|0.9769
84672296|NCT01120210|169080040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.592|20.551||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEDV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||20.551|-16.592|0.8297
84672297|NCT01120210|169080041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.352|3.968||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEF at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.968|-3.352|0.8650
84672298|NCT01120210|169080042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.3748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|3.102||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in FS at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.102|-1.204|0.3748
84672299|NCT01120210|169080043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.198|18.359||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||18.359|-4.198|0.2123
84672300|NCT01120210|169080043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.016|19.575||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||19.575|-2.016|0.1083
84672301|NCT01120210|169080043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|25.771||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||25.771|2.557|0.0180
84672302|NCT01120210|169080044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.308|2.554||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.554|-5.308|0.4841
84672303|NCT01120210|169080044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.567|3.594||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.594|-5.567|0.6665
84672304|NCT01120210|169080044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.107|6.148||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||6.148|-4.107|0.6904
84672305|NCT01120210|169080045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|3.588||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||3.588|-2.197|0.6304
84672306|NCT01120210|169080045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|3.153||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.153|-3.851|0.8420
84672307|NCT01120210|169080045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.138|2.669||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||2.669|-4.138|0.6658
84672308|NCT01120210|169080046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-264.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-529.875|1.147||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.147|-529.875|0.0510
84665216|NCT00680745|169064028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-12.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-26.3|<0.0001
84665217|NCT00680745|169064028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.545|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-19.5|-33.5|<0.0001
84665218|NCT01928329|169064029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.03|-0.50|0.0816
84665219|NCT01928329|169064030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.25|-0.28|0.912
84665220|NCT01928329|169064031|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-0.801||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
84665221|NCT01928329|169064032|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-1.312||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
84665222|NCT01119131|169064056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.699
84665223|NCT01119131|169064057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.308
84665224|NCT01119131|169064058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.419
84726965|NCT02123797|169205921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.566||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|9.269||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=87/14) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=38/8) after adjustment for matched study design.|||9.269|0.711|0.1503
84726966|NCT02123797|169205934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0042
84726967|NCT02123797|169205934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.0805
84726968|NCT02123797|169205934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0073
84665225|NCT01119131|169064059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
84665226|NCT01119131|169064060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
84665227|NCT01119131|169064062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.949
84665228|NCT01119131|169064063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.957
84665229|NCT03182829|169064101|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority was chosen|Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||Chi-squared||||Fisher's exact test|100|90|<0.05
84665230|NCT05022784|169064144|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compares the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||<.0001
84726969|NCT02123797|169205934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0579
84726970|NCT02123797|169205935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0146
84665231|NCT05022784|169064145|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||<.0001
84665232|NCT05022784|169064146|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.37
84665233|NCT05022784|169064147|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.477
84665234|NCT05022784|169064148|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.644
84665235|NCT05022784|169064149|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.206
84665236|NCT05022784|169064150|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.052
84726971|NCT02123797|169205935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.16
84726972|NCT02123797|169205935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0014
84726973|NCT02123797|169205935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0037
84726974|NCT02123797|169205942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7506
84726975|NCT02123797|169205942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care.|||1.36|0.85|0.54
84726976|NCT02123797|169205943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4847|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4847
84726977|NCT02123797|169205943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.43|0.87|0.51
84665237|NCT05022784|169064151|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.044
84665238|NCT05022784|169064152|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.525
84665239|NCT05022784|169064153|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.024
84665240|NCT05022784|169064154|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.016
84665241|NCT05022784|169064155|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.913
84665242|NCT05022784|169064156|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.448
84665243|NCT05022784|169064157|OTHER|||||||0.515|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.515
84665244|NCT05022784|169064158|OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.829
84665245|NCT05022784|169064159|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.471
84665246|NCT05022784|169064160|OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.915
84665247|NCT05022784|169064161|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.190
84665248|NCT05022784|169064162|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.928
84665249|NCT05022784|169064163|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.490
84665250|NCT05022784|169064164|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.667
84726978|NCT02123797|169205943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.67|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.67|0.84|0.51
84726979|NCT02123797|169205944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9874|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9874
84726980|NCT02123797|169205944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care|||1.29|0.82|0.80
84726981|NCT02123797|169205945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5377|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5377
84665251|NCT05022784|169064165|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.032
84665252|NCT05022784|169064166|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.721
84665253|NCT05022784|169064167|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.352
84665254|NCT05022784|169064168|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.136
84665255|NCT05022784|169064169|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.270
84665256|NCT05022784|169064170|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.306
84665257|NCT05022784|169064171|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.145
84665258|NCT05022784|169064172|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.109
84665259|NCT05022784|169064173|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.454
84665260|NCT05022784|169064174|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.960
84665261|NCT05022784|169064175|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.265
84726982|NCT02123797|169205945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.34|0.83|0.73
84726983|NCT02123797|169205945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.57|0.82|0.73
84665262|NCT05022784|169064176|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.026
84665263|NCT05022784|169064177|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.016
84665264|NCT05022784|169064178|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.937
84665265|NCT05022784|169064179|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.948
84665266|NCT05022784|169064180|OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.574
84665267|NCT05022784|169064181|OTHER|||||||0.491|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.491
84665268|NCT05022784|169064182|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.432
84665269|NCT01985581|169064219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.9|0.0392
84665270|NCT01985581|169064220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6|||ANOVA|||||4.6|-4.0|0.894
84665271|NCT01985581|169064221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.2|||ANOVA|||||-3.2|-9.1|0.0001
84665272|NCT01985581|169064223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7|||ANOVA|||||3.7|-3.2|0.8706
84726984|NCT05030467|169205946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31||||||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.31|-0.39|
84726985|NCT05030467|169205947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and Poisson-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-level clustering.||1.03|1.00|0.011
84665273|NCT00065507|169064226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.18|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr status.||||-1.18|-2.30|<0.0001
84665274|NCT00065507|169064227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr Status||||-0.96|-1.85|<0.0001
84665275|NCT00065507|169064228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|32.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.2|20.2|<0.0001
84726986|NCT05030467|169205950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.15|-0.38|0.383
84665276|NCT00065507|169064229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percent treatment difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|24.8|<0.0001
84665277|NCT00065507|169064230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|19.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 treatment difference||34.6|3.7|0.0193
84665278|NCT00065507|169064230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|16.4||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 treatment difference||32.0|0.9|0.0425
84665279|NCT00065507|169064236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.82|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 24||0.82|-1.63|0.51
84665280|NCT00065507|169064236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.88|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 48||1.88|-1.08|<0.0001
84665281|NCT00065507|169064244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|25.2||||||Difference estimate ETV - ADV at Week 48||25.2|-4.5|
84665282|NCT00065507|169064245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.0||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||8.0|-8.7|
84665283|NCT00065507|169064246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.9||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||6.9|-21.3|
84665284|NCT00065507|169064247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.7||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||11.7|-0.3|
84665285|NCT00065507|169064248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age \<=45 versus age \>45 years, gender, and race (white versus non-white).||treatment comparison of HCC-free survival at Week 48||1.18|0.46|0.20
84665286|NCT01042236|169064272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.41||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.18|0.4907
84726987|NCT00331799|169205988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test on the difference between the baseline and endpoint score on the CD-RISC.||||0.00365
84726988|NCT02889809|169205989|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.142|||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1, gender and country.|||0.142|-0.462|
84726989|NCT02889809|169205992|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.572|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1(wk -16), gender and country|||0.572|-0.455|
84665287|NCT01042236|169064272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.32||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.27|0.5944
84665288|NCT01042236|169064273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.94||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.94|-1.91|0.9870
84665289|NCT01042236|169064273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.15||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-2.71|0.4167
84665290|NCT01042236|169064274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.26||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.26|-0.24|0.9403
84665291|NCT01042236|169064274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
84665292|NCT01042236|169064275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.22|-0.26|0.8602
84665293|NCT01042236|169064275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.43|0.1271
84665294|NCT00453921|169064297|OTHER||||||<|0.04||||||For active therapy/placebo relative to both placebo|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.04
84665295|NCT00453921|169064299|EQUIVALENCE|Looking for statistical difference, p \< .01, between groups looking at change scores|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665296|NCT00453921|169064300|EQUIVALENCE|group differences|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84665297|NCT00453921|169064303|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84665298|NCT00453921|169064303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priopr|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84726990|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) is not estimable.||||0.01
84665299|NCT00303498|169064304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.0302|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was obtained from the non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline treadmill exercise time.||The median of the treatment difference was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||||0.0302
84665300|NCT00303498|169064305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.495|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.4950
84726991|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.01
84665301|NCT00303498|169064306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.6||||0.3874|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PLAX 2D mode||||0.3874
84665302|NCT00303498|169064306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7038|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PSAX M-mode||||0.7038
84665303|NCT00303498|169064307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8998|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8998
84665304|NCT00303498|169064308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.7245|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.7245
84665305|NCT00303498|169064309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8649|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8649
84665306|NCT00303498|169064310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5909||||||The statistical analysis (P value) was performed on the composite change for all categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 24||||0.5909
84665307|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL versus \[v.\] \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665308|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665309|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665310|NCT00174915|169064311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|25.7||||||97.5|16.7|34.7||||||||34.7|16.7|
84665311|NCT00174915|169064311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|42.7||||||97.5|34.0|51.3||||||||51.3|34.0|
84665312|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665313|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84726992|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
84665314|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665315|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665316|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665317|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.479
84665318|NCT00174915|169064311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665319|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84726993|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.92|0.64|0.02
84665320|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665321|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665322|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665323|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665324|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665325|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.011
84665326|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665327|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.091
84665328|NCT00174915|169064312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665329|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665330|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665331|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665332|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665333|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665334|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665335|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.074
84665336|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665337|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.001
84665338|NCT00174915|169064313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
84665339|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84726994|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.54|2.20|0.01
84665340|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665341|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665342|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665343|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665344|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665345|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665346|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665347|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665348|NCT00174915|169064314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665349|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665350|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665351|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665352|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665353|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665354|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665355|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665356|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665357|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665358|NCT00174915|169064315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84665359|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.789
84665360|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
84665361|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.381
84665362|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
84542835|NCT03741400|168837715|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.55
84665363|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
84665364|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
84665365|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
84665366|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
84665367|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
84665368|NCT00174915|169064316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
84665369|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.699
84665370|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
84665371|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
84665372|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.679
84665373|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
84665374|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
84665375|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
84665376|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.309
84665377|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
84665378|NCT00174915|169064317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.385
84665379|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.949
84665380|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84726995|NCT00113880|169205998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|24.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.13|2.13|0.01
84665381|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.577
84726996|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.00|0.03
84665382|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.598
84726997|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.0||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||1.00|0.02|0.05
84665383|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
84665384|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.969
84665385|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
84665386|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.659
84665387|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
84665388|NCT00174915|169064318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
84665389|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
84665390|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
84665391|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
84665392|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.990
84665393|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
84665394|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
84665395|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
84665396|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
84665397|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.337
84665398|NCT00174915|169064319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
84665399|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.645
84726998|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.86||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.86|0.01|0.04
84665400|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.756
84665401|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.428
84665402|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons..|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.076
84665403|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.106
84665404|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.069
84665405|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.837
84665406|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.749
84665407|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.581
84665408|NCT00174915|169064320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.311
84665409|NCT02132767|169064321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84726999|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.70|0.20|0.01
84727000|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the all ages combined group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.22|0.01
84727001|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and the all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.08|0.03|0.01
84665410|NCT02132767|169064322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84665411|NCT02132767|169064323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84665412|NCT02132767|169064324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84665413|NCT02132767|169064325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84665414|NCT02132767|169064326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84665415|NCT02132767|169064327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84665416|NCT02132767|169064328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Poisson|||||||0.73
84665417|NCT00778700|169064331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|-0.51|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.51|-1.85|0.0041
84665418|NCT00778700|169064331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.73|-2.08|0.0007
84665419|NCT00778700|169064331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|-0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.53|-1.88|0.0035
84665420|NCT03227029|169064349|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.0|80.0|||||Proportions of study participants were calculated and presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. This highlights that we are 95% sure that the true proportion is not higher that the upper limit of the confidence interval.|||80|46|
84665421|NCT03227029|169064349|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.0|94.0||||||||94|67|
84665422|NCT03227029|169064349|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|82.0||||||||82|32|
84665423|NCT03227029|169064350|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|54.0||||||||54|20|
84665424|NCT03227029|169064350|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|69.0||||||||69|34|
84665425|NCT03227029|169064350|OTHER||% placebo recipients with usolicited AEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|68.0||||||||68|18|
84665426|NCT03227029|169064352|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|97.0||||||||97|72|
84665427|NCT03227029|169064352|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|100.0||||||||100|82|
84665428|NCT03227029|169064352|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
84665429|NCT03227029|169064355|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
84665430|NCT03227029|169064355|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
84665431|NCT03227029|169064355|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
84665432|NCT03227029|169064355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84665433|NCT03227029|169064355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84665434|NCT03227029|169064356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84665435|NCT03227029|169064356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84665436|NCT03227029|169064357|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
84665437|NCT03227029|169064357|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
84496877|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84665438|NCT03227029|169064357|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
84665439|NCT03227029|169064357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84665440|NCT03227029|169064357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84665441|NCT03227029|169064358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84665442|NCT03227029|169064358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84665443|NCT04984993|169064361|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 0 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>0, where mu is the population mean change from baseline in the EF domain of the IIEF questionnaire at week 24.||||<0.001
84665444|NCT04984993|169064362|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 15 minutes.||||<0.001
84665445|NCT04984993|169064362|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 10 minutes.||||<0.001
84665446|NCT04984993|169064362|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 5 minutes.||||0.890
84665447|NCT04984993|169064363|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84665448|NCT04984993|169064363|OTHER|||||||0.3327||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3327
84665449|NCT04984993|169064363|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.999
84665450|NCT02611778|169064408|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (FYB201 - Lucentis) was calculated using Least Square Means. If the 90% CI was completely contained in the interval \]-3.5;3.5\[ ETDRS letters, equivalence of FYB201 and Lucentis could be concluded.|Difference in least square means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|The hypothesis of biosimilarity of FYB201 and Lucentis was tested with a two-sided equivalence test with an equivalence margin of 3 ETDRS letters. An ANCOVA model was used with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and the country and the treatment group as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.6|
84665451|NCT02611778|169064409|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.5|-1.6|
84665452|NCT02611778|169064410|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.7|-1.8|
84665453|NCT02611778|169064411|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and 12 months (average of Weeks 40, 44 and 48) as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.8|-1.6|
84665454|NCT02611778|169064412|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|19.6|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||19.60|-18.22|
84665455|NCT02611778|169064413|OTHER||Difference in least square means|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.632|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|21.85|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||21.85|-16.49|
84665456|NCT02611778|169064414|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.62|10.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||10.80|-22.62|
84665457|NCT02611778|169064415|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|20.63|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||20.63|-13.28|
84665458|NCT02611778|169064416|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4709|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.706|0.846|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||0.846|-0.706|
84665459|NCT02611778|169064417|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.547|1.23|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.230|-0.547|
84665460|NCT02611778|169064418|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.67|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 24 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.67|-1.25|
84665461|NCT02611778|169064419|OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 48 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||3.42|0.04|
84665462|NCT01341964|169064448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|not normally distributed, values were log-transformed.||||||0.66
84727002|NCT00113880|169205999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.03|0.01|0.01
84665463|NCT01528254|169064450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.45|<0.001
84665464|NCT01528254|169064451|OTHER||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.05|0.042
84665465|NCT01528254|169064452|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|-0.29|0.635
84665466|NCT01528254|169064453|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.05|0.530
84665467|NCT01528254|169064454|OTHER||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-0.35|0.381
84665468|NCT01528254|169064455|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||0.38|-0.53|0.744
84665469|NCT01528254|169064455|OTHER||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-0.09|-0.91|0.017
84665470|NCT01528254|169064455|OTHER||Slope|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-0.17|-0.99|0.006
84665471|NCT01528254|169064456|OTHER||Slope|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||-0.79|-9.26|0.020
84665472|NCT01528254|169064456|OTHER||Slope|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-1.69|-8.46|0.003
84665473|NCT01528254|169064456|OTHER||Slope|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-2.16|-8.61|0.001
84665474|NCT03557151|169064476|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Transdisciplinary Care is being compared to Usual Care using the Time 2 HbA1c (as baseline) and Time 5 HbA1c (as the outcome) controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, and age of the patient. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||0.60|-0.68|0.895
84665475|NCT03557151|169064477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data, controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to examine the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||6.88|-2.29|.33
84665476|NCT03557151|169064478|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data and controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data are not imputed.||8.53|-.32|.07
84542836|NCT03741400|168837715|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.38
84665477|NCT03557151|169064479|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12-month data. The interaction of condition (TC or UC) and time was used to examine the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||5.0|-9.77|.527
84665478|NCT03557151|169064480|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12 month data. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were used as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||2.35|-8.94|.253
84665479|NCT03557151|169064481|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12 month data. The condition by time interaction was used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were included as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||17.08|2.31|0.01
84665480|NCT03557151|169064482|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12-month data. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||4.35|-3.62|.83
84665481|NCT00840294|169064498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84665482|NCT00828347|169064510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84665483|NCT02669433|169064527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.79|-4.80|0.158
84665484|NCT02669433|169064527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||3.55|-2.08|0.6069
84665485|NCT02669433|169064528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||1.60|-2.55|0.6531
84727003|NCT00113880|169206000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Urticaria event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||4.13|1.02|0.04
84665486|NCT02669433|169064528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||2.75|-1.41|0.5274
84665487|NCT02669433|169064529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.5|-0.2|0.3953
84665488|NCT02669433|169064529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.42|-0.28|0.7008
84665489|NCT02157298|169064548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
84665490|NCT02157298|169064549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-33.2|<0.0001
84665491|NCT02157298|169064550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.7|-1.7|<0.0001
84665492|NCT02157298|169064551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4017||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.07||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.07|-1.51|0.0743
84752236|NCT01405937|169259655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
84665493|NCT02157298|169064552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsitatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment with adjustment for baseline value and DPP-4||H0: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||10.7|-4.0|0.3727
84665494|NCT00883116|169064554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|1.0|0.0397
84665495|NCT00883116|169064555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.3|0.8|0.8011
84665496|NCT03715764|169064558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84665497|NCT03715764|169064558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Results for the final model for the variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84665498|NCT03715764|169064558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Results for the final model, variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time), adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84665499|NCT03715764|169064559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84665500|NCT03715764|169064559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||Results for the final model, variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0049
84665501|NCT03715764|169064559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Results for the final model, adjusted for confounders, for the variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84665502|NCT03715764|169064560|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
84665503|NCT03715764|169064561|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
84665504|NCT00818662|169064571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.8||||0.476||95.0|-3.1|1.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||1.5|-3.1|0.476
84665505|NCT00818662|169064571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.53||95.0|-1.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.0|-1.6|0.530
84665506|NCT00818662|169064572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.812||95.0|-2.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.7|-2.9|0.812
84665507|NCT00818662|169064572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||2.5|-4.3|0.602
84665508|NCT00818662|169064573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.7||||0.368||95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||0.8|-2.3|0.368
84727004|NCT00113880|169206002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.89|0.56|0.01
84665509|NCT00818662|169064573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.8||||0.319||95.0|-0.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||2.4|-0.8|0.319
84665510|NCT00818662|169064574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.778||95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||2.4|-1.8|0.778
84665511|NCT00818662|169064574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.851||95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||1.9|-2.3|0.851
84665512|NCT00818662|169064575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.306||95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.306
84665513|NCT00818662|169064575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.028||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|0.0|0.028
84665514|NCT00818662|169064576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.3|0.660
84665515|NCT00818662|169064576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.766||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.2|0.766
84665516|NCT00818662|169064577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.9||||0.206||95.0|-1.0|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.0|0.206
84542837|NCT03741400|168837716|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.24
84665517|NCT00818662|169064577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.4||||0.331||95.0|-4.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-4.3|0.331
84665518|NCT00818662|169064578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.64||95.0|-2.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.1|0.640
84665519|NCT00818662|169064578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|2.5||||0.075||95.0|-0.3|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-0.3|0.075
84665520|NCT00818662|169064579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.093||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.093
84665521|NCT00818662|169064579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.094||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.094
84665522|NCT00818662|169064580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.096||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.3|0.096
84665523|NCT00818662|169064580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.2|0.123
84665524|NCT00818662|169064581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.167||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.2|0.167
84665525|NCT00818662|169064581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.998||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.998
84665526|NCT00818662|169064582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.173||95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.173
84665527|NCT00818662|169064582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.744||95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.744
84665528|NCT00818662|169064583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.5||||0.238||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.0|0.238
84665529|NCT00818662|169064583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.4||95.0|-3.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-3.6|0.400
84665530|NCT00818662|169064584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.6||||0.695||95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.695
84665531|NCT00818662|169064584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.3||||0.41||95.0|-4.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-4.5|0.410
84665532|NCT00818662|169064585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.988||95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.5|0.988
84665533|NCT00818662|169064585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.555||95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.0|0.555
84665534|NCT00818662|169064586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.5||||0.783||95.0|-12.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-12.2|0.783
84665535|NCT00818662|169064586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-2.1||||0.7||95.0|-13.1|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-13.1|0.700
84727005|NCT00113880|169206002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.83|0.41|0.01
84542838|NCT03741400|168837717|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.18
84665536|NCT00818662|169064587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-15.2||||0.191||95.0|-38.0|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-38.0|0.191
84665537|NCT00818662|169064587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.6||||0.892||95.0|-25.4|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|-25.4|0.892
84665538|NCT00818662|169064588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.588||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.588
84665539|NCT00818662|169064588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.351||95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.351
84665540|NCT01722071|169064598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 18 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.890
84665541|NCT01722071|169064598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 8 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.422
84665542|NCT01722071|169064598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 10 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.814
84665543|NCT01338493|169064600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84665544|NCT01338493|169064601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84665545|NCT01698801|169064602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall dichotomized response rate|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.269|100.0||One sample binomial test for the overall response rate was performed to provide p-value (significance level: 0.05) based on EE population. The hypotheses of interest are: H0: p = 0.3, H1: p ≠ 0.3, where p is overall response.|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||100|74.269|<0.0001
84665546|NCT00775645|169064608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||0.4|-2.2|0.17
84665547|NCT00775645|169064609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||2.7|-3|0.92
84665548|NCT00775645|169064610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||3.3|-0.7|0.20
84665549|NCT00775645|169064611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||||0.46
84665550|NCT02625259|169064616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.83||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||1.83|1.00|
84665551|NCT02625259|169064616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.67||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||1.67|0.86|
84727006|NCT00113880|169206002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.46|0.04
84665552|NCT02625259|169064616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.07||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.07|0.02|
84665553|NCT02625259|169064618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.18|0.98|
84665554|NCT02625259|169064618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.78||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.78|1.11|
84665555|NCT02625259|169064618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.04||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.04|0.01|
84665556|NCT02625259|169064619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.51||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.51|0.93|
84665557|NCT02625259|169064619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.25||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.25|1.00|
84665558|NCT02625259|169064619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.18|0.03|
84665559|NCT00665847|169064636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|62.2|||||The standard error for a proportion was calculated as the square root of the variance divided by the number of patients. The variance for a proportion is equal to p\*(1-p), with p being the proportion.|||62.2|42.7|
84665560|NCT01686633|169064640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.045|<0.001
84665561|NCT01686633|169064640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.086||||||||0.086|-0.037|
84665562|NCT04702997|169064671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.24||KDIGO strata, treatment group, time (Week 1 to 12), and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||10.24|5.18|<0.0001
84665563|NCT01103284|169064756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: age, C-peptide, insulin dose by body weight and AUC||||||0.33
84665564|NCT01103284|169064757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC.||||||0.68
84665565|NCT01103284|169064758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC||||||0.44
84665566|NCT01103284|169064760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79||Standard multiple imputation was used to predict the number and timing of hypoglycemic events after discontinuing the study for subjects who did not remain in the study until Month 25.|negative binomial regression|||The number of hypoglycemia events during the study was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model, with number of events as the dependent variable, and treatment, age, baseline daily insulin dose, and baseline C-peptide as covariates. The log of duration in the study for each patient was used as an offset variable in the model.||0.79|-0.02|0.07
84665567|NCT02057198|169064765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.05|-0.34|0.52
84665568|NCT02057198|169064765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.35||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.35|-0.69|0.66
84665569|NCT02057198|169064766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||<0.001
84665570|NCT02057198|169064766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.01
84665571|NCT02057198|169064767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.99
84665572|NCT02057198|169064767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.52
84672309|NCT01120210|169080046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-383.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.781|-173.867||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-173.867|-592.781|0.0006
84672310|NCT01120210|169080046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-527.77||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-764.07|-291.478||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-291.478|-764.070|0.0001
84672311|NCT01077960|169080065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84672312|NCT01077960|169080066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84665573|NCT02057198|169064768|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.19|-0.67|0.05
84665574|NCT02057198|169064768|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.57|-1.14|0.002
84665575|NCT02057198|169064770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.48
84665576|NCT02057198|169064770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.66
84665577|NCT03878745|169064776|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> 0, we can conclude in superiority.|Overall Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35||||||||0.35|0.07|
84665578|NCT03878745|169064777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-1.6|
84665579|NCT03878745|169064778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.1||||||||0.1|-3.6|
84665580|NCT03878745|169064779|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Terumo PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.026||<0.001
84665581|NCT03878745|169064780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.2|
84665582|NCT03232281|169064802|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was confirmed.|Rate difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.58|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||2.58|-4.41|
84665583|NCT03232281|169064803|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
84665584|NCT03232281|169064803|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.16|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.16|-6.80|
84672313|NCT01077960|169080067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84672314|NCT01077960|169080068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84672315|NCT01077960|169080069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84672316|NCT01077960|169080070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84672317|NCT05619692|169080071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.73||The p-value was obtained using MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MRMM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.73|-0.64|0.1642
84672318|NCT02703636|169080182|OTHER|The MMRM model contained visit as a fixed effect, baseline MMSE score as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided||change at week 24|||0.16|-0.87|0.1750
84672319|NCT00384813|169080204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|0.33||||0.23||||||For both baseline to 4 month analyses (see above p value) and baseline to 10 month analyses, the variable of intervention group did not contribute significant additional variance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
84672320|NCT01554618|169080209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HbA1c value (continuous) and baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.19|-1.51|0.012
84665585|NCT03232281|169064804|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
84665586|NCT03232281|169064804|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-0.52|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.52|-8.93|
84665587|NCT03232281|169064804|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|1.17|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 12. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.17|-7.44|
84665588|NCT01172847|169064858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||1.05|0.91|
84665589|NCT01172847|169064858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.02|0.95|
84665590|NCT01172847|169064859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|1.00|
84665591|NCT01172847|169064860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||0.96|0.77|
84727007|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.27|0.01
84665592|NCT01172847|169064860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.05|0.92|
84665593|NCT01172847|169064861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|0.99|
84665594|NCT01163279|169064866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84665595|NCT01163279|169064866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84665596|NCT01163279|169064866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
84727008|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.42|0.22|0.01
84665597|NCT01163279|169064866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84665598|NCT01163279|169064867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665599|NCT01163279|169064868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84665600|NCT01163279|169064869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84665601|NCT01163279|169064870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665602|NCT01163279|169064871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
84665603|NCT01163279|169064871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665604|NCT01163279|169064872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665605|NCT01163279|169064872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84665606|NCT01163279|169064873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
84665607|NCT01163279|169064873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665608|NCT01163279|169064874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665609|NCT01163279|169064875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84665610|NCT01163279|169064875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84665611|NCT01163279|169064876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84665612|NCT00665353|169064882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.158||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.059|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.10. The hypothesized response rate was 0.30.|||0.059|0.29
84665613|NCT00665353|169064885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.053||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.001|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.02. The hypothesized response rate was 0.15.|||0.001|0.42
84665614|NCT00594997|169064890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
84665615|NCT03045887|169064946|OTHER||Ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.61|||||AUC(0-t). Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||0.61|0.27|
84727009|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.24|0.01
84727010|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.75|0.23|0.01
84665616|NCT03045887|169064946|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.47|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.47|0.65|
84665617|NCT03045887|169064946|OTHER||Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.74|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.74|1.01|
84665618|NCT03045887|169064946|OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.62|0.69|
84665619|NCT03045887|169064946|OTHER||Ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.64|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.64|0.95|
84665620|NCT03045887|169064947|OTHER||Ratio|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.47|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for AUC(0-24) is presented|||1.47|1.01|
84665621|NCT03045887|169064948|OTHER||ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.99||||||||0.99|0.61|
84665622|NCT03045887|169064948|OTHER||ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
84665623|NCT03045887|169064948|OTHER||ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.97||||||||0.97|0.68|
84665624|NCT03045887|169064948|OTHER||ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.86||||||||0.86|0.51|
84665625|NCT03045887|169064948|OTHER||ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
84665626|NCT03045887|169064949|OTHER||ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.36|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Cmax is presented|||1.36|0.96|
84665627|NCT03045887|169064955|OTHER||Ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.55|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Ctau is presented.|||2.55|1.67|
84665628|NCT02632552|169064958|EQUIVALENCE|Using a pre-intervention rate of 18 for both intervention and control, and a post-control change of 1, assuming an alpha of 0.05, we have power (0.8) to detect a difference of differences in change in mean urgent care/ED utilization of 0.75 with a standard deviation equal to the control mean; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Effects Negative Binomial Model|A segmented negative binomial regression model was used to estimate changes in ED/urgent care utilization between the intervention and control groups.||||1.45|0.85|0.45
84665629|NCT02632552|169064959|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-7.21|0.05
84665630|NCT02632552|169064960|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.57|0.08|0.03
84665631|NCT02632552|169064961|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.29|-0.41|0.75
84665632|NCT02632552|169064962|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.70|-0.50|0.74
84665633|NCT02632552|169064963|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.29|-2.21|0.63
84665634|NCT02632552|169064964|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta of Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||4.05|-0.97|0.23
84665635|NCT02632552|169064965|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.1||MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|-7.95|0.38
84665636|NCT02632552|169064966|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||3.52|-9.10|0.38
84665637|NCT00546637|169064980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1959||95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (Net) = Least squares mean|The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in 24-hour micturition-related urgency was the same at Week 12 for the two treatment groups: fesoterodine + alpha-blocker vs. placebo + alpha-blocker. It was estimated that 900 randomized subjects would have 85% power to detect a mean difference of -0.93(SD = 4.15) between the 2 treatments on the primary endpoint,mean reduction of micturition-related urgency episodes/24hr from Baseline to Week 12,assuming a 10% non-evaluability rate.||0.2|-0.9|0.1959
84665638|NCT00546637|169064981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0621||95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|||0.0|-1.0|0.0621
84665639|NCT00546637|169064983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0056||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.8|0.0056
84665640|NCT00546637|169064983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
84727011|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.44|0.33|0.01
84665641|NCT00546637|169064984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0012
84727012|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.5||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.50|0.32|0.01
84665642|NCT00546637|169064984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 12||||0.0027
84665643|NCT00546637|169064985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1112||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1112
84665644|NCT00546637|169064985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0855||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.0|-0.3|0.0855
84665645|NCT00546637|169064987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.3847||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.3847
84665646|NCT00546637|169064987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4449||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.4449
84665647|NCT00546637|169064989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.0062||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0062
84665648|NCT00546637|169064989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0825||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0825
84665649|NCT00546637|169064990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0||||P-value for median was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0025
84665650|NCT00546637|169064991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1748||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.3|0.1748
84665651|NCT00546637|169064991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6572||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.2|-0.1|0.6572
84665652|NCT00546637|169064993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0051||95.0|-2.9|-0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.5|-2.9|0.0051
84665653|NCT00546637|169064993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1231||95.0|-2.3|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.3|-2.3|0.1231
84665654|NCT00546637|169064994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3579||95.0|-1.0|0.4||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.4|-1.0|0.3579
84665655|NCT00546637|169064994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9274||95.0|-0.8|0.7||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.8|0.9274
84727013|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.28|0.01
84665656|NCT00546637|169064995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0223||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0223
84665657|NCT00546637|169064995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1744||95.0|-0.6|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.6|0.1744
84727014|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.60|0.27|0.01
84665658|NCT00546637|169064996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7564||95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.5|-0.4|0.7564
84665659|NCT00546637|169064996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.401||95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.3|0.4010
84665660|NCT00546637|169064997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1472||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1472
84665661|NCT00546637|169064997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5839||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.2|0.5839
84665662|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6621||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q1||0.2|-0.1|0.6621
84665663|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q2||-0.2|-0.5|<.0001
84665664|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3242||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q3||0.2|-0.1|0.3242
84665665|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1604||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.1604
84665666|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4102||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q5||0.1|-0.2|0.4102
84665667|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3079||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.3079
84665668|NCT00546637|169064998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.4066
84665669|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1595||95.0|0.0|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q1||0.3|-0.0|0.1595
84665670|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0614||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q2||0.0|-0.3|0.0614
84665671|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2032||95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q3||0.3|-0.1|0.2032
84665672|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0631||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.0631
84727015|NCT00113880|169206003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years, PD2 within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.21|0.05
84665673|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9706||95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q5||0.2|-0.2|0.9706
84665674|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8058||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.8058
84665675|NCT00546637|169064999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.3302
84665676|NCT00546637|169065000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1136||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1136
84665677|NCT00546637|169065001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5775||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5775
84665678|NCT00546637|169065002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7433
84665679|NCT00546637|169065003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9402||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9402
84665680|NCT00546637|169065004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.004||95.0|-4.5|-0.9||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.9|-4.5|0.0040
84752237|NCT01405937|169259655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
84665681|NCT00546637|169065004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0068||95.0|-4.8|-0.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.8|-4.8|0.0068
84665682|NCT00546637|169065005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0412||95.0|0.1|3.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||3.6|0.1|0.0412
84665683|NCT00546637|169065005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1373||95.0|-0.5|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.5|0.1373
84665684|NCT00546637|169065006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0941||95.0|-0.3|3.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.8|-0.3|0.0941
84665685|NCT00546637|169065006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2273||95.0|-0.8|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.8|0.2273
84665686|NCT00546637|169065007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0507||95.0|0.0|4.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.3|-0.0|0.0507
84665687|NCT00546637|169065007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1136||95.0|-0.4|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||4.1|-0.4|0.1136
84665688|NCT00546637|169065008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0845||95.0|-0.3|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.1|-0.3|0.0845
84665689|NCT00546637|169065008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0662||95.0|-0.2|4.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||4.6|-0.2|0.0662
84665690|NCT00546637|169065009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.1085||95.0|-0.3|3.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.2|-0.3|0.1085
84665691|NCT00546637|169065009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7685||95.0|-1.6|2.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||2.1|-1.6|0.7685
84665692|NCT00546637|169065010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0005
84665693|NCT00546637|169065010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 8||||<.0001
84752238|NCT01557348|169259673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
84665694|NCT00546637|169065010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0003
84665695|NCT00546637|169065011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.2251||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|||||0.2251
84665696|NCT03274440|169065014|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction effect between condition and time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.577
84665697|NCT03274440|169065014|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=10.50; df=6, 10||Test for main effect of time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||<.001
84665698|NCT03274440|169065014|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.72|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for main effect of condition (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.72
84665699|NCT03274440|169065015|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction between condition and time||||.577
84665700|NCT03274440|169065015|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=7.00, df=6,10||Test for main effect of time||||<.001
84665701|NCT03274440|169065015|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.002|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=6.26, df=2, 10||Test for main effect of condition||||.002
84665702|NCT01291173|169065016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|-0.203|0.8825
84665703|NCT01291173|169065016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.069|-0.446|0.0077
84665704|NCT01291173|169065016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.345||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.155|-0.534|0.0004
84665705|NCT01291173|169065017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4676
84665706|NCT01291173|169065017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
84665707|NCT01291173|169065017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0031
84665708|NCT01291173|169065018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3341
84665709|NCT01291173|169065018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
84665710|NCT01291173|169065018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
84665711|NCT01291173|169065019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0937
84727016|NCT00113880|169206004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.98||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.98|0.86|0.01
84752239|NCT01557348|169259674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0588
84665712|NCT01291173|169065019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0127
84665713|NCT01291173|169065019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
84665714|NCT01291173|169065022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0091
84665715|NCT01291173|169065022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
84665716|NCT01291173|169065022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84665717|NCT01291173|169065023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-5.34|0.0142
84665718|NCT01291173|169065023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-5.62|0.0075
84665719|NCT01291173|169065023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.56|-7.30|<0.0001
84665720|NCT01291173|169065024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.11|0.7538
84665721|NCT01291173|169065024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-0.45|0.3062
84665722|NCT01291173|169065024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|-0.81|0.7697
84665723|NCT01291173|169065025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.29|0.2046
84665724|NCT01291173|169065025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.42|0.3348
84665725|NCT01291173|169065025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.00|0.0505
84665726|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0371
84665727|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.1380
84665728|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0459
84665729|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0278
84665730|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0022
84665731|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||<0.0001
84665732|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0149
84665733|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0009
84665734|NCT01291173|169065026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||<0.0001
84665735|NCT01291173|169065027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-7.44|0.030
84665736|NCT01291173|169065027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-8.95|0.002
84665737|NCT01291173|169065027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.92|-11.99|<0.001
84665738|NCT01291173|169065028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-5.64|0.0824
84665739|NCT01291173|169065028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-5.05|0.1725
84665740|NCT01291173|169065028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-6.69|0.0148
84665741|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.38|-0.89|0.2504
84665742|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.21|-1.02|0.3090
84665743|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||4.64|0.37|0.0216
84665744|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.90|-2.75|0.9587
84665745|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||3.45|-2.17|0.6530
84665746|NCT01291173|169065029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.86|-2.79|0.9814
84665747|NCT02024867|169065052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 120 per group was calculated according to an assumed treatment cure rate of 95% with 10 days of antibiotics, and a non-inferiority margin of 7% (allowing up to 88% cure rate with 3 days of antibiotics), to achieve a power of 0.80 (alpha=0.05). An additional 25 patients were recruited to account for an estimated 10% lost to follow-up.|Rate Difference|4.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||Chi-squared|||||9.5|-1.5|0.25
84665748|NCT02024867|169065053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.2|||Chi-squared|||||19.2|2.1|0.02
84665749|NCT02024867|169065054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.2|||Chi-squared|||||18.2|2.1|0.03
84665750|NCT02024867|169065055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7.0|-6.9|>0.05
84752240|NCT01557348|169259675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 6||||0.1126
84665751|NCT02024867|169065056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.9|||Chi-squared|||||19.9|0.8|0.046
84665752|NCT02024867|169065057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|rate difference|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84665753|NCT02865187|169065058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.1||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-7.4|0.71
84665754|NCT02865187|169065059|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84665755|NCT00003901|169065076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.23|||Regression, Cox|||||2.23|1.13|0.007
84665756|NCT00003901|169065077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.69|0.886
84665757|NCT00003901|169065078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.13|0.009
84665758|NCT00003901|169065079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.48|0.332
84665759|NCT02612428|169065096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|1.64|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.640|0.509|0.762
84665760|NCT02612428|169065097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6829
84665761|NCT02612428|169065098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.048
84665762|NCT02141997|169065100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.863
84665763|NCT02141997|169065100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.414|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.414
84665764|NCT02141997|169065100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.196
84665765|NCT05167734|169065110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|values greater than 0 infer higher hemoglobin in active intervention|||1.2|0.1|0.02
84665766|NCT05167734|169065111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|adjusted mean difference|3-months post hospitalization||1.1|0.0|0.04
84665767|NCT05167734|169065111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission||Hospital Discharge||0.7|-0.3|0.42
84665768|NCT05167734|169065112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.352
84665769|NCT05167734|169065113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||threshold for significance - p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84665770|NCT05167734|169065114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital Discharge||2.40|0.44|0.94
84665771|NCT05167734|169065114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||4.20|0.76|0.18
84665772|NCT05167734|169065114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||3.00|0.51|0.64
84665773|NCT05167734|169065115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital discharge||4.80|0.68|0.23
84665774|NCT05167734|169065115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||6.80|0.87|0.09
84665775|NCT05167734|169065115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||7.20|0.88|0.084
84665776|NCT05167734|169065116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|218.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, and baseline ADLs|scores greater than 0 reflect greater ambulatory distance in active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||510|-73|0.13
84665777|NCT05167734|169065116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|178.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, baseline ADLs||3-months post hospitalization||510|-154|0.27
84665778|NCT05167734|169065117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.8|||proportional odds|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||7.80|0.79|0.12
84665779|NCT05167734|169065117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.5|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||10.5|0.91|0.07
84665780|NCT05167734|169065118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for anxiety score||1.80|0.14|0.29
84665781|NCT05167734|169065118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for anxiety score||2.60|0.18|0.57
84665782|NCT05167734|169065118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for depression score||1.30|0.10|0.12
84665783|NCT05167734|169065118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for depression score||2.40|0.16|0.48
84665784|NCT05167734|169065119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||5.60|0.39|0.56
84665785|NCT05167734|169065119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|59.9|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||59.9|1.40|0.02
84665786|NCT05167734|169065120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|||1.40|0.02|0.09
84665787|NCT05167734|169065122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||1.80|0.30|0.48
84665788|NCT05167734|169065123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||24.0|0.19|0.54
84665789|NCT00598663|169065149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|ANOVA with adjustment for period effect and subject as random effect. Period was included in the model regardless of statistical significance.||||||<0.0001
84665790|NCT03336853|169065156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|0.66|<.0001
84665791|NCT00670800|169065163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
84665792|NCT00670800|169065163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900
84665793|NCT00670800|169065163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
84665794|NCT00670800|169065164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84665795|NCT00670800|169065164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
84665796|NCT00670800|169065164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84665797|NCT00670800|169065165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
84665798|NCT00670800|169065165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
84665799|NCT00670800|169065165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
84665800|NCT00670800|169065166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
84665801|NCT00670800|169065166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
84665802|NCT00670800|169065166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
84665803|NCT02642614|169065226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.72|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 5 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|Adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating Least Square (LS) means of corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sub-study participation and Multiple-breath washout (MBW) sub-study participation)||2.72|0.93|0.1540
84665804|NCT02642614|169065226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.65|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 25 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.65|0.94|0.1430
84727017|NCT00113880|169206004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs., within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.92|0.75|0.01
84665805|NCT02642614|169065226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.41|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 100 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.41|0.86|0.2398
84665806|NCT00605813|169065288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.003
84727018|NCT00113880|169206004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: All ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.94|0.81|0.01
84665807|NCT00605813|169065289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84665808|NCT00605813|169065290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.040
84665809|NCT00605813|169065291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.004
84665810|NCT00183092|169065292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||||3.53|0.58|0.43
84665811|NCT00183092|169065293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.54||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. One subject in the placebo group was administered only 25 items on the MMSE due to visual impairment, and this subject's score was scaled based on percentage correct.|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.54
84665812|NCT00183092|169065294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.9||||0.36||95.0||||significance threshold p=0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance.||||.36
84665813|NCT00183092|169065295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.01||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.01
84665814|NCT00183092|169065296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.03||95.0||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.03
84665815|NCT00183092|169065297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.92||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.92
84665816|NCT00183092|169065298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.71
84665817|NCT00183092|169065299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.70
84665818|NCT00870363|169065306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84665819|NCT00385996|169065330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial distribution|Binomial distribution and test proportion =0.50||One arm phase 2 trial. This study is designed to asses response rate and defined as the percentage of subjects achieving at least 50% tumor volume. One-sided alpha is set at no more than 5% and the power no less than 90%,and the null hypothesis of RR of less than 10% and alternative hypothesis of RR of greater than 30%, a total of 30 patients will be enrolled (Fleming 1982).At least 7 responders out of 30 patients are needed to reject the null hypothesis of a 10% RR.||||<0.01
84665820|NCT00385996|169065332|OTHER||TTP [% without disease at 24 months]|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|83.8|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||83.8|43.4|
84665821|NCT00385996|169065333|OTHER||% alive without disease at 25 months|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|91.3|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||91.3|54.1|
84665822|NCT06273124|169065342|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|97.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||97|94|<0.001
84727019|NCT00113880|169206004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.70|0.01
84665823|NCT06273124|169065343|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|96.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||96|93|<0.001
84665824|NCT01516424|169065344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.75||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is ITT analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS scores at week 8 relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. Least Squares Means for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||7.75|-0.36|<0.05
84665825|NCT01516424|169065344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.65||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is PPS analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS total scores at end of treatment relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. LSMeans for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||6.65|-0.76|<0.05
84665826|NCT00597766|169065349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GroupXtime interaction|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,92)=2.06, p=0.16|Linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 60mg group would have greater pain relief than the the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.16
84665827|NCT00597766|169065349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,90)=0.1, p=0.77|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 40mg group would have greater pain reduction than the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.77
84665828|NCT00597766|169065350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.7, p=0.2|Linear mixed model|first order antedpendent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
84752241|NCT01557348|169259675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 12||||0.2342
84665829|NCT00597766|169065350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=0.0, p=0.9|linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.9
84665830|NCT00597766|169065351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.6, p=0.2|linear mixed model|unstructured covariance structure||The study was not powered for secondary analyses. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
84665831|NCT00597766|169065351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.0, p=0.3|linear mixed model|Unstructured covariance structure||Secondary outcomes were not powered for analysis. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
84665832|NCT00597766|169065352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=0.06, p=0.8|linear mixed model|first order antedepentent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.8
84665833|NCT00597766|169065352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|1.7||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.1, p=0.3|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
84665834|NCT01340898|169065397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup A one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.9|
84665835|NCT01340898|169065397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup C one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants.||100|98.3|
84665836|NCT01340898|169065397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|99.9|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||99.9|97.8|
84665837|NCT01340898|169065397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup Y one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.3|
84665838|NCT01857232|169065474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
84665839|NCT01857232|169065474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0987
84665840|NCT01857232|169065474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1041
84727020|NCT00113880|169206004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.29|0.01
84727021|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.45|0.01
84665841|NCT01857232|169065475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.0235
84665842|NCT01857232|169065475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1651
84665843|NCT01857232|169065475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1332|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1332
84665844|NCT00416078|169065476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||F test of time X group effect F(1,3)=.26|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat||||.65
84665845|NCT00416078|169065477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(30)=.67|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.51
84665846|NCT00416078|169065478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.27|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.79
84665847|NCT00416078|169065479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.70|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.49
84665848|NCT00416078|169065480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.43|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.67
84665849|NCT00416078|169065481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.64
84665850|NCT00056407|169065508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|30.3||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data given are for the overall assessment.|||30.3|15.6|<0.0001
84665851|NCT00056407|169065509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.5|30.0||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given are for the overall assessment.|||30.0|15.5|<0.0001
84727022|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.56|0.47|0.01
84665852|NCT00056407|169065510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|22.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.2|29.8||The p value is given for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given for the overall assessment.|||29.8|15.2|<0.0001
84665853|NCT00056407|169065533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|20.4|||general linear model, t-test||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the difference between the adjusted means (-6.1 and 12.7) for the placebo and Dutasteride arms, respectively.|||20.4|17.3|<0.001
84665854|NCT03761147|169065545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84727023|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.46||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.46|0.38|0.01
84727024|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.49|0.01
84665855|NCT03143569|169065563|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.45
84665856|NCT03143569|169065564|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84665857|NCT03143569|169065565|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84727025|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.76||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.76|0.33|0.01
84665858|NCT03143569|169065566|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84665859|NCT03143569|169065567|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.018
84665860|NCT00353262|169065625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.02||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.02|0.79|
84665861|NCT00353262|169065625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.99||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.99|0.76|
84665862|NCT00353262|169065625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.1||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.10|0.85|
84665863|NCT00353262|169065626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|1.01|
84665864|NCT00353262|169065626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 2||1.05|0.98|
84665865|NCT00353262|169065626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.94|
84665866|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.24||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.24|0.83|
84665867|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.42||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.42|0.94|
84665868|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.44||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 1||1.44|0.96|
84665869|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.69|
84665870|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.34|0.86|
84665871|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.55||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.55|1.00|
84665872|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.01||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.01|0.66|
84665873|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.97||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.97|0.64|
84665874|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.19|0.78|
84665875|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.91|
84665876|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.90|
84665877|NCT00353262|169065627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.93|
84665878|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.9||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.90|0.61|
84665879|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.79||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.79|0.53|
84665880|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.06||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.06|0.71|
84665881|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.08||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.63|
84665882|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.34||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.34|0.78|
84665883|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.10|0.65|
84665884|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.18|0.65|
84665885|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.3||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.30|0.71|
84665886|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.49||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.49|0.81|
84665887|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.98||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.98|0.56|
84665888|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.76||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.76|0.44|
84665889|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.03||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.03|0.59|
84665890|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
84665891|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.91|0.76|
84727026|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.39|0.01
84665892|NCT00353262|169065629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
84665893|NCT00353262|169065631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.33|1.09|
84665894|NCT00353262|169065631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.48||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.48|1.21|
84665895|NCT00353262|169065631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.23||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.23|1.01|
84665896|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.96|
84665897|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.95|
84665898|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.05|0.93|
84665899|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.94|
84665900|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.92|
84665901|NCT00353262|169065633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.07||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.91|
84665902|NCT00597012|169065661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.5|||ANCOVA|||"The primary analysis was implemented with an analysis of covariance with changes in the WOMAC physical-function score from baseline to 6 months as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable of interest, and study site as a covariate.~The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach in which patients who did not withdraw from the study were evaluated in the group to which they were randomly assigned."||6.5|-1.8|0.26
84665903|NCT00597012|169065662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-1.2|0.16
84665904|NCT00597012|169065663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-4.4|0.68
84665905|NCT01074450|169065706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|108.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.1|94.23|
84665906|NCT01074450|169065707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|109.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.92|99.74|
84727027|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.38|0.01
84727028|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.34|0.01
84727029|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.49|0.05
84665907|NCT01074450|169065708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.05|109.52|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.52|99.05|
84665908|NCT00587483|169065709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||An alpha of 0.0167 was used to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. Given the total of 3 comparisons, 0.05/3 = 0.0167 was used in the calculation.|Regression, Logistic|||The expected overall incidence of ventricular fibrillation after removal of the aortic clamp is at least 70%. Using a chi square analysis with 80% power and an alpha of 0.0167, we estimate that we will need 113 patients in each group to show a 30% reduction in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation with amiodarone.||1.37|0.48|0.427
84665909|NCT00587483|169065709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.39|0.117
84665910|NCT00587483|169065709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.47|0.433
84665911|NCT00587483|169065710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.45|0.215
84665912|NCT00587483|169065710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.32|0.008
84665913|NCT00587483|169065710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.52|0.424
84665914|NCT00527943|169065758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.01|0.85|0.072
84665915|NCT00527943|169065759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.81|0.018
84665916|NCT00527943|169065760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.57|1.18|<0.001
84665917|NCT00527943|169065761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.29|<0.001
84665918|NCT00527943|169065762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.84|0.038
84665919|NCT00527943|169065763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.99|0.81|0.027
84665920|NCT00527943|169065764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.87|0.174
84727030|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.52||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/Rad event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.52|0.15|0.01
84665921|NCT00527943|169065765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.02|0.86|0.108
84665922|NCT00527943|169065766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.22|0.83|0.963
84665923|NCT00527943|169065767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.79|0.021
84665924|NCT00527943|169065768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.58|0.83|0.418
84665925|NCT00527943|169065769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.31|0.88|0.493
84665926|NCT00527943|169065770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.90|0.515
84665927|NCT00527943|169065771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.70|0.606
84665928|NCT00137423|169065797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|28.3||||||95.0|16.8|42.3|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||42.3|16.8|
84665929|NCT00137423|169065797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|11.5||||||95.0|4.4|23.4|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||23.4|4.4|
84665930|NCT00137423|169065801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|77.4||||||95.0|63.6|86.5|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||86.5|63.6|
84665931|NCT00137423|169065801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|66.0||||||95.0|51.6|77.1|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||77.1|51.6|
84727031|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.66|0.01
84727032|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.70|0.02
84665932|NCT04105998|169065812|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.64
84665933|NCT04105998|169065813|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.19
84665934|NCT04105998|169065814|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.067
84665935|NCT04105998|169065815|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.25
84665936|NCT04105998|169065816|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.058
84665937|NCT04105998|169065817|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.111
84665938|NCT02604212|169065838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.243|0.6815
84665939|NCT02604212|169065838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.237|||MMRM|||||-0.237|-0.638|<.0001
84727033|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.58|0.01
84727034|NCT00113880|169206005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.27|0.01
84727035|NCT00113880|169206006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Encephalitis/encephalopathy event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.04
84727036|NCT00113880|169206007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
84727037|NCT00113880|169206007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
84727038|NCT00113880|169206007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
84665940|NCT02604212|169065838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|-0.223|||MMRM|||||-0.223|-0.569|<.0001
84496878|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-3.7|9.2||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||9.2|-3.7|
84665941|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.044|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.044|-0.372|0.0131
84665942|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|-0.082|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.082|-0.412|0.0036
84665943|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.113|||MMRM|||Day 15||0.113|-0.192|0.6136
84665944|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.080|-0.249|0.3104
84665945|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.008|||MMRM|||Day 29||-0.008|-0.340|0.0401
84665946|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.063|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.063|-0.242|0.2494
84665947|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.042|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.042|-0.380|0.0149
84665948|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.149|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.149|-0.489|0.0003
84665949|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.045|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.045|-0.262|0.1655
84665950|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.023|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.023|-0.324|0.0889
84665951|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|-0.147|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.147|-0.497|0.0004
84665952|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.017|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.017|-0.326|0.0298
84665953|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.007|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.007|-0.361|0.0415
84665954|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.261|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.261|-0.620|<.0001
84727039|NCT00113880|169206007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
84752242|NCT01557348|169259676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4168||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 6||||0.4168
84665955|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.100|-0.413|0.0015
84665956|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.096|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.096|-0.268|0.3510
84727040|NCT00113880|169206008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
84727041|NCT00113880|169206008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
84727042|NCT00113880|169206008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
84727043|NCT00113880|169206008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
84727044|NCT00113880|169206009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.73|0.57|0.01
84727045|NCT00113880|169206009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.36|0.01
84727046|NCT00113880|169206010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.33|0.26|0.01
84727047|NCT00113880|169206010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.18|0.13|0.01
84727048|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.03|0.04
84727049|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.40|0.02
84727050|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.84|0.28|0.01
84727051|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.10|0.02
84496879|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
84496880|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-3.1|
84727052|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.96|0.63|0.02
84727053|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.50|0.03
84727054|NCT00113880|169206011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01||95.0|0.21|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.21|0.01
84727055|NCT00113880|169206012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.34|1.14|0.02
84727056|NCT00113880|169206012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Irritable bowel syndrome event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
84727057|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.15|0.01
84727058|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.12|0.03
84727059|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.13|0.01
84727060|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.55|0.04
84727061|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.14|0.04
84665957|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.219|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.219|-0.590|<.0001
84665958|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.156|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.156|-0.481|0.0002
84727062|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.71|0.02
84727063|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.57|0.01
84665959|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.04|||MMRM|||Day 99||0.040|-0.341|0.1198
84665960|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.325|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.325|-0.708|<.0001
84665961|NCT02604212|169065839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.197|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.197|-0.535|<.0001
84665962|NCT02604212|169065840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0867|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
84665963|NCT02604212|169065840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6285|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6285
84665964|NCT02604212|169065840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7214|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7214
84665965|NCT02604212|169065841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0325
84665966|NCT02604212|169065841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
84665967|NCT02604212|169065841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84665968|NCT02604212|169065842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
84665969|NCT02604212|169065842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2217
84665970|NCT02604212|169065842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
84665971|NCT02604212|169065843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0625
84665972|NCT02604212|169065843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0684|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0684
84665973|NCT02604212|169065843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2105
84665974|NCT02604212|169065844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1750
84665975|NCT02604212|169065844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
84665976|NCT02604212|169065844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0294
84665977|NCT02604212|169065845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4615
84665978|NCT02604212|169065845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0508
84665979|NCT02604212|169065845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0769
84665980|NCT02604212|169065846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0699
84665981|NCT02604212|169065846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0179
84665982|NCT02604212|169065846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0430
84665983|NCT02604212|169065847|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84665984|NCT02604212|169065847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
84665985|NCT02604212|169065847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
84665986|NCT04339296|169065861|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t-test was performed between intervention and control group to determine if the difference of the mean medication adherence is equal to zero (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Medication Adherence Difference = Intervention Adherence - Control Adherence|||||<0.01
84665987|NCT04339296|169065862|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for intervention participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (intervention participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||<0.01
84665988|NCT04339296|169065862|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for control participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (control participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||0.07
84665989|NCT00969150|169065879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.49||||0.2492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.05|-4.02|0.2492
84665990|NCT00969150|169065880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.54||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.29|-2.38|0.5625
84665991|NCT04501666|169065894|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|50.8||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||50.8|29.4|< 0.0001
84665992|NCT04501666|169065895|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.6|6.7|0.0025
84665993|NCT04501666|169065897|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|40.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||40.4|23.0|< 0.0001
84665994|NCT04501666|169065898|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.7|22.3|< 0.0001
84665995|NCT04501666|169065899|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|48.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.2|27.8|< 0.0001
84752243|NCT01557348|169259676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5867||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 12||||0.5867
84727064|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.61|0.22|0.01
84727065|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.16|0.01
84727066|NCT00113880|169206013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.03
84665996|NCT04501666|169065900|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||30.7|14.7|< 0.0001
84665997|NCT04501666|169065901|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|25.0||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.0|12.3|< 0.0001
84665998|NCT03388294|169065908|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|7.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
84665999|NCT03388294|169065909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The focus for this analysis is change over time||||<0.001
84666000|NCT03388294|169065910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84666001|NCT03388294|169065911|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84666002|NCT03388294|169065912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84666003|NCT03388294|169065913|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.849
84727067|NCT00113880|169206014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.58|0.01
84727068|NCT00113880|169206014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.49|0.01
84727069|NCT00113880|169206014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.61|0.01
84666004|NCT03388294|169065914|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
84666005|NCT03388294|169065915|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84666006|NCT03388294|169065919|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
84666007|NCT03388294|169065920|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84666008|NCT03388294|169065921|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
84666009|NCT03388294|169065922|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84666010|NCT03388294|169065923|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
84666011|NCT03388294|169065924|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
84666012|NCT01765153|169065937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04366667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04366667
84666013|NCT00319644|169065983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The chi-square test(or Fisher exact test where needed) was used to compare proportions with dichotomous variables. The Student-t test was used for quantitative variables woth normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for data not normally distributed.||||0.26
84666014|NCT02472795|169066262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.56|0.39
84666015|NCT02472795|169066262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.91|0.02
84666016|NCT02472795|169066262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.95|0.004
84666017|NCT02472795|169066262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.75|0.06
84666018|NCT02472795|169066264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.123|||ANCOVA|||||0.123|-0.413|0.2837
84666019|NCT02472795|169066264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.234|||ANCOVA|||||-0.234|-0.797|0.0006
84666020|NCT02472795|169066264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|-0.305|||ANCOVA|||||-0.305|-0.825|0.0001
84666021|NCT02472795|169066264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|-0.586|||ANCOVA|||||-0.586|-1.173|<0.0001
84666022|NCT02472795|169066266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.513|6.085|||ANCOVA|||||6.085|-32.513|0.1755
84666023|NCT02472795|169066266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.096||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.552|-19.069|||ANCOVA|||||-19.069|-59.552|0.0003
84666024|NCT02472795|169066266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.981|-28.574|||ANCOVA|||||-28.574|-65.981|<0.0001
84666025|NCT02472795|169066266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.585|-35.32|||ANCOVA|||||-35.320|-77.585|<0.0001
84666026|NCT00861146|169066286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||||||<.01
84666027|NCT00861146|169066287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||mixed model regression analyses (F)|2.04|||>|0.15|||||||mixed model regression analyses|||Drinking outcomes assessed using the timeline follow-back were evaluated with mixed model regression analyses using maximum likelihood estimation. Time was measured in three monthly periods and treated as a repeated factor (due to the fixed time period between estimates).||||> .15
84666028|NCT00861146|169066288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||<.001
84542839|NCT03741400|168837718|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 12||||0.926
84666029|NCT01277523|169066297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.22||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.220|0.002|0.0457
84666030|NCT01277523|169066297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.198||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.019|0.1039
84666031|NCT01277523|169066298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.231||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.231|-0.000|0.0509
84666032|NCT01277523|169066298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.168||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.061|0.3605
84666033|NCT01277523|169066299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.207|-0.026|0.1264
84666034|NCT01277523|169066299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.179|-0.053|0.2845
84666035|NCT01277523|169066300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.217|0.009|0.0338
84666036|NCT01277523|169066300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.191|-0.017|0.0999
84666037|NCT01277523|169066301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.024|0.1252
84666038|NCT01277523|169066301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.163|-0.058|0.3549
84666039|NCT01277523|169066302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.292|-0.055|0.1819
84666040|NCT01277523|169066302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.226|-0.119|0.5448
84666041|NCT01277523|169066304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.219|-0.102|0.4762
84666042|NCT01277523|169066304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.123|0.6558
84666043|NCT01277523|169066306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.301|0.9960
84666044|NCT01277523|169066306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|-0.355|0.7030
84666045|NCT01277523|169066307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|-0.217|0.7309
84727070|NCT00113880|169206014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.52|0.01
84727071|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.33|0.01
84727072|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.26|0.01
84727073|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.31|0.01
84727074|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.26|0.02
84727075|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.37|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.37|0.01
84727076|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.35|0.01
84666046|NCT01277523|169066307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.133|-0.232|0.5954
84666047|NCT01277523|169066308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.252|-0.074|0.2841
84727077|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.33|0.01
84727078|NCT00113880|169206015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.25|0.01
84727079|NCT00113880|169206016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.69|0.32|0.01
84727080|NCT00113880|169206016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.54|0.17|0.01
84727081|NCT05878522|169206100|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.89|14.58||||||3- hours post-dose||14.58|8.89|
84727082|NCT05878522|169206100|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|14.2||||||4-hours post-dose||14.20|8.50|
84727083|NCT05878522|169206100|OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.35||||||90.0|5.51|11.2||||||5-hours post-dose||11.20|5.51|
84666048|NCT01277523|169066308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|-0.140|0.7950
84666049|NCT01277523|169066309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.95|||Regression, Cox|||||16.95|0.07|0.9671
84666050|NCT01277523|169066309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.7|||Regression, Cox|||||22.70|0.19|0.5557
84666051|NCT01277523|169066310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.41|0.3567
84666052|NCT01277523|169066310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.32|0.1168
84666053|NCT02389998|169066337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.03
84666054|NCT02389998|169066338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
84666055|NCT02389998|169066339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3
84666056|NCT01770379|169066340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|0.79|0.2001
84666057|NCT01770379|169066340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.83|0.1574
84666058|NCT04788953|169066369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects tobit regression model (censored normal). Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||The statistical null hypothesis was that solriamfetol does not improve change in MWT scores versus placebo after 4 weeks of treatment (H0: µsol - µpl ≤ 0). Study was designed to have 97% power to detect a difference of 5.7 minutes or greater on MWT sleep latency (α=0.05, assumed σ=7.2) with 100 participants. Blinded interim power analysis on the baseline data conducted in October 2023 indicated the trial would have \>99% power to detect a similar difference with only 74 participants.||||<0.001
84666059|NCT04788953|169066370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
84666060|NCT04788953|169066371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||"Chi-squared tests performed on dichotomized CGI-Change data (Improved \[very much improved, much improved, minimally improved\] vs. Not Improved \[no change, minimally worse, much worse, very much worse\])."|Chi-squared|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.01
84666061|NCT04788953|169066373|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.02
84666062|NCT04788953|169066374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.64
84666063|NCT04788953|169066375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.04
84666064|NCT04788953|169066376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.61
84666065|NCT04788953|169066377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.57
84666066|NCT04788953|169066378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
84666067|NCT00469092|169066379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI is less than 0.4%. Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%. Equivalence is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0.4% and the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.029||95.0|-0.3|-0.02||P-value is for the test for difference in means equals 0 against the alternative that the difference is different from 0.|Regression, Linear|||HbA1c was compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model (ANCOVA) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate. Mean and SE are estimated from the model.||-0.02|-0.30|0.029
84666068|NCT00469092|169066380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The profiles were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a repeated measures mixed model including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction and country as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.||||0.0059
84666069|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||||95.0|0.57|1.47|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \<= 6.5% treatment target.|||1.47|0.57|
84666070|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||||95.0|0.67|1.54|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7.0% treatment target.|||1.54|0.67|
84666071|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||||95.0|0.72|1.77|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the reduction more than 1.0% from baseline treatment target.|||1.77|0.72|
84666072|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||||95.0|0.59|1.38|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7% no nocturnal (00:00-06:00) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.38|0.59|
84666073|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.181||||||95.0|0.74|1.87|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no daytime (06:01-23:59) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.87|0.74|
84666074|NCT00469092|169066381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||||95.0|0.69|1.82|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no hypoglycemia treatment target.|||1.82|0.69|
84671739|NCT00962104|169077859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.56||Second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Least Squares Mean difference between 2 treatment groups from Type III sum of squares analysis of covariance model:Change=treatment+country+baseline.||||1.56|-5.20|0.289
84666075|NCT00469092|169066382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||||95.0|-2.4|2.48|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the burden score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.48|-2.40|
84666076|NCT00469092|169066382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||||95.0|-3.56|3.11|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the efficacy score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||3.11|-3.56|
84666077|NCT00469092|169066382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||||95.0|-3.14|2.35|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the symptoms score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.35|-3.14|
84666078|NCT00469092|169066382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||95.0|-2.36|2.14|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the overall score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores, and transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.14|-2.36|
84666079|NCT01086540|169066406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in 6MWD between baseline and Week 24 does not differ between rituximab and placebo. A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 24.||||0.12
84666080|NCT01086540|169066407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with PVR as the outcome and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
84666081|NCT01086540|169066408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 48 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.28
84666082|NCT01086540|169066408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.031
84666083|NCT01086540|169066409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to clinical worsening were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.92
84666084|NCT01086540|169066410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to change or addition of PAH medications were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.36
84666085|NCT01086540|169066411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the mental component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.81
84666086|NCT01086540|169066412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the physical component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.30
84666087|NCT01086540|169066413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with HAQ-DI as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.58
84671740|NCT00962104|169077860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|-4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.22|-8.13|<0.001
84727084|NCT04551053|169206101|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.02||CMH test for un-equality stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/Liters \[L\] versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|0.65|0.2567
84727085|NCT04551053|169206102|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.39||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test for un-equality stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.53|0.5349
84727086|NCT04551053|169206104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2224||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 x 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/L inclusive)|Log Rank|||||||0.2224
84666088|NCT01086540|169066414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||A Poisson model was used to describe the rate of new digital ulcers (per week) as the outcome with treatment, number of digital ulcers at Baseline, and if the measurement was affected by changed or new PAH therapeutic agents as covariates.||||0.47
84666089|NCT01086540|169066415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with severity of Raynaud's (0 to 100) as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.43
84666090|NCT01086540|169066416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with DLCO as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.65
84666091|NCT01086540|169066418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with percent change in PVR as the outcome and baseline PVR, treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
84666092|NCT01086540|169066423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.17
84666093|NCT01086540|169066424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.35
84666094|NCT03164928|169066425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.673|||ANCOVA|||||0.673|-0.450|0.68
84666095|NCT03164928|169066426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.542|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6||0.542|-0.194|0.34
84666096|NCT03164928|169066426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.661|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18||0.661|-0.609|0.93
84666097|NCT03164928|169066426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.795|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24||0.795|-0.572|0.74
84666098|NCT03164928|169066426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|0.239|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36||0.239|-1.848|0.12
84666099|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.223|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Total Hip)||0.223|-1.050|0.19
84666100|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|0.515|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Total Hip)||0.515|-0.631|0.83
84666101|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.108|0.565|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Total Hip)||0.565|-1.108|0.51
84666102|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.746|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Total Hip)||0.746|-1.098|0.69
84666103|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.465|1.286|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Total Hip)||1.286|-1.465|0.89
84666104|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.614|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Femoral Neck)||0.614|-0.969|0.64
84666105|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Femoral Neck)||1.000|-0.808|0.83
84666106|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|1.442|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Femoral Neck)||1.442|-0.697|0.48
84666107|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|1.443|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Femoral Neck)||1.443|-1.222|0.86
84666108|NCT03164928|169066427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|2.13|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Femoral Neck)||2.130|-1.378|0.66
84666109|NCT02707991|169066449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.036|ONE_SIDED|||||one-sided test|z-test for difference in proportions|||||||0.036
84666110|NCT04600414|169066489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||0.38|0.03|<0.001
84727087|NCT02971683|169206110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.9|0.083
84727088|NCT04206501|169206124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The rate of change in HF medications (beta-blocker, diuretic, and Sacubitril/Valsartan) was compared betweenICM Guidedand usual care control group using chi-square analysis.|Chi-squared|||Due to the unexpected low enrollment during COVID pandemic, we aimed to primarily focus the limited analysis/description on the primary endpoint and exploratory analysis related to QOL||||0.064
84727089|NCT03000829|169206163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84727090|NCT03000829|169206164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84727091|NCT03000829|169206165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84727092|NCT03000829|169206166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84727093|NCT03000829|169206167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84727094|NCT03000829|169206168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84727095|NCT03000829|169206169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84727096|NCT03000829|169206170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84727097|NCT03000829|169206173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84727098|NCT02819141|169206205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for age, daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, sedation intensity, and time of day of assessment||We estimated the power for multilevel models approximating our study design. A sample size of 95 patients per arm, 190 total (at a minimum 7 data collection points for each, resulting in \~1,050 observations) will have greater than 80% power to detect small to moderate effects (i.e., 0.11 or greater) in between-group differences in anxiety, delirium, and duration of mechanical ventilation at alpha = .05 for all proposed models.||||0.30
84727099|NCT02819141|169206205|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for time of day, study day, age, sex, illness severity, and sedation frequency||||||0.9858|||||||Generalized Estimating equations|||||||0.9858
84727100|NCT02819141|169206206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84727101|NCT02819141|169206207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation intensity, age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, study day, and time of day assessment||||||0.97
84727102|NCT02819141|169206207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation frequency, age, sex, illness severity, study day, and time of day assessment.||||||0.5647
84727103|NCT02819141|169206208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Generalized estimating equation|controlling for age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, time of day of assessment||||||0.39
84727104|NCT02819141|169206209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||GEE|||||||0.37
84727105|NCT02819141|169206210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
84479155|NCT05109702|168709473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.458|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.458|-0.124|0.260
84727106|NCT02819141|169206210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.81
84727107|NCT02819141|169206211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.47
84727108|NCT02819141|169206211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
84727109|NCT02819141|169206212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 months after ICU discharge||||0.164
84727110|NCT02819141|169206212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 months after ICU discharge||||0.84
84727111|NCT02819141|169206213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.26
84727112|NCT02819141|169206214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
84727113|NCT02819141|169206215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.018
84727114|NCT02819141|169206216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.66
84727115|NCT02819141|169206217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
84727116|NCT02819141|169206218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.41
84727117|NCT02819141|169206219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
84727118|NCT02819141|169206220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.93
84727119|NCT02819141|169206221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
84727120|NCT02819141|169206222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.69
84727121|NCT02819141|169206223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.94
84727122|NCT02819141|169206224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
84727123|NCT02819141|169206225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
84727124|NCT02819141|169206226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
84727125|NCT02819141|169206227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.85
84727126|NCT02819141|169206228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
84727127|NCT05492786|169206230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts with information about their risk status (patients randomized to the High-risk Alert or High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the standard alert. Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert and High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the standard Alert arm.||||0.517
84727128|NCT05492786|169206230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts the factors that contributed to a patient's high risk (High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the alert with risk level only (High-risk Alert arm). Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the High-risk Alert arm.||||0.226
84727129|NCT01184859|169206248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
84727130|NCT01184859|169206248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84727131|NCT01184859|169206248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84727132|NCT01184859|169206248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84727133|NCT01184859|169206249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.272||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|-0.141||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.141|-0.685|0.194
84727134|NCT01184859|169206249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|-0.108||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.108|-0.985|0.015
84727135|NCT01184859|169206249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|-0.391||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.391|-1.317|<0.001
84727136|NCT01184859|169206249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.888||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.351||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.351|-1.426|0.001
84727137|NCT00627523|169206297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the mean change from Baseline after 24 months in height SDS between the Genotropin® and the untreated control groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference between the treatment groups.||1.59|0.82|<0.001
84727138|NCT00627523|169206298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.42||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||2.42|-0.87|0.348
84727139|NCT00627523|169206299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||1.23|0.55|<0.001
84727140|NCT00627523|169206300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.85||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.85|1.63|<0.001
84727141|NCT00627523|169206301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|17.12||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||17.12|-12.27|0.738
84727142|NCT00627523|169206302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|4.26||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.26|-13.27|0.301
84727143|NCT01136733|169206317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.68|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Null hypothesis of no difference in PFS was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test with hemoglobin (less than or equal to 13 g/dL vs greater than 13 g/dL for males; and less than or equal to 11.5 g/dL vs greater than 11.5 g/dL for females) and corrected serum calcium (greater than or equal to 10 mg/dL vs less than 10 mg/dL) as stratification factors. Each null hypothesis was tested at a nominal alpha=0.05.||0.68|0.24|=0.0005
84727144|NCT01136733|169206317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.38|0.0479
84727145|NCT01136733|169206317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.39|0.1209
84727146|NCT01136733|169206318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.884|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Planned analyses were performed to test null hypothesis of treatment difference in OS at a nominal significance level of 0.05 (2-sided) using the stratified log-rank test using stratification factors.||0.884|0.299|=0.0242
84727147|NCT01136733|169206318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.684|||=|0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.138|||Log Rank|||||1.138|0.411|=0.1181
84727148|NCT01136733|169206318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||=|0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.433|=0.3157
84727149|NCT01136733|169206319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.5||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact||Rate ratio was based on the normal approximation.|||22.5|2.3|<0.0001
84727150|NCT01136733|169206319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.5||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|1.4|0.0067
84479156|NCT05109702|168709473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.291|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.291|-0.296|0.987
84666111|NCT04600414|169066490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|2.57|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||2.57|-4.97|0.532
84666112|NCT00553150|169066602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84666113|NCT01895855|169066608|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|90.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|62.7||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||62.7|
84666114|NCT01895855|169066609|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|79.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|49.9||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||49.9|
84666115|NCT01895855|169066610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0073
84666116|NCT01895855|169066611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenge 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
84666117|NCT01895855|169066612|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|100.0|||||Confidence interval for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||100.0|67.0|
84666118|NCT01895855|169066613|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|66.8|||||Confidence interval for protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||66.8|33.6|
84666119|NCT01895855|169066614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Fisher Exact|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0025
84666120|NCT01895855|169066615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Fisher Exact|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0159
84666121|NCT01895855|169066616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
84666122|NCT01895855|169066617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
84666123|NCT01895855|169066618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
84666124|NCT01895855|169066619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
84666125|NCT03559257|169066621|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-3.92|<0.0001
84666126|NCT03559257|169066622|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.72|-3.41|<0.0001
84666127|NCT03559257|169066623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|5.693|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.693|2.719|<0.0001
84666128|NCT03559257|169066624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|5.381|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.381|2.252|<0.0001
84666129|NCT03559257|169066625|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.19|15.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.87|9.19|<0.0001
84666130|NCT03559257|169066626|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|11.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.14|15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.89|7.14|<0.0001
84666131|NCT03559257|169066627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.878||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.374|14.554|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||14.554|2.374|0.0001
84666132|NCT03559257|169066628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|548.706|999.999|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Estimated value and upper bound are \>999.999|||999.999|548.706|<0.0001
84666133|NCT03559257|169066629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.352|10.679|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||10.679|2.352|<0.0001
84666134|NCT03559257|169066630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|999.99|999.99|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Point estimate, upper limit and lower limit are \>999.99|||999.99|999.99|<0.0001
84666135|NCT03559257|169066631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-4.14|<0.0001
84727151|NCT01136733|169206319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.6|||=|0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||2.8|0.9|=0.1007
84727152|NCT02186015|169206347|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in serum 25(OH)D from week 0 to week 8.||||<0.01
84727153|NCT02186015|169206348|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in worst pain rating from week 0 to week 8.||||0.24
84727154|NCT02186015|169206349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in fatigue score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.09
84727155|NCT02186015|169206350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in mood score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.17
84727156|NCT02186015|169206351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in dominant handgrip strength from week 0 to week 8.||||0.50
84727157|NCT02186015|169206352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in sleep quality assessment from week 0 to week 8.||||0.16
84727158|NCT02186015|169206353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.75
84727159|NCT02186015|169206354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-endocrine score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.19
84727160|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727161|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
84727162|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U)||||0.040
84727163|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727164|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
84727165|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus time factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.040
84727166|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727167|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
84727168|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
84727169|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727170|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
84727171|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
84727172|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727173|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
84727174|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
84727175|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727176|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727177|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E vmPFC- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
84727178|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727179|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727180|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727181|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727182|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
84727183|NCT02069366|169206370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
84727184|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727185|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727186|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS-Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727187|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727188|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727189|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS- Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727190|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727191|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727192|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Late-Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727193|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Late- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.04
84727194|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727195|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727196|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727197|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727198|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727199|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.033
84727200|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727201|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727202|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727203|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727204|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727205|NCT02069366|169206371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
84727206|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Pre- Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727207|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Mid-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727208|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Post-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727209|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727210|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727211|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727212|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727213|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727214|NCT02069366|169206372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
84727215|NCT01533181|169206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||8.1|1.9|0.0001
84727216|NCT01533181|169206376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Kaplan-Meier|||||2.2|0.6|0.71
84727217|NCT01837719|169206378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (fixed-dose combination \[FDC\] tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUC\[0-T\]) and AUC from time 0 to infinity. (AUC\[0-T\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax, with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.137|1.012|
84727218|NCT01837719|169206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.590|1.273|
84727219|NCT01837719|169206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.292|1.000|
84727220|NCT01837719|169206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.059|0.701|
84727221|NCT01837719|169206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.545|0.759|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.759|0.545|
84727222|NCT01837719|169206379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).||1.120|1.012|
84727223|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.393|1.166|
84542840|NCT03741400|168837718|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 24||||0.828
84666136|NCT03559257|169066632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.29|-3.96|<0.0001
84727224|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.248|0.993|
84727225|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC.||1.122|0.804|
84727226|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.849|0.655|
84752244|NCT01557348|169259677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 6||||0.8758
84752245|NCT01557348|169259677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 12||||0.4849
84666137|NCT03559257|169066633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84666138|NCT03559257|169066634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.58|<0.0001
84666139|NCT03559257|169066635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment.||||<0.0001
84666140|NCT03559257|169066635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism.||||0.3880
84666141|NCT03559257|169066635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism.||||0.0004
84666142|NCT03559257|169066635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||Work impairment.||||0.0003
84666143|NCT03559257|169066636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84666144|NCT03559257|169066637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1267
84666145|NCT03559257|169066638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1630
84666146|NCT03559257|169066639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
84666147|NCT03204305|169066640|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 for all analyses. Bonferroni corrections were made to reduce family-wise error rate.|t-test, 2 sided|Composite VT was compared using independent t-tests.||VT in the 8 volumes of interest were analyzed using linear regression model group coded encoded as a dummy variable \[1=females cannabis users; 2= female healthy controls\], age as a covariate, and VT for VOIs (ventral striatum, amygdala, putamen, cingulate, globus pallidus, insula, frontal cortex, and hippocampus) as dependent variables, followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD between between groups.||||0.02
84666148|NCT03204305|169066640|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84666149|NCT03204305|169066640|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84666150|NCT03204305|169066640|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84666151|NCT03204305|169066641|SUPERIORITY||t test|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84666152|NCT00455429|169066642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.600
84666153|NCT00455429|169066642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.822
84666154|NCT00455429|169066642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.656
84666155|NCT00455429|169066643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.9|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||2.90|-9.70|0.427
84666156|NCT00455429|169066643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|4.82|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.82|-7.37|0.922
84666157|NCT00455429|169066643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|4.21|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.21|-6.49|0.919
84666158|NCT00455429|169066644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|23.18|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||23.18|-15.83|0.941
84666159|NCT00455429|169066644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|33.52|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||33.52|-5.12|0.196
84666160|NCT00455429|169066644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|31.86|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||31.86|-2.00|0.096
84666161|NCT00455429|169066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.460
84666162|NCT00455429|169066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.479
84666163|NCT00455429|169066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.462
84666164|NCT00455429|169066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.363
84666165|NCT00455429|169066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.968
84666166|NCT00455429|169066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.501
84666167|NCT00455429|169066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.333
84666168|NCT00455429|169066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.527
84666169|NCT00455429|169066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.353
84666170|NCT00455429|169066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.631
84666171|NCT00455429|169066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.523
84666172|NCT00455429|169066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.101
84666173|NCT00455429|169066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.429
84666174|NCT00455429|169066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
84666175|NCT00455429|169066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.107
84666176|NCT00455429|169066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.097
84666177|NCT00455429|169066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
84666178|NCT00455429|169066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
84666179|NCT00455429|169066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.566
84666180|NCT00455429|169066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.382
84666181|NCT00455429|169066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.282
84666182|NCT00455429|169066652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
84666183|NCT00455429|169066652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.433
84666184|NCT00455429|169066652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.290
84666185|NCT00455429|169066653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.484
84666186|NCT00455429|169066653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.952
84666187|NCT00455429|169066653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.350
84666188|NCT01729754|169066781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and confidence intervals (CIs) are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||65.9|52.9|<0.001
84666189|NCT01729754|169066781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|61.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||61.8|48.3|<0.001
84671741|NCT00962104|169077861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.14|-8.21|<0.001
84666190|NCT01729754|169066782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||60.8|47.9|<0.001
84666191|NCT01729754|169066782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|56.5||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||56.5|43.2|<0.001
84666192|NCT01729754|169066785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||26.7|11.5|<0.001
84666193|NCT01729754|169066785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.6||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||27.6|12.4|<0.001
84727227|NCT01837719|169206379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.064||||||90.0|1.011|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ration for AUC(INF) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||1.120|1.011|
84727228|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.171|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and fthe fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.398|1.171|
84727229|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.244|0.991|
84727230|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|||1.128|0.810|
84727231|NCT01837719|169206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC.||0.852|0.658|
84727232|NCT01837719|169206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.014|1.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.158|1.014|
84727233|NCT01837719|169206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of C24 was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.498|1.215|
84727234|NCT01837719|169206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.144||||||90.0|1.006|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.300|1.006|
84727235|NCT01837719|169206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.483|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.483|1.023|
84727236|NCT01837719|169206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.912||||||90.0|0.789|1.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.054|0.789|
84752246|NCT01557348|169259678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 6||||0.0086
84666194|NCT01729754|169066788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||31.7|16.2|<0.001
84666195|NCT01729754|169066788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||27.3|11.7|<0.001
84666196|NCT01729754|169066791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||41.1|29.2|<0.001
84666197|NCT01729754|169066791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||43.4|31.1|<0.001
84666198|NCT01729754|169066791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|8.3|<0.001
84666199|NCT01729754|169066791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||24.4|10.3|<0.001
84666200|NCT01729754|169066792|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||34.7|19.1|<0.001
84666201|NCT01729754|169066792|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||32.6|17.0|<0.001
84666202|NCT01729754|169066795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.0|7.8|<0.001
84666203|NCT01729754|169066795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.6|8.5|<0.001
84666204|NCT01729754|169066795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||11.6|2.8|0.001
84666205|NCT01729754|169066795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.3|3.3|<0.001
84666206|NCT01729754|169066796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|9.4|<0.001
84666207|NCT01729754|169066796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||17.9|5.6|<0.001
84666208|NCT01729754|169066800|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.2|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.2|-9.3|<0.001
84666209|NCT01729754|169066800|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.3|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.3|-9.3|<0.001
84666210|NCT01729754|169066800|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.5|-2.1|0.002
84727237|NCT01837719|169206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.057|0.991|
84727238|NCT01837719|169206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.402|1.215|
84727239|NCT01837719|169206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.273|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir cobicistat||1.273|0.925|
84727240|NCT01837719|169206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.154|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.154|0.937|
84727241|NCT01837719|169206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.784|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||0.858|0.717|
84727242|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.057|0.983|
84727243|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.232||||||90.0|1.141|1.331|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.331|1.141|
84727244|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.307|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.307|0.929|
84727245|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.127||||||90.0|1.017|1.248|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.248|1.017|
84727246|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|0.96|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and a light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||0.960|0.825|
84727247|NCT01837719|169206388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T), and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.058|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.058|0.982|
84727248|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.340|1.148|
84727249|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.075|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.075|0.886|
84727250|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.231|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and fasted on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.231|1.012|
84727251|NCT01837719|169206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|0.978|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.978|0.836|
84727252|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.687
84727253|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.384
84727254|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 1||||0.597
84727255|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.860
84727256|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||0.032
84727257|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3||||0.026
84727258|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6||||0.172
84727259|NCT04468633|169206396|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1||||0.010
84727260|NCT04468633|169206400|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.759
84727261|NCT04468633|169206401|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.603
84727262|NCT04468633|169206410|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.833
84727263|NCT01403805|169206413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Fisher's test 'Vaccine' versus 'Oral Care and Vaccines' and 'phumonia' and 'not pneumonia'|Fisher Exact|||The results were analyzed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||<0.001
84727264|NCT01403805|169206414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||0.05
84727265|NCT00724750|169206428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day. For 80% power and a significance (alpha) level of 0.05; and assuming a common standard deviation of 9%, 41 subjects per group were needed.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84727266|NCT00724750|169206429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day.||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84727267|NCT00724750|169206431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727268|NCT00724750|169206432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84666211|NCT01729754|169066800|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.6|-2.2|0.001
84727269|NCT00724750|169206433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727270|NCT02213458|169206434|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.539||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||Linear mixed effects model||1.337|.259|0.04
84727271|NCT02213458|169206435|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.138||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-.020|-.295|.05
84727272|NCT02213458|169206436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.902||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.885|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-0.080|-3.885|0.07
84666212|NCT01729754|169066801|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
84727273|NCT02213458|169206438|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.143||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.132|-2.154|0.03
84727274|NCT02213458|169206439|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.635||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||1.405|-0.135|0.11
84727275|NCT01721109|169206494|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 14 participants was estimated to provide over 95% power to show pharmacokinetic equivalence between adult and adolescent participants. EVG population PK from historical adult data was used for comparison. The inter-subject standard deviation (natural log scale) of EVG AUCtau observed in the population PK data was 0.31 (historical data).|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.62||||||||1.6200|1.0479|
84752247|NCT01557348|169259678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2918||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 12||||0.2918
84666213|NCT01729754|169066801|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.5|-2.9|<0.001
84666214|NCT01729754|169066804|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|46.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||46.1|31.8|<0.001
84666215|NCT01729754|169066804|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||39.1|24.5|<0.001
84666216|NCT01729754|169066804|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||19.5|4.1|0.003
84666217|NCT01729754|169066804|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.8||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.5|-2.9|0.221
84666218|NCT01729754|169066805|OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||33.4|17.7|<0.001
84666219|NCT01729754|169066805|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.9|6.9|<0.001
84666220|NCT00202644|169066815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-100.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.42|-21.49||||||||-21.49|-179.42|
84666221|NCT00202644|169066816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-113.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|-38.83||||||Month 3||-38.83|-187.40|
84666222|NCT00202644|169066816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-68.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.95|18.43||||||Month 36||18.43|-154.95|
84666223|NCT02981342|169066840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
84666224|NCT02981342|169066840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
84666225|NCT02981342|169066841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0085
84666226|NCT02981342|169066841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0123
84666227|NCT02981342|169066842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
84666228|NCT02981342|169066842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
84666229|NCT02981342|169066847|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
84666230|NCT02981342|169066847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
84727276|NCT00134056|169206505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 18.0 months to 22.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.19|0.90|0.64
84727277|NCT00134056|169206506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 6.0 months to 7.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.16|0.89|0.81
84542841|NCT04052620|168837803|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: if the upper 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Least Square (LS) mean difference was less than 13 mm then DDEA 2.32% gel BID was concluded as non-inferior.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.22|||ANCOVA|||||5.22|-3.00|0.5950
84666231|NCT02981342|169066849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|3.272|||Log Rank|||||3.272|0.782|0.1938
84666232|NCT02981342|169066849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533||||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.150|0.746|0.2477
84666233|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||2.13|-0.84|0.383
84666234|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||1.28|-1.91|0.692
84666235|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.80|-0.85|0.469
84666236|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.22|-1.62|0.776
84666237|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||2.11|-0.72|0.328
84666238|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||1.54|-1.45|0.954
84666239|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||2.36|-0.85|0.350
84666240|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain right now.||2.44|-1.01|0.405
84666241|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.91|-1.06|0.565
84666242|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.43|-1.74|0.848
84666243|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.25|-1.37|0.928
84666244|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.08|-1.71|0.650
84666245|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||1.60|-1.89|0.865
84666246|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||2.50|-1.23|0.497
84666247|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.50|-0.72|0.272
84666248|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.19|-1.25|0.583
84666249|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Relations||1.79|-1.53|0.876
84666250|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with relations.||2.19|-1.37|0.644
84666251|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Sleep||2.48|-0.97|0.384
84666252|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.71|-0.90|0.318
84666253|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.78|-1.15|0.407
84666254|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.62|-1.58|0.620
84666255|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.91|-0.90|0.475
84727278|NCT00348283|169206558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Because of the hierarchical testing scheme used for testing the ranked secondary endpoints, alpha level of 0.05 was used at each stage of testing.||ITT population: all subjects randomized at Week 4 who had at least 1 dose of blinded therapy. The sample-size (placebo = 65 subjects; adalimumab = 65 subjects) for the primary efficacy analysis was calculated using 88% power at 0.05 alpha level based on the assumption that 25% and 5% of subjects were without mucosal ulceration at Week 12 in adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. However, subjects without mucosal ulceration at Screening were excluded from the primary analysis.||||0.056
84727279|NCT00348283|169206559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||0.021
84727280|NCT00348283|169206560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84727281|NCT00348283|169206561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.001
84727282|NCT00348283|169206562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at both Week 12 and Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.150
84727283|NCT00348283|169206563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
84727284|NCT02282761|169206568|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.05|-6.17|0.182
84727285|NCT02282761|169206568|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.6|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.60|-7.75|0.045
84727286|NCT02282761|169206569|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.12|-0.54|0.045
84666256|NCT02981342|169066851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.96|-1.04|0.540
84666257|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|10.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||10.68|-13.46|0.818
84666258|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||8.42|-16.03|0.533
84666259|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|10.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||10.82|-16.40|0.681
84666260|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||4.59|-22.63|0.189
84666261|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning||20.21|-18.29|0.921
84666262|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning.||19.42|-19.40|0.999
84666263|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||9.68|-18.20|0.541
84666264|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||7.27|-21.17|0.330
84727287|NCT00515281|169206571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84727288|NCT00515281|169206572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.288
84727289|NCT00515281|169206573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84727290|NCT00515281|169206574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
84727291|NCT00515281|169206575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84727292|NCT00515281|169206576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84727293|NCT00515281|169206577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84727294|NCT06312566|169206601|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 92.016% CI limits for Cmax,ss was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9726|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9257|1.022|||Linear mixed model analysis|||||1.022|0.9257|
84727295|NCT06312566|169206602|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(tau) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9881|1.012||||||||1.012|0.9881|
84727296|NCT05615870|169206621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.77|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of SFDs in the HEPA filtration home intervention group will not differ from the mean of SFDs in the control group||22.60|-11.77|0.537
84727297|NCT05615870|169206622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.30|-0.07|0.205
84727298|NCT05615870|169206622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.35|-0.35|0.992
84727299|NCT05615870|169206622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.16|-0.90|0.172
84727300|NCT05615870|169206622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts (or total counts) of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.52|-1.02|0.530
84727301|NCT05615870|169206623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of the Child QOL score in the HEPA intervention group will not differ from the mean of Child QOL score in the control group||2.16|-3.75|0.598
84727302|NCT05615870|169206624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||The results were based on the average PM2.5 level of common room and sleep space.|Null hypothesis: the mean of the PM2.5 level of the common room and sleep space in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of the PM2.5 level in the control group||-3.42|-10.98|<0.001
84727303|NCT03163472|169206631|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84666265|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive Functioning||10.66|-14.74|0.747
84666266|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive functioning||7.73|-18.22|0.419
84727304|NCT03163472|169206632|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84727305|NCT03163472|169206633|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84727306|NCT03163472|169206634|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84666267|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||11.19|-19.23|0.596
84666268|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.68|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||-3.55|-34.68|0.017
84666269|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|14.49||Social Scales: Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms Scales: Fatigue||14.49|-16.03|0.919
84727307|NCT00738400|169206654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.03|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-4.49|-9.03|<0.0001
84727308|NCT00738400|169206655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.66|-10.76|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-10.76|-30.66|<0.0001
84727309|NCT00738400|169206656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.48|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-14.83|-37.48|<0.0001
84727310|NCT00738400|169206657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel Test||||0.0004
84727311|NCT00738400|169206658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57||||0.0003||95.0|-23.8|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-7.34|-23.80|0.0003
84727312|NCT00738400|169206659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.24|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-17.43|-37.24|<0.0001
84727313|NCT01542502|169206661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84727314|NCT01542502|169206662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84727315|NCT02168855|169206676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|This is a logistic regression model of the active versus placebo arm, while controlling for age and cigarettes smoked per day at enrollment.|The active arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator of the odds ratio|||3.29|0.58|0.46
84727316|NCT02168855|169206677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in craving. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.98|1.83|<0.0001
84727317|NCT02168855|169206678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in negative affect T-score. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.83|1.51|<0.0001
84727318|NCT02168855|169206679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes random subject intercept effect|Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no smoking cues were seen.|||0.21|0.14|<0.0001
84727319|NCT02168855|169206680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no other people were seen smoking nearby.|||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
84727320|NCT06466655|169206718|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84727321|NCT06466655|169206719|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84727322|NCT01154699|169206738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the change in asthma control during the Usual care and the Bilevel PAP period were compared.||||0.8
84727323|NCT01154699|169206739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PC20 between the two arms||||0.20
84727324|NCT01154699|169206740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84727325|NCT01154699|169206741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84727326|NCT01154699|169206742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84727327|NCT01154699|169206743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84727328|NCT01612221|169206744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.65
84727329|NCT01612221|169206745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||GCLM Biomarker analysis.||||0.76
84727330|NCT01612221|169206745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC1A4 Biomarker analysis.||||0.63
84727331|NCT01612221|169206745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC7A11 Biomarker analysis.||||0.27
84727332|NCT01044901|169206748|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
84727333|NCT01044901|169206749|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney test).||||<0.0001
84727334|NCT01044901|169206750|OTHER|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0137
84727335|NCT01044901|169206751|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
84727336|NCT01044901|169206752|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.16
84727337|NCT01044901|169206753|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
84727338|NCT01044901|169206754|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0011
84727339|NCT01044901|169206755|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.10
84727340|NCT01044901|169206756|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.48
84727341|NCT01044901|169206757|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.08
84727342|NCT01044901|169206758|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.91
84727343|NCT01044901|169206759|OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0038
84727344|NCT01044901|169206760|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.034
84727345|NCT01044901|169206761|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented was as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.25
84727346|NCT01044901|169206762|OTHER|||||||0.0288||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0288
84727347|NCT01044901|169206763|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.14
84727348|NCT01044901|169206764|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.13
84727349|NCT01044901|169206765|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.81
84727350|NCT01044901|169206766|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.30
84727351|NCT02878590|169206768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
84727352|NCT03322514|169206795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84727353|NCT03322514|169206795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.04
84727354|NCT03322514|169206795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.1
84727355|NCT03322514|169206796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84727356|NCT03322514|169206796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
84727357|NCT03322514|169206796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
84727358|NCT03322514|169206797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84727359|NCT03322514|169206797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.4
84727360|NCT03322514|169206797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 12 weeks||||0.7
84727361|NCT00409006|169206801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0618
84727362|NCT00409006|169206802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Used the Wald Chi-squared statistic from a logistic regression analysis.||||||0.369
84727363|NCT03050372|169206813|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%.||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal; Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.329
84727364|NCT03050372|169206813|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.321
84727365|NCT03050372|169206813|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.687
84727366|NCT03050372|169206814|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.925
84727367|NCT03050372|169206814|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.08
84727368|NCT03050372|169206814|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.221
84727369|NCT03050372|169206815|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.197
84727370|NCT03050372|169206815|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.586
84727371|NCT03050372|169206815|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.298|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.298
84727372|NCT03050372|169206816|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.424
84727373|NCT03050372|169206816|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.210
84727374|NCT03050372|169206816|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.190
84727375|NCT03050372|169206817|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.535
84727376|NCT03050372|169206817|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.196
84727377|NCT03050372|169206817|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.092
84727378|NCT03050372|169206818|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||1.00
84727379|NCT03050372|169206818|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.004
84727380|NCT03050372|169206818|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.042
84752248|NCT01557348|169259679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0764
84666270|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Fatigue||23.69|-6.72|0.267
84666271|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|15.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||15.77|-18.66|0.866
84666272|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||13.43|-21.23|0.652
84666273|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||24.60|-10.39|0.417
84666274|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|21.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||21.89|-13.16|0.618
84666275|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.85|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||6.18|-27.85|0.206
84666276|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||21.80|-12.08|0.566
84666277|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|8.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||8.96|-23.01|0.380
84666278|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||17.64|-14.60|0.850
84666279|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.78|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||15.21|-20.78|0.756
84666280|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|21.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||21.82|-15.77|0.747
84666281|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|28.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||28.09|-9.16|0.311
84666282|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.75|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||8.80|-28.75|0.290
84666283|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.93|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||10.78|-31.93|0.323
84666284|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.08|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||16.48|-26.08|0.651
84666285|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||16.59|-13.57|0.841
84666286|NCT02981342|169066852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|22.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||22.54|-8.03|0.344
84666287|NCT02432846|169066883|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|2.579|||Log Rank|||||2.579|0.371|0.964
84666288|NCT02432846|169066883|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.222|||Log Rank|||||1.222|0.314|0.163
84666289|NCT02432846|169066883|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.270|0.421|0.250
84666290|NCT02432846|169066884|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.134|||Log Rank|||||2.134|0.268|0.596
84666291|NCT02432846|169066884|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.308|0.285
84666292|NCT02432846|169066884|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.290|0.378|0.240
84666293|NCT02432846|169066885|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.812
84666294|NCT02432846|169066886|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.861|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.861
84666295|NCT01912287|169066898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.42|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. SE at post-treatment||5.42|1.12|.03
84666296|NCT01912287|169066898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.82|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of CBT vs. SE at post-treatment||11.82|2.12|<.001
84666297|NCT01912287|169066898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. CBT at post-treatment||1.03|0.24|0.07
84666298|NCT03226392|169066900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.080|0.214
84666299|NCT03226392|169066901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|0.035|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.035
84666300|NCT03226392|169066902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.20|0.893
84666301|NCT03226392|169066903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.448
84666302|NCT02278263|169066905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 412 mL, to detect a difference of 300 mL of blood loss between the two treatment arms (sTXA and tTXA) and the placebo group, a sample size of 125 participants is required for a statistical power of 0.85, and a type I error of 0.05. The sample size required was 125 participants in total. The was increased by 15% to allow for expected dropouts. Therefore, a minimum of 147 patients was required for the study.||||<0.05
84666303|NCT01514760|169066930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This a comparison for participants with uncontrolled asthma at baseline and change in scores over time.||||0.03
84666304|NCT01304966|169067008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.013
84666305|NCT03338855|169067042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.183|1.047|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RD (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||1.047|-3.183|0.3047
84666306|NCT03338855|169067043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.784|-0.625|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs low insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.625|-2.784|0.0036
84666307|NCT03338855|169067043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|-1.438|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-1.438|-3.146|<0.0001
84666308|NCT03338855|169067044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RER (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.030|-0.006|0.1842
84666309|NCT03338855|169067045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|-0.013|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of 24-hour RER between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.013|-0.033|0.0001
84666310|NCT03338855|169067046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.027|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of energy expenditure between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.027|-0.245|0.1095
84666311|NCT03338855|169067047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-246.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|464.3||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1209.5|716.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of fat mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||716.2|-1209.5|0.6005
84666312|NCT03338855|169067047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-666.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1291.0|-41.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of lean mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-41.9|-1291.0|0.0376
84671742|NCT00962104|169077862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.45||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.73|0.001
84666313|NCT03338855|169067048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|-0.657|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of total mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.657|-1.854|0.0003
84666314|NCT03338855|169067049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-244.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|165.168||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.002|101.401|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of FGF21 AUC between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||101.401|-590.002|0.1555
84666315|NCT01387347|169067061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.2596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior corneal fluorescein staining score at Day 29(primary sign) was summarized using descriptive statistics (number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum). Active treatment was compared to placebo using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the α = 0.05 level||||0.2596
84666316|NCT01387347|169067061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of central corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0075
84666317|NCT01387347|169067061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of superior corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0210
84666318|NCT01387347|169067062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups uses a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the alpha = 0.05 level.||||0.3734
84666319|NCT01387347|169067062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of discomfort score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups on Day 28||||0.0244
84666320|NCT00951808|169067069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||optimal threshold level of sPLA2|48.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|58.0|||||The optimal threshold level (TL) was determined to be the same for all analysis groups.|The optimal threshold level (TL), determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, maximizes the difference between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR). Since there is no corresponding analytic standard deviation (SD) for this value, we computed a robust SD based upon the interquartile range (IQR)/1.35 from a bootstrap sample of optimal TLs.||58|38|
84666321|NCT00399360|169067102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
84666322|NCT00399360|169067103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84666323|NCT00399360|169067104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84666324|NCT00399360|169067105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84666325|NCT00399360|169067106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84666326|NCT00399360|169067107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84666327|NCT00399360|169067108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84666328|NCT00399360|169067109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
84666329|NCT00399360|169067110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84666330|NCT00399360|169067111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84666331|NCT02335099|169067132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|217.52|||Fisher Exact|||||217.52|0.27|0.32
84666332|NCT02335099|169067133|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.2|||Log Rank|||||3.20|0.23|0.82
84666333|NCT00735787|169067150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary null hypothesis for this study was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects that achieved PGA clear or almost clear at Week 16 between the adalimumab and placebo groups. Analysis was done using a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha level=0.05.||||0.014
84666334|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and participant age||||0.0164
84666335|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0200
84666336|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.0867
84666337|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and participant age||||0.0001
84666338|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and positive tuberculosis screening at Visit 0||||0.0734
84666339|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and male gender||||0.0438
84666340|NCT01474876|169067181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.5030
84666341|NCT01474876|169067190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0576
84666342|NCT01474876|169067190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.1739
84666343|NCT01474876|169067190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and Psoriasis at Visit 0||||0.0733
84666344|NCT01474876|169067190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI at Visit 0||||0.5000
84671743|NCT00962104|169077862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-3.31||This is the p-value for the Raw MI score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-3.31|-9.28|<0.001
84671744|NCT00962104|169077862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-4.78||This is the p-value for the Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-4.78|-14.75|<0.001
84671745|NCT00962104|169077863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|0.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-4.18|0.092
84727381|NCT03050372|169206819|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.05
84727382|NCT03050372|169206819|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.379
84727383|NCT03050372|169206819|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.284
84727384|NCT03050372|169206820|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.226
84727385|NCT03050372|169206820|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.156
84727386|NCT03050372|169206820|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.117
84727387|NCT03050372|169206821|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.130
84727388|NCT03050372|169206821|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.249
84727389|NCT03050372|169206821|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.114
84727390|NCT00376935|169206823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-9.0||||0.1996|ONE_SIDED|98.4||14.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm.||14||0.1996
84727391|NCT00376935|169206823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3135|ONE_SIDED|98.4||17.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm.||17||0.3135
84727392|NCT00376935|169206823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|98.4||22.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm.||22||0.3662
84727393|NCT03602053|169206831|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVAC 5D® and ROTAVAC® groups was larger than 1/2 (i.e. \> 0.5), ROTAVAC 5D® would be considered non-inferior to ROTAVAC®.|GMC ratio|1.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.924|0.862|
84727394|NCT01234675|169206844|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|4.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.6|||Paired T test|||||16.6|-7.3|0.424
84727395|NCT01234675|169206845|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.04|||Paired T test|||||-0.04|-12.2|0.049
84727396|NCT01234675|169206846|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Paired T test|||||45.8|-0.6|0.056
84727397|NCT01234675|169206847|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.5|||Paired T test|||||18.5|-12.5|0.683
84727398|NCT01234675|169206848|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.502||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|10.4|||Paired T test|||||10.4|-59.1|0.155
84727399|NCT01234675|169206849|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.8|||Paired T test|||||7.8|-9.8|0.805
84727400|NCT01234675|169206850|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|9.6|||Paired T test|||||9.6|-11.6|0.844
84727401|NCT01234675|169206851|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|2.9||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|12.2|||Paired T test|||||12.2|-6.4|0.509
84727402|NCT01234675|169206852|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|0.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Paired T test|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3
84727403|NCT01234675|169206853|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-8.2|0.685
84727404|NCT01234675|169206854|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-5.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.4|||Paired T test|||||6.4|-17.0|0.349
84727405|NCT01234675|169206855|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.6||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-1.8|0.305
84727406|NCT01234675|169206856|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.5||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Paired T test|||||0.8|-1.8|0.425
84727407|NCT05065918|169206857|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.536||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|0.857|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.857|-1.929|0.448
84542842|NCT04052620|168837805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||1.75|-6.61|0.2536
84727408|NCT05065918|169206858|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.99||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|1.108|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.108|-1.152|0.969
84727409|NCT05065918|169206859|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.322|0.322|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.322|-1.322|0.231
84727410|NCT05065918|169206860|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.319||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|0.425|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.425|-1.064|0.398
84727411|NCT05065918|169206861|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.284||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.924|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.924|-.356|0.382
84727412|NCT05065918|169206862|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.382||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|1.025|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.025|-.284|0.266
84727413|NCT05065918|169206863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||.970|0.089|0.019
84727414|NCT05065918|169206864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.277||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.787|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.787|-.232|0.284
84727415|NCT05065918|169206865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.709||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|1.494|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.494|-.076|0.076
84727416|NCT05065918|169206866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.625||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|1.449|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.449|-.199|0.136
84727417|NCT03149887|169206867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84727418|NCT03149887|169206868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84727419|NCT03149887|169206869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84727420|NCT03149887|169206870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84727421|NCT03149887|169206871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84727422|NCT03149887|169206872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84727423|NCT03149887|169206873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84727424|NCT03149887|169206874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84727425|NCT02995733|169206916|SUPERIORITY|Asthma exacerbation rates during follow-up between two randomized treatment arms are compared using the Andersen-Gill adaptation of time-to-event Cox proportional hazard model with robust standard errors to account for multiple occurrences of the outcome in each patient (Andersen Gill, 1982). This analysis is based on intention-to-treat (ITT) patient population.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Pre-specified baseline covariates are adjusted in the model. A time-dependent covariate for the COVID pandemic is also included in adjustments.||||0.999|0.720|0.048
84727426|NCT02995733|169206917|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ACT change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
84727427|NCT02995733|169206918|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ASUI change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|0.02|
84727428|NCT02995733|169206919|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model is used, with time as an offset to account for differential duration of follow-up. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||||0.95|0.67|
84727429|NCT02720198|169206923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|4.836|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.836|-2.518|0.53
84727430|NCT02720198|169206924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|2.388|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.388|0.101|0.428
84727431|NCT02720198|169206925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.724||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.866|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.866|0.109|0.272
84727432|NCT02720198|169206926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.484|2.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.236|-3.484|0.664
84727433|NCT02720198|169206927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.199||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|6.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.750|-2.070|0.292
84727434|NCT02720198|169206928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.971|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.971|0.380|0.884
84727435|NCT02720198|169206929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.129|0.245|0.905
84727436|NCT02720198|169206930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.211|4.492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.492|-1.211|0.254
84727437|NCT02720198|169206931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|0.134|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.134|-7.520|0.058
84727438|NCT02720198|169206932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.559|4.088|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.088|-4.559|0.913
84727439|NCT02720198|169206933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.623|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.623|-2.540|0.660
84727440|NCT04879823|169206934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores before medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.03
84727441|NCT04879823|169206935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care (at least 1 time) post-operatively between dexamethasone and placebo groups.||||0.07
84727442|NCT04879823|169206936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores after medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.98
84727443|NCT03897075|169206950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00311
84727444|NCT03897075|169206951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00079|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00079
84727445|NCT03897075|169206952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09892|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.09892
84727446|NCT02592434|169206993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-7.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||-7.97|-39.41|0.0031
84727447|NCT02592434|169206994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.52||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||35.50|3.55|0.0166
84727448|NCT02592434|169206995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||39.41|7.97|0.0031
84752249|NCT01557348|169259679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.0587
84666345|NCT04035161|169067215|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.16|-0.15|
84666346|NCT04035161|169067215|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||-0.05|-0.43|
84666347|NCT04035161|169067215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.97||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||1.97|1.66|
84727449|NCT02592434|169206996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.02||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|33.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||33.17|0.88|0.0387
84727450|NCT02592434|169206997|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance. Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
84727451|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.71||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|8.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||8.41|-11.82|0.7410
84727452|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-18.93||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.22|-5.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||-5.64|-32.22|0.0052
84727453|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-19.09||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-4.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||-4.70|-33.48|0.0093
84727454|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-22.1||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-6.86|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||-6.86|-37.35|0.0045
84727455|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.57||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|-8.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||-8.17|-38.97|0.0027
84727456|NCT02592434|169206999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-25.08||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.69|-9.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||-9.47|-40.69|0.0016
84727457|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.03||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||17.46|-5.40|0.3010
84727458|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.54||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|31.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||31.03|4.05|0.0108
84727459|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|33.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||33.74|4.51|0.0103
84727460|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.27|38.8|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||38.80|8.27|0.0025
84727461|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.04||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|40.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||40.56|9.52|0.0016
84727462|NCT02592434|169207003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||39.41|7.97|0.0031
84727463|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.15||||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.33|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||8.33|-10.63|0.8119
84727464|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.66||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|21.21|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 20||21.21|-5.90|0.2682
84727465|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.98||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.26|36.71|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 24||36.71|7.26|0.0034
84727466|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|33.36|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 28||33.36|2.44|0.0233
84727467|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.16||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|40.93|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 32||40.93|9.39|0.0018
84727468|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.91||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 36||36.81|5.01|0.0099
84727469|NCT02592434|169207005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.34||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|38.22|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 40||38.22|6.46|0.0058
84666348|NCT04035161|169067215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.56||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.56|2.19|
84666349|NCT04035161|169067218|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.23|-0.08|
84666350|NCT04035161|169067218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.15||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.15|1.84|
84666351|NCT03658538|169067260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.5||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||-0.5|-8.2|0.025
84666352|NCT03658538|169067261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||||0.061
84666353|NCT02921776|169067270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84666354|NCT02921776|169067271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84666355|NCT02921776|169067272|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Effect size|Effect size =-0.29||||||0.10
84666356|NCT02921776|169067272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.10
84666357|NCT02921776|169067273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Benzodiazepine exposure||||0.02
84666358|NCT02921776|169067273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Opioid Exposure||||0.291
84666359|NCT02921776|169067274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84666360|NCT02921776|169067275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84666361|NCT02921776|169067276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.72|0.19|0.93
84727470|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.77||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|19.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||19.33|-11.79|0.6348
84727471|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.62||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|18.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||18.90|-13.66|0.7525
84666362|NCT02921776|169067277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84666363|NCT02921776|169067279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84666364|NCT02921776|169067280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.94
84666365|NCT02921776|169067280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient Extubation or Discharge from ICU||||0.89
84666366|NCT02921776|169067280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-Month||||0.38
84727472|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.05||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|30.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||30.33|-2.23|0.0908
84727473|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.02||||0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|23.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||23.43|-9.38|0.4026
84727474|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.37||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|34.52|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||34.52|2.22|0.0258
84666367|NCT02921776|169067280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.63
84727475|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||35.88|3.88|0.0149
84727476|NCT02592434|169207007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||35.88|3.88|0.0149
84727477|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.24||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.53|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||10.53|-21.00|0.5150
84727478|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.01||||0.24||95.0|-6.02|24.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.03|-6.02|0.2400
84666368|NCT02921776|169067280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.73
84666369|NCT02921776|169067281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.82
84666370|NCT02921776|169067281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient extubation or discharge from ICU||||0.84
84666371|NCT02921776|169067281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month||||0.96
84666372|NCT02921776|169067281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.17
84666373|NCT02921776|169067281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
84666374|NCT02921776|169067282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1-month||||0.26
84666375|NCT02921776|169067282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month||||0.25
84666376|NCT02921776|169067282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month||||0.79
84666377|NCT02921776|169067290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|0.05|0.05
84666378|NCT02921776|169067290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for baseline communication difficulty||1.30|0.06|0.10
84666379|NCT03992781|169067301|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-53.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666380|NCT03992781|169067302|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666381|NCT03992781|169067303|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-33.2|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666382|NCT03992781|169067303|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-47.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666383|NCT03992781|169067304|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-27.6|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666384|NCT03992781|169067304|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-34.5|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666385|NCT03992781|169067305|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-43.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666386|NCT03992781|169067305|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
84666387|NCT01996826|169067313|OTHER|Based on prior studies endothelial rejection episodes tend to occur in the range of about 60% of transplants. We used rates ranging from 50 to 70 % to compute the sample size. We specified the probability of a type 1 error equal to 0.05, study power equal to 80%, a follow-up period of 12 months, and 4% loss to follow-up. Calculations resulted in sample size estimates of between 65 and 124 participants.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.14|||Log Rank|||Endothelial rejection rates in patients in the treatment group and the control group were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The Kaplan-Meier/product limit estimator is a non-parametric statistical test used to show the probability of an event occurring at a given time interval. The Kaplan-Meier estimator is used to show what the probability of corneal transplant rejection (and therefore transplant survival) after administration of the active treatment or control.||1.14|0.12|0.10
84666388|NCT01996826|169067314|OTHER|The count of ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.06|0.78|0.36
84666389|NCT01996826|169067314|OTHER|Mild ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.4|0.63|0.82
84666390|NCT01996826|169067314|OTHER|Moderate severity ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||2.2|0.41|>0.99
84666391|NCT01996826|169067314|OTHER|Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.||1.9|0.20|0.51
84666392|NCT01996826|169067315|OTHER|The incidence of Systematic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were calculated and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Fisher Exact|||||1.02|0.79|0.24
84666393|NCT01996826|169067315|OTHER|Mild severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||3.9|0.68|0.40
84666394|NCT01996826|169067315|OTHER|Moderate severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
84666395|NCT01996826|169067315|OTHER|Severe systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of severe systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
84671746|NCT00962104|169077863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.62||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.28||This is the p-value for the Raw MI Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-4.52|0.272
84666396|NCT00518323|169067325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.508||95.0|-8.36|4.16||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||4.16|-8.36|0.508
84666397|NCT00518323|169067325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.006||95.0|-16.58|-3.67||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-3.67|-16.58|0.006
84666398|NCT00518323|169067325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.086||95.0|-13.07|-0.09||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-0.09|-13.07|0.086
84666399|NCT00518323|169067326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.968
84666400|NCT00518323|169067326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
84666401|NCT00518323|169067326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.021
84666402|NCT00518323|169067327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0|-4.54|3.73||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.73|-4.54|0.846
84666403|NCT00518323|169067327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001||95.0|4.28|12.82||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||12.82|4.28|<0.001
84666404|NCT00518323|169067327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.067||95.0|-0.28|8.33||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||8.33|-0.28|0.067
84666405|NCT00518323|169067328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.058||95.0|-0.29|16.56||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||16.56|-0.29|0.058
84727479|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.93||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|24.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||24.33|-6.47|0.2557
84727480|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.97||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|24.19|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||24.19|-6.25|0.2481
84666406|NCT00518323|169067328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|8.08|25.43||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||25.43|8.08|<0.001
84666407|NCT00518323|169067328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.003||95.0|4.76|22.23||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||22.23|4.76|0.003
84666408|NCT00518323|169067329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.237||95.0|-13.11|3.26||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.26|-13.11|0.237
84666409|NCT00518323|169067329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.119||95.0|-15.15|1.74||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-15.15|0.119
84727481|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.03||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|30.98|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||30.98|1.08|0.0356
84727482|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.89||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|33.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||33.54|4.24|0.0115
84666410|NCT00518323|169067329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.574||95.0|-11.0|6.11||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||6.11|-11.00|0.574
84666411|NCT03033511|169067344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.84|0.537
84666412|NCT03033511|169067345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.92|0.237
84666413|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.35||||||Change at Week 6||2.35|-3.08|
84666414|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.29||||||Change at Week 12||-6.29|-14.58|
84666415|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-27.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.19|-9.16||||||Change at Week 18||-9.16|-46.19|
84666416|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-18.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|1.39||||||Change at Week 24||1.39|-38.28|
84666417|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-1.37||||||Change at Week 30||-1.37|-42.63|
84666418|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 36||||
84666419|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 42||||
84666420|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 48||||
84666421|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 60||||
84666422|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 66||||
84666423|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 78||||
84666424|NCT03033511|169067346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-6.19||||||Change at Final Visit||-6.19|-12.16|
84727483|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|26.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||26.62|-2.89|0.1150
84727484|NCT02592434|169207009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.29||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|27.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||27.90|-1.31|0.0744
84666425|NCT03742037|169067347|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.68|-1.45|0.4749
84666426|NCT03742037|169067347|SUPERIORITY||LS mean to placebo|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.49|-1.65|0.2941
84666427|NCT03742037|169067347|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||1.08|-1.05|0.9802
84666428|NCT03742037|169067347|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||-0.12|-2.25|0.0291
84666429|NCT03742037|169067348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||1.9|0.54|0.974
84666430|NCT03742037|169067348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.65|0.75|0.2845
84666431|NCT03742037|169067348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
84666432|NCT03742037|169067348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
84666433|NCT00391274|169067404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1326||95.0|0.76|8.25||Logistic regression of best overall tumor response (complete response + partial response).|Regression, Logistic|Treatment was the only covariate.||||8.25|0.76|0.1326
84666434|NCT00391274|169067405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7704||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7704
84666435|NCT00391274|169067405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7784||95.0|0.75|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.46|0.75|0.7784
84666436|NCT00391274|169067408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.4921||95.0|0.78|1.68||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 24 months)|Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.68|0.78|0.4921
84666437|NCT00391274|169067408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 30 months)|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.74|0.9256
84666438|NCT00894322|169067430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||Treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors. Placebo was reference group.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-1.50|0.0013
84666439|NCT00894322|169067431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c strata at screening.||||||0.0033
84666440|NCT00894322|169067432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.835||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.68|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||Least square mean (LS) mean, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value calculated for the changes in weight from baseline in participants in cohort 2 treated with exenatide with placebo as reference group.||0.68|-2.73|0.2285
84666441|NCT00894322|169067433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-14.3|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||||-14.3|-66.5|0.0035
84666442|NCT00531817|169067439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|25.42||The p-value was not adjusted. The primary objective was a single comparison with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Power calculation: Assuming placebo+DMARDs response rate of 15% and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg+DMARDs response rate of 28% based on previous trials, a sample size of 570 patients (2:1 ratio, tocilizumab+DMARDs n=380 and placebo+DMARDs n=190) will provide \> 90% power to detect a difference between 2 treatment arms with 5% Type I error with a 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Null Hypothesis: The percentage of patients responding in each treatment group (tocilizumab+DMARDs vs placebo+ DMARDs) is the same.||25.42|12.29|<0.0001
84666443|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0866|26.5327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from the model.||26.5327|15.0866|<0.0001
84666444|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7321|30.1929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1929|18.7321|<0.0001
84666445|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5792||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3385|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.1800|-6.3385|0.8428
84666446|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9993||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7832|3.7845|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.7845|-7.7832|0.4957
84666447|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9683||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8567|6.7932|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.7932|-4.8567|0.7431
84666448|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3889|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1044|-15.6734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.6734|-27.1044|<0.0001
84666449|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5584|-17.0596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.0596|-28.5584|<0.0001
84666450|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.8414|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6435|-14.0393|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.0393|-25.6435|<0.0001
84671747|NCT00962104|169077863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.55||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-8.43|0.153
84671748|NCT00962104|169077864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
84727485|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.15||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-2.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||-2.46|-29.84|0.0207
84671749|NCT00962104|169077865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with term for treatment and country.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84666451|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0418|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6705|-19.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.4130|-30.6705|<0.0001
84666452|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4618|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1455|-20.7782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.7782|-32.1455|<0.0001
84666453|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.244|-17.7445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.7445|-29.2440|<0.0001
84666454|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4538||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5274|3.6198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.6198|-6.5274|0.5720
84666455|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9938||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0695|-3.918|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.9180|-14.0695|0.0006
84666456|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8686||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2342|6.9713|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9713|-3.2342|0.4704
84666457|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0725||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0533|7.1984|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1984|-3.0533|0.4255
84666458|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3425||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5053|4.8204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.8204|-5.5053|0.8959
84666459|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3224||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7402|8.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.3850|-1.7402|0.1967
84666460|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5264||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5676|8.6203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.6203|-1.5676|0.1733
84666461|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1113||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0285|6.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2512|-4.0285|0.6697
84666462|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8712|15.8535|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.8535|5.8712|<0.0001
84727486|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.63||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|24.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.24|-2.97|0.1254
84727487|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.49||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|17.91|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||17.91|-10.93|0.6350
84666463|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0281|16.1045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1045|6.0281|<0.0001
84666464|NCT00975481|169067477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6513||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5552|13.7474|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7474|3.5552|0.0010
84666465|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5727|22.7049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||22.7049|10.5727|<0.0001
84666466|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7627|25.9238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.9238|13.7627|<0.0001
84666467|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6121||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7209|4.4967|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4967|-7.7209|0.6029
84666468|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9241||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0571|3.2089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.2089|-9.0571|0.3477
84666469|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0908||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|6.2667|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2667|-6.0850|0.9769
84666470|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3155|-12.1864|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-12.1864|-24.3155|<0.0001
84666471|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6616|-13.4642|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.4642|-25.6616|<0.0001
84666472|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7036|-10.3923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.3923|-22.7036|<0.0001
84666473|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4554|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4199|-15.4908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.4908|-27.4199|<0.0001
84666474|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7925|-16.7422||Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.7422|-28.7925|<0.0001
84671750|NCT00962104|169077866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.6||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.71|0.869
84727488|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||16.41|-12.20|0.7732
84666475|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8485|-13.6563|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.6563|-25.8485|<0.0001
84666476|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0888||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3225|18.8551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.8551|5.3225|0.0006
84666477|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0768||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3132|16.8403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.8403|3.3132|0.0038
84666478|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1875||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.989|2.6139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6139|-10.9890|0.2257
84666479|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8589||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6927|5.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9750|-7.6927|0.8042
84666480|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6335||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5177|5.2506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2506|-8.5177|0.6399
84666481|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2763|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0228|-9.5229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.5229|-23.0228|<0.0001
84666482|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9477||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7374|-6.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.1580|-19.7374|0.0002
84666483|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7223||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.572|-6.8727|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.8727|-20.5720|0.0001
84666484|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9226|-7.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.6060|-20.9226|<0.0001
84666485|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9356||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6548|-4.2165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.2165|-17.6548|0.0016
84671751|NCT00962104|169077867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.59|0.870
84671752|NCT02196324|169077896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0111
84727489|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.35||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|20.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||20.47|-7.77|0.3782
84727490|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.98||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|25.99|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||25.99|-2.02|0.0936
84727491|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.17||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|23.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||23.24|-4.91|0.2017
84666486|NCT00975481|169067478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7103||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5055|-4.9151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.9151|-18.5055|0.0008
84666487|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7265|34.2916|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.2916|13.7265|<0.0001
84666488|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.116|39.7151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||39.7151|19.1160|<0.0001
84666489|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3979||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7479|3.9521|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.9521|-16.7479|0.2239
84666490|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1396||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5328|6.2526|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2526|-14.5328|0.4326
84666491|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7283||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.195|8.7383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7383|-12.1950|0.7447
84666492|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.4069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6795|-20.1343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1343|-40.6795|<0.0001
84666493|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.1487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4812|-17.8161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8161|-38.4812|<0.0001
84666494|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1651|-15.3096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.3096|-36.1651|<0.0001
84666495|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.8134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9257|-25.7012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-25.7012|-45.9257|<0.0001
84666496|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5552|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7675|-23.3429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-23.3429|-43.7675|<0.0001
84666497|NCT00975481|169067479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4754|-20.8124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.8124|-41.4754|<0.0001
84671753|NCT02196324|169077897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.8|= 0.0248
84727492|NCT02592434|169207011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.02||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|25.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||25.74|-1.69|0.0858
84727493|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.53|||MMRM|||Week 20; Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.53|-3.60|0.0088
84666498|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.8779|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5658|30.1899|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1899|19.5658|<0.0001
84666499|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.9857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.667|31.3043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||31.3043|20.6670|<0.0001
84666500|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0544||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2911|7.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.3998|-3.2911|0.4489
84666501|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5743||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7941|5.9427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9427|-4.7941|0.8329
84671754|NCT02196324|169077898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|0.0005
84671755|NCT02196324|169077904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||||||Week 2||-0.0|-1.4|
84671756|NCT02196324|169077904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1||||||Week 4||-0.1|-1.7|
84671757|NCT02196324|169077904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||p-value assume equal variance|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||-0.2|-2.0|0.0175
84671758|NCT02196324|169077905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Week 2||1.6|-3.1|
84671759|NCT02196324|169077905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||||||Week 4||2.3|-2.7|
84671760|NCT02196324|169077905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||||||Week 8||2.1|-3.6|
84671761|NCT02196324|169077906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Week 2||0.1|-0.4|
84671762|NCT02196324|169077906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Week 4||0.2|-0.4|
84671763|NCT02196324|169077906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 8||0.1|-0.6|
84671764|NCT02196324|169077907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.72||p-value assume equal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.02|0.0625
84671765|NCT00500370|169077956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
84671766|NCT00500370|169077957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
84671767|NCT00500370|169077958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.6766
84671768|NCT00500370|169077959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0393
84671769|NCT00500370|169077960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1808
84671770|NCT00500370|169077961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
84671771|NCT00500370|169077962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6651
84671772|NCT00500370|169077963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
84671773|NCT00500370|169077964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8479||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.8479
84671774|NCT00500370|169077965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2151
84671775|NCT00500370|169077966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7619
84671776|NCT00500370|169077967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8973
84671777|NCT00500370|169077968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6507||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6507
84671778|NCT00500370|169077969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2593||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2593
84671779|NCT00500370|169077970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2919||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2919
84671780|NCT00500370|169077971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.0293
84671781|NCT05627518|169077972|OTHER||Ratio|1.9954|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8399|2.1641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|The Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.1641|1.8399|<0.0001
84727494|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-1.1|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.10|-6.17|0.0054
84603068|NCT01960998|168956934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the IIQ are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean IIQ score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 22.3 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 19.4 (SD 22.4). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.46
84603069|NCT01960998|168956935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Quality of Life question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 31.4% (Delighted/Pleased), 22.8% (Mostly Satisfied), 19.4% (Mixed), 12.0% (Mostly Dissatisfied), and 14.4% (Unhappy/Terrible) and in the telehealth group were 20.8%, 26.3%, 26.3%, 12.6%, and 14.0%, respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the IPSS Quality of Life question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
84603070|NCT01960998|168956936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Patient Satisfaction question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Completely Satisfied), 40.2% (Somewhat Satisfied), and 8.7% (Not at All Satisfied) and in the telehealth group were 34.8%, 59.9%, and 5.3%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Patient Satisfaction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.04
84603071|NCT01960998|168956937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Estimated Percent Improvement (EPI) are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 65.1 (standard deviation 34.5) and in the telehealth group was 69.6 (SD 29.6). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.67
84603072|NCT01960998|168956938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Global Perception of Improvement (GPI) question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 46.3% (Much Better), 30.7% (Better), 16.7% (About the Same), 2.3% (Worse), and 3.9% (Much Worse) and in the telehealth group were 38.3%, 41.1%, 15.3%, 2.9%, and 2.5%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the Global Perception of Improvement question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.65
84603073|NCT01960998|168956939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||"Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 43.5% (Not at All), 44.4% (Somewhat), and 12.1% (Extremely) and in the telehealth group were 38.9%, 53.2%, and 7.9% respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method."|||0.37
84603074|NCT01960998|168956940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Not at all), 36.5% (Some of the time), 7.2% (Most of the time), and 5.3% (All of the time) and in the telehealth group were 56.5%, 33.5%, 4.2%, and 5.8% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
84727495|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.32|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.32|-6.38|0.0039
84727496|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.29|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.29|-5.30|0.0022
84603075|NCT01960998|168956941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 52.3% (Yes), 5.0% (No, not yet recovered from surgery), 1.9% (No, other reason), and 40.7% (Retired or disabled) and in the telehealth group were 62.3%, 3.5%, 0.8%, and 33.5% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.71
84603076|NCT01960998|168956942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 7.4% (None), 29.8% (Some), 62.8% (All) and in the telehealth group were 4.9%, 23.0%, and 72.2% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.41
84603077|NCT00835640|168956945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|81.33||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
84603078|NCT00835640|168956946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.87||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
84603079|NCT00835640|168956947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.45||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
84603080|NCT00350272|168956952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.2||||||The difference in proportions between the group of participants who received lamivudine 300 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks and the group of participants who received elvucitabine 10 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks along with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval for risk difference using asymptotic normal theory.||8.2|-35.2|
84603081|NCT00812006|168956954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
84603082|NCT00812006|168956955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
84603083|NCT00812006|168956956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
84603084|NCT00812006|168956957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's falsediscovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
84603085|NCT00812006|168956958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
84603086|NCT01686750|168956975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Prevalence ratio||Therefore, the exponentiated coefficients for intervention status represent the prevalence ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) and are interpreted as the relative percentage difference in the outcome associated with the intervention.|We compared the sampling-weighted prevalence of outcomes at Integrated Care Centers (ICCs) and usual care from the evaluation survey. We used linear regression models that had terms for intervention status (integrated care vs usual care), stratum (PWID and MSM), and the baseline proportion of the outcome being assessed. Site-level proportions from both evaluation and baseline respondent-driven sampling were log transformed before being entered into the regression model.||1.81|0.95|0.09
84603087|NCT01686750|168956976|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.50|0.80|
84603088|NCT01686750|168956977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||||||||1.81|0.61|
84603089|NCT01686750|168956978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.41||||||||2.41|0.77|
84603090|NCT01686750|168956980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28||||||||1.28|0.65|
84603091|NCT01686750|168956982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.93||||||||4.93|0.42|
84603092|NCT01686750|168956983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.16||||||||7.16|0.49|
84603093|NCT01686750|168956984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56||||||||1.56|0.53|
84603094|NCT01686750|168956985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||||||||4.2|-4.2|
84603095|NCT01686750|168956987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|0.47|
84666502|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6863||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7203|7.0929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.0929|-3.7203|0.5387
84666503|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1283|-17.5187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.5187|-28.1283|<0.0001
84666504|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-18.9672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9672|-29.6400|<0.0001
84666505|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5768|-17.8064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8064|-28.5768|<0.0001
84666506|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1559|-18.7066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.7066|-29.1559|<0.0001
84666507|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6869|-20.1358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1358|-30.6869|<0.0001
84666508|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6361|-18.9626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9626|-29.6361|<0.0001
84666509|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4301||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9725|3.1123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.1123|-5.9725|0.5349
84666510|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1367||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6684|-4.605|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.6050|-13.6684|0.0001
84666511|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3357||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2244|5.8958|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.8958|-3.2244|0.5637
84727497|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-3.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-3.00|-9.42|0.0005
84666512|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4065||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1779|4.9909|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.9909|-4.1779|0.8612
84727498|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.92|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-2.92|-9.60|0.0006
84542843|NCT04052620|168837805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.7|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||2.70|-4.23|0.6643
84666513|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9175||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7022|5.5373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.5373|-3.7022|0.6954
84666514|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7658||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7552|7.2868|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.2868|-1.7552|0.2287
84666515|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8366||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7158|6.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.3890|-2.7158|0.4267
84666516|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3476||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2429|6.9381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9381|-2.2429|0.3140
84666517|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9992|14.9456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.9456|5.9992|<0.0001
84666518|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.032|14.0544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.0544|5.0320|<0.0001
84666519|NCT00975481|169067480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.494|14.6144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.6144|5.4940|<0.0001
84666520|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4728|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4718|19.4737|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.4737|9.4718|<0.0001
84727499|NCT02592434|169207013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.71|-7.02|0.0027
84727500|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.33|-3.32|0.0172
84727501|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.01|-5.81|0.0057
84666521|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7131|24.7437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||24.7437|14.7131|<0.0001
84666522|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2088||||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8289|5.2466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2466|-4.8289|0.9348
84666523|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7271||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7841|3.3299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3299|-6.7841|0.5009
84666524|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3325||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4245|4.7595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.7595|-5.4245|0.8975
84666525|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.266|-9.2619|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.2619|-19.2660|<0.0001
84666526|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2294|-11.1704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-11.1704|-21.2294|<0.0001
84727502|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.23|-5.94|0.0038
84727503|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.36|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.36|-5.47|0.0020
84727504|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.57|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.57|-8.74|0.0007
84727505|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-2.58|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.58|-8.66|0.0007
84727506|NCT02592434|169207015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 44:Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.82|-6.99|0.0018
84666527|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8822|-9.7283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.7283|-19.8822|<0.0001
84666528|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4361|-14.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.6030|-24.4361|<0.0001
84727507|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.47||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|17.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||17.90|-14.96|0.8610
84727508|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.12||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|26.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||26.20|-5.96|0.2173
84666529|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.423|-16.488|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.4880|-26.4230|<0.0001
84727509|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.94||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|28.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||28.96|-3.08|0.1135
84727510|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.51||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|27.6|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||27.60|-4.58|0.1610
84727511|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.42||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|23.21|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||23.21|-8.37|0.3571
84727512|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.44||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|30.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||30.16|-1.27|0.0716
84727513|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.4||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|30.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||30.24|-1.43|0.0746
84727514|NCT02592434|169207017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.37||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|30.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||30.30|-1.57|0.0773
84727515|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.06||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|6.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||6.10|-12.21|0.5131
84727516|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.87||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|14.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||14.74|-1.01|0.0876
84727517|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.79||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|16.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||16.16|-2.59|0.1561
84666530|NCT00975481|169067481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0872|-15.0345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.0345|-25.0872|<0.0001
84666531|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9014|4.4254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4254|1.9014|<0.0001
84666532|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4066|5.9346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9346|3.4066|<0.0001
84666533|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1217|1.4173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4173|-1.1217|0.8184
84666534|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2211||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|1.4963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4963|-1.0540|0.7324
84727518|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.58||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|11.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||11.70|-6.54|0.5795
84666535|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0946||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1898|1.3791|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3791|-1.1898|0.8844
84666536|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2754|-1.7558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7558|-4.2754|<0.0001
84666537|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2101|-1.6745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.6745|-4.2101|<0.0001
84666538|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3484|-1.7891|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7891|-4.3484|<0.0001
84666539|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7651|-3.2805|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2805|-5.7651|<0.0001
84666540|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7031|-3.1959|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1959|-5.7031|<0.0001
84666541|NCT00975481|169067482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8438|-3.3081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.3081|-5.8438|<0.0001
84727519|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.4||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|14.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||14.47|-3.67|0.2435
84727520|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|20.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||20.04|-0.99|0.0758
84666542|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0453|58.1142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||58.1142|34.0453|<0.0001
84666543|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.8771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8247|61.9295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.9295|37.8247|<0.0001
84666544|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5797||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6918|11.5325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.5325|-12.6918|0.9248
84666545|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3632||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5264|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.8000|-15.5264|0.5857
84727521|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.91||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.65|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||21.65|0.17|0.0464
84727522|NCT02592434|169207019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.06||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|19.38|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||19.38|-3.27|0.1634
84727523|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-17.42||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-4.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind baseline (Week 18)||-4.96|-29.88|0.0062
84727524|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.44||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|11.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||11.47|-12.34|0.9427
84727525|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.6||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|12.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||12.84|-14.03|0.9308
84727526|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.87||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|13.78|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||13.78|-12.03|0.8945
84727527|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||15.64|-11.20|0.7455
84727528|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
84727529|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|25.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||25.17|-0.97|0.0695
84727530|NCT02592434|169207020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
84727531|NCT02592434|169207021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.12||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||||6.50|-6.74|0.9719
84727532|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.35|-2.08|0.1595
84727533|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.48|-3.32|0.1421
84727534|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-3.37|0.0552
84727535|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.17|-2.50|0.0822
84727536|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-1.43|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.43|-6.53|0.0041
84727537|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.02|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.02|-6.12|0.0085
84727538|NCT02592434|169207023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-4.36|0.0384
84727539|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.19|-0.72|0.2595
84666546|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4225||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.827|16.6719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.6719|-7.8270|0.4768
84666547|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6804|-34.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.6385|-58.6804|<0.0001
84666548|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5346|-37.3514|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.3514|-61.5346|<0.0001
84666549|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.86|-29.4546|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.4546|-53.8600|<0.0001
84666550|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.4567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2925|-38.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.6210|-62.2925|<0.0001
84666551|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.2403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1923|-41.2882|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-41.2882|-65.1923|<0.0001
84666552|NCT00975481|169067483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.4546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5459|-33.3633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-33.3633|-57.5459|<0.0001
84666553|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6464|59.0436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.0436|34.6464|<0.0001
84666554|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3036|69.6991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.6991|45.3036|<0.0001
84666555|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0913||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3421|7.1595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1595|-17.3421|0.4129
84666556|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1893||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4954|11.1168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1168|-13.4954|0.8488
84727540|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.42|0.0674
84727541|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.93|0.0580
84727542|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.08|-1.67|0.0751
84666557|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1995||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1963|17.5954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||17.5954|-7.1963|0.4086
84666558|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.9363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1108|-39.7618|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-39.7618|-64.1108|<0.0001
84666559|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0343|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2801|-35.7885|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7885|-60.2801|<0.0001
84666560|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9964|-29.2946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.2946|-53.9964|<0.0001
84666561|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.5926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5881|-50.5971|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-50.5971|-74.5881|<0.0001
84666562|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7965|-46.5847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-46.5847|-70.7965|<0.0001
84666563|NCT00975481|169067484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5427|-40.0609|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.0609|-64.5427|<0.0001
84666564|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4604||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.321|26.5998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||26.5998|6.3210|0.0016
84666565|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8247|38.1696|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||38.1696|17.8247|<0.0001
84666566|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1425||||0.8254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3591|9.0742|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.0742|-11.3591|0.8254
84666567|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.747||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5075|11.0015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.0015|-9.5075|0.8858
84727543|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-1.88|0.0251
84603096|NCT01686750|168956989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-3.0|
84666568|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4279||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8972|13.7529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7529|-6.8972|0.5128
84666569|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6028||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7485|-7.4572|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.4572|-27.7485|0.0008
84666570|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7134||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9136|-5.5132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.5132|-25.9136|0.0028
84666571|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0325||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3295|-2.7355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7355|-23.3295|0.0135
84666572|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1396|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1071|-19.1721|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.1721|-39.1071|<0.0001
84666573|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3224|-17.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.1780|-37.3224|<0.0001
84666574|NCT00975481|169067485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7614|-14.3772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.3772|-34.7614|<0.0001
84666575|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2535||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5623|1.9446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.9446|0.5623|0.0005
84666576|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8073|4.1948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.1948|2.8073|<0.0001
84666577|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3418||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|1.0396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0396|-0.3559|0.3347
84666578|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3208||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3808|1.0225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0225|-0.3808|0.3678
84666579|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6686|0.7406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7406|-0.6686|0.9197
84666580|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9117||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6013|-0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2220|-1.6013|0.0099
84727544|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.09|-2.07|0.0331
84603097|NCT01686750|168956990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
84666581|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9326||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6269|-0.2384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2384|-1.6269|0.0088
84666582|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2175||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9171|-0.5178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.5178|-1.9171|0.0008
84666583|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.838|-2.4804|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4804|-3.8380|<0.0001
84666584|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1802|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8656|-2.4947|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4947|-3.8656|<0.0001
84666585|NCT00975481|169067486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1583|-2.7717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7717|-4.1583|<0.0001
84666586|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0783|6.5102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.5102|4.0783|<0.0001
84666587|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6799|8.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.1167|5.6799|<0.0001
84666588|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6545||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5676|1.8767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.8767|-0.5676|0.2917
84666589|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8489||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3784|2.0763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.0763|-0.3784|0.1738
84727545|NCT02592434|169207025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-1.66|0.0549
84727546|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.04|-1.04|0.0353
84727547|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.21|-1.47|0.0094
84727548|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.23|-1.36|0.0065
84727549|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.43|0.0018
84727550|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.61|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.61|-2.24|0.0010
84666590|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9372||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3024|2.1767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.1767|-0.3024|0.1373
84666591|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8537|-3.4257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.4257|-5.8537|<0.0001
84666592|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6662|-3.2244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2244|-5.6662|<0.0001
84666593|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5887|-3.1255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1255|-5.5887|<0.0001
84666594|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4397|-5.0477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.0477|-7.4397|<0.0001
84666595|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2568|-4.8419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.8419|-7.2568|<0.0001
84666596|NCT00975481|169067487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1812|-4.741|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.7410|-7.1812|<0.0001
84666597|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1192|-20.1219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1219|-33.1192|<0.0001
84727551|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.81|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.81|-2.42|0.0002
84727552|NCT02592434|169207027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.71|-2.44|0.0007
84727553|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.02|-0.83|0.0398
84727554|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.39|-1.49|0.0011
84727555|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.47|0.0131
84727556|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.33|-1.62|0.0039
84727557|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.10|0.0711
84603098|NCT01939002|168957006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample Chi-square test comparing to Null hypotheses at 25%.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84727558|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-1.30|0.0658
84727559|NCT02592434|169207029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.15|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.15|-1.31|0.0154
84727560|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.06|-0.12|0.4777
84727561|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0779
84727562|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0324
84727563|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-0.20|0.1061
84727564|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.00|-0.24|0.0572
84727565|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0689
84727566|NCT02592434|169207031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
84727567|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|11.31|||MMRM|||Global Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.31|-3.72|0.3179
84727568|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|11.78|||MMRM|||Physical Functioning: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.78|-5.23|0.4452
84727569|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|14.95|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Emotional: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||14.95|-4.01|0.2539
84727570|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|18.3|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Physical Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||18.30|-3.86|0.1981
84727571|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|16.94|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||16.94|-0.43|0.0620
84727572|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|2.2|||MMRM|||Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.20|-9.06|0.2291
84727573|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|4.13|||MMRM|||Global Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||4.13|-11.43|0.3530
84727574|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.3114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|3.32|||MMRM|||Mental Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||3.32|-10.26|0.3114
84727575|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.8736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.61|||MMRM|||Self Esteem: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||9.61|-8.18|0.8736
84727576|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|6.72|||MMRM|||General Health Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||6.72|-3.18|0.4778
84727577|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||MMRM|||Change in Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||0.25|-0.28|0.8909
84542844|NCT04052620|168837806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.54|-1.13|0.3118
84727578|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|20.55|||MMRM|||Emotional Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||20.55|-2.61|0.1270
84727579|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|1.18|||MMRM|||Time Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||1.18|-14.62|0.0944
84727580|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-2.17|||MMRM|||Family Activities: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.17|-15.03|0.0095
84727581|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.14|||MMRM|||Family Cohesion: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.14|-5.96|0.5474
84727582|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|7.52|||MMRM|||Physical Health Summary: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||7.52|-0.56|0.0902
84727583|NCT02592434|169207033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.57|||MMRM|||Psychosocial Health Summary : Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.57|-4.07|0.6539
84727584|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.16|-0.80|0.1894
84727585|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.56|0.0026
84727586|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0067
84727587|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.73|0.0091
84727588|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.09|0.0632
84727589|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.07|-1.35|0.0306
84727590|NCT02592434|169207035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.41|0.0118
84727591|NCT01469819|169207065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727592|NCT01469819|169207066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727593|NCT01469819|169207067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727594|NCT01469819|169207068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84727595|NCT03082196|169207070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||-0.1|-1.9|0.037
84542845|NCT04052620|168837806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.74|-3.60|0.4937
84727596|NCT03082196|169207071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||0.1|-1.5|0.062
84727597|NCT03082196|169207072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a happier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.1|-0.5|0.11
84727598|NCT03082196|169207073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A positive value for the difference indicates an unhappier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.3|-0.2|0.74
84727599|NCT01695993|169207074|OTHER|Primary Analysis: The Primary Aim to determine whether acupressure bands provided with efficacy-enhancing supplementary material are more effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea than acupressure bands provided with neutral supplementary material was examined using ANCOVA with Peak Nausea after the first chemotherapy as the response, Arm (Arms 2 and 3) as the factor and expectancy of acupressure bands as the covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANCOVA|||||||.05
84727600|NCT00147745|169207075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5499||95.0|-0.1|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.10|0.5499
84727601|NCT00147745|169207075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5723||95.0|-0.23|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.23|0.5723
84727602|NCT00147745|169207075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3138||95.0|-0.09|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.09|0.3138
84727603|NCT00147745|169207076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.2042||95.0|-0.05|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.05|0.2042
84727604|NCT00147745|169207076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.6855||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.20|0.6855
84727605|NCT00147745|169207076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.1727||95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|0.1727
84727606|NCT00147745|169207077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.17||0.4104||95.0|-152.8|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-152.8|0.4104
84727607|NCT00147745|169207077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.98||0.8857||95.0|-132.6|152.9|||ANCOVA|||||152.9|-132.6|0.8857
84727608|NCT00147745|169207077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.08||0.4226||95.0|-191.3|82.3|||ANCOVA|||||82.3|-191.3|0.4226
84727609|NCT00147745|169207078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.2286||95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-1.20|0.2286
84727610|NCT00147745|169207078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.3184||95.0|-0.53|1.57|||ANCOVA|||||1.57|-0.53|0.3184
84727611|NCT00147745|169207078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0613||95.0|-1.99|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-1.99|0.0613
84727612|NCT00147745|169207079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0362||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0362
84727613|NCT00385697|169207082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.779|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.779|0.521|0.904
84727614|NCT00385697|169207082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.33|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.330|0.297|0.222
84727615|NCT00385697|169207082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.054||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.129|0.521|0.885
84727616|NCT00385697|169207084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.572|||ANCOVA|||||0.572|-0.450|0.814
84727617|NCT00385697|169207084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|0.755|||ANCOVA|||||0.755|-0.433|0.593
84727618|NCT00385697|169207084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.513|||ANCOVA|||||0.513|-0.594|0.886
84727619|NCT00385697|169207086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.000|0.049
84542846|NCT04052620|168837806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.74|-1.83|0.3825
84727620|NCT00385697|169207086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.061|0.937
84727621|NCT00385697|169207086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-0.032|0.382
84727622|NCT00385697|169207088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|2.089|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.089|0.372|0.775
84727623|NCT00385697|169207088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.861|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.861|0.212|0.402
84727624|NCT00385697|169207088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.912|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.912|0.410|0.859
84727625|NCT00385697|169207090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|0.727|0.404
84727626|NCT00385697|169207090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.576|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.576|0.412|0.528
84727627|NCT00385697|169207090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|2.164|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.164|0.594|0.706
84727628|NCT00385697|169207092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.455|0.872
84727629|NCT00385697|169207092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.556|||ANCOVA|||||0.556|-0.581|0.979
84727630|NCT00385697|169207092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.301|||ANCOVA|||||0.301|-0.750|0.400
84727631|NCT02790788|169207109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Samples t-test||11.8|-5.2|0.44
84727632|NCT02790788|169207111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.2|-2.2|0.17
84727633|NCT02790788|169207112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|0.4|0.043
84727634|NCT02790788|169207113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-9.3|0.59
84727635|NCT02790788|169207114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|-3.1|0.64
84727636|NCT02790788|169207115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-10.1|0.20
84727637|NCT02790788|169207116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.9|0.14
84727638|NCT02790788|169207117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-6.4|0.90
84727639|NCT02790788|169207118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|-2.2|0.33
84727640|NCT02790788|169207119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.8|-5.3|0.92
84727641|NCT02790788|169207119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||1.8|-3.4|0.54
84727642|NCT02790788|169207119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|9.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||9.15|0.04|0.048
84727643|NCT02790788|169207119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||4.7|-1.0|0.18
84727644|NCT02790788|169207120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-10.9|0.32
84727645|NCT02790788|169207120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.3|-7.2|0.76
84727646|NCT02790788|169207120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-13.5|0.25
84727647|NCT02790788|169207120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.5|-9.1|0.61
84727648|NCT02790788|169207121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS OF ROSC.||0.11|-0.25|0.41
84727649|NCT02790788|169207121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.10|-0.26|0.38
84727650|NCT02790788|169207121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.14|-0.29|0.46
84727651|NCT02790788|169207121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.12|-0.33|0.34
84727652|NCT02790788|169207122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.5|0.90
84727653|NCT02790788|169207123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-0.54|0.59
84727654|NCT02790788|169207124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.93|-0.60|0.67
84727655|NCT02790788|169207125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.02|-0.64|0.65
84727656|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 0-6 HOURS AFTER ROSC.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.2|0.41
84727657|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.19|-0.92|0.20
84727658|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.04|-1.00|0.07
84727659|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 18-24 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.31|-0.85|0.36
84727660|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 24-30 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.35|-0.66|0.54
84727661|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 30-36 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.42|-0.69|0.62
84542847|NCT04052620|168837807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||2.75|-2.23|0.8360
84727662|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 36-42 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.41|-0.71|0.60
84727663|NCT02790788|169207126|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 42-48 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.36|-0.69|0.54
84727664|NCT02790788|169207127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||1.1|-2.5|0.42
84727665|NCT02790788|169207127|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 96.0 MMHG||2.30|-0.94|0.40
84727666|NCT02790788|169207127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||3.28|-1.49|0.44
84727667|NCT02790788|169207127|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 97.0 MMHG||3.70|-1.40|0.36
84727668|NCT02790788|169207128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mann Whitney|||||||0.84
84727669|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.262|-0.311|0.86
84727670|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNF-α AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.158|-0.287|0.56
84727671|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.139|-0.071|0.52
84727672|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.172|-0.254|0.70
84727673|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.340|-0.326|0.97
84727674|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.326|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.326|-0.192|0.61
84727675|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.267|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNFα AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.267|-0.238|0.91
84727676|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.021|-0.100|0.19
84727677|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.201|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.201|-0.244|0.85
84727678|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.473|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.473|-0.179|0.37
84727679|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.212|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.212|-0.298|0.74
84727680|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.318|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.318|-0.246|0.80
84727681|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.142|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.142|-0.030|0.20
84727682|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.198|-0.246|0.83
84727683|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.276|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.276|-0.223|0.83
84727684|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.354|-0.294|0.85
84727685|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.339|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.339|-0.243|0.74
84727686|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.091|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.091|-0.066|0.75
84727687|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.149|-0.238|0.64
84727688|NCT02790788|169207129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.475|-0.116|0.23
84727689|NCT02790788|169207130|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|4.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact|||||14.6|-4.8|0.45
84727690|NCT02790788|169207131|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|50903.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERGLYCEMIA||||0.68
84727691|NCT02790788|169207131|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U|52188.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERNATREMIA||||0.68
84727692|NCT02790788|169207131|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|1128.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF INFECTION||||0.37
84727693|NCT02267746|169207141|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.02|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.02|0.86|
84727694|NCT02267746|169207142|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.04|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.04|0.89|
84727695|NCT02267746|169207143|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.004|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for the PP population.|Success was defined as an IGA score at Week 12 that was at least two grades less than the baseline assessment. Failure was defined as an IGA score that was the same, higher, or one grade lower than the baseline assessment.||0.004|-0.150|
84727696|NCT01075815|169207256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0235||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1546|0.1568|||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||0.1568|-0.1546|0.8762
84727697|NCT01075815|169207257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3589
84727698|NCT01075815|169207258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0629
84727699|NCT01075815|169207259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4728||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4728
84727700|NCT01075815|169207260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0950
84727701|NCT01075815|169207262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9625||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4655|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.9900|0.4655|0.9179
84727702|NCT01075815|169207263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4133|1.8524|||Chi-squared|||||1.8524|0.4133|0.7271
84727703|NCT01075815|169207264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.3267
84727704|NCT01075815|169207265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4164
84727705|NCT01075815|169207266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5952
84727706|NCT01075815|169207268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9444||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4347|2.0518|||Chi-squared|||||2.0518|0.4347|0.8852
84727707|NCT01292005|169207281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.62
84727708|NCT01292005|169207281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||1.0
84727709|NCT01292005|169207282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.72
84727710|NCT01292005|169207282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.50
84727711|NCT01292005|169207283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.58
84666598|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1073|-26.0375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.0375|-39.1073|<0.0001
84666599|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8966||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6607|8.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.4540|-4.6607|0.5685
84666600|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5761||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.159|3.0068|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.0068|-10.1590|0.2848
84727712|NCT01292005|169207283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.80
84727713|NCT01292005|169207284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.90
84666601|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1754||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|3.4347|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.4347|-9.7855|0.3440
84666602|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0454|34.989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.9890|22.0454|<0.0001
84727714|NCT01292005|169207284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.56
84727715|NCT01292005|169207285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
84727716|NCT01292005|169207286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.22
84666603|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5383|29.5506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||29.5506|16.5383|<0.0001
84727717|NCT01292005|169207287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for length of hospitalization \> 4 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
84727718|NCT01292005|169207287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was for length of hospitalization \>10 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
84727719|NCT01292005|169207288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
84727720|NCT01292005|169207289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
84727721|NCT01292005|169207290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
84727722|NCT02924051|169207291|EQUIVALENCE|With an alpha level of .05 and effective (post-attrition) sample size of approximately 25 participants per county, and 3 counties per treatment group, the power of the group comparison was at least 80%, assuming an ICC of .01 or less, and an observed difference in proportions of .25. The anticipated power for the longitudinal comparison of continuous outcomes was expected to be even greater under these assumptions given the greater power for the parametric tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84727723|NCT02924051|169207293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of Cooking Skills/Nutrition Education/MI at baseline and 12 months.||||0.36
84752250|NCT01557348|169259680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0443
84727724|NCT00914732|169207323|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.25||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.25|-1.23|
84727725|NCT00914732|169207324|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|-0.33||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.33|-1.32|
84727726|NCT00914732|169207325|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.52||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.52|-0.43|
84727727|NCT00914732|169207326|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|0.23||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.23|-0.77|
84727728|NCT00914732|169207329|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.71||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.71|-0.3|
84727729|NCT00914732|169207330|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.35||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.35|-0.31|
84752251|NCT01557348|169259680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.4802
84752252|NCT01557348|169259681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 6||||0.2026
84603099|NCT01939002|168957007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2037||||||Chi-square test between 2 treatment arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2037
84603100|NCT01939002|168957009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|McNemar tests the null hypothesis of no difference in FLS between 4WRI and F8W.||||||1.00
84603101|NCT01939002|168957009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
84603102|NCT01939002|168957009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5811
84603103|NCT01939002|168957010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0525
84727730|NCT00914732|169207331|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.04||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.04|-0.74|
84727731|NCT00914732|169207332|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Lyophilized SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.12||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||-0.12|-0.81|
84727732|NCT03005106|169207333|OTHER|Difference between treatment and control sites|Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference is (percent area of Autograft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3) - (percent area of StrataGraft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3).|one-sided Wilcoxin Signed RankTtest|||||||<0.0001
84727733|NCT03005106|169207334|OTHER||Percentage of participants|83.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|91.8|||||95% confidence interval is derived using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||91.8|74.4|
84727734|NCT03005106|169207335|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the mean difference(Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
84727735|NCT03005106|169207336|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing total score data were imputed using a multiple imputation analysis assuming a monotone missing data pattern. A linear regression model with ethnicity, race and age as predictive variables was used in the imputation.|1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the difference (Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
84727736|NCT00321672|169207338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0967||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the average percent change in NPRS scores from baseline to weeks 2-12 between the total control and total NGX-4010 groups. The ratio of means between the 30- and 60-minute control group \[1.57 (90% CI: 1.12-2.35)\] was \> than the pre-specified equivalence margin ratio of 80-125%. Hence, the control groups could not be pooled and comparisons were performed between the 30- and 60-minute NGX-4010 groups and their respective control groups.||||0.0967
84727737|NCT00321672|169207338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4884
84727738|NCT00321672|169207338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.1031
84727739|NCT00321672|169207339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 in the absolute change in NPRS scores from Baseline during Weeks 2-12."||||0.0831
84727740|NCT00321672|169207339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4680
84727741|NCT00321672|169207339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0896||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.0896
84727742|NCT00321672|169207340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 group in the Proportion of Subjects Reaching 30% Decrease in Their Mean Average Pain for the Past 24 Hours NPRS Score From Baseline During Weeks 2 to 12."||||0.0662
84727743|NCT00321672|169207340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5582||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.5582
84727744|NCT00321672|169207340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0553||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.0553
84727745|NCT00936065|169207350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0672
84727746|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 2||||1.0000
84727747|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 4||||0.0229
84727748|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 8||||0.0256
84727749|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 12||||0.0004
84727750|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 18||||0.0105
84727751|NCT00936065|169207351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 24||||0.0366
84727752|NCT00936065|169207352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||1.0000
84727753|NCT00936065|169207352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3230
84727754|NCT00936065|169207352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||1.0000
84727755|NCT00936065|169207352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||1.0000
84727756|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3103
84727757|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4763
84727758|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1961
84727759|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0272
84727760|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.5038
84727761|NCT00936065|169207353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0374
84727762|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.6061
84727763|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2971
84603104|NCT01939002|168957010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0654
84727764|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1119
84727765|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1081
84727766|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0063
84727767|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0055
84727768|NCT00936065|169207354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0031
84727769|NCT00936065|169207355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0033
84727770|NCT00936065|169207356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0448
84727771|NCT00936065|169207357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0041
84727772|NCT00936065|169207358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.3536
84727773|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0203
84603105|NCT01939002|168957010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5488
84603106|NCT01939002|168957011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0945
84727774|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0102
84727775|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0056
84727776|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
84727777|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0066
84727778|NCT00936065|169207359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0058
84727779|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0329
84727780|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0003
84727781|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0598
84727782|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0241
84727783|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0543
84727784|NCT00936065|169207360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1205
84727785|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1385
84727786|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0019
84727787|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0442
84727788|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0034
84727789|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0454
84727790|NCT00936065|169207361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0539
84727791|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1723
84727792|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0292
84727793|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0908
84727794|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5678
84727795|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4820
84727796|NCT00936065|169207362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0394
84727797|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1079
84727798|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0004
84727799|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0146
84727800|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0019
84727801|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0062
84727802|NCT00936065|169207363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0197
84727803|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1229
84727804|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0136
84727805|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1578
84727806|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0565
84727807|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0685
84727808|NCT00936065|169207364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0493
84727809|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3112
84727810|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0196
84727811|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0109
84727812|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0035
84727813|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0603
84727814|NCT00936065|169207365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2184
84727815|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1774
84727816|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1195
84727817|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0606
84727818|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0030
84727819|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1567
84727820|NCT00936065|169207366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2094
84727821|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0302
84727822|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0980
84727823|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0711
84727824|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0077
84727825|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1553
84727826|NCT00936065|169207367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
84727827|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0060
84727828|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0058
84727829|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0127
84727830|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0068
84727831|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0096
84727832|NCT00936065|169207368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0132
84727833|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.6904
84727834|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.7021
84727835|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2199
84727836|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5071
84727837|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4765
84727838|NCT00936065|169207369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.8662
84727839|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1144
84727840|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4509
84727841|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4350
84727842|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6085|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6085
84727843|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2582
84727844|NCT00936065|169207370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.5490
84727845|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3287
84727846|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4149
84727847|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.3837
84727848|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6777
84727849|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4976
84727850|NCT00936065|169207371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.4189
84727851|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4760
84603107|NCT01939002|168957011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8246|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8246
84603108|NCT01939002|168957011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2533|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2533
84603109|NCT01939002|168957011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1631
84603110|NCT01939002|168957012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3189
84603111|NCT01939002|168957012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3582
84727852|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4040
84727853|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4753
84727854|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5084
84727855|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2293
84727856|NCT00936065|169207372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3822
84727857|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2691
84727858|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0142
84727859|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0383
84727860|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0026
84727861|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0475
84727862|NCT00936065|169207373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0205
84727863|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0512
84727864|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0024
84727865|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0946
84727866|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0935
84727867|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2073
84727868|NCT00936065|169207374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
84727869|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0202
84727870|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0090
84727871|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0742
84727872|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0445
84727873|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2211
84727874|NCT00936065|169207375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1982
84727875|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0409
84727876|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1450
84727877|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2010
84727878|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0424
84727879|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0090
84727880|NCT00936065|169207376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0116
84727881|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3355
84727882|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0341
84727883|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0899
84727884|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0062
84727885|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1241
84727886|NCT00936065|169207377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0393
84727887|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3402
84727888|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1184
84727889|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0104
84727890|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0010
84727891|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0250
84727892|NCT00936065|169207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
84727893|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0894
84727894|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0084
84603112|NCT01939002|168957012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8484|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8484
84603113|NCT01939002|168957012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1771|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1771
84603114|NCT01939002|168957013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
84603115|NCT01939002|168957013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
84727895|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0727
84727896|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0337
84727897|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1380
84727898|NCT00936065|169207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
84727899|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4407
84727900|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1768
84727901|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4636|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4636
84727902|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3340
84727903|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1785
84727904|NCT00936065|169207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.7428
84727905|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.5377
84727906|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1419
84727907|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.5391
84727908|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2589
84727909|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0635
84727910|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1172
84727911|NCT00936065|169207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1247
84727912|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.9429
84727913|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0927
84727914|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0151
84727915|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1124
84727916|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0242
84727917|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0237
84727918|NCT00936065|169207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0176
84727919|NCT01052714|169207387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84727920|NCT01052714|169207388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.718
84727921|NCT01052714|169207389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84727922|NCT01052714|169207390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
84727923|NCT01052714|169207391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
84727924|NCT01052714|169207392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84727925|NCT01052714|169207393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
84727926|NCT01052714|169207394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.652
84727927|NCT01052714|169207395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
84727928|NCT01052714|169207396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
84727929|NCT01052714|169207397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
84727930|NCT01052714|169207398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.687
84727931|NCT01052714|169207399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84727932|NCT01052714|169207400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
84727933|NCT01052714|169207401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84727934|NCT01052714|169207402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
84727935|NCT01052714|169207403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84727936|NCT01052714|169207404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
84727937|NCT04448561|169207439|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|102.96|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||102.96|98.37|
84727938|NCT04448561|169207440|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|99.54|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||99.54|89.29|
84727939|NCT04448561|169207442|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|121.88|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||121.88|83.35|
84727940|NCT04448561|169207443|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.35|124.36|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||124.36|81.35|
84727941|NCT04448561|169207445|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.58|99.71|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||99.71|79.58|
84727942|NCT04448561|169207446|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|111.25|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||111.25|83.03|
84727943|NCT04448561|169207448|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|86.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.01|98.52|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||98.52|76.01|
84727944|NCT04448561|169207449|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|109.6|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||109.60|82.52|
84727945|NCT01178281|169207450|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84727946|NCT01178281|169207452|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.929
84542848|NCT04052620|168837807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.18|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.18|-3.69|0.3119
84542849|NCT04052620|168837807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.52|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.52|-1.20|0.2535
84727947|NCT01232569|169207460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis adjusted for the randomization stratification factors applied at Baseline (region and weight category).||||37.0|22.0|<0.001
84727948|NCT05129592|169207573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|33.3||Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective control and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|||33.30|-1.87|0.095
84727949|NCT05129592|169207573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|35.33||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||35.33|2.02|0.022
84727950|NCT05129592|169207573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|20.15||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||20.15|-12.76|0.931
84727951|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||4.24|0.56|0.402
84727952|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||5.62|0.59|0.292
84752253|NCT01557348|169259681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 12||||0.0295
84752254|NCT01557348|169259682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6||||0.3370
84727953|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||1.93|0.30|0.571
84727954|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|8.26|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||8.26|0.47|0.349
84727955|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||5.81|0.53|0.355
84727956|NCT05129592|169207574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||2.25|0.24|0.591
84727957|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.27|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|||7.27|0.13|0.980
84727958|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.56|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||2.56|0.09|0.382
84727959|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||5.23|0.13|0.846
84727960|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||7.74|0.13|0.990
84727961|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.01|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||3.01|0.09|0.458
84727962|NCT05129592|169207575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||4.76|0.12|0.754
84727963|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||4.15|0.68|0.256
84727964|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||2.32|0.45|0.961
84603116|NCT01939002|168957013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
84727965|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||1.53|0.30|0.345
84727966|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.04|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||4.04|0.60|0.360
84727967|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||2.70|0.48|0.765
84727968|NCT05129592|169207576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||1.43|0.25|0.252
84727969|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||1.09|0.18|0.077
84727970|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs|Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|2.15|0.40|0.853
84727971|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||0.95|0.18|0.037
84727972|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.75|0.21|0.349
84727973|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||3.93|0.54|0.464
84727974|NCT05129592|169207577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.40|0.18|0.187
84542850|NCT04052620|168837808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.6242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.71|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.71|-2.23|0.6242
84542851|NCT04052620|168837808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.77|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.77|-4.33|0.8905
84603117|NCT01939002|168957013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.3792
84727975|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||3.62|0.31|0.925
84727976|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.35|0.19|0.525
84727977|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.40|0.21|0.586
84727978|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||3.90|0.31|0.883
84727979|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.41|0.18|0.534
84727980|NCT05129592|169207578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.62|0.22|0.661
84727981|NCT05129592|169207579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|13.19|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)|Nicotine corrective control - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching||13.19|-9.25|0.965
84727982|NCT05129592|169207579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|12.27|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with causal explanation - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|12.27|-9.13|0.979
84727983|NCT05129592|169207579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|14.59|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|14.59|-6.46|0.73
84727984|NCT01636258|169207654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||P-value less than 0.05 considered statistically significant a priori. No multiple comparison adjustment made.|t-test, 2 sided|||No sample size calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.0|-1.4|0.72
84727985|NCT01636258|169207655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No sample study calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||0.31
84727986|NCT01636258|169207656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84727987|NCT01636258|169207657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84727988|NCT00116584|169207679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84727989|NCT00116584|169207680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84727990|NCT00116584|169207681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84727991|NCT03034772|169207682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.04
84727992|NCT03034772|169207683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.11
84727993|NCT03034772|169207684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.01
84727994|NCT03034772|169207685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.78
84727995|NCT03034772|169207686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.24
84727996|NCT03327051|169207687|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||0.04
84727997|NCT03327051|169207687|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.|||||>|0.99|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||>0.99
84727998|NCT04057937|169207708|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference:Apremilast-Placebo|37.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|56.1||Two-sided 0.10 significant level|Chi-squared||Confidence Intervals calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation).|||56.1|18.6|0.0003
84727999|NCT01072396|169207759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0087||95.0|0.02|0.11||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - crossover design||0.11|0.02|0.0087
84728000|NCT01072396|169207760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.0685||||0.067||95.0|0.9953|1.147||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||1.1470|0.9953|0.0670
84728001|NCT01072396|169207761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2059||||0.2417||95.0|-0.5527|0.1408||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||0.1408|-0.5527|0.2417
84728002|NCT00472199|169207762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0077||95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for changes from baseline with factors treatment and country and using baseline as covariate||-0.7|-4.6|0.0077
84728003|NCT00472199|169207763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0010
84728004|NCT00472199|169207764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
84728005|NCT00472199|169207765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
84728006|NCT00472199|169207766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0489||95.0|-1.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.9|-1.1|0.0489
84728007|NCT00472199|169207767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0315
84728008|NCT00472199|169207768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0735
84542852|NCT04052620|168837808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||6.54|-2.29|0.3439
84728009|NCT00472199|169207769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8410
84728010|NCT00472199|169207770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.9241
84728011|NCT00472199|169207771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8093
84728012|NCT00472199|169207772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0583
84728013|NCT00472199|169207773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-4.5|-5.5|0.0916
84728014|NCT00472199|169207774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.8|2.2|0.5905
84728015|NCT00472199|169207775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.4|1.6|0.0179
84728016|NCT00472199|169207776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|1.7|0.5450
84728017|NCT00472199|169207777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-0.3|0.1456
84728018|NCT00472199|169207778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.2915
84728019|NCT00472199|169207779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.3131
84728020|NCT00472199|169207780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.5713
84728021|NCT00472199|169207781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.8432
84728022|NCT00472199|169207782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|6.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.6|5.9|0.0206
84728023|NCT00472199|169207783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|0.4|0.5602
84728024|NCT00472199|169207784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|0.8|0.1360
84728025|NCT00472199|169207786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0022
84542853|NCT04052620|168837809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.44|0.1554
84728026|NCT02446912|169207798|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|5.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-14.2|0.412
84728027|NCT02446912|169207798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.6||||||||9.6|-14.7|
84728028|NCT02446912|169207799|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|-6.3|0.455
84728029|NCT02446912|169207799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|17.8||||||||17.8|-6.7|
84728030|NCT02446912|169207800|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|-14.4|0.549
84728031|NCT02446912|169207801|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-4.8|0.261
84728032|NCT02446912|169207802|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|21.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|-4.1|0.180
84728033|NCT02446912|169207803|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|3.5|0.013
84728034|NCT02446912|169207804|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-0.3|0.054
84728035|NCT02446912|169207805|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|36.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.0|1.4|0.034
84728036|NCT02446912|169207806|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|-9.4|0.905
84728037|NCT02446912|169207807|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-6.7|0.515
84728038|NCT02446912|169207808|SUPERIORITY|Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.14|0.60|0.258
84728039|NCT02446912|169207809|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|0.6|
84728040|NCT02446912|169207810|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.2|6.7|
84752255|NCT01557348|169259682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1515||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 12||||0.1515
84752256|NCT01557348|169259683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3253||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 6||||0.3253
84728041|NCT01106586|169207826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.9|7.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the ATV/r + Truvada group with respect to percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the ATV/r + Truvada Group.||7.8|-1.9|
84666604|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8772|30.0131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.0131|16.8772|<0.0001
84728042|NCT00442559|169207851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.03|-0.29|0.015
84728043|NCT00442559|169207851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=29 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.02|-0.3|0.027
84728044|NCT00442559|169207852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.07|-0.36|0.006
84728045|NCT00442559|169207852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=28 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.01|-0.24|0.032
84728046|NCT03906240|169207856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 5.78||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||2.49|1.00|<.001
84728047|NCT03906240|169207856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 3.48||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.38|0.35|.002
84728048|NCT03906240|169207857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.06||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.91|-0.45|.957
84728049|NCT03906240|169207857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.25|0.08|.033
84728050|NCT03906240|169207858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.76||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.31|0.32|.015
84728051|NCT03906240|169207858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.87||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.55|0.26|.012
84728052|NCT03906240|169207858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.02||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.08||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.55|-0.43|.941
84728053|NCT03906240|169207858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.14||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.79|-0.17|.270
84728054|NCT03906240|169207859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.08||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.71|-0.45|.768
84728055|NCT03906240|169207859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.05||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.42|-0.53|.975
84728056|NCT02032420|169207892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The reported p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||<0.001
84728057|NCT02032420|169207893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||0.004
84728058|NCT02032420|169207894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84728059|NCT02032420|169207895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84728060|NCT01426217|169207896|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98||||||||0.98|0.63|
84728061|NCT01426217|169207897|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.35||||||||1.35|0.62|
84752257|NCT01557348|169259683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 12||||0.3535
84728062|NCT04799587|169207914|SUPERIORITY|Sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of IONV and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD. A two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100. Statistical analyses were two-sided, and a P\<0.05 was required to reject the null hypothesis.||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the number of episodes between the P6 acupressure and sham acupressure groups were compared using a chi-square statistic (nominal data) or the Wilcoxon test (continuous data).||||.94
84728063|NCT04799587|169207915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of intraoperative nausea and vomiting and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD.20 Using a two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100||||.95
84728064|NCT02849509|169207938|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
84728065|NCT02849509|169207938|OTHER|||||||0.0174||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0174
84728066|NCT02849509|169207939|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
84728067|NCT02849509|169207939|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0004
84728068|NCT02849509|169207940|OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0423
84728069|NCT02849509|169207940|OTHER|||||||0.2226||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.2226
84728070|NCT02849509|169207941|OTHER|||||||0.0287||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0287
84728071|NCT02849509|169207941|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0300
84728072|NCT02849509|169207947|OTHER|||||||0.1234||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.1234
84728073|NCT02849509|169207947|OTHER|||||||0.974||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.9740
84728074|NCT05431543|169207958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
84728075|NCT05431543|169207958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
84752258|NCT05118204|169259728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.54|||Fisher Exact|||||16.540|0.050|1.00
84752259|NCT01313650|169259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.155|0.076|<0.001
84752260|NCT01313650|169259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.112|0.032|<0.001
84728076|NCT02389894|169207959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|17.9|||Chi-squared|The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Embol-x minus control|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||17.9|-4.2|0.22
84728077|NCT02389894|169207959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.8||The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|Chi-squared||The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Cardiogard minus control.|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||13.8|-11.2|0.84
84728078|NCT02389894|169207960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.5|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Embol-x minus control|||20.5|-1.2|0.08
84728079|NCT02389894|169207960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.9|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Cardiogard minus control|||7.9|-13.5|0.61
84728080|NCT02680145|169208005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
84728081|NCT02680145|169208006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
84728082|NCT02680145|169208007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.005
84728083|NCT04044352|169208014|OTHER|Likelihood ratio test was the statistical test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Wald Chi-Square||A two-fold increase in HAI pre-challenge titer (i.e. one unit increase in log-2 titer) corresponds to a 19% decrease in the odds of developing MMID during the study challenge period (Day 2 through Day 8).|Pre-challenge (baseline) HAI geometric mean titer was log-2 transformed and treated as a continuous variable in the model.||1.06|0.62|0.126
84603118|NCT01939002|168957014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0019
84728084|NCT00644332|169208089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in angina frequency from Baseline to Week 4||||
84728085|NCT00644332|169208090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in NTG use from Baseline to Week 4||||
84728086|NCT00644332|169208091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||||||||||||||||
84728087|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Physical Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0011
84728088|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Physical Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.1152
84728089|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0552
84728090|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Energy/Fatigue: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.039
84728091|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Emotional Well Being: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0223
84728092|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Social Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.4664
84728093|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Pain: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0001
84728094|NCT03694210|169208101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||General Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0639
84728095|NCT00443755|169208105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728096|NCT00443755|169208106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728097|NCT00443755|169208107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84728098|NCT00443755|169208108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728099|NCT00443755|169208109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in triglyceride levels.||||0.03
84728100|NCT00443755|169208109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in HDL-C levels.||||0.06
84728101|NCT00443755|169208109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of mean change in non-HDL-C levels.||||0.06
84728102|NCT00443755|169208110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84728103|NCT00443755|169208111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728104|NCT00443755|169208112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84728105|NCT00443755|169208113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84728106|NCT00443755|169208114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84728107|NCT00443755|169208115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728108|NCT00443755|169208116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84728109|NCT00443755|169208117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84728110|NCT00443755|169208118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84728111|NCT02706834|169208124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.487|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means on the original scale.||0.487|0.380|
84728112|NCT02706834|169208131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.964|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means and ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.964|0.833|
84728113|NCT02137239|169208152|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|16.7||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 6 Months||16.7|-18.9|
84728114|NCT02137239|169208152|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|18.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 12 Months||18.9|-19.2|
84728115|NCT02137239|169208152|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|23.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 24 Months||23.9|-16.1|
84728116|NCT04864236|169208223|EQUIVALENCE|We compared particle number counts between intervention and control groups using the Wilcoxon test. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS V28 and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728117|NCT04864236|169208224|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.073
84603119|NCT01939002|168957014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
84728118|NCT04864236|169208225|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics and study variables were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.670
84728119|NCT04864236|169208226|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.167
84728120|NCT04864236|169208227|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.198
84728121|NCT04864236|169208228|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.442
84728122|NCT01014013|169208236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable microbiological response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||||95.0|-11.7|10.2||||||||10.2|-11.7|
84728123|NCT01014013|169208238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The secondary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable clinical response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||||95.0|-6.6|3.2||||||||3.2|-6.6|
84728124|NCT04908800|169208256|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|2.04|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 10.7."|||2.04|1.74|
84728125|NCT04908800|169208257|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|1.79|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.01."|||1.79|1.57|
84728126|NCT04908800|169208258|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||||Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.18.|||1.21|1.09|
84728127|NCT04908800|169208263|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.882|
84728128|NCT04908800|169208263|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted) and 607 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 6.01. Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Food Effect Assessment||1.11|0.926|
84728129|NCT04908800|169208263|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.59|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted male) and 634 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 32.7. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor.|Sex Effect Assessment||1.59|0.701|
84728130|NCT04908800|169208264|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.4. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.891|
84728131|NCT04908800|169208264|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted) and 578 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.05.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.12|0.905|
84728132|NCT04908800|169208264|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.54|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted male) and 600 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 31.1.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.54|0.707|
84728133|NCT04908800|169208265|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.07|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 23.0. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.07|0.909|
84728134|NCT04908800|169208265|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.09|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted) and 30.0 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.44.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.09|0.824|
84728135|NCT04908800|169208265|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.62|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted male) and 38.8 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 22.0.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.62|0.928|
84728136|NCT04908800|169208270|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.26|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.9. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.26|0.966|
84542854|NCT04052620|168837809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||-0.12|-0.66|0.0047
84542855|NCT04052620|168837809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.10|-0.66|0.0082
84728137|NCT04908800|169208272|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.29|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.29|0.945|
84728138|NCT04908800|169208273|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.23|||||Between-subject geometric of coefficient variation was 23.2. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.23|0.971|
84728139|NCT03751280|169208282|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||2.6|-1.4|
84728140|NCT03751280|169208282|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.279|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||2.9|-1.3|
84728141|NCT03751280|169208282|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||5.4|0.1|0.0931
84728142|NCT03751280|169208284|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1|-0.6|
84728143|NCT03751280|169208284|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.5|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.5|-0.3|
84728144|NCT03751280|169208284|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||1.9|-0.3|0.2069
84728145|NCT03751280|169208285|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.9|-0.9|
84728146|NCT03751280|169208285|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.6|-1.4|
84728147|NCT03751280|169208285|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 85||3.4|-0.2|0.1368
84728148|NCT03751280|169208286|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||0.6|-0.8|
84728149|NCT03751280|169208286|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||0.9|-0.6|
84728150|NCT03751280|169208286|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|||1.5|-0.5|0.3798
84728151|NCT03751280|169208287|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.6|-3.2|
84728152|NCT03751280|169208287|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|1.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.7|-4.9|
84728153|NCT03751280|169208287|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||-1.1|-7.0|0.0245
84728154|NCT03751280|169208288|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29-Domain 1||0.7|-1.0|
84728155|NCT03594266|169208321|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
84728156|NCT03594266|169208321|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
84728157|NCT03594266|169208322|OTHER|||||||0.5482|||||||two-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.5482
84728158|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Represents patients pain score post operative day 1 best with rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||1.2|0.9|
84728159|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||2.6|2.2|
84728160|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.1|2.7|
84728161|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|4.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.8|4.4|
84728162|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.6|
84728163|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|3.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.6|3.2|
84728164|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|4.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.4|4.0|
84728165|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|6.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||6.1|5.7|
84728166|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.2|0.8|
84728167|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.6|2.2|
84728168|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.5|3.1|
84728169|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|5.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||5.2|4.8|
84728170|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
84728171|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.3|1.9|
84728172|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.2|1.8|
84728173|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|4.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.2|3.8|
84728174|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.4|0.2|
84728175|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.7|1.3|
84728176|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.5|1.2|
84728177|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.3|2.9|
84728178|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.0|
84728179|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.8|0.5|
84728180|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.6|0.4|
84728181|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.7|
84728182|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.0|-0.0|
84496881|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
84728183|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.1|
84728184|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.1|-0.0|
84728185|NCT03647709|169208369|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
84728186|NCT03647709|169208372|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
84728187|NCT03647709|169208373|OTHER|||||||0.6398|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.6398
84728188|NCT03647709|169208374|OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0658
84728189|NCT03647709|169208375|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84752261|NCT01313650|169259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.207|0.128|<0.001
84728190|NCT00449033|169208383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.401||95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in the ITT (non-squamous) population. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% increase in median OS (that is, a hazard ratio of 0.76923, Sorafenib+GC over Placebo+GC). With one-sided alpha of 0.025, power of 86% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib+GC and Placebo+GC, and one formal final analysis of OS performed, a total of 544 events (deaths) were required.||1.16|0.83|0.401
84728191|NCT00449033|169208384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.563||95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same factors as randomization plus histology.||||1.18|0.87|0.563
84728192|NCT00449033|169208386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.008||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.008
84728193|NCT00449033|169208387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0004||95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.88|0.60|0.0004
84728194|NCT00449033|169208388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Tumour Response (CR+PR)|-1.92||||0.2733||95.0|-8.19|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||4.34|-8.19|0.2733
84728195|NCT00449033|169208389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control|0.97||||0.3902||95.0|-5.87|7.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||7.81|-5.87|0.3902
84728196|NCT05045638|169208399|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.186|2.4363||||||The ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the natural-log (ln) scale.||2.4363|1.1860|
84728197|NCT05045638|169208400|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.7347||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.7347|1.0334|
84728198|NCT05045638|169208401|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.8169||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.8169|0.9856|
84728199|NCT00763919|169208477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
84728200|NCT00763919|169208478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.01
84728201|NCT00763919|169208479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
84728202|NCT00763919|169208480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
84728203|NCT00763919|169208481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
84728204|NCT00763919|169208482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.042
84728205|NCT00763919|169208483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.044
84728206|NCT00763919|169208484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
84728207|NCT00763919|169208485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
84603120|NCT01939002|168957014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
84728208|NCT00763919|169208486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
84728209|NCT00763919|169208487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
84728210|NCT00763919|169208488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.827
84728211|NCT00763919|169208489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
84728212|NCT00763919|169208490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.246
84728213|NCT00763919|169208491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.101
84728214|NCT00763919|169208492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.003
84728215|NCT00763919|169208493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.096
84728216|NCT00763919|169208494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.072
84728217|NCT00763919|169208495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
84728218|NCT00763919|169208496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.078
84728219|NCT00763919|169208497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
84728220|NCT00763919|169208498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.562
84603121|NCT01939002|168957015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0105
84728221|NCT00763919|169208499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.12
84728222|NCT00145496|169208511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7177||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.7177
84728223|NCT00145496|169208512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0565||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.0565
84728224|NCT00145496|169208513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in body weight between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||<0.0001
84728225|NCT02168153|169208531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.75|18.77|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||18.77|-25.75|0.76
84728226|NCT02168153|169208532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|19.98|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||19.98|-18.04|0.92
84728227|NCT02168153|169208533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.39|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||21.39|-14.4|0.70
84728228|NCT02168153|169208534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.988||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|2.349|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||2.349|-0.373|0.15
84728229|NCT02168153|169208535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||0.41|-1.24|0.32
84728230|NCT02577315|169208536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.466|102.804|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.804|97.466|
84728231|NCT02577315|169208537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|95.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|102.16|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.16|89.29|
84728232|NCT02577315|169208538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.309|108.413|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||108.413|97.309|
84728233|NCT02577315|169208539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|101.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.565|106.902|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||106.902|95.565|
84728234|NCT02577315|169208540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.532|103.149|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||103.149|97.532|
84728235|NCT02577315|169208541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|93.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.86|105.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||105.61|82.86|
84728236|NCT03247985|169208542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for bilateral operative time.||||0.17
84728237|NCT03247985|169208542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for unilateral operative time.||||0.09
84728238|NCT03247985|169208545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
84728239|NCT00925288|169208592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Since the standard schedule is at (0, 2, 6 months), and the modified schedule at (0, 3, 6 months), we will consider this a non-inferiority study. With 80% power, type 1 error of 0.05, standard deviations of 0.6, and an equivalence margin of 0.3, 64 women are needed per group to detect non-inferiority. Having 100 women in each study arm will yield over 94% power to detect non-inferiority of the modified schedule.|||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that both schedules will provide an equivalent antibody response.||||>0.20
84603122|NCT01939002|168957015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0789
84728240|NCT00925288|169208593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Completion rates compared in the 2 study arms||||0.60
84728241|NCT00925288|169208594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparison of differences in HPV DNA prevalence by study arm.||||0.53
84728242|NCT00088452|169208596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with ethosuximide vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||4.28|1.65|<0.001
84728243|NCT00088452|169208596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.42|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with valproic acid vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||5.42|2.06|<0.001
84728244|NCT00088452|169208597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.41|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the ethosuximide group|||3.41|1.12|0.03
84728245|NCT00088452|169208597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.49|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the lamotrigine group|||5.49|1.69|<0.001
84728246|NCT00088452|169208598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.33|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for FFF for ethosuximide versus lamotrigine|||5.33|1.81|<0.001
84728247|NCT00088452|169208598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.02|||Fisher Exact||odds ratio for FFF for valproic acid versus lamotrigine|||5.02|1.68|<0.001
84728248|NCT02081196|169208605|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.77|||||Treatment Effect =Control Flank Change-Treated Flank Change such (a positive results indicates treated area had a larger reduction in fat thickness than control area, and a negative result indicates that a greater reduction was seen in control area).|H0: μ(Control - Treated) \< +1 versus H1: μ(Control - Treated) \> +1||4.77|3.08|
84728249|NCT02081196|169208606|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.8476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|0.913|||||||Descriptive statistics (tabulation of Independent Panel Reviewer ratings) were used to analyze data.|.913|.784|
84728250|NCT00097708|169208651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6540
84728251|NCT00097708|169208651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-5.0|0.0005
84728252|NCT00097708|169208651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|1.1|0.0015
84728253|NCT00635570|169208669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's chi-squared test with 1 degree of freedom was used for analysis||The trial sample size of 300 participants total (150 participants each group) was based on two-sided 5% significance testing with 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in adherence between students in the contraceptive vaginal ring group and oral contraceptive pill group.||||0.05
84728254|NCT00635570|169208670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84728255|NCT00635570|169208671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84603123|NCT01939002|168957015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0027
84728256|NCT00635570|169208672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84728257|NCT01537120|169208683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96||||||||0.96|0.85|
84728258|NCT01537120|169208684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.23||||||||-0.23|-0.36|
84728259|NCT01537120|169208685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.62|
84728260|NCT00332488|169208689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||0.27|-0.11|0.420
84728261|NCT00332488|169208690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||ANCOVA|Type III||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||1.14|0.69|< 0.001
84728262|NCT03451292|169208721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cox Proportional- Hazards (PH) model|||Stratification factors included were the region (Europe or North America) and history of hospitalization for acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (yes or no).||1.10|0.58|0.17
84728263|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-39.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-39.93|-54.52|<0.001
84728264|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001||95.0|-47.38|-32.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.95|-47.38|<0.001
84603124|NCT01939002|168957015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.8380
84603125|NCT01939002|168957016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.1407
84728265|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.53|-30.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-30.02|-44.53|<0.001
84728266|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.67|-45.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-45.38|-59.67|<0.001
84728267|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.60|-54.89|<0.001
84728268|NCT01375777|169208729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-50.71|<0.001
84728269|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-55.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.6|-76.3|<0.001
84728270|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-73.2|-52.2||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.2|-73.2|<0.001
84728271|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-41.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.9|-62.7|<0.001
84603126|NCT01939002|168957016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7805|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.7805
84603127|NCT01939002|168957016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2186
84603128|NCT01939002|168957016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4234|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4234
84603129|NCT01939002|168957017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0090
84603130|NCT01939002|168957017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0075
84728272|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|-62.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.4|-82.2|<0.001
84728273|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-54.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.0|-73.9|<0.001
84728274|NCT01375777|169208730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-50.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.9|-70.7|<0.001
84728275|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.72|-38.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.58|-51.72|<0.001
84728276|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001||95.0|-43.29|-30.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.29|-43.29|<0.001
84728277|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-28.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.52|-41.59|<0.001
84728278|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.33|-40.89||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.89|-53.33|<0.001
84728279|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-35.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.67|-48.11|<0.001
84728280|NCT01375777|169208731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.92|-31.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.47|-43.92|<0.001
84728281|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-37.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.94|-50.45|<0.001
84728282|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001||95.0|-42.06|-29.69||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.69|-42.06|<0.001
84728283|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.55|-26.11||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.11|-38.55|<0.001
84728284|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.63|-36.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.32|-48.63|<0.001
84728285|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-31.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.76|-44.07|<0.001
84728286|NCT01375777|169208732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|-27.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.07|-39.38|<0.001
84728287|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.43|-31.54||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.54|-43.43|<0.001
84728288|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001||95.0|-37.79|-26.04||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.04|-37.79|<0.001
84728289|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-22.95||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.95|-34.77|<0.001
84728290|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.29|-30.88||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.88|-42.29|<0.001
84728291|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-25.51||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-25.51|-36.92|<0.001
84728292|NCT01375777|169208733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.98|-34.39|<0.001
84728293|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.75|-43.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.58|-56.75|<0.001
84728294|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001||95.0|-46.84|-33.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.82|-46.84|<0.001
84728295|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.38|-28.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.28|-41.38|<0.001
84728296|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.12|-38.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.82|-52.12|<0.001
84728297|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.22|-33.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.92|-47.22|<0.001
84479157|NCT05109702|168709473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.519|-0.075|0.143
84496882|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-5.8|1.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-5.8|
84728298|NCT01375777|169208734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.60|-42.90|<0.001
84728299|NCT00157209|169208793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.042|||Log Rank|||||1.042|0.533|0.045
84728300|NCT02162771|169208797|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|102.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|111.17|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in AUCtau between CT-P10 and Rituxan||111.17|94.05|
84728301|NCT02162771|169208798|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|100.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.84|108.0|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in Cmax,ss between CT-P10 and Rituxan||108.00|93.84|
84728302|NCT02162771|169208799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -7% was predefined.|Point estimate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84728303|NCT00581009|169208851|EQUIVALENCE|repeated measure ANOVA|t-value|3.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84728304|NCT02332824|169208853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|-0.1649||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 5 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.1649|-0.4845|<0.0001
84728305|NCT02332824|169208853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6251|-0.3132||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 20 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3132|-0.6251|<0.0001
84728306|NCT02332824|169208853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7897|-0.4711||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 40 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4711|-0.7897|<0.0001
84728307|NCT02332824|169208853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8083|-0.4908||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 80 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4908|-0.8083|<0.0001
84728308|NCT02332824|169208853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6874|-0.3719||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg -placebo group) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3719|-0.6874|<0.0001
84728309|NCT00924833|169208891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Within subjects effects. Time: P \< 0.01. Time \* treatment: P=0.25~Bonferroni correction. Within the placebo, carvedilol and nebivolol group, p \< 0.01 for Time 3 - Time 1, and Time 3 - Time 2."|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.01
84728310|NCT00924833|169208892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P \< 0.05. Bonferroni correction: p \< 0.05 nebivolol versus carvedilol|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
84728311|NCT00924833|169208893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Within subjects effects. Time: p = 0.03. Time \* treatment: p = 0.12.|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.93
84728312|NCT00924833|169208896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction. Bonferroni correction. p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
84728313|NCT00417989|169208900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority test with margin of 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Confidence Interval 95%|ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline glycated hemoglobin level (A1C)||Null - There is no treatment group difference in A1c change from baseline to Week 52. Calculated that the enrollment of 495 patients would provide a power of 90% to detect an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points in the primary outcome, assuming a SD of 1.2%.||0.46|0.24|0.05
84728314|NCT00417989|169208902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.41|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.41|0.64|0.84
84728315|NCT00417989|169208903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
84603131|NCT01939002|168957017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0002
84728316|NCT00417989|169208904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
84728317|NCT00417989|169208905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.001||95.0|-9.76|-3.273|||ANCOVA|||||-3.273|-9.760|< 0.001
84728318|NCT00417989|169208907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.75|||||||||Mean difference|||||||
84728319|NCT00417989|169208908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||Mean Difference|||||||
84728320|NCT01636778|169208910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|96.0||||||||96|74|
84728321|NCT01245699|169208968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84728322|NCT01245699|169208969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84603132|NCT01939002|168957017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7497|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.7497
84728323|NCT01245699|169208970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
84728324|NCT01245699|169208971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
84728325|NCT03530345|169208979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.26||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||-0.26|-1.89|0.0111
84728326|NCT04150250|169208986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-7.1||||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|28.6||The threshold to define success on the primary efficacy endpoint at the final analysis is one-sided alpha = 0.0238.|Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group (O vs. Non-O)||||28.6|-30.9|0.2254
84728327|NCT04150250|169208987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-3.8||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|27.4|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||27.4|-26.3|0.2751
84728328|NCT04150250|169208989|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.3||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||21.6|-44.1|0.5145
84728329|NCT04150250|169208990|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.3||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||5.6|-18.1|0.2636
84728330|NCT04150250|169208991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.1||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||7.8|-4.5|0.5992
84728331|NCT04150250|169208993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6527|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by blood type group||||||0.6527
84728332|NCT04150250|169208994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.5||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||5.5|-7.0|0.5377
84728333|NCT04150250|169208995|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||16.5|-14.0|0.8705
84728334|NCT04150250|169208996|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.8||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group||||3.6|-41.1|0.1404
84728335|NCT01436045|169208999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||RBANS Line Orientation|t-test, 2 sided||Response to intranasal Insulin Glulisine \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%|Response to intranasal Insulin Gluiline \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%||||<0.05
84728336|NCT01436045|169209002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in errors \[result post-insulin - result post-placebo\]||||<0.05
84728337|NCT04853394|169209015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.51|.21|<.01
84728338|NCT04853394|169209016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.97|.46|.01
84728339|NCT04853394|169209017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 6-month follow-up|||.95|.77|.01
84728340|NCT04853394|169209017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||1.45|.98|.01
84728341|NCT04853394|169209020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.19|.07|.01
84728342|NCT00318591|169209021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The additional explanatory variables were removed using backwards-elimination removing the least significant additional variable for each iteration, until the effect of all included additional variables was significant on α=0.05 significant level. The null-hypothesis of no catheter difference was to be rejected on α=0.05 significant level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.502||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.207||p-value is adjusted for the following explanatory variables: catheterization frequency, technique (clean/sterile), procedure (participant/nurse), setting (hospital/community) and demographic measures.|Kaplan-Meier|||The analysis was done by comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival function of the two groups. The analysis was refined by a Cox proportional hazards regression model for survival data.||2.207|1.022|0.0383
84728343|NCT00318591|169209023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA analysis. Limit of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.767||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.7670
84728344|NCT00318591|169209024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA. Level of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.0074||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
84728345|NCT01184755|169209028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216403||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987999|-0.134513||This is an intention-to-treat analysis|Mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the change in Systolic BP at 8 weeks||-.134513|-.987999|.01
84728346|NCT01184755|169209028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.391195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.140034||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667312|-0.115079|||mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the analysis of change in diastolic BP from Ambulatory BP monitoring.||-.115079|-.667312|.006
84728347|NCT00748098|169209029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.64|-16.36|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-16.36|-35.64|<0.0001
84728348|NCT00748098|169209030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-3.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-1.10|-5.04|0.002
84671782|NCT05627518|169077972|OTHER||Ratio|2.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9664|2.2963|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|AUClast: Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.2963|1.9664|<0.0001
84728349|NCT02552810|169209131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation, 30 (effect size: 0.5, alpha error: 0.05, power: 0.80).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84728350|NCT03722485|169209148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment effect using a generalized linear model with treatment arm, baseline values, and clinical site as factors.||||||0.2920
84728351|NCT03722485|169209149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0213
84728352|NCT03722485|169209150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7422||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7422
84728353|NCT03722485|169209151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6322
84728354|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).||||||0.784|||||||F-test|||"ITT population - statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level.~It was determined that 150 subjects randomised at a ratio of 8:8:8:13:13 (low dose to high dose, placebo) would have \>90% power to detect either a statistically significant slope for the dose-response relationship, or, if the relationship was not linear, a statistically significant difference between the highest-dose group and the placebo group, using a two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.784
84728355|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.905|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.905
84728356|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using multiple imputation (MI) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.976|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (MI) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.976
84728357|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of the primary ITT analysis using the Per Protocol (PP) population.||||||0.914|||||||F-test|||"Per protocol (PP) population sensitivity analysis to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.914
84728358|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).|Slope|-0.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||linear model - log (dose) - response|||ITT population - statistical analysis of the linear model log(PT20 dose)-response relationship to examine whether the linear trend of the change in phosphate level as a function of the log-transformed dose was statistically significant.||||<0.001
84728359|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group||||<0.001
84728360|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - visit||||0.436
84728361|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group versus Visit interaction||||0.959
84728362|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration||||<0.001
84603133|NCT01939002|168957018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0545|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0545
84479158|NCT05109702|168709474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||-0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.49|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.490|-0.102|-0.198
84603134|NCT01939002|168957018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3377|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3377
84728363|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration versus Visit interaction||||0.144
84728364|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2847|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.761||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.761||
84728365|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2881|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.659||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.659||
84728366|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.05||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.05||
84728367|NCT02151643|169209152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.618||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.618||
84728368|NCT02151643|169209153|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.497
84728369|NCT02151643|169209153|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by baseline hemoglobin.||||<0.001
84728370|NCT02151643|169209154|OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.243
84728371|NCT02151643|169209154|OTHER|||||||0.867|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by Visit.||||0.867
84728372|NCT02151643|169209154|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by baseline serum ferritin concentration||||0.186
84728373|NCT02151643|169209155|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.068
84728374|NCT02151643|169209155|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Visit.||||0.013
84728375|NCT02151643|169209155|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Transferrin Saturation.||||<0.001
84728376|NCT02151643|169209156|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in Calcium x Phosphate Product from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.004
84728377|NCT02151643|169209156|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Calcium x Phosphate Product.||||<0.001
84728378|NCT02151643|169209157|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.292
84728379|NCT02151643|169209157|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.047
84728380|NCT02151643|169209157|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.872
84728381|NCT02151643|169209157|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.288
84728382|NCT00197106|169209158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is considered to be shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference uflixotide-useretide does not exceed +15% (uflixotide-useretide represent the mean percentages of asthma symptom-free days of the two respective treatment groups).|Adjusted difference|2.6||||0.63||95.0|-8.1|13.4|||Repeated Measurements Anal. of Variance|Anal. = Analysis||||13.4|-8.1|0.63
84728383|NCT04050722|169209183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product group, gender, and baseline MGI stratification (low/high) as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
84728384|NCT00377312|169209199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84728385|NCT00377312|169209200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84728386|NCT00377312|169209201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84728387|NCT00377312|169209202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
84728388|NCT00377312|169209203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.05
84728389|NCT00377312|169209204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase compared to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTH 2 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
84728390|NCT00377312|169209206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.61
84728391|NCT00377312|169209207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
84728392|NCT00377312|169209207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84728393|NCT00377312|169209208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84728394|NCT00377312|169209208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84728395|NCT00377312|169209209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84728396|NCT00377312|169209209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups||||||.01
84728397|NCT00377312|169209210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
84728398|NCT00609245|169209222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
84728399|NCT01090076|169209223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84728400|NCT01090076|169209224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.877
84728401|NCT01090076|169209225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84728402|NCT00694564|169209235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was calculated as this was a pilot study to determine such parameters.||||||0.004||95.0|||||MANOVA|||||||0.004
84728403|NCT02402465|169209237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference is related to albumin levels in nasal lavages: Unit= ng/ml|||||>0.05
84728404|NCT02402465|169209238|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately yielding alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001
84728405|NCT02402465|169209238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|24.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84728406|NCT02402465|169209238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84728407|NCT02402465|169209238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|48.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84728408|NCT02402465|169209239|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.22||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha=0.05/3 since 3 days are compared|Friedman's Test|||We used Friedman test to compare the distribution of total nasal symptom scores among three treatment groups (Placebo, Fluticasone propionate, Dymista) in each of the three days (day 1, day 2, and day 3).||||0.07
84728409|NCT02402465|169209240|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.08
84728410|NCT02402465|169209242|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|6.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.04
84728411|NCT02402465|169209243|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||>0.05
84728412|NCT02402465|169209244|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.33||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.85
84728413|NCT01284634|169209245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.35|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||2.56|-16.35|0.222
84728414|NCT01284634|169209245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.943||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||0.95|-19.66|0.133
84728415|NCT01284634|169209245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.158||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.22|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||4.14|-17.22|0.302
84728416|NCT02236598|169209251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5582|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5582
84728417|NCT02236598|169209252|SUPERIORITY|Change in Fasting Glucose||||||0.0963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
84728418|NCT02236598|169209252|SUPERIORITY|Change in 1-hour Glucose||||||0.6671|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6671
84728419|NCT02236598|169209252|SUPERIORITY|Change in 2-hour Glucose||||||0.7913|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7913
84728420|NCT02236598|169209253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5294|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5294
84728421|NCT02236598|169209254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1604
84728422|NCT00938041|169209325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
84728423|NCT00938041|169209325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
84728424|NCT03042559|169209332|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Software version 24.0. We compared mean age (years), Body Mass Index (kg/m2) (BMI), pain duration, and the outcome measures at baseline in both groups at baseline using independent t-test when the distribution of the variable was approximately normal and Mann-Whitney test when the distribution was not normal. The distribution of qualitative variables (gender, affected leg) by group type was examined using Chi Square test.|a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||
84728425|NCT03042559|169209339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84728426|NCT02389725|169209373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84728427|NCT02389725|169209374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84728428|NCT02389725|169209375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84728429|NCT02389725|169209376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84728430|NCT01485991|169209377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.5||based on the asymptotic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for stratification factors, using a non-inferiority margin of 12 percent|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.8|0.001
84728431|NCT00475735|169209386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.341
84728432|NCT00475735|169209386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.001
84728433|NCT00125853|169209397|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) = 0.05 (0.09)"||||||0.6|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on ISI||||0.60
84728434|NCT00125853|169209398|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -2.59 (1.34)"||||||0.06|||||||Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for|||Comparing treatment effects on ABPM||||0.06
84728435|NCT00125853|169209399|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0/09 (0.14)"||||||0.51|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on total cholesterol||||0.51
84728436|NCT00125853|169209400|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) =0.02 (0.03)"||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on HbA1c||||0.48
84728437|NCT00125853|169209401|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0.21(0.13)"||||||0.09|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on BMI||||0.09
84728438|NCT05319756|169209407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||26.1|<.0001
84728439|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.1041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||1.7||0.1041
84603135|NCT01939002|168957018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0391
84728440|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.3373|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||5.5||0.3373
84728441|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-6.3||<.0001
84728442|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-0.6||<0.0001
84728443|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0232|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11"||9.6||0.0232
84728444|NCT05319756|169209407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2767|ONE_SIDED|95.0||15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11."||15.2||0.2767
84728445|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.8|405.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||405.4|128.8|0.0016
84728446|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-109.0|167.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||167.5|-109|0.7276
84728447|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.0|188.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.9|-88.0|0.5481
84728448|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|350.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.8|489.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||489.5|211.8|<0.0001
84728449|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|364.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|225.9|502.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||502.8|225.9|<0.0001
84728450|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-238.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-376.0|-99.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.4|-376|0.0050
84728451|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-217.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-356.0|-77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.8|-356|0.0106
84728452|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|222.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||222.1|-54.9|0.3196
84666605|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1136|40.8244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||40.8244|28.1136|<0.0001
84728453|NCT05319756|169209409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|235.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||235.6|-41.0|0.2464
84728454|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.15|77.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.20|52.15|<.0001
84728455|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.13|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.1|2.13|0.0546
84728456|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|24.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.12|-0.96|0.1286
84728457|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.42|81.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||81.57|56.42|<.0001
84728458|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|88.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.91|63.83|<.0001
84728459|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.6|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-62.6|<.0001
84728460|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.7|-40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.5|-65.7|<.0001
84728461|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.22|16.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.86|-8.22|0.5699
84728462|NCT05319756|169209415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|24.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.23|-0.83|0.1243
84603136|NCT01939002|168957018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4861|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4861
84728463|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.6|370.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||370.8|202.6|<.0001
84728464|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.2|137.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.9|-30.2|0.2912
84728465|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.62|182.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||182.0|13.62|0.0563
84728466|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|484.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|400.1|569.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||569.0|400.1|<.0001
84603137|NCT01939002|168957019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0834|||||||Fisher Exact|||first 8 weeks||||0.0834
84728467|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|396.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|312.4|480.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||480.8|312.4|<.0001
84728468|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-317.0|-149.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-149|-317|<.0001
84728469|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-189.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-273.0|-105.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-105|-273|0.0003
84728470|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|197.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|282.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||282.0|113.7|0.0001
84728471|NCT05319756|169209417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.8|194.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||194.0|25.80|0.0320
84728472|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.98|22.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.48|14.98|<0.0001
84728473|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-2.03|0.5056
84728474|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.307||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.42|0.82|0.0760
84728475|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.92|29.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.54|21.92|<0.0001
84728476|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.68|28.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.16|20.68|<0.0001
84728477|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.2|-20.8|<0.0001
84728478|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-17.9|<0.0001
84496883|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
84728479|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|10.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.79|3.22|0.0024
84728480|NCT05319756|169209418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.41|1.98|0.0118
84728481|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|24.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.01|16.61|<0.0001
84728482|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|6.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.39|-1.09|0.2439
84728483|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.75|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.25|2.75|0.0044
84728484|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.39|27.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.91|20.39|<0.0001
84728485|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.5|31.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.88|24.50|<0.0001
84728486|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-21.4|<0.0001
84728487|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.5|<0.0001
84728488|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|0.11|0.0907
84728489|NCT05319756|169209419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|11.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|4.22|0.0004
84728490|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.86|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.88|22.86|<0.0001
84728491|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.11|1.08|0.0189
84728492|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.71|3.66|<0.0001
84728493|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.65|34.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.71|29.65|<0.0001
84728494|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|32.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.68|27.66|<0.0001
84728495|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.522|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<0.0001
84728496|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.7|-21.7|<0.0001
84728497|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.31|4.30|<0.0001
84728498|NCT05319756|169209420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|7.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|2.31|0.0015
84728499|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.01|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.01|<.0001
84728500|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.59|0.3933
84728501|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-0.44|0.2916
84728502|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.69|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|2.69|<.0001
84728503|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.44|2.00|<.0001
84728504|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-4.81|<.0001
84728505|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-4.66|<.0001
84728506|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.53|0.6765
84728507|NCT05319756|169209421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.22|0.1712
84728508|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.526|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.19|27.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.21|22.19|<.0001
84728509|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.527||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.35|0.0606
84728510|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|1.59|0.0074
84728511|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.05|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.10|28.05|<.0001
84728512|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.48|32.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.50|27.48|<.0001
84728513|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<.0001
84728514|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-23.1|<.0001
84728515|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.38|3.37|0.0001
84728516|NCT05319756|169209422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.78|2.80|0.0005
84728517|NCT03575572|169209474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84603138|NCT01939002|168957019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 0-2||||0.0767
84603139|NCT01939002|168957019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 3-4||||0.7320
84603140|NCT01939002|168957019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 5-6||||0.5008
84603141|NCT01939002|168957019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 7-8||||0.6422
84728518|NCT03575572|169209474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84728519|NCT03575572|169209476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84728520|NCT03575572|169209476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84728521|NCT04474691|169209477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 7|Traditional treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower acoustic values, a positive difference would indicate an advantage for biofeedback.|||||.67
84728522|NCT03418701|169209493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|0.93|<0.05
84728523|NCT03418701|169209494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|A multilevel logistic regression with participants nested within clinic.||||1.15|0.22|<0.05
84728524|NCT00577096|169209502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
84728525|NCT00577096|169209503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the number of RBC tranfusions in the exercise versus usual care groups. Data was combined from the short and long term RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
84728526|NCT00577096|169209504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared test to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis included short and long term participants.||||||<0.025
84728527|NCT00577096|169209505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
84728528|NCT00577096|169209506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||||||<0.025
84728529|NCT00577096|169209507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of stem cell collection attempts.||||<0.025
84728530|NCT00577096|169209508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
84728531|NCT00577096|169209509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
84728532|NCT00577096|169209510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
84728533|NCT00832650|169209512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|0.436|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean was calculated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline values, age and Body Mass Index (BMI) as covariates.|Null H10: μF8mg=μS10mg where μF8mg and μS10mg are means of GC24 for fesoterodine 8mg and solifenacin 10mg, respectively.||0.436|-0.334|
84728534|NCT03305458|169209524|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if child and caregiver engagement is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child, level-2 provider) will be used. Engagement scores will be calculated per child and caregiver participant. An aggregate engagement score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF CBT vs standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting providers.|||
84728535|NCT03305458|169209525|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if provider fidelity is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child; level-2 provider) will be used. Fidelity will be measured by the TF-CBT TPOCS-S. Providers' overall use of the toolkit will be calculated per child participant and averaged across toolkit content. Fidelity scores will be calculated per child participant such that each provider will have three ratings. An aggregate fidelity score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF-CBT vs. standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting of providers.|||
84728536|NCT03305458|169209526|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-to provider.|||
84728537|NCT03305458|169209527|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728538|NCT03305458|169209528|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728539|NCT03305458|169209529|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728540|NCT03305458|169209530|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728541|NCT03305458|169209531|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728542|NCT03305458|169209532|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
84728543|NCT03305458|169209533|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
84728544|NCT03305458|169209534|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
84728545|NCT03305458|169209535|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728546|NCT03305458|169209536|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728547|NCT03305458|169209537|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728548|NCT03305458|169209538|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728549|NCT03305458|169209539|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
84728550|NCT03305458|169209540|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728551|NCT03305458|169209541|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728552|NCT03305458|169209542|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728553|NCT03305458|169209543|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728554|NCT03305458|169209544|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
84728555|NCT01370564|169209545|OTHER|There was no specific hypothesis tested. The method of Rao and Scott for clustered binary data was used to construct a point estimate and 95% confidence interval for the number of days during the follow-up period across all subjects in which the patient instruction set was based on the subject's pressure state as measured by the Chronicle IHM/ICD system.|Rao-Scott estimator for clustered data|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|78.0||||||||78|65|
84728556|NCT03740919|169209605|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin \[NIM\]=0.4% for HbA1c|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.17|0.783
84666606|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5734|35.4192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.4192|22.5734|<0.0001
84666607|NCT00975481|169067488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8946|35.8994|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.8994|22.8946|<0.0001
84666608|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4091|59.7996|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.7996|33.4091|<0.0001
84666609|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5038|63.9407|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||63.9407|37.5038|<0.0001
84671783|NCT05627518|169077973|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|2.3167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0922|2.5652|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.5652|2.0922|<0.0001
84728557|NCT03740919|169209606|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM of 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.20|0.867
84728558|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.30|1.13|0.008
84728559|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.83|0.75|0.487
84728560|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.13|0.47|0.153
84728561|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.08|1.06|0.020
84728562|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.76|0.78|0.455
84728563|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.19|0.52|0.259
84728564|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.51|1.29|<0.001
84728565|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.43|0.64|0.822
84728566|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||0.80|0.35|0.003
84728567|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.14|0.94|0.092
84728568|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.11|0.45|0.133
84728569|NCT03740919|169209607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||0.80|0.31|0.004
84728570|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.220
84728571|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.599
84728572|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.112
84728573|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.034
84728574|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.055
84728575|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.814
84728576|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.194
84728577|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.428
84728578|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.057
84728579|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.056
84728580|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.435
84728581|NCT03740919|169209608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.404
84728582|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.57|0.68|0.864
84728583|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.12|0.43|0.132
84728584|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.41|0.104
84728585|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.52|0.42|0.489
84728586|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||0.90|0.23|0.025
84728587|NCT03740919|169209609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.11|0.29|0.099
84728588|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.732
84728589|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.638
84728590|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.462
84728591|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.632
84728592|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.800
84728593|NCT03740919|169209610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.889
84728594|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.2|0.130
84728595|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.5|0.404
84728596|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||0.8|-1.2|0.693
84728597|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||2.3|-1.4|0.625
84728598|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.9|-2.6|0.758
84728599|NCT03740919|169209612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.5|-3.1|0.485
84728600|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||2.00|0.76|0.396
84728601|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.75|0.49|0.814
84728602|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.43|0.39|0.384
84728603|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.27|0.55|0.400
84728604|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.08|0.36|0.094
84728605|NCT03740919|169209613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.31|0.43|0.306
84728606|NCT00985621|169209618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.49|<0.001
84728607|NCT00985621|169209618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
84728608|NCT00985621|169209619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.49|<0.001
84728609|NCT00985621|169209619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
84728610|NCT00985621|169209619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.65|-0.43|0.700
84728611|NCT00985621|169209620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.177
84728612|NCT00985621|169209620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.66|0.416
84728613|NCT00985621|169209620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.50|<0.001
84728614|NCT00985621|169209620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.48|<0.001
84728615|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.69|0.319
84728616|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.43|0.916
84728617|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.63|0.526
84603142|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.2123
84603143|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5834|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.5834
84603144|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8723|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.8723
84728618|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.26|0.004
84728619|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.90|0.134
84728620|NCT00985621|169209621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.71|0.497
84728621|NCT00603278|169209690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.318|||ANCOVA|||||0.318|0.096|<0.001
84728622|NCT00603278|169209690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.127|<0.001
84728623|NCT00603278|169209690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.404|||ANCOVA|||||0.404|0.182|<0.001
84728624|NCT00603278|169209690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.392|||ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.167|<0.001
84728625|NCT00603278|169209690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.337|||ANCOVA|||||0.337|0.114|<0.001
84728626|NCT02418819|169209718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032||0.8243|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-4.78||||ANCOVA|One(1)-sided P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-4.78|0.8243
84728627|NCT02418819|169209718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252||0.8277|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-5.33||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-5.33|0.8277
84728628|NCT02418819|169209718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.981|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-6.7||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-6.70|0.9810
84728629|NCT02418819|169209719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.6682||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.6682|0.4821
84728630|NCT02418819|169209719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-0.2974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.8576|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.9547||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.9547|0.8576
84728631|NCT02418819|169209719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.4182|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.5226||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.5226|0.4182
84728632|NCT02924350|169209771|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0547|-0.7927|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||-0.7927|-1.0547|<.0001
84728633|NCT04357964|169209774|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups at baseline in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84728634|NCT04357964|169209775|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05. There was no intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||||||<0.01
84728635|NCT04357964|169209776|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.||||||0.52||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
84728636|NCT00733226|169209777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was computed to prove that a 30% decrease of the rate of virus provoked wheezing attacks in the OM-85 group compared with placebo is statistically significant. Approximately 29 analyzable participants in each group were required, with α=0.05 and β=0.10 (ie, with a power of 90%), respectively. The difference of 30% was taken from both pilot study and clinical experience. Sample size estimation was performed by using NCSS and PASS 2000 software.||-1.10|-3.20|0.05
84728637|NCT00733226|169209778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.01||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.01|-3.06|<0.001
84728638|NCT00733226|169209779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons||||-1.27|-2.94|<0.001
84728639|NCT00733226|169209780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.11||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.11|-0.77|0.110
84728640|NCT00733226|169209781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.03|-0.55|0.195
84728641|NCT00733226|169209782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.42||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.42|-2.87|0.452
84728642|NCT02561078|169209784|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for the primary objective of noninferiority was performed at the 0.05 significance level using the LS Mean estimate of the difference in change in HbA1c between the 2 treatments at Week 26. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (U 500R CSII minus U 500R MDI) was below the noninferiority margin (NIM) of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.001
84728643|NCT02561078|169209785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.7|-49.4|<0.001
84728644|NCT02561078|169209786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.14|0.015
84728645|NCT02561078|169209787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.23|0.005
84728646|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Morning Meal||-12.8|-32.1|<0.001
84728647|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Morning Meal||-4.6|-29.9|0.008
84728648|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Mid-Day Meal||2.9|-20.6|0.138
84728649|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Mid-Day Meal||19.8|-3.3|0.160
84728650|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Evening Meal||20.4|-2.2|0.113
84728651|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Evening Meal||28.2|5.3|0.004
84728652|NCT02561078|169209788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overnight (3:00 AM)||10.8|-9.5|0.905
84728653|NCT02561078|169209789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-74.1|<0.001
84728654|NCT02561078|169209790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.39|0.919
84728655|NCT02561078|169209791|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.42|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.42|1.02|0.025
84728656|NCT02561078|169209792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.2|0.100
84728657|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|||<|0.001||95.0|4.59|7.16|||ANCOVA|||||7.16|4.59|<0.001
84728658|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|5.01|7.65|||ANCOVA|||||7.65|5.01|<0.001
84728659|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|||<|0.001||95.0|4.07|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.64|4.07|<0.001
84728660|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001||95.0|2.6|5.07|||ANCOVA|||||5.07|2.60|<0.001
84728661|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.001||95.0|6.13|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|6.13|<0.001
84728662|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|6.85|||ANCOVA|||||6.85|4.19|<0.001
84728663|NCT00043186|169209793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||<|0.001||95.0|3.88|6.55|||ANCOVA|||||6.55|3.88|<0.001
84728664|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728665|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728666|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728667|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728668|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
84728669|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728670|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728671|NCT00043186|169209794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728672|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728673|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728674|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728675|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728676|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728677|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728678|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84728679|NCT00043186|169209795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728680|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.34|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|9.12|||ANCOVA|||||9.12|5.56|<0.001
84728681|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|||<|0.001||95.0|7.31|10.91|||ANCOVA|||||10.91|7.31|<0.001
84728682|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56|||<|0.001||95.0|6.71|10.41|||ANCOVA|||||10.41|6.71|<0.001
84728683|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44|||<|0.001||95.0|6.69|10.19|||ANCOVA|||||10.19|6.69|<0.001
84728684|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|3.43|6.94|||ANCOVA|||||6.94|3.43|<0.001
84728685|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001||95.0|8.14|12.01|||ANCOVA|||||12.01|8.14|<0.001
84728686|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.46|||<|0.001||95.0|6.62|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.62|<0.001
84728687|NCT00043186|169209797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.66|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.53|||ANCOVA|||||10.53|6.80|<0.001
84728688|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.32|8.67|||ANCOVA|||||8.67|4.32|<0.001
84728689|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.013||95.0|0.55|4.75|||ANCOVA|||||4.75|0.55|0.013
84728690|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.43|||<|0.001||95.0|10.19|14.68|||ANCOVA|||||14.68|10.19|<0.001
84728691|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|8.74|12.94|||ANCOVA|||||12.94|8.74|<0.001
84728692|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|||<|0.001||95.0|7.69|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|7.69|<0.001
84728693|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|6.12|||ANCOVA|||||6.12|1.37|<0.001
84728694|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.97|||<|0.001||95.0|8.63|13.32|||ANCOVA|||||13.32|8.63|<0.001
84728695|NCT00043186|169209798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.37|||<|0.001||95.0|8.16|12.59|||ANCOVA|||||12.59|8.16|<0.001
84728696|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.02||95.0|0.89|9.95|||ANCOVA|||||9.95|0.89|0.02
84728697|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.992||95.0|-5.07|5.02|||ANCOVA|||||5.02|-5.07|0.992
84728698|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.004||95.0|3.72|14.09|||ANCOVA|||||14.09|3.72|0.004
84728699|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.001||95.0|4.15|12.86|||ANCOVA|||||12.86|4.15|0.001
84603145|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4173|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.4173
84728700|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37||||0.001||95.0|4.11|12.63|||ANCOVA|||||12.63|4.11|0.001
84728701|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.292||95.0|-1.42|9.37|||ANCOVA|||||9.37|-1.42|0.292
84728702|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.95||||0.004||95.0|3.94|13.96|||ANCOVA|||||13.96|3.94|0.004
84728703|NCT00043186|169209799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12||||0.094||95.0|0.57|11.67|||ANCOVA|||||11.67|0.57|0.094
84728704|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|3.97|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|3.97|<0.001
84728705|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89|||<|0.001||95.0|1.92|7.85|||ANCOVA|||||7.85|1.92|<0.001
84728706|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15|||<|0.001||95.0|11.08|17.21|||ANCOVA|||||17.21|11.08|<0.001
84728707|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.001||95.0|9.94|15.52|||ANCOVA|||||15.52|9.94|<0.001
84728708|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.49|||<|0.001||95.0|9.66|15.32|||ANCOVA|||||15.32|9.66|<0.001
84728709|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001||95.0|8.12|14.73|||ANCOVA|||||14.73|8.12|<0.001
84728710|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<|0.001||95.0|9.15|15.49|||ANCOVA|||||15.49|9.15|<0.001
84728711|NCT00043186|169209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|||<|0.001||95.0|8.72|14.76|||ANCOVA|||||14.76|8.72|<0.001
84728712|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728713|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728714|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728715|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728716|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
84728717|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728718|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728719|NCT00043186|169209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728720|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84728721|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728722|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84728723|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84496884|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-7.6|3.0||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-7.6|
84603146|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2267|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2267
84728724|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728725|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728726|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728727|NCT00043186|169209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728728|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728729|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84728730|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84728731|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728732|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84728733|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84728734|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84728735|NCT00043186|169209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728736|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
84728737|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84728738|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84728739|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84728740|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84728741|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84728742|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84728743|NCT00043186|169209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
84728744|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728745|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728746|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84728747|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728748|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
84728749|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728750|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84728751|NCT00043186|169209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84728752|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84728753|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728754|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
84728755|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728756|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728757|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728758|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728759|NCT00043186|169209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84728760|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84728761|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84728762|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84728763|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84728764|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84728765|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84728766|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84728767|NCT00043186|169209807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84728768|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84728769|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
84728770|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84728771|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84728772|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
84728773|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
84728774|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
84728775|NCT00043186|169209808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
84728776|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001||95.0|1.7|3.64|||ANCOVA|||||3.64|1.70|<0.001
84728777|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|1.90|<0.001
84728778|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.07|4.11|||ANCOVA|||||4.11|2.07|<0.001
84728779|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|5.11|||ANCOVA|||||5.11|3.13|<0.001
84728780|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001||95.0|1.55|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|1.55|<0.001
84728781|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.83|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|2.83|<0.001
84728782|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.001||95.0|1.99|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|1.99|<0.001
84728783|NCT00043186|169209809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.43|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|2.43|<0.001
84728784|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|6.34|||ANCOVA|||||6.34|4.04|<0.001
84728785|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||<|0.001||95.0|4.93|7.27|||ANCOVA|||||7.27|4.93|<0.001
84728786|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|6.78|||ANCOVA|||||6.78|4.40|<0.001
84728787|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.89|||<|0.001||95.0|5.76|8.01|||ANCOVA|||||8.01|5.76|<0.001
84728788|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|5.67|||ANCOVA|||||5.67|3.41|<0.001
84728789|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95|||<|0.001||95.0|5.69|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|5.69|<0.001
84728790|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|4.29|6.67|||ANCOVA|||||6.67|4.29|<0.001
84728791|NCT00043186|169209810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|4.76|7.17|||ANCOVA|||||7.17|4.76|<0.001
84728792|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|||<|0.001||95.0|2.19|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|2.19|<0.001
84728793|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|2.94|||ANCOVA|||||2.94|-0.12|0.07
84728794|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.001||95.0|5.54|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.80|5.54|<0.001
84728795|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.001||95.0|7.13|10.21|||ANCOVA|||||10.21|7.13|<0.001
84728796|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.001||95.0|5.62|8.69|||ANCOVA|||||8.69|5.62|<0.001
84728797|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|3.35|||ANCOVA|||||3.35|-0.12|0.07
84728798|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|8.95|||ANCOVA|||||8.95|5.56|<0.001
84728799|NCT00043186|169209811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63|||<|0.001||95.0|6.02|9.24|||ANCOVA|||||9.24|6.02|<0.001
84728800|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94||||0.002||95.0|1.86|8.02|||ANCOVA|||||8.02|1.86|0.002
84728801|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.677||95.0|-4.1|2.68|||ANCOVA|||||2.68|-4.10|0.677
84728802|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66||||0.001||95.0|3.14|10.18|||ANCOVA|||||10.18|3.14|0.001
84728803|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.33|5.26|<0.001
84728804|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|3.59|9.41|||ANCOVA|||||9.41|3.59|<0.001
84728805|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.047||95.0|0.61|8.05|||ANCOVA|||||8.05|0.61|0.047
84728806|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.94||||0.003||95.0|2.53|9.36|||ANCOVA|||||9.36|2.53|0.003
84728807|NCT00043186|169209812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.97||||0.001||95.0|3.28|10.66|||ANCOVA|||||10.66|3.28|0.001
84728808|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|6.41|||ANCOVA|||||6.41|2.97|<0.001
84728809|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.015||95.0|0.43|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|0.43|0.015
84728810|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.52|||<|0.001||95.0|6.74|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.74|<0.001
84728811|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|||<|0.001||95.0|7.95|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|7.95|<0.001
84728812|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.34|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|9.99|||ANCOVA|||||9.99|6.70|<0.001
84728813|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|5.45|<0.001
84728814|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.55|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|9.38|||ANCOVA|||||9.38|5.72|<0.001
84728815|NCT00043186|169209813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.97|||<|0.001||95.0|7.23|10.72|||ANCOVA|||||10.72|7.23|<0.001
84728816|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.033||95.0|0.11|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|0.11|0.033
84728817|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|4.42|||ANCOVA|||||4.42|1.69|<0.001
84728818|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.68|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.40|1.68|<0.001
84728819|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001||95.0|1.94|4.57|||ANCOVA|||||4.57|1.94|<0.001
84728820|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|4.21|||ANCOVA|||||4.21|1.60|<0.001
84728821|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.49|||ANCOVA|||||4.49|1.65|<0.001
84728822|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.99|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|0.99|<0.001
84728823|NCT00043186|169209814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.47|4.24|||ANCOVA|||||4.24|1.47|<0.001
84728824|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.009||95.0|0.49|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.49|0.009
84728825|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||<|0.001||95.0|2.06|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.10|2.06|<0.001
84728826|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.73|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|2.73|<0.001
84728827|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.55|5.62|||ANCOVA|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
84728828|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||<|0.001||95.0|3.23|6.11|||ANCOVA|||||6.11|3.23|<0.001
84728829|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.001||95.0|3.78|6.73|||ANCOVA|||||6.73|3.78|<0.001
84728830|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001||95.0|2.48|5.68|||ANCOVA|||||5.68|2.48|<0.001
84728831|NCT00043186|169209815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|1.86|<0.001
84728832|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69||||0.002||95.0|1.01|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|1.01|0.002
84728833|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|2.14|5.39|||ANCOVA|||||5.39|2.14|<0.001
84728834|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||<|0.001||95.0|3.87|7.26|||ANCOVA|||||7.26|3.87|<0.001
84603147|NCT01939002|168957020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Term||||0.0171
84728835|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|4.75|7.92|||ANCOVA|||||7.92|4.75|<0.001
84728836|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|4.12|<0.001
84728837|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.5|||ANCOVA|||||6.50|2.89|<0.001
84728838|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.92|6.49|||ANCOVA|||||6.49|2.92|<0.001
84728839|NCT00043186|169209816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|3.96|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|3.96|<0.001
84728840|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||0.496||95.0|-7.16|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-7.16|0.496
84728841|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.527||95.0|-6.38|19.59|||ANCOVA|||||19.59|-6.38|0.527
84728842|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72||||0.503||95.0|-2.9|14.33|||ANCOVA|||||14.33|-2.90|0.503
84728843|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||0.527||95.0|-6.54|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|-6.54|0.527
84728844|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.503||95.0|-2.19|17.01|||ANCOVA|||||17.01|-2.19|0.503
84728845|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.503||95.0|-1.85|17.03|||ANCOVA|||||17.03|-1.85|0.503
84728846|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.18||||0.503||95.0|-2.45|16.81|||ANCOVA|||||16.81|-2.45|0.503
84728847|NCT00043186|169209817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.233||95.0|0.78|14.97|||ANCOVA|||||14.97|0.78|0.233
84728848|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.48|8.34|||ANCOVA|||||8.34|4.48|<0.001
84728849|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|4.19|<0.001
84728850|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|3.91|8.26|||ANCOVA|||||8.26|3.91|<0.001
84728851|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001||95.0|3.7|7.73|||ANCOVA|||||7.73|3.70|<0.001
84728852|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.054||95.0|-0.04|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|-0.04|0.054
84728853|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|5.77|||ANCOVA|||||5.77|1.71|<0.001
84728854|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|4.0|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|4.00|<0.001
84728855|NCT00043186|169209818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39|||<|0.001||95.0|4.49|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|4.49|<0.001
84728856|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.001||95.0|1.09|3.51|||ANCOVA|||||3.51|1.09|0.001
84728857|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.005||95.0|0.52|2.93|||ANCOVA|||||2.93|0.52|0.005
84728858|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.004||95.0|0.74|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.25|0.74|0.004
84728859|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001||95.0|1.54|3.91|||ANCOVA|||||3.91|1.54|<0.001
84542856|NCT04052620|168837810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.30|0.2182
84542857|NCT04052620|168837810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.01|-0.36|0.0574
84728860|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.202||95.0|-0.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||||1.95|-0.41|0.202
84728861|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.26|||ANCOVA|||||4.26|1.65|<0.001
84728862|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.004||95.0|0.78|3.26|||ANCOVA|||||3.26|0.78|0.004
84728863|NCT00043186|169209819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.004||95.0|0.8|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|0.80|0.004
84728864|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|4.56|||ANCOVA|||||4.56|1.71|<0.001
84728865|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|2.95|<0.001
84728866|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.09|||ANCOVA|||||6.09|3.19|<0.001
84728867|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.85|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|2.85|<0.001
84728868|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|3.94|||ANCOVA|||||3.94|1.13|<0.001
84728869|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|4.53|7.64|||ANCOVA|||||7.64|4.53|<0.001
84728870|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.001||95.0|3.12|5.98|||ANCOVA|||||5.98|3.12|<0.001
84728871|NCT00043186|169209820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|2.76|<0.001
84728872|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|||<|0.001||95.0|3.63|8.68|||ANCOVA|||||8.68|3.63|<0.001
84728873|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.275||95.0|-1.06|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.06|0.275
84728874|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.005||95.0|1.65|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|1.65|0.005
84728875|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.002||95.0|2.07|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|2.07|0.002
84728876|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.009||95.0|1.25|6.05|||ANCOVA|||||6.05|1.25|0.009
84728877|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.009||95.0|1.22|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|1.22|0.009
84728878|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.003||95.0|2.05|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|2.05|0.003
84728879|NCT00043186|169209821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.001||95.0|2.28|7.22|||ANCOVA|||||7.22|2.28|0.001
84728880|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.949||95.0|-8.73|13.1|||ANCOVA|||||13.10|-8.73|0.949
84728881|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.949||95.0|-2.7|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|-2.70|0.949
84728882|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.709||95.0|-6.81|9.29|||ANCOVA|||||9.29|-6.81|0.709
84728883|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.949||95.0|-8.55|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-8.55|0.949
84728884|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.949||95.0|-4.51|8.72|||ANCOVA|||||8.72|-4.51|0.949
84728885|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23||||0.484||95.0|-0.83|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|-0.83|0.484
84728886|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.949||95.0|-3.77|8.66|||ANCOVA|||||8.66|-3.77|0.949
84728887|NCT00043186|169209822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.949||95.0|-10.82|11.4|||ANCOVA|||||11.40|-10.82|0.949
84728888|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|9.69|||ANCOVA|||||9.69|4.35|<0.001
84728889|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.092||95.0|-0.37|4.87|||ANCOVA|||||4.87|-0.37|0.092
84728890|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.5|8.94|||ANCOVA|||||8.94|3.50|<0.001
84728891|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|3.51|8.43|||ANCOVA|||||8.43|3.51|<0.001
84728892|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|||<|0.001||95.0|3.44|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|3.44|<0.001
84728893|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.29|||<|0.001||95.0|3.25|9.34|||ANCOVA|||||9.34|3.25|<0.001
84728894|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|3.13|<0.001
84728895|NCT00043186|169209823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.58|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|3.58|<0.001
84728896|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728897|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728898|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728899|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728900|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728901|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728902|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728903|NCT00043186|169209824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728904|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728905|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728906|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728907|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728908|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728909|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728910|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728911|NCT00043186|169209825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728912|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84728913|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84728914|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728915|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728916|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728917|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.146
84728918|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84728919|NCT00043186|169209826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728920|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
84728921|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
84728922|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84728923|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728924|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728925|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84728926|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84728927|NCT00043186|169209827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84728928|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
84728929|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.218
84728930|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84728931|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84728932|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84728933|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84728934|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84728935|NCT00043186|169209828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84728936|NCT00382408|169209850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.02|99.88||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.88|96.02|
84728937|NCT00382408|169209855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.39|99.49||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.49|95.39|
84728938|NCT01763346|169209901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||35 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.59, assuming a 2-sided p=0.05, adjustment for baseline measures using ANCOVA, and correlation of 0.5 between baseline and end-study measures.|General Linear Models|Differences in primary outcomes between groups at 24-months were compared using general linear models with baseline values included as covariates.||We selected a sample size that would allow detection of an effect size of \~0.6 or greater between gastric band and metformin groups for measures of β-cell function after two years, hypothesizing greater function in the gastric band group.||||0.05
84728939|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||0.391
84728940|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728941|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728942|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728943|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728944|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728945|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728946|NCT03334747|169209921|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
84728947|NCT03303521|169209937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|2810.85|||Fisher Exact|||||2810.85|10.85|<0.001
84728948|NCT03303521|169209939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|309.48|||Fisher Exact|||||309.48|8.53|<0.001
84728949|NCT04086576|169209945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Yes, used Tukey Kramer pairwise comparisons to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA in repeated measures||Each breathalyzer is compared to the percentage of alcohol in the blood during the time of blood draw (90 minutes).||||<.0001
84728950|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000559
84728951|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2812338||||0.00000766
84728952|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10824875||||0.00000982
84728953|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000127
84728954|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10851257||||0.00000396
84728955|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6492344||||0.00000648
84728956|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12584550||||0.00000221
84728957|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9555773||||0.00000902
84728958|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000077
84728959|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000048
84666610|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6987||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9815|12.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.5840|-13.9815|0.9174
84728960|NCT01855997|169209953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000037
84728961|NCT01855997|169209954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000987
84728962|NCT01855997|169209954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7753766||||0.00000605
84728963|NCT01855997|169209954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs604241||||0.00000946
84728964|NCT01855997|169209954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000077
84728965|NCT01855997|169209954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000197
84728966|NCT01855997|169209955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000677
84728967|NCT01855997|169209955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.98e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000798
84728968|NCT01855997|169209955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000512
84728969|NCT01855997|169209955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000345
84728970|NCT01855997|169209955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000372
84603148|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0001
84728971|NCT01855997|169209956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000459
84728972|NCT01855997|169209956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1411283||||0.00000925
84728973|NCT01855997|169209956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000772
84728974|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.7e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11163805||||0.00000470
84728975|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.74e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000674
84728976|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000952
84728977|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000608
84728978|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.04e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000404
84728979|NCT01855997|169209957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000407
84728980|NCT01855997|169209958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000666
84728981|NCT01855997|169209958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.44e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000844
84728982|NCT01855997|169209958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000794
84728983|NCT01855997|169209958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000310
84728984|NCT01855997|169209959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000207
84728985|NCT01855997|169209959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.99e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000899
84728986|NCT01855997|169209960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.73e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000573
84728987|NCT01855997|169209960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000946
84728988|NCT01855997|169209960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000731
84728989|NCT01855997|169209960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs646097||||0.00000945
84728990|NCT01855997|169209961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.6e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000016
84728991|NCT01855997|169209962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000088
84728992|NCT01855997|169209963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2464266||||0.00000879
84728993|NCT01855997|169209964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9496139||||0.00000452
84728994|NCT01855997|169209964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2014238||||0.00000497
84728995|NCT01855997|169209964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2980231||||0.00000497
84728996|NCT01855997|169209965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000748
84728997|NCT01855997|169209965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.3e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000073
84728998|NCT01855997|169209965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2899723||||0.00000289
84728999|NCT01855997|169209965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8027115||||0.00000912
84729000|NCT01855997|169209965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2267780||||0.00000494
84729001|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9973954||||0.00000627
84729002|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000696
84729003|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.26e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1040084||||0.00000426
84729004|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.35e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1913484||||0.00000435
84729005|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000221
84729006|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.23e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm1010813||||0.00000523
84729007|NCT01855997|169209966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.57e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6576456||||0.00000757
84729008|NCT01855997|169209967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000153
84729009|NCT01855997|169209967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10475403||||0.00000708
84729010|NCT01855997|169209967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000727
84729011|NCT01855997|169209968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000397
84729012|NCT01855997|169209969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.86e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000686
84729013|NCT01855997|169209969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000596
84729014|NCT01855997|169209969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000489
84729015|NCT01855997|169209970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.34e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000834
84729016|NCT01855997|169209970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000487
84729017|NCT01855997|169209970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000918
84729018|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.37e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000137
84729019|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.39e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2803073||||0.00000339
84729020|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1937590||||0.00000927
84729021|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000166
84729022|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.55e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1997894||||0.00000455
84603149|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.0007
84603150|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.0365
84729023|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1495471||||0.00000568
84729024|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000125
84729025|NCT01855997|169209971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1152537||||0.00000982
84729026|NCT01855997|169209972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10236906||||0.00000846
84729027|NCT01855997|169209972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.62e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000562
84729028|NCT01855997|169209972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7042473||||0.00000497
84729029|NCT01855997|169209972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2077415||||0.00000997
84729030|NCT01855997|169209972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.64e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000864
84729031|NCT01855997|169209973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000368
84729032|NCT01855997|169209973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000577
84729033|NCT01855997|169209974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2302503||||0.00000950
84729034|NCT01855997|169209974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.41e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6015181||||0.00000741
84729035|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550116||||0.00000805
84729036|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550115||||0.00000702
84729037|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2082881||||0.00000702
84729038|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.43e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2265462||||0.00000743
84729039|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000078
84729040|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1403069||||0.00000894
84729041|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.71e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000571
84729042|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8012912||||0.00000729
84729043|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.28e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11158827||||0.00000828
84729044|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.85e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11870323||||0.00000885
84729045|NCT01855997|169209975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.17e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs4821558||||0.00000717
84729046|NCT01855997|169209976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000629
84729047|NCT01855997|169209976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692421||||0.00000579
84729048|NCT01855997|169209976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692423||||0.00000553
84729049|NCT01855997|169209976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000946
84729050|NCT01855997|169209976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000450
84729051|NCT01855997|169209977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000118
84729052|NCT01855997|169209977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs216312||||0.00000531
84729053|NCT01855997|169209978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.93e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs993147||||0.00000593
84729054|NCT01855997|169209978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10978436||||0.00000997
84729055|NCT01855997|169209978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.81e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2370220||||0.00000581
84729056|NCT01855997|169209978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2279519||||0.00000802
84729057|NCT01855997|169209979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000558
84729058|NCT01855997|169209980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.9e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000990
84729059|NCT01855997|169209981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
84729060|NCT01855997|169209982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
84729061|NCT01855997|169209983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.38e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10814834||||0.00000738
84729062|NCT01855997|169209983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.51e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10491723||||0.00000451
84729063|NCT01855997|169209983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.78e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000878
84729064|NCT01855997|169209983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16943470||||0.00000521
84729065|NCT01855997|169209984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.2e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000720
84729066|NCT03866434|169210006|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LSmeans|64.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.212|77.516|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares (LS) mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.||77.516|53.212|
84729067|NCT03866434|169210007|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|%ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS)means|82.203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.501|94.507|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||94.507|71.501|
84729068|NCT03866434|169210008|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.555|84.152|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||84.152|64.555|
84729069|NCT03866434|169210009|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|85.527|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.163|93.584|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||93.584|78.163|
84729070|NCT03866434|169210010|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.528|85.243|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||85.243|62.528|
84666611|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5629||||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9006|8.7749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7749|-17.9006|0.5002
84729071|NCT03866434|169210011|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|86.504|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.462|95.371|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||95.371|78.462|
84671784|NCT05627518|169077974|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.757|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7009|0.8177|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8177|0.7009|<0.0001
84729072|NCT00404547|169210013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is an analysis of the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) after 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84729073|NCT01614899|169210024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-9.52|0.050
84729074|NCT01614899|169210024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.50|-8.91|0.080
84729075|NCT01614899|169210025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.203|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.203|-0.354|0.594
84729076|NCT01614899|169210025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.095|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.095|-0.453|0.199
84729077|NCT01614899|169210026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.1||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.38|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-2.60|0.143
84729078|NCT01614899|169210026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.46|-3.40|0.010
84729079|NCT01614899|169210027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.25|-2.27|0.116
84729080|NCT01614899|169210027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.70|-1.80|0.388
84729081|NCT01614899|169210028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.17|-4.87|0.036
84729082|NCT01614899|169210028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|0.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.72|-3.93|0.174
84729083|NCT02350127|169210032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusted for participant baseline MOCA, robust VCE||4.18|-0.59|0.14
84729084|NCT02350127|169210032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||restricted to completers||5.6|0.2|0.03
84729085|NCT02350127|169210033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusting for baseline participant MOCA scores, robust vce.|||0.80|-1.23|0.68
84729086|NCT02350127|169210034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusting for baseline participant MOCA, robust VCE||2.08|-3.09|0.70
84729087|NCT02350127|169210035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.4|0.8|0.02
84729088|NCT02350127|169210036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|-5.4|0.47
84729089|NCT02350127|169210037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.1|0.99
84729090|NCT02350127|169210038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-7.4|0.98
84729091|NCT02350127|169210039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-2.5|0.80
84729092|NCT02350127|169210040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-3.1|0.38
84729093|NCT02350127|169210041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.075
84729094|NCT02350127|169210042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|-1.7|0.35
84729095|NCT02350127|169210043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-6.1|0.35
84729096|NCT02350127|169210044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.4|0.54
84729097|NCT02350127|169210045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.5|0.69
84729098|NCT02350127|169210046|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-10.9|0.88
84729099|NCT02350127|169210047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.26
84729100|NCT02350127|169210048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.9|0.08
84729101|NCT04754594|169210066|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||0.90|0.50|
84729102|NCT04754594|169210067|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.77|0.91|
84729103|NCT04754594|169210067|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.30|0.69|
84729104|NCT04754594|169210068|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - illness rate ratio \[IRR\]), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1227.8|93.0||||||||93.0|-1227.8|
84729105|NCT04754594|169210069|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-466.5|94.6||||||||94.6|-466.5|
84729106|NCT04754594|169210070|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.9|86.5||||||||86.5|-104.9|
84729107|NCT04736472|169210096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.224
84729108|NCT04736472|169210096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.025
84729109|NCT02256488|169210112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22.||1.5|0.667|
84729110|NCT02256488|169210112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
84729111|NCT02256488|169210112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
84729112|NCT02268526|169210290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.606|1.305||||||||1.305|0.606|
84729113|NCT02268526|169210290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.377||||||||1.377|0.639|
84729114|NCT01261793|169210301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.477||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.477|0.710|=0.899
84729115|NCT01261793|169210301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.539||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.539|0.743|=0.716
84729116|NCT01207453|169210309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||0.42
84542858|NCT04052620|168837810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.03|-0.37|0.0194
84542859|NCT04052620|168837811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.986|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.986|-1.250|0.6545
84542860|NCT04052620|168837811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.915|0.924|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.924|-1.915|0.4924
84729117|NCT01207453|169210309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.37
84729118|NCT01207453|169210310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.39
84729119|NCT01207453|169210310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.96
84729120|NCT01207453|169210311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
84729121|NCT01207453|169210311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.83
84729122|NCT01207453|169210312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.04
84729123|NCT01207453|169210312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.04
84729124|NCT01207453|169210313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
84729125|NCT01207453|169210313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.44
84729126|NCT01207453|169210314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.35
84729127|NCT01207453|169210314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.34
84729128|NCT01207453|169210315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.72
84729129|NCT01207453|169210315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.82
84729130|NCT00676663|169210316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Log Rank|P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided, with a 0.10 threshold for significance.||||1.09|0.49|0.06
84729131|NCT00676663|169210320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97||P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model. Placebo serves as the reference treatment group for the interpretation of the hazard ratio.|||0.97|0.36|0.018
84729132|NCT00513292|169210355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages between arms|2.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9|||Chi-squared|||The difference in pCR rates between treatment arms for pCR within the Breast, Defined as no Evidence of Invasive Tumor Remaining in the Breast at Surgery Following Completion of Chemotherapy||13.9|-9.3|.7
84729133|NCT01524887|169210373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.4||||0.243||95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-1.0|0.243
84542861|NCT04052620|168837812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.823||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.675|1.57|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.570|-1.675|0.9491
84729134|NCT01524887|169210373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.0||||0.37||95.0|-1.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-1.2|0.370
84729135|NCT01524887|169210374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-3.9||||0.033||95.0|-7.4|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-7.4|0.033
84729136|NCT01524887|169210374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.9||||0.586||95.0|-4.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4.2|0.586
84729137|NCT01524887|169210375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.2||||0.501||95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.501
84729138|NCT01524887|169210375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.1||||0.783||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.783
84729139|NCT01524887|169210376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.1||||0.571||95.0|-2.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-2.6|0.571
84729140|NCT01524887|169210376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|3.7||||0.032||95.0|0.3|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.1|0.3|0.032
84729141|NCT01524887|169210377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.00026||||0.593||95.0|-0.00126|0.00073|||ANCOVA|||||0.00073|-0.00126|0.593
84729142|NCT01524887|169210377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.00003||||0.94||95.0|-0.0008|0.00086|||ANCOVA|||||0.00086|-0.00080|0.940
84729143|NCT01524887|169210378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.5||||0.633||95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.633
84603151|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.0197
84729144|NCT01524887|169210378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.0||||0.981||95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.981
84752262|NCT01313650|169259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.052||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.087|0.017|0.004
84729145|NCT02507687|169210421|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.08|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||-0.08|-1.03|0.0231
84729146|NCT02507687|169210422|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.18|-1.04|0.1615
84729147|NCT02507687|169210423|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.17|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.17|-0.97|0.1673
84729148|NCT02288364|169210441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84729149|NCT02288364|169210442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84729150|NCT02288364|169210443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84729151|NCT03930238|169210469|SUPERIORITY||Group effect from Bayesian linear mixed|1646.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||We did perform a Bayesian analysis which provided a posterior probability of 99.76% that the daily mean steps in the intervention group exceeded the daily mean steps in the comparison group.|Bayesian linear mixed effects regression||Posterior standard deviation = 578. We have 95% credible intervals - the interval that contains 95% of the posterior probability distribution of the parameter of interest - which ranges from 511 to 2781.|||||
84729152|NCT03930238|169210470|OTHER||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84729153|NCT03341312|169210486|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.16||||||||1.16|0.42|
84729154|NCT03341312|169210486|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01||||||||1.01|0.49|
84729155|NCT01812707|169210487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||<0.0001
84729156|NCT01812707|169210487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84542862|NCT04052620|168837812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.059|3.659|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.659|-2.059|0.5820
84729157|NCT01812707|169210487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84729158|NCT05372913|169210524|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) test for the secondary outcome (i.e., PHQ-8 Week 4 EOT score) was assessed using the pre-specified NI margin of 2.0. NI of W-GenZD to CBT-Lite was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.96||||||||0.96|-2.30|
84729159|NCT05135156|169210536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||25|3|0.02
84729160|NCT05135156|169210537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.6|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||6.6|-1.0|0.15
84729161|NCT05135156|169210538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.5|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||8.5|-10.9|0.81
84729162|NCT05135156|169210539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||0.8|-0.1|0.15
84729163|NCT05135156|169210540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.7|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.7|-2.0|0.54
84729164|NCT05135156|169210542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||2.7|-2.1|0.82
84729165|NCT05135156|169210544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||7|-15|0.44
84729166|NCT05135156|169210545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.9|-1.3|0.31
84729167|NCT05135156|169210546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|17.4|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|17.4|-7.4|0.42
84729168|NCT05135156|169210547|OTHER|Pearson's chi-squared test of independence||||||0.39||||||p=0.39 at baseline, 0.39 at 2 weeks and 0.23 at 4 weeks|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84752263|NCT01313650|169259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.130|0.060|<0.001
84603152|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.4031
84729169|NCT05135156|169210548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.94|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.94|-0.84|0.91
84729170|NCT05135156|169210548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Likert preparedness to discuss transplant from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.16|-0.08|0.53
84729171|NCT05135156|169210548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.3|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Decisional Conflict Scale from baseline to 2-week study visit||-0.3|-8.4|0.04
84729172|NCT05135156|169210548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.0||Outcome = mean PrepDM Scale at 2-weeks|Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|||5.0|-3.6|0.74
84729173|NCT02469077|169210583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.12
84729174|NCT02469077|169210584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.04
84729175|NCT02469077|169210585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.03
84729176|NCT02469077|169210586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.17
84729177|NCT02469077|169210587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.13
84729178|NCT02469077|169210588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.98
84729179|NCT02469077|169210589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.52
84729180|NCT02469077|169210590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.65
84729181|NCT02469077|169210591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.1
84729182|NCT02469077|169210592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.046
84603153|NCT01939002|168957021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0060
84729183|NCT02469077|169210593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.61
84729184|NCT02469077|169210594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.4
84729185|NCT02469077|169210595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.57
84729186|NCT02005029|169210603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84729187|NCT02005029|169210604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo AUC ratio|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84729188|NCT02005029|169210605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84729189|NCT02005029|169210606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84729190|NCT02005029|169210607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4405
84603154|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
84603155|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
84603156|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
84729191|NCT02005029|169210608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6011
84729192|NCT02005029|169210609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8923|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8923
84729193|NCT02005029|169210610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
84603157|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
84729194|NCT02005029|169210611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1546
84729195|NCT02005029|169210612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0314|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||"Mean difference in on score versus off score from the MDS UPDRS Part 3 on day of erythromycin minus the mean difference in 'on score versus off score on day of placebo."|||||0.0314
84729196|NCT02005029|169210613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo Cmax ratio|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84729197|NCT03544229|169210654|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.49||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.49|-0.34|=0.618
84729198|NCT03544229|169210654|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.27|=0.533
84729199|NCT03544229|169210654|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.30|=0.447
84729200|NCT03544229|169210655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.96|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.96|0.39|=0.607
84729201|NCT03544229|169210655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||2.10|0.70|=0.283
84729202|NCT03544229|169210655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.69|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.69|0.56|=0.527
84729203|NCT03544229|169210656|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.52||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.52|-0.40|=0.584
84729204|NCT03544229|169210656|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.25|=0.625
84729205|NCT03544229|169210656|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.33||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.33|-0.29|=0.540
84729206|NCT03544229|169210657|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|=|0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.46|=0.510
84729207|NCT03544229|169210657|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|=|0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.4||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.40|-0.23|=0.674
84729208|NCT03544229|169210657|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.38|=0.367
84729209|NCT03544229|169210658|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.587
84729210|NCT03544229|169210658|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.27|=0.600
84729211|NCT03544229|169210658|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.34|=0.446
84752264|NCT04029480|169259775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Bayesian Means|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.29||||||This analysis is based on a Bayesian ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule. The 95% confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval.||-0.29|-1.06|
84603158|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
84603159|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1789
84729212|NCT03544229|169210659|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.44||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.44|-0.37|=0.562
84729213|NCT03544229|169210659|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.46|=0.138
84729214|NCT03544229|169210659|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.23|-0.32|=0.394
84729215|NCT03544229|169210660|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|=|0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|1.07||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||1.07|-0.53|=0.709
84729216|NCT03544229|169210660|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.78||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.78|-0.31|=0.760
84729217|NCT03544229|169210660|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.47|=0.591
84729218|NCT03544229|169210661|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|=|0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.27|=0.742
84729219|NCT03544229|169210661|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.28||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.28|-0.32|=0.461
84729220|NCT03544229|169210661|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.36|=0.376
84729221|NCT03544229|169210662|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.591
84729222|NCT03544229|169210662|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.21||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.21|-0.43|=0.291
84752265|NCT04029480|169259776|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|9.3||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||9.3|-22.2|
84603160|NCT01939002|168957022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.2248
84603161|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
84729223|NCT03544229|169210662|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|=|0.476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.3||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.30|-0.33|=0.476
84729224|NCT03544229|169210663|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.27|=0.675
84729225|NCT03544229|169210663|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.26||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.26|-0.24|=0.531
84729226|NCT03544229|169210663|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.26|=0.473
84729227|NCT03544229|169210664|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71|=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.57||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 -Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.57|-24.50|=0.192
84729228|NCT03544229|169210664|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.736|=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|6.27||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||6.27|-15.98|=0.236
84729229|NCT03544229|169210664|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.689|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.62|7.47||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.47|-14.62|=0.297
84729230|NCT03544229|169210665|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|=|0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.57||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.57|-0.42|=0.601
84729231|NCT03544229|169210665|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.15||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.15|-0.51|=0.181
84729232|NCT03544229|169210665|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Diferrence|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.56|=0.114
84729233|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.046|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Chills||0.083|0.046|<.0001
84729234|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough||0.341|0.221|<.0001
84729235|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.023|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||0.048|0.023|<.0001
84729236|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.069|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty breathing||0.156|0.069|<.0001
84729237|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.312|0.206|<.0001
84729238|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever||0.037|0.020|<.0001
84729239|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.194|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.148|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Headache||0.241|0.148|<.0001
84603162|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
84603163|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
84603164|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
84603165|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
84603166|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||<0.0001
84603167|NCT01939002|168957023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||<0.0001
84603168|NCT01939002|168957024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7012|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.7012
84729240|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.103||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Loss of taste or smell||0.148|0.059|0.0002
84729241|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.137|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Muscle pain||0.226|0.137|<.0001
84729242|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.028|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea||0.060|0.028|<.0001
84729243|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rigors||0.044|0.016|0.0007
84729244|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Runny nose||0.195|0.123|<.0001
84729245|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.168|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sore throat||0.277|0.168|<.0001
84729246|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.264|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stuffy/blocked nose||0.411|0.264|<.0001
84729247|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.005||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vomiting||0.007|0.002|0.0053
84729248|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|0.049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Wheezing||0.078|0.020|0.0057
84729249|NCT04748445|169210666|OTHER||Slope|2.644|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.101|3.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean of daily total symptom score||3.188|2.101|<.0001
84729250|NCT04748445|169210667|OTHER||Slope|-1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.978|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AHH\_Max Phonation Time (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.060|-1.978|<.0001
84729251|NCT04748445|169210667|OTHER||Slope|6.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-8).||||<.0001
84729252|NCT04748445|169210667|OTHER||Slope|-1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-7).||||<.0001
84603169|NCT01939002|168957024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0548|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0548
84603170|NCT01939002|168957024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0782
84729253|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.079|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||1.814|-2.079|0.9103
84729254|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.007667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02119|0.03653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03653|-0.02119|0.6605
84729255|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8012|1.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.736|0.8012|<.0001
84729256|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.276|1.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.773|-5.276|0.4117
84729257|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.2728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.012|3.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.482|-7.012|0.2728
84729258|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.194||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||5.724|-3.385|0.2411
84729259|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.004466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.869||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1514|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1425|-0.1514|0.9599
84729260|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.1572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.127||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3084|-0.005942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.005942|-0.3084|0.0875
84729261|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.598||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.072|2.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2 and for lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.507|-1.072|0.1029
84729262|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.218||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|1.423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.423|-2.250|0.1468
84729263|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.05944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04887|0.1678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1678|-0.04887|0.3649
84729264|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.03115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1307|0.06839|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06839|-0.1307|0.6050
84729265|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.01908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1174|0.07922|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.07922|-0.1174|0.7483
84729266|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-6.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.105||0.9897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.526|8.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||8.394|-8.526|0.9897
84729267|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|5.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.074|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||9.080|-8.074|0.9228
84729268|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.08365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.873||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03604|0.1313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1313|0.03604|0.0043
84729269|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.02906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009486|0.04863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.04863|0.009486|0.0153
84729270|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.563|6.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.357|1.563|0.0071
84729271|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|4.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.516|1.115|0.0070
84729272|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.007814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009323|0.02495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02495|-0.009323|0.4513
84729273|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.443||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.483|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.550|-2.483|0.1753
84729274|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.228||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion it was 10\^-3).||3.891|1.164|0.0026
84729275|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.01755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.204||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.005616|0.02949|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02949|0.005616|0.0162
84729276|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.697|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.650|1.697|<.0001
84729277|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.01394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.642||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004595|0.02329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02329|0.004595|0.0148
84729278|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.01547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.666||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004425|0.02652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02652|0.004425|0.0219
84729279|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.122||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.032|2.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.132|1.032|0.0703
84729280|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.0116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.226||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00294|0.02026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02026|0.002940|0.0282
84729281|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.04771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007823|0.1032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1032|-0.007823|0.1570
84729282|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.0008053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008199|0.002431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002431|-0.0008199|0.4131
84729283|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.03945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.892||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0708|-0.008096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008096|-0.07080|0.0391
84603171|NCT01939002|168957025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0006
84729284|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.07075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.409||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2101|0.0686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06860|-0.2101|0.4018
84603172|NCT01939002|168957025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0792|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0792
84603173|NCT01939002|168957025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0961|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0961
84729285|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.319|7.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.635|-4.319|0.6466
84752266|NCT04029480|169259777|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.8||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.8|-25.9|
84729286|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.186|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||3.530|-1.186|0.4118
84729287|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.965||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|3.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||3.129|-3.385|0.9481
84729288|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.9159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4783|1.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.354|0.4783|0.0007
84729289|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.894||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.319|9.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||9.585|-5.319|0.2519
84603174|NCT01939002|168957026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
84603175|NCT01939002|168957026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
84603176|NCT01939002|168957026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4973|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.4973
84729290|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|3.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.524|1.166|0.0791
84729291|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.2064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.474||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3468|-0.06599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.06599|-0.3468|0.0163
84729292|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.867|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1).||3.375|-2.867|0.1932
84729293|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.02851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1365|0.1936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1936|-0.1365|0.7752
84729294|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.569||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||2.464|-4.480|0.1126
84729295|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.2215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.498||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3624|-0.08072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.08072|-0.3624|0.0102
84729296|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.0556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.072||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06159|0.1728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1728|-0.06159|0.4332
84729297|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.01214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09044|0.1147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1147|-0.09044|0.8448
84729298|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.1106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.852||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.03016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03016|-0.1910|0.0244
84729299|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.04884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.827||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1288|0.03115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03115|-0.1288|0.3136
84729300|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05736|0.1294|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1294|-0.05736|0.5240
84729301|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.096||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.222|8.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||8.039|-2.222|0.3493
84729302|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.595||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.019|-2.580|0.5087
84729303|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.004403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.503||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02051|0.02931|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02931|-0.02051|0.7701
84729304|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.007542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639||0.6461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01961|0.0347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03470|-0.01961|0.6461
84729305|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.233||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.022|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.750|1.022|0.0044
84729306|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.663|3.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.652|-4.663|0.2022
84729307|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.002902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01503|0.02084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02084|-0.01503|0.7890
84729308|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.371|3.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.467|-2.371|0.1510
84729309|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.126|2.945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.945|-7.126|0.3138
84729310|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.002168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.632||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01813|0.01379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01379|-0.01813|0.8223
84603177|NCT01939002|168957027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
84729311|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.978|3.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.185|-3.978|0.1997
84729312|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.01375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00278|0.02473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02473|0.002780|0.0398
84603178|NCT01939002|168957027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0464
84603179|NCT01939002|168957027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1905|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.1905
84603180|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6569|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6569
84479159|NCT05109702|168709474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.564|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.564|-0.028|0.076
84479160|NCT05109702|168709474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.367|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.367|-0.231|0.656
84603181|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1584
84603182|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.5106
84603183|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5927|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.5927
84603184|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.3840
84603185|NCT01939002|168957028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4182||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.4182
84603186|NCT01939002|168957029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2588|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.2588
84603187|NCT01939002|168957029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1092|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1092
84603188|NCT01939002|168957029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||1.0000
84603189|NCT01939002|168957029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2190
84603190|NCT01939002|168957029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6402||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.6402
84603191|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.4821
84603192|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5298|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.5298
84603193|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.1584
84603194|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2547
84603195|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0824
84603196|NCT01939002|168957030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3148||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.3148
84603197|NCT01939002|168957031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6508|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6508
84603198|NCT01939002|168957031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.0315
84603199|NCT01939002|168957031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1190
84603200|NCT01939002|168957031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.1520
84603201|NCT01939002|168957033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0049
84603202|NCT01939002|168957033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.2230
84603203|NCT01939002|168957033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0031
84603204|NCT01939002|168957033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1624|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.1624
84603205|NCT01527513|168957037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2001||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|||||203.993|-137.593|0.700
84666612|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3982||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0337|19.8301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.8301|-7.0337|0.3482
84666613|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3031|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4869|-34.1193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.1193|-60.4869|<0.0001
84666614|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.4276|-37.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.9069|-64.4276|<0.0001
84666615|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.589|-26.8234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.8234|-53.5890|<0.0001
84666616|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3974|-38.4445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.4445|-64.3974|<0.0001
84666617|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3904|-42.1798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-42.1798|-68.3904|<0.0001
84666618|NCT00975481|169067489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5825|-31.0656|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.0656|-57.5825|<0.0001
84666619|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.3823|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1244|-30.6401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI was obtained from the model.||-30.6401|-62.1244|<0.0001
84666620|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.5199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2633|-35.7765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7765|-67.2633|<0.0001
84666621|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0366||||0.4524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7924|21.8657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.8657|-9.7924|0.4524
84666622|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4423||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4599|18.3446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.3446|-13.4599|0.7620
84666623|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1573||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8609|16.1754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1754|-15.8609|0.9846
84671785|NCT05627518|169077974|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.7684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7102|0.8313|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8313|0.7102|<0.0001
84603206|NCT01527513|168957038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|33.2001|||<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||ANCOVA||The predefined non-inferiority margin was -121ms.|||203.993|-137.593|<0.700
84666624|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.4189|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7157|68.1221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||68.1221|36.7157|<0.0001
84666625|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8246|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0228|64.6264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||64.6264|33.0228|<0.0001
84666626|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.5395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5968|62.4823|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||62.4823|30.5968|<0.0001
84666627|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0679|73.0451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||73.0451|42.0679|<0.0001
84729313|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.002892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02286|0.01707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01707|-0.02286|0.8107
84729314|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-3.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.706|5.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.085|-5.706|0.9242
84603207|NCT02323204|168957045|OTHER|||||||0.6298|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6298
84603208|NCT02323204|168957045|OTHER|||||||0.2341|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2341
84603209|NCT02323204|168957046|OTHER|||||||0.7893|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7893
84603210|NCT02323204|168957046|OTHER|||||||0.2951|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2951
84603211|NCT02323204|168957047|OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7166
84603212|NCT02323204|168957047|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4501
84603213|NCT02323204|168957048|OTHER|||||||0.6756|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6756
84603214|NCT02323204|168957048|OTHER|||||||0.5381|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5381
84603215|NCT02323204|168957049|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.1507
84603216|NCT02323204|168957049|OTHER|||||||0.0769|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0769
84603217|NCT02323204|168957050|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0654
84603218|NCT02323204|168957050|OTHER|||||||0.7957|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7957
84603219|NCT02323204|168957051|OTHER|||||||0.0286|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0286
84603220|NCT02323204|168957051|OTHER|||||||0.0201|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0201
84603221|NCT02323204|168957052|OTHER|||||||0.9928|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.9928
84603222|NCT02323204|168957052|OTHER|||||||0.0982|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0982
84603223|NCT02323204|168957053|OTHER|||||||0.0325|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0325
84603224|NCT02323204|168957053|OTHER|||||||0.2568|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2568
84603225|NCT02323204|168957054|OTHER|||||||0.5824|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5824
84603226|NCT02323204|168957054|OTHER|||||||0.4635|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4635
84603227|NCT02323204|168957055|OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation over time between interventions was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Significance in the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in the rate of change in implementation between interventions over time.||||0.7949
84603228|NCT02323204|168957055|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation between interventions was made through the intervention main effect included in the model. The model at hand does not contain an interaction between intervention and time. Significance in the main intervention effect is indicative of a difference in implementation between intervention groups.||||0.0003
84608432|NCT02963701|168967820|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.4|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||103.95|99.40|
84666628|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.9622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3293|69.5952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.5952|38.3293|<0.0001
84666629|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.6772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.866|67.4884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||67.4884|35.8660|<0.0001
84666630|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.4454||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7051|57.1857|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||57.1857|17.7051|0.0003
84666631|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.6714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2888|61.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.0540|22.2888|<0.0001
84666632|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7583||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2956|1.7789|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7789|-37.2956|0.0744
84666633|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5551||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5573|10.4471|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||10.4471|-29.5573|0.3458
84666634|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.792||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1777|20.7616|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||20.7616|-19.1777|0.9375
84671786|NCT05627518|169077975|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1999|0.3247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3247|0.1999|<0.0001
84666635|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8113|-35.5961|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.5961|-74.8113|<0.0001
84666636|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.0005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.002|-26.9989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.9989|-67.0020|<0.0001
84729315|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.0006145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.704||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009936|0.002223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002223|-0.0009936|0.5277
84729316|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-2.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.969||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.174|3.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||3.522|-6.174|0.1418
84729317|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.1487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.294|-0.003375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.003375|-0.2940|0.0924
84729318|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|3.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.318|5.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.936|-5.318|0.9277
84729319|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.8362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.492|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.180|0.4920|<.0001
84729320|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.03559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1545|0.2256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.2256|-0.1545|0.7568
84729321|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.2043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.752||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07585|0.3328|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.3328|0.07585|0.0095
84729322|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.0828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.413||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1891|0.02348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02348|-0.1891|0.1991
84729323|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.02415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1113|0.06301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06301|-0.1113|0.6469
84729324|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.1209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2022|-0.03967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03967|-0.2022|0.0150
84729325|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.02617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0507|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1030|-0.05070|0.5736
84729326|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.07305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1438|-0.002335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002335|-0.1438|0.0894
84729327|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-2.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.428||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.706|4.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.968|-9.706|0.5936
84729328|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.07377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1291|-0.01844|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01844|-0.1291|0.0290
84729329|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.008703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05203|0.06944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06944|-0.05203|0.8127
84729330|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.07414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.294||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1287|-0.01955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01955|-0.1287|0.0262
84729331|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|2.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.553|7.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.412|-1.553|0.2809
84729332|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-2.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.812|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.621|-3.812|<.0001
84666637|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6534||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7246|-16.5822|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.5822|-56.7246|0.0004
84729333|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.05798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|-0.008915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008915|-0.1070|0.0524
84496885|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.3||||||95.0|-11.4|2.6||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||2.6|-11.4|
84729334|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.955|1.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.938|-3.955|0.5716
84729335|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.0223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04208|-0.002526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002526|-0.04208|0.0640
84729336|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.285|6.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||6.138|-3.285|0.2584
84729337|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.006497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02992|0.01692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01692|-0.02992|0.6465
84729338|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.489|6.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3 and for upper limit it was 10\^-4).||6.297|-2.489|0.1177
84729339|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.007959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.743||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02411|0.008187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.008187|-0.02411|0.4155
84729340|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.004137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.017||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01742|0.009148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.009148|-0.01742|0.6067
84729341|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.000376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.531||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0121|0.01286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01286|-0.01210|0.9603
84729342|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.002185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.703||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01164|0.007265|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.007265|-0.01164|0.7022
84729343|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.007716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.746||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001806|0.01724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01724|-0.001806|0.1818
84729344|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|-0.004019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.419||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01466|0.006618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.006618|-0.01466|0.5324
84729345|NCT04748445|169210668|OTHER||Slope|0.005103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04025|0.05046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.05046|-0.04025|0.8524
84729346|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.631|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||8.580|-2.631|0.3809
84729347|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.005601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01016|-0.001043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-0.001043|-0.01016|0.0438
84729348|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|6.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||6.546|1.694|0.0057
84729349|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-3.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.811|-1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-1.323|-4.811|0.0042
84729350|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.751||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|4.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.396|1.164|0.0051
84729351|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.289||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For upper limit it was 10\^-5 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.973|-2.698|0.1128
84729352|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0002606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.707||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001869|0.001348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001348|-0.001869|0.7888
84542863|NCT02899962|168837853|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was time to first relapse during the maintenance phase. This was calculated as the number of days from randomisation to the day where the subject had the first relapse confirmed. For subjects who either did not encounter a relapse or were withdrawn from the trial, the number of days was treated as a censored observation at the day of end of trial visit.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.69|||Regression, Cox||Estimates are obtained from a proportional hazards model with treatment group,pooled trial site,disease severity at maintenance baseline (Week 4; determined by PGA) as factors.|All randomized subjects were considered for statistical analysis.||0.69|0.47|<0.001
84729353|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.593||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001765|0.0007512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007512|-0.001765|0.5055
84729354|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0003067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.273||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0007328|0.001346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001346|-0.0007328|0.6257
84729355|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.001649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.998||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002974|-0.0003238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0003238|-0.002974|0.0413
84729356|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0008236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.053||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003452|0.001992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001992|-0.0003452|0.2451
84729357|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.000292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.839||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001425|0.0008413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008413|-0.001425|0.6702
84729358|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.312||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001382|0.0007097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007097|-0.001382|0.5951
84729359|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0007281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.677||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002126|0.001669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001669|-0.0002126|0.2020
84729360|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0005153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.7356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002008|0.003038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003038|-0.002008|0.7356
84729361|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.00133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.782||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002453|-0.0002057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002057|-0.002453|0.0522
84729362|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.000156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.763||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001277|0.0009647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0009647|-0.001277|0.8180
84729363|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001121|0.000927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||0.0009270|-0.001121|0.8754
84729364|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.000452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.576||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004721|0.001376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001376|-0.0004721|0.4192
84729365|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.586||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001079|0.0007729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007729|-0.001079|0.7849
84729366|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-5.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.217||0.901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.513|6.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For estimated value it was 10\^-5).||6.463|-7.513|0.9010
84729367|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001094|0.0001755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001755|-0.001094|0.2329
84729368|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0007046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00009366|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|0.00009366|0.0583
84729369|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.606||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|4.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.413|-7.540|0.6654
84729370|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00006573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.8154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003998|0.0005313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005313|-0.0003998|0.8154
84729371|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.664||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001014|0.0002001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002001|-0.001014|0.2687
84729372|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|8.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.296|-2.698|0.4005
84729373|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.654|3.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.901|-1.654|0.5040
84729374|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00007586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004701|0.004852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.004852|-0.004701|0.9790
84729375|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0008249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002183|0.003833|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003833|-0.002183|0.6503
84729376|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.379|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||1.003|-3.379|0.3705
84729377|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002551|0.001099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.001099|-0.002551|0.5111
84729378|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.001326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.555||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002578|-0.0000744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0000744|-0.002578|0.0816
84729379|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0005502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0012|0.002301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.002301|-0.001200|0.6034
84729380|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.305||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00168|0.0007415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007415|-0.001680|0.5220
84729381|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.00153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002826|-0.0002344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002344|-0.002826|0.0526
84729382|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0004166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000792|0.001625|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001625|-0.0007920|0.5689
84729383|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.002112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.299||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003321|-0.000902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0009020|-0.003321|0.0045
84729384|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.494||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002013|0.0004713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0004713|-0.002013|0.3058
84729385|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0002388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.494||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008374|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|-0.0008374|0.7137
84729386|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0002121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.877||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009275|0.001352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001352|-0.0009275|0.7583
84729387|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-2.784|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.547|-2.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit it was 10\^-5. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||-2.155|-5.547|0.0974
84729388|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.117||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.648|1.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and lower limit it was 10\^-3. For estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.374|-1.648|0.8810
84729389|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.001551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002594|-0.0005077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0005077|-0.002594|0.0151
84729390|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.343||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0006233|0.003057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.003057|0.0006233|0.0135
84729391|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.029||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0004563|0.002123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002123|0.0004563|0.0115
84729392|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001123|0.0008288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008288|-0.001123|0.8029
84729393|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001326|0.0002146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002146|-0.001326|0.2342
84729394|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.001128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0002436|0.002013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002013|0.0002436|0.0366
84666638|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.4297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5162|-40.3433|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.3433|-78.5162|<0.0001
84666639|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8131|-31.6399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.6399|-70.8131|<0.0001
84666640|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8794||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4726|-21.2862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-21.2862|-60.4726|0.0001
84666641|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5197||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7096|41.3298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.3298|5.7096|0.0102
84666642|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7321||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3632|45.1011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||45.1011|10.3632|0.0021
84666643|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7334||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2807|12.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.8140|-22.2807|0.5935
84666644|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5486||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3397|21.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.4370|-14.3397|0.6945
84729395|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.134||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00118|0.0005212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005212|-0.001180|0.5220
84729396|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-2.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528||0.552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|3.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.742|-7.950|0.5520
84729397|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0005126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.289||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0001981|0.001223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For ldispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001223|-0.0001981|0.2343
84729398|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.081|9.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||9.487|-4.081|0.5103
84729399|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.000202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.334||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001086|0.0006819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006819|-0.001086|0.7056
84729400|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.188|-1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||-1.132|-4.188|0.0046
84729401|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.000649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.448||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000881|0.001386|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001386|-0.0000881|0.1471
84729402|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.323||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.152|6.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.862|-4.152|0.6842
84729403|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00007664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003499|0.0005032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005032|-0.0003499|0.7664
84729404|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.069|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.654|-5.069|0.4015
84729405|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.446|5.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.665|-6.446|0.1897
84729406|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.035|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.090|-3.035|0.1439
84729407|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|4.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.537|6.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.685|1.537|0.0092
84729408|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002294|0.0001464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001464|-0.0002294|0.7150
84729409|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.457|3.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.731|-5.457|0.2194
84496886|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.0|4.3||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||4.3|-5.0|
84666645|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2936||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4975|25.0847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.0847|-10.4975|0.4177
84671787|NCT05627518|169077976|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
84666646|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.2531||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.802|-10.7042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.7042|-45.8020|0.0019
84666647|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9711||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9541|-1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.9880|-37.9541|0.0299
84671788|NCT05627518|169077976|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.5277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9076|4.2799|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||4.2799|2.9076|<0.0001
84729410|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0001893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.442||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00003283|0.0003458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003458|0.00003283|0.0471
84729411|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.000138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.614||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0000284|0.0002476|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002476|0.00002840|0.0390
84729412|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.579|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||2.890|-5.579|0.2645
84729413|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.00119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002149|-0.0002303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002303|-0.002149|0.0420
84729414|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.542|5.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-5).||5.341|-9.542|0.1410
84729415|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|2.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.334||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.557|8.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.492|-2.557|0.3751
84729416|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004277|0.0002685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002685|-0.0004277|0.7053
84666648|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2261||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1785|1.7264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7264|-34.1785|0.0759
84671789|NCT05627518|169077977|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
84666649|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4655||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2278|-15.7032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.7032|-49.2278|0.0002
84496887|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
84496888|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.1|3.0||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-3.1|
84666650|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1835||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5832|-6.7838|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.7838|-41.5832|0.0069
84666651|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4385||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8861|-2.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.9910|-37.8861|0.0222
84729417|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|5.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.878||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.964|8.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.187|1.964|0.0078
84479161|NCT05109702|168709474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.454|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.454|-0.150|0.324
84666652|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.589||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0126|37.1654|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||37.1654|12.0126|0.0002
84729418|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.826|6.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-6).||6.611|-3.826|0.1119
84729419|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.164||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.615|3.596|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.596|-2.615|0.1545
84729420|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|1.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.552||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.164|3.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-6 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||3.114|-5.164|0.1114
84729421|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0001989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00002067|0.0003772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0003772|0.00002067|0.0668
84729422|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00005573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.318||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000986|0.0002101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002101|-0.0000986|0.5509
84729423|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00001774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.677||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000126|0.0001615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001615|-0.0001260|0.8383
84729424|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.00007327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000366|0.0001831|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001831|-0.0000366|0.2713
84729425|NCT04748445|169210669|OTHER||Slope|0.0001534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.067||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00000317|0.0003037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003037|0.00000317|0.0931
84729426|NCT04748445|169210670|OTHER||Slope|-1.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.958|-7.820|0.5878
84729427|NCT04748445|169210670|OTHER||Slope|-1.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.866|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-4. For dispersion value, lower limit and upper limit it was 10\^-3).||4.570|-4.866|0.9587
84729428|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|-3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.487||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.761|7.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For estimated value it was 10\^-2).||7.109|-7.761|0.9421
84729429|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|-0.06912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.997||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.063|0.9247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.9247|-1.063|0.9084
84666653|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4903|41.7298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.7298|16.4903|<0.0001
84666654|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6428||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0309|15.3165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.3165|-10.0309|0.6809
84666655|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3215||||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0415|9.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.3985|-16.0415|0.6067
84666656|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4722||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.335|18.2795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.2795|-7.3350|0.3999
84666657|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.9461||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5327|-9.3596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.3596|-34.5327|0.0007
84729430|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.841|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For estimated value it was 10\^-1).||2.238|-1.841|0.8721
84729431|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|0.6573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.191||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.974|4.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.288|-2.974|0.7647
84729432|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|0.6504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.958||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8341|2.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.135|-0.8341|0.4692
84729433|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|-0.09459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.174|1.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.985|-2.174|0.9400
84729434|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|0.6945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.3853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6265|2.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.015|-0.6265|0.3853
84729435|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|0.02424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.667|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.716|-1.667|0.9811
84729436|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|-0.9256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||0.8690|-2.720|0.3944
84729437|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|0.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.201|3.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||3.071|-1.201|0.4696
84729438|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.231||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06596|4.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.145|0.06596|0.0896
84729439|NCT04748445|169210671|OTHER||Slope|1.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.358||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.864|3.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For lower limit it was 10\^-1).||3.915|-5.864|0.2227
84729440|NCT04748445|169210672|OTHER||Slope|-4.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.122||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.577|4.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||4.772|-5.577|0.8977
84729441|NCT04748445|169210672|OTHER||Slope|-0.0006624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.961||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001982|0.0006569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006569|-0.001982|0.4070
84729442|NCT04748445|169210673|OTHER||Slope|0.0008654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001522|0.003253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003253|-0.001522|0.5491
84479162|NCT05109702|168709475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.390|-0.182|0.477
84666658|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.564|-15.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.2570|-40.5640|<0.0001
84666659|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1168||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8907|-6.3428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.3428|-31.8907|0.0036
84666660|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8298|-14.1046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.1046|-38.8298|<0.0001
84666661|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.925|-19.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.9380|-44.9250|<0.0001
84666662|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6378||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2802|-10.9954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.9954|-36.2802|0.0003
84666663|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6675||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.708|41.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.0430|-39.7080|0.9728
84666664|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.7977||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1059|79.4894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||79.4894|6.1059|0.0246
84666665|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5411||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.785|48.8672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||48.8672|-33.7850|0.7068
84666666|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7069||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0358|47.4496|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||47.4496|-26.0358|0.5492
84666667|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1248||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3098|53.5595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||53.5595|-31.3098|0.5899
84666668|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8736||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8691|43.6163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||43.6163|-29.8691|0.6998
84729443|NCT04748445|169210673|OTHER||Slope|-2.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.483|5.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||5.042|-5.483|0.9447
84729444|NCT04748445|169210674|OTHER||Slope|0.007567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01099|0.02612|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02612|-0.01099|0.5004
84729445|NCT04748445|169210674|OTHER||Slope|0.00606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01219|0.02431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02431|-0.01219|0.5831
84666669|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0394||||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4818|51.5606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||51.5606|-31.4818|0.6187
84666670|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4573||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0355|49.9502|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||49.9502|-29.0355|0.5863
84671790|NCT05627518|169077978|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4131|0.5867|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5867|0.4131|<0.0001
84671791|NCT05627518|169077978|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4047|0.5989|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5989|0.4047|<0.0001
84671792|NCT05627518|169077979|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.3211|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fed (treatment C) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment B). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3211|0.1980|<0.0001
84671793|NCT02917031|169077980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.595||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline, saxagliptin versus placebo.||1.850|-7.040|0.252
84671794|NCT02917031|169077981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.631||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.635|2.373|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin: Change from baseline||2.373|-5.635|0.425
84671795|NCT02917031|169077982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|2.197|||ANCOVA|||"Saxagliptin vs Placebo:~Change from baseline"||2.197|-1.996|0.925
84671796|NCT02917031|169077983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.605||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||0.760|-7.970|0.105
84671797|NCT02917031|169077984|SUPERIORITY||Ratio for relative change|0.971||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||1.214|0.777|0.796
84671798|NCT02586012|169078042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84671799|NCT02586012|169078043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84671800|NCT02586012|169078044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84671801|NCT00071812|169078060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|18.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|32.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||32.8|4.8|0.0097
84671802|NCT00071812|169078060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.4||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||22.7|-3.9|0.1677
84671803|NCT00071812|169078060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|12.2||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||25.8|-1.3|0.0796
84671804|NCT00071812|169078061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|5.4||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||13.7|-3.0|0.2074
84671805|NCT00071812|169078061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.1||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||12.2|-4.0|0.3177
84666671|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2566||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.608|5.0948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.0948|-75.6080|0.0832
84666672|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0907||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7519|4.5704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.5704|-68.7519|0.0827
84666673|NCT00975481|169067490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.6728||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5352|11.1895|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1895|-74.5352|0.1386
84666674|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3637||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1566|0.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8840|-0.1566|0.1691
84666675|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8444||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3238|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3650|0.3238|0.0017
84666676|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2093||||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3141|0.7327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7327|-0.3141|0.4305
84666677|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1206||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4064|0.6476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.6476|-0.4064|0.6517
84666678|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0374||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.4919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.4919|-0.5666|0.8892
84666679|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1544||||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6737|0.3649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.3649|-0.6737|0.5576
84666680|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2431||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7658|0.2796|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2796|-0.7658|0.3594
84671806|NCT00071812|169078061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||19.2|0.3|0.0418
84671807|NCT00071812|169078062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|2.7||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||9.3|-4.0|0.4299
84671808|NCT00071812|169078062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-1.5||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||3.3|-6.3|0.5393
84666681|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4011||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9291|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.1270|-0.9291|0.1355
84666682|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6351||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1466|-0.1236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.1236|-1.1466|0.0153
84666683|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7238||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2418|-0.2059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2059|-1.2418|0.0065
84666684|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8818||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4042|-0.3594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.3594|-1.4042|0.0011
84666685|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1614|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9373|-1.3856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.3856|-2.9373|<0.0001
84666686|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0336|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8085|-2.2587|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.2587|-3.8085|<0.0001
84666687|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2791||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0586|0.5004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.5004|-1.0586|0.4804
84666688|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7608|0.8087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8087|-0.7608|0.9519
84666689|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.2921|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2921|-1.2860|0.2152
84666690|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1094|2.6553|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6553|1.1094|<0.0001
84666691|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1854|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.9638|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.9638|1.4070|<0.0001
84666692|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8786|2.4503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.4503|0.8786|<0.0001
84666693|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9912|3.5179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.5179|1.9912|<0.0001
84666694|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2858|3.8294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.8294|2.2858|<0.0001
84666695|NCT00975481|169067491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7578|3.3155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3155|1.7578|<0.0001
84666696|NCT01519960|169067527|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis stratified by hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype A versus non-A genotypes and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) less than (\<) 5 times (×) upper limit of normal (ULN) versus greater than or equal to (≥) 5 × ULN at Baseline. The OR was calculated using Group B as reference.||19.2|1.54|= 0.0043
84666697|NCT01519960|169067527|OTHER||||||=|0.3732|||||||Breslow-Day|||||||= 0.3732
84666698|NCT03194555|169067626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.17||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|8.01|||Chi-squared|||||8.01|-3.67|0.4267
84666699|NCT03194555|169067627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|66.83|||Chi-squared|||||66.83|-18.46|0.268
84666700|NCT03194555|169067628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.0926
84666701|NCT03194555|169067629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.2894
84666702|NCT03194555|169067630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.83||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1557|8.8157|||Chi-squared|||||8.8157|-5.1557|0.5724
84666703|NCT03194555|169067631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.84||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|30.83|||Chi-squared|||||30.83|-11.15|0.2998
84666704|NCT03194555|169067632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.67||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2673
84666705|NCT03194555|169067635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.76||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.5005|36.9805|||Chi-squared|||||36.9805|-94.5005|0.3527
84666706|NCT03194555|169067636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.95||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5246
84571037|NCT00853385|168893118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
84666707|NCT03194555|169067638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34||||0.8649|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8649
84666708|NCT01831154|169067639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value of 1.34 and Cramer's V .190||Cross tabulation with statistical testing with chi-square and Cramer's V was performed on infection to determine if there was any difference in surgical site infections between the interventional groups in 30 day period.||||0.512
84666709|NCT01831154|169067640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
84666710|NCT01831154|169067642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.132
84666711|NCT01831154|169067643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||||||A one way ANOVA was used to determine if participants in the tight glycemic group had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) than participants in the other interventional groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.908
84666712|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.127|0.004|0.036
84666713|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.090|-0.030|0.331
84666714|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
84666715|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.149|0.026|0.005
84666716|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.073|-0.050|0.722
84666717|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|-0.006|0.076
84666718|NCT01641692|169067646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.113|-0.010|0.101
84666719|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.840
84666720|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.4|0.553
84666721|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-0.4|0.121
84666722|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.814
84666723|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.5|0.683
84666724|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-1.2|0.456
84666725|NCT01641692|169067649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.7|0.399
84666726|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.2|0.030
84666727|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.1|0.077
84666728|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|0.5|0.010
84666729|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|0.9|0.002
84666730|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|0.7|0.005
84666731|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|1.2|<0.001
84666732|NCT01641692|169067650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.0|0.054
84666733|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.4|0.752
84729446|NCT04748445|169210675|OTHER||Slope|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.598|2.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_Speaking Rate (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.662|1.598|<.0001
84479163|NCT05109702|168709475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.598|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.598|0.026|0.033
84666734|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.1|0.072
84666735|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.1|0.503
84666736|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.1|0.476
84666737|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.2|0.084
84666738|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.8|0.970
84666739|NCT01641692|169067651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.4|0.423
84666740|NCT01412021|169067687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666741|NCT01412021|169067688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666742|NCT01412021|169067689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666743|NCT01412021|169067690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666744|NCT01412021|169067691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666745|NCT01412021|169067693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666746|NCT01412021|169067695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666747|NCT01412021|169067696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
84666748|NCT01412021|169067697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666749|NCT01412021|169067698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666750|NCT01412021|169067699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666751|NCT01412021|169067700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666752|NCT01412021|169067701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666753|NCT01412021|169067702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666754|NCT01412021|169067703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666755|NCT01412021|169067704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666756|NCT01412021|169067705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666757|NCT01412021|169067707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0132
84666758|NCT01412021|169067708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666759|NCT01412021|169067709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666760|NCT01412021|169067710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84729447|NCT04405089|169210700|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus Binge Eating Scale score at baseline).||||
84729448|NCT04405089|169210701|OTHER||Linear regression|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Flanker score at baseline).||||
84729449|NCT04405089|169210702|OTHER||Linear regression|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Set Shifting score at baseline).||||
84729450|NCT00139659|169210703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.08|0.011|||longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||0.011|-0.080|
84666761|NCT01412021|169067711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666762|NCT01412021|169067712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666763|NCT01412021|169067713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666764|NCT01412021|169067714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666765|NCT01412021|169067715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666766|NCT01412021|169067716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84666767|NCT00484939|169067741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84666768|NCT00484939|169067742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis compared the number of responders in the 2 treatment groups. A responder was defined as any participant with a best overall response of complete response or partial response. There were 28 responders in the bevacizumab + capecitabine group and 14 responders in the capecitabine group.||||0.029
84666769|NCT00484939|169067745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.130
84666770|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.47|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.66|0.47|
84666771|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||||95.0|0.14|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.14|
84666772|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||||95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.48|0.12|
84666773|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.17|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.17|
84666774|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.15|0.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.49|0.15|
84666775|NCT00624052|169067750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.42|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.42|
84671809|NCT00071812|169078062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||5.4|-5.6|0.9769
84752267|NCT04029480|169259778|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
84752268|NCT04029480|169259779|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
84496889|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||1.9|-3.1|
84496890|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-3.2|5.0||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||5.0|-3.2|
84752269|NCT04029480|169259780|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.10|-1.23|0.021
84752270|NCT04029480|169259781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.33|-1.39|0.001
84752271|NCT04029480|169259782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-13.6|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.6|-44.4|0.001
84752272|NCT04029480|169259783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||cLDA|||This analysis is a based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-0.35|-1.70|0.003
84752273|NCT04029480|169259784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.1|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.1|-53.0|0.001
84752274|NCT02383589|169259846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.15||The analysis was stratified by the stratification factors applied at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.15|14.70|<0.0001
84752275|NCT02383589|169259847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84752276|NCT02383589|169259848|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||The model was adjusted for the following covariates in addition to log (each participant's duration in study) as an offset: treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline PDAI activity score, and baseline prednisone dose.|Negative Binominal Regression|||||0.29|0.05|<0.0001
84752277|NCT02383589|169259849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.83||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|11.81||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||11.81|1.97|0.0003
84752278|NCT02383589|169259850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||0.39|0.06|<0.0001
84752279|NCT02383589|169259851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated Means|-2.872||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|-1.167||P-value is from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with unstructured covariance matrix, adjusting for treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline DLQI score, visit, and an interaction terms for visit × baseline DLQI score and visit × treatment|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.167|-4.577|0.0012
84752280|NCT01703663|169259857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||absolute difference|-5.73||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.97|||ANOVA|||||2.97|-14.4|0.183
84752281|NCT03808688|169259874|OTHER|Descriptive statistics included the number of subjects/eyes(n), mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum for continuous variables, and frequency and percentages for categorical variables.||||||||||||||||Cohorts assessed versus baseline treatment|All efficacy data were summarized at each timepoint using appropriate descriptive statistics for the overall populations as well as separately for monotherapy and concomitant therapy groups.|||
84752282|NCT03662139|169259894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
84752283|NCT03662139|169259894|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.99|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Test - Retest Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd assessments in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.99|0.915|<0.05
84752284|NCT03662139|169259894|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.983|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|0.998|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Interrater Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd evaluators in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.998|0.882|<0.01
84752285|NCT03662139|169259895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
84666776|NCT00529542|169067766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3||All hypotheses tests were two-sided.|Linear mixed-effects models|Linear mixed-effects models were fit to continuous outcomes to assess the change from baseline to 6 weeks between groups.|This analysis revealed that the required sample size was 235 subjects per group for 80% power to detect an absolute 2% increase in FMD with Atorvastatin vs. Placebo. We stopped the trial because we had insufficient funds for the required sample size.|This study was initiated as a pilot study with the goal of enrolling 19 women in each group, which we hypothesized would provide 80% power to detect an absolute difference in the change in FMD from baseline between the two groups (Atorvastatin vs. Placebo) of 3.75%, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 4%, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with α=0.05. Recruitment was slow due to strict inclusion/ exclusion criteria so we analyzed our data after the first 20 women completed the study.||5.3|-9.3|0.58
84666777|NCT00529542|169067767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2.3|-0.9|0.39
84666778|NCT00529542|169067768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-46.4|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-46.4|-95.2|<0.001
84666779|NCT00529542|169067769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|-35.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-35.9|-79.3|<0.001
84666780|NCT00529542|169067770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||9.5|-2.7|0.26
84666781|NCT00529542|169067771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.2|-38.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-38.1|-126.2|<0.001
84666782|NCT00529542|169067772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.8|-12.4|0.45
84666783|NCT00529542|169067773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7.9|-2.8|0.33
84666784|NCT00529542|169067774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|586.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1811.0|2983.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2983|-1811|0.61
84666785|NCT00529542|169067775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3385.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.0|7056.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7056|-287|0.07
84666786|NCT00529542|169067776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|27.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||27.8|-24.1|0.88
84666787|NCT00529542|169067777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-0.5|-1.6|<0.001
84666788|NCT00529542|169067778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-364.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-655.3|-73.2|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-73.2|-655.3|0.02
84666789|NCT00529542|169067779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.5|-6.4|0.21
84666790|NCT00529542|169067780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|5.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.0|-16.9|0.27
84666791|NCT00529542|169067781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||0.1|-15.8|0.05
84666792|NCT00529542|169067782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.7|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||13.7|-6.8|0.48
84666793|NCT00529542|169067783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.0|-0.6|0.63
84666794|NCT01566461|169067784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.001
84666795|NCT01566461|169067785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666796|NCT01566461|169067786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666797|NCT01566461|169067787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
84666798|NCT01566461|169067788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666799|NCT01566461|169067789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666800|NCT01566461|169067790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.859
84666801|NCT01566461|169067791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84666802|NCT01566461|169067792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
84666803|NCT01566461|169067793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666804|NCT01566461|169067794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
84666805|NCT01566461|169067795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84666806|NCT01566461|169067796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84666807|NCT01566461|169067797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.095
84666808|NCT01566461|169067798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.878
84666809|NCT01566461|169067799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.590
84666810|NCT01566461|169067800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
84666811|NCT01566461|169067801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
84666812|NCT01566461|169067802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
84666813|NCT01566461|169067803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.049
84666814|NCT02467465|169067840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
84666815|NCT02467465|169067841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
84666816|NCT02467465|169067842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.466
84666817|NCT02467465|169067844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.737
84666818|NCT02467465|169067845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
84666819|NCT02467465|169067846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
84666820|NCT02467465|169067848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
84666821|NCT02467465|169067849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
84666822|NCT02467465|169067850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.487
84666823|NCT02467465|169067852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.651
84666824|NCT02467465|169067853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.387
84666825|NCT02467465|169067854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.755
84666826|NCT02467465|169067856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.032
84666827|NCT02467465|169067857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.058
84666828|NCT02467465|169067858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.279
84666829|NCT01499563|169067859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-0.4|||Mixed Effects model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||-0.4|-11.1|0.017
84666830|NCT01499563|169067859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.5|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||4.5|-6.3|0.708
84666831|NCT04262232|169067870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.95|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.95|-2.6|0.0001
84666832|NCT04262232|169067871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.63|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||1.63|1.17|<0.0001
84666833|NCT04262232|169067873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.61|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.61|-4.99|0.01
84666834|NCT04262232|169067875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.02|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||2.02|-1.02|0.51
84666835|NCT03649711|169067877|OTHER|Post treatment values were compared using ANCOVA||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84666836|NCT03649711|169067877|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mean changes in values were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferonni method) between CKD-ticagrelor arm, and the non-CKD controls||||0.18
84666837|NCT03649711|169067878|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||CKD groups randomized were compared for post treatment values.||||0.22
84666838|NCT05027438|169067966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 1.42 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666839|NCT05027438|169067966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 1.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666840|NCT05027438|169067967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.98||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to post-treatment||||0.004
84666841|NCT05027438|169067967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|62.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.93||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||0.005
84666842|NCT05027438|169067968|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|31.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to post-treatment||||0.052
84666843|NCT05027438|169067968|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to 3-month follow-up||||<0.001
84666844|NCT05027438|169067969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666845|NCT05027438|169067969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.47 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666846|NCT05027438|169067970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.34||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.10 (small \>=0.02)|||0.101
84666847|NCT05027438|169067970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.34 (medium; large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666848|NCT05027438|169067971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.87 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666849|NCT05027438|169067971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.96 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666850|NCT05027438|169067972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.14 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666851|NCT05027438|169067972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.21 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666852|NCT05027438|169067973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 0.18 (medium \>=0.15)|||0.22
84666853|NCT05027438|169067973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 1.99 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
84666854|NCT01921179|169067987|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on neurocognitive performance Attention and Executive Function Overall Domain Z Score|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84666855|NCT01921179|169067988|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare neurocognitive performance on Overall Attention /Executive Function overall score at baseline and at 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure MANOVA was used to compare performance on neurocognitive domain scores at baseline and at 6+ month follow-up post-GOALS training||||||<0.001
84666856|NCT01921179|169067989|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance||||||>0.05
84666857|NCT01921179|169067990|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare performance on Goal Processing Scale Overall domain scores at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84666858|NCT01921179|169067991|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score||||||<0.05
84666859|NCT01921179|169067992|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare participants' self-report on POMS Total Mood Disturbance overall score at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84666860|NCT01190254|169067995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-4.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-9.9|0.070
84666861|NCT01190254|169067995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.5||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-10.7|0.064
84666862|NCT01190254|169067995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Linear dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.064
84666863|NCT01190254|169067995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Convex dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.046
84666864|NCT01190254|169067995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Concave dose-response pattern (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.273
84666865|NCT01190254|169067996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-0.5|0.218
84666866|NCT01190254|169067996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.024||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
84666867|NCT01190254|169067997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-3.3|0.067
84666868|NCT01190254|169067997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.5|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-3.8|0.012
84666869|NCT01190254|169067998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.097
84666870|NCT01190254|169067998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.099
84666871|NCT01190254|169067999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-5.6|0.062
84666872|NCT01190254|169067999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.4|-6.0|0.025
84666873|NCT01190254|169068000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-4.6|0.098
84666874|NCT01190254|169068000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-4.8|0.071
84666875|NCT01190254|169068001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-3.1|0.106
84666876|NCT01190254|169068001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
84666877|NCT01190254|169068002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.083
84729451|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.065|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.015|-0.065|
84729452|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.073|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.006|-0.073|
84729453|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.016|-0.063|
84729454|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.075|
84729455|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.067|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.012|-0.067|
84608433|NCT02963701|168967821|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|86.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.03|91.28|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||91.28|82.03|
84666878|NCT01190254|169068002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.7|0.067
84666879|NCT01190254|169068003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.131
84666880|NCT01190254|169068003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.135
84666881|NCT01190254|169068004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.0|0.071
84666882|NCT01190254|169068004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.9|0.120
84666883|NCT01190254|169068005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-1.2|0.263
84666884|NCT01190254|169068005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.3|0.146
84666885|NCT01190254|169068006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.6|1.1|0.028
84666886|NCT01190254|169068006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.3|1.0|0.048
84729456|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.073|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.008|-0.073|
84729457|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.059|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.059|
84666887|NCT01190254|169068007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (PANSS 30% response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.576
84666888|NCT01190254|169068007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||2.0|0.9|0.171
84666889|NCT01190254|169068007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||1.8|0.8|0.368
84666890|NCT01190254|169068008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.0|-0.6|0.094
84666891|NCT01190254|169068008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-0.8|0.003
84666892|NCT01190254|169068009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.8|0.8|0.177
84666893|NCT01190254|169068009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.9|0.9|0.114
84666894|NCT01190254|169068010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (CGI-I response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.057
84666895|NCT01190254|169068010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.3|0.9|0.135
84666896|NCT01190254|169068010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.9|1.2|0.010
84666897|NCT01190254|169068011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||4.8|-2.0|0.417
84666898|NCT01190254|169068011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.6|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||7.6|0.8|0.017
84666899|NCT01190254|169068012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||2.8|-1.6|0.600
84666900|NCT01190254|169068012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.1||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.3|-0.1|0.064
84666901|NCT01190254|169068013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.33|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.33|-0.13|0.407
84666902|NCT01190254|169068013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.42|-0.04|0.111
84666903|NCT00773292|169068017|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84666904|NCT04729127|169068018|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.79
84666905|NCT04729127|169068018|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.27
84666906|NCT04729127|169068019|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.04
84666907|NCT04729127|169068019|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.02
84666908|NCT04729127|169068020|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.78
84666909|NCT04729127|169068020|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.89
84666910|NCT04729127|169068021|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.07
84666911|NCT04729127|169068021|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.88
84666912|NCT04729127|169068024|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.26
84666913|NCT04729127|169068024|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.74
84666914|NCT01245270|169068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"For the incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed.~Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84666915|NCT01245270|169068027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||95.0||||For incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed. Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84666916|NCT01959542|169068039|OTHER|Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|0.1|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|||||0.10|-086|0.09
84666917|NCT01959542|169068040|OTHER||Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product moment correlation||||-0.15|-0.62|0.03
84666918|NCT03329690|169068103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with region as a stratification factor||||||<0.0001
84666919|NCT01817725|169068120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84666920|NCT02337907|169068129|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.124||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.163|0.7907
84666921|NCT02337907|169068129|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.171||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.171|-0.125|0.7622
84666922|NCT02337907|169068129|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.152||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.152|-0.130|0.8789
84666923|NCT02337907|169068129|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.006||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.006|-0.285|0.0609
84666924|NCT02337907|169068129|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.074||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.074|-0.135|0.5687
84671810|NCT00071812|169078063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1752||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.1752
84671811|NCT00071812|169078063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.3440
84666925|NCT02337907|169068130|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.120|-0.101|0.8694
84666926|NCT02337907|169068130|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.109|-0.116|0.9512
84666927|NCT02337907|169068130|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.115|-0.105|0.9321
84666928|NCT02337907|169068130|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.025|-0.199|0.1288
84666929|NCT02337907|169068130|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.061|-0.098|0.6492
84671812|NCT00071812|169078063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4308||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.4308
84671813|NCT00071812|169078066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation.||||0.0958
84671814|NCT00071812|169078066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7864||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.7864
84671815|NCT00071812|169078066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.0051
84666930|NCT02337907|169068131|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.5287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.77||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||2.77|-1.43|0.5287
84666931|NCT02337907|169068131|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.76||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.76|-2.57|0.7105
84666932|NCT02337907|169068131|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.03||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.03|-1.16|0.3822
84666933|NCT02337907|169068131|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.61||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.61|-2.59|0.6472
84666934|NCT02337907|169068132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|0.7551
84666935|NCT02337907|169068132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.8||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.80|-0.29|0.3643
84666936|NCT02337907|169068132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.60|-0.45|0.7822
84666937|NCT02337907|169068132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.65|-0.43|0.6889
84666938|NCT02337907|169068133|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.15|-0.52|0.1595
84666939|NCT02337907|169068133|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.01||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.01|-0.77|0.2455
84729458|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.052|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.031|-0.052|
84729459|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.068|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.068|
84666940|NCT02337907|169068133|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.13||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.13|-0.57|0.1732
84666941|NCT02337907|169068133|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.31||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||4.31|0.63|0.0088
84666942|NCT00525733|169068151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84666943|NCT00189228|169068162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is not a drug study.||||<0.01
84666944|NCT04327388|169068163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.402|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.402|0.751|0.9561
84666945|NCT04327388|169068163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.543|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.543|0.835|0.3376
84666946|NCT04327388|169068164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|5.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||5.81|-9.27|0.6280
84666947|NCT04327388|169068164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|7.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||7.41|-6.93|0.8478
84666948|NCT02073279|169068399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by prior therapy (B-cell depleting therapy or immunosuppressants/others) and most recent attack (first attack or relapse).||0.89|0.23|0.0184
84666949|NCT02073279|169068400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.4436||95.0|-5.086|11.515|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||11.515|-5.086|0.4436
84666950|NCT02073279|169068401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.1824||95.0|-1.008|5.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group as fixed effect. Baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||5.221|-1.008|0.1824
84666951|NCT01519414|169068447|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
84666952|NCT00561080|169068457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio (GMTR)|1.11||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||1.22|1.02|0.948
84666953|NCT00561080|169068457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|GMTR|0.78|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.85|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||0.85|0.73|>0.999
84666954|NCT00561080|169068458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.62|||||GMFR=GMT Post Dose/GMT Pre Dose|||2.62|2.11|
84666955|NCT00561080|169068460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||GMT Ratio = Group 2 GMT/Group 1 GMT|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.17|0.96|
84666956|NCT00561080|169068460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||GMT Ratio = GMT Group 3/GMT Group 1|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.19|0.98|
84666957|NCT03255382|169068504|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|85.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||85.3|61.3|< 0.001
84666958|NCT03255382|169068505|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.8|32.8|< 0.001
84666959|NCT03255382|169068506|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|76.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||76.6|50.2|< 0.001
84666960|NCT03255382|169068507|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|65.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||65.7|40.4|< 0.001
84666961|NCT03255382|169068508|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.9|27.3|< 0.001
84666962|NCT03255382|169068509|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||48.5|24.1|< 0.001
84666963|NCT03255382|169068510|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|59.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.0|33.7|< 0.001
84666964|NCT03255382|169068511|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||19.7|0.1|0.047
84666965|NCT03255382|169068512|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
84666966|NCT03255382|169068513|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.9|53.3|< 0.001
84666967|NCT03255382|169068514|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
84666968|NCT03255382|169068515|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.0|< 0.001
84666969|NCT03255382|169068516|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|77.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||77.2|52.5|< 0.001
84666970|NCT03255382|169068517|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
84666971|NCT03255382|169068518|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||49.3|23.8|< 0.001
84666972|NCT03255382|169068519|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.2|< 0.001
84666973|NCT03255382|169068520|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|78.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||78.3|51.5|< 0.001
84666974|NCT03255382|169068521|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.8|53.3|< 0.001
84666975|NCT03255382|169068522|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||2.1|-2.0|0.991
84666976|NCT03255382|169068523|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|3.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||9.8|-3.2|0.323
84666977|NCT03255382|169068524|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||32.6|10.4|< 0.001
84666978|NCT03255382|169068525|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.5|20.7|< 0.001
84666979|NCT03255382|169068526|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
84666980|NCT03255382|169068527|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||58.5|30.9|< 0.001
84666981|NCT03255382|169068528|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-5.56|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-5.56|-8.82|< 0.001
84666982|NCT03255382|169068529|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|-7.72|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.72|-11.43|< 0.001
84666983|NCT03255382|169068530|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|-6.87|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.87|-10.72|< 0.001
84666984|NCT03255382|169068531|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-5.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.88|-9.68|< 0.001
84666985|NCT03255382|169068532|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.71|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.71|-10.07|< 0.001
84666986|NCT03255382|169068533|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.06|-10.71|< 0.001
84666987|NCT03255382|169068534|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|42.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||42.4|17.1|< 0.001
84666988|NCT03255382|169068535|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||80.0|53.4|< 0.001
84666989|NCT03255382|169068536|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.8|42.7|< 0.001
84666990|NCT03255382|169068537|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|73.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||73.6|46.3|< 0.001
84666991|NCT03255382|169068538|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.1|30.8|< 0.001
84666992|NCT03255382|169068539|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|68.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||68.8|41.2|< 0.001
84666993|NCT03255382|169068540|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
84666994|NCT03255382|169068541|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|8.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||16.7|0.1|0.048
84666995|NCT03255382|169068542|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||29.5|7.1|0.001
84666996|NCT03255382|169068543|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.9|20.2|< 0.001
84666997|NCT03255382|169068544|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
84666998|NCT03255382|169068545|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.1|32.6|< 0.001
84666999|NCT03255382|169068546|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||31.9|7.6|0.001
84667000|NCT03255382|169068547|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.5|25.0|< 0.001
84667001|NCT03255382|169068548|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.0|-4.5|< 0.001
84667002|NCT03255382|169068549|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.7|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.7|-5.1|< 0.001
84667003|NCT03255382|169068550|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|1.528|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.528|0.764|< 0.001
84667004|NCT03255382|169068551|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.704|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.704|0.936|< 0.001
84667005|NCT03255382|169068552|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.6|< 0.001
84667006|NCT03255382|169068553|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.6|-4.3|< 0.001
84667007|NCT03255382|169068554|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.32|-0.90|0.352
84667008|NCT03255382|169068555|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.29|-0.88|0.315
84667009|NCT03255382|169068556|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-6.9|< 0.001
84667010|NCT03255382|169068557|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.1|-12.6|< 0.001
84667011|NCT03255382|169068558|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-7.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.2|-13.2|< 0.001
84667012|NCT03255382|169068559|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.8|< 0.001
84667013|NCT03255382|169068560|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.4|< 0.001
84667014|NCT03255382|169068561|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.1|-12.9|< 0.001
84667015|NCT03255382|169068562|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|7.23|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.23|1.74|0.002
84667016|NCT03255382|169068563|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.25|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.25|2.01|< 0.001
84667017|NCT03255382|169068564|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.787|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||10.20|3.11|< 0.001
84667018|NCT03255382|169068565|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.784|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.38|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||11.38|4.31|< 0.001
84667019|NCT03255382|169068566|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.001
84667020|NCT03255382|169068567|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
84667021|NCT03255382|169068568|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.9|-3.2|< 0.001
84667022|NCT03255382|169068569|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.5|< 0.001
84667023|NCT03255382|169068570|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.9|-4.3|< 0.001
84667024|NCT03255382|169068571|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.8|-4.4|< 0.001
84667025|NCT03255382|169068572|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||53.1|23.6|< 0.001
84667026|NCT03255382|169068573|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.9|42.7|< 0.001
84667027|NCT03255382|169068574|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with prior phototherapy (yes/no), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.1|-9.6|< 0.001
84667028|NCT03255382|169068575|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.5|-9.7|< 0.001
84667029|NCT03255382|169068576|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-4.1|-9.0|< 0.001
84667030|NCT03255382|169068577|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.0|-11.1|< 0.001
84667031|NCT03255382|169068578|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.13|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.130|0.045|< 0.001
84667032|NCT03255382|169068579|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.096|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.096|0.022|0.002
84667033|NCT03255382|169068580|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||20.5|9.4|< 0.001
84667034|NCT03255382|169068581|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||22.2|11.4|< 0.001
84667035|NCT03255382|169068582|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-6.2|-16.6|< 0.001
84667036|NCT03255382|169068583|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-8.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-8.4|-19.1|< 0.001
84729460|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.117|-0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.029|-0.117|
84667037|NCT03255382|169068584|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-9.8|-24.8|< 0.001
84667038|NCT03255382|169068585|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-14.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-14.2|-28.8|< 0.001
84667039|NCT02448654|169068586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.18
84667040|NCT02448654|169068587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
84667041|NCT02448654|169068588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
84667042|NCT00657241|169068609|SUPERIORITY|All hemodynamic variables are continuous and all participants received both treatments, so paired-t analysis could be used. While paired t-tests do not necessarily require a power and sample size analysis, we estimated that 30 subjects were sufficient to detect an 8% difference in CTTI between comparators at p\<0.05 with a conservatively estimated power of 0.8.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||<0.05
84667043|NCT00657241|169068611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
84667044|NCT00657241|169068612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
84667045|NCT00657241|169068613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
84667046|NCT00657241|169068614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
84667047|NCT02113956|169068621|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.57|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|||2.57|0.79|
84667048|NCT02113956|169068622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.12|0.36|
84729461|NCT00139659|169210704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.108|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.015|-0.108|
84667049|NCT02113956|169068623|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|2.02|0.45|
84667050|NCT02113956|169068624|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.18|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|3.18|0.12|
84667051|NCT02113956|169068625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.997|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|0.997|0.23|
84667052|NCT02113956|169068626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.53|0.38|
84729462|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||||90.0|-0.679|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.679|
84729463|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.729|-0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.027|-0.729|
84667053|NCT02113956|169068627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.09|1.65|
84667054|NCT02113956|169068628|SUPERIORITY||Incident Risk Ratio (IRR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.5|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.5|0.22|
84667055|NCT02113956|169068629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.09|0.6|
84667056|NCT02113956|169068630|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.68|0.22|
84667057|NCT02113956|169068631|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|92.03|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|92.03|0.01|
84667058|NCT02113956|169068632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.88|0.46|
84667059|NCT02113956|169068633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|16.95|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|16.95|0.88|
84667060|NCT02113956|169068634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.58|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.58|1.52|
84667061|NCT02226003|169068641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.84|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.49|< 0.001
84667062|NCT02226003|169068641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.91|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.57|< 0.001
84667063|NCT02226003|169068642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.2|
84667064|NCT02226003|169068642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.4|
84667065|NCT02226003|169068644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.93|-27.96|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-27.96|-49.93|< 0.001
84667066|NCT02226003|169068644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.09|-35.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-35.02|-57.09|< 0.001
84667067|NCT02226003|169068645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-62.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-44.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-44.37|-80.47|< 0.001
84667068|NCT02226003|169068645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.83|-51.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-51.46|-87.83|< 0.001
84667069|NCT02226003|169068646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|16.83|||Logistic regression model|||||16.83|2.81|< 0.001
84667070|NCT02226003|169068646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|18.31|||Logistic regression model|||||18.31|2.98|< 0.001
84729464|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.696|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.696|
84729465|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.847|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.145|-0.847|
84667071|NCT02226003|169068647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-2.99|< 0.001
84667072|NCT02226003|169068647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.11|-3.10|< 0.001
84667073|NCT02226003|169068648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-4.44||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-7.87|0.011
84667074|NCT02226003|169068648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-6.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.95|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-2.95|-9.83|< 0.001
84667075|NCT02226003|169068649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.65||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.79|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.79|-4.09|0.184
84667076|NCT02226003|169068649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.26|-4.62|0.080
84667077|NCT01975909|169068680|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of SARA (i.e., greater percent decrease of SARA score from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84667078|NCT01975909|169068681|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 25-foot walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84667079|NCT01975909|169068682|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 9-hole peg test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete the test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84667080|NCT01975909|169068683|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 90-second walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84667081|NCT01975909|169068684|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the standing postural control stability (i.e., greater percent decrease increase of postural sway speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84667082|NCT01975909|169068685|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of TUG test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84667083|NCT05247229|169068689|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
84667084|NCT05247229|169068689|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
84667085|NCT05247229|169068690|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.11|||Chi-squared|||Q6 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.11|-0.96|0.12
84667086|NCT05247229|169068690|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Q7 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.05|-0.23|0.21
84667087|NCT05247229|169068690|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||Chi-squared|||Q15 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.54|-0.41|0.78
84667088|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Q1 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.86|0.16|0.01
84667089|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q2 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.34|0.67
84729466|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.260|-0.960|
84729467|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-0.721|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.001|-0.721|
84729468|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||||90.0|-0.655|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.073|-0.655|
84729469|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||||90.0|-0.788|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.052|-0.788|
84667090|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Chi-squared|||Q3 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.41|-0.15|0.35
84667091|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||Chi-squared|||Q4 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.61|-0.43|0.73
84667092|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q5 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.13|0.23
84667093|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Q9 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.15|0.27|0.00
84667094|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
84667095|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Q11 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.82|-0.07|0.10
84667096|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Q12 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.91|-0.30|0.32
84667097|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
84667098|NCT05247229|169068691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Q14 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.78|-0.07|0.11
84667099|NCT04318080|169068708|SUPERIORITY|Analysis tested whether ORR with tislelizumab was superior to a historical ORR of 45% using a one-sided binomial exact test (α = 0.05).|Z-test|2.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||One-sided p-value based on a binomial exact test comparing observed ORR to historical rate of 45%.|Binomial Exact Test|||The primary analysis was conducted on both cohorts combined, A binomial exact test was performed to test the null hypothesis (H0: ORR = 45% based on previous clinical trials) and alternative hypothesis (ORR \>45%). If the one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.05, tislelizumab was considered to statistically significantly increase ORR compared to the historical control.||||0.0044
84667100|NCT04916600|169068718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Chi-squared||Treatment difference = Active device \>=24 hour group - remainder of participants (Active \<24 hr, Sham \>=24 hr, and Sham \<24 hr groups)|||||.043
84667101|NCT04916600|169068719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=101||||||.032
84667102|NCT02603809|169068726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
84667103|NCT02603809|169068726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.49|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||2.49|-5.10|0.8117
84729470|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||||90.0|-0.717|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.042|-0.717|
84729471|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.181|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.397|-1.181|
84729472|NCT00139659|169210705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.178|-0.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.393|-1.178|
84729473|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.066|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.066|
84729474|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.044|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.044|-0.044|
84729475|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.056|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.032|-0.056|
84729476|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.048|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.048|
84729477|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.089|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.001|-0.089|
84729478|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.035|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.056|-0.035|
84729479|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.028|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.064|-0.028|
84729480|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.051|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.051|
84729481|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||||90.0|-0.07|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.070|
84729482|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.064|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.034|-0.064|
84729483|NCT00139659|169210708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||90.0|-0.067|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.037|-0.067|
84667104|NCT02603809|169068726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|-1.17|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.17|-8.68|0.0053
84667105|NCT02603809|169068726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.19|-10.80|<.0001
84667106|NCT02603809|169068726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-1.15|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.15|-8.75|0.0057
84667107|NCT02603809|169068727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran-rprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
84667108|NCT02603809|169068727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.54|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||3.54|-8.44|0.7071
84667109|NCT02603809|169068727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-1.12|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.12|-12.98|0.0138
84667110|NCT02603809|169068727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-3.88|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.88|-15.92|0.0003
84667111|NCT02603809|169068727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0077||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|-1.59|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.59|-13.58|0.0077
84667112|NCT02603809|169068733|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
84667113|NCT02603809|169068733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.69|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||1.69|-5.19|0.5356
84667114|NCT02603809|169068733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-2.4|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.40|-9.25|0.0001
84667115|NCT02603809|169068733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.04|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-4.04|-10.96|<.0001
84667116|NCT02603809|169068733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-2.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.19|-9.11|0.0003
84667117|NCT01010906|169068777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for mild HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.43||||||||3.43|0.96|
84667118|NCT01010906|169068777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for moderate HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|6.04||||||||6.04|1.60|
84667119|NCT01010906|169068777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for severe HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|8.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|13.64||||||||13.64|5.20|
84667120|NCT01010906|169068778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.24||||||||3.24|0.76|
84667121|NCT01010906|169068778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.03||||||||4.03|1.21|
84667122|NCT01010906|169068778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|6.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|9.71||||||||9.71|3.90|
84667123|NCT02807350|169068806|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|29.0||||||\>1 point analysis||29|7|
84667124|NCT02807350|169068806|OTHER|\>2 points analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.0||||||||28|10|
84667125|NCT02807350|169068807|OTHER|\>1 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0||||||||15|-7|
84667126|NCT02807350|169068807|OTHER|\>2 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||||17|-2|
84667127|NCT03388138|169068848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.025|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.025|-0.021|
84667128|NCT03388138|169068849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.024|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.024|-0.022|
84667129|NCT02357901|169068896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667130|NCT02357901|169068896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667131|NCT02357901|169068897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84667132|NCT02357901|169068897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84667133|NCT02357901|169068898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667134|NCT02357901|169068898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667135|NCT02357901|169068899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667136|NCT02357901|169068899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
84667137|NCT02357901|169068900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|-4.3||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-4.30|-14.56|0.0003
84667138|NCT02357901|169068900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-7.28||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-7.28|-17.51|<0.0001
84729484|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||||90.0|-1.778|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.514|-1.778|
84729485|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-1.079|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.120|-1.079|
84729486|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||||90.0|-0.535|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.700|-0.535|
84729487|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||||90.0|-1.184|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.077|-1.184|
84729488|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.677|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.608|-1.677|
84729489|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||||90.0|-2.014|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.203|-2.014|
84729490|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||||90.0|-0.899|1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.323|-0.899|
84729491|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||||90.0|-1.08|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.169|-1.080|
84729492|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.382|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.902|-1.382|
84729493|NCT00139659|169210709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||||90.0|-1.673|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.668|-1.673|
84729494|NCT00139659|169210723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||||90.0|-0.858|-0.148|||Longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||-0.148|-0.858|
84729495|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|-0.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.28|-0.06|
84729496|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|0.04|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.38|0.04|
84729497|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.01|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.34|-0.01|
84729498|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.03|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.32|-0.03|
84729499|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.12|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.24|-0.12|
84667139|NCT02357901|169068901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
84667140|NCT02357901|169068901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
84667141|NCT02357901|169068902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
84667142|NCT02357901|169068902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
84667143|NCT02357901|169068903|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.46||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.96|<0.0001
84667144|NCT02357901|169068903|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.62||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.12|<0.0001
84667145|NCT02357901|169068904|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.33||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.89|<0.0001
84667146|NCT02357901|169068904|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.41||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.97|<0.0001
84667147|NCT02357901|169068905|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.36|-1.13|0.3143
84667148|NCT02357901|169068905|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.23||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.72|0.0101
84667149|NCT02357901|169068906|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.14||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.14|-3.29|0.0726
84667150|NCT02357901|169068906|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.9||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.90|-4.32|0.0028
84667151|NCT02357901|169068907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|9.2||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.20|5.81|<0.0001
84667152|NCT02357901|169068907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|9.21||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.21|5.82|<0.0001
84729500|NCT00139659|169210727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.19|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.22|-0.19|
84729501|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.874||||90.0|-2.351|23.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence interval for the LS mean of that particular treatment.||Week 6; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||23.581|-2.351|
84729502|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.804||||90.0|-19.79|5.909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||5.909|-19.79|
84729503|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||||90.0|-17.63|8.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||8.382|-17.63|
84729504|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.888||||90.0|-11.16|14.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.817|-11.16|
84729505|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.991||||90.0|-12.01|14.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.307|-12.01|
84729506|NCT00139659|169210728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.816||||90.0|-8.664|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||17.157|-8.664|
84729507|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||||90.0|-1.829|-0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.331|-1.829|
84729508|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.475|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||||90.0|-1.233|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.284|-1.233|
84729509|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||||90.0|-0.931|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.562|-0.931|
84729510|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||||90.0|-0.929|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.550|-0.929|
84729511|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||||90.0|-1.294|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.178|-1.294|
84729512|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||||90.0|-1.517|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.022|-1.517|
84729513|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||||90.0|-2.51|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 11; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.405|-2.510|
84729514|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.634|-0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.149|-1.634|
84479164|NCT05109702|168709475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.420|-0.158|0.374
84479165|NCT05109702|168709475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.529|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.529|-0.056|0.114
84479166|NCT05109702|168709476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately Upon Instillation at Week 1||0.475|-0.822|0.598
84479167|NCT05109702|168709476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|0.273|||t-test, 2 sided|||1 Minute Post Instillation at Week 1||0.273|-0.783|0.343
84479168|NCT05109702|168709476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Minutes Post Instillation at Week 1||0.262|-0.721|0.359
84479169|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.69|0.0856
84479170|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.84|0.8546
84729515|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||||90.0|-1.725|-0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.234|-1.725|
84479171|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.62|0.0012
84479172|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.87|0.8414
84479173|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.64|0.2412
84479174|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.88|0.4548
84479175|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.88||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.88|0.53|0.0093
84479176|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.86|0.8414
84479177|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.75|0.1749
84729516|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||||90.0|-1.4|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.075|-1.400|
84729517|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.279|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.205|-1.279|
84729518|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||||90.0|-3.012|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 50; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.369|-3.012|
84479178|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.96|0.3121
84667153|NCT04259762|169068911|OTHER|This is a summary of the total number of participants in the focus groups who endorsed the particular theme.|Proportion endorsing themes|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All focus groups were summarized together and, therefore, the denominators (N=85 \[Community\], N=11 \[Provider\]) for each theme are the same. Further, the focus groups only made qualitative (and no quantitative) assessments/endoresement of themes. No formal comparisons among groups were made.||||
84729519|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||||90.0|-0.847|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 51; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.972|-0.847|
84729520|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||||90.0|-0.964|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.579|-0.964|
84729521|NCT00139659|169210729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||||90.0|-1.298|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.438|-1.298|
84729522|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.079|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.000|-0.079|
84729523|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.068|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.010|-0.068|
84729524|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.084|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.006|-0.084|
84729525|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
84479179|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.78|0.1351
84479180|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.93|0.8414
84571038|NCT00853385|168893118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<0.0001
84729526|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
84729527|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.063|
84729528|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.062|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.020|-0.062|
84729529|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.055|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.027|-0.055|
84729530|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.085|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.000|-0.085|
84729531|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.109|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.022|-0.109|
84479181|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.67|0.2158
84729532|NCT00139659|169210737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.097|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.003|-0.097|
84729533|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||||90.0|-0.606|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.048|-0.606|
84729534|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.661|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.011|-0.661|
84729535|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.707|-0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.061|-0.707|
84729536|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.842|-0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.191|-0.842|
84729537|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.797|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.152|-0.797|
84729538|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.866|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.200|-0.866|
84729539|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.845|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.174|-0.845|
84729540|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.749|-0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.076|-0.749|
84729541|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.056|-0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.358|-1.056|
84729542|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-1.04|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.320|-1.040|
84729543|NCT00139659|169210738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.116|-0.415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.415|-1.116|
84479182|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.71|0.3279
84729544|NCT01209936|169210754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84729545|NCT01209936|169210755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84729546|NCT01209936|169210756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84479183|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.72|0.2472
84479184|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.8414
84479185|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.81|0.6193
84729547|NCT00024102|169210763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary measure of efficacy was the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death in the capecitabine group as compared with the standard chemotherapy group. Capecitabine would be considered noninferior to standard chemotherapy if the hazard ratio was greater than 0.8046. (With the use of a 5-year landmark for descriptive purposes, this ratio corresponds to a 5-year rate of relapse-free survival of 60% for standard chemotherapy and 53% for capecitabine.)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.17||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. A priori formal monitoring for futility and noninferiority was planned at accrual milestones|Regression, Cox|||||3.17|1.38|<0.001
84729548|NCT00024102|169210764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||3.08|1.11|0.02
84729549|NCT01332318|169210795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.08|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 2 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.08|
84729550|NCT01332318|169210795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.41|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 3 minus Arm 1.|||0.41|0.09|
84729551|NCT01332318|169210795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 4 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.09|
84729552|NCT04382053|169210831|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-2.0|0.467
84729553|NCT04382053|169210832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||One-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reported is for the treatment factor across all time points||||||0.237
84729554|NCT00714688|169210836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.136||95.0|-6.04|0.67||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||0.67|-6.04|0.136
84729555|NCT00714688|169210836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.002||95.0|-8.22|-1.55||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||-1.55|-8.22|0.002
84729556|NCT00714688|169210837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model was performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.216
84667154|NCT04259762|169068913|OTHER|Formal statistical comparisons were not made.|Proportion endorsing attempt to screen|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.831|||||"Pooled estimate of attempt to screening. Using R:~n1 \<- c(20,28,11,15,26,23,21); nt \<- c(45,50,45,50,50,50,22) p1 \<- n1/nt; v1 \<- p1\*(1-p1)/nt fit \<- lm(p1 \~ 1,weight=1/v1) summary(fit)$coef\[1\] + qt(.975,6)\*c(0,-1,1)\*summary(fit)$coef\[2\]"|||0.831|0.303|
84667155|NCT01203046|169068914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was used for the calculation of statistical power an author of 5% level, it was felt that the difference between the minimum value of non inferiority does not exceed 10%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|19.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.83|0.35|<0.05
84667156|NCT01203046|169068915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Consider a 5% confidence level, the power of assigned contrast was 80% to detect a difference minima of at least 10% of equivalence between the analyzed groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.51|0.21|<0.05
84729557|NCT00714688|169210837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||<0.001
84667157|NCT03453684|169068916|OTHER||Overall SE of the estimate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.45 Standard error of the estimate of w\^2: 0.39|||||
84667158|NCT03453684|169068917|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|9.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.61 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
84729558|NCT00714688|169210838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.052
84729559|NCT00714688|169210838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.002
84729560|NCT00714688|169210839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.023||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.023
84667159|NCT03453684|169068918|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|8.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
84667160|NCT03453684|169068919|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|4.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.003 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.03|||||
84479186|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
84667161|NCT03453684|169068920|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|17.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.13|||||
84667162|NCT03453684|169068921|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84667163|NCT03453684|169068922|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value should be read as: 2.1E-06 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.24|||||
84667164|NCT03453684|169068923|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.08|||||
84667165|NCT03453684|169068924|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02|||||
84667166|NCT03453684|169068925|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84667167|NCT02063516|169068926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 80 adult patients randomized from different surgical department would have 80% power to detect a difference in 2 point in mean. Sampling size was determined using 2 sided t-test (alpha=0.05).||||0.04
84667168|NCT02063516|169068927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.836
84667169|NCT02063516|169068928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 30 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0035
84729561|NCT00714688|169210839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.016||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.016
84667170|NCT02063516|169068928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 60 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.003
84667171|NCT02063516|169068928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 90 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0042
84667172|NCT02063516|169068928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 120 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.004
84667173|NCT02293655|169068930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Baseline Time point||||0.55
84667174|NCT02293655|169068930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at MPH Maintenance Visit (Week 8)||||.30
84667175|NCT02293655|169068930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (Week 9)||||.28
84667176|NCT02293655|169068930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (Week 10)||||.00
84667177|NCT02293655|169068930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (Week 12)||||.01
84667178|NCT02293655|169068931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at baseline timepoint||||.32
84667179|NCT02293655|169068931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Maintenance Time Point (week 8)||||.90
84667180|NCT02293655|169068931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.007
84667181|NCT02293655|169068931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.26
84667182|NCT02293655|169068931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|123.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.01
84667183|NCT02293655|169068932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||.33
84667184|NCT02293655|169068932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Maintenance (week 8)||||.06
84667185|NCT02293655|169068932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|108.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.05
84667186|NCT02293655|169068932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.008
84667187|NCT02293655|169068932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.07
84667188|NCT03814746|169068948|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.55|0.76|> 0.999
84667189|NCT03814746|169068948|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.27|0.62|> 0.999
84667190|NCT03814746|169068949|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.70|0.87|
84479187|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0191
84667191|NCT03814746|169068949|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.17|0.59|
84667192|NCT03814746|169068954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.97|0.92|
84667193|NCT03814746|169068954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.58|0.72|
84729562|NCT03443063|169210873|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|104.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|141.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||141.97|77.41|
84729563|NCT03443063|169210874|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|133.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.3|164.93|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||164.93|107.30|
84729564|NCT03443063|169210875|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|150.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.16|200.26|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||200.26|113.16|
84479188|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.33|0.97|0.8414
84479189|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.76|0.2412
84667194|NCT03814746|169068954|SUPERIORITY|for time to second occurrence of VOC|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.04|||Cox Model|||||2.04|0.81|
84667195|NCT03814746|169068954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||Cox Model|for time to second occurrence of VOC||||1.54|0.59|
84667196|NCT03814746|169068955|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.43|0.75|
84667197|NCT03814746|169068955|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.14|0.59|
84667198|NCT03814746|169068955|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.59|0.77|
84667199|NCT03814746|169068955|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.25|0.60|
84667200|NCT03814746|169068956|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.85|
84667201|NCT03814746|169068956|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.38|0.57|
84667202|NCT03814746|169068956|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.77|
84667203|NCT03814746|169068956|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.44|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.44|0.52|
84667204|NCT01592344|169069026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0048
84667205|NCT01592344|169069027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667206|NCT01592344|169069028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667207|NCT01592344|169069029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667208|NCT00449644|169069064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.77||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|61.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||61.23|2.26|0.0034
84667209|NCT00449644|169069065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.8|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||3.80|1.57|<0.0001
84667210|NCT00449644|169069066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.53|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||6.53|1.51|0.0022
84667211|NCT00449644|169069067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.59|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||MGIT negative (Responders)||2.59|1.05|0.0290
84667212|NCT00449644|169069068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.38||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|63.88|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 8||63.88|13.97|0.003
84667213|NCT00449644|169069068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.12||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|42.17|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||42.17|-10.70|0.237
84667214|NCT00449644|169069068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|39.18|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 104 (Stage 1 Trial End)||39.18|-21.37|0.5564
84667215|NCT00449644|169069069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||36.83|5.59|0.008
84667216|NCT00449644|169069069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|31.51|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 72||31.51|-1.21|0.069
84729565|NCT03443063|169210876|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|149.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.06|198.58|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||198.58|113.06|
84729566|NCT03443063|169210877|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.07|114.4|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||114.40|56.07|
84729567|NCT03443063|169210877|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|79.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.48|116.03|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||116.03|54.48|
84479190|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.99|0.3121
84479191|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.68|0.0135
84479192|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.87|0.8414
84479193|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.66|0.1749
84479194|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|0.93|0.3121
84479195|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.57|0.0038
84479196|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.84|0.8414
84479197|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
84729568|NCT03443063|169210877|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.08|109.29|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||109.29|48.08|
84729569|NCT03443063|169210879|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric mean|111.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|134.99|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||134.99|91.69|
84479198|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|1.02|0.2053
84479199|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0241
84479200|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.8414
84479201|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.69|0.0732
84479202|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.82|0.6090
84479203|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.76|0.56|<0.0001
84479204|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.82|0.8414
84729570|NCT03443063|169210879|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|113.46|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||113.46|56.81|
84729571|NCT03443063|169210879|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|86.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.92|115.81|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||115.81|64.92|
84729572|NCT03443063|169210879|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|65.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.08|104.04|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||104.04|41.08|
84729573|NCT03443063|169210880|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.45|139.28|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||139.28|94.45|
84729574|NCT03443063|169210880|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.27|155.67|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||155.67|100.27|
84729575|NCT03443063|169210880|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.87|126.71|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||126.71|66.87|
84729576|NCT03443063|169210881|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.62|175.85|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||175.85|105.62|
84729577|NCT03443063|169210881|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|154.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.53|202.57|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||202.57|117.53|
84729578|NCT03443063|169210881|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|118.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|159.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||159.97|87.84|
84729579|NCT03443063|169210882|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|138.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.1|176.14|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||176.14|109.10|
84729580|NCT03443063|169210882|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|147.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.06|198.22|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||198.22|109.06|
84479205|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.82|0.7828
84729581|NCT03443063|169210882|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.19|189.54|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||189.54|98.19|
84729582|NCT03443063|169210883|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|141.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.79|191.73|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||191.73|103.79|
84729583|NCT03443063|169210883|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.58|154.06|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||154.06|100.58|
84729584|NCT03443063|169210883|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|143.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.65|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||190.65|107.72|
84479206|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|1.02|0.2053
84729585|NCT03443063|169210883|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|140.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|200.35|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||200.35|98.11|
84729586|NCT00552513|169210896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.68|0.15
84729587|NCT00552513|169210897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.58|0.003
84479207|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.92|0.65|0.0093
84729588|NCT00552513|169210898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.71|0.04
84479208|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.93|0.8414
84667217|NCT00449644|169069069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|35.08|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 120||35.08|1.28|0.035
84667218|NCT03479307|169069077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.407|-1.013|< 0.0001
84667219|NCT03479307|169069077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.439|-0.895|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.895|-1.439|< 0.0001
84667220|NCT03479307|169069077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.413|-0.868|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Ketotifen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.868|-1.413|< 0.0001
84667221|NCT03479307|169069077|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.235|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 3 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.235||0.0007
84667222|NCT03479307|169069077|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.175|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 5 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.175||0.0002
84667223|NCT03479307|169069077|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.101|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 7 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.101||< 0.0001
84667224|NCT02446990|169069079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.96|0.1969
84667225|NCT02446990|169069080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.94|0.3461
84667226|NCT02446990|169069081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.94|0.2493
84667227|NCT02446990|169069082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.89|0.5162
84667228|NCT02446990|169069083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.88|0.1647
84667229|NCT02446990|169069084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.90|0.6024
84667230|NCT02446990|169069085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.75|0.1458
84667231|NCT02446990|169069086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9790
84667232|NCT02446990|169069087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.92|0.4299
84667233|NCT02446990|169069088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.88|0.5916
84667234|NCT02446990|169069089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.89|0.6963
84667235|NCT02446990|169069090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.96|0.2222
84667236|NCT02446990|169069091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.3671
84667237|NCT02446990|169069092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.87|0.5285
84667238|NCT01064401|169069093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.645||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (≤ 2.5 vs \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.645|0.469|< 0.0001
84667239|NCT01064401|169069093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|53.1||||||||53.1|35.5|
84667240|NCT01064401|169069094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.9|60.8||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline volume of T2 hyperintense lesions, history of prior IFN beta use and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|The logarithmic transformation of the scan number of the MRI assessment was included in the model as the 'offset' parameter.||||60.8|46.9|< 0.0001
84667241|NCT01064401|169069095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted by baseline EDSS values as continuous variable, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.07|0.66|0.1575
84667242|NCT01064401|169069095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|34.2||||||||34.2|-7.0|
84667243|NCT01064401|169069096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||Based on Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (EDSS ≤ 2.5 vs EDSS \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.69|0.50|< 0.0001
84667244|NCT01064401|169069096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Risk of Relapse|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|49.5||||||||49.5|30.8|
84729589|NCT01589523|169210904|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
84729590|NCT01589523|169210905|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
84729591|NCT01589523|169210906|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|vitamin D||||||0.065
84729592|NCT03721978|169210916|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|28.6||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||50.4|-24.6|0.115
84729593|NCT03721978|169210921|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|18.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.6|7.8|0.001
84729594|NCT03721978|169210922|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
84729595|NCT03721978|169210923|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.8|
84729596|NCT03721978|169210924|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|59.5||||||||59.5|-15.7|
84729597|NCT03721978|169210925|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.2||||||||38.2|16.0|
84729598|NCT03721978|169210926|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
84729599|NCT03721978|169210927|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|28.5||||||||28.5|5.2|
84729600|NCT03721978|169210928|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4||||||||50.4|-24.6|
84729601|NCT03721978|169210929|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|29.5||||||||29.5|10.1|
84729602|NCT03721978|169210930|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|50.5||||||||50.5|-31.2|
84729603|NCT03721978|169210931|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.9||||||||17.9|-6.0|
84729604|NCT03721978|169210932|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|25.8||||||||25.8|-54.7|
84729605|NCT03721978|169210933|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.9||||||||21.9|1.1|
84729606|NCT03721978|169210934|OTHER||Location Shift|449.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||18224.0|0.0|
84729607|NCT03721978|169210934|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||674.0|-18224.0|
84729608|NCT03721978|169210934|OTHER||Location Shift|4049.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||18224.0|224.0|
84729609|NCT03721978|169210934|OTHER||Location Shift|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18000.0|6074.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|-18000.0|
84729610|NCT03721978|169210935|OTHER||Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||674.0|224.0|
84729611|NCT03721978|169210935|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||24.0|0.0|
84729612|NCT03721978|169210935|OTHER||Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2024.0|6074.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|2024.0|
84729613|NCT03721978|169210935|OTHER||Location Shift|674.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|224.0|
84729614|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|73.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||73.33|0.00|
84729615|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|38.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||38.33|0.00|
84729616|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|85.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||85.00|0.00|
84729617|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|36.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||36.67|0.00|
84729618|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|181.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||181.67|0.00|
84729619|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||31.67|0.00|
84729620|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||46.67|0.00|
84729621|NCT03721978|169210936|OTHER||Location Shift|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||20.00|0.00|
84729622|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||11.67|3.33|
84729623|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
84729624|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||11.67|1.67|
84729625|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||5.00|0.00|
84729626|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.0||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||40.00|15.00|
84729627|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.33||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||28.33|10.00|
84479209|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.73|0.2412
84479210|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.95|0.3121
84479211|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.64|0.0135
84479212|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.92|0.8414
84479213|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.79|0.2412
84479214|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.91|0.6652
84479215|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.0275
84479216|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.93|0.8414
84479217|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
84479218|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
84479219|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.72|0.0387
84479220|NCT01392378|168709477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.8414
84479221|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.82|0.9350
84479222|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.7918
84479223|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.80|0.6922
84729628|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||6.67|1.67|
84479224|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.9765
84479225|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6915
84729629|NCT03721978|169210937|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||3.33|0.00|
84729630|NCT03721978|169210938|OTHER||Location Shift|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.325||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.325|-0.004|
84729631|NCT03721978|169210938|OTHER||Location Shift|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.208||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.208|0.000|
84729632|NCT03721978|169210938|OTHER||Location Shift|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.31||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.310|-0.055|
84729633|NCT03721978|169210939|OTHER||Location Shift|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.077||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.077|0.004|
84729634|NCT03721978|169210939|OTHER||Location Shift|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.028||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.028|0.003|
84729635|NCT03721978|169210939|OTHER||Location Shift|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.053||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.053|0.022|
84729636|NCT05244226|169210940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.045
84729637|NCT05244226|169210940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.023
84729638|NCT05244226|169210944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.144
84729639|NCT05244226|169210944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.322
84729640|NCT05244226|169210945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.061
84729641|NCT05244226|169210945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.021
84729642|NCT02675998|169210949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84729643|NCT02675998|169210950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84729644|NCT02675998|169210950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84729645|NCT02675998|169210950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84729646|NCT00275301|169210951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Examination of relationship between Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms and brain metabolism at baseline.||||<0.05
84729647|NCT02097849|169210952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.04||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.19|-0.27|0.692
84729648|NCT02097849|169210953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||Responders at Day 28||0.05|-0.41|0.120
84729649|NCT02097849|169210954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.13||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.10|-0.35|0.225
84729650|NCT02097849|169210955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.22||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.01|-0.44|0.057
84729651|NCT02097849|169210956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.07||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.30|-0.16|0.300
84729652|NCT02097849|169210957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.20|-0.26|0.714
84729653|NCT02097849|169210958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.23|-0.24|0.967
84729654|NCT02097849|169210959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.22|-0.24|0.955
84729655|NCT01540162|169210968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Chi-squared|||||0.73|0.05|0.05
84729656|NCT03619889|169210978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84729657|NCT03619889|169210978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84729658|NCT03619889|169210985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84729659|NCT03619889|169210985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84729660|NCT00821119|169211007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||"Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.~The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle."||1.14|0.48|<0.05
84729661|NCT00821119|169211008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.||1.14|0.48|0.05
84729662|NCT00821119|169211009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.78|||risk ratio (RR)|||The study was not powered for this outcome. However this analysis was done with this limitation||1.78|0.62|< 0.05
84729663|NCT05012280|169211011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564||only one primary endpoint, p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori treshold or statistical significance: p=0.05|Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control||||1.564|0.953|0.1150
84729664|NCT05012280|169211011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control study.||||1.564|0.953|0.12
84729665|NCT00265096|169211069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise conparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. Sample size (n=396; 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>98% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in ACR 20 response between treatment groups, assuming equal proportions of subjects receiving methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and the difference in ACR 20 response of 27% in subjects without MTX and 17-27% in subjects with MTX, between placebo and combined golimumab groups.||||<0.001
84729666|NCT00265096|169211069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
84729667|NCT00265096|169211069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
84729668|NCT00265096|169211070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729669|NCT00265096|169211070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729670|NCT00265096|169211070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729671|NCT00265096|169211071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
84729672|NCT00265096|169211071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729673|NCT00265096|169211071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729674|NCT00265096|169211072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
84729675|NCT00265096|169211072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (with treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729676|NCT00265096|169211072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729677|NCT00265096|169211073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline methotrexate (MTX) usage||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change from baseline among 3 treatment groups. Sample size (n=396, 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>93% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in change from baseline between treatment groups, assuming 50% of subjects received MTX at baseline, and mean change from baseline for combined golimumab of 0, and a mean increase for placebo of 0.1 in subjects who received MTX at baseline and 0.6 in subjects who did not receive MTX||||0.015
84479226|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.94|0.7918
84479227|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.75|0.4389
84729678|NCT00265096|169211073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.011
84729679|NCT00265096|169211073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.086
84729680|NCT00265096|169211074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
84729681|NCT00265096|169211074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729682|NCT00265096|169211074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
84729683|NCT00666835|169211100|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Point estimate of difference (ANCOVA)|0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.338||||||||0.338|-0.170|
84729684|NCT00666835|169211101|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Difference LSM of Epo Hexal & Erypo|0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.418||||||||0.418|-0.039|
84729685|NCT03861429|169211102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel logistic regression (generalized estimating equations \[GEE\] with an autoregressive (1) working correlation matrix, logit link function) were fitted to assess the primary hypotheses. The models account for the repeated measures (3 or 4 time points), correlated, data structure per person. An additive model was conducted with contrast coding for each time point, treatment, and follow-up effects.||14.15|.78|.105
84729686|NCT03861429|169211103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||1.178|.022|.04
84729687|NCT03861429|169211104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.46|.12|.001
84479228|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.85|0.9765
84729688|NCT03861429|169211105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.48|.21|.001
84729689|NCT03861429|169211106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.19|-.01|.081
84729690|NCT03861429|169211107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.3|.11|.033
84729691|NCT01797822|169211150|OTHER|Statistical comparison between groups was made with t-test. A sample size of 20 subjects was calculates to have 90% power of detecting a statistical difference (P\<0.05) in change in corneal staining pre and post low humidity challenge.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84729692|NCT02253147|169211157|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA UD and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 95.0% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||-0.11|-0.34|
84729693|NCT00396097|169211184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.5762|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.071||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the individualized treatment arm was not superior to the standard treatment arm; alternative hypothesis that the individualized treatment arm was superior to the standard treatment arm with respect to the mean 24-month AOTD. Using a 2:1 randomization, a two sided sample t-test comparing the root AOTD between the 2 treatment arms with 80% power at a 5% level required 260 subjects. Assuming a 20% attrition rate, approximately 312 subjects were needed for this study.|||-0.071|0.5762
84729694|NCT00396097|169211185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA (Levene's Test)|||||||0.627
84729695|NCT00396097|169211186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.330|0.802|0.8016
84479229|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.87|0.9350
84729696|NCT00396097|169211187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.249|||ANCOVA|||||10.249|1.395|0.0101
84729697|NCT00396097|169211187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.471||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.417|14.145|||ANCOVA|||||14.145|4.417|0.0002
84729698|NCT00396097|169211187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|8.114|||ANCOVA|||||8.114|-1.707|0.2001
84729699|NCT00396097|169211188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.181|43.618|||ANCOVA|||||43.618|30.181|<0.0001
84729700|NCT00396097|169211188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.054|54.98|||ANCOVA|||||54.980|42.054|<.0001
84729701|NCT00396097|169211188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.936|40.951|||ANCOVA|||||40.951|27.936|<.0001
84729702|NCT00396097|169211189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|||||0.249|-0.068|0.2618
84479230|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.90|0.7918
84729703|NCT00396097|169211189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.198|||ANCOVA|||||0.198|-0.172|0.8926
84729704|NCT00396097|169211189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.192|0.9566
84729705|NCT02973477|169211190|OTHER|Mixed effects model|Coefficient|0.28||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.8||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted mixed models analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change.||0.8|-0.24|0.28
84729706|NCT02973477|169211191|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.003||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for SDNN.||0.15|-0.16|0.97
84729707|NCT02973477|169211191|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for rmsSD.||0.16|-0.21|0.79
84729708|NCT02973477|169211192|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of EI ratio.||0.04|-0.02|0.58
84729709|NCT02973477|169211192|OTHER||Coefficient|0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for Valsalva ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of Valsalva ratio.||0.09|-0.05|0.58
84729710|NCT02973477|169211192|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for 30:15 ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of 30:15 ratio.||0.03|-0.05|0.56
84729711|NCT02973477|169211193|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of BNP.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
84729712|NCT03807700|169211200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a fixed effect and Baseline overall score as a covariate.|Difference is experimental adhesive minus no adhesive.|||0.74|-1.56|0.4769
84479231|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.88|0.9430
84479232|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.85|0.9765
84729713|NCT03209050|169211209|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Clopper-Pearson 95% CI|||||||0.5
84729714|NCT01747629|169211295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.24|0.59|<0.0001
84729715|NCT01747629|169211296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.55|0.56|<0.0001
84729716|NCT01747629|169211297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.19|0.35|0.0004
84729717|NCT01747629|169211298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.28|0.57|<0.0001
84729718|NCT04281875|169211347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6905
84729719|NCT02229396|169211450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.13|-0.63|0.003
84729720|NCT02229396|169211450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.001
84479233|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.74|0.5167
84479234|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.7918
84479235|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.73|0.2514
84479236|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.84|0.9872
84479237|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.73|0.2582
84479238|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.91|0.7918
84479239|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.2514
84479240|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
84479241|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.86|0.6915
84479242|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.38|0.93|0.7918
84479243|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6922
84479244|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.83|0.9872
84479245|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.70|0.3609
84479246|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.89|0.7918
84479247|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.71|0.2514
84479248|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.26|0.86|0.9765
84479249|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.79|0.6304
84729721|NCT02229396|169211451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-1.20|-2.79|<0.001
84729722|NCT02229396|169211451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.55|-2.12|<0.001
84479250|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.91|0.7918
84479251|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.75|0.2514
84479252|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
84479253|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.71|0.2582
84479254|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.84|0.9279
84729723|NCT02229396|169211452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-12.20|-27.95|<0.001
84479255|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.72|0.2514
84479256|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.76|0.9765
84729724|NCT02229396|169211452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.89|-24.39|<0.001
84729725|NCT02229396|169211453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-17.59|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-17.59|-37.89|<0.001
84729726|NCT02229396|169211453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-16.78|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.78|-36.78|<0.001
84729727|NCT02229396|169211454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
84729728|NCT02229396|169211454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.3||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||0.001
84479257|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.71|0.1424
84479258|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.7918
84479259|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.73|0.2514
84729729|NCT02229396|169211455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.12|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-13.40|-27.12|<0.001
84729730|NCT02229396|169211455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-8.2||This is a nominal p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.20|-21.85|<0.001
84479260|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.79|0.9765
84479261|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.6304
84479262|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
84479263|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.6922
84479264|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.82|0.9765
84479265|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.84|0.6572
84479266|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.86|0.7918
84479267|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.79|0.2514
84479268|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.88|0.9872
84479269|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.78|0.6304
84479270|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
84479271|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.80|0.6922
84479272|NCT01392378|168709479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.9765
84479273|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.66||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.66|0.82|0.7148
84479274|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.45|0.75|0.7907
84479275|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.60|0.81|0.4765
84479276|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.89|0.5037
84729731|NCT02229396|169211456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
84479277|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.17|0.52|0.9414
84479278|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.45|0.7907
84479279|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.32|0.2900
84479280|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.77||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.77|0.44|0.8826
84479281|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.40|0.18|0.5823
84479282|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.80|0.27|0.7636
84479283|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.14|0.2407
84479284|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||3.22|0.43|0.8826
84479285|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.81||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.81|0.26|0.0961
84479286|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.38|0.7636
84479287|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.39|0.2900
84479288|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.82|0.60|0.8826
84479289|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.54||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.54|0.65|0.9925
84479290|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.52|0.7636
84479291|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.53|0.3929
84479292|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.62|0.8826
84571039|NCT00853385|168893119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|16.73||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||16.73|6.08|<0.0001
84479293|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.20|0.70|0.7433
84479294|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.46|0.7636
84479295|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.34|0.2407
84479296|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.83||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.83|0.61|0.8826
84479297|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.51|0.9414
84479298|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.14|0.68|0.7636
84479299|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.63|0.50|0.7380
84479300|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.58|0.49|0.8826
84479301|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.67|0.9414
84479302|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.58|0.7907
84479303|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.43|0.2407
84479304|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.02|0.42|0.2670
84479305|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.62|0.5823
84479306|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.65|0.7636
84479307|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.48|0.0422
84729732|NCT02229396|169211456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
84479308|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.53|0.2670
84479309|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.78||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.78|0.72|0.8454
84479310|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.00|0.81|0.7636
84479311|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.45|0.2824
84479312|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.06|0.83|0.5155
84479313|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.50|0.5823
84479314|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.7||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.70|0.78|0.7636
84479315|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.56|0.4644
84479316|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.59|0.8826
84479317|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.61|0.5823
84479318|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.65|0.7636
84479319|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.60|0.3299
84479320|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.54|0.2670
84479321|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.48|0.5823
84479322|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.69|0.68|0.7907
84479323|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.43|0.2742
84479324|NCT01392378|168709481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.42|0.2670
84479325|NCT01392378|168709482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.71|0.813
84479326|NCT01392378|168709482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.79|0.845
84479327|NCT01392378|168709482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.65|0.461
84479328|NCT01392378|168709482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.68|0.545
84479329|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.79|0.712
84479330|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.837
84479331|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.78|0.357
84479332|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.76|0.190
84479333|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.813
84479334|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.73|0.136
84479335|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.74|0.104
84479336|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.85|0.64|<0.001
84479337|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.72|0.712
84479338|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.70|0.206
84479339|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.65|0.066
84479340|NCT01392378|168709483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.67|0.085
84479341|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.77|0.712
84479342|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.206
84479343|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.72|0.104
84479344|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.87|0.63|0.001
84479345|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.82|0.813
84479346|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.90|0.837
84479347|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.81|0.534
84479348|NCT01392378|168709484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.87|0.961
84479349|NCT01392378|168709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.75|0.850
84479350|NCT01392378|168709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.77|0.837
84479351|NCT01392378|168709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.69|0.695
84667245|NCT01064401|169069097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95||Based on logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.60|0.0176
84479352|NCT01392378|168709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.60|0.408
84479353|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.69|0.813
84479354|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.68|0.837
84479355|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.68|0.695
84479356|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.71|0.961
84479357|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.85|0.808
84479358|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.50|0.80|0.837
84479359|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.66|0.695
84479360|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.58|0.408
84479361|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.07||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.46|0.78|0.813
84479362|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.59|0.343
84479363|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.12||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.82|0.695
84479364|NCT01392378|168709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.69|0.925
84479365|NCT01392378|168709487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.81|0.910
84479366|NCT01392378|168709487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.79|0.850
84479367|NCT01392378|168709487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.70|0.868
84479368|NCT01392378|168709487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.67|0.914
84667246|NCT01064401|169069097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Odds of Worsening|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.6||||||||39.6|4.7|
84479369|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.89|0.910
84729733|NCT02229396|169211457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.9|-5.2|0.005
84729734|NCT02229396|169211457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.4|-4.5|0.022
84729735|NCT02679079|169211458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.8||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-4.4|0.89
84729736|NCT02679079|169211458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-2.6|0.47
84729737|NCT02679079|169211459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.21
84729738|NCT02679079|169211459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.5|0.67
84729739|NCT02679079|169211460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years)|Risk difference expressed as percentage.|||||0.24
84729740|NCT02679079|169211460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.71
84729741|NCT02679079|169211461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-7.7|0.52
84729742|NCT02679079|169211461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.5|0.64
84729743|NCT02679079|169211462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.5||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|-11.2|0.60
84729744|NCT02679079|169211462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.7|-6.1|0.54
84729745|NCT02679079|169211463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.6|0.64
84729746|NCT02679079|169211463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.5|0.77
84729747|NCT02679079|169211464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-1.4|0.45
84729748|NCT02679079|169211464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-2.7|0.72
84729749|NCT02679079|169211465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.41
84729750|NCT02679079|169211465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|0.2|0.01
84729751|NCT02679079|169211466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.18
84729752|NCT02679079|169211466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.95
84729753|NCT03924947|169211467|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.37|4.259|||||LS mean (standard error \[SE\]) and LS mean confidence interval (CI) are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon MP||4.259|-2.370|
84729754|NCT03924947|169211468|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|2.392|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||2.392|-2.456|
84729755|NCT03924947|169211468|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|1.345|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon AAPIS||1.345|-3.005|
84729756|NCT03924947|169211469|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.699|3.987|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||3.987|-10.699|
84729757|NCT03924947|169211469|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|11.702|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||11.702|-5.172|
84729758|NCT03924947|169211470|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|34.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.424|163.786|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||163.786|-94.424|
84729759|NCT03924947|169211470|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.418|111.298|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||111.298|-144.418|
84729760|NCT03924947|169211471|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|LS Mean of Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.302|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.892|2.602|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon AAPIS||2.602|-4.892|
84729761|NCT03009019|169211472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.03|0.97|0.075
84479370|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.850
84729762|NCT03009019|169211472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||Observed cases (OC)||2.14|1.00|0.055
84729763|NCT03009019|169211473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.22|0.003
84729764|NCT03009019|169211473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.22|0.003
84729765|NCT01066897|169211511|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.002
84729766|NCT01066897|169211512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.368|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test to determine if the % change in HAMD was different from 0||For the 2 dropouts, used LOCF.||||.067
84729767|NCT01697592|169211519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.75|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.75|-1.10|<0.001
84729768|NCT01697592|169211519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.60|-1.37|<0.001
84729769|NCT01697592|169211519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
84729770|NCT01697592|169211519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.88|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.88|-1.45|<0.001
84729771|NCT01697592|169211519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.54|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.54|-1.06|<0.001
84729772|NCT02621047|169211538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Percentage (%)|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|188.0||||||||188|86.5|
84729773|NCT02621047|169211538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.1|183.0||||||||183|55.1|
84729774|NCT02621047|169211539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|208.0||||||||208|106|
84729775|NCT02621047|169211539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.4|225.0||||||||225|75.4|
84729776|NCT02621047|169211540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|160.0||||||90.0|105.0|243.0||||||||243|105|
84729777|NCT02621047|169211540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|220.0||||||90.0|131.0|369.0||||||||369|131|
84729778|NCT02621047|169211541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|186.0||||||90.0|122.0|281.0||||||||281|122|
84729779|NCT02621047|169211541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|285.0||||||90.0|175.0|466.0||||||||466|175|
84729780|NCT02621047|169211542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|162.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|254.0||||||||254|104|
84729781|NCT02621047|169211542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|228.0||||||90.0|129.0|403.0||||||||403|129|
84729782|NCT02621047|169211543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|189.0||||||90.0|121.0|293.0||||||||293|121|
84729783|NCT02621047|169211543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|296.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.0|506.0||||||||506|174|
84729784|NCT02621047|169211544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|64.6||||||90.0|36.2|115.0||||||||115|36.2|
84729785|NCT02621047|169211544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.6|139.0||||||||139|26.6|
84729786|NCT02621047|169211545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|85.1||||||90.0|55.5|130.0||||||||130|55.5|
84729787|NCT02621047|169211545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|59.0||||||90.0|34.2|102.0||||||||102|34.2|
84729788|NCT02621047|169211546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|116.0||||||90.0|78.6|172.0||||||||172|78.6|
84729789|NCT02621047|169211546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|98.1||||||90.0|51.7|186.0||||||||186|51.7|
84729790|NCT02621047|169211547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.2|154.0||||||||154|85.2|
84729791|NCT02621047|169211547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.6|168.0||||||||168|55.6|
84729792|NCT02621047|169211548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|80.6||||||90.0|50.2|130.0||||||||130|50.2|
84729793|NCT02621047|169211548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.9|160.0||||||||160|26.9|
84729794|NCT02621047|169211549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|104.0||||||90.0|76.8|141.0||||||||141|76.8|
84729795|NCT02621047|169211549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|119.0||||||||119|34.0|
84729796|NCT02621047|169211550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|136.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|196.0||||||||196|94.7|
84729797|NCT02621047|169211550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|176.0||||||90.0|98.4|315.0||||||||315|98.4|
84729798|NCT02621047|169211551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|134.0||||||90.0|99.6|181.0||||||||181|99.6|
84729799|NCT02621047|169211551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|268.0||||||||268|91.8|
84729800|NCT02621047|169211552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.2|116.0||||||||116|46.2|
84729801|NCT02621047|169211552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|165.0||||||||165|20.0|
84729802|NCT02621047|169211553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6||||||90.0|69.9|134.0||||||||134|69.9|
84729803|NCT02621047|169211553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|55.8||||||90.0|26.0|120.0||||||||120|26.0|
84729804|NCT02621047|169211554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|203.0||||||||203|94.8|
84729805|NCT02621047|169211554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|180.0||||||90.0|97.2|334.0||||||||334|97.2|
84729806|NCT02621047|169211555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|186.0||||||||186|100|
84729807|NCT02621047|169211555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|158.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|274.0||||||||274|91.2|
84729808|NCT02853305|169211584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||0.93|0.65|0.0033
84729809|NCT02853305|169211585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in OS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The HR and its 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.02|0.72|0.0407
84729810|NCT02853305|169211586|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in CPS≥10 participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in CPS≥10 participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) at baseline.||1.32|0.77|
84729811|NCT02853305|169211587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.11|0.77|
84729812|NCT02853305|169211588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||PFS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.58|1.09|
84729813|NCT02853305|169211591|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|17.1||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||17.1|2.4|
84729814|NCT02853305|169211593|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||10.6|-1.6|
84729815|NCT02853305|169211594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.4||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-7.4|-22.0|
84729816|NCT02853305|169211596|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-21.6|-35.9|
84729817|NCT02853305|169211600|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.12||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||6.12|-0.76|
84729818|NCT02853305|169211601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.00|0.62|
84729819|NCT02853305|169211602|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.18||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||3.18|-5.06|
84729820|NCT02853305|169211603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.49||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.49|0.93|
84729821|NCT01061775|169211621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84729822|NCT01061775|169211622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84729823|NCT01061775|169211623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84729824|NCT01061775|169211624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84729825|NCT02567227|169211626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.54|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||1.54|-3.60|
84729826|NCT02567227|169211626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.76||P-values from linear mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status|||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.76|-2.59|
84729827|NCT02567227|169211627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in SPPB scores pre and post intervention.||0.20|-0.49|
84729828|NCT02567227|169211628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.79|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.79|-2.13|
84729829|NCT02567227|169211628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects models were used to compare changes in stride length during normal walking pre and post intervention.||||
84729830|NCT02567227|169211629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.43|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during normal walking pre and post intervention.||0.43|-0.91|
84729831|NCT02567227|169211629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.27|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.27|-1.16|
84729832|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.19|-0.51|
84729833|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.41|-0.20|
84729834|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.32|-0.53|
84729835|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.56|-0.27|
84729836|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.45|-0.48|
84729837|NCT02567227|169211630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.35|-0.40|
84729838|NCT02567227|169211631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|2.319||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in normal velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||2.319|0.369|
84729839|NCT02567227|169211631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.789||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in walking while talking velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||1.789|0.516|
84729840|NCT02567227|169211632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|20.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in Flanker performance (milliseconds) pre and post intervention.||20.41|-35.45|
84729841|NCT02567227|169211633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.31|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test pre and post intervention.||2.31|-0.30|
84729842|NCT02567227|169211634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare performance on Trail Making Test form A pre and post intervention.||||
84729843|NCT02567227|169211635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in performance on Trail Making Test form B pre and post intervention.||0.06|-0.07|
84729844|NCT02567227|169211636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes performance on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test pre and post intervention.||2.20|-0.86|
84729845|NCT02567227|169211639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during normal walking pre and 6 months post intervention.||3.91|-1.65|
84729846|NCT02567227|169211639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and 6 months post intervention.||4.91|-2.12|
84729847|NCT02567227|169211640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stair climbing time pre and post intervention.||||
84729848|NCT02567227|169211641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in activities of daily living pre and post intervention.||||
84729849|NCT02567227|169211642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.93|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in depressive symptoms measured using the GDS pre and post intervention.||0.93|-0.40|
84729850|NCT02567227|169211644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.16|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in reported fear of falling measured on the Falls Efficacy Scale pre and post intervention.||2.16|-1.38|
84729851|NCT02567227|169211645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.04|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the physical health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.04|-1.46|
84729852|NCT02567227|169211645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.85|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the mental health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.85|-1.04|
84729853|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
84729854|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.522||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||0.004
84729855|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
84729856|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.533||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.011
84729857|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.479||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.009
84729858|NCT01954771|169211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.801|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||<0.001
84729859|NCT02498418|169211748|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated if 90% confidence interval (CI) of percentage difference between generic rifaximin 200 mg tablets and xifaxan 200 mg tablets was within the equivalence range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.07||||||Bioequivalence was evaluated based on the PP analysis set using Z-test with Yates correction.||0.07|-0.11|
84729860|NCT02498418|169211751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0195||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.13|-0.09|0.7899
84729861|NCT02498418|169211751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.033||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.14|-0.07|0.5987
84729862|NCT00179478|169211808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Based on adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|Regression, Cox|HR adjusted for age, onset event type, baseline brain MRI T2 lesion and number and baseline number of gad enhancing lesions||||||0.001
84729863|NCT00179478|169211809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value less than 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84729864|NCT00179478|169211810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value \< 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84729865|NCT00179478|169211811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||a priori threshold for statistical significant was a p value less than 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84729866|NCT02391116|169211828|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|32.9|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=54): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||32.9|-28.7|
84729867|NCT02391116|169211828|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|33.5|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||33.5|-33.5|
84729868|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|39.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||39.1|-7.2|
84729869|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|46.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||46.2|-6.8|
84729870|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.1|4.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||4.6|-40.1|
84729871|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|1.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||1.1|-49.1|
84729872|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.4|63.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||63.2|-42.4|
84729873|NCT02391116|169211829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.3|77.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||77.6|-44.3|
84729874|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.117|||0.162
84729875|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.221|||0.082
84479371|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.961
84729876|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0503|||0.286
84729877|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.635
84729878|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.381|||0.061
84729879|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.479
84729880|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.965
84729881|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.324|||0.039
84729882|NCT04089332|169211911|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0423|||0.018
84729883|NCT04089332|169211912|OTHER||Slope|-1.1138||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Gray Matter Perfusion vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-square = 0|||0.558
84729884|NCT04089332|169211912|OTHER||Slope|-5.8089||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline Gray Matter vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.18|||0.057
84729885|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.377
84729886|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.402
84729887|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.207|||0.203
84729888|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.967
84729889|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.616
84729890|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0497|||0.287
84729891|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.106|||0.225
84729892|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.872
84729893|NCT04089332|169211913|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.66
84729894|NCT05401149|169211939|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.59|1.35|<0.001
84729895|NCT05401149|169211940|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.06|0.99|0.054
84729896|NCT05401149|169211941|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.86|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||4.86|0.88|0.097
84729897|NCT05401149|169211942|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.75|1.48|<0.001
84729898|NCT05401149|169211943|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the ordinal logistic regression models with adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||0.93|0.64|0.007
84729899|NCT05401149|169211944|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence Interval) and P values were derived from the cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||1.64|0.98|0.077
84729900|NCT02864147|169211970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
84729901|NCT02864147|169211970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.384
84729902|NCT02864147|169211971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
84729903|NCT02864147|169211971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
84729904|NCT01770509|169211979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.652
84729905|NCT01770509|169211980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.645
84729906|NCT02963922|169212010|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised participants regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-3.16|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, body mass index (BMI) groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.16|-5.48|< .0001
84729907|NCT02963922|169212010|SUPERIORITY|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised participants assuming that all participants remained on trial product (on-treatment principle).|Treatment difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.91|||MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.91|-6.30|< .0001
84729908|NCT02963922|169212011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.31|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||5.31|2.19|<.0001
84729909|NCT02963922|169212011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.36|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||7.36|3.04|<.0001
84729910|NCT02181400|169212065|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84729911|NCT02181400|169212066|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84729912|NCT02181400|169212067|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84479372|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.916
84729913|NCT02181400|169212068|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
84729914|NCT02181400|169212069|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84729915|NCT02181400|169212070|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84729916|NCT01180790|169212075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg, 400 mg, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving RVR4 at Week 4 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving RVR4 at Week 4 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.003
84671816|NCT00071812|169078067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0960
84671817|NCT00071812|169078067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2859||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.2859
84671818|NCT00071812|169078067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0109
84671819|NCT00071812|169078068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.1940
84671820|NCT00071812|169078068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2561||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.2561
84671821|NCT00071812|169078068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8707||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.8707
84671822|NCT03240575|169078240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.105|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.105|-0.001|0.0543
84671823|NCT03240575|169078241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.144|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.144|0.037|0.0011
84671824|NCT03240575|169078242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.058|-0.048|0.8593
84671825|NCT03240575|169078243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.156|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.156|0.040|0.0010
84671826|NCT00283439|169078299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9654||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.9654
84671827|NCT00283439|169078299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.8690
84671828|NCT00283439|169078299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7133||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.7133
84671829|NCT00283439|169078300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.294
84671830|NCT00283439|169078300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
84671831|NCT00283439|169078300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.603
84671832|NCT00283439|169078301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.091
84671833|NCT00283439|169078301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.300
84671834|NCT00283439|169078301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.881
84671835|NCT00283439|169078302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
84671836|NCT00283439|169078302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
84671837|NCT00283439|169078302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
84671838|NCT05358821|169078304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2539|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8566|3.8749|||T-test||Difference was calculated as HP - HD.|||3.8749|2.8566|<0.0001
84671839|NCT00048542|169078310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||The study was sized to detect a difference in the proportion of subjects (40%) between placebo and the active adalimumab dose group who would experience disease flare assuming a placebo rate of 70% vs. a rate of 30% in the active group. Assuming a binomial distribution, an alpha of 0.05, 80% power, two-sided test, and an initial monotherapy responder rate of 70%, a minimum of 29 subjects were needed per treatment group within the appropriate strata.||||0.031
84671840|NCT00048542|169078312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||||||0.015
84671841|NCT00048542|169078313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
84671842|NCT00048542|169078314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
84729917|NCT01180790|169212075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
84729918|NCT01180790|169212075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
84729919|NCT01180790|169212075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
84729920|NCT01180790|169212077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered treatment groups: 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|Exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR at Week 12 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving cEVR at Week 12 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.34
84729921|NCT03840148|169212092|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, non-inferiority will be concluded. Further, if non-inferiority is concluded, superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to zero.|Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|22.2||P-value for superiority since the lower confidence interval is greater than 0 for the primary endpoint analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|3.1|0.0088
84729922|NCT03840148|169212093|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.0||||||||21.0|2.9|
84729923|NCT03840148|169212094|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.6||||||||12.6|-2.6|
84729924|NCT03840148|169212095|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.8||||||||21.8|3.0|
84729925|NCT03840148|169212096|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-3.2|
84729926|NCT03840148|169212097|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1||||||||4.1|-3.5|
84729927|NCT03840148|169212098|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.5||||||||8.5|-4.1|
84729928|NCT03840148|169212099|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|21.9||||||||21.9|2.2|
84729929|NCT03840148|169212100|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|17.3||||||||17.3|-1.6|
84729930|NCT03840148|169212101|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.8||||||||18.8|1.5|
84729931|NCT03840148|169212102|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6||||||||9.6|-2.4|
84729932|NCT03840148|169212112|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.5||||||||10.5|-2.3|
84729933|NCT03840148|169212113|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.1|
84729934|NCT03840148|169212114|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|24.9||||||||24.9|5.0|
84729935|NCT03840148|169212115|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.3||||||||22.3|3.7|
84729936|NCT03840148|169212116|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
84729937|NCT03840148|169212117|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.7||||||||17.7|-1.9|
84729938|NCT03840148|169212122|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
84729939|NCT03840148|169212124|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.3||||||||7.3|-3.1|
84729940|NCT03840148|169212125|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.5||||||||11.5|-1.1|
84729941|NCT03840148|169212126|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.7||||||||15.7|1.2|
84729942|NCT00257556|169212147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||||A two-sided 95% continuity-corrected confidence interval for the difference in percentages, based on the normal approximation|||0.260|-0.170|
84729943|NCT04839289|169212178|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||>0.05
84729944|NCT04839289|169212178|OTHER||||||<|0.0167||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.0167
84729945|NCT04839289|169212181|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
84729946|NCT04839289|169212181|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When adjusted for multiple comparisons, the p-value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
84729947|NCT02329223|169212225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.098|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-2.098|-5.310|<0.001
84729948|NCT02329223|169212225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.921|-0.654|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-0.654|-3.921|0.006
84729949|NCT03511378|169212295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a margin of -0.10|Difference in proportions|-0.0296||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.076||||Difference in proportion|Binomial proportion used to present difference in proportion in treatments||Analysis population : ITT|||-0.076|0.007
84729950|NCT03511378|169212296|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is assessed using a margin of 10 percentage points.|Difference in proportions|0.0145|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092||||Difference in proportion||Difference of proportion analysed with one sided 95% confidence interval|Analysis population: ITT|||-0.0092|<0.001
84729951|NCT03245762|169212334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ordinal Categorical Analysis|||||||0.930
84729952|NCT03935932|169212335|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.11
84729953|NCT03935932|169212336|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84729954|NCT03935932|169212337|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.35
84729955|NCT01057888|169212348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Cox|It is a robust, clustered stratified Cox regression model|The control group serves as the denominator. The telephone reminder group serves as the numerator.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total immunization status between the control group and the group receiving telephone (autodialer) reminders. This was analyzed using a clustered, stratified Cox model.||1.7|1.0|<0.05
84729956|NCT01057888|169212348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Cox|We used a robust, clustered, stratified Cox regression model.|The control group represents the denominator. The letter reminder group represents the numerator.|||2.1|1.3|<0.01
84729957|NCT01057888|169212348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the percentage of fully vaccinated adolescents between the mailed reminder versus the telephone reminder arms||1.6|1.0|0.075
84729958|NCT01057888|169212349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the mailed reminder group represents the numerator.|The null hypothesis was that a difference in well child care rates among adolescents whose families received a mailed reminder compared to the control group||1.3|1.1|<0.01
84729959|NCT01057888|169212349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the telephone reminder group represents the numerator|The null hypothesis is the the well child care rates of adolescents in the telephone reminder group would not differ from those of the control group||1.3|1.0|<0.05
84729960|NCT01057888|169212349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the well child care rate among adolescents in the mailed reminder arm versus adolescents in the telephone reminder arm of the intervention||1.2|1.0|0.234
84729961|NCT03319719|169212370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.33||p-value from paired two-sided t-tests of no difference between test and control groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.33|-3.42|<0.0001
84729962|NCT01212952|169212404|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) (mg/m^2)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerated Dose Level is Dose Level 2 (1.3 mg/m\^2 Bortezomib).|||||
84729963|NCT02720081|169212417|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.775||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.92|5.37|||ANOVA|Terms for treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||5.370|-14.92|0.352
84729964|NCT02720081|169212418|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-15.0|
84729965|NCT02720081|169212419|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.0|-12.1|
84729966|NCT02720081|169212441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.107||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.199|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||0.199|0.015|0.023
84729967|NCT01947153|169212473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
84729968|NCT01947153|169212474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.645|110.941||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.941|99.645|<0.0001
84729969|NCT01947153|169212475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|109.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.299|120.968||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||120.968|98.299|0.0014
84729970|NCT01947153|169212476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.471|113.692||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||113.692|98.471|<0.0001
84729971|NCT01947153|169212477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.177|105.208||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||105.208|92.177|<0.0001
84729972|NCT01947153|169212478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|104.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.274|110.254||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.254|99.274|<0.0001
84729973|NCT01947153|169212479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
84729974|NCT02381652|169212480|OTHER|Statistical test to see if there is a difference||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
84729975|NCT01340300|169212481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
84729976|NCT01340300|169212481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.003
84729977|NCT01340300|169212481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
84729978|NCT01340300|169212481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Insulin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.03
84729979|NCT01340300|169212482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of leptin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0002
84729980|NCT01340300|169212482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.002
84729981|NCT01340300|169212482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
84729982|NCT01340300|169212482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.0002
84729983|NCT01340300|169212482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.02
84729984|NCT01340300|169212483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0004
84729985|NCT01340300|169212483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.007
84729986|NCT01340300|169212484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
84729987|NCT01340300|169212484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
84729988|NCT01340300|169212484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
84729989|NCT01340300|169212485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
84729990|NCT01340300|169212485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
84729991|NCT01340300|169212485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
84729992|NCT01340300|169212486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Waist to Hip Ratio in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
84729993|NCT03280108|169212495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in Least Squares Means (LSM) between the 2 groups (TFNT00 - SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0103|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.041||||||||0.041||
84729994|NCT03280108|169212496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84729995|NCT03280108|169212502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.227|-0.287|<0.001
84729996|NCT03280108|169212503|SUPERIORITY||Mantel-Haenszel common difference|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.87|80.46||||||||80.46|61.87|
84729997|NCT01187407|169212506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||Primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
84729998|NCT01187407|169212506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Secondary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.769
84729999|NCT03638258|169212546|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward (LOCF) where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||<0.001
84730000|NCT03638258|169212546|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||0.004
84730001|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.015
84730002|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.174|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.174
84730003|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730004|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.001
84730005|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730006|NCT03638258|169212547|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.008
84730007|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
84730008|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
84479373|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.87|0.910
84730009|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730010|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730011|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.x|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730012|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730013|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730014|NCT03638258|169212548|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730015|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||<0.001
84730016|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
84730017|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730018|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730019|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 8||||<0.001
84479374|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.89|0.909
84479375|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.93|0.868
84479376|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.81|0.914
84479377|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.76|0.910
84479378|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.76|0.850
84479379|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.78|0.868
84479380|NCT01392378|168709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.76|0.914
84479381|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.910
84479382|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.82|0.850
84479383|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.86|0.939
84479384|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.279
84479385|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.76|0.149
84479386|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.91|0.850
84479387|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.79|0.394
84479388|NCT01392378|168709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.87|0.916
84479389|NCT01392378|168709490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.90|0.869
84479390|NCT01392378|168709490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.48|0.78|0.850
84671843|NCT00048542|169078315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.061
84671844|NCT00048542|169078315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
84479391|NCT01392378|168709490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.868
84479392|NCT01392378|168709490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.916
84479393|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.78|0.910
84479394|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.83|0.850
84479395|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.87|0.868
84479396|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.81|0.916
84479397|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.79|0.910
84479398|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.76|0.850
84479399|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.77|0.868
84479400|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.916
84479401|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.77|0.910
84730020|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730021|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||<0.001
84479402|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.67|0.850
84479403|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.78|0.939
84479404|NCT01392378|168709491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.76|0.916
84479405|NCT01412060|168709520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3-9 mg vs placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||0.73|0.28|0.0010
84730022|NCT03638258|169212549|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84479406|NCT00004732|168709526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.51|||||HR (95% CI) adjusted for age, sex and symptomatic status|||1.51|0.81|
84479407|NCT00004732|168709527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.23|||||HR (95% CI) for WOMEN CAS vs CEA (adjusted for age and symptomatic status)|||2.23|0.82|
84479408|NCT01183312|168709528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank (paired)|||||||0.77
84479409|NCT01183312|168709529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.51
84479410|NCT01183312|168709530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.32
84479411|NCT01183312|168709531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.56
84479412|NCT01183312|168709532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.14
84479413|NCT01183312|168709533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.89
84479414|NCT01183312|168709534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.13
84479415|NCT00605072|168709587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||p-value for between group comparison (group\*visit)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline AGE and Mini-Mental-State-Examination||||||0.008
84479416|NCT00605072|168709588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age||||||0.74
84479417|NCT00605072|168709589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at baseline||||||0.81
84479418|NCT00605072|168709590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84479419|NCT00605072|168709591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84479420|NCT05064332|168709592|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|110.61||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.61|93.01|
84479421|NCT05064332|168709593|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|119.11||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.11|98.85|
84479422|NCT05064332|168709594|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.44|107.04||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.04|84.44|
84479423|NCT05064332|168709595|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.82|136.73||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||136.73|101.82|
84479424|NCT00141037|168709600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Nonparametric Test|||The endpoint is assessed using a Wilcoxon nonparametric test and missing values are imputed using the last observation carried forward.||||0.79
84479425|NCT00141037|168709601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference was analyzed using a Fisher's exact test.||||0.85
84479426|NCT00637377|168709608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.46|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q4).||2.46|-4.86|
84479427|NCT00637377|168709608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.71|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4).||1.71|-5.40|
84671845|NCT00048542|169078316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.103
84671846|NCT00048542|169078316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
84671847|NCT00048542|169078317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.156
84671848|NCT00048542|169078317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.002
84671849|NCT02704364|169078371|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.0|-68.0|0.434
84671850|NCT02704364|169078371|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|71.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.0|-41.0|0.646
84479428|NCT00637377|168709608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|2.55|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q8, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q8).||2.55|-4.81|
84479429|NCT00637377|168709609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.9484||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1009|0.204||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.2040|-4.1009|0.076
84479430|NCT00637377|168709609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.062||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2398|2.1158||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.1158|-2.2398|0.9555
84479431|NCT00637377|168709609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.9014||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0615|1.2587||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2587|-3.0615|0.4131
84479432|NCT00637377|168709610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.57||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|2.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||2.88|-12.02|0.229
84479433|NCT00637377|168709610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.78||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|8.46||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||8.46|-6.91|0.843
84479434|NCT00637377|168709610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|4.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||4.88|-10.18|0.490
84479435|NCT00637377|168709611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-2.7885||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9012|-0.6757||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.6757|-4.9012|0.0097
84479436|NCT00637377|168709611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.932||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0658|1.2019||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2019|-3.0658|0.3917
84479437|NCT00637377|168709611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.947||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0659|0.1718||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.1718|-4.0659|0.0717
84479438|NCT00637377|168709612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.18||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-0.382||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.382|-1.979|0.0038
84671851|NCT04609020|169078389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.61|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.58|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||40.58|<0.0001
84479439|NCT00637377|168709612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.17||||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.972||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.972|-0.632|0.6784
84479440|NCT00637377|168709612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.733||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|0.068||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.068|-1.534|0.0727
84479441|NCT00719862|168709620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3782||0.005||95.0|-1.8|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.31|-1.80|0.005
84479442|NCT00719862|168709621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2987|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1881||0.112||95.0|-0.67|0.07|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.07|-0.67|0.112
84479443|NCT00719862|168709622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3803||0.023||95.0|-1.61|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.12|-1.61|0.023
84479444|NCT00719862|168709623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7395|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3305||0.025||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||-0.09|-1.39|0.025
84479445|NCT00719862|168709624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.051
84479446|NCT01375647|168709666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9|||Chi-squared|2 sided, not adjusted||||3.9|-9.6|0.4
84479447|NCT01375647|168709667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.8||2-sided, no adjustment|Chi-squared|||||19.8|7.0|0.00004
84479448|NCT01375647|168709668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 1 shedding||||0.5
84730023|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.116|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.116
84479449|NCT01375647|168709668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 2 shedding||||0.2
84479450|NCT01375647|168709668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 3 shedding||||0.1
84479451|NCT01375647|168709670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5||||||Sabin type 1||4.5|-7.3|
84479452|NCT01375647|168709670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||||||Sabin type 2||0.9|-7.2|
84479453|NCT01375647|168709670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-3.2|
84479454|NCT01375647|168709671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.5||||||||-26.5|-40.7|
84479455|NCT01375647|168709671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-17.5||||||||-17.5|-31.1|
84479456|NCT01375647|168709671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|-38.0||||||||-38.0|-52.6|
84479457|NCT01375647|168709672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
84479458|NCT01375647|168709673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84479459|NCT00595868|168709703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Chi-squared|||||2.9|1.0|0.06
84479460|NCT00595868|168709704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Chi-squared|||||5.2|0.9|0.10
84479461|NCT02688153|168709705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3660
84479462|NCT02688153|168709706|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8377
84479463|NCT00107172|168709732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||Log Rank|Competing risk P-value = 0.91.||The competing risk analysis accounting for death/regional and distant recurrence as competing events was performed.||1.98|0.51|0.98
84479464|NCT00107172|168709733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.71|0.75
84479465|NCT00107172|168709738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.37
84479466|NCT00107172|168709738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.25
84479467|NCT00107172|168709739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.35
84479468|NCT00107172|168709739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.31
84479469|NCT00107172|168709742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.03
84479470|NCT00107172|168709742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.18
84479471|NCT00107172|168709743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.38
84730024|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.423
84730025|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.002
84730026|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.038
84730027|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730028|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.005
84730029|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
84730030|NCT03638258|169212550|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.013
84730031|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.086|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference form vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.086
84730032|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.123|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.123
84730033|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.017
84730034|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.415|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.415
84730035|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.007
84730036|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.175|||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.175
84479472|NCT00107172|168709743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.16
84479473|NCT00713284|168709752|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84479474|NCT03706040|168709785|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.7|-1.7|0.084
84730037|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||0.001
84730038|NCT03638258|169212551|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.619|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.619
84730039|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
84730040|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
84730041|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730042|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730043|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84667247|NCT02738151|169069124|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Toujeo vs Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Toujeo vs. Tresiba|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.051|-0.152|<.0001
84667248|NCT02738151|169069124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of Toujeo over Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 between Toujeo over Tresiba on ITT population was \<0 (zero).||0.051|-0.152|0.3302
84667249|NCT01252940|169069179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups in the percentages of virologic success was constructed using normal approximation. Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95% CI approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%. It would be concluded that the FTC/RPV/TDF STR group was not inferior to the SBR group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (FTC/RPV/TDF STR - SBR) in the response rate was greater than -12%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.1||||||||9.1|-1.6|
84667250|NCT01698463|169069219|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||\<0.05 (threshold for significance).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84667251|NCT01925404|169069268|SUPERIORITY|We fitted difference-in-differences (DID) models between the two measurement waves and four study arms. The effect of the intervention was modeled as the wave by study arm interaction. All models used random effects to account for intra-class correlation within each park as well as fixed effects to account for observation times (time of day, weekend versus weekdays).||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold. p=0.05|negative binomial distribution|||Comparison of change from baseline;||||.0063
84667252|NCT00706979|169069281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of any ever-occurring quit attempt.||1.4|1.1|0.008
84667253|NCT00706979|169069282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of 7 days of abstinence at some point during the study.||1.7|1.0|0.09
84667254|NCT00706979|169069283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for the primary outcome of any 24hr quit attempt.||1.5|1.1|0.004
84667255|NCT00706979|169069284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for 7 days of abstinence at the six month follow-up.||1.6|0.9|0.3
84667256|NCT00909779|169069297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study was powered under a one-sided alternative hypothesis, in which arformoterol is superior to placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 or less. To achieve 80% power, it was necessary to observe 86 total events for the primary endpoint adjusted for interim analysis. Assuming an annual event proportion of 17.3% in the placebo group and 30% lost to follow-up, we anticipated to randomize approximately 900 subjects (450 per arm).~The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.4."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.864|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was calculated as arformoterol vs. placebo.|"The null hypothesis is: There is 40% or higher excess risk of the primary events in the arformoterol group relative to placebo (a constant hazard ratio of 1.4).~The primary analysis was a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group, baseline smoking status, sex, age, BMI, and baseline FEV1 as covariates. The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio (adjusted for the interim analysis) comparing arformoterol to placebo were estimated."||0.864|0.425|
84667257|NCT02738333|169069309|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 100 participants per treatment group would provide over 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the LDV/SOF group and SOF+RBV group. Sample size was based on the assumptions that the clinically meaningful non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 96%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.1|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||7.1|-5.3|
84667258|NCT05413369|169069332|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Non-inferiority p-value was calculated from a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous oral anti-diabetic drug(OADs) as fixed effects,and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.07|-0.33|<0.001
84667259|NCT05413369|169069333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.05|-0.35|0.003
84667260|NCT05413369|169069334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, randomization stratums of HbA1c and previous OADs as fixed effects, and baseline body weight continuous value as covariate.||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in body weight||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
84667261|NCT05413369|169069335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.25|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% at Week 24||2.85|1.25|<0.001
84671852|NCT04609020|169078390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.36|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|29.61|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||29.61|<0.0001
84479475|NCT03706040|168709785|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.6|-4.6|0.179
84479476|NCT03706040|168709786|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||20.0|-2.5|0.129
84479477|NCT03706040|168709786|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||9.4|-9.4|0.994
84479478|NCT03706040|168709787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||22.1|5.4|0.001
84479479|NCT03706040|168709787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.0|6.6|<0.001
84479480|NCT03706040|168709788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.073||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.61|-32.25|0.353
84479481|NCT03706040|168709788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.305||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|5.53|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.53|-39.24|0.139
84479482|NCT03706040|168709791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.9||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.4|-5.6|0.171
84479483|NCT03706040|168709791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.5|-13.1|0.552
84479484|NCT03706040|168709793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.6|1.7|0.022
84479485|NCT03706040|168709793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.4|-2.9|0.192
84667262|NCT05413369|169069336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24||3.76|1.79|<0.001
84479486|NCT03706040|168709796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.506||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|2.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.68|-15.15|0.169
84479487|NCT03706040|168709796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.589||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|3.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.22|-14.94|0.204
84479488|NCT03706040|168709798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.1|-9.7|0.422
84479489|NCT03706040|168709798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||10.0|-20.3|0.505
84479490|NCT03706040|168709800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||17.3|3.0|0.005
84479491|NCT03706040|168709800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||6.8|-1.1|0.151
84667263|NCT05413369|169069337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24 and no hypoglycemia during treatment||3.60|1.52|<0.001
84479492|NCT03706040|168709802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.4|0.035
84479493|NCT03706040|168709802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.4|-1.4|0.311
84479494|NCT03706040|168709804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.5|-12.0|0.965
84479495|NCT03706040|168709804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||8.1|-14.3|0.583
84479496|NCT03706040|168709808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.9|-13.0|0.539
84479497|NCT03706040|168709808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.5|-7.0|0.213
84479498|NCT03706040|168709810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.6|-3.6|0.988
84479499|NCT03706040|168709810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.7|-4.7|0.594
84479500|NCT03706040|168709814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6137||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.531|-0.105|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.105|-2.531|0.033
84479501|NCT03706040|168709814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.885|-0.411|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.411|-2.885|0.009
84479502|NCT00439725|168709818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3858|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.393||1st test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing).||0.393|0.087|< 0.0001
84730044|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84603229|NCT00072293|168957085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As originally designed, target accrual was 1960 patients with analysis planned after 558 events. These targets were based on having 90% power to detect non-inferiority of no axillary dissection with a one-sided statistical signifi cance level of 10% (ie, α=0·10) under the assumption that 5-year disease-free survival with axillary dissection was 70% and defining non-inferiority as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 (no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11||Test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection. Stratified logrank test compared groups. HR (no-AD vs AD) estimated from test statistic and variance as HR=exp(\[O-E\]/V), compared to 1.25 in 1-sided test of non-inferiority.|1-sided non-inferiority test||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.11|0.55|0.004
84479503|NCT00439725|168709819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.383||2nd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the 1st test in hierarchy was significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.383|0.085|< 0.0001
84479504|NCT00439725|168709820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3659|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.405||3rd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.405|0.096|< 0.0001
84479505|NCT00439725|168709821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.528||4th test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.528|0.146|< 0.0001
84479506|NCT00439725|168709824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1121||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||||0.1121
84479507|NCT00439725|168709825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4131|<|0.0001||95.0|2.307|11.652||No adjustment for multiple comparison, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment done for treatment-emergent (time window: 2 days)||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||11.652|2.307|< 0.0001
84603230|NCT00072293|168957086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.54|0.52|0.73
84730045|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84667264|NCT04351087|169069410|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on (MCID) for the KOOS-Pain, alpha 0.05 \& SD 15 points, 88 patients (44/group) would be required to detect a 9-point difference between treatment groups with 80% power. Due to change in regulatory requirements during accrual, enrollment was halted at 79 patients with 71 meeting inclusion criteria. A repeated power calculation demonstrated that the study achieved 56% power to detect a between-group difference in excess of the 9-point MCID for the KOOS-Pain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|12.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.92|-8.57|0.69
84730046|NCT03638258|169212552|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84667265|NCT05517382|169069420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At baseline||||0.20
84667266|NCT05517382|169069420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Post game||||0.59
84667267|NCT05517382|169069420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 month||||0.94
84667268|NCT05517382|169069420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||GEE|Controlling for baseline thriving status, this reflects the interaction between the intervention group and time.||||||0.55
84667269|NCT05517382|169069421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At post game.||0.04|-0.23|0.1759
84667270|NCT05517382|169069421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At 3 month||0.02|-0.35|0.0857
84667271|NCT02461225|169069469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0005
84667272|NCT02461225|169069470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84667273|NCT00651755|169069476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||90% CI||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,CP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|1.08|
84667274|NCT00651755|169069477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|ratio Geometric mean AUC|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group|||0.86|0.65|
84667275|NCT00651755|169069478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||equivalence analysis|The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment to the control group|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC of Analyte, 4-OHCP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group|||1.13|0.83|
84667276|NCT00651755|169069479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.33|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte, VC, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|0.82|
84667277|NCT00651755|169069480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||||90.0|1.02|1.15|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group.|||1.15|1.02|
84667278|NCT00651755|169069481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.32|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,PL, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.32|1.01|
84667279|NCT01464346|169069542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.69|90.33|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||90.33|85.69|<0.05
84667280|NCT01464346|169069543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|90.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.77|92.28|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||92.28|88.77|< 0.05
84667281|NCT02295995|169069549|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for physical activity in this sample was 1.37|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
84671853|NCT04609020|169078391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.23|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|21.5|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||21.50|<0.0001
84730047|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
84730048|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.203
84730049|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.034
84667282|NCT02295995|169069550|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for PCL-5 in this sample was 0.38|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
84667283|NCT02295995|169069551|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for 6-minute walk in this sample was 0.50|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
84667284|NCT03628703|169069558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84667285|NCT04350788|169069562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for patient.||||0.02
84667286|NCT04350788|169069562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for partner.||||0.25
84667287|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in general domain.||||0.36
84667288|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in content domain.||||0.38
84667289|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in navigation domain.||||0.02
84667290|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in general domain.||||0.62
84667291|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in content domain.||||0.65
84730050|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.012
84730051|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.010
84667292|NCT04350788|169069563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in navigation domain.||||0.45
84667293|NCT04350788|169069564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84667294|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in urinary domain.||||0.01
84667295|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in bowel domain.||||0.41
84667296|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in sexual domain.||||0.21
84667297|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in hormonal domain.||||0.52
84667298|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in urinary domain.||||0.79
84667299|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in bowel domain.||||0.84
84667300|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in sexual domain.||||0.82
84667301|NCT04350788|169069565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in hormonal domain.||||0.33
84667302|NCT04350788|169069566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
84667303|NCT04350788|169069566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
84667304|NCT04350788|169069567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized linear regression|||||||0.05
84667305|NCT04350788|169069568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84667306|NCT04350788|169069569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84667307|NCT04350788|169069570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84667308|NCT04350788|169069571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84667309|NCT04350788|169069572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84667310|NCT04350788|169069573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
84667311|NCT02117999|169069579|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values. The relationship between the change in Kmax at 12 months and baseline parameters was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis for either group.||||<0.05
84730052|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.075
84730053|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730054|NCT03638258|169212553|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730055|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.527
84730056|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.444|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.444
84730057|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.006
84479508|NCT03788616|168709839|EQUIVALENCE|assuming 95% power of the study|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
84479509|NCT02574481|168709842|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions.|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
84479510|NCT02574481|168709843|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions..|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
84479511|NCT02940860|168709857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23|||||The Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) used for testing, included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.23|-0.06|
84730058|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.013
84730059|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.002
84730060|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.064
84730061|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
84730062|NCT03638258|169212554|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
84730063|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.188|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.188
84730064|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.577|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.577
84730065|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.008
84730066|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.664|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.664
84730067|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.015
84730068|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.666
84730069|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
84730070|NCT03638258|169212555|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.163
84730071|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.002
84730072|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
84730073|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
84730074|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 6||||<0.001
84730075|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 8||||<0.001
84730076|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730077|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730078|NCT03638258|169212556|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
84730079|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.184|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.184
84730080|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.207
84730081|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.004
84730082|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.022
84730083|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.003
84730084|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
84730085|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.003
84730086|NCT03638258|169212557|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01||||||ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.|ANCOVA|||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.01
84730087|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.255|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.255
84730088|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.687|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.687
84730089|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.045
84671854|NCT04609020|169078392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.56|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.65|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||17.65|<0.0001
84671855|NCT04609020|169078393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.25|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|37.48|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||37.48|<0.0001
84671856|NCT02107599|169078408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Asymptotic Z-test|||||||0.0001
84671857|NCT02107599|169078409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0060
84671858|NCT02107599|169078409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.1229
84671859|NCT02107599|169078409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0260
84671860|NCT01461096|169078475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.47|1.31||P-value was unadjusted for multiple comparisons and a P-value less than 5% was the threshold for statistical significance.|generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996)|The generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996) was performed to evaluate whether participants in the two arms had the same survival rate.|qHPV group represented the numerator for the hazard ratio and Placebo group represented the denominator.|||1.31|0.47|0.350
84671861|NCT04889625|169078480|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.017|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Distance (4m)||0.017|-0.017|
84671862|NCT04889625|169078480|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.008|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Intermediate (64cm)||-0.008|-0.051|
84671863|NCT04889625|169078480|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.011|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Near (40cm)||-0.011|-0.062|
84671864|NCT04889625|169078481|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate the primary hypotheses. However, the final sample size calculation was deemed large enough to test for Non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|least-square mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- delefilcon A|||10.5|2.0|
84671865|NCT00404352|169078485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
84671866|NCT00404352|169078485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.008
84671867|NCT00404352|169078485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.009
84671868|NCT00404352|169078486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
84671869|NCT00404352|169078486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.002
84671870|NCT00404352|169078486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.774
84671871|NCT01479621|169078492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed followed by pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo.||||0.0001
84671872|NCT01479621|169078492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.149||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.233||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.233|0.066|0.0005
84730090|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.059
84730091|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.051
84730092|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.013
84730093|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.036
84730094|NCT03638258|169212558|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.001
84730095|NCT00607789|169212561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy analysis was a longitudinal analysis comparing the rate of change of binge day frequency during the treatment period between groups. The same analysis was applied to binge episode frequency, weight, BMI, and scores on the CGI-Severity, YBOCS-BE, and IDS scales. The difference in rate of change was estimated by random regression methods||||<0.05
84730096|NCT02264353|169212589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
84730097|NCT02264353|169212590|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.394
84730098|NCT02264353|169212591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
84730099|NCT00663923|169212612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.001||two - tailed p value \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|in this study degrees of freedom is sample size - 1||||-.001|-.62|<0.05
84730100|NCT04341584|169212627|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.52|||Bayesian Cox model|adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.52|0.62|
84730101|NCT04341584|169212628|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|12.0|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||12|-17.1|
84730102|NCT04341584|169212629|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.81||adjusted for age and centre|Bayesian Fine and Gray analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.81|0.59|
84730103|NCT04341584|169212630|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|43.5|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||43.5|3.9|
84730104|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||1.68|0.38|
84730105|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.43|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.33|
84730106|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 28||1.38|0.35|
84730107|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.39|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||2.39|0.22|
84730108|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.8|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 7||2.80|0.28|
84730109|NCT04341584|169212631|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.75||Day 14|Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for afe and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|||1.75|0.18|
84730110|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.29|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||14 days||1.29|0.23|
84730111|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and centre||28 days||1.77|0.33|
84730112|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY|90 days|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.04|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||2.04|0.46|
84730113|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.86|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||3.86|0.11|
84730114|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.68|0.19|
84730115|NCT04341584|169212632|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.87|0.31|
84730116|NCT04341584|169212633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||||adjusted on age and centre||||6.4|-8.3|
84730117|NCT04341584|169212635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.61|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||1.61|0.64|
84730118|NCT04341584|169212635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.07||Adjusted for age and centre|Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||3.07|0.58|
84730119|NCT04341584|169212636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.48|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||||1.48|0.56|
84730120|NCT04341584|169212636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||||2.34|0.35|
84730121|NCT04341584|169212637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.32||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.32|0.43|
84730122|NCT04341584|169212637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.29||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 90||2.29|0.52|
84730123|NCT01772147|169212645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.164|0.089|<0.001
84730124|NCT01772147|169212645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.111|<0.001
84730125|NCT04572997|169212678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-rank test||||||< 0.0001
84730126|NCT04572997|169212683|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank test|||||||< 0.001
84671873|NCT01479621|169078492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.126||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.208|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.208|0.044|0.0027
84671874|NCT01479621|169078492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.111||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.194|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.194|0.028|0.0086
84671875|NCT01479621|169078492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.052||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.136|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.136|-0.032|0.2227
84671876|NCT01479621|169078493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0017
84671877|NCT01479621|169078493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|31.29||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||31.29|5.28|0.0060
84671878|NCT01479621|169078493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|20.32||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.03||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||33.03|7.61|0.0018
84671879|NCT01479621|169078493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.75||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|24.64||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||24.64|-1.15|0.0741
84671880|NCT01479621|169078493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|21.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.72||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||34.72|8.73|0.0011
84671881|NCT01479621|169078494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0434
84671882|NCT01479621|169078494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.06||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|23.66||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||23.66|-1.54|0.0852
84671883|NCT01479621|169078494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|12.78||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.04||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||25.04|0.52|0.0411
84671884|NCT01479621|169078494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.28||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|21.69||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||21.69|-3.14|0.1428
84671885|NCT01479621|169078494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.23||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|30.82||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||30.82|5.64|0.0046
84671886|NCT01479621|169078495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|2.76||||0.66685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.6|||GEE|The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||15.60|-10.07|0.66685
84671887|NCT01479621|169078495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|6.76||||0.26741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.94||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||18.94|-5.43|0.26741
84671888|NCT01479621|169078495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|10.45||||0.09964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|23.15||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||23.15|-2.24|0.09964
84671889|NCT01479621|169078495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|12.78||||0.03825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|25.11||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||25.11|0.44|0.03825
84671890|NCT01479621|169078496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2841||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.2841
84671891|NCT01479621|169078496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||<0.0001
84671892|NCT01479621|169078496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0008
84671893|NCT01479621|169078496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0010
84671894|NCT01479621|169078502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.114||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|-0.033||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.033|-0.195|0.0058
84671895|NCT01479621|169078502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.034||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.114||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.114|-0.046|0.4083
84671896|NCT01479621|169078502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.011||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.089||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.089|-0.068|0.7882
84730127|NCT01967719|169212689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|56.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.21|72.39|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||72.39|44.21|
84730128|NCT01967719|169212690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|55.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.5|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||71.50|43.30|
84730129|NCT00796614|169212712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.80|0.50|0.5388
84730130|NCT00796614|169212712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||1.76|0.20|0.3430
84730131|NCT00796614|169212712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.97|0.50|0.5209
84730132|NCT00796614|169212712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9436|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||A test of trend across the four treatment groups was performed as a secondary analysis in the proportion of responders across the dose levels using Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.9436
84730133|NCT00796614|169212713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3097|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.3097
84730134|NCT00796614|169212713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2676|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.2676
84730135|NCT00796614|169212713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6265|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6265
84730136|NCT00796614|169212714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4359|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4359
84603231|NCT02436668|168957088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.525|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.873||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.873|1.241|<0.0001
84730137|NCT00796614|169212714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0658
84730138|NCT00796614|169212714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6709
84730139|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5672|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5672
84730140|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8724|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8724
84730141|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7674
84730142|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5545|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5545
84730143|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4774|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-Medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4774
84730144|NCT00796614|169212715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-High dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use,and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8626
84671897|NCT01479621|169078502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.002||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.078||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.078|-0.082|0.9586
84671898|NCT01479621|169078502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.062||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.018||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.018|-0.143|0.1306
84671899|NCT01479621|169078503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-17.66||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-4.89||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.89|-30.43|0.0068
84671900|NCT01479621|169078503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.69||||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|13.23||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.23|-11.84|0.9135
84671901|NCT01479621|169078503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.67||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|14.92||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||14.92|-9.58|0.6689
84671902|NCT01479621|169078503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.69||||0.3691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.12|6.74||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.74|-18.12|0.3691
84671903|NCT01479621|169078503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.24||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|16.78||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||16.78|-8.31|0.5072
84671904|NCT01479621|169078504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-15.26||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|-2.88||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.88|-27.63|0.0158
84671905|NCT01479621|169078504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.48||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.69|7.721||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.721|-16.69|0.4709
84671906|NCT01479621|169078504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-2.68||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|9.19||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.19|-14.55|0.6572
84730145|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9669
84730146|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9231
84730147|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6360
84730148|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||1.0000
84730149|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4925|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4925
84730150|NCT00796614|169212716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4977
84730151|NCT00796614|169212717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1373|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.1373
84730152|NCT00796614|169212717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7440
84730153|NCT00796614|169212717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7703|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7703
84479512|NCT02940860|168709858|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.86|0.06|
84479513|NCT02940860|168709858|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.77|-0.19|
84479514|NCT02940860|168709858|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
84479515|NCT02940860|168709859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.0248
84730154|NCT00796614|169212718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0808
84479516|NCT02940860|168709860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.0185
84730155|NCT00796614|169212718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8244
84730156|NCT00796614|169212718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5045|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5045
84730157|NCT01231464|169212725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.498|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.897|-1.009|||ANCOVA||Besides treatment, the ANCOVA analysis also adjusted for baseline, center, gender, age, and classification of AR (Intermittent Allergic Rhinitis \[IAR\] or Persistent Allergic Rhinitis \[PER\]).|||-1.009|-1.897|<0.0001
84730158|NCT03449134|169212728|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-18.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|-0.86||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||-0.86|-32.92|0.041
84730159|NCT03449134|169212728|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|1.56||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|22.99||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||22.99|-16.13|0.874
84730160|NCT03449134|169212731|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-17.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|0.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||0.50|-32.57|0.056
84730161|NCT03449134|169212731|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|2.95||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|25.19||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||25.19|-15.33|0.770
84730162|NCT03449134|169212732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.86|0.77|0.416
84730163|NCT03449134|169212732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.55|0.66|0.948
84730164|NCT03449134|169212733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.05|0.94|
84730165|NCT03449134|169212733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.18||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.18|1.01|
84730166|NCT03449134|169212734|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.54|1.11|
84730167|NCT03449134|169212734|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.01|
84730168|NCT03449134|169212735|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.03|
84730169|NCT03449134|169212735|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.89|0.86|
84730170|NCT03449134|169212736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.98|0.85|
84730171|NCT03449134|169212736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.12|0.92|
84730172|NCT00993798|169212737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.28|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||-0.28|-2.25|0.012
84730173|NCT00993798|169212738|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.0|-12.0|0.010
84730174|NCT00993798|169212739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||||0.014
84730175|NCT00993798|169212740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANOVA|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.14|-0.18|0.773
84730176|NCT02983877|169212754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
84730177|NCT02983877|169212755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
84730178|NCT02983877|169212756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
84730179|NCT02983877|169212757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.89
84730180|NCT02762500|169212803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
84730181|NCT02762500|169212804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
84730182|NCT02762500|169212805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|8.2||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||8.2|-21.1|0.235
84479517|NCT02940860|168709862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.87|1.00|0.0478
84479518|NCT02940860|168709862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.36|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||2.36|1.39|<0.0001
84479519|NCT02940860|168709862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.79|1.11|0.0048
84479520|NCT02940860|168709862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.27|0.80|0.9440
84479521|NCT02940860|168709863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0174
84479522|NCT02940860|168709864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.45|0.83|0.5074
84479523|NCT02940860|168709865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.60|0.96|0.1035
84479524|NCT02940860|168709866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||2.40|1.38|<0.0001
84479525|NCT02940860|168709867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.31|0.12|<0.0001
84730183|NCT02762500|169212806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|5.0||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||5.0|-24.3|0.140
84479526|NCT02940860|168709867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.36|0.14|<0.0001
84479527|NCT02940860|168709867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.28|0.02|0.0208
84479528|NCT02940860|168709868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|309.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|280.7|337.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||337.8|280.7|<0.0001
84479529|NCT02940860|168709868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|123.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||123.7|67.9|<0.0001
84479530|NCT02940860|168709868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.7834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|28.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||28.1|-21.2|0.7834
84496891|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-13.2|4.4||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.4|-13.2|
84479531|NCT02940860|168709868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||24.7|-18.1|0.7621
84479532|NCT02940860|168709869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||10.7|6.9|<0.0001
84479533|NCT02940860|168709869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.4|0.3|0.0129
84730184|NCT02762500|169212807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.59||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.66|-10.53|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||Subjects included in this analysis were those with a baseline fecal calprotectin value ≥ 250 µg/g.||-10.53|-78.66|0.032
84730185|NCT02762500|169212808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.95|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||||0.95|-0.60|0.708
84730186|NCT00637247|169212894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The hypothesis that survival curves were equal in the two treatment groups was tested with a one-sided logrank test at the alpha-0.2 level, one sided. The power of this test is 80% for detecting the hypothesized increase in median survival of 2.4 months for subjects in the experimental arm.||||0.2
84730187|NCT00871143|169212931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.001
84730188|NCT00871143|169212931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.001
84730189|NCT00871143|169212931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of Type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< .001
84730190|NCT00871143|169212931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.01
84479534|NCT02940860|168709869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.5|-0.4|0.2403
84479535|NCT02940860|168709869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.2|-0.9|0.8094
84730191|NCT00871143|169212931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< 0.05
84730192|NCT00871143|169212932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.05
84730193|NCT00871143|169212932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week measures||||<0.01
84730194|NCT00871143|169212932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to adjust for type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.001
84730195|NCT00871143|169212932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week assessment measures and baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
84730196|NCT00871143|169212932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
84730197|NCT00871143|169212933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear mixed model was conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable MADRS scores.||||>0.05
84730198|NCT00871143|169212933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||<0.01
84730199|NCT00871143|169212933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni corrections used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||>0.05
84496892|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.8||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||2.8|-1.7|
84671907|NCT01479621|169078504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.98||||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|6.05||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.05|-18.01|0.3292
84671908|NCT01479621|169078504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|3.05||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|15.26||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.26|-9.16|0.6237
84671909|NCT01094548|169078510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84671910|NCT01094548|169078514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.431||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.185|||Log Rank|||||1.185|0.157|0.0940
84671911|NCT01094548|169078515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.698|||Log Rank|||||1.698|0.261|0.3919
84671912|NCT00606892|169078533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Significant treatment or treatment-by-time interactions were followed up by post hoc comparisons of placebo vs. varenicline for time (Pre- vs. Post-Nicotine infusion) and testing block (Smoking Block vs. Negative Affect Block).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model with fixed main effect terms of treatment (placebo or varenicline) and time of measurement (Pre-Nicotine or Post-Nicotine) was utilized. Interactions between main effect terms were also analyzed.||||<0.05
84671913|NCT00606892|169078534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|F(1,10)=1.1||||||<0.3
84671914|NCT00606892|169078535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant, based on 2-tailed tests. Significant treatment, or treatment-by-time interactions were followed by post hoc comparisons. To account for multiple testing, significance was set at p\<0.016.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model including fixed main effects for treatment condition (placebo or varenicline), time of measurement and interactions between treatment and time, was utilized. Because multiple measurements were collected before and after each nicotine dose, a change score (maximum post dose score - pre dose baseline) was used in the analysis.||||<0.05
84671915|NCT00606892|169078536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post hoc comparisons of effects of varenicline versus placebo for different nicotine doses were performed and significance was adjusted for multiple testing using a p value of P\<0.016|ANOVA|Two-tailed tests were applied for main effects with P\<0.05||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures, crossover model was used with fixed main effects for treatment (placebo or varenicline), and time after treatment. Interactions between main effects were also analyzed.||||<0.05
84671916|NCT00329407|169078573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This was a within subject analysis. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in least squares means values obtained for the baseline and week 10 assessment weeks.||-3.14|-6.58|<0.0001
84671917|NCT00329407|169078574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||There would a significant reduction in COWAT scores between baseline and Week 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This is a within subject comparison of COWAT scores botained for the baseline session and the Week 10 session. The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference between these scores.||||0.001
84671918|NCT00978068|169078575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||0.97|0.36|0.04
84671919|NCT00978068|169078576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional-Hazards|||||||0.13
84671920|NCT00978068|169078577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|11.16|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||11.16|0.06|0.87
84671921|NCT00978068|169078578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||1.12|0.45|0.14
84671922|NCT00978068|169078579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.68|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in same participant.|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||0.68|0.14|0.004
84671923|NCT00978068|169078580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient.|Group 1 represents the numerator in the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator in the hazard ratio.|||0.76|0.22|0.004
84671924|NCT03274986|169078599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.131||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.131|-0.197|<0.001
84671925|NCT03274986|169078600|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.073||The hypothesis test was based on a two-sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.05, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 95% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.073||
84730200|NCT00871143|169212933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||>0.05
84730201|NCT00871143|169212933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
84730202|NCT00871143|169212934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable of AAI scores.||||<0.05
84730203|NCT00871143|169212934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were applied to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.001
84730204|NCT00871143|169212934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||< 0.001
84730205|NCT00871143|169212934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni Correction was used in an attempt to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.05
84730206|NCT00871143|169212934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||>0.05
84730207|NCT00871143|169212935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the PHQ-9 score.||||>0.05
84730208|NCT00871143|169212935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Where more than 1 t test had been conducted on each variable, a Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
84730209|NCT00871143|169212935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
84730210|NCT00871143|169212935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
84730211|NCT00871143|169212935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
84730212|NCT00871143|169212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on GAD-7 scores.||||<0.05
84730213|NCT00871143|169212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||<0.01
84730214|NCT00871143|169212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to reduce the risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
84730215|NCT00871143|169212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||>0.05
84730216|NCT00871143|169212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
84730217|NCT00871143|169212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on BIQLI scores.||||<0.05
84730218|NCT00871143|169212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
84730219|NCT00871143|169212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.05
84730220|NCT00871143|169212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
84730221|NCT00871143|169212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
84730222|NCT00352053|169212938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.55
84730223|NCT00352053|169212939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.40
84730224|NCT00352053|169212940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.58
84730225|NCT00352053|169212941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.37
84730226|NCT00352053|169212948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.71
84730227|NCT00352053|169212949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.47
84671926|NCT03274986|169078601|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
84671927|NCT03274986|169078605|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.115||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.115|-0.197|<0.001
84671928|NCT03274986|169078606|OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|27.37|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||27.37|9.65|
84671929|NCT00615056|169078615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.273||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.108||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.108|0.769|0.8268
84671930|NCT00615056|169078615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.041||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.041|0.553|0.5498
84671931|NCT00615056|169078616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.238||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.238|0.820|0.8828
84671932|NCT00615056|169078616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.273||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.273|0.373|0.1159
84671933|NCT00615056|169078617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|17.7|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||17.7|-15.8|0.4552
84671934|NCT00615056|169078617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|18.0|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||18.0|-19.1|0.5235
84671935|NCT00249470|169078680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|16.56|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.56|2.03|.004
84671936|NCT00249470|169078681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||=|0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.08|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.08|0.40|=0.82
84671937|NCT00249470|169078682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.37|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||9.37|1.21|0.04
84671938|NCT02970968|169078707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0099
84671939|NCT02970968|169078708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0160
84671940|NCT02970968|169078709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
84671941|NCT02970968|169078710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0223
84671942|NCT02970968|169078711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0497
84671943|NCT02970968|169078712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0207
84479536|NCT02940860|168709870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|32.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||32.7|20.4|<0.0001
84496893|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.5|-3.1|
84667312|NCT02117999|169069580|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D. The sample size of the study was 34 cases (allocation ratio of 2:1)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values.||||0.05
84667313|NCT03939897|169069592|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5060
84667314|NCT03939897|169069595|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.2989|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2989
84667315|NCT04709575|169069631|SUPERIORITY||linear mixed-effect model|-0.995||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9886|-0.0011|||LS Mean Difference|||||-0.0011|-1.9886|0.0497
84667316|NCT01536379|169069665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.5|40.7||||||||40.7|-109.5|
84667317|NCT01536379|169069686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|204.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|550.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||550.00|90.00|
84667318|NCT01536379|169069686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.84|25.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||25.00|-169.84|
84667319|NCT01536379|169069687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1232.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25735.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50457.0|52921.8|||||Week 24 comparison|||52921.8|-50457.0|
84667320|NCT01536379|169069687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13128.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24165.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61868.9|35612.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||35612.2|-61868.9|
84667321|NCT01536379|169069688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|3.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.7|-31.3|
84667322|NCT01536379|169069688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||22.2|-8.6|
84667323|NCT01536379|169069689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2791.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4651.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12105.0|6524.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||6524|-12105|
84667324|NCT01536379|169069689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-458.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4501.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9487.0|8572.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||8572|-9487|
84667325|NCT01536379|169069690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.01|||||Week 24 comparison|||1.01|-3.59|
84667326|NCT01536379|169069690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.82|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.82|-1.24|
84667327|NCT01536379|169069691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30326.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34677.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100559.1|39905.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||39905.3|-100559.1|
84667328|NCT01536379|169069691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46955.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32594.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113218.9|19308.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||19308.3|-113218.9|
84667329|NCT01536379|169069692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||Week 24 comparison|||4.2|-10.1|
84667330|NCT01536379|169069692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||6.3|-7.2|
84667331|NCT01536379|169069693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|648.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12618.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24661.1|25957.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||25957.7|-24661.1|
84667332|NCT01536379|169069693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5618.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12153.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29994.8|18757.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||18757.0|-29994.8|
84667333|NCT01536379|169069694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.5|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.5|-3.2|
84667334|NCT01536379|169069694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.3|-3.5|
84667335|NCT01536379|169069695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.98|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.98|-4.07|
84667336|NCT01536379|169069695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.67|||||Week 52 comparison|||1.67|-3.68|
84667337|NCT01536379|169069696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.505|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.505|-0.638|
84667338|NCT01536379|169069696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.305|||||Week 52 comparison|||0.305|-0.838|
84667339|NCT01536379|169069697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.9|100.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||100.3|-105.9|
84667340|NCT01536379|169069697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|81.4|||||Week 52 comparison|||81.4|-107.1|
84667341|NCT01536379|169069698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|5.71|||||Week 24 comparison|||5.71|-31.56|
84667342|NCT01536379|169069698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.315|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|13.72|||||Week 52 comparison|||13.72|-19.11|
84667343|NCT01536379|169069699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|3.96||||||||3.96|-4.84|
84667344|NCT03971695|169069723|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|100.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|111.48|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 14.2. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||111.48|90.18|
84667345|NCT03971695|169069723|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|98.35|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 9.5. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||98.35|85.37|
84667346|NCT03971695|169069724|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.08|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 20.5. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||114.08|84.20|
84667347|NCT03971695|169069724|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|77.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|88.22|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 17.4. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||88.22|68.11|
84667348|NCT03971695|169069728|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|96.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|106.9|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 13.9. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||106.90|86.96|
84667349|NCT03971695|169069728|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|97.54|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 8.9. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||97.54|85.40|
84667350|NCT04447417|169069729|OTHER||Point estimate|0.43|||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.49||One-sided p-value. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|linear mixed model||Point estimate obtained was back-transformed by exponentiation|TEWL data for linear mixed model was log-transformed to account for right skewness of data and heteroskedasticity. The linear mixed effect on log (TEWL) included age, sex, number of STS, localization on the body, visit, number of STS-by-visit interaction and number of STS-by-age interaction as fixed effects. Model was run on data on lesional skin area.||0.49|0.37|<=0.0001
84667351|NCT00858442|169069771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks = 0.953, P\> 0.449 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks=0.946, P \> 0.259.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 0.1234, P\> 0.99)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452|>|0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.332|2.428||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -1.016 is obtained. p\> 0.1574|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.428|-7.332|>0.1574
84667352|NCT00858442|169069772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks =0.972, P\> 0.687 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks = 0.964, P \> 0.410.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 3.153, P\> 0.082)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.50519|>|0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28561|0.74189||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -0.538 is obtained. p\> 0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74189|-1.28561|>0.593
84667353|NCT00858442|169069773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks=0.822, P\<0.001 in group without PRP, and in PRP group shapiro Wilks =0.910, P\<0.017.~The data were no normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene, F=1.324, P\>0.255)"|||||>|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank group without PRP= 28.88 Mean rank group with PRP= 26.31 Z value = -0.027||||||>0.398
84667354|NCT01280552|169069775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified for age and MGMT methylation status|Log Rank|||Stratified log rank p value stratified for age and MGMT methylation status||||0.010
84667355|NCT01280552|169069777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were stratified for age and MGMT methylation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.033
84667356|NCT02155738|169069778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 1: Quantify the impact of IV acetaminophen on 1a) postoperative pain scores ... 1a) To achieve this aim, we will measure the degree of postoperative pain using visual analog scales (VAS) at multiple specified time points throughout the postoperative period; we report on change from Baseline VAS at 24 Hours Postop. Null Hypothesis is that there is no difference between subgroups in VAS scores. Sample size was determined considering significant differences in VAS scores.||||<0.05
84667357|NCT02155738|169069779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1b) We will use equianalgesic dosage tables to convert intra- and postoperative narcotics into morphine equivalents to compare narcotic requirements for the first week after surgery. We hypothesize that those patients receiving preemptive IV acetaminophen will have lower postoperative VAS scores and reduced narcotic requirements compared to placebo.||||<0.05
84667358|NCT02016625|169069781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. alternative hypothesis (H1): ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|108.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.992|117.076|||ANOVA||ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||117.076|99.992|0.0033
84671944|NCT02970968|169078713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0429
84671945|NCT02970968|169078714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84671946|NCT02970968|169078715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0003
84671947|NCT02970968|169078716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
84671948|NCT02970968|169078717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0078
84671949|NCT02970968|169078718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0294
84730228|NCT00352053|169212956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.26
84730229|NCT00352053|169212957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.63
84730230|NCT00352053|169212964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
84730231|NCT00352053|169212965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
84730232|NCT00352053|169212972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||1.00
84730233|NCT00352053|169212973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.38
84730234|NCT00352053|169212980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.22
84730235|NCT00352053|169212981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.48
84730236|NCT00352053|169212988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Log Rank|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are equal. Alternative hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are different (two-sided).||||0.29
84730237|NCT01490359|169212995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71||The GEE model included baseline measure of consistent condom use, intervention condition, time (6- vs. 12-mo follow-up), and type of partner (steady vs casual partners) with robust standard errors and an independent working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Estimate is odds ratio (intervention vs. health control).|Assuming alpha = 0.05, a 2-tailed test, ICC = 0.01, 15% attrition at 12-month follow-up, and N = 1,152 men in the trial from 44 neighborhoods with an average of 26 men in each neighborhood, the trial was estimated to have 81% power to detect a 10% increase in consistent condom use from 32% to 42% in the HIV/STI intervention group.||1.71|1.03|.008
84730238|NCT04150341|169213003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.881
84730239|NCT04150341|169213003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.17|0.575
84730240|NCT00833898|169213011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
84730241|NCT00833898|169213012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84730242|NCT00833898|169213013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
84730243|NCT00833898|169213014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84730244|NCT00833898|169213015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84730245|NCT00833898|169213016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84730246|NCT00833898|169213017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
84730247|NCT00833898|169213018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
84730248|NCT00833898|169213019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84730249|NCT00833898|169213020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84730250|NCT00833898|169213021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
84730251|NCT00833898|169213022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84730252|NCT00833898|169213023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84730253|NCT00833898|169213024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84730254|NCT00833898|169213025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84730255|NCT00833898|169213026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
84730256|NCT00833898|169213027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
84730257|NCT00833898|169213027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.33
84730258|NCT00833898|169213028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84730259|NCT00833898|169213029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.18
84496894|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
84730260|NCT00833898|169213029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84496895|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|4.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.9|-0.9|
84730261|NCT00833898|169213030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
84730262|NCT00833898|169213030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
84730263|NCT00833898|169213031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
84730264|NCT00833898|169213031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
84730265|NCT05109117|169213033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
84730266|NCT05109117|169213033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment||2.7|0.4|0.0077
84730267|NCT05109117|169213033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment||2.9|0.7|0.0019
84730268|NCT05109117|169213033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment||2.2|-0.1|0.0707
84730269|NCT03972137|169213041|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline (BL) to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|17.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and Quit Date (Mean CPD at Baseline - Mean CPD at Quit Date).|||17.05|5.79|.003
84730270|NCT03972137|169213041|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow-up session (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.45||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|25.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||25.35|-1.55|.067
84730271|NCT03972137|169213042|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total score from baseline (BL) to 2-weeks post-quit (2W).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.91||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|32.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 2-weeks post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=6 participants that attended the 2-weeks post quit session.|||32.17|7.17|.010
84730272|NCT03972137|169213042|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in DASS-21 Total scores from baseline (BL) to 1-month post-quit (1M).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|56.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 1-month post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=5 participants that attended the 1-month post-quit session.|||56.52|5.88|.027
84730273|NCT03972137|169213042|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference in DASS-21 total scores from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow up (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|50.41||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||50.41|1.09|.045
84730274|NCT02959177|169213086|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-3.80|<0.001
84730275|NCT02959177|169213086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-3.53|<0.001
84730276|NCT02959177|169213087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|5.57||||||||5.57|2.71|
84730277|NCT02959177|169213087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.23||||||||5.23|2.54|
84730278|NCT02959177|169213088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.89||||||||4.89|2.14|
84730279|NCT02959177|169213088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|4.8||||||||4.80|2.08|
84730280|NCT02959177|169213089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|5.93||||||||5.93|2.03|
84730281|NCT02959177|169213089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.44||||||||5.44|1.79|
84730282|NCT02959177|169213090|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|4.54|<0.001
84479537|NCT02940860|168709870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||5.1|-1.2|0.2229
84730283|NCT02959177|169213090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.24|3.33|<0.01
84730284|NCT02959177|169213091|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.19|-3.61|<0.001
84730285|NCT02959177|169213091|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.99|-3.41|<0.001
84496896|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
84730286|NCT02959177|169213093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.51|-16.14|<0.001
84496897|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
84730287|NCT02959177|169213093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.40|-18.05|<0.001
84730288|NCT02959177|169213094|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.73|-8.06|<0.001
84730289|NCT02959177|169213094|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-6.08|<.001
84730290|NCT02642159|169213112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.1|-27.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.0|-38.1|<0.0001
84730291|NCT02642159|169213113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.6|-19.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group for the intent to prescribe fenofibrate using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.9|-46.6|<0.0001
84730292|NCT02642159|169213114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-36.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for overall ITT analysis. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-36.3|-49.7|<0.0001
84730293|NCT02642159|169213115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-71.8|-39.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|A separate hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-39.6|-71.8|<0.0001
84730294|NCT02642159|169213116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.7|-31.5|<0.0001
84730295|NCT02642159|169213117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.0|-14.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-14.8|-40.0|<0.0001
84730296|NCT02642159|169213118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.8|-28.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-28.6|-40.8|<0.0001
84730297|NCT02642159|169213119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.7|-35.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-35.8|-63.7|<0.0001
84730298|NCT02642159|169213120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.3|-27.2||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-27.2|-37.3|<0.0001
84479538|NCT02940860|168709870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.6|-2.9|0.9046
84667359|NCT02016625|169069782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|106.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|115.534|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||115.534|98.360|0.0019
84667360|NCT02016625|169069783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|90.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.281|101.205|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||101.205|80.281|0.0457
84667361|NCT02016625|169069784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|140.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.772|177.833|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||177.833|111.772|0.8122
84667362|NCT02016625|169069785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|116.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.674|125.801|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||125.801|108.674|0.0650
84667363|NCT02016625|169069786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|122.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.8|143.6|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||143.60|104.80|0.4181
84667364|NCT02016625|169069787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|127.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.453|141.827|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||141.827|114.453|0.6207
84667365|NCT02016625|169069788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|136.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.683|157.793|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||157.793|118.683|0.8592
84667366|NCT02016625|169069789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.857|118.644|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||118.644|82.857|0.0269
84667367|NCT02016625|169069790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|93.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.059|110.022|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||110.022|80.059|0.0493
84671950|NCT02970968|169078719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0229
84671951|NCT02970968|169078720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0018
84730299|NCT02642159|169213121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-22.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-22.9|-47.4|<0.0001
84730300|NCT02642159|169213122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-28.8|-20.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.3|-28.8|<0.0001
84603232|NCT02436668|168957089|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.109||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.363|||Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.363|0.903|0.3225
84603233|NCT02436668|168957091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.695||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.903|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo + Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.903|0.535|0.0058
84603234|NCT02436668|168957093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||This 0.85 (0.722 to 1.0) with CI is referring to risk ratio not proportional/percentage of patients.|For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo+Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||1.0|0.722|0.0488
84603235|NCT02436668|168957094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.642||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||\[1\] Hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors for time until definitive deterioration (TUDD1), a hazard ratio \< 1 favors Ibr + Gem/Abr. TUDD1 is defined as the time interval between randomization and the first occurrence of a decrease in score by \>= 10 points without any further improvement in score by \>= 10 points or any further available QoL data due to dropout after deterioration.||1.642|0.975|0.0782
84603236|NCT02436668|168957095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3343|||||||Chi-squared|||"For rate of VTEs, denominator is number of subjects in the Intent-to-Treat population and numerator is number of Intent-to-Treat subjects with at least one VTE observed any time on study. Confidence interval for rate of VTEs is based on Clopper-Pearson method.~\[1\] P value is based on Chi-square test."||||0.3343
84603237|NCT01444027|168957103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status||||||0.002
84603238|NCT01444027|168957103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.90
84603239|NCT01444027|168957103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.002
84603240|NCT01444027|168957104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
84603241|NCT01444027|168957104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.48
84603242|NCT01444027|168957104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||.01
84603243|NCT01444027|168957105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
84603244|NCT01444027|168957105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.83
84603245|NCT01444027|168957105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
84603246|NCT01444027|168957106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.003
84603247|NCT01444027|168957106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.16
84603248|NCT01444027|168957106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.17
84603249|NCT01444027|168957107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
84603250|NCT01444027|168957107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.78
84603251|NCT01444027|168957107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.004
84603252|NCT03551665|168957109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.056|||Regression, Linear|||These data are the immediate improvements (base 2 - post 1) in the MS group.||0.056|.002|0.036
84603253|NCT03551665|168957110|OTHER||Spearman's Rho|0.019||||0.92|||||||Spearman Correlation|||We correlated cognition (SDMT; above) to the improvement in performance (margin of stability) to to determine whether cognition predicted improvement in stepping outcomes.||||.92
84667368|NCT02016625|169069791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.375|106.115|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||106.115|93.375|0.0000
84667369|NCT02016625|169069792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|96.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.53|104.45|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||104.45|88.53|0.0008
84667370|NCT00380978|169069807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Group sample sizes of 800 in each group achieve 80% power to detect equivalence when the margin of equivalence extends from 0.1 to 0.25||1.20|0.90|0.65
84667371|NCT00380978|169069808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||Chi-squared|||There rate of instrumented vaginal delivery will be equal in both groups.||1.20|0.80|0.63
84667372|NCT00380978|169069809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
84667373|NCT00380978|169069810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84667374|NCT00380978|169069811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3|-4|<0.005
84667375|NCT00380978|169069812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
84667376|NCT00380978|169069813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84667377|NCT00380978|169069814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
84667378|NCT04608500|169069833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.54|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||5.54|2.16|<0.0001
84667379|NCT04608500|169069834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.263||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.499||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||||1.499|1.064|0.0077
84667380|NCT04608500|169069835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.193||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.39||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.390|1.024|0.0189
84667381|NCT04608500|169069836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|16.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||16.54|6.05|<0.0001
84667382|NCT04608500|169069837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||5.99|2.77|<0.0001
84667383|NCT04608500|169069837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||6.63|3.52|<0.0001
84667384|NCT04608500|169069838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.715||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|2.605||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||2.605|1.129|0.0114
84667385|NCT04608500|169069838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.319||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|1.607||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||1.607|1.082|0.0061
84667386|NCT01881230|169069840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.692||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.629|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.629|1.089|0.0183
84667387|NCT01881230|169069840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.904|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||0.904|0.373|0.0152
84667388|NCT01881230|169069840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.597|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.597|0.676|0.8599
84671952|NCT02970968|169078721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0013
84671953|NCT02970968|169078722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0001
84671954|NCT02970968|169078723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
84671955|NCT02970968|169078724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0164
84671956|NCT02970968|169078725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0053
84671957|NCT02970968|169078726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0020
84671958|NCT01904604|169078738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|33.8|10.2|57.5||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||57.5|10.2|0.005
84479539|NCT02940860|168709870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||0.8|-5.8|0.1307
84603254|NCT03551665|168957111|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.119||95.0|-0.007|0.059|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step length before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||0.059|-0.007|0.119
84667389|NCT01881230|169069843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|2.143|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.143|0.882|0.1579
84667390|NCT01881230|169069843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.221|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.221|0.520|0.2945
84667391|NCT01881230|169069843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.708|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.708|0.710|0.6691
84667392|NCT00112502|169069847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|0.8|
84667393|NCT00112502|169069848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||||||||1.2|0.6|
84667394|NCT00112502|169069849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||||||||1.8|0.9|
84667395|NCT00112502|169069850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||||||||1.3|0.6|
84667396|NCT00112502|169069852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||||||||1.5|0.7|
84667397|NCT00112502|169069853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
84667398|NCT00112502|169069854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||||||||1.8|0.8|
84667399|NCT00112502|169069855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||||||||1.1|0.5|
84667400|NCT00914810|169069861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.8|0.55
84667401|NCT00914810|169069862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.6|7.4|<0.0001
84667402|NCT00706641|169069871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Tumor samples from 20 patients were analyzed for expression of pSFK. A paired t-Test was used to calculate the significance of the difference in expression levels before and after treatment.||||0.003
84667403|NCT00706641|169069874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.20
84667404|NCT00706641|169069875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.42
84667405|NCT03739112|169069900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative vaccine efficacy (VE) was \> -20%.|percent VE|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|28.7|||||VE of VLP vaccine versus Fluarix = (1-ARVv/ARVc) x 100% where ARVv = attack rate in participants vaccinated with the Quadrivalent VLP Influenza vaccine and ARVc = attack rate in participants vaccinated with an active Fluarix.|||28.7|-16.7|
84667406|NCT02436759|169069947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84667407|NCT02436759|169069948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test||||||0.12
84667408|NCT02584504|169069949|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.5|-32.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-32.4|-46.5|<0.0001
84667409|NCT02584504|169069949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.9|-58.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-58.7|-72.9|<0.0001
84667410|NCT02584504|169069949|OTHER|Statistical test was not planned because this comparison was for a descriptive purpose.|LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.0|||||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group vs Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-20.0|-32.5|
84667411|NCT02584504|169069950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-33.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Hierarchical procedure for comparisons of Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus Placebo Q2W and Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus Placebo Q2W were processed separately.||-33.8|-47.4|<0.0001
84667412|NCT02584504|169069950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.2|-60.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.5|-74.2|<0.0001
84667413|NCT02584504|169069951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.6|-44.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-44.5|-56.6|<0.0001
84730301|NCT02642159|169213123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.4|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-15.1|-35.4|<0.0001
84730302|NCT02642159|169213124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.6|-20.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.1|-34.6|<0.0001
84730303|NCT02642159|169213125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.6|-5.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-5.0|-40.6|0.0040
84730304|NCT02642159|169213126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.8|3.4||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||3.4|-11.8|0.2191
84730305|NCT02642159|169213127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.0||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|27.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|27.1|-9.1|0.2651
84730306|NCT01287416|169213145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of SIRI scores across the three time points. We used linear mixed models to determine whether scores were different between the two groups over time.||||0.61
84730307|NCT01287416|169213146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.95
84730308|NCT01287416|169213147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in terms of self-reported skill level across the three time points.||||0.33
84730309|NCT01287416|169213148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.03
84730310|NCT01287416|169213149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ on level of self-reported preparedness to help a suicidal person.||||0.63
84730311|NCT01287416|169213150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on their level of distress across the two time points.||||0.21
84730312|NCT01287416|169213151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of alcohol use across the two time points.||||0.46
84479540|NCT02940860|168709871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.92|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.92|-0.73|0.8196
84730313|NCT01287416|169213152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model is adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in resiliency scores across the follow-up period.||||0.28
84730314|NCT01287416|169213153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84730315|NCT01287416|169213154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84730316|NCT01287416|169213155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84730317|NCT01287416|169213156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84730318|NCT01287416|169213157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
84730319|NCT01287416|169213159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance set a p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of their gatekeeper behaviours||||0.14
84730320|NCT01287416|169213160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on gatekeeper behaviours.||||0.41
84730321|NCT02269917|169213192|NON_INFERIORITY|4|Difference in percentage|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH)|||||2.2|-1.5|<0.001
84730322|NCT02269917|169213197|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623|=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.57|-0.88|=0.580
84730323|NCT02269917|169213197|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||1.88|-0.65|=0.340
84730324|NCT02269917|169213198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.13|-2.30|=0.506
84730325|NCT02269917|169213198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862|=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change Week 48||0.95|-2.43|=0.392
84730326|NCT02269917|169213199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|=|0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||0.31|-2.14|=0.143
84730327|NCT02269917|169213199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||0.18|-2.36|=0.092
84730328|NCT02269917|169213200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||2.29|-0.02|=0.054
84730329|NCT02269917|169213200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||2.57|0.10|=0.034
84730330|NCT02269917|169213201|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
84730331|NCT02269917|169213201|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
84730332|NCT02269917|169213201|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
84730333|NCT02269917|169213201|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
84730334|NCT02269917|169213202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
84730335|NCT02269917|169213202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
84730336|NCT02269917|169213202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
84730337|NCT02269917|169213202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
84730338|NCT02269917|169213203|OTHER||||||=|0.288|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 24||||=0.288
84730339|NCT02269917|169213203|OTHER||||||=|0.148|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 48||||=0.148
84730340|NCT02269917|169213214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|2.037|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 24||2.037|0.697|<0.001
84730341|NCT02269917|169213214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|2.814|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.814|1.277|<0.001
84730342|NCT02269917|169213214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.436|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 24||1.436|0.366|=0.001
84730343|NCT02269917|169213214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.248|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.248|1.144|<0.001
84730344|NCT03873038|169213286|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) was derived using the geometric mean (GM) for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||1.18|0.54|
84730345|NCT03873038|169213286|OTHER|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.76|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||0.76|0.37|
84730346|NCT03873038|169213286|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.21|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.21|0.55|
84730347|NCT03873038|169213287|OTHER||GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.85|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.85|1.07|
84730348|NCT03873038|169213287|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.11|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001)||1.11|0.67|
84730349|NCT03873038|169213287|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.08|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.08|0.62|
84730350|NCT03873038|169213288|OTHER||GMR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.46|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.46|0.84|
84730351|NCT03873038|169213288|OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||0.87|0.52|
84730352|NCT03873038|169213288|OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.03|0.60|
84730353|NCT03873038|169213289|OTHER||GMR|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.14|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||2.14|1.05|
84730354|NCT03873038|169213289|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.25|0.67|
84730355|NCT03873038|169213289|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.2|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.20|0.62|
84730356|NCT00595764|169213304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||With an effect size of 0.46, a sample size of 140 will provide a power of \>.84 with p\<.05 to detect overall differences between the two treatments on the primary outcome measures.||||.91
84730357|NCT00595764|169213306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84730358|NCT00595764|169213307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.58
84730359|NCT00595764|169213308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.24
84730360|NCT02825849|169213326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.824
84730361|NCT00390806|169213334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||p-value from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated using a Pike estimator. The hazard ratio from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for RPA class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|||1.07|0.73|0.1862
84603255|NCT03551665|168957112|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.012||95.0|-0.073|-0.009|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step latency before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||-0.009|-0.073|0.012
84603256|NCT05538312|168957113|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|168.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.66|180.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||180.94|157.66|
84730362|NCT00645099|169213389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Based on available data it was estimated that in the paliperidone ER group the TG:HDL ratio would decrease with 0.15 and that the TG:HDL ratio would increase with 0.25 in the olanzapine group. The common SD of the change was estimated to be 1.4. A sample size of 205 patients in each treatment arm had 80% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in change of TG:HDL ratio after 6 months of treatment in favor of paliperidone ER treatment (Wilcoxon two-sample test with 0.05 two-sided significance level).||||< 0.0001
84730363|NCT00645099|169213389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline at end point.||||0.4718
84730364|NCT00645099|169213389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline at end point.||||< 0.0001
84730365|NCT00645099|169213390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
84730366|NCT00645099|169213390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.9143
84730367|NCT00645099|169213390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
84730368|NCT00645099|169213391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0050
84730369|NCT00645099|169213391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4454||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.4454
84730370|NCT00645099|169213391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0018
84730371|NCT00645099|169213392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
84730372|NCT00645099|169213393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0004
84730373|NCT00645099|169213394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0272
84730374|NCT00645099|169213395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1892
84730375|NCT00645099|169213396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0325
84730376|NCT00645099|169213397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1117
84730377|NCT00645099|169213398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6346||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6346
84730378|NCT00645099|169213399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||1.0000
84730379|NCT00645099|169213400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6770
84730380|NCT00645099|169213401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1308
84730381|NCT00645099|169213402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.3358
84730382|NCT00645099|169213403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
84730383|NCT00645099|169213403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0001
84730384|NCT00645099|169213403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||< 0.0001
84730385|NCT00645099|169213404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
84730386|NCT00645099|169213405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
84730387|NCT00645099|169213406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0230
84730388|NCT00645099|169213407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing non-inferiority of the paliperidone ER treatment group compared to the olanzapine treatment group, with regard to change versus baseline at end point of the total PANSS was done by means of Schuirmann's test. A difference of 6 points in change versus baseline on the total PANSS was considered to be a minimum clinically relevant difference.The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between paliperidone and olanzapine in change in TG:HDL ratio from baseline to endpoint.||||||0.0242||95.0|||||Schuirmann|The null hypothesis of non-equivalence was rejected and equivalence to within the specified equivalence bounds could be claimed.||||||0.0242
84730389|NCT00645099|169213407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
84603257|NCT05538312|168957114|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|152.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|169.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.18|136.90|
84730390|NCT00645099|169213407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
84730391|NCT01201915|169213408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8463|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.8463
84730392|NCT01201915|169213408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9668|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 30% or less.||||0.9668
84730393|NCT01201915|169213408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.7878
84730394|NCT01960348|169213439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.974|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-28.13||P=9.262E-24|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mNIS+7. The model includes baseline mNIS+7 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-28.13|-39.86|<0.0000001
84730395|NCT01960348|169213440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-15.0||P=1.103E-10|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in Norfolk QOL-DN total score. The model includes baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-15.0|-27.2|<0.0000001
84730396|NCT01960348|169213441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-13.43||P=1.404E-13|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in NIS-W. The model includes baseline NIS-W score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-13.43|-22.32|<0.0000001
84730397|NCT01960348|169213442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9||P=4.066E-16|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in R-ODS value. The model includes baseline R-ODS score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||10.9|7.0|<0.0000001
84730398|NCT01960348|169213443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.393||P=1.875E-12|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in 10-meter walk test result. The model includes baseline 10-meter walk test result as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||0.393|0.230|<0.0000001
84730399|NCT01960348|169213444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|115.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.91|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|149.0||P=8.832E-11|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mBMI. The model includes baseline mBMI as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||149.0|82.4|<0.0000001
84730400|NCT01960348|169213445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-3.16|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in COMPASS-31 total score. The model includes baseline COMPASS-31 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-3.16|-11.89|0.0008
84730401|NCT01580995|169213446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84730402|NCT01699698|169213460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84730403|NCT00405912|169213544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.51
84730404|NCT00405912|169213544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.25
84730405|NCT00405912|169213545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.52
84730406|NCT00405912|169213545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.73
84603258|NCT05538312|168957115|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.7|176.47|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||176.47|148.70|
84730407|NCT03730662|169213546|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.13|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.13|<0.001
84730408|NCT03730662|169213546|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.28|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-1.28|<0.001
84730409|NCT03730662|169213547|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-0.93|<0.001
84730410|NCT03730662|169213548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.8|<0.001
84730411|NCT03730662|169213548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.6|-12.1|<0.001
84730412|NCT03730662|169213548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.8|-14.3|<0.001
84730413|NCT03730662|169213549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.58|3.47|<0.001
84730414|NCT03730662|169213549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|13.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.49|6.31|<0.001
84730415|NCT03730662|169213549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|17.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.89|7.88|<0.001
84730416|NCT03730662|169213550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-3.7|0.672
84730417|NCT03730662|169213550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-8.2|0.134
84730418|NCT03730662|169213550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-12.6|<0.001
84730419|NCT01907113|169213554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|145.38|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||145.38|96.17|
84730420|NCT01907113|169213554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|119.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|149.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||149.47|96.25|
84730421|NCT01907113|169213554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|166.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.44|205.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||205.68|134.44|
84730422|NCT01907113|169213554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|148.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.89|183.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||183.42|119.89|
84730423|NCT01907113|169213555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|150.84|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||150.84|93.62|
84730424|NCT01907113|169213555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|102.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.33|131.85|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||131.85|79.33|
84730425|NCT01907113|169213555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|120.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|154.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||154.25|94.42|
84730426|NCT01907113|169213555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.18|132.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||132.61|81.18|
84730427|NCT01309243|169213570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate, as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48.~Alternative hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48."|Difference in the response rates|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|9.2|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|"The analysis was to assess the noninferiority of FTC/RPV/TDF versus EFV/FTC/TDF using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12% (lower bound of CI \> -12%).~700 subjects allocated 1:1 to either treatment arm was predicted to give \> 95% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is 80% at Week 48."||9.2|-1.1|
84730428|NCT01309243|169213571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.5|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||11.5|-0.6|
84730429|NCT01309243|169213572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|32.0||The p-value, and difference in least square means (LSM) and its 95% CI are from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||32|-11|0.34
84730430|NCT01309243|169213573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|49.0||The p-value, and difference in LSM and its 95% CI are from ANOVA with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||49|-9|0.17
84730431|NCT01309243|169213574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84730432|NCT01309243|169213575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84730433|NCT01309243|169213576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84730434|NCT01309243|169213577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84730435|NCT00632931|169213580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||||90.0|-0.28|6.28||||||||6.28|-0.28|
84730436|NCT00632931|169213581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||||90.0|-1.38|4.72||||||||4.72|-1.38|
84730437|NCT00632931|169213582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||||90.0|-0.17|6.31||||||||6.31|-0.17|
84730438|NCT00632931|169213583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||||90.0|-0.4|6.08||||||||6.08|-0.40|
84730439|NCT00632931|169213584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44||||||90.0|3.21|9.68||||||||9.68|3.21|
84730440|NCT00632931|169213585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||||90.0|1.05|7.6||||||||7.60|1.05|
84730441|NCT00632931|169213586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||||90.0|-0.7|6.02||||||||6.02|-0.70|
84730442|NCT00632931|169213587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51||||||90.0|3.19|9.82||||||||9.82|3.19|
84730443|NCT03712449|169213593|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0009|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0009
84730444|NCT03712449|169213593|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84730445|NCT03712449|169213594|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.7878|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7878
84730446|NCT03712449|169213594|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0349|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0349
84730447|NCT03712449|169213595|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0043|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0043
84730448|NCT03712449|169213595|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84730449|NCT03712449|169213596|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0017|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0017
84730450|NCT03712449|169213596|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84730451|NCT03712449|169213597|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0105|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0105
84730452|NCT03712449|169213597|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84730453|NCT03712449|169213598|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0004
84730454|NCT03712449|169213598|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<.0001
84730455|NCT03712449|169213603|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0005
84730456|NCT03712449|169213603|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84730457|NCT03897049|169213626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.994|0.463|0.914
84730458|NCT03897049|169213627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.074|0.473|0.990
84730459|NCT03897049|169213628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.390|0.861|0.167
84730460|NCT03897049|169213629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|2.466|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.466|0.903|0.118
84730461|NCT03897049|169213630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.335||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.221|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.221|0.803|0.265
84730462|NCT03897049|169213631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.654|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.654|0.593|0.971
84730463|NCT03897049|169213632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.942|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.942
84730464|NCT03897049|169213633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.741
84730465|NCT03897049|169213634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.494
84730466|NCT03897049|169213635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.651
84730467|NCT03897049|169213636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
84730468|NCT03897049|169213637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.189
84730469|NCT03897049|169213638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.218
84730470|NCT03897049|169213639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.479||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.305|0.173|0.149
84730471|NCT03897049|169213640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.063|0.403|0.839
84730472|NCT03897049|169213641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.302||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|11.641|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.641|0.937|0.063
84730473|NCT03897049|169213642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.650
84730474|NCT03897049|169213643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.531
84730475|NCT03897049|169213644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.761
84730476|NCT03897049|169213645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.503
84730477|NCT03897049|169213646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.541
84730478|NCT03897049|169213647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.537
84730479|NCT03897049|169213648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.057
84730480|NCT03897049|169213649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.402
84730481|NCT03897049|169213650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.308
84730482|NCT03897049|169213651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84730483|NCT02747121|169213669|OTHER|The intervention was external inspections. This is an organizational level intervention and it does not replace any existing intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.8||We used calculated P-values, however only confidence intervals were reported in the published article.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|0.86|0.24
84730484|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.023||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.108||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.108|-0.061|0.590
84730485|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.154|-0.018|0.120
84730486|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.102||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.102|-0.069|0.701
84730487|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.210
84730488|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.207
84730489|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.081||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.048|0.216
84730490|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.051||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.051|-0.081|0.652
84667414|NCT02584504|169069951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.3|-60.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.1|-72.3|<0.0001
84667415|NCT02584504|169069952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.4|-45.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.4|-57.4|<0.0001
84667416|NCT02584504|169069952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.3|-61.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-61.3|-73.3|<0.0001
84667417|NCT02584504|169069953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.5|-19.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-19.9|-32.5|<0.0001
84667418|NCT02584504|169069953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-58.3|-45.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.5|-58.3|<0.0001
84667419|NCT02584504|169069954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-20.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-20.9|-33.5|<0.0001
84667420|NCT02584504|169069954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.7|-47.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-47.1|-59.7|<0.0001
84667421|NCT02584504|169069955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.7|-25.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-25.0|-37.7|<0.0001
84667422|NCT02584504|169069955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.5|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-49.8|-62.5|<0.0001
84667423|NCT02584504|169069956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-26.3|-38.6|<0.0001
84667424|NCT02584504|169069956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.8|-51.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-51.4|-63.8|<0.0001
84667425|NCT02584504|169069957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-27.4|-17.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-17.6|-27.4|<0.0001
84667426|NCT02584504|169069957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-36.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-36.5|-46.4|<0.0001
84667427|NCT02584504|169069958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.9|268.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||268.9|13.9|<0.0001
84667428|NCT02584504|169069958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|33.3|2382.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||2382.2|33.3|<0.0001
84730491|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.065||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.065|-0.066|0.994
84730492|NCT02166047|169213673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.069||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.069|0.996
84730493|NCT01960114|169213682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|25.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.669|30.813||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||30.813|19.669|<0.001
84667429|NCT02584504|169069959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.0|556.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||556.8|19.0|<0.0001
84667430|NCT02584504|169069959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|500.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|47.9|5230.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||5230.9|47.9|<0.0001
84667431|NCT02584504|169069960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-43.4|-22.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-22.5|-43.4|<0.0001
84667432|NCT02584504|169069960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-61.5|-40.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-40.3|-61.5|<0.0001
84667433|NCT02584504|169069961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||11.3|0.0|0.0241
84667434|NCT02584504|169069961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|13.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||13.5|2.1|0.0022
84667435|NCT02584504|169069962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||17.7|-5.9|0.2645
84667436|NCT02584504|169069962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.5|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.4|-23.5|0.0299
84667437|NCT02876900|169069996|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.634||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.64||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.64|-8.06|0.003
84667438|NCT02876900|169069996|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-3.4||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.4|-9.81|<0.001
84667439|NCT02876900|169069997|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
84667440|NCT02876900|169069997|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
84730494|NCT01960114|169213683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84603259|NCT05538312|168957116|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.51|169.3|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.30|138.51|
84603260|NCT05538312|168957117|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.96|184.15|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||184.15|159.96|
84603261|NCT05538312|168957118|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|157.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.51|169.95|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.95|146.51|
84667441|NCT00117559|169069998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84667442|NCT01748643|169070009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84667443|NCT01748643|169070010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84667444|NCT01748643|169070011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84667445|NCT01748643|169070012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
84667446|NCT01748643|169070013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.64
84667447|NCT01748643|169070014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
84667448|NCT03011307|169070100|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in score on a scale|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.2|0|0.75
84667449|NCT03011307|169070101|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||0.2|0.0|0.057
84667450|NCT03011307|169070102|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in Daily Steps|-402.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|553.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||553|-1358|0.41
84667451|NCT03011307|169070103|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|344.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|173.0|515.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Slope Difference|||"The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.~The slope is the number of daily steps divided by the natural log of time in days."||515|173|<0.001
84671959|NCT01904604|169078738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|36.0|12.6|59.4||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||59.4|12.6|0.003
84671960|NCT01904604|169078738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|2.2|-25.8|30.1||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||||30.1|-25.8|0.48
84730495|NCT01960114|169213684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84730496|NCT01960114|169213685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 12 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of withdrawal. Subjects not rescuing during the 12-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 12 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
84730497|NCT01960114|169213686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Used row-mean scores based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline categorical pain score.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
84730498|NCT00991029|169213711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.02
84730499|NCT00991029|169213712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.87|||Log Rank|||||4.87|1.10|0.02
84730500|NCT00991029|169213713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.01
84730501|NCT00991029|169213714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Log Rank|||||3.78|0.55|0.46
84730502|NCT00991029|169213715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.35|||Log Rank|||||5.35|0.43|0.52
84730503|NCT00991029|169213716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.01
84479541|NCT02940860|168709871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.73|-1.06|0.7132
84479542|NCT02940860|168709871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||1.25|-0.71|0.5860
84479543|NCT03404219|168709877|OTHER|Single group pre-post, follow-up|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (repeated measures)|||Single arm||||0.09
84730504|NCT00991029|169213717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.13
84730505|NCT00991029|169213718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.03|||Log Rank|||||7.03|0.4|0.47
84479544|NCT00527072|168709903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.654||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.718|||exact binomial distribution|||null hypothesis H0: proportion = 0.30||0.718|0.586|0.05
84667452|NCT03011307|169070104|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference: score on a scale|-5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-2.3||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-2.3|-9.5|0.002
84667453|NCT03011307|169070105|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||2.4|0.6|0.001
84730506|NCT00991029|169213719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.14|||Log Rank|||||7.14|0.14|0.99
84730507|NCT00991029|169213720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
84730508|NCT00991029|169213721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.9|||Log Rank|||||5.9|1.01|0.04
84479545|NCT00527072|168709904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.791||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.844|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.844|0.730|0.05
84479546|NCT00527072|168709905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.646||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.711|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.711|0.577|0.05
84730509|NCT00991029|169213722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.83|||Log Rank|||||5.83|1.67|<0.001
84730510|NCT00991029|169213723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.73|0.27
84730511|NCT02487251|169213734|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in BMIz is p = .34.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is the effect size (cohen's d) for the change in BMIz (particularly in the Phase 2 sample)|We tested change in BMIz for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.34
84671961|NCT01904604|169078742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.80
84671962|NCT01904604|169078742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.008
84671963|NCT01904604|169078742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.01
84671964|NCT04144166|169078765|OTHER||||||||||||||See above|||"Mean value for visual CRT and median value for device CRI were calculated for each participant. 3 values were measured (each) for CRT and CRI. Mean value is equal to SUM(m1,m2,m3)/3.~Median value was then calculated for the set (57) of calculated mean visual CRT and mean device CRI. Median value is equal to the middle value of the series of mean values. All measurements are in units of seconds."|See above|||
84671965|NCT01481116|169078819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84671966|NCT01481116|169078819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84671967|NCT01481116|169078819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84671968|NCT01481116|169078819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84671969|NCT01481116|169078820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.08||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||0.08|-2.70|0.065
84671970|NCT01481116|169078820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.11||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||-0.11|-2.78|0.034
84671971|NCT00805935|169078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84671972|NCT00805935|169078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84671973|NCT00805935|169078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the menotropin treatments arms.||||0.481
84671974|NCT00805935|169078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the follitropin beta treatment group.||||0.483
84671975|NCT02223767|169078848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
84671976|NCT02223767|169078849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
84671977|NCT00430092|169078884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84671978|NCT01166594|169078885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84671979|NCT02822508|169078896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
84671980|NCT00654381|169078897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.7|-1.04|<0.0001
84671981|NCT00654381|169078897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.71|-1.05|<0.0001
84671982|NCT00654381|169078898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||||-0.15|-0.49|0.0003
84671983|NCT00654381|169078898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
84671984|NCT00654381|169078902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-14.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.0|-25.4|<0.0001
84730512|NCT02487251|169213735|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed fruit intake is p = .62.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in observed fruit intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups.||||.62
84730513|NCT02487251|169213736|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed vegetable intake is p = .009.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested pre to post change in observed vegetable intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups. Positive Observed dietary quality data was not collected in Phase 1.||||.009
84730514|NCT02487251|169213737|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported fruit is p = .21.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested pre to post change in parent reported child fruit intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.21
84730515|NCT02487251|169213738|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported vegetables is p = .55.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in vegetable intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.55
84730516|NCT02487251|169213739|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in mealtime frequency is p = .84.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested change in frequency of family mealtimes for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.84
84730517|NCT00843115|169213763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
84730518|NCT00843115|169213764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
84730519|NCT00843115|169213765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730520|NCT00843115|169213766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730521|NCT00843115|169213767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730522|NCT00843115|169213768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84571040|NCT00853385|168893119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.12||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|9.26||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.26|0.98|0.0151
84671985|NCT00654381|169078902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.7|-26.2|<0.0001
84671986|NCT00654381|169078903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs Voglibose at week 26||-0.9|-13.0|0.0239
84671987|NCT00654381|169078903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-3.8|-15.8|0.0015
84671988|NCT00994448|169078914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test for mean of days retained in the bupropion versus placebo groups||34.3|1.8|0.08
84671989|NCT04164901|169078916|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.56|0.27|<0.0000001
84671990|NCT04164901|169078919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|15.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated with placebo as the control (denominator).|||15.25|1.56|0.003
84671991|NCT04164901|169078926|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.35||||2.4e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.54|0.23|0.00000024
84671992|NCT00559962|169079038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07|||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between AEGR-755 5 mg and placebo.||7.07|2.30|<0.001
84671993|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|7.57||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||7.57|2.27|<0.001
84671994|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||7.07|2.30|<0.001
84671995|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|6.1||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||6.10|1.73|<0.001
84671996|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.33||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||11.33|4.31|<0.001
84671997|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.72||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||5.72|1.58|<0.001
84671998|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|11.11||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||11.11|4.22|<0.001
84671999|NCT00559962|169079039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.86||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||9.86|5.16|<0.001
84672000|NCT00792610|169079040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|0.05|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chi-square analysis and Fischer's exact test were used for comparing group proportions between seropositive and seronegative participants. GMT and their 95% confidence intervals were also calculated using the software developed by Kirkman, T.W. (18) An ANOVA test was performed to compare the difference of the three groups at one, six and seven months categorized by the anti-HBs titers at 7-10 days after the booster.||.15|.05|<0.05
84672001|NCT03778931|169079058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.768|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.768|0.387|0.0005
84672002|NCT03778931|169079059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.88|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.880|0.552|0.0018
84672003|NCT03778931|169079060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.958||The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.958|0.361|0.0325
84672004|NCT03778931|169079061|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.025|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Applied a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: ESR1-mutational status (ESR1-mut vs ESR1-wt), prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no).|||1.025|0.536|0.0697
84730523|NCT00843115|169213769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730524|NCT00843115|169213770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730525|NCT00843115|169213771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730526|NCT00843115|169213772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730527|NCT00843115|169213773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730528|NCT00843115|169213774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730529|NCT00843115|169213775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730530|NCT00843115|169213776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730531|NCT00843115|169213777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730532|NCT00843115|169213778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730533|NCT00843115|169213779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730534|NCT00843115|169213780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730535|NCT00843115|169213781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate @ 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730536|NCT00843115|169213782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730537|NCT00843115|169213783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
84730538|NCT00843115|169213784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84730539|NCT00843115|169213785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward||||<0.0001
84672005|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.56||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.46
84672006|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|6.64||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Diagnosis by smoking status interaction.|Parietal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.012
84672007|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|211.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Main effect for smoking status.|Occipital BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers.||||0.04
84672008|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.22
84672009|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Parietal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.51
84672010|NCT00915798|169079062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Occipital BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.69
84672011|NCT00167934|169079070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84672012|NCT00167934|169079071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84672013|NCT00603746|169079088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.370|0.180|<0.001
84672014|NCT00603746|169079088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.272|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.367|||ANCOVA|||||0.367|0.178|<0.001
84672015|NCT00603746|169079088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.357|||ANCOVA|||||0.357|0.171|<0.001
84672016|NCT00603746|169079088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.320|0.131|<0.001
84672017|NCT00603746|169079088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.291|||ANCOVA|||||0.291|0.105|<0.001
84672018|NCT01524627|169079122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
84672019|NCT01524627|169079122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84672020|NCT04482179|169079203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
84672021|NCT04482179|169079204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
84672022|NCT04127786|169079248|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
84672023|NCT04127786|169079248|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||6.4|-0.6|
84672024|NCT04127786|169079248|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
84672025|NCT04127786|169079248|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Adult (\>= 18 years)||4.6|-1.5|
84672026|NCT04127786|169079249|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines was reached at Day 42, then superiority was demonstrated if the overall observed percentage of participants with an RVNA titer \>= 0.5 IU/mL at Day 42 was at least 99% in the VRVg-2 Group, with the lower limit of the 95% CI at least 97%.|Percentage Difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|100.0||||||The secondary immunogenicity outcome measures were evaluated sequentially following a fixed-sequence method.||100|99.3|
84672027|NCT04127786|169079250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
84672028|NCT04127786|169079250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||2.7|-1.9|
84672029|NCT04127786|169079250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.5||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.5|-1.4|
84672030|NCT04127786|169079250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Adult (\>= 18 years)||5.3|-0.5|
84496898|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-1.1|5.9||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.9|-1.1|
84730540|NCT00843115|169213786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|P value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
84730541|NCT00843115|169213787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|p-value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
84730542|NCT00843115|169213788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
84730543|NCT00843115|169213789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
84730544|NCT00843115|169213790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|||||||correlation coefficient|||||||0.0713
84730545|NCT00843115|169213791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Correlation coefficient|||||||0.0225
84730546|NCT00843115|169213792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||0.0152
84730547|NCT00843115|169213793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||0.0229
84730548|NCT00843115|169213794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
84730549|NCT00843115|169213795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
84730550|NCT00843115|169213796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7963|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12."||||||0.7963
84730551|NCT00843115|169213797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||1.0000
84730552|NCT00843115|169213798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0719
84730553|NCT00843115|169213799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1779|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||0.1779
84730554|NCT00843115|169213800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
84730555|NCT00843115|169213801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8575|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.8575
84730556|NCT00843115|169213802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
84730557|NCT00843115|169213803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||1.0000
84730558|NCT00843115|169213804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0131
84730559|NCT00843115|169213805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.0078
84730560|NCT02845375|169213807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.299
84730561|NCT00225277|169213808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.886||||0.002||95.0|-1.448|-0.325|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.3250|-1.4480|0.002
84730562|NCT00225277|169213809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.048||||0.064||95.0|-8.3336|0.2374|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way ANCOVA, treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.2374|-8.3336|0.064
84730563|NCT00225277|169213810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.744
84730564|NCT00225277|169213811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.883
84730565|NCT00225277|169213812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.663
84730566|NCT01177137|169213829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|4.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.07|-8.77|0.47
84730567|NCT01177137|169213829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.65|-8.27|0.31
84752286|NCT03662139|169259895|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test|The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.||Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.05
84730568|NCT01177137|169213830|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.02|-5.30|0.96
84730569|NCT01177137|169213830|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to adjust for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.70|-2.21|0.28
84730570|NCT01177137|169213831|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.77|-0.55|0.30
84730571|NCT01177137|169213831|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
84730572|NCT01177137|169213833|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.29||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.29|-3.08|0.77
84730573|NCT01177137|169213833|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.96||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.96|-3.16|0.65
84730574|NCT01177137|169213834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.67|-1.38|0.50
84730575|NCT01177137|169213834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.90|-1.14|0.82
84730576|NCT01177137|169213835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation.|||0.62|-1.37|0.46
84730577|NCT01177137|169213835|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.64|||repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.64|-1.35|0.48
84730578|NCT01177137|169213836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.53|-0.74|0.75
84730579|NCT01177137|169213836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.17|-1.56|0.015
84730580|NCT01177137|169213837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.69|-0.83|0.85
84730581|NCT01177137|169213837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.46|-0.86|0.55
84752287|NCT03662139|169259896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
84730582|NCT01177137|169213838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.88|-9.27|0.30
84730583|NCT01177137|169213838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.93|-6.75|0.76
84730584|NCT01177137|169213839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.68|-3.44|0.35
84730585|NCT01177137|169213839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|9.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.54|-2.96|0.30
84730586|NCT01177137|169213840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||8.02|-5.20|0.68
84730587|NCT01177137|169213840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|7.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.33|-5.44|0.77
84730588|NCT01177137|169213841|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|5.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.23|-12.30|0.43
84730589|NCT01177137|169213841|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.02|-5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-5.38|-22.02|0.001
84730590|NCT01177137|169213842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||11.38|-3.96|0.34
84730591|NCT01177137|169213842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|7.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.26|-7.72|0.95
84730592|NCT01177137|169213843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.38|-9.07|0.62
84730593|NCT01177137|169213843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|2.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.55|-11.48|0.21
84730594|NCT01177137|169213844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|6.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||6.52|-6.78|0.97
84730595|NCT01177137|169213844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|3.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||3.40|-9.43|0.36
84667454|NCT03011307|169070106|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00035||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00085|0.0015||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Intercept difference: Opioid probability|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.0015|-.00085|0.537
84667455|NCT03011307|169070107|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference: Opioid probability|-0.166||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|-0.16||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-0.160|-0.172|0.010
84667456|NCT03011307|169070108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Scores were compared statistically at baseline and 2 months between groups using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||.55
84667457|NCT03011307|169070109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared over time from baseline to 2 months using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||0.46
84667458|NCT03011307|169070110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared between preoperative and 2 month postoperative sessions using linear regression with time as a fixed factor.||||0.38
84667459|NCT03526458|169070111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||28.9|4.4|0.012
84667460|NCT03526458|169070112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|-3.6|0.132
84667461|NCT03526458|169070113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-4.4|0.654
84667462|NCT03526458|169070114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.299
84667463|NCT03526458|169070115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
84667464|NCT03526458|169070116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|143.9||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.0|306.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||306.8|-286|0.943
84667465|NCT03526458|169070117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.185
84667466|NCT02404285|169070141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84667467|NCT02404285|169070143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84667468|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
84667469|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.78|
84667470|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||Serotype 4: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.71|
84667471|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.74|
84667472|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.88|0.66|
84667473|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.95|0.73|
84667474|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96||||||Serotype 7F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.96|0.77|
84667475|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.82|
84730596|NCT01177137|169213845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.14|-4.67|0.68
84730597|NCT01177137|169213845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-9.26|0.23
84730598|NCT01177137|169213846|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.66|-3.30|0.52
84730599|NCT01177137|169213846|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.41|-5.21|0.022
84730600|NCT01177137|169213847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-1.54|0.72
84730601|NCT01177137|169213847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.75||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.75|-2.83|0.26
84730602|NCT01177137|169213848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.78||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.78|0.55|0.30
84730603|NCT01177137|169213848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
84730604|NCT01163955|169213859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in the floor.||9|0|<.0005
84730605|NCT01163955|169213859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in a chair.||9|0|<.0005
84730606|NCT02460562|169213860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Mean salivary fluoride concentrations (part per million) between groups were assessed at different time points using repeated measures analysis of variance. Saliva fluoride concentration from each groups were compared with baseline using a t-test.|ANOVA|||Mean saliva fluoride concentration (part per million) collected at different time points was compared in order to assess the change in capacity for fluoride release and recharge from the resin denture base and to assess differences between the control and the intervention group.||||<0.05
84730607|NCT02460562|169213861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Caries assessments were performed to examine the difference in mean number of surface caries (DMFS) ± standard deviation between the control and the intervention groups at baseline and at 1.5 years.The transition (∆Q) of developed new caries surfaces (ICDAS score 1-3) from baseline to 1.5 years of follow-up for the two groups was analyzed with respect to arrest or progress rates. Numbers of new caries surfaces were compared by independent t-test, Pearson chi-square and correlation coefficient.||||<0.05
84730608|NCT00784277|169213862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.37||0.007||95.0|15.11|95.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||95.13|15.11|0.007
84730609|NCT00784277|169213862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.23||0.004||95.0|23.67|103.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||103.13|23.67|0.004
84730610|NCT00784277|169213863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|2.22|4.01||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||4.01|2.22|<0.001
84730611|NCT00784277|169213863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|1.34|3.12||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||3.12|1.34|<0.001
84730612|NCT00784277|169213863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.72|2.5||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||2.50|0.72|<0.001
84730613|NCT00187135|169213876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
84730614|NCT00187135|169213876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. The sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was obtained.||||0.5
84730615|NCT00187135|169213877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
84730616|NCT00187135|169213878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in heart rate (HR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.87
84730617|NCT00187135|169213879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in respiratory rate (RR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.67
84730618|NCT00187135|169213880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in blood presure (BP) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.52
84730619|NCT00187135|169213881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of motion (Y/N)on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.99
84730620|NCT01951261|169213882|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was made, considering it appropriate to set a limit of non-inferiority with respect to the main variable of 1.2 months (36 days), the study being lower if it will have exacerbation before this period of time, with a follow-up of 6 months, It was required to include a sample of 58 patients per group for a potency of 80% and a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.Statistical analysis of the main variable was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84730621|NCT00999141|169213893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||<0.0001
84730622|NCT00999141|169213896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.04||||0.257||95.0|-0.039|0.125|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||0.125|-0.039|0.257
84730623|NCT00999141|169213897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.373|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.524|-0.193|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.193|-0.524|<0.001
84730624|NCT00999141|169213898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.387|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.538|-0.205|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.205|-0.538|<0.001
84730625|NCT00999141|169213899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.356||||0.001||95.0|-0.521|-0.161|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.161|-0.521|0.001
84730626|NCT00999141|169213900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.189||||0.027||95.0|-0.342|-0.023|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.023|-0.342|0.027
84730627|NCT00999141|169213903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.413||||||95.0|-0.577|-0.213|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.213|-0.577|
84730628|NCT00999141|169213904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.227||||||95.0|-0.413|-0.02|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.020|-0.413|
84730629|NCT00999141|169213905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.347||||||95.0|-0.518|-0.145|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.145|-0.518|
84730630|NCT00999141|169213906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.365||||||95.0|-0.528|-0.171|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.171|-0.528|
84730631|NCT04098497|169213925|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.74, df = 28||baseline to day 42 comparison||||0.09
84730632|NCT04098497|169213926|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.75, df = 28||baseline to day 42||||0.09
84730633|NCT04098497|169213927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.14, z = 1.51||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.13
84730634|NCT04098497|169213928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.38, z = 2.71||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.007
84730635|NCT04098497|169213929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.03, z = 0.58||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.57
84730636|NCT04098497|169213930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.06, z = 1.15||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.25
84730637|NCT03455218|169213931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84730638|NCT03455218|169213933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84730639|NCT03455218|169213934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84730640|NCT03455218|169213935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84730641|NCT03455218|169213936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84730642|NCT03455218|169213937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84730643|NCT03455218|169213938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84730644|NCT03455218|169213940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84730645|NCT03455218|169213941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84730646|NCT03455218|169213942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84730647|NCT03455218|169213943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84730648|NCT03455218|169213944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84730649|NCT03455218|169213945|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84730650|NCT03455218|169213946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84730651|NCT00297778|169213947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0103||95.0|-3.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0103
84730652|NCT00297778|169213948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.758||||0.0535||95.0|0.992|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.992|0.0535
84730653|NCT00297778|169213949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0346||95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.5|0.0346
84730654|NCT00297778|169213950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5244||95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-1|0.5244
84730655|NCT00297778|169213951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141||95.0|0.0|0.0|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0|0|0.141
84730656|NCT00297778|169213952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.003||95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
84730657|NCT00297778|169213953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0034||95.0|-3.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0034
84730658|NCT00297778|169213954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0007||95.0|-5.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.4|0.0007
84730659|NCT00297778|169213955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.821||||0.006||95.0|1.187|2.794|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.794|1.187|0.006
84730660|NCT00297778|169213956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.1925||95.0|-3.3|0.8|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0.8|-3.3|0.1925
84730661|NCT00297778|169213957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.04||||0.0337||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)|||||0.09|0|0.0337
84730662|NCT00297778|169213958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8471||95.0|-5.6|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-5.6|0.8471
84730663|NCT00297778|169213959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)||95% Confidence interval is Distribution-free Confidence Interval (Moses).|N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.0|0.0|0.1410
84730664|NCT00297778|169213960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.2|-0.5|0.5231
84730665|NCT03569475|169213971|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.04|-4.49|0.2215
84730666|NCT03569475|169213971|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|0.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.95|-4.59|0.1964
84730667|NCT03569475|169213972|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.21|-0.32|0.6789
84730668|NCT03569475|169213972|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.05|-0.48|0.1126
84730669|NCT02109107|169213973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=21.33; df=53||||||<.0001
84730670|NCT02109107|169213974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.95; df=53||||||<0.05
84730671|NCT02109107|169213975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t+3.34; df=53||||||<0.005
84730672|NCT01350388|169213982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
84730673|NCT01350388|169213983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
84730674|NCT01350388|169213984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84730675|NCT01350388|169213985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
84730676|NCT01350388|169213986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84730677|NCT01350388|169213987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84730678|NCT00580047|169213991|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The intervention groups were compared for compliance to either having annual IV zoledronic acid, taking weekly oral alendronate, and taking calcium/vitamin D supplementation.|||
84730679|NCT02820298|169213992|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|131.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.03|147.56|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||147.56|117.03|
84730680|NCT02820298|169213994|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|110.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.91|117.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||117.06|103.91|
84730681|NCT02820298|169213995|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.48|114.54|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||114.54|102.48|
84730682|NCT01064856|169214001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.006
84730683|NCT01064856|169214003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
84730684|NCT01064856|169214004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
84730685|NCT01064856|169214005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.051
84730686|NCT01894256|169214014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.27|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.27|1.04|
84730687|NCT01894256|169214014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.48|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.48|1.06|
84730688|NCT01894256|169214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.47|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.47|1.06|
84730689|NCT01894256|169214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.89|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.89|1.10|
84730690|NCT01780584|169214026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||Repeated Anova was used to determine whether there was difference of FT3 levels between groups|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference of free T3 (FT3) levels will be found between placebo, low dose and high dose group. We anticipated a difference of 2 pg/ml in FT3 with a standard deviation of 0.8 pg/ml between groups. For a statistical power of 80% to identify a treatment effect and at a level significance of 0.05 (2-sided).||3|1|<0.05
84730691|NCT01780584|169214028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.31||95.0|3.0|10.0||Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine any difference of time of extubation between groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: no difference of time to extubation between group. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05||10|3|0.31
84730692|NCT01780584|169214029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|50.0||||0.4||95.0|40.0|60.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||60|40|0.4
84730693|NCT01780584|169214030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.06||95.0|5.0|15.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of postoperative hospital length of stay between groups. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||15|5|0.06
84730694|NCT00546884|169214031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84730695|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6409||||||Hochberg's adjustment was used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6409
84730696|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0140
84730697|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4840
84730698|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4444||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4444
84730699|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8129||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8129
84730700|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.1105
84479547|NCT00608881|168709906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||π hat|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.534|||||π hat is the estimate of the probability π that a randomly selected subject treated with CoQ has a better outcome than a randomly selected subject treated with placebo. Under the null hypothesis of no effect of CoQ, π = 0.50.|In this joint rank analysis, subjects are ranked from worst to best outcome with subjects who die being assigned the worst ranks (and ranked according to the time of death) and subjects who survive being ranked more favorably in the order of the change from baseline to Month 60 in TFC score.||0.534|0.454|
84479548|NCT00608881|168709907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.44|
84667476|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||Serotype 14: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.13|0.89|
84667477|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.74|
84667478|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 19A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
84667479|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||Serotype 19F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.70|
84667480|NCT03760146|169070164|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||Serotype 23F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.70|
84667481|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.62||||||Serotype 8: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.62|0.49|
84667482|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.12||||||Serotype 10A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.63|
84667483|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01||||||Serotype 11A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.01|1.52|
84667484|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.72||||||Serotype 12F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.72|1.27|
84667485|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|3.71||||||Serotype 15B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||3.71|2.62|
84667486|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.32||||||Serotype 22F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.32|1.70|
84667487|NCT03760146|169070165|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.57||||||Serotype 33F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.57|1.21|
84667488|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.84|
84667489|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.92|
84667490|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.38|0.87|
84667491|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.72|
84667492|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.53||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.53|0.95|
84730701|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9582||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9582
84479549|NCT00608881|168709908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.58||||||||1.58|-1.40|
84571041|NCT00853385|168893119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.65||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.90|1.40|0.0091
84667493|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.56||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|1.00|
84667494|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.74|
84667495|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.83|
84667496|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.54|1.01|
84667497|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.06|
84667498|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.25|0.85|
84667499|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.80|
84667500|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.22||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.22|1.27|
84667501|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.20|0.78|
84667502|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.28|0.84|
84479550|NCT00608881|168709909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.79||||||||3.79|-6.68|
84479551|NCT00608881|168709910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.16||||||||2.16|-4.40|
84479552|NCT00608881|168709911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.39||||||||1.39|-1.48|
84479553|NCT00608881|168709912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.23||||||||3.23|-4.78|
84667503|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.56||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.96|
84667504|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.39||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.39|0.88|
84667505|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.88|
84667506|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.17|0.69|
84667507|NCT03760146|169070166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.30|0.81|
84667508|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.50|1.01|
84667509|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.16|0.87|
84667510|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.13||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.13|2.65|
84730702|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1893||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1893
84730703|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2924||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment||Week 5||||0.2924
84730704|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1897||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.1897
84667511|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.36|0.91|
84667512|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.83||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.83|3.06|
84667513|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.26||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.26|2.73|
84667514|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.91||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.91|1.30|
84667515|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.33|2.83|
84667516|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.96|1.93|
84667517|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.04|2.53|
84667518|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.81||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.81|1.91|
84667519|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.68||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.68|1.76|
84667520|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|6.32||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||6.32|3.65|
84667521|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.12||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.38|
84667522|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.00|1.31|
84667523|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.04|
84479554|NCT00608881|168709913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.32|
84667524|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.41||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.41|1.51|
84667525|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.05||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.05|1.13|
84667526|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.20|1.30|
84667527|NCT03760146|169070167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.79||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.79|1.10|
84730705|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6608||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.6608
84730706|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2148||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.2148
84730707|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.5290
84730708|NCT00141271|169214032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0811||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.0811
84730709|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2287
84730710|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4734||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week1||||0.4734
84730711|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7401||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7401
84479555|NCT00608881|168709914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.51||||||||1.51|-2.71|
84730712|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7904||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7904
84730713|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5274||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.5274
84730714|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1059||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.1059
84730715|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8871||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8871
84730716|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6939|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.6939
84730717|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1044||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.1044
84730718|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3132||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.3132
84479556|NCT00608881|168709915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.87||||||||2.87|-2.28|
84479557|NCT00608881|168709916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.44||||||||7.44|0.31|
84479558|NCT00608881|168709917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.10|
84479559|NCT00608881|168709918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.81|
84479560|NCT00608881|168709919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15||||||||1.15|0.75|
84730719|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6978
84730720|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3228
84730721|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6432
84730722|NCT00141271|169214033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5989||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.5989
84730723|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8921||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.8921
84730724|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4350
84479561|NCT00810043|168709928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.430
84730725|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.562||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5620
84730726|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6959||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6959
84730727|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7865||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7865
84730728|NCT00141271|169214034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7564
84603262|NCT05538312|168957123|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.86|207.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||207.94|178.86|
84730729|NCT00141271|169214035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4327||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4327
84730730|NCT00141271|169214035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7041||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7041
84730731|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2076||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2076
84730732|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7449||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.7449
84730733|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4399||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.4399
84730734|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7107||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7107
84730735|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4765||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4765
84479562|NCT00810043|168709928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.643
84479563|NCT00810043|168709928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.165
84479564|NCT00810043|168709929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH restored||||0.402
84730736|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2564
84730737|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8063||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8063
84730738|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9855||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.9855
84730739|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0599||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0599
84730740|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7364||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.7364
84730741|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.3048
84730742|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5139||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.5139
84479565|NCT00810043|168709929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH restored||||0.578
84730743|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9356||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9356
84730744|NCT00141271|169214036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9428
84730745|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3888
84730746|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3122||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3122
84730747|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3323
84730748|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8781||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.8781
84730749|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9485||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9485
84730750|NCT00141271|169214037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7331||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7331
84730751|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.4869
84730752|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5813||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.5813
84730753|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.3303
84730754|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1546||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.1546
84479566|NCT00810043|168709929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH restored||||0.166
84479567|NCT00810043|168709931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.900
84479568|NCT00810043|168709931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.620
84730755|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8982||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.8982
84730756|NCT00141271|169214038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3586
84730757|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0896||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.0896
84730758|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6534||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6534
84730759|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.3270
84730760|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4099
84730761|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6104||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6104
84730762|NCT00141271|169214039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9359||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9359
84479569|NCT00810043|168709931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.349
84730763|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6924||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6924
84730764|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0800
84730765|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4238||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4238
84730766|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7714||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.7714
84730767|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8731||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8731
84730768|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8926
84730769|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2072||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.2072
84730770|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1042
84730771|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2695||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.2695
84730772|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3245
84730773|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7791||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.7791
84730774|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0999||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.0999
84730775|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9543||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.9543
84479570|NCT00810043|168709932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889
84479571|NCT00810043|168709933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
84479572|NCT00810043|168709934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
84479573|NCT00810043|168709935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.360
84479574|NCT02001688|168709936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84479575|NCT02001688|168709936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.020
84479576|NCT02001688|168709936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0192
84479577|NCT02001688|168709937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value of Stratified Wilcoxon test||||||0.0005
84479578|NCT02001688|168709937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0193
84667528|NCT01082965|169070177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasts Square (LS) Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.58||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype, site as covariates.||0.58|-0.60|0.9742
84667529|NCT01082965|169070178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.51|0.9638
84667530|NCT01082965|169070179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.53|0.2548
84667531|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.18|0.6316
84667532|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.6256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.6256
84667533|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.5847
84667534|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.09|-0.46|0.1555
84667535|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.51|0.2416
84667536|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.26|-0.33|0.8070
84667537|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.59|0.6828
84667538|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.26|0.8987
84667539|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.28|0.8922
84667540|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.52||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.52|-0.39|0.7555
84667541|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.79||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.79|-0.18|0.1928
84667542|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.26|0.4946
84730776|NCT00141271|169214040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3153
84730777|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2878||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.2878
84730778|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4481||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.4481
84730779|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4099
84730780|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5093||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 2||||0.5093
84730781|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 3||||0.8048
84730782|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0552
84730783|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9795||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9795
84730784|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5073||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.5073
84730785|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4882
84730786|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3967||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3967
84730787|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8276||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8276
84730788|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8502||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8502
84730789|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6343||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6343
84730790|NCT00141271|169214041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3082
84730791|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6932
84730792|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0287
84730793|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2128||95.0||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.2128
84730794|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1118||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.1118
84730795|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.6144
84730796|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0899
84479579|NCT02001688|168709937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.2485
84479580|NCT02001688|168709938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg,Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
84479581|NCT02001688|168709939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg, Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
84667543|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.40|-0.56|0.7029
84667544|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.68|0.1085
84667545|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.44|0.3588
84667546|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.53|-0.20|0.3053
84667547|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.36||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.36|-0.36|0.9861
84667548|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.41|0.6558
84667549|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.51|-0.53|0.9471
84667550|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.23|-0.77|0.2136
84667551|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.67|-0.47|0.6435
84667552|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.02|-0.41|0.0659
84667553|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.7687
84667554|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.10|-0.73|0.1061
84667555|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.41|0.3925
84667556|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.58|0.1991
84667557|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.24||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.24|-0.45|0.5176
84667558|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.3140
84730797|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8819||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8819
84730798|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8374
84730799|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3925||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3925
84730800|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4182||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4182
84730801|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8586
84730802|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.5490
84730803|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6292||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6292
84479582|NCT01989754|168709942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Cox proportional hazard method|||||0.73|0.57|<.0001
84730804|NCT00141271|169214042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1473||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.1473
84730805|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.2058
84479583|NCT01989754|168709943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||0.94|0.55|=0.0148
84479584|NCT01989754|168709944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||1.22|0.61|=0.4067
84479585|NCT00118911|168709961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.631|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.337|<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.963|||ANCOVA|We used multiple imputation.||Hypothesis was that CBT would be superior to RES||-0.963|-8.30|<.03
84730806|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9254||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.9254
84730807|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5071||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.5071
84730808|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2858||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2858
84730809|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6298||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6298
84730810|NCT00141271|169214043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6034
84730811|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1454||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.1454
84730812|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2672||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 1||||0.2672
84730813|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2614||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 2||||0.2614
84730814|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.2143
84730815|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.6997
84730816|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0128
84730817|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1144
84730818|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1483
84730819|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0674||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0674
84730820|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.2900
84730821|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5482||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5482
84730822|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.0303
84730823|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6143
84479586|NCT00118911|168709962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Those who were assigned to CBT and made a partial or full response maintained their gains over follow-up|We examined whether those in the CBT condition maintained their gains over time. Analysis was restricted to those assigned to CBT who were responders or partial responders.||.18|-.41|>.05
84730824|NCT00141271|169214044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3385||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.3385
84730825|NCT00141271|169214045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3299||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3299
84730826|NCT00141271|169214045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1915||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1915
84730827|NCT00141271|169214046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5407||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5407
84730828|NCT00141271|169214046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6079||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6079
84730829|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8464
84730830|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.4023
84730831|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2870
84730832|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2537
84730833|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7909||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7909
84730834|NCT00141271|169214047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3308||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3308
84730835|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3355||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.3355
84730836|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8447||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8447
84479587|NCT03796182|168709999|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.09|118.2||||||||118.20|82.09|
84667559|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.46|0.6348
84667560|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.64|0.1491
84667561|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.59|0.4226
84667562|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.5||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.50|-0.49|0.9778
84667563|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.40|0.9456
84667564|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.15|-0.55|0.2299
84667565|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.54|0.5069
84667566|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.45|0.3524
84667567|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.47|-0.80|0.4182
84667568|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.326||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.04||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.04|-0.42|0.3630
84667569|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.74|-0.73|0.9837
84667570|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.0974
84667571|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.04|0.1246
84667572|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.20|0.6190
84667573|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.39|0.6350
84667574|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.40|0.8205
84667575|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.2959
84730837|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8959||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.8959
84730838|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4826||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4826
84730839|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4178||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4178
84730840|NCT00141271|169214048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8277||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8277
84730841|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7758||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.7758
84730842|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8737
84730843|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1151
84730844|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1290
84730845|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4432
84730846|NCT00141271|169214049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2988||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2988
84730847|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8598||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8598
84730848|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6513||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6513
84730849|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6272||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6272
84730850|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6467||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6467
84730851|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8049||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8049
84730852|NCT00141271|169214050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9411||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.9411
84730853|NCT00141271|169214051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9260
84730854|NCT00141271|169214051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7100
84730855|NCT00141271|169214052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1836||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1836
84730856|NCT00141271|169214052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1374
84730857|NCT00141271|169214053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9237||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9237
84730858|NCT00141271|169214053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3786||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3786
84730859|NCT00141271|169214054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4624||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4624
84730860|NCT00141271|169214054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5971|||||||ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5971
84730861|NCT00141271|169214055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1378
84730862|NCT00141271|169214055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7665
84730863|NCT00141271|169214056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4767||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.4767
84730864|NCT00141271|169214056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2066||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2066
84730865|NCT00141271|169214057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1667||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1667
84730866|NCT00141271|169214057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6727||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6727
84730867|NCT00141271|169214058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7019||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7019
84730868|NCT00141271|169214058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1020
84730869|NCT00141271|169214059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4749||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4749
84730870|NCT00141271|169214059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4491||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4491
84730871|NCT00141271|169214060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4398||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4398
84730872|NCT00141271|169214060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3331
84730873|NCT00141271|169214061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2763||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2763
84730874|NCT00141271|169214061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2048||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2048
84730875|NCT00141271|169214062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4340
84730876|NCT00141271|169214062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.7774
84730877|NCT00141271|169214063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.5195
84730878|NCT00141271|169214063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.0153
84730879|NCT00141271|169214064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2847||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2847
84730880|NCT00141271|169214064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1958||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1958
84730881|NCT00141271|169214065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1652||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1652
84730882|NCT00141271|169214065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5997
84730883|NCT00141271|169214066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.0082
84730884|NCT00141271|169214066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7037||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7037
84730885|NCT00141271|169214067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2718||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2718
84730886|NCT00141271|169214067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7077||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7077
84730887|NCT00141271|169214068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5057
84730888|NCT00141271|169214068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3654
84730889|NCT00141271|169214069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6227||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6227
84730890|NCT00141271|169214069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7737||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7737
84730891|NCT04783519|169214074|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.127|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.127|-0.650|.004
84730892|NCT04783519|169214074|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.21||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.482|0.054|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||.054|-.482|.118
84571042|NCT03073486|168893172|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.2301
84730893|NCT04783519|169214074|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.142|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.142|-0.674|.003
84730894|NCT04783519|169214074|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.107|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.107|-0.428|.240
84730895|NCT04783519|169214075|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.65|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-1.65|-8.10|.003
84730896|NCT04783519|169214075|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-1.71||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|1.57|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||1.57|-4.98|.308
84730897|NCT04783519|169214075|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.25|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||-1.25|-7.8|.007
84730898|NCT04783519|169214075|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.83||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.46|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section. Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/ )||2.46|-4.12|.621
84730899|NCT04783519|169214076|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.802||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.003|0.641|.054
84730900|NCT04783519|169214076|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.75||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.946|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.946|0.600|.015
84571043|NCT03073486|168893173|OTHER|||||||0.6888|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.6888
84571044|NCT03073486|168893174|OTHER|||||||0.1361|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.1361
84730901|NCT04783519|169214076|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.736||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.937|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.937|0.578|.013
84730902|NCT04783519|169214076|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.658||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.844|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.844|0.513|.001
84730903|NCT04783519|169214077|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.992||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.374|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.374|0.716|.960
84730904|NCT04783519|169214077|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.782||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.094|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.094|0.506|.152
84730905|NCT04783519|169214077|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.887||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.482
84730906|NCT04783519|169214077|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.020
84479588|NCT03796182|168710000|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|93.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|102.65||||||||102.65|85.15|
84730907|NCT04783519|169214078|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.724||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.973|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.973|0.540|.032
84730908|NCT04783519|169214078|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.588|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.8|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.800|0.432|<.001
84730909|NCT04783519|169214079|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.914|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.914|0.535|.009
84571045|NCT01829347|168893179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.133|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.133|0.085|0.076
84730910|NCT04783519|169214079|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.675||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.888|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.888|0.512|.005
84730911|NCT04783519|169214079|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.698||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.928|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.928|0.526|.013
84730912|NCT04783519|169214079|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.715|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.715|0.385|<.001
84730913|NCT04783519|169214080|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.598||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.885|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.885|0.404|.010
84479589|NCT03796182|168710001|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|88.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.99|95.76||||||||95.76|80.99|
84479590|NCT03796182|168710003|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|94.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.19|100.73||||||||100.73|88.19|
84479591|NCT04682353|168710016|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|1.274||||||||1.274|0.748|
84479592|NCT04682353|168710016|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.598||||||||1.598|0.940|
84479593|NCT04682353|168710016|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.817|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.392||||||||2.392|1.380|
84571046|NCT01829347|168893180|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84730914|NCT04783519|169214080|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.502||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.760|0.331|.001
84730915|NCT04783519|169214080|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.790|0.337|.002
84730916|NCT04783519|169214080|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.506||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.774|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.774|0.330|.002
84730917|NCT04783519|169214081|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.628||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.853|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.853|0.462|.003
84730918|NCT04783519|169214081|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.744||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.028|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.028|0.538|.073
84730919|NCT04783519|169214081|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.764||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.043|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.043|0.559|.090
84479594|NCT04682353|168710018|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.506||||||||1.506|0.960|
84730920|NCT04783519|169214081|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.656||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.916|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.916|0.469|.013
84730921|NCT04783519|169214082|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.753||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.041|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.041|0.546|.087
84730922|NCT04783519|169214082|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.739||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.034|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.034|0.528|.078
84603263|NCT01514240|168957129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 90% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (remission rate) between the D9421-C 9mg group and the Mesalazine 3 g group was calculated at week 8 using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% CI was higher than -10% in FAS Population.|Difference of proportion|5.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.49|18.94|||Chi-squared|||The primary objective of this study was to determine non-inferiority in the differences in remission rates at Week 8 for D9421-C 9 mg as compared to Mesalazine 3 g.||18.94|-8.49|0.526
84730923|NCT04783519|169214082|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.773||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.05|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.050|0.569|.099
84730924|NCT04783519|169214082|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.704||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.969|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.969|0.512|.031
84752288|NCT03662139|169259896|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.828|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.01
84752289|NCT03662139|169259897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
84752290|NCT03662139|169259897|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.673|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Four Square Step Test (FSST) scores in Cerebral Palsy group.||||<0.05
84479595|NCT04682353|168710018|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.393|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.815||||||||1.815|1.070|
84479596|NCT04682353|168710018|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.301|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.806|2.933||||||||2.933|1.806|
84479597|NCT04682353|168710019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.699|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|3.135||||||||3.135|0.921|
84479598|NCT04682353|168710019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.364|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|4.39||||||||4.390|1.273|
84479599|NCT04682353|168710019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|6.908||||||||6.908|2.033|
84479600|NCT04682353|168710020|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|4.093||||||||4.093|0.886|
84479601|NCT04682353|168710020|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|6.942||||||||6.942|1.585|
84730925|NCT00092521|169214129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|95.1|100.0|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|95.1|
84730926|NCT00092521|169214130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|94.9|100.0|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|94.9|
84730927|NCT01878383|169214131|OTHER|Sensitivity is the percent of non-pregnant women positive for shedding HSV by culture method in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equals percent non-pregnant women positive.|Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|100.0|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Exact Confidence Interval|||100|90.8|
84730928|NCT01878383|169214132|OTHER|Positive percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with positive routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equal percent of pregnant women positive.|Positive percent agreement|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|86.3|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||86.3|73.7|
84730929|NCT01878383|169214133|OTHER|Negative percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with negative routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is negative. Units equal percent of pregnant women negative.|Negative percent agreement|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|99.5|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||99.5|99|
84730930|NCT00113269|169214161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-3.3||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-12.7|6.1|||Normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||6.1|-12.7|0.4889
84730931|NCT00113269|169214161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-21.9|-9.4|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||-9.4|-21.9|<0.0001
84730932|NCT00113269|169214162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.7||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.3|||normal approximation|||||14.3|-9.0|0.6533
84730933|NCT00113269|169214162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-11.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-4.2|||normal approximation|||||-4.2|-19.5|0.0024
84730934|NCT00113269|169214163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-6.1||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|8.4|||normal approximation|||||8.4|-20.7|0.4087
84730935|NCT00113269|169214163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-8.7||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.2|||normal approximation|||||-0.2|-17.2|0.0456
84730936|NCT00113269|169214164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.1||||0.8742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.0|||normal approximation|||||15.0|-12.7|0.8742
84730937|NCT00113269|169214164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-14.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.7|||normal approximation|||||-5.7|-22.5|0.0010
84730938|NCT00113269|169214166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|3.5||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||11.7|-4.8|0.4134
84730939|NCT00113269|169214166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.4||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.5|-1.7|0.2459
84730940|NCT00113269|169214167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|6.0||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|17.6|||normal approximation|||||17.6|-5.7|0.3155
84730941|NCT00113269|169214167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.4||||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7|||normal approximation|||||5.7|-6.5|0.9045
84479602|NCT04682353|168710020|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.796|12.135||||||||12.135|2.796|
84479603|NCT04682353|168710021|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.302||||||||1.302|0.920|
84479604|NCT04682353|168710021|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.744||||||||1.744|1.148|
84479605|NCT04682353|168710021|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.692|2.405||||||||2.405|1.692|
84479606|NCT04682353|168710022|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.303||||||||1.303|0.948|
84730942|NCT00113269|169214168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.6||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.7|-3.4|0.5265
84730943|NCT00113269|169214168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||2.2|-3.4|0.6820
84730944|NCT00113269|169214169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|5.9||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.4|||normal approximation|||||14.4|-2.7|0.1797
84730945|NCT00113269|169214169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-1.4||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.4|||normal approximation|||||3.4|-6.3|0.5655
84730946|NCT00113269|169214170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4735||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.4735
84730947|NCT00113269|169214170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1186||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1186
84730948|NCT00113269|169214171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.5231
84730949|NCT00113269|169214171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1220
84730950|NCT00451555|169214175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6238
84730951|NCT00451555|169214175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6282
84730952|NCT00451555|169214175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6242|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6242
84730953|NCT00451555|169214176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6390
84730954|NCT00451555|169214176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6721
84730955|NCT00451555|169214176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6349
84730956|NCT00451555|169214177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8582|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8582
84730957|NCT00451555|169214177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7307|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7307
84730958|NCT00451555|169214177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9798
84730959|NCT00451555|169214178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5887
84730960|NCT00451555|169214178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4516|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4516
84730961|NCT00451555|169214178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7965
84730962|NCT00922441|169214222|OTHER|Efficacy, Safety|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|comparison between the groups||||||<0.05
84730963|NCT00570921|169214231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Time to Progression|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.1||||||We hypothesized that median time to progression (TTP) in our trial will increase from 3.7 months for the historical fulvestrant-only control to 7.0 months on the combination of fulvestrant and everolimus in the current trial. A sample of 40 evaluable patients was calculated to show the increase in TTP with 80% power and 5% significance level based on a two sided test of differences in survival times between historical controls and treated group.||12.1|1.9|
84730964|NCT00570921|169214232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate Percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|29.83|||||Percentage of Patients with a complete or partial response with 95% exact binomial proportion confidence interval|||29.83|3.63|
84730965|NCT00570921|169214233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with clinical benefit|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|66.94|||||Percentage of patients that had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease for 24 weeks or more as defined by RECIST v1.0.|||66.94|30.15|
84730966|NCT00740870|169214252|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Rate|74.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|67.1||||Z test||||||67.1|<0.0001
84479607|NCT04682353|168710022|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.174|1.762||||||||1.762|1.174|
84479608|NCT04682353|168710022|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.751|2.459||||||||2.459|1.751|
84730967|NCT04167085|169214333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84730968|NCT04167085|169214334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84730969|NCT04167085|169214335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84730970|NCT04167085|169214336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Physical||||0.24
84730971|NCT04167085|169214336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Mental||||0.35
84730972|NCT04167085|169214337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84730973|NCT04167085|169214338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84730974|NCT04167085|169214339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84730975|NCT02273180|169214344|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure:if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested, demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95%CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.197|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.197|-0.084|
84479609|NCT04682353|168710023|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.252||||||||1.252|0.993|
84479610|NCT04682353|168710023|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.277|1.833||||||||1.833|1.277|
84479611|NCT04682353|168710023|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.888|2.425||||||||2.425|1.888|
84667576|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.56|0.5520
84730976|NCT03859622|169214365|OTHER|Frequencies and percentages for categorical data.||||||||||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|||
84479612|NCT03258632|168710074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.73|<.05
84730977|NCT02799745|169214401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.892||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR, 95% CI for HR:based on a Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk,type of biopsy,baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.892|0.330|0.016
84730978|NCT02799745|169214403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.92||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||6.92|1.76|0.00
84730979|NCT02799745|169214403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.0||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||4.00|0.66|0.289
84752291|NCT02137512|169259898|SUPERIORITY|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752292|NCT02137512|169259898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752293|NCT02137512|169259898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84730980|NCT02799745|169214404|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|-5.34||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|Mixed model repeated measure(MMRM) with treatment group, prostate cancer risk(low/intermediate), type of biopsy(mpMRI-targeted/non-mpMRI-targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment, baseline scores as fixed factors, site and participants as random factors.|Change at month 12||-5.34|-14.79|<0.001
84730981|NCT02799745|169214404|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.11||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|MMRM with treatment group, prostate cancer risk (low vs. intermediate), type of biopsy (mpMRI targeted vs. non mpMRI targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment and baseline scores were the fixed factors, and site and participants were the random factors.|Change at month 24||1.11|-11.40|0.1063
84730982|NCT02799745|169214405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.714||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.972||P-value: from a 2-sided, stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI for HR:based on Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.972|0.525|0.032
84730983|NCT02799745|169214406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR:from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||0.26|0.08|0.000
84730984|NCT02799745|169214406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.53||P-value: based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||3.53|0.37|0.807
84730985|NCT02799745|169214406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.15||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of study||2.15|0.50|0.931
84730986|NCT04333732|169214470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.1|-0.5|0.52
84730987|NCT04333732|169214471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|difference, 0·04%, 95% CI, -1·4% to 1·3%, p=0·95).||The endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.3|-1.4|0.95
84730988|NCT01222533|169214501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for Cmax,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|80.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.4||0.4423||90.0|73.49|88.52||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||88.52|73.49|0.4423
84730989|NCT01222533|169214502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for AUC0-6,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|75.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1||0.8683||90.0|70.44|81.98||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||81.98|70.44|0.8683
84730990|NCT01222533|169214503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.06|0.114|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.114|0.060|
84730991|NCT01222533|169214503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.128|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.128|0.074|<0.0001
84730992|NCT01222533|169214503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.148|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.148|0.094|<0.0001
84730993|NCT01222533|169214504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||95.0|0.141|0.189|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo.|||0.189|0.141|
84730994|NCT01222533|169214504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.209|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.209|0.161|<0.0001
84730995|NCT01222533|169214504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.216|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.216|0.167|<0.0001
84730996|NCT01222533|169214505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||||95.0|0.13|0.18|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.180|0.130|
84730997|NCT01222533|169214505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.205|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.205|0.155|<0.0001
84730998|NCT01222533|169214505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.211|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.211|0.162|<0.0001
84730999|NCT01222533|169214506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||95.0|0.083|0.194|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.194|0.083|
84731000|NCT01222533|169214506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.244|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.244|0.133|<0.0001
84731001|NCT01222533|169214506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.292|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.292|0.180|<0.0001
84731002|NCT01222533|169214507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||95.0|0.241|0.326|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.326|0.241|
84731003|NCT01222533|169214507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.362|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.362|0.276|<0.0001
84731004|NCT01222533|169214507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.292|0.378|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.378|0.292|<0.0001
84731005|NCT01222533|169214508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|0.236|0.325|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.325|0.236|
84731006|NCT01222533|169214508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.279|0.369|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.369|0.279|<0.0001
84731007|NCT01222533|169214508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.294|0.384|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.384|0.294|<0.0001
84731008|NCT00526097|169214538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|2.6|4.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.0|2.6|<0.0001
84731009|NCT00526097|169214539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|5.2||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.2|3.5|<0.0001
84731010|NCT00526097|169214540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.7|4.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.3|2.7|<0.0001
84496899|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.7|-5.8|
84731011|NCT00526097|169214541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|3.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.6|2.0|<0.0001
84731012|NCT00526097|169214542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|1.8|3.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
84731013|NCT00526097|169214543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|5.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.8|4.1|<0.0001
84731014|NCT00526097|169214544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001||95.0|5.8|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|5.8|<0.0001
84731015|NCT00526097|169214545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001||95.0|3.8|5.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.6|3.8|<0.0001
84496900|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
84731016|NCT00526097|169214546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.7|2.9|<0.0001
84731017|NCT00526097|169214547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|2.9|<0.0001
84731018|NCT00526097|169214548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was used to calculate the p-value and to test for differences between the treatment groups.||||<0.0001
84731019|NCT00526097|169214549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.57|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.57|1.62|<0.0001
84731020|NCT00526097|169214550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.13|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.13|1.44|<0.0001
84731021|NCT00526097|169214551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.66|1.62|<0.0001
84731022|NCT00526097|169214552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
84731023|NCT00526097|169214553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.24|1.88|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||1.88|1.24|<0.0001
84731024|NCT00526097|169214554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.28|68.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||68.66|4.28|<0.0001
84731025|NCT00526097|169214555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|3.35|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.35|1.81|<0.0001
84731026|NCT00526097|169214556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0025||95.0|1.32|4.74|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||4.74|1.32|0.0025
84731027|NCT00526097|169214557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0105||95.0|1.26|13.24|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||13.24|1.26|0.0105
84731028|NCT00526097|169214558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4002||95.0|0.52|6.47|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||6.47|0.52|0.4002
84731029|NCT00526097|169214559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||1||95.0|0.37|3.77|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.77|0.37|1.0000
84731030|NCT00526097|169214560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0951
84731031|NCT00526097|169214561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.41|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.41|0.09|<0.0001
84731032|NCT00526097|169214562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.2524||95.0|0.02|2.67|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.67|0.02|0.2524
84731033|NCT00526097|169214563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0035||95.0|0.06|0.63|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.63|0.06|0.0035
84731034|NCT00526097|169214564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.0004||95.0|0.01|0.46|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.46|0.01|0.0004
84731035|NCT00526097|169214565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0086||95.0|0.1|0.69|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.69|0.10|0.0086
84731036|NCT00526097|169214566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
84731037|NCT00526097|169214567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84731038|NCT00526097|169214568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.1|<0.0001
84731039|NCT00526097|169214569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
84731040|NCT00526097|169214570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.4|2.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.9|2.4|<0.0001
84731041|NCT00526097|169214571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.1|2.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.7|2.1|<0.0001
84731042|NCT00526097|169214572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|2.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.5|2.0|<0.0001
84731043|NCT00526097|169214573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|2.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.3|1.7|<0.0001
84731044|NCT00526097|169214574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0002
84731045|NCT00526097|169214575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0003||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0003
84731046|NCT00526097|169214576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0127||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0127
84731047|NCT00526097|169214577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0064||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.3|0.0064
84731048|NCT00526097|169214578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
84731049|NCT00526097|169214579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
84479613|NCT03846219|168710093|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64||A one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 45 mg IMU-838 / placebo|H0: cumulative number of CUA MRI lesions up to Week 24 with 45 mg IMU-838 equal to or higher than that with placebo. A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term. 51 patients per group were necessary to have 80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 in mean event rate with a significance level 0.1, 1-sided.||0.64|0.22|0.0002
84479614|NCT03846219|168710094|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53||A hierarchical testing procedure with a one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|Generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 30 mg IMU-838 / placebo|A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term.||0.53|0.17|<.0001
84496901|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|3.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.3|-1.8|
84496902|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.0|-3.3|
84731050|NCT00526097|169214580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
84731051|NCT00526097|169214581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
84731052|NCT00526097|169214582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
84731053|NCT00526097|169214583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84752294|NCT02137512|169259899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84731054|NCT00526097|169214584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
84731055|NCT00526097|169214585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0018
84731056|NCT00526097|169214586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731057|NCT00526097|169214587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731058|NCT00526097|169214588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731059|NCT00526097|169214589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84479615|NCT00180271|168710150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The trial involved prespecified event monitoring at up to 20 successive periods by an independent DSMB to permit trial termination if the CRT-D was superior to, inferior to, or not different from ICD according to prespecified stopping rules.|Log Rank||A Hazard ratio \< 1.0 would indicate that the result favors CRT-D.|The trial utilized a Wang-Tsiatis (delta=0.1) group-sequential design with 95% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.75 at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Primary analysis based on statistical evaluation comparing the life-table event-free survival time graphs for CRT-D and ICD-only arms of the trial. Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate a hazard ratio and statistical significance was evaluated with the log-rank test. Stratified by center and ischemic status.||0.84|0.52|< 0.001
84479616|NCT00180271|168710151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Andersen-Gill|Andersen-Gill model performed, adjusted for a previous HF event in the study, stratified by ischemic status and using robust variance estimation.|Model adjusted for previously experienced heart failure event in the study. Hazard Ratio (95% CI) comparing patients with a previous heart failure event to those patients without a prior heart failure event equaled 8.84 (6084, 11.43), p\<0.001.|||0.86|0.53|0.001
84667577|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.45|-0.50|0.9046
84667578|NCT01082965|169070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||-0.02|-0.62|0.0402
84667579|NCT01082965|169070181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|31.82||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||31.82|-21.82|0.6880
84667580|NCT01082965|169070181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.143||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|30.87||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||30.87|-11.30|0.3157
84731060|NCT00526097|169214590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731061|NCT00526097|169214591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731062|NCT00526097|169214592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731063|NCT00526097|169214593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731064|NCT00526097|169214594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731065|NCT00526097|169214595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731066|NCT00526097|169214596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731067|NCT00526097|169214597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
84731068|NCT00526097|169214598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.6773
84731069|NCT00526097|169214599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0002
84731070|NCT00526097|169214600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0001
84731071|NCT00526097|169214601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0005
84731072|NCT00526097|169214602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84731073|NCT00526097|169214603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84731074|NCT00526097|169214604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84731075|NCT00526097|169214605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0058
84752295|NCT02137512|169259899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752296|NCT02137512|169259899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731076|NCT00526097|169214606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.798||95.0|-3.4|4.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.5|-3.4|0.7980
84731077|NCT00526097|169214607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.6129||95.0|-3.0|5.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.1|-3.0|0.6129
84731078|NCT00526097|169214608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3567||95.0|-2.4|6.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.7|-2.4|0.3567
84731079|NCT00526097|169214609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.1407||95.0|-0.7|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|-0.7|0.1407
84731080|NCT00526097|169214610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.013||95.0|0.9|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|0.9|0.0130
84731081|NCT00526097|169214611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.5849||95.0|-3.0|5.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.3|-3.0|0.5849
84731082|NCT00526097|169214612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7543||95.0|-3.2|4.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.4|-3.2|0.7543
84731083|NCT00526097|169214613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.0273||95.0|0.4|6.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.6|0.4|0.0273
84731084|NCT00526097|169214614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.129||95.0|-0.4|3.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.0|-0.4|0.1290
84479617|NCT01938001|168710180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Log Rank|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its confidence interval (CI) were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.62|0.34|< 0.0001
84731085|NCT00526097|169214615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.378||95.0|-0.8|2.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.0|-0.8|0.3780
84731086|NCT00526097|169214616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
84731087|NCT00526097|169214617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
84731088|NCT00526097|169214618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0070
84731089|NCT00526097|169214619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
84479618|NCT01938001|168710181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||0.0006
84667581|NCT01082965|169070181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||33.28|-13.56|0.3228
84667582|NCT01082965|169070182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total IR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||4.12|-12.90|0.2540
84667583|NCT01082965|169070182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.37||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total DR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||5.37|-4.17|0.7684
84667584|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.09|0.4940
84667585|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.22|-0.02|0.1031
84667586|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.06|0.3277
84667587|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
84667588|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.07|0.8863
84667589|NCT01082965|169070183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.13|-0.06|0.4388
84667590|NCT03642717|169070189|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84667591|NCT03642717|169070192|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84667592|NCT03642717|169070193|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in body weight at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84667593|NCT03642717|169070194|OTHER|||||||0.0076||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0076
84667594|NCT03642717|169070195|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84667595|NCT02587065|169070197|OTHER||Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.02|||Mixed-effects REML regression|||Adjusted change of convenience satisfaction domain of TSQM-9.||2.02|-3.72|0.56
84667596|NCT03245008|169070246|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.86||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.57|<0.001
84667597|NCT03245008|169070246|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.76|0.103
84667598|NCT03245008|169070247|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.92||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.60|<0.001
84667599|NCT03245008|169070247|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-0.84|
84667600|NCT01286012|169070257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84667601|NCT01286012|169070258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.915
84667602|NCT01286012|169070259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6714
84667603|NCT01286012|169070260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84667604|NCT01286012|169070261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
84667605|NCT00827983|169070262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||3.7|-9.9|0.37
84667606|NCT00827983|169070263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|-9.87|0.37
84731090|NCT00526097|169214620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
84731091|NCT03713281|169214637|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.054|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger modethod for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.10 logMAR.||-0.054|-0.208|
84731092|NCT03713281|169214638|SUPERIORITY||Least-square means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.137|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.17 logMAR for near distance logMAR visual acuity.||0.137|-0.017|
84731093|NCT01990313|169214643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84731094|NCT02412111|169214645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.3|||=|0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.4|-0.8|= 0.5846
84731095|NCT02412111|169214646|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8|||=|0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.6|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.6|-1.0|= 0.3860
84731096|NCT02412111|169214647|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8|||=|0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||6.4|-0.8|= 0.1236
84731097|NCT02412111|169214648|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.8|||=|0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.9|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.9|-10.7|= 0.0216
84731098|NCT03226106|169214664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|930.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.65|1819.36||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1819.36|41.65|0.024
84479619|NCT01938001|168710182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95||||||Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||0.95|0.37|
84479620|NCT01938001|168710183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||< 0.0001
84731099|NCT03226106|169214665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.07||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.07|-0.67|0.584
84731100|NCT03226106|169214666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.32||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1.32|-1.40|0.724
84479621|NCT01938001|168710184|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||= 0.0010
84479622|NCT01938001|168710185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.36|0.0015
84479623|NCT01938001|168710186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.32|0.2993
84731101|NCT03226106|169214667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|33.89||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||33.89|-18.90|0.547
84731102|NCT03226106|169214668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|31.54||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||31.54|-21.67|0.716
84731103|NCT03226106|169214669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.82||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.82|-0.88|0.946
84479624|NCT01938001|168710187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its CI were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.67|0.38|< 0.0001
84479625|NCT01938001|168710188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||0.71|0.39|<0.0001
84479626|NCT01569087|168710221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84479627|NCT01626989|168710227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Friedman Test comparing all 3 nights||||||0.001|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||.001
84479628|NCT02437487|168710241|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
84479629|NCT02437487|168710243|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7668|2.0785||||||||2.0785|0.7668|
84479630|NCT02437487|168710244|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
84752297|NCT02137512|169259900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84752298|NCT02137512|169259900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731104|NCT03226106|169214670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.52|-1.08|0.906
84731105|NCT03226106|169214671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.49||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.49|-7.59|0.873
84731106|NCT03226106|169214672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-0.04||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||-0.04|-12.48|0.241
84731107|NCT03226106|169214673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|6.12||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||6.12|-0.39|0.223
84731108|NCT03226106|169214674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.53||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.53|-2.19|0.388
84731109|NCT03226106|169214675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.68||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.68|-4.08|0.88
84731110|NCT03226106|169214676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|4.17||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.17|-2.63|0.85
84731111|NCT03226106|169214677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.81||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-405.01|1524.62||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1524.62|-405.01|0.101
84731112|NCT04349644|169214678|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent vari- ables.||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.016
84731113|NCT04349644|169214678|OTHER|"A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each depen- dent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.~Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables."||||||0.288|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling Pretest.||||||0.288
84479631|NCT02437487|168710245|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7383|1.6029||||||||1.6029|0.7383|
84479632|NCT02293902|168710246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.583|26.594||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 150 mg|26.594|5.583|<0.0001
84731114|NCT04349644|169214679|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling pretest value for CASS Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.932
84731115|NCT04349644|169214679|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.221|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for CASS Quality of Rapport.||||||0.221
84731116|NCT04349644|169214679|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.873|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.873
84479633|NCT02293902|168710246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.446|15.158||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 200 mg|15.158|3.446|<0.0001
84479634|NCT00792701|168710304|OTHER|Correlation|Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84479635|NCT00792701|168710307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing RRM1 levels and ERCC1 levels between all patients.||||.0003
84667607|NCT00827983|169070264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-4.7|0.85
84571047|NCT01663623|168893225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.59||Cox proportional Hazards (Wald Chi Square)|Cox Proportional Hazards model|Analysis was adjusted for ANCA type, disease stage at induction and induction regimen|Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with covariates treatment group, Actual ANCA type, Actual disease stage at induction and Actual induction regimen.|||2.59|0.44|0.884
84667608|NCT01876485|169070280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 4. The value of HbA1c at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||0.003
84667609|NCT01876485|169070280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 10 months. The value of HbA1c at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||.60
84667610|NCT01876485|169070281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 4 months. The value of DDS at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||0.003
84667611|NCT01876485|169070281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 10 months. The value of DDS at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||.003
84667612|NCT00663052|169070282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact||Primary endpoint used 95% CI to compare to prespecified target rates for each treatment arm.|With 125 participants/group, estimation was: 1)approximately 90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 50% in ETN 50 mg QW, assuming true rate is 65% or greater; 2)90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 60% in 50 mg BIW, assuming true rate is 74% or greater. The 95% CI widths on these are approximately ±8.8%, indicating PASI 75 for ETN 50 mg QW and ETN 50 mg BIW must be at least 58.8% \& 68.8%, respectively to reject null hypotheses.||29.88|6.80|0.0015
84667613|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|10.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||10.16|-3.88|0.3605
84667614|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.91||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||29.32|6.50|0.0013
84667615|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|31.7|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||31.70|7.51|0.0011
84667616|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|30.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||30.40|9.77|<.0001
84667617|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.37|5.39|0.0010
84667618|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.75||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|19.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.16|2.35|0.0087
84667619|NCT00663052|169070283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.46||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.15|2.77|0.0068
84667620|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.5||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||4.32|-1.31|0.2435
84731117|NCT04349644|169214679|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.512|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Quality of Rapport.||||||0.512
84752299|NCT02137512|169259900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84667621|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.64||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||7.67|-4.40|0.5929
84667622|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.44||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|24.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||24.86|2.02|0.0156
84667623|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|25.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.89|37.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||37.47|12.89|<.0001
84667624|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|33.85|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||33.85|9.82|0.0003
84667625|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|31.38|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||31.38|8.23|0.0006
84667626|NCT00663052|169070284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.88|6.80|0.0015
84752300|NCT02137512|169259901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731118|NCT04349644|169214680|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.05
84731119|NCT04349644|169214680|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.393
84731120|NCT04349644|169214681|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.917
84731121|NCT04349644|169214681|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.963|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling for pretest.||||||0.963
84731122|NCT01084239|169214692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Result for index hospitalization||||||<0.001
84731123|NCT00510198|169214766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The log-rank test was conducted at an alpha level of 0.05. The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Log Rank|||This is a log-rank test, which uses the time from randomization to first composite endpoint event to compare the risk of event between Access and Control arms.||||0.23
84731124|NCT00510198|169214767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 7.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|20.3||The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Two-sample test of proportions||The risk difference estimate is the difference between the Access Arm and Control arm.|||20.3|-10.9|0.36
84479636|NCT03037307|168710356|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.63||Treatment Comparison for study validity.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.63|1.89|<.0001
84479637|NCT03037307|168710357|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.00|1.25|<.0001
84731125|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11||||0.393||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
84731126|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.25||||0.263||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.263
84731127|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.861||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.861
84731128|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.647||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
84731129|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13||||0.645||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
84731130|NCT01917006|169214778|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.15||||0.343||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.343
84731131|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|55.33||||0.184||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 versus (vs) Placebo at Week 2||||0.184
84731132|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|170.21||||0.002||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.002
84752301|NCT02137512|169259901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84496903|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.4|-2.5|
84496904|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.8|4.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.8|
84731133|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.73||||0.404||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.404
84731134|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.23||||0.328||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.328
84731135|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.48||||0.362||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.362
84731136|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.42||||0.203||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.203
84731137|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.05||||0.322||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.322
84731138|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|148.86||||0.015||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.015
84731139|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.2||||0.541||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.541
84479638|NCT00270998|168710358|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||<0.0492
84731140|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.47||||0.459||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.459
84731141|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.32||||0.491||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.491
84731142|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|36.8||||0.281||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.281
84731143|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.12||||0.424||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.424
84731144|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|136.96||||0.026||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.026
84731145|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.62||||0.67||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.670
84731146|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.06||||0.561||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.561
84731147|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.58||||0.604||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.604
84731148|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.76||||0.394||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.394
84731149|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.94||||0.532||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.532
84731150|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|111.27||||0.058||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.058
84731151|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-48.65||||0.778||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.778
84731152|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.74||||0.662||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.662
84731153|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-35.72||||0.712||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.712
84731154|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.501||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.501
84731155|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.14||||0.565||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.565
84731156|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|102.44||||0.071||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.071
84731157|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.81||||0.799||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.799
84731158|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-30.81||||0.681||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.681
84731159|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.68||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.741
84731160|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.33||||0.526||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.526
84479639|NCT00270998|168710358|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.02
84731161|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.76||||0.584||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.584
84479640|NCT00270998|168710358|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.49||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.49
84731162|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|84.09||||0.101||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.101
84731163|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.14||||0.823||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.823
84731164|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.18||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.741
84479641|NCT00270998|168710359|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
84731165|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-41.31||||0.756||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.756
84731166|NCT01917006|169214779|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.57||||0.517||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.517
84731167|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.59||||0.079||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.079
84731168|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.025||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.025
84731169|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.417||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.417
84731170|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.33||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.330
84731171|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.3||||0.199||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.199
84731172|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45||||0.113||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.113
84731173|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.127||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.127
84731174|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.56||||0.087||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.087
84731175|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.543||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.543
84731176|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.377||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.377
84731177|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.321||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.321
84731178|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.4||||0.149||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.149
84731179|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.215||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.215
84731180|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.47||||0.126||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.126
84731181|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.774||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.774
84731182|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.01||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
84731183|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
84731184|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.23||||0.274||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.274
84731185|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.308||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.308
84731186|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.34||||0.205||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.205
84731187|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.849||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.849
84731188|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.571||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.571
84731189|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.592||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.592
84731190|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.34||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.340
84731191|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.36||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.360
84479642|NCT00270998|168710359|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
84571048|NCT04465422|168893236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Anaiysis 1 is according to Occupational Performance History Interview - II (OPHI-II) total score.||5.55|1.65|<0.001
84731192|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.192||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.192
84731193|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37||||0.843||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.843
84731194|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.572||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.572
84731195|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.628||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.628
84731196|NCT01917006|169214780|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.38||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.380
84731197|NCT03029234|169214803|OTHER|The prespecified threshold that the primary endpoint would be met was if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than 18%.|Overall response rate|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|44.9||||||||44.9|27.3|
84667627|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was not applicable as the percentage of participants achieving 90% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
84731198|NCT03036150|169214831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.72|0.51|< 0.0001
84731199|NCT03036150|169214832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.68|0.45|< 0.0001
84731200|NCT03036150|169214833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0089||95.0|0.55|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.92|0.55|0.0089
84731201|NCT03036150|169214834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0035||95.0|0.53|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.88|0.53|0.0035
84731202|NCT01182103|169214862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84731203|NCT01182103|169214863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84731204|NCT01182103|169214864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84731205|NCT02831998|169214877|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.083||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.083|-0.188|
84731206|NCT02831998|169214877|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.396|2.858||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.858|2.396|
84731207|NCT02831998|169214878|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.065||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.065|-0.102|
84731208|NCT02831998|169214878|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.766|2.053||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.053|1.766|
84731209|NCT00839332|169214905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inference about survival was made using a Bayesian posterior probability. The combination treatment would have been considered superior to gemcitabine alone if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.8.|||||
84479643|NCT00270998|168710359|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.42
84603264|NCT01514240|168957130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.8||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|12.15|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 2 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||12.15|-8.54|0.768
84731210|NCT04414397|169214926|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|66.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|78.8||Analysis was performed using the SAS procedure MIANALYZE with normal approximation to generate an associated p-value for the comparison of responder rates between groups.|Multiple imputation regression|||JUVÉDERM® VOLUMA® XC Treatment vs No-treatment control||78.8|54.9|<0.0001
84731211|NCT04414397|169214930|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 visit is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731212|NCT04414397|169214931|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731213|NCT00702273|169214932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.4||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model including covariates treatment group, age class and region.||7.4|-2.6|
84731214|NCT03640754|169214946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731215|NCT03640754|169214946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84479644|NCT00270998|168710360|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479645|NCT00270998|168710360|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84731216|NCT03640754|169214947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731217|NCT03640754|169214947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731218|NCT03640754|169214948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731219|NCT03640754|169214948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731220|NCT03640754|169214949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
84731221|NCT03640754|169214949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.189
84731222|NCT03640754|169214950|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
84731223|NCT03640754|169214950|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
84731224|NCT03640754|169214951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.232
84731225|NCT03640754|169214951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.085
84731226|NCT03640754|169214952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
84731227|NCT03640754|169214952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
84731228|NCT03640754|169214953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
84731229|NCT03640754|169214953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84731230|NCT03640754|169214954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
84731231|NCT03640754|169214954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
84731232|NCT03640754|169214955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
84731233|NCT03640754|169214955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
84731234|NCT03640754|169214959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.047
84731235|NCT03640754|169214959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.139
84479646|NCT00270998|168710360|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479647|NCT00270998|168710361|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84731236|NCT03640754|169214959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.395
84731237|NCT03640754|169214960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.147
84731238|NCT03640754|169214960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.160
84731239|NCT03640754|169214960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.152
84731240|NCT03640754|169214961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.286
84731241|NCT03640754|169214961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.107
84731242|NCT03640754|169214962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.289
84731243|NCT03640754|169214962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.338
84731244|NCT03640754|169214963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.393
84731245|NCT03640754|169214963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.365
84731246|NCT03640754|169214964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.406
84731247|NCT03640754|169214964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
84731248|NCT01679613|169214967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|160.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.245|173.736||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %).~The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)."|||173.736|148.245|1.0000
84731249|NCT01679613|169214968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|179.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.557|204.779||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV (in %).~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib"|||204.779|157.557|1.0000
84731250|NCT01679613|169214969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|168.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.252|181.981||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 to 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV.~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||181.981|155.252|1.000
84667628|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.81|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||2.81|-2.77|1.0000
84731251|NCT00230971|169214997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||||95.0|-6.4|9.6|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||9.6|-6.4|
84731252|NCT00230971|169214998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.001||95.0|-8.8|12.5|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||12.5|-8.8|0.001
84731253|NCT00230971|169214999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||||95.0|-7.9|13.3|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||13.3|-7.9|
84731254|NCT00230971|169215000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Overall inpatient hospitalization||||0.750
84731255|NCT00230971|169215000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Primary inpatient hospitalization||||0.655
84731256|NCT00230971|169215000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||ICU treatment||||0.191
84731257|NCT00230971|169215000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Inpatient hospitalization, non-ICU||||0.717
84731258|NCT00835510|169215001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||0.0127
84731259|NCT00835510|169215001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.0001
84731260|NCT00835510|169215006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criteria for equivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the difference in cure rate had to be between -20% to +20%.|Cure rate difference|-19.78||||||90.0|-30.27|-9.29||||||||-9.29|-30.27|
84731261|NCT01268098|169215009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|5.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|30.7||All hypothesis testings in this study were based on type I error of 0.05. Adjustment for multiplicity was not applied.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between the two dose arms.|The 2-sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis corresponding to the primary efficacy endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms. This sample size for this study was not based on the statistical considerations.||30.7|-20.6|>0.999
84731262|NCT01268098|169215010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference betweenthe two dose arms.||The null hypothesis corresponding to this endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms.||||0.258
84731263|NCT01644188|169215011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-25.3|-34.4|<0.0001
84731264|NCT01644188|169215012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-26.2||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.2|-34.9|<0.0001
84731265|NCT01644188|169215013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.1||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.1|-33.7|<0.0001
84731266|NCT01644188|169215014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.6|-33.8|<0.0001
84731267|NCT01644188|169215015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-18.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.8|-26|<0.0001
84731268|NCT01644188|169215016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-26.5|<0.0001
84731269|NCT01644188|169215017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.9|-26.9|<0.0001
84731270|NCT01644188|169215018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-19.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.7|-27.2|<0.0001
84731271|NCT01644188|169215019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-11.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.7|-17.7|<0.0001
84731272|NCT01644188|169215020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-25.7|<0.0001
84731273|NCT01644188|169215021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.3|-25.6|<0.0001
84731274|NCT01644188|169215022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.6|-17.1|<0.0001
84731275|NCT01644188|169215023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.3|<0.0001
84731276|NCT01644188|169215024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by Logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|3.7|<0.0001
84752302|NCT02137512|169259901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84667629|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||11.07|-3.20|0.2611
84752303|NCT02137512|169259902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752304|NCT02137512|169259902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752305|NCT02137512|169259902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84752306|NCT02137512|169259903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84731277|NCT01644188|169215025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
84731278|NCT01644188|169215026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17|-26.4|<0.0001
84731279|NCT01644188|169215027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.7|5.4|<0.0001
84731280|NCT01644188|169215028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.6|-5.1|0.9117
84731281|NCT01929876|169215037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means|316.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|268.1|374.0|||||LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA), calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale (that is, geometric LS mean).|Ratio of Least squares (LS) means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).||374.0|268.1|
84731282|NCT01929876|169215038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|672.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|563.7|801.9|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|Only participants with PK parameter data from both Period 1 Day 1 and Period 2 Day 4 (n=11) were included for statistical analyses.||801.9|563.7|
84731283|NCT01929876|169215040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|583.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.2|698.2|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|||698.2|488.2|
84731284|NCT02847637|169215070|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.075||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.075|0.020|<0.0001
84731285|NCT02847637|169215070|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.066||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.066|0.017|<0.0001
84731286|NCT02847637|169215071|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.099||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.099|0.028|<0.0001
84731287|NCT02847637|169215071|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.103||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.103|0.030|<0.0001
84752307|NCT02137512|169259903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84496905|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
84752308|NCT02137512|169259903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84752309|NCT02137512|169259904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84752310|NCT02137512|169259904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84752311|NCT02137512|169259904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84752312|NCT02137512|169259905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84752313|NCT02137512|169259905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84752314|NCT02137512|169259905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84752315|NCT02137512|169259906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84752316|NCT02137512|169259906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84752317|NCT02137512|169259906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84752318|NCT02137512|169259907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84752319|NCT02137512|169259907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752320|NCT02137512|169259907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84731288|NCT02847637|169215072|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.085||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.085|0.019|<0.0001
84731289|NCT02847637|169215072|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.07||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.070|0.015|<0.0001
84731290|NCT02847637|169215073|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.151||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.151|0.025|<0.0001
84731291|NCT02847637|169215073|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.056||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.056|0.006|<0.0001
84731292|NCT02847637|169215074|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.143||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.143|0.016|<0.0001
84731293|NCT02847637|169215074|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.147||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.147|0.018|<0.0001
84731294|NCT02847637|169215075|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.514||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.514|0.195|<0.0001
84731295|NCT02847637|169215076|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.626||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.626|0.220|0.0002
84479648|NCT00270998|168710361|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479649|NCT00270998|168710361|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479650|NCT00270998|168710362|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84731296|NCT02847637|169215077|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.067||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.067|0.014|<0.0001
84731297|NCT02847637|169215078|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.068||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.068|0.023|<0.0001
84731298|NCT02847637|169215079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|26.98||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||26.98|-1.96|0.0891
84731299|NCT02847637|169215079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.97||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|30.78||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||30.78|1.16|0.0349
84731300|NCT02847637|169215080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|13.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||13.55|-1.72|0.1269
84731301|NCT02847637|169215080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|16.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||16.35|0.77|0.0317
84731302|NCT02847637|169215081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|4.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||4.35|-12.43|0.3402
84479651|NCT00270998|168710362|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479652|NCT00270998|168710362|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84731303|NCT02847637|169215081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.15||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-0.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.55|-17.74|0.0373
84731304|NCT02847637|169215082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||-0.04|-0.22|0.0060
84731305|NCT02847637|169215082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.04|-0.23|0.0059
84731306|NCT03214250|169215129|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.577||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.417|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.417|0.006
84731307|NCT03214250|169215129|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.481||||0.062|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.337|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.337|0.062
84731308|NCT03214250|169215129|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.413||||0.233|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.27|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.270|0.233
84731309|NCT01318538|169215141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|Analyzed using loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (relative changes i.e. % change)||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction.The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores. With a total of 100 women, the study was adequately powered to detect a minimum 5 day benefit in the # of days of any substance use (power = 83%).||||0.821
84731310|NCT01318538|169215142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001 reductions in mean # of alcohol use days during treatment (9.9 and 12.4 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.3 and 12.2 day reductions).||||0.519
84731311|NCT01318538|169215143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.253
84731312|NCT01318538|169215144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.667
84603265|NCT01514240|168957131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|8.9||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|20.58|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 4 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||20.58|-2.87|0.208
84731313|NCT01318538|169215146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84731314|NCT01318538|169215147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84731315|NCT01318538|169215148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drug use days during treatment (3.0 and 1.5 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively); however at 6 months post-treatment, the reductions were significant for WRG (2.8 day reduction; p\<0.05) but not for GDC (1.5 day reduction; p\>0.01).||||0.464
84731316|NCT01318538|169215149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001) reductions in mean number of heavy drinking days during treatment (8.6 and 12.1 days reduction for WRG and GDC, respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.0 and 11.8 day reductions).||||0.904
84731317|NCT01318538|169215150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||linear mixed effect model|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment by phase interaction. Note: Women in both the WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drinks per drinking day only during the in treatment phase (2.0 and 2.9 reductions for WRG and GDC, respectively).||||0.799
84603266|NCT01514240|168957132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.55|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-3.09|-42.55|0.058
84479653|NCT00270998|168710363|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84667630|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||28.45|8.30|0.0002
84731318|NCT01037413|169215177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.1|-21.3|<0.001
84731319|NCT01037413|169215178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.3|-21.2|<0.001
84731320|NCT01037413|169215178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-17.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-17.7|-34.3|<0.001
84731321|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.033
84731322|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
84731323|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
84731324|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.0|-2.7|<0.001
84731325|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.9|0.012
84731326|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-2.4|0.003
84731327|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
84731328|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-4.0|-12.7|<0.001
84731329|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.4|-3.2|<0.001
84731330|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
84731331|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.8|0.001
84731332|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.3|-3.6|<0.001
84731333|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-3.2|0.005
84731334|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.2|-3.1|<0.001
84731335|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
84731336|NCT01037413|169215179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-7.4|-17.7|<0.001
84731337|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.067
84479654|NCT00270998|168710363|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479655|NCT00270998|168710363|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84667631|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.31||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|29.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||29.19|5.43|0.0031
84731338|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-1.2|0.413
84731339|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-1.6|0.401
84731340|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-2.4|0.083
84731341|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-2.3|0.052
84731342|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.036
84752321|NCT02137512|169259908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731343|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-2.1|0.045
84731344|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-9.9|0.054
84731345|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-8.2|0.065
84731346|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-2.0|0.079
84731347|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.5|0.158
84731348|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-3.0|0.010
84731349|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-3.5|0.003
84731350|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-4.0|0.005
84731351|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-3.5|0.032
84731352|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-3.8|0.003
84731353|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.1|-16.4|0.006
84731354|NCT01037413|169215180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.0|-13.4|0.004
84731355|NCT05215418|169215187|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84731356|NCT05215418|169215187|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0059
84731357|NCT05215418|169215187|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.1867|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1867
84731358|NCT05215418|169215188|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
84731359|NCT05215418|169215188|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
84731360|NCT05215418|169215188|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
84731361|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0109|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0109
84752322|NCT02137512|169259908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752323|NCT02137512|169259908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84752324|NCT02137512|169259909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84752325|NCT02137512|169259909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752326|NCT02137512|169259909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752327|NCT02137512|169259910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752328|NCT02137512|169259910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752329|NCT02137512|169259910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84752330|NCT02137512|169259911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731362|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0339
84731363|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.6769|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.6769
84731364|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0082|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0082
84731365|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.8131|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.8131
84731366|NCT05215418|169215189|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0150
84731367|NCT00619983|169215190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Due to failure of daily electronic diaries and exhaustion of funds, we were only able to recruit \< 30% of the number of subjects required in our power analysis.||||0.69
84731368|NCT02971228|169215222|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean difference is based on the difference between the mean values for 10 patients in the ZP4207 group (12.78) and the matching 10 patients in the Lilly glucagon group (19.67)|A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||5.84|-19.63|0.2518
84731369|NCT02971228|169215222|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|10.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||10.68|-25.85|0.2500
84731370|NCT02971228|169215223|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||2.99|-3.55|0.8508
84479656|NCT00270998|168710364|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
84479657|NCT00270998|168710364|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
84731371|NCT02971228|169215223|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.13|-4.12|>0.9999
84752331|NCT02137512|169259911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752332|NCT02137512|169259911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84752333|NCT02137512|169259912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84752334|NCT02137512|169259912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752335|NCT02137512|169259912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84479658|NCT00270998|168710364|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84667632|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.92||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|28.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||28.04|3.80|0.0081
84667633|NCT00663052|169070285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|16.78||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.10|4.46|0.0064
84667634|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was to be calculated by Fisher Exact method but was not estimable as the percentage of participants achieving 100% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.||||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
84667635|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
84667636|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.46||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||1.29|-4.21|0.4983
84667637|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.57||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|6.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||6.37|-3.23|0.4957
84667638|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|9.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||9.52|-3.24|0.3115
84667639|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.99||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||15.10|-1.13|0.0773
84667640|NCT00663052|169070286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.53||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|13.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.87|-2.82|0.1830
84667641|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.3|-2.3|0.0103
84667642|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.6|-3.0|0.0031
84667643|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-1.7|-4.4|<0.0001
84667644|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
84667645|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-1.5|-4.0|<0.0001
84667646|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.8|-3.3|0.0012
84667647|NCT00663052|169070287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.7|-3.4|0.0042
84667648|NCT00663052|169070288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 50. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
84667649|NCT00663052|169070288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 75. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
84667650|NCT00663052|169070288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 90. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0053
84667651|NCT00663052|169070288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 100. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0432
84667652|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
84667653|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
84667654|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||3.67|-3.58|1.0000
84667655|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|12.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||12.47|-0.26|0.0401
84667656|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.29||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|11.54|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||11.54|-4.95|0.4415
84667657|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.6||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|17.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||17.87|-0.67|0.0617
84667658|NCT00663052|169070289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.64||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.24|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||18.24|-0.96|0.0720
84667659|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.45||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||2.16|-5.07|0.6223
84667660|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.21||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|13.98|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||13.98|-1.56|0.1000
84667661|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|26.65|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.65|4.53|0.0037
84731372|NCT02971228|169215224|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||1.62|-0.36|0.1847
84479659|NCT00270998|168710365|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84667662|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|22.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|34.33|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||34.33|9.75|0.0004
84667663|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||25.97|0.94|0.0285
84667664|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.05||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|27.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||27.43|2.67|0.0139
84667665|NCT00663052|169070290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|31.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||31.74|7.38|0.0012
84667666|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.01||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|16.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.03|-6.01|0.3956
84667667|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.66||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|21.14|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.14|-3.82|0.1754
84667668|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.72|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||25.72|1.90|0.0207
84667669|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|29.53|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||29.53|9.23|<0.0001
84667670|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.54||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|23.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.29|3.79|0.0044
84667671|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.62||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|20.13|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||20.13|1.11|0.0223
84667672|NCT00663052|169070291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|20.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.78|1.96|0.0133
84667673|NCT00663052|169070292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear (0,1). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0003
84667674|NCT00663052|169070292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear/Mild (0,1,2). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0022
84667675|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.0|-0.3|0.0193
84667676|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
84667677|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.5|0.0006
84752336|NCT02137512|169259913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752337|NCT02137512|169259913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84667678|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
84667679|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.5|0.0058
84667680|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.1|-0.6|0.0018
84667681|NCT00663052|169070293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.2|-0.6|0.0009
84667682|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.6396
84667683|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0074
84731373|NCT02971228|169215224|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.09|-0.01|0.0781
84731374|NCT02367105|169215238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariate||||||0.58
84731375|NCT02367105|169215239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
84731376|NCT02367105|169215240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||.97
84731377|NCT02367105|169215241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.56
84731378|NCT02367105|169215242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84731379|NCT02367105|169215243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84731380|NCT02367105|169215244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
84731381|NCT02367105|169215245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.67
84731382|NCT02367105|169215246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline valued adjusted||||||0.003
84731383|NCT02367105|169215247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
84731384|NCT02367105|169215248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.94
84731385|NCT02367105|169215249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.41
84731386|NCT02367105|169215250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.46
84731387|NCT02367105|169215251|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value adjusted|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84731388|NCT02367105|169215252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.284||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
84731389|NCT02367105|169215253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years of education as covariates||||||.16
84731390|NCT02367105|169215254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.21
84731391|NCT02367105|169215255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.41
84731392|NCT02367105|169215256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years if education as covariates||||||.03
84731393|NCT02367105|169215257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.03
84731394|NCT02367105|169215258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.18
84731395|NCT02367105|169215259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.10
84731396|NCT02367105|169215260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.65
84731397|NCT02367105|169215261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.553||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
84731398|NCT02367105|169215262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
84731399|NCT02367105|169215263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84731400|NCT02367105|169215264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.65
84731401|NCT02367105|169215265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84731402|NCT02367105|169215266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
84731403|NCT02367105|169215267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84731404|NCT02367105|169215268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.90
84731405|NCT02367105|169215269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||<0.001
84731406|NCT02367105|169215270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value as covariates||||||<0.001
84731407|NCT02367105|169215271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||<0.001
84731408|NCT02367105|169215272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.31
84731409|NCT02367105|169215273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline values as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84731410|NCT02367105|169215274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
84731411|NCT02367105|169215275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.23
84731412|NCT02367105|169215276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84731413|NCT02367105|169215277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.36
84731414|NCT02367105|169215278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.23
84731415|NCT02367105|169215279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values adjusted||||||0.69
84731416|NCT02367105|169215280|SUPERIORITY||Number of participants|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, false discovery rate (FDR) whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84731417|NCT02367105|169215281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||0.37
84731418|NCT02367105|169215281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||.02
84731419|NCT02367105|169215282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||.05
84731420|NCT02367105|169215282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||0.3
84731421|NCT03247738|169215329|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of our study was the comparison of platelet reactivity measured by VerifyNow PRU between cangrelor and placebo at 30 minutes after drugs were administered at the start of PCI. Assuming a common standard deviation of 70 PRU, a sample size of 20 patients per group would allow detection of a 70 PRU difference between groups with 85% power and a two-sided α = 0.05. Considering the 2 arms and a possible 25% rate of invalid PD results we planned to randomize up to 50 patients.|Mean Difference (Net)|152.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|195.0|||ANCOVA|the baseline value of platelet reactivity used as a covariate||||195|108|<0.001
84479660|NCT00270998|168710365|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479661|NCT00270998|168710365|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
84479662|NCT01112982|168710443|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presence of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||0.34
84731422|NCT00129649|169215331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84731423|NCT00413634|169215349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
84731424|NCT00413634|169215352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.857||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.857
84731425|NCT00413634|169215353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
84731426|NCT00413634|169215354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.378
84731427|NCT00413634|169215355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
84731428|NCT00413634|169215356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.035
84731429|NCT00413634|169215357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84731430|NCT00413634|169215358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
84731431|NCT00413634|169215359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
84731432|NCT00413634|169215360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84731433|NCT00413634|169215361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
84731434|NCT00413634|169215362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84731435|NCT00527514|169215371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
84731436|NCT00527514|169215372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||Statistical analysis parameters apply to both the daytime and nighttime rows.||||<0.0001
84731437|NCT00527514|169215373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84731438|NCT00527514|169215374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84731439|NCT00527514|169215375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84731440|NCT00527514|169215376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84731441|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.54|-65.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-65.73|-87.54|< 0.001
84731442|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.67|-52.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.00|-82.67|< 0.001
84731443|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.29|-64.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.17|-88.29|< 0.001
84479663|NCT01112982|168710445|OTHER|Spearman Correlation Coefficient||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The Severity of Synovial Pannus and the Serum Urate level.||||0.73
84752338|NCT02137512|169259913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84667684|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
84479664|NCT01112982|168710446|OTHER|correlation between severity of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
84667685|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84667686|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.8|0.0040
84667687|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
84667688|NCT00663052|169070294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.1|-0.5|0.1799
84667689|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.3|-0.2|0.7757
84667690|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2112
84667691|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||0.2|-0.3|0.5467
84667692|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.3684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.3684
84667693|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||-0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||0.1|-0.4|-0.2046
84667694|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||0.0|-0.5|0.0649
84479665|NCT01112982|168710447|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The presence of synovial pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
84479666|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|Kappa Coefficient||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The absence of erosive changes.||||0.09
84479667|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|the absence of Intraosseous Tophi.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84752339|NCT02137512|169259914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752340|NCT02137512|169259914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752341|NCT02137512|169259914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84752342|NCT02137512|169259915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84752343|NCT02137512|169259915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84752344|NCT02137512|169259915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84752345|NCT02137512|169259916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752346|NCT02137512|169259916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752347|NCT02137512|169259916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84752348|NCT02137512|169259917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752349|NCT02137512|169259917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84752350|NCT02137512|169259917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
84752351|NCT02137512|169259918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84752352|NCT02137512|169259918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752353|NCT02137512|169259918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84752354|NCT02137512|169259919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84752355|NCT02137512|169259919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752356|NCT02137512|169259919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752357|NCT02137512|169259920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752358|NCT02137512|169259920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752359|NCT02137512|169259920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84731444|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-72.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|-54.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-54.13|-83.32|< 0.001
84731445|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-73.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.79|-55.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-55.11|-83.79|< 0.001
84731446|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.93|-50.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-50.82|-83.93|< 0.001
84731447|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|-47.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-47.78|-81.01|< 0.001
84731448|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.62|-68.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-68.49|-88.62|< 0.001
84731449|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-63.34|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-63.34|-88.02|< 0.001
84731450|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-32.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.71|32.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||32.10|-65.71|0.25
84731451|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|3.44||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.78|80.66|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||80.66|-40.78|0.90
84479668|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Tophi||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84479669|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|The absence of Joint Effusion.||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84731452|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-40.53||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|8.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||8.82|-67.50|0.091
84752360|NCT02137512|169259921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84479670|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|The absence of Bone Marrow Edema.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84479671|NCT01112982|168710448|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Edema.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84479672|NCT01112982|168710449|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The Presence of synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
84752361|NCT02137512|169259921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752362|NCT02137512|169259921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752363|NCT02137512|169259922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84752364|NCT02137512|169259922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752365|NCT02137512|169259922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84479673|NCT01112982|168710449|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||"The Severity of Synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
84479674|NCT00305604|168710456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.47|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-0.47|-0.94|<0.001
84479675|NCT00305604|168710457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.0|<|0.001||95.0|-40.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-13.5|-40.0|<0.001
84479676|NCT00305604|168710458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.0|<|0.001||95.0|-82.1|-40.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-40.0|-82.1|<0.001
84731453|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|13.33||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|130.94|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||130.94|-44.39|0.73
84731454|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-80.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|-52.87|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.87|-91.53|0.001
84731455|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|-71.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-71.88|-94.53|< 0.001
84731456|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Rratio|-79.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|-52.37|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.37|-91.44|0.001
84731457|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-83.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.79|-62.95|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-62.95|-92.79|< 0.001
84731458|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.35|-57.46|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-57.46|-92.35|< 0.001
84731459|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-84.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|-64.6|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.60|-93.12|< 0.001
84731460|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|43.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.06|286.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||286.83|-47.06|0.47
84731461|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-17.63|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-17.63|-88.02|0.020
84731462|NCT01723514|169215388|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-54.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.58|19.75|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||19.75|-82.58|0.11
84731463|NCT00802438|169215392|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value\<0.05 was considered significant. Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.).|t-test, 2 sided|||Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||<0.0001
84731464|NCT00802438|169215393|OTHER|Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84731465|NCT02101268|169215411|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.09|0.90
84731466|NCT02101268|169215412|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.32|0.09|< 0.001
84731467|NCT02101268|169215413|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.31|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||1.31|0.49|0.38
84731468|NCT02101268|169215414|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.37|0.09|0.001
84731469|NCT02101268|169215415|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.13||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.03|-0.29|0.10
84731470|NCT02630706|169215430|SUPERIORITY|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)|Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.52||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|Least squares means = LSM||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 15 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
84731471|NCT02630706|169215430|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||cLDA|||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 5 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.001
84731472|NCT02630706|169215431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.5||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|||||-0.50|-0.86|<0.001
84731473|NCT02630706|169215431|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
84731474|NCT02630706|169215432|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|4.6|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|4.6|-16.5|
84731475|NCT02630706|169215432|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.7|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|7.7|-13.3|
84731476|NCT02630706|169215433|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|3.0|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|3.0|-20.5|
84731477|NCT02630706|169215433|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.9|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|6.9|-16.5|
84731478|NCT02630706|169215436|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-27.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-21.7|||cLDA|||||-21.70|-33.85|<0.001
84731479|NCT02630706|169215436|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.45|-24.35|||cLDA|||||-24.35|-36.45|<0.001
84731480|NCT02630706|169215437|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-26.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|-20.01|||cLDA|||||-20.01|-32.41|<0.001
84731481|NCT02630706|169215437|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-28.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.67|-22.43|||cLDA|||||-22.43|-34.67|<0.001
84731482|NCT02630706|169215438|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.5|||cLDA|||||-1.50|-2.51|<0.001
84731483|NCT02630706|169215438|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.28|||cLDA|||||-1.28|-2.28|<0.001
84731484|NCT02630706|169215439|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.63|<0.001
84731485|NCT02630706|169215439|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.36|<0.001
84731486|NCT02630706|169215440|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|8.35|||Logistic regression model|||||8.35|2.49|<0.001
84752366|NCT02137512|169259923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84731487|NCT02630706|169215440|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|8.36|||Logistic regression model|||||8.36|2.52|<0.001
84479677|NCT00305604|168710459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2|<|0.001||95.0|-32.6|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-14.4|-32.6|<0.001
84731488|NCT02630706|169215441|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.68|||Logistic regression model|||||8.68|2.32|<0.001
84731489|NCT02630706|169215441|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.8|||Logistic regression model|||||6.80|1.77|<0.001
84731490|NCT02630706|169215442|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.69|||cLDA|||||-1.69|-6.48|<0.001
84731491|NCT02630706|169215442|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.92|||cLDA|||||-2.92|-7.68|<0.001
84731492|NCT02630706|169215443|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.64||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.09|||cLDA|||||0.09|-5.36|0.058
84479678|NCT03332303|168710476|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Responders in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|2.8||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||2.8|-13.0|
84752367|NCT02137512|169259923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752368|NCT02137512|169259923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84752369|NCT02137512|169259924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84752370|NCT02137512|169259924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752371|NCT02137512|169259924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752372|NCT02137512|169259925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752373|NCT02137512|169259925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752374|NCT02137512|169259925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752375|NCT02137512|169259926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752376|NCT02137512|169259926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752377|NCT02137512|169259926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84752378|NCT02137512|169259927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84752379|NCT02137512|169259927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752380|NCT02137512|169259927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752381|NCT02137512|169259928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752382|NCT02137512|169259928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84752383|NCT02137512|169259928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84752384|NCT02137512|169259929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752385|NCT02137512|169259929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752386|NCT02137512|169259929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84752387|NCT02137512|169259930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84752388|NCT02137512|169259930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84752389|NCT02137512|169259930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84752390|NCT02137512|169259931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84752391|NCT02137512|169259931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84479679|NCT03332303|168710476|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84479680|NCT03332303|168710476|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84731493|NCT02630706|169215443|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.39|||cLDA|||||-1.39|-6.78|0.003
84731494|NCT02630706|169215444|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.20|-3.00|0.086
84731495|NCT02630706|169215444|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.42||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.17|||cLDA|||||0.17|-3.01|0.081
84731496|NCT02630706|169215445|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.95||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||cLDA|||||0.90|-2.80|0.315
84731497|NCT02630706|169215445|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.83|||cLDA|||||0.83|-2.83|0.282
84731498|NCT02630706|169215446|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|32.22||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||32.22|2.46|0.001
84731499|NCT02630706|169215446|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|10.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|38.71||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||38.71|2.95|<0.001
84731500|NCT02630706|169215447|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|27.6||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||27.60|2.52|<0.001
84731501|NCT02630706|169215447|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|28.11||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||28.11|2.44|<0.001
84479681|NCT03332303|168710477|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Treatment Successes in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|6.7||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||6.7|-10.7|
84479682|NCT03332303|168710477|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Test product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Test product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|-0.8||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8068
84496906|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
84731502|NCT02630706|169215448|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-9.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.5|-5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-5.0|-14.5|<0.001
84479683|NCT03332303|168710477|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Reference product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Reference product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|1.8||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8003
84479684|NCT02781454|168710496|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-5.558||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||-0.315|-10.80|0.039
84479685|NCT02781454|168710497|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.792||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.296||linear contrast active vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.296|0.484|0.332
84479686|NCT02781454|168710498|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.411||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||0.810|0.208|0.013
84479687|NCT02781454|168710499|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.343||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.36|42.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||42.042|-41.36|0.986
84479688|NCT02781454|168710500|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.994||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.126|0.876|0.915
84479689|NCT02781454|168710501|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|1.089||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.609|6.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||6.786|-4.609|0.694
84479690|NCT02781454|168710502|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.242||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|13.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||13.126|-12.64|0.969
84479691|NCT02781454|168710503|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|2.597||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.772|7.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||7.966|-2.772|0.323
84479692|NCT02781454|168710504|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.017||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.767|1.733|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.733|-5.767|0.273
84479693|NCT02781454|168710505|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.708||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo||4.535|0.111|0.713
84479694|NCT02781454|168710507|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-0.399||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.966|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.169|-1.966|0.601
84479695|NCT02781454|168710508|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.734||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.938|2.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||2.471|-7.938|0.285
84479696|NCT01313208|168710540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.41|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value from Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by participant's baseline methotrexate use (yes or no).|Etanercept/Placebo|||3.41|0.99|0.055
84479697|NCT01957787|168710582|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Estimates of the log odds and Wald standard error from a random effects logistic regression model were combined across imputed datasets for reference.|Random effects logistic regression model|||The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the Wald 97.5% 1-sided confidence interval for the estimated rate of local tumor control to the performance goal of 84.0%. If the lower bound was greater than 84.0%, the null hypothesis was rejected and the endpoint was considered met.||||0.410
84479698|NCT00187889|168710594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|3.6||The P-value applies to this comparison, without adjustment, to the completers of the trial.|Satterthwaite corrected t-test||An expanded definition of the outcome measure is the difference between the percentage change (week 16) and the percentage change week 0). This is a calculation based on 4 measurements.|The null hypothesis is that the treatments are equivalent with respect to the primary outcome. The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups.||3.6|-22.8|0.15
84479699|NCT00187889|168710594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.72|||Satterthwaite corrected t-test||The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups. This is a different outcome variable than the primary.|The null hypothesis is that treatments are equivalent on this outcome. The study was powered around the primary outcome. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was planned.||0.72|-0.79|0.92
84479700|NCT00435994|168710596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0020
84479701|NCT00435994|168710597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0020
84479702|NCT00788697|168710614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|11.3||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.6|||McNemar|||||23.6|-1.0|0.0754
84479703|NCT00788697|168710614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|19.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.5|||McNemar|||||30.5|8.3|0.0011
84479704|NCT00788697|168710614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|-19.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-7.8|||McNemar|||||-7.8|-30.9|0.0016
84479705|NCT00788697|168710615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|57.4|||McNemar|||||57.4|37.4|<.0001
84479706|NCT00788697|168710615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|70.2|||McNemar|||||70.2|50.5|<.0001
84479707|NCT00788697|168710615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|38.9|||McNemar|||||38.9|19.7|<.0001
84479708|NCT00788697|168710616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|37.0|||McNemar|||||37.0|20.5|<.0001
84479709|NCT00788697|168710616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|47.1|||McNemar|||||47.1|31.3|<.0001
84479710|NCT00788697|168710616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|4.2||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.3|||McNemar|||||12.3|-4.0|0.3173
84479711|NCT00788697|168710617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84479712|NCT00788697|168710617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84479713|NCT00788697|168710617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.0004
84479714|NCT00788697|168710618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84731503|NCT02630706|169215448|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-4.4|-14.0|<0.001
84479715|NCT00788697|168710618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84479716|NCT00788697|168710618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.7610
84479717|NCT01998880|168710622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.59|0.36|<0.0001
84479718|NCT01998880|168710624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
84479719|NCT01998880|168710625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||1.16|0.61|0.2841
84479720|NCT01998880|168710626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.1|||Chi-squared|||||45.1|23.5|<0.0001
84479721|NCT01998880|168710628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Log-ranked, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.61|0.35|<0.0001
84479722|NCT01998880|168710632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
84731504|NCT02630706|169215449|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-15.1|-4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-4.2|-15.1|0.001
84479723|NCT01998880|168710633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
84479724|NCT01998880|168710634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|43.9|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||43.9|22.1|< 0.0001
84479725|NCT03549117|168710649|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.15||||0.8142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.45|-1.14|0.8142
84479726|NCT03549117|168710649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.84||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||0.84|-2.23|0.3690
84479727|NCT03549117|168710649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.25||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline; between treatment 95% CI.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||1.25|-1.61|0.7995
84731505|NCT02630706|169215449|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-5.7|-15.8|<0.001
84731506|NCT01123512|169215489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|% Probability of Equivalence = 99.92|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|Bayesian test of proportions|||||||
84479728|NCT03549117|168710649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.98||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.98|-0.69|0.7285
84479729|NCT03549117|168710650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.17||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.17|-1.52|0.7961
84479730|NCT03549117|168710650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.68||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.68|-2.41|0.2710
84479731|NCT03549117|168710650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||1.45|-1.60|0.9236
84479732|NCT03549117|168710650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.75||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.75|-0.87|0.8756
84479733|NCT03549117|168710651|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.42|-0.38|0.9314
84479734|NCT03549117|168710651|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.45|0.8005
84479735|NCT03549117|168710651|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.38|0.9613
84479736|NCT03549117|168710651|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.26|-0.54|0.4966
84479737|NCT03549117|168710652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.45|-0.39|0.8775
84479738|NCT03549117|168710652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.47|0.7747
84479739|NCT03549117|168710652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.47|-0.39|0.8535
84479740|NCT03549117|168710652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.35|-0.47|0.7720
84479741|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9258|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.9258
84479742|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.2368
84479743|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4432
84479744|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.9856
84479745|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7854|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.7854
84479746|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4141|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4141
84479747|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3028|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.3028
84479748|NCT03549117|168710653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3955
84479749|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.3826
84667695|NCT00663052|169070295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-0.3|0.8683
84479750|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6251|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.6251
84479751|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2381|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2381
84479752|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4245
84479753|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.8213
84479754|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1823
84479755|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.7744
84479756|NCT03549117|168710654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5811|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.5811
84479757|NCT00014911|168710660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61|30|
84479758|NCT00014911|168710661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44|16|
84479759|NCT00014911|168710662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|63.0|||Fisher Exact|||||63|42|
84731507|NCT02551692|169215490|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|855.65||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.534
84731508|NCT02551692|169215491|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|29602.69||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84731509|NCT02551692|169215492|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|101.69||||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
84731510|NCT01227928|169215493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.626|||||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the stratification factor of first-line treatment outcome.|||1.626|0.595|
84731511|NCT01227928|169215494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.751|||Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the three stratification factors.|||1.751|0.376|0.5901
84731512|NCT04380688|169215538|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.145|1.952||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.952|0.145|
84479760|NCT00861380|168710669|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 =(vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
84479761|NCT00861380|168710670|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1vsControl). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
84479762|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|14.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.229|16.197|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.197|13.229|
84731513|NCT04380688|169215546|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|2.183||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||2.183|0.794|
84731514|NCT05294328|169215572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
84731515|NCT05294328|169215572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
84731516|NCT02416713|169215622|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-0.18|0.12
84731517|NCT02416713|169215622|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|-0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-1.17|0.49
84731518|NCT02416713|169215622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|-1.00|0.70
84731519|NCT00460564|169215630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.83|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.567|-3.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.093|-10.567|<0.001
84731520|NCT00863798|169215652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.1||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.10|-0.38|0.175
84731521|NCT00863798|169215652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.75||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.75|-0.73|0.421
84731522|NCT00863798|169215653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.076
84752392|NCT02137512|169259931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84752393|NCT02137512|169259932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752394|NCT02137512|169259932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84479763|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|13.582|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.691|15.693|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.693|11.691|
84479764|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|8.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.376|9.639|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.639|7.376|
84479765|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|7.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.206|9.221|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.221|6.206|
84479766|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|2.205|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.205|1.185|
84496907|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|-1.1|5.7||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.7|-1.1|
84496908|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.5|2.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.8|-5.5|
84667696|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.8898
84667697|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
84731523|NCT00863798|169215653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.204
84667698|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
84667699|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|0.0001
84667700|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
84731524|NCT00863798|169215654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.35|-0.04|0.130
84731525|NCT00863798|169215654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.16|0.757
84731526|NCT00863798|169215655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.16|-0.34|0.114
84731527|NCT00863798|169215655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.64|-0.85|0.316
84731528|NCT00863798|169215656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.50|-0.01|0.054
84731529|NCT00863798|169215656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.20|-0.32|0.253
84731530|NCT00863798|169215657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.83|0.86|0.2415
84731531|NCT00863798|169215657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.61|0.75|0.6169
84731532|NCT00863798|169215658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.236||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.96|0.78|0.3667
84731533|NCT00863798|169215658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.6509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.45|0.55|0.6509
84731534|NCT00863798|169215659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.73|0.81|0.3893
84731535|NCT00863798|169215659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.65|0.77|0.5510
84731536|NCT00863798|169215660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.442||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||2.09|0.99|0.0536
84731537|NCT00863798|169215660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.57|0.75|0.6679
84731538|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.79|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.79|0.12|0.033
84496909|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.7||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.7|-3.1|
84731539|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.49|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.49|-0.20|0.096
84731540|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||0.95|0.02|0.043
84496910|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.4|-2.9|
84731541|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||1.00|0.06|0.027
84731542|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.98|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.98|0.01|0.045
84731543|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.76|-0.22|0.277
84731544|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.91|-0.01|0.056
84731545|NCT00863798|169215662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.68|-0.24|0.355
84731546|NCT00863798|169215663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-2.53|0.002
84731547|NCT00863798|169215663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.22|-1.75|0.129
84752395|NCT02137512|169259932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84752396|NCT02137512|169259933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84479767|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|1.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.724|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.724|1.194|
84731548|NCT00863798|169215664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.23|0.52|0.3097
84731549|NCT00863798|169215664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.272||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.97|0.82|0.2794
84731550|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
84731551|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.805
84479768|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as . 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|3.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.269|4.839|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.839|3.269|
84479769|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|3.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.423|4.445|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.445|2.423|
84479770|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|14.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.071|16.015|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.015|13.071|
84479771|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|13.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.841|15.857|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.857|11.841|
84731552|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.978
84731553|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
84731554|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.154
84731555|NCT00863798|169215666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.805
84731556|NCT02509312|169215729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84731557|NCT02509312|169215730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.257
84731558|NCT02509312|169215731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
84731559|NCT02509312|169215732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
84731560|NCT02509312|169215733|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84731561|NCT02509312|169215734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.27||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||Chi-squared|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.0367
84731562|NCT02509312|169215735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0231
84731563|NCT02509312|169215736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.467
84731564|NCT02509312|169215737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.273
84731565|NCT02509312|169215738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||p-value for 12 hours post-op between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0162
84731566|NCT02509312|169215740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value for 6 hours post-op between-group comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84731567|NCT00702650|169215743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||One-Sample Binomial (Wald) test, 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84496911|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.5|4.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-5.5|
84731568|NCT00702650|169215748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Sexual Desire based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731569|NCT00702650|169215748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Overall Sexual Activity Score based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731570|NCT00702650|169215748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Erection Maintained for Satisfactory Duration based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731571|NCT00702650|169215748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Positive Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731572|NCT00702650|169215748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Negative Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731573|NCT00702650|169215749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||p-value for Physical Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0254
84731574|NCT00702650|169215749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for Mental Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84731575|NCT01772823|169215770|OTHER|||||||0.7513||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Size of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.7513
84731576|NCT01772823|169215771|OTHER|||||||0.8281||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Taste of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||||||0.8281
84731577|NCT01772823|169215772|OTHER|||||||0.3761||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Color of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3761
84731578|NCT01772823|169215773|OTHER|||||||0.4359||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking the pill every day) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.4359
84731579|NCT01772823|169215774|OTHER|||||||0.3801||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking part in the study) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3801
84731580|NCT01772823|169215775|OTHER|||||||0.1968||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on HIV test at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1968
84496912|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.9||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.9|-1.8|
84731581|NCT01772823|169215776|OTHER|||||||0.1226||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Risk Reduction counseling at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1226
84731582|NCT01772823|169215777|OTHER|||||||0.0994||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Questions about sexual behavior) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.0994
84731583|NCT01772823|169215778|OTHER|||||||0.5285||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Physician exam) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.5285
84731584|NCT01772823|169215782|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84731585|NCT01772823|169215783|OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0098
84731586|NCT01772823|169215784|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0766
84731587|NCT01772823|169215785|OTHER|||||||0.1581||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1581
84731588|NCT01772823|169215786|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4300
84731589|NCT01772823|169215787|OTHER|||||||0.1201||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1201
84752397|NCT02137512|169259933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84496913|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.9|4.4||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.9|
84731590|NCT01772823|169215788|OTHER|||||||0.1682||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1682
84731591|NCT01772823|169215789|OTHER|||||||0.2747||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2747
84731592|NCT01772823|169215790|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
84731593|NCT01772823|169215791|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0290
84731594|NCT01772823|169215792|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1070
84731595|NCT01772823|169215794|OTHER|||||||0.2991||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2991
84731596|NCT01772823|169215795|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0298
84731597|NCT01772823|169215796|OTHER|||||||0.8643||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified ethnicity) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8643
84731598|NCT01772823|169215797|OTHER|||||||0.9037||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant BMI) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9037
84731599|NCT01772823|169215798|OTHER|||||||0.5279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5279
84731600|NCT01772823|169215799|OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participation in high-risk sex acts) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
84731601|NCT01772823|169215802|OTHER|||||||0.2193||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2193
84731602|NCT01772823|169215803|OTHER|||||||0.1255||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1255
84731603|NCT01772823|169215804|OTHER|||||||0.0706||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0706
84731604|NCT01772823|169215805|OTHER|||||||0.0088||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
84731605|NCT01772823|169215806|OTHER|||||||0.2482||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2482
84731606|NCT01772823|169215807|OTHER|||||||0.1647||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
84731607|NCT01772823|169215808|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6880
84731608|NCT01772823|169215809|OTHER|||||||0.2881||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2881
84731609|NCT01772823|169215810|OTHER|||||||0.2223||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2223
84731610|NCT01772823|169215811|OTHER|||||||0.0617||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0617
84496914|NCT00366678|168745199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.1|3.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.7|-4.1|
84496915|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.73|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.73|
84731611|NCT01772823|169215812|OTHER|||||||0.0868||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0868
84731612|NCT01772823|169215813|OTHER|||||||0.1847||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1847
84731613|NCT01772823|169215814|OTHER|||||||0.0226||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0226
84731614|NCT01036165|169215815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean positive response|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.50.|||0.86|0.70|
84731615|NCT00307164|169215827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test (stratified by ARV used)||||||0.64
84731616|NCT00307164|169215828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
84731617|NCT00307164|169215830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.25
84731618|NCT00307164|169215832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.88
84731619|NCT00307164|169215833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.60
84731620|NCT00307164|169215834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
84731621|NCT00307164|169215835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
84731622|NCT00307164|169215836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.034
84731623|NCT00307164|169215837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.76
84731624|NCT00307164|169215838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.10
84731625|NCT00307164|169215839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.43
84731626|NCT00307164|169215840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
84479772|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|7.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.782|8.955|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||8.955|6.782|
84731627|NCT00307164|169215841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.80
84731628|NCT00307164|169215842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.42
84731629|NCT01649297|169215843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.13||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.13|-0.16|<0.0001
84731630|NCT01649297|169215843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|0.03||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.03|-0.26|<0.0001
84731631|NCT01649297|169215843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.44|-0.79|<0.0001
84731632|NCT01649297|169215843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.68|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.32|-0.68|<0.0001
84731633|NCT01649297|169215843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.27|-0.62|<0.0001
84731634|NCT01649297|169215843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.25|-0.60|<0.0001
84731635|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-9.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||1.8|-9.0|
84731636|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-10.4|0.5||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||0.5|-10.4|
84731637|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.2|-20.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-20.9|-34.2|<0.0001
84496916|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.67|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.67|
84731638|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-15.9|-29.2|<0.0001
84731639|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.7|-14.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-14.4|-27.7|<0.0001
84731640|NCT01649297|169215844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.1|-10.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-10.8|-24.1|<0.0001
84731641|NCT01685047|169215845|OTHER|There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Datasets (Device info at Baseline versus 15 minutes prior to the event) were compared using a 2-sided t-test.|||||<|0.05||||||All events with p \<0.05 were visually inspected to confirm they were evaluable; additional criteria for exclusion from further analysis included inappropriate therapy, aberrant conduction, and occurrence of VT/VF within 24h prior to the event.|t-test, 2 sided|||There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Some data was excluded from the primary analysis. All device detections resulting in therapy have been reviewed for appropriateness of the therapy. VT/VF therapy delivered from the device as a result of a non-ventricular arrhythmia or as a result of oversensing by the device has not been included in the primary data analysis.||||<0.05
84731642|NCT01049984|169215857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-4.3|0.012
84731643|NCT01049984|169215858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||0.3|-1.1|0.301
84731644|NCT01049984|169215859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-3.1|0.007
84731645|NCT01049984|169215860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.255
84731646|NCT01049984|169215861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.996
84752398|NCT02137512|169259933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84752399|NCT02137512|169259934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84496917|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.86|1.26||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.26|0.86|
84496918|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.77|1.13||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.13|0.77|
84731647|NCT01049984|169215862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment, pooled center, and baseline value as strata.||||||0.967
84731648|NCT00337285|169215868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84731649|NCT00337285|169215870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84731650|NCT01376050|169215876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84731651|NCT01376050|169215877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84731652|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Any of the 4 Serotypes||1.36|0.64|
84731653|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.21|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 1||2.21|0.44|
84731654|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.94|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 2||2.94|0.64|
84731655|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.51|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 3||2.51|0.48|
84731656|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.47|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 4||1.47|0.27|
84731657|NCT01983553|169215878|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.22|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Unserotyped||1.22|0.00|
84731658|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.42|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Any Serotype||3.42|0.64|
84731659|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Any Serotype||1.25|0.53|
84731660|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|4.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|212.02|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 1||212.02|0.70|
84731661|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.46|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 1||1.46|0.21|
84731662|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|2.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|134.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 2||134.83|0.36|
84731663|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.74|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 2||2.74|0.53|
84731664|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants at Year 1 for Serotype 3 (4 to 5 year) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 3||12.83|0.20|
84731665|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.73|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 3||2.73|0.41|
84752400|NCT02137512|169259934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84752401|NCT02137512|169259934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84731666|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 4||6.04|0.21|
84731667|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 4||1.44|0.18|
84731668|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Unserotyped||2.60|0.00|
84731669|NCT01983553|169215881|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.75|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Unserotyped||19.75|0.00|
84731670|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.03|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Any grade||7.03|0.27|
84731671|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade I||4.83|0.00|
84731672|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|99.1|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade II||99.10|0.20|
84731673|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Any grade||39.49|0.01|
84731674|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Grade I||39.49|0.01|
84731675|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Any grade||4.83|0.00|
84731676|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.62|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade I||19.62|0.00|
84479773|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|7.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.377|9.42|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.420|6.377|
84731677|NCT01983553|169215889|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade II||39.49|0.01|
84731678|NCT01670188|169215919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84752402|NCT02137512|169259935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752403|NCT02137512|169259935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752404|NCT02137512|169259935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84496919|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.82|1.4||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.40|0.82|
84496920|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.69|1.1||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.10|0.69|
84731679|NCT05324007|169215967|EQUIVALENCE|Estimated effect size was based on Liberman et al. (2017) that found a partial eta squared of .478 for the interaction between different-language and same-language conditions. Using G\*power using an alpha of .05, our target sample size of 30 per condition should provide 99.73% power to detect the main effect in the White-White and Black-Black condition and 99.99% power to detect the main effect in the Black-White condition.|partial eta squared|0.062|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We will examine whether looking time at affiliation will be greater when looking at Black-White interactions than at White-White or Black-Black interactions. That is, we will test if infants will be more surprised (look longer) by affiliation between different-race people interacting than same race people interacting. We will conduct a mixed ANOVA with conditions (Black-White, White-White, Black-Black) as a between-subject and test type (affiliation vs. disengagement) as within-subject factors.||||<.05
84731680|NCT00776984|169215970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.217||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.091|<0.0001
84731681|NCT00776984|169215971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.169||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.169|0.053|0.0002
84731682|NCT00776984|169215972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
84731683|NCT00776984|169215973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0275||95.0|0.01|0.177||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.177|0.010|0.0275
84731684|NCT00776984|169215974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099||95.0|0.025|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|0.025|0.0099
84731685|NCT00776984|169215975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.202||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.202|0.084|<0.0001
84731686|NCT00776984|169215976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.187||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.187|0.031|0.0063
84731687|NCT00776984|169215977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.217||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.087|<0.0001
84731688|NCT00776984|169215978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0026||95.0|0.032|0.151||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.151|0.032|0.0026
84731689|NCT00776984|169215979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.199||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.078|<0.0001
84731690|NCT00776984|169215980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0088||95.0|0.029|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.029|0.0088
84731691|NCT00776984|169215981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0933||95.0|-0.012|0.153||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.153|-0.012|0.0933
84731692|NCT00776984|169215982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0074||95.0|0.029|0.189||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.189|0.029|0.0074
84731693|NCT00776984|169215983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807|<|0.0001||95.0|11.199|30.108||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||30.108|11.199|<0.0001
84731694|NCT00776984|169215984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044|<|0.0001||95.0|22.532|42.374||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||42.374|22.532|<0.0001
84731695|NCT00776984|169215985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0027||95.0|0.031|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.031|0.0027
84731696|NCT00776984|169215986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.074|<0.0001
84731697|NCT00776984|169215987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.1073||95.0|-0.261|2.655||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||2.655|-0.261|0.1073
84731698|NCT00776984|169215988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4788||95.0|0.65|1.23||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.23|0.65|0.4788
84731699|NCT00776984|169215989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1007||95.0|0.61|1.04||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.04|0.61|0.1007
84731700|NCT00776984|169215990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906||95.0|0.71|1.3||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.30|0.71|0.7906
84731701|NCT00776984|169215991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.004||95.0|0.38|0.84||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.84|0.38|0.0040
84731702|NCT00776984|169215992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5481||95.0|0.58|1.32||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.32|0.58|0.5481
84731703|NCT00776984|169215993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7188||95.0|0.33|2.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||2.14|0.33|0.7188
84731704|NCT00776984|169215994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8503||95.0|0.59|1.54||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo.|||1.54|0.59|0.8503
84731705|NCT00776984|169215995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8129||95.0|0.29|2.46||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.46|0.29|0.8129
84731706|NCT00776984|169215996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0225||95.0|0.025|0.331||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.331|0.025|0.0225
84731707|NCT00776984|169215997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0803||95.0|-0.017|0.296||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.296|-0.017|0.0803
84731708|NCT00776984|169215998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003||95.0|-0.33|-0.068||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||-0.068|-0.330|0.0030
84731709|NCT00776984|169215999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0533||95.0|-0.267|0.002||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.002|-0.267|0.0533
84731710|NCT00776984|169216000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.6632||95.0|-0.043|0.067||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.067|-0.043|0.6632
84731711|NCT00776984|169216001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1664||95.0|-0.635|0.11||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.110|-0.635|0.1664
84731712|NCT00776984|169216002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
84752405|NCT02137512|169259936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752406|NCT02137512|169259936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752407|NCT02137512|169259936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84752408|NCT02137512|169259937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84752409|NCT02137512|169259937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84731713|NCT00776984|169216002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
84731714|NCT01196741|169216041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.65|0.57
84731715|NCT01196741|169216042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.81
84731716|NCT01196741|169216045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
84731717|NCT01196741|169216047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
84731718|NCT05329402|169216048|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority hypothesis is tenable if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the primary effectiveness evaluation indicator device cutting and anastomosis success rate between the test group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority critical value (-10%)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|0.0273|||Wald|||||0.0273|-0.0285|0.9727
84731719|NCT00276016|169216049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||0.561
84479774|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|2.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.972|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.972|1.770|
84731720|NCT00276016|169216050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||<.001
84731721|NCT02056873|169216071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"At 6 months post-surgery the YGTSS scores of each subjects is statistically tested against their baseline scores.~A decrease in this tic severity scale means that the severity of the tics have reduced.~Hence, we performed a superiority test, which statistically verifies if the reduction in the tic severity scale was meaningful."||||0.05
84731722|NCT03469492|169216091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84731723|NCT03469492|169216095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
84731724|NCT03469492|169216098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84731725|NCT03469492|169216099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84496921|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.68|0.94||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.94|0.68|
84731726|NCT01726049|169216101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-4.5|
84731727|NCT01726049|169216101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-7.1|
84731728|NCT01726049|169216102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.9|
84731729|NCT01726049|169216102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.3|
84731730|NCT01726049|169216103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.9|
84731731|NCT01726049|169216103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
84496922|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71||||||95.0|0.59|0.85||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.85|0.59|
84731732|NCT01726049|169216104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.9|
84731733|NCT01726049|169216104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||||||||-1.8|-5.2|
84731734|NCT01936324|169216152|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center.||||||0.0003
84731735|NCT01936324|169216153|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center||||||0.0032
84731736|NCT01936324|169216154|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study center||||||0.0070
84731737|NCT03119688|169216168|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority margin is set at 0.25. The upper limit of the 90% CI is less than this and hence NI is met.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.077||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1707|0.0169||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis (non-inferiority setting) is that the population mean dryness for Test minus Baxter Sterile Water (negative control) is at least 0.25.||0.0169|-0.1707|0.1769
84731738|NCT03119688|169216168|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2565|0.4441||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.4441|0.2565|<.0001
84731739|NCT03119688|169216168|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3333|0.5211||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.5211|0.3333|<.0001
84752410|NCT02137512|169259937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84731740|NCT03119688|169216168|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.065||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0287|0.1592||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.1592|-0.0287|0.2518
84731741|NCT02705625|169216185|SUPERIORITY|"For the primary endpoint, the Type I error for the tests of the two doses was protected by performing a fixed-sequence multiple-testing procedure in the following order:~Step 1: 200 mg versus placebo Step 2: 100 mg versus placebo The second step was only considered as confirmatory provided the previous step was significant at a one-sided 5%-level (p\<0.05).~If the previous step was not significant, the analysis of the following step was considered descriptive."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0761||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.55||The p-values reported is from Step 1 (comparing 200 mg versus placebo). The corresponding p-value from Step 2 (comparing 100 mg versus placebo) was 0.1458.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment by time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline NRS was included as a covariate for adjustment. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model.||0.55|-0.703|0.4055
84731742|NCT02705625|169216186|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-4.02||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.02|-25.3|0.0036
84731743|NCT02705625|169216186|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.83||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.83|-26|0.0023
84731744|NCT02705625|169216187|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0436||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.118||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.118|-0.031|0.1253
84731745|NCT02705625|169216187|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0761||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00173|0.15||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.15|0.00173|0.0225
84731746|NCT02705625|169216188|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|4.48||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time,baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.48|-8.02|0.2887
84752411|NCT02137512|169259938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84752412|NCT02137512|169259938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84752413|NCT02137512|169259938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84752414|NCT02137512|169259939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84752415|NCT02137512|169259939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84731747|NCT02705625|169216188|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.67||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||1.67|-10.8|0.0753
84731748|NCT02705625|169216189|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|4.7||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.7|-8.38|0.2898
84731749|NCT02705625|169216189|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.72||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.72|-10.3|0.1262
84731750|NCT02705625|169216190|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.1||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.1|-10.2|0.2
84731751|NCT02705625|169216190|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.17||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.17|-12.1|0.0861
84731752|NCT02705625|169216191|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.206||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.206|-0.302|<0.0001
84731753|NCT02705625|169216191|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|-0.0983||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.0983|-0.193|<0.0001
84496923|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.95|1.33||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.33|0.95|
84496924|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
84731754|NCT02705625|169216192|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-270.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|-201.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-201|-339|<0.0001
84731755|NCT02705625|169216192|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-193.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.0|-124.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by- time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-124|-262|<0.0001
84731756|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.14||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.14|1.70|< 0.001
84731757|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.06||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.06|1.63|< 0.001
84731758|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.22||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.22|1.77|< 0.001
84731759|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|2.8||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||2.80|2.13|< 0.001
84731760|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||2.85|2.21|< 0.001
84752416|NCT02137512|169259939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84752417|NCT02137512|169259940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84479775|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|1.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|2.886|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.886|1.307|
84496925|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.58|0.9||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.90|0.58|
84603267|NCT01514240|168957133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.95|-9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-9.96|-49.95|0.014
84752418|NCT02137512|169259940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84603268|NCT01514240|168957134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.74|-45.47|0.144
84731761|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.36|1.87|< 0.001
84731762|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.03||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.03|2.27|< 0.001
84731763|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.51||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.51|1.97|< 0.001
84731764|NCT00943722|169216211|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.45||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.45|1.93|< 0.001
84731765|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.59||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.59|2.07|< 0.001
84731766|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.36|1.88|< 0.001
84731767|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.74||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.74|2.19|< 0.001
84731768|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|3.65||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||3.65|2.80|< 0.001
84731769|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.34||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||3.34|2.60|< 0.001
84479776|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|4.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.429|5.028|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.028|3.429|
84731770|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.88||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.88|2.29|< 0.001
84752419|NCT02137512|169259940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84752420|NCT02137512|169259941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84496926|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.22||||||95.0|1.0|1.49||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.49|1.00|
84731771|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|3.84||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.84|2.89|< 0.001
84731772|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.79||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.79|2.19|< 0.001
84479777|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|3.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.981|5.177|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.177|2.981|
84479778|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|14.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.628|15.516|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.516|12.628|
84479779|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|15.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.079|17.269|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||17.269|13.079|
84479780|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.026|6.917|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||6.917|5.026|
84479781|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|8.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.077|10.255|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.255|7.077|
84603269|NCT01514240|168957138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
84731773|NCT00943722|169216212|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.98||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.98|2.37|< 0.001
84731774|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|
84667701|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-0.8|0.0016
84731775|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.16|0.93|
84731776|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.19|0.95|
84731777|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||1.11|0.90|
84731778|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
84731779|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
84731780|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||1.06|0.86|
84731781|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.12|0.90|
84731782|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.17|0.94|
84731783|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||1.14|0.89|
84731784|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.98|
84731785|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.97|
84731786|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||1.13|0.89|
84731787|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.16|0.91|
84731788|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.15|0.90|
84731789|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||1.16|0.94|
84496927|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.97||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.97|0.69|
84731790|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.17|0.94|
84731791|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.12|0.90|
84731792|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.95|0.73|
84731793|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.18|0.91|
84731794|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.42|1.08|
84731795|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||1.03|0.83|
84731796|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.07|0.85|
84731797|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.16|0.92|
84731798|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||1.06|0.86|
84731799|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.20|0.96|
84731800|NCT00943722|169216213|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.26|1.00|
84731801|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
84731802|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84731803|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84731804|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
84496928|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
84496929|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.15||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.15|0.78|
84731805|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
84731806|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
84731807|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||1.8|-0.6|< 0.001
84731808|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
84731809|NCT00943722|169216217|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84731810|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.7|< 0.001
84731811|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84731812|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84752421|NCT02137512|169259942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84731813|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
84731814|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
84731815|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
84731816|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||2.0|-0.1|< 0.001
84731817|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
84731818|NCT00943722|169216218|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
84731819|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||0.9|-0.9|
84731820|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
84731821|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
84731822|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||0.7|-0.7|
84731823|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
84731824|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
84731825|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||0.7|-0.7|
84496930|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26||||||95.0|1.0|1.59||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.59|1.00|
84731826|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
84731827|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
84731828|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||0.5|-1.1|
84731829|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.1|-0.7|
84731830|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.3|-0.4|
84496931|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.68|1.2||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.20|0.68|
84752422|NCT02137512|169259943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84731831|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||0.7|-0.7|
84731832|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.6|
84731833|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.5|
84731834|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||0.7|-0.7|
84731835|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
84731836|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
84731837|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.5|-1.1|
84731838|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.1|-0.7|
84731839|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.3|-0.4|
84731840|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||0.7|-0.7|
84731841|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
84731842|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
84731843|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||0.7|-0.7|
84731844|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
84731845|NCT00943722|169216219|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
84731846|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.092|0.016|
84731847|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.103|0.027|
84731848|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.122|0.046|
84731849|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.049|-0.027|
84731850|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.069|-0.008|
84731851|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.058|-0.019|
84731852|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.089|0.013|
84731853|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.122|0.045|
84731854|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.119|0.042|
84731855|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.071|-0.006|
84731856|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.068|-0.009|
84731857|NCT01040403|169216237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.035|-0.041|
84731858|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.159|0.040|
84731859|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.179|0.061|
84731860|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.160|0.041|
84731861|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.079|-0.039|
84731862|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.061|-0.059|
84731863|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.040|-0.079|
84731864|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.190|0.071|
84731865|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.191|0.072|
84731866|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.187|0.067|
84731867|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.061|-0.059|
84496932|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.08|1.79||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.79|1.08|
84731868|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.056|-0.063|
84731869|NCT01040403|169216238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.064|
84731870|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.114|0.035|
84731871|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
84731872|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.159|0.079|
84731873|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.017|
84731874|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.085|0.004|
84731875|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.018|
84731876|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
84731877|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.168|0.088|
84731878|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.183|0.103|
84731879|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.071|-0.009|
84731880|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.086|0.006|
84731881|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.055|-0.025|
84731882|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.117|0.040|
84731883|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.137|0.060|
84496933|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.67|1.0||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.00|0.67|
84731884|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.157|0.080|
84731885|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.018|
84731886|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.079|0.001|
84731887|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.019|
84731888|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.136|0.060|
84731889|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.159|0.083|
84731890|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.182|0.105|
84731891|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.062|-0.016|
84731892|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.084|0.007|
84731893|NCT01040403|169216239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.061|-0.016|
84496934|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.07||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.07|0.67|
84731894|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.012|-0.058|
84731895|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.040|-0.029|
84731896|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.036|-0.034|
84496935|NCT00366678|168745200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.78|1.19||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.19|0.78|
84731897|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.063|-0.006|
84731898|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.059|-0.011|
84731899|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.031|-0.039|
84731900|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.073|0.004|
84731901|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.066|-0.004|
84731902|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.076|0.006|
84731903|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.027|-0.043|
84731904|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.037|-0.032|
84731905|NCT01040403|169216240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.045|-0.025|
84731906|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.138|0.041|
84731907|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.139|0.043|
84731908|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.164|0.066|
84731909|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.050|-0.046|
84731910|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.074|-0.023|
84731911|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.072|-0.025|
84603270|NCT01514240|168957139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|29.61|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||29.61|1.66|
84731912|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.156|0.059|
84731913|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.181|0.084|
84731914|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.193|0.096|
84731915|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.074|-0.024|
84731916|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.086|-0.010|
84731917|NCT01040403|169216241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.061|-0.036|
84731918|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.020|-0.059|
84731919|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.026|
84731920|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.028|
84731921|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.072|-0.006|
84496936|NCT00366678|168745203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.66|0.9||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.90|0.66|
84603271|NCT01514240|168957140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|30.29|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||30.29|0.85|
84731922|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.071|-0.009|
84603272|NCT01514240|168957141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|19.71|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||19.71|-5.67|
84603273|NCT01514240|168957142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
84731923|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.037|-0.041|
84731924|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.093|0.015|
84731925|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.084|0.006|
84731926|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.087|0.008|
84731927|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.031|-0.049|
84731928|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.033|-0.046|
84731929|NCT01040403|169216242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.042|-0.037|
84731930|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.202|0.084|
84731931|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.210|0.092|
84731932|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.191|0.072|
84731933|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.066|-0.051|
84731934|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.048|-0.071|
84731935|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.039|-0.079|
84731936|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
84731937|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
84731938|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.259|0.140|
84731939|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.059|-0.060|
84731940|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
84731941|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
84731942|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.197|0.081|
84731943|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.207|0.092|
84731944|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.189|0.073|
84731945|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.068|-0.047|
84731946|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.051|-0.066|
84731947|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.039|-0.076|
84731948|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.247|0.131|
84496937|NCT00366678|168745203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.82|
84496938|NCT00366678|168745203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.67|0.97||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.97|0.67|
84731949|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.236|0.121|
84731950|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.271|0.155|
84731951|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.048|-0.069|
84731952|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.082|-0.033|
84731953|NCT01040403|169216243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.092|-0.023|
84731954|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.010|-0.106|
84731955|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.065|
84731956|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.044|-0.072|
84731957|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.099|-0.017|
84731958|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.093|-0.024|
84731959|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.051|-0.065|
84731960|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.148|0.032|
84731961|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.118|0.001|
84731962|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.114|-0.002|
84731963|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.028|-0.089|
84752423|NCT02137512|169259944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84479782|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|2.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|3.71|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||3.710|2.357|
84479783|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|2.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.361|2.96|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.960|1.361|
84496939|NCT00366678|168745203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.69|
84731964|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.024|-0.092|
84731965|NCT01040403|169216244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.062|
84731966|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.223|0.087|
84731967|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.215|0.079|
84731968|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.195|0.058|
84731969|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.060|-0.075|
84731970|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.041|-0.097|
84731971|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.048|-0.089|
84603274|NCT01514240|168957143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|26.68|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||26.68|-2.44|
84731972|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.242|0.106|
84731973|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.250|0.113|
84731974|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.272|0.135|
84731975|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.076|-0.061|
84731976|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.098|-0.038|
84731977|NCT01040403|169216245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.090|-0.046|
84731978|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.013|-0.114|
84731979|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.071|-0.055|
84731980|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.074|
84731981|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.122|-0.004|
84731982|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.104|-0.024|
84731983|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus +O 2.5/5|||0.045|-0.082|
84731984|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.174|0.047|
84479784|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|5.939|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.939|4.196|
84667702|NCT00663052|169070296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-0.6|0.0602
84731985|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.144|0.017|
84731986|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.132|0.005|
84731987|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.034|-0.094|
84731988|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.021|-0.105|
84731989|NCT01040403|169216246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.052|-0.075|
84731990|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.533|26.985|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||26.985|10.533|
84731991|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.962|33.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||33.351|16.962|
84731992|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.526|38.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||38.082|21.526|
84731993|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|14.592|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||14.592|-1.796|
84731994|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.721|19.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||19.370|2.721|
84731995|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|12.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||12.903|-3.608|
84731996|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.068|26.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||26.568|10.068|
84667703|NCT00663052|169070299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.55|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||8.55|-7.70|1.0000
84731997|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|31.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.752|15.270|
84731998|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.543|31.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.092|14.543|
84731999|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.115|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||13.500|-3.115|
84732000|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.719|12.717|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||12.717|-3.719|
84732001|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.694|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.941|7.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||7.554|-8.941|
84732002|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|26.632|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||26.632|10.870|
84732003|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.158|33.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||33.860|18.158|
84732004|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.416|37.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||37.278|21.416|
84732005|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|15.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||15.109|-0.592|
84732006|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.621|18.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||18.571|2.621|
84732007|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|11.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||11.247|-4.572|
84732008|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.75|27.558|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||27.558|11.750|
84732009|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.866|30.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||30.659|14.866|
84732010|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.607|33.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||33.464|17.607|
84732011|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.852|11.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||11.067|-4.852|
84732012|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|13.754|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||13.754|-1.991|
84732013|NCT01040403|169216247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.129|10.675|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||10.675|-5.129|
84732014|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.268|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.900|-6.268|
84732015|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|13.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.044|-4.088|
84732016|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|13.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.314|-3.978|
84732017|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.349|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.379|10.702|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||10.702|-6.379|
84732018|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.326|11.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||11.029|-6.326|
84732019|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||8.810|-8.430|
84732020|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.136|10.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||10.113|-7.136|
84732021|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||11.875|-5.350|
84496940|NCT00366678|168745204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.73|1.14||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.73|
84603275|NCT01514240|168957144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|16.14|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||16.14|4.86|
84732022|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.535|15.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||15.778|-1.535|
84732023|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|10.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||10.458|-6.910|
84732024|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|14.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||14.236|-2.970|
84732025|NCT01040403|169216248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.786|12.504|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.504|-4.786|
84732026|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.161|28.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||28.204|9.161|
84732027|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.116|33.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||33.083|14.116|
84732028|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.517|39.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||39.677|20.517|
84732029|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.568|14.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||14.402|-4.568|
84732030|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|21.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||21.050|1.780|
84732031|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||16.053|-3.057|
84732032|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.742|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.194|27.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||27.290|8.194|
84732033|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|33.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||33.651|14.580|
84732034|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.52|34.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||34.670|15.520|
84732035|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|15.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||15.986|-3.240|
84732036|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|16.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||16.866|-2.161|
84732037|NCT01040403|169216249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.566|10.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||10.525|-8.566|
84732038|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.853|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|10.699|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.699|-8.360|
84732039|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.073|13.945|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.945|-5.073|
84732040|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.407|14.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||14.785|-4.407|
84732041|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.214|12.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||12.747|-6.214|
84732042|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||13.650|-5.610|
84732043|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.816|10.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||10.322|-8.816|
84732044|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.589|12.561|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||12.561|-6.589|
84732045|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|14.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||14.475|-4.643|
84732046|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|17.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||17.019|-2.154|
84732047|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.708|11.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||11.568|-7.708|
84732048|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.085|13.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||13.978|-5.085|
84496941|NCT00366678|168745204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.82|1.32||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.32|0.82|
84732049|NCT01040403|169216250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.046|12.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.079|-7.046|
84496942|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.71|1.09||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.09|0.71|
84667704|NCT00663052|169070299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|13.63|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.63|-5.75|0.4213
84732050|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.099|-0.523|
84732051|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||-0.004|-0.634|
84732052|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.249|-0.379|
84732053|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.206|-0.420|
84732054|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.462|-0.168|
84732055|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 1||0.571|-0.062|
84732056|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.355|-0.271|
84732057|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.062|-0.564|
84732058|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.135|-0.492|
84732059|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.024|-0.611|
84732060|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.092|-0.533|
84732061|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 1||0.388|-0.242|
84732062|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.462|-0.241|
84732063|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.261|-0.445|
84752424|NCT02137512|169259945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84732064|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.406|-0.301|
84732065|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.150|-0.555|
84732066|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.296|-0.411|
84732067|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 4||0.496|-0.208|
84732068|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.135|-0.568|
84732069|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||-0.012|-0.714|
84732070|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.106|-0.598|
84732071|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.210|-0.503|
84732072|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.321|-0.379|
84496943|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.66|1.03||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.03|0.66|
84732073|NCT01040403|169216254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 4||0.470|-0.235|
84732074|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.250|-0.223|
84496944|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.59|1.02||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.59|
84732075|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.104|-0.370|
84732076|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.199|-0.278|
84732077|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.088|-0.382|
84732078|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.186|-0.291|
84732079|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 1||0.332|-0.144|
84732080|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|-0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||-0.045|-0.519|
84732081|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.124|-0.350|
84732082|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.180|-0.293|
84732083|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.408|-0.069|
84732084|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.461|-0.010|
84732085|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 1||0.293|-0.180|
84732086|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/ minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.387|-0.067|
84732087|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.491|0.034|
84732088|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.316|-0.148|
84732089|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.328|-0.124|
84732090|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.154|-0.306|
84732091|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 29||0.052|-0.408|
84732092|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.400|-0.056|
84732093|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.285|-0.171|
84732094|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.346|-0.110|
84732095|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.115|-0.345|
84732096|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.173|-0.281|
84732097|NCT01040403|169216255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 29||0.289|-0.166|
84732098|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.037|-0.481|
84732099|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||-0.182|-0.700|
84732100|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.111|-0.409|
84732101|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.040|-0.478|
84732102|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.335|-0.189|
84732103|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.553|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.553|0.031|
84732104|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.123|-0.641|
84732105|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.127|-0.390|
84732106|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|-0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.067|-0.585|
84732107|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.511|-0.010|
84732108|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.314|-0.202|
84732109|NCT01040403|169216256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.065|-0.453|
84732110|NCT00594178|169216259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.87|277.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise lean muscle mass.||277.21|-778.87|.318
84732111|NCT00594178|169216260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0645||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01827|0.11073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise bone density.||.11073|.01827|.011
84732112|NCT00496626|169216261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|101.6|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|117.2||The ANCOVA models showed the lower bounds of two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] were greater than 1 for each HPV type, so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV18, the type with the smallest CI lower bound.|ANCOVA||Superiority of GARDASIL™ to placebo was claimed if, for each of the four HPV types, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] being \>1, or equivalently, the two-sided p-value \<0.05.|An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used for each HPV type, based on the pooled data from all age groups and genders. The natural-log-transformed titer was the response variable, and vaccination group, gender and age group were covariates. The null hypothesis was that the GMT ratio (Gardasil/Placebo) was equal to 1.||117.2|88.1|<=0.05
84732113|NCT00496626|169216262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|96.65|||<=|0.05||95.0|93.74|98.46||The lower bound of the 95% CI for the seroconversion rate was greater than 90% for each type so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV6, the type with the smallest lower bound.|Exact Binomial CI|||The null hypothesis was that the seroconversion rate in the Gardasil® Group was less than 90% for each HPV type.||98.46|93.74|<=0.05
84752425|NCT02137512|169259946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84732114|NCT00726713|169216373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.013
84732115|NCT00726713|169216373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 24||||=0.033
84732116|NCT00726713|169216374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.027
84732117|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
84732118|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
84732119|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from Baseline Week 16||||=0.0001
84732120|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0008
84732121|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
84732122|NCT00726713|169216375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
84732123|NCT00726713|169216376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0306||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 MCS, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0306
84732124|NCT00726713|169216379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||HADS Depression, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.054
84603276|NCT01514240|168957145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|19.11|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.11|6.07|
84732125|NCT02547441|169216447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84732126|NCT02547441|169216448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
84732127|NCT01322009|169216454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Analysis run over study period but data entered only for the 6 h time point||||||>0.05
84732128|NCT01657877|169216457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The success criterion for this study was to observe the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for difference in % change in SMHR to be \<= 6 units SMHR i.e. 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 5% CSP is no more than 6 units inferior to the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0 % CSP dentifrice.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.23||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.66|||ANOVA|Based on the mixed effects ANOVA considering treatment and study period as factors, and subject as random effect|Difference is 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP minus 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5 % CSP such that a positive difference favors 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP|The null hypothesis states that the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0% CSP minus the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5% CSP dentifrice is more than 6 %.||1.66|-6.11|0.2601
84732129|NCT00812838|169216591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5154||||||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5154
84732130|NCT00812838|169216592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||"This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.~This analysis pertains to both categories"||||0.3009
84732131|NCT00812838|169216593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0166
84732132|NCT00812838|169216594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||.8566
84732133|NCT00812838|169216595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0286||||||Threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0286
84732134|NCT04148521|169216596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.90|0.27
84732135|NCT04148521|169216597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.75|0.83
84732136|NCT04148521|169216598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.26|0.91|0.12
84732137|NCT04148521|169216599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.73|0.51
84732138|NCT02287883|169216605|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84732139|NCT02287883|169216606|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84732140|NCT02287883|169216607|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84732141|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.58|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||1.58|1.06|
84732142|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.32|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.32|0.889|
84732143|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|3.06|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||3.06|2.06|
84732144|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.21|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.21|0.806|
84732145|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|4.02|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||4.02|2.67|
84732146|NCT02341599|169216661|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group E: Period 2|LS mean ratio|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.378|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.378|0.236|
84732147|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.27|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.27|0.846|
84732148|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.428|0.641|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.641|0.428|
84732149|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.554|0.831|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.831|0.554|
84732150|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.336|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.336|0.221|
84732151|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.265|0.402|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.402|0.265|
84732152|NCT02341599|169216662|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group E: Period 1|LS mean ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.0|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.00|0.650|
84732153|NCT01125566|169216671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4224||95.0|0.87|1.41||Two sided p-value was derived from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|||1.41|0.87|0.4224
84732154|NCT01125566|169216672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.63||Two sided p-value from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.63|1.03|0.0240
84732155|NCT01125566|169216673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6431||95.0|0.756|1.572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours Afatinib.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.572|0.756|0.6431
84603277|NCT01514240|168957146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|19.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.72|5.40|
84667705|NCT00663052|169070299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.98||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|13.35|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.35|-5.38|0.4039
84732156|NCT01125566|169216674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.8829||95.0|0.707|1.496|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours AV.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.496|0.707|0.8829
84732157|NCT02970305|169216677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-3.8|0.0434
84732158|NCT00988117|169216705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tscore|5.19|||<|0.01||95.0||||t-tests were statistically thresholded using the joint probability distribution method to correct for multiple comparisons, p \< 0.01 for voxel height and p \< 0.05 for cluster extent|t-test, 2 sided|A mask included only those regions where the patients showed abnormally low fALFF at either timepoint relative to a sample of 15 age-matched controls.||"Each voxel's BOLD signal time series was detrended and transformed to the frequency domain. We divided the sum of the square roots across the 0.01-0.08 Hz range by that across the entire frequency range (0-0.25 Hz).~fALFF group comparisons were evaluated using t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons. To determine if there were treatment-associated changes in brain activity, we compared voxel-wise fALFF in the patients at baseline to post-treatment."||||<0.01
84732159|NCT00988117|169216706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation coefficient|-0.82|||<|0.01||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left inferior frontal gyrus / premotor falff change||||<.01
84732160|NCT00988117|169216706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.35||||0.36||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.36
84732161|NCT00988117|169216707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation|0.18||||0.58||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||correlation with left premotor / inferior frontal gyri falff change||||.58
84732162|NCT00988117|169216707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.41||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.41
84732163|NCT01355471|169216716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
84732164|NCT02930837|169216717|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of patients|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.42|71.42|||One-sample test||Percentage of patients with Favourable outcome|A null hypothesis of p ≤40% versus the alternative hypothesis of p \>40% was tested using a one sample test at two-sided significance level of 0.05, where p denoted the response rate in Chinese patients who were treated within 3-4.5 h after stroke onset.||71.42|54.42|<0.0001
84667706|NCT00663052|169070299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|2.5||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||11.88|-6.87|0.6168
84732165|NCT01850823|169216745|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on Test/Reference Ratio and 90% confidence interval (as per OGD guidance)|Ratio Test/Reference LS Mean|114.723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|134.286||||||Conducted on Per Protocol Population||134.286|99.077|
84732166|NCT01850823|169216746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
84732167|NCT01850823|169216746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||0.0002
84732168|NCT01751165|169216748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.39|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,6-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.39|0.98|
84732169|NCT01751165|169216748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.53|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,12-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.53|0.93|
84732170|NCT01387815|169216768|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison does not include missing.||||<0.001
84732171|NCT01387815|169216769|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84732172|NCT01387815|169216770|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84732173|NCT01387815|169216771|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84732174|NCT01387815|169216772|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84732175|NCT01387815|169216773|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84732176|NCT01387815|169216774|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84571049|NCT04465422|168893236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Occupational Identity(range 11\~44；higher scores indicates better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Identity scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client has internalized a positive occupational identity (i.e., has values, interests, and confidence; sees self in various occupational roles; has an image of the kind of life desired)||2.37|0.23|0.019
84732177|NCT01387815|169216775|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84732178|NCT01387815|169216776|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
84732179|NCT01387815|169216777|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
84732180|NCT01387815|169216778|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
84732181|NCT01387815|169216779|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
84732182|NCT01387815|169216780|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
84732183|NCT01387815|169216781|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84732184|NCT01387815|169216782|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84732185|NCT01387815|169216783|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84732186|NCT01387815|169216784|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
84732187|NCT01387815|169216785|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
84732188|NCT01387815|169216786|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84732189|NCT01387815|169216787|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84732190|NCT01387815|169216788|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
84732191|NCT01387815|169216789|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
84732192|NCT01387815|169216790|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
84732193|NCT01387815|169216791|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84732194|NCT01387815|169216792|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
84732195|NCT01387815|169216793|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84732196|NCT01387815|169216794|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.002
84732197|NCT01387815|169216795|OTHER|"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84732198|NCT01387815|169216796|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84732199|NCT01387815|169216797|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.015
84732200|NCT01387815|169216798|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.060
84732201|NCT01387815|169216799|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
84732202|NCT01387815|169216800|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
84732203|NCT01387815|169216801|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
84732204|NCT01387815|169216802|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
84732205|NCT01387815|169216803|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
84732206|NCT01387815|169216804|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
84732207|NCT01387815|169216805|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
84732208|NCT01387815|169216806|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
84732209|NCT01387815|169216807|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
84732210|NCT01387815|169216808|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
84732211|NCT01387815|169216809|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
84732212|NCT01387815|169216810|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
84732213|NCT01387815|169216811|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.419
84732214|NCT01387815|169216812|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
84732215|NCT01387815|169216813|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.452
84732216|NCT01387815|169216814|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84732217|NCT01387815|169216815|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
84732218|NCT01387815|169216816|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
84732219|NCT01387815|169216820|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.143
84732220|NCT01387815|169216821|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.415
84732221|NCT01387815|169216822|OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.604
84732222|NCT01387815|169216823|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
84732223|NCT01387815|169216824|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.920
84732224|NCT01387815|169216825|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84732225|NCT01387815|169216826|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.575
84732226|NCT01387815|169216829|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.856
84732227|NCT01387815|169216830|OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.623
84732228|NCT01387815|169216831|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.732
84732229|NCT01387815|169216832|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
84732230|NCT01387815|169216833|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.879
84732231|NCT01387815|169216834|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.763
84732232|NCT01387815|169216835|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
84732233|NCT01387815|169216836|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.987
84732234|NCT01387815|169216837|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84732235|NCT01387815|169216838|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
84732236|NCT01387815|169216839|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
84732237|NCT01387815|169216841|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
84732238|NCT01387815|169216842|OTHER|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
84732239|NCT01387815|169216843|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84732240|NCT01387815|169216847|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84732241|NCT01387815|169216848|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84732242|NCT01387815|169216850|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
84732243|NCT01387815|169216851|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.747
84732244|NCT01387815|169216852|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
84732245|NCT01387815|169216856|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
84732246|NCT01387815|169216857|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84732247|NCT01387815|169216858|OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
84732248|NCT01387815|169216865|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84732249|NCT01387815|169216866|OTHER|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
84732250|NCT01387815|169216867|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.482
84732251|NCT01387815|169216868|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
84732252|NCT01387815|169216869|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
84732253|NCT01387815|169216870|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
84732254|NCT01387815|169216871|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
84732255|NCT01387815|169216872|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
84732256|NCT01387815|169216873|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
84732257|NCT01387815|169216874|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.305
84732258|NCT01387815|169216876|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
84732259|NCT01387815|169216877|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
84732260|NCT01387815|169216878|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
84732261|NCT01387815|169216879|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
84732262|NCT01387815|169216881|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
84732263|NCT01387815|169216882|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.291
84732264|NCT00553605|169216925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (parecoxib - ketoprofen) was greater than -10 mm.|Least-squares (LS) mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.3||||||LS mean difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.30|-6.53|
84732265|NCT00553605|169216926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|4.86|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.86|-5.04|0.972
84732266|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Minute 15: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.79|-4.28|0.768
84732267|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.24|||ANCOVA|||Minute 30: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.24|-6.22|0.866
84732268|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Minute 45: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.26|-4.38|0.729
84732269|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Minute 60: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||7.48|-2.24|0.290
84732270|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Minute 90: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.37|-2.05|0.314
84752426|NCT02137512|169259947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84732271|NCT00553605|169216928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Minute 120: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||3.55|-3.23|0.926
84732272|NCT00553605|169216929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|36.54|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country as covariates.||36.54|-16.3|0.451
84732273|NCT00553605|169216930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.3982
84732274|NCT00553605|169216930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.5552
84732275|NCT00553605|169216931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.007||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||p-value was based on logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and baseline as covariates.||1.69|0.60|0.9785
84732276|NCT00553605|169216932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.2482
84732277|NCT00553605|169216932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.7659
84732278|NCT00553605|169216933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.9783
84732279|NCT00553605|169216933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.6847
84732280|NCT00553605|169216934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9645
84496945|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.72|1.41||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.41|0.72|
84732281|NCT05694533|169216945|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.76|
84732282|NCT05694533|169216945|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.93||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.93|0.69|
84732283|NCT05694533|169216946|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.78|
84732284|NCT05694533|169216946|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.89||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.89|0.74|
84732285|NCT05694533|169216947|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.91||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.91|0.78|
84732286|NCT05694533|169216947|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.97|0.78|
84732287|NCT02005393|169216954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Image settings were considered non-inferior if scores overlapped within 1 SD of mean.||||||||||||||||All 20 subjects enrolled in the study, including Subject 219 that was dropped from the Reader assessments due to corrupted images, were all rated as having similar white light images between the FICE and NBI procedures for each location used in the concurrence study. This assessment was intended to assure that no procedural sequence or visualization bias was introduced into the image acquisition process. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).|The results reported utilized the average Likert scores for each of the 3 readers, for each of the FICE settings (0-9), as compared to FICE. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).The overall mean scores were comparable between FICE and NBI to provide acceptable diagnostic image visualization quality.|||
84732288|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.791||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.203|-0.378|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.378|-1.203|0.0002
84732289|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.263|-0.439|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.439|-1.263|<.0001
84732290|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.954|-1.135|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-1.135|-1.954|<.0001
84732291|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.639|-0.778|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.778|-1.639|<.0001
84732292|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.679|-0.811|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.811|-1.679|<.0001
84732293|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.273|-1.418|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-1.418|-2.273|<.0001
84752427|NCT02137512|169259948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84732294|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.312|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.312|-2.080|<.0001
84732295|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.232|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.232|-2.001|<.0001
84732296|NCT03231969|169216995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.387|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.630|-2.387|<.0001
84732297|NCT01193218|169217033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.57||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.57|-0.87|<0.0001
84732298|NCT01193218|169217033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
84732299|NCT01193218|169217033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.80|-1.10|<0.0001
84732300|NCT01193218|169217033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
84732301|NCT01193218|169217034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|70.236|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 5mg divided by the odds of placebo||70.236|5.340|<0.0001
84732302|NCT01193218|169217034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.889||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.942|40.301|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 10mg divided by the odds of placebo||40.301|2.942|0.0003
84732303|NCT01193218|169217034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.601|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 25mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|7.601|<0.0001
84732304|NCT01193218|169217034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 50mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|12.120|<0.0001
84732305|NCT01193218|169217035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|-21.8|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-21.80|-31.61|<0.0001
84732306|NCT01193218|169217035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-24.42|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-24.42|-34.25|<0.0001
84732307|NCT01193218|169217035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.66|-32.84|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-32.84|-42.66|<0.0001
84732308|NCT01193218|169217035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.51|-31.69|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-31.69|-41.51|<0.0001
84732309|NCT01013740|169217042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.53|1.35|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment HR was based on the log rank test.|||1.35|0.53|
84732310|NCT01013740|169217047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.58||||||||3.58|0.63|
84732311|NCT00510146|169217102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.36||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-3.93|0.018
84732312|NCT00510146|169217103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic response at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.050
84732313|NCT00510146|169217104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic remission at any time from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
84732314|NCT00510146|169217105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Mania score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.20|0.008
84732315|NCT00510146|169217105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Depression score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.47|0.037
84732316|NCT00510146|169217105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.08||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Overall score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.53|0.008
84732317|NCT00510146|169217106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with recovery from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
84732318|NCT00510146|169217107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.56|<0.001
84732319|NCT00510146|169217108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.81||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-3.61|0.002
84732320|NCT00510146|169217109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.297
84732321|NCT00510146|169217109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode with melancholic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.264
84732322|NCT00510146|169217110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current hypomanic episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.195
84732323|NCT00510146|169217111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current psychotic disorders from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.163
84732324|NCT00510146|169217111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current mood disorders with psychotic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
84732325|NCT00510146|169217112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol dependence from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
84732326|NCT00510146|169217112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol abuse from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.324
84732327|NCT00510146|169217114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with emergence of mania at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
84732328|NCT00510146|169217115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (akathisia) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
84732329|NCT00510146|169217115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (parkinsonism) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
84732330|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
84732331|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.249
84732332|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
84732333|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
84732334|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.284
84732335|NCT00510146|169217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
84732336|NCT00510146|169217117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in weight from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84752428|NCT02137512|169259949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84603278|NCT01514240|168957147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|21.23|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||21.23|6.90|
84732337|NCT00510146|169217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in fasting glucose from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.179
84732338|NCT00510146|169217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84732339|NCT00510146|169217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in triglycerides from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84732340|NCT00510146|169217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in LDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84732341|NCT00510146|169217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in HDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
84732342|NCT00510146|169217119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in albumin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84732343|NCT00510146|169217120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in ALT/SGPT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732344|NCT00510146|169217120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in AST/SGOT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84732345|NCT00510146|169217120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in GGT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732346|NCT00510146|169217121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in direct bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732347|NCT00510146|169217121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in total bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732348|NCT00510146|169217121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in uric acid from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732349|NCT00510146|169217122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84732350|NCT00510146|169217123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hematocrit from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84732351|NCT00510146|169217124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin A1c from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84732352|NCT00510146|169217125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732353|NCT00510146|169217126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in prolactin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732354|NCT00510146|169217127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in urinalysis-specific gravity from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732355|NCT00510146|169217128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcF interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
84732356|NCT00510146|169217128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcB interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84732357|NCT00510146|169217129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in heart rate from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
84732358|NCT00510146|169217130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.64||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint for MINI Suicidality Total Score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-0.59|0.943
84732359|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.736
84732360|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
84732361|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
84732362|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
84732363|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
84732364|NCT00510146|169217138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
84732365|NCT00510146|169217139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for weight from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84732366|NCT00510146|169217140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for albumin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732367|NCT00510146|169217140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for total protein from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84732368|NCT00510146|169217141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for alkaline phosphatase from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84732369|NCT00510146|169217141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for CPK from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84732370|NCT00510146|169217141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for GGT from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.354
84732371|NCT00510146|169217142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for chlorine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84732372|NCT00510146|169217143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for creatinine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732373|NCT00510146|169217144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84732374|NCT00510146|169217145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
84732375|NCT00510146|169217146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for platelet count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84732376|NCT00510146|169217147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for prolactin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732377|NCT00510146|169217148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for uric acid from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84732378|NCT00510146|169217149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for fasting glucose from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84732379|NCT00510146|169217149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
84732380|NCT00510146|169217149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for triglycerides from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
84732381|NCT00510146|169217149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for LDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84732382|NCT00510146|169217149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for HDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84732383|NCT00510146|169217150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcF from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84732384|NCT00510146|169217150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcB from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
84732385|NCT00510146|169217151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for heart rate from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919
84732386|NCT03790878|169217233|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84732387|NCT03790878|169217234|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.396
84732388|NCT03790878|169217235|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.002
84732389|NCT02864342|169217237|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||The effect of medication reminders on Symbicort adherence was evaluated using a t-test. The equality of variances was also tested and as the variances were not equal, the Satterthwaite-t test was reported.||||<0.001
84732390|NCT02573883|169217243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84732391|NCT02573883|169217244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84732392|NCT02573883|169217246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84732393|NCT02573883|169217248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84752429|NCT01920594|169259963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2228.14||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.84|4749.11|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final values) of S-100B Protein \[test\] and S-100B Protein \[reference\].|||4749.11|-292.84|0.0820
84752430|NCT01920594|169259964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|777.95||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.04|1979.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final values) of GFAP \[test\] and GFAP \[reference\].|||1979.94|-424.04|0.1997
84752431|NCT01920594|169259970|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|1.77||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.9|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of S-100B\[test\] and S-100B\[reference\].|||3.90|0.80|0.1530
84752432|NCT01920594|169259971|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|3.13||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|14.26|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of GFAP\[test\] and GFAP\[reference\].|||14.26|0.69|0.1377
84752433|NCT01920594|169259972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|47.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Erythropoietin\[test\] and Erythropoietin\[reference\].|||47.17|21.95|<.0001
84752434|NCT01920594|169259973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.45|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Lactate Dehydrogenase\[test\] and Lactate Dehydrogenase\[reference\].|||1.45|-0.37|0.2404
84732394|NCT00582114|169217259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cardiovascular events were counted by subject and included the following: myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, hospitalized angina, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization and heart valve replacement. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||4.23|1.36|0.001
84732395|NCT00582114|169217259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||As a post hoc analysis, we determined the narrower definition of cardiovascular events per group that included myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure or cardiovascular death. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||5.21|1.07|0.02
84732396|NCT00582114|169217259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.13||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hospitalization for congestive heart failure between groups was analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||10.99|1.08|0.02
84732397|NCT00582114|169217259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All-cause hospitalizations between groups were analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||2.19|1.18|0.002
84732398|NCT00118703|169217260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.45|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.45|-0.26|0.604
84732399|NCT00118703|169217261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.41|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.41|-0.29|0.729
84732400|NCT00118703|169217262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Overall evaluation of response to therapy was illustrated and analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatmen||||||0.064
84732401|NCT00130728|169217275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7583||95.0|0.799|1.177||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; Hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||1.177|0.799|0.7583
84732402|NCT00130728|169217276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.623|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.748||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||0.748|0.519|<.0001
84732403|NCT00130728|169217277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage difference|6.4||||0.0068||95.0|1.8|11.3||Relative to placebo arm|Mantel Haenszel||Difference in objective response rates relative to placebo arm|||11.3|1.8|0.0068
84732404|NCT00519285|169217314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.822|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.044 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function to account for two interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified on ECOG Performance Status|Hazard ratio (HR) aflibercept versus placebo estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified on ECOG Performance Status|"Null hypothesis: No difference between aflibercept and placebo~The study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a 1.25-fold increase in median survival with aflibercept compared to placebo at a overall one-sided significance level of 0.025 with 873 deaths."||1.08|0.822|0.3802
84732405|NCT00006436|169217381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Two-tailed log rank test||||Compared the PFS of interim PET positive participants to the PFS of interim PET negative.|||0.10
84732406|NCT02598934|169217435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.7||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate was effective in treating osteoporosis|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||27.7|6.1|0.002
84732407|NCT02598934|169217435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.8||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.8|4.0|0.009
84732408|NCT02598934|169217435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis or reduces risk of breaking bone.||||27.5|6.3|0.001
84732409|NCT02598934|169217435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.9||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis and reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.9|3.9|0.010
84732410|NCT02811302|169217436|OTHER|A simple count and percentage of the population were calculated based on the number of patients adjudicated as having Respiratory Depression.|||||||||||||||||To determine the risk assessment score, first the number of patients with Respiratory Depression (RD) had to be identified. Per the rules established for the Clinical Endpoint Committee, 655 (43.6%) patients were identified as having RD.|||
84752435|NCT01920594|169259974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|925.88||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|1862.49|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Tau Protein\[test\] and Tau Protein\[reference\].|||1862.49|-10.73|0.0526
84752436|NCT01920594|169259975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.87|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Neuron Specific Enolase\[test\] and Neuron Specific Enolase\[reference\].|||8.87|-0.65|0.0893
84752437|NCT01920594|169259980|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|1.84||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.32|||ANOVA|||For Troponin I||11.32|0.30|0.5012
84752438|NCT01920594|169259980|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|0.75||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.57|||ANOVA|||For Troponin T||8.57|0.07|0.8053
84752439|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752440|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84732411|NCT02811302|169217437|OTHER|Multivariable model for (Multivariate logistic regression) Respiratory Depression, followed by validation with Harrell's Optimism using a bootstrap sampling method.|Area Under the Curve|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.79|||||The model was performed using stepwise selection including all potential predictors and interactions terms (medical history and baseline characteristics).|A modified Full Analysis Dataset (1335) was used to derive and validate the risk assessment tool. Subjects were excluded if they had major deviations or consent withdrawals. Subjects that did not have any monitoring data were also excluded. Finally, 69 subjects were further excluded from the model, as they were missing parameters to calculate their risk score.|The model derived from the logistic regression was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemshow goodness of fit test (P = 0.831). The derived model was validated by Harrell's Optimism using a Bootstrap sampling method (500 samples from the modified dataset, 1335) with replacement. The logistic regression model with stepwise selection was performed for each bootstrap sample, and AUC calculated. The optimism calculated by Harrell's algorithm was 0.02. The model was then checked for the quartiles of the effective monitoring and for geography used as a random effect. The performance measurement of the final model was adjusted according the Harrell's Optimism for a final adjusted AUC of 0.74.|0.79|0.73|
84732412|NCT02154347|169217443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.37|-0.95|<0.001
84732413|NCT01343251|169217477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84732414|NCT01343251|169217478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84732415|NCT01343251|169217479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 1 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84732416|NCT01343251|169217479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 2 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84732417|NCT01343251|169217479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 3 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84732418|NCT01343251|169217479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 4 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84732419|NCT01343251|169217480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84732420|NCT01343251|169217481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84732421|NCT01468077|169217492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2685|0.2988|||||The CI (confidence interval) is calculated by Exact method based on binomial distribution.|||0.2988|-0.2685|
84732422|NCT00004146|169217515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||the study design is to detect 30% reduction in hazard of deaths with 78% power at one side alpha level of 0.10. Overall survial time was calculated from time of histological diagnosis until time of death from any event.||1.12|0.65|0.10
84732423|NCT03024996|169217518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.75|0.4950
84732424|NCT03024996|169217519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8868||95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8868
84732425|NCT03024996|169217520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.63|0.2010
84732426|NCT03024996|169217521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.69|0.2811
84732427|NCT03024996|169217522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.0735
84732428|NCT03024996|169217523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1396
84732429|NCT03024996|169217524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.55|0.4762
84732430|NCT03024996|169217525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.74|0.5111
84732431|NCT03677245|169217630|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed ranks test used to compared pre-intervention to post-intervention means of the Pediatric Balance Scale. No power calculation performed or utilized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84732432|NCT01475461|169217679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.23|-0.21|0.5206
84732433|NCT01475461|169217679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo||0.05|-0.40|0.1645
84732434|NCT01475461|169217679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.05|-0.39|0.1592
84732435|NCT01475461|169217679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.23|-0.68|0.0049
84752441|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752442|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84732436|NCT01475461|169217679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.21||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.21|-0.65|0.0068
84732437|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.09||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.09|-0.16|0.3434
84732438|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.27|0.0892
84732439|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0826
84732440|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.40|0.0031
84732441|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0005
84732442|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-0.18|0.5133
84732443|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.06||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.33|0.1873
84732444|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.212|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.07|-0.30|0.2120
84732445|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.35||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.35|-0.73|0.0001
84732446|NCT01475461|169217680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.23|-0.61|0.0021
84732447|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.823||0.724|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.32|9.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.07|-3.32|0.7240
84732448|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.13|4.59||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.59|-8.13|0.3608
84732449|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.816||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.42|2.95||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.95|-9.42|0.2511
84732450|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.851||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.51|-1.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-1.05|-13.51|0.0673
84732451|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.44|-5.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.00|-17.44|0.0106
84732452|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.73|5.47||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.47|-7.73|0.4127
84732453|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.261||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.64|4.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.87|-8.64|0.3604
84732454|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.96|-0.74||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.74|-13.96|0.0770
84732455|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.171||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.43|-2.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.15|-15.43|0.0451
84732456|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-13.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-13.23|-26.57|0.0001
84732457|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.08|8.3||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.30|-6.08|0.5783
84732458|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.5|5.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.50|0.3604
84732459|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.636||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.36|-4.88||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.88|-19.36|0.0161
84732460|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.663||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.68|2.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.87|-11.68|0.2185
84732461|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.649||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.67|-8.16||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.16|-22.67|0.0034
84732462|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.387||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|9.37||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.37|-7.03|0.5727
84732463|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.578||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.51|8.38||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.38|-8.51|0.4961
84732464|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.411||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.33|4.14||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.14|-12.33|0.2616
84732465|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.441||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|17.34||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||17.34|0.79|0.9197
84732466|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.398||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.98|-0.54||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.54|-16.98|0.0860
84732467|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.476||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.1|8.53||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.53|-8.10|0.5132
84732468|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.676||0.656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.89|11.26||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.26|-5.89|0.6560
84667707|NCT00663052|169070300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||||2.3|-2.8|0.8620
84479785|NCT00861380|168710674|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|4.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.285|5.566|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.566|3.285|
84479786|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2626735.|PYAR|9.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.103|9.335|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.335|9.103|
84479787|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1354702.|PYAR|9.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.052|9.375|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.375|9.052|
84479788|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.378|10.624|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.624|10.378|
84479789|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|10.429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.259|10.601|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.601|10.259|
84496946|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.72|1.34||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.34|0.72|
84496947|NCT00366678|168745205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84||||||95.0|0.6|1.17||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.60|
84667708|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.68||||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|17.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||17.40|-6.05|0.3525
84667709|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|27.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||27.20|2.19|0.0202
84732469|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|14.52||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.52|-2.17|0.8285
84732470|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.59|24.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||24.36|7.59|0.9925
84752443|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||1.0000
84732471|NCT01475461|169217681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.487||0.601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.67|10.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.00|-6.67|0.6010
84732472|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|1.34||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.34|0.18|0.0913
84732473|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.30|0.5236
84732474|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.53|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.53|0.9244
84732475|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.88||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.88|-0.28|0.5066
84732476|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|0.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.64|0.8947
84732477|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.52|0.30|0.0577
84732478|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|1.14||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.14|-0.12|0.3012
84732479|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|1.09||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.09|-0.13|0.3165
84732480|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.31|0.5191
84732481|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.30|0.5107
84732482|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.42||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.42|0.17|0.1054
84732483|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.96||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.96|-0.33|0.5341
84732484|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|1.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.15|-0.10|0.2782
84732485|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.94||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.32|0.5331
84732486|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|0.68||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.68|-0.57|0.9070
84732487|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|1.35||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.35|0.04|0.1757
84732488|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.11||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.11|-0.24|0.4083
84732489|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.17||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.17|-0.14|0.3150
84732490|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.44|0.6631
84732491|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.74|0.57||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-0.74|0.8694
84732492|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|1.4||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.40|0.00|0.2031
84732493|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.52|0.7137
84732494|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.681|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.92||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.48|0.6810
84732495|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.49||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.49|-0.92|0.6921
84732496|NCT01475461|169217688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.21|-1.19|0.3702
84732497|NCT02561806|169217713|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -12.6% for 97.5% confidence interval|Risk Difference (RD)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.198|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.445|0.198|<0.001
84732498|NCT02561806|169217714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.439|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.439|1.130|<0.001
84732499|NCT02561806|169217715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.423|3.975|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.975|1.423|0.009
84732500|NCT02561806|169217716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.469|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.244|1.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.695|1.244|<0.001
84732501|NCT02561806|169217717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.421||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|5.488|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.488|1.353|0.021
84732502|NCT02561806|169217724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.391||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.698|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.698|1.085|0.012
84732503|NCT00241969|169217743|SUPERIORITY|Some data were missing for energy intake (n=3 baseline, n=13 post-treatment), thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measure factor.|maximum likelihood estimation|431.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|581.0|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Some data were missing for energy intake (N = 3 baseline; 13 post treatment), and thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measures factor, no group main effect at baseline for energy intake, and sex, baseline Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, and treatment modality as covariates in the statistical model. This model is similar to an analysis of covariance model with baseline energy intake included as an additional covariate, but the PROC MIXED model employs maximum likelihood estimation and consequently allows for data to be missing at random. The test of the time by group interaction within this PROC MIXED model indicated whether the behavioral and nutrition treatment was efficacious relative to our control treatment.|581|282|<0.001
84732504|NCT00241969|169217744|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.24|-0.06|0.25
84732505|NCT00241969|169217745|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ and HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.27|0.001|0.049
84732506|NCT01149876|169217746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84732507|NCT01149876|169217746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84732508|NCT01149876|169217746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
84732509|NCT00983892|169217750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.15|||GEE|Adjusting for baseline symptom severity, caregiver type, week number, and cancer site.||||-0.15|-2.97|0.030
84732510|NCT03181282|169217757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.0925|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.0925|0.0132|0.0194
84732511|NCT03181282|169217757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.004625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0242|0.1194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation Condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.1194|0.0242|0.004625
84496948|NCT00366678|168745206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.78|0.98||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||0.98|0.78|
84732512|NCT03181282|169217758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.5248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8439||0.038389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6038|20.4459|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||20.4459|0.6038|0.038389
84732513|NCT03181282|169217758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.7233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.668||0.109873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8652|17.3117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||17.3117|-1.8652|0.109873
84732514|NCT03448536|169217763|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.56|||ANCOVA|||||6.56|2.06|< 0.001
84732515|NCT03448536|169217764|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|13.85|||ANCOVA|||||13.85|5.75|< 0.001
84732516|NCT03448536|169217765|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|1.52|||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|-0.45|= 0.129
84732517|NCT03448536|169217766|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|10.78|||ANCOVA|||||10.78|5.76|< 0.001
84732518|NCT03448536|169217767|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.56|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-0.52|= 0.307
84732519|NCT03448536|169217768|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.16|||ANCOVA|||||5.16|2.34|< 0.001
84732520|NCT03448536|169217769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84732521|NCT03448536|169217771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.002
84752444|NCT01346488|169260091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84732522|NCT01424189|169217776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCDVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCDVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03||||||||0.030||
84732523|NCT01424189|169217777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCNVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This estimate was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCNVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017||||||||-0.017||
84732524|NCT00312845|169217809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
84732525|NCT00312845|169217810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84732526|NCT01077622|169217872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||SERC assessment|||93.3|34.8|
84732527|NCT01077622|169217872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||Investigator assessment|||93.3|34.8|
84732528|NCT00424177|169217914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of subjects in Cycle 2 or 3|0.87||||||95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
84732529|NCT01042145|169217941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84732530|NCT01042145|169217942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84732531|NCT01042145|169217944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84732532|NCT01042145|169217945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84732533|NCT01042145|169217946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84732534|NCT04088136|169217947|EQUIVALENCE|A one-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted. A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 60.|Negative number reflects fewer errors in EMMI group, as predicted.|||0.55|-0.42|.67
84732535|NCT04088136|169217948|SUPERIORITY|Everyday Metacognitive Memory group predicted to have superior scores to Memory Strategy Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||pooled error term, equal variance assumption, df = 60|||||<.47
84732536|NCT04088136|169217949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.6|-3.7|< .13
84732537|NCT04088136|169217950|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of fewer errors in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 51||||2.6|-4.8|.57
84732538|NCT04088136|169217951|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of fewer errors in EMMI group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 49||||5.5|-3.8|.72
84732539|NCT04088136|169217952|OTHER|Test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|pooled df = 59||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed model analysis with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).~Hypothesis was that Memory Strategy Control group would show greater improvements from pretest to posttest in recall scores"||||< .69
84496949|NCT00366678|168745206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.92||||||95.0|0.84|1.02||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.84|
84496950|NCT00366678|168745206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.72|1.0||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||1.00|0.72|
84732540|NCT04088136|169217953|OTHER|One-tailed test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest).~Predicted hypothesis was greater pretest-posttest improvement in the Memory Strategy Contol group"||||< .037
84732541|NCT04088136|169217954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||one instance of missing data due to computer failure during testing. Pooled error term resulting in df = 59|||8.4|-4.0|.69
84732542|NCT04088136|169217955|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.3||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-257.4|157.4||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, DF = 51||||157.4|-257.4|.63
84732543|NCT04088136|169217956|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.8||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|98.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 49||||98.5|-77.4|.81
84732544|NCT04088136|169217957|OTHER||||||<|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed procedure with unrestricted error covariance matrix. Pooled df for MSWithin = 60||We conducted a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater reduction in memory complaints from pretest to posttest in EMMI group||||< .14
84732545|NCT04088136|169217958|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest)||||.037
84732546|NCT04088136|169217959|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in memory self-efficacy for Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|||||<|0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model specified unrestricted residual (error) covariance matrix. Pooled df in MS Error = 60||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).||||< .33
84752445|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84732547|NCT04088136|169217960|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater increase in memory control in EMMI group||||< .20
84732548|NCT04088136|169217961|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in use of external mnemonics in EMMI group|||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .20
84732549|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.29|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.3||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.30|-1.72|=0.772
84732550|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||=|0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.97||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.97|-0.94|=0.299
84732551|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.11|||=|0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.13|-2.34|=0.924
84732552|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.86|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.04||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.04|-0.32|=0.091
84732553|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.18|||=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-2.82|=0.887
84732554|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.36||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.36|-0.76|=0.162
84732555|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||2.29|-3.01|=0.784
84732556|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.79|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||4.37|-0.79|=0.166
84732557|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.82|-1.98|=0.724
84732558|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.81|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.14|-0.52|=0.124
84732559|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||3.48|-2.91|=0.856
84732560|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.64|||=|0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.76||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.76|-1.48|=0.292
84732561|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.37|-3.14|=0.944
84667710|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.41||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|26.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.64|2.17|0.0178
84732562|NCT04159805|169217972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.85|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.02||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.02|-2.33|=0.589
84732563|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.93|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.31|-3.17|=0.406
84732564|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||=|0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.14|-1.34|=0.418
84732565|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.65||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||1.65|-3.53|=0.463
84732566|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||=|0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.49||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.49|-2.70|=0.936
84732567|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||0.82|-4.41|=0.170
84732568|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.13|-2.10|=0.687
84732569|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.24|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.57||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||1.57|-4.05|=0.374
84732570|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.99|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.8||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.80|-1.82|=0.478
84732571|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.09||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.09|-3.12|=0.690
84752446|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752447|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752448|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752449|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0054
84752450|NCT01346488|169260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752451|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84752452|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84752453|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752454|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84752455|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0592
84752456|NCT01346488|169260093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752457|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752458|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84752459|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||<0.0001
84752460|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84752461|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752462|NCT01346488|169260094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752463|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752464|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752465|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752466|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752467|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752468|NCT01346488|169260095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752469|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||<0.0001
84752470|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84732572|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.12|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.71||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.71|-0.48|=0.106
84732573|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||2.12|-3.89|=0.547
84732574|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.19|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.18||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.18|-0.81|=0.144
84732575|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.37|||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|2.17||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||2.17|-4.91|=0.431
84732576|NCT04159805|169217973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.74|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.74|-2.34|=0.488
84732577|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.34|||=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.45|-4.14|=0.855
84732578|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.19|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|6.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||6.95|-0.56|=0.093
84732579|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.2||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.20|-2.61|=0.410
84732580|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|7.5||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||7.50|-1.25|=0.154
84732581|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.41||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.41|-5.29|=0.662
84732582|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.26|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|7.54||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||7.54|-1.02|=0.130
84732583|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.27|||=|0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|5.98||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||5.98|-3.44|=0.586
84732584|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.93|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||9.60|0.26|=0.039
84479790|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|10.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.997|10.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.239|9.997|
84732585|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.60|-4.03|=0.909
84732586|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.65|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||6.40|-1.09|=0.158
84496951|NCT00366678|168745206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.86|1.14||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.86|
84732587|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.88|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.05||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.05|-6.80|=0.764
84732588|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.2|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|11.06||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||11.06|-0.67|=0.080
84732589|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.95|-5.98|=0.677
84732590|NCT04159805|169217974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.81|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||9.73|-0.10|=0.055
84732591|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.27||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.27|-3.23|=0.780
84732592|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.5|||=|0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.99||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.99|-2.99|=0.771
84732593|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||=|0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|4.14||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.14|-4.22|=0.984
84732594|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.44|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|6.35||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.35|-1.47|=0.213
84732595|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.97|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.45||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-6.40|=0.371
84732596|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.23||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.23|-4.01|=0.956
84732597|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.06|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.53||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.53|-5.65|=0.641
84732598|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.95|-4.61|=0.876
84542864|NCT02899962|168837854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||ANOVA|Factors adjusted for in the ANOVA model were treatment group, pooled trial site, and disease severity at maintenance baseline (PGA).|Multiple imputation of data for withdrawn subjects was done using 100 imputations and depended on whether the subject's reason for withdrawal potentially was related to treatment. Length of the maintenance phase was assumed to be 52 weeks (364 days)|The number of days in remission was calculated as the sum of days where the subject was in remission periods. The proportion of days in remission was calculated as the number of days in remission divided by the length of the maintenance phase in days.||0.14|0.08|<0.001
84667711|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|32.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||32.03|11.02|<0.0001
84667712|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.53||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||20.64|0.43|0.0325
84732599|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.18||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.18|-6.91|=0.458
84732600|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.68|||=|0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|4.0||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.00|-5.37|=0.769
84732601|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.14|||=|0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|4.8||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.80|-7.07|=0.699
84732602|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|6.62||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||6.62|-4.41|=0.687
84752471|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752472|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84732603|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||5.95|-5.55|=0.944
84732604|NCT04159805|169217975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.48|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.83||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||7.83|-2.87|=0.351
84732605|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.9|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.18|4.38||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||4.38|-60.18|=0.090
84732606|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.77|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|15.96||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||15.96|-47.50|=0.328
84732607|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.65|||=|0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.63||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||19.63|-44.94|=0.441
84732608|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.39|||=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|33.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||33.12|-30.33|=0.931
84732609|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.18|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.46|4.11||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.11|-60.46|=0.087
84732610|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|36.16||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||36.16|-27.29|=0.783
84732611|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-29.08|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.36|3.21||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||3.21|-61.36|=0.077
84732612|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.72|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.45|16.0||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||16.00|-47.45|=0.330
84732613|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.14|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|18.91||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||18.91|-47.19|=0.400
84732614|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.18|32.19||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||32.19|-32.18|=1.000
84732615|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-26.47|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.64|6.69||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||6.69|-59.64|=0.117
84732616|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.75|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.44||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||19.44|-44.94|=0.436
84732617|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY|From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Difference in LS Mean|-47.91|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-14.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||-14.29|-81.54|=0.005
84542865|NCT02899962|168837855|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.63|||Poisson regression||The number of relapses was analysed using a Poisson regression model with treatment group,pooled sites,disease severity at maintenance baseline as factors, subject as random effect, and time at risk as an offset.|||0.63|0.46|<0.001
84732618|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.48|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.92|11.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||11.95|-52.92|=0.215
84732619|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||=|0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|29.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||29.40|-37.34|=0.815
84732620|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.31|||=|0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|28.22||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||28.22|-36.84|=0.794
84732621|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.78|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.48|-3.08||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||-3.08|-70.48|=0.033
84732622|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.79|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.26|21.67||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 12||21.67|-43.26|=0.513
84732623|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-56.21|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.69|-20.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-20.73|-91.69|=0.002
84732624|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.94|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.39|-2.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-2.48|-71.39|=0.036
84732625|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-62.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.64|-25.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||-25.31|-100.64|=0.001
84732626|NCT04159805|169217976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.81|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.12|8.51||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.51|-66.12|=0.130
84732627|NCT01393613|169217981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6. The primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance covariance structure. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, baseline, baseline and visit interaction and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||||0.0093
84732628|NCT01393613|169217981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-2.35|-10.6|0.0022
84732629|NCT01393613|169217981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.07|-7.23|0.1448
84732630|NCT01393613|169217981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, clinical visit, trial site, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, and Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||1.32|-8.06|0.1588
84732631|NCT01393613|169217982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6.||||0.0069
84732632|NCT01393613|169217982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. The analysis of this key secondary endpoint was conducted if both comparisons of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo and brexpiprazole 2 mg/day vs placebo of the primary endpoint were significant. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part of the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.15|-0.62|0.0015
84732633|NCT01393613|169217982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.05|-0.42|0.1269
84732634|NCT01393613|169217982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.16|-0.37|0.4449
84732635|NCT01393613|169217983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.59||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||7.17|2.02|0.0005
84732636|NCT01393613|169217983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||4.59|-0.58|0.1286
84732637|NCT01393613|169217983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||6.16|0.26|0.0332
84732638|NCT01393613|169217984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.31|-3.08|0.0166
84732639|NCT01393613|169217984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.93|-1.86|0.5101
84732640|NCT01393613|169217984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.89|-2.26|0.3938
84732641|NCT01393613|169217985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.17|-2.28|0.0231
84732642|NCT01393613|169217985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.29|-1.83|0.1547
84732643|NCT01393613|169217985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.42|-1.98|0.2004
84732644|NCT01393613|169217986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.78|0.0009
84732645|NCT01393613|169217986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.01|-0.60|0.0422
84732646|NCT01393613|169217986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.08|-0.56|0.1358
84732647|NCT01393613|169217987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||2.00|1.20|0.0006
84732648|NCT01393613|169217987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.22||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.62|0.92|0.1680
84732649|NCT01393613|169217987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.35||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.79|1.02|0.0433
84732650|NCT01393613|169217988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.51|0.44|0.5202
84732651|NCT01393613|169217988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.85|0.55|0.9894
84732652|NCT01393613|169217988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.76||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.59|0.36|0.4586
84732653|NCT01393613|169217989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.48|-2.30|0.0029
84732654|NCT01393613|169217989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.48|-1.34|0.3559
84732655|NCT01393613|169217989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.56|-1.51|0.3646
84732656|NCT01393613|169217990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.33|-2.61|0.1273
84732657|NCT01393613|169217990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.12|-1.83|0.6400
84732658|NCT01393613|169217990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.01|-2.32|0.4423
84732659|NCT01393613|169217991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.21|-2.36|0.0194
84732660|NCT01393613|169217991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-2.06|0.0754
84732661|NCT01393613|169217991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.22|-2.22|0.1080
84732662|NCT01393613|169217992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.43|-2.34|0.0045
84732663|NCT01393613|169217992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.61|-1.31|0.4753
84732664|NCT01393613|169217992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.21|-1.96|0.1150
84732665|NCT01393613|169217993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.46|-2.05|0.0021
84732666|NCT01393613|169217993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.63|-0.97|0.6792
84732667|NCT01393613|169217993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.65|-1.16|0.5752
84732668|NCT01393613|169217994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-1.51|0.0104
84732669|NCT01393613|169217994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.04|-1.35|0.0373
84732670|NCT01393613|169217994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-1.39|0.0890
84732671|NCT01502371|169218037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.09||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo||7.09|0.64|0.019
84752473|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||= 0.0005
84752474|NCT01346488|169260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84732672|NCT01502371|169218037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|9.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo||9.53|3.05|<0.001
84732673|NCT01502371|169218037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|8.61||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo||8.61|2.07|0.001
84732674|NCT01502371|169218038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.15||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|37.87||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||37.87|0.43|0.045
84732675|NCT01502371|169218038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|46.08||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||46.08|8.63|0.004
84732676|NCT01502371|169218038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.01||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|36.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||36.53|-0.51|0.057
84732677|NCT01502371|169218039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.27|-0.08|0.280
84732678|NCT01502371|169218039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.30|-0.06|0.178
84732679|NCT01502371|169218039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.36|0.00|0.045
84732680|NCT01502371|169218040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.44||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. MF DPI 100 mcg QD. Only participants who received MF MDI 50 mcg BID or MF DPI 100 mcg QD were included in the statistical analysis.||4.44|-1.65|0.368
84732681|NCT00562484|169218041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|52.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||52|30|
84732682|NCT00562484|169218042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|72.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||72|44|
84732683|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The first blood samples from both groups were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.377
84496952|NCT00315328|168745224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination).||||0.96
84496953|NCT00315328|168745225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests used to assess treatment group differences in change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among those with anisometropia only.||||0.78
84667713|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.04||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||21.97|2.10|0.0129
84732684|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.051
84732685|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples from both groups were collected 24 hours after Operation.||||0.282
84732686|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. These blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary Bypass.||||0.277
84732687|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups 72 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.308
84732688|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.211
84732689|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.004
84732690|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 24 hours after operation.||||0.221
84732691|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after operation.||||0.796
84732692|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 72 hours after operation.||||0.463
84732693|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.118
84732694|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.0001
84732695|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected one hour after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
84667714|NCT00663052|169070301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.28||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|21.3|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||21.30|1.26|0.0209
84667715|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.1||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|24.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||24.44|-0.24|0.0461
84732696|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected four hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
84667716|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.83||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||20.10|-2.44|0.1314
84667717|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|21.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||21.74|0.65|0.0289
84732697|NCT02672514|169218054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.171
84732698|NCT02188784|169218056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.38|76.43|||Regression, Linear|||||76.43|-34.38|0.4570
84732699|NCT02188784|169218057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|22.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||22.59|-24.12|0.9487
84732700|NCT02188784|169218057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.67||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.71|6.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||6.37|-31.71|0.1921
84732701|NCT02188784|169218058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|182.43||||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.14|637.0|||Regression, Linear|||||637.0|-272.14|0.4296
84732702|NCT02188784|169218059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.52|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 8||7.52|-0.33|0.0722
84732703|NCT02188784|169218059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.24|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 16||4.24|-2.83|0.6927
84732704|NCT02188784|169218060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|7.33|||Regression, Linear|||||7.33|-0.21|0.0643
84732705|NCT02188784|169218061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.58|||Regression, Linear|||||2.58|-1.04|0.4006
84732706|NCT02250183|169218091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Each case (participant) serves as its own control because they received both treatment modalities simultaneously.|McNemar|McNemar test was used because participants received both treatments, so this variable was non-independent in our single group sample.|2-sided|Each participant received both treatment modalities - MEDIHONEY® and SANTYL - and thus had two wound cultures performed, one for each treatment modality. This was a single group study; however, wound culture results were contrasted with each other across participants. Thus, independent variable was treatment modality, while dependent variable was the wound culture result (positive for presence of bacteria versus negative for absence of bacteria).||||1.00
84732707|NCT02250183|169218092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|4.565||The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||A paired samples, 2-tailed, t-test was used to compare means within participants for ratings of MEDIHONEY and SANTYL satisfaction total scores. The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.||4.565|1.149|.003
84732708|NCT03282799|169218094|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
84732709|NCT03282799|169218095|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
84732710|NCT03282799|169218096|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
84732711|NCT03282799|169218097|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
84732712|NCT03282799|169218098|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
84732713|NCT03282799|169218099|OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.784
84732714|NCT03282799|169218100|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.587
84732715|NCT03282799|169218101|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.394
84732716|NCT03282799|169218102|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.660
84732717|NCT03282799|169218103|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.290
84732718|NCT03302559|169218118|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.001
84732719|NCT03302559|169218119|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.005
84732720|NCT03302559|169218119|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.02
84732721|NCT03302559|169218119|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||0.0006
84732722|NCT03302559|169218119|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.001
84732723|NCT03302559|169218120|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.02
84732724|NCT03302559|169218120|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.006
84732725|NCT03302559|169218120|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||<0.001
84732726|NCT03302559|169218120|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.5
84732727|NCT03302559|169218121|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.002
84732728|NCT03302559|169218122|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0008
84732729|NCT03302559|169218123|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.02
84732730|NCT03302559|169218128|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.3||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Normal Skin)||||0.3
84732731|NCT03302559|169218128|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Target Lesion)||||0.4
84732732|NCT04260464|169218161|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|110.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.76|144.86||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||144.86|83.76|
84732733|NCT04260464|169218161|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.84|160.19||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||160.19|55.84|
84732734|NCT04260464|169218161|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|124.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.24|153.89||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||153.89|100.24|
84732735|NCT04260464|169218162|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|112.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.85|206.45||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||206.45|60.85|
84732736|NCT04260464|169218162|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|70.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.6|182.49||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||182.49|27.60|
84732737|NCT04260464|169218162|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|147.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.17|290.21||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||290.21|75.17|
84732738|NCT04260464|169218163|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|177.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.82|232.04||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||232.04|135.82|
84496954|NCT00315328|168745226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among patients with strabismus or combined mechanism only.||||0.99
84732739|NCT04260464|169218163|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|132.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|185.17||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.17|95.08|
84732740|NCT04260464|169218163|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|122.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.47|176.3||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||176.30|84.47|
84667718|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.52||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||17.07|-0.04|0.0433
84496955|NCT00315328|168745227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||.04
84496956|NCT00315328|168745227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||0.003
84732741|NCT04260464|169218164|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|445.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.55|609.13||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||609.13|326.55|
84752475|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752476|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752477|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752478|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752479|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752480|NCT01346488|169260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752481|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752482|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752483|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752484|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752485|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752486|NCT01346488|169260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752487|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752488|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752489|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752490|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752491|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752492|NCT01346488|169260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752493|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752494|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752495|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752496|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84603279|NCT01514240|168957148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|5.29|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.29|1.49|
84603280|NCT01514240|168957149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.97|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.97|1.64|
84603281|NCT01514240|168957150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.58|6.64|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.64|1.58|
84667719|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.06||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|15.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||15.43|-1.32|0.0902
84667720|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.26|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||16.26|-0.68|0.0630
84667721|NCT00663052|169070302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|16.93|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||16.93|-1.53|0.0907
84667722|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.25||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||15.90|-9.39|0.6255
84542866|NCT00473590|168837863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|2.261|||Log Rank|The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Stratified analysis||2.261|0.404|0.9179
84667723|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.3||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|21.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.45|-2.85|0.1292
84496957|NCT00315328|168745228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Social Stigma subscale.||||<0.01
84667724|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.86||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|22.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||22.78|0.94|0.0251
84732742|NCT04260464|169218164|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|144.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.76|185.5||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.50|112.76|
84732743|NCT04260464|169218164|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|229.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|189.97|276.35||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||276.35|189.97|
84732744|NCT02161406|169218238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84732745|NCT02161406|169218239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
84732746|NCT02161406|169218240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84732747|NCT02161406|169218241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84732748|NCT02161406|169218242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84732749|NCT02161406|169218243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84732750|NCT02161406|169218244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84732751|NCT02161406|169218245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84732752|NCT02161406|169218246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84732753|NCT02161406|169218247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84732754|NCT02161406|169218248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84732755|NCT02161406|169218249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84732756|NCT02161406|169218250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
84732757|NCT02161406|169218251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84732758|NCT02161406|169218252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84732759|NCT02161406|169218253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
84732760|NCT02161406|169218254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84732761|NCT02161406|169218255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84732762|NCT02161406|169218256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84732763|NCT02161406|169218257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84732764|NCT02161406|169218258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84732765|NCT02161406|169218259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84732766|NCT02161406|169218260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test adjusted for duration of dcSSc. Multiple imputation was used to address missing follow-up data in 5 components of CRISS.||||||0.03
84732767|NCT02161406|169218261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1769
84732768|NCT02161406|169218262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9075
84732769|NCT02161406|169218263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5831
84732770|NCT02161406|169218264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0193
84732771|NCT02161406|169218265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0097
84732772|NCT02161406|169218266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0751
84732773|NCT02161406|169218267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4927
84732774|NCT02161406|169218268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1604
84732775|NCT02161406|169218269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
84732776|NCT02161406|169218270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1679
84732777|NCT02161406|169218271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2906
84732778|NCT00477464|169218272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|72.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants who achieved a best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease.|||72.4|44.2|
84732779|NCT00846768|169218322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3011||95.0|-0.014|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.044|-0.014|0.3011
84732780|NCT00846768|169218322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.1582||95.0|-0.008|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.050|-0.008|0.1582
84732781|NCT00846768|169218322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0003||95.0|0.025|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.083|0.025|0.0003
84732782|NCT00846768|169218322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7046||95.0|-0.034|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.023|-0.034|0.7046
84732783|NCT00846768|169218322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.063|0.004|0.0248
84752497|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84496958|NCT00315328|168745229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Compliance subscale.||||<0.01
84496959|NCT00315328|168745230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Adverse events subscale.||||0.70
84732784|NCT00846768|169218323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0006||95.0|-0.081|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.023|-0.081|0.0006
84732785|NCT00846768|169218323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0019||95.0|-0.076|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.017|-0.076|0.0019
84732786|NCT00846768|169218323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.4111||95.0|-0.041|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.017|-0.041|0.4111
84732787|NCT00846768|169218323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.709||95.0|-0.035|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.024|-0.035|0.7090
84732788|NCT00846768|169218323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0211||95.0|0.005|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.064|0.005|0.0211
84732789|NCT00846768|169218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1753||95.0|-0.045|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.008|-0.045|0.1753
84732790|NCT00846768|169218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3444||95.0|-0.04|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.014|-0.040|0.3444
84732791|NCT00846768|169218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1161||95.0|-0.005|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.049|-0.005|0.1161
84732792|NCT00846768|169218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.6789||95.0|-0.033|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.021|-0.033|0.6789
84732793|NCT00846768|169218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0129||95.0|0.007|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.062|0.007|0.0129
84732794|NCT00846768|169218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.4931||95.0|-0.023|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.047|-0.023|0.4931
84732795|NCT00846768|169218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.2597||95.0|-0.015|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.015|0.2597
84732796|NCT00846768|169218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0006||95.0|0.027|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.097|0.027|0.0006
84732797|NCT00846768|169218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6578||95.0|-0.042|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.027|-0.042|0.6578
84732798|NCT00846768|169218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0175||95.0|0.008|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.077|0.008|0.0175
84732799|NCT00846768|169218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0353||95.0|-0.081|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.003|-0.081|0.0353
84732800|NCT00846768|169218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2875||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.018|-0.060|0.2875
84732801|NCT00846768|169218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4553||95.0|-0.024|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.024|0.4553
84752498|NCT01346488|169260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84479791|NCT00861380|168710682|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|9.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.755|10.088|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.088|9.755|
84479792|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|22.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|23.24|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.240|22.020|
84479793|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|22.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.912|23.606|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.606|21.912|
84479794|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|24.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.852|25.166|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||25.166|23.852|
84479795|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|26.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.308|27.189|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.189|25.308|
84479796|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|27.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.81|28.207|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||28.207|26.810|
84496960|NCT00315328|168745231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||95.0|-0.03|0.17||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference in proportion with amblyopic eye visual acuity 20/25 or better at 17 weeks.||0.17|-0.03|
84752499|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752500|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752501|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752502|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752503|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752504|NCT01346488|169260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752505|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84479797|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|26.1||||||95.0|25.171|27.055|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.055|25.171|
84752506|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752507|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752508|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752509|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752510|NCT01346488|169260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
84752511|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84752512|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84752513|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
84752514|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
84752515|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
84752516|NCT01346488|169260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
84752517|NCT01214187|169260117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Carbon monoxide group) minus (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Placebo group)|||||0.2072
84752518|NCT01214187|169260118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.5882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.5882
84752519|NCT01214187|169260119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.7401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|difference=(change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.7401
84752520|NCT01214187|169260120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference=(Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.0099
84752521|NCT01214187|169260121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.8124|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.8124
84752522|NCT01233869|169260122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus pooled bosutinib.||5.74|2.02|<0.0001
84752523|NCT01233869|169260122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: bosutinib 200 mg/day versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||4.22|-0.50|0.1234
84752524|NCT01233869|169260122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 200 mg/day.||5.23|0.93|0.0050
84752525|NCT01233869|169260122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400 mg/day.||8.05|-1.03|0.1336
84752526|NCT01233869|169260122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 5 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||7.30|2.65|<0.0001
84752527|NCT02967354|169260144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5875
84752528|NCT02967354|169260145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0065
84752529|NCT02967354|169260146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0072
84752530|NCT02967354|169260147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9472||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9472
84752531|NCT02967354|169260148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
84752532|NCT01158651|169260149|SUPERIORITY|The treatment regimen was considered promising for further study if after 48 weeks of treatment there was at least a 25% response rate compared to an expected response rate of 5% or less, which was considered evidence of an unpromising regimen. Assuming the true response rate is 5%, the binomial distribution was used to calculate Type I errors and power.|Proportion responding|0.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4872|0.8764|||Exact test|||||0.8764|0.4872|<0.001
84479798|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|28.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.958|29.377|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||29.377|27.958|
84479799|NCT00861380|168710690|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|29.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.843|30.85|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||30.850|28.843|
84479800|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|816.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|815.226|818.392|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||818.392|815.226|
84732802|NCT00846768|169218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2902||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.018|-0.060|0.2902
84732803|NCT00846768|169218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0731||95.0|-0.003|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.075|-0.003|0.0731
84732804|NCT00846768|169218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0917||95.0|-0.008|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.099|-0.008|0.0917
84732805|NCT00846768|169218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.1273||95.0|-0.012|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.095|-0.012|0.1273
84732806|NCT00846768|169218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.127|0.019|0.0080
84732807|NCT00846768|169218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8683||95.0|-0.049|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.058|-0.049|0.8683
84732808|NCT00846768|169218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2444||95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.086|-0.022|0.2444
84732809|NCT00846768|169218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0023||95.0|-0.162|-0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.036|-0.162|0.0023
84732810|NCT00846768|169218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0015||95.0|-0.165|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.040|-0.165|0.0015
84732811|NCT00846768|169218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.4508||95.0|-0.087|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.039|-0.087|0.4508
84496961|NCT00315328|168745233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||||95.0|-0.02|0.18||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of the proportion improving 15 or more letters from baseline to 17 weeks.||0.18|-0.02|
84732812|NCT00846768|169218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.9087||95.0|-0.059|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.066|-0.059|0.9087
84732813|NCT00846768|169218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0146||95.0|0.016|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.142|0.016|0.0146
84732814|NCT00846768|169218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3291||95.0|-0.08|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.027|-0.080|0.3291
84732815|NCT00846768|169218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2638||95.0|-0.084|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.023|-0.084|0.2638
84732816|NCT00846768|169218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3386||95.0|-0.028|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.080|-0.028|0.3386
84732817|NCT00846768|169218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8877||95.0|-0.05|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.057|-0.050|0.8877
84732818|NCT00846768|169218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0402||95.0|0.003|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.111|0.003|0.0402
84732819|NCT00846768|169218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.151|0.018|0.0133
84732820|NCT00846768|169218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.045||95.0|0.002|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.135|0.002|0.0450
84732821|NCT00846768|169218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0078||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.159|0.025|0.0078
84732822|NCT00846768|169218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.6268||95.0|-0.05|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.083|-0.050|0.6268
84732823|NCT00846768|169218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.4891||95.0|-0.044|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.091|-0.044|0.4891
84732824|NCT00846768|169218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6259||95.0|-0.097|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.059|-0.097|0.6259
84732825|NCT00846768|169218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.919||95.0|-0.082|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.074|-0.082|0.9190
84732826|NCT00846768|169218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0985||95.0|-0.012|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.145|-0.012|0.0985
84732827|NCT00846768|169218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.6991||95.0|-0.093|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.063|-0.093|0.6991
84732828|NCT00846768|169218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0802||95.0|-0.009|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.149|-0.009|0.0802
84732829|NCT04358068|169218344|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.51||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84732830|NCT04358068|169218345|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.79||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84732831|NCT04358068|169218346|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific AUCs were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.53||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84732832|NCT04358068|169218347|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.83||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84732833|NCT04353817|169218351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.81|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.81|-2.71|<0.0001
84732834|NCT04353817|169218352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-47.1||This is the nominal p-value without multiplicity controlled.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-47.1|-55.3|<0.0001
84732835|NCT00665223|169218356|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 45 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.44|0.72|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.72|-1.44|0.456
84542867|NCT00473590|168837863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.893||The tests were exploratory because patients were not randomized to the two arms with respect to response status.|Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.893|0.369|0.6665
84667725|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.16||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||24.64|3.68|0.0055
84479801|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|841.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|839.098|843.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||843.239|839.098|
84732836|NCT00665223|169218356|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 90 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.10|-2.08|0.042
84732837|NCT00002597|169218369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Null hypothesis: 8-year OS rate of 60% radiation therapy (RT) alone vs. 67% with hormone therapy. The study was designed with 90% power to detect a 7-percentage- point absolute difference in the 8-year survival rate, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level, requiring 1980 patients and 716 deaths for definitive analysis.||1.35|1.01|0.0309
84732838|NCT00002597|169218370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.74|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.74|1.27|0.001
84732839|NCT00002597|169218371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.93|1.17|0.0013
84732840|NCT00002597|169218372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.06|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.06|1.03|0.035
84732841|NCT00002597|169218373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.04|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.04|1.48|<0.001
84732842|NCT00002597|169218374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.85|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.85|1.21|<0.001
84732843|NCT00002597|169218375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.16|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||3.16|1.34|<0.001
84732844|NCT00002597|169218376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test (one-sided significance level of 0.025).||1.56|1.22|<0.001
84732845|NCT00002597|169218377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84732846|NCT00338949|169218382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
84732847|NCT00338949|169218383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958
84732848|NCT01161628|169218391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: p (CR rate) is 0.5 or less versus... Alternative hypothesis: p \>0.5 A sample size of 25 patients gives 90% power with an alpha = 0.05||||<0.5
84732849|NCT00984698|169218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
84732850|NCT00984698|169218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
84732851|NCT03029819|169218417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
84732852|NCT02725008|169218441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|10.07|||Chi-squared|||||10.07|0.54|0.3
84732853|NCT02725008|169218442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84732854|NCT00702546|169218443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|0.7||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model for the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate including covariates treatment group, age class (\< 32 yrs vs. ≥ 32 yrs), planned IVF treatment (IVF vs. ICSI) and region (Europe vs. Asia).||0.7|-19.5|
84732855|NCT00513461|169218478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.160
84732856|NCT00513461|169218491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.878
84732857|NCT00513461|169218492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.212
84732858|NCT04522778|169218496|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.029
84732859|NCT04522778|169218497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.35
84732860|NCT04522778|169218498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.334
84542868|NCT00473590|168837864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|1.552|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression. The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|Stratified analysis||1.552|0.258|0.3134
84542869|NCT00473590|168837864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|1.468|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis||1.468|0.251|0.2634
84667726|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.99||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|22.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||22.20|1.78|0.0159
84667727|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.05||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|19.18|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.18|-1.08|0.0672
84667728|NCT00663052|169070305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.51||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|20.75|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.75|0.27|0.0351
84667729|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.24||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|16.58|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.58|-4.11|0.2283
84667730|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.49||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|14.66|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||14.66|-3.68|0.2326
84667731|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||18.52|1.47|0.0165
84667732|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||18.52|1.47|0.0165
84667733|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.85||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.15|-3.46|0.2536
84732861|NCT04522778|169218499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.195||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.926154|500.4402|||Chi-squared|||||500.4402|2.926154|.005
84732862|NCT04522778|169218500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.73483||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|297.17|||Chi-squared|||||297.17|3.22|.003
84732863|NCT04522778|169218501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.72||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|265.45|||Chi-squared|||||265.45|2.82|.004
84732864|NCT04522778|169218502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.345||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|69.82|||Chi-squared|||||69.82|1.71|.011
84732865|NCT04522778|169218503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2189||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0706|1.258|||Chi-squared|||||1.258|.0706|.099
84732866|NCT04522778|169218504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|6.562|||Chi-squared|||||6.562|.549|.312
84496962|NCT00315328|168745234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment equivalence was to be declared if the ends of the 2 1-sided 95% confidence intervals constructed on the difference between adjusted mean visual acuity scores were completely contained within the designated equivalence interval of +/- 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||||95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|||The trial was designed to evaluate whether patching and atropine are equivalent treatments for amblyopia in children 7 to 12 years old. The sample size was computed based on a standard deviation of 17-week visual acuity scores of 10 letters, correlation between outcome and baseline visual acuity scores of 0.30 and 10% loss to follow up.||3.1|-0.7|
84667734|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.6||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|13.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.78|-2.59|0.1761
84667735|NCT00663052|169070306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.01||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|13.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.20|-5.18|0.3943
84667736|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.8|-1.5|0.5748
84667737|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.2||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.0|-2.4|0.0471
84667738|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.7|-3.3|0.0025
84667739|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.9|-3.5|0.0009
84732867|NCT04522778|169218505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.022||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|20.623|||Chi-squared|||||20.623|.112|.753
84732868|NCT04522778|169218506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.541|||Chi-squared|||||1.541|.067|.156
84732869|NCT04522778|169218507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|2.122|||Chi-squared|||||2.122|.099|.318
84732870|NCT04522778|169218508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|21.003|||Chi-squared|||||21.003|.009|.684
84732871|NCT04522778|169218509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|22.194|||Chi-squared|||||22.194|.246|.460
84732872|NCT04522778|169218510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47293||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|18.927|||Chi-squared|||||18.927|.279|.439
84732873|NCT04522778|169218511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.187||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|22.514|||Chi-squared|||||22.514|.119|.714
84732874|NCT04522778|169218512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|3.842|||Chi-squared|||||3.842|.037|.412
84732875|NCT04522778|169218513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|3.582|||Chi-squared|||||3.582|.094|.558
84732876|NCT04522778|169218514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.90|.121|.673
84732877|NCT04522778|169218515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.406|||Chi-squared|||||2.406|.189|.544
84732878|NCT04522778|169218516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|10.278|||Chi-squared|||||10.278|.345|.464
84732879|NCT04522778|169218517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.675||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|40.854|||Chi-squared|||||40.854|.766|.090
84479802|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|702.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|700.372|704.114|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for Acute Otitis Media (AOM)/Respiratory Tract Infections (RTI), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||704.114|700.372|
84479803|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|720.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|718.355|723.435|||negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||723.435|718.355|
84479804|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|929.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|928.755|930.923|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.923|928.755|
84479805|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|953.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|951.77|954.257|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||954.257|951.770|
84479806|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|804.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|803.017|806.38|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.380|803.017|
84479807|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|818.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|816.391|820.912|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||820.912|816.391|
84496963|NCT00315328|168745237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of mean change in fellow eye visual acuity from baseline to 17 weeks, adjusted for baseline fellow eye visual acuity.||2.2|0.4|
84667740|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.7|-3.1|0.0015
84732880|NCT04522778|169218518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|9.114|||Chi-squared|||||9.114|.107|.991
84732881|NCT04522778|169218519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.027||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|43.326|||Chi-squared|||||43.326|.415|.223
84732882|NCT04522778|169218520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|20.348|||Chi-squared|||||20.348|.238|.488
84479808|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|916.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|914.891|917.256|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||917.256|914.891|
84496964|NCT00826176|168745239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|6.4||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
84732883|NCT04522778|169218521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0424|0.743|||Chi-squared|||||.743|.0424|.018
84732884|NCT04522778|169218522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|37.379|||Chi-squared|||||37.379|.364|.269
84732885|NCT04522778|169218523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.829||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|24.84|||Chi-squared|||||24.84|.728|.108
84732886|NCT04522778|169218524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|18.157|||Chi-squared|||||18.157|.737|.113
84732887|NCT04522778|169218525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|6.202|||Chi-squared|||||6.202|1.004|.049
84732888|NCT02920021|169218527|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|60.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.918||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.566|228.657|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||228.657|-108.566|0.463
84732889|NCT02920021|169218528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.032|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||0.032|-0.031|0.962
84732890|NCT05400226|169218549|OTHER|Summary statistics of quantitative data, one-sided exact binomial test for null hypothesis, Clopper-Pearson method for 95% exact confidence intervals|Proportion|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.591|||Exact Binomial Test||The Parameter Dispersion Value is the asymptotic standard error of the proportion.|Single arm open-label||0.591|0.270|< .0001
84732891|NCT05400226|169218550|OTHER||Proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.939||||||||0.939|0.675|
84732892|NCT05400226|169218551|OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.733||||||||0.733|0.202|
84732893|NCT05400226|169218552|OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.633||||||||0.633|0.126|
84732894|NCT05400226|169218553|OTHER||Proportion|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.862||||||||0.862|0.650|
84732895|NCT00496834|169218640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was modified intention to treat (Number of patients: Losartan group was 88, Carvedilol group was 94).||0.01|-0.83|
84732896|NCT00496834|169218641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin=-1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.15|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was per protocol (Number of patients: Losartan group was 54, Carvedilol group was 67). For the primary efficacy endpoints, Per protocol analysis approach was supplementary used.||0.15|-0.86|
84732897|NCT00496834|169218642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9032||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test.||||||0.9032
84732898|NCT00496834|169218643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test||||||0.6574
84732899|NCT01494298|169218650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0||||The control group average age was 6 years lower(P=0.001). Results were adjusted via a logistic regression and presented as age-adjusted means and SE. The unadjusted differences had similar results.|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis - There will be differences in ApoB between AA with T2DM and those without. To achieve a power of 80%, 48 subjects in each group were needed to detect 15 mg/dL difference in ApoB levels, assuming a standard deviation of 26 mg/dL if alpha was set at 0.05. Continuous data were compared using a Students t-test and categorical data were compared using test.||||=0.002
84732900|NCT01494298|169218652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84732901|NCT00942188|169218683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.94|
84732902|NCT00942188|169218683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-2.48|
84732903|NCT00942188|169218683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.76|
84732904|NCT00942188|169218684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-9.82|
84732905|NCT00942188|169218684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|-10.21|
84732906|NCT00942188|169218684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|5.89|||ANCOVA|||||5.89|-9.16|
84732907|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.05||This is the estimated value for week 10 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.59|
84732908|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.74|
84732909|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.59|
84732910|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|
84479809|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|928.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|927.038|930.076|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.076|927.038|
84479810|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|796.894||||||95.0|795.175|798.605|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||798.605|795.175|
84479811|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|803.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|801.571|806.25|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.250|801.571|
84479812|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|865.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|864.227|867.121|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||867.121|864.227|
84479813|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|871.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.771|873.707|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||873.707|869.771|
84496965|NCT00826176|168745239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|3.2||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
84732911|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.79|
84732912|NCT00942188|169218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.59|
84732913|NCT02979613|169218690|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48.||2.0|-1.9|
84732914|NCT02979613|169218691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||1.9|-1.9|
84732915|NCT02979613|169218691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9953||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9953
84667741|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-2.7|0.0197
84667742|NCT00663052|169070307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-2.6|0.0506
84667743|NCT00663052|169070308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.04||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.09|0.00|0.0435
84667744|NCT00663052|169070308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.05||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.10|0.01|0.0275
84667745|NCT00663052|169070309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.7|-0.7|0.9473
84667746|NCT00663052|169070309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.6|-0.8|0.8217
84667747|NCT00663052|169070310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.7||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.0|-1.4|0.0539
84667748|NCT00663052|169070310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-1.3|0.1494
84667749|NCT00663052|169070316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2139
84667750|NCT00663052|169070316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
84667751|NCT00663052|169070318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2443
84667752|NCT00663052|169070318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
84732916|NCT02979613|169218692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||3.7|-3.7|
84732917|NCT02979613|169218692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
84732918|NCT02979613|169218694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.2|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||5.2|-3.5|
84732919|NCT02979613|169218694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6863||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6863
84732920|NCT02979613|169218696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|1.4||||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.1||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||10.1|-7.2|0.7258
84732921|NCT02979613|169218697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.7||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.7||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||7.7|-2.3|0.1348
84732922|NCT02979613|169218698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|9.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||20.1|-2.0|0.1005
84667753|NCT00663052|169070319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 12||||0.0807
84667754|NCT00663052|169070319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 24||||0.1454
84667755|NCT01602380|169070327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.999||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|If the true PFS HR for comparison of fulvestrant vs. anastrozole was 0.69 (likely to correspond to a 45% prolongation of PFS) the study had 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for PFS with a one-sided type 1 error of 2.5% (two-sided 5%).||0.999|0.637|0.0486
84732923|NCT02979613|169218699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.5||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||9.5|-4.5|0.4154
84479814|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|753.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|751.591|755.249|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||755.249|751.591|
84479815|NCT00861380|168710694|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|755.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|753.008|758.064|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||758.064|753.008|
84479816|NCT01269047|168710712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-4.2|0.04
84479817|NCT01269047|168710712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-5.8|0.008
84479818|NCT01269047|168710712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||||-2.0|-6.4|0.003
84479819|NCT01269047|168710712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-2.3|0.37
84479820|NCT01269047|168710713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-0.21|0.2
84479821|NCT01269047|168710713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.25|0.48
84479822|NCT01269047|168710713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.12|0.18
84479823|NCT01269047|168710713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.62|1.0
84479824|NCT03205982|168710715|EQUIVALENCE|If the difference (between treatment and control arm) is greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), we consider the treatment arm is different from the control arm. MCID is calculated as 0.25-0.5\* standard deviation (SD). Conversely, the equivalence margin is the biggest difference (between 2 arms) to be considered no difference between 2 arms. Therefore, the equivalence margin should be smaller than MCID, i.e., it should be smaller than the smallest possible MCID.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed model with logit link (logistic model)||Compares difference in adherence changes between Intervention and Control arms||0.995|0.993|<0.0001
84479825|NCT03136367|168710750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.045
84479826|NCT03136367|168710750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.20
84479827|NCT03136367|168710750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.82
84479828|NCT03136367|168710751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.048
84479829|NCT03136367|168710751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.015
84479830|NCT03136367|168710751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.43
84732924|NCT02979613|169218700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.0||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||0.3|-4.4|0.0281
84732925|NCT02979613|169218702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-0.8||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.1|-3.7|0.5373
84732926|NCT02979613|169218703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|0.4||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.5|-1.7|0.5845
84479831|NCT03136367|168710752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.46
84479832|NCT03136367|168710752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.34
84479833|NCT03136367|168710752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.165
84479834|NCT03136367|168710754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.25
84479835|NCT03136367|168710754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.89
84479836|NCT03136367|168710754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.54
84479837|NCT03136367|168710755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.72
84667756|NCT01602380|169070328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.206||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A HR of \<1 favours fulvestrant.|65% OS maturity||1.206|0.773|0.7579
84732927|NCT02979613|169218704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.5||||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||10.6|-1.6|0.1405
84732928|NCT02979613|169218704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|3.8||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.4||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||11.4|-3.7|0.3133
84732929|NCT02979613|169218705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|14.1||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|44.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory criteria||44.6|-16.4|0.3381
84732930|NCT02979613|169218705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|23.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|42.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||42.3|5.3|0.0136
84732931|NCT02979613|169218706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.9||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.6||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||2.6|-8.4|0.2803
84732932|NCT02979613|169218706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-5.9||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.7|-12.6|0.0788
84732933|NCT02979613|169218707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-23.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|3.4||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||3.4|-51.2|0.0880
84732934|NCT02979613|169218707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-18.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|0.2||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.2|-37.4|0.0510
84732935|NCT02979613|169218708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.00|-0.03|0.0186
84732936|NCT02979613|169218709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.01|-0.02|0.6956
84479838|NCT03136367|168710755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|McNemar|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.41
84479839|NCT03136367|168710755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
84479840|NCT03136367|168710756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.01
84479841|NCT03136367|168710756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.12
84667757|NCT01602380|169070329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.614||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.614|0.716|0.7290
84732937|NCT02979613|169218710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.536|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.536|0.797|< 0.0001
84732938|NCT02979613|169218711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.977||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.49|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.490|0.465|0.0002
84732939|NCT02979613|169218712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.486|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||2.486|1.275|< 0.0001
84732940|NCT02979613|169218713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.604||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.317|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.317|-0.110|0.0970
84732941|NCT02979613|169218714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.0001
84732942|NCT02979613|169218715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7535||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7535
84732943|NCT00497874|169218758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(145) = 2.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.003
84732944|NCT00497874|169218759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(181) = 2.9||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.002
84732945|NCT00497874|169218760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(153) = 1.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.04
84732946|NCT00497874|169218761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.07||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(57) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.07
84732947|NCT00497874|169218762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|t(94) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.05
84732948|NCT00497874|169218763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(123) = 1.2||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.13
84732949|NCT02080403|169218764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.40|0.1159
84732950|NCT01171183|169218768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.64||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84479842|NCT03136367|168710756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.78
84667758|NCT01602380|169070331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rato of EDoR|1.52||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||2.26|1.03|0.0367
84479843|NCT03136367|168710757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
84479844|NCT03136367|168710757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
84479845|NCT03136367|168710758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.06
84479846|NCT03136367|168710758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.65
84479847|NCT03136367|168710758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.36
84479848|NCT03136367|168710759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.11
84479849|NCT03136367|168710759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.037
84479850|NCT03136367|168710759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
84479851|NCT02707601|168710818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
84479852|NCT02707601|168710818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.042
84479853|NCT02707601|168710819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
84479854|NCT02707601|168710819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
84667759|NCT01602380|169070332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.932||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.932|0.815|0.3045
84479855|NCT02707601|168710820|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1|||Fisher exact test||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.1|-6.1|1.00
84479856|NCT00247273|168710837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to establish noninferiority for the primary efficacy variable at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, a total of 1068 patients, 534 per treatment group, is required. This calculation is based on the following assumptions: the noninferiority margin (or delta) = 1.5%, the common SD (standard deviation) of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 = 4.5%, the 1 year dropout rate = 20%, and the true mean difference μD - μM = 0.5%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.274|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.274|-0.505|
84479857|NCT00247273|168710838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.323|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.323|-0.475|
84479858|NCT00247273|168710839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.0024|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0024|-0.0035|
84479859|NCT00247273|168710840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimates of the common SD, dropout rate at month 24 and true difference are also based on previous risedronate Phase III studies (RVN008993, RVE009093, ROE009394, HMR4003E/3001).|LS Mean Difference|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.249|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||The sample size of 1068 patients will provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate the noninferiority of the monthly regimen at month 24, using a 2% noninferiority margin and assuming a common SD of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 24 of 5%, a 2-year dropout rate of 30%, and a true mean difference (uDaily-uMonthly) of 0.8%.||0.249|-0.727|
84479860|NCT00247273|168710841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.439|||ANOVA|Fixed Effects for treatment \& pooled center||||0.439|-0.609|
84479861|NCT00247273|168710842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0029|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0029|-0.0048|
84479862|NCT00247273|168710843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.28|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||3.28|-2.83|
84479863|NCT00247273|168710844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.33|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||1.33|-4.47|
84479864|NCT00247273|168710845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||4.53|-2.54|
84479865|NCT00247273|168710846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.8|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.80|-6.45|
84667760|NCT01602380|169070334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of EDoCB|1.26||||0.0561||95.0|0.99|1.59||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||1.59|0.99|0.0561
84479866|NCT00247273|168710847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.00|-0.05|
84479867|NCT00247273|168710848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||-0.36|-7.98|
84667761|NCT01602380|169070335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of TOI score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.11|0.70|0.2846
84479868|NCT00247273|168710849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.01|-0.06|
84479869|NCT00247273|168710850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.66|-12.04|
84479870|NCT00247273|168710851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.64|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.64|-0.29|
84479871|NCT00247273|168710852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.48|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||3.48|-0.85|
84479872|NCT00247273|168710853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.70|-0.45|
84479873|NCT00247273|168710854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|2.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||2.43|-3.96|
84479874|NCT00247273|168710855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Fisher Exact|||||2.54|0.36|1.0000
84479875|NCT00247273|168710856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.47|1.0000
84479876|NCT00607919|168710865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84479877|NCT03051217|168710943|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|65.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.22|81.9|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||81.90|48.22|
84479878|NCT03051217|168710943|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|93.17|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||93.17|65.10|
84479879|NCT03051217|168710943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.129|195.877||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||195.877|5.129|<0.0001
84479880|NCT03051217|168710943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.739|533.168||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||533.168|11.739|<0.0001
84479881|NCT03051217|168710944|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|52.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.95|75.39|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||75.39|29.95|
84479882|NCT03051217|168710944|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.34|90.15|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||90.15|43.34|
84479883|NCT03051217|168710944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.113|238.619||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||238.619|6.113|<0.0001
84479884|NCT03051217|168710944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.138|434.659||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||434.659|11.138|<0.0001
84479885|NCT03051217|168710945|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.67|76.47|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||76.47|30.67|
84479886|NCT03051217|168710945|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|99.04|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||99.04|51.95|
84732951|NCT01171183|169218769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84479887|NCT03051217|168710945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.047|247.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||247.634|6.047|<0.0001
84496966|NCT00826176|168745239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two subject populations was to be claimed in the event that the two-sided 95% confidence interval was entirely within the interval ranging from -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|49.0||||||95.0|30.0|72.0|||||The estimated median difference (Chinese minus Caucasian) in time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|||72|30|
84496967|NCT00448630|168745244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
84732952|NCT02806505|169218789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.06||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.06|0.49|0.6746
84732953|NCT02806505|169218790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.76||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.76|0.60|0.3923
84732954|NCT02806505|169218791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.68||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.68|0.43|0.8843
84732955|NCT02806505|169218791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.04||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.04|0.28|0.5866
84732956|NCT02034162|169218807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84732957|NCT02034162|169218808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84732958|NCT02034162|169218810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84732959|NCT02034162|169218811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84732960|NCT00760513|169218817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance = P\</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of liver fat percentage||We estimated that a 20% decrease in liver fat with Omacor treatment, assuming a sigma of 0.3, and an alpha of 0.05; with 91 participants completing our trial, we had 86% power to detect a 20% change in liver fat (two tailed test) (see HEPATOLOGY 2014;60:1211-1221).||3.0|-6.3|0.48
84732961|NCT00760513|169218818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||A priori p value threshold \</=0.5|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||Based on the available evidence at the time, we assumed that a 0.6-1.0 unit change in fibrosis score might be clinically significant (Hepatology 2008 Feb;47(2):455-460). Consequently, to detect a minimum 0.6 unit change in score (e.g. 9.0 at baseline and 8.4 at the end of the study) with an SD of 1.0, 100 participants would provide \>80% power at the 5% significance level, and with a 15% drop out of participants there would also be \>80% power to detect this effect.||0.3|-0.3|1.0
84732962|NCT00760513|169218819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline measurement.||There was no power calculation for this end point.||0.3|-0.4|0.9
84732963|NCT02820597|169218826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rTNSS is 0.||||<0.001
84732964|NCT02820597|169218827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rhinitis symptoms VAS is 0.||||<0.001
84732965|NCT04702893|169218862|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1185|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.1185
84732966|NCT04702893|169218863|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.5135
84732967|NCT04702893|169218864|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.0764|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.0764
84732968|NCT04702893|169218865|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3478|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.3478
84732969|NCT01114139|169218877|SUPERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval was calculated using the large sample assumption.|Treatment Difference|75.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.15|80.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - placebo) was expressed as a percentage.|Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only. Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information.||80.02|71.15|<0.0001
84732970|NCT03954223|169218890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
84732971|NCT03954223|169218891|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects generalized linear model of the glycemic profile change extracted from CGM data.||||||0.2
84732972|NCT00858247|169218901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
84732973|NCT00858247|169218902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
84496968|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.490
84496969|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84732974|NCT00858247|169218903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
84732975|NCT00858247|169218904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
84732976|NCT00858247|169218905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
84732977|NCT00858247|169218906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
84732978|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.33||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-1 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.33|0.89|
84732979|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-4 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.12|0.75|
84732980|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-5 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.26|0.85|
84732981|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-6B serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.61|0.78|
84732982|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-7F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.88|
84732983|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-9V serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.13|0.69|
84732984|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-14 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.31|0.73|
84732985|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-18C serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.37|0.86|
84732986|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-19F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.78|
84732987|NCT02447432|169218921|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.8||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-23F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.80|0.92|
84732988|NCT00874497|169218952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0824||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.2025||P-values are based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model of the change FEV1 from baseline to the specified study week using treatment group and current smoking status as fixed effects and the baseline FEV1 value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 104.||0.2025|-0.0378|0.1761
84732989|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.904||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the lung at Week 104.||0.97|-6.77|0.139
84732990|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.04|-4.46|0.460
84732991|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.176||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.63|-7.98|0.457
84732992|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.167||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.54|-6.88|0.362
84732993|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.225||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.48|-6.94|0.670
84732994|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.218||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||1.55|-5.98|0.244
84732995|NCT00874497|169218953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.374||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.48|-6.23|0.574
84732996|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.47|-1.53|0.436
84732997|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.79|-0.17|0.067
84732998|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.77|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.77|-0.83|0.163
84732999|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.02|-0.48|0.102
84733000|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|5.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.12|-0.89|0.162
84733001|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.29|-0.73|0.160
84733002|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.08||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.75|-0.58|0.122
84733003|NCT00874497|169218955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Whole Lung region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.56|-0.46|0.106
84733004|NCT00874497|169218956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.423||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.48|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean Difference between Tetomilast and Placebo at Week 104.||2.48|-5.32|0.469
84733005|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||2.27|-4.42|0.519
84733006|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104.||1.82|-3.92|0.463
84733007|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104.||3.94|-6.74|0.598
84733008|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||1.03|-6.92|0.142
84733009|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||4.59|-6.26|0.757
84733010|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.50|-5.03|0.500
84733011|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.23|-6.09|0.353
84733012|NCT00874497|169218957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.40|-5.43|0.438
84733013|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|351487.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219976.0|922951.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||922951|-219976|0.220
84733014|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|103036.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37651.0|243723.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104||243723|-37651|0.146
84733015|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|247358.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252728.0|747444.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104||747444|-252728|0.322
84733016|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|362384.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126518.0|851286.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||851286|-126518|0.141
84667762|NCT01602380|169070335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of FACT-B total score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.03|0.66|0.0844
84733017|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|294202.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303329.0|891733.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||891733|-303329|0.325
84733018|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|575882.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439692.0|1591457.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1591457|-439692|0.258
84733019|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|589373.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426928.0|1605673.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1605673|-426928|0.247
84733020|NCT00874497|169218958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1156318.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-855009.0|3167645.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region of the lung at Week 104.||3167645|-855009|0.251
84733021|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|193.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||193.8|-38.0|0.181
84733022|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|36.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (RV) at Week 104.||36.9|-48.8|0.781
84733023|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-77.8|0.445
84733024|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.6||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-48.1|0.259
84733025|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|169.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||169.6|-105.6|0.639
84733026|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.9|350.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||350.5|-145.9|0.408
84733027|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.8|309.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||309.2|-138.8|0.445
84733028|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.6|654.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||654.8|-279.6|0.421
84479888|NCT03051217|168710945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.54|649.437||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||649.437|15.540|<0.0001
84479889|NCT03051217|168710946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|-3.844||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.844|-9.100|<0.0001
84496970|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.006
84496971|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84733029|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|159.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||159.9|-58.5|0.353
84496972|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.003
84733030|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|55.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||55.0|-35.3|0.660
84733031|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.7|132.1|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||132.1|-110.7|0.859
84733032|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.5||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|141.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (TLC)at Week 104.||141.4|-38.4|0.253
84733033|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.3||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|172.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||172.6|-126.0|0.754
84733034|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.2||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.1|269.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||269.5|-145.1|0.546
84733035|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.9||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.5|285.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||285.3|-155.5|0.554
84733036|NCT00874497|169218959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.2||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.9|549.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||549.4|-284.9|0.524
84733037|NCT00874497|169218960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5843
84733038|NCT00874497|169218961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.571|||ANCOVA|||||0.571|-0.073|0.1252
84733039|NCT00874497|169218962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1835||||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6892|0.3221|||ANCOVA|||||0.3221|-0.6892|0.4661
84479890|NCT03051217|168710946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.099|-3.91||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.910|-9.099|<0.0001
84479891|NCT03051217|168710947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.265|-2.002||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-2.002|-4.265|<0.0001
84603282|NCT01514240|168957151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|5.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.76|0.90|
84667763|NCT00887354|169070364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|0.025|<.0001
84733040|NCT00874497|169218963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.19|0.134
84733041|NCT00874497|169218964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sRaw||0.07|-1.50|0.074
84733042|NCT00874497|169218964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sGaw||0.52|-0.09|0.155
84733043|NCT00874497|169218965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily breath symptoms||0.64|-0.77|0.845
84733044|NCT00874497|169218965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily cough symptoms||0.94|-0.52|0.549
84733045|NCT00874497|169218965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily sputum symptoms||0.65|-0.93|0.717
84733046|NCT00874497|169218967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level I (self management) at week 104.||||1.000
84733047|NCT00874497|169218967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level II (physician visit) at week 104.||||1.0000
84733048|NCT00874497|169218967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level III (hospital visit) at week 104.||||0.5092
84733049|NCT00874497|169218968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Fisher's Exact test was used to determine whether the tetomilast and placebo groups differ in the proportion of participants who experienced Level 2 or higher COPD exacerbations during the study.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.630
84733050|NCT01841112|169218988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7272|2.0151|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3038.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||2.0151|0.7272|
84733051|NCT01841112|169218988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3652|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0421|1.6883|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1516.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.6883|1.0421|
84733052|NCT01841112|169218989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4794|1.9202|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3380.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.9202|0.4794|
84733053|NCT01841112|169218989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|1.3466|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3466|0.7131|
84733054|NCT01841112|169218990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5078|1.8952|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3272.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.8952|0.5078|
84479892|NCT03051217|168710947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|-3.069||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.069|-5.295|<0.0001
84479893|NCT02864706|168710950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||ANCOVA|Incidence of CAV at 5-7 yrs was compared between groups using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification according to baseline distribution||||||0.0043
84479894|NCT02864706|168710951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
84479895|NCT00109772|168710972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|controlled for centers||||||.8940
84479896|NCT00813917|168710991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||For this randomized phase II we used a one sided test with a false positive(type I error)rate of 0.20 to assess whether additional studies of the experimental arm are warranted.|Chi-squared|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Chi Square test.||||0.126
84479897|NCT05441540|168710992|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84479898|NCT05441540|168710993|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84479899|NCT05441540|168710994|OTHER|||||||0.7613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7613
84479900|NCT05441540|168710995|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7640
84479901|NCT01359046|168710996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84479902|NCT01359046|168710997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84603283|NCT01514240|168957152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|3.17|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.17|0.89|
84479903|NCT03364491|168711010|SUPERIORITY|Model included treatment and preoperative hemoglobin level \<8 g/dL (yes/no) as covariates. We estimated that a total sample size of 11,000 participants (5,500 per group) would achieve 85% power to detect a 33% lower incidence of the primary outcome (1.67%) in the TXA group, at a type I error rate (two-sided) of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.26|0.74|1.07||Following two interim analyses, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.047 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Other (Log-binomial regression model)|||||1.07|0.74|0.19
84479904|NCT04539262|168711024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.16||Least square (LS) Mean, Standard Error (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.49|0.1117
84479905|NCT04539262|168711024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.16|0.3793
84479906|NCT04539262|168711024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.52||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.00|0.5248
84479907|NCT04539262|168711024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.44|||ANCOVA|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate||||0.44|-0.94|0.4610
84479908|NCT04539262|168711024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.40|0.5006
84479909|NCT04539262|168711025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-0.37|0.3417
84479910|NCT04539262|168711025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.24|0.1803
84479911|NCT04539262|168711025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.27|0.1233
84603284|NCT01514240|168957153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|3.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.19|0.73|
84479912|NCT04539262|168711025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.8||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-0.64|0.8203
84667764|NCT01466348|169070371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was carried out.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.6|1.5|0.0008
84667765|NCT01466348|169070372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.4|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was applied.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||8.4|4.5|<0.0001
84479913|NCT04539262|168711025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.41||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.65|0.6458
84479914|NCT04539262|168711026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.61||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-1.05|0.5951
84667766|NCT03989440|169070403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-1.48|0.59
84479915|NCT04539262|168711026|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.54|0.0872
84479916|NCT04539262|168711026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.94|0.6031
84479917|NCT04539262|168711026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.64|0.7578
84479918|NCT04539262|168711026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.48|0.8846
84667767|NCT03989440|169070404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.62|0.13
84667768|NCT03989440|169070405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-2.81|0.16
84479919|NCT01525667|168711074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) Difference|25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|43.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference =LSM Low dose - LSM Placebo|||43.86|7.61|0.0067
84479920|NCT01525667|168711074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) difference|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|36.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference= LSM High Dose - LSM Placebo|||36.99|-7.12|0.18
84479921|NCT01525667|168711075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|30.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.02|6.03|0.004
84479922|NCT01525667|168711075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|23.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.17|-4.72|0.19
84479923|NCT01525667|168711076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|16.41|||ANCOVA|||||16.41|-3.50|0.19
84479924|NCT01525667|168711076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-4.29|0.25
84479925|NCT01525667|168711077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.21|0.4
84479926|NCT01525667|168711077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84479927|NCT01525667|168711078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.47|0.16|0.05
84667769|NCT03989440|169070406|SUPERIORITY||% Difference in responder rate|-9.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|25.4|||Fisher Exact|||||25.4|-43.3|0.68
84479928|NCT01525667|168711078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|28.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.65|-7.26|0.24
84479929|NCT00047853|168711084|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84479930|NCT00047853|168711085|OTHER|||||||9.3e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000093
84479931|NCT00294684|168711087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.57|||Log binomial|||RR greater than one indicates benefit of steriods and a P value of treatment success from a log-binomial model with these covariates: Treatment group, age a HPE, BASM as fixed effects, and site as a random effect.||1.57|0.83|0.43
84479932|NCT00294684|168711088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|0.6|0.99
84733055|NCT01841112|169218990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7133|1.3469|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3469|0.7133|
84733056|NCT00878553|169218997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.284|-1.927||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-1.927|-15.284|0.0118
84733057|NCT00878553|169218997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.685|-3.275||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-3.275|-16.685|0.0037
84733058|NCT00878553|169218997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.857|-2.448||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 20-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||-2.448|-15.857|0.0077
84733059|NCT00878553|169218998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.208|2.0||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.000|-13.208|0.1476
84733060|NCT00878553|169218998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.546|0.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||0.722|-14.546|0.0757
84542870|NCT00473590|168837865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.276|||Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to BORT + P.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the BORT + BV group. Stratified Analysis.||1.276|0.432|0.2804
84542871|NCT00473590|168837865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.2|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio relative to BORT + P was estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.200|0.424|0.2009
84733061|NCT00878553|169218998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.154|2.113||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.113|-13.154|0.1553
84733062|NCT00878553|169218999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.208|15.454||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.454|2.208|0.0092
84479933|NCT00294684|168711089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference reported as steroid minus placebo (negative values mean larger average values of total bilirubin in placebo).||0.3|-3.49|0.0973
84479934|NCT00294684|168711090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average values of bilirubin in placebo)||0.05|-4.65|0.0552
84603285|NCT01514240|168957154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.76|0.96|
84733063|NCT00878553|169218999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.775|17.075||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||17.075|3.775|0.0023
84733064|NCT00878553|169218999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.498|16.796||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||16.796|3.498|0.0030
84733065|NCT00878553|169219000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|0.11||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||0.110|-1.235|0.1005
84733066|NCT00878553|169219000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.362||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.362|-1.712|0.0028
84733067|NCT00878553|169219000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467|-0.118||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustments for multiple testing were made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.118|-1.467|0.0216
84733068|NCT00878553|169219001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|5.077||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||5.077|-21.980|0.2190
84733069|NCT00878553|169219001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.937||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.327|15.056||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.056|-12.327|0.8441
84733070|NCT00878553|169219001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.522|1.842||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||1.842|-25.522|0.0894
84733071|NCT00878553|169219002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|2.943||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||2.943|-1.823|0.6433
84603286|NCT01514240|168957155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|4.09|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||4.09|1.15|
84479935|NCT00294684|168711091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.6607||95.0|-2.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average bilirubin in placebo)||1.38|-2.16|0.6607
84479936|NCT00294684|168711092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1603
84733072|NCT00878553|169219002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.304|0.481||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean difference from baseline indicates a worsening.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||0.481|-4.304|0.1167
84479937|NCT00294684|168711093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2801|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2801
84733073|NCT00878553|169219002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|3.826||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||3.826|-0.958|0.2385
84733074|NCT00878553|169219003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.972|-0.073|0.0914
84733075|NCT00878553|169219003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.690|-0.360|0.5360
84733076|NCT00878553|169219003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.263|-0.787|0.3254
84733077|NCT00878553|169219004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|4.595||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates improvement.|||4.595|-3.175|0.7190
84733078|NCT00878553|169219004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||4.722|-3.080|0.6784
84733079|NCT00878553|169219004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.586|6.214||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||6.214|-1.586|0.2433
84733080|NCT00878553|169219005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Cmax(ng/mL) \[Maximum plasma zaleplon concentration\]||||0.0009
84733081|NCT00878553|169219006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.9142||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test two degrees of freedom||Cmax normalized per dose||||0.9142
84733082|NCT00878553|169219007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.1193||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Time (hour)post-dose of maximum plasma zaleplon concentration||||0.1193
84479938|NCT00294684|168711094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.14|||Log Binomial|||||3.14|0.62|0.41
84479939|NCT00294684|168711095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.92|||Log Binomial|||||2.92|0.03|0.29
84733083|NCT00878553|169219008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.85||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC ng\*h/mL)||||0.0003
84479940|NCT02443805|168711112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Source Model: Type III effects Covariates: Treatment group, Gender, Age Class, Sensitization Status, Asthma Status, Pooled Center, Baseline Average RTSS.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84479941|NCT00968708|168711118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.315|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.16|||Cox proportional hazards|||Statistical analyses of the primary MACE composite endpoint was based on sequences of 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs) to assess non-inferiority or statistical superiority with respect to the null hypotheses. Each sequence of repeated CIs was constructed using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%. Each sequence of 1-sided repeated CIs had a simultaneous coverage probability of 97.5%.||1.160||0.315
84733084|NCT00878553|169219009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.2281||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC/Dose (ng\*h/mL/mg)||||0.2281
84733085|NCT00878553|169219010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.4835||95.0|||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom F-test||Half-Life (t1/2 in hours) of plasma zaleplon from each of 3 doses of SKP-1041||||0.4835
84733086|NCT02143063|169219011|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3752.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
84733087|NCT02143063|169219011|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5287.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
84733088|NCT02143063|169219012|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3675.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary Aim 1: Compare the standard care and standard care plus traditional CM conditions||||.02
84733089|NCT02143063|169219012|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5189.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.61
84479942|NCT00968708|168711118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.169||Stratified by endpoint renal function (defined as the last observed postbaseline renal function (normal renal function/mild renal impairment vs moderate/severe renal impairment including end-stage renal disease)) and geographic region.|Cox proportional hazards|||Stratified by endpoint renal function and geographic region||1.169||0.332
84479943|NCT00968708|168711119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the confidence interval for the primary MACE composite was \<1.0, then statistical superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the secondary MACE composite would be demonstrated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.135||||||||1.135||
84479944|NCT01515488|168711139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|42.6|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=331.2||||42.6|22.1|<0.0005
84479945|NCT00587834|168711158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact Bionomial Test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined standard (50% success)||||<0.0001
84479946|NCT00587834|168711159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit equally red and Control not equally red to (2) Gintuit not equally red and Control equally red||||<0.0001
84479947|NCT00587834|168711160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1)Gintuit equally firm and Control not equally firm to (2) Gintuit not equally firm and Control equally firm||||<0.0001
84479948|NCT00587834|168711161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined threshold (80%) success||||<0.0001
84479949|NCT00587834|168711162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||The proportion of Gintuit as the preferred procedure.||||<0.0001
84479950|NCT00587834|168711163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|McNemar's paired comparison test||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit not sensitive and Control sensitive to (2) Gintuit sensitive and Control not sensitive.||||0.3173
84479951|NCT01001234|168711168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26||The statistical significance level for the primary endpoint was α=0.0477, and had been adjusted to account for the interim sample size adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Testing of primary endpoint and secondary endpoints was conducted sequentially in a pre-specified order, thus strongly controlling Type I error.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to the primary outcome was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (United States \[US\] or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.26|1.06|0.025
84479952|NCT01001234|168711169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9||Secondary endpoints were to be formally tested only if the test of the primary endpoint was statistically significant at the α=0.0477 level. The secondary endpoints were then tested sequentially in a pre-specified order, each at the α=0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|This first secondary hypothesis was not statistically significant, therefore the other two were not formally tested for statistical significance.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 12 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.90|0.96|0.080
84479953|NCT01001234|168711170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||This second secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain freedom at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.10|1.10|0.010
84733090|NCT01438840|169219097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84733091|NCT02601209|169219100|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84733092|NCT02601209|169219101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1419|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.7|||Log Rank|1-sided statistical test and p-value||||1.70||0.1419
84733093|NCT00859976|169219113|SUPERIORITY|A superiority test was used to calculate the number of patients that are needed in order to show a difference between the bone mineral density surrounding BoneMaster coated cups compared to plasma HA sprayed cups.||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Change in bone mineral density, normalised to baseline levels.||||||0.4570
84733094|NCT00461123|169219125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.5248||95.0|-4.18|8.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of least squares (LS) means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||8.05|-4.18|0.5248
84733095|NCT00461123|169219126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.87||95.0|-3.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||3.04|-3.58|0.8700
84733096|NCT00461123|169219127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.57||||0.4162||95.0|-8.21|19.35|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||19.35|-8.21|0.4162
84733097|NCT00461123|169219128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0588||95.0|-13.25|0.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||0.26|-13.25|0.0588
84479954|NCT01001234|168711171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||This third secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.63|0.91|0.178
84479955|NCT00753623|168711190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84479956|NCT00996593|168711191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||80|50|
84479957|NCT00996593|168711192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||35|10|
84479958|NCT00996593|168711193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|53.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||53|22|
84479959|NCT00996593|168711194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||41|14|
84479960|NCT00996593|168711199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|75.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|96.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||96|54|1.0
84479961|NCT00996593|168711199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|70.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|88.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||88|51|1.0
84479962|NCT00996593|168711200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84733098|NCT00461123|169219129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.7878||95.0|-22.03|16.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA), treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group||16.82|-22.03|0.7878
84479963|NCT00996593|168711201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|31.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|54.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||54|9|1.0
84733099|NCT02024750|169219130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.030|-0.021|0.72
84733100|NCT02024750|169219130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.013||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.013|-0.034|0.38
84733101|NCT02024750|169219131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.295||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.295|-0.249|0.87
84733102|NCT02024750|169219131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.369||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.369|-0.517|0.74
84733103|NCT02024750|169219132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.237||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.237|-0.312|0.79
84733104|NCT02024750|169219132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.448|-0.467|0.97
84733105|NCT02024750|169219133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.388||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.388|-0.121|0.30
84733106|NCT02024750|169219133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.373||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.373|-0.384|0.98
84479964|NCT00996593|168711201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|17.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|33.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||33|2|1.0
84479965|NCT00996593|168711202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84479966|NCT00996593|168711203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
84479967|NCT00871572|168711216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.64|0.0296
84479968|NCT00871572|168711216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.37|0.0418
84479969|NCT00871572|168711216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.41|0.0514
84479970|NCT00871572|168711217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-4.46|0.2565
84479971|NCT00871572|168711217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-4.25|0.1245
84479972|NCT00871572|168711217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-4.92|0.0594
84479973|NCT00871572|168711218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.56||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.02|240.9|||ANCOVA|||||240.90|-490.02|0.4978
84479974|NCT00871572|168711218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-338.64||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-656.55|-20.72|||ANCOVA|||||-20.72|-656.55|0.0372
84479975|NCT00871572|168711218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.83||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-799.48|-134.18|||ANCOVA|||||-134.18|-799.48|0.0068
84479976|NCT00871572|168711219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.814
84479977|NCT00871572|168711219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.681
84479978|NCT00871572|168711219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.7|0.715
84479979|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.56||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-3.09||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.09|-44.03|0.0248
84479980|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-17.48||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.48|-53.08|0.0002
84479981|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.12|-20.53||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.53|-58.12|<0.0001
84479982|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.66|21.82||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.82|-34.66|0.6513
84479983|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.61|16.21||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.21|-32.61|0.5045
84479984|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.49|-32.90|0.5774
84479985|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.81||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-11.53||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-60.10|0.0045
84479986|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.15||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-12.21||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.21|-54.10|0.0024
84479987|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-15.75||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.75|-59.98|0.0011
84479988|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.48||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|-1.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.49|-55.47|0.0389
84479989|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|7.94||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-39.24|0.1896
84479990|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.56||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.28|2.16||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.16|-47.28|0.0729
84479991|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.78||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-14.77||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.77|-74.79|0.0041
84479992|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-28.48||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.48|-80.42|<0.0001
84479993|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.19||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.57|-18.81||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.81|-73.57|0.0013
84479994|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.82||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.51|-9.13||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-70.51|0.0118
84479995|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.8||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.42|-17.18||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.18|-70.42|0.0016
84479996|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.63|-11.48||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.48|-67.63|0.0065
84479997|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.88||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-7.33||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.33|-66.43|0.0154
84479998|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.93|-21.07||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.07|-71.93|0.0006
84479999|NCT00871572|168711222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.07||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|-15.01||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.01|-69.13|0.0029
84480000|NCT00871572|168711223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.62||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|83.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.68|-32.44|0.3815
84480001|NCT00871572|168711223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|55.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||55.93|-45.12|0.8315
84672031|NCT04127786|169079251|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
84733107|NCT00746356|169219175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3103|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used, and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|<0.0001
84733108|NCT00746356|169219176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0948||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
84733109|NCT00746356|169219177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0824||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met, a value of 2.5% were used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
84733110|NCT00746356|169219178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0028|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2852||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
84733111|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.23
84733112|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.07
84733113|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Orienting. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.99
84733114|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Fidget. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.005
84733115|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.01
84733116|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.04
84733117|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.06
84733118|NCT03605368|169219179|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
84733119|NCT03605368|169219180|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.55
84733120|NCT03605368|169219180|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
84733121|NCT02484547|169219187|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.26||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.041|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.041|-0.569|0.0901
84733122|NCT02484547|169219187|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.086|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit.||-0.086|-0.694|0.0120
84733123|NCT02484547|169219188|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.48|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.48|-0.65|0.7578
84733124|NCT02484547|169219188|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.13|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.13|0.00|0.0493
84733125|NCT02484547|169219189|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.701||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7649|0.3627|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.3627|-1.7649|0.1962
84733126|NCT02484547|169219189|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4596|-0.3396|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||-0.3396|-2.4596|0.0097
84733127|NCT02484547|169219190|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.73|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.73|-0.27|0.1515
84733128|NCT02484547|169219190|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.74|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||2.74|0.75|0.0006
84733129|NCT03783546|169219208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84733130|NCT03783546|169219210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84733131|NCT01817712|169219233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.46|<0.001
84733132|NCT01817712|169219234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Site used as strata||||||0.004
84733133|NCT01817712|169219235|OTHER|Longitudinal analysis of PCL-5 (change from baseline)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.91|0.07
84733134|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||12.9|-30.8|
84733135|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
84733136|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||12.9|-30.8|
84733137|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||25.5|-16.4|
84733138|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||1.3|-41.7|
84733139|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||18.7|-23.3|
84672032|NCT04127786|169079251|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Adult (\>= 18 years)||3.0|-3.1|
84480002|NCT00871572|168711223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.25||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.93|77.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.44|-28.93|0.3658
84480003|NCT00871572|168711224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.06||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.24|142.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||142.37|-32.24|0.2131
84480004|NCT00871572|168711224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|166.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166.10|13.27|0.0220
84480005|NCT00871572|168711224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.29|188.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.22|26.29|0.0101
84480006|NCT00871572|168711225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-0.75|0.1596
84480007|NCT00871572|168711225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|-0.24|0.0791
84480008|NCT00871572|168711225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-0.67|0.1564
84480009|NCT00871572|168711226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8018.51||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13104.14|29141.16|||ANCOVA|||||29141.16|-13104.14|0.4500
84480010|NCT00871572|168711226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5174.85||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13158.65|23508.35|||ANCOVA|||||23508.35|-13158.65|0.5739
84480011|NCT00871572|168711226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18153.92||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.23|37496.06|||ANCOVA|||||37496.06|-1188.23|0.0653
84480012|NCT00871572|168711227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18094.32||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54734.08|90922.71|||ANCOVA|||||90922.71|-54734.08|0.6209
84480013|NCT00871572|168711227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5783.59||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58650.71|70217.89|||ANCOVA|||||70217.89|-58650.71|0.8581
84480014|NCT00871572|168711227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36218.98||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30955.5|103393.46|||ANCOVA|||||103393.46|-30955.50|0.2850
84480015|NCT00871572|168711228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.584
84480016|NCT00871572|168711228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.426
84480017|NCT00871572|168711228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.657
84480018|NCT00871572|168711229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.365
84480019|NCT00871572|168711229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.191
84480020|NCT00871572|168711229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.297
84480021|NCT00871572|168711230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.523
84480022|NCT00871572|168711230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.476
84480023|NCT00871572|168711230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.634
84480024|NCT00871572|168711231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.919
84480025|NCT00871572|168711231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.864
84480026|NCT00871572|168711231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.726
84480027|NCT00735670|168711234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.445
84480028|NCT00735670|168711235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-0.31||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||Comparison of venlafaxine vs. placebo on change of PHQ-9 over time controlling for baseline PHQ-9 score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model (LMM) analysis was used and included a random intercept effect based on lowest Akaike's Information Criterion values when we compared three random coefficient models (intercept, slope and intercept and slope). To examine whether allocation group influenced the effect of time and baseline PHQ-9 sore on the trajectory of PHQ-9 scores, we included two interaction terms (time by allocation group and baseline PHQ-9 score by allocation group).||-0.15|-0.48|0.725
84542872|NCT00395161|168837886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|Two-sided logrank test was used, stratified by immune compromised status at study entry (a factor also used to stratify the study randomization)||Null hypothesis was equal median time in both arms. Sample size calculated to yield 90% power to detect a significant effect, assuming inverse hazard rate of 1.5 using two-sided logrank test with alpha=0.05. This required recruitment until 263 patients with an event were enrolled (though the study was terminated early for futility by the DSMB).||||0.29
84733140|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||8.3|-35.2|
84480029|NCT01686958|168711236|OTHER|This is a primarily descriptive study, no statistical analysis is planned; however, analyses were performed at the alpha=0.05 level of significance and exact analyses will be used wherever possible.|||||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Confidence intervals \[CI\] will be constructed for outcomes of interest at the alpha=0.05 level of significance, i.e. 95% CI.||||A total of 30 subjects will be accrued to this study and treated with the PAD-105. The sample size is based primarily on feasibility and logistical concerns, however, is sufficiently large to allow the safety objectives to be met. Specifically, with 30 total patients, if no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events are observed, then a one-sided, 95% confidence interval would have an upper bound of 0.095.|For continuous outcomes, standard summary statistics will include n, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum. For categorical data, tables will show n and % of patients.|||
84480030|NCT01230749|168711301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-27.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.792|-8.008|||ANCOVA|||||-8.008|-46.792|0.006
84733141|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||32.2|-9.5|
84733142|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||12.9|-30.8|
84733143|NCT01568112|169219240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||25.5|-16.4|
84733144|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||8.3|-35.2|
84733145|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||32.2|-9.5|
84733146|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|3.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||3.7|-39.6|
84733147|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||27.8|-14.1|
84733148|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||1.3|-41.7|
84733149|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||27.8|-14.1|
84733150|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-10.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-10.6|-52.2|
84733151|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|21.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||21.0|-21.0|
84733152|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||1.3|-41.7|
84733153|NCT01568112|169219241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|38.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||38.8|-2.4|
84733154|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.2|-35.6|
84733155|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||21.7|-24.7|
84733156|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||9.2|-35.6|
84733157|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|23.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||23.7|-22.9|
84733158|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||11.9|-33.0|
84733159|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|18.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||18.8|-27.5|
84733160|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|6.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||6.5|-38.1|
84733161|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|12.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||12.2|-34.2|
84733162|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||3.8|-40.6|
84733163|NCT01568112|169219242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||5.5|-40.2|
84733164|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||-0.9|-3.0|
84733165|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||2.3|0.2|
84733166|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||-1.2|-3.2|
84733167|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||2.5|0.1|
84733168|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||-0.7|-2.8|
84733169|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||2.3|0.1|
84733170|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.9|-2.7|
84733171|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||1.6|-0.4|
84733172|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-1.0|-2.8|
84733173|NCT01568112|169219243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||2.2|0.2|
84733174|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.8|-1.7|
84733175|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.4|-1.8|
84733176|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.6|-2.0|
84733177|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.5|-1.9|
84733178|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.4|-2.0|
84733179|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.2|-2.1|
84733180|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||0.1|-2.2|
84733181|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.0|-2.2|
84733182|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||0.4|-2.1|
84733183|NCT01568112|169219244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-0.1|-2.4|
84733184|NCT01568112|169219245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|9.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.5|-32.2|
84733185|NCT01568112|169219245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
84733186|NCT01568112|169219246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||0.1|-41.0|
84733187|NCT01568112|169219246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
84733188|NCT01568112|169219247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||3.8|-40.6|
84733189|NCT01568112|169219247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-24.7|
84733190|NCT01568112|169219248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||22.0|-22.0|
84733191|NCT01568112|169219248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.5|-16.4|
84733192|NCT01568112|169219249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|19.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||19.7|-24.2|
84733193|NCT01568112|169219249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.7|-23.3|
84733194|NCT01568112|169219250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|17.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||17.1|-29.4|
84733195|NCT01568112|169219250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|24.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||24.5|-22.1|
84733196|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||1.1|-1.1|
84733197|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.9|-1.1|
84733198|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.8|-1.4|
84733199|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.1|-1.7|
84733200|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.6|-0.5|
84733201|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.3|-0.7|
84733202|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.9|-1.0|
84733203|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.8|-1.1|
84733204|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.7|-0.6|
84733205|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.5|-0.6|
84733206|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.3|-1.0|
84733207|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.8|-0.8|
84733208|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-1.0|
84733209|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.9|-0.8|
84733210|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Bloating||1.1|-0.7|
84733211|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.9|
84733212|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.9|-0.8|
84733213|NCT01568112|169219251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||1.1|-0.7|
84733214|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-1.0|
84733215|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-0.8|
84733216|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.4|-1.7|
84733217|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.2|-1.7|
84733218|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.6|-0.7|
84733219|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.8|-0.7|
84733220|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.7|-0.6|
84733221|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||1.3|-0.2|
84733222|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.4|-0.4|
84733223|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.2|-0.4|
84733224|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.6|-0.6|
84733225|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.5|-0.7|
84733226|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||1.0|-0.1|
84733227|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-0.2|
84733228|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.8|
84733229|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.8|-0.7|
84733230|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||-0.0|-1.6|
84733231|NCT01568112|169219252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.5|-1.2|
84733232|NCT01568112|169219253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
84733233|NCT01568112|169219253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
84733234|NCT01568112|169219254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.3|-18.8|
84733235|NCT01568112|169219254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
84733236|NCT01568112|169219255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|14.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||14.3|-32.1|
84733237|NCT01568112|169219255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-25.0|
84733238|NCT01568112|169219262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|34.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||34.1|-20.9|
84733239|NCT01568112|169219262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|25.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.7|-14.2|
84733240|NCT01568112|169219263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|70.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||70.9|-26.5|
84733241|NCT01568112|169219263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|23.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.6|-20.5|
84733242|NCT01568112|169219264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|44.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||44.2|-9.2|
84733243|NCT01568112|169219264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.0|-17.2|
84733244|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|12.26|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||12.26|-6.34|
84733245|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|0.67|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.67|-8.81|
84733246|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|26.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||26.63|-3.15|
84733247|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.77|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||6.77|-2.67|
84733248|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|25.14|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||25.14|-6.72|
84733249|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||5.63|-11.31|
84733250|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|12.19|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||12.19|-18.36|
84733251|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|8.35|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.35|-20.71|
84733252|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|6.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||6.49|-22.90|
84733253|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|11.47|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||11.47|-30.13|
84733254|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|4.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||4.63|-30.02|
84733255|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.654|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|6.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.32|-29.48|
84733256|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|7.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||7.57|-35.44|
84733257|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.369|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.39|18.81|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||18.81|-33.39|
84733258|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.93|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||5.93|-20.40|
84733259|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|131.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||131.4|-10.78|
84733260|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|191.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||191.2|-71.51|
84733261|NCT01568112|169219265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|136.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||136.6|-27.09|
84733262|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|14.68|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||14.68|-6.79|
84733263|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|0.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.83|-9.57|
84733264|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|29.86|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||29.86|-2.84|
84733265|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.29|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||7.29|-2.41|
84733266|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|27.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||27.50|-5.81|
84733267|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|7.09|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||7.09|-12.08|
84733268|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.488|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|15.64|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||15.64|-19.03|
84733269|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|8.11|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.11|-23.93|
84733270|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|17.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||17.60|-23.80|
84733271|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|13.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||13.00|-22.75|
84480031|NCT01230749|168711301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.47||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.801|-1.142|||ANCOVA|||||-1.142|-39.801|0.038
84480032|NCT01230749|168711301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-13.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.635|6.151|||ANCOVA|||||6.151|-32.635|0.178
84480033|NCT01230749|168711302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-28.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.606|-8.957|||ANCOVA|||||-8.957|-47.606|0.005
84480034|NCT01230749|168711302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-21.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.154|-2.786|||ANCOVA|||||-2.786|-41.154|0.025
84480035|NCT01230749|168711302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-17.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.86|1.431|||ANCOVA|||||1.431|-36.860|0.069
84480036|NCT01230749|168711303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.76||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.542|14.054|||ANCOVA|||||14.054|-8.542|0.628
84480037|NCT01230749|168711303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|13.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|25.008|||ANCOVA|||||25.008|2.392|0.018
84480038|NCT01230749|168711303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|5.87||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.417|17.148|||ANCOVA|||||17.148|-5.417|0.303
84480039|NCT01230749|168711304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-0.082|||ANCOVA|||||-0.082|-3.634|0.041
84480040|NCT01230749|168711304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.26||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|1.509|||ANCOVA|||||1.509|-2.033|0.769
84480041|NCT01230749|168711304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.69||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|1.091|||ANCOVA|||||1.091|-2.463|0.444
84480042|NCT01230749|168711305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|95.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.031|127.324|||ANCOVA|||||127.324|71.031|0.774
84480043|NCT01230749|168711305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|89.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.567|121.403|||ANCOVA|||||121.403|66.567|0.555
84480044|NCT01230749|168711306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|100.17||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.217|107.647|||ANCOVA|||||107.647|93.217|0.968
84480045|NCT01230749|168711306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|101.18||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.179|108.7|||ANCOVA|||||108.700|94.179|0.785
84480046|NCT01230749|168711307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|133.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.275|177.115|||ANCOVA|||||177.115|100.275|0.097
84480047|NCT01230749|168711307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|101.82||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.26|135.942|||ANCOVA|||||135.942|76.260|0.917
84480048|NCT01230749|168711308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.46||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|1.323|||ANCOVA|||||1.323|-0.408|0.295
84480049|NCT01230749|168711308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.904|||ANCOVA|||||0.904|-0.838|0.941
84480050|NCT01230749|168711308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.892|||ANCOVA|||||1.892|0.150|0.022
84480051|NCT03366844|168711309|OTHER||Proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.724|||||95% confidence interval for one proportion were estimated using the Exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.724|0.465|
84480052|NCT01060098|168711315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.003
84480053|NCT01060098|168711315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.04
84480054|NCT01060098|168711315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.48
84480055|NCT00191386|168711355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 6 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480056|NCT00191386|168711355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 12 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480057|NCT00191386|168711355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480058|NCT00191386|168711355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480059|NCT00191386|168711355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480060|NCT00191386|168711356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 6 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480061|NCT00191386|168711356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480062|NCT00191386|168711356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480063|NCT00191386|168711356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480064|NCT00191386|168711356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84480065|NCT04038385|168711424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-20.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.49|-65.25|0.001
84480066|NCT04038385|168711425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|45.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||45.62|2.21|0.031
84480067|NCT04038385|168711426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.662
84480068|NCT04038385|168711427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.00|0.047
84480069|NCT04038385|168711428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|35.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.02|8.64|<0.01
84480070|NCT04038385|168711429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.1|1.0|0.056
84480071|NCT04038385|168711430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.3|1.0|0.050
84480072|NCT04038385|168711431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.5|0.001
84480073|NCT04038385|168711432|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.4|0.082
84480074|NCT04038385|168711433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-2.2|0.001
84480075|NCT04038385|168711434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.039
84480076|NCT04038385|168711435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.962
84480077|NCT04038385|168711436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|.277
84480078|NCT04038385|168711437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.155
84480079|NCT04038385|168711438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.740
84480080|NCT04038385|168711439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.122
84480081|NCT04038385|168711440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.177
84480082|NCT04038385|168711441|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.3|0.514
84733272|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.05|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||9.05|-59.20|
84480083|NCT04038385|168711442|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.335
84480084|NCT04038385|168711443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.4|0.750
84480085|NCT04038385|168711444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.7|0.455
84480086|NCT04038385|168711445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.0|0.053
84480087|NCT04038385|168711446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.9|.986
84480088|NCT04038385|168711447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|0.6|0.810
84480089|NCT04038385|168711448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.4|0.591
84480090|NCT05302804|168711452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value reflects main effect of treatment.|ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between menthol gel and control gel~time x trial ANOVA statistical analysis"||||0.742
84733273|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|6.98|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.98|-54.89|
84733274|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.847|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|10.39|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||10.39|-35.38|
84733275|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.79|20.13|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||20.13|-32.79|
84733276|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|10.41|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||10.41|-15.87|
84733277|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|185.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||185.8|-22.04|
84733278|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|93.18|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||93.18|-40.13|
84733279|NCT01568112|169219266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|135.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||135.2|-31.65|
84733280|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|3.99|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||3.99|-7.35|
84733281|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.62|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||2.62|-6.62|
84733282|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|12.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||12.49|-11.64|
84733283|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.597|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|5.14||||||Diarrhea||5.14|-14.11|
84733284|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.57|-1.10|
84733285|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.40|-1.17|
84733286|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.79|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||2.79|-5.08|
84733287|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.886|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.19|79.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||79.32|-42.19|
84733288|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.56|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||8.56|-3.65|
84733289|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||1.83|-3.71|
84733290|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.73|60.38|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||60.38|-48.73|
84733291|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.38|33.91|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||33.91|-28.38|
84733292|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|6.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||6.83|-35.56|
84733293|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.88|157.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||157.1|-22.88|
84733294|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|255.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||255.3|-58.01|
84733295|NCT01568112|169219267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.928|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|27.76|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||27.76|-5.22|
84733296|NCT03568812|169219384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|111.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|182.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted CD4 level||182.7|40.9|0.02
84733297|NCT03568812|169219384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|140.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted CD4 level||140.8|5.9|0.03
84733298|NCT03568812|169219385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Th17 change after intervention||1.0|-0.5|0.55
84733299|NCT03568812|169219385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Th17 change after intervention||0.9|-0.7|0.79
84733300|NCT03568812|169219387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-1.5|-23.9|0.03
84733301|NCT03568812|169219387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-3.6|-27.6|0.01
84733302|NCT03568812|169219389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||The statistical analysis of food frequency change after intervention (12 weeks)||||0.551
84733303|NCT00634842|169219435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \< 7% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0411||95.0|1.03|3.37|||Test for Difference in Proportions|||To show non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, 100 subjects per group provides 80% power to show that the 95% CI for the difference of proportions between treatments is within the 20% margin under the assumption of equality of proportions. It is also sufficient to show superiority under the assumption that the first proportion is greater than the second by at least 20%. With a predicted withdrawal rate of 15%, 236 subjects were needed based on a treatment ratio of 1:1 for the two treatments.||3.37|1.03|0.0411
84733304|NCT00634842|169219436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \<= 6.5% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0064||95.0|1.27|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.27|0.0064
84733305|NCT00634842|169219437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean|-0.271||||0.0019||95.0|-0.441|-0.101|||ANCOVA|The analyses for HbA1c were adjusted for baseline HbA1c values.||||-0.101|-0.441|0.0019
84733306|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.9|5.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.6|-3.9|
84733307|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.3||||||95.0|-7.3|13.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||13.8|-7.3|
84733308|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3||||||95.0|-2.1|7.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.3|-2.1|
84733309|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.2|4.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.7|-8.2|
84733310|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|-2.8|9.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-2.8|
84733311|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.5|5.1||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.1|-3.5|
84733312|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-8.4|10.6||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||10.6|-8.4|
84733313|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-4.8|9.2||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-4.8|
84733314|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-7.9|4.2||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.2|-7.9|
84733315|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-5.6|9.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.9|-5.6|
84733316|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-9.9|7.6||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.6|-9.9|
84480091|NCT05302804|168711453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value is main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.742
84733317|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|2.8||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||2.8|-3.0|
84733318|NCT00464945|169219439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
84733319|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|1.1|1.65||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.65|1.10|
84733320|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.7|1.31||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio was calculated||1.31|0.70|
84733321|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.89|1.24||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio was calculated||1.24|0.89|
84480092|NCT05302804|168711454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value reflects main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.048
84733322|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.22|0.71|
84733323|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.86|1.3||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio was calculated||1.30|0.86|
84733324|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.81|1.17||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.81|
84733325|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.7|1.15||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.15|0.70|
84733326|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.88|1.37||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.37|0.88|
84733327|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.83|1.2||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.20|0.83|
84733328|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.16||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.16|0.79|
84733329|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.66|1.05||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.05|0.66|
84733330|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.79|1.11||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.11|0.79|
84733331|NCT00464945|169219443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.13||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.13|0.79|
84733332|NCT03831854|169219451|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.08
84733333|NCT03831854|169219452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|The relative risk could not be assessed due to zero incidence in the treatment group||||||0.11
84733334|NCT03831854|169219453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.5|-9.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.0|-9.5|0.63
84733335|NCT03831854|169219454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-1.7|0.58
84733336|NCT03831854|169219455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.3|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.3|1.0
84480093|NCT05302804|168711455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.104
84480094|NCT05302804|168711456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.051
84480095|NCT05302804|168711457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of treatment|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||< 0.001
84480096|NCT05302804|168711458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.026
84480097|NCT05302804|168711459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value at time 30 min of exercise|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.001
84480098|NCT05302804|168711460|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84480099|NCT02971007|168711463|OTHER|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.||||||||||||||||No formal sample size calculations were made. The sample size was determined empirically rather than with a specific statistical rationale and is considered sufficient to achieve the study objectives of this proof of concept study. Women with moderate to severe Vulvovaginal candidiasis were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment groups, stratified by signs and symptoms composite score of up to 12 (moderate) and greater than 13 (severe).|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.|||
84480100|NCT02038790|168711475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.5000
84480101|NCT02038790|168711476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0196
84480102|NCT02038790|168711477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
84480103|NCT02038790|168711478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4422
84480104|NCT02038790|168711479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2377
84603287|NCT01514240|168957156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.19|1.44|
84480105|NCT02038790|168711480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0603
84480106|NCT02038790|168711481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0010
84480107|NCT03170258|168711513|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample 2-sided t-test against a mean of 0 used to evaluate the main effect of VTA activation during neurofeedback.||||||0.0015
84603288|NCT01514240|168957157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.14|7.65|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.65|2.14|
84733337|NCT03463577|169219474|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.21|1.58|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted relative risk (RR) for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.58|1.21|
84733338|NCT03463577|169219474|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.12|1.47|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for intra-uterine infections (chorioamnionitis and endometritis) in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.47|1.12|
84733339|NCT03463577|169219475|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.64|0.78|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for preterm delivery in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||0.78|0.64|
84733340|NCT03463577|169219476|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.94|1.16|||||Adjusted RR with 98.75% CI-Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for small for gestational age in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.16|0.94|
84733341|NCT03463577|169219477|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI -Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for poor fetal growth in the Exposed pregnant women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to the Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.98|0.70|
84733342|NCT03463577|169219477|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.72|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI - Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for placental abortion in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.72|0.99|
84733343|NCT03463577|169219477|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.91|0.64|
84480108|NCT03170258|168711514|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sample t-test against 0 for the ratio of Beta to Theta power.||||||>0.10
84480109|NCT01391468|168711521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84672033|NCT04127786|169079253|NON_INFERIORITY|If the superiority objective of VRVg-2 was reached at Day 28, the non-inferiority of 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus Imovax Rabies® at Day 42||1.3|-4.4|
84480110|NCT01391468|168711522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.744
84672034|NCT05124665|169079278|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing between two study arms is equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Cluster adjusted for household.||||12.9|1.6|0.004
84672035|NCT05124665|169079278|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between the two study arms|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value and confidence interval reflects the values multiplied by 100 (converting decimal to percentage).|||10|2|0.006
84672036|NCT05124665|169079279|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the change in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms.|Slope|2.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Van Rie Perceived TB and HIV Stigma scales adapted and validated in the Ugandan context are used. Scores range from 0 to 100 (standardized scale)||6.9|-2.5|0.358
84480111|NCT01391468|168711523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
84480112|NCT01391468|168711524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0099
84496973|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84672037|NCT05124665|169079280|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the difference in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms|Slope|2.61||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.59|-1.38|0.199
84672038|NCT05124665|169079281|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is no effect from perceived HIV Stigma on HIV Test Uptake|Coefficient from Structural Equation|0.00087||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00167|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.00167|0.00007|0.03
84672039|NCT05124665|169079282|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that TB stigma has no effect of HIV test uptake|Coefficient Structural Equation Model|0.0002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.0011|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.0011|-0.0007|0.64
84672040|NCT05124665|169079283|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of index patient nominated household contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between two study arms||||||0.452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.452
84672041|NCT05124665|169079284|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis is that the first tester's decision to test does not impact subsequent household contacts decision to test for HIV.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.86|0.264
84672042|NCT05124665|169079285|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the index patient and contact nominations will match equally regardless of study arm.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84672043|NCT02347527|169079302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
84672044|NCT02347527|169079302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
84672045|NCT02347527|169079303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84672046|NCT02347527|169079304|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.040
84672047|NCT02347527|169079304|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.92
84672048|NCT00934544|169079312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meir estimate|28.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.6|21.3|<0.0001
84672049|NCT02643251|169079323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3361
84672050|NCT04206293|169079372|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||3.6|-0.2|0.0736
84672051|NCT04206293|169079372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.8|-1.5|0.5259
84672052|NCT04206293|169079373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.4|-2.8|0.8848
84672053|NCT04206293|169079373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-1.8|0.9505
84672054|NCT04206293|169079374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.0|1.4|0.0007
84672055|NCT04206293|169079374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||3.9|0.9|0.0033
84672056|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.07|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.070|-0.119|<0.0001
84672057|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.048|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.048|-0.094|<0.0001
84672058|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.061|-0.116|<0.0001
84672059|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.061|-0.102|<0.0001
84672060|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0003||95.0|-0.116|-0.041|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.041|-0.116|0.0003
84672061|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.044|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.044|-0.103|0.0001
84733344|NCT03463577|169219478|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR =1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.67|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for stillbirth/fetal death in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.67|0.22|
84733345|NCT03463577|169219478|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for transfusion during delivery hospitalization in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.33|0.86|
84733346|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.73|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for neonatal death in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.73|0.38|
84733347|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of nervous system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.24|0.81|
84733348|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.29|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of eye in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.29|1.06|
84733349|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.55|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of ear, face or neck in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||2.55|1.59|
84733350|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of cardiovascular system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infant cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.31|0.96|
84733351|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.68|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of respiratory system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.68|1.07|
84733352|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||||95.0|0.78|2.57|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for clefts in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.57|0.78|
84733353|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.95|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of upper gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.95|1.57|
84733354|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of lower gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.12|0.36|
84733355|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.42|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of genital organs in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.42|1.01|
84733356|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of renal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||1.88|1.04|
84733357|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||||95.0|1.21|1.86|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of musculoskeletal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.86|1.21|
84733358|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of limb in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.52|0.85|
84733359|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.23|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of integument in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.23|1.76|
84733360|NCT03463577|169219479|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for other and unspecified congenital anomalies in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.85|0.64|
84733361|NCT03974100|169219483|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PPS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.509|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.509|-0.798|
84496974|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.050
84480113|NCT01783470|168711541|EQUIVALENCE|All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon sign-ranks test|||Since the sample size of twelve subjects limited the ability to demonstrate that measurements were normally distributed, we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-ranks test to assess the primary and secondary endpoints. All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||0.001
84733362|NCT03974100|169219484|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set TP1 FAS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\] (criteria 1) or in \[-2.00%, 2.00%\] (criteria 2)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.475|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.475|-0.830|
84733363|NCT03974100|169219485|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
84733364|NCT03974100|169219485|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
84733365|NCT03974100|169219486|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed Cmax including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.03|0.92|
84733366|NCT03974100|169219487|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUCinf including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.05|0.93|
84733367|NCT00014222|169219533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0007
84733368|NCT00014222|169219534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.084
84496975|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
84733369|NCT03398421|169219545|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|2.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.807|2.224||||||||2.224|1.807|
84733370|NCT03398421|169219552|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.933||||||||0.933|0.690|
84733371|NCT02485899|169219636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||0.33|0.06|<0.0001
84733372|NCT02485899|169219637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||||<0.0001
84733373|NCT00623363|169219651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503|||||||Monte Carlo estimates|||Baseline (Day -7)||||0.503
84733374|NCT00623363|169219651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|39.37||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||39.37|1.82|
84733375|NCT00623363|169219651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|22.37||||||Change from Baseline||22.37|-15.18|
84733376|NCT00623363|169219651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|36.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.04|49.14||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||49.14|24.04|
84733377|NCT00623363|169219651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|19.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|32.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline||32.14|7.04|0.160
84733378|NCT01062269|169219667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Differences between test products were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance. If sequence was not found to be statistically significant(p\>0.05),then it was removed from the final model.|measures analysis of variance|Differences between test powders assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons between treatments by Scheffe procedure.||"The BASA scale components were derived from the parameters best shown to differentiate acceptability between different BAS preparations (taste and texture),as well as other parameters useful for differentiating between different BAS preparations(appearance and mixability). The scale was then weighted based upon an Importance of Acceptability questionnaire regarding the individual scale components. The developed scale should reasonably allow for future comparisons of differing BAS formulations."||||<0.05
84733379|NCT01174264|169219672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.34|1.30|0.003
84733380|NCT01174264|169219672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.44||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|0.81|0.65
84733381|NCT01174264|169219673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.42|1.25|0.008
84733382|NCT01174264|169219673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.49|0.84|0.51
84733383|NCT01174264|169219675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84733384|NCT01174264|169219675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84733385|NCT01174264|169219676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84733386|NCT01174264|169219676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84733387|NCT01174264|169219677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.38|0.97|0.17
84733388|NCT01174264|169219678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.35|0.95|0.25
84733389|NCT01174264|169219679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.22||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.48||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.48|1.00|0.096
84733390|NCT01174264|169219680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84733391|NCT02604342|169219683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Stratified log-rank test||Estimated hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model with treatment group as covariate.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
84733392|NCT02604342|169219684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in C-ORR|0.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence interval of the difference (alectinib - chemotherapy) computed using Hauck-Anderson approach.||0.86|0.39|<0.001
84733393|NCT01702519|169219707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25|Treatment Ratio|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.982|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the two treatments.||0.982|0.912|
84496976|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
84733394|NCT01702519|169219708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25.|Treatment Ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments.||1.00|0.92|
84733395|NCT03738397|169219713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|16.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||16.7|2.6|0.007
84733396|NCT03738397|169219714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-18.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.753|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.61|-12.8||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-12.80|-23.61|<0.001
84733397|NCT03738397|169219715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|26.0||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||26.0|14.8|<0.001
84733398|NCT03738397|169219716|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.6||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||28.6|13.8|<0.001
84733399|NCT03738397|169219717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-21.78||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-21.78|-34.25|<0.001
84733400|NCT03738397|169219718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|32.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||32.7|19.3|<0.001
84733401|NCT03738397|169219719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-18.02||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-18.02|-28.03|<0.001
84480114|NCT02911519|168711544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis. The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk.|||1.16|0.77|0.59
84733402|NCT03738397|169219720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.3||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||27.3|12.4|<0.001
84733403|NCT01185171|169219737|NON_INFERIORITY|The power of the study was conducted as a two-stage, non-inferiority phase II trial with a total sample size of 59 patients to detect a 15% lower rate than 80% achieved with TFHX, with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20. In the first stage, 25 patients were recruited, with a plan to terminate if 16 or less complete responses (CR) were observed. Otherwise, additional 34 patients would be recruited and the treatment would be deemed not inferior to historical if more than 45 CRs were observed.|proportion|0.88|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95||Ho: CR rate = 0.65 vs Ha: CR rate \> 0.65|Binomial test for a proportion|||||0.95|0.77|< 0.01
84733404|NCT03559829|169219744|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.025
84733405|NCT03559829|169219745|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
84733406|NCT03559829|169219746|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.3
84733407|NCT03559829|169219747|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.098
84733408|NCT03559829|169219748|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2
84733409|NCT03559829|169219749|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.07
84733410|NCT00953199|169219832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||.05 was set as level of significance|Chi-squared|||We calculated the sample size to be 570 in each arm, providing 80% power, allocation 1:1, two-sided, alpha 0.05, withdrawal rate of 3% and a reduction in pancreatitis from 8% to 4%. Randomization is performed with permuted blocks of 20. Analysis is based on intention to treat.||||.45
84733411|NCT00097669|169219847|SUPERIORITY|"We used Kaplan-Meier methods to construct cumulative time-to-event curves for the two groups, with a comparison by use of the log-rank test.~We used a Cox proportional hazard model analysis to control for any potential imbalance in baseline characteristics and follow-up between the two groups."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.82|0.05
84733412|NCT00097669|169219847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Analysis before adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.00|0.81|<0.05
84733413|NCT00097669|169219847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Analysis after adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.03|0.81|<0.05
84733414|NCT00143598|169219872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for centre||||1.76|.73|.58
84480115|NCT02911519|168711545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk. This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||1.10|0.87|0.73
84733415|NCT03898700|169219894|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Performance scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
84733416|NCT03898700|169219894|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Satisfaction scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
84733417|NCT02808975|169219914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.049
84733418|NCT02808975|169219915|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.067
84733419|NCT02808975|169219916|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.003
84733420|NCT02808975|169219917|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313|||||||ANCOVA|Across all strata, P-values are calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||||=0.313
84733421|NCT02808975|169219918|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.746
84733422|NCT00511836|169219931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|2e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0.||||<0.00002
84733423|NCT00511836|169219934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||<0.013
84733424|NCT00511836|169219935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||0.245
84733425|NCT00362375|169219962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||GEE cluster-adjusted odds ratio||4.50|1.28|<0.05
84733426|NCT00362375|169219963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.16|||GEE|||||1.16|0.20|<0.05
84733427|NCT00362375|169219964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.95|||GEE|||||1.95|0.99|<0.05
84733428|NCT00362375|169219965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.44|||GEE|GEE incident rate ratio||||1.44|0.80|<0.05
84733429|NCT00362375|169219966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71|||GEE|||||2.71|0.76|<0.05
84733430|NCT02106195|169219971|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline to Day 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-3.7|0.324
84733431|NCT01663506|169219993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||<0.01
84733432|NCT01663506|169219993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
84733433|NCT01663506|169219993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733434|NCT01663506|169219995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
84480116|NCT02911519|168711546|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.39|-0.36|0.94
84733435|NCT01663506|169219995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
84733436|NCT01663506|169219996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
84733437|NCT01663506|169219996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
84733438|NCT01663506|169219998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
84733439|NCT01663506|169219998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733440|NCT01663506|169219999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733441|NCT01663506|169220001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
84733442|NCT01663506|169220001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733443|NCT01663506|169220002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
84733444|NCT01663506|169220002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733445|NCT01663506|169220004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
84480117|NCT02911519|168711546|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.18|-0.57|0.30
84480118|NCT02911519|168711548|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.17|-0.10|0.61
84733446|NCT01663506|169220004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
84733447|NCT01663506|169220004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
84733448|NCT01663506|169220004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
84733449|NCT01663506|169220005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
84733450|NCT01663506|169220005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
84733451|NCT01663506|169220006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
84733452|NCT01663506|169220006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
84733453|NCT01161446|169220041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84733454|NCT01161446|169220042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority bound: Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio fell below 2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.90|0.61|
84480119|NCT02911519|168711549|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|Slope|0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|||0.30|-0.38|0.81
84496977|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84496978|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0133
84733455|NCT01161446|169220043|NON_INFERIORITY|Home testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing with respect to STI prevalence if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two arms (home - standard) fell below 10%.|Difference in proportions|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.16|
84733456|NCT01161446|169220044|NON_INFERIORITY|Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior with respect to the number of reported male CAI partners if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the fold-difference in the number of partners between the two arms (self ÷ standard testing) fell below 2.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Poisson regression|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.33|0.64|
84733457|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.6||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||1.0|-6.2|0.887
84733458|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||3.2|-2.6|0.431
84733459|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.0||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||3.4|-5.4|0.647
84733460|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|6.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||6.0|-1.1|0.130
84733461|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||2.0|-6.9|0.818
84733462|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||4.1|-3.6|0.457
84733463|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-3.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||0.8|-6.9|0.906
84733464|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-0.4||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||3.3|-4.1|0.566
84480120|NCT02911519|168711549|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|Slope|-0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|||0.29|-0.38|0.81
84480121|NCT02911519|168711549|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|Slope|0.16||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|||0.65|-0.33|0.52
84480122|NCT02911519|168711549|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|Slope|0.19||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|||0.53|-0.15|0.27
84480123|NCT02911519|168711550|SUPERIORITY|This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|||0.01|-0.01|0.33
84480124|NCT02911519|168711550|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|||0.01|-0.02|0.19
84480125|NCT02911519|168711551|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.19|-0.19|0.97
84480126|NCT00443846|168711557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference (Group 1 - Group 2) in seroprotection rate was greater than -10%.|Difference (Group 1 - Group 2)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||||||Analysis of non-inferiority was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method||3.7|-3.7|
84480127|NCT03437044|168711558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||0.001
84480128|NCT03437044|168711559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||<0.001
84480129|NCT02665468|168711567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84480130|NCT02052141|168711581|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.10|-0.71|0.03
84480131|NCT02052141|168711582|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.11|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.11|-1.20|0.05
84480132|NCT02052141|168711583|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|-0.38|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.38|-3.31|0.04
84480133|NCT02052141|168711584|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated|||-0.03|-0.41|0.07
84480134|NCT03000686|168711595|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|2.295|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||2.295|-2.249|
84480135|NCT03000686|168711595|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.168|1.146|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||1.146|-9.168|
84480136|NCT03000686|168711595|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4927|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|7.231|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for immediately post-exercise|||7.231|-10.576|
84480137|NCT03000686|168711595|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|2.506|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||2.506|-4.142|
84480138|NCT03000686|168711596|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.662|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|3.815|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||3.815|-5.037|
84480139|NCT03000686|168711596|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.796|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|4.027|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||4.027|-9.729|
84480140|NCT03000686|168711596|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.475|8.086|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 2 minutes post-exercise start|||8.086|-8.475|
84480141|NCT03000686|168711596|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.386|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||4.386|-4.960|
84496979|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
84672062|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.045|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.045|-0.117|0.0002
84672063|NCT04206293|169079375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.052|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.052|-0.103|<0.0001
84672064|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.022|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.022|-0.038|0.5786
84672065|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.002|-0.049|0.0690
84672066|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.012|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.012|-0.054|0.1934
84672067|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.006|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.006|-0.062|0.0194
84672068|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.028|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.028|-0.001|0.0652
84672069|NCT04206293|169079376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.024|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.024|-0.001|0.0756
84672070|NCT04206293|169079377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||5.10|-6.19|0.8409
84672071|NCT04206293|169079377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.35|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||8.35|-9.18|0.9183
84672072|NCT04206293|169079378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.0||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|282.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||282|-142|0.4128
84672073|NCT04206293|169079378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.0||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.0|191.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||191|-355|0.3851
84672074|NCT04206293|169079379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|13.93|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||13.93|-0.89|0.0798
84672075|NCT04206293|169079379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.67|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||12.67|-1.55|0.1142
84672076|NCT04206293|169079380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.71|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.71|-0.78|0.2592
84672077|NCT04206293|169079380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.57|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.57|-0.38|0.1341
84672078|NCT04206293|169079380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.61|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 28||15.61|-3.79|0.2138
84672079|NCT04206293|169079380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|17.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 84||17.20|-0.77|0.0700
84672080|NCT04206293|169079381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.91|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.91|-4.70|0.9608
84672081|NCT04206293|169079381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.64|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||4.64|-7.48|0.6192
84672082|NCT04206293|169079382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.16|-0.20|0.8322
84672083|NCT04206293|169079382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.04|-0.25|0.1334
84672084|NCT04206293|169079383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|11.38|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||11.38|-21.56|0.5221
84733465|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||3.1|-5.6|0.686
84733466|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||5.2|-2.5|0.280
84733467|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.4||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.4|-6.3|0.849
84733468|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||5.2|-2.2|0.254
84733469|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.7||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.3|-6.6|0.866
84733470|NCT03927690|169220069|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||5.8|-1.9|0.198
84733471|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.2||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.33|1.08|0.998
84733472|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.09|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.09|0.92|0.527
84733473|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||1.33|1.10|0.999
84672085|NCT04206293|169079383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|24.03|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||24.03|-10.55|0.4174
84672086|NCT04206293|169079384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.44|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||8.44|-2.90|0.3052
84672087|NCT04206293|169079384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|15.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||15.50|4.48|0.0016
84672088|NCT04206293|169079385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.73|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.73|-0.33|0.1672
84672089|NCT04206293|169079385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.21|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.21|-0.10|0.0881
84672090|NCT04206293|169079386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.17|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.17|-0.02|0.0577
84672091|NCT04206293|169079386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.45|-0.85|0.5224
84672092|NCT04206293|169079387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.2|-0.6|0.2666
84672093|NCT04206293|169079387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.7|-0.3|0.4366
84672094|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.3|-0.6|0.4197
84672095|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.5|-0.6|0.9140
84672096|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-0.6|0.7604
84672097|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.6|-1.0|0.5936
84672098|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.1|-0.9|0.0808
84672099|NCT04206293|169079388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.2|-1.0|0.1633
84672100|NCT04206293|169079389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-1.6|0.1977
84672101|NCT04206293|169079389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-2.2|0.7535
84672102|NCT04206293|169079390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|12.85|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||12.85|-4.16|0.2905
84672103|NCT04206293|169079390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|31.69|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||31.69|2.84|0.0241
84672104|NCT02075840|169079472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, stratified|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||Log Rank|||Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||0.65|0.34|<0.0001
84672105|NCT02075840|169079474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||||0.70|0.36|<0.0001
84672106|NCT02075840|169079476|SUPERIORITY|IRC, RECIST v1.1 Stratified Analysis (by race (Asian vs non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC)|Cause-Specific Hazard Ratio|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.10|<0.0001
84672107|NCT02075840|169079478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|7.4||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|16.5||Stratified analysis|Mantel Haenszel|||||16.50|-1.71|0.0936
84672108|NCT02075840|169079480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.48|0.2405
84672109|NCT02075840|169079491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.19|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis||Fatigue||1.19|0.46|0.2079
84672110|NCT02075840|169079491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||3.15|0.88|0.1137
84672111|NCT02075840|169079493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Coughing||1.74|0.44|0.7042
84672112|NCT02075840|169079493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.92||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||2.92|1.05|0.0285
84672113|NCT02075840|169079493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.61||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in arm and shoulder||2.61|0.79|0.2377
84672114|NCT02075840|169079493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.1||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in chest||1.10|0.24|0.0796
84672115|NCT02075840|169079493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Composite score||1.68|0.72|0.6435
84672116|NCT02775344|169079504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.198
84672117|NCT02775344|169079505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.393
84672118|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.21||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf Geometric Mean (GM) / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.21|0.56|
84672119|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.98||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.98|1.00|
84672120|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.11||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.11|0.60|
84672121|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.56|0.96|
84672122|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.62||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.62|1.03|
84542873|NCT00395161|168837887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Rate analysis (see comments)|95% CIs were calculated for rates in each arm, and rates compared between arms, via approach of DR Cox, Biometrika (1953), vol 40, pp. 354-60.||Null hypothesis of equal event rates in the two study arms.||||0.81
84733474|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.03||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.12|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||1.12|0.95|0.716
84733475|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.31|1.13|1.000
84733476|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.98||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.05|0.91|0.281
84733477|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.46|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.46|1.20|1.000
84733478|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.04|0.88|0.200
84733479|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.28|1.09|1.000
84733480|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.01|0.87|0.083
84733481|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|1.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.38|1.14|1.000
84733482|NCT03927690|169220075|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.06|0.88|0.254
84733483|NCT01844726|169220119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in BOLD signal activation across task derived learning circuit were compared between GLYX-13 and placebo groups using an independent group t-test.||||.10
84733484|NCT01844726|169220120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.57
84733485|NCT00236184|169220147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84733486|NCT01101997|169220148|SUPERIORITY||sucess proportion|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.91|||Chi-squared|||H0: p= 0.6 and Ha: p ≠ 0.6||.910|.773|<0.001
84733487|NCT01101997|169220149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84733488|NCT00469456|169220151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.07||95.0|-0.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 12 in FLCI total score. Missing FLCI total scores at Week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||2.8|-0.1|0.070
84733489|NCT00469456|169220152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.022||95.0|0.9|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 12 in the total score of the Social Communication subscale and Communication of Basic Needs subscale of the ASHA FACS. Missing scores at week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||10.9|0.9|0.022
84733490|NCT00704171|169220181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of PleuraSeal as an adjunct compared to standard of care alone. Tissue closure rates for the treatment and control groups were assumed to be 0.40 and 0.15, respectively. To achieve 80 percent power (alpha=0.05, 2-tailed, Fisher's Exact Test) required 112 completed subjects. To account for potential subject withdrawals, an additional 8 subjects were to be enrolled for a total of 120 randomized subjects (approx. 60 per treatment group).||||0.257
84733491|NCT00704171|169220182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.001
84733492|NCT00704171|169220183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Kaplan-Meier|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times for each treatment group and the log-rank test was used to compare the two treatments.||||||0.790
84733493|NCT00704171|169220184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.559
84733494|NCT00704171|169220185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.292
84733495|NCT00704171|169220186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84733496|NCT00704171|169220186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 2 or 3|Fisher Exact|||||||.013
84733497|NCT00913068|169220189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
84733498|NCT04269434|169220240|NON_INFERIORITY|"The No Screening Arm is considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval is less than 1.25"|Incidence rate ratio|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.627||||||Compared to screening group||1.627|1.068|
84733499|NCT04269434|169220241|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.863||||||For Azithromycin. Compared to screening group||0.863|0.719|
84733500|NCT04269434|169220241|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|0.739||||||For Ceftriaxone. Compared to screening group||0.739|0.426|
84733501|NCT04269434|169220241|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.588||||||For Doxycycline. Compared to screening group||0.588|0.515|
84733502|NCT04269434|169220242|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.956||||||Compared to screening group||1.956|0.963|
84733503|NCT04269434|169220243|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.299||||||Compared to screening group||2.299|0.943|
84733504|NCT01664923|169220250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the case report form (CRF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.320|0.181|<0.0001
84480142|NCT03000686|168711603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|0.973|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||0.973|-1.264|
84480143|NCT03000686|168711603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.271|2.942|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||2.942|-5.271|
84480144|NCT03000686|168711603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.169|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.624|4.258|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation immediately post-exercise is presented.|||4.258|-4.624|
84480145|NCT03000686|168711603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.367|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.498|0.753|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.753|-1.498|
84480146|NCT03000686|168711604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|1.968|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||1.968|-1.578|
84480147|NCT03000686|168711604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|7.495|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||7.495|-0.001|
84480148|NCT03000686|168711604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.673|4.578|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 2 minutes post-exercise start is presented.|||4.578|-6.673|
84496980|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0265
84496981|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1613||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1613
84496982|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2644||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2644
84496983|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000005
84480149|NCT03000686|168711604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.873|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.669|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.669|-2.380|
84480150|NCT01484561|168711657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold Change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.86|
84480151|NCT01484561|168711658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.11|0.97|
84480152|NCT01484561|168711659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.16|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.16|1.02|
84480153|NCT01484561|168711660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.97|0.91|
84733505|NCT01664923|169220251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.264||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the CRF.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.264|0.137|<0.0001
84733506|NCT01664923|169220252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Comparison of the 2 treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Enzalutamide response rate minus bicalutamide response rate.|||58.5|41.4|<0.0001
84733507|NCT01664923|169220253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.497|||Log Rank|P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox-regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.497|0.211|<0.0001
84733508|NCT01664923|169220254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.192||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||1.192|0.695|0.4945
84733509|NCT01664923|169220255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|46.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.79|65.3||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.||||65.30|26.79|<0.0001
84733510|NCT00364377|169220257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (within groups) to examine differences between the baseline study and after 8-weeks of treatment were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for paired samples. Between-group comparisons were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for unpaired samples. Given the previously observed variation in fasting glucose||||>0.05
84733511|NCT03672175|169220271|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)||1.3|-2.0|0.6638
84733512|NCT03672175|169220271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.3|-3.1|0.1158
84480154|NCT01484561|168711661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.96|
84480155|NCT01484561|168711662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.00|
84480156|NCT01484561|168711663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|0.98|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.92|
84496984|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7385||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7385
84496985|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84733513|NCT03672175|169220272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.4|0.6905
84733514|NCT03672175|169220272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.1082
84480157|NCT01484561|168711664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.97|
84733515|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||0.9|-1.7|0.5725
84733516|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||-0.3|-2.8|0.0160
84733517|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||0.9|-2.1|0.4450
84733518|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||-0.5|-3.6|0.0081
84733519|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.1|-1.6|0.8219
84733520|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.6|-2.0|0.8166
84733521|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||2.0|-2.3|0.9000
84480158|NCT01484561|168711665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.07|1.01|
84733522|NCT03672175|169220273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||1.3|-2.7|0.5004
84733523|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.63||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15: Generalized estimating equation (GEE)||1.63|0.65|0.8903
84733524|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.25|0.91|0.1207
84480159|NCT01484561|168711666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.02|
84733525|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.70|0.67|0.7897
84733526|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.76||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.76|0.69|0.6837
84733527|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.53|0.51|0.6602
84480160|NCT01484561|168711667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.04|0.98|
84480161|NCT01484561|168711668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.00|0.94|
84496986|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6813
84496987|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
84480162|NCT01484561|168711669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|48.73||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 1||48.73|23.60|<0.001
84480163|NCT01484561|168711669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.56|29.34||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 2||29.34|2.56|0.050
84480164|NCT01484561|168711670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.24|30.8||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 1||30.80|11.24|<0.001
84480165|NCT01484561|168711670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.92|27.08||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 2||27.08|6.92|0.006
84480166|NCT01484561|168711671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.06|25.05||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 1||25.05|12.06|<0.001
84480167|NCT01484561|168711671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|13.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 2||13.12|1.51|0.038
84480168|NCT01484561|168711672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.78||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.78|-1.53|<0.001
84480169|NCT01484561|168711673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.83|0.028
84480170|NCT01484561|168711674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|0.32|0.002
84480171|NCT01484561|168711675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.84|-1.67|<0.001
84480172|NCT01484561|168711676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.88|0.031
84480173|NCT01484561|168711677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.15|0.36|0.002
84480174|NCT01484561|168711678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.44|-0.74||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.74|-7.44|0.045
84480175|NCT01484561|168711679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|3.06||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.06|-2.78|0.936
84480176|NCT01484561|168711680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.42||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||7.42|1.04|0.030
84496988|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2237||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
84496989|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5774
84542874|NCT00395161|168837888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84542875|NCT00395161|168837889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84542876|NCT00395161|168837890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84542877|NCT01610492|168837891|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01||||||||1.01|0.57|
84480177|NCT01484561|168711681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.55||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.55|-3.96|0.030
84480178|NCT01484561|168711682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|-2.64|0.472
84480179|NCT01484561|168711683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.15|-0.24|0.158
84480180|NCT01484561|168711684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.87|-7.59||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.59|-19.87|<0.001
84496990|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
84496991|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2502||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2502
84733528|NCT03672175|169220274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.69||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.69|0.56|0.9268
84733529|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.83|0.62|0.8245
84733530|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.67||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.67|0.95|0.0756
84733531|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||2.01|0.70|0.5309
84733532|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.66||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.66|0.56|0.9085
84733533|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.44|0.73|0.3476
84733534|NCT03672175|169220275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.57||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.57|0.82|0.2060
84733535|NCT03672175|169220276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||1.65|0.67|0.8303
84733536|NCT03672175|169220276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.24||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||2.24|0.91|0.1199
84733537|NCT03672175|169220277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.9|-1.9|0.5021
84733538|NCT03672175|169220277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|0.2868
84480181|NCT01484561|168711685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.58|-2.21||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-2.21|-15.58|0.029
84496992|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5224
84733539|NCT03672175|169220278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5987
84733540|NCT03672175|169220278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.7|-4.7|0.1443
84733541|NCT03672175|169220279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.0|-3.3|0.8499
84733542|NCT03672175|169220279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.8|-4.6|0.6265
84733543|NCT03672175|169220279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.5|-3.2|0.7418
84733544|NCT03672175|169220279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.3|-4.3|0.7837
84733545|NCT03672175|169220280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.7|-4.1|0.6848
84733546|NCT03672175|169220280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.6|-6.1|0.1100
84733547|NCT03672175|169220280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.9|-2.4|0.5090
84733548|NCT03672175|169220280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.7|-3.2|0.8948
84480182|NCT01484561|168711686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|9.77||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||9.77|-0.10|0.107
84480183|NCT01484561|168711687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.96|-7.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.84|-23.96|0.001
84480184|NCT01484561|168711688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.9|2.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.50|-13.90|0.251
84496993|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84496994|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84733549|NCT03672175|169220281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.3|-4.5|0.9591
84733550|NCT03672175|169220281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.0|-7.0|0.2713
84480185|NCT01484561|168711689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|17.52||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.52|2.87|0.023
84480186|NCT01484561|168711690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.58|-8.67||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-8.67|-21.58|<0.001
84480187|NCT01484561|168711691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|5.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||5.50|-10.30|0.616
84733551|NCT03672175|169220281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||5.4|-4.2|0.8048
84733552|NCT03672175|169220281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.9|-5.3|0.7665
84733553|NCT03672175|169220282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.1|-3.4|0.8575
84733554|NCT03672175|169220282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.3|-6.3|0.1978
84733555|NCT03672175|169220282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.3|-3.9|0.9298
84480188|NCT01484561|168711692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.82|19.62||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||19.62|5.82|0.003
84480189|NCT01484561|168711693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.78|-7.82||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.82|-22.78|<0.001
84733556|NCT03672175|169220282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.8|-5.2|0.5487
84733557|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.2|0.6270
84480190|NCT01484561|168711694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.62|2.38||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.38|-13.62|0.247
84480191|NCT01484561|168711695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|17.41||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.41|1.95|0.040
84480192|NCT01484561|168711696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.23||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.23|-0.56|<0.001
84480193|NCT01484561|168711697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|-0.03||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.03|-0.31|0.053
84672123|NCT03909165|169079513|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.13||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.13|0.70|
84496995|NCT00448630|168745245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8166
84542878|NCT01610492|168837892|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58||||||||0.58|0.12|
84672124|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.23|0.67|
84733558|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.5463
84480194|NCT01484561|168711698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.35||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||0.35|0.10|0.003
84733559|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.3|0.8716
84733560|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.4383
84733561|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.4794
84480195|NCT03371251|168711700|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: SRI-4 Response||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
84480196|NCT03371251|168711700|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: \>= 4-Point Reduction from Baseline in SLEDAI-2K Global Score||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
84542879|NCT03093259|168837945|OTHER|One-sided 10% significance level||||||0.2096|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2096
84480197|NCT03371251|168711700|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No New BILAG A or More than One BILAG B Organ Score Compared with Baseline||30.9|4.5|0.0141
84480198|NCT03371251|168711700|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No Deterioration from Baseline in PGA by \>=30mm||30.9|4.5|0.0141
84480199|NCT03371251|168711716|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-2.6||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|14.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||14.5|-19.8|0.7985
84542880|NCT03093259|168837946|OTHER|||||||0.1588|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1588
84542881|NCT03093259|168837947|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4830
84542882|NCT03093259|168837948|OTHER|||||||0.0742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0742
84733562|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.2|-0.2|0.9717
84672125|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.69||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.69|0.92|
84672126|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.08||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.08|0.64|
84672127|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.06||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.06|0.70|
84672128|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.29||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.29|0.89|
84672129|NCT03909165|169079514|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.17||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.17|0.80|
84672130|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.4||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.40|0.61|
84672131|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.7||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||1.70|0.70|
84672132|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.36||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.36|0.63|
84672133|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.26||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.26|0.70|
84672134|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.89||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||0.89|0.52|
84672135|NCT03909165|169079516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.43||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.43|0.83|
84672136|NCT03909165|169079521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age groups.|Log Rank|||The Hazard Ratio (HR) for the pairwise comparison of Sugammadex 2 mg/kg vs. Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with covariates of treatment, age (continuous) and stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent.||4.18|1.37|= 0.0002
84672137|NCT03909165|169079522|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|29.5||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 2 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||29.5|-14.2|
84672138|NCT03909165|169079522|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|26.7||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 4 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||26.7|-13.5|
84672139|NCT00717769|169079545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.519
84672140|NCT00717769|169079545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.032
84672141|NCT00717769|169079545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.008
84672142|NCT00717769|169079545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.006
84672143|NCT00717769|169079547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.533
84672144|NCT00717769|169079547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.009
84672145|NCT00717769|169079547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.002
84672146|NCT00717769|169079547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.003
84672147|NCT02321462|169079568|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference was higher than the predefined noninferiority margin (-15%).|Adjusted difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.29|||||To investigate noninferiority of Eziclen compared to Fortrans®, the adjusted difference between these 2 groups was calculated with 95% CI of the adjusted difference.|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status (No IBD, IBD) was used.||3.29|-4.22|
84672148|NCT02321462|169079569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.15|||=|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|A 2-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score.||0.28|0.02|=0.0249
84672149|NCT02321462|169079569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.22|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score.||0.22|0.01|=0.0382
84672150|NCT02321462|169079569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.06|||=|0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Left Colon BBPS Score.||0.16|-0.04|=0.2538
84480200|NCT03371251|168711717|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-6.9||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|9.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||9.8|-22.9|0.3498
84480201|NCT03371251|168711718|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-21.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.2|-7.4|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical analysis for Overall||-7.4|-36.2|0.0072
84480202|NCT03371251|168711718|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.9|-4.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||-4.5|-30.9|0.0141
84480203|NCT03371251|168711719|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|4.9||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|20.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||20.5|-10.7|0.6107
84480204|NCT03371251|168711720|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|15.4||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|31.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||31.8|-0.9|0.1237
84480205|NCT03371251|168711721|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-13.7||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|-0.7|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||-0.7|-26.7|0.0581
84480206|NCT03371251|168711721|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-14.3||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|3.2|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||3.2|-31.2|0.0471
84480207|NCT03371251|168711722|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.94|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-A (Total Activity)||0.94|-1.63|0.6596
84480208|NCT03371251|168711722|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.81|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-B (Total Damage)||0.81|-0.27|0.4105
84480209|NCT03371251|168711723|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|7.58|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 210||7.58|-6.07|0.8546
84480210|NCT03371251|168711724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|1.71|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Swelling for Day 210||1.71|-0.63|0.4455
84672151|NCT02321462|169079569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.33|||=|0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.62|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Global BBPS Score.||0.62|0.04|=0.0256
84480211|NCT03371251|168711724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|2.47|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Tenderness for Day 210||2.47|-0.65|0.3367
84480212|NCT03371251|168711724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.86|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Active Joints for Day 210||1.86|-0.34|0.2550
84480213|NCT03371251|168711725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.93|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|||1.93|-0.34|0.2498
84480214|NCT03371251|168711726|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 180||0.12|-0.02|0.2558
84480215|NCT03371251|168711727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120 mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.88|0.18|0.0479
84480216|NCT03371251|168711729|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.92|31.7|||ANOVA||This is based on LS Means|||31.70|-22.92|0.7898
84480217|NCT03371251|168711730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.68|||Log-Rank Test (2-Sided)||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.68|0.16|0.0083
84480218|NCT04362813|168711732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5).||2.54|0.76|0.2874
84480219|NCT04362813|168711733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5)||1.50|0.30|0.3303
84480220|NCT01150760|168711740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
84480221|NCT01150760|168711741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84480222|NCT01150760|168711742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84480223|NCT01150760|168711743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1022
84480224|NCT01150760|168711744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84480225|NCT01150760|168711745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84480226|NCT01150760|168711746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
84480227|NCT01150760|168711747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0030
84480228|NCT01150760|168711748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7637
84480229|NCT01150760|168711749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.0402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0402
84480230|NCT01150760|168711750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0755|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0755
84480231|NCT01150760|168711751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0532|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0532
84480232|NCT01150760|168711752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84480233|NCT01150760|168711753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84480234|NCT01654523|168711774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change in the single arm trial|6.695|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.041|9.348|||Paired t-test|||||9.348|4.041|<0.05
84672152|NCT02321462|169079570|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.24|-0.02|=0.0840
84480235|NCT00971633|168711788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.028|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.028|0.796|
84480236|NCT00971633|168711788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.126|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.126|0.873|
84480237|NCT00971633|168711789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K.) ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.966|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||0.966|0.813|
84480238|NCT00971633|168711789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|§ Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.037|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally. Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.037|0.872|
84480239|NCT01998399|168711790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total enrollment only 25 patients and the study was terminated early due to low enrollment. No further statistical analysis was done.||||0.41
84480240|NCT02690168|168711806|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
84480241|NCT02690168|168711807|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.477
84480242|NCT02690168|168711808|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.917
84480243|NCT02690168|168711810|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84480244|NCT01062009|168711818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square analysis comparing number of participants with new fever in each group||||0.24
84480245|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test.||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and IOLM||||0.09
84480246|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and LS||||<0.001
84480247|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between IOLM and LS||||<0.0001
84480248|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing CCT between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
84542883|NCT03093259|168837949|OTHER|||||||0.0462|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0462
84571050|NCT04465422|168893236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Occupational Competence(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Competence scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client is able to sustain a pattern of occupational behavior that is productive and satisfying.||2.11|0.38|0.006
84571051|NCT04465422|168893236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Occupational Behavior Settings(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate greater performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Behavior Settings scale addresses the impact of the environment on the person's occupational life.||1.35|-0.19|0.136
84733563|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3701
84733564|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3972
84733565|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.5761
84733566|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.4379
84733567|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.6087
84733568|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.9791
84733569|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2093
84733570|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.5189
84733571|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.2|-0.2|0.6617
84733572|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.3|-0.1|0.2632
84733573|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2740
84733574|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.0|-0.3|0.1185
84733575|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.2|-0.2|0.9450
84480249|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
84480250|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and LS||||<0.01
84480251|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between IOLM and LS||||0.02
84480252|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing LT between G6 and LS||||<0.01
84480253|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
84480254|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
84480255|NCT01961089|168711820|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between IOLM and LS||||<0.001
84480256|NCT01961089|168711821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeatability was determined with random effect ANOVAs (estimates of random effects). They were calculated as the square root of the sum of the (Device x EyeID) interaction component plus (EyeID) and (Device) variance components plus the residual variance component. A (Device x Operator) interaction component was not assessed because each device was consistently operated by the same operator such that there was no Device x Operator interaction component. CV = Coefficient of Variation = SD/mean.||||0.05
84480257|NCT01961089|168711822|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.13|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and IOLM||||0.13
84480258|NCT01961089|168711822|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and LS||||0.25
84480259|NCT01961089|168711822|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between IOLM and LS||||0.21
84480260|NCT01468701|168711824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.90|0.60|
84480261|NCT01468701|168711826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.98|0.63|
84480262|NCT01468701|168711827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.11|0.57|
84480263|NCT01468701|168711829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.14|0.57|
84480264|NCT01468701|168711837|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.73|0.38|
84480265|NCT01468701|168711841|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.57|0.60|
84480266|NCT01468701|168711843|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.80|0.54|
84480267|NCT00631540|168711856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Patency Rate|91.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.2|95.9|||Z-test, 1-sided||GEE model estimate.|Alternative hypothesis is 9-month primary patency rate greater than 60%.||95.9|84.2|<0.0001
84603289|NCT01514240|168957158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.25|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.25|1.40|
84496996|NCT00448630|168745246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
84603290|NCT01514240|168957159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|9.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||9.72|3.56|
84480268|NCT00523614|168711933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Size of the study adapted to the use of DNG/EE in female fertile age. Market share of DNG/EE of 13% in Germany. Assuming that 30% of women in the fertile age range were current users of OCs, a prevalence of current use of DNG/EE of about 4% was estimated.~Based on these data the number of cases needed to exclude a twofold increased VTE risk was estimated at about 500-700 cases (based on four controls per case)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.05||95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: OR ≥ 2 (VTE of DNG/EE vs. other low-dose COC)||1.39|0.57|<0.05
84480269|NCT00671970|168712013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84480270|NCT00671970|168712014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.613
84672153|NCT02321462|169079570|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.18|-0.02|=0.1320
84480271|NCT00671970|168712015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84480272|NCT00671970|168712016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84672154|NCT02321462|169079571|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-6.94|||=|0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of polyps.||3.64|-17.53|=0.2199
84672155|NCT02321462|169079571|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.87|||=|0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of adenomas.||9.99|-6.25|=0.6325
84672156|NCT02321462|169079571|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-1.55|||=|0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|6.54|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of other lesions.||6.54|-9.64|=0.7086
84672157|NCT02321462|169079572|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.01|||=|0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||3.14|-3.12|=0.9927
84672158|NCT02321462|169079573|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-0.3|||=|0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||1.27|-1.88|=0.7039
84672159|NCT02321462|169079574|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||0.25|-0.05|=0.1891
84672160|NCT02321462|169079575|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|13.35|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|20.32|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||20.32|6.37|=0.0011
84672161|NCT00692770|169079590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||=|0.258329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.134||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.134|0.78|=0.258329
84672162|NCT00692770|169079591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||=|0.121383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|=0.121383
84672163|NCT00692770|169079592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.484742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.3||One-sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.3|0.761|=0.484742
84672164|NCT00692770|169079593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.052|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D index score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||0.052|0.025|<0.0001
84672165|NCT00692770|169079594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.978|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.797|4.159|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D VAS score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||4.159|1.797|<0.0001
84672166|NCT00692770|169079595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-HEP score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||6.7|3.5|<0.0001
84672167|NCT00692770|169079596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-G score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||3.6|1.4|<0.0001
84672168|NCT00692770|169079597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.965|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||1.965|1.241|
84672169|NCT00692770|169079598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.17|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.170|1.407|
84672170|NCT00692770|169079599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|2.018|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.018|1.206|
84672171|NCT01399593|169079642|SUPERIORITY||Proportion difference|-3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.3|||Fisher Exact|||||16.3|-23.9|0.76
84672172|NCT02633956|169079799|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|25.3||||||||25.30|2.28|
84480273|NCT00671970|168712017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84480274|NCT00671970|168712018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.179
84480275|NCT00671970|168712019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
84480276|NCT00633893|168712048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2225|0.4844||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4844|0.2225|<0.0001
84480277|NCT00633893|168712048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2475|0.5281||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat principle.||0.5281|0.2475|<0.0001
84480278|NCT00633893|168712049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|0.4395||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4395|0.1902|<0.0001
84480279|NCT00633893|168712049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3774|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2577|0.5525||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5525|0.2577|<0.0001
84480280|NCT00633893|168712050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2422|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1476|0.3975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3975|0.1476|<0.0001
84480281|NCT00633893|168712050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1861|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1062|0.3261||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3261|0.1062|<0.0001
84480282|NCT00633893|168712051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1844|0.4247||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4247|0.1844|<0.0001
84480283|NCT00633893|168712051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3653|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5338||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5338|0.2500|<0.0001
84672173|NCT02633956|169079799|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|20.3||||||||20.30|-2.18|
84672174|NCT02633956|169079799|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|32.92||||||||32.92|7.33|
84672175|NCT02633956|169079800|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.75||||||||0.75|0.07|
84672176|NCT02633956|169079800|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|-0.25|
84672177|NCT02633956|169079800|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.89||||||||0.89|0.14|
84672178|NCT02633956|169079801|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|103.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.58|242.81||||||||242.81|-35.58|
84480284|NCT00633893|168712052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1593|0.4292||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4292|0.1593|<0.0001
84480285|NCT00633893|168712052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2595|0.6079||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.6079|0.2595|<0.0001
84672179|NCT02633956|169079801|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|114.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|251.13||||||||251.13|-21.53|
84672180|NCT02633956|169079801|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|215.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.84|374.26||||||||374.26|55.84|
84672181|NCT01956110|169079813|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing pregnancy rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.1||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.1|-5.9|
84672182|NCT01956110|169079814|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing implantation rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.8||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.8|-6.1|
84672183|NCT01956110|169079815|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||3.4|-6.7|
84672184|NCT01956110|169079816|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.2||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.2|-7.0|
84672185|NCT01956110|169079817|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.001||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||||=0.001
84672186|NCT01956110|169079817|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.002||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||||=0.002
84672187|NCT01956110|169079818|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.291||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade)||||=0.291
84672188|NCT01956110|169079818|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.644||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe)||||=0.644
84672189|NCT01956110|169079818|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.005||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Preventive interventions||||=0.005
84733576|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.2|0.6343
84733577|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.3|0.3169
84733578|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.0|-0.4|0.0178
84733579|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.2|-0.2|0.8504
84733580|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.2|0.5647
84733581|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.3|0.5914
84733582|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4603
84733583|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.5637
84733584|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4638
84733585|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1846
84733586|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|-0.1|0.4837
84733587|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1178
84733588|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.1|-0.1|0.7888
84733589|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.1|-0.1|0.9496
84733590|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.0497
84733591|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.1|-0.2|0.4189
84733592|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.1342
84733593|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9202
84733594|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.0|-0.5|0.0260
84733595|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9370
84733596|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.8440
84733597|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4480
84733598|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.1|0.6345
84733599|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4123
84733600|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.2|0.7523
84733601|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6505
84733602|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.3|0.3674
84733603|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.2|-0.2|0.8360
84733604|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6870
84733605|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1364
84733606|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1578
84733607|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9062
84480286|NCT00633893|168712053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6087||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3653|1.0145||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0145|0.3653|0.1084
84480287|NCT00633893|168712053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6846||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4164|1.1257||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1257|0.4164|0.1329
84733608|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.8596
84733609|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9488
84733610|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1514
84733611|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.2|0.5796
84733612|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.3|0.4739
84733613|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.1|0.9439
84733614|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.2|0.3891
84733615|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0308
84733616|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0620
84733617|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.7744
84733618|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.9312
84733619|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.3105
84733620|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.8406
84733621|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.4834
84733622|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.0961
84733623|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.8290
84480288|NCT00633893|168712054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.647||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3543|1.1813||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1813|0.3543|0.3059
84480289|NCT00633893|168712054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9416||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5458|1.6245||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.6245|0.5458|0.8288
84480290|NCT00633893|168712055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5794||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3215|1.0443||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0443|0.3215|0.1316
84480291|NCT00633893|168712055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8433||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4959|1.4341||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.4341|0.4959|0.5288
84480292|NCT00633893|168712056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6577||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3874|1.1169||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1169|0.3874|0.2361
84480293|NCT00633893|168712056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7708||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4631|1.2832||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.2832|0.4631|0.3155
84480294|NCT00633893|168712058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.485||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0891|2.6391||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Treated participants with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.6391|0.0891|0.3925
84480295|NCT00633893|168712058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2457||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0269|2.2437||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Participants treated with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.2437|0.0269|0.3551
84480296|NCT00633893|168712059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2027||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6897|2.0975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.0975|0.6897|0.5148
84480297|NCT00633893|168712059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.616||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9554|2.7336||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.7336|0.9554|0.1412
84480298|NCT00633893|168712060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2928||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7158|2.3348||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3348|0.7158|0.3932
84733624|NCT03672175|169220283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.9546
84733625|NCT03672175|169220284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.7|0.1308
84733626|NCT03672175|169220284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.5||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.5|-3.5|0.0096
84733627|NCT03672175|169220284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.7|-0.7|0.2674
84733628|NCT03672175|169220284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.7|-1.7|0.9771
84733629|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||6.4|-10.9|0.6110
84733630|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||0.3|-16.2|0.0581
84733631|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||6.9|-15.5|0.4493
84733632|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||8.6|-16.0|0.5587
84733633|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||5.8|-10.1|0.5976
84733634|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||10.3|-9.6|0.9421
84733635|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|12.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||12.4|-6.7|0.5581
84733636|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||15.4|-7.5|0.4997
84733637|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|44.7||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||44.7|3.4|0.0224
84733638|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|38.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||38.9|-4.1|0.1117
84733639|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|42.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||42.0|-13.8|0.3208
84733640|NCT03672175|169220285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||36.6|-16.1|0.4440
84733641|NCT03672175|169220286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.1|-0.3|0.4737
84733642|NCT03672175|169220286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.0|-0.4|0.0138
84672190|NCT01956110|169079818|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.046||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.046
84733643|NCT03672175|169220286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.4|0.0|0.1098
84480299|NCT00633893|168712060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8235||||0.0621||95.0|1.047|3.176||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||3.1760|1.0470|0.0621
84480300|NCT00633893|168712061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2579||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9064|1.7457||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||1.7457|0.9064|0.1691
84480301|NCT00633893|168712061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6971||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2468|2.3102||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3102|1.2468|0.0013
84480302|NCT00633893|168712062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2374||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9276|1.6507||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding was defined as any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||1.6507|0.9276|0.1466
84480303|NCT00633893|168712062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6468||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2552|2.1606||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding is any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||2.1606|1.2552|0.0005
84480304|NCT02741310|168712070|OTHER|The clinical hypothesis was that there would be no clinically meaningful difference between the blood pressure effects of sumatriptan alone and the effects of a single dose of erenumab IV and sumatriptan concomitant therapy. A clinically meaningful difference was defined as the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference between erenumab IV and sumatriptan compared to sumatriptan alone being ≥ 5 mmHg on the time-weighted scale resting MAP.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|2.08||||||A linear mixed effects regression analysis was performed to assess if the time-weighted average in MAP for erenumab with sumatriptan is similar to sumatriptan alone. A two-sided 90% confidence interval (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the mean treatment difference was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for treatment and period and a random effect for subject.||2.08|-2.16|
84480305|NCT02741310|168712072|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.03|0.93|
84480306|NCT02741310|168712073|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.05||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.05|0.96|
84480307|NCT02741310|168712074|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.09||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.09|0.82|
84480308|NCT03417505|168712104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test comparison||||||<0.01
84480309|NCT03417505|168712105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparisons, one-sided||||||<0.05
84480310|NCT03417505|168712106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired 1-sided t-test||||||<0.01
84480311|NCT03417505|168712107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparison, one sided p value||||||<0.01
84480312|NCT03417505|168712108|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired||||||>0.05
84480313|NCT03417505|168712109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
84480314|NCT03417505|168712110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.01
84480315|NCT03417505|168712111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
84733644|NCT03672175|169220286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.3|-0.2|0.6234
84480316|NCT03417505|168712112|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||>0.05
84480317|NCT02980692|168712159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84480318|NCT02980692|168712159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
84480319|NCT02980692|168712159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
84480320|NCT02980692|168712159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
84480321|NCT02980692|168712160|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|92.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.24|98.83||||||||98.83|86.24|
84480322|NCT02980692|168712160|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|89.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.42|96.71||||||||96.71|81.42|
84480323|NCT02980692|168712160|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|86.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.07|95.27||||||||95.27|78.07|
84480324|NCT02980692|168712160|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
84480325|NCT02980692|168712160|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
84480326|NCT02980692|168712161|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|79.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|88.84||||||||88.84|69.37|
84480327|NCT02980692|168712161|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.39|85.61||||||||85.61|64.39|
84480328|NCT02980692|168712161|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|72.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.88|83.38||||||||83.38|60.88|
84480329|NCT02980692|168712161|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|68.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.44|78.56||||||||78.56|57.44|
84480330|NCT02980692|168712161|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|62.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.72|73.61||||||||73.61|51.72|
84480331|NCT02980692|168712162|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|70.02||||||||70.02|46.40|
84480332|NCT02980692|168712162|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.19|60.68||||||||60.68|36.19|
84480333|NCT02980692|168712162|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|39.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.09|51.6||||||||51.60|27.09|
84480334|NCT02980692|168712162|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|51.09||||||||51.09|28.91|
84480335|NCT02980692|168712162|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.39|48.28||||||||48.28|26.39|
84733645|NCT03672175|169220287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.53|0.52|0.6741
84733646|NCT03672175|169220287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.36||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.36|0.46|0.3924
84733647|NCT03672175|169220287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.60|0.51|0.7307
84733648|NCT03672175|169220287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.70|0.52|0.8358
84733649|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.2|-1.6|0.7375
84733650|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.0|-1.9|0.5144
84733651|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.8343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||1.4|-1.7|0.8343
84733652|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||2.3|-1.0|0.4569
84733653|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||4.4|-2.0|0.4663
84733654|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||6.0|-0.6|0.1138
84733655|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||3.9|-3.0|0.7901
84480336|NCT02980692|168712163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0850
84733656|NCT03672175|169220288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||4.8|-1.9|0.3955
84733657|NCT03672175|169220289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.5|-1.8|0.8821
84733658|NCT03672175|169220289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.8|0.1510
84733659|NCT03672175|169220289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.5|-0.8|0.2926
84733660|NCT03672175|169220289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.0|-2.2|0.4785
84733661|NCT01772563|169220301|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|93.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.07|106.81|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=25.1.|"Statistical analysis of Volasertib:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||106.81|82.07|
84733662|NCT01772563|169220301|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|75.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.83|84.632|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=21.0.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||84.632|67.830|
84733663|NCT01772563|169220302|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.896|97.137|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=39.3.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||97.137|64.896|
84733664|NCT01772563|169220302|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|63.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.372|72.775|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=26.1.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||72.775|55.372|
84480337|NCT02980692|168712163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0234
84480338|NCT02980692|168712163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0140
84480339|NCT02980692|168712163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0731
84480340|NCT02980692|168712164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480341|NCT02980692|168712164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.92|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480342|NCT02980692|168712164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480343|NCT02980692|168712164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480344|NCT02980692|168712164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480345|NCT02980692|168712165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0111
84480346|NCT02980692|168712165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0774
84480347|NCT02980692|168712165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0190
84480348|NCT02980692|168712165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1282
84480349|NCT02980692|168712166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480350|NCT02980692|168712166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480351|NCT02980692|168712166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480352|NCT02980692|168712166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480353|NCT02980692|168712166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480354|NCT02980692|168712167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84480355|NCT02980692|168712167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84480356|NCT02980692|168712167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84733665|NCT01772563|169220303|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.09|109.94|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.7.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||109.94|87.09|
84733666|NCT01772563|169220303|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|77.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.001|86.871|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.5.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||86.871|69.001|
84733667|NCT01086384|169220305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Cox|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.985|||||The estimated values is the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|||0.985|0.642|
84733668|NCT01086384|169220305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.2||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF 100 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||18.2|13.5|0.036
84733669|NCT01086384|169220305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|14.9||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF/VI 100/25 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||14.9|10.7|0.036
84733670|NCT02586415|169220335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.7||Criteria to assess superiority was a two-sided P value of \<0.05. The study was terminated early because the pre-specified stopping boundary of P \<0.0025 was crossed at the first interim analysis (N=182)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.70|1.63|<0.001
84733671|NCT01898442|169220346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84733672|NCT03124550|169220354|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly average steps over the 6-week intervention.||||.0008
84733673|NCT03124550|169220355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.01
84733674|NCT03124550|169220356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.94
84733675|NCT03124550|169220357|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly number of social contact over the 6-week intervention.||||.0007
84733676|NCT01121913|169220358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
84733677|NCT01121913|169220358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|117.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||117|93.9|
84733678|NCT01121913|169220358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.5|
84733679|NCT01121913|169220358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|109.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||109|87.7|
84733680|NCT01121913|169220359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
84733681|NCT01121913|169220359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|118.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||118|95.1|
84733682|NCT01121913|169220359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.1|
84733683|NCT01121913|169220359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|110.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||110|88.3|
84733684|NCT01121913|169220360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.2|85.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||85|63.2|
84733685|NCT01121913|169220360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.5|69.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||69.4|51.5|
84733686|NCT01121913|169220360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.5|96.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||96.4|71.5|
84733687|NCT01121913|169220360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.4|78.5|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||78.5|58.4|
84733688|NCT00935259|169220364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.1||0.455||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||||||0.455
84733689|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.7||||0.014||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 16:00||||0.014
84733690|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 18:3n3||||<0.001
84733691|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.217||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n6||||0.217
84733692|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.666||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n9||||0.666
84480357|NCT02980692|168712167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84480358|NCT02980692|168712168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480359|NCT02980692|168712168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480360|NCT02980692|168712168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84733693|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.776||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:5n6||||0.776
84733694|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.018||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:6n3||||0.018
84733695|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.152||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Lysophosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.152
84480361|NCT02980692|168712168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480362|NCT02980692|168712168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.41|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480363|NCT02980692|168712169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84480364|NCT02980692|168712169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84480365|NCT02980692|168712169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
84480366|NCT02980692|168712169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0167
84480367|NCT02980692|168712170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.74|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480368|NCT02980692|168712170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480369|NCT02980692|168712170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84672191|NCT01956110|169079818|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.019
84480370|NCT02980692|168712170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480371|NCT02980692|168712170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480372|NCT02980692|168712171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84480373|NCT02980692|168712171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
84480374|NCT02980692|168712171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
84480375|NCT02980692|168712171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
84480376|NCT02980692|168712172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480377|NCT02980692|168712172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480378|NCT02980692|168712172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480379|NCT02980692|168712172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480380|NCT02980692|168712172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480381|NCT02980692|168712173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0987
84480382|NCT02980692|168712173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0360
84480383|NCT02980692|168712173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0346
84480384|NCT02980692|168712173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4442
84480385|NCT02980692|168712174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4869|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52093|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480386|NCT02980692|168712174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59145|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480387|NCT02980692|168712174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56968|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480388|NCT02980692|168712174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4583|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52285|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84571052|NCT04465422|168893237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is based on Lawton Instrumental Activities Daily Living (range 0\~23；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||2.25|-3.90|0.592
84571053|NCT04465422|168893237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Comprehensive Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale (range 20\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||7.23|-2.29|0.302
84480389|NCT02980692|168712174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54013|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480390|NCT02980692|168712175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
84480391|NCT02980692|168712175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0516
84480392|NCT02980692|168712175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0114
84480393|NCT02980692|168712175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0820
84480394|NCT02980692|168712176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.506|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480395|NCT02980692|168712176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480396|NCT02980692|168712176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.004|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480397|NCT02980692|168712176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.508|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480398|NCT02980692|168712176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480399|NCT02980692|168712177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0351
84480400|NCT02980692|168712177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0876
84480401|NCT02980692|168712177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0269
84480402|NCT02980692|168712177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0185
84480403|NCT02980692|168712178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.58|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480404|NCT02980692|168712178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480405|NCT02980692|168712178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480406|NCT02980692|168712178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480407|NCT02980692|168712178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480408|NCT02980692|168712179|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
84480409|NCT02980692|168712179|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.83||||||||3.83|0.00|
84480410|NCT02980692|168712179|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.07||||||||6.07|0.00|
84733696|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.1||||0.007||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 18:2n6||||0.007
84733697|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.325||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:3n6||||0.325
84480411|NCT02980692|168712179|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
84480412|NCT02980692|168712180|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|85.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.54|93.61||||||||93.61|76.54|
84480413|NCT02980692|168712180|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.69|90.81||||||||90.81|71.69|
84480414|NCT02980692|168712180|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|76.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|87.13||||||||87.13|65.42|
84480415|NCT02980692|168712180|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|71.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.86|81.25||||||||81.25|60.86|
84480416|NCT02980692|168712180|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|65.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.56|76.1||||||||76.10|54.56|
84480417|NCT02980692|168712181|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|68.96||||||||68.96|44.88|
84480418|NCT02980692|168712181|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|64.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.19|76.62||||||||76.62|52.19|
84480419|NCT02980692|168712181|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.41|57.59||||||||57.59|32.41|
84480420|NCT02980692|168712181|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|47.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|58.92||||||||58.92|35.20|
84480421|NCT02980692|168712181|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.38|53.68||||||||53.68|30.38|
84480422|NCT02980692|168712182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7081
84480423|NCT02980692|168712182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9244
84480424|NCT02980692|168712182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5365|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5365
84733698|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3||||0.419||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.419
84733699|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.07||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n3||||0.070
84733700|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.769||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n6||||0.769
84733701|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylethanolamine 18:2n6||||<0.001
84733702|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.8||||0.016||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 16:00||||0.016
84733703|NCT00935259|169220365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.833||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 20:3n9||||0.833
84733704|NCT00935259|169220366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.027||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fasted||||0.027
84733705|NCT00935259|169220366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fed||||<0.001
84733706|NCT00935259|169220368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:4n6 / c20:3n6||||0.247
84733707|NCT00935259|169220368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:5n3 / c20:4n3||||0.151
84733708|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-1.40|-4.58|0.0002
84480425|NCT02980692|168712182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2925
84480426|NCT02980692|168712183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.453|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9358|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84733709|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-2.17|-5.38|<.0001
84733710|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.36|-7.77|<.0001
84733711|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-5.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-5.09|-8.28|<.0001
84480427|NCT02980692|168712183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.883|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.1147|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480428|NCT02980692|168712183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.084|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.2272|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480429|NCT02980692|168712183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.173|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.5367|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480430|NCT02980692|168712183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.399|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.677|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480431|NCT02980692|168712184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0203
84480432|NCT02980692|168712184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5194
84480433|NCT02980692|168712184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0599|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0599
84480434|NCT02980692|168712184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1220
84480435|NCT02980692|168712185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480436|NCT02980692|168712185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480437|NCT02980692|168712185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480438|NCT02980692|168712185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480439|NCT02980692|168712185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84480440|NCT01057862|168712210|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 16 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 7.35. At end of study the active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 10 (n=5) with a SD of 9.35. The placebo arm is not included here as there were only two scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
84480441|NCT01057862|168712211|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 26.8 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 11.73. At end the active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 12.6 (n=5) with a SD of 9.45. The placebo arm is not included as there were only 2 scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
84480442|NCT03363165|168712213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54||||0.7586|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.52||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-38.52|0.7586
84480443|NCT03363165|168712214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0298|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.78||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline maximal treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker|||||0.78|0.0298
84480444|NCT03363165|168712215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.4019|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline perfusion, age, race, former smoker.|||||-3.10|0.4019
84480445|NCT03363165|168712216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.28||||0.208|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.37||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline muscle measure, age, race, former smoker.|||||-5.37|0.2080
84480446|NCT03363165|168712217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.398|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker|||||-8.11|0.3980
84480447|NCT03363165|168712218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.7852|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.5||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.50|0.7852
84480448|NCT03363165|168712219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.14||||0.8414|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.76||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-11.76|0.8414
84480449|NCT03363165|168712220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5912|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.11|0.5912
84480450|NCT03363165|168712221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5442|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-25.47||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-25.47|0.5442
84480451|NCT03363165|168712222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6603|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|||Adjusted for baseline pain-free treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker.|ANCOVA||||||-2.11|0.6603
84480452|NCT03363165|168712223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.5647|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24.99||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-24.99|0.5647
84480453|NCT00879437|168712249|NON_INFERIORITY|if 19 evaluable patients enrolled for DIPG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control if 21 evaluable patients enrolled for HGG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|one sample log-rank||comparing 1-year EFS of DIPG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 17% from CCG-9941; PMID 12177103) comparing 1-year EFS of HGG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 36% from ACNS0126; PMID 21339192)||||< 0.05
84480454|NCT00879437|168712289|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
84496997|NCT00448630|168745247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
84480455|NCT00879437|168712290|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
84480456|NCT00879437|168712291|OTHER|||||||||||||||||partial response defined as 51% to 99% reduction in tumor size,determined using WHO bi-dimensional criteria (product of the greatest tumor diameter and its perpendicular diameter)|Not applicable (8 partial responses in 16 patients = 50%)|||
84480457|NCT00291187|168712294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-9.9|||ANCOVA|||||-9.9|-33.1|<0.001
84480458|NCT00291187|168712294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.7|-37.8|<0.001
84480459|NCT00291187|168712294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-34.2|<0.001
84480460|NCT00291187|168712295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||||-4.3|-44.1|0.017
84480461|NCT00291187|168712295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-13.9|||ANCOVA|||||-13.9|-53.6|0.001
84480462|NCT00291187|168712295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-37.0|0.081
84480463|NCT00291187|168712296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|13.0|0.002
84480464|NCT00291187|168712296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|27.2|<0.001
84480465|NCT00291187|168712296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|50.0|||ANCOVA|||||50.0|9.1|0.005
84480466|NCT00291187|168712297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-18.9|0.006
84480467|NCT00291187|168712297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-6.5|||ANCOVA|||||-6.5|-22.1|<0.001
84480468|NCT00291187|168712297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-20.0|0.002
84733712|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-6.16|-9.42|<.0001
84480469|NCT00918346|168712310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.96||95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4.|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.49|-0.46|0.96
84733713|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-4.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.35|-7.61|<.0001
84733714|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||4.60|1.38|0.0003
84733715|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||3.84|0.57|0.0082
84733716|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||1.64|-1.82|0.9209
84733717|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||0.92|-2.33|0.3960
84733718|NCT03856047|169220370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-0.16|-3.46|0.0316
84733719|NCT01721746|169220441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||||From stratified cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as a single covariate, stratified by BRAF status, prior anti-CTLA-4 benefit, and PD-L1 status (IVRS source)|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.08|0.68|
84733720|NCT01721746|169220442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.78|1.36|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.36|0.78|
84480470|NCT00918346|168712311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type I error rate of 5%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83||95.0|-0.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.42|-0.52|0.83
84667770|NCT01955161|169070409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.26||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.26|-0.59|0.9591
84733721|NCT01721746|169220443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||For \<5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||3.16|0.44|
84733722|NCT01721746|169220443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|19.08||||||For \>=5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||19.08|1.92|
84733723|NCT01721746|169220444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Positive||1.01|0.50|
84480471|NCT03238352|168712312|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|-0.782|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Negative Control at Week 8 is a primary endpoint comparison.||-0.782|-1.657|<0.0001
84480472|NCT03238352|168712312|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.705|-0.858|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.858|-1.705|<.0001
84480473|NCT03238352|168712312|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.901|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group was obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model.||-0.901|-1.600|<0.0001
84480474|NCT03238352|168712313|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|37.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.306|<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.916|51.995||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||51.995|22.916|<0.0004
84480475|NCT03238352|168712313|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|49.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.791|63.966||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||63.966|35.791|<.0001
84480476|NCT03238352|168712313|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.001|55.334||P-value from Van Elteren test.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group is obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model||55.334|32.001|<.0001
84480477|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480478|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480479|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480480|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84733724|NCT01721746|169220445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Negative||1.41|0.75|
84733725|NCT00239681|169220464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
84733726|NCT00239681|169220465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.021||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.97|0.67|<0.021
84733727|NCT00239681|169220466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.172||95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.08|0.65|<0.172
84480481|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480482|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.46|-1.06|<0.0001
84480483|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.01|-1.60|<0.0001
84480484|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.26||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.26|-1.87|<0.0001
84480485|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.10|-1.72|<0.0001
84480486|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.19|-1.78|<0.0001
84480487|NCT04153929|168712314|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.22|-1.84|<0.0001
84480488|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84496998|NCT00448630|168745248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.544
84496999|NCT00448630|168745249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.245
84672192|NCT01956110|169079819|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35- 37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.57||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison: Cycle cancelled due to poor response||2.57|0.74|=0.302
84672193|NCT01956110|169079819|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison:Triggering with GnRH agonist||0.9|0.2|0.019
84672194|NCT01956110|169079820|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.692|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of oocytes retrieved||||=0.692
84733728|NCT00239681|169220467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<|0.015||95.0|1.05|1.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.53|1.05|<0.015
84480489|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84733729|NCT00239681|169220468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.018||95.0|0.35|0.91|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.91|0.35|0.018
84733730|NCT00239681|169220469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.548||95.0|0.88|1.28|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.28|0.88|0.548
84733731|NCT02641587|169220474|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of MHBMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|85.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.06|87.47||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of MHBMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of MHBMA.||87.47|82.06|<0.001
84733732|NCT02641587|169220475|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of 3-HPMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|48.73||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of 3-HPMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of 3-HPMA.||48.73|30.25|<0.001
84733733|NCT02641587|169220476|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of S-PMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|83.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.61|85.9||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of S-PMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of S-PMA.||85.90|81.61|<0.001
84752533|NCT01191541|169260151|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of DNR alone to DNR+ARA-C in the rate of DFS at 2 years. Assuming a 95% rate of DFS in the two groups, a margin of -15% , 5% type 1 error, 80% power, 30 evaluable patients per group were required to draw a noninferiority conclusion.|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted|Log Rank|||The characteristics of all of the included patients were summarized using cross-tabulations (for categorical variables) and quantiles. Nonparametric tests were used to analyse comparisons between groups .EFS、disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan -Meier method, and log-rank tests were used. All P values were two-sided, and those with values of 0.05 or less were considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
84733734|NCT02641587|169220477|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of COHb for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|55.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|61.56||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of COHb will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of COHb.||61.56|49.03|<0.001
84733735|NCT02641587|169220478|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of Total NNAL for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.73|84.39||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of Total NNAL will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of Total NNAL.||84.39|72.73|<0.001
84733736|NCT01150045|169220484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.12
84733737|NCT02232399|169220529|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.||||0.45
84733738|NCT02232399|169220530|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.70
84733739|NCT01660256|169220532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84733740|NCT01660256|169220533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84733741|NCT03491215|169220537|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.311||||||Group 3 vs Group 2||1.311|0.490|
84733742|NCT03491215|169220537|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|1.846||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.846|0.532|
84733743|NCT03491215|169220537|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|2.394||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.394|0.639|
84497000|NCT00448630|168745250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.362
84497001|NCT00448630|168745251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.176
84733744|NCT03491215|169220538|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.425|1.184||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||1.184|0.425|
84733745|NCT03491215|169220538|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|1.851||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.851|0.506|
84733746|NCT03491215|169220538|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.714||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.714|0.686|
84733747|NCT03491215|169220540|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.245|2.352||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||2.352|0.245|
84733748|NCT03491215|169220540|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.784||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.784|0.150|
84733749|NCT03491215|169220540|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.178|2.597||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.597|0.178|
84733750|NCT03491215|169220548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.109||||||||1.109|0.858|
84733751|NCT03491215|169220548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.232||||||||1.232|0.735|
84733752|NCT03491215|169220549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.115||||||||1.115|0.921|
84733753|NCT03491215|169220549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.258||||||||1.258|0.841|
84733754|NCT03491215|169220550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.117||||||||1.117|1.012|
84480490|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84497002|NCT00448630|168745252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
84497003|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.524
84733755|NCT03491215|169220550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.25||||||||1.25|1.025|
84733756|NCT03539068|169220570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
84733757|NCT00551135|169220585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0668
84733758|NCT00551135|169220585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS (least squares) means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0334
84733759|NCT00551135|169220585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
84733760|NCT00551135|169220585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
84733761|NCT00551135|169220585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6932
84733762|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4471
84733763|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7248
84733764|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7556
84733765|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0571
84733766|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0197
84733767|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2398
84733768|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0709
84733769|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9902|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9902
84733770|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0018
84733771|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4639
84480491|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480492|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
84480493|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.11||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.68|-2.90|0.2228
84480494|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.01|-5.56|<0.0001
84480495|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.81|-7.41|<0.0001
84480496|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-4.38||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.38|-8.12|<0.0001
84480497|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.47||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.47|-8.02|<0.0001
84480498|NCT04153929|168712315|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.83||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.83|-9.52|<0.0001
84480499|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.66||||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.03||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.03|-2.34|0.4439
84497004|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84497005|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.005
84480500|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.61|-4.95|0.0001
84480501|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||P-value is considered nominal|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.23|-6.62|<0.0001
84480502|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.00|-7.53|<0.0001
84480503|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-3.77||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.77|-7.11|<0.0001
84480504|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.31|-8.79|<0.0001
84480505|NCT04153929|168712316|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.18|-5.52|<0.0001
84480506|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.62||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|3.57||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||3.57|-4.82|0.7708
84480507|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.68||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|4.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||4.79|-3.44|0.7462
84480508|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.32||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.98|-7.62|0.1302
84497006|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84497007|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.009
84603291|NCT01514240|168957160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.43|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.43|0.01|
84603292|NCT01514240|168957161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|3.12|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.12|0.42|
84480509|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.61||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-0.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.18|-9.03|0.0414
84480510|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.55||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.6||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.60|-6.71|0.2273
84480511|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.98|-12.81|0.0002
84480512|NCT04153929|168712317|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.72||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.42||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.42|-6.86|0.1967
84480513|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||5.20|0.28|
84480514|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|25.74|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||25.74|2.43|
84480515|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|60.03|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||60.03|5.21|
84480516|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|91.55|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||91.55|7.31|
84480517|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|72.04|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||72.04|6.57|
84480518|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|124.47|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||124.47|9.84|
84480519|NCT04153929|168712318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|26.79|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||26.79|2.52|
84480520|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|95.73|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||95.73|0.14|
84480521|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|163.56|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||163.56|0.39|
84480522|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|471.09|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||471.09|1.35|
84480523|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|613.51||||||Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||613.51|1.78|
84733772|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4845
84480524|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|761.44|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||761.44|2.37|
84480525|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|999.0|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo. The upper limit is bigger than 999.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||999|4.71|
84480526|NCT04153929|168712319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|413.33|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||413.33|1.22|
84480527|NCT02481596|168712338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Beta=.083. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.045
84480528|NCT02481596|168712338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Beta=.126. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.006
84480529|NCT02481596|168712339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518||||||Beta=.031. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.518
84480530|NCT02481596|168712339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||Beta=.092. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.092
84733773|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1641
84733774|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1025
84733775|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5615
84733776|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2904
84733777|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6017
84733778|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8549
84733779|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3386
84733780|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
84733781|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5244
84733782|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4245
84733783|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8624
84733784|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7552
84733785|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7329
84733786|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3053
84480531|NCT02481596|168712340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Beta=-.027. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations||||.53
84480532|NCT02481596|168712340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Beta=-.037. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.41
84480533|NCT02481596|168712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Beta=.088. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.024
84733787|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5290
84733788|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7951
84733789|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7150
84733790|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4566|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4566
84480534|NCT02481596|168712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Beta=.128. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.003
84480535|NCT02481596|168712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Beta=-.133. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.001
84480536|NCT02481596|168712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Beta=-.115. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.012
84480537|NCT02481596|168712343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Beta=.114. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.015
84733791|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7750
84733792|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9241
84733793|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8994
84733794|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2088
84733795|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2152
84733796|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7662
84733797|NCT00551135|169220586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7579
84480538|NCT02481596|168712343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Beta=.101. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.034
84480539|NCT02228564|168712344|NON_INFERIORITY|"The sample size calculation assumes the following:~The LIFESTREAM™ Covered Stent composite event rate is estimated at 10.5% The Performance Goal is set at 19.5% The Type 1 error, α = 0.05 (one-sided). The Type 2 error, β = 0.10 (Power = 1 - β = 90%). The calculated sample size is 139 subjects to be followed through the 9-month follow-up visit (using nQuery 7.0). To accommodate 10% censoring, the sample size is increased to 154."|||||<|0.0325|||||||Exact binomial test|||"H0: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is greater than or equal to that of the PG of 19.5%.~H1: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is less than that of the PG of 19.5%."||||<0.0325
84480540|NCT01216397|168712356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.4||||||90.0|94.2|105.0|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.0|94.2|
84480541|NCT01216397|168712357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|96.1|104.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||104.2|96.1|
84733798|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6896
84733799|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1934
84733800|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6034
84733801|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7992
84733802|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4770
84480542|NCT01216397|168712358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|94.7|105.8|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.8|94.7|
84480543|NCT01216397|168712366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.9||||||90.0|92.5|103.7|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||103.7|92.5|
84480544|NCT01216397|168712367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.4||||||90.0|95.7|105.4|||ANOVA|||||105.4|95.7|
84480545|NCT01216397|168712368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|95.7|105.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.2|95.7|
84480546|NCT01455415|168712386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.73||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||1.73|0.83|0.3287
84480547|NCT01455415|168712387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.51||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||2.51|0.98|0.0625
84480548|NCT01455415|168712388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain severity, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.22|-0.21|0.9448
84733803|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
84733804|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2000
84733805|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5059
84733806|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
84733807|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3815
84733808|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4716
84733809|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1063
84733810|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3884
84733811|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3787
84733812|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2537
84733813|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0952
84733814|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7725
84733815|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0660
84733816|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3657
84733817|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7717
84480549|NCT01455415|168712389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline interference score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.14|-0.32|0.4548
84480550|NCT01455415|168712390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using linear mixed effects model including baseline score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0272
84480551|NCT01455415|168712391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-A score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.42|0.7344
84480552|NCT01455415|168712392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-D score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.42|0.6007
84480553|NCT01455415|168712393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.96||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline total score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.96|-3.13|0.2987
84480554|NCT01455415|168712394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline symptoms domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.16|-0.85|0.1769
84480555|NCT01455415|168712395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline activities of daily living domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.48|0.5119
84480556|NCT01455415|168712396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.74||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline physical functioning / large fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.74|-1.72|0.4335
84480557|NCT01455415|168712397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline small fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.31|0.9653
84672195|NCT01956110|169079821|OTHER|"A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.~A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor."|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||The relation between ovarian response potential (AMH at screening) and probability of achieving the targeted response was modelled using logistic regression models.||||=0.019
84480558|NCT01455415|168712398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline autonomic domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.38|0.2690
84497008|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84480559|NCT01455415|168712399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline mobility domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9951
84480560|NCT01455415|168712400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline self-care domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9726
84480561|NCT01455415|168712401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline usual activities domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.08|-0.04|0.5497
84480562|NCT01455415|168712402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain / discomfort domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.02|0.1495
84480563|NCT01455415|168712403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline anxiety / depression domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.01|-0.11|0.1297
84480564|NCT01455415|168712404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 1997 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.4279
84480565|NCT01455415|168712405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 2001 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.5505
84480566|NCT01455415|168712406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.0604
84480567|NCT01455415|168712407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.171||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||A longitudinal analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including visit, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6, and treatment by visit and by the indicator variable interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error (estimated by using an unstructured covariance structure) as random factors. The treatment differences were tested using within-participant variability as the error term.||0.171|-0.248|0.7174
84480568|NCT01455415|168712408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a CMH test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.1511
84480569|NCT00418717|168712451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.25|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.25|
84480570|NCT00249795|168712453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.085||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 4.5% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.085|0.907|0.8570
84571054|NCT04465422|168893237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Personal and Social Performance scale (range 1\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||6.82|-6.25|0.931
84672196|NCT01956110|169079822|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.909|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of metaphase II oocytes||||=0.909
84480571|NCT00249795|168712454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.016||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 1% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.016|0.869|0.1200
84480572|NCT00249795|168712455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.053||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of a stroke in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.053|0.796|0.2162
84480573|NCT00249795|168712456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.11||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of death in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.110|0.927|0.7590
84480574|NCT00249795|168712457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|0.993||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of HF episodes in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.993|0.809|0.0369
84480575|NCT00249795|168712458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.975||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for Heart Failure in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.975|0.763|0.0175
84480576|NCT00249795|168712459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.093||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for other CV cause in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.093|0.930|0.8377
84480577|NCT01142193|168712464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
84480578|NCT01142193|168712464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|28.1|||Hodges-Lehmann|||||28.1|8.53|
84480579|NCT01142193|168712465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.7||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84480580|NCT01142193|168712466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|16.3||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.007
84480581|NCT01142193|168712467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|25.36|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84480582|NCT01142193|168712468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84480583|NCT01142193|168712472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.61||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84480584|NCT01142193|168712473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.4||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.048
84672197|NCT01956110|169079823|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).||||||0.53|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Fertilisation rate||||0.53
84480585|NCT03549429|168712480|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|8.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4|||McNemar|||We compared the proportion of patients who had postoperative eyelid erythema with Tegaderm™ to those who had postop eyelid erythema with EyeGard®.||14.4|1.5|0.03
84480586|NCT03549429|168712481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||0.23
84480587|NCT00771173|168712509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean VAS score for the active treatment cohort (i.e., those receiving pyridium) was no different than the mean VAS score for those receiving placebo.||||.745
84480588|NCT00807014|168712510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms for baseline value, treatment, and center. Treatment-by-center interaction was not included.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84480589|NCT02483078|168712543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's Exact test if the count in any cell was less than 5; otherwise Chi-Square test was to be used||||||.0032
84480590|NCT02483078|168712544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0377
84480591|NCT02483078|168712545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1201
84480592|NCT02483078|168712546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0013
84497009|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.047
84497010|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
84672198|NCT01956110|169079824|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.59|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of embryos||||=0.59
84672199|NCT01956110|169079824|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.414|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good quality embryos||||=0.414
84480593|NCT02483078|168712550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7123|||||||ANCOVA|||The raw and change from baseline in CD4 cell count at the end of the 1-week double blind treatment period was to be summarized by treatment group for the first week during the double-blind treatment phase. For change from baseline summaries, subjects with an undefined change from baseline, because of missing data, were to be excluded.||||.7123
84480594|NCT02483078|168712552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0993
84480595|NCT03296787|168712557|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.7265|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7265
84480596|NCT03296787|168712557|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9839|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9839
84480597|NCT03296787|168712557|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9393
84480598|NCT03296787|168712557|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.1321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1321
84480599|NCT03296787|168712558|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3600
84480600|NCT03296787|168712558|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0816|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0816
84480601|NCT03296787|168712558|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.2686|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2686
84480602|NCT03296787|168712558|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
84480603|NCT03296787|168712559|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0998
84672200|NCT01956110|169079825|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.344|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of blastocysts||||= 0.344
84672201|NCT01956110|169079825|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.58|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good-quality blastocysts||||= 0.58
84672202|NCT01956110|169079826|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Total gonadotropin dose||||<0.001
84672203|NCT01956110|169079827|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.062|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of stimulation days||||=0.062
84672204|NCT01956110|169079828|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a chi-square test.|||||=|0.178|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison: Investigator-requested gonadotropin dose adjustments||||=0.178
84672205|NCT01956110|169079834|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.32||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (any grade)||||0.320
84672206|NCT01956110|169079834|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.39||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (moderate/severe)||||0.390
84672207|NCT03354429|169079876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.96|0.71|0.015
84672208|NCT03354429|169079877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.93|0.68|0.004
84672209|NCT03354429|169079878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Logistic|NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) score and history of stroke (yes/no) included as covariates|Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||1.07|0.89|0.613
84672210|NCT03354429|169079879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.14|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.14|1.74|0.001
84672211|NCT03354429|169079880|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.02|1.48|0.005
84672212|NCT03354429|169079881|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.43|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||6.43|1.67|<0.001
84480604|NCT03296787|168712559|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0155
84480605|NCT03296787|168712559|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0916|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0916
84480606|NCT03296787|168712559|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
84480607|NCT03296787|168712560|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0038
84480608|NCT03296787|168712560|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84480609|NCT03296787|168712560|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0389|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0389
84480610|NCT03296787|168712560|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
84480611|NCT01379924|168712610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for group differences at baseline and variables associated with differential study retention.|Usual care arm is reference group|Multiple logistic regression modeling used to compute adjusted odds ratios for 12-month follow-up data.||.92|.07|.037
84480612|NCT01379924|168712611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is reference group.|||.86|.07|.029
84480613|NCT01379924|168712612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is the reference group|||.75|.06|.017
84480614|NCT01379924|168712613|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.217
84480615|NCT01379924|168712614|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.444
84480616|NCT01379924|168712615|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.011
84480617|NCT01379924|168712617|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.758
84497011|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
84672213|NCT03354429|169079882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||7.02|3.28|<0.001
84733818|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5849
84733819|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9580
84733820|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9884
84733821|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6743
84733822|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2689
84733823|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6907
84733824|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4798
84733825|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5609
84480618|NCT01379924|168712618|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.024
84733826|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9834
84733827|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8339
84733828|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
84733829|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6327
84733830|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3986
84733831|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6370
84733832|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9869
84733833|NCT00551135|169220587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7550
84733834|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2912
84733835|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3723
84733836|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6116
84733837|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0835
84733838|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1497
84733839|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3950
84733840|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5892
84733841|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6143
84733842|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0104
84733843|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5666
84733844|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9008
84733845|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0967
84667771|NCT01955161|169070409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.98|-0.88|1.000
84733846|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8353
84480619|NCT01379924|168712619|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up||||||.354
84480620|NCT01379924|168712620|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.121
84480621|NCT01379924|168712621|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.205
84733847|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4530
84733848|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7297
84733849|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0692
84733850|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6333
84480622|NCT01379924|168712622|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.803|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.803
84733851|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0325
84733852|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5788
84733853|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9224
84733854|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5527
84733855|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2624
84733856|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3263
84733857|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3746
84733858|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0050
84733859|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0493
84733860|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0773
84733861|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0547
84733862|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1976
84733863|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3832
84733864|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4216
84733865|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5852
84733866|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7336
84733867|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1647
84733868|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2813
84733869|NCT00551135|169220588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8423
84733870|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.3970
84733871|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7640
84733872|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5064
84733873|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1318
84733874|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9367
84733875|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1259
84733876|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1812
84480623|NCT01379924|168712623|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.347
84480624|NCT01379924|168712624|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.591
84480625|NCT04532918|168712625|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|255.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|208.7|312.3|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||312.3|208.7|
84480626|NCT04532918|168712625|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|189.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|233.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||233.1|154.0|
84480627|NCT04532918|168712626|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|238.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.6|273.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||273.8|207.6|
84480628|NCT04532918|168712626|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|148.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.1|171.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||171.7|129.1|
84497012|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
84497013|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0201
84497014|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0095
84497015|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0386
84497016|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1976
84480629|NCT04532918|168712627|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.8|298.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||298.1|229.8|
84480630|NCT04532918|168712627|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|163.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.8|186.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||186.6|142.8|
84480631|NCT04532918|168712628|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|273.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.9|328.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||328.1|227.9|
84480632|NCT04532918|168712628|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|275.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.7|332.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||332.7|228.7|
84480633|NCT04532918|168712628|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|24.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.15|31.72|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||31.72|19.15|
84480634|NCT04532918|168712628|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|37.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.18|49.03|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||49.03|29.18|
84480635|NCT04532918|168712629|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|291.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|260.6|326.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M1||326.8|260.6|
84480636|NCT04532918|168712629|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|215.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.0|242.4|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||242.4|192.0|
84480637|NCT04532918|168712629|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|55.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.19|64.83|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||64.83|47.19|
84480638|NCT04532918|168712629|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|68.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|80.39|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||80.39|57.99|
84480639|NCT04532918|168712630|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|306.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.3|343.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||343.6|273.3|
84480640|NCT04532918|168712630|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|227.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.1|255.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||255.8|202.1|
84480641|NCT04532918|168712630|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|51.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.8|59.45|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||59.45|43.80|
84480642|NCT04532918|168712630|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|82.44|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||82.44|60.21|
84480643|NCT04532918|168712631|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|74.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.42|94.26|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||94.26|59.42|
84480644|NCT04532918|168712631|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.88|102.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||102.7|63.88|
84480645|NCT04532918|168712631|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|101.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||101.8|92.11|
84480646|NCT04532918|168712631|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|104.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||104.0|94.36|
84497017|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2383
84497018|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||2e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
84497019|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8297
84497020|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9081||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9081
84497021|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7386
84497022|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
84497023|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2587
84733877|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9600
84733878|NCT00551135|169220589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1050
84733879|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2818
84733880|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8631
84733881|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5074
84733882|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0401
84733883|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5509
84733884|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0004
84733885|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
84733886|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3840
84733887|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2732
84733888|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4418
84733889|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8379
84733890|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5944
84733891|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8139
84733892|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9709
84497024|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6263
84497025|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
84497026|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2589||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2589
84733893|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9666
84480647|NCT04532918|168712632|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.26|105.9|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||105.9|91.26|
84733894|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3204
84733895|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0869
84733896|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9386
84733897|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4352
84733898|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4522
84733899|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6606
84733900|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1733
84733901|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8788
84733902|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8474
84733903|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2938
84733904|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7602
84733905|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6881
84733906|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7883
84733907|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5374
84733908|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9774
84733909|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3082
84733910|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4373
84480648|NCT04532918|168712632|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|109.2|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||109.2|93.72|
84497027|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5153||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5153
84497028|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
84497029|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84497030|NCT00448630|168745253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8952
84733911|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6540
84733912|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0002
84480649|NCT04532918|168712632|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.02|103.5|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||103.5|95.02|
84480650|NCT04532918|168712632|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|100.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||100.1|92.15|
84480651|NCT04532918|168712633|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|106.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||106.0|91.10|
84480652|NCT04532918|168712633|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.99|109.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||109.8|93.99|
84480653|NCT04532918|168712633|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|101.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for oxypurinol||101.7|94.50|
84480654|NCT04532918|168712633|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|99.48|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects||99.48|92.61|
84480655|NCT01280812|168712646|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3000.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.||Intent to treat analysis||||
84480656|NCT04839393|168712677|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|108.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|135.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.84|87.24|
84480657|NCT04839393|168712678|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|143.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.28|89.34|
84480658|NCT04839393|168712679|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|38.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|45.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The test treatment was PF-06865571 300 mg + PF-06882961 200 mg BID (Period 3 - Day 47), which was reported separately in comparison to the reference treatment of PF-06865571 300 mg (Period 1 - Day 1).||45.74|32.80|
84480659|NCT04839393|168712680|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.95|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.40|67.95|
84571055|NCT04465422|168893237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (range 1\~10；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||1.69|-1.73|0.981
84480660|NCT04839393|168712681|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.82|80.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.18|66.82|
84480661|NCT04839393|168712682|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|155.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||155.73|85.37|
84480662|NCT04839393|168712683|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|149.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.66|94.05|
84480663|NCT01094808|168712741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|33.391|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.106||0.14||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.14
84480664|NCT01094808|168712742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|35.301|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.295||0.12||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.12
84480665|NCT04445688|168712809|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.4|||ANOVA|||||-4.4|-10.2|<0.0001
84480666|NCT04445688|168712810|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-14.1|||ANOVA|||||-14.1|-29.5|<0.0001
84480667|NCT04445688|168712811|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.2|-10.5|<0.0001
84480668|NCT01363258|168712824|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed models fitted with binomial (logit link) and gamma (log link) distributions, with additional dispersion parameters, were used to estimate and test intervention effects in terms of occurrence and intensity of CRBs, respectively. Inference was conducted in the link scale, but inverse-link estimates in the original scales (proportions and CRB scores, for the binomial and gamma models, respectively) were computed to facilitate interpretation.|Effect size|-0.16||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED||||||Time by group interaction test|||||||0.1433
84480669|NCT01963780|168712844|SUPERIORITY|Performance goal is 65%.|Proportion|0.544||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.657|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||0.657|0.428|0.9663
84480670|NCT01963780|168712845|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268||||||||0.268|0.092|
84480671|NCT01963780|168712846|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.143||||||||0.143|0.021|
84480672|NCT01963780|168712847|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||||||||0.4|0.1|
84480673|NCT01975675|168712874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
84480674|NCT01975675|168712874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF+RBV (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
84571056|NCT05412134|168893254|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared|||Repetition adherence||||0.333
84571057|NCT05412134|168893254|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Chi-squared|||Session adherence||||0.626
84480675|NCT01975675|168712875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.0|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||1.0|-10.2|
84480676|NCT01975675|168712875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2|||||The 95% CI on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||4.2|-4.2|
84480677|NCT02157168|168712890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and is the main comparison in the study.|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.624
84480678|NCT02157168|168712890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84480679|NCT02157168|168712891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.278
84480680|NCT02157168|168712891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.056
84480681|NCT02157168|168712892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.889
84480682|NCT02157168|168712892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.691
84480683|NCT02157168|168712893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.741
84480684|NCT02157168|168712893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.966
84480685|NCT02157168|168712894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||This comparison captures the change over the intervention period.|Chi-squared|||||||.117
84480686|NCT02157168|168712894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||This comparison is an indication of whether the change seen between baseline and 6 months in the IG1 was due to the intervention or simply due to 6 months' enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||.638
84480687|NCT02971293|168712895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84672214|NCT00386256|169079883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
84480688|NCT02971293|168712895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480689|NCT02971293|168712895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
84480690|NCT02971293|168712907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.002
84480691|NCT02971293|168712907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480692|NCT02971293|168712907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.011
84480693|NCT02971293|168712908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480694|NCT02971293|168712908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480695|NCT02971293|168712908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.201
84480696|NCT02971293|168712909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480697|NCT02971293|168712909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480698|NCT02971293|168712909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
84480699|NCT02971293|168712910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480700|NCT02971293|168712910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480701|NCT02971293|168712910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
84480702|NCT02971293|168712911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84571058|NCT05412134|168893255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.416
84480703|NCT02971293|168712911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480704|NCT02971293|168712911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.092
84480705|NCT02971293|168712912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480706|NCT02971293|168712912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480707|NCT02971293|168712912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.279
84480708|NCT02971293|168712913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480709|NCT02971293|168712913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480710|NCT02971293|168712913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
84480711|NCT02971293|168712914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.205
84480712|NCT02971293|168712914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.002
84480713|NCT02971293|168712914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.060
84480714|NCT02971293|168712915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.111
84480715|NCT02971293|168712915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480716|NCT02971293|168712915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.015
84480717|NCT02971293|168712916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.621
84480718|NCT02971293|168712916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.138
84733913|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0696
84480719|NCT02971293|168712916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.333
84480720|NCT02971293|168712917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.748
84480721|NCT02971293|168712917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.005
84480722|NCT02971293|168712917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.013
84480723|NCT02971293|168712918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.064
84480724|NCT02971293|168712918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480725|NCT02971293|168712918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.030
84480726|NCT02971293|168712919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.018
84480727|NCT02971293|168712919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
84480728|NCT02971293|168712919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.047
84480729|NCT02971293|168712920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.477
84480730|NCT02971293|168712920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.014
84480731|NCT02971293|168712920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.084
84480732|NCT02971293|168712921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.213
84480733|NCT02971293|168712921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.001
84480734|NCT02971293|168712921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.046
84480735|NCT00729326|168712923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-values were not adjusted. The primary measure was change in 24-hour glucose without multiplicity adjustments for other analyses.|ANCOVA|Analyses for continuous variables adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, baseline of the continuous variable.Analysis method was Grizzle's model.||Null hypothesis: The 24-hour average glucose for exenatide was greater than or equal to that for sitagliptin after 4 weeks of treatment. The primary objective was to compare exenatide with sitagliptin on the time-averaged glucose during the 24-hour inpatient periods after 4 weeks of treatment.||||<.001
84480736|NCT00729326|168712924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480737|NCT00729326|168712925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.766
84480738|NCT00729326|168712926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480739|NCT00729326|168712927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480740|NCT00729326|168712928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.117
84480741|NCT00729326|168712929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480742|NCT00729326|168712930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480743|NCT00729326|168712931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84672215|NCT00386256|169079884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
84480744|NCT00729326|168712932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480745|NCT00729326|168712933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480746|NCT00729326|168712934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480747|NCT00729326|168712935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84480748|NCT01575899|168712954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1526||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.42|||Chi-squared|||||5.42|1.28|0.008
84480749|NCT01575899|168712956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2589||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.02|||Chi-squared|||||10.02|1.5|0.004
84480750|NCT00753688|168713028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.48||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.48|0.26|<0.001
84480751|NCT00753688|168713029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||1.12|0.67|0.256
84480752|NCT00753688|168713033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for leiomyosarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.23|<0.001
84480753|NCT00753688|168713033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for synovial sarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.98|0.19|0.005
84480754|NCT00753688|168713033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for other STS histologies|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.25|<0.001
84480755|NCT00108953|168713039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6||||0.016||95.0|0.33|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups.||0.95|0.33|0.016
84480756|NCT00108953|168713040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.007||95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.74|0.37|0.007
84480757|NCT00108953|168713041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.018||95.0|0.45|0.83|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.83|0.45|0.018
84480758|NCT00108953|168713043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.038||95.0|0.4|1.05|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||1.05|0.40|0.038
84480759|NCT01854593|168713047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84480760|NCT01854593|168713048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84480761|NCT01854593|168713049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84480762|NCT01854593|168713050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84480763|NCT01854593|168713051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.667
84480764|NCT01854593|168713052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
84480765|NCT01854593|168713053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
84480766|NCT01854593|168713054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.929
84480767|NCT01854593|168713055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
84480768|NCT01854593|168713056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.131
84480769|NCT01854593|168713057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.149
84480770|NCT01854593|168713058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.670
84480771|NCT01854593|168713059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
84480772|NCT01125293|168713063|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Two stage design, exact method|||In a two-stage Simon design, a VGPR or better rate of at least 18% is considered promising versus a 5% or less rate. In stage 1, if 1 or fewer of 23 evaluable participants achieve VGPR, the regimen is considered non-promising else continue with 24 more patients enrolled. If \</=4 of 47 evaluable patients have VGPR or better, the regimen is considered non-promising. If \>/=5, then the regimen is considered promising for further study. With this design, there is 90% power and 1-sided 10% alpha.|The study did not continue to stage 2 given 1 VGPR or better response was observed in 23 evaluable participants in stage 1.|||0.69
84480773|NCT01324687|168713086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8387||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7261|0.9689|||GEE / Poisson regression models|||Rate ratio of ED use rate of the intervention group as compared to the control group.||0.9689|0.7261|0.017
84480774|NCT01496274|168713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value is based on a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of H0: AsBR ratio (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) ≥ 0.50. The ratio was based on the original scale.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A test of null hypothesis that the ratio of AsBR (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) was ≥ 0.50 was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 level. Matched pairs design with 19 subjects and 2 observations per subject.||||<0.0001
84672216|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0098|0.3185|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday move more messages would not differ from zero||0.3185|.0098|0.037
84480775|NCT01068717|168713149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric least squares (LS) mean|109.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.67|116.85||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||116.85|102.67|
84480776|NCT01068717|168713149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|117.56||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||117.56|85.70|
84480777|NCT01068717|168713150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.29|107.41||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states||107.41|91.29|
84497031|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.197
84497032|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.010
84571059|NCT05412134|168893256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
84571060|NCT05412134|168893257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84672217|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07674||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0274|0.2781|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday sit less messages would not differ from zero||0.2781|-0.0274|.106
84733914|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0029
84480778|NCT01068717|168713150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|103.67||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.67|96.86|
84497033|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.012
84733915|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3695
84733916|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9346|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9346
84733917|NCT00551135|169220590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9631
84733918|NCT00551135|169220591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9025
84733919|NCT00551135|169220591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5652
84733920|NCT00551135|169220591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7920
84733921|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6679
84733922|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7308
84733923|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6781
84733924|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0930
84733925|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3751
84733926|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0111
84733927|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6811
84733928|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7426
84733929|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1619
84733930|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1132
84733931|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9822
84480779|NCT01068717|168713152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
84480780|NCT01068717|168713152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.61|103.05||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.05|96.61|
84480781|NCT01068717|168713157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
84480782|NCT01068717|168713157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|107.88||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.88|96.10|
84480783|NCT01068717|168713158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|102.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.16||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.16|98.31|
84480784|NCT01068717|168713158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|99.22||||||90.0|96.48|102.04||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||102.04|96.48|
84497034|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84497035|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.282
84672218|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13746||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0262|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||.5210|-.0262|.076
84672219|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.30563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16136||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0156|0.6268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend move more messages would not differ from zero||.6268|-.0156|.062
84672220|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10676||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0645|0.4895|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend sit less messages would not differ from zero||.4895|.0645|0.11
84480785|NCT01068717|168713159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|105.59||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||105.59|92.90|
84480786|NCT01068717|168713159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|109.09||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||109.09|96.82|
84480787|NCT02758119|168713168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84480788|NCT04209400|168713173|NON_INFERIORITY|P \< 0.05 is considered a statistically significant difference in seroconversion between the two groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the vaccines equally affect the achievement of seroconversion level.||||1
84480789|NCT01602549|168713185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.12|||||Day 1: The adjusted means (AMs) and ratios were estimated using a mixed model (MM) fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 1||1.120|0.831|
84480790|NCT01602549|168713185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.029|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 8||1.029|0.763|
84480791|NCT01602549|168713185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.033|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8: Day 1||1.033|0.850|
84480792|NCT01602549|168713185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8:Day 1 Placebo||1.170|0.890|
84480793|NCT01602549|168713187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.064|||||Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.064|0.702|
84480794|NCT01602549|168713187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.257|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||1.257|0.824|
84480795|NCT01602549|168713187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.166|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 VS Day 1 GSK962040 50 mg||1.166|0.889|
84480796|NCT01602549|168713187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.055|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 Vs Day 1 Placebo||1.055|0.709|
84480797|NCT01602549|168713188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 1||||0.157
84480798|NCT01602549|168713188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8||||0.186
84480799|NCT01602549|168713190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|7.537|||||Day 1: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||7.537|-16.015|
84480800|NCT01602549|168713190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.567|6.914|||||Day 8: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||6.914|-17.567|
84672221|NCT03907683|169079923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.10837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16895||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2279|0.4447|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||0.4447|-0.2279|.523
84672222|NCT03400332|169079947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.94||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.61|0.7416
84480801|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.16||||||95.0|-3.9|-0.41|||||Day 1; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||-0.41|-3.90|
84480802|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.85|||||Day 8; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-1.85|-5.41|
84480803|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.07|||||Day 1; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.07|-4.65|
84480804|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.07|||||Day 8; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.07|-4.85|
84480805|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-0.49|||||Day 8; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III -GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.49|-10.28|
84480806|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54|||||Day 1; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.54|-1.65|
84480807|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||||Day 8; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.22|-2.02|
84480808|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|0.39|||||Day 1; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.39|-13.77|
84480809|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-5.29|||||Day 8; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-5.29|-19.67|
84480810|NCT01602549|168713191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.13|||||Day 1; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||3.13|-6.53|
84480811|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|2.78|||||Day 1; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.78|-9.07|
84480812|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|2.75|||||Day 1; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.75|-9.11|
84480813|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|2.27|||||Day 1; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1:||2.27|-9.59|
84480814|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.76|||||Day 1; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.76|-10.07|
84480815|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.81|||||Day 8; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.81|-12.79|
84480816|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|2.03|||||Day 8; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||2.03|-9.96|
84480817|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|0.71|||||Day 8; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.71|-11.29|
84571061|NCT05412134|168893258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
84733932|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1883
84480818|NCT01602549|168713192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.91|||||Day 8; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-2.91|-14.88|
84480819|NCT01602549|168713193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.9|||||OFF: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|OFF: Treatment Period||-0.90|-3.71|
84480820|NCT01602549|168713193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.48|||||ON: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|ON: Treatment Period||3.48|0.28|
84480821|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|16.13|||||Day 1, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: Day GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||16.13|-21.79|
84480822|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|19.56|||||Day 1, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.56|-18.39|
84480823|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|20.86|||||Day 1, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Day 1, 30 min PD||20.86|-17.18|
84480824|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|19.28|||||Day 1, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.28|-18.72|
84480825|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.35|15.58|||||Day 1, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||15.58|-22.35|
84480826|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|14.76|||||Day 1, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||14.76|-23.13|
84480827|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|12.58|||||Day 1, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||12.58|-25.36|
84672223|NCT02659020|169080000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.397||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.397|0.639|0.775
84480828|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|19.75|||||Day 1, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.75|-18.20|
84480829|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|19.52|||||Day 8, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||19.52|-18.51|
84480830|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|22.33|||||Day 8, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.33|-15.70|
84480831|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|16.08|||||Day 8, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|30 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||16.08|-21.97|
84480832|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.13|15.88|||||Day 8, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||15.88|-22.13|
84497036|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.040
84733933|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9391
84480833|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.63|||||Day 8, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||17.63|-20.40|
84480834|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|18.28|||||Day 8, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||18.28|-19.70|
84480835|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|22.02|||||Day 8, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.02|-15.98|
84480836|NCT01602549|168713194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|23.07|||||Day 8, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||23.07|-14.91|
84480837|NCT01962688|168713216|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84480838|NCT02823080|168713225|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84480839|NCT02823080|168713226|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84480840|NCT02823080|168713227|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84480841|NCT02823080|168713231|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84480842|NCT00676208|168713232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84480843|NCT00676208|168713233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84497037|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.004
84497038|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0193
84497039|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0065
84497040|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84497041|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3172||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3172
84497042|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
84497043|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
84497044|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2600
84497045|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2309||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
84497046|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0063
84497047|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8158||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8158
84497048|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3968
84497049|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7193
84497050|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
84497051|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2351
84497052|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5672||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5672
84497053|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
84497054|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1774
84497055|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6082||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6082
84497056|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
84497057|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0014
84497058|NCT00448630|168745254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5587
84497059|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.077
84497060|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.039
84497061|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.978
84497062|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
84497063|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.593
84497064|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.987
84497065|NCT00448630|168745255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.174
84480844|NCT03906136|168713234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.43|0.119
84480845|NCT03906136|168713235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.95|0.37|0.029
84480846|NCT03906136|168713236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.14|0.45|0.154
84480847|NCT03906136|168713236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.39|0.54|0.562
84480848|NCT03906136|168713237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.94|0.32|0.029
84480849|NCT03906136|168713237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.25|0.44|0.264
84480850|NCT03906136|168713238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.83|0.29|0.008
84480851|NCT03906136|168713238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.80|0.28|0.005
84480852|NCT03906136|168713239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.28|0.40|0.263
84480853|NCT03906136|168713239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.34|0.103
84480854|NCT03906136|168713240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.01|0.40|0.055
84480855|NCT03906136|168713240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.31|0.52|0.409
84480856|NCT03906136|168713241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.34|0.53|0.477
84480857|NCT03906136|168713241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.61|0.63|0.968
84480858|NCT03906136|168713242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.75|-0.16|0.205
84480859|NCT03906136|168713242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.82|-0.08|0.108
84480860|NCT03906136|168713243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.23|-0.12|0.525
84480861|NCT03906136|168713243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.14|-0.25|0.577
84480862|NCT03906136|168713244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|-2.32|0.220
84480863|NCT03906136|168713244|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.50|-0.70|0.745
84480864|NCT03906136|168713245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.74|-1.01|0.768
84480865|NCT03906136|168713245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.60|-1.34|0.451
84480866|NCT03906136|168713246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.97|-0.46|0.477
84480867|NCT03906136|168713246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.58|-0.92|0.660
84480868|NCT03906136|168713247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.79|-0.45|0.586
84480869|NCT03906136|168713247|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.82|-0.39|0.491
84480870|NCT03906136|168713248|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Net)|4.49||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.56|-0.58|0.082
84480871|NCT03906136|168713248|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||7.81|-2.35|0.292
84480872|NCT00878644|168713254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||16.1|-1.5|0.14
84480873|NCT00878644|168713255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||19.9|-1.8|0.13
84480874|NCT00878644|168713256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.13
84480875|NCT00878644|168713257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.81
84480876|NCT00394277|168713263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.075||||0.584||95.0|0.831|1.391||All secondary comparisons were tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||This reflects the primary protocol-specified comparison (standard Pegasys induction dosing arms versus pooled Pegasys induction dosing arms). The study was designed to have at least 86% power for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between these two pooled groups, with assumed response rates of 28%, 32%, 36%, and 43% in the four treatment arms.||1.391|0.831|0.584
84480877|NCT00394277|168713264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.039||||0.775||95.0|0.803|1.344||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.344|0.803|0.775
84497066|NCT04662086|168745256|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
84480878|NCT00394277|168713265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.973||95.0|0.777|1.299||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.299|0.777|0.973
84480879|NCT00394277|168713266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.951||95.0|0.78|1.304||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.304|0.780|0.951
84480880|NCT02371980|168713267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.828||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.828|0.323|0.006
84480881|NCT02371980|168713267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.767||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.767|0.296|0.002
84480882|NCT02371980|168713267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.782||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.782|0.298|0.003
84480883|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.68|-1.63|0.421
84480884|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||-0.08|-2.39|0.037
84733934|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9664
84480885|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.75|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.75|-1.57|0.488
84480886|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.93|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.93|-3.93|0.002
84480887|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.51|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-1.51|-4.49|<0.001
84480888|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.98|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.98|-4.02|0.001
84480889|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.13|-4.76|0.001
84480890|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-2.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-2.03|-5.64|<0.001
84480891|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-1.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.16|-4.84|0.001
84480892|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.08|-4.76|0.002
84480893|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-2.68|-6.34|<0.001
84480894|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.78|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.78|-5.50|<0.001
84480895|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.16|-3.92|0.033
84480896|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-1.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-1.82|-5.55|<0.001
84480897|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.73|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.73|-4.52|0.007
84480898|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.82|-4.40|0.004
84480899|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-2.31|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-2.31|-5.86|<0.001
84480900|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.96|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.96|-4.57|0.003
84480901|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.06|-3.89|0.057
84480902|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-1.55|-5.46|<0.001
84480903|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.55|-4.51|0.012
84480904|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.09|-3.88|0.061
84480905|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||-0.40|-4.31|0.018
84480906|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.12|-3.87|0.065
84480907|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||MMRM Model|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.86|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.86|-5.31|0.007
84480908|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.77|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.77|-6.16|<0.001
84480909|NCT02371980|168713268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.143||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-1.34|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.34|-5.82|0.002
84480910|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.14|-0.20|0.732
84480911|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.07|-0.26|0.273
84480912|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.09|-0.24|0.361
84480913|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.09|-0.48|0.004
84480914|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.12|-0.50|0.002
84480915|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
84480916|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.06|-0.54|0.014
84733935|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0747
84733936|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9681
84733937|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3246
84733938|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7984
84733939|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8581
84733940|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9677
84733941|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7104
84733942|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8978
84733943|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6260
84733944|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4047
84733945|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4461
84733946|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9099
84480917|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.16|-0.63|0.001
84733947|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8805
84733948|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2348
84733949|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4445|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4445
84733950|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8849
84733951|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2796
84733952|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5225
84733953|NCT00551135|169220592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7015
84733954|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3332
84733955|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0933
84733956|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0031
84733957|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9451
84733958|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7312
84733959|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
84733960|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8936
84733961|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7672
84733962|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4285
84733963|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0785
84733964|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3348
84733965|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1366
84571062|NCT05412134|168893260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
84733966|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3338|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3338
84733967|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4460
84733968|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1078
84733969|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8273
84733970|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6140
84733971|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1684
84733972|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
84733973|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2640
84733974|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8956
84733975|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0058
84733976|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9929
84733977|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0473
84733978|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2426
84480918|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.14|-0.62|0.002
84480919|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.03|-0.51|0.025
84480920|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.26|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.26|-0.74|<0.001
84480921|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.15|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.15|-0.63|0.002
84480922|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||0.12|-0.36|0.333
84480923|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.13|-0.61|0.002
84480924|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
84480925|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||0.03|-0.44|0.092
84480926|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
84480927|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.09|-0.57|0.008
84480928|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.11|-0.42|0.248
84480929|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
84480930|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.03|-0.50|0.087
84480931|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.38|0.362
84480932|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.10|-0.40|0.251
84480933|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.37|0.391
84480934|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||0.10|-0.45|0.209
84480935|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.06|-0.60|0.018
84480936|NCT02371980|168713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.09|-0.65|0.009
84480937|NCT02371980|168713271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.766||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.766|0.302|0.002
84571063|NCT01123655|168893265|EQUIVALENCE|P less than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.||||||0.5179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Specified to be a reduction from baseline values of net IFNƔ concentration of ≥ 25% in αl(ll)-stimulated PBMC culture supernatants (calculated as αI(II)-IFNƔ-PBS IFNƔ in patients receiving APL A12 compared to placebo.||||0.5179
84480938|NCT02371980|168713271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.455|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.725||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.725|0.286|<0.001
84480939|NCT02371980|168713271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.771||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.771|0.304|0.002
84480940|NCT00789724|168713273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
84480941|NCT00922974|168713308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Based on the one-sided exact binomial test with α=0.025 and a 2:1 randomization, 228 patients would be required to detect a 40% improvement in the response rate from 51% (external beam radiation therapy) to 70% (Radiosurgery/SBRT) with a statistical power of 0.80.||||0.99
84480942|NCT00922974|168713309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Reference level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||1.27|0.72|0.38
84733979|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3478
84733980|NCT00551135|169220596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1694
84733981|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0630
84733982|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
84733983|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0024
84733984|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0767
84733985|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1327
84733986|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0078
84733987|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0694
84733988|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2173
84733989|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0193
84733990|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0673
84733991|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2629
84480943|NCT00922974|168713310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|12.8|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025|Significance level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||12.8|0.24|0.29
84733992|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0388
84733993|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0651
84733994|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3242
84480944|NCT00922974|168713311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events.||||0.93
84733995|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0345
84733996|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0487
84733997|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3384
84733998|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0467
84733999|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
84734000|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3086
84734001|NCT00551135|169220597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0406
84480945|NCT00922974|168713311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with any adverse events.||||0.09
84480946|NCT00922974|168713312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.59
84480947|NCT00922974|168713313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.38
84734002|NCT00551135|169220598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4177
84734003|NCT00551135|169220598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4410
84480948|NCT00922974|168713314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming that the data are normally distributed, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances will be used to test the hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level. A mean difference of 7 points represents a clinically meaningful change (CMC). A difference of less than 7 points between the treatment arms will not be considered meaningful, even if it has statistical significance.||||0.28
84480949|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.4313
84480950|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.8707
84480951|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.1549
84480952|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.0193
84480953|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0016
84480954|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0003
84672224|NCT02659020|169080010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.667||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.158||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.158|0.385|0.148
84480955|NCT00922974|168713315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.6371
84480956|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.0218
84480957|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.9437
84480958|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0696
84480959|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.1140
84571064|NCT01123655|168893265|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the APL treated groups is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.0114|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.0114
84571065|NCT01123655|168893265|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the placebo group is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.4142|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.4142
84571066|NCT01123655|168893267|EQUIVALENCE|P greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable for baseline and follow-up data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84734004|NCT00551135|169220598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5560
84480960|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0003
84667772|NCT01955161|169070410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21||Corrected for multiplicity according toe the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.21|-1.37|1.000
84480961|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||<0.0001
84480962|NCT00922974|168713316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7732|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.7732
84480963|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5198|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.5198
84480964|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.1197
84480965|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0306
84571067|NCT01123655|168893268|EQUIVALENCE|p value greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable to IL-17a, IL-10, IL-1b, IL-9, IL-13, IL-5, IL-21, IL-6, TNFa, TGFb, MIP3a.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84667773|NCT01955161|169070410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.31||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.31|-1.29|1.000
84667774|NCT01955161|169070411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.20|-0.15|1.000
84667775|NCT01955161|169070411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.02||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, ADAS-cog total score and either ADCS-ADL23 total score or ADCS CGIC had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.02|-0.34|1.000
84667776|NCT03928847|169070432|SUPERIORITY|The mean EGCG blood levels were compared among 450 mg, 600 mg, and 750 mg groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84667777|NCT03928847|169070433|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84480966|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.7903
84734005|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
84734006|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
84734007|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
84734008|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5272
84734009|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4257
84734010|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1428
84734011|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2316
84734012|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3468
84734013|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5367
84734014|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0549
84734015|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1351
84734016|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9599
84734017|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
84734018|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
84734019|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
84734020|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2869
84734021|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9905
84734022|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9381
84480967|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||<0.0001
84480968|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0026
84480969|NCT00922974|168713317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.3282
84480970|NCT00323310|168713318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.1|<0.0001
84480971|NCT00323310|168713319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
84480972|NCT00323310|168713320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
84480973|NCT00323310|168713321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.6|1.1|<0.001
84480974|NCT00323310|168713322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.8|<0.001
84480975|NCT00323310|168713323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.8|0.4|<0.0001
84480976|NCT00323310|168713324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.0|<0.0001
84734023|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2158
84480977|NCT00323310|168713325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
84480978|NCT00323310|168713326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.1|0.6|<0.0001
84480979|NCT00446641|168713328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.654||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assumed that the prevalence of AR would be 12 % among ischemic stroke patients who were treated with aspirin 100 per day. The prevalence could be reduced to 4% with additional cilostazol therapy||||0.654
84480980|NCT02009930|168713407|OTHER||Wilson Method used|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.9||||||||22.9|9.4|
84480981|NCT02009930|168713408|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Only descriptive statistics were calculated (frequency, percent). Inferential statistics were not necessary, nor appropriate|||
84480982|NCT02009930|168713409|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor expressed as a p-value|Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient|Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor. Spearman's rho = 0.04||Compare risk categories (FRS and CAC)||||0.79
84734024|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7887
84734025|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9250
84480983|NCT02009930|168713410|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Relationship between FRS and metabolic syndrome. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.063
84480984|NCT02009930|168713410|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
84480985|NCT02009930|168713411|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Relationship between FRS and living in the dorms. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.56
84480986|NCT02009930|168713411|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
84480987|NCT02009930|168713412|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Relationship between FRS and PT failures. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate-high, high, and very high)||||0.44
84480988|NCT02009930|168713412|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
84480989|NCT02009930|168713413|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Relationship between FRS and overall years of service. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate -high, high, and very high)||||0.11
84480990|NCT02009930|168713413|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
84480991|NCT02009930|168713415|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
84480992|NCT02009930|168713416|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
84480993|NCT02009930|168713417|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
84480994|NCT02009930|168713418|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
84667778|NCT03928847|169070434|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84480995|NCT01510834|168713488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.578|-3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.070|-10.578|.001
84480996|NCT01510834|168713489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0872|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.731||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.26|2.91|.001
84480997|NCT01510834|168713490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.70|-5.84|<.001
84480998|NCT01510834|168713491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.269||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.751|-0.4244|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.4244|-3.751|.015
84667779|NCT03928847|169070435|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84667780|NCT03928847|169070436|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84667781|NCT03928847|169070437|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84667782|NCT01327300|169070453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GIS scoring system is from 1-7 with one being a worse outcome and 7 the better outcome.~Comparisons below list the p values for comparison of difference in GIS between baseline and mesalamine."||||.001
84480999|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.39||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.39|1.13|0.0009
84481000|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.77||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.77|1.53|0.0001
84481001|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.12||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.12|5.86|<0.0001
84481002|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.96||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.96|1.69|<0.0001
84481003|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.63|1.38|0.0003
84481004|NCT00563368|168713574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|8.38||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||8.38|5.11|<0.0001
84481005|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5832||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|3.563||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.563|1.154|0.0140
84481006|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6418||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|3.932||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.932|1.283|0.0046
84481007|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.424|20.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||20.81|5.424|<0.0001
84481008|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7391||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.514||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.514|1.460|0.0011
84481009|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6158||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|3.781||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.781|1.241|0.0066
84481010|NCT00563368|168713575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|17.66||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||17.66|4.650|<0.0001
84481011|NCT01784614|168713576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.96||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 0.1 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.908
84481012|NCT01784614|168713576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.67||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 1.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.98|0.45|0.083
84481013|NCT01784614|168713576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 3.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.78|0.36|0.010
84481014|NCT01784614|168713576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 6.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.51|0.18|<0.001
84481015|NCT03168555|168713586|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84667783|NCT01327300|169070453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of mean difference in GIS scores between baseline and placebo is made below.||||0.008
84481016|NCT03168555|168713588|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|lognormalized values||compares visit 1 with visit 2||||0.63
84481017|NCT03168555|168713589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84481018|NCT03168555|168713590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84481019|NCT03168555|168713591|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.41|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.41
84481020|NCT03168555|168713592|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.35|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.35
84481021|NCT03168555|168713592|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.03
84481022|NCT03168555|168713593|EQUIVALENCE|comparing visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.36|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.36
84481023|NCT03168555|168713594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.29
84481024|NCT03168555|168713595|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.73|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.73
84481025|NCT03168555|168713595|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.77
84481026|NCT03168555|168713596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
84481027|NCT02754661|168713616|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (δ) is pre-defined to be 5% in this study. Posterior Probability was based on Bayesian analysis.|Posterior Probability Bayesian analysis|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Support the claim of statistical non-inferiority of CCE vs CTC|||||
84481028|NCT02754661|168713617|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.203|0.5434|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.5434|0.2030|<0.0001
84481029|NCT02754661|168713618|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.026||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0847|0.0327|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.0327|-0.0847|0.0190
84481030|NCT02754661|168713619|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0023||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1249|0.1249|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1249|-0.1249|0.0930
84481031|NCT02754661|168713620|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0607||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0371|0.1585|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1585|-0.0371|0.0034
84481032|NCT01000025|168713621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.1-sied p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||The trial was designed to detect a 25% deduction in risk of death with PF-804 with 90% power using a 1-sided 2.5% level significance test. The sample size was estimated as 720 patients.||1.21|0.83|0.506
84481033|NCT01000025|168713622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center.||||1.03|0.61|0.043
84481034|NCT01000025|168713623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||1-sided pvalue|Log Rank|||||1.44|0.67|0.46
84481035|NCT01000025|168713624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||||0.79|0.55|< 0.0001
84481036|NCT01000025|168713625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|1.84|0.001
84481037|NCT04423757|168713627|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.56|-1.81|0.2796
84481038|NCT04423757|168713628|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.781|||Regression, Logistic||For the calculation of the odds ratio Placebo is taken as reference.|Logistic regression includes treatment as covariate.||0.781|0.091|0.0468
84481039|NCT04423757|168713629|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|S-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||7.17|-4.47|0.6980
84481040|NCT04423757|168713629|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|8.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|T-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.76|-1.67|0.2589
84481041|NCT04423757|168713630|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||1.15|-0.13|0.1863
84481042|NCT04423757|168713631|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||5.76|-4.46|0.8326
84481043|NCT04423757|168713632|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||0.89|-0.43|0.5567
84481044|NCT02738580|168713634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The proportion of patients with elevated Progesterone on last day of stimulation(\>1.5 ng/mL) was compared between both groups using the Chi-square test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84481045|NCT02738580|168713635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.49|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.49
84571068|NCT00062166|168893300|NON_INFERIORITY|Time dependent risk for requiring an intervention for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), among 63 patients with PNETs with diameter \>1.2 and \<3 cm, and a known position of germline VHL pathogenic variant (n=63). Comparison between exon 3 vs exon 1 and 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||||9.1|1.2|0.02
84734026|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1472
84734027|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5383
84734028|NCT00551135|169220599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8869
84734029|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.4024
84734030|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9766
84734031|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9975
84734032|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9038
84734033|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9370
84734034|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.2134
84734035|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
84734036|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2207
84734037|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
84734038|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0686
84734039|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0746
84734040|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0512
84734041|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.7118
84734042|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9883
84734043|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9770
84571069|NCT02368132|168893309|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Group Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||<0.001
84571070|NCT02368132|168893309|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Individual Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||0.04
84667784|NCT01327300|169070454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Correlation coefficients were used for each of three biomarkers in relation to other biomarkers and to the questionnaires and patient's symptoms.||||0.873
84667785|NCT01327300|169070454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pearson's linear coefficient||The study tested three biomarkers and symptom domains at baseline and the end of 12 weeks of placebo using the Mann-Whitney test, as well as correlations between domains with Pearson's linear correlation coefficient.||||0.810
84667786|NCT01327300|169070455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed P values are listed for baseline versus 12 weeks of mesalamine||"The FBDSI score is based on the severity of abdominal pian. Severity is rated as the following:~None= 0 points Mild= (1-36) Moderate =(37-110) Severe= (\>110 points)"||||0.67
84667787|NCT01327300|169070455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||See prior description of the FBDSI score. Change in the FBDSI after 12 weeks of intervention is made using a two sided t-test.||||0.77
84667788|NCT01327300|169070456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the IBS QOL we compared the change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) after 12 weeks of mesalamine.||||0.61
84667789|NCT01327300|169070456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL)from baseline after 12 weeks of intervention was made.||||0.33
84667790|NCT01327300|169070457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in HADS score of baseline to 12 weeks of mesalamine is made.||||0.71
84667791|NCT01327300|169070457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in HADS score between baseline and after 12 weeks of placebo is made.||||0.57
84667792|NCT01327300|169070458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the lactulose/mannitol ratio is made after a 12 week intervention with mesalamine to 12 weeks of placebo.||||0.55
84667793|NCT01268111|169070511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
84667794|NCT02094716|169070518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6084
84667795|NCT02094716|169070520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6937|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6937
84667796|NCT02094716|169070521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1010
84667797|NCT02094716|169070521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0764
84667798|NCT03538158|169070533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.7||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|299.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,131)=.07||||299.1|-287.7|.82
84667799|NCT03538158|169070534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,75)=.03||||4.4|-3.5|.97
84667800|NCT01232920|169070544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
84667801|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-28.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-22.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-22.51|-33.85|<0.0001
84667802|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-25.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.23|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-19.34|-31.23|<0.0001
84667803|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-29.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.15|-25.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-25.15|-33.15|<0.0001
84667804|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-22.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.36|-18.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-18.14|-26.36|<0.0001
84667805|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-17.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-13.50|-21.54|<0.0001
84667806|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-15.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.53|-11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-11.49|-19.53|<0.0001
84667807|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||-5.51|-13.97|<0.0001
84667808|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-4.98||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||-0.76|-9.19|0.0221
84667809|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-35.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-31.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-31.87|-38.89|<0.0001
84481046|NCT00293241|168713704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.405|||Log Rank||"Hospitalization:hospital admission with overnight stay;ER/office visits with cardioversions;acute treatment of worsened cardiac condition~CV:new/worsening HF,angina,MI,arrhythmia,stroke, TIA,acute peripheral vascular emergencies,pulmonary embolism"|"Analysis:Time to first cardiovascular hospitalization (CV hosp)~H0:freedom from CV hosp MVP=freedom from CV hosp DDD (dual chamber conventional pacing)~Ha:freedom from CV hosp MVP≠freedom from CV hosp DDD~Power calculation:~The study is designed to detect a difference event-free survival after 2 years of 5.5 % absolute, going from 91.5% to 97%.~Test=two-sided alpha=0.05 power=80% 1:1 randomization n=600"||1.405|0.612|0.72
84481047|NCT00293241|168713705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.127||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.57|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to first all cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization~H0:freedom from death or CV hospitalization=freedom from death or CV hospitalization~Ha:freedom from death or CV hospitalization≠freedom from death or CV hospitalization"||1.570|0.808|0.48
84481048|NCT00293241|168713706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|2.424|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to first persistent AT/AF H0:freedom from persistent AT/AF=freedom from persistent AT/AF Ha:freedom from persistent AT/AF≠freedom from persistent AT/AF||2.424|0.954|0.08
84481049|NCT00293241|168713707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|3.543|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to permanent AF H0:freedom from permanent AF=freedom from permanent AF Ha:freedom from permanent AF≠freedom from permanent AF||3.543|0.573|0.44
84481050|NCT00293241|168713708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Analysis:Wilcoxon Test for Comparison of Percentage of Ventricular Pacing (%VP) During Followup by Randomization Arm~H0:distribution %VP MVP=distribution %VP DDD~Ha:distribution %VP MVP≠distribution %VP DDD~Ha:"||||<0.0001
84481051|NCT00293241|168713709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.048
84481052|NCT00293241|168713711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated measures logistic regression|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression||||0.78
84481053|NCT00293241|168713712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Beta-blockers=Change in Beta-blockers Ha:Change in Beta-blockers≠Change in Beta-blockers||||0.34
84734044|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.5457
84481054|NCT00293241|168713712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Digitalis/digoxin=Change in Digitalis/digoxin Ha:Change in Digitalis/digoxin≠Change in Digitalis/digoxin||||0.65
84481055|NCT00293241|168713712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Calcium antagonists=Change in Calcium antagonists Ha:Change in Calcium antagonists≠Change in Calcium antagonists||||0.55
84481056|NCT00293241|168713712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug=Change in Antiarrhythmic drug Ha:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug≠Change in Antiarrhythmic drug||||0.53
84481057|NCT00293241|168713714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.923|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to all-cause death~H0:survival MVP ON=survival MVP OFF Ha:survival MVP ON≠survival MVP OFF"||1.923|0.803|0.33
84481058|NCT00293241|168713715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|1.637|||Log Rank|||||1.637|0.148|0.24
84667810|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-23.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-23.57|-30.60|<0.0001
84667811|NCT02246673|169070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-31.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-27.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-27.75|-34.77|<0.0001
84667812|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.57|35.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||35.98|12.57|0.0002
84667813|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.08||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|31.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||31.79|8.38|0.0013
84667814|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|33.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||33.17|14.23|<0.0001
84667815|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||28.44|8.30|0.0008
84667816|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|32.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||32.79|4.86|0.0101
84667817|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.52||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|34.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||34.48|6.56|0.0055
84481059|NCT00293241|168713716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical test for Number of subjects with CV hospitalization||||0.83
84667818|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|10.36||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|17.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||17.59|3.13|0.0065
84667819|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|1.79||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||8.94|-5.37|0.6140
84481060|NCT00293241|168713719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-R interval=Change in P-R interval Ha:Change in P-R interval≠Change in P-R interval||||0.34
84481061|NCT00293241|168713719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in QRS duration=Change in QRS duration Ha:Change in QRS duration≠Change in QRS duration||||0.19
84481062|NCT00293241|168713719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-wave duration=Change in P-wave duration Ha:Change in P-wave duration≠Change in P-wave duration||||0.29
84481063|NCT00293241|168713720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (Baseline)||||0.24
84481064|NCT00293241|168713720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (12 months)||||0.92
84481065|NCT00293241|168713720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (24 Months)||||1.0
84481066|NCT00293241|168713721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84481067|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.85|0.70|
84481068|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.90|0.72|
84481069|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.87|0.74|
84481070|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.63|0.68|
84481071|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||4.82|0.86|
84481072|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.46|0.31|
84481073|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||4.55|0.27|
84481074|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.61|0.19|
84481075|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||6.85|0.49|
84481076|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||4.73|0.76|
84481077|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.40|0.62|
84481078|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.65|0.52|
84481079|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.82|0.25|
84481080|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.23|0.24|
84481081|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.41|0.31|
84481082|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B,Day 1||4.46|0.32|
84481083|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||4.05|0.42|
84481084|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.24|
84481085|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.17|0.26|
84481086|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.89|0.11|
84481087|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.93|0.10|
84481088|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||4.99|0.74|
84481089|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.61|0.15|
84481090|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.90|0.21|
84481091|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|15.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||15.09|1.17|
84481092|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||7.07|0.52|
84481093|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.25|0.23|
84481094|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.62|0.21|
84481095|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.77|0.37|
84481096|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.94|0.38|
84481097|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.45|0.51|
84481098|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.63|0.31|
84481099|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.53|0.36|
84481100|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.08|0.24|
84481101|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.50|0.44|
84481102|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.61|0.58|
84481103|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||10.69|0.46|
84481104|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||5.99|0.31|
84481105|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||3.01|0.15|
84481106|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.74|0.50|
84481107|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.32|0.39|
84481108|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.39|0.35|
84481109|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.80|0.66|
84667820|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|30.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.62|46.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||46.04|15.62|0.0002
84481110|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.29|0.90|
84481111|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.17|0.76|
84481112|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.35|0.50|
84481113|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.02|0.24|
84481114|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.89|0.60|
84481115|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.15|0.41|
84481116|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.20|0.31|
84481117|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.32|0.48|
84481118|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.98|0.28|
84481119|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.68|0.15|
84481120|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.66|0.21|
84481121|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.18|0.42|
84481122|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.83|0.25|
84481123|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.76|0.24|
84734045|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.2579
84481124|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.29|0.51|
84481125|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.99|0.47|
84481126|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.25|0.53|
84481127|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.08|0.35|
84481128|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.03|0.31|
84481129|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.28|0.46|
84481130|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.08|0.27|
84481131|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.77|0.10|
84481132|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.30|0.56|
84481133|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.50|0.53|
84481134|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.23|0.39|
84481135|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.28|0.50|
84481136|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.79|0.32|
84481137|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.09|0.45|
84481138|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.96|0.42|
84481139|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.92|0.34|
84481140|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.10|0.37|
84481141|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.55|0.56|
84481142|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.46|0.08|
84481143|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.47|0.08|
84481144|NCT03803202|168713736|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.57|0.09|
84481145|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.23|0.52|
84481146|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.98|0.51|
84481147|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.83|0.72|
84481148|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.68|0.59|
84481149|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.05|0.90|
84481150|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.25|0.68|
84481151|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.15|0.49|
84481152|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.74|0.39|
84481153|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.59|0.59|
84481154|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||3.91|0.75|
84481155|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.46|0.36|
84481156|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.84|0.47|
84481157|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.52|0.57|
84481158|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.56|0.64|
84481159|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.28|0.52|
84481160|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.09|0.49|
84481161|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.43|
84481162|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.73|0.37|
84481163|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||3.01|0.76|
84481164|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.94|0.69|
84481165|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.91|0.98|
84481166|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.22|0.54|
84481167|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.36|0.41|
84481168|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.55|0.47|
84481169|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.99|0.84|
84481170|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||5.98|1.13|
84481171|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.15|0.37|
84603293|NCT01514240|168957162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.04|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.04|0.19|
84481172|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.06|0.61|
84481173|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.09|0.55|
84481174|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.65|0.59|
84481175|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||3.49|0.74|
84481176|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.65|0.42|
84481177|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.05|0.49|
84481178|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.39|0.63|
84481179|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.07|0.64|
84481180|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.34|0.53|
84481181|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.09|0.49|
84667821|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.38||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.63|39.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||39.14|9.63|0.0019
84481182|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.75|0.50|
84481183|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.00|0.42|
84481184|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.38|
84481185|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.73|0.52|
84481186|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.66|0.84|
84481187|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.28|0.84|
84481188|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.19|1.71|
84481189|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||6.06|2.47|
84481190|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||2.30|0.70|
84481191|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.81|0.57|
84481192|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||4.15|1.21|
84481193|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.57|0.70|
84481194|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.05|0.35|
84481195|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.39|0.65|
84481196|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.93|0.41|
84481197|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.79|0.33|
84481198|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.48|0.32|
84481199|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.83|0.57|
84481200|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.81|0.31|
84481201|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.97|0.39|
84481202|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.30|1.05|
84481203|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.55|1.10|
84481204|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|5.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||5.12|1.62|
84603294|NCT01514240|168957163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.76|-0.15|
84481205|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.87|0.49|
84481206|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.62|0.74|
84481207|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.27|0.87|
84481208|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.53|0.41|
84481209|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.60|0.45|
84481210|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||5.04|0.86|
84481211|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.57|
84481212|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.89|0.53|
84481213|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.56|
84481214|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.14|0.40|
84481215|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.61|0.46|
84481216|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.60|0.47|
84734046|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.1232
84481217|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.01|0.49|
84481218|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.53|0.75|
84481219|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.96|0.68|
84481220|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.07|0.20|
84481221|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.11|0.22|
84481222|NCT03803202|168713737|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.44|0.29|
84481223|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.14|0.56|
84481224|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.16|0.89|
84481225|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.06|0.51|
84481226|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.09|0.85|
84481227|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.30|0.91|
84481228|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.49|0.60|
84481229|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.40|0.46|
84481230|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.91|0.62|
84481231|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.23|0.40|
84481232|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.68|0.58|
84481233|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.29|0.76|
84481234|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.53|0.51|
84481235|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.72|0.54|
84481236|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.57|
84481237|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.10|0.86|
84481238|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.14|0.83|
84481239|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.24|0.59|
84481240|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.39|0.58|
84481241|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.80|0.40|
84481242|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.87|0.63|
84481243|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.37|0.45|
84481244|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.65||||||95.0|0.32|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.32|0.32|
84481245|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.64|0.37|
84481246|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.49|0.30|
84481247|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.18|0.31|
84481248|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.18|0.54|
84481249|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.65|0.66|
84481250|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||0.95|0.30|
84481251|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.57|0.73|
84481252|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.04|0.32|
84481253|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.32|0.44|
84481254|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.01|0.66|
84734047|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.2880
84481255|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.50|0.48|
84481256|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.38|0.45|
84481257|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.52|0.47|
84481258|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.12|0.34|
84481259|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.94|0.64|
84481260|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.42|0.77|
84481261|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.66|
84481262|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.47|0.47|
84481263|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.53|0.50|
84734048|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.0894
84734049|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.1979
84481264|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.20|0.74|
84481265|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|25.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.33|38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||38.34|16.33|
84481266|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|21.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.31|33.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||33.77|14.31|
84481267|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|35.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|54.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||54.22|23.09|
84481268|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.62|1.25|
84734050|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0686
84481269|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.56|1.83|
84481270|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.48|2.20|
84481271|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.62|0.59|
84481272|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
84481273|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.99|0.76|
84481274|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.21|0.71|
84481275|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.46|0.85|
84481276|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.72|1.25|
84481277|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
84481278|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.29|0.56|
84481279|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.30|0.54|
84481280|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.18|0.61|
84481281|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.21|0.65|
84481282|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.50|0.73|
84481283|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|30.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||30.87|12.26|
84481284|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||32.00|12.07|
84481285|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|41.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|66.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||66.90|26.20|
84481286|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|7.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||7.36|3.06|
84481287|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||8.37|3.83|
84481288|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|11.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||11.82|5.19|
84481289|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.42|0.49|
84481290|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.14|0.44|
84481291|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.95|0.76|
84481292|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.21|0.39|
84481293|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.50|0.54|
84481294|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.64|0.53|
84734051|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0746
84481295|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.11|0.84|
84481296|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.43|0.55|
84481297|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.50|0.95|
84481298|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.44|0.55|
84481299|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.63|
84481300|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.12|0.82|
84481301|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.70|
84481302|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.71|
84481303|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.67|0.78|
84481304|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.52||||||95.0|0.99|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.32|0.99|
84481305|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.18|1.00|
84481306|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.22|1.35|
84481307|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.36|
84481308|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.40|
84481309|NCT03803202|168713741|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.73|0.47|
84481310|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.42|0.57|
84481311|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||3.08|1.12|
84481312|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.49|0.53|
84481313|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.87|0.84|
84481314|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.73|1.18|
84481315|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.69|0.69|
84667822|NCT02246673|169070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|26.35||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|41.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||41.11|11.59|0.0009
84667823|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|139.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.92|184.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||184.31|93.92|<0.0001
84481316|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.21|0.54|
84481317|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.81|0.74|
84481318|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.00|0.44|
84481319|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.78|0.65|
84481320|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.63|0.96|
84481321|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.72|0.58|
84481322|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.47|0.53|
84481323|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.30|0.83|
84481324|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.44|0.80|
84481325|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.99|0.69|
84481326|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.67|1.19|
84481327|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.88|0.88|
84481328|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.65|0.62|
84481329|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.67|0.94|
84481330|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.64|0.50|
84481331|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.21|0.52|
84481332|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.54|0.97|
84481333|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.60|0.60|
84481334|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.33|0.40|
84481335|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.44|0.73|
84481336|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.63|0.46|
84481337|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.12|0.42|
84481338|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.55|0.92|
84481339|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.37|0.44|
84481340|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.25|0.54|
84481341|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.12|0.84|
84481342|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.66|0.66|
84481343|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.37|0.51|
84481344|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.11|0.75|
84481345|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.72|0.57|
84481346|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.86|0.63|
84481347|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.08|0.69|
84667824|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|174.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.52|233.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||233.42|125.52|<0.0001
84667825|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|168.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.13|212.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||212.93|123.13|<0.0001
84667826|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.04|239.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||239.46|138.04|<0.0001
84667827|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|70.43||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|107.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||107.12|33.74|0.0005
84667828|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.81|128.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||128.19|54.81|<0.0001
84481348|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.67|
84481349|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.52|
84481350|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.59|0.68|
84481351|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.80|0.76|
84481352|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.01|1.42|
84481353|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.58|2.37|
84481354|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||5.79|2.83|
84481355|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.27|0.49|
84481356|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.48|0.63|
84481357|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.65|0.66|
84481358|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.29|0.75|
84481359|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.19|0.77|
84481360|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.37|1.08|
84481361|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.49|0.50|
84481362|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.72|0.65|
84481363|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||2.10|0.71|
84481364|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.75|0.56|
84481365|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.47|0.84|
84481366|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||3.15|1.00|
84481367|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.30|1.02|
84481368|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.26|1.06|
84481369|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.53|1.09|
84481370|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.07|0.81|
84481371|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.57|1.04|
84481372|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.47|1.35|
84481373|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.68|0.58|
84734052|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.4669
84734053|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.5533
84734054|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
84734055|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
84734056|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.4793
84734057|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.3533
84734058|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.8852
84734059|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
84734060|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
84734061|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.8864
84734062|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.8084
84734063|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.3173
84481374|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.05|0.77|
84481375|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.81|0.99|
84481376|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.95|0.39|
84734064|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.2207
84734065|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.3747
84734066|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.1450
84481377|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.70|
84481378|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.57|0.67|
84481379|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.25|0.56|
84481380|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.52|0.75|
84481381|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.86|0.77|
84481382|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.90|0.76|
84481383|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.58|1.11|
84734067|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.2054
84734068|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.4106
84734069|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2199
84734070|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2896
84481384|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.52|1.41|
84481385|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.47|0.50|
84481386|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.35|0.51|
84481387|NCT03803202|168713742|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||2.02|0.69|
84481388|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.805
84481389|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.102
84481390|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.158
84481391|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.2|-0.4|0.596
84481392|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.025
84481393|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.005
84481394|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.037
84481395|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.9|0.2|0.002
84481396|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.230
84481397|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.984
84481398|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
84481399|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.264
84481400|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.638
84481401|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.036
84481402|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.094
84481403|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.266
84481404|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.250
84481405|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.5|-0.5|0.927
84481406|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.679
84481407|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.589
84481408|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.880
84481409|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.2|0.623
84481410|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.232
84481411|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.451
84481412|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.785
84481413|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
84481414|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
84481415|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.1|0.146
84481416|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.8|0.2|0.003
84481417|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.113
84481418|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.453
84481419|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
84481420|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.020
84481421|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.218
84481422|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.125
84481423|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.706
84481424|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.246
84481425|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||1.1|0.3|<.001
84481426|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.010
84481427|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.2|-0.7|0.260
84481428|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.366
84481429|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
84481430|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.1|-0.8|0.101
84481431|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.522||95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.522
84481432|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.026
84481433|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.2|-0.6|0.236
84481434|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.528
84481435|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.081
84481436|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.2|-0.5|0.388
84481437|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.151
84481438|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.024
84481439|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.476
84481440|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.077
84481441|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
84481442|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.767
84481443|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.364
84481444|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.522
84481445|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.962
84481446|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.091
84481447|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.093
84481448|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.455
84481449|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.093
84481450|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||1.1|0.1|0.017
84481451|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.561
84481452|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.343
84481453|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.132
84481454|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.898
84481455|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.9|-0.3|0.313
84481456|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.366
84481457|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.961
84481458|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.269
84481459|NCT03803202|168713745|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.245
84481460|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.213
84481461|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.097
84481462|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.631
84481463|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.699
84481464|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.042
84481465|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.092
84481466|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.007
84481467|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
84481468|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.237
84481469|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.248
84481470|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.193
84481471|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.838
84481472|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.898
84481473|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.143
84481474|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.108
84481475|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.396
84481476|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.182
84481477|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.593
84481478|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.186
84481479|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.1|0.0|0.038
84481480|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.408
84481481|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.805
84481482|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.711
84481483|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.891
84481484|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.649
84481485|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
84481486|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.9|0.3|<.001
84734071|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||1.0000
84734072|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3173
84734073|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3943
84734074|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.1703
84734075|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.0807
84734076|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.7728
84734077|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.4770
84734078|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.3625
84481487|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.454
84481488|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.003
84734079|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.0617
84734080|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 72 h PS;||||0.3061
84734081|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.2207
84734082|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.3173
84734083|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.9191
84734084|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.3173
84734085|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.2207
84734086|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6692
84734087|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.7793
84734088|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6065
84481489|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.021
84481490|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.205
84481491|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.015
84481492|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.209
84481493|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.502
84481494|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.054
84734089|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.3570
84734090|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.9690
84734091|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.5299
84481495|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.190
84734092|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.4821
84734093|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.8295
84734094|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.3304
84734095|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 3 h PS;||||0.2482
84734096|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
84734097|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2207
84734098|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.8055
84734099|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
84481496|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.616
84481497|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.018
84734100|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.8488
84734101|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
84734102|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
84734103|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2207
84734104|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
84734105|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.3291
84734106|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.1391
84734107|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.6318
84481498|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.056
84481499|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.4|0.527
84481500|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.8|-0.4|0.444
84481501|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.869
84481502|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.305
84481503|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
84734108|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.6319
84734109|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8149|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.8149
84481504|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.299
84481505|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.140
84481506|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.3|0.4|<.001
84481507|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.012
84481508|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.200
84481509|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.037
84481510|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.380
84481511|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.006
84481512|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.018
84481513|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.810
84481514|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.173
84734110|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.5795
84481515|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.096
84481516|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.710
84481517|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.100
84481518|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.1|0.2|0.007
84481519|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.251
84481520|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.618
84481521|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|0.0|0.041
84481522|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
84481523|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.758
84481524|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.012
84481525|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.025
84481526|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.912
84481527|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.174
84481528|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.138
84481529|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.267
84481530|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.300
84481531|NCT03803202|168713746|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.982
84481532|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.08|1.06|
84481533|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.37|0.68|
84481534|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.00|0.92|
84481535|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.79|1.25|
84481536|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||1.77|0.80|
84481537|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.00|0.73|
84481538|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.29|0.94|
84481539|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.04|1.68|
84481540|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||14.50|5.65|
84481541|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.95|1.09|
84481542|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER|Serotype 33F|Ratio of GMT|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.11|0.86|
84481543|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.83|0.93|
84481544|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.43|0.67|
84481545|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.26|1.62|
84481546|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||4.90|1.68|
84481547|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.06|0.98|
84481548|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||1.48|0.54|
84481549|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.64|0.73|
84481550|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||3.25|1.40|
84481551|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||11.50|4.61|
84481552|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.48|0.96|
84481553|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||1.84|0.83|
84481554|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.94|1.51|
84481555|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.97|1.46|
84481556|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||3.20|1.56|
84481557|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.89|1.79|
84481558|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||3.62|1.63|
84481559|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12 F||2.55|0.89|
84481560|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.57|1.11|
84481561|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||5.20|2.18|
84481562|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|22.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||22.72|8.26|
84481563|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.46|1.36|
84481564|NCT03803202|168713747|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.57|1.11|
84481565|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.93|0.95|
84481566|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.13|1.07|
84481567|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.33|1.09|
84481568|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.47|1.45|
84481569|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.65|1.27|
84481570|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.23|0.77|
84481571|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.91|0.80|
84481572|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.07|1.70|
84481573|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||3.67|1.61|
84481574|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.65|1.70|
84481575|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.54|1.10|
84481576|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.07|0.98|
84481577|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.26|1.11|
84481578|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.72|1.23|
84481579|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.05||||||Serotype 10A||4.05|1.66|
84481580|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.73|1.32|
84481581|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.71|0.93|
84481582|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.53|1.11|
84481583|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.93|2.17|
84481584|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||4.22|1.85|
84481585|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.88|1.79|
84481586|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.01|1.40|
84481587|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.84|1.37|
84481588|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||4.18|2.12|
84481589|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||4.44|2.02|
84481590|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.86|2.25|
84481591|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||4.18|1.96|
84481592|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.96|0.91|
84481593|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||4.61|1.87|
84481594|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||6.26|2.55|
84481595|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.91|2.46|
84481596|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.90|2.74|
84481597|NCT03803202|168713748|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.23|1.38|
84497067|NCT04662086|168745257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
84497068|NCT04662086|168745259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
84481598|NCT00583661|168713758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size determination: A sample of 24 subjects followed for approximately 100 days provides greater than 80% power to conclude that, with a 1-sided alpha=0.025 test, the SAE rate of the EXCOR (assumed to be 0.21 per patient-day) is less than 0.25 per patient-day. This sample size was estimated using 10,000 simulations of this study. A total enrollment of 48 subjects (24 per cohort) were enrolled and implanted with the EXCOR® Pediatric.|Poisson confidence interval|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.25||A Poisson exact confidence interval was calculated and the critical-value method was used for the significance testing. Success was defined as the upper bound of the 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.|Poisson confidence interval|||Ho: EXCOR® SAE Rate \>=0.25 Ha: EXCOR® SAE Rate \< 0.25 Where serious adverse event (SAE) rate is calculated as the total number of serious adverse events divided by the sum of days all patients are on the EXCOR® Pediatric device, and 0.25 serious adverse events per patient-day is the success criterion. Study success in terms of safety will be demonstrated by the upper bound of a two-sided 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.||0.25|0|<0.05
84481599|NCT01367860|168713760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-4.05|0.05
84481600|NCT01367860|168713761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84481601|NCT01367860|168713762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|-2.21|<0.05
84481602|NCT01367860|168713763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-2.76|<0.05
84481603|NCT01367860|168713765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.01|-2.58|<0.05
84481604|NCT01367860|168713766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-1.3|<0.05
84481605|NCT01367860|168713767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|8.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.8|-2.36|<0.05
84481606|NCT01367860|168713768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-4.4|<0.05
84481607|NCT01367860|168713769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.55|-7.15|<0.05
84481608|NCT01367860|168713770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.67|-7.14|<0.05
84481609|NCT01367860|168713771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|-8.16|<0.05
84481610|NCT01367860|168713772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.12|<0.05
84481611|NCT01367860|168713773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2|<0.05
84481612|NCT01367860|168713774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.85|-2.55|<0.05
84481613|NCT01367860|168713775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.23|-2.29|<0.05
84481614|NCT01367860|168713776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-1.67|<0.05
84481615|NCT01270958|168713777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481616|NCT01270958|168713778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481617|NCT01270958|168713779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481618|NCT01270958|168713780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481619|NCT01270958|168713781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481620|NCT01270958|168713782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481621|NCT01270958|168713783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481622|NCT01270958|168713784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481623|NCT01270958|168713785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84481624|NCT01270958|168713786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481625|NCT01270958|168713787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481626|NCT01270958|168713788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481627|NCT01270958|168713789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481628|NCT01270958|168713790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481629|NCT01270958|168713791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481630|NCT01270958|168713792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481631|NCT01270958|168713793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481632|NCT01270958|168713794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84481633|NCT01270958|168713795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84497069|NCT04662086|168745260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
84734111|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.1750
84734112|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.0676
84734113|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.2943
84734114|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.0719
84734115|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9283
84734116|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9024
84734117|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.7655
84734118|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||1.0000
84734119|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.8460
84734120|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.6419
84734121|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.9522
84734122|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.5800
84734123|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.7675
84734124|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1672
84734125|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.9634
84734126|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1161
84734127|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0754
84734128|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
84734129|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
84734130|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
84734131|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.8091
84481634|NCT01711658|168713859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.1803|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|Hazard ratio (lapatinib/placebo) set at 0.65 (35% reduction), 1-sided alpha 0.20 (final test at 0.1803 accounting for 1 interim analysis), logrank test, 80% power, 69 events in 128 randomized (142 total enrolled) patients required. Final analysis at 67 (of 69) events drops power to 79%.||1.46|0.56|0.3436
84481635|NCT01711658|168713860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.86|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.86|0.61|0.5836
84481636|NCT01711658|168713861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.65|0.25|0.1743
84481637|NCT01711658|168713862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7989|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7989
84481638|NCT01711658|168713863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||IMRT|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.3728
84667829|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|40.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.17|55.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||55.05|25.17|<0.0001
84667830|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|15.96||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|30.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||30.71|1.20|0.0350
84667831|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|236.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.29|293.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||293.86|178.29|<0.0001
84667832|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|146.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|202.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||202.01|90.40|<0.0001
84667833|NCT02246673|169070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|176.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.77|232.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||232.38|120.77|<0.0001
84667834|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|135.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.33|178.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||178.32|93.33|<0.0001
84667835|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|178.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.25|227.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||227.90|129.25|<0.0001
84667836|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|163.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.8|207.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||207.16|120.80|<0.0001
84667837|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|169.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.82|217.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||217.03|122.82|<0.0001
84667838|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|59.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|90.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||90.34|28.85|0.0007
84667839|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|73.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.79|104.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||104.28|42.79|<0.0001
84667840|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.21|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||46.20|21.21|<0.0001
84667841|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|39.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||39.58|14.58|0.0001
84667842|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.55|225.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||225.10|152.55|<0.0001
84667843|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.76|151.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||151.90|81.76|<0.0001
84667844|NCT02246673|169070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|151.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.59|186.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||186.73|116.59|<0.0001
84667845|NCT02418468|169070560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM|||||0.07|-0.26|0.262
84667846|NCT00791518|169070583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||||95.0|0.1|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and are adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.1|
84667847|NCT00791518|169070584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||||95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.2|
84667848|NCT00791518|169070589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||||95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||1.7|-0.4|
84667849|NCT00791518|169070590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.2|2.1|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||2.1|-0.2|
84667850|NCT00720057|169070595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment differences between the two groups were tested each at the 5% two-sided significant level using a hierarchal testing procedure to control the overall type 1 error. SPID16-24 was eligible for testing only after a statistically significant difference between the two arms with respect to SPID0-24 was observed. The SPIDs were analyzed via ANCOVA model with treatment and trial site as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity score as the covariate.||||<0.001
84734132|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
84734133|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
84734134|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
84734135|NCT00551135|169220600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.4386
84734136|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1723
84734137|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS||||0.0639
84734138|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.0021
84734139|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.1127
84734140|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0703
84734141|NCT00551135|169220601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0012
84734142|NCT00551135|169220603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1927
84734143|NCT00551135|169220603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS||||0.3865
84734144|NCT00551135|169220603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.9869
84734145|NCT00551135|169220603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.4354
84734146|NCT00551135|169220603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.8061
84734147|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1682
84734148|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2821
84734149|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4781
84734150|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0557
84734151|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6098
84734152|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1821
84734153|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1628
84734154|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8999
84481639|NCT01711658|168713863|OTHER|||||||0.7781||||||Cisplatin|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7781
84481640|NCT01711658|168713863|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Pre-IMRT lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.8000
84481641|NCT01711658|168713863|OTHER|||||||0.6459||||||Concurrent lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.6459
84481642|NCT01711658|168713863|OTHER|||||||0.4792||||||Maintenance lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4792
84481643|NCT01711658|168713864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||2.17|0.62|0.6735
84497070|NCT04662086|168745261|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
84667851|NCT00720057|169070596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84734155|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
84734156|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2665
84734157|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4885|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4885
84734158|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6415|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6415
84734159|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2269
84734160|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3228
84734161|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1808
84734162|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3282
84734163|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0342
84481644|NCT02460978|168713895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.26|-0.49|<0.0001
84481645|NCT02460978|168713895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.30|-0.53|<0.0001
84734164|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4198
84481646|NCT02460978|168713896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-7.72|-13.73|<0.0001
84667852|NCT00720057|169070597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84734165|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9049
84734166|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0456
84734167|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2463
84734168|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8231
84734169|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0221
84734170|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6974
84734171|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7461
84481647|NCT02460978|168713896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-8.02|-14.04|<0.0001
84481648|NCT02460978|168713897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.45|-3.96|<0.0001
84481649|NCT02460978|168713897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.99|-4.49|<0.0001
84481650|NCT02460978|168713898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3468|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-11.05|-20.26|<0.0001
84481651|NCT02460978|168713898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3419|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-15.14|-24.34|<0.0001
84481652|NCT02460978|168713899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|-5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-5.03|-14.66|<0.0001
84481653|NCT02460978|168713899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4487||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-4.55|-14.16|0.0001
84481654|NCT02460978|168713900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||11.06|6.97|<0.0001
84481655|NCT02460978|168713900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||12.74|8.66|<0.0001
84481656|NCT02460978|168713901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.06|1.81|<0.0001
84481657|NCT02460978|168713901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.60|2.05|<0.0001
84481658|NCT01459068|168713910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|longitudinal model|longitudinal to model within-person change in mean scores||||-0.40|-0.59|<0.001
84481659|NCT01459068|168713911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|power calculations were not done for secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.28|||longitudinal model|||||-0.28|-0.59|<0.001
84481660|NCT01459068|168713912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.35||a priori threshold for significance set at 0.05|longitudinal model|longitudinal analysis modeling within-person change in mean scores||||-0.35|-0.51|<0.001
84481661|NCT01459068|168713913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations on secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.34|||longitudinal model|||||-0.34|-0.61|<0.001
84481662|NCT01459068|168713914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||longitudinal model|||||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
84481663|NCT01459068|168713915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||longitudinal model|||||0.50|-0.44|0.896
84497071|NCT04253756|168745269|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority (Delta) was 5g/dl|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84497072|NCT04253756|168745270|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (Delta) was 10 minutes of run time, no other key parameters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84497073|NCT00568776|168745282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.14|0.71
84667853|NCT00720057|169070598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistics are from the Kaplan-Meier method. The median for naproxen treatment arm was not estimable from Kaplan-Meier method, therefore it is presented as the maximum value from the full range.||||<0.001
84667854|NCT00720057|169070599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84667855|NCT00720057|169070600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84672225|NCT02659020|169080011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.007||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.007|0.476|0.055
84481664|NCT02023112|168713921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.1|96.6|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~Lower bound of 95% confidence interval (LCB) must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-interferon (IFN) alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||96.6|80.1|
84481665|NCT02023112|168713921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|85.1|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~LCB must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-IFN alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||85.1|61.2|
84481666|NCT00701441|168713927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||For comparing pre versus post, paired t tests were used. We considered tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive|t-test, 2 sided|For each comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values. We used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance.||Flow mediated dilation = \[(average maximum dilation post cuff deflation - average baseline diameter)/ average baseline diameter\]100||||0.02
84481667|NCT00701441|168713928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||We only consider tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive, so testing is conservative from that perspective. However, we used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance|t-test, 2 sided|||For comparing pre- versus post-treatment, paired t tests were used. For each variable and comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values.||||0.02
84481668|NCT00360685|168713941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was based on the difference in the proportion of patients in each arm who were predicted to develop severe mucositis defined as clinical grade 3 or 4 per the CTCAE. A sample-size of 42 evaluable subjects per study-arm allowed detection of an absolute difference of 30%, which corresponds to a reduction in the incidence of severe mucositis from 60% in the methotrexate arm to 30% in the MMF arm (alpha=0.05, power=0.80).||||0.06
84481669|NCT00360685|168713942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||K-sample tests for comparing the cumulat|||||||0.8
84481670|NCT00360685|168713943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
84481671|NCT01576406|168713955|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.47|144.72||||||Confidence interval (CI): Geometric mean ratio and 90 percent (%) CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||144.72|57.47|
84481672|NCT01576406|168713955|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.11|232.12||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||232.12|89.11|
84481673|NCT01576406|168713955|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.13|168.99||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||168.99|70.13|
84481674|NCT01576406|168713955|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.07|107.5||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||107.50|49.07|
84481675|NCT01576406|168713981|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|91.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.56|146.79||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||146.79|56.56|
84481676|NCT01576406|168713981|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|149.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|243.46||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||243.46|91.85|
84481677|NCT01576406|168713981|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|114.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|176.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||176.89|73.57|
84481678|NCT01576406|168713981|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|64.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|105.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||105.89|39.50|
84481679|NCT01576406|168713982|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|108.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.47|185.26||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||185.26|63.47|
84481680|NCT01576406|168713982|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|202.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.96|340.3||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||340.30|120.96|
84481681|NCT01576406|168713982|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|130.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.61|197.47||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||197.47|86.61|
84481682|NCT01576406|168713982|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|62.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.54|92.78||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||92.78|42.54|
84481683|NCT00892957|168713998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
84481684|NCT00892957|168713999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.001
84481685|NCT00892957|168714000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.012
84481686|NCT00892957|168714001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.158
84481687|NCT00892957|168714003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.380
84481688|NCT00892957|168714004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.545
84481689|NCT00669032|168714052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84481690|NCT00669032|168714053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
84481691|NCT00669032|168714054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
84481692|NCT00669032|168714055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
84481693|NCT00669032|168714056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
84481694|NCT00669032|168714057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84481695|NCT00669032|168714058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
84481696|NCT00669032|168714059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84734172|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1198
84734173|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8031
84734174|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8515
84734175|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
84734176|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5561
84734177|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6858
84734178|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0693
84734179|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5547
84734180|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4610
84734181|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6640
84734182|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6158
84734183|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1632
84734184|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1770
84734185|NCT00551135|169220604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4882
84481697|NCT00669032|168714060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84481698|NCT00669032|168714061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84734186|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7936
84734187|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5092
84734188|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4233
84734189|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2033
84734190|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2142
84734191|NCT00551135|169220605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1218
84734192|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0830
84481699|NCT00669032|168714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9129
84497074|NCT00568776|168745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-6.33|0.18
84481700|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.86|-8.60|
84481701|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.06|-7.78|
84497075|NCT00568776|168745284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-0.06|0.17
84497076|NCT00568776|168745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-5.41|0.49
84734193|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2339
84734194|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0629
84734195|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5721
84734196|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9713
84734197|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4809
84734198|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1561
84734199|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5267
84734200|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1125
84734201|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2965
84734202|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7774
84734203|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
84734204|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4465|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4465
84734205|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4385
84734206|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2265
84734207|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5985
84734208|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2146
84734209|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3382
84734210|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0430
84734211|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1128
84734212|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0632
84734213|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8667
84734214|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6365
84734215|NCT00551135|169220606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9275
84734216|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2136
84734217|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0094
84734218|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2131
84734219|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3245
84734220|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4070
84734221|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3490
84734222|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1122
84734223|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1380
84734224|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2023
84734225|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2639
84734226|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2524
84734227|NCT00551135|169220608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0832
84481702|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-2.84|-7.60|
84734228|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.2371
84734229|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.4435
84734230|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.1692
84734231|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.8169
84734232|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.5592
84734233|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.4453
84734234|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.4795
84734235|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.2733
84734236|NCT00551135|169220609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.3173
84734237|NCT04599855|169220612|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) means difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|-2.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.33|-7.91|<0.001
84734238|NCT04599855|169220612|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-4.07|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.07|-9.48|<0.001
84734239|NCT04599855|169220613|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-1.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.22|-6.29|=0.004
84734240|NCT04599855|169220613|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.00|-5.89|=0.006
84734241|NCT02165397|169220614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.42||The treatment effect was tested with a stratified log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were based on a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||0.420|0.148|< 0.0001
84734242|NCT02165397|169220615|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|3.639||Response rate was compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.639|1.753|< 0.0001
84734243|NCT02165397|169220616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.212||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a stratified Cox regression model.|||0.212|0.049|< 0.0001
84734244|NCT02165397|169220617|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.813|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|2.421|||Chi-squared|||||2.421|1.357|< 0.0001
84734245|NCT02165397|169220618|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.238||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.603||CMH chi squared test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.603|0.955|0.1059
84734246|NCT02165397|169220619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.99||P-value is from unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|Data cutoff 18 December 2019||1.99|0.328|0.643
84734247|NCT00424554|169220652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84734248|NCT00107978|169220736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||||95.0|-2.9|7.9||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|2-sided 95% confidence interval|2-sided 95% confidence interval calculated on the difference in cure rates between treatment groups.||||7.9|-2.9|
84734249|NCT02669407|169220738|OTHER|Single group|||||<|0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||||||<0.001
84734250|NCT02669407|169220739|OTHER|Single group||||||0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||Baseline, 30 minutes||||0.001
84734251|NCT02669407|169220740|OTHER|Single group||||||0.007|||||||Tukey's method|||baseline, 30 minutes||||0.007
84734252|NCT02669407|169220744|OTHER|Single group||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end diastolic dimension||||0.237
84734253|NCT02669407|169220744|OTHER|Single group||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end systolic dimension||||0.586
84734254|NCT02669407|169220745|OTHER|Single group||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175
84734255|NCT02669407|169220747|OTHER|Single group||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
84734256|NCT02669407|169220748|OTHER|Single group||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.787
84734257|NCT02669407|169220750|OTHER|Single group||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 90 minutes||||0.606
84734258|NCT02669407|169220750|OTHER|Single group||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 24 hours||||0.045
84734259|NCT03634839|169220751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.184||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84481703|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||3.20|-1.58|
84481704|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repreated Measure Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||1.41|-3.43|
84481705|NCT02564029|168714085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||2.16|-2.56|
84481706|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.86|-8.60|
84481707|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.06|-7.78|
84481708|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-2.84|-7.60|
84481709|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||3.20|-1.58|
84481710|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.41|-3.43|
84481711|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||2.16|-2.56|
84481712|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-5.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-5.01|-8.01|
84481713|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|-4.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.95|-7.93|
84481714|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|-4.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.28|-7.20|
84481715|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.46|-1.31|
84734260|NCT03634839|169220752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.881||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models with flavor as a within-subject factor. A significant main effect of flavor with greater liking of sweet plus cooling flavor than sweet minus cooling flavor will be considered supportive of our hypotheses.||||0.187
84481716|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.65|-2.19|
84481717|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.70|-2.09|
84481718|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|-3.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.25|-5.60|
84481719|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.17|-5.57|
84481720|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.19|-5.57|
84481721|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.19|-1.08|
84734261|NCT03634839|169220753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
84481722|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.10|-1.18|
84481723|NCT02564029|168714086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.13|-1.11|
84481724|NCT00617656|168714113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Log Rank|||This is a futility analysis. The initial hypothesis of the clinical trial was that the experimental group as a whole was superior to the control group.||1.67|0.76|0.56
84481725|NCT00617656|168714113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.73|0.79
84481726|NCT00617656|168714113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.95|||Log Rank|||||2.95|1.38|0.0001
84481727|NCT00617656|168714114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.12|||Log Rank|||||2.12|1.13|0.006
84481728|NCT00937326|168714142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
84481729|NCT00937326|168714142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.1147
84481730|NCT00937326|168714142|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||1.0000
84481731|NCT00937326|168714142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
84481732|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|168.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.87|228.94|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval (CI) were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||228.94|123.87|
84481733|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|110.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.18|139.43|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||139.43|88.18|
84481734|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|133.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|176.21|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||176.21|100.55|
84481735|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Other|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|126.48|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||126.48|70.31|
84481736|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|141.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.2|180.39|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||180.39|111.20|
84481737|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|153.11|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||153.11|85.56|
84481738|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|167.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.73|231.25|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||231.25|120.73|
84481739|NCT00937326|168714166|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|117.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|162.79|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||162.79|85.14|
84481740|NCT00937326|168714167|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|122.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|171.8|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||171.80|86.94|
84497077|NCT00568776|168745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|-3.73|0.77
84734262|NCT03634839|169220754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.942||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
84481741|NCT00937326|168714167|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|94.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.07|129.16|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||129.16|69.07|
84481742|NCT00937326|168714167|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|143.95|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||143.95|91.54|
84481743|NCT00937326|168714167|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|120.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.66|163.23|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||163.23|88.66|
84481744|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.997
84481745|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.581
84481746|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.987
84481747|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.999
84481748|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.850
84481749|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.843
84481750|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.961
84481751|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.939
84481752|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.966
84481753|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.075
84481754|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.700
84481755|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.732
84497078|NCT00568776|168745287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.63|0.54
84481756|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.552
84734263|NCT01196819|169220787|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.13mm, if the two-sided upper 95% confidence bound is \<Δ, the Firehawk Stent being tested will be considered non-inferior to the control. This corresponds to a P value \<0.05 from a two-sided Student t-test comparing the difference between FirehawkStent and Xience stent to delta.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|||H0: Pe - Pc≥ ∆, H1: Pe - Pc \< ∆. Pe and Pc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss for the subject in the Firehawk DES group and the Xience group, respectively. ∆ is the non-inferiority margin. A two-sided upper 95% confidence bound will be calculated for the difference in 9-month in-stent late loss .||0.29|0|0.94
84734264|NCT01196819|169220788|NON_INFERIORITY|Assume the in-stent percent diameter stenosis of both FIREHAWK and XIENCE V are 16 ± 16%, the non-inferiority value is 5%, the level of statistical significance is 0.05 (bilateral test), the power is 85%.||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84734265|NCT01196819|169220789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84734266|NCT01196819|169220790|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.76
84734267|NCT01196819|169220791|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
84734268|NCT01196819|169220792|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84481757|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.196
84481758|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.393
84481759|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.775
84734269|NCT00832000|169220802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.706|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.706|-2.66|<0.001
84734270|NCT00832000|169220802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.04||95.0|-3.85|-0.139|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.139|-3.85|0.04
84734271|NCT00832000|169220803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.26|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.26|-2.00|<0.001
84734272|NCT00832000|169220804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.861|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.861|-1.67|<0.001
84734273|NCT00832000|169220805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.532|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.532|-1.30|<0.001
84734274|NCT00832000|169220806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.109|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.563|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|-0.056|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.056|-0.177|<0.001
84734275|NCT00832000|169220807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|9.75|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||9.75|-0.680|0.09
84481760|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||1.000
84481761|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.989
84481762|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.603
84497079|NCT00568776|168745288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-3.43|0.65
84734276|NCT00832000|169220808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|-0.325|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.325|-0.812|<0.001
84734277|NCT00832000|169220809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.142|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.142|-0.633|<0.001
84734278|NCT00832000|169220810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.889|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.149|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.149|-0.602|<0.001
84734279|NCT00832000|169220811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|-0.254|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.254|-0.675|<0.001
84734280|NCT00832000|169220812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|6.73|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||6.73|-3.34|0.50
84734281|NCT00832000|169220813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.3|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.30|-4.07|<0.001
84734282|NCT00832000|169220814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|7.72|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||7.72|3.44|<0.001
84734283|NCT00832000|169220815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.17|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||5.17|-5.87|0.90
84734284|NCT00832000|169220815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|20.6|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||20.6|0.941|0.03
84734285|NCT00817336|169220849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84734286|NCT00817336|169220850|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84734287|NCT00817336|169220851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
84734288|NCT00817336|169220852|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
84734289|NCT00511797|169220853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.34||Pre-defined sequential tests were applied to protect alpha inflation by multiplicity.|t-test, 1 sided|||Three null hypotheses were sequentially tested. H01: DRSP 3 mg \>= Placebo (Active is equal or less in decrease of score) vs H11: DRSP 3 mg \< Placebo (Active is greater in decrease of score), H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo, H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.34|-1.49|<0.001
84734290|NCT00511797|169220853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.001||95.0|-1.64|-0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||Second null hypothesis was tested. H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo.||-0.55|-1.64|<0.001
84497080|NCT01005680|168745289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex, and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.39|0.77|0.822
84734291|NCT00511797|169220853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001||95.0|-2.0|-0.89|||t-test, 1 sided|||Third null hypotheses was tested. H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.89|-2.00|<0.001
84734292|NCT00511797|169220854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.46|||t-test, 1 sided|||Test results of 3 mg DRSP and placebo at Cycle 4 are shown. 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To keep consistency with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, 2.5% 1-sided significance levels were used for the statistical tests.||-0.46|-1.74|<0.001
84734293|NCT00511797|169220854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.001||95.0|-1.95|-0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.73|-1.95|<0.001
84734294|NCT00511797|169220854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|<|0.001||95.0|-2.16|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.90|-2.16|<0.001
84734295|NCT03121612|169220882|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.65||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; primary outcome, so not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.65
84734296|NCT03121612|169220882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 28-33 gestational weeks (n=41). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.64
84734297|NCT03121612|169220882|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 34-36 gestational weeks (n=10). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||1.0
84734298|NCT03121612|169220883|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.8||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution not normal by visual examination, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.80
84734299|NCT03121612|169220884|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.86||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.86
84734300|NCT03121612|169220888|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
84734301|NCT03121612|169220889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational group.||||||0.33
84734302|NCT03121612|169220890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational age-group.||||||0.31
84734303|NCT03121612|169220891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||||||0.81
84734304|NCT03121612|169220892|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84734305|NCT03121612|169220898|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
84734306|NCT03121612|169220900|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1.0
84734307|NCT02654132|169220901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.32|0.0043
84734308|NCT02654132|169220902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.43|2.05|0.0002
84734309|NCT02654132|169220903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.37|0.0217
84734310|NCT03713320|169220912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the treatment groups is based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test controlling for the number of tumors at screening (at least one tumor at screening versus no tumors at screening) and number of prognostic factors (0-1 versus 2 prognostic factors). Prognostic factors include age at diagnosis \> 60 years and lactate dehydrogenase level \> upper limit of normal at diagnosis. Number of subjects achieving ORR4 and exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals are presented.||||.9539
84734311|NCT03713320|169220913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (cobomarsen/vorinostat) and p-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors cobomarsen over vorinostat.||||0.011
84734312|NCT00909532|169220927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.6||The primary and key secondary endpoints were analyzed using Hochberg's step-up procedure: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, CFQ-R resp domain (Wk24) and sweat chloride (Wk24)(α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted FEV1.||12.6|8.6|<0.0001
84734313|NCT00909532|169220928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis of this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were obtained from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1),using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.5|8.5|<0.0001
84481763|NCT00937326|168714172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.108
84734314|NCT00909532|169220929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|11.4||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, domain score, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.4|4.7|<0.0001
84734315|NCT00909532|169220929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for the CFQ-R respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age,sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1,using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.9|5.3|<0.0001
84734316|NCT00909532|169220930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-44.5||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.5|-51.3|<0.0001
84734317|NCT00909532|169220930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|-44.7||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.7|-51.5|<0.0001
84734318|NCT00909532|169220931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at Week 24|0.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.71||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 24 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.71|0.23|0.0016
84734319|NCT00909532|169220931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at 48 Weeks|0.46||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 48 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.73|0.28|0.0012
84734320|NCT00909532|169220932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect, and intercept, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
84481764|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.525
84481765|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.818
84481766|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.999
84481767|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.809
84481768|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.993
84481769|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.954
84481770|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||1.000
84481771|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.344
84481772|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.968
84481773|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.316
84481774|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.984
84481775|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.235
84481776|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||1.000
84481777|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.656
84481778|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.994
84481779|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.285
84481780|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.992
84481781|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.822
84734321|NCT00909532|169220932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.1|1.3|0.0001
84481782|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.538
84481783|NCT00937326|168714173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.907
84481784|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.999
84481785|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.982
84481786|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.677
84481787|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.688
84481788|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.903
84481789|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.945
84481790|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.949
84481791|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.924
84481792|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.394
84481793|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.687
84481794|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.568
84481795|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.486
84481796|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.973
84481797|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.739
84481798|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.731
84481799|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.991
84481800|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.994
84481801|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.963
84481802|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.929
84481803|NCT00937326|168714174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.970
84481804|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
84481805|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
84481806|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.982
84481807|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.999
84481808|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.685
84481809|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.999
84481810|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.971
84481811|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||1.000
84481812|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.405
84481813|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.975
84481814|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.999
84734322|NCT03459612|169220951|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in Least Square (LS) means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.39|-0.43|<0.0001
84734323|NCT03459612|169220951|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|0.32|<0.0001
84481815|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.629
84497081|NCT01005680|168745290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.37|0.82|0.640
84481816|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
84734324|NCT03459612|169220951|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|4.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.38|3.58|<0.0001
84734325|NCT03459612|169220952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-1.28|<0.0001
84734326|NCT03459612|169220952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.51|<0.0001
84734327|NCT03459612|169220952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.17|<0.0001
84734328|NCT03459612|169220953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Differnce in LS Means|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.30|<0.0001
84734329|NCT03459612|169220953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-2.40|<0.0001
84734330|NCT03459612|169220953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|2.73|<0.0001
84734331|NCT03459612|169220954|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.15|
84734332|NCT03459612|169220954|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.1||||||||1.10|0.22|
84734333|NCT03459612|169220954|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.24||||||||1.24|0.39|
84734334|NCT03459612|169220955|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.96||||||||0.96|0.00|
84734335|NCT03459612|169220955|SUPERIORITY||Differnce of Least Square Means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.14|
84734336|NCT03459612|169220955|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78||||||||1.78|0.81|
84734337|NCT03459612|169220956|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.10|
84734338|NCT03459612|169220956|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.89|
84734339|NCT03459612|169220956|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.09|
84734340|NCT03459612|169220957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.61|
84734341|NCT03459612|169220957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lease Square Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.01||||||||1.01|-2.49|
84734342|NCT03459612|169220957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.32|
84734343|NCT03459612|169220958|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-3.52|
84734344|NCT03459612|169220958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.42||||||||1.42|-2.00|
84734345|NCT03459612|169220958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.53|
84734346|NCT03459612|169220959|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.15||||||||1.15|-1.71|
84734347|NCT03459612|169220959|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.71|
84734348|NCT03459612|169220959|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.27||||||||-1.27|-4.13|
84734349|NCT03459612|169220960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.6875|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.6875
84734350|NCT03459612|169220960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.3750
84734351|NCT03459612|169220960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.0115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0115
84734352|NCT03459612|169220961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.1563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1563
84734353|NCT03459612|169220961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.5938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5938
84734354|NCT03459612|169220961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.0938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0938
84734355|NCT03459612|169220962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1250
84734356|NCT03459612|169220962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9590
84734357|NCT03459612|169220962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.76||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0097
84734358|NCT03151551|169220989|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.1||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.8|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||15.8|0.5|0.036
84481817|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
84481818|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.999
84481819|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.874
84481820|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.986
84481821|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.997
84734359|NCT03151551|169220990|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of responders on IXE minus ADA is greater than the pre-specified margin -12%, IXE will be deemed non-inferior to ADA.|Rate Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.1||||||||12.1|-4.3|
84481822|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||1.000
84481823|NCT00937326|168714175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.697
84481824|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
84481825|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.812
84481826|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.996
84734360|NCT03151551|169220991|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||21.6|5.3|0.001
84734361|NCT03151551|169220992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.46|0.155
84481827|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.198
84481828|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
84734362|NCT03151551|169220993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.54|0.823
84734363|NCT03151551|169220994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.104||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.47|-4.80|0.752
84734364|NCT03151551|169220995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-6.83|0.177
84734365|NCT03151551|169220996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|-4.08|0.332
84481829|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.358
84481830|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.852
84481831|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.678
84481832|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||1.000
84481833|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.191
84481834|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.805
84481835|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.960
84481836|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.985
84481837|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.733
84481838|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.365
84481839|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.413
84481840|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.765
84734366|NCT03151551|169220997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.86|0.592
84481841|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.434
84481842|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.184
84734367|NCT03151551|169220998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.15|0.176
84734368|NCT03151551|169220999|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.7|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 52.||20.7|5.4|<0.001
84734369|NCT03151551|169221000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|0.368
84734370|NCT03151551|169221001|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-18 Entheseal Points||14.5|-1.8|0.108
84734371|NCT03151551|169221001|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-6 Entheseal Points||13.5|-2.9|0.179
84734372|NCT03151551|169221002|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.1||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.7|-8.9|0.846
84734373|NCT03151551|169221003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.83|0.004
84734374|NCT03151551|169221004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-0.48|0.687
84734375|NCT03151551|169221005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.507
84734376|NCT03151551|169221006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.951||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|25.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.99|-32.78|0.820
84734377|NCT03151551|169221007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-3.09|0.052
84734378|NCT03151551|169221008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.57|0.005
84734379|NCT03151551|169221009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.68|0.158
84734380|NCT03151551|169221010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.49|0.711
84734381|NCT03151551|169221011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-0.80|0.439
84734382|NCT03151551|169221012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|-1.23|0.594
84734383|NCT03151551|169221013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.03|0.979
84734384|NCT03151551|169221014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.28|1.28|0.008
84734385|NCT03151551|169221015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.78|<0.001
84734386|NCT03151551|169221016|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.7||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness of Medication||13.7|-2.4|0.165
84734387|NCT03151551|169221016|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.7||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness over Time of Medication||14.8|-1.4|0.098
84734388|NCT03151551|169221016|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.6||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Long Term Safety of Medication||12.6|-3.4|0.241
84734389|NCT03151551|169221016|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|13.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Satisfaction with Medication||13.0|-3.1|0.215
84734390|NCT03151551|169221016|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Mostly Satisfied to any Questions||9.7|-5.5|0.561
84734391|NCT02053610|169221036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.58|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.58|0.41|<0.0001
84734392|NCT02053610|169221038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.54|0.33|<0.0001
84734393|NCT02053610|169221040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|13.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.1|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with EOTR: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||20.1|6.3|0.0001
84734394|NCT02053610|169221041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|19.8|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||19.8|6.1|0.0002
84734395|NCT02053610|169221042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.43|<0.0001
84734396|NCT02053610|169221043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.97|0.60|0.0245
84481843|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.142
84481844|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.999
84481845|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.876
84481846|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.756
84481847|NCT00937326|168714176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.983
84481848|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.809
84481849|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||1.000
84481850|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.989
84481851|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.130
84481852|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.870
84481853|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.864
84481854|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.997
84734397|NCT02053610|169221044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.41|<0.0001
84481855|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.682
84481856|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.798
84481857|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.730
84497082|NCT01005680|168745291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and biases for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.32|0.78|0.928
84734398|NCT02053610|169221046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
84734399|NCT00781937|169221052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-6.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.5|-4.62||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||-4.62|-7.50|<0.0001
84734400|NCT00781937|169221053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|7.71||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||7.71|3.01|<0.0001
84481858|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
84734401|NCT00781937|169221054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.44|6.09||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||6.09|2.44|<0.0001
84734402|NCT00781937|169221055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.79|10.08||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.08|2.79|<0.0001
84734403|NCT00781937|169221056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||0.26|0.03|<0.0001
84734404|NCT00781937|169221058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.12|10.98||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.98|3.12|<0.0001
84734405|NCT00781937|169221059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.65|9.92||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||9.92|3.65|<0.0001
84734406|NCT00781937|169221060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.3|-4.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-4.43|-7.30|<0.0001
84734407|NCT00781937|169221061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-4.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.04|-2.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.43|-6.04|<0.0001
84734408|NCT00781937|169221062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.72||||0.0068||95.0|-4.69|-0.76||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in systolic blood pressure.||-0.76|-4.69|0.0068
84734409|NCT00781937|169221062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.34||||0.6386||95.0|-1.74|1.07||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in diastolic blood pressure.||1.07|-1.74|0.6386
84734410|NCT00781937|169221063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.97||||0.1968||95.0|-0.51|2.45||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||2.45|-0.51|0.1968
84734411|NCT00781937|169221064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.031||95.0|-0.2|-0.01||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.01|-0.20|0.0310
84734412|NCT00781937|169221065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.09||||0.1098||95.0|-0.2|0.02||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.02|-0.20|0.1098
84734413|NCT00781937|169221066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.1149||95.0|-0.24|0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.03|-0.24|0.1149
84734414|NCT00781937|169221067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-13.01||||0.0141||95.0|-23.4|-2.64||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.64|-23.40|0.0141
84734415|NCT00781937|169221068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1199||95.0|0.36|1.12||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and metabolic status and weight at baseline as covariates.||||1.12|0.36|0.1199
84734416|NCT00781937|169221069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-3.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-2.15||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.15|-4.84|<0.0001
84734417|NCT00781937|169221070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-1.57||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-1.57|-2.53|<0.0001
84734418|NCT00781937|169221071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|2.35||||0.3689||95.0|-2.79|7.49||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||7.49|-2.79|0.3689
84734419|NCT00781937|169221072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.1||||0.0053||95.0|-0.16|-0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.03|-0.16|0.0053
84734420|NCT00781937|169221073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.26|-0.50|<0.0001
84734421|NCT00781937|169221074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-1.85||||0.0147||95.0|-3.34|-0.37||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.37|-3.34|0.0147
84734422|NCT00781937|169221075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.33|-0.21||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.21|-0.33|<0.0001
84734423|NCT02431052|169221078|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0006
84734424|NCT02431052|169221079|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0002
84734425|NCT02431052|169221080|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (vehicle treatment groups included as single combined treatment group).||||||0.0055
84734426|NCT02094898|169221081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734427|NCT02094898|169221081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
84734428|NCT02094898|169221082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84734429|NCT02094898|169221083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734430|NCT02094898|169221083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734431|NCT02094898|169221083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
84734432|NCT02094898|169221084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84734433|NCT02094898|169221085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734434|NCT02094898|169221085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
84734435|NCT02094898|169221086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734436|NCT02094898|169221087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734437|NCT02094898|169221087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734438|NCT02094898|169221088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734439|NCT02094898|169221089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
84734440|NCT02094898|169221089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
84734441|NCT02094898|169221090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84734442|NCT02094898|169221091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
84734443|NCT02094898|169221091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
84734444|NCT02094898|169221092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84734445|NCT02094898|169221093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734446|NCT02094898|169221093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84734447|NCT03305809|169221095|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|0.969|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||0.969|-2.776|
84734448|NCT03305809|169221095|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|1.879|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.879|-1.996|
84734449|NCT03305809|169221095|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|1.277|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.277|-2.873|
84734450|NCT03305809|169221096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.54|0.273
84734451|NCT03305809|169221096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
84734452|NCT03305809|169221096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.29|< 0.001
84734453|NCT03305809|169221097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.495||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.53|64.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||64.11|-205.53|0.303
84734454|NCT03305809|169221097|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-107.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.647||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.09|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|-244.09|0.125
84734455|NCT03305809|169221097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.892||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.18|19.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.74|-267.18|0.091
84734456|NCT03305809|169221098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-2.34|0.686
84734457|NCT03305809|169221098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.70|0.485
84734458|NCT03305809|169221098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-2.98|0.406
84734459|NCT03305809|169221099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.74|0.464
84734460|NCT03305809|169221099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|-1.00|0.720
84734461|NCT03305809|169221099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.34|0.149
84734462|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.76|-3.01|0.607
84734463|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||0.79|-4.19|0.180
84734464|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.86|-3.36|0.572
84734465|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.17|-0.51|0.320
84734466|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||-0.02|-0.73|0.037
84734467|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.26|-0.49|0.558
84734468|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.34|-0.38|0.924
84734469|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.02|-0.73|0.061
84734470|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.10|-0.68|0.148
84481859|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
84481860|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.464
84481861|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.634
84481862|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.254
84481863|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.034
84481864|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.765
84481865|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.434
84481866|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.184
84481867|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.142
84481868|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.955
84481869|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.985
84481870|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.923
84481871|NCT00937326|168714177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.883
84603295|NCT00496197|168957204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.8|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||88.8|78.7|
84734471|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.25|-0.46|0.552
84734472|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.31|-0.43|0.735
84667856|NCT04949165|169070601|NON_INFERIORITY|The study employed a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of 1 g/dL for haemoglobin levels at 4 months, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, at least 85% power and under the assumption that the true difference in the means was 0.3 g/dL. The estimated sample size also allowed for up to 10% loss to follow- up or iron supplementation for those initially not requiring supplements, thus the sample size was 292.||||||0.025||||||Non-inferiority threshold of -1 g/dL for the lower bound of the 97.5% CI.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
84667857|NCT00579826|169070627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84734473|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.15|-0.63|0.224
84734474|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.48|-0.37|0.783
84734475|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.55|0.640
84734476|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.59|0.592
84734477|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.39|-0.39|0.993
84734478|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.62|-0.19|0.290
84734479|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.35|-0.50|0.722
84734480|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.08|-0.30|0.246
84734481|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.06|-0.34|0.175
84734482|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.13|-0.28|0.482
84734483|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.07|-0.97|0.091
84734484|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.23|-0.87|0.248
84734485|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.38|-0.76|0.516
84734486|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.24|-0.21|0.875
84481872|NCT00937326|168714178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.118
84734487|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.57|0.10|0.005
84734488|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.28|-0.21|0.761
84734489|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.12|-0.60|0.183
84734490|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.31|-0.43|0.765
84734491|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.61|-0.18|0.279
84734492|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.46|-0.12|0.252
84734493|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.20|-0.40|0.526
84734494|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.36|-0.28|0.800
84734495|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.98|-0.59|0.623
84481873|NCT00937326|168714178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.119
84734496|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.44|-1.21|0.354
84734497|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.75|-0.97|0.809
84734498|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.64|-0.84|0.790
84734499|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.35|-1.20|0.280
84734500|NCT03305809|169221100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.92|-0.70|0.797
84734501|NCT03305809|169221101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-1.91|0.247
84734502|NCT03305809|169221101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.12|0.164
84734503|NCT03305809|169221101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-2.90|0.017
84734504|NCT03305809|169221102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-12.04|0.026
84734505|NCT03305809|169221102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-13.24|0.014
84734506|NCT03305809|169221102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.104|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|-4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.48|-16.72|<0.001
84734507|NCT03305809|169221103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.24|-2.13|0.683
84734508|NCT03305809|169221103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.37|0.089
84734509|NCT03305809|169221103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-1.37|0.294
84734510|NCT03305809|169221104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-0.13|0.105
84734511|NCT03305809|169221104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.27|0.009
84734512|NCT03305809|169221104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.33|-0.35|0.253
84734513|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||0.08|-3.56|0.061
84734514|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-0.47|-4.26|0.014
84667858|NCT00579826|169070628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84734515|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-1.51|-5.50|<0.001
84734516|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.32|-6.86|0.074
84734517|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.45|-7.00|0.085
84734518|NCT03305809|169221105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||-0.37|-8.09|0.032
84734519|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.61|-4.92|0.898
84734520|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.94|-4.71|0.821
84734521|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|14.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||14.61|4.11|<0.001
84734522|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.08|-2.40|0.805
84734523|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.69|-1.85|0.513
84734524|NCT03305809|169221107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||6.28|0.83|0.011
84734525|NCT03305809|169221108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.08|-0.16|0.065
84734526|NCT03305809|169221108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.21|0.93|0.008
84734527|NCT03305809|169221108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|11.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.27|6.06|<0.001
84734528|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.99|-1.72|0.339
84734529|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.73|-2.26|0.486
84734530|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||7.81|0.56|0.024
84734531|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.88|-2.04|0.935
84734532|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||2.72|-1.34|0.505
84734533|NCT03305809|169221109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.30|-0.91|0.266
84734534|NCT03305809|169221110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.28|0.550
84734535|NCT03305809|169221110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-0.14|0.069
84734536|NCT03305809|169221110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.89|0.005
84734537|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||-0.15|-13.92|0.045
84734538|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||10.32|-4.05|0.390
84734539|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||6.16|-8.32|0.768
84734540|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||-0.17|-8.48|0.041
84734541|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.72|-4.81|0.802
84734542|NCT03305809|169221111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.97|-6.67|0.284
84734543|NCT03305809|169221112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-4.17|0.996
84734544|NCT03305809|169221112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.69|-4.99|0.767
84734545|NCT03305809|169221112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-4.96|0.791
84734546|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.88|-0.93|0.312
84734547|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.95|-0.89|0.289
84667859|NCT00579826|169070629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84734548|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.65|-0.53|0.141
84734549|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.01|-1.89|0.954
84734550|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.70|-1.53|0.584
84734551|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.65|-1.59|0.623
84734552|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.79|-1.02|0.256
84734553|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.86|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.86|-1.04|0.258
84734554|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||7.25|1.93|<0.001
84734555|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||2.51|-2.47|0.988
84734556|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.90|0.51|0.020
84734557|NCT03305809|169221113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.91|0.46|0.022
84734558|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.42
84734559|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.22
84734560|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Itching severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.37
84734561|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Itching bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.27
84734562|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Burning severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.46
84734563|NCT00816556|169221121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Burning bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.67
84734564|NCT00816556|169221122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.33
84734565|NCT00816556|169221122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.99
84734566|NCT00816556|169221122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.58
84734567|NCT00816556|169221123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.007
84734568|NCT00816556|169221123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.32
84734569|NCT00816556|169221123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.02
84734570|NCT02007200|169221125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Linear Repeated Measures Model|||||||<0.005
84734571|NCT04182113|169221145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.044||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing Target vs. Foil activity following 1Hz rTMS to Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.044|-0.129|0.32
84481874|NCT00937326|168714178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.293
84481875|NCT00937326|168714178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.966
84481876|NCT00937326|168714179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.940
84481877|NCT00937326|168714179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.197
84481878|NCT00937326|168714179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.097
84481879|NCT00937326|168714179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.404
84481880|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2060
84481881|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1790
84481882|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2741||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2741
84481883|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.6001
84481884|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6711||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.6711
84481885|NCT00937326|168714180|OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1361
84481886|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.3369
84734572|NCT04182113|169221145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activation following 1 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activation following Sham stimulation..||0.12|-0.03|0.25
84734573|NCT04182113|169221145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.181||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activity following Sham stimulation.||0.181|-0.024|0.13
84481887|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0975||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.0975
84481888|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2184
84481889|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1013
84481890|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3286||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.3286
84481891|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5193||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.5193
84481892|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.9788
84481893|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1214||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1214
84481894|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.5751
84481895|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2409||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.2409
84481896|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4829||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.4829
84481897|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7563
84481898|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2907||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.2907
84481899|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7663
84481900|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5825||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI||||0.5825
84667860|NCT00579826|169070630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84734574|NCT04182113|169221146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.034||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.034|0.001|0.038
84481901|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.3220
84481902|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0564||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.0564
84481903|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1960
84481904|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5997||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.5997
84481905|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9637||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.9637
84481906|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.3240
84481907|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.8440
84481908|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6483
84734575|NCT04182113|169221146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.033|-0.015|0.44
84481909|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6452
84481910|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1253
84481911|NCT00937326|168714180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2583||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.2583
84481912|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
84481913|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
84481914|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.901
84481915|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.155
84481916|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.845
84667861|NCT00579826|169070631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84734576|NCT04182113|169221146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 20Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following sham stimulation.||0.009|-0.032|0.25
84734577|NCT04182113|169221147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||6.9|-1.6|0.20
84734578|NCT04182113|169221147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.9||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following sham rTMS.||9.9|-1.9|0.17
84734579|NCT04182113|169221147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 20Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||8.2|-10.8|0.77
84734580|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.05||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-0.81|0.8916
84734581|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.22||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.95|0.5569
84734582|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.53||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-1.25|0.1544
84734583|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.94||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.69|0.0137
84734584|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.88||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.61|0.0171
84734585|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least square means|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-1.74|0.0060
84734586|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.17||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.03|0.7051
84734587|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.47||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.33|0.2772
84734588|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.89||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.77|0.0458
84734589|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.83||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-1.69|0.0569
84481917|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.164
84481918|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.699
84542884|NCT01459783|168837964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|6.95||We adopted Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and used a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse burden for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||6.95|-5.13|0.76
84734590|NCT01496365|169221148|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.96||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.81|0.0271
84734591|NCT01015677|169221161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.28||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.64|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||11.64|-24.20|0.488
84734592|NCT01015677|169221161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-17.45||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|1.38|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model with terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||1.38|-36.28|0.069
84734593|NCT01015677|169221164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.05||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|12.96|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||12.96|-25.06|0.529
84734594|NCT01015677|169221164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|8.59|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||8.59|-31.03|0.264
84734595|NCT01015677|169221165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.94||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|8.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||8.07|-6.19|0.827
84481919|NCT00937326|168714181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.313
84481920|NCT00937326|168714182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.896
84481921|NCT00937326|168714182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.080
84481922|NCT00937326|168714182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.792
84481923|NCT00937326|168714182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.645
84481924|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.992
84481925|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.999
84481926|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.548
84481927|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.989
84481928|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.877
84481929|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.887
84481930|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.916
84603296|NCT00496197|168957205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|96.7|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||96.7|89.4|
84481931|NCT00937326|168714183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.860
84481932|NCT00937326|168714184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.996
84481933|NCT00937326|168714184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.989
84481934|NCT00937326|168714184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
84667862|NCT02009046|169070632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.60|0.75|0.6430
84481935|NCT00937326|168714184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.763
84481936|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.810
84481937|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.753
84481938|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.404
84481939|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.671
84481940|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||1.000
84481941|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.622
84481942|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.332
84481943|NCT00937326|168714185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.998
84481944|NCT00937326|168714186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.994
84481945|NCT00937326|168714186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.979
84481946|NCT00937326|168714186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.993
84667863|NCT02009046|169070632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.39|0.3718
84667864|NCT02009046|169070633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.37|0.67|0.8083
84667865|NCT02009046|169070633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.13|0.32|0.1083
84667866|NCT02009046|169070634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.10|0.35|0.1006
84667867|NCT02009046|169070634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.53|0.16|0.2117
84667868|NCT02009046|169070635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.78|1.05|0.0218
84667869|NCT02009046|169070635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.75|1.09|0.0211
84481947|NCT00937326|168714186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
84481948|NCT03180294|168714198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.46
84481949|NCT03180294|168714198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.54
84481950|NCT03180294|168714199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.95
84481951|NCT03180294|168714199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.73
84481952|NCT03180294|168714199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.46
84481953|NCT03180294|168714199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.42
84481954|NCT03180294|168714200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||One-side significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.24
84481955|NCT03180294|168714200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.74
84481956|NCT03180294|168714201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
84481957|NCT03180294|168714201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.60
84481958|NCT03180294|168714201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.90
84481959|NCT03180294|168714201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
84481960|NCT03180294|168714202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
84481961|NCT03180294|168714202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.35
84481962|NCT03180294|168714202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.83
84481963|NCT03180294|168714202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
84481964|NCT03180294|168714203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.78
84481965|NCT03180294|168714203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.51
84481966|NCT03180294|168714203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.49
84481967|NCT03180294|168714203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.50
84481968|NCT03180294|168714204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.71
84481969|NCT03180294|168714204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.34
84481970|NCT03180294|168714205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
84481971|NCT03180294|168714205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
84481972|NCT01951326|168714285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0048
84481973|NCT01951326|168714286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0116
84481974|NCT01951326|168714287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0616
84481975|NCT01951326|168714288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0851
84481976|NCT01951326|168714289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0147
84481977|NCT01951326|168714290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.1510
84481978|NCT01951326|168714291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2402
84481979|NCT01951326|168714292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0460
84481980|NCT01951326|168714293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0031
84481981|NCT01951326|168714294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0100
84481982|NCT01951326|168714295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0077
84481983|NCT01951326|168714296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0422
84481984|NCT03300427|168714329|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-900.0||||0.7594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6781.7|4981.8|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||4981.8|-6781.7|0.7594
84481985|NCT03300427|168714331|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-575.5||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6365.5|5214.5|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||5214.5|-6365.5|0.8422
84481986|NCT02853123|168714342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|-0.053|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.053|-0.661|0.0217
84497083|NCT01005680|168745292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.79||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.79|0.51|0.887
84734596|NCT01015677|169221165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS means|-14.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|-7.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||-7.32|-21.73|0.001
84734597|NCT01646385|169221166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, baseline steroid, smoking history, previous cancer, and body mass index was used for analysis.||1.025|0.683|0.084
84734598|NCT01646385|169221167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.952|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age was used for analysis.||0.952|0.276|0.035
84734599|NCT01646385|169221168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.251|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, baseline DMARDs, methotrexate, disease activity score based on 28-joints count (DAS28), and smoking history was used for analysis.||1.251|0.831|0.855
84734600|NCT01646385|169221169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, and baseline health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score was used for analysis.||0.870|0.564|0.001
84734601|NCT01646385|169221170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.958|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, baseline HAQ score, Charlson index, smoking history, and body mass index was used for analysis.||0.958|0.537|0.024
84734602|NCT01646385|169221173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84734603|NCT01646385|169221174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the General Linear Model (GLM) method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
84734604|NCT01646385|169221174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
84734605|NCT01646385|169221174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
84497084|NCT01005680|168745293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.61|0.67|0.861
84734606|NCT01646385|169221174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 4: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
84734607|NCT01646385|169221174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 5: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||0.01
84734608|NCT01646385|169221177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84734609|NCT01646385|169221178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
84734610|NCT01646385|169221178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
84734611|NCT01646385|169221178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
84734612|NCT02706951|169221181|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|35.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.6|17.5|<0.001
84734613|NCT02706951|169221181|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.9||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.9|21.0|<0.001
84734614|NCT02706951|169221182|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|33.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.7|16.8|<0.001
84734615|NCT02706951|169221182|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|42.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||42.1|25.1|<0.001
84481987|NCT02853123|168714343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.265|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured prior to exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.265|0.106|<.0001
84481988|NCT02853123|168714344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.141|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured end of exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.141|-0.009|0.0852
84481989|NCT02853123|168714345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.194|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.194|0.117|<.0001
84481990|NCT02853123|168714346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.267|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.267|0.134|<.0001
84481991|NCT02853123|168714347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.083|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|1 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.083|-0.300|0.2645
84481992|NCT02853123|168714347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.028|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.028|-0.452|0.0267
84481993|NCT02853123|168714347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.039|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2.5 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.039|-0.596|0.0258
84481994|NCT02853123|168714348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.208|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.208|-0.268|0.8025
84481995|NCT02853123|168714349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.286|-0.106|0.3634
84481996|NCT03250624|168714350|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-1.46|0.632
84481997|NCT03805971|168714376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective of the test is to assess if the pCLE feature full chia seed sign is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0003
84481998|NCT03805971|168714376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the abnormal tissular architecture is significantly more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
84497085|NCT01005680|168745294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.451
84497086|NCT01005680|168745296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.627
84734616|NCT02706951|169221183|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.85||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.85|-1.32|<0.001
84734617|NCT02706951|169221183|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.17||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.17|-1.64|<0.001
84734618|NCT02706951|169221184|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.22|-0.43|<0.001
84734619|NCT02706951|169221184|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.30|-0.51|<0.001
84734620|NCT02706951|169221185|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.42|2.52|<0.001
84734621|NCT02706951|169221185|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.32||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||7.32|4.42|<0.001
84734622|NCT02706951|169221186|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.8|12.8|<0.001
84734623|NCT02706951|169221186|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|39.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.7|24.6|<0.001
84734624|NCT02706951|169221187|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-41.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.56|-16.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-16.50|-66.56|0.001
84734625|NCT02706951|169221187|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-49.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-24.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-24.40|-74.23|<0.001
84734626|NCT02706951|169221188|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|34.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.8|18.5|<0.001
84734627|NCT02706951|169221188|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.0|28.6|<0.001
84481999|NCT03805971|168714376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the pCLE feature cellular shape homogeneity is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0052
84734628|NCT02706951|169221189|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||25.8|13.8|<0.001
84734629|NCT02706951|169221189|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||36.9|23.6|<0.001
84734630|NCT02489734|169221190|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk (RR)|3.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.1|||Chi-squared|||||8.1|1.4|0.003
84734631|NCT04294667|169221191|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|14.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|3.3|0.0110
84734632|NCT04294667|169221192|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.4|-3.6|0.1776
84734633|NCT04294667|169221193|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|10.8||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.1|0.0518
84734634|NCT04294667|169221194|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|11.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.4|0.0257
84734635|NCT04294667|169221195|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.2||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-1.5|0.1042
84734636|NCT04294667|169221196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Change(DZP+SOC vs PBO+SOC)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||MMRM|The Least Squares (LS) Mean, the difference (DZP+SOC versus PBO+SOC), and the 95% CIs was computed from the MMRM.||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0001
84734637|NCT04294667|169221201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0111
84734638|NCT04294667|169221202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0228
84734639|NCT01841697|169221207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between omarigilptin and sitagliptin is less than the non-inferiority margin, δ =0.3%, then omarigliptin will be declared non-inferior to sitagliptin in terms of A1C reduction at Week 24.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||0.08|-0.15|
84734640|NCT01841697|169221208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||3.2|-11.8|
84734641|NCT01841697|169221209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.8|-3.6|
84734642|NCT01841697|169221210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.6|||Constrained logitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.6|-9.0|0.089
84734643|NCT01841697|169221211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|2.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||9.9|-5.9|0.619
84734644|NCT01841697|169221212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||11.4|-2.5|0.212
84482000|NCT03805971|168714376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if dysplastic vessels are more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
84482001|NCT03012594|168714394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84482002|NCT04211961|168714549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84482003|NCT04211961|168714550|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
84734645|NCT04198948|169221213|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation was performed using SAS Proc Power procedure for equivalence test in 2x2 crossover design. For an equivalence range of 80-125%, the within-subject coefficient of variation for the AUC values for gliclazide of 7.8% based on previous PK studies, and expected test/reference geometric mean ratios between 87-115%, 14 volunteers (7 individuals per sequence) are required to show the lack of interaction with 85% power.|Geometric least square mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.48|||||The TOST (two one-sided test) test of equivalence showed that the geometric mean ratio and 90% CI for gliclazide AUC(0-24) between omeprazole and placebo phase was 1.13 (0.86-1.48), with upper confidence limit above the usual 1.25 boundary.|The main evaluated outcome was systemic exposure to gliclazide, expressed as AUC(0-t). The geometric mean was calculated for gliclazide AUC(0-24). The ratio of the geometric means with 90% CIs was assessed by linear mixed models between the two treatment assignments: gliclazide and omeprazole co-administration to that of gliclazide and placebo. The obtained 90% CI was compared with the equivalence 0.8-1.25 range.||1.48|0.86|
84734646|NCT04198948|169221214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
84734647|NCT04198948|169221215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
84734648|NCT04962698|169221217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.00238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||>0.00238
84734649|NCT04962698|169221218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84734650|NCT04962698|169221219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
84734651|NCT04962698|169221220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.00231
84734652|NCT04962698|169221221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.0020
84734653|NCT02312206|169221222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735|1.1889|||Log Rank|||||1.1889|0.5735|0.3028
84734654|NCT01006616|169221229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.091|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (yes/no)||||0.091|-0.030|0.325
84482004|NCT04211961|168714551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
84734655|NCT01006616|169221229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.029||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.034|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.034|-0.091|0.370
84734656|NCT01006616|169221229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.131|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.131|0.004|0.037
84734657|NCT01006616|169221230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||6.9|-0.6|0.096
84734658|NCT01006616|169221230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||18.4|7.4|<0.001
84734659|NCT01006616|169221230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||26.9|13.8|<0.001
84734660|NCT04974723|169221261|NON_INFERIORITY|Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||||||||1.10|0.81|
84734661|NCT04974723|169221262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.30|0.89|
84734662|NCT04974723|169221263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.22|0.95|
84734663|NCT00736125|169221267|EQUIVALENCE|nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann Whitney U Tests|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84734664|NCT00736125|169221268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84734665|NCT00992992|169221275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|75.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response (CR).|||75|37|
84482005|NCT04211961|168714552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84482006|NCT04211961|168714554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84482007|NCT04211961|168714555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84482008|NCT04211961|168714556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84482009|NCT04211961|168714558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84482010|NCT04211961|168714559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84482011|NCT04211961|168714560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
84482012|NCT04211961|168714561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
84482013|NCT04211961|168714562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
84482014|NCT01444898|168714568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.07
84734666|NCT00992992|169221275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response unconfirmed (CRu).|||19|0|
84734667|NCT00992992|169221275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed partial response.|||36|4|
84734668|NCT00458393|169221298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.824||secondary p-value given.|Log Rank|stratified by site|Efron correction for ties. Placebo is reference. Results typically quoted as efficacy = 100\*(1-HR)|Primary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 0.7 or less. Secondary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 1.0 or less.||.824|.404|0.002
84734669|NCT00458393|169221299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.25||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Fisher Exact||||Extensive analysis and methods published in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966916/|2.25|0.79|0.28
84734670|NCT00458393|169221300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.96|||Fisher Exact|||||2.96|.57|0.54
84734671|NCT00458393|169221301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.65|0.50
84734672|NCT00458393|169221302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.92
84734673|NCT00458393|169221303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.00
84734674|NCT00458393|169221303|SUPERIORITY|Desc|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84734675|NCT00458393|169221304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05 for statistical significance. no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84734676|NCT00458393|169221305|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.95|||median regression|||||-0.95|-6.6|0.009
84482015|NCT01444898|168714569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84734677|NCT00458393|169221306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.3|||median regression|||||9.3|-9.3|1.00
84734678|NCT00458393|169221307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.1|||median regression|||||1.1|-5.5|0.19
84734679|NCT00458393|169221308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.18|0.56
84734680|NCT00458393|169221309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is the proportion of mutations is identical.|Detailed resistance data is found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176446/|||1.00
84734681|NCT00458393|169221310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|54.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54|-69|0.32
84734682|NCT00458393|169221311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of pills returned||0.01|-0.02|0.53
84734683|NCT00458393|169221312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||Detailed methods and results are available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110718/|1.6|-1.1|0.70
84482016|NCT01444898|168714570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
84482017|NCT01444898|168714571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84482018|NCT01444898|168714572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
84482019|NCT01444898|168714573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
84734684|NCT00458393|169221313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84734685|NCT00458393|169221314|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance, p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Full details available in the methods section of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24367497|.42|-.42|0.76
84734686|NCT00458393|169221315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.03|||Chi-squared|||Null is no difference between arms||0.030|-0.047|0.68
84734687|NCT00458393|169221316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between the arms||1.43|0.89|0.30
84734688|NCT00458393|169221317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Log Rank||||Details in the manuscript https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956614/|1.7|0.8|0.41
84734689|NCT00458393|169221318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.34|0.09
84734690|NCT05178979|169221321|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.38
84734691|NCT05178979|169221321|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.84
84734692|NCT05178979|169221321|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.50
84734693|NCT05178979|169221322|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.37
84482020|NCT01444898|168714574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
84667870|NCT02009046|169070636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.73|0.90|0.1763
84667871|NCT02009046|169070636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.58|0.45|0.5869
84667872|NCT02009046|169070637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.75|0.8102
84667873|NCT02009046|169070637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.34|0.39|0.2956
84667874|NCT02009046|169070638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.56|0.82|0.4645
84667875|NCT02009046|169070638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.40|0.43|0.3809
84667876|NCT02009046|169070639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.09|0.52|0.1335
84667877|NCT02009046|169070639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.06|0.29|0.0741
84667878|NCT02009046|169070640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.01|0.54|0.9085
84667879|NCT02009046|169070640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||3.62|0.36|0.8059
84482021|NCT01444898|168714575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84482022|NCT01444898|168714576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
84482023|NCT04583969|168714577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||2.02|0.63|0.691
84482024|NCT04583969|168714578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||1.99|0.77|0.378
84482025|NCT04583969|168714579|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline CRP.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.96||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|||1.20|0.76|0.689
84482026|NCT04583969|168714580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal Score, age, and baseline CRP.||1.18|0.79|0.718
84482027|NCT04583969|168714581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.39|0.75|0.907
84482028|NCT04583969|168714615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.27|0.87|0.609
84482029|NCT04583969|168714616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.26|0.85|0.708
84734694|NCT05178979|169221322|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.18
84734695|NCT05178979|169221322|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.19
84734696|NCT05178979|169221323|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|10.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
84734697|NCT05178979|169221323|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
84482030|NCT01819506|168714648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.912
84482031|NCT02420990|168714651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482032|NCT02420990|168714651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482033|NCT02420990|168714651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
84482034|NCT02420990|168714651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
84482035|NCT02420990|168714651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
84482036|NCT02420990|168714652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482037|NCT02420990|168714652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482038|NCT02420990|168714652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482039|NCT02420990|168714652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482040|NCT02420990|168714652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
84482041|NCT02420990|168714653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
84482042|NCT03326583|168714654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
84482043|NCT03326583|168714655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84482044|NCT03326583|168714656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84482045|NCT03326583|168714657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84497087|NCT03731325|168745323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This mean difference represents the main effect of time from baseline to 15 weeks, regardless of group|Change in parent BMI from baseline at 8,11 to 15 weeks||||<0.01
84734698|NCT05178979|169221323|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.86
84734699|NCT05178979|169221324|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Logistic||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84734700|NCT05178979|169221324|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||0.81
84734701|NCT05178979|169221324|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||<0.001
84734702|NCT05178979|169221325|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|150.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84734703|NCT05178979|169221325|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84734704|NCT05178979|169221325|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
84734705|NCT05178979|169221326|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|8.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
84734706|NCT05178979|169221326|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.15
84734707|NCT05178979|169221326|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.008
84734708|NCT05178979|169221327|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|172.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84734709|NCT05178979|169221327|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.68
84734710|NCT05178979|169221327|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
84734711|NCT05178979|169221328|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84734712|NCT05178979|169221328|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.10
84734713|NCT05178979|169221328|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points||||||0.54
84734714|NCT05178979|169221329|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|36.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84734715|NCT05178979|169221329|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.97
84482046|NCT01641081|168714785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2353|0.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2934|0.2353|<0.0001
84734716|NCT05178979|169221329|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
84734717|NCT05178979|169221330|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|9.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
84734718|NCT05178979|169221330|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.81
84734719|NCT05178979|169221330|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
84734720|NCT05178979|169221331|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
84482047|NCT01641081|168714785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0156|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2218|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2830|0.2218|<0.0001
84734721|NCT05178979|169221331|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.45
84734722|NCT05178979|169221331|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.02
84734723|NCT05178979|169221332|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|11.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
84734724|NCT05178979|169221332|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.35
84482048|NCT01641081|168714785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1941|0.2544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2544|0.1941|<0.0001
84482049|NCT01641081|168714785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1887|0.2461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2461|0.1887|<0.0001
84482050|NCT02925312|168714838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||McNemar|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5 in the change in HbA1c with SD=2 with 80% power at alpha=0.05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). Differences in patient characteristics and the unadjusted differences in the outcome measures between the intervention and control groups were tested using linear mixed models, McNemar tests and conditional logistic models due to matching.||||0.05
84482051|NCT00444964|168714850|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84482052|NCT00444964|168714851|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84482053|NCT00444964|168714852|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84482054|NCT00166517|168714853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed versus a constant, 85%, based on historical data.||||||0.003||95.0||||p ≥.85, where p is the proportion of subjects who achieved ≥3-fold rise from baseline in the group that received RotaTeq®|Exact test of proportion|Exact test of proportion, based on binomial distribution||||||0.003
84482055|NCT01015820|168714871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.001
84734725|NCT05178979|169221332|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
84734726|NCT05178979|169221333|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.84||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.24
84482056|NCT01015820|168714872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.03
84482057|NCT03136484|168714875|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3 rather than zero as in a superiority test.|Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
84482058|NCT03136484|168714875|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
84482059|NCT01449955|168714939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the results of change over time (e.g., comparing baseline to 1 month posttreatment) as well as comparing differences between condition (e.g., placebo compared to rapamycin).||||>0.05
84482060|NCT01449955|168714940|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.5
84482061|NCT01449955|168714941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
84482062|NCT01449955|168714942|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
84482063|NCT01449955|168714943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< .05
84482064|NCT01449955|168714944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
84482065|NCT01203787|168714955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0262
84482066|NCT01176240|168714967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||Study 306A was initially designed as a blinded interim analysis by an independent DMC to ensure that the overall study was adequately powered. Study 306A was not powered to provide statistical significance as a stand alone study. Thus, no additional efficacy end points were prospectively defined beyond the primary end point.||||0.978
84482067|NCT01176240|168714968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.018
84482068|NCT01176240|168714970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the first secondary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on additional secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.60
84482069|NCT01176240|168714976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.238
84482070|NCT03627494|168715031|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.03|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.03|0.84|
84482071|NCT03627494|168715032|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.04|0.84|
84482072|NCT03627494|168715033|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.01|0.79|
84482073|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.48|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.89|||Mixed model repeated measurements||NNC0114-0006 + liraglutide / Placebo|Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.89|1.16|=0.0017
84482074|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.23|||=|0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.57|0.97|=0.0927
84482075|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.12|||=|0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.42|0.87|=0.3780
84482076|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.2|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.53|0.94|=0.1377
84482077|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.33|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.69|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.69|1.04|=0.0214
84482078|NCT02443155|168715058|SUPERIORITY||Treatmrnt ratio|1.1|||=|0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.41|0.87|=0.4187
84482079|NCT02279160|168715179|SUPERIORITY||Multiple imputation|0.742||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.958|||ANCOVA|||||0.958|0.575|0.0220
84482080|NCT02279160|168715180|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|30.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||30.0|-28.0|0.9002
84482081|NCT00106249|168715195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84734727|NCT05178979|169221333|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.92
84482082|NCT00106249|168715196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84482083|NCT00948428|168715217|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these rates was greater than, and statistically different (p\<0.05) from, the Vehicle rate in the ITT population, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.84|9.15||||||||9.15|-10.84|
84482084|NCT00948428|168715217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Based on Intent-to-Treat Population||||0.0001
84482085|NCT00948428|168715218|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Partial Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|5.95||||||||5.95|-12.11|
84482086|NCT00948428|168715219|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the ITT population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|8.88||||||||8.88|-9.92|
84482087|NCT05516134|168715227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. treatment, paired sample t-test||||<0.01
84482088|NCT05516134|168715228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84482089|NCT05516134|168715229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84482090|NCT05516134|168715230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
84482091|NCT05516134|168715231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84482092|NCT05516134|168715232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.11
84482093|NCT05516134|168715233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84482094|NCT05516134|168715234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84482095|NCT00927576|168715302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of the results showed a 95% chance of finding a p\<0.05 difference in 166 subjects and a 99% chance of finding a p \<0.05 difference in 230 subjects in comparison of Group 1 controls and sTBI patients.|Difference in z-score, sTBI vs. controls|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|for repeated measures with effect sizes (omega squared).||The null hypotheses was that the severe TBI group would not differ from the control group in SRT latencies.||||< 0.001
84482096|NCT00927576|168715302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of controls (i.e., with z-score = 0) showed a 95% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 significance level for z-scores exceeding 0.54 in the mild TBI patient group..|z-score difference between groups|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value reflects the likelihood of detection a difference of the magnitude observed.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the mild TBI group would not differ in age-corrected z-score from that of a control subjects in the large control group.||||.50
84482097|NCT00420342|168715307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1182
84734728|NCT05178979|169221333|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.21
84734729|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|13.78||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||13.78|-6.58|0.4671
84734730|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.11||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|25.36||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||25.36|-5.14|0.1808
84734731|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.63||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|16.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||16.33|-7.08|0.4171
84734732|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.33||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|16.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||16.10|-5.43|0.3116
84734733|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|15.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||15.72|-4.12|0.2353
84734734|NCT03845075|169221342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
84734735|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|4.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||4.72|-7.33|0.6543
84482098|NCT00420342|168715307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2224||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.2224
84482099|NCT00420342|168715307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6929||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.6929
84482100|NCT00420342|168715308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.0702
84482101|NCT00420342|168715308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1980
84482102|NCT00420342|168715308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5777||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.5777
84603297|NCT00496197|168957206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.3|98.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOT||98.3|92.3|
84734736|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.38||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||8.38|-6.50|0.7941
84734737|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|5.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||5.73|-9.72|0.5937
84734738|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.56||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|11.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||11.23|-6.11|0.5423
84734739|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||8.16|-5.77|0.7226
84482103|NCT00407550|168715359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.015
84734740|NCT03845075|169221343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
84734741|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|5.97||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||5.97|-8.67|0.7023
84734742|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.9012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|7.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||7.61|-8.58|0.9012
84734743|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|10.92||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||10.92|-6.63|0.6138
84734744|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|10.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||10.72|-8.26|0.7889
84734745|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|10.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||10.94|-10.34|0.9536
84734746|NCT03845075|169221344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
84734747|NCT03845075|169221348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|16.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||16.20|-21.23|0.7782
84734748|NCT03845075|169221348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.26||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|7.56||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||7.56|-22.09|0.3130
84482104|NCT00407550|168715360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
84482105|NCT02580591|168715363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.46|-0.11|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.11|-0.46|<0.0001
84603298|NCT00496197|168957207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.4|92.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||92.6|84.4|
84734749|NCT03845075|169221348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.73||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|8.47||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48||8.47|-19.92|0.4033
84734750|NCT03845075|169221349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-0.71||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||-0.71|-14.29|0.0325
84734751|NCT03845075|169221349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|8.4||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||8.40|-9.04|0.9394
84734752|NCT03845075|169221349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.91||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 28||12.18|1.65|0.0135
84482106|NCT02580591|168715363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.3|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.30|-0.60|<0.0001
84482107|NCT02580591|168715363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.37|-0.68|<0.0001
84482108|NCT02580591|168715364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.14|-0.40|
84482109|NCT02580591|168715364|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.28|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.28|-0.59|<0.0001
84482110|NCT02580591|168715364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.0001
84734753|NCT03845075|169221350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||0.98|-9.31|0.1048
84734754|NCT03845075|169221350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT observed.||4.77|-6.75|0.7189
84734755|NCT03845075|169221350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT observed.||6.91|-0.73|0.1053
84734756|NCT03845075|169221351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.21||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||-1.21|-5.02|0.0033
84734757|NCT03845075|169221351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||3.41|-2.24|0.6663
84734758|NCT03845075|169221351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.59||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||5.98|1.21|0.0058
84734759|NCT03845075|169221352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||0.30|-6.34|0.0713
84734760|NCT03845075|169221352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.96||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.96|-5.92|0.1457
84734761|NCT03845075|169221352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.15||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||2.15|-0.45|0.1837
84734762|NCT03845075|169221353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF||0.33|-0.42|0.7926
84734763|NCT03845075|169221353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.17|-0.72|0.2124
84482111|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.314|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.314|0.673|
84482112|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.202||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.818|1.766|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.766|0.818|0.2752
84497088|NCT03731325|168745324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|ANOVA||This is the main effect of weight change at week 15, e.g. average weight change from baseline to week 15 in the entire sample of parents|repeated measures analysis of variance for time (0,8,11,15 weeks) for weight change (lbs)||||0.003
84734764|NCT03845075|169221353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.43|-0.72|0.6084
84734765|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|34.85||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to week 24; mITT observed. (Like to eat something fatty)||34.85|-2.85|0.0905
84734766|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.65||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|35.36||P-value from ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Like some meat/fish)||35.36|-22.05|0.6285
84734767|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.81||||0.5884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|19.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something salty).||19.43|-33.05|0.5884
84734768|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.98||||0.8533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|36.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something sweet).||36.68|-30.73|0.8533
84734769|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.33||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.87|7.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||7.20|-41.87|0.1529
84734770|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.75||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|13.65||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||13.65|-37.15|0.3399
84734771|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.95||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.84|1.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||1.93|-49.84|0.0673
84734772|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|10.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||10.46|-55.65|0.1657
84734773|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.18||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-8.06||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||-8.06|-52.31|0.0108
84734774|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.79||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|7.13||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||7.13|-36.71|0.1710
84734775|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.86||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-5.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||-5.93|-33.80|0.0083
84734776|NCT03845075|169221354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.98||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.39|1.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||1.43|-47.39|0.0631
84734777|NCT03845075|169221355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|19.53||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||19.53|-24.65|0.8082
84497089|NCT03731325|168745325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average difference in BMI percentile for entire sample|Repeated measures ANOVA for child BMI percentile at 0, 8, 11 and 15 weeks||||0.06
84734778|NCT03845075|169221355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|23.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||23.10|-25.94|0.9034
84482113|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.02||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.693|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.501|0.693|0.9077
84482114|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.274|||Negative binomial model|||For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.274|0.682|
84482115|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.258||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.713||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.713|0.925|0.1438
84482116|NCT02580591|168715365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.051||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.433||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.433|0.771|0.7543
84482117|NCT02580591|168715366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.20|-2.32|
84482118|NCT02580591|168715366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.91|-2.18|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.18|-3.91|<0.0001
84482119|NCT02580591|168715366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-2.57|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.57|-4.30|<0.0001
84482120|NCT02580591|168715367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.03|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.030|-0.069|
84482121|NCT02580591|168715367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.101|-0.039|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.039|-0.101|<0.0001
84482122|NCT02580591|168715367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.122|-0.06|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.060|-0.122|<0.0001
84497090|NCT03731325|168745326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average change in delay discounting measure area under the curve for all participants (parents and children) in both groups from baseline to week 15|repeated measures ANOVA, reporting repeated measures effect only||||0.07
84482123|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat MeasurementMix||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.2|-3.9|
84482124|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-1.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, , treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.1|-6.8|<0.0001
84482125|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.6|-0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.9|-6.6|<0.0001
84482126|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.9|-1.5|
84482127|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.6|0.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.1|-3.6|0.0047
84482128|NCT02580591|168715368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.4|-3.3|0.0202
84497091|NCT03731325|168745327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between weight at baseline and week 15 in lbs for all children, regardless of group|||||0.64
84667880|NCT02009046|169070641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.71|0.44|0.6861
84667881|NCT02009046|169070641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.|No results provided, as model would not converge.|||||0.9973
84667882|NCT02009046|169070642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.80|1.39|0.0002
84734779|NCT03845075|169221355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|12.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||12.93|-26.93|0.4658
84734780|NCT03845075|169221356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|0.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF.||0.10|-11.46|0.0537
84482129|NCT01599806|168715377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
84482130|NCT01599806|168715378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
84482131|NCT01599806|168715379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
84482132|NCT01599806|168715380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
84482133|NCT01599806|168715381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
84482134|NCT01599806|168715382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
84482135|NCT01599806|168715383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
84482136|NCT01599806|168715384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
84482137|NCT01599806|168715385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
84482138|NCT01599806|168715386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
84482139|NCT01599806|168715387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
84482140|NCT01599806|168715388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
84482141|NCT01599806|168715389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
84734781|NCT03845075|169221356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|3.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||3.61|-8.98|0.3772
84734782|NCT03845075|169221356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.03||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||6.91|-0.85|0.1171
84482142|NCT01599806|168715390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
84482143|NCT01599806|168715391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
84482144|NCT01599806|168715392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
84482145|NCT01599806|168715393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
84482146|NCT01599806|168715394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
84482147|NCT01599806|168715395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
84482148|NCT01599806|168715396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
84482149|NCT01599806|168715397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
84482150|NCT01599806|168715398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
84482151|NCT01599806|168715399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
84482152|NCT01599806|168715400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
84497092|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.844|
84482153|NCT01599806|168715401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
84734783|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in total cholesterol)||0.50|-0.59|0.8623
84734784|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.30|-0.25|0.8327
84734785|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.42|-0.53|0.8080
84734786|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.07|||ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in triglycerides)||1.07|-0.62|0.5791
84734787|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.77|-0.71|0.9337
84734788|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.23|-0.21|0.9305
84734789|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.59||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.59|-0.40|0.6910
84734790|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||1.01|-0.30|0.2688
84734791|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.67|-0.54|0.8262
84734792|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.17|-0.20|0.8293
84734793|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.49||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.49|-0.27|0.5486
84734794|NCT03845075|169221357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||0.75|-0.26|0.3226
84734795|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|6.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||6.73|-5.55|0.8420
84734796|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|6.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||6.67|-10.15|0.6693
84482154|NCT01599806|168715402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
84482155|NCT01599806|168715403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
84482156|NCT01599806|168715404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
84482157|NCT01599806|168715405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
84482158|NCT01599806|168715406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
84482159|NCT01599806|168715407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
84482160|NCT01599806|168715408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
84482161|NCT01599806|168715409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
84482162|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.01|4.5|||ANOVA|||||4.50|-7.01|0.3551
84482163|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|4.48|||ANOVA|||||4.48|-7.08|0.3474
84482164|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.09|||ANOVA|||||4.09|-7.42|0.3105
84734797|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|4.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||4.46|-8.12|0.5444
84482165|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|3.27|||ANOVA|||||3.27|-15.8|0.1346
84482166|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.6|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-19.6|0.0416
84482167|NCT01263314|168715446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|1.32|||ANOVA|||||1.32|-17.7|0.0762
84482168|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|4.41|||ANOVA|||||4.41|-3.47|0.418
84482169|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|8.05|||ANOVA|||||8.05|0.18|0.0434
84482170|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.85|11.72|||ANOVA|||||11.72|3.85|0.0019
84482171|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|3.71|||ANOVA|||||3.71|-1.42|0.2223
84482172|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|6.82|||ANOVA|||||6.82|1.69|0.0056
84482173|NCT01263314|168715447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.96|||ANOVA|||||7.96|2.83|0.0012
84482174|NCT01263314|168715449|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.76|||||GMR = geometric mean ratio|||1.76|0.85|
84482175|NCT01263314|168715450|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.33||||||||1.33|0.88|
84482176|NCT01263314|168715450|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.55||||||||1.55|1.02|
84482177|NCT01263314|168715450|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.48||||||||1.48|0.98|
84482178|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|9.58||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|17.46|||ANOVA|||||17.46|1.69|0.0253
84482179|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-2.59||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|5.29|||ANOVA|||||5.29|-10.5|0.2856
84482180|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.06||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.82|||ANOVA|||||3.82|-11.9|0.1895
84482181|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.16||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.70|-10.0|0.1157
84482182|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.79|||ANOVA|||||-5.79|-17.5|0.0018
84482183|NCT01263314|168715453|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-10.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|-4.77|||ANOVA|||||-4.77|-16.5|0.0034
84497093|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.858|
84482184|NCT00282568|168715457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|99.41|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||99.41|90.72|
84482185|NCT00282568|168715459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|93.96|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmax. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmax prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||93.96|82.69|
84482186|NCT00282568|168715460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.72|91.93|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||91.93|82.72|
84482187|NCT03689972|168715512|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Mean|4.24|||=|0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|20.85|||Negative Binomial Regression|The model included treatment as classification variable \& baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, \& region as covariates.||||20.85|0.86|=0.0755
84482188|NCT03689972|168715513|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.68|93.01|||Exact Binomial method|Percentage of participants preferring natalizumab SC at end of crossover period of Part 2, and 95% CI was calculated using the exact binomial method.||||93.01|80.68|
84482189|NCT03689972|168715515|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of annualized relapse rate|1.32481|||=|0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42016|4.17725|||Poisson Regression|Poisson regression model was adjusted for baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, and region.||||4.17725|0.42016|=0.6312
84482190|NCT03689972|168715521|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.47|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.54||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||3.54|-2.61|=0.764
84482191|NCT03689972|168715528|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.08|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||0.25|-0.09|=0.357
84482192|NCT00324272|168715535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
84482193|NCT00324272|168715535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
84482194|NCT00324272|168715537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
84482195|NCT00324272|168715537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
84734798|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.76||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||4.76|-8.47|0.5595
84482196|NCT00324272|168715538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
84482197|NCT00324272|168715538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
84482198|NCT00324272|168715539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84482199|NCT00324272|168715539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
84482200|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||1.00
84482201|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.301
84482202|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the groin cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.474
84482203|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.606
84482204|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the axillary cohort.||||1.000
84482205|NCT00324272|168715540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the axillary cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.486
84482206|NCT00324272|168715541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the groin cohort.||2.58|0.40|0.963
84482207|NCT00324272|168715541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the groin cohort.||3.20|0.03|0.338
84482208|NCT00324272|168715541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the axillary cohort.||2.47|0.35|0.880
84482209|NCT00324272|168715541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.95|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the axillary cohort.||13.95|0.05|0.923
84482210|NCT02417064|168715542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.45|-6.88|0.088
84734799|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||3.41|-7.54|0.4331
84482211|NCT02417064|168715542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-7.67|
84734800|NCT03845075|169221358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.03||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||5.03|-7.90|0.6427
84734801|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
84734802|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
84734803|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.29||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|25.83||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||25.83|-5.25|0.1773
84734804|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|12.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||12.20|-9.55|0.7980
84734805|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.77||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||18.94|-3.40|0.1580
84734806|NCT03845075|169221360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.64||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|10.64||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.64|-7.36|0.7021
84734807|NCT03845075|169221361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|21.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||21.18|-18.17|0.8728
84734808|NCT03845075|169221361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.46||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|11.54||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||11.54|-6.61|0.5714
84482212|NCT02417064|168715543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-5.52|= 0.250
84734809|NCT03845075|169221361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.15||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.51|7.22||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||7.22|-27.51|0.2322
84734810|NCT03845075|169221361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|5.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||5.68|-12.61|0.4321
84482213|NCT02417064|168715543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-7.53|
84482214|NCT01548417|168715559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in alcohol-cued craving..||||.003
84482215|NCT01548417|168715560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effect Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in changes in drinking.||||.05
84482216|NCT01548417|168715560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data represent the estimated marginal mean + or - SEM. \*P\<0.05, mifepristone vs. placebo (linear mixed effects modeling).||||<0.05
84734811|NCT03845075|169221364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
84734812|NCT03845075|169221364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|10.63||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||10.63|-14.88|0.7256
84734813|NCT03845075|169221364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.29||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||6.48|-13.05|0.4822
84734814|NCT03269695|169221377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|47.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||47.2|-41.0|1.0000
84734815|NCT03269695|169221378|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|37.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||37.0|-37.0|1.0000
84734816|NCT03269695|169221379|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|57.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||57.9|-23.8|0.4700
84734817|NCT03269695|169221380|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.0||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|45.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||45.6|-20.7|0.5221
84734818|NCT03269695|169221381|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.1||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|74.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||74.1|-23.7|0.3166
84734819|NCT03269695|169221382|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.0||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|58.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||58.5|-22.9|0.5234
84734820|NCT03269695|169221383|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-25.0||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||29.1|-69.6|0.7393
84734821|NCT03269695|169221384|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.8||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.67|||ANCOVA|||||16.67|-5.08|0.2705
84734822|NCT03269695|169221385|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|48.2||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|84.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||84.7|-4.4|0.0732
84734823|NCT03269695|169221386|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.0||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|69.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||69.2|-18.4|0.2633
84734824|NCT03269695|169221387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 2||6.54|0.15|1.0000
84734825|NCT03269695|169221387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|10.0|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 4||10.00|0.23|0.6691
84734826|NCT03269695|169221387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.4|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 8||4.40|0.09|0.6248
84734827|NCT03269695|169221387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|8.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 12||8.30|0.12|0.9965
84734828|NCT01313624|169221406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.7||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||4.7|-3.1|0.68
84734829|NCT01313624|169221407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.6|-3.0|0.56
84734830|NCT05043883|169221415|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome specificity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the specificity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Specificity is the ability to correctly detect true negative values of the ground-truth negative EGM classifications. The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that specificity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.006
84734831|NCT05043883|169221415|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome Sensitivity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage|86.0||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the sensitivity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Sensitivity of the PVI analyzer is determined by the capability to detect true positive among all ground-truth positive EGM classifications.The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that sensitivity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.004
84482217|NCT00444080|168715604|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84482218|NCT02057068|168715615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||Partial Eta Squared = .282|||<.001
84734832|NCT05043883|169221416|OTHER|Descriptive|Percentage|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.39|||||Only one AE was reported for one subject ( which was considered moderate in severity and not related to the device, but related to the SOC procedure.|A descriptive analysis was performed to evaluate the AEs and device deficiencies, estimating the percentages and 95% CI on each category.||5.39|0.02|
84734833|NCT05043883|169221417|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|94.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.00002
84734834|NCT05043883|169221417|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|82.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.32
84734835|NCT05043883|169221417|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|79.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.66
84734836|NCT05043883|169221417|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|92.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.0008
84734837|NCT05043883|169221418|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|96.0||||5e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||To compute the proportional agreement between two non-overlapping samples, a one-sample Z-test was performed with the alternative hypothesis that agreement was above 90%, which was considered sufficient for a real-time assessment.|Z-test|||This endpoint used the same EGMs extracted for the primary endpoint, including only EGMs from T Baseline and T Final measurements from patients in sinus rhythm.||||0.000005
84482219|NCT02057068|168715616|SUPERIORITY|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84734838|NCT05043883|169221419|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|54.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the specificity are below 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||1
84734839|NCT05043883|169221419|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|100.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the sensitivity are below 80% and an alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||0.0007
84734840|NCT05043883|169221420|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|The estimate was done using a one-sample Z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is at or below 80% and a 95% significance level.||This secondary endpoint aimed to determine the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer at the time of isolation, which requires the EGMs at the T PVI. A Z-test for sensitivity was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer analysis to identify expert-defined isolation during the PVI ablation.||||0.04
84734841|NCT05043883|169221421|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||McNemar test assumes as a null hypothesis that the two datasets cause the PVI Analyzer to have a similar proportion of errors.|McNemars test|A paired McNemars test with an alpha value of 0.05, was applied to analyze the differences in classification performance.||A paired McNemar's Chi-Square test was performed to analyze the differences in classification performances||||0.0002
84734842|NCT02271230|169221428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||||||||1.11|0.78|
84734843|NCT02271230|169221428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||||1.14|0.80|
84482220|NCT02057068|168715617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84482221|NCT01235507|168715634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84482222|NCT01235507|168715634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482223|NCT01235507|168715634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482224|NCT01235507|168715636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84734844|NCT02271230|169221429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
84734845|NCT02271230|169221429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.998||||||||0.998|0.74|
84734846|NCT01130168|169221430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-15.3|<0.0005
84734847|NCT01130168|169221430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.6|||ANOVA|||||-0.6|-4.9|0.016
84734848|NCT01130168|169221431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-1.7|0.407
84734849|NCT01130168|169221431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9|||ANOVA|||||-2.9|-8.9|<0.0005
84482225|NCT01235507|168715636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482226|NCT01235507|168715636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482227|NCT01235507|168715637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84482228|NCT01235507|168715637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482229|NCT01235507|168715637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482230|NCT01235507|168715638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84482231|NCT01235507|168715638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482232|NCT01235507|168715638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482233|NCT01235507|168715639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84734850|NCT01130168|169221432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-10.1|||ANOVA|||||-10.1|-21.2|<0.0005
84482234|NCT01235507|168715639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482235|NCT01235507|168715639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84734851|NCT01130168|169221432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.3|||ANOVA|||||-6.3|-17.4|0.001
84482236|NCT01235507|168715640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84482237|NCT01235507|168715640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482238|NCT01235507|168715640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482239|NCT01235507|168715641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
84482240|NCT01235507|168715641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
84482241|NCT01235507|168715641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
84482242|NCT01095666|168715662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0869|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
84482243|NCT01095666|168715662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.45||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.79|<0.0001
84482244|NCT01095666|168715663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-15.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.6|<0.0001
84482245|NCT01095666|168715663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.7|-33.5|<0.0001
84734852|NCT01130168|169221433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-9.5|0.186
84734853|NCT01130168|169221433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.5|||ANOVA|||||-10.5|-21.7|<0.0005
84734854|NCT01130168|169221434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-12.1|<0.0005
84734855|NCT01130168|169221434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-6.0|0.035
84734856|NCT01130168|169221435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||||2.6|-6.1|0.428
84734857|NCT01130168|169221435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.5|||ANOVA|||||-4.5|-13.1|<0.0005
84734858|NCT01130168|169221436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||ANOVA|||||-10.0|-17.5|<0.0005
84734859|NCT01130168|169221436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.0|||ANOVA|||||-1.0|-8.5|0.015
84734860|NCT01130168|169221437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-9.9|0.112
84734861|NCT01130168|169221437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-9.8|||ANOVA|||||-9.8|-20.7|<0.0005
84734862|NCT01130168|169221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.2|||ANOVA|||||-6.2|-11.8|<0.0005
84734863|NCT01130168|169221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.8|0.039
84734864|NCT01130168|169221439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-6.6|0.267
84734865|NCT01130168|169221439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3|||ANOVA|||||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0005
84734866|NCT00087555|169221459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
84734867|NCT00087555|169221459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
84734868|NCT00087555|169221459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84734869|NCT01482429|169221474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||binomial test|||||||0.03
84734870|NCT01482429|169221475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84734871|NCT04887506|169221535|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) were not evaluable.|Primary analysis of equivalence of TAVT 45 and R AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10).||||
84734872|NCT04887506|169221536|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.007||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the CS-ITT population.||1.007|0.944|
84734873|NCT04887506|169221537|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.002||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the mITT population.||1.002|0.978|
84734874|NCT04887506|169221538|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio generated using the Wald method.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|4.979|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.979|0.574|0.3408
84734875|NCT03506347|169221539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84734876|NCT03506347|169221540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84734877|NCT01024036|169221588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0012
84734878|NCT01024036|169221588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Fisher Exact|Without adjusting for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0004
84734879|NCT01024036|169221590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rates|33.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|11.1|0.0022
84734880|NCT01024036|169221592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.815|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.815|0.214|0.0084
84734881|NCT01024036|169221593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|61.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|85.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||85.1|28.3|0.0002
84734882|NCT01024036|169221594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|41.9||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|70.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||70.7|7.8|0.0195
84734883|NCT00691678|169221601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis measures whether there is a statistically significant change, at the 5% significance level, between the mean WOMAC score among study participants at baseline and at week 24.||||0.004
84734884|NCT05896696|169221633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.26|||Paired sample t-test|||||-1.26|-2.49|<0.0001
84734885|NCT05896696|169221634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.73|||paired sample t-test|||||-0.73|-1.70|<0.0001
84734886|NCT02330276|169221650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
84734887|NCT02330276|169221651|OTHER|one way ANOVA between groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|85.5||for change in heart rate at 24 hr post-dosing from baseline between the 3 doses|ANOVA|||Primary hypothesis: None of the doses of (+)-epicatechin will differ with regard to change from baseline in any of the major safety endpoints; heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||85.5|70.3|<0.05
84734888|NCT02330276|169221652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
84734889|NCT02330276|169221653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
84482246|NCT01095666|168715664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8758|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.84|-30.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.73|-53.84|<0.0001
84482247|NCT01095666|168715664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7921|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-37.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-37.74|-60.53|<0.0001
84482248|NCT01095666|168715665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2765|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.65|<0.0001
84482249|NCT01095666|168715665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2747|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-2.36|<0.0001
84482250|NCT01095666|168715666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.702||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.7|6.2|0.0010
84482251|NCT01095666|168715666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.594||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.5||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.5|6.5|0.0007
84482252|NCT00588380|168715667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of rs6923761 genotype with Phi Total in the presence of either glucose alone, glucose and 0.75 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 or glucose and 1.5 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 If the p-value for the overall univariate test of association was \<0.1, then the associations for specific genotype pairs (e.g.: 1,1 vs. 1,2 or 2,2 vs. 1,1) were also examined using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.||||0.11
84482253|NCT00588380|168715668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All data are presented as means ± SEM. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of genotype with ΦTotal||||0.09
84482254|NCT02917629|168715677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.024||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000229822 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
84482255|NCT02917629|168715677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0217|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0257||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000230585 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
84482256|NCT02917629|168715677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
84482257|NCT02917629|168715677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000261792 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
84482258|NCT02917629|168715678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000234806 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
84482259|NCT02917629|168715679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000232479 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
84482260|NCT02917629|168715679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0193||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000233163 baseline and post exposure||||0.020
84482261|NCT02917629|168715679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post-exposure||||0.001
84482262|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg group. The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested under a sequential framework of statistical hypotheses, each with 2-sided significance level of 0.10 for the treatment effect of abrilumab 70 mg compared with placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.44|0.54|0.76
84482263|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|8.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.9|-7.9|
84482264|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.57|0.80|0.22
84482265|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.4||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||19.4|-4.6|
84482266|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.73|0.74|0.25
84482267|NCT01696396|168715743|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|22.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-6.8|
84482268|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.53|0.90|0.16
84482269|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|21.0||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||21.0|-1.8|
84482270|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.84|0.93|0.13
84482271|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|27.5||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.5|-2.1|
84482272|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.20|1.17|0.056
84482273|NCT01696396|168715744|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|39.2||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||39.2|2.8|
84482274|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.01|1.27|0.021
84482275|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.8|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|5.8|
84482276|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.87|0.94|0.14
84482277|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|29.7||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||29.7|-2.3|
84482278|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|4.39|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.39|0.79|0.23
84734890|NCT02330276|169221654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
84482279|NCT01696396|168715745|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|-6.4|
84482280|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.47|1.13|0.047
84482281|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|27.1||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.1|2.4|
84497094|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
84734891|NCT01458522|169221675|OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.512
84482282|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.29|0.52|0.84
84482283|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|15.2||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||15.2|-15.2|
84482284|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.72|0.49|0.78
84482285|NCT01696396|168715746|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|18.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||18.3|-17.4|
84497095|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.790|
84497096|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.995||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.995|0.927|
84482286|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.91|0.69|0.34
84482287|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|11.7||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.7|-3.9|
84482288|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.41|1.07|0.078
84734892|NCT02166476|169221711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference for overall success at EOIVT was \>-15%.|Treatment difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.1|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||9.1|0.7|
84734893|NCT02166476|169221712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the m-MITT Population.|Treatment difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.7|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the Eradication rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||18.7|-0.9|
84734894|NCT02166476|169221713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the ME Population.|Treatment Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.0|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the ME population||16.0|-4.2|
84734895|NCT04367480|169221757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.67|||ANCOVA|||"Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation (MI) with the fully conditional specification (FCS) method. 100 replicates were imputed.~ANCOVA analysis was applied within each replicate. SAS PROC MI and MIANALYZE were used to calculate the reported estimates. (N: Active TENS=71, Placebo TENS=70)"||2.67|-0.56|0.199
84734896|NCT04367480|169221758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.08|-0.34|0.302
84734897|NCT04367480|169221758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Hot/Burning Pain. (N: Active TENS=22, Placebo TENS=22)||3.08|-0.33|0.112
84734898|NCT04367480|169221759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.02|-0.37|0.351
84734899|NCT04367480|169221759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Sharp/Shooting Pain. (N: Active TENS=24, Placebo TENS=23)||2.79|-0.36|0.128
84734900|NCT04367480|169221760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.27|-0.22|0.166
84734901|NCT04367480|169221760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Numbness. (N: Active TENS=60, Placebo TENS=50)||1.05|-0.51|0.492
84734902|NCT04367480|169221761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||0.94|-0.56|0.622
84734903|NCT04367480|169221761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Tingling. (N: Active TENS=55, Placebo TENS=50)||1.08|-0.61|0.587
84734904|NCT04367480|169221762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.31|-0.02|0.058
84734905|NCT04367480|169221762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.02|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Cramping. (N: Active TENS=18, Placebo TENS=18)||3.02|-0.32|0.110
84734906|NCT03382561|169221763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: Arm A (CEN)/Arm B (CE)|||1.11|0.55|0.17
84497097|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.985|
84734907|NCT01076244|169221769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|13.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.42|18.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.43|8.42|<0.0001
84734908|NCT01076244|169221771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.16|1.17|<0.0001
84734909|NCT04469465|169221773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||||0.0007
84734910|NCT04469465|169221773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Full Analysis||||0.0007
84734911|NCT04469465|169221773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|31.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||31.99|16.90|<0.0001
84734912|NCT04469465|169221773|SUPERIORITY||Difference|23.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.31|30.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Analysis||30.61|16.31|<0.0001
84734913|NCT01165177|169221792|OTHER|Criteria for the vaccine efficacy (VE) objective of herpes zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster (HZ) disease, in the 50-59 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.6|99.3||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||99.3|89.6|<0.0001
84734914|NCT01165177|169221792|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 60-69 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|99.7||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 60-69 YOA group and placebo over 60-69 YOA group||99.7|90.1|<0.0001
84734915|NCT01165177|169221792|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 70-79 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|100.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|87.9|0.0001
84734916|NCT01165177|169221792|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the overall age strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|99.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||99|93.7|<0.0001
84734917|NCT01165177|169221793|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 50-59 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||100|40.9|0.0081
84734918|NCT01165177|169221793|OTHER|Criteria for VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 60-69 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.8|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA group and placebo 60-69 YOA group||100|-442.8|0.5097
84734919|NCT01165177|169221793|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 70-79 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|41.4|0.0078
84734920|NCT01165177|169221793|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the overall ages strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||100|77.1|<0.0001
84734921|NCT03520075|169221824|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (Geo LSM)|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|91.2|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||91.2|8.50|
84734922|NCT03520075|169221824|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.4|132.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||132|11.4|
84734923|NCT03520075|169221824|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|222.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||222|15.7|
84734924|NCT03520075|169221824|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|108.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||108|20.7|
84734925|NCT03520075|169221825|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.28|61.9|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||61.9|5.28|
84734926|NCT03520075|169221825|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.32|234.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||234|8.32|
84482289|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|22.6||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-0.6|
84734927|NCT03520075|169221825|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|220.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||220|15.7|
84482290|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|10.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.66|1.07|0.083
84482291|NCT01696396|168715747|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|28.3||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||28.3|-1.2|
84482292|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.93|0.59|0.47
84482293|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.1||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.1|-4.7|
84482294|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|6.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.98|0.77|0.21
84482295|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|14.5||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.5|-4.3|
84482296|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.45|0.75|0.21
84482297|NCT01696396|168715748|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|17.9||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||17.9|-6.0|
84482298|NCT01696396|168715749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.3|-16.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-16.9|-67.3|0.006
84482299|NCT01696396|168715749|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.79||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.5|-0.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-0.5|-81.5|0.095
84482300|NCT01696396|168715749|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.84||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.3|0.7|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||0.7|-74.3|0.11
84482301|NCT01696396|168715750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.47||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.0|-4.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-4.9|-50.0|0.045
84482302|NCT01696396|168715750|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|11.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||11.5|-58.7|0.27
84482303|NCT01696396|168715750|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.37||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.8|19.1|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||19.1|-51.8|0.45
84482304|NCT01731990|168715754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment effect for ratio to placebo|1.06||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.97|0.284
84497098|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
84482305|NCT01957215|168715775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0201||95.0|0.1134|1.3199||P- value was obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and NRS Baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA||ADJ DIFF is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of 0.35% Indomethacin Patches minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Patches|||1.3199|0.1134|0.0201
84482306|NCT02436915|168715879|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TUG (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
84482307|NCT02436915|168715880|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the MoCA score (i.e., greater percent increase decrease of MoCA score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84482308|NCT02436915|168715881|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the dual task performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to walking speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
84482309|NCT02436915|168715882|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing sway speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84482310|NCT02436915|168715883|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would reduce the depression (i.e., greater percent decrease of GDS score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
84482311|NCT02436915|168715884|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TMT (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TMT from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
84482312|NCT02436915|168715885|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
84482313|NCT02436915|168715886|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to stride time from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84482314|NCT00762528|168715908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482315|NCT00762528|168715909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482316|NCT00762528|168715910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482317|NCT00762528|168715911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482318|NCT00762528|168715912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482319|NCT00762528|168715913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482320|NCT00762528|168715914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482321|NCT00762528|168715915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84482322|NCT03434041|168715923|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|0.55||2-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.55|-4.64|0.123
84482323|NCT03434041|168715924|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.33||||||||-1.33|-5.33|
84482324|NCT03434041|168715925|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.96|
84482325|NCT00654420|168715936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Finkelstein Proportional Hazards Model|||Finkelstein proportional hazards model for interval-censored data was used to assess treatment effect on PFS in Phase II. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval for the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported.||1.57|0.47|0.268
84734928|NCT03520075|169221825|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|113.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||113|14.3|
84482326|NCT00654420|168715937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.64|||Regression, Cox|||The treatment difference in survival between treatment groups was assessed by Cox regression. The estimated hazard ratio for treatment of the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported from the Cox model.||2.64|0.78|0.879
84482327|NCT00654420|168715938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method for stratified data was used for comparison of percentage of participants with objective response (ORR) between the two treatment groups. Response rate calculation was based on full follow-up.||9.4|-15.9|0.721
84482328|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.2||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-1.4|0.8173
84482329|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5903
84482330|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5917
84482331|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-3.6|0.5021
84482332|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.5|-3.8|0.1382
84482333|NCT02709109|168715961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.5|-1.7|0.4962
84482334|NCT04010370|168715981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of McAuley index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||<0.001
84482335|NCT04010370|168715982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Belfiore index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.319
84482336|NCT04010370|168715983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Cederholm index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.27
84482337|NCT04010370|168715984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Avignon index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.246
84482338|NCT04010370|168715985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Matsuda index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.259
84482339|NCT04010370|168715986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Gutt index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
84482340|NCT04010370|168715987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Stumvoll index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.022
84482341|NCT04010370|168715988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of HOMA-IR index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
84482342|NCT04010370|168715989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of ISI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
84482343|NCT04010370|168715990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Raynaud index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.541
84482344|NCT04010370|168715991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of QUICKI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
84482345|NCT04010370|168715992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of FIRI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.531
84482346|NCT04010370|168715993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Bennett index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.726
84734929|NCT03520075|169221826|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.62|54.3|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||54.3|5.62|
84734930|NCT03520075|169221826|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.0|99.4|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||99.4|12.0|
84734931|NCT03520075|169221826|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.6|299.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||299|17.6|
84734932|NCT03520075|169221826|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|181.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||181|29.1|
84734933|NCT03520075|169221827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-2.275||||0.0388671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.216|-0.083|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||-0.0830|-5.2160|0.0388671
84734934|NCT03520075|169221827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.45||||0.4795001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.917|5.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||5.1500|-0.9170|0.4795001
84734935|NCT03520075|169221827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.45||||0.8272593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.467|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||0.9500|-2.4670|0.8272593
84734936|NCT03520075|169221827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.583||||0.5126908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|3.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||3.5000|-6.4500|0.5126908
84734937|NCT05146206|169221844|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84734938|NCT05146206|169221845|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||MANOVA|||||||<0.001
84734939|NCT03546816|169221846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
84734940|NCT03546816|169221847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
84734941|NCT03546816|169221848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.236
84734942|NCT03546816|169221849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.083
84734943|NCT03546816|169221849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.049
84734944|NCT03546816|169221849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.081
84734945|NCT03546816|169221849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.157
84734946|NCT03546816|169221850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.151
84734947|NCT03546816|169221850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.052
84482347|NCT04010370|168715994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of TyG index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.787
84734948|NCT03546816|169221850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.175
84734949|NCT03546816|169221851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.475
84734950|NCT03546816|169221851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.020
84734951|NCT03546816|169221851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.492
84734952|NCT03546816|169221852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.175
84734953|NCT03546816|169221852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.169
84482348|NCT01815580|168716006|OTHER||||||>|0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.75
84482349|NCT01815580|168716007|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84482350|NCT01815580|168716008|OTHER||||||>|0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.3
84734954|NCT03546816|169221852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.516
84734955|NCT03546816|169221853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.814
84734956|NCT03546816|169221854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.113
84734957|NCT02270671|169221856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
84734958|NCT02270671|169221857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.026|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
84734959|NCT02270671|169221858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
84734960|NCT02270671|169221859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \<.0001|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
84734961|NCT02270671|169221860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.007|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
84734962|NCT01657799|169221861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.933
84734963|NCT01657799|169221861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.909
84734964|NCT01657799|169221861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.355|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.355|0.716|0.927
84734965|NCT01657799|169221861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.354|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.354|0.710|0.906
84734966|NCT01657799|169221862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.535
84734967|NCT01657799|169221862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.898
84734968|NCT01657799|169221863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.314
84734969|NCT01657799|169221863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.536
84734970|NCT01657799|169221863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.168|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.168|0.780|0.313
84734971|NCT01657799|169221863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.999|0.698|0.534
84734972|NCT01657799|169221864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.864
84734973|NCT01657799|169221864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.301
84734974|NCT01657799|169221864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.754|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.754|0.626|0.860
84482351|NCT01815580|168716009|OTHER||||||>|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.12
84482352|NCT01815580|168716010|OTHER||||||>|0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.22
84734975|NCT01657799|169221864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.086|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.086|0.803|0.289
84734976|NCT01777126|169221865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was the interval from surgery to discharge. Discharge means that the patient returns to his home. Preliminary data from our institution showed that all patients received parenteral nutrition very early post-surgery and were discharged after a mean of 19.3 ± 5.6 days. Therefore, the primary objective by implementing the ONP was to reduce the length of stay with 3 days.||||<0.001
84734977|NCT01777126|169221868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||<0.01
84734978|NCT01777126|169221869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test. Results were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.487
84734979|NCT01777126|169221870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
84734980|NCT01777126|169221871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's Exact Test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.117
84734981|NCT01777126|169221872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.049
84734982|NCT01777126|169221873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.698||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.698
84734983|NCT04593823|169221978|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.5|||||A win ratio parameter signifies the percentage of wins that a treatment group has achieved when compared against a comparator.|||2.50|0.48|
84734984|NCT04593823|169221979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|15.9|||Chi-squared|||||15.9|-17.0|>0.999
84734985|NCT04593823|169221980|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|13.6|||Chi-squared|||||13.6|-36.4|0.459
84734986|NCT04593823|169221982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.887||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|37.784|||ANOVA|Repeated measures analysis||||37.784|-20.010|0.547
84734987|NCT04593823|169221983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
84734988|NCT02250534|169221994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
84734989|NCT02250534|169221994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 6.07 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.03 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
84482353|NCT02573233|168716014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.8400
84482354|NCT02573233|168716015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-235.02||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-414.19|-55.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||-55.84|-414.19|0.0336
84734990|NCT03311269|169222020|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for both treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection and ClariVein RES 3% Injection) combined.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||Continuous variables summarized using descriptive statistics, specifically the mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum. Categorical variables summarized using frequencies and percentages. All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated. For efficacy analyses, missing post-treatment data will be imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF). Missing safety data will not be imputed.||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
84734991|NCT03311269|169222020|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.0||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 1% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.0|-5.8|0.011
84734992|NCT03311269|169222020|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.6||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 3% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.6|-8.7|0.010
84734993|NCT03311269|169222020|OTHER|An ANCOVA was performed to compare the change from baseline for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection with treatment as the class variable and with baseline score as the covariate|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||This p-value corresponds to the difference between treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection).|ANCOVA|||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||1.3|-3.7|0.531
84734994|NCT03311269|169222021|OTHER||Descriptive (Percentage)|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|99.9|||||The count of the combined treatment group for the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment is 17/18 (94.4%).|The secondary efficacy endpoint, the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, will be summarized for both treatments combined using the count and percentage, together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the proportion.||99.9|72.7|
84734995|NCT03311269|169222021|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|42.8||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.|Chi-squared|||For elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, the treatment difference for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection for the proportion was assessed by a chi-square test together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the treatment difference.||42.8|-20.5|1.000
84734996|NCT00537329|169222027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.1||||||95.0|70.5|95.3||||||Sample size enrollment of 100 subjects was planned. Assuming an overall response rate of 75 percent (%), a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects responding to treatment would have ranged from 66.3% to 83.7% allowing for 5% nonevaluability. This would have provided a level of precision considered acceptable for this Asian regional study.||95.3|70.5|
84734997|NCT00537329|169222028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.2||||||95.0|74.6|97.0||||||EOIT||97.0|74.6|
84734998|NCT00537329|169222028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|82.8||||||95.0|64.2|94.2||||||2 Wks post EOT||94.2|64.2|
84734999|NCT00537329|169222028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7||||||6 Wks post EOT||98.7|66.9|
84735000|NCT00537329|169222028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.7||||||95.0|49.8|89.3||||||12 Wks post baseline||89.3|49.8|
84735001|NCT00537329|169222029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOIT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|85.1|
84735002|NCT00537329|169222029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.1||||||95.0|80.3|99.3||||||EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.3|80.3|
84735003|NCT00537329|169222029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|92.9||||||95.0|76.5|99.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.1|76.5|
84735004|NCT00537329|169222029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|72.7|
84735005|NCT00537329|169222029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|85.0||||||95.0|62.1|96.8||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (cure/improvement)||96.8|62.1|
84735006|NCT00537329|169222030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.3||||||95.0|85.8|99.9||||||EOIT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.8|
84735007|NCT00537329|169222030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.1|
84735008|NCT00537329|169222030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.2||||||95.0|68.3|96.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.1|68.3|
84735009|NCT00537329|169222030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|72.7|
84735010|NCT00537329|169222030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.2||||||95.0|60.4|96.6||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.6|60.4|
84735011|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|50.0||||||95.0|1.3|98.7||||||Neutropenic status: ANC ≤ 500/cmm||98.7|1.3|
84735012|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|75.7||||||95.0|58.8|88.2||||||Neutropenic status: ANC \> 500/cmm||88.2|58.8|
84735013|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|41.9|91.6||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida albicans||91.6|41.9|
84735014|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|66.7||||||95.0|22.3|95.7||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida glabrata||95.7|22.3|
84735015|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|39.8|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida parapsilosis||100.0|39.8|
84735016|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|2.5|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida rugosa||100.0|2.5|
84735017|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.2||||||95.0|46.5|90.3||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida tropicalis||90.3|46.5|
84735018|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.6||||||95.0|54.6|98.1||||||Previous surgery: Any surgery||98.1|54.6|
84735019|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|87.5||||||95.0|47.3|99.7||||||Previous surgery: Abdominal surgery||99.7|47.3|
84735020|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|58.8||||||95.0|32.9|81.6||||||Elderly: Age ≥ 65 years||81.6|32.9|
84735021|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|54.5||||||95.0|23.4|83.3||||||Renal insufficiency (CCC \< 30 mL/min)||83.3|23.4|
84735022|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|81.0||||||95.0|58.1|94.6||||||Use of Central venous catheter = Yes||94.6|58.1|
84735023|NCT00537329|169222037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|29.0|96.3||||||Receiving chemotherapy = Yes||96.3|29.0|
84735024|NCT00243022|169222038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84735025|NCT00243022|169222039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84735026|NCT00243022|169222040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84735027|NCT01390441|169222046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.16|0.87|
84735028|NCT01390441|169222048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part A: MK-8808 500 mg/m\^2 - Part A: MabThera 500 mg/m\^2) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||3.6|-38.6|
84735029|NCT01390441|169222048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|10.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: MabThera 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||10.9|-44.4|
84735030|NCT01390441|169222048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|24.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||24.6|-34.9|
84735031|NCT01390441|169222048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent differnce|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|38.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MabThera® 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||38.9|-15.6|
84735032|NCT01390441|169222050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.1|0.87|
84735033|NCT01390441|169222054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 6 weeks.||0.5|-0.9|
84735034|NCT01390441|169222054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 12 weeks.||1.2|-0.4|
84735035|NCT04706793|169222061|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
84735036|NCT04706793|169222062|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|50.86||||||||50.86|6.28|
84735037|NCT04706793|169222063|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|54.71||||||||54.71|9.58|
84735038|NCT04706793|169222064|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|42.92||||||||42.92|-0.07|
84735039|NCT04706793|169222065|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
84735040|NCT04706793|169222066|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.68||||||||16.68|-2.40|
84735041|NCT00823836|169222067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of ropinirole PR/XR tablets to ropinirole IR tablets was assessed with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5.|Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.09||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: value of change from Week 0 at Week 24 = treatment group + Week 0 value|ANCOVA|||||2.09|-1.41|0.702
84735042|NCT02725528|169222129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735043|NCT02725528|169222130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735044|NCT02725528|169222131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735045|NCT02725528|169222132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735046|NCT02725528|169222133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84482355|NCT02573233|168716016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.89||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.0|46.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||46.78|-19.00|0.4795
84482356|NCT02573233|168716017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.98||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.92|22.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||22.97|-60.92|0.4494
84482357|NCT02573233|168716018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6865||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.6865
84482358|NCT02573233|168716019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7588||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.7588
84482359|NCT02573233|168716020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.9|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect Model with Repeated Measures (MRMM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-11.9|-32.9|0.0012
84482360|NCT02573233|168716021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect model with Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-12.8|-31.3|0.0005
84735047|NCT02725528|169222134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735048|NCT02725528|169222135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735049|NCT02725528|169222136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735050|NCT02725528|169222137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
84735051|NCT02804399|169222166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|14.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.78|17.01||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||17.01|12.78|
84735052|NCT02804399|169222167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|23.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.58|26.43||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||26.43|21.58|
84735053|NCT02804399|169222168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.09|16.12||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||16.12|12.09|
84735054|NCT01795859|169222209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.69|<0.0001
84735055|NCT01795859|169222210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|49.8|||Difference of proportions|||||49.8|12.4|0.0020
84735056|NCT01795859|169222211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.4|||Difference of proportions|||||46.4|11.4|0.0022
84735057|NCT01795859|169222212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|4.34||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|0.41|0.0308
84735058|NCT01795859|169222213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.3|0.1415
84735059|NCT00727506|169222234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||95.0||||P-value is from an approximate normal test for the 6 month time point.|z-test|||||||0.148
84482361|NCT05103475|168716025|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||||||1.0
84735060|NCT00727506|169222234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is an approximate normal test for the six month time point.|z-test|||||||0.008
84735061|NCT00727506|169222236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84735062|NCT00727506|169222236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1954||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1954
84482362|NCT05103475|168716026|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84482363|NCT05103475|168716027|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84482364|NCT05103475|168716028|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group scores.||||0.43
84482365|NCT05103475|168716028|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group score.||||0.24
84482366|NCT05103475|168716028|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.53||||||F = 0.41|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.53
84482367|NCT05103475|168716029|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group.||||0.70
84482368|NCT05103475|168716029|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group.||||0.17
84482369|NCT05103475|168716029|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.18||||||F = 1.95|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.18
84482370|NCT05103475|168716030|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.37
84735063|NCT00727506|169222237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.912|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.912|1.088|0.0320
84735064|NCT00727506|169222237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.392||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|2.301|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline KPS score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.301|0.841|0.2044
84735065|NCT01214421|169222267|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.99||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from the least squares (LS) mean difference between the treatment groups at each visit using MMRM model with factors of treatment, visit, region, baseline, baseline hypertensive status, baseline renal volume status, baseline creatinine clearance status, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of baseline and visit.|1.02|0.96|0.358
84735066|NCT01214421|169222268|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (final values)|3.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.462|4.836|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from MMRM analysis with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment visit interaction, hypertensive status, renal volume status and creatinine clearance status at baseline, region, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates, and with a heterogeneous toeplitz variance covariance matrix.|4.836|1.462|0.0003
84735067|NCT01214421|169222269|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|1.011||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|1.023|1.000|0.0462
84735068|NCT01214421|169222270|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|-0.113||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|0.520|-0.746|0.7259
84735069|NCT01214421|169222271|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.992||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|1.002|0.982|0.1080
84482371|NCT05103475|168716030|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.50
84482372|NCT05103475|168716030|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.9||||||F = 0.01|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.90
84482373|NCT05103475|168716031|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.56
84482374|NCT05103475|168716031|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.32
84482375|NCT05103475|168716031|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41||||||F = 0.71|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.41
84482376|NCT05103475|168716032|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.50
84482377|NCT05103475|168716032|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.60
84482378|NCT05103475|168716032|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.98||||||F = 0.0|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.98
84482379|NCT05103475|168716033|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.54
84482380|NCT05103475|168716033|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.15
84482381|NCT05103475|168716033|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.04||||||F = 4.9|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.04
84735070|NCT01214421|169222272|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.361||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|0.946|-0.224|0.2265
84482382|NCT05103475|168716034|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.11
84482383|NCT05103475|168716034|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.09
84482384|NCT05103475|168716034|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.75||||||F = 0.10|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.75
84482385|NCT05103475|168716035|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.||Likelihood to participate in a program like it in the future||||0.41
84482386|NCT05103475|168716035|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.003||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Help to manage back pain.||||0.003
84482387|NCT05103475|168716035|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small sample sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||Would recommend to another Veteran.||||1.00
84482388|NCT05103475|168716035|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.07||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Liked the program.||||0.07
84482389|NCT05103475|168716036|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.91
84482390|NCT05103475|168716036|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.51
84482391|NCT05103475|168716036|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.42||||||F = 0.68|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.42
84482392|NCT00924729|168716037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84482393|NCT02228824|168716047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||2.17|0.86|<0.001
84482394|NCT02228824|168716049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.78|-75.21|0.041
84482395|NCT02228824|168716050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||-0.13|-1.26|0.016
84482396|NCT02228824|168716051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
84482397|NCT01042938|168716083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7991|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7606||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3693|-0.2289|||Standard pooled variances t-test|||Hypothesis: The mean RDS for curcumin group is significantly different (i.e., lower) than mean RDS of placebo group at end of radiation treatment.||-0.2289|-1.3693|0.0077
84482398|NCT01042938|168716084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis: The presence of moist desquamation significantly differed between the curcumin group and the placebo group.||||0.0022
84482399|NCT01042938|168716085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean redness (i.e., mean a\* number value) between the curcumin and placebo groups.||||0.145
84482400|NCT01042938|168716086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.685||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|4.428|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean MPQ pain scores between the curcumin and placebo groups.||4.428|-1.059|0.218
84482401|NCT01042938|168716086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean sensory subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||3.6|-0.6|0.152
84603299|NCT00496197|168957208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|96.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||96.4|89.8|
84482402|NCT01042938|168716086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Hypohesis: There is a signifcant difference in affective subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||1.1|-0.7|0.700
84482403|NCT01042938|168716086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean perceived pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||0.7|-0.4|0.559
84482404|NCT00856986|168716105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.52||||||95.0|-0.68|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5% and with the power of 90%.||-0.36|-0.68|
84482405|NCT00856986|168716106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.41||||||95.0|-0.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA||The analysis values for intensified Lira 1.8 mg subjects were kept in the treatment group and the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied.|The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5%.||-0.21|-0.6|
84482406|NCT00856986|168716107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS mean|-0.51||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA||The mean change in HbA1c from randomisation to week 52 was analysed including the values before intensification as LOCF for intensified subjects|||-0.31|-0.7|
84482407|NCT03061812|168716140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.82|1.17|0.0051
84482408|NCT03061812|168716141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.87|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.87|1.22|< 0.0001
84482409|NCT03061812|168716142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|4.65||||||||4.65|-5.66|
84482410|NCT03061812|168716143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.18|0.39|0.3352
84482411|NCT03061812|168716144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.12|0.47|0.0358
84482412|NCT04018612|168716146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.091||0.0258|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-7.53|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline (BL) Pain Intensity-Numerical Pain Relief Scale (PI-NPRS) as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -∞|||-7.53||0.0258
84482413|NCT04018612|168716146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.0115|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-11.35|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|||-11.35||0.0115
84482414|NCT04018612|168716147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267||0.0087|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.92||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.92|0.0087
84482415|NCT04018612|168716147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297||0.012|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.31||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.31|0.0120
84482416|NCT02566109|168716172|OTHER|Estimation of Pearson correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.57472||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.6102
84482417|NCT02566109|168716172|OTHER|Correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.25733||||0.8343|TWO_SIDED||||||Peason Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.8343
84482418|NCT02566109|168716173|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09487||||0.9395|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9395
84482419|NCT02566109|168716173|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.97287||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.1486
84735071|NCT00158197|169222302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
84482420|NCT02566109|168716174|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.10327||||0.9341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9341
84482421|NCT02566109|168716174|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.99696||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.0497
84482422|NCT02566109|168716175|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.98432||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.1129
84482423|NCT01906476|168716182|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority trials of pharmaceuticals have used 30% to 50% of the difference between treatment and control conditions to define non-inferiority margins. (Jones, Jarvis, Lewis, \& Ebbutt, 1996; Nutt et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of CBT found an overall effect size of d=0.82.(Cuijpers, Smit, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, \& Andersson, 2010). Using the midpoint of 40% for the acceptable criterion, we set d=0.33 as the non-inferiority criterion.|||||||||||||||||"Cohen's d and upper limits of one-sided 95% Confidence intervals for each time are as follows:~Mid-treatment -0.19 (95% upper limit= 0.06) End of treatment 0.03 (0.24) 3 months post treatment -0.02 (0.19) 6 months post treatment -0.07 (0.14)"|||
84482424|NCT01906476|168716183|SUPERIORITY||ICER estimate|-152.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1143.09|1094.72||||||We calculated the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) estimate, computed using the difference in average cost between the two arms, divided by the difference in average Depression Free Days (DFD) as defined using QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology), between the two arms, Stepped Care minus Telephone Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The confidence interval was created using bootstrapping.||1094.72|-1143.09|
84482425|NCT01041404|168716187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.59|0.0002
84482426|NCT01041404|168716189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.58|0.0003
84482427|NCT01041404|168716190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.9|||Chi-squared|||||20.9|4.7|0.0017
84482428|NCT01041404|168716192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
84482429|NCT01041404|168716193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|9.6||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||||16.9|2.4|0.0081
84482430|NCT01041404|168716193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.41||||||||2.41|1.14|
84482431|NCT01041404|168716194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.60|0.0046
84482432|NCT01248585|168716207|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.177||1-sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided 0.05 level test with 90% power, 298 participants required.||0.177|0|0.05
84482433|NCT01248585|168716208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.08|0.432
84735072|NCT00158197|169222302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
84482434|NCT01248585|168716210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||0.18|0.01|0.15
84482435|NCT01248585|168716211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|3.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.97|-5.06|0.07
84482436|NCT03552289|168716280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8283|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.8283
84482437|NCT02408484|168716293|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the firstBLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0028
84482438|NCT02408484|168716293|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the BLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84482439|NCT01224106|168716323|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.044||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|-0.248|0.6744
84603300|NCT00496197|168957209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|95.9|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOIV||95.9|89.3|
84735073|NCT00158197|169222302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
84482440|NCT01224106|168716323|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.085||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.135|-0.304|0.4494
84482441|NCT01224106|168716325|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.035||||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.250|-0.179|0.7458
84482442|NCT01224106|168716325|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.042||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|-0.191|0.723
84482443|NCT01224106|168716329|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.191||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.407|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.025|-0.407|0.0825
84482444|NCT01224106|168716329|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.043||||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.276|-0.19|0.7171
84482445|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9734|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.9734
84482446|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0629|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0629
84482447|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0084
84482448|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0003
84482449|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0903
84482450|NCT01224106|168716332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0434
84482451|NCT00446797|168716351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To conclude non inferiority, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change scores between the 2 treatment groups (nsNSAIDs - celecoxib) must be greater than -10 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||||95.0|-0.76|7.55|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed), and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Least squares mean||7.55|-0.76|
84482452|NCT00446797|168716352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-0.89|7.08|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||7.08|-0.89|
84482453|NCT00446797|168716352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||||95.0|-0.55|7.48|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||7.48|-0.55|
84482454|NCT00446797|168716352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||||95.0|-0.91|6.42|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||6.42|-0.91|
84482455|NCT00446797|168716353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1591||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 2||||0.1591
84482456|NCT00446797|168716353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3995||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 3||||0.3995
84482457|NCT00446797|168716353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6805||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 7||||0.6805
84482458|NCT00446797|168716354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2411||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.2411
84482459|NCT00446797|168716354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1163||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.1163
84482460|NCT00446797|168716354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.0440
84482461|NCT00446797|168716355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7223||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.7223
84482462|NCT00446797|168716355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0541||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.0541
84482463|NCT00446797|168716356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 2||||0.2900
84482464|NCT00446797|168716356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.0157
84482465|NCT00446797|168716356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1206||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.1206
84482466|NCT00446797|168716357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.0846
84482467|NCT00446797|168716357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3041||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.3041
84482468|NCT00446797|168716357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1216||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.1216
84482469|NCT00446797|168716358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.395||95.0|-0.33|0.62||Overall p-value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.33|0.395
84482470|NCT00446797|168716358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|0.18|1.04||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.04|0.18|0.004
84482471|NCT00446797|168716358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.122||95.0|-0.08|0.77||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.77|-0.08|0.122
84482472|NCT00446797|168716359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.604||95.0|-0.32|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.32|0.604
84482473|NCT00446797|168716359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.124||95.0|-0.07|0.63||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.63|-0.07|0.124
84482474|NCT00446797|168716359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.062||95.0|0.03|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|0.03|0.062
84482475|NCT00446797|168716360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.705||95.0|-0.36|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.36|0.705
84482476|NCT00446797|168716360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.064||95.0|-0.01|0.73||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.73|-0.01|0.064
84482477|NCT00446797|168716360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.074||95.0|-0.01|0.68||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.68|-0.01|0.074
84482478|NCT00446797|168716361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017||95.0|0.11|1.05||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||1.05|0.11|0.017
84482479|NCT00446797|168716361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.108||95.0|-0.05|0.74||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.74|-0.05|0.108
84482480|NCT00446797|168716361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.117||95.0|-0.01|0.66||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.66|-0.01|0.117
84482481|NCT00446797|168716362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.229||95.0|-0.17|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.17|0.229
84482482|NCT00446797|168716362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027||95.0|0.05|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.75|0.05|0.027
84482483|NCT00446797|168716362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.07||95.0|0.01|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.65|0.01|0.070
84482484|NCT00446797|168716363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.954||95.0|-0.64|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.64|0.954
84482485|NCT00446797|168716363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.172||95.0|-0.19|1.02||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.02|-0.19|0.172
84482486|NCT00446797|168716363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.541||95.0|-0.3|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.30|0.541
84482487|NCT00446797|168716364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.924||95.0|-0.75|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.75|0.924
84482488|NCT00446797|168716364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.898||95.0|-0.62|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.62|0.898
84482489|NCT00446797|168716364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.655||95.0|-0.33|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.33|0.655
84482490|NCT00446797|168716365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.929||95.0|-0.59|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.59|0.929
84482491|NCT00446797|168716365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.712||95.0|-0.5|0.71||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.71|-0.50|0.712
84482492|NCT00446797|168716365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.993||95.0|-0.44|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.44|0.993
84482493|NCT00446797|168716366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.779||95.0|-0.53|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.75|-0.53|0.779
84482494|NCT00446797|168716366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.972||95.0|-0.69|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.65|-0.69|0.972
84482495|NCT00446797|168716366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.844||95.0|-0.47|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|-0.47|0.844
84482496|NCT00446797|168716367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.944||95.0|-0.63|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.63|0.944
84482497|NCT00446797|168716367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.654||95.0|-0.62|0.38||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.38|-0.62|0.654
84482498|NCT00446797|168716367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.952||95.0|-0.36|0.39||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.39|-0.36|0.952
84482499|NCT00446797|168716368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.842||95.0|-0.65|0.59||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.59|-0.65|0.842
84482500|NCT00446797|168716368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.828||95.0|-0.57|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.57|0.828
84482501|NCT00446797|168716368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.542||95.0|-0.3|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.30|0.542
84482502|NCT00446797|168716369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.404||95.0|-0.92|0.42||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.42|-0.92|0.404
84482503|NCT00446797|168716369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.816||95.0|-0.53|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.53|0.816
84482504|NCT00446797|168716369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.837||95.0|-0.37|0.52||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.52|-0.37|0.837
84603301|NCT00496197|168957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|82.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||82.3|70.3|
84482505|NCT00446797|168716370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.887||95.0|-0.54|0.45||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.45|-0.54|0.887
84482506|NCT00446797|168716370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.889||95.0|-0.43|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.43|0.889
84482507|NCT00446797|168716370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.738||95.0|-0.3|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.30|0.738
84482508|NCT02019758|168716371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean post-treatment maximum eosinophil count will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.31
84482509|NCT02019758|168716372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean DSQ scores will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.70
84482510|NCT02019758|168716377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08||||||||2.08|0.52|
84482511|NCT02019758|168716378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84482512|NCT02019758|168716379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84482513|NCT02019758|168716380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84482514|NCT00364832|168716381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.9|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ week (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.90|0.73|
84482515|NCT00364832|168716381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 3 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.86|0.55|
84482516|NCT00364832|168716381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.09|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 4 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||1.09|0.81|
84482517|NCT03053401|168716387|OTHER|Test of difference was conducted.||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84482518|NCT03053401|168716388|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
84482519|NCT03053401|168716388|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test with Exact Option|||||||0.410
84482520|NCT03053401|168716389|OTHER|Test of Difference conducted.||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
84482521|NCT04882072|168716405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.47||||||||8.47|0.41|
84482522|NCT02918318|168716426|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|3.7||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.70|-5.77|0.475
84482523|NCT02918318|168716426|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.32|5.47||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||5.47|-4.32|0.504
84482524|NCT02918318|168716426|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.66|3.83||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.83|-5.66|0.482
84482525|NCT03185819|168716439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|-0.35||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A pooled (54 mg and 84 mg) sequential multiple testing procedure was implemented to control type I error by comparing pooled data against midazolam + placebo matched to esketamine nasal spray.||-0.35|-11.19|= 0.037
84482526|NCT03185819|168716439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.55||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (84 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||1.55|-12.91|= 0.123
84482527|NCT03185819|168716439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|0.53||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (56 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||0.53|-12.25|= 0.072
84482528|NCT03185819|168716439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|4.19||||||||4.19|-9.08|
84482529|NCT03097133|168716440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-6.60|0.006
84482530|NCT00371540|168716463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||Note: The differences between the number of individuals evaluable for this secondary outcome and the number of individuals evaluable for the primary outcome is related to specimen loss by the laboratory. As such of the Routine care group only 96 of 102 patients completing the study were evaluable for the viral load outcome and only 86 of 87 patients in the Home visit group.||||0.65
84482531|NCT00371540|168716464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84482532|NCT00371540|168716465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84735074|NCT00158197|169222303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Yes, the a priori plan to handle post hoc multiple comparisons was to use the method of Bonferroni adjustment. Thus, the new alpha level for these comparisons was \<0.0125.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84735075|NCT00158197|169222303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84482533|NCT02910089|168716466|SUPERIORITY|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function (as a continuous variable) and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|||0.32|-0.2|
84482534|NCT02910089|168716467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.4||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|Average of the percentage (proportion x 100) of days covered across all subjects.||4.40|-2.42|
84482535|NCT02910089|168716468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.28|0.83|
84482536|NCT02910089|168716469|OTHER|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|See comments|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.17|0.71|
84482537|NCT04080752|168716517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.55|-1.76|0.2494
84482538|NCT01585168|168716528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4109||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided|A Paired t-test was performed to explore the difference between two groups.|FHN was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in amygdala.|||||0.032
84482539|NCT01585168|168716528|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.6615||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.125
84482540|NCT01585168|168716531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7264||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided||FHP was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in anterior cingulate cortex.|||||0.356
84482541|NCT01585168|168716531|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.8348||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84482542|NCT03605836|168716551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.01|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.46|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.46|-6.55|=0.0021
84482543|NCT03605836|168716551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.42|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.82|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.82|-7.02|=0.0009
84482544|NCT03605836|168716552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.09|-0.57|=0.0073
84482545|NCT03605836|168716552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.04|-0.53|=0.0245
84482546|NCT01704976|168716569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84482547|NCT01704976|168716570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84482548|NCT01704976|168716571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84482549|NCT01704976|168716572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84482550|NCT01704976|168716573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84482551|NCT02977507|168716574|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.041
84482552|NCT02977507|168716574|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0005
84482553|NCT02977507|168716575|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.002
84482554|NCT02977507|168716575|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0001
84482555|NCT02977507|168716576|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.004
84482556|NCT02977507|168716576|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.001
84482557|NCT02977507|168716580|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.003
84482558|NCT02977507|168716580|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0007
84482559|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.569
84482560|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||9e-05|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.00009
84482561|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||0.821|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.821
84482562|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.502
84482563|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.810
84482564|NCT02977507|168716582|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.435
84482565|NCT03011775|168716591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was P value of .05||||||<0.05
84482566|NCT03011775|168716592|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84482567|NCT03011775|168716594|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84482568|NCT03011775|168716595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84482569|NCT03011775|168716597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84482570|NCT03011775|168716598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84482571|NCT03011775|168716599|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.3
84482572|NCT02120352|168716608|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.2|||||Comparison between CAB LA 600 mg+RPV LA 900 mg IM-Q8W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||12.2|-4.8|
84482573|NCT02120352|168716608|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.5|||||Comparison between CAB LA 400 mg+RPV LA 600 mg IM-Q4W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||11.5|-5.8|
84482574|NCT02427100|168716673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
84482575|NCT02427100|168716674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00036||||||The Linear Mixed Model (LMM) regression analysis (repeated measures) was adjusted for daily minutes of accelerometer wear time, gender, age, BMI, education, and meeting physical activity guidelines at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A fourth root transformation of daily accelerometer-measured minutes of MVPA was used to normalize the distribution and was included in the analyses.||||||.00036
84482576|NCT01610206|168716675|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate the progression-free survival hazard ratio of the combination of weekly gemcitabine and pazopanib compared to weekly gemcitabine alone in patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||non-parametric weighted Tarone-Ware test|||||1.07|0.61|0.019
84482577|NCT03536923|168716677|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
84482578|NCT03536923|168716678|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
84482579|NCT03536923|168716680|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
84482580|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|54.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|150.1||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||150.1|-41.7|
84482581|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|44.5||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||44.5|-148.5|
84482582|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|106.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||106.9|-96.0|
84482583|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|133.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||133.9|-66.8|
84482584|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|202.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||202.0|-2.4|
84482585|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|182.6||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||182.6|-107.1|
84482586|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.7|71.8||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||71.8|-215.7|
84482587|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.5|96.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||96.9|-241.5|
84482588|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.9|119.2||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||119.2|-154.9|
84482589|NCT01332097|168716695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|123.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|263.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||263.0|-15.8|
84482590|NCT00431496|168716697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.3||||||95.0|30.8|53.7||||||||53.7|30.8|
84482591|NCT00431496|168716698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|52.1||||||95.0|40.5|63.7||||||||63.7|40.5|
84482592|NCT00431496|168716699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.9||||||95.0|69.4|88.4||||||||88.4|69.4|
84482593|NCT00431496|168716700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.9||||||95.0|43.4|66.5||||||||66.5|43.4|
84482594|NCT00431496|168716701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.5||||||95.0|41.9|65.1||||||||65.1|41.9|
84482595|NCT00431496|168716702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|46.5||||||95.0|34.9|58.1||||||||58.1|34.9|
84482596|NCT02999191|168716718|OTHER||Ratio|89.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.304|110.25|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The Standard Deviation \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.25|73.304|
84482597|NCT02999191|168716718|OTHER||Ratio|170.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.85|208.54|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.54|139.85|
84482598|NCT02999191|168716719|OTHER||Ratio|84.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.26|110.24|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.24|64.260|
84482599|NCT02999191|168716719|OTHER||Ratio|136.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.885|185.61|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||185.61|99.885|
84482600|NCT01685203|168716745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level and Interleukin-28B (IL28B) genotype (CC or non-CC) were used as predictors||||||0.381
84482601|NCT01685203|168716745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in rates after adjusting for Interleukin-28 (IL28) genotype (CC or Non-CC) using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions and continuity-corrected variances.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
84482602|NCT02896192|168716749|OTHER||CI||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84482603|NCT02896192|168716750|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84482604|NCT02896192|168716751|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-25.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.49|-22.98|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-22.98|-28.49|<0.0001
84482605|NCT02896192|168716752|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.77||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.58|-14.96|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.96|-40.58|0.0005
84482606|NCT02896192|168716753|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥ 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥ 25% improvement in daily hunger score.|Exact binomial test|||||||0.0004
84482607|NCT02896192|168716754|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.27|-14.88|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.88|-21.27|<0.0001
84482608|NCT02896192|168716757|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.6|-24.29|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-24.29|-30.60|<0.0001
84482609|NCT00383708|168716760|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|One-sided p value||The percentage of subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
84482610|NCT00383708|168716761|OTHER|||||||0.1654||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with pegvisomant (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.1654
84482611|NCT00383708|168716761|OTHER|||||||0.0115||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with lanreotide Autogel (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0115
84482612|NCT00383708|168716761|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with octreotide LAR (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0003
84482613|NCT00383708|168716762|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.084
84482614|NCT00383708|168716762|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup non diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
84482615|NCT00383708|168716763|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'while taking final dose during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
84482616|NCT00383708|168716763|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'at any time during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
84482617|NCT04507360|168716826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Mean difference in Overall row"||||
84482618|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482619|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482620|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84482621|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84482622|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
84482623|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482624|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482625|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84482626|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84735076|NCT00158197|169222303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84482627|NCT04507360|168716828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
84482628|NCT04507360|168716829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482629|NCT04507360|168716829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482630|NCT04507360|168716829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84482631|NCT04507360|168716829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84482632|NCT04507360|168716830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482633|NCT04507360|168716830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482634|NCT04507360|168716830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84735077|NCT00158197|169222303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84482635|NCT04507360|168716830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84482636|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482637|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482638|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84482639|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84482640|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
84482641|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
84482642|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
84482643|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
84482644|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
84482645|NCT04507360|168716831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
84482646|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
84482647|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
84603302|NCT00496197|168957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|98.1|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.1|91.5|
84735078|NCT00158197|169222304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.78
84482648|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
84482649|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
84482650|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
84482651|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
84482652|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
84482653|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
84482654|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
84482655|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
84482656|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
84482657|NCT04507360|168716834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
84482658|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
84482659|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
84482660|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
84482661|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
84482662|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
84482663|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
84482664|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
84482665|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
84482666|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
84482667|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
84482668|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
84482669|NCT04507360|168716835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
84482670|NCT02712008|168716838|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|-2.09||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|- 4.84|0.1368
84482671|NCT02712008|168716838|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0||2.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.18|- 2.10|0.9716
84482672|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.15||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.20|-0.90|0.1665
84735079|NCT00158197|169222304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.68
84735080|NCT00158197|169222304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.20
84735081|NCT01536587|169222306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||paired t-Test, 2-sided|||||||0.5062
84735082|NCT02666664|169222353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-16.1|||ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-20|<0.001
84735083|NCT02666664|169222355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-18.2|<0.001
84735084|NCT02666664|169222356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||||-11.6|-15.1|<0.001
84735085|NCT02666664|169222357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-12.5|<0.001
84735086|NCT02666664|169222358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-13.6|<0.001
84735087|NCT02666664|169222359|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.96|-16.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-16|-26.96|<0.001
84735088|NCT02666664|169222360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-15.8|<0.001
84735089|NCT02666664|169222369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84735090|NCT02783573|169222374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|5.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.776|-0.752|0.129
84735091|NCT02783573|169222374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.725|3.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.296|-3.725|0.903
84735092|NCT02783573|169222375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.488|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.580|-6.488|0.100
84735093|NCT02783573|169222375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.525|-6.876|0.092
84735094|NCT02783573|169222376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|3.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.499|-1.045|0.285
84735095|NCT02783573|169222376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.889|1.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.843|-2.889|0.661
84735096|NCT02783573|169222377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.103|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-10.103|0.079
84735097|NCT02783573|169222377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.573|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-7.573|0.486
84735098|NCT02783573|169222378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.391|-0.890|0.663
84482673|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|4.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.95|-1.16|0.2223
84482674|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.39||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.32|-2.54|0.7943
84482675|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.66||||0.6655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.67|-2.35|0.6655
84735099|NCT02783573|169222378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.983|-1.423|0.717
84735100|NCT02783573|169222380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.297|4.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.889|-4.297|0.899
84735101|NCT02783573|169222380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.267|1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.238|-7.267|0.164
84735102|NCT02783573|169222381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.891|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.362|-2.891|0.126
84735103|NCT02783573|169222381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|1.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.566|-1.867|0.862
84735104|NCT02783573|169222382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.35|47.26|||ANCOVA|||||47.26|-122.35|0.343
84735105|NCT02783573|169222382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.12||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.17|38.73|||ANCOVA|||||38.73|-120.17|0.276
84735106|NCT02783573|169222383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.75|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|-132.75|0.079
84735107|NCT02783573|169222383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.27||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.88|36.59|||ANCOVA|||||36.59|-104.88|0.303
84735108|NCT02783573|169222384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.29||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|48.659|||ANCOVA|||||48.659|-16.015|0.283
84735109|NCT02783573|169222384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.929|16.82|||ANCOVA|||||16.820|-42.929|0.349
84482676|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.33||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.33|-0.67|0.1278
84482677|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.51||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|-1.51|-4.47|1.45||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.45|-4.47|0.3159
84482678|NCT02712008|168716839|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.63|-3.18|0.8537
84735110|NCT02783573|169222385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.457|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.640|-3.457|0.494
84735111|NCT02783573|169222385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|2.481|||ANCOVA|||||2.481|-6.743|0.323
84482679|NCT02712008|168716840|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-24.43||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.46|5.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||5.61|-54.46|0.1105
84482680|NCT02712008|168716840|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.79||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||- 4.74|- 50.83|0.0183
84482681|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||- 18.01|- 93.81|0.0040
84482682|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.51||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.46|-2.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.57|-78.46|0.0365
84482683|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-37.15||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.53|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.77|-73.53|0.0454
84482684|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.75||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|39.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||39.03|-35.54|0.9266
84497099|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
84497100|NCT02118896|168745340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
84497101|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8391|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.729|
84497102|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula..||0.981|0.778|
84497103|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.782|
84497104|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.7769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.878||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.878|0.675|
84497105|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.693|
84497106|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.883|
84497107|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|1.000|
84497108|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.970|
84497109|NCT02118896|168745343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
84497110|NCT03292731|168745344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||adjusted for cerclage|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for cerclage||logistic regression comparing drug concentration to the rate of sPTB||1.08|0.93|0.96
84497111|NCT03292731|168745345|OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.23|||Regression, Linear|||||2.23|0.00|0.05
84497112|NCT03292731|168745346|OTHER||Slope|1.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|0.25|0.022
84497113|NCT03292731|168745347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||no adjustments|Fisher Exact|||Only RCT subjects utilized in neonatal safety analysis||||0.82
84497114|NCT04221373|168745351|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 117.78||SCIM Total Score||||<0.01
84482685|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.58|21.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||21.59|-52.58|0.4116
84482686|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.36||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|40.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||40.14|-33.42|0.8574
84482687|NCT02712008|168716841|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-38.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.06|-2.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.73|-75.06|0.0351
84482688|NCT02712008|168716842|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||9.8|-13.5|0.7617
84482689|NCT02712008|168716842|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0||16.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||16.3|- 4.1|0.2268
84482690|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.8896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||17.7|-20.4|0.8896
84482691|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.4||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|25.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||25.5|-12.6|0.5021
84482692|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.0||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||24.7|-12.8|0.5273
84482693|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.5||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|16.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||16.6|-19.7|0.8683
84735112|NCT02783573|169222386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.76||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.569|31.017|||ANCOVA|||||31.017|-26.569|0.873
84735113|NCT02783573|169222386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.43||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.488|17.096|||ANCOVA|||||17.096|-47.488|0.337
84735114|NCT02783573|169222387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.927
84735115|NCT02783573|169222387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.930
84735116|NCT02783573|169222388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.708|0.464|||ANCOVA|||||0.464|-3.708|0.127
84735117|NCT02783573|169222388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-0.991|||ANCOVA|||||-0.991|-5.172|0.004
84735118|NCT04836559|169222394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.38|0.41|0.3571
84735119|NCT04836559|169222394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.75|0.40|0.6306
84735120|NCT00730015|169222416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|17.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be at least 90% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||17.47|3.41|<0.0001
84735121|NCT00730015|169222416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|16.59||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be greater than 96% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||16.59|3.14|<0.0001
84735122|NCT00013611|169222425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ count stratum (50-199 or 200-299) and country of randomization.||Null hypothesis was that event rates in two groups are equal. Study was designed with 80%, two-sided alpha=.05, assuming a 28% reduction in the hazard of opportunistic disease or death.||1.18|0.70|0.47
84735123|NCT00013611|169222426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.44|0.77|0.73
84482694|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.8|0.3546
84482695|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||19.5|-19.0|0.9801
84735124|NCT00013611|169222427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.06|0.51|0.10
84735125|NCT00013611|169222428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.90|0.35
84735126|NCT00013611|169222429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.7|40.3|< 0.001
84735127|NCT01642147|169222435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same before anesthesia.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||0.554
84735128|NCT01642147|169222436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same at extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
84735129|NCT01642147|169222437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 30min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
84735130|NCT01642147|169222438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 60min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
84735131|NCT01642147|169222439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 90min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
84735132|NCT01642147|169222440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 120min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
84735133|NCT02577003|169222447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.57|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.57|-0.98|<0.001
84482696|NCT02712008|168716843|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.9|0.3528
84482697|NCT04315298|168716861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|-1.035||P-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.035|-1.456|<0.0001
84482698|NCT04315298|168716861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|-1.09||p-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.090|-1.511|<0.0001
84482699|NCT04315298|168716862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-8.4|0.3707
84482700|NCT04315298|168716862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|-7.4|0.3261
84482701|NCT04315298|168716863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline||||36.8|-26.2|0.7328
84482702|NCT04315298|168716864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.66|0.76|0.5687
84482703|NCT04315298|168716864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.62|0.74|0.7014
84482704|NCT04315298|168716865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.83|0.3622
84482705|NCT04315298|168716865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.63||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.79|0.5802
84482706|NCT04315298|168716866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.83|0.2340
84482707|NCT04315298|168716866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.79|0.74|0.6949
84482708|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||2.43|0.66|0.3151
84482709|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.41|0.39|0.1884
84482710|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.40|0.76|0.4356
84482711|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||4.40|1.01|0.0371
84482712|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||3.05|0.32|0.8923
84482713|NCT04315298|168716867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.71||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.71|0.25|0.6940
84482714|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.14||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||5.65|0.81|0.0832
84497115|NCT04221373|168745351|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.03||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.59||SCIM Total Score||||0.03
84497116|NCT04221373|168745351|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.01||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.02||SCIM R \& S scores||||0.01
84497117|NCT04221373|168745351|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 72.49||SCIM R \& S scores||||< 0.01
84497118|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.82||LEMS||||0.02
84497119|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 33.29||LEMS||||<0.01
84497120|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.04||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 4.58||UEMS||||0.04
84497121|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 15.34||UEMS||||<0.01
84497122|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.06||TMS||||<0.01
84497123|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|TMS|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 38.91||||||<0.01
84497124|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21.7) = 6.23||TLTS||||0.02
84497125|NCT04221373|168745352|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.05||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1 26)=4.14||TLTS||||0.05
84497126|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.485||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.51||Average worst pain intensity||||0.485
84735134|NCT02577003|169222450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-21.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-21.5|-34.8|<0.001
84735135|NCT02577003|169222451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-37.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-37.5|-59.6|<0.001
84735136|NCT02577003|169222452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|-66.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-66.6|-102.6|<0.001
84735137|NCT02577003|169222453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.001
84735138|NCT00476242|169222469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||.047
84735139|NCT04486313|169222471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.8786
84735140|NCT04486313|169222472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0740
84482715|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.8||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||4.80|0.77|0.1369
84482716|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||1.95|0.28|0.9636
84482717|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||0.74|0.08|0.0038
84735141|NCT04486313|169222473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 4||||0.4479
84735142|NCT04486313|169222473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2814|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 10||||0.2814
84735143|NCT04486313|169222474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 4||||0.0665
84735144|NCT04486313|169222474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 10||||0.4974
84735145|NCT04486313|169222475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.1771
84735146|NCT04486313|169222476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.2399
84735147|NCT04486313|169222477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.09
84735148|NCT04486313|169222478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.0077
84735149|NCT04486313|169222479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
84735150|NCT04486313|169222480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
84735151|NCT04486313|169222481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.08
84735152|NCT01013961|169222496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
84735153|NCT01013961|169222497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84735154|NCT01667406|169222502|OTHER|Fishers exact conditional test was used to confirm significance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||||||Data presented using descriptive statistics. Confidence intervals were derived for the difference between the means of different doses.||||
84735155|NCT01667406|169222502|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Phase 2||||<0.05
84735156|NCT01667406|169222502|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Estimate of difference in success rates and estimate of odds ratio for success were derived, with P value comparing 2 treatment groups, 95% conﬁdence intervals.|Phase 3||||<0.05
84735157|NCT01667406|169222503|OTHER|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Study data were summarised using standard descriptive methods. Continuous variables following a normal distribution have been summarised using mean and SD.|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.|||
84735158|NCT03865953|169222508|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a two-period two-treatment crossover design|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Subject numbers gave a 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline NPRS for the active treatment compared with placebo of at least 1 unit, with a two sided test at a 5% level of significance||0.49|-0.76|0.67
84735159|NCT02229578|169222523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||2.1|-1.2|<0.05
84482718|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.13|0.47|0.7380
84482719|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \<166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.05|0.48|0.7342
84482720|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.58||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|16.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||16.17|0.79|0.1934
84482721|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.33||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|23.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||23.94|1.19|0.0159
84482722|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||8.75|0.13|0.6281
84482723|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||6.13|0.06|0.4971
84482724|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.86||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||2.86|0.03|0.2990
84482725|NCT04315298|168716868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||4.41|0.22|0.9360
84482726|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.47|0.52|0.9032
84482727|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.88||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.88|0.29|0.0052
84482728|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.21|0.48|0.1168
84482729|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.72||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.72|0.69|0.3753
84482730|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.66|0.40|0.4956
84482731|NCT04315298|168716869|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.02|0.50|0.8439
84603303|NCT00496197|168957212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.2|98.5|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.5|92.2|
84482732|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||2.79|0.52|0.3890
84482733|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.7838||95.0|0.3|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||1.41|0.30|0.7838
84482734|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||1.65|0.28|0.2370
84482735|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0004||95.0|0.1|0.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||0.59|0.10|0.0004
84482736|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.32|0.37|0.1740
84482737|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.66|0.38|0.3664
84482738|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.87||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.87|0.53|0.7318
84482739|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||2.37|0.59|0.4155
84482740|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.45||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.45|0.23|0.6262
84482741|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.553||95.0|0.21|2.3||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.30|0.21|0.5530
84482742|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.85||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.85|0.25|0.8775
84482743|NCT04315298|168716870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.99|0.41|0.7485
84735160|NCT02229578|169222524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||1.49|-1.77|<0.05
84735161|NCT02229578|169222525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop hydromorphone on 24 hour hydromorphone. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||6.09|-9.62|<0.05
84735162|NCT01777334|169222531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.144|0.081|<0.001
84735163|NCT03603639|169222533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|3.48||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.48|-0.72|
84735164|NCT03603639|169222533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|2.63||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.63|-0.49|
84735165|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.54||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.54|-0.75|
84735166|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.21||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.21|-0.60|
84735167|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|4.39||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||4.39|-1.16|
84735168|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.98||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.98|-0.89|
84735169|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.28||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.28|-1.87|
84735170|NCT03603639|169222534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.11||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-0.57|
84735171|NCT00409409|169222562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
84735172|NCT03599622|169222568|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|19.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.5|-11.0|0.5812
84735173|NCT03599622|169222568|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.5|0.6|0.5812
84735174|NCT03599622|169222568|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|7.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||7.6|-20.2|0.3720
84735175|NCT03599622|169222568|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.5|0.3|0.3720
84735176|NCT03599622|169222569|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.3||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||26.3|3.7|0.0198
84735177|NCT03599622|169222569|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.8|1.2|0.0198
84735178|NCT03599622|169222569|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|19.0||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.0|-2.6|0.1584
84735179|NCT03599622|169222569|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||6.1|0.7|0.1584
84735180|NCT03599622|169222570|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|23.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||23.6|-8.2|0.3464
84735181|NCT03599622|169222570|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.8|0.7|0.3464
84735182|NCT03599622|169222570|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|14.7||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||14.7|-17.0|0.8857
84735183|NCT03599622|169222570|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.9|0.5|0.8857
84735184|NCT03599622|169222571|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|22.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||22.9|-6.7|0.2841
84735185|NCT03599622|169222571|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||3.1|0.7|0.2841
84735186|NCT03599622|169222571|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|9.2||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.2|-17.6|0.5417
84735187|NCT03599622|169222571|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.8|0.3|0.5417
84735188|NCT03599622|169222572|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4.3|
84735189|NCT03599622|169222572|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.1|-3.7|0.0428
84735190|NCT03599622|169222572|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-4.8|
84735191|NCT03599622|169222572|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.4|-4.1|0.0177
84735192|NCT03599622|169222572|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.6|
84735193|NCT03599622|169222572|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-9.7|
84735194|NCT00905359|169222590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test analysis performed using Multiple imputation and one-sided p-value testing non-inferiority of the percentage change from baseline at 10%. One-sided p-value is significant if \<0.025 or the upper limit of the CI is less than 10%.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.172
84735195|NCT02138253|169222605|SUPERIORITY|For the primary efficacy analysis based on the Month 24 biopsy, subjects with a missing Month 24 biopsy had their Ishak fibrosis score imputed. Imputation of missing Ishak fibrosis scores was conducted using multiple imputation (MI). Results were imputed based on age, gender, baseline Ishak fibrosis score, and the Month 12 Ishak fibrosis score.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|26.4||Stratified by baseline Ishak Fibrosis Score strata (F2, F3+F4+F5, and F6).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||26.4|-20.5|0.73
84735196|NCT02138253|169222606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||28.9|-20.0|0.658
84735197|NCT02138253|169222607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||13.1|-28.8|0.421
84735198|NCT02446613|169222702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.43|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1071.|||5.43|-1.41|
84735199|NCT02446613|169222703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.75|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2417.|||3.75|-1.98|
84735200|NCT02446613|169222704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.87|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2876.|||1.87|-1.08|
84735201|NCT02446613|169222705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.34|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1453.|||5.34|-1.86|
84735202|NCT02446613|169222706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|19.71|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2665.|||19.71|-10.70|
84482744|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.79|0.63|0.4556
84482745|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.04|0.35|0.0248
84735203|NCT02446613|169222707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|24.38|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.3266|||24.38|-14.97|
84735204|NCT02446613|169222708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|19.2|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.4528|||19.20|-17.47|
84735205|NCT02446613|169222709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|28.04|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2525|||28.04|-13.69|
84735206|NCT02706847|169222711|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|26.2|<0.001
84735207|NCT02706847|169222711|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.1|17.8|<0.001
84735208|NCT02706847|169222712|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|38.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.3|19.9|<0.001
84735209|NCT02706847|169222712|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|37.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.4|19.0|<0.001
84482746|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.67|0.62|0.6842
84482747|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.32|0.89|0.0671
84735210|NCT02706847|169222713|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.01||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.01|-1.57|<0.001
84735211|NCT02706847|169222713|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.99||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.99|-1.56|<0.001
84735212|NCT02706847|169222714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
84735213|NCT02706847|169222714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
84735214|NCT02706847|169222715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean DIfference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.15||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|1.72|<0.001
84735215|NCT02706847|169222715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.36||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.36|2.89|<0.001
84735216|NCT02706847|169222716|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|13.6|<0.001
84482748|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.74|0.41|0.6146
84735217|NCT02706847|169222716|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.7||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.7|15.1|<0.001
84735218|NCT02706847|169222717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.2|-1.1|0.110
84735219|NCT02706847|169222717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|23.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|9.1|<0.001
84735220|NCT02706847|169222718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.1|8.5|<0.001
84735221|NCT02706847|169222718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|22.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|6.1|<0.001
84482749|NCT04315298|168716871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.99|0.48|0.9730
84482750|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.59|0.59|0.6987
84603304|NCT00496197|168957213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|76.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.6|63.5|
84735222|NCT03432390|169222719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84735223|NCT01427738|169222741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion with clinical e|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.077|0.166||||||Repeated confidence intervals (RCIs) were used to control type I error.A interim analysis was conducted by a 99.7% CI. The final analyses use a 95.1% CI, based on the Lan-DeMets error-spending function corresponding to the O'Brien-Fleming boundary.76% of 100 participant in arm GV had cure or improvement of OC after 14 days of treatment, and 71.6% of 102 in arm nystatin had cure or improvement of OC. Difference in clinical efficacy rates between GV and nystatin 95.1% CI is 0.044 (-0.077, 0.166).||0.166|-0.077|
84735224|NCT01963169|169222792|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for Knowledge outcome using the revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test.|At 8 week, both intervention groups received the same Bone Power Program intervention. Thus, the analysis for the 8-week outcomes was completed as a two-armed RCT.||||< 0.001
84735225|NCT01963169|169222792|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for the exercise behavior variable assessed by the 9-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||<0.001
84735226|NCT01963169|169222792|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for calcium outcome expectation..|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.009
84735227|NCT01963169|169222792|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise self-efficacy.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.002
84735228|NCT01963169|169222792|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise outcome expectation.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.032
84482751|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.09|0.39|0.0453
84482752|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.09|0.73|0.9734
84482753|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.2||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No)|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.20|1.14|0.0040
84482754|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.17|0.43|0.9551
84482755|NCT04315298|168716873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.10|0.42|0.8722
84482756|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||1.0000
84482757|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0353|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||0.0353
84482758|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3187|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.3187
84482759|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.0261
84482760|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.9117
84482761|NCT04315298|168716876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7584|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.7584
84482762|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.94|0.11|0.0385
84482763|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.05|0.14|0.0782
84482764|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.14||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.14|0.70|0.2436
84482765|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.51|0.46|0.3223
84482766|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.52|0.36|0.4670
84735229|NCT03912532|169222816|OTHER|The Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling (MCP-Mod) is a 2-stage procedure in which dose-response models are selected at the design stage. These candidate models are used for both dose-response testing (MCP step) and estimation (Mod step). The dose-response testing is performed using a multiple comparison method to account for the multiplicity issue associated with the multiple candidate models. Missing responses were imputed using multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random.||||||0.5534|||||||Multiple comparison procedure step|||||||0.5534
84735230|NCT03522389|169222828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.003
84735231|NCT03522389|169222828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||<0.001
84735232|NCT03522389|169222828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84735233|NCT03522389|169222828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.006
84735234|NCT03522389|169222828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.793
84735235|NCT03522389|169222829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||<0.001
84482767|NCT04315298|168716880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.47|0.35|0.3728
84482768|NCT04315298|168716886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-7.0|0.5851
84482769|NCT04315298|168716886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.5|-11.7|0.5767
84482770|NCT04315298|168716887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|18.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-9.4|0.4777
84482771|NCT04315298|168716887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|18.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|-8.4|0.4202
84482772|NCT04315298|168716888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.9|-9.5|0.9696
84482773|NCT04315298|168716888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-13.8|0.3152
84482774|NCT04315298|168716889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|7.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.2|-22.8|0.3217
84482775|NCT04315298|168716889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||8.7|-20.2|0.4630
84482776|NCT04315298|168716889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.0971
84482777|NCT04315298|168716889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.1193
84482778|NCT04315298|168716890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.7|-9.3|0.8844
84497127|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 26.71||Average worst pain intensity||||0.000
84735236|NCT03522389|169222829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.039
84735237|NCT03522389|169222829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84735238|NCT03522389|169222829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
84735239|NCT03522389|169222829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.117
84735240|NCT03522389|169222830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.924
84735241|NCT03522389|169222830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.855
84735242|NCT03522389|169222830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.937
84735243|NCT03522389|169222830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.970
84735244|NCT03522389|169222830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.242
84735245|NCT03522389|169222831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.161
84735246|NCT03522389|169222831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.161
84735247|NCT03522389|169222831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.076
84735248|NCT03522389|169222831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.211
84735249|NCT03522389|169222831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.573
84735250|NCT03522389|169222832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.445
84735251|NCT03522389|169222832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.046
84735252|NCT03522389|169222832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84735253|NCT03522389|169222832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.028
84735254|NCT03522389|169222832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
84735255|NCT04599907|169222835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
84735256|NCT04599907|169222836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Botherstatistical analysis"||-0.040|-1.42|<0.05
84735257|NCT04599907|169222836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Impact on Daily Activities Statistical Analysis"||-0.40|-1.35|<0.05
84735258|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS X axis||||0.098
84735259|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Y axis||||0.389
84735260|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Z axis||||0.780
84735261|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.054
84735262|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point Y axis||||0.323
84735263|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.371
84735264|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level X axis||||0.011
84735265|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Y axis||||0.426
84735266|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Z axis||||0.621
84735267|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale X axis||||0.275
84735268|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Y axis||||0.361
84735269|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Z axis||||0.284
84735270|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale X axis||||0.119
84735271|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Y axis||||0.019
84735272|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Z axis||||0.034
84735273|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious X axis||||0.422
84735274|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Y axis||||0.177
84735275|NCT01473745|169222852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Z axis||||0.133
84735276|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Intercanthal distance||||0.218
84735277|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal height||||0.336
84735278|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance||||||0.192
84735279|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal tip protrusion||||0.135
84735280|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal width||||0.277
84735281|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.505
84735282|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.299
84735283|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.738
84735284|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.008
84482779|NCT04315298|168716890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||13.0|-3.3|0.2247
84482780|NCT04315298|168716890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.2102
84482781|NCT04315298|168716890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.8292
84482782|NCT04315298|168716891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|24.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-6.0|0.2203
84482783|NCT04315298|168716891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|22.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-6.1|0.2483
84482784|NCT04315298|168716892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|18.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-11.2|0.6020
84482785|NCT04315298|168716892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|-8.9|0.4342
84482786|NCT04315298|168716893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|14.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.7|-4.3|0.2896
84482787|NCT04315298|168716893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|6.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.2|-11.8|0.5355
84482788|NCT04315298|168716894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-9.2|0.9210
84482789|NCT04315298|168716894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|-13.8|0.3174
84482790|NCT04315298|168716895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.66|0.98|0.0705
84482791|NCT04315298|168716895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.92|0.1800
84482792|NCT04315298|168716896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.1831
84482793|NCT04315298|168716896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.34|0.82|0.8770
84482794|NCT04315298|168716897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.06||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.06|0.35|0.7103
84482795|NCT04315298|168716898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.89|0.1512
84482796|NCT04315298|168716898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.85|0.2952
84482797|NCT04315298|168716899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.50|0.89|0.2297
84482798|NCT04315298|168716899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.79|0.8651
84482799|NCT04315298|168716900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-15.2|0.8864
84482800|NCT04315298|168716900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-15.8|0.7500
84482801|NCT04315298|168716901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.6|-9.1|0.6858
84482802|NCT04315298|168716901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-7.0|0.9173
84482803|NCT04315298|168716902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|17.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-9.7|0.5239
84482804|NCT04315298|168716902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-10.0|0.5809
84482805|NCT04315298|168716903|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-9.3|0.9343
84482806|NCT04315298|168716903|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.1|-14.1|0.2822
84482807|NCT04315298|168716904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.18||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.18|0.75|0.4519
84482808|NCT04315298|168716904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.81|0.2818
84482809|NCT04315298|168716905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.43|0.84|0.4674
84482810|NCT04315298|168716905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.77|0.8503
84482811|NCT04315298|168716906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.31|0.6156
84482812|NCT04315298|168716907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.41|0.0843
84482813|NCT04315298|168716907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.07||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.44|0.1576
84482814|NCT04315298|168716908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.57|0.1980
84482815|NCT04315298|168716908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.73|0.7973
84482816|NCT04315298|168716909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.75|0.13|0.5023
84482817|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.8|-0.2|0.2804
84482818|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.3|-0.5|0.5023
84482819|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.9|-0.7|0.3821
84482820|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.1|-1.2|0.9737
84735285|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneious height of upper lip||||0.116
84735286|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.528
84735287|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.123
84735288|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.250
84735289|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.706
84735290|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.804
84735291|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.114
84735292|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal length||||0.457
84735293|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal tip protrusion||||0.565
84735294|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.781
84735295|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.164
84735296|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.554
84735297|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.508
84735298|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.358
84735299|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.049
84482821|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||3.4|-1.1|0.3179
84735300|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
84735301|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.062
84735302|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.029
84735303|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.011
84735304|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.211
84735305|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.102
84735306|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal length||||0.136
84735307|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal tip protrusion||||0.113
84735308|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.115
84735309|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.535
84735310|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.850
84735311|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.891
84735312|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.262
84735313|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.344
84735314|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
84735315|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.995
84735316|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.440
84735317|NCT01473745|169222853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.078
84735318|NCT01473745|169222854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||intergroup difference of conventional group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.104
84735319|NCT01473745|169222854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||Intergroup difference of modified group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \<0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.043
84735320|NCT01473745|169222854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.888
84735321|NCT02366143|169222867|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.74|0.52|<0.0001
84603305|NCT00496197|168957214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
84735322|NCT02366143|169222867|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
84735323|NCT02366143|169222868|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
84735324|NCT02366143|169222869|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.002|||Log Rank|||||1.002|0.707|0.0528
84735325|NCT02366143|169222870|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.85|0.59|0.0002
84735326|NCT02366143|169222870|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.564||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.76|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.760|0.418|0.0001
84735327|NCT02366143|169222871|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.649|||Log Rank|||Teff-high Population||0.649|0.374|<.0001
84735328|NCT02366143|169222871|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.72|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.720|0.517|<.0001
84735329|NCT02366143|169222873|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.647|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Subgroup||0.647|0.352|<.0001
84735330|NCT02366143|169222873|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.639|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 Subgroup||0.639|0.386|<.0001
84735331|NCT02366143|169222874|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.169|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3, WT ITT||1.169|0.580|0.2765
84735332|NCT02366143|169222874|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.035|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3, WT ITT||1.035|0.575|0.0829
84735333|NCT02366143|169222875|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.913|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT-WT||0.913|0.551|0.0073
84735334|NCT02366143|169222875|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.907|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Population||0.907|0.484|0.0097
84735335|NCT02366143|169222876|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.167|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.167|0.592|0.2843
84735336|NCT02366143|169222876|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802||||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.113|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.113|0.579|0.1861
84735337|NCT02366143|169222876|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.926|||Log Rank|||ITT||0.926|0.630|0.0060
84735338|NCT02366143|169222877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.038|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.038|0.595|0.0894
84735339|NCT02366143|169222877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.061|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.061|0.626|0.1276
84735340|NCT02366143|169222877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.011|||Log Rank|||ITT||1.011|0.733|0.0681
84735341|NCT02366143|169222878|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.188|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT ITT||1.188|0.683|0.4599
84542885|NCT01459783|168837965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.55||We used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes. The behavior measure is analyzed two ways: total number of problems (reported here), and reaction score.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse problems for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||3.55|-1.74|0.49
84542886|NCT06389487|168838011|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.81|0.64|
84542887|NCT06389487|168838012|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-4.1|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.10|-14.55|
84542888|NCT06389487|168838013|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.82|0.65|
84542889|NCT06389487|168838014|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-10.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|-4.8|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.80|-15.26|
84542890|NCT03192488|168838024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.11|||ANOVA|"The overall model was adjusted for the co-variate VO2max."||||2.11|0.01|0.047
84542891|NCT03192488|168838025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.327
84542892|NCT03192488|168838025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
84542893|NCT01998919|168838168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|17.0|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||17.0|-10.3|
84542894|NCT01998919|168838169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|26.8|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||26.8|-5.6|
84542895|NCT01998919|168838170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|27.7|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||27.7|-2.7|
84542896|NCT01998919|168838171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0075
84542897|NCT01998919|168838171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81|||Wald test|||||0.81|0.22|0.0099
84542898|NCT01998919|168838172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
84542899|NCT01998919|168838172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.7|||Wald Test|||||0.70|0.33|0.0001
84542900|NCT01998919|168838173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84542901|NCT01998919|168838173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68|||Wald test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
84542902|NCT01998919|168838174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5991|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5991
84542903|NCT01998919|168838174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Wald test|||||1.23|0.58|0.3774
84542904|NCT01037218|168838195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.07|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||5.07|1.70|<0.0001
84482822|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.5|-1.5|0.6302
84482823|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||5.0|-1.5|0.2862
84482824|NCT04315298|168716910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||4.1|-1.8|0.4509
84482825|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.5|-0.8|0.5640
84735342|NCT02366143|169222879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.675|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT||0.675|0.406|<.0001
84735343|NCT02366143|169222879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|0.624|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT||0.624|0.283|<.0001
84735344|NCT02366143|169222881|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|6.68||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|13.9|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||13.90|-0.54|0.0697
84735345|NCT02366143|169222881|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.71||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|18.73|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||18.73|0.70|0.0347
84735346|NCT02366143|169222881|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.89||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|21.29|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.29|-1.51|0.0890
84735347|NCT02366143|169222881|OTHER|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.34||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|23.84|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||23.84|-3.17|0.1336
84735348|NCT02366143|169222882|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|4.18||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.48|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||11.48|-3.13|0.2624
84735349|NCT02366143|169222882|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|16.9|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||16.90|2.43|0.0088
84735350|NCT02366143|169222882|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.56||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|21.77|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.77|-0.65|0.0649
84735351|NCT02366143|169222882|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|18.69|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||18.69|-4.15|0.2120
84735352|NCT02366143|169222883|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.45|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.450|0.571|0.6899
84735353|NCT02366143|169222883|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.089|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.089|0.413|0.1043
84735354|NCT02366143|169222883|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.173||95.0|0.912|1.665|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.665|0.912|0.1730
84735355|NCT02366143|169222883|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.483|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.483|0.792|0.6145
84735356|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.763|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT population||1.763|0.614|0.8816
84735357|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.309|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT Population||1.309|0.419|0.2995
84735358|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.422|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.422|0.616|0.7578
84735359|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.56|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.560|0.694|0.8470
84735360|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|1.133|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.133|0.383|0.1289
84735361|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.235|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.235|0.430|0.2381
84735362|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.732|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.732|0.685|0.7163
84735363|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.145|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.145|0.420|0.1502
84735364|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.43|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.430|0.713|0.9568
84735365|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.284|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.284|0.619|0.5377
84735366|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.163|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.163|0.685|0.4012
84735367|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.363|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.363|0.809|0.7149
84735368|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.422|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.422|0.786|0.7126
84735369|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.258|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.258|0.675|0.6053
84735370|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.194|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.194|0.576|0.3134
84735371|NCT02366143|169222884|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.309|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.309|0.633|0.6115
84735372|NCT00575042|169222918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size calculation estimated that with 20 patients, and assuming a 10% drop-out rate, the study would have 80% power to detect a response rate in 35% or more of the study patients. A two-sided p value\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84735373|NCT01271504|169222940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||||1.50|0.56|
84735374|NCT01271504|169222941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.5||||||||1.50|0.57|
84735375|NCT01271504|169222943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62||||||||1.62|0.60|
84735376|NCT03745794|169222945|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84735377|NCT02768597|169222956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||ANOVA|||||||.552
84735378|NCT02768597|169222957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANOVA|||||||.558
84735379|NCT02768597|169222958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.274
84735380|NCT02768597|169222959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.539
84735381|NCT02768597|169222960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.478
84735382|NCT02768597|169222961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||.527
84735383|NCT02768597|169222962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||||||.823
84735384|NCT02768597|169222963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||||||.231
84735385|NCT02768597|169222964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.595
84735386|NCT02768597|169222965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.789
84735387|NCT00940875|169222967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.9|-17.5|
84735388|NCT00940875|169222968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in PFS||||0.4798
84735389|NCT00940875|169222968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.3||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS), disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||2.68|0.63|0.4805
84735390|NCT00940875|169222969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-11.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|17.2|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 8||17.2|-40.3|
84735391|NCT00940875|169222969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-13.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|9.0|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 16||9.0|-36.0|
84735392|NCT00940875|169222971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in OS||||0.5393
84735393|NCT00940875|169222971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by ECOG PS, disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||1.66|0.38|0.5399
84735394|NCT02309346|169222990|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as a 2% difference. The sample size calculation aimed for 90% power at a 5% one-sided significance level, assuming clinical cure rates of 99% (standard arm) and 100% (experimental arm). This required 95 patients per arm, with a target enrollment of 100 per arm to account for potential dropouts.|Difference between 2 proportions|-0.02||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Chi-squared|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the two arms was calculated.||The null hypothesis (H₀) was that the treatment success rate of the once-daily clindamycin regimen is inferior to that of the thrice-daily regimen by a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (delta) of 2%. To achieve 90% power with a one-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis, a sample size of approximately 95 patients per group was required.|||-0.02|0.06
84735395|NCT02402322|169223043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the preliminary analysis, we studied the possible group differences in demographic data and pretreatment measures with chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The participants' pre- and posttreatment scores were studied with repeated measures ANOVA. Within- and between-group effect sizes were calculated using the pooled standard deviation, Cohen's d.||||0.05
84735396|NCT02818998|169223052|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.47||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.47|-1.46|<0.0001
84735397|NCT02818998|169223052|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.42||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.42|-0.52|<0.0001
84735398|NCT02818998|169223053|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|14.38||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|25.37|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||25.37|3.39|0.0105
84735399|NCT02818998|169223053|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|21.22||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|34.8|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||34.80|7.65|0.0023
84735400|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.49|-3.14|
84735401|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||8.73|-3.40|
84735402|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.63|-1.94|
84735403|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|3.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.41|-3.68|
84735404|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||7.54|-4.10|
84735405|NCT02818998|169223054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.65|-2.00|
84735406|NCT02818998|169223055|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.52|-2.13|<0.0001
84735407|NCT02818998|169223055|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.19|-0.40|<0.0001
84735408|NCT02818998|169223056|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|16.14||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|31.66|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||31.66|0.62|0.0416
84735409|NCT02818998|169223056|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|4.12||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|17.77|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||17.77|-9.52|0.5524
84735410|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.05|-2.72|
84735411|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|10.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||10.98|-1.73|
84735412|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.87|-1.56|
84735413|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||5.69|-1.89|
84735414|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||14.28|0.81|
84735415|NCT02818998|169223057|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.88|-1.61|
84735416|NCT03563313|169223087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84735417|NCT03563313|169223088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84735418|NCT03563313|169223089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84735419|NCT03563313|169223090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84735420|NCT03563313|169223091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84735421|NCT03563313|169223092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84735422|NCT01182181|169223136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.34|98.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.95|92.34|
84735423|NCT01182181|169223137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|99.57|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.57|93.14|
84735424|NCT01586975|169223156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted, and no a priori threshold was used|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA test||||0.0742
84735425|NCT02635386|169223170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measure||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
84735426|NCT02635386|169223171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735427|NCT02635386|169223172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735428|NCT02635386|169223173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|one way with Bonferroni contrast||One way ANOVA with Bonferroni test to compare differences between groups if significant||||<0.0001
84735429|NCT02635386|169223174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735430|NCT02635386|169223175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measure design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
84735431|NCT02635386|169223176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735432|NCT02635386|169223177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735433|NCT02635386|169223178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84542905|NCT01037218|168838195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||7.43|4.05|<0.0001
84542906|NCT01037218|168838195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.2|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||9.20|5.86|<0.0001
84667883|NCT02009046|169070642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||5.09|1.44|0.0030
84482826|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.2|-1.0|0.1602
84482827|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.2|-1.3|0.9144
84482828|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||0.3|-2.1|0.1450
84482829|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.1|-1.7|0.8378
84482830|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||0.6|-2.9|0.1988
84482831|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||2.7|-2.2|0.8556
84482832|NCT04315298|168716911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||1.0|-3.7|0.2630
84482833|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.5|-0.2|0.3662
84482834|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.6|0.0|0.0820
84482835|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.9|0.6984
84482836|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.6|0.9833
84482837|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||2.0|-0.3|0.1436
84482838|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.4|-0.6|0.4190
84482839|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||1.2|-0.7|0.6520
84482840|NCT04315298|168716912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.9|-1.1|0.8010
84482841|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.2|-0.4|0.3724
84482842|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.3|-0.2|0.7034
84482843|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.7|-0.4|0.5841
84482844|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.4|0.6648
84482845|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.4|0.4624
84482846|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.3|0.2546
84482847|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.5|-1.0|0.5312
84482848|NCT04315298|168716913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.3|-1.1|0.3039
84482849|NCT01183104|168716939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|LS mean difference|0.11||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.02|0.087
84482850|NCT01183104|168716940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84482851|NCT01183104|168716941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84482852|NCT01183104|168716942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84482853|NCT01183104|168716943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84482854|NCT01183104|168716944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84482855|NCT03267511|168716945|OTHER||Difference of Least Mean Square|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|||"The reason for entering same analysis for primary and secondary is because statistical analysis was not done separately for primary outcome measure.~The decision was clinical decision at the time of protocol design.There was no comparisons for the primary objective as the main objective was to look at the rank order of the treatments in level of stain reduction after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved via the adjusted means and confidence intervals for the means along with plots of MLSI over time. The hypothesis was that the test products would reduce stain to a greater extent than the reference products. Two comparisons of interest were done under secondary and exploratory objectives."|0.31|-0.19|0.6499
84482856|NCT03267511|168716945|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|-0.33 to 0.18|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
84482857|NCT03267511|168716946|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.31|-0.19|0.6499
84482858|NCT03267511|168716947|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
84482859|NCT01594749|168716948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
84482860|NCT01594749|168716949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage vs. Control|0.6||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7||P-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.7|-0.2|0.085
84482861|NCT01594749|168716951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
84482862|NCT01594749|168716952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||0.184
84482863|NCT01594749|168716953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
84482864|NCT02177786|168716978|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.75||Data was calculated using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||2.75|-2.00|0.755
84482865|NCT02177786|168716978|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.23||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||3.23|-1.55|0.492
84482866|NCT02177786|168716978|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.56||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||1.56|-3.29|0.481
84482867|NCT02177786|168716979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% confidence interval (CI) in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||11.7|-16.1|0.798
84482868|NCT02177786|168716979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-9.2||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||4.0|-22.3|0.175
84482869|NCT02177786|168716979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||10.9|-16.6|0.686
84482870|NCT03950440|168716989|OTHER|Propensity scores were obtained from three separate multivariable logistic regression models contrasting each group versus the two other groups. The result from this multivariable model quantifies the degree of separation between both groups.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44||The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|Poisson regression||TAVI-group compared to the SAVR-group|Frailty scores (Tilburg and essential) and Euroscore were specified in the protocol. Age was added during the meeting before start of the data-analysis|The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|0.44|0.16|<0.0001
84667884|NCT06002958|169070685|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.255|||||Inner|||0.255|-0.815|
84667885|NCT06002958|169070685|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.545|||||Outer|||0.545|-0.503|
84667886|NCT06002958|169070685|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.225|||||Individual|||0.225|-0.850|
84482871|NCT02043509|168717008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.35|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||9.35|0.93|
84482872|NCT02043509|168717009|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||1.75|0.61|
84482873|NCT02043509|168717010|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||2.31|0.79|
84482874|NCT02043509|168717011|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.03|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||4.03|0.72|
84482875|NCT02043509|168717012|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||5.46|0.89|
84482876|NCT02043509|168717013|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|10.69|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||10.69|1.14|
84482877|NCT02043509|168717014|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.36|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||17.36|0.90|
84482878|NCT02043509|168717015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.118
84482879|NCT03189563|168717022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3656||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3656
84482880|NCT03189563|168717022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3119||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3119
84482881|NCT03189563|168717023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1470
84482882|NCT03189563|168717023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2520
84482883|NCT03189563|168717024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1528
84667887|NCT06002958|169070685|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.534|||||Process|||0.534|-0.850|
84482884|NCT03189563|168717024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6146||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6146
84603306|NCT00496197|168957215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
84667888|NCT05497284|169070691|OTHER|Probability (LTP001 is better than placebo)|Slope|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|1.3||Probability that LTP001 is better than placebo is 10.3%|Baysesian random slope model|Bayesian random slope model to assess the difference in reduction rate (slope) in years between the treatment group and placebo group.||||1.3|-6.9|
84482885|NCT03189563|168717025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5691
84482886|NCT03189563|168717025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1309
84482887|NCT03189563|168717026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7913||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.7913
84482888|NCT03189563|168717026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9399||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.9399
84482889|NCT03189563|168717027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4978||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.4978
84482890|NCT03189563|168717027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8880
84482891|NCT03189563|168717028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5755
84482892|NCT03189563|168717028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1517||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1517
84482893|NCT03189563|168717029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2095||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2095
84482894|NCT03189563|168717029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6094
84603307|NCT00496197|168957216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|89.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||89.3|75.7|
84735434|NCT02635386|169223179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
84735435|NCT02635386|169223180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84542907|NCT01037218|168838196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.44|26.93|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.93|13.44|<0.0001
84735436|NCT02635386|169223181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735437|NCT02635386|169223182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
84735438|NCT02635386|169223183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84735439|NCT02635386|169223184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735440|NCT02635386|169223185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
84735441|NCT02635386|169223186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84735442|NCT02635386|169223187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
84735443|NCT02635386|169223188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84735444|NCT02635386|169223189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
84735445|NCT02635386|169223190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
84735446|NCT02635386|169223191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84735447|NCT02635386|169223192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84735448|NCT00745498|169223193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||With study power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, and the assumption that IVB injection will decrease postoperative VH incidence from 35% to 10%, a sample size of 40 patients for each group was calculated.||||<0.05
84735449|NCT03178045|169223204|OTHER|Multivariable Logistic Regression|Estimated Increase|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-3.1|
84735450|NCT03178045|169223205|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||||||||1.31|0.69|
84735451|NCT03178045|169223206|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed effects regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||||||||1.32|0.60|
84735452|NCT03636373|169223212|NON_INFERIORITY|On a 10 point Likert Pain Scale, non-inferiority margin for the difference is 1.04. Using a Student t-test, there was 80% power for the difference in pain levels to exceed -1.04.||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Outcome measure Etanercept arm { ( 8 + 0 + 7)/3 = 5} Triamcinolone Arm { (3+0) /2 = 1.5 }||||1.00
84735453|NCT03636373|169223213|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84735454|NCT03636373|169223214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84735455|NCT03636373|169223215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84735456|NCT03636373|169223216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84735457|NCT03636373|169223217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84603308|NCT00496197|168957217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|91.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||91.4|79.8|
84482895|NCT03189563|168717030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
84482896|NCT03189563|168717030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
84735458|NCT00267098|169223231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.889||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study;a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have lower risk of events than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time until death, a HF urgent care event or visit in which the LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality, a heart failure urgent care visit, or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower rate of this composite endpoint than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.889|0.592|0.9990
84735459|NCT00267098|169223232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.142||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, posterior probabilities, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio for death can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.||1.142|0.632|0.865
84735460|NCT00267098|169223233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.991||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.991|0.615|0.9785
84735461|NCT00267098|169223234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.866||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to death or a visit in which LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or II who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or significant increase in LVESVI than patients with right ventricular pacing."||0.866|0.558|0.9886
84735462|NCT00267098|169223235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.947||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of first heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.947|0.522|0.9904
84482897|NCT03189563|168717031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8274||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8274
84482898|NCT03189563|168717031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3416||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3416
84482899|NCT03189563|168717032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4052||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4052
84482900|NCT03189563|168717032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2643
84482901|NCT02773368|168717105|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD, region as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation are included in the analysis. Missing data was imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation. The non-inferiority margin of 0.3 % was added to the end-of-treatment value for prematurely discontinued and withdrawn from trial IDegLira subjects.||-0.20|-0.48|
84482902|NCT02773368|168717105|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change and the number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in HbA1c was strictly below 0%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.21|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-0.21|-0.50|
84482903|NCT02773368|168717106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in body weight was strictly below 0 kg.|Treatment Contrast|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.19|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline weight as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-1.19|-2.64|
84482904|NCT02773368|168717107|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in body weight) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegLira over IGlar) of rate of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was strictly below 1.|Treatment Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Negative binomial regression model||IDegLira over IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log link and the logarithm of the exposure time as offset. The model included treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations (conditioning on expected event rate before premature treatment discontinuation or withdrawal from trial as if treated with IGlar).||0.75|0.23|
84482905|NCT02773368|168717108|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change, number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes and change in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in insulin dose after 26 weeks was strictly below 0 U.|Treatment Contrast|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-11.13|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|The endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-11.13|-19.60|
84482906|NCT03241589|168717172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.429|||Regression, Logistic||Referent group is Urban|We followed power calculations described in uploaded protocol document, using an incomplete design matrix with a 3-month transition period, a level of precision α=0.05 and a minimum power level of 0.80. We also assumed a total number of clusters I=36 as per the study design and the number of baseline measurements B=2. Due to insufficient sample size, we modified groups studied.||1.429|0.606|0.7428
84482907|NCT03241589|168717173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.258||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.181|4.315|||Regression, Logistic|2 degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square 11.5759|Veterans with expired requests = referent.|||4.315|1.181|0.0031
84497128|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.832||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.05||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.832
84497129|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.033||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 5.21||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.033
84497130|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.692||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 0.16||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.692
84497131|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.005||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 8.65||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.005
84497132|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.946||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 0.01||Worst pain interfered with sleep||||0.946
84735463|NCT00267098|169223236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-1.8||||0.637||||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Difference in Average Ranks|The subjects' individual rates of days hospitalized for HF were ranked, with lower ranks corresponding to fewer days hospitalized for HF.|The posterior probability that the BiV - RV difference in average ranks was below 0 (denoting that the BiV arm had lower ranks than the RV arm, on average) was calculated.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of days hospitalized for heart failure per year as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of days hospitalized for HF than patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.637
84542908|NCT01037218|168838196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|31.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||31.81|18.32|<0.0001
84542909|NCT01037218|168838196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|32.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|39.5|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||39.50|26.18|<0.0001
84542910|NCT01037218|168838197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.19|29.24|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||29.24|14.19|<0.0001
84542911|NCT01037218|168838197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.27|34.37|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||34.37|19.27|<0.0001
84542912|NCT01037218|168838197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|35.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.98|42.83|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||42.83|27.98|<0.0001
84542913|NCT01037218|168838198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.23|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.23|0.81|<0.0001
84542914|NCT01037218|168838198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.00|1.58|<0.0001
84542915|NCT01037218|168838198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.60|2.20|<0.0001
84735464|NCT00267098|169223237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.012||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.591
84735465|NCT00267098|169223237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.126||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.986
84735466|NCT00267098|169223237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.039||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.726
84735467|NCT00267098|169223237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.035||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.701
84735468|NCT00267098|169223238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.002||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month change in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.534
84735469|NCT00267098|169223238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.026||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' change in HF stage from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.825
84497133|NCT04221373|168745353|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.0002||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 11.94||Worst pain interference with sleep||||0.0002
84497134|NCT04221373|168745354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.35||Baseline||||0.554
84735470|NCT00267098|169223238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.01||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 18 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote that the BiV arm had better outcomes over time than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.651
84735471|NCT00267098|169223238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-0.006||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.425
84735472|NCT00267098|169223242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 6 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9976
84735473|NCT00267098|169223243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 12 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9641
84735474|NCT00267098|169223244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The parameter of interest was the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL change from randomization to 18 months.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.8416
84735475|NCT00267098|169223245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 24 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.7270
84735476|NCT00267098|169223246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|4.815||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 6 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||4.815|1.886|
84497135|NCT04221373|168745354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.004||discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation (average 2-3 weeks)||||0.949
84667889|NCT05760300|169070701|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.1|119.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||119|60.1|
84735477|NCT00267098|169223247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.618|4.839||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 12 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.839|1.618|
84735478|NCT00267098|169223248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.066||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF at 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.066|0.419|
84735479|NCT00267098|169223249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.623|5.604||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 24 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||5.604|1.623|
84735480|NCT00267098|169223250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-4.214||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.214|-10.12|
84735481|NCT00267098|169223251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-3.829||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-3.829|-10.590|
84735482|NCT00267098|169223252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.574||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-4.574|-11.860|
84735483|NCT00267098|169223253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-2.846||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.846|-11.690|
84542916|NCT01037218|168838199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.59||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.22|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.22|-0.04|0.0673
84735484|NCT00267098|169223254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.085|-2.562||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.562|-9.085|
84735485|NCT00267098|169223255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.467|-2.038||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 12 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-2.038|-9.467|
84735486|NCT00267098|169223256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-4.681||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 18 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.681|-12.910|
84735487|NCT00267098|169223257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-6.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-1.736||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-1.736|-11.370|
84735488|NCT00267098|169223258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-3.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|3.953||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||3.953|-12.130|
84542917|NCT01037218|168838199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.16|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.16|0.90|<0.0001
84482908|NCT02069704|168717174|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: BEVZ92 represents the numerator and reference bevacizumab the denominator|Based on previously published PK data for reference bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, we assumed a conservative inter-participant coefficient of variation for AUC of around 35%. A sample size of 51 patients in each treatment arm could show bioequivalence with a nominal power of 90% and an α of 0·05, if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80%-125%.||109.0|90.5|
84482909|NCT02069704|168717175|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|112.0||||||||112.0|90.2|
84482910|NCT02809846|168717214|OTHER|Bivariate associations between variables were assessed using statistical methods appropriate for the variable types. Baseline characteristics (demographics, other morbidities, baseline medication use, pain intensity and QOL) were compared between the two treatment groups to assess effectiveness of randomization and identify important covariates for multivariable analyses. Associations between demographic variables and primary and secondary endpoints were examined.|||||<|0.05||||||Sensitivity analyses comparing use of data from all participants with use of participants with complete data only was also performed. Agreement between different measures representing the same variable type was assessed using correlation analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multivariable analysis with mixed effect regression models were used to assess the effect of treatment group on the primary and secondary outcomes.||Initially, a sample size of 20 participants per treatment group (active and sham) was selected to achieve 90% power to find a 20% difference in mean percent change in opioid consumption between the two groups with an estimated standard deviation of 22% and 80% power to detect the same difference with a standard deviation of 19% at a two-sided alpha = 0.05|Similar models were used to assess associations of treatment group with secondary endpoints. Model fit was assessed by Akaike's Information Criteria to determine optimal covariance structure.|||<0.05
84482911|NCT01594411|168717215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial with alpha level of 0|||"The proportion of patients whose final treatment plan changes from the preliminary will be estimated, and a one-sided binomial test with alpha level of .05 will be used to test whether it is greater than 10%.~This is the level at which it is assumed that patient management has been modified by a practically important amount."||||<0.001
84482912|NCT00356057|168717216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.437
84482913|NCT00356057|168717216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
84482914|NCT00356057|168717217|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0596|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0596
84482915|NCT00356057|168717218|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
84482916|NCT00356057|168717221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
84482917|NCT00356057|168717221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84482918|NCT00356057|168717225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84603309|NCT00496197|168957218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|84.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||84.4|69.0|
84482919|NCT00356057|168717225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84482920|NCT00356057|168717226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84482921|NCT00356057|168717226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84482922|NCT00356057|168717227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84482923|NCT00356057|168717227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84482924|NCT00356057|168717228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84482925|NCT00356057|168717228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84482926|NCT01620593|168717230|SUPERIORITY|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84482927|NCT00838383|168717234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.0||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.3|151.4|||ANCOVA|||||151.4|-291.3|0.5307
84482928|NCT00838383|168717234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.2||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.5|148.2|||ANCOVA|||||148.2|-294.5|0.5121
84482929|NCT00838383|168717235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.1||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|99.3|||ANCOVA|||||99.3|-345.5|0.2735
84482930|NCT00838383|168717235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-174.5||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.8|47.9|||ANCOVA|||||47.9|-396.8|0.1223
84482931|NCT00838383|168717236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-66.6||||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.0|154.8|||ANCOVA|||||154.8|-288.0|0.5505
84482932|NCT00838383|168717236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.3||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-331.7|111.0|||ANCOVA|||||111.0|-331.7|0.3237
84482933|NCT00838383|168717237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.5||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.6|56.6|||ANCOVA|||||56.6|-389.6|0.1412
84482934|NCT00838383|168717237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.0|25.5|||ANCOVA|||||25.5|-425.0|0.0813
84482935|NCT01451398|168717256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + Region + Pooled OAD Strata + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit), using AR(1) variance/covariance structure.||||-0.23|-0.57|<0.0001
84482936|NCT01451398|168717257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||4.80|1.55|0.0005
84482937|NCT01451398|168717258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.361||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||11.17|1.70|0.0021
84482938|NCT01451398|168717259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Pooled OAD Stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment \* Visit)~Variance/Covariance Matrix is Autoregression 1"||||3.18|-18.03|0.1698
84482939|NCT01451398|168717262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Height + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit)||||-0.05|-0.12|
84482940|NCT01451398|168717265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
84482941|NCT01451398|168717266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||0.2024
84482942|NCT01451398|168717269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.34|||ANCOVA||Model: Baseline Weight + Change in HbA1c at Week 24 + Region + OAD Stratum + Treatment|||2.34|0.90|<0.0001
84482943|NCT01000818|168717270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.04|1.84||||||||1.84|1.04|
84482944|NCT01000818|168717270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|1.09|1.93||||||||1.93|1.09|
84482945|NCT03920865|168717301|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.627|1.03||||||||1.03|0.627|
84482946|NCT03920865|168717301|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.588|1.21||||||||1.21|0.588|
84482947|NCT03920865|168717303|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.3||||||||1.30|0.695|
84482948|NCT03920865|168717303|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.27||||||||1.27|0.715|
84482949|NCT03920865|168717304|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.39||||||||1.39|0.830|
84482950|NCT03920865|168717304|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.21||||||||1.21|0.740|
84482951|NCT03920865|168717306|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.49||||||||1.49|0.962|
84482952|NCT03920865|168717306|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21||||||||1.21|0.810|
84482953|NCT05563714|168717324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.33|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Includes clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||11.33|2.41|<0.001
84482954|NCT05563714|168717324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|13.05|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||13.05|2.54|<0.001
84482955|NCT05563714|168717325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|141.49|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||141.49|6.07|<0.001
84482956|NCT05563714|168717325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|289.88|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||289.88|6.56|<0.001
84482957|NCT05563714|168717326|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted OR, 95% CI (base model) - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.|Odds Ratio, log|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.09|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||We used generalized linear mixed effects modeling (logit link) to estimate the odds of medication optimization at week 7-10. This model included fixed effects for CNNF (vs. usual care), target provider specialty and size, and a random effect for clinician to account for the clustering of patients. We report the log odds ratios with corresponding confidence intervals for the main effect. The main effect was tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.||29.09|10.63|<0.001
84482958|NCT01262599|168717327|SUPERIORITY|Applies to primary and secondary outcomes: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, t test, or Mann-Whitney rank sum test, as appropriate. (SigmaStat 3.5; Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, Calif.). Intention-to-treat using last value carried forward was used for missing data.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Before the start of this study, a sample size analysis, assuming a clinically meaningful 50± 40 percent (mean ± SD) decrease in pain scores from pulsed electromagnetic field treatment, suggested that a minimum of 11 patients per group were needed.||||<0.01
84482959|NCT02448914|168717358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was first to attempt to show non-inferiority. To show non-inferiority of TRIGEL over Duodopa, the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the treatment ratio had to be above the chosen non-inferiority margin of 0.9. If non-inferiority was shown, analysis continued with test of superiority. To show superiority of TRIGEL versus Duodopa, the lower confidence limit had to be above 1 (corresponding to a p-value less than 0.05).|back-transformed ratio|1.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|1.511|||ANCOVA|||Levodopa AUC 0-14h/dose, was derived using the trapezoidal method and divided by the total administered dose of levodopa during the corresponding time interval.The primary endpoint was log transformed and analysed using an ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment, period and patient. The back-transformed ratio of TRIGEL over Duodopa was calculated together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the associated (2 sided) p value.||1.511|1.264|<0.0001
84482960|NCT00560794|168717364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis stated that the true MRD response probability (π) ≤ 5%.|1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0000
84482961|NCT00880607|168717411|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test because the outcome variable was found to have a skewed distribution.|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|||21.2|-5.8|.27
84482962|NCT00880607|168717412|OTHER|Log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier used.||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.42
84482963|NCT00880607|168717414|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84482964|NCT00880607|168717415|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84482965|NCT00880607|168717416|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84482966|NCT00880607|168717417|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84482967|NCT01628042|168717418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|1.36|
84482968|NCT01628042|168717418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|1.55|
84482969|NCT01628042|168717418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|1.11|
84482970|NCT01628042|168717419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|0.89|
84482971|NCT01628042|168717419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ration|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.63|||ANCOVA|||||2.63|1.07|
84482972|NCT01628042|168717419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|3.13|||ANCOVA|||||3.13|1.23|
84482973|NCT01628042|168717420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|0.41|
84482974|NCT01628042|168717420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|0.36|
84482975|NCT01628042|168717420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.50|
84482976|NCT01726504|168717434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||During the 8-week treatment period, the adjusted change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs was 1.72 ± 0.12 (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.96) in the EA group and 0.82 ± 0.13 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.07, P\<0.001) times more than that in the SA group.||||<0.001
84482977|NCT02037204|168717446|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.||||<0.05
84482978|NCT00524043|168717451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.504||95.0|-5.47|11.09||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Sample size estimation was based on the assumption that the difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group in the mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to end point was 11 points with a within-group standard deviation of 20 points. It was calculated that 65 patients were needed per treatment group to detect a statistically significant treatment difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group with a power of 87.5%.||11.09|-5.47|0.504
84482979|NCT00524043|168717451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.431||95.0|-11.46|4.9||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Paliperidone ER 6 mg was used for assay sensitivity||||4.90|-11.46|0.431
84482980|NCT00524043|168717452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.626
84482981|NCT00524043|168717453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.87||95.0|-4.86|5.74||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.86|0.870
84482982|NCT00524043|168717454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
84482983|NCT00524043|168717455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
84482984|NCT02579863|168717463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.33475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III).|||1.45|0.56|0.33475
84482985|NCT02579863|168717464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.83416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Stratified log-rank test||"Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III)."|||1.84|0.81|0.83416
84482986|NCT02579863|168717465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs SOC|5.8||||0.13102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by 'Age' (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and 'ISS stage' (I or II vs. III); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|15.8|-4.3|0.13102
84482987|NCT03531762|168717472|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|117.13||||||||117.13|101.20|
84482988|NCT03531762|168717473|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.69|118.55||||||||118.55|101.69|
84482989|NCT03531762|168717474|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|116.61||||||||116.61|92.93|
84482990|NCT02527564|168717496|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.10
84482991|NCT02527564|168717496|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.57
84482992|NCT02527564|168717496|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Unpaired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.44
84482993|NCT02527564|168717497|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.035
84482994|NCT02527564|168717497|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test|A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.55
84482995|NCT02527564|168717497|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.89
84482996|NCT02527564|168717498|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.97
84482997|NCT02527564|168717499|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.28
84482998|NCT00628134|168717502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.07
84482999|NCT00628134|168717503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.29
84483000|NCT02473289|168717508|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.31|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-2.77|1.1||1-sided|MMRM|Here 'MMRM' refers to Mixed-effect Model Using Repeated Measures.||||1.10|-2.77|0.310
84483001|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.9825
84483002|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5737
84483003|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5703
84483004|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5684
84483005|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8235
84483006|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2384
84483007|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1634
84542918|NCT01037218|168838199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.15|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.15|0.91|<0.0001
84483008|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7816|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7816
84483009|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3917
84483010|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1749
84752879|NCT02113579|169261047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|17.08||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||17.08|9.83|<0.001
84483011|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||<0.001
84483012|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0905
84483013|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3766
84483014|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0253
84483015|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0209
84483016|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8206
84483017|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0907
84483018|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0177
84483019|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0050
84483020|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3724
84483021|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2796
84483022|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0066
84483023|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0081
84483024|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7853
84483025|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0039
84483026|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3057
84483027|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3374
84483028|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1410
84483029|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0017
84735489|NCT00267098|169223259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-0.857||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.857|-19.330|
84735490|NCT00267098|169223260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|1.623||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||1.623|-18.190|
84735491|NCT00267098|169223261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|-0.956||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.956|-21.110|
84735492|NCT00267098|169223262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|-0.014||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.014|-0.235|
84735493|NCT00267098|169223263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.035||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.035|-0.287|
84735494|NCT00267098|169223264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.03||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.030|-0.293|
84483030|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0677
84483031|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1608
84483032|NCT01156363|168717519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0196
84483033|NCT03285490|168717528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
84483034|NCT03285490|168717529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
84483035|NCT00617162|168717558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-5.5|0.3989
84483036|NCT00735072|168717567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the week 24 change in %activated CD8+ T cells between arms. Assuming a standard deviation as high as 3.5% and a Type I error of 5%, with 21 subjects in each treatment arm we would have 80% statistical power to detect a mean 3 percentage-point difference in the percent of activated CD8+ T cells between the active drug and placebo groups.||||0.014
84483037|NCT00735072|168717568|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84483038|NCT00735072|168717569|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84483039|NCT01291511|168717586|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.4|||Log Rank|||||8.4|3.2|<0.0001
84483040|NCT01291511|168717587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84483041|NCT01291511|168717589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
84483042|NCT00047008|168717606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.128|||Log Rank|||A sample size of 684 analyzable patients provides 80% power to detect a relative reduction of 25% in the rate of death in the accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy group as compared with the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, assuming a 2-year rate of overall survival of 45% in the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.128|0.719|0.180
84483043|NCT00047008|168717607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.43|0.83|0.76
84483044|NCT00047008|168717608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.44|0.85|0.80
84483045|NCT00047008|168717609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.81|0.42
84483046|NCT00047008|168717610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.81|0.50
84483047|NCT00047008|168717611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Acute toxicity||||0.21
84483048|NCT00047008|168717611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Late toxicity||||0.18
84483049|NCT00047008|168717612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.92
84483050|NCT00047008|168717613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.67
84542919|NCT01037218|168838200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.36||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.73|-0.01|0.0566
84542920|NCT01037218|168838200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.08|0.34|0.0002
84542921|NCT01037218|168838200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.07|0.34|0.0001
84542922|NCT01037218|168838201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.40|0.32|0.0019
84542923|NCT01037218|168838201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.09|1.01|<0.0001
84542924|NCT01037218|168838201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.62|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.62|1.55|<0.0001
84542925|NCT01037218|168838202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
84542926|NCT01037218|168838202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
84542927|NCT01037218|168838202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
84483051|NCT00047008|168717614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.43
84483052|NCT00047008|168717615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.39
84483053|NCT01929018|168717618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.87
84483054|NCT01929018|168717618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.38
84483055|NCT01929018|168717619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.75
84483056|NCT01929018|168717619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.11
84483057|NCT01929018|168717620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.11
84483058|NCT01929018|168717620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.23
84483059|NCT01929018|168717621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.27
84483060|NCT01929018|168717621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.58
84483061|NCT01929018|168717622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.83
84483062|NCT01929018|168717622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.13
84483063|NCT01929018|168717623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
84483064|NCT01929018|168717623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.02
84483065|NCT01929018|168717624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
84483066|NCT01929018|168717624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.06
84483067|NCT01929018|168717625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.62
84483068|NCT01929018|168717625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.40
84483069|NCT01929018|168717626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.96
84483070|NCT01929018|168717626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.35
84483071|NCT01366534|168717627|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy Maentel-Haenzel Method|-17.6||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.4|33.3|||2-sided Fisher Exact test||Pre-defined futility criteria for efficacy: point estimate of increase of VE in Ad35.CS.01 Group over GSK257049 Group less than 0%|Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||33.3|-107.4|0.7675
84483072|NCT01366534|168717627|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|44.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|60.4|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||60.4|20.7|0.0066
84483073|NCT01366534|168717627|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|52.4||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|69.6|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||69.6|25.4|0.0021
84483074|NCT01047436|168717647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between treatments|26.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|53.7|||Fisher Exact|||The sample size was not statistically determined in this initial trial with ArTimist. For the primary outcome analysis, the percentage of patients defined as having success were determined. The difference between ArTiMist and quinine, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. The difference between treatments were compared using Fisher's Exact test||53.7|-0.3|0.17
84483075|NCT01047436|168717649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.01|||Log Rank|||The time for the parasite count to fall by 90% (PCT90) was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 90% The PCT90 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||3.01|0.48|0.70
84483076|NCT01047436|168717651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76||95.0|0.34|2.18||Difference between survival curves compared by Log Rank test|Log Rank|||The PCT50 was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 50% The PCT50 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||2.18|0.34|0.76
84483077|NCT01789255|168717661|OTHER|||||||0.02642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02642
84483078|NCT01789255|168717662|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84667890|NCT05760300|169070701|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|133.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||133|80.8|
84542928|NCT01037218|168838202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
84542929|NCT01037218|168838203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|18.29|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||18.29|7.01|<0.0001
84542930|NCT01037218|168838203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|25.27|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.27|13.95|<0.0001
84542931|NCT01037218|168838203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.59|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||32.59|21.44|<0.0001
84542932|NCT01037218|168838204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.57|0.30|<0.0001
84483079|NCT02635867|168717663|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive data and rates of success were calculated independently for indirect and direct therapies. Statistical analyses of proportions were done using Fisher's test and 95% confidence intervals (CI)|||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The clinical outcome measures assessed were pain using visual analog pain scale, pulp vitality assessment at 12 months.~The success rate was based on 3 measures of pulp vitality that resulted in a diagnosis of vital or nonvital:~Vital: palpation = negative/ percussion = negative/ response to cold stimuli= positive response Non vital: palpation = positive / percussion = positive. / response to cold stimuli= positive or delayed response time in seconds and lingering."||||>0.1
84483080|NCT02128958|168717665|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Overall Survival will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||0.536
84483081|NCT02128958|168717666|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Time to Progression will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||.371
84483082|NCT02128958|168717667|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) will be performed on Time to Progression Free Survival using the logrank test.||||0.521
84483083|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of ALT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.988
84483084|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of AST will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.989
84483085|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Albumin will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.717
84483086|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (direct) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.891
84483087|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (Total) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.275
84483088|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of PT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.549
84483089|NCT02128958|168717670|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of INR will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.479
84483090|NCT02565576|168717678|SUPERIORITY||estimate of contrast posterior median|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|1.14|||bayesian|||Primary analysis was performed on the PD analysis set. Changes from baseline in QMG scores at Week 25 were analyzed using a Bayesian model. The model investigated effects for treatment (CFZ533 or placebo) and baseline QMG score. A difference of 3 points on the mean change in QMG score between CFZ533 and placebo was deemed a clinical meaningful effect.||1.14|-3.41|
84483091|NCT04254796|168717723|OTHER|Calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.68||||||The goal of the analysis was to measure the effect size of the change in the primary mechanistic outcome (Putamen structural node strength), with a Go/No-Go threshold of Cohen's d \> 0.20.||0.68|-0.13|
84735495|NCT00267098|169223265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.097||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.097|-0.390|
84603310|NCT00496197|168957219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|76.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.3|58.9|
84735496|NCT00267098|169223266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.055||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.055|-0.185|
84735497|NCT00267098|169223267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.029||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.029|-0.236|
84735498|NCT00267098|169223268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.087||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.087|-0.204|
84735499|NCT00267098|169223269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.018||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||-0.018|-0.339|
84735500|NCT00267098|169223270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|1.506||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||1.506|-2.828|
84603311|NCT00929773|168957317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84603312|NCT00929773|168957318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84542933|NCT01037218|168838204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84542934|NCT01037218|168838204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.97|0.69|<0.0001
84542935|NCT01037218|168838205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|15.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|20.14|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||20.14|10.21|<0.0001
84542936|NCT01037218|168838205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|14.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.96|19.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||19.92|9.96|<0.0001
84542937|NCT01037218|168838205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|25.96|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.96|16.15|<0.0001
84483092|NCT01933399|168717733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|16.6|||ANCOVA||"Difference in mean change in scores from baseline to follow-up by treatment group with no adjusment for baseline.~a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA Adjusted for baseline score||16.6|2.2|.01
84483093|NCT01933399|168717733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.6||a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline.||||12.6|-2.0|.16
84483094|NCT01933399|168717734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||-0.4|-2.3|0.01
84483095|NCT01933399|168717734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||0|-2.1|.05
84483096|NCT01849562|168717735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|82.7||||||Differences in proportions between Group 1 (sovaprevir 200 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||82.7|1.8|
84483097|NCT01849562|168717735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|93.6||||||Differences in proportions between Group 2 (sovaprevir 400 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||93.6|24.2|
84542938|NCT01037218|168838206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|17.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|24.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||24.81|10.22|<0.0001
84603313|NCT00929773|168957319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84603314|NCT00929773|168957320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84483098|NCT00633360|168717737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.59
84483099|NCT00633360|168717738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84483100|NCT00638274|168717739|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84483101|NCT00638274|168717739|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84483102|NCT00499460|168717764|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment increases metabolic clearance of oxycodone through enzyme induction and results in lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is oxycodone oral clearance. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
84603315|NCT00929773|168957321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84483103|NCT00499460|168717765|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that powder garlic treatment lowers Cold Pressor Test tolerance (i.e., diminished analgesic response) after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is log Tolerance AUC. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
84483104|NCT00499460|168717766|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total SSE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
84483105|NCT00499460|168717767|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total CASE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
84483106|NCT00499460|168717768|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder induces CYP3A-mediated metabolism resulting in a lower oral midazolam AUC.||||>0.05
84483107|NCT00499460|168717769|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment induces intestinal P-glycoprotein, reduces the bioavailability and hence AUC of orally administered digoxin.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||||||>0.05
84483108|NCT00901394|168717772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline comparisons among the three groups, one-way ANOVA was used for normally distributed variables and χ2 goodness-of-fit for categorical variables. To model the effects of B-vitamin treatment on nitrous-oxide-induced total homocysteine increase at the three different timepoints within individual patients and between the three groups, a linear mixed model with was used and we included a group × time interaction in the model.||||<0.05
84483109|NCT00089999|168717819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|0.3|0.691
84483110|NCT00089999|168717820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Overall Response (i.e. sum of Complete and Partial Responses) comparison|||1.6|0.3|0.443
84483111|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.48
84483112|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483113|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.50
84483114|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483115|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.44
84483116|NCT02859558|168717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483117|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.39
84483118|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.46
84483119|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.056
84483120|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.025
84483121|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.072
84483122|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.47
84603316|NCT00929773|168957322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84735501|NCT00267098|169223271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|1.773||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||1.773|-2.843|
84735502|NCT00267098|169223272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|2.425||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||2.425|-2.379|
84735503|NCT00267098|169223273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|2.046||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||2.046|-3.337|
84735504|NCT00267098|169223274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.195||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.195|-0.031|
84735505|NCT00267098|169223275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.198||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.198|-0.022|
84735506|NCT00267098|169223276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.218|
84735507|NCT00267098|169223277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.192||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.192|-0.095|
84735508|NCT00267098|169223278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|29.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|48.64||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||48.640|10.040|
84735509|NCT00267098|169223279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.841|40.87||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||40.870|2.841|
84735510|NCT00267098|169223280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|26.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.247|47.19||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||47.190|6.247|
84735511|NCT00267098|169223281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|23.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.999|44.53||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||44.530|1.999|
84483123|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.086
84483124|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.18
84483125|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.88
84483126|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.061
84483127|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.042
84483128|NCT02859558|168717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.54
84483129|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.97
84483130|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.21
84483131|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.12
84483132|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.055
84483133|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.28
84483134|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.38
84483135|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.35
84483136|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.007
84483137|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.045
84483138|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.085
84483139|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.044
84483140|NCT02859558|168717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.60
84667891|NCT05760300|169070702|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|175.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||175|63.6|
84483141|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483142|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483143|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.64
84483144|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.69
84483145|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.40
84483146|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483147|NCT02859558|168717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
84483148|NCT03050307|168717847|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|3.339||||||||3.339|-10.966|
84483149|NCT03050307|168717848|NON_INFERIORITY|If the primary outcome measure was met, then the hypothesis for this outcome measure was that if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference was ≥-10%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to H pylori eradication was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.469|18.825||||||||18.825|-4.469|
84483150|NCT03050307|168717849|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.644|4.741||||||||4.741|-16.644|
84483151|NCT03050307|168717850|OTHER|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.175|23.07||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||23.070|-25.175|
84483152|NCT03050307|168717850|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.907|20.931||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||20.931|-11.907|
84483153|NCT03050307|168717850|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.255|43.321||||||Abdominal Bloating||43.321|-11.255|
84483154|NCT03050307|168717850|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|25.348||||||Heartburn||25.348|-5.109|
84483155|NCT03050307|168717850|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.138|20.694||||||Lack of Appetite||20.694|-45.138|
84483156|NCT00439309|168717851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sealing success rates for the investigational group and control groups were assumed to be 0.85 (85%) and 0.75 (75%), respectively, and the non-inferiority margin (10%) is 0.10. For safety reasons it was desired to have at least 100 Vascular Sealant treated subjects. It was determined that a sample size of at least 31 evaluable subjects is required for the control group. For blocking purposes, the number of evaluable control group subjects was set to 33, for a 3:1 randomization.||||||0.072|||||||Z-Test|one-sided Z-test based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution testing||The effectiveness analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||0.072
84483157|NCT00439309|168717852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAM Treatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model.||||||0.006
84483158|NCT00439309|168717853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAMTreatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model||||||0.654
84483159|NCT00439309|168717854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
84603317|NCT04049266|168957338|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, categories for baseline BCVA, BCVA-low luminance VA baseline, geographical location.||||-4|-8|> 0.9999
84483160|NCT00439309|168717855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times to wound closure and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group||||||0.404
84483161|NCT01998906|168717859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.2|||Chi-squared|||||30.2|5.0|0.0051
84603318|NCT03664674|168957347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.207||Generalized Linear Model - Negative Binomial Regression Model with count data by subject transformed using the log-link function.|Regression, Linear|The parameter estimate + conf. int. results back-transform to the ratio of adjusted mean DVDs (OTO-104/Placebo) to be 0.802 (0.523, 1.230).||||0.207|-0.648|0.312
84483162|NCT01998906|168717860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|7.2|0.0014
84603319|NCT03640052|168957379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
84603320|NCT03640052|168957379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
84603321|NCT03640052|168957379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
84603322|NCT03640052|168957379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||0.33
84603323|NCT03640052|168957380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84483163|NCT01998906|168717861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|19.1|||Chi-squared|||||19.1|-6.4|0.3077
84483164|NCT01998906|168717863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.44|0.0275
84483165|NCT01998906|168717865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.35|0.0555
84483166|NCT05724069|168717876|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.239|||=|0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.074|||paired T-test|||Subjects in this analysis are 15 and not 30 (this happens because arms are not mutually exclusive, as explained in previous sections). Each subject can contribute with 0, 1, 2 pairs. Only data that constitute pairs evaluable for primary endpoint are considered in the analysis; the pairs evaluable for primary endpoint were 23.||0.074|-0.553|=0.1279
84483167|NCT01536418|168717877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|19.3||||||||19.3|-3.0|
84483168|NCT01536418|168717878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.8||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 8||10.8|-5.8|
84483169|NCT01536418|168717878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.3||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 12||14.3|-3.0|
84483170|NCT01536418|168717878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.5||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at both Weeks 8 and 12||9.5|-4.6|
84542939|NCT01037218|168838206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.01|35.62|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||35.62|21.01|<0.0001
84542940|NCT01037218|168838206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|33.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.61|41.02|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||41.02|26.61|<0.0001
84603324|NCT02499900|168957459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1615|0.4814||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: MSQ=baseline MSQ score+treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as MSQ is not measured at baseline for these patients.||0.4814|0.1615|<0.001
84483171|NCT01536418|168717879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|15.9||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at Week 8||15.9|-6.0|
84483172|NCT01536418|168717879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.7||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at both Week 8 and Week 12||18.7|-1.0|
84483173|NCT02658149|168717884|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84483174|NCT02658149|168717885|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.204
84483175|NCT02658149|168717886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84483176|NCT02658149|168717887|OTHER|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
84483177|NCT02658149|168717888|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84483178|NCT02498392|168717923|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.416|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.1|0.66|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.66|-1.10|= 0.416
84483179|NCT02498392|168717924|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.41|1.07||1-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.07|-0.41|= 0.647
84483180|NCT03687827|168717955|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is confirmed if non-inferiority is confirmed and the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero.|Estimated treatment difference|1.43||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.12|0.0321
84483181|NCT03687827|168717955|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.83% has been applied, corresponding to 0.2 hours/24 hours|Estimated treatment difference|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74||||||||2.74|0.12|
84483182|NCT00068822|168717968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||2.8|-1.3|0.49
84483183|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Component Summary treatment effect||3.7|-1.7|0.45
84483184|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.6|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Component Summary treatment effect||4.6|-3.7|0.83
84483185|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Frequency Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
84483186|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.33||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Bothersome Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
84483187|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.05||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANCOVA|||EQ-5D Index treatment effect||0.11|-0.01|0.13
84483188|NCT00068822|168717969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||SOF-ADL treatment effect||1.6|-0.8|0.5
84542941|NCT01037218|168838207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|26.23|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.23|11.23|<0.0001
84542942|NCT01037218|168838207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|36.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||36.92|21.86|<0.0001
84542943|NCT01037218|168838207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|34.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|41.75|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001(NCT00282607).||41.75|26.94|<0.0001
84542944|NCT02568072|168838224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84542945|NCT02568072|168838225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84483189|NCT00068822|168717970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||1.7|-0.3|0.19
84483190|NCT01665872|168717980|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
84542946|NCT02568072|168838226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84542947|NCT03051100|168838321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-60.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|||-53.0|-68.0|<0.001
84542948|NCT03051100|168838322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-58.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-52.6|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-52.6|-64.9|<0.001
84542949|NCT03051100|168838322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-40.4|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|TC||-40.4|-51.6|<0.001
84483191|NCT01665872|168717981|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.5337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Are CES-D scores at 12 months different between groups?||||0.5337
84542950|NCT03051100|168838322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-48.6|||ANCOVA|||apoB||-48.6|-59.7|<0.001
84542951|NCT03051100|168838322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||TG||-22.8|-49.7|<0.001
84542952|NCT03051100|168838322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|=|0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||4.0|-7.0|=0.588
84542953|NCT03051100|168838323|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-21.4|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-21.4|-60.0|<0.001
84542954|NCT03051100|168838324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84542955|NCT03051100|168838325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84542956|NCT05317312|168838335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|42.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 1.25mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||42.7|-5.2|0.123
84542957|NCT05317312|168838335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|55.0|||Emax||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|55.0|14.4|<0.001
84542958|NCT05317312|168838335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|61.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||61.7|23.9|<0.001
84483192|NCT01665872|168717982|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.092||||||This test looks at a difference in Parental Distress at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0920
84483193|NCT01665872|168717982|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.3352||||||This test looks at a difference in Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3352
84542959|NCT05317312|168838336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||||The estimated difference between 1.5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values.|||0.2|-2.0|
84542960|NCT05317312|168838336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.4|-1.8|
84542961|NCT05317312|168838336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.3|-1.9|
84483194|NCT01665872|168717982|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0404||||||This test looks at a difference in Difficult Child at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
84483195|NCT01665872|168717982|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0915||||||This test looks at a difference in PSI total score (percentile) at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0915
84483196|NCT01665872|168717983|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square was used with a p-value of 0.05 to determine if the difference was statistically greater than 0.||||||0.2914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2914
84483197|NCT00424099|168717985|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
84483198|NCT00424099|168717986|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
84483199|NCT01989572|168717994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions.||||||0.528
84483200|NCT01989572|168717995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases, and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.131
84542962|NCT05317312|168838337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
84542963|NCT05317312|168838337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
84542964|NCT05317312|168838337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84542965|NCT05317312|168838338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
84483201|NCT01989572|168717996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.60
84483202|NCT01989572|168717997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions|Log Rank|||||||0.71
84483203|NCT01989572|168717998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.88
84483204|NCT01989572|168717998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.69
84483205|NCT01989572|168717999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.91
84483206|NCT01989572|168717999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparisons in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.13
84483207|NCT00262639|168718000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
84483208|NCT00262639|168718001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||This p value is for the interaction of AW status by medication group.|ANOVA|||The analysis was an ANOVA interaction analysis with alcohol withdrawal (AW) group (Low vs. High) by medication group (active versus placebo medication) across the 6 weeks of the medication trial.||||0.0006
84483209|NCT02280096|168718002|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.028||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
84483210|NCT02280096|168718003|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84483211|NCT02280096|168718004|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.016||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
84483212|NCT02280096|168718005|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.64||||0.64|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reading speed||||0.64
84483213|NCT02280096|168718005|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Count speed||||0.43
84483214|NCT02280096|168718005|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Alternation||||0.9
84483215|NCT02280096|168718006|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.83||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.83
84483216|NCT02280096|168718007|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.92||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.92
84483217|NCT02280096|168718008|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.017||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Total moves||||0.017
84483218|NCT02280096|168718008|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Correct moves||||0.010
84483219|NCT02280096|168718009|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Execution time||||0.001
84483220|NCT02280096|168718009|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Problem-solving time||||0.001
84483221|NCT01872897|168718021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|-4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.74|-14.85|0.0003
84483222|NCT01872897|168718022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.71|-22.82|<0.0001
84483223|NCT01872897|168718023|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.2|-29.6|0.0004
84483224|NCT01872897|168718024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-26.2|0.0019
84483225|NCT01872897|168718025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0290
84542966|NCT05317312|168838338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
84542967|NCT05317312|168838338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84542968|NCT05317312|168838339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|52.7|||Chi-squared|||||52.7|2.0|0.042
84542969|NCT05317312|168838339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|59.3|||Chi-squared|||||59.3|9.7|0.01
84483226|NCT01872897|168718026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-8.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.23|-20.57|<0.0001
84483227|NCT01872897|168718027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|-15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.19|-31.55|<0.0001
84483228|NCT01872897|168718028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-10.0|<0.0001
84483229|NCT01872897|168718029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.3|-9.4|0.0001
84483230|NCT01872897|168718030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.9|0.0075
84483231|NCT01872897|168718031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.145||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.432|-10.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.858|-37.432|0.0007
84483232|NCT01024920|168718032|OTHER|||||||0.8531||||||P-value for comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates at 9 months using normal approximation test (two-sided).|Normal approximation test|||||||0.8531
84483233|NCT01024920|168718034|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.8|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|A stratified log-rank test (two-sided, 0.05 significance level) was used to test the effect of nintedanib on PFS compared with sunitinib. The test was stratified by Motzer risk score category (low/intermediate or high) and prior nephrectomy surgery for Renal Cell Cancer (yes or no).||1.800|0.697|0.6395
84483234|NCT01024920|168718035|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.212|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \> 1 favours nintedanib.|A logistic regression model stratified by Motzer risk score category and prior surgery for renal cell cancer (RCC) was used to compare the objective response rate between the two treatment arms. The corresponding odds ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals was also presented.||1.212|0.193|0.1213
84483235|NCT01024920|168718037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.564||P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.564|0.542|0.7593
84483236|NCT01024920|168718038|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.143||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.873|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.873|0.697|0.5958
84483237|NCT01024920|168718039|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.5712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.812|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery (two-sided).|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.812|0.720|0.5712
84483238|NCT00329784|168718075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84483239|NCT00329784|168718075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84483240|NCT00329784|168718076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84483241|NCT00329784|168718077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.369
84483242|NCT00329784|168718078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
84483243|NCT00329784|168718079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Seasonal Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.417
84483244|NCT00329784|168718079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Perennial Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.926
84483245|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut Wheal||||<0.001
84483246|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg Wheal||||0.361
84483247|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk Wheal||||0.760
84483248|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame Wheal||||0.834
84483249|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut Wheal||||0.882
84483250|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut Wheal||||0.226
84483251|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew Wheal||||0.024
84483252|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut Wheal||||0.204
84483253|NCT00329784|168718080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond Wheal||||0.194
84483254|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut IgE||||0.859
84483255|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg IgE||||0.885
84483256|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk IgE||||0.403
84483257|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame IgE||||0.106
84483258|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut IgE||||0.202
84483259|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut IgE||||0.108
84483260|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew IgE||||0.157
84483261|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut IgE||||0.040
84483262|NCT00329784|168718081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond IgE||||0.262
84483263|NCT00926185|168718082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.39|-0.26|0.9381
84483264|NCT00926185|168718082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.53|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.53|-0.13|0.3585
84483265|NCT00926185|168718082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.27||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.60|-0.06|0.1375
84483266|NCT04599972|168718084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|5.064|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.064|1.753|<0.01
84672226|NCT02659020|169080011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.398||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank|||||1.398|0.490|0.482
84672227|NCT02659020|169080012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.589||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|3.179||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||3.179|0.794|0.1891
84542970|NCT05317312|168838339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|74.1|||Chi-squared|||||74.1|29.6|<0.001
84542971|NCT05317312|168838340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-6.5|||Chi-squared|||||-6.5|-55.9|0.019
84542972|NCT05317312|168838340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-41.6|0.187
84542973|NCT05317312|168838340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|20.6|||Chi-squared|||||20.6|-68.3|0.001
84672228|NCT02659020|169080012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.668||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|7.71||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||7.710|0.923|0.0642
84672229|NCT02659020|169080013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|2.194||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.194|0.558|0.7724
84542974|NCT01422213|168838341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.50|0.22|<0.0001
84542975|NCT01422213|168838341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.47|0.19|<0.0001
84735512|NCT00267098|169223282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.089||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.089|-0.180|
84483267|NCT04599972|168718085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.807|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|4.762|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.762|1.655|<0.01
84483268|NCT04599972|168718086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.431|10.499|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.499|3.431|<0.01
84483269|NCT04599972|168718087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.161|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.404|7.204|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.204|2.404|<0.01
84483270|NCT00638690|168718088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.768||Nominal P-value is 0.0142 at interim analysis based on group sequential design.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.768|0.543|<0.0001
84483271|NCT00638690|168718089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.462|0.728||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.728|0.462|<0.0001
84483272|NCT00638690|168718090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.459|8.018||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||8.018|3.459|<0.001
84483273|NCT00638690|168718091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.776||The nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.776|0.585|<0.0001
84483274|NCT00554853|168718093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84735513|NCT00267098|169223283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.287|
84483275|NCT02861118|168718094|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.024
84483276|NCT02861118|168718094|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.006
84483277|NCT02861118|168718094|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease||||0.006
84483278|NCT02861118|168718095|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.044
84483279|NCT02861118|168718095|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.003
84483280|NCT02861118|168718095|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Myocardial Infarction||||0.003
84483281|NCT02861118|168718096|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.007
84483282|NCT02861118|168718097|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.002
84483283|NCT02861118|168718097|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Skin Disease||||0.003
84483284|NCT03236506|168718113|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a 95% SVR rate (based on published studies) in the DOT arm of the trial in this population and a non-inferiority limit of 14% (which would be likely to maintain cost-effectiveness) then at a 5% significance level and 90% power we would need a sample size of 42 in each group 126 in total. To allow for drop-outs we will aim to recruit 135 individuals, 45 per group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.0|||Logistic|||||3.00|0.14|0.67
84483285|NCT03236506|168718113|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.45|||logistic|||||2.45|0.11|0.41
84483286|NCT03236506|168718113|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.61|||logistic|||||6.61|0.23|0.82
84483287|NCT01925014|168718151|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.033|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.033|-0.008|
84483288|NCT01925014|168718152|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.091|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.091|-0.021|
84603325|NCT02499900|168957460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9538|11.9429||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: TSQM-9 convenience score=baseline TSQM-9 convenience score+treatment+CGR+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as TSQM-9 is not measured at baseline for these patients.||11.9429|6.9538|<0.001
84483289|NCT01690988|168718166|OTHER|Test of independence|Difference in Percentages|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.301||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|7.38|||Chi-squared||Difference in delirium incidence between placebo control and combined ketamine groups.|The primary analysis was a comparison between the placebo control group and the combined ketamine groups||7.38|-6.07|0.912
84483290|NCT01690988|168718167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||ANOVA|one-way||We compared the combined average pain level (pain level at rest, taking a deep breath, and/or when moving) over the entire day (AM and PM).||||0.964
84735514|NCT00267098|169223284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.22||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.220|-0.136|
84735515|NCT00267098|169223285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.311||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.311|-0.085|
84483291|NCT01690988|168718168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||"All morphine equivalent drugs consumed by patients perioperatively~Opioid Drugs included:~\* Postoperatively while still in hospital, the list of pain medication used included Morphine, Hydromorphone, Meperidine, Nalbuphine, Oxycodone,Oxymorphone, Tramadol, bupivacaine, (Codeine, Fentanyl, Naloxone) Total Opiates (Morphine Equivalent) in milligrams The median(IQR) opioid consumption was compared across the three study groups Placebo vs. Lo-K (0.5 mg/kg) vs. Hi-K (1 mg/kg)"||||0.476
84483292|NCT01690988|168718169|SUPERIORITY||frequency-test|0.572||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Assessed from patient-reported postoperative nausea and vomiting section of Behavioral Pain Scale or Behavioral Pain Scale (Non-Intubated) Patients where asked whether they currently have nausea/vomiting AM \& PM the response choices: None, Mild, Moderate, Severe Incidence of nausea\\vomiting accounted for any positive reporting(Mild, moderate, or sever) Daily incidence accounted for any positive incidence AM/PM in each POD Any POD nausea/vomiting reports the incidence across day 1-3"||||0.572
84483293|NCT01690988|168718171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||Frequency of patients reporting hallucinations using the DSAQ instrument.||||0.01
84483294|NCT01690988|168718172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"Patients where asked whether Following their surgery they had bad dreams or nightmares the response choices: Yes/No question The incidence of hallucination and nightmares were assessed separately and compared across the three study group."|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84483295|NCT01975376|168718213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.930905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at pre-screening (less than \[\<\] 100 milligrams per deciliters \[mg/dL\], greater than and equal to \[\>=\] 100 mg/dL) with treatment as a co-variate.||1.22|0.80|0.930905
84483296|NCT01975376|168718214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.784265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.82|0.784265
84483297|NCT01975376|168718215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.892441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.20|0.81|0.892441
84483298|NCT01975376|168718216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.845797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.26|0.83|0.845797
84483299|NCT01975376|168718217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.431903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.49|0.431903
84483300|NCT01975376|168718218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.883797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.21|0.80|0.883797
84483301|NCT01975376|168718219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.45569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.95|0.74|0.455690
84542976|NCT01422213|168838342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.90|2.50|<0.0001
84735516|NCT00267098|169223286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1841||||0.9985||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9985
84735517|NCT00267098|169223287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2503||||0.9999||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9999
84735518|NCT00267098|169223288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1978||||0.9978||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9978
84735519|NCT00267098|169223289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2069||||0.9983||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9983
84483302|NCT01975376|168718220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.84|0.469496
84483303|NCT01975376|168718221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.633022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.23|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||9.23|0.26|0.633022
84483304|NCT01975376|168718222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.46765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.83|0.467650
84483305|NCT01975376|168718223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.89|0.32|0.015462
84483306|NCT01975376|168718224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.011863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.88|0.33|0.011863
84483307|NCT01975376|168718225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.316066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||2.00|0.12|0.316066
84483308|NCT01975376|168718226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.020328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.91|0.30|0.020328
84483309|NCT01975376|168718227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.367069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.27|0.53|0.367069
84483310|NCT01975376|168718228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.443081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.29|0.56|0.443081
84542977|NCT01422213|168838342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|5.94||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.94|2.57|<0.0001
84542978|NCT01422213|168838343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.93|0.11|0.0287
84542979|NCT01422213|168838343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.50|-0.31|0.1988
84542980|NCT01422213|168838344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.19||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 10 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.19|0.24|0.0033
84483311|NCT01975376|168718229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.343817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.12|0.71|0.343817
84483312|NCT01975376|168718230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.889065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.85|0.59|0.889065
84483313|NCT01975376|168718231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.308388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.13|0.69|0.308388
84483314|NCT01975376|168718232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.74|0.874835
84483315|NCT01975376|168718233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.526269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.6|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.60|0.79|0.526269
84483316|NCT01975376|168718234|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-60.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-59.71|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lease Square (LS)- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-59.71|-61.43|<0.001
84483317|NCT01975376|168718235|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.48|-53.92|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-53.92|-55.48|<0.001
84483318|NCT01975376|168718236|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-46.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.68|-45.76|||ANCOVA|||LS- mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-45.76|-47.68|<0.001
84483319|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|-54.09|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Non-HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-54.09|-55.66|<0.001
84542981|NCT01422213|168838344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.12||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 20 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.12|0.17|0.0073
84542982|NCT01422213|168838345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.08||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.08|-6.45|0.0061
84735520|NCT00267098|169223291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.01||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to first ventricular arrhythmia occurring post-randomization for each subject. Ventricular arrhythmias occurring prior to randomization were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, NYHA classifications of I-III, and indicated for defibrillation therapy who receive biventricular (BiV) pacing have the same rate of experiencing their first ventricular arrhythmia as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the one-side hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias than subjects with right ventricular pacing.||2.01|0.78|0.189
84735521|NCT01575873|169223292|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.1 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margin for lumbar spine of -1.1%.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within the glucocorticoid-continuing and glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulations. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level within each subpopulation.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
84483320|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-36.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-35.95|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Total cholesterol: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-35.95|-37.07|<0.001
84483321|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-18.93|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||VLDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-18.93|-21.42|<0.001
84483322|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-30.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|-28.07|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||RLP-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-28.07|-32.44|<0.001
84483323|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-58.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.42|-57.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo B: LS -mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-57.69|-59.42|<0.001
84483324|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|6.59|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||6.59|5.69|<0.001
84483325|NCT01975376|168718237|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo A-I: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||4.03|3.02|<0.001
84483326|NCT01975376|168718238|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lp (a): LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.68|0.66|<0.001
84483327|NCT01975376|168718238|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Triglycerides: LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.81|0.80|<0.001
84483328|NCT01975376|168718239|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||1.10|1.03|<0.001
84483329|NCT00565812|168718254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.50877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent confidence interval (CI), P-values: Random coefficients mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with random intercept and slope for each participant,fixed effects for treatment group,time (years),treatment group\*time interaction,(collapsed)Kellgren and Lawrence Grades (KLG), KLG\*time interaction,geographic region,gender,age,body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha =0.0499.||0.046|-0.023|0.508770
84542983|NCT01422213|168838345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.14||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.14|-6.46|0.0052
84483330|NCT00565812|168718254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.754074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI, P-values: MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), treatment group\*time interaction, (collapsed) KLG, KLG\*time interaction, geographic region, gender, age, body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha=0.0499.||0.040|-0.029|0.754074
84542984|NCT01422213|168838346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.2||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.20|-12.93|0.0058
84483331|NCT00565812|168718255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.312
84483332|NCT00565812|168718255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.327
84483333|NCT00565812|168718256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.054|-0.046|0.881
84483334|NCT00565812|168718256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.042|-0.056|0.780
84483335|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.05|-1.26|0.639
84483336|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.70|-1.61|0.957
84483337|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-1.76|0.893
84483338|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.76|-1.01|0.365
84542985|NCT01422213|168838346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-3.7||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-3.70|-14.32|0.0009
84542986|NCT01422213|168838347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.49||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.49|-6.50|0.0018
84667892|NCT05760300|169070702|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.8|151.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||151|77.8|
84735522|NCT01575873|169223292|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.7 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margins for lumbar spine of -0.7%.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
84735523|NCT01575873|169223293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
84735524|NCT01575873|169223293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
84735525|NCT01575873|169223294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||2.1|0.8|< 0.001
84735526|NCT01575873|169223294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||2.1|1.0|< 0.001
84542987|NCT01422213|168838347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.97||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.97|-6.93|0.0005
84603326|NCT02499900|168957461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.802||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.4461||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.4461|-2.0500|0.208
84735527|NCT01575873|169223295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||5.8|3.2|< 0.001
84735528|NCT01575873|169223295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.3||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||4.3|2.0|< 0.001
84735529|NCT01575873|169223296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.2|< 0.001
84735530|NCT01575873|169223296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.2||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.2|1.7|< 0.001
84735531|NCT04069585|169223306|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0002||||||One-sided paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0002
84735532|NCT04211389|169223315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7||Stratification by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||13.70|3.17|<0.0001
84735533|NCT04211389|169223316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.207|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.029|5.844|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|HR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to Achieve PASI-50||5.844|3.029|<0.0001
84735534|NCT04211389|169223317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|24.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||24.19|4.49|<0.0001
84735535|NCT04211389|169223318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|28.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||28.86|2.45|0.0002
84735536|NCT04211389|169223319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|53.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||53.68|2.33|0.0004
84735537|NCT04211389|169223320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|75.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||75.35|3.10|0.0002
84735538|NCT04211389|169223321|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||4.58|1.43|0.0026
84735539|NCT04211389|169223321|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|9.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||9.18|2.65|<0.0001
84483339|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.51|-1.63|0.678
84542988|NCT01422213|168838348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-2.74||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.74|-10.76|0.0010
84735540|NCT04211389|169223321|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||6.23|2.07|<0.0001
84735541|NCT04211389|169223322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 4||-20.0|-31.9|<0.0001
84735542|NCT04211389|169223322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-19.7|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 8||-19.7|-33.2|<0.0001
84735543|NCT01062971|169223381|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84735544|NCT01062971|169223382|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84735545|NCT01182207|169223385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.82|107.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.79|86.82|
84735546|NCT01182207|169223386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|105.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.27|101.10|
84735547|NCT01182207|169223387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.67|104.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.80|100.67|
84483340|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-2.18|0.902
84735548|NCT01182207|169223388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.45|106.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.50|89.45|
84735549|NCT01182207|169223389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.62|102.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.25|95.62|
84483341|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-2.89|0.577
84483342|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-2.26|0.980
84483343|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-2.37|0.950
84483344|NCT00565812|168718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.06|-3.53|0.292
84735550|NCT01182207|169223390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|101.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.12|95.36|
84735551|NCT02242643|169223451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|Seroconversion rate (SCR) Difference (%)|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-2.27|||||For A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) vaccine strain.|||-2.27|-10.34|
84542989|NCT01422213|168838348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-2.54||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.54|-10.49|0.0013
84483345|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-0.30|0.683
84542990|NCT01422213|168838349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.07|0.0002
84735552|NCT02242643|169223451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|-2.8|||||For A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2) vaccine strain|||-2.80|-10.68|
84735553|NCT02242643|169223451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-12.02|||||For B/Massachusetts/2/2012 (Yamagata) vaccine strain|||-12.02|-20.68|
84735554|NCT02242643|169223451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-11.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-8.21|||||For B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Victoria) vaccine strain.|||-8.21|-15.28|
84735555|NCT02242643|169223452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.95|0.77|
84735556|NCT02242643|169223452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.94|0.77|
84735557|NCT02242643|169223452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.71|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.71|0.59|
84735558|NCT02242643|169223452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.69|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.69|0.56|
84735559|NCT05093504|169223485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84735560|NCT02272244|169223494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage||||7.58|3.08|<0.001
84542991|NCT01422213|168838349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0157
84735561|NCT02272244|169223495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model compares Forward Change to No Change or Backwards Change and is adjusted for all baseline covariates.||||9.47|2.55|<0.001
84735562|NCT02272244|169223496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Multinomial|Model compared rates of SBT, CX and none; model is adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage|||Reference for the outcome is No Screening; reference for the study group is the Standard Intervention group.|||<0.001
84735563|NCT02272244|169223496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|6.7|||Odds Ratio (OR)|Stool Blood Test vs None||||6.70|2.63|0.001
84735564|NCT02272244|169223496|SUPERIORITY|Colonscopy vs None|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|18.74|||Odds Ratio (OR)|||||18.74|4.13|0.001
84735565|NCT02272244|169223497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Model of difference in Preventive Health Model (PHM) total score adjusts for all baseline covariates.|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||0.13|-0.15|0.862
84735566|NCT02272244|169223497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model of knowledge test score adjusts for all baseline covariates|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||.55|-.47|0.880
84735567|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||12.4|-7.3|
84735568|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|11.5|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||11.5|-9.6|
84735569|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||9.8|-8.2|
84735570|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|12.2|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||12.2|-6.5|
84735571|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.7|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||11.7|-5.7|
84483346|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.42|0.853
84483347|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.41|0.938
84483348|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-0.32|0.648
84483349|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.49|0.916
84483350|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.31|-0.60|0.528
84483351|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.73|0.365
84483352|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.25|-0.74|0.328
84483353|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.66|0.540
84483354|NCT00565812|168718258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.30|-0.71|0.423
84483355|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.17|0.904
84483356|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.24|0.582
84483357|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.22|0.818
84483358|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG x visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.20|0.988
84542992|NCT01422213|168838350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0005
84542993|NCT01422213|168838350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.01|-0.03|0.3549
84735572|NCT03733899|169223498|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||16.8|-1.4|
84483359|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.20|0.857
84483360|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.17|0.658
84483361|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.17|-0.28|0.612
84483362|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.32|0.391
84483363|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.24|1.000
84483364|NCT00565812|168718259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|-0.45|0.086
84483365|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.55|-0.88|0.586
84483366|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-1.05|0.789
84483367|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.52|-1.21|0.821
84483368|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|-0.63|0.294
84483369|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-1.02|0.532
84483370|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.55|0.938
84483371|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.29|-1.97|0.680
84735573|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|14.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.4|-10.3|
84483372|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.90|-1.33|0.730
84483373|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.55|0.901
84483374|NCT00565812|168718260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-2.45|0.333
84667893|NCT05760300|169070703|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|104.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||104|67.4|
84735574|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.9|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||12.9|-12.1|
84735575|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.1|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||12.1|-11.4|
84735576|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||14.0|-9.2|
84735577|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.3|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.3|-8.5|
84735578|NCT03733899|169223499|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|18.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||18.8|-3.7|
84735579|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.1|-13.2|
84735580|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.3|-13.9|
84735581|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-8.3|-24.4|
84735582|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-1.4|-17.8|
84735583|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-4.1|-20.6|
84735584|NCT03733899|169223500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|0.2|-16.7|
84735585|NCT03733899|169223501|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|11.6|-8.7|
84735586|NCT03733899|169223501|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|18.0|-1.0|
84735587|NCT03733899|169223501|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|17.0|-3.5|
84735588|NCT03733899|169223501|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|20.8|1.6|
84542994|NCT01422213|168838351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-2.96||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.96|-6.45|<0.0001
84735589|NCT03733899|169223502|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|12.9|-11.4|
84735590|NCT03733899|169223502|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.9|-4.9|
84735591|NCT03733899|169223502|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|15.2|-9.3|
84735592|NCT03733899|169223502|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.6|-4.9|
84735593|NCT03733899|169223503|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||||mean difference was calculated as postremoval minus pre-insertion with Test and corneal region.|-3.9|-20.9|
84735594|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.94|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||3.940|0.258|
84735595|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.177|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.177|0.497|
84735596|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|3.71|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||3.710|0.317|
84735597|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.74|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.740|0.536|
84735598|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|4.827|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||4.827|0.247|
84735599|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.801|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.801|0.461|
84735600|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||4.030|0.493|
84735601|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|3.994|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||3.994|0.301|
84735602|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||4.030|0.493|
84735603|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.172|7.445|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||7.445|1.172|
84735604|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|4.432|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.432|0.299|
84542995|NCT01422213|168838351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-4.98||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-4.98|-8.43|<0.0001
84735605|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|6.743|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||6.743|0.113|
84735606|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|2.461|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 × IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.461|0.545|
84735607|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.244|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.244|0.280|
84735608|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.862|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.862|0.038|
84735609|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.849|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||0.849|0.201|
84735610|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|1.194|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.194|0.075|
84735611|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|6.362|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||6.362|0.917|
84735612|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|4.655|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.655|0.612|
84735613|NCT05923112|169223545|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.99|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.990|0.408|
84735614|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|4.391|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||4.391|0.086|
84735615|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|1.491|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.491|0.188|
84735616|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|4.723|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||4.723|0.217|
84735617|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.594|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.594|0.316|
84735618|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|5.455|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||5.455|0.085|
84735619|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|2.335|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.335|0.267|
84735620|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||7.900|0.845|
84735621|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|6.163|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||6.163|0.131|
84735622|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||7.900|0.845|
84735623|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|9.63|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||9.630|0.796|
84735624|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|8.827|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||8.827|0.418|
84735625|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
84735626|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.062|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 ×IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.062|0.184|
84735627|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.729|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.729|0.249|
84735628|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|||
84735629|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.836|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.836|0.273|
84735630|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.79|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.790|0.034|
84735631|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|10.294|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||10.294|0.832|
84735632|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||5.279|0.296|
84735633|NCT05923112|169223546|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|4.058|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.058|0.588|
84735634|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.528|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.939|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.939|0.144|
84735635|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|2.041|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.041|0.849|
84735636|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.351|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.351|0.500|
84483375|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.01|-0.33|0.086
84483376|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.78|-1.56|0.415
84483377|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.57|-1.97|0.569
84735637|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.142|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.142|0.781|
84735638|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.715|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.715|0.120|
84735639|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.653|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.653|0.605|
84735640|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.228|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.228|0.542|
84735641|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.714|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.714|0.667|
84483378|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.02|-1.51|0.374
84483379|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.64|-1.38|0.288
84667894|NCT05760300|169070703|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.2|179.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||179|56.2|
84735642|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.705|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.705|0.485|
84735643|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.688|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.688|0.125|
84735644|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.362|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.362|0.580|
84735645|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.725|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.725|0.728|
84735646|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.536|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.536|0.639|
84735647|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|3.643|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.643|1.093|
84735648|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|3.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.279|0.977|
84735649|NCT05923112|169223547|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.286|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.286|0.464|
84735650|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|2.159|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.159|0.158|
84735651|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.826|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.826|0.667|
84735652|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.311|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.311|0.410|
84735653|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.897|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||1.897|0.624|
84735654|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|2.108|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.108|0.141|
84735655|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.753|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.753|0.547|
84735656|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|2.793|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.793|0.662|
84735657|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.349|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.349|0.439|
84735658|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.816|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.816|0.507|
84735659|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.627|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.627|0.036|
84735660|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.391|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.391|0.518|
84735661|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.547|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.547|0.578|
84735662|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.95|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.950|0.685|
84735663|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.329|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.329|1.113|
84735664|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.384|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.384|0.821|
84735665|NCT05923112|169223548|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.719|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.719|0.586|
84735666|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
84735667|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|11.824|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||11.824|0.480|
84735668|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
84735669|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|23.432|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||23.432|0.342|
84735670|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
84667895|NCT05760300|169070704|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.1|143.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||143|65.1|
84735671|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.862|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.862|0.161|
84735672|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
84735673|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|4.355|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.355|0.196|
84735674|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.84|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||5.840|0.070|
84735675|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
84735676|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|3.107|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||3.107|0.048|
84735677|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735678|NCT05923112|169223549|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735679|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
84735680|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|6.556|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||6.556|0.139|
84735681|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
84735682|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|12.119|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||12.119|0.106|
84735683|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
84735684|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.146|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.146|0.046|
84735685|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
84735686|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|4.928|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.928|0.043|
84735687|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|10.079|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||10.079|0.091|
84735688|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
84735689|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|7.207|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||7.207|0.083|
84483380|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.17|-1.81|0.440
84483381|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.30|0.896
84483382|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.20|-1.92|0.464
84483383|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.27|0.901
84483384|NCT00565812|168718261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.66|-3.45|0.800
84483385|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.093|0.984
84483386|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.047|-0.140|0.330
84483387|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.046|-0.146|0.308
84483388|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.013|-0.180|0.089
84483389|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.068|-0.137|0.508
84483390|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|-0.137|0.490
84483391|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.132|0.739
84483392|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.061|-0.162|0.376
84542996|NCT01422213|168838352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.42||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.42|-0.88|<0.0001
84667896|NCT05760300|169070704|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.7|142.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||142|42.7|
84483393|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.104|-0.121|0.883
84483394|NCT00565812|168718262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.089|-0.135|0.690
84483395|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.078|0.849
84483396|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.096|0.837
84483397|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.105|0.776
84483398|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.008|-0.191|0.033
84603327|NCT02499900|168957461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.231||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8588|0.3962||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Physical Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.3962|-0.8588|0.470
84735690|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735691|NCT05923112|169223550|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735692|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
84735693|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|14.352|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||14.352|0.059|
84735694|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|||
84735695|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
84735696|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|||
84735697|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735698|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735699|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735700|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735701|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735702|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735703|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735704|NCT05923112|169223551|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
84735705|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.405|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.405|0.046|
84735706|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.56|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.560|0.340|
84735707|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|4.056|||||"Risk Ratio of chromosome karyotype Philadelphia chromosome positive to negative"|Subgroup analyses of chromosome karyotype||4.056|0.371|
84735708|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.966|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.966|0.183|
84735709|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|2.481|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug||2.481|0.284|
84483399|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.034|-0.163|0.201
84483400|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.006|-0.201|0.038
84483401|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.114|0.848
84735710|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|6.621|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||6.621|0.604|
84603328|NCT02499900|168957461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.639||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2564|-0.0214||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Cognitive Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||-0.0214|-1.2564|0.043
84735711|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|3.026|||||"Risk Ratio of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 50% to ≤ 50%"|Subgroup analyses of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug||3.026|0.278|
84735712|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.93|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||1.930|0.036|
84735713|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|4.161|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.161|0.497|
84735714|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.03|||||"Risk Ratio of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with myeloablative conditioning to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with nonmyeloablative conditioning"|Subgroup analyses of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.030|0.187|
84735715|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|2.192|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.192|0.155|
84735716|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|10.293|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||10.293|0.630|
84735717|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|5.87|||||"Risk Ratio of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug ≥ 4 weeks to \< 8 weeks to \< 4 weeks"|Subgroup analyses of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||5.870|0.237|
84735718|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|7.158|||||"Risk Ratio of best overall response progression or relapse to complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)"|Subgroup analyses of best overall response||7.158|0.665|
84735719|NCT05923112|169223553|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|6.037|||||"Risk Ratio of MRD test not performed to negativity achieved"|Subgroup analyses of minimal residual disease (MRD)||6.037|0.392|
84735720|NCT03118050|169223556|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest.|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84735721|NCT03118050|169223557|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84735722|NCT05781750|169223564|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.3|0.2|
84735723|NCT05781750|169223564|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.7||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||6.7|0.7|
84735724|NCT05781750|169223564|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Time to partial renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.0|0.5|
84542997|NCT01422213|168838352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.62||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.62|-1.08|<0.0001
84735725|NCT05781750|169223564|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.9||||||Time to partial renal response zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||5.9|1.1|
84735726|NCT01234883|169223573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84735727|NCT04889118|169223574|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.81||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.81|0.37|0.0013
84735728|NCT04889118|169223575|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.58|0.3728
84735729|NCT02472145|169223591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis 1||2.8|0.8|0.4747
84735730|NCT02472145|169223592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.37|0.79|0.7817
84735731|NCT00632021|169223598|EQUIVALENCE|In the primary analysis we compared the number of clinically important medication errors by treatment group using unadjusted negative binomial regression.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09||||||||1.09|0.77|
84735732|NCT00632021|169223599|EQUIVALENCE|The association between intervention and time to first unplanned health care event (hospital readmission) was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28||||||||1.28|0.63|
84735733|NCT01587118|169223623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||<.0001
84735734|NCT01587118|169223624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||.0006
84735735|NCT03802617|169223628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63|||MMRM|||||0.63|-0.85|0.770
84735736|NCT03802617|169223628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-1.55|0.038
84735737|NCT03802617|169223628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.03|||MMRM|||||-0.03|-1.54|0.041
84735738|NCT03042299|169223631|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC 48 as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1088|-0.0373||||||||-0.0373|-0.1088|
84735739|NCT03042299|169223632|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1573|-0.0244||||||||-0.0244|-0.1573|
84735740|NCT04788511|169223642|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 52 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline KCCQ-CSS as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||10.9|4.8|<0.0001
84735741|NCT04788511|169223643|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||-9.4|-11.9|<0.0001
84735742|NCT02353871|169223678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
84542998|NCT01422213|168838353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.0001
84542999|NCT01422213|168838353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.65||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.65|-1.06|<0.0001
84543000|NCT01422213|168838354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.33||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.44|0.0002
84543001|NCT01422213|168838354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.21||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|2.26|<0.0001
84543002|NCT01422213|168838355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.41||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|1.29|0.0030
84543003|NCT01422213|168838355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.03||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.95|<0.0001
84543004|NCT01422213|168838356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|0.01|0.0393
84543005|NCT01422213|168838357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.36||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.10|0.0007
84543006|NCT01422213|168838357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.0246
84543007|NCT03762265|168838359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.535||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.037|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed greater than \[\>\] 6 months prior to screening\]).||20.500|-9.037|0.4469
84735743|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 8 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84543008|NCT03762265|168838360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.752|22.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed \>6 months prior to screening\]).||22.019|-5.752|0.2510
84543009|NCT01805089|168838402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84543010|NCT02857816|168838405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a single arm study. The primary objective was to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction between baseline and following the 12th PTNM therapy sessions in the number of UUI episodes per day.||||<0.0001
84543011|NCT02289729|168838408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543012|NCT02289729|168838409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543013|NCT02289729|168838410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543014|NCT02289729|168838411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543015|NCT02289729|168838412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test|||||||0.0328
84543016|NCT02289729|168838413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||t-test|||||||0.4183
84543017|NCT02289729|168838414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543018|NCT02289729|168838415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
84543019|NCT02289729|168838416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||t-test|||||||0.0109
84543020|NCT02289729|168838417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
84543021|NCT02289729|168838418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543022|NCT02289729|168838419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
84543023|NCT02289729|168838420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543024|NCT02289729|168838421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||t-test|||||||0.0038
84543025|NCT02289729|168838422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84543026|NCT02289729|168838423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0274
84543027|NCT02289729|168838424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84543028|NCT02289729|168838425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test|||||||0.0006
84543029|NCT02289729|168838426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0010
84543030|NCT02289729|168838427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
84543031|NCT02289729|168838428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297|||||||t-test|||||||0.0297
84543032|NCT02289729|168838429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||t-test|||||||0.0279
84543033|NCT02289729|168838430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||t-test|||||||0.2777
84543034|NCT02289729|168838431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test|||||||0.0047
84543035|NCT02289729|168838432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
84543036|NCT02289729|168838433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5877|||||||t-test|||||||<0.5877
84543037|NCT02289729|168838434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
84543038|NCT02289729|168838435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
84543039|NCT02289729|168838436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543040|NCT02289729|168838437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84543041|NCT02289729|168838438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84543042|NCT02289729|168838439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||0.0001
84735744|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 15 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84735745|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84483402|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.084|-0.122|0.714
84483403|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.131|-0.082|0.652
84483404|NCT00565812|168718263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.127|-0.085|0.700
84483405|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.36|-1.00|0.220
84483406|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.68|-2.67|0.997
84543043|NCT02289729|168838440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84735746|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84543044|NCT02289729|168838441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2428|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.2428
84543045|NCT02289729|168838442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test|||||||0.0687
84735747|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84735748|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0035
84735749|NCT02353871|169223679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0441||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 183 (End of Study) - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0441
84735750|NCT02353871|169223680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2422||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.2422
84735751|NCT02353871|169223680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.0917
84735752|NCT02353871|169223680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7064||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7064
84735753|NCT02353871|169223680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7010
84735754|NCT02353871|169223680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7894||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 183 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7894
84543046|NCT02289729|168838443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3126|||||||t-test|||||||0.3126
84735755|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
84735756|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
84735757|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
84735758|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
84483407|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.55|-2.09|0.613
84543047|NCT02289729|168838444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1533|||||||t-test|||||||0.1533
84735759|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
84735760|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
84735761|NCT02353871|169223681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0015
84735762|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
84735763|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
84735764|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
84735765|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
84735766|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||0.0008
84543048|NCT02289729|168838445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8145|||||||t-test|||||||0.8145
84543049|NCT02289729|168838446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||t-test|||||||0.4048
84543050|NCT02289729|168838447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321|||||||t-test|||||||0.8321
84735767|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||0.0065
84735768|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0643||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0643
84735769|NCT02353871|169223682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.3670
84735770|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
84735771|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
84483408|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-2.75|0.964
84483409|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.17|-2.69|0.872
84483410|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.01|-2.81|0.947
84483411|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.33|-3.03|0.927
84543051|NCT02289729|168838448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1945|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.1945
84543052|NCT02289729|168838449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7937|||||||t-test|||||||0.7937
84543053|NCT02289729|168838450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0234
84543054|NCT02289729|168838451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5922|||||||t-test|||||||0.5922
84735772|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
84735773|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
84735774|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - Dysport 50 U versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
84543055|NCT02289729|168838452|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test|||||||1.000
84543056|NCT02289729|168838453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||t-test|||||||0.6481
84543057|NCT02289729|168838454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6741|||||||t-test|||||||0.6741
84735775|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
84735776|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0011
84735777|NCT02353871|169223683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0036||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0036
84543058|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.27846||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014175|0.495059|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.495059|0.014175|0.0389
84543059|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.07359||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188409|0.32558|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.325580|-0.188409|0.5852
84543060|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21311||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051127|0.444152|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.444152|-0.051127|0.1140
84735778|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
84735779|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
84735780|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
84735781|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
84735782|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
84735783|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
84735784|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||<0.0001
84735785|NCT02353871|169223684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||<0.0001
84735786|NCT02353871|169223685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||<0.0001
84735787|NCT02353871|169223685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|Centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score used as covariates.||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
84735788|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0245|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0245
84735789|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0294|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No assumption was needed.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0294
84543061|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.29062||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026334|0.504186|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.504186|0.026334|0.0311
84735790|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER|A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||||0.0468||||||MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.|MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||||||0.0468
84735791|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0586|||||||MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0586
84543062|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.49952||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.230995|0.643312|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.643312|0.230995|0.0002
84543063|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.08869||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176169|0.341163|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.341163|-0.176169|0.5146
84543064|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.34688||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079996|0.546657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.546657|0.079996|0.0108
84543065|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.22455||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042139|0.455224|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.455224|-0.042139|0.0989
84543066|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.35742||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106797|0.565335|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.565335|0.106797|0.0060
84543067|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00011||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.260462|0.260673|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.260673|-0.260462|0.9993
84543068|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
84543069|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21643||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057959|0.454911|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.454911|-0.057959|0.1222
84543070|NCT02289729|168838455|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.57423||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.180247|0.74704|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.747040|0.180247|0.0041
84543071|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.31946||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042257|0.534657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.534657|0.042257|0.0239
84543072|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.36796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.090528|0.568388|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.568388|0.090528|0.0093
84543073|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.38627||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105875|0.582517|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.582517|0.105875|0.0069
84543074|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.70289|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.40173|0.753097|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.753097|0.401730|< 0.0001
84543075|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.63758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345567|0.72341|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.723410|0.345567|<0.0001
84543076|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.24114||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036024|0.476404|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.476404|-0.036024|0.0882
84543077|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.67113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374757|0.739016|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.739016|0.374757|< 0.0001
84543078|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317572|0.708072|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.708072|0.317572|< 0.0001
84543079|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31758|0.708076|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.708076|0.317580|< 0.0001
84543080|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.41143||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133445|0.597087|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.597087|0.133445|0.0036
84543081|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
84543082|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.64565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339454|0.734221|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.734221|0.339454|< 0.0001
84543083|NCT02289729|168838456|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.10898||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427482|0.588111|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.588111|-0.427482|0.7058
84543084|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.57271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689585|-0.289724|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.289724|-0.689585|< 0.0001
84543085|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.16332||||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504489|0.224771|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.224771|-0.504489|0.4142
84543086|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.48143||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.715956|-0.063481|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||-0.063481|-0.715956|0.0239
84543087|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.06326||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.210715|0.327872|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.327872|-0.210715|0.6546
84543088|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17674||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.100105|0.425116|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.425116|-0.100105|0.2114
84543089|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.2944||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017222|0.516523|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.516523|0.017222|0.0374
84543090|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
84543091|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13433||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387439|0.139207|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.139207|-0.387439|0.3374
84543092|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17846||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095693|0.424291|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.424291|-0.095693|0.2025
84543093|NCT02289729|168838457|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.01625||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252613|0.282777|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.282777|-0.252613|0.9076
84543094|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.7468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777482|-0.425693|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.425693|-0.777482|< 0.0001
84543095|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17924||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368382|0.632178|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.632178|-0.368382|0.5347
84543096|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.06987||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597767|0.500464|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||0.500464|-0.597767|0.8251
84543097|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.1106||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382323|0.179601|||Fisher's z transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.179601|-0.382323|0.4581
84543098|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00326||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281136|0.287128|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.287128|-0.281136|0.9826
84543099|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.10293||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375749|0.187021|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.187021|-0.375749|0.4899
84543100|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
84543101|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.23658||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484427|0.055538|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.055538|-0.484427|0.1125
84543102|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13015||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398887|0.16062|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.160620|-0.398887|0.3826
84735792|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0659|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0659
84735793|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.102|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean ofPlacebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.102|-0.309|0.3224
84543103|NCT02289729|168838458|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.11688||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176724|0.390468|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.390468|-0.176724|0.4382
84735794|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.15|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.150|-0.275|0.5616
84735795|NCT04750577|169223708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.251||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|-0.043|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.043|-0.459|0.0183
84735796|NCT04750577|169223709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.211||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.413|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.010|-0.413|0.0396
84735797|NCT04750577|169223709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.327|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.088|-0.327|0.2568
84735798|NCT04750577|169223709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.56|-0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.154|-0.560|0.0006
84735799|NCT04750577|169223710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.1|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.10|0.99|0.0519
84735800|NCT04750577|169223710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.36|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.36|0.61|0.4159
84735801|NCT04750577|169223710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.55|1.28|0.0106
84735802|NCT04750577|169223711|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.53|1.20|0.0176
84735803|NCT04750577|169223711|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.29|0.53|0.5467
84735804|NCT04750577|169223711|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|10.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||10.39|1.91|0.0005
84543104|NCT02845700|168838485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|2 (time) x 2 (group) x 5 (dilution %) repeated measures ANOVA||||||.08
84483412|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.12|-2.18|0.547
84483413|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.71|-1.47|0.304
84483414|NCT00565812|168718264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.43|-3.73|0.679
84483415|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.55|-1.80|0.738
84483416|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-2.70|0.632
84483417|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-2.77|0.736
84483418|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.08|-2.66|0.811
84483419|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.26|-3.71|0.335
84483420|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.41|-2.52|0.966
84483421|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.28|-4.16|0.299
84483422|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.82|-2.56|0.925
84483423|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|-2.14|0.676
84483424|NCT00565812|168718265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-3.18|0.732
84543105|NCT02845700|168838486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = -1.19, p = .39||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .15.||||.39
84483425|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.49|-2.22|0.911
84483426|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-3.16|0.500
84483427|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.15|-1.81|0.596
84543106|NCT02845700|168838489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = 0.66, p = .54||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .08.||||.54
84543107|NCT01168427|168838496|OTHER|There was no formal statistical hypothesis tested. The goal was to estimate the procedure-related complications 90 days post implant using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Rate|0.034|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1292||||||||0.1292||
84735805|NCT02647645|169223724|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.02||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = 1.78).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Analysis results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, cluster of differentiation (CD4) cell count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.02
84735806|NCT02647645|169223725|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.34||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .71).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.34
84735807|NCT02647645|169223726|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on the investigators' estimate of the impact of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on subjective cognitive problems, as similar studies were not available to develop effect size estimates.||||||0.33||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .63).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.33
84735808|NCT00356811|169223749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|64.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or PR.|||64.4|37.3|
84735809|NCT05064488|169223833|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|118.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.89|125.47||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||125.47|111.89|
84735810|NCT05064488|169223834|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|208.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.48|280.82||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||280.82|155.48|
84735811|NCT05064488|169223835|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.49|121.89||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||121.89|80.49|
84735812|NCT05064488|169223836|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|89.35||||||90.0|82.7|96.54||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||96.54|82.70|
84735813|NCT05064488|169223837|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.99|117.79||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||117.79|85.99|
84735814|NCT05064488|169223838|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|203.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.93|269.68||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||269.68|152.93|
84735815|NCT05064488|169223839|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.98|109.33||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||109.33|76.98|
84735816|NCT05064488|169223840|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|81.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.23|88.42||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||88.42|74.23|
84735817|NCT05064488|169223854|OTHER||Ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.11|111.76||||||||111.76|102.11|
84735818|NCT05064488|169223855|OTHER||Ratio|211.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.34|285.91||||||||285.91|156.34|
84735819|NCT05064488|169223856|OTHER||Ratio|99.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.69|124.42||||||||124.42|79.69|
84667897|NCT05760300|169070709|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|160.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|263.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||263|97.2|
84735820|NCT05064488|169223857|OTHER||Ratio|88.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.04|96.19||||||||96.19|82.04|
84735821|NCT04082429|169223882|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
84735822|NCT04082429|169223883|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.45|0.10|<0.001
84483428|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-2.51|0.979
84483429|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.03|-3.20|0.659
84735823|NCT05499130|169223919|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|15.7||||||||||||||||||
84735824|NCT05499130|169223919|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.949|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
84735825|NCT05499130|169223919|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|27.4||||||||||||||||||
84735826|NCT05499130|169223919|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.997|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
84735827|NCT05499130|169223920|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|13.0||||||||||||||||||
84735828|NCT05499130|169223920|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.939|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
84735829|NCT05499130|169223920|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|34.8||||||||||||||||||
84735830|NCT05499130|169223920|OTHER||Posterior Probability|1.0|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
84735831|NCT04590404|169223939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 6 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.82|0.76|0.461
84483430|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-2.89|0.823
84483431|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-4.04|0.387
84735832|NCT04590404|169223940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54||Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge|Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 12 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.54|0.64|0.99
84735833|NCT03698019|169223962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
84543108|NCT01256879|168838510|OTHER|Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC.|||||||||||||||||Bioequivalence testing of AUC, per FDA guidance, is applied. Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-A is 104.4% to 120.6%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-B is 97.9% to 113.0%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for Commercial Cimetidine Solution is 93.2% to 107.7%.|||
84543109|NCT00725920|168838574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
84543110|NCT02623725|168838575|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.06||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.06|1.33|
84543111|NCT02623725|168838575|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.31||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.31|1.43|
84543112|NCT02623725|168838575|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.27|0.841|
84543113|NCT02623725|168838575|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.74||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.74|1.01|
84543114|NCT02623725|168838576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.05||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.05|1.34|
84543115|NCT02623725|168838576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.41||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.41|1.49|
84543116|NCT02623725|168838576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.30|0.860|
84543117|NCT02623725|168838576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.73||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.73|1.02|
84543118|NCT03918629|168838589|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR) was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.90|0.74|
84543119|NCT03918629|168838589|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.66|0.49|
84543120|NCT03918629|168838590|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.9|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||2.9|-6.4|
84543121|NCT03918629|168838590|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-12.2|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-12.2|-21.3|
84543122|NCT03918629|168838599|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.95|0.80|
84543123|NCT03918629|168838599|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.81|0.62|
84543124|NCT03918629|168838600|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||1.7|-3.7|
84543125|NCT03918629|168838600|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.5|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-5.5|-15.1|
84543126|NCT02456740|168838601|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.92|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.92|-1.88|< 0.001
84543127|NCT02456740|168838601|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.37|-2.33|< 0.001
84543128|NCT02456740|168838602|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.98|1.52|< 0.001
84543129|NCT02456740|168838602|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||3.94|2.01|< 0.001
84735834|NCT00569127|169223968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18||Central-review based progression-free survival was analyzed using the stratified log rank test (which is the score test from the stratified Cox-model) using stratification factors as defined in Section 6.0.|Regression, Cox||The reported hazard ratio estimate is for the comparison of the Octreotide, Bevacizumab arm to the Octreotide, Interferon Alpha-2b arm.|According to the intent-to-treat principle, all eligible patients were included in the analysis according to the randomized treatment assignment, regardless of actual treatments received.||1.18|0.73|0.55
84735835|NCT05238103|169223985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84735836|NCT05238103|169223986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For systolic blood pressure||||0.40
84735837|NCT05238103|169223986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For diastolic blood pressure||||0.25
84735838|NCT05238103|169223987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84735839|NCT05238103|169223988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84735840|NCT05238103|169223989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84735841|NCT05238103|169223990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global physical health score||||0.16
84735842|NCT05238103|169223990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global mental health score||||0.71
84735843|NCT05238103|169223991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84735844|NCT05238103|169223992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84735845|NCT05238103|169223993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84735846|NCT05238103|169223994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
84735847|NCT05238103|169223995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
84735848|NCT05238103|169223996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84735849|NCT05238103|169223997|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84735850|NCT05238103|169223998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84735851|NCT05238103|169224004|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 12.5 meters was chosen to represent about 40% of the minimum important difference of 30 meters in the 6 minute walk test as identified in previous studies. For sample size calculation, to allow for an attrition rate of 20% during follow up after randomization, a total of 200 (100 per group) participants were needed to be recruited and then randomized in a 1:1 ration to Intervention vs. Control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-9.1||||t-test, 1 sided|||Significance testing: Generalized regression model|||-9.1|0.04
84735852|NCT05739994|169224006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84735853|NCT05739994|169224006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84735854|NCT05739994|169224007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84735855|NCT05739994|169224007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84735856|NCT03735121|169224036|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval \[CI\] of the geometric mean ratio is greater than or equal to (≥) the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.24||||||||1.24|0.88|
84735857|NCT03735121|169224037|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio is ≥ the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92||||||||0.92|0.83|
84735858|NCT03735121|169224047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.54||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.63|-6.56|0.8757
84735859|NCT03735121|169224048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.6906
84735860|NCT03735121|169224049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.78|0.9766
84735861|NCT03735121|169224050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.42|||Log Rank|||||2.42|0.34|0.8375
84735862|NCT00310180|169224117|SUPERIORITY|Since the noninferiority comparison is formulated using a conventional superiority null hypothesis described as above, a type II error corresponds to concluding that Arm B is not inferior when in fact it is. The design therefore uses a one-sided type I error of 10% and is planned to have 95% power (5% type II error). If the null hypothesis is rejected (at the one-sided 10% level), then it will be concluded that endocrine therapy alone is inferior to chemoendocrine therapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24||One-sided p value for stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, stratified on recurrence score, tumor size and menopausal status.|Regression, Cox|||This study uses a noninferiority design, but the noninferiority question is formulated using the conventional superiority null hypothesis of equal DFS on the two arms (that is, the null hypothesis is that Arm B is not inferior to Arm C). The alternative hypothesis is that Arm B has substantially worse DFS than Arm C, specified by a hazard ratio for B vs. C of 1.322.||1.24|0.94|0.13
84483432|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-3.25|0.737
84483433|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.97|-1.73|0.443
84483434|NCT00565812|168718266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.04|-3.62|0.585
84483435|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-1.68|0.613
84483436|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-2.76|0.670
84483437|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-3.82|0.296
84483438|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.83|-3.15|0.604
84483439|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.75|-4.46|0.163
84483440|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-2.69|0.939
84483441|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.12|-4.61|0.233
84483442|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.36|-2.32|0.720
84543130|NCT02456740|168838603|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.64|-1.23|< 0.001
84483443|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-2.82|0.993
84667898|NCT05760300|169070709|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|124.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||124|35.0|
84667899|NCT05760300|169070709|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.3|141.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||141|53.3|
84735863|NCT00310180|169224121|OTHER|Treatment-by-Age and RS subset was performed via Cox proportional hazard analysis||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Cox|||Treatment interaction test was performed for the 9 age by RS subsets (3 groups for each, age groups \<=50 vs. 51-65 vs. 66-75; RS groups 0-10 vs. 11-25 vs. \>25) in patients randomized to arms B and C||||0.004
84735864|NCT01641653|169224144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a pilot study no power calculation was performed. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess differences in max intraop glucose between placebo and midazolam groups.||||0.87
84735865|NCT01641653|169224145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||percent change in glucose levels from preoperative level to maximum perioperative measurement level||||0.56
84735866|NCT01641653|169224146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square with continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.12
84735867|NCT01730950|169224164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|Null hypothesis: median survival time for both arms is 9 months; alternative hypothesis: participants receiving radiation therapy plus bevacizumab will have an improvement in median survival time to 13 months. One hundred and sixty eligible participants provides 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in the hazard ratio to 0.69 at a one-sided significance level of 0.10. Analysis was planned to occur when 135 deaths were reported, expected to occur 16 to 21 months after trial closure.||1.38|0.70|0.46
84735868|NCT01730950|169224165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.18
84543131|NCT02456740|168838603|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, (stratification factors region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.12|-1.71|< 0.001
84735869|NCT01730950|169224166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.001
84735870|NCT01730950|169224167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|||1.00|0.53|0.05
84483444|NCT00565812|168718267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-3.19|0.794
84483445|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|-0.07|0.069
84735871|NCT03616964|169224173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.75|0.711
84735872|NCT03616964|169224174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.73|0.789
84735873|NCT03616964|169224175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.72|0.673
84735874|NCT03616964|169224175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|0.75|0.528
84735875|NCT03616964|169224177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.51|0.761
84735876|NCT03616964|169224177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.65|0.611
84735877|NCT03616964|169224178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.47|0.698
84735878|NCT03616964|169224178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.46|0.744
84735879|NCT03616964|169224179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.00|0.665
84735880|NCT03616964|169224179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-1.95|0.723
84735881|NCT03616964|169224180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.31|0.372
84735882|NCT03616964|169224180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.34|0.555
84735883|NCT03616964|169224181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.31|0.251
84735884|NCT03616964|169224181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.74|0.333
84735885|NCT03616964|169224182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.86|0.284
84735886|NCT03616964|169224182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.08|0.069
84735887|NCT03809000|169224208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = standard ADT|After protocol amendments, the 3-year PFS rate of the standard arm was expected to be 24%. Assuming a hazard ratio of 0.65 (treatment/control) results in a hypothesized 3-year PFS rate of 39.5% on the enhanced ADT arm. A one-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.10 at 80% statistical power was calculated to require 101 events from 170 patients, taking into account expected accrual rate and follow-up time.||0.96|0.61|0.0671
84735888|NCT03809000|169224209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.07|0.53|0.1160
84735889|NCT03809000|169224210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.12|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.12|0.50|0.1618
84735890|NCT03809000|169224215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7184
84735891|NCT03809000|169224216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5934
84735892|NCT03809000|169224217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7129
84735893|NCT03809000|169224218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006258
84735894|NCT03809000|169224219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0263
84735895|NCT03809000|169224220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4599
84735896|NCT03809000|169224222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.41|||Regression, Logistic||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||4.41|0.62|0.3138
84735897|NCT03809000|169224223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3889
84735898|NCT03809000|169224224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Frequency||||0.0461
84735899|NCT03809000|169224224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Severity||||0.0181
84735900|NCT03809000|169224225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.91||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.42|0.10
84735901|NCT01952847|169224234|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84735902|NCT01952847|169224235|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84735903|NCT01952847|169224238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84735904|NCT01952847|169224239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84735905|NCT01952847|169224240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
84735906|NCT01952847|169224241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84735907|NCT01952847|169224242|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84735908|NCT01952847|169224243|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84735909|NCT01952847|169224244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
84735910|NCT01952847|169224248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84735911|NCT01952847|169224249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84735912|NCT00882115|169224275|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison was made to the 24 h minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.001
84735913|NCT00882115|169224275|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison waws made to the 6 hour minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.01
84735914|NCT03721172|169224282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||22.8|12.2|<0.0001
84735915|NCT03721172|169224283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.1|19.1|<0.0001
84735916|NCT03721172|169224284|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.73|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.73|-4.04|<0.0001
84735917|NCT03721172|169224285|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.39|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.39|-3.47|<0.0001
84735918|NCT03721172|169224286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||46.3|29.7|<0.0001
84735919|NCT03721172|169224287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.8|16.5|<0.0001
84735920|NCT03721172|169224288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||36.3|18.6|<0.0001
84735921|NCT03721172|169224289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.1|-3.7|<0.0001
84735922|NCT01653210|169224293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84735923|NCT00513747|169224303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1521
84735924|NCT00513747|169224304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0097
84735925|NCT00513747|169224305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4645
84735926|NCT01827046|169224323|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-6.8|0.73
84735927|NCT01827046|169224323|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||Multivariate logit model|||Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||12|-4|0.33
84735928|NCT01827046|169224324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.06|0.55
84735929|NCT01827046|169224324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume and ICH deep location||||1.97|0.82|0.27
84735930|NCT01827046|169224325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
84735931|NCT01827046|169224325|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Adjusted Cox proportional Hazard|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and race.||||0.98|0.45|0.037
84543132|NCT02456740|168838604|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.35|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.35|-3.51|< 0.001
84543133|NCT02456740|168838604|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.77|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.77|-2.95|< 0.001
84603329|NCT02499900|168957461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0672|0.2711||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Psychosocial Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.2711|-0.0672|0.237
84735932|NCT01827046|169224326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.8|||Logit model|||||0.80|0.62|<0.001
84735933|NCT01827046|169224326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability IVH volume, and ICH deep location||||0.78|0.59|<0.001
84735934|NCT01827046|169224327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84483446|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-0.53|0.335
84483447|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.11|-0.33|0.153
84735935|NCT01827046|169224328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.04|0.34
84735936|NCT01827046|169224329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Chi-squared|||||0.07|-0.10|0.76
84735937|NCT01827046|169224329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.94|0.81|0.31
84735938|NCT01827046|169224330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.07|0.79
84735939|NCT01827046|169224330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.97|0.79|0.35
84735940|NCT01827046|169224331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Median test|||||||0.46
84735941|NCT01827046|169224332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Median test|||||||0.75
84735942|NCT01827046|169224333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84735943|NCT01827046|169224334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84735944|NCT01827046|169224335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84735945|NCT01827046|169224336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84735946|NCT01827046|169224337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84735947|NCT01827046|169224338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84735948|NCT01827046|169224339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84735949|NCT02357264|169224341|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.162
84735950|NCT02176863|169224369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||The overall adjusted p-value for the selected dose of Flebogamma® 5% DIF vs placebo was calculated from the p-values of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 by Posch \& Bauer for testing the equality of means between the selected dose and placebo.|Posch and Bauer Method|||||||0.0469
84735951|NCT02176863|169224370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.8897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||MMRM include change from baseline in VAS as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||6.7|-7.7|0.8897
84735952|NCT02176863|169224371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.8||MMRM include change from baseline in SF-36PCS as dependent variable;treatment protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline measure as covariate \& within-participant at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-0.8|0.1615
84735953|NCT02176863|169224372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.112||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|35.79||MMRM include change from baseline in 6MWD as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||35.79|-4.19|0.1205
84735954|NCT06077773|169224373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (LSMD)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|5.94||MMRM=mixed effects model for repeated measures|MMRM|The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||5.94|-1.96|0.4059
84735955|NCT06077773|169224373|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.385||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|2.42||The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|MMRM||LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||2.42|-5.49|0.5213
84735956|NCT02473042|169224381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2787
84735957|NCT02473042|169224384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8252
84735958|NCT02473042|169224385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8277
84735959|NCT02473042|169224386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3908|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized)||||0.3908
84735960|NCT02473042|169224386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question||||0.6029
84735961|NCT02473042|169224386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7785|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question||||0.7785
84735962|NCT02473042|169224386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8434|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized)||||0.8434
84735963|NCT02473042|169224387|OTHER|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2742
84735964|NCT02473042|169224387|OTHER|||||||0.2747|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2747
84735965|NCT02473042|169224387|OTHER|||||||0.5608|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.5608
84735966|NCT02473042|169224387|OTHER|||||||0.1014||||||There is no statistically significant association between expectancy and complete PONV control.|Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.1014
84735967|NCT02037256|169224389|OTHER||percentage|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5||||||Median time to engraftment||0.50|0.07|
84735968|NCT03459846|169224413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.387|||Regression, Cox|||||1.387|0.641|0.789
84735969|NCT03459846|169224414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.606|||Regression, Cox|||||1.606|0.719|0.728
84735970|NCT03459846|169224415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.778|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.778|0.821|0.142
84735971|NCT02911805|169224418|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84735972|NCT00379769|169224514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.2 for the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval in time to event analysis comparing RSG to MET/SU stratified by background medication|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||||95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
84735973|NCT00379769|169224538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.68|1.08||||||||1.08|0.68|
84735974|NCT00379769|169224539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.17||||||||1.17|0.78|
84735975|NCT00379769|169224540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.79|1.18||||||||1.18|0.79|
84735976|NCT00379769|169224541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
84735977|NCT00379769|169224542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
84735978|NCT00379769|169224543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.8|1.59||||||||1.59|0.80|
84735979|NCT00379769|169224544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||||95.0|0.82|1.62||||||||1.62|0.82|
84735980|NCT00379769|169224545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||||95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
84735981|NCT00379769|169224546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.57|1.18||||||||1.18|0.57|
84735982|NCT02825251|169224574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % CI for the true treatment-difference D (faster aspart minus NovoRapid®) was below 0.4 %.|Treatment difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, strata (use of own continuous glucose monitoring), previous insulin use, and region as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.17|0.01|
84735983|NCT00349466|169224669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
84735984|NCT00349466|169224670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
84735985|NCT00349466|169224671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
84735986|NCT00349466|169224672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
84735987|NCT00349466|169224673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
84735988|NCT00349466|169224674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
84735989|NCT00349466|169224675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.807
84735990|NCT02104505|169224690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change in sputum %PMNs during active treatment vs placebo (crossover design).|||||0.04
84735991|NCT02104505|169224691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84735992|NCT02104505|169224692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6
84735993|NCT02104505|169224693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84735994|NCT00667459|169224713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.134||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.134|-0.070|0.995
84735995|NCT00667459|169224713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.736
84735996|NCT00667459|169224714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.118||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the success rates of NDI in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational group will be claimed for this endpoint."||0.118|-0.020|1.0
84735997|NCT00667459|169224714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.912
84735998|NCT00667459|169224715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.161||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.161|0.038|1.0
84735999|NCT00667459|169224715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.999
84736000|NCT00667459|169224716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.085|0.992
84736001|NCT00667459|169224716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.097||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.097
84483448|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.47|-0.95|0.672
84483449|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.05|0.765
84667900|NCT05760300|169070709|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|105.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||105|50.4|
84483450|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.96|0.675
84483451|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.84|-1.00|0.560
84483452|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-0.84|0.433
84483453|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-0.70|0.318
84483454|NCT00565812|168718268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.18|-0.68|0.303
84483455|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLGU\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.26|0.08|0.039
84483456|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.91|0.395
84483457|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.25|-0.54|0.160
84483458|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.35|-1.44|0.638
84483459|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.54|-1.32|0.537
84483460|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*(visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-1.90|0.988
84483461|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.22|-2.12|0.962
84543134|NCT02456740|168838605|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.51|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.51|-3.62|< 0.001
84603330|NCT02499900|168957462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5947|1.0074||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.0074|-0.5947|0.287
84736002|NCT00667459|169224717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.023||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.023|-0.043|1.0
84483462|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-1.97|0.856
84483463|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.63|-0.90|0.237
84483464|NCT00565812|168718269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.09|-1.44|0.475
84483465|NCT00565812|168718270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-1.07|0.938
84483466|NCT00565812|168718270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-1.04|0.906
84483467|NCT00565812|168718270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.04|-1.50|0.726
84483468|NCT00565812|168718270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.00|-1.52|0.681
84483469|NCT00565812|168718271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.21|-1.07|0.900
84483470|NCT00565812|168718271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.50|-0.77|0.528
84483471|NCT00565812|168718271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.94|-1.51|0.647
84543135|NCT02456740|168838605|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.16|-3.28|< 0.001
84667901|NCT05760300|169070710|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.8|221.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||221|87.8|
84603331|NCT02499900|168957462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5179|1.7991||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Anxiety subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.7991|-1.5179|0.868
84483472|NCT00565812|168718271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.09|-1.34|0.841
84483473|NCT00565812|168718272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.48|-0.84|0.587
84483474|NCT00565812|168718272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-0.91|0.687
84483475|NCT00565812|168718272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.677
84483476|NCT00565812|168718272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-0.80|0.469
84483477|NCT00565812|168718273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-0.71|0.632
84483478|NCT00565812|168718273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-0.45|0.308
84483479|NCT00565812|168718273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-1.33|0.615
84483480|NCT00565812|168718273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.62|-1.48|0.425
84483481|NCT00565812|168718274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.72|-0.39|0.214
84483482|NCT00565812|168718274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.03|-1.06|0.980
84483483|NCT00565812|168718274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.83|0.575
84483484|NCT00565812|168718274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-1.16|0.986
84543136|NCT01891864|168838618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin for the comparison of GP2015 with Enbrel with respect to PASI 75 response at Week 12 was based on response rates reported in two pivotal placebo controlled trials (Leonardi et al 2003; Papp et al 2005). Based on the observed effect size of 45-46%, an equivalence margin of 18% was chosen so that at least 60% of the treatment effect seen for Enbrel was maintained. A response rate of 49% was assumed for the comparator treatment Enbrel.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|5.3||||||PASI 75 response rate (proportion of patients showing at least a 75% improvement in PASI) after the first 12 weeks of treatment (Treatment Period 1) was the primary endpoint to assess equivalence between GP2015 and Enbrel®. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of PASI75 could be concluded if the exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in the PASI75 rates is completely contained within the interval \[-18%; 18%\]. A logistic regression model was to be employed.||5.3|-9.85|
84543137|NCT01891864|168838619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A MMRM (Mixed Model Repeated Method) was performed on the percentage change from baseline in PASI score from baseline to Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.474|2.204||||||||2.204|-3.474|
84543138|NCT01891864|168838619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The mean averaged treatment effect (ATE) of percent change from baseline in PASI score up to week 12 was derived for each patient and analyzed using an ANCOVA approach. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.845||||||||1.845|-3.61|
84543139|NCT02892331|168838626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT group||||0.006
84543140|NCT02892331|168838626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT group||||0.045
84543141|NCT02892331|168838626|SUPERIORITY|VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between MOD-INT and High-INT groups||||0.449
84543142|NCT02892331|168838627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.276
84483485|NCT00565812|168718275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.52|0.13|0.030
84483486|NCT00565812|168718275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-0.76|0.480
84483487|NCT00565812|168718275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-0.30|0.132
84543143|NCT02892331|168838627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.633
84543144|NCT02892331|168838627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.555
84543145|NCT02892331|168838628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON group and the HIGH-INT group||||0.370
84543146|NCT02892331|168838628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.383
84543147|NCT02892331|168838628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0972|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.0972
84543148|NCT02892331|168838629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.932
84543149|NCT02892331|168838629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.307
84543150|NCT02892331|168838629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.376
84543151|NCT02892331|168838630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.136
84543152|NCT02892331|168838630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.262
84543153|NCT02892331|168838630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT group and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.715
84543154|NCT02892331|168838631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.056
84543155|NCT02892331|168838631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.349
84543156|NCT02892331|168838631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.359
84543157|NCT02892331|168838632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.224
84543158|NCT02892331|168838632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.199
84543159|NCT02892331|168838632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.952
84543160|NCT02892331|168838633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.783
84543161|NCT02892331|168838633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.098
84543162|NCT02892331|168838633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD and HIGH-INT groups||||0.071
84543163|NCT02892331|168838634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
84543164|NCT02892331|168838634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.994
84543165|NCT02892331|168838634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
84543166|NCT02892331|168838635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.769
84543167|NCT02892331|168838635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.800
84543168|NCT02892331|168838635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.769
84543169|NCT02892331|168838636|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD groups||||1.000
84543170|NCT02892331|168838636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of HIGH-INT and CON groups||||0.993
84543171|NCT02892331|168838636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.994
84543172|NCT02892331|168838637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.821
84543173|NCT02892331|168838637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.985
84543174|NCT02892331|168838637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.856
84543175|NCT02892331|168838638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.093
84543176|NCT02892331|168838638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT groups||||0.033
84543177|NCT02892331|168838638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.602
84543178|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.424
84543179|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.308
84543180|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1a (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.844
84543181|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.135
84543182|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Citrate synthase (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.800
84543183|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase||||0.195
84543184|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex I||||0.459
84543185|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex 1 (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.213
84543186|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex II (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.971
84543187|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.634
84543188|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex III (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.919
84543189|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III||||0.574
84543190|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex IV (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.295
84543191|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.097
84543192|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV||||0.468
84543193|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V||||0.589
84543194|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.196
84543195|NCT02892331|168838639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex V (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.436
84543196|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of general health subscale (CON vs. HIGH INT)||||0.756
84543197|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.115
84543198|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.225
84543199|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health Sub-scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.758
84543200|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.759
84543201|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.465
84543202|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.549
84543203|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.679
84543204|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.334
84543205|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.273
84543206|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.642
84543207|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.520
84543208|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.460
84543209|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality sub-scale (CON vs. MOD-INT group)||||0.203
84543210|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.058
84543211|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.739
84543212|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.059
84543213|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function sub-scale (HIGH-INT vs. MOD-INT)||||0.0380
84543214|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of mental health subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.950
84543215|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (CON Vs. MOD INT)||||0.096
84543216|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.127
84543217|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs HIGH-INT)||||0.373
84543218|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional sub-scale||||0.630
84736003|NCT00667459|169224717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.273
84736004|NCT00667459|169224718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.058|-0.018|1.0
84736005|NCT00667459|169224718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.845||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.845
84736006|NCT00667459|169224719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.047||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.113|0.936
84736007|NCT00667459|169224720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.190|0.020|1.0
84736008|NCT00667459|169224720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.992
84736009|NCT00667459|169224722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.013
84736010|NCT00667459|169224723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.769||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.769
84736011|NCT00667459|169224724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.273
84483488|NCT00565812|168718275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.26|0.117
84483489|NCT00565812|168718276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-0.32|0.133
84543219|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (MOD vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
84543220|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.070
84543221|NCT02892331|168838640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health sub-scale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.945
84543222|NCT02892331|168838641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in the mental health sum scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.650
84543223|NCT02892331|168838641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health (sum) subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
84543224|NCT02892331|168838641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum)||||0.330
84736012|NCT00581893|169224745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.50
84736013|NCT00656201|169224747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was an equivalence comparison. The study was designed to detect a 14% pregnancy difference between the arms with 80% power and one interim analysis using O'Brien-Fleming parameters and an experiment-wise alpha level of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Crinone is the numerator and IM Progesterone is the denominator.|||1.8|0.8|<0.05
84736014|NCT01434680|169224754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons, MenC-CRM LIQ and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10 transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM LIQ to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.00|0.67|<0.05
84736015|NCT01434680|169224754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons,MenC-CRM ROS and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM ROS to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.41|0.92|<0.05
84736016|NCT01434680|169224755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, the two vaccine groups would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The secondary objective was to be assessed only if both primary objectives were met. Because of this, no adjustment for multiplicity was required. MenC-CRM liquid would be declared equivalent to MenC-CRM ROS if the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at approximately 28 days following vaccination was within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.89|0.58|<0.05
84736017|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.2|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=11602)||17.3|17.2|
84736018|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.8|17.0||||||IOP 1 year (n=4450)||17.0|16.8|
84736019|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||||95.0|17.1|17.5||||||IOP 1 year (n=357)||17.5|17.1|
84736020|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.4|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=220)||17.3|16.4|
84483490|NCT00565812|168718276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.82|-0.93|0.524
84483491|NCT00565812|168718276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-1.27|0.743
84543225|NCT02892331|168838641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum) subscale||||0.297
84543226|NCT02892331|168838642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.109
84543227|NCT02892331|168838642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.099
84736021|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||||95.0|17.5|17.8||||||IOP 1 year (n=3277)||17.8|17.5|
84736022|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.0|17.1||||||IOP 2 years (n=8051)||17.1|17.0|
84736023|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.7|16.9||||||IOP 2 years (n=2808)||16.9|16.7|
84736024|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||||95.0|17.0|17.5||||||IOP 2 years (n=175)||17.5|17.0|
84736025|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=83)||17.2|15.9|
84736026|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||||95.0|16.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=2002)||17.2|16.9|
84736027|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|16.9|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=5469)||17.1|16.9|
84736028|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.7|17.0||||||IOP 3 years (n=1932)||17.0|16.7|
84736029|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||||95.0|16.9|18.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=64)||18.1|16.9|
84736030|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.7|17.4||||||IOP 3 years (n=44)||17.4|15.7|
84736031|NCT01012245|169224757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||||95.0|16.7|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=1251)||17.1|16.7|
84543228|NCT02892331|168838642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.947
84543229|NCT02654054|168838666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.002|140.227||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||140.227|23.002|< 0.001
84736032|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=11966)||0.47|0.46|
84736033|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=4944)||0.44|0.43|
84736034|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.35|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=88)||0.43|0.35|
84736035|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=241)||0.53|0.47|
84736036|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=2949)||0.52|0.50|
84736037|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=8783)||0.47|0.46|
84736038|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=3396)||0.44|0.42|
84736039|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||||95.0|0.33|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.33|
84736040|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.54||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=95)||0.54|0.44|
84736041|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=1934)||0.53|0.50|
84736042|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=6344)||0.45|0.44|
84736043|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.41|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=2372)||0.43|0.41|
84736044|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||||95.0|0.27|0.39||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.39|0.27|
84736045|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||||95.0|0.41|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=36)||0.53|0.41|
84736046|NCT01012245|169224759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.48|0.51||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=1283)||0.51|0.48|
84736047|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.46||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=11433)||0.46|0.45|
84736048|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.43||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=4810)||0.43|0.42|
84736049|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.33|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=87)||0.42|0.33|
84736050|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=232)||0.53|0.47|
84736051|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=2703)||0.52|0.50|
84736052|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=8427)||0.45|0.44|
84736053|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.4|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=3276)||0.42|0.40|
84736054|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.31|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.31|
84736055|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.56||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=92)||0.56|0.45|
84736056|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.49|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=1812)||0.52|0.49|
84736057|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=6102)||0.44|0.43|
84736058|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.39|0.41||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=2289)||0.41|0.39|
84736059|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||||95.0|0.25|0.38||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.38|0.25|
84736060|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||||95.0|0.42|0.57||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=35)||0.57|0.42|
84736061|NCT01012245|169224760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.47|0.5||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=1204)||0.50|0.47|
84736062|NCT01515943|169224786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|11.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Biniomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Negative values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-PU group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-PU groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 15% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||11|-19|0.56
84736063|NCT01515943|169224787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|22.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Binomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Positive values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-C group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-P groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 10% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||22|-12|0.52
84736064|NCT01515943|169224793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|17.0|||Bernard's exact test|A p-value was not reported in the manuscript results, but has been included here, reported directly from the analysis.||For the HB-C group, the association between completion of the computer vergence/accommodative therapy (CVAT) program (defined as achieving at least 15 stars for the jump vergence exercise) and overall success at 12 weeks was evaluated using Bernard's exact test.||17|-27|<0.01
84736065|NCT05224843|169224806|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.8||||||||88.8|73.7|
84736066|NCT05224843|169224807|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||||100|95.4|
84736067|NCT05224843|169224809|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.4||||||||15.4|3.5|
84736068|NCT05224843|169224811|OTHER||Percentage who changed after BNI|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|69.9||||||||69.9|4.6|
84736069|NCT05224843|169224812|OTHER||Percentage reported APS from EM positive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|62.4||||||||62.4|3.6|
84736070|NCT01245140|169224820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5731||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9738|32.12|||ANCOVA|||||32.1200|-30.9738|0.9705
84736071|NCT01245140|169224821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4564||95.0||||PPPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4564
84736072|NCT01245140|169224821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6595||95.0||||PPPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6595
84736073|NCT01245140|169224823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||Change in Total Pustule Count: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.51
84736074|NCT01245140|169224824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Relative change in mPASI score: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.12
84736075|NCT01245140|169224825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared estimation|49.4927||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.083|148.07|||ANCOVA|||||148.07|-49.0830|0.2358
84483492|NCT00565812|168718276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.73|0.310
84483493|NCT00565812|168718277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.38|-0.04|0.058
84736076|NCT01245140|169224826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
84736077|NCT01245140|169224826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
84736078|NCT03178344|169224896|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.7||||||P value threshold is 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.70
84736079|NCT03178344|169224897|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.71||||||P value threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.71
84736080|NCT00443209|169224915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.6|||Miettenen and Nurminen method||Treatment Difference was compared using the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method.|||-2.6|-10.4|<0.001
84736081|NCT00443209|169224916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||1.4|-11.7|
84736082|NCT00443209|169224917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||2.0|-2.0|
84736083|NCT00443209|169224919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||Based on mixed logistic regression model with a fixed effect term for treatment, baseline pain severity and a random effect term for participant, with the random effect following a normal distribution. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of telcagepant.|||0.75|0.45|
84736084|NCT00825305|169224955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 14 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/Essen) on day 14|||0.4|-0.81|
84736085|NCT00825305|169224956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 7 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day7)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.35|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 means (Zagreb/Essen) on day 7|||0.35|-0.77|
84736086|NCT00825305|169224956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 42 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day 42)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.58|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/(Essen) on day 42|||0.58|-0.72|
84736087|NCT03617289|169224959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.771
84736088|NCT03617289|169224960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046||||||Threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.046
84736089|NCT00763451|169224981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|-0.232||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.232|-0.583|<0.0001
84483494|NCT00565812|168718277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-0.44|0.213
84543230|NCT02654054|168838666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.466|50.451||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||50.451|10.466|< 0.001
84736090|NCT00763451|169224981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.317||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.317|-0.670|<0.0001
84483495|NCT00565812|168718277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.33|0.143
84483496|NCT00565812|168718277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.81|-0.80|0.450
84483497|NCT00565812|168718278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-1.19|0.701
84483498|NCT00565812|168718278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-0.84|0.764
84483499|NCT00565812|168718278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.43|-1.80|0.228
84483500|NCT00565812|168718278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.74|-1.47|0.514
84483501|NCT00565812|168718279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.65|0.19|0.023
84483502|NCT00565812|168718279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.75|-0.68|0.391
84543231|NCT02654054|168838667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-222.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84543232|NCT02654054|168838667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-177.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84543233|NCT02654054|168838668|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|79.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.13|88.16||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||88.16|71.13|< 0.001
84543234|NCT02654054|168838668|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.11|60.76||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||60.76|44.11|< 0.001
84736091|NCT05594589|169224997|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.377||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg/Placebo.|||0.810|0.175|0.0133
84736092|NCT05594589|169224998|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.48||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|1.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg/Placebo.|||1.038|0.222|0.0619
84736093|NCT05594589|169224999|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|7.38||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|15.35|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg - Placebo.|||15.35|-0.59|0.0689
84736094|NCT05594589|169225000|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.16||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|16.09|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg - Placebo.|||16.09|0.23|0.0439
84736095|NCT02554383|169225015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (2).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and pathogens in the nasopharynx.||||0.02
84736096|NCT02554383|169225015|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.51|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-1.51|-2.40|
84736097|NCT02554383|169225015|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.12|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-0.12|-1.63|
84736098|NCT02554383|169225016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (1).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and colored nasal discharge.||||0.37
84736099|NCT02554383|169225016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.16|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.16|-2.09|
84736100|NCT02554383|169225016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.03|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.03|-2.38|
84483503|NCT00565812|168718279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-0.34|0.142
84483504|NCT00565812|168718279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-0.47|0.204
84483505|NCT00565812|168718286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.952||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio (OR), 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.756|0.516|0.875
84736101|NCT02554383|169225017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||||0.003
84736102|NCT02554383|169225018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children developing AOM over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||.007
84736103|NCT02554383|169225019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children receiving a systemic antibiotic over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||<0.001
84736104|NCT02554383|169225020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children for whom diarrhea or generalized rash was reported.||||0.004
84736105|NCT02554383|169225021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children compliant with study product.||||0.75
84736106|NCT02554383|169225022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children with a nonsusceptible pathogen at the follow-up visit.||||0.63
84736107|NCT01536197|169225030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVAs with group (gastric bypass and lap banding) as the between-subjects factor and time (before after surgery).||||||0.19
84736108|NCT00715117|169225032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84736109|NCT00715117|169225032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84736110|NCT00715117|169225033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bowel symptoms||||>0.05
84736111|NCT00715117|169225033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social well-being||||0.035
84736112|NCT00715117|169225033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional well-being||||>0.05
84483506|NCT00565812|168718286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.273||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|2.247|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.247|0.721|0.406
84483507|NCT00565812|168718286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.787||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.384|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.384|0.448|0.406
84543235|NCT02654054|168838669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84736113|NCT00715117|169225033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Systemic symptoms|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84736114|NCT00715117|169225033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Image||||>0.05
84483508|NCT00565812|168718286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.942|0.685|0.591
84543236|NCT02654054|168838669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-192.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84736115|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sleep disturbance||||1.0
84736116|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Unusual dreams||||0.45
84736117|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Twitching||||1.0
84736118|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headaches||||1.0
84736119|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Decreased appetite||||1.0
84736120|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Nausea||||1.0
84736121|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hair loss||||1.0
84736122|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||1.0
84736123|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flushed ears||||1.0
84736124|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Papules, rash||||1.0
84736125|NCT00715117|169225034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Double vision||||1.0
84736126|NCT01999777|169225035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||Wald asymptotic|P-value based on a standard Wald asymptotic test for equality without a continuity correction.||Assumptions included that the proportion of seizures occurring within 6 hours after placebo administration was \~65% and a relative reduction of 50% would result in a reduction of ≥ 32.5 percentage points. Based on a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences in proportions, a sample size of 62 analyzable subjects was chosen to detect a 0.35 difference between group. Sample size estimations were based on nQuery Version 7.0 using the table for CIs for differences in 2 proportions.||||0.1972
84736127|NCT01999777|169225036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1388|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1388
84736128|NCT01527162|169225057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84736129|NCT01527162|169225058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.14
84736130|NCT01527162|169225059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon Sign Rank TEst||||>.54
84736131|NCT01527162|169225059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.20
84736132|NCT01310699|169225061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84736133|NCT01310699|169225062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84736134|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.52|0.65|
84736135|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.98||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.98|1.5|
84736136|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.06|0.43|
84483509|NCT00565812|168718287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.160|0.428|0.168
84483510|NCT00565812|168718287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.423|0.560|0.634
84483511|NCT00565812|168718287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.955|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.955|0.356|0.032
84483512|NCT00565812|168718287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.227|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.227|0.489|0.276
84483513|NCT00565812|168718288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.14|-0.21|0.709
84483514|NCT00565812|168718288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.20|-0.15|0.798
84483515|NCT00565812|168718289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.337|0.797|0.810
84483516|NCT00565812|168718289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.383|0.824|0.620
84483517|NCT00565812|168718290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.745||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.997|0.557|0.047
84483518|NCT00565812|168718290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.864||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.150|0.650|0.317
84483519|NCT00565812|168718291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.806|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.806|0.602|0.881
84483520|NCT00565812|168718291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|2.009|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.009|0.701|0.525
84543237|NCT02654054|168838670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-240.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84483521|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.96|-1.50|0.668
84483522|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.85|-0.61|0.326
84483523|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.679
84483524|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.14|0.57|0.005
84483525|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-0.80|0.399
84483526|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.92|1.12|<0.001
84483527|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.08|0.668
84483528|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.13|0.39|0.012
84483529|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.67|-0.27|0.109
84483530|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-0.42|0.163
84483531|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.85|-2.02|0.424
84483532|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.07|0.635
84483533|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-1.34|0.855
84483534|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|0.38|0.013
84483535|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.73|-2.44|0.292
84483536|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.47|0.897
84483537|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.92|-2.36|0.390
84483538|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.99|-1.26|0.659
84483539|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-1.73|0.847
84483540|NCT00565812|168718295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.79|0.333
84483541|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.31|0.238
84483542|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.91|-0.72|0.815
84483543|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.10|-0.54|0.508
84483544|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|0.38|0.004
84483545|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.70|-1.07|0.683
84483546|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|0.33|0.007
84483547|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.07|-0.71|0.687
84483548|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-0.00|0.050
84543238|NCT02654054|168838670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-198.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84483549|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-0.35|0.215
84483550|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.89|0.03|0.042
84483551|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.41|0.401
84543239|NCT02654054|168838671|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|69.18||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||69.18|30.27|< 0.001
84543240|NCT02654054|168838671|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|63.92||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||63.92|26.90|< 0.001
84543241|NCT02654054|168838672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-190.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84543242|NCT02654054|168838672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-116.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84543243|NCT02490631|168838675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.456
84543244|NCT02490631|168838676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.019
84543245|NCT03832686|168838692|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.86
84543246|NCT03832686|168838693|OTHER|||||||0.69||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.69
84543247|NCT03832686|168838694|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Eating in Public Score||||0.47
84543248|NCT03832686|168838694|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Normalcy of Diet score||||0.73
84543249|NCT03832686|168838695|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Oral score||||0.65
84543250|NCT03832686|168838695|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Pharyngeal score||||0.24
84543251|NCT03832686|168838696|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.53
84543252|NCT03832686|168838697|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.50
84543253|NCT05479435|168838711|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.830
84543254|NCT05479435|168838712|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.654
84543255|NCT05479435|168838713|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
84543256|NCT05479435|168838714|OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.398
84543257|NCT05479435|168838715|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
84543258|NCT05479435|168838716|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.991
84543259|NCT05479435|168838717|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
84543260|NCT05479435|168838718|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.479
84543261|NCT05479435|168838719|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.849
84543262|NCT05479435|168838720|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.504
84543263|NCT05479435|168838721|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84543264|NCT05479435|168838722|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
84543265|NCT05479435|168838723|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84543266|NCT05479435|168838724|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
84543267|NCT05479435|168838725|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.352
84543268|NCT05479435|168838726|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.390
84543269|NCT05479435|168838727|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.928
84543270|NCT05479435|168838728|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.558
84543271|NCT05479435|168838729|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.133
84543272|NCT05479435|168838730|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.367
84543273|NCT05479435|168838731|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
84543274|NCT05479435|168838732|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
84543275|NCT05479435|168838733|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
84543276|NCT05479435|168838734|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.377
84543277|NCT05479435|168838735|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
84543278|NCT05479435|168838736|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.055
84543279|NCT04199104|168838751|SUPERIORITY||point estimate|19.3||||1.9e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||27.3|11.2|0.0000019
84543280|NCT04199104|168838752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0001129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.55|0.0001129
84543281|NCT04199104|168838753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8819584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.91|0.8819584
84543282|NCT05120193|168838757|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.05. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the upper 95% confidence bound for the difference (QI - QC) between the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the investigational arm (QI) and the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the control arm (QC). If the upper confidence bound is less than 0.08, the study is considered to have demonstrated safety of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.037|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) for the primary safety analysis is that the true rate of primary safety events for the investigational device (QI) is equal to or greater than the true rate for the control device (QC) plus a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 0.08. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the rate of primary safety events for the investigational arm (QI) is less than the rate of primary safety events for the control arm (QC) plus the NIM of 0.08.~H0: QI ≥ QC + 0.08 HA: QI \< QC + 0.08"||0.037|-0.028|<0.0001
84543283|NCT05120193|168838758|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary effectiveness analysis (PSE) is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.025. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the lower 97.5% confidence bound for the difference (PI - PC) between the rate of the PSE in the investigational arm (PI) and the rate of the PSE in the control arm (PC). If the lower confidence bound is greater than -0.15, the study is considered to have demonstrated effectiveness of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.168|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the true rate of primary effectiveness endpoint success (no failures through Day 360) for the investigational device (PI) is less than or equal to the true rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the success rate for the investigational arm (PI) is greater than the success rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15.~H0: PI ≤ PC - 0.15 HA: PI \> PC - 0.15"||0.168|-0.009|0.025
84667902|NCT05760300|169070710|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|66.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.3|120.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||120|37.3|
84736137|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.87|0.58|
84736138|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.08|0.92|
84543284|NCT05120193|168838759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-26.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean total energy application time during the ablation procedure for the investigational device (ETI) is greater than or equal to the mean time for the control device (ETC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean total energy application time for the investigational device is less.~H0: ETI ≥ ETC versus HA: ETI \< ETC"||-26.8|-31.7|<0.0001
84543285|NCT05120193|168838760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device (TTI) is greater than or equal to the mean treatment time for the control device (TTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device is less.~H0: TTI ≥ TTC versus HA: TTI \< TTC"||-21.4|-32.2|<0.0001
84543286|NCT05120193|168838761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device (PTI) is greater than or equal to the mean procedure time for the control device (PTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device is less.~H0: PTI ≥ PTC versus HA: PTI \< PTC"||-17.3|-33.0|0.025
84543287|NCT02513160|168838812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|213.2||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||213.2|86.8|<0.0001
84543288|NCT02513160|168838812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.7|206.6||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||206.6|80.7|<0.0001
84543289|NCT02513160|168838812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|148.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.7|211.4||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05. The p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means and 95% CI represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|||211.4|84.7|<0.0001
84736139|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||1.01|0.6|
84736140|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.96||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.96|0.83|
84543290|NCT02513160|168838813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|33.71||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo 2) the am PEF for BAI 320 mcg/day vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||33.71|10.11|0.0003
84543291|NCT02513160|168838813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|41.9||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in previous analysis.||41.90|18.33|<0.0001
84543292|NCT02513160|168838813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|32.83||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||32.83|9.14|0.0006
84543293|NCT02513160|168838814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|143.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|214.1||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||214.1|71.7|<0.0001
84543294|NCT02513160|168838814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|170.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|240.5||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||240.5|98.5|<0.0001
84483552|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.99|-0.96|0.980
84483553|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.25|0.632
84483554|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.07|0.09|0.032
84483555|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-1.29|0.668
84483556|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|0.06|0.038
84483557|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.95|-1.13|0.868
84483558|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-0.43|0.257
84483559|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-1.00|0.895
84483560|NCT00565812|168718296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.67|-0.46|0.268
84483561|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.82|-0.92|0.908
84483562|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
84483563|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.54|-1.25|0.440
84543295|NCT02513160|168838814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|133.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|204.3||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||204.3|61.3|0.0003
84543296|NCT02513160|168838815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.64||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.640|-1.408|<0.0001
84543297|NCT02513160|168838815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|-0.717||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.717|-1.482|<0.0001
84483564|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.22|-1.57|0.140
84736141|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.28|1.13|
84736142|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||0.81|0.33|
84543298|NCT02513160|168838815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.643||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.643|-1.415|<0.0001
84543299|NCT02513160|168838816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.203||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.203|-0.440|<0.0001
84543300|NCT02513160|168838816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|-0.128||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.128|-0.365|<0.0001
84543301|NCT02513160|168838816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.185||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.185|-0.423|<0.0001
84543302|NCT02513160|168838817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0058
84543303|NCT02513160|168838817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
84543304|NCT02513160|168838817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0062
84543305|NCT04796909|168838825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543306|NCT04796909|168838826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543307|NCT04796909|168838827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543308|NCT04796909|168838828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543309|NCT04796909|168838829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543310|NCT04796909|168838830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543311|NCT04796909|168838831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84543312|NCT04796909|168838832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84543313|NCT04796909|168838833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84543314|NCT04796909|168838834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84543315|NCT03985800|168838851|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.26||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.26 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD complexity score does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
84543316|NCT03985800|168838851|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.14||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.14 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.57
84543317|NCT03985800|168838851|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.08||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 0.08 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.96
84543318|NCT03985800|168838851|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.41||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 6.41 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.17
84667903|NCT05760300|169070710|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.5|
84736143|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.78|0.52|
84736144|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.04|0.89|
84736145|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.84|0.49|
84736146|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.58|0.66|
84736147|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.3|1.14|
84736148|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.17|0.47|
84736149|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.57|0.38|
84736150|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.02|0.87|
84736151|NCT02035696|169225066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.75|0.44|
84736152|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||18.9|0|
84736153|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||8|-4|
84736154|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-1.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1.5|-21.1|
84736155|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||16.8|-2.5|
84736156|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||4.1|-9.5|
84736157|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-1.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1|-20.5|
84736158|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.4||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||15.4|-4.2|
84543319|NCT03985800|168838851|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|2.6||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 2.6 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.27
84543320|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.21||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.21 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 1. The trajectory of PHQ-ADS does not differ by treatment group.||||0.90
84543321|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.21||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 2a, moderation by disease activity. Null hypothesis: Disease activity does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.55
84543322|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.37||||0.5||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.37 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.50
84543323|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.16||||0.08||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 5.16 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.08
84543324|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.11||||1||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 0.11 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||1.0
84543325|NCT03985800|168838852|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.23||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*eHealth literacy interaction term is 3.23 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.20
84736159|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.3|-13.4|
84543326|NCT03985800|168838853|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.09||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 3.09 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of functional impairment does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
84543327|NCT03985800|168838854|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.01||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 6.01 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD-IBS symptom severity does not differ by treatment group.||||0.05
84483565|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-0.58|0.474
84483566|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-1.32|0.376
84483567|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-0.32|0.186
84483568|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.63|0.185
84483569|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-1.53|0.334
84483570|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.02|-2.00|0.055
84483571|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-1.38|0.539
84483572|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.22|-2.30|0.018
84483573|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.52|0.365
84483574|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.59|-1.47|0.403
84483575|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.21|-2.43|0.020
84483576|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.77|-2.98|<0.001
84483577|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-1.66|0.269
84497136|NCT02050373|168745392|OTHER|For the comparison between the LLLT and control groups the Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used, at three different times (AD, D7, HD), to analyze the oral mucositis severity in the comparison between the LLLT and control groups. Statistical analysis was not performed for each grade of oral mucositis separately.||||<0.05
84667904|NCT05760300|169070710|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.4|100.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||100|49.4|
84543328|NCT03985800|168838855|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|4.14||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For hospitalizations, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 4.14 with two degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of hospitalizations does not differ by treatment group.||||0.13
84543329|NCT03985800|168838855|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.82||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For ED visits, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.82 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of ED visits does not differ by treatment group.||||0.67
84543330|NCT03985800|168838856|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.98||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.98 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of self-efficacy does not differ by treatment group.||||0.37
84543331|NCT03985800|168838857|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.57||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 5.57 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of quality of life does not differ by treatment group.||||0.06
84543332|NCT05258773|168838867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-11.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.9||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||3.9|-25.9|0.1406
84543333|NCT05258773|168838867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-14.4||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|0.45||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||0.45|-29.24|0.0567
84543334|NCT05258773|168838867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-9.0||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.1||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at EOS on Day 105 comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||7.1|-25.0|0.2588
84543335|NCT05258773|168838867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-13.84||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|2.8||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at EOS on Day 105, comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||2.80|-30.49|0.0979
84543336|NCT04231825|168838947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84543337|NCT04231825|168838948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
84543338|NCT04231825|168838949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
84543339|NCT04231825|168838950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84543340|NCT04231825|168838951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84543341|NCT01662635|168838952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were summarized as arithmetic means, medians and standard deviations; and categorical variables were reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Inferential comparisons were performed using Student's t test. The x2 or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess significance among categorical variables.||||< 0.05
84543342|NCT03861390|168838953|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84543343|NCT03861390|168838954|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84543344|NCT03861390|168838955|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.70
84543345|NCT03861390|168838955|OTHER|||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.37
84543346|NCT03861390|168838956|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.77
84543347|NCT03861390|168838956|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.48
84543348|NCT03861390|168838957|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.96
84543349|NCT03861390|168838957|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.91
84543350|NCT03861390|168838958|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
84543351|NCT03861390|168838958|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
84543352|NCT03861390|168838959|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.82
84543353|NCT03861390|168838959|OTHER|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.99
84543354|NCT03861390|168838960|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
84543355|NCT03861390|168838960|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.84
84736160|NCT02035696|169225067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-7.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-7.2|-27.8|
84736161|NCT02035696|169225068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
84736162|NCT02035696|169225068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
84483578|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-1.92|0.104
84483579|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.06|-2.30|0.038
84483580|NCT00565812|168718297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.28|0.041
84483581|NCT02667392|168718298|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84483582|NCT02667392|168718299|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84483583|NCT02667392|168718300|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84483584|NCT02667392|168718301|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84736163|NCT02035696|169225068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
84483585|NCT02667392|168718302|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84483586|NCT02667392|168718303|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84483587|NCT02667392|168718304|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84483588|NCT02667392|168718305|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.0089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0089
84483589|NCT02667392|168718306|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84483590|NCT02667392|168718307|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84483591|NCT02667392|168718308|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84543356|NCT03861390|168838961|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.49
84543357|NCT03861390|168838961|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.52
84543358|NCT03588910|168838963|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.87
84543359|NCT03588910|168838964|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
84543360|NCT03588910|168838965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.91
84543361|NCT03588910|168838966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
84543362|NCT03588910|168838967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.36
84543363|NCT02547428|168838968|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.1|||ANCOVA||Sample size of 60 participants (30 per treatment sequence) was needed to provide minimum 85% power to detect 5 point difference between treatments at a 2-sided significance level of 5% using a paired t-test.|Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR and placebo. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included terms for period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects, and Baseline score as a covariate, and a participate-within-sequence term as a random effect.||-5.1|-11.0|<0.001
84543364|NCT02547428|168838969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR 400 mg/day and placebo.||-3.6|-10.7|<0.001
84736164|NCT01867047|169225089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for intraoperative mild hypotension||||0.140
84736165|NCT01867047|169225089|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for postoperative mild hypotension||||1.000
84483592|NCT04857892|168718321|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9335|1.126|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.126|0.9335|
84483593|NCT04857892|168718321|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9693|1.185|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.185|0.9693|
84483594|NCT04857892|168718322|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9918|1.278|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.278|0.9918|
84483595|NCT04857892|168718322|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9278|1.201|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.201|0.9278|
84483596|NCT04857892|168718323|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9209|1.166|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.166|0.9209|
84543365|NCT06192589|168838996|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.52||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.52|1.34|<0.01
84543366|NCT06192589|168838997|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.06|<0.01
84543367|NCT06192589|168838998|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.16|0.96|0.34
84736166|NCT01867047|169225091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for number of participants given vasopressors intraoperatively||||0.102
84483597|NCT04857892|168718323|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9049|1.151|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.151|0.9049|
84483598|NCT04857892|168718324|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.067|1.195|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.195|1.067|
84483599|NCT04857892|168718324|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.178|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.178|1.050|
84483600|NCT04857892|168718325|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.267|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.267|1.070|
84483601|NCT04857892|168718325|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9975|1.184|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.184|0.9975|
84483602|NCT04857892|168718326|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.036|1.122|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.122|1.036|
84483603|NCT04857892|168718326|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9914|1.075|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.075|0.9914|
84483604|NCT04857892|168718327|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.135|3.427|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||3.427|2.135|
84543368|NCT06192589|168838998|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.26|1.00|0.10
84543369|NCT06192589|168838999|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.35|1.05|0.02
84543370|NCT06192589|168838999|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.30|0.94|0.29
84543371|NCT06192589|168839006|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.05|0.98|0.47
84543372|NCT06192589|168839006|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.03|0.96|0.73
84543373|NCT06192589|168839007|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.03|0.03
84543374|NCT06192589|168839007|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.06|0.91|0.66
84543375|NCT06192589|168839008|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.18|0.99|0.13
84543376|NCT06192589|168839008|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.36|1.17|<0.01
84543377|NCT06192589|168839009|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.00|0.12
84736167|NCT01867047|169225094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.700
84543378|NCT06192589|168839009|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.01|0.07
84543379|NCT03664232|168839010|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed effects model for repeatedmeasures|||||0.07|-0.17|=0.284
84543380|NCT03664232|168839011|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.18|=0.290
84543381|NCT03664232|168839012|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.06|||MMRM|||||0.06|-0.21|=0.231
84543382|NCT02502149|168839045|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.24|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.24|0.93|
84543383|NCT02502149|168839046|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.16|0.87|
84736168|NCT01867047|169225095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.702
84736169|NCT01375751|169225144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-36.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-36.09|-51.56|<0.001
84736170|NCT01375751|169225144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-48.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-48.67|-64.06|<0.001
84736171|NCT01375751|169225145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.4|-79.6|<0.001
84543384|NCT01062425|168839128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||One-sided test with significance level of 0.15.|Z-test|||The null hypothesis was that the 6m PFS rates for both arms are 50%, and the alternative hypothesis was that patients receiving the experimental regimen would have a 6-month PFS rate of 66%. With 150 eligible patients, there would be an 80% statistical power to detect the 16% absolute increase in 6m PFS at a significance level of 0.15, using a one-sided Z test for two proportions.||||0.005
84543385|NCT01062425|168839129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.24||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||1.24|0.6|0.44
84543386|NCT01062425|168839129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is reference level for the hazard ratio.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and RPA risk class.||1.34|0.62|0.648
84543387|NCT01062425|168839130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||0.95|0.47|0.03
84543388|NCT01062425|168839130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference arm.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for progression-free survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) risk class.||0.97|0.46|0.036
84543389|NCT01062425|168839131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84543390|NCT01651117|168839148|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed methods ANCOVA with patient random effects, to compare change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months between treatment and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.0154||Subject random effect included because same model was used for analyses of 2 separate follow up periods (baseline to 6 month, and baseline to 12 month, reported separately).|Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple imputation used for intent-to-treat analysis.|Negative parameter estimate means decrease in HbA1c was greater for treatment group than for control group.|||0.0154|-0.6690|0.0611
84736172|NCT01375751|169225145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.8|-70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-70.7|-98.8|<0.001
84543391|NCT01641640|168839186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Superiority would be demonstrated if the SVR12 rate was higher than the 60% null SVR rate based on historical control data.||||< 0.001
84543392|NCT01234350|168839195|OTHER||IRR|0.829||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.283||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% confidence interval (CI), and incidence rate ratio (IRRs) with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|The IRs were estimated using a Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.283|0.536|0.4007
84543393|NCT01234350|168839196|OTHER||IRR|0.874||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.626||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For osteoporosis and osteopenia events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.626|0.470|0.6710
84543394|NCT01234350|168839196|OTHER||IRR|1.857||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|9.403||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For bone fracture events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||9.403|0.367|0.4544
84603332|NCT02499900|168957462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0734|2.0348||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Depression subscale estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||2.0348|-1.0734|0.544
84736173|NCT01375751|169225146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.32|-34.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.26|-49.32|<0.001
84736174|NCT01375751|169225146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.95|-45.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.97|-60.95|<0.001
84543395|NCT01234350|168839197|OTHER||IRR|1.193||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.613||Poisson mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and history of diabetes mellitus along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For glucose intolerance. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.613|0.882|0.2529
84543396|NCT01234350|168839197|OTHER||IRR|2.623||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|5.944||Poisson-mixture regression is used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual trial exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For T2DM. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||5.944|1.158|0.0208
84543397|NCT01234350|168839204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.747||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.038||A logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group on the time to event for all-cause mortality.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group.||The analyses of all-cause mortality was based on logistic regressions.||1.038|0.537|0.0821
84543398|NCT00289848|168839205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|<|0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline A1C as a covariate||||-0.83|-1.23|<0.001
84543399|NCT00289848|168839206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8|<|0.001||95.0|-38.4|-23.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-23.7|-38.4|<0.001
84543400|NCT00289848|168839207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.2|<|0.001||95.0|-68.8|-44.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline 2-hr PMG as a covariate||||-44.3|-68.8|<0.001
84736175|NCT01375751|169225147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.77|-27.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.74|-41.77|<0.001
84736176|NCT01375751|169225147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-39.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.23|-53.18|<0.001
84736177|NCT01375751|169225148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-29.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placbo is the reference|||-29.32|-44.01|<0.001
84543401|NCT02792517|168839209|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.22|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.22|0.88|
84543402|NCT02792517|168839210|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.14|0.91|
84543403|NCT02792517|168839211|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.16|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.16|0.97|
84543404|NCT02792517|168839212|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.10|0.96|
84543405|NCT02792517|168839213|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.23|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.23|0.90|
84543406|NCT02792517|168839214|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.12|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.12|0.94|
84543407|NCT02069015|168839281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.781|6.906|||paired t-test|||||6.906|-4.781|<0.001
84543408|NCT03335475|168839288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84543409|NCT03335475|168839289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
84543410|NCT03335475|168839290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84736178|NCT01375751|169225148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-37.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.70|-52.32|<0.001
84736179|NCT01375751|169225149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-27.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.11|-40.72|<0.001
84736180|NCT01375751|169225149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.41|-37.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.86|-51.41|<0.001
84736181|NCT02980523|169225150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84736182|NCT02980523|169225151|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.372|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.372
84736183|NCT02980523|169225152|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.341|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.341
84736184|NCT02980523|169225153|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.001
84736185|NCT02980523|169225154|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
84736186|NCT02980523|169225155|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.216
84736187|NCT02980523|169225156|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.829
84736188|NCT02552147|169225166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||.44
84736189|NCT02552147|169225167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.38
84736190|NCT02552147|169225171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
84736191|NCT02552147|169225172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
84736192|NCT02552147|169225173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.50
84736193|NCT02552147|169225174|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value was calculated to \>0.99 and thus rounded to 1.0.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||1.0
84736194|NCT02552147|169225175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.25
84736195|NCT02552147|169225176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.69
84736196|NCT02229227|169225187|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than or equal to 0.3%, non-inferiority will be concluded.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||Non-inferiority p-value. P-value from testing the null hypothesis that the difference in change from baseline least squares means (albiglutide-insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean of albiglutide + insulin glargine from insulin lispro + insulin glargine has been presented.|||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
84736197|NCT02229227|169225189|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||0.60|0.31|<0.0001
84736198|NCT02229227|169225190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
84736199|NCT02229227|169225191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 4 has been presented.|Week 4||-1.00|-1.43|
84736200|NCT02229227|169225191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.55|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 5 has been presented.|Week 5||-1.55|-2.05|
84736201|NCT02229227|169225191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.82|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 10 has been presented.|Week 10||-2.82|-3.51|
84736202|NCT02229227|169225191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-3.54|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 18 has been presented.|Week 18||-3.54|-4.48|
84736203|NCT02229227|169225191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 26 has been presented.|Week 26||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
84736204|NCT02229227|169225192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-55.10|-66.57|<0.0001
84736205|NCT02229227|169225193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
84736206|NCT02229227|169225193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||-0.02|-0.15|<0.0001
84736207|NCT02229227|169225193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.17|-0.01|<0.0001
84736208|NCT02229227|169225193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||0.21|0.01|<0.0001
84736209|NCT02229227|169225193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
84736210|NCT02229227|169225194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
84736211|NCT02229227|169225195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.24|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.24|-0.84|
84736212|NCT02229227|169225195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||0.13|-0.51|
84736213|NCT02229227|169225195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.22|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-0.22|-0.85|
84736214|NCT02229227|169225195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
84736215|NCT02229227|169225196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.31|0.71|0.7026
84736216|NCT02229227|169225197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4|Week 4||1.64|0.84|0.2883
84736217|NCT02229227|169225197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.15|0.59|0.3034
84736218|NCT02229227|169225197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.98|0.52|0.0151
84736219|NCT02229227|169225197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.03|0.54|0.0518
84736220|NCT02229227|169225197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.31|0.71|0.7026
84736221|NCT02229227|169225198|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.17|0.63|0.2298
84736222|NCT02229227|169225199|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.23||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||2.23|0.78|0.2143
84736223|NCT02229227|169225199|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.91|0.80|0.4703
84736224|NCT02229227|169225199|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.14||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||1.14|0.58|0.2139
84543411|NCT05921903|168839300|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.48|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 2.||5.48|2.26|
84483605|NCT04857892|168718328|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.527|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||3.527|2.160|
84543412|NCT05921903|168839300|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.04|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 3.||2.04|1.28|
84543413|NCT05921903|168839301|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.69|0.94|
84543414|NCT05921903|168839302|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.68|1.01|
84543415|NCT05921903|168839303|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.30|0.80|
84543416|NCT05921903|168839305|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.98|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 2.||4.98|2.28|
84543417|NCT05921903|168839305|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.13|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 3.||2.13|1.32|
84483606|NCT04857892|168718329|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.498|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.821|3.425|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||3.425|1.821|
84483607|NCT04857892|168718330|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.451|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||1.451|1.193|
84483608|NCT04857892|168718331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.452|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||1.452|1.193|
84543418|NCT05921903|168839306|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.70|0.97|
84543419|NCT05921903|168839307|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.65|1.00|
84543420|NCT05921903|168839308|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.26|0.80|
84603333|NCT02499900|168957462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.867||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3843|3.3487||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Behavioral Control subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||3.3487|0.3843|0.014
84483609|NCT04857892|168718332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.138|1.333|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.333|1.138|
84483610|NCT00655811|168718428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way anova was used to compare the mean COVAS values between groups.||||<0.05
84483611|NCT00655811|168718428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
84483612|NCT00655811|168718428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84483613|NCT00655811|168718428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
84483614|NCT00655811|168718429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84483615|NCT00655811|168718429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84483616|NCT00655811|168718429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84483617|NCT00655811|168718430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84483618|NCT00118404|168718434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.34|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.038, df = 1, p \<=.42|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|The sample size was based on a predicted 30% difference in relapse/recurrence rates between C-CT and fluoxetine (ie,30% vs 60%) across both the experimental phase and the first 12 months of follow-up. With these assumptions, 180 randomized patients (60 per cell) were required to detect a statistically significant difference using a log-rank test with 1-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power.||2.34|0.50|.42
84483619|NCT00118404|168718434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.92, df = 1|Hazard Ratio for relapse in fluoxetine group compared to that in the pill placebo group.|||1.01|.23|.02
84483620|NCT00118404|168718434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.06|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.391, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the placebo group.|||1.06|0.26|.03
84483621|NCT00118404|168718434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.93|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 5.06, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in active treatment group (fluoxetine or C-CT) compared to that in the placebo group.|||0.93|0.27|.01
84483622|NCT00118404|168718435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.002, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse/recurrence in the C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|||1.76|0.55|.48
84483623|NCT00118404|168718435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.31|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.19, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the Fluoxetine arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.31|.39|.14
84483624|NCT00118404|168718435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.262, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.29|.40|.13
84483625|NCT00118404|168718435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.2|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.595, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO (placebo)arm.|||1.20|.43|.10
84483626|NCT00118404|168718436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.84|||Log Rank|chi-square = .07, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence for C-CT arm compared to FLX arm was reported.|||1.84|.63|.40
84483627|NCT00118404|168718436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.407, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the FLX arm compared tp C-CT arm was reported.|||1.13|.37|.61
84483628|NCT00118404|168718436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.731, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm compared to PBO arm is reported.|||1.19|.41|.09
84483629|NCT00118404|168718436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.705, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO arm was reported.|||1.08|.42|.05
84483630|NCT03209362|168718440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.5453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-12.4|0.5453
84603334|NCT02499900|168957462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8565|1.6728||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MHI Positive Affect subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.6728|-1.8565|0.919
84736225|NCT02229227|169225199|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.11|0.59|0.0790
84736226|NCT02229227|169225199|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.17|0.63|0.2298
84736227|NCT02229227|169225200|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.77||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.77|0.24|0.8292
84736228|NCT02229227|169225202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.19|-53.57|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.57|-59.19|
84736229|NCT02229227|169225202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.78|-59.62|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-59.62|-67.78|
84483631|NCT03209362|168718441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||7.8|-14.9|0.5386
84483632|NCT03209362|168718441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.6|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||8.6|-15.2|0.5873
84483633|NCT03209362|168718442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.2|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.2|-15.0|0.6347
84483634|NCT03209362|168718442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.7806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|10.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||10.8|-14.3|0.7806
84483635|NCT03209362|168718443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.4|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||11.4|-13.2|0.8819
84483636|NCT03209362|168718443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|7.1|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||7.1|-18.3|0.3796
84483637|NCT03209362|168718444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.0|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.0|-14.9|0.6217
84483638|NCT03209362|168718444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||9.8|-14.8|0.6901
84483639|NCT00323427|168718453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23||No multiple testing adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.23|-0.15|0.69
84483640|NCT00323427|168718454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||No adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.38|-0.16|0.42
84483641|NCT00323427|168718455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||No adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(Arm 1) = Mean (Arm 2)||0.29|-0.30|0.97
84483642|NCT02493868|168718456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||Weighted Log-rank|||||0.84|0.29|= 0.003
84483643|NCT02407236|168718474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||14.9|5.7|< 0.001
84483644|NCT02407236|168718474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||14.8|5.6|< 0.001
84483645|NCT02407236|168718475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.8|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||15.8|4.8|< 0.001
84483646|NCT02407236|168718475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
84483647|NCT02407236|168718476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||23.6|5.5|0.002
84483648|NCT02407236|168718476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||29.0|10.3|< 0.001
84483649|NCT02407236|168718477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|15.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||24.2|6.0|0.002
84483650|NCT02407236|168718477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||27.2|8.6|< 0.001
84483651|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||This is for the subscale: Support-Seeking.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
84483652|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is for subscale: Problem Solving|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84736230|NCT02229227|169225202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.29|-56.7|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-56.70|-67.29|
84483653|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||This is for subscale: Distancing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84483654|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Internalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
84483655|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This is for subscale: Externalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.93
84483656|NCT05849441|168718549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||This is for subscale: Mindfulness|Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
84483657|NCT05849441|168718550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||This is for subscale: Reappraisal|Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
84483658|NCT05849441|168718550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||This is for subscale: Suppression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
84483659|NCT05849441|168718551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||This is for subscale: Manage own emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
84483660|NCT05849441|168718551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||This is for subscale: Identify and Understand Own Emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
84483661|NCT05849441|168718551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||This is for subscale: Deal with emotions of others|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
84483662|NCT05849441|168718551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||This is for subscale: Perceive emotions through faces and bodies|Regression, Linear|||||||0.59
84483663|NCT05849441|168718552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
84483664|NCT05849441|168718553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for subscale: Fear of Negative Evaluation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
84483665|NCT05849441|168718553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||This is for subscale: Social avoidance and distress (new)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
84483666|NCT05849441|168718553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||This is for subscale: social avoidance and distress (general)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
84483667|NCT05849441|168718554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84483668|NCT05849441|168718555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||This is for subscale: Negativity|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
84483669|NCT05849441|168718555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Emotion regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
84483670|NCT05849441|168718556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||This is for subscale: Working Memory|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
84483671|NCT05849441|168718556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||This is for subscale: Planning|Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
84483672|NCT05849441|168718556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This is for subscale: Inhibit|Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
84483673|NCT05849441|168718556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This is for subscale: Regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
84483674|NCT05849441|168718557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
84483675|NCT05849441|168718558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
84483676|NCT01627782|168718565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-20.0|-12.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-12.01|-20.00|< 0.001
84483677|NCT01627782|168718565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-18.96|-13.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-13.84|-18.96|< 0.001
84483678|NCT01193049|168718659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM Fold Reduction (FR) is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.46|0.14|0.001
84483679|NCT01193049|168718659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.3||1-sided p value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.30|0.13|<0.001
84483680|NCT01193049|168718659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|0.2||||0.553||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-5 after placebo treatment.||||0.553
84483681|NCT01193049|168718659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo :SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.964||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-5 after prednisone treatment.||||0.964
84483682|NCT01193049|168718660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.27||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.62||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.62|0.12|0.009
84483683|NCT01193049|168718660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.43||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.43|0.22|<0.001
84483684|NCT01193049|168718660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.962||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-13 after placebo treatment.||||0.962
84483685|NCT01193049|168718660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo: SP vs NE|0.07||||0.83||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-13 after prednisone treatment.||||0.83
84483686|NCT01193049|168718661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.8||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.47|0.43|0.258
84483687|NCT01193049|168718661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||1.46|0.80|0.681
84483688|NCT01193049|168718662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo:SP|0.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.24|0.30|0.117
84483689|NCT01193049|168718662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.64||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.86||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||0.86|0.47|0.011
84483690|NCT01193049|168718664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-5|1.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.99||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-5.||1.99|1.15|0.010
84483691|NCT01193049|168718664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-13|1.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.71||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-13.||1.71|1.07|0.020
84483692|NCT01193049|168718665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.82||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.09||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from SP.||1.09|0.62|0.119
84483693|NCT01193049|168718665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.14||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from NE.||1.14|0.41|0.103
84483694|NCT01193049|168718666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.77||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from SP.||0.77|0.46|0.003
84543421|NCT00789854|168839326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.322||||||97.5|-4.6|-0.05||The CI is for comparing add-on quetiapine versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The -0.05 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between add-on quetiapine XR and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Add-on quetiapine XR was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||-0.05|-4.6|
84483695|NCT01193049|168718666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.93||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from NE.||0.93|0.26|0.036
84483696|NCT01193049|168718667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.7||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from SP.||1.24|0.40|0.143
84483697|NCT01193049|168718667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.61||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.02||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from NE.||1.02|0.37|0.056
84736231|NCT02229227|169225203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.3|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||0.30|-2.25|
84736232|NCT02229227|169225203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.33|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||2.33|-1.64|
84736233|NCT02229227|169225203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.69|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||2.69|-2.21|
84736234|NCT02229227|169225203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||3.04|-2.25|0.7699
84736235|NCT02229227|169225204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|-53.94|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.94|-58.17|
84736236|NCT02229227|169225204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.68|-61.85|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-61.85|-67.68|
84736237|NCT02229227|169225204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.69|-59.15|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-59.15|-66.69|
84736238|NCT02229227|169225204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.85|-57.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|week 26||-57.81|-65.85|<0.0001
84736239|NCT02229227|169225206|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.86||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.86|2.52|<0.0001
84483698|NCT04283773|168718683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assessment of statistical differences in P16 expression between 3 groups. The immunohistochemical evaluation is done using German- semiquantitative scoring system. The score ranges from ( 0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9 and 12). The data will entered on SPSS,version 24 as numbers. The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.001
84483699|NCT04283773|168718684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.009||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient(|||Correlation between Ki 67 expression using percentage of Ki67 positive nuclei and P16 cytoplasmic expression using German semi quantitative score among MOGCT group. Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.009
84483700|NCT04283773|168718685|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.5|13.0||One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|ANOVA|||Correlation between P16 cytoplasmic score using German semi-quantitative system and FIGO staging of MOGCTs was done via One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD).||13|9.5|0.699
84483701|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||2.36e-05|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus parainfluenzae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0000236
84483702|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.0033243|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria elongata: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0033243
84736240|NCT02229227|169225207|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||3.60|1.54|<0.0001
84736241|NCT02229227|169225208|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.48||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||6.48|2.21|<0.0001
84483703|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.00500088|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_898: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00500088
84483704|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.0066975|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_110: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0066975
84483705|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.00710228|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter aphrophilus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00710228
84483706|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.00744022|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Kingella oralis: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00744022
84483707|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.01434037|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sp.\_HMT\_036: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01434037
84483708|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.01955327|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus haemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01955327
84483709|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.01995277|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria mucosa: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01995277
84736242|NCT01607879|169225233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1497
84736243|NCT01607879|169225234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84483710|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02082528|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_393\_nov\_97.053%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02082528
84736244|NCT01607879|169225235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84736245|NCT01607879|169225236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
84736246|NCT01607879|169225237|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84736247|NCT04560374|169225287|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was performed after the completion of the study. 98% power was obtained.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84736248|NCT00820664|169225344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.49|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.31|<0.001
84736249|NCT00820664|169225344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.19||||0.032||95.0|0.02|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.02|0.032
84752880|NCT02113579|169261048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.11||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.11|-11.23|<0.001
84483711|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02188156|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ottowia sp.\_HMT\_894: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02188156
84483712|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02321733|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Cryptobacterium curtum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02321733
84483713|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02397996|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Lautropia mirabilis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02397996
84483714|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02509094|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus paraphrohaemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02509094
84483715|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02648847|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sp.\_HMT\_332: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02648847
84483716|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.02828764|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria flavescens: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02828764
84483717|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.03454372|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_96.429%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03454372
84483718|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.03747507|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sputigena: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03747507
84543422|NCT00789854|168839326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.639||||||97.5|-3.24|1.312||The CI is for comparing quetiapine XR mono versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The 1.312 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between quetiapine XR mono and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Quetiapine XR mono was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||1.312|-3.24|
84543423|NCT00789854|168839327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine XR treatment was not different to the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.0489
84483719|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.03776136|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sputorum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03776136
84483720|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.03853215|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_90.546%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03853215
84483721|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.04751303|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.04751303
84483722|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.05190512|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_513: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05190512
84483723|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.0550647|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Veillonella sp.\_HMT\_780: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0550647
84483724|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.05861488|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria perflava: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05861488
84483725|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.06727926|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.06727926
84483726|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.07051698|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Shuttleworthia satelles: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.07051698
84483727|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.0740793|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_458: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0740793
84483728|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.07426973|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ruminococcaceae\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_075: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07426973
84483729|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.07829888|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Campylobacter showae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07829888
84483730|NCT06048809|168718688|OTHER|||||||0.08462924|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_056: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.08462924
84483731|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.062378|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Abiotrophia defectiva: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.062378
84483732|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.063437|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Saccharibacteria\_(TM7)\_\[G1\] bacterium\_HMT\_346: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.063437
84483733|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.069908|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Olsenella sp.\_HMT\_807: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.069908
84483734|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.079736|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Fusobacterium nucleatum\_nucleatum\_subsp.\_animalis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.079736
84483735|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.094642|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bergeyella sp.\_HMT\_322: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.094642
84483736|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.095848|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Peptostreptococcaceae\_\[XI\]\[G-1\] \[Eubacterium\]\_infirmum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.095848
84483737|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.107931|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella sp.\_HMT\_317: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.107931
84483738|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.109114|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bacteroidales\_\[G-2\] bacterium\_HMT\_274: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.109114
84483739|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.11083|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Actinomyces sp.\_HMT\_175\_nov 97.951%: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.11083
84483740|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.120377|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.120377
84483741|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.123758|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Granulicatella adiacens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123758
84483742|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.123992|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella oris: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123992
84483743|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.133385|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_064: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.133385
84483744|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.144598|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Schaalia odontolyticus: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.144598
84483745|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.147278|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Mogibacterium diversum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.147278
84483746|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.148674|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.148674
84483747|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.149722|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Absconditabacteria\_(SR1)\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_875: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.149722
84483748|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.154465|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella nigrescens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.154465
84483749|NCT06048809|168718689|OTHER|||||||0.158139|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus chosunense: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.158139
84483750|NCT04960202|168718691|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.208|-4.066|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-4.066|-8.208|<0.0001
84483751|NCT04960202|168718694|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-5.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.308|-3.967|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-3.967|-7.308|<0.0001
84483752|NCT04960202|168718695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.294||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.476|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 logarithm to base 10 \[log10\] copies/milliliter \[mL\], \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.476|1.136|0.0003
84483753|NCT04960202|168718696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.412|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.412|1.134|<0.0001
84483754|NCT04960202|168718697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|1.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.400|1.131|<0.0001
84483755|NCT04960202|168718698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.871||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.162|0.652|0.3473
84483756|NCT04960202|168718699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.5762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.182|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.182|0.740|0.5762
84483757|NCT04960202|168718700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.213|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No),baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.213|0.773|0.7807
84483758|NCT04960202|168718701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.219||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.401|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.401|1.061|0.0053
84483759|NCT04960202|168718702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.348|1.068|0.0022
84483760|NCT04960202|168718703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.194||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.337|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.337|1.066|0.0021
84483761|NCT04960202|168718710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.416|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.416|0.836|0.5293
84543424|NCT00789854|168839327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4368||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was not different from the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.4368
84483762|NCT04960202|168718711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.303|0.850|0.6379
84483763|NCT04960202|168718712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.290|0.848|0.6760
84483764|NCT04960202|168718713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.4||||0.1997||95.0|7.788|48.328|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||48.328|7.788|0.1997
84483765|NCT04960202|168718713|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|19.253|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||19.253|4.159|
84483766|NCT04960202|168718714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.875||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.097|43.156|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||43.156|10.097|0.2810
84483767|NCT04960202|168718714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.823|22.725|||Breslow Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||22.725|6.823|
84483768|NCT04960202|168718715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.119||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.412|42.837|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||42.837|10.412|0.2226
84483769|NCT04960202|168718715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.036||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.808|21.28|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||21.280|6.808|0.2342
84483770|NCT01250899|168718730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 12-wk 25(OH)D ≥30ng/mL|70.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|80.0|||Exact binomial||The primary endpoint (mean change in 25(OH)D following 12 weeks of vitamin D repletion in vitamin D insufficient subjects) was dichotomized to success or failure to achieve a week twelve 25(OH)D level ≥30ng/mL.|We predicted that HIV-infected subjects would have a 70% twelve-week repletion success rate compared to 85% among historical controls.Eighty subjects provided 91% power to detect a 12-week repletion rate statistically different than 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60%, 80%).||80|60|<0.05
84483771|NCT02234050|168718738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.997|2.028|||Regression, Cox|||||2.028|0.997|0.204
84483772|NCT02234050|168718741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.53|0.94
84483773|NCT00592176|168718743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84483774|NCT03774875|168718745|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (apremilast - placebo) in response rates calculated using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||45.2|18.6|<0.0001
84483775|NCT03774875|168718746|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-3.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate.|Difference in LS Means = Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.43|-7.15|<0.0001
84483776|NCT03774875|168718747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.12||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.58|-10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate variable.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-10.14|-66.58|0.0085
84483777|NCT03774875|168718748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.86|-2.34|<0.0001
84543425|NCT02224157|168839395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence limit \<1.2 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid|Rate ratio|0.97|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16||
84483778|NCT03774875|168718749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-7.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-7.60|-24.63|0.0003
84543426|NCT02224157|168839396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.174|0.777|0.664
84543427|NCT02224157|168839397|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Rand treatment,pre-study treatment,region,visit,rand treatment by visit; fixed effects. Patient; random effect, baseline FEV1; covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. Estimate corresponds to average treatment effect across all treatment visits.|||-11.4|-53.7|0.003
84483779|NCT03774875|168718750|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|The adjusted difference in response rates (Apremilast - Placebo) using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||25.8|1.1|0.0328
84483780|NCT03774875|168718751|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (Apremilast - Placebo) in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||49.9|24.1|<0.0001
84483781|NCT03774875|168718752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.55||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|51.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||51.48|-21.62|0.4216
84483782|NCT03774875|168718753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-148.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.9525||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-352.8793|56.8304|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||56.8304|-352.8793|0.1559
84483783|NCT03774875|168718754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|8.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.73|-2.43|0.2667
84483784|NCT03774875|168718755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|5.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||5.91|-10.83|0.5620
84483785|NCT03774875|168718756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.86|-10.16|0.8927
84543428|NCT02224157|168839399|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No p-value was calculated for this efficacy variable|ANCOVA|Model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors, and no. of 'as needed' inhalations at baseline as continuous covariate|A mean difference less than zero indicates a larger mean reduction in number of 'as needed' inhalations in the Symbicort 'as needed' group.|||0.07|0.00|
84543429|NCT02224157|168839400|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-5.34|||ANCOVA|adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and the percent 'as needed' free days during run-in as a cont covariate.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a larger increase in the % of 'as needed' free days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' arm.|||-5.34|-8.37|< 0.001
84543430|NCT02224157|168839401|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.18|-35.77|||ANOVA|model adjusted for: randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a higher % of controller use days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' group.|||-35.77|-39.18|<0.001
84543431|NCT02224157|168839402|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.109|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random, and baseline ACQ-5 as covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.150|0.068|<0.001
84543432|NCT02224157|168839403|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.096|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ as covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.054|-0.137|<0.001
84483786|NCT03774875|168718757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||0.24|-15.90|0.0572
84483787|NCT02352090|168718783|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
84483788|NCT00981292|168718822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||A Bonferroni adjustment was made for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||This data was analysed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA (task \[epoch\] x treatment). In the case of those analyses that showed a significant main effect of treatment or a task/epoch x treatment interaction, planned comparisons of data from each task or epoch were then made between placebo and each of the EGCG treatment groups using t tests calculated with the Mean Squares Error from the ANOVA.||||<0.05
84483789|NCT00981292|168718823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Task performance data were analysed by within subjects ANCOVA (treatment) with pre-treatment performance included as a co-variate for each individual task/measure.||||>0.05
84483790|NCT00981292|168718824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mood data was analysed via student t-test.||||>0.05
84483791|NCT03377452|168718825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|19.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.22|-4.71|0.2313
84483792|NCT03377452|168718826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the change in the outcome from baseline to 3-months after the last intervention/control session for the intervention group versus the same change in the control group.|||-1.72|-4.91|<0.001
84543433|NCT02224157|168839404|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.20|0.78|0.754
84543434|NCT05906628|168839405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|21.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||||21.49|4.48|<0.0001
84483793|NCT00796003|168718827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.6|41.6|||Binomial test|one-tailed 5% level at a significance level||Null Hypothesis: Overall Remission Rate = 5%||41.6|14.6|<0.0001
84483794|NCT05179057|168718838|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model included treatment, level of viremia at baseline (≥10,000 copies/mL or \<10,000 copies/mL adenovirus DNA), age (≥12 years or \<12 years), and absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline. The null hypothesis is that the true percentage for posoleucel plus SoC is less than or equal to the true percentage for placebo plus SoC, and the alternative hypothesis is that it is greater.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.69|||||Posoleucel versus Placebo|||3.69|0.26|
84543435|NCT05906628|168839405|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.36||||||||54.36|30.70|
84543436|NCT05906628|168839406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 4||8.38|2.14|<0.0001
84543437|NCT05906628|168839406|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.69|42.24||||||Week 4||42.24|16.69|
84483795|NCT02437162|168718866|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.586||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.138|14.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.310|-9.138|0.669
84483796|NCT02437162|168718866|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-0.646||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|10.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.887|-12.180|0.913
84483797|NCT04338321|168718946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|3.19|=0.003
84483798|NCT03375203|168718993|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.88|||=|0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.70|= 0.346
84483799|NCT03375203|168718993|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.64|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|0.51|= 0.001
84483800|NCT03375203|168718993|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||||0.64|0.41|< 0.001
84483801|NCT03375203|168718993|OTHER|||||||0|||||||MCP-mod|||||||0.000
84483802|NCT03107793|168719040|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0871|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0871
84483803|NCT03321526|168719077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5355
84736250|NCT01667549|169225361|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).||||||0.02||||||Bonferroni adjustment was made and only planned pairwise comparisons with calculated p values of 0.02 or lower significant.|planned comparison|Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned pair-wise comparisons with calculated p value 0.02 or lower were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||0.02
84736251|NCT01667549|169225362|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on maternal gLMS ratings with type of juice and time as the within-subject factors and experimental group as the grouping factor||||<0.02
84736252|NCT01667549|169225363|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).|||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
84736253|NCT01667549|169225364|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
84736254|NCT01667549|169225365|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||General linear models were conducted on WLZ scores with time as the within-subjects factor and Group as the between-subjects factor to determine there were differences in growth of the infants over time. This was not done to test hypothesis but to monitor growth of infants during course of trial.||||<0.05
84736255|NCT01407276|169225366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR of Panel A:Panel B||||1.11|0.80|
84736256|NCT01407276|169225366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.61|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.61|1.12|
84736257|NCT01407276|169225366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.85|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.85|1.32|
84736258|NCT01407276|169225366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR or Panel G:Panel H|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.55|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.55|1.40|
84736259|NCT01407276|169225366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.66|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.66|1.46|
84736260|NCT01407276|169225367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.79|
84736261|NCT01407276|169225367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.41|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.41|0.91|
84736262|NCT01407276|169225367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.23|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.23|0.66|
84736263|NCT01407276|169225367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.96|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.96|0.57|
84736264|NCT01407276|169225367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.95|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.95|0.56|
84736265|NCT01407276|169225368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.05|0.81|
84736266|NCT01407276|169225368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.33||||||90.0|1.07|1.65|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.65|1.07|
84736267|NCT01407276|169225368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.65|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.65|1.13|
84736268|NCT01407276|169225368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.79|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.79|1.06|
84736269|NCT01407276|169225368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.68|1.00|
84543438|NCT05906628|168839406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||7.51|2.02|<0.0001
84736270|NCT01407276|169225369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.75|
84736271|NCT01407276|169225369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.76|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.76|1.19|
84736272|NCT01407276|169225369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|2.24|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||2.24|1.49|
84736273|NCT01407276|169225369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.54|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.54|1.41|
84736274|NCT01407276|169225369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.52|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.52|1.40|
84736275|NCT01407276|169225370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.42|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.42|0.87|
84736276|NCT01407276|169225370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.07|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.07|0.53|
84736277|NCT01407276|169225370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.92|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.92|0.51|
84736278|NCT01407276|169225370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.98|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.98|0.50|
84736279|NCT01407276|169225370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.12|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.12|0.57|
84543439|NCT05906628|168839406|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|42.57||||||Week 16||42.57|16.34|
84543440|NCT05906628|168839407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|5.923|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Day 3||5.923|0.718|0.1789
84543441|NCT05906628|168839407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.951|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 1 (Day 7)||8.951|1.603|0.0024
84543442|NCT05906628|168839408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||22.13|4.44|<0.0001
84543443|NCT05906628|168839408|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|58.27||||||Week 16||58.27|32.83|
84543444|NCT05906628|168839410|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.719||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|2.44|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.440|1.211|0.0025
84543445|NCT05906628|168839413|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.279||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.759|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||1.759|0.931|0.1319
84543446|NCT01108718|168839427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Preference|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.47|||McNemar||Rate of preference refers specifically to Tempur-Pedic Mattress.|h0: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress h1: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress||.47|.43|>0.1
84543447|NCT01416636|168839436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84736280|NCT01407276|169225371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.25|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.25|0.90|
84736281|NCT01407276|169225371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.89|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.89|0.62|
84543448|NCT01416636|168839436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
84543449|NCT01416636|168839437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.605
84543450|NCT01416636|168839438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.307
84543451|NCT01416636|168839439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0019
84543452|NCT01416636|168839440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
84543453|NCT01416636|168839441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84543454|NCT01416636|168839442|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
84543455|NCT01416636|168839443|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000003
84543456|NCT01416636|168839444|SUPERIORITY|||||||8e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00008
84543457|NCT01416636|168839445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84736282|NCT01407276|169225371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.76|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.76|0.54|
84543458|NCT01416636|168839446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
84543459|NCT02301169|168839448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Average Pain Score (APS), T4P1001 compared with placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3748299||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5479411|1.297601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.2976010|-0.5479411|0.4162
84543460|NCT02301169|168839449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Worst Pain Score (WPS), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1255102||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8152493|1.0662697||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.0662697|-0.8152493|0.7887
84543461|NCT02301169|168839450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by Investigator Global Assessment of Change, T4P1001 compared with Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.802381||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5457743|2.1505362||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||2.1505362|-0.5457743|0.2353
84603335|NCT02499900|168957463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6777|0.5592||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline BDI-II total score=baseline BDI-II total score+treatment+visit+country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||0.5592|-0.6777|0.851
84736283|NCT01407276|169225371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.71|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.71|0.39|
84736284|NCT01407276|169225371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.68|0.38|
84736285|NCT01407276|169225372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.18|0.74|
84736286|NCT01407276|169225372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.96|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.96|0.55|
84736287|NCT01407276|169225372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.54|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.54|0.33|
84736288|NCT01407276|169225373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
84736289|NCT01407276|169225373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
84736290|NCT01407276|169225373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
84736291|NCT01407276|169225374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
84736292|NCT01407276|169225374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
84736293|NCT01407276|169225374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
84736294|NCT04092452|169225391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|16.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||16.7|-15.2|0.4696
84736295|NCT04092452|169225391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||34.6|2.7|0.0298
84736296|NCT04092452|169225391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|19.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||19.6|-12.6|0.3606
84736297|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|8.0||||||Week 1||8.0|-15.6|
84736298|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.1||||||Week 1||11.1|-12.9|
84736299|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|17.8||||||Week 1||17.8|-8.5|
84736300|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|22.8||||||Week 2||22.8|-6.9|
84736301|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|22.2||||||Week 2||22.2|-7.1|
84736302|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|18.3||||||Week 2||18.3|-11.3|
84736303|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.1||||||Week 4||25.1|-7.1|
84736304|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|23.5||||||Week 4||23.5|-8.0|
84736305|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|11.4||||||Week 4||11.4|-19.4|
84736306|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|17.2||||||Week 6||17.2|-15.6|
84736307|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|22.9||||||Week 6||22.9|-9.4|
84736308|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Week 6||20.2|-12.8|
84736309|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.7798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.2|8.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||8.7|-24.2|0.7798
84736310|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|16.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||16.8|-15.9|0.4819
84736311|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.5933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.2|14.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||14.4|-19.2|0.5933
84736312|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81||0.8421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||6.2|-26.1|0.8421
84736313|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|24.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||24.2|-8.2|0.2090
84736314|NCT04092452|169225392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|16.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.2|-17.1|0.5183
84736315|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|12.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||12.1|-12.7|0.5150
84736316|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||25.8|-1.4|0.0737
84736317|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|20.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||20.0|-6.7|0.2081
84543462|NCT02301169|168839451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain intensity measured after heat pain stimuli, T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7656429||||0.06204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0406744|1.5719601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.5719601|-0.0406744|0.06204
84543463|NCT02301169|168839452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.683333||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83119|5.197857||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||5.197857|-1.831190|0.3386
84543464|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||7.7|2.0|<0.0001
84543465|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.6|0.1|<0.0001
84543466|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.0|0.8|0.6334
84543467|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.6|0.2|0.8065
84543468|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|26.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||26.6|3.8|<0.0001
84543469|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
84543470|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
84543471|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
84543472|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.8|0.2|0.0011
84543473|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84543474|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.6||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||6.9|1.0|0.0718
84543475|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
84543476|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Gemetric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
84543477|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||10.4|2.6|<0.0001
84543478|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.2||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||5.7|0.8|0.2005
84543479|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|93.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||93.1|13.1|<0.0001
84543480|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
84543481|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
84543482|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.1|0.2|0.1138
84543483|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||18.1|2.5|<0.0001
84736318|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|19.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||19.4|-9.9|0.2957
84483804|NCT02808507|168719115|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||See above comments|||The primary analysis was based on the facility-level rate ratio. We first calculated an unadjusted ratio of the treatment initiation rates between the two arms and the corresponding 95% CI. We first fit a Poisson regression to the facility-level counts and the district and historical volume covariates. The residuals ratios, calculated as the ratio of the observed over the expected counts, were then used in the second stage to estimate the between-arm rate ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||1.3|0.80|0.73
84483805|NCT02808507|168719116|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.05||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for district, study phase and clinic random effect.|The primary outcome of the study was the comparative number of people with incident TB diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics during the two study periods, excluding the six-month washout period. The number of people starting treatment for incident TB was calculated by performing a review of paper and electronic medical records at each clinic on a quarterly basis during the study.||1.13|0.97|0.68
84483806|NCT02808507|168719117|OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.95||"The pre-specified secondary study outcome was the number of Xpert-based TB diagnoses made among enrolled contacts (secondary cases) by arm."|Poisson regression||Adjusted for study phase and district|||1.95|0.51|0.80
84483807|NCT03733132|168719124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
84483808|NCT03733132|168719125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.389
84483809|NCT03733132|168719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
84483810|NCT03733132|168719127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
84483811|NCT03733132|168719128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
84483812|NCT02418585|168719129|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.64|-7.31|=0.020
84483813|NCT02418585|168719130|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.5|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-6.67|=0.034
84483814|NCT02040857|168719145|OTHER|Exact binomial test||||||0.0011|||||||Exact binomial test|||Primary objective is treatment discontinuation rate at 2 yr for patients receiving Palbociclib therapy. If the true rate of discontinuation by two years is 48% or higher, treatment duration will be considered not feasible and not worthy of further study. If the rate of discontinuation is 33.3% or less, the 2 yr duration will be deemed feasible and worthy of further study. Using a one-sided alpha = 0.025, there is \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of feasibility.||||0.0011
84483815|NCT04159701|168719151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-3.73|0.380
84483816|NCT04159701|168719152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.89|0.415
84483817|NCT04159701|168719153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.53|-2.09|0.369
84483818|NCT04159701|168719154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< 28 vs \>= 28) score.||||2.70|0.14|0.674
84483819|NCT04159701|168719155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< median vs \>= median) score.||||2.68|0.13|0.674
84483820|NCT02845440|168719158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.79||A priori threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.79|1.20|0.013
84483821|NCT02845440|168719158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.74||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.74|0.62|0.481
84483822|NCT02845440|168719158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.24||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||3.24|1.04|0.036
84483823|NCT02845440|168719159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.06|0.88|0.174
84483824|NCT02845440|168719159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.06|0.45|0.092
84483825|NCT02845440|168719160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.75|1.61|<0.001
84736319|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|30.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||30.5|0.7|0.0456
84543484|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84543485|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84543486|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||52.4|4.9|<0.0001
84543487|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
84543488|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
84543489|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
84543490|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
84543491|NCT02861586|168839479|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.2|0.3|1.0000
84543492|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.0|0.4|0.9775
84543493|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.3||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.1|0.6|0.8366
84543494|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.6|0.7|0.5625
84736320|NCT04092452|169225393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|24.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||24.1|-5.7|0.1558
84736321|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.622|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.16|2.2||||||Week 1||2.20|-26.16|
84736322|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.09|-1.04||||||Week 1||-1.04|-29.09|
84736323|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-3.05||||||Week 1||-3.05|-31.86|
84543495|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.5|0.6|0.5924
84543496|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.8||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||4.1|0.8|0.3122
84543497|NCT02861586|168839488|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.8|0.5|0.9665
84736324|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.465|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.09|3.05||||||Week 2||3.05|-28.09|
84736325|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.338|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|12.5||||||Week 2||12.50|-18.22|
84736326|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.438|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|10.03||||||Week 2||10.03|-21.02|
84736327|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.96|13.93||||||Week 4||13.93|-22.96|
84736328|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.84|0.77||||||Week 4||0.77|-35.84|
84736329|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|15.0||||||Week 4||15.00|-22.85|
84736330|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.452|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.04|29.22||||||Week 6||29.22|-15.04|
84736331|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.688|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.08|7.95||||||Week 6||7.95|-37.08|
84736332|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.66|13.76||||||Week 6||13.76|-31.66|
84736333|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.057||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.98|32.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||32.98|-9.98|0.8108
84736334|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.845||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.28|4.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||4.98|-37.28|0.1043
84736335|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.355||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.04|6.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.90|-37.04|0.1296
84736336|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.384||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.49|20.42||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||20.42|-33.49|0.3450
84483826|NCT02845440|168719160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.64|0.50|0.742
84497137|NCT02050373|168745393|OTHER|Student's t test was used to numerical variables with normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the cytokine values of the two groups (control and laser). The Friedman test was used to indicate differences by comparing cytokine levels at different times of assessment within each group. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used for paired analyzes of the saliva collection times in the groups. All tests were used to compare the groups at the three different times (AD, D7, HD).|||||<|0.05||||||p\<0,05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84543498|NCT04581824|168839506|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.46|17.18|||||Mantel and Haenszel method with Sato's variance estimator was used for between arms comparison and was stratified by PD-L1 status and smoking status based on the strata data collected in interactive response technology (IRT) at randomization|||17.18|1.46|
84543499|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8313|1.2025||||||||1.2025|0.8313|
84543500|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0355|1.4979||||||||1.4979|1.0355|
84543501|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0304|1.4904||||||||1.4904|1.0304|
84543502|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0305|1.4906||||||||1.4906|1.0305|
84543503|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8273|1.1967||||||||1.1967|0.8273|
84543504|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|1.811||||||||1.8110|1.2520|
84543505|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2522|1.8113||||||||1.8113|1.2522|
84543506|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0053|1.4541||||||||1.4541|1.0053|
84543507|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0103|1.4614||||||||1.4614|1.0103|
84543508|NCT05277922|168839538|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0357|1.4981||||||||1.4981|1.0357|
84736337|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.116||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|6.04||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.04|-40.40|0.1119
84543509|NCT01217112|168839563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.09|0.766
84543510|NCT01217112|168839563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.04|0.424
84543511|NCT01217112|168839563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.10|0.412
84543512|NCT01217112|168839563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.05|0.668
84543513|NCT01217112|168839564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.08|0.978
84543514|NCT01217112|168839564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.08|0.864
84543515|NCT01217112|168839564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-0.12|0.537
84543516|NCT01217112|168839564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.13|-0.02|0.260
84736338|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.806||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.34|4.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.37|-44.34|0.0885
84543517|NCT01217112|168839565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.61|0.088
84543518|NCT01217112|168839565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.39|-0.20|0.583
84543519|NCT01217112|168839565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.43|-0.14|0.388
84543520|NCT01217112|168839565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.38|-0.19|0.580
84736339|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.14||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|43.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||43.98|-22.28|0.7050
84736340|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.519||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.73|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-49.73|0.1833
84543521|NCT01217112|168839566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.37|-0.29|0.829
84736341|NCT04092452|169225394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.277||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.76|23.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||23.94|-42.76|0.3213
84736342|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
84736343|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|2.2||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-6.3|
84736344|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
84736345|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-5.2|
84736346|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.1||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.1|-4.3|
84736347|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.3|-4.3|
84736348|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.8|-4.5|
84736349|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.8|-5.4|
84736350|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-0.3||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.3|-8.8|
84736351|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.3||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-6.5|
84736352|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|0.1||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.1|-9.5|
84736353|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-0.4||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.4|-10.5|
84736354|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||5.6|-3.6|0.6393
84736355|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.6|-4.4|0.5178
84736356|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.8|-8.5|0.0864
84736357|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.1|-5.5|0.3172
84736358|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|1.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.4|-6.8|0.1384
84736359|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|1.5||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.5|-7.2|0.1427
84736360|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.4|-7.5|0.1975
84736361|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.6|-8.5|0.0755
84736362|NCT04092452|169225395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|2.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-7.3|0.1869
84736363|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.659|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|10.59||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||10.59|-17.90|
84736364|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.16|0.62||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.62|-28.16|
84736365|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.752|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-3.12||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||-3.12|-31.91|
84736366|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.91|12.33||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.33|-20.91|
84736367|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.904|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.34|14.24||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||14.24|-18.34|
84736368|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.039|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.34|16.68||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.68|-16.34|
84736369|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.29|16.36||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.36|-17.29|
84736370|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.77|8.63||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.63|-24.77|
84736371|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.35|11.22||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.22|-23.35|
84736372|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.71|16.63||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.63|-23.71|
84543522|NCT01217112|168839566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.44|-0.22|0.575
84543523|NCT01217112|168839566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.53|-0.15|0.356
84543524|NCT01217112|168839566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.45|-0.18|0.472
84543525|NCT01217112|168839567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.59|0.115
84543526|NCT01217112|168839567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.35|-0.25|0.782
84543527|NCT01217112|168839567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.31|-0.27|0.902
84543528|NCT01217112|168839567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.28|-0.28|0.993
84543529|NCT01217112|168839568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.23|0.956
84543530|NCT01217112|168839568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.30|-0.19|0.705
84543531|NCT01217112|168839568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.36|-0.14|0.466
84543532|NCT01217112|168839568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.21|0.876
84736373|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.84|4.32||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||4.32|-36.84|
84543533|NCT01217112|168839569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.03|0.408
84543534|NCT01217112|168839569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.04|0.714
84543535|NCT01217112|168839569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.09|0.267
84543536|NCT01217112|168839569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.03|0.484
84543537|NCT01217112|168839570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.09|0.560
84543538|NCT01217112|168839570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.06|0.956
84543539|NCT01217112|168839570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.10|0.403
84483827|NCT02845440|168719161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.51||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 2.8%.|2.51|0.99|0.056
84736374|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.27|8.22||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.22|-33.27|
84736375|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.045||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|23.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||23.96|-12.38|0.7000
84736376|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|12.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.08|-23.70|0.2965
84736377|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.247||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.83|7.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.17|-29.83|0.1568
84736378|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.912||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|11.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.17|-24.73|0.2672
84483828|NCT02845440|168719162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.33||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 13.9%.|3.33|1.16|0.012
84483829|NCT02845440|168719163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.79||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.79|1.05|0.032
84483830|NCT02845440|168719163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.75|0.68|0.376
84483831|NCT02845440|168719163|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.05|0.42|0.645
84483832|NCT02845440|168719164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.56||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The CHW intervention increased odds of self-reported use of any TUD medication by 1.85.||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.56|1.34|<0.001
84483833|NCT02845440|168719164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.05|0.46|0.084
84497138|NCT01803464|168745425|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled Standard Deviation (SD) of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84736379|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.517||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.87|0.73||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.73|-33.87|0.0576
84736380|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.603||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.74|5.44||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||5.44|-32.74|0.1197
84736381|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.545||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.91|16.65||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.65|-27.91|0.3388
84736382|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.567||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|7.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.51|-37.12|0.1376
84736383|NCT04092452|169225396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.86||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.12|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-31.12|0.2741
84736384|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|10.3||||||Week 4||10.3|-13.0|
84736385|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|1.8||||||Week 4||1.8|-18.7|
84543540|NCT01217112|168839570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.04|0.617
84543541|NCT01217112|168839571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.21|-0.16|0.815
84543542|NCT01217112|168839571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.26|-0.09|0.418
84543543|NCT01217112|168839571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.32|-0.05|0.236
84543544|NCT01217112|168839571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.23|-0.11|0.556
84543545|NCT01217112|168839572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.64|0.329
84543546|NCT01217112|168839572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.11|0.232
84543547|NCT01217112|168839572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.06|0.164
84543548|NCT01217112|168839572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-0.15|0.302
84543549|NCT01217112|168839573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.614
84736386|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|14.1||||||Week 4||14.1|-10.7|
84736387|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|17.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||17.7|-4.6|0.8372
84543550|NCT01217112|168839573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.48|-0.28|0.669
84543551|NCT01217112|168839573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.52|-0.28|0.621
84736388|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||1.3|-14.1|0.0819
84736389|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-0.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||-0.9|-15.2|0.0242
84736390|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-2.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-2.3|-23.1|0.0264
84736391|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|-3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-3.9|-25.1|0.0127
84736392|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|-6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-6.2|-27.0|0.0059
84543552|NCT01217112|168839573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.41|-0.33|0.867
84543553|NCT01217112|168839574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|6.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.95|-1.84|0.335
84543554|NCT01217112|168839574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.62|-1.90|0.358
84543555|NCT01217112|168839574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.33|-3.72|0.900
84543556|NCT01217112|168839574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.486||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|10.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.19|1.86|0.019
84543557|NCT01217112|168839575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.65|0.325
84543558|NCT01217112|168839575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.59|-0.21|0.438
84543559|NCT01217112|168839575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.47|-0.29|0.701
84543560|NCT01217112|168839575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.624
84543561|NCT01217112|168839576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.17|0.233
84543562|NCT01217112|168839576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.07|0.727
84543563|NCT01217112|168839576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.06|0.593
84543564|NCT01217112|168839576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.20|0.075
84543565|NCT01217112|168839577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.04|0.236
84543566|NCT01217112|168839577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.09|0.579
84543567|NCT01217112|168839577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.15|0.837
84543568|NCT01217112|168839577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.19|-0.08|0.467
84543569|NCT01217112|168839578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.64|-1.41|0.533
84483834|NCT02845440|168719164|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.55|0.59|0.589
84483835|NCT02845440|168719165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.68||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.68|1.99|<0.001
84483836|NCT02845440|168719165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.57|0.51|0.698
84483837|NCT02845440|168719165|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.78|0.43|0.845
84483838|NCT02845440|168719166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.2||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 55.6%.|2.20|0.92|0.158
84483839|NCT02845440|168719167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.13||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients and mediation analysis estimates were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 36.6%.|3.13|1.14|0.013
84483840|NCT02845440|168719168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Regression, Linear|||The model had a clinic varying random intercept. This statistical model included cohort 1: TAU , AD, and AD+CHW||0.33|-0.16|0.505
84483841|NCT02845440|168719168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.27|-0.22|0.848
84483842|NCT02845440|168719168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.25|-0.13|0.529
84543570|NCT01217112|168839578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.13|-0.84|0.804
84483843|NCT02845440|168719169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.18|-0.16|0.937
84483844|NCT02845440|168719169|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.29|-0.19|0.683
84483845|NCT02845440|168719169|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.74|-0.15|0.190
84483846|NCT03152110|168719200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.203
84543571|NCT01217112|168839578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.99|-0.87|0.916
84483847|NCT03152110|168719201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
84483848|NCT01634100|168719212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|135.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.58|141.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||141.06|129.58|
84483849|NCT01634100|168719212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.41|160.88|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||160.88|146.41|
84483850|NCT01634100|168719213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.14|191.56|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||191.56|160.14|
84483851|NCT01634100|168719213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|125.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.67|138.78|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||138.78|113.67|
84483852|NCT01634100|168719214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|136.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.61|142.48|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||142.48|130.61|
84483853|NCT01634100|168719214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.5|161.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||161.06|146.50|
84483854|NCT00471276|168719215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||16.6|3.5|
84483855|NCT00471276|168719216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||19.6|5.1|
84483856|NCT01487863|168719257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.2141
84483857|NCT03054740|168719301|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Design: Intercept + Pain Previous IV + Intervention) F = .001, df1 = 1, df2=28, Sig. = .972|||
84483858|NCT03054740|168719302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.390
84483859|NCT01378299|168719306|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483860|NCT01378299|168719307|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward||||<0.05
84483861|NCT01378299|168719308|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483862|NCT01378299|168719309|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483863|NCT01378299|168719310|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483864|NCT01378299|168719311|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483865|NCT01378299|168719312|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483866|NCT01378299|168719314|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was by intention to treat with the last value carry forward. Those who had at least one follow-up from baseline and with acceptable assay coefficient of variability were included in the analysis. The data of 79 subjects were analyzed; 15 in the GG, 43 in the GA and 21 in the AA genotype.||||<0.05
84483867|NCT01378299|168719315|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483868|NCT01378299|168719316|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483869|NCT01378299|168719317|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
84483870|NCT01448707|168719335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Non-Linear mixed|-7.9||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-1.19||P-Value for non-inferiority of DRV/rtv MONO vs DRV/rtv + 2NRTIs (delta = 12%).|Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted response rate:confidence limits are obtained by means of logistic regression model with treatment group and Hepatitis C status as covariates||||-1.19|-14.64|0.2331
84483871|NCT01448707|168719336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-Linear mixed|-10.1||||0.6933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-19.50|0.6933
84483872|NCT01448707|168719337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 48: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-linear mixed model|-3.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|-8.77|0.0016
84483873|NCT01448707|168719337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 96: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|non-linear mixed model|-0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-7.89|0.0022
84497139|NCT01803464|168745425|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84497140|NCT01803464|168745425|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84483874|NCT02820038|168719349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||2.24|0.52|0.8408
84483875|NCT02820038|168719349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or Other CMI+SMART, 1=DFB or DFB + SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.12|0.66|0.58
84483876|NCT02820038|168719349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||2.68|0.82|0.1937
84483877|NCT02820038|168719349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|Sample restricted to participants who did not meet the criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who did not meet criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||4.92|1.15|0.0193
84483878|NCT02820038|168719349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who met the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||1.48|0.19|0.2216
84483879|NCT02820038|168719350|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-1.83|0.1630
84483880|NCT02820038|168719350|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.77|-2.33|0.7892
84483881|NCT02820038|168719350|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-0.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||-0.13|-4.25|0.0377
84483882|NCT02820038|168719351|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favorable to aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.08|-0.98|0.9216
84483883|NCT02820038|168719351|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.17|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.17|-0.45|0.3843
84497141|NCT01803464|168745426|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
84736393|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|3.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||3.5|-22.7|0.1185
84483884|NCT02820038|168719351|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.09|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.09|-0.54|0.5090
84483885|NCT02820038|168719352|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.12|-0.77|0.1486
84483886|NCT02820038|168719352|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.22|-0.47|0.4888
84483887|NCT02820038|168719352|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.38|-0.32|0.8637
84483888|NCT02820038|168719353|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.66|-0.33|0.5070
84483889|NCT02820038|168719353|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.25|0.4821
84483890|NCT02820038|168719353|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.44|-0.33|0.7777
84497142|NCT01803464|168745426|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84497143|NCT01803464|168745426|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
84497144|NCT01803464|168745427|OTHER||Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84497145|NCT01803464|168745427|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84497146|NCT01803464|168745427|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
84497147|NCT02424851|168745428|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84497148|NCT02424851|168745429|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84497149|NCT02424851|168745430|OTHER||||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of SAEs.||||=0.48
84483891|NCT02820038|168719354|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.58|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.58|-0.93|0.6084
84483892|NCT02820038|168719354|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.23|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.23|-0.71|0.5970
84483893|NCT02820038|168719354|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.31|-0.65|.5094
84483894|NCT02820038|168719355|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|3.89|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.89|-6.85|0.5866
84483895|NCT02820038|168719355|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|4.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.52|-3.82|0.8689
84483896|NCT02820038|168719355|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.86|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.86|-2.53|.4356
84483897|NCT02820038|168719356|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.26|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in self-efficacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||9.26|-2.30|0.2366
84483898|NCT02820038|168719356|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|4.83|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.83|-4.16|0.8841
84483899|NCT02820038|168719356|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.95|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.95|-3.05|0.5264
84497150|NCT02424851|168745430|OTHER||||||=|0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of AEs||||=0.25
84497151|NCT02424851|168745431|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.31
84497152|NCT02424851|168745432|OTHER||||||=|0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.45
84497153|NCT02424851|168745433|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.33
84497154|NCT01139801|168745439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|411.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||411.0|13.3|0.037
84667905|NCT05760300|169070711|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.7|217.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||217|32.7|
84483900|NCT02820038|168719357|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in medication adherence at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||4.18|-4.40|0.9604
84483901|NCT02820038|168719357|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||-0.40|-6.84|0.0279
84483902|NCT02820038|168719357|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in medication adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||7.18|0.67|0.0184
84483903|NCT02820038|168719358|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.14|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in illness intrusiveness at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||8.14|-2.56|0.3056
84483904|NCT02820038|168719358|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.32|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.32|0.06|0.0466
84483905|NCT02820038|168719358|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.90|-4.38|0.9106
84483906|NCT02820038|168719359|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group..|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in health distress at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.10|-0.57|0.1762
84483907|NCT02820038|168719359|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.15|-0.36|0.4186
84483908|NCT02820038|168719359|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.24|-0.28|0.8848
84483909|NCT02820038|168719360|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health status at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.25|-0.15|0.6403
84543572|NCT01217112|168839578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.25|-2.20|0.040
84483910|NCT02820038|168719360|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.16|-0.14|0.8766
84483911|NCT02820038|168719360|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater improvement in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.18|-0.13|0.7603
84483912|NCT02820038|168719361|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in disease activity at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.63|-0.43|0.7093
84483913|NCT02820038|168719361|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.30|0.5941
84483914|NCT02820038|168719361|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.40|-0.42|0.9476
84483915|NCT02820038|168719362|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in depression at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.48|-1.65|0.9128
84483916|NCT02820038|168719362|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.91|-1.50|0.6312
84483917|NCT02820038|168719362|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.87|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.87|-1.57|0.5766
84543573|NCT01217112|168839579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.838||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.06|8.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||8.27|-28.06|0.366
84543574|NCT01217112|168839579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.692||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.81|20.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||20.03|-15.81|0.844
84736394|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.6|-5.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-5.6|-26.6|0.0040
84483918|NCT02820038|168719363|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in fatigue at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-3.34|0.2123
84483919|NCT02820038|168719363|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.70|-2.48|0.2691
84483920|NCT02820038|168719363|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.13|-2.06|0.5655
84483921|NCT02820038|168719364|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|10.55|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health literacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||10.55|-5.51|0.5364
84483922|NCT02820038|168719364|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|8.01|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.01|-4.68|0.6050
84483923|NCT02820038|168719364|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.05|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||6.05|-6.66|0.9240
84483924|NCT02820038|168719365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class session. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.89|0.43|0.7871
84483925|NCT02820038|168719365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|2.198|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices,BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.198|0.643|0.5815
84483926|NCT02820038|168719365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.262|0.366|0.2211
84543575|NCT01217112|168839579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.026||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.76|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.84|-32.76|0.118
84543576|NCT01217112|168839579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.256||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.86|10.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.51|-23.86|0.518
84543577|NCT01217112|168839580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-0.66|0.576
84543578|NCT01217112|168839580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.34|-0.60|0.648
84543579|NCT01217112|168839580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.66|0.447
84543580|NCT01217112|168839580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.16|-0.79|0.273
84543581|NCT01217112|168839581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-2.40|0.615
84543582|NCT01217112|168839581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.57|-0.70|0.342
84543583|NCT01217112|168839581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.62|-2.52|0.314
84543584|NCT01217112|168839581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.75|-1.48|0.889
84543585|NCT01217112|168839582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|168.459||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-232.02|333.8|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||333.80|-232.02|0.764
84543586|NCT01217112|168839582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|156.72||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-333.96|192.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||192.44|-333.96|0.654
84543587|NCT01217112|168839582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|146.276||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-357.17|134.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||134.16|-357.17|0.450
84543588|NCT01217112|168839582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.124||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-153.02|347.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||347.86|-153.02|0.517
84543589|NCT01217112|168839583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.94||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.28|76.94|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||76.94|-60.28|0.840
84543590|NCT01217112|168839583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.521||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.92|74.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||74.55|-57.92|0.834
84736395|NCT04092452|169225397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|-1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-1.1|-24.5|0.0418
84736396|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||24.8|-0.7|0.0559
84543591|NCT01217112|168839583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.044||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.06|53.81|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||53.81|-77.06|0.767
84736397|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|21.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||21.4|-1.9|0.0758
84736398|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|23.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||23.2|-0.6|0.0637
84543592|NCT01217112|168839583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.68||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.99|109.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||109.01|-23.99|0.289
84543593|NCT01217112|168839584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.24|0.569
84543594|NCT01217112|168839584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.17|0.984
84543595|NCT01217112|168839584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||v Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.30|0.176
84543596|NCT01217112|168839584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.15|0.895
84543597|NCT01217112|168839585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.13|0.871
84543598|NCT01217112|168839585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.05|0.826
84543599|NCT01217112|168839585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.90|-1.46|0.693
84543600|NCT01217112|168839585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.66|-0.76|0.536
84543601|NCT01217112|168839586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.633||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|13.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||13.13|-15.80|0.878
84543602|NCT01217112|168839586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.377||0.919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|14.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||14.89|-13.18|0.919
84543603|NCT01217112|168839586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.989||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|18.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||18.11|-8.67|0.557
84543604|NCT01217112|168839586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.328||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|23.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||23.16|-4.76|0.275
84543605|NCT01217112|168839587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.445||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.12|38.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||38.01|-17.12|0.528
84543606|NCT01217112|168839587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.825||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.32|26.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||26.72|-26.32|0.990
84543607|NCT01217112|168839587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.369||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.37|30.15|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||30.15|-21.37|0.776
84543608|NCT01217112|168839587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.834||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.98|71.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||71.05|17.98|0.007
84543609|NCT01217112|168839588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.09|-0.70|0.717
84736399|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|18.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||18.8|-10.3|0.3179
84483927|NCT02820038|168719366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to use the RA Self-Management website if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.72|0.38|0.5740
84483928|NCT02820038|168719366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|2.649|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.649|0.766|0.1278
84483929|NCT02820038|168719366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.15|0.328|0.1278
84483930|NCT02820038|168719367|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||28.9|-5.2|0.17
84483931|NCT02820038|168719367|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable|Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||29.5|2.5|0.02
84483932|NCT02820038|168719367|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline values of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.2|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||19.2|-8.1|0.42
84483933|NCT02820038|168719368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.8|-5.2|0.15
84543610|NCT01217112|168839588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.55|-0.23|0.218
84736400|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|25.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||25.5|-3.5|0.1078
84736401|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|22.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||22.2|-7.0|0.1976
84736402|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.3|-3.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||-3.6|-34.3|0.9738
84736403|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|22.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||22.9|-11.3|0.2925
84736404|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|13.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||13.7|-19.8|0.6178
84736405|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.4|-4.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||-4.4|-37.4|0.9769
84543611|NCT01217112|168839588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.32|-0.40|0.378
84543612|NCT01217112|168839588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.38|-0.40|0.361
84543613|NCT01217112|168839589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.417
84543614|NCT01217112|168839589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.01|0.340
84483934|NCT02820038|168719368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.3|-4.4|0.07
84483935|NCT02820038|168719368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.6|-4.2|0.13
84483936|NCT02820038|168719369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.29|-0.19|0.68
84483937|NCT02820038|168719369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.31|-0.06|0.20
84483938|NCT02820038|168719369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-week follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.19|-0.19|0.99
84483939|NCT02820038|168719370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.105||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to view at least one webpage if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Modeled probability of viewing at least one webpage. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|3.432|1.291|0.0028
84483940|NCT02820038|168719371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.04|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would view more webpages if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.04|-1.71|0.0601
84483941|NCT02820038|168719372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to be using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.81|0.22|0.90
84543615|NCT01217112|168839589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.02|0.915
84543616|NCT01217112|168839589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.465
84543617|NCT01217112|168839590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.616||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|3.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.45|-1.96|0.646
84483942|NCT02820038|168719372|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.35|0.24|0.63
84543618|NCT01217112|168839590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|4.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.66|-0.69|0.219
84543619|NCT01217112|168839590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.23|-1.00|0.307
84543620|NCT01217112|168839590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|4.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.22|-1.17|0.348
84543621|NCT01217112|168839591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|3.91|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.91|-0.44|0.187
84543622|NCT01217112|168839591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.86|-1.43|0.578
84543623|NCT01217112|168839591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|3.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.22|-0.96|0.368
84543624|NCT01217112|168839591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.67|0.696
84543625|NCT01217112|168839592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.51|-0.90|0.327
84543626|NCT01217112|168839592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.43|-1.93|0.851
84543627|NCT01217112|168839592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.60|0.672
84543628|NCT01217112|168839592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.18|-2.26|0.978
84736406|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|13.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||13.2|-21.6|0.6529
84736407|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|4.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||4.3|-29.8|0.8878
84736408|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|10.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||10.4|-22.9|0.7259
84736409|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|31.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||31.6|-2.1|0.0826
84543629|NCT01217112|168839593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.76|-0.95|0.857
84543630|NCT01217112|168839593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.26|-0.58|0.543
84543631|NCT01217112|168839593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.92|-0.74|0.859
84543632|NCT01217112|168839593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.50|-1.27|0.467
84483943|NCT02820038|168719372|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.54|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.54|0.37|0.81
84483944|NCT01810380|168719389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.1||For all efficacy analyses the primary comparison is the difference between brexpiprazole 2 to 4 mg/day and placebo at Week 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pooled site, visit, treatment as fixed effects, baseline score as continuous covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit as interactions||The overall significance level was 0.05. The primary and the key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically. Only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant would confirmatory testing continue with the key secondary endpoint.||0.1|-8.2|0.0560
84483945|NCT01810380|168719389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.2|0.0002
84483946|NCT02623699|168719420|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|=|0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.53||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank||ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||5.53|-3.19|= 0.9689
84483947|NCT02623699|168719421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|< 0.0001
84483948|NCT02623699|168719421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.75|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.95|0.60|=0.0002
84483949|NCT02623699|168719421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.81|||=|0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||1.02|0.65|=0.0641
84483950|NCT02623699|168719421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
84483951|NCT02623699|168719422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. P-value for this secondary outcome measure (OM) is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals. Difference in LS geometric mean ratio to baseline (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.78|0.49|< 0.0001
84543633|NCT01217112|168839594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-1.32|0.124
84543634|NCT01217112|168839594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.909|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.79|-0.68|0.909
84483952|NCT02623699|168719423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.45||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.45|0.25|< 0.0001
84543635|NCT01217112|168839594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.20|-1.12|0.245
84483953|NCT02623699|168719424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.829|=|0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.528|19.322||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the ANCOVA for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||19.322|-3.528|= 0.3233
84483954|NCT02623699|168719425|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|=|0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.255||ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and adjusts for following covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline HHD overall megascore, and use of riluzole/edaravone. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||||0.255|-0.207|= 0.8390
84483955|NCT05426460|168719470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.438
84483956|NCT05426460|168719471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.847
84483957|NCT05426460|168719472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||2 X 2 ANOVA||||.570
84483958|NCT05426460|168719473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.657
84483959|NCT05426460|168719474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.254
84483960|NCT05426460|168719475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA with Main effect p-values for tDCS and AAT reported in comments below||||.852
84483961|NCT05426460|168719476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.732
84483962|NCT05426460|168719477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.038
84483963|NCT05426460|168719478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.029
84483964|NCT05426460|168719479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.353
84483965|NCT01431521|168719489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-44.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-34.07|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-34.07|-54.67|<0.001
84483966|NCT01431521|168719489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-16.37|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-16.37|-36.97|<0.001
84483967|NCT01431521|168719489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-17.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-7.39|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-7.39|-36.97|0.007
84543636|NCT01217112|168839594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-1.05|0.382
84543637|NCT01217112|168839595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.66|-2.15|0.376
84483968|NCT01431521|168719490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.35|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|6.0|||Linear mixed effect model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||6.00|-18.69|>0.200
84483969|NCT01431521|168719490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-16.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|-4.4|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||-4.40|-29.08|0.028
84543638|NCT01217112|168839595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.89|-1.15|0.688
84667906|NCT05760300|169070711|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.1|112.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||112|30.1|
84736410|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.1|8.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||8.0|-24.1|0.7884
84736411|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.43||0.9326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||1.1|-33.2|0.9326
84736412|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|12.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||12.2|-22.1|0.6810
84736413|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.52||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||7.0|-27.6|0.8308
84736414|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||7.4|-24.5|0.8063
84736415|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.27||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|23.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||23.4|-10.4|0.2649
84736416|NCT04092452|169225398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|22.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||22.4|-11.7|0.3029
84736417|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||21.2|-5.7|0.1687
84483970|NCT01431521|168719491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.47|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|10.92|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||10.92|-17.85|>0.200
84736418|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||27.0|0.6|0.0376
84736419|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||9.8|-12.9|0.5883
84736420|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|17.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||17.6|-12.2|0.3829
84736421|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|33.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||33.9|2.5|0.0316
84736422|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|19.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||19.7|-10.5|0.3072
84736423|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|3.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||3.7|-29.8|0.8952
84736424|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|30.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||30.8|-4.6|0.1157
84543639|NCT01217112|168839595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.96|-1.73|0.637
84543640|NCT01217112|168839595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-2.22|0.355
84483971|NCT01431521|168719491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.67|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|3.71|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||3.71|-25.06|>0.200
84543641|NCT01217112|168839596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.95|-0.39|0.482
84543642|NCT01217112|168839596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.02|-0.65|0.708
84543643|NCT01217112|168839596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-0.12|0.166
84543644|NCT01217112|168839596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.03|-0.37|0.424
84543645|NCT01217112|168839597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.94|0.022
84543646|NCT01217112|168839597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.69|1.44|0.014
84543647|NCT01217112|168839597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.45|0.053
84736425|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|18.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||18.9|-17.1|0.4672
84483972|NCT04984876|168719510|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|506.78|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||506.78|4.34|0.002
84483973|NCT04984876|168719510|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|100.98|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||100.98|0.80|0.073
84483974|NCT04984876|168719511|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|188.85|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||188.85|1.69|0.018
84483975|NCT04984876|168719511|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|59.93|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||59.93|0.45|0.164
84543648|NCT01217112|168839597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.78|1.33|0.012
84543649|NCT01217112|168839598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.85|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.85|0.84|0.032
84543650|NCT01217112|168839598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.35|1.18|0.026
84667907|NCT05760300|169070711|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.1|
84543651|NCT01217112|168839598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|6.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.22|0.65|0.046
84543652|NCT01217112|168839598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|6.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.45|1.26|0.018
84543653|NCT01217112|168839599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.25|-0.52|0.294
84543654|NCT01217112|168839599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|0.05|0.092
84543655|NCT01217112|168839599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.79|-0.28|0.173
84543656|NCT01217112|168839599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.95|-0.92|0.545
84543657|NCT01217112|168839600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.214||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.75|0.59|0.038
84543658|NCT01217112|168839600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.26|2.16|0.004
84543659|NCT01217112|168839600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.72|0.09|0.088
84543660|NCT01217112|168839600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.68|1.39|0.010
84543661|NCT01217112|168839601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.814||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|6.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.64|0.42|0.064
84483976|NCT04984876|168719512|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|70.08|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||70.08|0.51|0.138
84543662|NCT01217112|168839601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|10.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.38|2.72|0.008
84543663|NCT01217112|168839601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.016||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.10|0.19|0.084
84543664|NCT01217112|168839601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.25|0.84|0.041
84543665|NCT01217112|168839602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.14|0.129
84483977|NCT04984876|168719512|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|45.56|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||45.56|0.30|0.247
84483978|NCT04984876|168719513|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|31.56|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||31.56|3.63|<0.001
84483979|NCT04984876|168719513|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.36|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||14.36|1.80|0.001
84736426|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|1.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||1.6|-35.5|0.9287
84483980|NCT04984876|168719514|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|93.16|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||93.16|0.74|0.082
84483981|NCT04984876|168719514|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|16.43|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||16.43|0.02|0.632
84483982|NCT04984876|168719519|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-2.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.40|-5.15|<0.001
84483983|NCT04984876|168719519|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.09|-7.77|<0.001
84483984|NCT04984876|168719519|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.32|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-0.32|-6.08|0.015
84483985|NCT04984876|168719519|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.68||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||1.25|-4.62|0.130
84483986|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.36|-1.03|0.173
84483987|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.96|0.202
84483988|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-1.09|0.151
84483989|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.49|-0.94|0.264
84483990|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.16|0.123
84483991|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.47|-0.94|0.258
84483992|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.58|-0.92|0.324
84483993|NCT04984876|168719520|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.73|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.73|-0.78|0.473
84483994|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.57|-0.44|0.597
84483995|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.11|-0.89|0.064
84483996|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.28|-0.72|0.191
84483997|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.48|-0.51|0.472
84483998|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.62|-0.57|0.537
84483999|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.27|-0.91|0.141
84484000|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Meand difference|-0.45||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.13|-1.04|0.063
84736427|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|17.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||17.9|-17.8|0.4984
84736428|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||3.9|-33.2|0.9001
84736429|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.53||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||7.0|-27.6|0.8319
84484001|NCT04984876|168719521|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.48|-0.68|0.368
84484002|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.87|0.225
84736430|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|37.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||37.0|2.3|0.0340
84736431|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|10.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||10.8|-24.4|0.7359
84736432|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||1.3|-33.3|0.9291
84484003|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.30|-0.93|0.153
84484004|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-0.95|0.179
84484005|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.77|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.77|-0.55|0.631
84484006|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-1.18|0.060
84484007|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.56|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.56|-0.72|0.404
84484008|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.06|0.135
84484009|NCT04984876|168719522|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.01||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.72|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.72|-0.70|0.514
84484010|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.51|-0.42|0.574
84484011|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.09|-0.83|0.056
84484012|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.12|-0.83|0.069
84484013|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.19||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.27|-0.65|0.205
84484014|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.37|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.37|-0.76|0.248
84484015|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-0.98|0.071
84484016|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.09|-1.06|0.048
84484017|NCT04984876|168719523|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.25|-0.85|0.142
84484018|NCT02000622|168719534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) is 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Study is sized to provide 90% power to detect a true treatment effect of PFS hazard ratio 0.653.||0.80|0.43|0.0009
84543666|NCT01217112|168839602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.08|0.961
84543667|NCT01217112|168839602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.16|0.128
84543668|NCT01217112|168839602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.12|0.300
84543669|NCT01217112|168839603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.37|11.67|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||11.67|-6.37|0.625
84543670|NCT01217112|168839603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.519||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||16.02|-2.48|0.226
84543671|NCT01217112|168839603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.94|9.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||9.18|-7.94|0.904
84543672|NCT01217112|168839603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|15.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||15.75|-3.41|0.285
84543673|NCT01217112|168839604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.10|-1.81|0.138
84484019|NCT02000622|168719535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||PFS2 tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 157 PFS2 events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.008.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.83|0.40|0.0033
84484020|NCT02000622|168719536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 140 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.018.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.29|0.63|0.5665
84484021|NCT02000622|168719538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, adjusted for baseline global health status/QoL score, baseline score-visit interaction.|Mean difference \>0 favours olaparib.|||12.4|2.5|0.0035
84543674|NCT01217112|168839604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.55|-1.28|0.505
84543675|NCT01217112|168839604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.08|-0.73|0.743
84543676|NCT01217112|168839604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-0.60|0.540
84543677|NCT01217112|168839606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|-2.14|0.701
84543678|NCT01217112|168839606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.55|1.99|0.006
84543679|NCT01217112|168839606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|3.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.64|-1.68|0.542
84543680|NCT01217112|168839606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.08|-2.36|0.827
84543681|NCT03190993|168839623|OTHER|Linear mixed effect models were used to test if changes (Day 28 - Baseline) were equal between treatment groups (primary outcome).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.22
84543682|NCT00611923|168839641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 1 between flutamide and placebo groups||||= 0.57
84543683|NCT00611923|168839641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups.||||= .27
84543684|NCT00611923|168839642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 1 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.52
84543685|NCT00611923|168839642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 2 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.2
84543686|NCT00611923|168839643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.8
84543687|NCT00611923|168839643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.1
84543688|NCT00611923|168839644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=.15
84543689|NCT00611923|168839644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups||||= .05
84543690|NCT00611923|168839645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Comparison of change from baseline score to treatment month 1 between placebo and flutamide treated subjects.|||||=|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.5
84543691|NCT00611923|168839645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline CGI severity score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups|||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
84543692|NCT00611923|168839646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=0.2
84543693|NCT00611923|168839646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Globall Improvement score at treatment month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups|||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.06
84543694|NCT03096314|168839648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized linear model|||||||0.26
84543695|NCT03096314|168839649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.1|
84543696|NCT03096314|168839650|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||||||||8.0|-0.5|
84543697|NCT03096314|168839651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.0||||||||6.0|-5.4|
84543698|NCT03096314|168839652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||||||||0.0|-2.7|
84543699|NCT03096314|168839653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.8|
84543700|NCT03096314|168839654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-2.1|
84543701|NCT03096314|168839655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|0|
84543702|NCT03096314|168839656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.1|
84543703|NCT03096314|168839657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|34.9||||||Mild ARDS||34.9|-22.0|
84543704|NCT03096314|168839657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|5.1||||||Moderate ARDS||5.1|-56.3|
84543705|NCT03096314|168839657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|41.1||||||Severe ARDS||41.1|-2.9|
84543706|NCT03096314|168839658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.0||||||No AKI||5.0|-7.3|
84543707|NCT03096314|168839658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.4||||||Mild AKI||3.4|-5.6|
84543708|NCT03096314|168839658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Moderate AKI||3.2|-4.4|
84543709|NCT03096314|168839658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||||||Severe AKI||7.3|-1.7|
84543710|NCT03096314|168839659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.9|
84543711|NCT03096314|168839660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
84543712|NCT03096314|168839661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1||||||||5.1|-4.4|
84543713|NCT03096314|168839662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
84543714|NCT03096314|168839663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|39.6||||||||39.6|31.5|
84543715|NCT03096314|168839664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84543716|NCT03096314|168839665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84543717|NCT03096314|168839666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84543718|NCT03096314|168839667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
84543719|NCT03096314|168839668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84543720|NCT03096314|168839669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84543721|NCT00471081|168839685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|93.2|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup A.||93.2|81.9|
84543722|NCT00471081|168839685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.3|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 90%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup C.||100|97.3|
84484022|NCT02000622|168719539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.78|0.41|0.0005
84484023|NCT02000622|168719540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.47|0.24|<0.0001
84484024|NCT02000622|168719541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.74|0.38|0.0002
84484025|NCT02000622|168719542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 192 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.045.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.23|0.66|0.5131
84484026|NCT02000622|168719543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.18|0.67|0.4167
84484027|NCT02000622|168719544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.5|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.50|0.27|<0.0001
84484028|NCT02000622|168719545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.72|0.40|<0.0001
84484029|NCT01405027|168719546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4864
84484030|NCT01462045|168719551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.6|-25.6|<0.01
84484031|NCT01462045|168719552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.8|0.83|<0.01
84484032|NCT05085327|168719553|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Original: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84484033|NCT05085327|168719553|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Mint: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84484034|NCT05085327|168719553|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Black Cherry: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84484035|NCT05241470|168719563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9575
84484036|NCT05241470|168719563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9741
84484037|NCT05241470|168719564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5696|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5696
84484038|NCT05241470|168719565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0266
84484039|NCT05241470|168719566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0055
84484040|NCT05241470|168719567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
84484041|NCT05241470|168719568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0137
84484042|NCT05241470|168719569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0332|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0332
84484043|NCT05241470|168719570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
84484044|NCT05241470|168719571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0121
84484045|NCT05241470|168719572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
84484046|NCT01077193|168719575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See above.|Mean Percent Excess Weight Loss|37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.18||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|45.5||No multiple comparison adjustments are necessary as this is a single hypothesis on 1 parameter for a within group change comparison to 36.1%.|t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 32 achieves power\>90% to demonstrate non-inferiority using a one-sided t-test (alpha=0.025) when the margin of equivalence is a 5% difference in EWL. The true difference between %EWL for patients undergoing a greater curvature procedure and the target %EWL is hypothesized to be 0. The target %EWL at 3 years is 41.1%, based upon prior studies. This power analysis assumes data are drawn from a single population with a standard deviation of 8.20.||45.5|30.2|0.3227
84497155|NCT01102972|168745442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 24 was -12% or greater.|Treatment difference of proportions|0.33||||0.937||95.0|-7.97|8.64||The p-value was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence intervals were calculated (using Mantel-Haenszel weight) stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|||8.64|-7.97|0.937
84543723|NCT00471081|168839685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup W-135.||100|96.2|
84543724|NCT00471081|168839685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup Y.||100|96.2|
84543725|NCT00663793|168839710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 8 per group was estimated to confer an 80% power to detect a 40% difference in testosterone AUC with a standard deviation of 20% at an alpha of 0.05|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
84543726|NCT00663793|168839711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
84543727|NCT00663793|168839712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Area-under-the-curve for serum estradiol||||0.05
84543728|NCT01320293|168839757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change in endothelial function from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
84543729|NCT01320293|168839758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in IL-6 levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
84543730|NCT01320293|168839759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in adiponectin levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||0.05
84543731|NCT01532934|168839760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the Factor 1 by treatment interaction term and its effect on percent days abstinent/month.|Regression, Linear|||A priori hypothesis. Psychopathy Factor 1 (F1) X treatment interaction to predict higher substance use among people high in F1 + who get treatment relative to individuals with high F1 who get standard care.||||.02
84543732|NCT01532934|168839761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the F1 X treatment interaction term and its effect on substance use consequences. A priori threshold for significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Experimental hypothesis: The F1 X treatment interaction will show that individuals low on F1 who get treatment will reduce substance use consequences at six months relative to those low on F1 who get standard care.||||.34
84543733|NCT01532934|168839762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|||Experimental hypothesis: Treatment X F1 interaction will predict fewer charges at one-year follow-up for individuals low on F1 who got treatment relative to individuals low on F1 who did not.||||.69
84736433|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|16.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||16.9|-17.4|0.5087
84543734|NCT00793455|168839766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|3.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.2|||Chi-squared|||We compared the outcomes in the intervention and control groups using rate ratios and chi square test at 3 and 6 months, a 2 sided test with a p value \< .05 was used to determine significance. The study was powered to detect a 10-percentage point difference in screening completion between intervention and control groups if the control rate of completion as 20% or less with 80% power.||6.2|1.5|<0.05
84543735|NCT00793455|168839767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Same as primary outcome.||2.2|1.03|<0.05
84543736|NCT01597778|168839794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|6.1||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.4||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05. Final p-value is adjusted for the interim looks per study design.|Z-test to compare the Kaplan-Meier Est.|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||17.4|-5.2|0.4092
84543737|NCT01597778|168839794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM after adjustment for age, performance score, and disease type.||1.70|0.99|0.060
84543738|NCT01597778|168839796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before neutrophil recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the neutrophil engraftment post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.046
84543739|NCT01597778|168839797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 20k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.160
84543740|NCT01597778|168839797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 50k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.146
84736434|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|8.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||8.1|-27.2|0.8098
84543741|NCT01597778|168839799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before 2nd graft failure is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the secondary graft failure probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.693
84543742|NCT01597778|168839800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade II - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.142
84543743|NCT01597778|168839800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade III - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.604
84543744|NCT01597778|168839801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before cGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the cGVHD probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.361
84543745|NCT01597778|168839802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0373
84543746|NCT01597778|168839802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-transplant for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0235
84543747|NCT01597778|168839803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.039
84543748|NCT01597778|168839803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM||||0.030
84543749|NCT01597778|168839804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.968
84543750|NCT01597778|168839804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post- transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.907
84543751|NCT01597778|168839807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the total duration of hospitalization within 6 months post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0003
84543752|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543753|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543754|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543755|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543756|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543757|NCT04910100|168839808|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
84543758|NCT02329015|168839811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.58||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Model 1: An intent to treat analyses was performed determining effect of group assignment on academic performance while controlling for previous year GPA.||2.41|-1.25|0.54
84543759|NCT02329015|168839811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.55|||Regression, Linear|||Model 2: As active participation between groups was significantly different a second intent to treat analysis was performed which added to Model 1 (controlling for previous year GPA) by controlling for active participation.||3.55|-0.21|0.08
84543760|NCT02329015|168839811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.71|||Regression, Linear|||Model 3: Per Protocol Analysis: it was hypothesized that any benefit of yoga education would only accrue if the student was assigned to yoga classes and actively participated in the class. A third Model was fit with an interaction term for class assignment and class participation.||4.71|0.69|0.009
84543761|NCT02329015|168839812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the Voluntary subscale of the Response to Stress Questionnaire||||0.301
84543762|NCT00699998|168839817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.055||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.055|0.793|0.210
84543763|NCT00699998|168839817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.225||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.225|0.865|0.731
84543764|NCT00699998|168839818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.088|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.088|0.812|0.388
84484047|NCT03558828|168719576|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates (Cohen's d) for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator.||"The longitudinal trajectories using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were estimated. Cases for responders are duplicated and weighted based on the inverse probability of being assigned to a particular adaptive intervention (i.e., responders have a ½ probability of assignment to a specific adaptive intervention, and non-responders have a ¼ probability).~Only the Phase 1 (baseline to 8 weeks) treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 (weeks 9-34) treatment conditions. Planned contrasts were used to test specific hypotheses. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests."|||
84543765|NCT00699998|168839818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.195||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.195|0.833|0.990
84543766|NCT00699998|168839819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.073||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.073|0.826|0.353
84543767|NCT00699998|168839819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.218||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.218|0.869|0.719
84543768|NCT00699998|168839820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.063||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.063|0.810|0.270
84543769|NCT00699998|168839820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.2||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.200|0.862|0.831
84543770|NCT00699998|168839821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.872|-92.545||p-value is for Day 30 comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for Day 30 comparison|||-92.545|-107.872|<0.001
84543771|NCT00699998|168839821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.383|-93.566||p-value is for 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for 12 month comparison.|||-93.566|-115.383|<0.001
84543772|NCT00699998|168839821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.718|-33.108||p-value is for 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 30 day comparison.|||-33.108|-63.718|<0.001
84543773|NCT00699998|168839821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.061|-23.468||p-value is for the 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 12 month comparison.|||-23.468|-69.061|<0.001
84543774|NCT00699998|168839822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|0.982||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.059||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.059|0.910|0.631
84543775|NCT00699998|168839822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.01||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.113||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.113|0.916|0.844
84543776|NCT00699998|168839822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.138||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.325||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.325|0.977|0.098
84543777|NCT00699998|168839822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.066||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.31||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.310|0.867|0.545
84543778|NCT00699998|168839823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.018||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.129||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.129|0.919|0.727
84543779|NCT00699998|168839823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.057||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.187||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.187|0.942|0.346
84543780|NCT00699998|168839823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.096||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.399||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.399|0.859|0.458
84543781|NCT00699998|168839823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.033||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.329||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.329|0.803|0.802
84543782|NCT00699998|168839825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5
84543783|NCT00699998|168839825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
84543784|NCT00699998|168839825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84484048|NCT03558828|168719577|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 was used.||There were time slope terms for Phase 1 (baseline to 8-week assessment), Phase 2 (9-weeks to 34-week assessment), and Phase 3 (maintenance from 35-weeks to 50-week assessment). Also, there were interactions of condition and time slopes. For Phase 1, only the Phase 1 treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 treatment conditions. Supplementary analyses were conducted to compare the trajectories of responders versus non-responders to the Phase 1 treatment. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. The resulting effect size is equivalent to a Cohen's d, representing mean change (or difference in change) in standard deviation units. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|||
84484049|NCT02219516|168719609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|153.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|203.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||203|115|
84484050|NCT02219516|168719609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|173.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.0|230.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||230|131|
84484051|NCT02219516|168719609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.0|336.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||336|155|
84484052|NCT02219516|168719611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|174.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||174|98.6|
84484053|NCT02219516|168719611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|222.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.0|287.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||287|171|
84484054|NCT02219516|168719611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|211.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|319.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||319|139|
84543785|NCT00699998|168839825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
84543786|NCT00946920|168839837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between treatments (degarelix versus goserelin acetate) was chosen to be -5 percentage points.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|83.7||||||The cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364 was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Only testosterone measurements taken at scheduled trial visits from Day 3 to Day 364 were included in the analysis. The hypothesis to test was the following: a non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364.||83.7|75.6|
84543787|NCT04616612|168839842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84543788|NCT04616612|168839843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
84543789|NCT04616612|168839844|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Qualitative data evaluated from interviews tailored after the acceptability scale questionnaire. These interview questions specifically asked participant to rate from strongly disagree to strongly agree on each question and then rationalize answers.~Mobile support: 77% of participants agreed that mobile messages supported their health behaviors.~Time required: 85% disagreed that the intervention took too much time to learn.~Program effectiveness: 92% enjoyed this learning approach, with 100% agreeing they could use the information to improve health behaviors.~Rationalization feedback found participants in rural areas reported difficulties accessing texts."|||
84543790|NCT04616612|168839845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84543791|NCT04616612|168839846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84484055|NCT02219516|168719612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|124.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.8|173.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||173|88.8|
84484056|NCT02219516|168719612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|248.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.0|366.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||366|168|
84484057|NCT02219516|168719612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|230.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|363.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||363|146|
84484058|NCT02219516|168719614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.1|101.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|57.1|
84543792|NCT04616612|168839847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84543793|NCT04616612|168839848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84736435|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|7.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||7.2|-24.8|0.8114
84736436|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|28.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||28.0|-6.4|0.1531
84484059|NCT02219516|168719614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|58.3|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||58.3|34.9|
84484060|NCT02219516|168719614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.5|72.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||72.5|31.5|
84543794|NCT04616612|168839849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.84
84543795|NCT04616612|168839850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84543796|NCT04740918|168839851|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (HR).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.44|0.2876
84543797|NCT04740918|168839852|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.43|||Log Rank|||||6.43|0.39|0.5151
84736437|NCT04092452|169225399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|20.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||20.7|-14.1|0.3784
84736438|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.661||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.39|3.52||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||3.52|-18.39|0.1321
84736439|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-0.14|-20.90|0.0477
84736440|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.379||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.62|-3.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-3.63|-24.62|0.0134
84543798|NCT04740918|168839853|SUPERIORITY|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis), was used to test for difference in response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|0.50|0.7240
84543799|NCT04740918|168839854|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.26|0.3531
84543800|NCT04740918|168839855|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.81|||Log Rank|||||6.81|0.27|0.7175
84543801|NCT04740918|168839856|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.||||||0.3173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3173
84543802|NCT04740918|168839857|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.6|||Log Rank|||||8.60|0.16|0.8658
84543803|NCT04740918|168839858|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.99|||Log Rank|||||4.99|0.27|0.8407
84543804|NCT03759392|168839870|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2931||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|0.131|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||0.131|-1.024|0.13
84543805|NCT03759392|168839871|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3937||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.108|-0.0668|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||-0.0668|-10.108|0.025
84543806|NCT03759392|168839872|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.639|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||1.639|-0.810|0.51
84543807|NCT03759392|168839873|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Repeated measures mixed model|||||1.1|-0.6|0.54
84484061|NCT02219516|168719615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|57.9|
84543808|NCT00273182|168839912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall survival rate at 36 month|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|73.2||No p values for the analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates.|The estimate is the overall survival rate at 36 month. left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For overall mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of subjects alive during three years post-implant. Survival curves of overall mortality and cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||73.2|68.6|
84484062|NCT02219516|168719615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.3|59.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||59.5|27.3|
84484063|NCT02219516|168719615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.5|68.7|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||68.7|27.5|
84543809|NCT00273182|168839912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cause specific survival rate at 36 month|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.3|87.1||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Cause specific survival rate at 36 month.|left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For cause-specific mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive or do not die due to the progressive heart failure or sudden cardiac death causes during 3 years post-implant. Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals were calculated on a log-log scale.||87.1|83.3|
84543810|NCT00273182|168839916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||event free rate|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|91.2||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate|||Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate of the curve representing the time to first post-implant LV lead related complication were calculated to the first time point where fewer than 50 patients are still at risk. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||91.2|88.3|
84484064|NCT02219516|168719616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|150.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||150|60.6|
84543811|NCT00856492|168839917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84543812|NCT00856492|168839918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
84543813|NCT00856492|168839919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
84543814|NCT01609790|168839922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Z-test|One-sided test, significance level 0.15||Assuming a 36% 6-month (6m) rate in the placebo arm \[from the March 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing\], a 55% rate in the AMG 386 arm, and an exponential distribution corresponds to median PFS of 4.1 and 7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (AMG 386 arm vs. placebo arm). A total of 114 patients (57 per arm) will yield 85% power to detect an absolute 19% difference of 6m PFS rate at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.15 based on a 2-sample proportion test.||||0.98
84543815|NCT01609790|168839923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84543816|NCT01609790|168839924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.27|||Log Rank|||||2.27|0.95|0.09
84484065|NCT02219516|168719616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.2|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|30.2|
84484066|NCT02219516|168719616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|32.8|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||32.8|13.6|
84484067|NCT03146403|168719617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7474
84484068|NCT03146403|168719618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6450
84484069|NCT03146403|168719619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3157
84484070|NCT03146403|168719620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3869
84484071|NCT03146403|168719621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2200
84543817|NCT01609790|168839925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|1.02|0.04
84543818|NCT01609790|168839926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84571071|NCT01041859|168893330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.493||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, dose level, and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate|ANCOVA||Mean Difference is least squares mean change in DB Tapentadol ER group minus least squares mean change in DB Placebo group (based on ANCOVA model)|The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 1.0 with an SD of 2.6, 144 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a DB treatment group for the study was 300.||-0.493|-1.415|<0.001
84571072|NCT01991795|168893338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.81|0.0378
84571073|NCT01991795|168893339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.7883
84571074|NCT01991795|168893340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.71|0.0294
84736441|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.45|8.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||8.12|-19.45|0.2496
84736442|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.03|1.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.20|-25.03|0.0675
84736443|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.054||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.96|1.54||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.54|-24.96|0.0730
84736444|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.892||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|17.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||17.88|-11.38|0.6426
84736445|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.457||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|6.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||6.09|-21.73|0.1776
84736446|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.579||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.28|12.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||12.94|-15.28|0.4458
84736447|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.566||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.79|23.68||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||23.68|-7.79|0.7969
84736448|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.09|3.91||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||3.91|-26.09|0.1120
84736449|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.188||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.06|15.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||15.16|-15.06|0.5021
84736450|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.296||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.46|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||18.12|-12.46|0.6197
84736451|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.825||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|3.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||3.22|-25.81|0.1003
84543819|NCT04162847|168839934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline||1.10|.88|.76
84543820|NCT04162847|168839934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||6 week follow-up||.93|.76|.001
84543821|NCT04162847|168839934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month follow-up||.90|.74|.000
84543822|NCT04162847|168839934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||2 year||.95|.77|.002
84543823|NCT04162847|168839935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|7.5|||Chi-squared|||A comparison of service uptake between the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period.||7.50|5.98|.000
84484072|NCT02182999|168719624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 17 patients in each group was previously calculated on the basis of a significance level of .05, a power of 80%, an anticipated pooled standard Deviation (SD) of 1.0 of the mean verbal NRS pain level, and a minimal clinically important difference in the mean verbal NRS pain level of 1.0 points between the groups. Anticipating a loss to follow-up, we planned to recruit a total of 50 patients (25 patients each group).||||0.596
84484073|NCT02182999|168719625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
84484074|NCT02972593|168719642|OTHER|Data collapsed to participant level, creating an ever/never response for each participant for each infection outcome type. Analyses performed at the participant level to determine if proportion of outcome types were similar between transfusion groups using Fisher's Exact tests, due to small expected cell counts, using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Power analyses performed based on these proportions using bootstrapping methods in SAS and confirmed with nQuery v8.7.1.0.||||||0.0122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0122
84484075|NCT02972593|168719643|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7742
84484076|NCT02972593|168719644|OTHER|||||||0.1443|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1443
84484077|NCT02203916|168719645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.138|-8.497||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-8.497|-18.138|<0.001
84484078|NCT02203916|168719645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.141||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-10.141|-19.770|<0.001
84484079|NCT03489850|168719689|SUPERIORITY||Parameter Estimate|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.69|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.69|-1.01|.62
84484080|NCT03489850|168719690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||.98|.30|<0.05
84484081|NCT03489850|168719691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.48|0.47|<0.05
84484082|NCT03489850|168719692|SUPERIORITY||F|7.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84484083|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.145
84484084|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.618
84484085|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.262
84543824|NCT04162847|168839935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.04|||Chi-squared|||A secondary analysis using the same criterion for the intervention group (access to the digital intervention during the 6-month follow-up) but expanding the control group definition to include individuals who reported having psychotherapy or starting a new medication at any point during the full 2-year follow-up period.||2.04|1.64|.000
84543825|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 week||||.000
84543826|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 months||||.000
84543827|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 2 year||||.02
84543828|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 week||||.002
84543829|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 month||||.80
84543830|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 2 year||||.51
84543831|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 week||||.004
84543832|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 month||||.02
84543833|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 2 year||||.09
84543834|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 week||||.66
84543835|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 month||||.85
84484086|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.240
84484087|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
84484088|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.457
84484089|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 6 months)||||.612
84484090|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (6 vs 12 months)||||.522
84484091|NCT02033850|168719697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 12 months)||||.800
84484092|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 6 months)||||.204
84484093|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (6 vs 12 months)||||.810
84484094|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 12 months)||||.193
84484095|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 6 months)||||.698
84484096|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (6 vs 12 months)||||.283
84484097|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 12 months)||||.647
84484098|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 6 months)||||.057
84484099|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (6 vs 12 months)||||.685
84484100|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 12 months)||||.056
84484101|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.393
84484102|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (6 vs 12 months)||||.958
84484103|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.448
84484104|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.567
84484105|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.274
84484106|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.668
84484107|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.709
84484108|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.567
84484109|NCT02033850|168719698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.867
84484110|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.095
84484111|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.729
84484112|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.115
84484113|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.576
84484114|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.191
84484115|NCT02033850|168719699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.790
84484116|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 6 months)||||.936
84484117|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (6 vs 12 months)||||.188
84484118|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 12 months)||||.381
84484119|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 6 months)||||.458
84484120|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (6 vs 12 months)||||.236
84484121|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 12 months)||||.601
84484122|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 6 months)||||.839
84484123|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (6 vs 12 months)||||.021
84484124|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 12 months)||||.032
84484125|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.858
84484126|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.212
84484127|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.268
84484128|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.184
84484129|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.358
84484130|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.768
84484131|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 6 months)||||.164
84484132|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (6 vs 12 months)||||.420
84484133|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 12 months)||||.527
84484134|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 6 months)||||.762
84484135|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (6 vs 12 months)||||.405
84484136|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 12 months)||||.674
84484137|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 6 months)||||.328
84484138|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (6 vs 12 months)||||.198
84484139|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 12 months)||||.639
84484140|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 6 months)||||.098
84484141|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (6 vs 12 months)||||.235
84543836|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 2 year||||.97
84543837|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 week||||.000
84543838|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 month||||.000
84543839|NCT04162847|168839936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 2 year||||.54
84543840|NCT04162847|168839937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 6 months||||.48
84543841|NCT04162847|168839937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 2 years||||.04
84736452|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|14.81||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||14.81|-14.50|0.5070
84736453|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.368||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.74|16.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||16.08|-14.74|0.5283
84543842|NCT04162847|168839937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 6 months||||.97
84543843|NCT04162847|168839937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 2 years||||.80
84543844|NCT00127231|168839944|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking frequency was analyzed using a generalized binomial mixed-effects model with the logit link function and a random intercept. The use of a binomial distribution was indicated for this analysis because the outcome was assessed using a 90-day TLFB interview, which has a cap at 90 days.||0.75|0.23|<0.005
84543845|NCT01836471|168839992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.5|0.7269
84736454|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.98|-0.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||-0.63|-29.98|0.0431
84736455|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.22|8.45||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||8.45|-21.22|0.2395
84736456|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.617||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.25|18.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||18.39|-13.25|0.6054
84543846|NCT01836471|168839993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
84543847|NCT01836471|168839993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.04|
84543848|NCT01836471|168839993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.13|
84543849|NCT01836471|168839994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9179
84543850|NCT01836471|168839995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.22|
84543851|NCT01836471|168839995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.32|
84543852|NCT01836471|168839995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
84543853|NCT01836471|168839995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.43|
84543854|NCT01836471|168839996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7930
84543855|NCT00191477|168840008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.777||95.0|0.643|1.392||Only 87 recurrences and 7 deaths were documented at planned end of follow-up. The study was stopped early for futility reasons based on an interim analysis using pre-defined stopping boundaries for the hazard ratio (HR) of RFS.|Log Rank|||Sample-size calculation based on estimated 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of 63% (gemcitabine) and 50% (placebo). 191 critical events were required to detect a difference in RFS (80% power, log-rank test, alpha=0.050). Sample size of 328 patients with clinical evidence of superficial bladder cancer needed to observe these 191 events within a 24-month follow-up period, assuming 246 of these patients would receive instillation and have histopathological diagnosis of pTa/pT1(G1-3/Gx).||1.392|0.643|0.777
84543856|NCT01169064|168840032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.365
84736457|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.344||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.91|-6.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-6.17|-36.91|0.0106
84736458|NCT04092452|169225400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.84|2.77||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||2.77|-27.84|0.0890
84736459|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|3.64||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.64|-15.98|0.1505
84736460|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.555||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.19|-1.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||-1.92|-20.19|0.0233
84736461|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.1423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.09|3.41||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.41|-16.09|0.1423
84736462|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.202||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|9.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.70|-14.00|0.3827
84736463|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.741||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.44|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.74|-21.44|0.0624
84736464|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.171||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.04|9.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.55|-14.04|0.3771
84543857|NCT01169064|168840033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.282
84736465|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.614||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|22.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||22.21|-6.13|0.8247
84736466|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|4.33||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||4.33|-22.28|0.1337
84736467|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.523||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|19.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||19.39|-8.65|0.7357
84736468|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.977||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|28.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||28.55|-0.98|0.9377
84736469|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.29|4.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||4.51|-23.29|0.1332
84736470|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.907||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|20.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||20.70|-8.60|0.7514
84736471|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|23.62||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.62|-5.67|0.8433
84736472|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.392||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.64|4.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||4.96|-22.64|0.1461
84736473|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.818||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|23.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.15|-5.86|0.8364
84543858|NCT01451463|168840128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
84543859|NCT01451463|168840129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.114
84571075|NCT01991795|168893341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.64|0.0375
84736474|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.527||0.6085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.68|16.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||16.37|-11.68|0.6085
84736475|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.022||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.58|-1.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||-1.19|-27.58|0.0365
84736476|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.469||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|14.36||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||14.36|-13.50|0.5201
84736477|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.564||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||18.12|-10.05|0.6813
84736478|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-4.84||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-4.84|-31.91|0.0128
84736479|NCT04092452|169225401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.639||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|10.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||10.12|-18.30|0.3181
84736480|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.19|-0.80|0.1536
84736481|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.02|-0.93|0.0581
84736482|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.01||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.01|-0.98|0.0532
84736483|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.31||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.31|-0.95|0.2007
84736484|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.06||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.06|-1.16|0.0694
84736485|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.02|0.1509
84736486|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.78||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.78|-0.64|0.5663
84736487|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.13|0.1396
84736488|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.69|0.5227
84736489|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.24||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||1.24|-0.24|0.8656
84736490|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.29||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.29|-1.13|0.1671
84736491|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.86||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.86|-0.62|0.6063
84736492|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.92|-0.59|0.6402
84736493|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.34|-1.11|0.1916
84736494|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.88|-0.62|0.6119
84736495|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.80|-0.68|0.5568
84736496|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.15|-1.27|0.0976
84543860|NCT02964247|168840130|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.48|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.48|-0.89|<.001
84543861|NCT02964247|168840130|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand.The change in HbA1c from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.53|-0.94|<.001
84543862|NCT02964247|168840131|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.09|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in body weight from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.09|-1.73|0.077
84571076|NCT01991795|168893342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.87|0.6846
84736497|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.74|0.5001
84736498|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.83||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.83|-0.65|0.5810
84736499|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-0.34|-1.80|0.0079
84736500|NCT04092452|169225402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.18||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.18|-1.31|0.1068
84736501|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.22|-0.72|0.1898
84736502|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.02|-0.88|0.0562
84736503|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.16|-0.78|0.1382
84736504|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.28||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.28|-0.85|0.2039
84736505|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.09|-1.00|0.0855
84736506|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.39|-0.74|0.3089
84736507|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.79||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.79|-0.55|0.6124
84736508|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.14|-1.15|0.1003
84736509|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.87||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.87|-0.47|0.6875
84736510|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||1.21|-0.19|0.8833
84736511|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.25||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.25|-1.11|0.1502
84736512|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.6788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.90|-0.50|0.6788
84736513|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.94|-0.51|0.6835
84736514|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.38||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.38|-1.02|0.2237
84736515|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.98|-0.46|0.7234
84736516|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.67||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.67|-0.72|0.4773
84736517|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.10|-1.25|0.0818
84736518|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.85||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.85|-0.55|0.6397
84736519|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.74|-0.67|0.5321
84484142|NCT02033850|168719700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 12 months)||||.789
84736520|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-0.20|-1.59|0.0167
84484143|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 6 months)||||.743
84484144|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (6 vs 12 months)||||.428
84484145|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 12 months)||||.294
84484146|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 6 months)||||.157
84484147|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (6 vs 12 months)||||.094
84484148|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 12 months)||||.476
84484149|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 6 months)||||.142
84484150|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (6 vs 12 months)||||.651
84484151|NCT02033850|168719701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 12 months)||||.534
84484152|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.882
84484153|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.835
84484154|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
84484155|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.392
84484156|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
84484157|NCT02033850|168719702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.486
84736521|NCT04092452|169225403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.34|-1.09|0.1963
84571077|NCT01991795|168893343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||||2.94|1.82|<0.0001
84736522|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|6.0||||||Week 1||6.0|-10.3|
84484158|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.920
84484159|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
84484160|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.716
84484161|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.973
84484162|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
84484163|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.300
84484164|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.068
84484165|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.089
84484166|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.241
84484167|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.089
84484168|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
84484169|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
84484170|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.777
84484171|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
84484172|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.498
84484173|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.942
84484174|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.578
84484175|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
84484176|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
84484177|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.038
84484178|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.658
84484179|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.522
84484180|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
84484181|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.170
84484182|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.961
84484183|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.413
84484184|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.477
84484185|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.420
84484186|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.241
84571078|NCT01991795|168893344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.07|||Regression, Cox|||||3.07|2.02|<0.0001
84736523|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|11.3||||||Week 1||11.3|-7.3|
84736524|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|17.4||||||Week 1||17.4|-3.9|
84736525|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|23.4||||||Week 2||23.4|-2.0|
84736526|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|19.7||||||Week 2||19.7|-4.5|
84736527|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.6||||||Week 2||19.6|-4.6|
84736528|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|20.5||||||Week 4||20.5|-5.7|
84484187|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.295
84484188|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.453
84484189|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.952
84484190|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.881
84484191|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.413
84484192|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.961
84484193|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
84484194|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.951
84484195|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
84484196|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
84484197|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
84484198|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.027
84484199|NCT02033850|168719703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.169
84484200|NCT02033850|168719704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.478
84571079|NCT01991795|168893345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.93|||Regression, Cox|||||2.93|1.98|<0.0001
84736529|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|28.7||||||Week 4||28.7|1.4|
84736530|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.5||||||Week 4||17.5|-8.0|
84736531|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|28.0||||||Week 6||28.0|0.7|
84736532|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|24.0||||||Week 6||24.0|-2.2|
84484201|NCT02033850|168719705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in vermis VIIIb||||0.029
84484202|NCT02033850|168719705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in right VIIb lobule||||0.04
84484203|NCT02033850|168719705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in left VIIb lobule||||0.039
84484204|NCT00441012|168719743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|100.0||||||95.0|98.7|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||100.0|98.7|
84484205|NCT00441012|168719743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|99.1||||||95.0|69.9|99.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||99.9|69.9|
84484206|NCT00441012|168719744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Modified Process Vaccine is non-inferior to COMVAX with respect to anti-HBs GMT. The non-inferiority criterion requires that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the ratio of the Month 11 GMTs \[GMT modified process vaccine/GMT COMVAX™\] is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|2.5||||||95.0|1.9|3.3||||||||3.3|1.9|
84484207|NCT00441012|168719746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|93.9||||||95.0|90.0|96.6|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||96.6|90.0|
84484208|NCT00441012|168719746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|92.1||||||95.0|87.8|95.3|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-PRP \> 1µg/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose.||95.3|87.8|
84484209|NCT02725268|168719769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.12||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.12|0.58|=0.178
84571080|NCT01991795|168893346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.92|||Regression, Cox|||||4.92|3.32|<0.0001
84736533|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|23.9||||||Week 6||23.9|-2.6|
84736534|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|23.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||23.9|-3.6|0.1162
84736535|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||27.0|-0.8|0.0642
84736536|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||21.8|-5.7|0.1664
84484210|NCT02725268|168719769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.86|1.19|=0.092
84484211|NCT02725268|168719769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.57|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||4.49|1.47|=0.147
84484212|NCT02725268|168719771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.5||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.50|0.72|=0.968
84484213|NCT02725268|168719771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.37|0.95|=0.145
84484214|NCT02725268|168719771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.73||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.73|0.87|=0.243
84484215|NCT02725268|168719772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.11|0.57|=0.170
84484216|NCT02725268|168719772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.68||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.68|1.04|=0.224
84484217|NCT02725268|168719772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.96||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||3.96|1.32|=0.244
84543863|NCT02964247|168840131|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand. The change in body weight from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.04|-1.77|0.062
84543864|NCT01288079|168840156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.39|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.39|-7.35|0.617
84543865|NCT01288079|168840156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|2.91|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.91|-10.06|0.277
84736537|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|20.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||20.5|-6.1|0.1882
84736538|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|28.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||28.8|1.1|0.0423
84736539|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|16.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.3|-9.7|0.3396
84736540|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|14.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||14.8|-9.4|0.3584
84736541|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|28.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||28.3|1.5|0.0367
84543866|NCT01288079|168840156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|2.0|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.00|-9.72|0.194
84543867|NCT01709500|168840163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-44.8|-58.1|<0.0001
84543868|NCT01709500|168840164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-45.6|-58.7|<0.0001
84543869|NCT01709500|168840165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-42.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.2|-54.7|<0.0001
84543870|NCT01709500|168840166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-42.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.5|-55|<0.0001
84543871|NCT01709500|168840167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-34.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-34.5|-44.1|<0.0001
84543872|NCT01709500|168840168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-35.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-35.1|-44.5|<0.0001
84543873|NCT01709500|168840169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-39.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-39.7|-51.8|<0.0001
84543874|NCT01709500|168840170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-40.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.3|<0.0001
84543875|NCT01709500|168840171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-28.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.1|-37.4|<0.0001
84543876|NCT01709500|168840172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-29.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-29.8|-39.2|<0.0001
84543877|NCT01709500|168840173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-36.2|-47.8|<0.0001
84543878|NCT01709500|168840174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.4|-34.5|<0.0001
84543879|NCT01709500|168840175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-50.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-50.8|-66.8|<0.0001
84543880|NCT01709500|168840176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|130.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||130|20.9|<0.0001
84543881|NCT01709500|168840177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|132.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||132.6|21.4|<0.0001
84543882|NCT01709500|168840178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|239.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|1820.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1820.3|31.6|<0.0001
84543883|NCT01709500|168840179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|1841.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1841.7|31.4|<0.0001
84571081|NCT06119854|168893347|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|3.59|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||3.590|0.406|
84543884|NCT01709500|168840180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-14.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.2|-26.4|<0.0001
84543885|NCT01709500|168840181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||10.7|2.8|= 0.0009
84543886|NCT01709500|168840182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-4.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure. Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-4.3|-17.5|= 0.0012
84543887|NCT01709500|168840183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4|||=|0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.5|1.3|= 0.0062
84543888|NCT01709500|168840184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-13.1|-25|<0.0001
84543889|NCT01709500|168840185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||=|0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.8|0.9|= 0.0147
84543890|NCT01709500|168840186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.6|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-1.1|-16.1|= 0.024
84543891|NCT01709500|168840187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.5|-0.8|= 0.1475
84543892|NCT03888469|168840196|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Moist|||0.00||
84543893|NCT00420420|168840276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.283
84543894|NCT00420420|168840277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at week 4||||0.180
84543895|NCT00420420|168840278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.716
84543896|NCT00868530|168840309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
84543897|NCT03296813|168840320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.18||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.180|0.885|0.765
84543898|NCT03296813|168840321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.02||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.020|0.826|0.113
84571082|NCT06119854|168893347|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.018|-0.013|
84736542|NCT04092452|169225404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||17.8|-7.4|0.2486
84736543|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
84571083|NCT06119854|168893347|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|2.436|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||2.436|0.194|
84571084|NCT06119854|168893347|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.01|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.010|-0.018|
84571085|NCT06119854|168893348|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.253|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.253|0.785|
84736544|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
84736545|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
84736546|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
84736547|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
84736548|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
84736549|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
84736550|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
84736551|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
84736552|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
84736553|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
84543899|NCT03296813|168840322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.068||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Linear|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to total all-cause hospitalizations through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a negative binomial regression of the frequency of re-hospitalizations with an offset term of the log of each subject's months to last re-hospitalization assessment through month 12. Re-hospitalizations greater than or equal to 5 were combined and analyzed with re-hospitalizations = 5 (i.e., one category \>=5) and for the subjects with \>=5 re-hospitalizations, the offset term was the log of the months to the 5th re-hospitalization.|1.068|0.836|0.366
84543900|NCT03296813|168840323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.181||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through day 30 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.181|0.753|0.610
84571086|NCT06119854|168893348|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.058|-0.063|
84736554|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
84571087|NCT06119854|168893348|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.534|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.534|0.981|
84571088|NCT06119854|168893348|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.133|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.133|0.008|
84736555|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
84736556|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
84736557|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
84736558|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
84736559|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
84736560|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
84736561|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
84736562|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
84736563|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
84736564|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
84736565|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
84736566|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
84736567|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
84736568|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
84736569|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
84736570|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
84736571|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
84736572|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
84736573|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
84736574|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
84736575|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
84736576|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
84543901|NCT03296813|168840324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.26||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|3.26|-0.66|0.194
84543902|NCT03296813|168840324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.74||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.74|-2.53|0.718
84543903|NCT03296813|168840324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.3||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|2.30|-2.26|0.987
84543904|NCT03296813|168840325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.904
84543905|NCT03296813|168840325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.829
84543906|NCT03296813|168840325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.342
84736577|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
84736578|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
84736579|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
84736580|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
84736581|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
84736582|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
84736583|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
84736584|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
84736585|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
84736586|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
84736587|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
84736588|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
84736589|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
84736590|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
84736591|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
84736592|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
84736593|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
84736594|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
84736595|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
84736596|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
84736597|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
84736598|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
84736599|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
84736600|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
84736601|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
84736602|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
84736603|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
84736604|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
84736605|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
84543907|NCT02546986|168840326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|2.038|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.038|0.926|0.1789
84736606|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
84736607|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
84736608|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
84736609|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
84736610|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
84736611|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
84736612|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
84736613|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
84736614|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
84736615|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
84736616|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
84736617|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
84736618|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
84736619|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
84736620|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
84736621|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
84736622|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
84736623|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
84736624|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
84736625|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
84736626|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
84736627|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
84736628|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
84736629|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
84736630|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
84736631|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
84736632|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
84736633|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
84736634|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
84736635|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
84736636|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
84736637|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
84736638|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
84736639|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
84736640|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
84484218|NCT02725268|168719773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.9|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||2.90|0.66|
84543908|NCT02546986|168840327|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Difference|-13.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.0|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma||||3.5|-29.0|0.1572
84543909|NCT02546986|168840328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.276|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma).|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.276|0.830|0.2968
84736641|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
84736642|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
84736643|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
84736644|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
84736645|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
84736646|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
84736647|NCT04092452|169225410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
84736648|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
84736649|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
84736650|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
84736651|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
84736652|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
84736653|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
84736654|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
84736655|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
84736656|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
84736657|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
84736658|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
84736659|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
84736660|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
84736661|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
84736662|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
84736663|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
84736664|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
84736665|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
84736666|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
84736667|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
84736668|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
84736669|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
84736670|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
84736671|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
84484219|NCT02725268|168719773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.14|0.04|
84484220|NCT02725268|168719773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.00|0.00|
84484221|NCT02725268|168719774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.96|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||5.96|1.53|
84543910|NCT02546986|168840329|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate (ORR) Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.3|||||The 90% exact unconditional confidence interval was used for ORR difference.|||21.3|-11.5|
84484222|NCT02725268|168719774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.86|0.18|
84736672|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
84736673|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
84736674|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
84736675|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
84736676|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
84736677|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
84736678|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
84736679|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
84736680|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
84736681|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
84736682|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
84736683|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
84736684|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
84736685|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
84736686|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
84736687|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
84736688|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
84736689|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
84736690|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
84736691|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
84736692|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
84736693|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
84736694|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
84484223|NCT02725268|168719774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.21|0.15|
84484224|NCT02725268|168719775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||7.67|0.89|
84543911|NCT02546986|168840331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.352||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.0|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.000|0.914|0.1990
84543912|NCT00803790|168840358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
84736695|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
84736696|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
84736697|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
84736698|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
84736699|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
84736700|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
84736701|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
84736702|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
84736703|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
84736704|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
84736705|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
84736706|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
84736707|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
84736708|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
84736709|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
84736710|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
84736711|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
84736712|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
84736713|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
84736714|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
84736715|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
84736716|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
84736717|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
84736718|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
84736719|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
84484225|NCT02725268|168719775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.51|0.05|
84484226|NCT02725268|168719775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.67|0.01|
84543913|NCT00803790|168840359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||Least squares mean ratio for AUC 0-80 hr for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone. No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis.||1.00|0.89|
84736720|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
84736721|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
84736722|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
84736723|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
84736724|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
84736725|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
84736726|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
84736727|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
84736728|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
84736729|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
84736730|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
84484227|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining analysis, day 28.||-0.19|-0.91|0.003
84484228|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.28|-1.28|0.19
84543914|NCT00803790|168840360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||"Least squares mean ratio for Cmax for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone.~No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis."||1.00|0.88|
84736731|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
84736732|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
84736733|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
84736734|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
84736735|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
84736736|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
84736737|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
84736738|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
84736739|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
84736740|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
84736741|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
84736742|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
84736743|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
84736744|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
84736745|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
84736746|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
84736747|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
84736748|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
84736749|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
84484229|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.02|-1.86|0.047
84484230|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.10|-1.49|0.08
84543915|NCT01415518|168840385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.096|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.096|1.043|<.0001
84736750|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
84736751|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
84736752|NCT04092452|169225411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
84736753|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
84736754|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
84736755|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
84736756|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
84736757|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
84736758|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
84736759|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
84736760|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
84736761|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
84736762|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
84736763|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
84736764|NCT04092452|169225412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
84484231|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.67|0.09
84484232|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining analysis, day 28||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
84484233|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.61|-1.04|0.58
84736765|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
84736766|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
84736767|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
84736768|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
84736769|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
84736770|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
84736771|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
84736772|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
84736773|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
84736774|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
84736775|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
84736776|NCT04092452|169225413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
84736777|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-9.1|
84736778|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|9.8||||||Week 4||9.8|-7.4|
84736779|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|3.4||||||Week 4||3.4|-11.4|
84736780|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.8||||||Week 8||11.8|-3.3|
84736781|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|14.2||||||Week 8||14.2|-1.8|
84736782|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|9.8||||||Week 8||9.8|-4.8|
84736783|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|16.5||||||Week 12||16.5|-1.3|
84736784|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|15.7||||||Week 12||15.7|-2.0|
84736785|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|11.3||||||Week 12||11.3|-5.5|
84736786|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|6.4||||||Week 16||6.4|-6.3|
84736787|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|15.7||||||Week 16||15.7|-2.8|
84736788|NCT04092452|169225414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|16.9||||||Week 16||16.9|-1.6|
84736789|NCT02127125|169225419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.025||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||<0.025
84736790|NCT02127125|169225419|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
84736791|NCT02127125|169225420|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
84736792|NCT02127125|169225420|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
84736793|NCT02127125|169225421|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
84736794|NCT02127125|169225421|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
84736795|NCT03332784|169225449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84736796|NCT03332784|169225449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84736797|NCT03332784|169225449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84736798|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.1|1.39|
84484234|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.21|-2.17|0.021
84484235|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.34|-1.88|0.16
84484236|NCT04498468|168719776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.55|0.097
84484237|NCT04498468|168719777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Eye dryness, day 28||0.4|-11.4|0.069
84484238|NCT04498468|168719777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Eye discomfort, Day 28||6.3|-7.0|0.92
84736799|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.2|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.2|0.42|
84736800|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.9|0.98|
84736801|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.91|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.91|0.59|
84484239|NCT04498468|168719777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS eye fatigue, day 28||3.1|-5.8|0.55
84484240|NCT04498468|168719778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||McNemar|||||2.0|0.8|0.42
84484241|NCT04498468|168719779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.42|||McNemar|||||1.42|0.76|1.00
84484242|NCT01838304|168719783|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|14.81|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test for odd's ratio of time below a saturation of 80% to total time||14.81|4.21|<0.0001
84736802|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|11|
84736803|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|69.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||69|14|
84736804|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.42|0.7|
84484243|NCT03674541|168719785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.043
84484244|NCT03674541|168719786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity for secondary outcomes|Welch's t-test|||||||0.008
84484245|NCT03674541|168719787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.263
84484246|NCT03674541|168719788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.039
84484247|NCT03674541|168719789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.068
84484248|NCT03674541|168719790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.045
84484249|NCT03674541|168719791|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||1.000
84484250|NCT03674541|168719792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.093
84484251|NCT03674541|168719793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.427
84484252|NCT03674541|168719794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.262
84484253|NCT03674541|168719795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.038
84484254|NCT03674541|168719796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.147
84484255|NCT02963766|168719830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.001
84484256|NCT02963766|168719831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
84484257|NCT02963766|168719831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-2.2|<0.001
84484258|NCT02963766|168719832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.65|0.021
84484259|NCT02963766|168719832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
84484260|NCT02963766|168719832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.03|<0.001
84484261|NCT02963766|168719833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.491|34.902|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.902|3.491|<0.001
84484262|NCT02963766|168719833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.666|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.653|37.253|||Regression, Logistic|||||37.253|3.653|<0.001
84736805|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|10.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||10|3.01|
84736806|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|13.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||13|3.86|
84736807|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.99|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.99|1.4|
84736808|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.97|0.56|
84736809|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.27|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.27|1.47|
84736810|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.13|0.23|
84736811|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||97|21|
84484263|NCT02963766|168719833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.163|30.932|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.932|4.163|<0.001
84543916|NCT01415518|168840386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.067|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.09|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.090|1.044|<.0001
84543917|NCT01415518|168840387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.068|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.043|1.092|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.092|1.043|<.0001
84543918|NCT01415518|168840388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.064|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.064|1.017|0.0007
84736812|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|51.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||51|10|
84736813|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.82|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.82|0.2|
84736814|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|48.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||48|12|
84736815|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|20.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||20|4.69|
84736816|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.21|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.21|0.55|
84736817|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.96|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.96|1.27|
84736818|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.57|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.57|1.38|
84484264|NCT02963766|168719834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.689
84736819|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.28|
84736820|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|94.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||94|26|
84736821|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|14|
84736822|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.34|
84736823|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|20|
84736824|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||36|12|
84736825|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.69|0.48|
84484265|NCT02963766|168719834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.924
84484266|NCT02963766|168719834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.776
84484267|NCT00814307|168719846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.12|48.95||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||48.95|29.12|<0.0001
84543919|NCT01415518|168840389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.045|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.065|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.065|1.024|<.0001
84543920|NCT01415518|168840390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.06|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.060|1.017|0.0003
84543921|NCT01415518|168840391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.035||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.066|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.066|1.004|0.0248
84543922|NCT01415518|168840392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.067|1.010|0.0074
84571089|NCT06119854|168893349|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.527|||||CBT group represents the numerator and standard (conventional) represents the denominator|||1.527|0.740|
84736826|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.74||||||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.74|1.94|
84736827|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|6.13|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.13|1.71|
84736828|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.66|0.16|
84736829|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|241.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||241|61|
84736830|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||80|20|
84736831|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.05|0.32|
84484268|NCT00814307|168719846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.04|43.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||43.13|23.04|<0.0001
84484269|NCT00814307|168719847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.27|-0.50|<.0001
84484270|NCT00814307|168719847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<0.0001
84484271|NCT00814307|168719848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.24||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|10.96||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||10.96|-0.49|0.0728
84484272|NCT00814307|168719848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.31||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|6.46||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||6.46|-3.85|0.6193
84484273|NCT01256918|168719892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence|0.0|||>|0.05|||||||incidence|||"Any occurence of posterior capsular rupture in attempted vertical chop would have been an indicator of overzealous penetration as the vertical chop even though effective would not have been safe.~We hypothesised that use of callibrated phacotip after careful preoperative assessment for performing vertical chop during phacoemulsification is not associated with any posterior capsular rupture we noted any incidence of posterior capsular rupture."||||>0.05
84484274|NCT01256918|168719893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.850958|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis : there is no correlation between nuclear colour and phacodepth required for a full thickness crack during a vertical chop||||<0.05
84484275|NCT01256918|168719894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.842617|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||"Null hypothesis:~there is no correlation between nuclear opalescence and phacodepth required to achieve full thickness nuclear crack using a callibrated phacotip."||||<0.05
84484276|NCT01256918|168719895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.111166|||>|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis there is no correlation between lens thickness and penetration of phacotip (phacodepth)required to achieve full thickness crack in vertical chop during phacoemulsification||||>0.05
84484277|NCT03073200|168719900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.4|||Fisher Exact|||||76.4|51.0|<0.001
84543923|NCT01415518|168840393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.172||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.733|37.611|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||37.611|12.733|0.0001
84736832|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|18|
84736833|NCT01018732|169225477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||35|10|
84543924|NCT01415518|168840394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.136|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.163|30.11|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.110|12.163|<.0001
84736834|NCT02165826|169225487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.93||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.47|0.017
84736835|NCT02165826|169225487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.92|0.51|
84736836|NCT02165826|169225487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.07|0.55|0.114
84736837|NCT02165826|169225487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.02|0.58|
84736838|NCT02165826|169225488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.47|0.001
84736839|NCT02165826|169225488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.04|0.59|0.091
84736840|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.049367|TWO_SIDED|||||Alternative hypothesis: can be changed of speech, language, communication skills for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups in 2-month Threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.049367
84736841|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.004072|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Control groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.004072
84484278|NCT03073200|168719901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|81.0|||Fisher Exact|||||81|59.3|<0.001
84484279|NCT03073200|168719902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|82.5|||Fisher Exact|||||82.5|63.3|<0.001
84484280|NCT03073200|168719903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|40.6|<0.001
84484281|NCT03073200|168719904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.6|||Fisher Exact|||||57.6|38.0|<0.001
84484282|NCT03073200|168719905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.8|||Fisher Exact|||||56.8|33.2|<0.001
84484283|NCT03073200|168719906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact|||||52.0|29.3|<0.001
84484284|NCT03073200|168719907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|66.9|||Fisher Exact|||||66.9|35.3|<0.001
84484285|NCT03073200|168719908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|55.2|||Fisher Exact|||||55.2|27.0|<0.001
84484286|NCT03073200|168719909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.747||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.38|-28.70|0.005
84484287|NCT03073200|168719910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-12.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.04|-18.69|<0.001
84484288|NCT03073200|168719911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.853||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.90|-20.11|0.006
84484289|NCT03073200|168719914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|41.7|||Fisher Exact|||||41.7|0.1|0.089
84484290|NCT03073200|168719915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|45.4|||Fisher Exact|||||45.4|0.6|0.070
84484291|NCT04964557|168719924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-56.6|||ANCOVA|||||-56.6|-68|<0.001
84484292|NCT04964557|168719925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.7|-71.7|||ANCOVA|||||-71.7|-81.7|<0.001
84484293|NCT03039192|168719955|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-6.56|0.006
84484294|NCT03559192|168719978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|=|0.0443|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09||= 0.0443
84484295|NCT03559192|168719979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.21||0.0017
84484296|NCT03559192|168719981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.4188|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41||= 0.4188
84484297|NCT03559192|168719982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2503|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.2503
84484298|NCT00400946|168720056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
84484299|NCT00142818|168720075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
84484300|NCT01791465|168720143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84484301|NCT01791465|168720144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted - this was a Wilcoxon signed rank p-value (Baseline vs. week 16) comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no adjustments||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between baseline and 16 week IL-6||||0.34
84484302|NCT01791465|168720145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
84484303|NCT01791465|168720146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84484304|NCT01791465|168720147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84484305|NCT01791465|168720148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84484306|NCT01791465|168720149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84484307|NCT01791465|168720150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84484308|NCT01791465|168720151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84484309|NCT01791465|168720152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84484310|NCT01791465|168720153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84484311|NCT01791465|168720154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84484312|NCT01791465|168720155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84484313|NCT01791465|168720156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84484314|NCT01791465|168720157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84484315|NCT01791465|168720158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84484316|NCT01791465|168720159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84484317|NCT01791465|168720160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
84484318|NCT01791465|168720161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84484319|NCT01791465|168720162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84484320|NCT01791465|168720163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
84484321|NCT02736929|168720173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up||22.3|-2.7|0.12
84484322|NCT02736929|168720174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.5|0.1|0.024
84484323|NCT02736929|168720175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.6|0.0|0.027
84484324|NCT02736929|168720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||7.1|0.5|0.024
84484325|NCT02736929|168720177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||2.0|-9.8|0.19
84484326|NCT02736929|168720178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.4|-1.3|0.31
84484327|NCT02736929|168720179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.5|-1.8|0.86
84484328|NCT02736929|168720180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.2|-1.7|0.77
84543925|NCT01415518|168840395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.927|31.161|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||31.161|14.927|<.0001
84543926|NCT01415518|168840396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.74|44.286|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||44.286|18.740|<.0001
84543927|NCT01415518|168840397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.322|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.425|34.22|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||34.220|14.425|<.0001
84543928|NCT01415518|168840398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.168|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.906|35.431|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||35.431|18.906|<.0001
84543929|NCT01415518|168840399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.071|-0.522|0.0102
84543930|NCT01415518|168840400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|-0.153|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.153|-0.533|0.0004
84543931|NCT01415518|168840401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|-0.162|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.162|-0.523|0.0002
84543932|NCT01415518|168840402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|-0.177|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.177|-0.381|<.0001
84543933|NCT01415518|168840403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.193||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.092|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.092|-0.294|0.0002
84543934|NCT01415518|168840404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|-0.108|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.108|-0.308|0.0001
84736842|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.017258|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.017258
84543935|NCT01415518|168840405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.565||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.981|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable||||0.981|0.325|0.0425
84543936|NCT01415518|168840405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||1.078|0.339|0.0880
84543937|NCT01415518|168840405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0845|||||||Log Rank|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||||0.0845
84543938|NCT01415518|168840406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.035|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||0.035|-0.144|0.2281
84543939|NCT01415518|168840407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|-0.049|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.049|-0.194|0.0010
84543940|NCT01415518|168840408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.029|-0.183|0.0073
84543941|NCT00813150|168840423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||Null Hypothesis: The (median) time to progression is equal in both treatment groups||1.19|0.43|0.196
84543942|NCT00813150|168840424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.43|0.196
84543943|NCT00813150|168840425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.41|0.645
84543944|NCT00813150|168840426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
84543945|NCT03851406|168840518|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
84543946|NCT03851406|168840519|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
84543947|NCT03851406|168840520|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
84543948|NCT03851406|168840520|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
84543949|NCT03851406|168840521|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
84543950|NCT03851406|168840521|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
84543951|NCT03851406|168840522|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
84543952|NCT03851406|168840522|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.63
84484329|NCT01236768|168720185|EQUIVALENCE|Comparative analysis of AG200-15 and Levora for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting.||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparative evaluation of AG200-15 and Levora||||0.089
84736843|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 1-month of total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
84484330|NCT00605358|168720189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.93|||Chi-squared|||Participants in the Open Door Intervention and the Services Referral condition were compared on rates of engagement in mental health services over the study follow-up period.||4.93|1.17|.018
84484331|NCT01957085|168720191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.04||||||Statistical significance was set at .05 to determine statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||=.04
84736844|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.00194|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.001940
84736845|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 6-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
84736846|NCT03786744|169225517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.01133|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.011330
84736847|NCT02201901|169225568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 12 weeks (Group 1) over prespecified rate of 1% .||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
84736848|NCT02201901|169225568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 weeks (Group 2) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
84736849|NCT02201901|169225568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 24 weeks (Group 3) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
84736850|NCT03494985|169225586|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
84736851|NCT03494985|169225586|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||1.2|0.6|<0.0001
84736852|NCT03494985|169225586|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.3|<0.0001
84736853|NCT03670277|169225602|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.056|-0.081|
84484332|NCT01957085|168720192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84484333|NCT01957085|168720193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84484334|NCT01957085|168720195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84543953|NCT03851406|168840523|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
84543954|NCT03851406|168840523|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
84543955|NCT03851406|168840524|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
84543956|NCT03851406|168840524|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
84484335|NCT02148952|168720211|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesized a 15% reduction in the composite outcome between the intervention and control arm.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Chi-squared, Corrected|In secondary analyses, a Rao-Scott test with 3 degrees of freedom resulted in a p value of 0.88.|Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.18|0.83|0.90
84543957|NCT03851406|168840525|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
84484336|NCT02148952|168720212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.20|0.89|0.67
84484337|NCT02148952|168720213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.20|0.89|0.68
84484338|NCT02148952|168720214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.16|0.76|0.56
84484339|NCT02148952|168720215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.27|0.95|0.19
84484340|NCT02148952|168720216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.53|0.74|0.73
84484341|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate any severe maternal complication within 7 days||1.20|0.79|0.81
84484342|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of seizures||1.52|0.57|0.76
84484343|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of loss of consciousness for \> 1 hr||1.41|0.70|0.97
84484344|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of high fever with foul-smelling vaginal discharge||1.38|0.76|0.90
84484345|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of hemorrhage||1.17|0.77|0.61
84484346|NCT02148952|168720217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of stroke||1.58|0.34|0.41
84484347|NCT02148952|168720218|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.58|0.72|0.74
84484348|NCT02148952|168720219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.47|0.81|0.57
84543958|NCT03851406|168840525|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
84543959|NCT03851406|168840526|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.75
84543960|NCT03851406|168840526|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
84543961|NCT03810092|168840681|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the no transfusion group||0.42|-0.55|0.05
84543962|NCT03810092|168840681|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.39||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the transfusion group||2.2|-1|0.05
84543963|NCT00235755|168840698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84543964|NCT00235755|168840698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84543965|NCT00235755|168840699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84543966|NCT00235755|168840699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84736854|NCT03670277|169225603|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.100|-0.037|
84484349|NCT02148952|168720220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.80|0.78|0.41
84484350|NCT02148952|168720221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.13|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||2.13|0.45|0.95
84736855|NCT03670277|169225604|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|4.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.248|2.557|
84736856|NCT03670277|169225604|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|3.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||3.277|1.585|
84736857|NCT03670277|169225605|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|4.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.225|1.854|
84736858|NCT03670277|169225605|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||2.599|0.228|
84736859|NCT02660112|169225606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
84736860|NCT02358668|169225622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|11.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.20|-6.28|0.57
84484351|NCT02148952|168720222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.43|0.69|0.97
84484352|NCT02148952|168720223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.10|0.76|0.32
84484353|NCT02148952|168720224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.08|0.78|0.30
84736861|NCT02358668|169225622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.11||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-10.3|0.72
84736862|NCT02358668|169225623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.42||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-0.91|0.66
84484354|NCT02148952|168720225|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84484355|NCT02148952|168720226|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Birth Companion Present||||0.18
84484356|NCT02148952|168720226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||28.3|3.4|<0.001
84484357|NCT02148952|168720226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|132.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|645.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||645|26.9|<0.001
84543967|NCT05691712|168840727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.36|-19.9|<0.001
84543968|NCT05691712|168840727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.10|-19.7|<0.001
84736863|NCT02358668|169225623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-1.03|0.90
84736864|NCT02358668|169225624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.59||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.50|0.86
84736865|NCT02358668|169225624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.38||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.66|0.59
84736866|NCT02358668|169225625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.44|0.62
84736867|NCT02358668|169225625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.55||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.52|0.97
84736868|NCT02358668|169225626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.20|0.40
84736869|NCT02358668|169225626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.21|0.49
84736870|NCT02358668|169225627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-2.88|0.41
84736871|NCT02358668|169225627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-3.18|0.15
84736872|NCT02358668|169225628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.29|0.64
84736873|NCT02358668|169225628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
84736874|NCT02358668|169225629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.05|-4.43|0.46
84484358|NCT02148952|168720226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Partography started||35.6|1.5|0.01
84484359|NCT02148952|168720226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|413.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|2589.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||2589|65.8|<0.001
84736875|NCT02358668|169225629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-4.72|0.24
84736876|NCT02358668|169225630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.83
84736877|NCT02358668|169225630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.16|0.48
84736878|NCT02358668|169225631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|11.45||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.45|-9.17|0.83
84736879|NCT02358668|169225631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.27||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||9.27|-11.1|0.86
84484360|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|217.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||217|13.1|<0.001
84484361|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.2|1.3|0.007
84736880|NCT02358668|169225632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|72.3||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||72.3|-99.6|0.75
84736881|NCT02358668|169225632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|123.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||123.9|-43.9|0.34
84484362|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||12.1|2.7|<0.001
84484363|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.7|0.7|0.72
84484364|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.48
84736882|NCT02358668|169225633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-980.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2604.0|643.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||643.8|-2604|0.23
84736883|NCT02358668|169225633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|323.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1269.0|1916.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1916.6|-1269|0.68
84484365|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|0.9|0.73
84484366|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.1|0.9|0.56
84543969|NCT05691712|168840728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.34|-16.8|<0.001
84736884|NCT02358668|169225634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|129.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||129.6|-99.6|0.79
84736885|NCT02358668|169225634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|172.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||172.6|-52.5|0.29
84736886|NCT02358668|169225635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-385.3|144.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||144.9|-385.3|0.37
84736887|NCT02358668|169225635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.1|296.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||296.2|-198.1|0.69
84736888|NCT02358668|169225637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-9.8|0.57
84736889|NCT02358668|169225637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||8.6|-6.6|0.79
84736890|NCT02358668|169225638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.4|0.54
84736891|NCT02358668|169225638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-2.0|0.68
84736892|NCT02358668|169225639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-3.2|0.03
84736893|NCT02358668|169225639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|0.86
84736894|NCT02358668|169225640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.39|0.90
84736895|NCT02358668|169225640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.63|0.30
84736896|NCT02358668|169225641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.57||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.57|-1.32|0.52
84736897|NCT02358668|169225641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.05|-0.75|0.24
84736898|NCT02358668|169225642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.038||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.035|0.93
84736899|NCT02358668|169225642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.051||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.021|0.40
84736900|NCT02358668|169225643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.2|0.36
84736901|NCT02358668|169225643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|0.36
84736902|NCT02358668|169225644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84484367|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||3.5|1.3|0.005
84484368|NCT02148952|168720227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|185.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|1738.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||1738|19.7|<0.001
84484369|NCT02148952|168720228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.2|2.1|<0.001
84484370|NCT02148952|168720228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.4|0.3|0.25
84484371|NCT02148952|168720228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth attendant present||1.0|1.0|0.25
84484372|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.4|0.9|0.25
84484373|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|317.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|1989.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||1989|50.4|<0.001
84484374|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||22.0|2.4|<0.001
84484375|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|194.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||194|7.7|<0.001
84484376|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||33.2|11.4|<0.001
84484377|NCT02148952|168720229|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
84484378|NCT02148952|168720230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|993.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||993|33.5|<0.001
84484379|NCT02148952|168720230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||25.8|3.8|<0.001
84484380|NCT02148952|168720230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||2.1|0.1|0.30
84484381|NCT02148952|168720231|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84484382|NCT02148952|168720232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|1.00
84484383|NCT02148952|168720232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|46.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||46.5|7.9|<0.001
84484384|NCT02148952|168720232|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated due to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
84484385|NCT02148952|168720232|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Partography started||||<0.001
84484386|NCT02148952|168720232|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
84484387|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|60.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||60.4|6.6|<0.001
84484388|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.1|1.0|0.04
84484389|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||4.3|1.3|0.006
84484390|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.1|1.0|0.34
84484391|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.25
84484392|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|1.0|0.50
84484393|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.0|1.0|0.32
84484394|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||2.1|0.9|0.11
84484395|NCT02148952|168720233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|196.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist available||196|7.3|<0.001
84484396|NCT02148952|168720234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.5|1.8|<0.001
84484397|NCT02148952|168720234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.3|0.3|0.19
84484398|NCT02148952|168720234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|0.50
84484399|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.3|1.0|0.08
84484400|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|91.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|758.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||758|11.0|<0.001
84484401|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||27.5|2.5|<0.001
84484402|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||||0.01
84484403|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||16.7|3.7|<0.001
84484404|NCT02148952|168720235|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
84484405|NCT02148952|168720236|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
84484406|NCT02148952|168720236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||34.3|4.7|<0.001
84484407|NCT02148952|168720236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||6.6|0.2|0.95
84484408|NCT00414973|168720261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|2.89|5.89||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|Null hypothesis=no difference between percentage changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density for female patients receiving teriparatide compared to female patients receiving calcitonin.||5.89|2.89|<0.0001
84484409|NCT00414973|168720262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.9062||95.0|-1.3|1.46|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||1.46|-1.30|0.9062
84543970|NCT05691712|168840729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-5.8|<0.001
84543971|NCT05691712|168840729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.0|-8.0|<0.001
84736903|NCT02358668|169225644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84736904|NCT02358668|169225645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84484410|NCT00414973|168720263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
84484411|NCT00414973|168720263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 24 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
84484412|NCT00414973|168720264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.2409||95.0|-1.87|7.13|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||7.13|-1.87|0.2409
84484413|NCT00414973|168720265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.6156||95.0|-4.85|2.92|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||2.92|-4.85|0.6156
84484414|NCT00414973|168720266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0026
84484415|NCT00414973|168720266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0006
84484416|NCT01512693|168720290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.19||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.19|0.61|
84484417|NCT01512693|168720291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.0||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.00|0.51|
84484418|NCT01526928|168720302|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Since an MTD was never reached for any of the rociletinib FB or HBr formulations/doses, a 750 mg BID HBr starting dose was selected based on early efficacy data from Phase 1, and enrollment into Phase 2 was initiated at this dosage. As the Phase 1 efficacy data matured, the recommended dose was adjusted to 625 mg BID based on antitumor activity and safety evaluations.|||
84484419|NCT02044367|168720317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.773|149.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.250|125.773|
84484420|NCT02044367|168720317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|130.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.628|142.2|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||142.200|119.628|
84484421|NCT02044367|168720318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|146.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.217|161.576|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||161.576|132.217|
84484422|NCT02044367|168720318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|141.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.644|155.876|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||155.876|127.644|
84484423|NCT02044367|168720319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.418|149.797|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.797|126.418|
84484424|NCT02044367|168720319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.714|144.342|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||144.342|120.714|
84484425|NCT02044367|168720320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.384|163.779|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||163.779|133.384|
84736905|NCT02358668|169225645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84736906|NCT02358668|169225646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84736907|NCT02358668|169225646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84736908|NCT02358668|169225647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.48|<0.01
84736909|NCT02358668|169225647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.32|0.13
84484426|NCT02044367|168720320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|144.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.853|160.242|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||160.242|130.853|
84543972|NCT05691712|168840729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-7.5|<0.001
84543973|NCT05691712|168840731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-32.4|<0.001
84736910|NCT02358668|169225648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.01|0.01
84736911|NCT02358668|169225648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.57|0.42
84736912|NCT02358668|169225649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.02
84736913|NCT02358668|169225649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.75|0.57
84736914|NCT02358668|169225650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<0.01
84543974|NCT05691712|168840731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-39.6|<0.001
84543975|NCT05691712|168840731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-38.2|<0.001
84736915|NCT02358668|169225650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.14
84736916|NCT02358668|169225651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.52|<0.01
84736917|NCT02358668|169225651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.38
84736918|NCT02358668|169225652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|0.01
84484427|NCT04157751|168720359|OTHER||Stratified Win Ratio|1.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.68||p-value for WR\<=1.0 (one-sided), variance calculated using the asymptotic normal U statistics approach.|Asymptotic normal U statistics approach||WR estimate= \[((a)+(c)+(e)+(g)) / ((b)+(d)+(f)+(h))\]|"Stratified win ratio (WR) was used, calculated as total number of wins in the empa group across all strata divided by total number of losses. Weights were applied analogous to a Mantel-Haenszel approach.~1. death in pbo first;~2. death in empa first;~3. HFEs in pbo more frequently;~4. HFEs in empa more frequently;~5. HFEs in pbo first;~6. HFEs in empa first;~7. KCCQ-TSS change lower in pbo;~8. KCCQ-TSS change lower in empa"||1.68|1.09|0.0027
84484428|NCT04157751|168720360|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.501||p-value for OR=1.0 (two-sided).|Regression, Logistic|Wald Confidence interval.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|Logistic regression including terms for baseline KCCQ-TSS, treatment and heart failure status||2.501|0.927|0.0970
84484429|NCT04157751|168720361|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.59||p-value for difference = 0 (two-sided)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood estimation based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis to obtain adjusted means for the treatment effects. This model included discrete fixed effects for treatment group, and heart failure status at each visit and continuous fixed effects for baseline value at each visit. Missing data caused by patient withdrawal or other reasons were handled implicitly by the MMRM approach. Unstructured covariance structure was used.||8.59|0.32|0.0347
84484430|NCT04157751|168720362|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a discrete fixed effect for heart failure status and a continuous fixed effect for baseline NT-proBNP level.|Comparison vs. Placebo|Area under the curve (AUC) of change from baseline in log-transformed NT-proBNP level over 30 days of treatment was analysed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). NT-proBNP level is regarded as log-normally distributed, therefore values were log-transformed prior to analysis. The linear trapezoidal rule was used to calculate the AUC after the log-transformation had been applied to each value.||0.98|0.82|0.0176
84484431|NCT04157751|168720365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.1||p-value for HR=1.0 (two sided)|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with terms for heart failure status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|||1.10|0.46|0.1241
84484432|NCT03934203|168720384|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 50 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||2.4|0.2|
84484433|NCT03934203|168720385|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 250 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||7.1|4.4|
84484434|NCT03934203|168720386|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo at 1 hour and 30 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.6|10.5|
84497156|NCT02222168|168745466|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|95.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.593|126.682|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||126.682|72.593|
84571090|NCT06119854|168893349|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.053|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm|||0.053|-0.037|
84736919|NCT02358668|169225652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.28|0.41
84736920|NCT02358668|169225653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.40|0.08
84543976|NCT00226499|168840841|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.446|96.615|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.615|92.446|<0.0001
84736921|NCT02358668|169225653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.10
84736922|NCT02358668|169225654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.67|0.01
84736923|NCT02358668|169225654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.35|0.54
84484435|NCT03934203|168720387|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 2 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|13.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0167.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.4|10.4|0.00000000
84736924|NCT02358668|169225655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.81|0.03
84736925|NCT02358668|169225655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.48|0.63
84736926|NCT02358668|169225656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.13|0.18
84484436|NCT03934203|168720388|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 3 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||3e-08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|12.8||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0250.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|9.3|0.00000003
84736927|NCT02358668|169225656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.06|0.73
84484437|NCT03934203|168720389|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 4 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.050.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.4|8.9|0.00000020
84484438|NCT03934203|168720390|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||3.3|1.4|
84484439|NCT03934203|168720391|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|10.6|
84484440|NCT03934203|168720392|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 24 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||-0.1|-2.3|
84484441|NCT03934203|168720393|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 12 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||1.3|-1.3|
84484442|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
84484443|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
84484444|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|31.5||||||Complete Clearance||31.5|-12.2|
84484445|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|27.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||27.5|-23.0|
84484446|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|19.6||||||≥ 75% Cleared||19.6|-28.3|
84484447|NCT00608842|168720404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|29.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||29.5|-22.3|
84571091|NCT06119854|168893349|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.784|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.784|0.892|
84736928|NCT02358668|169225657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
84736929|NCT02358668|169225657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
84484448|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|57.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||57.5|8.3|0.010
84484449|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|58.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||58.8|9.8|0.007
84484450|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|25.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||25.9|-23.1|0.908
84484451|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|59.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||59.8|10.8|0.006
84484452|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|61.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||61.8|11.9|0.005
84484453|NCT04445051|168720465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|26.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||26.5|-23.3|0.899
84484454|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|49.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.6|-31.9|0.665
84484455|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|22.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||22.4|-58.7|0.375
84484456|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|13.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||13.6|-67.6|0.188
84484457|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|21.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.9|-59.3|0.361
84484458|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|30.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||30.5|-52.3|0.600
84484459|NCT04445051|168720466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|49.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.0|-33.5|0.707
84484460|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-1.08|0.615
84543977|NCT00226499|168840841|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|65.428||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|97.5|57.182|72.086|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||72.086|57.182|0.1265
84571092|NCT06119854|168893349|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.08|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.080|-0.013|
84736930|NCT02358668|169225658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
84736931|NCT02358668|169225658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
84736932|NCT02358668|169225659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
84736933|NCT02358668|169225659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.13|0.87
84484461|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-1.17|0.480
84484462|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.77||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.77|-0.95|0.839
84484463|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.92|0.894
84484464|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-1.46|0.195
84484465|NCT04445051|168720467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.40|0.242
84484466|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.74|-1.20|0.639
84484467|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.63||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.63|-1.30|0.492
84484468|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.86|-1.07|0.828
84484469|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.13||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.13|-0.81|0.744
84484470|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.62|0.208
84484471|NCT04445051|168720468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.77|0.116
84484472|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.75|0.798
84484473|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-1.10|0.556
84484474|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.49||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.49|-1.21|0.399
84736934|NCT02358668|169225660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.46|0.34
84736935|NCT02358668|169225660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-0.73|0.64
84736936|NCT02358668|169225661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.26||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.50|0.17
84736937|NCT02358668|169225661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-0.46|0.37
84736938|NCT02358668|169225662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.31||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.62|0.18
84571093|NCT06119854|168893350|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.406|||||CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.406|0.911|
84736939|NCT02358668|169225662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.36||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-0.51|0.37
84736940|NCT02358668|169225663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-4.36|0.06
84736941|NCT02358668|169225663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.58||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-1.71|0.69
84736942|NCT02358668|169225664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84736943|NCT02358668|169225664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84736944|NCT02358668|169225665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84736945|NCT02358668|169225665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84736946|NCT02358668|169225666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84736947|NCT02358668|169225666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84736948|NCT00078377|169225718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0024||95.0|1.02|4.61|||ANCOVA|The corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||Statistical data is for the Armodafinil Combined treatment (250 mg/day and 150 mg/day groups) compared to the placebo treatment group||4.61|1.02|0.0024
84736949|NCT00078377|169225719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84736950|NCT01385748|169225720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.186|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.186|0.387|0.165
84736951|NCT01385748|169225720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.35|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.35|0.495|0.421
84736952|NCT01385748|169225720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.175|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.175|0.484|0.211
84736953|NCT01385748|169225723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
84736954|NCT01385748|169225723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
84736955|NCT01385748|169225725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.223||Significance threshold = 5%|Log Rank|||||1.223|0.398|0.199
84736956|NCT01385748|169225725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.353|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.353|0.493|0.424
84736957|NCT01385748|169225725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.193|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.193|0.489|0.235
84736958|NCT01385748|169225726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.176
84736959|NCT01385748|169225726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.61
84736960|NCT01385748|169225726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.295
84736961|NCT01385748|169225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
84736962|NCT01385748|169225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.169
84736963|NCT01385748|169225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.064
84736964|NCT01385748|169225728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.401|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.401|0.484|0.388
84736965|NCT01385748|169225728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.012|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.012|0.357|0.054
84736966|NCT01385748|169225728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.078|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.078|0.444|0.102
84484475|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.41||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.41|-0.30|0.198
84484476|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.48|-1.27|0.365
84484477|NCT04445051|168720469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.08||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.08|-1.82|0.033
84484478|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.83|0.882
84484479|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.57||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.57|-1.21|0.478
84484480|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-1.27|0.391
84484481|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.09||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.09|-0.69|0.657
84484482|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.62|0.125
84484483|NCT04445051|168720470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.00|-1.81|0.051
84484484|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.97|-0.83|0.877
84484485|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-1.31|0.351
84484486|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-1.38|0.278
84484487|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.06|-0.73|0.711
84543978|NCT00226499|168840842|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.498||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.522|99.898|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.898|97.522|0.0001
84484488|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.15||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.15|-1.97|0.024
84484489|NCT04445051|168720471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.31|-2.14|0.009
84736967|NCT01381575|169225738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.78||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.78|-1.08|
84736968|NCT01381575|169225738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.77||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.77|-1.00|
84736969|NCT01381575|169225739|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.22||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||1.22|0.97|
84484490|NCT02092324|168720472|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference.||||||0.002||||||p-value for Protocol-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.002
84484491|NCT02092324|168720472|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference||||||0.9||||||p-value is for IWG-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.90
84484492|NCT02092324|168720475|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response. p-value for IWG-defined objective response is 0.70|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
84484493|NCT02092324|168720475|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.||||||0.7||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.70
84484494|NCT02092324|168720485|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic)||||||0.003||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for protocol-defined objective response||||0.003
84484495|NCT02092324|168720485|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square)||||||0.1||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response = 0.1|Fisher Exact|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for IWG-defined objective response||||0.1
84736970|NCT01381575|169225739|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.95|0.76|
84736971|NCT00159263|169225762|OTHER|Friedman ANOVA followed Dunn's pairwise comparisons||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84736972|NCT00159263|169225763|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84736973|NCT00159263|169225764|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84736974|NCT04546217|169225768|SUPERIORITY|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84484496|NCT00815776|168720519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The unadjusted reductions are straight arithmetic averages and are supplied for informational purposes only. The pooled variance is calculated from the unadjusted standard deviations, and the t statistic is calculated as described in Laster (2003) using an average sample size of 54 and 106 degrees of freedom.|||||<|0.0096|||||||student's t-test with 2n-2 DoF|||The LS means were used to calculate the test statistic for non-inferiority of the CID to the traditional splint device. The null hypothesis was that the reduction of CMI score for the CID is less than 80% of the reduction in the splint group. A significant p-value(\< 0.05) would reject this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the CID demonstrated a reduction of at least 80% of that seen in the splint group.||||<0.0096
84736975|NCT04546217|169225769|OTHER|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84736976|NCT04546217|169225770|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84736977|NCT04546217|169225771|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84736978|NCT04546217|169225772|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84736979|NCT04546217|169225773|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
84736980|NCT03121820|169225797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|93.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|99.77|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||99.77|88.25|0.05
84736981|NCT03121820|169225798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|92.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|98.55|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||98.55|86.37|0.05
84736982|NCT04292470|169225815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84736983|NCT04292470|169225816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||For statistical testing, we used a general linear model of change in GERD symptoms from baseline to 8 weeks adjusted for the natural log of the index value (of the ratio of the change in skin conductance between patient and physician at baseline) and randomization assignment.||||0.09
84736984|NCT02906020|169225835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|=|0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||Least-squares (LS) mean, standard errors (SE) and p-value were estimated from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||6.27|-1.10|=0.1679
84736985|NCT02906020|169225836|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|=|0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.68||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||2.68|-4.63|=0.5996
84736986|NCT02906020|169225837|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction||8.32|-0.06|=0.0535
84736987|NCT02906020|169225838|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value: estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction.||0.17|-0.12|=0.7400
84736988|NCT02701062|169225842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2593
84736989|NCT02701062|169225843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84571094|NCT06119854|168893350|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.109|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.109|-0.019|
84736990|NCT02701062|169225844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1238
84736991|NCT02701062|169225845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Total)||||0.6603
84736992|NCT02701062|169225845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
84736993|NCT02701062|169225845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
84484497|NCT00815776|168720520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population. The safety of the CID was characterized by the proportion of subjects with all serious and non-serious study-related adverse events and Unanticipated Adverse Device Events (UADEs). In addition, summaries of the onset, duration, severity, treatment relatedness, and outcome of all adverse events were reported.||||0.688
84736994|NCT02701062|169225846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6603
84736995|NCT02701062|169225846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
84736996|NCT02701062|169225846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
84736997|NCT02701062|169225847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reoperation||||0.5442
84736998|NCT02701062|169225847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2598|||||||Fisher Exact|||ED Visit||||0.2598
84736999|NCT02701062|169225847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurologic Consult||||0.5442
84737000|NCT02701062|169225847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hospital Readmission (per subject)||||0.2921
84737001|NCT01124097|169225853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9321|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.9321
84737002|NCT01124097|169225853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.2610
84737003|NCT01124097|169225853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4764|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.4764
84737004|NCT02330094|169225862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84737005|NCT02330094|169225863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
84737006|NCT02330094|169225864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84737007|NCT05878873|169225876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44.|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.007
84737008|NCT05878873|169225876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.008
84737009|NCT05878873|169225877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2.|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.014
84737010|NCT05878873|169225877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.878|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected with false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.878
84484498|NCT00815776|168720521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2995||||||From the pilot study, 50 subjects (CID arm) and 25 (exercise arm) were required for at least 80% power to detect a difference in the mean reduction in CMI scores between arms if muPassive is less than approximately 70% of that in the CID arm.|t-test, 2 sided|||A significant p-value for the treatment group effect would indicate that the CID group and Exercise group were significantly different, based on results of a two-sided t test for difference in means, with alpha=0.5, and allowing for unequal sample sizes.||||.2995
84737011|NCT05878873|169225878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.898
84737012|NCT05878873|169225878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.698|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.698
84737013|NCT00559377|169225943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO Hypoxic Volume to overall survival||||.42
84737014|NCT00559377|169225943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO T:Bmax to overall survival||||.87
84737015|NCT00559377|169225944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparison of FMISO Hypoxic Volume to disease-free survival||||.58
84737016|NCT00559377|169225944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comarison of FMISO T:Bmax to progression-free survival||||.98
84737017|NCT00559377|169225945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.004|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation|||The correlation between IHC values and FMISO uptake were analyzed using Spearman correlation where p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.05
84737018|NCT00203047|169225971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11820976||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.26|0.8023
84737019|NCT00340704|169225991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1725||||95.0|0.6499|1.3579|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3579|0.6499|
84737020|NCT00340704|169225995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1884||||95.0|0.5934|1.3666|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3666|0.5934|
84543979|NCT00226499|168840842|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|90.741||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.866|93.934|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||93.934|85.866|0.1265
84543980|NCT00226499|168840843|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|92.487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.927|94.396|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||94.396|89.927|<0.0001
84543981|NCT00226499|168840843|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|64.585||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.503|70.486|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||70.486|57.503|0.1265
84543982|NCT00226499|168840863|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|95.855|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.075|97.101|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||97.101|94.075|<0.0001
84543983|NCT00226499|168840863|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|69.812||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.848|75.47|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||75.470|62.848|0.1265
84543984|NCT00226499|168840864|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.907|99.589|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.589|97.907|<0.0001
84543985|NCT00226499|168840864|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|89.532||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.126|92.102|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||92.102|86.126|0.1265
84543986|NCT00226499|168840865|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.838|96.248|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.248|92.838|<0.0001
84737021|NCT00121667|169226004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.53|-0.92|<.0001
84737022|NCT00121667|169226004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.63||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.63|-1.02|<.0001
84543987|NCT00226499|168840865|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|68.932||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.893|74.671|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||74.671|61.893|0.1265
84543988|NCT02387840|168840881|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.0002
84543989|NCT02387840|168840881|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.0003
84543990|NCT02387840|168840882|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.081
84543991|NCT02387840|168840882|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.081
84571095|NCT06119854|168893350|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.631|||||the inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.631|1.074|
84484499|NCT03991468|168720522|NON_INFERIORITY|A Mixed Model Repeated Measures logistic regression was used to prove WSI major discordance (MD) rate non-inferior to Glass MD rate. A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in MD rate was constructed. If the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 4%, then WSI would be considered non-inferior to Glass, assuming power = 0.9 and alpha = 0.05 a sample size of 2000 was calculated to be sufficient to prove non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dependent var = major discordance status (yes/no); independent var = modality (WSI/Glass) as a fixed effect \& site, reader, \& case as random effects.||||1.0|-0.1|
84484500|NCT00616772|168720535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.004|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline cIMT, baseline atorvastatin dose, central imaging site, treatment group, time; interaction between treatment group and time||||0.004|-0.016|0.220
84484501|NCT00616772|168720536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.011|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline cIMT as covariate.||||0.011|-0.014|0.813
84484502|NCT00616772|168720537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.005|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.005|-0.018|0.249
84484503|NCT00616772|168720538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.010|-0.020|0.487
84484504|NCT00616772|168720539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.035|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.035|-0.004|0.112
84484505|NCT01673373|168720542|OTHER|Due to the early termination of enrollment, all inferential analyses were interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was computed using a one-sided exact test of the difference between the observed rate and the Performance Goal (equal to 70%). The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|one-sided exact|||The original Performance Goal of 70% patency rate was derived from a thorough literature review of trials with renal bare metal stent placement. Other assumptions included a determination of samples size based upon a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and desired power of 87%, and assumption of 10% attrition. The null hypothesis was that the incidence of primary patency at 9 months is less than or equal to 70%.|"The cumulative incidence of primary patency was computed as the number of subject-lesions with primary patency at 9 months divided by the number of subject-lesions and was analyzed using the allowable window of 243 to 303 trial days.~An exact binomial one-sided 95% CI was constructed and the lower limit compared to the Performance Goal equal to 70%."|||<.0001
84543992|NCT02387840|168840883|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.12
84543993|NCT02387840|168840883|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.14
84543994|NCT03170544|168840888|OTHER||Mean|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|2.04|0.63|
84737023|NCT00121667|169226004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.52||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.52|-0.91|<.0001
84484506|NCT01673373|168720543|OTHER|A one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the mean difference between baseline and 9-month systolic blood pressure was constructed and the lower limit compared to the 10 mmHg performance goal. A p-value of the difference between the estimated systolic blood pressure change from the baseline and the performance goal was computed using a paired t-test.||||||0.0192||||||The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary endpoint of systolic blood pressure was analyzed according to the Performance Goal of a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg between procedure and 9 months.||||.0192
84484507|NCT04852666|168720555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.751
84484508|NCT04852666|168720555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
84484509|NCT04852666|168720556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
84484510|NCT04852666|168720556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.357
84484511|NCT04852666|168720557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
84484512|NCT04852666|168720557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
84484513|NCT04852666|168720558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
84484514|NCT04852666|168720558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84484515|NCT04852666|168720559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
84484516|NCT04852666|168720560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
84484517|NCT04852666|168720561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.887
84484518|NCT04852666|168720561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84571096|NCT06119854|168893350|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.176|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.176|0.045|
84484519|NCT03671148|168720579|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|33.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD (0 vs ≥ 1), number of prior biologic therapies (0 vs ≥ 1), and extent of psoriasis (≥ 3% BSA or \< 3% BSA) at Baseline.||33.0|15.9|<0.001
84484520|NCT03671148|168720580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
84484521|NCT03671148|168720581|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.6|33.9|<0.001
84484522|NCT03671148|168720582|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|31.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.2|13.9|<0.001
84484523|NCT03671148|168720583|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.0|7.0|<0.001
84484524|NCT03671148|168720584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.31||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.31|2.41|<0.001
84484525|NCT03671148|168720585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.9|0.6|0.009
84484526|NCT03671148|168720586|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.6|9.7|<0.001
84484527|NCT03671148|168720587|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.8|0.024
84484528|NCT03671148|168720588|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.2|3.5|0.009
84484529|NCT03671148|168720589|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.8|22.9|<0.001
84484530|NCT01804842|168720597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.14|84.01|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.01|61.14|0.0018
84484531|NCT01804842|168720597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.85|84.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.09|60.85|0.0020
84484532|NCT01804842|168720597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|99.8||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|117.33|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||117.33|84.91|0.9844
84484533|NCT01804842|168720598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|83.8||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|103.23|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||103.23|68.10|0.1595
84484534|NCT01804842|168720598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|111.3||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|136.99|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||136.99|90.37|0.3867
84737024|NCT00121667|169226005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-8.55||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-8.55|-22.55|<.0001
84737025|NCT00121667|169226005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.29|-16.27||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-16.27|-30.29|<.0001
84737026|NCT00121667|169226005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|-14.68||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-14.68|-28.81|<.0001
84737027|NCT00121667|169226006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.5||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||30.5|10.6|<.0001
84737028|NCT00121667|169226006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||36.7|17.0|<.0001
84737029|NCT00121667|169226006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||37.7|17.7|<.0001
84737030|NCT00121667|169226007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5599.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1168.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7894.0|-3305.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3305|-7894|<.0001
84484535|NCT01804842|168720598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|132.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.78|163.39|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||163.39|107.78|0.0294
84484536|NCT01804842|168720599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|91.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|96.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.67|85.70|0.0028
84484537|NCT01804842|168720599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.58|96.53|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.53|85.58|0.0024
84484538|NCT01804842|168720599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|95.1||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.54|100.99|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||100.99|89.54|0.0992
84484539|NCT01804842|168720600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.55|95.56|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.56|85.55|0.0006
84737031|NCT00121667|169226007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6294.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1176.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8606.0|-3983.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3983|-8606|<.0001
84543995|NCT03170544|168840888|OTHER||Mean|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.44|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|3.44|2.03|
84543996|NCT02996227|168840969|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.2|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.12|<0.001
84543997|NCT02996227|168840970|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric means|1.37||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.2|1.05|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|1.05|0.754
84543998|NCT02996227|168840971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.53|2.76|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithm transformation||||2.76|0.53|0.560
84543999|NCT02996227|168840972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|1.37|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure|||1.37|-0.65|0.357
84544000|NCT02996227|168840973|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.42|0.98|||generalized linear regression|||||0.98|0.42|0.006
84544001|NCT02996227|168840974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.31|5.85|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure.|||5.85|-4.31|0.695
84544002|NCT02996227|168840975|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithmic transformation||||1.12|0.86|0.738
84544003|NCT02729025|168840979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.39|||Multivariate regression model||Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|A multivariate regression was modelled on the primary endpoint as well as three other response variables (percent change in Lp\[a\] at Weeks 8 and 16, baseline MDS TBR, and baseline Lp\[a\]). The primary endpoint was regressed on the treatment group and statin stratification factor; baseline MDS TBR and Lp(a) were regressed on the statin stratification factor, and percent changes in Lp(a) were regressed on the treatment group, statin stratification factor, visit, and treatment group by visit.||1.39|-7.40|0.18
84544004|NCT02729025|168840980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-8.49|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-8.49|-19.29|<0.0001
84544005|NCT02729025|168840981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.81|-55.51|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-55.51|-65.81|<0.0001
84544006|NCT02729025|168840982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-47.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-47.33|-55.85|<0.0001
84544007|NCT03349060|168840983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|6.8|0.0037
84544008|NCT03349060|168840983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|45.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.7|26.2|<0.0001
84544009|NCT03349060|168840984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.3|17.4|<0.0001
84544010|NCT03349060|168840984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.5|40.5|<0.0001
84571097|NCT00251758|168893361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84544011|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.8|10.2|0.0004
84544012|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||51.4|33.6|<0.0001
84544013|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|1.9|0.0251
84544014|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||54.4|27.8|<0.0001
84544015|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||32.7|7.4|0.0019
84544016|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|57.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.8|32.7|<0.0001
84544017|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||34.8|10.3|0.0003
84544018|NCT03349060|168840985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.9|29.6|<0.0001
84544019|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.2|7.4|0.0055
84544020|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.6|33.1|<0.0001
84544021|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.5||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|-3.0|0.1138
84544022|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.4|26.2|<0.0001
84544023|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||42.1|15.3|<0.0001
84544024|NCT03349060|168840986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||61.1|34.6|<0.0001
84544025|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
84544026|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
84544027|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
84544028|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.8|<0.0001
84544029|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.5|0.0035
84544030|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|<0.0001
84544031|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0010
84544032|NCT03349060|168840987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.7|<0.0001
84544033|NCT03349060|168840988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0002
84544034|NCT03349060|168840988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-3.0|<0.0001
84544035|NCT03349060|168840989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||0.0071
84737032|NCT00121667|169226007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4845.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1175.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7153.0|-2537.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-2537|-7153|<.0001
84544036|NCT03349060|168840989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84544037|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.3|-0.3|0.0869
84544038|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.6|12.0|0.0001
84544039|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|2.6|0.0259
84544040|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|44.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.2|21.7|<0.0001
84544041|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|14.2|0.0001
84544042|NCT03349060|168840990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|55.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|33.6|<0.0001
84544043|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.7|0.0802
84571098|NCT00251758|168893361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84737033|NCT01453023|169226039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.4|||||Day 1 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||0.4|-8.8|
84484540|NCT01804842|168720600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.65|95.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.67|85.65|0.0007
84484541|NCT01804842|168720600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|94.3||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.24|99.69|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||99.69|89.24|0.0389
84484542|NCT00435929|168720624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.268|1.603||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV||1.603|0.268|
84484543|NCT00435929|168720624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.505|1.156||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.156|0.505|
84484544|NCT00435929|168720625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.311|1.644||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV.||1.644|0.311|
84484545|NCT00435929|168720625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.551|1.292||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.292|0.551|
84484546|NCT00976963|168720663|NON_INFERIORITY|The equivalence margin for non-inferiority of Fosfomycin to TMP/SMX is 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wald test for noninferiority|||The null hypothesis is that Fosfomycin is inferior to TMP/SMX.||||<0.001
84484547|NCT03949621|168720694|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7938|1.1688||||||||1.1688|0.7938|
84484548|NCT03949621|168720695|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.1562||||||||1.1562|0.798|
84544044|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.7|4.0|0.0045
84484549|NCT03949621|168720696|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0162|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9001|1.1473||||||||1.1473|0.9001|
84484550|NCT01302691|168720788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.6|-2.7|0.205
84484551|NCT01302691|168720794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||-0.8|-5.7|0.011
84484552|NCT03446612|168720795|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.6953|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12998|||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (7.5 ug/min) is presented.|||||
84484553|NCT03446612|168720795|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.1683|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (15 ug/min) is presented.|||||
84484554|NCT03446612|168720795|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.3238|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (30 ug/min) is presented.|||||
84484555|NCT03446612|168720797|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.2968|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (3 ug/min) is presented.|||||
84484556|NCT03446612|168720797|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|1.4425|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (10 ug/min) is presented.|||||
84484557|NCT03446612|168720799|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.1598|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (2 umol/min) is presented.|||||
84484558|NCT03446612|168720799|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.3715|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (8 umol/min) is presented.|||||
84484559|NCT03787095|168720850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.71
84484560|NCT03787095|168720851|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||1.00
84484561|NCT03787095|168720852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.33
84484562|NCT02512276|168720856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.4||||||||6.4|3.0|
84484563|NCT02512276|168720857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||||1.22|0.91|
84484564|NCT02512276|168720858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28||||||||1.28|0.94|
84484565|NCT02512276|168720859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85||||||||0.85|0.45|
84484566|NCT02512276|168720860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||||1.36|0.91|
84484567|NCT02512276|168720861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||||||||1.34|0.78|
84484568|NCT04973085|168720925|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84484569|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7186|0.4965|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.4965|-2.7186|
84544045|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.4|-1.9|0.1888
84737034|NCT01453023|169226039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.5|||||Day 14 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||8.5|-1.1|
84737035|NCT01453023|169226040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7|||||Day 1 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||6.7|-4.4|
84737036|NCT01453023|169226040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.5|||||Day 14 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||5.5|-6.0|
84484570|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|0.8685|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8685|-1.9040|
84484571|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.914|0.8475|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8475|-1.9140|
84484572|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8848|0.6075|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6075|-2.8848|
84484573|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3962|0.6153|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6153|-2.3962|
84484574|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3045|0.6951|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6951|-2.3045|
84484575|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6013|0.6863|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6863|-3.6013|
84484576|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7381|0.9593|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.9593|-2.7381|
84484577|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0028|0.6799|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6799|-3.0028|
84484578|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3209|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3021|1.6603|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.6603|-2.3021|
84484579|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|1.5209|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5209|-1.8960|
84484580|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|1.2424|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.2424|-2.1610|
84484581|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1342|1.83|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.8300|-3.1342|
84484582|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6903|1.5904|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5904|-2.6903|
84484583|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0984|1.1654|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1654|-3.0984|
84484584|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0892|2.374|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3740|-3.0892|
84484585|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1704|2.5407|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.5407|-2.1704|
84484586|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4643|2.2281|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.2281|-2.4643|
84484587|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4276|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6569|0.8018|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8018|-3.6569|
84484588|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.381|2.4639|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.4639|-1.3810|
84544046|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|30.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|13.0|<0.0001
84544047|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.4|5.2|0.0071
84544048|NCT03349060|168840991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|38.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.7|19.8|<0.0001
84544049|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
84544050|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
84544051|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
84544052|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
84544053|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0592
84544054|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
84544055|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.7|0.0190
84544056|NCT03349060|168840992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
84544057|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.1|13.9|<0.0001
84544058|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|34.7|<0.0001
84544059|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|45.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.4|21.6|<0.0001
84544060|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|64.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.2|41.2|<0.0001
84544061|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|46.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.3|21.9|<0.0001
84544062|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.6|41.3|<0.0001
84571099|NCT00251758|168893361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
84484589|NCT03028467|168720946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|1.1217|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1217|-2.7080|
84544063|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|47.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.4|23.3|<0.0001
84752881|NCT02113579|169261049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.62||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.62|2.78|<0.001
84484590|NCT01316380|168720962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.199||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.057|0.0005
84484591|NCT01316380|168720962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.23||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.230|0.088|<0.0001
84484592|NCT01316380|168720963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.049|0.194||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.194|0.049|0.001
84484593|NCT01316380|168720963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0028||95.0|0.038|0.182||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.182|0.038|0.0028
84484594|NCT01316380|168720964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.1714||95.0|-0.025|0.14||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|-0.025|0.1714
84484595|NCT01316380|168720964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0119||95.0|0.023|0.188||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.188|0.023|0.0119
84484596|NCT01316380|168720965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0003||95.0|0.058|0.192||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.192|0.058|0.0003
84484597|NCT01316380|168720965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.216||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.216|0.082|<0.0001
84484598|NCT01316380|168720966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1182||95.0|-0.016|0.138||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.138|-0.016|0.1182
84484599|NCT01316380|168720966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0102||95.0|0.024|0.178||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.178|0.024|0.0102
84484600|NCT01316380|168720968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.2155||95.0|0.03|2.24||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||2.24|0.03|0.2155
84484601|NCT01316380|168720968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.5071||95.0|0.43|5.44||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||5.44|0.43|0.5071
84484602|NCT01316380|168720969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1217||95.0|0.29|1.16||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc).||1.16|0.29|0.1217
84484603|NCT01316380|168720969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8974||95.0|0.53|1.75||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc). The Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||1.75|0.53|0.8974
84544064|NCT03349060|168840993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|65.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.0|42.0|<0.0001
84544065|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-3.9|0.7285
84544066|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-1.2|0.1448
84544067|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.5|-2.6|0.2576
84544068|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.9|12.0|0.0001
84544069|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.0||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|1.3|0.0423
84544070|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|18.7|<0.0001
84544071|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|21.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|5.4|0.0066
84544072|NCT03349060|168840994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.3|<0.0001
84544073|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
84544074|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
84544075|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
84737037|NCT05186311|169226058|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit (CAL).||||||||||||||||One hundred (100) participants (with paired numerical data) per each analyte provide \> 90% power to ensure that mean biases and confidence intervals are within the clinical acceptance limit (CAL), at medically relevant points, assuming no true bias between the tube types, residual standard deviation (SD) or coefficient of variation (CV) = CAL and collected data cover medically relevant points.|"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84544076|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
84544077|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0604
84484604|NCT01316380|168720970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.476||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.476|-0.032|0.0872
84484605|NCT01316380|168720970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.221||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.221|-0.287|0.7995
84484606|NCT01316380|168720971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.247||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.||0.247|-0.053|0.2038
84484607|NCT01316380|168720971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.141||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.141|-0.158|0.9104
84484608|NCT01316380|168720972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.265||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.265|-0.003|0.0559
84484609|NCT01316380|168720972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.123||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.123|-0.144|0.8795
84484610|NCT01387594|168720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.13|1.56||A p-value was not computed; hypothesis was tested using confidence interval (CI) approach.|||The lower limit of 80% CI greater than 0.5 indicates the statistical significance at alpha=0.1 level.|The null hypothesis is the (median) percent decrease in total lymphocytes count is greater or equal to 50%, equivalently indicating that the geometric mean ratio (GMR: post-treatment/pretreatment) in total lymphocyte counts is less than or equal to 0.5.||1.56|1.13|
84484611|NCT02574520|168720988|SUPERIORITY|Primary|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) for scheduled pain measurements was estimated with time as a repeating factor within subject.|Least squares mean from the MMRM described in the Statistical Test of Hypothesis.|Pain Intensity on Movement 0-48 hr||0.10|-0.84|0.124
84484612|NCT02550093|168720995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||.47
84484613|NCT02550093|168720995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.70
84484614|NCT02550093|168720996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.84
84484615|NCT02550093|168720996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.95
84484616|NCT02550093|168720997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.92
84484617|NCT02550093|168720997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.63
84484618|NCT02550093|168720998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84484619|NCT02550093|168720999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84484620|NCT02550093|168721000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84484621|NCT02550093|168721001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84484622|NCT02550093|168721002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84484623|NCT02550093|168721003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84484624|NCT02550093|168721004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84484625|NCT02550093|168721005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84484626|NCT02550093|168721006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84484627|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation between test and reference drugs are 98% and 17.24%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|95.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.618|103.446|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.446|87.618|
84484628|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 22.62%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|107.606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.552|119.924|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.924|96.552|
84484629|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 16.26%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|104.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.504|112.883|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B= FDC (test value)|||112.883|96.504|
84484630|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 81% and 14.42%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|88.188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.368|94.419|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||94.419|82.368|
84484631|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 13.09%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.263|104.451|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.451|92.263|
84484632|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 8.02%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|95.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.47|98.714|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.714|91.470|
84484633|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 15.55%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.55|99.0|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99|15.55|
84484634|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 84% and 15.65%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|110.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.416|119.559|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.559|102.416|
84484635|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|OH-Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.61%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|106.264|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.826|113.117|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||113.117|99.826|
84484636|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.30%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.164|105.139|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||105.139|95.164|
84484637|NCT01365091|168721015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.38%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.055|98.47|||ANCOVA|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.470|89.055|
84484638|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 98% and 17.24%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.596|101.38|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.380|82.596|
84484639|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.66%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.889|101.119|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.119|93.889|
84484640|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.43%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.35|100.316|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.316|93.350|
84484641|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.37%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|98.035|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.035|85.56|
84484642|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96.028% and 101.095%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.028|101.095|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.095|96.028|
84484643|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.55%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|96.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.286|99.286|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.286|93.286|
84484644|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.19%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.956|109.407|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||109.407|96.956|
84484645|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.778|100.613|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.613|93.778|
84484646|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.18%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.512|103.648|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.648|96.512|
84484647|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1:The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 93% and 17.35%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|92.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.502|101.053|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.053|85.502|
84484648|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.494|104.147|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.147|98.494|
84484649|NCT01365091|168721016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.73%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.367|102.932|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.932|97.367|
84484650|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For AUC(0-inf) metformin, Arm 1, the corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 21.06%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.697|101.226|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||101.226|82.697|
84484651|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.60%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.955|101.132|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.132|93.955|
84737038|NCT05186311|169226059|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84544078|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
84544079|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.4||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.2|0.0255
84544080|NCT03349060|168840995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
84544081|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-8.2|<0.0001
84544082|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-13.0|<0.0001
84544083|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-10.7|<0.0001
84544084|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.9|-15.6|<0.0001
84544085|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-11.6|<0.0001
84544086|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.4|-16.5|<0.0001
84544087|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-11.6|<0.0001
84544088|NCT03349060|168840996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.8|-17.3|<0.0001
84544089|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.5|-12.1|0.0004
84544090|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.5|-19.0|<0.0001
84544091|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.9|-16.6|<0.0001
84544092|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.6|-23.4|<0.0001
84544093|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.7|<0.0001
84737039|NCT05186311|169226060|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737040|NCT05186311|169226061|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737041|NCT05186311|169226062|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737042|NCT05186311|169226063|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737043|NCT05186311|169226064|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84544094|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-28.0|<0.0001
84544095|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.2|-19.3|<0.0001
84544096|NCT03349060|168840997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.5|-27.6|<0.0001
84544097|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-3.4|0.5210
84737044|NCT05186311|169226065|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84484652|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1. The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.31%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.393|100.247|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||100.247|93.393|
84484653|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.25%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.573|97.939|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||97.939|85.573|
84484654|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.38%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.044|101.09|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.090|96.044|
84484655|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.52%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.319|99.29|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.290|93.319|
84484656|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 11.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.589|108.525|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||108.525|96.589|
84484657|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 5: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.832|100.662|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.662|93.832|
84544098|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.3|-1.3|0.1416
84484658|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Sarexagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.08%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.56|103.594|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.594|96.560|
84484659|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 94% and 17.13%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.835|101.238|||ANCOVA|||||101.238|85.835|
84484660|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.72%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.574|104.196|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.196|98.574|
84484661|NCT01365091|168721018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.71%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.324|102.864|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.864|97.324|
84484662|NCT03887052|168721050|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was performed as a one-sided test with a 0.025 significance level of the null hypothesis (H0) that the WCD false positive shock alarm rate per patient-day for the study device was equal to or greater than the comparator rate (0.29). A random-effects Poisson regression model was fit with the number of false-positive shock alarms for each patient as the outcome, the logarithm of days of wear as an offset, and random site effect.|||||<|0.001||||||"Hypotheses:~H0: p1 ≥ 0.29 H1: p1 \< 0.29~where p1 = A-WCD False Positive Alarm Rate"|One-sided non-inferiority|Poisson Regression Analysis||The analysis was based on the cohort of 130 patients with three false-positive shock alarms occurring over a total of 3501 patient-days (500 weeks), or 0.0060 false-positive shock alarms per patient-week. The Poisson distribution was used to model the results and calculate the false-positive shock alarm rate.||||<0.001
84484663|NCT02365506|168721053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|Least Square mean (LSM) and 95% confidence interval (CI) is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||10.5|-26.0|0.358
84484664|NCT02365506|168721053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||16.7|-20.0|0.840
84737045|NCT05186311|169226066|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737046|NCT05186311|169226067|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84484665|NCT02365506|168721054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||7.8|-19.8|0.338
84484666|NCT02365506|168721054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||19.9|-9.4|0.425
84484667|NCT02365506|168721055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||3.5|-16.5|0.174
84752882|NCT02113579|169261050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|15.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 2, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||0.002
84484668|NCT02365506|168721055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||13.1|-6.3|0.448
84484669|NCT02365506|168721056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||29.6|-12.0|0.339
84484670|NCT02365506|168721056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||33.4|-7.7|0.178
84484671|NCT02365506|168721057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.9|-14.1|0.564
84484672|NCT02365506|168721057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||20.2|-14.7|0.721
84484673|NCT05505734|168721061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.73||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.730|0.392|<0.001
84484674|NCT05505734|168721062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.733||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.733|0.397|<0.001
84484675|NCT05505734|168721063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.724||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.724|0.405|<0.001
84484676|NCT05505734|168721064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.72||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.720|0.406|<0.001
84544099|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.2|-2.1|0.2002
84484677|NCT05505734|168721065|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.64||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.64|0.34|<0.001
84484678|NCT05505734|168721066|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.63||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.63|0.33|<0.001
84484679|NCT05505734|168721067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
84484680|NCT05505734|168721068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
84484681|NCT03748420|168721110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09845||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|1.06|0.0103
84484682|NCT03748420|168721111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1166||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.82|0.7967
84484683|NCT03748420|168721112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08906||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.99|0.0589
84484684|NCT03748420|168721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0871||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-0.8|0.21
84484685|NCT03748420|168721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1234||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.20
84484686|NCT03748420|168721115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.96||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.99|110.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.04|-124.99|0.901
84484687|NCT01899768|168721121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.44|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.44|1.10|
84484688|NCT01899768|168721122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.19|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.19|0.87|
84484689|NCT01899768|168721145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.75|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.75|0.86|
84484690|NCT01899768|168721145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.72|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 4-8 hr.|||1.72|1.07|
84484691|NCT01899768|168721146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.40|0.67|
84484692|NCT01899768|168721146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.36|||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|||||1.36|0.79|
84484693|NCT04476108|168721178|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.32|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.32|-1.17|
84484694|NCT04476108|168721179|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.35|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.35|-1.09|
84484695|NCT04476108|168721180|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.15|-0.69|
84484696|NCT04476108|168721181|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.31|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.31|-1.20|
84484697|NCT04476108|168721182|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|6.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||6.06|-11.71|
84484698|NCT04476108|168721183|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.78|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.09|
84484699|NCT04476108|168721184|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.46|187.97|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||187.97|-188.46|
84484700|NCT04476108|168721185|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.10|-0.01|
84484701|NCT00850135|168721186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for the correlation between AUC-110 and birth weight|correlation|||||||0.035
84544100|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.2|15.1|<0.0001
84544101|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.6||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|1.3|0.0434
84544102|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|17.1|<0.0001
84544103|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|24.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.0|7.5|0.0019
84544104|NCT03349060|168840998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.7|24.0|<0.0001
84544105|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|18.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.3|3.3|0.0151
84544106|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.0|<0.0001
84544107|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.3|10.2|0.0010
84544108|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|49.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.3|26.6|<0.0001
84544109|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|34.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|12.6|0.0003
84544110|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|30.7|<0.0001
84544111|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.6||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.1|8.1|0.0026
84544112|NCT03349060|168840999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|51.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||51.7|28.3|<0.0001
84544113|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.6|-2.9|0.3151
84544114|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|0.7|0.0292
84544115|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.5|-5.9|0.9402
84484702|NCT02213081|168721202|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine if the mean difference in pain scores before compared to during ulipristal therapy were equivalent or non-equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.05
84484703|NCT03676465|168721245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544116|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|7.3|0.0019
84544117|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.4|4.2|0.0078
84544118|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|30.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.1|14.2|<0.0001
84544119|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.3|1.0|0.0528
84544120|NCT03349060|168841000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|35.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.3|17.6|<0.0001
84484704|NCT03676465|168721246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484705|NCT03676465|168721247|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484706|NCT03676465|168721248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484707|NCT03676465|168721249|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84484708|NCT03676465|168721250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484709|NCT03676465|168721251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84484710|NCT03676465|168721252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484711|NCT03676465|168721253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484712|NCT03676465|168721254|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84484713|NCT03676465|168721255|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84484714|NCT03676465|168721256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84484715|NCT03676465|168721257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84484716|NCT03676465|168721258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84484717|NCT00085644|168721268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001||95.0|27.4|47.8|||Chi-squared||Risk difference is measured as a percentage.|ASAS 20 response rates of the adalimumab group were compared with the placebo group using Pearson's Chi-square test. The counts and percentages were calculated for total sample and by therapy group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. For the statistical analysis, subjects with missing data before Week 12 were considered as nonresponders. The comparisons were performed at an alpha level = 0.05.||47.8|27.4|< 0.001
84484718|NCT00085644|168721269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.985||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.985
84484719|NCT00893763|168721344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects linear model|||We compared groups in a single analytical model using a mixed effects linear model with CPIS as the response variable. For this model, group (CHX, control), day, group by day interaction, APACHE III score and hospital (VCU, USF) were modeled as fixed effects and subject was modeled as a random effect.||||0.1763
84544121|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.9|<0.0001
84544122|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
84544123|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
84544124|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
84737047|NCT05186311|169226068|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737048|NCT05186311|169226069|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
84737049|NCT00420784|169226180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|16.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.36|4.14|<0.001
84737050|NCT00420784|169226180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|19.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.20|4.72|<0.001
84737051|NCT00420784|169226180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|1.12|0.024
84737052|NCT00420784|169226182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|12.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.96|3.41|<0.001
84484720|NCT00893763|168721344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression analysis was performed using the binary response variable of colonization or no colonization and dependent variables for group, length of intubation, and group-by-length-of-intubation interaction. The probability of a type 1 error ( a ) was set to 0.05.||||0.8656
84737053|NCT00420784|169226182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.27|2.91|<0.001
84737054|NCT00420784|169226182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|0.95|0.067
84737055|NCT00607672|169226196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84737056|NCT00607672|169226197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84737057|NCT00607672|169226198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
84737058|NCT00607672|169226199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
84737059|NCT00607672|169226200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||For plasma transfusion comparison. Ramipril and Candesartan versus placebo|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84737060|NCT00607672|169226201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||Comparison for norepinephrine use|Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84484721|NCT01836029|168721359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.266|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.266
84484722|NCT01836029|168721361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.399|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.399
84484723|NCT01836029|168721362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536||||||p-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for randomization stratification factors and comparing tumor response rates between the treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.536
84484724|NCT01678560|168721379|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA will result in improved adherence at 90 days Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population.||PAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department. The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
84737061|NCT00607672|169226202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84737062|NCT00607672|169226203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84737063|NCT00607672|169226204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84737064|NCT00607672|169226205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
84737065|NCT00607672|169226206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84737066|NCT00607672|169226207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84737067|NCT00607672|169226208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84737068|NCT04937920|169226209|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-29620.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.2
84484725|NCT01678560|168721380|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA (Wireless group) will result in improved adherence at 90 days compared to Usual Group.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population."|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
84737069|NCT04937920|169226209|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|127195.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
84737070|NCT04937920|169226209|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-41659.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.6
84737071|NCT04937920|169226209|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-483.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
84737072|NCT00855413|169226248|OTHER|one sided ANOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The degrees of freedom (df) for the within factor (number of visits - 1) was 2, and the second df is the error df of 17.|ANOVA|||An overall summary score of neurocognitive functioning was created by averaging all tests. Best available demographically corrected normative data were utilized to create z scores and then deficit scores for impairment ratings.Change in neurocognitive functioning was analyzed using a one sided repeated measures ANOVA with neurocognitive performance as the dependent variable (total z score) and time (visit) as the independent variable. Degrees of freedom were 2,17.||||0.03
84484726|NCT01678560|168721381|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Estimation Parameter Other[Fisher exact|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - Number of patients effectively treated with the PAP will be higher in the Wireless Group compared to the Usual Group Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.||||<0.01
84484727|NCT01678560|168721382|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Other[Fisher exact test statistic value]|0.0286|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - PAP treatment Adherence in the first 3 months of treatment predicts the PAP treatment Adherence in the next 9 months of treatment Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher Exact||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
84484728|NCT01678560|168721383|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test|0.0039|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Patients with the higher AHI are more likely to become adherent to the PAP therapy.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population"|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
84484729|NCT00117572|168721385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|Comparison of overall survival curves||1.41|0.59|0.68
84737073|NCT00855413|169226250|OTHER|Spearman correlation|spearman correlation|-0.82|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||R = -0.82|Spearman correlation|||Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|||<.005
84737074|NCT02493946|169226264|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders.||88.0|73.7|<0.0001
84737075|NCT02493946|169226265|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|75.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|82.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||82.8|67.1|<0.0001
84484730|NCT00117572|168721386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.25|0.55|0.37
84484731|NCT00117572|168721387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.12|0.51|0.16
84484732|NCT00117572|168721388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84484733|NCT00117572|168721389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84484734|NCT00117572|168721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison of change scores between treatment groups||||||0.55
84544125|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.3|<0.0001
84484735|NCT00117572|168721391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
84484736|NCT00117572|168721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84484737|NCT00117572|168721393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84484738|NCT00117572|168721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84484739|NCT00117572|168721395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84484740|NCT00117572|168721396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84484741|NCT00117572|168721397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
84484742|NCT00997555|168721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84484743|NCT00997555|168721401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||(bronchoscopy 5.1 days, 95% CI +/- 3.6 days versus control 6.7 days, 95% CI +/- 6.3 days, p = 0.7).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84484744|NCT00997555|168721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 10 days, 95% CI +/- 10 days versus control 18 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.4).||||||0.4
84484745|NCT00997555|168721403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 21 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days versus control 26 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.5).||||||0.5
84484746|NCT00654368|168721426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), defined below, exceeded the noninferiority margin of -0.6, then noninferiority was to be concluded.|Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06|||||The 95% CI was calculated using the mean square error from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitted with effects for treatment and covariates of duration of disease, type of reimbursement, and 6 month DAS28.|||-0.06|-0.75|
84484747|NCT02583360|168721440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84484748|NCT02583360|168721441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.907
84484749|NCT02583360|168721442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
84484750|NCT04228445|168721443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.394|26.662|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||26.662|7.394|<0.0001
84484751|NCT04228445|168721443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.625|32.617|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||32.617|8.625|<0.0001
84484752|NCT04228445|168721444|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.6|96.9|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.9|78.6|
84484753|NCT04228445|168721444|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|96.8|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.8|77.7|
84484754|NCT04228445|168721445|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|95.6||||||||95.6|78.2|
84484755|NCT04228445|168721445|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|89.6||||||||89.6|67.5|
84484756|NCT04228445|168721446|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.0||||||||7.00|5.25|
84737076|NCT02493946|169226265|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|82.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||82.1|66.2|<0.0001
84737077|NCT02493946|169226265|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|53.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|63.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||63.1|44.2|<0.0001
84484757|NCT04228445|168721446|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.0||||||||7.00|5.12|
84484758|NCT04228445|168721447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.738|43.663|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||43.663|8.738|<0.0001
84484759|NCT04228445|168721447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.199|34.369|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||34.369|7.199|<0.0001
84484760|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|91.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
84484761|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
84484762|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
84484763|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
84484764|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
84484765|NCT04228445|168721448|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
84484766|NCT04228445|168721449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.771||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.534|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||1.534|.388|0.4595
84737078|NCT02493946|169226267|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|71.6||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||71.6|44.5|<0.0001
84737079|NCT02493946|169226267|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|69.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||69.0|44.5|<0.0001
84484767|NCT04228445|168721450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.11|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||2.110|.509|0.9220
84484768|NCT00460525|168721472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.17||||0.175||95.0|-0.09|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|No adjustments were made.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first clinical malaria episode with significant parasitemia (2500/mm\^3) and temperature of greater than or equal to 37.5 degrees C was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.09|0.175
84484769|NCT00460525|168721474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.2||||0.068||95.0|-0.02|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Poisson model fit.|Incidence density, defined as number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR, was compared using Poisson regression. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested. The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.02|0.068
84484770|NCT04757376|168721484|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical equivalence: the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the mean of the primary efficacy endpoint between treatment groups was entirely within an equivalence margin, \[- 1.45, + 1.45\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included the treatment as a fixed effect and age, baseline LS-BMD T-score, and prior bisphosphonates therapy (Yes versus No) as covariates.||||0.38|-0.76|
84484771|NCT01307046|168721507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-3.4|-6.8|<.001
84484772|NCT01307046|168721508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-6.5|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.5|-11.9|<.001
84484773|NCT03277794|168721578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.354
84484774|NCT03277794|168721578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.465
84484775|NCT03277794|168721579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.159
84484776|NCT03277794|168721579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.200
84484777|NCT03277794|168721580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.121
84484778|NCT03277794|168721580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.134
84484779|NCT03277794|168721581|OTHER|||||||0.899||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.899
84484780|NCT03277794|168721581|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||Unadjusted|Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
84484781|NCT03277794|168721582|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.198
84484782|NCT03277794|168721582|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
84737080|NCT02493946|169226267|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|72.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||72.9|52.1|<0.0001
84737081|NCT02493946|169226267|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|55.7||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||55.7|29.5|<0.0001
84737082|NCT02493946|169226268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|61.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|70.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||70.3|51.9|<0.0001
84737083|NCT02493946|169226268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|74.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||74.8|56.8|<0.0001
84737084|NCT02493946|169226268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||78.8|62.2|<0.0001
84737085|NCT02493946|169226268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||42.0|24.0|<0.0001
84737086|NCT02493946|169226269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.2|78.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Linear|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||78.3|58.2|<0.0001
84737087|NCT02493946|169226269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|86.2||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||86.2|68.6|<0.0001
84737088|NCT02493946|169226269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|83.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||83.1|65.7|<0.0001
84737089|NCT02493946|169226269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||59.9|42.0|<0.0001
84737090|NCT02493946|169226270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.296|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|The cox proportional hazard model used centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score as covariates.||Treatment difference in median time to onset of treatment response.||||<0.0001
84737091|NCT02493946|169226271|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference ( BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||12.0|5.2|<0.0001
84737092|NCT02493946|169226271|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||14.8|7.4|<0.0001
84737093|NCT02493946|169226271|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||14.0|6.8|<0.0001
84737094|NCT02493946|169226271|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|13.3||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||13.3|5.9|<0.0001
84737095|NCT02493946|169226272|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||13.6|5.0|<0.0001
84737096|NCT02493946|169226272|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||16.0|6.7|<0.0001
84737097|NCT02493946|169226272|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.9||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||15.9|6.4|<0.0001
84737098|NCT02493946|169226272|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||12.6|3.7|0.0004
84737099|NCT02493946|169226273|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0174
84737100|NCT02493946|169226273|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||-0.6|-1.7|<0.0001
84737101|NCT02493946|169226273|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||-0.7|-2.0|0.0001
84737102|NCT02493946|169226273|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||-0.8|-2.1|<0.0001
84737103|NCT02559310|169226285|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 12.5%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||2.8|-8.5|
84737104|NCT02559310|169226286|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.9|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.9|-8.9|
84737105|NCT02559310|169226286|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.1|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||4.1|-9.2|
84737106|NCT02559310|169226287|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.4|-8.4|
84737107|NCT02559310|169226287|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||3.7|-8.7|
84737108|NCT02633397|169226288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.19
84737109|NCT02633397|169226289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.42
84737110|NCT02633397|169226290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.52
84737111|NCT02633397|169226292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.42|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.42|-0.70|0.69
84737112|NCT02633397|169226293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-117.05|38.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||38.02|-117.05|0.40
84737113|NCT02633397|169226294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.73|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||0.73|-0.11|0.23
84737114|NCT02633397|169226295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||-0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.46|-0.62|-0.80
84737115|NCT02633397|169226296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.22|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in MAP as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-3.69|-10.22|<0.001
84737116|NCT02633397|169226297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.02|-0.31|0.15
84737117|NCT02633397|169226298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.28|-3.12|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||-3.12|-10.28|0.003
84737118|NCT02633397|169226299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|5.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||5.04|2.00|<0.001
84737119|NCT02633397|169226300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-429.86|1002.99|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||1002.99|-429.86|0.51
84737120|NCT02633397|169226301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-173.69|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||9.32|-173.69|0.14
84484783|NCT03277794|168721583|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.091
84484784|NCT03277794|168721583|OTHER|||||||0.591||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.591
84484785|NCT03277794|168721584|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
84484786|NCT03277794|168721584|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84484787|NCT03277794|168721585|OTHER|||||||0.163||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.163
84484788|NCT03277794|168721585|OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.865
84484789|NCT03277794|168721586|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
84484790|NCT03277794|168721586|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.758
84484791|NCT03277794|168721587|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.124
84484792|NCT03277794|168721587|OTHER|||||||0.168||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.168
84484793|NCT03277794|168721588|OTHER|||||||0.436||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.436
84484794|NCT03277794|168721588|OTHER|||||||0.706||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.706
84484795|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.604||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.604
84484796|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.177
84484797|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.325||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.325
84484798|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.227
84484799|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.106
84484800|NCT03277794|168721589|OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.058
84544126|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
84484801|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.862||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.862
84484802|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.382
84484803|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.680
84484804|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.988||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.988
84484805|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.701
84484806|NCT03277794|168721590|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.154
84484807|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.719||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.719
84484808|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.150
84484809|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.789
84484810|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.811
84484811|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.726||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.726
84484812|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.795
84484813|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.837||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.837
84484814|NCT03277794|168721591|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.048
84484815|NCT00425945|168721622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|14.9||||||||14.9|-0.1|
84484816|NCT00425945|168721623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.8||||||||10.8|-2.1|
84484817|NCT00425945|168721624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.7|
84484818|NCT00425945|168721625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.7||||||||38.7|-2.3|
84484819|NCT00425945|168721626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
84484820|NCT00425945|168721627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.0|
84484821|NCT00425945|168721628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.8|
84484822|NCT00425945|168721629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.5|
84484823|NCT00425945|168721630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||||||||0.4|0.0|
84484824|NCT00425945|168721631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4||||||||2.4|0.1|
84484825|NCT00425945|168721632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3||||||||2.3|-4.4|
84484826|NCT00425945|168721633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.9|
84484827|NCT00425945|168721634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
84484828|NCT00425945|168721635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.3||||||||9.3|-1.6|
84484829|NCT00425945|168721636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8||||||||0.8|-3.4|
84484830|NCT03258593|168721657|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|67.5||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.202
84484831|NCT03258593|168721657|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.0||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||160.3|67.9|0.667
84484832|NCT03258593|168721657|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|44.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.463
84484833|NCT03258593|168721659|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|-17.75||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.6|170.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||170.3|-211.6|0.863
84484834|NCT03258593|168721659|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||160.3|67.9|0.666
84484835|NCT03258593|168721659|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|21.3||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.9|269.9|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||269.9|-203.9|0.949
84737121|NCT02633397|169226302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare microalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.78
84737122|NCT02633397|169226303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare macroalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.30
84737123|NCT02633397|169226304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-0.62|-9.21|0.06
84737124|NCT02633397|169226305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare CKD stage frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.56
84737125|NCT02633397|169226306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in hemoglobin as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.03|-0.52|0.15
84737126|NCT02633397|169226307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in reticulocyte count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||2.72|0.22|0.05
84737127|NCT02633397|169226308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.63|-0.93|0.75
84737128|NCT02633397|169226309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.63|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||6.08|-64.63|0.17
84737129|NCT02633397|169226310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||-0.15|-3.13|0.07
84737130|NCT03036124|169226311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
84737131|NCT03036124|169226312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
84484836|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|38.0||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||38.0|1.7|<0.001
84484837|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.25||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||11.25|1.5|<0.001
84737132|NCT03036124|169226313|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0002||95.0|0.65|0.88|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.88|0.65|0.0002
84737133|NCT03036124|169226314|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.11|1.26||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score and stratified by T2DM status at randomization.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in total symptom score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|||1.26|1.11|<0.0001
84737134|NCT03036124|169226315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1681||95.0|0.44|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline eGFR as a covariate.||||1.16|0.44|0.1681
84737135|NCT03036124|169226316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0217||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.0217
84737136|NCT01920932|169226407|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportions|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The comparison of the complete rate between the first 32 evaluable participants and the historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk patients was estimated by the binomial proportions test.||||In the historical control (HOD99) 17% of patients had CR at week 8. Sample size for this objective is calculated based on a binomial distribution to test H0: p=17% vs. Ha: p\>17%, where p is the true CR rate after 2 cycles of AEPA. 32 patients are needed to detect 20% increase of CR rate with 80% power and 5% type I error. If it shows efficacy, the response results will be reported, and the study will continue to enroll for a total of 77 patients to assess response and EFS.||||
84737137|NCT01920932|169226409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patient's complete response rate between HLHR13 and HOD99 (NCT00145600) unfavorable risk arm 2 (UR2).||||0.004
84737138|NCT01920932|169226410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||The comparison of the EFS between HLHR13 and historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk 2 arm (UR2) was done by the two-sample log-rank test.||||0.0008
84737139|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
84737140|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.002
84544127|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
84544128|NCT03349060|168841001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.9|<0.0001
84544129|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.0|-14.8|<0.0001
84544130|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-22.7|<0.0001
84544131|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.8|-17.3|<.0001
84544132|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-26.8|<.0001
84544133|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.5|<.0001
84544134|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-27.2|<.0001
84544135|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.7|-19.0|<0.0001
84544136|NCT03349060|168841002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.3|-27.5|<.0001
84544137|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|35.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.9|8.7|0.0028
84544138|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|53.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.2|27.1|<0.0001
84544139|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.4|2.8|0.0217
84544140|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|45.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.9|18.5|<0.0001
84544141|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|30.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|1.4|0.0363
84544142|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|9.8|0.0011
84544143|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|34.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.5|5.8|0.0080
84544144|NCT03349060|168841003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|43.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|15.0|<0.0001
84737141|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.067
84737142|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.115
84544145|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.2|-5.4|<0.0001
84544146|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-7.1|<0.0001
84544147|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-5.0|0.0001
84737143|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.455
84737144|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.636
84737145|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
84737146|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
84737147|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.006
84737148|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.099
84544148|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.5|-7.8|<.0001
84544149|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.8|0.0075
84544150|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-7.4|<0.0001
84544151|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-4.8|0.0072
84737149|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.050
84737150|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.520
84737151|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.024
84737152|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.011
84737153|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.009
84737154|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
84737155|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
84737156|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.035
84737157|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.037
84737158|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.043
84737159|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.044
84737160|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.091
84737161|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.248
84737162|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.069
84737163|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.010
84737164|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.292
84484838|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
84484839|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.96|-0.01|0.052
84484840|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.61||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||4.61|-0.03|0.055
84484841|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.96|||Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|Hochberg adjustment may be used.||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.96|-0.06|0.06
84484842|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.62||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.62|-1.63|0.420
84544152|NCT03349060|168841004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.9|<0.0001
84737165|NCT01920932|169226415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.429
84737166|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.975
84737167|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.032
84737168|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.497
84737169|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.399
84484843|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|1.31||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.31|-1.315|0.733
84737170|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.451
84484844|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.21|0.04|0.010
84737171|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.198
84737172|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.967
84737173|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.647
84737174|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.145
84737175|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
84737176|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.073
84737177|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.156
84737178|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.844
84737179|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.206
84737180|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.491
84737181|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.906
84737182|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.580
84737183|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.012
84737184|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.010
84737185|NCT01920932|169226416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.005
84544153|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.0|-3.5|0.2750
84544154|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-4.8|0.0280
84544155|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-5.9|0.0051
84484845|NCT03258593|168721661|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.40|0.04|0.014
84484846|NCT03258593|168721663|OTHER|One curve estimated in this cohort. Not compared to any other curves.|Kaplan-Meier product-limit|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.5|97.5||Unadjusted p-value|Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates|||Disease free survival time was evaluated with the product-limit estimator by Kaplan-Meier test.||97.5|2.5|
84484847|NCT05618808|168721672|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
84544156|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
84544157|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-5.1|0.1706
84544158|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
84544159|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-5.2|0.0629
84544160|NCT03349060|168841005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-6.2|0.0100
84544161|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.9|-0.7|0.1238
84544162|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.2|11.0|0.0008
84484848|NCT05618808|168721675|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.61|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.61|0.16|
84544163|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.8||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.4|-2.8|0.2091
84544164|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.0|12.9|0.0005
84484849|NCT05618808|168721676|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
84484850|NCT05618808|168721682|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.95|||||Enoxaparin vs Apixaban||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|0.95|0.32|
84544165|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-0.9|0.1161
84484851|NCT05706623|168721683|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.8354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5216|1.338||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on natural log (ln) transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.338|0.5216|
84484852|NCT05706623|168721685|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9356|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5889|1.4864||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on ln transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.4864|0.5889|
84544166|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|15.3|0.0002
84737186|NCT04024462|169226421|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm A IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.15|0.99|
84737187|NCT04024462|169226422|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.67|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.67|1.44|
84737188|NCT04024462|169226423|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|13.45|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||13.45|-15.21|
84737189|NCT05274750|169226433|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
84737190|NCT05274750|169226434|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.23||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.46|0.047
84737191|NCT05274750|169226435|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5 percent (%) reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.02|-0.46|0.074
84737192|NCT05274750|169226436|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.19||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.39|0.055
84737193|NCT05274750|169226437|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.8|-3.3|0.002
84737194|NCT05274750|169226438|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||1.6|-15.2|0.113
84737195|NCT05274750|169226439|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.03|-0.37|0.094
84737196|NCT05274750|169226440|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84544167|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.1||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-2.8|0.1837
84544168|NCT03349060|168841006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.6|8.1|0.0046
84544169|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|16.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.6|-10.3|0.4795
84544170|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.7|-12.7|
84544171|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|-3.6|0.1452
84544172|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
84544173|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-13.7|0.5707
84544174|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-13.6|0.5777
84544175|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|37.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.5|1.0|0.0744
84544176|NCT03349060|168841007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
84544177|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|46.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.0|17.2|<0.0001
84544178|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.9|21.5|<0.0001
84544179|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|35.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.6|5.2|0.0090
84544180|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|47.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.7|19.0|<0.0001
84544181|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|32.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.4|0.6|0.0421
84544182|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|48.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.8|18.9|<0.0001
84544183|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|8.2|0.0035
84484853|NCT03728881|168721693|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.44|0.57|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.57|0.44|
84484854|NCT03728881|168721695|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|Ratio of the GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.95|1.29|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.95|
84497157|NCT02222168|168745466|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|82.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.37|101.639|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||101.639|66.370|
84544184|NCT03349060|168841008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.9|13.8|0.0002
84484855|NCT03728881|168721697|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.5|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.50|0.36|
84484856|NCT03728881|168721699|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.75|1.08|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.08|0.75|
84484857|NCT03728881|168721700|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
84484858|NCT03728881|168721701|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.006
84484859|NCT03728881|168721702|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
84484860|NCT03728881|168721703|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.48
84484861|NCT03728881|168721709|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.42|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.56|0.42|
84484862|NCT03728881|168721710|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84484863|NCT03728881|168721712|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.93|1.27||||||||1.27|0.93|
84484864|NCT03728881|168721713|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0006
84484865|NCT03728881|168721715|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.35|0.49|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.49|0.35|
84484866|NCT03728881|168721716|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
84484867|NCT03728881|168721718|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.04|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.04|0.71|
84544185|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|43.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.2|-9.1|0.2497
84544186|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|-9.0|0.2371
84544187|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|58.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.3|-0.8|0.0697
84737197|NCT05274750|169226441|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
84737198|NCT05274750|169226442|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
84737199|NCT05274750|169226443|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1, \>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
84737200|NCT05274750|169226444|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses will be performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
84737201|NCT06193967|169226445|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737202|NCT06193967|169226445|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737203|NCT06193967|169226446|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM frequency.~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.001
84737204|NCT06193967|169226447|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84484868|NCT03728881|168721719|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.478|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.478
84737205|NCT06193967|169226447|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737206|NCT06193967|169226448|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||0.01
84484869|NCT03728881|168721721|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.58|1.12|
84484870|NCT03728881|168721724|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.54|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.54|1.09|
84544188|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|71.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|16.2|0.0030
84544189|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|59.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.9|2.0|0.0583
84544190|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.2||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|69.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.1|13.2|0.0085
84544191|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-9.8|0.1948
84544192|NCT03349060|168841009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.6||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.5|2.8|0.0296
84544193|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
84544194|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0018
84544195|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0005
84544196|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
84737207|NCT06193967|169226449|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84484871|NCT03728881|168721727|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.81|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.81|1.20|
84484872|NCT03728881|168721728|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
84484873|NCT03728881|168721730|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.75|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.75|1.15|
84484874|NCT03728881|168721731|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.368|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.368
84484875|NCT03728881|168721733|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.38|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.56|0.38|
84544197|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.5|0.0476
84544198|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
84544199|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0028
84544200|NCT03349060|168841010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
84544201|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.9|0.6134
84544202|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.4|0.0422
84544203|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2050
84544204|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.9|0.0012
84544205|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2657
84544206|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-2.0|0.0019
84737208|NCT06193967|169226449|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737209|NCT06193967|169226450|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of loging sessions).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.0001
84544207|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|0.1675
84544208|NCT03349060|168841011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.8|0.0085
84544209|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.5539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|-19.6|0.5539
84544210|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|0.8|0.0561
84544211|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-4.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-33.4|0.7460
84544212|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|-28.3|1.0000
84484876|NCT03728881|168721733|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|0.7|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.70|0.48|
84737210|NCT06193967|169226451|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737211|NCT06193967|169226451|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737212|NCT06193967|169226452|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737213|NCT06193967|169226452|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737214|NCT06193967|169226453|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737215|NCT06193967|169226453|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737216|NCT06193967|169226454|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737217|NCT06193967|169226454|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.03
84737218|NCT06193967|169226455|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737219|NCT06193967|169226455|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.02
84484877|NCT03728881|168721733|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.079||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.079
84737220|NCT06193967|169226456|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737221|NCT06193967|169226456|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737222|NCT06193967|169226457|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737223|NCT06193967|169226457|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
84737224|NCT04328623|169226458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84737225|NCT02869867|169226562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|2.09|<0.001
84737226|NCT05218499|169226563|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio value below 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator for the hazard ratio is the median unbiased estimator. The confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio is calculated as a repeated CI. The p-value is obtained using a weighted inverse normal method combining one-sided p-values from two stages.||1.06|0.60|0.0956
84544213|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.8||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|46.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.2|-4.5|0.1474
84544214|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|12.1|0.0123
84737227|NCT05218499|169226564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.67|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator and CI for the odds ratio is by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel.||5.67|1.52|
84737228|NCT05218499|169226566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.82|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate.||2.82|0.81|
84737229|NCT05218499|169226566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.84|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate. Exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson.||4.84|1.48|
84737230|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||4.9|0.2|0.9998
84544215|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|27.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|-28.5|0.9760
84544216|NCT03349060|168841012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.8||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|36.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.1|-20.4|0.5965
84737231|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.5|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.5|0.3|0.9345
84737232|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||2.1|0.1|0.5836
84737233|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||10.6|0.5|0.4844
84737234|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||6.8|0.3|0.9725
84544217|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|-9.9|0.2278
84544218|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|72.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||72.4|-2.0|0.0996
84544219|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|-21.6|0.4449
84544220|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.9||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|-21.6|0.4139
84544221|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|-40.7|0.7290
84544222|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.7||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|44.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.6|-27.3|0.6585
84737235|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.4715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.9|0.1|0.4715
84737236|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||9.6|0.5|0.5969
84544223|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.2||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|-18.7|0.3638
84544224|NCT03349060|168841013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|78.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||78.5|2.4|0.0550
84544225|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
84544226|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-35.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-75.9|0.1580
84544227|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-53.5|0.5140
84544228|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-19.8||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-63.3|0.4149
84544229|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
84737237|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.4|0.1|0.2043
84484878|NCT03728881|168721734|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.0000
84484879|NCT03728881|168721736|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.82|1.25||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.25|0.82|
84484880|NCT03728881|168721736|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.01|1.54||||||The cohort for the analysis of HPV16 at 36 months by enrollment age group includes participants who received the appropriate number of vaccine doses within the specified windows, were initially seronegative for HPV16, underwent blood collection at the 36-month mark, and reported no additional HPV vaccinations outside the study before the 36-month blood collection, as confirmed by self-report or serologic testing for HPV6/HPV11.||1.54|1.01|
84484881|NCT03728881|168721736|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.14||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.14
84484882|NCT03728881|168721737|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the younger one-dose recipients and the younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.001||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and the younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.001
84484883|NCT03728881|168721737|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.737||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and the older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=0.737
84484884|NCT03728881|168721739|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.52||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.52|0.33|
84484885|NCT03728881|168721739|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.37|0.6||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.60|0.37|
84484886|NCT03728881|168721739|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.028||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.028
84484887|NCT03728881|168721740|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
84544230|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-30.7||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|9.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.6|-70.9|0.2092
84737238|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.4|0.3|0.9388
84737239|NCT03635086|169226591|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.2||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||23.1|1.2|0.0251
84737240|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.6|0.2|0.5263
84484888|NCT03728881|168721742|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.65|1.1||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.10|0.65|
84571100|NCT00251758|168893363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
84737241|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
84737242|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
84737243|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
84737244|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.7|0.6|0.5500
84737245|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
84737246|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
84737247|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
84737248|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
84484889|NCT03728881|168721742|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.29||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.77|
84737249|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
84737250|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.7|0.2|0.5321
84737251|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.9|0.3|0.9983
84737252|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.1|0.2|0.8234
84737253|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.7|0.2|0.9882
84737254|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||7.6|0.6|0.3778
84737255|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.1|0.4|0.9878
84737256|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.3|0.5|0.8213
84737257|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.9|0.2|0.6716
84737258|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.5|0.2|0.9380
84737259|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.4|0.9777
84737260|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||4.7|0.3|0.9997
84737261|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.2|0.3|0.9287
84737262|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.0|0.1|0.5598
84737263|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.0||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||13.1|0.7|0.2117
84737264|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||6.6|0.3|0.9699
84737265|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.4460
84737266|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.9|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.9|0.6|0.2920
84737267|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.4|0.1|0.1840
84737268|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.2|0.4|0.7229
84737269|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|6.6||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|28.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||28.6|1.5|0.0052
84737270|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.2|0.9777
84737271|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.3|0.3|0.9812
84737272|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5|||ANOVA|||Day 182||4.5|0.3|0.9979
84737273|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.9|0.5|0.5880
84737274|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.0|0.4|0.7973
84737275|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.0|0.4|0.8992
84484890|NCT03728881|168721742|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.24||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.24
84667908|NCT05760300|169070711|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.9|99.2|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||99.2|48.9|
84484891|NCT03728881|168721743|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between younger one-dose and younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.216||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-12 Year Old Girls) and younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.216
84484892|NCT03728881|168721743|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
84484893|NCT03728881|168721745|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
84484894|NCT03728881|168721745|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.41|0.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.58|0.41|
84484895|NCT03728881|168721745|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.73||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.73
84484896|NCT03728881|168721746|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate one-dose and three-dose recipients who enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
84484897|NCT03728881|168721748|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.26||||||96.0|1.0|1.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.58|1.00|
84484898|NCT03728881|168721748|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01||||||96.0|0.83|1.24||||||||1.24|0.83|
84484899|NCT03728881|168721748|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.15||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.15
84484900|NCT03728881|168721749|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.253||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.253
84667909|NCT00877058|169070714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||Chi-squared|||||0.48|0.15|<0.05
84667910|NCT00877058|169070714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.24|0.68|||Chi-squared|||||0.68|0.24|0.001
84737276|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.7||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.4|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.4|0.7|0.2602
84737277|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.6|0.2|0.9991
84544231|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|53.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|-29.1|0.5982
84544232|NCT03349060|168841014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|44.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.7|-36.3|0.8647
84544233|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-78.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|-39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||-39.6|-117.5|0.0546
84544234|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-27.9||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|6.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.7|-62.5|0.3573
84544235|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-55.6|0.9219
84544236|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
84544237|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
84544238|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
84544239|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
84544240|NCT03349060|168841015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
84544241|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-4.4|0.0006
84544242|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-7.9|<0.0001
84544243|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-5.6|<0.0001
84737278|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.2|0.4|0.9028
84544244|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.6|-10.2|<0.0001
84544245|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
84667911|NCT00877058|169070715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.96|<0.05
84667912|NCT00877058|169070715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.08|||Chi-squared|||||2.08|0.79|<0.05
84737279|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.8|0.4|0.7761
84737280|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.1|0.2|0.7833
84544246|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
84544247|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-5.2|0.0049
84544248|NCT03349060|168841016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-9.0|<0.0001
84544249|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0020
84544250|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
84544251|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.7|0.0011
84544252|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84544253|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0020
84544254|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
84544255|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0014
84544256|NCT03349060|168841017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
84544257|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|0.3|0.0575
84544258|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|10.7|0.0002
84737281|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.9|0.2|0.9915
84737282|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.0|0.3|0.9980
84544259|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.2||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.1|1.3|0.0411
84544260|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|35.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.5|16.9|<0.0001
84544261|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.9||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|-0.1|0.0781
84737283|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.9|0.4|0.9090
84737284|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9651
84737285|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9112
84544262|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|36.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.3|16.2|<0.0001
84544263|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|5.3|0.0075
84544264|NCT03349060|168841018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.9|19.6|<0.0001
84667913|NCT00877058|169070716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.31|<0.05
84484901|NCT03728881|168721749|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.015||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.015
84544265|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.034||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|0.001|0.0453
84544266|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.101|0.036|<0.0001
84544267|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.025||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.062|-0.012|0.1821
84544268|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.055||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.092|0.018|0.0038
84544269|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.048||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.090|0.006|0.0241
84544270|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.134|0.051|<0.0001
84484902|NCT03728881|168721751|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.43||||||99.0|0.33|0.55||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.55|0.33|
84544271|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.044||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.087|0.001|0.0461
84544272|NCT03349060|168841019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.064||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.107|0.021|0.0037
84544273|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.548||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||8.700|0.397|0.0319
84667914|NCT00877058|169070716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.33|<0.05
84737286|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||7.8|0.7|0.2570
84737287|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.8|0.3|0.9999
84484903|NCT03728881|168721751|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.34|0.52||||||||0.52|0.34|
84484904|NCT03728881|168721751|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.95||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.95
84544274|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.496|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||12.822|4.496|<0.0001
84667915|NCT03878446|169070717|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-3.2|
84667916|NCT03878446|169070717|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.1|
84737288|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.2|0.5|0.6953
84737289|NCT03635086|169226594|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||5.4|0.5|0.7523
84544275|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.361||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|9.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.084|-0.362|0.0702
84544276|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|10.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.349|14.821|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.821|5.349|<0.0001
84544277|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.045||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|11.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.501|0.589|0.0300
84544278|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.803||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.368|15.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.237|4.368|0.0005
84544279|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|7.569||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.119|13.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||13.019|2.119|0.0067
84544280|NCT03349060|168841020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.374||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.933|14.815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.815|3.933|0.0008
84544281|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.130|-0.137|0.9568
84544282|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.223|-0.042|0.1782
84544283|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.174||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.347|0.001|0.0491
84544284|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.284||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.456|0.112|0.0015
84544285|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.004||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.194|-0.185|0.9638
84737290|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.7|0.1|0.5263
84544286|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.08||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.270|-0.109|0.4016
84544287|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.007||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.198|-0.184|0.9429
84544288|NCT03349060|168841021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.062||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.254|-0.130|0.5212
84544289|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.131||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.095|11.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.358|-7.095|0.6467
84544290|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|11.549||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.338|20.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.761|2.338|0.0147
84544291|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.853||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.453|17.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||17.159|-3.453|0.1894
84667917|NCT03878446|169070717|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||||0.9|-2.6|
84737291|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
84737292|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
84737293|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
84544292|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|16.99||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.699|27.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||27.281|6.699|0.0015
84544293|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.672||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|19.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||19.862|-2.518|0.1267
84544294|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.354||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.866|20.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.573|-1.866|0.1009
84544295|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.071||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.107|15.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.249|-3.107|0.1915
84544296|NCT03349060|168841022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|12.948||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.754|22.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||22.143|3.754|0.0064
84544297|NCT03349060|168841023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.6||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.4|0.9|0.0102
84544298|NCT03349060|168841023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.3|1.8|0.0013
84544299|NCT03349060|168841024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.2|-2.1|0.5241
84544300|NCT03349060|168841024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.9||||0.5821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.1|-2.3|0.5821
84544301|NCT03349060|168841025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|1.5|0.0013
84737294|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 0||7.0|0.6|0.5500
84544302|NCT03349060|168841025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
84544303|NCT03349060|168841026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.7||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.0|0.2256
84544304|NCT03349060|168841026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.0||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.3|0.0275
84544305|NCT04846569|168841063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.38|
84544306|NCT04846569|168841064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.78|
84544307|NCT04846569|168841065|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated.|All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated as originally planned.|||
84544308|NCT04846569|168841066|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.20|
84544309|NCT04846569|168841067|OTHER|Qualitative data analysis|||||||||||||||||Thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted to determine the count of participants reporting positively about the intervention|||
84544310|NCT01479465|168841095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio (HR) equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||2.06|1.01|0.0395
84544311|NCT01479465|168841095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the HR equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% CI) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level ECOG performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||1.89|0.92|0.1042
84544312|NCT03207776|168841149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.64|0.041
84544313|NCT03207776|168841150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.42|0.69|0.952
84737295|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
84737296|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
84484905|NCT03728881|168721752|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
84484906|NCT03728881|168721754|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.19||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.19|0.69|
84484907|NCT03728881|168721754|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.14||||||||1.14|0.69|
84484908|NCT03728881|168721754|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.88||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.88
84484909|NCT03728881|168721755|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.629||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.629
84484910|NCT03728881|168721755|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.175||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.175
84484911|NCT03728881|168721757|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52||||||96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
84484912|NCT03728881|168721757|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.48||||||96.0|0.4|0.58||||||||0.58|0.40|
84484913|NCT03728881|168721757|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.46||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.46
84484914|NCT03728881|168721758|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
84484915|NCT03728881|168721760|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.27||||||96.0|1.03|1.57||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.57|1.03|
84737297|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
84544314|NCT03207776|168841151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.71|0.472
84737298|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
84737299|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
84737300|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.4|0.1|0.7708
84737301|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9966
84737302|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.0|0.2|0.9503
84544315|NCT03207776|168841152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.77|0.74|0.544
84544316|NCT00460603|168841153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.585||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|1.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus \[vs.\] no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.031|0.332|0.9726
84544317|NCT00460603|168841153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.735||||0.8391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.352|0.399|0.8391
84544318|NCT00460603|168841153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.797||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.299|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.299|0.489|0.8192
84737303|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.2|0.2|0.9791
84544319|NCT00460603|168841185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.45|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.45|0.47|0.5699
84544320|NCT00460603|168841185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.61|0.33|0.2167
84737304|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||9.8|0.5|0.5739
84544321|NCT00460603|168841185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.98|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.98|0.75|0.8746
84544322|NCT00460603|168841186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.41|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.41|0.81|0.8884
84544323|NCT00460603|168841186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.89|0.66|0.6648
84571101|NCT00251758|168893363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84737305|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9918
84737306|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.9|0.3|0.9748
84737307|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.6|0.1|0.8270
84737308|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.8|0.1|0.8930
84737309|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.7|0.3|0.9999
84737310|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||3.2|0.1|0.9105
84737311|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.5|0.2|1.0000
84737312|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.7|0.1|0.3047
84544324|NCT00460603|168841186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.07|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.07|0.75|0.8065
84544325|NCT00460603|168841187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.033|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.033|0.656|0.6904
84544326|NCT00460603|168841187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|2.141|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.141|0.676|0.7364
84544327|NCT00460603|168841187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.653|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.653|0.535|0.4140
84544328|NCT03003962|168841189|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|0.989|||Stratified Log-rank test||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.989|0.706|0.037
84544329|NCT03003962|168841190|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.151|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.151|0.793|0.628
84544330|NCT03871543|168841233|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean difference|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.402||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||-0.402|
84544331|NCT03871543|168841233|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.328||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||-0.328|
84544332|NCT03871543|168841234|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|0.918|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.227|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|||1.227||
84544333|NCT03871543|168841235|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|||0.022||
84544334|NCT03871543|168841236|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|1.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.483|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.613||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic||||-4.613|
84544335|NCT03871543|168841237|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|1.984|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.198||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||1.198|
84544336|NCT03871543|168841237|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Ratio|1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.093||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||1.093|
84737313|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.5||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||29.2|1.0|0.0423
84544337|NCT03871543|168841238|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1416||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4148|0.1551|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1551|-0.4148|0.3446
84544338|NCT03871543|168841239|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0887||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.3694|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3694|-0.2070|0.5556
84544339|NCT03871543|168841240|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2052||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4676|0.0905|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0905|-0.4676|0.1676
84544340|NCT03871543|168841241|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0903||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2054|0.3709|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3709|-0.2054|0.5483
84737314|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.1|0.3|0.9213
84737315|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.8|0.1|0.8092
84737316|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|9.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|48.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||48.5|1.7|0.0040
84544341|NCT03871543|168841242|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2679||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5205|0.0278|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0278|-0.5205|0.0719
84544342|NCT03871543|168841243|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.3434||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5786|0.0554|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0554|-0.5786|0.0190
84544343|NCT03871543|168841244|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2975||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.0078|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||-0.0078|-0.5410|0.0420
84544344|NCT03871543|168841245|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.127||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1696|0.4024|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.4024|-0.1696|0.3973
84544345|NCT03871543|168841246|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.021||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3094|0.271|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.2710|-0.3094|0.8894
84544346|NCT03871543|168841247|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0762||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.3585|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3585|-0.2190|0.6129
84544347|NCT03871543|168841248|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1402||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4137|0.1565|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1565|-0.4137|0.3493
84544348|NCT03871543|168841249|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1192||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3958|0.1772|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1772|-0.3958|0.4270
84544349|NCT01839708|168841250|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84544350|NCT01839708|168841251|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84544351|NCT01839708|168841252|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84737317|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.3347
84544352|NCT01839708|168841253|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84544353|NCT01839708|168841254|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544354|NCT01839708|168841255|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84544355|NCT01839708|168841256|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544356|NCT01839708|168841257|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544357|NCT01839708|168841258|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544358|NCT01839708|168841259|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544359|NCT01839708|168841260|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544360|NCT01839708|168841261|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544361|NCT01839708|168841262|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544362|NCT01839708|168841263|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84544363|NCT01568892|168841272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted mean difference between the two treatment arms.|||-0.80|-1.52|<0.001
84544364|NCT03889418|168841367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.292|-0.309|0.956
84544365|NCT03889418|168841368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.005|-0.200|0.039
84544366|NCT03889418|168841369|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio, log|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.603|-0.506|0.864
84544367|NCT03889418|168841370|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio, log|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.308|-0.272|0.901
84544368|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2536||||||Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.2536
84544369|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5757||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.5757
84737318|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.6||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||30.7|1.0|0.0488
84544370|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6065||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6065
84544371|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4301||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.4301
84544372|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3125||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.3125
84544373|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8169||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.8169
84544374|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9359|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 7. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.9359
84544375|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6233
84544376|NCT00380874|168841390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1569||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.1569
84544377|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7207||95.0|-0.25|0.17||Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|ANCOVA|Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1.||0.17|-0.25|0.7207
84571102|NCT00251758|168893363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
84737319|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|17.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|92.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||92.2|3.3|0.0001
84737320|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.1|0.8831
84737321|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
84737322|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.1|0.1|0.8916
84737323|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||9.9|0.4|0.7940
84737324|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||8.9|0.3|0.9169
84737325|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
84544378|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3111||95.0|-0.36|1.1||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2.||1.10|-0.36|0.3111
84544379|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5925||95.0|-0.7|1.22||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3.||1.22|-0.70|0.5925
84544380|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5812||95.0|-0.8|1.41||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4.||1.41|-0.80|0.5812
84544381|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2925||95.0|-0.67|2.16||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5.||2.16|-0.67|0.2925
84544382|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9276||95.0|-1.15|1.05||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.||1.05|-1.15|0.9276
84544383|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9952||95.0|-1.06|1.07|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.||Cycle 7.||1.07|-1.06|0.9952
84544384|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6265||95.0|-0.85|1.38|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8.||1.38|-0.85|0.6265
84544385|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4209||95.0|-1.77|0.76||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.||0.76|-1.77|0.4209
84544386|NCT00380874|168841391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9657||95.0|-1.06|1.11||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)endpoint.||1.11|-1.06|0.9657
84544387|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5392||95.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 1.||0.12|-0.24|0.5392
84544388|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5412||95.0|-0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 2.||0.57|-0.30|0.5412
84544389|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5358||95.0|-0.48|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 3.||0.90|-0.48|0.5358
84544390|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4059||95.0|-0.48|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 4.||1.17|-0.48|0.4059
84544391|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2712||95.0|-0.44|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 5.||1.52|-0.44|0.2712
84544392|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9181||95.0|-0.81|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 6.||0.73|-0.81|0.9181
84544393|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.4357||95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 7.||1.17|-0.52|0.4357
84544394|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5103||95.0|-0.67|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.67|0.5103
84544395|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8499||95.0|-1.29|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 9.||1.07|-1.29|0.8499
84544396|NCT00380874|168841392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7359||95.0|-0.9|0.64|||ANCOVA|||LOCF endpoint.||0.64|-0.90|0.7359
84544397|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2034||95.0|-0.06|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.29|-0.06|0.2034
84544398|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3062||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.13|-0.40|0.3062
84544399|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2787||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.37|0.2787
84544400|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4124||95.0|-0.2|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.47|-0.20|0.4124
84667918|NCT03878446|169070717|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.4|
84737326|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||17.1|0.6|0.2563
84737327|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.3|0.1|0.9237
84544401|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9541||95.0|-0.68|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.73|-0.68|0.9541
84544402|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3383||95.0|-0.33|0.92|||ANOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.92|-0.33|0.3383
84544403|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8918||95.0|-0.84|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain||0.74|-0.84|0.8918
84544404|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9614||95.0|-0.54|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain LOCF endpoint||0.51|-0.54|0.9614
84544405|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3022||95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 2||0.05|-0.17|0.3022
84544406|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3747||95.0|-0.04|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.12|-0.04|0.3747
84544407|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.163||95.0|-0.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.07|-0.40|0.1630
84544408|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9568||95.0|-0.12|0.11|||ANOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.12|0.9568
84544409|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9793||95.0|-0.13|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.13|-0.13|0.9793
84544410|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.885||95.0|-0.54|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.47|-0.54|0.8850
84544411|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2199||95.0|-0.17|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.70|-0.17|0.2199
84544412|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4017||95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 9||0.35|-0.14|0.4017
84544413|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4113||95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.24|-0.10|0.4113
84737328|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.8|0.4|0.7708
84544414|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3011||95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 3||0.02|-0.06|0.3011
84544415|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4482||95.0|-0.26|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 4||0.12|-0.26|0.4482
84544416|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3058||95.0|-0.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 5||0.10|-0.31|0.3058
84544417|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3035||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 6||0.12|-0.38|0.3035
84737329|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||16.9|0.6|0.2661
84544418|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9636||95.0|-0.46|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 7||0.48|-0.46|0.9636
84544419|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.366||95.0|-0.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 8||1.02|-0.38|0.3660
84544420|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4093||95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 9||0.29|-0.69|0.4093
84544421|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5208||95.0|-0.39|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.20|-0.39|0.5208
84544422|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9931||95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 2||0.17|-0.17|0.9931
84544423|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5867||95.0|-0.25|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 3||0.44|-0.25|0.5867
84544424|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2748||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 4||0.11|-0.37|0.2748
84544425|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5521||95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 5||0.28|-0.51|0.5521
84544426|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.6734||95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 6||0.62|-0.96|0.6734
84544427|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1214||95.0|-0.16|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 7||1.33|-0.16|0.1214
84544428|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1845||95.0|-0.34|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 8||1.72|-0.34|0.1845
84544429|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6863||95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 9||0.90|-0.60|0.6863
84737330|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.6|0.1|0.7614
84737331|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.3|0.1|0.9905
84737332|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.3|0.1|0.9330
84737333|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.7|0.2|0.9945
84737334|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||8.4|0.3|0.9599
84484916|NCT03728881|168721760|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.99||||||96.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
84484917|NCT03728881|168721760|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.095||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.095
84484918|NCT03728881|168721761|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|0.327||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=0.327
84484919|NCT03728881|168721761|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.012||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.012
84484920|NCT03728881|168721763|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.58||||||||0.58|0.36|
84484921|NCT03728881|168721763|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.32|0.5||||||||0.50|0.32|
84484922|NCT03728881|168721763|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.3||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.30
84484923|NCT03728881|168721764|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
84484924|NCT03728881|168721766|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.02||||||99.0|0.79|1.32||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.32|0.79|
84484925|NCT03728881|168721766|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.81||||||99.0|0.63|1.04||||||||1.04|0.63|
84544430|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9273||95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.56|-0.51|0.9273
84544431|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0416||95.0|0.01|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 2||0.50|0.01|0.0416
84544432|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1819||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 3||0.50|-0.10|0.1819
84544433|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0331||95.0|0.03|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 4||0.70|0.03|0.0331
84544434|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0608||95.0|-0.02|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 5||0.83|-0.02|0.0608
84737335|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.4|0.2|0.9942
84737336|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.5||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||12.9|0.5|0.4932
84737337|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.6|0.2|0.9983
84544435|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2809||95.0|-0.31|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 6||1.03|-0.31|0.2809
84484926|NCT03728881|168721766|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.10
84484927|NCT03728881|168721767|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
84484928|NCT03728881|168721767|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.339||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.339
84484929|NCT04088331|168721872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypotheses:~H0: p ≤ 0.65 H1: p \> 0.65 where p = the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success.~Hypotheses evaluated using a one-sided exact binomial test.~Power calculation assumed a treatment success rate of 80%. With a one-sided type I error of 0.025 and a type II error of 0.10 (90% power), a sample size of 96 subjects needed to demonstrate the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success exceeds 65%."||||< 0.001
84484930|NCT01994109|168721882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84484931|NCT01994109|168721882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84484932|NCT01994109|168721883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84484933|NCT01994109|168721883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84484934|NCT00576147|168721884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|95.0||||||||95.0|75.0|
84484935|NCT00576147|168721884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|93.7||||||||93.7|86.4|
84544436|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3445||95.0|-0.34|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 7||0.95|-0.34|0.3445
84544437|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2806||95.0|-0.44|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 8||1.46|-0.44|0.2806
84544438|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217||95.0|-0.68|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 9||1.33|-0.68|0.5217
84737338|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||9.3|0.3|0.9112
84737339|NCT03635086|169226603|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||10.2|0.4|0.7431
84737340|NCT02844777|169226620|OTHER|||||||0.9518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9518
84737341|NCT02844777|169226620|OTHER|||||||0.2458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2458
84737342|NCT02844777|169226621|OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6201
84737343|NCT02844777|169226621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84737344|NCT02844777|169226622|OTHER|||||||0.2912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2912
84737345|NCT02844777|169226622|OTHER|||||||0.4168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4168
84737346|NCT02844777|169226623|OTHER|||||||0.6458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6458
84737347|NCT02844777|169226623|OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0721
84737348|NCT02844777|169226624|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4200
84737349|NCT02844777|169226624|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0241
84737350|NCT00150618|169226628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
84737351|NCT00150618|169226628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0176
84737352|NCT00150618|169226628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
84737353|NCT00150618|169226628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84737354|NCT00150618|169226629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
84737355|NCT00150618|169226629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0468
84737356|NCT00150618|169226629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
84737357|NCT00150618|169226629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0237
84737358|NCT00150618|169226630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0074
84737359|NCT00150618|169226630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1404
84737360|NCT00150618|169226630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
84737361|NCT00150618|169226630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
84737362|NCT00150618|169226631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0303
84737363|NCT00150618|169226631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4982||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4982
84737364|NCT00150618|169226631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0017
84737365|NCT00150618|169226631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
84737366|NCT00150618|169226632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.0383
84737367|NCT00150618|169226632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.5859
84737368|NCT00150618|169226632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.2136
84737369|NCT00150618|169226632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.1483
84737370|NCT00762476|169226633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
84737371|NCT00762476|169226634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
84737372|NCT00762476|169226635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.3451
84737373|NCT00965497|169226636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||There were 13 people that completed so there truly was no power to detect true differences; therefore only trends can be discussed.||||0.01
84544439|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3628||95.0|-0.37|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain LOCF Endpoint||1.00|-0.37|0.3628
84544440|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.3557||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 2||0.01|-0.00|0.3557
84544441|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.2824||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 3||0.01|-0.00|0.2824
84544442|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5931||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 4||0.01|-0.01|0.5931
84544443|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.9865||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 5||0.01|-0.01|0.9865
84544444|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9854||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 6||0.02|-0.02|0.9854
84544445|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3403||95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 7||0.04|-0.01|0.3403
84544446|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2226||95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 8||0.05|-0.01|0.2226
84544447|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9694||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 9||0.03|-0.03|0.9694
84544448|NCT00380874|168841393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8957||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score LOCF Endpoint||0.02|-0.02|0.8957
84544449|NCT00380874|168841395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7489||95.0||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was necessary.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|Least squares (LS) means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|LOCF cycle endpoint. Sample size based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent symptoms (developing in 35% of pregabalin subjects \& 60% of placebo subjects). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. Original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of persistent paresthetic symptom emergence.||||0.7489
84737374|NCT01055704|169226661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.835|0.739|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.739|-0.835|0.902
84544450|NCT03380429|168841396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||18.8|5.2|<0.001
84544451|NCT03380429|168841397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.9|1.6|0.016
84544452|NCT03380429|168841397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.0||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.0|2.7|0.006
84544453|NCT03380429|168841397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.8|1.4|0.018
84544454|NCT03380429|168841398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.3|3.2|0.003
84544455|NCT03380429|168841398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.7|1.8|0.011
84544456|NCT03380429|168841398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||11.4|-0.4|0.066
84544457|NCT03380429|168841398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||8.7|-3.1|0.359
84544458|NCT03380429|168841399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.3|3.1|0.004
84544459|NCT03380429|168841399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.5||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.5|0.6|0.032
84737375|NCT01055704|169226661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.841|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.841|-0.578|0.709
84737376|NCT01055704|169226662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.669||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.415|7.472|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||7.472|-11.415|0.675
84737377|NCT01055704|169226662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.208||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.792|6.233|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||6.233|-10.792|0.591
84737378|NCT01055704|169226663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.097|-4.753|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||-4.753|-64.097|0.024
84737379|NCT01055704|169226663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.24||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.962|26.598|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||26.598|-26.962|0.989
84737380|NCT01055704|169226664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.025|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.025|-0.827|0.064
84484936|NCT03070119|168721896|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation (MI) including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.08|0.69|
84484937|NCT03070119|168721896|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.91|||=|0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.11|0.75|=0.3711
84484938|NCT03070119|168721896|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|1.06|||=|0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.34|0.84|=0.6344
84484939|NCT03070119|168721897|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.03|0.63|
84484940|NCT03070119|168721897|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.83|||=|0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.13|0.60|=0.2306
84484941|NCT03070119|168721897|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.92|||=|0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.38|0.61|=0.6730
84737381|NCT01055704|169226664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.482|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.482|-0.287|0.610
84737382|NCT01055704|169226665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|1.734|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.734|-0.278|0.151
84737383|NCT01055704|169226665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|1.017|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.017|-0.795|0.806
84737384|NCT01055704|169226666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.583||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.678|27.223|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI as covariates||27.223|-23.678|0.889
84737385|NCT01055704|169226666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.356||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.362|35.577|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||35.577|-10.362|0.274
84737386|NCT01055704|169226667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.145|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.145|-0.572|0.236
84737387|NCT01055704|169226667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.357|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.357|-0.412|0.885
84544460|NCT03380429|168841399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||12.4|-0.5|0.070
84544461|NCT03380429|168841399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||9.9|-3.0|0.294
84544462|NCT03380429|168841400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.8|-1.2|0.118
84544463|NCT03380429|168841400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.7|-1.0|0.105
84544464|NCT03380429|168841400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.1||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.1|3.3|0.002
84544465|NCT03380429|168841400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.2||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.2|1.5|0.015
84544466|NCT03380429|168841402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||p-value was calculated using Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||0.6|-1.6|0.400
84544467|NCT03380429|168841402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.5|-0.7|0.441
84544468|NCT03380429|168841402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.9|-0.3|0.164
84544469|NCT03380429|168841402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.4|-0.9|0.661
84544470|NCT03380429|168841403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.44|0.39|0.385
84544471|NCT03380429|168841403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.42||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.42|0.64|0.517
84544472|NCT03380429|168841403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.85|0.51|0.921
84544473|NCT03380429|168841403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.38|0.38|0.321
84544474|NCT03380429|168841404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.98||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.98|0.54|0.911
84544475|NCT03380429|168841404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.54|0.70|0.383
84544476|NCT03380429|168841404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.04||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.04|0.57|0.814
84544477|NCT03380429|168841404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.89|0.53|0.986
84544478|NCT03380429|168841405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.81||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.81|0.48|0.833
84544479|NCT03380429|168841405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.67||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.67|0.69|0.383
84544480|NCT03380429|168841405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.63|0.44|0.628
84544481|NCT03380429|168841405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.8||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.80|0.49|0.844
84484942|NCT03070119|168721898|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||6.7|0.5|
84544482|NCT02816736|168841406|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the AUCs|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||AUC was normalized for time; With the log-scale, the value of 0 indicates, on average, no change in NTproBNP from baseline.||1.08|0.84|0.45
84484943|NCT03070119|168721898|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|=|0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.2|-0.8|=0.1054
84484944|NCT03070119|168721898|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|=|0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.4|-1.2|=0.1432
84737388|NCT01055704|169226668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|0.261|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.261|-1.255|0.192
84737389|NCT01055704|169226668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|0.63|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.630|-0.756|0.855
84737390|NCT02037776|169226669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups in Rikkunshito Placebo and Rikkunshito, based on the count of participants categorized in 1 (Significantly improved) through 7 (Much worse), using the Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney).||||0.038
84737391|NCT02037776|169226670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in all symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.027
84484945|NCT03070119|168721899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.9||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.9|0.3|
84484946|NCT03070119|168721899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|=|0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||20.4|-1.7|=0.0963
84484947|NCT03070119|168721899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.2|-6.6|= 0.4388
84484948|NCT03070119|168721900|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.477||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.477|0.051|
84484949|NCT03070119|168721900|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.430|-0.141|=0.3207
84484950|NCT03070119|168721900|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|=|0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.234|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.234|-0.124|=0.5452
84737392|NCT02037776|169226670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in GERD symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.089
84737393|NCT02037776|169226670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in dyspeptic symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.148
84737394|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in total score of PAGI-SYM||||0.051
84737395|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Heartburn/Regurgitation of PAGI-SYM||||0.947
84737396|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Nausea/Vomiting of PAGI-SYM||||0.157
84737397|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Postprandial Fullness/Early satiety of PAGI-SYM||||0.004
84737398|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Bloating of PAGI-SYM||||0.011
84737399|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Upper Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.245
84737400|NCT02037776|169226671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Lower Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.387
84737401|NCT02037776|169226672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
84737402|NCT02037776|169226673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in PCS of SF-8||||0.270
84737403|NCT02037776|169226673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in MCS of SF-8||||0.342
84484951|NCT03070119|168721902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|1.461|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.461|0.282|=0.4202
84484952|NCT03070119|168721903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|1.357|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.357|0.199|=0.3108
84484953|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||7.91|-3.39|
84484954|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.28|||||Day 7, Max HR|||7.28|-4.78|
84484955|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|8.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||8.91|-2.37|
84484956|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|3.39|||||Day 7, Max HR|||3.39|-7.89|
84484957|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.39|||||Day 1, Max HR|||13.39|1.59|
84484958|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|15.05|||||Day 7, Max HR|||15.05|2.34|
84484959|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.34|||||Day 1, WM|||4.34|-4.80|
84484960|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|5.4|||||Day 7, WM|||5.40|-5.09|
84544483|NCT02816736|168841407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|3.97|||general linear model|||||3.97|-26.4|0.15
84544484|NCT02816736|168841408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.68|||ordinal logistic regression|||||1.68|0.78|0.51
84544485|NCT02816736|168841409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.87|0.84|0.16
84544486|NCT02816736|168841410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.91|0.34|0.99
84544487|NCT02816736|168841411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.035
84544488|NCT02949973|168841435|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84484961|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|6.77|||||Day 1, WM|||6.77|-2.12|
84484962|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.45|||||Day 7, WM|||2.45|-7.48|
84484963|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.81|||||Day 1, WM|||10.81|1.51|
84484964|NCT00732472|168721919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.642|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.54|||||Day 7, WM|||12.54|1.57|
84484965|NCT01266876|168721942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||0.0000
84484966|NCT01266876|168721942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0000
84484967|NCT01266876|168721942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
84484968|NCT01266876|168721942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0113
84484969|NCT01058395|168721961|SUPERIORITY|"Comparison between groups at 3 months (primary).~Comparison between the 2 tiers."||||||0.021||||||P-value|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance was P-value \< 0.05||DRS levels changes at from 4 weeks to 3 months comparing the different doses.||||0.021
84484970|NCT01058395|168721961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 3 months.||||0.258
84484971|NCT01058395|168721961|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 4 weeks.||||0.541
84484972|NCT01058395|168721963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|176.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544489|NCT02949973|168841436|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84544490|NCT02949973|168841437|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84544491|NCT02949973|168841438|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84484973|NCT00557362|168721978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.083|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model adjusted for enrollment BSCVA and corneal de-epithelialization||||0.083|-0.28|0.29
84484974|NCT00557362|168721979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.76|0.40
84544492|NCT02949973|168841439|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3||||||||93.3|34.8|
84544493|NCT02949973|168841440|OTHER||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|84.3||||||||84.3|15.7|
84737404|NCT02037776|169226674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in overall point score of HAD||||0.036
84737405|NCT02037776|169226674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in depression point score of HAD||||0.084
84737406|NCT02037776|169226674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in anxiety point score of HAD||||0.022
84737407|NCT02781311|169226678|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|9.23||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age and baseline TAHC value, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||9.23|-8.38|0.9239
84484975|NCT00557362|168721980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|-0.20|0.37
84484976|NCT00557362|168721981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was examined in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates among a subgroup of ulcers caused by Fusarium spp.||0.41|-0.25|0.62
84484977|NCT00557362|168721981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was evaluated in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates in a subgroup of ulcers caused by Aspergillus spp.||0.17|-0.57|0.26
84737408|NCT02781311|169226679|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.37||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.42|0.9101
84737409|NCT01936467|169226720|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84737410|NCT01936467|169226720|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84737411|NCT01936467|169226721|OTHER||Sensitivity|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84737412|NCT01936467|169226721|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84737413|NCT01936467|169226722|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84737414|NCT01936467|169226723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84737415|NCT01936467|169226724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84737416|NCT01936467|169226725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84484978|NCT00557362|168721982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.26|0.53
84484979|NCT03342404|168721990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.4|87.0|||||The difference in proportions (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the exact unconditional test|||87.0|63.4|
84484980|NCT03342404|168721990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|85.5|||||The common risk difference (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the CMH test stratified by baseline Hb category and baseline NTDT-PRO T/W domain score category|||85.5|68.7|
84484981|NCT03342404|168721991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.03|0.0924
84737417|NCT04547023|169226731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.1|||Fisher Exact|||||30.1|7.2|0.002
84737418|NCT00250432|169226759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety with caspofungin 150 mg daily will be non-inferior to that of caspofungin 70/50 mg. Non-inferiority was defined as upper limit of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval for the difference (150-mg group - 70/50-mg group) must be less than 0.15 (15 percentage points).|Rate Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||||95.0|-4.1|6.8|||||The confidence interval computation was based on the method by Miettinen and Nurminen.|A significant drug-related adverse event was defined as either a drug-related serious adverse event or a drug-related adverse event leading to discontinuation of caspofungin therapy. Comparison between the 2 caspofungin groups was based on upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||6.8|-4.1|
84737419|NCT00250432|169226760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||||95.0|-5.9|18.4|||||The 95% confidence interval on the difference will be based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|There was no formal hypothesis testing for efficacy in this study. The main efficacy analysis was the number (percentage) of patients with a favorable overall response at the end of caspofungin study therapy, together with the within treatment 95% exact binomial confidence intervals, and the estimated treatment difference, and its 95% confidence interval.||18.4|-5.9|
84737420|NCT01011868|169226761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.78|-0.33||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,1: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo~* H1,1: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.33|-0.78|<0.0001
84737421|NCT01011868|169226761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.47||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,2: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo~* H1,2: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.47|-0.93|<0.0001
84737422|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.262|9.334|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.334|3.262|<0.0001
84737423|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.859|8.338|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||8.338|2.859|<0.0001
84737424|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|5.802|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||5.802|2.077|<0.0001
84484982|NCT03342404|168721992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|1.16|< 0.0001
84484983|NCT03342404|168721993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|80.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.4|54.3|< 0.0001
84484984|NCT03342404|168721994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-1.06|0.2641
84484985|NCT03342404|168721995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.02|0.0721
84484986|NCT03342404|168721996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|1.20|< 0.0001
84484987|NCT03342404|168721997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|-0.39|0.0959
84484988|NCT03342404|168721998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-1.58|0.0510
84484989|NCT03342404|168721999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.80|0.0047
84484990|NCT03342404|168722000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|0.8|0.1359
84484991|NCT03342404|168722001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|0.9|0.0657
84484992|NCT03342404|168722002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 24||2.96|-0.19|0.0847
84484993|NCT03342404|168722002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 48||3.65|-0.15|0.0712
84484994|NCT03342404|168722002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 24||3.72|-0.63|0.1633
84484995|NCT03342404|168722002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 48||5.36|0.04|0.0469
84544494|NCT01139775|168841441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pemetrexed + cisplatin + LY2603618 was considered superior to pemetrexed + cisplatin if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.85.|The analysis for comparing progression-free survival time between the treatment arms used a Bayesian Augmented Control model with a hierarchical random-effects distribution on treatment effects. The final model incorporated historical data from a completed Phase 3 study (NCT00789373) to augment the prospective control arm data.||||
84484996|NCT03342404|168722003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.4787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 24||13.0|-21.4|0.4787
84484997|NCT03342404|168722003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 48||2.4|-31.5|0.0827
84484998|NCT03342404|168722004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.14||||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.77|101.06|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 24||101.06|-46.77|0.5949
84484999|NCT03342404|168722004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.46||||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.01|87.93|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 48||87.93|-61.01|0.3454
84485000|NCT03342404|168722005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 24||0.30|-0.47|0.6628
84485001|NCT03342404|168722005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 48||1.42|-0.09|0.0859
84485002|NCT03342404|168722006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants who were transfusion free over 24 weeks||38.6|5.0|0.0013
84485003|NCT03342404|168722007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants Who are Transfusion-Free Over 48 Weeks||53.0|20.9|< 0.0001
84485004|NCT03342404|168722009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 24||38.04|-5.73|0.1466
84485005|NCT03342404|168722009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.44||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|31.59|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 48||31.59|-6.72|0.2011
84485006|NCT03342404|168722010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants with an Increase From Baseline ≥1.5 g/dL in Mean Hemoglobin Values in the Absence of Transfusion||66.2|36.2|< 0.0001
84485007|NCT03342404|168722011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 13 to Week 24||3.7|0.8|0.1989
84485008|NCT03342404|168722011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 37 to Week 48||5.0|0.9|0.0733
84485009|NCT01332851|168722027|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.1||We used a threshold of p \< .05 as the criterion for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio of 2.5 indicates that children with parents in the control group were 2.5 times more likely to be removed from their home and placed into foster care compared to the intervention group.|Child welfare system removals were analyzed with a survival models that used condition assignment to predict hazard of being removed from the birth parent home.||6.10|1.03|=.043
84485010|NCT01332851|168722028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parents in the PFR condition were 0.94 higher on sensitivity scores (on the unstandardized sensitivity measure) across the three post-intervention time points than parents in the R\&R condition. The standard error (SE) of this difference was .42.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline sensitivity score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||<.05
84737425|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.825|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.268|6.451|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||6.451|2.268|<0.0001
84485011|NCT01332851|168722029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean compared to the R\&R group. (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.15).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline security score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
84737426|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.802||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|4.789|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.789|1.639|0.0002
84737427|NCT01011868|169226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.051|6.066|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.066|2.051|<0.0001
84737428|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-19.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-19.27|-37.54|<0.0001
84737429|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.67|-24.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-24.76|-43.67|<0.0001
84485012|NCT01332851|168722030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across the two post-intervention time points was -.20 (SE=.50) lower in the PFR group than R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=.04.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
84485013|NCT01332851|168722031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across post-intervention time points was .41 (SE=.53) higher in the PFR group than the R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=-.07|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline competence stress score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
84485014|NCT01332851|168722032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean level of social and emotional development compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.10).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline social-emotional competence score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
84485015|NCT01332851|168722033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower mean level of problem behavior compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of standardized effect is d= .12).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
84485016|NCT01332851|168722034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.07 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|Tested mean differences by condition at 3-month follow-up controlling for baseline score, months between baseline and the end of the intervention, and age of child and using an ANVOVA/regression model. Null hypothesis was that post-intervention means were equal.||||>.05
84544495|NCT01139775|168841443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Log Rank|||||||0.2294
84544496|NCT01139775|168841444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0824
84544497|NCT01139775|168841445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
84737430|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-0.89|-20.62|0.0328
84737431|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-9.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-9.01|-29.31|0.0002
84737432|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||4.94|-15.01|0.3216
84544498|NCT01139775|168841456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0946
84544499|NCT04760626|168841461|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec with doseguide minus once daily basal insulin analogue) was strictly below 0.3 percent point.|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.66|<0.0001
84544500|NCT00806403|168841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in ST resolution at 120 minutes after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 50% reduction of failure to achive at least a 50% ST resolution (40% failure in thrombolysis group and 20% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 166 patients would be required.||||0.56
84544501|NCT00806403|168841471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84544502|NCT00806403|168841472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in number of patients with TIMI 3 flow at 5-7 days after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 65% reduction of failure to achive TIMI 3 flow (30% failure in thrombolysis group and 10% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 90% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 180 patients would be required.||||0.04
84544503|NCT00806403|168841473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84544504|NCT00806403|168841474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
84544505|NCT03197389|168841492|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84737433|NCT01011868|169226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.67|-22.24|0.0229
84737434|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-14.86|-35.38|<0.0001
84737435|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-20.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-20.39|-41.62|<0.0001
84544506|NCT04129125|168841497|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|88.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||88|78|<0.0001
84544507|NCT04129125|168841498|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||4.4|0.6|
84544508|NCT04129125|168841499|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|89.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||89|78|0.0001
84544509|NCT04129125|168841500|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||3.4|0.1|
84544510|NCT04129125|168841509|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.7|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the all-cause mortality endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||16.7|8.5|
84544511|NCT04129125|168841520|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.2|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||17.2|8.1|
84544512|NCT01787292|168841543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|Least square means were adjusted for carryover from the crossover design and between subjects effects were analyzed using Kenward-Roger df estimation||||||.001
84544513|NCT01787292|168841544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.||||.8
84737436|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.07|-20.33|<0.0484
84737437|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-8.99|-29.84|0.0003
84737438|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3517||95.0|-14.71|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||5.25|-14.71|0.3517
84485017|NCT01332851|168722035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.06 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|||||>.05
84485018|NCT01332851|168722036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower atypical affective communication compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect size was d=.19).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||<.05
84485019|NCT03299166|168722041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||0.60|-2.59|0.2202
84485020|NCT03299166|168722048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||0.75|-1.67|0.4508
84485021|NCT03299166|168722048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||-0.06|-3.02|0.0410
84485022|NCT02858713|168722122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.28|1.42|=0.004
84485023|NCT02858713|168722123|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|=0.545
84485024|NCT02858713|168722123|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|0.545
84485025|NCT02858713|168722123|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.581||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.099|0.938|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 8||0.938|-2.099|0.450
84485026|NCT02858713|168722123|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.77||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.389|0.848|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 26||0.848|-2.389|0.348
84485027|NCT02858713|168722124|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.4||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.795|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 4||0.795|0.005|0.047
84544514|NCT01787292|168841545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|||||||.05
84485028|NCT02858713|168722124|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.091||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.504|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 8||0.504|-0.321|0.662
84485029|NCT02858713|168722124|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.18||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.625|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 26||0.625|-0.264|0.424
84485030|NCT00126425|168722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.83|0.23|=0.004
84544515|NCT01787292|168841546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for degrees of freedom was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.05
84485031|NCT00126425|168722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
84544516|NCT01787292|168841547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84544517|NCT01787292|168841548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84544518|NCT01787292|168841549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84544519|NCT01787292|168841550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
84544520|NCT01787292|168841551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for df was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.6
84485032|NCT00126425|168722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
84485033|NCT01388491|168722126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.75|31.17||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.17|-54.75|0.5892
84485034|NCT01388491|168722127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|31.94||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.94|-25.96|0.839
84485035|NCT01388491|168722128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.77||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||-1.77|-7.87|0.0021
84485036|NCT01388491|168722129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|8.58||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||8.58|-2.08|0.2312
84485037|NCT01388491|168722130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.85||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||4.85|-1.70|0.3440
84485038|NCT01388491|168722131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.92||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.92|-0.24|0.2522
84485039|NCT01388491|168722132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.13||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.13|0.58|0.0143
84485040|NCT01388491|168722133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|5.91||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.91|-4.87|0.8507
84485041|NCT01388491|168722134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.14|0.00|0.0459
84485042|NCT01388491|168722135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.26|0.01|0.0318
84485043|NCT01388491|168722136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|361.6||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|811.61||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||811.61|-88.45|0.1148
84485044|NCT01388491|168722137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.2||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|52.39||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||52.39|-35.92|0.7136
84544521|NCT01787292|168841552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
84485045|NCT01388491|168722138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.11|-0.29|0.3903
84544522|NCT01787292|168841553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84544523|NCT01787292|168841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84544524|NCT01787292|168841555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84544525|NCT02342678|168841623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.13
84544526|NCT02342678|168841624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.18
84544527|NCT02342678|168841625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.2|0.89
84737439|NCT01011868|169226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-2.10|-22.69|0.0185
84737440|NCT01011868|169226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 54 weeks||-0.84|-10.32|0.0213
84485046|NCT01388491|168722139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.3||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|34.8||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||34.80|-6.29|0.1731
84485047|NCT02875366|168722151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||2.9|-9.2|0.3021
84485048|NCT02875366|168722152|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|-8.0|0.1894
84485049|NCT02875366|168722153|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|10.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.1|-40.8|0.2328
84485050|NCT02875366|168722154|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-3.1|0.1203
84485051|NCT02875366|168722155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-149.6||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.0|-4.2|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-4.2|-295.0|0.0439
84485052|NCT02875366|168722156|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-19.8|0.2237
84485053|NCT02875366|168722157|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.09|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.09|-1.12|0.0226
84485054|NCT02875366|168722158|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|0.31|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.31|-12.94|0.0613
84485055|NCT02875366|168722159|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.9|0.6409
84485056|NCT02875366|168722160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-2.7|0.5889
84485057|NCT02875366|168722161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||8.1|-1.2|0.1460
84485058|NCT02875366|168722162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.4|-3.4|0.3091
84485059|NCT02875366|168722163|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3961
84485060|NCT02875366|168722164|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||3.1|-1.2|0.3905
84485061|NCT02875366|168722165|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||14.1|-1.8|0.1257
84485062|NCT02735044|168722179|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was \<0.3%.|LS Mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.179||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||0.179|-0.172|
84485063|NCT02735044|168722179|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups was \<0 (zero).||||||0.965||||||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||A step-wise closed testing approach was used to control the type I error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||||0.965
84485064|NCT01682759|168722190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Omarigliptin was considered non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means for change from baseline in A1C at Week 54 (omarigliptin vs. glimepiride) was lower than 0.35%.|Difference in the least squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||0.30|0.06|
84485065|NCT01682759|168722191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||0.1|-13.9|
84485066|NCT01682759|168722192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||3.8|-1.6|
84485067|NCT01682759|168722193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2|||||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups|||11.2|0.1|
84737441|NCT01011868|169226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 54 weeks||-0.77|-10.62|0.0237
84544528|NCT02342678|168841626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-0.3|0.13
84485068|NCT01682759|168722194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.3|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \<6.5%||3.3|-10.6|
84485069|NCT01682759|168722195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-16.4|||Difference in percentages||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||-16.4|-26.5|<0.001
84485070|NCT01682759|168722196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Difference in the least squares means||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
84485071|NCT01682759|168722197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.8|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \< 7.0%||-2.8|-17.8|
84485072|NCT00412113|168722222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001||95.0|9.14|39.63||There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the BP(\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL goal (\< 100mg/dL) at Week 6.~With \~120 in each treatment arm, planned power was at least 90% to detect a difference between treatments, assuming 35% in the Caduet and 15% in the Norvasc arm achieving BP \<140/90 mmHg and LDL \<100 mg/dL and using a chi-square test with 0.05 two-sided significance level."||39.63|9.14|<0.001
84485073|NCT00412113|168722223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.39|||<|0.001||95.0|12.61|78.09||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<100 mg/dL) at Week 4.||78.09|12.61|<0.001
84485074|NCT00412113|168722224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001||95.0|2.93|9.24||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 4.||9.24|2.93|<0.001
84485075|NCT00412113|168722225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|9.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 6.||9.11|2.89|<0.001
84485076|NCT00412113|168722226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.51|||<|0.001||95.0|27.1|158.34||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving (\<100mg/DL) at Week 4.||158.34|27.10|<0.001
84485077|NCT00412113|168722227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.04|||<|0.001||95.0|19.42|90.99||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving LDL-goal (\<100mg/DL) at Week 6.||90.99|19.42|<0.001
84485078|NCT00412113|168722228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.785||95.0|0.6|1.98||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg)at Week 4||1.98|0.60|0.785
84485079|NCT00412113|168722229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.171||95.0|0.83|2.88||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) at Week 6.||2.88|0.83|0.171
84485080|NCT00412113|168722230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.76||||0.585||95.0|-1.97|3.48||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 4.||3.48|-1.97|0.585
84485081|NCT00412113|168722231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|||>|0.999||95.0|-2.01|2.01||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 4.||2.01|-2.01|> 0.999
84485082|NCT00412113|168722232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.363||95.0|-2.83|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 4.||1.04|-2.83|0.363
84485083|NCT00412113|168722233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.02||95.0|-5.99|-0.51||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 6.||-0.51|-5.99|0.020
84485084|NCT00412113|168722234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.87||||0.351||95.0|-2.71|0.97||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 6.||0.97|-2.71|0.351
84485085|NCT00412113|168722235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.922||95.0|-1.91|2.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 6.||2.11|-1.91|0.922
84544529|NCT02342678|168841627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.73
84544530|NCT02342678|168841628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|24.3|||ANCOVA|||||24.3|-62.9|0.38
84544531|NCT02342678|168841629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|14.8|||ANCOVA|||||14.8|-3.7|0.24
84544532|NCT02342678|168841630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.46
84544533|NCT03982511|168841705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
84544534|NCT03982511|168841705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-score from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
84544535|NCT03982511|168841705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.24|||0.63
84544536|NCT03982511|168841705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.03|||0.96
84544537|NCT03982511|168841706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for Emotion regulation subscale from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.79|||0.12
84544538|NCT03982511|168841706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotion regulation subscale from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.02|||0.96
84544539|NCT03982511|168841707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.41|||0.28
84544540|NCT03982511|168841707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.42|||0.43
84544541|NCT03982511|168841708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.86||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.85|||0.16
84544542|NCT03982511|168841708|SUPERIORITY|Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.32||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.35|||0.61
84544543|NCT03982511|168841708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.68|||0.26
84544544|NCT03982511|168841708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.43||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.66|||0.34
84544545|NCT03982511|168841709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.41|||0.41
84544546|NCT03982511|168841709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.76|||0.16
84544547|NCT03982511|168841710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.54|||0.42
84544548|NCT03982511|168841710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.56|||0.04
84544549|NCT03982511|168841711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
84737442|NCT01011868|169226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.56|-1.77||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.77|-11.56|0.0024
84737443|NCT01011868|169226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.0|-0.85||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.85|-11.00|0.0090
84737444|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-3.90|0.0320
84737445|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||1.08|-2.81|0.3818
84737446|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-2.89|<0.0001
84737447|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.22|-3.13|<0.0001
84737448|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.45|-5.81|0.0012
84737449|NCT01011868|169226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.85|-5.39|0.0073
84737450|NCT01011868|169226768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.68|<0.0001
84485086|NCT00412113|168722236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-49.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.68|-43.91||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 4.||-43.91|-54.68|<0.001
84737451|NCT01011868|169226768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.52|-0.95|<0.0001
84737452|NCT01011868|169226768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.19||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.19|-0.73|0.0001
84485087|NCT00412113|168722237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.739||95.0|-2.07|1.47||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 4.||1.47|-2.07|0.739
84485088|NCT00412113|168722238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-57.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.02|51.81||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 4.||51.81|-64.02|<0.001
84485089|NCT00412113|168722239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-47.27|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.37|-31.16||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TG at Week 4.||-31.16|-63.37|<0.001
84485090|NCT00412113|168722240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-51.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-56.88|-45.55||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 6.||-45.55|-56.88|<0.001
84485091|NCT00412113|168722241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02||||0.329||95.0|-3.07|1.03||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 6.||1.03|-3.07|0.329
84485092|NCT00412113|168722242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-62.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-68.49|-55.65||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 6.||-55.65|-68.49|<0.001
84485093|NCT00412113|168722243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-53.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-77.61|-30.29||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change in TG from baseline in at Week 6.||-30.29|-77.61|<0.001
84544550|NCT03982511|168841711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.38|||0.47
84544551|NCT03982511|168841712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.65|||0.005
84544552|NCT03982511|168841712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.20|||0.05
84544553|NCT03982511|168841713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.21|||0.02
84544554|NCT03982511|168841713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.57|||0.008
84544555|NCT03982511|168841714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.34|||0.50
84544556|NCT03982511|168841714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.01|||0.98
84544557|NCT03982511|168841715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.70|||0.17
84544558|NCT03982511|168841715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.51|||0.34
84544559|NCT03982511|168841716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.06|||0.91
84544560|NCT03982511|168841716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.40|||0.45
84485094|NCT00412113|168722244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-1.7||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline to Week 4 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.001
84485095|NCT00412113|168722245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.5|-2.1||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.001
84485096|NCT00796224|168722246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|157.98||||||90.0|98.87|252.44|||ANOVA|||Test (60 mg/kg Azithromycin ER)/ Reference (30 mg/kg Azithromycin IR)||252.44|98.87|
84737453|NCT01011868|169226768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.34||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.34|-0.90|<0.0001
84737454|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.096||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|9.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.088|1.846|0.0005
84737455|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.636||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|10.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||10.321|2.083|0.0002
84737456|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|3.575|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||3.575|0.856|0.1248
84544561|NCT03982511|168841717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.12|||0.03
84737457|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.423||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.203|4.879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||4.879|1.203|0.0132
84737458|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.939||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|4.256|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.256|0.884|0.0986
84737459|NCT01011868|169226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.239||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|6.911|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.911|1.518|0.0024
84737460|NCT01262092|169226771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2887||||0.035||95.0||||p values \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|Used proc GLIMMIX to model group by time (6 study visits)||"test null hypothesis that gbp and pla did not differ in terms of opioid-positive urines during the buprenorphine detox.~For the analysis, data from 2 participants in the GBP groups were excluded due to evidence of medication diversion (N=1) and not being maintained on the 1600 mg/day dose of GBP (N=1)."||||0.035
84737461|NCT03784820|169226772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.27||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.27|0.04|0.36
84485097|NCT00796224|168722248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|91.63||||||90.0|56.21|149.38|||ANOVA|||||149.38|56.21|
84485098|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|65.44||||||90.0|23.56|181.77|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 1 hour postdose||181.77|23.56|
84544562|NCT03982511|168841717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
84737462|NCT03784820|169226772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.6||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|0.02|0.38
84485099|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|50.57||||||90.0|25.24|101.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 2 hours postdose||101.30|25.24|
84485100|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|100.07||||||90.0|57.91|172.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 3 hours postdose||172.92|57.91|
84485101|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|164.93||||||90.0|103.78|262.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 4 hours postdose||262.12|103.78|
84737463|NCT03784820|169226772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|27.39||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.39|0.18|0.54
84737464|NCT03784820|169226773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.09||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-1.06|0.52
84737465|NCT03784820|169226773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.07||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-1.99|0.97
84737466|NCT03784820|169226773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.89||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.89|-1.66|0.59
84737467|NCT03784820|169226774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-0.45|0.86
84737468|NCT03784820|169226774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.06||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.46|0.44
84737469|NCT03784820|169226774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.98||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.36|0.36
84737470|NCT03784820|169226775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.47||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.49||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-2.54|0.33
84485102|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|174.41||||||90.0|110.07|276.36|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 8 hours postdose||276.36|110.07|
84737471|NCT03784820|169226775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|7.95||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.59|0.46
84737472|NCT03784820|169226775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|10.6||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.60|-2.94|0.27
84737473|NCT03784820|169226776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.25||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|-3.14|0.62
84737474|NCT03784820|169226776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|7.73||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.73|-4.07|0.54
84737475|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|10.51||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.51|-0.91|0.10
84737476|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|8.13||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.13|-5.97|0.76
84737477|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|8.55||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.55|-2.03|0.23
84737478|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.14||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-6.63|0.94
84737479|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|5.46||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-8.38|0.68
84737480|NCT03784820|169226777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|7.84||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-9.06|0.89
84485103|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|173.01||||||90.0|111.45|268.55|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 24 hours postdose||268.55|111.45|
84485104|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|189.35||||||90.0|129.76|276.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 48 hours postdose||276.30|129.76|
84485105|NCT00796224|168722250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|183.14||||||90.0|124.61|269.14|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 72 hours postdose||269.14|124.61|
84485106|NCT03227224|168722264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.9||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|4.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||4.82|-3.12|0.724
84485107|NCT03227224|168722264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|-0.16|||MMRM|||||-0.16|-6.13|0.083
84737481|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.79||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-7.61|0.91
84737482|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|11.93||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.93|-2.49|0.20
84737483|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.2||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.20|-1.63|0.14
84737484|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|10.49||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.49|-2.76|0.25
84737485|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|9.89||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.89|-1.45|0.14
84737486|NCT03784820|169226778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|8.87||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.87|-2.58|0.28
84737487|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.73||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|20.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.19|-16.73|0.85
84737488|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.94||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|29.48||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.48|-13.59|0.47
84737489|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.79||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|31.08||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.08|-11.50|0.37
84737490|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|20.03||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.03|-19.31|0.97
84737491|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|12.09||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.09|-23.85|0.52
84737492|NCT03784820|169226779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.55||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|13.23||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.23|-20.33|0.68
84737493|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.47||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-5.02|0.91
84737494|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.81||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.81|-0.36|0.07
84737495|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|9.23||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-5.73|0.65
84737496|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||4.12|-8.21|0.52
84737497|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-13.74|0.07
84737498|NCT03784820|169226780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-0.56||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-12.73|0.03
84737499|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|15.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.19|-13.43|0.90
84737500|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|17.66||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.66|-18.95|0.95
84737501|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|19.9||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.90|-17.17|0.89
84485108|NCT03227224|168722264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.63|||MMRM|||||1.63|-4.70|0.424
84737502|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|18.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||18.98|-7.37|0.39
84485109|NCT04195750|168722306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.88|0.63|0.00031
84485110|NCT04195750|168722307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.17644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.10|0.77|0.17644
84485111|NCT04195750|168722308|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Difference in Percentage|18.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|23.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan minus Everolimus|||23.2|14.0|<0.00001
84485112|NCT04195750|168722312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.96|0.58|0.0185
84485113|NCT04195750|168722313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.20|0.72|0.5533
84485114|NCT04195750|168722314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
84485115|NCT04195750|168722315|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|9.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||9.55|3.21|<0.0001
84485116|NCT04195750|168722316|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.47||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|5.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||5.54|-0.59|0.1134
84485117|NCT04195750|168722317|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||2.19|0.70|0.0002
84485118|NCT04195750|168722318|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.72||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||6.31|1.12|0.0051
84485119|NCT03782376|168722319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.5||Threshold for significance was 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel-chi-square test|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||24.5|-1.5|0.089
84485120|NCT03782376|168722320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||17.8|-6.0|0.338
84485121|NCT03782376|168722321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||20.2|-6.0|0.300
84737503|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|19.84||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.84|-7.26|0.36
84737504|NCT03784820|169226781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.55||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.91||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.91|-20.00|0.87
84737505|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.83||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-2.29|0.84
84737506|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|2.01||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-3.66|0.57
84737507|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.35||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.35|-2.15|0.67
84737508|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.35||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-1.43|0.63
84485122|NCT03782376|168722322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||18.6|-5.8|0.314
84544563|NCT03982511|168841718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.02|||0.05
84544564|NCT03982511|168841718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.88|||0.11
84544565|NCT03982511|168841719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.77|||0.002
84544566|NCT03982511|168841719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
84544567|NCT03982511|168841720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.31|||0.53
84544568|NCT03982511|168841720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
84544569|NCT03982511|168841721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.04|||0.91
84485123|NCT03782376|168722323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||30.2|6.8|0.004
84485124|NCT01952041|168722482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic=0.06, degrees of freedom=2||||||0.80
84485125|NCT01952041|168722483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is intervention arm vs. TAU for time to first relapse from randomization. There is not a standard error (SE) that directly links to the hazard ratio. The confidence interval provided illustrates the dispersion for the hazard ratio.|||1.44|0.42|0.43
84737509|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.7||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-0.82|0.21
84544570|NCT03982511|168841721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.17|||0.64
84544571|NCT03982511|168841721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.36|||0.31
84544572|NCT03982511|168841721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.85|||0.04
84544573|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
84737510|NCT03784820|169226782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.07||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.28||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.28|-1.14|0.34
84737511|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.42||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|6.52||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.52|-13.36|0.50
84485126|NCT01952041|168722484|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||1.02|-0.58|0.58
84485127|NCT01952041|168722485|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.26|-0.22|0.84
84485128|NCT01952041|168722486|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.04|-5.40|0.06
84485129|NCT03650387|168722487|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
84737512|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|6.54||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.54|-7.49|0.89
84737513|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.3||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.30|-7.56|0.86
84737514|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.55||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.93|-1.83|0.25
84737515|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|8.92||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.92|-4.83|0.56
84737516|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|9.54||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.54|-3.27|0.34
84737517|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-1.42||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-19.05|0.02
84737518|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|7.95||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-8.18|0.98
84737519|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.7||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.70|-10.10|0.59
84737520|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.82||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.82|-0.99|0.16
84737521|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|8.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-1.05|0.12
84485130|NCT03650387|168722488|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
84485131|NCT03650387|168722489|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
84485132|NCT00887822|168722510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.75|0.8636
84737522|NCT03784820|169226783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.87||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-2.35|0.34
84737523|NCT03784820|169226784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.70
84737524|NCT03784820|169226784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.48|0.90
84737525|NCT03784820|169226784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.82||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.31|0.38
84737526|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.43||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-5.10|0.89
84737527|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.04||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.04|-4.14|0.85
84737528|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.85||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.85|-5.54|0.72
84737529|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.05||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.63||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.63|-8.73|0.29
84737530|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-9.90|0.08
84737531|NCT03784820|169226785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|1.65||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|-8.23|0.19
84737532|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.67||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-4.08|0.41
84737533|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.54||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.54|-2.87|0.84
84737534|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.34||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-4.76|0.50
84737535|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.24||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.43|0.52
84737536|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.21||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-3.96|0.30
84737537|NCT03784820|169226786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.25||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-4.78|0.03
84737538|NCT03784820|169226787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|4.72||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.72|-3.66|0.79
84485133|NCT00887822|168722512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.21|0.66|0.4709
84485134|NCT00887822|168722514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.22|0.58|0.3685
84485135|NCT00887822|168722516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of disease progression between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.67|0.8589
84485136|NCT00887822|168722517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|7.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|22.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||22.4|-8.3|0.3480
84485137|NCT00887822|168722518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.0|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of response between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.29|0.0462
84485138|NCT00887822|168722519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|0.45||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|13.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||13.3|-12.4|0.9426
84485139|NCT02903966|168722539|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.87|||||Analysis performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||0.87|-1.23|
84485140|NCT02903966|168722540|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||1.22|-1.18|
84485141|NCT02903966|168722541|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|4.02|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.02|-4.11|
84485142|NCT02903966|168722541|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-0.35|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||-0.35|-5.99|
84485143|NCT02903966|168722541|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|2.88|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||2.88|-6.26|
84485144|NCT02903966|168722542|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.59|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.59|-4.01|
84485145|NCT02903966|168722542|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|3.85|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||3.85|-3.64|
84485146|NCT02903966|168722542|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.1|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||5.10|-2.87|
84485147|NCT02903966|168722543|OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.80|0.27|
84485148|NCT02903966|168722543|OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.00|0.20|
84485149|NCT02903966|168722543|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.62|0.09|
84485150|NCT02903966|168722544|OTHER||Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.97|0.25|
84485151|NCT02903966|168722544|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.57|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.57|0.20|
84485152|NCT02903966|168722544|OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.18|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||2.18|0.31|
84485153|NCT02903966|168722545|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.07|-2.05|
84485154|NCT02903966|168722546|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.27|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.27|-2.11|
84737539|NCT01255761|169226791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -10 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing response to Certolizumab Pegol therapy at 12 weeks.|Difference in proportion|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.053||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -10 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||-0.053|-0.184|
84737540|NCT01255761|169226792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -15 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing percent of Week 12 responders achieving LDA at Week 52.|Difference in proportion|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.066||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -15 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||0.066|-0.093|
84737541|NCT00658606|169226841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
84737542|NCT00658606|169226842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||No adjustments were made to multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
84737543|NCT00658606|169226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.001
84485155|NCT02903966|168722547|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.77|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||3.77|-5.29|
84485156|NCT02903966|168722548|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.08|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||4.08|-5.68|
84485157|NCT02903966|168722553|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.86|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||0.86|-1.58|
84485158|NCT02903966|168722553|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.08|-1.29|
84485159|NCT02903966|168722553|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.04|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.04|-1.72|
84485160|NCT02903966|168722554|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.75|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.75|-1.87|
84485161|NCT01320033|168722558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.1|0.006
84485162|NCT01320033|168722558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-5.4|0.024
84737544|NCT00658606|169226844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.382
84485163|NCT01320033|168722558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.595
84485164|NCT02045979|168722565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 percent (%).|ratio of the geometric means|108.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|119.79|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.79|98.50|
84485165|NCT02045979|168722565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|101.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|110.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.94|92.45|
84485166|NCT02045979|168722565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.78|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.78|86.01|
84737545|NCT00658606|169226845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.052
84737546|NCT00658606|169226846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.026
84737547|NCT00658606|169226847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'PASI 90 = Yes'||||0.147
84737548|NCT00658606|169226848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.566
84737549|NCT00658606|169226849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
84737550|NCT00658606|169226850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
84737551|NCT00658606|169226851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.539
84737552|NCT01056263|169226863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Five year survival probability|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|32.38||||||Five year survival probability was the probability of survival at 5 year after the date of the start of the study treatment based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate.||32.38|10.94|
84737553|NCT03607422|169226885|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.2|53.1|<0.001
84737554|NCT03607422|169226885|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.9|39.9|<0.001
84737555|NCT03607422|169226886|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.7|41.0|<0.001
84737556|NCT03607422|169226886|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.2|27.8|<0.001
84485167|NCT02045979|168722566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|107.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|116.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||116.94|98.49|
84544574|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.08|||0.10
84737557|NCT03607422|169226887|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.1|43.8|<0.001
84737558|NCT03607422|169226887|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|25.8|<0.001
84737559|NCT03607422|169226888|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|46.7|<0.001
84737560|NCT03607422|169226888|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|30.6|<0.001
84737561|NCT03607422|169226889|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|63.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.0|50.9|<0.001
84737562|NCT03607422|169226889|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|38.9|<0.001
84737563|NCT03607422|169226890|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|34.2|<0.001
84737564|NCT03607422|169226890|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.3|23.5|<0.001
84737565|NCT03607422|169226891|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.3|10.6|<0.001
84737566|NCT03607422|169226891|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.0|3.4|<0.001
84737567|NCT03607422|169226892|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.5|3.8|<0.001
84737568|NCT03607422|169226893|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.9|4.3|<0.001
84737569|NCT03607422|169226894|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.8|-28.4|<0.001
84737570|NCT03607422|169226894|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-16.9|-27.8|<0.001
84485168|NCT02045979|168722566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|108.37|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.37|92.15|
84485169|NCT02045979|168722566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|93.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.76|101.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.11|86.76|
84485170|NCT02045979|168722567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|106.88|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.88|95.15|
84485171|NCT02045979|168722567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.06|102.03|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.03|91.06|
84485172|NCT02045979|168722567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|95.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.83|101.33|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.33|90.83|
84485173|NCT02045979|168722568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|105.55|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.55|91.54|
84485174|NCT02045979|168722568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.27|103.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.36|89.27|
84485175|NCT02045979|168722568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.42|105.27|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.27|91.42|
84485176|NCT02045979|168722569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|105.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.94|93.66|
84485177|NCT02045979|168722569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|103.35|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.35|91.39|
84485178|NCT02045979|168722569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.58|103.68|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.68|92.58|
84485179|NCT02045979|168722570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|107.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||107.36|95.45|
84485180|NCT02045979|168722570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.27|104.72|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||104.72|93.27|
84485181|NCT02045979|168722570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|103.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.11|93.15|
84485182|NCT02045979|168722571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|103.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.47|110.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.29|97.47|
84544575|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.44|||0.41
84544576|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.80|||0.21
84544577|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.29|||0.02
84737571|NCT03607422|169226895|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|42.2|<0.001
84737572|NCT03607422|169226895|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.8|30.1|<0.001
84737573|NCT03607422|169226896|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.1|44.4|<0.001
84485183|NCT02045979|168722571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.29|94.37|
84485184|NCT02045979|168722571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|102.24|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.24|92.07|
84485185|NCT02045979|168722572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|106.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|114.63|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||114.63|99.07|
84485186|NCT02045979|168722572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|108.12|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.12|94.24|
84485187|NCT02045979|168722572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.53|101.6|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.60|89.53|
84485188|NCT02045979|168722573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|108.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|119.9|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.90|98.54|
84485189|NCT02045979|168722573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.51|111.05|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||111.05|92.51|
84485190|NCT02045979|168722573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|94.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.82|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.82|86.01|
84485191|NCT03057106|168722586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.16||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at rtandomization.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.67|0.46
84485192|NCT03057106|168722587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.||||0.88|0.52|0.0035
84485193|NCT03057106|168722588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.76||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.76|1.04|0.033
84485194|NCT04423718|168722618|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.97||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.92||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8) / within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq12-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.92|-2.87|0.0009
84737574|NCT03607422|169226896|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.5|28.2|<0.001
84544578|NCT03982511|168841722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.82|||0.20
84544579|NCT03982511|168841723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.55|||0.009
84544580|NCT03982511|168841723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
84544581|NCT03982511|168841723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
84544582|NCT03982511|168841723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T3 to T1.|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
84544583|NCT03982511|168841724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.50|||0.00
84544584|NCT03982511|168841724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.12|||0.01
84544585|NCT03982511|168841725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.93|||0.02
84544586|NCT03982511|168841725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.68|||0.08
84544587|NCT03982511|168841725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.33|||0.36
84544588|NCT03982511|168841725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.83||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.15|||0.69
84544589|NCT03982511|168841726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T2 to T1 (higher scores indicate better outcomes).|effect size: 1.70|||0.000
84544590|NCT03982511|168841726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.04|||0.01
84544591|NCT03982511|168841727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
84544592|NCT03982511|168841727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-scores from T3 to T1.|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
84544593|NCT01051960|168841736|OTHER|comparison of means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Whether change from baseline to 24-weeks is significantly different from zero||||.0008
84737575|NCT03607422|169226897|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|46.0|<0.001
84737576|NCT03607422|169226897|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|48.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.0|32.7|<0.001
84737577|NCT03607422|169226898|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.3|47.2|<0.001
84737578|NCT03607422|169226898|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|32.3|<0.001
84737579|NCT03607422|169226899|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.5|42.8|<0.001
84737580|NCT03607422|169226899|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.3|29.5|<0.001
84485195|NCT04423718|168722618|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-1.14||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.69||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint (no IRF no SRF at W16)/within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.69|-2.97|0.0011
84485196|NCT04423718|168722619|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.84||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested for EMA/PMDA after primary endpoint (HDq12-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.84|-2.57|0.0002
84485197|NCT04423718|168722619|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.66||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested after primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint test (no IRF no SRF at W16)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.66|-2.51|<0.0001
84485198|NCT04423718|168722620|SUPERIORITY|One sided test (alpha = 0.025) for superiority|Difference|11.733||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.263|18.204||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure to adjust for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|All HD - 2q8||18.204|5.263|0.0002
84485199|NCT04423718|168722621|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-1.748||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.784|4.287||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||4.287|-7.784|0.5704
84737581|NCT03607422|169226900|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.7|13.5|<0.0001
84737582|NCT03607422|169226900|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.6|9.2|<0.001
84737583|NCT03607422|169226901|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.05|-42.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-42.84|-56.05|<0.001
84737584|NCT03607422|169226901|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-27.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.51|-40.81|<0.001
84485200|NCT04423718|168722621|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.939||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.997|5.119||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||5.119|-6.997|0.7611
84485201|NCT04423718|168722622|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.182||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.565|6.2||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||6.200|-6.565|0.9554
84485202|NCT04423718|168722622|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-2.221||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.435|3.994||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||3.994|-8.435|0.4834
84485203|NCT04423718|168722623|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.51||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.51|-1.94|0.0009
84485204|NCT04423718|168722623|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.48||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.27||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.27|-1.22|0.2076
84485205|NCT04423718|168722624|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.55||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.06|-1.04|0.0287
84485206|NCT04423718|168722624|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.44||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.06|-0.94|0.0870
84485207|NCT04423718|168722625|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|11.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|18.923||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||18.923|4.527|0.0015
84544594|NCT01051960|168841737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline to 24 weeks||||0.00007
84544595|NCT00360282|168841741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.007
84544596|NCT00360282|168841742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||.549
84544597|NCT04537078|168841753|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
84544598|NCT04537078|168841754|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
84544599|NCT04537078|168841755|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.269|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.269
84544600|NCT04537078|168841756|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.072
84544601|NCT04537078|168841757|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84544602|NCT04537078|168841758|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.720
84544603|NCT04537078|168841759|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84544604|NCT04537078|168841760|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|600.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84544605|NCT04537078|168841761|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84544606|NCT04537078|168841762|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84544607|NCT04537078|168841763|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84544608|NCT04537078|168841764|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.851
84544609|NCT04537078|168841765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.304
84544610|NCT04537078|168841766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
84544611|NCT00607620|168841774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
84544612|NCT00607620|168841775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between baseline to 12-months.|||-0.3|-2.1|
84544613|NCT00607620|168841776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||6.4|0.4|
84544614|NCT00607620|168841777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||1.9|-3.3|
84544615|NCT00607620|168841778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.99|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||0.99|-1.02|
84544616|NCT02375971|168841783|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy variable was treatment success, defined as the absence of active ROP and absence of unfavorable structural outcomes in both eyes 24 weeks after starting study treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9932|4.8235|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8235|0.9932|0.0254
84544617|NCT02723344|168841809|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum|||||||.056
84544618|NCT02723344|168841810|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.26
84544619|NCT02723344|168841812|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||.64
84544620|NCT03473184|168841817|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||Irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus non-irradiated diacerein site and untreated irradiated site versus irradiated vehicle site.||||1.0000
84544621|NCT03473184|168841817|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||Non-irradiated diacerein and vehicle sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus non-irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus irradiated vehicle site, and untreated irradiated site versus non-irradiated vehicle site.||||0.0008
84544622|NCT02524847|168841818|OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|55.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|73.6|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided p-value for testing the null hypothesis H0: Standard therapy has a CR+PR rate = 10% after 4 weeks, using the exact Binomial test.||||73.6|35.7|<.001
84544623|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|711.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.5|1130.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, Least Squares Means (LSM), and Confidence Intervals (CI) were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1130.3|292.5|0.0038
84544624|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1119.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|858.9|1380.6|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1380.6|858.9|<0.0001
84544625|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|780.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1568.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1568.5|-8.5|0.0523
84544626|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1775.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1392.3|2158.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||2158.0|1392.3|<0.0001
84544627|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|921.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|515.7|1327.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1327.1|515.7|0.0002
84544628|NCT01268527|168841841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|937.8||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|267.6|1607.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1607.9|267.6|0.0115
84544629|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|101.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|167.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||167.0|36.0|0.0042
84544630|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|182.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.3|224.4|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||224.4|140.3|<0.0001
84544631|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|169.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.4|211.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||211.5|127.4|<0.0001
84544632|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|246.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|185.0|308.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||308.1|185.0|<0.0001
84544633|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|132.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|210.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||210.7|53.9|0.0043
84544634|NCT01268527|168841842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|145.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|225.8|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM) and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||225.8|64.2|0.0036
84544635|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|80.7||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|126.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||126.7|34.6|0.0013
84544636|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|127.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|163.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.5|92.4|<0.0001
84544637|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|110.2||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|218.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||218.0|2.4|0.0458
84544638|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|207.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.2|259.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||259.9|155.2|<0.0001
84544639|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|125.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|179.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||179.0|71.5|0.0003
84544640|NCT01268527|168841843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|128.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.9|163.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.3|93.9|0.0029
84544641|NCT01008605|168841848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit, 95% one-sided CI|95.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|87.46||||||||||87.46|
84544642|NCT00908544|168841856|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.98
84544643|NCT00908544|168841856|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.1|-1.7|<0.01
84544644|NCT00908544|168841856|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.1|0.93
84485208|NCT04423718|168722625|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|7.451||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|14.76||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||14.760|0.142|0.0458
84485209|NCT04423718|168722626|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-11.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-1.18||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-1.18|-21.06|0.0283
84485210|NCT04423718|168722626|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-10.51||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|-0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||-0.90|-20.12|0.0321
84485211|NCT04423718|168722627|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.72||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.90|-2.35|0.3817
84485212|NCT04423718|168722627|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.87||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.8||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.80|-2.55|0.3070
84485213|NCT01874353|168722659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
84485214|NCT01874353|168722659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.19|0.17|
84485215|NCT01874353|168722660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.00|0.54|0.0537
84485216|NCT01874353|168722660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.49||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||2.49|0.38|
84485217|NCT01874353|168722661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
84485218|NCT01874353|168722661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.03|0.18|
84485219|NCT01874353|168722662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.34|0.0002
84485220|NCT01874353|168722662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||3.97|0.22|
84485221|NCT01874353|168722663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|2.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.126|-2.191|0.9765
84485222|NCT01874353|168722664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.48|0.28|<0.0001
84485223|NCT01874353|168722664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.08||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.08|0.21|
84485224|NCT01874353|168722665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.68|0.39|<0.0001
84485225|NCT01874353|168722665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.85||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model included treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.85|0.37|
84485226|NCT01874353|168722666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.49|0.28|<0.0001
84485227|NCT01874353|168722666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.04||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the Olaparib arm|||1.04|0.20|
84485228|NCT01874353|168722667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
84485229|NCT01996865|168722705|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.6|0.3296
84485230|NCT01996865|168722706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.4|0.1222
84485231|NCT00062647|168722756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No margin was justified owing to the exploratory nature of the investigation.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-35.5|31.9|||the difference in the 2 eradication rate|Statistical testing was limited to interval estimation (95% CI) of the difference in the 2 eradication rates using the method of Agresti and Caffo.||||31.9|-35.5|
84485232|NCT00804986|168722761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.47||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
84485233|NCT00804986|168722761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.67||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31||p-value represents change from baseline to week 12 HbA1c for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.31|-1.02|0.0003
84485234|NCT00804986|168722761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.76||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.76|-1.46|<0.0001
84485235|NCT00804986|168722761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.93||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.93|-1.64|<0.0001
84485236|NCT00804986|168722761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.88||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.88|-1.59|<0.0001
84485237|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.655
84485238|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.36||||0.436||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.436
84485239|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.45||||0.914||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.914
84485240|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.3||||0.446||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.446
84485241|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.84||||0.508||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.508
84544645|NCT00908544|168841856|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.0|-1.6|<0.01
84544646|NCT00908544|168841857|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.99
84544647|NCT00908544|168841857|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.5|-2.0|<0.01
84544648|NCT00908544|168841857|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.0|0.97
84544649|NCT00908544|168841857|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.4|-2.0|<0.01
84544650|NCT01213966|168841873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||PPR24 was summarized descriptively. No statistical test was performed. The PRR24 values were summarised when the corresponding regression fit had a p-value of p ≤0.01 and an adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) ≥0.85.|Regression, Linear|||PPR24 was summarised descriptively. No statistical test was performed.||||0.01
84544651|NCT00204490|168841882|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 1 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.071
84544652|NCT00204490|168841882|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 2 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.080
84544653|NCT00204490|168841882|OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed model|slope for interaction of treatment and time, placebo was the reference group; square root transformed outcome.|Intention to treat||||0.019
84544654|NCT03477006|168841885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
84544655|NCT03477006|168841886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
84544656|NCT03477006|168841887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84544657|NCT02174627|168841888|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.43|1.27|<0.001
84544658|NCT02174627|168841889|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|10.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the percentage of responders for roxadustat versus placebo was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR, geographic region and CV history.||10.89|7.63|<0.001
84544659|NCT02174627|168841890|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.35|0.91|<0.001
84544660|NCT02174627|168841891|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.52|0.47|<0.001
84544661|NCT02174627|168841892|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.40|<0.001
84544662|NCT02174627|168841893|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||-0.29|-0.42|<0.001
84544663|NCT02174627|168841894|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.31|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.31|0.23|<0.001
84544664|NCT02174627|168841895|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.44|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.44|0.30|<0.001
84544665|NCT02174627|168841896|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||0.99|-0.11|0.120
84737585|NCT03607422|169226902|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-50.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.28|-44.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-44.00|-56.28|<0.001
84737586|NCT03607422|169226902|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.79|-33.46|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.46|-45.79|<0.001
84544666|NCT02174627|168841897|OTHER||Rate of Change Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Random Effects Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in rate of change in eGFR; random effects analysis.||-0.01|-1.00|0.046
84544667|NCT02174627|168841898|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.05||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||1.05|0.00|0.051
84544668|NCT01267019|168841930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a statistical analysis to determine the training effect of social cognitive skills training (in vivo and social cog versus control).||||< .05
84544669|NCT01267019|168841931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84544670|NCT01267019|168841932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84544671|NCT05142722|168841935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||||-29.50|-35.79|<.0001
84544672|NCT05142722|168841936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-30.49|||ANCOVA|||||-30.49|-37.07|<.0001
84544673|NCT05142722|168841937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.87|-20.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.09|-27.87|<.0001
84544674|NCT05142722|168841938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|-17.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-17.09|-20.76|<.0001
84544675|NCT05142722|168841939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|-16.23||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.23|-20.38|<.0001
84544676|NCT05142722|168841940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-11.41||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.41|-16.20|<.0001
84544677|NCT05142722|168841941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|-26.99||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.99|-31.89|<.0001
84544678|NCT05142722|168841942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|-25.69||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-25.69|-30.94|<.0001
84544679|NCT05142722|168841943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-19.95||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-26.09|<.0001
84737587|NCT03607422|169226903|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|61.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.7|47.7|<0.001
84544680|NCT05142722|168841944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|136.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|132.46|140.07||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||140.07|132.46|<.0001
84544681|NCT05142722|168841945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|134.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.84|139.03||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||139.03|129.84|<.0001
84544682|NCT05142722|168841946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|122.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.53|126.55||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||126.55|117.53|<.0001
84544683|NCT05142722|168841947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.183||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.68|25.44||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||25.44|-53.68|0.4841
84544684|NCT00437021|168841975|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.99|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||1.99|0.97|
84544685|NCT00437021|168841976|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.69|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.69|2.22|
84544686|NCT00437021|168841984|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.76|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||2.76|1.65|
84544687|NCT00437021|168841985|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.59|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.59|2.57|
84544688|NCT05161481|168841991|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|9.45||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||9.45|-26.25|
84544689|NCT05161481|168841991|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-14.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|5.72||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||5.72|-34.09|
84544690|NCT05161481|168841992|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|15.96||||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||15.96|-8.94|
84544691|NCT05161481|168841992|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.33||||||ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||16.33|-10.94|
84544692|NCT05022667|168842000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
84544693|NCT05022667|168842001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
84544694|NCT05022667|168842002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2
84544695|NCT05022667|168842003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
84544696|NCT05022667|168842004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
84544697|NCT05022667|168842006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3
84544698|NCT04632927|168842009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.647||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.601|8.311|||Regression, Logistic|The OR was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline HAQ-DI and strata (body weight) as independent variables||||8.311|1.601|0.002
84544699|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.16|
84737588|NCT03607422|169226903|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||49.8|34.5|<0.001
84737589|NCT03607422|169226904|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|56.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.5|41.4|<0.001
84737590|NCT03607422|169226904|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.6|35.0|0.002
84737591|NCT03607422|169226905|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-34.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.22|-45.80|<0.001
84737592|NCT03607422|169226905|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-29.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-23.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.||||-23.69|-35.24|<0.001
84737593|NCT03607422|169226906|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.1|35.0|<0.001
84737594|NCT03607422|169226906|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.2|24.7|<0.001
84737595|NCT03607422|169226907|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|26.9|<0.001
84737596|NCT03607422|169226907|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.9|13.3|<0.001
84737597|NCT03607422|169226908|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|73.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||73.8|45.9|<0.001
84544700|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.53|
84485242|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.89||||0.561||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.561
84485243|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7.4||||0.135||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.135
84485244|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.45||||0.357||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.357
84485245|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-8.05||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.105
84485246|NCT00804986|168722762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.02||||0.221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.221
84485247|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.54||||0.4848||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4848
84485248|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-19.48||||0.0029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0029
84485249|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485250|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-30.45|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485251|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.25|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485252|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5.32||||0.6279||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6279
84485253|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.72||||0.0072||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0072
84485254|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-42.49|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84544701|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.45|
84485255|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.05||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
84485256|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-51.38|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485257|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-20.21||||0.0335||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0335
84485258|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.91||||0.0221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0221
84485259|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-39.41|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84737598|NCT03607422|169226908|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|70.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.4|41.1|<0.001
84485260|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-36.07||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
84485261|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.36|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485262|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.41||||0.503||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.5030
84485263|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-12.49||||0.1938||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.1938
84485264|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-33.13||||0.0003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0003
84485265|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.66||||0.0101||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0101
84485266|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.47|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485267|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.69||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0060
84485268|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-34.26||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
84485269|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.55|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485270|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.34|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84544702|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide over placebo at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - placebo) is equal to zero||||||<0.0001
84485271|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-46.26|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485272|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-11.84||||0.2468||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.2468
84485273|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.13||||0.0413||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||||||0.0413
84544703|NCT00838903|168842024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84485274|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.19||||0.0004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0004
84485275|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.59||||0.004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0040
84485276|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-49.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485277|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.02||||0.0199||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0199
84485278|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.77||||0.0008||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0008
84485279|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.17||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
84544704|NCT00838903|168842024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84544705|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to zero.||||||0.0001
84544706|NCT00838903|168842024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to zero.||||||0.0033
84544707|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|||16.4|-2.1|
84485280|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.74||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
84485281|NCT00804986|168722765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-53.16|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485282|NCT00804986|168722766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1131.85||||0.4193||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4193
84485283|NCT00804986|168722766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1471.04||||0.3026||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.3026
84485284|NCT00804986|168722766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5547.95|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485285|NCT00804986|168722766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6116.19|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485286|NCT00804986|168722766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7786.69|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
84485287|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.08||||0.693||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.693
84485288|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.31||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.104
84544708|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||10|-3.1|
84544709|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||39.5|9|
84544710|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|23.3|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||23.3|1.3|
84544711|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||0|0|
84485289|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.13||||0.506||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.506
84485290|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.648||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.648
84485291|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.647||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.647
84485292|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.781||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.781
84485293|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.401||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.401
84485294|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.03||||0.464||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.464
84485295|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.42||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.420
84544712|NCT04225715|168842033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||15.7|-2.2|
84544713|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||6.2|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 7: Week 24||14.5|-2|
84544714|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 8: Week 36||25.6|1.2|
84544715|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: Week 48||16.4|-2.1|
84544716|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: Week 48||10|-3.1|
84544717|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|47.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: Week 48||47.6|14.7|
84544718|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|31.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: Week 48||31.4|5.4|
84544719|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.1|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: FUW 48||20.1|-3.9|
84544720|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: FUW 48||2.7|-8.1|
84544721|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|28.8|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: FUW 48||28.8|0.4|
84544722|NCT04225715|168842034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: FUW 48||21.5|-2.5|
84544723|NCT05251337|168842103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.462
84544724|NCT05251337|168842104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
84544725|NCT05251337|168842106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
84737599|NCT03607422|169226909|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.3|40.6|<0.001
84544726|NCT03158038|168842108|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
84544727|NCT03158038|168842109|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 8||13.2|-12.8|
84544728|NCT03158038|168842109|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 15||13.2|-14.1|
84544729|NCT02549859|168842125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544730|NCT02549859|168842126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84544731|NCT02549859|168842127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84544732|NCT02549859|168842128|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544733|NCT02549859|168842129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544734|NCT02549859|168842130|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544735|NCT02549859|168842131|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544736|NCT02549859|168842132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84544737|NCT02549859|168842133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544738|NCT02549859|168842134|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544739|NCT02549859|168842135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84544740|NCT02549859|168842136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84544741|NCT02549859|168842137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544742|NCT02549859|168842138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544743|NCT02549859|168842139|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544744|NCT02549859|168842140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544745|NCT02549859|168842141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544746|NCT02549859|168842142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84544747|NCT02549859|168842143|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544748|NCT02549859|168842144|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84544749|NCT03971071|168842183|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.05|0.92|0.13
84544750|NCT03971071|168842183|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.05|1.33|<0.001
84544751|NCT03971071|168842184|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.23||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.1||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.10|-2.35|0.033
84544752|NCT03971071|168842184|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.62||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-1.62|-3.87|<0.001
84544753|NCT03971071|168842185|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.62||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.43|1.08|0.019
84737600|NCT03607422|169226909|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|25.7|<0.001
84737601|NCT03607422|169226910|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|66.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.1|40.0|<0.001
84737602|NCT03607422|169226910|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|21.8|<0.001
84485296|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.762||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.762
84485297|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.738||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.738
84485298|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.14||||0.277||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.277
84485299|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.094||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.094
84485300|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.792||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.792
84485301|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.105
84485302|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.403||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.403
84485303|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.799||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.799
84544754|NCT03971071|168842185|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.96|1.75|<0.001
84544755|NCT03971071|168842186|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.88|-5.62|0.007
84544756|NCT03971071|168842186|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.13||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||0.22|-4.48|0.075
84544757|NCT03971071|168842187|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.29||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.29|-4.92|0.028
84544758|NCT03971071|168842187|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.07||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.07|-4.67|0.043
84485304|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.32||||0.029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.029
84485305|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.439||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.439
84485306|NCT00804986|168722769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.27||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.062
84485307|NCT00804986|168722770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.16||||0.8003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.8003
84485308|NCT00804986|168722770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.26||||0.6736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6736
84485309|NCT00804986|168722770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.53||||0.0123||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0123
84544759|NCT01620138|168842214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84544760|NCT00444535|168842215|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson exact test (binomial)|Exact binomial procedure|69.2||||||95.0|54.9|81.3||||||||81.3|54.9|
84737603|NCT03607422|169226911|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|47.5|<0.001
84737604|NCT03607422|169226911|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.9|33.4|<0.001
84485310|NCT00804986|168722770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.44||||0.4771||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4771
84737605|NCT03607422|169226912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.6|33.2|<0.001
84485311|NCT00804986|168722770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-2.01||||0.0013||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0013
84485312|NCT00959699|168722775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Strata-Adjusted Difference|33.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|53.3||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% Confidence Interval (CI) is based on a Modified Koch approach which adjusted for Randomization Strata of Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No). The adjustment of randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) was not possible due to sparse data.||53.3|14.1|0.0008
84485313|NCT00959699|168722776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed Difference|34.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|53.9||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% CI is based on the asymptotic normal approximation to the binomial distribution||53.9|14.5|0.0007
84485314|NCT03325010|168722791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-5.2|0.1768
84485315|NCT03325010|168722792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary outcome measure was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.1095
84485316|NCT03325010|168722793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg).||||||0.8190
84485317|NCT03325010|168722794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg)||||||0.0008
84485318|NCT03398824|168722810|OTHER|Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \< 20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|response rate|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||||Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \>20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|57.3|11.3|
84485319|NCT05307523|168722814|OTHER|Paired t-test for normally distributed data Wilcoxon Rank test for the not normally distributed data|||||<|0.05||||||Paired T-test for the normally distributed data and a Wilcoxon Rank test for the non-parametric data were used|Both Paired T-test and Wilcoxon Rank|The data included both normally and not normally distributed data for the baseline, mid-study, and final study assessment points.||||||<0.05
84485320|NCT00864123|168722924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CY-BOCS Total Score) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
84737606|NCT03607422|169226912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|48.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.4|21.4|<0.001
84485321|NCT00864123|168722925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CGI-Severity) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
84485322|NCT01201967|168722934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|2.14|0.002
84485323|NCT01201967|168722935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-4.06|0.045
84485324|NCT01201967|168722936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.93|0.55
84485325|NCT01201967|168722937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.9|||Chi-squared|||||24.9|5.20|<0.001
84737607|NCT03607422|169226913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|32.4|<0.001
84737608|NCT03607422|169226913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.3|17.3|<0.001
84737609|NCT03607422|169226914|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.6|-0.5|0.075
84737610|NCT03607422|169226914|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|3.9|0.005
84737611|NCT03607422|169226915|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.6|-1.2|0.151
84737612|NCT03607422|169226916|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|3.4|0.008
84737613|NCT03607422|169226917|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-8.0|-28.0|<0.001
84737614|NCT03607422|169226917|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-7.7|-28.1|0.001
84485326|NCT01201967|168722938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.51|0.28
84485327|NCT01201967|168722939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.63|0.83
84485328|NCT01201967|168722940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.012|0.029
84485329|NCT01201967|168722941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|1.71|0.005
84485330|NCT01201967|168722942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.14|-0.54|0.11
84485331|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of vertical bowl transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||<|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was \<.001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving the bowl vertically up and down||||<0.001
84485332|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of moving the bowl horizontally at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl transfer- moving the bowl horizontally||||=.001
84485333|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the vertical mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.003||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .003|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical mug transfer- moving the mug vertically up and down||||=.003
84485334|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the horizontal mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.009||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .009|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.009
84485335|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the simulated sip at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||mRehab task simulate sip- bring mug within one inch of mouth as if taking a drink||||=.933
84485336|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of entering a phone number at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task enter phone number||||=.136
84485337|NCT04363944|168723016|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the quick tap at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task quick tap- tapping a moving object on the phone screen||||=.005
84485338|NCT04363944|168723017|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t-tests comparing performance at the first session of in-home training to the last session of in-home training were conducted.|||||=|0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving bowl vertically up and down||||=.228
84485339|NCT04363944|168723017|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl- bowl moved horizontally||||.196
84485340|NCT04363944|168723017|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task Vertical Mug- Mug moved vertically and then placed on counter||||=.024
84485341|NCT04363944|168723017|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.038
84485342|NCT04363944|168723017|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.306||||||calculated p-value greater than .05|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task simulate sip||||=.306
84485343|NCT04363944|168723018|EQUIVALENCE|The average of the WMFT from testing sessions pre intervention (week 1 and approximately week 2) was compared to the WMFT immediately following mRehab home intervention (week 8) using a two tailed paired t-test.|||||=|0.017||||||calculated p-value .017|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.017
84544761|NCT01697748|168842239|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||Variables with at least a borderline association with a treatment arm (P≤ .10) were included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest||No P values were reported for the association between dressing type and infection, only relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were reported.||With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Mann Whitney U test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|1.96|0.44|
84544762|NCT01697748|168842239|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15% vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two side alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Variables with at least a borderline association (P≤.10) were then included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest|Mixed Models Analysis|In addition to the Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Mann Whitney U test and logistic regression were utilized when appropriate.||||||<0.05
84544763|NCT01697748|168842240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||see below|Chi square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test where appropriate|||In addition to Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
84544764|NCT01697748|168842241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher's Exact, Student's T test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression when appropriate,|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
84544765|NCT01697748|168842241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
84544766|NCT01697748|168842243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<0.05
84544767|NCT01697748|168842244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In addition to the Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where approprate|||<0.05
84737615|NCT03607422|169226918|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|34.8|<0.001
84737616|NCT03607422|169226918|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|11.8|0.001
84544768|NCT01704495|168842248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.49||2-sided p-value|Poisson regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 45 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.49|0.98|0.119
84544769|NCT01704495|168842248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.46||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 15 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.46|0.95|0.141
84737617|NCT03607422|169226919|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|68.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.0|38.4|<0.001
84544770|NCT01704495|168842248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.11||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 5 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.11|0.79|0.397
84544771|NCT00832455|168842290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84544772|NCT00832455|168842290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84544773|NCT00832455|168842292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
84544774|NCT00832455|168842292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 8.||||||<0.001
84544775|NCT00832455|168842293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of patient satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
84737618|NCT03607422|169226919|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.1|16.5|<0.001
84737619|NCT03607422|169226920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|33.8|<0.001
84737620|NCT03607422|169226920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.6|21.1|<0.001
84544776|NCT00832455|168842294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Change in PACQLQ score between Week 12 and baseline is statistically different than zero||||||<0.001
84544777|NCT02946463|168842309|NON_INFERIORITY|LDH-N was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach. The model included the following terms: treatment group, history of transfusion (as a categorical variable based on the stratification factor levels), and baseline LDH level (as a continuous variable). Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio (OR) of ravulizumab versus eculizumab for LDH normalization being greater than an OR of 0.39.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.769||||||A minimum of 142 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||1.769|0.796|
84544778|NCT02946463|168842310|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|18.14|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A minimum of 193 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab. The difference of percentages were calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. Stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of packed red blood cells (pRBC)/whole blood units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||18.14|-4.66|
84544779|NCT02946463|168842311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.18|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||0.18|-14.21|
84737621|NCT03607422|169226921|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|37.4|<0.001
84737622|NCT03607422|169226921|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.7|24.3|<0.001
84737623|NCT03607422|169226922|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.7|28.0|<0.001
84737624|NCT03607422|169226922|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|48.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.8|10.7|0.002
84737625|NCT03607422|169226923|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|7.5|<0.001
84737626|NCT03607422|169226923|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.5|3.9|0.006
84737627|NCT03607422|169226924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.32|-41.55|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.55|-70.32|<0.001
84544780|NCT02946463|168842312|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.56|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.56|-5.21|
84737628|NCT03607422|169226924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.12|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-51.12|<0.001
84737629|NCT03607422|169226925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.34|-29.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-29.90|-55.34|<0.001
84737630|NCT03607422|169226925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|-22.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-22.90|-48.41|<0.001
84737631|NCT03607422|169226926|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|68.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.1|36.9|<0.001
84737632|NCT03607422|169226926|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|21.2|<0.001
84737633|NCT03607422|169226927|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||76.3|35.5|<0.001
84737634|NCT03607422|169226927|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|26.3|<0.001
84544781|NCT02946463|168842313|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -5%.|Treatment difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.55|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||2.55|-1.21|
84544782|NCT02946463|168842314|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.64|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||14.64|-8.80|
84737635|NCT03607422|169226928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.492|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|-32.06|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.06|-57.74|<0.001
84737636|NCT03607422|169226928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.383|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-17.36|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.36|-42.60|<0.001
84737637|NCT03607422|169226929|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|50.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.4|5.2|0.016
84737638|NCT03607422|169226929|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|-1.1|0.062
84737639|NCT03607422|169226930|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|18.4|<0.001
84737640|NCT03607422|169226930|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.6|-11.7|0.510
84737641|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
84737642|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
84485344|NCT04363944|168723019|EQUIVALENCE|Test, the scores from the first and second in-laboratory visits were averaged to account for variability in the performance of individuals with stroke. This averaged preintervention score was compared with the third in-laboratory visit to assess the immediate change in performance following use of mRehab.|||||=|0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared pre and post intervention data for participants using mRehab for a 6 week home program.||||=.019
84485345|NCT03517722|168723023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.042
84485346|NCT02422186|168723030|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.6|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.07|-7.20|=0.059
84485347|NCT02422186|168723031|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-7.16|=0.052
84485348|NCT01425307|168723049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We hypothesized that the Alternative arm mean TCD velocity at 24 months will be less than the Standard arm mean TCD velocity plus 15cm/sec. We used Lan-DeMets boundaries to control overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. For looks at exactly 1/3, 2/3, and 100 percent of the completed subjects, the cumulative α were estimated to be 0.0001, 0.001, and 0.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.98||P value for non inferiority was 8.82 X 10\^-16|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||Participants were randomized at a central site, stratified by site with a block size of four, and an adaptive randomization scheme was used to balance the covariates of baseline age and TCD velocity. The treatment period lasted 24 months. The primary study endpoint was the 24 month TCD velocity calculated from a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population.||8.98|0.10|<0.05
84485349|NCT01425307|168723053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84485350|NCT01425307|168723063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
84485351|NCT03649815|168723073|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.067
84485352|NCT03649815|168723073|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||Controlled for gender, age, and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.071
84485353|NCT03649815|168723074|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.047
84485354|NCT03649815|168723074|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.036
84485355|NCT03649815|168723075|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.032
84485356|NCT03649815|168723075|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.006
84485357|NCT03573804|168723077|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test for equivalence was used to evaluate equivalence between the average raw tumor.|Mean Difference (Net)|224.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26044|359.08956||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine tumor intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for tumor were defined by the radiologist segmentation of tumor in supine and prone positions. ROIs for the surrounding tissue were selected such that tumor and normal regions had equal volumes. The alpha level was assumed to be of 0.05 (dof = 60), and the null hypothesis of equivalence (mu = 0).||359.08956|90.26044|<0.001
84485358|NCT03573804|168723078|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine mean benign tissue intensities.|Mean Difference (Net)|165.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.34708|253.31892||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine normal tissue intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for surrounding tissues were selected as the surrounding benign tissue regions directly adjacent to the segmented tumor regions. Tumor and surrounding regions had equal volumes. The mean surrounding region intensities reported were all calculated from the prone and supine T1-weighted MR images segmented by the radiologist.||253.31892|78.34708|<0.001
84737643|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
84544783|NCT03296527|168842357|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected. In that case, it would be claimed that FE 999049 was non-inferior to GONAL-F with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.0|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing pregnancy rate||11.0|-0.2|
84544784|NCT03296527|168842358|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.3|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG||12.3|0.3|
84544785|NCT03296527|168842359|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer||10.7|-0.9|
84544786|NCT03296527|168842360|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.8|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one intrauterine gestational sac with fetal heart beat 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.8|-1.5|
84544787|NCT03296527|168842361|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.5|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.5|-1.6|
84544788|NCT03296527|168842362|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing implantation rate||9.7|-0.9|
84737644|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
84737645|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
84737646|NCT04832971|169226931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
84737647|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.53|-38.51||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-38.51|-58.53|<.0001
84737648|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-49.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-49.12|-69.30|<.0001
84544789|NCT03296527|168842363|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||1.03|0.60|0.083
84544790|NCT03296527|168842363|OTHER|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||1.23|0.65|0.489
84544791|NCT03296527|168842364|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.06||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade)||1.06|0.34|0.075
84544792|NCT03296527|168842364|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe)||1.40|0.40|0.365
84544793|NCT03296527|168842364|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with any preventive intervention||0.83|0.13|0.012
84544794|NCT03296527|168842364|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.81||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||0.81|0.30|0.004
84544795|NCT03296527|168842364|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||0.95|0.33|0.029
84737649|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-53.18|-73.24|<.0001
84737650|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.31|-42.89||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|m|||Week 8||-42.89|-66.31|<.0001
84737651|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.07|-49.55||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-49.55|-73.07|<.0001
84485359|NCT03573804|168723079|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04209|0.28209||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.||The ratios of tumor-to-surrounding tissue intensities, as calculated in Secondary Objective Part A, were compared between prone and supine T1-weighted MR image scans.||0.28209|-0.04209|0.0058
84485360|NCT03573804|168723081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00049664|||||||Students two-tailed paired t-test|||||||0.00049664
84485361|NCT01736176|168723123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||The primary null hypothesis was no change in least-square (LS) mean, calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measures model (MMRM), for NMSS total score from baseline to Week 12. The statistical test was two-sided and the null hypothesis was rejected at the significance level of α = 0.050.||||< 0.001
84485362|NCT01736176|168723127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.004
84485363|NCT02425891|168723180|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.69|0.0025
84485364|NCT02425891|168723181|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.49|<.0001
84485365|NCT02425891|168723182|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.0770
84485366|NCT02425891|168723183|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.53|0.0016
84485367|NCT02425891|168723184|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|10.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.84|3.40|0.0021
84485368|NCT02425891|168723185|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|26.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.92|5.67|0.0016
84485369|NCT02425891|168723186|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0285
84485370|NCT02425891|168723187|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.43|0.0047
84485371|NCT02425891|168723188|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.81|0.8078
84485372|NCT02425891|168723189|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.8879
84485373|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.005||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
84485374|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.001||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84485375|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.004||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84485376|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.672||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.672
84737652|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.37||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-54.37|-77.90|<.0001
84544796|NCT03296527|168842365|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.74||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor response||13.74|1.52|0.002
84485377|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.011||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
84485378|NCT01654224|168723195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.01||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
84485379|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.074||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.074
84485380|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.006||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
84485381|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.069||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.069
84485382|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.663||||||A/California/07/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.663
84485383|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.003||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84485384|NCT01654224|168723196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.063||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
84485385|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.917||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
84485386|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.36||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.360
84485387|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.248||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.248
84485388|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.178||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
84485389|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.152||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H1N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.152
84485390|NCT01654224|168723197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.285||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.285
84485391|NCT02145429|168723198|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.10|0.04
84485392|NCT02145429|168723199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.03|<0.001
84485393|NCT02145429|168723200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-1.89|0.26
84485394|NCT00515099|168723280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.60
84485395|NCT00515099|168723281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Missing Month 12 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.40
84485396|NCT00515099|168723282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 12||||0.59
84485397|NCT00515099|168723282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 24||||0.14
84485398|NCT00515099|168723284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 12||||>0.099
84485399|NCT00515099|168723284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 24||||0.75
84485400|NCT00515099|168723285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||2-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Primary imputation method used for missing Month 24 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.38
84485401|NCT00515099|168723285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||4-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Missing Month 24 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.33
84485402|NCT00515099|168723286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 12||||0.07
84485403|NCT00515099|168723286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 24||||0.16
84485404|NCT03369704|168723296|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||"H0: Omalizumab is not different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period.~H1: Omalizumab is different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period."|ANCOVA||nasal symptom score|||-0.62|-1.44|<0.001
84544797|NCT03296527|168842365|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with transfer cancellation due to excessive ovarian response/OHSS risk||0.62|0.24|<0.001
84737653|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-44.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.91|-33.01||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-33.01|-56.91|<.0001
84737654|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-43.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.83|-31.92||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-31.92|-55.83|<.0001
84737655|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-52.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.83|-40.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-40.18|-63.83|<.0001
84737656|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-65.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.04|-46.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-46.29|-85.04|<.0001
84485405|NCT03369704|168723297|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.24|||||Nasal Ocular Symptom|||-1.24|-2.55|
84485406|NCT03369704|168723297|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.55|||||Ocular symptom|||-0.55|-1.18|
84485407|NCT03369704|168723298|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.64|||||nasal symptom medication score|||-0.64|-1.55|
84485408|NCT03369704|168723298|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.58|||||ocular symptom medication score|||-0.58|-1.32|
84485409|NCT03369704|168723298|OTHER||ANCOVA|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.31|||||nasal ocular symptom medication score|||-1.31|-2.78|
84485410|NCT03369704|168723299|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.26|||||sneezing score|||-0.26|-0.54|
84485411|NCT03369704|168723299|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16|||||rhinorrhea score|||-0.16|-0.51|
84485412|NCT03369704|168723299|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13|||||nasal congestion score|||-0.13|-0.45|
84485413|NCT03369704|168723300|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3|||||itchy eye score|||-0.30|-0.63|
84485414|NCT03369704|168723300|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||||watery eye score|||-0.23|-0.57|
84485415|NCT03369704|168723301|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||||score for impairment of daily activities|||-0.20|-0.48|
84485416|NCT03369704|168723302|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal symptom free days|||5.0|1.0|0.005
84485417|NCT03369704|168723302|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||van Elteren test||Ocular symptom free days|||6.5|2.0|<0.001
84485418|NCT03369704|168723303|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.75|||logistic regression||Completely nasal symptom free patients|||9.75|1.21|0.005
84544798|NCT03296527|168842365|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor or excessive response, or transfer cancellation due to excessive response/OHSS risk||0.93|0.42|0.020
84544799|NCT03296527|168842366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
84544800|NCT03296527|168842366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
84544801|NCT03296527|168842366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||0.568
84544802|NCT03296527|168842366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.839
84544803|NCT03296527|168842367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
84544804|NCT03296527|168842367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
84544805|NCT03296527|168842367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||<.001
84544806|NCT03296527|168842367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.011
84544807|NCT03296527|168842368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.140
84544808|NCT03296527|168842368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.155
84544809|NCT03296527|168842368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Treatment comparison: Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.159
84544810|NCT03296527|168842369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.848
84737657|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.54|-49.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-49.80|-88.54|<.0001
84737658|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-75.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.11|-56.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-56.71|-95.11|<.0001
84544811|NCT03296527|168842369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.629
84544812|NCT03296527|168842369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.768
84544813|NCT03296527|168842370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Mean number of oocytes retrieved||||<.001
84544814|NCT03296527|168842372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Percentage of MII oocytes / oocytes retrieved||||0.197
84544815|NCT03296527|168842373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Fertilization rate relative to oocytes retrieved||||0.790
84544816|NCT03296527|168842374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of embryos on day 3||||<.001
84544817|NCT03296527|168842374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of good-quality embryos on Day 3||||<.001
84544818|NCT03296527|168842375|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of LH on stimulation Day 6||0.88|0.74|<0.001
84544819|NCT03296527|168842376|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of LH at end-of-stimulation||0.98|0.82|0.018
84544820|NCT03296527|168842377|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol on stimulation Day 6||0.84|0.70|<0.001
84544821|NCT03296527|168842378|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.81||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol at end-of-stimulation||0.81|0.68|<0.001
84544822|NCT03296527|168842379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone on stimulation Day 6||0.96|0.82|0.003
84544823|NCT03296527|168842380|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone at end-of-stimulation||0.79|0.68|<0.001
84544824|NCT03296527|168842381|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6||0.83|0.70|<0.001
84737659|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-60.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.78|-43.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-43.71|-76.78|<.0001
84544825|NCT03296527|168842382|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation||0.83|0.71|<0.001
84737660|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.83|-47.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-47.72|-80.83|<.0001
84737661|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.85|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-53.18|-85.85|<.0001
84485419|NCT03369704|168723304|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||||Nasal rescue mediation score|||-0.01|-0.14|
84485420|NCT03369704|168723304|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||||Ocular rescue medication score|||0.00|-0.16|
84485421|NCT03369704|168723304|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||Nasal ocular rescue medication score|||-0.04|-0.28|
84485422|NCT03369704|168723305|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation free days|||3.5|0.0|0.011
84485423|NCT03369704|168723305|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.8|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication free days|||4.8|0.0|0.074
84485424|NCT03369704|168723305|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal ocular rescue medication free days|||4.0|0.0|0.098
84485425|NCT03369704|168723306|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation used|||0.0|-4.5|0.006
84485426|NCT03369704|168723306|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication used|||-1.0|-12.0|0.012
84485427|NCT03369704|168723307|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.33|||||JRQLQ I|||-0.33|-0.66|
84485428|NCT03369704|168723307|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||||JRQLQ II|||-0.33|-0.69|
84485429|NCT03369704|168723307|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||||JRQLQ III|||-0.4|-0.8|
84485430|NCT03685643|168723356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84485431|NCT03685643|168723357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84485432|NCT03685643|168723358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84485433|NCT03797144|168723365|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.06
84485434|NCT03797144|168723365|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
84485435|NCT03797144|168723366|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
84485436|NCT03797144|168723366|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
84485437|NCT03797144|168723366|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
84544826|NCT03296527|168842383|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6||0.89|0.77|<0.001
84544827|NCT03296527|168842384|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.80|0.001
84544828|NCT03296527|168842385|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.12||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH on stimulation Day 6||1.12|1.04|<0.001
84544829|NCT03296527|168842386|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.89|<0.001
84544830|NCT03296527|168842387|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at oocyte retrieval visit||1.07|0.99|0.184
84544831|NCT03296527|168842388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Total gonadotropin dose||||<.001
84544832|NCT03296527|168842390|SUPERIORITY|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test.||||||0.001|||||||van Elteren|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Number of stimulation days||||0.001
84544833|NCT01597973|168842418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84544834|NCT01597973|168842419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5830
84544835|NCT01597973|168842420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84544836|NCT01597973|168842421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.255
84544837|NCT01597973|168842422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||nephrotoxicity analysis||||0.59
84544838|NCT01597973|168842422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypersensitivity analysis||||0.22
84544839|NCT01597973|168842422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatoxicity analysis||||0.94
84544840|NCT01597973|168842422|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Seizures analysis||||1.00
84544841|NCT01597973|168842422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurotoxicity analysis||||0.20
84544842|NCT00122382|168842430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving an ACR 50 response.||24.2|6.0|<0.001
84544843|NCT00122382|168842431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|22.8||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving MCR.||22.8|8.2|<0.001
84544844|NCT00122382|168842432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.48||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||||-0.48|-0.98|<0.001
84544845|NCT00122382|168842433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|9.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.4||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving HAQ response.||18.4|1.3|0.024
84544846|NCT00122382|168842434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.23||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||PCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||4.23|0.77|0.005
84544847|NCT00122382|168842434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|1.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.6||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||MCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||3.60|0.03|0.046
84544848|NCT00122382|168842435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in erosion scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.033
84544849|NCT00122382|168842435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in JSN scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.353
84544850|NCT00122382|168842437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.6||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving DAS28-CRP remission.||26.6|9.6|<0.001
84544851|NCT00122382|168842438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||<0.040
84544852|NCT00122382|168842453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84544853|NCT01766076|168842456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann Whitney test was used for nonparametric variables||||||<0.05
84737662|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
84737663|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
84737664|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
84737665|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-37.59||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-37.59|-59.66|<.0001
84737666|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.32|-40.05||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-40.05|-62.32|<.0001
84737667|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.67||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-50.67|-72.60|<.0001
84737668|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-23.46|-44.65|<.0001
84737669|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|-27.25||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-27.25|-48.56|<.0001
84485438|NCT03797144|168723366|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
84737670|NCT04832971|169226932|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-40.68||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-40.68|-61.71|<.0001
84737671|NCT04832971|169226933|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
84737672|NCT04832971|169226933|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
84737673|NCT04832971|169226933|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
84737674|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-21.7|-35.7|<.0001
84737675|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-23.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-23.4|-37.5|<.0001
84737676|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-31.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-31.2|-45.1|<.0001
84737677|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-19.7|-36.6|<.0001
84544854|NCT00359424|168842457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.05. For the interim analyses of the primary efficacy analysis, the alpha spending function method (Lan and DeMets, 1987) with O'Brien and Fleming (1979) stopping boundaries were adopted.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||9.1|-6.1|.7031
84544855|NCT00359424|168842458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-10.3|6.2||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||6.2|-10.3|.5241
84544856|NCT00359424|168842459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.6|5.5||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||5.5|-4.6|.8275
84544857|NCT03817190|168842509|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.2277||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0415|0.586|||GLMM|||||0.5860|-1.0415|0.6880
84544858|NCT03817190|168842510|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.276||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9185|0.3665|||GLMM|||||0.3665|-0.9185|0.4321
84544859|NCT03055338|168842556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||9.2|-4.0|0.440
84544860|NCT03055338|168842556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.5|-9.8|0.074
84544861|NCT03055338|168842556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.0|0.033
84544862|NCT03055338|168842557|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.8|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.8|3.0|
84544863|NCT03055338|168842558|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|7.0|-9.6|
84544864|NCT03055338|168842559|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||0.6|-0.2|
84544865|NCT03055338|168842559|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.2|-0.5|
84737678|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-18.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.1|-35.0|<.0001
84737679|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-25.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-25.6|-42.4|<.0001
84544866|NCT03055338|168842559|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||||Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||0.1|-0.8|
84544867|NCT02999269|168842560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value for time by amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||For the primary outcomes (change in HDRS24), we performed a full longitudinal model with an unstructured repeated measures covariance matrix on subjects who completed the study in the assigned treatment arm. The dependent variable was HDRS at each visit and the independent variables included progress (time within the ECT series: pre-, mid-, and post-ECT), amplitude, age, sex, pulse width and the following interactions: progress/amplitude, progress/sex, and progress/pulse width.|Time-by-amplitude interaction (F4, 72 = 2.65, p = 0.04).|||0.04
84544868|NCT02999269|168842560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
84544869|NCT02999269|168842561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
84544870|NCT02999269|168842561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-value is time-by-amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
84544871|NCT02999269|168842561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Progress (F2,71 = 11.15, p \< 0.01)|Regression, Linear|||||||< 0.01
84544872|NCT01894841|168842578|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.13
84544873|NCT01894841|168842579|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.79
84737680|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-17.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-17.6|-34.6|<.0001
84737681|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-13.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-13.3|-30.3|<.0001
84737682|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-23.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-23.1|-39.9|<.0001
84737683|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-21.4|-37.3|<.0001
84737684|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.9|-38.8|<.0001
84737685|NCT04832971|169226934|OTHER||Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-31.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-31.6|-47.4|<.0001
84737686|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-21.4|-36.4|<.0001
84737687|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-19.7|-34.8|<.0001
84485439|NCT03797144|168723367|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.174||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.174
84485440|NCT03797144|168723367|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
84485441|NCT03797144|168723367|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.003||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.003
84485442|NCT03797144|168723367|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
84485443|NCT00376675|168723386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.317
84485444|NCT00995215|168723396|OTHER|Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t-test.||||||0.05||||||A P value \<0.05 was taken as indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||The effects of electrical (spinal cord stimulation) SCS with disc electrode and wire leads on airway pressure generation were compared. Since SCS with the disc leads, when applied in clinical trials, resulted in airway pressure generation that approximated pressures generated with a normal maximum cough, airway pressure generation achieved during SCS with these leads served as our gold standard to which all comparisons were made.||||0.05
84544874|NCT01894841|168842580|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.49
84544875|NCT01894841|168842581|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.96
84544876|NCT01894841|168842582|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.62
84544877|NCT00529087|168842584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|24.4|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|17.3|<0.001
84544878|NCT00529087|168842585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.1|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.0|15.1|<0.001
84737688|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-27.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-27.4|-42.3|<.0001
84737689|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
84737690|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
84737691|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
84737692|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-15.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.9|-32.7|<.0001
84737693|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-15.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.1|-31.9|<.0001
84737694|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-22.9|-39.5|<.0001
84737695|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-9.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-9.7|-27.6|<.0001
84737696|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-6.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-6.8|-24.7|0.0006
84737697|NCT04832971|169226934|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-13.8|-31.4|<.0001
84544879|NCT00529087|168842585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.9|||<|0.001||95.0|16.1|25.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.7|16.1|<0.001
84544880|NCT00529087|168842586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test for comparisons of survival distributions||||||<0.001
84544881|NCT00529087|168842587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||2.1|1.1|<0.001
84544882|NCT00529087|168842587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.7||||0.011||95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||1.2|0.2|0.011
84544883|NCT00529087|168842589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.4|||<|0.001||95.0|9.5|31.3|||Chi-squared|||||31.3|9.5|<0.001
84544884|NCT00529087|168842589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|7.0||||0.212||95.0|-4.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||||18.0|-4.0|0.212
84544885|NCT00529087|168842590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
84544886|NCT00529087|168842590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
84544887|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.001||95.0|11.2|17.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||17.9|11.2|<0.001
84544888|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001||95.0|4.6|11.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||11.4|4.6|<0.001
84544889|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|||<|0.001||95.0|14.4|22.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||22.5|14.4|<0.001
84544890|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.3|14.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||14.5|6.3|<0.001
84737698|NCT04832971|169226935|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
84737699|NCT04832971|169226935|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
84737700|NCT04832971|169226935|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
84737701|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|-10.74||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-10.74|-22.41|<.0001
84737702|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|-8.48||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-8.48|-20.08|<.0001
84737703|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-15.23||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-15.23|-26.85|<.0001
84737704|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-10.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-10.29|-24.42|<.0001
84737705|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.16||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-5.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-5.13|-19.19|0.0008
84737706|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-9.50|-23.62|<.0001
84737707|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-9.81||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-9.81|-24.61|<.0001
84737708|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.95||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-2.60|-17.30|0.0082
84737709|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-10.03||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-10.03|-24.68|<.0001
84485445|NCT01930487|168723398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0016
84485446|NCT01930487|168723399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0249
84485447|NCT01930487|168723400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9147|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9147
84485448|NCT01930487|168723401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0070
84485449|NCT01930487|168723402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sidede||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
84485450|NCT01930487|168723403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0476
84737710|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-7.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-7.30|-21.42|<.0001
84737711|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-5.95||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-5.95|-19.98|0.0003
84737712|NCT04832971|169226936|OTHER||Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-13.29|-27.30|<.0001
84737713|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.29|-11.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.13|-24.29|<.0001
84737714|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|-7.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-7.72|-20.75|<.0001
84737715|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-11.79||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.79|-24.80|<.0001
84544891|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|15.0|23.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||23.5|15.0|<0.001
84544892|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|15.3|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||15.3|6.7|<0.001
84737716|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
84737717|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
84737718|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
84737719|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-8.35||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-8.35|-23.44|<.0001
84737720|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-5.46|-20.49|0.0008
84737721|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-10.07||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-10.07|-25.01|<.0001
84737722|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.55||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-2.77||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-2.77|-18.32|0.0081
84737723|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.76||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.99||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.99|-14.52|0.0871
84544893|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|23.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||23.9|15.2|<0.001
84544894|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.6|15.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||15.4|6.6|<0.001
84544895|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|24.1|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||24.1|15.2|<0.001
84544896|NCT00529087|168842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|6.2|15.2|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||15.2|6.2|<0.001
84544897|NCT00529087|168842592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|21.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.2|31.9|||Chi-squared|||||31.9|10.2|<0.001
84737724|NCT04832971|169226936|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.91||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|-3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-3.20|-18.61|0.0058
84737725|NCT04832971|169226937|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
84737726|NCT04832971|169226937|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repated Measures|||||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
84737727|NCT04832971|169226937|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mxed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
84485451|NCT01930487|168723404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0352|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0352
84737728|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-2.2|-24.5|0.0192
84737729|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|2.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||2.7|-19.6|0.1362
84737730|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-7.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-7.7|-29.8|0.0010
84737731|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.9||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-0.5|-27.3|0.0428
84737732|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.5||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||8.9|-17.9|0.5122
84737733|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-1.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-1.2|-27.9|0.0331
84737734|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||5.1|-35.8|0.1400
84737735|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|20.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||20.6|-20.2|0.9854
84737736|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.4|-40.1|0.0552
84737737|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.4|-25.7|0.0430
84737738|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|1.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||1.6|-23.6|0.0871
84737739|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-10.6|-35.7|0.0004
84737740|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-2.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-2.0|-25.9|0.0219
84737741|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.7||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||3.2|-20.6|0.1526
84737742|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-5.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-5.2|-28.9|0.0049
84485452|NCT01930487|168723405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0208
84485453|NCT01930487|168723406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
84737743|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
84737744|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
84737745|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
84737746|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|3.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||3.9|-22.4|0.1660
84737747|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||10.5|-15.7|0.6964
84485454|NCT01930487|168723407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0024
84485455|NCT01930487|168723408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0081
84485456|NCT01930487|168723409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.8191|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8191
84544898|NCT00529087|168842592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.316||95.0|-5.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|-5.3|0.316
84485457|NCT01930487|168723410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0482
84544899|NCT00529087|168842593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|9.4|30.1|||Chi-squared|||||30.1|9.4|<0.001
84544900|NCT00529087|168842593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|13.3||||0.016||95.0|2.6|24.0|||Chi-squared|||||24.0|2.6|0.016
84485458|NCT01930487|168723411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0230
84485459|NCT01930487|168723412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1202|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1202
84485460|NCT01930487|168723413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0063
84485461|NCT01930487|168723414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3347
84485462|NCT01930487|168723415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0094
84485463|NCT01930487|168723416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0009
84485464|NCT01930487|168723417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0067
84485465|NCT01930487|168723418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6938|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6938
84485466|NCT01930487|168723419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0805
84485467|NCT01930487|168723420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2451|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2451
84485468|NCT01930487|168723421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0323|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0323
84485469|NCT01930487|168723422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3440
84485470|NCT01930487|168723423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0119|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0119
84485471|NCT01930487|168723424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
84485472|NCT01930487|168723425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0137
84485473|NCT01930487|168723426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0866
84485474|NCT01930487|168723427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0656|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0656
84485475|NCT01930487|168723428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0626|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0626
84485476|NCT01930487|168723429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8100
84485477|NCT01930487|168723430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9556
84485478|NCT01930487|168723431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3414|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3414
84485479|NCT01930487|168723432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0330
84485480|NCT01930487|168723433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3326|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3326
84485481|NCT01930487|168723434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0348
84485482|NCT01930487|168723435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2089|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2089
84485483|NCT01930487|168723436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3738|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3738
84485484|NCT01930487|168723437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.4470
84485485|NCT01930487|168723438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6382
84485486|NCT01930487|168723439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||paird t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0026
84485487|NCT01930487|168723440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1045|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1045
84485488|NCT01930487|168723441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6941|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6941
84485489|NCT01930487|168723442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0138|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0138
84544901|NCT00529087|168842594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.9|1.0|<0.001
84544902|NCT00529087|168842594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.102||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.8|-0.1|0.102
84544903|NCT00529087|168842595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|0.6|<0.001
84544904|NCT00529087|168842595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.0|<0.001
84544905|NCT00529087|168842596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.6|0.8|<0.001
84544906|NCT00529087|168842596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.012||95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.9|0.1|0.012
84544907|NCT00529087|168842597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.002||95.0|0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.7|0.2|0.002
84544908|NCT00529087|168842597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.119||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.5|-0.1|0.119
84544909|NCT00529087|168842598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.008||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
84544910|NCT00529087|168842598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.2||||0.015||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.0|-0.5|0.015
84544911|NCT00529087|168842601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.731||95.0|-5.4|7.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.7|-5.4|0.731
84544912|NCT00529087|168842601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.779||95.0|-5.6|7.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.5|-5.6|0.779
84737748|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.5||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|1.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||1.5|-24.5|0.0831
84544913|NCT00529087|168842602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.023||95.0|0.8|10.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||10.4|0.8|0.023
84544914|NCT00529087|168842602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.8||||0.258||95.0|-2.0|7.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||7.6|-2.0|0.258
84544915|NCT00529087|168842604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.071||95.0|-0.6|14.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.5|-0.6|0.071
84544916|NCT00529087|168842604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.087||95.0|-1.0|14.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.2|-1.0|0.087
84544917|NCT00529087|168842605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.038||95.0|0.4|14.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.7|0.4|0.038
84544918|NCT00529087|168842605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.237||95.0|-2.8|11.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||11.5|-2.8|0.237
84544919|NCT02954601|168842606|OTHER|Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, Period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for a subject.||||||0.1311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1311
84544920|NCT02954601|168842609|OTHER|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for subject.||||0.3061
84544921|NCT04227197|168842667|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the trend in the number of indicated or completed evaluations in the Intervention arm versus Control arm.||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|Two tailed; no continuity correction||||||0.018
84544922|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group.||||||0.468|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.468
84544923|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||This p value is for the PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.802
84544924|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.761
84544925|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.965
84544926|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.619
84544927|NCT04227197|168842669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.469
84544928|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline on PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.068
84544929|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.907
84544930|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.196
84544931|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.112|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.112
84737749|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|4.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||4.1|-28.2|0.1425
84737750|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|16.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||16.6|-15.6|0.9494
84737751|NCT04832971|169226938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|8.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||8.4|-23.5|0.3535
84737752|NCT04832971|169226939|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
84737753|NCT04832971|169226939|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
84737754|NCT04832971|169226939|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
84737755|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-67.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.26|-61.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-61.04|-74.26|<.0001
84737756|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.42|-74.17||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-74.17|-87.42|<.0001
84737757|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.27|-78.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-78.12|-91.27|<.0001
84737758|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.57|-50.57||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-50.57|-67.57|<.0001
84737759|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-71.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-63.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-63.50|-80.47|<.0001
84737760|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-76.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|-67.99||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-67.99|-84.90|<.0001
84485490|NCT05559203|168723450|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.752
84485491|NCT05559203|168723451|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.197
84737761|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-45.01||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-45.01|-65.18|<.0001
84737762|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-70.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|-60.51||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-60.51|-80.60|<.0001
84737763|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.95|-64.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-64.04|-83.95|<.0001
84737764|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.88|-65.56||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-65.56|-78.88|<.0001
84737765|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.72|-77.46||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-77.46|-90.72|<.0001
84485492|NCT05559203|168723452|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.562
84485493|NCT05559203|168723453|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale||||.020
84485494|NCT05559203|168723453|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.002
84485495|NCT05559203|168723454|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
84544932|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.245
84544933|NCT04227197|168842670|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.219
84485496|NCT05559203|168723455|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
84485497|NCT05559203|168723456|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84485498|NCT05559203|168723457|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.781
84485499|NCT00423592|168723459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||Exact binomial test|A 1-sample test for a binomial proportion was performed.||Sample size: 30 participants; 80% power to rule out 50% recurrence rate of serum ALT/AST abnormalities following ambrisentan treatment (assumes 25% recurrence rate); 99% power to rule out 75% recurrence rate (assumes 37.5% recurrence rate). H\_0 = proportion of subjects experiencing primary endpoint at 12% vs 1-sided alternative of \< 12%. P-value from exact binomial test. Summary statistics included the estimated proportion, 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value of the hypothesis test.||9.7|0.0|0.01
84485500|NCT00423592|168723462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) 6-minute walk distance change from baseline.||40.4|6.3|0.009
84485501|NCT00423592|168723463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) Borg dyspnea index change from baseline.||0.0|-1.0|0.046
84485502|NCT00423592|168723465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.1|2.1|0.001
84485503|NCT00423592|168723466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.8|-0.1|0.059
84544934|NCT03446027|168842682|OTHER|"Prespecified Tobit Regression mode: the model included the AWD baseline measurement, a treatment indicator and the type of centre (SET versus non-SET) as covariates. As the data collected for AWD showed a right-skewed distribution, a square root transformation was used to normalise the data and used for the regression Tobit model. This resulted in the unit of measure being units rather than meters."|square root transformation|0.835||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.343|||Tobit Regression|||"Right censored Tobit regression model for AWD at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference between arms (between baseline and 3 months) - the primary analysis estimates the difference in the AWD at 3 months between the two treatment groups control vs. device. Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data."||2.343|-0.674|0.28
84485504|NCT00423592|168723467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.0|1.7|0.002
84485505|NCT00423592|168723468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.56||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||11.3|3.1|0.001
84485506|NCT00423592|168723469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.6|0.6|0.017
84485507|NCT00423592|168723470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.8|0.1|0.046
84485508|NCT00423592|168723471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.3|1.7|0.003
84485509|NCT00423592|168723472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.2|-0.1|0.059
84485510|NCT00423592|168723473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.96||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||9.3|-1.5|0.152
84737766|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-82.42||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-82.42|-95.59|<.0001
84737767|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-58.31||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-58.31|-71.40|<.0001
84737768|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-77.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-70.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-70.93|-83.98|<.0001
84737769|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.06|-74.14||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-74.14|-87.06|<.0001
84737770|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
84737771|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
84737772|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
84737773|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.84|-46.67||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-46.67|-62.84|<.0001
84737774|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.69|-58.52||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-58.52|-74.69|<.0001
84737775|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.36|-65.38||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-65.38|-81.36|<.0001
84737776|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-45.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.17|-36.69||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-36.69|-54.17|<.0001
84737777|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-48.41||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-48.41|-65.88|<.0001
84737778|NCT04832971|169226940|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.19|-54.97||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-54.97|-72.19|<.0001
84737779|NCT04832971|169226941|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
84485511|NCT00423592|168723474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.2|1.7|0.001
84485512|NCT00255008|168723492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|80.0||||||95.0|28.36|99.49||||||||99.49|28.36|
84485513|NCT00255008|168723492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|76.47||||||95.0|50.1|93.19||||||||93.19|50.10|
84485514|NCT00255008|168723492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|87.5||||||95.0|47.35|99.48||||||||99.48|47.35|
84485515|NCT01833806|168723494|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.78|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Binomial|||The alternative hypothesis test was that the proportion of Responders would be greater than the proportion of subjects experiencing pain progression. This PAS was powered to enroll 70 subjects based on the pivotal trial proportion of 18:8 (Responders:Pain progression). The study was closed at an enrollment of 32 subjects.||0.98|0.58|= 0.01
84737780|NCT04832971|169226941|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
84737781|NCT04832971|169226941|SUPERIORITY||Differeence vs Placebo at week 24|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
84737782|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-6.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-6.4|-20.9|0.0003
84737783|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.9|-32.6|<.0001
84737784|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-17.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.3|-31.8|<.0001
84737785|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-7.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-7.5|-22.4|0.0001
84737786|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-17.9|-33.0|<.0001
84737787|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-18.7||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.7|-33.7|<.0001
84737788|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-0.3|-17.6|0.0429
84737789|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-12.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-12.0|-29.4|<.0001
84737790|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-11.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-11.6|-28.7|<.0001
84485516|NCT05083949|168723497|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.23||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|102.19|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.19|97.03|0.7792
84737791|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-9.5|-26.2|<.0001
84737792|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-22.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.2|-39.0|<.0001
84737793|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-24.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-24.0|-40.5|<.0001
84485517|NCT05083949|168723498|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|106.59|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.59|96.39|0.6493
84737794|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-6.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-6.5|-22.7|0.0005
84485518|NCT05083949|168723499|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.65||0.471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|105.55|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.55|97.85|0.4710
84485519|NCT05083949|168723500|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.14||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|102.15|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.15|94.24|0.4251
84485520|NCT05083949|168723501|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.25||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|102.11|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.11|96.93|0.7379
84485521|NCT05083949|168723502|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|105.24|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.24|97.40|0.5895
84485522|NCT03296072|168723522|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.19|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||10.19|5.18|<.0001
84485523|NCT03296072|168723523|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|33.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.89|37.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||37.68|28.89|<.0001
84485524|NCT03296072|168723524|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.04|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||2.04|1.59|<.0001
84485525|NCT03296072|168723525|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|11.07|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||11.07|5.07|<.0001
84571103|NCT01296412|168893404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sitagliptin-based treatment paradigm was to be declared non-inferior to the liraglutide-based treatment paradigm in lowering A1C at Week 26 if the upper bound of 95% confidence intervals of between group difference was less than the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.23|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||0.23|-0.05|
84737795|NCT04832971|169226942|OTHER||Difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-20.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-20.3|-36.6|<.0001
84737796|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-22.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-22.4|-38.4|<.0001
84737797|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
84737798|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
84737799|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
84737800|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-0.6|-16.2|0.0343
84737801|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-9.8|-25.6|<.0001
84737802|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-13.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-13.8|-29.3|<.0001
84737803|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.0|-15.6|0.0501
84737804|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-12.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-12.2|-27.9|<.0001
84737805|NCT04832971|169226942|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.1||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-8.1|-23.5|<.0001
84485526|NCT03296072|168723526|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|10.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|15.37|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||15.37|6.58|<.0001
84485527|NCT03296072|168723527|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.20|0.75|<.0001
84544935|NCT03446027|168842683|OTHER|"Right censored, Tobit Regression model to assess the effects of baseline characteristics for ICD at 3 months for the ITT Population. This resulted in the unit of measure being units and not meters.~Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data. Calculation between arms - estimates the difference in the ICD at 3 months between the two treatment groups.~Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET"|square root transformation|0.972||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.546|||Right censored, Tobit Regression|||||2.546|-0.600|0.23
84544936|NCT03446027|168842687|OTHER|"Linear Regression Model for Duplex ultrasonography (Volume flow - measured in one leg) at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference (calculation) between the two groups and not per arm (control vs treatment). Unit of measure is Units due to the use of a linear regression model rather than cc/min."|Linear regression|0.483||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.95|||Regression, Linear|||||1.950|-0.984|0.516
84544937|NCT00708552|168842721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.7|-0.4|0.159
84737806|NCT03584152|169226953|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis stated that the combination of treatment arm B is worse than the combination of treatment arm A by more than -Δ, where -Δ is the 'non-inferiority margin.'||||||0.156||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
84737807|NCT03584152|169226954|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
84737808|NCT03584152|169226955|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
84737809|NCT03584152|169226956|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
84737810|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.405||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in nausea||||0.405
84485528|NCT02402881|168723533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our primary outcome was the proportion of non-administered doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis non-administration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
84485529|NCT02402881|168723534|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our secondary outcome was the proportion of VTE events. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs, the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
84485530|NCT02614261|168723535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.92|<.001
84737811|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Difference between-groups in itchiness||||0.001
84737812|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in constipation||||0.571
84737813|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in dizziness||||0.078
84737814|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in bleeding||||0.724
84737815|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in headache||||0.795
84737816|NCT03584152|169226957|OTHER|||||||0.188||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Difference between-groups in other side effects"||||0.188
84737817|NCT03584152|169226958|OTHER|||||||0.7318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-O||||0.7318
84737818|NCT03584152|169226958|OTHER|||||||0.5267||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-C||||0.5267
84737819|NCT03584152|169226959|OTHER|||||||0.9158||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-F||||0.9158
84737820|NCT03584152|169226960|OTHER|||||||0.5351||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-A||||0.5351
84737821|NCT03584152|169226961|OTHER|||||||0.378||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.378
84737822|NCT03584152|169226962|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
84737823|NCT03584152|169226963|OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
84737824|NCT01351805|169226964|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|8.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.31||IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 8.19% (95%CI 1.52-15.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||15.31|1.52|0.02
84737825|NCT01351805|169226964|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-0.73||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.81||4\. IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -0.73% (95%CI -6.87 to 5.81).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||5.81|-6.87|0.97
84544938|NCT00708552|168842721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.3|-0.9|0.410
84737826|NCT01351805|169226964|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1,p for interaction between strata.||||||0.12||||||Test of multiplicative interaction between the effects of the two supplements|p for interaction|||Test for interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3 fatty acids on IL-6 change from baseline to 1 year||||0.12
84737827|NCT01351805|169226965|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|7.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|16.87||3\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= 7.12% (95%CI -1.81-16.78).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||16.87|-1.81|0.16
84544939|NCT00708552|168842721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.2|-1.6|0.821
84737828|NCT01351805|169226965|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-3.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|4.86||6\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= -3.89% (95%CI -11.92-4.86).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||4.86|-11.92|0.44
84737829|NCT01351805|169226965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.38
84737830|NCT01351805|169226966|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|0.63||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.31||2\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 0.63% (95%CI -1.03 to 2.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||2.31|-1.03|0.57
84737831|NCT01351805|169226966|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-1.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.39||5\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -1.27% (95%CI -2.89 to 0.39).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||0.39|-2.89|0.13
84737832|NCT01351805|169226966|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1 with p for interaction between strata.||||||0.74|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.74
84737833|NCT01351805|169226967|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.61|0.05
84737834|NCT01351805|169226967|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.67|0.19
84737835|NCT01351805|169226967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||P for interaction|p multiplicative interaction between effects of vitamin D and n-3 fa supplements||Test for multiplicative interaction between the effects of randomized treatment groups, vitamin D and n-3 fa on incidence of autoimmune disease.||||0.20
84737836|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to omega-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acid placebo, regardless of vitamin D randomization status.||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures model with censoring for total knee replacement.||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.||||0.77
84737837|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to vitamin D or vitamin D placebo, regardless of omega-3 fatty acid randomization status.||||||0.41||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear time by treatment interaction (comparing change in WOMAC pain over time in two randomized groups)||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.|We assessed for effect modification between vitamin D and N-3 FA and tested for other pre-specified interactions. We again used a repeated measures model with censoring for TKR. We adjusted for age, sex and N-3 FA treatment arm (in analyses in which N-3 FA treatment arm was not investigated as a potential modifier).|||0.41
84737838|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Active n3fa vs placebo n3fa among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.42
84737839|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitamin D vs. vitamin D placebo among those on placebo omega-3 fatty acids- stratified analyses.||||0.18
84737840|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on active vitamin D.||||0.84
84544940|NCT00708552|168842722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.254
84544941|NCT00708552|168842722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.394
84544942|NCT00708552|168842722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
84737841|NCT01351805|169226968|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.76
84737842|NCT01351805|169226969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||HR with 95%CI|Regression, Cox|||HR for incident autoimmune disease in intervention groups vs. placebo (ref=1.0) using Cox models with 95% confidence intervals||||<0.05
84737843|NCT00433511|169226970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|The primary objective of this trial was to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab improved IDFS. A two-step hierarchical approach was used. In the 1st step, Arm C was to be compared to Arm A. If Arm C significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then in the 2nd step, a comparison of Arm B to Arm A was to be performed. If the treatment in both Arm C and Arm B significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then a comparison of Arm C to Arm B was to be performed with respect to IDFS.||1.06|0.71|0.17
84737844|NCT00433511|169226971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|||1.17|0.68|0.41
84737845|NCT00433511|169226971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.33|0.77|0.92
84737846|NCT00433511|169226971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm B|||1.13|0.72|0.36
84737847|NCT02312557|169226973|OTHER||Proportion|0.19|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.29|||One-sample binomial test of proportion|||||0.29|0.09|<0.01
84737848|NCT01080300|169227021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.09||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Eltereen|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-1.09|-2.31|0.0003
84737849|NCT01080300|169227021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.48||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.48|-1.80|0.1000
84737850|NCT01080300|169227022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-0.10|-0.31|<0.0001
84737851|NCT01080300|169227022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.04|-0.33|0.0004
84737852|NCT01080300|169227023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.19|-1.98|0.1510
84737853|NCT01080300|169227024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0|||Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.00|-0.44|0.0004
84737854|NCT01080300|169227025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.6|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the PGIC score at week 12.."||21.6|5.7|0.0008
84737855|NCT01080300|169227025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|21.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 24."||21.3|5.5|0.0009
84485531|NCT02614261|168723535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.05|-2.71|<.001
84485532|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|2.256|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%,||2.256|1.167|.004
84485533|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|2.474|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.474|1.291|<.001
84485534|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.498||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|2.43|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.430|0.923|.102
84485535|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.888|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.888|1.146|.011
84485536|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.761||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|3.563|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.563|0.163|0.729
84485537|NCT02614261|168723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.998|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||5.998|0.600|.276
84485538|NCT02614261|168723537|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.99|2.12|<.001
84544943|NCT00708552|168842723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.3|-5.6|0.423
84485539|NCT02614261|168723537|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|9.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.55|3.03|<.001
84485540|NCT02614261|168723538|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-3.27|<.001
84485541|NCT02614261|168723538|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.77|<.001
84544944|NCT00708552|168842723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.9|-6.1|0.305
84485542|NCT02614261|168723539|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.34|.181
84485543|NCT02614261|168723539|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.48|.006
84485544|NCT02614261|168723540|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.74|-13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.69|-31.74|<.001
84485545|NCT02614261|168723540|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-9.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.09|-27.09|<.001
84485546|NCT02614261|168723541|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-16.39|.025
84485547|NCT02614261|168723541|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.12|||ANCOVA|||||2.12|-13.10|.157
84485548|NCT02614261|168723542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.263
84485549|NCT02614261|168723542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.290
84485550|NCT00113555|168723562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-1.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test was used to determine the significance of differences between scores at follow-up compared to pre-implant.||-1.003|-1.325|<0.001
84485551|NCT04474366|168723571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84485552|NCT02141854|168723619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.179||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.285||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.285|0.074|0.0009
84485553|NCT02141854|168723619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.182||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.291||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.291|0.074|0.0010
84485554|NCT02141854|168723619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.326||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.431||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.431|0.221|0.0000
84485555|NCT02141854|168723619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.322||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.432||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.432|0.212|0.0000
84485556|NCT02141854|168723620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.276||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.361||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.361|0.191|0.0000
84544945|NCT00708552|168842723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||5.7|-1.7|0.282
84544946|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.1|-0.3|0.096
84485557|NCT02141854|168723620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.274||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.36||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.189|0.0000
84485558|NCT02141854|168723620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.183||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.268||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.268|0.098|0.0000
84544947|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.8|-0.8|0.281
84544948|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.9|-1.1|0.630
84485559|NCT02141854|168723620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.123||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.208||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.208|0.038|0.0047
84544949|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-5.7|0.655
84544950|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.3|-6.2|0.545
84544951|NCT00708552|168842724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||6.8|-1.9|0.270
84544952|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-0.5|0.138
84544953|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.2|-0.7|0.216
84544954|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.921
84544955|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.9|-7.0|0.410
84544956|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.8|-5.9|0.667
84737856|NCT01080300|169227026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the CGIC score at week 12."||24.3|8.4|<0.0001
84544957|NCT00708552|168842725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||7.2|-1.9|0.246
84544958|NCT00708552|168842726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.1|0.146
84544959|NCT00708552|168842726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.733
84544960|NCT00708552|168842726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.5|0.145
84544961|NCT00708552|168842727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.2|0.295
84544962|NCT00708552|168842727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.495
84544963|NCT00708552|168842727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.6|0.166
84544964|NCT00708552|168842728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.1|0.847
84544965|NCT00708552|168842728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.1|-1.4|0.833
84544966|NCT00708552|168842728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.7|-1.6|0.443
84544967|NCT00708552|168842729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.1|0.320
84544968|NCT00708552|168842729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.927
84544969|NCT00708552|168842729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.0|-0.4|0.059
84544970|NCT00708552|168842730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-5.2|0.257
84544971|NCT00708552|168842730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||4.0|-2.2|0.570
84544972|NCT00708552|168842730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||6.4|0.3|0.031
84544973|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.5|-1.1|0.798
84544974|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.918
84737857|NCT01080300|169227026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||19.0|3.0|0.0070
84737858|NCT01080300|169227027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|15.2|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||15.2|-0.3|0.0609
84737859|NCT01080300|169227027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|15.3|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||15.3|-0.7|0.0720
84485560|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|18.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.751|25.15||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||25.150|11.751|0.0000
84737860|NCT01080300|169227028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.1825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.4|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||9.4|-1.8|0.1825
84737861|NCT01080300|169227028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.7|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||10.7|-1.8|0.1662
84485561|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|16.718||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.988|23.449||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||23.449|9.988|0.0000
84737862|NCT01080300|169227029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.97||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.97|-1.75|<0.0001
84485562|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|31.221||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.513|37.93||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||37.930|24.513|0.0000
84544975|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.3|-1.2|0.924
84544976|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||3.0|-4.7|0.676
84544977|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||6.7|-0.4|0.086
84737863|NCT01080300|169227029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.47||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.47|-1.36|<0.0001
84737864|NCT01080300|169227029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.0001
84737865|NCT01080300|169227030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.56||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-1.56|-3.67|<0.0001
84737866|NCT01080300|169227030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.78||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.78|-2.92|0.0007
84737867|NCT01080300|169227030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.69|||ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.69|-2.84|0.0014
84737868|NCT01080300|169227031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 4||-0.04|-0.37|0.0137
84485563|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|29.597||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.839|36.354||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||36.354|22.839|0.0000
84737869|NCT01080300|169227031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 12||0.02|-0.31|0.0872
84737870|NCT01080300|169227031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 24||0.13|-0.23|0.5607
84485564|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.771||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.179|19.363||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.363|6.179|0.0002
84737871|NCT03434028|169227069|SUPERIORITY||difference in mortality rate|-0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||Z-test|||||2.6|-4.4|0.61
84737872|NCT03434028|169227070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||The mean values is an estimate from the Kaplan-Meier curve, thus it is correct as reported.|||1.2|-0.5|
84737873|NCT03434028|169227071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.4|
84737874|NCT03434028|169227072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.8|
84737875|NCT03434028|169227073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|-0.5|
84737876|NCT03434028|169227074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.8|
84737877|NCT03434028|169227075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.3|
84737878|NCT03434028|169227076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-5.1|
84737879|NCT03434028|169227077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
84737880|NCT03434028|169227078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
84737881|NCT03434028|169227079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||||0.4|-0.3|
84737882|NCT03434028|169227080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.7|
84737883|NCT03434028|169227081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.7|
84737884|NCT03434028|169227082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.7||||||||4.7|-3.6|
84737885|NCT02296892|169227085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.7588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6903|0.8274|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8274|0.6903|<0.0001
84737886|NCT01814072|169227189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84737887|NCT01814072|169227190|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1244||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3026|0.5513|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5513|-.3026|0.567
84737888|NCT01814072|169227190|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.0226||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4495|0.4044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4044|-.4495|0.917
84737889|NCT01814072|169227190|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.084||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3429|0.5109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5109|-.3429|0.699
84737890|NCT01814072|169227190|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1081||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3188|0.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5350|-.3188|0.619
84737891|NCT01814072|169227190|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.4353||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8622|-0.0084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.0084|-.8622|0.046
84737892|NCT01814072|169227191|OTHER||Estimated Change|0.424||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Using the results from primary aim 1, an intervention with only active treatment components with the largest treatment effect that can be obtained for implementation costs of $500 or less was identified and built.||0.850|-0.002|0.051
84737893|NCT04147858|169227212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
84737894|NCT04147858|169227212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
84737895|NCT04147858|169227213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
84737896|NCT04147858|169227213|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84737897|NCT04147858|169227214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
84737898|NCT04147858|169227214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
84737899|NCT04147858|169227215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.871
84737900|NCT04147858|169227215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
84737901|NCT04147858|169227216|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84737902|NCT04147858|169227216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626
84737903|NCT04147858|169227217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
84737904|NCT04147858|169227217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726
84737905|NCT04147858|169227218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
84737906|NCT04147858|169227218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
84737907|NCT04147858|169227219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.536
84737908|NCT04147858|169227219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
84737909|NCT04147858|169227220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
84737910|NCT04147858|169227220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
84485565|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.879||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.216|19.541||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.541|6.216|0.0002
84544978|NCT00708552|168842731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||7.7|0.6|0.021
84737911|NCT04147858|169227221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
84737912|NCT04147858|169227221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.849
84737913|NCT02615938|169227223|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1
84737914|NCT02615938|169227223|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
84737915|NCT02615938|169227223|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1.0
84737916|NCT02615938|169227223|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
84737917|NCT02615938|169227224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|1.1|0.079|15.16|||Fisher Exact|||||15.16|0.079|1.0
84737918|NCT02615938|169227224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.008|||McNemar|||||0.008|-0.340|1.0
84737919|NCT02615938|169227224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||0.196
84737920|NCT02615938|169227224|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
84737921|NCT02615938|169227225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.757
84737922|NCT02615938|169227225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.2|0.229
84737923|NCT02615938|169227225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-2.7|0.097
84737924|NCT02615938|169227225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.5|0.427
84737925|NCT02615938|169227226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.543
84737926|NCT02615938|169227226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|0.421
84737927|NCT02615938|169227226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-1.8|0.553
84737928|NCT02615938|169227226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5|-5|0.1020
84737929|NCT02615938|169227227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.178
84737930|NCT02615938|169227227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-2.6|0.110
84737931|NCT02615938|169227227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-0.6|0.338
84737932|NCT02615938|169227227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3|0.3979
84737933|NCT02615938|169227228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-1.6|0.965
84737934|NCT02615938|169227228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-0.4|0.374
84737935|NCT02615938|169227228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-5.2|0.149
84737936|NCT02615938|169227228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|0|0.2963
84737937|NCT02615938|169227229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.9|0.024
84737938|NCT02615938|169227229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.7|0.045
84737939|NCT02615938|169227229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-0.9|0.458
84737940|NCT02615938|169227229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.8|0.4216
84737941|NCT02615938|169227230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|0.1|0.063
84737942|NCT02615938|169227230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.3|0.410
84485566|NCT02141854|168723621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|11.146||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.511|17.782||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||17.782|4.511|0.0010
84485567|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.156||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.063||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.063|-0.248|0.0010
84737943|NCT02615938|169227230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-2.3|0.574
84737944|NCT02615938|169227231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.9|0.730
84737945|NCT02615938|169227231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.3|0.170
84737946|NCT02615938|169227231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.1|0.724
84737947|NCT02615938|169227231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.2|0.487
84737948|NCT02615938|169227232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1|0.850
84737949|NCT02615938|169227232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.4|0.258
84737950|NCT02615938|169227232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.862
84737951|NCT02615938|169227232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1.8|0.840
84737952|NCT02615938|169227233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-2.6|0.010
84737953|NCT02615938|169227233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-1.5|0.533
84737954|NCT02615938|169227233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-1.6|0.858
84737955|NCT02615938|169227233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-1.4|0.661
84737956|NCT02615938|169227234|SUPERIORITY|Due to missing values no statistical test resulting in a P was calculated|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-14|
84737957|NCT02615938|169227234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2|-0.9|0.576
84737958|NCT02615938|169227234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.884
84737959|NCT02615938|169227234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.563
84737960|NCT04121897|169227246|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84737961|NCT04683510|169227256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|3.746|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.746|0.724|0.2345
84737962|NCT04683510|169227256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|0.839|0.124
84737963|NCT04683510|169227257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.067|0.768|0.2352
84737964|NCT04683510|169227257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.924||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.088|0.785|0.3418
84737965|NCT04683510|169227258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.615|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.615|0.921|0.1653
84737966|NCT04683510|169227258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.213||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.609|0.914|0.181
84737967|NCT03771638|169227259|SUPERIORITY|Minimum detectable effects: Under assumptions of the adherence of DBS TFV-DP levels \>=700 fmol/punch in the control condition as 60% and intraclass correlation of repeated binary measures of DBS TFV-DP of 0.69, and retention of 80% of participants at 24 weeks, we will have 80% power in 2-sided tests with a type-1 error rate of 5% to detect average between-group differences in adherence of 23 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||GEE poisson models with robust standard errors were used to assess DBS adherence rates, averaged across visits.|GEE Poisson models|||Null hypothesis: no difference in PrEP adherence levels between DOT Diary Intervention and Control arms||1.36|0.75|0.94
84737968|NCT03771638|169227260|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.62|||Kappa|||Kappa statistic to assess concordance between DBS measurement and self-reported PrEP use||0.62|0.36|
84737969|NCT03375320|169227264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84737970|NCT03375320|169227264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84485568|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.195||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|-0.102||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.102|-0.288|0.0000
84485569|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.304||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.212||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.212|-0.397|0.0000
84544979|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.7|-1.5|0.908
84737971|NCT03375320|169227265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2438|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.2438
84737972|NCT03375320|169227265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.4426
84737973|NCT03375320|169227267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84737974|NCT03375320|169227267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84737975|NCT04556305|169227281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.409
84737976|NCT04556305|169227281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.456
84737977|NCT04556305|169227281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.692
84737978|NCT04556305|169227282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.179
84737979|NCT04556305|169227282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.910
84485570|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.277||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.184||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.184|-0.370|0.0000
84544980|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.7|0.826
84544981|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.2|-2.7|0.088
84737980|NCT04556305|169227282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.159
84737981|NCT04556305|169227283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
84737982|NCT04556305|169227283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
84737983|NCT04556305|169227283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
84737984|NCT04556305|169227284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.772
84737985|NCT04556305|169227284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.107
84737986|NCT04556305|169227284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.915
84737987|NCT04556305|169227285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
84737988|NCT04556305|169227285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
84737989|NCT04556305|169227285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
84737990|NCT04556305|169227286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.487
84737991|NCT04556305|169227286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.827
84737992|NCT04556305|169227286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.908
84737993|NCT04556305|169227287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.371
84737994|NCT04556305|169227287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.633
84737995|NCT04556305|169227287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.230
84737996|NCT04556305|169227288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.798
84737997|NCT04556305|169227288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.461
84737998|NCT04556305|169227288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.419
84737999|NCT04556305|169227289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.619
84738000|NCT04556305|169227289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.468
84738001|NCT04556305|169227289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.387
84738002|NCT04556305|169227290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.380
84738003|NCT04556305|169227290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.759
84738004|NCT04556305|169227290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.219
84738005|NCT04556305|169227291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.995
84738006|NCT04556305|169227291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.946
84738007|NCT04556305|169227291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.593
84738008|NCT04556305|169227292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.092
84738009|NCT04556305|169227292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.245
84738010|NCT04556305|169227292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.107
84738011|NCT04556305|169227293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.244
84738012|NCT04556305|169227293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.085
84738013|NCT04556305|169227293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.710
84738014|NCT04556305|169227294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.491
84738015|NCT04556305|169227294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.444
84738016|NCT04556305|169227294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.279
84738017|NCT06314438|169227298|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84738018|NCT06314438|169227299|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance level at 0.05||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84738019|NCT06314438|169227300|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84738020|NCT03692052|169227304|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson Method|Significance of p-value associated with the test of H0:Hb response rate =0.3 vs H1:Hb response rate \> 0.3.||||||<.0001
84738021|NCT04596540|169227333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.48|0.10|0.0008
84738022|NCT04596540|169227333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.56|0.14|0.0002
84738023|NCT04596540|169227334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-5.07|<0.001
84738024|NCT04596540|169227334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.24|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-6.24|<0.001
84738025|NCT04596540|169227335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.96|-19.27|||ANCOVA|||||-19.27|-60.96|<.001
84738026|NCT04596540|169227335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.49|-32.66|||ANCOVA|||||-32.66|-74.49|<.001
84738027|NCT04596540|169227336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.52|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.66|2.52|<.001
84738028|NCT04596540|169227336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.59|0.54|0.011
84738029|NCT04596540|169227337|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|-0.02|0.0470
84738030|NCT04596540|169227337|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.12|0.0022
84738031|NCT04596540|169227338|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.05|0.51|||Chi-squared|||||0.51|0.05|0.0096
84738032|NCT04596540|169227338|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.35||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||||0.60|0.10|0.0028
84738033|NCT04596540|169227339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.55|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-7.55|<.001
84738034|NCT04596540|169227339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.42|0.003
84485571|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.149||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.239|0.0014
84485572|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.082||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.01||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.010|-0.174|0.0818
84485573|NCT02141854|168723622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.121||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.03||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.030|-0.213|0.0094
84485574|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.702||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.001|-0.403||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.403|-1.001|0.0000
84485575|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.607||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.908|-0.307||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.307|-0.908|0.0001
84485576|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.066||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.365|-0.766||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.766|-1.365|0.0000
84485577|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.989||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.686||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.686|-1.291|0.0000
84485578|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.364||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|-0.068||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.068|-0.659|0.0160
84544982|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.0|-7.3|0.053
84738035|NCT04596540|169227340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.46|0.018
84738036|NCT04596540|169227340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.785|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.25|0.785
84485579|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.382||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.083||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.083|-0.681|0.0124
84544983|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||3.3|-4.0|0.848
84544984|NCT00708552|168842732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||8.2|1.1|0.011
84544985|NCT00708552|168842733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.671
84738037|NCT04596540|169227341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.15|0.500
84738038|NCT04596540|169227341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||||0.07|-0.15|0.421
84738039|NCT04596540|169227342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.634|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.14|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.14|-0.22|0.634
84738040|NCT04596540|169227342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.19|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.19|-0.17|0.907
84738041|NCT04526665|169227349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.641|302.247|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization factors (ALP \>3xULN or TB\>ULN:Yes/No, and Baseline PBC Worst Itch NRS ≥ 4: Yes/No)||||302.247|7.641|<0.0001
84738042|NCT04526665|169227351|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.784||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|0.418|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.418|-1.986|0.1970
84738043|NCT04526665|169227352|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.343||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.489|0.803|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, 4-week period and treatment by 4-week period interaction as fixed factors and adjusting for baseline and stratification factors.||||0.803|-1.489|0.5522
84738044|NCT00233480|169227429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t test|||||||0.025
84738045|NCT01443403|169227435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.41|1.02|0.0003
84544986|NCT00708552|168842733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.4|0.413
84738046|NCT01443403|169227435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.14|0.76|0.0014
84738047|NCT01443403|169227435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-0.62|0.3504
84738048|NCT01443403|169227437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.05|0.81|0.0008
84485580|NCT02141854|168723623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.287||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.011||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.011|-0.584|0.0588
84485581|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84485582|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
84485583|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
84485584|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
84485585|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7203||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.7203
84485586|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.996||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.9960
84485587|NCT02141854|168723624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.3250
84485588|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.677||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.677|0.269|0.0000
84544987|NCT00708552|168842733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.245
84544988|NCT00708552|168842734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.369
84544989|NCT00708552|168842734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.550
84544990|NCT00708552|168842734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.0|-0.5|0.082
84738049|NCT01443403|169227437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.04|0.79|0.0009
84738050|NCT01443403|169227437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.73|-0.47|0.2572
84738051|NCT01443403|169227439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.28|0.38|0.0065
84738052|NCT01443403|169227439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.58|0.69|0.0008
84738053|NCT01443403|169227439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.44|-0.43|0.2921
84738054|NCT01443403|169227441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.42|0.47|0.0039
84738055|NCT01443403|169227441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.67|0.73|0.0007
84738056|NCT01443403|169227441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.46|-0.46|0.3077
84544991|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.0|-2.4|0.417
84738057|NCT01443403|169227443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|44.6|||Chi-squared|||||44.6|10.0|0.0030
84738058|NCT01443403|169227443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|31.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|48.7|||Chi-squared|||||48.7|15.0|0.0005
84738059|NCT01443403|169227443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|30.6|||Chi-squared|||||30.6|-4.4|0.1461
84738060|NCT01443403|169227445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|7.8|0.0050
84738061|NCT01443403|169227445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|8.1|0.0045
84738062|NCT01443403|169227445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.2||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|-7.2|0.2984
84738063|NCT01443403|169227447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.17|0.90|<0.0001
84738064|NCT01443403|169227447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.85|0.59|0.0002
84738065|NCT01443403|169227447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.20|-0.05|0.0698
84738066|NCT01443403|169227449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.79|0.58|0.0001
84738067|NCT01443403|169227449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.70|0.49|0.0004
84738068|NCT01443403|169227449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.02|-0.17|0.1648
84738069|NCT01443403|169227451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84544992|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||2.0|-1.4|0.725
84544993|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||2.2|-1.1|0.506
84738070|NCT01443403|169227451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84738071|NCT01443403|169227451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0118
84738072|NCT01443403|169227452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84738073|NCT01443403|169227452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0011
84738074|NCT01443403|169227452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
84738075|NCT01443403|169227455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.03|0.62|0.0003
84738076|NCT01443403|169227455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.22|0.80|<0.0001
84738077|NCT01443403|169227455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.15|0.1211
84738078|NCT01443403|169227457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.45|1.28|<0.0001
84738079|NCT01443403|169227457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.15|0.99|0.0002
84738080|NCT01443403|169227457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.76|-0.37|0.2022
84738081|NCT01443403|169227460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0272
84738082|NCT01443403|169227460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1355
84738083|NCT01443403|169227460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3689
84738084|NCT01443403|169227462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2126
84738085|NCT01443403|169227462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2799
84738086|NCT01443403|169227462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6466||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.6466
84738087|NCT01443403|169227464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9826
84738088|NCT01443403|169227464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5188||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5188
84738089|NCT01443403|169227464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5029
84738090|NCT03258723|169227471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
84738091|NCT03258723|169227472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0005
84738092|NCT03258723|169227473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.1809
84738093|NCT03258723|169227474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0973
84738094|NCT03258723|169227476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.1992
84738095|NCT03258723|169227477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.7017
84544994|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.6|-2.3|0.723
84738096|NCT03258723|169227478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in low activity group at baseline.||||0.1573
84738097|NCT03258723|169227478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4328|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in medium activity group at baseline.||||0.4328
84738098|NCT03258723|169227478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in high activity group at baseline.||||0.6698
84738099|NCT03258723|169227479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.5271
84738100|NCT03258723|169227480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
84738101|NCT01107899|169227485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the overall effect of initial inhibition on the day to return to baseline platelet function.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84738102|NCT01107899|169227487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84738103|NCT01107899|169227487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84485589|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.428||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.632||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.632|0.224|0.0000
84485590|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.623||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.828||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.828|0.418|0.0000
84544995|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.0|-2.2|0.919
84544996|NCT00708552|168842735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||2.0|-2.3|0.896
84738104|NCT01107899|169227487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.025
84738105|NCT03274895|169227528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.20|difference in proportion of resolution r|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.081||||||||0.081|-0.154|
84738106|NCT03274895|169227529|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.042
84738107|NCT03274895|169227530|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.577
84738108|NCT01637077|169227563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
84738109|NCT01637077|169227564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
84738110|NCT01637077|169227565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Worst pain over the past 24 hours||||0.62
84738111|NCT01637077|169227565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average pain over the past 24 hours||||0.22
84738112|NCT01637077|169227565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Least pain over the past 24 hours||||0.07
84738113|NCT01637077|169227567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84738114|NCT01637077|169227568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
84738115|NCT01637077|169227569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84738116|NCT01637077|169227570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.12
84738117|NCT01637077|169227571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.78
84738118|NCT01637077|169227572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84738119|NCT01637077|169227573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sensory neuropathy||||0.46
84738120|NCT01637077|169227573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Autonomic neuropathy||||0.86
84738121|NCT01637077|169227573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Motor neuropathy||||0.40
84738122|NCT03358238|169227630|OTHER||Proportion|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.557|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|||0.557|0.264|
84738123|NCT03358238|169227631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Average Proportions|0.0017||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1774|0.1807||Statistical significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 45.|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates of self-reporting between arms was zero.||0.1807|-0.1774|0.99
84738124|NCT03358238|169227632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0189||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2215|0.1837||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 45|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates to activity tracking between arms was zero.||0.1837|-0.2215|0.85
84738125|NCT03358238|169227633|OTHER||Proportion|0.5385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|Estimating proportion of individuals with higher adherence rates for self-report over activity tracking among individuals with unequal adherence rates||0.6991|0.3718|
84738126|NCT03358238|169227633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis is that among individuals with unequal adherence rates, the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the Review Arm is equal to the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the No Review Arm.||||0.0828
84738127|NCT03358238|169227634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.99||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 46.|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~One-sample t confidence intervals."|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~Null hypothesis was that the average change in total scores was zero."||1.99|-0.42|0.20
84738128|NCT03358238|169227635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.7||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 46|One-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that average change in scores on the structured interview guide for the Hamilton rating scale for depression is zero.||2.70|-0.91|0.32
84738129|NCT01431950|169227636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||||95.0|-0.039|0.192||||||||0.192|-0.039|
84738130|NCT01210651|169227641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Regression, Generalized Least Squares|||A random-effects, generalized least squares (GLS) regression model for depression severity was used to analyze participant BDI scores measured just before 1st assigned session at 0 wks, and just after assigned sessions at 2 wks, 4 wks, 6 wks and 8 wks. BDI Scores were modeled as correlated within participants but independent between participants. The GLS regression model tested the null hypothesis that no significant effects on BDI scores would be found by intervention and intervention-by-time.||||0.034
84738131|NCT01210651|169227642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on BDI, using two sample t-test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Total Change Score on BDI for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.02
84738132|NCT01210651|169227643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with a p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test evaluated null hypothesis that the proportion of study completers with remitted depression would be statistically comparable in the 2 intervention groups.||||0.018
84738133|NCT01210651|169227644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on GSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on GSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.50
84738134|NCT01210651|169227645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on RSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on RSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.053
84544997|NCT00708552|168842736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.594
84485591|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.681||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.885||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.885|0.478|0.0000
84485592|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.354||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.354|-0.054|0.1490
84485593|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.455||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.455|0.051|0.0143
84544998|NCT00708552|168842736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.5|0.523
84544999|NCT00708552|168842736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.0|-0.4|0.429
84545000|NCT00708552|168842737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.8|-0.8|0.966
84738135|NCT05723263|169227649|OTHER||Proportional difference|94.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|94.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was calculated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||94.8|94.2|<0.001
84738136|NCT05723263|169227649|OTHER||Proportional difference|87.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|88.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was estimated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||88.0|86.5|<0.001
84738137|NCT05723263|169227649|OTHER||Proportional difference|7.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|7.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Using a binary outcome and cluster RCT design, we estimated that 12 clinic clusters (two per city) and 1200 participants (100 per cluster) were needed to achieve a 90% power and allow for a 0.05 type-I error to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control arm participants and a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate. We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in control.||7.9|6.6|>0.05
84738138|NCT05723263|169227650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84738139|NCT05723263|169227651|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0059
84738140|NCT05723263|169227652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84738141|NCT05723263|169227654|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84738142|NCT05723263|169227655|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84738143|NCT05723263|169227656|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84738144|NCT05723263|169227657|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.727
84738145|NCT05723263|169227658|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.047||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.014|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Absolute proportional difference in gonorrhea and chlamydia test uptake rate among community-led clinic participants across the three intervention arms|We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control between community-led and public STI clinic participants.||-0.014|-0.080|0.005
84545001|NCT00708552|168842737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.505
84545002|NCT00708552|168842737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.6|0.0|0.044
84545003|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.5|-0.5|0.869
84738146|NCT05723263|169227659|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.04||||0.015||95.0|-0.073|-0.008|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among MSM and non-MSM participants.||-0.008|-0.073|0.015
84738147|NCT05723263|169227660|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|0.015||||0.384||95.0|-0.019|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among participants 30 years and below and those above 30 years.||0.049|-0.019|0.384
84738148|NCT03974022|169227665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
84738149|NCT03974022|169227665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
84738150|NCT05032066|169227919|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|1.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||1.29|-3.56|0.4388
84738151|NCT05032066|169227919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|2.09|||MMRM|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||2.09|-2.86|0.7959
84738152|NCT05032066|169227921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.417|1.75|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||1.750|0.417|0.7179
84738153|NCT05032066|169227921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.934|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||0.934|0.236|0.0706
84738154|NCT05032066|169227922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.109||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|46.73|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||46.73|-13.30|0.3579
84485594|NCT02141854|168723625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.209||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.411||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.411|0.006|0.0435
84738155|NCT05032066|169227922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.173||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.35|28.88|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||28.88|-31.35|0.9460
84738156|NCT05032066|169227923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|2.6|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.6|-5.0|0.6091
84738157|NCT05032066|169227923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.7|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.7|-4.9|0.6374
84738158|NCT05032066|169227924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|8.3|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||8.3|-0.6|0.1526
84738159|NCT05032066|169227924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|6.6|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|-2.4|0.4421
84738160|NCT05032066|169227924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.6|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|0.1|0.0936
84485595|NCT01868594|168723628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
84545004|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.8|-0.4|0.500
84545005|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.8|-0.1|0.140
84738161|NCT05032066|169227924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.3|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||5.3|-1.3|0.3129
84738162|NCT05032066|169227925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.71|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.71|-1.42|0.5832
84738163|NCT05032066|169227925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.09|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.09|-2.06|0.1297
84738164|NCT05032066|169227926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.9|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||2.90|0.34|0.9996
84738165|NCT05032066|169227926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.48|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||4.48|0.66|0.3721
84738166|NCT05032066|169227927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.32|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||3.32|0.63|0.4778
84738167|NCT05032066|169227927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.61|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||5.61|1.22|0.0438
84738168|NCT04297618|169227945|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84738169|NCT04297618|169227946|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84738170|NCT00217737|169227955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.11|||||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.11|0.63|
84738171|NCT03660826|169227992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|Log Rank||||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|2.30|0.91|0.93
84738172|NCT03660826|169227992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm III vs Arm I||1.14|0.43|0.06
84738173|NCT03660826|169227992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm IV vs Arm VII||1.70|0.67|0.62
84738174|NCT03660826|169227992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm V vs Arm VII||1.46|0.58|0.36
84738175|NCT03660826|169227992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.25|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm VI vs VII||1.25|0.49|0.14
84738176|NCT03931746|169228015|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-3.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||-0.5|-8.0|0.04
84738177|NCT03931746|169228016|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-2.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft minus No Porcine Xenograft.|||12|-9|0.75
84738178|NCT03931746|169228017|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||20.0|-19.0|1
84738179|NCT03931746|169228018|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft vs. No Porcine Xenograft.|||0.33|-0.26|1
84738180|NCT03931746|169228019|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||4|-6|1
84738181|NCT03931746|169228020|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||2|-1|0.54
84738182|NCT03931746|169228021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|13.3|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||13.3|0.03|1
84738183|NCT03931746|169228022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.167||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.185|||Fisher Exact||"The risk difference is calculated as the outcome risk in the Porcine Xenograft group minus the outcome risk in the No Porcine Xenograft group. The confidence interval for the risk difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method."|||0.185|-0.564|0.43
84738184|NCT03931746|169228023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|55.9|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||55.9|0.006|1
84738185|NCT01183390|169228027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|95.10|
84738186|NCT01183390|169228028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.80|96.99|
84738187|NCT00474526|169228032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|6.74|||ANOVA||A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||6.74|3.04|
84485596|NCT01868594|168723629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
84738188|NCT00474526|169228032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|9.79|||ANOVA||C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||9.79|4.16|
84738189|NCT00474526|169228032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|58.0|||ANOVA||W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||58|24|
84738190|NCT00474526|169228032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|60.0|||ANOVA||Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|"Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.~Ratio of GMTs"||60|24|
84738191|NCT00474526|169228041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||0.95|0.55|
84738192|NCT00474526|169228041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.31|0.81|
84738193|NCT00474526|169228041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.72|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.72|1.18|
84738194|NCT00474526|169228041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.58|1.02|
84738195|NCT00474526|169228044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.5|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||-8.5|-21.2|
84738196|NCT00474526|169228044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.3|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||0.3|-7|
84738197|NCT00474526|169228044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||3.1|-1.3|
84738198|NCT00474526|169228044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||1.7|-4|
84738199|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.74|
84738200|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.28|0.92|
84738201|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.79|
84738202|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||FHA (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.25|0.85|
84738203|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2||1.32|0.83|
84738204|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.23|0.75|
84738205|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.55|0.93|
84738206|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.56|0.85|
84738207|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88||||||95.0|0.65|1.2|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.2|0.65|
84738208|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.77|0.97|
84738209|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1|0.7|
84738210|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.03|0.56|
84738211|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85||||||95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.7|
84738212|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.84|
84738213|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.93|0.64|
84738214|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.97|0.69|
84545006|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.6|0.910
84738215|NCT00474526|169228046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.02|0.62|
84738216|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
84485597|NCT01868594|168723630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7344||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7344
84738217|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
84738218|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.0|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||12|-7|
84738219|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||17|-4|
84738220|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||10|-12|
84738221|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
84738222|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
84738223|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
84738224|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
84738225|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
84738226|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||14|-3|
84738227|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||2|-5|
84738228|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||-1|-14|
84738229|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-4|
84738230|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage di|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-1|
84738231|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||1|-6|
84485598|NCT01868594|168723631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2780
84738232|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
84738233|NCT00474526|169228047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-8|
84485599|NCT01868594|168723631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8114||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.8114
84738234|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.96|
84738235|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.96|
84738236|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.25|0.87|
84738237|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.23|0.89|
84738238|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.21|0.81|
84738239|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.17|0.68|
84738240|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.28|0.73|
84738241|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.31|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.31|0.69|
84738242|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.88|
84738243|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.65|0.98|
84738244|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.09|0.78|
84738245|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.74|
84738246|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.04|0.71|
84738247|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.14|0.72|
84545007|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.7|-0.5|0.774
84738248|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.08|0.74|
84738249|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.1|0.74|
84738250|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||0.99|0.6|
84738251|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.99|0.69|
84738252|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.83|
84738253|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.78|
84738254|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.03|0.75|
84738255|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4||0.97|0.66|
84738256|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.02|0.6|
84738257|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.63|
84738258|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.11|0.59|
84738259|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.19|0.76|
84738260|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.37|0.83|
84738261|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.95|0.68|
84485600|NCT01868594|168723631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.1619
84738262|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.14|0.67|
84738263|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1|0.69|
84738264|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.84||||||95.0|0.67|1.05|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.05|0.67|
84485601|NCT01868594|168723631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.0764
84485602|NCT01868594|168723632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of basal insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3107
84545008|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.5|-0.7|0.726
84738265|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.9|0.62|
84738266|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.75|
84738267|NCT00474526|169228048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.12|0.69|
84738268|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||4.4|-2.2|
84738269|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.6|-1.9|
84738270|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|7.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.1|-7.7|
84485603|NCT01868594|168723632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5236||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of prandial insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.5236
84485604|NCT01868594|168723632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total daily dose insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3847
84545009|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.7|-2.2|0.292
84485605|NCT01868594|168723633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6716
84545010|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.946
84545011|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.6|-1.3|0.802
84738271|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.8|-9.2|
84545012|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.3|-2.1|0.636
84738272|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-6.0||||||95.0|-12.9|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.2|-12.9|
84738273|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.0|-4.8|
84738274|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.3|-4.6|
84738275|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.1|-3.2|
84738276|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.5|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.5|-1.5|
84738277|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5|-1.1|
84738278|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0||||||95.0|-2.8|7.7|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.7|-2.8|
84738279|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.3|-3|
84738280|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||12.3|-2.2|
84738281|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.6|-3.9|
84738282|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||6.2|-1.1|
84738283|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
84738284|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
84738285|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.9|-8|
84545013|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.5|-2.0|0.752
84545014|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.920
84545015|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.6|-0.7|0.972
84738286|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.8|-2.3|
84738287|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-1.3|
84738288|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||Seroconversion Percentage difference|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||10.7|-4.8|
84738289|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||8.8|-7.1|
84545016|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.9|-0.4|0.378
84738290|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||5.7|-8|
84738291|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.7|-2|
84738292|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.8|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.8|-3|
84738293|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.5|-4.4|
84738294|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-2.3|
84738295|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||1|-5.3|
84738296|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0||||||95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-6.6|
84738297|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-4.2|
84545017|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.9|-0.3|0.346
84545018|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.6|0.720
84738298|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||9|-4|
84738299|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||6|-2.8|
84738300|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.4|-3.7|
84738301|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.8|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||0.8|-7.2|
84545019|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.0|-0.6|0.598
84738302|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.5|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7.5|-0.8|
84738303|NCT00474526|169228049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0||||||95.0|-3.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7|-3.7|
84738304|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
84738305|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.02|0.62|
84738306|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
84738307|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.03|0.63|
84738308|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.78|
84738309|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04||||||95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.81|
84738310|NCT00474526|169228064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.29|0.69|
84738311|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|-8|
84738312|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|0|
84738313|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||5|-13|
84738314|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||3|-6|
84545020|NCT00708552|168842738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.480
84545021|NCT03808948|168842814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression with mGFR/eGFR ratio as independent variate, AKI as binary outcome||1.97|0.08|0.4842
84545022|NCT00568451|168842825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.5||||Kaplan-Meier||||||4.5|
84738315|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||3|-15|
84738316|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||11|-4|
84738317|NCT00474526|169228065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 239F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||5|-10|
84738318|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.02|0.61|
84738319|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.2|0.54|
84738320|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.94|0.58|
84738321|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.82|0.51|
84738322|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.6|
84738323|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.04|0.56|
84738324|NCT00474526|169228066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.54|
84738325|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-9.6|
84738326|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7.3|-11.9|
84738327|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|4.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||4.3|-10.9|
84738328|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||2.7|-5.6|
84738329|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-5.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||-5.6|-24.1|
84738330|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-11.6|
84485606|NCT01868594|168723634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2484||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total Treatment Satisfaction score at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2484
84738331|NCT00474526|169228067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7|-7|
84738332|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A/GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.27|0.86|
84738333|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.18|0.75|
84738334|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.4|0.88|
84485607|NCT01868594|168723634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hyperglycaemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.7610
84738335|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.44|0.9|
84738336|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B||1.59|0.92|
84738337|NCT00474526|169228068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||ANOVA|||Hib (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.16|0.63|
84738338|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
84738339|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
84738340|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|6.0||||||95.0|-3.6|15.2|||ANOVA|||PT (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||15.2|-3.6|
84485608|NCT01868594|168723634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hypoglycemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.3714
84571104|NCT01296412|168893405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||11.4|0.5|
84738341|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.2|||ANOVA|||FHA (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||8.2|-10.2|
84738342|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||10.6|-7.2|
84738343|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||3.6|-3.1|
84738344|NCT00474526|169228069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.3|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.3|-2.2|
84738345|NCT00592293|169228093|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|27.6||||||||27.6|9.1|
84738346|NCT00592293|169228094|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|93.7||||||||93.7|78.1|
84497158|NCT02222168|168745467|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.697|119.318|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.318|96.697|
84545023|NCT05344560|168842830|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.07|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test \[senofilcon A (C3) HEV chromophore\] minus Control \[senofilcon A (C3)\]|||1.07|-6.92|
84545024|NCT02996968|168842831|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was declared if the POUR rate at 1-week with self-discontinuation was no worse than the POUR rate at 1-week with office-discontinuation, by a pre-specified margin of 15%.~A sample size was calculated to be 74 patients in each arm based on the following:~* The estimated POUR requiring indwelling urinary catheter at 1-week postoperative is 16%~* The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.~* The power was set at 80%"|Proportion Difference|0.002||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.095||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction|Two proportions Z-test|||||0.095||0.5
84738347|NCT01606319|169228096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.28|.69|0.67
84738348|NCT01606319|169228097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.0019|||ANCOVA|||||.0019|-0.039|0.5
84738349|NCT01606319|169228098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.9|0.69
84738350|NCT01606319|169228099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.37|0.72|.94
84738351|NCT02179177|169228103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84738352|NCT02349152|169228120|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with two or more blood glucose values greater than 180mg/dl between the two groups. Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%.||3.0|1.3|0.001
84738353|NCT02349152|169228121|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84738354|NCT02349152|169228122|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84545025|NCT01256450|168842889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.646|.5870
84485609|NCT00121485|168723659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|200 patients (137 HMII and 67 XVE) provides 80% power (alpha= 0.05 (one-sided)) using a Blackwelder like analysis and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. The protocol specifies that once non-inferiority is proven, the data will be analyzed for superiority using closed testing methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7||||2.5e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|46.9||Two (2) interim analysis were pre-specified in the protocol. The type I error rate was preserved at 5% by use of the O'Brien-Fleming spending function.|Fisher Exact|||Primary endpoint is 2-yr survival free of stroke or re-operation to repair/replace the device. Patients are a success if composite endpoint achieved. Patients urgently transplanted due to device failure are failures. Patients electively transplanted after reversal of co-morbidity will be considered success if they achieve 2 years of survival from day of VAD implant and no stroke. HMII is a success if the proportion of HMII pts achieving the composite endpoint is equal to or better than HM XVE||46.9|24.5|0.00000025
84485610|NCT03793010|168723690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.81||||||||1.81|-1.20|
84485611|NCT03793010|168723691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.24||||||||2.24|-1.05|
84485612|NCT03793010|168723692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.0|
84485613|NCT01569568|168723700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.001
84485614|NCT01569568|168723700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.011
84485615|NCT01569568|168723700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.004
84485616|NCT01569568|168723700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.046
84485617|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the DMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all DMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
84485618|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.024
84485619|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the PCC node does not differ between groups.||||0.040
84545026|NCT02211209|168842945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.7|-66.6|||ANCOVA|||||-66.6|-121.7|< 0.0001
84485620|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.008
84485621|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left IPL node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.470
84485622|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.829
84485623|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.801
84485624|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the SMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all SMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
84485625|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.550
84545027|NCT02211209|168842947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1804.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|251.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2306.0|-1302.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1302|-2306|< 0.0001
84545028|NCT02211209|168842948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|186.16||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.86||NA indicates that the upper limit of 95% CI was not estimable. The upper limit of the odds ratio estimate from the logistic regression model was \>999.999, and it was reported as NA per statistical reporting convention.||Regression, Logistic||||||12.86|0.0001
84738355|NCT02349152|169228123|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0001
84485626|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.113
84485627|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.039
84738356|NCT02349152|169228123|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0003
84485628|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.005
84738357|NCT02349152|169228123|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Lowest Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.98
84485629|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.426
84738358|NCT02349152|169228124|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean post-operative glucose||||0.14
84738359|NCT02349152|169228124|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Postoperative Blood Glucose||||0.25
84738360|NCT02349152|169228125|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84738361|NCT02349152|169228127|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebypass||||0.401
84738362|NCT02349152|169228127|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes after the start of CPB||||<0.0001
84738363|NCT02349152|169228127|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of CPB||||<0.0001
84738364|NCT02349152|169228127|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Surgery||||<0.0001
84738365|NCT02349152|169228127|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative (8 hours)||||0.021
84485630|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.256
84485631|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.853
84485632|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.003
84485633|NCT01569568|168723701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.023
84485634|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance is not assumed. Two tailed t-test WASI verbal IQ between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.929
84485635|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison WASI performance IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84485636|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of WASI full IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.094
84485637|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of CTMT global composite score between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.853
84485638|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF BRI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84485639|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF MI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84485640|NCT01569568|168723703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF GEC between cases and controls.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84485641|NCT00166504|168723721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|<|0.001||95.0|-14.3|-5.7|||ANOVA||Direction of the Comparison: Vytorin minus Atorvastatin.|||-5.7|-14.3|<0.001
84485642|NCT02200510|168723722|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.575
84485643|NCT02200510|168723722|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.721
84485644|NCT02943577|168723723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.68|-2.70|0.2398
84485645|NCT02943577|168723724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.77|-0.95|0.5522
84485646|NCT02943577|168723725|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.99|-2.01|0.9901
84485647|NCT02943577|168723726|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.17|-1.17|0.5563
84485648|NCT01355224|168723727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, baseline intention.||||||.0150
84485649|NCT01355224|168723728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0365
84485650|NCT01355224|168723729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0622
84485651|NCT03502941|168723732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84485652|NCT03502941|168723733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84485653|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
84485654|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0007
84485655|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84485656|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84485657|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
84485658|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0392
84738366|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b Pre bypass||||0.580
84738367|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b CPB-30||||0.815
84738368|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.715
84738369|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b post-bypass||||0.330
84738370|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b 8 HR||||0.651
84738371|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 Pre bypass||||0.439
84738372|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 CPB-30||||0.284
84738373|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.779
84738374|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 post-bypass||||0.274
84738375|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 8HR||||0.601
84738376|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa Pre-bypass||||0.315
84738377|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-30||||0.062
84545029|NCT02211209|168842949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.75|631.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||631.06|15.75|<0.0001
84545030|NCT02211209|168842951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6131
84738378|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-END||||0.090
84738379|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa- post-bypass||||0.004
84738380|NCT02349152|169228128|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa-8HR||||0.074
84738381|NCT02349152|169228129|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH Pre-bypass group||||0.740
84738382|NCT02349152|169228129|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-30 group.||||<0.0001
84738383|NCT02349152|169228129|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-END||||<0.0001
84738384|NCT02349152|169228129|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH post-bypass||||<0.0001
84738385|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH 8-hr||||0.014
84738386|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH- Pre-bypass||||0.100
84738387|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-CPB-30||||<0.0001
84738388|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-CPB-END||||0.009
84738389|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-Post-bypass||||0.046
84738390|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-8-hr||||0.695
84738391|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Pre Bypass||||0.455
84738392|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-30||||0.059
84738393|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-END||||0.175
84738394|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Post-bypass||||0.062
84738395|NCT02349152|169228129|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon 8-hr||||0.261
84738396|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day mortality||||0.06
84738397|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day readmission||||0.03
84738398|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Cerebral Vascular Accident||||0.24
84485659|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0225
84485660|NCT00808028|168723734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0244
84485661|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
84738399|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation||||0.93
84738400|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Failure||||1
84738401|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial Fibrillation||||0.10
84738402|NCT02349152|169228130|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||cardiac arrest||||1
84738403|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 0-6||||0.205
84738404|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 7-12||||0.339
84738405|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 13-18||||0.006
84738406|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 19-24||||0.747
84738407|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 25-30||||0.568
84738408|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 31-36||||0.924
84738409|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 37-42||||0.501
84738410|NCT02349152|169228131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 43-48||||0.977
84738411|NCT02349152|169228135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
84738412|NCT01634269|169228178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion of IF implanted subjects|87.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4|||Exact binomial|||||98.4|61.7|0.002
84738413|NCT04052425|169228223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.341|11.903||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||11.903|2.341|< 0.0001
84738414|NCT04052425|169228224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.831|9.482||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.482|2.831|< 0.0001
84738415|NCT04052425|169228225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|36.048||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||36.048|1.997|0.0038
84738416|NCT04052425|169228226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|13.566||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||13.566|1.795|0.0020
84738417|NCT04052425|169228227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.29||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||31.290|2.900|0.0002
84738418|NCT04052425|169228228|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-11.64||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-11.64|-27.05|< 0.0001
84738419|NCT04052425|169228231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.226|9.578||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.578|3.226|< 0.0001
84738420|NCT04052425|169228233|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|-22.19|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-22.19|-39.03|<0.0001
84738421|NCT04052425|169228236|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-16.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-10.68|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-10.68|-23.28|<0.0001
84738422|NCT04052425|169228238|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|-4.18|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-4.18|-13.96|0.0003
84738423|NCT04052425|169228240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|5.307||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||5.307|1.746|< 0.0001
84738424|NCT04052425|169228240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|10.823||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||10.823|0.489|0.2921
84738425|NCT04052425|169228240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
84738426|NCT04052425|169228243|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.62|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.62|-1.26|0.4970
84738427|NCT02353312|169228317|EQUIVALENCE|Pairwise comparisons of VO2 max means with equal variances between participant on and off treatment.||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
84545031|NCT02211209|168842952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|138.0||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|312.0|||ANCOVA|||||312|-36|0.1206
84571105|NCT01296412|168893406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-1.5|-17.4|
84571106|NCT01296412|168893407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.7|-12.7|
84738428|NCT03170518|169228342|SUPERIORITY|Imputed datasets were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratification factors (antihyperglycemic agent background and age group), and baseline HbA1c.|Least square mean difference|-0.76|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.25|= 0.002
84738429|NCT03023423|169228375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.92||||||||1.92|0.03|
84738430|NCT03512197|169228385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||||||||1.31|0.8|
84738431|NCT03512197|169228386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||||||||1.29|0.59|
84738432|NCT03512197|169228391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.63||||||||1.63|0.60|
84738433|NCT03512197|169228392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.87||||||||2.87|0.88|
84738434|NCT03512197|169228393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54||||||||1.54|0.41|
84738435|NCT03512197|169228395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||||||partial neutrophil recovery||1.16|0.75|
84738436|NCT03512197|169228395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||||||full neutrophil recovery||1.14|0.72|
84738437|NCT03512197|169228396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||partial platelet recovery||1.52|0.87|
84738438|NCT03512197|169228396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||full platelet recovery||1.00|0.67|
84738439|NCT01948076|169228412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84738440|NCT01948076|169228413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.043
84738441|NCT01151423|169228414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.78||Caplacizumab was compared to placebo using a one-sided log-rank test in order to assess superiority at 2.5% significance level.|Stratified log-rank test||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model with presence (yes) / absence (no) of 1 PE session prior to randomization as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of a Kaplan-Meier analysis with time-to-response as endpoint and treatment group as the independent variable and stratified for absence/presence of one PE session prior to randomization.||3.78|1.28|= 0.005
84738442|NCT01227616|169228452|NON_INFERIORITY|The study protocol defined the margin for non-inferiority as 0.5 g/dL meaning non-inferiority would be established in a TP if the lower limit of the 95% confidence limit for the difference between ferumoxytol and iron sucrose mean change was ≥0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Stats. of primary endpoint performed only for TP1 and TP2. 240 subjects retreated should yield 90% power to detect non-inferiority during TP2.||||||<0.05
84738443|NCT03811002|169228515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). 1-sided significance level 0.025.|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|Assuming exponentially distributed survival times, 480 eligible patients accrued uniformly over 48 months months) with 26 months additional follow-up after the last accrued patient would provide at least 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.71 (median survival times of 38 months \[Arm I\] vs. 27 months \[Arm II\]) at a one-sided significance level of 0.025, after adjusting for type 1 error using group sequential methods for two interim analyses.||1.34|0.82|0.5819
84738444|NCT03811002|169228516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.21|0.80|
84738445|NCT03811002|169228519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Cause-specific hazard ratio stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.41|0.52|
84738446|NCT03811002|169228520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm I.|||1.20|0.76|
84545032|NCT02792062|168842955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|113.06||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|181.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||181.67|70.37|0.659
84571107|NCT02160626|168893408|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84738447|NCT05101993|169228544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84571108|NCT02160626|168893408|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
84571109|NCT02160626|168893409|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
84738448|NCT01124838|169228548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.84|0.39|0.004
84738449|NCT01124838|169228548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.74|0.37|<0.001
84545033|NCT02792062|168842955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|45.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.86|74.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||74.07|27.86|0.012
84738450|NCT01124838|169228549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.08|-0.37|0.218
84738451|NCT01124838|169228549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.06|-0.36|0.164
84738452|NCT01124838|169228550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.28|0.070
84738453|NCT01124838|169228550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.03|-0.31|0.016
84738454|NCT01124838|169228551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.08|0.096
84738455|NCT01124838|169228551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.00|-0.09|0.044
84545034|NCT02792062|168842956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.28||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.09|107.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||107.47|66.09|0.238
84545035|NCT02792062|168842956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.39|68.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||68.37|41.39|<0.001
84738456|NCT01124838|169228552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.69|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.69|0.34|0.491
84738457|NCT01124838|169228552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.28|0.28|0.185
84545036|NCT02792062|168842957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
84571110|NCT02160626|168893409|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
84485662|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0004
84738458|NCT01124838|169228553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.8|-8.5|0.451
84738459|NCT01124838|169228553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.8|-9.7|0.174
84738460|NCT01124838|169228554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.08|-0.84|0.160
84738461|NCT01124838|169228554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.77||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.52|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.52|-0.97|0.205
84738462|NCT01124838|169228555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.88||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|6.29|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.29|-2.53|0.401
84738463|NCT01124838|169228555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.36||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.45|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.45|-1.73|0.256
84738464|NCT01124838|169228556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mena Difference|-0.1||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.61|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.61|-4.81|0.967
84738465|NCT01124838|169228556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|3.79|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.79|-5.53|0.714
84738466|NCT01124838|169228557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|0.56||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|5.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.68|-4.56|0.830
84738467|NCT01124838|169228557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|4.34|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese vs. non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.34|-5.32|0.842
84738468|NCT02065882|169228582|OTHER|Confirmatory t-test testing of the MCF difference (1 h post-dose minus pre-dose)|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84738469|NCT04057573|169228610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|6.835||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.835|1.737|0.0004
84738470|NCT04057573|169228611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|6.949||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.949|2.296|< 0.0001
84738471|NCT04057573|169228612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.29||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|108.739||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||108.739|2.150|0.0065
84738472|NCT04057573|169228613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.865|9.853||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.853|1.865|0.0006
84738473|NCT04057573|169228614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.755||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||12.755|1.851|0.0013
84738474|NCT04057573|169228615|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.46|-10.45||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-28.46|< 0.0001
84738475|NCT04057573|169228618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.267|6.246||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.246|2.267|< 0.0001
84738476|NCT04057573|169228620|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-18.86|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-18.86|-38.33|<0.0001
84738477|NCT04057573|169228623|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-13.16|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-13.16|-26.55|<0.0001
84738478|NCT04057573|169228625|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-6.67|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-6.67|-17.23|<0.0001
84738479|NCT04057573|169228627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|6.63||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||6.630|2.121|< 0.0001
84738480|NCT04057573|169228627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|20.192||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||20.192|1.045|0.0436
84485663|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84485664|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84485665|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
84738481|NCT04057573|169228627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
84485666|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0036
84485667|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84485668|NCT00808028|168723735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
84738482|NCT04057573|169228630|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.39|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.39|-1.60|0.2350
84738483|NCT04991753|169228634|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-1.17|=0.224
84738484|NCT03299049|169228660|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Cochran-Mantel Haenzel (CMH) adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \>=50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W - Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||2.2|-0.6|
84738485|NCT03299049|169228661|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the CMH adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is greater than -10%|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.7|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \<50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W-Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||3.7|-2.1|
84738486|NCT04486625|169228708|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|79.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.52|94.96||||||||94.96|66.52|
84738487|NCT04486625|169228709|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.1|86.43||||||||86.43|66.10|
84738488|NCT04486625|169228710|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of of adjusted geometric means|124.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.18|153.97||||||||153.97|100.18|
84738489|NCT04486625|169228711|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|119.83||||||||119.83|87.55|
84738490|NCT02980042|169228737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6616||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3666|1.1942|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was necessary because there are repeated measures on subjects.|This is comparing the Switching group to the Comparator group|||1.1942|.3666|0.1996
84738491|NCT02980042|169228738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|1.8872|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects|Comparing Switching group Day 1 to combined Comparator group|||1.8872|.5299|1.0000
84738492|NCT02980042|169228738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|0.8114|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.|Switching group Day 15 was compared to combined Comparator group.|||.8114|.1006|0.0053
84738493|NCT02980042|169228738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.6474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4385|1.6753|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.6753|.4385|0.6474
84738494|NCT02980042|169228742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1072|0.7613|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||.7613|.1072|0.0075
84738495|NCT02980042|169228742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4868|1.5093|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.5093|.4868|0.5930
84738496|NCT02980042|169228742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|7.9932|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||7.9932|1.1260|0.0209
84738497|NCT02980042|169228747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.01||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.01|-27.05|0.005
84485669|NCT04437511|168723762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.508|4.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.331|1.508|<0.001
84738498|NCT02980042|169228748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.56||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||3.56|1.54|<0.0001
84738499|NCT02980042|169228749|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|10.82||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||10.82|6.33|<0.0001
84738500|NCT02980042|169228750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.55||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.55|-10.19|<0.0001
84738501|NCT02980042|169228751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|59.05||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||59.05|29.59|<0.0001
84738502|NCT02980042|169228752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|353.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|175.23|531.46||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||531.46|175.23|0.0002
84738503|NCT02980042|169228753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|176.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.5|229.31||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||229.31|124.50|<0.0001
84738504|NCT02980042|169228754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.32|0.07|0.0020
84738505|NCT02980042|169228755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.77|0.32|<0.0001
84485670|NCT04437511|168723763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.883|4.618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.618|1.883|<0.001
84485671|NCT04437511|168723764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.841|0.104|0.012
84485672|NCT04437511|168723765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.868|0.089|0.016
84485673|NCT04437511|168723766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.086|-0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.565|-2.086|0.0006
84485674|NCT04437511|168723767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.794|-2.250|<0.001
84485675|NCT04437511|168723768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.95|<0.001
84485676|NCT04437511|168723769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.95|<0.001
84485677|NCT04437511|168723770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.566|0.840|0.0001
84485678|NCT04437511|168723771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.748|0.913|<0.001
84485679|NCT04437511|168723772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-86.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.87|-83.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.87|-88.87|<0.0001
84485680|NCT04437511|168723773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.0041||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0148|0.0066|||ANCOVA|||||0.0066|-0.0148|0.4522
84485681|NCT04437511|168723774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.04|0.01|0.002
84485682|NCT04437511|168723774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-5.56|-7.76|<0.001
84485683|NCT04437511|168723774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.52|2.52|<0.001
84485684|NCT05032755|168723777|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term|||||<.0001
84485685|NCT05032755|168723778|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||<.0001
84485686|NCT05032755|168723779|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.065
84485687|NCT05032755|168723780|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.007
84738506|NCT02980042|169228756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.16||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.61|-11.72||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-11.72|-80.61|0.0091
84738507|NCT02980042|169228757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|55.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||83.52|27.00|0.0002
84738508|NCT02980042|169228758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.24||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.96|-5.51||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.51|-28.96|0.0044
84738509|NCT02980042|169228759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|22.28||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||22.28|9.75|<0.0001
84738510|NCT02980042|169228760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|429.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|296.07|562.1||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||562.10|296.07|<0.0001
84738511|NCT02980042|169228761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.16||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.16|0.30|0.0101
84738512|NCT02980042|169228762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|12.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||12.52|4.87|<0.0001
84738513|NCT02980042|169228763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.03||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.03|1.04|<0.0001
84738514|NCT02980042|169228764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.91|-27.44||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-27.44|-38.91|<0.0001
84738515|NCT02980042|169228765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
84485688|NCT05032755|168723781|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.325
84738516|NCT02980042|169228766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.79|1.23|<0.0001
84738517|NCT02980042|169228767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-5.81||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.81|-9.87|<0.0001
84738518|NCT02980042|169228768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.15|-5.25||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.25|-23.15|0.0022
84738519|NCT02980042|169228769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
84738520|NCT02980042|169228770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.61|0.22|<0.0001
84738521|NCT02980042|169228771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.5||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.50|-0.95|<0.0001
84738522|NCT02980042|169228772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-15.98||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-15.98|-22.64|<0.0001
84738523|NCT02980042|169228773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.08||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.08|-9.85|<0.0001
84738524|NCT02980042|169228774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.22||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-6.78||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-6.78|-39.66|0.0061
84485689|NCT05032755|168723783|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.035
84485690|NCT05032755|168723784|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.27
84738525|NCT02980042|169228775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-4.14||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.14|-7.24|<0.0001
84485691|NCT05032755|168723785|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|-1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.24
84738526|NCT02980042|169228776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.23||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.23|-1.45|0.0077
84738527|NCT02980042|169228777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.27||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.27|-0.37|<0.0001
84738528|NCT00725270|169228778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures ANOVA was run on the Positive Symptom Scale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, using Baseline and Day 9 ratings. Below is the medication \* time interaction.||||.812
84738529|NCT00725270|169228779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||eta sq|0.157||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.203
84738530|NCT04896008|169228788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% confidence interval were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.43|0.13|<0.0001
84738531|NCT04896008|169228789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.07||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.07|0.17|0.0313
84738532|NCT04896008|169228790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.78|0.15|0.0039
84485692|NCT05032755|168723790|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.113
84485693|NCT05085275|168723801|NON_INFERIORITY|The study planned to enroll 400 patients (200 patients in each treatment arm) to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 for the primary composite endpoint, with differences between treatment groups assessed using a 2-sided alpha of \<0.05|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.46|.1602
84485694|NCT05085275|168723803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.30
84485695|NCT05085275|168723804|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8295||0.17|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
84485696|NCT03233308|168723821|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Change from Baseline||||0.0010
84738533|NCT04896008|169228791|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-7.29||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|2.41||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|||2.41|-17.65|0.135
84738534|NCT04896008|169228792|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.88||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|||-1.88|-4.25|<0.001
84738535|NCT04896008|169228793|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|46.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by a randomization stratification factors (PAH subtype).|||46.98|18.41|<0.001
84738536|NCT04896008|169228794|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2339.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3378.74|-1299.44||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-1299.44|-3378.74|<0.001
84485697|NCT03233308|168723822|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)||||0.0003
84485698|NCT03233308|168723823|OTHER|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -EVP||||0.0687
84485699|NCT03233308|168723823|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -IOP||||<0.0001
84485700|NCT03233308|168723824|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline) -EVP||||0.0087
84485701|NCT03233308|168723824|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)- IOP||||<0.0001
84485702|NCT06408818|168724012|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
84485703|NCT06408818|168724013|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
84738537|NCT04896008|169228795|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-14.59||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-14.59|-27.78|<0.001
84738538|NCT04896008|169228796|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-339.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-511.09|-168.06||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-168.06|-511.09|<0.001
84738539|NCT04896008|169228797|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|40.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||40.98|12.85|<0.001
84738540|NCT04896008|169228798|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|102.73||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||102.73|23.22|<0.001
84738541|NCT04896008|169228799|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.16|-0.18|0.119
84738542|NCT01270828|169228814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
84738543|NCT01270828|169228815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
84738544|NCT01270828|169228816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
84485704|NCT06408818|168724014|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
84485705|NCT06408818|168724015|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
84485706|NCT06408818|168724016|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
84738545|NCT01270828|169228817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
84738546|NCT01270828|169228818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.62|-1.26|<0.0001
84738547|NCT01270828|169228818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.61|-1.21|<0.0001
84738548|NCT01270828|169228819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.0001
84738549|NCT01270828|169228819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.65|-1.34|<0.0001
84738550|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-6.1|0.0324
84738551|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.5|-6.1|0.0223
84738552|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-0.9|-6.6|0.0098
84738553|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-1.4|-6.7|0.0033
84485707|NCT06408818|168724017|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
84738554|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.5|-11.1|0.0002
84485708|NCT06408818|168724018|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
84738555|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-5.2|-12.2|<0.0001
84738556|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.6|-2.8|0.5264
84738557|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.3|-5.2|0.4520
84738558|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||1.8|-4.7|0.3714
84738559|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||2.3|-4.2|0.5639
84738560|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.3|-2.4|0.3223
84485709|NCT06408818|168724019|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
84485710|NCT06408818|168724020|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.22
84738561|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.6|-2.2|0.2742
84738562|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.1|-3.2|0.9816
84738563|NCT01270828|169228820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.2|-2.9|0.9282
84738564|NCT01270828|169228821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.4|-0.1|0.1635
84738565|NCT01270828|169228821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363||95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.5|0.0|0.0363
84738566|NCT01270828|169228822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 6||||0.432
84485711|NCT06408818|168724021|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
84738567|NCT01270828|169228822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 19||||0.987
84738568|NCT01270828|169228823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the original score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||2.65|1.30|0.0007
84545037|NCT02792062|168842957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
84738569|NCT01270828|169228823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the categorized score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||3.81|1.41|0.0009
84738570|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.5|3.4|0.0003
84738571|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.3|4.0|<0.0001
84738572|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||6.0|0.4|0.0275
84738573|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||8.0|2.8|<0.0001
84545038|NCT02792062|168842958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
84545039|NCT02792062|168842958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
84545040|NCT02025725|168842970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.881
84738574|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.3|0.0735
84738575|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.2|-0.2|0.0684
84545041|NCT02025725|168842971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 1: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.036
84738576|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.7|0.1197
84738577|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.5|-1.3|0.2210
84738578|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.1|-0.5|0.0847
84545042|NCT02025725|168842971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 2: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo||||0.025
84738579|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.8|0.3|0.0365
84738580|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||4.3|-1.2|0.2749
84738581|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.2|-0.3|0.0806
84485712|NCT06408818|168724022|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
84485713|NCT06408818|168724023|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
84738582|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.4|0.5|0.0082
84485714|NCT06408818|168724024|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
84485715|NCT04107935|168724100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Since baseline characteristics achieved a good balance, those variables were not entered into the propensity score matched model.||||||0.9830
84485716|NCT04107935|168724101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8365||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8365
84485717|NCT04107935|168724102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5727||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5727
84738583|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.7|1.0|0.0008
84738584|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.5|-0.8|0.2097
84738585|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.8|-0.5|0.1669
84485718|NCT04107935|168724103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9381||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9381
84485719|NCT04107935|168724105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.608
84485720|NCT02268942|168724106|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact Binomial|||"Success at six months is estimated to be 86% compared to a performance goal of 77.5%. Using an exact binomial test, with a one-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% Power, a sample size of 145 implanted subjects was planned.~Success will be met if the lower bound of the upper one-sided exact 95% confidence interval is greater than 77.5%."||||0.0003
84485721|NCT02268942|168724107|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The secondary endpoint is an improvement in the mean length of initial hospital stay (initial recovery and step down unit), which is calculated by considering the number of days in acute care (ICU/CCU) plus the number of days in intermediate/step-down care, comprising the total number of days post-implant to discharge.~This secondary endpoint will be calculated using an upper tail one-sided t-test at 0.05 level of significance compared to 26.1 days for median sternotomy patients."||||<0.0001
84738586|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|-1.0|0.1466
84738587|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|0.1|0.0439
84485722|NCT03128307|168724135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Assuming a priori threshold for statistical significant of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84485723|NCT03128307|168724136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84485724|NCT03399786|168724137|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-33.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||Confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of least squares (LS) means using mixed-effect model repeat measurement (MMRM), randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-33.1|-65.0|< 0.0001
84545043|NCT02025725|168842971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.347||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 3: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.039
84545044|NCT02025725|168842971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 4: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.085
84545045|NCT00745901|168842982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9698
84738588|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.3|0.6|0.0250
84738589|NCT01270828|169228824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.5|1.3|0.0107
84738590|NCT01270828|169228825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19.Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.64|-1.23|<0.0001
84738591|NCT01270828|169228825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.58|-1.12|<0.0001
84738592|NCT01270828|169228826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0154
84738593|NCT01270828|169228826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-1.3|0.0027
84738594|NCT01270828|169228826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0166
84738595|NCT01270828|169228826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0217
84738596|NCT01270828|169228827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.0|-5.5|<0.0001
84738597|NCT01270828|169228827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-5.0|<0.0001
84738598|NCT01270828|169228827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.7|-6.5|<0.0001
84738599|NCT01270828|169228827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.4|-6.0|<0.0001
84738600|NCT01270828|169228828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|17.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Benefit from treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||17.00|1.34|0.0161
84738601|NCT01270828|169228828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Satisfaction with treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||5.85|1.05|0.0378
84545046|NCT00745901|168842983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0715
84738602|NCT01270828|169228828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Willingness to continue treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||2.81|0.93|0.0901
84738603|NCT01810939|169228833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||||0.81|0.7|
84545047|NCT00745901|168842984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
84545048|NCT00745901|168842985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
84545049|NCT00745901|168842986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0031
84738604|NCT01810939|169228834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.5 mEq/L||||<0.001
84738605|NCT01810939|169228835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.1 mEq/L||||<0.001
84738606|NCT01810939|169228836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Longitudinal mixed models|Test that the mean change is significantly different from zero.||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Part A Baseline to Part A Week 4 and test mean change different from zero.||||<0.001
84738607|NCT01810939|169228837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Test for difference between treatment groups in serum potassium change in Part B||||< 0.001
84738608|NCT01677299|169228862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-22.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment A.||||-8|-37|<0.05
84738609|NCT01677299|169228862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment B.||||-9|-30|<0.05
84738610|NCT01677299|169228862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-16.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment C.||||-8|-24|<0.05
84485725|NCT03399786|168724138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-25.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated Apo B value.||-25.2|-48.6|< 0.0001
84485726|NCT03399786|168724139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-38.5|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated non-HDL-C value.||-38.5|-64.8|< 0.0001
84485727|NCT03399786|168724140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-38.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated TC value.||-38.1|-58.7|< 0.0001
84485728|NCT03399786|168724141|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|110.5|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||110.5|5.7|< 0.0001
84485729|NCT03399786|168724142|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.2|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|195.6|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||195.6|3.0|= 0.0028
84545050|NCT00745901|168842987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0013
84545051|NCT00745901|168842988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84545052|NCT00745901|168842989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84738611|NCT01677299|169228862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-21.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment D.||||-11|-31|<0.05
84738612|NCT01677299|169228863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|1.4|<0.05
84738613|NCT01677299|169228863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio of (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
84738614|NCT01677299|169228863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|1.4|<0.05
84738615|NCT01677299|169228863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
84485730|NCT03399786|168724143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-132.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.3|-88.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-88.9|-175.3|< 0.0001
84497653|NCT03226366|168746355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|6.1|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-antibiotic time after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||6.1|-20.4|0.29
84738616|NCT01677299|169228864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|1.4|<0.05
84738617|NCT01677299|169228864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.2|<0.05
84738618|NCT01677299|169228864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.3|<0.05
84738619|NCT01677299|169228864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.4|<0.05
84738620|NCT01189110|169228876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.83|||Chi-squared|||A two-proportion z-test was used to compare the proportion of self-reported abstinence at 3 weeks between groups.||2.83|0.23|0.74
84738621|NCT01732549|169228886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0315||||||Log-rank test adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). Two-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.0315
84738622|NCT01732549|169228886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0344|||||||Log Rank|||Unstratified\[b\]||||=0.0344
84485731|NCT03399786|168724144|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||1.3|0|= 0.0845
84485732|NCT03399786|168724145|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||=|0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.9||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||24.9|1.3|= 0.0203
84485733|NCT03399786|168724146|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analysis|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0004
84738623|NCT01732549|169228887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.443|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.4430
84485734|NCT01855919|168724154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.77|0.0026
84485735|NCT01855919|168724155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|0.0026
84738624|NCT01732549|169228888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||0.5219
84738625|NCT01732549|169228889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.5442|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.5442
84738626|NCT01732549|169228890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.1120
84738627|NCT01732549|169228891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2491|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use (or not) \& region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.2491
84738628|NCT01516749|169228894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of decrease in modified Sartorius score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.024
84738629|NCT01516749|169228895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Physican Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.006
84485736|NCT01855919|168724156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.25|0.0439
84485737|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||p-value is for worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.66|0.1010
84485738|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.21||p-value is for least pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.79|0.0009
84738630|NCT01516749|169228895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Patient Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.019
84738631|NCT03994731|169228908|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in proportions|32.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|48.3||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tophi presence at baseline: yes, no) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||48.3|16.3|< 0.0001
84738632|NCT03994731|169228909|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|29.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.084||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|44.9||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response rate difference (Peg+MTX - Peg+Placebo)|||44.9|13.2|0.0003
84545053|NCT00745901|168842990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84738633|NCT03994731|169228910|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.8||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|44.4||The comparison of complete response between groups is performed using an unstratified chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||44.4|1.2|0.0482
84738634|NCT03994731|169228911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||0.13|-0.21|0.6287
84738635|NCT03994731|169228912|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.766||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.88|-0.97||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-0.97|-15.88|0.0272
84738636|NCT03994731|169228913|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|-1.48||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-1.48|-18.84|0.0222
84485739|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||p-value is for Pain Right Now|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.74|0.0230
84485740|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05||p-value is for General Activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.66|0.0874
84485741|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||p-value is for Mood|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.63|0.0436
84485742|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.18||p-value is for Walking Ability|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.45|0.3902
84485743|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33||p-value is for Normal Work|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.33|0.9910
84545054|NCT00745901|168842991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84545055|NCT00745901|168842992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
84738637|NCT01150461|169228914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.02
84738638|NCT01150461|169228915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.06
84485744|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||p-value is for Relationship People|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.30|0.7848
84738639|NCT01681992|169228916|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.65|-3.43|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-3.43|-7.65|
84738640|NCT01681992|169228916|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.96|-0.27|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-0.27|-3.96|
84485745|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.3||p-value is for Sleep|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.32|0.9424
84485746|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||p-value is for Enjoyment of Life|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7932
84485747|NCT01855919|168724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is for Average of 7 Items|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3761
84485748|NCT01855919|168724158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is for Average Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0049
84485749|NCT01855919|168724158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||p-value is for Worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.0442
84485750|NCT01855919|168724159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.53||p-value is for ≥30%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.53|1.13|0.0003
84545056|NCT00745901|168842993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0060
84545057|NCT00745901|168842994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84545058|NCT00745901|168842995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84545059|NCT00745901|168842996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.912
84545060|NCT00745901|168842997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84545061|NCT00745901|168842998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84545062|NCT00745901|168842999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.816
84545063|NCT00745901|168843000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84545064|NCT00745901|168843001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84545065|NCT00758290|168843002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84738641|NCT01681992|169228917|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.91|1.04|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.04|-1.91|
84738642|NCT01681992|169228917|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.11|0.91|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.91|-2.11|
84738643|NCT01681992|169228918|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-9.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.2|-5.62|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-5.62|-13.20|
84738644|NCT01681992|169228918|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.94|-3.49|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-3.49|-10.94|
84738645|NCT01681992|169228919|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.11|-0.42|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||-0.42|-3.11|
84485751|NCT01855919|168724159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value is for ≥50%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.75|1.18|0.0003
84545066|NCT02166333|168843011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15||The P value is nominal and two-sided.|Log Rank||The Experience on Best Dose versus 200 IU/day hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were derived from a Cox regression model with dose group as the single model variable.|The Experience on Best Dose group includes all participants assigned or switched to best dose (1000 IU/day) and excludes 41 participants randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day who were never issued a bottle of best dose. For those randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day, at-risk time and events are measured from the date of their switch to best dose. 150 Experience on Best Dose participants (median follow-up, 10.2 mos) and 125 200 IU/day participants (median follow-up, 20.3 mos) were censored.||1.15|0.76|0.54
84738646|NCT01681992|169228919|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.05|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.05|-2.50|
84738647|NCT01681992|169228920|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.88|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||0.88|0.72|
84738648|NCT01681992|169228920|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
84485752|NCT01855919|168724160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.58|1.12|0.0012
84738649|NCT01681992|169228921|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|0.89|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.89|0.76|
84738650|NCT01681992|169228921|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|0.91|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.91|0.78|
84485753|NCT01855919|168724161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.46|0.0019
84485754|NCT01855919|168724162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.03|0.3012
84485755|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.47||p-value for Physical Functioning|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.93|0.2581
84738651|NCT01681992|169228922|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|0.68|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.68|0.53|
84738652|NCT01681992|169228922|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|0.74|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.74|0.57|
84738653|NCT01681992|169228923|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
84738654|NCT01681992|169228923|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
84738655|NCT04148989|169228959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.0|||Regression, gamma||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||-7.0|-18.6|<0.001
84738656|NCT04148989|169228960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 30-day mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.19|0.68|0.45
84738657|NCT04148989|169228961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 1-year mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.04|0.67|0.10
84738658|NCT04148989|169228962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Change in all-cause in-hospital mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|1.10|0.53|0.15
84738659|NCT04148989|169228963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital charges ($1000s) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.1|-1.4|0.71
84738660|NCT04148989|169228964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital length of stay (days) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.1|-0.4|0.19
84485756|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.79||p-value for Role (Physical)|ANCOVA|||||3.79|-2.62|0.7208
84738661|NCT04148989|169228965|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic||Change in antimicrobial treatment risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.17|1.03|0.005
84738662|NCT04148989|169228966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.75|0.68|0.73
84738663|NCT04148989|169228967|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.|Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|1.33|0.78|0.90
84738664|NCT04148989|169228968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.17|0.49|0.94
84738665|NCT04148989|169228969|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||2.14|0.93|0.10
84738666|NCT04148989|169228970|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.1% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for antimicrobial administration in the ED associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.93|0.69|0.59
84738667|NCT04148989|169228971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable ??? regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.58|0.06|0.02
84738668|NCT04148989|169228972|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 2.0% of eligible patients.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable linear regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||0.31|0.03|0.02
84738669|NCT01782690|169229022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Rash=Yes versus Rash=No within Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine arm||||0.2361
84485757|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|4.19||p-value for Bodily Pain|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-1.09|0.2487
84485758|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.31||p-value for General Health|ANCOVA|||||5.31|0.57|0.0151
84485759|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.85||p-value for Vitality|ANCOVA|||||3.85|-1.54|0.4000
84485760|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.43||p-value for Social Functioning|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-1.17|0.2529
84485761|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.75||p-value for Role(Emotional)|ANCOVA|||||2.75|-3.55|0.8042
84738670|NCT02473965|169229049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.868|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.787||The statistical inference was tested as 2-sided with alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||An unstratified analysis using Fisher's exact test was used for treatment comparison without adjustment for stratified baseline prednisone equivalent dose level due to the small cell size. The odds ratio and confidence intervals are calculated overall (i.e. all mITT subjects).||2.787|0.270|=1.00
84738671|NCT02473965|169229050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.536|=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|26.68|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of percent change in daily CS dose from baseline to Week 39. The Analysis of Covariance model included the percent change from baseline in daily CS dose as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and baseline daily CS dose as covariate.||26.68|-23.52|=0.900
84738672|NCT01475305|169229052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|||2.05|0.00|
84738673|NCT01475305|169229053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by quantitative real-time RT-PCR||6.24|0.16|
84738674|NCT01475305|169229053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by DFA||2.05|0.00|
84738675|NCT01475305|169229053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by Any Method||6.24|0.16|
84738676|NCT00132678|169229076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.27|0.59|||Log Rank|Adjusting for country|RISPERDAL CONSTA hazard in numerator, placebo hazard in denominator.|||0.59|0.27|<0.001
84738677|NCT00132678|169229077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001||95.0|-8.08|-3.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-3.79|-8.08|<0.001
84545067|NCT02166333|168843011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||||The comparison of the Pooled Higher Doses group versus the 200 IU/d group is a sensitivity analysis.|||1.25|0.86|
84738678|NCT00132678|169229078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.02||95.0|-3.75|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.32|-3.75|0.020
84738679|NCT00953147|169229083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
84738680|NCT00953147|169229083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.84||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.84|0.24|0.0005
84485762|NCT01855919|168724163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.48||p-value is for Mental Health|ANCOVA|||||5.48|0.94|0.0058
84545068|NCT02166333|168843012|SUPERIORITY|The overall P tests for difference between groups in differential change from baseline over time and is from a 3 degree of freedom test of the combined 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms from the longitudinal mixed effects model.||||||0.15||||||The P value is nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|3 degree of freedom interaction test||The two groups were assessed for differential change over time in change from baseline using a longitudinal mixed effects regression model with gait speed as the outcome and fixed effects including a single treatment term, 3 time point terms and 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms and a random intercept for participant.||||0.15
84738681|NCT00953147|169229084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.92|0.25|0.0014
84485763|NCT01855919|168724164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.02|0.5237
84545069|NCT00503698|168843013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.57|0.60|0.91
84738682|NCT00953147|169229084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.72|0.12|0.0122
84738683|NCT01251770|169229103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium difference at the beginning||||0.030
84485764|NCT01855919|168724165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||p-value for Work time missed|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0460
84485765|NCT01855919|168724165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Impairment at work|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0753
84485766|NCT01855919|168724165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Work productivity loss|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0795
84485767|NCT01855919|168724165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value for Work activity impairment|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.1466
84738684|NCT01251770|169229103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium at the end of the study||||0.871
84545070|NCT00503698|168843014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.28|0.60|0.4977
84545071|NCT00503698|168843015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.53|0.83|0.4409
84738685|NCT01251770|169229104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
84738686|NCT01901419|169229117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
84545072|NCT05514873|168843058|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Week 12 MG-ADL over Baseline was shown if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is less than 2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.001
84545073|NCT01102257|168843133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84545074|NCT03752970|168843149|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.186||||||||-0.186|-0.880|
84545075|NCT03752970|168843150|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
84545076|NCT03752970|168843151|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
84545077|NCT03976362|168843152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Cancer Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||0.93|0.63|0.0040
84545078|NCT03976362|168843153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.83|0.5481
84545079|NCT03976362|168843156|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.37||||0.8238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.66||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.66|-2.91|0.8238
84545080|NCT03976362|168843157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.14|0.66|0.3083
84545081|NCT03976362|168843158|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.68||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|6.23||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||6.23|-2.87|0.4686
84545082|NCT03976362|168843159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.35|0.76|0.9174
84738687|NCT01901419|169229118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
84738688|NCT01901419|169229119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
84545083|NCT03976362|168843160|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.83||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.16||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||7.16|0.50|0.0245
84545084|NCT03976362|168843161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.75|0.88|0.2133
84738689|NCT01901419|169229120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
84738690|NCT01901419|169229121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
84738691|NCT01901419|169229122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
84738692|NCT01901419|169229123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
84738693|NCT01901419|169229124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
84738694|NCT01901419|169229125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
84738695|NCT01901419|169229126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
84738696|NCT01901419|169229127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84738697|NCT01901419|169229128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.227
84738698|NCT01901419|169229129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
84738699|NCT01901419|169229130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84738700|NCT01901419|169229131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
84738701|NCT01901419|169229132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.948
84738702|NCT01901419|169229133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.682
84738703|NCT01901419|169229134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928
84738704|NCT01901419|169229135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
84738705|NCT01901419|169229136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
84485768|NCT03455530|168724168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||1.19|0.45|
84485769|NCT03455530|168724168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||3.24|0.55|
84545085|NCT03976362|168843162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.62||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||4.62|-4.27|0.9381
84738706|NCT01901419|169229137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
84738707|NCT01901419|169229138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84738708|NCT01901419|169229139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
84738709|NCT01901419|169229140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
84738710|NCT01901419|169229141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.663
84738711|NCT01901419|169229142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.872
84738712|NCT01901419|169229143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
84738713|NCT01901419|169229144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
84485770|NCT00740116|168724179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.03
84485771|NCT00740116|168724180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.07
84738714|NCT01901419|169229145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
84485772|NCT00740116|168724181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||0.97||0.46
84485773|NCT00740116|168724182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p\< 0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84485774|NCT00740116|168724183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.72||Statistical significance threshold p-value \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||2.72|0.05|0.22
84738715|NCT01901419|169229146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
84738716|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|11.9||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|26.9|||Regression, Logistic|P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||26.9|-3.1|0.1236
84738717|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|19.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.0||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||34|4.7|0.0435
84738718|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|24.4||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|38.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||38.8|10.1|0.0068
84738719|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|12.8||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||27.6|-2|0.1236
84738720|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|15.8||||0.1056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||30.6|1|0.1056
84738721|NCT01888874|169229147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|48.1||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||48.1|20.7|< 0.0001
84738722|NCT00475644|169229172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.86||||||||0.860|0.001|
84738723|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-diphtheria. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
84738724|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.07||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-tetanus. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.07|-1.14|
84738725|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.08||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 1. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.08|-1.14|
84738726|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 2. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
84738727|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.09||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 3. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.09|-1.15|
84738728|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PRP. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
84738729|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.69||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PT. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.69|-3.93|
84545086|NCT03976362|168843163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.72|0.8464
84545087|NCT03976362|168843164|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.41||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||0.41|-6.02|0.0870
84545088|NCT03976362|168843165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||2.16|1.18|0.0020
84545089|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.39|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.39|0.42|0.286
84738730|NCT01411241|169229173|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|4.06||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-FHA. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||4.06|-4.87|
84738731|NCT01020877|169229190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test\[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
84545090|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.43|1.43|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.43|0.43|0.332
84738732|NCT01020877|169229191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|98.2|
84738733|NCT01020877|169229192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|97.6|
84738734|NCT00790400|169229193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
84738735|NCT01006980|169229209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for death for vemurafenib relative to dacarbazine and the associated 95% confidence interval were computed using an unstratified Cox regression model.|The trial had a power of 80% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65 for overall survival with an alpha level of 0.045 (an increase in median survival from 8 months for dacarbazine to 12.3 months for vemurafenib), one interim analysis for overall survival at 50% information.||0.55|0.26|<0.0001
84738736|NCT01006980|169229210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios for treatment with vemurafenib, as compared with dacarbazine, were estimated with the use of unstratified Cox regression.|The trial had a power of 90% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.55 for progression-free survival with an alpha level of 0.005 (an increase in median survival from 2.5 months for dacarbazine to 4.5 months for vemurafenib).||0.33|0.20|<.0001
84738737|NCT01483144|169229217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and sulindac plus eflornithine placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.3|0.4|0.1210
84738738|NCT01483144|169229217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine plus sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.2|0.4|0.1076
84738739|NCT01483144|169229217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and sulindac and eflornithine placebo is the denominator. Reduction in relative risk for FAP-related events with the combination.|Lower GI population||0.8|0.0|0.0201
84738740|NCT01483144|169229217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Threshold of significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine and sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Lower GI population||0.7|0|0.0101
84738741|NCT01483144|169229218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8127||||||The threshold of significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8127
84738742|NCT01483144|169229218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8133
84738743|NCT01483144|169229219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.999
84738744|NCT01483144|169229219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2152
84738745|NCT04307940|169229220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.51||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||23.51|6.10|0.001
84738746|NCT04307940|169229220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.08|50.18||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||50.18|29.08|<0.001
84545091|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.86|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.86|0.60|0.808
84545092|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.48|1.61|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.61|0.48|0.286
84738747|NCT04307940|169229220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.26|35.39||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||35.39|14.26|<0.001
84738748|NCT02356705|169229243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84738749|NCT02356705|169229244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84738750|NCT02356705|169229245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
84738751|NCT02356705|169229247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84738752|NCT02356705|169229248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
84738753|NCT00709228|169229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||simple proportion|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|0.06|
84738754|NCT02870972|169229303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.458|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.214|-0.703|<0.001
84738755|NCT02870972|169229303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.433||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.127|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.127|-0.740|0.006
84485775|NCT01111331|168724186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean ratio|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|105.1|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||105.10|96.86|
84485776|NCT01111331|168724187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|112.8||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||112.80|89.79|0.0021
84485777|NCT01111331|168724188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|101.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||101.80|95.29|
84485778|NCT01111331|168724189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.12|105.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||105.15|91.12|0.0001
84485779|NCT01111331|168724190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|98.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.43|93.40|
84485780|NCT01111331|168724191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.84|106.47||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||106.47|91.84|0.0001
84738756|NCT02870972|169229303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.425||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.755|0.012
84485781|NCT01111331|168724199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.89|102.0|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||102.00|95.89|
84545093|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.49|0.42|0.332
84545094|NCT01467713|168843187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.95|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.95|0.60|0.808
84571111|NCT02160626|168893410|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||"Secondary efficacy analyses will also be conducted based on the proportion of subjects who have at least 3 of 4 target lesions judged to be clear on the PLA (PLA=0) at Visit 8.~A separate comparison will be made between each active treatment group and the vehicle treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by site."||||0.0016
84485782|NCT01111331|168724206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|98.6|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.60|93.64|
84485783|NCT01111331|168724213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.04|0.73|
84485784|NCT01111331|168724214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.79|
84485785|NCT01111331|168724215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.48|0.67|
84485786|NCT01111331|168724216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.02|0.79|
84485787|NCT01111331|168724217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.95|0.64|
84571112|NCT02160626|168893410|OTHER|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84738757|NCT02870972|169229303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.033|0.373|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.373|-1.033|<0.001
84485788|NCT01111331|168724218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.84|
84485789|NCT01111331|168724219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.40|0.68|
84485790|NCT01111331|168724220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.51|0.47|
84485791|NCT00908895|168724227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|70.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assess that 15% is a significative strength difference. According to a 80% study power, a SD at 25% and a 20% lost to follow-up, we found 118 patients for the all study.||||<0.05
84545095|NCT01120184|168843208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target hazard ratio (HR) equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was less than (\<) 1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3125
84485792|NCT00908895|168724228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.05||95.0|80.0|100.0|||Chi-squared|||||100|80|<0.05
84485793|NCT00908050|168724229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|||||||Chi-squared|||The averaged data calculated from three nights in each recording period for each subject will be submitted to statistical analysis. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics will be used for the secondary end-points.||||0.0394
84485794|NCT03350724|168724255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.039
84571113|NCT05471505|168893425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.787|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.787|0.719|<0.001
84485795|NCT03350724|168724256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.037
84485796|NCT03350724|168724257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|||||||0.032
84571114|NCT05471505|168893426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.813|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.813|0.687|<0.001
84485797|NCT03350724|168724258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.171
84485798|NCT03350724|168724259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.484
84485799|NCT03350724|168724260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.368
84485800|NCT03350724|168724261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.308
84485801|NCT03350724|168724262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.999
84485802|NCT03350724|168724263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.015
84485803|NCT03350724|168724264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.021
84485804|NCT03350724|168724265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.035
84485805|NCT03350724|168724266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.444
84485806|NCT03350724|168724267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.765
84485807|NCT03350724|168724268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.941
84485808|NCT03350724|168724269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.421
84485809|NCT03350724|168724270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.357
84485810|NCT03350724|168724271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.22
84485811|NCT03350724|168724272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.882
84738758|NCT02870972|169229303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.32|-0.52|0.639
84738759|NCT02870972|169229304|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|17.7||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|38.8|||Fisher Exact|||||38.8|-3.4|0.155
84738760|NCT02870972|169229304|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|16.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|40.1|||Fisher Exact|||||40.1|-6.3|0.277
84738761|NCT02870972|169229304|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|24.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|49.2|||Fisher Exact|||||49.2|-1.2|0.064
84738762|NCT02870972|169229304|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-13.2|1.000
84485812|NCT03350724|168724273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.64
84485813|NCT03350724|168724274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.967
84485814|NCT03350724|168724275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.375
84485815|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the motivational interviewing (MI) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.309
84497159|NCT02222168|168745467|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.028|105.875|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.875|85.028|
84571115|NCT05471505|168893427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|0.958|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.958|0.862|<0.001
84738763|NCT02870972|169229304|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-16.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-2.2|-30.2|0.097
84571116|NCT05471505|168893428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.067|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.067|0.842|0.378
84571117|NCT05471505|168893429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.294|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.294|0.229|<0.001
84571118|NCT05471505|168893430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.840|0.700|<0.001
84738764|NCT02870972|169229305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.061||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.094|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.094|-0.216|0.439
84738765|NCT02870972|169229305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.004||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.19|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.190|-0.198|0.968
84738766|NCT02870972|169229305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.045||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.164|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.164|-0.254|0.667
84738767|NCT02870972|169229305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.197||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.012|-0.406|0.065
84738768|NCT02870972|169229305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.035||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.301|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.301|-0.232|0.797
84738769|NCT02870972|169229306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.181|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.181|-0.547|<0.001
84738770|NCT02870972|169229306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.384||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.613|0.001
84738771|NCT02870972|169229306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.401||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.647|0.002
84738772|NCT02870972|169229306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.445|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.198|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.198|-0.692|<0.001
84738773|NCT02870972|169229306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.234|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.234|-0.394|0.614
84571119|NCT05471505|168893431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|0.99|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.990|0.877|0.022
84738774|NCT02870972|169229307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.326||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.557|0.006
84738775|NCT02870972|169229307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.293||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.004|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.004|-0.582|0.047
84738776|NCT02870972|169229307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.327||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.016|-0.638|0.040
84738777|NCT02870972|169229307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.247|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.247|-0.870|<0.001
84738778|NCT02870972|169229307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.057||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.454|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.454|-0.339|0.775
84738779|NCT02870972|169229308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.449||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.453|2.555|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.555|-11.453|0.209
84738780|NCT02870972|169229308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.103||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.639|-1.567|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-1.567|-16.639|0.019
84738781|NCT02870972|169229308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.263||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.808|-3.718|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-3.718|-18.808|0.004
84738782|NCT02870972|169229308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.04||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.586|13.665|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||13.665|-5.586|0.405
84497160|NCT02222168|168745468|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.709|119.301|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.301|96.709|
84738783|NCT02870972|169229309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.12||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.826|2.584|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.584|-18.826|0.135
84738784|NCT02870972|169229309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.92||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|2.41|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.410|-20.260|0.121
84738785|NCT02870972|169229309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-24.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.834|-13.137|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-13.137|-35.834|<0.001
84738786|NCT02870972|169229309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.84||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.316|6.64|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||6.640|-22.316|0.284
84738787|NCT02870972|169229310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.132|0.592|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.592|-17.132|0.067
84738788|NCT02870972|169229310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.073||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.432|2.287|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.287|-16.432|0.136
84738789|NCT02870972|169229310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.484||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.642|-2.325|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-2.325|-20.642|0.015
84738790|NCT02870972|169229310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.785||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.001|2.431|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.431|-22.001|0.114
84738791|NCT05646719|169229325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.20|1.23|<0.01
84738792|NCT05646719|169229325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84738793|NCT03445533|169229342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value was calculated for percentage difference (B-A) using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses and were tested for statistical significance.||The ORR was defined as a percentage of subjects meeting criteria of CR and PR to calculate the p-value.||||0.9394
84738794|NCT03445533|169229343|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.955||||0.6775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.186||The p-value was calculated using the log rank test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Log Rank|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses. ORR will be tested first followed by OS.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI (B/A) are estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|||1.186|0.770|0.6775
84738795|NCT03334253|169229349|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||||Atropine - Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.15|-0.19|
84738796|NCT03334253|169229350|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||||Atropine-Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.17|-0.25|
84738797|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.959||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|6.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.71|-6.49|0.9779
84738798|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.815||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.79|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.94|-5.79|0.8801
84738799|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.70|-6.13|0.9412
84738800|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.38|5.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||5.66|-8.38|0.7486
84738801|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.12|1.24|0.0534
84738802|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.31|-6.29|0.9980
84738803|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||9.94|-3.25|0.4004
84738804|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||8.82|-5.20|0.6685
84738805|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|12.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.25|-2.77|0.2968
84738806|NCT00945672|169229404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.77|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.16|-8.77|0.7720
84738807|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||16.69|-12.68|0.8205
84738808|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|26.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||26.06|-3.31|0.2007
84738809|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8789||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|23.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||23.59|-5.78|0.3152
84738810|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.964||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.79|-17.18|0.8071
84738811|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.354||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|15.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.52|-15.72|0.9918
84738812|NCT00945672|169229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.415||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.73|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.70|-18.73|0.7498
84738813|NCT00945672|169229406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||4.60|-1.90|0.4855
84738814|NCT00945672|169229406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|5.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||5.16|-2.27|0.5132
84738815|NCT00584077|169229444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each subject served as their own control as a comparison of the airway innervated (contralateral native lung) with the denervated airway (allograft)||||<0.01
84738816|NCT00584077|169229445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni test|ANOVA|||For the cross-sectional and longitudinal groups, a comparison of cough frequency after airway irritation of the main carina, and the proximal and distal anastomotic sites was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test. In the longitudinal cohort, a comparison of the cough frequencies at different airway sites at 1.5 and 12 months was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test.||||<0.01
84738817|NCT00874731|169229458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.76|-2.80|
84738818|NCT00874731|169229461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.74|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.74|-3.83|
84738819|NCT00874731|169229462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.14|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.14|-4.50|
84738820|NCT00874731|169229463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.79|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.79|-2.85|
84738821|NCT00874731|169229464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.47|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|4.47|-2.10|
84738822|NCT00874731|169229465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|5.78|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.78|-0.79|
84738823|NCT00874731|169229466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.76|-0.80|
84738824|NCT00874731|169229467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.17|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|7.17|0.60|
84738825|NCT00874731|169229468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.86|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|1.86|-4.85|
84738826|NCT04079634|169229490|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84738827|NCT03812029|169229491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0015
84738828|NCT03812029|169229491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
84738829|NCT03812029|169229491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0371||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0371
84738830|NCT03812029|169229492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84738831|NCT03812029|169229492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84738832|NCT03812029|169229493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
84738833|NCT03812029|169229493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84738834|NCT03812029|169229493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84738835|NCT03812029|169229494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84738836|NCT03812029|169229494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84738837|NCT03812029|169229494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84738838|NCT03812029|169229495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84738839|NCT03812029|169229495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84738840|NCT03812029|169229495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84738841|NCT03812029|169229496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84738842|NCT03812029|169229496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84738843|NCT03812029|169229496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84738844|NCT03812029|169229497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
84738845|NCT03812029|169229497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
84738846|NCT03812029|169229497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84738847|NCT03812029|169229498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84738848|NCT03812029|169229498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84738849|NCT03812029|169229498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
84485816|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the personalized recommendation (PR) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.190
84485817|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the psychoeducation (PE) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.690
84485818|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the repeated administration (RA) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||0.038
84738850|NCT03812029|169229499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0017
84738851|NCT03812029|169229499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0093
84738852|NCT00479882|169229501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least squares mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||3.4|1.3|
84738853|NCT00479882|169229501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||2.4|0.4|
84738854|NCT00479882|169229502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||1.0|-1.4|
84738855|NCT00479882|169229502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||0.2|-1.9|
84738856|NCT00479882|169229503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.8|-1.2|0.685
84738857|NCT00479882|169229503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.1|-1.8|
84738858|NCT00479882|169229503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-1.6|0.753
84738859|NCT00479882|169229503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.4|-0.8|
84738860|NCT00479882|169229504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
84738861|NCT00479882|169229504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.5|-0.5|
84738862|NCT00479882|169229504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||1.1|-0.6|0.617
84738863|NCT00479882|169229504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
84738864|NCT00479882|169229505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
84738865|NCT00479882|169229505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
84738866|NCT00479882|169229505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
84738867|NCT00479882|169229505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
84738868|NCT00479882|169229506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
84738869|NCT00479882|169229506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
84738870|NCT00479882|169229506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
84738871|NCT00479882|169229506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
84738872|NCT00479882|169229507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Fisher Exact|||Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|0.497
84738873|NCT00479882|169229508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-1.4|0.449
84738874|NCT00479882|169229508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
84738875|NCT00479882|169229508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Period I/II||1.2|-0.8|0.685
84738876|NCT00479882|169229508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.6|-1.0|
84738877|NCT00479882|169229509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||-0.2|-2.4|0.020
84738878|NCT00479882|169229509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
84738879|NCT00479882|169229509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-1.6|0.452
84738880|NCT00479882|169229509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.0|-1.9|
84738881|NCT00479882|169229510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.6|
84738882|NCT00479882|169229510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.2|-0.7|
84738883|NCT00479882|169229510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
84738884|NCT00479882|169229510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.3|-0.6|
84738885|NCT00479882|169229511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||3.8|-6.6|
84738886|NCT00479882|169229511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||4.3|-8.1|
84738887|NCT00479882|169229511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||5.3|-5.2|
84738888|NCT00479882|169229511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.4|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||3.4|-8.9|
84738889|NCT00479882|169229512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.1|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||2.1|-2.5|
84738890|NCT00479882|169229512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.2|-0.5|
84738891|NCT00479882|169229512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||4.2|-1.0|
84738892|NCT00479882|169229512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.0|-0.8|
84738893|NCT00479882|169229515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
84738894|NCT00479882|169229515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|
84738895|NCT00479882|169229516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||3.1|-1.1|0.341
84738896|NCT00479882|169229516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender.||||6.1|1.2|0.004
84738897|NCT00479882|169229517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||1.5|-2.3|0.690
84738898|NCT00479882|169229517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||2.3|-1.9|0.879
84738899|NCT03933462|169229545|SUPERIORITY|"Categorical preference endpoints that answered at the final visit (e.g., Which device do you prefer?) were analyzed with a One-sample Binomial Test that compared the observed proportion to a 50/50 split."|||||<|0.001|||||||One Sample Binomial|||||||<0.001
84497161|NCT02222168|168745468|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.061|105.921|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.921|85.061|
84738900|NCT02975102|169229555|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-101 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Treatment difference : CBL-101 - Vismed Multi|||0.3|-1.2|
84738901|NCT02975102|169229556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738902|NCT02975102|169229557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0002
84738903|NCT02975102|169229558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738904|NCT02975102|169229559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738905|NCT02975102|169229560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0186
84738906|NCT02975102|169229561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84667919|NCT00567892|169070746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Since the assumptions of parametric tests were not met we used non-parametric tests for the analysis.||The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to rTMS sham was not different from 0.||4|-6|0.944
84738907|NCT02975102|169229562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738908|NCT02975102|169229563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0011
84738909|NCT02975102|169229564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738910|NCT02975102|169229565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
84738911|NCT02975102|169229566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.005
84738912|NCT02975102|169229567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0008
84738913|NCT02975102|169229568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0026
84738914|NCT02975102|169229569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Significance level of 0.05 . P-Value result provided only for Global Question|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.077
84738915|NCT02975102|169229570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6097||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.6097
84738916|NCT02975102|169229571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.231
84738917|NCT02975102|169229572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0135
84738918|NCT02975102|169229573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.575
84738919|NCT00594022|169229579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1275
84738920|NCT03392168|169229584|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-12.4|-44.6|0.0007
84738921|NCT03392168|169229584|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-11.5|-44.2|0.0011
84738922|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.3|-13.7|0.5493
84738923|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.9|-15.7|0.3650
84738924|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.3|-31.3|0.0064
84738925|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.8||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.5|-33.0|0.0039
84738926|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-14.8|-42.9|0.0001
84738927|NCT03392168|169229585|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.7|-37.3|0.0019
84738928|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.3||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.0|-13.6|0.3626
84738929|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.6|-17.8|0.1011
84738930|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.0|-25.1|0.0017
84738931|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.4|-29.1|0.0002
84738932|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.2|-32.4|0.0003
84497162|NCT01281475|168745469|SUPERIORITY|We modeled each outcome variable as a function of treatment (ie, levodopa versus placebo), visit (ie, baseline vs. 12-month follow-up) and the treatment-by-visit interaction; the interaction term tests whether the effect of levodopa treatment over time is significantly greater than that of the placebo group.||||||0.75||||||This was the calculated p value without correction for multiple comparisons|Generalized estimating equations|||We performed generalized estimating equations with an unstructured covariance matrix to account for inter-correlations within measurements on the same participant over time.||||0.75
84738933|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.4|-33.2|0.0003
84738934|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-7.8|-29.5|0.0010
84738935|NCT03392168|169229586|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.6|-32.9|0.0002
84738936|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.67||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.99|-2.65|0.3209
84738937|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.6||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||9.08|-1.88|0.1947
84738938|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.58||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.24|-14.40|0.3561
84738939|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.82||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.16|-15.79|0.2490
84738940|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.68||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.992|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.44|-23.992|0.0276
84738941|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.04||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.36|-18.44|0.2223
84738942|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.27||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.72|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.82|-35.72|0.0108
84738943|NCT03392168|169229587|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.01|-32.34|0.0372
84738944|NCT03519204|169229603|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|84.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|94.2||P-value was based on 2-sided Fisher's exact test comparing responder rate between treatment group and no-treated control group.|Fisher Exact|||||94.2|68.2|<0.0001
84738945|NCT03519204|169229605|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109492|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3447|0.7739||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||0.77390|0.34470|<0.0001
84738946|NCT03519204|169229606|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|13.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.861|17.18||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||17.180|8.861|<0.0001
84738947|NCT01441635|169229624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-205.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.77|-116.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-116.01|-295.77|< 0.001
84738948|NCT01441635|169229624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-189.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.33|-101.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-101.53|-278.33|< 0.001
84738949|NCT01441635|169229624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.18|-55.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-55.76|-220.18|0.001
84738950|NCT01441635|169229624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.7|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-54.60|-206.70|0.001
84738951|NCT01441635|169229625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.93|-48.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-48.28|-102.93|< 0.001
84738952|NCT01441635|169229625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.14|-37.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-37.39|-91.14|< 0.001
84738953|NCT01441635|169229625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.73||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.39|-21.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-21.96|-113.39|0.005
84738954|NCT01441635|169229625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-56.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-40.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-40.45|-73.24|< 0.001
84738955|NCT01441635|169229626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738956|NCT01441635|169229626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738957|NCT01441635|169229626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738958|NCT01441635|169229626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738959|NCT01441635|169229627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738960|NCT01441635|169229627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738961|NCT01441635|169229627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738962|NCT01441635|169229627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738963|NCT01441635|169229628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738964|NCT01441635|169229628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738965|NCT01441635|169229628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738966|NCT01441635|169229628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738967|NCT01441635|169229630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|0.97|< 0.001
84738968|NCT01441635|169229630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|1.00|< 0.001
84738969|NCT01441635|169229630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.75|0.13|0.024
84738970|NCT01441635|169229630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.51|0.28|0.005
84738971|NCT01441635|169229631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.08|-0.63|0.011
84738972|NCT01441635|169229631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
84738973|NCT01441635|169229631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||0.06|-0.59|0.109
84738974|NCT01441635|169229631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.80|0.002
84738975|NCT01441635|169229632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-18.90|0.020
84738976|NCT01441635|169229632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.13|-16.36|0.087
84738977|NCT01441635|169229632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-17.43|0.045
84738978|NCT01441635|169229632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|-5.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-5.32|-22.06|0.002
84667920|NCT00567892|169070746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The assumptions of parametric tests were not met.|All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to 4 weeks active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to 4 weeks rTMS sham was not different from 0.||10|-9|0.674
84738979|NCT01441635|169229633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.47|-9.56|0.008
84738980|NCT01441635|169229633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.80|-9.11|0.020
84738981|NCT01441635|169229633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.91|-9.18|0.194
84738982|NCT01441635|169229633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-3.07|-11.33|0.001
84738983|NCT01441635|169229636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
84738984|NCT01441635|169229636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
84738985|NCT01441635|169229636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.052
84738986|NCT01441635|169229636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
84738987|NCT01441635|169229637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84738988|NCT01441635|169229637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84738989|NCT01441635|169229637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84738990|NCT01441635|169229637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84738991|NCT01441635|169229638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor||||||0.161
84738992|NCT01441635|169229638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.173
84738993|NCT01441635|169229638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.072
84738994|NCT01441635|169229638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
84738995|NCT01441635|169229639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
84738996|NCT01441635|169229639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
84738997|NCT01441635|169229639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
84738998|NCT01441635|169229639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
84738999|NCT02614183|169229669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.37|-2.48|<.001
84739000|NCT02614183|169229669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.20|-2.31|<.001
84739001|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.37||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.37|2.05|
84739002|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.18||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.18|1.94|
84739003|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.45||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.45|2.04|
84739004|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.41||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.41|2.01|
84739005|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.01||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||4.01|1.96|
84739006|NCT02614183|169229670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.75||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||3.75|1.81|
84739007|NCT02614183|169229671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.28|5.20|<.001
84739008|NCT02614183|169229671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.97|4.83|<.001
84739009|NCT02614183|169229672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.33|-2.28|<.001
84739010|NCT02614183|169229672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-2.09|<.001
84739011|NCT02614183|169229673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<.001
84739012|NCT02614183|169229673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|<.001
84739013|NCT02614183|169229674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.97|-18.99|<.001
84739014|NCT02614183|169229674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.60|-18.68|<.001
84739015|NCT02614183|169229675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-9.45|<.001
84739016|NCT02614183|169229675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-8.39|<.001
84545096|NCT01120184|168843208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.08||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.08|0.69|0.1407
84545097|NCT01120184|168843208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Primary endpoint did not meet superiority of PFS for trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab versus trastuzumab + taxane (two-sided significance level 2.5%); thus, tests and p-value are considered descriptive.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3075
84667921|NCT02967692|169070755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.027|||Log Rank|||||1.027|0.655|0.042
84667922|NCT02967692|169070763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.619|||Log Rank|||||1.619|0.865|0.2975
84739017|NCT02614183|169229676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.160
84739018|NCT02614183|169229676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||.020
84739019|NCT02614183|169229676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.131
84739020|NCT02614183|169229676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.009
84739021|NCT00078338|169229708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.21|0.74|0.643
84739022|NCT00789360|169229785|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|0.0917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.212|||||Maximum difference occurred at 10 hours|The largest treatment difference (Loxapine - Placebo) in change in FEV1 from baseline by spirometry||0.212|-0.028|
84739023|NCT00789360|169229786|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|-0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.019|||||Greatest difference occurred at 9 hours after Dose 1|||-0.019|-0.290|
84739024|NCT03559062|169229787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84739025|NCT03559062|169229788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84739026|NCT03559062|169229789|OTHER|||||||0.0546|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0546
84739027|NCT03926195|169229802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|19.2|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||19.2|-7.5|
84739028|NCT03926195|169229804|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.5|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||3.5|-6.4|
84739029|NCT03926195|169229806|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|36.8|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||36.8|-37.1|
84739030|NCT03926195|169229808|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||20.8|-6.0|
84739031|NCT03926195|169229810|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.1|-0.6|
84739032|NCT03926195|169229812|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1|-3|
84739033|NCT00447590|169229814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided Exact Binomial Test|||p-Value is from a 2-sided exact binomial test to test the null hypothesis that 30% of subjects have at least 30% EWL.||||<0.0001
84739034|NCT00609947|169229821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"The null and alternative hypotheses were:~H0: µSVS ≥µM H1: µSVS \< µM where µSVS was the mean in-segment 8-month percent diameter stenosis for the SVS study and µM was the mean in-segment 6-month percent diameter stenosis for Micro-Driver."|t-test, 2 sided|The sample size was not reduced below 158 evaluable subjects in order to support the analysis of the primary safety endpoint.||The 8-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Endeavor SVS subjects was compared to the 6-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Micro Driver subjects. This study assessed the superiority of SVS against the Micro-Driver regarding in-segment percent diameter stenosis at 8 months post procedure.||||<0.001
84739035|NCT00609947|169229822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||20.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses of interest are:~H0: xSVS \>= 20% vs. H1: xSVS \< 20%, where x is the true SVS 12-month MACE rate.~The assessment of the null hypothesis will be carried out at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance. Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the SVS 12-month MACE rate is significantly below 20%."||20||0.0041
84739036|NCT00790205|169229873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.09|0.88|<0.001
84739037|NCT00790205|169229874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.08|0.89|<0.001
84739038|NCT00790205|169229875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.11|0.89|<0.001
84739039|NCT00790205|169229876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.10|0.89|<0.001
84739040|NCT00790205|169229877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.24|0.91|0.435
84739041|NCT00790205|169229878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.14|0.90|0.875
84739042|NCT00790205|169229879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.19|0.81|0.858
84739043|NCT00790205|169229880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.20|0.83|0.983
84739044|NCT00790205|169229887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.61|<0.001
84739045|NCT00790205|169229888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.79|0.63|<0.001
84739046|NCT00790205|169229889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.75|0.65|<0.001
84739047|NCT00790205|169229890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.68|<0.001
84739048|NCT02362503|169229896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.441||Hypothesis test:µfostemsavir=µPlacebo where µ is a common intercept.|ANCOVA||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||-0.441|-0.810|<0.0001
84667923|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
84739049|NCT02362503|169229897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.95|55.45|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>0.5 log10 c/mL.|||55.45|32.95|
84739050|NCT02362503|169229897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.16|44.25|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>1.0 log10 c/mL.|||44.25|24.16|
84739051|NCT02362503|169229903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.0|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||16.0|-16.8|
84739052|NCT02362503|169229904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.151|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||1.151|0.082|
84739053|NCT03443414|169229936|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.21|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.210|0.069|<0.001
84739054|NCT03443414|169229936|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.27|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.270|0.131|<0.001
84739055|NCT03443414|169229936|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.222|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.222|0.083|<0.001
84739056|NCT03443414|169229936|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.216|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.216|0.075|<0.001
84739057|NCT03443414|169229937|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.002|||=|0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.065|-0.061|=0.953
84739058|NCT03443414|169229937|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.068|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.13|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.130|0.006|=0.032
84545098|NCT01120184|168843210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.20|0.73|0.6568
84739059|NCT03443414|169229937|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.009|||=|0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.072|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.072|-0.053|=0.773
84739060|NCT03443414|169229937|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.035|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.099|-0.028|=0.272
84739061|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.129|0.045|<0.001
84739062|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.137|0.053|<0.001
84739063|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.07|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.112|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.112|0.028|=0.001
84739064|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.122|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.122|0.038|<0.001
84739065|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.065|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.129|0.001|=0.048
84739066|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.183|||LS mean difference|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.183|0.055|<0.001
84739067|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.085|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.149|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.149|0.022|=0.008
84739068|NCT03443414|169229938|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.072|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.137|0.008|=0.028
84739069|NCT01512797|169229942|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value refers to paired t-test comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention timepoints in Sitagliptin group.|t-test, 2 sided|||Power analysis. Based on the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors in non-operated subjects with type 2 diabetes, showing a significant decrease in 120' post-prandial glucose by 1.67 mmol/L ± 0.98 mmol/L after a MMT, we estimated that a sample size of 16 subjects per group will show post-prandial glucose differences between placebo and sitagliptin group with α = 0.05 for a power \> 90%.||||0.028
84739070|NCT03325777|169229947|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.27||a priori threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models||||1.27|.14|=.014
84739071|NCT03325777|169229948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.0|238.0||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||238|106|<.001
84739072|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
84739073|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T2 (30 minutes after study drug)|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84739074|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T3 (30 minutes on CPB)||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84739075|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84739076|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
84739077|NCT02103114|169229951|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
84739078|NCT02103114|169229952|EQUIVALENCE|T4 (just prior to coming off of CPB)||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84739079|NCT02103114|169229953|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.855
84739080|NCT02103114|169229953|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
84739081|NCT02103114|169229953|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
84739082|NCT02103114|169229953|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84739083|NCT02103114|169229956|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
84739084|NCT02103114|169229957|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.545
84739085|NCT02103114|169229959|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline (intraoperatively) (Time 1) to before termination of bypass (Time 4)||||||0.757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.757
84739086|NCT02103114|169229962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Fresh Frozen Plasma exposures||||||0.2741
84739087|NCT02103114|169229962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Platelet exposures||||||0.0351
84739088|NCT02103114|169229962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Cryoprecipitate exposures||||||0.073
84739089|NCT02103114|169229962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Red Blood Cell exposures||||||0.0196
84739090|NCT02103114|169229963|EQUIVALENCE|protamine time plus 24 hours||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84739091|NCT02103114|169229965|EQUIVALENCE|24 Hours Post-Operatively||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
84739092|NCT02103114|169229966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927
84739093|NCT02103114|169229967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.738
84739094|NCT02103114|169229968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.231
84739095|NCT02103114|169229969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
84739096|NCT02103114|169229971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84739097|NCT02103114|169229972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
84739098|NCT02103114|169229973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.961
84739099|NCT02097303|169230014|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Comparison of ALP levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.00001
84739100|NCT02097303|169230014|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Comparison of PSA levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4870
84739101|NCT05262751|169230029|OTHER||gMean Ratio|16.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.28|38.24|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.24|7.28|
84739102|NCT05262751|169230029|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|22.64|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||22.64|8.10|
84739103|NCT05262751|169230029|OTHER||gMean Ratio|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.24|51.04|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||51.04|34.24|
84739104|NCT05262751|169230029|OTHER||gMean Ratio|42.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|52.76|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||52.76|34.90|
84739105|NCT05262751|169230030|OTHER||gMean Ratio|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|14.8|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||14.80|5.91|
84739106|NCT05262751|169230030|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.93|19.43|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||19.43|7.93|
84739107|NCT05262751|169230030|OTHER||gMean Ratio|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.25|49.11|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||49.11|29.25|
84739108|NCT05262751|169230030|OTHER||gMean Ratio|35.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|46.55|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||46.55|27.66|
84739109|NCT05262751|169230031|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.73|21.71|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||21.71|6.73|
84739110|NCT05262751|169230031|OTHER||gMean Ratio|23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.51|42.42|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||42.42|13.51|
84739111|NCT05262751|169230031|OTHER||gMean Ratio|68.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.07|93.86|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||93.86|50.07|
84739112|NCT05262751|169230031|OTHER||gMean Ratio|66.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.77|91.64|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||91.64|48.77|
84739113|NCT05262751|169230032|OTHER||gMean Ratio|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.88|16.11|||||gMean ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||16.11|8.88|
84739114|NCT05262751|169230032|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.59|18.46|||||gMean ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||18.46|10.59|
84739115|NCT05262751|169230032|OTHER||gMean Ratio|32.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.46|39.01|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||39.01|26.46|
84739116|NCT05262751|169230032|OTHER||gMean Ratio|31.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.71|38.3|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.30|25.71|
84739117|NCT01721954|169230047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is OS time for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||||0.43
84739118|NCT01721954|169230048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 209 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 14.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 209. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||<0.05
84739119|NCT01727505|169230075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
84739120|NCT01727505|169230076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.75
84739121|NCT01727505|169230077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
84739122|NCT01727505|169230078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84739123|NCT01727505|169230079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.049
84739124|NCT01727505|169230080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
84739125|NCT02627118|169230081|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84739126|NCT01825577|169230085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.55
84667924|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
84739127|NCT01825577|169230086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
84739128|NCT00358644|169230087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.6||||||95.0|13.2|37.0||||||||37.0|13.2|
84739129|NCT00401258|169230119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84739130|NCT00401258|169230120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain severity statistical analysis||||<.001
84739131|NCT00401258|169230120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain interference statistical analysis||||<.001
84739132|NCT00401258|169230121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84545099|NCT01120184|168843210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.11|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.11|0.67|0.5691
84739133|NCT00401258|169230122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84739134|NCT00401258|169230124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84739135|NCT00401258|169230125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84739136|NCT00401258|169230126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Refers to work/school sub-scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84739137|NCT00401258|169230126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||Refers to social sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
84739138|NCT00401258|169230126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Refers to family sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84739139|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739140|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739141|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739142|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739143|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739144|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739145|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739146|NCT01299480|169230152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739147|NCT01299480|169230154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739148|NCT01299480|169230154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739149|NCT01299480|169230154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739150|NCT01299480|169230154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
84739151|NCT01430468|169230168|EQUIVALENCE|With use of previously established criteria for a malpositioned glenoid, deviations of greater than 10 degrees of version from the planned placement were considered relevant.||||||0.11||||||P-value was calculated. Threshold for statistical significance (p\<0.05)|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute difference between the actual outcome and the planned outcome was compared between the standard surgical group and the glenoid positioning system group with use of a Student t test. Results were considered to be significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.11
84739152|NCT01281839|169230170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||53.0|34.6|<0.001
84739153|NCT01281839|169230171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR72|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR72 between the treatment groups.||52.5|34.1|<0.001
84485819|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.735
84485820|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.001
84485821|NCT04806165|168724295|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.014
84485822|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|Gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables to improve imputation quality. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. For sensitivity analysis, models were run again using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.53||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on secondary outcomes. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the motivational interviewing component (MI) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns their disordered weight and shape behaviors and thoughts since engagement with the intervention. Linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||||0.25
84485823|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.36||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the psychoeducation component (PE) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
84739154|NCT01281839|169230172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|44.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||53.2|34.9|<0.001
84739155|NCT01281839|169230173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||49.9|32.1|<0.001
84739156|NCT03518567|169230225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"hits purchased on the MPT predicting hits actually purchased and smoked in the laboratory.~covariate: baseline total individual income"||||||.00000004
84739157|NCT03518567|169230226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||9e-09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000009
84497163|NCT04611152|168745471|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-5.47|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.17|-5.47|0.4162
84667925|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
84739158|NCT03518567|169230227|SUPERIORITY||correlation|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation|Correlation between puffs on the topography device and grams of cannabis used per week.||||||.87
84739159|NCT05131477|169230249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-20.3|-43.9|<0.0001
84739160|NCT05131477|169230249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-15.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-15.6|-39.1|<0.0001
84739161|NCT05131477|169230249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-10.4|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-10.4|-34.0|0.0002
84545100|NCT01120184|168843212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.04|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtasine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.04|0.69|
84545101|NCT01120184|168843212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.63|
84545102|NCT01120184|168843214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|0.97|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.97|0.66|
84545103|NCT01120184|168843214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.65|
84545104|NCT01120184|168843224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-0.5|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||-0.5|-15.9|
84545105|NCT01120184|168843224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.9|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||3.9|-11.4|
84545106|NCT01120184|168843224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.2|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||12.2|-3.3|
84545107|NCT01120184|168843225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.8|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||2.8|-12.1|
84545108|NCT01120184|168843225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.7|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||5.7|-9.2|
84545109|NCT01120184|168843225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.3|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||10.3|-4.5|
84545110|NCT01120184|168843226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.43|
84545111|NCT01120184|168843226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.85|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.85|0.45|
84545112|NCT01120184|168843228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-24.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-24|-40|
84545113|NCT01120184|168843228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-16.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-16|-32|
84545114|NCT01120184|168843228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.4|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||18.4|-2.3|
84739162|NCT05131477|169230249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-41.9|<0.0001
84739163|NCT05131477|169230250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-23.8|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-23.8|-49.8|<0.0001
84739164|NCT05131477|169230250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-11.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-11.6|-37.7|0.0002
84739165|NCT05131477|169230250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-13.1|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.1|-39.2|<0.0001
84739166|NCT05131477|169230250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-13.9|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.9|-39.7|<0.0001
84739167|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|< 0.0001
84739168|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.40|0.14|< 0.0001
84545115|NCT01120184|168843232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.86|0.57|
84739169|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.44|0.18|<0.0001
84739170|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|<0.0001
84739171|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.5|0.23|<0.0001
84739172|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.07|0.0040
84739173|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.45|0.17|<0.0001
84739174|NCT05131477|169230251|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.09|0.0016
84739175|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.06|0.0022
84497164|NCT04611152|168745472|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
84497165|NCT04611152|168745473|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.0|0.0|||||Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||0|0|
84667926|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
84739176|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.09||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.18|0|0.0562
84739177|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0054
84739178|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.31|0.1|0.0003
84739179|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
84739180|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.22||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.1|0.0008
84739181|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
84739182|NCT05131477|169230252|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.3|0.06|0.0046
84739183|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.19||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.3|0.09|0.0006
84739184|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0057
84739185|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.16||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.26|0.05|0.0038
84739186|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.28|0.07|0.0011
84739187|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.35|0.11|0.0002
84739188|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.28|0.06|0.0038
84739189|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.32|0.09|0.0006
84739190|NCT05131477|169230253|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||32|9|0.0008
84739191|NCT02726945|169230342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.023
84739192|NCT02726945|169230342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.043
84739193|NCT03054337|169230365|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.51|0.29|0.0045
84739194|NCT03054337|169230365|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.21|0.98|<0.0001
84739195|NCT03054337|169230365|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.70|1.49|<0.0001
84739196|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.55|0.13|0.0018
84739197|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.72|0.30|<0.0001
84739198|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.86|0.45|<0.0001
84739199|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.01|-0.01|0.7804
84485824|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the personalized recommendation component (PR) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
84485825|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the repeated administration component (RA) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.53
84497166|NCT00602667|168745484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|21.23||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||21.23|1.17|
84497167|NCT00602667|168745484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.84||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.84|0.40|
84497168|NCT00602667|168745485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.22||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||8.22|0.42|
84739200|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.0986
84739201|NCT03054337|169230371|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.1661
84739202|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.20|1.40|0.0010
84739203|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|7.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.22|3.38|<0.0001
84739204|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|9.11|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||9.11|5.37|<0.0001
84545116|NCT01120184|168843232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.55|
84485826|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.07
84485827|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.01
84485828|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.85||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.042
84485829|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.08||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.89
84497169|NCT00602667|168745485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.79||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.79|0.31|
84497170|NCT03179462|168745569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84497171|NCT04636437|168745574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|3.92||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||3.92|-1.20|0.23
84497172|NCT04636437|168745574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.34|1.57||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||1.57|-3.34|0.41
84497173|NCT04636437|168745575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|2.64||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||2.64|-0.99|0.31
84545117|NCT01120184|168843236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.15|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.15|0.40|
84545118|NCT01120184|168843237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.07|0.41|
84485830|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.69
84545119|NCT01120184|168843239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.25|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.25|0.65|
84545120|NCT01120184|168843241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.34|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.34|0.74|
84545121|NCT01100086|168843274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.35|105.42|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||105.42|99.35|
84739205|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.22|-0.39|0.5889
84485831|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.69||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.40
84497174|NCT04636437|168745575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|-0.21||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||-0.21|-3.76|0.012
84545122|NCT01100086|168843275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.94|101.19|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.19|94.94|
84545123|NCT01100086|168843276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
84545124|NCT01100086|168843276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
84545125|NCT02992236|168843306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84545126|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.07
84545127|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.60
84545128|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.27
84545129|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.77
84545130|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.47
84545131|NCT00391768|168843350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.96
84545132|NCT02104219|168843352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median RGI-C score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Pairs of radiographs were centrally evaluated by 3 independent, blinded pediatric radiologists trained in the assessment of the skeletal manifestations of HPP. The mean RGI-C score across the 3 radiologists was calculated and served as the patient's RGI-C score for a specific time point||||0.0755
84739206|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.34|-0.27|0.8074
84739207|NCT03054337|169230373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.24|-0.36|0.6952
84545133|NCT02104219|168843353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in height Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented height measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline height. Height measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in height Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline height Z-score from post baseline height Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.6344
84545134|NCT02104219|168843354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in weight Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented weight measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline weight. Weight measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in weight Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline weight Z-score from post baseline weight Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.4520
84545135|NCT02104219|168843355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether change from baseline in the median RSS score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The Baseline x-ray set defined for RGI-C, which was compared with its subsequent x-ray sets, was also used as the Baseline x-ray set for the RSS reading. Changes from Baseline were computed based on this baseline RSS score, and postbaseline time points were grouped by intervals of time from Baseline.||||0.4545
84545136|NCT00997373|168843396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0373
84545137|NCT03809663|168843421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.809||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||9.809|0.290|0.56
84545138|NCT03809663|168843421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|7.551||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.551|0.135|0.99
84545139|NCT03809663|168843421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.146||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.8||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||11.800|0.390|0.38
84545140|NCT03809663|168843422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|2.803||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.803|0.344|0.97
84739208|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.3702
84545141|NCT03809663|168843422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.217||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|3.356||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.356|0.441|0.70
84739209|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5524|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.5524
84739210|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.1589
84545142|NCT03809663|168843422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|2.197||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.197|0.243|0.58
84545143|NCT02275819|168843452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
84739211|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0092
84739212|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
84739213|NCT03054337|169230375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
84545144|NCT02275819|168843453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
84545145|NCT02275819|168843454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
84545146|NCT02275819|168843455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
84545147|NCT02275819|168843456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84545148|NCT02632409|168843487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.22|0.55|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.90|0.55|0.0008
84545149|NCT02632409|168843488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|98.72|0.35|0.84|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.84|0.35|0.0005
84545150|NCT00720213|168843503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|6.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Each participant was treated with the BiPAP autoSV2 (ASV2) and autoSV Advanced (ASV3) on two separate nights; therefore, the data were analyzed as paired samples. Depending on normality, each endpoint was analyzed with either a paired t-test or the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. All comparisons were 2-sided conducted at a 5% level of significance.||6.51|1.44|0.0054
84739214|NCT03054337|169230377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.9092
84739215|NCT03054337|169230377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1484
84739216|NCT03054337|169230377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1313|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1313
84739217|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.1080
84739218|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0002
84739219|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
84739220|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0672
84739221|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0004
84739222|NCT03054337|169230379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
84739223|NCT03054337|169230386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0895
84739224|NCT03054337|169230386|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84739225|NCT03054337|169230386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3845|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3845
84739226|NCT02838979|169230398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.15
84739227|NCT02838979|169230399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.86
84485832|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.35||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.55
84485833|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.88||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.32
84485834|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.37||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.63
84485835|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.90
84485836|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.95||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.27
84545151|NCT01420068|168843529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.37||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline weight as covariates.||||3.37|-2.74|0.840
84545152|NCT01420068|168843530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.02||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline height as covariates.||||2.02|-0.63|0.303
84739228|NCT02838979|169230400|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.44
84545153|NCT01420068|168843531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.12||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||||1.12|-1.06|0.957
84545154|NCT01420068|168843533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.33||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||3.33|-3.29|0.992
84545155|NCT01420068|168843533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.1||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||2.10|-8.22|0.215
84545156|NCT01420068|168843534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.09||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||2.09|-0.85|0.403
84545157|NCT01420068|168843534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.57||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||5.57|-3.74|0.670
84545158|NCT01420068|168843535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||1.08|-1.29|0.860
84739229|NCT02838979|169230401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.36
84739230|NCT02838979|169230402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.60
84545159|NCT01420068|168843535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.32||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||1.32|-3.66|0.320
84545160|NCT00365794|168843538|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total body mass||||0.77
84545161|NCT00365794|168843538|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total fat mass||||0.003
84545162|NCT00365794|168843538|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in trunk fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.0007
84545163|NCT00365794|168843538|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in extremity fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.01
84545164|NCT00365794|168843539|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||No adjustment in p for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84739231|NCT01762904|169230403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84739232|NCT01762904|169230404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84739233|NCT01762904|169230405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84545165|NCT00365794|168843540|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84545166|NCT00365794|168843541|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84545167|NCT00365794|168843542|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in whole body insulin sensitivity after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks.||||0.04
84545168|NCT00365794|168843542|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in hepatic glucose output (measure of central insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.59
84545169|NCT00365794|168843542|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in rate of peripheral glucose disposal (test of peripheral insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.03
84545170|NCT00365794|168843543|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DEXA extremity (appendicular) lean tissue, a measure of extremity muscle mass after 20 weeks ot treatent with testosterone gel.||||0.0006
84545171|NCT00365794|168843544|OTHER|Test for fasting triglycerides||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel.||||0.02
84545172|NCT00365794|168843544|OTHER|Test for total cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
84545173|NCT00365794|168843544|OTHER|Test for LDL cholesterol||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||nts A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||.02
84545174|NCT00365794|168843544|OTHER|Test for HDL cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
84545175|NCT00365794|168843545|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84545176|NCT00365794|168843546|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84739234|NCT01028677|169230407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of fear emotion||||.61
84739235|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.008
84739236|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.002
84739237|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.04
84739238|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.05
84739239|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.08
84739240|NCT01028677|169230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.025
84739241|NCT01028677|169230410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
84739242|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||IRI-total||||.784
84739243|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
84485837|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.67||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.42
84485838|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.04
84485839|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.22||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Multilevel Models|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.16
84485840|NCT04806165|168724296|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.99
84497175|NCT04636437|168745576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|4.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||4.77|-1.33|0.20
84497176|NCT04636437|168745576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.43|1.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||1.44|-4.43|0.25
84497177|NCT04636437|168745577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.23|2.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||2.90|-3.23|0.90
84545177|NCT00365794|168843547|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84545178|NCT02554682|168843548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.906
84545179|NCT02554682|168843548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.796
84545180|NCT02554682|168843548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.886
84739244|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perspective-Taking||||.03
84739245|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional empathy analysis||||.135
84739246|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fantasy Analysis||||.681
84739247|NCT01028677|169230412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
84739248|NCT01016262|169230417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between MAX-002 and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was the single pre-specified primary analysis, and the null hypothesis was that the percentages were equal between the two groups.||||0.0047
84739249|NCT01016262|169230417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0346||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between Canasa® and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was a pre-specified tertiary analysis only.||||0.0346
84739250|NCT00659880|169230451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
84497178|NCT04636437|168745577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.47|1.51||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||1.51|-4.47|0.26
84739251|NCT01304498|169230532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.11|0.85|<0.001
84739252|NCT01304498|169230532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.29|0.91|<0.001
84739253|NCT00755417|169230547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.81|-0.11||Based on F test of type III analysis for pairwise comparison at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4||-0.11|-1.81|0.0117
84739254|NCT00755417|169230547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-0.66||Based on F test of type III analysis|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.66|-2.35|<0.0001
84739255|NCT00755417|169230548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.183|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|0.38||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12||0.38|-1.49|0.1830
84739256|NCT00755417|169230548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.46|0.4||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.40|-1.46|0.1975
84739257|NCT00755417|169230549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.08||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.08|-0.44|0.0016
84739258|NCT00755417|169230549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.14||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.14|-0.51|<0.0001
84739259|NCT00755417|169230550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.02||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.02|-0.43|0.0433
84739260|NCT00755417|169230550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.03|-0.42|0.0468
84739261|NCT01993849|169230562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||The p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-3.81|0.69
84497179|NCT04636437|168745578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.2|24.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||24.59|-22.2|0.91
84545181|NCT02554682|168843548|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.082
84545182|NCT02554682|168843549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.677
84739262|NCT03004404|169230565|OTHER||Slope|0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5959|0.9001|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for AUC0-inf was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.9001|0.5959|
84739263|NCT03004404|169230565|OTHER||Ratio T/R|118.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.57|149.03|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||149.03|94.57|
84739264|NCT03004404|169230565|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|124.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.858|133.255|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Auc0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|133.255|116.858|
84739265|NCT03004404|169230565|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|125.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.89|138.8|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fed (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of AUC0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|138.80|112.89|
84545183|NCT02554682|168843549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.020
84545184|NCT02554682|168843549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.952
84545185|NCT02554682|168843549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.210
84545186|NCT02554682|168843550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.505
84485841|NCT04806165|168724297|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the time effect of attitudinal changes over the 14 week course of the study, regardless of the combination of components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Results will help determine whether mean participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns varied based on the time elapsed since engagement with the intervention (ie., do attitudinal changes post-inntervention endure over time?).||||<.001
84485842|NCT04806165|168724297|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.026
84485843|NCT04806165|168724297|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.465
84485844|NCT04806165|168724297|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.536
84497180|NCT04636437|168745578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.7|15.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||15.47|-29.7|0.48
84545187|NCT02554682|168843550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.176
84545188|NCT02554682|168843550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.134
84545189|NCT02554682|168843550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.029
84739266|NCT03004404|169230566|OTHER||Slope|0.7065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5863|0.8267|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for Cmax was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.8267|0.5863|
84485845|NCT04806165|168724297|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.049
84485846|NCT00416572|168724303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||> 0.05
84485847|NCT00416572|168724303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
84739267|NCT03004404|169230566|OTHER||Ratio T/R|151.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.781|186.248|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of the Cmax for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.||186.248|122.781|
84739268|NCT03004404|169230566|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|293.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|259.044|331.891|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|331.891|259.044|
84739269|NCT03004404|169230566|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|180.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.369|200.732|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fasted (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|200.732|162.369|
84739270|NCT01937975|169230567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.09|0.87|
84739271|NCT01937975|169230567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.25|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.25|0.58|
84739272|NCT01937975|169230567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.22|0.56|
84739273|NCT01937975|169230567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|2.49|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.49|1.09|
84739274|NCT01937975|169230568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.19|0.81|
84739275|NCT01937975|169230568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.16|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.16|0.54|
84485848|NCT00416572|168724303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.12|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.08
84485849|NCT00416572|168724303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
84739276|NCT01937975|169230568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.53|
84739277|NCT01937975|169230568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.42|1.06|
84485850|NCT00416572|168724304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.50
84739278|NCT01937975|169230569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.22|0.75|
84485851|NCT00416572|168724304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.14|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.04
84739279|NCT01937975|169230569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.48|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.48|0.57|
84739280|NCT01937975|169230569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.42|0.54|
84739281|NCT01937975|169230569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.77|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.77|0.99|
84739282|NCT01937975|169230572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.15|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.15|0.92|
84485852|NCT00416572|168724304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between the education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
84485853|NCT00416572|168724304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.15|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.02
84545190|NCT02554682|168843551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.037
84545191|NCT02554682|168843552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84485854|NCT00416572|168724305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome||||>.05
84485855|NCT00416572|168724305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
84485856|NCT00416572|168724305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
84485857|NCT00416572|168724305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
84485858|NCT00723489|168724333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.3|0.86
84485859|NCT00723489|168724334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.2|0.86
84485860|NCT00723489|168724335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.05|-0.5|0.10
84739283|NCT01937975|169230572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.73|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.73|0.80|
84739284|NCT01937975|169230572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.78|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.78|0.82|
84739285|NCT01937975|169230572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.92|0.40|
84739286|NCT01937975|169230573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.42|0.63|
84739287|NCT01937975|169230573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.94|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.94|0.39|
84739288|NCT01937975|169230574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.21|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.21|1.08|
84485861|NCT00723489|168724336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.3|-0.2|0.66
84485862|NCT00723489|168724337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84485863|NCT00723489|168724338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84485864|NCT00723489|168724339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.3|-0.1|0.48
84485865|NCT00723489|168724340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.02|-0.5|0.036
84485866|NCT00723489|168724341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.4|-0.3|0.82
84485867|NCT00723489|168724342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.01|-0.7|0.045
84545192|NCT02554682|168843553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84545193|NCT02554682|168843554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.571
84545194|NCT02554682|168843555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.394
84739289|NCT01937975|169230574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.65|
84739290|NCT01937975|169230574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.30|0.75|
84739291|NCT01937975|169230574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.51|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.51|1.38|
84739292|NCT01937975|169230575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.32|1.17|
84739293|NCT01937975|169230575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.06|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.06|0.56|
84739294|NCT01937975|169230575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.32|0.69|
84739295|NCT01937975|169230575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.93|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.93|1.46|
84485868|NCT02274311|168724343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Measures of central tendency (mean) and variability (range and/or SD) were used to describe numeric variables. Paired Student's t test was used to verify the mean differences between dependent normally distributed variables. Wilcoxon sign test was performed to non-normally distributed dependent variables.~Asignificance level of 5%was adopted for all statistical tests (P \<.05)."||||< 0.05
84545195|NCT02554682|168843556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.008
84739296|NCT01937975|169230576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.26|1.00|
84739297|NCT01937975|169230576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.13|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.13|0.62|
84739298|NCT01937975|169230576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.27|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.27|0.70|
84739299|NCT01937975|169230576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.28|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.28|1.21|
84739300|NCT01937975|169230579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||0.92|0.83|
84739301|NCT01937975|169230579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.53|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.53|0.88|
84485869|NCT05492877|168724352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.32|||Regression, Cox||||The p-value was based on a 2-sided log rank test stratified by region|1.320|0.869|0.599
84485870|NCT05492877|168724355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.726|||Regression, Cox|||||1.726|0.882|
84545196|NCT02554682|168843557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84545197|NCT02554682|168843558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84545198|NCT02554682|168843559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.159
84739302|NCT01937975|169230579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.34|0.77|
84739303|NCT01937975|169230579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.72|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.72|0.40|
84739304|NCT01937975|169230580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.30|0.70|
84739305|NCT01937975|169230580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.89|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.89|0.45|
84739306|NCT01266161|169230597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.45|31.07||p-Value from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, baseline PSR, gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||31.07|16.45|<0.001
84739307|NCT01266161|169230598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.71||p-Value from ANOVA model, with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||12.71|4.13|<0.001
84739308|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|8.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|11.95||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-12.||11.95|5.94|<0.001
84739309|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 8-12.||4.85|1.45|<0.001
84739310|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|10.27||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 12-24.||10.27|2.84|<0.001
84739311|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.02||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.37||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 20-24.||4.37|-0.33|0.091
84485871|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0347|0.1099|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1099|0.0347|0.0003
84485872|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0307|0.1046|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1046|0.0307|0.0006
84485873|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1398|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1398|0.0644|<0.0001
84485874|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0918|0.1681|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||00.1681|0.0918|<0.0001
84485875|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0073|0.082|||Mantel Haenszel||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0820|0.0073|0.0200
84485876|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0243|0.1382|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1382|0.0243|0.0060
84485877|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.0752|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0752|0.0018|0.0402
84485878|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|0.1055|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1055|0.0337|0.0003
84485879|NCT01426009|168724361|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean|0.0501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.0861|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0861|0.0140|0.0074
84485880|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0505|0.1028|||ANCOVA||standard error of the mean difference|ACU 0-24 on Day 1||0.1028|0.0505|<0.0001
84485881|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1475|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|ACU 0-24 Day 1||0.1475|0.0965|<0.0001
84485882|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1479|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 Day 1||0.1479|0.0965|<0.0001
84739312|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|14.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.12|20.79||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-24.||20.79|9.12|<0.001
84739313|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|5.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|10.33||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-36.||10.33|1.42|0.010
84485883|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1362|0.1888|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1888|0.1362|<0.0001
84485884|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1434|0.1946|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1946|0.1434|<0.0001
84485885|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0716|0.1473|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1473|0.0716|<0.0001
84485886|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0812|0.1379|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on Day 7||0.1379|0.0812|<0.0001
84485887|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0993|0.1548|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC0-24 on Day 7||0.1548|0.0993|<0.0001
84485888|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1169|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1169|<0.0001
84485889|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1403|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.1403|<0.0001
84485890|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1117|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1117|<0.0001
84485891|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0795|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.0795|<0.0001
84485892|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0776|0.1301|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1301|0.0776|<0.0001
84485893|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1212|0.1724|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1724|0.1212|<0.0001
84485894|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1322|0.1837|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1837|0.1322|<0.0001
84485895|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1655|0.2184|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2184|0.1655|<0.0001
84485896|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|0.2251|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2251|0.1738|<0.0001
84485897|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1625|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1625|0.0872|<0.0001
84485898|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.1587|||ANCOVA|standard error of the Mean difference|standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1587|0.0970|<0.0001
84485899|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1151|0.1756|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1756|0.1151|<0.0001
84485900|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.2004|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2004|0.1393|<0.0001
84485901|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1503|0.2125|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2125|0.1503|<0.0001
84485902|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.201|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.201|0.1393|<0.0001
84485903|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0951|0.1817|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1817|0.0951|<0.0001
84485904|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0155|0.0786|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.0786|0.0155|<0.0001
84485905|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0611|0.1226|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1226|0.0611|<0.0001
84485906|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0519|0.1139|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1139|0.0519|<0.0001
84739314|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.83||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 32-36.||5.83|1.13|0.004
84739315|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.36||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 36-48.||10.36|1.82|0.006
84739316|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.41||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.73||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 44-48.||4.73|0.09|0.042
84739317|NCT01266161|169230599|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|10.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|18.45||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-48.||18.45|3.49|0.004
84739318|NCT01266161|169230600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.34|||proportional hazards model|||||0.34|0.10|<0.001
84739319|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.46|-31.56||p-Values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the first dosing interval (0 to 12 hours).||-31.56|-64.46|<0.001
84739320|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-39.78|-11.28||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the second dosing interval (12 to 24 hours).||-11.28|-39.78|<0.001
84739321|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-24.05||||0.002||95.0|-38.93|-9.18||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the third dosing interval (24 to 36 hours).||-9.18|-38.93|0.002
84739322|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.6||||0.035||95.0|-26.41|-0.79||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the fourth dosing interval (36 to 48 hours).||-0.79|-26.41|0.035
84739323|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.42|-31.6||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the study overall (0 to 48 hours).||-31.60|-64.42|<0.001
84739324|NCT01266161|169230601|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard models|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57|||Andersen-Gill (AG)|||Time to First Dose Rescue Medication Over Entire Study Period (0-48 Hours)||0.57|0.01|0.011
84739325|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|0.5|1.19||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.19|0.50|<0.001
84739326|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|1.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.94|1.11|<0.001
84739327|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|2.44||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||2.44|1.56|<0.001
84739328|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.29|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|2.73||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||2.73|1.86|<0.001
84739329|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.18|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.68||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||2.68|1.69|<0.001
84739330|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.92|||<|0.001||95.0|0.46|1.38||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model.|Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||1.38|0.46|<0.001
84739331|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|0.54|1.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||1.54|0.54|<0.001
84739332|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.59|1.6||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||1.60|0.59|<0.001
84739333|NCT01266161|169230602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.5||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.01||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.01|-0.00|0.052
84739334|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||0.59|0.16|<0.001
84739335|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.63|1.18||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.18|0.63|<0.001
84739336|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.91|1.52||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||1.52|0.91|<0.001
84739337|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|1.71||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||1.71|1.10|<0.001
84739338|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.32|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|1.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||1.67|0.97|<0.001
84739339|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.61|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.91||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||0.91|0.30|<0.001
84739340|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||0.97|0.31|<0.001
84739341|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|0.36|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||0.97|0.36|<0.001
84739342|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.27||||0.089||95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||0.59|-0.04|0.089
84739343|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.29||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 16 hours.||1.29|0.70|<0.001
84739344|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.47||||0.004||95.0|0.15|0.78||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 20 hours.||0.78|0.15|0.004
84739345|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.04||||0.821||95.0|-0.28|0.35||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours.||0.35|-0.28|0.821
84739346|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.56||||0.001||95.0|0.23|0.9||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 28 hours.||0.90|0.23|0.001
84739347|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.62|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 32 hours.||0.94|0.30|<0.001
84739348|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.25||||0.127||95.0|-0.07|0.57||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 36 hours.||0.57|-0.07|0.127
84739349|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.0||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 40 hours.||1.00|0.35|<0.001
84739350|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.34||||0.036||95.0|0.02|0.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 44 hours.||0.67|0.02|0.036
84739351|NCT01266161|169230603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.26||||0.091||95.0|-0.04|0.56||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours.||0.56|-0.04|0.091
84545199|NCT02554682|168843560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.112
84739352|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.69|1.74||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.74|0.69|<0.001
84739353|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|3.09||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||3.09|1.77|<0.001
84739354|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.49|3.95||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||3.95|2.49|<0.001
84739355|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.98|4.42||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||4.42|2.98|<0.001
84545200|NCT02554682|168843561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.165
84545201|NCT02554682|168843562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
84545202|NCT00884117|168843573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0001
84545203|NCT00884117|168843573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
84545204|NCT00884117|168843573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
84545205|NCT00884117|168843574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84545206|NCT00884117|168843574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.009
84739356|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.67|4.33||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||4.33|2.67|<0.001
84739357|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|0.79|2.27||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||2.27|0.79|<0.001
84739358|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.87|2.48||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||2.48|0.87|<0.001
84739359|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|2.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||2.54|0.97|<0.001
84739360|NCT01266161|169230604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.78||||0.056||95.0|-0.02|1.58||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.58|-0.02|0.056
84739361|NCT01266161|169230605|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.38|19.25||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0 to 12 hours.||19.25|10.38|<0.001
84739362|NCT01266161|169230605|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|7.98||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo from 8 to 12 hours.||7.98|2.57|<0.001
84739363|NCT01266161|169230606|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.55||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the first dosing interval.||-0.55|-0.91|<0.001
84739364|NCT01266161|169230606|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.4||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on CMH-adjusted proportions and corresponding standard errors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the second dosing interval.||-0.40|-1.05|<0.001
84739365|NCT01266161|169230606|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the third dosing interval.||-0.06|-0.90|0.002
84739366|NCT01266161|169230606|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.35||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the fourth dosing interval.||-0.35|-1.02|0.021
84739367|NCT01266161|169230606|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.51||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the overall study duration.||-0.51|-0.89|<0.001
84739368|NCT01266161|169230609|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours||0.95|0.74|<0.001
84739369|NCT01266161|169230609|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours||0.92|0.66|<0.001
84739370|NCT03355209|169230623|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-19.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.02|-8.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||-8.74|-31.02|0.0008
84739371|NCT03355209|169230626|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-10.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|3.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||3.99|-24.99|0.1460
84739372|NCT03355209|169230627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.59|1.43|0.0051
84739373|NCT03355209|169230627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.70|1.23|0.0150
84739374|NCT03355209|169230628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||2.97|0.84|0.1565
84739375|NCT03355209|169230628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||3.52|0.98|0.0567
84739376|NCT02567708|169230670|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0468||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.102||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.102|-0.083|0.57
84739377|NCT02567708|169230671|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0501||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.113||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.084|0.61
84739378|NCT02567708|169230672|OTHER|The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Posterior median difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0818||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.21|||Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.210|-0.111|0.731
84485907|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0158|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0982|0.1617|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 o day 1||0.1617|0.0982|<0.0001
84485908|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|0.1678|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1678|0.1061|<0.0001
84485909|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.1377|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1377|0.0490|<0.0001
84485910|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0573|0.1186|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1186|0.0573|<0.0001
84485911|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0788|0.1388|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1388|0.0788|<0.0001
84485912|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1478|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1478|0.0872|<0.0001
84485913|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1226|0.1838|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1838|0.1226|<0.0001
84485914|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0747|0.135|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1350|0.0747|<0.0001
84485915|NCT01426009|168724362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1398|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1398|0.0589|<0.0001
84485916|NCT00397631|168724390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001||95.0|-1.13|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HbA1c||||-0.65|-1.13|<0.001
84485917|NCT00397631|168724391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-30.4|-15.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline FPG||||-15.2|-30.4|<0.001
84485918|NCT00397631|168724392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37|<|0.001||95.0|-57.2|32.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline 2-hour PPG||||32.2|-57.2|<0.001
84485919|NCT02711553|168724423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.904|1.395||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.395|0.904|0.4821
84485920|NCT02711553|168724423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.734|1.153||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.153|0.734|0.6417
84485921|NCT02711553|168724424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.336||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.862|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.862|0.959|0.0870
84485922|NCT02711553|168724424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.342|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.342|0.669|0.7599
84545207|NCT00884117|168843574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.03
84545208|NCT00884117|168843575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
84485923|NCT02711553|168724425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||1.9|0.6|0.878
84485924|NCT02711553|168724425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||0.9|0.2|0.023
84485925|NCT02711553|168724426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.4|0.6|0.680
84485926|NCT02711553|168724426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.6|0.6|0.499
84485927|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.09||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|MMRM Model|Least Squares (LS) Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||0.09|-2.28|0.069
84485928|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||-0.04|-2.42|0.042
84739379|NCT02567708|169230673|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0712||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.131||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.131|-0.151|0.44
84739380|NCT02567708|169230673|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.024|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.137||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.137|-0.087|0.66
84739381|NCT02567708|169230674|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0609||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.099||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.099|-0.140|0.35
84739382|NCT02567708|169230674|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0578||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.156||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.156|-0.071|0.76
84485929|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.19||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.19|-1.83|0.112
84739383|NCT02567708|169230674|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.038|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0559||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.148||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.148|-0.073|0.76
84485930|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.67||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.67|-1.35|0.505
84485931|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.17||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.17|-1.56|0.116
84485932|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.59||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.59|-1.16|0.521
84545209|NCT00884117|168843575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
84545210|NCT00884117|168843575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
84545211|NCT00884117|168843576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
84545212|NCT00884117|168843576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
84485933|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.44||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||-0.44|-2.87|0.008
84485934|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.62||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||0.62|-1.82|0.335
84485935|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.18||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||-1.18|-4.69|0.001
84485936|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.12||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||0.12|-3.40|0.068
84485937|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.0||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.00|-2.04|0.051
84485938|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.38||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.38|-1.68|0.212
84485939|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-2.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||-2.04|-9.30|0.002
84485940|NCT02711553|168724430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.22||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||0.22|-7.07|0.066
84485941|NCT00572728|168724434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.046|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.83||The Delong method was used to test if the observed AUC was significantly different than 0.5 with the one-sided p value DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL, Biometrics (1988)|Delong method|one-sided p-value|"percent change in SUVmax was computed as: %ΔSUVmax = 100\*(FLT1-FLT2)/FLT1 a 90% 2-sided confidence interval was constructed from 2000 Bootstrapping estimates from which the 1-sided 95% CI was derived.~Hanley SE(AUC) reported."|"A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the significance of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) under the Null Hypothesis with a one sided alpha=0.05 (95% one-sided CL):~H0: AUC = 0.50 (no difference from guessing) given the alternative hypothesis: Ha:AUC \>= 0.75 AUC = ROC(%ΔSUVmax\| path response) where percent change (%ΔSUVmax ) was defined as (SUVmax at FLT1 -SUVmax at FLT2)/SUVmax at FLT1 x 100"||.83||0.046
84485942|NCT00572728|168724435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||spearman correlation|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.54|||spearman correlation method||This estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-1 and Ki-67 LI a Fisher's z Transformation was applied to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic||0.54|0.13|0.002
84485943|NCT00572728|168724436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.81|||Spearman Correlation method|we use Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|this estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-3 and Ki-67 LI||0.81|0.47|<0.0001
84485944|NCT00572728|168724437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||"H0: Mean SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = Mean SUVmax (RCB II,III) After dichotomization, Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare uptake values between RCB groups.~In other words, we are comparing the means (of SUVmax) @ FLT1 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.."||||0.66
84485945|NCT00572728|168724438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|\*two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT2 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.86
84485946|NCT00572728|168724439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT3 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.010
84485947|NCT00572728|168724439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||H0: %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB 0,I) = %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB II,III) A logistic regression model is used to determine if a larger percent change in SUVmax is associated with (RCB 0,I); the null hypothesis assumes that there is no association.||0.97|0.76|0.013
84485948|NCT00572728|168724440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.94||Delong 1-sided p-value (alpha=0.05)|Delong Method|The Delong-Delong Clark-Pearson method using modified U-statistics was used to evaluate the AUC||"ROC analysis was used to compute the AUC and evaluate if %ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3 is predictive of pCR with alpha=0.05.~The Null Hypothesis assumes that the P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|pCR)= 1 - P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|non-pCR) that is: H0: AUC =0.5 (guessing)"||.94|.72|<0.001
84545213|NCT00884117|168843576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
84545214|NCT00884117|168843579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.4464
84545215|NCT00884117|168843580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||<0.0001
84545216|NCT00884117|168843581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2499|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.2499
84545217|NCT01383174|168843599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84739384|NCT02567708|169230675|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6175||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.346||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.346|-1.102|0.56
84485949|NCT00572728|168724441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA||"Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used to test whether there was a difference in %SUVmax (FLT1-FLT2) among LN statuses.~H0: no difference between the 3 LN status."||||0.86
84485950|NCT00572728|168724442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
84485951|NCT02724111|168724449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84485952|NCT02724111|168724450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84485953|NCT02724111|168724451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84485954|NCT02724111|168724452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84485955|NCT02724111|168724453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84485956|NCT02724111|168724454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84485957|NCT02724111|168724455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84485958|NCT02724111|168724456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
84485959|NCT01828567|168724459|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement prevention program enrollment between the usual care and intervention arms by month 6.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||The first primary outcome is the cumulative enrollment in prevention programs over the six months of follow up. This will be assessed via self-report at months 1 and 6. As defined by the eligibility criteria, all patients will have a value of 0 at baseline.||3.89|1.66|<.0001
84485960|NCT01828567|168724461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 1 month.|For the primary hypothesis we will be examining the effect during the 1-month long intervention delivery period.||3.7|-0.8|0.204
84485961|NCT01828567|168724462|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means, which is appropriate for a randomized controlled trial and is equivalent in efficiency to an ANCOVA model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7||A general Linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time. For the primary hypothesis we will be assessing sustainability at 6 months.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|||4.7|0.2|0.030
84485962|NCT01828567|168724464|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Repeated Measures|A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in FRS scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|Our secondary outcome of interest is the Framingham Risk Score, measured at baseline and month 6.||2.2|-0.7|0.330
84485963|NCT02332876|168724465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84485964|NCT01700140|168724487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84485965|NCT01700140|168724487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2284
84485966|NCT01700140|168724487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.2549
84485967|NCT01700140|168724488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84485968|NCT01700140|168724488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1527
84485969|NCT01700140|168724488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.1864
84485970|NCT01700140|168724489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|3.172|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||3.172|0.266|0.8361
84485971|NCT01700140|168724489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.237|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.237|0.144|0.0724
84485972|NCT01700140|168724490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.388|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||2.388|0.616|0.6466
84739385|NCT02567708|169230675|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.014|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6672||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.341||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.341|-1.271|0.51
84485973|NCT01700140|168724490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.21|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.210|0.566|0.2701
84739386|NCT02567708|169230675|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5148||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.908||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo..|||0.908|-1.125|0.41
84739387|NCT02567708|169230676|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.7|-0.6|0.81
84739388|NCT02567708|169230679|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.063||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.00|0.78|0.97
84739389|NCT02567708|169230679|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.071||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.09|0.83|0.76
84739390|NCT02567708|169230679|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.085||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than one.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.18|0.84|0.51
84739391|NCT00706654|169230688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority of was performed using a 95% confidence interval (CI, 2-sided) for the difference in the estimated percentage of patients meeting exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse criteria by the end of Week 26. Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was below the predefined margin, 11.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|3.99|||z-statistics||The 95% CI of the difference in proportions of subjects with impending relapse events between aripiprazole IM depot 300 or 400 mg mg and oral aripiprazole were provided using the pooled SE with assumption of normality of the estimated difference.|Sample sizes were estimated to achieve 93% power for the primary non-inferiority 2-sided comparison at 0.05 significance using large sample normal approximations for the distribution of the difference in binomial proportions. The assumed proportion of impending relapse at or before Week 26 for the oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg arm was 18% and the predefined non-inferiority margin was 11.5%. The sample size was projected to be 260 each for the IM depot 300 or 400 mg and oral 10-30 mg arms.||3.99|-5.26|0.7871
84485974|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
84485975|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
84739392|NCT00706654|169230688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-6.27||Once non-inferiority was declared, superiority of depot 300/400 mg over depot 25/50 mg was tested by the difference between the proportion of subjects experiencing impending relapse by the end of Week 26 (2-sided 0.05 significance level z-statistic).|z-statistics|The same method was used to compare IM depot 300 or 400 mg with IM depot 25 or 50 mg in the estimated proportion of subjects with impending relapse.||For the superiority comparison (assay sensitivity analysis) of IM depot 300 or 400 mg to IM depot 25 or 50 mg, on a 2:1 randomization, sample sizes of 260 and 130, respectively, were calculated to provide about 95% power at the 0.05 significance level (2-sided). A superiority margin of 17% was assumed.||-6.27|-23.09|0.0006
84739393|NCT00706654|169230690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.8750
84739394|NCT00706654|169230690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.0001
84739395|NCT00706654|169230691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.3700
84739396|NCT00706654|169230691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.1097
84739397|NCT01151215|169230692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Statistical significance threshold at this interim analysis was 5%|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.60, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||1.75|0.77|0.485
84739398|NCT01151215|169230692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.06|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard ratio is for AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.6, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||2.06|0.91|0.135
84739399|NCT01154140|169230698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.596||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS),race,brain metastases. 1-sided log-rank test at 0.0247 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 arms.|Log Rank|||||0.596|0.346|<0.0001
84739400|NCT01154140|169230699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.053||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG PS, race group and brain metastases.|Log Rank||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, race group, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio (less than)\<1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.053|0.548|0.0489
84739401|NCT01154140|169230701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.3||P-value was obtained from a Pearson chi-square test.|Pearson chi-square test||95% CI was calculated based on normal distribution.|If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if the 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was (less than or equal to)\<= 0.0494.||39.3|19.5|<0.0001
84739402|NCT01154140|169230704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.067||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.4|||Pearson chi-square test|||The confidence interval for the difference in percentage was based on normal distribution.||19.4|0.8|0.0381
84485976|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.4856
84485977|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.1047
84485978|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.1617
84485979|NCT01700140|168724491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.3099
84485980|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
84485981|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
84485982|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.6761
84485983|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.3513
84485984|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.2060
84485985|NCT01700140|168724492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.0511
84485986|NCT01708915|168724501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.699|-1.025||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-1.025|-1.699|<0.0001
84485987|NCT01708915|168724501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|-0.642||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.642|-1.324|<0.0001
84485988|NCT01708915|168724501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4171||95.0|-0.541|0.225||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.225|-0.541|0.4171
84485989|NCT01708915|168724502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.305|-0.793||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.793|-1.305|<0.0001
84739403|NCT01154140|169230705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.582||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.582|0.335|<0.0001
84485990|NCT01708915|168724502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.003|-0.459||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.459|-1.003|<0.0001
84485991|NCT01708915|168724502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7037||95.0|-0.356|0.241||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.241|-0.356|0.7037
84485992|NCT01708915|168724503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.064|-1.247|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-1.247|-2.064|<0.0001
84545218|NCT01383174|168843600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.465
84739404|NCT01154140|169230706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.048||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||1.048|0.338|0.0347
84739405|NCT01154140|169230707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.524||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.524|0.286|<0.0001
84739406|NCT01154140|169230714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.773||Two-sided p-value from the unstratified log rank test was used.|Log Rank|||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.||0.773|0.452|0.0002
84739407|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|16.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Global QoL: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.92|10.74|<0.0001
84739408|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3532||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.11|0.60|0.0170
84739409|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|10.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 emotional functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||10.46|4.57|<0.0001
84739410|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|13.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 physical functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||13.32|7.48|<0.0001
84739411|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.5513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 role functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||19.81|11.29|<0.0001
84739412|NCT01154140|169230715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|12.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 social functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||12.84|4.69|<0.0001
84739413|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4976|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 appetite loss: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-8.97|-18.03|<0.0001
84739414|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4336||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 constipation: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.13|-9.00|0.0570
84485993|NCT01708915|168724503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.578|-0.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.759|-1.578|<0.0001
84485994|NCT01708915|168724503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0259||95.0|-0.875|-0.056|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.056|-0.875|0.0259
84545219|NCT01383174|168843601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
84485995|NCT01708915|168724504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.385|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.943|11.032|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Placebo. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||11.032|4.943|<0.0001
84485996|NCT01708915|168724504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.469|5.308|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nicoboxil. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||5.308|2.469|<0.0001
84485997|NCT01708915|168724504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.0129||95.0|1.104|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nonivamide. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||2.303|1.104|0.0129
84485998|NCT01045551|168724505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84485999|NCT01045551|168724506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9024|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84486000|NCT04337203|168724595|OTHER|Feasibility study and calculated confidence interval.||||||0.54|||||||Independent samples proportions test|||||||0.54
84739415|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 diarrhea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.00|8.98|<0.0001
84739416|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.4622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 dysponea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-9.73|-17.20|<0.0001
84739417|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-11.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 fatigue: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-11.48|-18.52|<0.0001
84739418|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8186||||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 financial difficulties: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||2.92|-4.56|0.6681
84739419|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 insomnia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-5.87|-14.22|<0.0001
84739420|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4446||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-0.05|-6.84|0.0468
84739421|NCT01154140|169230716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 pain: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.62|-13.23|<0.0001
84739422|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8149||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 alopecia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-1.11|-8.52|0.0108
84739423|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 coughing: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.72|-12.06|<0.0001
84739424|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6651||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dysphagia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||3.11|-1.78|0.5938
84486001|NCT01928186|168724642|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test||Association between response assessed by Ki-67 protein staining (i.e. \< 10% positive cells in the surgical sample) and by the influx constant Ki decline (i.e. 30 % or larger decline between the baseline and post-therapy FLT PET) was analyzed using the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test.||||0.51
84486002|NCT03958149|168724665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Independent t-test|||||||<0.001
84739425|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-6.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.06|-11.96|<0.0001
84739426|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8828||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.06|-1.82|0.0656
84739427|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0475||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-2.88|-9.22|0.0002
84739428|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0959|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in chest: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.84|-11.35|<0.0001
84739429|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7717||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-3.31|-10.24|0.0001
84486003|NCT03958149|168724666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Factorial Mixed ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84486004|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance for repeated measures||Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2 The model included fixed effect terms for time point, baseline covariate (i.e. the day 1 - pre-dose value) and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||9.1|-3.3|0.3474
84486005|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-8.2|0.1327
84486006|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.6|-11.2|0.1327
84486007|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|-2.5|0.2237
84486008|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.1|-8.4|0.4905
84486009|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||0.5|-12.3|0.0687
84486010|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-4.2|0.7609
84486011|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.8|-6.0|0.6428
84486012|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
84486013|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.5|-4.6|0.4217
84486014|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.503||||-2.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.0|-10.0|-2.5
84486015|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
84486016|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.4|-2.6|0.6157
84486017|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-3.7|0.9120
84486018|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||2.5|-4.6|0.5463
84486019|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.3|-5.9|0.9065
84486020|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-7.3|0.5065
84486021|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.2|-7.1|0.5977
84486022|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred Vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.9|-6.3|0.2785
84486023|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-4.6|0.7454
84486024|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.9|-2.7|0.4588
84486025|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|12.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||12.3|-3.7|0.2812
84486026|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||9.8|-6.5|0.6811
84486027|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-10.8|0.5169
84486028|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-5.9|0.7874
84486029|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.1|-7.6|0.8299
84739430|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3521||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.59|0.11|0.0427
84486030|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.4|-8.7|0.6386
84486031|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.2|1.3|0.0132
84486032|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-5.3|0.7177
84739431|NCT01154140|169230717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1521||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 sore mouth: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.69|-5.00|0.1382
84739432|NCT01154140|169230718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9908||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose were included as random effects).||7.17|0.81|0.0139
84739433|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84739434|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84739435|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84486033|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-1.9|-11.2|0.0077
84486034|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|0.6|0.0301
84486035|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.1|-4.3|0.8657
84486036|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-0.1|-9.7|0.0440
84486037|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||9.6|-1.4|0.1351
84486038|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.2|-6.0|0.8821
84486039|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||1.3|-10.3|0.1208
84486040|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.5|-3.3|0.9440
84486041|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.5|-2.2|0.4903
84486042|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-2.3|0.5364
84486043|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.7|-2.9|0.5100
84486044|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-0.9|0.1132
84486045|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.5|-2.4|0.3457
84486046|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.9|0.8|0.0185
84486047|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.1|0.2|0.0408
84486048|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.0|-4.4|0.6992
84486049|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||12.8|-1.0|0.0905
84486050|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.4|-3.4|0.3054
84486051|NCT03031327|168724694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5024||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.8|-9.6|0.5024
84739436|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.161
84545220|NCT01383174|168843602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
84545221|NCT01383174|168843603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
84545222|NCT01383174|168843604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.267
84739437|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.008
84739438|NCT02269423|169230774|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.173
84739439|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84739440|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84739441|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
84739442|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER|||||||0.102||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.102
84739443|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.124
84739444|NCT02269423|169230775|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.918
84739445|NCT02078492|169230805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assumed a minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) of 1.3 between the three ketorolac groups at the 30-minute pain assessment and a standard deviation of 3.0. A power analysis determined that a sample of 78 subjects per group provided at least 80% power to detect an MCSD of at least 1.3 at 30 minutes with α=0.05.||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||The main hypothesis was that there would be equivalence of dose effect across the three groups at every time point, and the primary comparison consisted of the pain assessment at 30 minutes.||||.783
84739446|NCT05672771|169230808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
84739447|NCT05672771|169230809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This is the difference between the Different Mixed and Placebo Control conditions.|||||<.02
84739448|NCT05672771|169230810|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||for contrasts of DM, DS, and ST groups relative to the PC group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84739449|NCT00760747|169230813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.0|0.692
84545223|NCT01383174|168843605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.030
84545224|NCT01383174|168843606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.045
84739450|NCT00760747|169230814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.456
84739451|NCT00760747|169230815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.517
84739452|NCT00760747|169230816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.526
84739453|NCT00760747|169230817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.898
84739454|NCT00760747|169230822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 2|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-2.9|0.927
84739455|NCT03939689|169230861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with adjustment for stratification factor (prostate cancer risk factor at Screening) was carried out by using complete cases for the FAS population (missing data were not imputed for this analysis). Intermediate risk at Screening: hemoglobin (Hgb) ≥11 g/dL and LDH \<262 IU/L and ALP \<414 IU/L. High-risk at Screening: Hgb \<11 g/dL or LDH ≥262 IU/L or ALP ≥414 IU/L.||||0.0025
84739456|NCT03939689|169230862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||The p-value is based on the chi-squared test of the difference in proportions between treatment groups if expected cell frequencies are all greater than 5; otherwise, the p-value is from the Fisher's exact test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8060
84739457|NCT03939689|169230863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||.5924
84739458|NCT03939689|169230864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||0.5924
84486052|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.1|0.1226
84486053|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.2|0.2854
84486054|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Student t-test on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.6|0.6525
84486055|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.5|-0.4|0.8843
84545225|NCT01383174|168843607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.005
84739459|NCT03939689|169230865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199||||||P value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.6199
84486056|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.6|0.0806
84486057|NCT03031327|168724696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.7|0.0628
84486058|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.2004
84486059|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.3|0.5413
84486060|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.8|0.4607
84486061|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-0.2|0.1248
84486062|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|0.0|0.0624
84486063|NCT03031327|168724697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-1.0|0.7927
84486064|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.6|0.9717
84486065|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.6|0.7386
84486066|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.6|0.7498
84739460|NCT03939689|169230866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||.1823
84486067|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.1|0.3229
84739461|NCT03939689|169230867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.0006
84739462|NCT04944290|169230886|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.71|
84739463|NCT04944290|169230886|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.26||||||10AM Day 14||0.26|-0.86|
84739464|NCT04944290|169230886|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.58|
84739465|NCT04944290|169230886|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.70|
84739466|NCT02412735|169230893|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2072.|||
84739467|NCT02412735|169230893|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.6427.|||
84486068|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.5|0.5700
84739468|NCT02412735|169230894|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2754.|||
84739469|NCT02412735|169230894|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.9087.|||
84739470|NCT02412735|169230895|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2835.|||
84739471|NCT02412735|169230895|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.4739.|||
84545226|NCT01383174|168843608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.226
84739472|NCT02412735|169230896|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2650.|||
84739473|NCT02412735|169230896|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.7004.|||
84486069|NCT03031327|168724698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.3|-0.2|0.1197
84486070|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.6|0.8787
84486071|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.5|0.8159
84486072|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.4|0.6525
84486073|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.0|0.3340
84739474|NCT02412735|169230897|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1945.|||
84739475|NCT02412735|169230897|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.8093.|||
84486074|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.7|0.9749
84739476|NCT02412735|169230898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.46|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.46|0.50|0.7842
84739477|NCT02412735|169230898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.14|0.41|0.8754
84739478|NCT02412735|169230899|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2309.|||
84739479|NCT02412735|169230899|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1241.|||
84739480|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.43|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||6.43|-5.71|0.9072
84739481|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|2.83|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||2.83|-9.51|0.2883
84739482|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.8|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||4.80|-7.90|0.6314
84545227|NCT01153815|168843610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Exact Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
84486075|NCT03031327|168724699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.1984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.1984
84486076|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|16.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||16.4|-10.5|0.6497
84739483|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|1.56|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||1.56|-11.37|0.1366
84739484|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.72|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||2.72|-10.43|0.2497
84739485|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.43|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||0.43|-13.00|0.0666
84739486|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|2.46|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||2.46|-10.91|0.2147
84739487|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||-1.55|-15.19|0.0162
84739488|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|2.74|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||2.74|-11.69|0.2230
84739489|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|1.45|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||1.45|-13.27|0.1152
84739490|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||4.67|-9.75|0.4884
84739491|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.25|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||-0.25|-14.98|0.0426
84739492|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||3.54|-11.27|0.3056
84739493|NCT02412735|169230900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|1.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||1.54|-13.59|0.1184
84739494|NCT00770029|169230963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.68|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed if H0 was rejected at a given α of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value was ≤0.05. Power of 90%||0.68|0.52|<0.0001
84739495|NCT04624243|169230990|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-8.3|0.241
84486077|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-16.5|0.1443
84545228|NCT01786993|168843619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event-Free Probability|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|0.951||||||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months ≤ 75% Ha: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months \> 75%"||0.951|0.904|
84486078|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-20.9|0.0751
84486079|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.5|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||15.5|-7.9|0.5015
84486080|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|4.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||4.4|-12.5|0.3217
84486081|NCT03031327|168724700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-17.5|0.1026
84739496|NCT04624243|169230990|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-6.3|0.784
84739497|NCT04624243|169230992|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.1|0.096
84486082|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486083|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486084|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486085|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486086|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486087|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486088|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486089|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486090|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486091|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486092|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
84486093|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486094|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486095|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486096|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486097|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486098|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486099|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486100|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486101|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486102|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486103|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486104|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486105|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486106|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.5267
84486107|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2633
84486108|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.6552
84486109|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.1262
84486110|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2094
84739498|NCT04624243|169230992|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.094
84545229|NCT01786993|168843620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a binomial distribution with a 44% probability for non-responders between 3 months and 9 months in both study arms, the sample size required for 85% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level is 394. To adjust for a potential net crossover of 15% and an overall attrition rate of 20%, the total number of patients required to be enrolled in this study is 506.|Difference of proportions|-0.049||||0.0131|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.138||||normal approximation for binomial dist|||"H0: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) ≤ -0.15~Ha: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) \> -0.15~The null hypothesis will be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower one-sided 97.5% confidence bound for the difference in the proportions is above -0.15."|||-0.138|0.0131
84545230|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.16|0.68|
84545231|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.73|
84545232|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.38|0.81|
84545233|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.6|0.9|
84545234|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.77|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.77|1|
84486111|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimation|-1.0||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-1.0|0.0377
84545235|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.2|0.68|
84545236|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.97|0.63|
84486112|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486113|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84667927|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
84486114|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486115|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486116|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486117|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486118|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486119|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486120|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486121|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486122|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486123|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486124|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486125|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486126|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486127|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486128|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486129|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486130|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486131|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486132|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486133|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486134|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486135|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486136|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486137|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486138|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486139|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486140|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486141|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486142|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486143|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486144|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84545237|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.86|
84545238|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.67|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.67|1.09|
84545239|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.02|0.61|
84739499|NCT04624243|169230993|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.254
84739500|NCT04624243|169230993|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.959
84739501|NCT04624243|169230997|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-6.5|-10.4|<0.001
84739502|NCT04624243|169230997|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-5.2|-9.3|<0.001
84739503|NCT04624243|169230998|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|-4.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.6|-7.4|<0.001
84739504|NCT04624243|169230998|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.2|-7.0|<0.001
84739505|NCT03322540|169231001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|8.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Point estimate was assessed based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||8.7|-21.5|0.8000
84545240|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.18|0.7|
84545241|NCT00450437|168843621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.5|0.89|
84545242|NCT00450437|168843622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||14|3|
84545243|NCT00450437|168843622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|-2|
84545244|NCT00450437|168843622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||18|6|
84545245|NCT00450437|168843622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|33.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||33|20|
84545246|NCT00450437|168843623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY was considered noninferior to Menactra if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction \[MenACWY minus Menactra\] was less than 6%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, safety.||2|-1|
84545247|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
84545248|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
84545249|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
84739506|NCT01294397|169231015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.08|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed AUC0-168 was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.08|0.85|
84545250|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|0|
84545251|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|-1|
84545252|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-6|
84545253|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-13|
84545254|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||11|-3|
84545255|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||17|4|
84545256|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-13|
84545257|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||8|-6|
84603336|NCT03995680|168957473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Egg Reduction Rate (%)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, weight and baseline hookworm infection intensity (light or moderate/heavy)||The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ERRs and the difference between ERRs were estimated via bootstrap resampling. Superiority was claimed if the 95% confidence interval of the difference in ERRs did not include unity. Logistic regression models were used to assess efficacy in terms of CRs. In a subsequent analysis an adjusted logistic regression (adjustment for age, sex, weight and baseline infection intensity) was performed.||12.6|-7.8|
84486145|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486146|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486147|NCT03031327|168724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
84486148|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-1.5|0.5842
84486149|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.0|-2.2|0.4606
84545258|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||14|0|
84486150|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-3.0|0.2319
84486151|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-2.3|0.6018
84486152|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-2.2|0.4857
84486153|NCT03031327|168724702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-2.0|0.9015
84486154|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
84486155|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
84486156|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
84486157|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
84486158|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
84603337|NCT03385265|168957483|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84486159|NCT03031327|168724703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
84486160|NCT02059174|168724704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A frailty model was used with effects for treatment, period and sequence and a random effect for participant. A value of 1.00 for the hazard ratio corresponds to no difference between treatments.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.59|||||ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|Because numerous participants did not achieve End of Action within the 30-hour clamp timeframe, the pre-specified hypothesis of similarity with regard to mean DOA could not be tested and a survival analysis approach was undertaken. The hazard rate is a measure of the instantaneous risk of reaching End of Action at time t given End of Action has not been met up until time t, with the hazard ratio being an estimate of the relative difference in hazard rates between treatments.||1.59|0.72|
84486161|NCT02059174|168724705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.01|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.01|0.88|
84486162|NCT02059174|168724706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.99|0.81|
84486163|NCT02059174|168724707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.06|0.92|
84486164|NCT02059174|168724708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
84486165|NCT02059174|168724709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
84486166|NCT02059174|168724710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.03|0.93|
84486167|NCT02059174|168724711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.97|0.86|
84486168|NCT02059174|168724712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.04|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.04|0.95|
84486169|NCT01901809|168724750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|2.0|0.018
84545259|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
84486170|NCT01901809|168724751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-14.4|0.33
84486171|NCT02776904|168724752|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Adjustment with Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|3 DF||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Memory||||0.0003
84486172|NCT02776904|168724752|OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Verbal memory||||0.0281
84486173|NCT02776904|168724752|OTHER|||||||0.0035||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Motor composite||||0.0035
84486174|NCT02776904|168724753|OTHER|||||||0.2637||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Reaction Time||||0.2637
84486175|NCT02776904|168724754|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Used Tukey's Adjustment|ANOVA|||Descriptive analysis, including means and standard deviations was used to summarize all participant data. Velocity was normalized to leg length. Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters for healthy athletes. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait velocity for healthy athletes. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance)||||<0.001
84486176|NCT02776904|168724755|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait parameters of step length. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance).|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pair wise comparisons between walk status and sex for step length.||||||< 0.0001
84486177|NCT02776904|168724756|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in DLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons with p\<.05.||||||< 0.0001
84486178|NCT02776904|168724757|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in SLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for pairwise comparison between walk status and sex for %GC in SLS.||||||< 0.0001
84486179|NCT02776904|168724758|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84486180|NCT02776904|168724759|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84486181|NCT02776904|168724760|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84603338|NCT03385265|168957484|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|CESD-R = within subject variable; group = between subject variable||||||
84603339|NCT03385265|168957485|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84486182|NCT04167514|168724762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|3.866|||One-sided Wald|One-sided Wald test of superior odds of overall response under AAT treatment compared to placebo.Threshold of significance at \<0.025.|Wald CIs|||3.866|0.954|0.034
84486183|NCT00290355|168724774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24||Two-sided p value from Cox regression model adjusted for covariate(s) node/squam/stage to test the null hypothesis was: the distribution of time to recurrences was the same in each group (H0 = \[HR=1\]).|Regression, Cox|The p value by log rank test was 0.1995. Criterion for evaluation of the objective: one sided p-value \< 10%||Hazard ratio of GSK 249553 study product.||1.24|0.44|0.256
84486184|NCT03345849|168724793|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and European Union/European Medicines Agency regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|Comparison of the upadacitinib group and placebo group was performed using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factors (baseline steroid use \[Yes, No\], endoscopic disease severity \[SES-CD \< 15, ≥ 15\] and number of prior biologics with prior inadequate response or intolerance \[0, 1, \> 1\]).||28.8|12.7|<0.0001
84739507|NCT01294397|169231016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed Cmax was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.05|0.81|
84739508|NCT00955708|169231066|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|95.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.0||||||The lower one-sided 95% confidence bound was pre-specified to be greater than 92.5%.|The endpoint data reflected here is a modified primary endpoint analysis requested by the Food and Drug Administration early in the registry to include data that is related to the left ventricular lead function in a chronic setting.|||94.0|
84739509|NCT00955708|169231066|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|100.0|||||||The non-modified primary endpoint analysis initially included confirmed chronic LV lead related complications that result in permanent loss of therapy, invasive intervention, injury or death, and are deemed attributable to a structural lead failure by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). These results are represented here.|||100|
84739510|NCT03738475|169231067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0056
84545260|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
84545261|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
84545262|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
84545263|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||7|-2|
84545264|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
84603340|NCT03385265|168957486|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84603341|NCT03385265|168957487|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84603342|NCT03385265|168957488|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84603343|NCT03385265|168957489|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84603344|NCT03385265|168957490|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84739511|NCT03738475|169231071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0799||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0799
84739512|NCT03738475|169231073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.2890
84739513|NCT01370655|169231107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI; equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) is~≤0 mmHg"|Difference in Least square (LS) means|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.6|-4.1|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-4.1|-10.6|
84739514|NCT01370655|169231107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 90% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the difference ≤ 3.8 mmHg.|Difference in LS means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.2|-1.6|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.05 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-1.6|-9.2|
84739515|NCT01370655|169231107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.5|-9.0|
84739516|NCT01370655|169231107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-2.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-2.2|-11.2|
84739517|NCT01370655|169231107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.3|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.3|-6.2|
84739518|NCT01370655|169231108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|-0.3|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.3|-6.1|
84739519|NCT01370655|169231108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.2|-5.5|
84739520|NCT01370655|169231108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.1|-6.0|
84739521|NCT01370655|169231108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.2|-6.5|
84739522|NCT01370655|169231108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|2.7|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.7|-3.3|
84739523|NCT01370655|169231109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided lower 90% CI) is \> 89.0 mmol/day.|Difference in LS means|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.2|103.8|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||103.8|49.2|
84739524|NCT01370655|169231109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.8|-26.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-26.7|-100.8|
84739525|NCT01370655|169231109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|12.9|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||12.9|-49.1|
84486185|NCT03345849|168724794|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||36.4|20.9|<0.0001
84497181|NCT04636437|168745579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.6|18.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||18.20|-48.6|0.30
84739526|NCT01370655|169231109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|68.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||68.7|-7.0|
84739527|NCT01370655|169231109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.8|130.4|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||130.4|58.8|
84739528|NCT01370655|169231113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|18.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||18.2|-2.3|
84739529|NCT01370655|169231113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.5|10.7|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||10.7|-8.5|
84739530|NCT01370655|169231113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|15.6|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||15.6|-9.6|
84739531|NCT01370655|169231113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|7.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||7.2|-15.0|
84603345|NCT03385265|168957491|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84739532|NCT01370655|169231113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|17.6|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||17.6|-7.7|
84739533|NCT01735175|169231116|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|The difference between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim was 0.07 days (95% CI \[-0.12, 0.26\]). 95% CIs were within the predefined margin of ±1 day confirming equivalence.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
84545265|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
84486186|NCT03345849|168724795|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||39.9|26.2|<0.0001
84486187|NCT03345849|168724796|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||27.8|15.8|<0.0001
84486188|NCT03345849|168724797|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior failed biologic therapies.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior biologic failed.|||39.8|15.7|<0.0001
84486189|NCT03345849|168724798|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||8.3|4.2|<0.0001
84486190|NCT03345849|168724799|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|21.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1933|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|28.118|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||28.118|15.566|<0.0001
84486191|NCT03345849|168724800|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.2|4.2|0.0022
84486192|NCT03345849|168724801|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.4|11.3|<0.0001
84486193|NCT03345849|168724802|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||18.6|2.9|0.0071
84486194|NCT03345849|168724803|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|-1.4||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.4|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.4|-5.2|0.4494
84486195|NCT03345849|168724804|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.0||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.9|-1.9|0.1044
84739534|NCT01735175|169231116|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® because the lower bound of the 95% CI is entirely above the non-inferiority margin of -0.6 days.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
84739535|NCT04692467|169231124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference reflects the difference in mean change (i.e., mean change = 12 months minus baseline for each arm) between the intervention arm and SOC arm (direction = intervention arm minus SOC arm).|||-3.01|-8.77|<0.0001
84739536|NCT00422734|169231139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84739537|NCT00422734|169231140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Subject. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84739538|NCT00422734|169231140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Partner. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84739539|NCT00422734|169231141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739540|NCT00422734|169231142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739541|NCT00422734|169231143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for subject scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739542|NCT00422734|169231143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for partner scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739543|NCT00422734|169231144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 2. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84739544|NCT00422734|169231144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 3. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84603346|NCT01071200|168957526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||Change at hCG day : Wilcoxon two sample test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.07
84486196|NCT03345849|168724805|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.2|14.3|<0.0001
84486197|NCT03345849|168724806|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||43.7|21.5|<0.0001
84486198|NCT01599585|168724824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||||.68|.12|
84486199|NCT01599585|168724836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.78||||||||.78|.16|
84486200|NCT05564039|168724879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.10|<0.0001
84486201|NCT05564039|168724880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-8.7|<.0001
84486202|NCT05564039|168724881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|13.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.32|3.82|<0.0001
84486203|NCT05564039|168724882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.02|6.51|<0.0001
84486204|NCT05564039|168724883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|51.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.36|4.58|<0.0001
84486205|NCT05564039|168724884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|16.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.98|5.11|<0.0001
84486206|NCT05564039|168724885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.07|41.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.30|9.07|<0.0001
84486207|NCT05564039|168724886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|178.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.89|7.18|<0.0001
84486208|NCT05564039|168724887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|49.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.77|8.40|<0.0001
84486209|NCT05564039|168724888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.32|<0.001
84486210|NCT05564039|168724889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-7.8|0.0002
84486211|NCT05564039|168724890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
84486212|NCT05564039|168724891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-1.0|0.1181
84486213|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.211|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.211|-0.087|
84486214|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.234|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.234|-0.066|
84486215|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.294|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.294|-0.102|
84486216|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.007|0.404|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.404|0.007|
84486217|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2135|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.155|0.55|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.550|-0.155|
84486218|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.779|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.779|0.068|
84486219|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2644|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.385|0.489|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.489|-0.385|
84486220|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2662|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.049|0.928|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.928|0.049|
84486221|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.248|0.862|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||0.862|-0.248|
84486222|NCT04566445|168724892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.058|1.063|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||1.063|-0.058|
84486223|NCT04566445|168724893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|1.393|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.393|-0.103|
84486224|NCT04566445|168724893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.081|1.594|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.594|0.081|
84486225|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||1.7|-2.6|
84486226|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.4|-4.0|
84486227|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|0.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.8|-4.1|
84486228|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-2.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-2.8|-7.7|
84486229|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||3.5|-2.5|
84486230|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-7.7|
84739545|NCT00422734|169231145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 4|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739546|NCT00422734|169231145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 5|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739547|NCT00422734|169231146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739548|NCT00422734|169231147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739549|NCT00422734|169231148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739550|NCT00422734|169231148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739551|NCT00422734|169231149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739552|NCT00422734|169231149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
84739553|NCT00422734|169231150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 1|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739554|NCT00422734|169231150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 2|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84486231|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.1|-0.9|
84603347|NCT03730961|168957538|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-448.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-714.0|-183.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-183|-714|0.0021
84739555|NCT00422734|169231151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Total Score|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739556|NCT00422734|169231151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Sexual Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739557|NCT00422734|169231151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Confidence|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739558|NCT00422734|169231152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Self-Esteem|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84486232|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|1.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.4|-5.6|
84486233|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||8.4|1.0|
84486234|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||4.5|-2.8|
84486235|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|11.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.6|2.7|
84739559|NCT00422734|169231152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Overall Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
84739560|NCT00848484|169231157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.277
84739561|NCT00848484|169231158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
84739562|NCT00848484|169231159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.933
84486236|NCT04566445|168724898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|7.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.1|-1.8|
84486237|NCT04453722|168724935|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.4|0.120
84486238|NCT04453722|168724935|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-407.0||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1816.0|208.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||208|-1816|0.349
84486239|NCT04453722|168724935|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.2|0.307
84486240|NCT04453722|168724935|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-35.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.0|67.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||67|-195|0.431
84486241|NCT04453722|168724936|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.27|||Fisher Exact|||variable: In hospital Any event, N (%)c||4.27|0.22|>0.99
84486242|NCT04453722|168724936|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.9|||Chi-squared|||variable: Post-discharge Any event, N (%)||2.90|0.35|>0.99
84486243|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Number||4.0|-26.0|0.354
84486244|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-46.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.0|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Total duration (min)||5.1|-274|0.133
84486245|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.0|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Duration \>2 min (min)||0.1|-213|0.075
84486246|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Mean duration-all patients (min)||-0.4|-4.5|0.009
84486247|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: in hospital mean duration for events in those with any events (min)||-0.7|-4.7|0.001
84486248|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: post-discharge number||1.0|-4.0|0.584
84486249|NCT04453722|168724937|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge duration (min)||3.3|-18.6|0.556
84486250|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.096
84486251|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.205
84486252|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: comfortable to wear (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.839
84486253|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.621
84486254|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert||1.0|-1.0|0.898
84486255|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: easily cleaned/disinfected (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.654
84486256|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: adequate battery life (at the day of discharge)||1.0|-1.0|0.929
84486257|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.200
84486258|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.987
84486259|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.581
84739563|NCT00848484|169231160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
84739564|NCT00848484|169231161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
84739565|NCT00848484|169231162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
84739566|NCT03321253|169231170|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84739567|NCT03168542|169231216|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower 95% of the confidence limit of the proportion of subjects who require no more than one modification was greater than 50%.|Proportion|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.0|||Agresti-Coull confidence interval|Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions.||||1.000|0.756|
84739568|NCT00664534|169231233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin is defined as 0.4%. If the upper 95%CI for difference in LSMeans is below 0.4% then MIX arm will be declared noninferior to GLAR arm|Least squares mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro -Glargine)|||0.13|-0.42|
84486260|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||3.0|0.0|0.180
84739569|NCT00664534|169231235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 16 weeks|||0.29|-0.18|
84739570|NCT00664534|169231235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 32 weeks|||0.29|-0.22|
84739571|NCT00664534|169231235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 48 weeks|||0.18|-0.33|
84486261|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: degree of distributing sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.171
84486262|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.074
84739572|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2127||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2127
84739573|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3281||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.3281
84486263|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||1.0|-2.0|0.414
84739574|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2812
84739575|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.6963
84739576|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0643||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.0643
84739577|NCT00664534|169231236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2524||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2524
84486264|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Easily cleaned/disinfected (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.506
84486265|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.747
84739578|NCT00664534|169231238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6615||95.0||||P-value for Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6615
84739579|NCT00664534|169231238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9798||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9798
84739580|NCT00664534|169231238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6169||95.0||||P-value for Week 32|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6169
84739581|NCT00664534|169231238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7834||95.0||||P-value for Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7834
84739582|NCT00664534|169231240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.7|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Premix Insulin Lispro minus Glargine.|||0.70|-0.89|
84739583|NCT00664534|169231241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4935
84739584|NCT03041792|169231244|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-235.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.13||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.25|-149.25||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-149.25|-322.25|0.0000
84739585|NCT03041792|169231244|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-243.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.6||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.1|-148.15||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-148.15|-339.10|0.0000
84739586|NCT03041792|169231249|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-859.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|167.76||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1196.1|-523.1||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-523.10|-1196.1|0.0000
84739587|NCT03041792|169231249|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-928.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|193.8||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.3|-539.86||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-539.86|-1317.3|0.0000
84739588|NCT03041792|169231250|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||9.29|0.61|0.0263
84739589|NCT03041792|169231250|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||9.48|1.22|0.0121
84739590|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 4)||9.82|-1.85|0.1768
84739591|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 5)||7.70|-0.85|0.1137
84739592|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 4)||7.11|-1.41|0.1858
84739593|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 5)||5.86|-3.05|0.5288
84739594|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)||-2.61|-14.30|0.0054
84739595|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)||-2.27|-17.29|0.0117
84739596|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 4)||-1.69|-11.48|0.0093
84739597|NCT03041792|169231251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 5)||-0.66|-12.12|0.0296
84739598|NCT03041792|169231252|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|35.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.46||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.64|140.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 4)||140.76|-69.64|0.5008
84739599|NCT03041792|169231252|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|106.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.95||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|204.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 5)||204.44|7.86|0.0348
84739600|NCT03041792|169231252|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|214.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.48||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|474.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 4)||474.07|-45.59|0.1040
84739601|NCT03041792|169231252|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|348.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.29||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|626.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 5)||626.66|70.20|0.0152
84739602|NCT00402051|169231262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.3||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||65.3|40.3|
84603348|NCT03730961|168957538|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-3.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.51|-40.7|0.0222
84739603|NCT00402051|169231262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|50.8||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||50.8|27.8|
84739604|NCT00402051|169231264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|32.3||||||95.0|21.2|45.1||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||45.1|21.2|
84739605|NCT00402051|169231264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|20.0||||||95.0|11.1|31.8||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||31.8|11.1|
84739606|NCT00305344|169231267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference between AUC C-peptide at baseline and 1 or 2 years post cord blood infusion||||>0.05
84739607|NCT02209181|169231314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|21.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.35|11.42|<0.001
84739608|NCT02209181|169231314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|9.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||9.51|-0.35|0.068
84739609|NCT02209181|169231314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|21.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.18|11.21|<0.001
84739610|NCT02209181|169231314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-6.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-6.88|-16.73|<0.001
84739611|NCT02209181|169231314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|4.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.80|-5.17|0.941
84739612|NCT02209181|169231315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.19|0.448
84739613|NCT02209181|169231315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.38|0.618
84739614|NCT02209181|169231315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.23|0.621
84739615|NCT02209181|169231315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.11|-0.49|0.207
84739616|NCT02209181|169231315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.26|-0.34|0.794
84739617|NCT02209181|169231316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.86|0.82|<0.001
84739618|NCT02209181|169231316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.72||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.72|-0.30|0.420
84739619|NCT02209181|169231316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.06|0.083
84739620|NCT02209181|169231316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.62|-1.64|<0.001
84603349|NCT03730961|168957539|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|-0.876|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.876|-7.63|0.0163
84603350|NCT03730961|168957539|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|8.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.77|-38.8|0.2018
84739621|NCT02209181|169231316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.37||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.37|-1.40|<0.001
84739622|NCT02209181|169231317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.59|2.28|<0.001
84739623|NCT02209181|169231317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.29|-0.02|0.058
84739624|NCT02209181|169231317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.89|0.57|<0.001
84739625|NCT02209181|169231317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-1.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.65|-2.96|<0.001
84739626|NCT02209181|169231317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.04|-2.37|<0.001
84739627|NCT02209181|169231318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|3.01|<0.001
84739628|NCT02209181|169231318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|0.06|0.035
84739629|NCT02209181|169231318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.67|1.21|<0.001
84739630|NCT02209181|169231318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.24|-3.68|<0.001
84545266|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
84739631|NCT02209181|169231318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.07|-2.52|<0.001
84739632|NCT02209181|169231319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|4.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.77|3.21|<0.001
84739633|NCT02209181|169231319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.64|0.09|0.028
84739634|NCT02209181|169231319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|1.70|<0.001
84739635|NCT02209181|169231319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.35|-3.90|<0.001
84739636|NCT02209181|169231319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.73|-2.29|<0.001
84739637|NCT02209181|169231320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.92|<0.001
84486266|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: satisfy with the electrode patch (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-2.0|0.023
84486267|NCT04453722|168724940|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.023
84486268|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Degree of disturbing routine work||0.0|-1.0|0.73
84486269|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Easily cleaned/disinfected||1.0|0.0|0.097
84486270|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life||1.0|0.0|0.02
84486271|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch||1.0|0.0|0.037
84486272|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert||1.0|-2.0|0.482
84603351|NCT03730961|168957539|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|0.0446|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0446|-7.27|0.0526
84739638|NCT02209181|169231320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|0.16|0.021
84739639|NCT02209181|169231320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|2.19|<0.001
84486273|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study||1.0|0.0|0.031
84739640|NCT02209181|169231320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.91|-3.63|<0.001
84739641|NCT02209181|169231320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.15|-1.59|0.104
84739642|NCT02209181|169231321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.07|2.18|<0.001
84739643|NCT02209181|169231321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.92|0.04|0.041
84739644|NCT02209181|169231321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|2.19|<0.001
84739645|NCT02209181|169231321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.21||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.21|-3.09|<0.001
84739646|NCT02209181|169231321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.93|0.973
84739647|NCT02209181|169231322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.87|1.87|<0.001
84739648|NCT02209181|169231322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|-0.10|0.079
84739649|NCT02209181|169231322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.27|2.27|<0.001
84739650|NCT02209181|169231322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
84739651|NCT02209181|169231322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.40|-0.61|0.440
84739652|NCT02209181|169231323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.57|1.52|<0.001
84486274|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||variable: Patients' complaint about the device|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Patients' complaint about the device||1.0|0.0|0.947
84486275|NCT04453722|168724941|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line||0.0|0.0|0.324
84486276|NCT00137267|168724980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84739653|NCT02209181|169231323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.83|-0.21|0.118
84739654|NCT02209181|169231323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.16|2.10|<0.001
84739655|NCT02209181|169231323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.71|-2.75|<0.001
84739656|NCT02209181|169231323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.62|-0.44|0.262
84739657|NCT02209181|169231324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.96|0.88|<0.001
84739658|NCT02209181|169231324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.61|-0.45|0.271
84739659|NCT02209181|169231324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.99|1.91|<0.001
84739660|NCT02209181|169231324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.32|-2.37|0.011
84739661|NCT02209181|169231324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.07|-0.01|0.052
84739662|NCT02209181|169231325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.29|0.21|0.018
84739663|NCT02209181|169231325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.50|0.310
84739664|NCT02209181|169231325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.85|1.76|<0.001
84739665|NCT02209181|169231325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.75|0.172
84486277|NCT00137267|168724981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
84486278|NCT00853112|168725007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.36||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.5|-1.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and standard deviation (SD) from the Bayesian analysis.||-1.1|-371.5|0.120
84486279|NCT00853112|168725007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-170.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.84||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-409.2|-7.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne.s.m2/cm5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-7.1|-409.2|0.250
84497182|NCT04636437|168745579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-51.8|14.76||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||14.76|-51.8|0.21
84739666|NCT02209181|169231325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.60|0.51|0.004
84739667|NCT02209181|169231326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.84|-0.17|0.102
84739668|NCT02209181|169231326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.64|0.479
84739669|NCT02209181|169231326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.85|<0.001
84739670|NCT02209181|169231326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-1.47|0.345
84739671|NCT02209181|169231326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.02|1.01|<0.001
84486280|NCT00853112|168725007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-240.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|109.28||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-444.8|-33.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-33.8|-444.8|0.485
84486281|NCT00853112|168725007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-327.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.9|-148.0|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-148.0|-492.9|0.810
84486282|NCT00853112|168725007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-379.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.61||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-520.6|-238.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. Posterior distribution was calculated and was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-238.8|-520.6|0.974
84486283|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-195.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|207.38||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-618.8|228.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline fitted as a covariate.||228.3|-618.8|0.354
84486284|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|190.99||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.1|356.0|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||356.0|-424.1|0.860
84486285|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-435.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|195.94||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-835.9|-35.6|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||-35.6|-835.9|0.034
84486286|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-334.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.74||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-746.7|77.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||77.3|-746.7|0.107
84739672|NCT02209181|169231327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.51|-0.52|0.338
84486287|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-278.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.89||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-688.3|132.2|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||132.2|-688.3|0.177
84486288|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|315.91||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.1|696.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||696.3|-594.1|0.873
84486289|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|303.08||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-543.8|694.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||694.1|-543.8|0.806
84486290|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-262.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.8|352.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||352.1|-877.8|0.390
84486291|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-329.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.97||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-948.1|289.4|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||289.4|-948.1|0.286
84486292|NCT00853112|168725008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.15||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-704.3|578.9|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||578.9|-704.3|0.843
84667928|NCT00066066|169070776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
84739673|NCT02209181|169231327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.54|-0.47|0.299
84486293|NCT00853112|168725009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|322.8||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-659.7|658.8|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||658.8|-659.7|0.999
84486294|NCT00853112|168725009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.69||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-560.2|704.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||704.7|-560.2|0.817
84739674|NCT02209181|169231327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.73|1.70|<0.001
84739675|NCT02209181|169231327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.04|-0.97|0.942
84739676|NCT02209181|169231327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.24|1.21|<0.001
84739677|NCT02209181|169231328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.48|0.306
84739678|NCT02209181|169231328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|-0.51|0.335
84739679|NCT02209181|169231328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.80|1.78|<0.001
84739680|NCT02209181|169231328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-1.03|0.946
84739681|NCT02209181|169231328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.28|1.25|<0.001
84739682|NCT02209181|169231329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.45|0.279
84739683|NCT02209181|169231329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.46|0.292
84486295|NCT00853112|168725009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-82.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|307.67||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-711.0|545.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||545.7|-711.0|0.790
84486296|NCT00853112|168725009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-325.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.58||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-957.8|306.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||306.7|-957.8|0.301
84486297|NCT00853112|168725009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|321.0||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.8|594.4|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||594.4|-716.8|0.850
84739684|NCT02209181|169231329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.68|1.66|<0.001
84486298|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-269.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.93||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-785.39|246.76|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||246.76|-785.39|0.295
84486299|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-97.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|234.55||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-577.02|381.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||381.72|-577.02|0.680
84667929|NCT00697515|169070788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84667930|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0017
84545267|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-2|
84545268|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
84739685|NCT02209181|169231329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.98|-1.02|0.971
84739686|NCT02209181|169231329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.12|1.11|<0.001
84739687|NCT02209181|169231330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-0.50|0.329
84739688|NCT02209181|169231330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.31|-0.68|0.531
84739689|NCT02209181|169231330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.54|1.53|<0.001
84739690|NCT02209181|169231330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.81|-1.17|0.722
84739691|NCT02209181|169231330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.04|1.03|<0.001
84739692|NCT02209181|169231331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.42|-0.54|0.380
84739693|NCT02209181|169231331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.12|-0.83|0.767
84739694|NCT02209181|169231331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.49|1.52|<0.001
84739695|NCT02209181|169231331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.68|-1.27|0.557
84739696|NCT02209181|169231331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.05|1.08|<0.001
84739697|NCT02209181|169231332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.83|0.640
84739698|NCT02209181|169231332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-0.94|0.798
84739699|NCT02209181|169231332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.42|1.23|<0.001
84739700|NCT02209181|169231332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-1.20|0.829
84739701|NCT02209181|169231332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.16|0.97|<0.001
84739702|NCT02209181|169231333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.06|0.117
84739703|NCT02209181|169231333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.25|0.687
84739704|NCT02209181|169231333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.21|0.497
84486300|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-376.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.06||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.53|116.31|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||116.31|-869.53|0.129
84486301|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-342.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.07||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-846.9|162.32|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||162.32|-846.90|0.176
84486302|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|261.58||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-850.9|217.17|||Longitudinal analysis|||Hour 1: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||217.17|-850.90|0.235
84486303|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-198.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-705.04|308.91|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||308.91|-705.04|0.430
84486304|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|229.23||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.23|508.04|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||508.04|-432.23|0.870
84486305|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-114.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|244.95||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.57|386.45|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||386.45|-614.57|0.645
84486306|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-299.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.63||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-794.81|195.61|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||195.61|-794.81|0.225
84486307|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-332.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|255.93||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-856.55|192.05|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||192.05|-856.55|0.205
84486308|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|263.63||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-625.87|452.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||452.42|-625.87|0.745
84486309|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.25||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-484.46|520.47|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||520.47|-484.46|0.942
84486310|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-265.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|259.53||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-796.15|264.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||264.28|-796.15|0.314
84486311|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-275.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|258.01||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.57|252.88|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||252.88|-803.57|0.295
84486312|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-326.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|272.96||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-885.12|232.02|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||232.02|-885.12|0.241
84603352|NCT03730961|168957539|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9|-38.8|0.2076
84739705|NCT02209181|169231333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.13|-0.51|0.239
84739706|NCT02209181|169231333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.18|-0.46|0.376
84739707|NCT02209181|169231334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|1.14|<0.001
84486313|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-145.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.5||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.24|300.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||300.83|-592.24|0.510
84739708|NCT02209181|169231334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.94|-0.33|0.350
84739709|NCT02209181|169231334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.08|-0.21|0.183
84739710|NCT02209181|169231334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.84|-2.11|<0.001
84486314|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|77.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|199.85||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.7|486.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||486.63|-330.70|0.699
84486315|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|204.65||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-760.45|76.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||76.64|-760.45|0.106
84486316|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-289.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.69||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-722.17|143.35|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||143.35|-722.17|0.182
84486317|NCT00853112|168725010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-256.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.88||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.26|203.06|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||203.06|-716.26|0.263
84486318|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-328.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.78||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1114.11|457.92|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||457.92|-1114.11|0.401
84486319|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-164.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|370.54||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.05|590.12|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.12|-920.05|0.659
84739711|NCT02209181|169231334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.70|-1.98|<0.001
84486320|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-287.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|372.6||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.59|473.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||473.42|-1047.59|0.447
84486321|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-457.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|374.26||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1220.86|306.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||306.53|-1220.86|0.231
84486322|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-75.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.2||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-858.19|707.71|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||707.71|-858.19|0.846
84486323|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-115.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.2||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-844.24|612.96|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||612.96|-844.24|0.748
84486324|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.91||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-702.41|696.67|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.67|-702.41|0.993
84486325|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|174.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.93||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.41|874.81|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||874.81|-526.41|0.615
84486326|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-494.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|344.72||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.04|209.21|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||209.21|-1199.04|0.161
84486327|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-134.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.5||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.74|590.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.77|-859.74|0.708
84486328|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|47.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|365.43||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-697.56|792.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||792.79|-697.56|0.897
84486329|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|98.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|350.87||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.15|813.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||813.99|-617.15|0.781
84739712|NCT02209181|169231335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.61|2.94|<0.001
84739713|NCT02209181|169231335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.71|0.05|0.037
84739714|NCT02209181|169231335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.30|0.63|<0.001
84739715|NCT02209181|169231335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.07|-3.73|<0.001
84739716|NCT02209181|169231335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.47|-3.15|<0.001
84739717|NCT02209181|169231336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.25|3.43|<0.001
84739718|NCT02209181|169231336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.75|-0.06|0.067
84739719|NCT02209181|169231336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.17|1.34|<0.001
84739720|NCT02209181|169231336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.59|-4.40|<0.001
84739721|NCT02209181|169231336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.17|-3.00|<0.001
84739722|NCT02209181|169231337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.84|3.90|<0.001
84545269|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
84603353|NCT03730961|168957540|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.189|0.1621
84603354|NCT03730961|168957540|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|61.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||61.3|2.72|0.0338
84667931|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739723|NCT02209181|169231337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.09|0.16|0.023
84739724|NCT02209181|169231337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|1.98|<0.001
84739725|NCT02209181|169231337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.78|-4.71|<0.001
84739726|NCT02209181|169231337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.94|-2.89|<0.001
84739727|NCT02209181|169231338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.78|3.64|<0.001
84739728|NCT02209181|169231338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|0.30|0.012
84739729|NCT02209181|169231338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.81|2.66|<0.001
84739730|NCT02209181|169231338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.29|-4.41|<0.001
84739731|NCT02209181|169231338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.09|-2.05|0.074
84739732|NCT02209181|169231339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|4.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.97|2.63|<0.001
84739733|NCT02209181|169231339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.48|0.16|0.026
84739734|NCT02209181|169231339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.99|2.64|<0.001
84739735|NCT02209181|169231339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.32|-3.64|<0.001
84486330|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-28.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.47||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-753.46|696.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.83|-753.46|0.937
84739736|NCT02209181|169231339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.19||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.19|-1.16|0.978
84603355|NCT03730961|168957540|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|0.766||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-0.0353|0.0600
84486331|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-369.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.25||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.86|351.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||351.72|-1090.86|0.304
84486332|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-185.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|363.77||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.54|556.27|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||556.27|-927.54|0.613
84603356|NCT03730961|168957540|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|33.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|63.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||63|4.02|0.0280
84603357|NCT03730961|168957543|SUPERIORITY||Difference between drug and placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.74||||||||||||||||
84486333|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|265.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|324.88||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.45|928.48|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||928.48|-397.45|0.420
84667932|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84486334|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|240.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.63||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.81|876.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||876.14|-395.81|0.447
84486335|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-176.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.11||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.1|454.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||454.63|-808.10|0.572
84486336|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.11||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-663.31|607.38|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||607.38|-663.31|0.929
84486337|NCT00853112|168725011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|29.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|323.01||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-629.62|688.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||688.79|-629.62|0.928
84486338|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-0.35|0.412
84486339|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.58|0.999
84486340|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.39|0.535
84486341|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.01|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.01|-0.13|0.128
84603358|NCT01920893|168957555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-1.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-0.67|-2.43|0.0009
84486342|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-0.67|0.823
84486343|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.40|0.396
84486344|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.72|-0.63|0.899
84486345|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.70|0.928
84486346|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.11|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.25|0.203
84486347|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.60|0.772
84486348|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-0.52|0.771
84486349|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.75|0.572
84486350|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.6|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.60|-0.58|0.966
84486351|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-0.17|0.157
84545270|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-5|
84739737|NCT02209181|169231340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.62|2.18|<0.001
84739738|NCT02209181|169231340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.28|-0.13|0.081
84739739|NCT02209181|169231340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.14|2.69|<0.001
84545271|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
84545272|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-11|
84545273|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-8|
84545274|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%)||5|-3|
84545275|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
84667933|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84667934|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84667935|NCT00697515|169070789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739740|NCT02209181|169231340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.11|-3.53|<0.001
84739741|NCT02209181|169231340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.71|0.407
84739742|NCT02209181|169231341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.10|1.56|<0.001
84545276|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
84545277|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
84545278|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
84545279|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-2|
84545280|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-8|
84545281|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-9|
84545282|NCT00450437|168843624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-5|
84667936|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Average over the treatment day||||<0.0001
84667937|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0010
84486352|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.43|0.546
84486353|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.51|0.818
84486354|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.71|0.603
84739743|NCT02209181|169231341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.14|-0.38|0.170
84739744|NCT02209181|169231341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.87|2.33|<0.001
84739745|NCT02209181|169231341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.69|-3.21|0.002
84486355|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.37|0.495
84739746|NCT02209181|169231341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.04|-0.50|0.235
84486356|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.31|0.375
84739747|NCT02209181|169231342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.39|0.82|0.001
84739748|NCT02209181|169231342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.87|-0.68|0.355
84739749|NCT02209181|169231342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.07|<0.001
84739750|NCT02209181|169231342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.23|-2.78|0.021
84739751|NCT02209181|169231342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.55|-0.03|0.056
84739752|NCT02209181|169231343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.50|-0.09|0.067
84739753|NCT02209181|169231343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.68|-0.89|0.547
84739754|NCT02209181|169231343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|1.86|<0.001
84739755|NCT02209181|169231343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.47|-2.10|0.214
84739756|NCT02209181|169231343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|0.66|0.003
84486357|NCT00853112|168725012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.84|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.34|0.392
84486358|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|2.86|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.86|-12.47|0.210
84486359|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.9|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-11.84|0.225
84486360|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|3.93|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.93|-11.28|0.332
84486361|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|6.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.28|-9.06|0.714
84486362|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|-0.39|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-0.39|-15.63|0.040
84486363|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|0.75|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-13.02|0.079
84486364|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|4.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||4.77|-8.46|0.573
84486365|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.15|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.15|-10.50|0.280
84486366|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.51|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.51|-8.28|0.684
84486367|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-1.34|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||-1.34|-15.01|0.021
84486368|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|6.25|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.25|-8.86|0.727
84486369|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|2.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-12.12|0.183
84486370|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|1.49|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.49|-13.51|0.112
84486371|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|7.23|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||7.23|-7.91|0.928
84486372|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-1.5|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.50|-16.52|0.020
84486373|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|1.94|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.94|-13.55|0.136
84486374|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.63|-11.27|0.303
84486375|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.52|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.52|-12.87|0.180
84486376|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|5.2|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.20|-10.31|0.506
84486377|NCT00853112|168725013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-1.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.14|-16.54|0.026
84486378|NCT01553591|168725021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.014
84545283|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
84486379|NCT01553591|168725021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.004
84486380|NCT01553591|168725022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.112
84486381|NCT01553591|168725022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
84486382|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|23.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||23.27|-25.61|
84667938|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84667939|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84486383|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|36.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||36.27|-9.84|
84486384|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.43|-2.1|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.10|-41.43|
84486385|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-3.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.57|-42.63|
84486386|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.85|7.28|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.28|-30.85|
84486387|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.66|7.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.57|-27.66|
84486388|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|7.43|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.43|-37.72|
84486389|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|19.45|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||19.45|-23.66|
84486390|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-2.57|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.57|-38.75|
84486391|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-3.71|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.71|-39.70|
84739757|NCT02209181|169231344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.95|-0.57|0.281
84739758|NCT02209181|169231344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.47|-1.03|0.729
84739759|NCT02209181|169231344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.47|1.95|<0.001
84739760|NCT02209181|169231344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-1.72|0.459
84486392|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|7.38|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.38|-28.62|
84486393|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.94|-10.12|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-10.12|-41.94|
84486394|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|9.36|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||9.36|-33.56|
84486395|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|24.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||24.57|-15.91|
84739761|NCT02209181|169231344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.78|1.26|<0.001
84486396|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-8.02|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-8.02|-42.56|
84486397|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-2.82|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.82|-37.12|
84486398|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-5.08|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-5.08|-38.56|
84486399|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-2.55|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.55|-33.48|
84486400|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.21|10.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||10.81|-33.21|
84739762|NCT02209181|169231345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.55|-1.00|0.674
84739763|NCT02209181|169231345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.74|0.417
84739764|NCT02209181|169231345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.33|1.77|<0.001
84739765|NCT02209181|169231345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.52|-1.02|0.698
84739766|NCT02209181|169231345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.05|1.49|<0.001
84739767|NCT02209181|169231346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.66|-0.87|0.541
84739768|NCT02209181|169231346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.73|0.409
84486401|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|25.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||25.81|-16.22|
84486402|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|2.41|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||2.41|-32.86|
84667940|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739769|NCT02209181|169231346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.39|1.85|<0.001
84739770|NCT02209181|169231346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.12|0.834
84739771|NCT02209181|169231346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.00|1.45|<0.001
84739772|NCT02209181|169231347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.63|-0.90|0.573
84739773|NCT02209181|169231347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.77|0.448
84739774|NCT02209181|169231347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.25|1.71|<0.001
84739775|NCT02209181|169231347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.38|-1.13|0.848
84739776|NCT02209181|169231347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.89|1.35|<0.001
84486403|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-17.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.56|0.53|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||0.53|-34.56|
84486404|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-6.39|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-6.39|-41.49|
84486405|NCT02202161|168725096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.96|-3.93|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-3.93|-34.96|
84739777|NCT02209181|169231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.04|0.720
84739778|NCT02209181|169231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.45|-1.07|0.763
84739779|NCT02209181|169231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|1.55|<0.001
84486406|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.49|||||Mean and confidence interval (CI) for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|0.92|
84486407|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.38|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.38|0.89|
84486408|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.27|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.27|0.87|
84486409|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.52|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.52|1.03|
84486410|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.5|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.50|1.04|
84486411|NCT02202161|168725111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.94|
84486412|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.13|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.13|0.68|
84486413|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.82|
84486414|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.26|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.26|0.85|
84486415|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.45|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.45|0.97|
84486416|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.49|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|1.01|
84486417|NCT02202161|168725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.48|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.48|1.04|
84545284|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||9|1|
84486418|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.91|
84486419|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.98|0.78|
84486420|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.78|
84486421|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.68|
84486422|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.92|0.76|
84486423|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.10|0.92|
84667941|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84667942|NCT00697515|169070790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84667943|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Over the treatment day||||<0.0001
84486424|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.19|0.95|
84739780|NCT02209181|169231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.30|0.952
84486425|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.94|
84486426|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.88|
84486427|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.89|
84486428|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.98|
84667944|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0031
84739781|NCT02209181|169231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.31|<0.001
84739782|NCT02209181|169231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.10|0.821
84739783|NCT02209181|169231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.25|0.978
84739784|NCT02209181|169231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.13|1.63|<0.001
84739785|NCT02209181|169231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.07|-1.39|0.799
84739786|NCT02209181|169231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.98|1.49|<0.001
84739787|NCT02209181|169231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.13|-1.62|0.726
84739788|NCT02209181|169231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.25|-1.48|0.869
84739789|NCT02209181|169231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.90|1.13|<0.001
84739790|NCT02209181|169231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.24|0.851
84739791|NCT02209181|169231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.15|1.38|<0.001
84739792|NCT02209181|169231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.042
84545285|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs.Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||20|11|
84545286|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|28.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||28|19|
84545287|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
84545288|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|0|
84545289|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||9|4|
84545290|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||20|12|
84545291|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||7|-1|
84545292|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||4|-1|
84739793|NCT02209181|169231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.779
84739794|NCT02209181|169231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||<0.001
84739795|NCT02209181|169231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.196
84739796|NCT02209181|169231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.006
84739797|NCT02209181|169231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.9|1.1|<0.001
84739798|NCT02209181|169231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.8|-0.0|0.077
84739799|NCT02209181|169231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.6|0.8|<0.001
84667945|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739800|NCT02209181|169231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.001
84739801|NCT02209181|169231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.1|-0.7|0.148
84739802|NCT04855734|169231415|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.962||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.396||Threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.396|0.661|0.835
84739803|NCT04855734|169231416|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.826||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.986||\<0.05 was threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning/Peace subscale which was a primary outcome.||0.986|0.75|0.032
84739804|NCT04855734|169231422|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.052||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.157||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver strain subscale scores at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||1.157|0.959|0.284
84739805|NCT04855734|169231422|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratioj|0.931||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.048||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver distress subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.048|0.827|0.228
84739806|NCT04855734|169231422|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.984||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.032||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family well-being subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.032|0.94|0.504
84739807|NCT04855734|169231422|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.995||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.024||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Caregiving Appraisals subscale at 3 month follow up, controlling for baseline levels.||1.024|0.967|0.741
84739808|NCT03832595|169231430|EQUIVALENCE|We determined that 1,653 patients provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.64, or a 5% absolute risk reduction in intervention arm, assuming a primary end-point rate of 15% in the usual care group at 24 months, 20% loss to follow-up, α = 0.05, and within-practice intra-class correlation of 0.01|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.67|0.82
84739809|NCT03832595|169231431|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Slope difference|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.029||||||||0.029|-0.008|
84739810|NCT03832595|169231432|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||||||||1.43|1.02|
84739811|NCT03832595|169231433|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25||||||||1.25|0.51|
84739812|NCT03832595|169231434|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|53.78||||||||53.78|0.03|
84545293|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||8|3|
84545294|NCT00450437|168843625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||16|9|
84545295|NCT00450437|168843626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenA.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.56|1.12|
84603359|NCT02752958|168957573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|12.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus Week 4 score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (Baseline ) versus (vs.) Week 4||12.80|-1.018|0.0944
84667946|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739813|NCT03832595|169231435|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|9.96||||||||9.96|0.12|
84739814|NCT04535544|169231461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|23.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|43.96|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||43.96|3.52|0.011
84739815|NCT04535544|169231462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|26.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|46.21|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted MH test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||46.21|7.38|0.003
84739816|NCT01681277|169231486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9354|1.5062|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for Cmax,ss was analysed.||1.5062|0.9354|
84667947|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739817|NCT01681277|169231488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0652|1.5618|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for AUCt,ss was analysed.||1.5618|1.0652|
84739818|NCT03838731|169231494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.77|0.17|= 0.0083
84739819|NCT03838731|169231495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 29||0.48|0.12|< 0.0001
84545296|NCT00450437|168843626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigation MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenC.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.67|1.17|
84739820|NCT03838731|169231495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||=|0.0222||95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 57||0.89|0.22|= 0.0222
84739821|NCT03838731|169231495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||=|0.0003||95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 85||0.56|0.13|= 0.0003
84739822|NCT03838731|169231496|SUPERIORITY|Day 8|LS Mean Difference|13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|20.77|||MMRM|||||20.77|6.35|<0.001
84739823|NCT03838731|169231496|SUPERIORITY|Day 29|LS Mean Difference|16.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|26.24|||MMRM|||||26.24|6.18|= 0.002
84739824|NCT03838731|169231496|SUPERIORITY|Day 57|LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.2|||MMRM|||||22.20|2.40|= 0.016
84739825|NCT03838731|169231496|SUPERIORITY|Day 85|LS Mean Difference|12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|21.65|||MMRM|||||21.65|3.43|= 0.008
84739826|NCT03838731|169231497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.53|0.21|< 0.001
84739827|NCT03838731|169231497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.68|0.23|<0.001
84739828|NCT03838731|169231497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.55|0.13|= 0.002
84739829|NCT03838731|169231497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.47|0.15|= 0.002
84739830|NCT03838731|169231498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.29|||MMRM|||Day 8||1.29|-0.85|= 0.675
84739831|NCT03838731|169231498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.33|-1.70|= 0.182
84739832|NCT03838731|169231498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.32|||MMRM|||Day 57||1.32|-1.12|= 0.866
84739833|NCT03838731|169231498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.32|-2.08|= 0.146
84739834|NCT03838731|169231499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.63|-0.35|= 0.572
84739835|NCT03838731|169231499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.41|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.41|-0.41|= 0.997
84739836|NCT03838731|169231499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.49|-0.36|= 0.756
84739837|NCT03838731|169231499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.16|-0.46|= 0.333
84739838|NCT03838731|169231500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|64.65|||MMRM|||Day 8||64.65|14.36|= 0.003
84739839|NCT03838731|169231500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.01|78.12|||MMRM|||Day 29||78.12|30.01|< 0.001
84739840|NCT03838731|169231500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.28|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|62.08|||MMRM|||Day 57||62.08|4.79|= 0.023
84739841|NCT03838731|169231500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|67.09|||MMRM|||Day 85||67.09|15.10|= 0.003
84739842|NCT03838731|169231501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|205.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.09|=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|410.17|||MMRM|||Day 8||410.17|0.69|= 0.049
84739843|NCT03838731|169231501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|244.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.05|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|443.59|||MMRM|||Day 29||443.59|45.60|= 0.017
84739844|NCT03838731|169231501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|183.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.91|=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|377.35|||MMRM|||Day 57||377.35|-11.29|= 0.064
84739845|NCT03838731|169231501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|241.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.0|=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.44|469.57|||MMRM|||Day 85||469.57|12.44|= 0.039
84739846|NCT02271984|169231505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|46.0|||||Percentage of Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment B) is reported.|||46.0|34.7|
84739847|NCT02271984|169231505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|33.2|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C1/Treatment A) is reported.|||33.2|22.5|
84739848|NCT02271984|169231505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|260.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.0|316.4|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C2/Treatment A) is reported.|||316.4|214.0|
84739849|NCT02271984|169231505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|167.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.9|194.0|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment D) is reported.|||194.0|143.9|
84739850|NCT02271984|169231505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|115.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|134.1|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment E/Treatment A) is reported.|||134.1|99.8|
84739851|NCT01088984|169231520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||1-sided p-value is calculated against the null hypothesis of a response rate of 5%.|binomial parameter exact method|||||||1.0000
84739852|NCT01182441|169231531|SUPERIORITY|Success for this endpoint was achieved if the probability of experiencing an event was statistically less than the performance goal, defined as 2.67%, with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% credible interval less than the performance goal.|probability of experiencing an event|2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.652||||||Bayesian calculations were used to incorporate the data from PROTECT AF CAP Registry through a conjugate beta-binomial model. A one-sided upper 95% credible interval for the event rate was calculated based off this posterior distribution.||2.652||
84739853|NCT01182441|169231532|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if the 95% Credible Interval for the rate ratio of WATCHMAN versus Warfarin is entirely less than 1.75.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval model were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately by treatment group and event type. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||1.89|0.57|
84486429|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.90|
84739854|NCT01182441|169231533|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.0273||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||0.0273|-0.0190|
84486430|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.13|0.80|
84486431|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.65|
84667948|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84739855|NCT01182441|169231533|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||4.2|0.5|
84739856|NCT05620108|169231541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84739857|NCT02038842|169231543|OTHER|The co-primary immunogenicity endpoint is analysed per arm, in a frequentist framework, in all randomised participants having received at least one vaccine administration and still HIV-negative at W30.|||||=|0.02||||||One-sided test for the observed proportion being superior to the theoretical decision threshold of 50%.|Binomial|||Trial was designed to compare the observed proportion of responders at week 30 within each group to a predefined minimum immunogenicity level of 50%.||||=0.02
84739858|NCT05504954|169231546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.04|0.15
84739859|NCT05504954|169231548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.89|0.81|0.10
84739860|NCT05504954|169231549|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|27.78|||Regression, Linear|||||27.78|-17.78|0.65
84739861|NCT05504954|169231550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
84739862|NCT05504954|169231551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
84739863|NCT05504954|169231552|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84739864|NCT05504954|169231553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
84739865|NCT01757197|169231564|OTHER|Not evaluable.|Other|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Not evaluable.||||Not evaluable.|Not evaluable.|||
84739866|NCT05332912|169231568|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.066
84739867|NCT05332912|169231568|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.056
84739868|NCT05332912|169231568|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.65
84739869|NCT05332912|169231569|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.039|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.039
84545297|NCT00450437|168843626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenW.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.05|1.51|
84545298|NCT00450437|168843626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.95|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenY.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.95|2.11|
84545299|NCT00450437|168843628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||5|-7|
84545300|NCT00450437|168843628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine. MenC.||15|3|
84545301|NCT00450437|168843628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||17|2|
84545302|NCT00450437|168843628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|23.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||23|9|
84545303|NCT01890122|168843629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.278||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.278|-0.700|< 0.0001
84545304|NCT01890122|168843629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.467||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.467|-0.889|< 0.0001
84545305|NCT00071110|168843658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistic (t): -1.00|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84545306|NCT00071110|168843659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.56|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84545307|NCT00071110|168843660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.40|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84545308|NCT01445730|168843672|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84545309|NCT01445730|168843673|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84545310|NCT01445730|168843674|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84545311|NCT01445730|168843675|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84545312|NCT01445730|168843676|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84545313|NCT01445730|168843677|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84545314|NCT01445730|168843678|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84545315|NCT03805412|168843693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.694
84545316|NCT00030901|168843694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for stratification factors age older than 60, African American, baseline PSA, and vitamin E supplementation.|Regression, Logistic|||With target sample size of 466 randomized patients (233 per arm), there is a 90% of power to detect a one-third reduction in the three-year incidence rate of prostate cancer. The alpha level is set at 0.025, one-sided.||||0.73
84545317|NCT04955691|168843716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84545318|NCT04955691|168843717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.57
84545319|NCT04955691|168843717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||54-69 mg/dL||||0.43
84545320|NCT04955691|168843718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||181-250 mg/dL||||0.006
84545321|NCT04955691|168843718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\>250 mg/dL||||<0.001
84571120|NCT01258374|168893432|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The PK paramaters reported as geometric means, were calculated using noncompartmental modelinf techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA)|Noncompartmental modeling techniques||||The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for DRV, RTV and RAL were trough plasma concentration (C trough), defined as the concentration at 24 or 12 h after observed dose, the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 H (AUC 0-24) or 0 to 12 h (AUC 0-12) and the elimination half-life (t1/2). AUC and t1/2 were calculated using non using noncompartmental modeling techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA). All of these PK parameters are reported as geometric means.|||<0.01
84571121|NCT04596293|168893436|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84739870|NCT05332912|169231569|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention condition and received 16 weeks of experiential training in Mental Rotation will exhibit a similar change in performance as Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received only 8 weeks of experiential training.||||= .32
84486432|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.64|
84739871|NCT05332912|169231569|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||df = 55|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.73
84739872|NCT05332912|169231570|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.023
84739873|NCT05332912|169231570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.23
84739874|NCT05332912|169231570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.42
84739875|NCT05332912|169231571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.01
84739876|NCT05332912|169231571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.28
84739877|NCT05332912|169231571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 16 weeks of intervention.||||.23
84486433|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.69|0.51|
84486434|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.62|
84486435|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.89|
84571122|NCT04596293|168893436|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84571123|NCT04596293|168893437|OTHER|||||||0.6351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6351
84739878|NCT01174446|169231572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence will be established if 90% C.I. of ratio is contained completely in the margins of equivalence of 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.09||||||||1.09|1.03|
84739879|NCT01174446|169231599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.7790
84739880|NCT01174446|169231599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8999
84739881|NCT01174446|169231600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0056
84739882|NCT01174446|169231600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4130
84739883|NCT01174446|169231601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9059||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9059
84739884|NCT01174446|169231601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4098||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4098
84739885|NCT01174446|169231602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0189
84739886|NCT01174446|169231602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2974||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2974
84739887|NCT01174446|169231603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2009
84739888|NCT01174446|169231603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3552||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3552
84739889|NCT01174446|169231604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5143||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5143
84739890|NCT01174446|169231604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9223||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9223
84739891|NCT01174446|169231605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0162||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0162
84739892|NCT01174446|169231605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3176||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3176
84739893|NCT01174446|169231606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.821||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8210
84739894|NCT01174446|169231606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5565||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5565
84739895|NCT01174446|169231607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0146
84739896|NCT01174446|169231607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4048
84739897|NCT01174446|169231608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1258||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1258
84739898|NCT01174446|169231608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2567||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2567
84739899|NCT01174446|169231609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1048
84739900|NCT01174446|169231609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6410
84739901|NCT01174446|169231610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0663
84739902|NCT01174446|169231610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4890
84667949|NCT00697515|169070791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84486436|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.88|
84486437|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.71|
84667950|NCT00697515|169070792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667951|NCT00697515|169070793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84667952|NCT00697515|169070796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Prescott's Test|||||||<0.0001
84486438|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.74|
84667953|NCT00697515|169070797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667954|NCT00697515|169070799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667955|NCT00697515|169070800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84667956|NCT03054857|169070805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.532||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.406|||Chi-squared|||||3.406|0.689|0.289
84667957|NCT03054857|169070806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.329||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.319|||Chi-squared|||||4.319|0.409|0.636
84667958|NCT03054857|169070808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.792||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.626|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.626|0.187
84667959|NCT03054857|169070809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.644|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.606||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.45|-19.74|0.543
84667960|NCT02759120|169070851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.71|0.83
84667961|NCT02759120|169070852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Regression, Cox|||||1.78|0.70|0.65
84667962|NCT02759120|169070853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
84667963|NCT02759120|169070854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.91|0.13
84667964|NCT02759120|169070855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||||1.89|0.78|0.40
84667965|NCT02759120|169070856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.90|0.16
84667966|NCT02759120|169070857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.83|||Regression, Cox|||||2.83|-0.56|0.19
84667967|NCT02759120|169070858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|-1.67|0.51
84667968|NCT02759120|169070859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.46|0.13
84667969|NCT02759120|169070860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
84667970|NCT02759120|169070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||Regression, Cox|||||0.46|-0.24|0.54
84667971|NCT02759120|169070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.79|0.99
84667972|NCT02759120|169070863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
84667973|NCT02759120|169070864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.051|||Regression, Cox|||||0.051|-0.031|0.63
84667974|NCT02759120|169070865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.043|||Regression, Cox|||||0.043|-0.007|0.15
84667975|NCT02759120|169070866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|-1.11|0.53
84667976|NCT02759120|169070867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.20|-1.61|0.75
84667977|NCT02255981|169070877|OTHER|Non-inferiority could be considered if the outcomes were comparable to the most known studies yet published or, in the case of non-treatable disorder, if the acupuncture treatment got to maintain the VA and prevent the losses. There are many known studies with conventional treatment and estimations of the worsening of vision in this pathologies on the time without treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.392|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Using the SPSS program and the non-parametrical technic of Wilcoxon it was determined the p-value.~It should be noted that the null hypothesis is that all these eyes should have a zero gain or perhaps a loss in VA at two years of follow-up."|t-test, 1 sided|From this estimation, it is induced that there are differences in results before and after the treatment.|The datum corresponds to the difference in letters seen between exams at the start and the final examination for all participants. Calculi were made by a Microsoft Excel Descriptive Statistics program.|"Besides that it is of interest to compare with the published studies outcomes, realized with anti-VEGF treatments, and with the known expectations of AV lost without treatment, the data were converted in letters ETDRS chart and here are registered the mean number of letters gained or lost in each group.~Ho: Differences between mean measurements before and after are similar H1: Differences between mean measurements before and after are different."|The null hypothesis was no gain or loss in VA. The alternative hypothesis was stabilization or some gain in letters seen over the baseline count.The published studies report a small gain in VA in about a third of participants and only in cases of NV-AMD with conventional treatment, and an expectancy of loss of vision in the other non treated or non-treatable macular diseases. Some of the participants in this trial had had ocular injections without positive change. Non-inferiority in this trial means outcomes of similar magnitude to the known studies.|||<0.05
84667978|NCT03054870|169070944|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
84571124|NCT04596293|168893437|OTHER|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
84571125|NCT04596293|168893438|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84667979|NCT03054870|169070945|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
84667980|NCT03054870|169070946|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of inter-observer percent agreement were obtained as follows. For each reader-pair, binary agreement scores by subject and lung region were analyzed using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement.|||
84667981|NCT03054870|169070947|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each pair of readers, by lung region estimates of kappa statistics and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were generated from cross-tabulation frequencies of the readers' ventilation scores using SAS® PROC FREQ and the AGREE option.|||
84667982|NCT00973479|169070968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84667983|NCT00973479|169070969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84667984|NCT00973479|169070970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
84667985|NCT00973479|169070971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84667986|NCT00973479|169070972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
84667987|NCT01154218|169070985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|108.33||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.33|91.49|
84667988|NCT01154218|169070985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|116.35||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||116.35|98.26|
84667989|NCT01154218|169070985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|85.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.88|93.25||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.25|78.88|
84545322|NCT04042467|168843800|SUPERIORITY||Estimated intervention effect at 24 mo.|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test (4 DoF) of intervention main effect and 3 intervention by age interaction parameters equal 0 vs. alternative that at least one was not 0.|The p-value is for the Wald test (4 DoF) evaluating whether the Greenlight Plus and Greenlight group trajectories were significantly different. The estimation parameter is the model-estimated intervention effect at 24 months (kg/m).|"Linear mixed-effects model (random intercepts and slopes for clinics and participants within clinics). A priori adjustment for baseline variables: child birth weight and biological sex, race/ethnicity, health literacy, language, education, income, and food insecurity. Child age and birth weight were included using natural splines with 3 DoF.~Effect evaluated using Wald test with a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level. Null hypothesis: Equal weight-for-length growth trajectories in the two groups."||-0.09|-0.57|<0.001
84545323|NCT05151744|168843804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-0.2|0.0625
84545324|NCT05151744|168843806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.7||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-1.5|0.2052
84545325|NCT05151744|168843807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|0.5|0.0192
84545326|NCT05151744|168843808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.5||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-0.1|0.0637
84545327|NCT05151744|168843809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.8||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||MMRM|||||4.9|-3.3|0.7091
84545328|NCT05151744|168843810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
84545329|NCT05151744|168843811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||MMRM|||||5.0|-0.8|0.1498
84545330|NCT05151744|168843812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|-2.3|0.3783
84545331|NCT05151744|168843813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.9||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||MMRM|||||4.3|-0.4|0.1036
84739903|NCT01174446|169231611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0562||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0562
84545332|NCT05151744|168843820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-10.0||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|18.9|||MMRM|||||18.9|-38.9|0.4968
84545333|NCT05151744|168843821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-23.2||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|30.5|||MMRM|||||30.5|-76.8|0.3951
84545334|NCT05151744|168843822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.8||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.2|-45.8|0.0521
84545335|NCT05151744|168843823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-17.5||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|10.7|||MMRM|||||10.7|-45.7|0.2227
84545336|NCT05151744|168843824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-27.2||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|24.2|||MMRM|||||24.2|-78.6|0.2972
84545337|NCT05151744|168843825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-19.4||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|4.2|||MMRM|||||4.2|-42.9|0.1071
84545338|NCT05151744|168843826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-14.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|13.2|||MMRM|||||13.2|-42.4|0.3030
84545339|NCT05151744|168843827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-43.0||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|6.4|||MMRM|||||6.4|-92.4|0.0878
84545340|NCT05151744|168843828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.3||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-49.8|0.1111
84545341|NCT05228470|168843834|OTHER|Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR was 30%.||||||0.0076|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0076
84545342|NCT02565628|168843908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.97||0.6382
84545343|NCT04795466|168843982|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1442||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.178|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||NTB Total z-score - day 171||0.316|-0.178|0.6386
84545344|NCT04795466|168843983|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Memory function - day 171||0.296|-0.300|0.9917
84545345|NCT04795466|168843984|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1958||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Executive function- day 171||0.520|-0.148|0.3510
84545346|NCT04795466|168843985|SUPERIORITY||Repeated measures analysis|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DSST - day 171||2.58|-3.56|0.7870
84545347|NCT04652726|168843999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-21.27|||ANCOVA|||||-21.27|-35.81|<.0001
84545348|NCT04652726|168844000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.24|-22.36|||MMRM|||||-22.36|-36.24|<.0001
84545349|NCT04652726|168844001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-36.81|||ANCOVA|||||-36.81|-63.18|<.0001
84545350|NCT04652726|168844002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.73|||ANCOVA|||||-19.73|-31.68|<.0001
84545351|NCT04652726|168844003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.18||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|5.12|||ANCOVA|||||5.12|-17.48|0.1419
84545352|NCT04652726|168844004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-19.97|||ANCOVA|||||-19.97|-33.63|<.0001
84545353|NCT04652726|168844005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-13.75|||ANCOVA|||||-13.75|-24.65|<.0001
84545354|NCT01256164|168844049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 90 subjects, randomized on a 2:1 ratio into the Fibrocaps plus gelatin sponge active arm or the gelatin sponge arm, and assuming a mean TTH of 3.5 minutes with a standard deviation of 2.5 minutes in the active arm and a mean TTH of 6 minutes in the control arm, this translates in a power of 99.4% at a two-sided significance level alpha of 5%, using a two-sample t-test.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84545355|NCT01256164|168844050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84545356|NCT01256164|168844051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Intent-to-treat analysis||||<0.001
84571126|NCT04596293|168893438|OTHER|||||||0.6594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6594
84739904|NCT01174446|169231611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3864||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3864
84739905|NCT01174446|169231612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5792||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5792
84739906|NCT01174446|169231613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4208||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4208
84739907|NCT01174446|169231614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5000
84545357|NCT01256164|168844052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to- treat analysis||||0.001
84545358|NCT01256164|168844053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||0.003
84545359|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.96|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|Least squares mean (LSM) difference: Mixed effect repeated measures model (MMRM) uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.96|-2.08|
84545360|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.92|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-2.34|
84545361|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.3|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.30|-2.99|
84545362|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||Percentage Change|-42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|162.3|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||162.3|-87.5|
84545363|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||Percentage Change|-50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|151.1|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||151.1|-90.3|
84545364|NCT02612623|168844069|OTHER||Percentage Change|-74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|34.7|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||34.7|-95.0|
84545365|NCT02667704|168844212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|98.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|107.01|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||107.010|91.320|
84545366|NCT02667704|168844213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|103.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.134|124.025|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||124.025|86.134|
84545367|NCT02667704|168844214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|101.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.909|109.57|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||109.570|94.909|
84739908|NCT01174446|169231615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0633
84545368|NCT02883062|168844215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||0.36
84545369|NCT02883062|168844216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.018
84545370|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|14.6||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||14.6|-36.3|
84545371|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|25.7||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-17.8|
84571127|NCT04596293|168893439|OTHER|||||||0.5808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
84571128|NCT04596293|168893439|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2143
84739909|NCT01174446|169231615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9363
84739910|NCT01128270|169231622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean of one group (2A)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.97||||Analysis applies only to Arm 2A. (Period 3)|Only arm 2A is relevant to this variable. There is no intended statistical comparison, but the point estimate for the mean level and 95% confidence interval are provided.|No comparison is relevant. The statistical method is how we obtained the point estimate and confidence interval. No test was intended.||1.97|1.31|
84739911|NCT01128270|169231623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2432.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1403.0||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1260.0|3606.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Only relevant to Arm 2B.||3606|1260|0.0017
84667990|NCT01154218|169070986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|108.66||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.66|91.30|
84667991|NCT01154218|169070986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|107.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.58|117.35||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.35|98.58|
84667992|NCT01154218|169070986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|85.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.45|93.22||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.22|78.45|
84667993|NCT01154218|169070989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.55|118.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.51|96.55|
84667994|NCT01154218|169070989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.47|123.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||123.33|100.47|
84667995|NCT01154218|169070989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|86.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|95.43||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.43|77.89|
84667996|NCT01154218|169070992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.16|110.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.97|90.16|
84667997|NCT01154218|169070992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|120.77||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.77|98.11|
84667998|NCT01154218|169070992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|74.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.55|82.98||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||82.98|67.55|
84739912|NCT01128270|169231624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.51||||||Only relevant for arm 2B||0.51|0.24|
84739913|NCT03119233|169231693|OTHER||Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|68.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||||||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is defined as primary patency at 12 months as evidenced by a peak systolic velocity ratio (PSVR)~≤2.5 from DUS and no clinically-driven re-intervention within the stented segment. The primary effectiveness endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System ≤60.4%~* HA: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System \>60.4%"|||60.9|
84667999|NCT01154218|169070993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|110.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.73|90.46|
84668000|NCT01154218|169070993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.03|120.02||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.02|98.03|
84668001|NCT01154218|169070993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.23|84.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||84.74|69.23|
84668002|NCT01154218|169070994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|112.31||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.31|92.84|
84739914|NCT03119233|169231694|OTHER|The rate of freedom from 30-day MAE is expected to be no less than 92%. Based on a PG of 84% and an estimated 30-day freedom from MAE rate of 92% for the PQ Bypass System, a sample size of 169 evaluable subjects provides 88% power to test the primary safety hypothesis at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025. The Exact Test Method and Commercial software PASS14 was used to determine the sample size.|Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|93.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.5|||||||"The primary safety endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System~  ≤84%~* HA: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System \>84%"|||88.5|
84739915|NCT02224703|169231699|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.743||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.971|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.971|0.568|0.0299
84739916|NCT02224703|169231699|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.702||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.916|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.916|0.538|0.0095
84739917|NCT02224703|169231700|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.749||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.965|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.965|0.581|0.0255
84739918|NCT02224703|169231700|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.799|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.799|0.481|0.0003
84739919|NCT02224703|169231701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||5.70|1.32|0.0069
84739920|NCT02224703|169231701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||4.62|1.06|0.0332
84739921|NCT02224703|169231702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||3.78|1.08|0.0279
84571129|NCT02765035|168893440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 3 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.01
84739922|NCT02224703|169231702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.53|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||5.53|1.56|0.0009
84739923|NCT02057575|169231703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.01% vs netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84739924|NCT02057575|169231703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.02% vs. netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84739925|NCT02057575|169231703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.01% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
84739926|NCT02057575|169231703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.02% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
84739927|NCT03596762|169231730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.52|||=|0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|0.78|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.78|-3.83|= 0.1946
84739928|NCT03596762|169231730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|1.29|||=|0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.53|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.53|-4.11|= 0.3682
84739929|NCT03596762|169231730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-3.93|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-1.92|-5.94|= 0.0002
84739930|NCT03596762|169231730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.63|||=|0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-0.6|-4.66|= 0.0115
84739931|NCT03596762|169231731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.67|||=|0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.95|-4.28|= 0.2097
84739932|NCT03596762|169231731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.77|||=|0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.44|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||2.44|-3.97|= 0.6369
84739933|NCT03596762|169231731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.95|||=|0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-0.67|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.67|-5.22|= 0.0116
84739934|NCT03596762|169231731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.78|||=|0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.56|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.56|-4.12|= 0.1346
84739935|NCT03596762|169231732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.05|||=|0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.2|-0.3|= 0.7033
84739936|NCT03596762|169231732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.14|||=|0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.17|-0.45|= 0.3724
84739937|NCT03596762|169231732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.0896
84571130|NCT02765035|168893440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 4 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.04
84571131|NCT01668797|168893465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.||The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 1:1 (brexpiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio.||||<0.0001
84739938|NCT03596762|169231732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.09
84486439|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.76|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.76|0.59|
84486440|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.87|0.68|
84668003|NCT01154218|169070994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.98|119.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.75|98.98|
84668004|NCT01154218|169070994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|71.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.46|79.05||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||79.05|65.46|
84668005|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4051||||||For the primary efficacy measure a two-sided p-value of 0.05 or less is considered to be statistically significant in comparing the LI+CIZ+SOC treatment vs. SOC alone for superiority.|Log Rank|Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||The primary objective was to compare overall survival in the LI + CIZ + SOC group to that in the SOC alone group for superiority of the former.||||0.4051
84668006|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.5402
84668007|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.32|0.89|0.4128
84668008|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7181|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.7181
84668009|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Log Rank|This log Rank p-value is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.9480
84668010|NCT01265849|169070996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.42|0.81|0.6101
84668011|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.0478
84668012|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0137
84668013|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||0.95|0.48|0.0236
84668014|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4115|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4115
84668015|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2862|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|||This HR is presented as (LI + SOC) / SOC. A HR \< 1.0 favors LI+SOC. Wald p-value for this HR is 0.3859.|||0.2862
84668016|NCT01265849|169070997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.29|0.52|0.3859
84668017|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7304||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|This Log Rank P-value is based on an unstratified analysis.||The secondary endpoint LRC failure is analyzed similar to the primary OS endpoint. The primary comparison is LI+CIZ+SOC vs SOC; LI+SOC vs SOC results are also reported.||||0.7304
84668018|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-values are reported unadjusted for multiplicity.|Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.7171
84668019|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.36|0.79|0.8020
84668020|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4231|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4231
84668021|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6998|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6998
84668022|NCT01265849|169070998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.69|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.69|0.81|0.3944
84668023|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6142|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.6142
84668024|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3024|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.3024
84668025|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.28|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.28|0.55|0.42082
84668026|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9784|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.9784
84668027|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461||||||This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.8461
84668028|NCT01265849|169070999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.65|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.65|0.53|0.8131
84668029|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3303|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is from an unstratified analysis.||This secondary endpoint PFS is analyzed similar to OS and LRC.||||0.3303
84668030|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6669
84668031|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.31|0.90|0.3728
84668032|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5739
84668033|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8162|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.8162
84739939|NCT03596762|169231733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.09|||=|0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.21|-0.39|= 0.5511
84486441|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.92|
84486442|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.66|0.97|
84486443|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.50|0.90|
84486444|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.61|1.06|
84486445|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.48|0.96|
84486446|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.42|0.93|
84486447|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.79|
84486448|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.86|
84486449|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.96|0.73|
84486450|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.73|
84486451|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.82|0.66|
84486452|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.69|
84486453|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.03|0.84|
84486454|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.99|
84486455|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.93|
84668034|NCT01265849|169071000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.43|0.84|0.4728
84668035|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.1797
84668036|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0159
84668037|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.04|0.55|0.0896
84668038|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5175|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5175
84668039|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.4530
84668040|NCT01265849|169071001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.30|0.54|0.4376
84668041|NCT01265849|169071002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.395||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at first administration (Month2), thus the study did not have the power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.2100
84739940|NCT03596762|169231733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.16|||=|0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.52|-0.2|= 0.3822
84739941|NCT03596762|169231733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.15|||=|0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.11|-0.41|= 0.2606
84739942|NCT03596762|169231733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.27|||=|0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0|-0.53|= 0.0479
84739943|NCT01602510|169231897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.438
84739944|NCT01602510|169231897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.212
84739945|NCT01602510|169231897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.724
84739946|NCT01602510|169231898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.869
84739947|NCT01602510|169231898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.061
84739948|NCT01602510|169231898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.505
84739949|NCT01602510|169231899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.369
84739950|NCT01602510|169231899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.955
84739951|NCT01602510|169231899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.874
84739952|NCT01602510|169231900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.927
84739953|NCT01602510|169231900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.036
84486456|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.90|
84486457|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.92|
84486458|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.08|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.08|0.94|
84486459|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.92|
84486460|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.69|
84486461|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.58|
84486462|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.62|
84486463|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.71|0.50|
84486464|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.80|0.59|
84486465|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.09|0.81|
84571132|NCT01668797|168893466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage of participants with impending relapse in treatment groups (Brexpiprazole and placebo) in final analysis for participants meeting at least one of the criteria.||||<0.0001
84571133|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2296|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||0.2296
84668042|NCT01265849|169071002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.401||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at last administration (Month 36), thus the study did not have power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.1701
84668043|NCT01265849|169071003|SUPERIORITY|This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Median Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|LI + CIZ + SOC, Standard of Care (SOC)||||0.5871
84668044|NCT01265849|169071003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.1700
84668045|NCT01265849|169071004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.183||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6296
84668046|NCT01265849|169071004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.103||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7454
84668047|NCT01265849|169071004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.7452
84668048|NCT01265849|169071004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7710
84668049|NCT01265849|169071005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6337
84668050|NCT01265849|169071005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962||0.945|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.9450
84668051|NCT01265849|169071005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI+ CIZ + SOC.|||||0.4071
84668052|NCT01265849|169071005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.347||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.0296
84668053|NCT01265849|169071006|SUPERIORITY|Statistical tests were for a significant treatment effect in the Cox Proportional Hazards model including treatment, disease stage, tumor location, and geographical region.|% of significant test results|21.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|26.9||"Under the null hypothesis of no effect the expected number of significant test results would be balanced between treatments.~The expected number (%) of statistically significant results would be approximately 14 (5%) of 282."|Regression, Cox|||"Treatment comparisons of LI+CIZ+SOC v. SOC were repeated at all levels of HP, HP ratios, and HP combinations for endpoints OS, PFS, and LRC.~Significant outcomes for the treatment term in the model (two-sided p\<0.05) were accumulated."||26.9|17.0|<0.05
84668054|NCT01265849|169071007|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||11.2|5.6|<.0001
84668055|NCT01265849|169071007|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||14.7|4.7|<0.0001
84668056|NCT01265849|169071008|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||20.8|9.6|<0.0001
84668057|NCT01265849|169071008|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.9|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||28.9|8.2|<0.0001
84668058|NCT01265849|169071009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0007
84668059|NCT01265849|169071009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative that response is predictive of increased survival in subjects receiving LI + SOC.||||0.0434
84668060|NCT01265849|169071009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.||||<0.0001
84668061|NCT01265849|169071010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0101
84668062|NCT01265849|169071010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4843|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + SOC.||||0.4843
84668063|NCT01265849|169071010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0067||||||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0067
84668064|NCT01265849|169071011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.801|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI (combined arms LI + CIZ + SOC, LI + SOC) is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.801|0.152|0.0131
84668065|NCT01265849|169071011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.246||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.787|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.787|0.077|0.0181
84668066|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-5.96|0.0631
84668067|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-8.33|0.0008
84668068|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-0.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-6.73|0.0188
84668069|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.63|-8.80|0.0003
84486466|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.22|0.80|
84486467|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.93|0.64|
84486468|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.67|
84486469|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.75|0.55|
84668070|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-6.77|0.0177
84668071|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.855||95.0|-2.72|3.27||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.27|-2.72|0.8550
84668072|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.91|-5.08|0.1719
84668073|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|2.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.50|-3.49|0.7469
84668074|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.49||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-5.55|0.1001
84668075|NCT00362115|169071012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.47|-3.52|0.7294
84739954|NCT01602510|169231900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.509
84668076|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|-1.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-10.84|0.0111
84668077|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-6.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.08|-15.51|< 0.0001
84668078|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-5.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.10|-14.53|< 0.0001
84668079|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-7.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.52|-17.02|< 0.0001
84668080|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-3.76||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.76|-13.19|0.0005
84668081|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.17|-2.06|0.2768
84668082|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|2.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.51|-6.74|0.3688
84668083|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-5.75|0.6293
84668084|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-8.25|0.1298
84486470|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.60|
84486471|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.80|
84668085|NCT00362115|169071013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.41|0.9315
84668086|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-3.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.09|-13.17|0.0016
84668087|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|-5.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.09|-15.17|< 0.0001
84668088|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.72|-17.80|< 0.0001
84486472|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||2.00|1.01|
84571134|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||0.2051
84571135|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||||0.7354
84571136|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||||0.1977
84571137|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8734|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||||0.8734
84571138|NCT01668797|168893467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Last Visit.||||0.0007
84668089|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-16.36|< 0.0001
84668090|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-5.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.63|-15.75|< 0.0001
84668091|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-4.96|0.9909
84668092|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|2.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.92|-6.96|0.4213
84668093|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-9.59|0.0646
84739955|NCT01602510|169231901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|=0.833
84668094|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-8.15|0.2107
84668095|NCT00362115|169071014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.54|0.3059
84668096|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.98|-5.69|0.1653
84668097|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.81||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-7.50|0.0151
84486473|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.75|0.94|
84486474|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.58|0.98|
84486475|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.56|0.95|
84486476|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.57|0.96|
84486477|NCT02202161|168725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.72|
84486478|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.87|
84486479|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.89|0.71|
84486480|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.74|
84486481|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.63|
84486482|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.70|
84486483|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.89|
84486484|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.77|
84486485|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.68|
84486486|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.70|
84668098|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-6.70|0.0480
84739956|NCT01602510|169231902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.245
84739957|NCT01602510|169231903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|=0.155
84739958|NCT01602510|169231904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-1.4|= 0.661
84739959|NCT01602510|169231905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.7|= 0.945
84739960|NCT01602510|169231906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.66|=0.047
84739961|NCT00895895|169231909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change=Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Japan baseline baseline times(\*)visit visit treatment treatment\*visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.3|-1.0|0.424
84545372|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|22.5||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||22.5|-22.6|
84571139|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 6.||0.23|-6.82|0.0664
84739962|NCT00895895|169231909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change equals (=) MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-1.8|0.849
84739963|NCT00895895|169231909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.2|0.520
84739964|NCT00895895|169231909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-2.6|0.258
84739965|NCT00895895|169231910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.9|-5.2|0.367
84668099|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-1.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.81|0.0098
84668100|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-7.68|0.0113
84668101|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.84|-1.68|0.3416
84668102|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.06|-3.49|0.8973
84668103|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.84|-2.69|0.7292
84668104|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.79|-3.79|0.7646
84739966|NCT00895895|169231910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.7|-3.3|0.910
84739967|NCT00895895|169231910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.0|-1.0|0.160
84739968|NCT00895895|169231910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.9|-0.1|0.060
84739969|NCT00895895|169231911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.1|-2.8|0.931
84739970|NCT00895895|169231911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-5.8|0.054
84571140|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 12.||-0.52|-10.1|0.0301
84571141|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 24.||-0.68|-8.86|0.0226
84668105|NCT00362115|169071015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-3.67|0.8133
84668106|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-4.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.51|-12.51|< 0.0001
84668107|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-8.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.90|-17.31|< 0.0001
84545373|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|25.0||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.0|-21.4|
84545374|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|24.8||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||24.8|-19.2|
84545375|NCT01262872|168844235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|20.9||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||20.9|-24.9|
84668108|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-7.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.95|-16.27|< 0.0001
84668109|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-12.46||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.46|-21.07|< 0.0001
84668110|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.58|-9.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.17|-17.58|< 0.0001
84668111|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.58|-2.10|0.3735
84668112|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|1.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-6.91|0.1668
84668113|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-5.86|0.3629
84668114|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-2.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.36|-10.67|0.0022
84668115|NCT00362115|169071016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-7.18|0.1303
84668116|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-8.12|< 0.0001
84668117|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.65|-11.33|< 0.0001
84668118|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-11.52|< 0.0001
84668119|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.91|-13.73|< 0.0001
84668120|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-6.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-12.31|< 0.0001
84668121|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-0.56|0.1249
84668122|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-3.79|0.4542
84668123|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.44|-3.97|0.3574
84545376|NCT01262872|168844236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 1M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||26.2|-18.2|
84739971|NCT00895895|169231911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.6|0.246
84739972|NCT00895895|169231911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-4.1|0.426
84545377|NCT01262872|168844236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|25.7||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 5M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-18.0|
84739973|NCT00895895|169231912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
84545378|NCT01262872|168844236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|17.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 3M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, three months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||17.2|-29.3|
84545379|NCT01753310|168844321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-4.47|-12.17|<0.001
84545380|NCT01753310|168844322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified ANCOVA with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-2.14|-8.67|=0.001
84739974|NCT00895895|169231912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.682
84545381|NCT01753310|168844323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
84545382|NCT01753310|168844324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||=0.033
84739975|NCT00895895|169231912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
84739976|NCT00895895|169231912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
84739977|NCT00895895|169231912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.751
84739978|NCT00895895|169231913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.3|-3.9|0.553
84739979|NCT00895895|169231913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||5.2|-6.0|0.886
84739980|NCT00895895|169231913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||4.5|-6.6|0.712
84739981|NCT00895895|169231913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.4|-4.8|0.785
84739982|NCT00895895|169231914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-0.5|0.251
84739983|NCT00895895|169231914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-0.3|0.993
84668124|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|-0.57||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-6.18|0.0184
84668125|NCT00362115|169071017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.70|-4.77|0.1450
84668126|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|-3.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.26|-12.46|0.0009
84668127|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|-8.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.77|-18.46|< 0.0001
84668128|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.63|-17.21|< 0.0001
84545383|NCT01753310|168844325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
84668129|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-12.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.92|-22.83|< 0.0001
84668130|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-8.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.52|< 0.0001
84668131|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.58|-4.25|0.9424
84668132|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-10.26|0.0189
84668133|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-9.01|0.0612
84668134|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-5.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.07|-14.63|< 0.0001
84668135|NCT00362115|169071018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-1.0||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-10.33|0.0175
84668136|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-7.26|0.0108
84668137|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-4.55||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-11.16|< 0.0001
84668138|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-5.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.26|-11.82|< 0.0001
84668139|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|-7.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-13.98|< 0.0001
84668140|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-12.52|< 0.0001
84668141|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.59||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.59|-1.45|0.3060
84668142|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.02||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-5.37|0.1823
84668143|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.29||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-6.01|0.0751
84668144|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-8.18|0.0034
84668145|NCT00362115|169071019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-6.72|0.0306
84668146|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.33|-13.90|0.0061
84545384|NCT01753310|168844326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||<0.001
84668147|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-17.56|0.0002
84668148|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|-6.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-18.34|< 0.0001
84668149|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|-11.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.34|-23.75|< 0.0001
84668150|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-19.86|< 0.0001
84668151|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.28|-5.74|0.9355
84668152|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-9.41|0.2223
84668153|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|1.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.35|-10.19|0.1328
84668154|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|-3.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-15.61|0.0016
84668155|NCT00362115|169071020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-11.70|0.0437
84668156|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-8.39|0.0417
84739984|NCT00895895|169231914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.553
84739985|NCT00895895|169231914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.611
84545385|NCT01753310|168844327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.174|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.174
84668157|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-10.44|0.0053
84668158|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-3.56||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-12.12|0.0004
84668159|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.16|-13.97|< 0.0001
84668160|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-13.60|< 0.0001
84668161|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.85|-2.97|0.6372
84668162|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.05|0.6588
84668163|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.47|-6.72|0.2082
84668164|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-8.57|0.0437
84739986|NCT00895895|169231915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-1.5|0.340
84739987|NCT00895895|169231915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.630
84545386|NCT01753310|168844328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.583|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.583
84545387|NCT04390763|168844359|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.04|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.04||
84545388|NCT04390763|168844359|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.96|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.96||
84545389|NCT04390763|168844360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37||0.46
84545390|NCT04390763|168844360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44||0.38
84545391|NCT02040805|168844404|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 5 points.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.04
84545392|NCT02040805|168844405|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 2.5 points.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.05
84545393|NCT02040805|168844406|OTHER|linear mixed models analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
84668165|NCT00362115|169071021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-8.19|0.0495
84668166|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-3.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.97|-14.74|0.0007
84668167|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-7.73||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.73|-19.02|< 0.0001
84545394|NCT02040805|168844407|OTHER|linear mixed model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
84668168|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.83||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-16.00|0.0003
84739988|NCT00895895|169231915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.678
84545395|NCT02259010|168844415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.19|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.19|0.82|
84545396|NCT02259010|168844416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.79|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.79|1.02|
84545397|NCT02259010|168844417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.95|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.95|0.99|
84739989|NCT00895895|169231915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.3|0.518
84545398|NCT03655405|168844454|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.972||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.138|||Regression, Poisson|Number of PIMs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.138|0.830|0.723
84545399|NCT03655405|168844455|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.763||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.979|||Regression, Poisson|Number of potentially inappropriate DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||0.979|0.594|0.033
84545400|NCT03655405|168844456|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.915||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.005|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.005|0.834|0.064
84545401|NCT03655405|168844457|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.019||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.246|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.246|0.833|0.857
84545402|NCT03655405|168844459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.36||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.89|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the scale component||7.89|-10.60|0.769
84545403|NCT03655405|168844459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.096||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the index component||0.01|-0.202|0.075
84668169|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|-11.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.47|-23.11|< 0.0001
84668170|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-18.01|< 0.0001
84668171|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||8.01|-2.17|0.2594
84668172|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.26|-6.46|0.6859
84668173|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|7.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.15|-3.43|0.4898
84739990|NCT00895895|169231916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-0.7|0.953
84739991|NCT00895895|169231916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.6|-0.7|0.956
84668174|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|0.53||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-10.55|0.0760
84668175|NCT00362115|169071022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|5.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.21|-5.44|0.9647
84668176|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-3.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-11.13|0.0002
84668177|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-6.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.97|-15.01|< 0.0001
84668178|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-4.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.64|-12.59|< 0.0001
84668179|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-9.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.50|-17.79|< 0.0001
84668180|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-4.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.70|-12.69|< 0.0001
84668181|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.62|-1.63|0.2790
84668182|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.53|0.3772
84668183|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-3.11|0.7302
84739992|NCT00895895|169231916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.1|0.216
84486487|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.58|
84486488|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.64|
84545404|NCT03655405|168844460|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.237||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.727|||Mixed-effect regression, Poisson|Number at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.727|0.886|0.212
84668184|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-8.31|0.0302
84668185|NCT00362115|169071023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.38||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.38|-3.22|0.7644
84668186|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.19|-12.70|0.0001
84668187|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-9.24||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.24|-18.19|< 0.0001
84668188|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-16.66|< 0.0001
84668189|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-13.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.35|-22.51|< 0.0001
84668190|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-18.21|< 0.0001
84739993|NCT00895895|169231916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-0.8|0.665
84739994|NCT00895895|169231917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.6|0.373
84668191|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-3.26|0.6905
84668192|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-0.13||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-8.76|0.0433
84668193|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-7.22|0.1736
84668194|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-4.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.23|-13.08|0.0001
84668195|NCT00362115|169071024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANOVA|||||-0.14|-8.77|0.0429
84668196|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.77|0.0009
84668197|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.32||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.32|-11.33|< 0.0001
84668198|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-5.67||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.67|-11.63|< 0.0001
84668199|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-8.18||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.18|-14.34|< 0.0001
84668200|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-6.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-12.37|< 0.0001
84739995|NCT00895895|169231917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.3|-1.0|0.781
84739996|NCT00895895|169231917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.6|-0.7|0.417
84739997|NCT00895895|169231917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.0|-1.3|0.853
84739998|NCT00895895|169231918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.6|0.428
84486489|NCT02202161|168725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.02|0.80|
84545405|NCT03655405|168844461|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.675||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
84668201|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-0.98|0.2068
84668202|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|-4.56|0.2622
84668203|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-4.85|0.1730
84668204|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-1.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-7.56|0.0025
84668205|NCT00362115|169071025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-5.60|0.0681
84668206|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-3.87||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.87|-13.28|0.0004
84545406|NCT03655405|168844462|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.615||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.615
84545407|NCT03655405|168844463|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.366||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.366
84739999|NCT00895895|169231918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-2.1|0.763
84740000|NCT00895895|169231918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.9|-2.7|0.312
84545408|NCT03655405|168844464|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.738||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
84545409|NCT03655405|168844465|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.781||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
84545410|NCT03655405|168844466|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.958||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.958
84545411|NCT03655405|168844467|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.911||||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
84545412|NCT03123120|168844471|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.118|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.118|-0.568|
84545413|NCT03123120|168844472|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.21|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.210|-0.404|
84545414|NCT03123120|168844473|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.101|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.101|-0.602|
84545415|NCT03123120|168844474|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.399|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.399|-0.197|
84545416|NCT03207815|168844481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Treatment Failure Rate|-30.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-4.1||P-value was estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Participants with missing values on treatment failure status were analyzed as treatment failures using a nonresponder imputation (NRI) method.||||-4.1|-56.2|0.0064
84545417|NCT03207815|168844482|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.309||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.663||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||0.663|0.144|0.0014
84545418|NCT03207815|168844483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in Least Squares (LS)-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||0.2|-0.4|0.3550
84545419|NCT03207815|168844484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.0145
84545420|NCT03207815|168844485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.10|0.0389
84545421|NCT03207815|168844486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, OCT machine, and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.05|0.0340
84740001|NCT00895895|169231918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-3.0|0.215
84740002|NCT00895895|169231919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.7|0.956
84545422|NCT03207815|168844487|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.193||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|2.277||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% CI) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||2.277|0.625|0.5893
84545423|NCT01671007|168844490|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.08|0.64|
84545424|NCT01671007|168844491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.27|0.70|
84545425|NCT01671007|168844492|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.06|0.43|
84545426|NCT01671007|168844493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.09|0.43|
84545427|NCT01671007|168844497|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.88|0.38|
84545428|NCT01671007|168844500|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.84|0.49|
84545429|NCT01671007|168844501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.01|0.60|
84545430|NCT00449865|168844519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Global Statistical Test|The global statistical test yielded t = -0.75 (2-sided p-value = .45, df=1865.8).||||||0.45
84545431|NCT00406367|168844520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||No type I-error adjustment was necessary in this study.|ANCOVA|Indepent variables in the model were treatment, baseline JRS-Severity score, gender, age, dose, and pooled center.||The null hypothesis in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was the absence of difference in the change from baseline in the JRS severity subscore between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo. The ANCOVA model was performed 2-sided (type-I error=5 percent) and change from baseline in the JRS Severity subscore assessed by a blinded Independent Rater as dependent variable. The independent variables were treatment, baseline JRS Severity subscore, gender, age, dose group, and pooled center.||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
84545432|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|7.4||||||15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.4|0.5|
84545433|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.5||||||30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||6.5|-0.5|
84740003|NCT00895895|169231919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.6|0.988
84545434|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|7.2||||||45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.2|0.2|
84571142|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 36.||-1.59|-10.5|0.0086
84571143|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 52.||5.46|-18.1|0.2800
84668207|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-7.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.42|-17.26|< 0.0001
84668208|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-16.51|< 0.0001
84740004|NCT00895895|169231919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.4|-2.7|0.890
84740005|NCT00895895|169231919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.0|0.280
84740006|NCT00895895|169231920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.5|0.154
84740007|NCT00895895|169231920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.0|0.740
84740008|NCT00895895|169231920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-1.4|0.179
84740009|NCT00895895|169231920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-0.6|0.543
84740010|NCT00895895|169231921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.7|618.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||618.8|-739.7|0.861
84740011|NCT00895895|169231921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-926.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1596.9|-256.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-256.3|-1596.9|0.007
84740012|NCT00895895|169231921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.3||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.1|804.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||804.6|-522.1|0.676
84740013|NCT00895895|169231921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.6||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-449.7|910.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||910.9|-449.7|0.505
84486490|NCT01603628|168725121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|-0.063||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.063|-0.453|0.010
84740014|NCT00895895|169231922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.8|-2.2|0.267
84740015|NCT00895895|169231922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.3|0.145
84740016|NCT00895895|169231922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.2|0.139
84740017|NCT00895895|169231922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.2|-2.8|0.386
84740018|NCT00895895|169231923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
84740019|NCT00895895|169231923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.5|0.264
84486491|NCT01603628|168725121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.018||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.018|-0.405|0.033
84740020|NCT00895895|169231923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-1.0|0.893
84740021|NCT00895895|169231923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.4|-0.7|0.525
84740022|NCT00895895|169231924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|123.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||123.5|-1.6|0.056
84668209|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-19.38|< 0.0001
84668210|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-7.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-17.53|< 0.0001
84668211|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.72|-1.17|0.1479
84740023|NCT00895895|169231924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||83.5|-40.0|0.488
84486492|NCT01603628|168725122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.532||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.532|0.040|0.023
84668212|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.16|0.8382
84668213|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.42|0.9317
84668214|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.29|0.3169
84668215|NCT00362115|169071026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.91|-5.44|0.7488
84668216|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-3.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.40|-9.98|< 0.0001
84668217|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-5.86||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.86|-12.76|< 0.0001
84668218|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-5.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-12.05|< 0.0001
84668219|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-6.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-13.92|< 0.0001
84668220|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-13.11|< 0.0001
84668221|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.40|-1.83|0.4188
84668222|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.95|-4.62|0.4255
84486493|NCT01603628|168725122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.374||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.374|-0.115|0.299
84486494|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.704||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.704|0.126|0.005
84486495|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.573||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.573|0.004|0.047
84486496|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.756||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.756|0.145|0.004
84668223|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|2.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.58|-3.91|0.6869
84740024|NCT00895895|169231924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|69.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||69.8|-52.6|0.783
84545435|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|9.7||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||9.7|2.7|
84545436|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.3||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||8.3|1.3|
84545437|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.3||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||5.3|-1.7|
84545438|NCT03187301|168844540|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||90.0|-4.2|2.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||2.8|-4.2|
84545439|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.6||||||||8.6|0.3|
84545440|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.7||||||||6.7|-1.6|
84545441|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.4||||||||7.4|-0.9|
84545442|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.5||||||||7.5|-0.9|
84545443|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|9.2||||||||9.2|0.8|
84545444|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|8.8||||||||8.8|0.4|
84545445|NCT03187301|168844545|NON_INFERIORITY|4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Differeence|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.9||||||||6.9|-1.6|
84545446|NCT03187301|168844549|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|14.8||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||14.8|5.3|
84545447|NCT03187301|168844549|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|17.1||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||17.1|7.5|
84545448|NCT03187301|168844549|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|15.7||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||15.7|6.1|
84545449|NCT03187301|168844549|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|13.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||13.8|4.2|
84545450|NCT02158585|168844558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|21.35|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in average total number of vertigo attacks||21.35|-3.49|0.5618
84545451|NCT02158585|168844559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between average total number of vertigo attacks in pre-treatment and treatment||||0.03429
84545452|NCT02158585|168844560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total average number of vertigo attacks during 3 week time periods||8.29|0.85|0.0092
84545453|NCT02158585|168844563|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|37.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.92|-15.64|0.0385
84545454|NCT00442897|168844608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.714||||||95.0|1.77|7.78|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||7.78|1.77|
84545455|NCT00442897|168844609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.579||||||95.0|1.32|5.06|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||5.06|1.32|
84740025|NCT00895895|169231924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||79.8|-44.6|0.578
84740026|NCT00895895|169231925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||76.1|-13.9|0.175
84740027|NCT00895895|169231925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.4|-23.3|0.352
84545456|NCT04498182|168844610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
84545457|NCT04498182|168844610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
84545458|NCT04498182|168844611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
84545459|NCT04498182|168844611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
84545460|NCT04498182|168844612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
84545461|NCT04498182|168844612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
84545462|NCT04498182|168844613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
84545463|NCT04498182|168844613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
84740028|NCT00895895|169231925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||49.6|-38.1|0.797
84740029|NCT00895895|169231925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||33.9|-55.6|0.633
84740030|NCT00895895|169231926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.2||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||147.0|-4.7|0.066
84740031|NCT00895895|169231926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||94.7|-54.6|0.598
84740032|NCT00895895|169231926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|85.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.3|-62.9|0.766
84740033|NCT00895895|169231926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.8||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|109.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||109.1|-41.5|0.378
84486497|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.74||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.740|0.141|0.004
84486498|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.797||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.797|0.191|0.001
84486499|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.541||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.541|-0.081|0.153
84486500|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.711||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.711|0.100|0.010
84486501|NCT01603628|168725123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.571||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.571|-0.031|0.078
84486502|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.768|0.779||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||0.779|-4.768|0.158
84486503|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.974|-0.524||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||-0.524|-5.974|0.020
84486504|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.489|1.648||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.648|-4.489|0.363
84486505|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|0.914||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.914|-5.127|0.171
84486506|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.143|-0.525||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.525|-6.143|0.020
84486507|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.688|-1.148||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-1.148|-6.688|0.006
84486508|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.621|1.491||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.491|-5.621|0.254
84545464|NCT04498182|168844614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
84740034|NCT00895895|169231927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.2|-40.2|0.481
84740035|NCT00895895|169231927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|65.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.9|-57.5|0.894
84740036|NCT00895895|169231927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|60.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||60.8|-61.5|0.991
84668224|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-5.77|0.1678
84668225|NCT00362115|169071027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.6||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-4.96|0.3132
84668226|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-3.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.52|-12.48|0.0005
84668227|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|-5.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.93|-15.24|< 0.0001
84668228|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-14.70|< 0.0001
84668229|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-8.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.42|-17.95|< 0.0001
84740037|NCT00895895|169231927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||36.9|-87.9|0.422
84740038|NCT00895895|169231928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.24|0.581
84668230|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-7.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-16.74|< 0.0001
84668231|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|3.75||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.75|-4.79|0.8103
84668232|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-7.57|0.1702
84668233|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.84|-7.02|0.2504
84740039|NCT00895895|169231928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.42|0.770
84740040|NCT00895895|169231928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|0.71|0.216
84545465|NCT04498182|168844614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
84668234|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-1.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-10.28|0.0144
84668235|NCT00362115|169071028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-9.06|0.0402
84668236|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.41|0.0014
84668237|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-4.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-10.82|< 0.0001
84668238|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-4.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.93|-11.51|< 0.0001
84740041|NCT00895895|169231928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.06|0.037
84740042|NCT01621776|169231938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.04||0.971||95.0|129.73|160.47|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||160.47|129.73|.971
84740043|NCT01621776|169231939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.67||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.91|177.28|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||177.28|144.91|.698
84740044|NCT01621776|169231940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|220.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.97||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|197.22|243.71|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||243.71|197.22|.806
84740045|NCT04916730|169231943|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84740046|NCT00455741|169231947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||effect of age on estrogen negative feedback ( nadir LH as % of baseline LH)||||0.90
84740047|NCT00455741|169231947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|||positive feedback||||<0.03
84740048|NCT00455741|169231948|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||a priori significance level p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||=0.03
84545466|NCT04498182|168844615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
84545467|NCT04498182|168844615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
84740049|NCT00455741|169231949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84740050|NCT00455741|169231950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
84740051|NCT00455741|169231951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
84545468|NCT04498182|168844616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
84545469|NCT04498182|168844616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
84545470|NCT04498182|168844617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
84545471|NCT04498182|168844617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
84545472|NCT04498182|168844618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
84740052|NCT00455741|169231952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori significance set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84545473|NCT04498182|168844618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
84545474|NCT04498182|168844619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
84545475|NCT04498182|168844619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
84545476|NCT04498182|168844620|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
84545477|NCT04498182|168844620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
84545478|NCT04498182|168844621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
84545479|NCT04498182|168844621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
84545480|NCT04498182|168844622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
84545481|NCT04498182|168844622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
84545482|NCT04498182|168844623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
84740053|NCT00935532|169231997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of exenatide QW to insulin glargine with respect to change in HbA1c was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was less than 0.4%. Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<8.5%, \>=8.5%), background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26||No adjustments for multiplicity will be performed|ANCOVA|||The expected changes in HbA1c from baseline were considered to be the same between the groups, and the common standard deviation assumed to be 1.2%. Assuming a type I error of 0.025 (one-sided), a power of 0.9 and a noninferiority margin of 0.4%, 191 subjects per group would be necessary to confirm the noninferiority by the two-sample t-test. When the proportion of the subjects missing post-baseline data was assumed to be 10%, the target number of subjects were 420 in total (210 subjects/group).||-0.26|-0.59|<.001
84740054|NCT00935532|169231998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=7% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
84740055|NCT00935532|169231999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=6.5% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
84740056|NCT00935532|169232000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in FSG from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline FSG as a covariate.||1.07|-11.62|0.103
84740057|NCT00935532|169232001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.56|-2.46|<.001
84545483|NCT04498182|168844623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
84545484|NCT04498182|168844624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
84545485|NCT04498182|168844624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
84545486|NCT04498182|168844625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
84545487|NCT04498182|168844625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
84545488|NCT04498182|168844626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
84545489|NCT04498182|168844626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
84545490|NCT04498182|168844627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
84545491|NCT04498182|168844627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
84545492|NCT04498182|168844628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
84545493|NCT04498182|168844628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
84545494|NCT04498182|168844629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
84545495|NCT04498182|168844629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
84545496|NCT04498182|168844630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
84545497|NCT04498182|168844630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
84545498|NCT04498182|168844631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
84545499|NCT04498182|168844631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
84740058|NCT00935532|169232002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-3.45|||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline total cholesterol as a covariate.||-3.45|-12.33|<.001
84545500|NCT04498182|168844632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
84545501|NCT04498182|168844632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
84545502|NCT04498182|168844633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
84545503|NCT04498182|168844633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
84545504|NCT04498182|168844634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
84740059|NCT00935532|169232003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pre-treatment with SU as factors and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||1.09|-1.64|0.689
84545505|NCT04498182|168844634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
84545506|NCT04498182|168844635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3365
84545507|NCT04498182|168844635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7323
84545508|NCT04498182|168844636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1557
84545509|NCT04498182|168844636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6845
84545510|NCT04498182|168844637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
84545511|NCT04498182|168844637|SUPERIORITY|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
84545512|NCT04498182|168844638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
84545513|NCT04498182|168844638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
84545514|NCT04498182|168844639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
84740060|NCT00935532|169232004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at endpoint to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.06|0.94|0.990
84740061|NCT00475228|169232121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84740062|NCT05472740|169232228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84545515|NCT04498182|168844639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
84545516|NCT04498182|168844640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
84545517|NCT04498182|168844640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
84545518|NCT04498182|168844641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
84545519|NCT04498182|168844641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
84545520|NCT04498182|168844642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
84545521|NCT04498182|168844642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
84545522|NCT04498182|168844643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
84545523|NCT04498182|168844643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
84545524|NCT04498182|168844644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.15|0.70|0.3068
84545525|NCT04498182|168844644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.68|0.56|0.6167
84545526|NCT04498182|168844645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.46|0.28|0.2867
84545527|NCT04498182|168844645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.57|0.32|0.3803
84545528|NCT04498182|168844646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.58|0.58|0.4375
84740063|NCT02942004|169232233|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.2|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.20|-8.80|0.0013
84740064|NCT02942004|169232233|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.47|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.47|-6.90|0.0252
84545529|NCT04498182|168844646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.27|0.51|0.5840
84545530|NCT04498182|168844647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.84|0.29|0.5046
84545531|NCT04498182|168844647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.88|0.56|0.5751
84545532|NCT00375973|168844676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
84545533|NCT00375973|168844677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84545534|NCT00375973|168844678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
84545535|NCT00375973|168844679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84545536|NCT00375973|168844680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84545537|NCT00375973|168844681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84545538|NCT00375973|168844682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84740065|NCT02942004|169232234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.936||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.79|-9.46|0.0044
84545539|NCT03137160|168844683|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the Investigator Global Assessment comparing the proportion of subjects who achieved a 2 pt reduction at study close (0).||||1
84545540|NCT01339260|168844692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.87||If superiority of netupitant/palonosetron was established for the CR delayed, CR acute and then CR overall at cycle 1 were to be tested according to a hierarchical procedure;no adjustment for multiplicity was needed.The a priori threshold was 0.050|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.|The null hypothesis was rejected if the 2 sided p value from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction i.e., the Odds Ratio (OR) was in favor of netupitant/palonosetron. Power was 90%.||1.87|1.16|0.001
84740066|NCT02942004|169232234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.899||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-7.56|0.0481
84545541|NCT01339260|168844693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||If the null hypothesis for CR delayed was rejected, analysis of the first key secondary endpoint CR acute was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the acute phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the acute phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.87|1.0|0.047
84545542|NCT01339260|168844694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.85||If the null hypothesis for CR acute was rejected, analysis of the 2nd key secondary endpoint CR overall was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the overall phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the overall phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.85|1.17|0.001
84545543|NCT00630825|168844706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545544|NCT00630825|168844706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545545|NCT00630825|168844706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545546|NCT00630825|168844707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545547|NCT00630825|168844707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545548|NCT00630825|168844707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545549|NCT00630825|168844708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545550|NCT00630825|168844708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
84545551|NCT00630825|168844708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84545552|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545553|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545554|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84740067|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.93|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.93|-1.83|0.9591
84545555|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84740068|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-1.66|0.8677
84545556|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545557|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545558|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545559|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545560|NCT00630825|168844709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545561|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545562|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545563|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84545564|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.904
84545565|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.||||||0.138
84545566|NCT00630825|168844710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.729
84668239|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-5.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.72|-12.49|< 0.0001
84740069|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-4.51|0.0827
84545567|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545568|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545569|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
84545570|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545571|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545572|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545573|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84545574|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84545575|NCT00630825|168844712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84545576|NCT00630825|168844713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84740070|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.02|-2.62|0.7968
84740071|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.61|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.61|-4.69|0.1292
84486509|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.935|1.014||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.014|-5.935|0.165
84486510|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.61||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.517|0.296||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.296|-5.517|0.078
84486511|NCT01603628|168725124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.944|1.758||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||1.758|-3.944|0.451
84486512|NCT01108068|168725139|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype T-test was used to compare differences at baseline between affecteds and unaffecteds||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Cortical area Z-score||||0.0003
84486513|NCT01108068|168725139|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Periosteal circumference Z-score||||0.001
84486514|NCT01021553|168725144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.16||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.79|0.75|0.4959
84486515|NCT01021553|168725144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.11||||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.74|0.6161
84486516|NCT01021553|168725144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.13||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.61|0.79|0.4971
84486517|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.58|0.67|0.9037
84486518|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.48|0.67|0.9939
84486519|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.01||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 0-4||1.43|0.71|0.9541
84486520|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.33||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.24|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||2.24|0.79|0.2798
84486521|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.09||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.75|0.68|0.7255
84486522|NCT01021553|168725145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.18||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.80|0.77|0.4347
84486523|NCT01021553|168725146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.14||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||2.05|0.63|0.6583
84486524|NCT01021553|168725146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|0.96||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.8790
84486525|NCT01021553|168725146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.67|0.64|0.8971
84486526|NCT01021553|168725149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.43|3.48|||||For AUC (0-inf)|||3.48|2.43|
84486527|NCT01021553|168725149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.54||||||||3.54|2.51|
84486528|NCT01021553|168725150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|4.47||||||||4.47|2.95|
84486529|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Restless-Impulsive subscale||||0.01
84486530|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Emotional Lability subscale||||0.09
84486531|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Global Index Total||||0.02
84486532|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Inattentive subscale||||0.01
84486533|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale||||0.03
84486534|NCT00935701|168725207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Total||||0.01
84668240|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|-4.3||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.30|-10.87|< 0.0001
84668241|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.95|-2.11|0.5519
84668242|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|1.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-4.54|0.3938
84668243|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.07|-5.21|0.1949
84668244|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-6.21|0.0732
84668245|NCT00362115|169071029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-4.59|0.3669
84668246|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-3.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-14.94|0.0019
84668247|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|-4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-16.15|0.0008
84668248|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-14.88|0.0040
84668249|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-6.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-18.96|0.0001
84668250|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.89||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.89|-16.85|0.0004
84668251|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|2.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.98|-8.39|0.3499
84668252|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.14|-9.61|0.2115
84668253|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|3.54||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.54|-8.34|0.4279
84668254|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-12.41|0.0566
84668255|NCT00362115|169071030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.50|-10.30|0.1435
84668256|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|0.68||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-6.16|0.1162
84668257|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.48|-5.69|0.2494
84486535|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Bedtime Resistance subscale||||0.08
84486536|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Onset Delay subscale||||0.03
84486537|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Duration subscale||||0.82
84486538|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Anxiety subscale||||0.58
84486539|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Night Wakings subscale||||0.66
84486540|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parasomnias subscale||||0.18
84486541|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Daytime Sleepiness subscale||||0.31
84668258|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.12|-5.01|0.4247
84668259|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-5.79|0.3007
84668260|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-6.67|0.1195
84740072|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.21|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.21|-2.94|0.7801
84545577|NCT00630825|168844713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84545578|NCT00630825|168844713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
84545579|NCT00427648|168844743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||null hypothesis - no difference in average number of voids between the 2 groups, power calculation estimated 40 participants needed per arm to show a 2 void difference between lidocaine and saline placebo.||||0.588
84545580|NCT00427648|168844744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.617
84545581|NCT00427648|168844745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.441
84545582|NCT00427648|168844746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
84545583|NCT00427648|168844747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.342
84545584|NCT00427648|168844748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.802
84545585|NCT00427648|168844749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.366
84545586|NCT02230904|168844750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.635|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
84545587|NCT02230904|168844757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.895|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
84545588|NCT01511978|168844771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84740073|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.59|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.59|-4.10|0.3840
84545589|NCT01511978|168844772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84545590|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.18|0.87|
84545591|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.12|0.82|
84545592|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.10|0.81|
84545593|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.13|0.77|
84545594|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.32|0.91|
84545595|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.41|0.97|
84545596|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.15|0.87|
84545597|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
84545598|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
84545599|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.09|0.80|
84545600|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.07|0.78|
84545601|NCT03321968|168844787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.15|0.84|
84571144|NCT01668797|168893468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits||-1.82|-7.01|0.0011
84571145|NCT01668797|168893469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.23|-6.31|0.0683
84668261|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.76|0.2032
84740074|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|0.71|-2.05|3.48|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.48|-2.05|0.6097
84740075|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.07|-7.50|0.0094
84486542|NCT00935701|168725208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Disturbance||||0.07
84486543|NCT00935701|168725209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Child Domain Total||||0.04
84486544|NCT00935701|168725209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parent Domain Total||||0.31
84486545|NCT00935701|168725209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Stress||||0.07
84486546|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84486547|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486548|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486549|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.024
84486550|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486551|NCT04716010|168725262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486552|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84486553|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486554|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486555|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
84486556|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486557|NCT04716010|168725263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84486558|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \>0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486559|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486560|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486561|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486562|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486563|NCT04716010|168725264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486564|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486565|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486566|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486567|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486568|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486569|NCT04716010|168725265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486570|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486571|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486572|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486573|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486574|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486575|NCT04716010|168725266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486576|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486577|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486578|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486579|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486580|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84545602|NCT00232739|168844817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary analysis posterior probability|0.9926||||||||||The primary analysis of comparing Sirolimus stent with POBA using Bayesian regression model yields that Sirolimus is superior to POBA in reducing the BAR risk.|Bayesian regression model|Multi-level Bayesian regression model was used in the secondary analysis|Secondary analysis for comparing Sirolimus stent with BMS1 and BMS2 signified that Sirolimus stent is superior to POBA, BMS1 and BMS2 in reducing the BAR risk.|Historical control groups consist of propensity-scored matched cohorts (100 patients each, based on Reference Vessel Diameter, lesion length, diabetes, left anterior artery diseased vessel, and gender) of plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), first generation (Palmaz-Schatz) bare metal stent (BMS1), and BX VELOCITY bare metal stent (BMS2). Study showed the risk of 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis (BAR) was much lower for the 2.25 Sirolimus stent compared with POBA, BMS1 or BMS2.||||
84545603|NCT01514292|168844850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Hence, the hypothesis is established as:~Ho: pi \< 71.5% Ha: pi \>71.5% Thus, the objective is to conclude that the proportion of G4 Sensor-YSI points in the present study meeting the 20 mg/dL/20% criterion is no worse than the existing FDA-approved SEVEN PLUS System. The null hypothesis will be rejected if pi observed in this study is greater than 71.5%, the G4 System performance is no worse than the historical performance of the existing FDA approved CGM system will be concluded."||||0.0001
84603360|NCT02752958|168957574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.128|23.849|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 8||23.849|10.128|<0.0001
84603361|NCT02752958|168957575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|29.539|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 12||29.539|15.870|<0.0001
84603362|NCT02752958|168957576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.245|34.165|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 16||34.165|20.245|<0.0001
84603363|NCT02752958|168957577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.464|38.385|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||38.385|24.464|<.0001
84603364|NCT02752958|168957578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.585|39.506|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 24||39.506|25.585|<.0001
84603365|NCT02752958|168957579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.262|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 4||2.262|0.108|0.0312
84603366|NCT02752958|168957580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.728|3.866|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||3.866|1.728|<.0001
84740076|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.8|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.80|-5.45|0.1440
84740077|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-1.91|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.91|-8.33|0.0020
84603367|NCT02752958|168957581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.192|4.322|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||4.322|2.192|<.0001
84740078|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.76|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.76|-4.47|0.3906
84603368|NCT02752958|168957582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|5.012|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||5.012|2.844|<.0001
84668262|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.01|-5.27|0.3787
84668263|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|2.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.64|-4.59|0.5967
84668264|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.31|-5.36|0.4345
84668265|NCT00362115|169071031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|1.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-6.24|0.1954
84668266|NCT02188589|169071035|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between the mean baseline and mean follow-up NOSE scores was evaluated by paired t-test with significance indicated by p\<0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84668267|NCT03341533|169071038|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in NPIS between the two groups.|difference in medians|0.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
84668268|NCT03341533|169071039|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MME use on the hospital floor between groups.|Difference of medians|-4.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual care|||||0.88
84668269|NCT03341533|169071040|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the outpatient MME consumption will be the same across the two groups.|difference in medians|-7.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual Care|||||0.75
84740079|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.05|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.05|-7.93|0.0110
84668270|NCT03341533|169071041|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the postoperative BPI pain severity score will be the same between groups|difference in medians|-0.3||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice Packs - Usual Care|||||0.80
84740080|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|0.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-6.68|0.0511
84668271|NCT00003641|169071075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.964
84668272|NCT00003641|169071076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.558
84486581|NCT04716010|168725267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486582|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84668273|NCT00944450|169071077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for AUC geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|1.02|1.07||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.07|1.02|
84668274|NCT00944450|169071078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||||90.0|0.94|1.22||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.22|0.94|
84668275|NCT00878709|169071096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Log Rank|The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.90|0.49|0.008
84668276|NCT00878709|169071098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.212|||Log Rank|||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior Trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<=3 or \>=4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.212|0.747|0.6914
84668277|NCT00878709|169071099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (DFS-DCIS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.83|0.45|
84668278|NCT00878709|169071101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Distant disease free survival (DDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.05|0.52|
84668279|NCT00878709|169071103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Time to distant recurrence (TTDR) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.04|0.51|
84486583|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486584|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486585|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84545604|NCT00463047|168844851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.29|||Mixed effects ANOVA|Crossover analysis||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was:HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and oxycodone (OXY), respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
84545605|NCT00463047|168844852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.05|0.01|0.0081
84740081|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.738||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-1.58|||MMRM|||Change at hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.58|-8.47|0.0046
84740082|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-5.88|0.1389
84740083|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.837||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.43|-7.71|0.0288
84740084|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.797||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.98|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.98|-5.15|0.3799
84740085|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|1.32|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.32|-7.16|0.1747
84740086|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.12|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.12|-5.13|0.6310
84740087|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.045||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.87|-8.98|0.0178
84740088|NCT02942004|169232235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|0.41|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-7.43|0.0786
84740089|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.4|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.4|1.7|0.0052
84571146|NCT01668797|168893469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.90|-9.20|0.0174
84571147|NCT01668797|168893469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-3.18|-12.0|0.0008
84571148|NCT01668797|168893469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-3.59|-12.4|0.0005
84571149|NCT01668797|168893469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.41|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-3.41|-12.5|0.0007
84603369|NCT02752958|168957583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.063|5.232|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||5.232|3.063|<.0001
84668280|NCT00878709|169071107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.92|0.57|0.008
84486586|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486587|NCT04716010|168725268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486588|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486589|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486590|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486591|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486592|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486593|NCT04716010|168725269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486594|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486595|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486596|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486597|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486598|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486599|NCT04716010|168725270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486600|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486601|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486602|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486603|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486604|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486605|NCT04716010|168725271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486606|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486607|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486608|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486609|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486610|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486611|NCT04716010|168725272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486612|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486613|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486614|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486615|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486616|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486617|NCT04716010|168725273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486618|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486619|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486620|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486621|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486622|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84740090|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.9|1.0|0.0493
84545606|NCT00463047|168844853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
84545607|NCT00463047|168844854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.45||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
84571150|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.00|-2.23|0.0507
84571151|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.50|-3.24|0.0080
84571152|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-2.89|0.0215
84668281|NCT00878709|169071109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||0.89|0.56|
84740091|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.5|1.0|0.0572
84740092|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.0|0.5|0.6768
84668282|NCT00878709|169071110|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.01|0.6|
84668283|NCT00878709|169071111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.03|0.60|
84668284|NCT03886220|169071120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|9.546||P-value for test of difference between elagolix dose group and placebo is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.546|1.086|0.035
84668285|NCT00768300|169071122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) based on core pathology review.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|||2.66|1.14|0.010
84668286|NCT00768300|169071124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|4.29||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.805|9.376||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||9.376|-0.805|0.086
84545608|NCT00463047|168844855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.35||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.35|0.20|<0.0001
84668287|NCT00768300|169071125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|2.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.9||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and its 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||7.90|-2.20|0.250
84668288|NCT00768300|169071126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|16.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|37.0||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||37.00|-5.00|0.150
84740093|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|16.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||16.8|1.7|0.0035
84668289|NCT00768300|169071129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.5||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was based on a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by baseline pulmonary hypertension (Yes/No) and surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review (Yes/No).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect|||1.00|0.00|0.793
84668290|NCT03706794|169071157|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|43.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.829
84668291|NCT03706794|169071158|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
84668292|NCT03706794|169071159|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
84668293|NCT03706794|169071160|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|46.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
84668294|NCT03706794|169071161|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|52.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.315
84740094|NCT02942004|169232236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.8|1.1|0.0347
84668295|NCT01559012|169071192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01 and a beta \> 0.90.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test. P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant||This is an analysis between groups of intervention clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||3.32|1.05|0.001
84740095|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|17.8|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.8|2.1|0.0011
84545609|NCT00463047|168844856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.25|0.08|<0.0001
84740096|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.6|0.9|0.0828
84545610|NCT00463047|168844863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.39|<0.0001
84545611|NCT00463047|168844864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|0.70|<0.0001
84545612|NCT00463047|168844865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1966||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.1966
84545613|NCT00463047|168844866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0275
84545614|NCT00463047|168844867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
84545615|NCT00463047|168844868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||<0.0001
84545616|NCT00463047|168844869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
84545617|NCT00463047|168844870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0074
84672230|NCT02659020|169080013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.911||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.911|0.513|0.6508
84740097|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.1|0.4|0.7749
84545618|NCT00463047|168844871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.83||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.83|0.55|<0.0001
84545619|NCT00463047|168844873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5054||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||3.3|0.7|0.3022
84545620|NCT00463047|168844874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4042||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.0|0.0268
84545621|NCT00463047|168844875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4631||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0008
84545622|NCT00463047|168844876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3184||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0084
84545623|NCT00463047|168844877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0788||||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalize estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.5283
84740098|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||1.7|0.2|0.3401
84740099|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.0|0.8|0.1052
84486623|NCT04716010|168725274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486624|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486625|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486626|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486627|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486628|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486629|NCT04716010|168725275|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486630|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486631|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84545624|NCT00463047|168844878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9491||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.3|0.7|0.7110
84545625|NCT00463047|168844879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5355||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.2|0.3288
84545626|NCT00463047|168844880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1485||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.7|0.8|0.5145
84545627|NCT00463047|168844881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4481||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.1|0.0191
84545628|NCT00463047|168844882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4396||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0006
84545629|NCT00463047|168844883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3426||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0044
84545630|NCT00463047|168844884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1448||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.2184
84545631|NCT00463047|168844885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9249||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.2|0.7|0.5808
84740100|NCT02942004|169232237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||4.2|0.6|0.3507
84545632|NCT00463047|168844886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||2.2|1.7|<0.0001
84545633|NCT00463047|168844887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
84545634|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84545635|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740101|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-3.56|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-3.56|-20.58|0.0058
84545636|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2344|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2344
84545637|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4737|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4737
84545638|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84545639|NCT02712554|168844915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84545640|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545641|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545642|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1267
84545643|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1767|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1767
84545644|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84740102|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|2.41|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||2.41|-14.19|0.1622
84740103|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|-0.16|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-18.02|0.0462
84740104|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.49|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||6.49|-10.97|0.6124
84740105|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.556||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-2.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-2.66|-20.71|0.0116
84740106|NCT02942004|169232238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-17.10|0.0667
84740107|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.9681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.39|0.9681
84740108|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.28|0.6337
84740109|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.64|0.4690
84740110|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.46|0.9905
84740111|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.27|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.68|0.3984
84740112|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.37|0.7042
84740113|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.66|0.4941
84740114|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.4572
84668296|NCT01559012|169071192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|1.83|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a within patient variation between clonidine and placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean +/- Standard Deviation (SD).||3.24|0.43|<0.02
84668297|NCT01559012|169071193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within groups clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||11.5|1.78|0.009
84668298|NCT01559012|169071193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling for crossover studies (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|7.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|12.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within-patient. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||12.83|2.17|<0.01
84668299|NCT01559012|169071194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of percentage of positivity|0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"All patients were treated with TD clonidine for 5 days and switched to placebo for 5 days, or the other way round~Allocation order randomized"||0.47|0.04|0.000
84668300|NCT01559012|169071195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean values|0.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||1.57|0.13|0.013
84668301|NCT01559012|169071196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days off-therapy %|29.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||||0.051
84668302|NCT01559012|169071197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0089
84668303|NCT01559012|169071200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.9|0.9|0.01
84668304|NCT01559012|169071201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|0.3|0.055
84668305|NCT00946712|169071202|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.04|0.83|0.22
84668306|NCT00946712|169071203|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.12|0.75|0.40
84668307|NCT00946712|169071204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.00|0.66|0.054
84668308|NCT00946712|169071206|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.10|0.88|0.83
84668309|NCT00946712|169071208|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.48
84668310|NCT00946712|169071209|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.060
84668311|NCT00853723|169071211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline by day 15 in all three arms.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0005
84740115|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.47|0.9866
84668312|NCT00853723|169071212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stasistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84668313|NCT00853723|169071213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline at Day 60 and at Day 90 for the PTH group and at day 90 for the PTHrP 400 and PTHrP 600 groups .|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84668314|NCT00853723|169071214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in PTHrP 400 and 600 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84545645|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84740116|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.53|0.7490
84740117|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-1.06|0.0235
84740118|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.50|0.9286
84545646|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0119
84545647|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0025
84545648|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1679
84740119|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.01|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.99|0.0544
84545649|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0318|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0318
84545650|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0002
84545651|NCT02712554|168844919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84545652|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545653|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545654|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0858|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0858
84545655|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2877|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2877
84545656|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545657|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84740120|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.74|0.2903
84545658|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0009
84545659|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
84545660|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1130
84545661|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0575|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0575
84545662|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545663|NCT02712554|168844920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545664|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545665|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545666|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4025
84545667|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3184|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.3184
84545668|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545669|NCT02712554|168844921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545670|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545671|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545672|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2628|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2628
84545673|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2262
84545674|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545675|NCT02712554|168844922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545676|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545677|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545678|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1839
84545679|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1751|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1751
84545680|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545681|NCT02712554|168844923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84740121|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.19|0.0044
84545682|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545683|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545684|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4013
84545685|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0736
84545686|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545687|NCT02712554|168844924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
84545688|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
84545689|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
84545690|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2223
84545691|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1638|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1638
84545692|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0041
84545693|NCT02712554|168844925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.001
84545694|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
84545695|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545696|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2706|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2706
84545697|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.5507
84545698|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0047
84545699|NCT02712554|168844926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545700|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
84545701|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545702|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0014
84545703|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0080
84545704|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545705|NCT02712554|168844927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545706|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0024
84545707|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0012
84545708|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0037
84545709|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0011
84545710|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545711|NCT02712554|168844928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545712|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84668315|NCT00853723|169071215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84740122|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.83|0.1339
84668316|NCT00853723|169071216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical signifcance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
84668317|NCT00853723|169071217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
84668318|NCT00853723|169071218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline at Day 15 and 30 in the PTHrP 400 group and at Day 15 in the PTHrP 600 group|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
84668319|NCT00853723|169071219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to PTH group on Day 60 compared to the PTHrP 400|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84668320|NCT00853723|169071219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the PTH group on Day 30 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 60 compared to the PTHRp 600 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
84668321|NCT00853723|169071219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value correspond to the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 15 and 30 compared to the PTHrP 600 group.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
84740123|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-1.04|0.0149
84545713|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545714|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0630
84545715|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4436|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.4436
84545716|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84740124|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3213
84545717|NCT02712554|168844929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545718|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545719|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545720|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2335|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2335
84545721|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1808
84545722|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545723|NCT02712554|168844930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545724|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545725|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment D: M366 37.5 mg/1625 mg, Treatment E: Placebo||||<0.0001
84545726|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1268
84545727|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0014
84545728|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545729|NCT02712554|168844933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545730|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545731|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545732|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0120
84545733|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||<0.0001
84545734|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545735|NCT02712554|168844934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
84545736|NCT03175536|168844964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|12.1|||GEE models|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||12.1|-5.2|0.05
84545737|NCT03175536|168844965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||7.0|-4.4|0.05
84545738|NCT03175536|168844966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3|||GEE model|Binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||11.3|0.7|0.05
84545739|NCT03175536|168844967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.06|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||1.06|-0.74|0.05
84545740|NCT03175536|168844968|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-21.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||-21|-47|0.05
84545741|NCT03830333|168844978|NON_INFERIORITY|Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole is concluded to be non-inferior to meropenem + placebo if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference in percent response is above -12.5 percentage points.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||8.8|-4.7|
84545742|NCT03830333|168844979|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||3.7|-12.6|
84545743|NCT03830333|168844980|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||6.7|-3.8|
84545744|NCT03830333|168844981|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||4.8|-8.0|
84545745|NCT03830333|168844982|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.4||||||Difference in percentage based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||10.4|-9.2|
84545746|NCT03830333|168844983|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.7||||||Gram-negative aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.7|-11.9|
84545747|NCT03830333|168844983|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5||||||All enterobacteriaceae comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.5|-12.5|
84571153|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.58|-3.19|0.0053
84545748|NCT03830333|168844983|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|20.0||||||Gram-positive aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||20.0|-42.2|
84545749|NCT03830333|168844984|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.2||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||11.2|-12.6|
84545750|NCT03830333|168844985|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.4||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||4.4|-4.4|
84545751|NCT04390113|168845006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.55|0.6253
84545752|NCT01611883|168845013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe treatment group will be considered non-inferior to the placebo control group if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference (ezetimibe minus placebo) in means for change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment does not exceed 0.5%.|Difference in Least-squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.23|-0.07|
84545753|NCT01611883|168845014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.47|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.47|-0.47|
84545754|NCT01611883|168845015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||2.5|-12.1|
84545755|NCT01611883|168845016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.779
84545756|NCT01611883|168845017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.365
84545757|NCT01611883|168845018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-21.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-17.03|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-17.03|-25.06|<0.001
84545758|NCT01611883|168845019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-10.42|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-10.42|-16.66|<0.001
84545759|NCT01611883|168845020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.44|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-1.44|-21.27|0.025
84545760|NCT01611883|168845021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|2.45||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|6.61|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||6.61|-1.71|0.246
84545761|NCT01611883|168845022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-15.43|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-15.43|-22.71|<0.001
84545762|NCT03771898|168845046|SUPERIORITY|Survival probability free of loss of locomotion estimated up to Week 106 (or two years).|Difference in survival probability (%)|-2.2|||=|0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|17.7||One-sided, over time intervals during entire follow-up. Stratified generalized log-rank test was used, where matching identification created from matching process in SAS PSMATCH Procedure used as strata.|Log Rank||For the shared time interval up to Week 106 (or two years).|Interval censoring survival analysis.||17.7|-22.2|=0.585
84545763|NCT03135548|168845073|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
84545764|NCT03135548|168845073|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
84545765|NCT03135548|168845075|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.086|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.086|-0.289|
84545766|NCT03135548|168845075|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.348|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.348|-0.116|
84545767|NCT03135548|168845076|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|34.48|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||34.48|-20.01|
84545768|NCT03135548|168845076|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|16.7|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||16.70|-28.35|
84668322|NCT00853723|169071220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase from baseline to D90 in the PTHrP 400 group.|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
84545769|NCT03135548|168845077|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.049|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.049|-0.346|
84545770|NCT03135548|168845077|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.252|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.252|-0.213|
84668323|NCT00853723|169071221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p value corresponds to an increased from baseline at all time points in all Arms/groups as well as to the increase in the in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 60 and 90 compared to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups .|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84668324|NCT00853723|169071221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the comparison of the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15 to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
84668325|NCT00853723|169071222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to an increase compared to baseline in the PTHrP 600 group at D15 and D30|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84668326|NCT00853723|169071222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15,30, 60 and 90 and the PTH group at day 90.|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
84668327|NCT00853723|169071223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and to the PTHrP 600 group at Day 30 and Day 60|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
84668328|NCT00853723|169071223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Thre reported p-value correspond to the PTH group compared to the PTHrp 600 group at day 15|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
84545771|NCT04998136|168845088|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-10.7|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial observation period.||-10.70|-15.28|<0.0001
84571154|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.22|-5.20|0.339
84668329|NCT01787175|169071238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in time to complete A&P|-17.73||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-0.23|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will require the same amount of time to complete assessments and plans using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||-0.23|-35.24|0.047
84668330|NCT01787175|169071239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Value of problem scores for A&P complete|0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||0.09|-0.01|0.15
84668331|NCT01787175|169071240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same proportion of acceptable scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||2.98|1.22|0.005
84740125|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.04|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.94|0.0703
84740126|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.53|0.8152
84740127|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-1.13|0.0805
84740128|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.69|0.6964
84545772|NCT04998136|168845089|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.11|||MMRM|||Hypothetical Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM). All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or dose reduction, or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in MMRM with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||-11.11|-15.70|<0.0001
84545773|NCT04998136|168845090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.96|359.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial period.||359.61|21.96|<0.0001
84545774|NCT04998136|168845091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|253.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.41|1672.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand. MMRM was used with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. The MMRM was performed on body weight (kg) and individual missing week 44 responses were predicted from the MMRM, each participant was then classified for body weight loss \>= 5% and analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||1672.57|38.41|<0.0001
84545775|NCT03521154|168845111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.24|0.10|<0.001
84545776|NCT03521154|168845112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in Ex19Del positive patients||0.29|0.10|
84545777|NCT03521154|168845112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.19|0.56|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in L858R positive patients||0.56|0.19|
84545778|NCT03521154|168845113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|Negative at screening||0.34|0.15|
84545779|NCT03521154|168845114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.09|<0.001
84545780|NCT03521154|168845116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.56|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.56|0.42|0.530
84545781|NCT03521154|168845117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.08|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||5.08|1.54|<0.001
84545782|NCT03521154|168845119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib.|||4.47|0.94|0.069
84740129|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.29|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.92|0.2998
84545783|NCT03521154|168845122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.38|0.11|<0.001
84545784|NCT03521154|168845123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.14|<0.001
84545785|NCT03521154|168845124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.21|0.08|<0.001
84545786|NCT03521154|168845125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.91|0.28|0.022
84545787|NCT03521154|168845126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.08|0.35|0.088
84545788|NCT01598064|168845151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84545789|NCT00333983|168845186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||P value was set at .025 to adjust for 2 treatment comparisons and for interim monitoring for the treatment effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An analysis of all robot interventions compared with intensive conventional exercise for Fugl-Meyer change were completed using linear mixed models.||||.025
84545790|NCT04229095|168845188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The effect of the drug on lowering VAS was limited to individuals with impaired sleep at baseline (PSQI \> or = to 5).|Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictors were drug condition, and baseline sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index {PSQI} total score less than 5 or 5 and greater). Arms were combined for this analysis.||-1.01||.007
84545791|NCT04229095|168845190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces number of drinks per day. Principle predictors were drug condition and sex. Arms were combined for this analysis.||-0.46||.0025
84545792|NCT01780038|168845192|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequencies and percentages were used to determine this secondary outcome.|||
84545793|NCT00455403|168845196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|||||"Applies to row Title year 1"|Mixed Models Analysis||"applies to row title year 1"|||||0.7279
84668332|NCT05778786|169071241|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.0 logMAR was used.|Least-Square Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 9 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.||-0.10||
84668333|NCT05778786|169071242|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 62 points was used.|Least-quares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|65.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 165 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.|||65.2|
84668334|NCT05778786|169071243|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.974|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.989|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.989|0.950|
84668335|NCT05778786|169071244|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.976|
84668336|NCT05778786|169071245|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.997|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.977|
84668337|NCT05778786|169071246|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.01 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible Interval.||0.010|0.000|
84668338|NCT05778786|169071247|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 58 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|61.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||61.2|
84668339|NCT05778786|169071248|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 61 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|66.6||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||66.6|
84668340|NCT01331148|169071255|OTHER|||||||0.0507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the longitudinal nature of the data and presence of missing values, repeated measures analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SAS. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to quantify the relationship between PedsQL scores with 25OHD concentrations and pain days. Two-way analysis of variance models compared PedsQL scores between treatment groups over time.||||0.0507
84668341|NCT05477875|169071273|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
84668342|NCT05477875|169071274|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.538
84668343|NCT05477875|169071275|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
84668344|NCT05477875|169071276|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and PROWL-SS from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.851
84668345|NCT05477875|169071277|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and QIRC from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.543|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.543
84486632|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84668346|NCT05477875|169071278|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and OSDI from (0-48) as the dependent variable."||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
84668347|NCT05477875|169071279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
84668348|NCT02515942|169071304|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.64|0.0636
84668349|NCT02515942|169071304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.29||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.00|-0.59|0.1019
84668350|NCT02515942|169071304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.35|-0.24|0.5987
84486633|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84545794|NCT02535026|168845208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with age groups||||0.280
84486634|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486635|NCT04716010|168725276|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486636|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486637|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486638|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486639|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486640|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486641|NCT04716010|168725277|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486642|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486643|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486644|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486645|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486646|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486647|NCT04716010|168725278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486648|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486649|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486650|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486651|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486652|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486653|NCT04716010|168725279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486654|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486655|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486656|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486657|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486658|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486659|NCT04716010|168725280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486660|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486661|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486662|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486663|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486664|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84486665|NCT04716010|168725281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84486666|NCT00679380|168725284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|3.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.5|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Entocort EC and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Entocort EC versus budesonide MMX.||10.5|-3.0|0.2876
84486667|NCT00679380|168725284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.3|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||21.3|4.6|0.0047
84486668|NCT00679380|168725284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||15.9|0.4|0.0481
84545795|NCT02535026|168845209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
84545796|NCT02535026|168845210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.03
84545797|NCT02535026|168845211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with age groups||||=0.004
84545798|NCT02535026|168845212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
84545799|NCT02535026|168845213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||PR status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.025
84545800|NCT02535026|168845214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.056|||||||ANOVA|||HER2 status association with age groups.||||=0.056
84545801|NCT02535026|168845215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||HER2 status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
84545802|NCT02535026|168845216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.129
84545803|NCT02535026|168845217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with age groups.||||=0.003
84545804|NCT02535026|168845218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with nuclear grades.||||<0.001
84545805|NCT02535026|168845219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.001
84668351|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.11|-0.11|0.5029
84668352|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6820
84545806|NCT02535026|168845220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with ER status.||||<0.001
84545807|NCT02535026|168845221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Phenotypes of breast cancer association with PR status.||||<0.001
84545808|NCT02535026|168845222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with HER2 status.||||<0.001
84545809|NCT00925704|168845241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.171
84545810|NCT00925704|168845241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.024
84545811|NCT00925704|168845242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.313
84545812|NCT00925704|168845242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||< 0.001
84545813|NCT00925704|168845243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.039
84545814|NCT00925704|168845243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.305
84545815|NCT00216125|168845244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.883
84545816|NCT00502242|168845251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.228||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.528||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.528|0.099|0.0002
84545817|NCT00502242|168845252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.763||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.763|0.237|0.0031
84545818|NCT00502242|168845253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
84545819|NCT00502242|168845253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.074
84545820|NCT00502242|168845254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.093
84545821|NCT00502242|168845254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.219
84545822|NCT00502242|168845255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
84545823|NCT00502242|168845255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.121
84545824|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
84545825|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
84571155|NCT01668797|168893470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.88|-2.32|< 0.0001
84571156|NCT01668797|168893471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-2.10|0.1093
84668353|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6826
84668354|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.12||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.03|-0.28|0.1545
84668355|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.02|-0.29|0.1398
84668356|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.14|-0.16|0.4717
84668357|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.05|-0.45|0.0530
84668358|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.17||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.03|-0.37|0.1386
84668359|NCT02515942|169071305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.27|-0.11|0.7087
84545826|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 3, Ramipril versus (vs.) Placebo||0.96|0.76|0.0098
84545827|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
84545828|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
84545829|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.68|0.0003
84740130|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.85|0.3448
84545830|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Ramipirl||||
84545831|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
84545832|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.91|0.68|0.0016
84545833|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
84545834|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
84668360|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.72||||0.9243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.29|-5.15|0.9243
84668361|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.51||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.91|-1.89|0.3929
84668362|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.23||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.61|0.85|0.0418
84668363|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.32||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||2.27|-2.91|0.5632
84668364|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||3.83|-1.25|0.2575
84668365|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.61||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||4.12|-0.91|0.2058
84668366|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||0.57|-4.44|0.8392
84668367|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effecgt|-0.12||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||2.35|-2.59|0.5255
84668368|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.81||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||4.24|-0.61|0.1685
84668369|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment|-2.01||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.45|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||0.43|-4.45|0.8544
84668370|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.03||||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.44|-0.38|0.1402
84668371|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.03||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||6.40|1.67|0.0150
84668372|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.14||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.39|-2.11|0.4682
84668373|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.38||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.60|-1.84|0.4125
84668374|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.24||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.94|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.42|-1.94|0.4431
84668375|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.04||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.63|-3.72|0.6924
84668376|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.61||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.26|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.04|-3.26|0.6160
84668377|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.44||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.06|-2.18|0.4149
84668378|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.27|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.85|-1.27|0.2582
84668379|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.81||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.34|-1.72|0.3402
84668380|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.48||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.03|-2.99|0.5976
84668381|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.5||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.3|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.29|-3.30|0.5916
84668382|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.45|-3.05|0.5564
84545835|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.82||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.96|0.70|0.0165
84545836|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
84545837|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
84545838|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.83||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.98|0.70|0.0264
84545839|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
84545840|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
84545841|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.93|0.66|0.0062
84545842|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
84545843|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
84545844|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.99|0.72|0.0341
84545845|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
84545846|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
84545847|NCT00502242|168845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.70|0.0600
84545848|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
84545849|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
84545850|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.71||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.57|0.0034
84545851|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
84545852|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
84545853|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
84545854|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril||||
84545855|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
84545856|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.79|0.47|0.0002
84545857|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
84545858|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
84545859|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.65||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.87|0.49|0.0032
84545860|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
84545861|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
84545862|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.92|0.51|0.0130
84545863|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
84545864|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
84545865|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.74||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.54|0.0577
84545866|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
84545867|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
84545868|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.77||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.07|0.56|0.1146
84545869|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
84545870|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
84571157|NCT01668797|168893471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.47|-3.25|0.0089
84545871|NCT00502242|168845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.20|0.60|0.3496
84545872|NCT00502242|168845258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||1.0000
84545873|NCT00502242|168845258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.1115
84545874|NCT00502242|168845259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.61|-3.33|0.4933
84545875|NCT00502242|168845259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|5.33||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24||5.33|-0.38|0.0888
84545876|NCT00502242|168845259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52||4.99|-0.75|0.1475
84545877|NCT00502242|168845260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 24||1.04|0.68|0.1167
84545878|NCT00502242|168845260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 52||1.31|0.82|0.7519
84545879|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.470
84545880|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.220
84545881|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.470
84545882|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||1.000
84545883|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.725
84545884|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.227
84545885|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
84545886|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||0.106
84545887|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||1.000
84545888|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
84545889|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.475
84545890|NCT00502242|168845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.475
84545891|NCT00502242|168845263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
84545892|NCT00502242|168845263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.626
84545893|NCT00502242|168845263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.297
84545894|NCT00502242|168845263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.356
84545895|NCT00502242|168845264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.064
84545896|NCT00502242|168845264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.069
84545897|NCT00502242|168845264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.752
84545898|NCT00502242|168845264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.261
84545899|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 4||||0.381
84545900|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 12||||0.956
84545901|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 24||||0.903
84545902|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 52||||0.503
84545903|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.451|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 4||||0.451
84545904|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 12||||0.919
84545905|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 24||||0.637
84740131|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.17|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.15|0.0089
84740132|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.92|0.0772
84740133|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.46|0.6809
84740134|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.30|0.7297
84740135|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.87|0.0626
84740136|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.58|0.5196
84545906|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 52||||0.229
84545907|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 4||||0.766
84545908|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 12||||0.217
84545909|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 24||||0.457
84545910|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 52||||0.041
84545911|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 4||||0.044
84545912|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 12||||0.180
84545913|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 24||||0.264
84545914|NCT00502242|168845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 52||||0.408
84545915|NCT00502242|168845266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.487||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|6.978||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||6.978|0.887|0.0732
84545916|NCT00502242|168845268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL, AM BCAR||||0.7165
84545917|NCT00502242|168845268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL (On-Therapy), AM BCAR||||0.4795
84545918|NCT00502242|168845269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4773
84545919|NCT00502242|168845270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.124
84545920|NCT00502242|168845270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.410
84545921|NCT00502242|168845270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.423
84545922|NCT00502242|168845270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.297
84545923|NCT00502242|168845271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.726
84545924|NCT00502242|168845272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84668383|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.93|-2.53|0.4625
84668384|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||0.76|-4.64|0.8221
84668385|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.98||||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|3.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.64|-1.68|0.3179
84740137|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.88|0.0772
84545925|NCT00502242|168845273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.753
84545926|NCT00502242|168845274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.224
84545927|NCT00502242|168845274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.179
84545928|NCT00502242|168845274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.604
84545929|NCT00502242|168845274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.486
84545930|NCT04548193|168845288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.14||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|17.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.99|-5.72|0.28
84545931|NCT04548193|168845289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.06|.0054
84545932|NCT04548193|168845291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.65|0.24|.0098
84545933|NCT01011816|168845292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null: No differenc between the percent success of Saline and BIOSTAT BIOLOGX||||0.52
84545934|NCT00343044|168845303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Planned enrollment of 40 patients was determined assuming a median progression free survival (PFS) of 9 months (based on a median PFS of 7.2 months for low-dose, metronomic cyclophosphamide plus bevacizumab in a phase 2 study) and an analysis calculating the sample size at which the narrowing of its 95% confidence interval (CI) became greater than .2 for every 2 patients added. Progression free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.08
84545935|NCT00343044|168845304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Overall survival(OS)was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.02
84545936|NCT01575834|168845317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.47|0.15|< 0.001
84668386|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.92||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.55|0.29|0.0773
84668387|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.81|-3.71|0.6708
84668388|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.99||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.74|-3.71|0.6790
84668389|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.72|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.64|-2.72|0.5070
84668390|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.44|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.84|-3.44|0.5487
84668391|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.25||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.35|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.85|-4.35|0.6973
84668392|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.11|-4.00|0.6548
84740138|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.55|0.6610
84668393|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.76|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.05|-3.76|0.5533
84668394|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.46|-2.25|0.3358
84668395|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.46||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.77|-1.85|0.2850
84668396|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.55||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.04|-4.14|0.5778
84668397|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.3||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.24|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.85|-1.24|0.2018
84571158|NCT01668797|168893471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.22|-4.26|0.0005
84668398|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.85||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.62|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.32|-0.62|0.1457
84668399|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.56||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.29|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||3.18|-4.29|0.5758
84668400|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.85||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.55|-2.84|0.3833
84668401|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.41||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.21|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.02|-2.21|0.3083
84486669|NCT00679380|168725285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-8.0||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8||||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||4.|-20.8|0.2174
84486670|NCT00679380|168725285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|22.0|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||22.0|-5.0|0.2215
84486671|NCT00679380|168725285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-0.7||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.7|-14.1|0.9185
84486672|NCT00679380|168725286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.4||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|18.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Entocort EC and placebo groups is shown here.||18.8|-8.0|0.4293
84486673|NCT02996500|168725287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-1.97|-13.73|0.0050
84486674|NCT02996500|168725287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-3.66|-14.37|<0.001
84486675|NCT02996500|168725287|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.63|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.63|-16.36|<0.001
84486676|NCT02996500|168725287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|-5.92|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.92|-16.62|<0.001
84486677|NCT01099761|168725323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84486678|NCT01099761|168725323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84571159|NCT01668797|168893471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.44|-4.43|0.0001
84668402|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.54||||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.11|-5.19|0.7063
84668403|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.14||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.74|-1.46|0.2227
84668404|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||7.21|0.15|0.0907
84740139|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.27|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.67|0.4007
84571160|NCT01668797|168893471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-1.66|-4.70|<0.0001
84740140|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.74|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.74|-0.18|0.2292
84486679|NCT01099761|168725323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.435
84486680|NCT01099761|168725324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
84486681|NCT04223778|168725356|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.34|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.34|-3.44|<.001
84486682|NCT04223778|168725357|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.3|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|3.3|
84486683|NCT04223778|168725358|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|0.2|
84486684|NCT04223778|168725359|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.9|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<40 copies/mL||3.90|-3.28|
84486685|NCT04223778|168725359|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.43|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL||4.43|-2.58|
84486686|NCT04223778|168725362|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.5|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-4.5|-13.4|
84486687|NCT04223778|168725367|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-19.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-6.44|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Cholesterol||-6.44|-33.07|
84486688|NCT04223778|168725367|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.84|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.84|-6.55|
84486689|NCT04223778|168725367|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-13.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|-3.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-3.20|-24.69|
84486690|NCT04223778|168725367|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|-5.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-5.46|-30.02|
84486691|NCT04223778|168725367|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-21.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.51|2.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Triglycerides||2.96|-45.51|
84486692|NCT04223778|168725368|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||2.09|-10.43|
84486693|NCT04223778|168725368|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.09|-1.46|
84486694|NCT04223778|168725368|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|1.74|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.74|-9.47|
84486695|NCT04223778|168725368|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.38|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||1.38|-11.21|
84740141|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.92|0.0540
84486696|NCT04223778|168725368|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|19.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||19.43|-16.14|
84486697|NCT04223778|168725369|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.7|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||9.70|-7.60|
84486698|NCT04223778|168725369|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.05|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.05|-6.37|
84486699|NCT04223778|168725369|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|11.03|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||11.03|-2.27|
84486700|NCT04223778|168725369|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.19|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||11.19|-3.93|
84486701|NCT04223778|168725369|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|12.31|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||12.31|-15.89|
84486702|NCT04223778|168725370|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|-4.76|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||-4.76|-32.05|
84486703|NCT04223778|168725370|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|5.08|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||5.08|-5.06|
84486704|NCT04223778|168725370|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-14.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|-2.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-2.43|-25.81|
84486705|NCT04223778|168725370|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.45|-6.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-6.00|-30.45|
84486706|NCT04223778|168725370|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-27.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|-4.49|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||-4.49|-51.08|
84486707|NCT04223778|168725370|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.12||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|-0.68||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-0.68|-27.56|0.0094
84486708|NCT04223778|168725370|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.23||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-4.17||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-4.17|-32.28|0.0021
84486709|NCT04223778|168725371|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|6.18|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||6.18|-6.26|
84486710|NCT04223778|168725371|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.54|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||2.54|-1.84|
84486711|NCT04223778|168725371|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|6.11|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||6.11|-4.83|
84486712|NCT04223778|168725371|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|5.83|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||5.83|-6.81|
84486713|NCT04223778|168725371|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|9.57|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||9.57|-20.46|
84571161|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.29|-1.66|0.1650
84740142|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.9590
84740143|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.79|0.1048
84740144|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.44|0.8979
84545937|NCT01575834|168845318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.39|0.15|< 0.001
84545938|NCT01575834|168845319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.89|0.46|0.008
84545939|NCT01575834|168845320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.05|0.53|0.096
84545940|NCT01575834|168845321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.97|0.57|0.057
84545941|NCT01575834|168845322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.87|0.52|0.096
84545942|NCT01575834|168845323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.02||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.02|0.44|0.096
84545943|NCT01575834|168845324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab|||0.91|0.49|0.096
84668405|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.17||||0.4799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.23|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.57|-4.23|0.4799
84545944|NCT01575834|168845325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.49|0.17|0.096
84545945|NCT01575834|168845326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.41|0.16|0.096
84545946|NCT01575834|168845327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.35||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.35|0.22|0.18
84668406|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.2||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.14|-4.54|0.5237
84668407|NCT02515942|169071307|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.37||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.87|-4.62|0.5451
84668408|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.09|-1.79|0.4609
84668409|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.37|-1.44|0.3771
84668410|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.32||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.24|-1.60|0.4161
84668411|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.88||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||-0.49|-5.26|0.9385
84668412|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.4||||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||1.96|-2.76|0.5862
84668413|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.48||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.82|0.14|0.0875
84668414|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.53||||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.37|-2.32|0.4059
84668415|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.24||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.58|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||4.05|-1.58|0.2860
84668416|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.71||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.52|-2.10|0.3727
84668417|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.66|-1.85|0.3360
84486714|NCT04223778|168725371|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|6.9||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.90|-5.63|0.4093
84497183|NCT04636437|168745580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.4|8.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||8.72|-14.4|0.58
84740145|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.82|0.0819
84668418|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.95||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.24|6.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||6.66|1.24|0.0316
84668419|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.04||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||5.76|0.32|0.0762
84668420|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||6.61|0.75|0.0544
84668421|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.91||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.77|-0.95|0.1955
84668422|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.77||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.65|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||1.12|-4.65|0.7844
84668423|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.49||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.08|-2.11|0.2973
84740146|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.77|0.1099
84668424|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.33||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||4.84|-2.18|0.3127
84668425|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.16||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.67|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.36|-3.67|0.5227
84668426|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.63||||0.7643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.28|-4.54|0.7643
84668427|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.38||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.48|-4.25|0.7331
84740147|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.88|0.0373
84571162|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.42|-1.97|0.2001
84486715|NCT04223778|168725371|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|6.75||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.75|-7.72|0.4397
84486716|NCT04223778|168725372|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|10.17|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||10.17|-5.54|
84486717|NCT04223778|168725372|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.65|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.65|-5.69|
84486718|NCT04223778|168725372|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|8.42|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||8.42|-3.73|
84486719|NCT04223778|168725372|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|10.56|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||10.56|-2.63|
84486720|NCT04223778|168725372|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|24.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||24.96|-3.97|
84486721|NCT04223778|168725373|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.46|-0.59|
84486722|NCT04540627|168725379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5802
84486723|NCT04540627|168725380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
84486724|NCT04540627|168725381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2681
84486725|NCT04540627|168725382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2431
84486726|NCT04540627|168725387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
84486727|NCT04540627|168725389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0403
84486728|NCT02043704|168725404|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the groups.||||||0.328||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The comparison was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.328
84486729|NCT00211536|168725437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the average A1C, the goal was to show non-inferiority of MIP compared to SC. The minimal clinically relevant increase in A1C (%) was set at 0.50%. The between-subjects standard deviation of A1C was assumed to be 1.0% based on previous studies.|Least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for baseline A1C using SAS Proc Mixed to compare A1C trends over time between the treatment groups||Sample size calculations were performed on the primary endpoint: the average glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). Sample size was estimated using a two-sample, one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.05. The projected sample size of 50 subjects per treatment group provides 79% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the average A1C in both the MIP and SC groups are equivalent, assuming an effect size of 0.50% and a standard deviation of 1.0%.||0.5||<0.05
84486730|NCT01693562|168725501|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.016
84486731|NCT01693562|168725502|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.0046|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0046
84486732|NCT02759939|168725503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.80
84486733|NCT02759939|168725503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.32
84486734|NCT02759939|168725503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.99
84486735|NCT02759939|168725503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.72
84486736|NCT00087594|168725524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|41.3||||||95% CI for G1 participants||41.3|-27.8|
84486737|NCT00087594|168725524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|35.4||||||95% CI for G2/3 participants||35.4|-10.4|
84486738|NCT00087594|168725524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|76.9||||||95% CI for G1 participants with 2 log drop at W 12||76.9|12.0|
84486739|NCT00087594|168725524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||95% CI for G1 participants with non 2 log drop at W 12||||
84486740|NCT00087594|168725524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||||||95% CI for G1 participants with missing HCV-RNA at W 12||50.5|-77.2|
84486741|NCT03347279|168725544|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.53|||Negative Binomial|||||0.53|0.37|<0.001
84486742|NCT03347279|168725545|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.75|||Negative Binomial|||||0.75|0.46|<0.001
84740148|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.81|0.0577
84545947|NCT01575834|168845328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.04|0.24|0.12
84545948|NCT01575834|168845329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.90|0.40|0.012
84545949|NCT01575834|168845330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.84|0.46|0.002
84545950|NCT01575834|168845331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.87|0.01|0.011
84545951|NCT01575834|168845332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.44|0.01|< 0.001
84545952|NCT01575834|168845333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|12.9|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||12.9|12.4|< 0.001
84545953|NCT01575834|168845334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|11.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||11.4|10.8|< 0.001
84545954|NCT01575834|168845335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|6.0|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||6.0|5.6|< 0.001
84545955|NCT01575834|168845336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.5|5.1|< 0.001
84545956|NCT01575834|168845337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|5.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.4|4.9|< 0.001
84545957|NCT01575834|168845338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.2|4.7|< 0.001
84545958|NCT02282813|168845348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1041
84545959|NCT02282813|168845349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0503
84545960|NCT02282813|168845350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4817|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4817
84545961|NCT02282813|168845351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8086
84545962|NCT01342770|168845352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.06
84545963|NCT02220764|168845368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: The chipping rates between tooth- and implant- supoorted FDPs are equally distributed.||||0.03
84545964|NCT05000164|168845370|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.0 logMAR for distance.|Distance (4m)||-0.07|-0.17|
84545965|NCT05000164|168845370|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Intermediate (64cm)||0.04|-0.06|
84545966|NCT05000164|168845370|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for near.|Near (40cm)||0.15|0.04|
84545967|NCT03493854|168845376|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.31|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm A SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm B IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.31|1.14|
84545968|NCT03493854|168845377|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.43|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.43|1.24|
84545969|NCT03493854|168845378|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|8.97|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||8.97|-8.67|
84545970|NCT03493854|168845379|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.68|0.5216
84545971|NCT03493854|168845380|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.68|0.5992
84545972|NCT03493854|168845381|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.72|0.4844
84545973|NCT03493854|168845382|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|||||1.88|0.71|0.5474
84545974|NCT03493854|168845383|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|0.61|0.6291
84545975|NCT03493854|168845384|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.72|||Log Rank|||||2.72|0.58|0.5609
84545976|NCT04278417|168845410|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to PRP with respect to change from baseline in BCVA at Week 54, considering a non-inferiority margin of 4 ETDRS letters. Assuming that the BCVA changes follow a normal distribution with equal means between treatments, and a common standard deviation of 10 letters, for a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with 300 subjects per arm there is \>99% power to reject the null hypothesis that brolucizumab 6 mg is inferior to PRP.|LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.4|||ANCOVA|||1||6.4|2.4|<0.001
84545977|NCT04278417|168845410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||2||||<0.001
84545978|NCT04278417|168845411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|32.0|< 0.001
84545979|NCT04278417|168845413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-34.2|-48.0|< 0.001
84545980|NCT04278417|168845416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 54||33.3|19.5|<0.001
84545981|NCT06509438|168845425|OTHER|Compare 4 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84545982|NCT06509438|168845425|OTHER|Compare 12 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84545983|NCT03331796|168845429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||7.9|-4.8|0.63
84545984|NCT03331796|168845429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.7|||Regression, Linear|||||13.7|0.1|0.0476
84545985|NCT03331796|168845430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.2|-11.4|0.45
84545986|NCT03331796|168845430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||14.8|-3.3|0.21
84545987|NCT03331796|168845431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.19|-0.36|0.29
84545988|NCT03331796|168845431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.08|-0.55|0.51
84545989|NCT03331796|168845432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.0|-1.0|.33
84545990|NCT03331796|168845432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|1.1|0.0038
84545991|NCT03331796|168845433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.0|-1.1|0.58
84545992|NCT03331796|168845433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||1.3|-2.2|0.59
84545993|NCT03331796|168845434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||16.1|-5.2|0.30
84545994|NCT03331796|168845434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|-14.9|0.34
84486743|NCT03347279|168725546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
84486744|NCT03347279|168725547|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|0.2|<0.001
84486745|NCT03347279|168725548|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.46|<0.001
84486746|NCT03347279|168725549|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
84486747|NCT03991936|168725597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) for the triamcinolone acetonide groups: 2.5 mg/mL, 5.0 mg/mL, 7.5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL would be no different than the change from baseline to 24 weeks for the placebo group.||||<0.001
84486748|NCT05306964|168725609|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
84486749|NCT05306964|168725610|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
84486750|NCT05306964|168725611|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
84486751|NCT05306964|168725612|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
84486752|NCT05306964|168725613|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
84486753|NCT05306964|168725614|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
84486754|NCT05306964|168725615|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
84486755|NCT05306964|168725616|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
84486756|NCT05306964|168725617|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
84486757|NCT05306964|168725618|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
84486758|NCT05306964|168725619|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GLMM|||||||0.02
84486759|NCT05306964|168725620|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
84486760|NCT05306964|168725621|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
84486761|NCT05306964|168725622|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||GLMM|||||||0.1
84486762|NCT05306964|168725623|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
84486763|NCT05306964|168725624|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.001
84486764|NCT05306964|168725625|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84545995|NCT03331796|168845435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||22.1|-22.0|0.996
84486765|NCT05306964|168725626|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
84486766|NCT05306964|168725627|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
84486767|NCT05306964|168725628|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||GLMM|||||||0.8
84486768|NCT05306964|168725629|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486769|NCT05306964|168725630|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486770|NCT05306964|168725631|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
84486771|NCT05306964|168725632|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486772|NCT05306964|168725633|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
84486773|NCT05306964|168725634|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486774|NCT05306964|168725635|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
84486775|NCT05306964|168725636|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486776|NCT05306964|168725637|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486777|NCT05306964|168725638|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
84486778|NCT05306964|168725639|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
84486779|NCT05306964|168725640|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
84486780|NCT05306964|168725641|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
84486781|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.755|
84486782|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.598||||||||-0.598|-0.925|
84486783|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987|-0.665||||||||-0.665|-0.987|
84486784|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|-0.739||||||||-0.739|-1.035|
84486785|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.132||||||||-0.132|-0.570|
84486786|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.342||||||||-0.342|-0.743|
84486787|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.406||||||||-0.406|-0.808|
84486788|NCT01263470|168725642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.859|-0.475||||||||-0.475|-0.859|
84486789|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.104||||||||-0.104|-0.213|
84486790|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|-0.114||||||||-0.114|-0.234|
84486791|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|-0.1||||||||-0.100|-0.219|
84486792|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|-0.095||||||||-0.095|-0.212|
84486793|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.003||||||||-0.003|-0.116|
84486794|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.014||||||||-0.014|-0.136|
84486795|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.0||||||||0.000|-0.121|
84486796|NCT01263470|168725643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.006||||||||0.006|-0.114|
84486797|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|-0.233||||||||-0.233|-0.419|
84486798|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-0.470|
84486799|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.241||||||||-0.241|-0.438|
84486800|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|-0.288||||||||-0.288|-0.485|
84486801|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.076||||||||-0.076|-0.280|
84486802|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.112||||||||-0.112|-0.329|
84486803|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|-0.085||||||||-0.085|-0.299|
84668428|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.25||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||3.09|-2.59|0.4557
84668429|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.29||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.97|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.55|-2.97|0.4549
84668430|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.93||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||4.13|-2.26|0.3535
84668431|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.65||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.54|3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.84|-2.54|0.3970
84668432|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.78||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.99|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.55|-1.99|0.2714
84668433|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.72||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.97|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.41|-1.97|0.2741
84668434|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.62|-3.74|0.5084
84668435|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.82||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.37|-0.73|0.1537
84668436|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.79||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.69|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.27|-1.69|0.2542
84668437|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.03||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||2.40|-4.46|0.6504
84668438|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.3||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.78|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.38|-2.78|0.3405
84668439|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.41||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.59|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||6.42|-1.59|0.2194
84668440|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.87|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.09|-2.87|0.3596
84740149|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.69|0.2023
84668441|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.04|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||3.90|-4.04|0.5086
84740150|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.56|0.4444
84740151|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.64|0.3645
84740152|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.60|0.4035
84740153|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.62|0.4877
84740154|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3134
84740155|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.89|0.0922
84740156|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.04|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.87|0.0761
84740157|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.64|0.3275
84486804|NCT01263470|168725644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.346|
84486805|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.356||||||||-0.356|-0.644|
84740158|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3041
84740159|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0450
84571163|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.16|-2.07|0.0939
84668442|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.33||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.23|-1.57|0.2211
84668443|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.4||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.47|6.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.26|-1.47|0.2126
84668444|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.56||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.55|-1.44|0.2053
84668445|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.2||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.12|-1.72|0.2353
84668446|NCT02515942|169071308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.36||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.53|-4.24|0.5471
84668447|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.74||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.11|-5.38|0.0913
84668448|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.28||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.33|-2.89|0.4454
84740160|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.19|0.5351
84668449|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.08|-0.16|0.8861
84668450|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.80|-1.49|0.7130
84668451|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.37||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||5.01|-0.26|0.8759
84668452|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.22||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.39|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.82|-1.39|0.7256
84668453|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.17||||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.88|-4.22|0.3111
84668454|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.7||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.73|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.34|-4.73|0.2360
84668455|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.53||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.49|-3.55|0.4110
84668456|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.13||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.57|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.83|-2.57|0.5247
84668457|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.37||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.70|-6.04|0.0534
84668458|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.5||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.18|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.82|-6.18|0.0475
84668459|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.92||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.11|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||-0.74|-7.11|0.0575
84668460|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.16||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||0.97|-5.29|0.1876
84668461|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.76||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.38|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.91|-1.38|0.7644
84545996|NCT03331796|168845435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|24.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||24.3|-20.6|0.87
84545997|NCT03331796|168845436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.22|-2.14|0.97
84740161|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.56|0.0525
84545998|NCT03331796|168845436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.41|-2.15|0.91
84545999|NCT03331796|168845437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.9|-2.3|0.84
84546000|NCT03331796|168845437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.4|-1.9|0.80
84546001|NCT03331796|168845438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.6|-5.5|0.48
84668462|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.85||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.42|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||-0.28|-7.42|0.0838
84668463|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.38||||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.89|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.13|-3.89|0.4444
84668464|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.47||||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|6.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||6.97|-0.04|0.8977
84668465|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.82|-2.92|0.4917
84668466|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.79|-2.89|0.4909
84668467|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.81|-2.82|0.4992
84668468|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.09||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.07|-4.25|0.3285
84668469|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.45||||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||0.67|-5.57|0.1568
84668470|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.36||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.74|-4.46|0.2867
84668471|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.93||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.51|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||-0.35|-7.51|0.0798
84486806|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|-0.464||||||||-0.464|-0.763|
84486807|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.516||||||||-0.516|-0.804|
84486808|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|-0.559||||||||-0.559|-0.832|
84668472|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.47||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||2.06|-5.00|0.2962
84668473|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.98|-1.05|0.8163
84486809|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|-0.156||||||||-0.156|-0.494|
84486810|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.267||||||||-0.267|-0.610|
84486811|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.315||||||||-0.315|-0.654|
84740162|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.24|0.7932
84668474|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.64||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.81|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.47|-6.81|0.0708
84668475|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.67|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.59|-2.67|0.5750
84668476|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||7.17|1.03|0.9560
84668477|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.22||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.86|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||0.42|-6.86|0.1283
84668478|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.28||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.88|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||1.33|-5.88|0.2085
84740163|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.45|0.1300
84740164|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.42|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.07|0.1631
84668479|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.94||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.61|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.49|-2.61|0.6335
84668480|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.64||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.31|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||1.03|-6.31|0.1778
84486812|NCT01263470|168725645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.357||||||||-0.357|-0.683|
84486813|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
84486814|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
84486815|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
84486816|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
84486817|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
84486818|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
84486819|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
84486820|NCT01263470|168725646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
84486821|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
84486822|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
84486823|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
84740165|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.23|0.8215
84740166|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|0.01|0.0380
84740167|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.33|0.5070
84740168|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.43|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.04|0.1094
84740169|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.30|0.3112
84740170|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.33|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.05|0.1345
84740171|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.24|0.5148
84740172|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.25|0.3863
84740173|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.0209
84740174|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.35|0.0616
84740175|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.33|0.1860
84486824|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
84486825|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
84486826|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
84486827|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
84486828|NCT01263470|168725647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
84486829|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-26.52|
84486830|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-16.37||||||||-16.37|-32.07|
84668481|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.33|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.94|-4.33|0.4027
84668482|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.94||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.64|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.53|-1.64|0.7570
84668483|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.9||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.03|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||0.23|-8.03|0.1132
84668484|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.71||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||1.37|-6.80|0.1965
84668485|NCT02515942|169071309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.18||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.85|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||5.21|-2.85|0.6471
84668486|NCT02603432|169071331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.863||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model.||||0.863|0.556|0.0005
84668487|NCT02603432|169071354|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.901||||Log Rank||||||0.901|0.9130
84486831|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-16.65||||||||-16.65|-32.03|
84486832|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|-19.52||||||||-19.52|-37.04|
84486833|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|0.18||||||||0.18|-17.28|
84486834|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.18||||||||-7.18|-22.90|
84668488|NCT00666757|169071357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the remission rates at 12 week endpoint between treatment groups.||||0.26
84668489|NCT00666757|169071358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-week endpoint.||||0.07
84486835|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.42||||||||-7.42|-22.90|
84486836|NCT01263470|168725648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.4||||||||-10.40|-27.80|
84486837|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|-5.64||||||||-5.64|-24.19|
84486838|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|-12.48||||||||-12.48|-27.86|
84486839|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.41|-15.73||||||||-15.73|-30.41|
84546002|NCT03331796|168845438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.3|-6.8|0.18
84546003|NCT03331796|168845439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.3|-5.7|0.075
84546004|NCT03331796|168845439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.1|-5.4|0.195
84546005|NCT03331796|168845440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.4|-1.0|0.28
84546006|NCT03331796|168845440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.6|-0.8|0.21
84546007|NCT03331796|168845441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.1|-3.2|0.66
84546008|NCT03331796|168845441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.5|-4.9|0.11
84546009|NCT03331796|168845442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.17|-0.29|0.59
84603370|NCT02752958|168957584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|5.823|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.823|3.654|<.0001
84740176|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.22|0.7730
84740177|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.44|0.1593
84546010|NCT03331796|168845442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.28|-0.17|0.64
84546011|NCT03331796|168845445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|ANOVA|||||||0.768
84740178|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6371
84546012|NCT04830969|168845486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.16
84546013|NCT04830969|168845487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.08
84546014|NCT04830969|168845488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.14
84546015|NCT04830969|168845488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.8
84546016|NCT04830969|168845489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
84546017|NCT04830969|168845489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.09
84546018|NCT04830969|168845490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
84546019|NCT04830969|168845490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
84546020|NCT04830969|168845491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
84546021|NCT04830969|168845491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.09
84546022|NCT04830969|168845492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
84546023|NCT04830969|168845492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.86
84546024|NCT04830969|168845492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.047
84546025|NCT04830969|168845492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.75
84740179|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.32|0.5655
84546026|NCT04830969|168845493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.44
84546027|NCT04830969|168845493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.22
84546028|NCT04830969|168845493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.29
84546029|NCT04830969|168845493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.15
84546030|NCT04830969|168845494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
84546031|NCT04830969|168845494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.31
84546032|NCT04830969|168845494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
84546033|NCT04830969|168845494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.54
84546034|NCT04830969|168845495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
84603371|NCT02752958|168957585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|3.821|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 4||3.821|-1.592|0.4185
84668490|NCT00666757|169071359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). Repeated Measures Analysis. The analysis will contrast the remission remission rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.03
84668491|NCT00666757|169071360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.09
84546035|NCT04830969|168845495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.04
84546036|NCT04830969|168845495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
84546037|NCT04830969|168845495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.38
84546038|NCT04830969|168845496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.02
84546039|NCT04830969|168845496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.18
84546040|NCT04830969|168845496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
84546041|NCT04830969|168845496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.41
84546042|NCT04830969|168845497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.27
84546043|NCT04830969|168845498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.54
84546044|NCT04830969|168845499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.12
84546045|NCT04830969|168845500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84546046|NCT04830969|168845500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.07
84546047|NCT04830969|168845501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84546048|NCT04830969|168845501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.64
84546049|NCT04830969|168845502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84546050|NCT04830969|168845502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.11
84546051|NCT04830969|168845503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||at baseline||||0.7
84546052|NCT04830969|168845503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.29
84546053|NCT04830969|168845504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84546054|NCT04025879|168845536|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78|||Log Rank||Stratified by randomization stratification factors: PD-L1 Status (\>=1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (II vs III), histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||0.78|0.43|0.00025
84668492|NCT00666757|169071361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.001
84668493|NCT00666757|169071362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
84546055|NCT04025879|168845538|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF PCR|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||26.6|14.3|
84546056|NCT04025879|168845538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.97|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||12.97|3.40|
84546057|NCT04025879|168845539|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF MPR|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||30.6|15.8|
84546058|NCT04025879|168845539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||||95.0|2.48|6.49|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||6.49|2.48|
84668494|NCT00666757|169071363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.001
84668495|NCT00666757|169071364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.003
84740180|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.12|0.3326
84740181|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.59|0.3577
84740182|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.66|0.1646
84740183|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.46|0.0545
84740184|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.35|0.2903
84740185|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|0.01|0.0395
84740186|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.14|0.4690
84740187|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.20|0.6066
84740188|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9737
84740189|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.42|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.17|0.4030
84486840|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|-20.29||||||||-20.29|-36.05|
84486841|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.06||||||||3.06|-15.60|
84486842|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|-3.64||||||||-3.64|-19.41|
84486843|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-6.8||||||||-6.80|-22.04|
84486844|NCT01263470|168725649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|-11.43||||||||-11.43|-27.61|
84486845|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.384|
84486846|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.374||||||||0.374|-0.106|
84486847|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.39||||||||0.390|-0.103|
84546059|NCT03482635|168845543|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.202|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.202|-0.105|
84546060|NCT03482635|168845543|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
84546061|NCT03482635|168845543|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
84546062|NCT03482635|168845544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.176|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.176|-0.276|
84546063|NCT03482635|168845544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.28|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.280|-0.199|
84546064|NCT03482635|168845544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.252|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.252|-0.204|
84546065|NCT03482635|168845545|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.258|-0.072|
84546066|NCT03482635|168845545|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
84546067|NCT03482635|168845545|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
84546068|NCT03482635|168845546|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.258|-0.072|
84546069|NCT03482635|168845546|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.21|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.210|-0.104|
84546070|NCT03482635|168845546|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.177|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.177|-0.110|
84546071|NCT03482635|168845547|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||21.0|-21.6|0.9776
84546072|NCT03482635|168845547|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||22.4|-19.6|0.8940
84546073|NCT03482635|168845547|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||22.1|-20.0|0.9241
84546074|NCT00722137|168845590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.79|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.79|0.50|<0.001
84546075|NCT00722137|168845591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.74|0.45|<0.001
84546076|NCT00722137|168845593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.65|0.38|<0.001
84546077|NCT00722137|168845594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.65|0.38|=0.001
84546078|NCT00722137|168845595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.722|0.749|0.275
84546079|NCT00722137|168845596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.688|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.148|2.481|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.481|1.148|<0.007
84546080|NCT00722137|168845597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||1.10|0.59|0.173
84546081|NCT01938092|168845601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84546082|NCT01938092|168845602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84546083|NCT01938092|168845603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84546084|NCT01367886|168845604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84546085|NCT01367886|168845605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
84546086|NCT01367886|168845606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84546087|NCT01367886|168845607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
84740190|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.36|0.6357
84546088|NCT00985504|168845608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||1.10|-1.87|0.612
84546089|NCT00985504|168845609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||This is the p-value for Cognition Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.504
84546090|NCT00985504|168845609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Behavior Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.665
84546091|NCT00985504|168845609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This is the p-value for Emotional Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.489
84546092|NCT00985504|168845609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||This is the p-value for Other Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.945
84546093|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.157
84546094|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Level score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.119
84546095|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation and Interest score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.184
84546096|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Cognitive Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.226
84546097|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Weight Gain score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.059
84546098|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sleep score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.466
84546099|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sexual Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.822
84546100|NCT00985504|168845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Affect score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.599
84546101|NCT00985504|168845611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p-value for the PGI-I.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.723
84546102|NCT00985504|168845612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.410
84546103|NCT00985504|168845613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.880
84546104|NCT00985504|168845613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 8 (Inability to Feel) score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.224
84546105|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.910
84546106|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation/Interest/Enthusiasm Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.882
84546107|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Wakefulness/Alertness Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.657
84546108|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.457
84546109|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Focus/Sustain Attention Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.737
84546110|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Remember/Recall Information Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.404
84546111|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Find Words Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.808
84546112|NCT00985504|168845614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sharpness/Mental Acuity Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.431
84546113|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||This is the p-value for the SDS Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.821
84546114|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 1 (Work) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.491
84546115|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 2 (Family) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.451
84740191|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.29|0.8605
84740192|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.30|0.7534
84740193|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.03|0.0021
84740194|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0394
84740195|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.03|0.0039
84486848|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.227||||||||0.227|-0.218|
84486849|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.245||||||||0.245|-0.241|
84486850|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.524||||||||0.524|0.038|
84486851|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.54||||||||0.540|0.041|
84486852|NCT01263470|168725650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.38||||||||0.380|-0.077|
84486853|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.156||||||||0.156|-0.245|
84486854|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.21||||||||0.210|-0.185|
84486855|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.369||||||||0.369|-0.053|
84486856|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.235||||||||0.235|-0.140|
84486857|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.341||||||||0.341|-0.097|
84486858|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.395||||||||0.395|-0.036|
84486859|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.553||||||||0.553|0.097|
84486860|NCT01263470|168725651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.423||||||||0.423|0.006|
84486861|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.444|
84486862|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.362|
84486863|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.324||||||||0.324|-0.166|
84486864|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.121||||||||0.121|-0.355|
84486865|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.408||||||||0.408|-0.203|
84486866|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.364||||||||0.364|-0.124|
84486867|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.526||||||||0.526|0.071|
84486868|NCT01263470|168725652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.322||||||||0.322|-0.118|
84486869|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.308||||||||0.308|-0.230|
84486870|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.379||||||||0.379|-0.029|
84486871|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.453||||||||0.453|0.044|
84486872|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.407||||||||0.407|-0.035|
84486873|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.34||||||||0.340|-0.236|
84486874|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.421||||||||0.421|-0.044|
84486875|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.496||||||||0.496|0.026|
84546116|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 3 (Social) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.443
84546117|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 4 (Days Lost) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.719
84546118|NCT00985504|168845615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 5 (Days Underproductive) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.517
84486876|NCT01263470|168725653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.448||||||||0.448|-0.049|
84486877|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-38.75|
84486878|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-9.61||||||||-9.61|-37.14|
84546119|NCT00985504|168845616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.776
84486879|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-28.02||||||||-28.02|-53.18|
84486880|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.93|-30.58||||||||-30.58|-54.93|
84486881|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.98||||||||8.98|-19.70|
84486882|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|8.35||||||||8.35|-18.13|
84546120|NCT00985504|168845617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was conducted using Kaplan-Meier Product-Limit method.||||0.691
84546121|NCT00985504|168845618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
84571164|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.35|-2.44|0.1396
84546122|NCT03711786|168845621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.65|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.65|0.22|0.836
84546123|NCT03711786|168845622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.14|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.14|0.12|0.877
84546124|NCT03711786|168845623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|104.23|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||104.23|3.23|0.001
84740196|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.69|0.1591
84740197|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.73|0.1402
84546125|NCT03711786|168845624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.01|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||4.01|1.15|0.017
84740198|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.91|0.0143
84546126|NCT03711786|168845625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||1.80|0.45|0.759
84546127|NCT01465412|168845626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the least squares mean (LSM) Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.662||||||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, Body Mass Index (BMI) and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||1.662|0.695|
84546128|NCT01465412|168845626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.334|5.06||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.060|1.334|
84546129|NCT01465412|168845627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.027||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.027|0.840|
84546130|NCT01465412|168845627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|3.198||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||3.198|0.643|
84571165|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.00|-4.14|0.8470
84571166|NCT01668797|168893472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.3|-1.24|0.2258
84571167|NCT01668797|168893473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.65|0.0981
84571168|NCT01668797|168893473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.15|-2.30|0.0264
84571169|NCT01668797|168893473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.42|-2.69|0.0078
84571170|NCT01668797|168893473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.38|-2.77|0.0101
84571171|NCT01668797|168893473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||0.01|-2.50|0.0516
84571172|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.53|0.0279
84486883|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|-10.01||||||||-10.01|-34.22|
84486884|NCT01263470|168725654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|-12.55||||||||-12.55|-35.98|
84486885|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.79|-35.83||||||||-35.83|-80.79|
84486886|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.84|-40.47||||||||-40.47|-80.84|
84486887|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.03|-60.4||||||||-60.40|-97.03|
84486888|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.26|-68.6||||||||-68.60|-106.26|
84486889|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|19.23||||||||19.23|-24.69|
84486890|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.85|14.7||||||||14.70|-24.85|
84486891|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.16|-5.11||||||||-5.11|-41.16|
84486892|NCT01263470|168725655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|-13.33||||||||-13.33|-50.36|
84486893|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.736|8.455||||||||8.455|-2.736|
84486894|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|10.165||||||||10.165|0.748|
84486895|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.181|12.248||||||||12.248|3.181|
84486896|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.763|8.877||||||||8.877|-3.763|
84486897|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.924|21.396||||||||21.396|7.924|
84486898|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.353|23.16||||||||23.160|11.353|
84486899|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.629|25.401||||||||25.401|13.629|
84486900|NCT01263470|168725656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|21.701||||||||21.701|7.013|
84486901|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|1.089||||||||1.089|-0.019|
84486902|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.315||||||||1.315|0.214|
84486903|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|1.58||||||||1.580|0.418|
84486904|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.489||||||||1.489|0.430|
84486905|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.552||||||||1.552|0.315|
84486906|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|1.774||||||||1.774|0.551|
84486907|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.036||||||||2.036|0.759|
84486908|NCT01263470|168725657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.956||||||||1.956|0.760|
84486909|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|16.38||||||||16.38|-7.87|
84486910|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|23.42||||||||23.42|-0.90|
84486911|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|16.95||||||||16.95|-10.56|
84486912|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|8.94||||||||8.94|-16.27|
84486913|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|19.29||||||||19.29|-9.79|
84486914|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|26.19||||||||26.19|-2.67|
84486915|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|19.4||||||||19.40|-12.02|
84486916|NCT01263470|168725658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|11.71||||||||11.71|-18.04|
84486917|NCT01327573|168725660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"This p-value was for the overall slope difference between groups (i.e. the interaction between group and time).~Significance level was set at 0.1 a priori."|Mixed effects model analysis|||Analysis used eGFR, group, time, and group-by-time variables.||||0.09
84486918|NCT01029691|168725708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||unadjusted systolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.45
84486919|NCT01029691|168725708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.66
84486920|NCT01029691|168725708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted systolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.61
84486921|NCT01029691|168725708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.75
84486922|NCT01029691|168725709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
84486923|NCT01029691|168725710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84486924|NCT01029691|168725714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
84486925|NCT02477800|168725732|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.11||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.403|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.403|-0.469|0.2250
84546131|NCT01465412|168845628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.234||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||4.234|0.810|
84546132|NCT01465412|168845628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.306|4.382||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||4.382|1.306|
84546133|NCT01465412|168845629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.61||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.610|0.918|
84546134|NCT01465412|168845629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.75||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.750|0.720|
84546135|NCT01465412|168845630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.617|3.917||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||3.917|0.617|
84546136|NCT01465412|168845630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|8.335||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||8.335|2.770|
84546137|NCT01465412|168845631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|2.288||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.288|0.703|
84546138|NCT01465412|168845631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|2.977||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.977|1.316|
84546139|NCT01465412|168845632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.348||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.348|0.749|
84546140|NCT01465412|168845632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|11.187||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||11.187|1.460|
84668496|NCT00666757|169071365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.01
84546141|NCT01465412|168845633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|2.572||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.572|1.007|
84546142|NCT01465412|168845633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|5.896||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.896|0.844|
84571173|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0117
84571174|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-0.64|0.0105
84668497|NCT00666757|169071366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.02
84668498|NCT00666757|169071367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.20
84546143|NCT01622673|168845640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.531|0.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.866|0.531|
84546144|NCT01622673|168845640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.475|0.293|
84546145|NCT01622673|168845641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.344|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.554|0.344|
84546146|NCT01622673|168845641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.550|0.341|
84546147|NCT01622673|168845642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.565|0.350|
84546148|NCT01622673|168845642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.402|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.646|0.402|
84546149|NCT01622673|168845643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.351|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.669|0.351|
84546150|NCT01622673|168845643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.960|0.504|
84546151|NCT01622673|168845644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.627|0.362|
84546152|NCT01622673|168845644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.729|0.423|
84740199|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.65|0.2293
84740200|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.74|0.0884
84603372|NCT02752958|168957586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.391|9.764|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||9.764|4.391|<.0001
84603373|NCT02752958|168957587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.674|11.026|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 12||11.026|5.674|<.0001
84668499|NCT00666757|169071368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Only those patients who had at least moderate pain at baseline (defined as baseline BPI Average 24-Hour Pain Score greater than or equal to 3). Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
84668500|NCT00666757|169071369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
84740201|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.80|0.0622
84668501|NCT00666757|169071370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
84668502|NCT00666757|169071371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
84668503|NCT00666757|169071372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84668504|NCT00666757|169071373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.34
84668505|NCT00666757|169071374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.02
84668506|NCT00666757|169071375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
84603374|NCT02752958|168957588|OTHER|Week 0 Vs Week 16|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.708|13.158|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||13.158|7.708|<.0001
84668507|NCT00666757|169071376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.97
84668508|NCT00666757|169071377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.32
84668509|NCT00666757|169071378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed absolute score||||0.12
84668510|NCT00666757|169071379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed Absolute Score||||0.16
84668511|NCT00666757|169071380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.002
84668512|NCT00666757|169071381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.53
84668513|NCT02529137|169071382|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin was set at 4%|difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|-0.30|
84668514|NCT01649375|169071401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||3.67|0.90|0.0967
84668515|NCT01649375|169071401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.96|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||8.96|2.14|<.0001
84668516|NCT01649375|169071402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||7.48|1.19|0.0194
84668517|NCT01649375|169071402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|12.44|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||12.44|2.06|<.0004
84668518|NCT01649375|169071403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
84668519|NCT01649375|169071403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|0.37|<0.0001
84668520|NCT01649375|169071404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.26|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.26|2.31|0.0003
84546153|NCT01622673|168845645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.332|0.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.709|0.332|
84546154|NCT01622673|168845645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||1.132|0.530|
84546155|NCT07091916|168845654|OTHER|This objective was for the purpose of gathering data pertaining to device safety over the first 2 weeks post-implant. There were no pre-specified performance criteria or hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive statistics|||The first primary objective is to characterize the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 2 weeks post-implant. The endpoint is defined as a subject's first occurrence of a major complication related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure, as determined by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC), that occurs on or prior to 2 weeks (14 days) post-implant.||||
84546156|NCT07091916|168845655|OTHER|There were no hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|100.0|||||||||||descriptive statistics|||The primary efficacy objective was to characterize the defibrillation efficacy at implant of the EV ICD System.||||
84546157|NCT01624740|168845662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Period effect p=0.11||||||0.74
84546158|NCT04659863|168845685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.17|-7.34||||||||-7.34|-59.17|
84546159|NCT00915018|168845717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.269|||Log Rank|||||1.269|0.813|0.8934
84740202|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.74|0.0955
84668521|NCT01649375|169071404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|24.12|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||24.12|3.47|<.0001
84546160|NCT00915018|168845718|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.048|0.5219
84603375|NCT02752958|168957589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.008|14.459|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||14.459|9.008|<.0001
84546161|NCT00915018|168845719|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.974||||0.8431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.262|||Log Rank|||||1.262|0.752|0.8431
84546162|NCT00915018|168845720|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.032||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.029|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.029|-0.093|0.2360
84668522|NCT01649375|169071405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.77|<0.0001
84546163|NCT00915018|168845721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.780|0.259|0.0036
84546164|NCT00457002|168845722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||To conclude superiority of apixaban versus enoxaparin on the primary efficacy endpoint, the upper bound of the two-sided 95.004% confidence interval (CI) for the relative risk (pa/ pe) must be less than 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4364
84546165|NCT00457002|168845722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59||||||||0.59|-1.37|
84546166|NCT00457002|168845723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||||||Formal testing of noninferiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was not performed since the superiority of the primary efficacy endpoint was not demonstrated.||1.63|0.69|
84546167|NCT00457002|168845723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81||||||||0.81|-0.61|
84546168|NCT00457002|168845724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.71||||||||1.71|0.70|
84546169|NCT00457002|168845724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.57|
84546170|NCT00457002|168845725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||||1.20|0.78|
84546171|NCT00457002|168845725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.17||||||||1.17|-1.65|
84546172|NCT00457002|168845726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||||||||1.22|0.79|
84546173|NCT00457002|168845726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.29||||||||1.29|-1.52|
84546174|NCT00457002|168845727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||||1.29|0.65|
84546175|NCT00457002|168845727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.23|
84668523|NCT01649375|169071405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-2.04|0.0002
84668524|NCT01649375|169071406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|0.66|0.0110
84668525|NCT01649375|169071406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.32|1.96|0.0002
84668526|NCT01649375|169071407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-3.43|0.0096
84668527|NCT01649375|169071407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
84740203|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.92|0.0173
84740204|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1687
84486926|NCT02477800|168725732|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.326|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.326|-0.262|0.8330
84546176|NCT00457002|168845728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.05||||||||4.05|0.11|
84546177|NCT00457002|168845728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.16|
84546178|NCT00457002|168845729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||||||||1.16|0.68|
84668528|NCT01649375|169071408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.21|1.13|0.0325
84668529|NCT01649375|169071408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|15.01|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||15.01|1.02|0.0471
84668530|NCT02066467|169071432|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
84740205|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.74|0.3861
84740206|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.59|0.7060
84740207|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-1.05|0.0112
84740208|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.86|0.0570
84740209|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0018
84740210|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.83|0.0443
84740211|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.04|0.1197
84668531|NCT02066467|169071434|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
84668532|NCT02063854|169071450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346
84668533|NCT02063854|169071450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711
84668534|NCT02063854|169071450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.001||||||||0.001|-1.920|
84668535|NCT02063854|169071450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.617|-0.794||||||||-0.794|-2.617|
84668536|NCT02063854|169071450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|1.658||||||||1.658|-0.166|
84668537|NCT01046682|169071574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Using data from a different population, ie, patients with peripheral artery disease, and a different intervention, ie, omega-3 fatty acids, 15 participants were needed per group to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in means of -3.6% (the difference between the control group mean of -0.3% and a treatment group mean of 3.3%) assuming a common standard deviation of 3.3 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. 5 patients added to each arm in case nonparametric.||||<0.05
84668538|NCT02864251|169071589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression (\>= 1% vs \<1%/indeterminate/not evaluable), brain metastases (presence vs absence), smoking history (current/former vs never smoker), and prior osimertinib use (yes vs no) from IRT.|Log Rank||Arm A over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.00|0.56|0.0528
84668539|NCT02864251|169071589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.99|||||Arm B over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.99|1.43|
84668540|NCT02864251|169071590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (Arm A over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.12|0.62|0.2180
84668541|NCT02864251|169071590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||||Hazard Ratio (Arm B over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.52|0.75|
84668542|NCT02864251|169071591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.16|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm C) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||2.16|0.75|
84668543|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.535||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95.||1.535|0.109|
84668544|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.282||||||Univariate Cox regression: Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.282|0.430|
84668545|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.425||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-MET.||2.425|0.306|
84668546|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.453||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker PTEN.||1.453|0.164|
84668547|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|3.16||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||3.160|0.377|
84668548|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.132||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||4.132|0.409|
84668549|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|6.197||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||6.197|0.226|
84668550|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|10.47||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||10.470|0.378|
84668551|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
84668552|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
84668553|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|6.72||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||6.720|0.082|
84668554|NCT00885755|169071602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|4.199||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.199|0.274|
84668555|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER2.||1.790|0.120|
84668556|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|3.518||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.518|0.394|
84668557|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.514||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-met.||2.514|0.268|
84668558|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.768||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the marker PTEN.||1.768|0.183|
84668559|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.733||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||2.733|0.242|
84668560|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|3.632||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||3.632|0.337|
84668561|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|5.336||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||5.336|0.172|
84546179|NCT00457002|168845729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.48||||||||0.48|-1.25|
84546180|NCT00457002|168845730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
84546181|NCT00457002|168845730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.78|
84546182|NCT00457002|168845731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||||1.28|0.84|
84546183|NCT00457002|168845731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.18|
84546184|NCT00457002|168845732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
84668562|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|9.305||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||9.305|0.298|
84546185|NCT00457002|168845732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
84546186|NCT00457002|168845733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
84546187|NCT00457002|168845733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
84546188|NCT00457002|168845734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83||||||||0.83|0.11|
84546189|NCT00457002|168845734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||||||||-0.07|-0.62|
84546190|NCT00457002|168845735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||||||||1.37|0.65|
84546191|NCT00457002|168845735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.76||||||||0.76|-1.04|
84546192|NCT00457002|168845736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02||||||Note: Relative risk was not estimable (0.0); only risk difference could be estimated.||-0.02|-0.29|
84546193|NCT00457002|168845737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16||||||||1.16|0.14|
84546194|NCT00457002|168845737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.47|
84546195|NCT00457002|168845738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.29||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57||The Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors will be used at the one-sided alpha=0.025 level.|Mantel Haenszel|||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||0.57|0.01|0.0437
84546196|NCT00457002|168845739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.06||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.06|-0.33|
84546197|NCT00457002|168845740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustted difference of event rates|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.33|-016|
84546198|NCT00457002|168845741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of Event Rates|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.14||||||||2.14|-0.40|
84546199|NCT00457002|168845742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||||||||1.61|0.74|
84546200|NCT00457002|168845742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.66|
84546201|NCT00457002|168845751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Event rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference in event rates in MI or stroke.||0.29|-0.30|
84546202|NCT00457002|168845751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates for myocardial infarction.||0.30|-0.11|
84546203|NCT00457002|168845751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.12||||||Adjusted difference in event rates for stroke.||0.12|-0.32|
84546204|NCT00457002|168845751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates in thrombocytopenia.||0.28|-0.09|
84546205|NCT00833105|168845757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||<0.025
84546206|NCT00833105|168845758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.299
84546207|NCT00833105|168845759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.459
84546208|NCT00833105|168845760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.343
84546209|NCT00833105|168845761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effects||||||0.951
84546210|NCT00833105|168845762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.371
84546211|NCT00833105|168845763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.164
84546212|NCT00833105|168845764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|No multiple comparison procedure||Pre-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the first 3 days of training. Post-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the last 3 days of training.||||<0.01
84546213|NCT00833105|168845765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure performed|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
84546214|NCT00833105|168845766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84546215|NCT00833105|168845767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.005
84546216|NCT00833105|168845768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84546217|NCT00833105|168845769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84668563|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
84740212|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.24|0.7171
84668564|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
84668565|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|9.319||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||9.319|0.098|
84668566|NCT00885755|169071605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.64||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||5.640|0.296|
84740213|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7151
84740214|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.35|0.5210
84740215|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.23|0.7332
84668567|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.641||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER 2.||0.641|0.001|
84668568|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.6||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\<median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||2.600|0.017|
84740216|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.39|0.4163
84740217|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.28|0.8625
84740218|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.32|0.6196
84740219|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0373
84740220|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.74|0.0644
84497184|NCT04636437|168745580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|4.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||4.20|-18.0|0.16
84668569|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|27.103||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥ median /\<median) for the biomarker c-MET.||27.103|0.169|
84668570|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|23.396||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: ≥ median /\< median) for the biomarker PTEN.||23.396|0.150|
84740221|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.66|0.1347
84740222|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.65|0.1269
84740223|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1650
84740224|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1291
84740225|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.77|0.0402
84740226|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.76|0.0342
84740227|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1269
84740228|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3945
84740229|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.47|0.5828
84546218|NCT02898597|168845770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|110.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.30|1.37|< 0.05
84546219|NCT02898597|168845770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test was performed, comparing the proportion of participants whose abstinence was verified with salivary cotinine test between the two arms, which was significant (p = 0.02).||||<0.05
84740230|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6625
84546220|NCT03656068|168845782|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0039
84546221|NCT03656068|168845783|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0026
84546222|NCT03656068|168845784|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.5555
84668571|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|8.075||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\< median) for the biomarker HER2.||8.075|0.091|
84668572|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|1.9||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (PI3K mutation status: WT versus M) for the biomarker PI3K Amino Acids.||1.900|0.012|
84740231|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.07|0.0041
84740232|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.67|0.2222
84740233|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.93|0.0245
84740234|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.55|0.5119
84740235|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0299
84740236|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.60|0.2824
84740237|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.08|0.1768
84740238|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6498
84740239|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.25|0.7689
84740240|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.47|0.2236
84668573|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|18.915||||||Univariate logistic regressionOdds ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||18.915|0.053|
84668574|NCT00885755|169071613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.945||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H||1.945|0.004|
84740241|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.35|0.6952
84740242|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.51|0.1184
84668575|NCT00755131|169071664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size determination was based on a t-test assuming a normal distribution with non-equal variance with the mean and standard deviation for the experimental group (postinfarction patients) of HMGB1 levels equal to 15 ± 7 and 2 ± 1 ng/dl for the control group derived from a previous study, respectively. The required sample size was calculated to be 30 subjects per group to detect on the size of one SD with α value of 0.05 (two-sided) and power (1 - β) of 0.8.||||<0.05
84668576|NCT00755131|169071665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84668577|NCT00755131|169071666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84546223|NCT03656068|168845785|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.3778
84668578|NCT04665050|169071684|OTHER|Estimated difference and confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Erythema||12.7|-12.7|
84668579|NCT04665050|169071684|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|7.3|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Pain||7.3|-30.0|
84668580|NCT04665050|169071684|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Swelling||14.1|-14.1|
84668581|NCT04665050|169071685|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.5|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Fatigue||17.5|-9.4|
84668582|NCT04665050|169071685|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.9|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Arthralgia||9.9|-9.9|
84668583|NCT04665050|169071685|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.6|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Myalgia||13.6|-17.5|
84668584|NCT04665050|169071685|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Headache||12.7|-12.7|
84668585|NCT04665050|169071686|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|||7.1|-7.1|
84668586|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.40|1.07|
84668587|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||2.11|0.69|
84546224|NCT03656068|168845786|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|14.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||14.8|-31.0|0.4638
84668588|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.24|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.24|1.24|
84668589|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.57|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.57|1.04|
84668590|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||1.86|0.71|
84668591|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.58|1.24|
84668592|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.00|1.19|
84668593|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||5.00|1.47|
84668594|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||3.89|1.52|
84546225|NCT03656068|168845787|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|5.97||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.97|-9.26|0.6532
84668595|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.83|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||4.83|1.20|
84668596|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.17|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.17|1.59|
84668597|NCT04665050|169071687|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.56|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.56|1.46|
84668598|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.21|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.21|1.08|
84668599|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.6|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||3.60|1.36|
84668600|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.23|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.23|1.45|
84486927|NCT02477800|168725733|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.74|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.74|-0.35|0.4795
84571175|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.25|-0.87|0.0007
84740243|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.14|0.3031
84740244|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.44|0.3091
84740245|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.61|0.1525
84740246|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.62|0.1214
84740247|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3811
84740248|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3851
84740249|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.63|0.1373
84740250|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.62|0.1360
84740251|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.62|0.1264
84740252|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.67|0.0567
84740253|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.41|0.7447
84668601|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.99|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.99|1.36|
84668602|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.37|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||2.37|0.97|
84668603|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.68|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.68|1.32|
84668604|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.74|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.74|1.49|
84668605|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.65|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||3.65|1.28|
84668606|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||2.89|1.28|
84668607|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.27|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||6.27|1.94|
84668608|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.31|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.31|1.92|
84740254|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.39|0.7727
84740255|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6590
84740256|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3951
84740257|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.63|0.4576
84740258|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.51|0.7609
84740259|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.58|0.6220
84740260|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.42|0.9081
84740261|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1668
84740262|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.69|0.0935
84668609|NCT04665050|169071688|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.25|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.25|1.30|
84668610|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.88|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||6.88|1.86|
84668611|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|10.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||10.98|3.54|
84668612|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.39|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||4.39|1.23|
84668613|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|10.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.78|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||18.78|5.39|
84668614|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|42.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|90.03|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||90.03|19.67|
84668615|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|21.94|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||21.94|6.97|
84668616|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|24.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|52.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||52.86|11.65|
84668617|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|25.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|44.93|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||44.93|14.65|
84668618|NCT04665050|169071689|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|23.47|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||23.47|8.72|
84668619|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||5.19|1.73|
84668620|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|13.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||13.98|4.61|
84668621|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||5.58|1.77|
84668622|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|20.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||20.19|8.45|
84668623|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|14.09|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||14.09|5.19|
84668624|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|6.36|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||6.36|2.72|
84668625|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.59|49.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||49.58|16.59|
84668626|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|15.73|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||15.73|6.71|
84668627|NCT04665050|169071690|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|21.9|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||21.90|11.62|
84668628|NCT02867709|169071694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.22||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.22|1.09|0.0285
84668629|NCT02867709|169071694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.29|1.14|0.0129
84668630|NCT02867709|169071695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.02|0.0711
84668631|NCT02867709|169071695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.2||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.20|1.25|0.0129
84668632|NCT02867709|169071696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.17|1.25|0.0711
84668633|NCT02867709|169071696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.32|1.35|0.0129
84668634|NCT02867709|169071697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.48||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.48|1.33|0.0711
84668635|NCT02867709|169071697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.92||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.92|1.59|0.0129
84668636|NCT02867709|169071698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.53||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.53|1.04|0.0711
84668637|NCT02867709|169071698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.83|1.20|0.0129
84668638|NCT02867709|169071699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.72||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.72|0.96|0.1833
84668639|NCT02867709|169071699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.02||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.02|1.14|0.0167
84668640|NCT02867709|169071700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.04|0.1066
84668641|NCT02867709|169071700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.84||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.84|1.05|0.0440
84668642|NCT02867709|169071701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.49|0.81|0.9522
84668643|NCT02867709|169071701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.51|0.83|0.9522
84668644|NCT01400516|169071708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed model||control-teriparatide|||||0.28
84668645|NCT01344161|169071717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust mean differences on all variables.||||||0.001
84740263|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.42|0.4038
84740264|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.24|0.7559
84740265|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.59|0.2006
84672231|NCT02659020|169080014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.041||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.041|0.419|0.073
84672232|NCT02659020|169080014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.253||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.253|0.395|0.225
84672233|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.764||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.764|0.834|0.332
84672234|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.287||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||1.287|0.514|0.389
84672235|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.926||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||0.926|0.386|0.020
84546226|NCT03656068|168845788|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.61||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.61|-1.86|0.7254
84546227|NCT03656068|168845789|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.77||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|29.25||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29.25|-11.70|0.3772
84740266|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.43|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.26|0.6334
84546228|NCT03656068|168845790|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.33||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.56|0.5799
84546229|NCT03656068|168845791|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.65|8.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.87|-12.65|0.7088
84546230|NCT03656068|168845792|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.72|0.0609
84546231|NCT03656068|168845793|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.61||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.94||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.94|-16.16|0.1556
84546232|NCT03656068|168845794|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|1.4||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-30.6|0.0709
84546233|NCT03656068|168845795|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|1.81||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-9.02|0.1799
84546234|NCT03656068|168845796|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|7.6||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-21.2|0.3306
84668646|NCT03265249|169071745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|29.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29|-17.5|0.80
84546235|NCT03656068|168845797|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|3.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-7.25|0.4504
84740267|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.60|0.5431
84740268|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-0.30|0.5278
84740269|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4312
84546236|NCT03656068|168845798|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.8||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|79.0||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.0|-11.5|0.1349
84546237|NCT03656068|168845799|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|76.24||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.04|133.43||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.43|19.04|0.0117
84546238|NCT03656068|168845800|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|31.3||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|112.9||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||112.9|-50.3|0.4281
84546239|NCT03656068|168845801|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|117.37||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|229.14||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||229.14|5.60|0.0407
84546240|NCT03656068|168845802|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|47.28||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.9|305.46||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||305.46|-210.90|0.7065
84546241|NCT03656068|168845803|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|43.11||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|106.17||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||106.17|-19.95|0.1693
84546242|NCT03656068|168845804|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.14||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.64|221.36||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||221.36|-317.64|0.7099
84546243|NCT03656068|168845805|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.03||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.48|97.55||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||97.55|-37.48|0.3597
84546244|NCT03656068|168845806|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|169.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25908.2|26246.2||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||26246.2|-25908.2|0.9893
84546245|NCT03656068|168845807|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.82||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|32.85||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.85|-5.21|0.1454
84546246|NCT03656068|168845808|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3016.8||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22996.2|29029.7||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29029.7|-22996.2|0.8089
84546247|NCT03656068|168845809|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.78||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|30.06||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||30.06|-4.50|0.1365
84546248|NCT03656068|168845810|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.954||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.525|67.433||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||67.433|-9.525|0.1322
84546249|NCT03656068|168845811|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.99||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|53.57|||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for testing mean = 0||||53.57|-5.59|0.1062
84546250|NCT03656068|168845812|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.311||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.151|60.774||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.774|-4.151|0.0831
84546251|NCT03656068|168845813|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|32.72||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|66.13||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||66.13|-0.69|0.0543
84546252|NCT03656068|168845814|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.298||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.298|-0.185|0.6325
84546253|NCT03656068|168845815|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-1.94|0.6925
84546254|NCT03656068|168845816|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.462|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.462|-0.140|0.2733
84668647|NCT00525174|169071797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was performed comparing the proportions of patients in each treatment group who had no improvement or worsening in amblyopic eye visual acuity from baseline to 24 weeks (change from baseline \<= +4 letters for E-ETDRS testing).||||0.02
84672236|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.442||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.442|0.622|0.821
84740270|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.64|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.64|-0.25|0.3947
84740271|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.36|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.61|0.6081
84740272|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.44|0.8949
84740273|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.84|0.1120
84740274|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.76|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.15|0.1842
84740275|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.81|0.2646
84740276|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.44|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.56|0.8101
84740277|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-1.07|0.0215
84740278|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.72|0.3226
84740279|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.98|0.0339
84740280|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.47|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.46|0.9824
84740281|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.93|0.0950
84740282|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.67|0.4865
84740283|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.9861
84740284|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.59|0.9266
84740285|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0360
84546255|NCT03656068|168845817|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.56||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.56|-1.63|0.3288
84546256|NCT03656068|168845818|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.649||||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.923|133.22||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.220|-121.923|0.9271
84546257|NCT03656068|168845819|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|20.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.37|-18.58|0.9244
84546258|NCT03656068|168845820|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.244||||0.7288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.93|151.441||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||151.441|-211.930|0.7288
84546259|NCT03656068|168845821|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|28.52||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.52|-21.85|0.7824
84546260|NCT03656068|168845822|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.629||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.433|165.176||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||165.176|-260.433|0.6448
84546261|NCT03656068|168845823|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|32.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.80|-32.04|0.9806
84546262|NCT03656068|168845824|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.616||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.124|123.891||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||123.891|-351.124|0.3256
84546263|NCT03656068|168845825|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.78||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.52|50.09||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|-32.52|0.6582
84546264|NCT03656068|168845826|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2438||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0847|0.5972||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5972|-1.0847|0.5459
84546265|NCT03656068|168845827|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|69.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||||69.97|-22.15|0.2860
84546266|NCT03656068|168845828|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2893||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.5794||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5794|-1.1580|0.4887
84546267|NCT03656068|168845829|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.27||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.21|98.75||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||98.75|-38.21|0.3610
84546268|NCT03656068|168845830|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.26||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-2.51|0.4945
84546269|NCT03656068|168845831|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|7.95||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.95|-9.94|0.8191
84546270|NCT03656068|168845832|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-0.47||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.47|-5.96|0.0243
84546271|NCT03656068|168845833|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.94||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-0.04||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-19.84|0.0493
84546272|NCT03656068|168845834|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.79||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.59|0.3066
84546273|NCT03656068|168845835|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|9.63||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.63|-2.82|0.2671
84546274|NCT03656068|168845836|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.16|-0.94|0.8241
84546275|NCT03656068|168845837|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|8.57||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.57|-6.37|0.7587
84740286|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-1.06|0.0583
84546276|NCT03656068|168845838|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.567||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.746||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.746|-1.880|0.3784
84546277|NCT03656068|168845839|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.53||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.53|-14.80|0.3526
84546278|NCT03656068|168845840|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|2.173||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.173|-1.978|0.9218
84546279|NCT03656068|168845841|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|15.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||15.01|-14.71|0.9833
84546280|NCT03656068|168845842|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.68||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|43.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.16|-17.79|0.3957
84546281|NCT03656068|168845843|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.81||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|12.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.01|-4.39|0.3440
84546282|NCT03656068|168845844|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.22||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|31.21||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||31.21|-0.77|0.0607
84546283|NCT03656068|168845845|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|12.05||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.05|-0.39|0.0644
84546284|NCT03656068|168845846|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3665||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7306|-0.0023||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0023|-0.7306|0.0487
84546285|NCT03656068|168845847|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.64||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.25|80.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||80.54|-47.25|0.5919
84546286|NCT03656068|168845848|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2679||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.0983||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0983|-0.6340|0.1272
84546287|NCT03656068|168845849|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.02||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|77.59||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||77.59|-47.55|0.5881
84546288|NCT03656068|168845850|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.42|0.1458
84546289|NCT03656068|168845851|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.53||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|4.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.54|-27.61|0.1495
84668648|NCT00525174|169071798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.||0.76||
84668649|NCT00525174|169071798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||In addition to the test of non-inferiority, an efficacy test of Patching over Bangerter filters was also completed.||0.83|-0.06|0.09
84668650|NCT00525174|169071798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment group difference in rate of improvement was evaluated using a population averaged linear mixed model after performing an inverse transformation of time to obtain linearity.||||0.20
84668651|NCT00525174|169071798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The relationship between the fellow eye blur from the Bangerter filter at baseline and amblyopic improvement at the 24-week outcome was evaluated with an ANCOVA model with acuity in the fellow eye being categorized as better than versus equal to or worse than acuity in the amblyopic eye.||||0.49
84668652|NCT00525174|169071798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The association of fixation preference while the Bangerter filter was over the fellow eye at baseline (amblyopic eye, fellow eye, alternates) with 24-week amblyopic eye acuity was evaluated in an ANCOVA model.||||0.21
84668653|NCT00525174|169071800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic eye visual acuity within 1 line of the fellow eye or better.||||0.27
84668654|NCT00525174|169071801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic visual acuity 20/25 or better at 24 weeks.||||0.86
84546290|NCT03656068|168845852|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3174
84546291|NCT03656068|168845853|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|6.82||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.82|-22.86|0.2420
84546292|NCT05253573|168845892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.83||||||The overall number of participants analyzed reflects the cancer survivors and/or independent caregivers. Participants are not represented separately (as cancer survivors or caregivers) for each Arm. This is because the originally proposed statistical data analysis plan did not aim to analyze the data by each group of caregivers versus cancer patients/survivors (because the statistical power would be very low for doing so||2.83|1.21|
84546293|NCT04506463|168845905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
84546294|NCT04506463|168845905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
84546295|NCT04506463|168845905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
84740287|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-1.03|0.0404
84546296|NCT04506463|168845906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
84546297|NCT04506463|168845906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84546298|NCT04506463|168845906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.936
84546299|NCT04506463|168845907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
84546300|NCT04506463|168845907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
84546301|NCT04506463|168845907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
84546302|NCT01085630|168845913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2423
84546303|NCT01237041|168845915|SUPERIORITY|Univariate ANOVA||||||0.016||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|Comparison of 3 dose-finding groups. Post-hoc comparisons between groups also done.||ANOVA to compare AUC of GH among groups||||.016
84546304|NCT01237041|168845916|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA of the 3 dose-finding groups. Data transformed using log(10) for analysis||||||0.043||||||A priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of FFA Area Under Curve in dose-finding studies. Data were log-transformed before analysis.||||.043
84546305|NCT01237041|168845917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 3 dose-finding groups||||0.543
84546306|NCT01237041|168845918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 2 groups, essentially an unpaired t-test.||||.113
84546307|NCT00651261|168845945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||1-sided stratified log-rank|||||0.96|0.63|0.009
84546308|NCT00651261|168845946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||1-sided stratified log rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0024
84546309|NCT00651261|168845948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84546310|NCT00651261|168845949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||1-sided stratified log rank|||||||0.0049
84546311|NCT01609010|168845952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3023|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3023
84546312|NCT01609010|168845953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.3362
84546313|NCT01609010|168845953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1157|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.1157
84546314|NCT01609010|168845954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.8540
84546315|NCT01609010|168845954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.0051
84546316|NCT01609010|168845956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu+PR||||0.7840
84546317|NCT01609010|168845956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4419|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu||||0.4419
84546318|NCT01609010|168845956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5942|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR only||||0.5942
84546319|NCT01609010|168845958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.8946
84546320|NCT01609010|168845960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.4963
84546321|NCT01543178|168845961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was adjusted for analysis center and time to recurrence during Maintenance Phase 1.||A worst case analysis was performed, in which patients with \< 4 days of IBS symptom data in a given week were considered as non-responders for that week.||||0.0232
84546322|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER|||||||0.7271||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod quadratic model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7271
84546323|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER|||||||0.6415||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod sigmoidal Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6415
84546324|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER|||||||0.7367||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7367
84546325|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER|||||||0.6624||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod exponential model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6624
84546326|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.292|7.288|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||7.288|-27.292|0.4645
84546327|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.38||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.204|14.451|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||14.451|-21.204|0.8084
84546328|NCT02770170|168845962|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.77||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.364|10.832|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||10.832|-18.364|0.7398
84546329|NCT02770170|168845963|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.93||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.66|7.64|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.64|-23.66|0.5773
84546330|NCT02770170|168845963|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.59|29.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||29.03|-4.59|0.4013
84546331|NCT02770170|168845963|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.8965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.98|11.1|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||11.10|-15.98|0.8965
84546332|NCT02770170|168845964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.64||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.38|-2.48|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-2.48|-35.38|0.1476
84546333|NCT02770170|168845964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.2|26.86|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||26.86|-4.20|0.4013
84546334|NCT02770170|168845964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.63|13.63|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||13.63|-13.63|
84546335|NCT02770170|168845965|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.67||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.52|-9.42|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-9.42|-41.52|0.0512
84546336|NCT02770170|168845965|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|20.74|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||20.74|-12.10|0.7597
84546337|NCT02770170|168845965|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.74|9.02|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||9.02|-18.74|0.7505
84546338|NCT02770170|168845966|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.43||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|-4.41|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-4.41|-36.03|0.1269
84546339|NCT02770170|168845966|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.24|21.62|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||21.62|-12.24|0.7889
84546340|NCT02770170|168845966|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.99|1.68|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||1.68|-25.99|0.2906
84571176|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.06|-1.09|0.0780
84546341|NCT02770170|168845967|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.64||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.79|7.45|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.45|-25.79|0.5687
84546342|NCT02770170|168845967|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.67|19.17|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||19.17|-14.67|0.9217
84668655|NCT00525174|169071801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The time to first achieve amblyopic eye visual acuity of 20/25 or better was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model.||||0.28
84546343|NCT02770170|168845967|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.03|14.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||14.03|-14.03|
84546344|NCT03351608|168845974|SUPERIORITY||GM Ratio (SUG 2 mg / NEO + [GLY or ATR])|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|0.16|< 0.0001
84546345|NCT04630002|168845992|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.999|1.293|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.293|0.9990|
84546346|NCT04630002|168845993|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9185|1.242|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.242|0.9185|
84571177|NCT01668797|168893474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.15|-0.54|0.0006
84668656|NCT00525174|169071802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients with 3 or more lines of amblyopic eye visual acuity improvement from baseline to 24 weeks.||||0.61
84740288|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.87|0.1352
84740289|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.10|0.0056
84740290|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.06|0.1537
84740291|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.07|0.0142
84668657|NCT00525174|169071805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.90
84668658|NCT00525174|169071806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.88
84740292|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.56|0.06|0.0159
84668659|NCT00525174|169071808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in the fellow eye visual acuity at 24 weeks was evaluated in an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline fellow eye acuity.||||0.07
84668660|NCT00525174|169071808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportion of subjects in each treatment group who tested 2 or more logMAR lines worse in the fellow eye at 24 weeks compared with baseline.||||0.21
84668661|NCT00525174|169071809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 6 weeks.||||0.03
84668662|NCT00525174|169071810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
84740293|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.10|0.2255
84486928|NCT02477800|168725733|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.1||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.49|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.49|-0.62|0.8106
84546347|NCT04630002|168845994|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9313|1.051|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.051|0.9313|
84668663|NCT00525174|169071811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.90
84668664|NCT00525174|169071812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.01
84668665|NCT00525174|169071813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.12
84668666|NCT00525174|169071814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.001
84668667|NCT00525174|169071815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 6 weeks.||||<0.001
84668668|NCT00525174|169071816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
84668669|NCT04254978|169071819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Comparison of the true response rate of bomedemstat to a fixed efficacy target of 5%: Null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||||<.0001
84668670|NCT03244865|169071820|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be verified if the RMSE between the two systems is within 7 BPM. A complete power analysis was not included as this is a pilot study.|||||<|0.1||||||Pilot Study|t-test, 2 sided|||There is only one ARM in the study. Standard monitoring and LaborView monitoring will be collected simultaneously and analyzed.||||<.1
84740294|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.46|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.05|0.1069
84740295|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.39|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.19|0.4932
84740296|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.12|0.2634
84740297|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.25|0.9284
84740298|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.25|0.9459
84546348|NCT04630002|168845995|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9816|1.122|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.122|0.9816|
84546349|NCT04630002|168845996|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.185|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.185|1.025|
84546350|NCT04630002|168845997|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9947|1.26|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.260|0.9947|
84546351|NCT04630002|168845998|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.5299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4801|0.5848|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||0.5848|0.4801|
84546352|NCT04630002|168845999|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.6001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5271|0.6833|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||0.6833|0.5271|
84546353|NCT04630002|168846000|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.082|1.21|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.210|1.082|
84546354|NCT04630002|168846001|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.187|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.187|1.026|
84603376|NCT02752958|168957590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.235|14.686|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||14.686|9.235|<.0001
84740299|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2908
84668671|NCT00277212|169071821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.552||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.03||stratified Log-Rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|Log Rank||Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index modd episode as stratification factor, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.030|0.296|0.058
84668672|NCT00277212|169071822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.011||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.011|0.446|0.055
84668673|NCT00277212|169071823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.354||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, conrolling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.354|0.454|0.381
84668674|NCT00277212|169071824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.128||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified Log-Rank Test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.128|0.672|0.295
84668675|NCT00277212|169071826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatement Difference|2.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.57||ANOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=index mood episode) used for baseline comparisons. ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons|ANCOVA||Aripiprazole vs. placebo|Week 52 LOCF||3.57|0.91|0.001
84668676|NCT00277212|169071827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||aripiprazole/placebo|Week 52 LOCF||1.07|0.29|0.073
84668677|NCT00277212|169071827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Any Time||||0.194
84668678|NCT00277212|169071828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative risk|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 LOCF||8.94|1.30|0.007
84668679|NCT00277212|169071828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84668680|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.09||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects and index mood episode as covariate, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||1.09|-2.37|0.467
84668681|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.78|-0.06|
84668682|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||1.30|0.19|
84668683|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||1.86|0.08|
84668684|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.92||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||1.92|-0.08|
84668685|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||1.26|0.31|0.001
84668686|NCT00277212|169071829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.04||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from baseline||1.04|0.23|0.002
84668687|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.34|-0.35|0.971
84668688|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.51||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 8||0.51|-0.03|
84603377|NCT02752958|168957591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.738|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.738|-0.604|0.3415
84668689|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.60|-0.13|
84740300|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.23|0.6834
84740301|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.41|0.3579
84486929|NCT02477800|168725734|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.583||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5835|0.4181|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4181|-1.5835|0.2536
84486930|NCT02477800|168725734|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.588||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6067|0.4309|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4309|-1.6067|0.2578
84486931|NCT02477800|168725735|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.7||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.64|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.64|-0.19|0.1225
84486932|NCT02477800|168725735|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.7||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.61|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.61|-0.25|0.1506
84486933|NCT02061540|168725760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0373||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.251|-2.432|||Wilcoxon's signed rank test|||Analysis was performed to compare baseline and endpoint data.||-2.432|-27.251|0.0043
84486934|NCT01948518|168725767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming 15% change in absolute value of DLCO representing a significant clinical difference and a standard deviation of 17.4% in normal nonsmoking individuals \[Miller A, Thornton JC, Warshaw R, et al. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127 (suppl 3):270-277.\], 13 subjects needed to be studied to reject the null hypothesis when there is no significant difference between DLCO measurements before and after sildenafil, with power 0.8 and type I error probability 0.05 (SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)||||=0.30
84486935|NCT01948518|168725768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The average 6 minute walk distance at baseline was 1195±407 feet. After oral administration of sildenafil, 6 minute walk distance was 1214±383 feet (p=0.63).||||=0.63
84486936|NCT02723019|168725826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyzed using logistic regression analysis||||0.01
84486937|NCT02723019|168725827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.19
84603378|NCT02752958|168957592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.935|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.935|0.610|0.0029
84740302|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.30|0.8270
84740303|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.34|0.5292
84740304|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.23|0.8790
84740305|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.46|0.1347
84740306|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2874
84740307|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.61|0.0086
84740308|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.29|0.7864
84740309|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.48|0.4383
84740310|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.36|0.8767
84668690|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.55|-0.06|
84740311|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0341
84740312|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.38|0.5629
84603379|NCT02752958|168957593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.582|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||3.582|1.266|<0.0001
84668691|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.65||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.65|-0.06|
84668692|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.52||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.52|-0.04|0.095
84546355|NCT04630002|168846002|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8147|1.093|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.093|0.8147|
84546356|NCT04630002|168846003|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.8928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7467|1.068|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.068|0.7467|
84546357|NCT03448419|168846041|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-4.0||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.0|-16.0|0.4236
84603380|NCT02752958|168957594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.371|4.729|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||4.729|2.371|<.0001
84603381|NCT02752958|168957595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|5.568|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||5.568|3.210|<0.0001
84668693|NCT00277212|169071835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripirazole - placebo|Highest change from Baseline||0.63|-0.01|0.061
84668694|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.458||95.0|-0.25|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, is used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.11|-0.25|0.458
84668695|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.26|-0.05|
84668696|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.20|-0.11|
84668697|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.42|0.00|
84668698|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at week 52||0.16|-0.05|
84668699|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.11|-0.22|0.515
84668700|NCT00277212|169071836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.23|-0.16|0.730
84668701|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||Means, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals for the differences, and the p-values are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA, controlling for treatment, used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.20|-0.08|0.435
84668702|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.30|0.04|
84546358|NCT03448419|168846042|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|3.13||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.29|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||7.29|0.00|0.0893
84603382|NCT02752958|168957596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.119|5.477|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.477|3.119|<0.0001
84603383|NCT02752958|168957597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|4.352|||ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||4.352|0.483|0.0145
84603384|NCT02752958|168957598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.498|6.339|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||6.339|2.498|<0.0001
84603385|NCT02752958|168957599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.933|8.759|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||8.759|4.933|<0.0001
84740313|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-0.67|0.0016
84740314|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.50|0.0495
84486938|NCT02723019|168725828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.73
84486939|NCT02723019|168725829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.28
84486940|NCT02723019|168725830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.71
84486941|NCT02723019|168725831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||negative binomial regression model analy|||negative binomial regression model analysis||||0.42
84486942|NCT00958191|168725841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
84486943|NCT00958191|168725841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
84486944|NCT00958191|168725841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
84486945|NCT00958191|168725842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
84486946|NCT00958191|168725842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
84486947|NCT00958191|168725842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
84486948|NCT00958191|168725843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
84486949|NCT00958191|168725843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
84486950|NCT00958191|168725843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
84486951|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
84486952|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
84486953|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
84486954|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 1 year||||0.0242
84486955|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 3 year||||0.0247
84486956|NCT00958191|168725844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1372|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 5 year||||0.1372
84486957|NCT00958191|168725845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
84603386|NCT02752958|168957600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.219|9.115|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||9.115|5.219|<.0001
84668703|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.17|-0.11|
84668704|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||0.13|-0.13|
84740315|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.36|0.7177
84740316|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9401
84740317|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.44|0.3201
84740318|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.32|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.25|0.8286
84740319|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.49|0.3022
84740320|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.35|0.8022
84740321|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.42|0.5665
84740322|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.36|0.8170
84740323|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.63|0.0404
84740324|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3128
84668705|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.14|-0.08|
84668706|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.17|-0.06|0.358
84668707|NCT00277212|169071837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.31|0.03|0.021
84668708|NCT03336216|169071848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.19|1.82||||||||1.82|1.19|
84668709|NCT03336216|169071848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.77|1.3||||||||1.30|0.77|
84546359|NCT03448419|168846043|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|0.1||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.40|-0.20|0.4702
84668710|NCT03336216|169071848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
84668711|NCT03336216|169071849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.33|2.02||||||||2.02|1.33|
84668712|NCT03336216|169071849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||60.0|0.87|1.46||||||||1.46|0.87|
84668713|NCT03336216|169071849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||||60.0|0.55|0.94||||||||0.94|0.55|
84740325|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.51|0.2400
84486958|NCT00958191|168725845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
84486959|NCT00958191|168725845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
84486960|NCT01642004|168725925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|96.85|0.43|0.81||Stratified by region (US/Canada, Rest Of World (ROW), Europe) and prior treatment regimen (Paclitaxel, Another agent) as entered in the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over Docetaxel|||0.81|0.43|0.0002
84486961|NCT00598806|168725945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.55|0.1094
84486962|NCT00598806|168725946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.1038
84486963|NCT00170846|168725962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.1241||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5077|5.7559|||ANCOVA|||||5.7559|-3.5077|0.6332
84486964|NCT00170846|168725962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.5933||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8815|5.0682|||ANCOVA|||||5.0682|-3.8815|0.7943
84486965|NCT01766401|168725979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-2.96|0.0438
84486966|NCT01766401|168725980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.20|-3.02|0.0868
84486967|NCT01523613|168725981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
84486968|NCT01523613|168725982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.523
84486969|NCT01523613|168725983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
84486970|NCT00808132|168725985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|2.201|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.201|0.822|<0.001
84486971|NCT00808132|168725985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.533|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.533|1.209|<0.001
84486972|NCT00808132|168725986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|1.47|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.470|0.139|0.017
84486973|NCT00808132|168725986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.830|0.556|<0.001
84486974|NCT00808132|168725987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.742|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.742|0.901|<0.001
84486975|NCT00808132|168725987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.671|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.671|0.756|<0.001
84486976|NCT00808132|168725987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|1.962|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.962|1.152|<0.001
84486977|NCT00808132|168725987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.164|2.044|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.044|1.164|<0.001
84740326|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4840
84740327|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.32|0.7768
84740328|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.31|0.7713
84740329|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0716
84740330|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.41|0.4317
84740331|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.52|0.2115
84740332|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.48|0.2818
84740333|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.46|0.2018
84740334|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.33|0.6554
84740335|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.21|0.4754
84740336|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.37|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.28|0.7776
84486978|NCT00808132|168725988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
84486979|NCT00808132|168725988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84486980|NCT00808132|168725988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
84486981|NCT00808132|168725988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84486982|NCT00808132|168725988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84740337|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.50|0.7172
84546360|NCT03448419|168846044|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||9.0|-9.0|0.9830
84546361|NCT03448419|168846045|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.31||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
84546362|NCT03448419|168846046|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6189
84546363|NCT03448419|168846047|OTHER|||||||0.6672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6672
84546364|NCT03448419|168846048|OTHER|||||||0.5147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5147
84546365|NCT03448419|168846049|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.8630
84546366|NCT03448419|168846050|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|The endpoint 'relative change from baseline in NT-proBNP at Week 12' (after log-transformation) was evaluated using an MMRM analysis over time with baseline log-transformed NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction as covariates.Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||1.03|0.81|0.1410
84546367|NCT03020992|168846060|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.281|||Poisson regression|||"The Poisson regression allowed for a comparison of event rates adjusting for differences in time between prestudy/on-study periods.~Event rates were based on a Poisson model with generalized estimating equations and a log-link, including an offset term for time interval length, and with period and disease duration of axSpA (\<2 years/≥2 years) as covariates. A repeated statement was included for participants and assumed an exchangeable correlation structure between prestudy and on-study flares."||0.281|0.116|<0.001
84546368|NCT01006122|168846092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||One sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects, baseline MWT as a covariate and participant as random effect.||1.12|-0.81|0.418
84546369|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.15|-1.32|0.054
84740338|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.55|0.4791
84740339|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.48|0.3562
84546370|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.89|0.247
84546371|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.01|-1.19|0.095
84546372|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.75|-0.50|0.604
84546373|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.232|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.26|-0.95|0.232
84571178|NCT01668797|168893475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.47|0.0284
84740340|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.30|0.8859
84668714|NCT03336216|169071852|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.8||||0.6537||95.0|-5.5|9.0||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||9.0|-5.5|0.6537
84668715|NCT03336216|169071852|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|12.5||||0.0951||95.0|3.1|21.9||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||21.9|3.1|0.0951
84740341|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.28|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.49|0.5888
84740342|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3992
84740343|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.80|0.1212
84740344|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.66|0.3185
84668716|NCT03336216|169071852|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|5.0||||0.5171||95.0|-8.0|18.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||18.1|-8.0|0.5171
84668717|NCT03336216|169071853|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|-0.8||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.7||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||7.7|-9.4|0.8505
84740345|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.62|0.4809
84740346|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.48|-0.42|0.8953
84740347|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.57|0.5616
84668718|NCT03336216|169071853|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.5||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|12.8||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.8|-9.9|0.8144
84668719|NCT03336216|169071853|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|0.7||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|12.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.1|-10.7|0.9087
84668720|NCT03336216|169071856|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.96|0.76|
84668721|NCT03336216|169071856|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.86|0.59|
84668722|NCT03336216|169071856|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.46|0.45|
84740348|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.39|0.8571
84668723|NCT02666183|169071865|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-2.251||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.051|0.55|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.550|-5.051|0.162
84603387|NCT02752958|168957601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.438|10.335|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||10.335|6.438|<0.0001
84668724|NCT02666183|169071865|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-3.663||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.538|-0.789|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.789|-6.538|0.007
84668725|NCT02666183|169071865|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.413||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.464|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.464|-4.290|0.714
84740349|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.05|0.0037
84740350|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.84|0.0386
84740351|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0044
84740352|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.46|0.8308
84668726|NCT02666183|169071866|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.531||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.297|0.234|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.234|-1.297|0.173
84668727|NCT02666183|169071866|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|-0.671|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.671|-2.241|0.001
84668728|NCT02666183|169071866|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.925||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.711|-0.139|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.139|-1.711|0.021
84668729|NCT02666183|169071867|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.984||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.939|0.971|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.971|-2.939|0.323
84668730|NCT02666183|169071867|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.768||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|0.249|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.249|-3.785|0.086
84668731|NCT02666183|169071867|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.784||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|1.226|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.226|-2.794|0.443
84668732|NCT05954052|169071868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|14.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the analysis of (ABC) scores at baseline and 12 weeks in this single-arm, open-label pilot study (n=6 participants, all with paired data including the early dropout), we use superiority test, This aligns with the study's hypothesis that oral glutathione supplementation would lead to an improvement (i.e., a decrease in ABC scores, indicating reduced irritability). Superiority testing evaluates whether the post-treatment mean (or median) is significantly lower than the baseline||14.24|-6.24|0.1807
84740353|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.87|0.0388
84740354|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.71|0.1622
84740355|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.89|0.0179
84740356|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.55|0.4283
84740357|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.72|0.1899
84740358|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.48|0.8022
84668733|NCT01856790|169071875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.05
84668734|NCT01856790|169071876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.002
84740359|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3780
84668735|NCT01856790|169071878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.97
84740360|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.47|0.8110
84740361|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.5|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.58|0.8908
84668736|NCT01856790|169071882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||.001
84668737|NCT01856790|169071883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.005
84668738|NCT01124604|169071885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||||95.0|-1.04|0.8|||||Test for no difference between treatments was derived from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors treatment, disease and Baseline pain intensity as covariate.|||0.80|-1.04|
84740362|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.76|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.28|0.3596
84740363|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.49|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.67|0.7617
84740364|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.73|0.5498
84740365|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.76|0.2066
84740366|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.73|0.2321
84740367|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.27|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.49|0.5582
84546374|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.02|-1.23|0.093
84546375|NCT01006122|168846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.34|-0.94|0.274
84740368|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.56|0.2945
84740369|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.64|0.2684
84740370|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.42|0.9396
84740371|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0283
84546376|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.121
84603388|NCT02752958|168957602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.726|10.623|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 24||10.623|6.726|<0.0001
84603389|NCT02752958|168957603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|1.989|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.989|-0.738|0.3676
84603390|NCT02752958|168957604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|2.255|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.255|-0.451|0.1907
84603391|NCT02752958|168957605|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|3.162|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||3.162|0.467|0.0085
84603392|NCT02752958|168957606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|3.489|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||3.489|0.744|0.0026
84668739|NCT01344447|169071907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|20.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.4|<0.0001
84740372|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.63|0.1794
84740373|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.68|0.1091
84668740|NCT01344447|169071907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|63.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|60.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||60.9|<0.0001
84546377|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.394|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.25|-0.38|0.394
84546378|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.04|-0.67|0.073
84546379|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.33|-0.34|0.495
84740374|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.41|0.7921
84546380|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.46|-0.18|0.711
84603393|NCT02752958|168957607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|4.116|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||4.116|1.371|0.0001
84603394|NCT02752958|168957608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|4.222|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 24||4.222|1.477|<.0001
84668741|NCT01344447|169071907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|17.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||17.8|<0.0001
84668742|NCT01344447|169071907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|13.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.3|<0.0001
84668743|NCT01344447|169071907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|16.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||16.5|<0.0001
84668744|NCT01344447|169071908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-3.6|
84668745|NCT01344447|169071908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.4|
84668746|NCT01344447|169071908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-4.7|
84668747|NCT01344447|169071908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.9|
84668748|NCT01344447|169071908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|14.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.1|
84668749|NCT01344447|169071909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.7|
84668750|NCT01344447|169071909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|28.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||28.6|
84668751|NCT01344447|169071909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|8.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||8.5|
84486983|NCT00808132|168725989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.509|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.509|-0.632|0.832
84740375|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.80|0.0055
84668752|NCT01344447|169071909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|6.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||6.6|
84668753|NCT01344447|169071909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.9|
84603395|NCT02752958|168957609|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.243|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 4||0.243|-0.059|0.2326
84668754|NCT01344447|169071910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|55.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||55.3|
84486984|NCT00808132|168725989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.696|0.436|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.436|-0.696|0.651
84486985|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486986|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0074
84486987|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486988|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486989|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486990|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486991|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486992|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486993|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486994|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
84486995|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486996|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486997|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84486998|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.1058
84486999|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487000|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0024
84487001|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487002|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487003|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487004|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487005|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487006|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0012
84487007|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487008|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84740376|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.67|0.0300
84740377|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.84|0.0118
84740378|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.57|0.2266
84740379|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-0.92|0.0025
84546381|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.51|-0.14|0.767
84740380|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.69|0.0555
84740381|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-0.93|0.0013
84740382|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.64|0.0775
84740383|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.30|-1.05|0.0006
84546382|NCT01006122|168846094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.48|-0.20|0.698
84571179|NCT01668797|168893475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.11|-0.62|0.0056
84740384|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0415
84740385|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.75|0.0581
84740386|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.45|0.6826
84740387|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.83|0.0912
84740388|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.62|0.3988
84546383|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.02|-0.34|0.127
84546384|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.11|-0.25|0.303
84546385|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.09|0.738
84546386|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.35|-0.04|0.850
84740389|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.91|0.0504
84740390|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.32|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.55|0.6019
84740391|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.05|0.0070
84546387|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.24|-0.14|0.631
84546388|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.04|-0.34|0.160
84546389|NCT01006122|168846097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.22|-0.18|0.541
84668755|NCT01344447|169071910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|60.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.6||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||53.6|
84668756|NCT01344447|169071910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|59.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.1||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||53.1|
84668757|NCT01344447|169071910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|58.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|52.2||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||52.2|
84668758|NCT01344447|169071910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|56.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||56.7|
84668759|NCT01344447|169071911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||97.7|
84668760|NCT01344447|169071911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||97.3|
84571180|NCT01668797|168893475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.76|0.0002
84668761|NCT01344447|169071911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|96.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||96.9|
84668762|NCT01344447|169071911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||97.7|
84668763|NCT01344447|169071911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|98.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||98.9|
84668764|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84668765|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84668766|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84740392|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3785
84668767|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84668768|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84668769|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84571181|NCT01668797|168893475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-0.82|<.0001
84668770|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84668771|NCT01344447|169071912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84668772|NCT00952341|169071934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.007
84668773|NCT00952341|169071935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.942
84668774|NCT00952341|169071936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.001
84668775|NCT00952341|169071937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy."||||0.003
84668776|NCT00952341|169071938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.882
84668777|NCT00952341|169071939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.001
84668778|NCT00456521|169071942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.56|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-5.56|<0.001
84668779|NCT00456521|169071943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.02|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|2.02|<0.001
84668780|NCT00456521|169071944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.37|1.95|<0.001
84668781|NCT00456521|169071945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.82|<0.001
84668782|NCT00456521|169071946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84668783|NCT00456521|169071947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84668784|NCT00456521|169071948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|1.52|<0.001
84668785|NCT00456521|169071949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.04|||ANCOVA|||||5.04|1.23|0.001
84668786|NCT00456521|169071950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84668787|NCT00456521|169071951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.98||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.165
84668788|NCT00456521|169071952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.79||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.79|-3.34|
84740393|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.32|0.9609
84740394|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9183
84740395|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.57|0.0710
84740396|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.45|0.2607
84740397|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.50|0.2466
84546390|NCT04205643|168846146|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|29.3||If the primary endpoint is significant, a fixed sequence procedure was employed to control the overall type I error rate of the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights|||29.3|11.8|<0.0001
84546391|NCT03859427|168846152|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.87 for the estimated ORR risk ratio.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.954||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.032||P-value (2.5% significance level) of the non-inferiority test via the synthesis approach (FDA, 2016) for non-inferiority comparison of ORR between treatment arms.|Synthesis approach||Risk ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.032|0.882|0.0666
84740398|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3461
84740399|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.60|0.0919
84740400|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.36|0.7554
84668789|NCT00456521|169071953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-7.26|
84546392|NCT03859427|168846154|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.683|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.683|0.653|
84740401|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.74|0.0150
84546393|NCT03859427|168846160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.97|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.970|0.775|
84546394|NCT03859427|168846161|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.711|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.711|0.657|
84546395|NCT03859427|168846162|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.69|||||Analysis was based on repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.69|0.38|
84740402|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.64|0.0482
84740403|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.28|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.93|0.0003
84740404|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.56|0.1182
84740405|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.24|-0.87|0.0008
84546396|NCT03859427|168846163|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.72|||||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.72|-1.26|
84668790|NCT00456521|169071954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.14|0.97|
84546397|NCT03859427|168846164|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.03|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 5|||2.03|-2.54|
84546398|NCT03859427|168846164|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 12|||2.28|-3.24|
84546399|NCT03859427|168846164|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.58|||||Treatment difference at safety follow-up|||4.58|-1.69|
84546400|NCT01804946|168846167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||0.05
84546401|NCT01804946|168846168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84668791|NCT00456521|169071955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.49||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.49|0.25|
84668792|NCT00456521|169071956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.87||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.87|-0.70|
84546402|NCT01804946|168846169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546403|NCT01804946|168846170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546404|NCT01804946|168846171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.5 point or less to assess any symptom based on 4 point scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546405|NCT01804946|168846172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the number of antipyretic intake the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546406|NCT01804946|168846173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the quality of life total score the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|The changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546407|NCT01804946|168846174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the patient subjective health status assessment the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546408|NCT01804946|168846175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant difference (margin) between two percentages was assumed to be 20% or more of the effect of Oseltamivir|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||The Wald method of Z statistics calcul|The Wald method of Z statistics calculation was performed including computation a confidence interval for a difference between proportions||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
84546409|NCT01205776|168846191|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue|||||||<0.0001
84546410|NCT01205776|168846203|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue Approach|||||||0.011
84546411|NCT04031846|168846291|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||=|0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in % : Injection site erythema||6.3|-5.0|= 0.824
84546412|NCT04031846|168846291|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|2.8|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site induration||8.4|-2.8|= 0.324
84740406|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.54|0.1379
84740407|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.71|0.0040
84546413|NCT04031846|168846291|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site pain||16.6|5.8|< 0.001
84546414|NCT04031846|168846291|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.1|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site swelling||9.4|-1.2|= 0.128
84546415|NCT04031846|168846292|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Decreased appetite||5.8|-5.0|= 0.885
84546416|NCT04031846|168846292|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Irritability||10.7|0.1|= 0.045
84546417|NCT04031846|168846292|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.4|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Somnolence||10.0|-1.3|= 0.131
84546418|NCT04031846|168846292|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||=|0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Urticaria||2.1|-2.4|= 0.898
84546419|NCT04031846|168846293|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %||0.5|-1.0|
84546420|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.57|< 0.001
84546421|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.39||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.17|< 0.001
84546422|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
84546423|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.70|0.59|< 0.001
84546424|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
84546425|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.07|0.85|< 0.001
84546426|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.72|< 0.001
84546427|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.66|< 0.001
84546428|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.83||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.67|< 0.001
84571182|NCT01668797|168893475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.26|-0.79|0.0002
84571183|NCT01668797|168893476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.60|0.0387
84546429|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.80|< 0.001
84546430|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.75|< 0.001
84546431|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.80|< 0.001
84546432|NCT04031846|168846294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.79|< 0.001
84546433|NCT04031846|168846294|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|71.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.16|79.1||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||79.10|65.16|< 0.001
84546434|NCT04031846|168846294|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|46.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.19|51.42||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||51.42|42.19|< 0.001
84546435|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-1.3|-4.7|< 0.001
84546436|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|12.2|4.4|< 0.001
84546437|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-4.5|< 0.001
84546438|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
84546439|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
84546440|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-3.5|< 0.001
84546441|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
84571184|NCT01668797|168893476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-0.75|0.0185
84668793|NCT00456521|169071957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.63|-0.85|
84668794|NCT00456521|169071958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.78|
84668795|NCT00456521|169071959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.42|-9.16|
84668796|NCT04302389|169071985|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within-subject comparison at two timepoints (baseline, 3 months)||||<0.001
84668797|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.35|0.96|0.1351
84603396|NCT02752958|168957610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.216||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||0.216|-0.085|0.3934
84668798|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.41|1.01|0.0383
84668799|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.43|1.02|0.0325
84668800|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.68|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.68|1.20|<0.0001
84668801|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.82|1.16|0.0015
84668802|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.93|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.93|1.24|0.0002
84668803|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.17|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.17|1.38|<0.0001
84668804|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.18|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.18|1.40|<0.0001
84668805|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.81|1.22|0.0001
84668806|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.85|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.85|1.25|<0.0001
84668807|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.05|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.05|1.38|<0.0001
84668808|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.89|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.89|1.28|<0.0001
84668809|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.07|1.16|0.0034
84487009|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487010|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0029
84487011|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487012|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0046
84487013|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487014|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0043
84668810|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.07|1.17|0.0029
84668811|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.33|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.33|1.30|0.0003
84668812|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.08|1.17|0.0027
84668813|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.34|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.34|1.01|0.0448
84668814|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.83|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.83|1.24|0.0033
84668815|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.3|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||3.30|1.42|0.0004
84668816|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.001||95.0|1.34|3.08|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||3.08|1.34|0.0010
84668817|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.43|0.74|0.8718
84668818|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.63|0.86|0.3078
84668819|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.66|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.66|0.86|0.2909
84668820|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.91|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.91|0.99|0.0539
84668821|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.54|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.54|0.74|0.7393
84668822|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.74|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.74|0.84|0.2967
84668823|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.98|0.95|0.0934
84487015|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84668824|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.97|0.95|0.0919
84668825|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.51|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||3.51|2.11|<0.0001
84668826|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|3.9|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||3.90|2.37|<0.0001
84668827|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.23|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||4.23|2.54|<0.0001
84668828|NCT00464568|169072032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.27|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||4.27|2.59|<0.0001
84668829|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.5545|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.79598||0.647226|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg: VASP||||0.647226
84668830|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.3816|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.00754||0.95084|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: VASP||||0.95084
84668831|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.0256|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.24118||0.53499|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 50 mcg: VASP||||0.53499
84668832|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.3371|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5459||0.81527|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: VASP||||0.81527
84668833|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-2.8053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88217||0.32998|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 1 mcg: pVASP||||0.32998
84668834|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.6602|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30724||0.65729|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: pVASP||||0.65729
84668835|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.156|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73976||0.89831|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg: pVASP||||0.89831
84668836|NCT00464568|169072047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.5165|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.70748||0.84479|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: pVASP||||0.84479
84668837|NCT00930579|169072064|OTHER|This study used two-sided t-tests to compare changes within group- before and after metformin treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: there will be no statistically significant change between the amount of Ki-67 (protein involved in cell proliferation) in participants' tumor cells before and after taking the prescribed dose of Metformin, as measured at the 5% significance level.||||0.98
84668838|NCT02120950|169072124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.9|0.5480
84668839|NCT02120950|169072125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-3.1|0.7402
84668840|NCT02120950|169072127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.2|0.0|0.0682
84668841|NCT02120950|169072128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.3|-0.1|0.1640
84668842|NCT02120950|169072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-5.6||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 5||3.7|-14.9|0.2348
84668843|NCT02120950|169072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-2.2||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 10||8.6|-13.1|0.6877
84668844|NCT02120950|169072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-4.0||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 15||6.5|-14.5|0.4556
84668845|NCT02120950|169072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|1.7||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 5||7.2|-3.7|0.5372
84668846|NCT02120950|169072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 10||4.7|-3.4|0.7569
84603397|NCT02752958|168957611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.284|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||0.284|-0.016|0.0795
84603398|NCT02752958|168957612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.294|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||0.294|-0.011|0.0682
84603399|NCT02752958|168957613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.287|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||0.287|-0.018|0.0844
84603400|NCT02752958|168957614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.332|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 24||0.332|0.027|0.0211
84668847|NCT02120950|169072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 15||3.1|-4.3|0.7402
84668848|NCT02120950|169072133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-6.0||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|||5.9|-17.8|0.3244
84668849|NCT02120950|169072134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with leakage in FA at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||0.6|-0.9|0.7109
84668850|NCT02120950|169072135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.1||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|11.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for CST at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||11.3|-9.2|0.8355
84668851|NCT02120950|169072136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for NEI VFQ-25 score at baseline and Week 52.||1.4|-2.9|0.5069
84668852|NCT02120950|169072137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference %|-0.6||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|||5.1|-6.3|0.8423
84668853|NCT04649164|169072192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests comparing peer mentors' baseline and 16-week scores, and caregiver mentees' baseline and 16-week scores, respectively||||0.36
84668854|NCT04649164|169072194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84668855|NCT04649164|169072195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84487016|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84668856|NCT04649164|169072196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84668857|NCT04649164|169072199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84487017|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
84487018|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487019|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487020|NCT00808132|168725990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
84487021|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.546
84487022|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.821
84487023|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.698
84487024|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.446
84668858|NCT01549964|169072213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.34||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.34|-0.77|<0.001
84668859|NCT01549964|169072213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.49||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.49|0.15|<0.001
84740408|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.42|0.3100
84740409|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
84740410|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.61|0.0223
84740411|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.70|0.0276
84740412|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.35|0.8516
84740413|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.63|0.1669
84487025|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
84487026|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.810
84487027|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.473
84487028|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.030
84487029|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.453
84487030|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.391
84487031|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.407
84487032|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.644
84487033|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.666
84487034|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.641
84487035|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.361
84487036|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.100
84487037|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.142
84487038|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.906
84740414|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.48|0.4935
84740415|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.86|0.0202
84740416|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.58|0.2683
84740417|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.65|0.0531
84740418|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.41|0.5609
84740419|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.30|0.6779
84740420|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.15|0.4559
84740421|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.1|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.43|0.2254
84740422|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6437
84740423|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6678
84740424|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.27|0.9321
84740425|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.31|0.9778
84487039|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.798
84546442|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.4|-2.4|< 0.001
84740426|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9307
84740427|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.41|0.6791
84740428|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.28|0.7769
84740429|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.38|0.7206
84740430|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3549
84740431|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.70|0.0231
84740432|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.55|0.1450
84740433|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0855
84740434|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.15|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.47|0.3068
84740435|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.77|0.0069
84740436|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.51|0.2174
84571185|NCT01668797|168893476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.97|0.0010
84546443|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
84546444|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.8|< 0.001
84546445|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
84546446|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
84571186|NCT01668797|168893476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0004
84571187|NCT01668797|168893476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
84571188|NCT01668797|168893477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||5.49|-3.47|0.6525
84571189|NCT01668797|168893477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|14.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||14.87|-2.71|0.1677
84571190|NCT01668797|168893477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||9.5|-2.41|0.2347
84571191|NCT01668797|168893478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.17|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||7.17|0.40|0.0285
84571192|NCT01668797|168893478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||8.18|1.31|0.0071
84571193|NCT01668797|168893479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||4.88|-1.65|0.3290
84571194|NCT01668797|168893479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||6.54|-1.22|0.1765
84571195|NCT01668797|168893479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||8.63|0.38|0.0331
84571196|NCT01668797|168893479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|11.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||11.82|-0.06|0.0522
84571197|NCT01668797|168893479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||6.92|0.41|0.0281
84571198|NCT01668797|168893480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||6.86|0.90|0.0111
84571199|NCT01668797|168893480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||8.62|2.10|0.0014
84571200|NCT01668797|168893480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|10.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||10.00|3.61|<.0001
84571201|NCT01668797|168893480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||9.83|3.28|0.0001
84571202|NCT01668797|168893481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
84571203|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.17|-1.02|0.1577
84571204|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.28|-1.61|0.1685
84571205|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.42|-1.43|0.2815
84571206|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.12|-2.16|0.0286
84571207|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.51|-2.58|0.1803
84571208|NCT01668797|168893482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.17|-1.12|0.0077
84571209|NCT01668797|168893483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-1.06|0.1852
84571210|NCT01668797|168893483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.21|-1.47|0.1430
84571211|NCT01668797|168893483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-2.06|0.0323
84571212|NCT01668797|168893483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0071
84668860|NCT01549964|169072213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
84571213|NCT01668797|168893483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.52|0.0023
84571214|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.14|-2.54|0.0288
84571215|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.44|-3.60|0.0128
84571216|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.03|-3.15|0.0462
84571217|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.64|-3.94|0.0074
84740437|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.63|0.1020
84740438|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9587
84487040|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.258
84487041|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.058
84487042|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.230
84487043|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.360
84487044|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
84487045|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.912
84487046|NCT00808132|168725992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.791
84487047|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.10|-7.96|0.253
84487048|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-8.78|0.127
84487049|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.46|-7.76|0.180
84487050|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.67||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.85|||ANOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.85|-7.19|0.247
84487051|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.9|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-4.15|0.726
84571218|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.75|-6.05|0.0136
84571219|NCT01668797|168893484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.97|-2.84|0.0001
84571220|NCT01668797|168893485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.09|-2.26|0.0695
84571221|NCT01668797|168893485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.49|-3.38|0.0089
84571222|NCT01668797|168893485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.27|-4.39|0.0004
84571223|NCT01668797|168893485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.54|-4.63|0.0001
84571224|NCT01668797|168893485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-1.89|-4.99|<0.0001
84546447|NCT04031846|168846295|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.5|-2.7|< 0.001
84546448|NCT04031846|168846295|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|93.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.6||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|95.6|91.5|< 0.001
84740439|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1690
84740440|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.44|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.34|0.7919
84740441|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.89|0.0192
84740442|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.56|0.3887
84740443|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0719
84740444|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1195
84546449|NCT04031846|168846295|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|94.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.7|96.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|96.5|92.7|< 0.001
84546450|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Diphtheria toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-1.7|< 0.001
84668861|NCT01549964|169072213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.23|-0.12|0.524
84668862|NCT01549964|169072214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.08||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|1.00|0.050
84668863|NCT01549964|169072214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.23|<0.001
84668864|NCT01549964|169072214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|11.42||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.42|2.24|<0.001
84668865|NCT01549964|169072214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.50|0.493
84668866|NCT01549964|169072215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-16.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-16.6|-33.8|<0.001
84668867|NCT01549964|169072215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.7||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.7|-12.0|0.142
84668868|NCT01549964|169072215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.001
84668869|NCT01549964|169072215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-4.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.2|-18.1|0.002
84668870|NCT01835743|169072216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
84668871|NCT01835743|169072217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test for two independent samples to compare the change in VAS scores across the evaluation period between the two procedure administration groups||||||<0.0001
84668872|NCT00751348|169072218|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-measles was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.66||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||1.66|-3.77|<0.05
84668873|NCT00751348|169072218|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-mumps was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-5.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.38||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||0.38|-10.4|<0.05
84668874|NCT00751348|169072218|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-rubella was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.06||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||2.06|-1.88|<0.05
84668875|NCT00751348|169072218|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-VZV was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.44||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-varicella zoster virus (anti-VZV) seroconversion rates.||1.44|-3.07|<0.05
84668876|NCT00620828|169072228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient cohort was inclusive of patient undergoing single TKA from June 2007 to July 2008. Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.||||<0.05
84668877|NCT00620828|169072229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Significant differences in Fentanyl PCA pump usage across study arms were assessed for the 4-8h,8-12h,and 12h-24h time frames.||||.05
84668878|NCT00620828|169072230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis was performed on data collected 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
84668879|NCT00620828|169072231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Knee extension and knee flexion measured at 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
84668880|NCT00620828|169072232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Straight leg raise data collected at 4-hours, 8-hours, 12-hours and 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
84668881|NCT03965962|169072235|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 2) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.35||||||||4.35|-2.33|
84668882|NCT03965962|169072235|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 % CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|6.5||||||||6.50|-1.32|
84668883|NCT01466387|169072250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC TF+YF+MenACWY-CRM/GMC TF+YF.|Ratio of GMC|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.6|0.81|
84668884|NCT01466387|169072251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT TF+YF+MenACWY/GMT TF+YF.|Ratio of GMT.|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.41|0.65|
84668885|NCT01466387|169072252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMT JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and centers as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between the second dose of Japanese Encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese Encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.16|0.7|
84668886|NCT01466387|169072253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMC JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between the second dose of Japanese encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.17|0.71|
84668887|NCT03200899|169072300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.926
84668888|NCT03200899|169072301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.750
84668889|NCT03200899|169072302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.129
84668890|NCT03200899|169072303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
84668891|NCT03200899|169072304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.037
84668892|NCT03200899|169072305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.297
84668893|NCT03200899|169072306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
84668894|NCT03200899|169072307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
84668895|NCT02310919|169072330|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority hypothesis testing of the primary outcome, a one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the relative risk. The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard trigger if the lower bound of the one-sided CI of the relative risk is not less than 0.8 (i.e. risk reduction limit of 20%).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.83|||Using the standard trigger as the reference, the relative risk (i.e. risk ratio) (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the probability of the outcome was calculated using log-binomial regression models with application of GEE.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard hCG trigger if it is at least 80% as effective at inducing oocyte competence. Considering a cluster size of 15 oocytes and an estimated intra-cluster correlation of 0.1, we calculated that approximately 50 participants were needed in each study arm when the non-inferiority difference is -0.1 (i.e. 20% of 0.5 total competent proportion) with a power of 0.8 and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|||0.83|
84668896|NCT02310919|169072331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in number of oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.01|0.71|0.06
84668897|NCT02310919|169072332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function.|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the number of MII oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.04|0.72|0.13
84672237|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.509||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||1.509|0.574|0.812
84740445|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.16|0.9552
84668898|NCT02310919|169072333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in oocyte maturity rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.05|0.90|0.47
84668899|NCT02310919|169072334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||0.97|0.76|0.01
84668900|NCT02310919|169072335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in ICSI fertilization rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.10|0.90|0.95
84668901|NCT02310919|169072336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the percentage of high quality cleavage-stage embryos between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.12|0.81|0.52
84668902|NCT02310919|169072337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||1.16|0.84|0.87
84668903|NCT02310919|169072338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Fisher Exact||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in livebirths in fresh transfers between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.74|0.59|1.0
84668904|NCT02310919|169072339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in bloating scores from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.98
84668905|NCT02310919|169072340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in abdominal circumference from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.39
84668906|NCT02310919|169072341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in body weight from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.41
84668907|NCT02310919|169072342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668908|NCT02310919|169072343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668909|NCT02310919|169072344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84668910|NCT02310919|169072345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668911|NCT02310919|169072346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84668912|NCT02310919|169072347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668913|NCT02310919|169072348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668914|NCT02310919|169072349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84740446|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0384
84668915|NCT02310919|169072350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668916|NCT02310919|169072351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668917|NCT02310919|169072352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668918|NCT02310919|169072353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84668919|NCT02310919|169072354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668920|NCT02310919|169072355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84668921|NCT02310919|169072356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84668922|NCT02310919|169072357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84546451|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Tetanus toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
84546452|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PT|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.3|< 0.001
84546453|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis FHA|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
84546454|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PRN|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
84546455|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Hib PRP|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.1|-1.3|< 0.001
84546456|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: HBsAg|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.0|-2.0|< 0.001
84546457|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
84546458|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 2|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
84546459|NCT04031846|168846296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-0.5|< 0.001
84546460|NCT04031846|168846297|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|GMT Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group||1.16|0.80|< 0.001
84546461|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 1: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.88|0.73|
84571225|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.35|-1.66|0.1969
84668923|NCT02310919|169072358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84668924|NCT01231581|169072367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.32|0.66|0.352
84668925|NCT03616912|169072374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|1.09|0.016
84546462|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.02|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 3: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.02|1.70|
84546463|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 4: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.98|
84546464|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 5: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.94|0.74|
84546465|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.52|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.52|0.40|
84546466|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6B: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.41|1.00|
84740447|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.30|0.2582
84546467|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 7F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.76|
84546468|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 9V: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.96|0.77|
84546469|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 14: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.66|
84571226|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.43|-2.04|0.2007
84571227|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.03|-2.30|0.0436
84571228|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.04|-2.97|0.0444
84571229|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.02|-4.40|0.8927
84571230|NCT01668797|168893486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.31|-1.34|0.2154
84571231|NCT01668797|168893487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.07|-1.78|0.0707
84571232|NCT01668797|168893487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.14|-2.35|0.0276
84571233|NCT01668797|168893487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.45|-2.72|0.0065
84571234|NCT01668797|168893487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.42|-2.84|0.0085
84571235|NCT01668797|168893487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.07|-2.52|0.0630
84571236|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.31|-1.33|0.2251
84571237|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-2.19|0.0368
84571238|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.56|-2.51|0.0024
84571239|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.15|-2.80|0.0293
84571240|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||3.17|-3.32|0.9632
84546470|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 18C: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.77|
84546471|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.87|0.70|
84546472|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.70|
84546473|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.4|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 23F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.40|1.07|
84546474|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|57.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|65.0|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 22F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||65.00|51.20|
84546475|NCT04031846|168846298|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|7.14|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 33F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||7.14|5.46|
84546476|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-4.4|
84546477|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|30.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.3|21.1|
84546478|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.3|-5.7|
84546479|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-8.1|
84546480|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-15.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-15.0|-23.9|
84546481|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|10.7|-1.5|
84546482|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-2.9|
84546483|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-3.5|-10.1|
84546484|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.7|-2.6|
84546485|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.6|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.6|-3.9|
84546486|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.0|-3.5|
84546487|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-2.0|
84546488|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.9|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.9|1.3|
84546489|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|90.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.4|92.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|92.7|87.4|
84546490|NCT04031846|168846299|OTHER||Percentage Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|50.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|50.3|41.3|
84546491|NCT04031846|168846302|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|19.2|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 22F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||19.2|12.9|
84546492|NCT04031846|168846302|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|18.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 33F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||18.7|12.2|
84546493|NCT03100903|168846385|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|71.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.57|84.73|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.7"|||84.73|60.57|
84546494|NCT03100903|168846386|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.27|35.35|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6"|||35.35|24.27|
84546495|NCT03100903|168846387|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|70.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.26|83.2|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.9"|||83.20|59.26|
84546496|NCT04659993|168846388|SUPERIORITY|To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.0||All statistical tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.||9.0|-7.3|0.8036
84546497|NCT04659993|168846389|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test for Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Statistical significance using alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.3632
84546498|NCT04659993|168846390|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of Purpose in life test. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.1|-11.3|0.7918
84546499|NCT04659993|168846391|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Anxious preoccupation Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-6.2|0.7711
84546500|NCT04659993|168846391|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Cognitive avoidance Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-11.5|0.0772
84546501|NCT04659993|168846391|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fatalism Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-2.9|0.2452
84546502|NCT04659993|168846391|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fighting spirit Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-10.5|0.6099
84546503|NCT04659993|168846391|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Helplessness/hopelessness Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-6.7|0.0913
84546504|NCT03782792|168846392|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.672||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the primary endpoint on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.672|0.215|0.0004
84546505|NCT03782792|168846393|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.317||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.527||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.527|0.022|0.0118
84546506|NCT03782792|168846394|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.346||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.554||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.554|0.058|0.0081
84546507|NCT03782792|168846395|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
84668926|NCT03616912|169072375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.79|0.470
84546508|NCT03782792|168846396|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0044
84571241|NCT01668797|168893488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.34|-1.63|0.0029
84571242|NCT01668797|168893489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.44|0.1062
84668927|NCT03616912|169072376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.63|0.839
84668928|NCT03616912|169072376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.80|0.391
84740448|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.32|0.1511
84740449|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.34|0.4631
84740450|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.33|0.4628
84740451|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.23|0.9005
84487052|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.29|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.29|-5.63|0.218
84487053|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||3.87|-3.85|0.996
84487054|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|0.83||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.60|-2.94|0.665
84487055|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.76||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|8.78|||ANOVA|||Sleep adequacy: Month 3, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.78|-3.26|0.368
84487056|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.84||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.75|-3.07|0.345
84487057|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.42|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-5.12|0.482
84487058|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|-2.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.55|-5.86|0.254
84487059|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.82|-5.76|0.308
84487060|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.23|-6.20|0.190
84487061|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.17|-0.32|0.550
84487062|NCT00808132|168725993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-0.15|0.477
84487063|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
84487064|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
84487065|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.680
84487066|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.493
84487067|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.698
84487068|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.055
84487069|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.428
84487070|NCT00808132|168725995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.071
84487071|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.624
84487072|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.868
84603401|NCT02752958|168957615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.194|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.194|0.002|0.0493
84603402|NCT02752958|168957616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.013|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||2.013|0.830|<0.0001
84740452|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.38|0.1121
84487073|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.087
84487074|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.425
84487075|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.307
84487076|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
84487077|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.285
84487078|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84487079|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.065
84487080|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.014
84487081|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84487082|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.226
84487083|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84487084|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487085|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487086|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487087|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487088|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487089|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487090|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487091|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487092|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487093|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487094|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487095|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487096|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487097|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.317
84487098|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.531
84487099|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.610
84487100|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.848
84487101|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.551
84487102|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.300
84487103|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.299
84487104|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84740453|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4167
84740454|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4071
84740455|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.53|0.1278
84740456|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.57|0.0573
84740457|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4842
84740458|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0692
84546509|NCT03782792|168846397|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
84546510|NCT03782792|168846398|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.581|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.581|0.058|
84546511|NCT03782792|168846399|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.607|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.607|0.096|
84546512|NCT03782792|168846400|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.636|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.636|0.096|
84546513|NCT03782792|168846402|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.401|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.401|-0.138|
84546514|NCT03782792|168846403|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.32|12.76|||||Median difference was calculated by modified Hodges-Lehmann method.|Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 and assigned with the worst possible outcomes in rank analysis. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.||12.76|-67.32|
84546515|NCT01436370|168846421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain.||||0.145
84740459|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.44|0.4028
84740460|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.63|0.0354
84546516|NCT01436370|168846421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain||||0.145
84546517|NCT01436370|168846421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.999
84546518|NCT01436370|168846429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain||||0.182
84546519|NCT01436370|168846429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain.||||0.500
84546520|NCT01436370|168846429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.087
84668929|NCT03616912|169072378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.53|0.820
84668930|NCT03616912|169072378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.67|0.565
84546521|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 7.||||0.234
84546522|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 180.||||0.250
84546523|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.145
84546524|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
84546525|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.999
84546526|NCT01436370|168846430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
84546527|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 7.||||0.716
84546528|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 180.||||0.999
84546529|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.503
84546530|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.475
84546531|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.182
84546532|NCT01436370|168846431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.014
84546533|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.317
84668931|NCT03616912|169072379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.52|0.598
84668932|NCT03616912|169072379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.50|0.674
84546534|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.564
84546535|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
84546536|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.564
84546537|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
84546538|NCT01436370|168846433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.655
84546539|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21.||||0.180
84546540|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.763
84546541|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.096
84546542|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21||||0.157
84546543|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.705
84546544|NCT01436370|168846434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.132
84546545|NCT01754129|168846438|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Missing values were replaced using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) technique for data of questionnaires. Missing data at Visit 3 was replaced with the (non-missing) data recorded at Visit 2.|Paired t-test|||Mean change from baseline to Visit 3||||<0.001
84546546|NCT01754129|168846438|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Visit 2||||<0.001
84546547|NCT01134107|168846460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.66|0.06|
84546548|NCT01134107|168846461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 1-6) minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day (Day 1-6); adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.47|-0.10|
84546549|NCT01134107|168846461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.58|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 6) minus Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 2); adjusted for DayGroup + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.58|0.25|
84546550|NCT01134107|168846462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.88|||||Daily Total Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.88|-0.13|
84668933|NCT03616912|169072380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-1.65|0.979
84668934|NCT03616912|169072380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-2.03|0.678
84668935|NCT03616912|169072381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.43|0.965
84668936|NCT03616912|169072381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|0.51|0.661
84668937|NCT03616912|169072382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-0.61|0.578
84668938|NCT03616912|169072382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.29|0.309
84668939|NCT03616912|169072383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.84|0.287
84668940|NCT03616912|169072383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.99|0.113
84668941|NCT01921829|169072386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84668942|NCT01921829|169072387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84668943|NCT01921829|169072389|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
84668944|NCT01921829|169072390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
84668945|NCT01921829|169072391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84668946|NCT01921829|169072392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84668947|NCT01921829|169072393|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
84668948|NCT01921829|169072394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84668949|NCT01921829|169072395|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
84668950|NCT01921829|169072396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84668951|NCT01921829|169072397|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
84668952|NCT01921829|169072398|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
84668953|NCT01921829|169072399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84668954|NCT01921829|169072400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84668955|NCT01921829|169072401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84668956|NCT01921829|169072402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84668957|NCT01921829|169072403|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
84487105|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.660
84487106|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.199
84487107|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.770
84487108|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84487109|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.769
84487110|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487111|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487112|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487113|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84668958|NCT01921829|169072404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84668959|NCT01921829|169072405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
84668960|NCT01921829|169072406|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
84668961|NCT04091646|169072407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||9.76|2.51|<0.0001
84668962|NCT04091646|169072408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|7.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.52|1.46|0.0033
84668963|NCT04091646|169072408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||7.38|1.94|0.0002
84668964|NCT04091646|169072409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
84668965|NCT04091646|169072409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
84668966|NCT04091646|169072409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
84668967|NCT04091646|169072410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 2||17.13|1.49|0.0065
84740461|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.55|0.1228
84740462|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.70|0.0099
84740463|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.53|0.2174
84740464|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0820
84740465|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.60|0.2642
84740466|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0718
84740467|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3055
84740468|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.59|0.3533
84740469|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.53|0.4514
84740470|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.51|0.4907
84740471|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.36|0.6949
84487114|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487115|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487116|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84668968|NCT04091646|169072410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 4||13.38|2.15|0.0002
84546551|NCT01134107|168846462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||||Daily Basal Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.31|-0.26|
84546552|NCT01134107|168846462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||||Daily Bolus Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.60|-0.15|
84546553|NCT01134107|168846463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c|||0.24|0.08|
84487117|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487118|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487119|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487120|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487121|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487122|NCT00808132|168725996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
84487123|NCT01628718|168726008|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for CAPS-IV scores was established a priori, based on a calculation of a reliable difference from baseline to posttreatment CAPS-IV scores from a previous trial (10 points). If the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate does not contain the NI margin, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. .|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|9.44||one-tailed|Regression, Linear||Mean difference is the difference in mean CAPS-IV change scores (pre-post) between AD and CPT-C.|Null hypothesis: AD is inferior to CPT Alternative hypothesis: AD is non-inferior to CPT-C||9.44|-10.10|.05
84546554|NCT01134107|168846464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.63|0.39|
84487124|NCT05325333|168726056|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with DLD||||||0.567|||||||LSD test|||||||0.567
84487125|NCT05325333|168726056|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with TD||||||0.003|||||||LSD test|||||||0.003
84546555|NCT01134107|168846464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||0.63|0.20|
84546556|NCT01134107|168846465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Total Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.595
84546557|NCT01134107|168846465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Basal Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.506
84546558|NCT01134107|168846465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Bolus Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Bolus Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.790
84546559|NCT01134107|168846467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||negative binomial test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||0.059
84487126|NCT05325333|168726057|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with DLD||||||0.187|||||||LSD test|||||||0.187
84487127|NCT05325333|168726057|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with TD||||||0.256|||||||LSD test|||||||0.256
84487128|NCT05325333|168726058|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for DLD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
84546560|NCT01134107|168846468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature reservoir change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
84487129|NCT05325333|168726058|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for TD||||||0.031|||||||LSD test|||||||0.031
84487130|NCT05325333|168726059|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for DLD||||||0.061|||||||LSD test|||||||0.061
84546561|NCT01134107|168846468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature infusion set change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||0.472
84546562|NCT01134107|168846469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.383
84546563|NCT01134107|168846469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.499
84571243|NCT01668797|168893489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.42|-2.33|0.0051
84740472|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.40|0.4670
84740473|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.39|0.6556
84546564|NCT01134107|168846470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The p-value is for the Documented Hypoglycemic Episodes category treatment arm comparison. The p-value for the All Reported Hypoglycemic Episodes category could not be generated using Gart's Test.|Gart's Test|Participants represented in both treatment groups, and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period, were used for p-value calculation.||||||1.00
84546565|NCT01134107|168846471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||<0.001
84546566|NCT01134107|168846472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Crossover Model|P-value computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline body weight||||||<0.001
84546567|NCT01134107|168846473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||P-value for the Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline systolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.147
84546568|NCT01134107|168846473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline diastolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.894
84546569|NCT00687271|168846474|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-5.5|-14.6|
84546570|NCT00687271|168846474|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-12.5|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-12.5|-23.4|
84546571|NCT00687271|168846477|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.4|-12.7|
84546572|NCT00687271|168846477|OTHER||Diffence in Percentage Change|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-8.9|-18.9|
84546573|NCT00687271|168846478|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-3.9|-11.5|
84546574|NCT00687271|168846478|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.6|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.6|-16.8|
84546575|NCT00687271|168846479|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-4.1|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.1|-10.8|
84546576|NCT00687271|168846479|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.0|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.0|-15.1|
84546577|NCT00687271|168846480|OTHER||Dfferecne in Percentage Change|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||1.8|-6.6|
84546578|NCT00687271|168846480|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||4.4|-5.8|
84546579|NCT00687271|168846481|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||5.9|-7.7|
84546580|NCT00687271|168846481|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||16.9|-4.6|
84546581|NCT02314260|168846486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.979||Under the nonparametric assumption. P-value \<0.05, means statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-Specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.979|0.854|0.000
84571244|NCT01668797|168893489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.01|-3.08|0.0001
84571245|NCT01668797|168893489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.89|-3.00|0.0004
84571246|NCT01668797|168893489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.81|0.0035
84571247|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.13|-0.85|0.1465
84571248|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.27|0.2154
84571249|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.35|-1.23|0.2696
84546582|NCT02314260|168846487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.919||Under the nonparametric assumption P value \<0.05 is statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.919|0.693|0.000
84546583|NCT02314260|168846488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 4.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.87(87%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
84546584|NCT02314260|168846489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 5.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.73 (73%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
84546585|NCT02027545|168846490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.491
84546586|NCT02027545|168846491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
84603403|NCT02752958|168957617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.457||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.457|1.278|<0.0001
84546587|NCT00693498|168846500|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||the reported value is for POD#1 assessment|Wald Wolfowitz|||||||<0.03
84546588|NCT00693498|168846500|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||for POD#2 assessment|Wald-Wolf|||||||0.29
84546589|NCT03581123|168846512|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups||||||0.16||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline pain intensity||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.16
84546590|NCT03581123|168846512|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.0|-0.5|
84546591|NCT03581123|168846512|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.3|-0.3|
84546592|NCT03581123|168846512|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.1|-0.4|
84546593|NCT03581123|168846513|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline disability||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.001
84546594|NCT03581123|168846513|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.5|-1.9|
84546595|NCT03581123|168846513|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||0.4|-1.2|
84546596|NCT03581123|168846513|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.3|-1.9|
84546597|NCT03581123|168846514|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.006||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline LBP impact score.||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.006
84546598|NCT03581123|168846514|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.6|-2.7|
84668969|NCT04091646|169072410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 8||6.63|1.50|0.0021
84546599|NCT03581123|168846514|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||1.0|-1.5|
84546600|NCT03581123|168846514|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.0|-2.5|
84546601|NCT03581123|168846516|OTHER|Estimation (percent difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-11|
84546602|NCT03581123|168846516|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||5|-7|
84546603|NCT03581123|168846516|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-13|
84546604|NCT03581123|168846517|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-23|
84668970|NCT04091646|169072411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
84668971|NCT04091646|169072411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
84668972|NCT04091646|169072411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
84668973|NCT04091646|169072412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 2||4.33|0.90|0.0759
84668974|NCT04091646|169072412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 4||4.61|1.18|0.0122
84668975|NCT04091646|169072412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 8||6.55|1.74|0.0003
84668976|NCT04091646|169072414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||7.63|1.72|0.0007
84668977|NCT04091646|169072414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||6.68|1.63|0.0009
84668978|NCT04091646|169072414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||6.35|1.60|0.0007
84668979|NCT01762943|169072415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=1.40, df=2,26||||||.27
84668980|NCT01762943|169072416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=6.29, df=1,28||||||.018
84668981|NCT03090100|169072485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.2|||z-test|||||19.2|9.2|<0.001
84668982|NCT03090100|169072485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84668983|NCT03090100|169072486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9|||z-test|||||8.9|-0.2|<0.001
84546605|NCT03581123|168846517|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|2.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-20|
84546606|NCT03581123|168846517|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-27|
84546607|NCT03581123|168846518|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-10|-23|
84546608|NCT03581123|168846518|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-22|
84668984|NCT03090100|169072486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.062
84668985|NCT03090100|169072487|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-12.2|
84668986|NCT03090100|169072488|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2||||||||1.2|-6.0|
84546609|NCT03581123|168846518|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-24|
84546610|NCT03581123|168846519|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-13|
84546611|NCT03581123|168846519|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-12|
84668987|NCT03090100|169072489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.5||||||||15.5|3.8|
84668988|NCT03090100|169072490|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.4||||||||17.4|5.8|
84668989|NCT03090100|169072491|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.5||||||||14.5|4.9|
84668990|NCT03090100|169072492|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.2||||||||13.2|2.3|
84668991|NCT03090100|169072493|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-3.5|
84668992|NCT03090100|169072494|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4||||||||3.4|-6.2|
84668993|NCT03090100|169072495|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.3||||||||15.3|4.2|
84668994|NCT03090100|169072496|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9||||||||3.9|-4.2|
84668995|NCT03090100|169072497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-5.0|
84668996|NCT05394025|169072503|SUPERIORITY||Interaction|0.02||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||likelihood ratio test||Beta for time by COVID-19 status|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.18|-0.13|0.77
84740474|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9272
84546612|NCT03581123|168846519|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
84546613|NCT03581123|168846526|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-4.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-4|-21|
84546614|NCT03581123|168846526|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
84740475|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.57|0.1395
84740476|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.50|0.2601
84740477|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.40|0.5626
84546615|NCT03581123|168846526|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
84546616|NCT03581123|168846527|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-12|-28|
84740478|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.42|0.4622
84546617|NCT03581123|168846527|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|6.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||6|-13|
84546618|NCT03581123|168846527|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-26|
84546619|NCT03581123|168846528|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
84546620|NCT03581123|168846528|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
84546621|NCT03581123|168846528|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
84546622|NCT03581123|168846529|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-5|-19|
84546623|NCT03581123|168846529|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-16|
84546624|NCT03581123|168846529|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-16|
84546625|NCT00162981|168846549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0182||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.||||||<0.0182
84546626|NCT00162981|168846549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84571250|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.19|-1.95|0.0179
84571251|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.18|-2.46|0.0875
84571252|NCT01668797|168893490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0021
84571253|NCT01668797|168893491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-0.86|0.2135
84571254|NCT01668797|168893491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.13|0.2437
84740479|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2858
84740480|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.2|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.38|0.5369
84740481|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.52|0.1510
84740482|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.38|0.5107
84740483|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3301
84546627|NCT00162981|168846552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 50%, one-tailed significance at 0.05 and a power of 80% to detect a reduction of at least 25% (baseline to final in a within-subjects design), then approximately 27 subjects would have been required in each treatment arm. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, then approximately 30 subjects per treatment were to be enrolled in the study.|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test was used to compare the high dose group to the low dose group.||||||<0.0001
84546628|NCT04195685|168846554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.4|7.0|<.0001
84571255|NCT01668797|168893491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.05|-1.66|0.0635
84672238|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.055||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||2.055|0.893|0.162
84740484|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.39|0.5139
84740485|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4073
84740486|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.38|0.4649
84740487|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.34|0.6926
84603404|NCT02752958|168957618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.429|2.629|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.629|1.429|<.0001
84603405|NCT02752958|168957619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||2.943|1.743|<.0001
84603406|NCT02752958|168957620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.943|1.743|<.0001
84672239|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.413||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||1.413|0.550|0.619
84487131|NCT05325333|168726059|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for TD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
84487132|NCT05325333|168726060|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for DLD||||||0.026|||||||LSD test|||||||0.026
84487133|NCT05325333|168726060|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for TD||||||0.72|||||||LSD test|||||||0.720
84487134|NCT05325333|168726061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84487135|NCT05325333|168726062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
84487136|NCT02530281|168726075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84487137|NCT02530281|168726076|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
84487138|NCT02530281|168726077|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
84487139|NCT02530281|168726078|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.001
84487140|NCT02530281|168726079|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84487141|NCT02530281|168726080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84487142|NCT00779116|168726146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed atthe significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
84487143|NCT01714336|168726179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.75
84487144|NCT01756833|168726180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Two prespecified interim analyses for efficacy performed when 1/3 \& 2/3 of primary outcome available, significance level, 1-sided, alpha=.0005. Final analysis 1-sided, alpha=.024. Futility analysis performed when \~2/3 primary outcome was available.|ANCOVA on normal scores|||"Null hypothesis: normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in doxycycline assigned patients - normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in placebo assigned patients = 0.~Sample size: The criterion (alpha) set for statistical significance was 1-sided .025; use of this level means that the inference from the test result will be the same as the inference from 2-sided testing at the .05 significance level."|For the primary analysis, diameters at baseline were ranked from smallest to largest (ranks 1-254). At the 2-year follow-up, ranks 1 through 225 were assigned to the diameters of surviving patients with no aneurysm repair (with missing values estimated by multiple imputation), ranks 226 through 247 were assigned to surviving patients who underwent aneurysm repair (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to repair), and ranks 248 through 254 were assigned to patients who died (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to death). Each rank was converted to a normal score corresponding to the value on the standard normal curve (z score) of its percentile among all 254 ranks. The primary analysis was based on linear regression of the change in normal scores from baseline to 2 years. Independent variables were baseline normal score, sex, and a dichotomous variable for the randomly assigned treatment group (0 for placebo, 1 for doxycycline).|0.07|-0.07|0.71
84487145|NCT00886587|168726188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.17|-1.09|0.9416
84487146|NCT00886587|168726189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.35||||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.48||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.48|-0.78|0.5431
84487147|NCT00886587|168726190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment as a factor, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.36|-0.47|0.788
84487148|NCT00886587|168726191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-0.90|0.9508
84740488|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.22|0.7260
84740489|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.47|0.1486
84740490|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.36|0.4800
84546629|NCT04195685|168846555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.0|4.9|<.0001
84546630|NCT04195685|168846556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||13.2|7.4|<.0001
84546631|NCT04195685|168846557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||10.6|4.2|<.0001
84546632|NCT04195685|168846558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-11.7|-53.3|0.0022
84546633|NCT04195685|168846559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-19.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-19.4|-45.0|<.0001
84546634|NCT04195685|168846560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-11.1|0.0002
84668997|NCT05394025|169072503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||likelihood ratio test||Beta coefficient for mean difference in mean longitudinal I/ADL score|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model I/ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.67|-0.44|0.60
84740491|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.40|0.7792
84546635|NCT04195685|168846561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-9.0|<.0001
84668998|NCT00159588|169072515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Between-group analysis|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.056
84740492|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.31|0.8644
84668999|NCT00159588|169072516|SUPERIORITY|Between-group analysis||||||0.012||||||Between-group analysis|t-test, 2 sided|Kruskal-Wallis test||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.012
84740493|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.27|0.7994
84740494|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.57|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.57|-0.03|0.0811
84740495|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.6978
84669000|NCT02596854|169072560|NON_INFERIORITY|α=0.025 with a margin of Δ=0.5 were used for non-inferiority testing|Median Difference (Net)|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|-0.269||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Notably, no separate comparative statistical analysis was performed for the 1.5T and 3.0T subgroups, which were pooled for analysis. All patients underwent both synthetic MR and commercial conventional MR in a single arm.|Non-inferiority of synthetic MR versus conventional commercial MR the hypothesis can be stated as H0: S ≤ -Δ and HA: S \> -Δ.|To mitigate possible bias, the hypothesis test was executed via pre-programmed SAS module, which does not show the data for individual synthetic and conventional group values. The data for these individual groups is thus not currently available as part of the study report held by the sponsor or submitted to FDA. Thus, this data cannot be presented without additional analysis (re-programming) of the original SAS used to perform the study. Data were only reported as the difference between synthetic - conventional to determine non-inferiority, and data for individual crossovers (synthetic vs. conventional) were not calculated.The raw conventional scan images and those post-processed with the research software were combined as pre-specified in the study protocol|-0.269|-0.428|<0.001
84669001|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 3: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669002|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669003|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 3 versus Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
84669004|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within-group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669005|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2531|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 6 versus Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2531
84669006|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669007|NCT01480076|169072578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2299|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 9 versus Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2299
84546636|NCT04195685|168846562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.5|-7.4|0.0033
84546637|NCT04195685|168846563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||15.6|4.4|0.0005
84546638|NCT04195685|168846564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||9.2|3.5|<.0001
84669008|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669009|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5405|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5405
84669010|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669011|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546639|NCT04195685|168846565|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|21.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||21.4|7.1|0.0001
84546640|NCT04195685|168846566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|99.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||99.2|36.9|<.0001
84546641|NCT00300235|168846567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of subjects|35.2||||||95.0|32.5|37.9||||||This was a survey designed to estimate prevalence, no formal comparisons between age or genotype groups were performed.||37.9|32.5|
84546642|NCT02877004|168846575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate.||||||0.723
84546643|NCT02877004|168846576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate||||||.368
84546644|NCT03150719|168846586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.4||||||||4.4|1.0|
84546645|NCT03150719|168846587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.9||||||||10.9|2.5|
84546646|NCT03150719|168846588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-4.9|
84546647|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.14|0.4553
84546648|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.30|-0.16|0.5689
84546649|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.27|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.27|-0.20|0.7517
84546650|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.25|-0.21|0.8549
84546651|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-0.18|0.6685
84546652|NCT01691560|168846598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.26|0.8031
84546653|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0467
84546654|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1133
84603407|NCT02752958|168957621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.295|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.295|0.474|<.0001
84603408|NCT02752958|168957622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.69|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.690|0.875|<.0001
84603409|NCT02752958|168957623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|2.145|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.145|1.333|<.0001
84603410|NCT02752958|168957624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.545|2.371|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.371|1.545|<.0001
84603411|NCT02752958|168957625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.643|2.469|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.469|1.643|<.0001
84603412|NCT02752958|168957626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.794|2.62||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.620|1.794|<.0001
84603413|NCT02752958|168957627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.66|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.660|0.703|<0.0001
84603414|NCT02752958|168957628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.926|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.926|0.977|<.0001
84669012|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7272
84669013|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84740496|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.28|0.9749
84571256|NCT01668797|168893491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.22|-1.92|0.0144
84571257|NCT01668797|168893491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.39|-2.12|0.0046
84571258|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-1.14|0.1640
84571259|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.55|-1.04|0.5466
84571260|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.87|-0.81|0.9417
84571261|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.76|-1.25|0.6257
84571262|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||1.21|-1.68|0.7437
84571263|NCT01668797|168893492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.28|-0.62|0.4506
84571264|NCT01668797|168893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.06|-1.32|0.0467
84571265|NCT01668797|168893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.22|-1.33|0.1599
84571266|NCT01668797|168893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.19|-1.35|0.1417
84546655|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2579||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.2579
84669014|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546656|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.6149
84546657|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.3259
84546658|NCT01691560|168846599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.5721
84546659|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.69|0.04|0.0292
84546660|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.44|0.4484
84669015|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7484|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7484
84669016|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669017|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669018|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1877
84740497|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.08|0.3158
84740498|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.05|0.1901
84571267|NCT01668797|168893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.06|-1.47|0.0724
84571268|NCT01668797|168893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.03|-1.47|0.0608
84740499|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.12|0.7229
84546661|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.45|0.4537
84546662|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0037
84546663|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0040
84546664|NCT01691560|168846600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.32|0.9974
84546665|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|-5|0.8861
84546666|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0641
84546667|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1831||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1831
84546668|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.0871
84546669|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.1690
84546670|NCT01691560|168846601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-5|0.3829
84546671|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.80|-0.74|0.9421
84546672|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.60|-0.90|0.6918
84546673|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.88|-0.63|0.7421
84546674|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.94|-0.58|0.6433
84546675|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.67|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.67|-0.86|0.8010
84571269|NCT03363906|168893531|SUPERIORITY||Ratio Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.04||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.949|0.473
84669019|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669020|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669021|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5460
84669022|NCT01480076|169072579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669023|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669024|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9073|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9073
84669025|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
84669026|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669027|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5542|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5542
84546676|NCT01691560|168846602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.03|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.03|-0.48|0.4692
84546677|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.16|-0.55|0.4797
84546678|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-1.37|0.2023
84571270|NCT03363906|168893532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|0.993|0.119
84571271|NCT00676143|168893533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22||Primary variable ADAS-Cog/11 total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 2.21 point advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the ADAS-Cog/11 total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||1.22|-1.18|0.979
84740500|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.06|0.2715
84740501|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.5421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.12|0.5421
84740502|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.14|0.7215
84740503|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.07|0.2246
84740504|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.19|0.9671
84487149|NCT00696774|168726201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.20|-1.12|0.005
84603415|NCT02752958|168957629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|2.418|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.418|1.473|<.0001
84487150|NCT00696774|168726203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-4.36|-7.34|
84740505|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.29|0.6527
84487151|NCT00696774|168726204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.81|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.81|-3.13|
84740506|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.40|0.1647
84740507|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.18|0.7093
84740508|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.26|0.6333
84740509|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.31|0.5238
84669028|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669029|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669030|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5810
84669031|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0140
84669032|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669033|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4138
84669034|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
84669035|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669036|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6453|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6453
84669037|NCT01480076|169072580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0090
84669038|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669039|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2475|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2475
84669040|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669041|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84603416|NCT02752958|168957630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.848|2.81|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week16||2.810|1.848|<.0001
84546679|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.39|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.39|-1.29|0.2917
84546680|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.85||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.69|0.00|0.0503
84546681|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.76||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.61|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.61|-0.09|0.0811
84546682|NCT01691560|168846603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.93|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.93|-0.75|0.8322
84546683|NCT01081769|168846640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0191
84546684|NCT01081769|168846654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0323
84546685|NCT03309943|168846655|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD. Carried out using SPSS Mixed Models with a repeated statement and compound symmetry covariance structure.||||||.019
84546686|NCT03309943|168846656|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.830
84546687|NCT03309943|168846657|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
84546688|NCT03309943|168846658|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.653
84546689|NCT03309943|168846659|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.012
84546690|NCT03309943|168846660|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on PPI indexes while viewing proximal smoking cues (which drove activation effects).||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
84546691|NCT03309943|168846661|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.024|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD.||||||.024
84546692|NCT03309943|168846662|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.086|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.086
84546693|NCT03309943|168846663|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.14|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.140
84546694|NCT03309943|168846664|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for baseline craving and FTCD score).||||||0.556|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline craving and FTCD score||||||.556
84546695|NCT03309943|168846665|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score).||||||0.463||||||Adjusted for FTCD score only.|ANCOVA|||||||.463
84546696|NCT02019264|168846685|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. MACE met non-inferiority when the one-sided upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval of the HR was less than 1.4 (the non-inferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.842|1.198|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.198|0.842|0.0001
84546697|NCT02019264|168846686|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.074|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.074|0.873|0.5464
84546698|NCT02019264|168846687|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|0.988|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.988|0.659|0.0380
84546699|NCT02019264|168846688|NON_INFERIORITY|Myocardial Infarction: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.824|1.191|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.191|0.824|0.0001
84546700|NCT02019264|168846688|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to Stroke: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% CI refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% CI.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.639|1.145|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.145|0.639|0.0005
84669042|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
84669043|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669044|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669045|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1262|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1262
84669046|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669047|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669048|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8858|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8858
84669049|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669050|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669051|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2111|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2111
84669052|NCT01480076|169072581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0072
84669053|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669054|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5577|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5577
84669055|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669056|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546701|NCT02019264|168846688|NON_INFERIORITY|Cardiovascular Death: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.778|1.404|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.404|0.778|0.0262
84546702|NCT02019264|168846688|SUPERIORITY|Hospitalization for Unstable Angina: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.571|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.571|0.861|0.3243
84546703|NCT02019264|168846688|SUPERIORITY|Heart Failure: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.197|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.197|0.757|0.6758
84546704|NCT02019264|168846688|SUPERIORITY|Coronary Revascularization: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.856|0.7817
84546705|NCT02019264|168846689|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.082||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.31|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.310|0.893|0.4212
84546706|NCT02019264|168846690|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.333|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.333|0.947|0.1810
84546707|NCT02019264|168846691|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|0.944|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.944|0.633|0.0116
84546708|NCT02019264|168846692|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.35||P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification variable (presence of established CV disease or CV risk factors without established CV disease) as factors, and baseline HbA1c, as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.43|<0.0001
84546709|NCT02019264|168846693|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.959|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.959|0.787|0.0054
84546710|NCT02019264|168846694|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.727|0.3661
84546711|NCT02019264|168846695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.96|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.960|0.762|0.0082
84546712|NCT02019264|168846696|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.182||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.375|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.375|1.017|0.0297
84546713|NCT02019264|168846697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline body mass index (BMI) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.69|0.5015
84546714|NCT02019264|168846698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.98||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline BMI as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.98|0.29|0.7249
84546715|NCT02019264|168846699|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9036||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2908|-0.5163||P value was based on a mixed-effects model (unstructured covariance matrix) with repeated measures with treatment, month and treatment by month interaction as factors and baseline pulmonary arterial systolic pressure and baseline BMI as covariates.|Mixed-effects model|||||-0.5163|-1.2908|0.2976
84546716|NCT04994691|168846723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.6|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.60|1.38|0.000
84546717|NCT04994691|168846723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.13|1.06|0.023
84546718|NCT04994691|168846723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.66|0.94|0.124
84546719|NCT04994691|168846724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.84|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.84|1.32|0.001
84546720|NCT04994691|168846724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.34|1.02|0.040
84546721|NCT04994691|168846724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.74|0.88|0.202
84546722|NCT00676364|168846758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We determined that we will need to enroll 43 children in each group, for a power of .80, alpha=0.05. We used a per protocol analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared||To assess the association between pain and anxiety with intervention group while controlling for other factors, linear regression was used.|P-value determined from linear regression models that include age, gender, number of needle sticks in previous 2 years and nurse reported difficulty in performing venipuncture.||||0.71
84546723|NCT03858998|168846789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||Chi-squared||Direction = Linkage minus SOC|||0.07|-0.06|0.91
84546724|NCT01422889|168846816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 12 month cardiac events. For the protocol specified primary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.2% (23/1028) of ION Registry subjects experienced CD/MI related to the ION stent at 12 months||||
84546725|NCT01422889|168846817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 2 year cardiac events. For the protocol specified secondary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.6% (27/1054) of ION Registry subjects experienced ARC ST Definite/Probable related to the ION stent at 2 years.||||
84546726|NCT04850989|168846853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
84546727|NCT04850989|168846854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.23|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
84546728|NCT04850989|168846855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
84669057|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9365|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9365
84669058|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546729|NCT04850989|168846856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
84546730|NCT04850989|168846857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> 0.05
84669059|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84740510|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.44|0.0782
84546731|NCT03503370|168846869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.8|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.80|0.39|
84546732|NCT03503370|168846870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84546733|NCT03503370|168846871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.77|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.77|0.34|
84546734|NCT02727478|168846880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84546735|NCT02727478|168846881|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
84546736|NCT02727478|168846882|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
84546737|NCT02727478|168846883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.065
84546738|NCT02727478|168846884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.301|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.301
84546739|NCT02727478|168846885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.792
84546740|NCT02727478|168846886|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84546741|NCT01017874|168846890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.63|0.217
84546742|NCT01017874|168846891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.31|0.68|0.788
84546743|NCT01017874|168846894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.14|0.63|0.252
84603417|NCT02752958|168957631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|2.694|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.694|1.732|<.0001
84546744|NCT01017874|168846895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.53|0.952
84546745|NCT01790984|168846977|OTHER||General linear mixed model|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing differences between 2 Groups on 2 Diets (NAFLD, Control,high \& low sugar diets).|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TAG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
84571272|NCT00676143|168893534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.6||Primary variable DAD total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in DAD total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 5.39 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the DAD total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||2.60|-2.51|0.973
84571273|NCT00676143|168893535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in PIB PET SUVr was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.152 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||0.03|-0.17|0.159
84603418|NCT02752958|168957632|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.982|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.982|2.020|<.0001
84603419|NCT02752958|168957633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.919|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||0.919|-0.050|0.0786
84487152|NCT00696774|168726205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.48|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.48|-4.10|
84487153|NCT00696774|168726206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.54|-2.89|
84487154|NCT00696774|168726207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.3|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.30|-2.45|
84487155|NCT00696774|168726208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.63|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.63|-1.31|
84487156|NCT00696774|168726209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-2.8|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.80|-6.04|
84487157|NCT00696774|168726210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.84|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.84|-1.42|
84487158|NCT00696774|168726211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.24|-1.08|
84487159|NCT00696774|168726212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.18|-0.81|
84487160|NCT00696774|168726213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.6|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||2.60|-0.99|
84487161|NCT00696774|168726213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.42|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||3.42|-0.69|
84487162|NCT00696774|168726214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|19.47|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||19.47|10.63|
84487163|NCT00696774|168726214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|16.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||16.24|4.72|
84487164|NCT00696774|168726215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-4.02|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||-4.02|-7.75|
84487165|NCT00696774|168726215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||-2.54|-6.65|
84487166|NCT00033293|168726223|OTHER||Chi-squared test statistic|8.125||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|A two-way test with a null hypothesis of no association, using SAS 9.4.||"The 5 categories of OMA ratings are: stance, gait, arm \& hand function, opsoclonus, \& mood/behavior. For each category, a patient's response will be based on a comparison of the baseline evaluation to the best of 3 time points: 2 months, 6 months \& 1 year. If a patient crosses over to the IVIG arm or switches to ACTH at any time, the patient will be considered a non-responder. The proportion of responders from the 2 treatment arms were compared using a chi-squared test."||||0.0044
84487167|NCT00033293|168726224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1979||||0.0919|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.||||0.0919
84487168|NCT00033293|168726225|OTHER|The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.75||||0.2364|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2364
84740511|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.44|0.2346
84487169|NCT01955005|168726235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This was a 2x2 comparison using Fisher's exact due to low expected cell count. Fisher's exact p\<0.001||||<0.001
84669060|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2008
84603420|NCT02752958|168957634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.171|||ANOVA|\[1\] From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||1.171|0.210|0.0050
84603421|NCT02752958|168957635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.875|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 12||1.875|0.918|<.0001
84603422|NCT02752958|168957636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.926|||ANOVA|\[From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||1.926|0.951|<.0001
84603423|NCT02752958|168957637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.653||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||1.653|0.678|<.0001
84669061|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
84669062|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669063|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7134
84669064|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0066
84669065|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669066|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8202|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8202
84669067|NCT01480076|169072582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
84669068|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669069|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1324
84669070|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669071|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669072|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4759|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4759
84669073|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
84669074|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error||||<0.0001
84669075|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2489
84669076|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0017
84669077|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84740512|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.01|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.52|0.0631
84571274|NCT00676143|168893536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in CSF phospho-tau was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The analysis was based on the treatment difference estimated at Week 71 based on appropriate contrasts or LS means. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 13-ng/L advantage in phospho-tau for the bapineuzumab group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05.||4.13|-6.89|0.620
84603424|NCT02752958|168957638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.047|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||2.047|1.072|<.0001
84603425|NCT00884039|168957649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84603426|NCT02648022|168957650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.27|||Regression, Linear|Multivariable Regression Analysis||||9.27|0.92|0.07
84669078|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0126
84603427|NCT00901511|168957664|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the median time to rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group minus the median the time to rescue WLL in the Control Group|||||0.0078
84603428|NCT00901511|168957665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|39.9|||Fisher Exact||Calculated as risk ratio of rescue WLL in the Control Group compared to the risk ratio of rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group|||39.9|1.60|0.0152
84603429|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the between group difference in mean PaO2 in the Control Group|||13.3|5.7|<0.0001
84603430|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|28.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.16|2.04|0.0261
84487170|NCT01955005|168726236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Z score|568.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84487171|NCT01955005|168726237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Table Probability|0.0142||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||0.02
84487172|NCT00835276|168726279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.96||||||90.0|80.15|96.53|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||96.53|80.15|
84487173|NCT00835276|168726280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.15|98.26|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more that 20% from the repective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.26|85.15|
84487174|NCT00835276|168726281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.32|98.07|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.07|85.32|
84487175|NCT00678249|168726348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84487176|NCT01846208|168726360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|55.8|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||55.8|8.9|0.009
84487177|NCT01846208|168726360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|49.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||49.1|2.0|0.031
84487178|NCT01846208|168726361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|85.6|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||85.6|43.9|<0.0001
84487179|NCT01846208|168726361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|37.7|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||37.7|-2.3|0.151
84487180|NCT01846208|168726361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|69.2|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||69.2|19.4|0.002
84487181|NCT01846208|168726361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|41.3|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||41.3|-6.3|0.181
84487182|NCT01846208|168726363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.4|-21.9|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||-21.9|-78.4|0.003
84487183|NCT01846208|168726363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|60.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||60.1|7.2|0.023
84487184|NCT01424306|168726371|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||P value for the time x diet interaction reflects overall comparison of 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.403
84487185|NCT01424306|168726372|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.933||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.933
84487186|NCT01424306|168726373|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.196||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.196
84487187|NCT01424306|168726374|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.88||||||Reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.880
84487188|NCT01424306|168726375|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84487189|NCT01424306|168726376|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.366||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.366
84487190|NCT01424306|168726377|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.387||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.387
84487191|NCT01424306|168726378|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.476||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.476
84487192|NCT01424306|168726379|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.596||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.596
84487193|NCT01424306|168726380|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.492||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.492
84487194|NCT01424306|168726381|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.149||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.149
84487195|NCT01424306|168726382|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.056||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.056
84546746|NCT01790984|168846978|OTHER||General linear mixed model|11.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size for NAFLD \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B and triacylglycerol production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level) produced sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
84546747|NCT01790984|168846979|OTHER||General linear mixed model|110.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
84546748|NCT01790984|168846980|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
84546749|NCT01790984|168846981|OTHER||General linear mixed model|10.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables|Details of our statistical analyses are described below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||>0.05
84571275|NCT00676143|168893537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 4.15-cm3 advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||1.63|-1.89|0.884
84571276|NCT00676143|168893538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||1.45|-0.97|0.700
84571277|NCT00676143|168893539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||2.78|-2.61|0.949
84571278|NCT00676143|168893540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.684
84571279|NCT00676143|168893541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
84669079|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669080|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
84669081|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1758
84669082|NCT01480076|169072583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0246
84669083|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669084|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0111
84669085|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669086|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669087|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0970
84487196|NCT01424306|168726383|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.52||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.520
84571280|NCT00676143|168893542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.191
84669088|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669089|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669090|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0789
84669091|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84487197|NCT00369928|168726384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.88||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.56|0.982
84487198|NCT00369928|168726384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.79||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.50|0.666
84571281|NCT00676143|168893543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.478
84740513|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6274
84487199|NCT02313506|168726419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-5.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because Type II error is a greater concern than Type I error in feasibility studies.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 1 compared T0-T1 between the 2 groups to determine if the intervention was superior to the control.||-5.7|-56.6|0.02
84740514|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.37|0.3589
84603431|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.03|3.92|0.1521
84740515|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.43|0.7604
84740516|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.66|0.1106
84740517|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.45|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.43|0.9776
84740518|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.65|0.3239
84740519|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.57|0.6736
84740520|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.58|0.6136
84740521|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.70|0.1141
84740522|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.62|0.2185
84740523|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6191
84546750|NCT01790984|168846982|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
84546751|NCT00558467|168846994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|4.97|||ANCOVA|||||4.97|-4.95|0.996
84546752|NCT00558467|168846995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-2.08|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.08|-5.81|
84546753|NCT00558467|168846996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-3.39|||Repeated measures|||||-3.39|-7.21|
84546754|NCT00558467|168846998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.06|||Repeated measures|||||-4.06|-7.88|
84546755|NCT00558467|168846999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean differnce|-0.15||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|10.75|||ANCOVA|||||10.75|-11.05|0.9780
84546756|NCT00558467|168847004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1052
84546757|NCT00558467|168847005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2274
84603432|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|29.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.82|6.26|0.0051
84603433|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.88|10.63|0.0004
84603434|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|32.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.40|7.43|0.0038
84603435|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|30.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.03|3.81|0.0149
84546758|NCT00558467|168847006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7691|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7691
84546759|NCT00558467|168847007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0674
84546760|NCT00558467|168847008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4944|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4944
84546761|NCT00558467|168847009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
84546762|NCT00558467|168847010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6375
84546763|NCT00558467|168847011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6625
84546764|NCT00558467|168847012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2664
84546765|NCT00558467|168847013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7302|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7302
84546766|NCT00558467|168847014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
84546767|NCT00558467|168847015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4852|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4852
84546768|NCT00558467|168847016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4607
84546769|NCT00558467|168847017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
84546770|NCT00558467|168847018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9389
84546771|NCT00507455|168847020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|2.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.37|-14.67|
84546772|NCT00507455|168847020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|3.84|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.84|-13.85|
84546773|NCT00507455|168847022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.85|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.85|0.50|
84546774|NCT00507455|168847022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.37|0.98|
84546775|NCT00386360|168847274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.231||||0.7096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.995|1.458|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.458|-0.995|0.7096
84546776|NCT00386360|168847275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.543||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|1.571|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.571|-0.485|0.2973
84546777|NCT00386360|168847276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.485||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|1.11|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.110|-0.141|0.1275
84546778|NCT00386360|168847277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.664||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|2.025|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.025|-0.697|0.3360
84546779|NCT00386360|168847278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.334||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|1.219|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.219|-0.551|0.4565
84571282|NCT00676143|168893544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.13|-0.41|0.462
84571283|NCT00676143|168893546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
84571284|NCT00676143|168893548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
84571285|NCT00676143|168893549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.24|-0.55|0.448
84669092|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84487200|NCT02313506|168726419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|28.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 2 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T1-T2 in the delayed group.||28.9|-19.6|0.71
84487201|NCT02313506|168726419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 3 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T0-T2 in the delayed group.||9.1|-31.1|0.29
84487202|NCT03860181|168726447|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 1's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 215||||||0.896
84487203|NCT03860181|168726447|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 2's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 210||||||0.612
84487204|NCT02545049|168726453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.98|0.76|0.0264
84487205|NCT02545049|168726454|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.01|0.76|0.0689
84487206|NCT02545049|168726455|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.90|0.3558
84487207|NCT02545049|168726456|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.77|0.1337
84546780|NCT00386360|168847279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.611||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.252|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.252|-0.030|0.0614
84546781|NCT00386360|168847280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.258|1.138|||ANOVA|LS means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.138|-1.258|0.9212
84603436|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|33.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.79|4.26|0.0148
84669093|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0284
84740524|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6169
84487208|NCT02545049|168726457|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.676|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.704||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups. A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|ANCOVA|||||0.704|0.650|<0.0001
84487209|NCT02545049|168726458|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.99|0.60|0.0406
84487210|NCT04191096|168726491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.49||A one-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.49|0.96|0.9467
84487211|NCT04191096|168726492|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.85122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.53|0.88|0.85122
84487212|NCT04191096|168726493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.97907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.54|1.01|0.97907
84487213|NCT04191096|168726494|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.27202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.30|0.61|0.27202
84487214|NCT04191096|168726495|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.23|0.69|0.2972
84487215|NCT04191096|168726496|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.41||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.41|0.81|0.6863
84487216|NCT04191096|168726497|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.39|0.95|0.9235
84546782|NCT00386360|168847281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.231|4.31|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||4.310|2.231|<0.0001
84603437|NCT00901511|168957666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|25.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|25.02|-3.02|0.1158
84740525|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9911
84546783|NCT00386360|168847282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|2.14|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.140|0.748|<0.0001
84603438|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of A-aDO2 in the Control Group|Primary analysis||-5.4|-14.8|<0.0001
84546784|NCT00386360|168847283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.408||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.348|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.348|0.469|0.0036
84546785|NCT00386360|168847284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.458||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.541|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.541|0.375|0.0087
84546786|NCT00386360|168847285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.957|-19.123|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-19.123|-59.957|0.0002
84546787|NCT00386360|168847286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.269|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-29.238|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-29.238|-51.300|<0.0001
84603439|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.19|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.27|-25.19|0.0545
84603440|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|6.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||6.35|-20.52|0.2802
84487217|NCT04191096|168726498|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.50|0.90|0.8801
84546788|NCT00386360|168847287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.213|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||0.213|-0.030|0.1385
84546789|NCT00789373|168847291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||900 patients were planned to be enrolled in order to randomize 558 pts to maintenance therapy. This trial was powered for the primary endpoint, PFS (90% power, assuming 238 events with 52% censoring and a PFS Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.65, alpha=0.05). This trial was also powered for a secondary endpoint, OS (93% power, assuming 390 events with 30% censoring and an OS HR=0.70). Alpha was controlled for both a preliminary analysis (alpha=0.0001) and final analysis of OS (alpha=0.0499).||0.79|0.49|0.00006
84546790|NCT00789373|168847292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.51|0.0002
84740526|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3360
84487218|NCT04191096|168726499|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||0.4|-5.8|0.9576
84487219|NCT04191096|168726500|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.8||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.8||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||4.8|-6.3|0.6053
84487220|NCT04191096|168726501|OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||2.6|-13.7|0.9105
84603441|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
84603442|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-8.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 3 -month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-8.36|-29.18|0.0015
84603443|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|-6.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-6.70|-31.49|0.0049
84487221|NCT00003389|168726516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.32
84487222|NCT00003389|168726517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.86
84487223|NCT04657003|168726524|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.5|<0.001
84487224|NCT04657003|168726524|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.7|<0.001
84487225|NCT04657003|168726525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|15.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.84|7.30|<0.001
84487226|NCT04657003|168726525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|23.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.14|10.08|<0.001
84487227|NCT04657003|168726526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.06|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|13.06|<0.001
84487228|NCT04657003|168726526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|44.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.39|17.04|<0.001
84487229|NCT04657003|168726527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|58.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.31|13.81|<0.001
84487230|NCT04657003|168726527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|89.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.67|21.20|<0.001
84487231|NCT04657003|168726528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|83.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.73|9.73|<0.001
84487232|NCT04657003|168726528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.03|144.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||144.94|17.03|<0.001
84487233|NCT04657003|168726529|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.7|<0.001
84487234|NCT04657003|168726529|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.8|<0.001
84487235|NCT04657003|168726530|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-4.2|<0.001
84487236|NCT04657003|168726530|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-5.0|<0.001
84487237|NCT04657003|168726531|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.80|-2.15|<0.001
84487238|NCT04657003|168726531|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.88|-2.24|<0.001
84487239|NCT04657003|168726532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.21|45.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||45.59|17.21|<0.001
84487240|NCT04657003|168726532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|57.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||57.67|20.27|<0.001
84487241|NCT04657003|168726533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.61|69.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.26|25.61|<0.001
84487242|NCT04657003|168726533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|100.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||100.37|34.29|<0.001
84487243|NCT04657003|168726534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|88.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.50|20.46|<0.001
84487244|NCT04657003|168726534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|113.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.38|26.00|<0.001
84487245|NCT04657003|168726535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-46.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.67|-40.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.91|-52.67|<0.001
84487246|NCT04657003|168726535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-49.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.18|-43.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.33|-55.18|<0.001
84487247|NCT04657003|168726536|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-9.2|<0.001
84487248|NCT04657003|168726536|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-11.8|<0.001
84487249|NCT04657003|168726537|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.11|<0.001
84487250|NCT04657003|168726538|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-3.36||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-7.36|0.112
84487251|NCT04657003|168726539|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.71|4.40|<0.001
84487252|NCT04657003|168726540|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.9|-27.5|<0.001
84487253|NCT04657003|168726541|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-28.6|<0.001
84487254|NCT04657003|168726542|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-8.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-12.04|<0.001
84487255|NCT04657003|168726543|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-28.62|<0.001
84487256|NCT04657003|168726544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-8.0|<0.001
84487257|NCT04657003|168726545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.5|<0.001
84487258|NCT04657003|168726546|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-25.5|<0.001
84487259|NCT04657003|168726546|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-37.0|<0.001
84487260|NCT04657003|168726547|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.7|0.001
84487261|NCT04657003|168726547|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|1.1|<0.001
84487262|NCT04657003|168726548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|4.1|<0.001
84487263|NCT04657003|168726548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|5.0|<0.001
84487264|NCT00848172|168726650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.345
84487265|NCT00848172|168726651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.031
84487266|NCT03442595|168726659|OTHER|test of difference in change of A1C between the two groups|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5% in the change in A1C with SD = 2 with 80\& at alopha = 0.;05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). The study reaches 100% power to detect this observed difference with an alpha level of 0.01.||||<0.001
84487267|NCT01200758|168726753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior Ctrough in SC formulation was demonstrated, if the lower bound of 90% confidence interval (CI) was above 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.94|||||Geometric mean ratio adjusted for tumor load at baseline.|||1.94|1.36|
84487268|NCT01200758|168726754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.82||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.4|-14.0|0.2835
84487269|NCT01200758|168726754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33||||||||1.33|0.38|
84487270|NCT01200758|168726755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|7.66||||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|20.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||20.3|-5.0|0.2047
84487271|NCT01200758|168726755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.71||||||||5.71|0.68|
84487272|NCT01200758|168726756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.49||||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson.|||6.8|-7.7|0.8911
84487273|NCT01200758|168726756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65||||||||1.65|0.56|
84487274|NCT01200758|168726757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CRR|17.86||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|35.0|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||35.0|0.8|0.0335
84487275|NCT01200758|168726757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.78||||||||4.78|1.06|
84487276|NCT01200758|168726758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-6.58||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|4.6|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.6|-17.8|0.2331
84487277|NCT01200758|168726758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.22||||||||1.22|0.44|
84487278|NCT01200758|168726759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|0.49||||0.9157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||9.8|-8.8|0.9157
84487279|NCT01200758|168726759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
84487280|NCT01200758|168726760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.28||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|3.5|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||3.5|-18.0|0.1715
84487281|NCT01200758|168726760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.22||||||||1.22|0.52|
84740527|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9638
84487282|NCT01200758|168726761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.18||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||8.8|-9.2|0.9671
84740528|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.03|0.1610
84740529|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.14|0.5763
84740530|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|0.00|0.0599
84487283|NCT01200758|168726761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
84487284|NCT01200758|168726763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Wald test|||||1.26|0.64|0.5526
84487285|NCT01200758|168726765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Wald test|||||1.36|0.71|0.9115
84487286|NCT01200758|168726768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.53||||||The ratio of observed rituximab serum was determined as AUC SC/AUC IV during Cycle 7 of induction treatment.||1.53|1.24|
84487287|NCT01200758|168726769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.015||||||||1.015|0.872|
84487288|NCT01795716|168726787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90%CIs of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.||||<0.05
84487289|NCT00461552|168726794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84487290|NCT00461552|168726795|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
84487291|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.89|4.03|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.03|2.89|
84487292|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.11|5.25|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.25|4.11|
84487293|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|5.44|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.44|4.30|
84487294|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|4.92|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.92|3.78|
84487295|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.58|5.72|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.72|4.58|
84487296|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|5.33|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.33|4.19|
84487297|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.36|5.5|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.50|4.36|
84487298|NCT00998985|168726813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.93|5.74|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.74|4.93|
84546791|NCT00789373|168847293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The predefined alpha for the final analysis of OS is 0.0498 for the unadjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Unadjusted HR from Cox model with treatment as the only cofactor.|Type 1 (alpha) error was controlled for the analyses of both PFS and OS in order to maintain an overall two-sided alpha level of 0.05 using a statistical gatekeeping and alpha spending scheme. The unconditional statistical power of the final OS analysis was 93%.||0.96|0.64|0.0195
84546792|NCT04157348|168847346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in remission rates|0.0121||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1411|0.1653|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||0.1653|-0.1411|0.8773
84546793|NCT04157348|168847347|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0746|0.1834|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method||||0.1834|-0.0746|
84546794|NCT04157348|168847348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.4|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|main remission||2.40|0.72|
84546795|NCT04157348|168847348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|supportive remission||2.29|0.55|
84669094|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546796|NCT04157348|168847349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|sustained main remission||2.44|0.74|
84546797|NCT04157348|168847349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|sustained supportive remission||2.34|0.64|
84546798|NCT04157348|168847350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.82|||Regression, Cox||The HR (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron method to control for ties. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.82|0.53|
84546799|NCT04157348|168847351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.9|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Mepolizumab) and the corresponding 95% CI are calculated using a negative binomial model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.90|0.56|
84546800|NCT04157348|168847353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.54|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||2.54|0.75|
84546801|NCT04157348|168847354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.22|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) for higher % reduction and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||3.22|0.96|
84546802|NCT04157348|168847355|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0225|0.2383|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|\>=50% reduction||0.2383|-0.0225|
84546803|NCT04157348|168847355|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0067|0.3017|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|100% reduction||0.3017|0.0067|
84546804|NCT04157348|168847355|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.0068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1555|0.1418|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|OCS dose \<=4 mg/day||0.1418|-0.1555|
84546805|NCT04157348|168847356|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1341|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|any clinical response-definition 1||0.1341|-0.0422|
84546806|NCT04157348|168847356|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.2312|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|complete response-definition 1||0.2312|-0.0732|
84669095|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84546807|NCT04157348|168847357|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0554|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.2037|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|main remission||0.2037|-0.0930|
84546808|NCT04157348|168847357|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1956|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|supportive remission||0.1956|-0.1021|
84546809|NCT02268916|168847431|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered based on a two-sample t-test of the primary outcomes, changes in physical activity or social participant over 6 months. Based on previous literature, in order to detect an effect size of 0.28 with at least 70% power, we aimed to recruit at least 35 participants in each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome was adjusted for time of visit, visit x intervention group, age, gender, body mass index, insulin, depression, and time-up-and-go score.||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, the intervention group will have increased physical activity as measured by CHAMPS compared to the control group.||0.97|-0.18|=0.18
84546810|NCT02268916|168847432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in social roles.||1.06|-5.45|0.19
84546811|NCT02268916|168847432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in discretionary social activities.||2.48|-4.53|0.57
84546812|NCT02268916|168847432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by the survey on the ability to participate in social roles and activities.||0.63|-5.52|0.12
84546813|NCT02268916|168847433|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in timed up and go test.||-0.02|-3.97|<0.05
84546814|NCT02268916|168847434|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in gait speed.||0.20|0.02|0.02
84487299|NCT00998985|168726814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||2.81|1.70|
84546815|NCT02268916|168847435|SUPERIORITY||Slope|40.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|72.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in six-minute walk test.||72.17|7.90|0.02
84669096|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0108
84487300|NCT00998985|168726814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.38|3.49|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||3.49|2.38|
84487301|NCT00998985|168726814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|4.4|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.40|3.29|
84487302|NCT00998985|168726814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|5.53|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||5.53|4.42|
84546816|NCT04495751|168847443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1||||||||1.1|-3.5|
84546817|NCT04495751|168847444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
84546818|NCT04495751|168847445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.7|
84546819|NCT04495751|168847446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-973.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3500.0|1553.0||||||||1553|-3500|
84546820|NCT04495751|168847447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|73.8||||||||73.8|-32.4|
84546821|NCT04495751|168847448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-2.2|
84546822|NCT04495751|168847449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Quality of Life - Self-rate health||0.7|-0.2|
84487303|NCT00998985|168726814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|4.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.81|3.60|
84546823|NCT04495751|168847449|SUPERIORITY|Quality of life - Ability to carry out social activities and roles|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.3|
84546824|NCT04495751|168847449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||||||Physical health (t score)||4.5|-2.7|
84546825|NCT04495751|168847449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||||||Global Mental health (t score||2.5|-5.4|
84487304|NCT01012037|168726827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.52|-0.97|<0.0001
84546826|NCT04495751|168847450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.7|101.9||||||||101.9|-99.7|
84546827|NCT04495751|168847451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
84546828|NCT04873934|168847454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.4|-38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.5|-55.4|< 0.001
84546829|NCT04873934|168847455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.29|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|3.29|< 0.001
84603444|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|-3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.48|-28.23|0.0152
84603445|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|-3.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.71|-30.31|0.0154
84740531|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.15|0.3916
84740532|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.10|0.9602
84487305|NCT01012037|168726827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.58|-1.02|<0.0001
84546830|NCT04873934|168847456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90||-36.7|-47.3|< 0.001
84546831|NCT04873934|168847456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 270||-24.3|-37.4|< 0.001
84546832|NCT04873934|168847456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 330||-31.0|-44.5|< 0.001
84546833|NCT04873934|168847457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-40.8|||ANCOVA|||||-40.8|-52.7|< 0.001
84487306|NCT01012037|168726827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.07|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.19|-0.07|
84487307|NCT01012037|168726828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.48|-0.83|<0.0001
84546834|NCT04873934|168847458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||||-32.2|-42.4|< 0.001
84546835|NCT04873934|168847459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|22.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.25|6.33|< 0.001
84546836|NCT04873934|168847460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 100 mg/dL||9.99|1.92|< 0.001
84487308|NCT01012037|168726828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.49|-0.84|<0.0001
84546837|NCT04873934|168847460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|13.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 55 mg/dL||13.65|4.97|< 0.001
84546838|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-30.3|-44.8|< 0.001
84546839|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||3.1|-16.0|0.188
84546840|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-31.4|-44.0|< 0.001
84546841|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-20.7|-30.2|< 0.001
84546842|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||5.7|-38.4|0.145
84546843|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.5||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-1.2|0.141
84546844|NCT04873934|168847461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-15.2|0.339
84546845|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-23.9|-33.0|< 0.001
84546846|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||0.2|-4.5|0.078
84546847|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-32.8|-47.5|< 0.001
84740533|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9676
84487309|NCT01012037|168726828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||||95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.10|-0.10|
84487310|NCT01012037|168726829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.54|-1.00|<0.0001
84487311|NCT01012037|168726829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
84487312|NCT01012037|168726829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.18|-0.08|
84546848|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-30.2|-45.3|< 0.001
84546849|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||3.8|-0.1|0.065
84546850|NCT04873934|168847462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-22.8|0.222
84740534|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6397
84740535|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.05|0.3400
84740536|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3472
84740537|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9160
84546851|NCT04873934|168847463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
84487313|NCT01012037|168726830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0029||95.0|-22.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-4.7|-22.7|0.0029
84487314|NCT01012037|168726830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg qd versus Placebo||-8.8|-26.7|0.0001
84487315|NCT01012037|168726830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||9.2|-1.0|
84546852|NCT04873934|168847464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.93|||proportional odds model|||||0.93|0.20|0.031
84546853|NCT04873934|168847465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.077|0.043
84546854|NCT04873934|168847466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.43|0.346
84546855|NCT00708461|168847467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1202||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46||Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates. 95% confidence intervals and p-values derived from t-statistics with 4 degrees of freedom, reflecting the group-randomized design.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates.||"The null hypothesis was no effect of the environmental intervention. The following power assumptions were made:~* Intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.016, estimated from an earlier study~* Variance of 118 kg, estimated from an earlier study~* Cohort N=400~* 15% attrition (by turnover) Using the external control and a worksite correlation of 0.2 gives a detectable difference of about 1.5 kg or 3 lb, or an effect size of 0.14. The effect size using internal control is 0.20."||0.46|-0.21|0.36
84487316|NCT01012037|168726831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0002||95.0|-25.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-7.8|-25.3|0.0002
84487317|NCT01012037|168726831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.6|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-10.2|-27.6|<0.0001
84740538|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.13|0.5948
84740539|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.06|0.3755
84740540|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9752
84740541|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9188
84546856|NCT02907177|168847487|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|1.27||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|2.654|||Negative binomial regression||Rate ratio is ponesimod 20 mg / DMF versus placebo /DMF|||2.654|0.608|0.5252
84603446|NCT00901511|168957667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.05|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.02|-24.05|0.0921
84487318|NCT01012037|168726831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||||95.0|-2.6|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||7.3|-2.6|
84487319|NCT01012037|168726832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0653||95.0|-20.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||0.6|-20.6|0.0653
84546857|NCT02505217|168847500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.007
84487320|NCT01012037|168726832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0047||95.0|-25.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-4.7|-25.8|0.0047
84487321|NCT01012037|168726832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||||95.0|-0.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||11.3|-0.7|
84740542|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6379
84740543|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.16|0.4967
84740544|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.17|0.3492
84740545|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.10|0.7136
84740546|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.10|0.8163
84546858|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2 and 3 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
84546859|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 3 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
84546860|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 2 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
84603447|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of the DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of the DLCO in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||21.3|1.9|0.0220
84603448|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|25.63|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.63|-9.06|0.3186
84603449|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.51|-8.40|0.4111
84487322|NCT00415623|168726838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-4.4|-9.0|<0.001
84487323|NCT00415623|168726839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.7|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.5|-5.7|<0.001
84487324|NCT00415623|168726840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-5.1|-9.1|<0.001
84487325|NCT00415623|168726841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.6|-5.4|<0.001
84487326|NCT00415623|168726842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.002||95.0|1.36|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||3.99|1.36|0.002
84487327|NCT00415623|168726843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.74|2.28|<0.001
84487328|NCT00415623|168726844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.001||95.0|1.5|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||4.36|1.50|0.001
84603450|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|26.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.73|-0.95|0.0658
84740547|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.17|0.2825
84487329|NCT00415623|168726845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001||95.0|2.12|8.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.19|2.12|<0.001
84487330|NCT01855867|168726849|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined at the alpha 0.05 level. The study regimen completion rates of participants in the current study taking a fixed dose once daily combination of elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC were compared to historical controls who used PEP regimens consisting of TDF/FTC daily and raltegravir twice daily, or earlier regimens of twice daily zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and a protease inhibitor, using chi-square tests for independence.|chi square||||<|0.05||||||Reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||using historical controls||||<0.05
84603451|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|26.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.34|-6.78|0.2287
84546861|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5 and 6 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
84546862|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 6 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
84546863|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 5 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
84546864|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 8 and 9 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
84603452|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|30.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.64|-4.86|0.1432
84603453|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|29.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.73|-6.17|0.1833
84740548|NCT02942004|169232239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.18|0.1603
84487331|NCT01369069|168726880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for baseline NIHSS strata (3-7, 8-14, 15-22) and thrombolysis use (Yes/No; includes both IV and IA therapies). Multiple imputation was used for missing data.|It was hypothesized that intensive blood glucose control would be efficacious and safe in acute ischemic stroke patients compared to standard glucose control.||1.08|0.87|0.55
84487332|NCT01369069|168726881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.87|||Fisher Exact||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||3.87|1.29|<0.001
84603454|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|32.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.23|-6.90|0.1888
84487333|NCT01369069|168726882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|6.2|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.20|-8.33|0.77
84487334|NCT01369069|168726883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.75|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.75|-5.79|0.88
84487335|NCT01369069|168726884|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|-0.13|0.74
84487336|NCT01369069|168726885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.58|0.24
84487337|NCT02573012|168726886|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.613||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.879|||ANCOVA|||||0.879|0.346|0.001
84487338|NCT02573012|168726887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.889|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.889|0.285|0.018
84603455|NCT00901511|168957668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.85|-14.41|0.6374
84487339|NCT02573012|168726887|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.833||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.972|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.972|0.714|0.021
84487340|NCT02573012|168726888|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|2.342||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.023|||ANCOVA|||||4.023|0.661|0.006
84487341|NCT02573012|168726908|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.264||||0.009||95.0|0.574|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|0.574|0.009
84487342|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single group study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a tumor response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive analysis only||Single group change from baseline||||0.11
84740549|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.414||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-2.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.07|-11.64|0.0054
84487343|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.01
84487344|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.18
84487345|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life (QOL) from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.30
84487346|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.61
84487347|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.12
84487348|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only.||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.05
84487349|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
84487350|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.72
84487351|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.36
84487352|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.98
84487353|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
84487354|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
84487355|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.57
84487356|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.45
84487357|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.28
84487358|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
84487359|NCT02096471|168726920|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.89
84487360|NCT01401101|168726923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); used random effects to account for correlations wi/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.97
84487361|NCT01401101|168726924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.54
84487362|NCT01401101|168726925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); using random effects to control for correlations w/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.33
84487363|NCT04396106|168726938|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.721
84546865|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 9 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
84546866|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 8 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
84546867|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 11 and 12 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
84546868|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 12 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
84571286|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
84740550|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|0.45|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-8.86|0.0763
84546869|NCT04681066|168847513|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 11 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
84546870|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
84546871|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
84546872|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
84603456|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||9.90|-5.30|0.5320
84603457|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|19.52|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.52|-13.09|0.6772
84740551|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.673||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.99|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.99|-9.60|0.1101
84740552|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.618||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.87|-6.50|0.6167
84740553|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-0.14|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-11.14|0.0447
84740554|NCT02942004|169232240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|1.81|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.81|-8.99|0.1908
84740555|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.7|1.3|0.0131
84740556|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.6|1.4|0.0095
84740557|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.5|1.1|0.0323
84487364|NCT03049852|168726945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740558|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||5.3|0.9|0.0931
84740559|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||10.0|1.3|0.0139
84487365|NCT03049852|168726947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84487366|NCT01436357|168726956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|3.535|||Regression, Cox|||||3.535|0.661|0.317
84603458|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|15.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||15.64|-12.52|0.8320
84740560|NCT02942004|169232241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||6.9|1.0|0.0460
84487367|NCT01436357|168726957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||||0.16|-0.01|0.029
84487368|NCT01436357|168726958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.20|0.01|0.015
84487369|NCT01436357|168726959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00
84487370|NCT01436357|168726961|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||0.10|-0.08|0.499
84487371|NCT05281094|168726982|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.51|50.35|||||. Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||50.35|-52.51|
84487372|NCT05281094|168726983|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|44.7|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1||44.70|-24.52|
84487373|NCT05281094|168726984|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|13.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|44.98|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||44.98|-34.70|
84487374|NCT05281094|168726985|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.04|22.0|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||22.00|-45.04|
84487375|NCT01265719|168727030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.74|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.74|-0.09|0.1126
84487376|NCT01265719|168727030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.06|-0.12|0.4840
84487377|NCT01265719|168727032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.56|-0.63|0.9020
84487378|NCT01265719|168727032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.37|0.8826
84487379|NCT01265719|168727033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.89|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.89|-4.13|0.2003
84487380|NCT01265719|168727033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.39|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP \<21mmHg at Baseline)||1.39|-1.59|0.8940
84487381|NCT01265719|168727033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-1.36|||ANCOVA|The results were interpreted with caution because of the very small sample size of non-PG treatment group (n=4).|Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP ≥21mmHg at Baseline)||-1.36|-11.95|0.0184
84487382|NCT01265719|168727034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||||15.90|-13.97|>0.999
84487383|NCT01265719|168727035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|14.55|||Fisher Exact|||||14.55|-15.32|>0.999
84487384|NCT01265719|168727036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.09|||Fisher Exact|||||16.09|-13.78|>0.999
84487385|NCT01265719|168727038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|16.48|||Fisher Exact|||||16.48|-13.39|0.6414
84487386|NCT01265719|168727039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.65|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in longest lash length (LLL) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|\<5 years||1.65|-0.43|0.2437
84487387|NCT01265719|168727039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in LLL was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.85|0.5199
84487388|NCT01265719|168727040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|28.94|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|\<5 years||28.94|-34.30|0.8643
84487389|NCT01265719|168727040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|8.8|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||8.80|-10.54|0.8591
84487390|NCT01265719|168727041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|19.36|||Fisher Exact|||||19.36|-10.49|0.2413
84487391|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.6||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-7.4|=0.021
84487392|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.7||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||2.7|-3.9|=0.731
84603459|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|18.14|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.14|-15.19|0.8532
84603460|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.44|-14.00|0.7752
84603461|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||24.18|-12.70|0.5174
84546873|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 3 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
84546874|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 6, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
84546875|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
84603462|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|19.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.94|-12.61|0.6393
84603463|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|22.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.73|-12.28|0.5361
84546876|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
84546877|NCT04681066|168847514|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 7 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
84546878|NCT04681066|168847525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.0372
84546879|NCT04681066|168847525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4918|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.4918
84546880|NCT04681066|168847525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6224|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.6224
84546881|NCT00953654|168847532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The degrees of freedom were adjusted when the sphericity assumption was violated based on Mauchly's test.||Effects of RET and AET were compared to WL using a 3 condition by 3 time ANCOVA. An a priori statistical power analysis showed that a sample of 30 patients would provide a statistical power of .80 to detect a condition-by-time interaction for PSWQ scores assuming a two-tailed alpha value of 0.05, a correlation across repeated measures of 0.75 and a desire to detect a standardized effect size of 0.65.||||<0.05
84546882|NCT02640664|168847562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.5||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-1.1|
84487393|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||1.4|-8.4|=0.157
84487394|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.3|-8.4|=0.150
84487395|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.65|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.008
84487396|NCT02442765|168727088|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.26|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.208
84487397|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.331
84487398|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.400
84487399|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
84487400|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.145
84487401|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-2.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||OLS = ordinary least squares|||||0.012
84487402|NCT02442765|168727089|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.66||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
84546883|NCT02640664|168847562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.3||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||8.3|-3.4|
84546884|NCT02640664|168847562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.8||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||7.8|-3.3|
84546885|NCT02640664|168847565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.7||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||16.7|-0.8|
84546886|NCT02640664|168847565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-7.3|
84740561|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.75|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.75|-4.01|0.4389
84487403|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||0.2|-1.3|=0.182
84487404|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.4|-1.1|=0.390
84487405|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.7|-0.8|=0.462
84487406|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|||=|0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-0.8|=0.528
84487407|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.39|||=|0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.695
84487408|NCT02442765|168727090|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.12|||=|0.904|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.904
84487409|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.8|-3.2|=0.247
84546887|NCT02640664|168847565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.8|||ANOVA|||||14.8|-2.0|
84487410|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-2.3|=0.721
84487411|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.8|-4.3|=0.419
84487412|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||3.9|-2.0|=0.534
84487413|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
84487414|NCT02442765|168727091|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.19|||=|0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.851
84487415|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.2|-1.4|=0.146
84487416|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.1|-0.4|=0.399
84487417|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.0|-0.6|=0.283
84487418|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.5|-0.1|=0.065
84487419|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
84487420|NCT02442765|168727092|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|1.94|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.052
84546888|NCT01408303|168847598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-2.95|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.05
84546889|NCT01408303|168847598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-6.0|||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.0001
84740562|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.78|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.78|-3.88|0.4645
84740563|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-5.24|0.0622
84487421|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.7|=0.530
84487422|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-3.1|=0.326
84487423|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.8|=0.135
84487424|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.1|=0.895
84487425|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|0.67|||=|0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.502
84487426|NCT02442765|168727093|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|-0.58|||=|0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.564
84546890|NCT01022307|168847621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis showed that the effect size was small, with a 50% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 effect requiring 247 subjects.|||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|Greenhouse Geisser correction.||F-test evaluating effects of Group||||< 0.04
84740564|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.91|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.91|-2.40|0.8495
84740565|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.55|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.55|-3.75|0.7063
84487427|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.6|=0.061
84487428|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.5|-1.1|=0.400
84487429|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.3|-2.4|=0.115
84487430|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|=0.264
84487431|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.44|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.015
84487432|NCT02442765|168727094|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
84487433|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||-0.0|-7.8|=0.050
84487434|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.2|-5.4|=0.412
84487435|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||5.8|-7.8|=0.775
84546891|NCT05682729|168847631|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.03||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05. Wilks' Lambda F(3, 109) = .96, p = .41, ηp2 = .03.|ANCOVA|||We specifically compared the pre-to-post test change in accuracy on the FAM task across the four groups using a within-subjects ANCOVA and specifically a group by time (pre-to-post test) interaction. We controlled for age, gender, and children's executive function skills.||||.41
84487436|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||10.1|-3.5|=0.333
84603464|NCT00901511|168957669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|16.60|-13.26|0.8159
84603465|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.01|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the median value of the GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median value of the GGO Score in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||0.01|-1.70|0.0530
84740566|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.552||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.97|-3.19|0.9434
84740567|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.13|-3.25|0.9701
84740568|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.35|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.35|-3.86|0.6307
84740569|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.93|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.93|-4.97|0.1767
84740570|NCT02942004|169232242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.468||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.45|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.45|-4.37|0.3236
84487437|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.5|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.133
84487438|NCT02442765|168727095|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
84487439|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|=0.118
84740571|NCT03296800|169232296|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|118.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.12|126.72|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||126.72|111.12|
84740572|NCT03296800|169232296|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|119.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|151.59||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|151.59|94.39|
84740573|NCT03296800|169232296|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|126.65||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|126.65|88.81|
84740574|NCT03296800|169232299|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|140.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.39|151.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||151.26|131.39|
84487440|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.191
84669097|NCT01480076|169072584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84487441|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.225
84487442|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.227
84487443|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.97|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.049
84487444|NCT02442765|168727096|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.78|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.075
84487445|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.364
84487446|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|=0.427
84487447|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.098
84740575|NCT03296800|169232299|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|86.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.24|105.59|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||105.59|70.24|
84740576|NCT03296800|169232299|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|106.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.26|90.26|
84487448|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|=0.168
84487449|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.86|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
84487450|NCT02442765|168727097|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.57|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.115
84487451|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|=0.014
84487452|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.111
84487453|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|=0.062
84487454|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.305
84487455|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-3.01|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.003
84740577|NCT01146600|169232391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA, comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.47
84740578|NCT01146600|169232392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.63
84487456|NCT02442765|168727098|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.79|||=|0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.073
84487457|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.2|=0.909
84487458|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.9|=0.226
84740579|NCT01146600|169232393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.64
84740580|NCT01146600|169232394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
84740581|NCT01146600|169232395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
84740582|NCT01146600|169232396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.01
84740583|NCT01146600|169232397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.76
84487459|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||=|0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|-2.9|=0.405
84487460|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-5.8|=0.714
84487461|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.75|||=|0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.456
84487462|NCT02442765|168727099|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.42|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.678
84487463|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.1|=0.278
84487464|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|=0.817
84487465|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.4|=0.500
84487466|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.9|=0.795
84487467|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.25|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.213
84487468|NCT02442765|168727100|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.02|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.985
84487469|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.9|=0.018
84487470|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.3|=0.956
84487471|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.8|=0.451
84487472|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.9|=0.519
84487473|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-0.72|||=|0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.471
84487474|NCT02442765|168727102|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.5|||=|0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.618
84487475|NCT01749930|168727109|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.||||||0.216||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol. Superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol was demonstrated at 8 of 9 time points (exception at 8 am Week 2).|ANCOVA|||||||0.216
84487476|NCT01749930|168727110|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.084
84740584|NCT02579135|169232399|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Third, to assess the effectiveness of the HEART intervention from pretest to immediate posttest, we used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||.32
84487477|NCT01749930|168727111|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84487478|NCT01749930|168727112|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions|||
84487479|NCT04735432|168727113|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study to evaluate the noninferiority of the pharmacodynamic effect of efgartigimod PH20 SC 1000 mg compared with efgartigimod IV 10 mg/kg in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.|LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and total IgG levels at baseline as a covariate. The NI evaluation was based on a percent reduction from baseline in total IgG levels at day 29 (week 4) using an NI margin of 10%. Only the results for mITT analysis set are entered.||-0.66|-7.73|< 0.0001
84487480|NCT00935766|168727127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84487481|NCT00935766|168727128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84487482|NCT00935766|168727129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
84487483|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.596||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|18.378|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\] 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||18.378|1.704|0.0045
84487484|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.989||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.967|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.967|0.497|0.9755
84487485|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|1.688|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.688|0.327|0.4786
84487486|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.405|20.597|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.597|1.405|0.0140
84487487|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.094|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.094|1.062|<0.0001
84487488|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.136||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.819|20.701|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.701|1.819|0.0035
84487489|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.857|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.857|0.439|0.7821
84487490|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|1.723|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.723|0.317|0.4846
84487491|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.424||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|21.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.749|1.353|0.0170
84546892|NCT05682729|168847631|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.004
84546893|NCT05682729|168847631|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.04||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.031
84740585|NCT02579135|169232400|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||<.001
84740586|NCT00504777|169232420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84740587|NCT00504777|169232423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0054
84740588|NCT02278484|169232432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84740589|NCT01572740|169232440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.47|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||||-1.13|-1.47|<0.0001
84740590|NCT01572740|169232441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.99|<0.0001
84487492|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.695||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.925|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.925|0.523|0.0125
84740591|NCT01572740|169232442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0006||95.0|-1.3|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.30|<0.0006
84740592|NCT01572740|169232443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.26||||0.2511||95.0|-0.7|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.70|0.2511
84740593|NCT01572740|169232444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-1.38|||ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-2.37|<0.0001
84740594|NCT01572740|169232445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-1.73|<0.0001
84487493|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|9.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||9.357|1.288|0.0139
84546894|NCT05682729|168847631|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.01||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.463
84740595|NCT01572740|169232446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.73||||0.0023||95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
84740596|NCT01572740|169232447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.39||||0.1787||95.0|-0.97|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.97|0.1787
84740597|NCT01572740|169232448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14||||0.4806||95.0|-0.54|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.54|0.4806
84740598|NCT01572740|169232449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.35||||0.2074||95.0|-0.91|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.91|0.2074
84740599|NCT00478192|169232452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.028
84740600|NCT00478192|169232452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.019
84740601|NCT00478192|169232452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||<0.001
84740602|NCT00478192|169232457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
84740603|NCT00477490|169232461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.242||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.242|-0.221|0.9303
84740604|NCT00477490|169232461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.112||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.112|-0.353|0.3104
84740605|NCT00477490|169232461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|-0.042||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.042|-0.511|0.0207
84740606|NCT00477490|169232461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.378||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.378|-0.848|<0.0001
84740607|NCT00477490|169232462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.598||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids||||1.598|0.647|0.9420
84740608|NCT00477490|169232462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.807||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||1.807|0.729|0.5527
84740609|NCT00477490|169232462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.296||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.05||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||2.050|0.821|0.2662
84740610|NCT00477490|169232462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|4.715||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||4.715|1.795|<0.0001
84740611|NCT00137969|169232473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4875||||||One-sided p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4875
84740612|NCT00137969|169232474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8230
84740613|NCT00137969|169232475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4318|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4318
84740614|NCT00137969|169232476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9069|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.9069
84740615|NCT00137969|169232477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.5602
84740616|NCT00137969|169232478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8979
84740617|NCT00137969|169232479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1277|||||||ANCOVA|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.1277
84740618|NCT00137969|169232480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.6202
84740619|NCT01346072|169232481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.853
84740620|NCT01346072|169232482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.035
84740621|NCT01465763|169232483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||16.3|4.3|0.0070
84740622|NCT01465763|169232484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|15.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.4|8.1|0.0005
84740623|NCT01465763|169232485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.5|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.5|17.7|<0.0001
84740624|NCT01465763|169232486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.3|1.9|0.0345
84487494|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|2.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (\> 1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.311|0.601|0.6327
84487495|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.080|1.042|<0.0001
84487496|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.326|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.326|1.058|0.0033
84740625|NCT01465763|169232487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.3|4.3|0.0070
84546895|NCT05682729|168847631|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.186
84546896|NCT05682729|168847632|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.605
84546897|NCT05682729|168847633|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.618
84546898|NCT02186873|168847672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.18|58.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.99|35.18|<0.001
84546899|NCT03868930|168847702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
84546900|NCT03868930|168847702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
84546901|NCT03868930|168847702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
84546902|NCT03868930|168847702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
84546903|NCT03868930|168847703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0044
84546904|NCT03868930|168847703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||<.0001
84546905|NCT03868930|168847703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0162
84546906|NCT03868930|168847703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0009
84546907|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0140
84546908|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.1548
84546909|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0302
84546910|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0158
84546911|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0034
84740626|NCT01465763|169232488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.1|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.1|1.0|0.0601
84740627|NCT01465763|169232489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.7|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.7|4.3|0.0043
84740628|NCT01465763|169232491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
84740629|NCT01465763|169232491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
84740630|NCT01465763|169232491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-1.1|-1.9|<0.0001
84740631|NCT01465763|169232492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.4|-2.5|<0.0001
84740632|NCT01646177|169232493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740633|NCT01646177|169232493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84487497|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.308|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.308|1.151|<0.0001
84487498|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.814||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, 1st 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.979|0.676|0.0289
84740634|NCT01646177|169232493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740635|NCT01646177|169232494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740636|NCT01646177|169232494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84546912|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8776||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.8776
84546913|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0002
84546914|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0198
84546915|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0013
84546916|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy Group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
84546917|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||.0345
84546918|NCT03868930|168847704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5918||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.5918
84546919|NCT06047366|168847720|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84740637|NCT01646177|169232494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740638|NCT01646177|169232495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740639|NCT01646177|169232495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740640|NCT01646177|169232495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740641|NCT01646177|169232496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740642|NCT01646177|169232496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740643|NCT01646177|169232496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740644|NCT01646177|169232497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740645|NCT01646177|169232497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740646|NCT01646177|169232497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740647|NCT01646177|169232498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84546920|NCT06047366|168847721|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Log Rank|||||||0.09
84546921|NCT02151851|168847734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.899|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.382|6.382||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.382|2.382|<0.001
84546922|NCT02151851|168847735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|16.352||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.352|3.570|<0.001
84740648|NCT01646177|169232498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740649|NCT01646177|169232498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740650|NCT01646177|169232499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740651|NCT01646177|169232499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740652|NCT01646177|169232499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740653|NCT01646177|169232500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740654|NCT01646177|169232500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740655|NCT01646177|169232500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740656|NCT01646177|169232501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740657|NCT01646177|169232501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84487499|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.383|1.177|<0.0001
84487500|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.973|0.821|0.0099
84487501|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
84487502|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
84487503|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
84487504|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
84487505|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.615||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|10.721|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||10.721|1.219|0.0205
84487506|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.981||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.903|0.506|0.9557
84487507|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.599||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.312|0.273|0.2000
84487508|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.684||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|13.083|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||13.083|1.037|0.0437
84487509|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.956|1009.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1009.0|17.956|<0.0001
84487510|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.521|576.85|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||576.85|10.521|<0.0001
84487511|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.527||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.872|112.73|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||112.73|1.872|0.0105
84487512|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.120|1.152|0.0041
84546923|NCT02151851|168847736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|23.786||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.786|2.209|<0.001
84546924|NCT01540487|168847748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|94.7|
84546925|NCT01540487|168847748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
84487513|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.405|12.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.838|2.405|<0.0001
84487514|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|2.732|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.732|1.216|0.0037
84487515|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.977|32.347|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||32.347|3.977|<0.0001
84740658|NCT01646177|169232501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84487516|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
84487517|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
84487518|NCT01066819|168727141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.921||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.686|14.362|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||14.362|1.686|0.0035
84487519|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
84487520|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
84740659|NCT01646177|169232502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740660|NCT01646177|169232502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84487521|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
84487522|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
84546926|NCT01540487|168847749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|95.4|
84546927|NCT01540487|168847749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|111.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.4|123.5|||ANOVA|||||123.5|100.4|
84546928|NCT01540487|168847750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|103.8|||ANOVA|||||103.8|90.6|
84546929|NCT01540487|168847750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusteg gMean ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|110.1|||ANOVA|||||110.1|96.2|
84546930|NCT01540487|168847751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|104.8|||ANOVA|||||104.8|85.4|
84546931|NCT01540487|168847751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|113.9|||ANOVA|||||113.9|92.2|
84546932|NCT01540487|168847752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.6|||ANOVA|||||120.6|100.5|
84740661|NCT01646177|169232502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740662|NCT01646177|169232503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
84740663|NCT01646177|169232503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84740664|NCT01646177|169232503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84740665|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.006
84487523|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
84487524|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
84487525|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
84487526|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
84487527|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
84487528|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
84487529|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
84487530|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
84487531|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.401||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.780|0.206|0.0071
84487532|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.016||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.169|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.169|0.001|0.0006
84487533|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.076||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.729|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.729|0.008|0.0255
84487534|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.184||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.845|0.018|0.1501
84487535|NCT01066819|168727158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.729|110.35|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||110.35|6.729|<0.0001
84487536|NCT00805194|168727167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||0.92|0.68|0.0019
84546933|NCT01540487|168847752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|99.3|||ANOVA|||||99.3|80.2|
84546934|NCT01540487|168847753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|92.0|
84546935|NCT01540487|168847753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|97.0|
84546936|NCT01540487|168847754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.6|||ANOVA|||||104.6|94.7|
84546937|NCT01540487|168847754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
84546938|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 2 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0015
84546939|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 3 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1||||0.0761
84546940|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 4 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.9317
84546941|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 5 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||<.0001
84546942|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 6 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0045
84546943|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 7 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.1437
84546944|NCT03483961|168847755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3216||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 8 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.3216
84546945|NCT02640950|168847760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t test for pre and post treatment scores for all subjects|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of pre and post treatment scores on MADRS||||<0.001
84546946|NCT02640950|168847761|OTHER|Descriptive Frequencies Analysis|||||||||||||||||A frequencies analysis was conducted to determine the number of participants that were diagnosed with BP I and BP II as well as the number of participants that developed an onset of maniac symptoms during the 7 week treatment period.|||
84546947|NCT00652626|168847767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.0|151.3|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||151.3|64.0|
84546948|NCT00652626|168847767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.7|101.8|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||101.8|44.7|
84546949|NCT00652626|168847767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|127.2|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||127.2|53.8|
84546950|NCT00652626|168847768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|148.8|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||148.8|63.8|
84546951|NCT00652626|168847768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.7|102.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||102.7|45.7|
84546952|NCT00652626|168847768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|127.1|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||127.1|54.5|
84546953|NCT00652626|168847769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|127.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|245.7|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||245.7|66.3|
84740666|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.045
84740667|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.012
84740668|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
84740669|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
84740670|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
84740671|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
84546954|NCT00652626|168847769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|84.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.3|158.5|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||158.5|45.3|
84546955|NCT00652626|168847769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|107.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|207.0|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||207.0|55.9|
84740672|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
84740673|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
84740674|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
84546956|NCT00652626|168847772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|143.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.6|71.2|
84546957|NCT00652626|168847772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|144.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.6|202.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||202.7|103.6|
84740675|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
84740676|NCT01646177|169232504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
84740677|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
84740678|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
84740679|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
84740680|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||0.031
84740681|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
84740682|NCT01646177|169232505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
84740683|NCT01646177|169232506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740684|NCT01646177|169232506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740685|NCT01646177|169232506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84740686|NCT01646177|169232507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740687|NCT01646177|169232507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740688|NCT01646177|169232507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740689|NCT01646177|169232508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740690|NCT01646177|169232508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740691|NCT01646177|169232508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740692|NCT01646177|169232509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740693|NCT01646177|169232509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740694|NCT01646177|169232509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84740695|NCT01711853|169232524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR (Glomerular filtration rate), 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.5186
84487537|NCT00805194|168727168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first line therapy."||0.92|0.60|0.0073
84487538|NCT00805194|168727168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma."||0.99|0.70|0.0359
84487539|NCT00805194|168727168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. HR below 1 favors nintedanib|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for all patients."||1.05|0.83|0.2720
84487540|NCT00805194|168727169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.96|0.75|0.0070
84487541|NCT00805194|168727170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.93|0.73|0.0012
84487542|NCT00805194|168727171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.39||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.39|0.76|0.3067
84487543|NCT00805194|168727171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.08||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||2.08|0.96|0.0761
84487544|NCT00805194|168727174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.09||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.09|1.35|<0.0001
84546958|NCT00652626|168847772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.4|143.9|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.9|71.4|
84546959|NCT00652626|168847775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|169.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|262.5|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters"||262.5|109.2|
84603466|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
84740696|NCT01711853|169232524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9883
84740697|NCT01711853|169232524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.7853
84487545|NCT00805194|168727174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.05||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||2.05|1.31|<0.0001
84487546|NCT00805194|168727176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||<0.0001
84487547|NCT00805194|168727176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||<0.0001
84487548|NCT00805194|168727177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat.had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||1.21|0.87|0.7282
84487549|NCT00805194|168727178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough||1.05|0.77|0.1858
84487550|NCT00805194|168727178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea||1.20|0.91|0.5203
84487551|NCT00805194|168727178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain||1.09|0.82|0.4373
84487552|NCT00535236|168727196|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
84487553|NCT00535236|168727196|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.003
84487554|NCT00535236|168727196|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.017
84487555|NCT00535236|168727197|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustied for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
84487556|NCT00535236|168727197|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.004
84487557|NCT00535236|168727197|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.026
84487558|NCT00535236|168727198|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|35.3|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||35.3|-21.7|
84487559|NCT00535236|168727198|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|42.9|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||42.9|-15.1|
84487560|NCT00535236|168727198|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|15.7|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||15.7|-20.4|
84487561|NCT00535236|168727198|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.6|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||27.6|-6.5|
84487562|NCT00535236|168727198|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||17.0|-18.1|
84487563|NCT00535236|168727199|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|16.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||16.5|-31.7|>0.999
84487564|NCT00535236|168727199|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||23.2|-18.8|0.302
84487565|NCT00535236|168727199|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|31.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||46.2|9.7|0.009
84487566|NCT00535236|168727199|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|22.6||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||36.6|1.3|0.041
84487567|NCT00535236|168727199|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-11.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|0.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||0.6|-33.2|0.064
84740698|NCT01711853|169232525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR, 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.4692
84740699|NCT01711853|169232525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9734
84487568|NCT00535236|168727200|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|9.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||9.5|-36.3|0.556
84487569|NCT00535236|168727200|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|13.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.0|-25.8|0.617
84487570|NCT00535236|168727200|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||12.0|-13.7|0.411
84487571|NCT00535236|168727200|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.6|-12.3|0.328
84487572|NCT00535236|168727200|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||10.0|-19.2|>0.999
84487573|NCT00535236|168727201|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|41.8|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||41.8|-21.3|0.552
84487574|NCT00535236|168727201|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.7||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|39.4|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||39.4|-22.5|0.696
84487575|NCT00535236|168727201|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.0|-9.8|0.221
84487576|NCT00535236|168727201|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.8||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.1|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||19.1|-13.7|0.402
84487577|NCT00535236|168727201|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.2|-18.5|0.679
84487578|NCT04880642|168727202|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis i.e. a difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups excisted.~The overall 2-sided significance level of 5% was applied to the primary endpoint."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.36|||Log Rank|||||2.36|0.40|0.949
84487579|NCT04880642|168727203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.301
84487580|NCT04880642|168727204|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.425
84487581|NCT04880642|168727205|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|-9.3|0.671
84487582|NCT04880642|168727206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|-11.4|0.948
84487583|NCT02987205|168727215|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of this 95% CI was less than the prespecified non-inferiority limit of 0.50, the Test product would be claimed to be non-inferior to the Comparator product.||||||0.013||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0130
84487584|NCT02275052|168727220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.12|27.74||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||27.74|-21.12|0.790
84487585|NCT02275052|168727221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.246|0.167|<0.001
84487586|NCT02275052|168727222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.346|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|-0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||-0.204|-0.487|<0.001
84487587|NCT02275052|168727223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.324|0.194|<0.001
84487588|NCT04652102|168727233|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.826|0.299|0.433|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper confidence interval (CI) on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.433|0.299|
84487589|NCT04652102|168727233|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|48.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.826|31.0|61.4||1-sided p-value from the exact binomial test on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases (equivalent to a test on VE with H0: VE ≤30%). Statistically significant if lower than 0.02087.|Exact Binomial Test||2-sided 95.826% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||61.4|31.0|0.01600
84487590|NCT04652102|168727245|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.389|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.389|0.133|
84546960|NCT00652626|168847775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|140.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|217.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||217.7|90.6|
84546961|NCT00652626|168847776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|166.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.6|254.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||254.6|108.6|
84546962|NCT00652626|168847776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|216.2|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||216.2|92.2|
84546963|NCT00652626|168847777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.2|274.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||274.6|73.2|
84546964|NCT00652626|168847777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|204.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||204.6|54.5|
84546965|NCT00652626|168847778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.52|0|0.1342
84546966|NCT00652626|168847778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.50|0|0.1017
84546967|NCT04003636|168847783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||0.95|0.72|0.0034
84546968|NCT04003636|168847784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.00|0.75|0.0225
84546969|NCT04003636|168847785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.2||||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0|Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||5.6|-5.2|0.4735
84546970|NCT01234870|168847800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MR images resulting from two different image acquisition techniques, including Non-Corrected Breath-Hold Shallow-Breathing and Motion-Corrected, were assessed independently by two radiologists (average of 7 years of experience in reading cardiac MRI) using the American Heart Association modified 16 segment model and were evaluated using a four point Likert scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent) for image quality||||<0.001
84546971|NCT00734162|168847802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis is the difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who met the outcome measure criterion, controlling for randomization age group.||||< 0.001
84546972|NCT03612596|168847867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84546973|NCT03612596|168847868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84546974|NCT03612596|168847869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84546975|NCT03612596|168847870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84546976|NCT03612596|168847871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84740700|NCT01711853|169232525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.9201
84487591|NCT04652102|168727245|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|70.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|86.1|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||86.1|42.5|
84487592|NCT04652102|168727246|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.581|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.581|0.084|
84487593|NCT04652102|168727246|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|91.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||91.7|-25.5|
84487594|NCT04652102|168727247|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.452|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.452|0.242|
84487595|NCT04652102|168727247|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|71.2|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||71.2|25.4|
84546977|NCT03612596|168847872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.26) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.53
84546978|NCT03612596|168847873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.16) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.44
84487596|NCT04652102|168727248|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.782|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.782|0.340|
84487597|NCT04652102|168727248|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.5|56.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||56.7|-200.5|
84487598|NCT03062605|168727255|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.35||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.35
84487599|NCT03062605|168727255|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.29||||||Significant at p\<0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.29
84487600|NCT03062605|168727255|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.09||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.09
84487601|NCT03062605|168727255|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.13||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.13
84487602|NCT01009333|168727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84487603|NCT01009333|168727262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.589
84487604|NCT01009333|168727263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84487605|NCT00247962|168727273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.99|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84487606|NCT00247962|168727274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||baseline||||0.719
84487607|NCT00247962|168727274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||week 16||||0.010
84487608|NCT02815982|168727275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.7|-14.6|<.05
84546979|NCT03612596|168847874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 0.67) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.93
84546980|NCT03612596|168847875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84546981|NCT03612596|168847876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84546982|NCT03612596|168847877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84546983|NCT03612596|168847878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84546984|NCT03612596|168847879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84740701|NCT02514551|169232566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.853|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model comparing Ramucirumab I4T-MC-JVCZ and I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663)|"This analysis were comparison of PFS for participants treated with ramucirumab 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel in Study I4T-MC-JVCZ versus placebo plus paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663) using meta-analysis.~Placebo + 80 mg/m² Paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE Number of participants: 335, Median (95% CI), months: 2.86 (2.79 to 3.02)"||0.853|0.447|
84740702|NCT02514551|169232567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.274|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.274|0.727|
84487609|NCT02815982|168727276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-559.0|630.2||p value was the actual signficance level|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||630.2|-559.0|<.001
84603467|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0332
84603468|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0676
84669098|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84487610|NCT02815982|168727277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||controlling for caregiver BMI at baseline and PCS BMI percentile at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention BMI||3.3|-2.3|<.001
84487611|NCT02815982|168727278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.2||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.2|-5.4|<.03
84487612|NCT02815982|168727279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.3||p \< .05 was threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-4.3|<.09
84487613|NCT02815982|168727280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-328.6|||<|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2868.4|2211.2||p \< .05 threshold,|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2211.2|-2868.4|<.08
84487614|NCT02815982|168727281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.11|.01|<.0001
84487615|NCT02815982|168727282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.65||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.65|-11.3|<.001
84487616|NCT02815982|168727283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06||threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.06|-.04|<.001
84487617|NCT02815982|168727284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-348.9|||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2762.5|2064.8||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2064.8|-2762.5|<.12
84487618|NCT01469637|168727285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.12|
84487619|NCT01469637|168727286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.09|
84487620|NCT00598585|168727287|SUPERIORITY|unpaired test, the threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84487621|NCT02237898|168727301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84487622|NCT00542425|168727305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
84487623|NCT00542425|168727305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
84487624|NCT00542425|168727306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
84487625|NCT00542425|168727306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
84487626|NCT01601873|168727313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
84487627|NCT01601873|168727314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
84487628|NCT01601873|168727315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
84487629|NCT01601873|168727316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.538
84487630|NCT01601873|168727317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.786
84487631|NCT01601873|168727318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.185
84487632|NCT01809327|168727323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.269|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.269|-0.657|0.001
84740703|NCT01791972|169232584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.982|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-12.14||Significance level is 0.05.|mixed-effect analysis of covariance|Fixed effects of sequence, trt group, period, and center, within period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and random effect for patient within sequence.||||-12.14|-20.19|<0.0001
84740704|NCT01791972|169232585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84||Terms for treatment and period, computed with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) algorithm, which adjusts for potential correlation between measurements on the same patient. Significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
84546985|NCT01050582|168847886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.674|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: weight (wt) divided expected wt for age and height (ht), age, use of concomitant medication with growth effects, preexposure ht z-score.|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipychotics.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in current height z-score.||0.674|0.220|<0.001
84546986|NCT01050582|168847887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.269|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: Tanner stage and gender|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipsychotics.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in age (years) at current Tanner stage.||0.269|-0.711|0.378
84546987|NCT01050582|168847888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865|||>|0.999||95.0|0.189|3.963|||Fisher Exact||Estimated OR is from a logistic regression model including factors for treatment arm, age, indication, and use of concomitant medication with growth effects.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in frequency of retrospectively reported potentially prolactin-related adverse events||3.963|0.189|>0.999
84546988|NCT01019694|168847889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.02|13.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||13.19|6.02|< 0.0001
84546989|NCT01019694|168847889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.0009||95.0|2.57|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||9.91|2.57|0.0009
84546990|NCT01019694|168847890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0006||95.0|2.29|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||8.28|2.29|0.0006
84740705|NCT04954326|169232598|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for AUCinf should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|115.6|||ANOVA|||AUCinf was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||115.6|91.4|0.05
84546991|NCT01019694|168847890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.39|4.41|< 0.0001
84546992|NCT01019694|168847891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.71|11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||11.09|4.71|< 0.0001
84546993|NCT01019694|168847891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.44|12.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||12.83|6.44|< 0.0001
84546994|NCT01019694|168847892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.94|12.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||12.37|5.94|< 0.0001
84546995|NCT01019694|168847892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.44|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.96|4.44|< 0.0001
84546996|NCT01019694|168847893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.9|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||14.76|7.90|< 0.0001
84546997|NCT01019694|168847893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.23|11.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||11.23|4.23|< 0.0001
84546998|NCT01019694|168847895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1167||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.42|-0.05|0.1167
84740706|NCT04954326|169232599|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cmax should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|105.5|||ANOVA|||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||105.5|82.9|0.05
84487633|NCT01809327|168727323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.280|-0.670|0.001
84487634|NCT01809327|168727323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|-0.207|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.207|-0.594|0.001
84487635|NCT01809327|168727323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.169|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.169|-0.557|0.001
84487636|NCT01809327|168727323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.133|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.133|-0.258|0.001
84487637|NCT01809327|168727323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.082|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.082|-0.307|0.001
84487638|NCT01809327|168727324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.016
84487639|NCT01809327|168727324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.1|-2.6|0.002
84487640|NCT01809327|168727324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.001
84487641|NCT01809327|168727324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.4|-2.9|0.001
84487642|NCT01809327|168727325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||2.37|1.06|0.027
84487643|NCT01809327|168727325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.33|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||3.33|1.46|0.016
84487644|NCT01809327|168727326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.641|-0.182|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.182|-3.641|0.060
84487645|NCT01809327|168727326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.058|0.431|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.431|-3.058|0.147
84487646|NCT01809327|168727327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|1.2|0.147
84487647|NCT01809327|168727327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|0.2|0.147
84487648|NCT01809327|168727328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-3.7||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.4|-11.1|0.608
84487649|NCT01809327|168727328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|1.3||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.0|-7.3|0.806
84487650|NCT02176005|168727332|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0093|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.0144|||General linear model|||||0.0144|0.0060|<.000001
84487651|NCT02176005|168727333|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0096|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0061|0.0151|||General linear model|||||0.0151|0.0061|<.000001
84487652|NCT02176005|168727334|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9811||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8608|1.1182|||General linear model|||||1.1182|0.8608|0.806
84487653|NCT02176005|168727335|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.8785||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0155|||General linear model|||||1.0155|0.7600|0.139
84487654|NCT02176005|168727336|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|1.1763||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9982|1.3861|||General linear model|||||1.3861|0.9982|0.104
84487655|NCT02176005|168727337|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9391||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7969|1.1066|||General linear model|||||1.1066|0.7969|0.519
84487656|NCT02483611|168727362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.07||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|235.0|||ANOVA|||||235|88|0.9651
84487657|NCT02483611|168727362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.48||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|244.0|||ANOVA|||||244|78|0.9651
84546999|NCT01019694|168847895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0026||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|0.13|0.0026
84547000|NCT01019694|168847896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.2826||95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.38|-0.11|0.2826
84547001|NCT01019694|168847896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0013||95.0|0.16|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.66|0.16|0.0013
84547002|NCT01019694|168847897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0023||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.59|0.13|0.0023
84547003|NCT01019694|168847897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.71|0.25|< 0.0001
84547004|NCT01019694|168847898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0006||95.0|0.18|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.65|0.18|0.0006
84547005|NCT01019694|168847898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0004||95.0|0.2|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.68|0.20|0.0004
84487658|NCT02483611|168727362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.75||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|200.0|||ANOVA|||The sample size was calculated with a power of 80% to detect differences of 20% in the timing of clinical onset and the duration of NMB. The pharmacodynamic (latency, clinical duration, recovery rate and total duration) and hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure (MAP) and HR) were compared between the groups via analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. The significance level was set at 5%.||200|105|0.9651
84487659|NCT02483611|168727363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|82.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.62|99.27|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||99.27|72.62|<0.0001
84487660|NCT02483611|168727363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|86.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.78|140.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||140.60|71.78|<0.0001
84487661|NCT02483611|168727363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|92.9|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.90|40.50|<0.0001
84487662|NCT02483611|168727364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.25|||ANOVA|||||32.25|12.00|0.0015
84487663|NCT02483611|168727364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.69||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|39.83|||ANOVA|||||39.83|10.50|0.0015
84487664|NCT02483611|168727364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|16.5|||ANOVA|||||16.50|11.00|0.0015
84547006|NCT01019694|168847899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0673||95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.47|-0.02|0.0673
84547007|NCT01019694|168847899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0245||95.0|0.04|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.54|0.04|0.0245
84487665|NCT02483611|168727365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|41.5|||ANOVA|||||41.50|19.50|0.0003
84487666|NCT02483611|168727365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|49.5|||ANOVA|||||49.50|18.50|0.0003
84487667|NCT02483611|168727365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.05|||ANOVA|||||30.05|17.50|0.0003
84487668|NCT02483611|168727366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|136.8|||ANOVA|||||136.80|94.87|<0.0001
84487669|NCT02483611|168727366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.82|163.3|||ANOVA|||||163.30|95.82|<0.0001
84487670|NCT02483611|168727366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|125.2|||ANOVA|||||125.20|58|<0.0001
84487671|NCT02483611|168727367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.3|140.2|||ANOVA|||||140.20|106.30|<0.0001
84487672|NCT02483611|168727367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.5|149.4|||ANOVA|||||149.40|106.50|<0.0001
84487673|NCT02483611|168727367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.75|116.4|||ANOVA|||||116.40|71.75|<0.0001
84487674|NCT02483611|168727368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|70.00|0.0527
84487675|NCT02483611|168727368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|104.0|||ANOVA|||||104.00|65.00|0.0527
84487676|NCT02483611|168727368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.62||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||||140.00|70.00|0.0527
84487677|NCT02483611|168727369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.1||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|110.0|||ANOVA|||||110.00|60.00|0.1996
84487678|NCT02483611|168727369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.38||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|67.00|0.1996
84487679|NCT02483611|168727369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|73.00|0.1996
84487680|NCT02483611|168727370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.95||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||||107.00|58.00|0.7145
84487681|NCT02483611|168727370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||||97.00|59.00|0.7145
84487682|NCT02483611|168727370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.48||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|58.00|0.7145
84487683|NCT02483611|168727371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||96.00|57.00|0.1130
84487684|NCT02483611|168727371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1130
84487685|NCT02483611|168727371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|74.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|83.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||83.00|59.00|0.1130
84487686|NCT02483611|168727372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|98.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||98.00|58.00|0.0731
84547008|NCT01019694|168847901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.5695||95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.24|0.5695
84547009|NCT01019694|168847901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3093||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3093
84740707|NCT04954326|169232600|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cday14 should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|149.6|||ANOVA|||Cday14 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||149.6|98.7|0.05
84487687|NCT02483611|168727372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|55.00|0.0731
84487688|NCT02483611|168727372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|67.0||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|56.00|0.0731
84487689|NCT02483611|168727373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|60.00|0.1002
84487690|NCT02483611|168727373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|56.00|0.1002
84487691|NCT02483611|168727373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|60.00|0.1002
84487692|NCT02483611|168727374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.79||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|52.00|0.4338
84487693|NCT02483611|168727374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.13||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95.00|55.00|0.4338
84487694|NCT02483611|168727374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.82||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|55.00|0.4338
84487695|NCT02483611|168727375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.76||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|57.00|0.9167
84487696|NCT02483611|168727375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.18||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|96.0|||ANOVA|||||96.00|51.00|0.9167
84487697|NCT02483611|168727375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.9167
84487698|NCT02483611|168727376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.96||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|58.00|0.8067
84487699|NCT02483611|168727376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|57.00|0.8067
84487700|NCT02483611|168727376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.8067
84487701|NCT02483611|168727377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|57.00|0.1015
84487702|NCT02483611|168727377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.78||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|89.0|||ANOVA|||||89.00|52.00|0.1015
84487703|NCT02483611|168727377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|44.00|0.1015
84487704|NCT02483611|168727378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|56.00|0.3423
84487705|NCT02483611|168727378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.73||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||ANOVA|||||83.00|57.00|0.3423
84487706|NCT02483611|168727378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|41.00|0.3423
84487707|NCT02483611|168727379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.11||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|53.00|0.6817
84487708|NCT02483611|168727379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|54.00|0.6817
84487709|NCT02483611|168727379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|47.00|0.6817
84487710|NCT02483611|168727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|58.00|0.0937
84487711|NCT02483611|168727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|56.00|0.0937
84487712|NCT02483611|168727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|87.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||87.00|58.00|0.0937
84487713|NCT02483611|168727381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|88.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||88.00|60.00|0.1406
84487714|NCT02483611|168727381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|55.00|0.1406
84487715|NCT02483611|168727381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1406
84487716|NCT02483611|168727382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|60.00|0.0504
84487717|NCT02483611|168727382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|49.00|0.0504
84487718|NCT02483611|168727382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.56||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|84.0|||ANOVA|||||84.00|58.00|0.0504
84487719|NCT02483611|168727383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|93.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||93.00|60.00|0.0205
84487720|NCT02483611|168727383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|72.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||72.00|54.00|0.0205
84487721|NCT02483611|168727383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|59.00|0.0205
84487722|NCT02483611|168727384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|58.00|0.3004
84487723|NCT02483611|168727384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|56.00|0.3004
84487724|NCT02483611|168727384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|81.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||81.00|62.00|0.3004
84487725|NCT02483611|168727385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|60.00|0.0178
84487726|NCT02483611|168727385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|51.00|0.0178
84487727|NCT02483611|168727385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|72.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|91.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||91.00|61.00|0.0178
84487728|NCT02483611|168727386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|51.00|0.8746
84487729|NCT02483611|168727386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|56.00|0.8746
84487730|NCT02483611|168727386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.94||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|54.00|0.8746
84487731|NCT02483611|168727387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|47.00|0.4195
84547010|NCT01019694|168847902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3578||95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.11|-0.31|0.3578
84487732|NCT02483611|168727387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.28||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|53.00|0.4195
84487733|NCT02483611|168727387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.23||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|52.00|0.4195
84487734|NCT02483611|168727388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.52||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|47.00|0.5796
84487735|NCT02483611|168727388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.19||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|48.00|0.5796
84487736|NCT02483611|168727388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.26||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|50.00|0.5796
84487737|NCT02483611|168727389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.82||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|45.00|0.5351
84547011|NCT01019694|168847902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7433||95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.25|-0.18|0.7433
84487738|NCT02483611|168727389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|47.00|0.5351
84487739|NCT02483611|168727389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|51.00|0.5351
84487740|NCT02483611|168727390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|92.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.00|42.00|0.4988
84487741|NCT02483611|168727390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|50.00|0.4988
84487742|NCT02483611|168727390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|58.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|51.00|0.4988
84487743|NCT02483611|168727391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|89.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||89.00|43.00|0.7723
84487744|NCT02483611|168727391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|82.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||82.00|51.00|0.7723
84487745|NCT02483611|168727391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|50.00|0.7723
84487746|NCT02608892|168727392|SUPERIORITY|Use of pain management during newborn screening was described using frequency and proportion and expressed as an absolute difference in proportions with 95% confidence interval.|Absolute difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-26.2|
84487747|NCT02590406|168727396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||We calculated our sample size using data from EPO2: PV study (Couture: simultaneous submitted manuscript), where we found a difference in the FRC of 21% between reverse Trendelenburg with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and beach chair position without positive pressure ventilation. Assuming there would be a difference of 21% in the apnea time, with a type I error of 5% and power of 80%, a total of 17 patients by group was needed.||||0.005
84487748|NCT02590406|168727397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84487749|NCT02590406|168727398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84487750|NCT02590406|168727399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84487751|NCT02590406|168727400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84487752|NCT00957723|168727408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1 year, 2 year and 5 year||||<0.0001
84487753|NCT00957723|168727409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1, 2, and 5 year||||<0.0001
84487754|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
84487755|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||0.0002
84547012|NCT01019694|168847903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.524||95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.15|-0.29|0.524
84487756|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||<0.0001
84487757|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||0.0177
84487758|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
84487759|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||0.0393
84669099|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8392
84740708|NCT00630734|169232605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Threshold of significance was P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Relative change data were compared between SLCO1B1 diplotype groups using one-way ANOVA (with post-hoc Bonferroni tests).||||0.43
84740709|NCT00630734|169232606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
84487760|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||<0.0001
84487761|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||0.4905
84487762|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
84487763|NCT00957723|168727411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||0.0037
84487764|NCT00957723|168727413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||LEAS score change from preop to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years||||<0.0001
84487765|NCT00877890|168727417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide once weekly and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus BYETTA) is \<0; noninferiority if this upper limit is \<0.4%. Power: Assuming 15% dropout rate with 206 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in exenatide once weekly and a common standard deviation of 1.1%.||-0.39|-0.94|<.0001
84487766|NCT00877890|168727418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
84487767|NCT00877890|168727419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.5% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
84487768|NCT00877890|168727420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.5|-31.4|0.0006
84487769|NCT00877890|168727421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target of \<=126 mg/dL at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0008
84487770|NCT00877890|168727422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.01|-1.91|0.0514
84487771|NCT00877890|168727423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline systolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.2|-4.7|0.2367
84487772|NCT00877890|168727424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline diastolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.2|-1.7|0.7717
84603469|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0629
84603470|NCT00901511|168957670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
84603471|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the CEA levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.22|-0.71|0.0010
84603472|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0059
84603473|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0382
84603474|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
84740710|NCT00630734|169232607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84740711|NCT00630734|169232608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84740712|NCT00630734|169232609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
84740713|NCT00630734|169232610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84547013|NCT01019694|168847903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3171||95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.34|0.3171
84740714|NCT00630734|169232611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84740715|NCT00630734|169232612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84740716|NCT00630734|169232613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
84740717|NCT00630734|169232614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84740718|NCT05239598|169232640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.0|-4.0|0.287
84740719|NCT05239598|169232641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||5 minutes post intervention||8.6|-5.2|0.625
84547014|NCT01019694|168847904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2499||95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.10|-0.38|0.2499
84547015|NCT01019694|168847904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6144||95.0|-0.31|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.18|-0.31|0.6144
84547016|NCT01019694|168847905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5142||95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.33|-0.16|0.5142
84547017|NCT01019694|168847905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2691||95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.39|0.2691
84547018|NCT01019694|168847907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6236||95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.14|-0.23|0.6236
84547019|NCT01019694|168847907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3342||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3342
84547020|NCT01019694|168847908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1884||95.0|-0.36|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.07|-0.36|0.1884
84547021|NCT01019694|168847908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6978||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.26|-0.17|0.6978
84547022|NCT01019694|168847909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4197||95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.32|0.4197
84547023|NCT01019694|168847909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3949||95.0|-0.33|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.13|-0.33|0.3949
84740720|NCT05239598|169232641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes post intervention||10.5|-5.5|0.526
84547024|NCT01019694|168847910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.299||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.12|-0.38|0.299
84547025|NCT01019694|168847910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1404||95.0|-0.44|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.06|-0.44|0.1404
84547026|NCT01019694|168847911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.463||95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.16|-0.36|0.463
84547027|NCT01019694|168847911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3824||95.0|-0.15|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.38|-0.15|0.3824
84547028|NCT01019694|168847912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8282||95.0|-0.036|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.045|-0.036|0.8282
84547029|NCT01019694|168847912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.6587||95.0|-0.032|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.032|0.6587
84547030|NCT01019694|168847913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1185||95.0|-0.009|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.081|-0.009|0.1185
84547031|NCT01019694|168847913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2651||95.0|-0.02|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.072|-0.020|0.2651
84547032|NCT01019694|168847914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5852||95.0|-0.058|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.033|-0.058|0.5852
84547033|NCT01019694|168847914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7242||95.0|-0.054|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.038|-0.054|0.7242
84547034|NCT01019694|168847915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0328||95.0|0.005|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||||0.110|0.005|0.0328
84547035|NCT01019694|168847915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8896||95.0|-0.058|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.058|0.8896
84547036|NCT01019694|168847916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.402||95.0|-0.042|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.105|-0.042|0.402
84547037|NCT01019694|168847916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.659||95.0|-0.057|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.090|-0.057|0.659
84547038|NCT01019694|168847917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0893||95.0|-0.01|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.139|-0.010|0.0893
84547039|NCT01019694|168847917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.5424||95.0|-0.052|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.099|-0.052|0.5424
84547040|NCT01019694|168847918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6396||95.0|-0.104|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.064|-0.104|0.6396
84547041|NCT01019694|168847918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6455||95.0|-0.106|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.066|-0.106|0.6455
84547042|NCT01019694|168847919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2596||95.0|-0.038|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.141|-0.038|0.2596
84547043|NCT01019694|168847919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6659||95.0|-0.112|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.071|-0.112|0.6659
84547044|NCT01019694|168847921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.476||95.0|-0.4|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.19|-0.40|0.476
84547045|NCT01019694|168847921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6976||95.0|-0.35|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.23|-0.35|0.6976
84547046|NCT01019694|168847922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9506||95.0|-0.4|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.40|0.9506
84547047|NCT01019694|168847922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2362||95.0|-0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.62|-0.15|0.2362
84547048|NCT01019694|168847923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5645||95.0|-0.3|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.54|-0.30|0.5645
84547049|NCT01019694|168847923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0163||95.0|0.1|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.95|0.10|0.0163
84487773|NCT00877890|168727425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.1|-22.9|<.0001
84487774|NCT00877890|168727426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.3|-2.8|0.1251
84487775|NCT00877890|168727427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day 1) , expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2558
84487776|NCT02871570|168727438|OTHER||ratio|0.7789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6514|0.9313|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9313|0.6514|
84487777|NCT02871570|168727439|OTHER||ratio|0.7776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6493|0.9311|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9311|0.6493|
84487778|NCT02871570|168727440|OTHER||ratio|1.2844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|1.5372|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.5372|1.0732|
84487779|NCT02871570|168727441|OTHER||ratio|0.7945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5955|1.0599|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.0599|0.5955|
84487780|NCT00537810|168727454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||Post-treatment||||0.60
84547050|NCT01019694|168847924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4339||95.0|-0.6|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.26|-0.60|0.4339
84487781|NCT00537810|168727454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||6 month follow up||||0.13
84487782|NCT00537810|168727454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||12 month follow up||||0.29
84487783|NCT02253173|168727462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487784|NCT02253173|168727462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487785|NCT02253173|168727462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487786|NCT02253173|168727463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487787|NCT02253173|168727463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487788|NCT02253173|168727463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487789|NCT02253173|168727464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487790|NCT02253173|168727464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487791|NCT02253173|168727464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487792|NCT02253173|168727465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
84487793|NCT02253173|168727465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487794|NCT02253173|168727465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487795|NCT02253173|168727466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487796|NCT02253173|168727466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487797|NCT02253173|168727466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487798|NCT02253173|168727467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487799|NCT02253173|168727467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487800|NCT02253173|168727467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487801|NCT02253173|168727468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487802|NCT02253173|168727468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487803|NCT02253173|168727468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487804|NCT02253173|168727469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487805|NCT02253173|168727469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487806|NCT02253173|168727469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487807|NCT02253173|168727470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487808|NCT02253173|168727470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487809|NCT02253173|168727470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487810|NCT02253173|168727471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487811|NCT02253173|168727471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487812|NCT02253173|168727471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487813|NCT02253173|168727472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487814|NCT02253173|168727472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84740721|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.1|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 5 minutes Post-Intervention||8.1|-4.2|0.511
84603475|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0400
84603476|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0142
84603477|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0071
84669100|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0162
84740722|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.6|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 30 minutes post-intervention||18.6|-10.7|0.408
84740723|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.5|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 60 minutes post-intervention||17.5|-15.2|0.907
84487815|NCT02253173|168727472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487816|NCT02253173|168727473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487817|NCT02253173|168727473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487818|NCT02253173|168727473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487819|NCT02253173|168727474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487820|NCT02253173|168727474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487821|NCT02253173|168727474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487822|NCT02253173|168727475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0260
84487823|NCT02253173|168727475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
84487824|NCT02253173|168727475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
84487825|NCT02253173|168727476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0069
84487826|NCT02253173|168727476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0009
84487827|NCT02253173|168727476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487828|NCT02253173|168727477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84487829|NCT02253173|168727477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487830|NCT02253173|168727477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487831|NCT02253173|168727478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1269
84487832|NCT02253173|168727478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
84487833|NCT02253173|168727478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
84487834|NCT02253173|168727479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
84487835|NCT02253173|168727479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84487836|NCT02253173|168727479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84487837|NCT02253173|168727480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0128
84487838|NCT02253173|168727480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487839|NCT02253173|168727480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
84487840|NCT02253173|168727481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
84487841|NCT02253173|168727481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487842|NCT02253173|168727481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487843|NCT02253173|168727482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9616
84487844|NCT02253173|168727482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2439
84487845|NCT02253173|168727482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6518
84487846|NCT02253173|168727483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7829
84487847|NCT02253173|168727483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2328
84487848|NCT02253173|168727483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4118
84487849|NCT02253173|168727484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0639
84487850|NCT02253173|168727484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0356
84487851|NCT02253173|168727484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0914|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0914
84487852|NCT02253173|168727485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
84487853|NCT02253173|168727485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0055
84487854|NCT02253173|168727485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0263
84487855|NCT02253173|168727486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84547051|NCT01019694|168847924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4886||95.0|-0.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|-0.28|0.4886
84547052|NCT01019694|168847925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7637||95.0|-0.5|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.50|0.7637
84547053|NCT01019694|168847925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3755||95.0|-0.24|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.65|-0.24|0.3755
84547054|NCT04244084|168847928|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Site used as covariate||Mean differences (MMH-407 vs. Placebo) were compared||-0.17|-1.61|0.0155
84547055|NCT04244084|168847929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1839
84547056|NCT04244084|168847930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0640
84547057|NCT04244084|168847931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1927
84547058|NCT04244084|168847932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
84740724|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 5 minutes post intervention||-0.9|-6.5|0.008
84547059|NCT04244084|168847933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 1 row."||||0.2009
84547060|NCT04244084|168847933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 2 row."||||0.4717
84603478|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0137
84547061|NCT04244084|168847933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 3 row."||||0.5144
84547062|NCT04244084|168847934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84547063|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5981|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.5981
84547064|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.4913
84547065|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.6441
84547066|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8186|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.8186
84547067|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8931|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.8931
84547068|NCT04244084|168847936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.5887
84547069|NCT04244084|168847937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.4426
84547070|NCT04244084|168847937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5998|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.5998
84547071|NCT04244084|168847937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.9710
84547072|NCT04244084|168847938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6197|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.6197
84547073|NCT04244084|168847938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.7042
84547074|NCT04244084|168847938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.7693
84547075|NCT04244084|168847939|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84547076|NCT01737710|168847954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.55||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.92|0.082
84547077|NCT01737710|168847955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups|Fisher Exact|||||2.56|0.26|0.801
84547078|NCT01737710|168847956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.71||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||5.71|0.75|0.177
84547079|NCT01737710|168847957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza B are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|0.96|0.092
84547080|NCT01737710|168847958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H1N1 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.32|0.103
84603479|NCT00901511|168957671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0315
84740725|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.2|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 30 minutes post-intervention||-2.2|-10.1|0.080
84740726|NCT05239598|169232642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-3.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 60 minutes post-intervention||-3.9|-22.3|0.001
84740727|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 5 minutes post-intervention||5.8|-2.2|0.212
84740728|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 30 minutes post-intervention||6.9|-2.3|0.334
84547081|NCT01737710|168847959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H3N2 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|0.60|0.895
84547082|NCT01737710|168847960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|>0.999
84547083|NCT01737710|168847961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.63||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.63|0.09|0.253
84547084|NCT01737710|168847962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.58||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.58|0.06|0.218
84547085|NCT01737710|168847963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.94|0.84|0.140
84547086|NCT01737710|168847964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.65||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.65|0.24|0.791
84547087|NCT01737710|168847965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.92||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.92|0.47|0.833
84547088|NCT01737710|168847966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.40|0.378
84547089|NCT01737710|168847967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.62|0.21|0.783
84547090|NCT01737710|168847968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Fisher Exact|Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.||||1.39|0.13|0.143
84547091|NCT00812981|168848034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio of HI antibodies against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain between the two groups (1562902A CP Group over 1562902A NP Group), being below (\<) 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMT ratio for HI antibodies: To demonstrate that the NP 1562902A vaccine was non-inferior to the CP 1562902A vaccine, with respect to HI antibody GMT against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain, 42 days following vaccination.||0.99|0.71|
84547092|NCT02677922|168848088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|11.85|||Chi-squared|||||11.85|1.99|0.0003
84547093|NCT02677922|168848091|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.30|0.1083
84547094|NCT02677922|168848093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|27.31|||Chi-squared|||||27.31|2.74|<0.001
84547095|NCT02677922|168848094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.20|0.74|0.1943
84547096|NCT02677922|168848097|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.87|0.52|0.9720
84547097|NCT02677922|168848098|OTHER|Confidence interval of difference|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|22.5|||||The CI for the difference was derived using Greenwood's variance estimate.|||22.5|-17.3|
84547098|NCT02105987|168848116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||2.4|-9.1|
84547099|NCT02105987|168848118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||1.4|-2.0|
84547100|NCT02105987|168848123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of cholesterol is presented|||0.23|-0.02|0.096
84547101|NCT02105987|168848123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of LDL cholesterol is presented|||0.18|-0.03|0.167
84547102|NCT02105987|168848123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of HDL cholesterol is presented|||0.06|-0.02|0.317
84547103|NCT02105987|168848123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of triglycerides is presented|||0.27|-0.05|0.187
84547104|NCT02105987|168848124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio is presented|||0.25|-0.04|0.175
84547105|NCT02105987|168848125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for total score is presented|||3.5|1.3|<0.001
84487856|NCT02253173|168727486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84603480|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3689.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6972.0|-406.0|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the KL-6 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-406|-6972|0.0300
84487857|NCT02253173|168727486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487858|NCT02253173|168727487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487859|NCT02253173|168727487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487860|NCT02253173|168727487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487861|NCT02253173|168727488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487862|NCT02253173|168727488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487863|NCT02253173|168727488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487864|NCT02253173|168727489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487865|NCT02253173|168727489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487866|NCT02253173|168727489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487867|NCT02253173|168727490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487868|NCT02253173|168727490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487869|NCT02253173|168727490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487870|NCT02253173|168727491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487871|NCT02253173|168727491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487872|NCT02253173|168727491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487873|NCT02253173|168727492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487874|NCT02253173|168727492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487875|NCT02253173|168727492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487876|NCT02253173|168727493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487877|NCT02253173|168727493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487878|NCT02253173|168727493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487879|NCT02253173|168727494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487880|NCT02253173|168727494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487881|NCT02253173|168727494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487882|NCT02253173|168727495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487883|NCT02253173|168727495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487884|NCT02253173|168727495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487885|NCT02253173|168727496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487886|NCT02253173|168727496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487887|NCT02253173|168727496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487888|NCT02253173|168727497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487889|NCT02253173|168727497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487890|NCT02253173|168727497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487891|NCT02253173|168727498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
84487892|NCT02253173|168727498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487893|NCT02253173|168727498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487894|NCT02253173|168727499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84487895|NCT02253173|168727499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487896|NCT02253173|168727499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487897|NCT02253173|168727500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487898|NCT02253173|168727500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487899|NCT02253173|168727500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487900|NCT02253173|168727501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487901|NCT02253173|168727501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487902|NCT02253173|168727501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84487903|NCT02253173|168727502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9075
84487904|NCT02253173|168727502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0492
84487905|NCT02253173|168727502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
84487906|NCT02253173|168727503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9719
84487907|NCT02253173|168727503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0614
84487908|NCT02253173|168727503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
84487909|NCT02253173|168727504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9999
84487910|NCT02253173|168727504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2855
84487911|NCT02253173|168727504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
84487912|NCT02253173|168727505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4162
84487913|NCT02253173|168727505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
84487914|NCT02253173|168727505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84487915|NCT02253173|168727506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9929|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9929
84487916|NCT02253173|168727506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9634
84487917|NCT02253173|168727506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0898
84487918|NCT02253173|168727507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5146
84487919|NCT02253173|168727507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
84487920|NCT02253173|168727507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
84487921|NCT02253173|168727508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9039
84487922|NCT02253173|168727508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3751|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3751
84487923|NCT02253173|168727508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0073
84487924|NCT02985684|168727512|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.88 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month closure success proportion = 0.98. Acceptable performance margin = 0.10. PG = 0.98 - 0.10 = 0.88.|Binomial proportion|1.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.974|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test rejects H0, then test primary outcome 2 (clinical success) at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise testing stops with failure to reject both primary outcome null hypotheses.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month closure success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.88 vs H1: P \> 0.88, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month closure success and 0.88 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=103 subjects provide ≥95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.98 under H1."|||0.974|<0.0001
84487925|NCT02985684|168727513|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.76 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month clinical success proportion = 0.88. Acceptable performance margin = 0.12. PG = 0.88 - 0.12 = 0.76.|Binomial proportion|0.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.843|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test of primary outcome 1 rejects H0, then test at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise no testing of this primary outcome and failure to reject null hypothesis.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month clinical success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.76 vs H1: P \> 0.76, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month clinical success and 0.76 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=112 subjects provide 95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.88 under H1."|||0.843|<0.0001
84487926|NCT00631969|168727520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.562|-5.6561|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.6561|-8.562|< 0.0001
84487927|NCT00631969|168727521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.027|||<|0.0001||95.0|-35.519|-22.534|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.534|-35.519|< 0.0001
84487928|NCT00631969|168727522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.021|-31.366|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.366|-45.021|< 0.0001
84487929|NCT00631969|168727523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|34.778|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for age group and pooled center.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
84547106|NCT02105987|168848125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for general satisfaction/clinical subscale score is presented|||1.7|0.4|0.002
84603481|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3265.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
84487930|NCT00631969|168727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.503|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.424|-10.764|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-10.764|-22.424|< 0.0001
84547107|NCT02105987|168848125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for lifestyle/ease subscale is presented|||1.8|0.8|<0.001
84547108|NCT02105987|168848126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|4.86|<0.001
84487931|NCT00631969|168727525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.261|-31.073|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.073|-45.261|< 0.0001
84487932|NCT00631969|168727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.555|||<|0.0001||95.0|-43.645|-29.465|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-29.465|-43.645|< 0.0001
84487933|NCT00631969|168727527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.562|-18.824|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.824|-31.562|< 0.0001
84487934|NCT00631969|168727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.703|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.067|-19.34|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.340|-30.067|< 0.0001
84487935|NCT00631969|168727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.865|-24.128|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.128|-34.865|< 0.0001
84487936|NCT00631969|168727531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.775|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.155|-22.394|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.394|-33.155|< 0.0001
84487937|NCT00631969|168727532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.326|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.062|-17.598|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-17.598|-29.062|< 0.0001
84487938|NCT00631969|168727533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.594|-18.175|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.175|-28.594|< 0.0001
84487939|NCT00631969|168727534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.076|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.745|-27.407|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-27.407|-38.745|< 0.0001
84487940|NCT00631969|168727535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|74.449|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for pooled centers and age group.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
84547109|NCT02105987|168848127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-5.11|||ANCOVA|||||-5.11|-8.64|<0.001
84547110|NCT02105987|168848128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.17|<0.001
84603482|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5018.0||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0745
84669101|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84740729|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 60 minutes post-intervention||6.8|-3.1|0.269
84740730|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.7|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 5 minutes post-intervention||-0.7|-7.1|0.026
84740731|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 30 minutes post-intervention||2.0|-9.4|0.182
84740732|NCT05239598|169232643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 60 minutes post-intervention||4.0|-7.7|0.353
84740733|NCT04092530|169232661|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; clustering by clinical site accounted for with random intercept||Please note that there were only 7 units (community health clinics) analyzed at Level 2 of this multilevel study, but due to the crossover design of the study, they were each observed under both the Control and Intervention conditions. Therefore, the Units Analyzed entered above reflect the 7 clinics under both conditions and should not be summed to 14.||1.05|0.64|0.12
84740734|NCT04092530|169232662|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||1.13|0.70|0.33
84740735|NCT04092530|169232663|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||3.73|0.33|0.88
84740736|NCT02304705|169232696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
84740737|NCT03412773|169232735|NON_INFERIORITY|"Overall survival (OS) was compared between the tislelizumab group (Arm A) and the sorafenib group (Arm B) by testing the null hypothesis of noninferiority: the null hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio (HR) for tislelizumab versus sorafenib is greater than or equal to 1.08, while the alternative hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio is less than 1.08.~Noninferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95.003% confidence interval (CI) for the HR was less than 1.08"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.712|1.019|||||The hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model with treatment, geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG (0 vs. 1) as covariates.|||1.019|0.712|
84740738|NCT03412773|169232735|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of tislelizumab over sorafenib was tested for OS using a stratified log-rank test in the ITT analysis set only when noninferiority was demonstrated. Superiority was declared if the one-sided p-value crosses the boundary of 0.0223 (1-sided p-value \< 0.0223) in favor of Arm A in the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.019||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.019|0.712|0.0398
84740739|NCT03412773|169232736|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|8.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|12.7||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis assumed that ORR is equal in both groups, while the alternative hypothesis assumed ORR is higher in the tislelizumab group (Arm A).||12.70|3.85|0.0003
84740740|NCT03412773|169232737|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|9.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|13.78||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.78|4.71|<0.0001
84740741|NCT03412773|169232738|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.33|0.92|0.1364
84740742|NCT03412773|169232739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.26||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.26|0.90|0.2622
84740743|NCT03412773|169232742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.38||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.38|0.94|0.0859
84740744|NCT03412773|169232743|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.34|0.94|0.1182
84740745|NCT03412773|169232749|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.8||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.8|-3.8|0.0033
84740746|NCT03412773|169232750|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
84740747|NCT03412773|169232751|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.3||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||7.3|1.4|0.0037
84740748|NCT03412773|169232752|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.2||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||8.2|1.8|0.0022
84740749|NCT03317990|169232757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.75|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model adjusted for recruitment site, participant's age, and IIEF-5 at baseline, in participants with available data||4.75|1.62|<0.0001
84487941|NCT00631969|168727536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|117.42||||||90.0|79.59|173.23||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||173.23|79.59|
84487942|NCT00631969|168727536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.7064
84487943|NCT00631969|168727537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|133.07||||||90.0|87.46|202.46||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||202.46|87.46|
84547111|NCT02105987|168848129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.31|0.375
84740750|NCT03317990|169232758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
84740751|NCT03301155|169232803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Comparison performed on the regression parameters scale. Estimates for mean time obtained under assumption of exponentially distributed time-to-event.||||||0.001
84740752|NCT03301155|169232803|SUPERIORITY|superiority margin for hazard ratio was prespecified as 0.846. Lower hazard is better thus the upper confidence limit of HR expected to be lesser than margin|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.839|||Regression, Cox||Lower HR is better|||0.839|0.496|0.0218
84740753|NCT03301155|169232804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 4||||0.0003
84740754|NCT03301155|169232804|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 8||||0.0003
84740755|NCT03301155|169232804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 12||||0.0021
84487944|NCT00631969|168727537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.8749||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.8749
84487945|NCT00631969|168727538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|125.28||||||90.0|73.65|213.11||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years/ patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||213.11|73.65|
84547112|NCT02105987|168848130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.93|0.749
84547113|NCT02105987|168848131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.9||Bone specific alkaline phosphatase|ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.82|<0.001
84547114|NCT02105987|168848131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96||Osteocalcin|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.85|0.002
84547115|NCT02105987|168848131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||Procollagen 1 n-terminal propeptide|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.15|0.001
84547116|NCT02105987|168848131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96||Type I collagen c-telopeptides|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.86|0.001
84547117|NCT02105987|168848132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||Fatty acid binding protein 2|ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.57|<0.001
84547118|NCT02105987|168848132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||Interleukin 6|ANCOVA|||||1.24|0.93|0.311
84547119|NCT02105987|168848132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||Soluble CD14|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.89|<0.001
84547120|NCT02105987|168848132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.01||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Soluble vasc cell adhesion molecule 1|ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.95|0.742
84547121|NCT02105987|168848133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.84|0.999
84547122|NCT02105987|168848134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.91|0.981
84547123|NCT02105987|168848135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.85|0.640
84547124|NCT02105987|168848136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.87|0.645
84547125|NCT02105987|168848137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.97|0.577
84547126|NCT02105987|168848138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|||||1.03|0.98|0.687
84547127|NCT03926117|168848158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.15|-49.12|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (greater than or equal to (\>=) 11 or less than (\<) 11 grams per deciliter (g/dL)) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-49.12|-86.15|<0.0001
84547128|NCT03926117|168848158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-77.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.98|-62.97|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-62.97|-94.98|<0.0001
84547129|NCT03926117|168848158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-87.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.0|-70.54|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-70.54|-101.00|<0.0001
84547130|NCT00086138|168848178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.97|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses compared data collected from the CGIC of participants who received sertraline who had a score equal to or better than the CGIC of participants who received the placebo intervention.||1.97|0.52|0.98
84547131|NCT00086138|168848179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.04|||Chi-squared|||||5.04|0.84|0.11
84547132|NCT02748356|168848193|OTHER|1 sample t-test|||||=|0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a single group comparison||||||=0.351
84547133|NCT01732458|168848234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|2.0||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||2.0|-34.0|
84547134|NCT01732458|168848234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|14.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||14.3|-22.9|
84740756|NCT03301155|169232805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1372
84740757|NCT03301155|169232806|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84740758|NCT03301155|169232807|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84740759|NCT04421950|169232934|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84740760|NCT00186017|169232945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
84740761|NCT00186017|169232946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
84740762|NCT00186017|169232947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
84740763|NCT01038427|169232955|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|106.644|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|123.997||||||||123.997|91.860|
84740764|NCT01038427|169232956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740765|NCT01038427|169232956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84740766|NCT01038427|169232957|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|109.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.316|129.159||||||||129.159|93.316|
84547135|NCT01732458|168848234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|6.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||6.3|-30.3|
84547136|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
84547137|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.018
84547138|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.020
84740767|NCT01038427|169232958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740768|NCT01038427|169232958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740769|NCT01038427|169232959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2655
84547139|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.025
84740770|NCT01038427|169232959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
84740771|NCT01038427|169232959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1093|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1093
84740772|NCT01038427|169232960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9915
84740773|NCT01038427|169232960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
84740774|NCT01038427|169232960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
84740775|NCT03651700|169232996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84740776|NCT03651700|169232997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84740777|NCT05479734|169233005|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of activities while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is the number of positive activities engaged in with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean activity counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
84740778|NCT05479734|169233006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean positive parenting subscale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean subscale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator. A randomization group difference over time was evaluated. This interaction effect was not included in the final statistical model unless statistically significant.||||<1.00
84740779|NCT05479734|169233007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of hours spent with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean number of hours on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.14
84740780|NCT05479734|169233008|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of app helpfulness.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the app was only slightly helpful (scored 0). A Wilcoxon signed rank test was first performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
84547140|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547141|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547142|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.139
84547143|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.011
84740781|NCT05479734|169233009|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of future app use.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there would only be slight interest (scored 0) in using the app in the future. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
84740782|NCT05479734|169233010|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect a desire to recommend the app.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the participant was neither likely nor unlikely (scored 0) to recommend the app to friends. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
84740783|NCT05479734|169233011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.54||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean general development scale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean scale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator.||||<0.54
84547144|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.010
84740784|NCT05479734|169233012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of challenging child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
84740785|NCT05479734|169233013|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of behaviors while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the daily number of positive child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
84740786|NCT03197766|169233089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analysis for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Two subjects in the BMN 111 group discontinued from the study before Week 52. The values for these 2 subjects were imputed for this analysis.||||||< 0.0001
84547145|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.06
84487946|NCT00631969|168727538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7375||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.7375
84740787|NCT03197766|169233090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||< 0.0001
84740788|NCT03197766|169233091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||= 0.506
84740789|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
84740790|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
84740791|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
84740792|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
84740793|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|38.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||38.6|12.5|
84740794|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|36.7|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.7|10.9|
84740795|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0004
84740796|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0012||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0012
84740797|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0008||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0008
84740798|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0217||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0217
84740799|NCT03635099|169233103|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
84740800|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
84740801|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
84740802|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
84740803|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
84547146|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.050
84547147|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.068
84547148|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.049
84740804|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0007||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0007
84487947|NCT00631969|168727539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|123.84||||||90.0|80.12|191.42||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||191.42|80.12|
84487948|NCT00631969|168727539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.394||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.3940
84487949|NCT00041119|168727545|SUPERIORITY|If the 5-year DFS for 4 cycles is 84.7% then a decrease of 23% in hazard rate for 6 cycles corresponds to an increase in 5-year DFS to 88%. Assuming a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, there is 90.9% power to detect such an increase at the final analysis conducted 6.4 years after study activation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of both 6 and 4 cycle regimens are equal. The alternative hypothesis is a hazard ratio of 0.77, corresponding to a decrease of 23% in hazard due to longer duration of chemotherapy.||1.28|0.84|
84487950|NCT00041119|168727546|EQUIVALENCE|For T to be considered equivalent to the standard CA, a confidence interval of the hazard ratio of T to CA should be wholly to the left of 1.3, corresponding to a 30% increase in hazard rate. If the 5-year DFS for CA is 88% then an increase of 30% in hazard rate for T corresponds to 5-year DFS of 84.7%. The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of T to CA exceeds 1.3. The alternative hypothesis is that the two hazard rates are equivalent.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.48||||||||1.48||
84487951|NCT00041119|168727547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years. We assume the 5-year DFS of CA therapy is 88% and 84.7% for T. These assumptions are based upon results of SWOG 8897.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.56||||||||1.56||
84487952|NCT00041119|168727551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49||||||||1.49|.84|
84487953|NCT01722552|168727571|EQUIVALENCE|The margin for non-equivalence was 25 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis was by intent to treat (ITT). This included data for all randomized subjects, with post-intervention adherence measured by the last 30 days of available data; adherence over the entire 6-month intervention period was measured using all available post-intervention data. Our sample size was designed to detect a 25 percentage point difference in proportion achieving optimal adherence post-intervention.||2.1|1.21|<0.05
84487954|NCT00568399|168727572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.987||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Coronary calcium score after treatment compared to baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pilot study without a control group. There were no power calculations (see manuscript).||||0.001
84487955|NCT02176226|168727614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84487956|NCT02176226|168727615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84487957|NCT03894501|168727636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
84487958|NCT03894501|168727637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.037
84487959|NCT03894501|168727638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.024
84487960|NCT03894501|168727639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
84487961|NCT03894501|168727640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||||||.013
84487962|NCT03894501|168727641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||||||.035
84487963|NCT01072500|168727672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.98|||Regression, Cox|To compare interventions, we used a likelihood ratio test from a Cox regression model, stratified by field center and sex.||||0.98|0.69|0.03
84487964|NCT01072500|168727673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.57|0.006
84487965|NCT03798366|168727687|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||2.0|-3.1|0.6757
84487966|NCT03798366|168727688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||1.9|-3.3|0.6079
84487967|NCT03798366|168727689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||0.6|-4.8|0.1298
84487968|NCT03798366|168727690|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||-0.1|-5.6|0.0411
84487969|NCT01412333|168727697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.714|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.714|0.397|< 0.0001
84487970|NCT01412333|168727698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 12||0.92|0.42|= 0.0169
84487971|NCT01412333|168727699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.029|0.089|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.089|0.029|< 0.0001
84487972|NCT01412333|168727700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.171|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.225|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.225|0.130|< 0.0001
84487973|NCT01412333|168727701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.14|||=|0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||1.56|0.84|= 0.4019
84487974|NCT01412333|168727702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.98|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 24||0.98|0.40|= 0.037
84487975|NCT01412333|168727703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.47|0.272|< 0.0001
84487976|NCT01412333|168727704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.18|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.180|0.034|= 0.004
84487977|NCT01412333|168727705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.241|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 14.9%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.241|-0.018|= 0.09
84487978|NCT01412333|168727706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|2.268|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||2.268|0.051|= 0.0404
84487979|NCT01412333|168727707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.32|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.32|1.41|< 0.0001
84547149|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.004
84547150|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.297
84547151|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.855
84547152|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.594|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.594
84547153|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.929
84547154|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
84547155|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
84547156|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.398
84603483|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6343.0||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2581
84740805|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0023||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0023
84487980|NCT00750867|168727735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-I scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0128
84487981|NCT00750867|168727735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-II scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
84487982|NCT00474539|168727736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=1:8 titer was calculated||2.0|-3.3|
84487983|NCT00474539|168727739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
84487984|NCT00474539|168727739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23||||||95.0|0.97|1.55||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.55|0.97|
84487985|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-3.5|2.0||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-3.5|
84487986|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.9|
84487987|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.0|-4.4|
84487988|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.1|
84487989|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
84487990|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
84487991|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
84487992|NCT00474539|168727740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
84487993|NCT00474539|168727741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.72|1.03||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.03|0.72|
84487994|NCT00474539|168727741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.74|1.12||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.12|0.74|
84487995|NCT00474539|168727741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.78|
84487996|NCT00474539|168727741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.24||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.24|0.81|
84487997|NCT00474539|168727744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-1.7|3.2||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 titer was calculated.||3.2|-1.7|
84547157|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.186
84547158|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.833
84547159|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.469
84547160|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.399
84547161|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.752
84547162|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
84547163|NCT05870371|168848256|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.003
84603484|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4102.0||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4894
84603485|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6818.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
84603486|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1570.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.8633
84547164|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
84547165|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.92|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.046
84547166|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547167|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.043
84547168|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.018
84547169|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.102
84547170|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.85|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.160
84740806|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0018||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0018
84547171|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.48|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.039
84547172|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
84547173|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
84547174|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.048
84603487|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4200.0||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3401
84740807|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0386||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0386
84487998|NCT03018340|168727745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in weighted MMRM LSMs|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the primary statistical comparison for Stage 1 and Stage 2 combined.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0390
84487999|NCT03018340|168727745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-6.1|0.0003
84488000|NCT03018340|168727745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.1|0.6940
84488001|NCT00266799|168727774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of ITT Population||1.54|0.76|0.6686
84488002|NCT00266799|168727774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of ITT Population||1.65|0.80|0.4472
84488003|NCT00266799|168727774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of TTP Population||1.77|0.74|0.5508
84488004|NCT00266799|168727774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of TTP Population||1.89|0.77|0.4088
84488005|NCT00266799|168727775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1726||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By Investigator Assessment||||0.1726
84488006|NCT00266799|168727775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6541||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By RECIST Criteria||||0.6541
84488007|NCT00266799|168727776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.79|0.5265
84488008|NCT00266799|168727777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0841||95.0|||||Log Rank|p-value also given for Hazard Ratio||||||0.0841
84488009|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
84488010|NCT02607865|168727779|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
84497185|NCT04636437|168745581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|6.27||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||6.27|-12.1|0.47
84497186|NCT04636437|168745581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-24.2|-5.91||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||-5.91|-24.2|<0.001
84488011|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
84669102|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6956|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6956
84488012|NCT02607865|168727779|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
84488013|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.1|= 0.0856
84740808|NCT03635099|169233104|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
84488014|NCT02607865|168727779|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0080
84488015|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
84669103|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
84740809|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.7|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.7|-11.7|1.0000
84547175|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.059
84547176|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.57
84547177|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.931
84547178|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension maximum . The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.558
84547179|NCT05870371|168848257|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.989
84603488|NCT00901511|168957672|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4307.0||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2973
84603489|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANOVA||Calculated as the between group difference in the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.04|-0.44|0.220
84669104|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84740810|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||37.3|3.9|0.0540
84547180|NCT05870371|168848258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the strength of deep neck flexor muscles as measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84603490|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|•The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.42|-28.80|0.0560
84603491|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.29|-8.80|0.0648
84740811|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||31.4|-0.4|0.1167
84547181|NCT05870371|168848258|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in improving the strength of deep neck flexor muscles measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic neck pain than applying A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.437
84547182|NCT05870371|168848259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||=|0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.919
84547183|NCT05870371|168848259|OTHER||Dependence coefficients (β)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.010
84547184|NCT05870371|168848260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||=|0.659|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.659
84603492|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.25|-11.28|0.0175
84603493|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
84603494|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.56|-9.27|0.0089
84603495|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-0.43|-9.92|0.0343
84603496|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.69|-9.21|0.0871
84603497|NCT00901511|168957673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.06|-8.09|0.2265
84603498|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
84603499|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.82||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1672
84547185|NCT05870371|168848260|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.05
84547186|NCT05870371|168848261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.28|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.09
84488016|NCT02607865|168727779|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
84497187|NCT04636437|168745582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.17|7.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||7.77|-6.17|0.79
84497188|NCT04636437|168745582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|1.16||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||1.16|-12.1|0.063
84497189|NCT04636437|168745583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|1.45||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||1.45|-4.21|0.27
84669105|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7949
84669106|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0679
84497190|NCT04636437|168745583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.25|-2.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||-2.66|-8.25|<0.001
84497191|NCT04636437|168745584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|13.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||13.44|-10.3|0.77
84497192|NCT04636437|168745584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.7|6.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||6.20|-16.7|0.30
84497193|NCT04636437|168745585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.78|9.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||9.15|-8.78|0.96
84497194|NCT04636437|168745585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.2|2.55||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||2.55|-15.2|0.11
84547187|NCT05870371|168848261|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.005
84547188|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total McGill Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547189|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Sensory Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547190|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Affective Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547191|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.996
84547192|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.968
84603500|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4363|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4363
84603501|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.34||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
84603502|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.71||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
84740812|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|63.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||63.2|26.8|0.0006
84547193|NCT05870371|168848262|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.854
84547194|NCT05870371|168848263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
84547195|NCT05870371|168848263|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.952
84547196|NCT05870371|168848264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
84547197|NCT05870371|168848264|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.989
84547198|NCT05870371|168848265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547199|NCT05870371|168848265|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.973
84547200|NCT05870371|168848266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547201|NCT05870371|168848266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547202|NCT05870371|168848266|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.305
84547203|NCT05870371|168848266|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.137
84603503|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
84547204|NCT05870371|168848267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the kinesiophobia as measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547205|NCT05870371|168848267|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing kinesiophobia measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.151
84547206|NCT05870371|168848267|OTHER||||||=|0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|McNemar|||||||=0.021
84547207|NCT05870371|168848268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.006
84547208|NCT05870371|168848268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
84488017|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
84547209|NCT05870371|168848268|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.197
84488018|NCT02607865|168727779|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
84488019|NCT02607865|168727779|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|=0.3851
84488020|NCT02607865|168727779|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84488021|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.0|-3.0|< 0.0001
84603504|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||• Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6475
84740813|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|69.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||69.6|22.0|
84740814|NCT03635099|169233105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|59.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||59.2|11.3|
84740815|NCT03635099|169233106|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
84740816|NCT03635099|169233106|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
84740817|NCT03635099|169233106|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||29.3|5.7|0.0465
84488022|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-2.0|< 0.0001
84488023|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0185
84488024|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
84497195|NCT04636437|168745586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.07||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.93|21.06||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.06|-4.93|0.16
84497196|NCT04636437|168745586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|21.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.15|-3.37|0.10
84603505|NCT00901511|168957674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6481
84740818|NCT03635099|169233106|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||18.0|0.6|
84740819|NCT03635099|169233106|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||11.2|-1.7|
84740820|NCT03635099|169233107|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
84488025|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.0|<0.0001
84488026|NCT02607865|168727780|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|type Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||=|0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.0|=0.0257
84488027|NCT02607865|168727801|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.65||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.65|1.09|=0.0063
84488028|NCT02607865|168727801|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.96|0.61|=0.0221
84488029|NCT02607865|168727801|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
84488030|NCT02607865|168727802|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.68|1.05|=0.0160
84488031|NCT02607865|168727802|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.51|=0.0022
84488032|NCT02607865|168727802|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.43||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.43|0.22|<0.0001
84488033|NCT00242710|168727847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.18|1.56|<0.001
84488034|NCT00242710|168727847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.17|1.56|<0.001
84488035|NCT00242710|168727847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|4.76|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.76|2.81|<0.001
84488036|NCT00242710|168727849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.24|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.24|0.97|<0.001
84488037|NCT00242710|168727849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.46|1.19|<0.001
84603506|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.06|-3.17|0.0582
84547210|NCT05870371|168848268|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.066
84547211|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total PCS score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547212|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547213|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547214|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547215|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Total PCS score. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||=0.871
84547216|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.887
84547217|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.879|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.879
84547218|NCT05870371|168848269|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.961
84603507|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||3.48|-1.17|0.3068
84740821|NCT03635099|169233107|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
84740822|NCT03635099|169233107|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||6.8|-2.2|
84547219|NCT05870371|168848270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84740823|NCT03635099|169233107|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||7.0|-2.2|
84547220|NCT05870371|168848270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
84547221|NCT05870371|168848270|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.564|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.564
84547222|NCT05870371|168848270|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.023
84547223|NCT05870371|168848271|OTHER||||||=|0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.014
84740824|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
84740825|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
84547224|NCT05870371|168848271|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84547225|NCT05870371|168848271|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84547226|NCT02589639|168848277|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 10 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.73|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment||"The statistical model was:~Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error"|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|-0.73|-1.11|<0.0001
84740826|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|23.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||23.3|2.3|0.0942
84547227|NCT02589639|168848277|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 25 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|The statistical model was: Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error||-0.82|-1.18|<0.0001
84547228|NCT03867201|168848306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-2.83|0.015
84740827|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
84740828|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
84547229|NCT05763875|168848312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.88|-29.86|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.86|-40.88|<0.0001
84547230|NCT05763875|168848312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.62|-42.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-42.20|-53.62|<0.0001
84547231|NCT05763875|168848312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-32.26|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-32.26|-42.63|<0.0001
84740829|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
84740830|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
84547232|NCT05763875|168848312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.51|-45.28|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-45.28|-56.51|<0.0001
84547233|NCT05763875|168848313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.91|-40.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-40.72|-53.91|<0.0001
84547234|NCT05763875|168848313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.28|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-56.87|-70.28|<0.0001
84547235|NCT05763875|168848313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-43.94|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-43.94|-56.16|<0.0001
84547236|NCT05763875|168848313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-60.92|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-60.92|-74.09|<0.0001
84547237|NCT05763875|168848314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.76|-64.56|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-64.56|-81.76|<0.0001
84547238|NCT05763875|168848314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.51|-65.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-65.37|-84.51|<0.0001
84547239|NCT05763875|168848314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.12|-68.62|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-68.62|-85.12|<0.0001
84547240|NCT05763875|168848314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.77|-70.17|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-70.17|-88.77|<0.0001
84547241|NCT05763875|168848315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.98|-25.98|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-25.98|-34.98|<0.0001
84603508|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.15|-2.04|0.5647
84547242|NCT05763875|168848315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-36.82|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-36.82|-47.83|<0.0001
84547243|NCT05763875|168848315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|-27.89|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-27.89|-36.07|<0.0001
84547244|NCT05763875|168848315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.28|-39.44|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-39.44|-50.28|<0.0001
84547245|NCT05763875|168848316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-19.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-19.36|-30.32|<0.0001
84547246|NCT05763875|168848316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-26.44|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-26.44|-41.27|<0.0001
84547247|NCT05763875|168848316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-21.09|-32.07|<0.0001
84547248|NCT05763875|168848316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.67|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-28.67|-43.46|<0.0001
84547249|NCT05763875|168848317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-24.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-24.65|-33.30|<0.0001
84547250|NCT05763875|168848317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-32.22|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-32.22|-41.10|<0.0001
84547251|NCT05763875|168848317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-26.23|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-26.23|-34.08|<0.0001
84547252|NCT05763875|168848317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-34.43|-43.12|<0.0001
84547253|NCT05763875|168848318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-23.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-23.57|-36.92|<0.0001
84547254|NCT05763875|168848318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.18|-29.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.12|-41.18|<0.0001
84547255|NCT05763875|168848318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-25.59|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-25.59|-39.10|<0.0001
84547256|NCT05763875|168848318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-31.31|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-31.31|-43.44|<0.0001
84547257|NCT05763875|168848319|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.757||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.882|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.882|0.650|0.0002
84547258|NCT05763875|168848319|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.898|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.898|0.622|0.0010
84547259|NCT05763875|168848319|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.871|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.871|0.652|<0.0001
84547260|NCT05763875|168848319|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.746||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.893|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.893|0.622|0.0008
84547261|NCT01262287|168848321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84547262|NCT01262287|168848322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84547263|NCT01262287|168848322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84547264|NCT02582242|168848358|OTHER||Treatment difference at week 24|-0.09||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Treatment difference at week 24: BIAsp 30 (TID) - BIAsp 30 (BID). Number of subjects contributed to the statistical analysis: N=217 for BIAsp 30 (TID) and N=213 for BIAsp 30 (BID).|The analysis was based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 and 26 (in week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24, respectively). The model included treatment, strata and region as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.06|-0.23|0.2601
84740831|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
84740832|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
84740833|NCT03635099|169233108|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|49.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||49.8|20.2|0.0025
84740834|NCT03635099|169233109|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
84740835|NCT03635099|169233109|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
84740836|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
84740837|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
84488038|NCT00242710|168727849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.23|1.69|<0.001
84488039|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.12|-0.80|0.373
84488040|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.40|-1.70|0.738
84488041|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.71|-1.41|0.539
84488042|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.90|-0.71|0.233
84488043|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.39|-1.39|0.605
84488044|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.57|-1.12|0.305
84603509|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.40|-2.11|0.1669
84488045|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.52|-1.08|0.299
84740838|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
84740839|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
84740840|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
84740841|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
84740842|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|38.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||38.4|11.6|0.0143
84740843|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
84740844|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
84740845|NCT03635099|169233110|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
84740846|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||2.8|-1.9|0.7008
84740847|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||3.0|-1.8|0.6268
84488046|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.51|-0.27|0.092
84488047|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.29|-0.18|0.080
84488048|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.92|-0.85|0.279
84488049|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.11|-0.84|0.260
84488050|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.52|-1.50|0.618
84547265|NCT00300885|168848376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.915||95.0|0.94|1.41||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 384 deaths at interim analysis (IA), one-sided alpha value for IA was 0.0046.|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with overall alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors as randomization|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.76923, Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P -Null: theta\>=1, Alternative: theta\<=0.76923). With overall one-sided alpha of 0.025, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, one formal interim analysis and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of 614 events (deaths) were required.||1.41|0.94|0.915
84547266|NCT00300885|168848377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.433||95.0|0.84|1.16|||Log Rank|||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors at randomization||1.16|0.84|0.433
84547267|NCT00300885|168848378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in response rate (CR+PR rate)|-3.65||||0.1015||95.0|-9.18|1.89||no adjustments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||difference in response rates (Complete Response (CR) + Partial Response (PR)) = Placebo+C/P - Sorafenib+C/P|Objective response rate (ie. CR+PR rate) was compared between treatment arms using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with one-side alpha 0.025 adjusting for same stratification factors as randomization||1.89|-9.18|0.1015
84547268|NCT00638404|168848382|OTHER|correlation of anxiety, anticipated pain medication use and anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|anxiety to evoked pain is 0.24 (P\<.001); anticipated pain to evoked pain is 0.33 (P\<.001); anticipated pain medication to evoked pain is 0.33(P\<.001).||||||<.001
84547269|NCT00638404|168848382|OTHER|correlation of anxiety to evoked pain at 24 hour|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
84547270|NCT00638404|168848382|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain medication 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
84603510|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.93|-1.99|0.4530
84740848|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.1|0.3|0.0266
84488051|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.96|-3.78|0.810
84488052|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.81|-1.14|0.654
84488053|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.28|-1.84|0.834
84488054|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.72|-2.41|0.744
84488055|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.91|-1.70|0.909
84488056|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.85|-1.94|0.963
84547271|NCT00638404|168848382|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
84547272|NCT00638404|168848383|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||preoperative questionnaire evaluating anticipated amount of pain medication potentially needed postoperatively; 0= none at all up to 100=as much as possible||||<.001
84547273|NCT00638404|168848384|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
84547274|NCT00638404|168848385|OTHER|Correlation of|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
84547275|NCT00603902|168848386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for baseline body weight.||||3.13|2.31|<0.0001
84547276|NCT00603902|168848387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.56|||ANCOVA|||||-2.56|-3.44|<0.0001
84740849|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||6.3|1.7|0.0009
84488057|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.94|-1.77|0.625
84547277|NCT02282631|168848413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"U=390.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."||||||0.02
84547278|NCT02282631|168848414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=665.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84488058|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.23|-2.39|0.947
84488059|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.53|-1.25|0.505
84488060|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.25|-1.23|0.564
84547279|NCT02282631|168848415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=596.5 Z=-2.4 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84488061|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.57|-2.21|0.739
84488062|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.67|-2.27|0.766
84669107|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
84488063|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.10|-1.92|0.931
84488064|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|3.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-3.17|0.911
84740850|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
84488065|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.30|0.92|0.003
84488066|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.58|1.79|<0.001
84547280|NCT02282631|168848416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"U=955.0 Z=-2.5 p=0.01~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84547281|NCT00459290|168848424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7912
84547282|NCT00459290|168848425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1545|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1545
84547283|NCT00459290|168848426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
84547284|NCT02453334|168848427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.87|0.30|0.0143
84547285|NCT02453334|168848427|OTHER||Percentage difference|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-28.01|
84547286|NCT02453334|168848429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.50|1.19|0.0097
84740851|NCT03635099|169233111|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
84740852|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.1|-10.1|0.7144
84740853|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
84740854|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
84740855|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||30.6|-0.6|0.1250
84740856|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|36.1|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.1|-20.3|
84740857|NCT03635099|169233112|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|34.3|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||34.3|-21.9|
84488067|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.86|1.03|0.005
84488068|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.30|1.01|0.004
84488069|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.87|0.36|0.023
84488070|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.54|0.96|0.008
84488071|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.26|0.78|0.012
84488072|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.07|1.55|<0.001
84488073|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.83|1.68|<0.001
84488074|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.54|1.05|0.004
84488075|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.99|-0.73|0.175
84488076|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.75|-1.05|0.270
84488077|NCT00242710|168727850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|7.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||7.97|-0.41|0.077
84488078|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.826
84488079|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.534
84488080|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84488081|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.516
84740858|NCT04103892|169233113|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM|||||2.09|-4.60|0.46
84488082|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.446
84488083|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.218
84488084|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84488085|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84488086|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.733
84488087|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.736
84488088|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.449
84488089|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.489
84488090|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.163
84488091|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.813
84488092|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.777
84488093|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.448
84488094|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.507
84488095|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.669
84488096|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.281
84488097|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
84740859|NCT04103892|169233114|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.65|-9.91|0.03
84740860|NCT03008005|169233115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
84740861|NCT03008005|169233116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
84740862|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to the baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
84740863|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
84488098|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.437
84488099|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84488100|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
84488101|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.227
84488102|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.758
84488103|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.554
84488104|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84488105|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84488106|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84488107|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84488108|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84547287|NCT02453334|168848429|OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|28.51||||||Percentage difference||28.51|4.19|
84547288|NCT02453334|168848430|OTHER||Percentage difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|7.45||||||||7.45|-12.85|
84740864|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6342||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6342
84488109|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84488110|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
84488111|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
84547289|NCT02453334|168848430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.60|0.43|0.5758
84488112|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.005
84488113|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
84740865|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0231
84488114|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.062
84488115|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.007
84488116|NCT00242710|168727851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.029
84488117|NCT00242710|168727853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.58|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.58|1.92|<0.001
84488118|NCT00242710|168727853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.46|1.83|<0.001
84488119|NCT00242710|168727853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|6.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||6.23|3.13|<0.001
84488120|NCT00242710|168727854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.87|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.87|0.80|<0.001
84488121|NCT00242710|168727854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.97|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.97|0.92|<0.001
84547290|NCT02453334|168848431|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.56||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|0.76|0.2772
84547291|NCT02453334|168848431|OTHER||Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|16.43||||||||16.43|-5.01|
84547292|NCT02453334|168848432|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by country||||||0.0011
84547293|NCT02453334|168848433|OTHER||Percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.08||||||||9.08|-7.60|
84547294|NCT02453334|168848433|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.49|0.8924
84547295|NCT02453334|168848434|OTHER||Percentage difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.77||||||||0.77|-20.41|
84740866|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0862
84740867|NCT07025837|169233122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0033
84740868|NCT07025837|169233123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1176||||||Week 2 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1176
84740869|NCT07025837|169233123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0030
84740870|NCT07025837|169233123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84740871|NCT07025837|169233123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740872|NCT07025837|169233123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84547296|NCT02453334|168848434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country. Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.06|0.28|0.0740
84547297|NCT02453334|168848435|OTHER||Percentage difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.31|-0.91||||||||-0.91|-23.31|
84547298|NCT02453334|168848435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation||||0.99|0.26|0.0446
84547299|NCT02453334|168848436|OTHER||Percentage difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.69||||||||-8.69|-30.90|
84547300|NCT02453334|168848436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||||0.63|0.14|0.0010
84547301|NCT02453334|168848437|OTHER||Percentage difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.22|-9.51||||||||-9.51|-33.22|
84547302|NCT02453334|168848437|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.61|0.13|0.0009
84547303|NCT02453334|168848438|OTHER||Percentage difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-4.26||||||||-4.26|-27.73|
84669108|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8053|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8053
84740873|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9751||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.9751
84547304|NCT02453334|168848438|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.79|0.14|0.0093
84547305|NCT02453334|168848439|OTHER||Percentage difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|6.57||||||||6.57|-15.37|
84740874|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0078
84547306|NCT02453334|168848439|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.89|0.26|0.4786
84547307|NCT02453334|168848440|OTHER||Percentage difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|4.55||||||||4.55|-19.25|
84547308|NCT02453334|168848440|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.43||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.43|0.20|0.2084
84547309|NCT02453334|168848441|OTHER||Percentage difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|15.54||||||||15.54|-9.33|
84547310|NCT02453334|168848441|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||3.24|0.48|0.6508
84547311|NCT02453334|168848443|OTHER|||||||0.0063||||||P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by pooled sites.|Log Rank|||||||0.0063
84547312|NCT02362672|168848446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||NKTR-181 (Double-blind Treatment Phase), Placebo (Double-blind Treatment Phase)||||0.0019
84547313|NCT05483686|168848452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in percentage of participants with HIV transmission risk between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.19
84547314|NCT05483686|168848453|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in ART adherence between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||=.24
84547315|NCT05483686|168848454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.79
84547316|NCT05483686|168848455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to ART use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
84547317|NCT05483686|168848456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to PrEP use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.14
84547318|NCT05483686|168848457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
84740875|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84740876|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740877|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740878|NCT07025837|169233124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740879|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0544
84740880|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0036
84740881|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84547319|NCT05483686|168848458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in social support between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.30
84547320|NCT05483686|168848459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in gender identity comfort between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.94
84547321|NCT03126630|168848464|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that there are no differences between the classes in the population. The purpose of the test is to evaluate how likely the observed frequencies would be assuming the null hypothesis is true.||||||0.27541|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27541
84547322|NCT03126630|168848467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not enough events||Log Rank||||||0.0|0.1936
84547323|NCT03126630|168848468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.51|||Log Rank|||||4.51|0.73|0.1952
84547324|NCT03777436|168848557|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||30.9|9.2|0.0003
84547325|NCT03777436|168848558|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|15.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||23.6|6.9|0.0004
84547326|NCT03777436|168848559|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||39.3|15.4|<0.0001
84547327|NCT03777436|168848560|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.47|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.47|-5.18|0.0005
84547328|NCT03777436|168848561|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.1|-4.2|0.0008
84547329|NCT03777436|168848562|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.0|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-10.0|-20.3|<0.0001
84669109|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2638|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2638
84547330|NCT02560922|168848574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.18|-1.45|0.128
84547331|NCT02560922|168848574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.06|-1.73|0.068
84547332|NCT02560922|168848575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.77|-6.01|0.129
84547333|NCT02560922|168848575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.44|-7.07|0.084
84547334|NCT02560922|168848576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.91|-4.14|0.209
84547335|NCT02560922|168848576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.63|-5.03|0.128
84547336|NCT02560922|168848577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.51|-2.18|0.222
84547337|NCT02560922|168848577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.33|-2.60|0.128
84547338|NCT02560922|168848578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||3.82|-0.40|0.111
84547339|NCT02560922|168848578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||2.88|-1.42|0.502
84547340|NCT02560922|168848579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||2.66|-1.15|0.433
84547341|NCT02560922|168848579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||3.86|-0.45|0.120
84547342|NCT02560922|168848580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.09|21.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||21.53|9.09|0.001
84547343|NCT02560922|168848580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|18.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||18.27|5.08|<0.001
84547344|NCT02560922|168848581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.57|0.356
84547345|NCT02560922|168848581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.15|-2.19|0.087
84547346|NCT02560922|168848582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||1.41|0.61|<0.001
84740882|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740883|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740884|NCT07025837|169233125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to Baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740885|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84488122|NCT00242710|168727854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.59|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.59|1.17|<0.001
84740886|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84488123|NCT00203294|168727869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Separate models were fit to the change scores for headache pain, nausea and vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, and neck pain.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||||<0.01
84488124|NCT00203294|168727869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups.||||<0.01
84488125|NCT02364999|168727873|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk difference for confirmed response. EU equivalence margins (95% CI in -13% to 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.608|7.9082|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||7.9082|-6.6080|
84488126|NCT02364999|168727873|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. US equivalence margins (90% CI in 0.73 to 1.37).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8856|1.1625|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1625|0.8856|
84488127|NCT02364999|168727873|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. Japan equivalence margins (95% CI in 0.729 to 1.371).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.1933|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1933|0.8628|
84488128|NCT02364999|168727876|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.051|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.051|0.608|0.1077
84488129|NCT02364999|168727877|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.4492||95.0|0.777|1.116|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.116|0.777|0.4492
84488130|NCT02364999|168727878|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.157|0.729|0.4726
84488131|NCT03427528|168727884|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the BDI-II we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our BDI-II.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
84488132|NCT03427528|168727885|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the GAD-7, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our outcomes.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
84488133|NCT03427528|168727886|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
84547347|NCT02560922|168848582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||1.09|0.24|0.002
84547348|NCT02560922|168848583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 3 months||-0.95|-1.60|<0.001
84547349|NCT02560922|168848583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 9 months||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
84547350|NCT02064816|168848603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.277763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.56|||Mann-Whitney Non Parametric test|||||1.56|-0.46|0.277763
84547351|NCT02064816|168848604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.3492||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3495|2.3489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||2.3489|0.3495|0.0083
84547352|NCT02064816|168848604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.3367||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3534|2.32|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 8||2.3200|0.3534|0.0079
84547353|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4003||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5992|1.3998|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 4||1.3998|-0.5992|0.4311
84547354|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08479||||0.8635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|1.0546|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 8||1.0546|-0.8850|0.8635
84547355|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3245||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2927|0.6437|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 12||0.6437|-1.2927|0.5099
84547356|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07079||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8452|0.7036|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 4||0.7036|-0.8452|0.8574
84547357|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1897||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5926|0.972|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 8||0.9720|-0.5926|0.6338
84547358|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4097||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3734|1.1929|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 12||1.1929|-0.3734|0.3042
84547359|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4083||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9008|0.08419|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 4||0.08419|-0.9008|0.1038
84547360|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1358||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.3653|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 8||0.3653|-0.6370|0.5940
84547361|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.05809||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.4489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 12||0.4489|-0.5651|0.8217
84547362|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5909||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0873|2.269|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 4||2.2690|-1.0873|0.4890
84547363|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.7689||||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4607|0.9229|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 8||0.9229|-2.4607|0.3719
84603511|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.97|-2.04|0.4594
84603512|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.00|-1.61|0.6302
84603513|NCT00901511|168957675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.80|-2.24|0.3300
84603514|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.79||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|28.96|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.96|-136.4|0.1864
84603515|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.3||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|77.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||77.51|-119.8|0.6541
84547364|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1422||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5521|1.8364|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 12||1.8364|-1.5521|0.8690
84547365|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6544||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4393|6.7482|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 4||6.7482|-5.4393|0.8328
84547366|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2294||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.9212|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 8||3.9212|-8.3800|0.4764
84547367|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-5.4196||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5939|0.7547|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 12||0.7547|-11.5939|0.0852
84603516|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.58||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|33.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.33|-70.89|0.4560
84669110|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
84547368|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006873||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2918|0.3055|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 4||0.3055|-0.2918|0.9639
84547369|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08689||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|0.2148|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 8||0.2148|-0.3886|0.5715
84547370|NCT02064816|168848605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2224||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.0809|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 12||0.08090|-0.5256|0.1502
84547371|NCT04468347|168848620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
84547372|NCT04468347|168848620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.0005
84547373|NCT04468347|168848620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.2161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.2161
84547374|NCT04468347|168848621|OTHER|||||||0.1998|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1998
84547375|NCT04468347|168848622|OTHER|||||||0.0646|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0646
84547376|NCT01197534|168848633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
84547377|NCT01197534|168848634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.04|<0.001
84547378|NCT01197534|168848635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.07|<0.001
84547379|NCT01197534|168848635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.15|0.05|<0.001
84547380|NCT01197534|168848636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
84547381|NCT01197534|168848636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.00|0.033
84547382|NCT01197534|168848637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
84547383|NCT01197534|168848637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
84547384|NCT01197534|168848638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.80|3.42|<0.001
84740887|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740888|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84547385|NCT01197534|168848638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.65|1.88|<0.001
84547386|NCT01197534|168848639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|16.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||16.65|3.23|<0.001
84603517|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.98||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.12|37.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.23|-94.12|0.3721
84740889|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740890|NCT07025837|169233126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740891|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1438
84740892|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
84547387|NCT01197534|168848639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|14.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.71|2.81|<0.001
84547388|NCT01197534|168848640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.91||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.91|2.06|<0.001
84547389|NCT01197534|168848640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.37||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.37|1.77|<0.001
84547390|NCT01197534|168848641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.46|1.73|<0.001
84547391|NCT01197534|168848641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.94|1.46|<0.001
84547392|NCT01197534|168848642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.904
84547393|NCT01197534|168848642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.342
84547394|NCT01197534|168848643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.48||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.48|1.47|<0.001
84547395|NCT01197534|168848643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.65|0.63|0.001
84547396|NCT01197534|168848644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.2||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.20|0.97|<0.001
84547397|NCT01197534|168848644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.08||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.08|0.83|<0.001
84547398|NCT04586244|168848715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||paired t-test|The paired t-test used n-1 degrees of freedom, where n is the number of evaluable paired samples.||||||0.0925
84603518|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.41|14.86|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||14.86|-72.41|0.1812
84740893|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84547399|NCT03517540|168848727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.688
84547400|NCT03517540|168848727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.99|0.51|0.985
84547401|NCT03517540|168848727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.3|0.870
84547402|NCT03517540|168848727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.41|0.710
84547403|NCT03517540|168848728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.08|0.136
84547404|NCT03517540|168848728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|0.24|0.747
84547405|NCT03517540|168848728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.18|0.784
84547406|NCT03517540|168848728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.69|0.4|0.521
84740894|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0015
84547407|NCT00615550|168848729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.33|0.020
84547408|NCT00615550|168848730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for composite score data.||||0.048
84547409|NCT00615550|168848730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for RDS data.||0.92|0.17|0.026
84547410|NCT00615550|168848731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for births \<=27 6/7 weeks data.||0.97|0.25|0.036
84547411|NCT00615550|168848731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<= 34 6/7 weeks data.||0.92|0.42|0.016
84547412|NCT00615550|168848731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<36 weeks data.||1.16|0.68|0.376
84547413|NCT00615550|168848732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.14|0.431
84547414|NCT00615550|168848733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 1500 grams data.||0.85|0.26|0.01
84547415|NCT00615550|168848733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 2500 grams data.||1.11|0.62|0.213
84547416|NCT02915705|168848758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), confidence interval (CI), and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.||1.45|0.83|< 0.0001
84547417|NCT02915705|168848759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|211.7||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per logistic regression model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||211.7|7.2|< 0.0001
84547418|NCT02915705|168848760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|206.3||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per generalized linear mixed model, which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS total score as a continuous covariate.|generalized linear mixed model|||||206.3|5.6|0.0002
84740895|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84740896|NCT07025837|169233127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740897|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0041
84547419|NCT02915705|168848761|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33|||GEE model|||Per generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate, with exchangeable covariate structure.||1.33|0.72|< 0.0001
84547420|NCT02915705|168848762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.94||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-1.74|< 0.0001
84547421|NCT02915705|168848763|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.83||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||-0.83|-1.59|< 0.0001
84547422|NCT02915705|168848764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||0.72|0.07|0.0162
84547423|NCT02915705|168848765|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||1.37|0.57|< 0.0001
84740898|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84740899|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740900|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740901|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740902|NCT07025837|169233128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740903|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0249
84740904|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84547424|NCT02915705|168848766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.24|0.01|0.0408
84547425|NCT02915705|168848767|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.29|0.00|0.0490
84547426|NCT02915705|168848768|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.99|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.99|0.06|0.0386
84547427|NCT02915705|168848769|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.12||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.88|0.37|0.0047
84547428|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||1.27|0.81|< 0.0001
84547429|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||1.27|0.79|< 0.0001
84547430|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||0.97|0.58|< 0.0001
84547431|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||0.81|0.44|< 0.0001
84603519|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.67|23.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.44|-75.67|0.2805
84740905|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740906|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84669111|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8502
84740907|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740908|NCT07025837|169233129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740909|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
84547432|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||0.72|0.30|< 0.0001
84547433|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.89|||GEE model|||Week 32||0.89|0.51|< 0.0001
84547434|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||GEE model||Difference (burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||0.91|0.51|< 0.0001
84547435|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||GEE model|||Week 52||0.82|0.39|< 0.0001
84740910|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7453||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.7453
84740911|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.2118
84740912|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0111
84547436|NCT02915705|168848770|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||GEE model|||Week 64||0.90|0.49|< 0.0001
84547437|NCT02915705|168848772|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANCOVA||Difference (KRN23 - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|||0.91|0.58|< 0.0001
84547438|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|48.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.53|60.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||60.02|36.53|< 0.0001
84547439|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|21.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.01|30.16|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||30.16|12.01|< 0.0001
84547440|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|15.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|25.15|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||25.15|6.35|0.0010
84547441|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|12.97||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|22.53|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||22.53|3.41|0.0078
84547442|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|10.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|19.19|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||19.19|2.59|0.0101
84547443|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|6.23||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|14.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 32||14.02|-1.55|0.1165
84547444|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|11.21||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|21.44|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||21.44|0.98|0.0317
84740913|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0150
84740914|NCT07025837|169233130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84603520|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.75||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.56|20.89|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||20.89|-75.56|0.2470
84488134|NCT03427528|168727886|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10 we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
84603521|NCT00901511|168957676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.57||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.97|18.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.97|-80.97|0.2070
84603522|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|11.33|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the difference in the mean value of the SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the Control Group|Primary analysis||11.33|-1.88|0.1490
84603523|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|21.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||21.43|-30.04|0.7263
84603524|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|25.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.91|-9.24|0.3298
84603525|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|27.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||27.62|-0.15|0.0478
84603526|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|33.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.39|2.16|0.0281
84603527|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|33.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.00|-9.67|0.2634
84603528|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|32.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.24|-12.24|0.3548
84603529|NCT00901511|168957677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|37.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.18|-3.85|0.1043
84740915|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0199
84740916|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740917|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740918|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740919|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84488135|NCT03427528|168727887|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
84740920|NCT07025837|169233131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740921|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.4438
84740922|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0412
84740923|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0943||||||Week 6 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.0943
84740924|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
84740925|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84603530|NCT00681564|168957678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (baseline). Note: data analysis of patients who completed the study protocol (n=86). Intention-to-treat analysis analysis was not used because its application for the evaluation of continuous data would imply imputing missing data for patients lost to follow-up. Mean and standard deviation of flow-mediated dilatation, including data from all patients randomized in this study, is reported in the field of baseline characteristics.||||0.98
84547445|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.01||||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|14.56|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||14.56|-4.55|0.3044
84547446|NCT02915705|168848775|SUPERIORITY||difference|8.7||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|15.68|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D|Week 64||15.68|1.72|0.0145
84547447|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||2.02|1.28|< 0.0001
84547448|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.64|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||1.64|1.19|< 0.0001
84547449|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||GEE model|||Week 16||1.48|0.84|< 0.0001
84547450|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||1.41|0.80|< 0.0001
84547451|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||GEE model|||Week 32||1.51|0.98|< 0.0001
84547452|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||1.60|1.10|< 0.0001
84603531|NCT00681564|168957678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (24 hours).||||0.005
84603532|NCT00681564|168957678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||"Statistical analysis: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (12 weeks). Intention-to-treat analysis was not used because input of values for patients lost at follow-up will artificially amplify the precision of outcome measures.~Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org."||||0.43
84603533|NCT00405964|168957692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Determined for site. P-value of \<.001 for treatment as well.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
84547453|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||1.54|0.97|< 0.0001
84547454|NCT02915705|168848777|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||1.54|0.96|< 0.0001
84547455|NCT02915705|168848779|SUPERIORITY||difference|-92.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.4|-53.66|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||-53.66|-131.40|< 0.0001
84547456|NCT02915705|168848779|SUPERIORITY||difference|-85.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.37|-44.76|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||-44.76|-126.37|< 0.0001
84547457|NCT02915705|168848779|SUPERIORITY||difference|-95.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.05|-55.84|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||-55.84|-136.05|< 0.0001
84547458|NCT02915705|168848779|SUPERIORITY||difference|-111.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.08|-70.49|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||-70.49|-152.08|< 0.0001
84547459|NCT02915705|168848779|SUPERIORITY||difference|-146.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.61|-101.52|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||-101.52|-191.61|< 0.0001
84547460|NCT02915705|168848782|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-5.02||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-0.75|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||-0.75|-9.29|0.0212
84547461|NCT02915705|168848782|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.68||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.89|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.89|-0.52|0.1009
84547462|NCT02915705|168848782|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|1.37|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||1.37|-7.86|0.1676
84547463|NCT02915705|168848783|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.26||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|2.09|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||2.09|-6.61|0.3091
84603534|NCT00405964|168957693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0||||Determined for site. Treatment p-value \<.001|ANOVA|||||||0.035
84603535|NCT00405964|168957694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Same p-value for treatment and site.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
84740926|NCT07025837|169233132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0007
84740927|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6148
84740928|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.7953
84488136|NCT01948791|168727894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of MeanP-MeanB+1.40, the post-baseline noninferiority to baseline can be concluded. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of 0, superiority can be concluded.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis to test the non-inferiority of post-baseline change in ADAS-Cog from baseline was: H0: μP - μB ≥ 1.40, Ha: μP - μB \< 1.40 where μP and μB are the ADAS-Cog score (actual) at 16 weeks of Rivastigmine treatment and the baseline ADAS-Cog score (actual), respectively.||||<0.001
84488137|NCT00702949|168727925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
84488138|NCT00702949|168727928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.002
84488139|NCT00702949|168727929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.009
84488140|NCT00702949|168727931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
84488141|NCT00135694|168727933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|10.0||||||||10|-35|
84488142|NCT00135694|168727939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||0.0183
84488143|NCT00135694|168727940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||<0.0001
84488144|NCT02584660|168727941|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.674|||t-test|||||-0.674|-1.730|<.0001
84488145|NCT04623255|168727959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in at least two inflammation markers' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.16
84488146|NCT04623255|168727960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker CRP' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.606
84488147|NCT04623255|168727961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker D-Dimer' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.245
84547464|NCT02915705|168848783|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.9||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.59|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.59|-1.80|0.3145
84669112|NCT01480076|169072585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0917
84488148|NCT04623255|168727962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker LDH' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.653
84488149|NCT02120469|168727963|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose level B1 (eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks with everolimus 5 mg daily) was defined as the highest dose with acceptable toxicity (RP2D).|||
84547465|NCT02915705|168848783|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|4.06|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||4.06|-6.21|0.6810
84740929|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0019
84488150|NCT01040728|168727969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.163|<0.0001
84488151|NCT01040728|168727969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.186|<0.0001
84488152|NCT01040728|168727969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.187|<0.0001
84488153|NCT01040728|168727970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.117|<0.0001
84488154|NCT01040728|168727970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.134|<0.0001
84488155|NCT01040728|168727970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.128|<0.0001
84488156|NCT01040728|168727971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.141|<0.0001
84488157|NCT01040728|168727971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.157|<0.0001
84488158|NCT01040728|168727971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.159|<0.0001
84488159|NCT01040728|168727972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.181|<0.0001
84488160|NCT01040728|168727972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.205|<0.0001
84488161|NCT01040728|168727972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.119|<0.0001
84488162|NCT01040728|168727973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.178|<0.0001
84488163|NCT01040728|168727973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.208|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.208|<0.0001
84488164|NCT01040728|168727973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.199|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.199|<0.0001
84488165|NCT01040728|168727974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.201|<0.0001
84488166|NCT01040728|168727974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.23|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.230|<0.0001
84488167|NCT01040728|168727974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.138|<0.0001
84488168|NCT01040728|168727975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.169|<0.0001
84488169|NCT01040728|168727975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
84488170|NCT01040728|168727975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
84547466|NCT02915705|168848784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.80|-0.79|0.9862
84547467|NCT02915705|168848785|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.05||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.68|-0.58|0.8786
84547468|NCT02915705|168848786|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|43.46||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|87.17|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||87.17|-0.26|0.0514
84740930|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
84740931|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84488171|NCT01040728|168727976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.097|<0.0001
84488172|NCT01040728|168727976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.105|<0.0001
84547469|NCT02915705|168848787|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|45.55||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|89.02|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||89.02|2.09|0.0399
84547470|NCT02915705|168848788|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|6.72||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|13.82|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||13.82|-0.37|0.0633
84547471|NCT02915705|168848789|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.27||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|14.52|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||14.52|0.01|0.0496
84547472|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||6.3|-27.4|0.2179
84547473|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||2.2|-31.5|0.0883
84547474|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||4.3|-29.4|0.1414
84740932|NCT07025837|169233133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84547475|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.6|-19.1|0.4514
84547476|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.212||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2120
84547477|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1057||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1057
84740933|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
84740934|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0055
84740935|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740936|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740937|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740938|NCT07025837|169233134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740939|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1476
84740940|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0106
84488173|NCT01040728|168727976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.120|<0.0001
84547478|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5241||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5241
84547479|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2773||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2773
84547480|NCT04015518|168848801|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.3867||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.3867
84547481|NCT04015518|168848802|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.1|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||7.1|-19.3|
84547482|NCT04015518|168848802|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|8.0|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.0|-18.8|
84547483|NCT04015518|168848802|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|9.7|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.7|-16.6|
84669113|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1795
84740941|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84547484|NCT04015518|168848802|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|1.4|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||1.4|-20.3|
84547485|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.6|-17.7|0.5595
84740942|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740943|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84488174|NCT01040728|168727977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.384|0.276|<0.0001
84740944|NCT07025837|169233135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740945|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3224||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3224
84488175|NCT01040728|168727977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.381|0.272|<0.0001
84488176|NCT01040728|168727977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.424|0.316|<0.0001
84547486|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||14.5|-12.7|0.8968
84547487|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.5|-17.9|0.5456
84547488|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||3.5|-19.0|0.1762
84547489|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1726||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1726
84547490|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2353||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2353
84740946|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0426
84547491|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1346||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1346
84488177|NCT01040728|168727978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.214|<0.0001
84547492|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.195||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1950
84603536|NCT01300819|168957727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.26||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysing was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||Null hypothesis: mean change in the total Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score is the same for rotigotine- and placebo-treated group.||1.26|-8.43|0.147
84740947|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0039
84740948|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0040
84740949|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0013
84488178|NCT01040728|168727978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.200|<0.0001
84488179|NCT01040728|168727978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.238|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.238|<0.0001
84740950|NCT07025837|169233136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84740951|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3032
84740952|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0237
84740953|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0010
84740954|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740955|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84740956|NCT07025837|169233137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740957|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
84740958|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1147
84740959|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
84740960|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
84740961|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740962|NCT07025837|169233138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84740963|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0461
84740964|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
84740965|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84740966|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740967|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740968|NCT07025837|169233139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84740969|NCT03238963|169233154|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.192|||Chan and Zhang method|95% confidence interval was calculating using the Chan and Zhang method.|Risk difference of BI 1467335 10 milligram (mg) group minus Placebo group.|||0.192|-0.053|
84740970|NCT01424813|169233215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.08|0.57|<0.0001
84740971|NCT01424813|169233216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.46||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.46|0.68|<0.0001
84740972|NCT01424813|169233231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.06||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.06|0.41|<0.0001
84740973|NCT01424813|169233232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||0.99|0.38|<0.0001
84740974|NCT04854850|169233252|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84740975|NCT04833127|169233316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.8||generalized linear models (GLM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) for clustering within recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|||||1.80|0.56|1.0
84740976|NCT04833127|169233316|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07||GLM with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.|GLM (logit link) with GEE|Adjusted for age, education, if has a main male partner, which differed between the two groups at baseline.||||2.07|0.62|0.69
84740977|NCT04833127|169233317|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.85|||GLM with GEE|GLM with GEE accounting for clustering by recruitment chain||||2.85|0.35|1.00
84740978|NCT04833127|169233317|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the 2 groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.9||GLM (logit link) with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|adjusted for baseline differences in age, educational status, and whether has a primary male partner.||||2.90|0.31|0.927
84740979|NCT04833127|169233318|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.04|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|Used GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.||||4.04|0.73|0.215
84740980|NCT04833127|169233318|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.13|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|GEE used to account for clustering by recruitment chain|adjusted for baseline differences in age, education, and whether has a main male partner.|||4.13|0.65|0.295
84740981|NCT00847626|169233390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-9.5|-15.8|<0.001
84740982|NCT00847626|169233390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.9|-16.7|<0.001
84740983|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.2|-16.2|<0.001
84740984|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-6.4|-13.4|<0.001
84488180|NCT01040728|168727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.363|0.244|<0.0001
84488181|NCT01040728|168727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.343|0.222|<0.0001
84488182|NCT01040728|168727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.275|0.395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.275|<0.0001
84488183|NCT01040728|168727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.309|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.430|0.309|<0.0001
84488184|NCT01040728|168727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.306|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.426|0.306|<0.0001
84488185|NCT01040728|168727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.202|<0.0001
84488186|NCT01040728|168727981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.287|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.287|<0.0001
84488187|NCT01040728|168727981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.296|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.411|0.296|<0.0001
84488188|NCT01040728|168727981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.314|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.427|0.314|<0.0001
84488189|NCT01040728|168727982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.396|0.272|<0.0001
84488190|NCT01040728|168727982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.283|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.408|0.283|<0.0001
84488191|NCT01040728|168727982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.440|0.316|<0.0001
84488192|NCT01040728|168727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.179|<0.0001
84488193|NCT01040728|168727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.150|<0.0001
84603537|NCT01300819|168957728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.92||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.92|-4.27|0.002
84603538|NCT01300819|168957729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.37||Two-sided p-values are presented.|ANCOVA|Testing was performed using an ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.37|-5.21|0.024
84740985|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-12.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.1|-19.2|<0.001
84740986|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-8.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.9|-15.8|<0.001
84488194|NCT01040728|168727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.191|<0.0001
84488195|NCT00281528|168727996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4476||95.0||||Group comparison was performed between group 260 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 every 3 weeks and group 130 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 weekly, as based on amended protocol, no type I error adjustment for multiplicity; a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site||||||0.4476
84488196|NCT01981096|168728009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.011
84488197|NCT01981096|168728010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.055
84488198|NCT01225211|168728015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.679||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.484|2.125|||ANCOVA|||||2.125|-7.484|0.267
84488199|NCT01225211|168728015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.676|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.801|-4.551|||ANCOVA|||||-4.551|-14.801|<0.001
84488200|NCT01225211|168728016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.306||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|4.953|||ANCOVA|||||4.953|-7.565|0.680
84488201|NCT01225211|168728016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.67||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.053|3.712|||ANCOVA|||||3.712|-9.053|0.409
84488202|NCT01225211|168728016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.526||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.888|1.835|||ANCOVA|||||1.835|-10.888|0.161
84488203|NCT01225211|168728016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.867||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.543|3.81|||ANCOVA|||||3.810|-9.543|0.396
84488204|NCT01225211|168728016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.028|4.467|||ANCOVA|||||4.467|-12.028|0.365
84488205|NCT01225211|168728017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.86|-1.66|0.5978
84488206|NCT01711359|168728083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in response rate is \>-12%|Newcombe-Wilson method|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|24.1|||||Estimation Parameter: Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction for difference in the response rate (Baricitinib minus Methotrexate).|||24.1|5.5|
84488207|NCT02698176|168728107|OTHER||Estimation of DLT Rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.418|||||Point estimate and 2-sided 80% Bayesian credible interval for DLT rate estimated for the total number of participants from all 3 cohorts (CRPC+NMC+TNBC) that were evaluable for DLT analysis based on a non-informative prior distribution of Beta (1,1).|||0.418|0.121|
84488208|NCT02449915|168728137|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84488209|NCT01021293|168728143|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 1 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
84488210|NCT01021293|168728143|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 2 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
84488211|NCT01021293|168728143|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 3 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.44||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||-0.44|-3.9|
84488212|NCT04607291|168728152|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening.|||||||||||||||||"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, stool test recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, fear of colonoscopy index score, ABR - afraid score, and knowledge that colonoscopy can reduce worry.~AUC: 0.71"|||
84488213|NCT04607291|168728153|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify characteristics associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.||||||||||||||||Evaluating factors associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.|"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with high intent of getting a fit test. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, race, stool test or colonoscopy recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, CBPR score, and barriers to screening score.~AUC: 0.80"|||
84603539|NCT01300819|168957730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.5||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.50|-0.67|0.773
84603540|NCT01300819|168957731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.29||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.29|-2.41|0.122
84488214|NCT05466240|168728154|EQUIVALENCE|For each post-baseline collection time point, treatment difference and p-value comparing the mean change in viral load from baseline between treatment arms from an analysis of covariance model with covariate baseline viral load.|||||<|0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.95
84488215|NCT00945945|168728159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint (BOCF).|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = DLX30-PLA minus PLA-DLX60.|||0.75|-0.07|0.105
84488216|NCT00626327|168728170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for measles was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to measles following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV given alone.||0.5|-3.4|
84488217|NCT00626327|168728170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for mumps was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV - MMRV )|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.7||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to mumps following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||3.7|-1|
84488218|NCT00626327|168728170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for rubella was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to rubella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-4.5|
84488219|NCT00626327|168728170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroprotection for varicella was greater than -10%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to varicella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||1.2|-3.9|
84488220|NCT00626327|168728171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup A when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||4.5|-4.7|
84488221|NCT00626327|168728171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup C when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||1.9|-1.8|
84488222|NCT00626327|168728171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup W-135 when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY vaccine given alone.||3.9|-1.3|
84488223|NCT00626327|168728171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup Y when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||5.3|-1.9|
84488224|NCT00626327|168728176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MMRV+MenACWY group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with seroconversion for varicella was greater than -10%.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV- MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of anti-varicella response following one dose of MMRV when administered concomitantly with MenACWY vaccine as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-2.4|
84488225|NCT00286156|168728184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise comparisons adjusted for multiple testing (Tukey)|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in iGFR||||<0.01
84488226|NCT00256204|168728212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 1mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start) and 2mg (delayed-start)are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0133
84740987|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-12.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.3|-19.3|<0.001
84740988|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.5|-16.5|<0.001
84740989|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.5|-17.5|<0.001
84740990|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-13.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.7|-20.6|<0.001
84488227|NCT00256204|168728212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 2mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start)and 2mg (delayed-start) are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0001
84740991|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.9|-17.0|<0.001
84740992|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.7|-19.7|<0.001
84740993|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-9.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.3|-16.3|<0.001
84740994|NCT00847626|169233391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-12.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.6|-19.4|<0.001
84740995|NCT00847626|169233392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||3.5|-13.0|0.255
84740996|NCT00847626|169233392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.6|-25.9|<0.001
84488228|NCT00256204|168728212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center .|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2: Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set).||||0.0250
84488229|NCT00256204|168728212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2:Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set.)||||0.6028
84488230|NCT00256204|168728212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 1mg early-start group and the 1mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.0||||||90.0|-0.036|0.036||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.036|-0.036|
84497197|NCT04636437|168745587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|14.99||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||14.99|-6.42|0.37
84740997|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.6|< 0.001
84740998|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
84740999|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-8.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.4|-15.1|<0.001
84547493|NCT04015518|168848803|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1681
84741000|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.6|-17.3|<0.001
84547494|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.5|-1.8|0.2812
84547495|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.6|-1.7|0.3357
84547496|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.4|-2.0|0.1809
84547497|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.9|-1.1|0.8322
84547498|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4035||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4035
84547499|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2563||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2563
84603541|NCT01300819|168957732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.02||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.02|-3.59|0.047
84741001|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.3|-17.1|<0.001
84741002|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.7|-15.4|<0.001
84741003|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.6|-14.2|<0.001
84741004|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.9|-17.6|<0.001
84547500|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.6810
84547501|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4665||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4665
84547502|NCT04015518|168848804|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5565||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5565
84547503|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.281|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.281|-0.170|
84547504|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.432|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.432|-0.048|
84547505|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.496|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.496|0.020|
84741005|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.3|-15.0|<0.001
84741006|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-13.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.6|-20.4|<0.001
84547506|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.314|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.314|-0.067|
84547507|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0613||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0613
84603542|NCT01300819|168957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.37|-0.22|0.601
84741007|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.8||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.8|-14.7|<0.001
84488231|NCT00256204|168728212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 2mg early-start group and the 2mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.029||||||90.0|-0.005|0.062||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.062|-0.005|
84488232|NCT00256204|168728213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.005|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.857|-2.153|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates. For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'||-2.153|-3.857|<0.0001
84488233|NCT00256204|168728213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.004|-2.305|||ANCOVA|||"The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates.~For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'"||-2.305|-4.004|<0.0001
84488234|NCT01566981|168728214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4708||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2221|1.1629|||t-test, 2 sided|without adjustments, df=39||"Null hypothesis was that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supported diabetes care could have significant impact on reduction of baseline glycated hemoglobin (EHbA1c) after 1 year follow-up.~The sample in intervention group was normally distributed, so observed power (two-tailed hypothesis) was 0.45, for Cohen's d= 0.6 and alpha level =0.05"||1.1629|0.2221|0.005
84488235|NCT02177942|168728222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference is test treatment minus control treatment such that a positive difference favours the test treatment.|||0.13|-0.20|0.6931
84488236|NCT01351415|168728231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.0|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test and Hazard Ratio (HR) are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to first PD and smoking status.||1.00|0.71|0.1044
84488237|NCT01351415|168728232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.83||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.98|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.98|0.70|0.0573
84488238|NCT01351415|168728232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.83|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.83|0.49|0.0045
84488239|NCT01351415|168728233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in response rate|0.0237||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0156|0.063|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0630|-0.0156|0.0810
84488240|NCT01351415|168728234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in Disease Control|0.0326||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0288|0.094|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0940|-0.0288|0.0218
84603543|NCT01300819|168957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.99|-0.99|0.997
84741008|NCT00847626|169233405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.4|-16.2|<0.001
84741009|NCT00384189|169233409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||18.3|1.4|0.0116
84603544|NCT01300819|168957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.49|-0.87|0.584
84741010|NCT00384189|169233409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||17.8|0.9|0.0148
84488241|NCT01351415|168728235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.9|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.90|0.09|0.0600
84488242|NCT01351415|168728237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.79||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.95|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.95|0.65|0.0311
84488243|NCT01351415|168728237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.92|0.52|0.0326
84669114|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0715
84488244|NCT01234337|168728239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973|||=|0.405618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.217||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]).|Log Rank|||PFS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.005, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95 percent (%) CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors. A Hazard ratio of less than (\<) 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib + Capecitabine over Placebo + Capecitabine.||1.217|0.779|=0.405618
84488245|NCT01234337|168728240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||=|0.930088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.513||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS). OS was compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by randomization factors.|At the time of PFS final analysis, it was OS interim analysis (IA) with 285 total death events. According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 285 death events at IA, the prespecified alpha for this analysis was 0.0075 (one-sided). A Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.513|0.943|=0.930088
84488246|NCT01234337|168728241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.146||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors.|TTP was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. A Hazard ratio \<1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.146|0.723|=0.2105
84488247|NCT01234337|168728242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.93|||=|0.257412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.77||One-sided p-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR and 95% CI based on Cochran Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. Difference = (Placebo + Capecitabine) - (Sorafenib + Capecitabine).||7.77|-3.9|=0.257412
84488248|NCT01234337|168728243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.34|||=|0.284674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72||One-sided p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"DCR and 95% CI based on general association Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by number of prior chemotherapies for metastatic disease, hormone receptor status, and region. Difference = Placebo + Capecitabine - Sorafenib + Capecitabine."||5.72|-10.4|=0.284674
84488249|NCT01234337|168728245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.086||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.086|-0.967|
84488250|NCT01234337|168728246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.002||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.002|-0.053|
84488251|NCT01234337|168728247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|0.227||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.227|-3.619|
84488252|NCT01234337|168728248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.4||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: 5-fluorouracil||1.40|0.92|
84488253|NCT01234337|168728248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.56||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: Capecitabine||1.56|1.07|
84488254|NCT01234337|168728249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): 5-fluorouracil||1.30|0.95|
84488255|NCT01234337|168728249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.58||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): Capecitabine||1.58|1.22|
84488256|NCT03525613|168728274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4114||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.1831|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.1831|-0.6397|0.0004
84488257|NCT03525613|168728274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|-0.0937|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.0937|-0.5423|0.0055
84488258|NCT03525613|168728275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3026|-0.5004|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.5004|-1.3026|<0.0001
84488259|NCT03525613|168728275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7426||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1282|-0.357|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3570|-1.1282|0.0002
84669115|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.2065|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2065
84741011|NCT00384189|169233409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.4|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||20.4|3.5|0.0028
84547508|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0628||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0628
84547509|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1449||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1449
84547510|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.046||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0460
84547511|NCT04015518|168848805|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0677||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0677
84547512|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.256|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.256|-0.069|
84547513|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.405|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.405|0.018|
84547514|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.303|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.303|-0.042|
84669116|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1649
84741012|NCT00384189|169233410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1362||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1362
84547515|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.25|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.250|-0.018|
84547516|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0536||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0536
84547517|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0476||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0476
84547518|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1076||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1076
84547519|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0606||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0606
84547520|NCT04015518|168848806|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0824||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0824
84669117|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4894
84547521|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.211|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.422|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.422|0.040|
84547522|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.339|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.339|-0.018|
84603545|NCT01300819|168957736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.6||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||1.60|-0.84|0.536
84603546|NCT01300819|168957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.94||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.94|-0.81|0.889
84603547|NCT01300819|168957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.03||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.03|-2.06|0.043
84603548|NCT00438854|168957740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimating proportion of responders|0.2||||||||||||||The primary measures of efficacy of tumor response were: complete remission (CR), nodular partial remission (nPR), or partial remission (PR), as per NCI-WG criteria. The true ORR is reported as percentage and 90% CI calculated using the binomial exact test. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined from the date on study to date of progression, death in remission, initiation of non-protocol therapy in the absence of progression, or censored on the last visit.||||
84603549|NCT01103063|168957750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0647||0.12237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.25|0.97|0.12237
84669118|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.8611|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8611
84741013|NCT00384189|169233410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0891||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.0891
84741014|NCT00384189|169233410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1574
84741015|NCT00384189|169233411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
84603550|NCT01103063|168957751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1243||0.84117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.80|0.84117
84603551|NCT01103063|168957752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1745||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4428
84603552|NCT01103063|168957753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1882||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.63|0.6086
84603553|NCT01103063|168957754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2866||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.57|0.51|0.7035
84603554|NCT01103063|168957755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.11|0.95|0.4605
84741016|NCT00384189|169233411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
84669119|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0073
84741017|NCT00384189|169233411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84741018|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference :|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.7|||||2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1||-8.7|-18.3|
84741019|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-12.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-12.4|-23.2|
84741020|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-5.9|-16.0|
84547523|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.328|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.328|-0.022|
84547524|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.282|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.282|0.009|
84547525|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0333||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0333
84547526|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0221||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regime"||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0221
84547527|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0707||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0707
84603555|NCT01103063|168957756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1817||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.33|0.65|0.7105
84741021|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||-7.2|-17.8|
84741022|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-8.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||-8.6|-19.5|
84741023|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||-10.6|-21.0|
84488260|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2234||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3522|-0.0946|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0946|-0.3522|0.0007
84669120|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1343|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1343
84488261|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1618||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874|-0.0361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0361|-0.2874|0.0116
84488262|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1862||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3406|-0.0318|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0318|-0.3406|0.0181
84488263|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1526||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|-0.0023|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0023|-0.3030|0.0467
84488264|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2265||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.0834|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0834|-0.3696|0.0019
84488265|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1586||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3009|-0.0164|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0164|-0.3009|0.0288
84571287|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
84669121|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6468|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6468
84488266|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2341||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4071|-0.0611|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0611|-0.4071|0.0080
84488267|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2459||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|-0.1031|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1031|-0.3886|0.0007
84488268|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.8702|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|-0.4664|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.4664|-1.2740|<0.0001
84488269|NCT03525613|168728276|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7189||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1039|-0.3339|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3339|-1.1039|0.0003
84488270|NCT00374452|168728303|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the mean percentages of events per clinician between study arms, using mixed model regression adjusting for medical center, clinic type (community-based clinic vs not), clinician discipline (MD vs non-MD), presence of pharmacist in the clinic, and mean age of clinician's panels of patients as fixed effects, and clinic as a random effect to account for clustering of clinicians within clinics.||||>0.1
84488271|NCT01610414|168728345|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall HZ vaccine efficacy was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|68.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.56|77.53|||Poisson method|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was evaluated in the prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients 18 years of agee and older.||77.53|55.56|<0.0001
84488272|NCT00472043|168728366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84488273|NCT04957745|168728373|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Percentage of Total Viewing Time that Peripheral Target is Perceived across visual confusion conditions."|ANOVA|||"Effect of visual confusion conditions (binocular, unilateral monocular, and bilateral monocular visual confusions) on Percentage of Total Viewing Time Peripheral Target is Perceived is analyzed by repeated measure (within-subject) ANOVA. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05."||||<0.01
84488274|NCT00852761|168728384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
84488275|NCT00852761|168728384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84488276|NCT00852761|168728385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
84741024|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||1.1|-6.3|
84488277|NCT00852761|168728385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
84488278|NCT00852761|168728385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 15 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
84488279|NCT00852761|168728386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332||||||Data apply to Day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0332
84488280|NCT00852761|168728388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3101
84488281|NCT00852761|168728388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
84488282|NCT00852761|168728388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||This is the p value for day 15|Chi-squared|||||||0.0135
84488283|NCT00852761|168728390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1449||||||P value at day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1449
84741025|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||-8.9|-19.7|
84741026|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||1.4|-7.9|
84741027|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-0.4|-10.6|
84741028|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.3|-4.8|
84741029|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.2|-4.0|
84741030|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-12.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||-12.9|-23.6|
84741031|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|64.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||64.1|55.6|
84741032|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||-2.1|-13.1|
84741033|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|61.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||61.9|53.1|
84741034|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||-0.7|-11.7|
84741035|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||62.1|53.3|
84741036|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||62.1|53.3|
84741037|NCT04546425|169233432|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|16.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||16.0|4.5|
84741038|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.69|0.54|
84488284|NCT00852761|168728390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||||||P value at day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1634
84488285|NCT00852761|168728390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454||||||P value at day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5454
84488286|NCT00852761|168728391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
84488287|NCT00852761|168728391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||||||This is the p value for day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
84488288|NCT00852761|168728391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
84488289|NCT00852761|168728392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4858||||||P value on day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4858
84488290|NCT00852761|168728392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3001||||||P value on day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3001
84488291|NCT02140762|168728468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|69.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||69|65|<0.0001
84488292|NCT02140762|168728468|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Model|||vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
84488293|NCT02140762|168728468|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model.|||Vaccine effectiveness \<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
84488294|NCT02140762|168728468|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
84488295|NCT02140762|168728468|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness \<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
84488296|NCT02140762|168728469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine effectiveness|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|47.0|||General Linear Model (GLM)||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the LL of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the second injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||47|41|< 0.0001
84741039|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.79|0.64|
84488297|NCT02140762|168728469|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84669122|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6441|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6441
84603556|NCT01103063|168957757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1842||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.59|0.3468
84741040|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.69|0.52|
84488298|NCT02140762|168728469|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488299|NCT02140762|168728469|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488300|NCT02140762|168728469|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488301|NCT02140762|168728470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|49.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR).The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects:treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤ 10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \>10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||49|43|<0.0001
84488302|NCT02140762|168728470|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84547528|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0578||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0578
84571288|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.382
84603557|NCT01103063|168957758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of STIs).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.02|-0.08|0.0011
84547529|NCT04015518|168848807|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0771||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0771
84547530|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.427|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.427|-0.005|
84547531|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.401|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.401|-0.032|
84547532|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.471|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.471|0.032|
84547533|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.367|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.367|0.024|
84547534|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0158||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0158
84741041|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.70|0.52|
84547535|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.012||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0120
84669123|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2176
84669124|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.2814|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2814
84669125|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7533|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7533
84741042|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.65|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.65|0.45|
84488303|NCT02140762|168728470|OTHER|For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30%||||
84488304|NCT02140762|168728470|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488305|NCT02140762|168728470|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488306|NCT02140762|168728471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|23.0||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||23|16|< 0.0001
84488307|NCT02140762|168728471|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488308|NCT02140762|168728471|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84497198|NCT04636437|168745587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|10.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||10.77|-10.0|0.94
84488309|NCT02140762|168728471|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84488310|NCT02140762|168728471|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
84669126|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0653|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0653
84488311|NCT01277666|168728499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily||11.0|-6.1|0.546
84488312|NCT01277666|168728499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg twice daily||10.7|-6.5|0.648
84488313|NCT01277666|168728500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.8|0.592
84488314|NCT01277666|168728500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.4|-9.2|0.475
84488315|NCT01277666|168728501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.3|-4.4|0.415
84488316|NCT01277666|168728501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.9|-3.9|0.354
84488317|NCT01277666|168728502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.2|-5.2|0.985
84488318|NCT01277666|168728502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.1|-6.1|0.709
84488319|NCT01277666|168728503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.4|-6.5|0.633
84488320|NCT01277666|168728503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.0|-7.8|0.889
84488321|NCT01277666|168728504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.2|-8.1|0.541
84488322|NCT01277666|168728504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.7|-8.5|0.430
84488323|NCT01277666|168728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.64||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.64|-5.89|0.642
84488324|NCT01277666|168728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.652||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|4.87||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.87|-5.55|0.898
84488325|NCT01277666|168728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.467||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|8.21||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||8.21|-1.48|0.173
84488326|NCT01277666|168728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.15||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.15|-3.45|0.493
84488327|NCT01385098|168728507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84488328|NCT01385098|168728508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84488329|NCT01385098|168728508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84488330|NCT00410514|168728530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.42|-0.63|
84497199|NCT04636437|168745588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|7.63||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||7.63|-2.08|0.20
84547536|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0429||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0429
84603558|NCT01103063|168957759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0604||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.96|0.2265
84547537|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0229||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0229
84547538|NCT04015518|168848808|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0300
84741043|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.61|0.43|
84741044|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.64|
84741045|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.69|0.50|
84547539|NCT04015518|168848809|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-37.2|
84547540|NCT04015518|168848809|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-38.3|
84547541|NCT04015518|168848809|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-7.8|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-7.8|-45.5|
84547542|NCT04015518|168848809|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|10.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||10.2|-21.1|
84547543|NCT00550745|168848810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.91|1.73|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 42 Days postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.73|0.91|
84547544|NCT00550745|168848811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 6 months postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.32|0.98|
84547545|NCT00764660|168848812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||8.2|-3.4|0.41
84547546|NCT00764660|168848813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||1.7|-5.5|0.30
84547547|NCT00764660|168848814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.33|0.57|0.52
84547548|NCT00764660|168848815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||Chi-squared|ZINB Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.31|0.71|0.81
84547549|NCT00764660|168848816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.12||Model with factors treatment and pooled centers as stratum.|Kaplan-Meier|||||2.12|0.81|0.26
84547550|NCT00764660|168848817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.7|||Repeated Measures Model|Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.||||5.7|-9.9|0.59
84547551|NCT00764660|168848818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|An Odds Ratio (SCH 900435/Placebo) \>1 means SCH 900435 has a higher probability of achieving complete abstinence.||||3.43|0.65|0.34
84547552|NCT00764660|168848821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.88||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|12.06|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||12.06|-6.30|0.54
84603559|NCT01103063|168957760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03||Analysis based on an ANCOVA model with model terms for baseline value, treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANCOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0131
84547553|NCT00764660|168848822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|6.15|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||6.15|-12.35|0.51
84547554|NCT00764660|168848823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.07|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||-0.07|-18.27|0.05
84547555|NCT02498444|168848850|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)||||1.64|1.02|0.03
84547556|NCT02498444|168848851|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51||Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)|Poisson regression|||||1.51|1.00|0.0498
84547557|NCT02498444|168848852|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.05
84547558|NCT02498444|168848852|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
84603560|NCT01103063|168957761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2694||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.53||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.53|0.53|0.6978
84547559|NCT02498444|168848852|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.14
84547560|NCT02498444|168848853|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.23
84547561|NCT02498444|168848853|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||0.27
84547562|NCT02498444|168848853|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.65
84547563|NCT02498444|168848854|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.37
84547564|NCT02498444|168848854|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
84547565|NCT02498444|168848854|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.30
84547566|NCT01369030|168848917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.000
84547567|NCT06152224|168848920|EQUIVALENCE|"Power analysis was determined based on a 4.3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups.~With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, standard deviation = 3, margin = 4.3, power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, attrition = 25 percent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.918|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.918
84547568|NCT06152224|168848925|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.801||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.801
84547569|NCT06152224|168848925|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.317||||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.317
84547570|NCT06152224|168848926|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
84547571|NCT06152224|168848926|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
84547572|NCT06152224|168848927|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
84547573|NCT06152224|168848927|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
84547574|NCT06152224|168848928|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
84547575|NCT06152224|168848928|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
84547576|NCT06152224|168848938|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.035||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q1. The app was easy to use||||0.035
84547577|NCT06152224|168848938|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.063||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q2. It was easy for me to learn to use the app||||0.063
84547578|NCT06152224|168848938|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.587||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q11. I would use this app again||||0.587
84741046|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.96|0.70|
84547579|NCT06152224|168848938|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.107||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q12. Overall, I am satisfied with this app||||0.107
84603561|NCT01103063|168957762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2908||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.64|0.6542
84547580|NCT06152224|168848938|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.486||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q15. The app helped me manage my health effectively||||0.486
84547581|NCT06028438|168848949|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-0.60|=0.822
84547582|NCT00302848|168848986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations for VTE risk showed that 50,000 patients should be sufficient to exclude a twofold risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2 (VTE of DRSP vs. LNG)||1.8|0.6|<0.05
84603562|NCT01103063|168957763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|40.8||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||40.8|-36.5|0.9145
84603563|NCT01103063|168957764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of symptomatic malaria).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.04|-0.09|<0.0001
84603564|NCT01103063|168957765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.62||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.62|0.38|<0.0001
84547583|NCT02074358|168848997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|425.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.8|630.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||630.7|219.8|<0.001
84547584|NCT02074358|168848997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|90.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|212.4||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for any secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||212.4|-31.3|0.131
84547585|NCT02074358|168848998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.3||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for other secondary endpoints since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for this first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|TGA Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.30|-0.73|0.389
84547586|NCT02074358|168848998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.16||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.06|-0.38|0.142
84547587|NCT02074358|168848998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.35||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.52||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.52|-0.81|0.200
84547588|NCT02074358|168848998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.44||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||6.44|2.80|<0.001
84547589|NCT02074358|168848999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|21.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||37.2|4.9|0.014
84603565|NCT01103063|168957766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2295||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.97|0.39|0.0360
84669127|NCT01480076|169072586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0876|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0876
84741047|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.92|0.67|
84741048|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.69|0.51|
84741049|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.82|0.64|
84741050|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.62|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.62|0.44|
84547590|NCT02074358|168848999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|0.8||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.8|-13.5|0.076
84488331|NCT00410514|168728530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.68|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.68|-0.43|
84488332|NCT00410514|168728532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|2.09|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||2.09|-13.98|
84547591|NCT02074358|168849000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||5.6|-5.6|0.996
84547592|NCT02074358|168849000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
84547593|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.12||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.12|-2.16|<0.001
84547594|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
84547595|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.89||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.89|-3.30|<0.001
84603566|NCT01103063|168957767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.163||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.12|0.59|0.1975
84741051|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|30.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||30.67|22.98|
84488333|NCT00410514|168728532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|6.96|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||6.96|-9.73|
84488334|NCT00394654|168728560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.168
84488335|NCT00394654|168728561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.254
84547596|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.20|-2.59|<0.001
84547597|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|8.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.29|10.66||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|aPTT. The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model and included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||10.66|6.29|<0.001
84603567|NCT01103063|168957768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5675||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.22|0.4655
84603568|NCT01103063|168957769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0918||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.90|0.62|0.0016
84488336|NCT00394654|168728562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.677
84488337|NCT00394654|168728563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.318
84488338|NCT00394654|168728564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.798
84488339|NCT00394654|168728565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.766
84488340|NCT03756285|168728594|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||0.52|0.12|<0.001
84488341|NCT03756285|168728595|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.97||||0.568|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.74||||ANCOVA|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment|||||0.74|0.568
84488342|NCT03756285|168728596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||74.1|-30.5|0.407
84488343|NCT00498706|168728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t value|-2.95||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84488344|NCT00498706|168728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|5.83||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84488345|NCT00498706|168728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|7.75||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared||Attrition before week 5 was significantly lower in T-CBT than in face-to-face CBT.|||||.006
84488346|NCT00498706|168728607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||1.17|-1.35|0.89
84547598|NCT02074358|168849001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.32||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|aPTT. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.32|1.28|<0.001
84547599|NCT02074358|168849002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.13||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.130|-0.266|<0.001
84547600|NCT02074358|168849002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.111||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.111|-0.229|<0.001
84547601|NCT02074358|168849002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.173||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.173|-0.305|<0.001
84547602|NCT02074358|168849002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.11||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.110|-0.242|<0.001
84741052|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.17|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||3.17|2.25|
84741053|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|30.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||30.82|22.95|
84547603|NCT02074358|168849003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.239||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.146||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.146|-0.625|0.204
84603569|NCT01103063|168957770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5338||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.66||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||6.66|0.82|0.1113
84547604|NCT02074358|168849003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.048||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.048|-0.389|0.114
84547605|NCT02074358|168849013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.111|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A, and Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.111|0.972|
84547606|NCT02074358|168849013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.112|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.112|0.938|
84547607|NCT02074358|168849015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.087|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.087|0.955|
84547608|NCT02074358|168849015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.102|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.102|0.940|
84603570|NCT01103063|168957771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6386||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.86|0.07|0.0284
84669128|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0281
84547609|NCT06110494|168849044|OTHER|Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log10 transformed CFU reduction data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||||0.05||||||Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log 10 transformed data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of Fer/H2O2 in comparison with the negative (saline) and positive (NaOCl) controls with P values set at \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size estimate was calculated in Pass Software 2021, using a test that compares the ratio of two means from independent samples using data that has been log-normalized. An alpha of 0.05 and power of 80% was assumed, with means and standard deviations pulled from previous studies that employed similar methodology. This produced a required sample size of 16 for each group. Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||0.05
84547610|NCT01605552|168849076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.61|||.21
84547611|NCT01605552|168849077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 1.33|||.019
84547612|NCT01605552|168849078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.78|||.09
84547613|NCT01605552|168849079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.43|||.43
84547614|NCT01073605|168849121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02922|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02922
84547615|NCT01073605|168849121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74299
84547616|NCT01073605|168849121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00467|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00467
84547617|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00125
84669129|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
84547618|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25995|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.25995
84547619|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00008
84547620|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.03273
84547621|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68581|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.68581
84547622|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.00530
84669130|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3400
84547623|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57556|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.57556
84547624|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63956|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.63956
84547625|NCT01073605|168849123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16421|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.16421
84547626|NCT01073605|168849127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.0001
84547627|NCT01073605|168849127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.58324
84547628|NCT01073605|168849127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||<0.0001
84547629|NCT01073605|168849132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.39||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||1.39|-0.05|0.0681
84669131|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0012
84547630|NCT01073605|168849132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.74|-0.65|0.8971
84547631|NCT01073605|168849132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.02||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.02|-1.27|0.0583
84547632|NCT03018080|168849149|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.238|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.472|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.472|0.082|
84547633|NCT03018080|168849149|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.566|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.566|0.126|
84547634|NCT03018080|168849150|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.419|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.419|0.055|
84547635|NCT03018080|168849150|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.665|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.665|0.203|
84547636|NCT03018080|168849151|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.9|1.4|
84669132|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7490
84741054|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.97|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||2.97|2.08|
84741055|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.35|64.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||64.30|46.35|
84741056|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.57|42.89|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||42.89|31.57|
84741057|NCT04546425|169233433|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|5.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||5.92|4.27|
84741058|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.75|0.60|
84741059|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.73|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.73|0.59|
84741060|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.87|0.68|
84741061|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.81|0.64|
84741062|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.75|0.57|
84741063|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.67|0.48|
84741064|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.67|
84741065|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.81|0.66|
84741066|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.92|0.69|
84547637|NCT03018080|168849151|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.8|1.4|
84547638|NCT03018080|168849152|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||9.7|
84547639|NCT03018080|168849152|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||14.0|6.8|
84547640|NCT03018080|168849153|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.854|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.854|0.430|
84547641|NCT03018080|168849153|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.837|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.837|0.384|
84547642|NCT03018080|168849154|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|5.6|
84547643|NCT03018080|168849154|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|2.6|
84669133|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3592|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3592
84547644|NCT03491462|168849155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6208|||||||Gehan's extended Wilcoxon's test|||||||0.6208
84547645|NCT00885664|168849167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84547646|NCT00885664|168849168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84547647|NCT00885664|168849169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84669134|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0015
84547648|NCT00885664|168849170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84547649|NCT00885664|168849171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84547650|NCT00885664|168849172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84547651|NCT00885664|168849173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84547652|NCT00885664|168849174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84547653|NCT00885664|168849175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84547654|NCT00885664|168849176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84547655|NCT00885664|168849177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84547656|NCT00921557|168849185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 24||||<0.001
84547657|NCT00921557|168849185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
84547658|NCT00921557|168849186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants experiencing primary safety outcome||||>0.99
84547659|NCT00942890|168849246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84547660|NCT00942890|168849252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84547661|NCT00911612|168849254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Not adjusted since only one comparison was made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for baseline geometric center at 24 hours , BMI, and 7 alpha CHO.||||0.22
84547662|NCT00911612|168849255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for BMI and 7 alpha HCO.||||0.02
84547663|NCT00648115|168849282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson chi square|7.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84547664|NCT03515811|168849305|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.2|||||95% CI: 5.0%-19.2%|||19.2|5.0|
84547665|NCT03515811|168849305|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||95% CI: 0.0%-7.0%|||7.0|0.0|
84547666|NCT03515811|168849306|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.2|||||95% CI: 3.1%-12.2%|||12.2|3.1|
84547667|NCT01014169|168849343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||||1.34|0.95|
84547668|NCT01014169|168849344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.25||||||||1.25|0.99|
84547669|NCT01014169|168849345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||||95.0|1.0|1.25||||||||1.25|1.00|
84547670|NCT00468481|168849468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|384.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|282.42|486.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (RBC folate) as covariate|Difference = DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the RBC folate levels at week 24 was 0.||486.98|282.42|<0.0001
84547671|NCT00468481|168849469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.04|23.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (plasma folate) as covariate|Difference =DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the plasma folate levels at week 24 was 0.||23.70|14.04|<0.0001
84488347|NCT00498706|168728608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.695||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||2.76|-0.63|0.22
84488348|NCT03474380|168728700|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a negative binomial distribution and a log link was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and site. The final model was adjusted for Veteran characteristics, including age, gender, race, marital status, service connection, rural status, and chronic disease burden concurrence score (Nosos).|rate ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.09|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Rate ratio, rate of days not in the community in 6 month intervals in intervention versus usual care.|Days not at home in 6 month intervals.||1.09|0.31|0.091
84488349|NCT03474380|168728701|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.8|-0.7|0.98
84488350|NCT03474380|168728702|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||1.0|-0.2|0.167
84488351|NCT03474380|168728703|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.1|-1.0|0.122
84488352|NCT04495166|168728719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||The sample size was calculated based on an effect size of 0.65 on depression, which is based on a previous meta-analysis (Sockol et al., 2011). Sample size calculation considered a difference in means between two independent groups, probability of type I error of 5%, statistical power of 80%, a two-tailed test, and a dropout rate of 15%.||||0.757
84488353|NCT04495166|168728720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.910
84488354|NCT04495166|168728722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.442
84488355|NCT04495166|168728723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.223
84488356|NCT04495166|168728724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.540
84488357|NCT04495166|168728725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.901
84488358|NCT04495166|168728726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.748
84488359|NCT02516605|168728742|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.86||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.68|0.293
84488360|NCT02516605|168728742|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.37|<0.001
84488361|NCT02516605|168728742|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.26|<.001
84488362|NCT02516605|168728742|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|0.27|<.001
84488363|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||6.0|-7.0|0.898
84488364|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||10.0|-4.0|0.593
84488365|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.0||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||4.0|-11.0|0.509
84488366|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||7.0|-5.0|0.591
84488367|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-2.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||4.0|-12.0|0.702
84488368|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||8.0|-10.0|0.838
84488369|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|4.0||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||8.0|-3.0|0.297
84488370|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-14.0|0.236
84488371|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.5||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-15.0|0.192
84488372|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||9.0|-2.0|0.605
84488373|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||-1.0|-21.0|0.037
84488374|NCT02516605|168728752|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.5||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||3.0|-11.0|0.397
84488375|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|-1.0|0.342
84488376|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.699
84488377|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||0.0|-3.0|0.377
84488378|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|0.0|0.132
84488379|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|0.0|0.292
84488380|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.979
84488381|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||4.0|0.0|0.102
84488382|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.717
84488383|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|1.000
84488384|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||5.0|0.0|0.142
84488385|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-1.0|0.975
84488386|NCT02516605|168728753|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.602
84488387|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Mean difference from baseline|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.436||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.91|11.34|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||11.34|-16.91|0.743
84488388|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.229||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.85|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||-0.28|-27.85|0.093
84488389|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|22.38|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.38|-6.81|0.376
84488390|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.187||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|22.43|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||22.43|-8.36|0.448
84488391|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|-3.19|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||-3.19|-27.30|0.039
84488392|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.592||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.31|-2.54|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-2.54|-31.31|0.054
84488393|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.434||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|25.46|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||25.46|-2.78|0.185
84488394|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.226||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|21.52|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||21.52|-6.05|0.351
84488395|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|16.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.707||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|31.38|||ANCOVA|day 21||||31.38|2.20|0.059
84488396|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.184||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|29.44|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||29.44|-1.35|0.132
84488397|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|10.31|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||10.31|-13.80|0.809
84488398|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.29|3.48|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||3.48|-25.29|0.210
84488399|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.963||0.086||90.0|0.58|27.25|||ANCOVA|day 7||||27.25|0.58|0.086
84488400|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|13.53|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||13.53|-12.57|0.951
84488401|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.244||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|18.83|||ANCOVA|day 21||||18.83|-8.79|0.545
84488402|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.697||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|14.77|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||14.77|-14.38|0.982
84488403|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.797||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.21|-2.43|||ANCOVA|day 56||||-2.43|-25.21|0.047
84488404|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-18.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.81|-4.64|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-4.64|-31.81|0.029
84488405|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.799||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.97|41.44|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||41.44|11.97|0.004
84488406|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.032||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|23.29|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||23.29|-6.96|0.370
84488407|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.014||0.558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|22.66|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.66|-10.86|0.558
84488408|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.911||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.34|27.15|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||27.15|-9.34|0.418
84488409|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.95|1.8|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||1.80|-23.95|0.156
84488410|NCT02516605|168728754|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.961||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.94|-1.92|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-1.92|-31.94|0.064
84488411|NCT01797302|168728783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||interaction term from model group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84488412|NCT01797302|168728784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||interaction term for group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
84488413|NCT01797302|168728785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84488414|NCT01797302|168728786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84488415|NCT01797302|168728787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
84488416|NCT01797302|168728788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84488417|NCT01797302|168728789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
84488418|NCT01797302|168728790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0945||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0945
84741067|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.84|0.67|
84547672|NCT01637922|168849550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|118.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.06|130.32||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||130.32|107.06|0.1638
84741068|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.93|0.72|
84488419|NCT01797302|168728791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84488420|NCT01797302|168728792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
84488421|NCT01258738|168728801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.64||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|27.92||P-value \<0.05 was required to declare statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The null hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was not different from placebo as measured by the proportion of subjects achieving an ASAS 40 response after 12 weeks of treatment. The alternative hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was different from placebo.~The primary endpoint was tested at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||27.92|5.36|0.0062
84488422|NCT01258738|168728802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.24|3.69|0.0059
84488423|NCT01258738|168728802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|15.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4"||15.35|-4.98|0.3786
84488424|NCT01258738|168728802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|23.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.87|1.79|0.0304
84488425|NCT01258738|168728802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.52||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|29.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.75|7.29|0.0023
84488426|NCT01258738|168728803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||25.68|3.20|0.0189
84488427|NCT01258738|168728803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|22.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||22.75|-2.17|0.0983
84488428|NCT01258738|168728803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|23.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.84|-2.63|0.0867
84488429|NCT01258738|168728803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|29.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.43|3.10|0.0195
84488430|NCT01258738|168728804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|33.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||33.41|11.85|<0.0001
84547673|NCT01637922|168849551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.812|124.164||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.164|104.812|0.0391
84547674|NCT01637922|168849552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.243|125.922||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||125.922|99.243|0.0603
84547675|NCT01637922|168849553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.89|129.5||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||129.50|106.89|0.1424
84547676|NCT01637922|168849554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|123.715||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||123.715|100.420|0.0367
84547677|NCT01637922|168849555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.577|124.888||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.888|99.577|0.0488
84669135|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2967
84741069|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.87|0.68|
84741070|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.69|0.52|
84741071|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.66|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||1.66|1.32|
84741072|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||2.30|1.77|
84741073|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||1.75|1.37|
84741074|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||0.87|0.68|
84741075|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.1|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||6.10|4.82|
84741076|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.34|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||4.34|3.40|
84741077|NCT04546425|169233434|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.99|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||2.99|2.33|
84741078|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||0.8|-1.3|
84741079|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.2|-1.8|
84741080|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PT||0.7|-5.3|
84669136|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.8735|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8735
84488431|NCT01258738|168728804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||20.57|5.09|0.0021
84488432|NCT01258738|168728804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||24.60|5.18|0.0020
84488433|NCT01258738|168728804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|32.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||32.67|10.92|<0.0001
84488434|NCT01258738|168728805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488435|NCT01258738|168728805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.34|-0.74|<0.001
84488436|NCT01258738|168728805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.41|-0.81|<0.001
84488437|NCT01258738|168728805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-0.85|<0.001
84488438|NCT01258738|168728806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||23.09|2.58|0.0209
84488439|NCT01258738|168728806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.65||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only.~Week 2"||15.48|1.82|0.0179
84488440|NCT01258738|168728806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||13.65|-0.03|0.0611
84488441|NCT01258738|168728806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|22.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||22.32|3.14|0.0141
84488442|NCT01258738|168728806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488443|NCT01258738|168728807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||||0.0022
84488444|NCT01258738|168728808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84547678|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.01098|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189801|0.16864||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.168640|-0.189801|
84488445|NCT01258738|168728808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.13|-1.26|0.0156
84488446|NCT01258738|168728808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.14|-1.06|0.0111
84488447|NCT01258738|168728808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.07|-0.91|0.0936
84488448|NCT01258738|168728808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.23|-0.81|0.2678
84488449|NCT01258738|168728809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results included unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84547679|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.10188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287471|0.092062||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.092062|-0.287471|
84547680|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209893|0.148238||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.148238|-0.209893|
84488450|NCT01258738|168728809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.40|0.0102
84488451|NCT01258738|168728809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.39|-1.44|0.0007
84488452|NCT01258738|168728809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.23|-1.35|0.0057
84488453|NCT01258738|168728809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.44|0.0077
84488454|NCT01258738|168728810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488455|NCT01258738|168728810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.23|-1.62|0.0091
84488456|NCT01258738|168728810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.19|-1.38|0.0097
84488457|NCT01258738|168728810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.45|0.0101
84488458|NCT01258738|168728810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.33|-1.61|0.0031
84488459|NCT01258738|168728811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488460|NCT01258738|168728811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.25|-1.49|0.0064
84488461|NCT01258738|168728811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.02|-1.12|0.0407
84741081|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|FHA||2.9|-2.6|
84488462|NCT01258738|168728811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.24|0.0349
84488463|NCT01258738|168728811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-1.65|0.0021
84488464|NCT01258738|168728812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488465|NCT01258738|168728812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.04|0.0164
84488466|NCT01258738|168728812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-0.95|0.0095
84488467|NCT01258738|168728812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.0127
84488468|NCT01258738|168728812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-0.99|0.0166
84488469|NCT01258738|168728813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741082|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PRN||4.2|-0.9|
84488470|NCT01258738|168728813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.27|-1.28|0.0029
84488471|NCT01258738|168728813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.13|-1.21|0.0147
84741083|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B||4.0|-1.1|
84488472|NCT01258738|168728813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.28|0.0056
84488473|NCT01258738|168728813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.39|-1.52|0.0010
84488474|NCT01258738|168728814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488475|NCT01258738|168728814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.12|-1.19|0.0173
84488476|NCT01258738|168728814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.16|-0.97|0.1618
84488477|NCT01258738|168728814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.13|-1.25|0.0153
84488478|NCT01258738|168728814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.07|-1.05|0.0866
84488479|NCT01258738|168728815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488480|NCT01258738|168728815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.95|0.1413
84488481|NCT01258738|168728815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.06|-1.14|0.0284
84488482|NCT01258738|168728815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.03|-1.07|0.0659
84488483|NCT01258738|168728815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.18|-1.26|0.0098
84741084|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||4.2|-4.6|
84741085|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||4.2|-4.6|
84741086|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||4.2|-4.6|
84741087|NCT04546425|169233435|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.2|-2.0|
84547681|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189172|0.194156||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.194156|-0.189172|
84547682|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214505|0.149733||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.149733|-0.214505|
84547683|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.14703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404929|0.135425||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.135425|-0.404929|
84547684|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.240578|0.136305||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.136305|-0.240578|
84547685|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344024|0.163687||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.163687|-0.344024|
84547686|NCT01637922|168849556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.36105|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and OOWS||||
84547687|NCT01637922|168849557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.1||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|138.8||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||138.80|85.14|0.1642
84547688|NCT01637922|168849558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.7||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.48|116.27||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||116.27|73.48|0.1420
84547689|NCT01637922|168849559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.611|143.883||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||143.883|81.611|0.1915
84547690|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13275|0.224946||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||0.224946|-0.132750|
84547691|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.39865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547072|-0.222288||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||-0.222288|-0.547072|
84547692|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.11175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069336|0.284848||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.284848|-0.069336|
84669137|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1696
84741088|NCT04546425|169233436|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Measles||1.42|0.79|
84547693|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.16815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34787|0.025107||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.025107|-0.347870|
84547694|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17016|0.194417||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.194417|-0.170160|
84547695|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.02352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253932|0.29696||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.296960|-0.253932|
84547696|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24392|0.132819||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.132819|-0.243920|
84547697|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218159|0.293233||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.293233|-0.218159|
84547698|NCT01637922|168849560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.92231|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and SOWS||||
84547699|NCT01637922|168849561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|138.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.7||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|195.92||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||195.92|97.20|0.6889
84669138|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0089
84741089|NCT04546425|169233437|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Mumps||1.44|0.76|
84547700|NCT01637922|168849562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.1||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|189.16||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||189.16|93.32|0.6188
84741090|NCT04546425|169233438|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Rubella||1.10|0.63|
84741091|NCT04546425|169233439|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Varicella||1.57|0.98|
84741092|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||||2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1 \\||0.9|-3.1|
84741093|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-6.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-6.7|-14.7|
84741094|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||1.3|-1.4|
84741095|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||2.2|-1.4|
84741096|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||1.5|-1.6|
84741097|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||2.7|-1.1|
84669139|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0297
84741098|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||0.4|-1.5|
84741099|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||1.9|-1.0|
84741100|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||0.6|-3.7|
84741101|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||2.7|-0.5|
84741102|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.1|-1.1|
84741103|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.4|-0.9|
84741104|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||1.4|-3.2|
84741105|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||3.9|0.4|
84547701|NCT01637922|168849563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|112.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.5||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|167.67||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||167.67|74.85|0.3152
84547702|NCT01637922|168849564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|114.076||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.076|85.810|0.0107
84547703|NCT01637922|168849565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.017|114.054||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.054|78.017|0.0738
84547704|NCT01515865|168849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||||9.8|-37.6|0.3145
84547705|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Access composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.025
84547706|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Affective Communication composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.69
84547707|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Shared Decision-Making composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
84547708|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Patient Self-Management composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.85
84547709|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Exchanging Information composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
84547710|NCT02110758|168849593|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Overall Rating of Treatment Team composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.053
84547711|NCT02110758|168849595|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.2
84547712|NCT02110758|168849595|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Emergency Department (ED) Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month ED Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.62
84547713|NCT02110758|168849595|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.68
84547714|NCT02110758|168849595|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.03
84547715|NCT04632069|168849603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures linear regression: time periods: -14 to Day 0, Day 1-18(independent variable); daily po volumes (Dependent Variable)||Daily change in po feeding volumes expressed as po ml/kg/d \[reported as the mean daily change from Day 1 to 18 during NAC/NAC+taVNS minus baseline mean daily change Day -14 to day 0 (before treatment)\] Null hypothesis: there will be no significant difference in daily change in po feeding volume (ml/kg/d) from baseline to during treatment Power analysis: Estimated +0.2 ml/kg/d before taVNS, and +3ml/kg/d during the 18days of NAC+taVNS treatment, requiring 10 infants with power of 80%, a=0.05.||||0.009
84741106|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||2.7|-1.5|
84741107|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||3.2|-0.7|
84741108|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||1.6|-2.9|
84741109|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||4.1|0.7|
84741110|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||3.9|0.4|
84741111|NCT04546425|169233453|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||3.4|-0.4|
84488484|NCT01258738|168728816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488485|NCT01258738|168728816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.25|-1.26|0.0037
84488486|NCT01258738|168728816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.25|-1.35|0.0044
84488487|NCT01258738|168728816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.17|-1.26|0.0104
84488488|NCT01258738|168728816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.22|-1.33|0.0060
84488489|NCT01258738|168728817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488490|NCT01258738|168728817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.19|-0.80|0.2268
84741112|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||2.1|-11.2|
84741113|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.4|-7.0|
84741114|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT||4.1|-5.2|
84741115|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA||3.3|-6.4|
84741116|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN||3.3|-6.4|
84741117|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||2.2|-10.0|
84741118|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||5.8|-11.8|
84741119|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||-0.5|-10.2|
84488491|NCT01258738|168728817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.10|-0.93|0.1145
84488492|NCT01258738|168728817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.00|-1.00|0.0512
84488493|NCT01258738|168728817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.00|-1.02|0.0509
84488494|NCT01258738|168728818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488495|NCT01258738|168728818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.20|-0.79|0.2430
84488496|NCT01258738|168728818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.09|0.0384
84488497|NCT01258738|168728818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.06|-1.03|0.0797
84488498|NCT01258738|168728818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.21|-0.90|0.2186
84488499|NCT01258738|168728819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488500|NCT01258738|168728819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.96|0.1410
84488501|NCT01258738|168728819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.88|0.2299
84488502|NCT01258738|168728819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.29|-0.87|0.3221
84488503|NCT01258738|168728819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1891
84488504|NCT01258738|168728820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488505|NCT01258738|168728820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.09|-0.90|0.1080
84488506|NCT01258738|168728820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.06|0.0389
84741120|NCT04546425|169233457|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.0|-1.8|
84741121|NCT01254552|169233463|OTHER||rate|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.1||||||||0.100|0.043|
84741122|NCT01399697|169233486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.700
84741123|NCT01399697|169233487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
84741124|NCT01399697|169233488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.518
84741125|NCT01399697|169233489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.358
84488507|NCT01258738|168728820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.11|-0.98|0.1181
84669140|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8806|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8806
84669141|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2170
84741126|NCT01399697|169233490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.032||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.184|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and DAS28 value at Week 16 as covariate.|||0.184|-0.119|0.674
84741127|NCT01399697|169233491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.873||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.775|1.03|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and mental component score (MCS) as covariate.|||1.030|-4.775|0.204
84741128|NCT01399697|169233492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|3.376||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|6.076|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and physical component score (PCS) as covariate.|||6.076|0.676|0.015
84741129|NCT01399697|169233493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.969||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.526|7.464|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the participant at Week 16 as a covariate.|||7.464|-5.526|0.769
84741130|NCT01399697|169233494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.216||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.573|4.141|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the investigator at Week 16 as covariate.|||4.141|-6.573|0.655
84741131|NCT02964325|169233495|NON_INFERIORITY|An NI analysis was carried out to assess the primary efficacy endpoint with the null hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is inferior to the CONTROL group and the alternative hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is non-inferior to the CONTROL group. In this study, the NI margin was 1.6.|Relative Rate|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.67|||||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative rate. For days during off-protocol intervals, bleeding data were simulated using an estimate of the individual-specific bleeding rate.|The MIRASOL and CONTROL groups were compared with respect to the number of days of WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleeding. This was carried out by fitting a negative binomial regression model with an offset defined as the natural logarithm (LN) of the number of days that bleeding was assessed in order to account for the fact that subjects had different numbers of bleeding assessment days.||4.67|1.67|
84741132|NCT02964325|169233497|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 1.2 was used to evaluated this endpoint.|Relative Risk|1.32||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81|||Wald Non-inferiority Test||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative risk.|The null hypothesis was H0: pt/pc \> 1.2 (ie, MIRASOL had more than a 20% higher probability of a patient experiencing at least one WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleed compared to CONTROL).||1.81|0.97|0.7274
84741133|NCT02964325|169233498|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Log-rank test|||||||0.07
84741134|NCT02964325|169233499|OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1649
84741135|NCT02964325|169233500|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.15||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|1.32|0.0015
84741136|NCT01401153|169233570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation based on parallel group design --\> revealed that 68 children are needed to detect a difference of 45ms in the mean reaction time between the groups, with α=.05 and a power of 0.8.||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||Power calculation had been performed.||||0.79
84741137|NCT01401153|169233571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.07
84741138|NCT01401153|169233572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.61
84741139|NCT01401153|169233573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been perfomed based on this measure||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.03
84741140|NCT01401153|169233574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.25|||||||Generalized linear models|The fixed statement considered treatment, test day and the interaction between treatment and test day||||||0.25
84741141|NCT01401153|169233575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.7|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.70
84741142|NCT01401153|169233576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.33|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.33
84741143|NCT01401153|169233577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.63|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.63
84741144|NCT01401153|169233578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.62
84741145|NCT01401153|169233579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.11
84741146|NCT01401153|169233580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.45
84741147|NCT01401153|169233581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.13
84741148|NCT01401153|169233582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.68
84741149|NCT01401153|169233583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.67
84741150|NCT00588692|169233611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For 25-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
84741151|NCT00588692|169233611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||35-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
84741152|NCT00588692|169233613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84741153|NCT00588692|169233614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84741154|NCT00588692|169233614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741155|NCT00588692|169233614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741156|NCT00588692|169233615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84741157|NCT00588692|169233615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741158|NCT00588692|169233615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741159|NCT00588692|169233616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
84741160|NCT00588692|169233617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741161|NCT00588692|169233617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741162|NCT00588692|169233617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741163|NCT00588692|169233618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741164|NCT00588692|169233619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741165|NCT00588692|169233620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3
84741166|NCT00588692|169233621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741167|NCT00588692|169233621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741168|NCT00588692|169233621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84741169|NCT00588692|169233622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
84741170|NCT00588692|169233623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741171|NCT00588692|169233623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741172|NCT00588692|169233623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741173|NCT00588692|169233624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
84741174|NCT00588692|169233624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741175|NCT00588692|169233624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84741176|NCT00588692|169233625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
84741177|NCT00588692|169233625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741178|NCT00588692|169233625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741179|NCT00588692|169233626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84741180|NCT00588692|169233626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741181|NCT00588692|169233626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
84741182|NCT03995316|169233636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.003
84741183|NCT03995316|169233637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.283
84741184|NCT03995316|169233638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.019
84741185|NCT03995316|169233639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.440
84741186|NCT03995316|169233640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.055
84741187|NCT03995316|169233641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.041
84741188|NCT05140915|169233713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
84741189|NCT03852719|169233769|OTHER||Difference in percentages|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|30.5|61.4||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||61.4|30.5|<0.0001
84741190|NCT03852719|169233769|OTHER||Difference in percentages|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|27.0|58.5||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||58.5|27.0|<0.0001
84741191|NCT03852719|169233770|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-8.5|24.3||Fisher's exact test was used for the comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus bulevirtide 2 mg using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-8.5|0.4139
84488508|NCT01258738|168728820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.22|-0.94|0.2271
84488509|NCT01258738|168728821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741192|NCT03852719|169233771|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|55.8||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.0|<0.0001
84488510|NCT01258738|168728821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.27|0.0044
84488511|NCT01258738|168728821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.01|-1.09|0.0455
84488512|NCT01258738|168728821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.17|-0.91|0.1750
84488513|NCT01258738|168728821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.03|-1.12|0.0379
84488514|NCT01258738|168728822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741193|NCT03852719|169233771|OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|59.9||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||59.9|25.8|<0.0001
84488515|NCT01258738|168728822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.06|-0.98|0.0826
84741194|NCT03852719|169233772|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-6.39|0.0010
84741195|NCT03852719|169233772|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||||-1.63|-6.23|0.0009
84741196|NCT03852719|169233773|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.57||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.3|||MMRM|||||2.30|-1.16|0.5156
84488516|NCT01258738|168728822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.15|-0.96|0.1538
84488517|NCT01258738|168728822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.05|-1.04|0.0728
84488518|NCT01258738|168728822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.08|-0.99|0.0975
84488519|NCT01258738|168728823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488520|NCT01258738|168728823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.18|0.0186
84488521|NCT01258738|168728823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-1.01|0.0106
84488522|NCT01258738|168728823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
84488523|NCT01258738|168728823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.31|-1.31|0.0016
84488524|NCT01258738|168728824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741197|NCT03852719|169233774|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.21||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.08|||MMRM|||||1.08|-3.50|0.2977
84741198|NCT03852719|169233775|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean of Diffrence|-0.04||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.15||P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||2.15|-2.23|0.9719
84741199|NCT03852719|169233776|SUPERIORITY|P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|LS-Mean of Difference|2.11||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.63|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||5.63|-1.41|0.2369
84741200|NCT03852719|169233777|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.6||||0.4695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|24.4||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||24.4|-9.6|0.4695
84741201|NCT03852719|169233777|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||15.5|-16.3|1.0000
84741202|NCT03852719|169233778|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.7||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|24.0||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||24.0|-8.8|0.4539
84741203|NCT03852719|169233778|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||15.5|-15.6|1.0000
84741204|NCT04201262|169233780|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.103|||Log Rank||HR based on a Cox proportional hazards model, with Firth's adjustment. Confidence interval (CI)= Wald CI or Profile Likelihood CI Limits. HR for ravulizumab compared with placebo presented a 98.6% reduction in risk of relapse, 95% CI (89.7%, 100.0%).|||0.103|0.000|< 0.0001
84741205|NCT04201262|169233782|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Proportional Odds p-value|Univariate models|||The test of proportional odds was determined from a score test. The proportional odds was evaluated in univariate models.||||0.0122
84741206|NCT01647542|169233795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.78||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.78|-1.27|<0.001
84741207|NCT01647542|169233795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.57||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.57|-1.07|<0.001
84741208|NCT01647542|169233796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|10.72||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||10.72|2.99|<0.001
84741209|NCT01647542|169233796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|6.49||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||6.49|1.81|<0.001
84741210|NCT01647542|169233797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-26.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value covariate.||||-26.9|-44.2|<0.001
84741211|NCT01647542|169233797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-27.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||||-27.1|-44.3|<0.001
84741212|NCT01647542|169233798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.72||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|69.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||69.6|-57.9|0.846
84741213|NCT01647542|169233798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.4||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.1|40.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||40.3|-90.1|0.427
84741214|NCT02819024|169233799|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84741215|NCT05576662|169233804|OTHER||Pooled treatment coefficient|0.026||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Nonparametric permutation test||Weighted average of treatment coefficients. A pooled treatment coefficient \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a pooled treatment coefficient \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|A proportional odds logistic regression model was fit for severity of each core symptom at week 10, adjusting for baseline severity of the corresponding symptom and fit using only those who experienced the symptom at baseline. A test statistic for overall efficacy was calculated as the weighted average of the treatment coefficient in the proportional odds model for each symptom with inverse variance weighting. The p-value was obtained by a nonparametric permutation test.||||0.903
84488525|NCT01258738|168728824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.37|0.0058
84488526|NCT01258738|168728824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.24|-1.42|0.0064
84488527|NCT01258738|168728824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.60|-1.85|0.0002
84488528|NCT01258738|168728824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.17|-1.49|0.0134
84741216|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of fatigue score at day 15||2.94|0.82|0.174
84741217|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.25||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of brain fog score at day 15||2.25|0.65|0.548
84741218|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.16||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of dyspnea score at day 15||1.16|0.33|0.134
84741219|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.69||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of body aches score at day 15||2.69|0.78|0.241
84741220|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms score at day 15||1.92|0.55|0.922
84741221|NCT05576662|169233805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of cardiovascular symptoms score at day 15||0.94|0.26|0.032
84741222|NCT05576662|169233806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.09||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||1.09|0.27|0.09
84741223|NCT05576662|169233807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||2.44|0.21|.60
84741224|NCT05576662|169233808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 5||3.15|0.83|0.156
84741225|NCT05576662|169233808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.72||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 10||3.72|1.06|0.03
84741226|NCT05576662|169233808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.6||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 15||4.60|1.27|0.01
84741227|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - fatigue"||1.77|0.45|0.744
84741228|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - brain fog"||1.37|0.32|0.259
84741229|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - body aches"||3.99|0.65|0.286
84741230|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.24||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - cardiovascular symptoms"||2.24|0.38|0.846
84741231|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.73||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.||"Analysis of data for Time to relief - shortness of breath"||4.73|0.51|0.410
84488529|NCT01258738|168728825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741232|NCT05576662|169233809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - gastrointestinal symptoms"||2.11|0.42|0.880
84488530|NCT01258738|168728825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.05|-1.09|0.0316
84488531|NCT01258738|168728825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-0.99|0.0973
84488532|NCT01258738|168728825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-1.27|0.0216
84488533|NCT01258738|168728825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.03|0.2425
84488534|NCT01258738|168728826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488535|NCT01258738|168728826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.26|-0.92|0.2688
84488536|NCT01258738|168728826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
84741233|NCT05576662|169233810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||1.38|0.40|0.33
84741234|NCT05576662|169233811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.1||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.10|-1.96|.66
84741235|NCT05576662|169233812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.15|-2.40|0.79
84488537|NCT01258738|168728826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.08|-1.34|0.0277
84488538|NCT01258738|168728826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.04|0.2390
84488539|NCT01258738|168728827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488540|NCT01258738|168728827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.00|0.0928
84741236|NCT05576662|169233813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|3.75||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.75|-2.55|.70
84741237|NCT05576662|169233814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.28|-3.21|.98
84741238|NCT05576662|169233815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.53||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of systolic blood pressure||7.53|-4.06|0.555
84741239|NCT05576662|169233815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|3.79||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of diastolic blood pressure||3.79|-5.15|0.764
84669142|NCT01480076|169072587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.2392|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2392
84741240|NCT05576662|169233816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|5.12||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||5.12|-6.15|0.856
84488541|NCT01258738|168728827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.15|-1.27|0.0139
84741241|NCT05576662|169233817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|3.42||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.42|-4.24|0.833
84488542|NCT01258738|168728827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.36|-1.53|0.0017
84488543|NCT01258738|168728827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.43|-1.61|0.0008
84488544|NCT01258738|168728828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488545|NCT01258738|168728828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.38|-0.84|0.4559
84488546|NCT01258738|168728828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.28|0.0345
84488547|NCT01258738|168728828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.05|-1.30|0.0340
84488548|NCT01258738|168728828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.03|-1.24|0.0634
84488549|NCT01258738|168728829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488550|NCT01258738|168728829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.43|-1.56|0.0007
84547716|NCT04632069|168849604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test|mean difference between \[GSH\] Day 4 of NAC and \[GSH\] at baseline|\[GSH\] at baseline compared with \[GSH\] at day 4 of NAC- by paired t-test in which each participant's \[GSH\] is compared at 2 time points Null hypothesis: the \[GSH\] in the basal ganglia will be no different after Day 4 of NAC than \[GSH\] at baseline Power calculation:With 80% power, alpha of 0.05, we would need 7 patients to show a significant change in basal ganglia \[GSH\] of 0.14 +/- 0.13mM from baseline to Day 4 of NAC (paired t-test).||||0.01
84547717|NCT02573181|168849618|OTHER|Difference in percentage with AEs|Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||15.8|-7.4|
84547718|NCT02573181|168849620|OTHER|Difference in % with fatigue|Fatigue difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.8|-10.7|
84547719|NCT02573181|168849620|OTHER|Difference in % with arthralgia|Arthralgia difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.4|-10.2|
84547720|NCT02573181|168849620|OTHER|Difference in % with myalgia|Myalgia difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.3|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.3|-3.9|
84547721|NCT02573181|168849620|OTHER|Difference in % with headache|Headache difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.4|-11.4|
84547722|NCT03412734|168849627|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|37.34||p-value is adjusted for baseline BV (Bacterial Vaginosis)|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesized that chlorhexidine would have a lower bacterial count compared to iodine. Our sample size was calculated to be 71 patients per arm to detect a 22% difference in cultures defined as contaminated at 90 minutes from surgical preparation.||37.34|3.02|<0.001
84547723|NCT03935425|168849634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84547724|NCT00402688|168849651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063||||||95.0|-0.089|0.215|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 2 weeks ).|||0.215|-0.089|
84547725|NCT00402688|168849651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||||95.0|-0.106|0.195|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 3 weeks).|||0.195|-0.106|
84547726|NCT00927862|168849657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on power calculations and feasibility, the minimum recruitment target for the randomized, PG-guided comparison was set at 500 patients. All qualifying parallel control patients were included, anticipated to number ≥1000. For hypothesis 1, the power to exclude inferiority of the modified PG arm vs standard PG arm at a margin (delta) of 5% with 250 patients per group at a 2-sided alpha \<0.05 is 87%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test. All consented, randomized patients who were successfully genotyped and received at least one dose of warfarin with at least one post-dose INR were included in efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat \[mITT\]).||||<0.05
84547727|NCT03980145|168849667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Statistical significance set at .05|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.405
84547728|NCT03980145|168849667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.133
84547729|NCT03980145|168849667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluated the difference between the pretest and posttest within the conventional physical therapy group||||.050
84547730|NCT03980145|168849667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.124||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether comfortable walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.124|.015|.017
84547731|NCT03980145|168849668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the impact between the two arms looking an improved walking endurance||||.369
84547732|NCT03980145|168849668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluation of impact of end-effector robotic training alone||||.710
84547733|NCT03980145|168849668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of conventional therapy on walking endurance Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.682
84547734|NCT03980145|168849668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons - Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether both groups combined resulted in a significant change in walking distance||||.568
84547735|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Outcome specific to the physical domain|ANOVA|||Evaluation of the physical domain||||.594
84547736|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest- Posttest End Effector Robotic Training Comparison for the Physical Domain||||.061
84547737|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest posttest comparison of conventional training group for physical domain||||.812
84547738|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||ANOVA|||Combined conventional and end-effector training for outcomes in the physical domain||||.235
84547739|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of changes in the MFIS Cognitive domain||||.465
84547740|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Within group differences for the End Effector Robotic Training Group for the Cognitive Domain||||.165
84547741|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional group within the cognitive domain of the MFIS||||.682
84547742|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.67||p value adjusted using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Combined group outcomes comparing pretest to posttest for the cognitive domain||9.67|1.12|.017
84547743|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the MFIS Psychological Subscale||||.052
84547744|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the end-effector robotic training group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.483
84547745|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional physical therapy group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.056
84741242|NCT05576662|169233818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.7||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.70|-0.06|0.096
84741243|NCT05576662|169233818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.64||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.64|-0.20|0.293
84741244|NCT05576662|169233818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.62|-0.25|0.396
84741245|NCT05576662|169233818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.77|-0.02|0.064
84741246|NCT05576662|169233819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.67|-0.30|0.444
84741247|NCT05576662|169233819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.28|-0.78|0.346
84488551|NCT01258738|168728829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.22|-1.39|0.0073
84488552|NCT01258738|168728829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.21|-1.48|0.0094
84603571|NCT01103063|168957772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3291||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.88|0.24|0.0188
84603572|NCT01103063|168957773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1336||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.00|0.59|0.0527
84741248|NCT05576662|169233819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.67|-0.48|0.738
84741249|NCT05576662|169233819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.76||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.76|-0.43|0.578
84741250|NCT05576662|169233820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.03||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||1.03|-1.41|0.758
84741251|NCT05576662|169233820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.97|-1.46|0.693
84741252|NCT05576662|169233820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.61||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||1.61|-0.87|0.558
84741253|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of fatigue data||0.92|0.33|0.02
84488553|NCT01258738|168728829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.54|0.0120
84741254|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of brain fog data||0.82|0.31|0.01
84488554|NCT01258738|168728830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|32.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||32.37|7.54|0.0029
84488555|NCT01258738|168728830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.99|3.18|0.0100
84488556|NCT01258738|168728830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|23.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||23.89|3.62|0.0120
84547746|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.313||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|2.619||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Change in MFIS for all subjects from pre to posttest for the psychological subscale||2.619|.016|.048
84547747|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of differences in total score||||.010
84741255|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.33||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of body aches data||2.33|0.74|0.34
84488557|NCT01258738|168728830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||27.20|3.04|0.0213
84488558|NCT01258738|168728831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|20.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||20.92|-5.15|0.2755
84547748|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Within assessment of change in total fatigue score||||.089
84547749|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of change in total score||||.50
84547750|NCT03980145|168849669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.464||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.678|16.251|||ANOVA|||Combined assessment of all subject improvement in total MFIS score||16.251|2.678|0.10
84741256|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.48||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular symptoms data||2.48|0.76|0.29
84741257|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of shortness of breath data||2.38|0.73|0.35
84488559|NCT01258738|168728831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|21.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||21.54|-4.39|0.1950
84488560|NCT01258738|168728831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|27.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||27.26|0.72|0.0278
84488561|NCT01258738|168728831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.29||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||28.30|2.28|0.0174
84547751|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis set for no difference between groups Assessment of between group differences for the physical subscale||||.071
84547752|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.84||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|23.66|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||23.66|6.02|.005
84547753|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.85|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||18.85|8.30|.001
84547754|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.367|19.04||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||19.04|9.367|.000026
84547755|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Pretest measures were statistically different between the two groups|ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.084
84547756|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.412
84547757|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22||||0.00018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|28.85|||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||28.85|15.59|.00018
84547758|NCT03980145|168849670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|19.38|||ANOVA|||Combined group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||19.38|7.013|.00049
84547759|NCT03980145|168849671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.352
84547760|NCT03980145|168849671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.079
84741258|NCT05576662|169233821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.47||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms data||2.47|0.79|0.25
84741259|NCT05292586|169233847|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.148|0.061|<0.001
84741260|NCT05292586|169233848|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.173|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.173|0.076|<0.001
84741261|NCT05292586|169233849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.139|0.063|<0.001
84741262|NCT05292586|169233850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.154|0.071|<0.001
84741263|NCT05292586|169233851|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.069||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.115|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.115|0.023|0.003
84741264|NCT05292586|169233852|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.044||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline -- Week 4~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.088|0.000|0.050
84741265|NCT05292586|169233852|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.041||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline -- Week 8~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.089|-0.007|0.098
84547761|NCT03980145|168849671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.393
84741266|NCT05292586|169233852|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.043||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"3\_Change from baseline -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.086|-0.001|0.056
84741267|NCT05292586|169233853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.855|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 4||1.855|0.949|0.098
84741268|NCT05292586|169233853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.772|||Logistic regression model|||2\_Responders at Week 8||1.772|0.898|0.180
84741269|NCT05292586|169233853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.117|2.203|||Logistic regression model|||3\_Responders at Week 12||2.203|1.117|0.009
84741270|NCT05292586|169233854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.587|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 12||2.587|1.284|<0.001
84741271|NCT05292586|169233855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.27|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.27|3.30|0.002
84547762|NCT03980145|168849671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.116|||ANOVA|Adjusted for multiple mean comparisons||Evaluating the impact of whether fast walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.116|.001|.048
84547763|NCT03980145|168849672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment for the HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.117
84547764|NCT03980145|168849672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.407|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||3.407|.093|.041
84547765|NCT03980145|168849672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.150
84547766|NCT03980145|168849672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.518||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.646||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of HADS Anxiety Subscale||2.646|.390|.012
84488562|NCT01258738|168728832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488563|NCT01258738|168728832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 4||-0.09|-0.99|0.0201
84488564|NCT01258738|168728832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 12||0.01|-1.02|0.0558
84488565|NCT01258738|168728833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488566|NCT01258738|168728833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.28|-0.18|0.6741
84488567|NCT01258738|168728833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.13|-0.33|0.3896
84547767|NCT03980145|168849673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||ANOVA|||||||.239
84547768|NCT03980145|168849673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between groups for differences in sensory pain score||||.667
84547769|NCT03980145|168849673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Between group differences in affective pain||||.770
84547770|NCT03980145|168849674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.136
84547771|NCT03980145|168849674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.833
84547772|NCT03980145|168849674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.996||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.781|||ANOVA|||Between Group Assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||13.781|.212|.044
84547773|NCT03980145|168849674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||||.212
84488568|NCT01258738|168728833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.31|-0.22|0.7468
84488569|NCT01258738|168728833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.23|-0.35|0.6871
84488570|NCT01258738|168728834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488571|NCT01258738|168728834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||1.32|-0.57|0.4332
84488572|NCT01258738|168728834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.98|-0.98|0.9947
84547774|NCT03980145|168849675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the LLDFI Function||||.338
84547775|NCT03980145|168849675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.508||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|12.28|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of LLFDI Function||12.28|2.73|.007
84547776|NCT03980145|168849675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for changes in LLFDI Function||||.067
84547777|NCT03980145|168849675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|9.08||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group improvement in LLFDI Function||9.08|2.90|.001
84547778|NCT01814696|168849679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.605||||||a prior threshold p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
84547779|NCT01814696|168849680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart failure related ED visits||||0.604
84547780|NCT01814696|168849680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-heart failure related ED visits||||1.000
84547781|NCT01814696|168849680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All cause ED visits||||0.677
84547782|NCT01814696|168849681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
84547783|NCT01814696|168849681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
84547784|NCT01814696|168849682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.497
84547785|NCT01814696|168849682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.413
84547786|NCT01814696|168849682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-heart failure ED visits||||0.944
84547787|NCT01814696|168849683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.057
84547788|NCT01814696|168849683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.236
84741272|NCT05292586|169233856|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.14|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.14|3.32|0.002
84741273|NCT05292586|169233857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.112||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline in ACQ-7 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||-0.013|-0.211|0.026
84488573|NCT01258738|168728834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.75|-0.28|0.1558
84741274|NCT05292586|169233857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline in ACQ-5 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.118|-0.077|0.686
84741275|NCT05292586|169233858|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.33|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.330|0.310|0.033
84741276|NCT05292586|169233859|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.78||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|7.985|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.985|-0.425|0.078
84741277|NCT02755129|169233860|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"To assess the similarity between the Reveal LINQ measures and those from the reference system, correlation coefficients were used.~The correlation coefficient was calculated over windows of 4 seconds and averaged for each exercise. Then, the average correlation coefficient over all patients and exercise was calculated."|||
84741278|NCT01123070|169233958|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.084|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|||1.084|0.797|0.4265
84741279|NCT01123070|169233959|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.862||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.968|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|||0.968|0.768|0.0368
84741280|NCT01123070|169233961|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.909||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.814|1.014|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax1||1.014|0.814|0.1484
84741281|NCT01123070|169233961|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.766||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.927|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax2||0.927|0.633|0.0241
84741282|NCT01123070|169233962|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.969||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.088|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|AUC1||1.088|0.863|0.6520
84488574|NCT01258738|168728834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||2.39|0.03|0.0488
84488575|NCT01258738|168728835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488576|NCT01258738|168728835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||2.80|-2.06|0.7645
84488577|NCT01258738|168728835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||3.55|-1.48|0.4178
84488578|NCT01258738|168728835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||3.79|-1.67|0.4430
84741283|NCT01123070|169233962|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.961||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.222|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|AUC2||1.222|0.757|0.7835
84741284|NCT01498887|169234002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3118
84741285|NCT03079297|169234015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.56|-3.56|0.4128
84741286|NCT03079297|169234016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4286|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4286
84741287|NCT03079297|169234017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
84488579|NCT01258738|168728835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||5.31|-0.54|0.1095
84488580|NCT01258738|168728836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488581|NCT01258738|168728836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.49|-0.46|0.9504
84547789|NCT01814696|168849683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.236
84741288|NCT03079297|169234018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
84741289|NCT03079297|169234018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
84741290|NCT03079297|169234018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2242
84741291|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7282||||||P-value for General fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7282
84741292|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8781||||||P-value for General fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.8781
84741293|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value for General fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.226
84741294|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2158
84741295|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0081
84741296|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6768
84741297|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0076
84741298|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0858
84741299|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2065
84741300|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9712||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9712
84547790|NCT01814696|168849684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.034
84547791|NCT01814696|168849684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.196
84547792|NCT01814696|168849684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.210
84547793|NCT01814696|168849685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84669143|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
84741301|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7572
84741302|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0588
84741303|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857||||||P-value for Reduced activity 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.1857
84741304|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||P-value for Reduced activity 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9225
84741305|NCT03079297|169234019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414||||||P-value for Reduced activity 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0414
84741306|NCT03079297|169234020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4603||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.4603
84741307|NCT03079297|169234020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2521||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2521
84741308|NCT03079297|169234020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6635
84488582|NCT01258738|168728836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.34|-0.70|0.4971
84488583|NCT01258738|168728836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.54|-0.47|0.8999
84488584|NCT01258738|168728836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.62|-0.60|0.9712
84488585|NCT01258738|168728837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488586|NCT01258738|168728837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||3.24|-1.46|0.4556
84488587|NCT01258738|168728837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||5.75|-0.05|0.0543
84488588|NCT01258738|168728837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||5.53|-1.02|0.1754
84488589|NCT01258738|168728837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||4.82|-1.93|0.3985
84488590|NCT01258738|168728838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488591|NCT01258738|168728838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.62|-0.18|0.2823
84488592|NCT01258738|168728838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.58|-0.23|0.4029
84669144|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
84741309|NCT03079297|169234021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7839||||||P-value for Anhedonia 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7839
84488593|NCT01258738|168728838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.51|-0.25|0.5110
84488594|NCT01258738|168728838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.56|-0.32|0.5844
84488595|NCT01258738|168728839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488596|NCT01258738|168728839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.11|-0.95|0.0129
84488597|NCT01258738|168728839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.35|-0.61|0.6003
84488598|NCT01258738|168728839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.07|-0.89|0.0911
84488599|NCT01258738|168728839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.24|-0.73|0.3144
84488600|NCT01258738|168728840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84741310|NCT03079297|169234021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||P-value for Anhedonia function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0248
84488601|NCT01258738|168728840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 2||0.29|-0.46|0.6476
84741311|NCT03079297|169234021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value for Anhedonia 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0199
84741312|NCT05262517|169234030|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.48||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||1.48|-1.78|
84488602|NCT01258738|168728840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 4||0.39|-0.40|0.9777
84488603|NCT01258738|168728840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 8||0.65|-0.28|0.4453
84488604|NCT01258738|168728840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.5782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 12||0.60|-0.33|0.5782
84488605|NCT01258738|168728841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
84488606|NCT01258738|168728842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488607|NCT01258738|168728842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-1.70|-4.16|<0.001
84488608|NCT01258738|168728843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488609|NCT01258738|168728843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
84488610|NCT01258738|168728844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||-0.08|-0.72|0.0132
84488611|NCT01258738|168728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488612|NCT01258738|168728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.13|-0.52|0.2438
84488613|NCT01258738|168728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.09|-0.42|0.1958
84488614|NCT01258738|168728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.08|-0.46|0.1624
84488615|NCT01258738|168728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.08|-0.54|0.0091
84488616|NCT01258738|168728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488617|NCT01258738|168728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.32|0.0836
84488618|NCT01258738|168728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.54|-1.02|0.5402
84488619|NCT01258738|168728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.87|-0.69|0.8167
84488620|NCT01258738|168728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.73|-0.72|0.9891
84741313|NCT05262517|169234031|OTHER||LS mean difference|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|31.59||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance model using REML with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||31.59|-21.35|
84741314|NCT05262517|169234032|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.41||||||LS means, and CIs were based on a generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMEM) that included the baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment group, stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms; yes or no), scheduled time point, and time point by-treatment group interaction.||1.41|-0.99|
84741315|NCT05262517|169234033|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.9||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenzsel weighting.||10.9|-21.3|
84741316|NCT05262517|169234036|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.6||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||16.6|-8.7|
84741317|NCT05602727|169234037|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|5.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||5.8|-1.6|0.186
84741318|NCT05602727|169234037|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|2.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.4|-5.2|0.400
84488621|NCT01258738|168728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488622|NCT01258738|168728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.05|-0.08|0.6148
84488623|NCT01258738|168728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.03|-0.11|0.2547
84488624|NCT01258738|168728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.01|-0.08|0.1208
84669145|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.5312|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5312
84741319|NCT05602727|169234041|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.0|2.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.2|-8.0|0.196
84741320|NCT05602727|169234041|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.6|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-9.6|0.081
84741321|NCT02187159|169234042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.25|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.25|-0.97|0.0008
84741322|NCT02187159|169234042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0392
84741323|NCT02187159|169234042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.13|-0.58|0.2192
84488625|NCT01258738|168728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.17|-0.13|0.8291
84488626|NCT01258738|168728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488627|NCT01258738|168728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.23|-0.64|0.3536
84488628|NCT01258738|168728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.05|-0.97|0.0769
84488629|NCT01258738|168728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.33|-0.70|0.4698
84741324|NCT02187159|169234042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.59|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.59|-0.13|0.2095
84547794|NCT01322490|168849688|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.4742||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.4742
84547795|NCT01322490|168849688|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.5885||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.5885
84547796|NCT01322490|168849689|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.2867|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2867|0.7144|
84547797|NCT01322490|168849689|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6647|1.2026|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2026|0.6647|
84547798|NCT02307279|168849704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight|Difference in adjusted mean taken for comparability between the two groups (treatment - placebo)|Simple Superiority, H0: μ (Placebo) -μ (Gelesis100) = 0||-0.90|-3.24|0.0007
84547799|NCT02307279|168849704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight||Super-Superiority (\>3% difference), H0: μ(Placebo)-μ(Gelesis100) \< 3%||||0.1193
84547800|NCT02307279|168849705|SUPERIORITY|The performance goal for body weight responders was set at 35%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion Test|||H0: π (Gelesis100)\< 0.35||||<0.0001
84741325|NCT02187159|169234042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.75|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.75|0.02|0.0381
84741326|NCT02187159|169234044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-4.44|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-4.44|-10.71|<0.0001
84547801|NCT02307279|168849705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for stratification factors and baseline weight||"OR-trt refers to the odds ratio of being a body weight responder for Gelesis100 vs. Placebo.~H0: OR-trt= 1."||3.01|1.34|0.0008
84547802|NCT00460811|168849780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0002
84547803|NCT00460811|168849780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0036
84547804|NCT00460811|168849780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||<0.0001
84547805|NCT00460811|168849780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0008
84741327|NCT02187159|169234044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.36|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.36|-6.68|0.0289
84547806|NCT02099110|168849800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
84547807|NCT02099110|168849800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
84547808|NCT02099110|168849800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.61|<0.001
84547809|NCT02099110|168849800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
84547810|NCT02099110|168849801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs Ertugliflozin 5 mg|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.5|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||5.5|-11.7|
84741328|NCT02187159|169234044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|0.62|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.62|-5.75|0.1148
84547811|NCT02099110|168849801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.8|-10.6|
84741329|NCT02187159|169234044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.23|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||7.23|0.87|0.0125
84488630|NCT01258738|168728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.12|-1.19|0.0167
84488631|NCT01258738|168728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
84488632|NCT01258738|168728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.66|-4.39|<0.0001
84488633|NCT01258738|168728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-1.62|-6.09|0.0008
84488634|NCT01258738|168728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.61|-5.47|0.0143
84488635|NCT01258738|168728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-1.02|-5.23|0.0038
84488636|NCT01258738|168728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test||||<0.001
84488637|NCT01258738|168728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-4.58|-10.85|<0.0001
84488638|NCT01258738|168728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-3.09|-9.16|<0.0001
84488639|NCT01258738|168728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.78||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-2.41|-9.15|0.0009
84741330|NCT02187159|169234044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.647||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|8.24|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||8.24|1.78|0.0023
84741331|NCT02187159|169234046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
84488640|NCT01258738|168728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-3.73|-10.34|<0.0001
84488641|NCT01258738|168728851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With the exception of change from Baseline in the placebo group at Week 12, within group comparisons to baseline for all other treatment groups and time points were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||0.0370
84488642|NCT01258738|168728851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|4.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||4.37|-4.39|0.9965
84488643|NCT01258738|168728851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||9.10|-1.89|0.1970
84488644|NCT01258738|168728851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.84|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||11.84|0.30|0.0394
84488645|NCT01258738|168728852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.01 at Week 12 and \<0.001 thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.01
84547812|NCT02099110|168849801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||10.1|-7.4|
84741332|NCT02187159|169234046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0247
84488646|NCT01258738|168728852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.02|0.1341
84488647|NCT01258738|168728852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.14|0.00|0.0447
84547813|NCT02099110|168849801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||7.0|-10.5|
84547814|NCT02099110|168849802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 5 mg|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.6|-3.3|
84547815|NCT02099110|168849802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|-3.0|
84669146|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0022
84669147|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4968
84741333|NCT02187159|169234046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0411
84741334|NCT02187159|169234046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.0|0.0352
84488648|NCT01258738|168728852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.13|-0.02|0.1345
84488649|NCT01258738|168728853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488650|NCT01258738|168728853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||2.90|-0.27|0.1035
84488651|NCT01258738|168728853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||4.26|0.50|0.0134
84488652|NCT01258738|168728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
84488653|NCT01258738|168728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||3.19|-0.84|0.2520
84488654|NCT01258738|168728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||3.34|-1.63|0.4981
84488655|NCT01258738|168728855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84547816|NCT02099110|168849802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.9|-2.9|
84547817|NCT02099110|168849802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.4|-2.5|
84547818|NCT02099110|168849803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.22||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.22|-2.48|<0.001
84547819|NCT02099110|168849803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.64||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained logitudinal data analysis|||||-1.64|-2.90|<0.001
84741335|NCT02187159|169234046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.1|0.0214
84741336|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.5|0.0003
84741337|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.7|0.5066
84488656|NCT01258738|168728855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.41|-0.90|0.4621
84488657|NCT01258738|168728855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.50|-1.28|0.3842
84488658|NCT01258738|168728856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488659|NCT01258738|168728856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.86|-0.52|0.6357
84488660|NCT01258738|168728856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.36|-1.39|0.2439
84488661|NCT01258738|168728857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488662|NCT01258738|168728857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.52|-1.55|0.3286
84488663|NCT01258738|168728858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488664|NCT01258738|168728858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.37|-1.93|0.1829
84488665|NCT01258738|168728859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
84488666|NCT01258738|168728859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|9.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||9.68|-4.95|0.5226
84488667|NCT01258738|168728859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||8.14|-4.90|0.6232
84488668|NCT01258738|168728859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52||||0.3877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||11.57|-4.53|0.3877
84488669|NCT01258738|168728859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|12.69|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||12.69|-3.22|0.2402
84488670|NCT01258738|168728860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488671|NCT01258738|168728860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-1.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.52|-16.85|0.0193
84488672|NCT01258738|168728860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.26|-12.41|0.1730
84488673|NCT01258738|168728860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.71|-14.23|0.1224
84488674|NCT01258738|168728860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.16|-18.11|0.0461
84488675|NCT01258738|168728861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488676|NCT01258738|168728861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.36|-11.58|0.0372
84488677|NCT01258738|168728861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||1.79|-7.98|0.2126
84488678|NCT01258738|168728861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.54|-12.79|0.0330
84488679|NCT01258738|168728861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.33|-13.38|0.0397
84488680|NCT01258738|168728862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and at Week 32 and thereafter, from paired t test.||||<0.001
84488681|NCT01258738|168728862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.46|-16.12|0.0382
84741338|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.9|0.1462
84741339|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.3|0.3|0.0035
84741340|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.1|0.0|0.0338
84741341|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0116
84741342|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.7085
84488682|NCT01258738|168728862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.19|-12.69|0.1648
84488683|NCT01258738|168728862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||2.15|-14.11|0.1476
84741343|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.5|0.9392
84741344|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.2|0.1|0.0311
84488684|NCT01258738|168728862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.68||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.68|-18.03|0.0687
84488685|NCT01258738|168728863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84741345|NCT02187159|169234047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.3|0.2|0.0094
84741346|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.439|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||2.439|0.074|0.0373
84741347|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.545|-0.817|0.5458
84488686|NCT01258738|168728863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.33|-1.21|0.2578
84488687|NCT01258738|168728863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.52|-1.21|0.4334
84488688|NCT01258738|168728864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
84488689|NCT01258738|168728864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||1.70|-4.70|0.3554
84741348|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6038||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.420|-0.949|0.6968
84741349|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6014||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|0.287|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.287|-2.073|0.1379
84741350|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.163|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.163|-2.205|0.0908
84741351|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6965||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.256|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||3.256|0.523|0.0068
84741352|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6956||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.771|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.771|-0.959|0.5594
84741353|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.392|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.392|-1.346|0.9736
84741354|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6953||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.848|-0.119|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.119|-2.848|0.0331
84741355|NCT02187159|169234048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6976||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-0.498|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.498|-3.235|0.0076
84741356|NCT02187159|169234049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01328||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.057|||ANCOVA|||||0.0570|0.0048|0.0201
84741357|NCT02187159|169234049|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01324||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0082|0.0438|||ANCOVA|||||0.0438|-0.0082|0.1798
84741358|NCT02187159|169234049|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0189|0.0332|||ANCOVA|||||0.0332|-0.0189|0.5922
84488690|NCT01258738|168728864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||1.99|-5.82|0.3350
84741359|NCT02187159|169234049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0392|0.0129|||ANCOVA|||||0.0129|-0.0392|0.3221
84488691|NCT01258738|168728865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41||||14.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.78|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||28.78|0.04|14.41
84488692|NCT01258738|168728866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.03||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|24.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||24.56|-2.51|0.1285
84488693|NCT00724594|168728898|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Term infant cohort : NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resistive index in Middle Cerebral Artery after N-acetylcysteine or saline in the term cohort.||||0.9
84488694|NCT00724594|168728898|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preterm infant cohort: NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resisitive index in MCA after N-acetylcysteine or saline in preterm cohort||||0.9
84488695|NCT00724594|168728899|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Maternal cohort: NAC versus control l H0= PT will not be different in mothers after NAC or saline||||0.9
84488696|NCT00724594|168728899|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant cohort: NAC versus control H0= prothrombin time will not be different in the infants after NAC or saline||||0.9
84488697|NCT00724594|168728900|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||correcting for gestational age at birth||||0.072
84488698|NCT00724594|168728901|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84488699|NCT00405756|168728902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.56||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.560|0.278|<0.001
84488700|NCT00405756|168728902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.702||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.702|0.347|<0.001
84488701|NCT00405756|168728902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.075||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.075|0.589|0.134
84488702|NCT00405756|168728903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.541|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.||||0.541|0.214|<0.001
84488703|NCT00405756|168728905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.493||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.493|0.231|<0.001
84488704|NCT00405756|168728905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.603||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.603|0.284|<0.001
84488705|NCT00405756|168728905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.125||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.125|0.606|0.223
84488706|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84488707|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84488708|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84488709|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||5.47|2.04|<0.001
84488710|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.62|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||2.62|0.95|0.096
84488711|NCT00405756|168728906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||3.37|1.33|0.002
84488712|NCT00405756|168728908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.531||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.531|0.228|<0.001
84488713|NCT00405756|168728908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.419|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.623||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.623|0.281|<0.001
84488714|NCT00405756|168728908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.191||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.191|0.571|0.302
84488715|NCT00405756|168728909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.553||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.553|0.296|<0.001
84488716|NCT00405756|168728909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.688||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.688|0.363|<0.001
84488717|NCT00405756|168728909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.085||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.630|0.169
84488718|NCT01051856|168728942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84741360|NCT02187159|169234049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0499|0.0023|||ANCOVA|||||0.0023|-0.0499|0.0739
84488719|NCT01117428|168728946|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between Parts E and F in terms of Best Overall Response evaluated from screening until disease progression.||||||0.6645||||||No adjustment, 5% significance level|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6645
84603573|NCT01103063|168957774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1536||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.98|0.54|0.0384
84603574|NCT01103063|168957775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8648||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|11.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||11.38|0.38|0.3942
84488720|NCT02519777|168728949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.60
84488721|NCT02519777|168728949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
84488722|NCT02519777|168728949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.61
84488723|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.61
84488724|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.72
84488725|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.79
84488726|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.55
84488727|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.47
84488728|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
84741361|NCT02187159|169234050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.79|0.0015
84488729|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.85
84488730|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.67
84488731|NCT02519777|168728951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.70
84488732|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.99
84488733|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.97
84488734|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.79
84488735|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.99
84488736|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.74
84488737|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.69
84488738|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.44
84547820|NCT02099110|168849804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-8.23||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-2.65||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-2.65|-13.82|0.004
84488739|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
84488740|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.83
84488741|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
84488742|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.86
84488743|NCT02519777|168728952|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
84488744|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-2.78|
84488745|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|10.87||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.87|-0.53|
84488746|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|0.13||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||0.13|-16.56|
84488747|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-3.07|
84488748|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|10.06||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.06|-3.11|
84488749|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|4.19||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||4.19|-7.89|
84488750|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.23||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||4.23|-4.53|
84488751|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.6||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||1.60|-4.99|
84488752|NCT02519777|168728953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||15.42|-2.70|
84488753|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.67
84488754|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.78
84488755|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.94
84488756|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.42
84488757|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.07
84488758|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.37
84741362|NCT02187159|169234050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.86|0.0003
84488759|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.08
84488760|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
84741363|NCT02187159|169234050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.81|0.0008
84547821|NCT02099110|168849804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-6.23||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-6.23|-17.35|<0.001
84547822|NCT02099110|168849804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-12.77||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-12.77|-24.03|<0.001
84547823|NCT02099110|168849804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-23.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.76|-17.53||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-17.53|-28.76|<0.001
84547824|NCT02099110|168849805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|6.4||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|2.68|<0.001
84547825|NCT02099110|168849805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.83||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|1.68|<0.001
84547826|NCT02099110|168849805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.54||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.92|<0.001
84547827|NCT02099110|168849805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||3.89|1.69|<0.001
84547828|NCT02099110|168849806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|7.61||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||18.13|-2.90|0.155
84547829|NCT02099110|168849806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-4.87||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|5.8||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.80|-15.54|0.369
84547830|NCT02099110|168849806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|1.81||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|12.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||12.27|-8.66|0.734
84547831|NCT02099110|168849806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-9.59||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|0.98||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the least squares means|||||0.98|-20.17|0.075
84547832|NCT02099110|168849807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-0.83||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.83|-4.69|0.005
84547833|NCT02099110|168849807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.09||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.09|-4.94|0.002
84547834|NCT01757184|168849809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0271|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||A sample size of 50 randomized participants (approximately 25 participants per treatment group) provided 97% power to detect a statistically significant difference between sebelipase alfa and placebo, using Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||||0.0271
84547835|NCT01757184|168849810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84547836|NCT01757184|168849811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84547837|NCT01757184|168849812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
84547838|NCT01757184|168849813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0375
84547839|NCT01757184|168849814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84547840|NCT01757184|168849815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84547841|NCT01757184|168849816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4216|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4216
84547842|NCT01757184|168849817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
84547843|NCT02977572|168849818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Based upon previous results, the investigators considered that the need for an intubation could be reduced by 15% \[19% in the CPAP group (control) vs. 4% in the NIV group (study)\]. The estimated sample size was 55 participants in each group (confidence interval \[1-α\] = 90% and power \[1-β\] = 85%).||||1.000
84547844|NCT01537042|168849827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.44||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.88|||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed for the log-transformed PLMI ratio with treatment and region as factors and Baseline as a covariate.||||0.88|0.22|0.0232
84547845|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0328|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Age||||0.0328
84547846|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.7128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sex||||0.7128
84547847|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Body mass index||||0.0465
84547848|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Duration of illness||||0.8872
84547849|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0388|||||||Fisher Exact|||Smoking history||||0.0388
84547850|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.4855|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications||||0.4855
84547851|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Liver disorder||||0.6630
84547852|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Renal disorder||||0.2067
84547853|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.8749|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Cardiovascular disorder||||0.8749
84547854|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Blood disorder||||0.4820
84547855|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.6355|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Respiratory disorder||||0.6355
84488761|NCT02519777|168728955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.56
84488762|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.63
84488763|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.38
84488764|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
84488765|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.27
84488766|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.23
84488767|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
84488768|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.03
84488769|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.02
84547856|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.8193|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Diabetes mellitus||||0.8193
84547857|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.5723|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Uveitis||||0.5723
84547858|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Inflammatory bowel disease||||1.0000
84547859|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Psoriasis||||1.0000
84488770|NCT02519777|168728957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
84488771|NCT02519777|168728958|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||1.00
84488772|NCT02519777|168728958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.95
84488773|NCT02519777|168728958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.96
84488774|NCT02519777|168728959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
84488775|NCT02519777|168728959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
84488776|NCT02519777|168728959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
84488777|NCT02519777|168728960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.91
84488778|NCT02519777|168728960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.86
84488779|NCT02519777|168728960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.94
84488780|NCT02519777|168728961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.70
84547860|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Past Illnesses||||0.0144
84547861|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Allergy history||||1.0000
84547862|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.3928|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adalimumab self-injection status||||0.3928
84547863|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.2735|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - NSAIDs||||0.2735
84547864|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.8875|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Biological products||||0.8875
84547865|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.2540
84547866|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs||||0.0226
84547867|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drug: NSAIDs||||1.0000
84741364|NCT02187159|169234050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.37|0.6464
84741365|NCT02187159|169234050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8543
84741366|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-1.0|0.0014
84741367|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1285
84741368|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6595
84741369|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0938
84741370|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0061
84741371|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.8|0.0235
84741372|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3652
84741373|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.4|0.6885
84547868|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.2481|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - DMARDs||||0.2481
84741374|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1726
84547869|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.1558|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Methotrexate||||0.1558
84547870|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - salazosulfapyridine||||1.0000
84741375|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
84741376|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-0.8|0.0026
84741377|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.1362
84741378|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.4|0.4344
84741379|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1264
84741380|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|0.0|0.0260
84741381|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
84741382|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0597
84741383|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1198
84741384|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.240|-0.885|0.0006
84741385|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.061|-0.583|0.1118
84741386|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1646||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.180|-0.465|0.3870
84741387|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1642||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.624|-0.020|0.0633
84741388|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.744|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.744|0.097|0.0108
84741389|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||12.2|2.7|0.0020
84547871|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.0094
84547872|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant therapy||||1.0000
84547873|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||0.8836|||||||Fisher Exact|||Human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) test result||||0.8836
84547874|NCT01329380|168849856|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||BASDAI at start of treatment||||1.0000
84547875|NCT01779440|168849862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-Value of 0.65 was calculated from the difference between groups for the above outcome variable.|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84547876|NCT02748213|168849878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|2.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|14.56|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference in response (CR or PR) rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson correction.|||14.56|-10.17|0.717
84547877|NCT02748213|168849880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||0.99|0.53|0.0449
84741390|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||7.7|-1.8|0.2188
84488781|NCT02519777|168728961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.28
84488782|NCT02519777|168728961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.85
84547878|NCT02748213|168849882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.32|||Log Rank||HR calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||1.32|0.56|0.4758
84547879|NCT00961350|168849892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|3.8||||0.02||95.0|1.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||6.8|1.8|0.020
84488783|NCT02519777|168728962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
84488784|NCT02519777|168728962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.26
84488785|NCT02519777|168728962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.20
84488786|NCT02519777|168728963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.59
84488787|NCT02519777|168728963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.39
84488788|NCT02519777|168728963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
84547880|NCT00961350|168849893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
84547881|NCT00961350|168849894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84547882|NCT00961350|168849895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
84547883|NCT00961350|168849896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84741391|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||8.7|-0.8|0.0991
84488789|NCT02519777|168728964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.90
84488790|NCT02519777|168728964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.14
84488791|NCT02519777|168728964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.49
84488792|NCT02519777|168728965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
84488793|NCT02519777|168728965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
84488794|NCT02519777|168728965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.54
84488795|NCT01038635|168728980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximal tolerated dose|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximal tolerated dose not reached as no dose limiting toxicity documented. MTD considered to be last dose level.|||||
84488796|NCT04542525|168728990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion||||P-value is provided from exact test of binomial proportion (one-sided alpha = 2.5%) comparing PanOptix Toric Trifocal IOL Model TFNT20 with historical threshold 29.2 % (rate calculated for a non-toric IOL in Japanese study patients that would qualify for a T2 lens using the same toric calculator).|||<0.0001
84488797|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.07|0.39|0.599
84488798|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.07||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.59||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.59|0.43|0.442
84488799|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.68||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.57|0.30|0.823
84488800|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.97||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.97|0.33|0.690
84488801|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.75||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.71||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.71|0.33|0.764
84488802|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.56||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.56|0.27|0.841
84488803|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7.This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.35|0.702
84547884|NCT06868654|168849898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.56|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.56|0.11|
84488804|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.91||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.47||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.47|0.33|0.578
84488805|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.71||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.7||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.70|0.29|0.783
84488806|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.87||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.87|0.22|0.797
84488807|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.58||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.26|0.27|0.919
84547885|NCT04818034|168849921|OTHER|paired t-test|paired t-test|0.965|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.965|ONE_SIDED|96.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.965
84488808|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.55||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.43|0.21|0.892
84488809|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.47||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.93|0.11|0.860
84488810|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.86|0.38|0.463
84488811|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.35||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.42||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.42|0.09|0.932
84488812|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.17|0.16|0.952
84488813|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.12|0.873
84488814|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.16||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.16|0.16|0.953
84488815|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.26||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.82|0.56|0.281
84547886|NCT01270464|168849927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.259||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.259|0.060|0.0018
84488816|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.35||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.35|0.42|0.500
84488817|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.76||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.77|0.32|0.744
84488818|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.21||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.04||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.04|0.49|0.334
84488819|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.85|0.35|0.698
84488820|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.18||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.88||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.88|0.48|0.353
84488821|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.01||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.26|0.45|0.489
84488822|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.23|0.17|0.940
84488823|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.01||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.4||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.40|0.42|0.495
84488824|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.82||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.37|0.28|0.647
84488825|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.86|0.40|0.646
84488826|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.74||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.90|0.29|0.741
84488827|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|2.18||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.95||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||7.95|0.62|0.109
84488828|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.37||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.45|0.55|0.240
84488829|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.1||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.44||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||4.44|0.27|0.447
84488830|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.03||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.74||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.74|0.39|0.472
84488831|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.78||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.90|0.21|0.698
84488832|NCT02130635|168729062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.53||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.37|0.21|0.911
84488833|NCT04111185|168729085|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84488834|NCT01899729|168729131|OTHER|Used mixed effects model||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84488835|NCT01454531|168729135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired values|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in IgE-blocking factor values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in IgE-blocking factor values||||<0.001
84488836|NCT01454531|168729136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired samples|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in Phleum specific IgG4 values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in Phleum specific IgG4 values||||<0.001
84488837|NCT01454531|168729137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Parallel Line Assay|||Parallel Line Assay is based on the construction of two dose-response regression lines obtained plotting the allergen concentration used to prick test the subjects against the wheal size obtained. ANOVA allows to check for regression, linearity and parallelism. A common slope and y-intercepts are calculated. The CTI is the exponentiation of the difference between y-intercepts divided by the common slope. (Finney D.J., Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 1978).||||<0.01
84488838|NCT01801189|168729153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Threshold for significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.10
84488839|NCT01801189|168729153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 1||||.23
84488840|NCT01801189|168729153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 2||||.31
84741392|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-9.2|0.0611
84488841|NCT05315297|168729158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84488842|NCT05315297|168729159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84488843|NCT05315297|168729160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84488844|NCT05315297|168729161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84488845|NCT05315297|168729162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84488846|NCT05315297|168729163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84488847|NCT01084096|168729164|SUPERIORITY|Trial powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-d NM among \<5th %tile for birth weight infants. We used an intention-to-treat approach, with a model-based adaptation of the permutation test. We fitted an individual-level linear model with 28-d NM by site and randomization strata, nested within site, and computed the residual for each individual and mean cluster-level residuals. Next, we used an ANOVA model to test for trt differences between mean residuals for intervention and control clusters.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Cluster-level with 62 degrees of freedom \[101 clusters-37 strata-2 treatment groups\].|Calculated from generalized linear models accounting for the cluster-level variance and adjusted for randomization strata. Each stratum corresponds to 2-4 clusters within the site with equal distribution to treatment and control arms.|||1.06|0.87|0.65
84488848|NCT01084096|168729165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3299|0.3792|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Risk difference represents risk in the intervention clusters minus the risk in the control clusters.|The trial was powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-day neonatal mortality among infants born at less than the 5th percentile of birth weight, based on previous research and an expected increase from 10% to 50% in the use of antenatal corticosteroids among women at risk of preterm birth in the intervention group.||0.3792|0.3299|<0.0001
84488849|NCT01084096|168729166|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.58||P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.58|1.33|<0.0001
84488850|NCT01084096|168729168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0127
84488851|NCT01084096|168729169|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0181
84488852|NCT00711009|168729190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (LPV/r + RAL minus LPV/r + FTC/TDF) was used to assess non-inferiority. The LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior to the LPV/r+FTC/TDF arm because the lower limit of the confidence interval was \>/= -20%. Because the LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior based on the 20% margin, the results were assessed on a more rigorous 12% margin (-12%), as prespecified.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|-1.6||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.8|||exact binomial method|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the LPV/r + RAL arm was more than 20% lower than the response rate for the LPV/r + FTC/TDF arm. The planned sample size of 100 participants per treatment group provided 90% power to conclude that the LPV/r + RAL arm was non-inferior to the control arm, based on a non-inferiority margin of -20% (with a type I error rate of 0.05).||8.8|-12.0|0.850
84488853|NCT02534324|168729294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84488854|NCT02534324|168729295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84488855|NCT01138995|168729296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's combination test|Between group difference for entire sample||||||0.75
84488856|NCT01138995|168729297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.022
84488857|NCT01138995|168729298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84488858|NCT04259749|168729313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, education, lifetime use of tobacco products.|||3.40|0.58|
84488859|NCT04259749|168729313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.63|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||5.63|0.92|
84488860|NCT04259749|168729314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.07|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.07|0.61|
84488861|NCT04259749|168729314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.02|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||9.02|1.32|
84488862|NCT04259749|168729315|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.68|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||3.68|.59|
84488863|NCT04259749|168729315|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.42|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||6.42|1.05|
84488864|NCT04259749|168729316|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||2.49|.47|
84488865|NCT04259749|168729316|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||3.31|.62|
84488866|NCT04259749|168729317|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.14|.72|
84669148|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.6283|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6283
84669149|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
84741393|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.2|-8.2|0.1489
84741394|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-2.60|-9.47|0.0006
84741395|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.747||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.67|-7.52|0.0193
84488867|NCT04259749|168729317|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||4.95|.83|
84488868|NCT04259749|168729318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.18|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.18|.40|
84488869|NCT04259749|168729318|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.71|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.71|.73|
84488870|NCT04259749|168729319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.75|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.75|.66|
84488871|NCT04259749|168729319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.29|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||8.29|1.13|
84488872|NCT04259749|168729320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.7|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.70|.51|
84488873|NCT04259749|168729320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.31|.85|
84488874|NCT04259749|168729321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.26|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.26|.29|
84488875|NCT04259749|168729321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.06|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.06|.57|
84488876|NCT04259749|168729322|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.31|.33|
84488877|NCT04259749|168729322|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.83|7.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.13|.83|
84488878|NCT04259749|168729323|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.14|.72|
84488879|NCT04259749|168729323|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.95|.83|
84488880|NCT00303602|168729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||P-value for Week 2 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.428
84488881|NCT00303602|168729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
84488882|NCT00303602|168729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for Week 8 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
84488883|NCT00303602|168729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.784
84488884|NCT00303602|168729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
84488885|NCT00303602|168729325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.19||||0.442||95.0|-0.67|0.3|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.30|-0.67|0.442
84488886|NCT00303602|168729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.32||||0.328||95.0|-0.95|0.32|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.32|-0.95|0.328
84488887|NCT00303602|168729327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
84488888|NCT00303602|168729328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|0.1||||0.914||95.0|-1.65|1.84|||ANCOVA||Change = endpoint minus baseline|||1.84|-1.65|0.914
84488889|NCT00303602|168729329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Up to Week 16 p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.325
84488890|NCT00303602|168729331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
84488891|NCT00303602|168729332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Systolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.708
84488892|NCT00303602|168729332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0||||Diastolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.453
84488893|NCT00303602|168729333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0||||Total Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.187
84488894|NCT00303602|168729333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.163
84488895|NCT00303602|168729333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.323
84488896|NCT00303602|168729333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Triglycerides Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.581
84547887|NCT01270464|168849927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0508||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.215||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.215|0.016|0.0237
84547888|NCT01270464|168849928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.237||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.237|0.023|0.0174
84547889|NCT01270464|168849928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.155||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.155|-0.058|0.3731
84547890|NCT01270464|168849929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.472||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.472|-0.005|0.0552
84547891|NCT01270464|168849929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1215||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.27||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.270|-0.209|0.8020
84547892|NCT01270464|168849931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.14||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.140|-0.577|0.0014
84547893|NCT01270464|168849931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|-0.019||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.019|-0.456|0.0329
84741396|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.80|-5.07|0.3506
84741397|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.37|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.37|-1.48|0.2660
84741398|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.84|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||7.84|0.96|0.0122
84488897|NCT00303602|168729334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.227
84488898|NCT00303602|168729335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.020
84488899|NCT00303602|168729336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.834
84488900|NCT00303602|168729337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals on this regression in CMH test.||||||0.022
84488901|NCT00303602|168729338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||Endpoint Metabolic Syndrome p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
84488902|NCT00303602|168729339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.118
84488903|NCT00303602|168729340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
84488904|NCT00303602|168729341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
84488905|NCT00784225|168729361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||1.79|0.32|0.52
84488906|NCT00784225|168729361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||1.77|0.31|0.51
84547894|NCT01270464|168849932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1582||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.67||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.670|0.047|0.0241
84547895|NCT01270464|168849932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1591||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.591||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.591|-0.036|0.0822
84547896|NCT01270464|168849933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.085||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.085|0.009|0.0160
84547897|NCT01270464|168849933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.089||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.089|0.012|0.0094
84547898|NCT01270464|168849934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|-0.121||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.121|-1.126|0.0151
84547899|NCT01270464|168849934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|-0.144||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.144|-1.152|0.0119
84547900|NCT01270464|168849935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.447||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.447|-0.542|0.0000
84741399|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0119
84547901|NCT01270464|168849935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.275||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.275|-0.370|0.0000
84547902|NCT02801617|168849963|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 2 mmHg analysis by protocol||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.861
84547903|NCT02801617|168849963|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the TIOP with differences of no more than 2 mmHg||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
84547904|NCT02801617|168849964|NON_INFERIORITY|intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.329
84547905|NCT02801617|168849965|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.388|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.388
84547906|NCT02801617|168849966|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.125|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.125
84547907|NCT02801617|168849967|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.434|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.434
84741400|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0659
84741401|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5104
84741402|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.4934
84547908|NCT02801617|168849968|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
84547909|NCT02801617|168849969|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
84547910|NCT01164579|168849970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) Mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.31||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.31|-1.58|0.2696
84547911|NCT01164579|168849970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.41||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.41|-1.46|0.3561
84603575|NCT01103063|168957776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4439||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.93||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.93|0.16|0.0332
84603576|NCT01103063|168957777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4195||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.38|0.27|0.2321
84603577|NCT01103063|168957778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.76||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
84603578|NCT01103063|168957778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
84603579|NCT01103063|168957779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
84603580|NCT01103063|168957779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
84547912|NCT01164579|168849971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.58|-2.52|0.0089
84547913|NCT01164579|168849971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.76|-2.72|0.0038
84547914|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.69|-1.19|0.6576
84547915|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.74||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.74|-1.09|0.7565
84603581|NCT05320393|168957780|OTHER|This study was not powered for formal hypothesis testing; analyses were intended for interpretation purposes only. Analysis was performed using the modified Intent-to-Treat population and regardless of responder status.||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was a measure of duration of effect, described by Kaplan-Meier curves and the median times, with associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group.||||0.0109
84603582|NCT02210832|168957797|SUPERIORITY|38.27% vs. 9.09%|||||<|0.001||||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance was P \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|chi square test statistic = 20.23, df = 1||Hypothesized that women assigned to Best practices plus financial incentives would achieve greater abstinence than women assigned to Best practices only.||||<0.001
84741403|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0634
84547916|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.01|-1.89|0.1038
84547917|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|-0.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.04|-1.98|0.0868
84603583|NCT02210832|168957798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Used generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||||||<0.05
84547918|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-2.62|0.0103
84547919|NCT01164579|168849972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.55|-1.53|0.4350
84547920|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.56|-1.36|0.4890
84547921|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||1.02|-0.85|0.8817
84547922|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.27|-2.21|0.0351
84741404|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0007
84741405|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0837
84547923|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.37|-2.28|0.0231
84547924|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-1.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.08|-3.13|0.0008
84603584|NCT02210832|168957798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||chi square test statistic = 21.93, df=7|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Trial condition by assessment time interaction||||0.003
84547925|NCT01164579|168849973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|-1.25||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.25|-3.32|0.0003
84547926|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.19|-0.96|0.2689
84547927|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.57|-0.58|0.9935
84741406|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2379
84741407|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.0980
84741408|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0283
84488907|NCT00784225|168729362|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.75|0.37
84547928|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.01|-1.15|0.1086
84547929|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.49||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.49|-0.66|0.8092
84547930|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.12|-1.29|0.0463
84547931|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.25|0.0624
84741409|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2179
84488908|NCT00784225|168729362|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.84|0.81
84488909|NCT00784225|168729363|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.98|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||7.98|0.79|0.12
84741410|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6683
84741411|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.2|0.2247
84741412|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.2|0.4198
84741413|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0146
84488910|NCT00784225|168729363|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.82|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||2.82|0.35|0.98
84488911|NCT00784225|168729364|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.64|0.19
84488912|NCT00784225|168729364|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.83|0.58
84488913|NCT02551874|168729365|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<0.3%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||Superiority|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline HbA1c, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit.||||0.03|-0.30|0.118
84488914|NCT02551874|168729366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline body weight, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline body weight-by-visit.||||-3.09|-4.20|<0.001
84488915|NCT02551874|168729367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization stratification factor (background medication of metformin with or without SU).||||0.62|0.30|<0.001
84488916|NCT02551874|168729368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|1.16|0.008
84488917|NCT02551874|168729369|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by lower bound of 95% CI \>-10%.|Adjusted Percent Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|6.54||||||||6.54|-7.42|
84488918|NCT02551874|168729370|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<12 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline measurement, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline-by-visit.||||-13.00|-26.98|<0.0001
84547932|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.69|-1.90|0.0005
84547933|NCT01164579|168849974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|-0.65||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.65|-1.87|0.0008
84547934|NCT01164579|168849975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
84547935|NCT01164579|168849975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
84547936|NCT01164579|168849975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
84547937|NCT01164579|168849975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
84547938|NCT01164579|168849976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
84547939|NCT01164579|168849976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
84547940|NCT01164579|168849976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
84547941|NCT01164579|168849976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
84547942|NCT01164579|168849977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
84547943|NCT01164579|168849977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
84547944|NCT01164579|168849977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
84547945|NCT01164579|168849977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
84547946|NCT01164579|168849978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
84547947|NCT01164579|168849978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
84547948|NCT01164579|168849978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
84547949|NCT01164579|168849978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
84741414|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0662
84547950|NCT01164579|168849979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
84547951|NCT01164579|168849979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
84547952|NCT01164579|168849979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
84547953|NCT01164579|168849979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
84547954|NCT01164579|168849980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
84547955|NCT01164579|168849980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
84547956|NCT01164579|168849980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
84547957|NCT01164579|168849980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
84547958|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.36|31.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||31.62|-5.36|0.2430
84547959|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||45.90|8.91|0.0147
84547960|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.51|46.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.54|9.51|0.0127
84547961|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||39.41|1.73|0.0724
84547962|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.63|46.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.35|10.63|0.0086
84547963|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.55||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.54|31.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.47|-6.54|0.2808
84547964|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.55|9.81|0.0115
84547965|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.56||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|34.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||34.12|-3.94|0.1921
84547966|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||46.55|9.81|0.0115
84547967|NCT01164579|168849981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|36.79|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||36.79|-1.05|0.1203
84547968|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
84547969|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
84547970|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.43|46.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.56|12.43|0.0044
84547971|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||33.43|0.79|0.0845
84547972|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.14|42.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||42.35|6.14|0.0275
84547973|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.91||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.71|43.63|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||43.63|7.71|0.0186
84547974|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.82|53.22|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||53.22|17.82|0.0009
84547975|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.95|43.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||43.24|7.95|0.0169
84547976|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||45.90|8.91|0.0147
84547977|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
84547978|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||45.90|8.91|0.0147
84547979|NCT01164579|168849982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
84547980|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|16.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||16.35|0.78|0.0700
84547981|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
84547982|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.73|40.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||40.30|11.73|0.0027
84547983|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|29.75|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||29.75|3.88|0.0324
84547984|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|29.67|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||29.67|0.13|0.0969
84547985|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|31.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.84|2.09|0.0606
84547986|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|29.93|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||29.93|-4.60|0.2276
84547987|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|25.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.76|-7.90|0.3827
84547988|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|29.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||29.20|-4.18|0.2177
84547989|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
84547990|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.89|17.36|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||17.36|-14.89|0.8997
84547991|NCT01164579|168849983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.34|28.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||28.76|-5.34|0.2587
84547992|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.13||||||Baseline||0.13|-0.56|
84547993|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.43||||||Baseline||0.43|-0.19|
84547994|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.5||||||Month 1||-0.50|-1.38|
84547995|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.22||||||Month 1||-0.22|-1.01|
84547996|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.7||||||Month 2||-0.70|-1.73|
84547997|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.18||||||Month 2||-0.18|-1.20|
84547998|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.29||||||Month 3||-0.29|-1.33|
84547999|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.12||||||Month 3||0.12|-0.94|
84548000|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.61||||||Month 6||-0.61|-1.75|
84548001|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.63||||||Month 6||-0.63|-1.73|
84548002|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.61||||||Month 9||-0.61|-1.81|
84548003|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.13||||||Month 9||-0.13|-1.33|
84548004|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.51||||||Month 12||-0.51|-1.69|
84548005|NCT01164579|168849984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-0.29||||||Month 12||-0.29|-1.51|
84548006|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.45|-1.31|0.0010
84548007|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.24||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.24|-1.10|0.0102
84548008|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
84548009|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.08|0.0175
84548010|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.23||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.23|-1.13|0.0125
84548011|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.05|-0.84|0.1457
84548012|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.57|-1.48|0.0003
84548013|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.58|-1.49|0.0002
84548014|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.69|-1.63|<0.0001
84548015|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.20|-1.14|0.0196
84548016|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|-0.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.52|-1.50|0.0007
84548017|NCT01164579|168849985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.35|-1.32|0.0049
84548018|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.15||||||Baseline||0.15|-0.53|
84548019|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.36||||||Baseline||0.36|-0.24|
84548020|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.42||||||Month 1||-0.42|-1.40|
84548021|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.14||||||Month 1||-0.14|-1.01|
84548022|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.73||||||Month 2||-0.73|-1.82|
84548023|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.13||||||Month 2||-0.13|-1.25|
84548024|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.38||||||Month 3||-0.38|-1.55|
84548025|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.11||||||Month 3||0.11|-1.12|
84548026|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|-0.72||||||Month 6||-0.72|-2.13|
84548027|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|-0.57||||||Month 6||-0.57|-1.91|
84548028|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 9||-0.39|-1.84|
84548029|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.13||||||Month 9||0.13|-1.30|
84548030|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 12||-0.39|-1.84|
84548031|NCT01164579|168849986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.11||||||Month 12||0.11|-1.43|
84548032|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.35|-1.32|0.0046
84548033|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.15||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.15|-1.11|0.0303
84548034|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.68|-1.69|0.0001
84741415|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.7|0.2282
84548035|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|-0.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.18|-1.17|0.0255
84548036|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.39|-1.39|0.0035
84548037|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.05|-1.05|0.0683
84548038|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.78||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.78|-1.81|<0.0001
84548039|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.56|-1.59|0.0006
84548040|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.62||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.62|-1.67|0.0004
84548041|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.05|-1.10|0.0706
84548042|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-1.67|0.0008
84741416|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.7336
84741417|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.5240
84548043|NCT01164579|168849987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.12|-1.21|0.0466
84548044|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.34|50.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||50.68|14.34|0.0032
84548045|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||46.55|9.81|0.0115
84548046|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||50.02|18.81|0.0002
84548047|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.55|41.03||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||41.03|6.55|0.0231
84548048|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||50.02|18.81|0.0002
84548049|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.43|38.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||38.61|3.43|0.0493
84548050|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.92|50.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.43|17.92|0.0005
84548051|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|41.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||41.37|6.07|0.0270
84741418|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1349
84741419|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0464
84741420|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.0975
84741421|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6088
84741422|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.7341
84741423|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0125
84488919|NCT00313716|168729371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo2 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo2 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 2 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups. Using a one-sided alpha of 0.15, a sample size of 62 subjects in the Epo 2 regimen group and 100 subjects in the placebo group provided 91% power to test the futility hypothesis.||||.01
84488920|NCT00313716|168729371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo1 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo1 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 1 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups.||||0.13
84488921|NCT00313716|168729371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||2-sample test of proportions|||We hypothesized that 40% of the patients in the TT7 group would have a favorable GOS score and that there would be no interaction between the Epo and TT groups. Assuming a 2-sided test with an alpha level of 0.05, we estimated that a sample size of 200 patients would provide 80% power to detect a 20% absolute increase in the GOS score for the TT10 group.||||.34
84488922|NCT00313716|168729372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84488923|NCT00313716|168729373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||.25
84488924|NCT00313716|168729373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||.75
84488925|NCT00313716|168729373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||.72
84488926|NCT00313716|168729374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|.93|.08
84488927|NCT00313716|168729375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||2-sample test - equality of proportions|||||.05|-.22|.26
84488928|NCT01491802|168729396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.090
84488929|NCT01491802|168729397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.680
84488930|NCT01491802|168729398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.197
84488931|NCT01491802|168729399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.006
84488932|NCT01491802|168729400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.044
84488933|NCT01491802|168729401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.573
84488934|NCT01491802|168729402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.960
84488935|NCT01491802|168729403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.944
84488936|NCT01491802|168729404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.028
84488937|NCT03993314|168729406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients achieving a level of numbness of T6 or higher between the two groups.||||0.757
84488938|NCT03993314|168729407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median level of numbness between the two groups.||||0.186
84488939|NCT03993314|168729408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring epidural activation between the two groups.||||0.132
84741424|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
84741425|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
84548052|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||51.12|15.80|0.0018
84548053|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||41.96|5.02|0.0363
84548054|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||53.64|19.16|0.0005
84548055|NCT01164579|168849988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||44.50|8.04|0.0177
84548056|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.62|38.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||38.42|6.62|0.0197
84548057|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|19.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||19.76|-7.09|0.4379
84548058|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.34|10.40|0.0093
84548059|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||31.73|-2.75|0.1669
84669150|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6631
84548060|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.34|10.40|0.0093
84548061|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|37.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||37.55|2.53|0.0596
84548062|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||52.96|16.51|0.0017
84548063|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.36|46.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||46.69|10.36|0.0097
84548064|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.68|53.26||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.26|16.68|0.0016
84548065|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.28|46.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.91|10.28|0.0102
84548066|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||52.96|16.51|0.0017
84548067|NCT01164579|168849989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.74|41.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.19|4.74|0.0381
84548068|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|25.4||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||25.40|0.15|0.0959
84741426|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.1|0.0040
84741427|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5801
84741428|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1869
84741429|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
84741430|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.9|0.0271
84548069|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.58|9.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||9.19|-8.58|0.9544
84548070|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
84548071|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.04|21.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||21.16|-4.04|0.2640
84548072|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
84741431|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.1123
84548073|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|23.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||23.38|-5.96|0.3290
84548074|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|48.09||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||48.09|13.59|0.0032
84548075|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||33.43|0.79|0.0845
84548076|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.44|48.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||48.72|13.44|0.0037
84548077|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|37.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||37.02|2.91|0.0540
84548078|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|50.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||50.39|16.70|0.0010
84548079|NCT01164579|168849990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|35.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||35.71|3.92|0.0401
84603585|NCT02210832|168957799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||chi square test statistic = 9.52, df = 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Interaction of trial condition and time||||0.48
84548080|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.83|55.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||55.99|19.83|0.0005
84548081|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.87|51.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||51.38|14.87|0.0028
84548082|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.21|42.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.45|9.21|0.0105
84548083|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.33|28.3||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||28.30|-8.33|0.3700
84548084|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.11|55.53||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||55.53|24.11|<0.0001
84603586|NCT02210832|168957800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||chi square test statistic = 33.51, df = 2|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Examining main effect of treatment condition.||||<0.0001
84603587|NCT02210832|168957800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||chi square test statistic = 5.00, df = 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing interaction of treatment condition and assessment time||||0.89
84603588|NCT02210832|168957801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
84548085|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|36.59||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||36.59|-0.40|0.1076
84548086|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.13|50.75||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.75|17.13|0.0008
84548087|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|44.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||44.10|8.74|0.0139
84548088|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.64|19.16|0.0005
84548089|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||44.50|8.04|0.0177
84548090|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.12|15.80|0.0018
84548091|NCT01164579|168849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.96|5.02|0.0363
84548092|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|30.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||30.10|5.66|0.0160
84548093|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|14.8||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||14.80|-3.06|0.2798
84548094|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
84548095|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|17.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||17.79|-6.23|0.4287
84548096|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
84548097|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|32.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||32.69|1.39|0.0732
84548098|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.79|39.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||39.72|4.79|0.0360
84548099|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.35|25.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.07|-7.35|0.3688
84548100|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.63|42.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||42.76|7.63|0.0182
84548101|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
84548102|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|51.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.05|16.51|0.0012
84548103|NCT01164579|168849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|30.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||30.42|-1.74|0.1426
84548104|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|12.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||12.52|-0.75|0.1449
84603589|NCT02210832|168957802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||F\[7,922\]=3.62|ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of covariance was conducted with Bonferroni corrections for post-doc tests and across repeated assessments.||Examine interaction of treatment condition and assessment time.||||<0.001
84548105|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
84548106|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.32|26.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||26.55|3.32|0.0342
84548107|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|10.51||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||10.51|-4.80|0.5400
84548108|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|25.13||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||25.13|-5.10|0.2759
84548109|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||-0.45|-21.02|0.0859
84548110|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||31.73|0.06|0.0985
84548111|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.86|13.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||13.61|-12.86|0.9628
84548112|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|35.84||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||35.84|2.31|0.0612
84548113|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.08|11.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||11.43|-16.08|0.7807
84603590|NCT02210832|168957802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
84603591|NCT02210832|168957803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||0.009
84548114|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||34.95|2.72|0.0544
84548115|NCT01164579|168849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.32|20.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||20.18|-8.32|0.4937
84548116|NCT02347774|168850009|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.0736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0346|0.1127|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1127|0.0346|0.0002
84548117|NCT02347774|168850009|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02006||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0416|0.1204|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1204|0.0416|0.0001
84603592|NCT02210832|168957804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Method is logistic regression adjusted for covariates.||||||0.01
84603593|NCT02210832|168957805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84548118|NCT02347774|168850010|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0417|0.1224||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|I||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1224|0.0417|<0.0001
84548119|NCT02347774|168850010|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02069||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0433|0.1246||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1246|0.0433|0.0001
84548120|NCT00820248|168850036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of panitumumab vs cisplatin|The log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization was used to compare the difference in PFS between two treatment arms.||1.50|0.60|0.83
84548121|NCT00820248|168850037|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||Log Rank||hazard ratio for panitumumab vs cisplatin|||1.48|0.54|0.66
84548122|NCT01562782|168850038|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups in the primary outcome- the mean fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate, 0-4 hours. A power calculation was based on data obtained in 15 overweight subjects. Assuming a mean absolute difference of 2.7 in South Asians and 1.0 in Caucasians and a standard deviation of 2.0 for both, group sample sizes of 16 and 16 were expected to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 1.7 using a 2-sided Mann-Whitney test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The equivalence test was used to compare the fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate in Caucasians and South Asians.||||0.05
84548123|NCT01562782|168850039|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test was used to compare 1) the fold change in triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians and 2) the fold change in VLDL triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians.||||<0.05
84548124|NCT01562782|168850040|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test is used to compare levels after the sugar beverage of 1) glucose at 1 hour 2) lactate at 1 hour 3) NEFA at 2 hours in South Asians vs Caucasians.||||<0.05
84548125|NCT01562782|168850041|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548126|NCT01562782|168850042|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548127|NCT01562782|168850043|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson or Spearman's rank test|||The equivalence test was used to analyze the relationship between the primary outcome, fold change in VLDL TG palmitate, and the listed levels of biomarkers of carbohydrate and fat metabolism. The correlation analysis was performed on data from each study group separately.||||<0.05
84548128|NCT01562782|168850044|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548129|NCT01562782|168850045|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548130|NCT01562782|168850046|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548131|NCT01562782|168850047|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548132|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.31||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.17|0.0025
84548133|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.38|0.4540
84548134|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.46|8.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.94|2.46|0.0003
84548135|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|2.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|1.16|0.0460
84548136|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.22|0.47|0.3365
84548137|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.37|0.0313
84548138|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|0.65|0.8060
84548139|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|0.84|0.2044
84548140|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.67||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.02|0.93|0.1490
84603594|NCT02210832|168957806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84603595|NCT02210832|168957808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84741432|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1183
84741433|NCT02187159|169234052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0299
84741434|NCT02187159|169234053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.063|0.5578
84741435|NCT02187159|169234053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.058|0.7034
84741436|NCT02187159|169234053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.069|0.4143
84741437|NCT02187159|169234053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.054|||ANCOVA|||||0.054|-0.044|0.8365
84548141|NCT02308540|168850071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|0.59|0.7565
84548142|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.75||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.54|0.2653
84548143|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.2|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.20|0.45|0.2059
84741438|NCT02187159|169234053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.043|||ANCOVA|||||0.043|-0.055|0.8189
84741439|NCT04325282|169234054|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after active rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.04
84741440|NCT04325282|169234054|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after sham rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.46
84548144|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.54|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.54|0.55|0.5664
84548145|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.57|0.4456
84548146|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.14|0.52|0.2189
84548147|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.03|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.03|0.38|0.0970
84741441|NCT04325282|169234054|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change induced by active rTMS versus sham rTMS||||0.12
84741442|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
84741443|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
84741444|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
84741445|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
84488940|NCT03993314|168729409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring supplemental IV sedation or general anesthesia between the two groups.||||0.833
84488941|NCT03993314|168729410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.004
84488942|NCT03993314|168729411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.674
84488943|NCT03993314|168729412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to discharge from the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) between the two groups.||||0.196
84488944|NCT01005966|168729439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.01||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|1.73||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on a mixed model with the factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for NaF toothpaste and AmF toothpaste to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||1.73|-7.75|0.2117
84488945|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||13.66|4.27|0.0002
84488946|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.24|-0.11|0.0557
84488947|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.86|28.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||28.24|18.86|<0.0001
84488948|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|9.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.03|-0.23|0.0625
84488949|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|23.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||23.61|14.36|<0.0001
84548148|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.76||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.79|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||2.79|1.02|0.0713
84548149|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.71||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.35|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.35|0.42|0.3443
84488950|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|19.23||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||19.23|9.95|<0.0001
84488951|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.58||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.27||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||12.27|2.88|0.0017
84488952|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.64||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||16.64|7.31|<0.0001
84548150|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.23|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.23|0.48|0.3278
84488953|NCT01005966|168729440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|26.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.88|31.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||31.24|21.88|<0.0001
84488954|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.24||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.62|314.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||314.09|-239.62|0.7912
84488955|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|532.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|259.06|806.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||806.16|259.06|0.0002
84488956|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|692.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|418.73|967.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||967.09|418.73|<0.0001
84488957|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1879.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1605.75|2153.04||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2153.04|1605.75|<0.0001
84488958|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|495.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|221.09|769.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/ NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||769.66|221.09|0.0005
84488959|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|655.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|382.41|928.93||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||928.93|382.41|<0.0001
84488960|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1842.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1568.73|2115.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2115.60|1568.73|<0.0001
84488961|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.58|431.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||431.18|-110.58|0.2448
84488962|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1346.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1076.46|1617.11||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1617.11|1076.46|<0.0001
84488963|NCT01005966|168729441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1186.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|915.38|1457.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1457.60|915.38|<0.0001
84548151|NCT02308540|168850072|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.65||||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.16|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.16|0.40|0.2039
84488964|NCT01451203|168729444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 52.The primary Week 52 analysis assessed whether treatment up to Week 52 with the CZP group was superior to the placebo group in mTSS at Week 52. The 2-sided null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: πC = πM Ha: πC ≠ πM where πC represented subjects in the CZP group at Week 52 and πM represented subjects in the placebo group at Week 52.||0.00|0.00|<0.001
84548152|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.74|0.2550
84548153|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|1.01|0.0865
84548154|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|0.43|0.0006
84548155|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.33|<0.0001
84548156|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|0.47|<0.0001
84548157|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
84548158|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.85|0.5234
84548159|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
84548160|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.60|0.0040
84548161|NCT02308540|168850073|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.73|0.46|0.0001
84548162|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 1|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|2.66||||||||2.66|-5.13|
84548163|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 5|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.95||||||||7.95|-1.10|
84548164|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.94|-2.97||||||||-2.97|-20.94|
84548165|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-1.01||||||||-1.01|-15.0|
84603596|NCT02210832|168957812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|All comparisons adjusted for infant gestational age at time of delivery.||||||0.006
84603597|NCT00798317|168957830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|17.0||Comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||17.00|1.97|<0.001
84603598|NCT01344538|168957850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84548166|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|1.1||||||||1.10|-7.95|
84548167|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.17|2.9||||||||2.90|-9.17|
84548168|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 14|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.27||||||||6.27|-4.00|
84548169|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|0.17||||||||0.17|-12.38|
84548170|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|4.33||||||||4.33|-4.22|
84548171|NCT02308540|168850075|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.77|0.4||||||||0.40|-12.77|
84548172|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 1|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.55|36.11||||||||36.11|-15.55|
84548173|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 5|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.56|18.56||||||||18.56|-18.56|
84548174|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 6B|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|22.97||||||||22.97|-12.35|
84548175|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 14|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.15|24.01||||||||24.01|-12.15|
84548176|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.41|11.01||||||||11.01|-26.41|
84548177|NCT02308540|168850077|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.64|22.97||||||||22.97|-11.64|
84603599|NCT00297102|168957851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||60|18|0.0003
84548178|NCT00945035|168850092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.97|1.07||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.07|0.97|
84548179|NCT00945035|168850093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.95|1.11||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.11|0.95|
84548180|NCT02484456|168850107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
84548181|NCT02484456|168850108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84548182|NCT02484456|168850109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84548183|NCT02484456|168850110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84548184|NCT02484456|168850111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84548185|NCT02484456|168850112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
84548186|NCT02484456|168850113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84548187|NCT02484456|168850114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84603600|NCT00297102|168957852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.982||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.982|0.737|0.0278
84548188|NCT02484456|168850115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84548189|NCT02484456|168850116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84548190|NCT02484456|168850117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84603601|NCT00297102|168957853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|26|<0.0001
84603602|NCT00297102|168957854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.034||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 765 in the roflumilast group, n= 758 in the placebo group).|||2.034|0.526|0.9212
84603603|NCT00297102|168957855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|0.9521||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8472|1.0699||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.0699|0.8472|0.4089
84488965|NCT01451203|168729445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman point estimate of shift|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 24.||0.00|0.00|0.003
84488966|NCT01451203|168729446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84488967|NCT01451203|168729447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84488968|NCT01451203|168729448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84488969|NCT01249404|168729463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||=|0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.1|-0.3|=0.2859
84488970|NCT01249404|168729463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||-0.1|-0.5|=0.0091
84488971|NCT01249404|168729464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0640
84488972|NCT01249404|168729464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0665
84488973|NCT01249404|168729464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0466
84488974|NCT01249404|168729464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0406
84488975|NCT01249404|168729465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|||=|0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.02|=0.7247
84488976|NCT01249404|168729465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|||=|0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.03|=0.7266
84488977|NCT02528643|168729492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.146||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.696||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by geographic region and ECOG performance status. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.696|0.774|0.248
84488978|NCT02528643|168729492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.688||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.688|0.773|0.252
84488979|NCT02528643|168729497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.474||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by ECOG performance status and region. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.474|0.732|0.396
84488980|NCT02528643|168729497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.345||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.345|0.684|0.586
84488981|NCT02058940|168729512|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2
84488982|NCT03521089|168729524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0039
84488983|NCT03521089|168729524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84488984|NCT03521089|168729524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
84488985|NCT03521089|168729525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9674
84488986|NCT03521089|168729525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
84488987|NCT03521089|168729525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2500
84488988|NCT03521089|168729526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
84488989|NCT03521089|168729526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
84488990|NCT03521089|168729526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
84488991|NCT03521089|168729527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3069
84488992|NCT03521089|168729527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1875
84488993|NCT03521089|168729527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
84488994|NCT03521089|168729528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2609|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2609
84488995|NCT03521089|168729528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
84488996|NCT03521089|168729528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
84488997|NCT03521089|168729529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6951
84488998|NCT03521089|168729529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
84488999|NCT03521089|168729529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
84489000|NCT03521089|168729530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3592|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3592
84489001|NCT03521089|168729530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
84489002|NCT03521089|168729530|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84489003|NCT01432236|168729546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-0.91|0.0001
84489004|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-3.87||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the FIQ total score. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-3.87|-9.33|<0.0001
84489005|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for parameter 'physical impairment'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
84489006|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.33||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'feel good'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.33|-1.36|0.0014
84548191|NCT02484456|168850118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84741446|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.43
84548192|NCT02484456|168850119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84548193|NCT02484456|168850120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84741447|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
84741448|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
84741449|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.54||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.54
84489007|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above for parameter 'work missed'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0050
84489008|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.36||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'do work'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.36|-1.14|0.0002
84489009|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'pain'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0006
84489010|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'fatigue'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.04|-0.85|0.0315
84489011|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'rested'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.35|-1.17|0.0003
84489012|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.31||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'stiffness'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-1.11|0.0007
84497200|NCT04636437|168745588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.44|6.87||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||6.87|-2.44|0.28
84497201|NCT04636437|168745589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|5.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||5.25|-1.68|0.24
84489013|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'anxiety'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.17|-0.93|0.0048
84489014|NCT01432236|168729548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.53||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'depression'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.53|-1.32|<0.0001
84489015|NCT01432236|168729549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.0637
84489016|NCT01432236|168729550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using CMH test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.1160
84489017|NCT01432236|168729551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 30% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0007
84489018|NCT01432236|168729551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 50% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0205
84489019|NCT01432236|168729552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||0.84|0.31|<0.0001
84548194|NCT02484456|168850121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84548195|NCT02484456|168850122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84741450|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.007
84741451|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
84489020|NCT01432236|168729553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.96||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-2.96|-12.66|0.0018
84489021|NCT01432236|168729554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.31||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors||-1.31|-10.29|0.0117
84489022|NCT01432236|168729555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|16.74||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||16.74|-0.04|0.0511
84548196|NCT02484456|168850123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
84548197|NCT02484456|168850124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84548198|NCT02484456|168850125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84548199|NCT02484456|168850126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84548200|NCT02484456|168850127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
84548201|NCT02484456|168850128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84548202|NCT02484456|168850129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84548203|NCT02484456|168850130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84548204|NCT03852264|168850144|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|6.38|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||6.38|-1.29|
84548205|NCT03852264|168850144|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|5.45|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||5.45|-2.18|
84548206|NCT03852264|168850144|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.93|2.83|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||2.83|-4.93|
84548207|NCT03852264|168850145|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|1.211|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||1.211|-0.476|
84548208|NCT03852264|168850145|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.931|0.803|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.803|-0.931|
84548209|NCT03852264|168850145|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.319|0.445|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.445|-1.319|
84548210|NCT03852264|168850146|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|99.5|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||99.5|-101|
84548211|NCT03852264|168850146|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-225.0|-15.5|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-15.5|-225|
84548212|NCT03852264|168850146|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-223.0|-16.2|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-16.2|-223|
84548213|NCT04922255|168850148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84548214|NCT04922255|168850149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
84548215|NCT04922255|168850150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84548216|NCT04922255|168850151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
84548217|NCT04922255|168850152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84548218|NCT04481789|168850166|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.08|0.97|
84548219|NCT04481789|168850166|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.99||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||0.99|0.88|
84548220|NCT04481789|168850166|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.09|0.98|
84603604|NCT00297102|168957856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.449||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.449|0.016|0.0356
84548221|NCT04481789|168850167|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin).|LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.06|0.91|
84548222|NCT04481789|168850167|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.1||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.10|0.80|
84548223|NCT04481789|168850167|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.23||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.23|0.96|
84548224|NCT04481789|168850182|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.017||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.017|0.697|
84548225|NCT04481789|168850182|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.891||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.891|0.610|
84548226|NCT04481789|168850183|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.379|1.137||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.137|0.379|
84548227|NCT04481789|168850183|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.301|0.903||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.903|0.301|
84548228|NCT01342523|168850214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving CIS vs No CIS. We hypothesized that CIS would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No CIS.||1.17|0.88|.825
84548229|NCT01342523|168850214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT vs No NRT. We hypothesized that NRT would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No NRT.||1.36|1.02|.028
84548230|NCT01342523|168850214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving Email Messaging vs No Email Messaging. We hypothesized that Email Messaging would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No Email Messaging.||1.13|0.85|.755
84548231|NCT01342523|168850214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full SmokeFree.gov Website vs the Lite SmokeFree.gov Website . We hypothesized that the Full SmokeFree.gov Website would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the LiteSmokeFree.gov Website .||1.33|0.996|.057
84669151|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4770
84669152|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4027
84741452|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.32
84489023|NCT01432236|168729556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Analyzed as a count variable using a generalized linear model assuming a Poisson distribution and utilizing a log link transformation.||0.03|-0.29|0.1139
84489024|NCT01432236|168729558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-A (anxiety). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.50|-1.40|<0.0001
84489025|NCT01432236|168729558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.39||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-D (depression). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subject within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||-0.39|-1.37|0.0005
84489026|NCT01432236|168729560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.06|-0.02|0.3854
84489027|NCT01432236|168729562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.97|0.14|0.0085
84489028|NCT05064449|168729568|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|116.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|148.9|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||148.90|91.30|
84548232|NCT01342523|168850214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.555||95.0|0.83|1.11||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full Cessation Booklet vs the Brief Cessation Booklet We hypothesized that the Full Cessation Booklet would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the Brief Cessation Booklet.||1.11|0.83|.555
84548233|NCT01303172|168850242|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Log Rank|||The difference between the two treatment groups was tested with a two-sided log-rank test and a Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI and associated p-value.||0.87|0.33|0.011
84489029|NCT05064449|168729569|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.02|130.83|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||130.83|88.02|
84489030|NCT05064449|168729570|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|123.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|144.68|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||144.68|106.21|
84489031|NCT05064449|168729571|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|117.38|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||117.38|86.17|
84489032|NCT05064449|168729572|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|143.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||143.79|103.47|
84489033|NCT05064449|168729573|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.68|125.77|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||125.77|91.68|
84489034|NCT05064449|168729574|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001|0.126|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Itraconazole) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.126|-0.001|=0.2305
84489035|NCT05064449|168729575|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||=|0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.128|0.018|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.018|-0.128|=0.5830
84489036|NCT04450394|168729610|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% Confidence Interval is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
84489037|NCT01192139|168729620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.068|1.011|
84489038|NCT01192139|168729620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.049|1.108|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.108|1.049|
84548234|NCT00994461|168850254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by H. pylori status was employed for the comparison of celecoxib and loxoprofen with placebo. The multiplicity of test was not adjusted because these comparisons were for the secondary objective.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by H. pylori status was employed. Continuous correction was used.||Hypothesis testing was conducted with significant p-value level of under 0.05.||||<0.0001
84548235|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
84489039|NCT01192139|168729620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|104.65||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
84489040|NCT01192139|168729620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|108.74||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment B||||
84489041|NCT01192139|168729620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|100.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
84489042|NCT01192139|168729622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.068|1.011|
84489043|NCT01192139|168729622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.110|1.051|
84489044|NCT01192139|168729622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|102.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
84489045|NCT01192139|168729622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|106.89||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
84489046|NCT01192139|168729622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.99||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
84489047|NCT01192139|168729623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.109|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.109|0.940|
84489048|NCT01192139|168729623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the fed to fasted ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.031|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.031|0.873|
84489049|NCT01192139|168729623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|25.68||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
84489050|NCT01192139|168729623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|26.21||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
84489051|NCT01192139|168729623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|27.63||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
84548236|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
84548237|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489052|NCT01192139|168729632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Geometric Means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.002|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.002|0.836|
84489053|NCT01192139|168729632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|lack of food effect concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean and 90% CI|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.111|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.111|0.918|
84489054|NCT01192139|168729632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5542.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
84489055|NCT01192139|168729632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5072.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
84489056|NCT01192139|168729632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5023.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
84489057|NCT01192139|168729633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.854|0.992|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.992|0.854|
84489058|NCT01192139|168729633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.105|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.105|0.951|
84489059|NCT01192139|168729633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5287.1||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
84489060|NCT01192139|168729633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4866.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
84489061|NCT01192139|168729633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4746.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment C||||
84489062|NCT01192139|168729634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.007|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.007|0.865|
84489063|NCT01192139|168729634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(inf) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.969|||||Ration = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.969|0.832|
84489064|NCT01192139|168729634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|608.41||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
84489065|NCT01192139|168729634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|567.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
84489066|NCT01192139|168729634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|632.39||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
84489067|NCT03812224|168729640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.52|-0.73|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status, and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.73|-2.52|<0.001
84489068|NCT03812224|168729641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status.||||4.23|1.29|0.005
84489069|NCT03812224|168729642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.24|-0.71|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type (episodic migraine or chronic migraine) and prior migraine preventive treatment status (ever used or never used), and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.71|-2.24|<0.001
84489070|NCT04853368|168729646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|4.04||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.04|1.22|0.002
84489071|NCT04853368|168729646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|4.67||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.67|-2.07|0.254
84489072|NCT04853368|168729646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|6.77||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||6.77|-5.07|0.402
84548238|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489073|NCT04853368|168729648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|9.92||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||9.92|1.07|0.022
84489074|NCT04853368|168729648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.59|-0.62||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||-0.62|-27.59|0.043
84489075|NCT04853368|168729649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.219||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.219|0.059|0.003
84489076|NCT04853368|168729649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.162|0.15||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.150|-0.162|0.475
84489077|NCT04853368|168729649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.332|0.212||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||Cohort 2: Difference between Triple Therapy and Placebo||0.212|-0.332|0.352
84489078|NCT04853368|168729650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0403||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0209|0.1568||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.1568|0.0209|0.017
84489079|NCT04853368|168729650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1814|0.288||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.2880|-0.1814|0.169
84489080|NCT04853368|168729650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1809|0.4527||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.4527|-0.1809|0.230
84489081|NCT04853368|168729651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.04|6.78||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.78|2.04|0.002
84489082|NCT04853368|168729651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|6.97||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.97|-4.42|0.350
84489083|NCT04853368|168729651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|11.34||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|-8.75|0.412
84489084|NCT04853368|168729652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|6.524||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.524|2.190|<0.001
84489085|NCT04853368|168729652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.449|3.268||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.268|-4.449|0.396
84489086|NCT04853368|168729652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.724|4.732||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.732|-8.724|0.305
84489087|NCT04853368|168729653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.475||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4443|11.5056||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5056|1.4443|0.018
84489088|NCT04853368|168729653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.019||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1464|19.1844||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1844|-7.1464|0.214
84489089|NCT04853368|168729653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.29||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.186|29.766||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7660|-15.1860|0.286
84489090|NCT04853368|168729654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.6||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|11.37||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.37|-0.26|0.057
84489091|NCT04853368|168729654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|19.4||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.40|-2.18|0.088
84489092|NCT04853368|168729654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|29.25||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Note: The LS mean is estimated using the linear regression on the change in CFQ-R from baseline to day 29.||||29.25|-6.90|0.142
84489093|NCT00612573|168729656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||10.3|-14.8|0.779
84489094|NCT00612573|168729656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||11.7|-13.7|0.983
84489095|NCT00612573|168729656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||27.3|-1.5|0.087
84489096|NCT00612573|168729657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.807
84489097|NCT00612573|168729657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.075
84489098|NCT00612573|168729657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.039
84489099|NCT00612573|168729658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.212
84489100|NCT00612573|168729658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.505
84489101|NCT00612573|168729658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.399
84489102|NCT00612573|168729659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.276
84489103|NCT00612573|168729659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.231
84489104|NCT00612573|168729659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.081
84489105|NCT02643420|168729689|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.031|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||-0.031|-0.266|<0.0001
84669153|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1077|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1077
84669154|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.1781|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1781
84741453|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.01
84489106|NCT02643420|168729690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.94|-1.43|0.685
84489107|NCT02643420|168729691|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.56|||Asymptotic normality assumption|P-value was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||1.56|0.93|0.155
84489108|NCT02643420|168729692|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||||10.8|-8.6|0.435
84489109|NCT02643420|168729693|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.116|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 2||0.116|-0.032|<0.0001
84489110|NCT02643420|168729693|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.085|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 3||0.085|-0.032|<0.0001
84489111|NCT02643420|168729693|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.089|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 4||0.089|-0.036|<0.0001
84489112|NCT02643420|168729694|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-9.5|1.000
84489113|NCT02643420|168729695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 2||9.8|-9.7|1.000
84489114|NCT02643420|168729695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.6||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.3|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 3||11.3|-8.2|0.201
84489115|NCT02643420|168729695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 4||10.8|-8.7|0.232
84489116|NCT02127970|168729698|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was to be a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in responder rates is greater than -10%, then the single-dose dalbavancin regimen was to be declared non-inferior to the two dose dalbavancin regimen.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||For the difference in clinical responder rates (single-dose group minus two dose group), the 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|||2.8|-8.5|
84489117|NCT00542321|168729728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between proportions|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Chi-Square = 0.750, df = 1||Pearson Chi-Square Test for difference between groups||||1.00
84489118|NCT00542321|168729729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|52.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Alpha = .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||There will be no difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between groups.||||1.0
84489119|NCT00542321|168729730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.451
84489120|NCT00542321|168729731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.43||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84489121|NCT00542321|168729732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|56.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84489122|NCT04138758|168729737|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.85|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.85|0.68|
84548239|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489123|NCT04138758|168729738|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia.||0.97|0.57|
84489124|NCT04138758|168729739|OTHER|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.27|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|||0.27|0.19|
84489125|NCT04138758|168729740|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.26|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.||0.26|0.19|
84489126|NCT04138758|168729741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.51|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.51|0.42|
84669155|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
84669156|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0994|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0994
84669157|NCT01480076|169072588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2194
84489127|NCT04138758|168729742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.49|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.49|0.41|
84669158|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84489128|NCT02988115|168729745|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.897|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.132|-17.697|||ANCOVA||bempedoic acid (BA) therapy minus placebo|||-17.697|-25.132|<0.001
84489129|NCT02988115|168729746|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-18.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.951|-14.865|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|||-14.865|-22.951|<0.001
84489130|NCT02988115|168729747|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-14.811|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-14.811|-21.070|<0.001
84489131|NCT02988115|168729747|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.283|-12.239|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|TC||-12.239|-17.283|<0.001
84489132|NCT02988115|168729747|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.062|-11.866|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|apoB||-11.866|-18.062|<0.001
84489133|NCT02988115|168729748|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-24.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.888|-12.712|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||BA therapy minus placebo|||-12.712|-35.888|<0.001
84489134|NCT00104299|168729767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of -20%|Difference between group success rates|10.6|||<|0.001||95.1|-3.2|24.3||P-value is adjusted for interim analysis using a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary, allocating 0.003 alpha to the interim analysis and 0.049 alpha to the final analysis.|95.1% CI of difference|Calculate 95.1% CI around the difference in success rates between arms. Lower bound above non-inferiority margin of -20% indicates non-inferiority.||In calculating the sample size, we assumed that the percentage of patients in both treatment groups would achieve disease remission off prednisone by 6 months was 70%. We specified a non-inferiority margin of -20% on the difference in remission rates (rituximab rate minus cyclophosphamide rate) and a one-sided 0.025 level test. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, RAVE required 100 patients in each arm to have 83% power to conclude non-inferiority.||24.3|-3.2|<0.001
84489135|NCT00104299|168729768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||||||P-value is from the Poisson regression model adjusting for clinical study site and ANCA type. The natural logarithm of participant-months is used as an offset in this model|Poisson regression model|||Participant-months are defined as duration in months from the first study drug dosing date to the last date of the participant in the protocol. The rate of selected AEs is defined as the total number of selected AEs divided by total participant-months, and indicates the number of events per participant per month on average. Participants are grouped according to their originally received treatment.||||0.927
84548240|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489136|NCT00104299|168729769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||95.1% Confidence Interval of Difference|10.6||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.2|24.4|||Chi-squared|At 6 months, the confidence interval is 95.1%.||The p-value is from a chi-square test.||24.4|-3.2|0.133
84489137|NCT00104299|168729770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission|Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.7|0.5|0.761
84489138|NCT00104299|168729771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.5|0.6|0.861
84489139|NCT00104299|168729772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.3|0.7|0.497
84489140|NCT00104299|168729773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving complete remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.8|0.9|0.147
84489141|NCT00104299|168729774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Proportions of subjects experiencing a serious adverse event through 18 months and prior to censoring for open-label, crossover, or best medical judgment according to originally assigned treatment arm were compared using a two-sided Chi-squared test.||||0.504
84489142|NCT01716585|168729784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects administered telaprevir plus peginterferon (pegIFN)/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 70% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 80% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|98.1|||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|With a sample size of 450 subjects and assuming that 92% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve SVR12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 80% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion). 95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||98.1|94.7|
84489143|NCT01716585|168729785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84489144|NCT01716585|168729786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 75% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.4|97.9||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||97.9|93.4|
84489145|NCT01716585|168729787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 84% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|95.8|
84489146|NCT03288987|168729796|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared by comparing the 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to the reference product (Roche Bevacizumab) to the point-estimate margin and was based on the synthesis method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Upper limit of CI is lower than the noninferiority margin (1.44).|The 90 % CI based on synthesis method is (0.45,1.38). In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.35|0.46|0.47
84489147|NCT03288987|168729797|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.80|0.55|0.99
84489148|NCT03288987|168729798|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.17
84489149|NCT03288987|168729799|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.61|0.76|0.59
84489150|NCT03288987|168729800|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||>0.05
84489151|NCT01143116|168729810|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
84489152|NCT01143116|168729810|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
84489153|NCT01143116|168729811|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8750
84489154|NCT01143116|168729811|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
84489155|NCT01143116|168729812|OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0254
84741454|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
84669159|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
84741455|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.29
84489156|NCT01143116|168729812|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
84489157|NCT01143116|168729813|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84489158|NCT01143116|168729813|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84489159|NCT01143116|168729814|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84489160|NCT01143116|168729814|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84489161|NCT01143116|168729815|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84489162|NCT01143116|168729816|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84489163|NCT01143116|168729817|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
84489164|NCT01143116|168729817|OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
84489165|NCT01143116|168729818|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
84489166|NCT01143116|168729818|OTHER|||||||0.6406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6406
84489167|NCT01143116|168729819|OTHER|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4375
84489168|NCT01143116|168729819|OTHER|||||||0.2969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2969
84489169|NCT01143116|168729820|OTHER|||||||0.5391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5391
84489170|NCT01143116|168729820|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
84489171|NCT01143116|168729821|OTHER|||||||0.4766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4766
84489172|NCT01143116|168729821|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
84489173|NCT01143116|168729822|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
84489174|NCT01143116|168729822|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4180
84489175|NCT02630459|168729823|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.20|-2.58|<0.001
84489176|NCT02630459|168729823|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.62|-3.00|<0.001
84489177|NCT02630459|168729823|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.41||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.41|-2.10|0.004
84489178|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
84489179|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
84489180|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
84489181|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
84603605|NCT03397134|168957864|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals||||||0.043||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||To evaluate the efficacy of 2 fixed doses (32 mg and 64 mg) of MIN-101 compared to placebo in improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia as measured by the change from Baseline in the PANSS Marder negative symptoms factor score (NSFS) over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. Approximation 501 eligible patients will be randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio at baseline to 1 of 4 treatment arms.||||0.043
84603606|NCT03397134|168957865|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.016||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||The PSP involves four subscale domains: (a) socially useful activities, (b) personal and social relationships, (c) self-care, and (d) disturbing and aggressive behaviors. After each of these four areas is scored on an anchored Likert-type scale (0-5), raters are instructed to select a 10-point range within a 100-point scale, guided by the area scores assigned during assessment.||||0.016
84603607|NCT03061721|168957874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84603608|NCT03061721|168957874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84603609|NCT03061721|168957874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84548241|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548242|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548243|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84548244|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84741456|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
84741457|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
84548245|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548246|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548247|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548248|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548249|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548250|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84548251|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84548252|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
84548253|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548254|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84548255|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548256|NCT02811965|168850283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84603610|NCT03061721|168957875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5681|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5681
84603611|NCT03061721|168957875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4487
84603612|NCT03061721|168957875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0021
84603613|NCT03061721|168957876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0070
84603614|NCT03061721|168957876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
84603615|NCT03061721|168957876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84603616|NCT03061721|168957877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2241
84603617|NCT03061721|168957877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0304|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0304
84603618|NCT03061721|168957877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0595|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0595
84603619|NCT03061721|168957878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0449
84603620|NCT03061721|168957878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0053
84603621|NCT03061721|168957878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
84603622|NCT03061721|168957879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0045
84741458|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.66
84548257|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
84548258|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548259|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548260|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548261|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548262|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489182|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
84489183|NCT02630459|168729824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
84489184|NCT02630459|168729825|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||9.99|2.24|<0.001
84548263|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548264|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548265|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
84548266|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
84548267|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548268|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548269|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548270|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548271|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548272|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84548273|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
84548274|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
84548275|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84489185|NCT02630459|168729825|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||12.06|2.60|<0.001
84489186|NCT02630459|168729825|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|3.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.88||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||7.88|1.30|0.009
84497202|NCT04636437|168745589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.91|2.78||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||2.78|-3.91|0.70
84548276|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
84548277|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
84548278|NCT02811965|168850284|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
84548279|NCT03627546|168850294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
84548280|NCT03627546|168850295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
84489187|NCT02630459|168729826|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.45||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.45|-2.63|<0.001
84489188|NCT02630459|168729826|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.49||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.49|-2.66|<0.001
84489189|NCT02630459|168729826|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.35|-1.80|0.004
84548281|NCT01385137|168850307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||||0.44|-0.79|0.58
84548282|NCT01385137|168850309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.04|||Regression, Linear|||||3.04|-7.30|0.42
84548283|NCT01385137|168850310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.6|||Regression, Linear|||||5.60|-4.17|0.77
84548284|NCT01385137|168850311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.44|||Regression, Linear|||||5.44|-1.16|0.21
84548285|NCT02837731|168850312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-2.53|0.021
84548286|NCT02837731|168850313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||Fisher Exact||Converted Estimated Value of -12.4% to decimal value of -0.124.|||-0.01|-0.27|0.042
84548287|NCT02837731|168850314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1642||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Chi-squared||Converted Estimated Value of -16.42% to decimal value of -0.1642.|||0|-0.33|0.044
84548288|NCT02837731|168850315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|-6.67|0.113
84548289|NCT02837731|168850316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.08|9.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.22|-154.08|
84548290|NCT02837731|168850317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.91||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|22.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22.68|-52.50|0.426
84548291|NCT02837731|168850318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.453
84548292|NCT01294241|168850347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis: Wounds that were either evaluated controversially (n=2) or as being equal (n=2) were excluded from the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.|Two-sided exact binomial test|||The intra-individual difference in reepithelialization of wound (halves) was tested using a two-sided exact binomial test. The test was performed at a significance level of 5% for the null-hypothesis of no difference δ = 0 against the hypotheses δ ≠ 0: H0: δ = 0 H1: δ ≠ 0||||=0.008
84548293|NCT01294241|168850348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||=0.21
84548294|NCT01294241|168850349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||0.33
84548295|NCT02644668|168850353|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.13|0.9086
84548296|NCT02644668|168850353|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.4361
84548297|NCT02644668|168850354|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.749||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-12.43|0.5382
84548298|NCT02644668|168850354|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.099||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-9.19|0.8464
84548299|NCT02644668|168850355|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.506||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.70|0.68|0.0378
84548300|NCT02644668|168850355|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|13.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.97|1.33|0.0298
84548301|NCT02644668|168850356|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|10.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.52|-19.69|0.5461
84548302|NCT02644668|168850356|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.175||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-31.56|0.0672
84548303|NCT02644668|168850357|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-2.23|0.6849
84603623|NCT03061721|168957879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
84548304|NCT02644668|168850357|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-2.96|0.3091
84548305|NCT02644668|168850358|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-0.53|0.2878
84548306|NCT02644668|168850358|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.34|0.8512
84548307|NCT02644668|168850359|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.528||0.7612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-6.08|0.7612
84548308|NCT02644668|168850359|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-9.91|0.3502
84548309|NCT02644668|168850360|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.484||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.30|-13.86|0.4684
84548310|NCT02644668|168850360|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|50.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.74|-0.95|0.0584
84548311|NCT02644668|168850361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||1.43|0.13|0.1686
84548312|NCT02644668|168850361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||2.30|0.20|0.5259
84603624|NCT03061721|168957879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
84603625|NCT03061721|168957888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2387
84603626|NCT03061721|168957888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1496
84548313|NCT02644668|168850362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||4.40|0.34|0.7655
84548314|NCT02644668|168850362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||6.25|0.41|0.4920
84548315|NCT03291431|168850365|OTHER|Chi-Square comparison of frequencies|Pearson Chi-Square|0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84548316|NCT03291431|168850366|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|Linear mixed modeling||||0.68
84548317|NCT03291431|168850367|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||p-value \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84548318|NCT03291431|168850368|OTHER|Linear mixed modeling|Slope|-1.99||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|||||0.70
84548319|NCT03291431|168850369|OTHER||Slope|0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling||||0.11
84548320|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.43||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-1.71|0.1641
84548321|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.26||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.89|0.6100
84548322|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.45||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-1.70|0.1686
84548323|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|0.25||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-1.87|0.1051
84548324|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.88||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-1.37|0.3583
84548325|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.29||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.88|0.1131
84548326|NCT03850483|168850390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.47||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.64|0.1812
84603627|NCT03061721|168957888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0445
84603628|NCT01431014|168957943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84603629|NCT01779869|168957948|SUPERIORITY|Accuracy was assessed compared to an imaging reference standard.||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||Significance testing between the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT and PET, and SPECT and MR, and SPECT and PET/MR was performed by using chi square test. A P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||||0.35
84603630|NCT04754230|168957982|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||two sided Z-test|This estimate uses two sided Z-test while assuming type I error=0.05||Comparison of bleeding at day 1||||0.8
84603631|NCT01459653|168957996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6989|1.1182|||Chi-squared|||||1.1182|0.6989|0.3038
84603632|NCT01459653|168957997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1897||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9428|1.5012|||Chi-squared|||||1.5012|0.9428|0.1432
84489190|NCT00125138|168729835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.6||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||6.6|-6.3|0.5177
84489191|NCT00125138|168729835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-2.9||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.7||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||2.7|-8.5|0.1519
84741459|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.008
84489192|NCT00125138|168729835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|0.3||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.8||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||5.8|-5.2|0.5406
84489193|NCT00125138|168729836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9212||95.0||||Overall p-value using a one-way ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||Only subjects with both a baseline and a post-baseline value are included.||||0.9212
84489194|NCT03479203|168729842|OTHER|T-Test followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Blood assessed for C-reactive protein (CRP), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM), the high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), the NLRP3 inflammasome, and nitrates (NOx for nitric oxide) pre- and post-vaping. CRP, sICAM HMGB1 and NLRP3 is in ng/ml blood and NOx is in nanomol/ml. These numbers were weighted to obtain an inflammation index in blood. This index represents the fold increase over pre-vaping values."||6|1|0.05
84489195|NCT03419741|168729850|OTHER|We plan to enroll 20 participants within one year. Eleven participants were enrolled. 11/20 = 55% completed the number of enrollment.|%|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||percentage|||||||
84489196|NCT00836342|168729870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean carotenoid levels between subjects with a history of squamous cell carcinom and control subjects.||||0.31
84489197|NCT00836342|168729871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84489198|NCT00836342|168729872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84489199|NCT02600715|168729884|EQUIVALENCE|Test for differences in continuous variables.||||||0.94||||||Two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.94
84489200|NCT00656136|168729895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.346||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Primary analysis was performed after 358 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the primary analysis was 08 July 2010.||1.346|0.862|0.7428
84489201|NCT00656136|168729895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.17||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Final analysis was performed after 526 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the final analysis was 04 October 2013.||1.170|0.814|0.3955
84489202|NCT00656136|168729896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.475||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||0.475|0.306|<0.0001
84489203|NCT00656136|168729897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|115.0||P-value is derived from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors, gender and baseline ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Regression, Logistic|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||115|2.1|0.0071
84489204|NCT03938857|168729902|OTHER||Slope|-0.1088295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4728041||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035508|0.8178494|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value represents interaction between treatment and days.|Placebo group compared to combined Dexmedetomidine groups.||0.8178494|-1.035508|0.814
84489205|NCT00783263|168729945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time, stratum and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.60|-19.89|<0.001
84489206|NCT00783263|168729946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.67|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-5.67|-18.95|<0.001
84548327|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
84669160|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
84489207|NCT00783263|168729946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|-10.99|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.99|-23.92|<0.001
84489208|NCT00783263|168729947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, ≥130 mg/dL).||||6.9|2.9|<0.001
84489209|NCT00783263|168729948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
84489210|NCT00783263|168729948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.3|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||12.3|3.4|<0.001
84489211|NCT00783263|168729949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|14.0|||Logistic Regression|||||14.0|4.6|<0.001
84489212|NCT00783263|168729950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum I||11.8|2.2|<0.001
84489213|NCT00783263|168729950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum II||24.8|5.2|<0.001
84489214|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|-5.71|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)||-5.71|-11.59|<0.001
84489215|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Triglycerides (mg/dL)||2.84|-9.04|0.306
84489216|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol||0.49|-4.79|0.111
84489217|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.86|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non High-Density Liproprotein Cholesterol||-7.86|-16.10|<0.001
84489218|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-8.13|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-8.13|-18.36|<0.001
84489219|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-2.36|-10.53|0.002
84489220|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.75|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholestrol/HDL Cholesterol||-3.75|-15.30|0.001
84489221|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-6.08|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B (Apo B)||-6.08|-12.74|<0.001
84489222|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I)||0.36|-3.99|0.102
84489223|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-3.83|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B/Apo A-I||-3.83|-11.25|<0.001
84489224|NCT00783263|168729951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|10.97|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||hs-C-Reactive Protein||10.97|-13.13|0.861
84489225|NCT00721136|168729954|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||
84489226|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
84497203|NCT04636437|168745591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.43
84497204|NCT04636437|168745591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.26
84489227|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
84489228|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
84489229|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|0.3||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.0|0.0799
84489230|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|0.3942
84489231|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurement||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0272
84489232|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84489233|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
84497205|NCT04636437|168745592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.008
84497206|NCT04636437|168745592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.068
84548328|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.9|-6.6|0.2430
84669161|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84489234|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
84497207|NCT04636437|168745593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.20
84497208|NCT04636437|168745593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.56
84497209|NCT04636437|168745594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.62|8.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||8.47|-1.62|0.13
84497210|NCT04636437|168745594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.89|4.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||4.72|-4.89|0.97
84497211|NCT04636437|168745595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.18|2.8||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||2.80|-2.18|0.78
84497212|NCT04636437|168745595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|3.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||3.59|-1.11|0.23
84497213|NCT04636437|168745596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.71||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|9.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||9.90|-2.48|0.18
84497214|NCT04636437|168745596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.23|4.53||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||4.53|-7.23|0.60
84497215|NCT04636437|168745597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|9.83||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|9.83|-1.45|0.094
84497216|NCT04636437|168745597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.59|7.11||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|7.11|-3.59|0.46
84497217|NCT04636437|168745598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|6.56||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||6.56|-2.19|0.26
84497218|NCT04636437|168745598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.96|7.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||7.25|-0.96|0.084
84489235|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|0.2||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.1|0.1958
84548329|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
84741460|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.005
84741461|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.87||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.87
84741462|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.11
84489236|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-0.5|0.1868
84489237|NCT03018028|168729993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.7|0.0077
84489238|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.40|0.29|0.2579
84489239|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.66|0.10|0.0052
84489240|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.87|0.11|0.0259
84497219|NCT04636437|168745599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.57|2.13||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.13|-0.57|0.19
84548330|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|0.0665|-1.3|31.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||31.5|-1.3|0.0665
84489241|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||7.80|0.93|0.0674
84489242|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.54||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.54|0.32|0.9087
84489243|NCT03018028|168730020|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||4.62|0.38|0.6498
84489244|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.14|0.0219
84489245|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.44|0.05|0.0005
84489246|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.70|0.07|0.0098
84489247|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|11.46||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||11.46|0.76|0.1193
84489248|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||5.56|0.31|0.7147
84489249|NCT03018028|168730021|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.85||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||8.85|0.44|0.3765
84489250|NCT02532998|168730050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|-1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.721|0.7945|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment C and Treatment D.||0.7945|-1.721|
84489251|NCT02532998|168730065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|3.409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.946|3.872|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment A and Treatment B.||3.872|2.946|
84548331|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|25.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.5|-12.1|0.3423
84548332|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|30.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||30.9|-4.7|0.1271
84548333|NCT03850483|168850391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||21.1|-13.2|0.4010
84489252|NCT02625610|168730122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.11|0.74|0.1779
84489253|NCT02625610|168730123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
84489254|NCT02625610|168730125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.51||||||||1.51|0.55|
84489255|NCT00082628|168730144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Nonparametric ANCOVA Model|||||||<0.001
84548334|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||10.4|-11.2|0.4225
84548335|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
84548336|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
84548337|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
84548338|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|8.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.9|-6.4|0.5000
84603633|NCT01459653|168957998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8794||||0.6483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5063|1.5276|||Chi-squared|||||1.5276|0.5063|0.6483
84603634|NCT01459653|168958008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8113|2.9177|||Chi-squared|||||2.9177|1.8113|<0.0001
84603635|NCT01459653|168958009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.6605|||Chi-squared|||||0.6605|0.3730|<0.0001
84603636|NCT01459653|168958010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9451||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.3391|||Chi-squared|||||1.3391|0.6671|0.7509
84603637|NCT01459653|168958011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2683||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.5061|||Chi-squared|||||1.5061|1.0680|0.0067
84603638|NCT01459653|168958019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6382|1.4874|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||1.4874|0.6382|<0.0001
84603639|NCT01459653|168958020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2739||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4832|-0.0646|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||-0.0646|-0.4832|0.0103
84603640|NCT01459653|168958021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.5295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4495||||0.5295|0.2330|<0.0001
84603641|NCT01459653|168958029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1031||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.2136|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.2136|-0.0075|0.0677
84603642|NCT01459653|168958030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0018||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0259|0.0295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.0295|-0.0259|0.8968
84603643|NCT01459653|168958031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|0.1029|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4505||||0.1029|-0.0452|<0.0001
84603644|NCT01459653|168958039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4255|1.2698|||Chi-squared|||||1.2698|0.4255|0.2698
84548339|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|13.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||13.2|-3.4|0.2125
84548340|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.2267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||12.2|-3.5|0.2267
84548341|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.6|-14.0|0.7592
84548342|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.5|-14.0|0.7299
84548343|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.4|-11.3|0.4463
84548344|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
84548345|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.7009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-10.1|0.7009
84548346|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||15.6|-4.5|0.2507
84548347|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.8|0.2993
84603645|NCT01459653|168958040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84603646|NCT01459653|168958057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5977
84603647|NCT01459653|168958058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2435
84603648|NCT01459653|168958059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7630
84603649|NCT01459653|168958060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3830
84603650|NCT01459653|168958061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
84603651|NCT01459653|168958062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0301
84603652|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.92||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF treatment decision (under vs correct) as predictor for ANC||1.01|0.84|0.0683
84603653|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.89||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Over vs correct) as predictor for ANC||0.96|0.82|0.0019
84603654|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Under vs over) as predictor for ANC||1.15|0.94|0.4469
84603655|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Study drug dose (higher vs lower) as predictor for ANC||1.19|1.03|0.0079
84603656|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Tumor type (hematological vs solid) as predictor for ANC||0.91|0.72|0.0004
84603657|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient gender (female vs male) as predictor for ANC||0.92|0.80|<0.0001
84603658|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||ECOG (per 1 point) as predictor for ANC||1.08|1.01|0.0235
84603659|NCT01459653|168958063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Hb (per g/dL) as predictor for ANC||1.05|1.02|<0.0001
84603660|NCT01459653|168958064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to quantify the variability in patient outcome attributable to within-center variability before any patient-level determinants are considered.|ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the center-level.||||0.0003
84603661|NCT01459653|168958064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the patient within center-level.||||<0.0001
84489256|NCT03459794|168730149|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same group at t=0, that is before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We analyzed the changes is level for each cytokine between the groups. P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance determined using the Holm-Sidak method. The threshold value for statistical significance for the mean value between groups was set at p =\<0.05 for each cytokine measured. The number of cytokines that met this threshold is reported.|||
84489257|NCT03459794|168730150|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same treated/control group at t=0, before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level. The p-value for each transcript is adjusted for multiple comparisons across all 770 transcripts, using the Benjamini-Yekutieli method. The number reported is the number of transcripts where p=\<0.05.|||
84489258|NCT03459794|168730151|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84489259|NCT02074436|168730154|OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are from the first and only interim analysis focusing on the primary endpoint: proportion of patient with major bleeding (Grade 3 and 4) during the study. The interim analysis was performed after 11 patients in each arm were randomized and results were obtained. One-sided fisher's exact test was employed in the analysis. The null hypothesis is the probability of occurring major bleeding is the same for Arm A and Arm B||||0.5
84489260|NCT03490734|168730159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement, nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FMRIB Software Library (FSL), resulting in a family-wise error rate (FWE) corrected significance threshold of p-FWE\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Whole-brain analyses were used. No clusters of significant activation were detected.||||0.52
84489261|NCT03490734|168730160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE), nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FSL, resulting in a family-wise error rate corrected significance threshold of p-FWE \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84489262|NCT00792922|168730218|SUPERIORITY|Predicted prevalence was estimated in each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm \& parameters estimated from square root transformed model.For each arm estimated prevalences were averaged.Difference in adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was calculated.For confidence intervals for adjusted difference,steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples were repeated.Median of adjusted mean differences, corresponding 2.5 % \& 97.5 % percentiles were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||"This is analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||3.8|-1|0.22
84489263|NCT00792922|168730218|SUPERIORITY|For each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm and parameters estimated from square root transformed model we estimated predicted prevalence.For each arm we average estimated prevalences.The difference in the adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was then calculated.In order to derive the confidence intervals for the adjusted difference, we repeated Steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples.The median of the adjusted mean differences were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3|||Ordinary least squares linear regression|||"This is the analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.~Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma"||5.3|-0.3|0.73
84489264|NCT00792922|168730218|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||1.9|-11.1|0.20
84489265|NCT00792922|168730218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma."||12.5|-7.7|0.60
84489266|NCT00352027|168730231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||The association of age with EFS was compared. P values from Score test were computed for the statistical significance.||||0.9970
84548348|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.5|-14.0|0.7363
84548349|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.3|-10.5|0.5369
84489267|NCT00352027|168730234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.9970
84548350|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
84548351|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
84548352|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|11.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.6|-13.7|0.5990
84548353|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|4.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||4.9|-16.4|0.7926
84548354|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||17.6|-9.0|0.3402
84548355|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|5.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||5.7|-14.4|0.7364
84548356|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||17.7|-7.4|0.3009
84548357|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||15.9|-8.1|0.3400
84548358|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||21.1|-4.8|0.1631
84548359|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
84548360|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
84548361|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||11.7|-17.9|0.6413
84548362|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|13.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.1|-13.1|0.5000
84548363|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.2|-12.6|0.5134
84548364|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||12.5|-13.4|0.4468
84548365|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|23.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||23.9|-6.8|0.2778
84548366|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|21.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||21.0|-14.5|0.4571
84548367|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-15.3|0.4741
84548368|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-14.8|0.5153
84669162|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2777
84548369|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|5.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.3|-21.1|0.8287
84548370|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|14.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||14.2|-17.8|0.5675
84548371|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-9.8|0.2648
84548372|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||20.8|-11.8|0.3792
84548373|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.1|-16.3|0.4438
84548374|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||9.4|-23.3|0.7014
84548375|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.7|15.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.0|-19.7|0.5841
84548376|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.3|-15.3|0.5000
84548377|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||12.3|-17.5|0.5834
84548378|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|27.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||27.2|-6.4|0.1534
84548379|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|24.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||24.9|-8.8|0.2720
84548380|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||10.4|-25.1|0.6815
84548381|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|22.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||22.0|-14.4|0.3900
84548382|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.0|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.9|-20.0|0.5865
84548383|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|18.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.9|-8.2|0.3087
84548384|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.9|-8.2|0.3137
84548385|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||34.8|2.7|0.0245
84548386|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.0|-3.0|0.1119
84548387|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|20.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.4|-13.2|0.4140
84548388|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||28.5|-7.2|0.2356
84548389|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||21.5|-11.5|0.3638
84548390|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|22.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.9|-5.2|0.1613
84548391|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||31.4|-0.5|0.0557
84548392|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|38.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||38.3|5.6|0.0114
84548393|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|28.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||28.1|-1.8|0.0753
84548394|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.1|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.2|-20.1|0.5635
84548395|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|14.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||14.5|-20.3|0.6201
84548396|NCT03850483|168850392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|17.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.0|-17.6|0.4792
84489268|NCT00352027|168730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.265
84548397|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 1: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.79|-0.25|0.8038
84548398|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.81|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.81|-0.22|0.8267
84548399|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.60|-0.43|0.6039
84548400|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.41|0.6339
84548401|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.31|-0.68|0.2666
84548402|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-0.70|0.2257
84548403|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-0.81|0.1306
84548404|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.31|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.31|0.09|0.9704
84548405|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.09|-0.16|0.8890
84548406|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.66|0.4506
84669163|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
84741463|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.012
84741464|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.46||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.46
84548407|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.53|0.5840
84548408|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.17|0.0769
84548409|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-1.39|0.0242
84489269|NCT00352027|168730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.057
84489270|NCT00352027|168730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.079
84741465|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
84489271|NCT00352027|168730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
84489272|NCT00352027|168730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.680
84741466|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
84548410|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.23|-1.49|0.0127
84548411|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.54|0.6693
84548412|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.96|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.96|-0.55|0.6742
84489273|NCT00352027|168730267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
84489274|NCT00352027|168730267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
84548413|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.79|0.4486
84548414|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.93|0.3219
84548415|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.39|-2.21|0.0096
84548416|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.64|0.0862
84489275|NCT00352027|168730267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
84489276|NCT00352027|168730267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.184
84489277|NCT00352027|168730267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
84489278|NCT00352027|168730268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.319||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.319
84489279|NCT00352027|168730268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.010
84489280|NCT00352027|168730268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
84489281|NCT00352027|168730268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.015
84489282|NCT00352027|168730268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.588
84489283|NCT00352027|168730269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.071
84741467|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.99||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.99
84741468|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
84548417|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.36|-2.15|0.0111
84548418|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.97|-0.68|0.6107
84548419|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.15|-0.54|0.7240
84548420|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.91|0.4300
84741469|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
84548421|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.66|0.0501
84548422|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|-0.3|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.30|-2.23|0.0157
84548423|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.83|0.0645
84548424|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.06|-1.84|0.0621
84548425|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-1.21|0.2959
84548426|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.69|-0.19|0.9043
84548427|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.38|0.2014
84548428|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.19|-1.66|0.0948
84548429|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.06|-2.21|0.0416
84548430|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|-0.03|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.03|-2.14|0.0454
84548431|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|-0.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.20|-2.31|0.0256
84548432|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.36|0.2326
84548433|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.99|-0.95|0.5141
84548434|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.25|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.25|-1.64|0.1124
84548435|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.70|0.0983
84548436|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.07|-2.46|0.0412
84548437|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-2.47|0.0340
84548438|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.44|0.0379
84548439|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.91|0.1291
84548440|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.30|-1.03|0.5776
84548441|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.27|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.27|-2.00|0.1044
84548442|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-2.23|0.0608
84548443|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.18|-2.84|0.0309
84548444|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-2.85|0.0242
84548445|NCT03850483|168850393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.69|0.0394
84548446|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|10.97|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.97|-5.86|0.6917
84548447|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|15.69|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.69|-1.09|0.9241
84548448|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|13.42|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.42|-3.21|0.8443
84548449|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|10.86|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.86|-5.82|0.6911
84548450|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.56|6.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.31|-9.56|0.3676
84548451|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.13|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.50|-14.13|0.0915
84548452|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|1.65|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.65|-13.96|0.0970
84489284|NCT00352027|168730269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84548453|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|18.97|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||18.97|-0.59|0.9389
84548454|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|19.02|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors||19.02|-1.06|0.9295
84548455|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|13.45|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.45|-6.15|0.7308
84548456|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|11.64|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||11.64|-8.01|0.6199
84669164|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669165|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1078
84741470|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.31
84489285|NCT00352027|168730269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84489286|NCT00352027|168730269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84489287|NCT00352027|168730269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.707
84489288|NCT00352027|168730270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
84548457|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.13|1.04|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.04|-19.13|0.0699
84548458|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.79|-1.48|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.48|-21.79|0.0300
84548459|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.15|-2.98|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.98|-23.15|0.0168
84548460|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.7083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|14.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.57|-7.30|0.7083
84548461|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|19.75|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.75|-2.66|0.8955
84548462|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|17.37|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.37|-4.35|0.8386
84548463|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.93|9.84|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.84|-11.93|0.4371
84548464|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.42|-5.92|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-5.92|-35.42|0.0108
84548465|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.43|3.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.55|-25.43|0.1066
84489289|NCT00352027|168730270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
84669166|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.0082|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0082
84741471|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.05
84741472|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.03
84741473|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.2||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.20
84741474|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
84741475|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.05
84741476|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.59||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.59
84741477|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.12
84548466|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.76||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.54|-1.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.55|-30.54|0.0344
84548467|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|17.13|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.13|-10.30|0.6594
84489290|NCT00352027|168730270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.013
84489291|NCT00352027|168730270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.027
84489292|NCT00352027|168730270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.243
84489293|NCT00352027|168730271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.546
84489294|NCT00352027|168730271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.242
84489295|NCT00352027|168730271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
84489296|NCT00352027|168730271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.503
84741478|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.10
84489297|NCT00352027|168730271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
84548468|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|19.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.36|-8.85|0.7307
84741479|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.57
84741480|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.06
84489298|NCT00352027|168730272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.558
84489299|NCT00352027|168730272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.039
84489300|NCT00352027|168730272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
84489301|NCT00352027|168730272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
84489302|NCT00352027|168730273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.381
84489303|NCT00352027|168730273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.006
84489304|NCT00352027|168730273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.277
84489305|NCT00352027|168730273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.134||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.134
84489306|NCT00352027|168730274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
84489307|NCT00352027|168730274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
84489308|NCT00352027|168730274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
84489309|NCT00352027|168730274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.858||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.858
84489310|NCT00352027|168730275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.744
84489311|NCT00352027|168730275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.075
84489312|NCT00352027|168730275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.512
84489313|NCT00352027|168730275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.088
84489314|NCT00352027|168730276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
84489315|NCT00352027|168730276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.041
84489316|NCT00352027|168730276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
84489317|NCT00352027|168730276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
84489318|NCT00352027|168730277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
84489319|NCT00352027|168730277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
84489320|NCT00352027|168730277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
84489321|NCT00352027|168730277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
84489322|NCT00352027|168730278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
84548469|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.78|15.61|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.61|-11.78|0.5914
84548470|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.13|1.49|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.49|-26.13|0.0709
84548471|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.55|-3.01|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.01|-34.55|0.0253
84548472|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.89|2.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.15|-28.89|0.0780
84548473|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.17|5.83|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.83|-25.17|0.1516
84548474|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|14.81|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.81|-15.45|0.4861
84548475|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|26.55|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||26.55|-4.48|0.8795
84548476|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.22|9.94|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.94|-20.22|0.2867
84669167|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84489323|NCT00352027|168730278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
84489324|NCT00352027|168730278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.051
84489325|NCT00352027|168730278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0779||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0779
84489326|NCT00352027|168730279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.415
84489327|NCT00352027|168730279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
84489328|NCT00352027|168730279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.245
84489329|NCT00352027|168730279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
84489330|NCT00352027|168730280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.814
84548477|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.86|4.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||4.69|-25.86|0.1267
84548478|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.48|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-34.48|0.0526
84548479|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.26|2.68|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.68|-31.26|0.0827
84548480|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.12|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-33.12|0.0592
84548481|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|14.16|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.16|-15.72|0.4657
84548482|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.6612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.52|19.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.26|-11.52|0.6612
84548483|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.42|6.48|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.48|-23.42|0.1749
84548484|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|5.8|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.80|-24.39|0.1548
84548485|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.28|-40.67|0.0400
84548486|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.82|-3.39|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.39|-41.82|0.0267
84548487|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.63||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.42|-2.89|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.89|-41.42|0.0295
84548488|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.3|8.05|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||8.05|-26.30|0.1903
84548489|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.21|19.06|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.06|-16.21|0.5530
84548490|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.92|3.4|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.40|-30.92|0.0933
84548491|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.37|-1.65|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.65|-36.37|0.0360
84548492|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.85|-2.23|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.23|-46.85|0.0354
84548493|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.77|-4.46|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-4.46|-47.77|0.0239
84548494|NCT03850483|168850395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.11||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.84|-2.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.38|-45.84|0.0342
84548495|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.52|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.91|0.3279
84548496|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.88|0.3566
84548497|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.21|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.29|0.1165
84548498|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.55|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.55|-0.85|0.3633
84548499|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.83|0.3766
84548500|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.20|-1.22|0.1179
84548501|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.24|0.8647
84548502|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.90|0.3294
84741481|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
84489331|NCT00352027|168730280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.553||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.553
84489332|NCT00352027|168730280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.173
84489333|NCT00352027|168730280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.122
84489334|NCT00352027|168730281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489335|NCT00352027|168730282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489336|NCT00352027|168730283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489337|NCT00352027|168730284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489338|NCT00352027|168730285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489339|NCT00352027|168730286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489340|NCT00352027|168730287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489341|NCT00352027|168730288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489342|NCT00352027|168730289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489343|NCT00352027|168730290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||0.005
84489344|NCT00352027|168730291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489345|NCT00352027|168730292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489346|NCT00352027|168730293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489347|NCT00352027|168730294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489348|NCT00352027|168730295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
84489349|NCT00352027|168730296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.908|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.908
84489350|NCT00352027|168730297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.178
84489351|NCT00352027|168730298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
84489352|NCT00352027|168730300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4318|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.4318
84489353|NCT00352027|168730301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.2199
84489354|NCT00352027|168730302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8946|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.8946
84489355|NCT04491591|168730307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.801
84489356|NCT04491591|168730308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.1336
84489357|NCT04491591|168730308|SUPERIORITY|Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||||0.5505|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5505
84489358|NCT04491591|168730308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6178|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.6178
84489359|NCT04491591|168730309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2317
84489360|NCT04491591|168730310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1052
84489361|NCT04491591|168730311|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Within subjects pre/post comparison|||
84489362|NCT04491591|168730312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84489363|NCT04491591|168730314|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis using mean and standard deviation|||
84489364|NCT04491591|168730315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0302
84489365|NCT04491591|168730316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.135
84489366|NCT04491591|168730316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||0.510
84489367|NCT04491591|168730316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.469
84489368|NCT04491591|168730317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
84489369|NCT04491591|168730318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84489370|NCT03099304|168730322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|640.85||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||640.85|1.73|0.0057
84489371|NCT03099304|168730322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|487.28||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||487.28|1.24|0.0243
84489372|NCT03099304|168730322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|1305.2||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1305.2|3.74|<0.0001
84489373|NCT03099304|168730322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|1121.4||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1121.4|3.28|0.0001
84489374|NCT03099304|168730323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.05|0.4936
84548503|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.23|0.1231
84548504|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.13|-1.37|0.0878
84548505|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.20|0.1225
84548506|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.56|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.85|0.3663
84548507|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.27|0.0929
84548508|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-0.95|0.3111
84741482|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
84548509|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.74|0.4745
84548510|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.03|0.2409
84548511|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.13|0.2018
84548512|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-0.83|0.3925
84548513|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.73|-0.66|0.5348
84548514|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.09|-1.33|0.0739
84548515|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.84|0.4014
84548516|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.56|0.6588
84548517|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-1.00|0.2997
84548518|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.46|||MMRM|||Week 4:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.46|-1.08|0.2518
84741483|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.14
84741484|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
84548519|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.00|0.2634
84548520|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.11|0.1999
84548521|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.33|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.33|-1.13|0.1847
84548522|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-0.81|0.4569
84548523|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.22|-0.27|0.8536
84548524|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.79|0.4812
84548525|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.13|0.2276
84548526|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.34|0.0895
84548527|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.04|-1.58|0.0411
84548528|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.40|0.0928
84548529|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.12|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.12|-1.48|0.0799
84548530|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.11|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.11|-0.39|0.7872
84548531|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.92|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.92|-0.61|0.6294
84548532|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.8|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.80|-0.76|0.5174
84548533|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.98|0.3136
84548534|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.42|0.1020
84548535|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.20|0.1923
84548536|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.44|0.0997
84548537|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.08|0.2497
84548538|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.47|-1.08|0.2568
84548539|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.64|-0.95|0.3730
84741485|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.60
84548540|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-1.76|0.0137
84548541|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|-0.44|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.44|-2.06|0.0055
84548542|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.4|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.40|-1.99|0.0069
84548543|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.34|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.34|-1.34|0.1648
84489375|NCT03099304|168730323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.62|0.1140
84489376|NCT03099304|168730323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||1.00|0.0501
84489377|NCT03099304|168730323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.58|0.1257
84489378|NCT03099304|168730324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.33|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||4.33|0.33|0.9794
84489379|NCT03099304|168730324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.86|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||5.86|0.51|0.4893
84489380|NCT03099304|168730331|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.13|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.13|-0.75|0.0056
84489381|NCT03099304|168730331|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.10|-0.70|0.0095
84489382|NCT03099304|168730331|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.37|-0.99|<0.0001
84489383|NCT03099304|168730331|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.21|-0.80|0.0011
84489384|NCT03099304|168730333|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-36.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.15|-16.27|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.27|-57.15|0.0005
84489385|NCT03099304|168730333|SUPERIORITY||LM difference|-35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.91|-15.33|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-15.33|-54.91|0.0006
84489386|NCT03099304|168730333|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-46.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.47|-25.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-25.57|-66.47|<0.0001
84489387|NCT03099304|168730333|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-24.07|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-24.07|-63.52|<0.0001
84489388|NCT03099304|168730340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.24|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.24|-5.44|0.0326
84489389|NCT03099304|168730340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.22|-5.26|0.0333
84489390|NCT03099304|168730340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.48|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-2.48|-7.68|0.0002
84489391|NCT03099304|168730340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-1.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-1.57|-6.59|0.0016
84741486|NCT04325282|169234055|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
84741487|NCT04020185|169234069|OTHER||maximum tolerated dose (monotherapy)|1200.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84741488|NCT00527787|169234079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||7.7|1.9|0.001
84548544|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-1.02|0.2931
84548545|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.01|0.3047
84548546|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-1.22|0.1924
84548547|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.52|0.0465
84548548|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.47|-2.08|0.0048
84548549|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.21|-1.78|0.0186
84548550|NCT03850483|168850397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.61|0.0675
84548551|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.39|-0.69|0.3232
84548552|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.03|0.0736
84548553|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.07|0.0743
84548554|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.04|-1.03|0.0641
84548555|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.50|-0.71|0.3887
84548556|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.15|0.0767
84741489|NCT00527787|169234080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84741490|NCT00527787|169234081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84741491|NCT00527787|169234082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84741492|NCT00527787|169234083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84741493|NCT01840410|169234102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.91|6.97|<0.001
84548557|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-0.89|0.2529
84548558|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.61|0.5304
84548559|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.43|-0.87|0.2920
84548560|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.2593
84548561|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.4310
84548562|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.59|0.5477
84548563|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.24|0.0696
84548564|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.82|0.3583
84548565|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.01|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.01|-0.56|0.6826
84548566|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.84|0.4570
84548567|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-1.03|0.3265
84548568|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.00|0.3039
84548569|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.23|0.2086
84548570|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.44|-1.22|0.2172
84548571|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-1.16|0.2855
84548572|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.36|-0.34|0.8372
84548573|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.84|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.84|-0.89|0.4792
84548574|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.65|-1.12|0.3331
84548575|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.47|0.1080
84548576|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.61|0.0455
84548577|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|0.1|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.10|-1.49|0.0761
84603662|NCT01459653|168958064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the within-patient level.||||<0.0001
84603663|NCT01459653|168958069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.544||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.812|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.812|0.365|0.003
84603664|NCT01459653|168958069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
84603665|NCT01459653|168958069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
84603666|NCT01459653|168958069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|3.925|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||3.925|1.542|<0.001
84669168|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1838
84489392|NCT03099304|168730342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-9.71|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-9.71|-37.35|0.0010
84548578|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.14|-1.80|0.0273
84548579|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.57|0.7214
84548580|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.06|-0.75|0.6132
84548581|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.02|-0.83|0.5704
84489393|NCT03099304|168730342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.86|-5.08|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-5.08|-31.86|0.0072
84489394|NCT03099304|168730342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-29.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-16.0|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.00|-43.61|<0.0001
84489395|NCT03099304|168730342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-25.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-12.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-12.22|-38.89|0.0002
84489396|NCT03099304|168730354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.05|0.4936
84489397|NCT03099304|168730354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.62|0.1140
84489398|NCT03099304|168730354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||1.00|0.0501
84603667|NCT01459653|168958069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.452||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.766|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.766|0.267|0.003
84603668|NCT01459653|168958070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.925||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.592|5.374|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||5.374|1.592|0.001
84603669|NCT01459653|168958070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.572||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|4.969|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||4.969|1.331|0.005
84603670|NCT01459653|168958070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.557|0.193|<0.001
84603671|NCT01459653|168958071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.179|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||2.179|1.284|<0.001
84603672|NCT01459653|168958071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.777|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||7.968|2.777|<0.001
84603673|NCT01459653|168958071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||3.574|1.342|0.002
84548582|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-1.10|0.3449
84548583|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.94|0.0493
84548584|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.35|-1.55|0.1490
84548585|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.02|-1.96|0.0540
84548586|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-1.32|0.3119
84548587|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-1.20|0.3947
84548588|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-1.18|0.4205
84548589|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-2.02|0.0472
84548590|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.6|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.60|-2.55|0.0044
84548591|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|-0.41|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.41|-2.32|0.0098
84548592|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.32|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.32|-1.71|0.1285
84603674|NCT01459653|168958071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.215||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.687|||Regression, Logistic|||History of anaemia at enrollment as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.687|0.067|0.010
84548593|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.27|0.3243
84548594|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.82|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.82|-1.20|0.3795
84548595|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.35|0.3070
84548596|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.22|-1.74|0.1014
84548597|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.69|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.69|-2.75|0.0033
84548598|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.17|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.17|-2.18|0.0280
84548599|NCT03850483|168850399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.98|0.0781
84548600|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
84548601|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
84603675|NCT01459653|168958071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|10.487|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||10.487|1.169|0.025
84603676|NCT01459653|168958072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.991|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient age (per 1 year) as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.991|0.958|0.003
84548602|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-12.5|0.7362
84548603|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
84548604|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|8.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.0|-5.9|0.5000
84548605|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||16.9|-0.8|0.0714
84548606|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||15.7|-1.1|0.0813
84548607|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
84548608|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
84548609|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|9.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.6|-9.6|0.5000
84548610|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
84548611|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-9.4|0.6894
84548612|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.2|0.2518
84548613|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|20.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||20.3|-0.3|0.0565
84548614|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
84548615|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||1.9|-16.5|0.9001
84548616|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.5000
84548617|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
84548618|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
84548619|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||16.9|-8.2|0.3401
84548620|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.5|0.1|0.0489
84548621|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
84548622|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|4.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||4.4|-17.2|0.8253
84548623|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
84548624|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|19.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||19.1|-8.3|0.2709
84548625|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
84548626|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||9.3|-12.9|0.6319
84548627|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||18.1|-6.4|0.3199
84548628|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
84548629|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
84548630|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|2.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||2.7|-20.6|0.8808
84548631|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|13.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.7|-13.7|0.4644
84548632|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||20.9|-3.4|0.1534
84548633|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|11.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||11.4|-10.0|0.4867
84548634|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||25.9|0.4|0.0435
84548635|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
84548636|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.6|0.4565
84548637|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
84548638|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||21.8|-5.7|0.1765
84548639|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.2|-14.0|0.5013
84548640|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.9|-20.7|0.7969
84548641|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|10.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||10.6|-16.4|0.6424
84548642|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
84548643|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|13.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.4|-7.0|0.3402
84548644|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||17.6|-4.5|0.1743
84548645|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
84548646|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||15.4|-7.8|0.3534
84548647|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.8|-5.5|0.2508
84548648|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|13.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.6|-8.2|0.4238
84548649|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|19.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||19.3|-6.2|0.2696
84548650|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.3|-8.6|0.3648
84548651|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|22.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.2|-3.8|0.1267
84548652|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|24.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||24.4|-2.5|0.0832
84548653|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.3|-5.7|0.2099
84548654|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.4|-8.0|0.3474
84548655|NCT03850483|168850403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.6|-4.0|0.2124
84548656|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|27.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||27.9|-0.3|0.0544
84548657|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|19.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||19.6|-6.3|0.2697
84548658|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||31.0|2.0|0.0286
84548659|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||20.8|-4.7|0.1512
84548660|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|7.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||7.4|-21.9|0.7900
84548661|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|24.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||24.0|-8.5|0.3137
84548662|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|22.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||22.6|-10.9|0.3789
84548663|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||28.5|-1.0|0.0636
84548664|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|24.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||24.5|-4.9|0.1435
84548665|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|42.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||42.4|8.9|0.0058
84548666|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|38.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||38.9|6.5|0.0112
84548667|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||21.3|-10.8|0.3349
84548668|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|27.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||27.7|-6.1|0.2065
84548669|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||29.1|-5.6|0.1871
84548670|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||31.4|-4.9|0.1245
84548671|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||33.7|-4.7|0.1280
84548672|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|50.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||50.5|12.4|0.0030
84548673|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|40.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||40.6|3.1|0.0235
84548674|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|24.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||24.1|-13.6|0.3728
84548675|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||43.6|4.0|0.0153
84548676|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|27.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.8|-8.8|0.2543
84548677|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||26.4|-10.2|0.2785
84548678|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||33.7|-7.4|0.1434
84548679|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|12.8|0.0015
84548680|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||43.9|3.4|0.0242
84548681|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|10.0|0.0037
84548682|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|36.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||36.7|-4.9|0.1037
84548683|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|22.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||22.5|-17.7|0.4607
84548684|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|31.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||31.9|-8.0|0.1725
84548685|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||43.6|0.2|0.0451
84548686|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.3|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||62.9|21.3|0.0003
84548687|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|47.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||47.6|3.8|0.0239
84548688|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||41.2|-2.1|0.0643
84548689|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.6676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.9|-25.9|0.6676
84548690|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|37.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||37.8|-4.2|0.0898
84548691|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|32.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||32.9|-10.1|0.2707
84548692|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||31.0|-14.2|0.2981
84548693|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|51.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||51.4|8.0|0.0110
84548694|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.1|53.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||53.2|9.1|0.0083
84548695|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||27.5|-18.3|0.4217
84548696|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-20.8|0.5152
84548697|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||11.7|-33.1|0.7002
84548698|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.6||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|47.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||47.9|5.2|0.0169
84548699|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.9||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|46.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||46.2|3.2|0.0283
84548700|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|57.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||57.1|14.3|0.0020
84548701|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|51.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||51.5|8.4|0.0095
84548702|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||42.6|-2.7|0.0798
84548703|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||31.8|-11.3|0.2848
84548704|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||23.1|-21.1|0.5062
84548705|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|55.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||55.3|16.7|0.0012
84548706|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.3|57.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||57.4|17.3|0.0007
84548707|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||65.1|24.6|0.0001
84548708|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|48.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||48.7|9.5|0.0039
84548709|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|26.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.5|-17.5|0.3895
84548710|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||31.8|-11.8|0.2793
84548711|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.4|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||12.2|-28.4|0.7027
84548712|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|55.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||55.2|15.4|0.0009
84548713|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|43.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||43.2|4.1|0.0205
84548714|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||65.7|24.6|0.0001
84548715|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.5|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||62.9|21.5|0.0002
84548716|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|3.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||3.2|-38.3|0.9209
84548717|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.4|8.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||8.7|-34.4|0.7930
84548718|NCT03850483|168850404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|20.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||20.1|-28.0|0.6156
84548719|NCT05656534|168850448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.20|.19
84548720|NCT05656534|168850449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.38|||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures analysis of variable with session (pre-treatment vs. post-treatment) as a within-subjects variable and treatment arm as a between-subjects variable. Standardized residual scores reflecting startle reactivity to unpredictable threat (\> no-threat) was the dependent variable.||1.38|0.07|0.03
84548721|NCT05656534|168850450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
84548722|NCT05656534|168850451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA modeling session (pre. vs. post) by treatment arm||A session (pre vs. post) by treatment arm (suvorexant vs. placebo) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The effect of session was then probed within each treatment arm.||1.20|-0.01|<.05
84548723|NCT03421210|168850473|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Differences in brain activation in response to personal smoking versus standard smoking cues were examined.||||0.001
84548724|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548725|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548726|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548727|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84489399|NCT03099304|168730354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.58|0.1257
84741494|NCT01460225|169234124|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 2 hours post meal||||0.003
84489400|NCT02109939|168730401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.285|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures including week 4.||||0.613|-6.285|0.1070
84489401|NCT02109939|168730402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with week 4 data.||||1.036|-5.450|0.1822
84489402|NCT02109939|168730403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.86|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.86|1.07|0.0134
84489403|NCT02109939|168730406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||2.27|1.14|0.0066
84489404|NCT02109939|168730409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Generalized linear mixed model.|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.43|0.90|0.2852
84489405|NCT02109939|168730410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.79|1.14|0.0023
84489406|NCT02109939|168730419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.89|1.07|0.0140
84489407|NCT02109939|168730420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.76|0.98|0.0663
84489408|NCT01058356|168730427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||4.15|0.17|<0.05
84489409|NCT01058356|168730428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||1.55|0.18|<0.05
84489410|NCT03922945|168730454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84489411|NCT03922945|168730455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0017
84489412|NCT03922945|168730462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7465
84489413|NCT01347931|168730465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 26 patient pairs was determined based on the assumption of a true treatment difference in mean ADL endurance time of 4 ± 7 minutes using a two-tailed, paired t test (α=0.05, power=0.80).||10|2|<0.05
84489414|NCT01347931|168730466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed t test||7|1|<0.05
84489415|NCT03287960|168730468|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest will achieve 10% weight loss.||||||0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.0001
84489416|NCT03287960|168730469|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval (CI) obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of patients in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
84489417|NCT03287960|168730470|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|-9.66|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-9.66|-15.08|<.0001
84489418|NCT03287960|168730471|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-42.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.35|-29.02|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||||-29.02|-56.35|<.0001
84489419|NCT03287960|168730472|OTHER|Two-sided CI obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥5 % of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥25 % improvement in daily hunger score.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<.0001
84489420|NCT03287960|168730473|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-8.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-3.61|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-3.61|-14.10|0.0031
84489421|NCT03287960|168730476|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-11.2|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA model||||-11.20|-16.80|<.0001
84741495|NCT01460225|169234124|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 4 hours post meal||||0.122
84489422|NCT04646668|168730514|SUPERIORITY|Due to the pilot nature of the current study, formal power calculations were not conducted.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in nicotine delivery between cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heat not burn after the standardized 10-puff bout. ANOVAs were conducted to detect differences between products for nicotine concentration at five minutes (immediately following 10-puff bout). The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.002
84489423|NCT00732199|168730546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T- test was conducted to compare the 2 groups.||||<0.05
84548728|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548729|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548730|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84741496|NCT01495598|169234126|OTHER|Other = Kaplan Meier||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
84489424|NCT00732199|168730547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Compares control vs hypoxia trials vs recovery post-hypoxia||||||<0.05
84489425|NCT00732199|168730548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84489426|NCT00732199|168730549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84489427|NCT02242305|168730565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 3 days and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.27|-0.33|0.809
84489428|NCT02242305|168730565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 1 day and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.33|-0.39|0.809
84489429|NCT02242305|168730566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.||||||0.079
84489430|NCT02242305|168730571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline score as covariates was used.||||||0.531
84489431|NCT03547960|168730572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.639
84489432|NCT03547960|168730572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.283
84489433|NCT03547960|168730574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
84489434|NCT03481634|168730593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.3||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||0.3|-2.9|<0.001
84489435|NCT03481634|168730593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.4||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||-1.4|-5.1|0.227
84489436|NCT03481634|168730594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-0.0|-3.0|<0.001
84489437|NCT03481634|168730594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.7||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.7|-5.2|
84489438|NCT03481634|168730598|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|||||-1.7|-6.0|
84489439|NCT03481634|168730598|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-4.0|
84489440|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|16.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||16.4|-17.7|
84489441|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|14.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||14.4|-18.7|
84489442|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|29.7|||ANOVA|||Week 6||29.7|-5.2|
84489443|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.9|||ANOVA|||Week 6||18.9|-14.0|
84489444|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|17.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||17.9|-16.0|
84489445|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||12.9|-19.6|
84489446|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|23.6|||ANOVA|||Week 12||23.6|-10.7|
84489447|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|20.2|||ANOVA|||Week 12||20.2|-14.6|
84489448|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|17.8|||ANOVA|||Week 16||17.8|-15.7|
84489449|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 16||12.9|-19.7|
84489450|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.5|||ANOVA|||Week 18||26.5|-8.6|
84489451|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2|||ANOVA|||Week 18||19.2|-14.1|
84489452|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.4|||ANOVA|||Week 20||13.4|-20.2|
84489453|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|10.2|||ANOVA|||Week 20||10.2|-21.7|
84489454|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.9|||ANOVA|||Week 24||3.9|-31.7|
84489455|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.2|-35.4|
84489456|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.5|||ANOVA|||Week 28||7.5|-25.0|
84489457|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.0|||ANOVA|||Week 28||8.0|-25.4|
84489458|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||ANOVA|||Week 32||15.5|-21.8|
84489459|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|6.0|||ANOVA|||Week 32||6.0|-29.5|
84489460|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|57.9|||ANOVA|||Week 36||57.9|14.6|
84489461|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.0|||ANOVA|||Week 36||40.0|0.7|
84489462|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.9|||ANOVA|||Week 40||11.9|-24.2|
84489463|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 40||12.2|-25.2|
84489464|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|26.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||26.3|-10.4|
84489465|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|18.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||18.3|-16.2|
84489466|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.9|||ANOVA|||Week 48||32.9|-5.8|
84489467|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 48||23.0|-13.5|
84489468|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 52||23.0|-14.5|
84489469|NCT03481634|168730601|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 52||12.2|-22.3|
84489470|NCT03481634|168730602|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|20.0|||ANOVA|||||20.0|-16.6|
84489471|NCT03481634|168730602|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|13.8|||ANOVA|||||13.8|-20.7|
84489472|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-5.3|
84489473|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.3|||Bootstrap method|||||10.3|-2.1|
84489474|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.4|||Bootstrap method|||||12.4|-1.2|
84489475|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9|||Bootstrap method|||||12.9|0.6|
84489476|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.4|||Bootstrap method|||||9.4|-3.9|
84489477|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|7.0|||Bootstrap method|||||7.0|-5.7|
84489478|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.1|||Bootstrap method|||||8.1|-5.0|
84489479|NCT03481634|168730609|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-4.0|
84548731|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY|rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548732|NCT04157296|168850484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||TCN (Change in Connectivity \[post minus pre\])||||
84548733|NCT04157296|168850485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.241
84489480|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Bootstrap method|||||5.8|-6.4|
84489481|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.0|||Bootstrap method|||||11.0|-1.3|
84489482|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Bootstrap method|||||2.2|-10.2|
84489483|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.5|||Bootstrap method|||||10.5|-2.2|
84489484|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.8|||Bootstrap method|||||-2.8|-15.5|
84489485|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||Bootstrap method|||||4.4|-8.4|
84489486|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.6|||Bootstrap method|||||-1.6|-14.0|
84489487|NCT03481634|168730611|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Bootstrap method|||||6.8|-5.7|
84489488|NCT02274766|168730630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-8.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable; the baseline value is a continuous covariate||32 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-8.3|-20.4|<0.0001
84489489|NCT02274766|168730631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.45||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.45|0.35|0.0168
84489490|NCT02274766|168730631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.16||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||0.16|-2.42|0.0853
84489491|NCT02274766|168730631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.18||Change from Baseline in OFF time.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-2.02|0.0199
84548734|NCT04157296|168850486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
84489492|NCT02607735|168730632|SUPERIORITY|The SVR12 rate for the SOF/VEL/VOX group was compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
84489493|NCT00606021|168730663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37||The significant level for the primary outcome measure of progression free survival during maintenance phase is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.37|0.42|0.1815
84489494|NCT00606021|168730664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure of progression free survival during overall period is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.26|0.40|0.1233
84489495|NCT00606021|168730665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during maintenance period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.28|0.56|0.7239
84489496|NCT00606021|168730666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.38||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during overall period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.38|0.59|0.6376
84489497|NCT03198884|168730683|OTHER|The percent of patients with an RNA \<50 copies/mL at each time point was analyzed using McNemar's test following the guidelines of the Snapshot algorithm. Missing RNA data was considered a treatment failure. Change in mean serum creatinine from baseline was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar||||Change in mean CD4+ cell counts from baseline was analyzed using a paired t-test. All analyses used a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 as significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.4.3.|||<0.05
84489498|NCT03198884|168730684|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84489499|NCT01202643|168730690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.67
84489500|NCT01202643|168730691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Study was closed due to insufficient recruitment||||0.74
84489501|NCT02417935|168730692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 95% CI does not exceed 0.51 (pre-defined non-inferiority margin), it will be concluded that duloxetine is not inferior to Pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.439|-0.295|0.700
84548735|NCT04157296|168850487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.042
84548736|NCT04157296|168850488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.349
84548737|NCT02237196|168850489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5038||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.49|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Model adjusts for Site, Baseline TNSS AUC, and Baseline Cat exposure (low vs high)||||0.49|-1.51|0.314
84548738|NCT01057810|168850503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.88|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.39|0.88|0.3667
84548739|NCT01057810|168850504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.80|0.55|
84548740|NCT01057810|168850505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.52|0.83|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.83|0.52|
84548741|NCT01057810|168850506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.71|1.35|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||1.35|0.71|
84548742|NCT02088905|168850510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of ECBI Problem Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.080
84548743|NCT02088905|168850510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of ECBI Intensity Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.026
84548744|NCT02088905|168850510|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|||||<|0.001||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Timepoint within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||<.001
84548745|NCT02088905|168850510|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.182||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.182
84548746|NCT02088905|168850510|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.015||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment and Timepoint Interaction Term within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.015
84548747|NCT02088905|168850511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Parental Distress between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.203
84548748|NCT02088905|168850511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.17
84548749|NCT02088905|168850511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Difficult Child between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.308
84548750|NCT02088905|168850511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.413
84548751|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.271
84548752|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Awareness Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.434
84489502|NCT02417935|168730693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.149
84489503|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.6|-0.3|.535
84489504|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.2|-0.5|.436
84489505|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Pain||0.5|-0.2|.534
84489506|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.4|-0.4|.948
84489507|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||0.1|-0.6|.225
84489508|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.2|-0.6|.276
84489509|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking Ability||0.2|-0.4|.507
84489510|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.1|-0.5|.216
84548753|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Cognition Scores between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.298
84548754|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Communication Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.294
84489511|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations with other people||0.1|-0.4|.233
84489512|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.3|-0.3|.857
84489513|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of life||0.1|-0.5|.133
84489514|NCT02417935|168730694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Interference Score||0.11|-0.44|.246
84489515|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.2|-3.6|.627
84489516|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Burning Pain||0.2|-0.6|.355
84489517|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain||0.4|-0.3|.731
84489518|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain||0.4|-0.3|.721
84489519|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain||0.2|-0.5|.345
84489520|NCT02417935|168730695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Paresthesia/Dysesthesia||0.3|-0.5|.557
84489521|NCT02417935|168730696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.4|.106
84489522|NCT02417935|168730697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0441|||ANCOVA|||||0.0441|-0.0161|.361
84489523|NCT02417935|168730698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|.701
84489524|NCT02417935|168730699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.366|-0.355|.976
84548755|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Motivation between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.441
84548756|NCT02088905|168850513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behavior Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.204
84489525|NCT02417935|168730700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.537|-0.264|.503
84489526|NCT02417935|168730701|OTHER|||||||0.632||||||30% reduction|Fisher Exact|||||||.632
84489527|NCT02417935|168730701|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Fisher Exact|||50% Reduction||||.907
84489528|NCT00989664|168730746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84489529|NCT01813149|168730791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=20 t-statistic = 2.90||A t-test to see if expression of α1-AR differs between phenylephrine responders and non-responders||||0.009
84489530|NCT02269709|168730797|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline and Follow-up #1||||<0.0001
84489531|NCT02269709|168730797|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow up #2||||<0.0001
84489532|NCT02269709|168730797|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow-up #3||||<0.0001
84489533|NCT02269709|168730798|OTHER|Mean IVC pressures from different time points were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84489534|NCT02504424|168730800|OTHER||percent of breasts successfully exchange|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Success includes all breasts which were exchanged successfully in the Per Protocol Cohort, excluding non-device related failures. The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 100% (80/80). Note: Denominator = 80 (86 implanted breasts - 6 breasts). Failed exchange = 4 breasts (non-device related) \& Missing = 2 breasts (patient non-compliant w/study and withdrew consent after treatment).||||
84548757|NCT02088905|168850515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DPICS Negative Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||<.001
84741497|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.19||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.19
84489535|NCT02504424|168730800|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Sensitivity Analysis (Best / Worst Case): Treatment Success by subject for the Per Protocol cohort includes all failures (excluding non-device related failures). The best case analysis considers success if the subject has at least one breast successfully reconstructed, and the worst case analysis considers it a failure if at least one breast has failed. The treatment success by subject is 100% for both best and worst case analysis.||||
84489536|NCT02504424|168730801|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|95.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Secondary analysis is repeated including all breasts in the PP cohort (including non-device related failures). The Treatment Success Rate by breast, based on the Per Protocol cohort, including all cause failures, is 95.2% (80/84). One subject (2 breasts) are not included in analysis as subject withdrew from the study prior to exchange of her expanders.||||
84548758|NCT02088905|168850515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of DPICS Positive Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority. Data transformed using a square root transformation.||||<.001
84741498|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.72||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.72
84489537|NCT00982111|168730805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.9561
84548759|NCT00267969|168850517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84548760|NCT00267969|168850517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 750 patients (250 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84548761|NCT00267969|168850518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84548762|NCT00267969|168850518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84548763|NCT00267969|168850519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
84548764|NCT00267969|168850519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84548765|NCT00267969|168850520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84548766|NCT00267969|168850520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84548767|NCT00267969|168850520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined maintenance group and the combined withdrawal group, ustekinumab 90 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group, ustekinumab 45 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.001
84548768|NCT00862823|168850521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined so there was an 80% chance that a 90% pairwise interval for 2 equivalent formulations would satifsy the FDA criteria for AUC and Cmax of log (0.8), log (1.2).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||<|0.05||90.0||||Bioequivalent measurew were log-transformed|log transformation|||||||<0.05
84489538|NCT00982111|168730806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.80|0.6647
84548769|NCT01309360|168850532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84741499|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
84741500|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84548770|NCT01309360|168850532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84548771|NCT01309360|168850532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84548772|NCT01309360|168850533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0
84548773|NCT01309360|168850534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
84741501|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84741502|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84741503|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
84741504|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
84741505|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
84741506|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0003||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
84741507|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
84741508|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
84741509|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
84741510|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.91
84741511|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
84741512|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.7||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.70
84741513|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.59||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.59
84741514|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.26||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
84741515|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0008
84741516|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84741517|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
84741518|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
84741519|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
84489539|NCT00982111|168730807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.68|0.7945
84741520|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
84741521|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.42||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.42
84741522|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.85||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.85
84489540|NCT00982111|168730808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.00|0.0459
84548774|NCT01309360|168850534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84548775|NCT01309360|168850534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84548776|NCT01309360|168850535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
84548777|NCT01309360|168850535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
84741523|NCT01495598|169234136|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.16
84489541|NCT01032265|168730820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.27
84489542|NCT01032265|168730821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.52
84548778|NCT01309360|168850535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
84741524|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.07
84489543|NCT01032265|168730822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.30
84489544|NCT01032265|168730823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.02
84489545|NCT01032265|168730824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
84489546|NCT01032265|168730825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23||95.0|||||negative binomial regression|||analysis between groups||||0.23
84548779|NCT01309360|168850536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
84548780|NCT01309360|168850536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84548781|NCT01309360|168850536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84548782|NCT01309360|168850537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
84548783|NCT01309360|168850537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
84548784|NCT01309360|168850537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84548785|NCT02901067|168850541|SUPERIORITY|This is a secondary outcome thus no power analysis was done.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would present less fibrinolysis shutdown than the control group in all times measured.||||>0.05
84548786|NCT02901067|168850546|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84548787|NCT02901067|168850549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have less pulmonary embolism events than the control group.||||0.10
84548788|NCT02901067|168850550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the control group.||||0.046
84548789|NCT02049814|168850560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of 95% CI of Least Square Mean (LS mean) of HbA1C Changes was less than 0.4%, it was considered that the non-inferiority was established.||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
84548790|NCT02016105|168850575|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted response rates were estimated using a logistic regression model including treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy. The 95% CI for the rate difference was derived based on the normal approximation and standard error computed using the delta method.To conclude equivalent efficacy, the 95% CI had to be entirely within the interval \[-18%, 18%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|11.15||||||||11.15|-7.46|
84548791|NCT02016105|168850576|EQUIVALENCE|"LS means, SE and 95% CI were estimated by a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy, as fixed factors and baseline PASI score as covariate.~Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira treatment was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\]."|LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|4.84||||||||4.84|-3.15|
84603677|NCT01459653|168958072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for FN episode||3.570|1.610|<0.001
84741525|NCT01495598|169234137|NON_INFERIORITY|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
84741526|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.15
84741527|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
84741528|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
84741529|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.79||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.79
84741530|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
84741531|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.008
84741532|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.12||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.12
84741533|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84489547|NCT01032265|168730826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.01
84497220|NCT04636437|168745599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|0.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||0.66|-1.93|0.27
84548792|NCT02016105|168850577|EQUIVALENCE|LSM, SE and 95% CI were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy as fixed effects and baseline PASI score as covariate. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|LS means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.08||||||||5.08|-2.78|
84548793|NCT01908829|168850599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P values for pairwise comparisons were from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.001
84603678|NCT01459653|168958072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.527|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for FN episode||4.527|1.450|0.001
84741534|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84741535|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
84741536|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
84741537|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
84741538|NCT01495598|169234137|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84741539|NCT01495598|169234138|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
84603679|NCT01459653|168958072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.499|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.499|0.108|<0.001
84741540|NCT01495598|169234138|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
84741541|NCT01495598|169234138|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.32
84741542|NCT01495598|169234138|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
84741543|NCT01495598|169234138|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
84741544|NCT01495598|169234139|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
84741545|NCT01495598|169234139|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
84497221|NCT04636437|168745600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.57|2.58||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.58|-1.57|0.58
84548794|NCT01908829|168850600|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
84548795|NCT01908829|168850600|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.18||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.60|<0.001
84548796|NCT01908829|168850600|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.46|=0.001
84548797|NCT01908829|168850601|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.06|-0.47|=0.010
84548798|NCT01908829|168850601|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.65|<0.001
84548799|NCT01908829|168850601|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.23|-0.70|<0.001
84603680|NCT01459653|168958072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|8.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||8.084|1.315|0.011
84741546|NCT01495598|169234139|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
84741547|NCT03083665|169234146|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|24.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.5||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||35.5|11.7|0.0005
84741548|NCT03083665|169234146|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|43.1||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||43.1|21.9|<0.0001
84741549|NCT01040169|169234167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84741550|NCT01040169|169234168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84741551|NCT02367040|169234230|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.688||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.688|0.393|0.000002
84741552|NCT02367040|169234230|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.722||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.722|0.431|0.000003
84548800|NCT01908829|168850601|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.67|<0.001
84548801|NCT01908829|168850602|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 4 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.79|=0.005
84548802|NCT01908829|168850602|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 8 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.86|0.66|<0.001
84548803|NCT01908829|168850602|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 12 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.97|0.70|=0.021
84548804|NCT01908829|168850602|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during EoT 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.71|=0.014
84548805|NCT01908829|168850603|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|8.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||8.16|-0.43|<0.078
84548806|NCT01908829|168850603|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|16.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.40|5.98|<0.001
84548807|NCT01908829|168850603|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|18.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||18.12|6.65|<0.001
84548808|NCT01908829|168850603|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|16.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.99|6.06|<0.001
84548809|NCT01908829|168850604|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.16|-0.73|=0.003
84603681|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.814|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||2.355|1.397|<0.001
84548810|NCT01908829|168850605|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
84489548|NCT00453349|168730844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 87% in the per protocol population"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-10.7|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-10.7|
84489549|NCT00453349|168730845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-9.9|6.0|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.0|-9.9|
84489550|NCT00453349|168730846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.4|0.8|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||0.8|-7.4|
84489551|NCT00453349|168730847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
84489552|NCT00453349|168730848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||||95.0|-12.7|20.3|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||20.3|-12.7|
84489553|NCT00453349|168730849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||||95.0|-19.4|17.6|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||17.6|-19.4|
84489554|NCT00453349|168730850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.6|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-8.6|
84489555|NCT00453349|168730851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
84603682|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.296|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|6.065|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.065|1.791|<0.001
84603683|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycles as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.524|1.380|0.001
84548811|NCT01908829|168850605|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 djusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.65|<0.001
84548812|NCT01908829|168850605|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.004
84548813|NCT01908829|168850605|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.47|=0.003
84548814|NCT01908829|168850606|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 4 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.94|0.76|=0.003
84548815|NCT01908829|168850606|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 8 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.86|0.63|<0.001
84548816|NCT01908829|168850606|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 12 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.99|0.69|=0.038
84548817|NCT01908829|168850606|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during EoT 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.97|0.69|=0.022
84548818|NCT01908829|168850607|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.72|=0.001
84741553|NCT02367040|169234230|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643||||0.000199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.823||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At final analysis||0.823|0.502|0.000199
84548819|NCT01908829|168850607|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.35|-0.93|<0.001
84603684|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.863||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|3.293|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.293|1.054|0.032
84603685|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.385||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.879|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.879|0.168|0.024
84603686|NCT01459653|168958073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.843||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|11.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||11.942|1.964|0.001
84741554|NCT02367040|169234231|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|32.99|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.95|42.03||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||42.03|23.95|<0.000001
84741555|NCT02367040|169234231|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|30.67|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|39.72||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||39.72|21.63|<0.000001
84741556|NCT02367040|169234232|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|19.27|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.57|26.96||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||26.96|11.57|<0.000001
84548820|NCT01908829|168850607|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.82|=0.001
84548821|NCT01908829|168850607|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.83|<0.001
84548822|NCT01908829|168850608|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.46|=0.008
84548823|NCT01908829|168850608|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.13|-0.55|=0.002
84548824|NCT01908829|168850608|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.08|-0.47|=0.006
84548825|NCT01908829|168850608|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.12|-0.51|=0.002
84603687|NCT01459653|168958074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.473|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.946|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.946|1.550|<0.001
84603688|NCT01459653|168958074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.695|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.695|0.210|0.002
84603689|NCT01459653|168958074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.108||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|6.192|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.192|1.560|0.001
84603690|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.931|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.426|14.699|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||14.699|5.426|<0.001
84741557|NCT02367040|169234232|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|18.92||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|26.73||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||26.73|11.11|0.000001
84741558|NCT02367040|169234233|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Kaplan-Meier estimates|0.7||||0.030371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.018||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.018|0.481|0.030371
84741559|NCT02367040|169234233|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.051976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.059||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.059|0.547|0.051976
84741560|NCT02367040|169234234|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
84489556|NCT00453349|168730852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||||95.0|-24.9|15.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||15.9|-24.9|
84489557|NCT00453349|168730853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||||95.0|-30.5|11.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||11.9|-30.5|
84741561|NCT02367040|169234234|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
84741562|NCT02367040|169234235|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.635||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.635|0.357|<.000001
84741563|NCT02367040|169234235|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.659||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.659|0.387|<.000001
84741564|NCT02367040|169234236|SUPERIORITY|OS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.436458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.368||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.368|0.691|0.436458
84741565|NCT02367040|169234237|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.331||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.331|0.843|0.692610
84741566|NCT02367040|169234237|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.661145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.302||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.302|0.841|0.661145
84741567|NCT02367040|169234238|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.510038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.355||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.355|0.732|0.510038
84741568|NCT02367040|169234238|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.40597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.398||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.398|0.768|0.405970
84741569|NCT02477618|169234242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.118|0.527|0.878
84603691|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.336||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Hematological cancer (vs. oncologic) as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||0.740|0.152|0.007
84741570|NCT02477618|169234243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|2.507|||Regression, Cox|||||2.507|0.222|0.636
84741571|NCT02477618|169234244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.623||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.282|0.303|0.199
84741572|NCT02477618|169234245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.466|||Regression, Cox|||||1.466|0.318|0.328
84741573|NCT02477618|169234247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.763|||Regression, Cox|||||1.763|0.193|0.339
84741574|NCT02477618|169234248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||||2.189|0.539|0.817
84741575|NCT02477618|169234249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.567
84741576|NCT02284009|169234267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||||Analysis was performed using a Bayesian model incorporating historical placebo data using a robust mixture prior. Values above are 95% credible intervals. Probability of treatment difference (Albiglutide - Placebo) \>= 0.2 nmol/L = 0.097.|||0.24|0.00|
84741577|NCT00225017|169234321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|25 subjects per arm will have 80% power to detect a difference between groups in mean FMD change of 2.9%, and 90% power to detect a mean FMD change of 3.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.312|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.312|-2.080|0.601
84741578|NCT00225017|169234322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
84741579|NCT00225017|169234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
84741580|NCT02993406|169234324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.79|0.004
84741581|NCT02993406|169234325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|0.0058
84741582|NCT02993406|169234326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.66|0.0016
84741583|NCT02993406|169234327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.72|0.0013
84741584|NCT02993406|169234328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.67|0.1593
84741585|NCT02993406|169234329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.88|0.6227
84741586|NCT02993406|169234330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.90|0.6608
84741587|NCT02783027|169234360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test on the change in sleep quality from baseline to 4 months.||||||0.76
84741588|NCT02783027|169234361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for group\*time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84741589|NCT02783027|169234362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
84741590|NCT02783027|169234363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
84741591|NCT02783027|169234364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test for change in Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) inter-shift recovery between groups||||||0.91
84489558|NCT00149227|168730870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.975|||Cox's proportional hazard analysis|||"We estimated the number of enrolled patients to validate the hypothesis under the assumption that the valsartan add-on group achieves a 20% risk reduction compared with the conventional treatment group and gives 80% statistical power for detecting a clinical signiﬁcance with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level.~with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level."||0.975|-0.975|<0.05
84489559|NCT02312934|168730884|OTHER||||||=|0.41||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Primary Aim (Specific Aim 1), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline PCI FACT-Cog score (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||=0.41
84489560|NCT02312934|168730885|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Secondary Aim (Specific Aim 2), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline CPT Scores (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||0.79
84489561|NCT03395704|168730886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||< 0.0001
84741592|NCT00461981|169234365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.6||||||95.0|-79.7|-31.7||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-31.7|-79.7|
84741593|NCT00461981|169234366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.9||||||95.0|-83.8|-26.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-26.0|-83.8|
84741594|NCT00461981|169234367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|44.2||||||95.0|12.0|67.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||67.8|12.0|
84548826|NCT01908829|168850609|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.87|=0.545
84548827|NCT01908829|168850609|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.95|0.70|=0.010
84548828|NCT01908829|168850609|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.94|0.67|=0.007
84548829|NCT01908829|168850609|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.92|0.66|=0.003
84741595|NCT00461981|169234368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|16.2||||||95.0|-17.6|45.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||45.4|-17.6|
84741596|NCT00461981|169234369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-18.2||||||95.0|-40.0|4.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.9|-40.0|
84741597|NCT00461981|169234370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.6||||||95.0|-27.4|13.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||13.3|-27.4|
84489562|NCT02475564|168730890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||A sample size of at least 21 patients per arm would be necessary to have a 90% chance of detecting, as significant at the 1% level, a difference of 3 points in a scale of 10 points, between both groups as the primary outcome, after 42 days of treatment.||||0.7
84489563|NCT02475564|168730891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.1
84489564|NCT02475564|168730892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.8
84489565|NCT00772031|168730904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA|covariate adjustments: study site, baseline mod-to-sev 28-day headache-rate, topiramate use, medication overuse, and anti-depressive medications use.|Topiramate plus placebo mean reduction minus topiramate plus propranolol reduction|The study was designed to enroll 250 subjects to provide at least 90% power to detect a 3-day difference and 87% power to detect a 2.5-day difference in 28-day moderate-to-severe headache rate reductions at six months, assuming a type I error rate of 0.05, a two-sided test, a 10% loss to follow-up and a standard deviation of within-person change in days with headache of six.||2.4|-1.8|0.77
84489566|NCT00772031|168730905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.78||||||||2.78|0.75|
84548830|NCT01908829|168850610|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.08|-0.10|=0.836
84548831|NCT01908829|168850610|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.07|-0.12|=0.617
84548832|NCT01908829|168850610|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.02|-0.17|=0.134
84548833|NCT01908829|168850610|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EOT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.03|-0.16|=0.174
84603692|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Cancer patients seen in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.000|0.999|0.006
84603693|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Chemotherapy-treated cancer patients in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.001|1.000|<0.001
84489567|NCT00772031|168730906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.5|2.02||||||||2.02|0.50|
84489568|NCT00772031|168730908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.91
84489569|NCT02194699|168730935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.84||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.34|0.53|0.4656
84489570|NCT02194699|168730935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.50|0.85|0.4126
84741598|NCT00461981|169234371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|35.7||||||95.0|9.5|57.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||57.1|9.5|
84548834|NCT01908829|168850611|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.93|=0.993
84548835|NCT01908829|168850611|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.07|0.90|=0.736
84548836|NCT01908829|168850611|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.02|0.85|=0.121
84603694|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.456||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|5.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||5.353|1.127|0.024
84669169|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0364|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0364
84741599|NCT00461981|169234372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.0||||||95.0|-27.7|16.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||16.0|-27.7|
84741600|NCT00461981|169234373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|14.7||||||95.0|-6.5|38.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||38.4|-6.5|
84741601|NCT00461981|169234374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|38.1||||||95.0|0.9|65.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||65.9|0.9|
84741602|NCT00461981|169234375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|11.7||||||95.0|-13.0|34.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||34.9|-13.0|
84741603|NCT00461981|169234376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-15.8||||||95.0|-40.7|8.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||8.0|-40.7|
84741604|NCT00461981|169234377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|0.43||||||95.0|0.24|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.24|
84741605|NCT00461981|169234378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.09|0.48||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.48|0.09|
84741606|NCT00461981|169234379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.36||||||95.0|1.54|7.13||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||7.13|1.54|
84548837|NCT01908829|168850611|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.03|0.86|=0.172
84548838|NCT01908829|168850617|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-1.10|-4.68|=0.002
84548839|NCT01908829|168850617|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-2.60|-6.40|<0.001
84548840|NCT01908829|168850617|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.62|-7.56|<0.001
84548841|NCT01908829|168850617|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-3.04||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.04|-6.88|<0.001
84548842|NCT01908829|168850618|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.55||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.55|0.29|=0.021
84548843|NCT01908829|168850618|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.06|0.56|=0.010
84548844|NCT01908829|168850618|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.33||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.33|1.65|<0.001
84603695|NCT01459653|168958075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|8.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic-affiliated vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||8.331|1.342|0.010
84603696|NCT01459653|168958076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.965||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|3.172|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||3.172|1.218|0.006
84741607|NCT00461981|169234380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|3.26||||||95.0|1.44|7.19||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.19|1.44|
84741608|NCT00461981|169234381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.56|1.96||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.96|0.56|
84548845|NCT01908829|168850618|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.95||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.95|1.35|=0.001
84548846|NCT01908829|168850619|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.78||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.78|1.02|=0.003
84548847|NCT01908829|168850619|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.40|1.29|=0.001
84548848|NCT01908829|168850619|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.87|2.55|<0.001
84548849|NCT01908829|168850619|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.39||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.39|2.20|<0.001
84548850|NCT01908829|168850620|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.83||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.83|0.05|=0.044
84669170|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84741609|NCT00461981|169234382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.58||||||95.0|0.31|1.12||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.12|0.31|
84548851|NCT01908829|168850620|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.46||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.46|0.55|=0.012
84603697|NCT01459653|168958076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|4.581|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||4.581|1.469|0.001
84741610|NCT00461981|169234383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.4||||||95.0|1.48|3.97||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.97|1.48|
84741611|NCT00461981|169234384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.48||||||95.0|0.27|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.27|
84548852|NCT01908829|168850620|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.67||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.67|1.54|=0.001
84741612|NCT00461981|169234385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.8|2.66||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.66|0.80|
84548853|NCT01908829|168850620|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.29||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.29|1.27|=0.001
84548854|NCT01908829|168850621|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.43||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.43|-1.35|=0.575
84548855|NCT01908829|168850621|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.58|-0.36|=0.109
84548856|NCT01908829|168850621|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.32||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.32|0.20|=0.032
84548857|NCT01908829|168850621|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|=|0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.87|-0.15|=0.069
84548858|NCT01908829|168850622|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.36||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.36|0.10|=0.037
84548859|NCT01908829|168850622|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.76|-0.57|=0.199
84669171|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1714
84741613|NCT00461981|169234386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.75||||||95.0|0.88|3.39||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.39|0.88|
84741614|NCT00461981|169234387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.49||||||95.0|0.8|2.69||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.69|0.80|
84741615|NCT00461981|169234388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.33|1.16||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.16|0.33|
84741616|NCT00461981|169234389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-45.9||||||95.0|-71.7|-11.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-11.6|-71.7|
84741617|NCT00461981|169234390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-25.0||||||95.0|-57.2|4.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.8|-57.2|
84741618|NCT00461981|169234391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|65.0||||||95.0|34.4|85.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||85.3|34.4|
84741619|NCT00461981|169234392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-30.4|30.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||30.3|-30.4|
84741620|NCT00461981|169234393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-37.0||||||95.0|-57.8|-17.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-17.5|-57.8|
84741621|NCT00461981|169234394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-8.3||||||95.0|-38.5|14.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||14.5|-38.5|
84741622|NCT00461981|169234395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|21.9||||||95.0|-6.7|48.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||48.1|-6.7|
84741623|NCT00461981|169234396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-22.4||||||95.0|-54.4|12.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||12.2|-54.4|
84741624|NCT00461981|169234397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|33.3||||||95.0|-81.1|90.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||90.6|-81.1|
84603698|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.821|0.424|0.002
84603699|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 4-5 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.859|0.489|0.003
84741625|NCT00461981|169234398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|0.0||||||95.0|-97.5|84.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||84.2|-97.5|
84741626|NCT00461981|169234399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-9.5||||||95.0|-65.2|58.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||58.8|-65.2|
84603700|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.842|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 1-3 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.842|0.398|0.004
84741627|NCT00461981|169234400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-20.0||||||95.0|-71.6|33.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||33.9|-71.6|
84489571|NCT02194699|168730935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|15.83||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|47.01|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||47.01|-33.71|0.4656
84489572|NCT02194699|168730935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.03||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.31|0.81|0.8027
84489573|NCT02194699|168730935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|-3.14||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.46|19.08|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||19.08|-31.46|0.8027
84489574|NCT02194699|168730936|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|1.86||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|8.88|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||8.88|-5.16|0.6033
84489575|NCT02194699|168730936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.37||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|7.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||7.70|-0.97|0.1276
84489576|NCT02194699|168730936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.95||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.62|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment||6.62|-0.73|0.1164
84489577|NCT02194699|168730937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.07|-0.47|0.1456
84489578|NCT02194699|168730937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.20|-0.13|0.6548
84741628|NCT00461981|169234401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.23||||||95.0|0.15|0.35||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.35|0.15|
84741629|NCT00461981|169234402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.11||||||95.0|0.05|0.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.22|0.05|
84548860|NCT01908829|168850622|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.31||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.31|0.92|=0.003
84548861|NCT01908829|168850622|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.15||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.15|0.81|=0.004
84548862|NCT01908829|168850623|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|<0.001
84603701|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.643|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||1.643|1.140|0.001
84741630|NCT00461981|169234403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.85||||||95.0|2.51|9.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||9.22|2.51|
84603702|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|4.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||4.985|2.456|<0.001
84741631|NCT00461981|169234404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.31||||||95.0|1.46|7.54||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.54|1.46|
84741632|NCT00461981|169234405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|0.58|3.04||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.04|0.58|
84741633|NCT00461981|169234406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.44||||||95.0|0.16|1.07||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.07|0.16|
84741634|NCT00461981|169234407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.46||||||95.0|1.26|5.06||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||5.06|1.26|
84741635|NCT00461981|169234408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.00|0.70|
84741636|NCT00461981|169234409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.51||||||95.0|0.23|1.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.22|0.23|
84741637|NCT00461981|169234410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|4.0|4.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||4.00|4.00|
84741638|NCT00461981|169234411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.22|3.63||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.63|0.22|
84741639|NCT00461981|169234412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.73||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.73|0.25|
84741640|NCT00461981|169234417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84741641|NCT03031496|169234435|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|91.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|95.43|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||95.43|87.77|
84741642|NCT03031496|169234435|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.12|106.91|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||106.91|98.12|
84741643|NCT03031496|169234436|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|82.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.37|88.74|||||Comparison of Cmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||88.74|77.37|
84741644|NCT03031496|169234436|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.42|110.86|||||Comparison of Cmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||110.86|97.42|
84741645|NCT03031496|169234437|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.75|96.12|||||Comparison of Tmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||96.12|88.75|
84741646|NCT03031496|169234437|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|101.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|105.23|||||Comparison of Tmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||105.23|97.84|
84741647|NCT01712061|169234471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean changes|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|Bayesian ANCOVA with covariates for baseline UACR and systolic blood pressure (SBP).||||1.09|0.75|
84741648|NCT02992691|169234537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||From ANCOVA analysis for change from pre-brushing with treatment and period as fixed effect, participant as random effect, participant-level baseline and period level minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||This comparison was tested under a null hypothesis of no difference against alternative hypothesis of a difference between treatments||0.04|-0.06|0.6674
84741649|NCT00392925|169234546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Based on an Analysis of Covariance model including factors for treatment group, sex, enrollment body mass index (BMI) category, lead-in body weight loss category, and baseline (Day 1) weight as a covariate. The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between treatments. Analysis performed two-sided at a 5% significance level to compare treatment groups.||||0.0004
84741650|NCT00755105|169234575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
84741651|NCT04145700|169234578|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|2.62||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|4.46|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||To conclude success for the intervention, the Bayesian analysis must yield a minimum of 99% posterior probability for PFS Hazard ratio less than 1 \[i.e., Pr(HR \< 1) \> 99%\]. The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.||4.46|1.19|0.051
84741652|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H11: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 300 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.99|0.75|0.0648
84741653|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H21: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 150 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.98|0.74|0.0241
84741654|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H31: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 50 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group.||1.07|0.80|0.1895
84548863|NCT01908829|168850623|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.5|0.0|=0.019
84548864|NCT01908829|168850623|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.7|0.3|<0.001
84741655|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.16|0.77|0.572
84741656|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.10|0.73|0.296
84741657|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.12|0.73|0.369
84741658|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.01|0.69|0.067
84741659|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||0.92|0.63|0.006
84548865|NCT01908829|168850623|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|=0.001
84548866|NCT01908829|168850624|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84548867|NCT01908829|168850624|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84548868|NCT01908829|168850624|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
84548869|NCT01908829|168850624|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84548870|NCT01908829|168850626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.19|<0.001
84548871|NCT01908829|168850626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.25|<0.001
84548872|NCT01908829|168850626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.95||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|1.21|=0.001
84548873|NCT01908829|168850626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.90|1.20|<0.001
84741660|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|0.542
84741661|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.00|0.68|
84741662|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||||MI (non-fatal)|||0.92|0.62|
84741663|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|
84741664|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.12|0.56|0.190
84741665|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.35||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.35|0.71|0.912
84741666|NCT01327846|169234589|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.43|0.74|0.871
84548874|NCT01908829|168850627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.63|0.95|=0.119
84548875|NCT01908829|168850627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.23|<0.001
84548876|NCT01908829|168850627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.002
84548877|NCT01908829|168850627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.17|=0.001
84548878|NCT01908829|168850628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.50|0.88|=0.305
84548879|NCT01908829|168850628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.06|=0.014
84548880|NCT01908829|168850628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.07|=0.012
84548881|NCT01908829|168850628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.64|1.02|=0.036
84548882|NCT01908829|168850629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.88||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.88|1.18|=0.001
84548883|NCT01908829|168850629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.18|1.31|<0.001
84548884|NCT01908829|168850629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.61||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.61|1.47|<0.001
84548885|NCT01908829|168850629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
84548886|NCT01908829|168850630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.003
84548887|NCT01908829|168850630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.93||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.93|1.18|=0.001
84548888|NCT01908829|168850630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.13||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.13|1.27|<0.001
84548889|NCT01908829|168850630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.91||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.91|1.17|=0.001
84548890|NCT01908829|168850631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.79||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.13|=0.003
84548891|NCT01908829|168850631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.12|=0.004
84548892|NCT01908829|168850631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.96||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.96|1.15|=0.003
84548893|NCT01908829|168850631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.11|=0.006
84548894|NCT01908829|168850632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|0.99|=0.065
84548895|NCT01908829|168850632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.11|=0.004
84548896|NCT01908829|168850632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.07|1.30|<0.001
84548897|NCT01908829|168850632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.94|1.24|<0.001
84548898|NCT01339923|168850676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after 2nd vaccination for serogroup C.||3.9|-6.4|
84548899|NCT01339923|168850676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after booster vaccination for serogroup C.||7.6|-5.2|
84548900|NCT01430403|168850692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|Placebo serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the placebo arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||0.92|0.25|0.03
84741667|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.13|0.57|
84548901|NCT01430403|168850693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|ICS Boost serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the ICS arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||1.64|0.33|0.45
84548902|NCT01430403|168850694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.22|||Chi-squared||Adjusted for site|||5.22|2.38|<0.01
84548903|NCT01430403|168850695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|0.004||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||F-Test|||||0.11|-0.10|0.94
84548904|NCT01430403|168850695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|-0.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13|||F-Test|||||0.13|-0.40|0.33
84548905|NCT01430403|168850696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.87|0.552
84548906|NCT01430403|168850696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.87|0.37
84741668|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.37|0.72|
84741669|NCT01327846|169234589|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.45|0.75|
84741670|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.94|0.72|0.0648
84548907|NCT01430403|168850697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.07|-1.11|0.09
84548908|NCT01430403|168850698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site and dosing group||||0.34|-0.86|0.39
84548909|NCT01430403|168850699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.78|-3.42|0.84
84548910|NCT01430403|168850700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|5.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site and dosing group.||||5.51|-0.76|0.14
84548911|NCT01430403|168850701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.99|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.99|-1.49|0.78
84548912|NCT01430403|168850702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.91|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site and dosing group.||||2.91|-0.61|0.20
84548913|NCT01430403|168850703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.90|0.32|0.006
84548914|NCT01430403|168850704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site and dosing group.||||0.86|-0.76|0.89
84741671|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.95|0.73|0.0241
84741672|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||1.03|0.79|0.1895
84489579|NCT02194699|168730937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.04||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.10|-0.18|0.5763
84489580|NCT02194699|168730938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.57|-0.04|0.0874
84548915|NCT01430403|168850705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.41|0.00|0.05
84548916|NCT01430403|168850706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site and dosing group||||1.30|-0.15|0.12
84548917|NCT01430403|168850707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.72|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.72|0.19|0.63
84548918|NCT01430403|168850708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.46|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||3.46|0.29|0.99
84548919|NCT01430403|168850709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.35|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.35|0.39|0.31
84548920|NCT01430403|168850710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.02|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||1.02|0.23|0.06
84548921|NCT01430403|168850711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.72|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.72|-3.08|0.90
84548922|NCT01430403|168850712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.71|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site and dosing group.||||2.71|-3.26|0.86
84548923|NCT03660189|168850714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84548924|NCT03660189|168850714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84548925|NCT03660189|168850716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84548926|NCT03660189|168850719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
84548927|NCT03660189|168850720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84548928|NCT03660189|168850724|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84741673|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.86|0.39|0.007
84489581|NCT02194699|168730938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.17|-0.20|0.9083
84489582|NCT02194699|168730938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.22|-0.10|0.4506
84489583|NCT02194699|168730939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.01|-0.53|0.0400
84489584|NCT02194699|168730939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.16|-0.16|0.9735
84489585|NCT02194699|168730939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.05|-0.21|0.2432
84489586|NCT02194699|168730940|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.39||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.03|0.15|0.0576
84489587|NCT02194699|168730940|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.48|0.46|0.5249
84548929|NCT03660189|168850725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84548930|NCT00554515|168850750|SUPERIORITY|Comparison against historical control ORR of 14%.||||||0.042|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.042
84548931|NCT00554515|168850751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between ISM good and poor risk subgroups. ISM good risk ORR reported under primary endpoint.||||0.39
84548932|NCT00554515|168850752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||exact binomial test|||Test against the historical ORR was conducted in the overall study population as secondary analyses.||||0.0014
84603703|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|5.336|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.336|3.096|<0.001
84548933|NCT00554515|168850755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between MSKCC subgroups.||||.89
84548934|NCT00554515|168850757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between tumor type subgroups||||.33
84548935|NCT00554515|168850758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between clear cell histology subgroups||||.89
84548936|NCT00554515|168850759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 score subgroups||||.19
84548937|NCT00554515|168850760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between PD-L1 tumor subgroups||||0.01
84548938|NCT00554515|168850761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between B7-H3 tumor subgroups||||.08
84548939|NCT00554515|168850762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 SNP subgroups||||.28
84603704|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.545||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.033|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.033|1.175|0.002
84548940|NCT02477332|168850764|SUPERIORITY||Estimated target dose|32.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.5|42.5|||Regression, Logistic|Target dose was based on this estimated dose response. The 60% CI included the 20 - 80th percentile of target dose estimated in the bootstrap samples.|Min dose with effect size \>15%|||42.5|27.5|<.05
84741674|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.94|0.44|0.022
84741675|NCT01327846|169234592|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||1.05|0.48|0.086
84548941|NCT02593097|168850843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Hills-Armitage|||||||0.83
84548942|NCT02593097|168850844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||||||0.16
84548943|NCT00665431|168850860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority margin (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|3.34|||ANCOVA|||||3.34|-5.94|
84548944|NCT00665431|168850861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.60|-6.82|
84548945|NCT00665431|168850862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-1.41|
84548946|NCT01578239|168850872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.289||Derived from a two-sided test between the two groups|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate / Octreotide LAR and estimated from the corresponding Cox model.|||0.289|0.108|<0.0001
84548947|NCT01578239|168850873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0141
84741676|NCT01327846|169234593|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.83|0.8456
84548948|NCT01578239|168850874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.60|0.3039
84548949|NCT01578239|168850875|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio of Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate vs. Octreotide LAR|||1.17|0.60|0.3039
84548950|NCT01578239|168850876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.242|||Log Rank|||||0.242|0.077|<0.0001
84548951|NCT02703467|168850917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84548952|NCT00150488|168850942|OTHER|Compared to baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84548953|NCT01113385|168850989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p value reflects the difference in mean FSPF pre vs post galactose treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84548954|NCT00863343|168851024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.94|0.59|
84548955|NCT00863343|168851024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.99|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.99|0.97|
84548956|NCT00863343|168851025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.92|0.63|
84548957|NCT00863343|168851025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
84548958|NCT00863343|168851026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.96|0.70|
84548959|NCT00863343|168851026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997||||||95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
84548960|NCT00863343|168851027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.90|0.60|
84548961|NCT00863343|168851027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
84548962|NCT02649439|168851030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4852
84548963|NCT02649439|168851031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3269|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3269
84741677|NCT01327846|169234593|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.29|0.87|0.8456
84741678|NCT01327846|169234593|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.80|0.6541
84741679|NCT01327846|169234594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.99|0.77|0.028
84741680|NCT01327846|169234594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.96|0.75|0.011
84741681|NCT01327846|169234594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||1.07|0.83|0.377
84741682|NCT01327846|169234595|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.10|0.79|0.406
84741683|NCT01327846|169234595|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.09|0.78|0.329
84741684|NCT01327846|169234595|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.13|0.81|0.597
84741685|NCT00203268|169234606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025|||||||clustered survival analysis|||||||.3025
84741686|NCT00672737|169234633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0025|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0041|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0025 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0041|0.0009|<0.05
84741687|NCT00672737|169234633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9694||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9127|-0.0261|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2 the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.9694 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0261|-1.9127|0.05
84741688|NCT00672737|169234634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|-0.0001|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level, the heat pain threshold will additionally decrease by 0.0001 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0001|-0.0001|<0.05
84741689|NCT00672737|169234634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0172|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0556|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2, the heat pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0172 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0556|-0.018|<0.05
84741690|NCT00972322|169234666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.87|-0.82|||Least Squares Means Difference||Placebo - MK-8245 on Day 28|||-0.82|-29.87|0.083
84741691|NCT02387970|169234674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
84741692|NCT02387970|169234675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
84741693|NCT02387970|169234676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165
84489588|NCT02194699|168730940|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.1|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.10|0.41|0.1155
84741694|NCT02387970|169234677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
84741695|NCT02387970|169234678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
84741696|NCT02387970|169234679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.248
84489589|NCT02194699|168730942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.06|-1.85|0.0360
84741697|NCT02387970|169234680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
84741698|NCT01310231|169234684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.31||One-sided p-value for group-effect obtained from Cox model. The prespecified threshold was 0.20 (one-sided).|Regression, Cox|Cox model for PFS with metf/plac and the two randomization stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.|Ratio of hazard of progression in the Metformin group relative to hazard in the Placebo group|Power: Final study plan called for 40 progression events, giving 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 for PFS with a one-sided type I error of 20%, where the relatively high type I error reflects the Phase II status of the trial||2.31|0.63|0.71
84741699|NCT01310231|169234685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.99||Two-side p-value from a logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included metf/plac and the two stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.||||6.99|0.45|0.41
84741700|NCT04662060|169234694|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
84741701|NCT04662060|169234695|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
84741702|NCT04662060|169234697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
84741703|NCT04662060|169234698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
84741704|NCT04662060|169234699|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
84489590|NCT02194699|168730942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.70|-0.40|0.5864
84489591|NCT02194699|168730942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.63|0.4689
84489592|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.15||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|24.43|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||24.43|-12.13|0.5094
84489593|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.02||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|14.26|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.26|-8.22|0.5984
84489594|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.84||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|26.0|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||26.00|-10.32|0.3971
84489595|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.59||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|14.83|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.83|-7.65|0.5310
84489596|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.46||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|12.97|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||12.97|-6.06|0.4764
84489597|NCT02194699|168730943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|13.37|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||13.37|-5.60|0.4221
84548964|NCT02649439|168851034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0255||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0255
84741705|NCT03086655|169234701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.93|||||This is the 'inflation part' of the zero inflated negative binomial model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations over time being nested within participant. Result shows odds of intervention group relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing a large number of 0. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 1: the odds of having 0 openings is lower in intervention than control group."||1.93|0.90|
84548965|NCT02649439|168851034|OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical PD-L1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0021
84548966|NCT02649439|168851034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte PD-1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0486
84741706|NCT03086655|169234701|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||This is the negative binomial part of the model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations being nested within participant. Result shows intervention group had lower rate of openings relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing many 0s. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 2: the incidence rate ratio for # days with box opening is \>1, i.e. more openings in intervention than control group."||0.98|0.61|
84741707|NCT03086655|169234702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (2 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for both 6 mo. by intervention and 12 mo. by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of undetectable VL as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of undetectable VL will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
84741708|NCT03086655|169234703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|(equal variances assumed)|Difference = control group - treatment group|||0.43|-0.11|<0.05
84741709|NCT03086655|169234704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (4 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for all follow-ups by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of optimal adherence as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of optimal adherence will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
84741710|NCT03841526|169234706|OTHER|Parameters that did not meet normality criterion were analyzed non-parametrically. Overall treatment effect was assessed using Friedman's test.||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean incidence rates among the 3 treatment groups in the Outpatient Phase. If the performed Friedman's test yielded an overall p-value less than 0.05, post-hoc analysis of groups means were conducted to statistically determine which group means differed.||||0.0002
84548967|NCT02649439|168851035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7317||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD4 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7317
84548968|NCT02649439|168851035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7545||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD8 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7545
84548969|NCT02649439|168851035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in Treg between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.5310
84548970|NCT02649439|168851035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in NK between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.8451
84603705|NCT01459653|168958077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.596||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.340|1.088|0.017
84548971|NCT02649439|168851035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9377||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in MDSC between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.9377
84548972|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2012
84548973|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4891||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4891
84548974|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4609||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4609
84548975|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
84548976|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0825
84548977|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5988
84548978|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5920
84548979|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6221
84548980|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
84548981|NCT02649439|168851036|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7910
84548982|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
84548983|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
84603706|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.281|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.281|1.152|0.006
84489598|NCT02194699|168730944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.04||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.14|-11.21|0.1099
84489599|NCT02194699|168730944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.25|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||4.25|-3.33|0.8112
84489600|NCT02194699|168730944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||2.01|-4.40|0.4645
84489601|NCT02194699|168730945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.33|0.44|0.3440
84489602|NCT02194699|168730945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.46|0.75|0.7768
84489603|NCT02194699|168730945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.69|0.5276
84489604|NCT00649220|168730978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22626||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-side, paired t-test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.22626
84489605|NCT00649220|168730978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.34192
84489606|NCT01111058|168730988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in survival proportions|0.0022||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates|Used Greenwood standard errors||||0.33|-0.33|0.90
84489607|NCT01111058|168730988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
84548984|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9097
84548985|NCT02649439|168851036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
84741711|NCT03841526|169234706|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||<0.0001
84489608|NCT01111058|168730989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.086
84489609|NCT02790476|168730997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (288.36-347.65 = -59.29) and control (318.60-350.09 = -31.49) arms, resulting in a difference of -27.80.|1-3 months post intervention||-17.63|-38.20|<0.05
84489610|NCT02790476|168730997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (167.83-347.65 = -179.83) and control (182.67-350.09 = -167.41) arms, resulting in a difference of -12.42.|||-6.55|-18.40|<0.01
84489611|NCT02790476|168730998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.45-3.74 = -0.29) and control (3.45-4.59= -0.64) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.35.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.22|-0.92|0.224
84548986|NCT04606394|168851083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.33
84603707|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.898||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.979|1.209|0.005
84741712|NCT03841526|169234706|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.0032
84603708|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.984|||Regression, Logistic|||History of repeated infections at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.984|1.200|0.016
84603709|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.660|0.291|<0.001
84603710|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.295|3.256|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||3.256|1.295|0.002
84603711|NCT01459653|168958078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.558||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.939|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS at enrollment (1 vs. 0) as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.939|0.332|0.028
84603712|NCT01459653|168958079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2064||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1931|4.0803|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient level predictor: History of anemia at enrollment||4.0803|1.1931|0.0116
84603713|NCT01459653|168958079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2754|4.1656|||Regression, Logistic|||Liver/renal/cardiac comorbidity as patient level predictor||4.1656|1.2754|0.0057
84603714|NCT01459653|168958079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2159|37.4243|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient level predictor||37.4243|8.2159|<0.0001
84603715|NCT01459653|168958083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for cancer-related mortality||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
84603716|NCT01459653|168958083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient-level predictor||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
84603717|NCT00957944|168958092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0302||||||90.0|0.9693|1.0951|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0951|0.9693|
84603718|NCT00957944|168958093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0571||||||90.0|0.9903|1.1284|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.1284|0.9903|
84603719|NCT00957944|168958094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0289||||||90.0|0.9714|1.0899|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0899|0.9714|
84603720|NCT00445848|168958117|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The overall survival rate at year 1 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.85|0.67|
84603721|NCT00445848|168958117|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.67||||||The overall survival rate at year 2 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.67|0.46|
84603722|NCT00445848|168958117|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53||||||The overall survival rate at year 3 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.53|0.32|
84603723|NCT00027378|168958125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.702||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.05
84741713|NCT03841526|169234706|OTHER|||||||0.2072|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.2072
84741714|NCT03841526|169234709|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84741715|NCT03841526|169234710|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8590
84741716|NCT00918879|169234748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0011||95.0|-0.73|-0.18|||ANCOVA|\* adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0011
84741717|NCT00918879|169234749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.438||0.0623||95.0|-20.91|0.53|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.53|-20.91|0.0623
84741718|NCT00918879|169234750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0623||95.0|-1.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.02|-1.17|0.0623
84489612|NCT02790476|168730998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.00-3.74 = -0.74) and control (3.15-4.59= -1.44) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.70.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
84489613|NCT02790476|168730998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.00-2.14 = -0.14) and control (2.20-2.55= -0.35) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.21.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.17|-0.59|0.279
84489614|NCT02790476|168730998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (1.71-2.14 = -0.43) and control (1.74-2.55= -0.81) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.38.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.12|-0.63|<0.01
84603724|NCT00759356|168958139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|Mean ratio|109.8||||||90.0|95.3|126.5|||ANOVA|||||126.5|95.3|
84489615|NCT02790476|168730999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pre-intervention values were trimmed at 95% with bootstrapped means and confidence intervals.|This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean DME in the letter (72.3-76 = -3.7) and control (82-82.9 = -0.9) arms, resulting in a difference of -1.6.|||-0.1|-3.2|<0.05
84489616|NCT02790476|168731001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.44-3.72 = -1.28) and control (2.26-3.51= -1.25) arms, resulting in a difference of 0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.29|-0.23|0.823
84489617|NCT02790476|168731001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.08-3.72 = -1.64) and control (1.84-3.51= -1.67) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||0.14|-0.20|0.692
84489618|NCT03287089|168731002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.43|||Chi-squared|||||2.43|0.49|0.84
84489619|NCT03287089|168731003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
84489620|NCT03287089|168731004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.68
84489621|NCT01729559|168731005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on a previous trial showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of unfractionated heparin (UFH) every 12 hr. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|15.8||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|Analysis was performed in a subset of patients who received at least one follow-up venous duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities.||15.8|-2.9|0.025
84489622|NCT01729559|168731005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on these data showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of UFH every 12 hours. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required. This analysis was performed in the entire sample.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.7||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|"Analysis was performed in the total sample of eligible patients and who received their assigned treatment (referred to as the randomized treated sample) ."||7.7|-1.6|0.025
84489623|NCT00608426|168731011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
84489624|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of telephone counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
84489625|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of in-person counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||0.57
84489626|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of used medications between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.15
84489627|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of combination counseling and medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
84489628|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of attended VA smoking cessation clinic between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.77
84489629|NCT00608426|168731012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of received VA smoking cessation medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.002
84489630|NCT00608426|168731013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.13
84603725|NCT00759356|168958141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.5||||||90.0|95.6|107.9|||ANOVA|||||107.9|95.6|
84489631|NCT01453439|168731016|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=90.9|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of interest: time by group interaction|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT.|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during treatment phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||<.01
84489632|NCT01453439|168731016|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of interest was the time by group interaction.|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT during follow-up (week 24 to week 50).|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during the follow-up phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity during follow-up will not differ significantly between CBT and SPT treatments \[to be tested\]."||||.62
84489633|NCT01453439|168731017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Degrees of freedom=93.2|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.10
84489634|NCT01453439|168731017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.45
84489635|NCT01453439|168731018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Degrees of freedom=89.1|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.05
84489636|NCT01453439|168731018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Degrees of freedom=63.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.26
84489637|NCT01453439|168731019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Degrees of freedom=91.4|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Quality of life satisfaction over time (During treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Quality of life satisfaction severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.04
84548987|NCT04606394|168851084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.04
84548988|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.04|0.46|
84548989|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.38|0.60|
84548990|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.96|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||0.96|0.41|
84548991|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.71|0.98|
84548992|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.88|0.51|
84603726|NCT00759356|168958142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|95.9|107.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||107.9|95.9|
84603727|NCT03054350|168958146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.82|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.82|0.56|0.0004
84489638|NCT01453439|168731019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in the quality of life satisfaction over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in the quality of life satisfaction in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.82
84489639|NCT01453439|168731020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3007||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of interest: Treatment main effect, two-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=112) = 5.17|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant different in the perceived credibility of CBT and SPT.||||0.0095
84489640|NCT01453439|168731024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Degrees of freedom=88.0|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts, and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.30
84489641|NCT01453439|168731024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.85
84489642|NCT01453439|168731025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6882||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment - F(num def=1,den df=79.9) = 15.55|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment satisfaction between patients with BDD assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0235
84489643|NCT01453439|168731026|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4259||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha=0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment group, site, time (repeated)) effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=110) = 7.59|Least Squares Mean difference|Null hypotheses: There is no significant difference in patient expectancy of improvement between BDD patients assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0069
84489644|NCT01014442|168731027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.305||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.25|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2500|-0.8300|0.2649
84489645|NCT01014442|168731027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.405||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.78|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||42.7800|-10.2000|0.3113
84489646|NCT01014442|168731027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.305||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.8100|0.2953
84489647|NCT01014442|168731028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.29||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.41|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4100|-2.9900|0.1308
84489648|NCT01014442|168731028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-10.845||||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|20.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||20.7900|-31.5000|0.4886
84548993|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.15|0.65|
84548994|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.78|0.91|
84489649|NCT01014442|168731028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.6000|0.2218
84489650|NCT01014442|168731029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.87||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-3.7900|0.0886
84603728|NCT03054350|168958146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.19|0.93|<0.0001
84548995|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.33|0.68|
84548996|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.87|
84548997|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||0.82|0.46|
84548998|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.17|1.22|
84548999|NCT03423173|168851108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.35|0.75|
84549000|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rates Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|6.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||6.06|-4.99|
84549001|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.19|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||3.19|-6.90|
84549002|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||2.69|-7.45|
84549003|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.3|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||15.30|0.64|
84549004|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.65|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||7.65|-4.67|
84549005|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.04|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||1.04|-14.00|
84549006|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.29|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||5.29|-3.87|
84549007|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||3.17|-5.24|
84549008|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.58|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||2.58|-6.05|
84741719|NCT00918879|169234751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-1.7|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-1.7|
84741720|NCT00515671|169234761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8868
84741721|NCT00515671|169234762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3328
84741722|NCT00288639|169234763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.232||||95.0|-34.16|-11.28|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-11.28|-34.16|
84741723|NCT00288639|169234764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-17.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.797||||95.0|-27.36|-7.15|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-7.15|-27.36|
84741724|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.615||||95.0|-34.16|-10.71|||||1-28 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts.Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.71|-34.16|
84741725|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.543||||95.0|-34.74|-10.91|||||29-56 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.91|-34.74|
84741726|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-27.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.323||||95.0|-39.9|-14.46|||||57-84 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency. .|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-14.46|-39.90|
84741727|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-30.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.11||||95.0|-43.44|-18.06|||||85-112 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-18.06|-43.44|
84741728|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-38.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.368||||95.0|-51.79|-25.7|||||113-140 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-25.70|-51.79|
84741729|NCT00288639|169234765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-44.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.703||||95.0|-58.47|-30.01|||||\>140 Days. Response ratio= 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-30.01|-58.47|
84741730|NCT00288639|169234766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|7.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.425||||95.0|-17.6|31.98|||||Simple Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||31.98|-17.60|
84741731|NCT00288639|169234766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.058||||95.0|-37.8|-6.69|||||Complex Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.69|-37.80|
84741732|NCT00288639|169234766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-23.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.313||||95.0|-55.33|7.64|||||Evolved to Generalized. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||7.64|-55.33|
84741733|NCT00288639|169234770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-24.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.867||||95.0|-43.66|-6.2|||||Seizure freq. ≤3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.20|-43.66|
84741734|NCT00288639|169234770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-20.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.334||||95.0|-35.24|-6.33|||||Seizure freq. \>3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.33|-35.24|
84489651|NCT01014442|168731029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-30.76||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-6.36|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-6.3600|-54.9700|0.0220
84489652|NCT01014442|168731029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.2700|-1.0200|0.0008
84489653|NCT01014442|168731030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|3.945||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.2300|0.2500|0.0318
84549009|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|7.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||7.44|-2.12|
84549010|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.24|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||5.24|-3.41|
84549011|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||3.17|-6.67|
84549012|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||9.06|-3.07|
84549013|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|4.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||4.44|-6.17|
84549014|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.03|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||2.03|-9.74|
84549015|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.56|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||14.56|-1.03|
84549016|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|10.23|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||10.23|-4.28|
84549017|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|4.39|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||4.39|-11.97|
84549018|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|1.55|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||1.55|-7.68|
84549019|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|5.62|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||5.62|-5.47|
84549020|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.81|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||7.81|-1.52|
84603729|NCT03054350|168958146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.54|1.23|<0.0001
84741735|NCT00567567|169234780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|6.9883||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - Single HST (CEM) and randomized to Regimen B - Tandem HST (CEM) were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0082
84489654|NCT01014442|168731030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-7.59||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.19|30.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.7000|-51.1900|0.7144
84489655|NCT01014442|168731030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.27||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.88|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.8800|-0.3100|0.3930
84489656|NCT01014442|168731031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|17.08||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|74.32|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||74.3200|-16.5000|0.3002
84549021|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|5.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||5.69|-9.14|
84549022|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.95|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||8.95|-6.90|
84549023|NCT03423173|168851109|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.18|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||10.18|-4.68|
84549024|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.42|0.56|
84549025|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.28|0.51|
84549026|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.16|0.46|
84549027|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.86|1.02|
84549028|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.87|0.48|
84603730|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups;1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.54|0.04|0.0232
84549029|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.21|0.66|
84549030|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.94|1.00|
84549031|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.21|0.64|
84549032|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.88|
84549033|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.18|0.58|
84549034|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.14|1.07|
84603731|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.62|0.13|0.0033
84603732|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.74|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.74|0.26|0.0002
84603733|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.3289
84603734|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.2607
84603735|NCT03054350|168958152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.03|0.00|0.0252
84603736|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.94|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.94|0.67|0.0154
84741736|NCT00567567|169234781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-squared test statistic|8.5751||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of proportions in all patients to compare the proportion of responders (complete response \[CR\]+ very good partial response \[VGPR\]) at the end of induction therapy in this study to an analogous cohort of responders in A3973.||||0.0034
84549035|NCT03423173|168851110|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.78|0.88|
84549036|NCT02411396|168851139|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.3|130.9||||||This analysis is to compare outcome measure between ED or IC visits by using time varying propensity score method developed by our group to adjust imbalance of covariates between the two arms. Each patient can have multiple visits to the facility of choice.||130.9|118.3|
84603737|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.16|2.06|0.0008
84603738|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|8.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||8.56|3.31|<0.0001
84603739|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.81|-0.30|0.3572
84603740|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.69|-0.33|0.4758
84603741|NCT03054350|168958154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.84|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.84|-0.19|0.2048
84603742|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9373
84603743|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6623|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.6623
84603744|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9374
84603745|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2085|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.2085
84603746|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0016
84603747|NCT03054350|168958156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0001
84603748|NCT03054350|168958158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2708|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.2708
84741737|NCT00567567|169234782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Gray's test statistic|0.33709||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Gray's test for competing risks|||The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence between patients from ANBL0532 randomized or assigned to receive single CEM transplant and boost radiation and A3973 patients who were transplanted and received boost radiation were compared using Gray's test.||||0.5615
84741738|NCT00567567|169234783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0557||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0939
84741739|NCT00567567|169234784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.0543||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3277
84741740|NCT00567567|169234785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4328||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4105|5.001|||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used instead of chi-square test due to small expected cell counts.||Null Hypothesis: The response rate after two cycles of induction therapy and the presence of a polymorphism are independent in the study population||5.001|0.4105|0.7598
84741741|NCT00567567|169234789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The relationship between the peak serum isotretinoin concentration level with event-free survival was explored with a Cox proportional hazards model. Eligible patients treated with isotretinoin on A3973, ANBL0032, ANBL0532, or ANBL0931 with peak serum concentration level data were included in the analysis.||||0.6853
84741742|NCT03433677|169234797|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.00|0.00|0.375
84741743|NCT03433677|169234798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Prescott's Exact test|||||||0.468
84741744|NCT03433677|169234799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84741745|NCT03433677|169234800|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-5.3|0.304
84741746|NCT03433677|169234801|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.4||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.8|0.057
84489657|NCT01014442|168731032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-25.24||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.25|-2.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.2900|-53.2500|0.0334
84549037|NCT02411396|168851140|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.41|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||6.41|4.13|
84741747|NCT03433677|169234802|SUPERIORITY||LSMeans|0.11||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean Difference|||0.27|-0.05|0.177
84741748|NCT02175641|169234878|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a logistic link|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.62|>0.05
84549038|NCT02411396|168851141|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.72|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||2.72|1.84|
84741749|NCT02175641|169234879|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time by treatment interaction coefficien|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.804
84603749|NCT03054350|168958158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0966
84741750|NCT02175641|169234880|OTHER||Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84741751|NCT02175641|169234881|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|time*treatment interaction coefficient|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84741752|NCT02175641|169234882|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
84741753|NCT02175641|169234883|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
84741754|NCT02175641|169234884|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
84741755|NCT02175641|169234885|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84741756|NCT01145898|169234910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||There will be (as shown) differences in the number of subjects based upon the time of analysis due to patient loss, data of insufficient quality at visit, or change in the drug use during period of study (patient switched off treatment by their doctor) so the number of data points varies throughout the analysis by availability.||||.6261
84741757|NCT01145898|169234911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6081
84741758|NCT01145898|169234912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1822
84741759|NCT01145898|169234913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
84741760|NCT01145898|169234914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
84741761|NCT01145898|169234915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1564
84741762|NCT01145898|169234916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2265||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2265
84741763|NCT01145898|169234917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4645||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4645
84741764|NCT01145898|169234918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5998
84741765|NCT01145898|169234919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.8119
84741766|NCT01145898|169234920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1319
84603750|NCT03054350|168958158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0424
84741767|NCT01145898|169234921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0199
84549039|NCT01631149|168851144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The individual scores obtained during surgery were averaged.~The average values were compared using a t-test between treatments."||||<0.001
84549040|NCT00637000|168851167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|The statistical method used was a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||To test the primary study hypothesis that neither soluble film formulation would precipitate an opioid withdrawal syndrome, peak COWS score in the 23.5 hour period after the initial soluble film administration were compared to pre-administration baseline COWS scores (30 minutes prior to soluble film administration) using a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||<0.0001
84549041|NCT00637000|168851168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.000
84549042|NCT00637000|168851169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.035
84549043|NCT00637000|168851170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549044|NCT00637000|168851171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549045|NCT00637000|168851172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.006
84549046|NCT00637000|168851173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549047|NCT00637000|168851174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84741768|NCT01145898|169234922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7597
84741769|NCT01145898|169234923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2528
84549048|NCT00637000|168851175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.762
84549049|NCT00637000|168851176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549050|NCT00637000|168851177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.349
84549051|NCT00637000|168851178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.028
84549052|NCT00637000|168851179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549053|NCT00637000|168851180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549054|NCT00637000|168851181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.117
84549055|NCT00637000|168851182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
84549056|NCT00637000|168851183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.238
84549057|NCT00839527|168851185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.07|<0.0001
84549058|NCT00839527|168851185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a one-sided t-test testing at the 0.025 level of significance whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - pioglitazone) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.40|0.10|0.2685
84549059|NCT00943150|168851199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84549060|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 0 weeks||||0.33
84603751|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0207
84603752|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0022
84603753|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
84603754|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0062
84741770|NCT02193490|169234991|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84741771|NCT02193490|169234992|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.078
84741772|NCT02193490|169234993|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84741773|NCT02299414|169234994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||.92|.73|<0.001
84741774|NCT02299414|169234994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||||||||.90|.70|
84741775|NCT02299414|169234994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89||||||||.89|.60|
84741776|NCT02299414|169234994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64||||||||1.64|.49|
84489658|NCT01014442|168731033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-23.805||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.27|5.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.9700|-52.2700|0.1151
84489659|NCT01014442|168731034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-15.63||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|30.56|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.5600|-63.8800|0.5974
84489660|NCT01014442|168731035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0005||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00103|0.00259|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00259|-0.00103|0.5466
84489661|NCT01014442|168731035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00728||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00707|0.03161|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.03161|-0.00707|0.3223
84489662|NCT01014442|168731035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00026||||0.2108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.00012|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00012|-0.00070|0.2108
84489663|NCT01014442|168731035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000112||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000014|0.0000462|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called a Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000462|-0.0000140|0.4334
84489664|NCT01014442|168731036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00081||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00216|0.0003|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00030|-0.00216|0.1511
84489665|NCT01014442|168731036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00695||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0205|0.01103|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01103|-0.02050|0.4131
84489666|NCT01014442|168731036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00017||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00046|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00046|0.2677
84489667|NCT01014442|168731036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000185||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000394|-0.000005|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000050|-0.0000394|0.0173
84549061|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 3 weeks||||0.02
84549062|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 6 weeks||||0.71
84549063|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 0 weeks||||0.67
84549064|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 3 weeks||||0.01
84549065|NCT00943150|168851200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 6 weeks||||0.48
84489668|NCT01014442|168731037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00063||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00084|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00084|-0.00230|0.3784
84489669|NCT01014442|168731037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.01602||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03229|0.00297|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00297|-0.03229|0.0942
84489670|NCT01014442|168731037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00037||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00062|-0.00015|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00015|-0.00062|0.0032
84549066|NCT00943150|168851201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1128||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1128
84549067|NCT00943150|168851202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0898
84741777|NCT02299414|169234994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||||||||1.21|.54|
84549068|NCT00943150|168851203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Intraoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.0760
84549069|NCT00943150|168851203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Postoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.5900
84549070|NCT00943150|168851204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4589
84549071|NCT00943150|168851205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.999
84549072|NCT00943150|168851206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0412
84549073|NCT04513080|168851210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
84549074|NCT04513080|168851210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
84549075|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
84549076|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
84549077|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
84549078|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
84549079|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
84549080|NCT04513080|168851211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
84741778|NCT02299414|169234995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.85|0.56
84549081|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||||0.93|0.67|
84549082|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
84549083|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
84549084|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
84549085|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||||0.93|0.59|
84549086|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||||||||0.72|0.52|
84549087|NCT02477826|168851220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89||||||||0.89|0.49|
84549088|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91||||||||0.91|0.67|
84549089|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||||1.05|0.78|
84549090|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||||||||1.01|0.74|
84549091|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||||||||0.79|0.51|
84549092|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||||0.96|0.63|
84549093|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87||||||||0.87|0.64|
84549094|NCT02477826|168851221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14||||||||1.14|0.64|
84549095|NCT00828568|168851224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence limit around the difference in proportion of patients considered a Treatment Success between test and reference products was calculated using Blackwelder's method with Yate's continuity correction. If the 90% confidence interval for the test to reference ratio for the primary endpoint was within -0.20 to +0.20, then the test product would have been declared therapeutically equivalent to the reference product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85||||||90.0|-5.37|15.08||||||||15.08|-5.37|
84549096|NCT00828568|168851226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84549097|NCT00828568|168851226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
84549098|NCT00403481|168851227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549099|NCT00403481|168851228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 for both daytime and nighttime. No multiplicity adjustments.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549100|NCT00403481|168851229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549101|NCT00403481|168851230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||0.0001
84549102|NCT00403481|168851232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549103|NCT00403481|168851233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both the daytime and nighttime analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549104|NCT00403481|168851234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549105|NCT00403481|168851235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both 4 hour and 6 hour analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84549106|NCT03139578|168851239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.06|0.46|
84603755|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0002
84603756|NCT03054350|168958160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
84741779|NCT02299414|169234996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.26||||||||1.26|.45|
84741780|NCT02299414|169234997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||||0.91|0.77|
84741781|NCT02299414|169234998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||||.99|.77|
84741782|NCT02299414|169234999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.3|.45|
84741783|NCT02299414|169235000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||||1.18|.98|
84741784|NCT02299414|169235001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.89||||||||.89|.69|
84741785|NCT02299414|169235002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||||||||1.04|0.68|
84549107|NCT03139578|168851239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.52|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||2.52|0.34|
84549108|NCT03139578|168851240|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.1|98.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||98.1|81.1|
84549109|NCT03139578|168851240|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|68.3|92.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||92.1|68.3|
84549110|NCT03139578|168851240|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100|90.5|
84549111|NCT03139578|168851240|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100.0|90.5|
84549112|NCT03139578|168851241|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.7|-0.3|
84549113|NCT03139578|168851241|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
84549114|NCT03139578|168851242|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.4|
84549115|NCT03139578|168851242|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.2|
84549116|NCT03139578|168851243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.1|
84549117|NCT03139578|168851243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.2|
84549118|NCT03139578|168851244|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
84741786|NCT02299414|169235003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||||.90|.74|
84489671|NCT01014442|168731037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000126||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000328|-0.0000091|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000091|-0.0000328|0.1760
84603757|NCT05894538|168958182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
84741787|NCT02299414|169235004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|.93|
84741788|NCT02299414|169235005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.27||||||||1.27|.59|
84741789|NCT02299414|169235006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||||||||1.02|.81|
84741790|NCT02299414|169235007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||||||||.97|.71|
84741791|NCT02299414|169235008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.11|
84489672|NCT01014442|168731038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0043||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00027|0.00833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00833|-0.00027|0.0509
84489673|NCT01014442|168731038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00567||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03414|0.02671|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.02671|-0.03414|0.8262
84741792|NCT02299414|169235009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56||||||||0.56|0.05|
84549119|NCT03139578|168851244|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.6|
84549120|NCT03139578|168851245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.012|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.012|-0.009|
84549121|NCT03139578|168851245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.009|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.009|-0.012|
84549122|NCT02549287|168851257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.55||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.20|-0.11|0.12
84549123|NCT02549287|168851258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.03|-0.20|0.14
84549124|NCT02549287|168851259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.07||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.07|-0.20|0.20
84549125|NCT02549287|168851260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.43|-0.58|0.77
84603758|NCT05894538|168958183|SUPERIORITY|Due to the low event rate, a posterior probability was not estimated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|17.18|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||17.18|0.74|
84603759|NCT05894538|168958186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.45|0.60|
84549126|NCT02549287|168851261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.97|||Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.97|-0.27|0.29
84549127|NCT02549287|168851262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.49||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.06||Other \[Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)\]|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.06|-0.08|0.15
84669172|NCT01480076|169072589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
84741793|NCT02299414|169235010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|20.9||||||||20.9|-17.6|
84549128|NCT02549287|168851263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.52||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.52|-0.73|0.61
84549129|NCT02549287|168851264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.22||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.32||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.32|-0.76|0.47
84549130|NCT02549287|168851265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||2.20|-3.70|0.65
84549131|NCT02549287|168851266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.69|-0.59|0.64
84549132|NCT02549287|168851267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.29||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.29|-0.79|0.44
84549133|NCT02549287|168851268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.25||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.89||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.89|-0.39|0.47
84603760|NCT05894538|168958190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.96|0.61|
84603761|NCT05894538|168958190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.85|0.49|
84741794|NCT02299414|169235011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|.81|
84741795|NCT02299414|169235012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||||||||1.42|.55|
84741796|NCT02299414|169235013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.05||||||||1.05|.18|
84741797|NCT02299414|169235014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||||||||1.06|.71|
84741798|NCT02299414|169235015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|.24|
84741799|NCT02299414|169235016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||||||||1.12|.85|
84549134|NCT02549287|168851269|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|3.22||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||3.22|-3.57|0.63
84741800|NCT02299414|169235017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.37||||||||1.37|0.30|
84549135|NCT03793842|168851270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 J/min||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84741801|NCT02299414|169235018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.06||||||||7.06|.14|
84549136|NCT03793842|168851271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84741802|NCT02299414|169235019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08||||||||1.08|.81|
84549137|NCT03793842|168851272|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 cm H20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84549138|NCT03793842|168851273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84549139|NCT03793842|168851274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84549140|NCT00520533|168851305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Biological T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.194
84741803|NCT02299414|169235020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.16||||||||1.16|0.62|
84549141|NCT00520533|168851306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Effective T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.172
84603762|NCT05894538|168958190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.92|0.52|
84741804|NCT02299414|169235021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05||||||||1.05|.36|
84741805|NCT02299414|169235022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.2|
84741806|NCT02299414|169235023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
84741807|NCT02299414|169235024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.002||||||||0.002|-0.12|
84741808|NCT02299414|169235025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
84741809|NCT02299414|169235026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
84549142|NCT01075256|168851325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.46||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no diference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.46|-6.70|0.3628
84603763|NCT05894538|168958190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.72|
84603764|NCT05894538|168958191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.56|1.03|
84603765|NCT05894538|168958191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|1.00|
84603766|NCT05894538|168958191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.87|
84603767|NCT05894538|168958191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.86|
84603768|NCT05894538|168958192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.81|
84603769|NCT05894538|168958192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.66|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.66|1.00|
84489674|NCT01014442|168731038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00023||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0007|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00070|-0.00030|0.4345
84489675|NCT01014442|168731038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000586|0.0000364|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000364|-0.0000586|0.6472
84489676|NCT01014442|168731039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-1.9500|0.5745
84489677|NCT01014442|168731039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3333|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.3333|0.2003
84603770|NCT05894538|168958192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||2.02|1.15|
84603771|NCT05894538|168958192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.86|
84603772|NCT05894538|168958193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.76|
84603773|NCT05894538|168958193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.75|
84603774|NCT05894538|168958193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.72|
84603775|NCT05894538|168958193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.75|
84603776|NCT05894538|168958194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.84|
84741810|NCT04608773|169235051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Dry mouth score between Refresh and Biotene. ANCOVA model was performed by regressing the difference in after-treatment measurement between Refresh and Biotene over the difference of baseline between Refresh and Biotene. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two- sided)||||<0.501
84741811|NCT04608773|169235052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.109
84489678|NCT01014442|168731039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.5||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0833|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.0833|0.0929
84489679|NCT01014442|168731039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0667|0.0000|0.0823
84489680|NCT01014442|168731040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0417||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.7333|-0.5000|0.8106
84741812|NCT04608773|169235053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.107
84489681|NCT01014442|168731040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.1667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1667|-0.1667|1.0000
84489682|NCT01014442|168731040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0667||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3333|1.4667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.4667|-0.3333|0.6311
84741813|NCT04608773|169235054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.489
84489683|NCT01014442|168731040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.0167|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0167|-0.1667|0.4330
84741814|NCT04608773|169235055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.213
84741815|NCT04608773|169235056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
84741816|NCT02833077|169235058|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|28.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|45.6||If the 2-sided p-value is \< 0.05, the responder rate is greater for treatment than for control group, and point estimate of the responder rater for treatment group is greater than 50%, then treatment will be considered superior to control group.|Fisher's exact test|||Superiority of treatment group was established if responder rate at month 6 was statistically greater than that for the control group at month 6 and the observed responder rate at month 6 for the treatment group was greater than 50%.||45.60|11.16|0.0019
84741817|NCT02833077|169235059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at month 6 visit is statistically greater than that at the baseline for the treatment group.|Two sided paired t-test|||||||<.0001
84741818|NCT01077518|169235062|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.07|0.62|0.1390
84549143|NCT01075256|168851325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|4.83||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.83|-4.45|0.9361
84603777|NCT05894538|168958194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.43|0.87|
84603778|NCT05894538|168958194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.91|
84741819|NCT01077518|169235063|OTHER||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.76||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.06|0.55|0.1076
84741820|NCT01077518|169235064|OTHER|||||||0.8003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for All participants||||0.8003
84489684|NCT01014442|168731041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.5833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5833|-1.1667|1.0000
84489685|NCT01014442|168731041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0833||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.0000|0.4947
84489686|NCT01014442|168731041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1667||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9667|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2000|-1.9667|0.4425
84489687|NCT01014442|168731041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0333|-0.0500|0.9720
84489688|NCT01014442|168731042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.7000|-1.1667|0.8834
84489689|NCT01014442|168731042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8333||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.2000|0.0386
84489690|NCT01014442|168731042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.525||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6167|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.6167|0.0558
84489691|NCT01014442|168731042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.15||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|-0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0667|-0.2333|0.0082
84489692|NCT01014442|168731043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.13||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-0.2600|0.5224
84603779|NCT05894538|168958194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.75|
84741821|NCT01077518|169235065|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) participants||||0.6130
84741822|NCT01077518|169235066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|||for All patients||1.21|0.62|0.4046
84741823|NCT01077518|169235067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Stratified Log Rank|||for FL participants||1.25|0.55|0.3768
84741824|NCT03524092|169235090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|31.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|15.2|<0.001
84741825|NCT03524092|169235091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|20.2|<0.001
84741826|NCT03524092|169235092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|14.5|<0.001
84741827|NCT03524092|169235093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.6|21.9|<0.001
84741828|NCT03524092|169235094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.6|22.4|<0.001
84741829|NCT03524092|169235095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.9|22.3|<0.001
84741830|NCT03524092|169235096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.16|31.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||31.32|19.16|<0.001
84741831|NCT03524092|169235097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-839.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1323.08|-356.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||-356.21|-1323.08|<0.001
84489693|NCT01014442|168731043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.16||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|30.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.2900|-5.2900|0.2088
84741832|NCT03524092|169235098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.51|<0.001
84741833|NCT04303780|169235101|EQUIVALENCE|A hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer PFS for AMG 510 relative to docetaxel. P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.509|0.002
84489694|NCT01014442|168731043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.165||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0800|-0.4500|0.1794
84489695|NCT01014442|168731044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.125||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.3800|0.4027
84489696|NCT01014442|168731044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-16.09||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|6.39|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.3900|-29.3500|0.0875
84489697|NCT01014442|168731044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0500|-0.3500|0.0112
84489698|NCT01014442|168731045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.215||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0500|-0.5600|0.0818
84489699|NCT01014442|168731045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-14.03||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|2.94|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.9400|-26.9000|0.0945
84669173|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84489700|NCT01014442|168731045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.19||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0400|-0.4100|0.0081
84489701|NCT01014442|168731046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.36||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-1.1400|0.3289
84489702|NCT01014442|168731046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-20.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|4.71|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.7100|-49.3900|0.1243
84489703|NCT01014442|168731046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.03||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2300|-0.2800|0.8704
84489704|NCT01014442|168731047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|5.22||||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|24.49|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||24.4900|-5.0100|0.4043
84489705|NCT01014442|168731048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.44||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|8.01|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.0100|-6.0700|0.8930
84489706|NCT01014442|168731049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.935||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|1.11|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1100|-14.3100|0.0819
84741834|NCT05718466|169235103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84669174|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741835|NCT05718466|169235104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84489707|NCT01014442|168731050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.205||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-0.07|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0700|-19.2700|0.0414
84489708|NCT01014442|168731051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|69.7186||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4659|162.9545|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||162.9545|-23.4659|0.1552
84489709|NCT01014442|168731051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.7836||||0.6057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2675|2.5529|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.5529|-3.2675|0.6057
84489710|NCT01014442|168731051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|299.1021||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5869|695.1789|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||695.1789|79.5869|0.0188
84489711|NCT01014442|168731052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|88.959||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7876|209.0183|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||209.0183|-5.7876|0.0659
84489712|NCT01014442|168731052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.4456||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1366|2.292|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.2920|-3.1366|0.7842
84489713|NCT01014442|168731052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|121.3737||||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.6483|560.0069|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||560.0069|-233.6483|0.4072
84489714|NCT01014442|168731053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|207.9933||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2442|355.1739|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||355.1739|71.2442|0.0040
84489715|NCT01014442|168731053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|2.6186||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1999|6.7766|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.7766|-0.1999|0.0689
84489716|NCT01014442|168731053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|635.7812||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4696|2793.7642|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2793.7642|49.4696|0.0306
84489717|NCT01014442|168731054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.7477||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5212|59.8304|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||59.8304|-73.5212|0.9029
84489718|NCT01014442|168731054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0077||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6739|3.9521|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.9521|-3.6739|0.9692
84489719|NCT01014442|168731054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-149.7962||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-644.4526|311.9735|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||311.9735|-644.4526|0.3744
84489720|NCT01014442|168731055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|7.8422||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|18.4444|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||18.4444|-3.9110|0.1362
84489721|NCT01014442|168731055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1609||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5693|0.271|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2710|-0.5693|0.4325
84489722|NCT01014442|168731055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|47.2686||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.197|112.7806|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||112.7806|4.1970|0.0316
84489723|NCT01014442|168731056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estmator|19.0536||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|35.3852|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||35.3852|-0.4250|0.0572
84489724|NCT01014442|168731056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.3541||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2524|1.1097|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1097|-0.2524|0.3198
84489725|NCT01014442|168731056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|54.0322||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7706|160.3469|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||160.3469|-6.7706|0.0845
84489726|NCT01014442|168731057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|25.0037||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2373|43.5102|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||43.5102|8.2373|0.0048
84489727|NCT01014442|168731057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.4297||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.9925|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.9925|0.0340|0.0277
84489728|NCT01014442|168731057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|318.5455||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.1902|526.1716|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||526.1716|154.1902|0.0002
84489729|NCT01014442|168731058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.579||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5052|11.6346|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||11.6346|-14.5052|0.9417
84489730|NCT01014442|168731058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1817||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1954|0.6246|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.6246|-0.1954|0.2941
84489731|NCT01014442|168731058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.9076||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8234|109.9321|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||109.9321|-84.8234|0.8170
84489732|NCT01014442|168731059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.4102||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5642|3.0044|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.0044|-8.5642|0.2798
84489733|NCT01014442|168731059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|72.7203||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1596|393.5295|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||393.5295|-107.1596|0.4063
84489734|NCT01014442|168731059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-3.6042||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1854|-0.1887|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.1887|-8.1854|0.0441
84489735|NCT01014442|168731060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-5.8077||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7302|0.0033|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0033|-11.7302|0.0510
84489736|NCT01014442|168731060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-171.159||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.4437|171.9652|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||171.9652|-361.4437|0.2733
84549144|NCT01075256|168851325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|2.3||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|6.92||No adustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.92|-2.31|0.3257
84549145|NCT01075256|168851326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|3.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||3.68|-5.73|0.6674
84741836|NCT01253135|169235106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.84|||Prentice-Wilcoxon test||The Confidence Interval was based on a t-distribution|||0.84|-3.08|.3393
84741837|NCT01253135|169235107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Testing was by a Log Rank test with significance being at P \< 0.05||||||.4771
84741838|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|77.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741839|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|28.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
84489737|NCT01014442|168731060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.9621||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8456|0.2067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2067|-4.8456|0.0718
84549146|NCT01075256|168851326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is the high concentration minus placebo such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.81|-4.74|0.9888
84549147|NCT01075256|168851326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|5.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.81|-3.69|0.6599
84549148|NCT01075256|168851327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.54||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.54|-6.34|0.9759
84549149|NCT01075256|168851327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.06|-6.97|0.8903
84549150|NCT01075256|168851327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|5.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.||5.93|-7.04|0.8662
84549151|NCT01075256|168851328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|5.66||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.66|-6.93|0.8419
84549152|NCT01075256|168851328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.72|-6.03|0.9147
84489738|NCT01014442|168731061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.6964||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7713|-4.6498|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-4.6498|-13.7713|0.0002
84549153|NCT01075256|168851328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|7.33||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.33|-5.36|0.7600
84603780|NCT05894538|168958195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.79|
84741840|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741841|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|4.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741842|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|79.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741843|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741844|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|3.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741845|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|6.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741846|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|82.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
84489739|NCT01014442|168731061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-268.9537||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.7782|-77.397|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-77.3970|-506.7782|0.0058
84741847|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.5||||||95.0||||||||||||
84489740|NCT01014442|168731061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1455|-2.6133|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.6133|-7.1455|<0.0001
84489741|NCT01014442|168731062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.7477||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.101|14.6563|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||14.6563|-12.1010|0.7144
84489742|NCT01014442|168731062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-156.3255||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0765|195.8348|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||195.8348|-526.0765|0.3413
84489743|NCT01014442|168731062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.888||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0288|4.2273|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2273|-3.0288|0.6251
84489744|NCT01014442|168731063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|24.315||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0292|79.365|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||79.3650|-16.0292|0.2342
84489745|NCT01014442|168731064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-13.5592||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.395|5.4825|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.4825|-37.3950|0.1964
84489746|NCT01014442|168731065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-22.7878||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8217|3.7573|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.7573|-44.8217|0.0672
84489747|NCT01014442|168731066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-21.4737||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1567|8.5708|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.5708|-64.1567|0.2453
84489748|NCT01014442|168731067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00237||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00734|0.00106|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00106|-0.00734|0.1362
84489749|NCT01014442|168731067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.04797||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08467|0.26322|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.26322|-0.08467|0.4325
84489750|NCT01014442|168731067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00311||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00645|-0.00029|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00029|-0.00645|0.0316
84489751|NCT01014442|168731067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000158||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000134|0.0000552|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000552|-0.0000134|0.3269
84489752|NCT01014442|168731068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00383||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00761|0.0001|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00010|-0.00761|0.0572
84489753|NCT01014442|168731068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.09626||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25269|0.11464|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.11464|-0.25269|0.3198
84489754|NCT01014442|168731068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00131||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00352|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00352|0.0845
84489755|NCT01014442|168731068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000025|0.0000043|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000043|-0.0000250|0.1769
84489756|NCT01014442|168731069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00876|-0.00148|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00148|-0.00876|0.0048
84549154|NCT01075256|168851329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|9.24||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.24|-8.28|0.9124
84549155|NCT01075256|168851329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level||8.14|-9.13|0.9083
84549156|NCT01075256|168851329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.77||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.77|-9.73|0.8231
84549157|NCT01075256|168851330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|16.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.09|-9.32|0.5946
84549158|NCT01075256|168851330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|12.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.60|-12.51|0.9944
84549159|NCT01075256|168851330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|9.38||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.38|-16.06|0.5998
84549160|NCT01075256|168851331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|8.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.09|-10.51|0.7952
84549161|NCT01075256|168851331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|6.76||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.76|-11.56|0.6010
84549162|NCT01075256|168851331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|8.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.10|-10.48|0.7976
84741848|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
84549163|NCT01075256|168851332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|11.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.68|-10.38|0.9060
84549164|NCT01075256|168851332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|9.25||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.25|-12.63|0.7575
84549165|NCT01075256|168851332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.42|8.73||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.73|-13.42|0.6727
84549166|NCT02115581|168851339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
84741849|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|5.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741850|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|76.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741851|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|20.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741852|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|6.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741853|NCT00379288|169235125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|3.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
84741854|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||1.0000
84549167|NCT02115581|168851340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84549168|NCT01399047|168851388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.243|||Prescott's test||Mycophenolate was tolerated in 17/19 subjects (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% - 98.7%), while placebo was tolerated in 19/19 subjects (100%, 95% CI: 82.4% - 100%). The difference in tolerability rates was 10.5% (95% CI: -3.3% - 24.3%, p=0.21).|The primary outcome variable was tolerability, defined as the proportion of subjects able to complete 8 weeks on the assigned treatment. Tolerability was compared among the treatment groups using Prescott's test. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the tolerability of mycophenolate, placebo, and their difference.||0.243|-0.033|0.21
84549169|NCT01399047|168851389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|3.28|||Prescott's test|||||3.28|-4.67|0.72
84549170|NCT01399047|168851390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.78
84549171|NCT01399047|168851391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.98
84549172|NCT01399047|168851392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84549173|NCT02046005|168851398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51||We compared the PRE-RA group (PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm combined) to the Comparison arm for the primary composite outcome at the 3 primary post-intervention time points using generalized estimating equations (GEE).|generalized estimating equations||PRE-RA group (combined PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm) compared to Comparison arm (reference)|"In the primary analysis, we combined the PRE-RA and PRE-RA Plus arms into a single PRE-RA group and compared it to the Comparison arm (aka General Rheumatoid Arthritis Education)"||1.51|1.01|0.043
84549174|NCT01729338|168851412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Compared baseline to 3 months|paired t-test|||||||0.45
84549175|NCT01729338|168851412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||paired t-test|compares baseline to month 5||||||0.19
84549176|NCT01729338|168851413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||baseline, 3 month|paired t-test|||||||0.1
84549177|NCT01729338|168851413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||paired t-test|baseline, month 5||||||0.09
84549178|NCT00251303|168851416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.959
84549179|NCT04532619|168851421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.89||Computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.89|0.10|0.014
84549180|NCT04532619|168851422|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.32|-0.41|0.80
84741855|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0991|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.0991
84549181|NCT04532619|168851423|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
84549182|NCT04532619|168851424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38||calculated p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.38|-0.04|0.118
84549183|NCT04532619|168851425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology. A logistic link function was used for this binary outcome.||||.24
84549184|NCT04532619|168851426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.98||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||1.98|-4.64|0.43
84549185|NCT04532619|168851427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.15||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.15|-4.27|0.07
84549186|NCT02986282|168851441|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0600326|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799661|-0.0449876|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was calculated that the study sample size of 79 subjects would be needed to detect a difference of 0.1 in the ABI measured in sinus rhythm and during atrial fibrillation, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and a (1-β) of 0.90. Our initial estimate of sample size of 115 patients incorporated an assumption of dropout. Intra-observer variability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficient.||-0.0449876|-0.0799661|<0.05
84549187|NCT02986282|168851442|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249837|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039992|-0.0100226|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0100226|-0.039992|<0.05
84549188|NCT03467217|168851445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|32.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of ALT.||||32.7|-30.6|.95
84549189|NCT03467217|168851446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of GGT.||||6.0|-11.0|0.56
84549190|NCT03467217|168851447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline AST value.||||19.8|-10.3|0.53
84549191|NCT03467217|168851448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|37.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.||||37.5|-20.8|0.57
84549192|NCT03467217|168851449|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|36.7|||ANCOVA|||||36.7|9.7|0.25
84741856|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4851|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.4851
84741857|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1178
84489757|NCT01014442|168731069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.14764||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31026|-0.01067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.01067|-0.31026|0.0277
84489758|NCT01014442|168731069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0035||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00476|0.00168|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00168|-0.00476|0.0002
84489759|NCT01014442|168731069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000138||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000295|0.0000047|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000047|-0.0000295|0.1661
84489760|NCT01014442|168731070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00054||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01037|0.01042|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01042|-0.01037|0.9417
84489761|NCT01014442|168731070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1461||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39951|0.12988|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.12988|-0.39951|0.2941
84489762|NCT01014442|168731070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00033||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00361|0.00421|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00421|-0.00361|0.8170
84489763|NCT01014442|168731070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodge-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000239||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000594|0.0000154|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000154|-0.0000594|0.1927
84669175|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84489764|NCT01014442|168731071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1616||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.4188|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4188|-0.0121|0.0821
84489765|NCT01014442|168731072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0427||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0455|0.1221|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1221|-0.0455|0.3628
84489766|NCT01014442|168731073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.001||||0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1152|0.1173|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1173|-0.1152|0.9873
84489767|NCT01014442|168731074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0857||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.0265|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0265|-0.1870|0.2178
84489768|NCT01014442|168731080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|-1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|22.1|||Fisher Exact|||||22.1|-24.9|1.0000
84489769|NCT00147082|168731112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||p values were calculated||||0.05
84489770|NCT00147082|168731113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||p value was calculated||||0.05
84489771|NCT00147082|168731114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||The p value was calculated||||0.05
84489772|NCT04269629|168731123|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACEI) and the group without such treatment. The primary outcome was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.25||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||It was assumed that 24% of the patients would be on β-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors (ACEI). A χ2 test with a two-sided 5% significance level has an 80% power to detect the difference between the group without antihypertensive medication with 6% SR during VIT and the group on β-blockers and/or ACEI with 12.3% SR during VIT (OR = 2.2) when the sample sizes are 631 and 200, respectively. A drop-out rate of 37% was assumed which resulted in a required number of 1,319 patients.||||0.25
84549193|NCT03467217|168851450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value.||||6.8|0.0|0.05
84549194|NCT03467217|168851451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline weight value.||||2.5|-1.5|0.64
84741858|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1093|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1093
84741859|NCT00384774|169235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.3364
84741860|NCT02815579|169235158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators produced a difference-in-difference estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.84|-1.0|0.86
84741861|NCT02815579|169235159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.92|-0.28|0.23
84741862|NCT02815579|169235160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||3.78|-1.01|0.26
84489773|NCT04269629|168731124|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.29||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.29
84489774|NCT04269629|168731125|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.04||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05. Correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions (p=0.04).|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions.||||0.04
84489775|NCT04269629|168731126|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.|||||<|0.001||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||<0.001
84489776|NCT04269629|168731127|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.99||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - bee venom.||||0.99
84489777|NCT04269629|168731127|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.15||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - vespid venom.||||0.15
84489778|NCT04269629|168731128|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.16||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.16
84489779|NCT04269629|168731129|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.5||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.50
84489780|NCT04269629|168731130|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
84497222|NCT04636437|168745600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|2.03||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.03|-1.93|0.95
84497223|NCT06212544|168745651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84549195|NCT03467217|168851452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline BMI value.||||0.6|-0.6|0.98
84549196|NCT03467217|168851453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value.||||5.3|-0.5|0.10
84549197|NCT03467217|168851454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist-to-hip ratio.||||0.05|0.00|0.08
84549198|NCT03467217|168851455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PedsQOL Physical Health score.||||9.0|-2.8|0.29
84549199|NCT03467217|168851456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Exact conditional binomial test|||||||0.17
84489781|NCT04269629|168731131|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.11||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more frequent SR under VIT.||||0.11
84489782|NCT01646255|168731138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.57||Primary efficacy analyses was made with confirmatory 2-sided test with significance level 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Estimate of treatment effect has been obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from Baseline value in absolute time spent off. The ANCOVA model contained treatment and (pooled) site as factors and Baseline off time as covariate. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation approach was used for missing values (during both Titration and Maintenance Periods) for the primary efficacy analysis."||-0.57|-1.83|=0.0002
84489783|NCT02430389|168731172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0575
84489784|NCT02430389|168731173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
84489785|NCT00742391|168731184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84489786|NCT00742391|168731185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84489787|NCT02394028|168731187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.1||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-10.85|0.8508
84549200|NCT03467217|168851457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline total cholesterol value.||||8.7|-13.9|0.64
84489788|NCT02394028|168731187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.27|-8.30|0.5235
84549201|NCT03467217|168851458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|39.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline triglyceride value.||||39.7|-25.6|0.67
84549202|NCT03467217|168851459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HDL cholesterol value.||||1.5|-3.4|0.45
84549203|NCT03467217|168851460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline LDL cholesterol value.||||9.4|-10.3|0.93
84489789|NCT02394028|168731189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|4.9||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|16.11||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||16.11|-6.26|0.7908
84549204|NCT03467217|168851461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PedsQOL Psychosocial Health score.||||20.1|-2.5|0.29
84549205|NCT00769067|168851468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.914||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted for the stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|"Total 128 events (progression/death) provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.45 (Erlotinib versus Dacomitinib arm) with 1-sided alpha=0.10.This represented a 45% improvement in true median PFS.~HR and 95% confidence interval estimated from stratified Cox Regression;2-sided p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) as stratification factors"||0.914|0.472|0.012
84549206|NCT00769067|168851469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||2-Sided.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted.||||||0.011
84549207|NCT00769067|168851472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.151||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted by stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|HR and its 95% confidence interval were estimated from stratified Cox Regression and 2-sided p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test with EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.||1.151|0.587|0.252
84669176|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0004
84489790|NCT02394028|168731189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|5.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|17.05||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||17.05|-5.43|0.3170
84549208|NCT03806933|168851509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.51|0.7|= 0.881
84549209|NCT03806933|168851509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.05||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.05|0.49|= 0.089
84549210|NCT03806933|168851509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83|||Wald Chi-square test|P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||0.83|0.38|0.0035
84741863|NCT02815579|169235161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.84||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||2.47|-0.79|0.31
84741864|NCT02815579|169235162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.34||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.53|-1.22|0.44
84741865|NCT02815579|169235163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-2.92|-4.16|<0.001
84741866|NCT02815579|169235164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.04|-0.39|0.02
84741867|NCT02815579|169235165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||0.84|-0.82|0.98
84741868|NCT02815579|169235166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
84741869|NCT02815579|169235167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||-0.20|-1.45|0.001
84489791|NCT02394028|168731190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.3||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.65||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.65|2.70|0.0088
84489792|NCT02394028|168731191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|18.83||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||18.83|4.11|0.0026
84549211|NCT01068730|168851526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.07|106.23|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares (LS) means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.23|99.07|
84741870|NCT02815579|169235168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.52|<0.001
84489793|NCT02394028|168731193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|13.45||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||13.45|-8.02|1
84741871|NCT00264303|169235169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.005||95.0|0.08|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate.||||0.43|0.08|0.005
84741872|NCT00264303|169235170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.041||95.0|0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate||||0.34|0.01|0.041
84741873|NCT00264303|169235171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.004||95.0|0.04|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus severity score as covariate.||||0.22|0.04|0.004
84741874|NCT00264303|169235172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.002||95.0|0.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus duration as covariate.||||0.26|0.06|0.002
84741875|NCT00264303|169235173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.009||95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled centers as factors and baseline pruritus duration score as covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.009
84489794|NCT02394028|168731193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|2.3||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-8.78|0.7908
84489795|NCT02394028|168731195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|9.73||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||9.73|-6.51|1
84489796|NCT02394028|168731195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|6.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|15.16||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.16|-2.24|0.5235
84549212|NCT01068730|168851526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.16|103.31|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.31|96.16|
84549213|NCT01068730|168851526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7062.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84549214|NCT01068730|168851526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7245.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84549215|NCT01068730|168851526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11680.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
84549216|NCT01068730|168851526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)]|11641.0||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
84549217|NCT01068730|168851527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.36|106.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.11|96.36|
84549218|NCT01068730|168851527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.94|103.59|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.59|93.94|
84549219|NCT01068730|168851527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1013.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84549220|NCT01068730|168851527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1024.9||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84549221|NCT01068730|168851527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1643.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
84603781|NCT05894538|168958195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.02|0.63|
84549222|NCT01068730|168851527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1621.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
84549223|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|103.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.75|106.75|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||106.75|99.75|
84549224|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.08|102.92|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.92|96.08|
84549225|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|6907.1||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84549226|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7127.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84549227|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11391.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
84669177|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549228|NCT01068730|168851537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11327.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
84549229|NCT03233529|168851539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
84549230|NCT03233529|168851540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48404||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0420
84549231|NCT03233529|168851541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37855||0.1519|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.1519
84549232|NCT03233529|168851542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32552||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0007
84549233|NCT03233529|168851543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44266||0.0871|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0871
84603782|NCT05894538|168958195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.69|
84489797|NCT02394028|168731196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.3|-1.4|0.3110
84549234|NCT03233529|168851544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48603||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0055
84549235|NCT03233529|168851545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49359||0.0238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0238
84549236|NCT03233529|168851546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68659||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0042
84549237|NCT03233529|168851553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.4|-2.7|< 0.0001
84549238|NCT03233529|168851554|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-1.3|< 0.0001
84549239|NCT03233529|168851554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
84549240|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 2|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.1|-1.6|0.0188
84603783|NCT05894538|168958195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.35|0.84|
84669178|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84489798|NCT02394028|168731197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Scale||0.9|-0.5|1
84549241|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 3|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0014
84489799|NCT02394028|168731197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Score||0.7|-0.7|1
84489800|NCT02394028|168731197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.9|-0.8|1
84489801|NCT02394028|168731197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.5|-1.1|1
84489802|NCT02394028|168731198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|17.3||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|30.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||30.27|3.52|0.0677
84489803|NCT02394028|168731199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|18.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.07|25.96||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||25.96|11.07|0.0480
84489804|NCT02394028|168731200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|13.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|29.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||29.94|-2.90|0.1210
84489805|NCT02394028|168731201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|11.93||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||11.93|0.54|0.0480
84489806|NCT02394028|168731202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|11.2||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|19.24||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.24|3.04|0.0677
84489807|NCT02394028|168731203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|16.2||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|23.31||Nominal p-value, no adjustment for multiplicity performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||23.31|8.96|0.0035
84489808|NCT02394028|168731204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Symptoms Domain||0.4|-0.9|0.4009
84489809|NCT02394028|168731204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Symptoms Domain||0.4|-1.0|0.4009
84489810|NCT01241318|168731227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||||The chlorhexidine arm is the numerator and dry cord care arm is the denominator in the relative risk calculation. Generalised estimating equation models were used to adjust for cluster randomized design.|||1.44|0.88|
84549242|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 4|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
84489811|NCT01241318|168731228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.47|0.86|
84549243|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 5|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.2|< 0.0001
84603784|NCT05894538|168958196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.19|0.78|
84489812|NCT01241318|168731229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.13|0.47|
84669179|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741876|NCT00264303|169235174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline severity as covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the clinical efficacy of Levocetirizine 5 mg is superior to that of Desloratidine 5 mg||0.26|0.07|<0.001
84741877|NCT02389452|169235175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84489813|NCT02355665|168731233|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.66|1.10|0.021
84489814|NCT02355665|168731234|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|3.04||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.68|1.39|0.004
84489815|NCT02355665|168731235|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.71|1.23|0.011
84489816|NCT02355665|168731236|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||2.71|1.02|0.040
84489817|NCT02355665|168731237|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.98|1.09|0.023
84489818|NCT02355665|168731238|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|6.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.42|1.32|0.006
84489819|NCT02355665|168731239|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.66||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||5.92|1.20|0.013
84489820|NCT02355665|168731240|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.60|-0.64|0.847
84489821|NCT02355665|168731241|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.42|-0.62|0.861
84489822|NCT02355665|168731242|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.24|-0.61|0.266
84489823|NCT02355665|168731243|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.09||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.55|-0.38|0.487
84489824|NCT02355665|168731244|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.43|-0.65|0.433
84489825|NCT02355665|168731245|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||-0.01|-1.15|0.022
84489826|NCT02355665|168731246|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.49|-0.50|0.665
84489827|NCT02355665|168731247|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.31|-0.51|0.300
84489828|NCT02355665|168731248|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.43|-0.78|0.754
84489829|NCT02355665|168731249|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.08|-0.89|0.116
84489830|NCT02355665|168731250|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.20|-0.47|0.392
84489831|NCT02355665|168731251|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.13|-0.59|0.179
84489832|NCT02355665|168731252|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.01||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.47|-0.44|0.925
84489833|NCT02355665|168731253|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.24|-0.66|0.325
84489834|NCT02355665|168731254|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.51|-0.24|0.891
84489835|NCT02355665|168731255|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.25|-0.48|0.721
84489836|NCT02355665|168731256|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.49|-0.54|0.608
84489837|NCT02355665|168731257|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||-0.09|-1.16|0.014
84489838|NCT02355665|168731258|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.38|-0.30|0.900
84497224|NCT02087865|168745665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|6.63|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||6.63|-23.12|0.273
84669180|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0069
84489839|NCT02355665|168731259|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.31|-0.44|0.731
84489840|NCT02355665|168731260|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.36|-0.28|0.635
84489841|NCT02355665|168731261|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.42|0.273
84489842|NCT02355665|168731262|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.28|-0.40|0.879
84489843|NCT02355665|168731263|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.28|0.823
84497225|NCT02087865|168745666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-5.73|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-5.73|-21.09|0.001
84497226|NCT02087865|168745667|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|2.14|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||2.14|-19.33|0.115
84497227|NCT02087865|168745668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.25|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||4.25|-3.94|0.941
84497228|NCT02087865|168745669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|76.53|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||76.53|16.14|0.003
84497229|NCT02087865|168745670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.25|87.46|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||87.46|35.25|<0.001
84497230|NCT02087865|168745671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.04|-5.65|0.005
84497231|NCT02087865|168745672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.02|-7.58|0.011
84497232|NCT01017731|168745678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value for QTc interval prolongation compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0161
84497233|NCT00915473|168745746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
84497234|NCT00915473|168745747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Severe Migraine Frequency||||0.52
84497235|NCT00915473|168745747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least Moderate Migraine Frequency||||0.52
84497236|NCT00915473|168745747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Least Mild Migraine Frequency||||0.47
84497237|NCT00915473|168745748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84497238|NCT00915473|168745749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84497239|NCT01389024|168745750|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.216||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009|1.66|||Poisson Regression||We calculated confidence intervals from exact Poisson regression.|||1.66|.009|0.2914
84497240|NCT00529802|168745764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption for the t-test.|Mean difference is the difference between Low and High SUV uptake groups in tumor size percent (%) change from baseline, and is reported on the raw scale. Tumor size changes were log-transformed for the t-test.|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||13.23|-9.3|0.69
84497241|NCT00529802|168745765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00109||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00063|0.004997|||Regression, Linear|Tumor size change (outcome variable) was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.|Outcome was log(tumor size at 8 weeks/tumor size at baseline), and the predictor was the early change in aveSUVmax \[(aveSUVmax at 2 weeks - aveSUVmax at baseline)/aveSUVmax at baseline\] x 100%.|The relationship between early changes in SUV uptake (from baseline to 2 weeks) and tumor size changes (from baseline to 8 weeks) were examined using linear regression models. Tumor size change was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||0.004997|0.00063|0.013
84497242|NCT00367679|168745766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|5.7||||||95.0|0.7|19.2|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||19.2|0.7|
84603785|NCT05894538|168958196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.39|0.92|
84603786|NCT05894538|168958196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.36|0.91|
84603787|NCT05894538|168958196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.82|
84603788|NCT05894538|168958197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.32|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||0.32|-0.39|
84603789|NCT04346108|168958227|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.15||||||||3.15|0.73|
84549244|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 6|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
84549245|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 7|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.3|< 0.0001
84549246|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.1|-2.5|< 0.0001
84549247|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 9|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
84549248|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 10|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.3|-2.7|< 0.0001
84669181|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669182|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741878|NCT02311673|169235193|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-3.1|0.420
84549249|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 11|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.9|-2.3|< 0.0001
84549250|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 12|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.5|-2.9|< 0.0001
84549251|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 13|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
84549252|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 14|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.0|-2.4|< 0.0001
84549253|NCT03233529|168851555|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.7|< 0.0001
84603790|NCT04346108|168958227|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
84603791|NCT04346108|168958227|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|1.34|
84603792|NCT04346108|168958228|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.3||||||||5.30|1.02|
84603793|NCT04346108|168958228|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|23.82||||||||23.82|2.82|
84603794|NCT04346108|168958228|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|5.18||||||||5.18|1.37|
84603795|NCT04346108|168958229|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|4.01||||||95.0|1.46|8.54||||||||8.54|1.46|
84603796|NCT04346108|168958229|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.74||||||||10.74|0.37|
84603797|NCT04346108|168958229|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|11.93||||||||11.93|2.32|
84603798|NCT04346108|168958230|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
84603799|NCT04346108|168958230|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||||||||0.35|0.03|
84603800|NCT04346108|168958230|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
84603801|NCT04346108|168958231|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
84603802|NCT04346108|168958231|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.76||||||||2.76|0.25|
84603803|NCT04346108|168958232|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68||||||||2.68|0.38|
84603804|NCT04346108|168958232|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.82||||||||4.82|0.91|
84603805|NCT04346108|168958232|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.15||||||||2.15|0.07|
84489844|NCT02355665|168731264|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.40|-0.40|0.804
84489845|NCT02355665|168731265|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.57|-0.30|0.438
84489846|NCT02355665|168731266|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.28|-0.44|0.517
84489847|NCT02355665|168731267|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||-0.06|-0.77|0.027
84489848|NCT02355665|168731268|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.33|-0.93|0.105
84489849|NCT02355665|168731269|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.51|-0.60|0.604
84489850|NCT02355665|168731270|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.24|-0.93|0.194
84489851|NCT02355665|168731271|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.40|-0.62|0.502
84489852|NCT02355665|168731272|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.73|-2.84|0.483
84489853|NCT02355665|168731273|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.67|-4.24|0.102
84489854|NCT02355665|168731274|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.38|-2.27|0.532
84489855|NCT02355665|168731275|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.01||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.91|-2.93|0.354
84489856|NCT02355665|168731444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||4.41|-2.42|0.558
84489857|NCT02355665|168731445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|10.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||10.11|-4.03|0.383
84497243|NCT00367679|168745767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|8.6||||||95.0|1.8|23.1|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||23.1|1.8|
84497244|NCT00367679|168745773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||VEGF D|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0028
84549254|NCT01177293|168851561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|89.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.74|97.43||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1155 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||97.43|82.74|
84741879|NCT02311673|169235193|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.348
84741880|NCT02311673|169235193|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-1.3|0.779
84741881|NCT02311673|169235195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.5||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|54.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.8|-11.8|0.901
84741882|NCT02311673|169235195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|18.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.5|-26.3|0.362
84489858|NCT02355665|168731446|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|16.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||16.83|-2.56|0.138
84549255|NCT01177293|168851562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|116.87||||||||116.87|85.10|
84549256|NCT01177293|168851563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|94.42||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1278 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||94.42|79.57|
84741883|NCT02311673|169235195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|20.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||20.5|-28.0|0.378
84741884|NCT02311673|169235196|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|62.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||62.2|-20.9|0.840
84741885|NCT02311673|169235196|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|18.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.4|-38.7|0.236
84741886|NCT02311673|169235196|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|17.4|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.||||17.4|-44.2|0.191
84741887|NCT02311673|169235197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|63.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|63.8|-24.8|0.812
84741888|NCT02311673|169235197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|27.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.4|-29.9|0.464
84741889|NCT02311673|169235197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|28.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||28.4|-33.6|0.432
84489859|NCT01882439|168731485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|37.19|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR) = non-response (NR)||||37.19|14.72|<0.0001
84549257|NCT00594100|168851572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.095|||One-Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample binomial test|95% Confidence Interval is exact binomial using Clopper-Pearson method. Standard Error is from Normal approximation.|The EMPiRE Study tested the null hypothesis that the true MAE rate was greater than or equal to an Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) of 11.83% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MAE rate was less than the OPC. The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a Type I error rate of 0.025. The OPC was calculated from results of published carotid artery stenting studies that utilized distal embolic protection systems.||0.095|0.027|0.002
84549258|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.25||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.25|-0.73|0.60
84549259|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.66|-2.22|0.29
84549260|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.16|-1.67|0.73
84549261|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.74|-2.34|0.77
84549262|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.88||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.88|-1.43|0.51
84549263|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.01||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.01|0.02|0.05
84669183|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
84741890|NCT02311673|169235198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|93.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||93.2|6.7|0.988
84549264|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.02||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.02|-3.84|0.54
84549265|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|5.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.17|-1.13|0.21
84549266|NCT04075682|168851598|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.83|-3.97|0.47
84549267|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.24|-0.68|0.57
84549268|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.14|-2.63|0.08
84549269|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.77||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment, comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.77|-1.97|0.39
84549270|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.47|-1.45|0.61
84669184|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0006
84741891|NCT02311673|169235198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|45.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||45.6|-13.7|0.859
84741892|NCT02311673|169235198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|54.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.3|-9.8|0.916
84741893|NCT02311673|169235199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|73.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||73.8|-8.4|0.943
84741894|NCT02311673|169235199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|16.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||16.1|-24.4|0.339
84489860|NCT01882439|168731485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|34.51|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||34.51|12.10|<0.0001
84489861|NCT01882439|168731486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3792|-0.1266|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.1266|-0.3792|<0.0001
84489862|NCT01882439|168731486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06453||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3419|-0.0881|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.0881|-0.3419|0.0009
84741895|NCT02311673|169235199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|27.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.2|-25.0|0.533
84741896|NCT02311673|169235207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.6|-3.0|0.439
84741897|NCT02311673|169235207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.366
84489863|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.335|-42.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.340|-57.335|<0.001
84489864|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.523|-58.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.986|-74.523|<0.001
84489865|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.284|-63.784|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-63.784|-79.284|<0.001
84489866|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.511|-39.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.551|-55.511|<0.001
84489867|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.557|-54.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.691|-70.557|<0.001
84741898|NCT02311673|169235207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-1.4|0.744
84741899|NCT02311673|169235208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-0.7|0.883
84741900|NCT02311673|169235208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||0.9|-1.3|0.338
84741901|NCT02311673|169235208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.2|-1.6|0.381
84608434|NCT02963701|168967822|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio (%)|106.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.3|111.26|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||111.26|101.30|
84741902|NCT02311673|169235210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.0||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||7.0|-4.5|0.679
84741903|NCT02311673|169235210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||4.7|-3.3|0.641
84741904|NCT02311673|169235210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||6.4|-2.6|0.809
84741905|NCT02311673|169235211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.6|-2.6|0.633
84741906|NCT02311673|169235211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.3|-2.1|0.528
84741907|NCT02311673|169235211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-2.0|0.648
84741908|NCT02311673|169235213|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.1|-1.8|0.712
84741909|NCT02311673|169235213|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.5|-1.9|0.414
84741910|NCT02311673|169235213|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5||One sided p-value|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-1.3|0.732
84741911|NCT02385240|169235215|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|10.72|||Wald's method|||||10.72|-7.52|
84741912|NCT02385240|169235216|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.94|11.33|||Wald's method|||||11.33|-6.94|
84741913|NCT02385240|169235217|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|15.46|||Wald's method|||||15.46|-1.77|
84741914|NCT01006252|169235218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.121
84608435|NCT01345682|168967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.977||Log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance score (PS)(0 or 1) and prior use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody in the Recurrent and/or Metastatic (R/M) setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.977|0.643|0.0257
84741915|NCT01006252|169235219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.048||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|Analysis adjusted for Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH); Disease Stage; Sex; Previous Single Agent Immunotherapy Treatment; Age Group||||||0.048
84741916|NCT01006252|169235220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates||||||0.396
84489868|NCT02055976|168731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.955|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.128|-56.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.409|-72.128|<0.001
84489869|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.417|-35.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.168|-49.417|<0.001
84489870|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.603|-48.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.921|-63.603|<0.001
84489871|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.733|-54.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.035|-68.733|<0.001
84489872|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.273|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.067|-39.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.088|-56.067|<0.001
84489873|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-63.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.776|-54.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.915|-71.776|<0.001
84489874|NCT02055976|168731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.088|-58.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.295|-75.088|<0.001
84489875|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-67.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.757|-57.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.752|-76.757|<0.001
84489876|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-87.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.969|-77.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-77.275|-96.969|<0.001
84489877|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-93.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.153|-83.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.501|-103.153|<0.001
84489878|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.243|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.128|-59.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.321|-84.128|<0.001
84489879|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.541|-83.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.872|-108.541|<0.001
84489880|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.743|-86.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.323|-110.743|<0.001
84497245|NCT00367679|168745773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324||95.0||||VEGF A|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0324
84669185|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741917|NCT01006252|169235222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.483
84741918|NCT01006252|169235223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.505||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.505
84489881|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-46.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.819|-65.630|<0.001
84489882|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.507|-64.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.119|-83.507|<0.001
84489883|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.885|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.939|-71.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.538|-90.939|<0.001
84489884|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.461|-60.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.684|-84.461|<0.001
84489885|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.039|-84.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.405|-108.039|<0.001
84489886|NCT02055976|168731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-102.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.945|-90.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.424|-113.945|<0.001
84489887|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-69.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.721|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-58.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.175|-80.900|<0.001
84489888|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.074|-74.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-74.818|-98.074|<0.001
84489889|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.898|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.983|-86.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.563|-109.983|<0.001
84489890|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.757|-57.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.112|-85.757|<0.001
84489891|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-94.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.333|-80.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-80.585|-109.333|<0.001
84489892|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.727|-84.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.311|-112.727|<0.001
84489893|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.592|-43.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-43.791|-66.592|<0.001
84549271|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.97|-2.23|0.90
84608436|NCT01345682|168967840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.169||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||1.169|0.786|0.6755
84741919|NCT01006252|169235224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
84741920|NCT01006252|169235224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
84741921|NCT01006252|169235226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
84741922|NCT01006252|169235226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
84741923|NCT01006252|169235227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
84741924|NCT01006252|169235227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
84741925|NCT01006252|169235229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
84741926|NCT01006252|169235229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
84741927|NCT01014208|169235232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-rank test||The Pike estimator was the statistical method used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||1.42|0.89|0.333
84741928|NCT01014208|169235233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||1.24|0.56|0.4053
84741929|NCT01014208|169235233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||1.10|0.39|0.1167
84741930|NCT01014208|169235234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||2.43|0.55|0.8209
84549272|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.97|0.13|0.04
84549273|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.48|-2.14|0.64
84549274|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.20|-2.91|0.92
84549275|NCT04075682|168851599|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.52|-5.02|0.11
84549276|NCT04075682|168851600|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.82|-1.48|0.57
84603806|NCT01081301|168958238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of the Herth Hope Index over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
84603807|NCT01081301|168958239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Mental health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
84741931|NCT01014208|169235234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||2.43|0.62|0.6313
84741932|NCT01014208|169235235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.36|0.90|0.346
84741933|NCT01014208|169235236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.15|0.70|0.377
84603808|NCT01081301|168958240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of General Self Efficacy Scale scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
84608437|NCT01345682|168967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||4.14|0.88|0.1010
84741934|NCT01014208|169235237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.5||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.50|0.83|0.1161
84741935|NCT01014208|169235238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Statistics are presented for Completion rate|||1.27|0.56|0.4481
84489894|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.825|-60.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.597|-83.825|<0.001
84489895|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-83.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.807|-71.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.323|-94.807|<0.001
84489896|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.147|-60.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.612|-87.147|<0.001
84489897|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.697||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.732|-82.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-82.124|-108.732|0.001
84489898|NCT02055976|168731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-104.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.079|-91.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-91.639|-118.079|<0.001
84489899|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|-26.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.246|-37.039|<0.001
84489900|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.403|-34.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.358|-45.403|<0.001
84489901|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.45|-40.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.329|-51.450|<0.001
84489902|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.11|-24.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-24.164|-36.110|<0.001
84489903|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.52|-33.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.531|-45.520|<0.001
84608438|NCT01345682|168967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||2.26|1.03|0.0353
84741936|NCT01014208|169235239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.17|||ANCOVA|||||2.170|-2.110|0.978
84741937|NCT01014208|169235240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.129||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|3.691|||ANCOVA|||||3.691|-1.434|0.387
84741938|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.16|0.74|0.479
84489904|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.299|-35.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.445|-47.299|<0.001
84549277|NCT04075682|168851600|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.27|-3.22|0.39
84549278|NCT04075682|168851600|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.04|-3.35|0.92
84549279|NCT04075682|168851601|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.53|-1.33|0.40
84549280|NCT04075682|168851601|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.86|-1.83|0.99
84669186|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669187|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741939|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.02|0.64|0.059
84489905|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.717|-20.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-20.032|-30.717|<0.001
84489906|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.934|-28.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.047|-38.934|<0.001
84608514|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.51|1.18|
84489907|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.262|-33.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.258|-44.262|<0.001
84489908|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.879|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.568|-25.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.127|-36.568|<0.001
84489909|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.754|-34.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.285|-45.754|<0.001
84549281|NCT04075682|168851601|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.48|-0.78|0.17
84489910|NCT02055976|168731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.647|-38.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.247|-49.647|<0.001
84549282|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.57|-0.69|0.45
84549283|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-1.61|0.41
84549284|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.20|-3.08|0.08
84549285|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.09|-2.14|0.52
84549286|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.51|-1.82|0.75
84741940|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.48|0.83|0.451
84489911|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-34.476|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.476|-47.760|<0.001
84549287|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.33|-3.82|0.64
84489912|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.543|-48.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.032|-61.543|<0.001
84549288|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.45||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.45|-2.17|0.91
84549289|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.60|-3.29|0.50
84549290|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.41|0.86|0.007
84549291|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.4||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.40|-2.22|0.52
84549292|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.23|-3.89|0.86
84669188|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
84489913|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-60.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.403|-53.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.694|-67.403|<0.001
84489914|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.999|-29.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.178|-43.999|<0.001
84669189|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84497246|NCT00367679|168745773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||VEGFR-2|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
84497247|NCT00367679|168745773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||c-KIT|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
84497248|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
84497249|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Placental growth factor (PIGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
84497250|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00024||95.0||||Interferon-inducible cytokine (IP-10)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.00024
84497251|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine (CTACK)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0029
84497252|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1alpha)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0062
84497253|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||95.0||||Monokine induced by interferon gamma (MIG)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0069
84497254|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||Tumor necrosis factor ligand (TRAIL)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0093
84497255|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Interferon alpha 2 (IFN-alpha2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.021
84497256|NCT00367679|168745779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.326
84497257|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #1 is for the genetic mutation TP53.||||0.035
84497258|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #2 is for ASXL1 genetic mutation||||0.72
84497259|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #3 is for SRSF2 genetic mutation||||0.28
84497260|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #4 is for IDH2 genetic mutation||||0.14
84497261|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #5 is for DNMT3A genetic mutation||||0.3
84497262|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #6 is for SF3B1 genetic mutation||||0.183
84497263|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #7 is for RUNX1 genetic mutation||||0.42
84497264|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #8 is for TET2 genetic mutation||||0.36
84497265|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #9 is for IDH1 genetic mutation||||0.1
84497266|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #10 is for NPM1 genetic mutation||||1
84497267|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #11 is for NRAS genetic mutation||||0.17
84497268|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||-Statistical analysis #12 is for U2AF1 genetic mutation||||1
84497269|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #13 is for MY05B genetic mutation||||0.6
84497270|NCT01687400|168745789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #14 is for WT1 genetic mutation||||1
84497271|NCT01687400|168745790|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate-for current study|0.744|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.836|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the overall response rate (ORR) to historical control (with ORR=0.25)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 25% (14 out of 55 participants) in overall response rate||0.836|0.652|<0.0001
84497272|NCT01687400|168745790|SUPERIORITY||Complete response rate-for current study|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.741|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the complete response rate to historical control (with CR=0.24)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 24% (13 out of 55 participants) in complete response rate.||0.741|0.538|<0.0001
84497273|NCT00388674|168745797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.8|1.084|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.084|0.800|0.3553
84497274|NCT00388674|168745798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.713|1.012|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.012|0.713|0.0676
84497275|NCT00388674|168745799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.769|1.03|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.030|0.769|0.1182
84549293|NCT04075682|168851602|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.43|-4.15|0.61
84603809|NCT01081301|168958241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of Non Death Revised Grief Experience Inventory scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||>0.05
84549294|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.96|0.82|0.29
84549295|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.85|0.77|0.43
84603810|NCT01081301|168958242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Physical health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
84603811|NCT01095653|168958248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.56||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.94|<0.0001
84741941|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.29|0.86|0.597
84489915|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.734|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.102|-47.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.265|-62.102|<0.001
84489916|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.845|-49.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.189|-63.845|<0.001
84489917|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.608|-26.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.915|-39.608|<0.001
84489918|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.388|-39.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.523|-52.388|<0.001
84603812|NCT01095653|168958248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.63||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.01|<0.0001
84669190|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84489919|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.063|-44.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.937|-58.063|<0.001
84669191|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0047
84741942|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.10|0.70|0.199
84489920|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.547|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.523|-33.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.426|-47.523|<0.001
84489921|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.685|-47.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.583|-61.685|<0.001
84489922|NCT02055976|168731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.602|-52.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.614|-66.602|<0.001
84489923|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.347|-36.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.183|-50.347|<0.001
84489924|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.628|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.167|-50.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.758|-65.167|<0.001
84489925|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.039|-57.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.419|-72.039|<0.001
84489926|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.451|-29.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.405|-43.451|<0.001
84489927|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.325|-46.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.267|-60.325|<0.001
84489928|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.436|-48.542|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.542|-62.436|<0.001
84603813|NCT01095653|168958249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-21.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-21.4|-34.0|<0.0001
84603814|NCT01095653|168958249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-27.9||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.9|-40.4|<0.0001
84549296|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.20|0.63|0.60
84549297|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.33|0.67|0.48
84549298|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.91|0.34|0.62
84549299|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|10.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||10.52|0.88|0.079
84549300|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.12|0.87|0.10
84549301|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.61|0.52|0.52
84549302|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.17|0.55|0.54
84603815|NCT01095653|168958250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5667|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-34.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-34.96|-60.80|<0.0001
84741943|NCT01014208|169235241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.59|0.93|0.102
84741944|NCT01014208|169235242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.00|0.36|0.035
84741945|NCT02683772|169235250|NON_INFERIORITY|The method proposed for this analysis was a one-sided paired t-test using a significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 2 events/hour|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.23||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0134
84741946|NCT00414908|169235258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
84741947|NCT00414908|169235259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||0.0002
84741948|NCT00414908|169235260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-112.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.04|-77.87|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool fat at baseline as a covariate."||-77.87|-147.04|<0.0001
84741949|NCT00414908|169235261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-11.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.3|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool nitrogen at baseline as a covariate."||-6.06|-17.30|<0.0001
84741950|NCT00414908|169235262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.76||||0.005||95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal). The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool frequency at baseline as a covariate."||-0.24|-1.27|0.005
84741951|NCT00414908|169235266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|Mean difference based on all subjects combined using the paired t-test between baseline and visit 8 or early termination||||||<0.001
84741952|NCT04978493|169235343|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.84|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||4.84|-0.99|
84741953|NCT04978493|169235344|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|13.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|36.14|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||36.14|-9.46|
84741954|NCT04978493|169235345|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-2.64|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||-2.64|-48.42|
84741955|NCT04978493|169235346|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|22.12|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||22.12|-20.49|
84741956|NCT04978493|169235347|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|13.25|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||13.25|-21.14|
84741957|NCT04978493|169235348|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|18.78|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.78|-17.67|
84741958|NCT04978493|169235349|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|18.85|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.85|-24.91|
84741959|NCT04978493|169235350|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|17.34|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||17.34|-23.86|
84489929|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.059|-28.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.516|-42.059|<0.001
84489930|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.709|-41.982|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.982|-55.709|<0.001
84489931|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.116|-48.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.112|-62.116|<0.001
84489932|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.118|-32.971|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.971|-47.118|<0.001
84489933|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.883|-46.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.737|-60.883|<0.001
84497276|NCT00388674|168745800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.478|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.478|0.817|
84497277|NCT00388674|168745801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.032|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.032|0.727|
84497278|NCT00388674|168745802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.365|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.365|0.608|
84497279|NCT01339858|168745823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84497280|NCT00996632|168745831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that drainage volumes are not different||||<0.05
84497281|NCT00996632|168745832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that Stay in Hospital Days are not different||||0.05
84497282|NCT00539006|168745848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.001
84497283|NCT00539006|168745848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
84497284|NCT00539006|168745849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximation to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||Statistical analysis applies to FFNS and FPNS categories.||||<0.001
84497285|NCT04776135|168745853|OTHER|AUC0-t was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.041|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-t, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.041|0.936|
84497286|NCT04776135|168745853|OTHER|AUC0-inf was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.033|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-inf, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.033|0.931|
84497287|NCT04776135|168745854|OTHER|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.227|||ANOVA|||MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.227|0.903|
84741960|NCT04978493|169235351|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|8.89|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||8.89|-42.32|
84741961|NCT04978493|169235352|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|23.41|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||23.41|-21.53|
84549303|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.53|0.33
84549304|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.11|0.38|0.55
84549305|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.14|0.18|0.44
84603816|NCT01095653|168958250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.66|-43.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-43.28|-68.66|<0.0001
84489934|NCT02055976|168731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.64|-51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-51.600|-65.640|<0.001
84603817|NCT01095653|168958251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-2.01|<0.0001
84603818|NCT01095653|168958251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3242|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.34||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.62|<0.0001
84741962|NCT04978493|169235353|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-22.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.42|5.19|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||5.19|-45.42|
84741963|NCT02206061|169235359|OTHER|Repeated measure analyses testing the overall treatment effect were performed by fitting the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) with SFD at the three follow-up time points (3, 5, 7 months) as the dependent variable and treatment as independent variable. Normal error and identity link was specified and standard error was calculated using Sandwich estimator. Baseline SFDs, poverty level, and the presence of smokers in the home were controlled in the regression model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
84489935|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.646|14.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.145|3.646|<0.001
84603819|NCT01095653|168958252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||31.6|11.1|<0.0001
84603820|NCT01095653|168958252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.3||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||38.3|18.6|<0.0001
84603821|NCT02182440|168958282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.243||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.57|29.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 1||29.50|-62.57|0.949
84741964|NCT00316017|169235377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to day 28 day between the three groups.||||0.91
84741965|NCT00316017|169235378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in ARDS-free survival through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.94
84741966|NCT00316017|169235379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.73
84741967|NCT00316017|169235380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with the Presence of Nosocomial Infection through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.8
84489936|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.141|20.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||20.717|10.141|<0.001
84489937|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.959|17.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.683|6.959|<0.001
84489938|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.041||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|12.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.847|0.761|0.014
84489939|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.556|16.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.573|4.556|<0.001
84489940|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.993|18.796|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.796|6.993|<0.001
84489941|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.157|15.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.130|2.157|0.005
84489942|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.208|21.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.208|8.208|<0.001
84489943|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|17.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.757|4.580|<0.001
84489944|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.947|13.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.316|2.947|0.001
84489945|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.079|15.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.381|5.079|<0.001
84603822|NCT02182440|168958282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|13.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 2||13.80|-23.09|0.691
84603823|NCT02182440|168958282|SUPERIORITY||Combined p-value|0.896||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Inverse normal method||The p-values from Part 1 (see Statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical Analysis 2) were combined to an overall p-value using the inverse normal method.|Combination of analysis results from Part 1 (see statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical analysis 2)||||0.896
84549306|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.98||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation models for pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.98|0.84|0.2510
84549307|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.95|0.82|0.2822
84549308|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for multiple imputation models for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.47|0.72|0.3558
84549309|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.51|0.73|0.3291
84549310|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.09|0.38|0.7818
84549311|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||9.73|0.84|0.0912
84603824|NCT02182440|168958283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||Chi-squared|||||2.4|0.8|0.28
84603825|NCT02182440|168958284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.02|0.02
84741968|NCT00316017|169235381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.69
84603826|NCT02182440|168958285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.01|0.03
84603827|NCT02182440|168958286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.0|0.045
84603828|NCT02182440|168958287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|1.06|0.03
84603829|NCT02680574|168958306|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change of hemoglobin: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.07|-0.09|
84741969|NCT00316017|169235382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of Total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.57
84549312|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.66|0.81|0.1361
84741970|NCT00316017|169235383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.66
84489946|NCT02055976|168731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.565||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|10.864|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.864|0.670|0.014
84549313|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.07|0.46|0.7200
84549314|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.53|0.62|0.3737
84549315|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|8.9||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.90|0.75|0.1345
84603830|NCT02680574|168958307|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.446|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.446|0.930|=0.2015
84603831|NCT02680574|168958307|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
84489947|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|9.863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.863|2.296|<0.001
84603832|NCT02680574|168958308|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.09|-0.10|
84603833|NCT02680574|168958309|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.268|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.268|0.851|=0.7770
84603834|NCT02680574|168958309|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
84603835|NCT02680574|168958310|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.501|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.501|0.817|=0.5509
84669192|NCT01480076|169072590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0118
84489948|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.976|14.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.597|6.976|<0.001
84489949|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.206|12.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.932|5.206|<0.001
84489950|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|9.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.178|0.541|0.014
84489951|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.037|11.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.624|3.037|<0.001
84489952|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.856|13.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.293|4.856|<0.001
84489953|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.435|10.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.437|1.435|0.005
84489954|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.702|14.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.724|5.702|<0.001
84603836|NCT02680574|168958310|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
84603837|NCT02680574|168958311|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.258|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.258|0.610|=0.4184
84669193|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84741971|NCT00316017|169235384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.82
84489955|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.484|12.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.629|3.484|<0.001
84489956|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.312|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|2.312|<0.001
84489957|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.421|3.400|<0.001
84489958|NCT02055976|168731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.642|0.693|0.010
84489959|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6289||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5283|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.9700|-0.5283|0.127
84489960|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6461||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2259|2.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3406|-0.2259|0.053
84489961|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6511||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0486|1.5375|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.5375|-1.0486|0.354
84489962|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8615||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9066|2.5177|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.5177|-0.9066|0.176
84489963|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8641||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2899|3.7242|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.7242|0.2899|0.011
84489964|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|3.4049|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4049|0.0184|0.024
84489965|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7844||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6992|2.4163|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4163|-0.6992|0.138
84489966|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7064|2.4678|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4678|-0.7064|0.137
84489967|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8053||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|1.8618|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8618|-1.3370|0.373
84603838|NCT02680574|168958311|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
84603839|NCT02680574|168958312|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.315|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.315|0.820|=0.8041
84603840|NCT02680574|168958312|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
84603841|NCT02880514|168958357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|McNemar|McNemar's exact binomial test was employed to obtain the two-sided p-value at alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0391
84603842|NCT02880514|168958358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84603843|NCT02210221|168958428|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in 6-month mortality||||<0.0001
84603844|NCT02210221|168958428|OTHER||observed to expected ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||numerator: 6-month mortality observed denominator: 6-month mortality expected 95% CIs estimated according to a Poisson distribution|||0.76|0.62|
84603845|NCT02210221|168958429|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 mental component summary||||<0.0001
84603846|NCT02210221|168958429|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 physical component summary||||<0.0001
84669194|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84603847|NCT02210221|168958430|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in Qolibri Overall Scale||||<0.0001
84603848|NCT02210221|168958431|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603849|NCT02210221|168958432|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603850|NCT02210221|168958433|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603851|NCT02210221|168958434|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603852|NCT02210221|168958435|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.169
84603853|NCT02210221|168958436|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603854|NCT02210221|168958437|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603855|NCT02210221|168958438|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603856|NCT02210221|168958439|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.637|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.637
84603857|NCT02210221|168958440|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603858|NCT02210221|168958441|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.480
84603859|NCT02210221|168958442|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603860|NCT02210221|168958443|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.024
84603861|NCT02210221|168958444|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.064
84603862|NCT02210221|168958445|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
84603863|NCT02230761|168958446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
84603864|NCT02230761|168958447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84603865|NCT02230761|168958448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84603866|NCT02818036|168958456|OTHER|difference in neural activity to social task when taking naltrexone as compared to placebo|||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 75||||||<.01
84603867|NCT02818036|168958457|OTHER|differences in feelings of social connection between those who took naltrexone and those who took placebo||||||0.338||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.338
84603868|NCT01319721|168958491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84603869|NCT01319721|168958492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84603870|NCT01319721|168958493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84603871|NCT01319721|168958494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84603872|NCT01319721|168958495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84603873|NCT00468845|168958496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.1378
84603874|NCT00468845|168958496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.4710
84489968|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7472||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1611|1.8089|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8089|-1.1611|0.333
84603875|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.7752
84603876|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.3375
84603877|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7029||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.7029
84603878|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.8618
84603879|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2117||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2117
84603880|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6255
84603881|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0942
84603882|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9907||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.9907
84603883|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4678||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4678
84603884|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5500
84603885|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9333||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.9333
84603886|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7396||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7396
84603887|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2932||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.2932
84603888|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0164||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0164
84603889|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2468||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.2468
84603890|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7022
84603891|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7257||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7257
84603892|NCT00468845|168958497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3854||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3854
84603893|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5997
84603894|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8582||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8582
84603895|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3704||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.3704
84603896|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9747||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.9747
84603897|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2033
84669195|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84489969|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7488||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|3.4203|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4203|0.4441|0.006
84489970|NCT02055976|168731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7442||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6451|2.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3130|-0.6451|0.133
84489971|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0411||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|6.1356|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.1356|-1.9730|0.155
84489972|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0965||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9035|7.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.4250|-0.9035|0.062
84489973|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1126||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3733|5.0182|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.0182|-3.3733|0.349
84489974|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7702||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1801|7.831|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.8310|-3.1801|0.202
84549316|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.67||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||7.67|0.50|0.3318
84549317|NCT04075682|168851603|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.70|0.23|0.7017
84549318|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.31||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.31|1.42|0.001
84571289|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
84741972|NCT00316017|169235385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.98
84741973|NCT00316017|169235386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to hospital discharge between the three groups.||||0.85
84741974|NCT00316017|169235387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received zero units of PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.48
84741975|NCT00316017|169235388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
84489975|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7784||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5833|11.6263|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.6263|0.5833|0.015
84489976|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.2393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7396||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|10.6845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.6845|-0.2058|0.030
84489977|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4251||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6334|6.9988|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.9988|-2.6334|0.185
84489978|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4716||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7718|7.0469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0469|-2.7718|0.195
84489979|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4909||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6358|5.2584|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2584|-4.6358|0.450
84489980|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3322||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0274|5.2431|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2431|-4.0274|0.397
84489981|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.7096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3367||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0659|10.3532|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.3532|1.0659|0.008
84489982|NCT02055976|168731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.4558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.323||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1608|7.0724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0724|-2.1608|0.147
84489983|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5504|-2.2901|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.2901|-7.5504|<0.001
84669196|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1398|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1398
84489984|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3462|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8718|-4.5249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.5249|-9.8718|<0.001
84603898|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2752
84549319|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.3||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.30|1.09|0.025
84603899|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0183
84603900|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6906||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.6906
84603901|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5446||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5446
84603902|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4852||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4852
84603903|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.5879
84603904|NCT00468845|168958498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7699||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7699
84741976|NCT00316017|169235389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.02
84741977|NCT00316017|169235390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
84741978|NCT00316017|169235391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received 1-9 units PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.51
84741979|NCT00316017|169235392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in Field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.73
84489985|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9935|-4.6301|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.6301|-9.9935|<0.001
84489986|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1132|-1.0125|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.0125|-5.1132|0.002
84489987|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.6209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6804|-1.5614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5614|-5.6804|<0.001
84489988|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2184|-2.1372|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.1372|-6.2184|<0.001
84489989|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.2914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2954||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8649|-0.7178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.7178|-5.8649|0.006
84489990|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9706|-3.7432|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7432|-8.9706|<0.001
84489991|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0247|-3.7677|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7677|-9.0247|<0.001
84741980|NCT00316017|169235393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.83
84741981|NCT00316017|169235394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.31
84741982|NCT00316017|169235395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC in first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.97
84741983|NCT00316017|169235397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.35
84741984|NCT00316017|169235398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.34
84741985|NCT04157400|169235399|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84741986|NCT04157400|169235400|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84741987|NCT04157400|169235401|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Segments of EMG recorded during walking at self-selected walking speed were used to investigate complexity of muscle synergies using a nonnegative matrix factorization (NNMF) algorithm (MATLAB®, Mathworks, Natick, MA). The approach involves calculation of an mxt matrix of the original EMG data (EMG0), where m represents the number of muscles being measured and t represents a time base normalized to percentage of gait cycle. The algorithm also calculates two surrogate matrices, mxn and nxt, where n is the amplitude of muscle activation. The product of the surrogate matrices are considered a reconstruction of EMG (EMGr). EMGr for each module is then compared to EMG0 by finding the variability accounted for (VAF). A threshold necessary for module classification was chosen to be 90% for all conditions (8 muscles + 6 phases of gait) based on similar studies in the literature. Classifications were not increased unless the higher module VAF was at least 5% higher than the preceding module.|||
84741988|NCT02671500|169235422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided 1 sample exact binomial test|||A sample size of 260 participants in Region 1 would provide more than 80% power to detect an improvement of at least 6 percentage points in SVR12 rate from the performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84741989|NCT03746392|169235486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84741990|NCT04777864|169235504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Parent group only||||0.18
84741991|NCT04777864|169235504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent group only||||0.91
84741992|NCT04777864|169235505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Regression, Linear|||Parent: Post-Index Visit||||0.975
84741993|NCT04777864|169235505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Adolescent: Post-Index Visit||||0.854
84741994|NCT04777864|169235508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.03
84741995|NCT04777864|169235508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.21
84489992|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7506|-2.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.0950|-5.7506|<0.001
84489993|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5459|-2.8729|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.8729|-6.5459|<0.001
84741996|NCT04777864|169235509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.76
84741997|NCT04777864|169235509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.96
84741998|NCT04777864|169235509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.96
84741999|NCT00798434|169235514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline urgency episodes.||Based on a 2-sided t-test (5% significance). Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change in mean micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 for the 2 groups. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used for statistical analyses of the FAS (change from baseline to Week 12).||-0.97|-2.12|<0.0001
84742000|NCT00798434|169235515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-14.25|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and confidence interval (CI)|Week 12 LOCF||-14.25|-14.67|<0.0001
84742001|NCT00798434|169235516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline severe urgency episodes||Week 12 LOCF||-0.42|-1.28|0.0001
84742002|NCT00798434|169235517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0005
84489994|NCT02055976|168731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.263|-2.6118|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.6118|-6.2630|<0.001
84489995|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2401||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7872|-7.1112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.1112|-47.7872|0.004
84489996|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.5908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4568|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3577|-19.824|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-19.8240|-61.3577|<0.001
84489997|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5402||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0927|-6.2332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.2332|-48.0927|0.006
84489998|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8755||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8023|-6.5332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.5332|-41.8023|0.004
84489999|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.2255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9203||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9471|-1.5038|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5038|-36.9471|0.017
84549320|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.06|0.62|0.44
84571290|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
84603905|NCT00468845|168958499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9676||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.9676
84490000|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.5155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8387||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0795|-8.9515|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.9515|-44.0795|0.002
84490001|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.3898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6698|-8.1097|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.1097|-28.6698|<0.001
84490002|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.7882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2423|-26.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3341|-47.2423|<0.001
84490003|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.8453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3864|-26.3041|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3041|-47.3864|<0.001
84603906|NCT00468845|168958499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4944||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4944
84603907|NCT00468845|168958500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4801||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4801
84490004|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8656|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5748|-17.3075|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.3075|-48.5748|<0.001
84490005|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.3176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0238|-15.6114|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.6114|-47.0238|<0.001
84490006|NCT02055976|168731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.465|-17.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.2289|-48.4650|<0.001
84549321|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||3.97|0.81|0.15
84549322|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.58||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.58|0.39|0.76
84549323|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.80|0.16|0.77
84571291|NCT02065557|168893573|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.344
84490007|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|10.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.506|4.820|<0.001
84490008|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.389|12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.190|6.389|<0.001
84490009|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.336|10.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.175|4.336|<0.001
84490010|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.806||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|5.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.818|-1.361|0.110
84742003|NCT00798434|169235518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.64|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.64|-1.33|<0.0001
84742004|NCT00798434|169235519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-7.19|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-7.19|-7.40|<0.0001
84603908|NCT00468845|168958500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8832||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.8832
84603909|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2125||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hours PS||||0.2125
84603910|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hour PS||||0.7602
84603911|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4053||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4053
84603912|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4147||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4147
84603913|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5556||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.5556
84742005|NCT00798434|169235520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of night-time micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.09|-0.40|0.0026
84490011|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.972|9.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.185|1.972|0.001
84742006|NCT00798434|169235521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-9.09|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-9.09|-9.52|0.0012
84742007|NCT00798434|169235522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The protocol-defined analysis (ANOVA, parametric) not presented because normality assumptions were not met, instead an alternative analysis (Van-Elteren'ts test, non-parametric) as defined in the statistical analysis plan presented.|Van-Elteren's Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.1005
84742008|NCT00798434|169235523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0218
84603914|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.4820
84742009|NCT00798434|169235524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and daily sum rating of USS at baseline||Week 12 LOCF||-3.10|-6.30|<0.0001
84603915|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.5088
84603916|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.3900
84603917|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9659||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.9659
84603918|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.3968
84603919|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.8308
84603920|NCT00468845|168958501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0902||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.0902
84603921|NCT00468845|168958502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4388||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4388
84603922|NCT00468845|168958502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.3364
84603923|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2409||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.2409
84742010|NCT00798434|169235525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.515||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.528||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in dryness, where improvement was defined as dry at both weeks 8 and 12 relative to baseline incontinence.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||LOCF||2.528|0.909|0.1113
84490012|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|8.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.268|1.156|0.005
84490013|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|9.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.932|1.844|0.002
84490014|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.153|13.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.349|5.153|<0.001
84490015|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|1.147|0.006
84490016|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|8.728|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.728|1.402|0.004
84490017|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.413|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.780|1.413|0.004
84490018|NCT02055976|168731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|7.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.943|0.658|0.011
84549324|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.72|0.17
84490019|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.373|18.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.405|8.373|<0.001
84490020|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|21.663|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.663|11.430|<0.001
84490021|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.137|18.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.438|8.137|<0.001
84603924|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1654||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.1654
84490022|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.909||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|9.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.895|-1.671|0.081
84603925|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1110
84490023|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.743|15.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.377|3.743|<0.001
84490024|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.878|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.103|15.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.548|4.103|<0.001
84490025|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.326||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.395|16.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.612|3.395|0.002
84490026|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|22.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.943|9.560|<0.001
84490027|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.384||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.847|16.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.295|2.847|0.003
84490028|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.858||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|14.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.710|3.348|0.001
84742011|NCT00798434|169235526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of pads per 24 hours||Incontinence pads at Week 12 LOCF||-0.04|-0.47|0.0230
84742012|NCT00798434|169235526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of creams per 24 hours||Creams at Week 12 LOCF||0.01|-0.12|0.0909
84742013|NCT00798434|169235526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of powders per 24 hours||Powder at Week 12 LOCF||0.02|-0.08|0.2039
84742014|NCT00798434|169235527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.181|4.395|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||Week 12 LOCF||4.395|2.181|<0.0001
84490029|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.827|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.260|2.827|0.002
84490030|NCT02055976|168731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.252|14.544|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.544|3.252|0.001
84490031|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.311|-4.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.614|-10.311|<0.001
84571292|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84742015|NCT00798434|169235530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|3.556||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as a negative change from baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPBC category||Week 12 LOCF||3.556|1.767|<0.0001
84490032|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.776|-9.610|<0.001
84490033|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.692|-5.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.817|-11.692|<0.001
84490034|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.773||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.596|3.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.451|-3.596|0.484
84490035|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264|1.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.862|-5.264|0.173
84490036|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.452|1.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.546|-5.452|0.135
84490037|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.335|-9.230|0.034
84490038|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.617|-1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.910|-11.617|0.003
84490039|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.458||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.836|-1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.066|-10.836|0.009
84490040|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.915||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.736|-6.876|0.056
84490041|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.408|1.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.293|-6.408|0.095
84490042|NCT02055976|168731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.913||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.074|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.469|-9.074|0.004
84490043|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.925|-17.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.836|-45.925|<0.001
84490044|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.571|-14.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.803|-43.571|<0.001
84549325|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.57|0.14|0.22
84603926|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0598
84603927|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0398
84742016|NCT00798434|169235534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|2.811||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as an increase of 1 or more points in difference of scores relative to baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPUS category||LOCF||2.811|1.305|0.0009
84742017|NCT00798434|169235536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.59|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline symptom/bother score||Week 12 LOCF||-4.59|-9.65|<0.0001
84742018|NCT00798434|169235537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.73|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total health-related quality of life (HRQL) score.||Week 12 LOCF||6.73|2.24|<0.0001
84490045|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.136|-25.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.178|-54.136|<0.001
84549326|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||10.37|1.15|0.02
84669197|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742019|NCT00798434|169235538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|8.22|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Coping Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||8.22|2.57|0.0002
84742020|NCT00798434|169235538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|7.93|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Concern Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||7.93|2.84|<0.0001
84742021|NCT00798434|169235538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Sleep Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||6.81|1.38|0.0032
84490046|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.601||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.713|22.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.350|-31.713|0.366
84603928|NCT00468845|168958503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0623||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0623
84742022|NCT00798434|169235538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.53|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Social Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||4.53|0.49|0.0152
84490047|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.586||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.774|37.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||37.228|-16.774|0.773
84603929|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.2730
84603930|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.1015
84742023|NCT00798434|169235539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.537|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|5.484||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (satisfaction with OAB control) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||5.484|2.281|<0.001
84742024|NCT00798434|169235540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|4.058||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (OAB medication expectation) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||4.058|2.045|<0.0001
84490048|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.362||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.206|23.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||23.915|-29.206|0.422
84490049|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.309||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.411|7.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.589|-33.411|0.107
84490050|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.461||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.923|-2.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.315|-43.923|0.015
84490051|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.535||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.108|3.789|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.789|-38.108|0.054
84490052|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.718||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.696|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.865|-49.696|0.029
84490053|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.705||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.541|18.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.968|-31.541|0.311
84490054|NCT02055976|168731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.555||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.485|-57.400|0.006
84490055|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.463|-14.472|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.472|-57.463|<0.001
84490056|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.044||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.123|-7.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.249|-51.123|0.005
84490057|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.175|-17.845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.845|-62.175|<0.001
84490058|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.906||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.502|24.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||24.842|-18.502|0.614
84603931|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2438||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.2438
84742025|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|12.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||General Health Perception; LOCF||12.49|-4.13|0.3163
84742026|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Incontinence Impact; LOCF||11.11|-23.70|0.4698
84742027|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|12.88|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Role Limitations; LOCF||12.88|-24.58|0.5321
84742028|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|13.12|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Physical Limitations; LOCF||13.12|-20.74|0.6523
84742029|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|16.99|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Social Limitations; LOCF||16.99|-10.47|0.6344
84742030|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|6.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Personal Relationships; LOCF||6.49|-28.71|0.2013
84742031|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|7.83|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Emotions; LOCF||7.83|-19.96|0.3831
84742032|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|18.23|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Sleep/Energy; LOCF||18.23|-9.30|0.5167
84742033|NCT00798434|169235541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Severity of Urinary Symptoms; LOCF||0.15|-20.53|0.0532
84742034|NCT00798434|169235542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0229|0.0262|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline single utility score||||0.0262|-0.0229|0.8959
84742035|NCT00558792|169235596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0099
84742036|NCT00558792|169235597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84742037|NCT00558792|169235598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1212||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1212
84742038|NCT00558792|169235600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0200
84742039|NCT00558792|169235601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0044
84742040|NCT00558792|169235602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0371
84742041|NCT00558792|169235603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|14.1||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|39.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||39.6|-11.4|0.2758
84742042|NCT00558792|169235603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|12.3||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|35.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.6|-11.1|0.3102
84742043|NCT00558792|169235603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|1.9||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||28.4|-24.6|0.8893
84742044|NCT00558792|169235604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.7||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.3|-4.7|0.2511
84742045|NCT00558792|169235604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|1.3||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||5.3|-2.6|0.4985
84742046|NCT00558792|169235604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.1||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.4|-6.5|0.0693
84742047|NCT00558792|169235605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-1.5||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|24.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||24.8|-27.9|0.9104
84742048|NCT00558792|169235605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-12.6||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|10.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||10.5|-35.7|0.2857
84742049|NCT00558792|169235605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|11.1||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|35.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.5|-13.3|0.3664
84742050|NCT00558792|169235606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specifcity between Doses|-3.7||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.2|-8.7|0.1322
84742051|NCT00558792|169235606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.3||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.2|-6.9|0.6381
84490059|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.067||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.554|13.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.427|-30.554|0.221
84490060|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.933||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.376|16.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.079|-27.376|0.303
84490061|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.882|6.875|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.875|-50.882|0.067
84490062|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.934|-12.588|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-12.588|-70.934|0.003
84603932|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.0102
84490063|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.832||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.41|-5.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.456|-64.410|0.010
84490064|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.978|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.725||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.282|5.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.326|-41.282|0.064
84490065|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.903||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.311|18.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.004|-29.311|0.318
84490066|NCT02055976|168731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.807||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.902|4.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.032|-42.902|0.052
84669198|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84603933|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2063||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.2063
84490067|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.217|-10.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-10.731|-41.217|<0.001
84490068|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.831||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.665|-5.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.555|-36.665|0.004
84603934|NCT00468845|168958504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.0387
84742052|NCT00558792|169235606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-2.4||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||2.4|-7.2|0.3217
84742053|NCT00558792|169235607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|7.6||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|34.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||34.7|-19.6|0.5843
84742054|NCT00558792|169235607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|4.6||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|29.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||29.7|-20.5|0.7197
84742055|NCT00558792|169235607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|3.0||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|30.1||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||30.1|-24.1|0.8292
84742056|NCT00558792|169235608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-4.2||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.7|-9.0|0.0888
84742057|NCT00558792|169235608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-0.8||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.8|-6.4|0.7796
84742058|NCT00558792|169235608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.5|-8.2|0.1662
84742059|NCT03548220|169235642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided p-value|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84742060|NCT03548220|169235643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|24.01|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 2.913|||24.01|12.41|<0.0001
84742061|NCT03548220|169235646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-14.7|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 5.788|||-14.70|-37.82|<0.0001
84742062|NCT03548220|169235647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.81||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.88|-25.74|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 22.488|||-25.74|-115.88|0.0027
84742063|NCT03548220|169235648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.158||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.273|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.0578|||0.273|0.043|0.0079
84742064|NCT03548220|169235649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1391|-0.0632|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.01904|||-0.0632|-0.1391|<0.0001
84742065|NCT03548220|169235650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.352|||-0.41|-5.80|0.0247
84742066|NCT03548220|169235651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.12|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.574|||-0.12|-6.39|0.0421
84742067|NCT00926497|169235703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The trial was designed to obtain a power of 90% to detect a 30% difference between the two groups in the duration of antibiotic therapy with an estimated standard deviation of 50%.||||0.002
84742068|NCT00926497|169235704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84742069|NCT00926497|169235704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84603935|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5995||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5995
84742070|NCT03439254|169235707|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.13||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.79|0.71|0.6172
84742071|NCT03439254|169235707|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.2||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.89|0.77|0.4184
84742072|NCT01008553|169235723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
84742073|NCT04552899|169235746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change from Baseline|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.11||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.94|46.29|||RCRM|Random Coefficient Regression Model (RCRM)||||46.29|-87.94|0.54
84742074|NCT04552899|169235749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.91|0.2512
84742075|NCT04552899|169235750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.9833
84742076|NCT04552899|169235753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.40|0.7005
84742077|NCT00731133|169235763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.6466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9016||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7858|4.5073|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open-label study testing for change in side-effects ratings over time (i.e., slope).||4.5073|.7858|0.05
84603936|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.9104
84603937|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.2177
84603938|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1770
84603939|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1229
84603940|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1274||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1274
84742078|NCT00731133|169235764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8075|0.0615|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open label study testing changes in amphetamine use over time (i.e., slope).||0.06150|-0.8075|0.05
84490069|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.758|-15.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.310|-46.758|<0.001
84490070|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.553||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.948|27.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||27.015|-10.948|0.799
84603941|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0568
84603942|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0354
84603943|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4269||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.4269
84603944|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2058
84603945|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8215
84603946|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.5331
84603947|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7365||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7365
84603948|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9989||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.9989
84603949|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2501
84603950|NCT00468845|168958505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.6021
84603951|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6613||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.6613
84603952|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1311||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.1311
84603953|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6574
84603954|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6949||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6949
84603955|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.2008
84603956|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3022
84603957|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6382||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.6382
84603958|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.8624
84603959|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3858||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.3858
84603960|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4814
84603961|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9520
84742079|NCT02383940|169235765|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.06||Threshold for significance = 0.05|MMRM||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison was based on MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week-4 A1C (\<=10%, \>10%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.06|-0.76|0.10
84603962|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2315||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.2315
84742080|NCT01240915|169235782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.69||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.69|0.12|0.96
84742081|NCT01240915|169235783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.22||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.22|-0.19|0.54
84742082|NCT01240915|169235784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.30|-0.15|0.67
84742083|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.42||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.42|0.73|0.53
84742084|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|2.14||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.14|1.02|0.91
84742085|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.23||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.23|0.86|0.81
84603963|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.7061
84742086|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.51|0.59|0.44
84490071|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.682||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.748|16.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.727|-21.748|0.398
84549327|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|26.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||26.53|1.12|0.04
84742087|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.94||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.94|0.72|0.67
84742088|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.84|0.68|0.62
84742089|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.57||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.57|0.58|0.95
84490072|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.668|19.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||19.407|-18.668|0.515
84490073|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.549|7.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.437|-27.549|0.128
84490074|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.882||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.008|-6.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.695|-42.008|0.004
84490075|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.987||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.858|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.870|-32.858|0.049
84490076|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.368|4.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.709|-32.368|0.071
84490077|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.464||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.191|15.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.435|-22.191|0.361
84490078|NCT02055976|168731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.389||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.698|3.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.629|-33.698|0.056
84490079|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.975|-65.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-65.403|-86.975|<0.001
84742090|NCT01240915|169235791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.36||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.36|0.49|0.30
84742091|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.51|0.91|0.79
84742092|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.63|0.90|0.80
84742093|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.63|4.64||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||4.64|1.63|0.99
84742094|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|3.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.25|1.19|0.96
84549328|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.47|0.10|0.56
84549329|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.68||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.68|0.11|0.46
84549330|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.27|1.56|0.0002
84549331|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.12|1.14|0.0135
84549332|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.12|0.73|0.2619
84549333|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||4.24|1.01|0.0474
84571293|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84603964|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.2908
84603965|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4782||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4782
84603966|NCT00468845|168958506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.8130
84603967|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.894||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8940
84603968|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5938
84603969|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4306||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.4306
84742095|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|3.41||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.41|1.15|0.95
84742096|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.3||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.52|3.48||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.48|1.52|0.99
84742097|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|0.74|0.62
84742098|NCT01240915|169235792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|2.32||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.32|0.98|0.89
84742099|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|2.19||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||2.19|0.66|0.34
84742100|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|2.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.23|0.68|0.33
84742101|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|5.67||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||5.67|0.99|0.10
84742102|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|1.55||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.55|0.28|0.74
84742103|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|2.64||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.64|0.41|0.48
84742104|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|2.03||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.03|0.38|0.58
84742105|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|1.66||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.66|0.33|0.68
84742106|NCT01240915|169235793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.23|0.21|0.84
84742107|NCT01240915|169235794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|3.07||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||3.07|0.22|0.57
84742108|NCT01240915|169235795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.23|0.12|0.85
84742109|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.21|4.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||4.24|1.21|0.05
84742110|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.95||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.95|0.61|0.43
84742111|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.76||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.76|0.45|0.44
84742112|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|3.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.04|0.50|0.38
84603970|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5899||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.5899
84742113|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|1.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.04|0.14|0.89
84742114|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.42||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.42|0.45|0.47
84742115|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|3.57||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.57|0.70|0.24
84742116|NCT01240915|169235796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|1.32||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.32|0.22|0.81
84742117|NCT01240915|169235797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|1.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|0.20|0.84
84742118|NCT01240915|169235798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.73||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.73|0.12|0.96
84742119|NCT01240915|169235799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.87|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.24||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|-0.08|0.87
84742120|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.74||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.74|-0.15|0.80
84742121|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.77|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.84|-0.23|0.77
84742122|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|1.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.30|-0.42|0.74
84742123|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.88|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.59||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.59|-0.08|0.88
84490080|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.238|-84.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.172|-106.238|<0.001
84549334|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.07|0.42|0.8094
84549335|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.44|0.20|0.7978
84603971|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2209||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2209
84603972|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.7145
84603973|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.1022
84603974|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.7243
84603975|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2310
84490081|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-106.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.239|-94.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-94.915|-117.239|<0.001
84742124|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.72|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.33||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.33|-0.50|0.72
84742125|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.97|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|2.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.06|0.37|0.97
84742126|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|1.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.25|-0.39|0.75
84490082|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.39|-58.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.077|-84.390|<0.001
84549336|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.15|0.85|0.1016
84603976|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9192||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.9192
84603977|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.3214
84603978|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8641||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8641
84603979|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3024||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.3024
84603980|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7359||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7359
84603981|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.4303
84603982|NCT00468845|168958507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2133
84603983|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.5682
84603984|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1005||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.1005
84742127|NCT01240915|169235800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|-0.16|0.85
84603985|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8261||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.8261
84742128|NCT01240915|169235801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|1.49||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.49|-0.46|0.75
84742129|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.19|-0.18|0.51
84742130|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.25|-0.16|0.62
84603986|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9981||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.9981
84603987|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8884||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8884
84603988|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4507||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.4507
84603989|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.2994
84603990|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4371||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.4371
84603991|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8295
84742131|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.16||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.16|-0.39|0.29
84603992|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8783
84603993|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.2161
84603994|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0440
84603995|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3855||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.3855
84603996|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.2010
84742132|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.4||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.40|-0.14|0.74
84742133|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.21||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.21|-0.37|0.36
84742134|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.34||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.34|-0.26|0.56
84603997|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.7104
84603998|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6107||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.6107
84603999|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6705
84604000|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2083||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2083
84604001|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.3234
84604002|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.5938
84604003|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9711||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.9711
84549337|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.15|0.1570
84549338|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.18|1.11|0.0297
84549339|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||21.73|1.28|0.0213
84549340|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.74|0.20|0.9648
84604004|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.4869
84742135|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.09||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.09|-0.51|0.18
84742136|NCT01240915|169235802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.31|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.2||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.20|-0.45|0.31
84742137|NCT02574845|169235809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|116.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||116.15|89.49|
84742138|NCT02574845|169235809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.12|117.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.11|96.12|
84742139|NCT02574845|169235809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.12|171.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||171.41|135.12|
84742140|NCT02574845|169235809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|121.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.30|94.34|
84742141|NCT02574845|169235809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|115.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|131.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||131.82|101.93|
84604005|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7439||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.7439
84604006|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.8045
84604007|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5925||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.5925
84549341|NCT04075682|168851604|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6512
84549342|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.85|-0.75|0.41
84549343|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.21|-3.55|0.08
84549344|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.29|-2.42|0.55
84549345|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.86|-1.47|0.38
84549346|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.28||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.28|-3.35|0.71
84549347|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.83|0.59|0.02
84604008|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.6830
84549348|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.76||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.76|-3.85|0.98
84549349|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.95|-6.2|0.31
84549350|NCT04075682|168851605|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|2.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.97|-4.58|0.68
84549351|NCT04075682|168851606|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.81|0.45
84549352|NCT04075682|168851606|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.70|-0.64|0.5767
84549353|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.98|0.36
84604009|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8266||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.8266
84604010|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.1929
84604011|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.7071
84604012|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.9367
84604013|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6046||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.6046
84604014|NCT00468845|168958508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5119||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.5119
84490083|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.768|-87.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-87.508|-113.768|<0.001
84490084|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-103.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.353|-90.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.420|-116.353|<0.001
84490085|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.382|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.813|-50.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.435|-71.813|<0.001
84490086|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.721|-70.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-70.954|-92.721|<0.001
84490087|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-89.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.74|-78.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-78.627|-100.740|<0.001
84549354|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||0.99|-1.64|0.63
84549355|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.12|-1.62|0.79
84549356|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.37|-0.84|0.4491
84571294|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
84604015|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6966||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.6966
84490088|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.902|-64.593|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.593|-88.902|<0.001
84490089|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.781|-88.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-88.551|-112.781|<0.001
84549357|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.06|-1.26|0.8713
84549358|NCT04075682|168851607|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.66|-1.66|0.99
84549359|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.37|0.02|0.04
84549360|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.11|-1.85|0.08
84549361|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.19||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.19|-0.74|0.65
84571295|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84604016|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.1808
84604017|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2616||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2616
84604018|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1014||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.1014
84604019|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4401
84604020|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5615
84604021|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7615
84604022|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6204
84604023|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8766||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.8766
84604024|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1717||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1717
84742142|NCT02574845|169235810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|102.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|120.42|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||120.42|87.19|
84742143|NCT02574845|169235810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|123.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||123.69|92.54|
84742144|NCT02574845|169235810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|154.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.7|180.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||180.24|131.70|
84742145|NCT02574845|169235810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.78|124.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||124.30|91.78|
84742146|NCT02574845|169235810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|117.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.27|141.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||141.65|98.27|
84490090|NCT02055976|168731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-109.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.519|-97.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-97.462|-121.519|<0.001
84490091|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.671|-39.874|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.874|-53.671|<0.001
84549362|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.11|-0.66|0.30
84549363|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.26|-1.68|0.78
84604025|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4065||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4065
84742147|NCT02574845|169235811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.23|114.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||114.82|89.23|
84742148|NCT02574845|169235811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|107.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|117.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.81|97.65|
84742149|NCT02574845|169235811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|146.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.21|158.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||158.62|135.21|
84490092|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.257|-52.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.143|-66.257|<0.001
84742150|NCT02574845|169235811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|121.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.00|92.20|
84549364|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.83|0.12|0.03
84742151|NCT02574845|169235811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|118.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.75|130.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||130.67|106.75|
84742152|NCT02917603|169235981|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is that there would be no mean difference between baseline and last measure between intervention and control groups with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean differences between baseline and last measure in the PHQ- 9 score will not differ between groups. Study is powered a two-tailed test of significance, allowing the detection of a significant difference in either direction and the following assumptions: expected difference in PHQ-9 is 5 points, the documented clinically significant effect;78 (2) the variance of scores is 5.33; (3) error protection: α =.10, β = .20 and, (4) anticipated attrition of 15%||||<.009
84742153|NCT02917603|169235982|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.21
84742154|NCT02917603|169235983|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.06
84742155|NCT02917603|169235984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||<|0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.73
84742156|NCT02145468|169236072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.47|0.91|0.238
84742157|NCT02145468|169236073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk.~with the treatment compared with placebo."|||1.38|0.90|0.329
84571296|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84742158|NCT02145468|169236074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.88|0.338
84742159|NCT02145468|169236074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.88|0.410
84742160|NCT02145468|169236075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death, MI or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.38|0.86|0.472
84571297|NCT02065557|168893574|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
84742161|NCT02145468|169236076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of arterial CV events (CV death, MI, SRI-UR or stroke), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.91|
84604026|NCT00468845|168958509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0746
84742162|NCT02145468|169236077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of coronary events (CHD death, MI, SRI-UR or any unplanned coronary artery revascularization), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.36|0.86|0.505
84742163|NCT02145468|169236078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.26|0.64|0.536
84742164|NCT02145468|169236078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.24|0.69|0.6
84742165|NCT02145468|169236079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI or stroke, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.88|0.356
84742166|NCT02145468|169236080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI, SRI-UR, stroke or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.39|0.9|0.329
84742167|NCT02145468|169236081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death, MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.89|0.285
84742168|NCT02145468|169236082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.46|0.86|0.401
84742169|NCT02145468|169236083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death, MI or SRI-UR,Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.89|0.295
84742170|NCT02145468|169236084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.86|0.412
84742171|NCT02145468|169236085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, type I (spontaneous) MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.49|0.83|0.469
84742172|NCT02145468|169236086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or type I (spontaneous) MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.48|0.78|0.664
84742173|NCT02145468|169236087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with first occurrence of definite or probable stent thrombosis, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.19|0.27|0.130
84742174|NCT02145468|169236088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Wald chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated using a logistic regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.27|0.84|0.744
84742175|NCT02145468|169236089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with all-cause mortality, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.53|0.309
84742176|NCT02145468|169236090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.28|0.53|0.398
84742177|NCT02145468|169236090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.18|0.55|0.264
84742178|NCT02145468|169236091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CHD death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.47|0.251
84742179|NCT02145468|169236092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.67|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.67|0.91|0.182
84742180|NCT02145468|169236092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.58|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.58|0.93|0.158
84742181|NCT02145468|169236093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Type I (spontaneous) MI events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.12|0.85|0.21
84742182|NCT02145468|169236094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|SRI-UR events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.24|0.58|0.697
84490093|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.007|-59.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.730|-74.007|<0.001
84490094|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.195|-32.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.908|-47.195|<0.001
84490095|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.135|-48.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.882|-63.135|<0.001
84604027|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2201
84604028|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0606
84742183|NCT02145468|169236095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.96|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Stroke (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.96|0.46|0.883
84490096|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.618|-50.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.533|-64.618|<0.001
84490097|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.721|-31.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.260|-44.721|<0.001
84490098|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.709|-44.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.002|-57.709|<0.001
84490099|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.315|-49.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.393|-63.315|<0.001
84604029|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5303
84490100|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.647|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.417|-35.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.926|-50.417|<0.001
84490101|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.916|-49.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.480|-63.916|<0.001
84742184|NCT02145468|169236096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.32|0.54|0.457
84742185|NCT02145468|169236096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.63|0.736
84742186|NCT02145468|169236097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Any unplanned coronary revascularization, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.59|0.77|0.581
84742187|NCT00422812|169236129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Overall effect at 2 hr (by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) for TREATMENT|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84742188|NCT00422812|169236130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
84742189|NCT00422812|169236130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0226
84742190|NCT00422812|169236130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
84742191|NCT00422812|169236131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Overall effect (0-4 hr) for TREATMENT by Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0007
84742192|NCT00422812|169236131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons||||||0.0008
84742193|NCT00422812|169236131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0008
84742194|NCT00422812|169236131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
84742195|NCT04531982|169236181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4825||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between LSM changes for adjunctive pimavanserin and adjunctive placebo (pimavanserin - placebo) at the specified visit from MMRM analysis.||||0.4825
84742196|NCT04531982|169236182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8872||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8872
84742197|NCT06988800|169236191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
84742198|NCT06988800|169236192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests.||||<.001
84742199|NCT06988800|169236193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
84742200|NCT02344290|169236194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Two-sided 95% repeated confidence interval that adjusts for interim looks according to the realized Lan and DeMets implementation of the O'Brien-Fleming sequential stopping boundary is presented.|||0.84|0.48|
84742201|NCT02344290|169236195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.87|0.36|
84490102|NCT02055976|168731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.477|-54.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.134|-68.477|<0.001
84490103|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.69928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96175|-1.43682|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.43682|-1.96175|<0.001
84742202|NCT02344290|169236196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.97|0.40|
84742203|NCT02344290|169236197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||4.02|0.11|
84742204|NCT02344290|169236198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.38|0.35|
84742205|NCT02344290|169236199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.03|0.44|
84742206|NCT02344290|169236200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|1.05|0.36|
84604030|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2227||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.2227
84604031|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8237||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8237
84604032|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7476||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7476
84604033|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6882||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.6882
84742207|NCT02344290|169236202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Estimation of the confidence interval used a Bayes analysis with a non-informative prior using adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling. In this case, the interval shown is a 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval.|0.54|0.00|
84742208|NCT02344290|169236203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.94|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.94|0.64|
84742209|NCT02344290|169236204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.70|
84742210|NCT02344290|169236205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.13|0.76|
84490104|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.07922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13446|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34622|-1.81223|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.81223|-2.34622|<0.001
84604034|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9689
84604035|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5010
84490105|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.23886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.50795|-1.96978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.96978|-2.50795|<0.001
84490106|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.43281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75689|-1.10872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.10872|-1.75689|<0.001
84604036|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.9143
84604037|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7381||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.7381
84742211|NCT02344290|169236206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.20|0.71|
84742212|NCT02344290|169236207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.31|0.68|
84742213|NCT02344290|169236208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.51|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.51|0.14|
84742214|NCT02344290|169236209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.02|0.42|
84742215|NCT02344290|169236210|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.10|0.90|
84742216|NCT02344290|169236211|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.57|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.57|1.07|
84742217|NCT02344290|169236212|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.19|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.19|1.14|
84742218|NCT02344290|169236213|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.37|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.37|0.17|
84742219|NCT02344290|169236214|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.18|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.18|0.56|
84742220|NCT02344290|169236215|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.97|
84742221|NCT02344290|169236218|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.08|0.52|
84742222|NCT02344290|169236219|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.16|0.96|
84742223|NCT02344290|169236220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted mean difference in change at year 2, using linear regression.|||-0.1|-8.6|0.04
84742224|NCT02344290|169236221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Chi-squared||Treatment effect was estimated as relative risk (pitavastatin/placebo), adjusted for presence of NCP at entry.|||0.88|0.52|0.003
84742225|NCT02344290|169236222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.62|||||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted difference in mean change at year 2, using linear regression.|||0.62|-9.2|
84742226|NCT02344290|169236223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of LpPla2 Levels at Month 24||||<0.001
84549365|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.04|-1.92|0.95
84549366|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|-2.91|0.48
84549367|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.07|-2.86|0.37
84549368|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.34||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.34|0.12|0.0192
84549369|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.29|-1.48|0.1860
84549370|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.26|-0.49|0.3863
84549371|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.61|-0.89|0.5710
84604038|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5336||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.5336
84604039|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6479||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.6479
84604040|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.1133
84604041|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7637||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.7637
84604042|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1056||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1056
84604043|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8079||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.8079
84604044|NCT00468845|168958510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0917
84604045|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7511
84604046|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6742||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6742
84604047|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.3808
84742227|NCT02344290|169236224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in LpPla2 from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
84604048|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7021
84604049|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0045
84604050|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7916||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7916
84742228|NCT02344290|169236225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of hsCRP Levels at Month 24||||0.02
84742229|NCT02344290|169236226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in hsCRP from Baseline at Month 24||||0.09
84742230|NCT02344290|169236227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of soluble CD163 Levels at Month 24.||||0.65
84490107|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33718|-1.69283|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.69283|-2.33718|<0.001
84490108|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.11359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4323|-1.79489|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.79489|-2.43230|<0.001
84490109|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62324|-1.08271|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.08271|-1.62324|<0.001
84490110|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.79615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07001|-1.52229|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.52229|-2.07001|<0.001
84490111|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.86921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14575|-1.59266|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.59266|-2.14575|<0.001
84604051|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3682
84604052|NCT00468845|168958511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1419||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1419
84604053|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.3323
84604054|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5662||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.5662
84604055|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9538||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.9538
84742231|NCT02344290|169236228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in soluble CD163 from Baseline at Month 24||||0.88
84742232|NCT02344290|169236229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by sex was evaluated via interaction of treatment and sex in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by sex (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing in females compared to males).||||0.98
84742233|NCT02344290|169236229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.04|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among females.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among females.||1.04|0.39|
84742234|NCT02344290|169236229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among males.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among males.||0.86|0.48|
84742235|NCT02344290|169236230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by race was evaluated via interaction of treatment and race in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by race (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing between races).||||0.14
84742236|NCT02344290|169236230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.59||||||Pitavastatin effect among Asians from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Asians.|0.59|0.09|
84742237|NCT02344290|169236230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.96|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Blacks.|Pitavastatin effect among Blacks from subgroup analysis by race.||0.96|0.46|
84742238|NCT02344290|169236230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Whites.|Pitavastatin effect among Whites from subgroup analysis by race.||1.13|0.49|
84490112|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.57311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14333|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85788|-1.28834|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.28834|-1.85788|<0.001
84604056|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4592||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4592
84742239|NCT02344290|169236230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1||||||Pitavastatin effect among Other race from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Other race.|2.10|0.36|
84604057|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.4793
84742240|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84742241|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Quit Letter activity||||<.001
84742242|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity||||.004
84742243|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity||||.098
84742244|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity||||.042
84742245|NCT04893460|169236254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.364|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to 6 weeks post baseline.||||.364
84742246|NCT04893460|169236255|SUPERIORITY||median pairwise average|17.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxson Signed Rank Test|||The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate whether participants were smoking fewer cigarettes per day.||||<.001
84490113|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.00256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28521|-1.7199|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.71990|-2.28521|<0.001
84490114|NCT02055976|168731557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.20298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48399|-1.92197|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.92197|-2.48399|<0.001
84490115|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.92915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55052|-36.30778|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.30778|-47.55052|<0.001
84604058|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8517||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8517
84604059|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1829||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1829
84604060|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3544||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.3544
84604061|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.1718
84604062|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5078
84604063|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.2443
84604064|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8296||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.8296
84604065|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3243
84604066|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3755
84604067|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9584||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.9584
84604068|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1187
84604069|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7915||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.7915
84604070|NCT00468845|168958512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0703
84604071|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1975||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.1975
84604072|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2784||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.2784
84604073|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0271
84604074|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0881||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0881
84604075|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0159
84604076|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.1870
84669199|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669200|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0935
84742247|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.776
84604077|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1752
84604078|NCT00468845|168958513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6923||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6923
84604079|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6295
84604080|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6890
84604081|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5094||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.5094
84604082|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8741||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.8741
84604083|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0214
84604084|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9366||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.9366
84604085|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7833||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7833
84604086|NCT00468845|168958516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2983||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2983
84604087|NCT00468845|168958519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6861||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.6861
84604088|NCT00468845|168958519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.9905
84604089|NCT00468845|168958520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4264||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.4264
84742248|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Quit Latter activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
84742249|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
84742250|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
84490116|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.08604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.81235|-45.35973|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.35973|-56.81235|<0.001
84549372|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.60|-2.06|0.2797
84490117|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.29424|-49.73777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.73777|-61.29424|<0.001
84604090|NCT00468845|168958520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3045
84604091|NCT00468845|168958521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0714
84742251|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.110
84742252|NCT04893460|169236256|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to 6 week post baseline assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.868
84742253|NCT03578887|169236259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84742254|NCT03578887|169236260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84742255|NCT00568178|169236262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio in Geometric Mean|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|0.54|0.001
84742256|NCT00568178|169236263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||||95.0|-9.9|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-9.9|
84742257|NCT00568178|169236264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||||95.0|-9.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-9.2|
84742258|NCT00568178|169236265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.6||No P Value was calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured variance-covariance was used.||||1.60|0.86|
84742259|NCT00568178|169236266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-3.8||||||95.0|-15.2|7.6||A P-Value was not calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-15.2|
84742260|NCT01008410|169236281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0324||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||0.0324
84742261|NCT04143945|169236292|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|2.6||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||5.1|0.1|0.0395
84742262|NCT02787044|169236293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Note, each participant can be included in the primary analysis up to 3 times (participating seasons).||1.17|0.97|0.21
84742263|NCT02787044|169236294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.94|0.44
84742264|NCT02787044|169236295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Each participant can be analyzed up to three times (seasons)||1.2|.97|0.16
84742265|NCT02787044|169236296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|.96|0.26
84742266|NCT02787044|169236297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.84|0.96
84742267|NCT02672852|169236305|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||76.0|65.7|< 0.001
84742268|NCT02672852|169236306|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.4|82.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||82.5|70.4|< 0.001
84742269|NCT02672852|169236307|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||34.6|17.3|< 0.001
84742270|NCT02672852|169236308|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|86.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||86.6|74.5|< 0.001
84742271|NCT02672852|169236309|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|50.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.8|40.3|< 0.001
84490118|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.30375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07498|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41376|-27.19373|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.19373|-39.41376|<0.001
84490119|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.8521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.92668|-41.77751|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.77751|-53.92668|<0.001
84549373|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.55||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.55|0.12|0.0312
84549374|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.39||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.39|-1.19|0.5086
84549375|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.99|-1.86|0.9474
84549376|NCT04075682|168851608|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.16|-2.36|0.5018
84742272|NCT02672852|169236310|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.0|39.5|< 0.001
84742273|NCT02672852|169236311|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||67.9|56.4|< 0.001
84742274|NCT02672852|169236312|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|81.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||81.9|66.0|< 0.001
84549377|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.31|0.25
84549378|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.57|-1.63|0.34
84549379|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.92||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.92|-1.26|0.76
84549380|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.63|-0.42|0.15
84549381|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.66|-1.66|1.00
84549382|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.43|0.38|0.01
84549383|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.80|-1.56|0.58
84742275|NCT02672852|169236313|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||28.7|13.7|< 0.001
84549384|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.47|0.39
84549385|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.05|0.45
84549386|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.13|0.1147
84549387|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.53|-1.41|0.3721
84549388|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.03|-0.89|0.8827
84549389|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.87||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.87|-0.80|0.4335
84549390|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.84||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.84|-2.07|0.4063
84604092|NCT00468845|168958521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4455||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.4455
84742276|NCT02672852|169236314|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||42.2|24.0|< 0.001
84742277|NCT02672852|169236315|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||44.2|23.2|< 0.001
84742278|NCT03248882|169236316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.4|-1.1||||||||-1.1|-19.4|
84742279|NCT03248882|169236316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.3|-40.1||||||||-40.1|-51.3|
84742280|NCT03248882|169236316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|-47.1||||||||-47.1|-57.2|
84742281|NCT03248882|169236316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.0|-57.8||||||||-57.8|-66.0|
84742282|NCT03248882|169236317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.0|6.3||||||||6.3|-14.0|
84490120|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.65686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6606|-42.65313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.65313|-54.66060|<0.001
84490121|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.5292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.42015|-27.63826|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.63826|-39.42015|<0.001
84490122|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.8568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.00531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.82617|-37.88744|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-37.88744|-49.82617|<0.001
84742283|NCT03248882|169236317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|-12.2||||||||-12.2|-29.0|
84490123|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.36865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.40589|-40.33142|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.33142|-52.40589|<0.001
84490124|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.06019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1361|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29176|-31.82863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.82863|-44.29176|<0.001
84742284|NCT03248882|169236317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.8|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-32.8|
84742285|NCT03248882|169236317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.9|-35.0||||||||-35.0|-47.9|
84742286|NCT04308590|169236322|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis will determine whether there is a difference between treatment groups in terms of change from Baseline to Week 22 in 24-hour average SBP. This was performed using a linear mixed-model-for-repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis using a placebo wash-out multiple imputation for treatment discontinuation and for patients that use rescue medication.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.096|3.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.766|-9.096|0.4160
84490125|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.57807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76397|-42.39217|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.39217|-54.76397|<0.001
84604093|NCT00468845|168958522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7418||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.7418
84604094|NCT00468845|168958522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5154||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5154
84742287|NCT01725126|169236471|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||1.75|-1.38|
84742288|NCT01725126|169236471|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.36|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||2.36|-0.20|
84490126|NCT02055976|168731558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.87214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09363|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01968|-45.7246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.72460|-58.01968|<0.001
84490127|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02639|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38399|-0.27916|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.27916|-0.38399|<0.001
84490128|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49727|-0.39077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39077|-0.49727|<0.001
84490129|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.48314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02698|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53671|-0.42956|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.42956|-0.53671|<0.001
84490130|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.30542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0323|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.24124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.24124|-0.36960|<0.001
84549391|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.03|0.35|0.0132
84490131|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.50466|-0.37821|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.37821|-0.50466|<0.001
84490132|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52491|-0.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39980|-0.52491|<0.001
84490133|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02615|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32142|-0.21755|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.21755|-0.32142|<0.001
84490134|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.37493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02649|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42754|-0.32231|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.32231|-0.42754|<0.001
84490135|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02676|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46512|-0.35886|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.35886|-0.46512|<0.001
84490136|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37723|-0.25888|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.25888|-0.37723|<0.001
84549392|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.75||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.75|-1.08|0.3949
84549393|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.72||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.72|-2.50|0.7145
84549394|NCT04075682|168851609|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6081
84549395|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.64||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.64|-1.15|0.58
84549396|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.57|-1.98|0.82
84549397|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.24|-0.90|0.20
84549398|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation analysis are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-0.77|0.8800
84549399|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.50|-1.30|0.8864
84549400|NCT04075682|168851610|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.12|-0.89|0.2748
84549401|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||2.70|0.45|0.83
84549402|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||7.18|1.14|0.03
84549403|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.44|0.15|0.18
84549404|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||12.57|0.08|0.99
84549405|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.||These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.82|0.29|0.86
84742289|NCT01725126|169236472|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.87|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||1.87|-1.64|
84490137|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.42583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02932|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48409|-0.36758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.36758|-0.48409|<0.001
84549406|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||||0.8045
84549407|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||||0.0205
84549408|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||||0.1918
84549409|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.99
84604095|NCT00468845|168958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6715||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6715
84604096|NCT00468845|168958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9013
84604097|NCT00468845|168958524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9126||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9126
84604098|NCT00468845|168958524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||1.0000
84742290|NCT01725126|169236472|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||2.75|-0.24|
84742291|NCT01725126|169236473|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|1.331|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||1.331|-1.694|
84742292|NCT01725126|169236473|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|0.698|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.698|-1.409|
84490138|NCT02055976|168731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51287|-0.39715|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39715|-0.51287|<0.001
84742293|NCT01725126|169236473|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.526|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.526|-2.232|
84549410|NCT04075682|168851611|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.6873
84604099|NCT00468845|168958525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1233||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1233
84604100|NCT00468845|168958525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1666
84669201|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669202|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669203|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669204|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0760
84669205|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669206|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0019
84669207|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0037
84669208|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2489
84669209|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669210|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
84669211|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0052
84669212|NCT01480076|169072591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7714
84669213|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742294|NCT01725126|169236473|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.009|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.009|-2.447|
84549411|NCT04075682|168851612|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.41|-1.12|0.37
84549412|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.10|0.90|0.92
84549413|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.11|0.90|0.95
84549414|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||1.14|0.85|0.85
84549415|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.13|0.84|0.75
84669214|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742295|NCT01725126|169236474|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|1.587|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B -Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||1.587|-1.277|
84742296|NCT01725126|169236474|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.939|0.892|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||0.892|-1.939|
84742297|NCT01725126|169236476|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.365|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.365|-0.495|
84549416|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.20|0.78|0.78
84549417|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.82|0.94|0.11
84549418|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.80|0.93
84549419|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.23|0.78|0.86
84549420|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.81|0.94
84549421|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.78|0.93|0.13
84604101|NCT00468845|168958526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0361||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0361
84604102|NCT00468845|168958526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0797||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0797
84604103|NCT00468845|168958527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0206
84604104|NCT00468845|168958527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0011
84604105|NCT00468845|168958529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3506||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours||||0.3506
84604106|NCT00468845|168958530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0287
84604107|NCT00468845|168958530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2270
84490139|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.42411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72907|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.83019|-42.01803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.01803|-56.83019|<0.001
84604108|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1872||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.1872
84669215|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84490140|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.63383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.16086|-59.10681|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.10681|-74.16086|<0.001
84490141|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.72901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.30431|-64.15371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.15371|-79.30431|<0.001
84490142|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.56596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.35899|-35.77293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.77293|-51.35899|<0.001
84490143|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.34926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02607|-54.67245|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.67245|-70.02607|<0.001
84490144|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-65.06617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.65818|-57.47415|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.47415|-72.65818|<0.001
84490145|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.52435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66973|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81299|-33.23571|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.23571|-47.81299|<0.001
84490146|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.14495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52668|-48.76322|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.76322|-63.52668|<0.001
84490147|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7569|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0251|-54.1023|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.10230|-69.02510|<0.001
84490148|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.34109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61427|-38.06792|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.06792|-54.61427|<0.001
84490149|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.3789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.52338|-53.23443|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.23443|-69.52338|<0.001
84490150|NCT02055976|168731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.67274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75728|-56.5882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.58820|-72.75728|<0.001
84490151|NCT00684073|168731576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.13||95.0||||p-value adjusted for treatment only|ANCOVA||Difference between treatments (Suboxone minus Subutex)estimated by ANCOVA = 0.42.|||||0.130
84604109|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.3994
84742298|NCT01725126|169236476|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.472|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.472|-0.910|
84742299|NCT01725126|169236480|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.5008|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.5008|0.7290|
84604110|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0422||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.0422
84742300|NCT01725126|169236481|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.0334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.3673|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.3673|0.7810|
84742301|NCT01725126|169236483|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.779|0.585|
84742302|NCT01725126|169236484|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.578|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.757|0.578|
84490152|NCT01657903|168731586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|47.89||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.89|34.42|<0.0001
84490153|NCT01657903|168731586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.51|48.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||48.06|34.51|<0.0001
84490154|NCT01657903|168731586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.06|47.61||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.61|34.06|<0.0001
84490155|NCT01657903|168731587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|12.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.72|6.01|<0.0001
84490156|NCT01657903|168731587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|12.82||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.82|6.07|<0.0001
84490157|NCT01657903|168731587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|15.03||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.03|8.28|<0.0001
84604111|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3647||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.3647
84604112|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1729||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.1729
84604113|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.2234
84742303|NCT03151993|169236507|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis would be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for an mRS score of 0-1 on day 90 did not cross the margin of noninferiority of 16%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using Welch's t-test for the primary outcome only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.7|||Welch's t-test|||||20.7|-1.7|<0.01
84669216|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669217|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742304|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 0||||0.89
84742305|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.00082||||||This is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 7||||0.00082
84742306|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||7.6e-05||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 45||||0.000076
84742307|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 0||||0.63
84742308|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 7||||0.0186
84742309|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 45||||0.0052
84742310|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 0||||0.25
84742311|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 7||||0.061
84742312|NCT03101462|169236529|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 45||||0.0025
84742313|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.24
84742314|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
84742315|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
84742316|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.56
84742317|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
84742318|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
84742319|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
84742320|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.94
84742321|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.002
84742322|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
84742323|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
84742324|NCT03101462|169236530|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.98
84742325|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
84742326|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
84742327|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.95
84742328|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.17
84742329|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
84742330|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.14
84742331|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
84742332|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.09
84742333|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.01
84742334|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.08
84742335|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.16
84742336|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
84742337|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.84
84742338|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.04
84742339|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.07
84742340|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.27
84742341|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.11
84742342|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.46
84742343|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.006
84742344|NCT03101462|169236531|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.41
84742345|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.72
84742346|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and 45||||0.06
84742347|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.75
84742348|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.05
84742349|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.0004
84604114|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.0950
84742350|NCT03101462|169236532|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
84742351|NCT03101462|169236533|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H1N1 HA, Day 7||||0.02
84742352|NCT03101462|169236533|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H3N2, Day 7||||0.67
84742353|NCT03101462|169236533|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-influenza B HA, Day 7||||0.30
84742354|NCT03846453|169236552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.04|0.1871
84742355|NCT03846453|169236553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.||||0.23|-0.12|0.5549
84742356|NCT01669577|169236618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE(Generalyzed Estimation Equation)|0.989214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982855|0.995613||arterial hemoglobin Oxygen saturation|ANOVA|Non parametric(NPar) ANOVA|GEE model (dichotomous response variable)with logit link function. The NPar ANOVA (p\<0.1 for death) was the test used for inclusion in the model variables for the final models - backward method, with alpha equal to 0.05.|"significance level of 0.05, power of 0.80, moderate correlation of 0.5 between time periods and assumption that the variability is equal within each factor (non-sphericity). Due to the effect size between 0.1 and 0.5, there was no need for samples larger than 140 patients. A total of 200 patients was defined conservatively, with a margin for possible deaths. The software G\*Power 3.1.7 was used for sample size calculation.~Fischer's test, Mann-Whitney, t-test; Non parametric ANOVA and GEE"||0.995613|0.982855|< 0.001
84742357|NCT01669577|169236618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.99728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995791|0.998772|||ANOVA|||diastolic arterial blood pressure||0.998772|0.995791|< 0.001
84742358|NCT01669577|169236618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.046961|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012521|1.082572|||ANOVA|||lactate||1.082572|1.012521|< 0.004
84742359|NCT01669577|169236618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.973987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965308|0.982744|||ANOVA|||Glasgow coma score||0.982744|0.965308|<0.001
84742360|NCT01669577|169236618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.000013|||<|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.000025|||ANOVA|||amount of Infused crystalloids||1.000025|1.000000|<0.023
84742361|NCT01204710|169236659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.9||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as IMC-3G3 + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.90|0.87|0.2201
84742362|NCT01204710|169236660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Olaratumab + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.61|0.72|0.7291
84742363|NCT01204710|169236661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3465
84742364|NCT01204710|169236662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6571
84742365|NCT01204710|169236663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4986
84742366|NCT03826030|169236741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was no overall difference in FM-UE scale change between the three groups on day 15. The change in FM-UE was modelled using a linear mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for visit (ie, day 15, day 45, and day 105), treatment group, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline FM-UE, time from stroke (30-90 vs. 91-180 days), and enrolment site. An AR(1) autocorrelation structure was used for visit, and variance components structure for sites.||||0.39
84549422|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.41|0.70|0.96
84549423|NCT04075682|168851613|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.72|0.95
84549424|NCT01421225|168851653|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the number of hours would be the same (no effect of control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the number of nighttime (10 PM - 8 AM) hours glucose was in the target range (110-200 mg/dL) on each of the two nights for which the patient was followed (one night under Standard Insulin Pump Therapy; one night under Closed-loop Insulin Therapy)||||0.12
84549425|NCT04081610|168851657|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through the incidence of AD.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
84549426|NCT04081610|168851658|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the tolerability of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit-dose manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. using the ICO score.||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
84549427|NCT04081610|168851658|EQUIVALENCE|F=2.606, 15.926||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.009
84549428|NCT04081610|168851658|EQUIVALENCE|F=3.051, 19.336||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.002
84549429|NCT04081610|168851659|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through changes in BCVA.||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.904
84549430|NCT04081610|168851659|EQUIVALENCE|F=-1.414, 1.061||||||0.157|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||0.157
84549431|NCT04081610|168851659|EQUIVALENCE|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||1.000
84549432|NCT04081610|168851660|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in corneal and conjunctival staining with fluorescein.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84549433|NCT04081610|168851660|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)= 6.400||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial fluorescein staining||||0.041
84669218|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549434|NCT04081610|168851660|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.814||||||0.665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.665
84549435|NCT04081610|168851661|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes of corneal and conjunctival staining with lysamine green.||||||0.713|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.713
84549436|NCT04081610|168851661|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (3)=14.345||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.002
84549437|NCT04081610|168851661|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.506||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.777
84549438|NCT04081610|168851662|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in conjunctival hyperemia.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84549439|NCT04081610|168851662|EQUIVALENCE|F=4.167, 1||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||0.031
84549440|NCT04081610|168851662|EQUIVALENCE|No significant change was observed.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||1.000
84549441|NCT01028014|168851668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
84604115|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4345||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.4345
84604116|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.2840
84742367|NCT00921687|169236884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||2.30|1.01|0.04
84742368|NCT00921687|169236885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.44||95.0|0.84|1.49|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||1.49|0.84|0.44
84742369|NCT00297427|169236906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84742370|NCT00297427|169236907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84742371|NCT00297427|169236908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84742372|NCT00297427|169236909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84549442|NCT01028014|168851669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
84549443|NCT01218087|168851675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following the first interim analysis of the first 40 infants, the sample size calculation was revised. A revised sample size of 62 infants (31 per treatment arm) was based on an observed reduction of 41% to 11% in the experimental group with a goal p value of 0.01.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84742373|NCT00297427|169236911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84742374|NCT00297427|169236912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84742375|NCT00297427|169236913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84549444|NCT02347813|168851699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.750
84549445|NCT05088603|168851745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
84549446|NCT05088603|168851746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84549447|NCT05088603|168851747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84549448|NCT05088603|168851749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.529
84549449|NCT05088603|168851750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84549450|NCT05088603|168851751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.502
84549451|NCT05088603|168851752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.431
84549452|NCT05088603|168851753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
84549453|NCT05088603|168851754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
84549454|NCT05088603|168851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
84549455|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.04
84549456|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||PIGF||||0.04
84549457|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Cox|||CAIX||||0.02
84549458|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.05
84549459|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.01
84549460|NCT00379080|168851788|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.05
84549461|NCT01222520|168851789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.14|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.09|11.18|||ANCOVA|||||11.18|7.09|<0.0001
84549462|NCT01222520|168851790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|14.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|11.82|17.94|||ANCOVA|||||17.94|11.82|<0.0001
84549463|NCT01222520|168851791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84549464|NCT01222520|168851792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84549465|NCT01222520|168851793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84549466|NCT01222520|168851794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84549467|NCT01222520|168851795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84549468|NCT00497289|168851796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3654
84549469|NCT00497289|168851797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
84549470|NCT00955955|168851798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Score Reduction|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.05||95.0|||||SPCD|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD)|These results reflect the mean score reduction for the pooled Deplin sample.|Hypothesis 1: There will be a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the degree of improvement, as measured by the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score from baseline to endpoint, using the sequential parallel comparison design \[51\]; with a greater degree of reduction in HAM-D-17 scores in the 6(S)-5-MTHF 15 mg qd group than in the placebo group, with the change on placebo being estimated from Trials 1 and 2.||||.05
84549471|NCT02920008|168851805|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||Stratified log-rank|||||||= 0.3287
84549472|NCT04590586|168851819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (Lanadelumab vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||2.35|0.59|0.6672
84549473|NCT04590586|168851820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.24|0.77|0.8779
84549474|NCT04590586|168851832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.3773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.9|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||4.9|-12.9|0.3773
84742376|NCT00297427|169236915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.04
84490158|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Group Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.02|1.25||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.25|1.02|
84490159|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.91|1.12||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.12|0.91|
84490160|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.8|0.99||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1)Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||0.99|0.80|
84490161|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.74|1.93||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.93|0.74|
84490162|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.52|1.38||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.38|0.52|
84490163|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.44|1.15||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.15|0.44|
84490164|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.01|1.3||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.30|1.01|
84669219|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84490165|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.93|1.19||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.19|0.93|
84490166|NCT00620815|168731590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.81|1.04||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.04|0.81|
84490167|NCT02828982|168731623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in metabolic costs between the two groups||||0.585
84742377|NCT00297427|169236916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.01
84490168|NCT02828982|168731624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences in the number of steps taken outside of the home for the two prostheses.||||0.452
84490169|NCT02828982|168731625|OTHER|paired t-test of Physical component scores between the two conditions||||||0.48||||||a prior threshold for significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.480
84490170|NCT02828982|168731625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||||0.408
84490171|NCT02828982|168731626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ambulation Score||||0.058
84490172|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.123||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Appearance Score||||.123
84490173|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.052||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Frustration Score||||.052
84742378|NCT00297427|169236917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.41
84742379|NCT00297427|169236918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Bivariate (unadjusted) analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84742380|NCT00297427|169236918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.405|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results of a multivariate logistic regression.|||1.405|1.039|0.014
84742381|NCT00297427|169236919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||This is the result from the bivariate (unadjusted) analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84604117|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.6404
84604118|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.0550
84604119|NCT00468845|168958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.4531
84604120|NCT00468845|168958532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9712||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.9712
84604121|NCT00468845|168958532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0112
84604122|NCT00468845|168958532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0090
84604123|NCT00468845|168958532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.8650
84604124|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8914||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.8914
84604125|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.2214
84604126|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.1008
84490174|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.188||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived Response Score||||.188
84490175|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.336||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Limb Health Score||||.336
84490176|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.043||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Burden Score||||.043
84490177|NCT02828982|168731626|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.391||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sounds Score||||.391
84490178|NCT02828982|168731626|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.799||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Utility Score||||.799
84490179|NCT02828982|168731626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Well-Being||||.173
84490180|NCT02828982|168731627|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.655||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Biceps Femoris||||0.655
84490181|NCT02828982|168731627|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.281||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Rectus Femoris||||.281
84490182|NCT02828982|168731627|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.844||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Soleus||||.844
84490183|NCT02828982|168731627|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.11||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Tibialis Anterior||||.110
84490184|NCT02828982|168731627|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Biceps Femoris||||.394
84490185|NCT02828982|168731627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Rectus Femoris||||.141
84490186|NCT02828982|168731628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
84490187|NCT02705755|168731640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.23||P-values were reported without multiplicity adjustment.|Repeated-measures Mixed-effect Model|||Least squares mean differences were calculated based on a repeated-measures mixed-effect model with change from baseline at different time points as the dependent variable, the treatment group (TD-9855 or placebo), time point, baseline and the interaction between the treatment group and time point as fixed factors. A compound symmetry was used as the variance-covariance structure.||-0.23|-8.57|0.0399
84490188|NCT04308668|168731648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.2|||Fisher Exact||Values represent percentages. Experimental treatment arm compared with the placebo control arm.|||2.2|-7.0|0.35
84490189|NCT04308668|168731649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.61|0.117
84490190|NCT01020812|168731657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.636|||||The data was analyzed in a competing risk model with death as a competing risk. The proportion of 0.286 is the cumulative incidence function at 12 months.|The data was analyzed in a competitive risk model with the cumulative incidence function as the estimator. Death and other progression were competitive risks.||0.636|0.031|
84490191|NCT01020812|168731658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This is the overall survival probability at 18 months.|The data was analyzed using the Kaplan Meier estimator.||||
84490192|NCT02996981|168731673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.299
84490193|NCT03451630|168731710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (6, 3152).||Overall Test of Group by Time Interaction||||0.0211
84490194|NCT03451630|168731710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.09||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 4.83 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||5.09|0.29|0.0280
84604127|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9135||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.9135
84549475|NCT04590586|168851832|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.28|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.28|0.52|
84549476|NCT04590586|168851833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||5.3|-11.2|0.4846
84549477|NCT04590586|168851833|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.37|0.51|
84549478|NCT04590586|168851834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.6|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||7.6|-7.3|0.9665
84549479|NCT04590586|168851834|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.74|0.59|
84549480|NCT04590586|168851835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 8||1.46|0.71|0.9119
84549481|NCT04590586|168851835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 15||1.58|0.75|0.6475
84549482|NCT04590586|168851835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.48|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 29||1.48|0.64|0.9071
84549483|NCT04590586|168851836|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.66|0.80|0.4507
84604128|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.5609
84604129|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.4047
84604130|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1663||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.1663
84604131|NCT00468845|168958533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.8364
84604132|NCT00468845|168958534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7218||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7218
84549484|NCT04590586|168851837|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.53|0.64|0.9741
84549485|NCT04590586|168851838|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.7|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.70|0.64|0.8754
84604133|NCT00468845|168958534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4425||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.4425
84604134|NCT00468845|168958535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7889||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7889
84604135|NCT00468845|168958535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.1565
84604136|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.6211
84604137|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3687||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.3687
84604138|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.7078
84549486|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||9.1|-8.7|0.9695
84549487|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||1.59|0.64|
84669220|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549488|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||7.1|-11.9|0.6236
84549489|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||1.37|0.59|
84549490|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||2.5|-14.9|0.1664
84549491|NCT04590586|168851839|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.15|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||1.15|0.45|
84549492|NCT04590586|168851840|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||8.3|-9.3|0.9043
84549493|NCT04590586|168851840|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.54|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.54|0.62|
84549494|NCT02751450|168851857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.882|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.882|-1.150|<0.0001
84549495|NCT01598090|168851862|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Lambda/RBV/TVR to Alfa/RBV/TVR was not established because the lower limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -12%. As a result, key secondary endpoints were not tested hierarchically to compare treatment groups.||||||0.0855||||||Non-inferiority testing is based on lower limit of confidence interval.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0855
84549496|NCT00791661|168851924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.92||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
84549497|NCT00791661|168851926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.81||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
84549498|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-8.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.0|6.8||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 15 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||6.8|-23.0|0.368
84549499|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-16.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.2|-1.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 30 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-1.1|-32.2|0.079
84549500|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-25.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-10.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 45 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-10.5|-40.9|0.007
84604139|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8696||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.8696
84669221|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669222|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549501|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffrence in least squares mean|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|-20.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-20.5|-52.0|<.001
84549502|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed minus LS mean for placebo fed.|||2.7|-42.2|0.147
84549503|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|12.3||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|Difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was calculated as LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed.|||25.2|-0.5|0.114
84549504|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-28.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.9|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for placebo fed minus LS mean for placebo.|||-7.9|-49.9|0.026
84549505|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.3|-41.9||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 80 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-41.9|-73.3|<.001
84549506|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|-0.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 100 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-0.1|-30.5|0.099
84549507|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.8|-27.0||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 140 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-27.0|-60.8|<.001
84549508|NCT00791661|168851930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-59.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.1|-43.7||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 170 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-43.7|-75.1|<.001
84549509|NCT03605862|168851931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.4009
84549510|NCT03605862|168851932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1923|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.1923
84549511|NCT03605862|168851933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2057
84549512|NCT03605862|168851934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at Baseline, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0712
84549513|NCT03605862|168851935|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 2||||1.0000
84604140|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.4320
84549514|NCT03605862|168851935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9142|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 3||||0.9142
84549515|NCT03605862|168851935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 7||||0.0132
84549516|NCT03605862|168851936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 2||||0.1239
84549517|NCT03605862|168851936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 3||||0.1022
84549518|NCT03605862|168851936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 7||||0.46213
84549519|NCT03605862|168851939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0140
84549520|NCT03605862|168851940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0112
84549521|NCT03605862|168851941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||<0.0001
84604141|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8843||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.8843
84604142|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.6215
84604143|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2722||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.2722
84604144|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.5500
84604145|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.9942
84604146|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.0075
84604147|NCT00468845|168958536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1464||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.1464
84604148|NCT00468845|168958537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9877||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.9877
84604149|NCT00468845|168958537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.1334
84604150|NCT00468845|168958537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3566||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.3566
84604151|NCT00468845|168958537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6262||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.6262
84604152|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.9463
84604153|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7347||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.7347
84604154|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4132||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4132
84604155|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4929
84604156|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6003||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.6003
84604157|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.9343
84604158|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3838||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.3838
84604159|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.1351
84604160|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.3343
84604161|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7948||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.7948
84604162|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.8090
84669223|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604163|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4035||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.4035
84604164|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6009
84604165|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7597
84604166|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7804||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7804
84604167|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0463
84604168|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.4951
84604169|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.3030
84604170|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0104
84669224|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549522|NCT00937040|168851947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline AISRS total score. Change from baseline to endpoint uses the latest non-missing score after baseline for each subject.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint. Each outcome involved with gate-keeping will be numbered with a Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number from 01-16.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence#01. The primary efficacy was tested at the 0.05 level of significance. To control the overall Type I error at 0.05, the secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence if the preceding null hypothesis was rejected. No further hypotheses could be tested when the preceding null hypothesis was not rejected. All nominal p-values were presented even though the formal testing procedure stopped at the primary endpoint. No unqualified statements can be made.||||<0.001
84604171|NCT00468845|168958538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6978
84549523|NCT00937040|168851948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#02.||||0.206
84549524|NCT00937040|168851949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#03.||||0.348
84549525|NCT00937040|168851950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#04.||||0.324
84549526|NCT00937040|168851951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#05.||||0.631
84549527|NCT00937040|168851952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#06.||||<0.001
84549528|NCT00937040|168851953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#07.||||<0.001
84549529|NCT00937040|168851954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#08.||||0.008
84549530|NCT00937040|168851955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#09.||||0.372
84604172|NCT00461305|168958539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|17.77|||Binominal parameter by exact method||No group comparison were planned. Binomial parameter on each treatment arm was estimated by exact method.|Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group. If the upper confidence limit is lower than 27.56% (threshold incidence), the treatment arm will be concluded to be acceptable. No group comparison was planned.||17.77|9.73|
84742382|NCT00297427|169236919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.994|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results from a multivariate logistic regression analysis.|||0.994|0.881|0.030
84742383|NCT00297427|169236920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84604173|NCT00461305|168958539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|7.1||||||95.0|1.98|17.29|||Binominal parameter by exact method|||Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group.||17.29|1.98|
84549531|NCT00937040|168851956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#10.||||<0.001
84549532|NCT00937040|168851957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined using CMH general association controlling for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#11.||||0.008
84549533|NCT00937040|168851958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#12.||||<0.001
84549534|NCT00937040|168851959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#13.||||0.003
84604174|NCT01007123|168958637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.2
84604175|NCT01007123|168958637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84604176|NCT01007123|168958637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84604177|NCT01007123|168958638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84604178|NCT01007123|168958638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84742384|NCT00297427|169236921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84742385|NCT00297427|169236923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84742386|NCT00297427|169236924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84742387|NCT00297427|169236925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84549535|NCT00937040|168851960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#14.||||0.016
84604179|NCT01007123|168958638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84549536|NCT00937040|168851961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#15.||||0.092
84549537|NCT00937040|168851962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center. Missing/unknown responses are not included in the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#16.||||0.284
84549538|NCT00937040|168851963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||<0.001
84549539|NCT00937040|168851964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.319
84549540|NCT00937040|168851965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.007
84549541|NCT01052480|168852009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
84549542|NCT02157376|168852031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference is larger than -0.05, the non-inferiority claim will be met.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.5|||Pearson's Chi-square||The difference in treatment group percentages is given by Cimetidine minus Esomeprazole.|Assuming a bleeding percent of 6.3% for the active comparator, a risk reduction of 3.7% for esomeprazole, and a 5% non-inferiority margin, 150 patients per treatment arm will provide 94% power to demonstrate non-inferiority. The null hypothesis is that the bleeding rate for iv esomeprazole 40 mg bid exceeds the rate for iv cimetidine by an amount at least as large as 5%.||6.5|-2.8|0.393
84549543|NCT00529373|168852033|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.53|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.53|0.40|<0.001
84549544|NCT00529373|168852034|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.71|0.39|<0.001
84549545|NCT00529373|168852035|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.87|0.68|<0.001
84549546|NCT00529373|168852036|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.55|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.55|0.42|<0.001
84549547|NCT00529373|168852037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.67|0.40|<0.001
84549548|NCT00529373|168852038|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.83|0.66|<0.001
84549549|NCT00529373|168852039|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.07||||||||4.07|-2.3|
84549550|NCT00529373|168852040|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
84549551|NCT00529373|168852044|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|13.93|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||13.93|3.9|<0.001
84549552|NCT00529373|168852045|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|36.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||36.40|16.49|<0.001
84549553|NCT00529373|168852046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.14|
84549554|NCT00529373|168852046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.12|-0.12|
84549555|NCT00529373|168852046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.17|
84549556|NCT00529373|168852046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.08|-0.50|
84604180|NCT01007123|168958639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84604181|NCT01007123|168958639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84604182|NCT01007123|168958639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84604183|NCT01007123|168958640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
84604184|NCT01007123|168958640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84604185|NCT01007123|168958640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84604186|NCT01007123|168958641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||0.01
84604187|NCT01007123|168958641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||<0.05
84742388|NCT01262677|169236948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|17.11||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||17.11|-16.28|0.9076
84742389|NCT01262677|169236948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.05||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|2.25||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||2.25|-26.07|0.0907
84742390|NCT01262677|169236949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.752
84742391|NCT01262677|169236949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.125
84742392|NCT01262677|169236950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|20.56||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||20.56|-39.16|0.5404
84742393|NCT01262677|169236950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|2.97||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||2.97|-54.64|0.0786
84742394|NCT01262677|169236951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Generalized linear model (GLM)|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.31|-0.53|0.6073
84604188|NCT01007123|168958642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84742395|NCT01262677|169236951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|GLM|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.22|-0.53|0.4109
84742396|NCT01262677|169236952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|11.75||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||11.75|-12.97|0.8268
84742397|NCT01262677|169236952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|13.66||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||13.66|-10.69|0.9024
84742398|NCT01262677|169236953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.670
84604189|NCT01007123|168958642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84549557|NCT00529373|168852047|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.38|-0.16|
84549558|NCT00529373|168852047|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.44||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.44|-0.15|
84549559|NCT00529373|168852047|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.54|-0.15|
84549560|NCT00529373|168852047|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.62|-0.24|
84549561|NCT00529373|168852048|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.15|-0.08|
84549562|NCT00529373|168852048|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.21|-0.06|
84549563|NCT00529373|168852048|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.17|-0.12|
84549564|NCT00529373|168852048|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.28|-0.09|
84549565|NCT00529373|168852049|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.84||||||||4.84|-1.8|
84549566|NCT00529373|168852050|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.04|
84549567|NCT00529373|168852051|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.40|0.19|<0.001
84604190|NCT01007123|168958642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84669225|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549568|NCT00529373|168852052|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. The mixed model contained fixed effects for treatment, region, stratum, treatment-year interaction and random effect intercept and slope (year) and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|0.00|0.041
84549569|NCT00529373|168852053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Logistic model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. Treatment comparison for height loss at any time during the treatment period. The logistic model contained terms for treatment, geographic region and stratum.||0.98|0.81|0.014
84549570|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.75|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.75|0.90|<0.001
84549571|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.61|2.37|<0.001
84669226|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549572|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
84549573|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|6.64|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.64|6.25|<0.001
84549574|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.11|9.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.12|8.11|<0.001
84549575|NCT00529373|168852054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|10.29|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.29|8.70|<0.001
84549576|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.46|2.47|<0.001
84549577|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|4.22|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.22|3.93|<0.001
84549578|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|6.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.23|5.87|<0.001
84549579|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|8.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.06|7.62|<0.001
84669227|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604191|NCT00823212|168958643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-group Farrington-Manning test was used to test the 1-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in differences with a non-inferiority margin of 3.5%. A p value \<0.05 would indicate non-inferiority and correspond to the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference not exceeding 3.5%.|Difference in percent of participants|0.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.13|||Farrington-Manning test||The standard error for the difference was estimated according to the Farrington-Manning test.|Study had 89% statistical power to demonstrate non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF, accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%), assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 5.5% for both stents.||2.13||0.001
84549580|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|10.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.27|9.16|<0.001
84549581|NCT00529373|168852055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|12.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.23|10.23|<0.001
84549582|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.03|0.95|<0.001
84549583|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
84549584|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.19|<0.001
84549585|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|6.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.68|6.24|<0.001
84549586|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.02|7.82|<0.001
84549587|NCT00529373|168852056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|9.53|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.53|7.54|<0.001
84549588|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.46|1.03|<0.001
84549589|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
84549590|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.17|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.17|<0.001
84549591|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|9.57|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36||9.57|8.98|<0.001
84549592|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.66|13.22|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48||13.22|11.66|<0.001
84549593|NCT00529373|168852057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|15.04|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60||15.04|12.58|<0.001
84549594|NCT00529373|168852058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.55|0.67|<0.001
84549595|NCT00529373|168852058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.84|0.85|<0.001
84549596|NCT00529373|168852058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.47|1.38|<0.001
84549597|NCT00529373|168852058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.51|0.89|0.001
84549598|NCT00529373|168852058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||5.54|1.46|0.001
84742399|NCT01262677|169236953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.927
84549599|NCT00529373|168852059|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|6.2|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.2|5.37|<0.001
84549600|NCT00529373|168852059|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|4.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.37|3.67|<0.001
84549601|NCT00529373|168852059|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|8.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.13|7.11|<0.001
84549602|NCT00529373|168852059|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.06|7.96|<0.001
84549603|NCT00529373|168852060|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.68|2.11|<0.001
84549604|NCT00529373|168852060|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|3.84|<0.001
84549605|NCT00529373|168852060|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|6.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.30|5.41|<0.001
84549606|NCT00529373|168852060|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.09|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.09|7.00|<0.001
84549607|NCT00529373|168852061|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.59|1.83|<0.001
84549608|NCT00529373|168852061|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.78|3.87|<0.001
84604192|NCT00623545|168958696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|185.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|240.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\< 0.05|ANOVA||units are kcal/d|Previously published literature showed an average weight loss of 1.8 kg at 12 weeks of exenatide treatment. This was converted to differ- ence in TEE, estimating an average imbalance of 2 kg × 7800 kcal·kg-1 divided by 84 days or 185 kcal·day-1.We demonstrated an average reproducibility of the DLW method of 6% or 240 kcal·day-1. For a 5% probability of finding this difference with a power of 80%, we determined a need for 14 subjects to complete the study.||||0.001
84549609|NCT00529373|168852061|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|6.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.62|5.56|<0.001
84549610|NCT00529373|168852061|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|6.97|<0.001
84549611|NCT00529373|168852062|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|3.9|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12||3.90|2.98|<0.001
84549612|NCT00529373|168852062|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|6.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.59|5.47|<0.001
84549613|NCT00529373|168852062|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|9.16|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.16|7.81|<0.001
84604193|NCT00623545|168958696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84742400|NCT01262677|169236954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.28||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.15||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||22.15|-14.37|0.8034
84742401|NCT01262677|169236954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.78||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|5.87||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.87|-24.81|0.1905
84549614|NCT00529373|168852062|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.15|14.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||14.36|9.15|<0.001
84549615|NCT00529373|168852063|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.31|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.31|-0.14|0.083
84549616|NCT00529373|168852063|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.05||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.40|-0.31|0.129
84549617|NCT00529373|168852063|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.21||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.67|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.67|-0.25|0.104
84549618|NCT00529373|168852063|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.55||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|8.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.02|-4.92|0.617
84549619|NCT00529373|168852064|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-58.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.68|-53.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-53.30|-64.68|<0.001
84549620|NCT00529373|168852064|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-53.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-53.61|-66.40|<0.001
84549621|NCT00529373|168852064|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|-40.17|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-40.17|-53.23|<0.001
84549622|NCT00529373|168852064|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.62|-36.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-36.72|-52.62|0.050
84549623|NCT00529373|168852064|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|-0.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-0.01|-37.44|0.050
84549624|NCT00529373|168852065|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.11|-47.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-47.28|-56.11|<0.001
84549625|NCT00529373|168852065|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.39|-48.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-48.79|-58.39|<0.001
84549626|NCT00529373|168852065|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.52|-50.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-50.84|-62.52|<0.001
84549627|NCT00529373|168852065|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.04|-52.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-52.23|-66.04|<0.001
84549628|NCT00529373|168852065|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.72|-27.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-27.36|-61.72|<0.001
84549629|NCT00529373|168852066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.27|-17.00|<0.001
84549630|NCT00529373|168852066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-8.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-8.79|-15.22|<0.001
84549631|NCT00529373|168852066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-5.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-5.13|-13.45|<0.001
84549632|NCT00529373|168852066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-3.41|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-3.41|-11.87|<0.001
84549633|NCT00529373|168852066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|10.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||10.79|-12.34|0.896
84742402|NCT01262677|169236955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.5|-1.1|0.4650
84742403|NCT01262677|169236955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.8|-0.8|0.9692
84742404|NCT01262677|169236956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.4|-1.3|0.2693
84742405|NCT01262677|169236956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.3|-1.4|0.1893
84742406|NCT01262677|169236957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-5.2|0.7347
84742407|NCT01262677|169236957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.6|-4.0|0.8971
84742408|NCT01262677|169236958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-9.1|0.3972
84549634|NCT00529373|168852067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|-25.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-25.39|-33.47|<0.001
84549635|NCT00529373|168852067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-21.34|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-21.34|-30.54|<0.001
84549636|NCT00529373|168852067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|-11.12|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.12|-21.41|<0.001
84549637|NCT00529373|168852067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-6.19|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-6.19|-18.03|<0.001
84549638|NCT00529373|168852067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.45|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||9.45|-16.12|0.610
84604194|NCT00623545|168958697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that energy intake was unchanged between the period before treatment and at the end of treatment.||||< 0.05
84549639|NCT00529373|168852068|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.34|0.95|0.182
84549640|NCT00529373|168852069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.55|0.9|0.235
84549641|NCT00529373|168852070|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
84604195|NCT00623545|168958697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84669228|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0009
84742409|NCT01262677|169236958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||12.9|0.6|0.0319
84742410|NCT01262677|169236959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.9|-4.4|0.7708
84549642|NCT00529373|168852071|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.89|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.89|0.59|0.857
84742411|NCT01262677|169236959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||7.4|-2.7|0.3560
84549643|NCT00529373|168852072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.59|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.59|0.76|0.606
84549644|NCT00529373|168852073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.6|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.6|0.98|0.074
84549645|NCT00529373|168852074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
84549646|NCT00529373|168852075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.52|0.89|0.277
84549647|NCT00529373|168852076|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.15|0.58|0.256
84549648|NCT00529373|168852077|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.57|0.29|0.794
84549649|NCT00529373|168852078|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.7|1.02|0.034
84549650|NCT00529373|168852079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.97|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.97|0.93|0.081
84549651|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.01|0.92|<0.001
84549652|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
84549653|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.20|<0.001
84549654|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|6.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.72|6.28|<0.001
84549655|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|8.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.57|8.02|<0.001
84549656|NCT00529373|168852080|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|10.38|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.38|9.72|<0.001
84549657|NCT00529373|168852081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.54|0.66|<0.001
84549658|NCT00529373|168852081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.85|0.87|<0.001
84742412|NCT01262677|169236960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.5|-0.1|0.1129
84742413|NCT01262677|169236960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.3|-0.3|0.9388
84742414|NCT01262677|169236961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||6.6|-7.5|0.9053
84742415|NCT01262677|169236961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.2|-8.5|0.6371
84742416|NCT01262677|169236962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||-1.4|-11.4|0.0119
84742417|NCT01262677|169236962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.8|-4.9|0.9909
84742418|NCT01262677|169236963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||2.8|-5.0|0.5903
84549659|NCT00529373|168852081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.50|1.42|<0.001
84549660|NCT00529373|168852081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.96|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.96|1.40|<0.001
84549661|NCT00529373|168852081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.11|1.54|0.001
84549662|NCT00529373|168852082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. the Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.45|0.24|<0.001
84669229|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742419|NCT01262677|169236963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.5|-3.1|0.7126
84549663|NCT00529373|168852083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.75|0.60|<0.001
84549664|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.74|0.94|<0.001
84549665|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|2.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.62|2.38|<0.001
84742420|NCT01262677|169236964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||1.5|-5.8|0.2431
84742421|NCT01262677|169236964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.8|-3.2|0.8654
84742422|NCT01262677|169236965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||2.50|0.74|0.3241
84742423|NCT01262677|169236965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||1.71|0.54|0.8932
84742424|NCT02055781|169237004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0011
84742425|NCT02055781|169237004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0173
84742426|NCT02055781|169237004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
84742427|NCT02055781|169237005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0791|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0791
84549666|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
84549667|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|6.65|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.65|6.26|<0.001
84549668|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|8.73|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.73|8.24|<0.001
84549669|NCT00529373|168852084|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|10.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.59|9.99|<0.001
84549670|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.42|1.06|<0.001
84549671|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
84742428|NCT02055781|169237005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6524
84742429|NCT02055781|169237005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
84742430|NCT03098563|169237017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|||||||.021
84742431|NCT01072630|169237089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.6||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.60|-4.67|0.1302
84742432|NCT01072630|169237089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.61||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.61|-4.51|0.1350
84742433|NCT02551653|169237137|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.979|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|0.979|0.682|
84742434|NCT02551653|169237137|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.891|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.891|1.113|
84742435|NCT02551653|169237137|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.241|||||||Volume of Distribution - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.241|0.692|
84549672|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.16|<0.001
84549673|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|9.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.54|8.95|<0.001
84549674|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|12.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.51|11.76|<0.001
84549675|NCT00529373|168852085|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.11|15.01|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||15.01|14.11|<0.001
84549676|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.39|2.40|<0.001
84549677|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.15|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.15|3.87|<0.001
84549678|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|6.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.11|5.75|<0.001
84549679|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|7.91|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||7.91|7.48|<0.001
84549680|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|9.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.61|9.08|<0.001
84549681|NCT00529373|168852086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|10.55|<0.001
84549682|NCT00529373|168852095|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.1|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.10|1.43|<0.001
84549683|NCT00529373|168852096|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.05|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.05|4.06|<0.001
84742436|NCT02551653|169237138|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.189|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.189|0.846|
84549684|NCT00529373|168852097|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.72|0.86|0.005
84549685|NCT00529373|168852098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.9|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.90|2.35|<0.001
84549686|NCT00529373|168852099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|7.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.50|3.79|<0.001
84549687|NCT00529373|168852100|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-62.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.99|-44.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-44.50|-79.99|<0.001
84549688|NCT00529373|168852101|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-10.83|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-10.83|-42.56|0.001
84549689|NCT00529373|168852102|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.01|0.32|0.016
84549690|NCT00529373|168852103|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|-14.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-14.12|-35.92|<0.001
84549691|NCT00529373|168852104|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-64.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|-41.07|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-41.07|-87.80|<0.001
84549692|NCT00529373|168852105|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|11.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||11.28|5.79|<0.001
84549693|NCT00529373|168852106|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|13.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.74|8.41|<0.001
84549694|NCT00529373|168852107|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|12.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||12.78|8.05|<0.001
84549695|NCT00529373|168852108|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|13.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.06|6.91|<0.001
84549696|NCT00529373|168852109|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|18.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||18.59|11.29|<0.001
84549697|NCT00529373|168852110|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.33|0.47|0.366
84549698|NCT00529373|168852111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.4|0.92|0.246
84549699|NCT00529373|168852112|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.03|0.32|0.638
84549700|NCT00529373|168852113|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.36|1.02|0.029
84549701|NCT00529373|168852114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.17|0.95|0.341
84549702|NCT00529373|168852115|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.68|0.9|0.198
84549703|NCT00529373|168852116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.26|0.7|0.798
84549704|NCT00529373|168852117|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.71|1.1|0.005
84549705|NCT00529373|168852118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.5|0.99|0.059
84549706|NCT00529373|168852119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.9|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.9|0.89|0.114
84549707|NCT00529373|168852120|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.31|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.31|0.99|0.159
84549708|NCT00529373|168852121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.46|0.93|0.178
84742437|NCT02551653|169237138|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.269|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.269|0.853|
84549709|NCT00529373|168852122|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
84549710|NCT00529373|168852123|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||||||||0.05|0.01|
84549711|NCT00529373|168852124|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11||||||||0.11|0.03|
84549712|NCT00529373|168852125|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||||0.06|0.02|
84549713|NCT02547220|168852173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|34.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentage was calculated by the difference in percentage of new or worsening TG at 6 months between CINRYZE and placebo|||34.5|-29.4|0.6857
84549714|NCT03771560|168852204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.4|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||6.4|-11.3|0.56
84549715|NCT03771560|168852205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The teacher-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||7.6|-5.2|0.68
84549716|NCT03771560|168852206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||1.6|-17.3|0.095
84549717|NCT03771560|168852207|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The teacher-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||13.5|-7.0|0.95
84549718|NCT03771560|168852208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.5|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean PedsQL total score from baseline to week 12.||3.5|-5.2|0.69
84549719|NCT02887183|168852209|OTHER||Least Squared Geometric Mean Ratio|0.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5865|0.681|||ANCOVA|||||0.6810|0.5865|<.0001
84549720|NCT02887183|168852210|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||LAVi||-7.15|-7.98|<.0001
84549721|NCT02887183|168852210|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-12.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-11.58|||ANCOVA|||LVEDVi||-11.58|-12.92|<.0001
84549722|NCT02887183|168852210|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-15.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-14.55|||ANCOVA|||LVESVi||-14.55|-16.03|<.0001
84549723|NCT02887183|168852211|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.90|8.84|<.001
84549724|NCT02887183|168852212|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
84549725|NCT02887183|168852213|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
84549726|NCT02887183|168852214|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||<.0001
84549727|NCT02887183|168852214|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0003
84549728|NCT02887183|168852214|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0956
84742438|NCT02551653|169237138|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.34|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.340|0.786|
84742439|NCT02683785|169237139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value,Treatment Group,Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used.p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented.|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
84549729|NCT02887183|168852215|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0060
84549730|NCT02887183|168852215|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0012
84549731|NCT02887183|168852215|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0181
84549732|NCT02887183|168852216|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.2498
84549733|NCT02887183|168852216|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0495
84549734|NCT02887183|168852216|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.2685
84604196|NCT04239222|168958698|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 22 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 5 points on the PLUS-M scale using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 7.7 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot,|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean PLUS-M score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean PLUS-M score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (11 negative, 8 positive and 4 null), Z=-1.066.|||0.286
84742440|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
84742441|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.29||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.29|-1.05|0.257
84549735|NCT02887183|168852217|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0029
84669230|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549736|NCT02887183|168852217|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0011
84549737|NCT02887183|168852217|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0012
84549738|NCT02887183|168852218|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|10.69|||ANCOVA|||||10.69|7.94|<.0001
84549739|NCT01031680|168852219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
84549740|NCT01031680|168852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.9||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.9|7.0|<0.0001
84549741|NCT01031680|168852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7898||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.42||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.42|-3.52|0.0126
84549742|NCT01031680|168852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.64|-1.89||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.89|-2.64|<0.0001
84669231|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
84742442|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.31||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.31|-1.31|0.220
84742443|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.11||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.11|-1.59|0.085
84742444|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
84742445|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.28|-1.93|0.139
84549743|NCT01031680|168852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8203||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.34|-3.56|0.0174
84549744|NCT01031680|168852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|16.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender)||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||16.6|8.3|<0.0001
84549745|NCT00789698|168852244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis. Lurasidone will be declared as effective as quetiapine XR in preventing relapse if the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence limit for the hazard ration of lurasidone vs. quetiapine is no greater than an equivalence hazard ratio margin of 1.93.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.295||There is no hypothesis tested. Since this was a non-inferiority study, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was compared to the pre-specified margin of 1.93 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lurasidone compared to Quetiapine XR.|COX Proportional Hazards Model|||Comparison of time to relapse of psychotic symptoms between LUR-LUR and QXR-QXR as analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model.||1.295|0.410|
84549746|NCT01921101|168852249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84549747|NCT02729051|168852267|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI+UMEC) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter (mL) then FF/UMEC/VI was to be considered non-inferior to FF/VI+UMEC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||||MMRM method included covariates of Baseline FEV1, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|||0.050|-0.013|
84549748|NCT02729051|168852268|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Analysis included covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|||1.20|0.71|
84549749|NCT02729051|168852269|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8327|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.728|||||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of Baseline SGRQ, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline.|||0.728|-2.540|
84549750|NCT02729051|168852270|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Include covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators/ day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline dyspnea index (BDI) focal score, BDI focal score/ visit and treatment/ visit interactions.|||1.25|0.72|
84549751|NCT02729051|168852271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1773|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.485|||||Analysis included covariates of BDI focal score, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by BDI Focal score interactions.|||0.485|-0.211|
84549752|NCT02729051|168852272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.12|0.68|
84549753|NCT02702388|168852273|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio of ORR as of Week 24 response (18 mg vs 24 mg) along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by the randomization stratification factors. The test was performed per the 95% CI using the noninferiority margin of 0.4. Noninferiority will be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the odds ratio is greater than 0.4.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
84549754|NCT02162719|168852315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.6||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.91||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.40|0.0372
84549755|NCT02162719|168852316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.59||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.16||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.30|0.1753
84549756|NCT02162719|168852317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|0.76||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.46|0.3636
84742446|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.19||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||0.19|-2.00|0.103
84742447|NCT02683785|169237140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.28|-2.06|0.132
84742448|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented.|||0.06|-0.97|0.082
84742449|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.41||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.41|-0.96|0.426
84742450|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.18||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.18|-1.38|0.129
84742451|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented.|||0.06|-1.63|0.067
84549757|NCT02162719|168852318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.8||||0.3607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.50|0.3607
84549758|NCT02162719|168852319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.73||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.65||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.32|0.4422
84549759|NCT02162719|168852320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|1.13||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.52|0.7599
84549760|NCT02230696|168852335|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.77|104.52|||Trial and Error approach|||||104.52|84.77|
84549761|NCT02230696|168852336|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|105.54|||Trial and Error approach|||||105.54|84.86|
84549762|NCT00394836|168852355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated \* 100.|||31|4|
84549763|NCT00394836|168852355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.0||||||||19|5|
84549764|NCT00748189|168852373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator.|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
84549765|NCT00748189|168852376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with O+CHL treatment compared with chlorambucil|||1.17|0.65|0.363
84549766|NCT00748189|168852389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.94|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.94|0.53|
84549767|NCT00748189|168852389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.99|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.99|0.63|
84549768|NCT00748189|168852390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.4|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.40|0.77|
84549769|NCT00748189|168852390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.5|||||Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.50|0.82|
84549770|NCT00748189|168852390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.1|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.10|0.72|
84742452|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.63||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.63|-1.28|0.494
84742453|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.21||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented.|||0.21|-2.08|0.107
84742454|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.17||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented.|||0.17|-2.13|0.092
84549771|NCT01560234|168852469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Linear||AUC (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.00|0.63|
84549772|NCT01560234|168852470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Linear||AUC(0-t) (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.65|
84549773|NCT01560234|168852471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Cmax (nmol/L) 0.5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.87|
84549774|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.76|151.32|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||151.32|65.76|
84549775|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|141.27|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/1.5ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||141.27|61.21|
84549776|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|145.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|221.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||221.28|96.11|
84549777|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.42|169.93|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||169.93|66.42|
84549778|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|223.76||||||95.0|144.98|345.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||345.35|144.98|
84549779|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|228.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.36|346.41|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||346.41|150.36|
84549780|NCT01560234|168852472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|684.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.31|944.65|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||944.65|495.31|
84549781|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|126.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||126.28|72.70|
84549782|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|91.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.53|121.0|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||121.00|69.53|
84549783|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|112.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|153.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour Plasma||153.35|82.30|
84549784|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.04|158.18|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||158.18|91.04|
84549785|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|102.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.02|136.87|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour placebo||136.87|77.02|
84549786|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|146.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.39|193.62|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||193.62|111.39|
84549787|NCT01560234|168852473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|240.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.82|297.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 ug|48 hour plasma||297.28|193.82|
84549788|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|114.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.83|378.78|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||378.78|34.83|
84549789|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.96|268.7|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||268.70|24.96|
84742455|NCT02683785|169237141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.20|-2.22|0.098
84742456|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 1|||0.1|-5.6|0.061
84549790|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|322.42|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||322.42|20.63|
84549791|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|304.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.61|1209.33|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1209.33|76.61|
84549792|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|193.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.01|636.49|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||636.49|59.01|
84549793|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|467.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.77|1533.92|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1533.92|142.77|
84549794|NCT01560234|168852475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|1087.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|317.19|3727.57|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||3727.57|317.19|
84549795|NCT05406479|168852476|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.146|4.76||||||Adults||4.76|-5.146|
84742457|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 2|||1.7|-5.6|0.282
84742458|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component Week 4|||0.9|-8.4|0.113
84549796|NCT05406479|168852476|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|20.185||||||Adolescents (13-17)||20.185|0.926|
84549797|NCT05406479|168852476|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.374|7.525||||||Children (5-12)||7.525|-3.374|
84549798|NCT02028767|168852478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.662|102.639||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.639|94.662|0.0000
84549799|NCT02028767|168852478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.783|102.796||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.796|94.783|<0.0001
84549800|NCT02028767|168852479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.856|102.107||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.107|95.856|0.0000
84549801|NCT02028767|168852479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.877|102.15||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.150|95.877|<0.0001
84549802|NCT02028767|168852480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.549|102.156||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.156|94.549|0.0000
84549803|NCT02028767|168852480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.603|102.252|||ANOVA|The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.252|94.603|<0.0001
84604197|NCT04239222|168958699|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 21 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.2 points in the TAPES-AR score using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 0.3 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.212||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≥ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (5 negative, 13 positive and 5 null), Z=-2.156|||0.031
84669232|NCT01480076|169072592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
84742459|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 6|||4.0|-5.9|0.695
84742460|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 8|||1.8|-9.4|0.176
84669233|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742461|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 10|||-0.2|-10.8|0.041
84742462|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 12|||0.6|-10.1|0.082
84742463|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 1|||0.6|-1.1|0.587
84742464|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 2|||0.6|-1.3|0.457
84549804|NCT04932655|168852522|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|103.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.88|109.98||||||||109.98|96.88|
84549805|NCT04932655|168852522|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|109.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|116.82||||||||116.82|102.9|
84549806|NCT04932655|168852522|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.57|109.64||||||||109.64|96.57|
84549807|NCT04932655|168852523|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.65||||||||100.65|96.33|
84549808|NCT04932655|168852523|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|101.07||||||||101.07|96.74|
84549809|NCT04932655|168852523|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|102.54||||||||102.54|98.15|
84549810|NCT04932655|168852524|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.71||||||||100.71|96.33|
84549811|NCT04932655|168852524|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|99.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.85|101.26||||||||101.26|96.85|
84549812|NCT04932655|168852524|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.05|102.5||||||||102.50|98.05|
84549813|NCT00083759|168852525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
84549814|NCT00083759|168852526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.171
84549815|NCT00083759|168852527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.526
84549816|NCT01089608|168852542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.01||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-16.30|0.072
84549817|NCT01250873|168852553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|1.06|
84549818|NCT01250873|168852554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|1.01|
84549819|NCT01250873|168852555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-0.50|0.8281
84549820|NCT01250873|168852556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||ANOVA|||||1.39|1.17|
84549821|NCT01250873|168852557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.36|||ANOVA|||||1.36|1.10|
84549822|NCT01250873|168852558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|0.00|0.3125
84549823|NCT01062113|168852561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|56.1||The difference in the efficacy rates was tested using normal distribution at a significance level of 2-sided 5%. 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the efficacy rates was calculated using normal approximation.|asymptotic z-test|||||56.1|20.3|<0.0001
84549824|NCT01062113|168852563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84549825|NCT01062113|168852564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84669234|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549826|NCT03521115|168852571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|b=-.91, controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
84549827|NCT03521115|168852571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
84549828|NCT03521115|168852571|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|5.129||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||.077
84549829|NCT03521115|168852572|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.001
84549830|NCT03521115|168852572|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
84549831|NCT03521115|168852572|SUPERIORITY||F|0.85|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84669235|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669236|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
84490195|NCT03451630|168731710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.48||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.81 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||4.48|-0.35|0.0935
84490196|NCT03451630|168731710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.35 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to12-Months using linear contrast.||2.68|-1.44|0.5538
84490197|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).||||||0.8505|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.44 with degrees of freedom (6, 3154).||Overall Test of the Group by Time Interaction||||0.8505
84490198|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 16.97 with degrees of freedom (3, 3160).||Test for significant change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
84490199|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8656||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1229).||Test for significant change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8656
84490200|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.46||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.51 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154)||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.46|-1.61|0.4740
84549832|NCT03521115|168852573|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.22|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
84549833|NCT03521115|168852573|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
84549834|NCT03521115|168852573|SUPERIORITY||F|0.43|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84549835|NCT03521115|168852574|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.16|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.10
84549836|NCT03521115|168852574|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
84549837|NCT03521115|168852574|SUPERIORITY||F|1.55|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84549838|NCT03521115|168852575|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
84549839|NCT03521115|168852575|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.02|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84742465|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 4|||0.6|-1.8|0.298
84604198|NCT04239222|168958701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.29||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean ABC score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean ABC score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (12 negative, 7 positive and 4 null), Z=-0.805.|||0.421
84604199|NCT04239222|168958702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (6 negative, 9 positive and 8 null), Z=-0.767.|||0.443
84742466|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 6|||0.9|-1.3|0.726
84604200|NCT02685748|168958739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.815|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.815|-0.969|0.863
84742467|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 8|||0.4|-1.9|0.213
84742468|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 10|||0.7|-1.9|0.331
84549840|NCT03521115|168852576|SUPERIORITY||b|0.299|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
84549841|NCT03521115|168852577|SUPERIORITY||b|0.268|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.03
84549842|NCT03521115|168852578|SUPERIORITY||b|0.075|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84549843|NCT03521115|168852579|SUPERIORITY||b|0.051|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84549844|NCT03521115|168852580|SUPERIORITY||b|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
84549845|NCT03521115|168852581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
84549846|NCT03063086|168852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.137|<0.0001
84742469|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 12|||0.6|-2.1|0.248
84549847|NCT03063086|168852602|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.195|0.123|<0.0001
84549848|NCT03063086|168852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.086|<0.0001
84549849|NCT01893281|168852609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84604201|NCT02685748|168958740|OTHER|T test for independent samples|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|8.379|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.379|-1.147|0.133
84669237|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742470|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 1|||3.3|-9.0|0.350
84742471|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 2|||3.8|-9.8|0.383
84549850|NCT05481125|168852627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.024||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Mean difference (Clareon/Clareon Toric minus Eyhance/Eyhance Toric). Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||-0.024||
84549851|NCT00910208|168852634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
84549852|NCT00910208|168852635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84549853|NCT00910208|168852636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84604202|NCT02685748|168958741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||1.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1553|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.172|-1.1553|1.607
84604203|NCT02685748|168958742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.807|2.241|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.241|-4.807|0.468
84604204|NCT02685748|168958743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.765|-0.869|0.899
84604205|NCT02685748|168958744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.797||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.602|20.703|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.703|-6.602|0.305
84604206|NCT02685748|168958745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.525||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.118|480.714|||t-test, 2 sided|||||480.714|-160.118|0.320
84669238|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84549854|NCT00910208|168852637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84549855|NCT00910208|168852638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84549856|NCT00910208|168852639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84549857|NCT01290679|168852640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||41.2|23.3|<0.001
84742472|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 4|||3.9|-13.5|0.271
84549858|NCT01290679|168852641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.5|20.2|<0.001
84549859|NCT01290679|168852642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||40.5|22.5|<0.001
84549860|NCT01290679|168852643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||41.0|23.5|<0.001
84604207|NCT02685748|168958746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.642|5.651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.651|-8.642|0.676
84549861|NCT01290679|168852670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-16.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1502|-4.4025|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-4.4025|-29.1502|0.008
84549862|NCT01290679|168852670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-18.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4715||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4933|-4.1801|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-4.1801|-33.4933|0.012
84549863|NCT01290679|168852671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-282.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.4927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.1252|-75.1949|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-75.1949|-489.1252|0.008
84549864|NCT01290679|168852671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-324.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.026||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-567.708|-81.0182|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-81.0182|-567.7080|0.009
84549865|NCT01290679|168852672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-282.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.9894||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-488.415|-76.4566|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-76.4566|-488.4150|0.007
84549866|NCT01290679|168852672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-329.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.408||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-571.3389|-87.0695|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-87.0695|-571.3389|0.008
84549867|NCT01290679|168852673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-186.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.4741||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.4109|51.7059|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||51.7059|-425.4109|0.125
84604208|NCT00328653|168958747|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2187||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2699
84604209|NCT00328653|168958747|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2359||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2719
84604210|NCT00328653|168958750|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|4.2925||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0386
84604211|NCT00328653|168958750|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|5.3007||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
84604212|NCT00090233|168958777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative Risk ≤10.0 (non-inferiority margin).|relative risk|1.6||||0.006||95.0|0.4|6.4||"p≤ 10/11, where p is proportion of participants with intussusception in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with intussusception. Based on conditional binomial approach.~Adjusted for group-sequential design."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test adjusted for group-sequential design.||||6.4|0.4|0.006
84604213|NCT00090233|168958778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|81.2|||<|0.001||95.0|72.9|87.8||p≥42%, where p is proportion of participants with ≥3-fold rise in antibody titer from Predose 1 to Postdose 3 in vaccine group. Based on binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||87.8|72.9|<0.001
84549868|NCT01290679|168852673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-188.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.1702||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.507|89.104|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||89.1040|-465.5070|0.183
84549869|NCT01704651|168852683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84549870|NCT01704651|168852684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84549871|NCT01377922|168852700|OTHER|Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline QMG score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||||0.0452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.||||||0.0452
84549872|NCT01377922|168852701|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline SGI score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0028
84549873|NCT01377922|168852702|OTHER|||||||0.6274|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline T25FW walking speed as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||0.6274
84549874|NCT01377922|168852703|OTHER|||||||0.0267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0267
84549875|NCT00596817|168852728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.21|||Cox-model|Cox-model using an exact method to handle ties||||3.21|1.26|0.0035
84549876|NCT00596817|168852729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Cox-Model|||||3.23|1.35|0.0010
84549877|NCT00596817|168852730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-3.36|0.0020
84549878|NCT00596817|168852731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.39|0.0171
84549879|NCT00596817|168852732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.05||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-2.30|0.0612
84604214|NCT00090233|168958779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|74.0|||<|0.001||95.0|66.8|79.9||"Efficacy≥35%. Based on p≤.65/(.65+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine.~Based on conditional binomial approach."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test.|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||79.9|66.8|<0.001
84604215|NCT00090233|168958780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|94.5|||<|0.001||95.0|91.2|96.6||Rate Reduction\>0%|Poisson regression|"Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations.~Validated with Van Elteren's extension of Wilcoxon Rank Sum test."|Risk ratio of rate of hospitalizations and emergency department visits between treatment groups. Reported here are results after 12 additional emergency department visits were identified among placebo recipients and data were re-analyzed.|||96.6|91.2|<0.001
84549880|NCT00596817|168852733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
84549881|NCT00596817|168852734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.35||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|11.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||11.56|1.13|0.025
84549882|NCT00596817|168852735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|19.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||19.52|4.73|0.002
84549883|NCT00596817|168852736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.78||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|-2.12|0.3642
84549884|NCT03214380|168852785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 0.4 for HbA1c|Least Square Mean Difference (LSMean)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
84549885|NCT03214380|168852786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.5|-18.1|<0.001
84549886|NCT03214380|168852787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-25.3|<0.001
84549887|NCT01905553|168852806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.77||||||||0.770|0.670|
84549888|NCT01905553|168852807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.769||||||||0.769|0.670|
84549889|NCT01905553|168852808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.53||||||||0.530|0.380|
84549890|NCT03692325|168852822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84549891|NCT04481191|168852839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.9||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||0.9|-4.0|< 0.001
84742473|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|6.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 6|||6.7|-12.1|0.565
84490201|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.27 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.13|-1.81|0.6017
84490202|NCT03451630|168731711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.2||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||2.20|-1.67|0.7860
84490203|NCT03451630|168731712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.59
84490204|NCT03451630|168731712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||2.11|0.76|0.6692
84490205|NCT03451630|168731712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.80 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.93|0.70|0.6692
84549892|NCT04481191|168852839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
84742474|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 8|||5.4|-15.2|0.343
84742475|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|4.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 10|||4.9|-17.3|0.266
84490206|NCT03451630|168731712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.59|0.75|0.6692
84490207|NCT03451630|168731713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.58
84490208|NCT03451630|168731713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect||3.02|0.43|0.7436
84490209|NCT03451630|168731713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.25||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.25|0.31|0.7436
84490210|NCT03451630|168731713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.97|0.62|0.7436
84490211|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5558||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.82 with degrees of freedom (6, 3057)||Overall test of treatment-by-time interaction||||0.5558
84549893|NCT04481191|168852839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use % - Staggered-use %||3.0|-1.6|< 0.001
84490212|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 6.74 with degrees of freedom (3, 3063).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0002
84549894|NCT03567005|168852865|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 36 (18 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in distance visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.098 for paired difference (one-sided alpha=0.05).|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.02||||||||0.02||
84549895|NCT03567005|168852866|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 1.0. With a sample size of 48 (24 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in subjective overall vision with assumed standard deviation of 2.29 for paired differences (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||||||||-0.3|
84549896|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health messages would not elicit different levels of perceived message effectiveness compared to the neutral messages.||1.37|1.13|<0.001
84742476|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 12|||2.7|-19.1|0.136
84490213|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7846||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.24 with degrees of freedom (2,1197).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.7846
84549897|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.26||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.26|1.03|<.001
84549898|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.41||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health and environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.41|1.17|<0.001
84549899|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.223||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.223|-0.018|.1892
84549900|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.08|-.17|.47
84549901|NCT06175026|168852916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.03|-.27|.051
84549902|NCT02225860|168852920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
84549903|NCT02225860|168852921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
84549904|NCT05338502|168852923|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.02|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||1.02|0.797|
84742477|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 1|||3.6|-14.5|0.230
84742478|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 2|||5.9|-15.2|0.381
84549905|NCT05338502|168852923|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.12|||ANOVA|||Fed state||1.12|0.876|
84549906|NCT05338502|168852924|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.05|||ANOVA|||Fasted state||1.05|0.829|
84549907|NCT05338502|168852924|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.13|||ANOVA|||Fed State||1.13|0.888|
84549908|NCT05338502|168852926|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.985|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||0.985|0.680|
84549909|NCT05338502|168852926|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.645|0.949|||ANOVA|||Fed state||0.949|0.645|
84742479|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 4|||5.0|-22.4|0.207
84549910|NCT02278939|168852932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||0.003
84549911|NCT02278939|168852933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in percent weight compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||.001
84549912|NCT02278939|168852934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for differences in group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in BMI compared to the control from baseline to 3 months||||.002
84549913|NCT02111577|168852960|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.213|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.213|0.895|0.596
84742480|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|11.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 6|||11.6|-18.4|0.648
84742481|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 8|||7.5|-25.4|0.278
84742482|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 10|||5.0|-29.1|0.160
84549914|NCT02111577|168852960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.204|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.204|0.891|0.648
84549915|NCT02111577|168852961|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.105|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.105|0.746|0.335
84549916|NCT02111577|168852961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.067|0.725|0.192
84549917|NCT02111577|168852962|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.312||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.762|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.762|0.976|0.071
84549918|NCT02111577|168852962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.712|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.712|0.961|0.09
84549919|NCT02111577|168852963|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.461||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.134|||Log Rank|||Stratified||2.134|1|0.049
84549920|NCT02111577|168852963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.436||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|2.077|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||2.077|0.993|0.053
84742483|NCT02683785|169237146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 12|||3.9|-30.5|0.127
84549921|NCT02111577|168852964|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.13|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.13|0.779|0.501
84549922|NCT02111577|168852964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.131|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.131|0.781|0.512
84549923|NCT02111577|168852965|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.136|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.136|0.863|0.886
84549924|NCT02111577|168852965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.145|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.145|0.875|0.992
84549925|NCT02111577|168852966|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.184|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.184|0.847|0.994
84549926|NCT02111577|168852966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.18|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.18|0.851|0.982
84549927|NCT02111577|168852967|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.277|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.277|0.909|0.392
84549928|NCT02111577|168852967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.262|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.262|0.905|0.439
84549929|NCT02111577|168852968|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.238|0.857|0.754
84549930|NCT02111577|168852968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.207|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.207|0.844|0.924
84742484|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||1.8|-1.9|0.957
84742485|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.8|-2.1|0.775
84742486|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||1.7|-2.7|0.624
84742487|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.8|-1.0|0.243
84742488|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.9|-2.5|0.875
84549931|NCT02111577|168852969|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.497|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.497|0.563|0.732
84549932|NCT02111577|168852969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.485|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.485|0.561|0.713
84742489|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||2.8|-3.4|0.848
84490214|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.49||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-Statistics 1.36 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.49|-1.92|0.2444
84490215|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.92||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.21 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.92|-1.48|0.6480
84490216|NCT03451630|168731714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.47||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.47|-1.34|0.3476
84490217|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5199||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.86 with degrees of freedom (6, 3148)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.5199
84490218|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.56 with degrees of freedom (3, 3154).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0008
84549933|NCT02111577|168852970|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.587|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.587|0.5|0.694
84549934|NCT02111577|168852970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|1.562|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.562|0.496|0.661
84549935|NCT02111577|168852971|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.027|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.027|0.781|0.111
84549936|NCT02111577|168852971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.044|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.044|0.798|0.184
84549937|NCT02111577|168852972|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.11|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.11|0.795|0.46
84549938|NCT02111577|168852972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.118|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.118|0.807|0.534
84490219|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9897||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.01 with degrees of freedom (2,1229).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9897
84490220|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.03|-0.03|0.8749
84490221|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.49 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.01|-0.05|0.2216
84490222|NCT03451630|168731715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.52 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|0.00|0.0607
84490223|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.46 with degrees of freedom (6, 3138)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.1884
84490224|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.87 with degrees of freedom (3, 3144).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0090
84490225|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.53 with degrees of freedom (2, 1227).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.2170
84490226|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.71 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.28|-0.06|0.1910
84490227|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.18 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.35|0.03|0.0229
84549939|NCT02111577|168852973|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.845||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.355|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.355|0.528|0.485
84549940|NCT02111577|168852974|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.601|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.601|0.529|0.768
84549941|NCT01683266|168853016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.185||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.185|-0.098|
84549942|NCT01683266|168853019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.287||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; pre-injection SMPG value and pre-injection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.287|-0.982|
84549943|NCT00626821|168853033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.553|2.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.073|1.553|<0.0001
84549944|NCT03655470|168853060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
84549945|NCT03702010|168853076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline VAS||||0.112
84604216|NCT00090233|168958781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|74.9|86.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Estimated value is based on the worst episode scores.|||86.7|74.9|<0.001
84549946|NCT03702010|168853076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation VAS||||0.323
84549947|NCT03702010|168853076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.760
84549948|NCT03702010|168853076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.624
84549949|NCT03702010|168853077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.589
84549950|NCT03702010|168853077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.704
84549951|NCT03702010|168853077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.908
84549952|NCT03702010|168853078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.231
84549953|NCT03702010|168853078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.663
84549954|NCT03702010|168853078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.998
84549955|NCT03702010|168853078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.713
84549956|NCT01080118|168853080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.05|.05|.001
84549957|NCT01080118|168853080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84549958|NCT02295020|168853086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
84549959|NCT02295020|168853087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
84549960|NCT02295020|168853088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
84549961|NCT02295020|168853090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
84549962|NCT02295020|168853091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
84549963|NCT02295020|168853092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
84549964|NCT02295020|168853093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.479
84549965|NCT02295020|168853094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
84549966|NCT02295020|168853095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
84549967|NCT04791319|168853099|SUPERIORITY||MH weights|7.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|26.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||||26.2|-12.1|0.489
84549968|NCT04791319|168853099|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|7.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|23.7|||Chi-squared|||||23.7|-9.4|0.448
84549969|NCT04791319|168853099|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|42.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|61.1|||Chi-squared|||||61.1|22.9|0.001
84549970|NCT03628339|168853107|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.35|115.06||||||||115.06|89.35|
84549971|NCT03628339|168853108|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|114.66||||||||114.66|89.24|
84549972|NCT03628339|168853109|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|103.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|123.56||||||||123.56|86.91|
84549973|NCT04431908|168853120|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|89.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84549974|NCT04431908|168853120|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|42.55|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84604217|NCT00090233|168958782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|98.0|||<|0.001||95.0|88.3|100.0||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||100|88.3|<0.001
84604218|NCT00090233|168958783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference (vaccine-placebo) in seroprotection rates was greater than -.10 (non-inferiority margin).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||p\<0.001 was obtained for all comparisons. pv - pp ≥-.10, where p is proportion of participants who achieved seroprotection in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively.|Miettenen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
84604219|NCT00090233|168958784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis PT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis PT was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
84604220|NCT00090233|168958784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis FHA|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis FHA was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
84604221|NCT00090233|168958784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis Pertactin|0.6||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis Pertactin was used for analysis.||0.8|0.4|0.193
84604222|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 4|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 4 was used for analysis.||1.4|1.0|<0.001
84604223|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 6B|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 6B was used for analysis.||1.9|1.0|<0.001
84490228|NCT03451630|168731716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.30 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.06|-0.21|0.2547
84604224|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 9V|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 9V was used for analysis.||1.3|0.9|<0.001
84604225|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 14|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 14 was used for analysis.||1.3|0.7|<0.001
84669239|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604226|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 18C|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 18C was used for analysis.||1.6|1.1|<0.001
84669240|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
84669241|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604227|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 19F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 19F was used for analysis.||1.4|0.8|<0.001
84604228|NCT00090233|168958785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 23F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 23F was used for analysis.||1.5|0.9|<0.001
84604229|NCT02139878|168958787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.088
84604230|NCT02139878|168958788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.980
84604231|NCT05074888|168958789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.0016
84604232|NCT05074888|168958790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.3183
84604233|NCT05074888|168958791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.5805
84604234|NCT05074888|168958792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.2143
84549975|NCT04431908|168853120|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84549976|NCT04431908|168853122|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|88.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84549977|NCT04431908|168853122|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84549978|NCT04431908|168853122|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|88.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84549979|NCT00355147|168853129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, strata, baseline score, randomized group, month and the group by month interaction|This score represents change from baseline to six months across the groups.|This is an analysis of the outcome, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Overall Total Score.||||0.69
84742490|NCT02683785|169237147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||2.4|-2.8|0.883
84549980|NCT00355147|168853129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for site, strata, baseline value, treatment group, month of assessment, treatment group x month, random subject effect|Mixed Models Analysis||This score represents change from baseline to three months across groups.|This is an analysis of the Perceived Energy Domain within the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure||||0.05
84549981|NCT00355147|168853130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by site, strata, baseline score, treatment group, month and group by month interaction|The score is the change from baseline to six months between groups.|||||0.66
84549982|NCT00355147|168853131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|51.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.31|0.88|0.06
84549983|NCT00355147|168853131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Within group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Diabetes Medication||10.96|1.08|0.036
84549984|NCT00355147|168853131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group attention control group intervention pre post comparison compliance with Diabetes Medication||2.70|0.10|0.407
84549985|NCT00355147|168853132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||4.48|0.54|0.05
84549986|NCT00355147|168853132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||12.76|2.81|0.0001
84549987|NCT00355147|168853132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Control Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication.||8.01|1.83|0.0004
84549988|NCT00355147|168853133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||6.40|0.86|0.096
84549989|NCT00355147|168853133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||7.48|1.81|0.0004
84549990|NCT00355147|168853133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Group Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication.||3.21|0.77|0.21
84549991|NCT01146379|168853140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P value was not corrected for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the rate of change in ARAT over time. The null hypothesis was that all groups would change at a similar rate.||||.01
84549992|NCT01146379|168853140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis then asked which groups were different from the Low Movement Dose group||||.036
84549993|NCT01146379|168853140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis asked if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the High Movement Dose group||||0.679
84549994|NCT01146379|168853140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis tested if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the Individual Maximum High Movement Dose group||||0.209
84604235|NCT05074888|168958793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.8156
84742491|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||2.0|-4.4|0.463
84742492|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.9|-3.7|0.809
84742493|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||2.0|-5.8|0.324
84742494|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.2|-4.2|0.783
84549995|NCT03307252|168853178|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|100.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.84|114.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|114.15|88.84|
84549996|NCT03307252|168853178|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|93.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|102.06|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|102.06|86.12|
84549997|NCT03307252|168853178|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|82.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|89.46|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|89.46|76.96|
84742495|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.5|-5.4|0.464
84742496|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||3.5|-4.9|0.736
84549998|NCT03307252|168853178|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|113.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.62|131.72|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|131.72|97.62|
84549999|NCT03307252|168853179|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|131.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|148.97|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|148.97|115.93|
84604236|NCT05074888|168958794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.1049
84742497|NCT02683785|169237148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||3.7|-4.8|0.806
84742498|NCT02683785|169237149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||1.6|-0.9|0.586
84742499|NCT02683785|169237149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.8|-1.9|0.416
84742500|NCT02683785|169237149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.3|-2.8|0.120
84742501|NCT02683785|169237149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||1.4|-2.1|0.687
84742502|NCT02683785|169237150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented.|||0.8|-1.3|0.651
84550000|NCT03307252|168853179|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|119.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.03|130.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.39|110.03|
84550001|NCT03307252|168853179|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.68|117.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.03|100.68|
84550002|NCT03307252|168853179|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|348.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|299.64|404.31|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|404.31|299.64|
84550003|NCT03307252|168853180|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|125.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.99|138.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|138.43|113.99|
84604237|NCT05074888|168958795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.7260
84604238|NCT05074888|168958796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.6808
84550004|NCT03307252|168853180|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|108.3|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.30|94.59|
84550005|NCT03307252|168853180|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|130.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.82|143.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.10|119.82|
84550006|NCT03307252|168853180|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|107.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.57|118.27|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.27|97.57|
84604239|NCT05074888|168958797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84604240|NCT05074888|168958798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84742503|NCT02683785|169237150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.5|-1.9|0.271
84742504|NCT02683785|169237150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.4|-2.2|0.186
84742505|NCT02683785|169237150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||0.2|-2.4|0.109
84742506|NCT01305408|169237159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.06||Statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||1.06|-3.76|0.2717
84742507|NCT02770612|169237182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a one sided one sample Wilcoxon test to compare the median number of oxycodone tablets chosen and prescribed to the institutional standard of 40 tablets of oxycodone 5mg on discharge||||<0.001
84550007|NCT03307252|168853181|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|106.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|118.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.15|96.51|
84550008|NCT03307252|168853181|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|271.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|246.74|299.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|299.03|246.74|
84550009|NCT03307252|168853181|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|100.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|107.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.39|94.62|
84550010|NCT03307252|168853181|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|223.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.79|244.55|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|244.55|203.79|
84550011|NCT03307252|168853182|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|121.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.43|147.33|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|147.33|100.43|
84550012|NCT03307252|168853182|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|95.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|109.11|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.11|83.03|
84550013|NCT03307252|168853182|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|80.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|88.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|88.08|73.01|
84604241|NCT05074888|168958799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of systolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to SBP/Visit1, SBP/Visit2 and SBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.87
84742508|NCT02233803|169237183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) is demonstrated as the lower limit of CI for the difference is greater than the pre-specified NI margin of -1.25ML. The lower limit of the 95% CI for the treatment difference (NEUMOTEROL 400 -Symbicort Forte) was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -1.25 mL.|Difference of LS means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.096||||||Sample size calculations are based on the primary efficacy endpoint (change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 29). Assuming a within-subject standard deviation of 210 mL, 168 completed subjects are required to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BFF 400/12 mcg SINGLE CAPSULE INHALER and BFF 320/9 mcg TURBUHALER BID, assuming a true difference of -50 mL with 90% power and a 2.5% one-sided significance level. The pre-specified NI margin is set at -1.25mL.||0.096|-0.008|
84742509|NCT02233803|169237184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.384||||||||1.384|0.576|
84742510|NCT02233803|169237185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||||||||1.1|0.1|
84742511|NCT03653208|169237210|OTHER||Slope|1.01||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1075
84742512|NCT03653208|169237211|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0548
84550014|NCT03307252|168853182|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|115.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|141.94|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|141.94|93.80|
84550015|NCT03307252|168853183|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
84550016|NCT03307252|168853183|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|135.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.83|154.84|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|154.84|117.83|
84550017|NCT03307252|168853183|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.26|123.35|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|123.35|102.26|
84550018|NCT03307252|168853183|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|1125.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|914.63|1384.0|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|1384.00|914.63|
84604242|NCT05074888|168958799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of diastolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to DBP/Visit1, DBP/Visit2 and DBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.22
84742513|NCT00368927|169237212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 60 evaluable participants per intervention arm, we would have 90% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of 54% and 82% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of\> 51% among participants assigned to receive active sulindac (2-sided chi-square test with continuity correction; alpha=0.05).||||0.85
84742514|NCT00368927|169237213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 60 participants per intervention arm would provide 90% power and 80% power to detect effect sizes of 60% and 52%, respectively, using a two-sample t-test(alpha=0.05).||||0.63
84550019|NCT03307252|168853184|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
84550020|NCT03307252|168853184|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|122.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|122.03|89.97|
84550021|NCT03307252|168853184|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|122.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|139.69|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|139.69|107.68|
84550022|NCT03307252|168853184|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|116.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.07|130.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.03|105.07|
84604243|NCT05074888|168958800|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84742515|NCT02406677|169237243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.246|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model accounting for within hospital clustering using robust standard errors|Usual Care arm is the reference group|||1.246|0.925|0.3503
84742516|NCT02406677|169237244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with parameters estimated using GEE to account for within hospital clustering for selected patient characteristics||||0.979|0.717|0.0260
84742517|NCT02406677|169237245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.564|2.649|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with GEE to account for within hospital clustering||||2.649|1.564|<0.0001
84742518|NCT01114880|169237246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84742519|NCT01114880|169237248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84550023|NCT03307252|168853185|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|87.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|99.64|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.64|76.08|
84550024|NCT03307252|168853185|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|122.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.09|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|137.09|110.25|
84550025|NCT03307252|168853185|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|109.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.70|93.65|
84550026|NCT03307252|168853185|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|428.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|359.78|509.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|509.70|359.78|
84550027|NCT03307252|168853186|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|92.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|99.76|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.76|85.28|
84550028|NCT03307252|168853186|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|83.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.32|90.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|90.08|78.32|
84550029|NCT03307252|168853186|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|124.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|146.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|146.43|105.11|
84550030|NCT03307252|168853187|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.23|121.92|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|121.92|104.23|
84550031|NCT03307252|168853187|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|116.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|116.43|101.22|
84550032|NCT03307252|168853187|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|340.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.63|402.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|402.10|288.63|
84550033|NCT03307252|168853188|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|100.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|108.51|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.51|93.59|
84550034|NCT03307252|168853188|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|131.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|143.37|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.37|120.37|
84604244|NCT05074888|168958801|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84604245|NCT05074888|168958802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
84604246|NCT05074888|168958803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84604247|NCT03199053|168958843|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.57|< 0.001
84742520|NCT01114880|169237250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84550035|NCT03307252|168853188|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|106.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|117.19|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.19|96.87|
84550036|NCT03307252|168853189|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|260.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.96|284.32|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|284.32|237.96|
84550037|NCT03307252|168853189|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|107.66|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.66|95.15|
84550038|NCT03307252|168853189|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|215.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.53|234.63|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|234.63|197.53|
84550039|NCT03482453|168853194|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least square means (LS means) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) Confidence Intervals (CIs) of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7108|1.0921||||||||1.0921|0.7108|
84550040|NCT03482453|168853194|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8361|1.1107||||||||1.1107|0.8361|
84742521|NCT01114880|169237252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84550041|NCT03482453|168853195|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0263||||||||1.0263|0.8458|
84550042|NCT03482453|168853200|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.1483||||||||1.1483|0.8977|
84550043|NCT03482453|168853200|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.0339||||||||1.0339|0.8740|
84550044|NCT03482453|168853201|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8861|1.0408||||||||1.0408|0.8861|
84550045|NCT01554527|168853213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.07
84550046|NCT01554527|168853214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.34
84550047|NCT01554527|168853215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.93
84550048|NCT01554527|168853216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.5
84742522|NCT01114880|169237254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84742523|NCT01114880|169237256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
84742524|NCT01114880|169237258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84742525|NCT01114880|169237260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84742526|NCT01114880|169237262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84742527|NCT01114880|169237264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84742528|NCT01114880|169237266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84742529|NCT02628028|169237293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.473
84742530|NCT02628028|169237293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.670
84742531|NCT02628028|169237293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.823
84742532|NCT02628028|169237294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.743
84742533|NCT02628028|169237294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
84742534|NCT02628028|169237294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.858
84742535|NCT02628028|169237295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.199
84742536|NCT02628028|169237295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
84490229|NCT03451630|168731717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.0413
84490230|NCT03451630|168731717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.14 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|-0.28|0.1433
84490231|NCT03451630|168731717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.63 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.23|-0.10|0.4272
84550049|NCT01554527|168853217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.25
84550050|NCT00504725|168853230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||We will use two way ANOVA (looking for effects due to drug and time) with a p value of 0.05 indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||IL-6||||0.39
84550051|NCT00504725|168853230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-8||||0.18
84490232|NCT03451630|168731717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 8.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||-0.06|-0.31|0.0037
84550052|NCT00504725|168853230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-10||||0.14
84550053|NCT00504725|168853231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
84550054|NCT00504725|168853232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||Baseline Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
84550055|NCT00504725|168853232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||4 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84550056|NCT00504725|168853232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||24 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84550057|NCT00504725|168853232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Pain Level Score at Discharge|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84550058|NCT01435018|168853233|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in ET+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically relevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-8.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. CI stratified by country was not performed due to small number of observations.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-8.3|-52.3|
84550059|NCT01435018|168853234|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-7.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.4|-32.3|
84550060|NCT01435018|168853234|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-7.9|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by country using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.9|-32.2|
84742537|NCT02628028|169237295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.863
84742538|NCT02628028|169237296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.44|-0.53|0.863
84742539|NCT02628028|169237296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.65|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.65|-0.32|0.503
84742540|NCT02628028|169237296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.23|-0.77|0.289
84550061|NCT01435018|168853235|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
84742541|NCT02628028|169237297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.626
84742542|NCT02628028|169237297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.418
84742543|NCT02628028|169237297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.951
84742544|NCT02628028|169237298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.905
84742545|NCT02628028|169237298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.069
84742546|NCT02628028|169237298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.547
84742547|NCT03361605|169237319|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline.||||<0.0001
84604248|NCT03199053|168958844|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.93|0.078
84604249|NCT03199053|168958845|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
84604250|NCT03199053|168958846|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.05|0.067
84604251|NCT03199053|168958847|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.76|< 0.001
84742548|NCT03361605|169237320|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the squeeze pressure in response to verbal instructions."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.00148|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in squeeze pressure between sedated state and baseline.||||0.00148
84742549|NCT00186888|169237321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.3|96.9||||||||96.9|71.3|
84742550|NCT00186888|169237322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|99.6||||||||99.6|65.1|
84742551|NCT00186888|169237323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.452||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A4\*1B: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.452
84742552|NCT00186888|169237323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A5\*3: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.106
84742553|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 1143: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.245
84742554|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 15622: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.297
84742555|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 2: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.372
84742556|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 5: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.844
84742557|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.616||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 21: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.616
84742558|NCT00186888|169237324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.424||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 26: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.424
84742559|NCT05014568|169237380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||4.09|1.66|<0.0001
84742560|NCT05014568|169237381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.57|<0.0001
84742561|NCT05014568|169237382|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-4.66|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-4.66|-7.69|<0.0001
84742562|NCT05014568|169237383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||7.09|1.98|<0.0001
84742563|NCT05014568|169237384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.54||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||2.31|1.03|0.0366
84742564|NCT03843554|169237450|SUPERIORITY|Primary hypothesis. Null hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome of WHO OM severity grades 0-2 at the post study evaluation will not differ between the two randomized intervention groups. The estimated proportion of successes from our pilot trial is 0.30 with SOC. The alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome differs between the two groups from the SOC proportion of 0.30 by +/-0.265 or more.||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|OM WHO grading scale (less or equal to 2) severity employed a two-sided Fisher's exact test to compare the two arms at Visit 9.||||||0.999
84550062|NCT01435018|168853236|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
84550063|NCT01435018|168853238|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|28.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of IERC-confirmed KS progression with 95% two-sided confidence interval.|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|28.8|3.7|
84550064|NCT01435018|168853239|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|4.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||4.3|-34.4|
84550065|NCT01435018|168853240|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|6.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||6.6|-13.3|
84742565|NCT03843554|169237451|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|174.6||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The above t-test p-value is for IL1a.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t-test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.6336
84550066|NCT01435018|168853241|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|10.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-1.9|
84550067|NCT01435018|168853242|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||11.0|-0.1|
84550068|NCT01435018|168853245|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|43.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||43.0|-4.1|
84550069|NCT01435018|168853246|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|27.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||27.0|1.8|
84550070|NCT01435018|168853247|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||47.4|0.9|
84604252|NCT03199053|168958848|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.92|0.146
84742566|NCT03843554|169237451|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.1||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL1b|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
84742567|NCT03843554|169237451|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.8||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL2|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
84742568|NCT03843554|169237451|SUPERIORITY|IL4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.0||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.8371
84742569|NCT03843554|169237451|SUPERIORITY|IL5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.2991
84550071|NCT01435018|168853248|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||31.3|6.3|
84550072|NCT01435018|168853249|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||47.4|0.9|
84550073|NCT01435018|168853250|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||29.3|6.2|
84550074|NCT01435018|168853251|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|61.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||61.4|13.6|
84550075|NCT01435018|168853252|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.7|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||22.7|-0.4|
84604253|NCT03199053|168958849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-2.02|0.024
84550076|NCT01435018|168853253|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
84550077|NCT01435018|168853254|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
84550078|NCT01435018|168853255|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||||Hazard ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||3.4|1.1|
84550079|NCT01435018|168853256|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||||Hazard ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||2.2|1.1|
84550080|NCT01435018|168853257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||||Odds ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||0.7|0.1|
84604254|NCT03199053|168958850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.15|0.833
84604255|NCT03199053|168958851|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-2.07|0.047
84604256|NCT03199053|168958852|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-1.50|0.268
84742570|NCT03843554|169237452|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8555||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.906|1.4475|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4475|-1.9060|0.2373
84742571|NCT03843554|169237453|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1755|0.2893||A Week 8 general linear mixed effects model (GLM) was used to compare the change in saliva flow rate from Baseline (day 0) to week 8 (day 56) between the two groups. The change was calculated by subtracting week 8 saliva flow rate from the Baseline.|ANCOVA||Estimation of the difference in least-square means for the change from Baseline to FIV in saliva flow rate.|||0.2893|-0.1755|0.6263
84550081|NCT01435018|168853258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Odds ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count and country.|||1.3|0.5|
84550082|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.659|6.009||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.009|2.659|
84742572|NCT03843554|169237454|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|A Week 8 (Day 56) GLM analyzing the pain change Week 8 relative to Baseline (Day 0) was used with treatment and Baseline pain as covariates.|Difference in least-square mean change from baseline to Visit 9 in pain score.|||||0.6956
84742573|NCT03843554|169237455|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4095|0.0334|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA via generalized linear mixed repeated measures model (GLMER)||The statistical analysis comprised an ANCOVA for a longitudinal response based on a generalized linear mixed effects repeated measures model (GLMER). The response variable is the mean change from Baseline to Visit 9 in EORTC QLQ-C30 Questions 31-48 (total).||0.0334|-0.4095|0.1153
84742574|NCT01882543|169237474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 28 subjects per group had 80% power to detect a 1.5-point difference in the change from baseline pain score between AQX-1125 and placebo assuming a between-subject SD of 2.0 and a 2-sided 5% significance level. Average daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the primary efficacy end point of average daily pain score||0.0|-2.1|0.061
84550083|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.838||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.838|0.813|
84604257|NCT03199053|168958853|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-2.11|0.026
84604258|NCT03199053|168958854|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.92|0.644
84669242|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84550084|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.994||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.994|0.440|
84550085|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|3.276||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.276|1.449|
84604259|NCT03199053|168958855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.7|1.2|0.019
84604260|NCT03199053|168958855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.6|0.8|0.114
84604261|NCT03199053|168958856|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||11.4|1.0|0.042
84742575|NCT01882543|169237475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||E-diary maximum daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the secondary efficacy variable of maximum daily pain score||-0.1|-2.5|0.030
84742576|NCT01882543|169237476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-2.8|0.008
84742577|NCT01882543|169237477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
84742578|NCT01882543|169237478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.3|-9.5|0.011
84742579|NCT01882543|169237479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.4||ICSI/PI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.4|-8.8|0.007
84742580|NCT01882543|169237479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9||ICSI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.9|-4.6|0.005
84742581|NCT01882543|169237479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.5||ICPI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-4.5|0.014
84550086|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.676|
84550087|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.012||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.012|0.448|
84550088|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.742|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|2.626||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.626|1.156|
84550089|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.458||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.458|0.204|
84550090|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.248||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.248|0.110|
84550091|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.818||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.818|0.363|
84604262|NCT03199053|168958856|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||7.4|0.7|0.175
84604263|NCT03199053|168958857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.2|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.2|1.4|0.009
84604264|NCT03199053|168958857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.5|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.5|1.1|0.042
84604265|NCT03199053|168958858|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.94|||ANCOVA|||||0.94|-1.00|0.955
84604266|NCT03199053|168958858|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.20|0.640
84742582|NCT01882543|169237480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Mental Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||3.6|-6.3|0.592
84742583|NCT01882543|169237480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.7||Physical Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||6.7|-1.6|0.221
84742584|NCT01882543|169237481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.1|-5.5|0.040
84742585|NCT01325311|169237494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using the Student t-test. If the normality assumption is tenuous, an appropriate transformation of the data such as logarithm will be considered for Student t-test or a nonparametric test such as Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be used for comparison.||||0.922
84742586|NCT02314780|169237509|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
84742587|NCT02314780|169237510|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
84742588|NCT02314780|169237511|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
84742589|NCT02314780|169237512|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84742590|NCT02314780|169237513|OTHER||||||=|0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.138
84742591|NCT02314780|169237514|OTHER||||||=|0.696|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.696
84742592|NCT00128102|169237597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.83|0.858
84742593|NCT00128102|169237601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Likelihood Based Score Test|||||0.88|0.63|<0.001
84742594|NCT00128102|169237602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|-1.18|0.621
84490233|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8231||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.8231
84490234|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 330.05 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
84490235|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6061||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.50 with degrees of freedom (2 , 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.6061
84490236|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.11|-0.15|0.7459
84550092|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.381||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.381|0.170|
84550093|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.252||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.252|0.112|
84490237|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.00 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.08|-0.18|0.3169
84490238|NCT03451630|168731718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.68 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.14|-0.07|0.4098
84490239|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4732||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (4, 1945).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.4732
84604267|NCT03199053|168958859|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-2.39|0.476
84742595|NCT00128102|169237603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-52.4||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|38.6|||Longitudinal Model|||||38.6|-143.5|0.259
84742596|NCT00128102|169237604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||||4.53|-7.20|0.736
84742597|NCT00128102|169237605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-0.06||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|4.49|||Longitudinal Model|||||4.49|-4.61|0.979
84742598|NCT00128102|169237606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|11.17|||Fisher Exact|||||11.17|-4.97|0.488
84742599|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.84|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||9.84|-0.3|0.0647
84742600|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.68|||MMRM|||||1.68|-9.5|0.1686
84742601|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.31|||MMRM|||||-0.31|-8.1|0.0348
84742602|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-14.59|||MMRM|||||-14.59|-24.57|<0.0001
84490240|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 319.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
84490241|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9628||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9628
84550094|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.655||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.655|0.290|
84550095|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.811||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.811|0.361|
84550096|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|2.676||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.676|1.188|
84550097|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.246||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.246|0.555|
84550098|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.826||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.826|0.367|
84550099|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.140|0.950|
84550100|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.196|4.944||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.944|2.196|
84604268|NCT03199053|168958859|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-3.81|0.075
84604269|NCT03199053|168958860|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-19.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|5.7|||Fisher Exact|||||5.7|-44.5|0.182
84604270|NCT03199053|168958861|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-6.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-29.8|0.650
84604271|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||||||Diphtheria: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.5|-1.6|
84742603|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-1.25|||MMRM|||||-1.25|-9.03|0.0101
84490242|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.19|-0.16|0.8438
84742604|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.19||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.21|||MMRM|||||-1.21|-9.16|0.011
84550101|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|2.303||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.303|1.026|
84550102|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.526||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.526|0.679|
84550103|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.754|3.959||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.959|1.754|
84550104|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|0.7||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.7|0.311|
84550105|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.463||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.463|0.206|
84604272|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Tetanus: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84604273|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9||||||Pertussis toxoid: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-4.7|
84604274|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84604275|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis pertactin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84742605|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-4.82|||MMRM|||||-4.82|-14.38|0.0001
84604276|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8||||||Pertussis fimbrial agglutinogens types 2+3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||0.8|-3.6|
84604277|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84604278|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 2: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84742606|NCT01531673|169237608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-5.71|0.3745
84742607|NCT01531673|169237609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.46|||MMRM|||||-0.46|-12.94|0.0357
84742608|NCT01531673|169237610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|-2.65|||MMRM|||||-2.65|-31.75|0.0238
84742609|NCT03446781|169237643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.002
84742610|NCT03446781|169237644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742611|NCT03446781|169237645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742612|NCT03446781|169237646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742613|NCT03446781|169237647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.033
84550106|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.203||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||1.203|0.532|
84550107|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|0.992||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.992|0.442|
84550108|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|2.572||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.572|1.142|
84550109|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.589|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.723|3.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.889|1.723|
84550110|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|4.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.757|6.589||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.589|3.757|
84550111|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.547||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.547|0.881|
84604279|NCT01323270|168958877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
84604280|NCT01057225|168958895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Using a cohort of 3 design, it was determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib is Dose Level 1: 20 mg/m\^2 for the first cycle and 36 mg/m\^2 for subsequent cycles.|||||
84742614|NCT03446781|169237648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742615|NCT03446781|169237649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84550112|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.166||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.166|0.665|
84669243|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742616|NCT03446781|169237650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742617|NCT03446781|169237651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84742618|NCT01638429|169237713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.16
84742619|NCT01638429|169237715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.028
84742620|NCT01638429|169237716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.01
84742621|NCT01638429|169237717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.97
84742622|NCT01638429|169237717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.85
84490243|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.15|-0.19|0.7425
84490244|NCT03451630|168731719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.17|-0.10|0.5044
84490245|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9804||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9804
84490246|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 21.80 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
84490247|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9764||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (2, 1211).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9764
84490248|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.6||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.03.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.60|0.63|0.9757
84490249|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.26.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.68|0.67|0.7958
84490250|NCT03451630|168731720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.30||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.34|0.67|0.7646
84490251|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.15 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9622
84490252|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.28 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0377
84490253|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistic 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2, 1903).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8300
84490254|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.0||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.32||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.00|0.38|0.7507
84490255|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.15||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.13|0.42|0.8844
84490256|NCT03451630|168731721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.77||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.22||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.77|0.49|0.8227
84490257|NCT03451630|168731722|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1a||||1.00
84490258|NCT03451630|168731722|OTHER|||||||0.242|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1b||||0.242
84490259|NCT03451630|168731723|OTHER|||||||0.1112|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-1||||0.1112
84550113|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|4.264||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.264|2.430|
84550114|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.417||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.417|0.808|
84550115|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.954||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.954|0.544|
84550116|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.891|3.33||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.330|1.891|
84550117|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.31||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.310|0.178|
84550118|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.234||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.234|0.134|
84550119|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.856||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.856|0.489|
84550120|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.284||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.284|0.163|
84550121|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.145||||||95.0|0.109|0.191||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.191|0.109|
84669244|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0097
84490260|NCT03451630|168731723|OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-2||||0.4754
84490261|NCT03451630|168731724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||4.28|0.13|0.9079
84490262|NCT03451630|168731724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.72||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.72|0.13|0.9079
84550122|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.668||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.668|0.381|
84550123|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.997||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.997|0.570|
84550124|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|3.647||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.647|2.083|
84550125|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.211||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.211|0.694|
84550126|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.815||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.815|0.466|
84550127|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.843||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.843|1.624|
84550128|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|4.836||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.836|2.764|
84742623|NCT01638429|169237718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.61
84490263|NCT03451630|168731724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.45|0.34|0.9079
84490264|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 335).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-1.||||0.9912
84550129|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.606||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.606|0.920|
84550130|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.081||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.081|0.619|
84550131|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.152|3.773||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.773|2.152|
84550132|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.44||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.440|0.251|
84550133|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.296||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.296|0.169|
84550134|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.003||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.003|0.588|
84550135|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.889|0.509|
84550136|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.345|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.772|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.772|
84550137|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.633|4.614||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.614|2.633|
84550138|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.817|3.789||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.789|1.817|
84669245|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742624|NCT01638429|169237718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.45
84742625|NCT01638429|169237719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.018
84742626|NCT01638429|169237719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.14
84742627|NCT01638429|169237720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.43
84742628|NCT01638429|169237720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.44
84742629|NCT01638429|169237721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.13
84742630|NCT01638429|169237721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.25
84742631|NCT01638429|169237722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.29
84742632|NCT01638429|169237722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.27
84742633|NCT01638429|169237723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.22
84742634|NCT01638429|169237723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.059
84742635|NCT01638429|169237724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.33
84742636|NCT01638429|169237724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.075
84742637|NCT01470001|169237725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|39.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model with repeated measurements||A planned sample size of 56 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 between post void dribbling response rates (assumed to be 0.35 under the null hypothesis and 0.60 under the alternative hypothesis) at a one-sided 0.05 significance level.||39.7|-4.3|.1135
84742638|NCT01470001|169237726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|30.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression with repeated measurements||||30.8|-2.3|.0919
84742639|NCT01470001|169237727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.2||p value was adjusted for age.|ANCOVA||we calculated the estimated difference in change between the placebo and treatment groups.|the difference in change between the groups was measured||6.2|-17.5|0.44
84742640|NCT03268603|169237730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84742641|NCT02236988|169237806|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.0|77.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||77.6|55.0|
84742642|NCT02236988|169237806|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|95.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||95.5|67.8|
84742643|NCT02236988|169237806|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|99.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||99.9|70.9|
84550139|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.580|0.760|
84742644|NCT02236988|169237808|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.7|73.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||73.9|51.7|
84742645|NCT02236988|169237808|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.6|85.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.1|59.6|
84550140|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.282||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.282|0.615|
84550141|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|3.052||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.052|1.473|
84550142|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.260|0.610|
84550143|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.298||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.298|0.622|
84550144|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.105||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.105|1.000|
84550145|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.603||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.603|0.289|
84550146|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.338|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|0.487||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.487|0.235|
84550147|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.165||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.165|0.561|
84550148|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.479||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.479|0.233|
84550149|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.494||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.494|0.237|
84608515|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.07|
84550150|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.801||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.801|0.382|
84550151|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.169||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.169|0.562|
84550152|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.78||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.780|1.347|
84550153|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.147||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.147|0.558|
84550154|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.184||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.184|0.568|
84550155|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.917||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.917|0.915|
84550156|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|3.438||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.438|1.658|
84550157|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.416||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.416|0.688|
84550158|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.701|
84550159|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|2.366||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.366|1.128|
84669246|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742646|NCT02236988|169237808|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|88.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.2|61.7|
84550160|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.592||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.592|0.288|
84550161|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.61||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.610|0.294|
84550162|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.99||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.990|0.473|
84550163|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.473||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.473|0.714|
84550164|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.385||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.385|1.150|
84550165|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|2.339||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.339|1.115|
84550166|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|3.087||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.087|1.177|
84550167|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.533||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.533|0.583|
84669247|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742647|NCT02236988|169237809|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.1|74.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.4|52.1|
84550168|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.245|0.468|
84550169|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|2.956||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.956|1.119|
84550170|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.568|
84550171|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.396||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.396|0.524|
84550172|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.943|0.745|
84550173|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.794||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.794|0.310|
84550174|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.641||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.641|0.250|
84550175|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.596|
84550176|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.758||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.758|0.306|
84550177|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.722||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.722|0.279|
84608516|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|0.79|
84550178|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.002||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.002|0.398|
84490265|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 339).||Test for change over time for SPC-1||||0.8760
84490266|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.39 with degrees of freedom (2, 276).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-1||||0.6780
84490267|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1761||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.59 with degrees of freedom (4, 284).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-2||||0.1761
84490268|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 288).||Test for change over time for SPC-2||||0.3239
84490269|NCT03451630|168731725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7415||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.30 with degrees of freedom (2, 139).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-2||||0.7415
84490270|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 608).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-1.||||0.9786
84550179|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.304||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.304|0.500|
84608517|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.25|0.58|
84742648|NCT02236988|169237809|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.7|85.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.2|59.7|
84742649|NCT02236988|169237809|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|88.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.4|62.0|
84742650|NCT02236988|169237810|OTHER||Median Difference|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 1 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.5|0.0090
84742651|NCT02236988|169237810|OTHER||Median Difference|1.26||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 2 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|0.50|0.0073
84742652|NCT02236988|169237810|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 3 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|<0.0001
84742653|NCT02236988|169237816|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|101.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||101.1|81.8|
84742654|NCT02236988|169237816|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|82.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||82.0|66.3|
84742655|NCT02236988|169237816|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.2|89.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.2|72.2|
84742656|NCT02236988|169237817|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.5|93.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.0|77.5|
84742657|NCT02236988|169237817|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.8|78.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.9|65.8|
84742658|NCT02236988|169237817|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|85.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.5|71.2|
84742659|NCT02236988|169237818|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|93.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.6|78.1|
84669248|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0103
84490271|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4703||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.76 with degrees of freedom (2, 612).||Test for change over time for SPD-1||||0.4703
84490272|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 332).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-1||||0.8770
84490273|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6198||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.66 with degrees of freedom (4, 469).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-2||||0.6198
84490274|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.48 with degrees of freedom (2, 473).||Test for change over time for SPD-2||||0.6211
84490275|NCT03451630|168731726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.93 with degrees of freedom (2, 219).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-2.||||0.1471
84604281|NCT00246025|168958914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155||95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
84669249|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742660|NCT02236988|169237818|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|79.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||79.5|66.3|
84742661|NCT02236988|169237818|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|86.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.4|72.0|
84742662|NCT02236988|169237819|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 4 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0002
84742663|NCT02236988|169237819|OTHER||Median Difference|1.02||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 5 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.50|0.0049
84742664|NCT02236988|169237819|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 6 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|1.00|0.0010
84742665|NCT02236988|169237825|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|103.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||103.0|80.4|
84742666|NCT02236988|169237825|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|100.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||100.0|78.1|
84742667|NCT02236988|169237826|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.8|88.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.0|73.8|
84742668|NCT02236988|169237826|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9|85.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.7|71.9|
84742669|NCT02236988|169237827|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|74.3|
84742670|NCT02236988|169237827|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.3|86.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.3|72.3|
84742671|NCT02236988|169237828|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 8 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.02|0.0374
84742672|NCT02236988|169237828|OTHER||Median Difference|0.51||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 9 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.00|0.1907
84742673|NCT02236988|169237834|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|121.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||121.3|98.6|
84742674|NCT02236988|169237834|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|119.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||119.2|96.4|
84550180|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.193|
84742675|NCT02236988|169237834|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.5|80.8|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.8|65.5|
84742676|NCT02236988|169237834|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|114.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||114.9|93.1|
84742677|NCT02236988|169237835|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|88.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.3|75.2|
84742678|NCT02236988|169237835|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|89.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.5|75.9|
84550181|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.541||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.541|0.611|
84669250|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742679|NCT02236988|169237835|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.9|74.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.0|62.9|
84742680|NCT02236988|169237835|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.3|84.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.0|71.3|
84742681|NCT02236988|169237836|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|75.6|
84490276|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8247||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-1||||0.8247
84490277|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6651||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.41 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-1||||0.6651
84742682|NCT02236988|169237836|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|90.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||90.1|76.5|
84742683|NCT02236988|169237836|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.4|74.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.5|63.4|
84742684|NCT02236988|169237836|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.8|84.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.4|71.8|
84742685|NCT02236988|169237837|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 11 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.03|0.0523
84742686|NCT02236988|169237837|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 12 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.2598
84742687|NCT02236988|169237837|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 13 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0053
84742688|NCT02236988|169237837|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 14 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.1093
84742689|NCT03733314|169237859|SUPERIORITY||Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|45.4|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||45.4|-24.9|
84490278|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.07 with degrees of freedom (2, 218).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-1||||0.3441
84490279|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0847||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-2||||0.0847
84490280|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9695||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.03 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-2||||0.9695
84742690|NCT03733314|169237864|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|18.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||18.0|-32.1|
84742691|NCT03733314|169237865|SUPERIORITY||Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||24.0|-7.3|
84742692|NCT04514510|169237876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||||||0.64
84742693|NCT04514510|169237882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
84742694|NCT00864253|169237892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.631|0.992||An interim safety review was performed by DMC. An alpha spending function was utilized to preserve the overall Type 1 error at 0.050. The spending function allocated alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 to the interim and final analyses of PFS, respectively.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||Two hundred fifty-seven (257) patients were to be randomized to each treatment group for a total of 514 patients. This sample size was chosen to provide at least 80% power for the final analysis (with a two-sided type I error of 0.049) to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI 007/dacarbazine hazard ratio (HR) for PFS is equal to 1.0. This sample size calculation was based on estimates of HR = 0.750. Proportional hazards were assumed.||0.992|0.631|0.044
84571298|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84752883|NCT02113579|169261051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-3.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.43|-9.92|<0.001
84742695|NCT00864253|169237893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.578|1.196||At the time of the final PFS analysis, an interim analysis of survival was reported. The spending function allocated an alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 for the interim and final analysis, respectively, to preserve the overall Type I error at 0.050.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||For the participant survival, at the time at least 417 events are recorded, this sample size provides at least 80% power with a two-sided Type 1 error of 0.049 to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI-007/dacarbazine hazard ratio is equal to 1.0. This was based on a HR = 0.760. Proportional hazards were assumed.||1.196|0.578|0.094
84742696|NCT00864253|169237894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.025|||Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||||1.025|0.696|0.086
84742697|NCT00864253|169237895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.305||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.035|||Chi-squared|||||2.035|0.837|0.239
84742698|NCT00864253|169237896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.442||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.582|||Chi-squared|||||1.582|1.123|0.004
84742699|NCT00864253|169237897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.201||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|5.053|||Log Rank|||||5.053|0.959|0.057
84742700|NCT01989169|169237924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios were within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.116|1.323|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUCinf, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.323|1.116|
84742701|NCT01989169|169237925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|1.327|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUClast, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.327|1.115|
84742702|NCT01989169|169237926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.383|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.282|1.491|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in Cmax, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.491|1.282|
84742703|NCT00515723|169237931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.002
84742704|NCT00515723|169237931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) and treatment group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.002
84742705|NCT00515723|169237932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.05
84742706|NCT00515723|169237932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) and treatment group as the independent variables, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.22
84742707|NCT04655027|169237937|OTHER|Treatment effect|Difference in Estimate (LSM)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.155|50.15|||ANCOVA|||||50.150|-11.155|0.212
84742708|NCT04655027|169237938|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin by treatment effect|Difference in Estimate|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.208|||ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.477|0.441
84742709|NCT04655027|169237938|OTHER|Baseline hs CRP by treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.707|5.017|||ANCOVA|||||5.017|-9.707|0.532
84742710|NCT04655027|169237939|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.635|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.635|0.723|0.688
84742711|NCT04655027|169237939|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.822|||ANCOVA|||||0.822|0.045|0.029
84742712|NCT04655027|169237939|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.201|0.568
84742713|NCT04655027|169237940|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.031|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.031|0.687|0.096
84742714|NCT04655027|169237940|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.282|0.630
84742715|NCT04655027|169237940|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.342|||ANCOVA|||||0.342|0.037|0.015
84742716|NCT04655027|169237941|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.354|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.354|1.123|< 0.001
84742717|NCT04655027|169237941|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|-0.027|0.171
84742718|NCT04655027|169237941|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.101|||ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.039|0.387
84742719|NCT04655027|169237942|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.312|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.312|0.606|0.561
84742720|NCT04655027|169237942|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.750|0.013|0.043
84742721|NCT04655027|169237942|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.302|||ANCOVA|||||0.302|-0.222|0.766
84490281|NCT03451630|168731727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.06 with degrees of freedom (2, 200).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-2||||0.9396
84490282|NCT02041533|168731728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by histology (squamous vs. non-squamous) as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.45|0.91|0.2511
84490283|NCT02041533|168731729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.43|0.95|
84490284|NCT02041533|168731730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.20|0.79|
84490285|NCT02041533|168731731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.24|0.86|
84742722|NCT04655027|169237943|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.369|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.369|1.108|< 0.001
84742723|NCT04655027|169237943|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.159|||ANCOVA|||||0.159|-0.059|0.351
84550182|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.561|
84742724|NCT04655027|169237943|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.114|||ANCOVA|||||0.114|-0.031|0.248
84742725|NCT04655027|169237944|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.598|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.598|1.043|0.021
84742726|NCT04655027|169237944|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.276|0.826
84742727|NCT04655027|169237944|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.132|||ANCOVA|||||0.132|-0.212|0.634
84742728|NCT04655027|169237945|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.786|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||0.786|0.257|0.007
84742729|NCT04655027|169237945|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.480|-0.798|0.610
84742730|NCT04655027|169237945|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.387|0.740
84742731|NCT03898167|169237960|OTHER||Relative Participation|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.8||95% CIs were calculated.||||Bivariable tables, Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests were used to compare demographic/health care characteristics by study group. Log binomial regression was used to calculate screening proportion, participation difference, and relative participation (calculated as relative risk), with 95% CIs. Overall participation difference and relative participation for SC and SC with patient navigation vs TR were calculated by combining numerators and denominators from each group.||2.80|1.99|
84550183|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.03||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.030|0.798|
84742732|NCT04696653|169237967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
84742733|NCT04696653|169237968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8||||||hypertension||1.8|0.2|
84742734|NCT04696653|169237968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1||||||dyslipidemia||2.1|0.0|
84742735|NCT04696653|169237968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||diabetes||2.0|0.1|
84742736|NCT04696653|169237969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.6|
84742737|NCT04696653|169237969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||CUSP strategy||0.1|-0.6|
84742738|NCT04696653|169237970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.6|
84742739|NCT04696653|169237970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
84742740|NCT04696653|169237971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
84742741|NCT04696653|169237971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.5|
84742742|NCT04696653|169237972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
84742743|NCT04696653|169237973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||||||||1.9|1.1|
84742744|NCT04696653|169237974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|0.7|
84490286|NCT02041533|168731732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||||Stratified by histology (squamous vs.non-squamous) at randomization. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over investigator choice of chemotherapy) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.06|0.46|
84490287|NCT00545740|168731734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
84490288|NCT00545740|168731734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
84490289|NCT00545740|168731734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
84490290|NCT00545740|168731736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.047
84742745|NCT04696653|169237975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
84742746|NCT04696653|169237980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||||1.6|1.0|
84742747|NCT04696653|169237981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
84490291|NCT00545740|168731736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.741
84490292|NCT00545740|168731736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
84490293|NCT02117024|168731741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0011
84490294|NCT02117024|168731741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Other|||With only 50% of enrollment complete prior to study termination by sponsor, insufficient sample size exists to fully complete efficacy analysis.||||<0.05
84490295|NCT00529152|168731784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Serum Ferritin from baseline to week 24 was compared using regression analysis; null hypothesis was defined as no change in serum ferritin from baseline to week 24||||0.0005
84490296|NCT02500706|168731785|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|<0.001
84490297|NCT02500706|168731785|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.19||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.19|0.004|<0.001
84490298|NCT02500706|168731785|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0%-points."|Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|0.633
84490299|NCT02500706|168731786|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increments superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog.~Superiority was confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0."|Treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.45||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in postprandial glucose increment (meal test) is analysed using an analysis of variance model. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline postprandial glucose increment as a covariate.||-0.45|-1.36|<0.001
84497288|NCT00769132|168745863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.12||||||90.0|0.9|1.38||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.38|0.9|
84497289|NCT00769132|168745863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.07||||||||1.07|0.71|
84742748|NCT04696653|169237982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84742749|NCT04696653|169237983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
84742750|NCT04696653|169237984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84742751|NCT04696653|169237985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
84742752|NCT04696653|169237986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
84490300|NCT02500706|168731787|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: 1,5-anhydroglucitol superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was above 0."|Treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||Change from baseline in 1,5-anhydroglucitol was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol as a covariate.||0.34|-0.31|0.924
84742753|NCT04696653|169237987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
84742754|NCT04696653|169237988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.1|
84742755|NCT04696653|169237989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84742756|NCT04696653|169237990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.4|
84742757|NCT04696653|169237991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||||||||3.3|1.0|
84742758|NCT04348435|169237999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6113
84742759|NCT04348435|169237999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.5039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5039
84742760|NCT04348435|169237999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8903
84742761|NCT04348435|169238000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.8171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8171
84742762|NCT04348435|169238000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.5034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5034
84497290|NCT00769132|168745863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.98||||||||0.98|0.65|
84742763|NCT04348435|169238000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9948
84742764|NCT04348435|169238001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2641
84742765|NCT04348435|169238001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8220
84742766|NCT04348435|169238001|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3097
84497291|NCT00769132|168745863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89||||||90.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
84497292|NCT00769132|168745863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.91||||||90.0|0.74|1.12||||||||1.12|0.74|
84742767|NCT04348435|169238002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84742768|NCT04348435|169238002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84742769|NCT04348435|169238002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1713
84742770|NCT04348435|169238003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3868
84742771|NCT04348435|169238003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9429
84742772|NCT04348435|169238003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9362
84742773|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.9333
84742774|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.483||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.3627
84742775|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.604||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.4160
84742776|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.8768
84742777|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.344||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.0869
84742778|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.6864
84742779|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.571||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.2587
84742780|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.316||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.1250
84742781|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.732||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.9780
84742782|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.8721
84742783|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.735||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.6694
84742784|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.073||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.3733
84742785|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.116||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.5594
84742786|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.389||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.2127
84742787|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.303||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.4012
84742788|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.748||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0521
84742789|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.696||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.4704
84742790|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.017||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0544
84742791|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5535
84742792|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.969||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
84742793|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.936||0.5692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5692
84497293|NCT00769132|168745863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.83|1.25||||||||1.25|0.83|
84742794|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
84497294|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04||||||90.0|0.92|1.17||||||||1.17|0.92|
84497295|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.8|1.01||||||||1.01|0.8|
84497296|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.56||||||90.0|0.49|0.63||||||||0.63|0.49|
84497297|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.58||||||90.0|0.51|0.65||||||||0.65|0.51|
84742795|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
84742796|NCT04348435|169238004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
84742797|NCT04348435|169238005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8628
84742798|NCT04348435|169238005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5257
84742799|NCT04348435|169238005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5467
84742800|NCT01732822|169238023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.650
84742801|NCT01732822|169238024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.738
84742802|NCT01732822|169238025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.92|0.400
84497298|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.62||||||90.0|0.55|0.7||||||||0.7|0.55|
84742803|NCT01732822|169238026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.91|0.482
84742804|NCT01732822|169238027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.89|0.913
84742805|NCT01732822|169238028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.724
84742806|NCT01732822|169238029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.79|0.846
84742807|NCT01732822|169238030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.87|0.298
84742808|NCT01732822|169238031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.90|0.462
84742809|NCT01732822|169238032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.793
84742810|NCT01732822|169238033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.92|1.000
84742811|NCT01732822|169238034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.91|0.829
84550184|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.474|3.851||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.851|1.474|
84550185|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.915||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.915|0.754|
84550186|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.821||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.821|0.689|
84550187|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.516||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.516|0.987|
84550188|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.805||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.805|0.316|
84550189|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.754||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.754|0.293|
84550190|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.056||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.056|0.414|
84550191|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.492||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.492|0.583|
84669251|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84742812|NCT01732822|169238035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.92|0.949
84742813|NCT01732822|169238036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.78|0.377
84742814|NCT01732822|169238040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.164
84742815|NCT01732822|169238041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.67|0.306
84742816|NCT01732822|169238042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.887
84742817|NCT01732822|169238043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.84|0.489
84742818|NCT01732822|169238044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.95|0.138
84742819|NCT01732822|169238045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.95|0.139
84742820|NCT01732822|169238046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|1.24|<0.001
84490301|NCT01497899|168731834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. The alternative hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||7.7|-13.5|0.58
84490302|NCT02347124|168731839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, cigarettes per day, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, current use of a stop-smoking medication, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.93|0.13
84490303|NCT02347124|168731840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.53||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.69|0.90
84490304|NCT02347124|168731841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.89|0.21
84490305|NCT02347124|168731842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|1.01|0.04
84490306|NCT02347124|168731843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
84490307|NCT02347124|168731844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.47|-0.57|0.85
84490308|NCT02347124|168731845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.96|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.96|-0.14|0.14
84490309|NCT02347124|168731846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.||||0.56|0.13|.002
84490310|NCT02347124|168731847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23||Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.|Regression, Linear|||||0.23|-0.22|0.97
84490311|NCT02347124|168731848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of stop-smoking medications, baseline motivation, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.04|-0.24|0.16
84742821|NCT00215137|169238047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed on the difference between the open label endpoint and baseline YBOCS scores.||||0.0002
84490312|NCT02347124|168731849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of a smoking cessation medication at baseline, baseline motivation score, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.13|-0.16|0.83
84490313|NCT02347124|168731850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline motivation score.||||0.41|0.04|0.02
84490314|NCT02347124|168731851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.17|0.82
84490315|NCT02347124|168731852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medications.||||0.16|-0.20|0.80
84490316|NCT02347124|168731853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medication.||||0.26|-0.11|0.45
84490317|NCT03123549|168731873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.017
84490318|NCT03370133|168731898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.02|293.175||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||293.175|34.020|<0.001
84490319|NCT03370133|168731898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.056|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.874|9.466||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.466|3.874|<0.001
84742822|NCT00215137|169238047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||A Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was performed on the difference in the pre and post randomization YBOCS scores, using grouping to either escitalopram or placebo as a grouping variable.||||.0417
84742823|NCT03333876|169238048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Each group was compared to baseline.||||<.001
84742824|NCT00095498|169238059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.264
84742825|NCT00095498|169238059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.018
84742826|NCT00095498|169238060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.032
84742827|NCT00095498|169238060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.180
84742828|NCT00095498|169238061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.602|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.602
84742829|NCT00095498|169238061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.181
84742830|NCT00095498|169238062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.012
84742831|NCT00095498|169238062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.007
84490320|NCT03370133|168731899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.701|384.307||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||384.307|36.701|<0.001
84490321|NCT03370133|168731899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|7.47||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.470|3.096|<0.001
84490322|NCT03370133|168731900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.063|72.253||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||72.253|9.063|<0.001
84742832|NCT00095498|169238063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.277
84742833|NCT00095498|169238063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.019
84742834|NCT00095498|169238064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.382|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.382
84490323|NCT03370133|168731901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|71.925||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||71.925|9.020|<0.001
84742835|NCT00095498|169238064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.488|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.488
84742836|NCT00095498|169238065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.236
84742837|NCT00095498|169238065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.712
84490324|NCT03370133|168731902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.394|514.862||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||514.862|29.394|<0.001
84490325|NCT03370133|168731902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.202|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.998|30.123||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||30.123|10.998|<0.001
84490326|NCT03370133|168731903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.258|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.356|35.931||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||35.931|7.356|<0.001
84497299|NCT00769132|168745864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64||||||90.0|0.57|0.72||||||||0.72|0.57|
84497300|NCT00877799|168745873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057
84497301|NCT00877799|168745874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84497302|NCT00877799|168745875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84742838|NCT00095498|169238066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.026||95.0|0.11|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.74|0.11|0.026
84742839|NCT00095498|169238066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.155||95.0|-0.23|1.41|||Repeated measures model|||||1.41|-0.23|0.155
84742840|NCT00095498|169238067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|0.62|2.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.72|0.62|0.002
84742841|NCT00095498|169238067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|0.84|2.94|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.94|0.84|<0.001
84742842|NCT00095498|169238068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|1.1|<0.001
84742843|NCT00095498|169238068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||<|0.001||95.0|2.18|4.39|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.39|2.18|<0.001
84742844|NCT00095498|169238069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.986||95.0|-1.06|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.08|-1.06|0.986
84742845|NCT00095498|169238069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.141||95.0|-0.27|1.86|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.86|-0.27|0.141
84490327|NCT03370133|168731904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.795|50.674||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||50.674|9.795|<0.001
84490328|NCT03370133|168731905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.049|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.201|52.077||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||52.077|10.201|<0.001
84550192|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|2.071||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.071|0.831|
84550193|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.249|0.880|
84742846|NCT00095498|169238070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.073||95.0|-0.09|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.99|-0.09|0.073
84742847|NCT00095498|169238070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.09||95.0|-0.14|1.93|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.93|-0.14|0.09
84742848|NCT00095498|169238071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.007||95.0|0.51|3.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.12|0.51|0.007
84742849|NCT00095498|169238071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.003||95.0|0.67|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|0.67|0.003
84742850|NCT00095498|169238072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.938||95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.63|-0.58|0.938
84742851|NCT00095498|169238072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.787||95.0|-0.53|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.69|-0.53|0.787
84742852|NCT00095498|169238073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004||95.0|0.33|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.67|0.33|0.004
84742853|NCT00095498|169238073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.51|1.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.85|0.51|<0.001
84742854|NCT00095498|169238074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001||95.0|1.02|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.85|1.02|<0.001
84742855|NCT00095498|169238074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.96|1.13|<0.001
84742856|NCT00095498|169238075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84490329|NCT03370133|168731906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|83.987||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||83.987|16.920|<0.001
84742857|NCT00095498|169238075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742858|NCT00095498|169238076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742859|NCT00095498|169238076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742860|NCT00095498|169238077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742861|NCT00095498|169238077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742862|NCT00095498|169238078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742863|NCT00095498|169238078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742864|NCT00095498|169238079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84490330|NCT03370133|168731907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.107|12.679||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||12.679|5.107|<0.001
84742865|NCT00095498|169238079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742866|NCT00095498|169238080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.016
84742867|NCT00095498|169238080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742868|NCT00095498|169238081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742869|NCT00095498|169238081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84742870|NCT00095498|169238082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.673
84742871|NCT00095498|169238082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.589|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.589
84742872|NCT00095498|169238083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.175
84742873|NCT00095498|169238083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.133
84550194|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|5.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.365||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||7.365|4|
84550195|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.804|
84550196|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.031||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.031|0.559|
84550197|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|4.751||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.751|2.577|
84550198|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.334||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.334|0.722|
84550199|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.95||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.95|0.513|
84550200|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|3.421||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.421|1.846|
84550201|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.272||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.272|0.149|
84550202|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.189||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.189|0.103|
84742874|NCT00503139|169238242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that mHAQ scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
84742875|NCT00503139|169238243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that VAS Fatigue scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
84550203|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.645|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.873||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.873|0.476|
84550204|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.245|0.134|
84550205|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.174||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.174|0.095|
84550206|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.628||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.628|0.341|
84550207|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.943|0.514|
84550208|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.368|4.343||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.343|2.368|
84550209|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.218||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.218|0.665|
84550210|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.868||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.868|0.472|
84550211|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.121||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.121|1.7|
84742876|NCT00833833|169238249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99||||||With a 12-month accrual period and 12-month follow-up after the study closed to accrual, assuming a 10% drop out rate, 96 participants in each treatment arm would have had 85% power to detect a hazard rate ratio of 1.67 using a one-sided log rank test with an overall significance level of 0.025 adjusted for one interim analysis) and a significance level of 0.0245 for the final analysis.||0.99|0.54|
84742877|NCT00833833|169238254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|46.66||||||||46.66|0.84|
84742878|NCT00833833|169238255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
84742879|NCT00833833|169238256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.29||||||||1.29|0.57|
84742880|NCT00316602|169238263|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 2 (Atopic Dermatitis Participants) is non-inferior to Group 1 (Healthy Participants) in terms of seroconversion rate at Week 6 was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates.|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||||||||-4.3|
84742881|NCT00626990|169238278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.73|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.73|0.76
84490331|NCT03370133|168731908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.442|5.899||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.899|2.442|<0.001
84490332|NCT03370133|168731909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.73||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.730|2.850|<0.001
84490333|NCT03370133|168731910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.573|3.699||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.699|1.573|<0.001
84490334|NCT01624974|168731944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.047||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.134|||LDA model|The LDA model assumes that repeated measurements follow a multivariate normal distribution.||||0.134|-0.039|0.282
84550212|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.398|6.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.249|3.398|
84550213|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.753||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.753|0.954|
84490335|NCT01408862|168731955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by Wilcoxon-paired test. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. . We used the CSS/ Statistica program package, StatSoft V 6.0.~This analysis applies to both GLP1R and GIPR categories"||||0.04
84490336|NCT01408862|168731956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor, for variables measured in several consecutive times. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used. The Statistica program package (StatSoft V 6.0) were used to perform these analyses, which applied to both GLP1R and GIPR agonist effect categories.||||0.20
84490337|NCT03125902|168731959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.12|0.60|0.2032
84490338|NCT03125902|168731959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.14|0.62|0.2601
84742882|NCT00626990|169238278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
84742883|NCT00626990|169238279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.72|0.11
84742884|NCT00626990|169238279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
84490339|NCT03125902|168731960|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.70|0.1343
84490340|NCT03125902|168731960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.05|0.70|0.1285
84490341|NCT03125902|168731961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.64|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.64|0.76|0.5798
84490342|NCT03125902|168731961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.72|0.80|0.4035
84742885|NCT00574873|169238309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
84742886|NCT00574873|169238310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84742887|NCT00574873|169238311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.31|0.31|
84742888|NCT00574873|169238312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.08|0.32|
84742889|NCT00574873|169238313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.72|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||11.72|0.90|
84742890|NCT00574873|169238314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29|||||The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is obtained from a Cox model for cause-specific hazard as a function of the covariate treatment (bosutinib compared with imatinib) with stratification by region and Sokal risk group at randomization.|||1.29|0.13|
84490343|NCT03125902|168731962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis||1.43|0.88|0.3425
84490344|NCT03125902|168731962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.48|0.92|0.2166
84490345|NCT03125902|168731964|OTHER|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.71|0.6465
84490346|NCT03125902|168731966|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.37|0.87|0.1526
84490347|NCT03125902|168731967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.31|0.85|0.1834
84490348|NCT03125902|168731968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.02|1.00|0.0513
84490349|NCT03125902|168731969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.93|0.1226
84490350|NCT03125902|168731970|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|0.0641
84490351|NCT03125902|168731980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.01227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.9|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.90|0.42|0.01227
84490352|NCT01997333|168732010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test.||||||0.761
84490353|NCT01997333|168732011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors.||||||0.264
84490354|NCT01997333|168732013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank.||||||0.726
84490355|NCT04411472|168732016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.732|||One-sided p-value|||||1.732|0.805|0.8025
84490356|NCT04411472|168732017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|2.131|||One-sided p-value|||||2.131|0.139|0.1824
84490357|NCT04411472|168732018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.405|||One-sided p-value|||||0.405|0.001|0.0080
84490358|NCT04411472|168732019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.454|||One-sided p-value|||||1.454|0.606|0.3894
84490359|NCT04411472|168732020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.697|||One-sided p-value|||||1.697|0.128|0.1237
84490360|NCT04411472|168732022|SUPERIORITY||z-score statistic difference proportions|-7.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.4||one-sided p-value based on the z-score statistic for the difference in proportions|one-sided p-value|||||-0.4|-15.4|0.019
84490361|NCT04411472|168732023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through to Day 28||||0.5460
84490362|NCT04411472|168732023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.6770
84490363|NCT04411472|168732023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.9930
84490364|NCT04411472|168732023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.7790
84490365|NCT04411472|168732024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||0.0510
84490366|NCT04411472|168732024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.0130
84490367|NCT04411472|168732024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.0250
84490368|NCT04411472|168732024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0730
84490369|NCT04411472|168732025|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||1.0000
84490370|NCT04411472|168732025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.9790
84742891|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 8.||14.7|-14.7|0.999
84742892|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|16.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 10.||16.7|-12.8|0.795
84742893|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 12.||17.1|-12.5|0.758
84490371|NCT04411472|168732025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.6750
84669252|NCT01480076|169072593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1227|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1227
84742894|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|21.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 16.||21.6|-8.3|0.381
84490372|NCT04411472|168732025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0310
84490373|NCT04411472|168732026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.5450
84490374|NCT04411472|168732027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.0810
84490375|NCT04411472|168732028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.9790
84490376|NCT04411472|168732029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.437|||One-sided p-value|||||1.437|0.806|0.6916
84490377|NCT04411472|168732030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.234|||One-sided p-value|||||1.234|0.180|0.0628
84490378|NCT04411472|168732031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.054|||One-sided p-value|||||0.054|0.001|<0.0001
84742895|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|31.4||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 20.||31.4|0.8|0.041
84490379|NCT01259388|168732072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.346
84550214|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.249|0.677|
84490380|NCT01259388|168732074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84490381|NCT03512028|168732075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect of group x time from pre- to post- intervention|ANOVA||Estimated difference between slopes|Mixed model ANOVA with group (RLIC, Sham) and time (pre-, post-, and follow-up ). The main analysis of interest is the group x time interaction from pre- to post-.||||0.002
84490382|NCT03512028|168732075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effect of time|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84490383|NCT03512028|168732075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||Main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||0.844
84550215|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.436|4.496||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.496|2.436|
84550216|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.38||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.38|0.207|
84550217|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.271||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.271|0.147|
84550218|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.975||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.975|0.529|
84571299|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84742896|NCT00581555|169238315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|46.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 24.||46.3|14.8|<0.001
84742897|NCT00581555|169238316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||1.2|0.0|0.049
84742898|NCT00581555|169238317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||||0.002
84742899|NCT00581555|169238318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Time to first relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier's, and comparisons between groups was performed using log rank tests.||||||0.0003
84490384|NCT02728804|168732092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.29|0.66|0.65
84490385|NCT02728804|168732093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.43|0.79|0.70
84742900|NCT00581555|169238319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||7.3|2.1|<0.001
84742901|NCT00581555|169238320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|218.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||218.1|52.3|0.001
84742902|NCT00581555|169238321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.139||95.0|-0.8|5.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||5.5|-0.8|0.139
84490386|NCT02728804|168732094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.31|0.73|0.87
84490387|NCT02728804|168732095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||0.92|0.48|0.01
84490388|NCT02728804|168732096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.87|0.95|0.10
84490389|NCT02728804|168732096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||2.89|1.28|0.002
84490390|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.4|||||LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.4|-14.2|
84490391|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.9|-11.8|
84490392|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||2.8|-30.6|
84490393|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||0|-31.0|
84490394|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||3.9|-23.8|
84490395|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||9.7|-16.0|
84490396|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||8.6|-26.2|
84742903|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 2.||2.5|-2.3|0.956
84742904|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 4.||1.5|-3.6|0.41
84742905|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 6.||3.9|-4.8|0.844
84490397|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||12.6|-19.7|
84490398|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|12.2||||||Day 1 postdose PM 1 hour||12.2|-18.7|
84490399|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose PM||9.9|-18.7|
84490400|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||1.3|-18.2|
84742906|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 8.||1.8|-1.8|0.968
84490401|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||3.3|-14.8|
84490402|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-28.1|
84669253|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84742907|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 10.||2.5|-1.1|0.441
84490403|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||2.3|-21.1|
84490404|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||7.9|-25.6|
84550219|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.966||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.966|0.524|
84490405|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||4.4|-26.7|
84490406|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||0.6|-24.0|
84550220|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|3.474||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.474|1.886|
84550221|NCT00972816|168853285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.646|4.89||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.89|2.646|
84669254|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84742908|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 12.||2.8|-0.9|0.3
84490407|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||4.4|-18.4|
84550222|NCT03625466|168853298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.5|
84550223|NCT01058993|168853308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student t-test-comparison means of normal subjects \& controls.||||||<0.05
84742909|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 16.||4.5|0.7|0.008
84742910|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 20.||5.0|0.9|0.005
84550224|NCT01058993|168853308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Ratio paired t-test|Ratio paired t-test for comparison of baselines and responses for each category of leukocytes||The patients' leukocyte counts before and after plerixafor were compared.||||<0.05
84742911|NCT00581555|169238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||4.6|0.2|0.031
84742912|NCT00581555|169238323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||||0.1196
84752884|NCT02113579|169261052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-7.75|-15.30|<0.001
84742913|NCT00201643|169238333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75||Analysis were also conducted in all randomized women with a known outcome \& in randomized treatment group(modified intent to treat). Analysis of the primary outcome used a repeated measures approach where each baby was considered a repeated measure|Fisher Exact|||Our Hypothesis was that administration of a rescue ACS would show a 40% reduction in incidence of composite neonatal morbity in patients delivering \< 34 weeks. Sample size estimates based on composite morbidity of 28%. Each arm required 217 subjects to have 80% power to detect a 40% reduction to 16.8%(2-tailed,alpha =0.05)using comparison for proportions/groups(Fisher exact test) OR,95% CI \& P values were determined using a repeated measure model where each twin is considered a repeat measure.||0.75|0.27|0.002
84550225|NCT01665157|168853331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||||||Not significant|ANOVA|||||||0.435
84550226|NCT01665157|168853332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.046
84550227|NCT01665157|168853332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: Low-residue diet package and 2L PEG vs. Self-controlled diet and 2L PEG provides same preparation quality."||||0.024
84550228|NCT01665157|168853332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
84550229|NCT01665157|168853335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84550230|NCT01665157|168853336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84550231|NCT01665157|168853337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84550232|NCT03557931|168853356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|1.88|||MMRM Method|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (least square (LS) Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo is 0.035.|1.88|-1.51|0.858
84550233|NCT03557931|168853356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.36|||0.775|||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo is - 0.053.|1.36|-1.93|
84550234|NCT03557931|168853362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||3.41|-1.90|0.639
84550235|NCT03557931|168853362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|2.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-3.11|0.721
84550236|NCT00778869|168853364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student t-test|||||||<0.05
84550237|NCT02438826|168853520|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.17||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-2.77|0.334
84550238|NCT02438826|168853521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.297||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.028||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.028|0.830|0.170
84550239|NCT02438826|168853522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||Chui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.946
84550240|NCT02438826|168853523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.309|0.987|0.057
84604282|NCT00246025|168958914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006||95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
84604283|NCT00246025|168958914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-19.6|-45.4|<0.0001
84604284|NCT00246025|168958915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
84742914|NCT00943852|169238402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
84742915|NCT00943852|169238403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
84550241|NCT02438826|168853524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.141||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|2.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.314|0.563|0.713
84550242|NCT02438826|168853525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.856|0.548|0.979
84550243|NCT02438826|168853526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.440|0.431|0.437
84550244|NCT02397122|168853539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.259
84550245|NCT02397122|168853539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.097
84550246|NCT02397122|168853539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.070
84550247|NCT02397122|168853540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.067
84604285|NCT00246025|168958915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
84550248|NCT02397122|168853540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.130
84669255|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1754|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1754
84742916|NCT00734591|169238404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|28.46|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||28.46|0.50|
84550249|NCT02397122|168853540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.128
84550250|NCT02397122|168853541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.298
84550251|NCT02397122|168853541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.152
84550252|NCT02397122|168853541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.317
84550253|NCT02397122|168853542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.136
84550254|NCT02397122|168853542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.041
84550255|NCT02397122|168853542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.064
84550256|NCT02397122|168853543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.245
84550257|NCT02397122|168853543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.099
84550258|NCT02397122|168853543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.077
84550259|NCT02397122|168853544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.946
84550260|NCT02397122|168853544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.001
84550261|NCT02397122|168853544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.001
84550262|NCT02805179|168853545|SUPERIORITY|Compared to historical controls||||||0.03|||||||1-sided binomial test|||||||0.03
84571300|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.008||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.008
84742917|NCT00734591|169238405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|24.01|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||24.01|0.37|
84742918|NCT00734591|169238406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
84742919|NCT00734591|169238407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|20.68|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||20.68|1.01|
84742920|NCT00338962|169238426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni adjustments were applied. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=49.633||||||0.00
84742921|NCT00338962|169238428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Gastrointestinal symptoms compared||||0.007
84742922|NCT04155047|169238445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1861||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.711|0.0987
84550263|NCT00305084|168853555|OTHER||MDT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All data regarding safety were registered and analyzed by descriptive analyses. Summary table were generated to document the safety|at least 3 patients per cohort had to be enrolled with expansion to 6 in presence of Dose Limiting Toxicity(DLT) (stop escalation if 2 or more DLTs at the same dose level). With a projection to achieve the highest level of NGR-hTNF, without significative toxicity (1.6 μg/m2) a planned sample of 20-25 patients was expected. DLTs were defined as: any severe toxicity clearly related to the administration of NGR-hTNF. The patient was defined assessable, according to the standard analysis, if he/she received at least one infusion of the investigational product. Maximal Tollerated Dose (MTD) was defined as the dose which produces DLTs in 2 or more patients out of 6 and will be recommended for phase II trials.|||
84550264|NCT00926848|168853574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84550265|NCT00926848|168853575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84550266|NCT00926848|168853576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84604286|NCT00246025|168958915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
84669256|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0192
84669257|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84550267|NCT00926848|168853577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84550268|NCT00926848|168853578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84669258|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84742923|NCT04091061|169238446|OTHER|90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.14|296.44|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference.|||296.44|83.14|
84550269|NCT00926848|168853579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84550270|NCT01582178|168853598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
84669259|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
84742924|NCT04091061|169238446|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|125.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.51|237.13|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||237.13|66.51|
84490408|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||16.2|-13.0|
84490409|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||14.2|-12.9|
84490410|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.1|-16.4|
84490411|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.9|-13.9|
84490412|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||6.4|-15.8|
84490413|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||4.5|-16.0|
84490414|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||13.1|-13.6|
84490415|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||9.6|-15.2|
84490416|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||3.0|-15.5|
84742925|NCT04091061|169238446|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.54|233.68|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||233.68|65.54|
84742926|NCT04091061|169238447|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|301.16|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||301.16|81.07|
84742927|NCT04091061|169238447|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.95|319.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||319.29|85.95|
84742928|NCT04091061|169238447|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.96|293.32|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.32|78.96|
84742929|NCT04091061|169238448|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.95|300.6|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||300.60|80.95|
84742930|NCT04091061|169238448|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|318.67|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||318.67|85.82|
84742931|NCT04091061|169238448|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.99|293.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.29|78.99|
84742932|NCT00821587|169238453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral level in patients receiving antiviral therapy for recurrent HCV after Liver Transplant|Chi-squared|||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral levels after liver transplant. Comparisons between the two groups (Undetectable viral level vs. Detectable viral level) were performed with Pearson Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.||||<0.05
84742933|NCT04488770|169238502|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.93|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-24). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||0.93|0.61|
84742934|NCT04488770|169238503|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
84742935|NCT04488770|169238504|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for log transformed parameter AUC(0-infinity). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
84742936|NCT04488770|169238505|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.75|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.75|0.46|
84742937|NCT04488770|169238506|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter C24h. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||1.11|0.74|
84490417|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||0.5|-16.6|
84490418|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||8.4|-11.8|
84742938|NCT04488770|169238507|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tmax.|||2.000|0.000|
84742939|NCT04488770|169238508|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tlag.|||0.250|0.000|
84742940|NCT03547739|169238509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.18|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|Home visits as compared to Standard Care||6.18|2.88|<0.001
84742941|NCT03547739|169238509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.45|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|HIV Self-testing as compared to Standard Care||5.45|2.50|<0.001
84742942|NCT03547739|169238510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.31|1.12|.001
84742943|NCT03547739|169238510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of HIVST arm with Standard Care arm||1.36|1.17|.001
84742944|NCT03547739|169238524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.12|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.12|1.03|.011
84742945|NCT03547739|169238524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the HIVST arm with Standard Care||1.08|0.97|0.011
84742946|NCT03547739|169238525|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.86|0.087
84742947|NCT03547739|169238525|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.96||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.91|0.087
84742948|NCT03547739|169238525|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.98||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.93|0.087
84742949|NCT00403767|169238549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority (NI) by a NI margin of 1.46 in hazard ratio (HR) based on on-treatment data from the per protocol population. The required number of primary efficacy endpoint events was determined based on the following assumptions: NI margin of 1.46, 1-sided alpha of 0.025, power of \>95% when true HR is 1, and exponential distributions. The margin was selected based on clinical appropriateness and quantitative analysis of relevant studies in Hart et al.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||||0.96|0.66|<0.001
84742950|NCT00403767|169238550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||The p-value Is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.95|0.65|0.015
84742951|NCT00403767|169238551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The p-value is not adjusted for mulitple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternate hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.11|0.96|0.442
84490419|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||-0.7|-19.4|
84742952|NCT00403767|169238552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.99|0.74|0.034
84742953|NCT00403767|169238553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.96|0.74|0.010
84742954|NCT00403767|169238554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.03|0.70|0.092
84742955|NCT00403767|169238555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.61||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.61|0.09|0.003
84742956|NCT00403767|169238556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.06|0.63|0.121
84742957|NCT00403767|169238557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.10|0.73|0.289
84742958|NCT00403767|169238558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.02|0.70|0.073
84742959|NCT02045875|169238589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Effect of interaction of time and treatment group|ANOVA|||||||0.046
84490420|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||4.7|-18.1|
84742960|NCT02045875|169238590|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.508|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||correlation of asthma control and adherence|||||
84742961|NCT01276379|169238592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29|||Log Rank|||||3.29|1.23|0.004
84490421|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||6.3|-14.8|
84490422|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|14.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||14.1|-12.2|
84742962|NCT01276379|169238593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|1.33|<0.0001
84742963|NCT01743989|169238598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.383
84742964|NCT05384938|169238636|OTHER|Single group|Median time to response|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|160.0|||||Estimate for Time to Response using Kaplan-Meier method|Estimate for Time to Response (Days)||160.0|65.00|
84742965|NCT05384938|169238640|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4 (Visit 2)||||<0.0001
84742966|NCT05384938|169238640|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 16 (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
84742967|NCT05384938|169238640|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24 (Visit 5)||||<0.0001
84742968|NCT02731690|169238698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5303||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5303
84742969|NCT02731690|169238698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1646||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1646
84742970|NCT02731690|169238698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1189
84742971|NCT02731690|169238698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0706
84742972|NCT02731690|169238699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0715
84742973|NCT02731690|169238699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1697||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1697
84742974|NCT02731690|169238699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3428||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.3428
84742975|NCT02731690|169238699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0642
84742976|NCT02731690|169238700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0568||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0568
84742977|NCT02731690|169238700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0533
84742978|NCT02731690|169238700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0459
84742979|NCT02731690|169238700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5678||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.5678
84742980|NCT02731690|169238701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5810
84742981|NCT02731690|169238701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0465||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0465
84742982|NCT02731690|169238701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1047||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1047
84742983|NCT02731690|169238701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0661||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0661
84742984|NCT02731690|169238702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.1615
84742985|NCT02731690|169238702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6201||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6201
84742986|NCT02731690|169238702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9229||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.9229
84742987|NCT02731690|169238702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6307||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.6307
84742988|NCT02731690|169238703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0088
84742989|NCT02731690|169238703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.2213
84742990|NCT02731690|169238703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0180
84742991|NCT02731690|169238703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.1970
84742992|NCT02731690|169238704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0752
84742993|NCT02731690|169238704|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.6403||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6403
84490423|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||8.4|-16.0|
84490424|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||9.1|-15.1|
84669260|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0157
84742994|NCT02731690|169238704|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.2316||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.2316
84742995|NCT02731690|169238704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.7635
84742996|NCT02731690|169238705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0872
84742997|NCT02731690|169238705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0073
84742998|NCT02731690|169238705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0086
84490425|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||4.8|-17.6|
84742999|NCT02731690|169238705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0489
84743000|NCT03568318|169238714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.4|43.8|<0.001
84743001|NCT03568318|169238714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.4|30.8|<0.001
84743002|NCT03568318|169238715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|54.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.0|41.1|<0.001
84743003|NCT03568318|169238715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.9|22.1|<0.001
84743004|NCT03568318|169238716|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|55.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.7|41.9|<0.001
84743005|NCT03568318|169238716|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|29.7|<0.001
84743006|NCT03568318|169238717|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|43.3|<0.001
84743007|NCT03568318|169238717|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|22.8|<0.001
84490426|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||3.7|-22.7|
84490427|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||-5.0|-29.5|
84743008|NCT03568318|169238718|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|43.8|<0.001
84490428|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||1.1|-24.4|
84669261|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669262|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
84743009|NCT03568318|169238718|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|30.4|<0.001
84743010|NCT03568318|169238719|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|63.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.9|51.2|<0.001
84743011|NCT03568318|169238719|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|50.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.5|37.0|<0.001
84743012|NCT03568318|169238720|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|31.0|<0.001
84743013|NCT03568318|169238720|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.1|<0.001
84743014|NCT03568318|169238721|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.8|32.8|<0.001
84743015|NCT03568318|169238721|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.9|17.7|<0.001
84743016|NCT03568318|169238722|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.1|16.3|<0.001
84743017|NCT03568318|169238723|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.3|<0.001
84743018|NCT03568318|169238723|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.4|4.9|<0.001
84550271|NCT00570063|168853608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|13.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent confidence interval (CI) were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures spatial power covariance structure (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||13.27|-16.49|0.86
84550272|NCT00570063|168853609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.24|-5.71|0.65
84550273|NCT00570063|168853610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.10|-4.59|0.93
84743019|NCT03568318|169238724|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.417|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-33.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.11|-50.46|<0.001
84743020|NCT03568318|169238724|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-24.44|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-24.44|-41.72|<0.001
84743021|NCT03568318|169238725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-36.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||-36.22|-46.68|<0.001
84743022|NCT03568318|169238725|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-32.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.659|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-26.91|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-26.91|-37.35|<0.001
84743023|NCT03568318|169238726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|67.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.4|38.8|<0.001
84743024|NCT03568318|169238726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.0|16.3|<0.001
84743025|NCT03568318|169238727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|69.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.5|41.4|<0.001
84743026|NCT03568318|169238727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.4|12.1|<0.001
84743027|NCT03568318|169238728|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.8|14.1|<0.001
84743028|NCT03568318|169238728|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.8|8.2|0.003
84743029|NCT03568318|169238729|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|37.3|<0.001
84743030|NCT03568318|169238729|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|11.1|0.001
84743031|NCT03568318|169238730|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.1|6.9|0.006
84490429|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||3.5|-20.2|
84743032|NCT03568318|169238730|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|6.2|0.007
84743033|NCT03568318|169238731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.6|34.1|<0.001
84743034|NCT03568318|169238731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|9.4|0.002
84743035|NCT03568318|169238732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.1|27.8|<0.001
84490430|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||1.4|-28.1|
84490431|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||3.3|-24.0|
84490432|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||6.9|-27.0|
84490433|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||11.1|-20.4|
84490434|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||11.0|-19.5|
84490435|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||12.8|-15.4|
84743036|NCT03568318|169238732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.4|10.3|0.001
84743037|NCT03568318|169238733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.3|20.6|<0.001
84743038|NCT03568318|169238733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.7|10.4|0.001
84743039|NCT03568318|169238734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|7.8|0.001
84550274|NCT00570063|168853611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.21|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||7.69|-6.21|0.86
84550275|NCT00570063|168853612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.79|-7.92|0.43
84550276|NCT00570063|168853613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.16|-4.76|0.91
84550277|NCT00570063|168853614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.43|-3.17|0.78
84550278|NCT00570063|168853615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.39|-2.11|0.92
84550279|NCT00570063|168853616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.54|-1.85|0.60
84743040|NCT03568318|169238735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.2|-5.7|0.306
84743041|NCT03568318|169238735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-1.0||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||9.3|-11.2|0.855
84490436|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-2.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||-2.5|-23.0|
84743042|NCT03568318|169238736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.956||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|7.48|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.48|-39.59|0.180
84743043|NCT03568318|169238736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.986||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.97|-2.79|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.79|-49.97|0.029
84743044|NCT03568318|169238737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-25.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-25.11|-46.28|<0.001
84743045|NCT03568318|169238737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-13.65|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.65|-35.10|<0.001
84743046|NCT02898077|169238738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.955|||Log Rank|||||0.955|0.613|0.0184
84743047|NCT02898077|169238739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.203||||||||1.203|0.771|
84743048|NCT02898077|169238740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.968||||||||0.968|0.598|
84743049|NCT02898077|169238741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
84490437|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||4.3|-14.7|
84743050|NCT02898077|169238742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.421||||||||1.421|0.577|
84743051|NCT04410523|169238747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.229|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.229|0.016|0.025
84743052|NCT04410523|169238747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.165|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.165|-0.049|0.286
84743053|NCT04410523|169238747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.168|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.168|-0.037|0.212
84743054|NCT04410523|169238747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.094|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.094|-0.076|0.831
84743055|NCT04410523|169238747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0434||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.077|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.077|-0.094|0.852
84743056|NCT04410523|169238748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.363||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.219|3.083|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||3.083|-6.219|0.508
84743057|NCT04410523|169238748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-3.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.691|0.695|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.695|-8.691|0.095
84743058|NCT04410523|169238748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2943||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.405|1.627|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||1.627|-7.405|0.209
84743059|NCT04410523|169238748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8718||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|3.398|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||3.398|-3.971|0.878
84743060|NCT04410523|169238748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|1.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8652||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.578|4.765|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||4.765|-2.578|0.558
84743061|NCT04410523|169238751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1493||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.252|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.252|-0.336|0.780
84743062|NCT04410523|169238751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1489||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.127|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||-0.127|-0.713|0.005
84743063|NCT04410523|169238751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1446||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.004|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.004|-0.573|0.047
84743064|NCT04410523|169238751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1182||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.216|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.216|-0.249|0.887
84743065|NCT04410523|169238751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.118|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.118|-0.348|0.333
84743066|NCT04410523|169238752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1485||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.195|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.195|-0.389|0.515
84743067|NCT04410523|169238752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.51|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.510|-0.074|0.143
84743068|NCT04410523|169238752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.364|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.364|-0.207|0.590
84743069|NCT04410523|169238752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.265|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.265|-0.199|0.778
84743070|NCT04410523|169238752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.305|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.305|-0.160|0.539
84490438|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose AM||2.9|-19.0|
84490439|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose||6.3|-14.0|
84490440|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||-1.2|-31.0|
84490441|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||5.6|-22.1|
84743071|NCT02040584|169238766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9423|||||||Fisher Exact|Week 52||"Null hypothesis (H0): there were no differences in kidney function between the two groups, in contrast with the alternative hypothesis (H1), in which there were differences:~HO: CBS = CBC versus H1: CBS ≠ CBC, where CBS and CBC were percentages of patients who showed clinical benefit at Week 52 for the study group and control group, respectively."||||0.9423
84490442|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||7.9|-14.6|
84490443|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||4.9|-15.9|
84490444|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||-1.7|-22.1|
84490445|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||2.9|-16.0|
84490446|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-3.2|-25.4|
84550280|NCT00570063|168853617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.53|-2.65|0.81
84550281|NCT00570063|168853618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.84|0.93
84743072|NCT00996476|169238777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.97|||ANCOVA||TMC435 50 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.97|-2.83|
84743073|NCT00996476|169238777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.98|||ANCOVA||TMC435 100 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.98|-2.85|
84743074|NCT00996476|169238782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|11.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||11.8|-58.3|
84490447|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-1.5|-22.1|
84743075|NCT00996476|169238782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|9.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||9.8|-61.1|
84550282|NCT00570063|168853619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.||1.14|-1.13|0.99
84743076|NCT00996476|169238782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|19.4|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||19.4|-59.9|
84743077|NCT00996476|169238782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|8.3|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||8.3|-66.6|
84743078|NCT06612255|169238886|OTHER|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means with comparison presented as test (powder)/reference (tablet).|Fixed Effect Analysis|51.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.71|58.43||||||Results obtained from mixed effects model of natural log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters including terms for regimen, period and sequence fitted as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence fitted as a random effect.||58.43|45.71|
84550283|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.158|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|1.231||||||Change at Day 21: Cried||1.231|-1.546|
84550284|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.078|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.329|2.218||||||Change at Day 21: Felt blue or depressed||2.218|-1.329|
84550285|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.544|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.561|8.649||||||Change at Day 21: Irritability||8.649|-5.561|
84550286|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.955|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.287|5.433||||||Change at Day 21: Manifest psychosis||5.433|-4.287|
84743079|NCT03921723|169238890|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
84743080|NCT03921723|169238890|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2||||||||1.20|1.05|
84743081|NCT03921723|169238909|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
84550287|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.892|4.003||||||Change at Day 21: Personal neatness||4.003|-2.892|
84743082|NCT03921723|169238909|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.13||||||90.0|1.06|1.2||||||||1.20|1.06|
84550288|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.202|0.547||||||Change at Day 21: Refused to speak||0.547|-1.202|
84743083|NCT03921723|169238910|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19||||||||1.19|1.01|
84550289|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.632|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.152|3.889||||||Change at Day 21: Retardation||3.889|-5.152|
84550290|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.572|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.771||||||Change at Day 21: Said he/she was no good||0.771|-1.110|
84550291|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.561|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.887|3.764||||||Change at Day 21: Social competence||3.764|-4.887|
84550292|NCT00570063|168853620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.447|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.934|6.694||||||Change at Day 21: Social interest||6.694|-7.934|
84550293|NCT00570063|168853621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.712|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.42|25.845||||||||25.845|-14.42|
84550294|NCT00570063|168853631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.849|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.807|6.109||||||||6.109|-7.807|
84550295|NCT00570063|168853632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.307|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|11.114||||||||11.114|-19.50|
84550296|NCT00570063|168853633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.273|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.01|5.465||||||Change at Day 21: Parkinsonism||5.465|-6.010|
84550297|NCT00570063|168853633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.008|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|4.766||||||Change at Day 21: Dyskinesia||4.766|-5.130|
84550298|NCT00570063|168853633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.932|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.275|1.411||||||Change at Day 21: Dystonia||1.411|-3.275|
84550299|NCT00570063|168853633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.705|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.013|3.422||||||Change at Day 21: Akathisia||3.422|-2.013|
84550300|NCT00570063|168853634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.203|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|1.688||||||Change at Day 4||1.688|-2.270|
84550301|NCT00570063|168853634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.892|2.547||||||Change at Day 7||2.547|-1.892|
84743084|NCT03921723|169238910|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.33||||||||1.33|1.13|
84550302|NCT00570063|168853634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.436|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.946|2.817||||||Change at Day 14||2.817|-1.946|
84550303|NCT00570063|168853634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.763|1.963||||||Change at Day 21||1.963|-1.763|
84550304|NCT00586820|168853681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84550305|NCT00586820|168853682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 8 hours post PCI.||||0.019
84550306|NCT00586820|168853682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 16 hours post-PCI.||||0.007
84550307|NCT01483027|168853694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test||0.88|0.54|0.0013
84550308|NCT01483027|168853695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test.||0.77|0.46|<0.0001
84550309|NCT03010800|168853697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||One subject experienced incontinence with the Yoni.Fit in place (#8) (9.2 g Pad Wt. Without and 17.3 g Pad Wt. With). This was attributed to incorrect Yoni.Fit sizing. This subject was not included in the p-value calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis is that the pad weights With Yoni.Fit and Without Yoni.Fit are equivalent.~A one-sided Wilcoxson paired T-test of the group means will be performed. If the p-value is significant, the null hypothesis will be rejected."||||0.0469
84550310|NCT00869622|168853721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
84743085|NCT05032872|169238912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||.49
84743086|NCT05032872|169238913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.48
84743087|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quality||||.04
84550311|NCT01314872|168853722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) means|-0.46||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-0.92|0.056
84550312|NCT01314872|168853722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.45||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.03|-0.93|0.064
84550313|NCT01314872|168853722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
84550314|NCT01314872|168853722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.44|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-1.37|< 0.001
84550315|NCT01314872|168853722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.54||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.07|-1.02|0.026
84743088|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting dissatisfaction with contact quantity||||.44
84743089|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quantity||||.99
84743090|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting knowing others' experience||||.87
84743091|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting shared understanding||||.98
84743092|NCT05032872|169238914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relationship salience||||.76
84743093|NCT05032872|169238915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.29
84604287|NCT00246025|168958916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
84490448|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||5.6|-29.0|
84490449|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||6.2|-25.9|
84490450|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-0.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose PM||-0.1|-22.4|
84490451|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose PM||0.4|-20.2|
84669263|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1012
84743094|NCT05032872|169238916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting positive affect||||.51
84743095|NCT05032872|169238916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting negative affect||||.83
84490452|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|10.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||10.5|-22.0|
84490453|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||9.0|-21.1|
84490454|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||5.6|-21.7|
84490455|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||7.6|-17.7|
84490456|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|16.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.7|-7.0|
84490457|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.2|-5.8|
84490458|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||22.6|-11.7|
84490459|NCT03091920|168732191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||11.4|-20.4|
84490460|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||3.8|-8.9|
84490461|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||4.5|-8.4|
84743096|NCT05032872|169238917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.51
84490462|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.4|-9.2|
84490463|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||-0.6|-13.5|
84490464|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||0.6|-11.5|
84490465|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||1.5|-10.8|
84490466|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||2.2|-9.4|
84743097|NCT05032872|169238918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.65
84743098|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of distress||||.01
84743099|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||time x condition interaction predicting caregiver overload||||.75
84490467|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||3.7|-8.0|
84490468|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||3.9|-13.8|
84490469|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.2|-11.7|
84490470|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||0.9|-9.7|
84490471|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||2.2|-8.5|
84490472|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||-0.3|-13.1|
84490473|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.2|-11.8|
84490474|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.5|-14.2|
84490475|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||0.5|-17.5|
84490476|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|0.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||0.2|-11.6|
84743100|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relational deprivation||||.59
84743101|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting job caregiving conflict||||.51
84743102|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting role captivity||||.25
84743103|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting sense of self||||.34
84743104|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting personal gain||||.75
84743105|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting caregiving competence||||.99
84743106|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of situition||||.61
84743107|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of meaning||||.92
84743108|NCT05032872|169238919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting expressive support||||.96
84743109|NCT05032872|169238920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.37
84743110|NCT05032872|169238921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.89
84490477|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||1.5|-10.6|
84490478|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.4|-7.4|
84490479|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||4.7|-9.3|
84490480|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||4.6|-9.4|
84669264|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0749
84743111|NCT05032872|169238922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.30
84743112|NCT05032872|169238923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.52
84743113|NCT05032872|169238924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample T-test comparing the treatment and control group||||.45
84743114|NCT00406692|169238933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed for the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed between the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks.||||<0.0003
84743115|NCT00406692|169238934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant change in the mean number of words produced during phonetic portion of the Controlled Word Association Test between the baseline period and the treatment weeks.||||<0.22
84743116|NCT00406692|169238935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant difference for mean scores obtained for baseline, week 4 and week 12.||||< 0.55
84490481|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.6|-8.7|
84490482|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.7|-6.2|
84490483|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.8|-6.2|
84490484|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.4|-6.4|
84490485|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||6.8|-9.3|
84490486|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.4|-10.0|
84490487|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.3|
84490488|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||3.3|-8.2|
84743117|NCT01744392|169238981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between percentages. Increases in value indicate improvement in adherence.||||.73
84743118|NCT02369068|169238992|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|This test was selected since the distribution of the change in pain was not normal nor approximately symmetric.||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the pain score change between groups. Significance level was set at 0.05.||||0.072
84743119|NCT02369068|169238993|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the median change pain severity between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.624
84490489|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||-1.3|-13.0|
84490490|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||2.2|-7.7|
84669265|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743120|NCT02369068|169238994|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there is no difference in the change in pain interference between the groups. Statistical significance was set at 0.05||||0.571
84743121|NCT02369068|169238995|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in the distribution between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.285
84743122|NCT01696955|169239009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84743123|NCT01696955|169239012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84743124|NCT01696955|169239013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
84743125|NCT01696955|169239014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
84743126|NCT00799981|169239018|OTHER|||||||0.8762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis that a 10 cm catheter provides equal emptying of the bladder as a 7 cm catheter was tested.||||0.8762
84743127|NCT00799981|169239019|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
84743128|NCT00799981|169239020|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
84743129|NCT00799981|169239023|OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In the table 0=No and 1=Yes.||||0.0273
84743130|NCT01404429|169239028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.26|0.6
84743131|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.3|-6.8|
84743132|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.3|-4.6|
84743133|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.3|-6.8|
84743134|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.3|-4.6|
84743135|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.3|-4.6|
84743136|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.3|-6.8|
84743137|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||-0.3|-12.3|
84743138|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|99.2|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||99.2|89.4|
84743139|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||98.6|87.7|
84743140|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||48.9|26.2|
84743141|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|33.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||33.4|14.4|
84550316|NCT01314872|168853727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.28||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.12|-0.68|0.167
84550317|NCT01314872|168853727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
84550318|NCT01314872|168853727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.33|-1.11|< 0.001
84550319|NCT01314872|168853727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.32|-1.10|< 0.001
84550320|NCT01314872|168853727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.87|0.030
84743142|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|99.7|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||99.7|91.6|
84550321|NCT01314872|168853728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.25|-0.61|0.401
84743143|NCT00688870|169239036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||4.5|-4.6|
84743144|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.1|-6.9|
84743145|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.4|-4.6|
84743146|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.1|-6.9|
84743147|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.4|-4.6|
84743148|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.4|-4.6|
84743149|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.1|-6.9|
84743150|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.4|-4.6|
84550322|NCT01314872|168853728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.05|-0.91|0.029
84550323|NCT01314872|168853728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.02|0.005
84743151|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||98.6|87.7|
84743152|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|90.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||90.1|72.0|
84743153|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||18.1|3.8|
84743154|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.4|-4.6|
84743155|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|97.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||97.9|86.0|
84743156|NCT00688870|169239037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||6.5|-3.4|
84743157|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.78|0.50|
84743158|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.17|0.70|
84743159|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.82|0.55|
84743160|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.06|0.67|
84743161|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.97|0.63|
84743162|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.94|0.60|
84743163|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.77|0.46|
84743164|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|202.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.04|261.32|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||261.32|157.04|
84743165|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.46|31.49|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||31.49|18.46|
84743166|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|7.41|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.41|4.37|
84490491|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||0.3|-9.7|
84743167|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||7.67|4.42|
84490492|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.5|-11.6|
84743168|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|122.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||122.17|75.60|
84743169|NCT00688870|169239038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.83|1.23|
84743170|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.84|0.49|
84743171|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.36|0.77|
84743172|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.05|0.64|
84743173|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.91|0.51|
84743174|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.99|0.57|
84743175|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.43|0.83|
84743176|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.92|0.52|
84743177|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|303.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.63|431.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||431.83|213.63|
84743178|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|10.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|14.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||14.62|7.77|
84490493|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.3|-12.0|
84490494|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.9|-10.6|
84490495|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||0.7|-12.0|
84490496|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||10.3|-8.3|
84490497|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.7|-9.2|
84490498|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||2.3|-11.5|
84490499|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||4.2|-9.9|
84490500|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.0|-15.5|
84743179|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|6.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||6.08|3.78|
84743180|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.08|2.28|
84743181|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|145.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||145.84|75.60|
84490501|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-1.9|-14.6|
84490502|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||2.0|-12.6|
84490503|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||6.1|-8.7|
84490504|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||6.7|-8.2|
84669266|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0455
84490505|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||7.9|-7.3|
84490506|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||0.6|-10.3|
84490507|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||3.4|-7.7|
84743182|NCT00688870|169239039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.6|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||5.60|3.54|
84550324|NCT01314872|168853728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
84550325|NCT01314872|168853728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.11|-0.78|0.140
84743183|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
84490508|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||2.3|-10.0|
84490509|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||1.2|-11.4|
84743184|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.533
84743185|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.039
84743186|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.059
84490510|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||-2.2|-15.2|
84550326|NCT01314872|168853729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.49|-0.84|0.598
84550327|NCT01314872|168853729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.67||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-1.35|0.052
84550328|NCT01314872|168853729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.10|-1.43|0.024
84743187|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743188|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743189|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743190|NCT00688870|169239040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.275
84743191|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743192|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.617
84743193|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
84743194|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
84743195|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.674||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.674
84743196|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743197|NCT00688870|169239041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.497
84743198|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84490511|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||1.3|-12.0|
84743199|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743200|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.044
84743201|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
84743202|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
84743203|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.361
84743204|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.635
84743205|NCT00688870|169239042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.244
84743206|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
84743207|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
84743208|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743209|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
84743210|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.805
84743211|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743212|NCT00688870|169239043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
84743213|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.633
84743214|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743215|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.527
84743216|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.613
84743217|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.753
84743218|NCT00688870|169239044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.748
84743219|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.327
84743220|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743221|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.522
84743222|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.872
84743223|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.868
84743224|NCT00688870|169239045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.237
84743225|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.329
84743226|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.492
84743227|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
84743228|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.322
84743229|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.610
84743230|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.726
84743231|NCT00688870|169239046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.855||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.855
84669267|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4699|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4699
84743232|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.326
84743233|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743234|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.714
84743235|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743236|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
84743237|NCT00688870|169239047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.525
84743238|NCT05745701|169239116|OTHER||test/reference ratios|195.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.13|236.71||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without cyclosporine (Reference) or coadministered with cyclosporine (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||236.71|162.13|
84743239|NCT05745701|169239116|OTHER||test/reference ratios|282.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.81|307.55||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without itraconazole (Reference) or coadministered with itraconazole (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||307.55|258.81|
84743240|NCT01607476|169239129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743241|NCT01607476|169239129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743242|NCT01607476|169239129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743243|NCT01607476|169239130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743244|NCT01607476|169239130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743245|NCT01607476|169239130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743246|NCT02626455|169239169|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of PFS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.125|||=|0.827974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.437||Significance level is 0.025.|Log Rank|PFS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log- rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.437|0.881|= 0.827974
84743247|NCT02626455|169239172|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-1.25|||=|0.658652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.75||Significance level is 0.025. P-values are descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||4.75|-7.25|= 0.658652
84743248|NCT02626455|169239173|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-0.8|||=|0.605183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.05||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.05|-6.64|=0.605183
84743249|NCT02626455|169239174|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||=|0.846204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.484||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.484|0.883|= 0.846204
84743250|NCT02626455|169239175|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||=|0.801735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.443||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.443|0.865|= 0.801735
84743251|NCT02626455|169239176|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.74|||=|0.741153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|5.57||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.57|-11.06|= 0.741153
84743252|NCT02626455|169239177|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.21|||=|0.696482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|6.2||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||6.20|-10.62|= 0.696482
84743253|NCT02626455|169239178|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.95|||=|0.936009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.14||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||1.14|-9.04|= 0.936009
84743254|NCT02626455|169239179|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.89|||=|0.944242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.9||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||0.90|-8.68|= 0.944242
84743255|NCT02626455|169239180|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||=|0.517849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.303||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.303|0.777|= 0.517849
84743256|NCT02626455|169239181|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971|||=|0.411398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.257||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.257|0.750|= 0.411398
84743257|NCT02626455|169239182|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTNT|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289|||=|0.955865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.728||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTNT was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.728|0.962|= 0.955865
84743258|NCT02626455|169239183|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of OS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||=|0.758563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.603||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|OS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.603|0.800|= 0.758563
84743259|NCT02626455|169239184|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to deterioration in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.394|||=|0.999695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|1.691||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on stratified Cox regression model.||||1.691|1.149|= 0.999695
84743260|NCT02626455|169239185|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to improvement in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.965639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.02||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.020|0.642|= 0.965639
84743261|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.324
84743262|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.031
84743263|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.076
84743264|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.013
84743265|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.553
84743266|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.132
84743267|NCT01200290|169239246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.230
84490512|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||2.8|-7.6|
84743268|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.335
84490513|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||0.8|-9.7|
84490514|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||0.8|-10.7|
84743269|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.043
84743270|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.073
84743271|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.004
84743272|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.699
84743273|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.095
84743274|NCT01200290|169239247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.082
84743275|NCT02980731|169239270|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||P-value is derived from a paired t-test of H0: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) ≤ 5 versus H1: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) \> 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.004
84743276|NCT03828747|169239303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||-1.21|-4.56|0.0008
84743277|NCT03828747|169239303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||-0.20|-5.31|0.0351
84743278|NCT03828747|169239304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.295||0.5207||95.0|-3.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.72|-3.39|0.5207
84743279|NCT03828747|169239304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.911||0.3704||95.0|-5.5|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.07|-5.50|0.3704
84743280|NCT03828747|169239305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.3501||95.0|-0.29|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||0.82|-0.29|0.3501
84743281|NCT03828747|169239305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||1.22|-0.87|0.7431
84743282|NCT03828747|169239306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.5366||95.0|-0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.11|-0.58|0.5366
84743283|NCT03828747|169239306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.0851||95.0|-0.15|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.30|-0.15|0.0851
84743284|NCT00127205|169239327|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
84743285|NCT00127205|169239327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.94|0.24
84490515|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.4|
84743286|NCT00127205|169239327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.90|0.50
84743287|NCT00127205|169239328|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
84743288|NCT00127205|169239329|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for recurrence to bone||||0.93
84743289|NCT00307684|169239333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||0.2586||95.0|-2.2055|7.9774||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed. threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|treatment, sex and country as factors, age and baseline sum of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity scores as covariate||Based on preliminary results of a controlled study in adults with MPH, the mean (SD=9) change in CAARS total score from randomization to the 4 week post-randomization endpoint was estimated as +2.5 for PR OROS MPH and +14 for placebo. slightly more conservative, a mean change of 3 in the PR OROS MPH group and a mean increase of 10 in the placebo group were expected. With a two-sided type-I error of 5% and a power of 90%, 37 eligible subjects per group were required.||7.9774|-2.2055|0.2586
84490516|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.4|-14.6|
84490517|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-14.2|
84490518|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.5|-13.8|
84490519|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.2|-14.3|
84490520|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||-1.0|-15.0|
84490521|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||0|-14.2|
84490522|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||6.4|-9.8|
84490523|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||8.5|-8.0|
84490524|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||3.7|-9.0|
84490525|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||5.8|-7.1|
84490526|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||3.9|-5.5|
84669268|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0235
84490527|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||4.9|-4.6|
84490528|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.7|-6.5|
84743290|NCT00307684|169239336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3942||||0.2616||95.0|-12.1928|3.4044||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the ranks with sex, treatment and country as factors and age and baseline score as a covariate||||3.4044|-12.1928|0.2616
84743291|NCT00307684|169239337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.5458||95.0|-5.5469|10.3213|||ANCOVA|treatment and country as factors baseline score as covariate||||10.3213|-5.5469|0.5458
84743292|NCT02580305|169239338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.41
84743293|NCT02580305|169239338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.90
84743294|NCT02580305|169239339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.46
84743295|NCT02580305|169239339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.48
84743296|NCT02580305|169239340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.83
84743297|NCT02580305|169239340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.24
84743298|NCT02580305|169239341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.17
84743299|NCT02580305|169239341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.14
84743300|NCT02580305|169239342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.79
84743301|NCT02580305|169239342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.92
84604288|NCT00246025|168958916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
84743302|NCT03527550|169239347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in negative urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in negative urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.95
84743303|NCT03527550|169239348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in positive urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in positive urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.64
84743304|NCT03527550|169239349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).|ANOVA|||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in stop-signal reaction time at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in stop-signal reaction time as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.91
84743305|NCT03527550|169239353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in distress intolerance at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in distress intolerance as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||.24
84743306|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743307|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743308|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.17||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0006
84490529|NCT03091920|168732192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-7.9|
84490530|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|16.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||16.8|-4.4|
84490531|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.8|-1.5|
84490532|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.0|-9.0|
84550329|NCT01314872|168853729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.58|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.58|-1.90|< 0.001
84550330|NCT01314872|168853729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.26|-1.62|0.007
84550331|NCT01314872|168853730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.00|
84550332|NCT01314872|168853730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-1.62|
84550333|NCT01314872|168853731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.71|
84550334|NCT01314872|168853731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.64|
84743309|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|4.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743310|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0002
84743311|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.92||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0285
84743312|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743313|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743314|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0001
84490533|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.4|-4.6|
84490534|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||7.1|-7.5|
84490535|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||8.9|-5.7|
84490536|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.1|-2.0|
84490537|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.3|-1.8|
84550335|NCT01314872|168853732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.56|
84490538|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.6|-5.1|
84550336|NCT01314872|168853732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.48|
84490539|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||8.7|-6.0|
84550337|NCT01314872|168853733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-1.45|
84550338|NCT01314872|168853733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.56||||||||-0.56|-1.93|
84743315|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.012
84743316|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NYmass at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.62||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0174
84743317|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.013
84752885|NCT02113579|169261053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.45|-6.04|0.023
84604289|NCT00246025|168958916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
84490540|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.9|-5.0|
84550339|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.01
84550340|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.23
84490541|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.6|-5.3|
84490542|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||13.2|-8.1|
84550341|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.001||||||Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.001
84604290|NCT00246025|168958917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6107||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6107
84604291|NCT00246025|168958917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||1.0000
84604292|NCT00246025|168958917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6162||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6162
84604293|NCT00246025|168958918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
84604294|NCT00246025|168958918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
84604295|NCT00246025|168958918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-19.6|-45.4|<.0001
84604296|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||1.0000
84604297|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.4960
84604298|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6223||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.6223
84604299|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.5||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1513
84604300|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.4||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1696
84604301|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.7||||0.7802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||5.2|-3.9|0.7802
84604302|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.7||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||8.7|-5.3|0.6313
84604303|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.3||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.4|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||9.4|-4.9|0.5377
84604304|NCT00246025|168958921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||10.0|-4.4|0.4493
84604305|NCT01643850|168958926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.71|0.915
84604306|NCT01643850|168958926|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.57|0.117
84604307|NCT01643850|168958926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|0.52|0.010
84604308|NCT03242772|168959009|OTHER|||||||0.2664||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -3.5729 - 11.6929|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.2664
84604309|NCT03242772|168959010|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -17.7698 - 7.2698|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.3721
84743318|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743319|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.99||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0068
84604310|NCT02437305|168959041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value compares the increase in skin self-exams from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||0.048
84604311|NCT02437305|168959042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||P-value compares the increase in knowledge from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||>0.50
84604312|NCT01089023|168959065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84604313|NCT01089023|168959066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84604314|NCT00904618|168959068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test applies to the number of participants improved.||||0.0087
84604315|NCT03220581|168959071|SUPERIORITY||F|9.026||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline number of days of game play in the past week was included as a covariate.||||||.004
84604316|NCT03220581|168959072|SUPERIORITY||F|7.922||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Covariate = number of days of gaming in the past week at baseline, reported by the parent.||||||.007
84604317|NCT03220581|168959073|SUPERIORITY||F|3.73||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder at baseline - assessed through clinical interview with child||||||.059
84604318|NCT03220581|168959074|SUPERIORITY||F|2.91||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder, assessed through clinical interview with the parent||||||.095
84604319|NCT03410797|168959075|OTHER|Due to small sample size, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare VHI-10 before and after therapy.|Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics characterized this patient perception measurement.||||.0076
84604320|NCT03410797|168959076|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0329
84604321|NCT03410797|168959077|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|15.39||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0164
84604322|NCT03410797|168959078|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1141
84604323|NCT03410797|168959079|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3329
84604324|NCT01185964|168959081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.021|||Log Rank|||||1.021|0.442|0.0615
84604325|NCT01185964|168959084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.463||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.710|0.301|0.0003
84604326|NCT03883113|168959092|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
84604327|NCT03883113|168959092|OTHER|||||||0.1654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1654
84604328|NCT03883113|168959092|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
84604329|NCT03883113|168959093|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical analysis applies to participants with Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness versus participants without Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness||||1.000
84604330|NCT03883113|168959094|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qPCR confirmed Influenza versus participants with no qPCR confirmed Influenza||||0.143
84604331|NCT03883113|168959095|OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qCulture confirmed Influenza versus participants without qCulture confirmed Influenza||||0.3504
84604332|NCT03883113|168959096|OTHER|||||||0.5558|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5558
84604333|NCT03883113|168959097|OTHER|||||||0.6534|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6534
84604334|NCT03883113|168959098|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
84604335|NCT03883113|168959099|OTHER|||||||0.6753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6753
84604336|NCT03883113|168959100|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.711
84604337|NCT03883113|168959101|OTHER|||||||0.4689|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4689
84604338|NCT03883113|168959104|OTHER|||||||0.5001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5001
84604339|NCT03883113|168959105|OTHER|||||||0.6799|||||||zero-inflated poisson model|||||||0.6799
84604340|NCT03883113|168959106|OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5911
84604341|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.67|75.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 1||75.42|-79.67|0.956
84604342|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.41|106.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 14||106.07|-105.41|0.995
84604343|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.35||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.15|72.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 28||72.45|-191.15|0.366
84604344|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.02||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.96|-20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 1||-20.08|-179.96|0.016
84490543|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.0|-6.3|
84490544|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||11.2|-4.6|
84490545|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||14.9|-1.0|
84604345|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-137.85||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.28|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 14||-30.43|-245.28|0.014
84490546|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
84490547|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
84490548|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.5|-9.2|
84490549|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.2|-9.5|
84490550|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||7.4|-5.1|
84490551|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.2|-3.4|
84490552|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||4.8|-7.5|
84490553|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||5.8|-6.5|
84490554|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.3|-9.9|
84490555|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.8|-5.4|
84490556|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||13.7|0.2|
84490557|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.7|
84490558|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||9.0|-3.1|
84669269|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84490559|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||8.7|-3.4|
84490560|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|10.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||10.0|-5.4|
84604346|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-229.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-362.17|-95.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 28||-95.91|-362.17|0.001
84604347|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.98||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.62|-12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 1||-12.33|-167.62|0.025
84490561|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||7.0|-8.4|
84490562|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.6|
84490563|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.7|-1.7|
84490564|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||20.2|-1.6|
84490565|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|23.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||23.9|2.1|
84490566|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.2|
84490567|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|18.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||18.3|4.6|
84550342|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.05
84550343|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.07
84604348|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-222.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.54|-117.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 14||-117.51|-326.54|<0.001
84490568|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||8.6|-4.8|
84490569|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose||10.8|-2.6|
84490570|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|19.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.6|-0.1|
84550344|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.09
84550345|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.003
84550346|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.10
84604349|NCT04465877|168959117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-248.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.35|-118.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 28||-118.28|-379.35|<0.001
84550347|NCT03937908|168853734|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.11
84550348|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.82
84550349|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.40
84550350|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.20
84550351|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.48
84550352|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.20
84550353|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.32
84550354|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.35
84550355|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.52
84550356|NCT03937908|168853735|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.13
84550357|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.34
84550358|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.08
84550359|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.23
84604350|NCT00395135|168959118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|3.0|<0.0001
84550360|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.14
84550361|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.28
84550362|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.17
84550363|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.98
84550364|NCT03937908|168853736|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
84550365|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.04
84550366|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.01
84550367|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.06
84550368|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.08
84550369|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.56
84550370|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.21
84550371|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.05
84550372|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.05
84550373|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.23
84550374|NCT03937908|168853737|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
84550375|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.7
84550376|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.09
84550377|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiaticoside||||0.4
84550378|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassoside||||0.6
84550379|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.4
84550380|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.1
84550381|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.9
84550382|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.03
84550383|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.9
84550384|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.6
84550385|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.4
84550386|NCT03937908|168853738|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.8
84550387|NCT03937908|168853739|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||1 hour||||0.1
84550388|NCT03937908|168853739|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||2 hours||||0.1
84550389|NCT03937908|168853739|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 hours||||0.3
84550390|NCT03937908|168853739|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4 hours||||0.5
84550391|NCT03937908|168853739|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 hours||||0.5
84550392|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
84550393|NCT02163226|168853752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
84550394|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
84550395|NCT02163226|168853752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
84550396|NCT02163226|168853752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
84550397|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
84550398|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
84550399|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
84550400|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
84550401|NCT02163226|168853752|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
84550402|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
84550403|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
84550404|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
84550405|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
84550406|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
84550407|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
84550408|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
84550409|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
84550410|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
84550411|NCT02163226|168853753|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
84550412|NCT01585324|168853755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test for the efficacy of SVR achievement (Yes/No), treatment adjustment and baseline hemoglobin value was used.||||||0.8333
84550413|NCT01585324|168853757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
84550414|NCT01585324|168853759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6492
84550415|NCT01585324|168853761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0333
84550416|NCT00653133|168853762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in reported complications associated with the placement of continuous peripheral nerve block catheters between ultrasound imaging guided placement and nerve stimulator guided placement.||||<0.05
84550417|NCT02223650|168853781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.07||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment|Difference in mean distance control (overminus - observation) and 95% CI from ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline control, pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study treatment for IXT. + difference suggests observation group worse than overminus group|||-0.07|-1.42|0.01
84550418|NCT02223650|168853782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk near control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|||0.19|-0.68|0.14
84550419|NCT02223650|168853785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|45.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||45|-6|0.07
84550420|NCT02223650|168853793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||24|-23|0.54
84550421|NCT02579343|168853801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value above was calculated. Does not reference threshold for clinical significance.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
84550422|NCT02579343|168853802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
84550423|NCT00722566|168853815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming ORRs are 35.5% for both SC and IV, one-sided alpha level of 0.025, and approximately 80% power, approximately 216 subjects (144 SC:72 IV) are needed to show non-inferiority of SC to IV VELCADE.|ORR_SQ - 0.6 ORR_IV|16.8||||0.00201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.1|||Farrrington and Manning|CONOR P. FARRINGTON AND GODFREY MANNING STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, VOL. 9, 1447-1454(1990).||In this trial, non-inferiority is defined as retaining 60% of the IV (active control) treatment effect as measured by ORR. The non-inferiority hypothesis can be stated as: H0: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV \<0 vs. H1: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV ≥0 (non-inferiority).||27.1|6.1|0.00201
84550424|NCT00401544|168853817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|71.0||||||95.0|63.0|80.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||80|63|
84550425|NCT00401544|168853817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.0||||||95.0|54.0|72.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||72|54|
84550426|NCT00401544|168853818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.0||||||95.0|64.0|81.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||81|64|
84550427|NCT00401544|168853818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|62.0||||||95.0|54.0|71.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||71|54|
84550428|NCT00401544|168853823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
84604351|NCT00395135|168959120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||||-3.25|-4.09|<0.001
84550429|NCT00401544|168853823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0||||||95.0|29.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|29|
84550430|NCT00401544|168853824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
84550431|NCT00401544|168853824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.0||||||95.0|30.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|30|
84550432|NCT00401544|168853825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|26.0||||||95.0|15.0|38.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||38|15|
84550433|NCT00401544|168853825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0||||||95.0|19.0|42.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||42|19|
84550434|NCT00401544|168853825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0||||||95.0|17.0|40.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||40|17|
84550435|NCT00401544|168853825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|14.0|36.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||36|14|
84490571|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|19.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.4|-0.3|
84490572|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||15.5|0|
84550436|NCT00401544|168853826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|68.0||||||95.0|59.0|76.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||76|59|
84550437|NCT00401544|168853826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|59.0||||||95.0|50.0|68.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||68|50|
84550438|NCT00401544|168853827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|44.0|62.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||62|44|
84550439|NCT00401544|168853827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0||||||95.0|66.0|82.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||82|66|
84550440|NCT02780713|168853834|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.79|24.58||||||||24.58|11.79|
84604352|NCT00395135|168959121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-3.29|<0.001
84604353|NCT00395135|168959121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19|||ANCOVA|||||2.19|1.10|<0.001
84490573|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||16.1|0.6|
84490574|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.7|-5.1|
84490575|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.3|-5.4|
84550441|NCT02780713|168853834|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|36.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|55.2||||||||55.20|23.84|
84550442|NCT02780713|168853834|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.84|34.48||||||||34.48|16.84|
84550443|NCT02780713|168853835|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.77|39.12||||||||39.12|25.77|
84550444|NCT02780713|168853835|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.16|69.6||||||||69.60|42.16|
84550445|NCT02780713|168853835|SUPERIORITY||Pecentage|41.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.79|48.86||||||||48.86|34.79|
84550446|NCT01931475|168853853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-0.80|
84550447|NCT01931475|168853854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.54|
84490576|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.1|-6.1|
84550448|NCT01931475|168853855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.35|||||Total Score|||-1.35|-5.62|
84550449|NCT01931475|168853855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.21|||||Pain|||-0.21|-1.21|
84550450|NCT01931475|168853855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.78|||||Physical Function|||-0.78|-3.95|
84550451|NCT01931475|168853855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||||Stiffness|||-0.16|-0.62|
84550452|NCT01931475|168853856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-0.41|
84550453|NCT01931475|168853857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34|||||BPI Severity of Worst Pain|||-0.34|-1.07|
84550454|NCT01931475|168853857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||||BPI Severity of Least Pain|||0.03|-0.60|
84550455|NCT01931475|168853857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||BPI Severity of Right Now Pain|||-0.11|-0.82|
84550456|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.02|||||BPI Interference Average Score|||-0.02|-0.53|
84550457|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||||General activity|||-0.19|-0.94|
84550458|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||||Mood|||-0.05|-0.74|
84550459|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||Walking ability|||-0.11|-0.82|
84550460|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||||Normal work (includes both work outside the home and housework)|||0.06|-0.68|
84550461|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||||Relations with other people|||0.21|-0.34|
84550462|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||||Sleep|||0.14|-0.57|
84550463|NCT01931475|168853858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||||Enjoyment of life|||0.27|-0.40|
84550464|NCT01931475|168853860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Total Effect|97.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Path analysis for the direct analgesic effect was used to test the null hypothesis that the change in BPI average pain severity depends on the improvement of HADS-D or HADS-A, versus the alternative that the improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of the treatment and not dependent upon the improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms.||||0.002
84550465|NCT04304235|168853869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84550466|NCT00930774|168853880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.748||||||0.527
84550467|NCT00930774|168853881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.286||||||0.835
84550468|NCT00930774|168853882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.054||||||0.983
84550469|NCT00930774|168853883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||||||df = 3,83; F=0.701|ANOVA|||||||0.554
84604354|NCT04962230|168959135|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|specify in comments|56.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.04|68.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||68.62|47.04|0.05
84604355|NCT04962230|168959136|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.77|58.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.65|33.77|0.05
84604356|NCT04962230|168959137|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|25.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.76|34.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||34.91|18.76|0.05
84550470|NCT00930774|168853884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||||||df = 3,83; F=0.395|ANOVA|||||||0.757
84550471|NCT00930774|168853885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=1.236||||||0.302
84550472|NCT00930774|168853886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83. F=6.343||||||0.001
84550473|NCT00930774|168853886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84550474|NCT00930774|168853887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=3.797||||||0.013
84550475|NCT00930774|168853887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84550476|NCT03200704|168853888|NON_INFERIORITY|90% power, 2.5% one-sided significance level,5% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Hypothesis:~H0: QT ≤ QC - 0.05 H1: QT \> QC - 0.05"||||<0.0001
84550477|NCT00425061|168853893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with baseline as a covariate, long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) use (Inhaled Corticosteroid \[ICS\] only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||15.2|-25.6|0.612
84550478|NCT00425061|168853895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.482
84550479|NCT00425061|168853895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.492
84550480|NCT00425061|168853895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.323
84604357|NCT04962230|168959138|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|16.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.32|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||20.60|13.32|0.05
84669270|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1978
84550481|NCT00425061|168853895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.226
84550482|NCT00425061|168853895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.256
84550483|NCT00425061|168853896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||3.9|-0.3|0.090
84550484|NCT00425061|168853896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||5.0|-0.8|0.144
84550485|NCT00425061|168853898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.4|0.354
84550486|NCT00425061|168853898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.900
84550487|NCT00425061|168853898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.921
84550488|NCT00425061|168853898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.6|-0.2|0.388
84550489|NCT00425061|168853898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.7|-0.2|0.249
84550490|NCT00425061|168853899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.267
84550491|NCT00425061|168853900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.029
84550492|NCT03436693|168853923|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.5||||||||21.5|1.2|
84550493|NCT03436693|168853924|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.7||||||||11.7|-4.1|
84604358|NCT04962230|168959144|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.99|58.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.50|33.99|0.05
84604359|NCT04962230|168959149|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|12.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.28|17.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||17.99|9.28|0.05
84604360|NCT01396265|168959153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.815|72.057|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.057|60.815|
84604361|NCT01396265|168959154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.656|72.213|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.213|60.656|
84550494|NCT03436693|168853925|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSMean|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|-1.21|0.351
84550495|NCT03436693|168853926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.23|0.293
84550496|NCT03436693|168853927|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMean|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.646|0.418|<0.001
84550497|NCT01680861|168853928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
84550498|NCT01680861|168853929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
84604362|NCT01396265|168959155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|78.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.363|84.968|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||84.968|72.363|
84550499|NCT01680861|168853930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
84550500|NCT01680861|168853931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84550501|NCT01680861|168853932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84604363|NCT02275117|168959164|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|1.3|0.0330
84604364|NCT02275117|168959164|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-0.5|0.0715
84604365|NCT02275117|168959164|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-3.5|0.2013
84550502|NCT01680861|168853933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84550503|NCT01011465|168853942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.03
84550504|NCT01011465|168853942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.89
84550505|NCT01011465|168853942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.52
84550506|NCT01011465|168853943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.43
84550507|NCT01011465|168853943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.08
84550508|NCT01011465|168853943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.25
84550509|NCT01011465|168853944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.83
84550510|NCT01011465|168853944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.56
84550511|NCT01011465|168853944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.95
84604366|NCT02275117|168959164|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-4.6|0.2938
84604367|NCT00386477|168959184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.11||95.0|0.26|1.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.11|0.26|0.11
84490577|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.9|-5.3|
84490578|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||12.6|-4.0|
84490579|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||13.4|-3.2|
84490580|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.0|-11.0|
84490581|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.6|-10.3|
84490582|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||13.4|-7.7|
84550512|NCT02217410|168853989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.263|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 3|||0.263|-0.067|0.8976
84550513|NCT02217410|168853989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.271|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 6|||0.271|-0.084|0.8836
84550514|NCT02217410|168853989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.272|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 9|||0.272|-0.085|0.8822
84550515|NCT02217410|168853989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.273|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 12|||0.273|-0.087|0.8821
84550516|NCT00090220|168853999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|88.7||||||95.0|78.1|94.8|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||94.8|78.1|
84550517|NCT00090220|168854025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|94.8||||||95.0|79.9|99.4|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||99.4|79.9|
84550518|NCT00090220|168854033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|84.7||||||95.0|67.5|93.7|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||93.7|67.5|
84604368|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.151||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.151|0.065|<0.001
84743320|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.12||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0485
84490583|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||11.8|-9.4|
84490584|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||10.3|-8.4|
84490585|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||9.4|-9.3|
84490586|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.3|-1.3|
84490587|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|18.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||18.2|1.6|
84490588|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||12.3|-1.0|
84743321|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.08||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0031
84743322|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.18||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0036
84550519|NCT01471340|168854040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The projected sample size provided 90% power at a 2.5% alpha level (one-sided) to determine non-inferiority of MF/F and MF. For analysis of the first SAO in participants, MF/F MDI BID was considered non-inferior to MF MDI BID if the upper bound for the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR) of MF/F MDI BID versus MF MDI BID was lower than 2.0 (noninferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94|||Cox proportional-hazard model||The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAO; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||1.94|0.76|0.411
84490589|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.5|
84550520|NCT01471340|168854041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Cox proportional-hazard model|Superiority of MF/F MDI BID vs MF MDI BID was determined if the HR was less than 1 and achieved statistical significance (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAEX; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||0.98|0.80|0.021
84550521|NCT04501640|168854070|OTHER||Geomteric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|57.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.21|70.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.47|46.21|
84550522|NCT04501640|168854070|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|61.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.06|72.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.47|52.06|
84550523|NCT04501640|168854071|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|53.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.02|66.05|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||66.05|43.02|
84550524|NCT04501640|168854071|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|59.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.48|70.7|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.70|49.48|
84550525|NCT04501640|168854072|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|38.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.78|56.59|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||56.59|26.78|
84550526|NCT04501640|168854072|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.76|72.24|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.24|31.76|
84550527|NCT01981954|168854074|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 MCC Analysis||||<0.001
84490590|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||7.4|-8.4|
84550528|NCT01981954|168854076|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline=0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.003
84550529|NCT01981954|168854077|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.744
84550530|NCT01981954|168854078|OTHER|||||||0.352||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.352
84490591|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||9.9|-6.0|
84490592|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.8|-4.0|
84550531|NCT01981954|168854079|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
84550532|NCT01981954|168854080|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.177
84550533|NCT01981954|168854081|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analyis||||0.025
84550534|NCT01981954|168854082|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.050
84550535|NCT01981954|168854083|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.567
84550536|NCT01981954|168854084|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
84550537|NCT01981954|168854085|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
84550538|NCT01981954|168854086|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.004
84550539|NCT01981954|168854087|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
84550540|NCT01981954|168854088|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
84550541|NCT01981954|168854105|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.688
84550542|NCT01981954|168854106|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.610
84550543|NCT01981954|168854107|OTHER|||||||0.562||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.562
84550544|NCT01981954|168854108|OTHER|||||||0.657||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.657
84550545|NCT01981954|168854109|OTHER|||||||0.631||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.631
84550546|NCT01981954|168854110|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.410
84550547|NCT01981954|168854111|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.940
84550548|NCT01981954|168854112|OTHER|||||||1||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||1.000
84550549|NCT01981954|168854113|OTHER|||||||0.575||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.575
84550550|NCT01981954|168854114|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.031
84669271|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1977
84550551|NCT01981954|168854115|OTHER|||||||0.721||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.721
84550552|NCT02218736|168854158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0095
84550553|NCT02218736|168854159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0345
84550554|NCT02218736|168854160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.430
84550555|NCT00422695|168854225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84550556|NCT00422695|168854225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84550557|NCT00737204|168854226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84550558|NCT00737204|168854227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure analysis||||.01
84550559|NCT00737204|168854228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.805||95.0|||||Paired t-tests|||Null hypothesis: CD4 levels for both the Armodafinil and Placebo groups will not change significantly between baseline and week 4.||||>=.805
84550560|NCT01106677|168854315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|-0.481|||ANCOVA|||||-0.481|-0.758|<0.001
84550561|NCT01106677|168854315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.636|||ANCOVA|||||-0.636|-0.914|<0.001
84550562|NCT01106677|168854315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|-0.516||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-0.516|-0.795|
84550563|NCT01106677|168854316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.50|1.50|<0.001
84550564|NCT01106677|168854316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|2.85|<0.001
84550565|NCT01106677|168854317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-23.81|||ANCOVA|||||-23.81|-35.76|<0.001
84550566|NCT01106677|168854317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-34.26|||ANCOVA|||||-34.26|-46.25|<0.001
84550567|NCT01106677|168854317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-16.69||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-16.69|-28.70|
84743323|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.05||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0089
84550568|NCT01106677|168854318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.601|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.14|-27.16|||ANCOVA|||||-27.16|-49.14|<0.001
84550569|NCT01106677|168854318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.29|||ANCOVA|||||-36.29|-58.40|<0.001
84743324|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743325|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.62||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0239
84743326|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.93||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0435
84743327|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.26||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0126
84490593|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.2|-4.6|
84490594|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||7.3|-8.0|
84490595|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||8.1|-7.2|
84490596|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||10.2|-11.5|
84490597|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||17.5|-4.1|
84490598|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-9.1|
84490599|NCT03091920|168732193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.2|-8.5|
84550570|NCT01106677|168854318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.608|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.56|-28.55||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-28.55|-50.56|
84550571|NCT01106677|168854319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|<0.001
84550572|NCT01106677|168854319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.5|<0.001
84550573|NCT01106677|168854319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|
84550574|NCT01106677|168854320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.439|||ANCOVA|||||-3.439|-7.280|<0.001
84550575|NCT01106677|168854320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.504|-4.653|||ANCOVA|||||-4.653|-8.504|<0.001
84550576|NCT01106677|168854320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.273|-1.413||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-5.273|
84550577|NCT01106677|168854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.702||95.0|-9.9|6.7|||ANCOVA|||||6.7|-9.9|0.702
84550578|NCT01106677|168854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-13.0|0.274
84550579|NCT01106677|168854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.1||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-10.6|
84550580|NCT01106677|168854322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|3.6|<0.001
84743328|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.73||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0294
84550581|NCT01106677|168854322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.4|<0.001
84550582|NCT01106677|168854322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.4||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.7|
84550583|NCT01106677|168854323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.119|
84550584|NCT01106677|168854323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.031|||ANCOVA|||||-0.031|-0.273|
84550585|NCT01106677|168854324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-3.857|||ANCOVA|||||-3.857|-13.25|<0.001
84550586|NCT01106677|168854324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-12.81|||ANCOVA|||||-12.81|-22.24|<0.001
84550587|NCT01106677|168854325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.0|<0.001
84550588|NCT01106677|168854325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.4|<0.001
84550589|NCT01106677|168854326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.464|-1.276|||ANCOVA|||||-1.276|-4.464|<0.001
84550590|NCT01106677|168854326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-2.389|||ANCOVA|||||-2.389|-5.589|<0.001
84550591|NCT01106677|168854327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-3.9|0.466
84550592|NCT01106677|168854327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|||||9.4|-3.1|0.323
84550593|NCT01106677|168854328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|2.5|<0.001
84550594|NCT01106677|168854328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|4.5|<0.001
84550595|NCT03875092|168854329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.52|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.52|0.24|
84550596|NCT03875092|168854330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.70|0.28|
84550597|NCT03875092|168854331|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|51.6|||||Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method, due to small sample size.|||51.6|19.9|
84550598|NCT01669174|168854431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|106.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.64|107.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||107.58|104.64|<0.001
84743329|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.96||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0204
84743330|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0004
84490600|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.04|-9.68|
84490601|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.66|-8.76|
84490602|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|2.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.75|-8.62|
84490603|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|3.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||3.92|-10.37|
84490604|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.49|-6.46|
84490605|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||5.03|-7.74|
84490606|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|6.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.04|-11.46|
84490607|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.35|-10.09|
84490608|NCT03091920|168732198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||5.35|-9.93|
84490609|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.40|-14.52|
84490610|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.14|-11.52|
84490611|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|3.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.83|-11.47|
84490612|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.94|-6.10|
84550599|NCT01669174|168854431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|107.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.18|109.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||109.35|106.18|<0.001
84550600|NCT01669174|168854431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.31|111.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 16||111.00|106.31|<0.001
84550601|NCT01669174|168854431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|106.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.39|108.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 24||108.93|104.39|<0.001
84490613|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|3.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||3.47|-16.36|
84490614|NCT03091920|168732199|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|8.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||8.38|-10.44|
84490615|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.54|-6.97|
84490616|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||5.03|-8.24|
84490617|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||4.65|-10.88|
84490618|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||6.80|-8.45|
84490619|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|9.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||9.58|-7.84|
84490620|NCT03091920|168732200|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|5.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.26|-11.23|
84490621|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|2.41|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-13.51|
84490622|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||5.47|-10.41|
84490623|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|1.25|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.25|-17.36|
84490624|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|0.87|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.87|-17.42|
84490625|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|0.74|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.74|-19.43|
84490626|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|6.84|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||6.84|-12.95|
84490627|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|11.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||11.47|-4.74|
84490628|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.75|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.75|-5.10|
84490629|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|6.37|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.37|-15.23|
84490630|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|5.94|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.94|-15.65|
84490631|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||7.47|-9.10|
84490632|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.16|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.16|-10.42|
84490633|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.72|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.72|-13.80|
84490634|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|8.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||8.23|-8.25|
84743331|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.95||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0013
84743332|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
84752886|NCT02113579|169261054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||-3.93|-11.29|<0.001
84490635|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|6.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||6.23|-12.01|
84490636|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|11.13|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||11.13|-6.78|
84490637|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||5.47|-13.93|
84490638|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|10.88|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||10.88|-8.14|
84490639|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.18|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||9.18|-10.32|
84490640|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|12.02|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||12.02|-7.04|
84490641|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.33|2.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||2.55|-18.33|
84490642|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|3.95|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||3.95|-16.92|
84490643|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|6.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.35|-14.03|
84490644|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|10.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||10.35|-8.80|
84490645|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|3.53|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.53|-17.79|
84490646|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|11.91|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||11.91|-8.59|
84490647|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|3.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||3.55|-16.17|
84490648|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|8.27|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||8.27|-10.60|
84490649|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.11|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||5.11|-19.13|
84743333|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743334|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743335|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.87||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0096
84743336|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
84743337|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.13||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0063
84743338|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0018
84752887|NCT00726622|169261055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Assuming a baseline rate of 90% oncologic success for the open resection arm, the sample size provided 80% power to declare non-inferiority if oncologic success rates were truly identical, using a 1-sided z score with α = .10 for falsely declaring non-inferiority when the true oncologic success rate for laparoscopic resection was 84%. Calculations were based on a 2-sample binomial non-inferiority calculation with a 90% success rate for the control group and a 6% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84490650|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.34|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||7.34|-15.55|
84752888|NCT00440700|169261073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was used to determine if there were any differences in anxiety levels in patients who listen to music as compared to headphones only or usual ICU care.||||<0.05
84669272|NCT01480076|169072594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2250
84490651|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|13.17|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||13.17|-9.63|
84490652|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.25|7.31|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.31|-14.25|
84550602|NCT01953601|168854436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.1||||0.6734|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.6734
84550603|NCT01953601|168854436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.0|0.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.8|0.0|0.0141
84550604|NCT01953601|168854438|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.31|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||8.31|0.40|
84550605|NCT01953601|168854438|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.09|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||9.09|1.33|
84550606|NCT01953601|168854439|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.1|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||5.10|-0.84|
84550607|NCT01953601|168854439|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.99|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||8.99|2.35|
84550608|NCT01953601|168854440|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.68|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||2.68|-16.16|
84743339|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Pa at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|3.22||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0134
84550609|NCT01953601|168854440|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-10.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|-1.04|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||-1.04|-20.16|
84550610|NCT01953601|168854441|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|0.61|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||0.61|-6.03|
84550611|NCT01953601|168854441|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.71|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||0.71|-6.01|
84550612|NCT01953601|168854442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.005|1.684|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm A / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.684|1.005|0.0222
84550613|NCT01953601|168854442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.067|1.79|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm B / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.790|1.067|0.0050
84550614|NCT01953601|168854443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.9109
84550615|NCT01953601|168854443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.3||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.1|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.7|-0.1|0.0824
84550616|NCT01953601|168854444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9510
84550617|NCT01953601|168854444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9392
84550618|NCT01953601|168854445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.4||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-1.0|0.1133
84550619|NCT01953601|168854445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.2|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.0|-1.2|0.0310
84604369|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.149||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.149|0.064|<0.001
84604370|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.086|<0.001
84604371|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.125||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.125|0.040|<0.001
84743340|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743341|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84604372|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.12||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.120|0.036|<0.001
84604373|NCT02014480|168959185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.099||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.099|0.015|0.008
84604374|NCT01865812|168959190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-0.51|
84604375|NCT01865812|168959191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.63|
84604376|NCT01865812|168959192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.58|
84604377|NCT01865812|168959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.852
84604378|NCT01865812|168959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.549
84490653|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|7.77|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||7.77|-11.24|
84490654|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|3.73|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.73|-14.83|
84490655|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|12.81|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||12.81|-8.85|
84490656|NCT03091920|168732201|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|10.82|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||10.82|-8.68|
84490657|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|2.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.15|-6.38|
84490658|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.80|-6.59|
84604379|NCT01865812|168959245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.912
84604380|NCT00953680|168959258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.993||||||90.0|0.95|1.039||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.039|0.950|
84743342|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743343|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743344|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743345|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743346|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for PESC at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.43||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0313
84743347|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM5 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.92||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0481
84743348|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|2.57||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0171
84743349|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|3.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0007
84752889|NCT00440700|169261075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis||Usual care was the reference comparison group.|Length of mechanical ventilatory support was assessed among all 3 groups. Usual usual care was the reference group as compared to the experimental patient-directed music group.||||<0.05
84604381|NCT00953680|168959259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.835||||||90.0|0.749|0.931||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100-mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||0.931|0.749|
84752890|NCT00440700|169261076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cortisol levels were compared among all 3 groups.||||<0.05
84490659|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||1.60|-6.11|
84490660|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.47|-8.25|
84490661|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.18|-6.40|
84490662|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.90|-6.90|
84490663|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|1.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.31|-11.22|
84490664|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.40|-10.41|
84490665|NCT03091920|168732202|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|0.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.81|-10.27|
84490666|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.06|-10.80|
84550620|NCT01953601|168854446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.06|-0.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.04|-0.06|<0.0001
84550621|NCT01953601|168854446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.07|-0.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.05|-0.07|<0.0001
84550622|NCT01953601|168854447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-2.4|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-2.4|0.0960
84550623|NCT01953601|168854447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-3.2|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.2|-3.2|0.0110
84550624|NCT01246349|168854449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.373||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.871|23.103|||Regression, Linear|||Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[WEL\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up).||23.103|-5.871|0.24
84550625|NCT01246349|168854450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up BMI z-score means and standard deviations for both the MI and control groups (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in BMI change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up)||||0.56
84550626|NCT01246349|168854451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in waist circumference change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up).||||0.09
84550627|NCT01246349|168854453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.301|2.668|||Regression, Linear|||"Based on previous research , baseline CDSS means were expected between 5 - 6.5 with a SD of 3 - 4. It was hypothesized that an attributable effect of 1.5 would be detected.~Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[CDSS\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up)."||2.668|-2.301|0.88
84550628|NCT02991729|168854454|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit was 1 point on the questionnaire scale.||||||0.929||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.929
84604382|NCT00953680|168959260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.924||||||90.0|0.825|1.035||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.035|0.825|
84604383|NCT00953680|168959261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.931||||||90.0|0.836|1.037||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.037|0.836|
84604384|NCT04030247|168959262|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
84604385|NCT04030247|168959263|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.16
84604386|NCT04030247|168959264|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
84604387|NCT04030247|168959265|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.9
84604388|NCT04030247|168959266|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.5
84604389|NCT04030247|168959267|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.4
84604390|NCT04030247|168959269|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.6
84743350|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84752891|NCT02973425|169261077|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.6|||Regression, Cox|||The primary hypothesis was tested through a time-to-event analysis implemented using Cox proportional hazards models||2.60|1.09|0.02
84604391|NCT03559699|168959276|OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1-sided P-value|Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
84490667|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|0.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.83|-10.87|
84490668|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.10|-9.55|
84490669|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.11|-7.40|
84490670|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-1.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.85|-15.64|
84490671|NCT03091920|168732203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|1.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.15|-11.84|
84490672|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.96|-4.86|
84490673|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.65|-5.07|
84490674|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.14|-8.79|
84490675|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|3.67|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.67|-7.14|
84604392|NCT03710876|168959293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||1-sided|Log Rank|||||1.59|0.43|0.2840
84604393|NCT03710876|168959295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.3||2-sided|Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving objective response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving objective response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||24.3|-17.3|1.0000
84604394|NCT03710876|168959296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|29.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||29.2|-25.2|1.0000
84604395|NCT03710876|168959297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||20.3|-34.9|0.7665
84604396|NCT03710876|168959298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.0||2-sided.|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||23.0|-31.7|0.7537
84752892|NCT02973425|169261078|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||For hypothesis 3, we compared the mean score on the SEQ-12 and its subscales at 6 months, adjusting for baseline.||||0.03
84550629|NCT02991729|168854455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion but prior to genetic counseling (first row, second column in above table).||||0.369
84550630|NCT02991729|168854455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion and genetic counseling (second row, second column in above table).||||0.003
84550631|NCT02991729|168854455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict pre-genetic counseling/post-decision aid to post-genetic counseling.||||0.003
84550632|NCT05537441|168854458|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.64||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.216
84550633|NCT05537441|168854459|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously vaccinated||||0.34
84550634|NCT05537441|168854459|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.45||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously unvaccinated||||0.247
84752893|NCT02973425|169261079|OTHER|Six-month OR, 95%CI, and P value were calculated from generalized estimating equation marginal models with a logit link and an exchangeable correlation matrix.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.68||Analysis models were adjusted by study site, having quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline, cigarettes per day measured at baseline, quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||3.68|1.01|0.048
84550635|NCT05225298|168854463|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.90
84550636|NCT05225298|168854464|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.94
84550637|NCT05225298|168854465|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||log binomial model|||||||0.053
84550638|NCT00614523|168854478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model|Anderson-Gill model using the model-based variance estimate and stratified by the randomization stratification factors|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.05|0.66|0.13
84550639|NCT00614523|168854479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.766|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.88|0.66|<0.001
84550640|NCT00614523|168854480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.922||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.99|0.86|0.026
84550641|NCT00614523|168854481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||Poisson Regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.8|0.68|<0.001
84550642|NCT00614523|168854482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|51.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for stratification factors.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||51.8|4.7|<0.001
84550643|NCT00614523|168854483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.402||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.91|1.03|0.032
84550644|NCT00614523|168854487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.639|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.71|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.71|0.57|<0.001
84550645|NCT03962790|168854488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the credible interval (CrI) of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.65|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||4.65|-4.37|
84550646|NCT03962790|168854489|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval is above -5 points in CLUE Scale.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.06|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||2.06|-4.07|
84550647|NCT03962790|168854490|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.01|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.010|-0.012|
84550648|NCT03962790|168854490|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.009|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.009|-0.014|
84550649|NCT03962790|168854491|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.34|-0.32|
84550650|NCT02877095|168854492|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All subjects on study received active drug.|Total count of events is provided.|||
84550651|NCT01767506|168854533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|11.9|||Regression, Logistic||||The null hypothesis was that we could further decrease infection to 1% or less in more of the communities in the surveillance intervention arm, compared to control communities.|11.9|0.56|>0.05
84550652|NCT01767506|168854534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84752894|NCT02973425|169261080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||During the first 3 weeks from randomization, both the Take a Break and comparison groups reported the number of cigarettes smoked daily (by texting); texting response rate (responded on at least 1 day).||||0.01
84743351|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84490676|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|4.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||4.83|-8.58|
84490677|NCT03091920|168732204|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.10|-10.69|
84490678|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-11.30|
84490679|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.75|-12.10|
84490680|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||2.42|-12.87|
84490681|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-0.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||-0.79|-15.64|
84490682|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|0.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.86|-14.29|
84490683|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|4.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||4.38|-10.66|
84490684|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||5.45|-4.71|
84490685|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16||4.91|-4.94|
84752895|NCT00813319|169261092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is for participants in the Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to the General Health Promotion condition||||>.05
84490686|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.41|-10.07|
84490687|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|5.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.37|-10.26|
84490688|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.13|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.13|-6.62|
84490689|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|4.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.58|-6.83|
84490690|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|0.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||0.47|-10.72|
84490691|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|2.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.01|-9.29|
84490692|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|3.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.38|-11.22|
84490693|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|4.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||4.63|-9.54|
84490694|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||1.39|-10.90|
84752896|NCT00813319|169261093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.52
84743352|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743353|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743354|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743355|NCT05731999|169239387|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
84743356|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.000244|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The smallest odds ratio from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
84743357|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.00586|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
84743358|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.0193|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
84743359|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.000488|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
84550653|NCT03854370|168854540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub.||||0.23
84550654|NCT03854370|168854540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.31
84550655|NCT03854370|168854540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.35
84550656|NCT03854370|168854540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.61
84743360|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.1133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
84743361|NCT05731999|169239389|OTHER||probability|0.0107|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84743362|NCT01480219|169239415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96|||Regression, Cox|||Crude hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.96|1.02|0.042
84743363|NCT01480219|169239415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated using a parsimoniously adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.14|0.71|0.453
84752897|NCT00813319|169261094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||This comparison is for total doses received (26 in Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to 17 in General Health Promotion condition)||||=.12
84550657|NCT03854370|168854541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||.59
84550658|NCT03854370|168854541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.05
84550659|NCT03854370|168854541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.13
84550660|NCT03854370|168854541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
84550661|NCT03854370|168854542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||0.45
84550662|NCT03854370|168854542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||all groups were negative for cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.99
84743364|NCT01167452|169239441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) analysis||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed weight for each participant.||||0.0004
84743365|NCT01167452|169239441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multiple Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS)||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed body mass index for each participant.||||<0.0001
84743366|NCT03192475|169239454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84743367|NCT03192475|169239455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84743368|NCT03192475|169239456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84743369|NCT03192475|169239457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84743370|NCT03192475|169239458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84490695|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||4.85|-7.35|
84743371|NCT03192475|169239459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84743372|NCT03192475|169239460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84743373|NCT03192475|169239461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84743374|NCT03192475|169239462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84743375|NCT03192475|169239463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84490696|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|4.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.35|-8.57|
84490697|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||6.31|-6.21|
84490698|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.90|-14.22|
84550663|NCT03854370|168854542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
84550664|NCT03854370|168854542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
84550665|NCT03854370|168854543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.61
84550666|NCT03854370|168854543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550667|NCT03854370|168854543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550668|NCT03854370|168854544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.32
84550669|NCT03854370|168854544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550670|NCT03854370|168854544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.50
84550671|NCT03854370|168854545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550672|NCT03854370|168854545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550673|NCT03854370|168854545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
84550674|NCT01608087|168854578|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|88.54|105.35|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|105.35|88.54|
84550675|NCT01608087|168854578|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.68|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|83.5|100.65|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.65|83.50|
84550676|NCT01608087|168854578|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|87.14|103.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|103.40|87.14|
84550677|NCT01608087|168854579|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|98.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|107.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|107.64|90.97|
84550678|NCT01608087|168854579|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.02|100.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.01|84.02|
84490699|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|1.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||1.25|-14.01|
84490700|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.71|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.71|-9.30|
84490701|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.64|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.64|-6.97|
84490702|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.44|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-0.44|-15.03|
84490703|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|3.16|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.16|-10.88|
84490704|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8||-2.95|-16.10|
84490705|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||0.50|-11.82|
84490706|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|0.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||0.54|-17.77|
84490707|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|2.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||2.69|-14.79|
84490708|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|7.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.79|-10.51|
84490709|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.60|-13.50|
84550679|NCT01608087|168854579|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.18|100.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.74|85.18|
84743376|NCT03192475|169239464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84490710|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.96|-10.81|
84490711|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|1.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||1.89|-12.64|
84490712|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||7.39|-7.55|
84490713|NCT03091920|168732205|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||5.12|-8.89|
84490714|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.59|-4.17|
84490715|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|2.29|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.29|-4.47|
84490716|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.14|-4.02|
84490717|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.26|-6.60|
84490718|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.10|-5.77|
84743377|NCT03192475|169239465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0009
84743378|NCT03192475|169239466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84550680|NCT01608087|168854580|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|101.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.74|111.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|111.14|92.74|
84550681|NCT01608087|168854580|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|93.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|99.81|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|99.81|87.12|
84550682|NCT01608087|168854580|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.91|100.54|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for R1 and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the inter-subject ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.54|83.91|
84550683|NCT00908791|168854593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|exact McNemar test for paired binary data.||||||0.003
84550684|NCT00908791|168854594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||McNemar|||||||0.41
84550685|NCT00908791|168854595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bowker's test of symmetry|||||||0.48
84550686|NCT00908791|168854596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||The Sign-Rank test for paired data.||||0.029
84550687|NCT00908791|168854597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84550688|NCT00908791|168854598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
84550689|NCT00908791|168854599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
84550690|NCT02461524|168854601|OTHER||Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.7|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||8.7||<0.001
84743379|NCT03192475|169239467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84550691|NCT02461524|168854602|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|100.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.8||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||95.8|0.001
84550692|NCT04984278|168854699|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|=0.0048
84550693|NCT03535194|168854713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|78.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.7|68.2|<0.001
84550694|NCT03535194|168854714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|73.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.3|62.7|<0.001
84550695|NCT03535194|168854715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.1|87.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||87.0|76.1|<0.001
84604397|NCT03710876|168959299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|45.6||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||45.6|-8.8|0.1855
84743380|NCT03192475|169239468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84743381|NCT00573859|169239474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 (ADHD medication versus Placebo) repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
84743382|NCT00573859|169239475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Four-way repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
84550696|NCT03535194|168854716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.8|47.6|<0.001
84550697|NCT03535194|168854717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|19.3|<0.001
84550698|NCT03535194|168854718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.3|47.7|<0.001
84550699|NCT03535194|168854719|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.88|-7.01|<0.001
84550700|NCT03535194|168854720|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.80|-16.51|<0.001
84550701|NCT03535194|168854721|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.55|-12.63|<0.001
84550702|NCT03535194|168854722|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.72|||ANCOVA|||||4.72|2.20|<0.001
84550703|NCT03535194|168854723|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.35|||ANCOVA|||||5.35|2.56|<0.001
84550704|NCT03535194|168854724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|59.3|<0.001
84743383|NCT00573859|169239476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman's two analysis of ranks|||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks.||||<0.05
84752898|NCT02645760|169261095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.26 points in mean 11-point NRS pain score between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||<0.001
84743384|NCT02229851|169239478|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.53|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Somapacitan-Placebo|Changes in truncal fat percentage from baseline to the 34 week's measurements was analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, growth hormone deficiency (GHD) onset type, sex, region, diabetes mellitus (DM) and sex by region by DM interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate. The analysis was conducted using a multiple imputation technique where trajectory after a withdrawn subjects last observation was imputed based on data from the placebo arm.||-0.38|-2.68|=0.0090
84490719|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.32|-5.83|
84490720|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.56|-9.50|
84490721|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|1.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.18|-9.52|
84490722|NCT03091920|168732206|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.87|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.87|-9.01|
84490723|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|1.21|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.21|-8.01|
84490724|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.02|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.02|-8.21|
84490725|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||0.92|-7.53|
84490726|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|2.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.23|-6.24|
84490727|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.79|-12.80|
84490728|NCT03091920|168732207|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||0.23|-10.43|
84743385|NCT00293059|169239618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
84490729|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.95|-2.97|
84743386|NCT02001064|169239672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
84490730|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.52|-3.41|
84490731|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|2.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.56|-7.63|
84490732|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.85|-7.36|
84490733|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|5.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.49|-7.55|
84490734|NCT03091920|168732208|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.65|-10.00|
84490735|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.59|-7.76|
84490736|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.19|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.19|-9.32|
84490737|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.80|-9.51|
84743387|NCT02001064|169239673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||Cohen's d (ranks) = -.049|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
84743388|NCT02001064|169239674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Cohen's d=0.31|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84743389|NCT01821352|169239708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
84743390|NCT01821352|169239709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84550705|NCT03535194|168854726|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|-4.96|0.826
84550706|NCT03535194|168854728|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84550707|NCT03535194|168854729|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-3.4|<0.0001
84550708|NCT02821338|168854737|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference ratio|0.9863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9598|1.0134||||||90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio of test/reference||1.0134|0.9598|
84550709|NCT02821338|168854738|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|0.9785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9484|1.0095||||||||1.0095|0.9484|
84550710|NCT02821338|168854739|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0079|1.0877||||||||1.0877|1.0079|
84550711|NCT04967885|168854744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84550712|NCT03834974|168854771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in intent to tan outdoors 10 or more times in the next year.||||<0.0286
84550713|NCT03834974|168854771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in in intent to tan later in life.||||0.0937
84550714|NCT03834974|168854775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in tanning outside at follow-up||||<0.0002
84743391|NCT01821352|169239710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84550715|NCT00823043|168854792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84550716|NCT00823043|168854793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84550717|NCT00823043|168854794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84550718|NCT00823043|168854795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84550719|NCT00526669|168854812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: TS|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
84550720|NCT00526669|168854812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||Biomarker: DPD|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.097
84550721|NCT00526669|168854812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: EGFR/HER1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
84550722|NCT00526669|168854812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Biomarker: HER2|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
84743392|NCT05260021|169239711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.35|<0.001
84743393|NCT05260021|169239712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.31|<0.001
84550723|NCT00526669|168854812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||Biomarker: HER3|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.38
84550724|NCT00526669|168854813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.2|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response or partial response.|||29.2|9.6|
84550725|NCT00526669|168854814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.3|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who achieved progression-free survival.|||40.3|17.9|
84550726|NCT03514485|168854941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.25|-0.34|
84550727|NCT03514485|168854941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.18|-0.34|
84550728|NCT03514485|168854941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.04|-0.48|
84550729|NCT03514485|168854941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.9||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.9|-0.44|
84550730|NCT03514485|168854941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.09|-0.36|
84550731|NCT03514485|168854942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.55|-0.39|
84743394|NCT05260021|169239712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-2.57|<0.001
84743395|NCT05260021|169239713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|61.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.7|18.6|<0.001
84743396|NCT05260021|169239713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|72.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.2|31.1|<0.001
84743397|NCT05260021|169239713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|27.5|<0.001
84490738|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.93|-10.40|
84490739|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||1.86|-12.06|
84490740|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||3.96|-9.87|
84490741|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.45|-4.70|
84490742|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.01|-4.90|
84490743|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.10|-7.22|
84490744|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.34|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.34|-7.27|
84490745|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|6.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.69|-3.26|
84490746|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.20|-4.69|
84550732|NCT03514485|168854942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.88|0.04|
84490747|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.36|-8.50|
84490748|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.03|-8.30|
84550733|NCT03514485|168854942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.23|-1.06|
84743398|NCT05260021|169239714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.55|< 0.001
84490749|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.04|-9.82|
84743399|NCT05260021|169239714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.86|<0.001
84743400|NCT05260021|169239714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.68|< 0.001
84743401|NCT05260021|169239715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-28.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8.0|-49.7|0.007
84490750|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|5.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||5.38|-7.51|
84490751|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|2.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||2.48|-8.12|
84490752|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||3.91|-6.63|
84490753|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.97|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.97|-7.35|
84490754|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.77|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.77|-7.30|
84743402|NCT05260021|169239715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-23.6|||ANCOVA|||||-23.6|-64.3|< 0.001
84490755|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|0.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.95|-12.68|
84490756|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|0.76|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.76|-13.16|
84743403|NCT05260021|169239715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||||-18.6|-54.2|< 0.001
84490757|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.65|-7.87|
84490758|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|5.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||5.59|-6.85|
84490759|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-1.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-1.08|-12.74|
84490760|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||1.66|-9.73|
84490761|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-2.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-2.91|-13.59|
84490762|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-0.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-0.35|-10.76|
84490763|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.05|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.05|-15.20|
84490764|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|1.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.98|-13.68|
84490765|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|7.33|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.33|-10.14|
84490766|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.14|-13.46|
84490767|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|5.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||5.40|-10.14|
84490768|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|3.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.23|-12.25|
84490769|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||6.72|-7.60|
84490770|NCT03091920|168732209|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.92|-8.88|
84743404|NCT05260021|169239716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-3.05|||ANCOVA|||||-3.05|-9.31|< 0.001
84490771|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.48|-0.10|
84490772|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.82|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.82|0.25|
84490773|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||6.32|0.40|
84490774|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.23|0.95|
84743405|NCT05260021|169239716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|-7.38|||ANCOVA|||||-7.38|-13.67|< 0.001
84550734|NCT03514485|168854942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.67|-1.39|
84550735|NCT03514485|168854942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.18||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.18|-0.95|
84550736|NCT03514485|168854943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.28|-0.53|
84550737|NCT03514485|168854943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.45|
84550738|NCT03514485|168854943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.10|-0.60|
84743406|NCT05260021|169239716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-5.66|||ANCOVA|||||-5.66|-11.05|< 0.001
84550739|NCT03514485|168854943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.01|-0.57|
84550740|NCT03514485|168854943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.04|-0.72|
84550741|NCT03514485|168854944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.19||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||4.19|0.58|
84550742|NCT03514485|168854944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|6.43||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||6.43|2.54|
84550743|NCT03514485|168854944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.84||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.84|-2.78|
84550744|NCT03514485|168854944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|-1.12||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-1.12|-5.03|
84550745|NCT03514485|168854944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.31||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||3.31|-0.48|
84550746|NCT03514485|168854945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.54||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.19|
84550747|NCT03514485|168854945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.35|-0.28|
84743407|NCT05260021|169239717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|50.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.3|8.6|0.006
84743408|NCT05260021|169239717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|60.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.2|18.8|< 0.001
84743409|NCT05260021|169239717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.1|17|< 0.001
84550748|NCT03514485|168854945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.01|-0.68|
84550749|NCT03514485|168854945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.08|-0.48|
84550750|NCT03514485|168854945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.14|-0.48|
84550751|NCT03514485|168854946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.11|
84550752|NCT03514485|168854946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.34||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.34|-0.03|
84550753|NCT03514485|168854946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.19|
84550754|NCT03514485|168854946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.09|-0.23|
84550755|NCT03514485|168854946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.09|
84550756|NCT03514485|168854947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.65||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.65|0.00|
84550757|NCT03514485|168854947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.45||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.45|-0.12|
84550758|NCT03514485|168854947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.40|
84743410|NCT05260021|169239718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|64.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.4|22.3|< 0.001
84550759|NCT03514485|168854947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.20|
84550760|NCT03514485|168854947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.5||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.50|-0.08|
84743411|NCT05260021|169239718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|26.4|< 0.001
84743412|NCT05260021|169239718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|26.3|< 0.001
84743413|NCT05260021|169239720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.089|-0.061|0.708
84743414|NCT05260021|169239720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.076|0.976
84743415|NCT05260021|169239720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|-0.058|0.841
84743416|NCT05260021|169239721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.45|< 0.001
84743417|NCT05260021|169239721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.57|< 0.001
84743418|NCT05260021|169239721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.49|< 0.001
84550761|NCT03514485|168854948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.69|-0.19|
84550762|NCT03514485|168854948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.63||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.63|-0.14|
84550763|NCT03514485|168854948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.30|-0.49|
84550764|NCT03514485|168854948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.24|-0.43|
84550765|NCT03514485|168854948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.54||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.24|
84550766|NCT03075891|168854953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.032
84550767|NCT02004886|168854978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.3|-38.4|<0.001
84550768|NCT02004886|168854978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-41.1|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-41.1|-66.1|<0.001
84550769|NCT02004886|168854978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.6|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.6|-38.4|<0.001
84550770|NCT02004886|168854981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-0.9|-35.7|0.04
84550771|NCT02004886|168854981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-26.3|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-26.3|-60.9|<0.001
84550772|NCT02004886|168854981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||8.5|-25.7|0.320
84550773|NCT02004886|168854983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.751
84550774|NCT02004886|168854983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.0|0.581
84743419|NCT04150068|169239756|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage between 2 treatment groups was compared using an unconditional exact method using 2 invert 1-sided tests with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Percentage Difference|70.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|90.0||The P value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the point estimate of treatment difference in proportions was estimated and constructed using the Chan and Zhang method.|Chan & Zhang method|||||90.0|34.9|< 0.0001
84550775|NCT02004886|168854983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.918
84550776|NCT02004886|168854985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.6|-21.1|0.253
84743420|NCT05316701|169239765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.47|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.47|0.14|<0.00001
84743421|NCT05316701|169239766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Gray's test|||Gray's test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.43|0.08|0.00002
84743422|NCT05316701|169239767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.11823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||1.22|0.20|0.11823
84550777|NCT02004886|168854985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-26.0|0.070
84550778|NCT02004886|168854985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-12.8|||ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-39.5|<0.001
84550779|NCT02004886|168854986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.6|-34.0|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-34.0|-145.6|0.002
84550780|NCT02004886|168854986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.4|-135.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-135.9|-246.4|<0.001
84550781|NCT02004886|168854986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|-42.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-42.9|-152.4|0.001
84490775|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.12|0.86|
84490776|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|7.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.81|1.27|
84490777|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|6.61|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.61|-1.45|
84490778|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|7.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.11|-0.78|
84490779|NCT03091920|168732210|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.45|-0.71|
84490780|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|6.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.99|-2.65|
84490781|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||8.91|-0.73|
84490782|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.51|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.51|0.60|
84490783|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|7.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||7.98|0.07|
84490784|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.39|-1.15|
84490785|NCT03091920|168732211|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|7.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.92|-0.44|
84490786|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||7.49|1.10|
84490787|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.10|-0.23|
84490788|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.11|0.50|
84490789|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.36|0.84|
84490790|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.70|-2.93|
84490791|NCT03091920|168732212|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.25|-2.15|
84490792|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||12.22|1.40|
84490793|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|11.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||11.99|1.12|
84490794|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|6.28|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||6.28|-8.18|
84490795|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|9.09|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||9.09|-5.39|
84490796|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||5.23|-5.98|
84550782|NCT02004886|168854987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.5|0.408
84550783|NCT02004886|168854987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.1|0.741
84550784|NCT02004886|168854987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.8|0.906
84550785|NCT02004886|168854988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|25.3|||ANCOVA|||||25.3|-30.4|0.857
84550786|NCT02004886|168854988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|||||26.9|-30.3|0.906
84550787|NCT02004886|168854988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||ANCOVA|||||20.8|-34.0|0.630
84550788|NCT00282113|168855004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0|||||Mixed-effects regression|||||||>0.5
84550789|NCT00282113|168855005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84550790|NCT00282113|168855006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84550791|NCT02949843|168855030|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis is that each arm has equal rates of smoking history.||||0.6
84550792|NCT02120833|168855031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550793|NCT02120833|168855031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.4360
84604398|NCT03710876|168959300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-13.8|0.3570
84604399|NCT03710876|168959301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-11.3|0.2856
84550794|NCT02120833|168855031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.01|-2.51|0.0510
84550795|NCT02120833|168855032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0004
84550796|NCT02120833|168855032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0213
84550797|NCT02120833|168855032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.37|||ANCOVA|The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.37|-0.50|0.7698
84550798|NCT02120833|168855033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0003
84550799|NCT02120833|168855033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6063
84604400|NCT03710876|168959302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
84743423|NCT05316701|169239768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.60|0.23|0.00003
84550800|NCT02120833|168855033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-1.27|0.3686
84550801|NCT02120833|168855034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550802|NCT02120833|168855034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6118
84550803|NCT02120833|168855034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.98|0.1485
84550804|NCT02120833|168855035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550805|NCT02120833|168855035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2447
84490797|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||8.70|-2.50|
84490798|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.89|2.02|
84490799|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||9.95|1.19|
84490800|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.91|0.34|
84490801|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.66|-0.84|
84490802|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|6.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.36|-2.89|
84490803|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.99|-4.33|
84490804|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|9.88|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||9.88|-1.17|
84490805|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|10.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||10.96|-0.14|
84490806|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||9.40|0.36|
84490807|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||8.83|-0.22|
84490808|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||8.72|-0.65|
84743424|NCT04679935|169239769|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.01|||MMRM model|||Week 40||-0.01|-7.47|
84743425|NCT04679935|169239769|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.48|||MMRM model|||Week 44||-0.48|-8.78|
84490809|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|6.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||6.94|-2.42|
84490810|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|11.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.89|1.91|
84490811|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.08|1.22|
84490812|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||9.93|0.05|
84490813|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||10.22|0.45|
84490814|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|6.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.52|-3.17|
84490815|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|8.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||8.92|-0.86|
84490816|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.27|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||9.27|-1.18|
84490817|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||8.90|-1.38|
84604401|NCT03710876|168959303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
84550806|NCT02120833|168855035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.25|-2.95|0.0216
84550807|NCT02120833|168855036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550808|NCT02120833|168855036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0476
84550809|NCT02120833|168855036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.64|-2.52|0.2349
84550810|NCT02120833|168855037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.7842
84550811|NCT02120833|168855037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6083
84550812|NCT02120833|168855037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.08|0.3599
84550813|NCT02120833|168855038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0001
84550814|NCT02120833|168855038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0317
84604402|NCT02209948|168959332|OTHER|Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)||||||0.943||||||Threshold P-value of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.943
84604403|NCT02209948|168959333|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88||Threshold of significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.88|0.90|0.16
84490818|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.06|-1.70|
84669273|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84490819|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|12.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.37|-1.14|
84490820|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||4.92|-5.35|
84550815|NCT02120833|168855038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.33|-0.42|0.8037
84550816|NCT02120833|168855039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550817|NCT02120833|168855039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0244
84550818|NCT02120833|168855039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.06|-0.80|0.0900
84604404|NCT02209948|168959334|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5||Threshold for significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.65|0.99
84604405|NCT02209948|168959335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.33||threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.33|0.89|0.13
84604406|NCT04065074|168959338|OTHER|Proportion of Successful Administrations|Proportion of Successful Administrations|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.9||||||||0.90|0.51|
84604407|NCT02081638|168959341|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance was a priori set to \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||>0.05
84743426|NCT04679935|169239769|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.58|||MMRM model|||Week 48||-0.58|-10.13|
84743427|NCT04679935|169239769|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||0.39|-8.77|
84743428|NCT04679935|169239769|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.16|||MMRM model|||Mean of Week 40 to Week 52||-0.16|-8.56|
84490821|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||6.65|-3.42|
84490822|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|11.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.36|-1.19|
84490823|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|11.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.42|-0.83|
84490824|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||6.63|-4.02|
84490825|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||8.12|-2.26|
84490826|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.85|-7.52|
84490827|NCT03091920|168732213|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.98|-7.25|
84490828|NCT03091920|168732214|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|0.282|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.282|-0.857|
84490829|NCT03091920|168732214|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|0.498|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.498|-0.708|
84490830|NCT03091920|168732214|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.335|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.335|-0.727|
84490831|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.13|37.753|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||37.753|-84.130|
84490832|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.883|42.817|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||42.817|-70.883|
84490833|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-18.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.204|33.982|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||33.982|-71.204|
84490834|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-25.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.551|11.774|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||11.774|-62.551|
84490835|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-21.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.879|14.527|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||14.527|-56.879|
84490836|NCT03091920|168732219|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.618|9.053|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||9.053|-55.618|
84490837|NCT02978339|168732253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
84490838|NCT02978339|168732254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84490839|NCT02978339|168732255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84490840|NCT02978339|168732256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84490841|NCT02978339|168732257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
84743429|NCT04679935|169239777|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||-0.39|-8.77|
84490842|NCT02978339|168732258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
84604408|NCT02081638|168959341|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.022
84604409|NCT02081638|168959342|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.13
84604410|NCT02081638|168959342|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.097
84604411|NCT02081638|168959342|OTHER|||||||0.0269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.0269
84490843|NCT02978339|168732259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.93
84490844|NCT01906489|168732284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4739|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3505|39.2931|||Fisher Exact|||||39.2931|3.3505|=0.0001
84490845|NCT01906489|168732285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84490846|NCT01906489|168732286|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84490847|NCT01906489|168732288|OTHER||||||=|0.0953|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0953
84490848|NCT01906489|168732289|OTHER||||||=|0.1238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.1238
84490849|NCT01906489|168732290|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84490850|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0019
84490851|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84490852|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
84490853|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84490854|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84490855|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84490856|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
84490857|NCT01906489|168732291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84490858|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84490859|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84490860|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
84490861|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84490862|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84490863|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84490864|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
84490865|NCT01906489|168732293|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84490866|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||=|0.0031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0031
84490867|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84490868|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
84490869|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84490870|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84490871|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84490872|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
84490873|NCT01906489|168732295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84490874|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84490875|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.0133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||=0.0133
84490876|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.3053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||=0.3053
84490877|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.1918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||=0.1918
84490878|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||=0.2090
84490879|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||=0.6184
84490880|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.3604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||=0.3604
84490881|NCT01906489|168732297|OTHER||||||=|0.4056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||=0.4056
84490882|NCT01906489|168732303|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1451|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5752|10.908|||Log Rank|||||10.9080|1.5752|=0.0017
84490883|NCT00195702|168732331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
84490884|NCT00195702|168732331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
84490885|NCT00195702|168732332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
84490886|NCT00195702|168732332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
84490887|NCT00195702|168732333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84490888|NCT00195702|168732333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84743430|NCT04362189|169239792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743431|NCT04362189|169239793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|||||
84743432|NCT04362189|169239794|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84490889|NCT00195702|168732334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84490890|NCT00195702|168732334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84550819|NCT02120833|168855040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84490891|NCT00195702|168732335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84550820|NCT02120833|168855040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0065
84550821|NCT02120833|168855040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.16|-0.97|0.1561
84550822|NCT02120833|168855041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550823|NCT02120833|168855041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0049
84550824|NCT02120833|168855041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|15.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.07|-3.88|0.2409
84550825|NCT02120833|168855042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550826|NCT02120833|168855042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2386
84550827|NCT02120833|168855042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|17.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.32|1.28|0.0241
84604412|NCT02081638|168959342|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84490892|NCT00195702|168732335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84490893|NCT00195702|168732336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
84490894|NCT00195702|168732336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
84604413|NCT02081638|168959342|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Plasma biomarkers (CRP, sCD14, TF, IL-6) were log(e) transformed and a linear mixed effect model with the biomarker as outcome and with random slope per participant was used to calculate the percentage of change from baseline.|||
84604414|NCT01852825|168959343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.355||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.515|3.661|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.661|1.515|0.003
84604415|NCT01852825|168959344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.182||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.364|3.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.490|1.364|0.010
84743433|NCT04362189|169239795|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743434|NCT04362189|169239796|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743435|NCT04362189|169239797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||HB-adMSCs represents Numerator and Placebo represents Denominator.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84490895|NCT00195702|168732337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84490896|NCT00195702|168732337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84604416|NCT01852825|168959345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.066|0.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the 1-tailed 95% CI around the mean difference in change from baseline excludes zero||0.410|0.066|0.027
84604417|NCT01852825|168959346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.272|4.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||4.190|0.272|0.935
84604418|NCT01852825|168959347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.21||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|8.066|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||8.066|0.605|0.296
84604419|NCT01852825|168959348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.115||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.185|-22.045|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|||-22.045|-100.185|0.014
84604420|NCT02159118|168959349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84604421|NCT02159118|168959350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84604422|NCT02159118|168959351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84604423|NCT02159118|168959352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84604424|NCT02159118|168959353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84604425|NCT02159118|168959354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84604426|NCT02159118|168959355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84604427|NCT02159118|168959356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84604428|NCT02159118|168959357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84604429|NCT01327274|168959360|OTHER|Pre-treatment and post-treatment Pectus Severity Indices were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
84604430|NCT02446418|168959362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.5|0.1|0.033
84604431|NCT02446418|168959363|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6, Week 12, Week 18 and Week 24), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The REML estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.1|-0.3|0.224
84604432|NCT02446418|168959364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|2.62|0.47|0.820
84604433|NCT02446418|168959364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.41||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|4.60|0.43|0.566
84604434|NCT00435162|168959397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.05||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Slope change across all 3 active treatment groups.||0.20|-2.31|0.0990
84604435|NCT01819129|168959401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomized treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The estimated parameter i.e mean difference is the estimated treatment difference for Faster aspart vs. NovoRapid (Faster aspart - NovoRapid).|Change from baseline in HbA1c is analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30 and 36. The model includes treatment, region and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) strata as fixed effects, subject as random effect, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.10|-0.15|
84604436|NCT02825966|168959407|EQUIVALENCE|The two one-sided t-test (TOST) was used to test equivalence. Using TOST, equivalence was established at α = 0.05 significance level if a (1-2α)\*100% confidence interval for the average difference in EMAT (WCD-AUDICOR) was contained within the interval \[-12, 12\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|4.69|||two one-sided test (TOST)|||First, the difference in EMAT between the LifeVest and AUDICOR device (first wear) was calculated for each subject. Then the mean and standard deviation of the differences in EMAT were calculated. The 2 devices were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval for mean difference in EMAT was within the pre-specified margin of \[-12, 12\] ms.||4.69|-2.89|< 0.001
84604437|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.47||Adjusted for age, sex, race and utilization|Regression, Logistic|||||1.47|1.15|0.0001
84604438|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|1.07|.0026
84490897|NCT00195702|168732339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84743436|NCT04362189|169239804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743437|NCT04362189|169239805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743438|NCT04362189|169239806|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84743439|NCT04362189|169239807|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
84490898|NCT00195702|168732339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84490899|NCT00195702|168732343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84490900|NCT00195702|168732343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84490901|NCT01078389|168732362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Ranked Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.472
84490902|NCT01078389|168732363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.548
84490903|NCT01078389|168732364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.389
84490904|NCT01078389|168732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Synovitis Score as a covariate.||Synovitis: Change from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
84490905|NCT01078389|168732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Erosion(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Erosion(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.634
84490906|NCT01078389|168732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Edema(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Edema(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.307
84490907|NCT01078389|168732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.122
84490908|NCT04823494|168732367|NON_INFERIORITY|For sample size in each sequence group is 16 (total N=32), a 2 X 2 crossover design will have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the SELF-FIT APHAB mean is inferior to the PRO-FIT APHAB mean. The non-inferiority difference margin is 8.4, the standard deviation of differences is 16.3, and p\<.025. The non-inferiority margin of 8.4 preserves half the 95% critical difference for the global APHAB score (16.8). The common standard deviation reported for the APHAB global score is 16.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|4.73||There were two outcome measures, primary and secondary, considered. As a result, the a priori p value of .05 for statistical significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons to .025.|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences and 95% CIs in APHAB global score between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT were calculated using bias-corrected \& accelerated bootstrapping.|The mean difference and 95% CIs are for Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit aided scores. These values are the pooled data for all 37 participants, 19 receiving one sequence and 18 the other sequence.|"For the wear-time crossover field trial, the APHAB was measured following both the audiology best-practices hearing aid fitting (PRO-FIT) and the self-fitting method (SELF-FIT).~* Null hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT ) ≥ 8.4~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT) \< 8.4~The mean difference between the aided scores for the two fitting methods, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, represent the primary outcome measure. The expected difference = 0."||4.73|-1.59|<0.025
84490909|NCT04823494|168732368|NON_INFERIORITY|For the QuickSIN, a clinically meaningful difference is 3 dB and half that difference resulted in a margin of 1.5 dB. This 1.5-dB margin was used for the QuickSIN for the non-inferiority analyses of the data from the field-trial component. The mean difference, QuickSIN Self-Fit minus QuickSIN Pro-Fit, should be less than 1.5 dB for the entire sample (N=37) to meet the non-inferiority criterion.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.2||The a priori threshold value of 0.05 was Bonferroni-adjusted to 0.025 based on the use of two outcome measures, APHAB global (primary) and QuickSIN (secondary).|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences in dB, SELF-FIT minus PRO-FIT, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (bias-corrected, accelerated bootstrap) generated.|Mean differences in aided QuickSIN SNR in dB, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, were calculated for the entire group of 37 participants with about 1/2 receiving one of the two fit sequences (Pro-Fit then Self-Fit or Self-Fit then Pro-Fit).|"For the QuickSIN, aided performance after each wear period was compared between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT.~* Null hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIPRO-FIT) ≥ 1.5 dB~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIN PRO-FIT) \< 1.5 dB~Power calculations were based on the primary outcome measured, the aided APHAB global score, (see information for that outcome measure). With the minimum required N of 32 based on the APHAB global score, the power for QuickSIN exceeded 80%."||1.20|-0.03|<0.025
84490910|NCT03691831|168732369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.76||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||10.76|2.14|0.0001
84490911|NCT03691831|168732370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.||4.56|1.61|0.0001
84490912|NCT03691831|168732371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||21.8|9.0|<0.0001
84490913|NCT03691831|168732372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.53|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||15.53|1.76|0.0006
84490914|NCT03691831|168732373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84490915|NCT04524663|168732381|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||||9.32|-8.14|0.89
84490916|NCT04524663|168732382|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|34.83|||Regression, Linear|||||34.83|2.98|0.02
84490917|NCT04524663|168732383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.10|0.70|0.24
84743440|NCT05116540|169239867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.282|31.959|||ANCOVA|||||31.959|12.282|0.0002
84743441|NCT05116540|169239868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.307|28.221|||ANCOVA|||||28.221|3.307|0.0166
84490918|NCT04524663|168732384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84743442|NCT05116540|169239869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.137|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.962||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.361|32.006|||ANCOVA|||||32.006|12.361|0.9905
84743443|NCT05116540|169239870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.747|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.274||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.329|28.177|||ANCOVA|||||28.177|3.329|0.8292
84743444|NCT05116540|169239871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|-0.195|||ANCOVA|||||-0.195|-2.914|0.0278
84490919|NCT04524663|168732385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.32|0.24
84490920|NCT01189201|168732405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.07|107.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.80|102.07|
84490921|NCT01189201|168732406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|110.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||110.09|99.97|
84490922|NCT01189201|168732407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.7|114.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||114.02|101.70|
84743445|NCT05116540|169239872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.330|-0.424|0.0666
84743446|NCT05116540|169239873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|21.853|||ANCOVA|||||21.853|-1.629|0.0863
84743447|NCT05116540|169239874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.633||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.504|4.457|||ANCOVA|||||4.457|-2.504|0.5588
84743448|NCT05116540|169239875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.773|-2.413|||ANCOVA|||||-2.413|-6.773|0.0004
84743449|NCT00775463|169239956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel Haenszel mean score test was used on the standardized reverse mid-ranks (overall reverse ranks divided by the number of ranks +1, or modified ridit scores; largely negative changes had ranks near 1 and largely positive changes had ranks near 0)of the residuals from an ordinary least squares regression with change in net ulcer burden at Week 20 as a linear function of Baseline PDEI or prostacyclin use (binary variable:Yes/No) and net ulcer burden at Baseline(continuous variable).||0.0|-1.0|0.20
84743450|NCT00775463|169239957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.40|-1.40|0.31
84743451|NCT00775463|169239958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.7||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.7|-21.3|0.12
84743452|NCT00775463|169239959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.0|-18.0|0.04
84490923|NCT01189201|168732408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|120.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||120.83|99.55|
84490924|NCT01189201|168732411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.02|107.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.61|102.02|
84490925|NCT01189201|168732412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.23|112.62|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||112.62|97.23|
84550828|NCT02120833|168855043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84743453|NCT00775463|169239960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline in CHFS Score were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.0|-4.0|0.47
84550829|NCT02120833|168855043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0696
84550830|NCT02120833|168855043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|17.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.52|0.46|0.0394
84490926|NCT01189201|168732413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|90.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.64|81.33|
84490927|NCT01189201|168732414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|61.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|69.71|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||69.71|54.10|
84550831|NCT02120833|168855044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550832|NCT02120833|168855044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0772
84550833|NCT02120833|168855044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|15.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.63|1.33|0.0213
84550834|NCT02120833|168855045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84490928|NCT01189201|168732415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|90.14|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.14|80.77|
84669274|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743454|NCT00775463|169239962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline and at Week 20 in the mRSS was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||1.0|0.0|0.68
84490929|NCT01189201|168732416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.07|102.05|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||102.05|85.07|
84490930|NCT01189201|168732417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|68.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.59|80.03|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||80.03|58.59|
84490931|NCT01189201|168732418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|98.19|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||98.19|84.24|
84490932|NCT01189201|168732419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|100.3|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.30|91.19|
84490933|NCT01189201|168732420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|104.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||104.53|91.95|
84490934|NCT01189201|168732421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|100.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.43|91.17|
84490935|NCT01189201|168732422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.36|100.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.09|86.36|
84490936|NCT01189201|168732423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|115.74|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||115.74|92.93|
84490937|NCT01189201|168732424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|103.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||103.42|89.78|
84490938|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|28.9|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs.one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenA||28.9|10|
84490939|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.9|37.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenC||37.7|16.9|
84490940|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|26.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenW||26.7|1.4|
84490941|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for Men Y|Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|37.6|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenY||37.6|15.6|
84669275|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84550835|NCT02120833|168855045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0172
84550836|NCT02120833|168855045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|11.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||11.58|-2.46|0.1968
84550837|NCT02120833|168855046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84550838|NCT02120833|168855046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0712
84550839|NCT02120833|168855046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||14.15|0.70|0.0313
84550840|NCT04463251|168855106|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
84550841|NCT04463251|168855106|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
84550842|NCT04463251|168855107|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.87|0.34|
84669276|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0649
84550843|NCT04463251|168855107|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.95|0.37|
84550844|NCT04463251|168855108|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
84604439|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|1.02|.0206
84669277|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743455|NCT00775463|169239963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||2.0|-3.0|0.54
84743456|NCT00775463|169239963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Ef|-0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||P value for Pain VAS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Pain VAS||0.3|-1.6|0.18
84490942|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|21.3|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenA||21.3|1.7|
84490943|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccines Group differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.9|29.2|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenC||29.2|9.9|
84490944|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.6|17.4|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenW||17.4|-8.6|
84490945|NCT01682876|168732426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenY|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|40.0|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse for two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenY||40|18.4|
84490946|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|9.1|28.0|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||28|9.1|
84490947|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|28.0||||||98.75|17.1|38.7|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||38.7|17.1|
84490948|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||27.1|1|
84490949|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups Differences at Day 86|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|16.2|39.3|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.3|16.2|
84490950|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|21.2|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||21.2|1|
84490951|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.5|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||27.1|9.5|
84490952|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-8.4|18.8|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||18.8|-8.4|
84743457|NCT00775463|169239963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||0.0|-1.0|0.10
84743458|NCT00091169|169239968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84490953|NCT01682876|168732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|17.0|39.6|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.6|17|
84490954|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.53||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.53|1.17|
84490955|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|6.36||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||6.36|1.18|
84490956|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced tenderness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.34|0.85|
84490957|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced change in eating habits in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.42|0.54|
84490958|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced sleepiness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.52|0.76|
84743459|NCT00091169|169239969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84490959|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced irritability in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.43|0.74|
84490960|NCT01682876|168732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.74|0.33|
84490961|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.65||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.65|0.77|
84490962|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|0.81|
84490963|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.55||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced pain in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.55|1.04|
84490964|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.33||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced loss of appetite in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||3.33|0.98|
84490965|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced nausea in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.17|0.77|
84490966|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fatigue in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.57|1.06|
84490967|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.89||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced myalgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.89|0.99|
84490968|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced arthralgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.42|0.97|
84490969|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced headache in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|1.22|
84490970|NCT01682876|168732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.68|0.48|
84490971|NCT03852901|168732438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.166|50.268||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.758; F = 70.003; Sig. \< 0.001 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||50.268|31.166|<0.001
84490972|NCT03852901|168732439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|1.426||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 884.229; F = .367; Sig = .545 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||1.426|-2.699|0.545
84490973|NCT03852901|168732440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.044||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.629; F = 8.782; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||.044|.009|0.003
84490974|NCT03852901|168732441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.255|-0.04||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.870; F = 3.970; Sig. = 0.047 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-0.040|-5.255|0.047
84490975|NCT03852901|168732442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-1.937||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.181; F = 9.049; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: repeated-measures. Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-1.937|-9.210|0.003
84490976|NCT03852901|168732443|OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 33; F = 0.5451; Sig. = 0.5849 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.5849
84490977|NCT03852901|168732444|OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 2; Den df = 35; F = 4.8191; Sig. = 0.0142 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.0142
84490978|NCT03852901|168732445|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 34; F = 4.1501; Sig. = 0.0244 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age and fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.024
84604440|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.21|.96|.2330
84604441|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|.996|.0579
84743460|NCT00091169|169239970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84743461|NCT00091169|169239971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84604442|NCT02266277|168959411|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|.86|.87
84604443|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.81|.82
84604444|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio, log|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.36
84743462|NCT00091169|169239972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00001
84743463|NCT00091169|169239973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.677
84743464|NCT00660543|169239974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.003
84743465|NCT00660543|169239974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.008
84743466|NCT02366468|169239992|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin: -4 letters|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.27|||ANCOVA|including study treatment (DI, PRN) and center as factors and baseline BCVA as continuous covariate.||The primary objective was to demonstrate that the mean visit-averaged change from baseline of BCVA over month 1 to treatment completion for the DI arm was non-inferior to the PRN arm.||1.27|-3.04|0.002
84743467|NCT02366468|169239996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.56|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||28.56|-17.10|0.620
84490979|NCT00911508|168732446|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||||||||1.15|0.65|
84490980|NCT00911508|168732447|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
84490981|NCT00911508|168732448|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||||||||0.93|0.74|
84490982|NCT00911508|168732449|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
84490983|NCT00911508|168732450|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.68||||||||1.68|0.53|
84490984|NCT00911508|168732451|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51||||||||1.51|0.51|
84490985|NCT00911508|168732452|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72||||||||1.72|0.33|
84490986|NCT00911508|168732453|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.09||||||||3.09|0.41|
84490987|NCT00911508|168732454|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.6||||||||0.60|0.45|
84490988|NCT00911508|168732455|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||||0.97|0.77|
84490989|NCT00911508|168732456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||6.9|3.7|<0.001
84490990|NCT00911508|168732456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Years||4.8|2.1|<0.001
84490991|NCT00911508|168732457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.2|-2.3|0.001
84490992|NCT00911508|168732457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.9|-1.9|0.001
84490993|NCT00911508|168732458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.1|-2.0|<0.001
84490994|NCT00911508|168732458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.4|-1.7|<0.001
84490995|NCT01409382|168732471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Take home babies||7.6|1.5|<0.05
84490996|NCT01266967|168732473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.6|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||52.6|29.3|<0.0001
84743468|NCT02366468|169239997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.66|30.59|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||30.59|-33.66|0.925
84550845|NCT04463251|168855108|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
84550846|NCT04463251|168855109|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
84550847|NCT04463251|168855109|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
84550848|NCT04463251|168855110|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.81||||||"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."|"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|0.81|0.34|
84550849|NCT04463251|168855110|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.74|0.31|
84550850|NCT04463251|168855111|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.29|
84550851|NCT04463251|168855111|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.30|
84550852|NCT03689374|168855141|NON_INFERIORITY|The responses were analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline value as a covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomized treatment, using a regression model including randomized treatment group and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates. The prespecified non inferiority margin was 0.3%-point.|Treatment difference|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.2|||t-distributed test|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test.||||-0.20|-0.38|<0.0001
84550853|NCT03634033|168855177|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on adoption and sustainability using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|29.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|16 degrees of freedom for the t-test comparing two independent groups, n=9 each.||Given 18 sites (9 in each arm) available in Michigan, in the comparison of site-level outcome of adoption and sustainability, the detectable effect size with power of 0.80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance was d=1.41.||29.05|-7.27|0.22
84550854|NCT03634033|168855178|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ADLs at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering via a random effect of site.|IF minus IF+EF|Adjusted means at month 9 were calculated adjusting for baseline value of the outcome and nesting of participants within sites.||0.73|-0.16|0.73
84743469|NCT03651622|169239999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
84743470|NCT03651622|169240000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84743471|NCT03651622|169240001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
84743472|NCT03651622|169240002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84743473|NCT03651622|169240003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
84743474|NCT03651622|169240004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
84743475|NCT03651622|169240005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
84743476|NCT03651622|169240006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||The proposed sample size of n=72 was sufficient to ensure 60% power to detect a moderate effect size (Cohen h=0.68) and 80% to detect a large effect size (Cohen h=0.85) at a significance level of 0.10 for comparing difference in change among the 3 diets. By design, our primary goal for this pilot work is to inform the final efficacy design of a fully powered SMART, and the pilot SMART was therefore not designed to be fully powered for all analyses.||||0.39
84550855|NCT03634033|168855179|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries IADLs using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.72||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|Post-intervention means were compared adjusting for baseline values and nesting of participants within sites.||0.72|-0.11|0.15
84550856|NCT03634033|168855180|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries pain at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance was.05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|||0.39|-0.23|0.61
84550857|NCT03634033|168855181|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries depression (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||0.24|0.01|0.04
84550858|NCT03634033|168855182|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries fall rates at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.93|0.18
84550859|NCT03634033|168855182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||Threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for IF versus IF+EF|Occurrence of falls was analyzed with adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||1.45|0.93|.18
84550860|NCT03634033|168855183|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ED Visits at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||||1.22|0.79|0.86
84550861|NCT03634033|168855184|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries hospitalizations (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||1.42|0.72|0.95
84550862|NCT03634033|168855185|SUPERIORITY|Examination of clinician attitude on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) at exit when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed modeling was used to account for nesting of clinicians within sites.||10.14|0.09|0.05
84550863|NCT03634033|168855186|OTHER|Examination of clinician self-efficacy on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) (baseline to exit) when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.97||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Nesting of clinicians within site was adjusted for as a random effect.||||0.97|-0.51|0.54
84550864|NCT03634033|168855189|SUPERIORITY|Pre-/post-intervention comparison.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Pain||-1.42|-3.96|<.01
84743477|NCT03651622|169240007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
84550865|NCT03634033|168855189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADL||4.91|-2.80|.58
84550866|NCT03634033|168855189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||IADL||4.91|-2.80|.44
84743478|NCT03651622|169240008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84743479|NCT03651622|169240009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
84743480|NCT03651622|169240010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
84743481|NCT03651622|169240011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
84743482|NCT03651622|169240012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
84743483|NCT03651622|169240013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84743484|NCT03582943|169240014|SUPERIORITY|A priori power analyses was designed to detect at least a 3 second difference in change in balance scores between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of differences between groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.984
84743485|NCT03582943|169240014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between age and RLIC vs. sham|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.455
84743486|NCT03582943|169240014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between sex and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.803
84743487|NCT03582943|169240014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between BMI and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
84743488|NCT03582943|169240014|SUPERIORITY|Test of interaction between presence of co-morbidities and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mean Difference (Net)|4.12||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84743489|NCT02071290|169240069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84743490|NCT02071290|169240070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
84743491|NCT02071290|169240071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
84743492|NCT02071290|169240072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
84490997|NCT01266967|168732473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|49.8|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||49.8|25.3|<0.0001
84490998|NCT01519700|168732586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limit: -1 day Power: 90% Confidence level: 97.5% Randomization ratio: 1:1 (EP2006:Neupogen)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.26||||||The one-sided 97.5% Confidence Interval: \[-0.26, ∞).||||-0.26|
84490999|NCT01091116|168732602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Tests of Fixed Effects for the primary efficacy variable including baseline treatment and visit (from Visit 3 to Visit 5) as covariates||||0.5263
84491000|NCT02155660|168732618|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.01|0.71|0.0638
84491001|NCT02155660|168732618|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.6575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.23|0.88|0.6575
84491002|NCT02155660|168732618|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.10|0.78|0.3988
84491003|NCT02155660|168732619|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.32|0.82|0.7564
84491004|NCT02155660|168732619|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.37|0.84|0.5573
84491005|NCT02155660|168732619|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.30|0.80|0.8644
84491006|NCT02155660|168732620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.059|-0.029|0.5043
84550867|NCT03634033|168855189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.77||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Depression||4.77|-1.85|.38
84550868|NCT03634033|168855190|SUPERIORITY|Self-efficacy|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.6||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Self-efficacy change baseline (month-0) to exit (month-4).||-0.60|-1.02|<0.01
84743493|NCT02071290|169240073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
84743494|NCT02071290|169240074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.757
84743495|NCT02071290|169240075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
84743496|NCT02071290|169240076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
84491007|NCT02155660|168732620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.037|-0.051|0.7691
84491008|NCT02155660|168732620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.064|-0.024|0.3767
84491009|NCT02155660|168732621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|1.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.171|-3.192|0.3636
84491010|NCT02155660|168732621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.388||||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.562|0.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.786|-3.562|0.2106
84491011|NCT02155660|168732621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.560|-2.763|0.5851
84491012|NCT02155660|168732622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.99|-0.82|0.8525
84491013|NCT02155660|168732622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.89|-0.91|0.9870
84491014|NCT02155660|168732622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.79|-1.00|0.8204
84491015|NCT02155660|168732623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.301|-1.102|0.2636
84491016|NCT02155660|168732623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.406|-0.998|0.4087
84491017|NCT02155660|168732623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.425||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.275|-1.125|0.2336
84491018|NCT02155660|168732624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.254|-1.029|0.0012
84550869|NCT03634033|168855191|OTHER|Score on scale.|Mean|8.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84550870|NCT03634033|168855191|OTHER||Mean|7.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.06|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with format||||<.01
84550871|NCT03634033|168855191|OTHER||Mean|8.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for caregiver||||<.01
84550872|NCT03634033|168855191|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for clinician||||<.01
84550873|NCT03634033|168855191|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Intent to use new information||||<.01
84550874|NCT06366087|168855192|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCinf lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.724|0.670|
84550875|NCT06366087|168855193|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.697|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCt lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.697|0.640|
84550876|NCT06366087|168855194|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.088|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|0.088|
84550877|NCT06366087|168855195|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.189|0.120|
84491019|NCT02155660|168732624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.047|-0.727|0.0852
84550878|NCT06366087|168855196|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.217|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.309|0.217|
84550879|NCT06366087|168855197|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.416|0.318|
84550880|NCT06366087|168855198|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.396|0.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.492|0.396|
84550881|NCT06366087|168855199|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.608|0.532|
84743497|NCT02071290|169240077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
84743498|NCT02071290|169240078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.664
84491020|NCT02155660|168732624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.023|-0.750|0.0650
84491021|NCT02155660|168732625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.002|-0.081|0.0415
84491022|NCT02155660|168732625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.015|-0.094|0.0069
84491023|NCT02155660|168732625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.014|-0.065|0.2008
84491024|NCT02155660|168732629|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.81|0.8158
84491025|NCT02155660|168732629|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.82|0.8378
84491026|NCT02155660|168732629|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.11|0.76|0.3759
84491027|NCT02155660|168732630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.76|0.9141
84491028|NCT02155660|168732630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.87|1.03|0.0323
84491029|NCT02155660|168732630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.48|0.82|0.5109
84550882|NCT06366087|168855200|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.620|0.524|
84550883|NCT00860249|168855242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We used the Bonferroni calculation to adjust for the planned multiple comparisons among the three groups.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
84550884|NCT00860249|168855243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We intended to use a Bonferroni calculation to adjust for multiple comparisons among study arms.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
84550885|NCT00519428|168855244|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Each individual test will require the calculated p to be \< .0916 to declare that comparison to be significant. Since the hypothesis requires both comparisons to be significant, this produces an over-all alpha of .05."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy). Therefore each analysis will be done twice and it will be required that both analyses be significant to declare the over-all study significant.||||.05
84550886|NCT00519428|168855246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||escitalopram + bupropion vs. escitalopram: F(1,159) = 1.93, ns escitalopram + bupropion vs. bupropion: F (1,157) = 1.99, ns|ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline score and country||To test the hypothesis that escitalopram + bupropion would have superior efficacy relative to each monotherapy, the group receiving both medications was separately compared to each monotherapy group, covarying for baseline score and country||||.0916
84550887|NCT01953874|168855257|OTHER|The primary analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and therefore the power calculation was approximated using the approach of Tang.||||||0.916|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was a composite measure of global rank order response based on survival time, freedom from CV hospitalization, and improvement in functional capacity measured by percent change in 6MWD from baseline to 6 months. The plan was to randomize up to 215 subjects. However, due to safety issues observed in SERVE-HF, randomization was stopped at 126 subjects.||||0.916
84550888|NCT05875025|168855345|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR2 at baseline as a covariate.||||4.99|-2.28|0.442
84550889|NCT05875025|168855346|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR4 at baseline as a covariate.||||3.12|-1.73|0.553
84550890|NCT04259424|168855348|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
84550891|NCT03315286|168855370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84550892|NCT03315286|168855371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84550893|NCT03315286|168855372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline results are reported here.||||0.6
84550894|NCT03315286|168855372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.3
84550895|NCT03315286|168855373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline data is reported here.||||0.2
84550896|NCT03315286|168855373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.4
84550897|NCT03315286|168855374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline data is reported here||||0.07
84550898|NCT03315286|168855374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.0002
84550899|NCT02989649|168855376|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||Regression, Linear||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|<0.001
84550900|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Prior therapy of diabetes mellitus, Ever used or Never used||||0.423
84550901|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Sex, Male or Female||||0.747
84550902|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Age, \<45 or \>=45 to \<65 years or \>=65 years||||<0.001
84743499|NCT02071290|169240079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.661
84743500|NCT02071290|169240080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.916
84550903|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Cardiovascular risk group, Yes or No||||0.990
84550904|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Therapy type, Monotherapy or Combined therapy||||0.841
84550905|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Baseline BMI, \<25 or 25 to \<30 or \>=30 kg/m\^2||||0.847
84550906|NCT02989649|168855377|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Initial glycemic control, \<7% or \>=7%||||<0.001
84550907|NCT02989649|168855380|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.62|-1.29|
84550908|NCT02989649|168855380|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.39|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-0.39|-1.36|
84743501|NCT02071290|169240081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
84550909|NCT02989649|168855381|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.72|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.72|-1.18|
84550910|NCT02989649|168855381|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|
84550911|NCT01369108|168855424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in anatomic form||||0.8
84550912|NCT01369108|168855424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin adaptation||||0.89
84550913|NCT01369108|168855424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||0.79
84550914|NCT01369108|168855424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in surface integrity||||0.18
84550915|NCT01369108|168855424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in secondary caries||||0.66
84604445|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.33
84550916|NCT01369108|168855425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in sensitivity to cold||||0.522
84550917|NCT01369108|168855425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.449|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis no difference in biting pressure||||.449
84550918|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-7.3|-0.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-7.3|
84550919|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-10.9|-0.1||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-10.9|
84550920|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-7.9||||||95.0|-12.4|-4.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-4.0|-12.4|
84550921|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|3.5||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.5|-2.7|
84550922|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.7|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.7|
84550923|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.4|-2.4|
84550924|NCT00373958|168855462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-8.5|1.2||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-8.5|
84550925|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
84550926|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.61|0.89||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.61|
84550927|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.62|0.85||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.85|0.62|
84550928|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
84550929|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.81||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.81|0.57|
84550930|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.98|1.41||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.41|0.98|
84550931|NCT00373958|168855463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.54|0.78||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.78|0.54|
84743502|NCT02071290|169240082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.353
84743503|NCT02071290|169240083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84743504|NCT02071290|169240084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
84743505|NCT02071290|169240085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.371
84491030|NCT02155660|168732632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.96|0.49|0.0287
84550932|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.1|-2.9|
84550933|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-8.3|7.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||7.0|-8.3|
84550934|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-4.3|3.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.5|-4.3|
84550935|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-2.1|5.6||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 40.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.6|-2.1|
84550936|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.2|3.4||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 16.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.4|-5.2|
84550937|NCT00373958|168855464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1||||||95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 26 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-6.4|
84604446|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|.69|.23
84743506|NCT02071290|169240086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.106
84550938|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
84550939|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-7.1|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-7.1|
84550940|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-4.5|2.9||||||For Measles the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||2.9|-4.5|
84604447|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.79|.96
84743507|NCT02071290|169240087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
84743508|NCT02071290|169240088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
84743509|NCT02071290|169240089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
84743510|NCT02071290|169240090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
84743511|NCT02071290|169240091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.510
84743512|NCT02071290|169240092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.348
84743513|NCT02071290|169240093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.911
84743514|NCT01232738|169240094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02|||Chi-squared|||Difference in slope of decline||0.02|-0.53|0.07
84743515|NCT01232738|169240095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
84743516|NCT01417104|169240195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.47|0.85|<0.031
84743517|NCT01417104|169240196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.36|0.44|0.041
84491031|NCT02155660|168732632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.22|0.65|0.4631
84491032|NCT02155660|168732632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.94|0.48|0.0185
84743518|NCT01416389|169240198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This measure is compared between two treatment arms using a one-sided t-test. This measure followed a normal distribution.||||0.344
84743519|NCT01416389|169240199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.608
84743520|NCT01416389|169240201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.365
84743521|NCT02946853|169240214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.21|0.14|1.00
84743522|NCT02946853|169240215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
84491033|NCT02577107|168732654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.618|31.011||||||||31.011|9.618|
84491034|NCT00218439|168732658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84491035|NCT00218439|168732659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84491036|NCT00218439|168732660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84491037|NCT00218439|168732661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84491038|NCT00218439|168732662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84491039|NCT02615158|168732663|EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the change over time does not include 0, it means that there is a significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare change in maternal lifestyle group to child safety group.|H0: There are no differences between the maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change in BMI z-score over time. Mixed models included the interaction between time and intervention, accounting for clustering of the repeated measures within each individual.||0.31|-0.17|0.555
84550941|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|3.6||||||95.0|-4.7|11.9||||||For Mumps the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||11.9|-4.7|
84743523|NCT02946853|169240216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Some patients did not undergo 6 month echocardiogram due to restrictions related to COVID-19.||||1.00
84743524|NCT02946853|169240217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|84.4|||Fisher Exact|||||84.4|0.1|1.00
84743525|NCT02946853|169240218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84743526|NCT02946853|169240219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.00|0.00|1.00
84743527|NCT02946853|169240220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84743528|NCT02946853|169240221|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
84743529|NCT02946853|169240222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.0|0.0|1.00
84491040|NCT02615158|168732663|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39||Two-side test|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the Responsive Parenting to the safety intervention group.|||0.39|-0.08|0.200
84491041|NCT02615158|168732664|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated. If the 95% CI does not include 0, it means there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.52||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle to child safety group.|H0: There is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of BMI over time.||0.52|-0.74|0.739
84491042|NCT02615158|168732664|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it means that there is a statistically significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.59||The alpha for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to the child safety group.|H0: There are no differences in the change over time between responsive parenting and child safety groups.||0.59|-0.66|0.904
84491043|NCT02615158|168732665|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in the change over time.|Slope|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.02||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0 is that there is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.02|-1.4|0.168
84491044|NCT02615158|168732665|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference in the change between the two groups.|Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive feeding group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference between the responsive parenting and child safety groups in the change of HEI score over time||5.52|-3.88|0.733
84491045|NCT02615158|168732666|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.2||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between the two groups regarding the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.2|-1.6|0.186
84491046|NCT02615158|168732666|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI for the difference in change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference between the two groups.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|4.91||Alpha is set to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is there is no difference in the change of maternal HEI score over time between the two groups.||4.91|-4.97|0.990
84491047|NCT02615158|168732667|EQUIVALENCE|A 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in change over time between the two groups.|Slope|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|45.46||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is for maternal lifestyle group compared to safety control group.|Null hypothesis is there were no differences in the change over time for toddler MVPA across the two groups.||45.46|1.88|0.034
84550942|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-4.4|6.9||||||For Rubella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥15 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||6.9|-4.4|
84743530|NCT00858364|169240253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis used the Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.01|0.83|
84491048|NCT02615158|168732667|EQUIVALENCE|H0 is that there is no difference between the change of MVPA over time between the two groups.|Slope|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|35.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|||35.03|-7.98|0.216
84743531|NCT00858364|169240253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.00|0.83|
84491049|NCT02615158|168732668|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI for the difference in the change between the two groups was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the change.|Slope|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|20.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference in the change of maternal MVPA over time between the two groups.||20.48|1.46|0.024
84491050|NCT02615158|168732668|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|10.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no significant difference in the change of maternal MVPA between the two groups.||10.72|-8.76|0.804
84491051|NCT02615158|168732669|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||Alpha is set at 0.05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.06|-0.78|0.056
84491052|NCT02615158|168732669|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha is set at 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.45|-0.39|0.896
84550943|NCT00373958|168855465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.8||||||95.0|-3.4|13.0||||||For Varicella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.09 I.V. threshold was calculated.||13.0|-3.4|
84550944|NCT00373958|168855466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.75|1.17||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b (PRP) the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.75|
84743532|NCT00858364|169240253|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.07|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin)||||||0.070
84743533|NCT00858364|169240253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.047
84743534|NCT00858364|169240253|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.02|0.84|
84491053|NCT00883896|168732671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-5.9||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.3|-25.0|0.558
84491054|NCT00883896|168732671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-30.1|0.251
84491055|NCT00883896|168732671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.7||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.4|-21.7|0.707
84491056|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.7|-14.8|0.991
84550945|NCT00373958|168855467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||||||For Measles the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.85|
84743535|NCT00858364|169240254|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of PFS used a Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.04|0.87|
84743536|NCT00858364|169240254|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.04|0.87|
84743537|NCT00858364|169240254|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.31|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||||||0.31
84550946|NCT00373958|168855467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||For Mumps the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.87|
84743538|NCT00858364|169240254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.27
84743539|NCT00858364|169240254|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.05|0.88|
84550947|NCT00373958|168855467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||||||For Varicella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.92|
84550948|NCT00373958|168855468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||For Rubella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.62|
84550949|NCT01777568|168855473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||GEE model||Relative Risk: 80% (numerator) vs. 30% (denominator)|||1.14|0.85|0.85
84550950|NCT01777568|168855474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.66|0.047
84550951|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern. Statistically, the test of prolongation is equivalent to a non-inferiority test versus placebo by crossover design, with an non-inferiority margin of 10 ms.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.635||||||"Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).~Power Calculation:~Enrollment of 72 subjects would provide at least 84% power to conclude a negative effect, given that up to 16 subjects may withdraw early prior to beginning to replace subjects (at least 56 subjects evaluable), and assuming a standard deviation of ΔΔQTcF of 7 msec and an underlying effect of 5 msec."||0.635||
84550952|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.200||
84550953|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.795||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.795||
84550954|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.42|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.044||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.044||
84550955|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.792||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.792||
84550956|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.074||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.074||
84550957|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.79||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||0.790||
84550958|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.65||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.650||
84550959|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.131||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.131||
84550960|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.815||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.815||
84550961|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.36|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.997||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.997||
84550962|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.18|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.812||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.812||
84669278|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743540|NCT00858364|169240255|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS and PFS, superiority would be declared for the transfusion endpoint if the p-value from a two-sided test of significance using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was less than 0.05 in favor of the darbepoetin alfa group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|0.864|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of the incidence of a transfusion or hemoglobin ≤ 8.0 g/dL from day 29 to EOETP was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to test for treatment group differences while adjusting for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||0.864|0.573|< 0.001
84550963|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.228||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.228||
84550964|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|3.04|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.674||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.674||
84550965|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.63|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.259||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.259||
84550966|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.07|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.566||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.566||
84550967|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.82|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.459||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.459||
84550968|NCT03613649|168855486|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.72|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.415||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.415||
84550969|NCT03613649|168855491|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.19|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.257|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 1 h after dose.|||8.257|
84550970|NCT03613649|168855491|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.79|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.86|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 2 h after dose.|||8.860|
84550971|NCT03613649|168855491|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.62|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.683|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 3 h after dose.|||8.683|
84550972|NCT03613649|168855491|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.63|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.698|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 4 h after dose.|||8.698|
84743541|NCT00858364|169240255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.866|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis a logistic regression analysis was conducted, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||0.866|0.574|< 0.001
84743542|NCT00858364|169240257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||1.401|0.983|0.076
84743543|NCT00858364|169240257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||1.401|0.982|0.078
84550973|NCT05831644|168855522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.037|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint (RHI score) was compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment and period as fixed effects and subjects as random effect.||0.037|-0.285|0.1925
84743544|NCT00858364|169240259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.741||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.901|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||0.901|0.610|0.003
84491057|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-4.8||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-18.4|0.518
84743545|NCT00858364|169240259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.913|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||0.913|0.630|0.003
84743546|NCT03980808|169240261|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Total degrees of freedom (dof) = 17, with between groups dof = 1 and within groups dof = 16.||Composite scores were calculated for the knowledge based tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.95
84491058|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|0.781||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.8|-16.9|0.630
84491059|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|9.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||27.0|-8.3|0.295
84491060|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|-3.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.5|-19.3|0.686
84491061|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.2|-13.2|0.772
84491062|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||32.0|-6.5|0.201
84491063|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-10.4||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.5|-27.3|0.256
84491064|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.5|-11.4|0.519
84491065|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|16.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||35.2|-1.9|0.094
84550974|NCT05831644|168855523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.392|1.513|||ANOVA|||The secondary pharmacodynamic endpoint (AI) was analysed using a similar ANOVA model as for the primary endpoint.||1.513|-11.392|0.1941
84491066|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||20.1|-14.4|0.760
84491067|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.0|-16.8|0.950
84491068|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|13.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||33.0|-5.9|0.185
84491069|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.2||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||19.3|-18.8|0.982
84604448|NCT02266277|168959412|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.82|.76
84550975|NCT00474201|168855526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Students paired, two-tailed T-test||"Null hypothesis: lopinavir-ritonavir does not alter gemfibrozil pharmacokinetics.~A sample size of 13 healthy subjects yielded 81% power to detect a clinically relevant change of 30% in gemfibrozil AUC with concomitant lopinavir-ritonavir (alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.2). Gemfibrozil pharmacokinetic parameters derived pre- and post lopinavir-ritonavir exposure (Days 1 and 14, respectively) were compared using a paired Students t test."||||<0.0001
84550976|NCT01500187|168855527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.636|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at baseline||||0.636
84550977|NCT01500187|168855527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at three months||||0.001
84550978|NCT01500187|168855527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at six months||||0.423
84743547|NCT03980808|169240262|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5376||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Composite scores were calculated for the behavioral self-report tests tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.093
84550979|NCT00750139|168855528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The first primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The first primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H01: p1 ≤ p01 vs. H1: p1 \> p01 where p01 and p1 denote the proportions of complete cure in the placebo 2wks and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.010
84550980|NCT00750139|168855528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The second primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The second primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H02: p2 ≤ P02 vs. H2: P2 \> p02 where p02 and p2 are denote proportions of complete cure in the placebo 4wks and Naftin 1% groups, respectively"||||0.001
84550981|NCT02784613|168855548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Differences in pre- and post-treatment scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-parametric matched pairs. All tests of significance were 2-tailed. All analyses were performed in Stata®, version 13.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84550982|NCT01551264|168855584|OTHER|P-value by chi-square comparing the Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival probability at 1.2 years post treatment with robust estimate of standard error due to the a priori assumption that data from bilateral limbs are correlated.||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84550983|NCT00688662|168855648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.3||The primary analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the factor of interest and clinical center and PSH status as covariates. A Wald test using a two-tailed significance level of 0.0499 was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted and unadjusted risk differences with two-sided 95% confidence intervals are reported in the manuscript.|The unadjusted risk difference and confidence interval was -14.3% (-27.3%, -1.2%).|The trial was designed to test for an overall absolute difference of at least 30% in the primary outcome ('success') in patients treated with sphincterotomy compared to those treated with sham. Using a 2:1 allocation, an assumed 10% non-adherence rate, and one interim analysis for efficacy using O'Brien and Fleming boundaries and futility using conditional power, the study required 214 patients to be randomized to ensure greater than 90% likelihood of identifying this difference.||-3.3|-28.0|0.01
84550984|NCT00688662|168855649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|5.9||A confidence interval approach was used for examining this outcome.||||Only patients with abnormal manometry were included in this subgroup analysis.||5.9|-24.1|
84550985|NCT03386994|168855688|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.0002
84550986|NCT03386994|168855688|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.0007
84743548|NCT01163292|169240313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.144
84743549|NCT01163292|169240313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.004
84550987|NCT03386994|168855688|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||<0.0001
84550988|NCT03386994|168855688|OTHER|||||||0.6839|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6839
84550989|NCT03386994|168855689|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T0||||||0.0020
84550990|NCT03386994|168855689|OTHER|||||||0.1385|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T6||||||0.1385
84550991|NCT03386994|168855689|OTHER|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T12||||||0.0233
84550992|NCT03386994|168855690|OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1560
84550993|NCT03386994|168855690|OTHER|||||||0.3144||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3144
84550994|NCT03386994|168855690|OTHER|||||||0.2019||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2019
84550995|NCT03386994|168855691|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0075
84550996|NCT03386994|168855691|OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0361
84550997|NCT03386994|168855691|OTHER|||||||0.4794||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4794
84550998|NCT03386994|168855692|OTHER|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
84550999|NCT03386994|168855694|OTHER|||||||0.4711|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.4711
84551000|NCT03386994|168855694|OTHER|||||||0.4095|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.4095
84551001|NCT03386994|168855694|OTHER|||||||0.0435|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0435
84551002|NCT03386994|168855694|OTHER|||||||0.5479|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.5479
84551003|NCT03386994|168855696|OTHER|||||||0.7486|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.7486
84551004|NCT03386994|168855696|OTHER|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.7652
84551005|NCT03386994|168855696|OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0037
84551006|NCT03386994|168855696|OTHER|||||||0.6119|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6119
84551007|NCT03386994|168855697|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
84551008|NCT03386994|168855697|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
84551009|NCT03386994|168855697|OTHER|||||||0.7165|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.7165
84551010|NCT03386994|168855697|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||1.0000
84551011|NCT03386994|168855698|OTHER|||||||0.0733|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0733
84743550|NCT01163292|169240313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.006
84551012|NCT03386994|168855700|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0207
84551013|NCT03386994|168855701|OTHER|||||||0.0942|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0942
84551014|NCT03386994|168855702|OTHER|||||||0.0747|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0747
84551015|NCT03386994|168855704|OTHER|||||||0.1282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1282
84551016|NCT03386994|168855705|OTHER|||||||0.7471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7471
84551017|NCT04740827|168855723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.59|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.59|-3.27|<0.0001
84551018|NCT04740827|168855724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.52|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.52|-3.19|<0.0001
84551019|NCT04740827|168855725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.79|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.79|3.02|<0.0001
84743551|NCT01163292|169240314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 0||||0.290
84551020|NCT04740827|168855726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|8.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.14|2.85|<0.0001
84551021|NCT04740827|168855727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.42|-3.15|<0.0001
84743552|NCT01163292|169240314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||1.000
84743553|NCT01163292|169240314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.001
84551022|NCT04740827|168855728|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.32|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.32|-3.05|<0.0001
84551023|NCT04740827|168855729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.93|-3.43|<0.0001
84551024|NCT04740827|168855730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.86|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.86|-3.36|<0.0001
84551025|NCT04740827|168855731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.348|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.05|22.3|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.30|13.05|<0.0001
84551026|NCT04740827|168855732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.34|22.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.42|13.34|<0.0001
84551027|NCT04740827|168855733|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-3.05|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.05|-6.37|<0.0001
84551028|NCT04740827|168855734|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.85|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.85|-5.94|<0.0001
84743554|NCT01163292|169240315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.335
84743555|NCT01163292|169240316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.266
84743556|NCT01163292|169240316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.440
84743557|NCT01163292|169240316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.609
84743558|NCT05319912|169240324|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.23|110.02||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||110.02|52.23|
84551029|NCT04740827|168855735|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.63|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.63|-8.22|<0.0001
84551030|NCT01082211|168855750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming a 3-year rate of 25% using a chi-squared test, a sample size of 55 patients will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a reduction in the 3-year ipsilateral in-breast recurrence rate from 25% to 9%, with a significance level of 0.05 (1-sided). In-breast recurrence will be estimated using the cumulative incidence method.||||0.0002
84551031|NCT01082211|168855758|OTHER||Effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
84551032|NCT01082211|168855758|OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
84551033|NCT01082211|168855758|OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
84551034|NCT01082211|168855759|OTHER||Effect size|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
84551035|NCT01082211|168855759|OTHER||Effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
84551036|NCT01082211|168855759|OTHER||Effect size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
84551037|NCT01082211|168855761|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.054
84551038|NCT01082211|168855761|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.044
84551039|NCT01082211|168855761|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.087
84551040|NCT00174967|168855797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551041|NCT00174967|168855797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84743559|NCT05319912|169240324|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.21|36.89||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||36.89|17.21|
84743560|NCT05319912|169240325|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.91|106.9||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||106.90|63.91|
84551042|NCT00174967|168855797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84743561|NCT05319912|169240325|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|40.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.12|52.68||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||52.68|31.12|
84551043|NCT00174967|168855798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551044|NCT00174967|168855798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551045|NCT00174967|168855798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551046|NCT00174967|168855799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551047|NCT00174967|168855799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551048|NCT00174967|168855799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551049|NCT00174967|168855800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551050|NCT00174967|168855800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551051|NCT00174967|168855800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84551052|NCT00174967|168855801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551053|NCT00174967|168855801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743562|NCT01489891|169240349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta 0.1; Alpha 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84491070|NCT00883896|168732672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.6||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-29.0|0.223
84491071|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-6.8|0.885
84491072|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.6|-3.4|0.180
84491073|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||1.1|-6.5|0.277
84491074|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.3|-7.9|0.740
84491075|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||10.1|-9.3|0.934
84491076|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.6||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.4|-7.7|0.876
84491077|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.2|-11.4|0.842
84491078|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||16.3|-8.1|0.509
84551054|NCT00174967|168855801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551055|NCT00174967|168855802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551056|NCT00174967|168855802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84491079|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.0|-7.0|0.504
84491080|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||17.0|-6.3|0.373
84491081|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.4||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.2|-12.0|0.499
84491082|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.3|-4.2|0.244
84491083|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.2||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.6|-15.0|0.979
84551057|NCT00174967|168855802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551058|NCT00174967|168855803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84491084|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-9.8||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||2.2|-21.8|0.166
84551059|NCT00174967|168855803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551060|NCT00174967|168855803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551061|NCT00174967|168855804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551062|NCT00174967|168855804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551063|NCT00174967|168855804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84743563|NCT00777088|169240362|NON_INFERIORITY|The cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death is not ≥ 20% at 180-day clinical follow-up and the cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurovascular death is not ≥ 25% at 5-year clinical follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<.001
84491085|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.5||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.2|-13.2|0.947
84491086|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|8.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.8|-7.1|0.286
84491087|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-15.0|0.822
84491088|NCT00883896|168732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.1|-12.3|0.986
84491089|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
84491090|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-2.3|0.188
84491091|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 2: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
84491092|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.6|-4.5|0.699
84491093|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.8|-3.0|0.155
84491094|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.9|-2.9|0.546
84551064|NCT00174967|168855805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551065|NCT00174967|168855805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551066|NCT00174967|168855805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551067|NCT00174967|168855806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551068|NCT00174967|168855806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551069|NCT00174967|168855806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84551070|NCT00601172|168855834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
84551071|NCT00601172|168855835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||3.8|-1.8|0.4771
84551072|NCT00601172|168855836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6|||Pooled Z test|p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
84551073|NCT00601172|168855837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|6.0||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.5||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||11.5|0.5|0.0317
84551074|NCT00601172|168855838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||||0.0560
84551075|NCT00601172|168855838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||||0.0443
84551076|NCT00601172|168855838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||||0.1709
84551077|NCT00601172|168855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
84551078|NCT00601172|168855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-0.9||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.0|-2.7|0.3545
84551079|NCT00601172|168855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
84551080|NCT00601172|168855840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
84551081|NCT00601172|168855840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.4|-3.1|0.4507
84551082|NCT00601172|168855840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
84551083|NCT00601172|168855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
84551084|NCT00601172|168855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.9|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||3.9|-2.3|0.6101
84551085|NCT00601172|168855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
84551086|NCT00601172|168855842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.8||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.9|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||8.9|-1.2|0.1356
84551087|NCT00601172|168855842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
84551088|NCT00601172|168855842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
84551089|NCT00601172|168855843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
84551090|NCT00601172|168855843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||4.2|-3.2|0.7883
84551091|NCT00601172|168855843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
84551092|NCT00601172|168855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
84551093|NCT00601172|168855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||0.5|-9.9|0.0800
84551094|NCT00601172|168855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
84551095|NCT00601172|168855845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.9|4.7|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Nausea Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||4.7|-9.9|
84743564|NCT00777088|169240363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The rate of complete IA occlusion without major parent artery stenosis exceeds 50% with a posterior probability \>0.975.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<0.001
84743565|NCT03592745|169240373|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|32.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84743566|NCT03592745|169240373|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|87.0||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
84752899|NCT02645760|169261096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.68 points in mean disability score (RMDQ score) between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.009
84551096|NCT00601172|168855845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7||||||97.5|-5.2|6.6|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Vomiting Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||6.6|-5.2|
84551097|NCT00601172|168855846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
84752900|NCT02645760|169261097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.79 centimeter in mean range of motion between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.013
84752901|NCT02645760|169261098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.30 centimeter in mean repositioning error between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.012
84752902|NCT02267603|169261099|OTHER|The null hypothesis will be rejected if 3 or more responses are observed in 24 patients. This design yields a type I error rate of 0.10 and power of 0.90 when the true response rate is 25%. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 months will be estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Unless otherwise stated, all statistical tests will be conducted at the α=0.05 (1-sided) level.||||||||||||||||The protocol was designed w/ a standard Simon 2 stage design. Null hypothesis that true response rate is 5% was tested against a 1-sided alternative. In stage 1, 9 patients were accrued. If no responses in these 9 patients, study was to stop. Otherwise,15 more patients were to be accrued for a total of 24 patients. Study was amended to increase number of patients to 50, following discussion w/ pharmaceutical collaborator and FDA.|ORR will be estimated as the # of responders as a % of the # of eligible participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. If a substantial amount of primary endpoint data are missing (at least 1 value missing from more than 20% of participants), using nonparametric estimation to estimate the ORR requires the missing completely at random assumption may give misleading results. In this case, analyses of the primary endpoint will be performed using parametric generalized linear models fit by maximum likelihood. These methods provide unbiased estimation and inferences under the parametric modeling assumptions and the assumption that the missing data are missing at random (MAR). MAR assumes that the probability of an observation being missing may depend upon the observed responses and upon observed covariates. A generalized linear model for the ORR will use a binomial error distribution. The model will include as covariates all available baseline predictors of the missing outcomes.|||
84752903|NCT03829241|169261239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||1.30|-1.45|0.917
84752904|NCT00698451|169261245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|72.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|83.5|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||83.5|58.4|0.05
84491095|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
84491096|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.1|-1.8|0.269
84491097|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.723
84491098|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
84551098|NCT00601172|168855846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-24 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.2908
84551099|NCT00601172|168855846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (24-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
84491099|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 8: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
84491100|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.4|-1.3|0.125
84491101|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-1.7|0.071
84491102|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.1|-1.2|0.317
84491103|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.280
84491104|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-7.6|0.892
84491105|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.2|-8.3|0.903
84491106|NCT00883896|168732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||3.8|-7.2|0.625
84491107|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.900
84491108|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.522
84491109|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.147
84491110|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.534
84491111|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.206
84491112|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.070
84491113|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.936|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.936
84491114|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.625
84491115|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.586|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.586
84491116|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.685
84491117|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.340
84491118|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.212
84491119|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.455|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.455
84491120|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.145
84491121|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.660
84491122|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.050
84491123|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.428
84491124|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.160
84491125|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.757
84491126|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.408
84491127|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.983|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.983
84491128|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.374
84491129|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.992
84491130|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.422
84491131|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.743|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.743
84669279|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84491132|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.188
84491133|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.385|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.385
84491134|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.148
84491135|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.304
84491136|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.552
84491137|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.494
84551100|NCT00712881|168855905|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|2-sided, binomial proportions|||||||0.154
84551101|NCT02651155|168855954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Van Elteren Test|SBM was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|||1.0|0.1|0.003
84491138|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.421
84491139|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.418
84491140|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.235
84491141|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.268
84491142|NCT00883896|168732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.957
84491143|NCT01856920|168732727|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha= 0.05||||||0.376|||||||Rank-Sum|||||||0.3760
84491144|NCT03802331|168732769|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|166.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.17|192.53|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.0.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||192.53|143.17|
84491145|NCT03802331|168732770|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ajusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|235.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.82|308.42|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 35.4.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||308.42|179.82|
84491146|NCT03802331|168732771|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|159.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.11|181.34|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||181.34|140.11|
84743567|NCT03592745|169240373|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|95.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
84743568|NCT03592745|169240373|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|98.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.777
84743569|NCT03592745|169240374|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|112.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84551102|NCT00537316|168855960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
84551103|NCT01098500|168855980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||3.5|0.9|
84551104|NCT01098500|168855981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT (\<1 times ULN) at baseline. IR expressed per 100 person years.|||9.0|3.3|
84551105|NCT01098500|168855982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with Hy's Law divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||1.4|0.1|
84551106|NCT01098500|168855983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with Hy's Law after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT, AST, ALP, and BIL (\< 1 times ULN) at baseline. IR is expressed per 100 person years.|||2.0|0.0|
84743570|NCT03592745|169240374|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up) was assessed with the Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|110.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.950
84743571|NCT02729831|169240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0|||Regression, Linear|||The comparison groups were: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid.||12|6|<0.001
84743572|NCT02729831|169240377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups were: MD Usual Care vs. MD Provider report.||1.44|0.74|0.86
84743573|NCT02729831|169240377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups are: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid||1.47|0.76|0.75
84743574|NCT02729831|169240378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|24.5|||Chi-squared|Compared patients who reported using all of the DA compared to everyone else.||Comparison groups were: patients who reported using all of the DA versus everyone else.||24.5|12.8|<0.001
84551107|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic.||||0.2437
84551108|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic||||0.2000
84551109|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.3240
84551110|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|Gait Speed Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||||0.5123|||||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5123
84551111|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.6920
84551112|NCT03452488|168855992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.0850
84551113|NCT03452488|168855993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9408
84551114|NCT03452488|168855993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9485
84743575|NCT02729831|169240379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.065|||Regression, Linear|Generalized Estimating Equation accounting for clustering within surgeons. Model included treatment, sex, age, education, site and joint.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered decision yes vs. no.||0.065|0.016|<0.001
84491147|NCT00368069|168732773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155||||0.038||95.0|0.009|0.301|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on (log-) POS freq/week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline POS freq/week as covariate.||||0.301|0.009|0.038
84551115|NCT03452488|168855993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9848|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.9848
84743576|NCT02729831|169240380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Regression, Logistic|General estimating equations were used to account for clustering of patients within surgeons.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered (IPC) decision yes vs. no. We excluded those who did not provide information to calculate the IPC variable.||40.1|16.5|<0.001
84743577|NCT01241604|169240424|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent non-parametric tests||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test|||||||.753
84743578|NCT01133418|169240450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|General Linear Model|||||||.36
84743579|NCT01133418|169240451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.86
84743580|NCT01133418|169240452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.79
84743581|NCT01133418|169240453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.77
84743582|NCT00969709|169240463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.23||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.54|-5.92|0.0186
84743583|NCT00969709|169240463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.29|-6.69|0.0038
84743584|NCT00969709|169240463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.86||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-2.12|-7.59|0.0005
84743585|NCT00969709|169240464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.60|-3.42|0.1687
84743586|NCT00969709|169240464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-2.51||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.49|-4.54|0.0151
84491148|NCT00368069|168732773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.4||||||95.0|0.9|26.0|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over PBO is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS freq/week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.0|0.9|
84491149|NCT00368069|168732775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.158||||0.034||95.0|0.012|0.305|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) seizure frequency per week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate.||||0.305|0.012|0.034
84491150|NCT00368069|168732775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.7||||||95.0|1.2|26.3|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.3|1.2|
84491151|NCT00368069|168732776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07||95.0|0.95|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis including Treatment as a factor.|Based on the number of evaluable patients. A patient is considered as evaluable for the response status if he has seizure information in at least one of the period (baseline or treatment period.|||3.55|0.95|0.070
84491152|NCT00368069|168732777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects with missing data during the Treatment period were considered in the category \<-25%.||||||0.033
84491153|NCT00368069|168732778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.341|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) Treatment POS frequency per week with Treatment and (log-) Baseline POS frequency per week as covariate||||0.341|0.070|0.003
84491154|NCT00368069|168732778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|18.6||||||95.0|6.7|28.9|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||28.9|6.7|
84491155|NCT03970330|168732813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1123.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-755.0|3000.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||3000|-755|0.20
84491156|NCT03970330|168732814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at BASELINE||59.6|-1.9|0.06
84491157|NCT03970330|168732814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|41.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||41.2|-20.3|0.48
84491158|NCT03970330|168732814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||49.6|-11.8|0.21
84491159|NCT03970330|168732814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||46.2|-15.2|0.30
84743587|NCT00969709|169240464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.57||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.52|-4.62|0.0141
84551116|NCT03452488|168855993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5017
84551117|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.5200
84551118|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.3577
84551119|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9237|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.9237
84551120|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7629|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.7629
84551121|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Change from Baseline in Handgrip Strength Test (left hand)||||0.5695
84551122|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3523|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Left hand)||||0.3523
84551123|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5652|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.5652
84669280|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
84491160|NCT03970330|168732814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||37.5|-24.0|0.65
84491161|NCT03970330|168732815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.07
84551124|NCT03452488|168855994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.2472
84551125|NCT03452488|168855995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9859||||||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM|ANCOVA|||||||0.9859
84551126|NCT03452488|168855995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM||||0.4040
84743588|NCT02075476|169240468|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
84491162|NCT03970330|168732815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.07
84491163|NCT03970330|168732815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.06
84551127|NCT03452488|168855996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1219|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1219
84551128|NCT03452488|168855996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0520
84551129|NCT03452488|168855997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8917|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8917
84551130|NCT03452488|168855997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2172||0.6317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.777|16.778|||ANCOVA|||||16.778|-26.777|0.6317
84551131|NCT03452488|168855998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
84551132|NCT03452488|168855998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
84551133|NCT03452488|168855999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8824|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8824
84551134|NCT03452488|168855999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1578
84551135|NCT03452488|168856000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0511
84551136|NCT03452488|168856000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2771|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2771
84551137|NCT03452488|168856001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8084
84551138|NCT03452488|168856001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7266
84551139|NCT03452488|168856002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2312
84551140|NCT03452488|168856002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2701
84551141|NCT03452488|168856003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8934
84551142|NCT03452488|168856003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3526
84551143|NCT04016779|168856004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.2|-6.2|0.0040
84551144|NCT04016779|168856005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0023
84551145|NCT04016779|168856006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|5.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||16.1|-5.0|0.3030
84551146|NCT04016779|168856007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0076
84551147|NCT04016779|168856008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|10.7||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||22.1|-1.0|0.0744
84551148|NCT04016779|168856009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.8|-0.9|0.9205
84551149|NCT04016779|168856010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.0|0.0015
84743589|NCT02075476|169240469|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84551150|NCT04016779|168856011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.0380
84743590|NCT02075476|169240470|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84551151|NCT04016779|168856012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|12.4||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.8|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||23.8|0.6|0.0395
84743591|NCT02914275|169240478|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||0.88|0.72|
84743592|NCT02914275|169240478|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.42|1.15|
84743593|NCT02914275|169240478|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.24|1.01|
84743594|NCT02914275|169240478|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.09|0.86|
84743595|NCT02914275|169240479|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||-5.1|-15.4|
84551152|NCT04016779|168856013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|6.4||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.5|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||17.5|-5.0|0.2736
84743596|NCT02914275|169240479|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||7.8|-2.54|
84743597|NCT02914275|169240479|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||8.2|-2.1|
84743598|NCT02914275|169240479|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||6.1|-4.2|
84491164|NCT03970330|168732815|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||1.00
84491165|NCT03970330|168732816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treament groups at WEEK 4||||0.29
84491166|NCT03970330|168732816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.24
84491167|NCT03970330|168732816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.20
84491168|NCT03970330|168732816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.53
84491169|NCT03970330|168732817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.37
84491170|NCT03970330|168732817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.39
84491171|NCT03970330|168732817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.37
84491172|NCT03970330|168732817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.39
84491173|NCT03970330|168732818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||9.2|-0.6|0.08
84491174|NCT03485976|168732844|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84491175|NCT03485976|168732845|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84491176|NCT03485976|168732846|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84491177|NCT03742271|168732865|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded in the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.50.|Proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|0.995|||Binomial Exact Test|||This study was powered to test the hypothesis that at least 50% will have an acceptable lens fitting.||0.995|0.925|
84491178|NCT00890396|168732866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.67
84491179|NCT00890396|168732867|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||>0.99
84491180|NCT00890396|168732868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.61
84491181|NCT00890396|168732869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.78
84491182|NCT00890396|168732870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.80
84491183|NCT00890396|168732871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
84491184|NCT00890396|168732872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.85
84491185|NCT00890396|168732873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.95
84743599|NCT00872989|169240488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.79|0.49
84743600|NCT00872989|169240490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.93|0.83
84491186|NCT00890396|168732874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.40
84491187|NCT00890396|168732875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
84491188|NCT00440232|168732876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.969||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.235|||Chi-squared|||||5.235|0.74|0.172
84491189|NCT00440232|168732877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log rank chi square|1.247||||0.264||95.0|||||Log Rank|df=1||||||0.264
84491190|NCT00362297|168732878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident Risk Ratio|0.79||||0.052||95.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||Comparison of genital HSV shedding rate on high dose acyclovir to standard dose valacyclovir. Powered with 80% chance of detecting 50% reduction in genital shedding rate on high dose acyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||1.00|0.63|0.052
84491191|NCT02514889|168732886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.91||a priori threshold is p = .017, so that experiment-wide critical alpha would be p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: sex, age, ethnicity, marital status and educational attainment|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||1.91|-6.12|0.30
84491192|NCT02514889|168732887|EQUIVALENCE|p-value \>0.20 would be considered equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1342|5.3228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status||||5.3228|-0.1342|0.06
84491193|NCT02514889|168732888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||3.63|-6.37|0.504
84491194|NCT02514889|168732889|SUPERIORITY|Difference in differences|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status|The difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.74|-6.47|0.30
84491195|NCT02514889|168732890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.39|-1.47|0.640
84491196|NCT02514889|168732891|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be equivalent, as predicted, the critical alpha was set at P \> 0.20.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||0.22|-.31|0.747
84491197|NCT02514889|168732892|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be judged equivalent, as predicted, the critical p-value was set to P \>.20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||1.14|-0.85|0.776
84491198|NCT05111548|168732893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.923
84491199|NCT05111548|168732894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.110
84551153|NCT04016779|168856014|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.8|0.0468
84743601|NCT00923260|169240524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84743602|NCT00923260|169240525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84491200|NCT05111548|168732895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.818
84491201|NCT05111548|168732896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.130
84491202|NCT03330275|168732904|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.25 was used. Non-inferioirty was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was above 0.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.183|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|It was calculated that a total of 24 participants was required to show that the Test lens is non-inferior to the control 1 lens with 80% power. Sample size for this study was based on night driving only.||0.183|-0.045|
84491203|NCT03330275|168732905|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR was used. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit was below 0.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|-0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||-0.012|-0.043|
84491204|NCT03330275|168732906|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|22.604|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||22.604|0.442|
84743603|NCT00923260|169240526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84743604|NCT00923260|169240527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
84743605|NCT00923260|169240528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84743606|NCT00923260|169240529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84743607|NCT00923260|169240530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84551154|NCT04016779|168856015|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.8|0.4462
84551155|NCT04016779|168856016|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-5.9|0.0100
84551156|NCT04016779|168856017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2186
84551157|NCT04016779|168856018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.5|0.0344
84551158|NCT04016779|168856019|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-1.1|0.3680
84551159|NCT04016779|168856020|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.7|0.6361
84551160|NCT04016779|168856021|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-4.0|0.1708
84551161|NCT04016779|168856022|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.0|0.0094
84551162|NCT04016779|168856023|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.1|0.0104
84551163|NCT04016779|168856024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-4.9|0.0178
84551164|NCT04016779|168856025|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-5.8|0.0187
84551165|NCT00281632|168856027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Reponse rate|31.0||||||95.0|16.3|48.1|||||50% Response Rate (Normalized and Non-Normalized)|||48.1|16.3|
84551166|NCT00281632|168856031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|17.6||||||95.0|3.8|43.4|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||43.4|3.8|
84551167|NCT00281632|168856031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|21.1||||||95.0|6.1|45.6|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||45.6|6.1|
84551168|NCT00281632|168856031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|19.4||||||95.0|8.2|36.0|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||36.0|8.2|
84551169|NCT01876784|168856056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Vandetanib 300 mg vs Placebo|A multiple testing procedure (MTP) with an alpha-exhaustive recycling strategy was employed to provide adequate control of type I error.||1.03|0.55|0.080
84551170|NCT05239494|168856076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Shapiro-Wilks|||This study used a ±50 VAS scale, with values in the positive and negative range indicating that the contact lenses were comfortable or uncomfortable, respectively. A score of zero on this scale indicated neutral CL comfort.||||<0.001
84551171|NCT00732758|168856090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline 25(OH)D, race, BMI, diet vitamin D, gender, pubertal status, and sunlight exposure.||||||0.003
84551172|NCT00732758|168856091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted p-values||||||0.51
84551173|NCT00732758|168856092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84551174|NCT00732758|168856093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84551175|NCT03382834|168856095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that tamoxifen would enhance the HIV transcription effect of vorinostat (i.e., log10 change would be greater in Arm A than Arm B)||||||0.68
84551176|NCT03382834|168856097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84551177|NCT01167881|168856102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.87|-4.05||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.05|-4.87|<0.0001
84551178|NCT01167881|168856103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|<0.0001
84743608|NCT00923260|169240531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84743609|NCT00923260|169240532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84743610|NCT00923260|169240533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84743611|NCT00923260|169240534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84743612|NCT00923260|169240535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84743613|NCT00923260|169240536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84743614|NCT00923260|169240537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84743615|NCT00923260|169240538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84743616|NCT00923260|169240539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84743617|NCT00923260|169240540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84743618|NCT00923260|169240541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84743619|NCT00923260|169240542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84743620|NCT00923260|169240543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84551179|NCT01167881|168856103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|0.0153
84743621|NCT00923260|169240544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84491205|NCT03330275|168732907|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control1|||1.16|0.82|
84743622|NCT00923260|169240545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84743623|NCT00923260|169240546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84743624|NCT00923260|169240547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84743625|NCT00923260|169240548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84743626|NCT00923260|169240549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84491206|NCT03330275|168732908|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|28.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||28.5|7.1|
84491207|NCT03330275|168732909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||1.74|0.33|
84491208|NCT03330275|168732910|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|20.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator Degrees of Freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||20.7|-11.4|
84491209|NCT01101321|168732914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|104.96|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.96|96.14|
84491210|NCT01101321|168732915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.44|101.73|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.73|95.44|
84491211|NCT01101321|168732916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.42|101.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.70|95.42|
84491212|NCT02839330|168732940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #2||1.13|0.90|
84491213|NCT02839330|168732940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08||||||aH5N1c Lot #2 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.08|0.86|
84491214|NCT02839330|168732940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.09|0.87|
84491215|NCT00661362|168732967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.55|<0.0001
84491216|NCT00661362|168732968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.85|<0.0002
84743627|NCT00923260|169240550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84743628|NCT00923260|169240551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84743629|NCT00923260|169240552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84743630|NCT00923260|169240553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84743631|NCT00923260|169240554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84743632|NCT00923260|169240555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84743633|NCT00923260|169240556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84743634|NCT00923260|169240557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84743635|NCT00923260|169240558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84743636|NCT00923260|169240559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84743637|NCT00923260|169240560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84743638|NCT00923260|169240561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84743639|NCT00923260|169240562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84743640|NCT00923260|169240563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84743641|NCT00923260|169240564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84743642|NCT00923260|169240565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84743643|NCT00923260|169240566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84743644|NCT00923260|169240567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84743645|NCT00923260|169240568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84743646|NCT00923260|169240569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84743647|NCT00923260|169240570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84743648|NCT00923260|169240571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84743649|NCT00923260|169240572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84743650|NCT00923260|169240573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84743651|NCT00923260|169240574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84743652|NCT00923260|169240575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84743653|NCT00923260|169240576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84743654|NCT00923260|169240577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84743655|NCT00923260|169240578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84491217|NCT00661362|168732969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-15.37|<0.0002
84491218|NCT00661362|168732970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-155.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.0||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA|||||-47|-264|0.0052
84743656|NCT00923260|169240579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84743657|NCT00923260|169240580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84743658|NCT00923260|169240581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84743659|NCT00923260|169240582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84743660|NCT00923260|169240583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84743661|NCT00923260|169240584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84743662|NCT00923260|169240585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84743663|NCT00923260|169240586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84743664|NCT00923260|169240587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84743665|NCT05540717|169240653|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.25||||0.00048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-9.49|-31.0|0.00048
84743666|NCT05540717|169240654|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.2||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|-10.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-10.27|-30.13|0.00032
84743667|NCT05540717|169240655|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-26.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|-11.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on peak GPS||-11.94|-41.15|0.00080
84743668|NCT05540717|169240655|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect.|relative difference (%)|-26.6||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-12.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on entire GPS||-12.72|-40.49|0.00031
84743669|NCT05540717|169240656|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.35||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-6.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on peak GPS||-6.44|-26.27|0.00223
84743670|NCT05540717|169240656|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.58||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on entire GPS||||0.00076
84743671|NCT05540717|169240657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect, Baseline total RQLQ score as covariate and pooled geographical region as random effect||Average Total RQLQ Score During Peak GPS||-0.23|-0.76|0.00032
84743672|NCT05540717|169240658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Visit 7 of serum grass-specific IgG4 \[mg/L\]||4.7|3.28|<0.00001
84743673|NCT05540717|169240659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.10846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|The probability of a well day was calculated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) or similar approaches as appropriate.||Probability of Well Days During Peak (truncated) GPS||1.652|0.951|0.10846
84743674|NCT03377699|169240676|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Primary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.08|-0.31|<0.0001
84743675|NCT03377699|169240676|EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.11|-0.27|0.3881
84743676|NCT00774930|169240710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|This analysis does not include any imputation for the early roll over subjects||||||0.0165
84743677|NCT00774930|169240711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2544|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment group and 2 stratification variables at randomisation as factors and average frequency of diarrhoea per day during Screening||||||0.2544
84551180|NCT01167881|168856104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.173||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||0.173|0.060|<0.0001
84743678|NCT01177800|169240742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84743679|NCT01177800|169240743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 10: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
84743680|NCT01177800|169240744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84743681|NCT01177800|169240745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 26: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
84743682|NCT04032613|169240747|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.2||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.20
84743683|NCT04032613|169240748|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.05||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.05
84743684|NCT04032613|169240749|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.004||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.004
84743685|NCT04032613|169240750|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.14||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.14
84743686|NCT05126563|169240758|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Extreme fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.53|-1.42|0.9416
84743687|NCT05126563|169240759|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.2|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.20|-1.54|0.8021
84743688|NCT05126563|169240760|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.43|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms. - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.43|-0.63|0.4417
84743689|NCT05126563|169240761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.98|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.98|-0.90|0.4550
84743690|NCT05126563|169240762|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.89|-0.98|0.9200
84743691|NCT05126563|169240763|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-0.88|0.6589
84743692|NCT05126563|169240764|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.61|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms Extreme Fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.61|-1.29|0.8240
84743693|NCT05126563|169240765|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.36|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain Fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.36|-1.38|0.9892
84743694|NCT05126563|169240766|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.3952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.47|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.47|-0.59|0.3952
84743695|NCT05126563|169240767|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.94|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep Disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.87|0.4504
84743696|NCT05126563|169240768|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.78|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.78|-1.10|0.7318
84743697|NCT05126563|169240769|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.5485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.5|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Smell scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.50|-0.93|0.5485
84743698|NCT05126563|169240800|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.44|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea at rest scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.44|-1.19|0.3577
84743699|NCT05126563|169240801|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea during activity scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.92|-1.33|0.7196
84743700|NCT05126563|169240802|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Cough scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-1.18|0.4847
84551181|NCT01167881|168856105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.2|-7.0|<0.0001
84551182|NCT01167881|168856106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-1.8||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-1.8|-3.5|<0.0001
84571301|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84743701|NCT05126563|169240803|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.94|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Body aches scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.71|0.3535
84743702|NCT05126563|169240804|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.78|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Joint Pain scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.78|-0.84|0.4746
84743703|NCT05126563|169240805|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-1.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.141||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|2.85|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Subject's energy - Fatigue Assessment form scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.85|-5.72|0.5059
84743704|NCT05126563|169240806|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-6.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|3.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (General Health) between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||3.89|-16.08|0.2269
84491219|NCT00661362|168732971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2802.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|989.8||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4753.0|-852.0|||ANCOVA|||||-852|-4753|0.0052
84491220|NCT00661362|168732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|8.0|<0.0001
84491221|NCT01707667|168732974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.9|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||9.9|1.6|0.012
84491222|NCT01707667|168732975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69051.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12004.5|150107.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||150107.3|-12004.5|0.079
84491223|NCT01707667|168732976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|63.7|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||63.7|-45.3|0.717
84491224|NCT01707667|168732977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.295
84743705|NCT05126563|169240807|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.8735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.66|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.66|-2.91|0.8735
84551183|NCT01167881|168856107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.02|-0.16|<0.0001
84551184|NCT01167881|168856108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.16|-4.46||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.46|-5.16|<0.0001
84551185|NCT01167881|168856109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.148||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.148|0.040|<0.0001
84551186|NCT01167881|168856110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.3|-4.4||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.4|-7.3|<0.0001
84551187|NCT01167881|168856111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|-2.0||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-2.0|-3.7|<0.0001
84551188|NCT00977314|168856140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint was the calculated difference between the HINT result for the unaided condition prior to the 30-day trial period (Day 1) and the HINT result using the SoundBite (aided) at the end of the 30-day trial period (Day 30).||||<0.001
84551189|NCT00556933|168856164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
84551190|NCT00556933|168856165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.45
84669281|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743706|NCT05126563|169240808|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-3.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|6.22|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||6.22|-13.07|0.4802
84551191|NCT00556933|168856166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84551192|NCT00556933|168856167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
84551193|NCT00556933|168856168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.67
84743707|NCT02503852|169240823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
84743708|NCT02503852|169240823|OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||P value cited is the difference in non-vellus hair count between the low-dose ADRC NW3 group and the no-fat saline control at week 24|ANCOVA|||Non-vellus hair count in the low-dose ADRC group in the NW3 subgroup beginning at Week 6 (mean change from baseline persisting through weeks 12 , 24, and 52.||||0.0318
84743709|NCT03231800|169240825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.351|-3.137|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects.||-3.137|-7.351|<0.001
84743710|NCT03231800|169240828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.612||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|25.017|||ANCOVA|||||25.017|2.694|0.016
84743711|NCT03231800|169240829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|23.017|||ANCOVA|||||23.017|1.105|0.031
84743712|NCT04075994|169240839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Proportion of days covered assessed as a continuous measure (range 0-1) at 12 months between study arms adjusted for trial stratification factors (type of anticoagulant treatment). We determined that a sample size of 120 in the intervention group and 120 in the control group enables us to detect a minimum difference in PDC as small as 12.6% with 90% power. Power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.22
84743713|NCT01247285|169240845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.37|119.38|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.38|97.37|
84743714|NCT01247285|169240846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.14|92.90|
84551194|NCT00556933|168856169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.193
84551195|NCT00556933|168856170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.422
84551196|NCT00556933|168856171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.871
84743715|NCT01247285|169240847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|108.56|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.56|93.53|
84743716|NCT01247285|169240848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.53|111.64|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.64|98.53|
84743717|NCT01247285|169240849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|111.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.56|99.97|
84752905|NCT00596934|169261251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in each collected parameter will be evaluated using a paired t-test. If data are skewed such as in triglyceride levels, nonparametric tests will be used. P\<0.05 will be considered significant. If a significant difference can be demonstrated between baseline and 1-year results, a large scale, placebo-controlled trial will be designed using the data obtained from this pilot study||||0.015
84491225|NCT01707667|168732978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.107|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||0.107|-0.465|0.180
84491226|NCT01707667|168732979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|44.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||44.3|-12.6|0.225
84491227|NCT03432819|168732989|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.24||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.03|||Regression, Linear|||||19.03|-0.55|0.06
84491228|NCT03432819|168732990|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Linear|||||8.30|0.70|0.02
84604449|NCT02836873|168959414|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.28||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||This is a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis including region, screening anti-diabetic treatment regimen, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline HbA1c as a fixed effect covariate. Data from Weeks 6, 12, and 24 are used in the model.||-0.10|-0.46|0.0026
84604450|NCT02836873|168959415|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.03|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-1.03|-2.50|< 0.0001
84604451|NCT02836873|168959416|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.44|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||1.44|-6.70|0.2035
84743718|NCT01247285|169240850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|107.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.77|94.76|
84743719|NCT01141647|169240851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|7.07||||||||7.07|1.80|
84551197|NCT00556933|168856172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.068
84604452|NCT02836873|168959417|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.2||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||0.05|-0.44|0.1156
84604453|NCT02836873|168959418|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-0.10|-0.65|0.0078
84743720|NCT01941719|169240857|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the enhanced education is no better and no worse than the standard education|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1212||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level set at 0.05|ANCOVA|At each follow-up point, multivariate ANCOVA models were used to test for significant changes from the baseline||A mixed-effect model with repeated measures is used to compare the difference of group over time.||||0.0770
84743721|NCT01941719|169240858|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the new treatment is no better and no worse||||||0.6638||||||The threshold of significance level set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6638
84743722|NCT01941719|169240859|EQUIVALENCE|The test will compare the number of complications between the two groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
84743723|NCT02643472|169240895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.73
84743724|NCT02643472|169240896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||STAI Y-1 data was used in these statistical analyses.||||0.12
84743725|NCT02643472|169240897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.03
84743726|NCT02643472|169240900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.06
84551198|NCT00556933|168856173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84551199|NCT00556933|168856174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
84551200|NCT00556933|168856175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
84551201|NCT03425396|168856223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.6|-16.8|
84551202|NCT03425396|168856223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-27.4|
84551203|NCT03425396|168856223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|7.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.4|-19.6|
84669282|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743727|NCT02643472|169240901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84743728|NCT02643472|169240902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84743729|NCT02643472|169240903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84743730|NCT02643472|169240904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Cognitive subscale.||||0.92
84743731|NCT02643472|169240904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Language subscale.||||0.58
84743732|NCT02643472|169240904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Motor subscale.||||0.87
84752906|NCT00596934|169261252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84752907|NCT00596934|169261253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||p = 0.074|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
84551204|NCT03425396|168856223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
84551205|NCT03425396|168856224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.2|-14.3|
84551206|NCT03425396|168856224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.0|-16.8|
84743733|NCT02310100|169240932|OTHER|This is a one-group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.673||||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.608||||Exact binomial|||H0: PE ≤ 54.9% Ha: PE \> 54.9% Where PE is the primary effectiveness endpoint rate.|||0.608|0.0008
84743734|NCT02310100|169240933|OTHER|One group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.081||||0.0013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Exact binomial|||H0: PS ≥ 16.2% Ha: PS \< 16.2% where PS is the primary safety endpoint rate||0.124||0.0013
84743735|NCT01253018|169240959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Sample size and power calculations were performed based on the difference in the FM score between the two groups with an assumed within group SD of 15.9, the correlation of 0.5 among repeated measures. 30 subjects enrolled in each arm of the study would give 80% power for detecting a difference of 8 points on the FM.~Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at final training (12 week)."||||<0.05
84491229|NCT03432819|168732991|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.10|0.39
84491230|NCT03432819|168732992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.20|-0.37|0.54
84491231|NCT03432819|168732993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.14|-0.18|0.81
84491232|NCT03432819|168732994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.01|-0.37|0.06
84491233|NCT03432819|168732995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.13|-0.78|0.16
84491234|NCT03432819|168732996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||-0.09|-0.84|0.02
84491235|NCT03432819|168732997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.47|-0.32|0.71
84491236|NCT03432819|168732998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.06|-0.73|0.10
84491237|NCT01430559|168733023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
84743736|NCT01253018|169240959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at retention (24 weeks).||||<0.05
84551207|NCT03425396|168856224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.3|-12.3|
84491238|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 2)||-0.09|-0.65|0.0103
84551208|NCT03425396|168856224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
84551209|NCT03425396|168856225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|16.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||16.8|-22.5|
84551210|NCT03425396|168856225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|14.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.2|-23.3|
84551211|NCT03425396|168856225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||22.6|-13.0|
84551212|NCT03425396|168856225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
84551213|NCT03425396|168856226|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.4|-10.0|
84551214|NCT03425396|168856226|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.7|-16.2|
84551215|NCT03425396|168856226|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.5|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||18.5|-0.3|
84551216|NCT03425396|168856226|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatm,ent difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.6|-34.9|
84551217|NCT03425396|168856227|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|12.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.6|-12.6|
84551218|NCT03425396|168856227|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|10.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||10.2|-16.3|
84551219|NCT03425396|168856227|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|17.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||17.7|-4.5|
84752908|NCT00596934|169261254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84491239|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.67|0.0295
84491240|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 8)||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
84491241|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
84491242|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.64|0.0369
84491243|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 4)||0.15|-0.54|0.2642
84743737|NCT01253018|169240961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at final training 12 week.||||<0.05
84743738|NCT01253018|169240961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at retention 24 weeks.||||<0.05
84743739|NCT01253018|169240962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at final training week 12.||||<0.05
84491244|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 8)||-0.10|-0.84|0.0140
84491245|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 12)||-0.28|-1.06|0.0009
84551220|NCT03425396|168856227|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
84551221|NCT03425396|168856228|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.3|-27.3|
84551222|NCT03425396|168856228|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.6|-29.2|
84551223|NCT03425396|168856228|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.2|-19.0|
84551224|NCT03425396|168856228|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
84551225|NCT03425396|168856229|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-18.6|
84551226|NCT03425396|168856229|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-0.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-0.6|-29.6|
84551227|NCT03425396|168856229|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.4|-23.2|
84551228|NCT03425396|168856229|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
84743740|NCT01253018|169240962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at retention week 24.||||<0.05
84551229|NCT03425396|168856230|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-13.1|
84551230|NCT03425396|168856230|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-20.7|
84551231|NCT03425396|168856230|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|11.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.6|-15.1|
84743741|NCT00291642|169240967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||||-2.09|-4.61|<0.001
84743742|NCT00291642|169240967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.00|-4.50|<0.001
84743743|NCT00291642|169240967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-5.38|<0.001
84743744|NCT00291642|169240967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.49|||ANCOVA|||||-2.49|-4.99|<0.001
84743745|NCT01472549|169241015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.9|||Chi-squared|||||0.90|0.34|0.02
84743746|NCT01472549|169241016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84743747|NCT01472549|169241017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|0.43|0.37
84743748|NCT01472549|169241018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.30|0.49
84743749|NCT01472549|169241019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84743750|NCT01472549|169241020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.11|||Fisher Exact|||||22.11|0.18|0.56
84491246|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 2)||-0.17|-0.72|0.0017
84743751|NCT02327351|169241023|SUPERIORITY||survival distribution function|86.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|94.0|||Gray test|||||94|79|0.95
84743752|NCT02327351|169241029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
84491247|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 4)||-0.03|-0.66|0.0328
84491248|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.86|0.0043
84491249|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.19|<0.0001
84491250|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 2)||-0.12|-0.65|0.0051
84491251|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 4)||0.01|-0.61|0.0593
84491252|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.84|0.0046
84491253|NCT01430559|168733024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 12)||-0.39|-1.14|<0.0001
84491254|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 2)||-0.30|-0.94|0.0002
84491255|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 4)||-0.22|-0.92|0.0015
84491256|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 8)||-0.32|-1.08|0.0003
84491257|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.51||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 12)||-0.51|-1.34|<0.0001
84491258|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.67|0.0363
84491259|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.75|0.0311
84491260|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
84491261|NCT01430559|168733025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.64||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 12)||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
84743753|NCT05086276|169241041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.73||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||3.73|0.51|0.525
84752909|NCT00596934|169261255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84491262|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.55||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 2)||2.55|0.79|0.2373
84551232|NCT03425396|168856230|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
84551233|NCT03425396|168856231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||13.3|-27.3|
84551234|NCT03425396|168856231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||5.9|-32.4|
84551235|NCT03425396|168856231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|15.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||15.6|-25.7|
84551236|NCT03425396|168856231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||28.9|-40.4|
84551237|NCT03425396|168856232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-1.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.0|-44.1|
84551238|NCT03425396|168856232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|4.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.9|-32.2|
84551239|NCT03425396|168856232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.1|-43.1|
84604454|NCT00977938|168959455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
84491263|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.26||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 4)||2.26|0.84|0.2069
84551240|NCT03425396|168856232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||23.2|-43.8|
84551241|NCT03425396|168856233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|3.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||3.1|-37.2|
84551242|NCT03425396|168856233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-34.3|
84551243|NCT03425396|168856233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-4.3|-46.9|
84551244|NCT03425396|168856233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|19.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.7|-48.5|
84752910|NCT00596934|169261256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84551245|NCT03425396|168856234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.0|-45.1|
84551246|NCT03425396|168856234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.9|-40.2|
84752911|NCT00596934|169261257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||||||p-value = 0.195.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
84752912|NCT00596934|169261258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
84752913|NCT05178134|169261259|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set to -15% (on an absolute scale)|Difference in response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.069||||||||0.069|-0.108|
84743754|NCT05086276|169241041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|14.71||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||14.71|-7.52|0.525
84743755|NCT05086276|169241042|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|0.987||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.987|-0.954|0.973
84491264|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.53||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 8)||2.53|0.97|0.0680
84491265|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.94||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 12)||3.94|1.47|0.0005
84491266|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 2)||5.01|0.75|0.1736
84491267|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.59||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 4)||3.59|0.82|0.1496
84491268|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.93||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 8)||3.93|1.14|0.0171
84491269|NCT01430559|168733027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.89||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 12)||4.89|1.57|0.0004
84491270|NCT01430559|168733028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.31|0.0027
84491271|NCT01430559|168733028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.01|-0.30|0.0308
84491272|NCT01430559|168733028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.31|0.0060
84491273|NCT01430559|168733028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.05||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.05|-0.34|0.0076
84491274|NCT01430559|168733029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.5||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.50|0.53|0.2843
84491275|NCT01430559|168733029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.87||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.86|0.1050
84491276|NCT01430559|168733029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.40|0.7861
84491277|NCT01430559|168733029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.78||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.78|0.77|0.1873
84491278|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.42||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||General health||4.42|-1.67|0.3738
84491279|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.8||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical functioning||9.80|2.07|0.0028
84743756|NCT05086276|169241044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.06|0.160
84743757|NCT05086276|169241045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.41|0.03|0.027
84551247|NCT03425396|168856234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-36.8|
84743758|NCT02915302|169241130|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in fever rate was \<5%.|Difference in Fever Rate|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.8|||||Fever rate: Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|Difference in fever rate was defined as the fever rate following a 0.5-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine minus the fever rate following a 0.25-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||3.80|-2.13|
84752914|NCT00998426|169261292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p value for the meter by time interaction|Random intercept model|||A random intercept model was used to fit the five subjects' glucose reading data over time. The fixed effect glucose meters, time effect and their interactions were included in the model.||||0.59
84551248|NCT03425396|168856234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|33.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||33.2|-47.0|
84551249|NCT03425396|168856235|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|13.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.2|-40.4|
84551250|NCT03425396|168856235|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|14.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.6|-32.7|
84551251|NCT03425396|168856235|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.9|-38.2|
84551252|NCT03425396|168856235|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|30.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||30.9|-50.3|
84551253|NCT00784550|168856248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551254|NCT00784550|168856249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551255|NCT00784550|168856250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84551256|NCT00784550|168856251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551257|NCT00784550|168856252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551258|NCT00784550|168856253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Mastery domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.069
84551259|NCT00784550|168856253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||Fatigue domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.470
84551260|NCT00784550|168856253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||Emotional function domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.394
84551261|NCT00784550|168856253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Dyspnea domain||||||0.879
84551262|NCT00688701|168856259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.3||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.300|-0.785|<0.0001
84551263|NCT00688701|168856259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.423||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.423|-0.903|<0.0001
84551264|NCT02715700|168856274|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.01||||||||1.01|0.90|
84551265|NCT02715700|168856275|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
84551266|NCT02715700|168856276|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||||1.03|0.93|
84551267|NCT02715700|168856278|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
84551268|NCT02715700|168856279|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.1||||||||1.10|0.86|
84551269|NCT02715700|168856280|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
84551270|NCT02715700|168856282|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03||||||||1.03|0.90|
84551271|NCT02715700|168856283|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
84551272|NCT02715700|168856284|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03||||||||1.03|0.92|
84669283|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
84551273|NCT03320850|168856291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.35|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.35|-0.15|0.0845
84551274|NCT03320850|168856291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.08|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||3.08|0.59|0.0041
84551275|NCT03320850|168856291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.44|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.44|-0.05|0.0600
84551276|NCT03320850|168856291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.11|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.11|-0.37|0.1702
84551277|NCT03320850|168856293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.95|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.95|-0.48|0.2361
84551278|NCT03320850|168856293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.98|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.98|-0.41|0.1985
84551279|NCT03320850|168856293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.84|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.84|-0.56|0.2923
84551280|NCT03320850|168856293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.74|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.74|-0.66|0.3769
84551281|NCT03320850|168856294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.107||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.87|18.77|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||18.77|-32.87|0.5911
84604455|NCT00977938|168959456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.48||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.48|0.17|<0.001
84743759|NCT02915302|169241131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H1N1)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.77|1.19|
84551282|NCT03320850|168856294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.956||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.52|17.52|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||17.52|-33.52|0.5375
84743760|NCT02915302|169241131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H3N2)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.83|1.23|
84752915|NCT02308007|169261293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.030
84551283|NCT03320850|168856294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.764||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|23.81|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||23.81|-26.47|0.9173
84551284|NCT03320850|168856294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.981||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|34.9|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||34.90|-16.24|0.4730
84752916|NCT02308007|169261293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.073
84604456|NCT00977938|168959457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary safety analysis was a noninferiority analysis performed with the use of the Farrington-Manning risk-difference approach. Assuming an annualized rate for moderate or severe bleeding of 1.9% and an absolute noninferiority margin of 0.8%, at a one-sided alpha level of significance of 0.025, we calculated that a sample size of 9960 patients would give the study 80% power to detect noninferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.53|0.38|0.704
84604457|NCT00977938|168959458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.28% (0.0228)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.82|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 97.5% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have MACCE rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||0.03||<0.001
84743761|NCT02915302|169241131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Victoria lineage)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.62|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.62|1.10|
84743762|NCT02915302|169241131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Yamagata lineage)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.73|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.73|1.20|
84743763|NCT02915302|169241132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|10.0|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||10.0|0.189|
84551285|NCT01489254|168856424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude study sensitivity the combined active treatment groups Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg needed to be superior to placebo.|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.651|||||Ratio of combined Glatiramer 20 mg + Copaxone 20 mg to placebo and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function. To assess study sensitivity, data of the active treatment groups and placebo were included in the model, resulting in the ratios and 95% CIs for the combined Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment group and the individual treatments over placebo.||0.651|0.365|
84551286|NCT01489254|168856424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude equivalence between Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg, efficacy in the combined active treatment groups needed to be superior to placebo (confirming study sensitivity) and the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg needed to be fully enclosed in the prespecified equivalence margin (0.727 - 1.375).|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.36|||||Ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function including Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment groups to assess study equivalence.||1.360|0.883|
84551287|NCT02822573|168856439|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models with covariates of treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, baseline outcome level, age stratification and an unstructured covariance matrix. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 24 weeks.||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||With a sample size of 266, there was 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 2 words for HVLT-R total recall score (SD=4.26, effect size=0.47) with a two-sided 5% level of significance. This calculation assumed an ANCOVA model analysis with 25% dropout and 2% missing data at end of treatment. A single interim analysis for futility occurred after 138 participants, with stopping rule of two-sided p-value \< 0.0154. This design required 3.5% more than fixed design, increasing total to 276.||||0.32
84604458|NCT00977938|168959459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.97% (0.0097)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.05|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.27||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 95% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have stent thrombosis rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||-0.27||<0.001
84604459|NCT00977938|168959460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.97|0.70|
84743764|NCT02915302|169241132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|8.99|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||8.99|-0.283|
84604460|NCT00977938|168959461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.69|0.29|
84752917|NCT02308007|169261293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0204
84752918|NCT02308007|169261293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0493
84752919|NCT02308007|169261294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.015
84743765|NCT02915302|169241132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Victoria lineage)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.56|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||5.56|-2.78|
84551288|NCT04143594|168856451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|13.2||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing and the B/F/TAF groups, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||13.2|-18.4|0.7178
84551289|NCT04143594|168856451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.3|-23.4|0.3900
84743766|NCT02915302|169241132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Yamagata lineage)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|7.36|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||7.36|-0.465|
84491280|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|12.38||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role physical||12.38|3.95|0.0002
84491281|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.63||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Bodily pain||10.63|4.10|<0.0001
84551290|NCT04143594|168856451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|9.1||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.1|-23.5|0.3797
84604461|NCT00977938|168959462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.48|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.48|0.24|
84743767|NCT00591721|169241134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|10.41|||t-test, 2 sided|Each baseline subscale score was subtracted from 7 week subscale score; t-tests assessed mean individual differences between groups.||Hypothesis: Individuals who participate in the program will report significantly reduced fatigue impact immediately post-intervention compared to individuals allocated to the wait-list control group.||10.41|-15.47|<0.05
84491282|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.27||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||5.27|-1.18|0.2124
84491283|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Social functioning||10.10|1.82|0.0050
84743768|NCT03809429|169241135|OTHER||Difference|1.31||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.4|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.40|0.22|0.0185
84743769|NCT03809429|169241138|OTHER||Difference|1.14||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.15|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=10 mm at end of stimulation||2.15|0.12|0.0281
84743770|NCT03809429|169241138|OTHER||Difference|0.99||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=12 mm at end of stimulation||1.86|0.12|0.0258
84743771|NCT03809429|169241138|OTHER||Difference|0.58||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.2|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=15 mm at end of stimulation||1.20|-0.04|0.0672
84743772|NCT03809429|169241138|OTHER||Difference|0.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=17 mm at end of stimulation||0.63|-0.22|0.3390
84743773|NCT03809429|169241140|OTHER||Difference|1.11||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.41|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.41|-0.20|0.0962
84743774|NCT03809429|169241142|OTHER||Difference|0.51||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of embryos||1.27|-0.25|0.1894
84743775|NCT03809429|169241142|OTHER||Difference|-0.03||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of Good-quality embryos||0.63|-0.68|0.9361
84743776|NCT03809429|169241143|OTHER||Difference|0.37||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Total number of blastocysts||0.94|-0.20|0.2025
84743777|NCT03809429|169241143|OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.54|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of good-quality blastocysts||0.54|-0.31|0.5946
84743778|NCT03809429|169241149|OTHER||Difference|16.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|21.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||21.74|12.13|<0.0001
84743779|NCT03809429|169241150|OTHER||Difference|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||1.92|1.19|<0.0001
84743780|NCT03809429|169241151|OTHER||Difference|6.99||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|16.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.70|-2.71|0.1579
84743781|NCT03809429|169241153|OTHER||Difference|7.66||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|17.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||17.14|-1.82|0.1134
84743782|NCT03809429|169241154|OTHER||Difference|8.81||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|18.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||18.14|-0.52|0.0642
84743783|NCT03809429|169241155|OTHER||Difference|7.74||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|16.97|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.97|-1.49|0.1002
84743784|NCT01655693|169241189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Initial 24 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||>0.991
84752920|NCT02308007|169261294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Difference for Terconazole/metronidazole vaginal gel cures minus metronidazole vaginal gel cures||||0.193
84752921|NCT02308007|169261295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.012
84752922|NCT02308007|169261295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.918
84752923|NCT00528567|169261299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.||||1.07|0.72|0.1810
84669284|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1850
84491284|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role emotional||10.28|1.46|0.0093
84491285|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.81||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental health||3.81|-2.66|0.7274
84743785|NCT01655693|169241189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Follow-up 45 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||0.796
84743786|NCT01655693|169241190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison with BCS using non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for treatment variable was determined by Cox model. The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) and type II error rate as 15%.|PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and plotted as curves by treatment group. For comparison between treatment groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2 versus BSC) used Log-rank test as primary analysis. Hazard ratio, mean, and mean PFS rate were given with corresponding 95% CI.||||0.7
84743787|NCT01655693|169241191|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison with BCS using Fisher's exact test at significance level p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The comparisons between groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30mg/m2 versus BSC) used Fisher's exact test.||||1.0
84743788|NCT01680640|169241198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Regression, Linear|||A total sample size of 100 participants, with a 14% drop out during the study and 43 participants in each group completing the study provided 85% power to detect a difference of 40% in liver fat (in the treatment arm compared with the placebo), using a power calculation test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. For change in liver fat percentage (and other secondary outcomes), ANCOVA will also be undertaken to assess effect sizes in the intervention group and placebo.||||=0.05
84743789|NCT01680640|169241198|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84743790|NCT01680640|169241199|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end-of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
84743791|NCT01680640|169241200|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
84743792|NCT01680640|169241201|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Beta-diversity indexes|Beta-diversity indexes were first visualized through a Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA)||||||<0.001
84743793|NCT00548262|169241224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Success at EOT||73.6|44.6|
84743794|NCT00548262|169241225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|EIVT Success||73.6|44.6|
84743795|NCT00548262|169241225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Week 2 Follow-up Success||62.5|33.0|
84743796|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
84551291|NCT04143594|168856452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.8|-15.9|0.2398
84743797|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida famata: Success||100.0|0.0|
84743798|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743799|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743800|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
84743801|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
84743802|NCT00548262|169241226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
84743803|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
84743804|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743805|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
84551292|NCT04143594|168856452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.4||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.4||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||3.4|-18.3|0.1639
84551293|NCT04143594|168856452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.7||||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.9|-16.3|0.2307
84551294|NCT04143594|168856453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||7.3|-20.7|0.3142
84743806|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
84743807|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
84743808|NCT00548262|169241227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
84551295|NCT04143594|168856453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.8|-21.3|0.3009
84551296|NCT04143594|168856453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.6||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|6.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.7|-21.8|0.2859
84743809|NCT00548262|169241228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|69.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||69.0|26.3|
84743810|NCT00548262|169241228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743811|NCT00548262|169241228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|98.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||98.4|41.6|
84743812|NCT00548262|169241228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|62.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||62.0|0.0|
84743813|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
84743814|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
84743815|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
84743816|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
84743817|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
84491286|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.67||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental component aggregate||2.67|-0.78|0.2819
84491287|NCT01430559|168733030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.86||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical component aggregate||3.86|1.27|0.0001
84491288|NCT01430559|168733031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.66||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Mobility||4.66|1.45|0.0014
84491289|NCT01430559|168733031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Self-care||2.48|0.91|0.1080
84743818|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
84491290|NCT01430559|168733031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Usual activities||3.62|1.17|0.0119
84491291|NCT01430559|168733031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.83||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pain/discomfort||2.83|0.93|0.0887
84491292|NCT01430559|168733031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.33||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety/depression||2.33|0.80|0.2466
84491293|NCT01430559|168733032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.58|0.0367
84491294|NCT01430559|168733032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.02|-0.65|0.0652
84491295|NCT01430559|168733032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.07|-0.81|0.0200
84491296|NCT01430559|168733032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.24|-1.02|0.0016
84491297|NCT02467504|168733039|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.530
84743819|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
84743820|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
84743821|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
84743822|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|84.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||84.2|51.3|
84743823|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
84491298|NCT02467504|168733040|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
84491299|NCT02467504|168733041|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84491300|NCT02467504|168733042|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84491301|NCT02467504|168733043|OTHER|Chi||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
84491302|NCT02467504|168733044|OTHER|description of Treg cells in CD4+ T cells||||||0.665|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
84491303|NCT02467504|168733045|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
84491304|NCT02467504|168733046|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
84491305|NCT02467504|168733047|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
84491306|NCT02467504|168733048|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.373
84743824|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
84743825|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|80.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||80.1|35.7|
84743826|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||79.2|40.8|
84551297|NCT04143594|168856454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|9.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.0|-23.2|0.3686
84551298|NCT04143594|168856454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.5||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|1.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.0|-34.0|0.0887
84551299|NCT04143594|168856454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.4||||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.7|-21.5|0.4949
84604462|NCT00977938|168959463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.47||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.47|0.57|0.722
84604463|NCT00977938|168959464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.64|0.15|0.478
84604464|NCT00977938|168959465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.12||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.31|||Farrington-Manning|No formal hypothesis testing was done.|30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.31|-0.06|0.706
84604465|NCT00977938|168959466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||1.40|0.58|
84604466|NCT00977938|168959467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|||1.64|0.15|
84604467|NCT00977938|168959468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.28|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.28|-0.21|
84743827|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
84743828|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
84604468|NCT03373890|168959478|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84743829|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
84743830|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
84743831|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|55.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||55.1|0.0|
84743832|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||79.2|49.0|
84743833|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|78.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||78.3|21.7|
84551300|NCT04143594|168856455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37||P-value was from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.37|-0.20|0.5755
84551301|NCT04143594|168856455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.29|-0.25|0.8697
84604469|NCT03373890|168959479|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84604470|NCT03373890|168959480|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
84604471|NCT03373890|168959481|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84604472|NCT03373890|168959482|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84743834|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|79.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||79.3|45.7|
84743835|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743836|NCT00548262|169241229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
84491307|NCT02467504|168733049|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
84743837|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
84491308|NCT02467504|168733050|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
84491309|NCT02467504|168733051|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
84491310|NCT02467504|168733052|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
84491311|NCT02467504|168733053|OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
84491312|NCT02467504|168733054|OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.422
84491313|NCT02467504|168733055|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
84491314|NCT02467504|168733056|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84491315|NCT02467504|168733057|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
84491316|NCT00174460|168733059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.21|||ANCOVA|Results from analysis of covariance method (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; Last observation carried forward (LOCF).||Treatment difference||1.210|0.773|<0.001
84491317|NCT00174460|168733060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.605|5.225|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.225|3.605|<0.001
84491318|NCT00174460|168733060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5327||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|0.208|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.208|-1.977|0.108
84491319|NCT00174460|168733061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.524|0.376|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||0.376|-2.524|0.141
84743838|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
84743839|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
84743840|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
84743841|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
84491320|NCT00174460|168733062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3661|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.789|5.291|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.291|3.789|<0.001
84491321|NCT00174460|168733062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.049|6.08|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||6.080|2.049|<0.001
84491322|NCT00174460|168733063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.047|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.047|0.390|<0.001
84491323|NCT00174460|168733064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||-1.68|-3.73|<0.001
84491324|NCT00174460|168733064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.09|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.09|-2.04|0.537
84491325|NCT00174460|168733065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||0.46|-1.21|0.364
84491326|NCT00174460|168733065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.48|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.48|-0.94|0.506
84491327|NCT00174460|168733066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.54|-2.42|0.959
84491328|NCT00174460|168733066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.32|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.32|-2.11|0.919
84491329|NCT00174460|168733067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8161||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.158|1.374|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.374|-3.158|0.336
84604473|NCT03373890|168959483|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
84743842|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
84743843|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
84743844|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
84743845|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||73.3|19.1|
84743846|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|81.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||81.4|47.7|
84743847|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
84743848|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
84491330|NCT00174460|168733067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|2.391|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.391|-0.956|0.300
84491331|NCT00174460|168733068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.266|6.963|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||6.963|4.266|<0.001
84491332|NCT00174460|168733069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9666||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.558|2.595|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.595|-3.558|0.653
84491333|NCT00174460|168733069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8991||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.701|1.292|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.292|-3.701|0.251
84491334|NCT00174460|168733070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1499||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.524|3.795|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.795|-3.524|0.914
84491335|NCT00174460|168733070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4432||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|1.522|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.522|-0.939|0.547
84491336|NCT00174460|168733071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4542||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|3.572|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.572|1.049|0.007
84491337|NCT00174460|168733071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6536||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|3.44|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||3.440|-0.189|0.068
84491338|NCT00174460|168733074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5061||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|1.965|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.965|-0.846|0.331
84491339|NCT00174460|168733074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4703||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.192|1.42|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.420|-1.192|0.820
84491340|NCT00174460|168733075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.05|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.05|-0.88|0.844
84491341|NCT00174460|168733075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.96|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.96|-0.52|0.519
84491342|NCT00174460|168733078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.219|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.219|0.778|<0.001
84491343|NCT00174460|168733078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.994|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.994|0.382|<0.001
84491344|NCT00174460|168733080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3859|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.806|5.363|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.363|3.806|<0.001
84491345|NCT00174460|168733080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.134|4.992|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||4.992|2.134|<0.001
84491346|NCT03982069|168733097|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84491347|NCT03982069|168733098|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84491348|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84491349|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Day 0, A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|Chi-squared|||||||0.40
84491350|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas egg grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84491351|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas cell grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84491352|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
84491353|NCT03982069|168733099|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84491354|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84491355|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas egg grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84491356|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas cell grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84743849|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|84.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||84.8|41.5|
84491357|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84491358|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84491359|NCT03982069|168733100|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed variables|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84491360|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen||||||0.83
84491361|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen||||||0.79
84491362|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware||||||0.65
84491363|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.06
84491364|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington||||||0.98
84491365|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||0.24
84491366|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||<0.01
84491367|NCT03982069|168733101|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.66
84491368|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84491369|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84491370|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84491371|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84491372|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84491373|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84491374|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84491375|NCT03982069|168733102|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Day 28: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84491376|NCT02735382|168733114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.116|5.283|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.283|4.116|<.0001
84491377|NCT02735382|168733115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|4.035|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.035|2.672|<.0001
84491378|NCT02735382|168733116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.698|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.698|0.420|.8438
84491379|NCT02735382|168733117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.757|||t-test, 2 sided|df=292||A change score from baseline to 6-months was computed and served as the data to be analyzed in the t-test of group differences.||0.757|0.123|.007
84491380|NCT01632345|168733128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|22.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||22.4|-9.0|
84491381|NCT01632345|168733128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.9|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||24.9|-4.6|
84491382|NCT01632345|168733128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|6.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.3|-27.9|
84491383|NCT01632345|168733128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||18.4|-14.5|
84491384|NCT01632345|168733129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.8|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.8|-13.7|
84491385|NCT01632345|168733129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.7|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||14.7|-9.9|
84491386|NCT01632345|168733129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.2|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.2|-13.8|
84491387|NCT01632345|168733129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.1|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||4.1|-15.9|
84491388|NCT01632345|168733130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|0.5|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.5|-20.9|
84491389|NCT01632345|168733131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.8||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.8|-32.4|0.002
84491390|NCT01632345|168733132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-7.5||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.5|-32.6|0.002
84491391|NCT01632345|168733133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-4.1|
84491392|NCT01632345|168733133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|29.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||29.1|-9.6|
84491393|NCT01632345|168733133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||26.0|-13.2|
84491394|NCT01632345|168733133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-3.4|
84491395|NCT01632345|168733134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.2|-13.2|
84743850|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|75.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||75.5|36.5|
84551302|NCT04143594|168856455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.23|0.7052
84551303|NCT04143594|168856456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.30|-0.26|0.8942
84551304|NCT04143594|168856456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.25|-0.28|0.9058
84551305|NCT04143594|168856456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.27|0.8129
84551306|NCT04143594|168856457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.33|-0.25|0.7864
84551307|NCT04143594|168856457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.05||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.21|-0.31|0.7013
84551308|NCT04143594|168856457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.22||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.62|-0.18|0.2753
84551309|NCT04143594|168856458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.34|-0.19|0.5640
84743851|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
84743852|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
84551310|NCT04143594|168856458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.01||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.26|-0.28|0.9555
84551311|NCT04143594|168856458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.46||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.46|-0.19|0.4025
84551312|NCT04143594|168856459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.0||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|97.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||97|-73|0.7751
84551313|NCT04143594|168856459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.0||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|75.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||75|-79|0.9549
84551314|NCT04143594|168856459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|44.0||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-33|0.2603
84551315|NCT04143594|168856460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-31.0||||0.4827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|57.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||57|-119|0.4827
84551316|NCT04143594|168856460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0||||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|81.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||81|-106|0.7963
84551317|NCT04143594|168856460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.0|67.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||67|-111|0.6169
84604474|NCT03373890|168959484|OTHER|LInear mixed model||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.008
84604475|NCT03373890|168959485|OTHER|Linear mixed model regression||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.34
84743853|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
84743854|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
84551318|NCT04143594|168856461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|21.0||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-73|0.6614
84743855|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
84743856|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|76.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||76.8|46.3|
84491396|NCT01632345|168733135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.2|-12.9|
84491397|NCT01632345|168733136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|10.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||10.7|-12.4|
84491398|NCT01632345|168733137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|21.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||21.5|-12.5|
84491399|NCT01632345|168733137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|19.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||19.8|-13.9|
84491400|NCT01632345|168733137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||28.0|-2.5|
84491401|NCT01632345|168733137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||25.7|-6.2|
84491402|NCT01632345|168733138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.7||||||95.0|-6.1|11.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.7|-6.1|
84491403|NCT01632345|168733139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.9|-9.7|
84491404|NCT01632345|168733140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|15.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||15.0|-7.3|
84491405|NCT01632345|168733141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|94.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||94.0|-28.1|
84491406|NCT01632345|168733141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|51.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||51.9|-68.5|
84491407|NCT01632345|168733141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|69.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||69.5|-44.6|
84491408|NCT01632345|168733141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|84.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||84.2|-45.1|
84491409|NCT01632345|168733142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|50.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||50.8|-38.2|
84491410|NCT01632345|168733143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|41.3|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||41.3|-46.5|
84491411|NCT01632345|168733144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|55.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||55.1|-64.0|
84491412|NCT01632345|168733145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.0|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.0|-11.7|
84491413|NCT01632345|168733146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.3|-14.1|
84491414|NCT00089505|168733152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Regression, Cox|The model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm\^3).|The HR is for NVP/NVP vs. NVP/LPV\_r.|||7.61|1.79|<0.001
84491415|NCT00089505|168733153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|NoNVP/NVP regimen will be considered equivalent to the NoNVP/LPV\_r regimen if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for virologi falure is entirely below 2.0; equivalence will be established if the same confidence interval is entirely within the range 0.5 to 2.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29||P-value is for a test of superiority and was not adjusted for interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used.|Regression, Cox|The cox proportional hazard model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm3).|The HR is for NoNVP/NVP vs. NoNVP/LPV\_r.|||1.29|0.56|0.43
84491416|NCT02543918|168733170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the tetanus vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|19.2||||||Tetanus vaccine responders||19.2|-16.6|
84491417|NCT02543918|168733170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the pneumococcal vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.0||||||Pneumococcal vaccine responders||11.0|-12.9|
84551319|NCT04143594|168856461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-75|0.6791
84743857|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|86.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||86.2|30.4|
84743858|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|76.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||76.4|42.4|
84743859|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
84743860|NCT00548262|169241230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
84743861|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|54.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||54.3|20.7|
84743862|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|99.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||99.5|50.5|
84491418|NCT03503617|168733171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84491419|NCT00078715|168733182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.251||The significance level reflects the direct comparison of drugs after factoring out baseline depression levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model was used with factors for drug, time of evaluation, the drug by time interaction, and a baseline depression covariate.||The hypothesis was that yohimbine would provide lower levels of depression than placebo. Initial estimates of sample size assumed a minimum of 25 patients were required to detect differences in depression.||2.251|-4.260|.527
84491420|NCT02380703|168733195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.32||For participants who dropped out, their time until study attrition was used as the exposure period; and they were carried forward as part of the overall incidence count.|Regression, Cox|||Sample-size calculations were performed, based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = 0.4) in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period between APT and EU-PC, assuming 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%. Given an anticipated rate of aggression onset over 1 year of 37% for EU-PC, an ES of h = 0.4 allows detection of aggression onset in APT as high as 19%. Given this effect size and up to 10% attrition, our goal was to include 220 total participants.||2.32|0.78|0.29
84491421|NCT02380703|168733195|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the presence of aggression is equivalent between APT and EU-PC|Difference in frequencies|1.21||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Association between presence of aggression and condition (APT vs EU-PC).|Chi-squared|X2(1) = 1.21||||||0.27
84491422|NCT02380703|168733196|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.19
84491423|NCT02380703|168733197|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|2.43||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.06
84491424|NCT02380703|168733198|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.80
84491425|NCT02380703|168733199|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.89
84491426|NCT02380703|168733200|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.22
84491427|NCT02380703|168733201|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.38||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.77
84491428|NCT02380703|168733202|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.64
84491429|NCT01522391|168733224|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
84491430|NCT01522391|168733225|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
84491431|NCT01522391|168733226|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.66|0.022|0.242
84604476|NCT00747344|168959486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. With 120 subjects (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight (\<=65kg vs \> 65 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power was \> 99% at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84604477|NCT00747344|168959487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84604478|NCT00747344|168959488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84669285|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84491432|NCT01522391|168733226|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
84491433|NCT01522391|168733227|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.660|0.022|0.242
84491434|NCT01522391|168733227|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
84491435|NCT01522391|168733228|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.288||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.221|0.016|0.395
84491436|NCT01522391|168733228|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.067||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||1.218|0.004|0.067
84491437|NCT01522391|168733228|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.484||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|8.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||8.787|0.027|0.620
84491438|NCT01522391|168733229|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.287||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.550|0.015|0.403
84491439|NCT01522391|168733229|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.032||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.583|0.002|0.021
84491440|NCT01522391|168733229|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.271||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|4.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.779|0.015|0.368
84491441|NCT01522391|168733230|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|1.045||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.32|0.106|0.970
84491442|NCT01522391|168733230|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.005|0.009
84491443|NCT01522391|168733230|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.36||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|3.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||3.556|0.036|0.377
84491444|NCT01522391|168733231|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.961||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||11.43|0.081|0.974
84491445|NCT01522391|168733231|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.046||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.512|0.004|0.013
84491446|NCT01522391|168733231|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.447||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|4.883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.883|0.041|0.504
84491447|NCT01522391|168733232|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.659|0.022|0.242
84491448|NCT01522391|168733232|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.491|0.004|0.012
84491449|NCT01522391|168733232|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.697|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.697|0.039|0.483
84491450|NCT01522391|168733233|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.202||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.340|0.017|0.197
84491451|NCT01522391|168733233|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.021||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.227|0.002|0.002
84491452|NCT01522391|168733233|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.257||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||2.752|0.024|0.257
84491453|NCT01522391|168733234|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.38||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|63.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||63.19|-22.42|0.346
84491454|NCT01522391|168733234|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|29.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||71.90|-13.71|0.18
84491455|NCT01522391|168733234|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.64||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|31.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.16|-54.44|0.590
84491456|NCT01522391|168733235|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.95||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|42.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||42.73|-30.84|0.748
84491457|NCT01522391|168733235|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|14.62||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|51.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||51.88|-22.65|0.437
84491458|NCT01522391|168733235|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.66||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.92|18.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||18.61|-55.92|0.322
84491459|NCT01522391|168733236|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|8.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|41.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||41.24|-25.15|0.631
84491460|NCT01522391|168733236|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|53.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||53.63|-12.75|0.224
84491461|NCT01522391|168733236|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.96|-34.42|0.941
84491462|NCT01522391|168733237|OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|0.97||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|34.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||34.87|-32.93|0.954
84491463|NCT01522391|168733237|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|15.72||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|49.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||49.62|-18.18|0.358
84551320|NCT04143594|168856461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|27.0||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-65|0.5563
84551321|NCT04143594|168856462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|32.0||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|140.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||140|-75|0.5492
84551322|NCT04143594|168856462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|17.0||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Difference in LSM||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-80|0.7220
84551323|NCT04143594|168856462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|110.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||110|-118|0.9486
84551324|NCT00308087|168856485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||"Exact Conditional Test is stratified on the number~\> of prior therapies (1 or 2, 3 or more prior therapies)."|2-sided Exact Conditional Test|||||||0.6182
84551325|NCT00308087|168856488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5501||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.5501
84551326|NCT00308087|168856489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8217||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.8217
84551327|NCT01044290|168856491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||.7|-1.1|<0.61
84551328|NCT01044290|168856491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.0|.2|<.02
84551329|NCT01044290|168856492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.1|-1.2|=.9
84551330|NCT01044290|168856492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.1|-1.2|<.97
84551331|NCT01044290|168856493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.5|-1.4|<.91
84551332|NCT01044290|168856493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||0.9|-2.1|=.42
84551333|NCT01044290|168856494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.8|-1.5|=.58
84551334|NCT01044290|168856494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.2|-2.1|<.97
84551335|NCT01044290|168856495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.4|-.6|.25
84551336|NCT01044290|168856495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||3.1|.05|<.05
84551337|NCT01044290|168856496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.8|-1.0|<.57
84551338|NCT01044290|168856496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.7|-0.03|=0.055
84551339|NCT01646021|168856522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.60|0.35|< 0.0001
84551340|NCT01646021|168856524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|= 0.0621
84551341|NCT01967706|168856544|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.64|114.03|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||114.03|68.64|
84551342|NCT01967706|168856545|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.61|119.46|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||119.46|80.61|
84743863|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|56.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||56.1|22.7|
84743864|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
84743865|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||64.4|33.0|
84551343|NCT00614120|168856554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.8mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.23|0.11||Non-inferiority; \<.0001. In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
84551344|NCT00614120|168856554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.2mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|0.2||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.20|-0.14|<.0001
84551345|NCT00614120|168856554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 0.6mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.25||||0.0421||95.0|0.08|0.42||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.42|0.08|0.0421
84551346|NCT03421145|168856579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84551347|NCT03421145|168856580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84551348|NCT03421145|168856581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84551349|NCT03421145|168856582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84551350|NCT03421145|168856583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84551351|NCT01820572|168856585|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.4||||||||10.4|-8.6|
84551352|NCT01820572|168856586|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-9.9|
84551353|NCT00288600|168856603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Need of Exchange transfusion following the AAP criteria||||0.765
84551354|NCT03600194|168856604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Design\*Therapy interaction term||||||.019
84743866|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||82.9|0.0|
84551355|NCT02235077|168856610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.20|-0.11|0.5688
84551356|NCT02235077|168856611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.35|0.4155
84551357|NCT02235077|168856612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||Chi-squared|||||1.81|0.83|0.3039
84551358|NCT02235077|168856613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.7673
84551359|NCT02235077|168856614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|319.2||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-797.4|1435.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1435.8|-797.4|0.5734
84551360|NCT02235077|168856615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|-3.05|0.3528
84551361|NCT02235077|168856616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-0.02|0.0846
84551362|NCT02235077|168856617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.17||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||||1.65|-25.98|0.0842
84551363|NCT02235077|168856618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.56|0.7628
84551364|NCT02235077|168856619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.95|||Regression, Linear|||||2.95|-5.02|0.6102
84743867|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|63.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||63.2|31.5|
84743868|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||90.0|10.0|
84743869|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
84551365|NCT02235077|168856620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.29|0.5818
84551366|NCT03852628|168856621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of having a reduction in AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||1.22|0.02|0.08
84551367|NCT03852628|168856622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of reduction in PTSD symptom.||The placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.97|0.20|0.690
84551368|NCT03852628|168856623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of have both a reduction in PTSD and AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.66|0.15|0.52
84604479|NCT02214225|168959598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.87|
84551369|NCT00877487|168856633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-19.1|<0.0001
84551370|NCT00877487|168856634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84551371|NCT00877487|168856635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84551372|NCT01516008|168856636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|76.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|101.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||101.7|51.0|<0.001
84551373|NCT01516008|168856636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|90.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|116.1||P-value is adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||116.1|65.1|<0.001
84551374|NCT01516008|168856637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
84551375|NCT01516008|168856637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
84743870|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|69.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||69.2|34.0|
84551376|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
84551377|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
84743871|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
84743872|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
84491464|NCT01522391|168733237|OTHER||least Square Mean Difference|-7.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.82|25.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||25.94|-41.82|0.642
84491465|NCT01522391|168733238|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.701
84491466|NCT01522391|168733238|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.898
84491467|NCT01522391|168733238|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.271
84491468|NCT01522391|168733239|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.511
84491469|NCT01522391|168733239|OTHER|||||||0.777|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.777
84491470|NCT01522391|168733239|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.204
84491471|NCT01522391|168733240|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.489
84551378|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||0.001
84551379|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||<0.001
84551380|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
84551381|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
84551382|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||0.001
84551383|NCT01516008|168856638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||<0.001
84551384|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||0.001
84551385|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
84551386|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
84551387|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
84743873|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|64.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||64.3|19.9|
84743874|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|71.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||71.6|32.4|
84743875|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||62.5|33.0|
84743876|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
84743877|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
84743878|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|61.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||61.4|31.6|
84743879|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
84743880|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||64.4|33.0|
84491472|NCT01522391|168733240|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.249
84491473|NCT01522391|168733240|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.098
84491474|NCT01522391|168733241|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.291
84491475|NCT01522391|168733241|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.113
84491476|NCT01522391|168733241|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.033
84491477|NCT01522391|168733242|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
84491478|NCT01522391|168733242|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.825
84491479|NCT01522391|168733242|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
84491480|NCT01522391|168733243|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
84491481|NCT01522391|168733243|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.820
84491482|NCT01522391|168733243|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.086
84491483|NCT01522391|168733244|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.378
84491484|NCT01522391|168733244|OTHER|||||||0.975|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.975
84491485|NCT01522391|168733244|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.962
84491486|NCT01522391|168733245|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.375
84491487|NCT01522391|168733245|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.946
84491488|NCT01522391|168733245|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.495
84491489|NCT01522391|168733248|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.477
84491490|NCT01522391|168733248|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14 morning||||0.651
84491491|NCT01522391|168733248|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21 morning||||0.340
84491492|NCT01522391|168733249|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.300
84491493|NCT01522391|168733249|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.705
84491494|NCT01522391|168733249|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21||||0.286
84491495|NCT00877929|168733254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.2|-7.9|0.0001
84491496|NCT00877929|168733255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.0001||95.0|-8.9|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-5.4|-8.9|0.0001
84491497|NCT00877929|168733256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0001||95.0|-8.3|-4.9|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.9|-8.3|0.0001
84491498|NCT00877929|168733257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.3|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.3|-7.9|0.0001
84491499|NCT00877929|168733258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0001||95.0|-6.6|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-3.2|-6.6|0.0001
84491500|NCT01140646|168733305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0903||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash score is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.0903
84491501|NCT01140646|168733305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash frequency is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.1553
84491502|NCT03006276|168733310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.94|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.94|1.36|<0.001
84491503|NCT03006276|168733310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.89|||Fisher Exact|||||2.89|1.34|<0.001
84491504|NCT03006276|168733311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||last observation carried forward (LOCF)||2.43|1.17|0.007
84491505|NCT03006276|168733311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.44|||Fisher Exact|||observed cases (OC)||2.44|1.16|0.007
84491506|NCT03245372|168733337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
84491507|NCT03245372|168733338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.692
84491508|NCT03245372|168733339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
84491509|NCT03245372|168733340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
84491510|NCT03245372|168733341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
84491511|NCT03245372|168733342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.516
84743881|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|69.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||69.6|13.8|
84743882|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|67.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||67.3|32.7|
84743883|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
84551388|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
84551389|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
84551390|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
84551391|NCT01516008|168856639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
84551392|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
84551393|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
84551394|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||0.021
84551395|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
84551396|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
84551397|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
84551398|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
84551399|NCT01516008|168856640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
84551400|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||22.0|11.1|<0.001
84551401|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||24.6|13.6|<0.001
84551402|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|46.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||46.2|23.2|<0.001
84551403|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||54.6|31.5|<0.001
84551404|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|162.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||162.9|81.8|<0.001
84551405|NCT01516008|168856641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.57|||<|0.001||95.0|97.8|179.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||179.4|97.8|<0.001
84551406|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|5.0|<0.001
84551407|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|4.9|<0.001
84551408|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||19.8|10.6|<0.001
84551409|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|20.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||20.2|10.9|<0.001
84551410|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|45.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||45.3|24.3|<0.001
84743884|NCT00548262|169241231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|69.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||69.9|33.5|
84743885|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|84.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EIVT): Success||84.0|53.2|
84743886|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|49.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EIVT): Success||49.4|0.0|
84743887|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|86.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EOT): Success||86.4|56.5|
84743888|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EOT): Success||31.6|0.0|
84743889|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|73.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||73.5|40.7|
84743890|NCT00548262|169241232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||31.6|0.0|
84491512|NCT03245372|168733344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
84551411|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|44.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||44.2|23.0|<0.001
84551412|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|73.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||73.8|39.4|<0.001
84551413|NCT01516008|168856642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|70.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||70.8|36.2|<0.001
84551414|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|30.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||30.9|16.4|<0.001
84551415|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|33.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||33.6|18.9|<0.001
84551416|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|65.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||65.4|34.4|<0.001
84551417|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|74.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||74.2|43.0|<0.001
84743891|NCT02285153|169241246|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.792||Due to the low number of participants, the results of the statistical tests must be interpreted with caution!|Chi-squared|||||4.792|0.039|0.57
84743892|NCT02285153|169241247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.057
84491513|NCT03245372|168733345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84491514|NCT02155725|168733346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9889||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6633|1.4744|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4744|0.6633|0.9563
84491515|NCT02155725|168733347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0064||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6321|1.6022|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as administration of 2 units of RBCs.||1.6022|0.6321|0.9786
84491516|NCT02155725|168733348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0169||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6177|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as a loss of at least 4 g/dL of Hb.||1.6741|0.6177|0.9474
84491517|NCT02612194|168733384|OTHER|Estimation only.|Overall Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.369|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.369|0.000|
84491518|NCT02612194|168733385|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||6.1|0.2|
84491519|NCT02612194|168733386|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||1.8|0.2|
84491520|NCT02539160|168733387|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.3|-1.1|0.105
84491521|NCT02539160|168733387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.7|-1.5|0.112
84491522|NCT00434876|168733428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84491523|NCT00434876|168733429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84491524|NCT00434876|168733430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
84491525|NCT00434876|168733431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84551418|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|111.12|||<|0.001||95.0|76.3|145.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||145.9|76.3|<0.001
84551419|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|159.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||159.2|89.2|<0.001
84551420|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.4|235.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||235.4|122.4|<0.001
84743893|NCT02285153|169241248|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84743894|NCT02285153|169241249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
84752924|NCT00528567|169261301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Log Rank|Stratification factors are Axillary nodal status, Choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, Hormone receptor status, Surgery||||1.17|0.74|0.5247
84752925|NCT00528567|169261303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.71|0.1966
84752926|NCT00528567|169261304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2318
84752927|NCT00528567|169261307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.10|0.72|0.2792
84491526|NCT03539900|168733436|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a moderator or predictor.||||||.44
84491527|NCT03539900|168733437|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a predictor or moderator.||||||.04
84491528|NCT03539900|168733438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.98
84491529|NCT03539900|168733439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.44
84491530|NCT03539900|168733440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.99
84491531|NCT03539900|168733441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.40
84491532|NCT00337935|168733460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||a priori theshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline Hemoglobin was used as a covariate.||||0.9|0.2|.0062
84491533|NCT00337935|168733461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84491534|NCT00337935|168733462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84491535|NCT02361307|168733481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84491536|NCT00329433|168733482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Published data show that the incidence of PF4/heparin EIA antibodies is approximately 40% (range, 20% to 60%) following cardiac surgery. We estimated that antibody formation would occur in approximately 20% of patients following thoracic surgery. Sixty patients in each group would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in the incidence of positive PF4/heparin EIA tests from 20% to 4% at an alpha level of \<0.05.||||<0.05
84491537|NCT00329433|168733483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84491538|NCT00329433|168733484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84491539|NCT01336647|168733485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy endpoint was responder rate calculated based on the percentage of subjects who were lice free at all follow-up visits (Days 1, 7 and 14). Because the number of responders and non-responders in the family size\>= 5 household members was less than five in at least one of the treatment arms, (Table 14.2.1.5), Fisher's Exact test was used to compare treatment arms, instead of the CMH test.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|The assessment of statistical significance will be done using Hochberg's modified Bonferroni test.||Null hypothesis; 80% power and 0.025 two-sided level of significance for each pairwise active vs. vehicle comparison||||<0.001
84491540|NCT00953849|168733504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
84491541|NCT00953849|168733505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
84491542|NCT00953849|168733506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
84491543|NCT00953849|168733507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
84491544|NCT01801475|168733511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
84491545|NCT01801475|168733512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
84491546|NCT00421928|168733515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05||95.0|-1.04|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.33|-1.04|<0.05
84491547|NCT00444028|168733527|OTHER|"The units on such analyses are generally those of slope (rise over run), with 1.000 being perfect. Although any positive slope might be considered clinically useful, a 90% CI within the criteria of 0.800-1.250 may be considered a delivery system which is as good as it gets."|Slope|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.987||||||Dose proportionality by power analysis examines the linear regression of the log-AUC versus log-Dose on a by-patient basis across all doses administered. The slope and 90% confidence interval (CI) provide a clear, quantitative (best practices) assessment of the relationship of drug delivered to dose administered.||0.987|0.832|
84491548|NCT02138227|168733529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84491549|NCT02138227|168733530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 1574)||||||<0.01
84743895|NCT02656329|169241293|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AdreView™ group over SoC group was demonstrated if upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) (AdreView™ group / SoC) was equal to 1.20.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.719||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Log Rank||AdreView™ vs. Standard of Care|Analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by country, with method of treatment guidance (SoC vs AdreView™ group) as the only covariate.||3.719|0.295|0.8459
84551421|NCT01516008|168856643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|192.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.2|248.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||248.9|135.2|<0.001
84551422|NCT01516008|168856644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
84551423|NCT01516008|168856644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
84551424|NCT01217476|168856648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.66|0.4039
84551425|NCT01217476|168856649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.52|
84551426|NCT00986921|168856657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||t-test, 1 sided|Data was not distributed normally. After log transformation, the log values were distributed normally.||||3|0|0.05
84551427|NCT00986921|168856658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A threshold value of p of 0.05 was considered significant.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would vary, with a p values of less than 0.05.||||0.49
84551428|NCT00986921|168856659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84551429|NCT04445714|168856666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.03|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.03|-1.34|<.0001
84551430|NCT04445714|168856667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.51|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.51|-2.66|<.0001
84551431|NCT04445714|168856668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.91|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||1.91|-2.34|0.8416
84551432|NCT04445714|168856669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-15.4|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-15.4|-33.4|<.0001
84551433|NCT02805660|168856671|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.537|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.537
84551434|NCT02805660|168856671|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.|||||>|0.999|||||||Exact Test|||||||>0.999
84551435|NCT02805660|168856671|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.283|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.283
84551436|NCT02805660|168856671|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.025|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.025
84551437|NCT02572076|168856683|OTHER|Pilot study- no sample size was calculated|number of subjects with adequate cleansi|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||patients had partial bowel preparation to mimic poor bowel cleansing before the colonoscopy procedure at baseline, MCS was used during the procedure to clean the colon.||100|66|
84551438|NCT04223635|168856697|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.38|157.69|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||157.69|54.38|
84551439|NCT04223635|168856699|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|147.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|227.07|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||227.07|95.39|
84551440|NCT04223635|168856700|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|142.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|223.79|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||223.79|91.21|
84551441|NCT01672710|168856715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|14.2|||ANCOVA|||||14.2|-0.3|<0.05
84551442|NCT02122887|168856722|OTHER|χ² (1) =4.57, Cramer's V=.24|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesised that following intervention, those undergoing intervention will be more likely to see justice on both sides, compared to control group||||<0.05
84743896|NCT00719329|169241315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.81|0.70|
84752928|NCT00528567|169261309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.72|0.1832
84752929|NCT00528567|169261311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.12|0.72|0.3309
84752930|NCT05696236|169261409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84551443|NCT02122887|168856723|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of tension (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df=1||||||>0.05
84491550|NCT04120116|168733547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.11|0.068
84491551|NCT04120116|168733549|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.945|6.439||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.439|-3.945|0.634
84491552|NCT00965458|168733553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.065
84491553|NCT00965458|168733554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.019
84491554|NCT00965458|168733554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.002
84491555|NCT00965458|168733555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.065
84491556|NCT00965458|168733555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.015
84491557|NCT00965458|168733556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean insulin use comparison||||0.020
84491558|NCT00965458|168733556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean insulin use comparison||||0.002
84491559|NCT00965458|168733557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Baseline to Week 52||||<0.001
84491560|NCT00965458|168733557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Week 52 to Week 104||||<0.001
84491561|NCT00965458|168733558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.746
84491562|NCT00965458|168733558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.942
84491563|NCT00692198|168733579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.79|0.52
84491564|NCT00692198|168733580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.25|0.64|0.53
84491565|NCT00692198|168733581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.13|0.91|0.81
84491566|NCT00692198|168733583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.19|0.98|0.12
84491567|NCT00692198|168733584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84491568|NCT00692198|168733585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84491569|NCT00692198|168733586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84491570|NCT00692198|168733587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84491571|NCT00692198|168733588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84491572|NCT00692198|168733589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84491573|NCT00692198|168733590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|8.0|||||Relative risk, LTOT vs No LTOT|||8.00|0.54|
84491574|NCT00692198|168733591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84491575|NCT00692198|168733592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84491576|NCT02181634|168733609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.75|||Log Rank|||||4.75|0.86|0.099
84491577|NCT02181634|168733610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.71|||Log Rank|||||3.71|0.64|0.34
84491578|NCT00134563|168733617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0005||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to detect a 25% relative risk reduction with teriflunomide in the 2-year relapse rate at a significance level of 0.050 with a power ≥95% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0005
84491579|NCT00134563|168733617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|31.2||||0.0002||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0002
84743897|NCT00719329|169241315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.77|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.77|0.66|
84491580|NCT00134563|168733618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|29.8||||0.0279||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to detect a 37% hazard rate reduction of an assumed disability progression hazard rate of 0.1783 in the placebo group and 0.1116 in the teriflunomide group by the end of 2 years with a power of 80% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0279
84491581|NCT00134563|168733618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|23.7||||0.0835||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.0835
84491582|NCT00134563|168733619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0003
84491583|NCT00134563|168733619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0317
84491584|NCT00134563|168733622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8271||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.8271
84491585|NCT00134563|168733622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.3861
84491586|NCT03382639|168733623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.4|0.426
84491587|NCT03382639|168733623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.5|0.725
84551444|NCT02122887|168856724|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of empathy (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84551445|NCT03055494|168856731|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|88.8|||95% confidence interval|"Statistical analysis of no response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment at Week 12"|||"A patient with missing assessment was considered as having a yes response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment regardless of the reason for missing data (eg, premature study discontinuation, missed visit, administrative issues). However, missing baseline value was not imputed."|88.8|63.3|
84491588|NCT03382639|168733623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.7|0.808
84491589|NCT01072175|168733637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.34|0.79|
84551446|NCT03055494|168856732|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|69.3|||95% confidence interval|||||69.3|42.3|
84551447|NCT05129293|168856748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.229
84743898|NCT00719329|169241316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.82|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.82|0.74|
84743899|NCT00719329|169241316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.65|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.65|0.57|
84743900|NCT00719329|169241317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to adjust for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.96|0.89|
84551448|NCT05129293|168856749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.040
84551449|NCT05129293|168856750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.266
84551450|NCT04166591|168856752|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551451|NCT04166591|168856752|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551452|NCT04166591|168856752|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551453|NCT04166591|168856752|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551454|NCT04166591|168856753|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84743901|NCT00719329|169241317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.63|0.53|
84551455|NCT04166591|168856753|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.||||||0.12|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.12
84551456|NCT04166591|168856753|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551457|NCT04166591|168856753|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
84551458|NCT03192995|168856754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
84551459|NCT03192995|168856755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84551460|NCT03192995|168856756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.32
84551461|NCT03192995|168856757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.541
84551462|NCT03192995|168856758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.82||||||||3.82|0.24|
84551463|NCT01424514|168856769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.36|-0.60|
84551464|NCT01424514|168856769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.51|-0.45|
84551465|NCT01424514|168856769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in Maximum TSS||0.51|-0.58|
84551466|NCT01424514|168856769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in Maximum TSS||0.72|-0.51|
84551467|NCT01424514|168856771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.54||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for WM 0-60 TSS||0.54|-0.30|
84551468|NCT01424514|168856771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.57||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Maximum TSS||0.57|-0.39|
84551469|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.08|-0.14|
84551470|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.09|-0.13|
84551471|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.11|-0.20|
84743902|NCT01747551|169241327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
84743903|NCT02186600|169241373|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling for intent-to-treat analysis to analyze time X group interactions, adjusted for baseline total body lean mass and height.||||||0.7|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|controlled for total lean mass and height||||||0.7
84743904|NCT02186600|169241374|OTHER|hierarchical linear modeling||||||0.01|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||0.01
84743905|NCT02186600|169241375|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling|||||<|0.007|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||<0.007
84743906|NCT01468181|169241418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 26 Weeks||-1.67|-1.87|<0.001
84491590|NCT01072175|168733637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.78|
84551472|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.14|-0.28|
84551473|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.13|-0.15|
84551474|NCT01424514|168856775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 24 h in Maximum sneezing||0.16|-0.20|
84551475|NCT01424514|168856776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 2 h in AR||0.07|-0.03|
84551476|NCT01424514|168856776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 2 h in AR||-0.02|-0.13|
84551477|NCT01424514|168856776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 25 h in AR||0.08|-0.04|
84551478|NCT01424514|168856777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14 in AR||0.26|-0.36|
84604480|NCT02214225|168959598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.98||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.88|
84743907|NCT01468181|169241418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 52 Weeks||-1.55|-1.75|<0.001
84491591|NCT01072175|168733637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.27|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.27|0.84|
84551479|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.60|-0.06|
84551480|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.53||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.53|-0.32|
84551481|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.63|-0.22|
84551482|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.68|-0.30|
84551483|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.86|-0.34|
84551484|NCT01424514|168856778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in Maximum TOSS||0.73|-0.15|
84551485|NCT01286168|168856788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.02
84551486|NCT01286168|168856789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.03
84743908|NCT01468181|169241420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-40.0|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 26 Weeks||-40.0|-47.8|<0.001
84743909|NCT01468181|169241420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-38.7|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 52 Weeks||-38.7|-46.4|<0.001
84551487|NCT01286168|168856790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.003
84551488|NCT01286168|168856791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.13
84551489|NCT01286168|168856792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.45
84551490|NCT01286168|168856793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.02
84551491|NCT01286168|168856793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.02
84551492|NCT01286168|168856794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Likelihood-ratio test|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Due to zero events in the antisepsis side for this endpoint, p-value was derived from likelihood-ratio test comparing the intercept only model to the model with intercept and treatment side included.||||0.004
84551493|NCT01286168|168856795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.003
84752931|NCT05696236|169261410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84491592|NCT01072175|168733637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.45|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.45|0.66|
84491593|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.19|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.19|0.85|
84491594|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.08|0.82|
84491595|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.84|
84491596|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.03|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.03|0.81|
84551494|NCT01286168|168856795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.003
84551495|NCT02002533|168856876|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||exact binomial test|The percentage is greater than or equal to 40%.||||||>0.9999
84491597|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.29|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.29|0.81|
84491598|NCT01072175|168733638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.37|0.76|
84551496|NCT02002533|168856877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.7350
84551497|NCT02002533|168856878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0845|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84551498|NCT02002533|168856879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.1808
84551499|NCT02002533|168856880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.14
84551500|NCT02002533|168856881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|For baseline of 0.7.||||||0.005
84551501|NCT02002533|168856881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline 1.3.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
84491599|NCT01072175|168733645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|15.9||||||Difference in response rate Arm2 - Arm1||15.9|-23.1|
84491600|NCT01072175|168733645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|40.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||40.7|2.5|
84551502|NCT02002533|168856881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.556|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline of 1.5.|ANCOVA|||||||0.556
84551503|NCT02002533|168856881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Grouped by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA||The estimated value is grouped by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.007
84551504|NCT02002533|168856882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
84551505|NCT02002533|168856883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.295
84551506|NCT02002533|168856884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.573
84551507|NCT02002533|168856885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.015
84551508|NCT02002533|168856885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.094
84551509|NCT02002533|168856885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.114
84551510|NCT02002533|168856885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||This is an arm by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.027
84743910|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-38.29|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-38.29|-46.55|<0.001
84752932|NCT05696236|169261411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84743911|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.44|-38.76|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-38.76|-46.44|<0.001
84551511|NCT03796442|168856897|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect 1-year AVMPG of 12.6±4.3mmHg for the study prosthesis and 11.9±4.3mmHg for the control prosthesis, with a 1-sided type I error of 2.5% and a noninferiority margin of 3mmHg. The noninferiority margin was determined by the values of 15mmHg for AVMPG of clinically significant aortic stenosis and 12mmHg for AVMPG of the control prosthesis.||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the AvalusTM was inferior to the CEPME based on the AVMPG at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up, with a non-inferiority margin of 3mmHg. The result for the primary endpoint was presented with 97.5% one-sided confidence interval for mean difference between groups. The non-inferiority test was performed using a t-test which compared mean difference between groups with the non-inferiority margin under the one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.0004
84551512|NCT01871402|168856907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
84551513|NCT01871402|168856908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84551514|NCT01871402|168856909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84551515|NCT01871402|168856910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevations).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84551516|NCT04594941|168856913|OTHER||Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.431|1.133|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.133|-1.431|0.8452
84743912|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-62.79|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-62.79|-74.18|<0.001
84551517|NCT04594941|168856913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.899|1.868|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"SPE VS HPLC: Reader 1~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.868|-1.899|0.9890
84551518|NCT04594941|168856913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|0.698|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Reader 2: Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||0.698|-2.204|0.3852
84551519|NCT04594941|168856913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.735|1.554|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on MMRM model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.554|-1.735|0.9260
84743913|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.12|-60.04|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-60.04|-72.12|<0.001
84743914|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.32|-43.09|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-43.09|-53.32|<0.001
84551520|NCT04594941|168856914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.104|1.667|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.667|-2.104|0.8452
84551521|NCT04594941|168856914|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.793|2.747|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 1: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.747|-2.793|0.9890
84551522|NCT04594941|168856914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.256||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.241|1.027|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.027|-3.241|0.3852
84551523|NCT04594941|168856914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.552|2.285|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.285|-2.552|0.9260
84551524|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
84752933|NCT01829360|169261413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The significance of fixed effects (e.g.,treatment) was evaluated using Wald tests||||||<0.05
84743915|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.77|-42.24|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-42.24|-52.77|<0.001
84551525|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
84743916|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.02|-61.11|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-61.11|-73.02|<0.001
84743917|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.16|-57.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-57.18|-69.16|<0.001
84743918|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.67|-38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-38.34|-49.67|<0.001
84743919|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-38.21|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-38.21|-49.55|<0.001
84743920|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.32|-56.5|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-56.50|-69.32|<0.001
84743921|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-54.74|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-54.74|-66.95|<0.001
84743922|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.93|-55.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 26 Weeks||-55.37|-66.93|<0.001
84743923|NCT01468181|169241421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|-54.25|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 52 Weeks||-54.25|-66.07|<0.001
84743924|NCT01468181|169241422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 26 Weeks||0.12|-0.40|<0.277
84743925|NCT01468181|169241422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 52 Weeks||0.16|-0.42|0.382
84743926|NCT01468181|169241423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|31.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 26 Weeks||31.18|26.00|<0.001
84743927|NCT01468181|169241423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.73|30.41|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 52 Weeks||30.41|24.73|<0.001
84743928|NCT01468181|169241423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 26 Weeks||1.32|-6.46|0.194
84743929|NCT01468181|169241423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-5.68|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 52 Weeks||2.27|-5.68|0.400
84743930|NCT04828837|169241424|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
84743931|NCT04828837|169241425|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
84743932|NCT04828837|169241426|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
84743933|NCT04828837|169241427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84743934|NCT01397422|169241428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||20 subjects per treatment arm provided 80% power using a 2-sided 2-sample test at 5% significance. The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the response of the ADS-5102 340 mg group was equal to that of the placebo group.||-3.5|-19.1|0.0051
84743935|NCT01397422|169241428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.8|0.0131
84743936|NCT01397422|169241428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-13.4|0.1595
84551526|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
84551527|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0072
84551528|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0051
84551529|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0023
84743937|NCT01397422|169241429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.1|0.4314
84551530|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0002
84551531|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
84551532|NCT04594941|168856915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
84551533|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0089
84551534|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0207
84551535|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0089
84551536|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.732
84551537|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0083
84551538|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Reader 3||||0.0412
84551539|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0001
84551540|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
84551541|NCT04594941|168856916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
84551542|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|1.0000|
84743938|NCT01397422|169241429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.5|0.5223
84743939|NCT01397422|169241429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, baseline value is a covariate||||1.0|-0.6|0.6298
84551543|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.6957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1696|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.1696|
84551544|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
84551545|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.4615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.993|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||0.9930|-0.0699|
84743940|NCT01397422|169241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-8.7|0.0038
84551546|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|1.0000|
84551547|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
84551548|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|0.6567|
84551549|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6614|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.6614|
84551550|NCT04594941|168856918|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|0.6567|
84551551|NCT02031640|168856940|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||ANCOVA|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
84551552|NCT02031640|168856940|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.106|||ANCOVA|||||0.106|-0.015|0.1415
84551553|NCT02031640|168856940|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.015||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.075|0.6356
84551554|NCT02031640|168856940|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.04||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.02|0.1932
84551555|NCT02031640|168856941|OTHER|The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction.|LSM Difference|10.616||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.489|17.744|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.744|3.489|0.0036
84551556|NCT02031640|168856941|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.419||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.309|15.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||15.53|1.309|0.0204
84551557|NCT02031640|168856941|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.004||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.121|13.129|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||13.129|-1.121|0.0984
84551558|NCT02031640|168856941|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.512||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.435|19.589|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||19.589|5.435|0.0006
84551559|NCT02031640|168856942|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.147||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|16.429|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.429|1.866|0.0139
84551560|NCT02031640|168856942|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.17||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.914|16.425|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.425|1.914|0.0133
84551561|NCT02031640|168856942|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.088||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|11.367|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||11.367|-3.191|0.2704
84551562|NCT02031640|168856942|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.301||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.073|17.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.53|3.073|0.0053
84743941|NCT01397422|169241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
84743942|NCT01397422|169241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||||0.9|-6.0|0.1469
84551563|NCT02031640|168856943|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|-0.363|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.363|-1.044|<0.0001
84551564|NCT02031640|168856943|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.352|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.352|-1.029|<0.0001
84551565|NCT02031640|168856943|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.651||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|-0.309|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.309|-0.994|0.0002
84551566|NCT02031640|168856943|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|-0.464|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.464|-1.138|<0.0001
84551567|NCT02031640|168856944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.033|-0.265|0.0119
84551568|NCT02031640|168856944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.217|0.0854
84551569|NCT02031640|168856944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.072|-0.306|0.0016
84551570|NCT02031640|168856944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.101|-0.332|0.0003
84551571|NCT01194999|168856949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No significant difference from baseline to final follow-up.||||0.001
84604481|NCT02214225|168959598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||||||For B/Yamagata strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.93|0.81|
84743943|NCT01397422|169241431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.2|0.8|0.0078
84551572|NCT05356533|168856954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84551573|NCT05356533|168856954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84551574|NCT05356533|168856955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84551575|NCT05356533|168856956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84551576|NCT05356533|168856957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84551577|NCT05356533|168856958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84551578|NCT05356533|168856959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84551579|NCT02091375|168856965|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.79||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.06|-5.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach.|||-5.43|-41.06|0.0123
84551580|NCT02091375|168856966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (2-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years).||||4.30|0.93|0.0784
84551581|NCT05896527|168856986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 200 mg BID compared to Placebo|||2.37|0.07|0.4839
84551582|NCT05896527|168856986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.49|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 400 mg BID compared to Placebo|||6.49|0.51|0.4111
84551583|NCT05896527|168856986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.99|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 600 mg QD compared to Placebo|||4.99|0.36|0.7744
84551584|NCT05896527|168856986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|12.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 800 mg BID compared to Placebo|||12.37|1.15|0.0164
84551585|NCT03085238|168856988|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.1309|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||0.1309
84551586|NCT03085238|168856989|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.0181|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||.0181
84551587|NCT01279070|168856998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML.An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
84551588|NCT01279070|168856999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood(REML).An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
84743944|NCT01397422|169241431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|0.5|0.0179
84743945|NCT01397422|169241431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||5.5|1.1|0.0040
84743946|NCT01397422|169241432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-11.2|0.6355
84743947|NCT01397422|169241432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|-7.2|0.7053
84743948|NCT01397422|169241432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||10.1|-7.7|0.7862
84551589|NCT01279070|168857000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.06|<0.05
84551590|NCT01279070|168857001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.09|<0.05
84604482|NCT02214225|168959598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||||||For B/Victoria strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.01|0.86|
84743949|NCT01397422|169241433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
84743950|NCT01397422|169241433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
84743951|NCT01397422|169241433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Equally spaced scores||||||0.1042
84743952|NCT04664400|169241436|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.043
84743953|NCT04664400|169241437|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.036
84743954|NCT04664400|169241438|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
84743955|NCT04664400|169241439|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.835
84743956|NCT01011153|169241453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes computed based on data from smaller studies provided 90% power for the comparison of sensitivity. Under the alternative hypothesis that the biopsy sensitivity of MelaFind would be 0.10 greater than the average biopsy/referral sensitivity of physicians (combined or separate), the probability that a 95% CI lies entirely above zero will be at least 90% when the standard error of the estimated difference is at most 0.0308.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||Using True Positives/All Positives, sensitivity values were calculated for MelaFind as well as the average of the 110 dermatologists.||0.32|0.18|<0.0001
84743957|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
84743958|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.31|0.16|<0.0001
84743959|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.33|0.19|<0.0001
84743960|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.25|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.25|-0.46|<0.0001
84743961|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.31|-0.53|<0.0001
84743962|NCT01011153|169241454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.30|-0.51|<0.0001
84743963|NCT01011153|169241455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made.|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
84743964|NCT01011153|169241455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
84743965|NCT01011153|169241455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
84743966|NCT01011153|169241455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||||0.0||||N/A - No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
84743967|NCT01081132|169241464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.865|-3.187|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-3.187|-8.865|<0.001
84604483|NCT02214225|168959599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.4|
84604484|NCT02214225|168959599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6||||||||1.6|-5.0|
84604485|NCT02214225|168959599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Yamagata. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.5||||||||0.5|-7.0|
84604486|NCT02214225|168959599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Victoria. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-5.6|
84604487|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.85|
84604488|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.99|0.83|
84604489|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.76|
84743968|NCT01081132|169241465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
84604490|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.76|
84604491|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.88|
84743969|NCT01081132|169241466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.024|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.024|-0.254|0.104
84743970|NCT01081132|169241467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.078|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.078|-0.192|0.408
84743971|NCT01081132|169241468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.037|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.037|-0.203|0.176
84491601|NCT01072175|168733646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|14.1||||||Difference in response rate Arm2- Arm1||14.1|-24.9|
84491602|NCT01072175|168733646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|33.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||33.7|-4.9|
84491603|NCT01072175|168733647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|26.8||||||||26.8|5.1|
84491604|NCT01072175|168733648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.87|0.38|0.0048
84491605|NCT01072175|168733648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
84491606|NCT01072175|168733650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||1.18|0.45|0.1667
84491607|NCT01072175|168733650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.9|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.90|0.32|0.0119
84491608|NCT01072175|168733658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, Cmax of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||2.08|1.10|
84604492|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.02||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.89|
84604493|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.84|
84604494|NCT02214225|168959600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.14|0.94|
84604495|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.6|-6.9|
84604496|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||0.2|-9.3|
84604497|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.3|-10.3|
84604498|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.2|-10.5|
84604499|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||4.0|-4.4|
84604500|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||5.2|-3.1|
84743972|NCT01081132|169241469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.036|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.036|-0.136|0.253
84743973|NCT01081132|169241470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.068|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.068|-0.061|0.912
84743974|NCT01081132|169241471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.081|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.081|-0.139|0.606
84743975|NCT01081132|169241472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.268|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.268|-0.064|0.228
84743976|NCT01081132|169241473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.065|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.065|-0.159|0.410
84743977|NCT01081132|169241474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.026|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.026|-0.443|0.082
84743978|NCT01081132|169241475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84743979|NCT01081132|169241476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Global Executive Composite||0.7|-5.3|0.134
84743980|NCT01081132|169241476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Behavioral Regulation Index||2.3|-4.0|0.579
84743981|NCT01081132|169241476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Metacognition Index||0.2|-5.6|0.072
84743982|NCT01081132|169241477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.8|-1.8|0.465
84743983|NCT03691909|169241497|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.09||||||0.743
84743984|NCT03691909|169241498|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.10||||||0.714
84551591|NCT01279070|168857002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
84604501|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.0|-6.3|
84604502|NCT02214225|168959601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||6.2|-3.7|
84604503|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) overall|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.57|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.57|1.38|
84743985|NCT03691909|169241499|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.37||||||0.183
84743986|NCT03691909|169241500|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.05||||||0.775
84743987|NCT03691909|169241501|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.93||Tender Joint Count||||0.0008
84743988|NCT03691909|169241501|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.83||Swollen Joint Count||||0.003
84604504|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) overall|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.7|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.70|1.45|
84743989|NCT01982448|169241502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|23.68|||||Association between HRD status and pathologic response was measured by the odds ratio (OR).|In the Cisplatin treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 52% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 5.7.||23.68|0.39|
84743990|NCT01982448|169241502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.95||||||In the Paclitaxel treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 37% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 0.62.||4.95|0.19|
84743991|NCT01982448|169241503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|118.07||||||||118.07|0.23|
84743992|NCT01982448|169241503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.14||||||||4.14|0.09|
84743993|NCT02217332|169241529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 6 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||< 0.001
84743994|NCT02217332|169241530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Month 6/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 6 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
84743995|NCT02217332|169241534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 3 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||<.001
84743996|NCT02217332|169241535|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Month 3/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 3 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 within the dexpramipexole treatment group||||||1.0
84743997|NCT02217332|169241536|SUPERIORITY||log scale|||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (paired)|||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'; 68% confidence interval is equal to plus/minus 1 standard error||||0.001
84743998|NCT01850446|169241539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectively planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|8.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints.|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (patient diary analysis)||||<0.0001
84551592|NCT01279070|168857003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups, standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR) assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
84551593|NCT00782184|168857008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS FOR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS REACHING LDL-C GOAL OF \<70 MG/DL||21.0|3.4|<0.001
84551594|NCT00782184|168857009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.15|-8.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||||-8.84|-21.15|<0.001
84551595|NCT00782184|168857010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.9|3.3|<0.001
84551596|NCT00782184|168857011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|2.0|<0.001
84551597|NCT00782184|168857012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.97|||LDA Model|||||-3.97|-12.50|<0.001
84551598|NCT00782184|168857013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.93|||LDA Model|||||9.93|-5.67|0.593
84551599|NCT00782184|168857014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|6.37|||LDA Model|||||6.37|-1.41|0.211
84669286|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84551600|NCT00782184|168857015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-5.92|||LDA Model|||||-5.92|-17.32|<0.001
84551601|NCT00782184|168857016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|-9.44|||LDA Model|||||-9.44|-22.77|<0.001
84551602|NCT00782184|168857017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.08|||LDA Model|||||-5.08|-14.96|<0.001
84551603|NCT00782184|168857018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|-6.59|||LDA Model|||||-6.59|-19.83|<0.001
84551604|NCT00782184|168857019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.88|||LDA Model|||||-2.88|-12.50|0.002
84551605|NCT00782184|168857020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.06|||LDA Model|||||8.06|2.44|<0.001
84551606|NCT00782184|168857021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-7.52|||LDA Model|||||-7.52|-18.31|<0.001
84551607|NCT00782184|168857022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.68||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|21.86|||LDA Model|||||21.86|-16.50|0.785
84551608|NCT03330262|168857023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84551609|NCT03330262|168857024|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84551610|NCT03330262|168857024|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
84551611|NCT03330262|168857025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.448
84551612|NCT03330262|168857026|OTHER|This test evaluated whether the change in ABC was significant for the BALCAP condition##. Ho: mean = 0||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
84551613|NCT03330262|168857026|OTHER|This test evaluated if the change in ABC score was significant for the control group.||||||0.796|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
84551614|NCT03330262|168857027|OTHER|Ho: Mean change in score = 0||||||0.189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
84551615|NCT03330262|168857027|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.713|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.713
84571302|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84571303|NCT02065557|168893575|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.038||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.038
84571304|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84669287|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84743999|NCT01850446|169241539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectievely planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (physician's examination analysis)||||<0.0001
84744000|NCT01850446|169241540|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 1.2 degree\*day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.23||||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of fever was measured as area under curve (body temperature-time)|||-0.23|0.027
84744001|NCT01850446|169241541|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority magrin was prespecified as 20% of comparator duration|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|mean survival time estimates obtained from survival analysis were compared by means of t-test with infinite degrees of freedom||||0.63||0.02
84744002|NCT01850446|169241542|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day)|Z-value|6.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics||||<0.0001
84744003|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||1.33||<0.001
84744004|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 morning)||2.59||0.013
84744005|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.084|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.66|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 morning)||2.66||0.084
84744006|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 morning)||2.2||0.22
84744007|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 morning)||1.07||0.04
84744008|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.13|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 morning)||0.98||0.13
84744009|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||0.74||0.135
84744010|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 evening)||2.67||0.004
84744011|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.94|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 evening)||2.94||0.05
84744012|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.447|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.08|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 evening)||3.08||0.447
84744013|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.042|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 evening)||1.4||0.042
84744014|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.313|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 evening)||1.53||0.313
84744015|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.087|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 evening)||0.77||0.087
84744016|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.41|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 physician's objective examination)||1.41||<0.001
84744017|NCT01850446|169241543|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.305|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 physician's objective examination)||3.11||0.305
84744018|NCT01850446|169241544|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Fever duration||0.5||0.02
84744019|NCT01850446|169241544|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-specific symptoms duration||0.14||<0.001
84744020|NCT01850446|169241544|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms duration||0.11||<0.001
84744021|NCT01850446|169241545|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% (AUC ratio supposed to be less than 1.2)|AUC ratio|1.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||bootstrap (100000 rep) confidence limits were constructed for AUC ratio|one-sample Z-test|AUC ratio was compared with N.I. margin||Severity of influenza was measured as area under curve (symptoms score-time)||1.17|0.9|0.015
84744022|NCT01850446|169241546|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.036|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.19|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day1)||0.19||0.036
84551616|NCT01154088|168857031|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups A as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||12.25|-1.41|
84551617|NCT01154088|168857031|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups C as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||3.25|-4.11|
84551618|NCT01154088|168857031|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|10.78||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups W-135 as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||10.78|3.28|
84551619|NCT01154088|168857031|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.58||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups Y as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||11.58|2.63|
84551620|NCT01154088|168857032|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups A, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.17|0.92|
84551621|NCT01154088|168857032|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups C, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.37|0.96|
84551622|NCT01154088|168857032|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups W-135, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.04|0.8|
84551623|NCT01154088|168857032|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups Y, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||0.99|0.78|
84669288|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0887|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
84744023|NCT01850446|169241546|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day2)||0.15||0.009
84744024|NCT01850446|169241546|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day3)||0.13||<0.001
84744025|NCT01850446|169241546|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day4)||0.13||<0.001
84744026|NCT01850446|169241546|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.01|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day5)||0.01||<0.001
84744027|NCT01850446|169241547|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage of Patients Requiring Antibiotics Administration||0.03||<0.001
84604505|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) 18 through 64 years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.87|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.87|1.50|
84604506|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) 18 through 64 years|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.01|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||2.01|1.55|
84744028|NCT01850446|169241548|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.014|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day3)||0.15||0.014
84744029|NCT01850446|169241548|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.037|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day5)||0.03||0.037
84744030|NCT01850446|169241548|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day7)||0.03||<0.001
84744031|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.59||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from days 3 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-2)||3.59|0.19|0.03
84744032|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.12||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from day 7 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-2)||3.12|-0.64|0.19
84744033|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IFN-γ)||||0.012
84491609|NCT01072175|168733660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge transformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib was analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with dosing chort and day as fixed effects and subject as random effect. Based on the model, geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.69|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|||1.69|0.89|
84491610|NCT01072175|168733660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5, 2 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were then provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||1.44|0.84|
84491611|NCT02257970|168733698|EQUIVALENCE|The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||For the analysis, the 4-month post-minus-pre change in this score for ketoprofen was compared.||||<0.0001
84491612|NCT02257970|168733699|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-post comparison: the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||=0.6
84491613|NCT02257970|168733699|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-Post comparison: The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||=0.01
84491614|NCT04051320|168733770|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.164||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.160
84491615|NCT04051320|168733771|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.74||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1922
84551624|NCT05010512|168857043|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect. Difference = DT1 minus Infuse|||0.01||
84551625|NCT01869699|168857060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||We estimated that 20 patients per group would provide 80% power for detecting a difference in means of 0.6 degrees Celsius, with a pooled SD of 0.67 degrees, using a two group t test and a two sided alpha level of 0.05. A previous RCT of IV acetaminophen in healthy male volunteers with induced fever found a core temperature difference of 0.60 degrees with a common SD of 0.67 degrees Celsius.||-0.18|-0.76|0.002
84744034|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IFN-γ)||||<0.0001
84744035|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-18)||||0.795
84491616|NCT04051320|168733772|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.837||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.368
84491617|NCT04051320|168733773|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.23||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
84491618|NCT04051320|168733774|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|16.541||||0.000723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.000723
84551626|NCT01869699|168857061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-10|0.03
84744036|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-18)||||0.992
84491619|NCT04051320|168733775|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.072||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.791
84491620|NCT04051320|168733776|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.952||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0372
84491621|NCT04051320|168733777|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|3.258||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0861
84491622|NCT04051320|168733778|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.37||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.139
84491623|NCT04051320|168733779|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.484||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.237
84491624|NCT04051320|168733780|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.013||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.910
84491625|NCT04051320|168733781|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.609||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0449
84491626|NCT04051320|168733782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.322
84491627|NCT04051320|168733782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.772
84491628|NCT04051320|168733783|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.568314||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.068
84491629|NCT04051320|168733783|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.082904||||0.8759289|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.8759289
84491630|NCT04051320|168733784|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.1275539||||0.70859639|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.70859639
84491631|NCT04051320|168733784|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|0.49225646||||0.2617744|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.2617744
84491632|NCT04051320|168733785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.568
84491633|NCT04051320|168733785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.944
84491634|NCT04051320|168733786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.103
84491635|NCT01000311|168733798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|93.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 80% for the serogroup A.||93|83|
84551627|NCT01869699|168857062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8|-25|<0.001
84744037|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-4)||0.92|0.02|0.04
84744038|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-4)||0.79|-0.04|0.08
84744039|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-16)||||0.062
84551628|NCT01869699|168857063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12|-4|0.42
84551629|NCT01869699|168857064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1|0.002
84551630|NCT01869699|168857065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10|-38|0.001
84551631|NCT01869699|168857066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-15|0.02
84551632|NCT02447497|168857085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.1|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment time point. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||4.10|0.51|<0.0001
84551633|NCT02447497|168857085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.75|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.75|0.60|0.0001
84551634|NCT02447497|168857085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.75|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||3.75|0.17|0.0001
84551635|NCT02447497|168857085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.04|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.04|0.13|0.0001
84551636|NCT01552915|168857088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-4.3|0.0717
84551637|NCT01552915|168857088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-9.4|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-9.4|-15.1|<0.0001
84744040|NCT01850446|169241549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-16)||||0.638
84551638|NCT01552915|168857088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.3|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-7.3|-13.0|<0.0001
84551639|NCT01552915|168857089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6165
84551640|NCT01552915|168857089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84744041|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.065
84744042|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.404
84744043|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.204
84551641|NCT01552915|168857089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84551642|NCT02858180|168857103|OTHER||Proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3||||||||98.3|59.5|
84551643|NCT00844480|168857106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
84551644|NCT02778074|168857175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551645|NCT02396420|168857179|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551646|NCT02396420|168857180|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551647|NCT02396420|168857181|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551648|NCT02396420|168857182|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
84551649|NCT02396420|168857183|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
84551650|NCT02396420|168857184|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551651|NCT02396420|168857185|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551652|NCT02396420|168857186|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84744044|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.386
84744045|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.592
84744046|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.356
84744047|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-γ)||||0.475
84551653|NCT02396420|168857187|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84744048|NCT01850446|169241550|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-γ)||||>0.99
84551654|NCT02396420|168857188|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551655|NCT02396420|168857189|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551656|NCT02396420|168857190|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551657|NCT02396420|168857191|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551658|NCT02396420|168857192|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551659|NCT02396420|168857193|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551660|NCT02396420|168857194|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551661|NCT02396420|168857195|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
84551662|NCT03518619|168857199|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.05||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84551663|NCT03518619|168857200|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84551664|NCT01273623|168857201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84551665|NCT01640379|168857204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.09||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||The odds ratio is for the difference in chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates between arms at ninety days after intervention.|A comparison of Chlamydia or Gonorrhea positivity at 90 days post intervention.||1.09|0.15|0.070
84744049|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (leukocytes)||||0.364
84744050|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (leukocytes)||||0.07
84744051|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day1 to day 3 (neutrophils)||||0.607
84551666|NCT01640379|168857204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|generalized estimating equations||The odds ratio is for the difference in rate of change over time between arms, so is the difference in the odds increment for those receiving TECH N intervention versus the control group.|"We used generalized estimating equations to test for a difference in the trend of chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates over the study period.~The null hypothesis is that rates of CT/GC for women in the intervention arm were changing over the study period similarly to CT/GC rates in the control arm."||0.98|0.39|0.043
84551667|NCT01640379|168857205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|230.1|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status (any vs none), insurance, and if woman had prior pregnancy.|Odds ratio is interpretable as the expected chance of having a 72 follow-up for intervention women compared to women in the control arm, given similar age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status, insurance, and pregnancy history.|H0: Women in TECHN arm had 72 hour visit with same frequency as women in control arm.||230.1|37.0|<0.001
84551668|NCT01640379|168857205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for intervention arm relative to control.|H0: Women in TECHN arm reported complete adherence to medication regimen (yes or no) with same frequency as women in control arm.||1.05|0.36|0.084
84551669|NCT01640379|168857205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for the chances of partner notification among TECH N recipients, relative to those in control arm.|H0: Women in TECHN arm notified their partners about their diagnoses more often than women in the control arm.||2.34|0.36|0.867
84551670|NCT01640379|168857205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for partners of TECH-N recipients versus partners of women in control arm.|H0: Partners of women receiving the TECH-N intervention were treated more often than the partners of women in the control arm.||1.19|0.33|0.153
84551671|NCT01640379|168857205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for women in the TECH-N arm relative to women in the control arm.|H0: Women in the TECHN arm practiced temporary sexual abstinence for two weeks after their diagnosis more often than those in the control arm.||1.06|0.86|0.351
84744052|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (neutrophils)||||0.028
84744053|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (lymphocytes)||||0.759
84744054|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.777
84744055|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (monocytes)||||0.02
84744056|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.343
84551672|NCT04064411|168857223|NON_INFERIORITY|"Noninferiority margin = 2.0% for abaloparatide-sMTS compared with abaloparatide-SC.~Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC) in the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was above -2.0% using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis."|Least Squares Means (LSM) Difference|-3.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0089|-2.4331|||||LSM Difference = abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC|||-2.4331|-5.0089|
84551673|NCT03395184|168857226|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|14.3||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|24.5|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum (min) risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar 2000)|||24.5|4.0|0.0119
84551674|NCT03395184|168857226|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|21.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|32.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||32.9|10.0|0.0012
84551675|NCT03395184|168857240|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|25.7|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.7|1.0|0.0390
84551676|NCT03395184|168857240|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|29.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|42.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||42.2|17.2|0.0001
84551677|NCT03395184|168857241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-1.48|-4.55|0.0007
84551678|NCT03395184|168857241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-3.26|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-3.26|-6.62|<.0001
84551679|NCT03395184|168857242|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.9||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|25.6|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.6|2.1|0.0279
84608439|NCT01345682|168967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score (PS) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||-0.42|-8.31|0.0300
84551680|NCT03395184|168857242|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.1|43.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||43.9|19.1|<.0001
84744057|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (eosinophils)||||0.575
84744058|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (eosinophils)||||0.912
84551681|NCT03395184|168857243|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|2.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||9.3|-4.3|0.2922
84551682|NCT03395184|168857243|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|7.4||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|15.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||15.2|-0.4|0.0449
84551683|NCT03395184|168857244|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|5.8||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|13.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||13.3|-1.6|0.0998
84744059|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (basophils)||||0.242
84744060|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (basophils)||||0.102
84744061|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+)||||0.429
84551684|NCT03395184|168857244|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|11.8||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|20.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||20.9|2.8|0.0111
84551685|NCT03053063|168857247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.9||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for baseline (BL) diabetes mellitus status and BL Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-4.4|0.5572
84551686|NCT03053063|168857247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.5||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.5|-6.0|0.9272
84551687|NCT03053063|168857250|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.6||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||10.6|-3.1|0.2850
84551688|NCT03053063|168857250|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.2||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-5.3|0.6731
84744062|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+)||||0.783
84744063|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.466
84744064|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.945
84744065|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.335
84744066|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.66
84551689|NCT03053063|168857252|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.0|-5.5|0.3650
84551690|NCT03053063|168857252|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.4||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||3.6|-4.3|0.8557
84551691|NCT02060058|168857254|OTHER|The evaluation of SVR rate was based on full-analysis-set (FAS) and modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). FAS population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of any antiviral agents (boceprevir and/or PEG-IFN, and/or RBV). MITT population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of boceprevir.||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84551692|NCT03963232|168857264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.32|<.0001
84551693|NCT03963232|168857265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.557|||GLIMMIX|||30% responder||3.557|2.010|<.0001
84551694|NCT03963232|168857265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.869|3.293|||GLIMMIX|||50% responder||3.293|1.869|<.0001
84604507|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.4|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.40|1.21|
84604508|NCT02214225|168959602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.51|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.51|1.27|
84604509|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) overall|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|18.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||18.6|12.1|
84744067|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.01
84551695|NCT03963232|168857265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|3.972|||GLIMMIX|||75% responder||3.972|2.007|<.0001
84551696|NCT03963232|168857265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.989|5.504|||GLIMMIX|||100% responder||5.504|1.989|<.0001
84744068|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.573
84744069|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.472
84744070|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.69
84744071|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.727
84744072|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.554
84551697|NCT03963232|168857266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|8.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.95|5.20|<.0001
84551698|NCT03963232|168857267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.0001
84551699|NCT03963232|168857268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-2.35|<.0001
84551700|NCT03963232|168857269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|1.92|<.0001
84551701|NCT03963232|168857270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.15|<.0001
84551702|NCT03963232|168857271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-14.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.56|-23.21|<.0001
84551703|NCT03963232|168857272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.73|-14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.75|-23.73|<.0001
84551704|NCT03963232|168857273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.22|<.0001
84551705|NCT03963232|168857274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.43|0.0284
84551706|NCT03963232|168857275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2484||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-6.05|||ANCOVA|||||-6.05|-18.81|0.0001
84744073|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.837
84744074|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.967
84744075|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.473
84604510|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) overall|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|23.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||23.6|16.5|
84604511|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) 18 through 64y|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.2|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||28.2|17.7|
84604512|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) 18 through 64y|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|34.1|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||34.1|23.1|
84604513|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||11.6|4.3|
84604514|NCT02214225|168959603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.0|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage.||16.0|7.7|
84604515|NCT01605227|168959636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||1.06|0.76|0.213
84604516|NCT01605227|168959637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||||<0.001
84604517|NCT01605227|168959638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.57|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.||||0.57|0.40|<0.001
84744076|NCT01850446|169241551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.736
84744077|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.282
84744078|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.071
84744079|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.45
84604518|NCT02847858|168959688|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.07||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) minus Arm2 (Control); Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to Post-visit Follow-up||2.07|0.26|0.011
84744080|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.58
84744081|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of monocytes)||||0.017
84744082|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of monocytes)||||0.019
84744083|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.424
84604519|NCT02847858|168959688|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.07||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||2.07|1.01|<0.001
84604520|NCT02847858|168959688|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.05||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||1.05|-0.10|0.108
84744084|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.666
84744085|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of basophils)||||0.268
84744086|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of basophils)||||0.031
84744087|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+)||||0.361
84744088|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+)||||0.699
84744089|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||0.418
84744090|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||>0.99
84551707|NCT00356135|168857278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.1|-8.73|||ANOVA|Treatment and study sites are fixed effects and MPA right before the randomization treatment period is a covariate in the model.|Mean Difference is for Prasugrel 10/10 mg arm minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg arm.|||-8.73|-19.10|<0.0001
84551708|NCT00356135|168857278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.26|-8.71|||ANCOVA|||||-8.71|-19.26|<0.0001
84551709|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|3.35||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.35|-8.22|0.4055
84604521|NCT02847858|168959689|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2,1611; Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparisons are 3 months - Baseline and 6 months - Baseline and 6 months - 3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months or from Baseline to 6 months||||0.04
84604522|NCT02847858|168959689|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site||Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 3 months - Baseline|2.11|-0.48|.218
84744091|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.172
84744092|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.904
84551710|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-17.51||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-17.51|-29.30|<0.0001
84744093|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.148
84744094|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.821
84744095|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.31
84744096|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||>0.99
84744097|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.43
84744098|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.821
84744099|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.943
84744100|NCT01850446|169241552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.841
84744101|NCT02704754|169241558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84551711|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.32||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.32|-8.82|0.0680
84744102|NCT02716818|169241561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.161|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was the natural logarithm of the mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for the natural logarithm of 17-OHP. The SDS profile was calculated as the SDS of log transformed 17-OHP concentration unsigned. The mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for each visit was the arithmetic mean of all the SDSs, with the first and last (13th) weighted one half relative to the intermediate SDSs.||0.161|-0.299|=0.5521
84744103|NCT02716818|169241562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to 24 Weeks in A4 Using an ANCOVA Model - The analysis conducted for the primary endpoint variable analysis of 17-OHP was repeated for A4.||0.329|-0.234|=0.7405
84744104|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|||=|0.8186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.281|||ANCOVA|||||0.281|-0.354|=0.8186
84744105|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|||=|0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.508|=0.4655
84744106|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||=|0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.451|||ANCOVA|||||1.451|-1.32|=0.9081
84744107|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.527|||ANCOVA|||||0.527|-0.343|=0.6729
84744108|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||=|0.5322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.489|||ANCOVA|||||0.489|-0.257|=0.5322
84744109|NCT02716818|169241563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|||=|0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|0.662|||ANCOVA|||||0.662|-1.799|=0.2885
84551712|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-23.94||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|Comparison of MPA to 20 uM ADP at 24 hours||-23.94|-33.20|<0.0001
84744110|NCT02716818|169241564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||=|0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.45|=0.9877
84744111|NCT02716818|169241564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||=|0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.43|=0.8498
84744112|NCT02716818|169241565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|0.374|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||0.374|-2.294|=0.156
84744113|NCT02716818|169241565|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.425|||=|0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|1.305|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||1.305|-0.455|=0.3392
84744114|NCT02716818|169241566|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.009|||=|0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.007|=0.2614
84744115|NCT03507777|169241576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84744116|NCT03507777|169241577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2487|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2487
84744117|NCT03507777|169241578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2952|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2952
84744118|NCT02245737|169241581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.594|-2.447|0.232
84744119|NCT02245737|169241581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.124|1.947|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.947|-1.124|0.599
84744120|NCT02245737|169241582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.669|-1.609|0.971
84744121|NCT02245737|169241582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.743|-1.580|0.923
84744122|NCT02245737|169241583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.172|0.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.899|-1.172|0.796
84744123|NCT02245737|169241583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.660|-0.437|0.252
84744124|NCT02245737|169241584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|3.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.852|-1.637|0.428
84551713|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-9.65||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.65|-19.96|<0.0001
84744125|NCT02245737|169241584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.655|-2.918|0.926
84744126|NCT02245737|169241585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.622|-0.322|0.533
84744127|NCT02245737|169241585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.630|-0.328|0.537
84744128|NCT02245737|169241587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|3.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.986|-0.441|0.116
84744129|NCT02245737|169241587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|3.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.704|-0.808|0.208
84744130|NCT02245737|169241588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.027|-0.391|0.379
84744131|NCT02245737|169241588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.721|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.721|-0.714|0.992
84744132|NCT02245737|169241589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.963|-45.578|||ANCOVA|||||-45.578|-56.963|<0.001
84744133|NCT02245737|169241589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.947|-60.022|||ANCOVA|||||-60.022|-70.947|<0.001
84744134|NCT02245737|169241590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.865|-53.108|||ANCOVA|||||-53.108|-62.865|<0.001
84744135|NCT02245737|169241590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.926|-68.575|||ANCOVA|||||-68.575|-77.926|<0.001
84744136|NCT02245737|169241591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|2.464|||ANCOVA|||||2.464|-42.210|0.081
84744137|NCT02245737|169241591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.78||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.555|5.938|||ANCOVA|||||5.938|-36.555|0.157
84744138|NCT02245737|169241592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.243|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||||-0.002|-5.243|0.050
84744139|NCT02245737|169241592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.618|0.373|||ANCOVA|||||0.373|-4.618|0.095
84744140|NCT02245737|169241593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.785|-8.574|||ANCOVA|||||-8.574|-18.785|<0.001
84744141|NCT02245737|169241593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.887|-12.428|||ANCOVA|||||-12.428|-22.887|<0.001
84744142|NCT02245737|169241594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.014|||ANCOVA|||||0.014|-0.033|0.426
84744143|NCT02245737|169241594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.029|0.660
84551714|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-9.32||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.32|-19.87|<0.0001
84551715|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.30|<0.0001
84551716|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.59|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.59|<0.0001
84551717|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|3.14||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.14|-5.85|0.5501
84551718|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-12.37||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.37|-21.55|<0.0001
84551719|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.42||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.42|-8.58|0.0752
84551720|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-15.64||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.64|-24.81|<0.0001
84551721|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.5||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.50|-17.21|<0.0001
84551722|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-5.79||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.79|-15.79|<0.0001
84551723|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-7.72||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.72|-17.41|<0.0001
84669289|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669290|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669291|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0011
84669292|NCT01480076|169072595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1853
84669293|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744144|NCT02245737|169241595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.015|0.210
84744145|NCT02245737|169241595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.007|||ANCOVA|||||0.007|-0.013|0.568
84744146|NCT02245737|169241596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|-1.413|||ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-3.258|<0.001
84744147|NCT02245737|169241596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.118|-2.247|||ANCOVA|||||-2.247|-4.118|<0.001
84744148|NCT00359216|169241614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The p-value is obtained by F-test in ANCOVA to assess the treatment group difference in changes from baseline, adjusted for baseline.||||0.9219
84744149|NCT01144052|169241618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed as this was a pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.125||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.125
84744150|NCT01144052|169241619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
84744151|NCT01144052|169241620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
84491636|NCT01000311|168733798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|98.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup C.||98|90|
84491637|NCT01000311|168733798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup W.||99|93|
84604523|NCT02847858|168959689|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.77||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 6 months - Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 6 months||2.77|0.38|0.008
84744152|NCT01144052|169241621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
84744153|NCT01144052|169241623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed, as this was pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.234||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value refers to nT2L at month 12||||||0.234
84744154|NCT00105001|169241626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
84744155|NCT00105001|169241626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-u\[|||1.1|0.4|0.10
84744156|NCT00105001|169241626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.0|0.6|0.04
84744157|NCT00105001|169241627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
84744158|NCT00105001|169241628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.009
84744159|NCT00105001|169241628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.4|0.5|0.51
84744160|NCT00105001|169241628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||0.8|0.3|0.004
84744161|NCT00105001|169241629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.93
84744162|NCT00105001|169241630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.96
84744163|NCT00294515|169241696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.66|0.25|<=0.0002
84744164|NCT00294515|169241697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.37|0.11|<0.0001
84491638|NCT01000311|168733798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lowe limit of 95% confidence interval|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup Y.||99|92|
84744165|NCT00294515|169241698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.60|0.22|0.0001
84744166|NCT00294515|169241699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0126||95.0|0.35|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.88|0.35|0.0126
84744167|NCT00294515|169241700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.01||95.0|0.34|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.86|0.34|0.0100
84669294|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0005
84604524|NCT02847858|168959690|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2, 1007; Arm comparison is Intervention/Control; Time comparisons are 3 months/Baseline and 6 months/Baseline and 6 months/3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months or to 6 months||||0.025
84604525|NCT02847858|168959690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.36||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 3 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months||10.36|1.04|0.042
84604526|NCT02847858|168959690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.06||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 6 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 6 months||18.06|1.7|0.005
84604527|NCT02847858|168959691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.82||Time main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is post-app minus pre-app|Null hypothesis: No change in contraception knowledge from immediate pre-app to immediate post-app among Intervention group participants||1.82|1.43|<0.001
84604528|NCT02847858|168959692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.01||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who discussed birth control with health care provider at visit||5.01|0.98|0.055
84669295|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
84669296|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
84744168|NCT00673400|169241719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Lifestyle (LS)||||0.1340
84744169|NCT00673400|169241719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||based on 29 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Coping/behavior (C/B)||||0.088
84551724|NCT00356135|168857279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-6.82||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.82|-16.80|<0.0001
84551725|NCT00356135|168857280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the mean MPA of patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1824
84744170|NCT00673400|169241719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Depression/self-perception (D/S)||||0.0012
84744171|NCT00673400|169241719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Embarrassment (E)||||0.0074
84744172|NCT00673400|169241722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84744173|NCT00673400|169241722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84551726|NCT00356135|168857280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||F-test|||The variance of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the variance of MPA for patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1101
84604529|NCT02847858|168959693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.78||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who receive/make appointment/get prescription for a non-barrier method||3.78|0.73|0.227
84669297|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744174|NCT00673400|169241722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84744175|NCT00673400|169241723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84744176|NCT00673400|169241723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84744177|NCT00673400|169241723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
84744178|NCT00673400|169241724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Physical component summary (PCS)||||0.65
84744179|NCT00673400|169241724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Mental component summary (MCS)||||0.010
84744180|NCT01151410|169241725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Indicates statistical significance at 0.025 level for one sided non-inferiority testing at 4mmHg margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||ANCOVA||||||-2.40|0.0040
84744181|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.002
84744182|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.23
84551727|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.37||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.37|-9.50|0.3466
84744183|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.18
84491639|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||2.6|-2.9|
84551728|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.33||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-20.33|-33.40|<0.0001
84604530|NCT03093974|168959708|SUPERIORITY|The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, pooled site (country) and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-time on treatment as an offset.|LS Mean rate ratio|0.612||||0.00101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.82|||two-sided Wald chi-square test|||||0.820|0.457|0.00101
84604531|NCT00434759|168959764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|We report the interaction effect.|The reported interaction effect is significant (p\< .05) in favour of standard therapy.|||||<0.05
84669298|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669299|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0024
84669300|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0669
84669301|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0018
84669302|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
84669303|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0190
84669304|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0106
84669305|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
84669306|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1937
84669307|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0445
84669308|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6475
84669309|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
84669310|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0386
84669311|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
84604532|NCT00434759|168959765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
84604533|NCT00434759|168959766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
84604534|NCT00434759|168959767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction is not significant.|||||<0.05
84604535|NCT00434759|168959768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance ist 0.05 p-value ist nor adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is significant (p \< .05) in favour of standard therapy|||||<0.05
84604536|NCT01038713|168959802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Analysis comparing the number of patients who had stent occlusion|Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||||||0.22
84744184|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
84744185|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.004
84744186|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
84744187|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.21
84744188|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
84604537|NCT01038713|168959802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of attempted surgical resection||||0.14
84604538|NCT01038713|168959802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of death between groups||||0.96
84604539|NCT01038713|168959803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
84604540|NCT03777917|168959807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|72.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|83.5|||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact test was used to test for the superiority of treatment (Belotero Balance®) over control.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.|||83.5|47.5|< 0.0001
84604541|NCT00432744|168959816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.48||Two-sided Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Positive value of Tau-B would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.48|-0.44|0.95
84604542|NCT00432744|168959817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.72|-0.12|0.18
84604543|NCT00432744|168959818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||The Hotelling T-sq=1.74 and 42% of the rerandomizations to groups of 7 and 8 had Hotelling T-sq of at least 1.74. This is the standard method for permutation tests. The large sample null is chi-sq with 2 df, which has a mean=2.|Non-parametric Hotelling T-square|||The actual study was powered to have 40 participants but only 24 participated and of these only 15 had outcome data.||||0.42
84604544|NCT01400243|168959857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
84604545|NCT01400243|168959858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84604546|NCT01460719|168959873|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval of the GMFR is \>1.0.|||||<|0.001|||||||Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustments made for pre-vaccination values||||||<0.001
84604547|NCT01151761|168959887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||months|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.0|||||There were only two patients in the study. Both died without having any local failure. One patient died at 10 months, the other at 7 months. The range for the 95%CI is both the full range and the 95%CI.|The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) time as calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. For PFS both death and progression are counted as events.||10|7|
84604548|NCT01151761|168959892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||None of the two patients who participated had a local recurrence before they died.|||||
84604549|NCT02838901|168959907|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis, and was based on the overall assessment of feasibility of the intervention.||||||0.058||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was used, and the assumption was there would be no difference in adherence between the Active Juice and the Placebo Juice, and therefore a two-sided t approximation was reported. Since this was a pilot study, power calculations were not performed. The adherence in the two groups was compared using the Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||0.058
84604550|NCT02838901|168959908|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis and was under the goal of assessing safety of the intervention.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was assumed, no power calculation was done since this was a pilot study.||||1.00
84604551|NCT02838901|168959909|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study.||||0.0003
84604552|NCT02838901|168959910|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study, and no power calculations were performed.||||||0.1023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1023
84491640|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||3.9|-3.3|
84551729|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-1.6||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-1.60|-13.04|0.0127
84551730|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-28.42||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-28.42|-39.99|<0.0001
84551731|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-11.09||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-11.09|-25.58|<0.0001
84604553|NCT02838901|168959911|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study to gather preliminary data for a larger trial. No power calculations were performed for this outcome.||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9581
84551732|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-12.26||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.26|-27.09|<0.0001
84551733|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.77||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-14.77|-28.42|<0.0001
84752934|NCT01829360|169261413|OTHER|A secondary analysis was performed to examine individual differences in treatment outcomes. This was done collapsed across all arms because the difference between the arms/treatments was not significant in the primary analysis. This was done by adding predictors to the primary analysis model to determine if learner characteristics were significantly related to growth in word defining. All continuous learner characteristics were grand mean centered.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84604554|NCT02838901|168959911|OTHER|||||||0.6678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study and the purpose was to collect preliminary data for a larger trial.||||.6678
84604555|NCT02838901|168959913|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84604556|NCT02838901|168959913|OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
84604557|NCT02838901|168959914|OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.889
84604558|NCT02838901|168959914|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
84604559|NCT02838901|168959915|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
84604560|NCT02838901|168959916|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
84604561|NCT02838901|168959917|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.135
84604562|NCT02838901|168959918|OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
84604563|NCT06276881|168959957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided||||Multiple regression analysis|||.37
84604564|NCT06276881|168959958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
84604565|NCT02124512|168959959|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated to be \>0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of the pre- and post-treatment timecourse between untreated and rifaximin-treated participants.||||>0.05
84604566|NCT02124512|168959960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||unpaired Student's t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment difference (change in placebo pre- and post-treatment versus change in rifaximin pre- and post-treatment).||||0.12
84752935|NCT01829360|169261414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The interim definition data were analyzed with the primary pre-/post-definition data to capture growth across the entire treatment period.||||<0.05
84551734|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-15.63||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.63|-29.61|<0.0001
84551735|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.38||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||6.38|-3.11|0.4954
84551736|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-6.24||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.24|-15.92|<0.0001
84551737|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|1.74||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||1.74|-8.31|0.1971
84551738|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-10.75||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-10.75|-20.98|<0.0001
84551739|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-7.32||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.32|-18.81|<0.0001
84551740|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-6.09||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.09|-17.91|0.0001
84551741|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-6.32||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.32|-15.64|<0.0001
84551742|NCT00356135|168857281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-5.09||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.09|-14.67|<0.0001
84551743|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0005
84551744|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
84551745|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0150
84604567|NCT01035346|168959989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|8.33||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|24.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on Least-squares (LS) means from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model.||24.60|-7.94|0.228
84752936|NCT00578786|169261446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|53.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||53.3|22.7|
84551746|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0152
84551747|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0153
84551748|NCT00356135|168857282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0018
84551749|NCT05270395|168857321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|46.69|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||46.69|1.38|0.02
84551750|NCT05270395|168857322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||4.56|0.40|0.63
84752937|NCT00578786|169261446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|43.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||43.8|21.1|
84551751|NCT05270395|168857323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||1.46|0.06|0.13
84551752|NCT05270395|168857324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||2.24|0.13|0.40
84551753|NCT05270395|168857325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.62|0.51|0.29
84551754|NCT05270395|168857326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|14.32|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||14.32|0.88|0.07
84551755|NCT05270395|168857327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|18.89|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||18.89|0.82|0.09
84551756|NCT05270395|168857328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.43|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||6.43|0.46|0.42
84551757|NCT05270395|168857329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.42|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.42|0.87|0.08
84551758|NCT05270395|168857330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|34.49|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||34.49|1.99|0.004
84551759|NCT02730377|168857337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Test for no treatment difference is based on using a generalised log-rank test for interval censored failure time data.||||<.0001
84551760|NCT03917472|168857377|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANOVA|||||2.9|-0.6|0.099
84551761|NCT03917472|168857377|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84551762|NCT03917472|168857378|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided); Week 52|LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-23.8|||ANOVA|||||-23.8|-58.9|<0.001
84604568|NCT01035346|168959990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.99||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|15.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-4: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||15.97|-3.99|0.171
84752938|NCT00578786|169261446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|55.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||55.7|26.1|
84752939|NCT00578786|169261446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|43.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||43.7|28.3|
84551763|NCT03917472|168857379|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided) Week 52|Difference - %|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||||28.6|12.5|<0.001
84551764|NCT03917472|168857386|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 5 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|1.7|
84551765|NCT03917472|168857386|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 10 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|-1.5|
84551766|NCT03917472|168857386|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 15 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||14.3|-2.7|
84551767|NCT03917472|168857387|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.5|0.2|
84551768|NCT03917472|168857387|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||14.9|-3.0|
84551769|NCT03917472|168857387|NON_INFERIORITY|(10% margin); week 52|Difference - %|6.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|16.1||(10% margin) (1-sided)|Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.1|-3.9|0.002
84551770|NCT03917472|168857388|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||6.6|-2.5|
84744189|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
84744190|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.14
84744191|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.45
84744192|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.79
84744193|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
84752940|NCT00578786|169261447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|44.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||44.7|5.1|
84551771|NCT03917472|168857388|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||7.7|-3.0|
84752941|NCT00578786|169261447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|94.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|41.6|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5.0 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||41.6|14.2|
84752942|NCT00578786|169261447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.0|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||52.0|22.4|
84752943|NCT00578786|169261447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|38.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||38.7|20.4|
84752944|NCT00578786|169261448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||26.8|-13.4|
84551772|NCT03917472|168857388|OTHER|descriptive; week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||9.8|-2.0|
84551773|NCT01154296|168857392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted risk ratio (aRR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||A total of 2039/2505 participants randomized to the counseling group and 2032/2507 to the information-only group had complete follow-up STI data. Cumulative STI incidence was 250/2039 (12.3%) in the counseling group and 226/2032 (11.1%) in the information-only group (aRR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.94-1.33).||1.33|0.94|
84551774|NCT01154296|168857393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.09|0.90|
84752945|NCT00578786|169261448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|37.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||37.8|8.7|
84752946|NCT00578786|169261448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|45.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||45.1|10.9|
84752947|NCT00578786|169261448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|20.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||30.1|10.6|
84752948|NCT00578786|169261449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|20.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||20.3|-18.9|
84604569|NCT01035346|168959990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|32.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||32.69|-14.78|0.354
84744194|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.03
84744195|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.12
84744196|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.29
84744197|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
84744198|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.08
84744199|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.61
84604570|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.54|-0.84|0.576
84491641|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP vaccine is given, compared with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||4.3|-12.1|
84604571|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.50|0.502
84604572|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|-0.51|0.116
84491642|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis (FHA antigen), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||13.6|-5.1|
84491643|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone.||9.1|-8.8|
84744200|NCT02270515|169241819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
84551775|NCT01154296|168857394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.13|0.86|
84551776|NCT01154296|168857395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||0.94|0.82|
84551777|NCT01154296|168857396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.05|0.90|
84551778|NCT01154296|168857397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Risk Ratio (aRR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.89|1.46||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.46|0.89|
84551779|NCT02759055|168857398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.008|0.998|<0.05
84551780|NCT04934189|168857409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.184||0.08|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.08
84551781|NCT04934189|168857410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.417|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up mean) was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.005
84604573|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|-0.98|0.161
84744201|NCT00738894|169241820|SUPERIORITY|This is the first of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected event free for medical management 92% at 24 months; expected event free for device closure 96.4% at 24 months (55% risk reduction); 664 subjects randomly assigned 2:1 to device closure or medical management provides 80% power with 15% attrition (over 5 years) and 1-sided alpha = 0.024 to allow for interim analysis (interim analysis later rescinded from plan).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 2nd primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (test/control) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as sole explanatory variable, the exponentiated coefficient of which provided the hazard ratio. Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lower recurrent stroke-free survivorship for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Sd(t) ≤ Sm(t) for all t, versus H1: Sd(t) \> Sm(t) for all t, where Sd(t) and Sm(t) are true Kaplan-Meier product-limit survivor functions for the device closure and medical management arms and t is time from randomization to event or censoring.~Event-free subjects were censored at time of last follow-up. Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.62|0.09|0.001
84604574|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.87||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.41|-1.66|0.215
84551782|NCT04934189|168857412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||0.40
84551783|NCT04934189|168857413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.49
84551784|NCT04934189|168857415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.21
84551785|NCT04934189|168857416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.47
84744202|NCT00738894|169241821|SUPERIORITY|This is the second of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected proportion of brain infarct is 3-7 times the clinical stroke rate; expected brain infarct proportion for medical management 14.5% (2.9% clinical stroke x 5); expected brain infarct for device closure 6.5% (55% risk reduction); 597 subjects (10% attrition from 664) provides 73% power with 1-sided alpha = 0.0125 (based conservatively on a Bonferroni adjustment of alpha/2).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.108||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 1st primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|z-test, 1-sided||Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or higher proportion with brain infarct for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Pm - Pd ≤ 0, versus H1: Pm - Pd \> 0, where Pd and Pm are true proportions of subjects with brain infarct for the device closure and medical management arms.~Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.108|0.003|0.024
84744203|NCT03026075|169241824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MCS in cleansing a poorly prepared colon.~A sample size of 47 patients is required as per a McNemar test to determine that the paired discordant proportions are significantly different under the followings assumptions:~Probability of Type I Error (α) = 0.05, Power (1 - β) = 0.8 Proportion switching from + to - = 0, Proportion switching from - to + = 0.6 Potential of dropout 10% (i.e. 4 cases)"||||<0.01
84744204|NCT04927247|169241825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|31.7|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||31.7|-15.8|0.6302
84744205|NCT04927247|169241826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.16|||Stratified log-rank test|||||2.16|0.43|0.9382
84744206|NCT04927247|169241827|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.8||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|0.8|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||0.8|-34.4|0.1143
84744207|NCT04927247|169241828|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.63|0.7549
84744208|NCT00878826|169241829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 14-18 weeks gestational age||||0.4
84744209|NCT00878826|169241829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 24-28 weeks gestational age||||0.9
84551786|NCT04934189|168857418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.16
84744210|NCT00878826|169241829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 32-34 weeks gestational age||||0.3
84744211|NCT00383110|169241852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.648
84551787|NCT04934189|168857419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0481|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.926||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
84551788|NCT04934189|168857421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.35
84551789|NCT04934189|168857422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.17
84551790|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.18||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
84551791|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.29||||0.1|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.10
84551792|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.17||||0.43|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.43
84551793|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.68||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.25
84551794|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.36||||0.36|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.36
84551795|NCT04934189|168857426|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.09||||0.47|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.47
84744212|NCT00383110|169241853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84744213|NCT00383110|169241854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.675
84744214|NCT00383110|169241855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84744215|NCT00383110|169241856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84744216|NCT00383110|169241857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84744217|NCT02489968|169241858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.67|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + placebo)|||-0.67|-0.97|<0.0001
84744218|NCT02489968|169241858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + placebo)|||-0.45|-0.73|<0.0001
84551796|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|3.76|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided||||"A series of one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean for each of the five gender minority stress subscales measured. See below for T-scores and associated p-values for each statistical test.~Nonaffirmation (t = 3.76; p = .001) Internalized Transphobia (t = 2.01; p = .02) Negative Expectations (t = 2.06; p =.02) Community Connection (t = -0.82; p =.21) Pride (t = .01; p = .50 )"|||<.001
84551797|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.01||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
84551798|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.61||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.06
84551799|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.06||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
84551800|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.818||||0.21|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.21
84551801|NCT04934189|168857427|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.009||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.50
84551802|NCT04934189|168857430|OTHER||Chi-squared|5.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05|Chi-squared|||For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting freedom from sexual victimization over a 6 month time period||||.04
84604575|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.52|-2.18|0.388
84604576|NCT01035346|168959991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.61|-3.98|0.849
84604577|NCT01035346|168959993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion|11.11||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|32.89||p-value was calculated using CMH general association test using table scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and its associated CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportion and the corresponding standard errors.||32.89|-10.67|0.378
84604578|NCT01035346|168959994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.27|-0.30|0.324
84604579|NCT01035346|168959995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.18|-0.12|0.210
84604580|NCT03315104|168960112|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV High Dose (450 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.174
84604581|NCT03315104|168960112|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.572
84604582|NCT03315104|168960112|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.534
84551803|NCT04934189|168857430|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting any exposure to nonpenetrative sexual assault over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.55
84551804|NCT04934189|168857430|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting exposure to rape over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.59
84551805|NCT04934189|168857432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
84604583|NCT03315104|168960112|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV pooled (450 mL + 250 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift where the two active dose groups were pooled and compared to placebo.||1.000|0.000|0.534
84744219|NCT01865747|169241908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
84604584|NCT01030874|168960154|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at baseline.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||1.99|0.67|0.6
84604585|NCT01030874|168960155|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at discharge.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||3.24|0.74|0.3
84744220|NCT01865747|169241909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.83|0.53|0.0003
84551806|NCT04934189|168857433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.25|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.25
84551807|NCT00765895|168857445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||||||0.86
84551808|NCT00970632|168857446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was for the primary comparison and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84551809|NCT00970632|168857446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.023||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was secondary in nature and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84551810|NCT00970632|168857447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84604586|NCT05257148|168960163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84604587|NCT03541187|168960164|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between arms will be conducted using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, in which the change from the baseline to the 12-month TNSS mean serves as the outcome. The ANCOVA model will incorporate factors for treatment while adjusting for both the baseline TNSS mean and site.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-1.15|0.63
84604588|NCT03541187|168960166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.99|0.69
84604589|NCT03541187|168960167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.54|||Regression, Cox||At the reactive dose of 15.4 mcg/mL after 12 months, there were 11 participants who were right-censored in the Cockroach SCIT arm and 8 participants who were right-censored in the Placebo arm.|||1.54|0.42|.51
84604590|NCT03541187|168960168|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.54|0.91
84604591|NCT03541187|168960169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|4.77|<0.001
84604592|NCT00294645|168960198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Modified Peto-Peto|A one-sided test was used.||Null hypothesis: control rate = remote rate||||<0.0001
84604593|NCT03554772|168960245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for each dose group vs placebo comparison|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect , baseline NPRS and basline BMI as covariates P-value is Dunnett adjusted (individual treatment arms)||||||<0.0001
84551811|NCT00970632|168857447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551812|NCT00970632|168857448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
84604594|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.01|137.1||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.1|91.01|
84551813|NCT00970632|168857448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
84551814|NCT00970632|168857449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744221|NCT01865747|169241910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84744222|NCT03973931|169241925|NON_INFERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure of the 12 observations|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3||||||<0.05
84551815|NCT00970632|168857449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.026||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84551816|NCT00970632|168857450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.08||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.080
84551817|NCT00970632|168857450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.118||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
84551818|NCT00970632|168857451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.022||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84551819|NCT00970632|168857451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.546||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.546
84551820|NCT00970632|168857452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84551821|NCT00970632|168857452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84551822|NCT00970632|168857453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551823|NCT00970632|168857453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551824|NCT00970632|168857454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84604595|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.67|124.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||124.0|78.67|
84604596|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|137.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.3|85.50|
84604597|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|120.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||120.5|74.69|
84604598|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|109.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|122.7||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||122.7|97.02|
84604599|NCT04600505|168960311|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|100.1||||||90.0|83.78|119.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.5|83.78|
84551825|NCT00970632|168857454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.026||95.0||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84551826|NCT00970632|168857455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.001
84604600|NCT04600505|168960312|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|104.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|119.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.2|91.95|
84604601|NCT04600505|168960312|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|115.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.3|83.33|
84604602|NCT04600505|168960312|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|96.0||||||90.0|70.33|131.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||131.0|70.33|
84604603|NCT04600505|168960312|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|116.7||||||90.0|86.31|157.8||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||157.8|86.31|
84551827|NCT00970632|168857455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.114
84551828|NCT00970632|168857456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and a stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.004
84551829|NCT00970632|168857456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.452
84551830|NCT00970632|168857457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-4.4||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.005
84744223|NCT03973931|169241926|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the longitudinal data (12 observations per patient) and estimated absolute differences in PDC between treatment group and usual care was analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure was used.|||||<|0.05||||||To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3, and if any test was significant, a significance level of (R/3)\*(0.05/3) using the Holm method was used for the 3 pairwise comparisons, R=number of significant stage 1 tests.|GEE|||||||<0.05
84744224|NCT00925353|169241930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Actual lab results shown|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||non-compartmental pharmacokinetic|The planned analysis was to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. There were too few detectable values to be able to perform this analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Application of 4% lidocaine gel on the breasts and chest wall of healthy women occluded for one hour does not result in systemically toxic plasma concentrations of lidocaine or its principal metabolite, monoethylglycinexyliidie (MEGX), electrocardiogram changes, or adverse events.||||<0.05
84744225|NCT02516332|169241936|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84551831|NCT00970632|168857457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-2.2||||0.457||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.457
84551832|NCT00970632|168857458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.0|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84551833|NCT00970632|168857458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.699||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.699
84551834|NCT00970632|168857459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.009
84551835|NCT00970632|168857459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.014
84551836|NCT00970632|168857462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.303
84744226|NCT02516332|169241936|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84551837|NCT00970632|168857462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.146
84551838|NCT02653170|168857463|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = 0.970 (p=0.335), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 3.370 (p\<0.001), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 2.400 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.025
84604604|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|121.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||121.9|94.53|
84604605|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.59|115.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.4|84.59|
84744227|NCT02516332|169241941|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
84744228|NCT02516332|169241941|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
84744229|NCT00452426|169241944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
84744230|NCT00452426|169241946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84744231|NCT00452426|169241947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84744232|NCT03541174|169241949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.79||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.76|-0.82||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-6.76|0.0042
84744233|NCT03541174|169241949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.67|-0.78||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.78|-6.67|0.0046
84744234|NCT03541174|169241950|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo.|-5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.71||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiSBP = DB-WD baseline SiSBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + DB-WD baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-7.94|<0.0001
84744235|NCT03541174|169241951|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.31||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.31|-5.57|<0.0001
84551839|NCT02653170|168857464|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.562||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.064 (p=0.422), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 0.258 (p=0.844), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 1.322 (p=0.309)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.562
84551840|NCT02653170|168857465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.789
84551841|NCT02653170|168857466|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.042||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis||The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.651 (p=0.558), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 5.023 (p=0.073), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 6.674 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.042
84551842|NCT02653170|168857467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.993
84551843|NCT01895270|168857505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.42
84551844|NCT05139303|168857506|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84551845|NCT03875482|168857510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|69.6|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||69.6|48.4|<0.001
84551846|NCT03875482|168857511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|68.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|79.7|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||79.7|57.2|<0.001
84551847|NCT03875482|168857512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints had been rejected.||46.2|26.2|<0.001
84551848|NCT03875482|168857513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|47.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints and for the first secondary endpoint had been rejected.||47.2|27.1|<0.001
84744236|NCT03541174|169241951|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-2.85||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.09|<0.0001
84551849|NCT03875482|168857514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.936|-26.346|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 4~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-26.346|-45.936|<0.001
84551850|NCT03875482|168857514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.326|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.501|-49.439|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 16~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-49.439|-70.501|<0.001
84551851|NCT00507819|168857516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.73
84551852|NCT00507819|168857517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
84551853|NCT00507819|168857518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84604606|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.18|130.6||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||130.6|86.18|
84551854|NCT00507819|168857519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
84744237|NCT03541174|169241952|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-2.12|-6.25|<0.0001
84744238|NCT03541174|169241952|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.85|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-3.85|-7.94|<0.0001
84744239|NCT03541174|169241952|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-2.98|-5.66|<0.0001
84604607|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.84|123.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||123.0|80.84|
84604608|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.44|111.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||111.4|86.44|
84604609|NCT04600505|168960313|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|128.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||128.9|88.82|
84604610|NCT04612842|168960350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84604611|NCT01118520|168960361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84604612|NCT01118520|168960361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
84604613|NCT01287221|168960383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.82
84604614|NCT01287221|168960384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.62
84604615|NCT01287221|168960385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.23
84604616|NCT01287221|168960386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31
84604617|NCT01287221|168960387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.65
84744240|NCT03541174|169241952|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-4.49|-7.14|<0.0001
84604618|NCT01287221|168960388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.61
84604619|NCT01287221|168960389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.22
84604620|NCT00657150|168960395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.79|1.64||Superiority p-value = 0.4367|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.64|-3.79|< 0.0001
84604621|NCT00657150|168960396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.91||||0.029||95.0|-3.64|-0.19|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||||-0.19|-3.64|0.029
84604622|NCT00657150|168960397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.79||||0.0358||95.0|-3.47|-0.12|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||-0.12|-3.47|0.0358
84604623|NCT00657150|168960398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.96||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.73|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.73|-3.65|0.4839
84604624|NCT00657150|168960399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0612
84604625|NCT00657150|168960400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6231||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6231
84669312|NCT01480076|169072596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0076
84669313|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1471
84669314|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5503|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5503
84669315|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3854
84669316|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4893|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4893
84744241|NCT03541174|169241953|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.76||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiDBP = Double-blind withdrawal baseline SiDBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + Double-blind withdrawal baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.76|-6.62|<0.0001
84744242|NCT03541174|169241954|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.56|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-4.56|-8.50|<0.0001
84551855|NCT01945970|168857520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.40|-1.09|0.36
84744243|NCT03541174|169241954|OTHER||LSM Mean difference to placebo|-6.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-5.52|-7.98|<0.0001
84744244|NCT00605215|169241955|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||1.020|0.664|0.0746
84551856|NCT01945970|168857521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.28|-0.24|0.18
84551857|NCT01945970|168857522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||-0.19|-1.59|0.014
84551858|NCT01945970|168857523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.31|-1.30|0.22
84604626|NCT00657150|168960401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4977
84604627|NCT00657150|168960402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6870
84744245|NCT00605215|169241955|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.92|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||0.920|0.596|0.0067
84744246|NCT00275262|169241964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.125
84744247|NCT00275262|169241965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.299
84551859|NCT01945970|168857524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.53|-0.11|0.09
84551860|NCT01945970|168857525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.37|-1.13|0.32
84551861|NCT01945970|168857526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||4.39|-0.61|0.14
84551862|NCT01945970|168857527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.62|-2.41|0.69
84551863|NCT01945970|168857528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.95|-2.06|0.72
84551864|NCT01945970|168857529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.88|-1.15|0.39
84551865|NCT01945970|168857530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.24|-1.75|0.74
84604628|NCT00657150|168960403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin for the category major bleeding events||||0.4022
84604629|NCT00657150|168960403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||2.3|-0.8|0.3305
84604630|NCT00657150|168960403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.4||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category any bleeding events||3.9|-1.1|0.2626
84604631|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
84551866|NCT01945970|168857531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.88|-2.12|0.41
84551867|NCT01945970|168857532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects||1.54|-1.11|0.74
84551868|NCT01945970|168857533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.17|-1.84|0.66
84551869|NCT01945970|168857534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.30|-2.70|0.11
84551870|NCT01945970|168857535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.73|-0.93|0.55
84551871|NCT00979875|168857536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||2.55|1.70|<0.0001
84551872|NCT00979875|168857536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|7.12||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||7.12|3.88|<0.0001
84551873|NCT00979875|168857536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|5.6||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||5.60|3.05|<0.0001
84551874|NCT00979875|168857537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-38.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.31|-24.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-24.55|-53.31|<0.0001
84551875|NCT00979875|168857537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.43||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.81|-12.05||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-12.05|-40.81|0.0032
84551876|NCT00979875|168857537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-42.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.53|-27.76||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-27.76|-56.53|<0.0001
84551877|NCT02738879|168857542|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis A: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin is non-inferior relative to withdrawing sitagliptin on the change from baseline in A1C. Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference is less than 0.3%.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening. Least Squares Means = LSM||-0.34|-0.58|
84551878|NCT02738879|168857542|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis B: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin results in a greater reduction of A1C relative to withdrawing sitagliptin.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A LDA model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-0.34|-0.58|< 0.001
84551879|NCT02738879|168857543|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.73|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Negative Binomial Model|||Calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.98|0.54|= 0.039
84669317|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2166|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2166
84551880|NCT02738879|168857544|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-2.3|
84551881|NCT02738879|168857545|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-4.1|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.9|-11.2|= 0.250
84551882|NCT02738879|168857546|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-8.0|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.5|||LDA model|||The analysis is based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.5|-14.6|= 0.016
84604632|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.49
84744248|NCT01302067|169241982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Primary comparison was 8 mg VS. 4 mg (closed-testing method). Treatment effect of 8 mg VS. placebo was tested 1st. Treatment difference of 8 mg VS. 4 mg was tested if a statistically significant difference between 8 mg and placebo was shown.|ANCOVA|Using a closed testing procedure, no adjustments of α-level was needed at each stage of testing. Each was done at the 0.05 significance level.|Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Comparisons were done with 2-sided test at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis: mean change from BL in the number of UUI episodes per 24 hours in the 8mg group was same as 4mg group at Week 12. ANCOVA was used to compare 8mg and 4mg arms for numeric change from BL - Week 12. This included terms for treatment, country, centered BL value and centered BL by treatment interaction, in which centered BL (BL - mean BL) was used to ensure that treatment effect was estimated at mean covariate value.||-0.66|-1.16|<0.0001
84744249|NCT01302067|169241982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.06|-0.48|0.0109
84744250|NCT01302067|169241982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.39||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.39|-0.89|<0.0001
84744251|NCT01302067|169241983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.79||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.79|-1.48|<0.0001
84752949|NCT00578786|169261449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.5|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||33.5|4.2|
84551883|NCT02738879|168857547|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.81|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.99|0.67|= 0.041
84551884|NCT02738879|168857548|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.83|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.37|0.51|= 0.473
84551885|NCT02738879|168857549|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. Includes imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.7|-6.2|= 0.624
84551886|NCT02738879|168857550|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||25.7|11.6|< 0.001
84551887|NCT02738879|168857551|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-6.5|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.0|||LDA|||Analysis was based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.0|-11.9|= 0.020
84551888|NCT02738879|168857552|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.0|-9.1|
84551889|NCT02738879|168857553|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.44|||Negative Binomial Model|||The analysis was calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.44|0.40|= 0.394
84551890|NCT02738879|168857554|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||The analysis included imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. Proportions and difference in proportions were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||5.8|-8.2|= 0.740
84551891|NCT02738879|168857555|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The analysis included imputed events after subjects discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.2|-4.7|= 0.712
84551892|NCT02738879|168857556|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|5.3|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||10.1|0.5|= 0.030
84551893|NCT01730534|168857580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.172||95.0|0.84|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.84|0.172
84551894|NCT01730534|168857581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.005||95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.73|0.005
84551895|NCT01730534|168857582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.67|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.87|0.67|<0.001
84551896|NCT01730534|168857583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.198||95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.198
84551897|NCT01647516|168857614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|10.984|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||10.984|0.969|0.0482
84551898|NCT01647516|168857614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|8.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.661|0.722|0.1422
84604633|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.50
84604634|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
84551899|NCT01647516|168857615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.158||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|4.263|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.263|1.093|0.0207
84551900|NCT01647516|168857615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.947||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|3.946|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||3.946|0.961|0.0648
84551901|NCT01647516|168857616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.0042
84551902|NCT01647516|168857616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.1415
84551903|NCT01647516|168857617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.861||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.572|9.484|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||9.484|1.572|0.0023
84551904|NCT01647516|168857617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.647||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|6.621|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||6.621|1.058|0.0348
84604635|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
84669318|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4149
84752950|NCT00578786|169261449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|45.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||45.4|10.1|
84551905|NCT01647516|168857618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.332||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|14.186|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||14.186|1.323|0.0108
84551906|NCT01647516|168857618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.443||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.706|17.365|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||17.365|1.706|0.0021
84551907|NCT01647516|168857619|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.871|8.678|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.678|1.871|0.0002
84551908|NCT01647516|168857619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.154||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|4.763|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.763|0.974|0.0571
84551909|NCT01647516|168857620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.557||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.444|8.762|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.762|1.444|0.0046
84551910|NCT01647516|168857620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.428||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|8.494|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.494|1.384|0.0064
84551911|NCT01895608|168857627|OTHER|non-parametric statistic: Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.562
84551912|NCT01895608|168857627|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.414
84551913|NCT01895608|168857628|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.181
84551914|NCT01895608|168857628|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||1.000
84551915|NCT01895608|168857629|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||1.000
84604636|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.65
84604637|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
84604638|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
84604639|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.54
84604640|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
84604641|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.95
84604642|NCT02649192|168960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.34
84551916|NCT01895608|168857629|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.662
84551917|NCT01895608|168857630|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.05
84551918|NCT01895608|168857630|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.171
84551919|NCT01895608|168857631|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.313
84551920|NCT01895608|168857631|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.852
84551921|NCT01895608|168857632|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.263
84551922|NCT01895608|168857632|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.181
84551923|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.07|-0.53|0.13
84551924|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.30|-0.23|0.78
84551925|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.29|-0.38|0.77
84551926|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.17|-0.45|0.37
84551927|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.58|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.58|-0.20|0.33
84551928|NCT03155178|168857649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.39|-0.25|0.65
84744252|NCT01302067|169241983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.10|-0.67|0.0082
84551929|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.24|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.24|-0.63|0.38
84551930|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.30|0.68
84491644|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||6.8|-10.6|
84669319|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3849
84491645|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to hepatitis B, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of hepatitis B vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to hepatitis B antigen, when hepatitis B vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when hepatitis B vaccine is given alone.||4.5|-5.2|
84491646|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to Hib vaccine, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of Hib vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to Hib antigen, when Hib vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when Hib vaccine is given alone.||11.2|0|
84491647|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||5.4|-3.1|
84491648|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||3|-1.4|
84491649|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||1.7|-3.3|
84491650|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||4.6|-1.9|
84491651|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.2|-10.3|
84491652|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||2.3|-8.7|
84551931|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.47|0.97
84551932|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.65|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.65|-0.27|0.40
84604643|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||0|0|
84752951|NCT00578786|169261449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|26.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||26.4|6.8|
84744253|NCT01302067|169241983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.41||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.41|-1.10|<0.0001
84744254|NCT01302067|169241984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.03|-1.76|<0.0001
84669320|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8980
84744255|NCT01302067|169241984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.23|-0.83|0.0006
84491653|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.0|-2.8|
84491654|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||1.6|-7.3|
84491655|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||7.1|1.3|
84491656|NCT01000311|168733802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||0.5|-11.4|
84491657|NCT01000311|168733803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTap is given alone||1.28|0.81|
84491658|NCT01000311|168733803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.19|0.9|
84491659|NCT01000311|168733803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.28|0.84|
84491660|NCT01000311|168733803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.35|0.88|
84491661|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.19|0.8|
84491662|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||0.93|0.62|
84491663|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.06|0.72|
84491664|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.28|0.84|
84491665|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.2|0.82|
84491666|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.07|0.73|
84491667|NCT01000311|168733804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.04|0.68|
84491668|NCT02780869|168733810|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was designed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 10% for the difference in the probability of TTH within 6 minutes comparing HEMOBLAST™ to G+T (HEMOBLAST™- G+T). Letting θ denote the true difference in the probability of hemostasis at 6 minutes between HEMOBLAST™ to G+T, the trial will test the null hypothesis H0: θ ≤ -0.10 vs. the alternative hypothesis HA : θ \> -0.10 using a one-sided level 0.025 test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified adjustments for surgery type were made using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||||<0.0001
84491669|NCT02780869|168733810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A secondary endpoint of superiority of HEMOBLAST relative to G+T for success at achieving hemostasis within 6 minutes was evaluated.||||0.0001
84491670|NCT02780869|168733811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean preparation time was tested using a linear regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||<0.0001
84491671|NCT02780869|168733812|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.|||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84551933|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03||Using a Hochberg Step-up procedure the critical p value is 0.17|Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||1.03|0.05|0.03
84604644|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|6.2|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||6.2|-51.7|
84669321|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0046
84669322|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0594
84744256|NCT01302067|169241984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.51|-1.23|<0.0001
84491672|NCT02780869|168733812|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
84491673|NCT01468844|168733825|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491674|NCT01468844|168733826|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491675|NCT01468844|168733827|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491676|NCT01468844|168733828|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491677|NCT01468844|168733829|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491678|NCT01468844|168733830|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491679|NCT01468844|168733831|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491680|NCT01468844|168733832|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491681|NCT01468844|168733833|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491682|NCT01468844|168733834|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491683|NCT01468844|168733835|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491684|NCT01468844|168733836|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491685|NCT01468844|168733837|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|313.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|267.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491686|NCT01468844|168733838|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|428.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|146.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491687|NCT01468844|168733839|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|119.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491688|NCT01468844|168733840|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491689|NCT01468844|168733840|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491690|NCT01468844|168733840|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491691|NCT01468844|168733841|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491692|NCT01468844|168733841|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84491693|NCT01468844|168733841|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84604645|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|26.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||26.5|-49.4|
84744257|NCT01302067|169241985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744258|NCT01302067|169241985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0040
84744259|NCT01302067|169241985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744260|NCT01302067|169241986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744261|NCT01302067|169241986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84491694|NCT01535638|168733846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|123.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|141.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||141.1|108.0|
84491695|NCT01535638|168733846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|136.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||136.1|88.6|
84491696|NCT01535638|168733847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|122.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|139.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) and Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.1|107.9|
84491697|NCT01535638|168733847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|107.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.1|139.4|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.4|83.1|
84491698|NCT00819052|168733848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -12%|Cochran's statistic|1.0||||||95.0|-4.3|6.2|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||6.2|-4.3|
84491699|NCT00819052|168733861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.7587||95.0|-34.34|25.05|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for background ARV (Antiretroviral) stratum||||25.05|-34.34|0.7587
84491700|NCT03524664|168733891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71) = 0.411, p =.523||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.523
84551934|NCT03155178|168857650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.87|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.87|-0.03|0.07
84744262|NCT01302067|169241986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84491701|NCT03524664|168733892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.89, p=.173||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.173
84491702|NCT03524664|168733893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.23, p=.140||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.140
84491703|NCT03524664|168733894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.039, p=0.845||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||0.845
84551935|NCT01023256|168857653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.095
84604646|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|56.1|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||56.1|-70.1|
84551936|NCT01023256|168857653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||<0.0001
84551937|NCT01023256|168857653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
84551938|NCT01023256|168857655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.421
84551939|NCT01023256|168857655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
84551940|NCT01023256|168857655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.065
84551941|NCT01023256|168857656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||0.243
84551942|NCT01023256|168857656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||<0.0001
84604647|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|20.6|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||20.6|-38.8|
84551943|NCT01023256|168857656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included.||||||0.135
84551944|NCT02833844|168857660|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-52.28||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-52.28|-61.55|< 0.0001
84551945|NCT02833844|168857661|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.1|-68.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-68.4|-82.1|< 0.0001
84551946|NCT02833844|168857662|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|65.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|71.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||71.1|57.8|< 0.0001
84669323|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2975|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2975
84669324|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7155
84551947|NCT02833844|168857663|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as a reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||76.7|65.7|< 0.0001
84551948|NCT02833844|168857664|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-50.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.88|-46.99||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-46.99|-54.88|< 0.0001
84551949|NCT02833844|168857665|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-47.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-44.35||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-44.35|-51.11|< 0.0001
84604648|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|57.9|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||57.9|-17.5|
84604649|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||0|0|
84604650|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||5.8|-54.1|
84604651|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|53.3|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||53.3|-23.1|
84604652|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||0|0|
84744263|NCT01302067|169241987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
84744264|NCT01302067|169241987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.01|-0.41|0.0662
84604653|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||5.8|-54.1|
84604654|NCT02649192|168960409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|30.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||30.5|-45.4|
84604655|NCT03849690|168960413|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log(ln)-transformed TAK-906 Cmax which exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means(LSM) and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence interval (CI) were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.70|0.3011
84604656|NCT03849690|168960414|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUClast which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.99|||ANOVA|||||0.99|0.77|0.0865
84604657|NCT03849690|168960415|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUC∞ which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.00|0.78|0.3011
84669325|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5070
84744265|NCT01302067|169241987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.30|-0.82|<0.0001
84744266|NCT01302067|169241988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84491704|NCT03524664|168733895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=2.147, p=.147||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.147
84491705|NCT03524664|168733896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.633, p=.429||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.429
84491706|NCT03524664|168733897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=1.618, p=.208||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.208
84491707|NCT03524664|168733898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.09, p=.300||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.300
84491708|NCT03524664|168733899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.79, p=.099||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.099
84491709|NCT03524664|168733900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.70, p=.105||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.105
84491710|NCT03524664|168733901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.15, p=.699||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.699
84491711|NCT03524664|168733902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.005, p=.945||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.945
84491712|NCT03524664|168733903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.088, p=.767||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.767
84491713|NCT03524664|168733904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=.0.17, p=.682||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.682
84491714|NCT03524664|168733905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.003, p=.960||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.960
84491715|NCT03524664|168733906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.218, p=.643||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.643
84491716|NCT03524664|168733907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time X Group F(2,90)=2.19, p.118||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.118
84551950|NCT02833844|168857666|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-34.94||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-34.94|-41.30|< 0.0001
84551951|NCT02833844|168857667|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.17|-19.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-19.40|-34.17|< 0.0001
84551952|NCT02833844|168857668|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|-13.88||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-13.88|-31.03|< 0.0001
84551953|NCT02833844|168857669|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|11.89||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||11.89|4.83|< 0.0001
84551954|NCT02833844|168857670|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-14.26||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-14.26|-30.04|< 0.0001
84551955|NCT02195310|168857708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact Test (2-sided)|||||||0.7007
84551956|NCT01322035|168857734|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limits from standard deviation of the mean were used as the equivalence.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|95% confidence limits from standard deviation||||||<0.05
84551957|NCT00985959|168857762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|79.2||Significance level 5% one-tailed. Threshold response rate 35%|Binominal test|||||79.2|58.9|<0.0001
84604658|NCT01071356|168960421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|-0.006||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.011|||Random Effects modeling||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.011|-.023|.47
84551958|NCT04257032|168857776|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|113.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 9.9|Relative bioavailability||113.35|97.94|
84551959|NCT04257032|168857777|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|114.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.22|125.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 14.0|Relative bioavailability||125.81|104.22|
84551960|NCT04257032|168857778|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|116.73|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.3|Relative bioavailability||116.73|100.26|
84551961|NCT04257032|168857779|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 12.9|Relative bioavailability||118.76|99.84|
84551962|NCT04257032|168857780|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|104.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.34|112.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 10.6|Relative bioavailability||112.23|97.34|
84669326|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5848
84551963|NCT04257032|168857781|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|117.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.5|Relative bioavailability||117.12|100.37|
84551964|NCT00746564|168857788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|100|
84551965|NCT00746564|168857789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of clinical recordings|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording during the treadmill test and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.7|
84551966|NCT00746564|168857790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the hand to hand and hand to shoulder maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.5|
84744267|NCT01302067|169241988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744268|NCT01302067|169241989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744269|NCT01302067|169241989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0006
84744270|NCT01302067|169241989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0001
84744271|NCT01302067|169241990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.06|-2.04|<0.0001
84551967|NCT00746564|168857791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the in-clinic recording at rest as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||100|96.7|
84551968|NCT00746564|168857792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recording|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.9|88.4||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject for the in-clinic recording during the treadmill exercise as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||88.4|65.9|
84551969|NCT00746564|168857793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of recordings|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.3|91.7||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during Hand to Hand and Hand to Shoulder Maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||91.7|78.3|
84551970|NCT00746564|168857794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable was calculated for each weekly Patient Activator recording and for each subject as follows:~Duration (sec) of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time (sec)"||100|98.5|
84551971|NCT00746564|168857795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.9|92.6||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable for each automatically triggered/symptom driven recording and for each subject was calculated as follows:~Duration of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time"||92.6|91.9|
84604659|NCT01071356|168960422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|0.007||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.013|||Random effects model||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.013|.001|.034
84604660|NCT02278614|168960423|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on Day 84 for the contralateral eye,|Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.57|
84744272|NCT01302067|169241990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.11||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.11|-0.92|0.0121
84744273|NCT01302067|169241990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.55||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.55|-1.52|<0.0001
84551972|NCT00746564|168857796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|91.0||||||||91.0|79.4|
84551973|NCT00746564|168857797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|76.2||||||||76.2|48.1|
84752952|NCT00578786|169261451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.38|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.38|-0.55|
84752953|NCT00578786|169261451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.23|-0.94|
84752954|NCT00578786|169261451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-1.00|
84604661|NCT02278614|168960423|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on D42 for the worse eye|Adjusted mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.69|
84604662|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.391
84604663|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.861
84604664|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.835
84604665|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.877
84604666|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.969
84604667|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
84604668|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.689
84744274|NCT01302067|169241991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.49||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.49|-2.55|<0.0001
84604669|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.427
84744275|NCT01302067|169241991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.34||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.34|-1.22|0.0005
84604670|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.504
84604671|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
84604672|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.918|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.918
84604673|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.755
84604674|NCT03880838|168960445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.858
84604675|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.436
84604676|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.539
84744276|NCT01302067|169241991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.71||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.71|-1.77|<0.0001
84604677|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.994
84604678|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.700
84604679|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.258
84604680|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.428
84551974|NCT01817582|168857822|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.3||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.3|-0.7|0.6199
84551975|NCT01817582|168857822|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.2|-0.9|0.8070
84551976|NCT01817582|168857822|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||0.9|-1.1|0.8068
84551977|NCT01817582|168857823|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.8|-11.6|0.2296
84551978|NCT01817582|168857823|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.5|-12.3|0.1890
84604681|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.434
84604682|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.228
84604683|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.674
84604684|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.799
84604685|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.794
84604686|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.871
84491717|NCT03524664|168733908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time x Group F(2,90)=.223, p=.800||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.800
84491718|NCT03524664|168733909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Group x Time F(2,92)=0.148, p=.863||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.863
84491719|NCT03702166|168733919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons||||||0.01
84491720|NCT03702166|168733921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons,||||||0.038
84491721|NCT03702166|168733923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.031
84491722|NCT02028182|168734001|OTHER||Kappa statistic-Concordance 0.4 mg/cm2|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|94.0||||||||94.0|60.4|
84491723|NCT02028182|168734001|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance 0.20 mg/cm2|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|90.4||||||||90.4|55.6|
84491724|NCT02028182|168734001|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance0.10 mg/cm2|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|88.4||||||||88.4|53.3|
84491725|NCT01519648|168734004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.178|2.977|||Chi-squared|||||2.977|1.178|0.007
84491726|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.9||||||||2.90|-1.99|
84491727|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|2.24||||||||2.24|-2.73|
84491728|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|2.79||||||||2.79|-2.25|
84491729|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-1.94|
84491730|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.35||||||||2.35|-2.62|
84491731|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|4.11||||||||4.11|-0.88|
84491732|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|3.85||||||||3.85|-1.63|
84491733|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|2.79||||||||2.79|-3.13|
84551979|NCT01817582|168857823|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||6.7|-7.7|0.8836
84551980|NCT04338269|168857881|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.28|0.83|0.7844
84551981|NCT04338269|168857881|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.29|0.84|0.7195
84551982|NCT04338269|168857882|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.70|0.6902
84744277|NCT01302067|169241992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84604687|NCT03880838|168960446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.139
84604688|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.357
84491734|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.47||||||||4.47|-2.60|
84491735|NCT03808298|168734011|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|2.98||||||||2.98|-2.03|
84491736|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.19|
84491737|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|2.33||||||||2.33|-0.12|
84491738|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|3.67||||||||3.67|0.40|
84491739|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|4.49||||||||4.49|0.60|
84491740|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.94||||||||4.94|0.09|
84491741|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|4.47||||||||4.47|-1.62|
84491742|NCT03808298|168734012|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.39||||||||3.39|-0.10|
84491743|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2||||||||2.20|-0.60|
84491744|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.55||||||||2.55|0.13|
84491745|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.27||||||||3.27|0.04|
84491746|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|3.2||||||||3.20|-0.64|
84491747|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|4.67||||||||4.67|-0.13|
84491748|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|3.7||||||||3.70|-2.31|
84491749|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|2.1||||||||2.10|-1.35|
84491750|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|1.89||||||||1.89|-2.94|
84491751|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|1.72||||||||1.72|-3.19|
84491752|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.74||||||||2.74|-2.26|
84491753|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.96||||||||2.96|-2.02|
84491754|NCT03808298|168734013|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|2.54||||||||2.54|-2.39|
84491755|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.28||||||||4.28|-0.67|
84491756|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|3.31||||||||3.31|-2.11|
84491757|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|3.47||||||||3.47|-2.38|
84491758|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|4.14||||||||4.14|-2.85|
84491759|NCT03808298|168734013|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|2.6||||||||2.60|-2.36|
84491760|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.73||||||||0.73|-1.20|
84491761|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.96||||||||0.96|-1.08|
84491762|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.78||||||||0.78|-1.73|
84491763|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.80|
84744278|NCT01302067|169241992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0348
84744279|NCT01302067|169241992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0003
84491764|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.05||||||||1.05|-2.42|
84551983|NCT04338269|168857882|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7853||95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.71|0.7853
84551984|NCT04338269|168857883|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.83|0.8037
84551985|NCT04338269|168857883|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.83|0.7894
84551986|NCT04338269|168857884|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.68||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||5.10|-12.45|0.4306
84551987|NCT04338269|168857885|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||1.43|0.70|0.9893
84551988|NCT04338269|168857886|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.05|0.47|0.0816
84551989|NCT04338269|168857886|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1099||95.0|0.49|1.08|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.08|0.49|0.1099
84551990|NCT04338269|168857887|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.54|0.70|0.8354
84551991|NCT04338269|168857887|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.55|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.55|0.71|0.8159
84551992|NCT03339726|168857888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.662||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.662|-0.205|0.300
84604689|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.294
84604690|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.496
84491765|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|1.24||||||||1.24|-2.66|
84491766|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.91|
84491767|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|-0.48||||||||-0.48|-3.90|
84551993|NCT03339726|168857888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.564||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.564|-0.311|0.569
84551994|NCT03339726|168857888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.333||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.333|-0.537|0.645
84551995|NCT03339726|168857889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.759||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.759|-0.267|0.346
84744280|NCT01302067|169241993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84744281|NCT01302067|169241993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0002
84744282|NCT01302067|169241993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
84604691|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.722
84744283|NCT01302067|169241994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84752955|NCT00578786|169261451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.20|-0.69|
84491768|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.0||||||||0.00|-3.41|
84491769|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.21|
84491770|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.01||||||||0.01|-3.25|
84491771|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-3.36|
84491772|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|-0.14||||||||-0.14|-3.75|
84491773|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.29||||||||0.29|-3.06|
84491774|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.08|1.01||||||||1.01|-3.08|
84491775|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.76||||||||0.76|-3.03|
84491776|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|0.87||||||||0.87|-2.87|
84491777|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.89|
84491778|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.86||||||||0.86|-1.21|
84491779|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.71|
84491780|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.07|
84491781|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.0||||||||1.00|-2.50|
84491782|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.22|
84491783|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|-0.85||||||||-0.85|-3.63|
84491784|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.03||||||||1.03|-2.42|
84491785|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline Day 14 HR (bpm) at 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.96|0.49||||||||0.49|-2.96|
84491786|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.58|
84491787|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|0.95||||||||0.95|-2.34|
84491788|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|0.73||||||||0.73|-2.65|
84491789|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|0.53||||||||0.53|-3.11|
84491790|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|0.66||||||||0.66|-2.73|
84491791|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.77|
84491792|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.50|
84744284|NCT01302067|169241994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0057
84744285|NCT01302067|169241994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0008
84744286|NCT01302067|169241995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0007
84744287|NCT01302067|169241995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0091
84744288|NCT01302067|169241995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3901
84744289|NCT01302067|169241996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-9.45||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-9.45|-15.49|<0.0001
84491793|NCT03808298|168734014|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|0.2||||||||0.20|-3.57|
84491794|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|0.17||||||||0.17|-2.56|
84491795|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|1.55||||||||1.55|-1.62|
84604692|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.445
84604693|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.531
84604694|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.177
84604695|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.314
84669327|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8020
84669328|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2540
84744290|NCT01302067|169241996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-2.22||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-2.22|-7.15|0.0002
84744291|NCT01302067|169241996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-4.78||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-4.78|-10.78|<0.0001
84491796|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.09||||||||2.09|-1.22|
84491797|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.04|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.04|
84491798|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.33||||||||3.33|-1.00|
84491799|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.88||||||||2.88|-2.30|
84491800|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.81||||||||0.81|-3.00|
84491801|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|3.35||||||||3.35|-2.08|
84744292|NCT01302067|169241997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.73||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||13.73|7.20|<0.0001
84744293|NCT01302067|169241997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.36||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.36|2.01|0.0006
84744294|NCT01302067|169241997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.03|2.53|0.0005
84744295|NCT01302067|169241998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|14.09||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||14.09|7.73|<0.0001
84744296|NCT01302067|169241998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.96||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.96|1.76|0.0010
84744297|NCT01302067|169241998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|9.72||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.72|3.39|<0.0001
84744298|NCT01302067|169241999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||10.51|4.40|<0.0001
84551996|NCT03339726|168857889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.498|0.938
84551997|NCT03339726|168857889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.289||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.289|-0.741|0.389
84551998|NCT03339726|168857890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57|||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.33|0.607
84551999|NCT03339726|168857890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.86|-0.06|0.085
84604696|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.850
84669329|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9057
84744299|NCT01302067|169241999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|6.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.23|1.24|0.0034
84744300|NCT01302067|169241999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.76||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.76|0.68|0.0164
84752956|NCT00578786|169261452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.76|-0.31|
84552000|NCT03339726|168857890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.17|0.220
84744301|NCT01302067|169242000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|9.97||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.97|5.03|<0.0001
84552001|NCT03339726|168857891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.633
84552002|NCT03339726|168857891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.52|0.952
84552003|NCT03339726|168857891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.65|0.678
84552004|NCT03339726|168857892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.88|-0.11|0.126
84552005|NCT03339726|168857892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-0.22|0.270
84604697|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.391
84604698|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.906
84552006|NCT03339726|168857892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.39|-0.60|0.676
84552007|NCT03339726|168857893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.31|0.421
84552008|NCT03339726|168857893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.54|0.970
84552009|NCT03339726|168857893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.30|-0.74|0.401
84604699|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.635
84604700|NCT03880838|168960447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||0.093
84604701|NCT04411420|168960473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.55|0.37||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||0.37|-1.55|0.169
84604702|NCT04411420|168960474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|1.52||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||1.52|-0.33|0.139
84744302|NCT01302067|169242000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.7||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||5.70|1.65|0.0004
84552010|NCT03339726|168857894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.85|-0.23|0.257
84552011|NCT03339726|168857894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.58|-0.50|0.877
84491802|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|3.12||||||||3.12|-2.48|
84491803|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|3.06||||||||3.06|-2.55|
84491804|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|3.12||||||||3.12|-3.17|
84491805|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.47|
84491806|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|2.34||||||||2.34|-3.42|
84491807|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.12||||||||2.12|-3.54|
84491808|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|1.88||||||||1.88|-3.31|
84491809|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|4.09||||||||4.09|-1.21|
84491810|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.49||||||||2.49|-2.90|
84552012|NCT03339726|168857894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.80|0.329
84491811|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.77||||||||0.77|-2.00|
84491812|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|1.5||||||||1.50|-1.71|
84552013|NCT03339726|168857895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.80|-0.37|0.469
84552014|NCT03339726|168857895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.62|-0.57|0.924
84491813|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||||90.0|-1.64|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.64|
84491814|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.39|
84491815|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|3.13||||||||3.13|-1.26|
84491816|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||||90.0|-3.92|1.35||||||||1.35|-3.92|
84491817|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|1.89||||||||1.89|-1.96|
84491818|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.34|
84491819|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.05||||||||4.05|-1.61|
84491820|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|4.35||||||||4.35|-1.32|
84604703|NCT04411420|168960475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.72||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.||||0.72|-1.69|0.417
84491821|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|2.97||||||||2.97|-3.38|
84491822|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||||90.0|-3.48|2.42||||||||2.42|-3.48|
84491823|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|4.02||||||||4.02|-1.81|
84491824|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.67|
84491825|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|3.29||||||||3.29|-1.95|
84491826|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.96||||||||5.96|0.60|
84491827|NCT03808298|168734015|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|4.72||||||||4.72|-0.72|
84491828|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.29|
84491829|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.02|
84491830|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline (ms) at QRS Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.30|
84491831|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.26|
84491832|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.57|
84491833|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.65|
84491834|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||||0.40|-0.11|
84552015|NCT03339726|168857895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.78|0.532
84552016|NCT03339726|168857896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.44|-0.78|0.579
84604704|NCT04411420|168960476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.37|0.409
84491835|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.74||||||||0.74|-0.34|
84491836|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.17|
84491837|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.04|
84491838|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.26|
84491839|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.18|
84604705|NCT04411420|168960476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-1.04|0.899
84752957|NCT00578786|169261452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.477|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.03|-0.68|
84491840|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.0||||||Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose||1.00|-0.08|
84491841|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.19|
84491842|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.1||||||||1.10|-0.33|
84491843|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.50|
84491844|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.11||||||||1.11|-0.06|
84491845|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.25|
84491846|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.36||||||||0.36|0.00|
84491847|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.34|
84491848|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.10|
84491849|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.57||||||||0.57|-0.40|
84491850|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.31|
84491851|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.58||||||||0.58|0.07|
84491852|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
84491853|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.11|
84491854|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.06|
84491855|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.27|
84491856|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.14|
84552017|NCT03339726|168857896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.35|-0.88|0.394
84552018|NCT03339726|168857896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.71|0.760
84552019|NCT03339726|168857897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.320|0.616
84552020|NCT03339726|168857897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.508||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.508|-0.359|0.734
84552021|NCT03339726|168857897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.395||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.395|-0.465|0.874
84552022|NCT03339726|168857898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.53|0.750
84552023|NCT03339726|168857898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.26|0.390
84552024|NCT03339726|168857898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.18|0.236
84552025|NCT03339726|168857899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.63|0.707
84744303|NCT01302067|169242000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|6.28||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.28|1.36|0.0023
84552026|NCT03339726|168857899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-0.59|0.839
84552027|NCT03339726|168857899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.48|0.864
84752958|NCT00578786|169261452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.18|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.18|-1.12|
84491857|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-0.24|
84491858|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|1.2||||||||1.20|0.07|
84491859|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.10|
84491860|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.50|
84552028|NCT03339726|168857900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.44|0.794
84552029|NCT03339726|168857900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.63|-0.38|0.628
84552030|NCT03339726|168857900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.45|0.820
84604706|NCT04411420|168960476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.08||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||1.08|-1.01|0.946
84604707|NCT04411420|168960477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.61||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Odds Ratio calculated for Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway relative to Coordinated Care Management Pathway.|||4.61|-4.62|0.992
84604708|NCT04411420|168960478|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|2.18||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|||2.18|-7.52|0.262
84552031|NCT03339726|168857901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.79|-0.27|0.330
84552032|NCT03339726|168857901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.631
84552033|NCT03339726|168857901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.66|0.625
84552034|NCT03339726|168857902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.87|-0.22|0.240
84604709|NCT04411420|168960479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|0.5||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.50|-1.31|0.37
84604710|NCT04411420|168960479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|0.39||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.39|-1.54|0.24
84744304|NCT01302067|169242001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|12.18||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||12.18|6.56|<0.0001
84744305|NCT01302067|169242001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|6.53||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.53|1.93|0.0003
84491861|NCT03808298|168734016|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.04||||||||1.04|-0.14|
84491862|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.64|
84491863|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.22|8.63||||||||8.63|2.22|
84491864|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.81|11.28||||||||11.28|5.81|
84491865|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.86|11.34||||||||11.34|5.86|
84491866|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.43|11.61||||||||11.61|5.43|
84491867|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|10.0||||||||10.00|3.76|
84491868|NCT03808298|168734038|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.62||||||||8.62|3.58|
84491869|NCT02022566|168734040|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84491870|NCT02022566|168734041|OTHER|Described elsewhere|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84491871|NCT03039686|168734316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age Interactive response system (IXRS) Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||1.27|-2.17|
84744306|NCT01302067|169242001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.94||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.94|2.34|0.0003
84552035|NCT03339726|168857902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.60|-0.50|0.865
84552036|NCT03339726|168857902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.82|0.316
84552037|NCT03339726|168857903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.38|0.529
84552038|NCT03339726|168857903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.56|0.997
84552039|NCT03339726|168857903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.74|0.532
84552040|NCT03339726|168857904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.83|0.468
84552041|NCT03339726|168857904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.23|-1.00|0.218
84552042|NCT03339726|168857904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.45|-0.77|0.604
84552043|NCT03681990|168857910|OTHER|Mixed Model ANOVA with subject as a random effect.||||||0.34||||||F test|ANOVA|||||||0.34
84552044|NCT02045862|168858001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.69|<0.001
84552045|NCT02045862|168858001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.37|0.002
84552046|NCT02045862|168858002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.77|<0.001
84744307|NCT01302067|169242002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0016
84744308|NCT01302067|169242002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.8121
84571305|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84744309|NCT01302067|169242002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0015
84744310|NCT01302067|169242003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||<0.0001
84744311|NCT01302067|169242003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0006
84744312|NCT01302067|169242003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0027
84744313|NCT00266227|169242013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0195
84744314|NCT00266227|169242015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted mean for Arm A (Rituxan) is -1.9 and adjusted mean for Arm B (Placebo) is -1.5.||Assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with retreatment group, baseline DAS28-ESR score, baseline RF status, and ≥20% improvement in both SJC and TJC at Week 24 from baseline (yes/no) as explanatory terms in the model.||-0.1|-0.7|
84744315|NCT03573583|169242033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.36||No formal adjustment for type I error due to the pilot nature of the study. All significance tests were 2-tailed and an alpha level of 0.05 was required for significance.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||Continuous variables were expressed as mean (SD) and categorical variables were as frequencies and percentages. A 2-sided independent-sample t test was used to compare group differences in change scores. Change scores were calculated as Week 16 measurements minus baseline measurements. Statistical analyses were done by a blinded statistician without knowledge of group membership.||4.36|0.22|0.03
84552047|NCT02045862|168858002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
84552048|NCT02045862|168858003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.69|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.69|8.99|<0.001
84552049|NCT02045862|168858003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|19.57|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||19.57|5.98|<0.001
84552050|NCT02045862|168858004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-5.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.05|-10.05|<0.001
84604711|NCT04411420|168960479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.54|-1.43|0.37
84744316|NCT03573583|169242034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||||1.77|0.31|0.009
84744317|NCT03573583|169242035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.67|||ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate||||2.67|-0.10|0.07
84744318|NCT03573583|169242036|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficients, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|Pearson's Correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.64|||Pearson's Correlation coefficient|||||0.64|-0.35|0.49
84744319|NCT04187989|169242100|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.466|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.466|-.478|.980
84752959|NCT00578786|169261452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.02|-0.52|
84752960|NCT00578786|169261453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.74|-0.33|
84491872|NCT03039686|168734316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.26|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.26|-1.10|
84491873|NCT03039686|168734318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.20|-0.21|
84491874|NCT03039686|168734318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.12|
84491875|NCT03039686|168734320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
84491876|NCT03039686|168734320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
84491877|NCT03039686|168734322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.08|
84491878|NCT03039686|168734322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.18|-0.17|
84491879|NCT03039686|168734324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.77|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.77|-6.76|
84491880|NCT03039686|168734324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.63|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||5.63|-3.71|
84491881|NCT03039686|168734327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|24.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||24.6|-21.1|
84491882|NCT03039686|168734327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|33.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||33.6|-11.0|
84491883|NCT02843282|168734343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.040
84491884|NCT02843282|168734344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
84491885|NCT02843282|168734345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84491886|NCT02843282|168734346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.039
84491887|NCT02843282|168734347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.092
84491888|NCT02843282|168734348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.58||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.052
84491889|NCT02843282|168734349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.121
84491890|NCT02843282|168734350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
84491891|NCT02843282|168734351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.278
84491892|NCT02843282|168734352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.095
84491893|NCT02843282|168734353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Whole brain voxel-wise correlation analy|||||||< 0.01
84491894|NCT02843282|168734354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84491895|NCT02843282|168734355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
84491896|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.004
84491897|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.032
84491898|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Fractional Recovery (MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.018
84491899|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.033
84491900|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.0004
84491901|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.0003
84491902|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Total N-acetylcysteine conjugates) as a function of age||||<0.0001
84491903|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.522
84552051|NCT02045862|168858004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.12|-7.09|<0.001
84552052|NCT02045862|168858005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.82|0.28|<0.001
84552053|NCT02045862|168858005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.86|0.32|<0.001
84552054|NCT02045862|168858007|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.84|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.84|0.54|<0.001
84604712|NCT04411420|168960480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|0.72||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.72|-0.51|0.727
84744320|NCT04187989|169242101|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.621||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.621|-.092|.140
84752961|NCT00578786|169261453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.22|-0.51|
84752962|NCT00578786|169261453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-0.93|
84552055|NCT02045862|168858007|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.97|0.61|0.029
84571306|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
84571307|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84752963|NCT00578786|169261453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.467|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.11|-0.39|
84571308|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84744321|NCT04187989|169242103|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.421||Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.421|-.294|.724
84744322|NCT04187989|169242104|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.269|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.269|-.425|.656
84744323|NCT04187989|169242105|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.067||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|||0.067|-.746|.158
84744324|NCT04187989|169242106|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.495|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.495|-.210|.422
84744325|NCT04187989|169242107|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.381|||t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.381|-.328|.882
84744326|NCT04187989|169242108|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.334||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.334|-.728|.497
84744327|NCT04187989|169242109|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|0.313||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.313|-.398|.813
84752964|NCT00312221|169261466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8562|0.1054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 20 and BTDS 5 during the 12-week double-blind phase|||0.1054|-0.8562|0.126
84752965|NCT00312221|169261466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.14||95.0|-0.8455|0.1189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.1189|-0.8455|0.140
84491904|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.925
84744328|NCT04187989|169242110|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.314||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.314|-.381|.849
84491905|NCT00224952|168734360|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery Total NAC conjugates) as a function of age||||0.469
84752966|NCT00312221|169261467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.20|-1.47|0.007
84752967|NCT00312221|169261467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.17|-1.47|0.011
84752968|NCT00312221|169261468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0054|2.0397|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.0397|-3.0054|0.707
84491906|NCT02087085|168734361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1804||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7132|-0.0047||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||-0.0047|-0.7132|0.047
84491907|NCT02087085|168734362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.5|-3.9|0.390
84491908|NCT02087085|168734363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.3|-4.2|0.301
84491909|NCT01425268|168734389|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate for both expanders was 95%, at least 92 breasts implanted with a AeroForm Tissue Expander and 46 breasts implanted with a saline expander were needed to be 80% confident (i.e., have a statistical power of 80%) that the lower bound of the one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in the Success rates (πTreatment - πControl) was greater than or equal to -10%.|margin of non-inferiority|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.3241||||||The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 96.1% (149/155) for AeroForm and 98.8% (82/83) for saline.The difference (AeroForm - saline) is -2.7% with a lower confidence limit of -7.3%, meeting the non-inferiority margin of \> -10%.|The study was powered to show that the Treatment Success rate for the AeroForm System (πTreatment) was not worse than the rate for the saline expander (πControl) by more than 10% (-0.10 \< πTreatment - πControl).|||-7.3241|
84491910|NCT01425268|168734390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier Log Rank test|Subjects not completing tissue expansion are censored in the analysis||||||<0.0001
84491911|NCT02681094|168734396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
84491912|NCT02681094|168734396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.0001
84491913|NCT02681094|168734397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.9|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||26.9|12.7|<0.0001
84491914|NCT02681094|168734397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.1|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||19.1|4.4|0.0018
84491915|NCT02681094|168734398|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.58||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-13.59|0.0135
84491916|NCT02681094|168734398|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.85|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.91|-20.85|<0.0001
84491917|NCT02681094|168734399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.11|<0.0001
84491918|NCT00148109|168734437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Estimate a 4 month progression-free survival rate for each group.||||<0.05
84491919|NCT01098266|168734440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18||The log-rank test (unstratified) was used to compare the two treatment arms. In addition, a stratified version of the log-rank test was performed with the stratification factors used for randomization.|Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||Study with one control per experimental patient, an accrual interval of 24 months, and an additional FU after the accrual interval of 12 months.If the true HR of experimental relative to control patients was 0.726, then 195 experimental patients and 195 control patients were required to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the experimental and control survival curves were equal with probability (power)0.80 Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis was 0.05||1.18|0.75|0.58
84491920|NCT01098266|168734441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) was performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||The log-rank test (unstratified and stratified) was used at an alpha level of 5% to test for differences in PFS between the two treatment arms. Kaplan-Meier curves and estimates were provided.||1.17|0.78|0.65
84491921|NCT01098266|168734442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Fisher Exact||Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner|Difference in DCR between the two treatment arms were tested using a chi-squared test with 95% confidence intervals calculated in each treatment arm.||1.68|0.76|0.62
84491922|NCT01098266|168734445|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to symptomatic progression between treatment arms. Median and 95% confidence limits for the time to symptomatic progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology. Estimates of the treatment effect were expressed as hazard ratio including 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26|||Log Rank|||QoL assessment was performed by using a questionnaire according to LCSS, which consists of nine 100-mm visual analog scales, with scores reported from 0 to 100(the best score). The LCSS subscore is the average symptom burden index computed as the mean score for all 6 major symptoms. Symptomatic progression was defined as a worsening in the average symptom burden index by 25%.||1.26|0.68|0.5806
84552056|NCT02045862|168858008|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.49||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.49|-4.76|<0.001
84669330|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9679|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9679
84491923|NCT01733758|168734461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-1.72|
84491924|NCT01733758|168734461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.51|
84491925|NCT01733758|168734461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The first test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least squares (LS) means (albiglutide 50 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
84491926|NCT01733758|168734461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The second test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide 30 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
84491927|NCT04594213|168734500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84752969|NCT00312221|169261468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4459|0.8706|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.8706|-4.4459|0.187
84491928|NCT04594213|168734501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491929|NCT04594213|168734502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491930|NCT04594213|168734503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491931|NCT04594213|168734504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491932|NCT04594213|168734505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84669331|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5875
84752970|NCT00312221|169261469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6177|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||3.6930|-5.6177|0.685
84491933|NCT04594213|168734506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491934|NCT04594213|168734507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491935|NCT04594213|168734508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491936|NCT04594213|168734509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84491937|NCT04594213|168734510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491938|NCT04594213|168734510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491939|NCT04594213|168734511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491940|NCT04594213|168734511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491941|NCT04594213|168734512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84491942|NCT04594213|168734513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84491943|NCT04594213|168734513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84491944|NCT03814499|168734516|OTHER||Coefficient|-2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
84491945|NCT03814499|168734517|OTHER||Coefficient|-3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
84491946|NCT03814499|168734518|OTHER||Coefficient|369.9||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3269
84491947|NCT03814499|168734519|OTHER||Coefficient|365.4||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4265
84491948|NCT03814499|168734520|OTHER||Coefficient|264.3||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4782
84491949|NCT03814499|168734521|OTHER||Coefficient|730.2||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2716
84491950|NCT03814499|168734522|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4178
84491951|NCT03814499|168734523|OTHER||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2677
84491952|NCT03814499|168734524|OTHER||Coefficient|-467.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3364
84491953|NCT03814499|168734525|OTHER||Coefficient|-908.0||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
84491954|NCT03814499|168734526|OTHER||Coefficient|479.2||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2649
84491955|NCT03814499|168734527|OTHER||Coefficient|1114.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.216
84491956|NCT03814499|168734528|OTHER||Coefficient|0.1||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9032
84491957|NCT03814499|168734529|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.4||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7889
84744329|NCT04187989|169242111|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.371||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.371|-.607|.667
84491958|NCT03814499|168734530|OTHER||Coefficient|7.0||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0242
84552057|NCT02045862|168858008|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-2.57|<0.001
84552058|NCT02045862|168858009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.01|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate||2.01|1.26|<0.001
84552059|NCT02045862|168858009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.75|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.08|0.009
84744330|NCT04187989|169242112|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.005|-.689|.051
84491959|NCT03814499|168734531|OTHER||Coefficient|1.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5092
84491960|NCT03814499|168734532|OTHER||Coefficient|-47.1||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3634
84552060|NCT02045862|168858010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.05|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||2.05|1.26|<0.001
84552061|NCT02045862|168858010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||1.85|1.14|0.002
84491961|NCT03814499|168734533|OTHER||Coefficient|-204.7||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0677
84491962|NCT03814499|168734534|OTHER||Coefficient|-235.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
84491963|NCT03814499|168734535|OTHER||Coefficient|-102.0||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3148
84491964|NCT03814499|168734536|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.1||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9349
84491965|NCT03814499|168734537|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7196
84491966|NCT03814499|168734538|OTHER||Coefficient|4.7||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0542
84491967|NCT03814499|168734539|OTHER||Coefficient|2.6||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4224
84491968|NCT03814499|168734540|OTHER||Coeffiient|-118.9||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1247
84491969|NCT03814499|168734541|OTHER||Coefficient|-135.2||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1461
84491970|NCT03814499|168734542|OTHER||Coefficient|-154.2||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0699
84491971|NCT03814499|168734543|OTHER||Coefficient|-164.6||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0901
84491972|NCT03764813|168734544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
84491973|NCT03764813|168734545|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84491974|NCT03764813|168734546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.537|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84491975|NCT03764813|168734547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
84744331|NCT04187989|169242113|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model||We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|.284|-.412|.714
84744332|NCT04187989|169242114|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.311|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|: We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.311|-.531|.603
84491976|NCT02898662|168734558|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that during the 52-week double-blind treatment period, the time to LOAC in the AZD1419 arm was equal to the corresponding time to LOAC in the placebo arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.87||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to LOAC. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.87|0.59|0.5722
84744333|NCT04187989|169242115|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.597|||Cohen's D|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.597|-.273|.457
84752971|NCT00312221|169261469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4415|2.8255|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.8255|-6.4415|0.443
84752972|NCT00038727|169261488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.81|0.87
84752973|NCT00038727|169261488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.79|0.95
84752974|NCT04178967|169261489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
84491977|NCT02898662|168734559|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.79||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants experiencing LOAC. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment, visit and age and gender as covariates.||4.79|0.72|0.2006
84491978|NCT02898662|168734560|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for ACQ-5 score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.17|-0.22|0.8166
84491979|NCT02898662|168734561|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for asthma daily diary score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.26|-0.32|0.8412
84552062|NCT02045862|168858011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.21||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.65|<0.001
84604713|NCT04411420|168960480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.91||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-0.43|0.478
84752975|NCT04178967|169261490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|24.4|<0.000001
84752976|NCT04178967|169261491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.308463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.308463
84752977|NCT04178967|169261492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.001607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|4.1|0.001607
84752978|NCT04178967|169261493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
84752979|NCT04178967|169261494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|13.3|0.000008
84752980|NCT04178967|169261495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.53|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-20.2|||ANCOVA|||||-20.2|-34.9|<0.000001
84552063|NCT02045862|168858011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.09|-0.36|0.009
84552064|NCT02045862|168858012|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable||0.79|0.48|<0.001
84552065|NCT02045862|168858012|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable||0.96|0.58|0.023
84552066|NCT02045862|168858013|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-1.46||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.46|-4.51|<0.001
84552067|NCT02045862|168858013|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.61||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.61|-2.47|0.006
84552068|NCT02045862|168858015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.8|1.14|0.002
84552069|NCT02045862|168858015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.73|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.73|1.09|0.007
84552070|NCT02045862|168858016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.41|-1.16|<0.001
84552071|NCT02045862|168858016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.77|0.037
84552072|NCT02045862|168858018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
84752981|NCT04178967|169261496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.5|20.0|<0.000001
84752982|NCT04178967|169261497|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.4|21.0|<0.000001
84669332|NCT01480076|169072597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7440
84752983|NCT04178967|169261498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.57|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-41.2|<0.000001
84752984|NCT04178967|169261499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-20.3|<0.000001
84744334|NCT04187989|169242116|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.156|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.156|-.686|.209
84491980|NCT02898662|168734562|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the time to moderate or severe exacerbation was not different between AZD1419 and placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.67|0.38|0.5477
84491981|NCT02898662|168734562|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.86||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants with moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment and visit as covariates.||1.86|0.41|0.7294
84491982|NCT02898662|168734564|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for pre-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.20|-0.08|0.3764
84491983|NCT02898662|168734564|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for post-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.11|-0.17|0.7013
84491984|NCT02898662|168734565|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|15.9||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for PEF. Repeated measures analysis.||15.90|-16.54|0.9686
84604714|NCT04411420|168960480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|0.66||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.66|-0.75|0.894
84752985|NCT04178967|169261500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.022921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.4|1.4|0.022921
84752986|NCT04178967|169261501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.3|<0.000001
84752987|NCT04178967|169261502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.6|22.2|0.000001
84491985|NCT02898662|168734566|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.02||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|4.52||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for FeNO. Repeated measures analysis.||4.52|-8.55|0.5403
84491986|NCT04680273|168734598|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 10.4%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
84491987|NCT04680273|168734598|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.752|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.036|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 3.5%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of TR in plasma samples.||||
84491988|NCT04680273|168734599|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.134|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 12.7%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
84491989|NCT04680273|168734599|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.171|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 15.9%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of TR in plasma samples.||||
84752988|NCT04178967|169261503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|22.2|0.000001
84491990|NCT01177943|168734626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of geometric means.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean values|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.858|
84491991|NCT01177943|168734627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of the ratio of geometric means.|Ratio of AUC(0-tlast) values|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|1.00|
84491992|NCT04652245|168734632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84491993|NCT04652245|168734633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84491994|NCT04047472|168734646|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|0.006
84491995|NCT04047472|168734647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.009
84491996|NCT01288911|168734719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide. The (unstratified) log-rank test with an overall significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) was used to compare the PFS of enzalutamide to bicalutamide. The (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of enzalutamide to bicalutamide, calculate the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals and test the hypothesis that the hazard ratio is equal to 1.||0.57|0.34|<0.0001
84491997|NCT01288911|168734720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.55|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS on based investigator assessment Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
84491998|NCT01288911|168734721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
84491999|NCT01288911|168734722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Best PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
84492000|NCT01288911|168734723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA progression Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.39|0.20|<0.0001
84492001|NCT01288911|168734724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.09|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||8.09|3.18|<0.0001
84552073|NCT02045862|168858018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.76|0.036
84552074|NCT02045862|168858019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.19|0.059
84492002|NCT01288911|168734725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 30% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||7.79|3.96|<0.0001
84492003|NCT01288911|168734726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|10.16|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 50% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||10.16|4.83|<0.0001
84492004|NCT01288911|168734727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|26.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 90% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||26.79|7.23|<0.0001
84492005|NCT01288911|168734728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.74|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Radiographic PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.74|0.36|0.0002
84492006|NCT02452892|168734741|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.307||||||"P-value displayed for 60min.~Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model."|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 60 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.307
84552075|NCT02045862|168858019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.068
84492007|NCT02452892|168734741|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.859||||||P-value displayed for 20min. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 20 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.859
84492008|NCT02452892|168734742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value was estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subject.||||||0.966
84492009|NCT02452892|168734743|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.294||||||For 60 min LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using LR model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.294
84492010|NCT02452892|168734743|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.232||||||For 20min. LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using Logistic Regression model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.232
84752989|NCT04178967|169261504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.09|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-26.8|||ANCOVA|||||-26.8|-47.4|<0.000001
84552076|NCT02045862|168858020|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable||1.01|0.81|0.067
84552077|NCT02045862|168858020|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.131||95.0|0.82|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day as the offset variable.||1.03|0.82|0.131
84552078|NCT02045862|168858021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-1.34|0.055
84552079|NCT02045862|168858021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.39|0.048
84604715|NCT04411420|168960481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.04|-0.15|0.222
84604716|NCT04411420|168960481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.09|-0.10|0.988
84604717|NCT04411420|168960481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.05|-0.16|0.269
84552080|NCT02045862|168858022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.69|0.002
84604718|NCT04411420|168960482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.10|-0.22|0.477
84604719|NCT04411420|168960482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.17|-0.19|0.877
84604720|NCT04411420|168960482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.11|-0.29|0.360
84604721|NCT04411420|168960483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.28|-0.23|0.858
84669333|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
84752990|NCT04178967|169261505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-0.9|<0.000001
84752991|NCT04178967|169261506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.000571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|9.6|0.000571
84752992|NCT04178967|169261507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.469221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-0.4|0.469221
84552081|NCT02045862|168858022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.55|0.039
84552082|NCT02045862|168858023|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.76|0.45|<0.001
84552083|NCT02045862|168858023|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.58|0.044
84552084|NCT02045862|168858024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.18|-4.78|0.001
84552085|NCT02045862|168858024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.15|-3.52|0.072
84552086|NCT02045862|168858026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.96|2.56|<0.001
84552087|NCT02045862|168858026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.04|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.04|0.68|0.010
84552088|NCT02045862|168858027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.20|2.99|<0.001
84552089|NCT02045862|168858027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.6|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.60|0.43|0.022
84552090|NCT02045862|168858028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.38|2.65|<0.001
84604722|NCT04411420|168960483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.21|-0.32|0.688
84752993|NCT04178967|169261508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.113194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|-0.1|0.113194
84604723|NCT04411420|168960483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.26|-0.32|0.833
84752994|NCT04178967|169261509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|7.7|0.000230
84752995|NCT04178967|169261510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.46816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-0.4|0.468160
84492011|NCT02452892|168734744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0932||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.0932
84552091|NCT02045862|168858028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.13|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.13|1.43|0.002
84552092|NCT02045862|168858029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.83|2.47|<0.001
84552093|NCT02045862|168858029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.93|0.62|0.016
84552094|NCT02045862|168858030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.59|0.77|0.006
84552095|NCT02045862|168858030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.93|-0.87|0.287
84552096|NCT02045862|168858032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
84552097|NCT02045862|168858032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.36|0.011
84552098|NCT02045862|168858044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.15|1.26|<0.001
84552099|NCT02045862|168858044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.67|0.97|0.080
84552100|NCT02045862|168858045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.78|1.49|<0.001
84552101|NCT02045862|168858045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.57|1.37|<0.001
84552102|NCT02045862|168858046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.43|1.36|<0.001
84552103|NCT02045862|168858046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.92|1.08|0.014
84604724|NCT04411420|168960484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.64|-0.18|0.259
84752996|NCT04178967|169261511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.11577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-0.1|0.115770
84552104|NCT02045862|168858047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.41|1.34|<0.001
84552105|NCT02045862|168858047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio wa from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.06|0.019
84604725|NCT04411420|168960484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.81|-0.03|0.068
84669334|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0828
84552106|NCT02045862|168858048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.19|1.26|<0.001
84669335|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7756
84744335|NCT04187989|169242117|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.328|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.328|-.541|.623
84744336|NCT02929329|169242132|SUPERIORITY|"The overall type I error was 0.05 for 2-sided testing across primary and secondary outcomes.~Control for multiple comparisons was achieved using the following testing algorithm: if the primary outcome met the P-value threshold of 0.05, the alpha error would be divided unequally between cardiovascular death (96% of the overall alpha error, or 0.048) and change from baseline to week 24 in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (4% of the overall alpha error, or 0.002)."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||0.99|0.86|0.0252
84744337|NCT02929329|169242132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Log-rank test stratified by randomization setting and region.||||||0.0211
84744338|NCT02929329|169242132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||0.99|0.86|
84744339|NCT02929329|169242133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||If significance for the primary outcome was determined, cardiovascular death was tested against an alpha of 0.048.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.11|0.92|0.8555
84744340|NCT02929329|169242133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||1.11|0.92|
84744341|NCT02929329|169242134|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||0.48|-1.40|
84744342|NCT02929329|169242134|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.46|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||4.46|0.54|
84744343|NCT02929329|169242134|SUPERIORITY|If significance for the primary outcome was determined, change from baseline in the KCCQ total symptom score was tested against an alpha of 0.002.||||||0.0278|||||||Omnibus F-test|||||||0.0278
84744344|NCT02929329|169242134|OTHER||Pooled treatment difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.51|||||Overall pooled estimate of treatment difference (Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo) using random effects meta-analysis approach.|||4.51|-2.55|
84744345|NCT02929329|169242134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||0.20|-1.62|
84744346|NCT02929329|169242134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.82|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||3.82|0.80|
84752997|NCT04178967|169261512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.000252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|8.2|0.000252
84752998|NCT04178967|169261513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.76|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.93|-24.59|||ANCOVA|||||-24.59|-36.93|<0.000001
84552107|NCT02045862|168858048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.62|0.94|0.133
84552108|NCT02045862|168858049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.03|1.18|0.002
84552109|NCT02045862|168858049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.12|0.006
84552110|NCT02045862|168858050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.29|1.24|<0.001
84552111|NCT02045862|168858050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.77|0.94|0.109
84552112|NCT02045862|168858051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.25|1.26|<0.001
84552113|NCT02045862|168858051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.16|1.22|<0.001
84604726|NCT04411420|168960484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.57|-0.29|0.514
84552114|NCT02045862|168858052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.62|1.50|<0.001
84552115|NCT02045862|168858052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.36|1.35|<0.001
84604727|NCT04411420|168960485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.20|-0.22|0.895
84604728|NCT04411420|168960485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.30|-0.13|0.438
84552116|NCT02045862|168858053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.54|1.46|<0.001
84552117|NCT02045862|168858053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.09|1.20|0.001
84552118|NCT02045862|168858054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.26|1.28|<0.001
84552119|NCT02045862|168858054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.86|1.06|0.019
84669336|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2200
84752999|NCT04178967|169261515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.238245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|-9.5|0.238245
84552120|NCT02045862|168858055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.46|1.40|<0.001
84753000|NCT04178967|169261515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.612427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.3|-17.8|0.612427
84552121|NCT02045862|168858055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.09|1.19|0.001
84552122|NCT02045862|168858056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.34|1.33|<0.001
84552123|NCT02045862|168858056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.08|0.012
84552124|NCT04507256|168858075|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|68.69|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD8895.|Bioavailability of AZD8895 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
84552125|NCT04507256|168858075|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|65.02|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD1061.|Bioavailability of AZD1061 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
84552126|NCT03886519|168858090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 eyes of a participant and baseline trichiasis severity.||||1.03|0.52|0.07
84552127|NCT04964544|168858098|OTHER||Percentage|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|92.3|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct initial TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Self-Selection Population)||92.3|88.9|
84552128|NCT04964544|168858099|OTHER||Percentage|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|98.8|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct final TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Per Protocol Population)||98.8|97.1|
84604729|NCT04411420|168960485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.21|-0.24|0.890
84604730|NCT04411420|168960486|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.02|-0.04|0.508
84604731|NCT04411420|168960486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.03|-0.03|0.992
84604732|NCT04411420|168960486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.02|-0.05|0.389
84552129|NCT04964544|168858100|OTHER||Mean percent change from paseline|-35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.63|-34.33||||||||-34.33|-36.63|
84552130|NCT02347891|168858139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at week 40||2.65|0.08|0.60
84552131|NCT02347891|168858139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 40||1.82|0.16|0.61
84552132|NCT02347891|168858139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 40||1.47|0|0.23
84604733|NCT05693922|168960487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
84753001|NCT04178967|169261516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.6||||0.033876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|62.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.5|2.6|0.033876
84753002|NCT04178967|169261516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.407417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.3|-17.5|0.407417
84552133|NCT02347891|168858140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) during Randomized Phase at Week 40||||0.92
84552134|NCT02347891|168858141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
84552135|NCT02347891|168858141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.51|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 64||2.51|0.19|0.99
84552136|NCT02347891|168858141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
84552137|NCT02347891|168858142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) after Open Label Phase at 64 Week||||0.62
84552138|NCT00834639|168858143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.36||||||90.0|93.68|101.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.18|93.68|
84604734|NCT05693922|168960488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
84604735|NCT05693922|168960489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.865
84744347|NCT02929329|169242135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||If statistical significance was achieved for both the time to CV death and change from baseline in the KCCQ TSS, time to first heart failure hospitalization was to be tested at the full alpha.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.03|0.87|0.1902
84492012|NCT02452892|168734744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.7509
84492013|NCT02452892|168734745|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.2672||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.2672
84492014|NCT02452892|168734745|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.166||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.1660
84492015|NCT02452892|168734746|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~* All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~* The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~* The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
84492016|NCT02452892|168734746|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3537||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.~."|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3537
84744348|NCT02929329|169242135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint are considered as the competing risk.||1.04|0.88|
84492017|NCT02452892|168734747|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0848||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0848
84497303|NCT01569074|168745898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.23||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.39|0.07|0.059
84552139|NCT00834639|168858144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|97.07|104.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.24|97.07|
84744349|NCT02929329|169242136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09||If time to first heart failure hospitalization was statistically significant, time to all-cause death was to be tested with the same alpha as time to first heart failure hospitalization.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.09|0.92|0.9633
84744350|NCT00037830|169242145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase I was that at week 24, there is no difference between UPDRS motor scores in placebo vs. GM1-treated subjects.||||<0.0001
84744351|NCT00037830|169242146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase II is that long-term use of GM1 does not affect the progression of PD symptoms and that there is no benefit to early start of GM1 use.||||0.0368
84552140|NCT00834639|168858145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.36||||||90.0|97.35|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|97.35|
84552141|NCT04789291|168858185|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|106.29|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.8.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.29|99.34|
84552142|NCT04789291|168858186|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.77|86.76|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.5.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||86.76|69.77|
84552143|NCT04789291|168858187|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|106.89|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.9.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.89|99.73|
84552144|NCT00805870|168858194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.298|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.521|46.978|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that no difference is observed in quadriceps muscle strength between the fish oil and control groups.||46.978|-63.521|>0.05
84552145|NCT00805870|168858195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.417|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.823|1.132|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the amount of force applied to the quadriceps to elicit pain or discomfort between the fish oil and control groups.||1.132|-4.823|>0.05
84552146|NCT00805870|168858196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.093|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.373|42.344|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in creatine kinase activity between the fish oil and the control groups.||42.344|-156.373|>0.05
84552147|NCT00805870|168858197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.417|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in interleukin-6 concentration between the fish oil and control groups.||0.417|-0.374|>0.05
84744352|NCT00037830|169242147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.1903
84744353|NCT00037830|169242147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0063
84552148|NCT00380081|168858231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552149|NCT00380081|168858232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84552150|NCT00380081|168858233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552151|NCT00380081|168858234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84604736|NCT02091284|168960533|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparisons as post-hoc test and linear regression analyses. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
84744354|NCT00037830|169242148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0502
84744355|NCT00037830|169242148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0003
84744356|NCT00037830|169242149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84744357|NCT00037830|169242150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1310
84744358|NCT00037830|169242151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis was paired sample t-test on change from baseline.||||<0.05
84552152|NCT00380081|168858235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552153|NCT00380081|168858236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552154|NCT00380081|168858237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The outcome noted above reflects the all-night sleep quality rating of study subjects who had a scheduled awakening after approximately 4 hours of sleep, were kept awake for 30 minutes and then allowed to return to bed and to sleep. After 4 hours, they were awakened again and disconnected from the PSG apparatus. Morning testing was conducted that included the Sleep Quality questionnaire. Evaluation of the results should reflect the nature of the study and the scheduled sleep disturbance.||||<0.001
84552155|NCT00380081|168858238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.004
84552156|NCT00380081|168858239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
84552157|NCT00380081|168858240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744359|NCT00037830|169242152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84744360|NCT00037830|169242153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84744361|NCT00037830|169242154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84552158|NCT00380081|168858241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552159|NCT00380081|168858242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.790
84552160|NCT00380081|168858243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
84552161|NCT00380081|168858244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
84552162|NCT00380081|168858244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Period effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84552163|NCT00380081|168858245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84552164|NCT02017912|168858247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5567||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.920|-1.321|0.7208
84604737|NCT02091284|168960533|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and tDCS groups with unpaired t tests.||||<0.05
84604738|NCT02351349|168960547|OTHER|paired t test pre compared to post readings||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0143
84604739|NCT02351349|168960548|OTHER|as above||||||0.1416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post comparison of time up and go in intervention group||||0.1416
84604740|NCT02351349|168960549|OTHER|||||||0.9013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post value comparison with paired t test was carried out||||0.9013
84604741|NCT02583230|168960557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in PHQ-9 total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0005
84604742|NCT02583230|168960558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in QIDS total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0008
84669337|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
84552165|NCT02017912|168858248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.187|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.360|-2.187|0.6410
84552166|NCT02294175|168858346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.029
84552167|NCT02294175|168858347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.037
84552168|NCT02294175|168858348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.012
84552169|NCT02294175|168858349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.397
84669338|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0061
84669339|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6258
84669340|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6987|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6987
84669341|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0025
84669342|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
84604743|NCT01340937|168960559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.77|
84604744|NCT01340937|168960559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.72|
84604745|NCT01340937|168960559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.12|0.79|
84604746|NCT01340937|168960559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.35|<0.001
84744362|NCT01639560|169242159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.1|2.5|<0.001
84604747|NCT01340937|168960560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.35|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||3.35|-4.31|
84604748|NCT01340937|168960560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.12|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.12|-5.38|
84604749|NCT01340937|168960560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.58|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.58|-4.89|
84604750|NCT01340937|168960560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|7.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|13.17|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1 µg/mL||13.17|3.38|<0.001
84604751|NCT01340937|168960560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.12|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 µg/mL||5.12|0.39|<0.001
84744363|NCT01639560|169242160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.0|2.2|0.001
84552170|NCT02294175|168858350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in MMP-9 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.661
84552171|NCT02294175|168858351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in IL6 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.979
84552172|NCT02294175|168858352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.999
84552173|NCT02294175|168858353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.415
84604752|NCT01340937|168960561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.98|0.76|
84604753|NCT01340937|168960561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.74|
84744364|NCT01639560|169242161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.3|1.0|0.047
84744365|NCT01639560|169242162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.5|1.5|0.009
84744366|NCT03292432|169242191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||15.2|-21.8|0.80
84753003|NCT04178967|169261517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.159281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.0|-11.4|0.159281
84552174|NCT02294175|168858354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.993
84552175|NCT02294175|168858355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.990
84552176|NCT02548351|168858360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.043|||Log Rank|||||1.043|0.635|0.1028
84552177|NCT02548351|168858360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.994|||Log Rank|||||0.994|0.600|0.0444
84552178|NCT02548351|168858361|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|3.6|<0.0001
84552179|NCT02548351|168858361|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.0|5.8|<0.0001
84552180|NCT02548351|168858362|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|3.0|0.0004
84552181|NCT02548351|168858362|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|5.2|<0.0001
84552182|NCT00792688|168858379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
84552183|NCT00792688|168858379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0331
84552184|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9788||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Computer Usage||||0.9788
84604754|NCT01340937|168960561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.86|
84552185|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.6571||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Reading||||0.6571
84669343|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4385
84552186|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.471||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Leisure Activities||||0.4710
84552187|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.736||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Social Activities||||0.7360
84552188|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4999||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Driving||||0.4999
84669344|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2275
84552189|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1159||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Outdoor Activities||||0.1159
84552190|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4567||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Frequency of Outdoor Activities||||0.4567
84552191|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3439||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Time Spent to Take Care of Eyes||||0.3439
84552192|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3331||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered With Amount of Time Taking Care of Eyes||||0.3331
84669345|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0446
84744367|NCT03292432|169242192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/ml in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.6|-20.9|>0.99
84753004|NCT04178967|169261517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4||||0.16495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.4|-10.6|0.164950
84552193|NCT03226769|168858382|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4774||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered by Appearance||||0.4774
84552194|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.5457||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyes||||0.5457
84552195|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9786||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Blurred Vision||||0.9786
84552196|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3894||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Dry Eyes||||0.3894
84552197|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0591||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Itchy Eyes||||0.0591
84552198|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1818||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Burning Eyes||||0.1818
84552199|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4284||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Gritty Eyes||||0.4284
84552200|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1051||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Painful Eyes||||0.1051
84552201|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.7998||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Watery Eyes||||0.7998
84552202|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1229||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Swollen Eyelids||||0.1229
84552203|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3907||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyelids||||0.3907
84552204|NCT03226769|168858383|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0336||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Crusty Eyelids||||0.0336
84552205|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|14.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as a covariate.~Least squares (LS) mean differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||14.9|-14.3|0.97
84744368|NCT03292432|169242193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.2|-32.1|0.24
84552206|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.5|||ANCOVA|||||15.5|-8.6|0.58
84552207|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.0|||ANCOVA|||||18.0|-6.1|0.33
84552208|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.8|||ANCOVA|||||29.8|5.4|0.005
84552209|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|30.2|||ANCOVA|||||30.2|6.2|0.003
84744369|NCT03292432|169242193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||22.6|-16.0|0.76
84552210|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|36.1|||ANCOVA|||||36.1|7.2|0.003
84552211|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|40.7|||ANCOVA|||||40.7|11.9|<0.001
84552212|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|27.6|||ANCOVA|||||27.6|-5.6|0.20
84552213|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.1|||ANCOVA|||||37.1|4.0|0.015
84744370|NCT03292432|169242193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|27.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||27.4|-21.8|>0.99
84744371|NCT03292432|169242194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.3|-32.7|0.26
84744372|NCT03292432|169242194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||32.8|-11.2|0.42
84744373|NCT03292432|169242194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||20.7|-29.5|0.77
84744374|NCT03292432|169242195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 12 and maintained to Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||25.3|-14.6|0.67
84744375|NCT03292432|169242196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken from Weeks 0 -12||||<0.001
84744376|NCT03292432|169242196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>12 to 24||||<0.001
84744377|NCT03292432|169242196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>24 to 36||||0.06
84744378|NCT03292432|169242196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>36 to 48||||0.50
84744379|NCT03292432|169242197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks 0 - 12||||<0.001
84744380|NCT03292432|169242197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks \>12 - 24||||<0.001
84744381|NCT03292432|169242197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value equal to a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken on time from Weeks \>24 - 36||||0.05
84744382|NCT03292432|169242197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of doses taken on time from Weeks \>36 - 48||||0.49
84744383|NCT03292432|169242198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks 0 - 12||3.33|1.90|<0.001
84744384|NCT03292432|169242198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.89|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>12 - 24||1.89|1.29|<0.001
84744385|NCT03292432|169242198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|P-value from Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>24 - 36||1.47|1.03|0.020
84744386|NCT03292432|169242198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>36 - 48||1.30|0.90|0.39
84744387|NCT03292432|169242199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.1|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||21.1|-16.4|>0.99
84744388|NCT03292432|169242200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving sustained virologic control in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.4|-9.0|0.71
84744389|NCT00700427|169242222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84744390|NCT00700427|169242224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84744391|NCT00700427|169242225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744392|NCT00700427|169242225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84744393|NCT00700427|169242225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84744394|NCT00700427|169242225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84744395|NCT00700427|169242226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744396|NCT00700427|169242226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744397|NCT00700427|169242226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84744398|NCT00700427|169242226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84492018|NCT02452892|168734747|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.593||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where Incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.5930
84492019|NCT02452892|168734748|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
84492020|NCT02452892|168734748|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3907||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3907
84492021|NCT01680835|168734809|OTHER|Freedom from primary safety composite event at 36 months compared to a performance goal of 35%|Kaplan Meier|0.771|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.678||||Log Rank||||||0.678|<0.001
84552214|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|39.0|||ANCOVA|||||39.0|5.9|0.008
84552215|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.3|||ANCOVA|||||36.3|7.6|0.003
84552216|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|38.8|||ANCOVA|||||38.8|5.6|0.009
84552217|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.8|||ANCOVA|||||39.8|11.0|<0.001
84552218|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|42.3|||ANCOVA|||||42.3|13.5|<0.001
84492022|NCT01680835|168734810|OTHER|No hypothesis Testing for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 1 Year||||
84492023|NCT01680835|168734810|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 2 Years||||
84492024|NCT01680835|168734810|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 3 Years||||
84552219|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|54.1|||ANCOVA|||||54.1|25.1|<0.001
84492025|NCT01680835|168734811|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done at this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year||||
84492026|NCT01680835|168734811|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 2 years||||
84492027|NCT01680835|168734812|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Estimate from freedom from major amputation through 3 years.||||
84552220|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|25.8|<0.001
84552221|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|60.1|||ANCOVA|||||60.1|27.1|<0.001
84744399|NCT00700427|169242227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84552222|NCT01340027|168858401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|48.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|||||64.7|31.9|<0.001
84552223|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.03|-1.40|0.062
84744400|NCT00700427|169242228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84744401|NCT00355199|169242242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.48|0.66|<0.05
84744402|NCT00355199|169242244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.21|0.29|<0.05
84744403|NCT00355199|169242245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.52|0.57|<0.05
84492028|NCT01680835|168734813|OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from clinically-driven TLR through 3 Years||||
84669346|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5757|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5757
84669347|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8936|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8936
84669348|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5675
84669349|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2539|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2539
84669350|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6673|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6673
84669351|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0849
84492029|NCT01294319|168734820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4872|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4872
84492030|NCT01294319|168734821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2786
84492031|NCT05040295|168734912|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|111.51|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||111.51|94.21|
84492032|NCT05040295|168734912|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|106.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|113.66|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||113.66|100.07|
84492033|NCT05040295|168734913|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|115.87|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.87|88.25|
84492034|NCT05040295|168734913|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|90.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.49|103.44|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||103.44|78.49|
84492035|NCT00346775|168734923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.6|0.517
84492036|NCT00665366|168734960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-4.14|0.058
84492037|NCT00665366|168734961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.25|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.25|-0.16|0.669
84492038|NCT00665366|168734961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.16|-0.36|0.436
84492039|NCT00665366|168734961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 9|||0.00|-0.56|0.053
84492040|NCT00665366|168734961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 12|||-0.01|-0.59|0.044
84492041|NCT00665366|168734962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 3|||0.06|-0.22|0.240
84492042|NCT00665366|168734962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||0.19|-0.15|0.843
84492043|NCT00665366|168734962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 9|||0.35|-0.04|0.117
84492044|NCT00665366|168734962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.38|-0.04|0.109
84552224|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.63|0.91
84552225|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.98|0.20
84552226|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.62|0.96
84552227|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.39|0.007
84552228|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.59|0.016
84552229|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.68|0.007
84552230|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.87|0.91
84552231|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
84552232|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.82|0.99
84669352|NCT01480076|169072598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1187
84552233|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.82|0.77
84552234|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.61|0.058
84552235|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57|||ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.85|0.69
84552236|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.21|0.17
84552237|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.84|0.73
84552238|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.62|0.012
84552239|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.80|0.018
84669353|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0022
84744404|NCT00964886|169242250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||In an intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance compared mean Descriptor Differential Scale scores at 12 weeks (or last observation carried forward) adjusted fro mean baseline score ( = ).||||0.7
84744405|NCT00964886|169242251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|Means are adjusted for baseline Roland and Morris scores.||In the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared mean Roland and Morris scores at 12 weeks adjusted for mean baseline scores.||||0.84
84552240|NCT01340027|168858402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-1.89|0.009
84552241|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.82||Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.82|-1.00|0.51
84552242|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.83|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.83|-0.57|0.21
84552243|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.68|0.89
84552244|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||P values were calculated from a pairwise comparison of the combination treatment groups vs solifenacin succinate 5 mg or placebo within the ANCOVA model.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.06|0.001
84552245|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.04|0.058
84552246|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.17|0.15
84552247|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.73|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.91|0.41
84744406|NCT00964886|169242252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
84744407|NCT00964886|169242253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||This analysis compares outcomes for participants assigned at baseline to receive cognitive behavioral therapy or not to receive cognitive behavioral therapy (behavioral effect)||||0.8
84744408|NCT04587752|169242257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
84744409|NCT04587752|169242258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84744410|NCT04587752|169242259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84744411|NCT03535597|169242278|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.89|0.906
84744412|NCT03535597|169242278|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||Chi-squared|||||1.53|1.09|0.002
84744413|NCT03535597|169242278|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.86|0.613
84744414|NCT03535597|169242279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-98.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84744415|NCT03535597|169242279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84744416|NCT03535597|169242279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-94.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84744417|NCT03535597|169242280|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.23|0.744
84744418|NCT03535597|169242280|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||Fisher Exact|||||3.41|0.31|>0.999
84552248|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.3|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.88|0.44
84552249|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.95|0.85
84744419|NCT03535597|169242280|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.46|||Fisher Exact|||||2.46|0.18|0.724
84744420|NCT03535597|169242281|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.76|||Fisher Exact|||||3.76|0.56|0.594
84744421|NCT03535597|169242281|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Fisher Exact|||||3.26|0.37|>0.999
84552250|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.36|0.83
84552251|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.80|0.56
84744422|NCT03535597|169242281|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||||3.88|0.55|0.581
84744423|NCT03535597|169242282|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.22|||Fisher Exact|||||5.22|0.71|0.284
84744424|NCT03535597|169242282|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|0.75|0.243
84744425|NCT03535597|169242282|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.54|||Fisher Exact|||||5.54|0.74|0.266
84744426|NCT03412747|169242283|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|47.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||47.7|30.9|
84744427|NCT03412747|169242283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.709|11.816||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.816|4.709|<0.001
84744428|NCT03412747|169242284|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|36.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||36.7|19.7|
84744429|NCT03412747|169242284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.341|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.785|6.765||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.765|2.785|<0.001
84744430|NCT03412747|169242285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.515|11.046||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.046|3.515|<0.001
84744431|NCT03412747|169242285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.657|9.041||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.041|3.657|<0.001
84744432|NCT03412747|169242286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.683|8.318||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.318|2.683|<0.001
84744433|NCT03412747|169242286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.014|7.523||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.523|3.014|<0.001
84744434|NCT03412747|169242287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.637|10.88||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||10.880|4.637|<0.001
84744435|NCT03412747|169242288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|7.661||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.661|3.230|<0.001
84744436|NCT03412747|169242289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.207|8.593||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.593|3.207|<0.001
84753005|NCT04178967|169261518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.179704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|-12.2|0.179704
84753006|NCT04178967|169261518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.08308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|-6.5|0.083080
84753007|NCT04178967|169261519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.176748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|2.87|||ANCOVA|||||2.87|-15.46|0.176748
84492045|NCT00665366|168734963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.20|-0.37|0.567
84492046|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.03|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 3|||3.03|-1.66|0.566
84492047|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.221||95.0|-1.0|4.32|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 6|||4.32|-1.00|0.221
84492048|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.35|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 9|||4.35|-1.40|0.315
84492049|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.84|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 12|||4.84|-1.08|0.212
84492050|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 3|||0.48|-0.49|0.991
84492051|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.85|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 6|||0.85|-0.18|0.201
84492052|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 9|||0.93|-0.19|0.198
84492053|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 12|||0.96|-0.18|0.178
84492054|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.32|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 3|||0.32|-1.01|0.311
84492055|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.61|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 6|||0.61|-0.94|0.671
84492056|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.79|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 9|||0.79|-0.83|0.968
84492057|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.07|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 12|||1.07|-0.56|0.546
84492058|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.96|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 3|||0.96|-0.28|0.284
84492059|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.35|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 6|||1.35|-0.04|0.063
84492060|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.34|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 9|||1.34|-0.10|0.090
84492061|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.42|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 12|||1.42|-0.06|0.072
84492062|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.93|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 3|||0.93|-0.45|0.499
84492063|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.06|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 6|||1.06|-0.48|0.457
84492064|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.525||95.0|-0.56|1.1|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 9|||1.10|-0.56|0.525
84492065|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.09|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 12|||1.09|-0.58|0.544
84492066|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.52|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 3|||0.52|-0.08|0.149
84492067|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 6|||0.54|-0.15|0.264
84492068|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 9|||0.35|-0.35|0.988
84492069|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.44|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 12|||0.44|-0.27|0.641
84492070|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 3|||0.61|-0.02|0.068
84492071|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 6|||0.74|0.07|0.019
84492072|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.6|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 9|||0.60|-0.08|0.136
84492073|NCT00665366|168734964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.18||95.0|-0.11|0.57|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 12|||0.57|-0.11|0.18
84492074|NCT00665366|168734965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59|||Ration of response||Week 3|||1.59|0.81|0.466
84492075|NCT00665366|168734965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Risk ratio||Week 6|||1.32|0.86|0.540
84492076|NCT00665366|168734965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||Risk ratio||Week 9|||1.38|0.99|0.060
84492077|NCT00665366|168734965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Risk ratio|||||1.23|0.94|0.289
84492078|NCT00665366|168734966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Risk ratio (RR)||Week 3|||1.39|0.75|0.909
84492079|NCT00665366|168734966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||RR||Week 6|||1.30|0.86|0.573
84492080|NCT00665366|168734966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||RR||Week 9|||1.36|0.98|0.080
84492081|NCT00665366|168734966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||RR||Week 12|||1.27|0.95|0.211
84744437|NCT03412747|169242289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.257|7.594||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.594|3.257|<0.001
84744438|NCT03484273|169242298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||Repeated Measured ANOVA was used to compare the 4 compression garment configurations.||||<0.001
84744439|NCT03484273|169242299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84744440|NCT03484273|169242300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84744441|NCT03484273|169242301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.01
84744442|NCT03484273|169242302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84492082|NCT00665366|168734967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.29|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||1.29|0.07|
84492083|NCT00665366|168734967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12|||1.58|0.08|0.031
84492084|NCT00665366|168734967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.34|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 (LOCF)|||1.34|-0.13|0.104
84492085|NCT00665366|168734968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.32|-0.21|
84492086|NCT00665366|168734968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.53|||ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.53|-0.05|
84492087|NCT00665366|168734968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.54|||ANCOVA||Week 12|||0.54|-0.11|0.197
84492088|NCT00665366|168734968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.63|||ANCOVA||Week 12 (LOCF)|||0.63|-0.07|0.111
84492089|NCT00665366|168734969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.64|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 LOCF|||0.64|-0.63|0.983
84492090|NCT00665366|168734970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.71|||Risk Ratio|Weight gain||||3.71|0.57|
84492091|NCT00665366|168734971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.582
84492092|NCT01545375|168734975|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to demonstrate that VE induced by GSK2189242A vaccine (three doses in the first year of life and a booster dose in the second year of life)in preventing clinical AOM diagnosed and verified against AAP criteria was greater than 0%, as compared to the control group. One-sided p-value for the Wald-Test obtained from the general Cox proportional hazard model was calculated.|Vaccine Efficacy|3.81||||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|16.9||The primary objective was met if the one-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0=\[clinical AOM VE ≤ 0%\] was lower than defined 1-sided alpha level: (17.8%).|Regression, Cox|||VE-AOM against AAP criteria: Occurrence of AOM during efficacy follow-up period was compared between groups to estimate Vaccine Efficacy (VE) and its 95% confidence interval using the Anderson \& Gill model (generalization of Cox proportional hazard model) taking into account for recurrent events \[Kelly, 2000\]. VE= (1 - hazard ratio) x 100 Censoring occurred at the time of the last scheduled or medically attended visit.||16.90|-11.35|0.3016
84492093|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.7|-32.1|<0.001
84492094|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.4|-31.7|<0.001
84492095|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-14.2|-34.1|<0.001
84492096|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-19.6|-35.7|<0.001
84492097|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-18.8|-34.5|<0.001
84492098|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-16.9|-32.5|<0.001
84492099|NCT04516291|168735008|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-17.6|-35.4|<0.001
84492100|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.8|-57.1|<0.001
84492101|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.7|-56.9|<0.001
84492102|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-27.8|-54.8|<0.001
84492103|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-39.6|-61.4|<0.001
84744443|NCT03484273|169242303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.001
84552252|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.03|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.03|-1.07|0.48
84552253|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.67|0.13
84552254|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.62|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.78|0.99|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.99|-0.78|0.62
84552255|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.63|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.16|0.34
84552256|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.12|0.24
84604755|NCT01340937|168960562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.07|0.84|
84604756|NCT01340937|168960562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.86|
84604757|NCT01340937|168960562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.14|0.90|
84744444|NCT03484273|169242304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.04
84552257|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.61|-0.26|0.88
84552258|NCT01340027|168858403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.99|0.83
84552259|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.39|0.69|0.42
84552260|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|0.72|0.48
84669354|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0299
84744445|NCT00468104|169242307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||A univariate analysis was done to identify possible predictors of successful resolution of symptoms. The chi-square analysis was used to compare the percent successful.||||<0.001
84744446|NCT00371683|169242348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Relative Risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.32|0.78|0.0635
84744447|NCT00371683|169242348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% CI for the relative risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.44||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.44|-2.22|<0.0001
84552261|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.67|0.69
84552262|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.61|0.95
84552263|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.21|1.14|0.015
84552264|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.11|0.023
84552265|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.84|0.16
84552266|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.45|0.73
84552267|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.45|0.70
84552268|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.74|0.26
84552269|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.63|0.69
84552270|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.89|0.73|0.29
84552271|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.75|0.31
84552272|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.70|0.45
84604758|NCT01340937|168960563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.04|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.04|0.91|
84552273|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.64|0.64
84552274|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.94|1.18|0.013
84552275|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.16|0.017
84552276|NCT01340027|168858406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.88|0.11
84552277|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.56|0.16|0.52
84552278|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.23|0.48
84552279|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.32|0.93
84552280|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|1.47|0.013
84604759|NCT01340937|168960563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
84744448|NCT00371683|169242349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||||If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the Relative Risk was \< 1 then superiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was demonstrated.|||2.23|0.70|
84744449|NCT00371683|169242349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.4||||||||1.40|-0.68|
84744450|NCT00371683|169242349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7779
84744451|NCT00371683|169242350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||||1.35|0.80|
84744452|NCT00371683|169242350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.59||||||||2.59|-2.04|
84552281|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|1.17|0.031
84552282|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|15.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.58|0.95|0.059
84552283|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.58|0.48|0.36
84552284|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.05|0.26
84552285|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.08|0.33
84552286|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|0.17|0.94
84552287|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.09|0.29
84552288|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.05|0.15
84552289|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.06|0.11
84552290|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.09|0.26
84552291|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|16.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.17|0.44|0.28
84552292|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|15.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.46|0.37|0.36
84552293|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.72|0.29|0.56
84552294|NCT01340027|168858408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.15|0.84
84744453|NCT00371683|169242350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7754
84744454|NCT00371683|169242351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6||||||||2.60|0.77|
84744455|NCT00371683|169242351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|-0.47|
84744456|NCT00371683|169242351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2626
84744457|NCT00371683|169242352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87||||||||1.87|0.63|
84552295|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.38|0.16|0.48
84552296|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.25|0.58
84552297|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.34|0.93
84552298|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|105.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||105.30|1.40|0.023
84552299|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|83.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.24|1.08|0.042
84552300|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|79.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.19|1.03|0.047
84552301|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.90|0.52|0.23
84744458|NCT00371683|169242352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||||||||1.21|-0.99|
84744459|NCT00371683|169242352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7700
84744460|NCT00371683|169242353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11||||||||2.11|0.68|
84744461|NCT00371683|169242353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.33||||||||1.33|-0.78|
84744462|NCT00371683|169242353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||||||0.5443
84552302|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.058
84552303|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.02|0.15
84552304|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.99|0.04|0.55
84744463|NCT00371683|169242354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.93||||||||4.93|0.20|
84744464|NCT00371683|169242354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.30|
84744465|NCT00371683|169242354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.9975
84552305|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.48|0.02|0.11
84552306|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.01|0.054
84552307|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.059
84552308|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.02|0.12
84552309|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|35.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.46|0.11|0.64
84744466|NCT00371683|169242355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.05|
84744467|NCT00371683|169242355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.1578
84552310|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.42|0.09|0.76
84552311|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|26.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.47|0.08|0.79
84552312|NCT01340027|168858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|0.04|0.55
84552313|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.71||All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.71|-1.24|0.25
84552314|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.81|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.70|0.35
84552315|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.72|-0.74|1.0
84552316|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.41|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.08|0.003
84744468|NCT00371683|169242356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.4||||||||2.40|0.65|
84744469|NCT00371683|169242356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.47|
84744470|NCT00371683|169242357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.95||||||||2.95|0.72|
84744471|NCT00371683|169242357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.30|
84744472|NCT00371683|169242357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2873
84744473|NCT00371683|169242358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2||||||||1.20|0.74|
84552317|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.59|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.59|-1.04|0.12
84552318|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.21|0.24
84552319|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.78|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.78|-0.94|0.54
84552320|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.10|0.95
84552321|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-1.11|0.74
84552322|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.82|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.43|0.89
84552323|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.96|0.82
84744474|NCT00371683|169242358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.63||||||||1.63|-3.30|
84744475|NCT00371683|169242358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.6145
84744476|NCT00371683|169242361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI/Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.55|
84552324|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.9|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.90|-1.44|0.58
84552325|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.93|0.46
84552326|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.97|0.95
84552327|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.65|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.32|0.18
84552328|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.8|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.80|-1.24|0.21
84552329|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.6|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.43|0.72
84552330|NCT01340027|168858410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.98|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.15|0.92
84552331|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||-0.45|-2.06|0.002
84552332|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.15|0.16
84552333|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.91|<0.001
84552334|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.80|0.001
84552335|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.03|<0.001
84552336|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.78|0.017
84552337|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.98|0.004
84552338|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-0.63|0.53
84552339|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.83|0.85
84552340|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.83|-1.01|0.84
84552341|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.00|0.050
84552342|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.38|0.33
84552343|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-0.48|0.44
84552344|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-1.24|0.28
84552345|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.14|0.42
84552346|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.37|0.16
84552347|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.10|0.70
84552348|NCT01340027|168858411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.30|0.40
84744477|NCT00371683|169242361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.09|-0.46|
84552349|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.01|-0.30|0.062
84552350|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.22|0.15
84552351|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.007
84552352|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
84552353|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
84552354|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
84552355|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.29|0.070
84552356|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.05|0.15
84552357|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.12|0.57
84744478|NCT00371683|169242361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
84744479|NCT00371683|169242361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of thrombocytopenia. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
84552358|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.16|0.89
84552359|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.02|0.086
84552360|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.19|0.88
84552361|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.11|0.61
84552362|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.20|0.58
84552363|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.18|0.76
84552364|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.25|0.23
84552365|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.30|0.15
84552366|NCT01340027|168858412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.18|0.94
84552367|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.30|-0.99|0.29
84744480|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.14||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.14|-1.49|
84744481|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Major Bleeding Endpoint||||0.0533
84552368|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.12|0.15
84552369|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.48|0.99
84552370|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.54|0.76
84552371|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.71|0.30
84552372|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.72|0.43
84552373|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.83|0.40
84552374|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.08|0.24
84552375|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.98|0.36
84552376|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-1.49|0.020
84552377|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.33|0.011
84552378|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.84|0.004
84552379|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.00|0.18
84744482|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.33|-1.87|
84744483|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Clinically relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint||||0.1709
84744484|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.17||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.17|-2.75|
84744485|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint.||||0.0338
84744486|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.13||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Any Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.13|-3.18|
84744487|NCT00371683|169242362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Any Bleeding Endpoint.||||0.0816
84744488|NCT01131182|169242397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Assessed for relative risk using prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy) as a stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
84744489|NCT04602221|169242399|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8242||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.975|7.297|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||7.297|-7.975|0.9296
84744490|NCT04602221|169242399|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|4.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8224||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.631|11.634|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||11.634|-3.631|0.2990
84744491|NCT04602221|169242399|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6608||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.565|6.05|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||6.050|-8.565|0.7322
84744492|NCT04602221|169242400|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.8249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|3.471|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||3.471|-2.776|0.8249
84744493|NCT04602221|169242400|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5889||0.4973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.091|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||2.091|-4.260|0.4973
84669355|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8135|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8135
84744494|NCT04602221|169242400|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-2.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5266||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.909|0.192|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.192|-5.909|0.0658
84744495|NCT04602221|169242401|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0106|0.0213|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0213|-0.0106|0.5081
84552380|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.015
84744496|NCT04602221|169242401|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0102|0.0217|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0217|-0.0102|0.4723
84744497|NCT04602221|169242401|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0486|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0486|0.0180|< .0001
84552381|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.41|0.006
84552382|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.59|<0.001
84552383|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.59|0.003
84552384|NCT01340027|168858413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.68|0.004
84552385|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.09|-0.60|0.15
84552386|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.78
84552387|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.58
84552388|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.60
84552389|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.63|0.017
84552390|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.60|0.16
84552391|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|0.13
84552392|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.35|0.81
84552393|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.48|0.67
84552394|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.33|0.77
84552395|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.30|0.81
84552396|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
84552397|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.34|0.99
84552398|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.38|0.82
84552399|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.38|0.84
84552400|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.64|0.080
84552401|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
84552402|NCT01340027|168858414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.62|0.26
84552403|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.2|-0.5|0.38
84552404|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.85
84552405|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
84552406|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.005
84552407|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.003
84552408|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.004
84744498|NCT03001076|169242402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.376|-22.531|||ANCOVA|||||-22.531|-34.376|<0.001
84744499|NCT03001076|169242403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.005|-18.121|||ANCOVA|||||-18.121|-29.005|<0.001
84552409|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.15
84552410|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.4|0.99
84552411|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.67
84552412|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.44
84552413|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.88
84552414|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.53
84552415|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|1.0
84552416|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.084
84552417|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.7|0.030
84552418|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.020
84552419|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.017
84552420|NCT01340027|168858415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.26
84552421|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||4.95|1.04|0.040
84552422|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.63|0.73
84552423|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|1.00|0.050
84552424|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.81|0.21
84552425|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|1.11|0.021
84552426|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.79|0.19
84552427|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.57|0.74
84552428|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.58|0.57
84552429|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.77|0.19
84552430|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.41|0.69
84552431|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.55|0.90
84552432|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.55|1.01|0.048
84552433|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.60|0.67
84552434|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.95|0.070
84552435|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|0.77|0.23
84552436|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.19|1.06|0.034
84552437|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|0.76|0.20
84552438|NCT01340027|168858416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.55|0.68
84552439|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.64|0.62
84552440|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
84552441|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.91|0.11
84552442|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.10|0.020
84744500|NCT03001076|169242404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-14.03|||ANCOVA|||||-14.030|-21.940|<0.001
84744501|NCT03001076|169242405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.908|-14.732|||ANCOVA|||||-14.732|-23.908|<0.001
84744502|NCT03001076|169242406|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-31.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.761|-17.401|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-17.401|-44.761|<0.001
84744503|NCT03001076|169242407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.877|5.812|||ANCOVA|||||5.812|-14.877|=0.388
84604760|NCT01340937|168960563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.13|0.98|
84604761|NCT01340937|168960564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.10|0.96|
84604762|NCT01340937|168960564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
84604763|NCT01340937|168960564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.06|0.92|
84604764|NCT01340937|168960564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.29|1.11|<0.001
84604765|NCT01340937|168960565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.83|
84604766|NCT01340937|168960565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.83|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.83|0.72|
84604767|NCT01340937|168960565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.94|0.81|
84604768|NCT01340937|168960565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.67||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.73|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||0.73|0.62|0.419
84604769|NCT01340937|168960566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
84604770|NCT01340937|168960566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.83|
84669356|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3526
84669357|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
84753008|NCT04178967|169261519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.183151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|2.99|||ANCOVA|||||2.99|-15.48|0.183151
84604771|NCT01340937|168960566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.85|
84604772|NCT01340937|168960566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.17|0.90|<0.001
84604773|NCT01340937|168960567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.85|0.72|
84604774|NCT01340937|168960567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.87|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.87|0.73|
84604775|NCT01340937|168960567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.93|
84604776|NCT01340937|168960567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.66|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.66|1.37|<0.001
84744504|NCT03001076|169242408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.250|-9.528|=0.002
84744505|NCT03001076|169242410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.498|-26.682|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-26.682|-35.498|<0.001
84552443|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|1.15|0.012
84552444|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.10|0.95|0.072
84552445|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.77|0.29
84552446|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.49|0.94
84552447|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.81|0.46|0.80
84552448|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.59|0.67
84552449|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.55|1.0
84552450|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.59|0.66
84552451|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.73|0.35
84552452|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.82|0.19
84552453|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.99|0.054
84552454|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.38|1.04|0.038
84552455|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|0.87|0.12
84552456|NCT01340027|168858417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.70|0.36
84552457|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.43|0.06|0.32
84552458|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.21|0.65
84552459|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.13|0.39
84552460|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.10|0.22
84552461|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.04|0.082
84552462|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.04|0.36
84552463|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|0.42|0.51
84552464|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.19|0.99
84552465|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.59|0.24|0.96
84552466|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|0.12|0.57
84552467|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|0.28|0.93
84552468|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.06|0.37
84552469|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.20|0.74
84552470|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.12|0.46
84552471|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.10|0.28
84552472|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.04|0.11
84552473|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|0.04|0.40
84552474|NCT01340027|168858418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.85|0.39|0.50
84552475|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||1.7|-8.0|0.21
84744506|NCT03001076|169242410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.074|-24.168|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-24.168|-34.074|<0.001
84744507|NCT03001076|169242411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.204|-21.308|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-21.308|-29.204|<0.001
84744508|NCT03001076|169242411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.219|-19.276|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-19.276|-28.219|<0.001
84552476|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-5.2|0.54
84552477|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-8.9|0.016
84552478|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-9.3|0.011
84552479|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-10.7|<0.001
84552480|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-11.6|0.005
84552481|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-9.4|0.056
84552482|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|-7.1|0.56
84552483|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-7.5|0.48
84552484|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.8|0.13
84552485|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-6.0|0.61
84552486|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.9|0.12
84552487|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-7.3|0.31
84552488|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-10.9|0.012
84552489|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-11.3|0.008
84552490|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
84552491|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-13.5|0.004
84552492|NCT01340027|168858419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-11.4|0.035
84552493|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||3.20|0.63|0.40
84552494|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.55|0.89
84552495|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.63|0.57
84552496|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.70|0.36
84552497|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.83|0.15
84552498|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.59|0.67|0.31
84552499|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.95|0.42|0.81
84552500|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.08|0.75|0.19
84552501|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.56|0.59
84552502|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.83|0.13
84552503|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.78|0.20
84552504|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.34|0.94|0.070
84552505|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|0.81|0.17
84552506|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.92|0.92|0.084
84552507|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.02|0.043
84552508|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.58|1.22|0.013
84552509|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|0.99|0.053
84552510|NCT01340027|168858420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|0.63|0.39
84604777|NCT01340937|168960568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.76|
84744509|NCT03001076|169242412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-17.430|-23.390|<0.001
84744510|NCT03001076|169242412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.71|-15.206|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-15.206|-21.710|<0.001
84552511|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||7.9|-2.1|0.26
84604778|NCT01340937|168960568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.99|0.79|
84604779|NCT01340937|168960568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.15|0.92|
84604780|NCT01340937|168960569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.84|
84604781|NCT01340937|168960569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.82|
84604782|NCT01340937|168960569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
84604783|NCT01340937|168960570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.22|0.92|
84604784|NCT01340937|168960570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.26|0.95|
84552512|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-2.3|0.38
84552513|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differrence|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|0.7|0.022
84552514|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|1.3|0.010
84604785|NCT01340937|168960570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.19|0.90|
84604786|NCT01340937|168960571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.3|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.30|-1.23|
84604787|NCT01340937|168960571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.32|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.32|-1.23|
84744511|NCT03001076|169242413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|=|0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.663|9.059|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||9.059|-10.663|=0.873
84744512|NCT03001076|169242413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131|=|0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.215|10.055|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||10.055|-10.215|=0.988
84552515|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||||10.5|2.3|0.002
84604788|NCT01340937|168960571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.66|-0.64|
84744513|NCT03001076|169242414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.778|-5.394|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-5.394|-11.778|<0.001
84744514|NCT03001076|169242414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.712|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.798|-3.049|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-3.049|-9.798|<0.001
84744515|NCT02576587|169242416|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and AHI on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Conditional logistic regression|||||1.00|0.97|0.054
84744516|NCT02576587|169242416|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Conditional logistic regression|N = 270 (135 cases and 135 controls)||||1.03|1.00|0.014
84753009|NCT04178967|169261520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.1|0.1|0.000001
84552516|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|1.7|0.008
84552517|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|0.3|0.037
84552518|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-7.7|0.50
84552519|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-4.4|0.65
84552520|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-2.4|0.25
84552521|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-5.7|0.76
84492104|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-35.2|-56.5|<0.001
84552522|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|-3.6|0.47
84552523|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-3.9|0.67
84552524|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-0.9|0.11
84552525|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-0.2|0.062
84552526|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|0.7|0.025
84552527|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|0.2|0.041
84492105|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-40.1|-61.2|<0.001
84552528|NCT01340027|168858421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|-1.2|0.12
84552529|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.08|0.52|0.92
84552530|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.58|0.98
84552531|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.70|0.45
84552532|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.53|0.79|0.24
84744517|NCT02576587|169242416|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume index on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06|||Conditional logistic regression|N=268 (134 cases and 134 controls)||||1.06|1.00|0.030
84552533|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.19|0.012
84552534|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.70|0.32
84552535|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.72|0.27
84552536|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.24|0.064
84552537|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.59|0.57
84552538|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.68|0.59|0.55
84552539|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.58|0.75
84552540|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.53|0.72
84552541|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.58|0.74
84552542|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.71|0.34
84552543|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|0.80|0.19
84552544|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.94|1.22|0.012
84552545|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|0.72|0.25
84552546|NCT01340027|168858422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.74|0.21
84552547|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.92|-0.56|0.63
84552548|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.43|0.56
84552549|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.15|0.14
84552550|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|0.08|0.027
84552551|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.14|0.13
84552552|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||||1.46|0.00|0.049
84744518|NCT02576587|169242416|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical four-chamber (A4C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Conditional logistic regression|N=214 (107 cases and 107 controls)||||1.01|0.96|0.39
84552553|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.66|||ANCOVA|||||1.66|0.22|0.011
84552554|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.67|0.70
84552555|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.56|||ANCOVA|||||1.56|-0.10|0.084
84552556|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49|||ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.18|0.12
84552557|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.39|0.36
84552558|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|-0.32|0.23
84552559|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.21|0.16
84552560|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.032
84552561|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.30|0.006
84552562|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.031
84552563|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.90|0.24|0.012
84552564|NCT01340027|168858430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|0.45|0.002
84744519|NCT02576587|169242416|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical two-chamber (A2C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||Conditional logistic regression|N=212 (106 cases and 106 controls)||||1.02|0.97|0.49
84744520|NCT02576587|169242417|OTHER||median of change|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|||Inter-Quartile Range of the change (post minus pre) is (-7.0, 13.7).|||0.16
84744521|NCT02576587|169242418|OTHER||median of change|1.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-2.0, 6.0).|||||0.088
84552565|NCT02496091|168858431|OTHER||95% confidence interval (using the exact|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|95.5||||||Only descriptive statistics The implant success rate is analyzed on an implant level (i.e. percent of successful implants) as well as subject level (i.e. percentage of subjects with no unsuccessful implants). This proportion is presented together with a 95% confidence interval (using the exact Binomial approach) and an average follow-up time.||95.5|88.8|
84552566|NCT02272842|168858437|SUPERIORITY|The study had 80% power to detect a standardized effect size of 0.22 and had 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.28. In these calculations, we assumed a loss to follow-up of 10%. Details on the samples size calculations are also presented in the previously published protocol paper.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.87||The main analysis was the change in cognitive scores from baseline until the end of the intervention.|t-test, 2 sided||This is the P-value for the effect on the cognitive scores.|||.87|-.54|>.16
84552567|NCT02272842|168858447|SUPERIORITY|the means were compared using Students t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.94||"Mean difference -0.5 points in the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Fourth Edition.~95 % Confidence Interval of the mean difference: (-1.97, 0.94)"|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mean differences between the two study arms||0.94|-1.97|>.3
84552568|NCT02017717|168858478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
84552569|NCT02017717|168858479|SUPERIORITY||Difference of OS rates at 12 months|-0.5||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Z test with variance estimation based on|Greenwood formula using log(-log) transformation||||9.7|-10.8|0.9208
84552570|NCT02017717|168858481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.35||||||||2.35|1.50|
84552571|NCT02017717|168858482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.59||||||||0.59|0.15|
84552572|NCT02017717|168858483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
84552573|NCT05129475|168858524|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|133.74|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||133.74|109.30|
84552574|NCT05129475|168858525|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|131.68|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||131.68|108.75|
84552575|NCT05129475|168858526|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.05|186.44|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||186.44|139.05|
84552576|NCT01899742|168858535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|0.045|<0.001
84552577|NCT01899742|168858536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.122|0.024|0.004
84552578|NCT00535847|168858648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.259|37.884||||||Stratified Analysis (Mantel-Haenszel)- The Mantel-Haenszel estimator provides an estimate of the common odds ratio for the association between eRVR and SVR across the prior response strata.||37.884|4.259|
84552579|NCT05007041|168858650|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-0.96||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|7.1|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||The null hypothesis is simultaneous vaccination with RZV and allV4 is inferior (i.e., RZV and allV4 will have a higher proportion) to RZV and HD-IIV4 with regard to the proportion of adults with at least one severe (Grade 3) solicited local or systemic reactogenicity event on days 1-8 after RZV dose||7.10|-8.94|0.0037
84552580|NCT05007041|168858651|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|4.69||||||||4.69|-20.22|
84552581|NCT05007041|168858652|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|12.47||||||||12.47|-7.29|
84552582|NCT05007041|168858653|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|1.74||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|7.77||The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Difference in proportions|||Number of Participants With at Least One Severe (Grade 3) Solicited Local Reactogenicity Event After SHINGRIX® Dose 1 in Each Study Group||7.77|-4.04|0.0031
84552583|NCT05007041|168858654|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-13.10|
84552584|NCT05007041|168858655|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|13.11|||Difference in proportions|||||13.11|-1.32|
84552585|NCT05007041|168858656|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.47|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||||2.47|-10.90|<0.0001
84552586|NCT05007041|168858657|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|6.28|||Difference in proportions|||||6.28|-17.64|
84552587|NCT05007041|168858658|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.89|||Difference in proportions|||||3.89|-10.50|
84552588|NCT05007041|168858659|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.7|||Difference in proportions|||||0.70|-2.16|
84744522|NCT02576587|169242419|OTHER||median of change|-3.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-8.0, -0.57).|||||0.006
84552589|NCT05007041|168858660|OTHER|The proportion and 95% exact binomial confidence interval between vaccine groups.|Difference in proportions|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-6.36|
84552590|NCT00574249|168858701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Level of significance 5%; no adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided CMH test stratified by country at the alpha level 0.05. Centers were pooled by country (Sweden and Finland pooled due to few participants).||Comparison of the proportion of participants in the adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone group vs. the adalimumab + placebo group.||||0.086
84552591|NCT00574249|168858702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.565
84552592|NCT00574249|168858703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84552593|NCT00574249|168858704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84552594|NCT00574249|168858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84552595|NCT00574249|168858706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84552596|NCT00574249|168858707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74||||0.204||95.0|-5.3|24.78|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. For confidence interval and difference estimate, adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo was used.||||24.78|-5.30|0.204
84552597|NCT00574249|168858708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55||||0.272||95.0|-48.92|13.82|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. Confidence interval and difference estimated from adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo.||||13.82|-48.92|0.272
84552598|NCT00574249|168858709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.413
84552599|NCT00574249|168858710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84552600|NCT00574249|168858711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
84552601|NCT00574249|168858712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.228
84552602|NCT00574249|168858713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||< 0.001
84552603|NCT00574249|168858714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.001
84552604|NCT00574249|168858715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.764
84552605|NCT00574249|168858716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.437
84552606|NCT00574249|168858717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.740
84552607|NCT00574249|168858718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.634
84604789|NCT01340937|168960571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.90|0.20|<0.001
84744523|NCT02576587|169242420|OTHER||median of change|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-6.2, 10.7).|||||0.59
84744524|NCT02576587|169242421|OTHER||mean of change|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
84552608|NCT03197870|168858720|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses was tested in the modified intent-to-treat population using a Fisher's Exact Test with a 2-sided 5% significance level. razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily was tested first. If this was found to be statistically significant, then razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be tested for statistical significance, at the same significance level.||||||0.495||||||Missing data was imputed using last observation carried forward; baseline values were not carried forward.|Fisher Exact|||The primary hypotheses tested was that razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily and razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be superior to placebo in the improvement of diabetic retinopathy as measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity scale change from baseline at 48 weeks.||||0.495
84552609|NCT01542034|168858736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.702|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.808|4.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||4.880|2.808|<0.001
84552610|NCT01542034|168858737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.||The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||||<0.001
84552611|NCT01542034|168858738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|20.148|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||20.148|3.620|<0.001
84552612|NCT01542034|168858739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
84552613|NCT01508130|168858749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.49|||Wald residual chi-square test||Due to the non-interventional study design, the Cox model included a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) to account for the potential imbalance between treatment groups.|||1.49|0.78|0.6451
84552614|NCT01508130|168858749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald residual chi-square test||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate.|||1.34|0.78|0.8826
84604790|NCT01340937|168960572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.24|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.24|-3.74|
84744525|NCT02576587|169242422|OTHER||mean of change|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
84604791|NCT01340937|168960572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.57|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.57|-5.26|
84744526|NCT01056718|169242426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of treatment. Each subject served as his/her own control.||||<0.05
84744527|NCT01056718|169242427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84744528|NCT01056718|169242428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84744529|NCT01056718|169242429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.078
84744530|NCT01056718|169242430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.186
84492106|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-56.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-44.7|-68.9|<0.001
84669358|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0039
84753010|NCT04178967|169261520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.0|0.000001
84753011|NCT04178967|169261521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.005304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|1.3|0.005304
84492107|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-6.5|-23.7|<0.001
84492108|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.1|-19.2|0.015
84492109|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.7|-20.3|0.011
84492110|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.3|-19.7|<0.001
84492111|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.6|-19.5|<0.001
84492112|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||1.0|-13.0|0.095
84492113|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-0.6|-16.4|0.036
84492114|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-22.9|0.129
84492115|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||5.2|-21.0|0.238
84492116|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||1.8|-24.7|0.090
84492117|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-5.3|-26.7|0.004
84492118|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-3.9|-25.1|0.008
84492119|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.5|-18.3|0.136
84492120|NCT04516291|168735010|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-20.8|0.138
84492121|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-58.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-58.1|-81.6|<0.001
84492122|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|-67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-67.7|-91.5|<0.001
84492123|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-64.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-64.9|-89.4|<0.001
84492124|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.2|-76.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-76.3|-96.2|<0.001
84492125|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.9|-70.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-70.9|-89.9|<0.001
84744531|NCT01056718|169242431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84744532|NCT01056718|169242432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84552615|NCT01508130|168858750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Multiple Logistic Regression||A multiple logistic regression model including a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) was used for the treatment comparison.|||1.49|0.58|0.7695
84552616|NCT01508130|168858750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.92|||Multiple Logistic Regression||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate|||1.92|0.84|0.2594
84552617|NCT01508130|168858757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.64|0.64|0.9156
84552618|NCT01508130|168858758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.36|0.57|0.5649
84552619|NCT02783729|168858776|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.773|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.889||Based on mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.889|0.672|= 0.0003
84552620|NCT02783729|168858776|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.832||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.832|0.628|< 0.0001
84552621|NCT02783729|168858777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|8.54||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||8.54|5.61|< 0.0001
84552622|NCT02783729|168858777|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|9.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||9.49|6.57|< 0.0001
84552623|NCT02783729|168858778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-17.95||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||||-17.95|-29.98|< 0.0001
84552624|NCT02783729|168858778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-25.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.36|-19.34|||MMRM|||||-19.34|-31.36|< 0.0001
84552625|NCT02783729|168858779|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298|=|0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-2.15|||MMRM|||||-2.15|-11.15|= 0.0038
84552626|NCT02783729|168858779|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.309|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-3.47|||MMRM|||||-3.47|-12.53|= 0.0005
84552627|NCT02783729|168858780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029|=|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-1.72||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.72|-17.53|= 0.0171
84552628|NCT02783729|168858780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-2.81||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 10 mg||-2.81|-18.67|= 0.008
84552629|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.874|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.981||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.981|0.78|= 0.0218
84552630|NCT02783729|168858781|OTHER||LSGM Ratio|0.818|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.917||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.917|0.729|= 0.0006
84552631|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.724||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.724|0.556|< 0.0001
84552632|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.677||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.677|0.521|< 0.0001
84744533|NCT01056718|169242433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.06
84753012|NCT04178967|169261522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.7|<0.000001
84753013|NCT04178967|169261523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.241275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|2.03|||ANCOVA|||||2.03|-7.85|0.241275
84492126|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-92.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|-82.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-82.6|-101.9|<0.001
84744534|NCT01056718|169242434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84744535|NCT01056718|169242435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84492127|NCT04516291|168735012|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.2|-84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-84.2|-106.2|<0.001
84492128|NCT04250558|168735019|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Kinetic parameters were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test in MATLAB Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on logistic regression was utilized, with one surgical condition versus the other two states as the binary dependent variable, and each perfusion-related kinetic parameter of Imax, IS and BF as the independent variable. Power analysis was performed to evaluate the statistical validity, using G\*Power software||||0.05
84552633|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.544|=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-1.17||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.17|-11.15|= 0.0154
84492129|NCT02452320|168735071|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84744536|NCT01056718|169242436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.85
84492130|NCT03737812|168735075|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|10.259||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||10.259|0.485|
84492131|NCT03737812|168735075|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|16.561||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||16.561|0.899|
84552634|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|-10.05||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-10.05|-20.01|< 0.0001
84744537|NCT01056718|169242437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.40
84753014|NCT04178967|169261524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.000116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.12|0.000116
84753015|NCT04178967|169261525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.645132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.67|||ANCOVA|||||3.67|-5.86|0.645132
84753016|NCT04178967|169261526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||3.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.47|||ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-4.03|0.000031
84753017|NCT04178967|169261527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.974417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.27|0.974417
84753018|NCT04178967|169261528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.084769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-9.1|0.084769
84753019|NCT00223678|169261540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.849
84753020|NCT04409353|169261541|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.47||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.81|-0.87|0.4884
84753021|NCT04409353|169261541|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.16||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.43|-1.12|0.8095
84492132|NCT06104423|168735100|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-14.0|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting systolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 5 (Week 12, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-14.0|-26.0|< 0.001
84492133|NCT02918968|168735101|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||0.61|0.29|<0.001
84492134|NCT02918968|168735103|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|\>=50% reduction||50.4|25.2|<0.001
84492135|NCT02918968|168735103|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥ 90% reduction||50.4|26.3|<0.001
84552635|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876|=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.08||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-2.08|-13.36|= 0.0073
84552636|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.45|||MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-3.45|-14.75|= 0.0016
84552637|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|16.32||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.32|4.18|= 0.001
84604792|NCT01340937|168960572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|2.28|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.28|-5.56|
84744538|NCT01056718|169242438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
84744539|NCT01056718|169242439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.49
84492136|NCT02918968|168735104|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|53.1||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|≥ 50% reduction||53.1|28.3|<0.001
84552638|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|29.15||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||29.15|17.04|< 0.0001
84552639|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.63|26.2||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||26.2|12.63|< 0.0001
84552640|NCT02783729|168858781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.32|30.88||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||30.88|17.32|< 0.0001
84552641|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.898|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.977||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.977|0.825|= 0.0122
84604793|NCT01340937|168960572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.09|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.09|-6.02|<0.001
84744540|NCT01056718|169242440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.47
84492137|NCT02918968|168735104|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|45.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥90% reduction||45.4|21.5|<0.001
84492138|NCT02918968|168735105|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84492139|NCT02918968|168735106|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84669359|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6924|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6924
84669360|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7639|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7639
84669361|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0013
84669362|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0011
84492140|NCT02918968|168735108|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.67||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||1.67|0.45|0.669
84492141|NCT00727246|168735116|OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo. A mean index score created as a composite cognitive performance across domains (higher t-score = higher cognition). Purpose was to serve as a measure of overall cognitive functioning for data analysis.||||.85
84492142|NCT00727246|168735117|OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|0.95|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measure ANOVA was completed to evaluate potential differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo.||||.329
84492143|NCT00538434|168735118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-52.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.24|-30.32|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-30.32|-75.24|< 0.0001
84492144|NCT00538434|168735118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-73.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.28|-50.78|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-50.78|-95.28|< 0.0001
84492145|NCT00538434|168735118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-64.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|-42.45|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-42.45|-86.93|< 0.0001
84492146|NCT00538434|168735119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0313
84492147|NCT00538434|168735119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5793
84492148|NCT00538434|168735119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4905
84492149|NCT00538434|168735120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
84492150|NCT00538434|168735120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0943
84492151|NCT00538434|168735120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2955
84492152|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|8.03||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||8.03|-17.53|0.4644
84492153|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|11.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||11.23|-14.17|0.8196
84492154|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.8306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|13.91||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||13.91|-11.19|0.8306
84492155|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|2.24||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||2.24|-15.01|0.1459
84492156|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|5.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||5.23|-12.05|0.4375
84552642|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.902||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.902|0.763|< 0.0001
84552643|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.882|||=|0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.978||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.978|0.796|= 0.0176
84552644|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.811|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.899||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.732|< 0.0001
84604794|NCT01340937|168960573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.91|
84604795|NCT01340937|168960573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.90|
84669363|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4340
84669364|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4224|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4224
84669365|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1628
84669366|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5666|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5666
84669367|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8315|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8315
84669368|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3852
84669369|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0652
84669370|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5719|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5719
84669371|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9237|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9237
84669372|NCT01480076|169072599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1310
84669373|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669374|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84744541|NCT01056718|169242441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.55
84552645|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484|=|0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.91||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.91|-0.68|= 0.0706
84552646|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.481|=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|2.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.98|-14.61|= 0.1949
84552647|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.73||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||24.73|4.16|= 0.0059
84552648|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|15.65||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||15.65|-4.92|= 0.3064
84552649|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.325|=|0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|3.88||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.88|-17.02|= 0.2174
84552650|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.313|=|0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|19.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.31|-1.55|= 0.0949
84552651|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.207|=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|5.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.36|-19.01|= 0.2718
84552652|NCT02783729|168858782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.206|=|0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|19.61||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.61|-4.75|= 0.2317
84552653|NCT02783729|168858783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.71|-3.46|= 0.1963
84552654|NCT02783729|168858783|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate|LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.78|||MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.78|-0.38|= 0.1093
84552655|NCT02783729|168858783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|=|0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.92||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.92|-3.98|= 0.2196
84552656|NCT02783729|168858783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|=|0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.49|-1.4|= 0.4013
84552657|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.85|||=|0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.961||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.961|0.752|= 0.0092
84552658|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.795|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|0.899||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.704|= 0.0002
84552659|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.71|-28.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-28.09|-38.71|< 0.0001
84552660|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-42.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-36.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-36.97|-47.57|< 0.0001
84552661|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-17.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-17.3|-26.01|< 0.0001
84552662|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-28.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.68|-23.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-23.98|-32.68|< 0.0001
84604796|NCT01340937|168960573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.62|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.62|-0.63|
84604797|NCT01340937|168960573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.33|0.46|<0.001
84604798|NCT01340937|168960574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.4|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.40|0.37|
84604799|NCT01340937|168960574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.63|-0.77|
84604800|NCT01340937|168960574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.15|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.15|-3.03|
84604801|NCT01340937|168960574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.14|-0.59|<0.001
84604802|NCT01340937|168960575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|2.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.47|-5.17|
84604803|NCT01340937|168960575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|0.67|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.67|-6.79|
84604804|NCT01340937|168960575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.94|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.94|-5.37|
84552663|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|44.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.59|50.51||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||50.51|37.59|< 0.0001
84552664|NCT02783729|168858784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.46|63.34||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||63.34|50.46|< 0.0001
84552665|NCT02783729|168858785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|10.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||10.31|7.7|< 0.0001
84552666|NCT02783729|168858785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|12.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.9|10.3|< 0.0001
84552667|NCT02783729|168858786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|-11.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-11.6|-21.23|< 0.0001
84604805|NCT01340937|168960575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.86|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.86|-7.73|<0.001
84604806|NCT01340937|168960576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|7.39|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.39|-1.83|
84604807|NCT01340937|168960576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.06|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.06|-2.21|
84669375|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
84669376|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0003
84744542|NCT01056718|169242442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
84604808|NCT01340937|168960576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.42|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.42|-5.14|
84604809|NCT01340937|168960576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.85|-1.70|<0.001
84669377|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84552668|NCT02783729|168858786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-12.96|-22.57|< 0.0001
84552669|NCT02783729|168858786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|41.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||41.36|26.95|< 0.0001
84552670|NCT02783729|168858786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|38.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.64|46.05||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||46.05|31.64|< 0.0001
84552671|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.815|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.891||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.891|0.745|< 0.0001
84552672|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|0.823||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.823|0.689|< 0.0001
84552673|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|0.837||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.837|0.671|< 0.0001
84552674|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.689|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.769||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.769|0.618|< 0.0001
84552675|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.764|=|0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-3.06||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-3.06|-21.76|= 0.0093
84552676|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.68|-16.99||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-16.99|-35.68|< 0.0001
84552677|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.573|=|0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|-0.55||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.55|-22.42|= 0.0396
84604810|NCT01340937|168960577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-0.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.63|-7.69|
84604811|NCT01340937|168960577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.66|-7.75|
84604812|NCT01340937|168960577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.2|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.20|-3.32|
84604813|NCT01340937|168960577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.36|-0.85|<0.001
84669378|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669379|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
84552678|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-9.63||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-9.63|-31.51|= 0.0002
84552679|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.03|30.08||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.08|8.03|= 0.0007
84552680|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.52||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||45.52|23.5|< 0.0001
84552681|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|36.45||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||36.45|10.68|= 0.0003
84552682|NCT02783729|168858787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|37.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|50.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||50.71|24.94|< 0.0001
84552683|NCT02783729|168858788|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.97|1.56|= 0.0008
84552684|NCT02783729|168858788|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|9.04||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.04|4.64|< 0.0001
84552685|NCT02783729|168858788|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.19||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.19|2.02|= 0.0005
84552686|NCT02783729|168858788|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.77||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.77|4.6|< 0.0001
84552687|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.41|||=|0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|7.04||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.04|-6.22|= 0.9028
84552688|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.49|||=|0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.18|-4.2|= 0.4699
84669380|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0102
84552689|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.58|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|11.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.31|-0.14|= 0.0566
84552690|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.57|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|13.44||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.44|1.71|= 0.0122
84744543|NCT01056718|169242443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84552691|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.42|||=|0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.34||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.34|-2.5|= 0.2176
84552692|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.47|||=|0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|13.49||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.49|-0.55|= 0.0773
84552693|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.85|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|15.02||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.02|2.68|= 0.0054
84552694|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.89|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|17.17||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.17|4.61|= 0.0008
84552695|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.14||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.14|2.66|= 0.003
84552696|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.5|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|11.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.81|3.19|= 0.0016
84552697|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.22|||=|0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.01||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.01|-2.56|= 0.3643
84604814|NCT01340937|168960578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84552698|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.82|||=|0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|7.66||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 10 mg||7.66|-2.02|= 0.2553
84552699|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.69|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|15.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.4|3.98|= 0.0016
84552700|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.29|||=|0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.79||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.79|1.8|= 0.0128
84552701|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.16|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|13.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.81|2.51|= 0.0051
84552702|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.76|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.18|0.34|= 0.0389
84552703|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|34.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.46|42.06||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||42.06|26.46|< 0.0001
84552704|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|47.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.02|55.13||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||55.13|40.02|< 0.0001
84552705|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.89|||=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|13.28||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.28|-3.49|= 0.2534
84552706|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|18.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO: Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||26.4|10.1|< 0.0001
84552707|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.06|30.35||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.35|14.06|< 0.0001
84604815|NCT01340937|168960578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84669381|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84552708|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.16|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||32.1|16.16|< 0.0001
84552709|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.59|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|17.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||17.81|1.36|= 0.023
84552710|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|11.43|||=|0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|19.48||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.48|3.38|= 0.0058
84552711|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.3|||=|0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.33||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5||13.33|1.27|= 0.0222
84552712|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.84|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|17.11||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.11|4.57|= 0.0013
84552713|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.21|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.58||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||6.58|-6.17|= 0.9495
84669382|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669383|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
84552714|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|3.72|||=|0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|10.32||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO: First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||10.32|-2.88|= 0.2708
84604816|NCT01340937|168960578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84744544|NCT01056718|169242444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.526
84744545|NCT01056718|169242445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84744546|NCT01056718|169242446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.925
84744547|NCT01056718|169242447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
84552715|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.91|||=|0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.96||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||14.96|0.86|= 0.0322
84552716|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.69|||=|0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.71||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.71|0.68|= 0.0363
84552717|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.05|||=|0.9885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.24||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.24|-7.14|= 0.9885
84552718|NCT02783729|168858789|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|-0.16|||=|0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|6.99||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||6.99|-7.31|= 0.9651
84552719|NCT02783729|168858790|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.47||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.47|-1.73|= 0.0006
84552720|NCT02783729|168858790|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.46||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-0.46|-1.71|= 0.0007
84552721|NCT02783729|168858790|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.91|-0.28|= 0.2951
84552722|NCT02783729|168858790|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|=|0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.92||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.92|-0.26|= 0.2744
84552723|NCT02783729|168858791|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.82||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.82|-3.35|= 0.2348
84552724|NCT02783729|168858791|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067|=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.93||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.93|-3.26|= 0.2745
84552725|NCT02783729|168858791|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.6||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.6|-2.35|= 0.711
84552726|NCT02783729|168858791|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|=|0.7854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.71||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.71|-2.26|= 0.7854
84552727|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|30.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.505|=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|55.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||55.31|6.23|= 0.0141
84552728|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|39.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|64.29||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||64.29|15.05|= 0.0016
84552729|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.779|=|0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|3.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.9|-42.34|= 0.1031
84552730|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.813|=|0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|12.86||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.86|-33.5|= 0.3825
84552731|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|28.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.626|=|0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.18|147.8||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||147.8|-90.18|= 0.6348
84552732|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.702|=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|169.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||169.97|-68.3|= 0.4026
84552733|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-203.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.171|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-315.56|-91.15||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-91.15|-315.56|= 0.0004
84552734|NCT02783729|168858792|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-181.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.255|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.71|-68.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-68.96|-293.71|= 0.0016
84552735|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|=|0.9936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|8.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||8.09|-8.16|= 0.9936
84552736|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.154|=|0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.3|-14|= 0.1595
84552737|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894|=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.38||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||20.38|5.09|= 0.0011
84552738|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|=|0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|14.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.6|-0.76|= 0.0774
84552739|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|=|0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.12||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.12|-0.42|= 0.3726
84552740|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|=|0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.33|-1.22|= 0.2579
84552741|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.11||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||2.11|0.66|= 0.0002
84552742|NCT02783729|168858793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.32||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.32|-0.14|= 0.112
84552743|NCT03403751|168858849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.649
84552744|NCT03403751|168858852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.871
84552745|NCT03403751|168858853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
84604817|NCT01340937|168960578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.36|0.18|<0.001
84552746|NCT03403751|168858854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.448
84552747|NCT03403751|168858855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
84552748|NCT03403751|168858856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
84552749|NCT03403751|168858859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84552750|NCT03403751|168858860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84552751|NCT03403751|168858861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84552752|NCT03403751|168858862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84552753|NCT02105246|168858878|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis compared the proportion of eligible patients who participated in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. referral to center-based programs.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion of patients who participate in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. facility-based programs||||0.80
84552754|NCT02105246|168858879|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared Baseline to 3-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based cardiac rehab vs. subjects who participated in center-based cardiac rehab|Median Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This comparison was unadjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 3-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||<0.001
84552755|NCT02105246|168858880|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared 6-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based vs. center-based cardiac rehab.|Median Difference (Final Values)|159.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 6-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||0.03
84552756|NCT01623037|168858881|OTHER||sucess proportion|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|83.6||||||||83.6|55.7|
84552757|NCT00387010|168858886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.54|-4.64|0.3223
84552758|NCT02880865|168858934|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||2.2|-2.1|
84604818|NCT01340937|168960579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84604819|NCT01340937|168960579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
84604820|NCT01340937|168960579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
84604821|NCT01340937|168960579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.24|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|-0.20|<0.001
84604822|NCT01340937|168960580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84604823|NCT01340937|168960580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84604824|NCT01340937|168960580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
84744548|NCT01056718|169242448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.458
84604825|NCT01340937|168960580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.85|0.05|<0.001
84604826|NCT01340937|168960581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Analysis of Covariance|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.17|0.98|<0.001
84604827|NCT01340937|168960582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.79|<0.001
84669384|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0012
84744549|NCT01056718|169242449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.561
84669385|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84669386|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604828|NCT01340937|168960583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.83|0.66|0.035
84604829|NCT01340937|168960584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.46|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.46|1.17|<0.001
84604830|NCT01340937|168960585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.58|-1.11|<0.001
84604831|NCT01340937|168960586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|3.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.22|-2.41|<0.001
84669387|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0026
84604832|NCT01340937|168960587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|5.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||5.47|-2.13|<0.001
84604833|NCT01340937|168960588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.40|-0.39|<0.001
84604834|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 1||1.04|0.82|<0.001
84604835|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 3||1.06|0.84|<0.001
84604836|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 4||1.12|0.89|<0.001
84604837|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 5||1.07|0.80|<0.001
84604838|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6A||0.99|0.77|<0.001
84604839|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6B||0.96|0.64|0.055
84604840|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 7F||0.99|0.80|<0.001
84604841|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 9V||1.13|0.88|<0.001
84744550|NCT01056718|169242450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.734
84744551|NCT01056718|169242451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.129
84744552|NCT01139580|169242453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84604842|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 14||1.10|0.82|<0.001
84744553|NCT01139580|169242456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84604843|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 18C||1.00|0.79|<0.001
84604844|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19A||1.03|0.80|<0.001
84604845|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19F||1.08|0.87|<0.001
84604846|NCT01340937|168960589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 23F||1.06|0.77|<0.001
84552759|NCT02880865|168858935|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||1.0|-0.3|
84552760|NCT02880865|168858936|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants with seropositivity for mumps at 56 days post-vaccination between Group 1 and Group 2 were compared using a non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of Group 1 to Group 2 in terms of seropositivity for mumps was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference of seropositivity rates between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||||||||2.1|-2.0|
84552761|NCT02880865|168858937|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with log10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as the explanatory variable adjusted for log10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.2|0.9|
84552762|NCT02880865|168858938|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using an ANCOVA method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.1|0.9|
84552763|NCT02880865|168858939|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||2.2|-2.1|
84552764|NCT02880865|168858940|OTHER||Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||4.9|-1.8|
84552765|NCT02880865|168858941|OTHER||Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||1.0|-0.3|
84552766|NCT02880865|168858942|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.1|
84552767|NCT02880865|168858943|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Group 1 / Group 2 ratio obtained using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody titer.|||1.4|1.0|
84552768|NCT01565369|168858968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0282|<|0.0001||95.0||||evaluated at the .05 significance level|Fleiss' kappa|||Fleiss' kappa||||<0.0001
84552769|NCT05027048|168859034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|211.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|410.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|inverse Gaussian distribution and log li|Inverse Gaussian distribution and log link fit to estimate the effect size and 95% CIs|Inverse gaussian regression with a log link was used to calculate the mean reduction in blood loss in the calcium group relative to placebo group.|||410|-33|<0.05
84552770|NCT05027048|168859035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Regression (poisson with robust SE)|||||1.03|0.48|
84552771|NCT05027048|168859036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23|||Poisson regression with robust SE|||||1.23|0.46|
84552772|NCT05027048|168859037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.56||||||||1.56|0.2|
84552773|NCT05027048|168859038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Data were log transformed to approximate a normal distribution prior to linear regression.||||0.2|-3.6|
84552774|NCT05027048|168859040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
84552775|NCT05027048|168859041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.566
84552776|NCT05027048|168859043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA used to analyze differences between groups.||||0.348
84552777|NCT05027048|168859044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA.||Repeated measures ANOVA used to assess for difference between groups in the % change from baseline heart rate.||||0.011
84552778|NCT05027048|168859046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84552779|NCT05027048|168859047|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Note: a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated in NONMEM using 6 venous blood ionized calcium measurements per participant at random times. The change in ionized calcium was defined as a measured value minus the measured baseline for the patient.~Once the two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated, NONMEM was used to generate a predicted ionized calcium concentration at 10 minutes (Tmax) for each participant to generate mean and 95% confidence interval."|||
84552780|NCT05027048|168859049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|356.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.0|515.0|||Inverse Gaussian regression, log link||Reduction in blood loss was calculated by inverse Gaussian regression with a log link as detailed in the description of statistical methods for the primary outcome.|||515|159|<0.05
84552781|NCT03051516|168859065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV16 persistence by study arm.||||0.89
84552782|NCT03051516|168859065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV18/45 persistence by study arm.||||0.65
84552783|NCT03051516|168859065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV31/33/52/58 persistence by study arm.||||0.056
84552784|NCT03051516|168859065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV35/39/51/56/59 persistence by study arm.||||0.38
84552785|NCT03051516|168859065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||This p-value compares overall HPV persistence and is not specific to HPV genotype.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84552786|NCT03051516|168859066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
84552787|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fever or chills.||||0.135
84552788|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of headache.||||0.640
84552789|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.838|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fatigue.||||0.838
84552790|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of muscle aches.||||0.917
84552791|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of pain at injection site.||||0.005
84552792|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of tenderness at injection site.||||0.001
84552793|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of swelling at injection site.||||0.004
84552794|NCT03051516|168859067|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of medical attention/medication required.||||0.133
84552795|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
84552796|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.77
84552797|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.57
84552798|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.73
84552799|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.998
84552800|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
84552801|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.95
84552802|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.91
84552803|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.22
84552804|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.27
84552805|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.72
84552806|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.71
84552807|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.11
84552808|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.58
84552809|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.81
84552810|NCT03051516|168859068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.73
84552811|NCT03408444|168859069|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.020|-0.106|
84552812|NCT03408444|168859069|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.013|-0.100|
84552813|NCT03408444|168859069|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.062|-0.149|
84552814|NCT03408444|168859070|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.21|-0.04|
84552815|NCT03408444|168859070|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.25|-0.01|
84552816|NCT03408444|168859070|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.35|0.09|
84552817|NCT04777201|168859115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.54|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.54|-1.14|0.7702
84669388|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0161
84744554|NCT00633880|169242459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the primary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.509
84744555|NCT00633880|169242464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84552818|NCT04777201|168859116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.38|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.38|-0.84|0.6305
84552819|NCT02357706|168859135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Comparison of AHI/ oxygen desaturation index (ODI) of Device A compared with Device B.~Efficacy is defined as a residual AHI and ODI on each night of the trial. PSG scored AHI and ODI will be collected on both trial nights (excluding the ramp period); and compared using the Paired T test"||||0.537
84552820|NCT02357706|168859135|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84552821|NCT02357706|168859136|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.205
84552822|NCT02357706|168859136|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.134
84552823|NCT02275780|168859175|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|3.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.415|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.415|-1.590|
84552824|NCT02275780|168859176|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|7.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|13.656|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||13.656|0.508|
84552825|NCT02275780|168859177|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|35.0|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||35.0|-20.8|
84552826|NCT02275780|168859178|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|49.3|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||49.3|-14.5|
84552827|NCT02275780|168859179|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-14.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|-11.06|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-11.06|-18.15|<0.0001
84552828|NCT02275780|168859180|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-19.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-15.35|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-15.35|-23.33|<0.0001
84552829|NCT02275780|168859189|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|9.743|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.743|-1.404|
84552830|NCT02275780|168859190|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|14.232|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||14.232|0.980|
84552831|NCT03960866|168859191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84552832|NCT03369067|168859195|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
84552833|NCT03369067|168859195|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.089
84669389|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84744556|NCT00350103|169242471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||-0.02|-0.88|=0.0410
84552834|NCT03369067|168859195|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.024
84552835|NCT03369067|168859196|OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.095
84552836|NCT03369067|168859196|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
84552837|NCT03369067|168859196|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
84552838|NCT03369067|168859197|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84552839|NCT03369067|168859197|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552840|NCT03369067|168859197|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
84552841|NCT03369067|168859198|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84744557|NCT00350103|169242471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||0.20|-0.65|=0.2902
84552842|NCT03369067|168859198|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552843|NCT03369067|168859198|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.063
84552844|NCT03369067|168859199|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552845|NCT03369067|168859199|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552846|NCT03369067|168859199|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552847|NCT03369067|168859200|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552848|NCT03369067|168859200|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552849|NCT03369067|168859200|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84744558|NCT02842151|169242509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.13||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 1, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.13|-0.03|
84552850|NCT03369067|168859201|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552851|NCT03369067|168859201|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552852|NCT03369067|168859201|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552853|NCT03369067|168859202|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552854|NCT03369067|168859202|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.062
84552855|NCT03369067|168859202|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552856|NCT03369067|168859203|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.015
84744559|NCT02842151|169242509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.595|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.07||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 2, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.07|-0.21|
84552857|NCT03369067|168859203|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.199
84552858|NCT03369067|168859203|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
84552859|NCT03369067|168859204|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
84552860|NCT03369067|168859204|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
84552861|NCT03369067|168859204|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
84552862|NCT03369067|168859205|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
84552863|NCT03369067|168859205|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.074
84744560|NCT02842151|169242509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|-0.04||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 3, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||-0.04|-0.22|
84744561|NCT02559895|169242510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
84552864|NCT03369067|168859205|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
84552865|NCT03369067|168859206|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
84552866|NCT03369067|168859206|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552867|NCT03369067|168859206|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
84552868|NCT03369067|168859207|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552869|NCT03369067|168859207|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552870|NCT03369067|168859207|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552871|NCT03369067|168859208|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552872|NCT03369067|168859208|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.081
84744562|NCT02559895|169242510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.25|0.0182
84744563|NCT02559895|169242510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.39|0.0046
84552873|NCT03369067|168859208|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552874|NCT03369067|168859209|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552875|NCT03369067|168859209|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552876|NCT03369067|168859209|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552877|NCT03369067|168859210|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552878|NCT03369067|168859210|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552879|NCT03369067|168859210|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84604847|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \<38.0°C||-8.4|-18.8|
84604848|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.3|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°||8.3|-0.9|
84604849|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°||11.9|4.8|
84604850|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.7|
84604851|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \<38.0°C||-5.9|-16.6|
84604852|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \>=38.0°C and \<38.5°C||7.8|-1.4|
84604853|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.6|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.6|4.6|
84604854|NCT01340937|168960591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.1|-0.7|
84604855|NCT00909545|168960647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|4.07||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 5mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.07|-3.99|0.9834
84604856|NCT00909545|168960647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.8||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 10mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.80|-5.01|0.5761
84744564|NCT02559895|169242511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|5.8|0.0007
84744565|NCT02559895|169242511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.3|-1.4|0.1126
84492157|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.15||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||8.15|-9.00|0.9217
84744566|NCT02559895|169242511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|1.0|0.0272
84604857|NCT00909545|168960647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.99||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 20mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.99|-5.98|0.322
84604858|NCT00909545|168960648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1587||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0196|1.8411|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 5mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||1.8411|0.0196|0.1383
84744567|NCT02559895|169242512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|3.2|0.0066
84744568|NCT02559895|169242512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|2.4|0.0112
84604859|NCT00909545|168960648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0123|0.9591|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 10mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.9591|0.0123|0.0248
84604860|NCT00909545|168960648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0028|0.2087|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 20mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.2087|0.0028|<0.0001
84604861|NCT00909545|168960649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.22|-0.30|0.2324
84744569|NCT02559895|169242512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|1.8|0.0170
84744570|NCT02559895|169242513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|9.8|0.0001
84744571|NCT02559895|169242513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|3.2|0.0085
84552880|NCT03369067|168859211|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552881|NCT03369067|168859211|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552882|NCT03369067|168859211|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552883|NCT03369067|168859212|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552884|NCT03369067|168859212|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552885|NCT03369067|168859212|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552886|NCT03369067|168859213|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552887|NCT03369067|168859213|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552888|NCT03369067|168859213|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552889|NCT03369067|168859214|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.124
84552890|NCT03369067|168859214|OTHER|||||||0.187||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.187
84552891|NCT03369067|168859214|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.040
84552892|NCT03369067|168859215|OTHER|||||||0.108||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.108
84552893|NCT03369067|168859215|OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.053
84552894|NCT03369067|168859215|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
84552895|NCT03369067|168859216|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.080
84552896|NCT03369067|168859216|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.038
84552897|NCT03369067|168859216|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
84552898|NCT03369067|168859217|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
84552899|NCT03369067|168859217|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.130
84552900|NCT03369067|168859217|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
84552901|NCT03369067|168859218|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552902|NCT03369067|168859218|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552903|NCT03369067|168859218|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552904|NCT03369067|168859219|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552905|NCT03369067|168859219|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
84604862|NCT00909545|168960649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.73|-0.73|1
84744572|NCT02559895|169242513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.0|3.7|0.0064
84744573|NCT02559895|169242514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0159
84552906|NCT03369067|168859219|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552907|NCT03369067|168859220|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552908|NCT03369067|168859220|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552909|NCT03369067|168859220|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552910|NCT03369067|168859221|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552911|NCT03369067|168859221|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552912|NCT03369067|168859221|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552913|NCT03369067|168859222|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552914|NCT03369067|168859222|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552915|NCT03369067|168859222|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552916|NCT03369067|168859223|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552917|NCT03369067|168859223|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
84552918|NCT03369067|168859223|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
84552919|NCT03369067|168859224|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552920|NCT03369067|168859224|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
84552921|NCT03369067|168859224|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84744574|NCT02559895|169242514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
84744575|NCT02559895|169242514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1539
84552922|NCT03369067|168859225|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84552923|NCT03369067|168859225|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552924|NCT03369067|168859225|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
84552925|NCT03369067|168859226|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84552926|NCT03369067|168859226|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552927|NCT03369067|168859226|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
84552928|NCT03369067|168859227|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.118
84552929|NCT03369067|168859227|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84744576|NCT00432666|169242543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was equality of the chance (OR = 1) for a clinically relevant treatment effect between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo at Week 4 for wrist flexors. Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least 1 point in the Ashworth score compared with Baseline. The dependent variable was the response to treatment, the independent variables were treatment, Ashworth score at the Baseline Visit, pre-treated patient status, gender, age, BMI, and pooled sites.||8.30|1.90|<0.001
84604863|NCT00909545|168960649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.47|-1.02|0.4675
84604864|NCT00909545|168960650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.23|-1.03|0.4648
84604865|NCT00909545|168960650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.07|-2.09|0.525
84604866|NCT00909545|168960650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.88|-2.36|0.3674
84604867|NCT00909545|168960651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.14|-3.80|0.579
84604868|NCT00909545|168960651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.48|-3.30|0.7778
84604869|NCT00909545|168960651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.31|-3.58|0.669
84604870|NCT00909545|168960652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.17|-0.27|0.6677
84604871|NCT00909545|168960652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.07|-0.36|0.1755
84604872|NCT00909545|168960652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.06|-0.38|0.1463
84604873|NCT00909545|168960653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.26|-3.30|0.7111
84604874|NCT00909545|168960653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.04|-1.35|0.3237
84604875|NCT00909545|168960653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.05|-1.51|0.3658
84604876|NCT00909545|168960654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.13|-0.12|0.0608
84604877|NCT00909545|168960654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.33|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||3.33|-2.07|0.6445
84604878|NCT00909545|168960654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.67|-0.63|0.1336
84604879|NCT00909545|168960655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.59|-1.64|0.3533
84604880|NCT00909545|168960655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.4045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.65|-1.59|0.4045
84604881|NCT00909545|168960655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.7049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.92|-1.36|0.7049
84604882|NCT00909545|168960656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.79|-1.40|0.2278
84604883|NCT00909545|168960656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|5.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.42|-1.97|0.356
84604884|NCT00909545|168960656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.71|-1.56|0.2600
84604885|NCT00909545|168960663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.159||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|50.9977||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||The analyses is to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||50.9977|0.5432|0.1384
84669390|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
84604886|NCT00909545|168960663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8214|134.0403||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||134.0403|1.8214|0.0024
84744577|NCT00705679|169242651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.21||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.21|0.61|0.37
84552930|NCT03369067|168859227|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552931|NCT03369067|168859228|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.116
84552932|NCT03369067|168859228|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552933|NCT03369067|168859228|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552934|NCT03369067|168859229|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
84552935|NCT03369067|168859229|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552936|NCT03369067|168859229|OTHER|||||||0.193||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.193
84552937|NCT03369067|168859230|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552938|NCT03369067|168859230|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
84552939|NCT03369067|168859230|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552940|NCT03369067|168859231|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552941|NCT03369067|168859231|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552942|NCT03369067|168859231|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.157
84552943|NCT03369067|168859232|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552944|NCT03369067|168859232|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552945|NCT03369067|168859232|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552946|NCT03369067|168859233|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552947|NCT03369067|168859233|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552948|NCT03369067|168859233|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552949|NCT03369067|168859234|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552950|NCT03369067|168859234|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552951|NCT03369067|168859234|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552952|NCT03369067|168859235|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84604887|NCT00909545|168960663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7004|438.5694||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||438.5694|5.7004|<.0001
84604888|NCT00909545|168960664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6715||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2022|2.812|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8120|0.2022|0.7735
84604889|NCT00909545|168960664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6419||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2314|2.8658|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8658|0.2314|0.7385
84604890|NCT00909545|168960664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6463||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2549|3.2112|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||3.2112|0.2549|0.6823
84604891|NCT00909545|168960665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9188||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4172|15.2975|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||15.2975|0.4172|0.2756
84604892|NCT00909545|168960665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8584||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8217|23.7875|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||23.7875|0.8217|0.07
84604893|NCT00909545|168960665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9174||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3975|14.4919|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||14.4919|0.3975|0.2953
84604894|NCT00909545|168960666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8719||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|6.3508|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||6.3508|0.2082|0.6049
84604895|NCT00909545|168960666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7704||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5081|10.4105|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||10.4105|0.5081|0.2327
84604896|NCT00909545|168960666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
84604897|NCT00909545|168960667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
84604898|NCT00909545|168960667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8681||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1824|5.482|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||5.4820|0.1824|0.666
84604899|NCT00909545|168960667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
84604900|NCT00909545|168960668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
84604901|NCT00909545|168960668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9584||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2392|10.241|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||10.2410|0.2392|0.5000
84604902|NCT00909545|168960668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9605||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2609|11.2639|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||11.2639|0.2609|0.4609
84604903|NCT00909545|168960669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
84604904|NCT00909545|168960669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
84604905|NCT00909545|168960669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9604||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|4.5779|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.5779|0.1061|0.7996
84669391|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1151
84552953|NCT03369067|168859235|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552954|NCT03369067|168859235|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552955|NCT03369067|168859236|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552956|NCT03369067|168859236|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552957|NCT03369067|168859236|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84552958|NCT03369067|168859237|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552959|NCT03369067|168859237|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552960|NCT03369067|168859237|OTHER|||||||0.073||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.073
84552961|NCT03369067|168859238|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84744578|NCT00705679|169242654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.29||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||2.29|0.97|0.07
84552962|NCT03369067|168859238|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552963|NCT03369067|168859238|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
84552964|NCT03369067|168859239|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84669392|NCT01480076|169072600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
84552965|NCT03369067|168859239|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552966|NCT03369067|168859239|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552967|NCT03369067|168859240|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552968|NCT03369067|168859240|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552969|NCT03369067|168859240|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
84552970|NCT03369067|168859241|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552971|NCT03369067|168859241|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552972|NCT03369067|168859241|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.198
84552973|NCT03369067|168859242|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.105
84604906|NCT00909545|168960670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2599||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2015|28.1366|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||28.1366|0.2015|0.4532
84604907|NCT00909545|168960670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1347||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6439|55.0272|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||55.0272|0.6439|0.0953
84744579|NCT00705679|169242657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.49|0.73|0.81
84552974|NCT03369067|168859242|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84552975|NCT03369067|168859242|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552976|NCT03369067|168859243|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552977|NCT03369067|168859243|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552978|NCT03369067|168859243|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84552979|NCT00135798|168859257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0477||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/46 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0477
84552980|NCT00135798|168859257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 5/24 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/22 Genotypes 2,3||||0.6090
84552981|NCT00135798|168859258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2014||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of CVR: 1/16 Standard care vs. 12/63 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.2014
84552982|NCT00135798|168859258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 6/31 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/32 Genotypes 2,3||||0.9513
84552983|NCT00135798|168859259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/44 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0274
84744580|NCT00705679|169242658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.004
84552984|NCT00135798|168859259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 5/23 G1,4,6 vs 6/21 G2,3||||0.6011
84552985|NCT00135798|168859260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of CVR: 0/20 Standard care vs. 13/59 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0153
84604908|NCT00909545|168960671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402||95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
84604909|NCT00909545|168960671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
84552986|NCT00135798|168859260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8065||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 7/30 G1,4,6 vs 6/29 G2,3||||0.8065
84552987|NCT01663779|168859304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7|3|<0.01
84552988|NCT05845567|168859313|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|139.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.73|149.86||||||||149.86|129.73|
84552989|NCT05845567|168859314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.24|124.0||||||||124.00|112.24|
84552990|NCT05845567|168859315|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|123.92||||||||123.92|112.13|
84552991|NCT03409107|168859321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.56|||ANCOVA|One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Treatment group comparisons were based on a ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline hemoglobin, and region.|||1.56|1.23|<0.0001
84552992|NCT03409107|168859322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \> 0|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.63|0.49|<0.0001
84552993|NCT03409107|168859323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|8.56||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis:(Daprodustat-Placebo) \<= 0 vs alternative: difference \> 0.|ANCOVA||Treatment group comparisons were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline score, and region.|||8.56|2.17|0.0005
84552994|NCT03409107|168859324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.52||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons are based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group, and region|||0.52|0.37|<0.0001
84552995|NCT03409107|168859325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.55|||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment difference has been reported.||||54.55|25.00|
84604910|NCT00909545|168960671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0428||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1413|8.4197|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||8.4197|0.1413|0.6641
84604911|NCT00909545|168960672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
84604912|NCT00909545|168960672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
84604913|NCT00909545|168960673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
84669393|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84552996|NCT03409107|168859326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.806||One-sided superiority p-value from the van Elteren test|van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate of the treatment difference stratified by region has been presented.|||0.806|0.729|<0.0001
84552997|NCT03409107|168859327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55||One-sided superiority p-value from the MMRM model|MMRM||Treatment group comparisons were based on MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline Hb and Baseline Hb by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.55|1.16|<0.0001
84552998|NCT03409107|168859328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3||One-sided p-value was based on Wald test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat/Placebo) \>=1 versus alternative: ratio\<1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.30|0.02|0.0002
84552999|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.0||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Tired/Low Energy/Weak domain.|||9.00|2.83|<0.0001
84553000|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.57||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Chest Pain/Shortness of Breath Domain.|||5.57|0.28|0.0152
84553001|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Cognitive Domain.|||6.63|0.95|0.0045
84553002|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|7.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Sleeping|||7.09|-1.87|0.1267
84553003|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Standing for Long Periods of Time|||9.09|0.20|0.0203
84553004|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|5.39||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Severity of Shortness of Breath While Sitting or Resting|||5.39|-0.04|0.0266
84553005|NCT03409107|168859329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|4.96||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Time with Shortness of Breath While not Doing an Activity|||4.96|-0.94|0.0907
84604914|NCT00909545|168960673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
84604915|NCT00909545|168960673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
84744581|NCT03730480|169242659|OTHER|count of number of results within 15% of reference analyzer||||||||||||||||count of number of responses|The number of results that are within 15% of reference analyzer is reported.|||
84669394|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6769|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6769
84744582|NCT00704379|169242676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.2|||Log Rank|||||16.2|1.1|<0.05
84744583|NCT01534689|169242768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84744584|NCT01534689|169242769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||results at 12 weeks compared to baseline||||<0.0001
84744585|NCT00006011|169242770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||"Primary outcome is measured as a treatment hazard ratio stratified by stage and assuming proportional hazards.~Recurrence-free survival hazard ratio: Arm 2 is relative to Arm 1."||1.17|0.69|
84553006|NCT03409107|168859330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-rhEPO) \>=0 versus alternative: difference \<0|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-0.28|0.0391
84553007|NCT03409107|168859331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.26||One sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||6.26|-1.12|0.0858
84553008|NCT03409107|168859332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.36||One sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel full of life?.|||0.36|-0.02|0.0357
84553009|NCT03409107|168859332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you have a lot of energy?.|||0.35|-0.01|0.0328
84553010|NCT03409107|168859332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.37||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel worn out?.|||0.37|0.00|0.0252
84553011|NCT03409107|168859332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.42||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel tired?.|||0.42|0.10|0.0010
84553012|NCT03409107|168859339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Based on MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.07|-0.02|0.1098
84553013|NCT03409107|168859340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.4||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||8.40|0.60|0.0120
84553014|NCT03409107|168859341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.22||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline SBP and Baseline SBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.22|-2.42|0.6106
84553015|NCT03409107|168859341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.49||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \< 0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline DBP and Baseline DBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.49|0.12|0.9819
84553016|NCT03409107|168859341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.13||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline MAP and Baseline MAP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.13|-0.51|0.9215
84604916|NCT00909545|168960674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1919||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|3.6084|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.6084|0.0337|0.9294
84744586|NCT02015455|169242786|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Median|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, and site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Percent difference in median of the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.5|-2.9|0.54
84744587|NCT02015455|169242787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.0||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.00|0.91|0.04
84553017|NCT03409107|168859342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.06||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed for treatment group comparison.|||0.13|-0.02|0.0680
84744588|NCT02015455|169242788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.90|0.02
84744589|NCT02015455|169242789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.91|0.02
84553018|NCT02231879|168859380|SUPERIORITY|This is a two-sided test, with the null hypothesis that the distribution of the difference scores is the same in both arms.||||||0.65||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, since this is the only pre-specified primary analysis. P\<=0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pre-specified primary analysis plan, and the two arms are compared with a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on the primary outcome. This is non-standard (since both arms contain both treatment groups), however, it is a valid test by randomization since it is a permutation test. The statistic of TISS in Period 1 minus TISS in Period 2 was chosen so that even if there are carry-over effects this will give a valid test.||||0.65
84553019|NCT02231879|168859380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute lymphocyte count greater than 1000 cells/microliter measured 3 hours after a dose for plerixafor as compared to G-CSF||||<0.0001
84553020|NCT02231879|168859380|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.40 which was estimated to be about 50% of the effect size of G-CSF versus placebo.||||||0.023||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute neutrophil counts \>500 cells/microliter for G-CSF versus plerixafor measured as the proportion of successes (75% of measured) while on G-CSF minus the proportion on plerixafor||||0.023
84553021|NCT00459706|168859383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance||Non-inferiority of autoinjector (AI) over prefilled syringe (PFS) was assessed on the primary endpoint. Hypothesis tested was H0: AI minus PFS less than or equal to (≤) -1. The alternate hypothesis was H1: AI minus PFS greater than (\>) -1.||1.50|0.71|<0.001
84553022|NCT00459706|168859384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% two-sided CI of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of AI over PFS was assessed on the primary endpoint. The hypotheses tested was as follows:~H0: AI - PFS ≤ -1 H1: AI - PFS \> -1"||1.64|0.85|<0.001
84553023|NCT00459706|168859385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|GEE=Generalized estimating equation Distribn=distribution||||3.05|0.98|0.058
84553024|NCT00459706|168859386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.43|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|||||3.43|1.12|0.019
84604917|NCT00909545|168960674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
84669395|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669396|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5780
84669397|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669398|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669399|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669400|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8886|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8886
84669401|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744590|NCT02015455|169242793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07||Statistical significance defined as P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.07|0.91|0.74
84553025|NCT00459706|168859387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.27|-0.04|0.160
84553026|NCT00459706|168859388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficients|-0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Female versus male (reference).||-0.29|-1.20|0.001
84553027|NCT00459706|168859389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.18||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at High School/Baccalaureate Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.26|-0.62|0.676
84553028|NCT00459706|168859389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at University Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.60|-0.59|0.676
84553029|NCT00459706|168859390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.05|-0.52|0.020
84553030|NCT00459706|168859391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.09|-0.61|0.008
84553031|NCT00459706|168859392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.32|0.02|0.030
84553032|NCT00459706|168859393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Self-injection Experience versus No Self-injection Experience (reference).||-0.18|-1.03|0.006
84553033|NCT00459706|168859394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.18|-0.05|0.278
84553034|NCT00459706|168859395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.21|-0.15|0.749
84553035|NCT00459706|168859396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.02|-0.18|0.105
84553036|NCT00459706|168859397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.01||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.12|-0.10|0.819
84553037|NCT00459706|168859398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories, by 1-unit increments.||-0.09|-0.69|0.012
84553038|NCT00459706|168859399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||2 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.32|-0.52|0.541
84553039|NCT00459706|168859399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||3 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.68|-0.97|0.541
84744591|NCT00911937|169242808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0030
84553040|NCT00459706|168859399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|1.72||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|4.25|||Regression, Linear|||At least 4 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||4.25|-0.82|0.541
84553041|NCT00459706|168859400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||Prior Injection Experience versus No Prior Injection Experience (reference)||0.25|-0.55|0.465
84553042|NCT00459706|168859401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.15|||ANOVA|||||0.15|-0.97|0.154
84553043|NCT00459706|168859402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.12|0.212
84553044|NCT00459706|168859403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.39|0.965
84553045|NCT00459706|168859404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|-0.25|0.519
84553046|NCT00459706|168859405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.57|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||Day 84||2.57|1.33|<0.001
84553047|NCT00459706|168859406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.29|1.14|0.007
84553048|NCT00459706|168859407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.92|1.26|0.002
84553049|NCT00459706|168859408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.46|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||3.46|1.65|<0.001
84553050|NCT00459706|168859409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.83|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.83|1.50|<0.001
84553051|NCT00459706|168859410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.78|1.44|<0.001
84553052|NCT00459706|168859411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.72|0.90|0.184
84553053|NCT00459706|168859412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.85|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.85|0.94|0.106
84553054|NCT00459706|168859413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.96|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.96|0.93|0.112
84553055|NCT00459706|168859414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.24|1.21|0.002
84553056|NCT00459706|168859415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.78|0.41|<0.001
84553057|NCT00459706|168859416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.94|0.47|0.022
84553058|NCT00459706|168859417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.89|0.46|0.009
84553059|NCT00459706|168859418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.88|0.45|0.007
84553060|NCT00459706|168859419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.92|0.47|0.014
84553061|NCT00459706|168859420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.88|1.53|<0.001
84553062|NCT00459706|168859421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.91|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.91|1.57|<0.001
84553063|NCT00459706|168859422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.25|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||4.25|2.23|<0.001
84553064|NCT00459706|168859423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.62|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.62|1.35|<0.001
84553065|NCT00459706|168859424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.34|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.34|0.18|<0.001
84553066|NCT00459706|168859425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.19|<0.001
84553067|NCT00459706|168859426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.20|<0.001
84553068|NCT00459706|168859427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.11|0.61|0.196
84553069|NCT00459706|168859428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.42|1.25|0.001
84553070|NCT00459706|168859429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.42|0.21|<0.001
84604918|NCT00909545|168960674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1924||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0322|3.4459|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.4459|0.0322|0.9351
84744592|NCT00911937|169242809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.27|0.0772
84553071|NCT00459706|168859430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.56|0.29|<0.001
84553072|NCT00459706|168859431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.896
84553073|NCT00459706|168859431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.166
84553074|NCT00459706|168859432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
84553075|NCT00459706|168859432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
84553076|NCT00459706|168859433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
84553077|NCT00459706|168859433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
84553078|NCT00459706|168859434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
84553079|NCT00459706|168859434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
84553080|NCT00459706|168859435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
84553081|NCT00459706|168859435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
84553082|NCT00459706|168859436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
84553083|NCT00459706|168859436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
84553084|NCT00459706|168859437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.023
84553085|NCT00459706|168859437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
84553086|NCT00459706|168859438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.038
84553087|NCT00459706|168859438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
84553088|NCT00459706|168859439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.018
84553089|NCT00459706|168859439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.019
84553090|NCT00459706|168859440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.049
84553091|NCT00459706|168859440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.736
84553092|NCT00459706|168859441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.033
84553093|NCT00459706|168859441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.730
84744593|NCT00911937|169242810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
84744594|NCT00911937|169242812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0827
84744595|NCT00911937|169242812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.04|-0.33|0.0112
84553094|NCT00459706|168859442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.838
84553095|NCT00459706|168859442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.483
84553096|NCT00459706|168859443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.466
84553097|NCT00459706|168859443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.035
84553098|NCT00459706|168859444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.784
84553099|NCT00459706|168859444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.006
84553100|NCT00459706|168859445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.843
84553101|NCT00459706|168859445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.461
84553102|NCT00459706|168859446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.150
84553103|NCT00459706|168859446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.002
84553104|NCT00459706|168859447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
84553105|NCT00459706|168859447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
84553106|NCT00459706|168859448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
84553107|NCT00459706|168859448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
84553108|NCT00459706|168859449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
84553109|NCT00459706|168859449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
84553110|NCT00459706|168859450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||<0.001
84744596|NCT00911937|169242813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0023
84553111|NCT00459706|168859450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
84553112|NCT01252563|168859460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553113|NCT01252563|168859460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553114|NCT01252563|168859460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553115|NCT01252563|168859460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553116|NCT01252563|168859461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553117|NCT01252563|168859461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553118|NCT01252563|168859461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553119|NCT01252563|168859461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84744597|NCT00911937|169242815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-0.74|0.0026
84744598|NCT00911937|169242815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.22||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.22|-0.90|0.0014
84744599|NCT00911937|169242816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0016
84744600|NCT00911937|169242816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0004
84744601|NCT00911937|169242818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0072
84553120|NCT01252563|168859464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with complication(s) and participants without complication in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
84553121|NCT01252563|168859465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between male and female in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
84553122|NCT01252563|168859466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was angina pectoris as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with angina pectoris and participants without angina pectoris in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.036
84553123|NCT01252563|168859467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was dyslipidaemia as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with dyslipidaemia and participants without dyslipidaemia in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.020
84553124|NCT01252563|168859468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antihypertensive as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving antihypertensive and participants receiving no antihypertensive in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.049
84553125|NCT01252563|168859469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ARB as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving ARB and participants receiving no ARB in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.043
84553126|NCT01252563|168859470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was diabetes mellitus as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with diabetes mellitus and participants without diabetes mellitus in the efficacy."||||<0.001
84553127|NCT01252563|168859471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was chronic kidney disease as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with chronic kidney disease and participants without chronic kidney disease in the efficacy."||||<0.001
84553128|NCT01252563|168859472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was myocardial infarction as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with myocardial infarction and participants without myocardial infarction in the efficacy."||||0.039
84553129|NCT01252563|168859473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was metabolic syndrome as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with metabolic syndrome and participants without metabolic syndrome in the efficacy."||||<0.001
84553130|NCT01252563|168859474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ambulatory SBP at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between ambulatory SBP at baseline and the number of participants who achieved the target blood pressure specified in the guidelines."||||<0.001
84553131|NCT01252563|168859476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553132|NCT01252563|168859476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84604919|NCT00909545|168960675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
84744602|NCT00911937|169242818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0009
84744603|NCT00911937|169242819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0041
84744604|NCT00911937|169242819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84553133|NCT01252563|168859476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553134|NCT01252563|168859476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553135|NCT01252563|168859477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553136|NCT01252563|168859477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553137|NCT01252563|168859477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553138|NCT01252563|168859477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
84553139|NCT03724877|168859509|OTHER||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted forced expiratory volume1 (FEV1).|||1.38|0.79|
84553140|NCT03724877|168859510|OTHER||Adjusted HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||1.09|0.87|
84553141|NCT03724877|168859511|OTHER||Adjusted HR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.07|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||2.07|1.03|
84553142|NCT03724877|168859512|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Moderate/ sever exacerbation||1.04|0.83|
84553143|NCT03724877|168859512|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.28|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Severe exacerbation||1.28|0.70|
84553144|NCT05072106|168859516|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.09|115.62|||||The reported results are the same as the ones reported in the CSR of the trial.|||115.62|81.09|
84553145|NCT05072106|168859517|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.78|98.32||||||||98.32|64.78|
84553146|NCT05072106|168859518|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.12|97.82||||||||97.82|64.12|
84553147|NCT05072106|168859519|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|125.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.71|154.36||||||||154.36|101.71|
84553148|NCT05072106|168859520|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.63|152.8||||||||152.8|74.63|
84553149|NCT05072106|168859521|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.49|158.44||||||||158.44|69.49|
84553150|NCT05072106|168859522|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|88.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.62|119.19||||||||119.19|65.62|
84553151|NCT05072106|168859523|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.8|119.96||||||||119.96|54.8|
84553152|NCT05072106|168859524|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|80.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.26|118.72||||||||118.72|54.26|
84553153|NCT05072106|168859525|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|123.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.36|182.49||||||||182.49|83.36|
84553154|NCT05072106|168859526|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
84744605|NCT00911937|169242821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.19|-0.47|0.3954
84553155|NCT05072106|168859527|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
84553156|NCT05072106|168859528|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|188.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.93|266.26||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized Cmax.||266.26|132.93|
84553157|NCT05072106|168859529|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|245.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.4|451.65||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||451.65|133.4|
84553158|NCT05072106|168859530|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.07|117.05||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized Cmax.||117.05|94.07|
84553159|NCT05072106|168859531|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|91.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|116.04||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||116.04|71.39|
84604920|NCT00909545|168960675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
84553160|NCT00771264|168859532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t-test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology.||Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology. Median values were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant. A sample size estimate of 214 subjects, 107 per arm, was calculated using a 2-sided Fisher's exact binomial test based on an estimated 60% responder rate in the PTNS group and a 40% in the sham group with a 5% significance level and 80% power.||||0.05
84553161|NCT01473394|168859557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.117|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.886|-3.347|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-3.347|-6.886|<0.00001
84553162|NCT01473394|168859558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.622|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.845|-0.399|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.399|-0.845|<0.00001
84553163|NCT01473394|168859559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as the 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.|||17.4|3.0|0.0047
84553164|NCT02122770|168859690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|118.05||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric least square (LS) means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.05|82.60|
84553165|NCT02122770|168859691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.34|118.69||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.69|102.34|
84553166|NCT02122770|168859692|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|119.43||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||119.43|102.53|
84553167|NCT02122770|168859693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|113.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.35|149.74||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||149.74|85.35|
84553168|NCT02122770|168859693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|159.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|282.96||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||282.96|89.97|
84553169|NCT02122770|168859693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.19|108.17||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||108.17|55.19|
84553170|NCT02122770|168859694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|121.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.92|133.24||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||133.24|110.92|
84553171|NCT02122770|168859694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
84744606|NCT00911937|169242821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.11|-0.48|0.2166
84553172|NCT02122770|168859694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|113.23||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||113.23|90.72|
84553173|NCT02122770|168859695|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|122.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|134.82||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||134.82|112.13|
84553174|NCT02122770|168859695|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
84553175|NCT02122770|168859695|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.14|111.68||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||111.68|91.14|
84553176|NCT01041976|168859708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84553177|NCT01041976|168859709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84571309|NCT02065557|168893576|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
84604921|NCT00909545|168960675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
84604922|NCT00909545|168960676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
84604923|NCT00909545|168960676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
84604924|NCT00909545|168960677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
84553178|NCT00715728|168859770|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.||||||0.91||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|"Two 1-tailed tests were conducted to assess equivalence. See  Type of Statistical Test."||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||0.91
84604925|NCT00909545|168960677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3453|36.9408|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||36.9408|0.3453|0.2746
84571310|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84604926|NCT00909545|168960678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4444||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|19.264|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||19.2640|0.0670|0.7236
84604927|NCT00909545|168960678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
84604928|NCT00909545|168960678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2592||0.4694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1926|26.8124|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||26.8124|0.1926|0.4694
84669402|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3221|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3221
84669403|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84608440|NCT01345682|168967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.18||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.18|-4.30|0.9773
84669404|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669405|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744607|NCT00911937|169242824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.08|-0.85|0.1018
84553179|NCT00715728|168859770|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.|||||<|0.001||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||<0.001
84553180|NCT00715728|168859771|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.5 °C. Non-inferiority at the 0.025 significance level will be claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is higher than the -0.5 °C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||P-value was adjusted for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.|t-test, 1 sided||Non-inferiority will be established, at the 0.025 significance level, if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval for the difference is above -0.5 °C.|Null hypothesis is the Hot dog resistive heating system is inferior to the Bair Hugger forced air system. Mean difference (95% CI) of the intraoperative TWA temperature between the groups (resistive heating versus forced-air) will be adjusting for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.||0.14|-0.37|0.018
84553181|NCT01258075|168859772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29|||ANCOVA|Based on a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment and previous type 2 diabetes treatment stratum as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.54|0.5494
84553182|NCT01500213|168859782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.1|1.0|0.043
84553183|NCT01500213|168859783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|0.8|0.233
84553184|NCT01500213|168859784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.9|1.0|0.084
84553185|NCT02612610|168859790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.05|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.05|-0.54|0.0971
84553186|NCT02612610|168859790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.04|-0.54|0.0928
84553187|NCT02612610|168859790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.76|0.0027
84553188|NCT02612610|168859791|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.09|-0.47|0.1914
84553189|NCT02612610|168859791|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.23|-0.33|0.7099
84553190|NCT02612610|168859791|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
84744608|NCT00911937|169242824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.25|-1.20|0.0027
84744609|NCT00911937|169242826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.33|-2.79|0.0131
84553191|NCT02612610|168859792|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.10|-0.71|0.0099
84553192|NCT02612610|168859792|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.02|-0.58|0.0695
84553193|NCT02612610|168859792|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
84553194|NCT02612610|168859793|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.04|-0.52|0.0991
84553195|NCT02612610|168859793|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.03|-0.53|0.0811
84553196|NCT02612610|168859793|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.19|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.19|-0.76|0.0014
84553197|NCT02612610|168859794|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate. ."||0.07|-0.50|0.1468
84553198|NCT02612610|168859794|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.20|-0.36|0.5874
84553199|NCT02612610|168859794|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.21|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.21|-0.78|0.0008
84553200|NCT02612610|168859795|OTHER||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|-0.39||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.07|-0.70|0.0177
84553201|NCT02612610|168859795|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.00|-0.63|0.0498
84553202|NCT02612610|168859795|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.27|-0.92|0.0004
84553203|NCT02612610|168859797|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-14.8|0.1318
84669406|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4668
84669407|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553204|NCT02612610|168859797|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.4|-11.3|0.4917
84553205|NCT02612610|168859797|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.4|-18.2|0.0228
84492158|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|13.85||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||13.85|-16.98|0.8412
84553206|NCT02612610|168859798|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||6.2|-11.5|0.5540
84553207|NCT02612610|168859798|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.6|-12.0|0.4702
84553208|NCT02612610|168859798|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.7|-19.8|0.0197
84553209|NCT02612610|168859799|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.0|-12.9|0.3020
84553210|NCT02612610|168859799|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.0|-14.8|0.1365
84553211|NCT02612610|168859799|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-2.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-2.6|-19.7|0.0108
84553212|NCT02612610|168859800|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.4|-12.3|0.3509
84669408|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5695
84669409|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0058
84744610|NCT00911937|169242826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.08|-3.78|0.0004
84553213|NCT02612610|168859800|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-16.6|0.0519
84553214|NCT02612610|168859800|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-7.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-7.5|-24.3|0.0003
84744611|NCT00911937|169242828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|15.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||15.46|-12.82|0.8547
84604929|NCT02419131|168960684|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of the experimental arms (CBTH and CPT) compared to usual care (TAU)|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4||p-value represents an aggregate of post-treatment outcomes (i.e., post-treatment, 3-month, and 6-month outcomes entered simultaneously into the GLMM to represent a single metric of all post-treatment assessment intervals into one estimate).|Mixed Models Analysis|Outcome observations at posttreatment, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups were entered simultaneously into the mixed model to provide a single inference.|Contrast of aggregated post-treatment outcomes of HIT-6 total score for CBTH compared to TAU|Sample size based on 2-tailed specified joint superiority testing of 2 primary outcomes at α = .025 and power of 0.80 to detect an effect size (d) of 0.52 for both primary outcomes (representing a clinically significant change of 2.8 points on the HIT-6). The primary analysis set was intention to treat (ITT). multiple imputation accounted for missing data in ITT. Missing outcome scores at posttreatment, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups were multiply imputed (m = 100) using multilevel models.||-1.4|-5.4|<0.001
84669410|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
84669411|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744612|NCT00911937|169242830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|7.44||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.44|-9.14|0.8396
84744613|NCT00911937|169242832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.89||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.89|-6.84|0.0006
84744614|NCT00911937|169242834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.05|0.79|0.0110
84744615|NCT00911937|169242834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.79||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.79|0.50|0.0200
84492159|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|9.87||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||9.87|-20.94|0.4794
84492160|NCT00538434|168735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|14.06||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||14.06|-16.16|0.8906
84492161|NCT00351611|168735122|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI bound was less than 0.10 (10%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.7094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1751|5.9784||||||A 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percentage of participants, between pregabalin and placebo was constructed using unconditional exact methods.||5.9784|-9.1751|
84492162|NCT00351611|168735123|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to mean deviation was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI is greater than -2.0 decibels.|Difference in LS mean|-0.125||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.194|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model and the baseline mean deviation as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI on the difference in least squares (LS) mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.194|-0.443|0.4414
84492163|NCT00351611|168735124|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083|0.283|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model and the baseline visual acuity as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in LS mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.283|-2.083|0.1346
84492164|NCT01589185|168735126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3962||||||\< 0.1 is considered borderline significant|Fisher Exact|||The number (%) of patients who died on or before end of study (EOS) was compared among all 5 groups. The mITT population was used.||||0.3962
84492165|NCT02046993|168735130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of the percentage of patients doing HBPM between intervention and control group at baseline||||0.27
84492166|NCT02046993|168735130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Comparison of percentage of subjects doing HBPM at 3rd month from baseline within intervention group||||.020
84492167|NCT02046993|168735130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||comparison in percentage of patients doing Home BP monitoring at 6th month from baseline within intervention group||||.060
84492168|NCT02046993|168735130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in the proportion of patients doing HBPM at 3 months from baseline within the control group||||.002
84492169|NCT02046993|168735130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in proportion of patients doing HBPM at 6 months from baseline within control group||||.009
84492170|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic systolic BP mCSBP readings between control and intervention||||0.813
84492171|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention||||0.865
84492172|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.476
84492173|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.14
84492174|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.495
84492175|NCT02046993|168735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference in mean clinic diastolic BP readings mCDBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.967
84492176|NCT02046993|168735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baselline SEMCD between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.819
84492177|NCT02046993|168735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 3 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.512
84492178|NCT02046993|168735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 6 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care group||||0.325
84492179|NCT02046993|168735133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.532
84492180|NCT02046993|168735133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.902
84492181|NCT02046993|168735134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP at 3 months between smartphone based telemonitoring group and control group on enhanced usual care||||0.138
84492182|NCT02046993|168735134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 3 months||||0.204
84492183|NCT02046993|168735135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring groups and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 6 months||||0.199
84492184|NCT02046993|168735135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg at 6 months between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.204
84492185|NCT00598442|168735146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.36|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.36|-0.09|
84492186|NCT00598442|168735146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.54|0.08|
84492187|NCT00598442|168735147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.01|1.04|
84492188|NCT00598442|168735147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.94|
84492189|NCT00598442|168735148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|
84492190|NCT00598442|168735148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.93|
84492191|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492192|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492193|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492194|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492195|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492196|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492197|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492198|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492199|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553215|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1387
84553216|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7238|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7238
84553217|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0144
84553218|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0922
84553219|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3812|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3812
84553220|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0088
84604930|NCT02419131|168960684|SUPERIORITY|See previous section for analysis|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||For comparison of post-treatment HIT-6 total score between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|See above for details.|See above.|See previous section for power||0.8|-3.7|0.21
84604931|NCT02419131|168960685|SUPERIORITY|Key parameters and details the same as HIT-6 described above.|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.3||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU||Same sample size calculation as HIT-6 analyses, powered to detect a difference of 8.2 points on the PCL-5 total score.||-0.3|-12.7|0.04
84669412|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2040
84669413|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669414|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6306|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6306
84669415|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non- responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669416|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0020
84669417|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669418|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4052
84604932|NCT02419131|168960685|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-8.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-1.9||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU||See above.||-1.9|-15.9|0.01
84604933|NCT03060512|168960687|OTHER|||||||0.9239|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference in preference for the two treatments (Prefer Movantik, No Preference, Prefer PEG 3350) in subjects who completed the entire treatment sequence.||||0.9239
84553221|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0653
84604934|NCT03060512|168960687|OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference between preference for treatment in Period 1, preference for treatment in Period 2, no preference||||0.8874
84604935|NCT03060512|168960690|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model assessing treatment difference in PGIC at Visits 3 and 5 between Movantik and PEG 3350 treatment. Adjustments were performed for treatment, period and sequence.||0.3|-0.3|
84604936|NCT03060512|168960692|OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0||||||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model assessing treatment difference in BFI change from baseline at Visits 3/5 between Movantik and PEG 3350. Adjustments were performed for for baseline BFI score, treatment, period and sequence.||3.0|-4.7|
84553222|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6443|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6443
84553223|NCT02612610|168859801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1511
84553224|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0045
84553225|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0947
84604937|NCT00089986|168960693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|1.1||||0.329|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.1||||Chi-squared||||||-2.1|0.329
84669419|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744616|NCT00911937|169242834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.45|0.51|0.0218
84604938|NCT00089986|168960693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.4||||0.879|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4||||Chi-squared||||||-9.4|0.879
84604939|NCT00241631|168960703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84604940|NCT00241631|168960704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84604941|NCT00241631|168960705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84604942|NCT01187004|168960710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|significant level for inclusion at the univariate analysis was p\<0.05.||Our hypothesis was that mechanical ventilation with large tidal volume might represent a risk factor for acute lung injury in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.||||<0.05
84604943|NCT01187004|168960711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.272|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.272|1.129|<0.001
84604944|NCT03831880|168960721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.71|-11.27||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.27|-19.71|<0.0001
84604945|NCT03831880|168960723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.09||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-8.69|0.0017
84604946|NCT03831880|168960725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|-7.45||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.45|-19.74|<0.0001
84604947|NCT03831880|168960727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-18.57||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.57|-30.10|<0.0001
84604948|NCT03831880|168960729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|0.77||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-16.42|0.0739
84604949|NCT03831880|168960731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-10.06||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.06|-25.15|<0.0001
84492200|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492201|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492202|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|Week 26 vs Baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492203|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492204|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553226|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0080
84553227|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
84553228|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1493
84553229|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0026
84669420|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8626
84604950|NCT03831880|168960733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.51||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-2.09|0.6137
84669421|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
84492205|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492206|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84604951|NCT03831880|168960735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|6.41||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.41|-5.29|0.8404
84492207|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492208|NCT03781167|168735200|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492209|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||>0.999
84492210|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.5095|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.5095
84492211|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6962|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.6962
84553230|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0652
84553231|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3601|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3601
84604952|NCT03831880|168960737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|-9.35||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.35|-17.59|<0.0001
84744617|NCT00911937|169242834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.68||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||3.68|0.03|0.0458
84744618|NCT00911937|169242834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.32|0.72|0.0100
84744619|NCT01871805|169242843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0056
84744620|NCT01871805|169242844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
84744621|NCT01871805|169242844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0203
84744622|NCT01871805|169242846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
84744623|NCT03097484|169242869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84744624|NCT03097484|169242870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0.05 is the calculated p-value (not the threshold for statistical significance)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84492212|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
84492213|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0324|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0324
84492214|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492215|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0072|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0072
84492216|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0129|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0129
84492217|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492218|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0119|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0119
84492219|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22||||||A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.2200
84744625|NCT01670760|169242871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
84744626|NCT00741390|169242960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.59||||||95.0|98.09|99.59||||||||99.59|98.09|
84744627|NCT00741390|169242960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|98.79|100.0||||||||100|98.79|
84744628|NCT00741390|169242960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|97.61|100.0||||||||100|97.61|
84744629|NCT00741390|169242960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.36|100.0||||||||100|95.36|
84744630|NCT00741390|169242960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.13|100.0||||||||100|95.13|
84744631|NCT00741390|169242961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.84|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||10.84|6.80|<0.001
84744632|NCT00741390|169242961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.55||||0.003||95.0|3.63|8.55|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||8.55|3.63|0.003
84744633|NCT00741390|169242961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.46||95.0|-3.57|0.23|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||0.23|-3.57|0.460
84744634|NCT00741390|169242962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.017||95.0|1.14|4.9|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||4.90|1.14|0.017
84744635|NCT00741390|169242963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.001
84553232|NCT02612610|168859802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0086
84553233|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3893|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3893
84553234|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2803
84553235|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0427|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0427
84553236|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0209
84553237|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3401
84553238|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0031
84553239|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
84492220|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0063|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0063
84492221|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553240|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6233
84553241|NCT02612610|168859803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
84492222|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4331|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4331
84492223|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0045|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0045
84604953|NCT03831880|168960739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.36||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0245
84669422|NCT01480076|169072601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0263
84492224|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0049
84553242|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4925
84553243|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9007
84669423|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669424|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8999|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8999
84669425|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669426|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7156|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7156
84669427|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0050
84669428|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0490
84669429|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669430|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
84669431|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669432|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5556|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5556
84669433|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669434|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0476
84553244|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
84553245|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3440
84553246|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9876
84553247|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
84553248|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5968
84553249|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.8726
84553250|NCT02612610|168859804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4092|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4092
84553251|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0781
84553252|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7098
84553253|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0068|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0068
84553254|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1284
84553255|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.267|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2670
84553256|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0013
84669435|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553257|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4343
84553258|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5384|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5384
84553259|NCT02612610|168859805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0822
84553260|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
84553261|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0223|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0223
84553262|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
84553263|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0165
84553264|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6255
84553265|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0085
84553266|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0722|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0722
84604954|NCT03831880|168960751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-10.44||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.44|-18.72|<0.0001
84553267|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3577|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3577
84669436|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8627
84604955|NCT01891344|168960758|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.437||||||||0.437|0.170|
84604956|NCT01891344|168960758|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.871||||||||0.871|0.428|
84604957|NCT01854632|168960778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.996
84604958|NCT01414205|168960789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Hauck-Anderson)|17.89||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|40.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by the randomization stratification factors as supportive analyses.||||40.72|-4.95|0.0779
84492225|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6312|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.6312
84553268|NCT02612610|168859806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
84553269|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3845|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3845
84553270|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1177
84553271|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0236|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0236
84553272|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0192|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0192
84604959|NCT01457950|168960804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.36|||ANCOVA|||||4.36|2.06|<0.0001
84604960|NCT02498067|168960881|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of dual method use differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.177
84604961|NCT02498067|168960882|OTHER|||||||0.318||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of condom use alone (without another method) differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.318
84604962|NCT02498067|168960883|OTHER|||||||0||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants reported more consistent contraceptive use (i.e., using contraception every time they had sex) between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.000
84492226|NCT03781167|168735201|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1892|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1892
84604963|NCT02498067|168960885|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an IUD in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.030
84604964|NCT02498067|168960886|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an implant in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.140
84604965|NCT02498067|168960887|OTHER|||||||0.315||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use condoms in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.315
84604966|NCT02498067|168960888|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported contraceptive self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.028
84604967|NCT02498067|168960889|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported condom use self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.918
84604968|NCT02498067|168960891|OTHER|||||||0.209||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' self-reported number of sexual partners in the past 3 months (for those were sexually active) between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||.209
84492227|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492228|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492229|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84604969|NCT02498067|168960892|OTHER|||||||0.652||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse negative condom attitudes (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.652
84492230|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84604970|NCT02498067|168960893|OTHER|||||||0.498||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse positive motivators for condom use (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.498
84492231|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492232|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492233|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492234|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492235|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492236|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492237|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492238|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492239|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492240|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492241|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492242|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492243|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492244|NCT03781167|168735202|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492245|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492246|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492247|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492248|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492249|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492250|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492251|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492252|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492253|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492254|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492255|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492256|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492257|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0042|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0042
84492258|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492259|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492260|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1135|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.1135
84492261|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0029|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0029
84492262|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0026|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0026
84492263|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0034|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0034
84492264|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0103|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0103
84553273|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3301
84553274|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0008
84553275|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0285|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0285
84553276|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3856|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3856
84553277|NCT02612610|168859807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
84553278|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2441|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2441
84553279|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5055
84553280|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
84553281|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2721
84553282|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9763|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9763
84553283|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
84553284|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4575
84604971|NCT02498067|168960894|OTHER|||||||0.977||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of negative contraceptive attitudes on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.977
84604972|NCT02498067|168960895|OTHER|||||||0.673||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of positive motivators for contraceptive use on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.673
84604973|NCT02498067|168960896|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether pills or condoms are more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.049
84744636|NCT00741390|169242963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.002
84744637|NCT00741390|169242963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.761
84744638|NCT00741390|169242963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.004
84553285|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9706
84553286|NCT02612610|168859808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3258
84553287|NCT02612610|168859809|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.54|-0.53|0.9858
84553288|NCT02612610|168859809|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.52|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.52|-0.53|0.9813
84553289|NCT02612610|168859809|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.42|-0.65|0.6746
84553290|NCT02612610|168859810|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.24|-0.88|0.2583
84553291|NCT02612610|168859810|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.56|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.56|-0.55|0.9826
84553292|NCT02612610|168859810|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.17|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.17|-0.98|0.1672
84744639|NCT00620282|169242966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|7.43||||0.0549||95.0|-0.164|15.025||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||15.025|-0.164|0.0549
84553293|NCT02612610|168859811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.68|-0.4|0.6102
84553294|NCT02612610|168859811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.61|-0.46|0.7782
84744640|NCT00620282|169242966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.08||||0.5681||95.0|-5.215|9.375||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||9.375|-5.215|0.5681
84553295|NCT02612610|168859811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.83|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.83|-0.27|0.3167
84553296|NCT02612610|168859812|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.1545
84553297|NCT02612610|168859812|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.2013
84553298|NCT02612610|168859812|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.4|0.9962
84553299|NCT02612610|168859813|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7328
84553300|NCT02612610|168859813|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7635
84553301|NCT02612610|168859813|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-0.9|0.0951
84553302|NCT02612610|168859814|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5797
84553303|NCT02612610|168859814|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-0.9|0.2499
84553304|NCT02612610|168859814|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0612
84553305|NCT02612610|168859815|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5358
84553306|NCT02612610|168859815|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.8|0.3129
84744641|NCT00620282|169242966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|5.35||||0.1668||95.0|-2.323|13.024||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||13.024|-2.323|0.1668
84553307|NCT02612610|168859815|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1046
84604974|NCT02498067|168960896|OTHER|||||||0.265||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether the IUD or shot is more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.265
84669437|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669438|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4312
84744642|NCT00620282|169242967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|4.499||||0.2648||95.0|-3.535|12.534||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||12.534|-3.535|0.2648
84744643|NCT00620282|169242967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.709||||0.8518||95.0|-6.904|8.322||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||8.322|-6.904|0.8518
84553308|NCT02612610|168859816|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5796
84553309|NCT02612610|168859816|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1430
84553310|NCT02612610|168859816|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0221
84553311|NCT02612610|168859817|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1562
84553312|NCT02612610|168859817|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0710
84553313|NCT02612610|168859817|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0274
84553314|NCT02612610|168859818|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4464
84553315|NCT02612610|168859818|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.3320
84553316|NCT02612610|168859818|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.0792
84553317|NCT02612610|168859819|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4716
84553318|NCT02612610|168859819|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4371
84669439|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0305|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0305
84744644|NCT00620282|169242967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.79||||0.3435||95.0|-4.194|11.774||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||11.774|-4.194|0.3435
84553319|NCT02612610|168859819|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1907
84553320|NCT02612610|168859820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.2772
84553321|NCT02612610|168859820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.1132
84553322|NCT02612610|168859820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0737
84553323|NCT02612610|168859821|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6266
84553324|NCT02612610|168859821|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1769
84553325|NCT02612610|168859821|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.3|0.0313
84553326|NCT02612610|168859822|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.2058
84553327|NCT02612610|168859822|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0665
84553328|NCT02612610|168859822|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0155
84553329|NCT02612610|168859823|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2458
84553330|NCT02612610|168859823|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0662
84669440|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.2059|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2059
84744645|NCT00620282|169242968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.536||||0.0023||95.0|-0.868|-0.203||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.203|-0.868|0.0023
84492265|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492266|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0493|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0493
84492267|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3003
84492268|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0354|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0354
84492269|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2553|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2553
84553331|NCT02612610|168859823|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0197
84553332|NCT02612610|168859824|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.1921
84553333|NCT02612610|168859824|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.2428
84553334|NCT02612610|168859824|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.6|0.7383
84553335|NCT02612610|168859825|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4033
84553336|NCT02612610|168859825|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4599
84553337|NCT02612610|168859825|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2837
84553338|NCT02612610|168859826|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.6|0.8084
84553339|NCT02612610|168859826|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6108
84553340|NCT02612610|168859826|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4220
84604975|NCT01229943|168960905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||Tests were stratified by: prior treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy (no vs yes), prior use of octreotide (no vs yes), and prior therapy with sunitinib (no vs yes).|Log Rank|||Based on the log rank test, with 130 patients enrolled over 22 months and followed an additional 24 months, the difference in median PFS between 9 months and 14 months can be detected with approximately 90% power (1-sided, α=0.15).||1.17|0.55|0.12
84669441|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0008
84553341|NCT02612610|168859827|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.8457
84553342|NCT02612610|168859827|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4044
84553343|NCT02612610|168859827|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.3031
84604976|NCT02961790|168960920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0041
84604977|NCT02961790|168960920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
84492270|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.864|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.8640
84492271|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4774|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4774
84492272|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3865|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.3865
84492273|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.1186|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.1186
84492274|NCT03781167|168735203|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.083|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0830
84492275|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553344|NCT02612610|168859828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.9126
84492276|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0041|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0041
84492277|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492278|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492279|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492280|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84669442|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3685|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3685
84492281|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492282|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492283|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492284|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492285|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492286|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492287|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492288|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492289|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492290|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492291|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492292|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492293|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492294|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492295|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492296|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492297|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492298|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553345|NCT02612610|168859828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.1136
84553346|NCT02612610|168859828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.0|-1.4|0.0352
84553347|NCT02612610|168859829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
84553348|NCT02612610|168859829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.3|0.0651
84553349|NCT02612610|168859829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0848
84553350|NCT02612610|168859830|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6715
84553351|NCT02612610|168859830|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3514
84553352|NCT02612610|168859830|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2809
84744646|NCT00620282|169242968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.077||||0.6207||95.0|-0.391|0.236||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.236|-0.391|0.6207
84744647|NCT00620282|169242968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.458||||0.0098||95.0|-0.8|-0.116||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.116|-0.8|0.0098
84744648|NCT00620282|169242969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.605||||||95.0|-46.797|-24.413||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-24.413|-46.797|
84744649|NCT00620282|169242969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-9.653||||0.0677||95.0|-20.041|0.736||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.736|-20.041|0.0677
84744650|NCT00620282|169242969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-25.952||||||95.0|-37.429|-14.475||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-14.475|-37.429|
84553353|NCT02612610|168859831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.9|0.6022
84744651|NCT00620282|169242970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-11.871||||0.4121||95.0|-40.943|17.201||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||17.201|-40.943|0.4121
84744652|NCT00620282|169242970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.815||||0.7622||95.0|-21.618|29.247||2-sided significance level of 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||29.247|-21.618|0.7622
84744653|NCT00620282|169242970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-15.686||||0.2651||95.0|-43.838|12.466||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||12.466|-43.838|0.2651
84744654|NCT00620282|169242971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.528||||0.0268||95.0|-2.873|-0.184||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.184|-2.873|0.0268
84553354|NCT02612610|168859831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4456
84553355|NCT02612610|168859831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4629
84604978|NCT02961790|168960921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
84492299|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492300|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492301|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492302|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0091|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0091
84492303|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84604979|NCT02961790|168960922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
84604980|NCT02961790|168960923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
84604981|NCT02961790|168960923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0279
84492304|NCT03781167|168735204|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492305|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4447|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.4447
84492306|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3567|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.3567
84492307|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2315|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2315
84492308|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0667|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.0667
84492309|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492310|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492311|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492312|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2033|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2033
84492313|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492314|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0012|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0012
84492315|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0734|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0734
84492316|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492317|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0304|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0304
84492318|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||>0.999
84492319|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0891|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0891
84492320|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0832|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0832
84492321|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4941|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.4941
84492322|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2764|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.2764
84492323|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3248|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.3248
84492324|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2535|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.2535
84492325|NCT03781167|168735205|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9274|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.9274
84604982|NCT02961790|168960924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0011
84604983|NCT02961790|168960924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0025
84604984|NCT02370641|168960949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Firmicutes abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.012
84604985|NCT02370641|168960949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Proteobacteria abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.009
84604986|NCT03906656|168960961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=73). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0002
84604987|NCT03906656|168960961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=77). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
84553356|NCT02612610|168859832|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3749
84553357|NCT02612610|168859832|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0854
84553358|NCT02612610|168859832|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2672
84553359|NCT02612610|168859833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.8|0.7255
84553360|NCT02612610|168859833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0918
84553361|NCT02612610|168859833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.2|0.1263
84553362|NCT02612610|168859834|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4058
84553363|NCT02612610|168859834|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0828
84553364|NCT02612610|168859834|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.4|0.0575
84553365|NCT02612610|168859835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4163
84553366|NCT02612610|168859835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0882
84553367|NCT02612610|168859835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.4|0.0961
84553368|NCT02612610|168859836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-0.3|0.1630
84669443|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
84553369|NCT02612610|168859836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.3|-1.0|0.7601
84553370|NCT02612610|168859836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.2|0.9|0.0004
84744655|NCT00620282|169242971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.859||||||95.0|-4.139|-1.579||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.579|-4.139|
84744656|NCT00620282|169242971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.331||||0.0486||95.0|0.009|2.653||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||2.653|0.0090|0.0486
84553371|NCT02612610|168859837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0941
84553372|NCT02612610|168859837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.2|-0.3|0.1321
84553373|NCT02612610|168859837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.7|0.2|0.0192
84553374|NCT02612610|168859838|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.4|-0.1|0.0626
84553375|NCT02612610|168859838|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0967
84553376|NCT02612610|168859838|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.1|0.7|0.0028
84553377|NCT02612610|168859839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.3182
84553378|NCT02612610|168859839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.5021
84553379|NCT02612610|168859839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0665|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0665
84604988|NCT03906656|168960961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=86). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the Baseline and KAFO means (n=102 and n=86, respectively).|KAFO vs. Baseline -- H0: the mean difference (KAFO - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
84744657|NCT00620282|169242972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.237||||0.7736||95.0|-17.829|13.354||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||13.354|-17.829|0.7736
84553380|NCT02612610|168859840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0872|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0872
84744658|NCT00620282|169242972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.912||||0.7993||95.0|-13.168|16.991||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||16.991|-13.168|0.7993
84744659|NCT00620282|169242972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.149||||0.5903||95.0|-19.582|11.284||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||11.284|-19.582|0.5903
84553381|NCT02612610|168859840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0994|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0994
84553382|NCT02612610|168859840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0009
84604989|NCT03906656|168960962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|63.6 degrees of freedom.||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.005
84492326|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3297|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3297
84492327|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9722|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.9722
84492328|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4403|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.4403
84492329|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1946|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.1946
84669444|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9862|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9862
84669445|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5561
84669446|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.2281|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2281
84669447|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0006
84669448|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6004
84669449|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84492330|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2077|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2077
84492331|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0692|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0692
84492332|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2276|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.2276
84492333|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.3369|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.3369
84492334|NCT03781167|168735205|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1218|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1218
84492335|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492336|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0020
84492337|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492338|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492339|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492340|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492341|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492342|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492343|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492344|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492345|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492346|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492347|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553383|NCT02612610|168859841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0037
84553384|NCT02612610|168859841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0166
84553385|NCT02612610|168859841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||<0.0001
84553386|NCT02612610|168859842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0396
84553387|NCT02612610|168859842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0751
84553388|NCT02612610|168859842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0010
84553389|NCT02612610|168859843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for the gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.8464
84553390|NCT02612610|168859843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7687
84553391|NCT02612610|168859843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.4364
84553392|NCT02612610|168859844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.9966
84553393|NCT02612610|168859844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6372|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6372
84553394|NCT02612610|168859844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2155
84553395|NCT02612610|168859845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7559
84553396|NCT02612610|168859845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.5091
84553397|NCT02612610|168859845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2790
84553398|NCT02612610|168859846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.3887
84669450|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9040
84669451|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0401
84604990|NCT03906656|168960963|SUPERIORITY|P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|74.4 degrees of freedom||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.005
84604991|NCT03906656|168960964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.6||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1207.5, effect size r = 0.026, p=0.583.|||0.583
84492348|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492349|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492350|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492351|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492352|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492353|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492354|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492355|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492356|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492357|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492358|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492359|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492360|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492361|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492362|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492363|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492364|NCT03781167|168735206|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492365|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492366|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492367|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492368|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492369|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492370|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492371|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492372|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492373|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492374|NCT03781167|168735207|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492375|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492376|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492377|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492378|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492379|NCT03781167|168735207|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492380|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492381|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492382|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84553399|NCT02612610|168859846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2333
84553400|NCT02612610|168859846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.0534
84553401|NCT02612610|168859847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6115
84553402|NCT02612610|168859847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
84553403|NCT02612610|168859847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
84553404|NCT02612610|168859848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0||||||"A p-value of zero was calculated if all participants (100%) had No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses in both comparison groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0
84553405|NCT02612610|168859848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
84553406|NCT02612610|168859848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
84553407|NCT01546571|168859853|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84553408|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.639
84553409|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.535
84604992|NCT03906656|168960965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.37||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (SAI - Down)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=438, effect size r = 0.21, p=0.008|||0.0078
84604993|NCT03906656|168960966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=267, effect size r = 0.32, p=0.002|||0.0020
84669452|NCT01480076|169072602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0651
84553410|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.337
84553411|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.058
84553412|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.192
84553413|NCT05127304|168859865|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.176
84553414|NCT05127304|168859866|OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.313
84553415|NCT05127304|168859867|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.021
84553416|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.022
84553417|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.124
84553418|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.043
84553419|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.990
84604994|NCT03906656|168960967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.178||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (Fear of falling - indoors)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=433, effect size r = 0.33, p=0.002|||0.0023
84604995|NCT03906656|168960967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.973|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.43||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=557.5, effect size r = 0.265, p=0.0066|||0.0066
84604996|NCT03906656|168960968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|McNemar|||Paired dataset. H0: The probability of fallers wearing C-Brace becoming non-fallers wearing KAFO is the same as the probability of non-fallers wearing C-Brace becoming fallers wearing KAFO.||||0.006
84604997|NCT03906656|168960969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1325.5, effect size r = 0.181, p=0.08.|||0.08
84604998|NCT03906656|168960970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.184||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1124.5, effect size r = 0.125 p=0.151|H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.151
84669453|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84492383|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492384|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492385|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492386|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492387|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492388|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492389|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492390|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492391|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492392|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492393|NCT03781167|168735208|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492394|NCT03781167|168735208|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492395|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
84492396|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492397|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492398|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0098|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0098
84492399|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492400|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492401|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492402|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492403|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492404|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492405|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492406|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492407|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0030
84492408|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492409|NCT03781167|168735209|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
84492410|NCT05489146|168735217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
84492411|NCT05489146|168735218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84492412|NCT05489146|168735219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84492413|NCT05489146|168735220|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84492414|NCT05489146|168735221|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84553420|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.039
84553421|NCT05127304|168859868|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||<0.001
84744660|NCT00620282|169242973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.702||||0.5583||95.0|-8.96|16.365||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||16.365|-8.96|0.5583
84744661|NCT00620282|169242973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.773||||0.6517||95.0|-9.537|15.082||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||15.082|-9.537|0.6517
84492415|NCT05489146|168735222|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84492416|NCT05489146|168735223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84492417|NCT05489146|168735224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
84492418|NCT05047601|168735237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.702||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.167|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.167|0.422|0.1722
84492419|NCT05047601|168735237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.645||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.115|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.115|0.373|0.1163
84492420|NCT05047601|168735239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.602|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.602|0.484|0.6766
84492421|NCT05047601|168735239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.809||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.512|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.512|0.433|0.5070
84492422|NCT05047601|168735241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.672||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.213|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.213|0.373|0.1869
84492423|NCT05047601|168735241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.13|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.130|0.355|0.1221
84492424|NCT05047601|168735242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0368
84492425|NCT05047601|168735242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
84492426|NCT05047601|168735243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.491|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.491|0.378|0.4126
84492427|NCT05047601|168735243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.244||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.135|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||2.135|0.725|0.4273
84492428|NCT05047601|168735244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.726||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.103|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.103|0.478|0.1333
84492429|NCT05047601|168735244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.408|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.408|0.645|0.8088
84492430|NCT05047601|168735252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.969||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.238|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.238|0.758|0.7991
84492431|NCT05047601|168735252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.847||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.091|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.091|0.657|0.1985
84492432|NCT03026556|168735267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.037|0.566|0.0844
84492433|NCT03026556|168735267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.390|0.659|0.4892
84492434|NCT03026556|168735268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.967|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.967|0.696|0.0182
84492435|NCT03026556|168735268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.939|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.939|0.974|0.0702
84492436|NCT03026556|168735269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.278|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.278|0.667|0.6307
84492437|NCT03026556|168735269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.055|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.055|0.540|0.8777
84492438|NCT03026556|168735270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.585|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.585|0.085|0.0023
84492439|NCT03026556|168735271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.982|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.982|0.435|0.0406
84492440|NCT03026556|168735271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.630|0.469|0.8124
84492441|NCT03026556|168735272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.025|0.716|0.0901
84604999|NCT03906656|168960971|SUPERIORITY|H0: the mean of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \>= 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|16.7 degrees of freedom||WLQ-25 - Physical||||0.281
84605000|NCT03906656|168960972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|48.4 degrees of freedom||OPUS - Low Extremity Functional Status. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.00019
84605001|NCT03906656|168960973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|22.1 degrees of freedom||Emotional well-being. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0226
84744662|NCT00620282|169242973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.929||||0.8822||95.0|-11.646|13.505||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||13.505|-11.646|0.8822
84492442|NCT03026556|168735272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.431||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|2.083|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.083|0.983|0.0616
84492443|NCT03026556|168735273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.069|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.069|0.736|0.2073
84492444|NCT03026556|168735273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.228|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.228|1.015|0.0417
84492445|NCT03026556|168735275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.299|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.299|0.387|0.2663
84492446|NCT03026556|168735275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.863|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.863|0.261|0.8112
84492447|NCT03026556|168735276|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.075|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.075|0.546|0.1227
84492448|NCT03026556|168735276|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.260|0.573|0.7115
84492449|NCT03026556|168735277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.149|0.741|0.4727
84492450|NCT03026556|168735277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.790|1.062|0.0275
84492451|NCT03026556|168735278|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.189|0.828|0.2309
84492452|NCT03026556|168735278|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.557||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|3.821|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||3.821|0.635|0.3333
84492453|NCT03026556|168735279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.226|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.226|0.829|0.9359
84492454|NCT03026556|168735279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.465|0.716|0.8947
84492455|NCT00689728|168735292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
84492456|NCT00689728|168735292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
84492457|NCT00689728|168735294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.873||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
84492458|NCT00689728|168735294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.427||||0.052||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
84492459|NCT00689728|168735294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.655
84492460|NCT00689728|168735294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.264||||0.173||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
84492461|NCT00689728|168735295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
84492462|NCT00689728|168735295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.218
84492463|NCT00689728|168735296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
84492464|NCT00689728|168735296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
84492465|NCT00689728|168735297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
84492466|NCT00689728|168735297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84492467|NCT00689728|168735298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.403
84492468|NCT00689728|168735298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84605002|NCT03906656|168960973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/Fatigue. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0020
84744663|NCT00620282|169242974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.169||||0.9131||95.0|-3.273|2.935||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.935|-3.273|0.9131
84492469|NCT00689728|168735299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.168||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.168
84492470|NCT00689728|168735299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.075||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
84492471|NCT00689728|168735300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
84492472|NCT00689728|168735300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84492473|NCT00689728|168735301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.110
84492474|NCT00689728|168735301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
84492475|NCT00689728|168735302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172||||0.969||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.969
84492476|NCT00689728|168735302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.452||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.452
84492477|NCT00689728|168735303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
84492478|NCT00689728|168735303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.920
84492479|NCT00689728|168735304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.912||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.100
84492480|NCT00689728|168735304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84492481|NCT00689728|168735305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-30 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84492482|NCT00689728|168735305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-80 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84492483|NCT00689728|168735306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.818||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
84492484|NCT00689728|168735306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.066||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
84492485|NCT00689728|168735307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84492486|NCT00689728|168735307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
84492487|NCT00689728|168735308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84492488|NCT00689728|168735308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84492489|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
84492490|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
84492491|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84492492|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84492493|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.115
84492494|NCT00689728|168735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84492495|NCT00689299|168735312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA with baseline score as covariate||||<0.05
84492496|NCT01190839|168735313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.097
84492497|NCT01190839|168735314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84492498|NCT01190839|168735315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.098
84492499|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
84492500|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
84492501|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
84492502|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
84492503|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
84492504|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
84492505|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
84492506|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
84492507|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
84492508|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
84492509|NCT01362062|168735343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
84492510|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.003
84492511|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.005
84492512|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
84553422|NCT05127304|168859869|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.163
84553423|NCT05127304|168859870|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
84553424|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.017
84553425|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.098
84605003|NCT03906656|168960973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.528||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Health change. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=649, effect size r = 0.285, p=0.00493|||0.0049
84605004|NCT03906656|168960973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||6.47e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|37.35 degrees of freedom||Physical Functioning Score. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.0000647
84605005|NCT03906656|168960974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.843||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Device. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1018.5, effect size r = 0.056, p=0.301|||0.301
84553426|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.036
84553427|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.894
84605006|NCT02084238|168960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the data between baseline and week 10.||||<0.01
84605007|NCT00042432|168961005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.006||95.0|1.6|20.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline glomenular filtration rate (GFR) strata|Logit estimates|||20.06|1.60|0.006
84744664|NCT00620282|169242974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.723||||0.6362||95.0|-3.785|2.339||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.339|-3.785|0.6362
84492513|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.014
84492514|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
84553428|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.036
84553429|NCT05127304|168859871|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.001
84492515|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.008
84492516|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.014
84553430|NCT05127304|168859872|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.162
84553431|NCT05127304|168859873|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
84553432|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.065
84553433|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.102
84553434|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.100
84553435|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.189
84553436|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.024
84553437|NCT05127304|168859874|OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.767
84553438|NCT05127304|168859875|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.357
84553439|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.002
84553440|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.420
84553441|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.002
84553442|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.304
84553443|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.326
84605008|NCT00042432|168961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adusted for baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) strata||||||<0.001
84744665|NCT00620282|169242974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.554||||0.7283||95.0|-2.643|3.751||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||3.751|-2.643|0.7283
84744666|NCT00620282|169242975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-36.709||||0.0694||95.0|-76.467|3.048||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||3.048|-76.467|0.0694
84744667|NCT00620282|169242975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-3.786||||0.844||95.0|-42.373|34.801||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||34.801|-42.373|0.844
84744668|NCT00620282|169242975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.923||||0.0994||95.0|-72.353|6.507||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||6.507|-72.353|0.0994
84553444|NCT05127304|168859876|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.007
84553445|NCT05127304|168859877|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.520
84553446|NCT05127304|168859878|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
84553447|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.060
84553448|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.177
84553449|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.834
84553450|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.121
84553451|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.159
84553452|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.289
84605009|NCT00320372|168961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|39.9|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||39.9|36.3|
84605010|NCT00320372|168961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|19.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||19.0|15.2|
84605011|NCT00320372|168961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
84669454|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4540
84553453|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.055
84605012|NCT00320372|168961008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison for Kaplan Meier Median Time until recurrence|Log Rank|Null hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is not different. Alternate hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is different.||||||0.1015
84553454|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
84553455|NCT05127304|168859879|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
84553456|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.066
84553457|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.193
84553458|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.117
84669455|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553459|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.250
84553460|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.431|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.431
84553461|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.129
84553462|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.236
84553463|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
84553464|NCT05127304|168859880|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
84553465|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.057
84553466|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.182
84553467|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.083
84553468|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.245
84553469|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.386
84553470|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.115
84553471|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.237
84553472|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
84553473|NCT05127304|168859881|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
84553474|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.189
84553475|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.314
84553476|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.203
84553477|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.379|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.379
84553478|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.815
84553479|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.205
84553480|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.556
84744669|NCT00620282|169242976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.42||||0.2282||95.0|-1.118|0.278||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.278|-1.118|0.2282
84744670|NCT00620282|169242976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.018||||0.9569||95.0|-0.697|0.661||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.661|-0.697|0.9569
84553481|NCT05127304|168859882|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||0.189
84553482|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.483
84553483|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.002
84553484|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.123
84553485|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.003
84553486|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.170
84553487|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.582
84553488|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.887
84553489|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
84553490|NCT05127304|168859883|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
84553491|NCT05127304|168859884|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Any COPD exacerbation||||0.205
84553492|NCT05127304|168859884|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Severe COPD exacerbation||||0.454
84553493|NCT05127304|168859885|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Rao-Scott test|||||||0.060
84744671|NCT00620282|169242976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.402||||0.2465||95.0|-1.097|0.293||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.293|-1.097|0.2465
84553494|NCT02951533|168859981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84553495|NCT02091986|168860061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.006
84553496|NCT02091986|168860061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.063
84553497|NCT02091986|168860061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.373
84744672|NCT02217475|169242980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||1.516|0.439|0.5194
84553498|NCT02091986|168860062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.001
84553499|NCT02091986|168860062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.195
84553500|NCT02091986|168860062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.032
84553501|NCT02091986|168860063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||<0.001
84553502|NCT02091986|168860063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.005
84553503|NCT02091986|168860063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.326
84553504|NCT02091986|168860064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.276
84553505|NCT02091986|168860064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.759
84553506|NCT02091986|168860064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.165
84553507|NCT02091986|168860065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.724
84553508|NCT02091986|168860065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.909
84553509|NCT02091986|168860065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.811
84553510|NCT02091986|168860066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.134
84553511|NCT02091986|168860066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.985
84553512|NCT02091986|168860066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.128
84492517|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.009
84492518|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
84492519|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
84492520|NCT01362062|168735344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
84492521|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.002
84492522|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
84553513|NCT02091986|168860067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.684
84744673|NCT02217475|169242981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.934||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|3.614|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.614|1.035|0.0388
84492523|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
84492524|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
84492525|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
84492526|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
84492527|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
84492528|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
84492529|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
84492530|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
84492531|NCT01362062|168735345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
84492532|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
84492533|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
84492534|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
84492535|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
84492536|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
84492537|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
84492538|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
84492539|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
84492540|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
84492541|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
84492542|NCT01362062|168735346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
84492543|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
84492544|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
84492545|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
84492546|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
84492547|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
84492548|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
84492549|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
84492550|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
84492551|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
84492552|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
84492553|NCT01362062|168735347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
84492554|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.064
84553514|NCT02091986|168860067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.621
84553515|NCT02091986|168860067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.929
84553516|NCT02091986|168860068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.664
84553517|NCT02091986|168860068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.747
84553518|NCT02091986|168860068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.913
84553519|NCT02091986|168860069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.015
84553520|NCT02091986|168860069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.342
84553521|NCT02091986|168860069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.138
84553522|NCT02091986|168860073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.098
84553523|NCT02091986|168860073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.367
84553524|NCT02091986|168860073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.449
84553525|NCT00125242|168860075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|7.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||the reported effect size is a d-index value|Effect sizes were calculated - this is a comparison of perfomance in baseline (repeated measurements prior to treatment) relative to peformance following treatment||||
84553526|NCT00606554|168860076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84553527|NCT00606554|168860080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84553528|NCT00606554|168860083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84605013|NCT00320372|168961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|21.3|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||21.3|18.4|
84553529|NCT04687072|168860123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% confidence interval (CI) (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||7.0|-14.7|0.5081
84553530|NCT04687072|168860124|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.4925
84605014|NCT00320372|168961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.5|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||9.5|6.9|
84669456|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2949|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2949
84669457|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553531|NCT04687072|168860125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|10.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||10.0|-11.7|0.9314
84553532|NCT04687072|168860126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test p-value was used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentage and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) are presented.|||8.2|-12.4|0.7379
84553533|NCT04687072|168860127|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|16.8|||||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|16.8|-9.3|
84553534|NCT04687072|168860128|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.7260
84553535|NCT04687072|168860129|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.0|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||13.0|-9.6|
84553536|NCT04687072|168860132|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.2929
84553537|NCT04687072|168860133|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.1475
84605015|NCT00320372|168961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
84605016|NCT00320372|168961015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.34997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<0.0001
84605017|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||3 Month Time point||||<.0001
84605018|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||6 Month Time point||||.0068
84605019|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||9 Month Time point||||.0008
84605020|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||12 Month Time point||||.0003
84605021|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||18 Month Time point||||<.0001
84605022|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||24 Month Time point||||.0059
84605023|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||30 Month Time point||||.0028
84744674|NCT02217475|169242982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|2.821|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.821|0.553|0.5920
84553538|NCT04687072|168860134|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|WHO Classified Bleeding Event Grade ≥1||2.000|-2.000|0.7677
84553539|NCT04687072|168860135|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|7.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Complete Response||7.3|-11.8|
84553540|NCT04687072|168860135|OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|20.2|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Response||20.2|-4.6|
84553541|NCT04687072|168860135|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|13.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|Initial Response||13.3|-9.7|
84553542|NCT04687072|168860137|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.7|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||5.7|-15.6|
84605024|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||36 Month Time point||||.0002
84744675|NCT02217475|169242983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|3.628|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.628|0.537|0.4941
84553543|NCT01662791|168860147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the groups for \>12 ppm.||||1.0
84553544|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for mobility sub-scale.||||0.235
84553545|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.206
84553546|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.641
84553547|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for stigma sub-scale.||||0.446
84605025|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||42 Month Time point||||.0051
84605026|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||48 Month Time point||||.0363
84605027|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||54 Month Time point||||.0048
84744676|NCT02217475|169242984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|4.277|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.277|0.305|0.8434
84744677|NCT02217475|169242985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.201||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.352|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.352|1.113|0.0234
84605028|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||60 Month Time point||||.0009
84605029|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|12.1009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8979|13.3039|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||13.3039|10.8979|
84669458|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0046
84744678|NCT02217475|169242986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.752|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.752|0.484|0.7474
84492555|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.104
84492556|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.052
84492557|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.043
84553548|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for social support sub-scale.||||0.466
84553549|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for cognition sub-scale.||||0.205
84553550|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for communication sub-scale.||||0.153
84553551|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.730
84553552|NCT01662791|168860148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for summary index sub-scale.||||0.334
84553553|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for mobility sub-scale.||||0.167
84553554|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.159
84553555|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.041
84492558|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB of Visit 7.||||=0.015
84492559|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.023
84492560|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.028
84553556|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for stigma sub-scale.||||0.190
84553557|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for social support sub-scale.||||1.0
84553558|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for cognition sub-scale.||||0.160
84553559|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for communication sub-scale.||||0.276
84553560|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.351
84553561|NCT01662791|168860149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for summary index sub-scale.||||0.186
84553562|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for constipation sub-scale.||||0.303
84553563|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.518
84605030|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|7.5964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1327|9.0602|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||9.0602|6.1327|
84605031|NCT00320372|168961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||||<.0001
84744679|NCT01237587|169243055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-1.30|0.052
84744680|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.03|-1.40|.059
84553564|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.800
84669459|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669460|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5020
84492561|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.048
84492562|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.025
84492563|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.023
84492564|NCT01362062|168735348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.022
84492565|NCT00758394|168735349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors). Multiple comparison completed to determine differences between groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84492566|NCT02549040|168735366|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.09|0.85|
84492567|NCT02549040|168735366|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.26||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.26|1.02|
84492568|NCT02549040|168735366|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.11||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.11|0.88|
84492569|NCT02549040|168735366|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.99|0.80|
84492570|NCT02549040|168735367|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.98||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.98|0.79|
84492571|NCT02549040|168735367|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.21|0.98|
84492572|NCT02549040|168735367|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.0||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.00|0.81|
84492573|NCT02549040|168735367|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.97||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.97|0.79|
84492574|NCT02549040|168735368|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.82||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.82|0.61|
84492575|NCT02549040|168735368|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.01|0.75|
84492576|NCT02549040|168735368|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.81||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.81|0.60|
84492577|NCT02549040|168735368|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.86||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.86|0.66|
84492578|NCT02549040|168735369|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.93||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.93|0.72|
84492579|NCT02549040|168735369|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.94|
84492580|NCT02549040|168735369|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.76|
84492581|NCT02549040|168735369|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.74|
84492582|NCT02549040|168735372|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.75|
84492583|NCT02549040|168735372|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.95|
84492584|NCT02549040|168735372|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.95|0.76|
84492585|NCT02549040|168735372|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.77|
84492586|NCT03159455|168735385|OTHER||Slope|2.2305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2592|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6955|2.7655|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.7655|1.6955|
84492587|NCT03159455|168735386|OTHER||Slope|1.9007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4102|2.3912|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3912|1.4102|
84492588|NCT03159455|168735387|OTHER||Slope|3.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1771|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8793|3.6087|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|3.6087|2.8793|
84553565|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.736
84553566|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for GERD sub-scale.||||0.570
84553567|NCT01662791|168860150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.394
84553568|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for constipation sub-scale.||||0.056
84553569|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.380
84553570|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.244
84553571|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.279
84553572|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for GERD sub-scale.||||0.554
84553573|NCT01662791|168860151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.351
84553574|NCT01662791|168860152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for depression||||0.872
84744681|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.02|-1.24|0.059
84492589|NCT03159455|168735388|OTHER||Slope|2.0711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7663|2.376|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3760|1.7663|
84553575|NCT01662791|168860152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for anxiety.||||0.835
84553576|NCT03626363|168860156|SUPERIORITY|We sought to have up to 20 participants complete each group so that we could have a statistical power of 0.89 to detect about a 4 burst per minute difference with an alpha of 0.05. We would have had sympathetic nerve data on up to 18 more of the 21 participants that we were not allowed to post-test in the spring of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in the mean number of bursts per minute of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) from pre to post.||||0.51
84553577|NCT03626363|168860157|SUPERIORITY|To detect a 0.5 meter per second change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity with at least 80% power with an alpha of 0.05 we should have had at least 12 participants complete measurements in each group (MBSR and SME). We fell a little short of that in the MBSR group and met the 12 participants in the SME group. The number of participants we were able to study from pre to post was limited by COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in meters per second from pre to post. We had 21 participants in the spring of 2020 that were were not allowed to bring into the laboratory for post testing during COVID-19 restrictions which led to our limited sample size.||||0.25
84553578|NCT01187498|168860159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 70 per group would provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 to declare two means equivalent, assuming a mean voiding frequency of 8.2 for behavioral treatment, a mean voiding frequency of 8.0 for drug therapy, and a standard deviation of 2.3 for both groups. Equivalence was defined as ±15% of the drug therapy posttreatment mean.|Difference of the Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion is the standard error of the regression coefficient which measured the adjusted difference of the group means.|The primary analysis was an equivalence analysis to compare the two treatment groups on posttreatment 24- hour voiding frequency using a margin of ±15% of the drug group mean. Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (TOST) approach was used first to examine completers and then repeated using last observation carried forward to include participants who did not complete therapy. Adjusting the test to regression, the analyses were repeated using baseline voiding frequency as a covariate.||||.001
84553579|NCT01187498|168860160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
84553580|NCT01187498|168860161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Group Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
84553581|NCT01187498|168860162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.33
84744682|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.21|-1.23|.165
84553582|NCT01187498|168860163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.84
84553583|NCT01187498|168860164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|-0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249||0.69||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.69
84553584|NCT01187498|168860165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Group Weighted Means|-0.1563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009||0.16||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.16
84553585|NCT01187498|168860166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.1079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1625||0.56||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.56
84553586|NCT01187498|168860167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265||0.65||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.65
84553587|NCT01187498|168860168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.01
84553588|NCT01187498|168860169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Proportions|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group proportions.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure.||||.02
84605032|NCT00320372|168961017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14837|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
84669461|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669462|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2157
84744683|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||-0.30|-1.65|0.005
84744684|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.16|-1.25|.128
84553589|NCT01970475|168860170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the RR of ACR20 at week 24 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of (0.738, 1/0.738).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.133|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region and prior biological use for RA as covariates in the model.|The study hypothesis was that there were no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 501 and adalimumab in risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 at week 24.||1.133|0.954|
84553590|NCT04464720|168860196|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre and post intervention PM2.5||||0.050
84553591|NCT04464720|168860199|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre v post intervention NO2||||0.043
84553592|NCT04464720|168860202|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FVC pre and post intervention||||0.056
84553593|NCT04464720|168860203|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparing FEV1 pre and post intervention||||0.058
84553594|NCT04464720|168860205|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FeNO pre v post intervention||||0.058
84553595|NCT02156895|168860223|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.24|0.97|0.1244
84553596|NCT02156895|168860229|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.2|1.02|0.0109
84553597|NCT03728985|168860255|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 80%|Absolute Percentage with Success|77.5||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|84.1|||Fisher Exact||The lower estimated confidence interval above the Performance Goal of 80% would be considered success.|||84.1|69.6|0.5908
84553598|NCT03728985|168860256|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 68%|Percentage with Success|70.6||||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|78.7|||Fisher Exact|||||78.7|61.4|0.7017
84553599|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 3||1.17|0.75|<0.001
84744685|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking ability||0.49|-0.90|.560
84492590|NCT02713490|168735389|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-26.884||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.608|2.841|||ANOVA|||||2.841|-56.608|0.0381
84553600|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 7F||1.33|0.88|<0.001
84553601|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 8||1.36|0.93|<0.001
84553602|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 9N||1.29|0.86|<0.001
84553603|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 10A||2.14|1.28|<0.001
84553604|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.92|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 11A||1.92|1.20|<0.001
84553605|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.72|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 12F||2.72|1.43|<0.001
84744686|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.45|-1.01|0.448
84744687|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations With Other||-0.19|-1.42|.011
84744688|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.55|-1.25|.443
84492591|NCT02713490|168735390|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.631|||ANOVA|||||0.631|0.065|0.0029
84492592|NCT02713490|168735391|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.098||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0284|0.1685|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1685|0.0284|0.0088
84492593|NCT02713490|168735392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis applies to the overall distribution of time to first opioid rescue, estimated from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||0.0230
84492594|NCT02713490|168735393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4285
84669463|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84492595|NCT00960869|168735396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||5.5|1.1|0.005
84492596|NCT00960869|168735397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84553606|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 17F||2.00|1.28|<0.001
84553607|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 19A||1.45|0.93|<0.001
84571311|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84669464|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
84669465|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669466|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3435|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3435
84669467|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669468|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1357
84669469|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
84744689|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of Life||0.38|-0.96|.390
84744690|NCT01237587|169243056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||School Work||0.24|-1.44|.160
84744691|NCT01237587|169243058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
84744692|NCT01237587|169243059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.038
84744693|NCT01237587|169243060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Average Pain Score||5.86|-9.10|.669
84744694|NCT01237587|169243060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Worst Pain Score||2.53|-14.32|.169
84744695|NCT01237587|169243060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Pain Score Right Now||5.94|-9.53|.647
84744696|NCT01237587|169243061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.52|.146
84744697|NCT01237587|169243062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.23|.927
84744698|NCT01237587|169243063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-1.54|.431
84744699|NCT01237587|169243064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-1.95|.529
84744700|NCT01237587|169243065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-2.52|.335
84744701|NCT01237587|169243066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Physical Symptoms Score||1.68|-1.59|.955
84744702|NCT01237587|169243066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Harm Avoidance||0.70|-1.82|.381
84492597|NCT00960869|168735398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84492598|NCT00960869|168735399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84492599|NCT00960869|168735400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
84492600|NCT01714726|168735403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|36.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.8|8.3|=0.01
84492601|NCT01789476|168735420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84492602|NCT01789476|168735421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
84492603|NCT01789476|168735422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
84492604|NCT02558634|168735426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||The level of significance was set at p=0.025 to allow a Bonferroni correction for these two tests (i.e. p=0.050 divided by two).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.75|0.75|0.025
84492605|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0008
84492606|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
84492607|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0032
84492608|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||0.0265
84492609|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
84492610|NCT00151775|168735444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
84492611|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.69||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0008
84492612|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.057||||0.0026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0026
84492613|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0032
84492614|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0125
84492615|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492616|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492617|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492618|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492619|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.17||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0265
84492620|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.85||||0.0084||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0084
84492621|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492622|NCT00151775|168735445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
84492623|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.58||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-0.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.89|-6.27|0.0093
84492624|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.05|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-1.05|-5.92|0.0052
84553608|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.77|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 20A||1.77|1.18|<0.001
84553609|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 22F||1.76|1.10|<0.001
84669470|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0511
84492625|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.57||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.79|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||0.79|-5.93|0.1330
84492626|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.38||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.50|-4.27|0.3442
84492627|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested||-1.09|-5.24|0.0029
84492628|NCT00151775|168735446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.95|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.95|-4.65|0.0032
84669471|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84492629|NCT00151775|168735447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.82||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|1.65|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.65|-7.29|0.2113
84492630|NCT00151775|168735447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.92||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.09|-6.92|0.1496
84492631|NCT01238861|168735450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.59|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||1.59|0.74|0.781
84492632|NCT01238861|168735450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.97|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.97|0.42|0.173
84744703|NCT01237587|169243066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Social Anxiety||0.79|-1.66|.486
84744704|NCT01237587|169243066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Separation/Panic||0.79|-1.17|.700
84553610|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 33F||1.12|0.68|<0.001
84553611|NCT05633992|168860301|NON_INFERIORITY|For serotype 15B, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15B||1.89|1.07|<0.001
84553612|NCT05633992|168860301|SUPERIORITY|For serotype 15C, a conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15C||2.70|1.56|<0.001
84553613|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|36.9|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 6A||36.9|17.8|<0.001
84553614|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 15A||43.0|23.6|<0.001
84553615|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 16F||46.4|29.8|<0.001
84553616|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23A||40.6|17.4|<0.001
84553617|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|46.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23B||46.7|29.3|<0.001
84669472|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8703
84669473|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669474|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9049
84669475|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0019
84669476|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
84744705|NCT01237587|169243066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.69|-5.12|.540
84744706|NCT01142115|169243075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated difference VAS(Monza) minus VAS(SpeediCath)(i.e. the upper confidence limit) shall be less than 1cm to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.052||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.692|0.412|0.0018
84744707|NCT01142115|169243076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|12.939|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.939|2.604|<0.0001
84744708|NCT01142115|169243077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.767|||Proportional odds regression model|||||1.767|0.382|0.6160
84553618|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|35.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 24F||35.6|18.3|<0.001
84553619|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|64.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 31||64.4|49.3|<0.001
84553620|NCT05633992|168860302|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 35B||54.1|39.5|<0.001
84553621|NCT00197002|168860309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates \[Havrix+Prevnar Group minus Havrix Group\] was computed. The anti-HAV seropositivity rates in the Havrix+Prevnar Group were considered as non-inferior to the seropositivity rates in the Havrix Group, if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower (≥) than -5%.~The non-inferiority was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.45||||||"Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV:~To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10)."||2.45|-5.78|
84553622|NCT00197002|168860310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The standardized two-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (Havrix+Prevnar Group divided by Havrix Group) was computed. The anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix+Prevnar Group was considered as non-inferior to the anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix Group if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower than (≥) 0.5.~The non-inferiority of the anti-HAV immune response in Havrix+Prevnar Group compared to Havrix Group was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10).||1.31|0.63|
84553623|NCT03569293|168860330|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|69.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.8|57.1|<0.001
84553624|NCT03569293|168860330|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|46.4|<0.001
84553625|NCT03569293|168860331|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|47.2|<0.001
84553626|NCT03569293|168860331|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.4|33.2|<0.001
84744709|NCT01142115|169243078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.646|||Proportional odds regression model|||||2.646|0.472|0.8014
84744710|NCT01142115|169243079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|39.106|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.106|0.314|0.3085
84553627|NCT03569293|168860332|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.0|41.3|<0.001
84553628|NCT03569293|168860332|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.5|33.5|<0.001
84553629|NCT03569293|168860333|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|51.5|<0.001
84553630|NCT03569293|168860333|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|51.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.7|38.6|<0.001
84553631|NCT03569293|168860334|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|56.3|<0.001
84553632|NCT03569293|168860334|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|53.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.4|40.7|<0.001
84553633|NCT03569293|168860335|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|37.7|<0.001
84553634|NCT03569293|168860335|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.5|28.6|<0.001
84553635|NCT03569293|168860336|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|14.6|<0.001
84553636|NCT03569293|168860336|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.8|10.3|<0.001
84553637|NCT03569293|168860337|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.5|3.8|<0.001
84744711|NCT01142115|169243080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.398||||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|3.225|||Proportional odds regression model|||||3.225|0.606|0.4324
84605033|NCT00320372|168961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
84553638|NCT03569293|168860338|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.8|8.1|<0.001
84553639|NCT03569293|168860339|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-20.1|-30.3|<0.001
84553640|NCT03569293|168860339|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.9|-29.3|<0.001
84553641|NCT03569293|168860340|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|45.2|<0.001
84553642|NCT03569293|168860340|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.7|33.9|<0.001
84669477|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669478|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4087|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4087
84669479|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669480|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2755
84669481|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0251|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0251
84669482|NCT01480076|169072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0989|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0989
84744712|NCT03208036|169243081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .69
84744713|NCT03208036|169243081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .74
84744714|NCT03208036|169243082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .62
84492633|NCT01238861|168735450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.59||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|0.89|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.89|0.40|0.096
84553643|NCT03569293|168860341|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|56.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.1|41.0|<0.001
84553644|NCT03569293|168860341|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|30.9|<0.001
84553645|NCT03569293|168860342|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|60.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.3|45.4|<0.001
84553646|NCT03569293|168860342|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|46.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|30.4|<0.001
84605034|NCT00320372|168961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.04625||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||.0012
84605035|NCT01853072|168961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||3.0|1.5|<0.001
84744715|NCT03208036|169243082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .24
84744716|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
84744717|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
84492634|NCT01238861|168735455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.125
84553647|NCT03569293|168860343|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.4|44.7|<0.001
84744718|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
84744719|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
84744720|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
84744721|NCT03208036|169243083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
84492635|NCT01238861|168735455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.074
84492636|NCT01238861|168735455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.057
84605036|NCT01853072|168961021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.3|0.1|<0.001
84608441|NCT01345682|168967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|4.39||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.39|-3.28|0.7767
84744722|NCT03208036|169243084|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .68
84744723|NCT03208036|169243084|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .45
84744724|NCT03208036|169243085|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .81
84744725|NCT03208036|169243085|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .31
84492637|NCT01238861|168735455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.010
84492638|NCT01238861|168735457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.336|0.131
84492639|NCT01238861|168735457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.173||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.317|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.317|0.126
84492640|NCT01238861|168735457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.247|-0.032|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.032|-0.247|0.097
84492641|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.654|0.306|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.306|-0.654|0.642
84492642|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.533|0.756|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.756|-0.533|0.824
84492643|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.297|0.355|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.355|-0.297|0.910
84492644|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.602|0.593|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.593|-0.602|0.992
84492645|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.548|1.222|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||1.222|-0.548|0.624
84492646|NCT01238861|168735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.267|0.567|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.567|-0.267|0.645
84492647|NCT01238861|168735459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.076|0.237|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.237|0.076|0.014
84492648|NCT01238861|168735459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.266|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.266|0.102|0.004
84492649|NCT01238861|168735459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.039|0.143|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.143|0.039|0.026
84492650|NCT01238861|168735460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.384
84492651|NCT01238861|168735460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.092
84492652|NCT01238861|168735460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.134
84492653|NCT01238861|168735460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.129
84492654|NCT01238861|168735462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.687|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.687|0.121|0.069
84492655|NCT01238861|168735462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.163|0.761|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.761|0.163|0.049
84605037|NCT01800318|168961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||RM Anova of effects of treatment groups on PIPP scores: .|ANOVA|||||||0.07
84492656|NCT01238861|168735462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.459|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.459|0.017|0.168
84492657|NCT01238861|168735463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.058|0.019|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.019|-0.058|0.510
84492658|NCT01238861|168735463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.008|0.074|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.074|0.008|0.113
84492659|NCT01238861|168735463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.016|0.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.038|-0.016|0.599
84492660|NCT01238861|168735464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|2.586|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||2.586|-3.333|0.871
84492661|NCT01238861|168735464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.175|5.889|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||5.889|-0.175|0.227
84492662|NCT01238861|168735464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.139||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.041|3.319|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||3.319|-1.041|0.503
84492663|NCT01238861|168735465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.907||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.483|12.297|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||12.297|-4.483|0.550
84492664|NCT01238861|168735465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.659||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.262|15.579|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||15.579|-0.262|0.215
84492665|NCT01238861|168735465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.006|9.086|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||9.086|-2.006|0.413
84492666|NCT01238861|168735466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.896
84492667|NCT01238861|168735466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.944
84492668|NCT01238861|168735466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.667
84492669|NCT02145949|168735467|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
84492670|NCT02145949|168735468|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
84492671|NCT02145949|168735469|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
84492672|NCT02145949|168735470|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
84492673|NCT02145949|168735471|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
84492674|NCT02145949|168735472|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
84492675|NCT02145949|168735473|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.71
84492676|NCT02145949|168735474|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
84492677|NCT02145949|168735475|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
84492678|NCT02145949|168735476|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.97
84492679|NCT02145949|168735477|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.89
84492680|NCT02145949|168735478|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.48
84492681|NCT02145949|168735479|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
84492682|NCT02145949|168735480|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.29
84492683|NCT02145949|168735481|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.33
84492684|NCT02145949|168735482|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.30
84492685|NCT02145949|168735483|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
84492686|NCT02145949|168735484|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
84492687|NCT02145949|168735485|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.52
84492688|NCT02145949|168735486|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.81
84492689|NCT01270139|168735508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84492690|NCT01270139|168735509|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
84492691|NCT01270139|168735510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84605038|NCT01800318|168961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and sham NESAP.||||<0.05
84553648|NCT03569293|168860343|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|34.4|<0.001
84553649|NCT03569293|168860344|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|61.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.3|44.9|<0.001
84553650|NCT03569293|168860344|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.2|36.2|<0.001
84553651|NCT03569293|168860345|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|20.0|<0.001
84553652|NCT03569293|168860345|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.6|10.4|<0.001
84605039|NCT01800318|168961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with NESAP and oral water.||||<0.01
84605040|NCT01800318|168961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and NESAp combined.||||<0.05
84605041|NCT01800318|168961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in standard care group (Sham NESAP with oral water).||||<0.01
84605042|NCT01800318|168961027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84605043|NCT01800318|168961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84605044|NCT01800318|168961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F4.048||||||0.008
84605045|NCT00262847|168961034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.448||95.0|0.844|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.078|0.844|0.448
84605046|NCT00262847|168961034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765|||<|0.001||95.0|0.676|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||0.866|0.676|<0.001
84605047|NCT00262847|168961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.069||||0.41||95.0|0.912|1.255|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.255|0.912|0.410
84605048|NCT00262847|168961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.131||95.0|0.746|1.039|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.039|0.746|0.131
84605049|NCT02370004|168961039|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-tests were used to evaluate changes in spirometry results||||.10
84605050|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 29||0.46|-0.11|
84605051|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 57||0.17|-0.34|
84605052|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 85||0.20|-0.37|
84605053|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 113||0.04|-0.50|
84605054|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 141||0.32|-0.26|
84605055|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 169||0.15|-0.41|
84744726|NCT03208036|169243086|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .79
84553653|NCT03569293|168860346|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.82|-33.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.15|-58.82|<0.001
84553654|NCT03569293|168860346|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-36.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.66|-23.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.81|-49.66|<0.001
84553655|NCT03569293|168860347|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-47.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.716|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-41.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.70|-52.37|<0.001
84553656|NCT03569293|168860347|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-34.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.15|-44.91|<0.001
84553657|NCT03569293|168860348|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|51.9|<0.001
84553658|NCT03569293|168860348|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|45.2|<0.001
84553659|NCT03569293|168860349|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.5|45.9|<0.001
84553660|NCT03569293|168860349|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.4|39.0|<0.001
84605056|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 197||0.13|-0.38|
84605057|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 225||0.25|-0.32|
84744727|NCT03208036|169243086|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .50
84744728|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
84744729|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
84744730|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
84553661|NCT03569293|168860350|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.75|-35.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-35.03|-45.75|<0.001
84553662|NCT03569293|168860350|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-27.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.61|-38.44|<0.001
84553663|NCT03569293|168860351|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.1|24.8|<0.001
84553664|NCT03569293|168860351|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|21.4|<0.001
84553665|NCT03569293|168860352|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|30.8|<0.001
84553666|NCT03569293|168860352|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.1|19.7|<0.001
84553667|NCT03569293|168860353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||79.4|53.8|<0.001
84553668|NCT03569293|168860353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|75.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.4|48.6|<0.001
84553669|NCT03569293|168860354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|44.6|<0.001
84553670|NCT03569293|168860354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|25.6|<0.001
84744731|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
84744732|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
84744733|NCT03208036|169243087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
84744734|NCT03208036|169243088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .99
84492692|NCT01270139|168735511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84744735|NCT03208036|169243088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .84
84492693|NCT01270139|168735512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
84492694|NCT01270139|168735513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
84492695|NCT01270139|168735514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84492696|NCT01270139|168735515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84492697|NCT01270139|168735516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84492698|NCT01270139|168735517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
84492699|NCT01270139|168735518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
84492700|NCT01270139|168735519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
84492701|NCT01270139|168735520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
84492702|NCT01270139|168735521|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
84492703|NCT01270139|168735522|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
84492704|NCT01270139|168735523|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
84492705|NCT01270139|168735524|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
84492706|NCT01270139|168735525|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is ex-vivo arm with exposure of nanoparticles is superior to saline control.||||<0.05
84492707|NCT03947333|168735581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.221
84492708|NCT03947333|168735581|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.846||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||3.68|-1.99|0.559
84492709|NCT03947333|168735582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.532
84492710|NCT03947333|168735583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.086
84492711|NCT03947333|168735583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.562
84492712|NCT03947333|168735583|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.348||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||1.254|-0.557|0.451
84492713|NCT03947333|168735584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.270
84492714|NCT03947333|168735584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.299
84492715|NCT03947333|168735584|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.1||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||1.986|-1.786|0.917
84492716|NCT03947333|168735585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.093
84492717|NCT03947333|168735585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.034
84553671|NCT03569293|168860355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|32.6|<0.001
84492718|NCT03947333|168735585|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.242||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.533|-0.049|0.103
84492719|NCT03947333|168735586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.116
84492720|NCT03947333|168735586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.009
84492721|NCT03947333|168735586|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.183||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.451|-0.084|0.178
84492722|NCT03947333|168735587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.188
84492723|NCT03947333|168735587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.749
84492724|NCT03947333|168735587|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.031||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.351|-0.288|0.847
84492725|NCT03947333|168735588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.182
84492726|NCT03947333|168735588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.158
84492727|NCT03947333|168735588|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.107||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.519|-0.305|0.612
84492728|NCT03947333|168735589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.970
84492729|NCT03947333|168735589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.786
84492730|NCT03947333|168735589|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.088||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.317|-0.493|0.670
84492731|NCT03947333|168735590|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.478
84492732|NCT03947333|168735590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.666
84492733|NCT03947333|168735590|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.15||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.413|-0.713|0.601
84492734|NCT03947333|168735591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.654
84492735|NCT03947333|168735592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.485
84492736|NCT03947333|168735593|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||||||0.480
84492737|NCT03947333|168735593|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
84492738|NCT03947333|168735594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.542
84492739|NCT00399542|168735605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone at 90% statistical power||||0.023
84492740|NCT00399542|168735606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.391|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.391
84492741|NCT00399542|168735607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.151
84492742|NCT00399542|168735608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.163
84492743|NCT00399542|168735609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.185
84492744|NCT00399542|168735610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.300
84553672|NCT03569293|168860355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|24.3|<0.001
84553673|NCT03569293|168860356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.9|51.8|<0.001
84492745|NCT00399542|168735611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.303
84492746|NCT00399542|168735612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.047
84492747|NCT00399542|168735613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.008
84492748|NCT00399542|168735614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.663
84553674|NCT03569293|168860356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|56.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.7|30.9|<0.001
84553675|NCT03569293|168860357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.8|41.7|<0.001
84553676|NCT03569293|168860357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|58.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.3|32.0|<0.001
84553677|NCT03569293|168860358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|34.0|<0.001
84553678|NCT03569293|168860358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|48.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.6|23.2|<0.001
84553679|NCT03569293|168860359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|11.0|<0.001
84553680|NCT03569293|168860359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||16.4|2.5|0.008
84553681|NCT03569293|168860360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.9|2.1|0.015
84553682|NCT03569293|168860360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.9|-0.9|0.086
84553683|NCT03569293|168860361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|0.2|0.045
84492749|NCT00399542|168735615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.224
84605058|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 253||0.36|-0.19|
84605059|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 281||0.38|-0.12|
84492750|NCT00399542|168735616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.271|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.271
84492751|NCT00399542|168735617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.945
84553684|NCT03569293|168860361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|0.5|0.040
84553685|NCT03569293|168860362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.6|<0.001
84553686|NCT03569293|168860362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.7|<0.001
84553687|NCT03569293|168860363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|37.7|<0.001
84553688|NCT03569293|168860363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|18.1|<0.001
84553689|NCT03569293|168860364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.1|42.0|<0.001
84553690|NCT03569293|168860364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.1|16.9|<0.001
84553691|NCT03569293|168860365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|35.1|<0.001
84553692|NCT03569293|168860365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|18.8|<0.001
84605060|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 309||0.22|-0.27|
84492752|NCT00399542|168735618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.352
84492753|NCT00399542|168735619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.180
84744736|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .25
84553693|NCT03569293|168860366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.3|37.4|<0.001
84553694|NCT03569293|168860366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|56.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|19.8|<0.001
84553695|NCT03569293|168860367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|69.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.1|33.3|<0.001
84553696|NCT03569293|168860367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|8.0|0.006
84553697|NCT03569293|168860368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||42.5|19.9|<0.001
84553698|NCT03569293|168860368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.6|6.9|0.001
84605061|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 337||0.31|-0.37|
84744737|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
84744738|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .14
84492754|NCT00399542|168735620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.275
84492755|NCT00399542|168735621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.722
84492756|NCT00399542|168735622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.177
84492757|NCT00399542|168735623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.082|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.082
84492758|NCT00399542|168735624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.110
84492759|NCT00399542|168735625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.146
84492760|NCT00399542|168735626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.373
84492761|NCT00399542|168735627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.339
84492762|NCT00399542|168735628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.023
84492763|NCT00399542|168735629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.073
84492764|NCT00399542|168735630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for center||||||0.062
84492765|NCT00399542|168735631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.060
84492766|NCT00399542|168735632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.290
84492767|NCT00399542|168735633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.495
84492768|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.332||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|42.71||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||42.71|-31.05|0.6241
84492769|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.081||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|50.26||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||50.26|-26.52|0.7315
84492770|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.566||0.6212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|43.18||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||43.18|-31.65|0.6212
84492771|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.662||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|46.84||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||46.84|-36.44|0.5987
84492772|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.114||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|35.64||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||35.64|-37.28|0.4820
84744739|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .02
84492773|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.496||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|57.13||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||57.13|-17.33|0.8562
84492774|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|36.35||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||36.35|-37.46|0.4880
84492775|NCT00612456|168735634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.008||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|54.32||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||54.32|-26.38|0.7556
84492776|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.91|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.91|1.74|0.0015
84492777|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.57|-2.05|0.5921
84492778|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.988||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.07|-3.89|0.9646
84492779|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||7.19|2.32|0.0003
84492780|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.30|-1.02|0.2208
84492781|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.9847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.83|-3.90|0.9847
84492782|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.376||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|6.31|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.31|0.75|0.0142
84492783|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.71|-2.02|0.5547
84492784|NCT00612456|168735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287||0.9114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.88|-4.37|0.9114
84492785|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.53|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.53|-0.01|0.0534
84492786|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.64|-0.00|0.0508
84492787|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.83|-0.60|0.3141
84492788|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||0.62|-1.04|0.6018
84492789|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Statistics has been presented for least square means.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||2.00|-0.00|0.0509
84605062|NCT00989235|168961074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.55|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 365||0.55|-0.09|
84605063|NCT00989235|168961075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||18.0|-17.2|
84605064|NCT00989235|168961076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.2|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||3.2|-20.3|
84605065|NCT00989235|168961078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.69|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio determined by a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only covariate.|Through Month 12||1.69|0.45|
84605066|NCT00989235|168961079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.7|-12.9|
84553699|NCT03569293|168860369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-28.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.68|-56.16|<0.001
84553700|NCT03569293|168860369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-19.99|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-19.99|-47.76|<0.001
84605067|NCT00989235|168961080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|7.3|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||7.3|-22.6|
84605068|NCT00989235|168961081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|10.0|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.0|-31.1|
84605069|NCT03249935|168961092|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Assumptions were that 20% of enrolled chlamydia-infected males will have urethral symptoms and azithromycin treatment failures will occur in 10% of symptomatic men vs. 2% of asymptomatic men. At a one-sided 0.05 significance level with power of 0.80, a sample size of 357 evaluable males would be needed, or approximately 72 symptomatic and 285 asymptomatic males. Assuming 20% of males enrolled would be unevaluable, a total of 446 males was targeted for enrollment.|Given that the study closed early and there were only 4 treatment failures, formal hypothesis testing was not performed.|||
84669483|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553701|NCT03569293|168860370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.09|-31.58|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-31.58|-52.09|<0.001
84605070|NCT03249935|168961093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for age in years as a continuous variable in a logistic regression model predicting treatment failure at day 28||2.62|0.22|0.656
84605071|NCT03249935|168961093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|47.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for reporting at baseline new partners in the last 30 days (reference group=no new partners) from a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||47.89|0.45|0.197
84605072|NCT03249935|168961093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for Chlamydia viral load at baseline as a continuous variable in a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||1.01|0.45|0.058
84605073|NCT01394614|168961094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-rate difference|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference between the incidence rate of exposed-to-vaccine cases (0.52) and that of unexposed cases (0.11) is 0.41 per 100,000 persons-years|||||
84605074|NCT01394614|168961094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||||Risk of developing narcolepsy if exposed to H1N1 vaccination (using the 16-week post-vaccination period as reference).|||11.12|1.5|
84605075|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|Data was analyzed with multiple repeat ANOVA for all visits and paired samples were also evaluated.|||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-2||||<0.05
84605076|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-4||||0.035
84605077|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-8||||0.33
84605078|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-9||||0.68
84605079|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-17||||0.020
84669484|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8767|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8767
84669485|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744740|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .24
84605080|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FGF||||0.021
84744741|NCT03208036|169243089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .93
84744742|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .98
84744743|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
84492790|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||1.68|-0.70|0.3976
84492791|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.23|-0.32|0.2410
84492792|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||2.09|0.44|0.0032
84492793|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.75|-0.58|0.3185
84492794|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.37|-0.14|0.1074
84492795|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.65|0.04|0.0403
84492796|NCT00612456|168735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.88|-0.50|0.2490
84492797|NCT00808665|168735648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84492798|NCT03223649|168735659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.03|-.17|0.005
84492799|NCT03223649|168735660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.011||Unadjusted P-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.011|-.033|0.349
84492800|NCT03223649|168735661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.002|-.084|.045
84492801|NCT03223649|168735662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.013|-0.051|0.226
84492802|NCT03223649|168735663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.884|-4.716|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.716|-6.884|<0.001
84492803|NCT03223649|168735664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.130|-0.330|0.39
84492804|NCT03223649|168735665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.114|||ANCOVA|Dependent variable in Kcal log transformed, comparison adjusted for: age(y), lean mass(kg), fat mass(kg)||||0.114|-0.071|0.648
84492805|NCT03223649|168735666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.857|3.525|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||3.525|-1.857|0.539
84492806|NCT03223649|168735667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.45|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||2.45|-4.57|0.550
84492807|NCT03223649|168735668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.579|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||1.579|-1.127|0.741
84492808|NCT02347345|168735669|OTHER|Descriptive pilot study. Not relevant.||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.07
84492809|NCT02260791|168735687|EQUIVALENCE|-12% to +15% equivalence margin using 90% CI around the difference in ACR20 response rate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|3.6||||||The difference and its 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for primary endpoint between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 90% CI fell entirely between pre-specified equivalence margin (-12% to +15%), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||3.6|-7.3|
84492810|NCT02260791|168735688|EQUIVALENCE|If the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira fell entirely between -0.6 and +0.6 then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.|Difference in least square mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||||||The secondary hypothesis involved equivalence of the difference between FKB327 and Humira in DAS28-CRP at Week 24. Based on the repeated measures analysis model, the difference and its 95% CI in the least-squares means (LSMs) for DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 95% CI fell entirely between the pre-specified margin (+/- 0.6), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||0.18|-0.16|
84492811|NCT02924129|168735703|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||Significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
84492812|NCT02924129|168735704|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|20.4||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.4|-2.4|<0.001
84492813|NCT02924129|168735705|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|26.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|2.9|<0.001
84492814|NCT02924129|168735706|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%||||||0.002||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||0.002
84744744|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .08
84553702|NCT03569293|168860370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.17|-27.52|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.52|-48.17|<0.001
84553703|NCT03569293|168860371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|40.3|<0.001
84553704|NCT03569293|168860371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|34.8|<0.001
84553705|NCT03569293|168860372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|69.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.2|21.0|<0.001
84553706|NCT03569293|168860372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|72.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.5|26.7|<0.001
84553707|NCT03569293|168860373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.54|-28.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.31|-49.54|<0.001
84553708|NCT03569293|168860373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-43.44|<0.001
84553709|NCT03569293|168860374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.8|31.7|<0.001
84553710|NCT03569293|168860374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.8|26.7|<0.001
84605081|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Eotaxin||||0.02
84669486|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3673|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3673
84744745|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .06
84492815|NCT02924129|168735707|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
84605082|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GM-CSF||||0.045
84744746|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .28
84744747|NCT03208036|169243090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .23
84492816|NCT02924129|168735708|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
84492817|NCT02924129|168735709|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||23.3|-1.8|<0.001
84492818|NCT02924129|168735710|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.3|2.5|<0.001
84492819|NCT02924129|168735711|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001|||||||normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
84492820|NCT02924129|168735712|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
84492821|NCT03137173|168735756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||||||||7.8|-1.2|
84492822|NCT03137173|168735757|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-3.5|
84492823|NCT03137173|168735758|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin plus aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the CE populations. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.6||||||||5.6|-0.3|
84492824|NCT00842829|168735759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the 90% CI was \<8%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4|||||The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval is equivalent to the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval.|Treatment comparison difference (100 mcg - 200 mcg)||1.4||
84492825|NCT04047342|168735783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.72|.828
84553711|NCT03569293|168860375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.0|7.3|0.006
84553712|NCT03569293|168860375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.2|-2.6|0.093
84553713|NCT00478699|168860414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.298|||Log Rank|||Based on the relevant clinical evidence of the prognostic and predictive value of BRCA1, proposes the present study with which it is intended to demonstrate that adjuvant chemotherapy Individualized based on BRCA1 expression (Experimental arm), it is more effective than chemotherapy without individualize based (Control arm) in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC.||1.298|0.689|0.73
84553714|NCT00478699|168860415|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|79.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|95.1|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||95.1|63.5|0.753
84553715|NCT00478699|168860415|SUPERIORITY|The initial hyphotesis were the disease free survival were longest under 65 vs upper 65.|Median Difference (Final Values)|38.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|38.7|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||38.7|28|0.025
84553716|NCT01005888|168860416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Observed number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84553717|NCT01005888|168860416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Normalized number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84553718|NCT01005888|168860417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 1.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84605083|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL15||||0.47
84669487|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
84669488|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0273
84553719|NCT01005888|168860417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 2.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84553720|NCT01005888|168860418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
84553721|NCT01005888|168860419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84553722|NCT01005888|168860420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553723|NCT01005888|168860421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553724|NCT01005888|168860422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553725|NCT01005888|168860422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553726|NCT01005888|168860422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84553727|NCT01005888|168860422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0||||Week 12 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0028
84553728|NCT01005888|168860423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553729|NCT01005888|168860423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553730|NCT01005888|168860423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84553731|NCT01005888|168860423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Week 12 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84553732|NCT01043705|168860424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sided Fisher's exact test.|0.0044||||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009|||Fisher Exact|||||0.009||0.0023
84669489|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669490|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9091
84669491|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84553733|NCT01043705|168860424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Text|0.002||||0.0052|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Fisher Exact|||||0.01||0.0052
84605084|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-1a||||0.90
84605085|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL18||||0.80
84605086|NCT01669421|168961095|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||M-CSF||||0.027
84605087|NCT01669421|168961096|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||No power calculation and this is an exploratory pilot analysis We expected cytokines to decrease after subjects receive double dose and a rebound after administering standard dose.||||0.07
84492826|NCT00280059|168735785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin for the proportion of seizure free participants set at 10%; non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in seizure-free proportion between pregabalin and lamotrigine was no more than 10% in favor of lamotrigine, but 0 was contained within the lower bound of the CI. Interpretation of superiority required lower bound of CI did not contain 0 in favor of pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Gart and Nam: correction of skewness||95% confidence interval for the true difference in proportions, as well as a one-sided test at α=0.025; confidence interval adjusted for centers clustered within a geographical region, with upper and lower confidence limits.|Analysis of the binary response variable for 6 consecutive months seizure freedom analyzed by comparing the proportions of favorable responders between the two treatment groups after stratifying by clusters and correcting for skewness (Gart and Nam, 1990). Percentage can be obtained by multiplying proportion by 100.||-0.09|-0.24|
84492827|NCT00280059|168735786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for geographic regions.|Regression, Cox|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \> 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||0.90|0.60|0.0034
84553734|NCT01043705|168860424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Test|0.006||||0.0176|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014||0.0176
84553735|NCT01043705|168860424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's Exact Test|0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3764
84553736|NCT01043705|168860425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to performance goal|4.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.8|||1-sided Chi-square|||||5.8|3.3|0.0005
84553737|NCT01043705|168860425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to a performance goal|3.1||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.1|||1-sided Chi-square test|||||5.1|1.7|0.0444
84553738|NCT01043705|168860425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate compared to performance goal|5.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.4|||1-sided Chi-squared test|||All types of mechanical complications combined.||5.4|3.8|0.0006
84553739|NCT01043705|168860425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Descriptive|5.4||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.5|||Chi-squared|||All mechanical complications, retrospective, non-TYRX cohort||7.5|3.7|0.0745
84553740|NCT02003963|168860429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84553741|NCT01260272|168860465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.033
84553742|NCT01260272|168860466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0468||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0468
84553743|NCT01260272|168860467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2114||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2114
84553744|NCT01260272|168860468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1727||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1727
84553745|NCT01260272|168860469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7498||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7498
84553746|NCT01260272|168860470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2615||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2615
84553747|NCT01260272|168860471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6915||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6915
84553748|NCT01260272|168860472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1060
84553749|NCT01323010|168860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
84553750|NCT01323010|168860475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
84553751|NCT01323010|168860476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non parametric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.150
84553752|NCT01323010|168860477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84553753|NCT01323010|168860478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
84553754|NCT01323010|168860480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.122
84553755|NCT01323010|168860482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non paramteric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.164
84553756|NCT01323010|168860483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.165
84553757|NCT01323010|168860484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
84553758|NCT01323010|168860485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
84553759|NCT01323010|168860486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.723
84553760|NCT01323010|168860487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.235
84553761|NCT01323010|168860488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.284
84553762|NCT01323010|168860489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.905
84553763|NCT01323010|168860492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.892
84553764|NCT01323010|168860493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.195
84553765|NCT01323010|168860494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.203
84553766|NCT01323010|168860495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84553767|NCT05174949|168860496|SUPERIORITY|We performed a linear regression analysis (generalized estimating equations) in which we compared both intervention groups to the sham group and added a time interaction term|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||Anode compared to sham: p = 0.0516 Cathode compared to sham: p \<.0001 . Anode change over time compared to sham p=0.0255 Cathode change over time compared to sham p\<.0001|Generalized Estimating Equations||Anode mean change = 4.13 std = 4.29 CLM = 0.5-7.7 Cathode mean change = 5.38 std = 3.58 CLM=2.4-8.4|We will report first anode compared to sham and then cathode compared to sham||8.4|2.4|<0.0001
84553768|NCT05174949|168860497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.2||anode compared to sham p= 0.0020 cathode compared to sham p = 0.0088 anode over time anode compared to sham p \<.0001 Cathode over time compared to sham p \<.0001|Regression, Cox||anode -24.2 (-32.2, -16.2) cathode -22.2 (-30.6, -13.8)|We compared anode to sham We compared cathode to sham We compared the change over time of anode to sham We compared the change over time of cathode to shal||-16.2|-32.2|0.0020
84492828|NCT00280059|168735787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.74||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.74|0.65|0.8047
84553769|NCT05174949|168860498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Compare anode to sham p= 0.0001 Compare cathode to sham p=0.1073 Compare anode change in time to sham p=0.0938 Compare cathode change in time to sham 0.0068|Regression, Linear|Using generalized estimating equations with group and time component|Anode = 0.077 (0.00, 0.10) Cathode = -.0.125 (-0.32 0.07 )|e compare anode to sham We compare cathode to sham||0.10|0.00|0.0001
84553770|NCT04601103|168860521|OTHER|Generalized Fisher's Exact Test was used to detect an association between the 3 treatment groups and the incidence of sloughing||||||0.916|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.916
84553771|NCT01203826|168860546|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|P-value based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-006-09 (NCT00952484). The RGI-C score represents evaluations of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint in Study ENB-008-10 compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-006-09, using an ordinal scale. Therefore, no Baseline data for RGI-C are available.||||0.0005
84553772|NCT01537068|168860552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of Within-subjects effects|2.95||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures of ANOVA||||||0.09
84553773|NCT01537068|168860554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared|6.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84553774|NCT04442269|168860570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.201||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0768|0.3256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3256|0.0768|0.0022
84553775|NCT03559868|168860589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Ordinary one-way ANOVA Bartlett's test||For IL10||||<0.01
84553776|NCT05870956|168860624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|932.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1880.17|3745.94|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||3745.94|-1880.17|0.516
84553777|NCT05870956|168860624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4902.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|767.6|9036.43|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||9036.43|767.60|0.020
84553778|NCT05870956|168860624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2727.38||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|323.48|5131.27|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5131.27|323.48|0.026
84553779|NCT05870956|168860624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5462.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2520.93|8403.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8403.90|2520.93|0.000
84553780|NCT05870956|168860625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-303.94||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1074.77|466.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||466.90|-1074.77|0.439
84553781|NCT05870956|168860625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2772.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|422.1|5122.02|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5122.02|422.10|0.021
84553782|NCT05870956|168860625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|456.79||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-458.64|1372.21|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||1372.21|-458.64|0.328
84553783|NCT05870956|168860625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|620.87||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.77|2013.51|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||2013.51|-771.77|0.382
84553784|NCT05870956|168860626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.9|-4.0|0.463
84553785|NCT05870956|168860626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||16.8|2.5|0.008
84553786|NCT05870956|168860626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.3|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||15.3|2.8|0.005
84553787|NCT05870956|168860626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.7|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||11.7|1.1|0.019
84553788|NCT05870956|168860627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.5|-4.3|0.801
84553789|NCT05870956|168860627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||14.8|2.7|0.005
84553790|NCT05870956|168860627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.2|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.2|-1.4|0.170
84553791|NCT05870956|168860627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.4|-2.6|0.489
84553792|NCT00347919|168860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.7||||0.3724||90.0|-11.0|16.3|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of independently-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||16.3|-11.0|0.3724
84553793|NCT00347919|168860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.4||||0.2578||90.0|-8.4|19.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of investigator-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||19.2|-8.4|0.2578
84605088|NCT01669421|168961098|OTHER|between Week 4 and Week 8||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desmosine (DES) and isodesmosine (IDES) are used as indicator of elastin degradation. Levels of DES/IDES were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry.||||0.03
84605089|NCT01669421|168961098|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between Week 8 and Week 12||||0.33
84605090|NCT01669421|168961098|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||between Week 4 and Week 12||||0.029
84605091|NCT01149486|168961099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|108.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.88|80.20|
84605092|NCT01149486|168961100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.18|93.15|
84605093|NCT01149486|168961101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.12|93.10|
84605094|NCT01149486|168961102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.47|122.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122.79|101.47|
84553794|NCT00347919|168860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7488
84553795|NCT04017832|168860653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.1|-0.3|0.0078
84553796|NCT04017832|168860653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.6|-0.8|<0.0001
84608442|NCT01345682|168967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.990|0.717|0.494
84608443|NCT01345682|168967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.950|0.687|0.584
84492829|NCT00280059|168735788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.60|0.88|0.2537
84608444|NCT01345682|168967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.705|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.705|0.657|0.816
84553797|NCT04017832|168860653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
84553798|NCT00794040|168860719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|68.16||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||68.16|2.00|0.006
84553799|NCT00794040|168860720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.09||priori threshold \<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||0.09|-1.32|0.085
84553800|NCT00794040|168860721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.74||priori threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.74|-1.30|0.124
84553801|NCT00794040|168860722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.8||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||4.80|-4.76|0.993
84553802|NCT00794040|168860723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.19||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||2.19|-4.23|0.598
84553803|NCT00915876|168860732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84553804|NCT04545567|168860740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84492830|NCT00280059|168735789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.52||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|22.04||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||22.04|1.93|0.0025
84492831|NCT00280059|168735790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.91||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.91|0.97|0.0744
84492832|NCT00280059|168735791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.8||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.80|1.19|0.0003
84492833|NCT00280059|168735801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.4|0.3|0.0025
84492834|NCT00280059|168735801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.1|0.1|0.0186
84492835|NCT00280059|168735802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.93|0.98|0.0683
84492836|NCT00280059|168735802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.66|0.78|0.5096
84553805|NCT04545567|168860741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84553806|NCT04545567|168860742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84492837|NCT00280059|168735802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56 (termination): dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.63|0.73|0.6804
84492838|NCT02127931|168735807|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-I||||0.005
84492839|NCT02127931|168735807|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-C||||0.023
84492840|NCT02127931|168735808|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Correlation|||||||0.013
84492841|NCT00951912|168735832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6569|5.0607|||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There are no difference in the difference of changes in plasma glucose.~Power calculation: The sample size of 55 subjects per group provided about 90% power to detect a significant change in the FG concentration of 8 mg/dL (7%) by using a general assumption of a 2-tailed a level of 0.05 and allowing for a 20% withdrawal rate."||5.0607|-6.6569|<0.05
84492842|NCT00951912|168735832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7486|8.9171|||ANOVA|||||8.9171|-2.7486|<0.05
84492843|NCT00951912|168735832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9234|9.6881|||ANOVA|||||9.6881|-1.9234|<0.05
84492844|NCT00951912|168735833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9308|8.3916|||ANOVA|||||8.3916|-11.9308|<0.05
84553807|NCT04545567|168860743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84553808|NCT04545567|168860744|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84669492|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7718
84553809|NCT04545567|168860745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84553810|NCT04545567|168860746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84553811|NCT04545567|168860747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84553812|NCT04545567|168860748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84553813|NCT04545567|168860749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84553814|NCT04545567|168860750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84553815|NCT04545567|168860751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84553816|NCT04545567|168860752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84553817|NCT04545567|168860753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84553818|NCT04545567|168860754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84553819|NCT04545567|168860755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84744748|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.157||0.083||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.083
84744749|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.436||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.436
84492845|NCT00951912|168735833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1818|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4232|10.8091|||ANOVA|||||10.8091|-9.4232|<0.05
84553820|NCT04545567|168860756|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84553821|NCT04545567|168860757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84553822|NCT04545567|168860758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84553823|NCT04545567|168860759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84553824|NCT03979807|168860760|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.17|||||Cox proportional hazard model. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios. Umeclidinium/Vilanterol is Reference Group.|||1.17|1.06|
84553825|NCT02419612|168860767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline HbA1c, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction.||||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
84553826|NCT02419612|168860768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline body weight, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline body weight-by-visit interaction.||||-3.28|-4.84|<0.001
84553827|NCT02419612|168860769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.044||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value||||2.29|1.01|0.044
84553828|NCT02419612|168860770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline SBP, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline SBP-by-visit interaction||||-1.0|-6.3|0.007
84553829|NCT02419612|168860771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5||This endpoint did not meet the required number of events (n=10) in each treatment arm, hence was excluded from sequential testing.|Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.50|0.04|0.002
84553830|NCT02419612|168860772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.68|0.39|<0.001
84605095|NCT01149486|168961103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|112.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.41|99.58|
84744750|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.306||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.306
84553831|NCT02419612|168860773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value.||||3.42|1.23|0.006
84744751|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.809
84553832|NCT02419612|168860774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||||0.68|0.39|<0.001
84553833|NCT02417961|168860839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|98.2||||||95.0|93.81|99.79|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12)|||99.79|93.81|
84553834|NCT02417961|168860839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
84553835|NCT02417961|168860839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.64|96.92|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.92|86.64|
84553836|NCT02417961|168860840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.21|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 12)|||99.98|95.21|
84553837|NCT02417961|168860840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
84553838|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.13|0.00|
84553839|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.67|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.67|0.02|
84553840|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.16|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||3.16|0.00|
84553841|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||3.13|0.00|
84553842|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||3.33|0|
84553843|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.59|0.01|
84553844|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||1.63|0.00|
84605096|NCT01149486|168961104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|111.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.82|99.64|
84605097|NCT01149486|168961105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.96|115.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||115.23|98.96|
84605098|NCT01149486|168961106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.14|98.75|
84605099|NCT01149486|168961107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.72|106.01|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.01|98.72|
84605100|NCT02042534|168961166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6765
84605101|NCT02042534|168961167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
84605102|NCT02042534|168961168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<.0001
84605103|NCT02042534|168961169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3301
84605104|NCT02133664|168961175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||With the initial sample size plan of 53 subjects, we expect an 80% power to detect a significant difference in PASAT score with a mean difference of 8.3 points between the treatment and placebo group.||4.32|-2.03|0.05
84553845|NCT02417961|168860841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.97|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||0.97|0.00|
84744752|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.177||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.016
84744753|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.308||0.708||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.708
84744754|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.050.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.809
84492846|NCT00951912|168735833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1624|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6067|12.5318|||ANOVA|||||12.5318|-7.6067|<0.05
84553846|NCT03036098|168860865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.97|0.64|0.0032
84553847|NCT03036098|168860872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.88|0.59|0.0018
84553848|NCT03036098|168860873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.96|0.63|0.0171
84553849|NCT01632904|168860877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04|||Chi-squared|||||4.04|0.82|0.139
84553850|NCT04769466|168860883|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.020
84553851|NCT04769466|168860884|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.223
84553852|NCT04769466|168860885|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test||||0.036
84553853|NCT04769466|168860886|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.131
84553854|NCT04769466|168860887|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.351
84553855|NCT04769466|168860888|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
84553856|NCT04769466|168860889|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.400
84553857|NCT04769466|168860891|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84553858|NCT04769466|168860893|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.459
84553859|NCT04769466|168860894|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.033
84553860|NCT04769466|168860895|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.103
84553861|NCT04769466|168860896|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
84553862|NCT04769466|168860897|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.214
84553863|NCT04769466|168860898|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
84553864|NCT04769466|168860901|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84553865|NCT04769466|168860902|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84553866|NCT04542499|168860907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
84553867|NCT04542499|168860908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
84553868|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.139||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.139|-0.600|0.2216
84553869|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.515||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.515|-0.316|0.6379
84553870|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.042||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||1.042|0.122|0.0132
84553871|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.821||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||0.821|-0.106|0.1299
84553872|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|1.202||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||1.202|0.194|0.0068
84553873|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.469||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||1.469|0.469|0.0002
84605105|NCT00300482|168961191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84744755|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.154
84744756|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.960
84744757|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.937
84553874|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.389||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||1.389|0.369|0.0008
84605106|NCT00300482|168961191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84744758|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.897||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.897
84744759|NCT00760474|169243111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.309||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.309
84744760|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.032||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1081|0.1714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Anterior Cingulate||0.1714|-0.1081|0.6347
84744761|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.079||||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3356|0.1771||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA22||0.1771|-0.3356|0.5181
84553875|NCT04542499|168860909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
84553876|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.461||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.461|-0.245|0.5471
84553877|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.166||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.166|-0.640|0.2488
84605107|NCT00300482|168961192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84605108|NCT00300482|168961192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84605109|NCT00300482|168961193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84605110|NCT00300482|168961193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84605111|NCT02370095|168961207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only one placebo subject had data to allow for change from baseline to be calculated||||0.2416
84605112|NCT02370095|168961208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The change in S/F ratio over time was evaluated using a mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.06
84605113|NCT02370095|168961209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0679
84605114|NCT02370095|168961214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Measurement of MAP were evaluated from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.567
84605115|NCT02370095|168961215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2507
84605116|NCT02370095|168961217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5055
84605117|NCT02130986|168961227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84605118|NCT02130986|168961228|NON_INFERIORITY|Procalcitonin algorithm implementation increases or does not change the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30. The prespecified noninferiority margin is 4.5 percentage.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84605119|NCT02130986|168961229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|30.0||||||||30|-12.2|
84605120|NCT02305849|168961232|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|47.0||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.0|26.7|<0.001
84605121|NCT02305849|168961232|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|52.6||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.6|<0.001
84605122|NCT02305849|168961233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA) Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84605123|NCT02305849|168961233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84605124|NCT02305849|168961235|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|30.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||30.7|13.8|<0.001
84605125|NCT02305849|168961235|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|47.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.3|29.3|<0.001
84605126|NCT02305849|168961237|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||15.6|3.8|<0.001
84605127|NCT02305849|168961237|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.5|13.9|<0.001
84605128|NCT02305849|168961239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84605129|NCT02305849|168961239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84605130|NCT02305849|168961240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.018
84605131|NCT02305849|168961240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.002
84605132|NCT02305849|168961240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.039
84605133|NCT02305849|168961240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.006
84492847|NCT00951912|168735834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45967|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5428|3.5194|||ANOVA|||||3.5194|-3.5428|<0.05
84492848|NCT00951912|168735834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4532|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.202|0.8288|||ANOVA|||||0.8288|-6.2020|<0.05
84492849|NCT00951912|168735834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44646|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.174|0.8243|||ANOVA|||||0.8243|-6.174|<0.05
84605134|NCT02305849|168961241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.036
84553878|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.252|-0.384||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||-0.384|-1.252|0.0002
84553879|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|-0.307||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||-0.307|-1.199|0.0010
84553880|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.405||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||-0.405|-1.403|0.0004
84553881|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.528|-0.52||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||-0.520|-1.528|<0.0001
84553882|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.493|-0.465||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||-0.465|-1.493|0.0002
84553883|NCT04542499|168860910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
84553884|NCT04542499|168860911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I||1.2|-0.4|0.3265
84553885|NCT04542499|168860911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II||-0.2|-2.2|0.0203
84553886|NCT04542499|168860911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III||-0.5|-4.3|0.0118
84605135|NCT02305849|168961241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84553887|NCT04281784|168860951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0421||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0777||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Occurrence of discussion regressed on randomization condition, adjusted for ADRD status, hospital, and time between study start \& randomization date.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.0777|0.0047|0.027
84744762|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.072||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2161|0.0714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA40||0.0714|-0.2161|0.2987
84744763|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.029||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.1219||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_anIns||0.1219|-0.0640|0.5151
84553888|NCT04281784|168860953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.404|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of ICU) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.404|-0.560|0.750
84553889|NCT04281784|168860954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.338|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of hospital) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.338|-1.060|0.312
84553890|NCT04281784|168860955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.043||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Readmission (0, 1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.043|-0.020|0.475
84553891|NCT04281784|168860956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.009||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.025||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|ICU care (0,1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.025|-0.043|0.610
84605136|NCT02305849|168961241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.013
84605137|NCT02305849|168961241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
84605138|NCT02305849|168961242|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.6|10.0|<0.001
84605139|NCT02305849|168961242|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|37.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.9|15.7|<0.001
84605140|NCT02305849|168961242|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.9|10.2|<0.001
84605141|NCT02305849|168961242|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|37.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.6|15.2|<0.001
84605142|NCT02305849|168961243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.97||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.97|-1.46|<0.001
84605143|NCT02305849|168961243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.33||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.33|-1.85|<0.001
84605144|NCT02305849|168961245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.94||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.94|-1.44|<0.001
84605145|NCT02305849|168961245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.36|-1.89|<0.001
84605146|NCT02305849|168961247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-6.9|-3.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.5|-6.9|<0.001
84605147|NCT02305849|168961247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
84605148|NCT02305849|168961249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.6|-5.3|<0.001
84605149|NCT02305849|168961249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.3|-6.9|<0.001
84605150|NCT02305849|168961251|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.3|15.1|<0.001
84605151|NCT02305849|168961251|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||36.2|18.6|<0.001
84605152|NCT02305849|168961253|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||16.5|4.3|<0.001
84605153|NCT02305849|168961253|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||23.9|10.0|<0.001
84605154|NCT02305849|168961255|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||44.2|25.1|<0.001
84605155|NCT02305849|168961255|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|55.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||55.0|36.0|<0.001
84744764|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2228|0.0599||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Amygdala||0.0599|-0.2228|0.2369
84605156|NCT02305849|168961257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.1|12.5|<0.001
84605157|NCT02305849|168961257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||40.0|23.1|<0.001
84605158|NCT02305849|168961259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-1.247||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.247|-1.948|<0.001
84605159|NCT02305849|168961259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.852|-1.065||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.065|-1.852|<0.001
84605160|NCT02305849|168961261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|-14.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.17|-21.61|<0.001
84605161|NCT02305849|168961261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-16.56||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.56|-24.67|<0.001
84492850|NCT00951912|168735835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14977|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5857|4.6535|||ANOVA|||||4.6535|-10.5857|<0.05
84492851|NCT00951912|168735835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13581|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.583|6.5886|||ANOVA|||||6.5886|-8.5830|<0.05
84492852|NCT00951912|168735835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.9689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12126|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5817|9.5195|||ANOVA|||||9.5195|-5.5817|<0.05
84492853|NCT00951912|168735836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Rank|1.442|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84492854|NCT00951912|168735837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|1.895|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84492855|NCT00951912|168735838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|2.169|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84492856|NCT00951912|168735839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9113|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.444|15.318|||ANOVA|||||15.318|-8.444|<0.05
84492857|NCT00951912|168735839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8896|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3475|15.3092|||ANOVA|||||15.3092|-8.3475|<0.05
84492858|NCT00951912|168735839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8669|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7296|11.8174|||ANOVA|||||11.8174|-11.7296|<0.05
84492859|NCT00951912|168735840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean ranks|1.031|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84492860|NCT00951912|168735841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2343|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0057|9.6426|||ANOVA|||||9.6426|-6.0057|<0.05
84492861|NCT00951912|168735841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7619|8.817|||ANOVA|||||8.8170|-6.7619|<0.05
84492862|NCT00951912|168735841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5442|6.9624|||ANOVA|||||6.9624|-8.5442|<0.05
84492863|NCT00951912|168735842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1686|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0721|12.0964|||ANOVA|||||12.0964|-8.0721|<0.05
84492864|NCT00951912|168735842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8111|9.2679|||ANOVA|||||9.2679|-10.8111|<0.05
84492865|NCT00951912|168735842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1309|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7767|7.2092|||ANOVA|||||7.2092|-12.7767|<0.05
84492866|NCT00951912|168735843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6416|-0.2458|||ANOVA|||||-0.2458|-0.6416|<0.05
84492867|NCT00951912|168735843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09986|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3956|-0.0016|||ANOVA|||||-0.0016|-0.3956|<0.05
84492868|NCT00951912|168735843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09648|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0544|0.4358|||ANOVA|||||0.4358|0.0544|<0.05
84492869|NCT00951912|168735844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8617|-0.4089|||ANOVA|||||-0.4089|-0.8617|<0.05
84492870|NCT00951912|168735844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1156||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2003|0.2568|||ANOVA|||||0.2568|-0.2003|0.05
84492871|NCT00951912|168735844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4419|0.8851|||ANOVA|||||0.8851|0.4419|<0.05
84492872|NCT00951912|168735845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.05||95.0|-0.3911|0.0796|||ANOVA|||||0.0796|-0.3911|<0.05
84492873|NCT00951912|168735845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8414|-0.3707|||ANOVA|||||-0.3707|-0.8414|0.05
84492874|NCT00951912|168735845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1163|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6804|-0.2202|||ANOVA|||||-0.2202|-0.6804|<0.05
84492875|NCT00951912|168735846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.3|304.1|||ANOVA|||||304.1|-99.3|<0.05
84492876|NCT00951912|168735846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.6||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.7|196.1|||ANOVA|||||196.1|-203.7|0.05
84492877|NCT00951912|168735846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.1|92.8|||ANOVA|||||92.8|-305.1|<0.05
84492878|NCT01377194|168735859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.303||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.457|-1.148|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-1.148|-5.457|0.0027
84492879|NCT01377194|168735859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.141||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-0.988|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-0.988|-5.293|0.0043
84492880|NCT01377194|168735860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.827||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.033|-3.620|0.0459
84492881|NCT01377194|168735860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.72||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.494|-0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.946|-4.494|0.0028
84492882|NCT01728454|168735861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.0360
84492883|NCT01728454|168735861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1087
84492884|NCT01728454|168735861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2263
84492885|NCT01728454|168735861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5375
84492886|NCT01728454|168735862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
84553892|NCT04281784|168860957|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.135|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.135|-0.092|0.710
84492887|NCT01728454|168735862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
84492888|NCT01728454|168735862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
84492889|NCT01728454|168735862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
84492890|NCT01728454|168735863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7508|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7508
84492891|NCT01728454|168735863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5507
84492892|NCT01728454|168735863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3993|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3993
84492893|NCT01728454|168735863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5821|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5821
84492894|NCT01728454|168735864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.7507
84492895|NCT01728454|168735864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8919|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.8919
84553893|NCT04281784|168860958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.899||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|2.249||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Died within 30 days after randomization regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust standard error|Usual care=reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||2.249|-1.275|0.588
84744765|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.077||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1642|0.0092||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Cerebellum||0.0092|-0.1642|0.0758
84553894|NCT04281784|168860959|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.107|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.107|-0.162|0.685
84553895|NCT04488497|168860971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84553896|NCT04488497|168860972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84553897|NCT04488497|168860973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84553898|NCT04488497|168860974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84553899|NCT04488497|168860975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84605162|NCT02305849|168961263|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|42.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||42.2|23.7|<0.001
84744766|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.025||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0947|0.0452||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_DLPFC||0.0452|-0.0947|0.4609
84744767|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.111||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3745|0.1524||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Insula||0.1524|-0.3745|0.3813
84553900|NCT04488497|168860976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84553901|NCT04488497|168860977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84553902|NCT02111746|168860978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.934
84553903|NCT02111746|168860979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84553904|NCT02111746|168860980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84553905|NCT02111746|168860981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
84553906|NCT02111746|168860982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
84553907|NCT02111746|168860983|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84553908|NCT02111746|168860984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
84553909|NCT02111746|168860985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
84553910|NCT02111746|168860986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
84553911|NCT01152359|168861075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-0.8|<0.05
84553912|NCT01152359|168861076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-4.9|0.66
84553913|NCT01152359|168861077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.1|0.65
84553914|NCT01210495|168861171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.274||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib; hazard ratio greater than (\>) 1 indicated reduction to favor Placebo.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true median OS was 5 months vs. the alternative hypothesis that the true median OS was at least 8.3 months (i.e., 66 percent \[%\] improvement in median OS).||1.274|0.646|0.2872
84492896|NCT01728454|168735865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.4780
84492897|NCT01728454|168735865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2354|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2354
84492898|NCT01728454|168735866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
84492899|NCT01728454|168735866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1636|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1636
84492900|NCT01728454|168735867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
84492901|NCT01728454|168735867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0733
84492902|NCT01728454|168735868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1253
84492903|NCT01728454|168735868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.3442
84492904|NCT01728454|168735869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0303
84492905|NCT01728454|168735869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2864
84492906|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4365
84492907|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.1302
84492908|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3591|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.3591
84492909|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.0872
84744768|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.02||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.1361||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.1361|-0.0964|0.7200
84492910|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4814|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4814
84492911|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.9162
84553915|NCT01210495|168861172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.871||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.871|0.438|0.0039
84553916|NCT01210495|168861173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.172||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|13.265||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with a significance level of 0.025 using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk ratio and confidence interval (CI) were based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||13.265|0.759|0.0914
84553917|NCT01210495|168861174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.889||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.889|0.434|0.006
84553918|NCT01210495|168861176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.65||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.319|5.326||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Ratio and CI based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||5.326|1.319|0.0025
84553919|NCT01210495|168861185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.89||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-5.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.08|-18.70|0.0006
84553920|NCT01210495|168861186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-2.94||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.94|-12.27|0.0014
84553921|NCT01210495|168861187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.78||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.78|-4.76|<0.0001
84553922|NCT01210495|168861188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G PWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.21|-5.26|<0.0001
84553923|NCT01210495|168861188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.52||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G SWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.52|-3.07|0.1642
84553924|NCT01210495|168861188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.84||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G EWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.84|-1.80|0.4759
84553925|NCT01210495|168861188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G FWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.21|-3.92|0.0288
84492912|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.6607
84553926|NCT01210495|168861189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.99||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.99|-7.93|0.0011
84605163|NCT02305849|168961263|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||54.8|36.2|<0.001
84605164|NCT02305849|168961265|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.5|32.3|<0.001
84744769|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.168||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.4434||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Orbito Front||0.4434|-0.1065|0.2099
84744770|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.003||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1047|0.0992||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||PAG||0.0992|-0.1047|0.9551
84492913|NCT01728454|168735870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.9527
84492914|NCT01728454|168735871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.2812
84492915|NCT01728454|168735871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.5858
84492916|NCT01728454|168735871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4116
84492917|NCT01728454|168735871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4252|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4252
84492918|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6131
84492919|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7881
84553927|NCT01210495|168861190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.42||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.42|-15.49|<0.0001
84553928|NCT01210495|168861191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.252||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.698||The p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test.|1-sided, unstratified log-rank test||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicates reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib, hazard ratio \>1 indicates reduction to favor Placebo.|||1.698|0.923|0.9182
84605165|NCT02305849|168961265|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|58.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||58.9|39.7|<0.001
84553929|NCT01210495|168861192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.04|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.20|0.0024
84553930|NCT01210495|168861193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-1.15|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.15|-12.91|0.0193
84605166|NCT02305849|168961267|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.3|||Fisher Exact|No multiplicity adjustment.|CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.3|12.1|<0.001
84669493|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669494|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
84669495|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669496|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2720
84669497|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669498|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4767
84669499|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0553|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0553
84669500|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0632
84669501|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84492920|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.9376
84492921|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6552
84492922|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7143
84492923|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2985|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2985
84492924|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3162
84492925|NCT01728454|168735872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7503
84492926|NCT00387621|168735873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|With Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
84553931|NCT00640653|168861208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.96||The significance criterion was set at alpha = .05.|generalized linear regression|Log link was specified|Treatment was coded as 1 vs health control coded as 0.|With alpha = .05, 2-tailed, and 37.4% of the control group initiating sexual intercourse by 24-month follow-up, a total sample size of 563 participants completing the trial was projected to provide power of 80% to detect a difference of 16.8% in self-reported sexual intercourse between an HIV intervention condition and the health promotion control condition.||0.96|0.48|.03
84553932|NCT02961062|168861215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.54|-4.71|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-4.71|-17.54|0.005
84744771|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0855|0.0848||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Posterior Insula||0.0848|-0.0855|0.9940
84744772|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.049||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1792|0.0806||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0806|-0.1792|0.4291
84744773|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.027||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0496|0.1028||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Precuneus||0.1028|-0.0496|0.4670
84492927|NCT00387621|168735874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||rank-sum test|Rank-sum test was used due to non-normality of data with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
84492928|NCT02545504|168735907|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.18||The significance level at final analysis is 0.046 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|Hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site with treatment arm as the only covariate.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint.||1.18|0.74|0.5625
84492929|NCT02545504|168735908|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region and primary tumor site.|HR was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region;primary tumor site with treatment arm as a covariate.Stratum with \<6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. PFS was tested only if OS was significant. The P-value is for display only.||1.04|0.67|0.1031
84492930|NCT02545504|168735909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.15||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|OR was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site. Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.The P-value is for display only.||2.15|1.00|0.0493
84744774|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.044||||0.4443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0752|0.1624||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Putamen||0.1624|-0.0752|0.4443
84744775|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.127||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3704|0.1165||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_S2||0.1165|-0.3704|0.2823
84744776|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.105||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0378||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_DLPFC||0.0378|-0.2481|0.1369
84744777|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.078||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0573|0.2127||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_anIns||0.2127|-0.0573|0.2376
84744778|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.153||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3365|0.0313||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Amygdala||0.0313|-0.3365|0.0968
84553933|NCT02961062|168861216|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.29|-2.83|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-2.83|-14.29|0.017
84553934|NCT02938949|168861225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84553935|NCT02938949|168861226|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.20
84553936|NCT02938949|168861227|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.20
84553937|NCT00628095|168861235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0221||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.13|||Normal Approximation method|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Power of 80% and a Type I error at 0.10 in a 1-sided test was calculated. Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the CE-224,535 and placebo arm groups, on the percentage of ACR 20 responders at Week 12.|Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.13|-0.17|0.591
84553938|NCT00628095|168861236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.1232||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|-0.02|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||-0.02|-0.22|0.941
84553939|NCT00628095|168861236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0622||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.05|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.05|-0.18|0.742
84553940|NCT00628095|168861236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.004||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.12|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.12|-0.11|0.482
84553941|NCT00628095|168861237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0072||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.06|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.06|-0.08|0.989
84605167|NCT02305849|168961267|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|38.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.7|22.0|<0.001
84605168|NCT02305849|168961269|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.3|<0.001
84553942|NCT00628095|168861237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0096||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.08|0.957
84553943|NCT00628095|168861237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0044||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.09|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.09|-0.08|0.473
84553944|NCT00628095|168861237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.057||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.03|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.03|-0.15|0.793
84553945|NCT00628095|168861238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
84553946|NCT00628095|168861238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0141||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.05|0.421
84553947|NCT00628095|168861238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0566||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.12|||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.12|0.01|0.058
84553948|NCT00628095|168861238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
84669502|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9398
84669503|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669504|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5655
84669505|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0204
84605169|NCT02305849|168961269|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||56.9|37.1|<0.001
84605170|NCT02305849|168961271|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|5.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.5|1.0|0.011
84605171|NCT02305849|168961271|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.6|4.1|<0.001
84605172|NCT02305849|168961273|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment.|Percent Difference|6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.0|||Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||11.0|1.8|0.003
84605173|NCT02305849|168961273|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.4|7.5|<0.001
84605174|NCT02305849|168961275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.60|-13.84|<0.001
84605175|NCT02305849|168961275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-11.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.98|-17.35|<0.001
84605176|NCT02305849|168961277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-13.22||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.22|-22.11|<0.001
84605177|NCT02305849|168961277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001||95.0|-28.66|-19.51||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-19.51|-28.66|<0.001
84605178|NCT02305849|168961279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-12.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS)||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.19|-21.09|<0.001
84605179|NCT02305849|168961279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|-15.61||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.61|-25.07|<0.001
84605180|NCT02305849|168961281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-12.38||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.38|-22.00|<0.001
84605181|NCT02305849|168961281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-15.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.98|-25.80|<0.001
84669506|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1414|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1414
84744779|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.023||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.1062||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_BA23\_base||0.1062|-0.0610|0.5720
84605182|NCT02305849|168961284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.17|-0.36|<0.001
84605183|NCT02305849|168961284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
84605184|NCT02305849|168961286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.74||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.74|4.09|<0.001
84605185|NCT02305849|168961286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|10.86||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.86|6.36|<0.001
84744780|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.027||||0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1303|0.0761||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_IPL\_base||0.0761|-0.1303|0.5822
84744781|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2697|0.1824||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Insula\_base||0.1824|-0.2697|0.6851
84605186|NCT02305849|168961288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.18||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.18|1.21|<0.001
84605187|NCT02305849|168961288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||3.19|0.11|0.036
84605188|NCT02305849|168961290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.02||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.02|-0.44|0.099
84605189|NCT02305849|168961290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|6.91||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.91|1.53|0.002
84605190|NCT02305849|168961292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.42||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.42|-5.16|0.879
84605191|NCT02305849|168961292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.23||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||2.23|-5.86|0.377
84605192|NCT02305849|168961294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-2.73||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.73|-16.54|0.007
84605193|NCT02305849|168961294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.24|-7.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.10|-21.24|<0.001
84605194|NCT02305849|168961296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.25||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.25|-16.60|0.010
84605195|NCT02305849|168961296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|-7.31||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.31|-21.92|<0.001
84605196|NCT02305849|168961298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.16||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.16|-18.23|<0.001
84605197|NCT02305849|168961298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.66||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.66|-22.57|<0.001
84605198|NCT00355342|168961303|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status.|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|1.49|0.06|
84608445|NCT01345682|168967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|||0.96|0.55|0.0217
84669507|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669508|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6279|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6279
84669509|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669510|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2239|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2239
84744782|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.013||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1699|0.1446||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Insula||0.1446|-0.1699|0.8656
84605199|NCT00355342|168961304|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.24|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|0.24|-0.78|
84605200|NCT00997425|168961312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door approach behavior||||||0.098
84605201|NCT00997425|168961312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door pass through behavior||||||0.045
84605202|NCT02575118|168961325|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||In one saliva sample collected before treatment, the BPA concentration was more than 100 times higher (11.6 ng/ml) than the mean value and more than 100 SD from the mean of the remaining 19 samples. This saliva sample was excluded from the statistical analysis because it was probably contaminated. One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points) were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
84605203|NCT02575118|168961326|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points), were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
84605204|NCT00787930|168961346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84605205|NCT00787930|168961347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||1.00
84605206|NCT00787930|168961348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6056||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.6056
84605207|NCT00787930|168961349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory hypothesis|t-stat estimated value|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.081|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 6 df=7|||||0|0.081
84605208|NCT00787930|168961350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory analyses|t-stat estimated value|1.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.56||0.091|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0|||no adjustment for multiple analyses|t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 5 df=7|||||0|0.091
84669511|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
84669512|NCT01480076|169072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3457|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3457
84669513|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669514|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2087
84669515|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669516|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4487|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4487
84605209|NCT01294462|168961385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.53||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.53|0.94|
84553949|NCT00628095|168861246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
84553950|NCT00628095|168861246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
84553951|NCT00628095|168861246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
84553952|NCT00628095|168861246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
84553953|NCT00628095|168861246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 14: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
84553954|NCT02537431|168861308|OTHER||Mean|-54.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.64|-39.72||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-39.72|-68.64|< 0.0001
84553955|NCT02537431|168861309|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for testing the proportion of participants achieving the mean serum phosphorus levels above the LLN (2.5 mg/dL \[0.81 mmol/L\]) against 0% from the binomial test.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84553956|NCT02537431|168861310|OTHER||Mean|-32.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.25|-24.17||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-24.17|-40.25|<0.0001
84553957|NCT02537431|168861311|OTHER||Mean|-26.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|-15.91||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-15.91|-36.08|0.0002
84553958|NCT02537431|168861312|OTHER||Mean|-52.24||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.08|-10.41||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-10.41|-94.08|0.0199
84553959|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (GEE)|107.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.46|139.03|||||From the generalized estimation equation (GEE) model which includes change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 1||139.03|76.46|
84553960|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.91|62.91|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||62.91|33.91|
84553961|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|20.31|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||20.31|6.85|
84553962|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|5.75|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 20||5.75|-8.43|
84553963|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.49|42.0|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 21||42.00|21.49|
84553964|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|19.46|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||19.46|3.54|
84553965|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.55|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||6.55|-12.62|
84553966|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.72||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.5|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||6.50|-9.93|0.6821
84553967|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|-5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|0.92|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.92|-12.38|
84553968|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.18|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 70||11.18|-4.45|
84605210|NCT01294462|168961386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.44||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.44|0.88|
84605211|NCT01294462|168961387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.4||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.40|1.23|
84605212|NCT01294462|168961388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.5||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.50|0.91|
84553969|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|0.13|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.13|-11.22|
84605213|NCT02076399|168961391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|7.2|0.0261
84744783|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.094||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2296|0.0407||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Front\_DLPFC||0.0407|-0.2296|0.1562
84744784|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.012||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0991|0.0754||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.0754|-0.0991|0.7752
84744785|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.01||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1912|0.2109||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Orbito Front||0.2109|-0.1912|0.9182
84744786|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.022||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0829|0.1278||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_PAG||0.1278|-0.0829|0.6544
84744787|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.087||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.1863||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.1863|-0.0123|0.0813
84553970|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|0.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.26|-11.35|
84553971|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|9.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|17.94|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 94||17.94|1.33|
84553972|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.38||||||Week 96||-1.38|-10.80|
84605214|NCT02076399|168961396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.01|0.6642
84605215|NCT02076399|168961397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.3365
84605216|NCT00085254|168961400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.5|0.4
84605217|NCT00085254|168961402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||adjusted for age: p=.0003, kps: p=.004; and surgical procedure: p=.003|Log Rank|||Primary endpoint death - defined from histological diagnosis to death. we assume pt in the study will have overall failure rate of 0.56 per person-year of f/up, a 30% reduction compared to hazard rate of 0.8 per person-year in historical NABTT database. Expected hazard ratio is 0.7 and cohort will produce 63 events among total of 94 pt planned f/up. One-sided test, have 95% power to detect observed ratio of 0.7 at alpha level of 0.1, or we have 88% power at alpha of 0.5 statistical significant||0.5|0.3|0.0001
84605218|NCT04342689|168961405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84605219|NCT04342689|168961406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84605220|NCT04342689|168961407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84605221|NCT01460407|168961408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.42|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.42|1.16|
84744788|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.052||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0956|0.2004||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.2004|-0.0956|0.4605
84744789|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0856||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0856|-0.2484|0.3136
84744790|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0885|0.0893||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus||0.0893|-0.0885|0.9929
84744791|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.002||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0815|0.0767||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus\_base||0.0767|-0.0815|0.9490
84744792|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.065||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3019|0.1722||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Superior Temporal||0.1722|-0.3019|0.5668
84744793|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.1391||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Premotor||0.1391|-0.1398|0.9958
84744794|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.057||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0659|0.1795||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Putamen||0.1795|-0.0659|0.3379
84744795|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.085||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2262|0.0565||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_S1||0.0565|-0.2262|0.2186
84744796|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.008||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0843|0.0678||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Thalamus||0.0678|-0.0843|0.8191
84744797|NCT00760474|169243112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.012||||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0698|0.093||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Precuneus||0.0930|-0.0698|0.7647
84744798|NCT00513305|169243128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is from the Pearson chi-square test for testing the equality of two binomial proportions, assuming normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|Chi-squared|There were no adjustments for covariates. Since the primary endpoint was prespecified, no adjustment for multiplicity of endpoints was introduced||The hypothesis of equal complete remission rates between the two treatment groups was tested using a 2-sided, normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions test with two-sided alpha equal to 0.05.||||0.425
84492931|NCT02545504|168735909|SUPERIORITY||ORR Difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference for ORR between the treatment and placebo is calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.||18.8|0.1|
84553973|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|9.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 108||9.26|-9.22|
84553974|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.68|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 120||9.68|-6.77|
84553975|NCT02537431|168861324|OTHER||LS mean|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.21|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 132||2.21|-5.60|
84553976|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.35|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.35|-0.15|
84553977|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.11|-0.19|
84553978|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 36||0.11|-0.12|
84553979|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04||||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||GEE model||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.11|-0.19|0.6021
84553980|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.19|-0.19|
84553981|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.03|-0.29|
84553982|NCT02537431|168861325|OTHER||LS mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.26|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOS II||0.26|-0.41|
84553983|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||2.03|1.49|
84553984|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.97|0.59|
84553985|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.82|0.34|
84553986|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.99|0.74|
84553987|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.64|0.24|
84744799|NCT00513305|169243129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank|||||1.973|0.535|0.829
84744800|NCT00513305|169243130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.31||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.343|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||33.343|0.160|0.527
84744801|NCT00513305|169243133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||1.973|0.535|0.8289
84744802|NCT03014479|169243136|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.418||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|6.382|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||6.382|-1.546|0.2305
84492932|NCT00950755|168735912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||89|62|
84492933|NCT00950755|168735913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|69.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||69|38|
84492934|NCT00950755|168735914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|49.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR.|||49|20|
84492935|NCT00950755|168735915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|57.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + CCR.|||57|26|
84492936|NCT00950755|168735916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR.|||19|1|
84492937|NCT01018680|168735937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||Using a 1:1 ratio of allocation to treatment, a 2-tailed 0.05 level of significance and 80% power, 253 participants per arm had been estimated to be adequate to assess an effect size of 0.25, based on a 2-sample Student's t-test. This derived estimate was increased slightly to 261 participants per arm to account for extremely early discontinuation that would have led to exclusion from the efficacy analysis in a small number of participants (approximately 3%).||||<0.001
84492938|NCT01018680|168735938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0||||First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492939|NCT01018680|168735939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||WOMAC Physical Disability Score p-value. Second gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential treatment comparisons until outcome failed significance (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492940|NCT01018680|168735939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the WOMAC Pain Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492941|NCT01018680|168735939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.004||95.0||||This is the p-value for WOMAC Stiffness Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.004
84492942|NCT01018680|168735940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Night Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492943|NCT01018680|168735940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Worst Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84605222|NCT01460407|168961409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.31|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.31|1.12|
84492944|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Worst Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492945|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Least Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492946|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Average Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492947|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Pain Right Now. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84744803|NCT03014479|169243137|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|1.938||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|7.027|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||7.027|-3.150|0.4536
84492948|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for General Activity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492949|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mood. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84605223|NCT01460407|168961410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of paired differences|0.0||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||LY2216684 and Clarithromycin minus (-) LY2216684|||0.50|-0.50|0.7656
84744804|NCT03014479|169243138|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|4.16||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|8.968|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.968|-0.649|0.0896
84744805|NCT03014479|169243139|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-0.563||||0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.448|5.323|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||5.323|-6.448|0.8506
84553988|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.38|0.01|0.0430
84553989|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.64|-0.04|
84553990|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.52|0.03|
84553991|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.66|0.13|
84553992|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.48|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.48|0.10|
84605224|NCT01049802|168961411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84605225|NCT01049802|168961412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84605226|NCT01049802|168961413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84669517|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0013
84553993|NCT02537431|168861326|OTHER||LS mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.34|0.08|
84553994|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||0.08|0.06|
84553995|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.06|0.01|
84553996|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.04|-0.01|
84553997|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.05|0.02|
84553998|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Week 24||0.04|-0.02|
84553999|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.04|-0.05|0.8377
84554000|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.06|-0.00|
84554001|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.05|-0.09|
84554002|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.06|-0.01|
84554003|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.05|-0.01|
84554004|NCT02537431|168861327|OTHER||LS mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.03|-0.01|
84605227|NCT01049802|168961414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84605228|NCT01049802|168961415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84605229|NCT00844805|168961423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.9|||=|0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|31.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.5|-1.7|=0.0884
84605230|NCT00844805|168961424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.7|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|32.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||32.5|11.0|=0.0013
84605231|NCT00844805|168961425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||25.5|10.7|=0.0004
84744806|NCT03014479|169243140|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.696||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.018|8.41|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.410|-3.018|0.3533
84605232|NCT00844805|168961426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||=|0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|31.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.7|-11.7|=0.5005
84744807|NCT03014479|169243142|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|0.613||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.605|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||2.605|-1.380|0.5451
84744808|NCT02217501|169243169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6595||||||Alpha of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6595
84744809|NCT03748992|169243176|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||Non Applicable||Non Applicable||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
84744810|NCT03748992|169243178|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||||||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
84744811|NCT00611975|169243201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.8
84744812|NCT00611975|169243201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.4
84744813|NCT00611975|169243202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asex questionnaires were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for ASEX scores were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-2 days before NMP).||||>0.6
84744814|NCT00611975|169243202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on ASEX scores||||>0.6
84744815|NCT00611975|169243203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||<.01
84744816|NCT00611975|169243203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<0.01
84744817|NCT00611975|169243204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.4
84744818|NCT00611975|169243204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
84744819|NCT00611975|169243205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.7
84744820|NCT00611975|169243205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
84744821|NCT00611975|169243206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
84744822|NCT00611975|169243206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
84744823|NCT00611975|169243207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
84744824|NCT00611975|169243207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.9
84744825|NCT00611975|169243208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.1
84744826|NCT00611975|169243208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.7
84744827|NCT02233543|169243220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.21|0.2419
84744828|NCT02233543|169243221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.08|-4.51|0.2016
84744829|NCT00715962|169243251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used as the rate of falling was low.||||||<.05
84744830|NCT00715962|169243252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
84744831|NCT01639495|169243258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|60.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|68.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on exact binomial|||68.8|51.9|
84744832|NCT01639495|169243260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects with primary AEs|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|24.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is exact binomial|||24.6|11.6|
84744833|NCT01639495|169243261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.2|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are exact binomial|||98.2|95.6|
84669518|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0188|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0188
84669519|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669520|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4243|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4243
84669521|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669522|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9989
84669523|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0207
84669524|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0161|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0161
84669525|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669526|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4256|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4256
84669527|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669528|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3313|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3313
84669529|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0238
84669530|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0150
84669531|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84605233|NCT00844805|168961427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||9.9|-14.9|=1.0000
84744834|NCT00210470|169243277|EQUIVALENCE|The correlation of each of the above variables at biopsy/Day 1, surgery/Day 21, and change with percent change in the longest diameter (LD) of the primary tumor was calculated using Spearman rank correlations (183 correlations). Due to outliers in the distribution of percent change in the longest diameter, it was felt that the Spearman rank correlations would be more appropriate than Pearson correlations.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank|||||||<0.10
84744835|NCT00686725|169243287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.183
84492950|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Walking Ability. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84554005|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS Mean|99.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.83|121.53|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||121.53|76.83|
84554006|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS Mean|104.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.47|126.19|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||126.19|82.47|
84554007|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS Mean|52.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.84|75.13|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||75.13|29.84|< 0.0001
84554008|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS mean|37.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|61.38|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.38|13.19|
84554009|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS mean|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|55.4|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||55.40|3.18|
84554010|NCT02537431|168861328|OTHER||LS mean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|21.94|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||21.94|-17.67|
84744836|NCT00686725|169243288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
84605234|NCT00844805|168961428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||6.8|-6.8|=1.0000
84605235|NCT00844805|168961429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3802||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||=0.3802
84744837|NCT00686725|169243291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.648
84744838|NCT00686725|169243292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.915
84744839|NCT00092495|169243293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84492951|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Normal Work. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84554011|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS Mean|133.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.26|159.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||159.89|106.26|
84554012|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS Mean|137.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.95|168.65|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||168.65|106.95|
84554013|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS Mean|76.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|104.53|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||104.53|49.20|< 0.0001
84554014|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS mean|50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|77.23|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||77.23|23.69|
84554015|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS mean|41.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.69|64.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||64.03|18.69|
84554016|NCT02537431|168861329|OTHER||LS mean|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|45.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||45.64|6.76|
84554017|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS Mean|464.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|343.92|585.77|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||585.77|343.92|
84605236|NCT00844805|168961430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0|||=|0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||4.5|-14.5|=0.6153
84605237|NCT00844805|168961431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.4|||=|0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.3|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||34.3|2.5|=0.0263
84605238|NCT00844805|168961432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.4|||=|0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||22.8|-6.0|=0.3011
84744840|NCT00092495|169243293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744841|NCT00092495|169243294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744842|NCT00092495|169243294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84492952|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Relations with Others. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84744843|NCT00092495|169243295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744844|NCT00092495|169243295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744845|NCT00092495|169243295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744846|NCT00092495|169243296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744847|NCT00092495|169243296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744848|NCT00092495|169243296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744849|NCT00092495|169243297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744850|NCT00092495|169243297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744851|NCT00092495|169243298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
84492953|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Sleep. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84744852|NCT00092495|169243298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
84744853|NCT00092495|169243299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744854|NCT00092495|169243299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744855|NCT00092495|169243299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744856|NCT00092495|169243300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744857|NCT00092495|169243300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
84744858|NCT00092495|169243300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744859|NCT00092495|169243301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744860|NCT00092495|169243301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744861|NCT00092495|169243302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744862|NCT00092495|169243302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744863|NCT00092495|169243303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.01
84605239|NCT02193087|168961458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.36||||||DEN-1||0.36|0.23|
84744864|NCT00092495|169243303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744865|NCT00092495|169243303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744866|NCT00092495|169243304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744867|NCT00092495|169243304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744868|NCT00092495|169243304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744869|NCT00092495|169243305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84492954|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492955|NCT01018680|168735941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mean Interference Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492956|NCT01018680|168735942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492957|NCT01018680|168735943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
84492958|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.449||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Total Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.449
84492959|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.265||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Tension-Anxiety Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.265
84492960|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.18||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Depression-Dejection Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.180
84492961|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.041||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Anger-Hostility Score. 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.041
84492962|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.356||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Vigor-Activity Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.356
84492963|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.862||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Fatigue-Inertia Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.862
84492964|NCT01018680|168735944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.883||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Confusion-Bewilderment Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.883
84492965|NCT01018680|168735945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.083||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.083
84492966|NCT01018680|168735946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84492967|NCT01018680|168735947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84492968|NCT01018680|168735947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84492969|NCT01018680|168735948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84492970|NCT01018680|168735948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84554018|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS Mean|404.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|294.47|513.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||513.78|294.47|
84554019|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS Mean|175.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.85|261.41|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||261.41|88.85|< 0.0001
84744870|NCT00092495|169243305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744871|NCT00092495|169243306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744872|NCT00092495|169243306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744873|NCT00092495|169243307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744874|NCT00092495|169243307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744875|NCT00092495|169243307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
84744876|NCT00092495|169243308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84492971|NCT01018680|168735949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84492972|NCT01018680|168735950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Gain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
84554020|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS mean|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|324.41|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||324.41|-38.20|
84744877|NCT00092495|169243308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744878|NCT00092495|169243308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
84744879|NCT00768079|169243334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
84744880|NCT00768079|169243334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744881|NCT00768079|169243334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
84744882|NCT00768079|169243334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744883|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
84744884|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744885|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
84744886|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744887|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
84492973|NCT01018680|168735950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Loss. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
84554021|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS mean|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.62|189.22|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||189.22|-35.62|
84554022|NCT02537431|168861330|OTHER||LS mean|-41.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.28|121.64|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||121.64|-204.28|
84554023|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS Mean|89.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.58|115.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||115.78|63.58|
84492974|NCT01018680|168735951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84669532|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0171
84492975|NCT01018680|168735952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||This is the p-value for Diastolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
84492976|NCT01018680|168735952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||This is the p-value for Systolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
84492977|NCT01018680|168735953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.249
84492978|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient group visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.241
84492979|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient individual visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.087
84492980|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||This is the p-value for emergency room visits for non-psychiatric illness. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.414
84492981|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient visits to other physicians. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.332
84669533|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
84669534|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5146
84669535|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
84669536|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1224|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1224
84669537|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0168
84669538|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2272
84669539|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0570
84669540|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5832|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5832
84669541|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0561
84744888|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744889|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
84744890|NCT00768079|169243336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
84744891|NCT01498679|169243353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||ANCOVA|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
84554024|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS Mean|70.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|90.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||90.44|49.90|
84554025|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS Mean|35.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.37|50.36|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||50.36|21.37|< 0.0001
84554026|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS mean|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|61.47|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.47|6.53|
84554027|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS mean|25.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|42.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||42.44|9.27|
84554028|NCT02537431|168861331|OTHER||LS mean|17.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|36.07|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||36.07|-0.32|
84554029|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS Mean|10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|17.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||17.89|3.98|
84554030|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS Mean|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|11.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||11.66|-0.02|
84605240|NCT02193087|168961458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.26||||||DEN-2||1.26|0.90|
84605241|NCT02193087|168961458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.89||||||DEN-3||1.89|1.13|
84605242|NCT02193087|168961458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.95||||||DEN-4||0.95|0.57|
84744892|NCT00158860|169243365|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier estimates|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.6|||Log Rank|||||38.6|16.0|<0.001
84744893|NCT00158860|169243365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.570|0.282|<0.001
84744894|NCT00158860|169243366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84744895|NCT01781078|169243412|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.9|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||3.9||<0.0001
84744896|NCT01781078|169243413|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.1||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.0|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||5.0||0.0006
84744897|NCT01781078|169243413|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|0.0||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.7|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||4.7||0.0002
84554031|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|12.32|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||12.32|-3.32|0.2592
84554032|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|7.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||7.90|-1.64|
84554033|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|5.11|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||5.11|-2.84|
84554034|NCT02537431|168861332|OTHER||LS mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.85|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.85|-12.46|
84554035|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||LS Mean|52.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.18|83.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||83.90|21.18|
84554036|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||LS Mean|31.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|54.51|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||54.51|8.23|
84605243|NCT02032641|168961489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84605244|NCT02032641|168961489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.10
84605245|NCT00737711|168961494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used to estimation of p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84605246|NCT00628589|168961634|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||0.0004
84554037|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||l|24.35||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|58.9|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||58.90|-10.20|0.1672
84554038|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||LS mean|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|41.46|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||41.46|-11.19|
84554039|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||LS mean|6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|27.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||27.28|-13.44|
84554040|NCT02537431|168861333|OTHER||LS mean|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-2.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||-2.28|-52.33|
84554041|NCT02266472|168861343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.89|96.40|<0.0001
84554042|NCT02266472|168861344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints,using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|106.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.19|96.54|<0.0001
84554043|NCT02266472|168861345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|104.87|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.87|93.69|<0.0001
84554044|NCT02266472|168861346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|108.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|113.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||113.17|104.17|<0.0001
84554045|NCT02266472|168861347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|98.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.18|101.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.67|96.18|
84605247|NCT00628589|168961634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||<0.0001
84605248|NCT00628589|168961635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
84669542|NCT01480076|169072605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2971
84605249|NCT00628589|168961635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84669543|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669544|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0029
84744898|NCT03924765|169243424|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||5e-06|||||||ANOVA|||Primary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.000005
84554046|NCT02266472|168861348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.53|106.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.45|96.53|
84554047|NCT05537792|168861361|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.579
84554048|NCT05537792|168861361|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
84554049|NCT05537792|168861361|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5513
84554050|NCT05537792|168861361|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.00034|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00034
84554051|NCT03495154|168861362|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|Percentage and confidence interval|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.5||||||Number of participants with hernia recurrence within 12 months following Parietene™ DS Composite Mesh use in ventral hernia repair||8.5|1.0|
84554052|NCT03495154|168861363|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of with ADEs at discharge. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84554053|NCT03495154|168861363|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 1 month. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84554054|NCT03495154|168861363|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 3 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84744899|NCT03924765|169243425|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's step length asymmetry by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||0.131|||||||ANOVA|||Secondary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.131
84744900|NCT05121246|169243460|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
84744901|NCT05121246|169243461|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
84744902|NCT05038163|169243470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.39|-0.63|<0.001
84744903|NCT05038163|169243470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
84744904|NCT05038163|169243470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.24|-0.44|<0.001
84744905|NCT05038163|169243471|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.11|-0.55|0.003
84744906|NCT05038163|169243471|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
84744907|NCT05038163|169243471|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
84554055|NCT03495154|168861363|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 12 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84554056|NCT03495154|168861363|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 24 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) are inclusive of both procedure and device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84554057|NCT03495154|168861364|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 1M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.9||||||||2.9|0|
84554058|NCT03495154|168861364|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 3M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||||||||3.0|0|
84554059|NCT03495154|168861364|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 24M|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.6||||||||9.6|1.2|
84554060|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.01|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment (HI)/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.73|
84554061|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.61|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.61|1.05|
84554062|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|11.56|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||11.56|2.19|
84554063|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|8.93|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||8.93|2.60|
84554064|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|19.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.11|48.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||48.51|8.11|
84554065|NCT01390428|168861369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|22.35|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||22.35|6.10|
84554066|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.01|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.35|
84554067|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.27|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.27|0.83|
84744908|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.32|-0.67|<0.001
84554068|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|7.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|21.27|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||21.27|2.74|
84554069|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|12.57|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||12.57|2.84|
84554070|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|38.25|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||38.25|6.02|
84554071|NCT01390428|168861370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|13.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|28.21|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||28.21|6.00|
84554072|NCT01390428|168861372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.24|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.24|1.54|
84554073|NCT01390428|168861372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|6.82|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||6.82|1.31|
84554074|NCT01390428|168861374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.63|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.63|1.40|
84554075|NCT01390428|168861374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|7.11|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||7.11|1.81|
84554076|NCT01390428|168861374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|9.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.98|17.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|||17.51|4.98|
84554077|NCT05897827|168861377|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|3.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|4.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.13|3.73|0.074
84744909|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
84744910|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
84744911|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.32|-0.65|<0.001
84744912|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
84744913|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.27|||Regression, Linear|||Gender subgroup: Male|Unit: $ per 12-pack|-0.27|-0.57|<0.001
84744914|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-1.12|-3.34|<0.001
84554078|NCT05897827|168861378|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 75.|Mean|75.47||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.12|79.83||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.83|71.12|0.827
84554079|NCT05897827|168861379|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.17||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|3.84|0.003
84554080|NCT05897827|168861380|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|4.18||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.18|3.85|0.002
84554081|NCT05897827|168861384|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|0.03|0.03
84554082|NCT05897827|168861384|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.36|0.95
84554083|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|0.46|<0.001
84554084|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|0.10|0.01
84554085|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.41||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|0.11|0.001
84554086|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
84554087|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.68||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.18|0.001
84744915|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.23|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.23|-1.15|<0.001
84554088|NCT05897827|168861385|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.86||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.02|0.04
84554089|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.50|0.10
84554090|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.55|0.14
84554091|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.39|0.07
84554092|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.18|0.85
84554093|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.30|0.06
84554094|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.14|0.51
84554095|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.53||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.13|0.001
84605250|NCT00628589|168961636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
84605251|NCT00628589|168961636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84554096|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.01|0.04
84605252|NCT02406443|168961652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.012
84605253|NCT02406443|168961653|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
84605254|NCT02406443|168961654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.15
84605255|NCT02406443|168961655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84605256|NCT02406443|168961656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84605257|NCT02406443|168961657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
84605258|NCT02937766|168961700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.||||0.9|-0.1|0.093
84605259|NCT02937766|168961701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.234
84669545|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669546|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8041|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8041
84669547|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744916|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
84554097|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.36
84554098|NCT05897827|168861386|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.62
84554099|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.32|0.08
84554100|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|0.20
84554101|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.14|0.74
84554102|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.12|0.55
84554103|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.22|0.40
84554104|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.37|0.36
84554105|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.6||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|0.18|<0.001
84554106|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-0.16|0.41
84554107|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.22|0.92
84744917|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||1.14|-0.24|<0.001
84744918|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.37|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.37|-0.63|<0.001
84744919|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.25|-1.67|<0.001
84554108|NCT05897827|168861387|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-0.16|0.37
84554109|NCT05897827|168861388|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.28|<0.001
84554110|NCT05897827|168861388|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.29|<0.001
84554111|NCT02276053|168861415|OTHER||Retention rate|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|93.1|||||"Confidence intervals for the 6-month retention rate were calculated using Greenwood's formula.~Addition of a note: Not all patients had an Observation Period of 6 months."|The retention rate was derived using Kaplan-Meier methodology where patients who completed the study were censored at the date of last administration of LCM in the study.||93.1|79.0|
84744920|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.40|-1.16|<0.001
84744921|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||0.19|-1.07|<0.001
84605260|NCT00098722|168961703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1802|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.426|-0.616||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.616|-1.426|
84605261|NCT00098722|168961703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1786|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.444|-0.64||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.640|-1.444|
84605262|NCT00098722|168961704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.379|-0.544||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.544|-1.379|
84744922|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.17|-0.91|<0.001
84744923|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.00|0.00|<0.001
84744924|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.68|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.68|-0.36|<0.001
84744925|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: white||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
84744926|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.32|-2.04|<0.001
84744927|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.14|-0.90|<0.001
84492982|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours worked for pay per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.183
84744928|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.04|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-0.04|-1.54|<0.001
84492983|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||This is the p-value for how long the participant has had this job. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.666
84605263|NCT00098722|168961704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.523|-0.695||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.695|-1.523|
84744929|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.12|-0.90|<0.001
84744930|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
84744931|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.71|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.71|-0.79|<0.001
84492984|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours of volunteer work per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.890
84744932|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.22|-0.44|<0.001
84744933|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.06|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.06|-0.76|<0.001
84744934|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.31|-0.85|<0.001
84492985|NCT01018680|168735954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||This is the p-value for psychiatric visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.413
84492986|NCT05056311|168735976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84492987|NCT05056311|168735977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84744935|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.91|-0.45|<0.001
84744936|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.39|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.39|-0.65|<0.001
84744937|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.38|-1.48|<0.001
84744938|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.38|-0.70|<0.001
84744939|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
84554112|NCT00715104|168861426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|16.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|30.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||30.7|1.7|1.000
84554113|NCT00715104|168861426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|18.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|34.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||34.3|3.5|1.000
84554114|NCT00715104|168861426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|88.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||88.3|52.3|<0.001
84554115|NCT00715104|168861427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|20.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.2||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||37.2|4.0|1.000
84554116|NCT00715104|168861427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|32.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|51.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||51.6|13.1|0.014
84554117|NCT00715104|168861427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|79.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|96.0||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||96.0|62.8|<0.001
84571312|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
84492988|NCT05056311|168735978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84492989|NCT05056311|168735980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84669548|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
84669549|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84744940|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.16|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.16|-1.42|<0.001
84492990|NCT05056311|168735981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6374||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.6374
84554118|NCT00715104|168861428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|35.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|53.9||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||53.9|16.3|0.002
84554119|NCT00715104|168861428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|29.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|47.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||47.7|11.7|0.036
84554120|NCT00715104|168861428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|98.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||98.3|69.3|<0.001
84554121|NCT00715104|168861429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||<0.001
84554122|NCT00715104|168861430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach was used. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.173
84554123|NCT00715104|168861431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.667
84554124|NCT00715104|168861431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.191
84554125|NCT00715104|168861431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.699
84492991|NCT03799198|168736003|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations for body weight at month 12 imputed from the WMP arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x=100) imputation approach. Percent change in body weight from baseline to month 12 was calculated for each study participant within the FAS and analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as a factor and baseline body weight (kg) as a covariate.||-1.50|-5.51|<0.001
84492992|NCT01153971|168736027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84492993|NCT03410693|168736045|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R-C)|-2.1|||=|0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-14.0|=0.6991
84492994|NCT03410693|168736045|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R - C)|-4.5|||=|0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-18.9|=0.7944
84492995|NCT03410693|168736046|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-5.1|||=|0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact|||||9.7|-19.9|=0.7962
84492996|NCT03410693|168736046|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-10.3|||=|0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.9|-27.5|=0.9109
84492997|NCT03410693|168736047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.762|||Log Rank|||||1.762|0.853|= 0.8672
84492998|NCT03410693|168736047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.341||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.043|||Log Rank|||||2.043|0.880|0.9171
84492999|NCT03628781|168736050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.384||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.535
84493000|NCT03628781|168736051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.829
84493001|NCT03628781|168736052|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.357
84493002|NCT03628781|168736053|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.782
84493003|NCT00994123|168736057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.16|0.008
84493004|NCT00994123|168736057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.76|||Log Rank|||||4.76|0.97|0.059
84554126|NCT00715104|168861432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.086
84554127|NCT00715104|168861432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.432
84554128|NCT00715104|168861432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.249
84554129|NCT00715104|168861433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.950
84554130|NCT00715104|168861434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.048
84554131|NCT02059434|168861436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.149||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.149|0.060|<0.0001
84554132|NCT02059434|168861436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.223||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.223|0.133|<0.0001
84554133|NCT02928770|168861444|OTHER|||||||0.0559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between baseline and experimental (Nastent) conditions||||||0.0559
84554134|NCT01752634|168861477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.73|1.14|0.0200
84554135|NCT01752634|168861477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|13.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.08|3.25|<0001
84554136|NCT01752634|168861477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.56|3.42|<.0001
84554137|NCT01752634|168861478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.81|0.74|0.1650
84669550|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0689
84554138|NCT01752634|168861478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|15.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.34|2.12|0.0006
84554139|NCT01752634|168861478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.00|3.33|<.0001
84554140|NCT01752634|168861479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.36|0.6421
84554141|NCT01752634|168861479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|21.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.47|1.89|0.0029
84554142|NCT01752634|168861479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.74||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|36.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.84|3.13|0.0002
84554143|NCT01752634|168861480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.53|0.3763
84554144|NCT01752634|168861480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
84554145|NCT01752634|168861480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.02|0.0004
84554146|NCT01752634|168861481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.02|0.0482
84554147|NCT01752634|168861481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.83|2.05|0.0003
84554148|NCT01752634|168861481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.69|2.91|<0.0001
84669551|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669552|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7182|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7182
84744941|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.41|-0.40|0.980
84554149|NCT01752634|168861482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.9195
84554150|NCT01752634|168861482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.32|0.0278
84554151|NCT01752634|168861482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.40|0.0013
84554152|NCT01752634|168861483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.15|0.0245
84554153|NCT01752634|168861483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|3.11|<.0001
84554154|NCT01752634|168861483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|17.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.22|2.97|<.0001
84554155|NCT01752634|168861484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.13|0.3149
84554156|NCT01752634|168861484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.04|0.0056
84605264|NCT00098722|168961705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||8.23|2.56|<0.0001
84605265|NCT00098722|168961705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||10.78|3.35|<0.0001
84497304|NCT01569074|168745898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.39|0.08|0.054
84554157|NCT01752634|168861484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.04|0.0021
84554158|NCT01752634|168861485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.26|0.1678
84554159|NCT01752634|168861485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.17|0.0108
84554160|NCT01752634|168861485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.13|0.0025
84554161|NCT01196936|168861486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The calculated p-value is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84554162|NCT01196936|168861487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
84554163|NCT01196936|168861488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84554164|NCT01196936|168861489|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84554165|NCT01196936|168861490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84554166|NCT01196936|168861491|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
84554167|NCT01196936|168861492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
84554168|NCT01196936|168861493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
84554169|NCT01196936|168861494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8315
84554170|NCT05562934|168861499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5651||||||Single best candidate model is the one with the lowest adjusted p-value of the 5 candidate models|Multiple Comparisons Procedure-MOD|||||||0.5651
84554171|NCT05562934|168861500|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|-5.48|0.6955
84554172|NCT05562934|168861501|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.18|||ANCOVA|||||7.18|-4.90|0.7108
84554173|NCT04322539|168861548|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.8||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.800|0.549|< .001
84554174|NCT04322539|168861549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.386||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between the 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95% CI, was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.386|0.267|< .001
84554175|NCT04322539|168861550|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||2.7|0.4|.059
84605266|NCT00098722|168961705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|7.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.20|2.25|<0.0001
84744942|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.25|-0.47|<0.001
84554176|NCT04322539|168861551|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|46.0||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||46.0|32.8|<.001
84554177|NCT04322539|168861557|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Starting Dose for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.0600
84554178|NCT04322539|168861557|OTHER|||||||0.8065|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Adjusted RDI for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.8065
84554179|NCT04322539|168861558|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Dermatological toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.265
84554180|NCT04322539|168861558|OTHER|||||||0.0159|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Dermatological Toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.0159
84554181|NCT04322539|168861558|OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.484
84554182|NCT04322539|168861558|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.642
84554183|NCT04322539|168861558|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Hemorrhage for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.166
84554184|NCT03617861|168861564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.12
84605267|NCT00098722|168961705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.85|2.47|<0.0001
84744943|NCT05038163|169243472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity Subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||0.25|-1.03|<0.001
84744944|NCT05453201|169243473|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the functional disability subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.06
84744945|NCT05453201|169243473|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the symptom severity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.004
84744946|NCT05453201|169243473|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the perceived overall health now subscale (1 item) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.10
84554185|NCT03617861|168861564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.65
84554186|NCT03617861|168861564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0574
84554187|NCT03617861|168861565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
84554188|NCT03617861|168861565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.82
84554189|NCT03617861|168861565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1451|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.1451
84554190|NCT03617861|168861566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
84554191|NCT03617861|168861566|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
84554192|NCT03617861|168861566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4233|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.4233
84554193|NCT03617861|168861567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.92
84554194|NCT03617861|168861567|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
84554195|NCT03617861|168861567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3891|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.3891
84554196|NCT03617861|168861568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Secretin vs Healthy Placebo||||0.004
84554197|NCT03617861|168861568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.03
84554198|NCT03617861|168861568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0355
84554199|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.5
84554200|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.16
84554201|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||Nausea: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0016
84554202|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.10
84554203|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.30
84554204|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Fullness: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0002
84554205|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.41
84554206|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.67
84554207|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Bloating: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0330
84554208|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.25
84744947|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 1 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.46
84744948|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 2 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.20
84744949|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 3 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.42
84744950|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 4 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.84
84744951|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 5 (part 1) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.25
84744952|NCT05453201|169243474|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 6 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.26
84554209|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.57
84554210|NCT03617861|168861569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||ANCOVA|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.2375
84554211|NCT01702532|168861570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.99||The comparison between treatments was conducted in a hierarchical order; consequently no adjustment of the significance level (5%) for multiplicity was needed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model contains pre-provocation baseline, pre-dosing post-provocation craving score, and the terms treatment groups and center as fixed|Comment: The confidence interval is for the difference between treatments groups|Null hypotheses considered change in craving score means from pre-dose post-provocation at 50 seconds to be equal for the two treatment groups.||-0.99|-8.80|0.0141
84554212|NCT01846221|168861599|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
84554213|NCT04186806|168861615|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 1.5 cm|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2601|0.5749||The conclusion of the non-inferiority test is based on the 95% confidence interval and not on a p value. A p value was not computed.|Mixed Models Analysis||Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95% confidence intervals.|||0.5749|-1.2601|
84554214|NCT03687372|168861657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.22||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||6.22|1.67|0.0003
84554215|NCT03687372|168861658|SUPERIORITY|P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52|1.30|0.0024
84554216|NCT03687372|168861659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20.8|7.5|<0.0001
84554217|NCT03687372|168861660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.65|1.55|0.0009
84554218|NCT03687372|168861661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84554219|NCT02901275|168861666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori statistical threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84554220|NCT02901275|168861667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No covariates or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84554221|NCT02901275|168861668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84608446|NCT01345682|168967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.89|0.50|0.0040
84554222|NCT00767039|168861705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).|t-test, 2 sided|||Respiratory support were compared using a t-test for individual time points and Generalized Linear Model to account for correlations among repeated measures. Patient who survive \>/= 3 days were included in the analysis.||||< 0.05
84554223|NCT00767039|168861706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.95|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.95|0.19|<0.05
84554224|NCT00767039|168861707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
84554225|NCT00767039|168861708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.96|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.96|0.25|<0.05
84554226|NCT00767039|168861709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.38|1.29|<0.01
84554227|NCT00767039|168861710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84554228|NCT00767039|168861711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
84554229|NCT00767039|168861712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
84554230|NCT00767039|168861713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84554231|NCT00767039|168861714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.89|0.71|>0.05
84554232|NCT00767039|168861715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.63|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.63|0.84|>0.05
84554233|NCT03379753|168861745|OTHER||U statistic|984.5||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84554234|NCT01032239|168861746|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.667||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|-0.1667|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To test the null hypothesis the sample size needed was 44 evaluable patient (22 per arm) with a power of 80 %.||-0.1667|-1.000|0.0140
84554235|NCT01032239|168861747|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.2000|-1.0000|0.0042
84554236|NCT01032239|168861748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0540
84554237|NCT01032239|168861749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6256
84554238|NCT01032239|168861750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3676|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3676
84554239|NCT01032239|168861751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Actual Pain||||0.0380
84554240|NCT01032239|168861751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Least Pain||||0.0136
84554241|NCT01032239|168861751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worst Pain||||0.2427
84554242|NCT01032239|168861752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7661
84554243|NCT01032239|168861753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Utility Score||||0.0197
84554244|NCT01032239|168861753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS||||0.3807
84554245|NCT01032239|168861754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCS||||0.1068
84554246|NCT01032239|168861754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCS||||0.6824
84554247|NCT01032239|168861755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2105
84605268|NCT00098722|168961706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.10|2.72|<0.0001
84605269|NCT00098722|168961706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.62|2.91|<0.0001
84605270|NCT00098722|168961706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.32|2.13|<0.0001
84605271|NCT00098722|168961706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.02|2.69|<0.0001
84605272|NCT00098722|168961707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.64|<0.0001
84554248|NCT04713592|168861760|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.2|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||29.3|5.0|=0.006
84605273|NCT00098722|168961707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||9.39|3.13|<0.0001
84554249|NCT04713592|168861762|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.7||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||39.7|15.4|<0.001
84605274|NCT00098722|168961707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.00|2.29|<0.0001
84605275|NCT00098722|168961707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.89|2.91|<0.0001
84669553|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669554|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0061
84554250|NCT04713592|168861763|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.1||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.1|11.5|<0.001
84554251|NCT04713592|168861764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|32.2||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.2|9.1|<0.001
84554252|NCT04713592|168861765|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|24.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||24.3|8.2|<0.001
84554253|NCT01056198|168861770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The BWAT-m scores were compared at each of the 4 treatment weeks and at the end of the follow-up using a mixed-effects ANCOVA for the intent-to-treat population. Treatment and treatment week, as well as their interaction, were defined as fixed effects with subject as a random effect. The BWAT-m score at baseline was used as a covariate.||||=0.208
84554254|NCT01056198|168861771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2737
84554255|NCT01056198|168861772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2741
84554256|NCT01056198|168861773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0164||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.0164
84554257|NCT01056198|168861774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9392||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.9392
84554258|NCT02426749|168861791|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84554259|NCT02484651|168861829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05, considering the primary hypothesis of a reduction in the BIS variability (measured as the standard deviation). A 25% reduction on the BIS variability (standard deviation) was considered clinically relevant, and gave a minimum sample size of 26 per group.||||0.651
84554260|NCT02484651|168861830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to the propofol effect-site concentration. Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the propofol drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on propofol mean effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 34 patients per group||||<0.001
84554261|NCT02484651|168861830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This statistical analysis applies to the remifentanil effect-site concentration.~Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the remifentanil drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on on remifentanil average effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 24 patients per group"||||0.245
84605276|NCT00098722|168961708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.48|1.95|<0.0001
84554262|NCT02484651|168861831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 15 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.419
84605277|NCT00098722|168961708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odd ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.59|0.0005
84744953|NCT05453201|169243475|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon test|||This analysis uses the SBQ-R total score from pre- to post-intervention.||||.89
84554263|NCT02484651|168861831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 40 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.107
84554264|NCT02484651|168861832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS satisfaction with anesthetic care was independent of the study group.||||0.669
84554265|NCT03649178|168861833|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
84554266|NCT03649178|168861834|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84554267|NCT03649178|168861835|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84554268|NCT04908202|168861859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.13|1.67|<0.0001
84554269|NCT04908202|168861860|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.5051|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6709|-0.3392|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3392|-0.6709|<0.0001
84554270|NCT04908202|168861861|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.1688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2442|-0.0933|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0933|-0.2442|<0.0001
84554271|NCT04908202|168861862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|27.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.59|7.19|<0.0001
84554272|NCT04908202|168861863|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|6.631|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.481|9.781|||ANCOVA|||||9.781|3.481|<0.0001
84554273|NCT04908202|168861864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.74|0.5699
84554274|NCT04908202|168861865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|1.33|0.0012
84554275|NCT04908202|168861866|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|1.4|<0.0001
84554276|NCT04908202|168861867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.03|1.07|0.0270
84554277|NCT04908202|168861868|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|0.1596||||0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7114|1.0306|||ANCOVA|||||1.0306|-0.7114|0.7194
84554278|NCT02100670|168861933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-9.23||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|12.98||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||12.98|-31.45|0.4144
84554279|NCT02100670|168861934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|21.5||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||21.50|-18.34|0.8761
84605278|NCT00098722|168961708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.26|<0.0001
84669555|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84497305|NCT01569074|168745898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.06||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.08||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.08|-0.20|0.570
84497306|NCT01569074|168745898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.29|-0.02|0.262
84497307|NCT01569074|168745899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.11||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.21||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.21|0.01|0.172
84497308|NCT01569074|168745899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.18||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.18|-0.05|0.489
84497309|NCT01569074|168745899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.15||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.15|-0.08|0.704
84497310|NCT01569074|168745900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.31||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.31|0.03|0.114
84497311|NCT01569074|168745900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.21||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.34||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.34|0.08|0.035
84497312|NCT01569074|168745900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.07||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.02||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.02|-0.17|0.334
84497313|NCT01569074|168745900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.04||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.06|-0.13|0.645
84497314|NCT01569074|168745901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.12||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.19||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.19|0.05|0.028
84744954|NCT05453201|169243476|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the MOCS (part A) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.80
84744955|NCT05453201|169243477|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ score (all items) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.92
84497315|NCT01569074|168745901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.22||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.22|0.06|0.021
84605279|NCT00098722|168961708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.64|2.20|<0.0001
84605280|NCT00098722|168961710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.64|74.25||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||74.25|21.64|
84744956|NCT05453201|169243477|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon test (paired)|||This analysis uses the FSCQ similarity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.90
84744957|NCT05453201|169243477|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ vividness subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.74
84744958|NCT05453201|169243477|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ positivity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.44
84744959|NCT05453201|169243478|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the PHQ-9 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.003
84744960|NCT05453201|169243479|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the GAD-7 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.01
84744961|NCT05453201|169243480|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the QOLS from pre- to post-intervention.||||.04
84497316|NCT01569074|168745902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.073
84497317|NCT01569074|168745902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.065
84497318|NCT01569074|168745902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.317
84497319|NCT01569074|168745902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.263
84497320|NCT01569074|168745903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.94|14.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||14.31|1.94|0.033
84497321|NCT01569074|168745903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.92|13.61|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||13.61|1.92|0.033
84497322|NCT01569074|168745903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||6.89|0.89|0.257
84497323|NCT01569074|168745903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.04|0.63|0.481
84554280|NCT02100670|168861934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.61||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.46|24.67||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||24.67|-19.46|0.8164
84554281|NCT02100670|168861934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|23.33||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||23.33|-21.27|0.9279
84554282|NCT02100670|168861934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.81||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|11.64||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed.|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||11.64|-33.26|0.3442
84554283|NCT02100670|168861939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.1||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.48|0.81|0.5404
84554284|NCT02100670|168861939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.9||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.67|0.4639
84554285|NCT02100670|168861939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.09||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.84|0.5118
84605281|NCT00098722|168961710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|64.28||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||64.28|11.96|
84605282|NCT00098722|168961710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.06|81.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||81.25|23.06|
84605283|NCT00098722|168961710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.53|87.4||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||87.40|29.53|
84605284|NCT00098722|168961711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|218.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.59|358.54||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||358.54|78.59|
84605285|NCT00098722|168961711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|272.47||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||272.47|-6.03|
84669556|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0179
84554286|NCT02100670|168861940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.93||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.31|0.67|0.6918
84554287|NCT02100670|168861940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.23||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.73|0.87|0.2389
84554288|NCT02100670|168861940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.0||||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.37|0.74|0.9817
84554289|NCT02100670|168861941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.06||||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.79|0.7003
84554290|NCT02100670|168861941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.01||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.35|0.75|0.9565
84605286|NCT00098722|168961711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|136.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.24|250.62||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||250.62|23.24|
84744962|NCT05453201|169243481|OTHER|"The AIM measures an intervention's acceptability. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention acceptability. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the AIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.24|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.24
84744963|NCT05453201|169243481|OTHER|"The IAM measures an intervention's appropriateness. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention appropriateness. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the IAM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.82
84744964|NCT05453201|169243481|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Paired t-test|||"The FIM measures an intervention's feasibility. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention feasibility. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the FIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||.38
84744965|NCT04688320|169243510|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of the non-inferiority was established as a difference in the primary efficacy endpoints between compared groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.52|||Welch's t-test|||||4.52|0.11|<0.05
84744966|NCT03798691|169243520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||one month after series completion of two dose series||||0.16
84497324|NCT01569074|168745904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|4.2|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.20|1.12|0.131
84605287|NCT00098722|168961711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|140.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.15|253.35||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||253.35|27.15|
84605288|NCT00098722|168961712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.56|0.29|<0.0001
84497325|NCT01569074|168745904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|2.82|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.82|0.79|0.423
84605289|NCT00098722|168961712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.46|0.23|<0.0001
84744967|NCT04548544|169243531|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||timepoint × group interaction|timepoint × group interaction F = 0.77, p = 0.38|||0.38
84744968|NCT00728910|169243532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that the sequential addition of a fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would not have any effect on apo-AI catabolism.||||>0.5
84554291|NCT02100670|168861941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.07||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.40|0.82|0.6216
84554292|NCT02100670|168861945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|2.43||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.7||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||5.70|1.04|0.0408
84554293|NCT02100670|168861945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.31||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.65|0.65|0.4507
84554294|NCT02100670|168861945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.38||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.61||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.61|0.73|0.3150
84605290|NCT00098722|168961713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.575||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.575|-1.177|
84744969|NCT00728910|169243533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on apo-A1 production rates||||>0.5
84554295|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.101
84554296|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.139
84554297|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.116
84554298|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.167
84605291|NCT00098722|168961713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1521|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.584|-1.181|
84605292|NCT00098722|168961713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.521||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.521|-1.189|
84554299|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.210
84554300|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.343
84554301|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.533
84554302|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.593
84554303|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.044
84554304|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.243
84554305|NCT01668966|168861965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.009
84554306|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.1853
84554307|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2992|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.2992
84554308|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2249
84554309|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3102|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.3102
84554310|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.2164
84554311|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8822|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8822
84554312|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.7649
84554313|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.6050
84554314|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4478|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4478
84554315|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4821
84554316|NCT01668966|168861966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0522|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0522
84554317|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.0624
84554318|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0616|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.0616
84554319|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2480
84554320|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.5393
84554321|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.1401
84554322|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.0679
84554323|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.6017
84554324|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4772|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.4772
84554325|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4877|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4877
84744970|NCT00728910|169243534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on post-prandial triglyceride levels following an oral fat load||||<0.0005
84744971|NCT00728910|169243534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
84493005|NCT03778021|168736058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change (intervention minus control) from repeated measures linear mixed model|"The unit of measure is score on a scale. The results show the least squares estimate of change in that score, from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|"In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured)."|0.41|0.04|0.017
84493006|NCT03778021|168736059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.49||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change from baseline to follow-up from model (intervention minus control)|"Results present estimated change in score from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools|3.49|-0.66|0.18
84554326|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.0624
84744972|NCT04155203|169243535|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with clinical cure, defined as a SIRS score of 0 for all signs and symptoms at Visit 4/Follow-up (7 days after the end of treatment).|equivalence ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.19|2.7||||||||2.70|-8.19|
84744973|NCT03762200|169243557|OTHER|Confidence Interval|percentage of sucesses|87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.1||||||||93.1|79.4|
84744974|NCT03762200|169243558|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.4|85.3||||||||85.3|68.4|
84744975|NCT03762200|169243559|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.3|96.6||||||||96.6|85.3|
84744976|NCT00935818|169243563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with covariate included for study site.||2.12|1.05|0.03
84744977|NCT00935818|169243564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.22|1.04|0.03
84744978|NCT00935818|169243565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84744979|NCT00935818|169243566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression adjusted for study site||1.93|0.95|0.09
84554327|NCT01668966|168861967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||<0.0001
84554328|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2388|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.2388
84744980|NCT00935818|169243567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression adjusting for study site||1.91|0.91|0.14
84744981|NCT00935818|169243568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.07|0.93|0.11
84744982|NCT00935818|169243569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for site||2.05|0.96|0.08
84744983|NCT01846494|169243571|OTHER|||||||0.6173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6173
84744984|NCT00604825|169243584|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.93||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||1.93|-0.44|0.215
84744985|NCT00604825|169243584|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.37||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||2.37|0.05|0.041
84744986|NCT00604825|169243584|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.92||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.92|-3.20|<0.001
84744987|NCT00604825|169243585|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.38||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||0.38|-0.08|0.202
84744988|NCT00604825|169243585|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||0.54|0.08|0.008
84744989|NCT00604825|169243585|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
84554329|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1084|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.1084
84554330|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.0321
84554331|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.0203
84554332|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.0193
84554333|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6235|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.6235
84554334|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2814|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2814
84554335|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3391
84554336|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.1605
84554337|NCT01668966|168861968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.4312
84669557|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84554338|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.934
84554339|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.624
84554340|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.642
84554341|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.952
84554342|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.928
84554343|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.832
84554344|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.315
84554345|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.485
84554346|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.246
84554347|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.375
84554348|NCT01668966|168861971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.185
84554349|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.445
84554350|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.414
84554351|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.401
84554352|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.920
84554353|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.834
84605293|NCT00098722|168961713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.701||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.701|-1.364|
84669558|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6911|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6911
84669559|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669560|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0666|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0666
84554354|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.539
84554355|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.246
84554356|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.602
84554357|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.218
84554358|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.208
84554359|NCT01668966|168861972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.101
84554360|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.565
84554361|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.637
84554362|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.594
84554363|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.788
84554364|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.329
84554365|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.716
84554366|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.119
84554367|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.201
84669561|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669562|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
84669563|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669564|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6684|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6684
84669565|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669566|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
84669567|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669568|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
84669569|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669570|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7329|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7329
84669571|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84554368|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.087
84554369|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.116
84554370|NCT01668966|168861973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.070
84554371|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3299|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3299
84554372|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9247|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.9247
84554373|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.9602
84554374|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2773|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.2773
84554375|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.5031
84605294|NCT01610596|168961726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84669572|NCT01480076|169072606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0242
84554376|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8109|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8109
84554377|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2540
84554378|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3794
84554379|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8687|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.8687
84669573|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
84669574|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9151|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9151
84669575|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669576|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6128|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6128
84554380|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4685|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4685
84554381|NCT01668966|168861974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0511
84554382|NCT04599933|168861975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.916|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|5.113|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.113|1.663|<0.01
84554383|NCT04599933|168861976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.035|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|5.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.305|1.736|<0.01
84554384|NCT04599933|168861977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.751|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|8.379|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.379|2.694|<0.01
84554385|NCT04599933|168861978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.422|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.090|1.923|<0.01
84554386|NCT02102100|168861991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means and standard errors were calculated to describe the patterns of means for each outcome. Effect slices were tested to explain significant interactions in the models. Pairwise comparisons of least square means were used to describe significant main effects.||||<.0001
84554387|NCT04076059|168861999|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.222|||Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|||0.222|0.076|<0.0001
84554388|NCT04076059|168862000|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.556|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.556|0.196|<0.0001
84744990|NCT03465904|169243628|SUPERIORITY|Our power analysis indicated that a minimum of 239 patients per group was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 13.4% difference in the primary outcome, pain freedom at 2 h. Accounting for an estimated attrition rate of 20%, we aimed to enroll 299 patients per group.|||||<|0.05||||||All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26.0 with two-sided levels of statistical significance established at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|A Chi-square test of independent proportions was used to compare primary and secondary efficacy outcomes between groups.||Identical statistical analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per protocol (PP) populations. The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients, who received any duration of sham or verum treatment and returned completed study materials. The PP population consisted of patients who strictly met inclusion criteria and completed at least 60 min of treatment.||||<0.05
84744991|NCT00645801|169243663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided 2 sample t test was used to compare the overall cleanliness score between the 2 treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on the assumption that 70% of patients using PEG plus placebo (group 2) will have good results, by allocating 100 cases in each group, we will have 84% power to detect a difference of 18% or more in the effectiveness of PEG plus lubiprostone combination (group 1) (eg, 70% in group 2 vs. 88% in group 1) at the alpha level of significancelevel of significance.||||0.05
84744992|NCT00645801|169243664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||2 sided Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.05
84744993|NCT00645801|169243665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84744994|NCT00759915|169243666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|109.98||||||90.0|100.1|120.8|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||120.8|100.1|
84744995|NCT00759915|169243668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|100.91||||||90.0|96.96|105.0|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||105.0|96.96|
84744996|NCT00759915|169243669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|96.5||||||90.0|92.3|100.97|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||100.97|92.3|
84744997|NCT03527173|169243670|NON_INFERIORITY|VE in reduction of shigellosis is demonstrated if lower limit (LL) of 90% CI of VE estimated with Miettinen-Nurminen (M-N) method is above 0. This estimated CI was complemented with Barnard test. The LL of the 90% CI for VE calculated with M-N method is above 0 if the p-value of the one-sided Barnard test is below 5%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-9.4||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.7|33.7|||1-sided Barnard Unconditional Exact Test|||To demonstrate the efficacy of two vaccinations with 25 µg of S. sonnei vaccine in healthy adults compared to placebo in preventing shigellosis, fulfilling the protocol primary case definition, after challenge with S. sonnei 53G strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) rate was assessed as 1-Risk Ratio(RR) with RR = ratio of proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the vaccinated group on the proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the placebo group.||33.7|-96.7|0.4266
84744998|NCT01248780|169243694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84744999|NCT01248780|169243695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84554389|NCT04076059|168862001|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.789||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|2.998|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||2.998|0.208|0.7279
84745000|NCT01248780|169243696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84745001|NCT01248780|169243697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84745002|NCT00107120|169243723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458||0.022||95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Two-sided at 5% level of significance p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANCOVA|The model included study center and treatment as factors and baseline core as covariate|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score between treatment groups. The power calculation was based on the change from baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score (LOCF approach). Assuming an effect size (treatment group difference relative to standard deviation) of 0.325, a sample size of approximately 150 patients per treatment group was used to provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided test.||-0.5|-6.2|0.022
84745003|NCT00107120|169243724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1128||0.008||95.0|-0.595|0.092||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA|The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline CGI-Severity score as covariate.|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||0.092|-0.595|0.008
84554390|NCT04076059|168862002|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.276|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.276|0.107|<0.0001
84554391|NCT04076059|168862003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||0.0036
84554392|NCT04076059|168862004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||<0.0001
84554393|NCT04076059|168862005|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.797||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.819|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||1.819|0.350|0.5899
84554394|NCT04076059|168862006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|66.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||66.9|40.1|<0.0001
84745004|NCT00107120|169243725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|2.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.103||95.0|-0.439|4.777||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA||Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|ANCOVA on the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CGAS score. The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline score as covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||4.777|-0.439|0.103
84745005|NCT03241225|169243726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|8.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change in EM/PROTECT group not significantly different from mean change in EM/MH group, at week 12.|Week 12||8.61|-1.43|0.16
84554395|NCT04076059|168862007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-5.2||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||14.9|-25.4|0.8312
84554396|NCT02677896|168862008|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|rPFS Treatment Comparison||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
84554397|NCT02677896|168862009|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazards model|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Log Rank|||rPFS Treatment Comparision||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
84554398|NCT02677896|168862010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Log Rank|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Significance level is 0.04. Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
84554399|NCT02677896|168862011|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.26||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to PSA Progression Treatment Comparison||0.26|0.13|<0.0001
84554400|NCT02677896|168862012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.48|||||Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.48|0.31|
84554401|NCT02677896|168862013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|55.7||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PSA Undetectable Rate Treatment Comparison||55.7|45.3|<0.0001
84554402|NCT02677896|168862014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|28.2||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR Treatment Comparison||28.2|10.4|<0.0001
84554403|NCT02677896|168862015|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.88||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to Deterioration of Urinary Symptoms Treatment Comparison||1.08|0.72|0.2162
84554404|NCT02677896|168862016|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.52||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8|||Log Rank|||Time to SSE Treatment Comparison||0.80|0.33|0.0026
84554405|NCT02677896|168862017|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.36|||Log Rank|||Time to Castration Resistance Treatment Comparison||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
84554406|NCT02677896|168862018|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.96||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank|||Time to Deterioration of QoL in FACT-P Treatment Comparison||1.14|0.81|0.6548
84605295|NCT01519674|168961730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.24||||0.011||95.0|0.06|0.43||No corrections for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Linear|||"The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by:~H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Met and BID+Sita+Met)."||0.43|0.06|0.011
84554407|NCT02677896|168862019|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||Time to Pain Progression Based on BPI-SF Treatment Comparison||1.07|0.78|0.2715
84554408|NCT02729038|168862028|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.519|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.519|0.902|
84554409|NCT02729038|168862028|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.151|3.215|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.215|1.151|
84554410|NCT02729038|168862029|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.421|3.969|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.969|1.421|
84554411|NCT02729038|168862029|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.438|6.81|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.810|2.438|
84554412|NCT02729038|168862030|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.467|2.977|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.977|0.467|
84554413|NCT02729038|168862030|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|3.975|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs .participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.975|0.624|
84554414|NCT02729038|168862031|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|5.681|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||5.681|0.891|
84554415|NCT02729038|168862031|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|5.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.363|15.062|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||15.062|2.363|
84554416|NCT02729038|168862053|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|2.52|||||Normal Vs Moderate|||2.520|0.894|
84554417|NCT02729038|168862053|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|3.212|||||Normal Vs Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.212|1.139|
84554418|NCT02729038|168862054|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.414|3.989|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.989|1.414|
84554419|NCT02729038|168862054|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.422|6.831|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.831|2.422|
84554420|NCT02634268|168862103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.93|76.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average six minute walk test distance at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month six minute walk test distance between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||76.6|7.93|.02
84745006|NCT03241225|169243727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.05|-1.37|0.79
84669577|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0331|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0331
84669578|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1919
84669579|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669580|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4481|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4481
84669581|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669582|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5454
84497326|NCT01569074|168745904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.67|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.67|0.45|0.781
84497327|NCT01569074|168745904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.95|3.44|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.44|0.95|0.239
84497328|NCT01569074|168745905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.06|4.67||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ration \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.67|1.06|0.169
84497329|NCT01569074|168745905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.78||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.78|0.45|0.833
84497330|NCT01569074|168745905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.54||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.54|0.37|0.614
84497331|NCT01569074|168745905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.69||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.69|0.42|0.748
84745007|NCT03241225|169243727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||3.46|-0.70|0.19
84745008|NCT03241225|169243727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|5.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||5.93|-14.99|0.37
84554421|NCT02634268|168862104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Modified Borg Scale score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Modified Borg Scale score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.09|-0.63|.0008
84554422|NCT02634268|168862105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average body weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month body weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.34|-2.33|0.0008
84554423|NCT02634268|168862106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||2.60|0.35|0.01
84554424|NCT02634268|168862107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.89|-0.84|0.45
84554425|NCT02634268|168862108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Framingham Risk Score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Framingham Risk Score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.10|-0.71|0.009
84554426|NCT02634268|168862109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average waist circumference at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month waist circumference between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.26|-2.12|0.13
84554427|NCT02634268|168862110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average 12 month systolic blood at 12 months between control and intervention groups|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month systolic blood pressure between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.84|-3.02|0.64
84554428|NCT02634268|168862111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average BMI at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month BMI between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.17|-0.85|0.004
84554429|NCT02634268|168862112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Symptom score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Symptom score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|0.36|-4.87|0.09
84571313|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84669583|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0516|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0516
84605296|NCT01519674|168961730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.11||||0.231||95.0|-0.3|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||0.07|-0.30|0.231
84605297|NCT01519674|168961730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
84745009|NCT03241225|169243727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #4, Week 12||-0.73|-9.75|0.026
84745010|NCT03241225|169243727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #5, Week 12||2.27|-3.51|0.66
84745011|NCT03241225|169243728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.66|-0.26|0.14
84497332|NCT01569074|168745906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|5.26|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.26|0.76|0.087
84605298|NCT01519674|168961731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.022||95.0|0.39|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.39|0.022
84605299|NCT01519674|168961731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.618||95.0|0.73|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.73|0.618
84605300|NCT01519674|168961731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.005||95.0|1.2|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.20|0.005
84605301|NCT01519674|168961732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.02||95.0|0.38|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.92|0.38|0.020
84605302|NCT01519674|168961732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.286||95.0|0.81|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.81|0.286
84605303|NCT01519674|168961732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.39|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|1.39|<0.001
84605304|NCT01519674|168961733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.13||||0.52||95.0|-0.26|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|-0.26|0.520
84745012|NCT03241225|169243728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|1.55||Domain #2|t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.55|0.011|0.047
84745013|NCT03241225|169243728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||1.64|-0.34|0.18
84745014|NCT00852540|169243729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.5|68.4|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||68.4|45.5|
84497333|NCT01569074|168745906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.91|2.41|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.41|-1.91|0.881
84745015|NCT00852540|169243729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|95.8|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||95.8|72.6|
84497334|NCT01569074|168745906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|1.8|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.80|-2.64|0.806
84497335|NCT01569074|168745906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.03||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|3.23|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.23|-1.17|0.548
84497336|NCT01569074|168745907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.12||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|5.82|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.82|0.42|0.139
84497337|NCT01569074|168745907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|5.07|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.07|-0.13|0.223
84497338|NCT01569074|168745907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.63||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|1.04|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.04|-4.30|0.432
84745016|NCT00896051|169243742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.22|0.55|
84745017|NCT00896051|169243742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.16|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.16|0.80|
84493007|NCT03778021|168736060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.81||"Repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution (variable was I know I can - yes versus no)."|Mixed Models Analysis|The odds of the odds ratio is reported as the intervention effect.|Odds ratio from estimated least squares from generalized mixed model with binomial distribution specified. Intervention odds of change compared to comparison group odds of change via odds ratio..|"Odds ratio of 8-month follow-up to baseline percent reporting  I know I can was estimated from repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution.~Values included from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 8-month follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively. The person-timepoint is the unit of analysis."||2.81|0.60|0.51
84554430|NCT02634268|168862113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Activity score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Activity score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.56|-5.19|0.12
84554431|NCT02634268|168862114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Impact score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Impact score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.25|-5.19|0.03
84554432|NCT02634268|168862115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Total score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SGRQ-C Total score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.28|-4.55|0.03
84554433|NCT02720744|168862121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|8.75||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline (or its log transformation).|Difference from placebo was defined by the FT218 mean value minus placebo value.|||8.75|3.52|<0.001
84554434|NCT02720744|168862122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|11.23||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|GLIMMIX model|P-values estimated with categorized CGI-Improvement response (very much or much improved versus other category) at the specific visit.||||11.23|2.76|<0.001
84554435|NCT02720744|168862123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-3.98||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline to the end of the respective treatment period.||||-3.98|-9.32|<0.001
84554436|NCT01482962|168862124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||P-value was stratified using disease type, International Prognostic Index (IPI) Score and region as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.08|0.33|0.038
84554437|NCT01482962|168862125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|1.178|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.178|0.637|0.177
84745018|NCT00896051|169243743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.22|0.76|
84745019|NCT00896051|169243744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: Minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.33|0.63|
84554438|NCT01482962|168862126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.369|||Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.369|0.707|0.338
84554439|NCT01482962|168862131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.329|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.329|0.679|0.362
84554440|NCT01472757|168862160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84554441|NCT01472757|168862160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84554442|NCT01472757|168862160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84745020|NCT00896051|169243744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.27|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.27|0.86|
84554443|NCT01472757|168862161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84554444|NCT01472757|168862161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84554445|NCT01472757|168862161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84554446|NCT01472757|168862162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84554447|NCT01472757|168862162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84554448|NCT01472757|168862162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84554449|NCT02505334|168862176|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg/day vs. liraglutide 0.9 mg/day was to be considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day minus liraglutide 0.9 mg/day) for change from baseline in HbA1c (% of HbA1c) was entirely below 0%, equivalent to a one-sided test with significance level of 2.5%.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Missing data was imputed using the LOCF method. The change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline response as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
84605305|NCT01519674|168961733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.788||95.0|-0.34|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.34|0.788
84745021|NCT00896051|169243745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21|||Llinear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.21|0.81|
84745022|NCT00435591|169243760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83||||||"Aggregated data were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical analysis is relevant to the aggregated data of all rows except the no assessment row."||0.83|-0.37|
84745023|NCT00007345|169243808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||An exact Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to compare the distributions. In view of the large number of tests performed, we only refer to those with P-values \<0.01 as statistically significant, with those for which 0.01 \<P\< 0.05 considered trends.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.01
84493008|NCT02687815|168736061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.69|0.63
84745024|NCT04433585|169243813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
84554450|NCT02635542|168862267|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84554451|NCT02635542|168862268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84554452|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|24.51|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||24.51|-5.75|
84554453|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|23.79|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||23.79|-8.68|
84554454|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|8.2|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||8.20|-12.04|
84554455|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|31.87|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||31.87|-3.45|
84554456|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|10.92|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||10.92|-10.12|
84554457|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|36.93|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||36.93|13.16|
84554458|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.62||||95.0|-29.94|29.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||29.03|-29.94|
84554459|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|28.28|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||28.28|-11.67|
84554460|NCT00742508|168862291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.15|-0.63|
84554461|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.63|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||15.63|-11.20|
84554462|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|16.84|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||16.84|-17.95|
84554463|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||5.86|-15.71|
84605306|NCT01519674|168961733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.07||||0.708||95.0|-0.46|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||||0.31|-0.46|0.708
84605307|NCT01519674|168961734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.28||||0.291||95.0|-0.24|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.24|0.291
84745025|NCT04433585|169243813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
84745026|NCT04433585|169243813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
84745027|NCT04433585|169243814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|0.83|0.131
84745028|NCT04433585|169243814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.47|0.844
84493009|NCT02687815|168736062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.75|||Regression, Cox|||||2.75|0.63|0.46
84493010|NCT02687815|168736063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.66|0.99
84493011|NCT02687815|168736064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||||8.80|0.001|0.049
84493012|NCT04602078|168736076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Log Rank|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.444
84554464|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|26.59|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||26.59|-7.11|
84554465|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|7.88|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||7.88|-14.78|
84554466|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|22.76|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||22.76|13.36|
84554467|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.17|17.26|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||17.26|-32.17|
84554468|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||15.80|-13.61|
84554469|NCT00742508|168862311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.30|-0.54|
84554470|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||4.86|-12.84|
84554471|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|2.95|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||2.95|-13.50|
84554472|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|6.94|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||6.94|-10.89|
84605308|NCT01519674|168961734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.88||||0.001||95.0|-1.41|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-1.41|0.001
84669584|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0175
84493013|NCT04602078|168736077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.414
84554473|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|6.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||6.03|-14.32|
84554474|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|5.47|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||5.47|-11.45|
84669585|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
84554475|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.89|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||9.89|-16.12|
84554476|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.749|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.41|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||0.41|-20.41|
84554477|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|13.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||13.15|-16.00|
84554478|NCT00742508|168862312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.03|-0.71|
84554479|NCT02431806|168862316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.64|-3.41|0.8035
84554480|NCT02431806|168862316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.31|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.31|-2.80|0.8681
84745029|NCT04433585|169243814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.24|0.218
84554481|NCT02431806|168862316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.47||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.58|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.58|-4.52|0.3439
84554482|NCT02431806|168862317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.25|0.8788
84605309|NCT01519674|168961734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.16|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.69|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.64|-1.69|<0.001
84605310|NCT01519674|168961735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.85||||0.005||95.0|0.26|1.45|||Regression, Linear|||||1.45|0.26|0.005
84605311|NCT01519674|168961735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.52||||0.085||95.0|-0.07|1.12|||Regression, Linear|||||1.12|-0.07|0.085
84605312|NCT01519674|168961735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.33||||0.275||95.0|-0.92|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.92|0.275
84605313|NCT01519674|168961736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.674||95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.70|0.674
84669586|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9371
84554483|NCT02431806|168862317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.26|0.9230
84554484|NCT02431806|168862317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.13|-0.42|0.2895
84554485|NCT04120584|168862327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84554486|NCT04120584|168862328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84554487|NCT04450407|168862340|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% CI (Confidence Interval) is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.32||||||||0.32|0.01|
84669587|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
84554488|NCT05238025|168862347|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|71.9||||||||71.9|-16.1|
84554489|NCT05238025|168862348|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the first primary outcome is met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|74.3|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||74.3|34.7|
84554490|NCT05238025|168862349|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if both primary outcomes are met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|64.7|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||64.7|25.8|
84554491|NCT02754674|168862364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84554492|NCT02754674|168862365|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84605314|NCT01519674|168961736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.72||||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.14|0.015
84605315|NCT01519674|168961736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.84||||0.004||95.0|0.27|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|0.27|0.004
84605316|NCT01519674|168961737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.31||||0.08||95.0|-0.04|0.65|||Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-0.04|0.080
84605317|NCT01519674|168961737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.09||||0.613||95.0|-0.26|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||||0.43|-0.26|0.613
84605318|NCT01519674|168961737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.22||||0.213||95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||0.13|-0.56|0.213
84605319|NCT01519674|168961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.29||||0.8||95.0|-1.97|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||||2.56|-1.97|0.800
84605320|NCT01519674|168961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.02||||0.989||95.0|-2.26|2.29|||Regression, Linear|||||2.29|-2.26|0.989
84605321|NCT01519674|168961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.28||||0.809||95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||||1.97|-2.52|0.809
84605322|NCT02317809|168961753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.87|118.15|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||118.15|110.87|
84605323|NCT02317809|168961754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.42|112.86|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||112.86|101.42|
84605324|NCT02317809|168961755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|112.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.44|119.27|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||119.27|106.44|
84605325|NCT02317809|168961756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|103.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|114.47|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||114.47|93.16|
84745030|NCT04433585|169243815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
84745031|NCT04433585|169243815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
84554493|NCT02754674|168862366|SUPERIORITY|Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. The statistical significance level was set at .05.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess the normality of the data distribution. Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables between groups. The statistical significance level was set at .05.||||>0.05
84554494|NCT02754674|168862367|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84554495|NCT02754674|168862368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
84554496|NCT00474045|168862381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4||95.0|-0.21|0.08||P-value for superiority was calculated.|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, pregnancy (preg.) status at randomisation (random.)-fixed. HbA1c at rand.(covariate) \& at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.08|-0.21|0.400
84554497|NCT00474045|168862382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.122||95.0|-0.34|0.04||P-value for superiority was calculated|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, preg. status at rand.(fixed factors),HbA1c at rand.(covariate),HbA1c at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% CI was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.04|-0.34|0.122
84554498|NCT02135107|168862428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||||||<0.001
84554499|NCT02135107|168862429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at a two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 12||||<0.001
84554500|NCT02135107|168862429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 24||||<0.001
84554501|NCT02135107|168862430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.23|<0.001
84493014|NCT02706327|168736085|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction and adjusted p-value was 0.016.|Kruskal-Wallis|Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for significant differences.||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not. A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction.||||<0.001
84554502|NCT02135107|168862431|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
84554503|NCT02135107|168862434|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|0.0|||=|0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||3.5|-3.5|=0.992
84554504|NCT02278120|168862481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.694|||Log Rank|||||0.694|0.441|<0.0000001
84669588|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5475
84554505|NCT02278120|168862482|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.712||||0.00973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.948||One-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.948|0.535|0.00973
84554506|NCT02278120|168862483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000980
84554507|NCT02278120|168862484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84669589|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0699
84745032|NCT04433585|169243815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
84745033|NCT04433585|169243816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|0.71|0.203
84554508|NCT03197324|168862493|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|116.56|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||116.56|86.49|
84554509|NCT03197324|168862496|SUPERIORITY|Compare if co-administration of digoxin with bexagliflozin had significant impact on the PK of digoxin|Ratio of Geometric LSM|106.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|117.53|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||117.53|95.82|
84554510|NCT06350461|168862500|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||One-sided test for non-inferiority|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
84554511|NCT06350461|168862501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.4|-0.4|0.733
84554512|NCT06350461|168862502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.9|-4.1|0.226
84554513|NCT06350461|168862503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata|Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||2.1|-1.8|0.857
84554514|NCT06350461|168862504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||1.54|-0.25|0.16
84554515|NCT06350461|168862505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.57|-1.04|0.56
84745034|NCT04433585|169243816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.38|0.865
84554516|NCT06350461|168862506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|1.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants initiating acute antibiotics is the same in the Discontinue and Continue arms||6.1|-3.7|0.653
84554517|NCT06350461|168862507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.5||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||3.4|-2.0|0.622
84554518|NCT06350461|168862508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|-1.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||1.6|-4.1|0.623
84554519|NCT06350461|168862509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|11.7||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||20.7|2.4|0.0165
84745035|NCT04433585|169243816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.38|0.896
84745036|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|108.44|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI).||108.44|93.14|
84554520|NCT06350461|168862510|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the HS-discontinue and HS-continue arms are 1135.7 and 1163.9 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||1.74|0.96|0.0958
84554521|NCT06350461|168862511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
84554522|NCT00514904|168862512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.26|20.23||||||||20.23|10.26|
84554523|NCT00514904|168862512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|24.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|31.87||||||||31.87|17.52|
84554524|NCT00514904|168862512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|11.08|||Difference in percentage|||||11.08|2.68|
84554525|NCT00514904|168862512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|23.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.02|30.3||||||||30.3|18.02|
84493015|NCT02706327|168736086|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.547
84669590|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5870
84493016|NCT02706327|168736087|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.895
84493017|NCT02706327|168736088|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.842
84493018|NCT02706327|168736089|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.848
84493019|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493020|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493021|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493022|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493023|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493024|NCT06045026|168736141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493025|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493026|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493027|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493028|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493029|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493030|NCT06045026|168736142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493031|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493032|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493033|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493034|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493035|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493036|NCT06045026|168736143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493037|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493038|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493039|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493040|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493041|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493042|NCT06045026|168736144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493043|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493044|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493045|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493046|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493047|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493048|NCT06045026|168736145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493049|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84493050|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493051|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493052|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84745037|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.71|105.48|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.48|90.71|
84493053|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84554526|NCT00514904|168862513|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for assessment: upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio between Nimenrix Group and Mencevax ACWY Group being lower than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit ratio of 3.0 in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptoms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.34||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|20.25|||Chi-squared|||||20.25|0.56|0.2202
84554527|NCT00084318|168862528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.06|0.54|0.05
84554528|NCT00084318|168862528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.96|0.50|0.01
84554529|NCT00084318|168862529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.03|0.5|0.04
84554530|NCT00084318|168862529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||0.82|0.39|0.001
84554531|NCT00084318|168862533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.76|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.76|0.63|0.66
84605326|NCT01974752|168961777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Factor for treatment and liver metastases|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.27|0.48|0.3195
84493054|NCT06045026|168736146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493055|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84554532|NCT00084318|168862533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.87|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||1.87|0.72|0.86
84745038|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.5|80.32|
84493056|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493057|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84554533|NCT04676412|168862578|OTHER|Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Difference in percentage|-8.4||||0.79262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage =0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0||||11.9|-27.4|0.79262
84493058|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493059|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493060|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493061|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84554534|NCT04676412|168862581|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.25||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|8.09|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||8.09|-8.59|0.9519
84554535|NCT04676412|168862582|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|8.81||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|18.11|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||18.11|-0.49|0.0628
84554536|NCT04676412|168862583|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|3.59||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.87|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.87|-3.70|0.3298
84554537|NCT04676412|168862584|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-0.28||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|10.75|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.75|-11.32|0.9594
84554538|NCT04676412|168862585|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-5.53||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.31|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||2.31|-13.37|0.1620
84605327|NCT01974752|168961779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.94||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of log (W6/BL) tumour assessments with a factor for trt, and covariates for liver mets, log BL tumour size, and time from BL scan to rand.|A geometric least squares mean ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.02|0.88|0.1284
84605328|NCT01974752|168961780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.4011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.39|0.4011
84605329|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|4.5||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||7.5|1.4|0.0036
84605330|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-3.0||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||1.0|-7.0|0.1465
84605331|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.7||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||12.7|3.3|<0.001
84605332|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|0.9||||0.7493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.2||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||6.2|-4.5|0.7493
84608447|NCT01345682|168967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.97|0.56|0.0268
84554539|NCT04676412|168862586|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.26|0.47|0.9419
84554540|NCT04676412|168862587|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.38|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.38|0.43|0.9789
84554541|NCT04676412|168862588|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.28|0.36|0.8856
84554542|NCT04676412|168862589|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.75|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.75|0.64|0.3264
84554543|NCT04676412|168862590|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
84554544|NCT04676412|168862591|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|35.62|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||35.62|1.71|0.0020
84554545|NCT04676412|168862592|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.71084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.25|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.25|0.61|0.71084
84554546|NCT04676412|168862593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.87|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).||3.87|0.61|0.81970
84554547|NCT04765722|168862616|SUPERIORITY||% change relative to placebo|18.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|160.1||The model included treatment group, week, the interaction between treatment group and week, and baseline log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency as fixed effects.|Generalized estimating equations|Hypothesis tests were two-sided, a p\<0.05 indicated statistical significance. We made no adjustments for multiple comparisons across outcomes.||The primary outcome was the change from baseline in log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency (coughs/hour) at week 14.||160.1|-46.4|0.99
84554548|NCT05175131|168862632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA||Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Mebeverine. Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||1.8|0.3|0.0042
84554549|NCT05175131|168862632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.4|||ANCOVA||Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Simethicone. ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||2.4|0.9|<0.0001
84554550|NCT04982575|168862639|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate using retrieved participants multiple imputation of missing data regardless of treatment or stratification.||0.19|-0.79|0.2284
84605333|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|20.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||27.0|13.5|0.0000
84493062|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493063|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493064|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84554551|NCT05711381|168862649|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.41||||||||1.41|0.59|
84554552|NCT05711381|168862650|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.68||||||||1.68|0.93|
84554553|NCT02407132|168862652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.139; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.013. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.038
84554554|NCT02407132|168862653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.552; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.447. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.234
84554555|NCT02407132|168862654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean total chol from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.598; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.073. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.019
84554556|NCT02407132|168862655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HDL from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.009; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.201. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HDL (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.186
84554557|NCT02407132|168862656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.040
84554558|NCT02407132|168862657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed Effects Logistic Regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.312
84605334|NCT01310400|168961854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|10.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.6||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||17.6|3.7|0.0029
84554559|NCT02407132|168862658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.622
84554560|NCT02407132|168862659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.957
84554561|NCT02407132|168862660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.147
84554562|NCT02407132|168862661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.326
84554563|NCT01458951|168862672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|13.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.9|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI).||17.9|8.1|0.0005
84554564|NCT01458951|168862673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|9.5|0.0002
84554565|NCT01458951|168862674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
84554566|NCT01458951|168862675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.2||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.6|1.8|0.0425
84554567|NCT01458951|168862676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference in its percentage and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.1|8.3|0.0004
84554568|NCT01458951|168862677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|8.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.2|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||12.2|3.9|0.0090
84554569|NCT01458951|168862678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|3.3||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||6.6|0.1|0.1408
84605335|NCT01062841|168961858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.94|0.62|<0.05
84605336|NCT01062841|168961859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||0.97|0.30|0.04
84608518|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.94|
84608519|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.61|0.96|
84669591|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
84493065|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84554570|NCT01458951|168862680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
84554571|NCT01458951|168862680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
84554572|NCT01458951|168862680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
84493066|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84554573|NCT01458951|168862681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
84554574|NCT00585013|168862688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value applies to all time points for all variables.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84554575|NCT00585013|168862689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies for measurements at preoperative and 0 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84554576|NCT00585013|168862689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at time points 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84554577|NCT00585013|168862690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at preoperative, 0 h, and 48 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84554578|NCT00585013|168862690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to time points at 12 h and 24 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84554579|NCT00585013|168862691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Applies to all time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84554580|NCT01573767|168862735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.4||Inference for VI 12.5 µg versus (vs) placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for VI 25 µg vs placebo; inference for VI 6.25 µg vs placebo was dependent on SS having been achieved for VI 12.5 µg vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||||11.4|-2.7|0.227
84554581|NCT01573767|168862735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|-0.6|0.073
84605337|NCT01062841|168961860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.96|0.64|<0.05
84554582|NCT01573767|168862735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-1.6|0.127
84554583|NCT01573767|168862736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.138|
84554584|NCT01573767|168862736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.096||||||||0.096|-0.063|
84554585|NCT01573767|168862736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.110|
84554586|NCT01573767|168862737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.0||||||||6.0|-10.5|
84669592|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9926|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9926
84493067|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84554587|NCT01573767|168862737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6||||||||9.6|-6.9|
84554588|NCT01573767|168862737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0||||||||17.0|0.4|
84554589|NCT01573767|168862738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|-1.2|
84554590|NCT01573767|168862738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||||||||14.2|0.7|
84554591|NCT01573767|168862738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||||95.0|0.4|14.0||||||||14.0|0.4|
84554592|NCT01573767|168862739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.1|
84554593|NCT01573767|168862739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.4||||||||17.4|-1.8|
84554594|NCT01573767|168862739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.9||||||||14.9|-4.4|
84554595|NCT01573767|168862740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.6||||||||15.6|-3.7|
84554596|NCT01573767|168862740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.3||||||||19.3|0.0|
84554597|NCT01573767|168862740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||||95.0|-2.7|16.7||||||||16.7|-2.7|
84554598|NCT01573767|168862741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.5||||||||7.5|-7.2|
84554599|NCT01573767|168862741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.7||||||||15.7|1.0|
84554600|NCT01573767|168862741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.2||||||||17.2|2.3|
84554601|NCT02339155|168862742|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) or the ratio of anti-PA Ab (attributable to AVA) GMCs between the AVA and the AVA + raxibacumab groups at Week 4 is less than 1.5, non-inferiority was to be established.|Ratio|1.18||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.35|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.35|1.03|0.0016
84554602|NCT02339155|168862743|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.22|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 8|||1.22|0.98|
84554603|NCT02339155|168862743|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 26|||1.07|0.89|<0.0001
84554604|NCT00308750|168862809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
84554605|NCT00308750|168862809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
84554606|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
84554607|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
84554608|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
84554609|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
84554610|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
84554611|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
84554612|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
84554613|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84554614|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
84554615|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.40
84554616|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84605338|NCT01062841|168961861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.75||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.75|0.82|>0.05
84608520|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|1.09|
84493068|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84554617|NCT00308750|168862813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84554618|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
84554619|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.86
84554620|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.69
84554621|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.77
84554622|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
84554623|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
84554624|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
84554625|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
84554626|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84554627|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
84554628|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.80
84554629|NCT00308750|168862814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84554630|NCT00308750|168862815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
84554631|NCT00308750|168862815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
84554632|NCT00308750|168862818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
84554633|NCT00308750|168862818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
84554634|NCT01643798|168862829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84554635|NCT01643798|168862829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84554636|NCT01643798|168862830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
84554637|NCT01643798|168862830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.794
84554638|NCT02304380|168862845|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0469|0.034|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0340|-0.0469|
84554639|NCT02304380|168862846|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.0722|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0722|0.0290|
84554640|NCT02304380|168862847|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0099|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0099|-0.0109|
84554641|NCT02304380|168862848|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0096||||||||0.0096|-0.0318|
84554642|NCT02304380|168862849|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0036|0.0289|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0289|0.0036|
84554643|NCT02304380|168862850|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0111|||||||Linear model difference in incidences.|0.0111|-0.0020|
84554644|NCT02304380|168862851|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0431|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0431|-0.0129|
84554645|NCT02304380|168862852|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0328|0.0197|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0197|-0.0328|
84554646|NCT02304380|168862853|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0105|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0163|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0163|-0.0374|
84554647|NCT02304380|168862854|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.0044|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0044|-0.0031|
84554648|NCT02304380|168862855|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1025|0.044||||Linear model difference in incidences.||||0.0440|-0.1025|
84554649|NCT02304380|168862856|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0116|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0116|-0.1492|
84554650|NCT02304380|168862857|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.0134|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0134|0.0010|
84554651|NCT02304380|168862858|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0107||||||||0.0107|0.0009|
84554652|NCT02304380|168862859|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0106|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0106|0.0001|
84605339|NCT01062841|168961862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.44||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.44|0.61|>0.05
84605340|NCT01062841|168961863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.97|0.58|<0.05
84605341|NCT01062841|168961865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.45|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||5.45|0.22|0.92
84554653|NCT02304380|168862860|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0096|0.0017|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0017|-0.0096|
84554654|NCT02304380|168862861|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|-0.0043|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||-0.0043|-0.0178|
84554655|NCT02304380|168862862|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0086|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0086|-0.0036|
84554656|NCT02304380|168862863|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.0284|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0284|0.0110|
84554657|NCT00328094|168862867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.85|0.23
84554658|NCT01911780|168862869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.3|||LOCF-ANCOVA|Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used as the imputation method|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-5.3|-9.7|<0.0001
84554659|NCT01911780|168862870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.5||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|LOCF-ANCOVA||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-4.5|-12.7|<0.0001
84554660|NCT01911780|168862871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.1||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Non-completers considered failures (NCF) was used as the imputation method.|Exact 95 % confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson. Logistic regression includes treatment and center.|||7.1|1.4|0.0052
84554661|NCT01911780|168862873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.3|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||As a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3|-3.1|
84554662|NCT01911780|168862874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.1|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||6.1|-1.5|
84554663|NCT01349322|168862904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is defined as a hazard ratio upper limit of 2.12.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.05|||Regression, Cox||Cause-specific hazard ratio; reference level = Arm 1.|"Assuming Arm 1 5-year IBR of 1.59%, for hypothesized upper bound hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (Arm 2 5-year IBR of 3.33%), 46 IBR events provide \>80% power to conclude non-inferiority with one-sided significance level = 0.05. Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2.12 (inferior). Alternative hypothesis: HR \< 2.12 (non-inferior). See Limitations and Caveats section."||2.05|0.84|0.039
84554664|NCT01349322|168862905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.96
84554665|NCT01349322|168862906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.14
84554666|NCT01349322|168862907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.34
84554667|NCT01349322|168862909|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) of inferiority: the mean change in cosmetic subscale score in Arm 2 will be at least 0.4 standard deviations worse than in Arm 1. If H0 is rejected, then non-inferiority can be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||One-side significance level = 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.13|-0.08|<0.0001
84493069|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493070|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84554668|NCT05014815|168862914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.33|0.74|0.4698
84554669|NCT05014815|168862915|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||||The Mantel-Haenszel common OR and its 95% CI were estimated using a normal approximation of the log odds ratio and the Robins-Breslow-Greenland variance, stratified by PD-L1 expression and histology.|||1.26|0.47|
84605342|NCT01062841|168961866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.31|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||6.31|0.53|0.34
84669593|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
84669594|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6368|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6368
84669595|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3358|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3358
84669596|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5089|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5089
84669597|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
84669598|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4280
84669599|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
84669600|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3827
84669601|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0748|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0748
84672240|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.724||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||1.724|0.746|0.597
84554670|NCT05014815|168862917|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||||The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.34|0.67|
84554671|NCT03833804|168862929|NON_INFERIORITY|The investigators conducted a noninferiority analysis using a prespecified margin of 0.5%. The noninferiority margin was selected based on expert input from addiction medicine clinicians and implementation scientists, who agreed that a 0.5% absolute difference in the composite intervention rate would be clinically acceptable given the workflow and scalability benefits of automation. The margin was chosen to reflect a reasonable balance between clinical impact and operational gain.|z-test|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||One-sided independent samples z-test|||||||0.20
84554672|NCT00480493|168862935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|9.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Confidence scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if the change in Confidence score was significantly different between the groups.||9.24|-4.32|0.468
84554673|NCT00480493|168862936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|25.11|||t-test, 2 sided||Concern scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences in Concern between the two groups at 12 months.||25.11|-15.47|0.634
84554674|NCT00480493|168862937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We also used a random-effect, mixed regression models to look for between group changes over time.|The difference in the Worry score at 12 months was compared between the groups using a 2 sided t-test.||3.80|-8.76|0.430
84554675|NCT04027075|168862938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.02|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.02|0.51|.962
84554676|NCT04027075|168862939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.18|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||1.18|0.19|.109
84493071|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84605343|NCT01062841|168961867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||0.95|0.65|0.01
84605344|NCT01062841|168961868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||1.60|0.45|0.61
84605345|NCT01062841|168961869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.60|0.59
84605346|NCT03180398|168961891|SUPERIORITY|It was hoped to compare radiomics features, using non-parametric tests, but this was not possible because of the small number of patients accrued.|||||||||||||||||Not enough patients were accrued for radiomics analysis. PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
84605347|NCT03180398|168961892|OTHER|Analysis could not be completed.|||||||||||||||||PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
84605348|NCT02337530|168961909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.01|||Fisher Exact|||||7.01|0.28|0.73
84605349|NCT02337530|168961909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|24.8|||Fisher Exact|||||24.8|1.65|0.01
84493072|NCT06045026|168736147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493073|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0100
84493074|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84554677|NCT04027075|168862940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.29|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.29|0.75|.227
84554678|NCT04027075|168862941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.87|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.87|0.50|.681
84554679|NCT04027075|168862942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.42|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.42|0.58|.650
84554680|NCT04027075|168862943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.73|0.73|.304
84554681|NCT04027075|168862944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.00|0.69|0.97
84554682|NCT04027075|168862945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.005
84554683|NCT04027075|168862946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.460
84554684|NCT04027075|168862947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.851
84605350|NCT02337530|168961910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.60|0.42|0.56
84605351|NCT02337530|168961910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.40|0.44
84605352|NCT01874275|168961918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2413
84605353|NCT02120365|168961925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Medication dose was a within-subjects factor (crossover design)||||0.867
84605354|NCT02120365|168961926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models, medication was a within-subjects factor||||0.071
84605355|NCT02120365|168961927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models||||0.667
84669602|NCT01480076|169072607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5663|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5663
84493075|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493076|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84605356|NCT02120365|168961928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.393||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|||||0.285
84669603|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1544|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1544
84669604|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
84554685|NCT04027075|168862948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.977
84554686|NCT04027075|168862949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.456
84669605|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3868
84493077|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493078|NCT06045026|168736148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493079|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84669606|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2214
84493080|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84493081|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84493082|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84493083|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493084|NCT06045026|168736149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84493085|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||||<0.0001
84669607|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0743
84669608|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1601|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1601
84669609|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1251|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1251
84669610|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1764
84669611|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5528
84554687|NCT04027075|168862950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.874
84554688|NCT04027075|168862951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.069
84554689|NCT04027075|168862952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.658
84554690|NCT04027075|168862953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.783|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.783
84554691|NCT00455520|168862955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.7|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance Model with factors of treatment, country, prior opioid use, and baseline dose level and start of DB pain score as factors.||-0.92|-1.7|<0.001
84554692|NCT01785849|168862983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.71|56.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of proportion of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||56.31|18.71|<0.001
84554693|NCT01785849|168862984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.47|42.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category, recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization, and region.||||42.48|11.47|<0.001
84554694|NCT01785849|168862985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.77|-64.46|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-64.46|-77.77|<0.001
84554695|NCT01785849|168862986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-7.23|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-7.23|-9.52|<0.001
84605357|NCT02120365|168961929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Mixed Models||||.843
84493086|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||||<0.0001
84493087|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84554696|NCT01785849|168862987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|-10.25|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.25|-19.73|<0.001
84554697|NCT01785849|168862988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-2.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-2.59|-12.31|0.003
84554698|NCT00808639|168862994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pathologic response rate|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|38.0|61.0||||||This study used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. Of 39 eligible patients, if 18 achieved PaR, the treatment would be declared effective. A two-sided 80% CI was estimated considering the two-stage design based on Atkinson and Brown methods.||61|38|
84554699|NCT00710684|168863029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.5|-1.9|0.279
84554700|NCT00710684|168863029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35mg versus placebo at Week 24||-0.3|-2.7|0.012
84554701|NCT00710684|168863030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.711
84554702|NCT00710684|168863030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.462
84554703|NCT00710684|168863031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.1|-5.8|0.174
84554704|NCT00710684|168863031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||2.7|-3.6|0.776
84554705|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.7|-1.2|0.631
84605358|NCT02120365|168961930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|We report the main effect of dose on the outcome measure||||.691
84493088|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84554706|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.4|-2.2|0.006
84554707|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||1.2|-1.3|0.947
84554708|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.0|-2.5|0.057
84554709|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.5|-1.6|0.925
84554710|NCT00710684|168863032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||-0.2|-3.1|0.024
84554711|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.387
84554712|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.1|-0.5|0.018
84554713|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.6|-0.3|0.439
84554714|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.2|-0.6|0.336
84554715|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.8|-0.2|0.190
84554716|NCT00710684|168863033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.787
84554717|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||1.4|-4.0|0.337
84554718|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.0|-1.7|0.596
84554719|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||2.7|-4.4|0.634
84554720|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||5.6|-1.4|0.238
84554721|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.8|-6.0|0.292
84554722|NCT00710684|168863034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||6.2|-1.0|0.161
84554723|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||2.1|-0.8|0.396
84554724|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.2|0.3|0.019
84554725|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.2|-0.3|0.110
84669612|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1080
84669613|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.4644|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4644
84493089|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
84554726|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.7|0.3|0.024
84554727|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo ate Week 36||2.0|-2.1|0.944
84554728|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||3.8|0.1|0.037
84554729|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||2.9|-1.9|0.705
84554730|NCT00710684|168863035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||4.2|-0.3|0.088
84554731|NCT00710684|168863036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.6|-0.6|0.962
84669614|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.91||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
84493090|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84554732|NCT00710684|168863036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.0|-0.1|0.134
84554733|NCT00710684|168863036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.7|-1.0|0.782
84554734|NCT00710684|168863036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.2|-0.3|0.268
84554735|NCT02832375|168863047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.319|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|H0= no difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice H1= a difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice||-0.319|-0.577|<0.0001
84554736|NCT03301740|168863068|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in intradialytic hypotension between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.7|0.8|0.5
84554737|NCT03301740|168863069|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-2.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.4|-6.9|0.2
84669615|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0071
84493091|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
84493092|NCT06045026|168736151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84554738|NCT03301740|168863070|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T rise between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.2|0.1
84493093|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.07|70.81||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||70.81|47.07|
84554739|NCT03301740|168863071|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in left ventricular GLS change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the difference of the endpoint between the 2 treatment groups.||0.5|-2.0|0.2
84554740|NCT03301740|168863072|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-0.2||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in nadir systolic BP between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.7|-2.0|0.9
84493094|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|145.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.66|178.52||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||178.52|118.66|
84571314|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
84571315|NCT02065557|168893577|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
84571316|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
84571317|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
84571318|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
84571319|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
84571320|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.559||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.559
84571321|NCT02065557|168893578|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.815||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.815
84554741|NCT03301740|168863073|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in failed target weight achievement between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.7|0.8
84554742|NCT03301740|168863074|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important cramping between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.1|0.4|0.9
84554743|NCT03301740|168863075|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important nausea/upset stomach between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.2|0.2|0.5
84605359|NCT01726673|168961941|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|302.0||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.256
84605360|NCT01726673|168961941|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with upper extremity fugl meyer score for the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|222.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 36 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.222
84605361|NCT01726673|168961942|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U Value|251.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||1.0
84605362|NCT01726673|168961942|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|208.5||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 36 weeks ( 6 month follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.592
84605363|NCT01726673|168961943|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|270.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.680
84605364|NCT01726673|168961943|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month FU) was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|187.5||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 6 month FU across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.837
84669616|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0640
84605365|NCT02863523|168961945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84605366|NCT02863523|168961946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
84605367|NCT02863523|168961947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84554744|NCT03301740|168863076|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important Vomiting/throwing up score between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||16.0|0.1|1.0
84554745|NCT03301740|168863077|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important dizziness/lightheadedness between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||0.9|0.1|0.04
84554746|NCT03301740|168863078|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important racing heart/heart palpitations between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||32.4|0.3|0.3
84554747|NCT03301740|168863079|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important chest pain between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.0|0.2|1.0
84554748|NCT03301740|168863080|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important shortness of breath between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.5|0.3|0.7
84554749|NCT03301740|168863081|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important thirst/dry mouth between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.2|0.3|0.2
84554750|NCT03301740|168863082|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important headache between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.3|0.4|0.8
84554751|NCT03301740|168863083|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important itching between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.6|1.2|0.02
84554752|NCT03301740|168863084|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important restless legs/difficulty keeping legs still between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.6|0.5|0.7
84554753|NCT03301740|168863085|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important tingling/feeling of pins and needles between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.4|0.2|0.5
84554754|NCT02584998|168863087|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In our power and sample size analysis, we assumed 15% screening rate in usual care, 25% with invitation, and 40% with mailed-FIT. A sample size of 500 (250/arm) will give 80% power for UC vs. screening invitation-reminder, and 152/arm will give a power of 80% for the screening invitation-reminder vs. mailed-FIT. Accounting for the possibility that up to 20% of participants could be ineligible post-randomization, we concluded that we should enroll 783 patients, 261 per arm, for this trial.||||<0.001
84554755|NCT04216589|168863118|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-3.06|||Regression, Linear|||The study was powered to detect an absolute IHTG change of -5% assuming a null change of 0%, a standard deviation of absolute IHTG change of 9%, and 37 evaluable participants.||-3.06|-5.41|<0.001
84554756|NCT04216589|168863119|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.04|-23.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-23.62|-39.04|<0.001
84554757|NCT04216589|168863123|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-2.17|-3.36|<0.001
84554758|NCT04216589|168863124|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.75||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-1.75|-2.55|<0.001
84745039|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|92.24|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.24|85.15|
84745040|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|83.39|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.39|77.08|
84554759|NCT04216589|168863125|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-6.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-6.13|-9.48|<0.001
84554760|NCT04216589|168863126|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.03|-7.30|<0.001
84554761|NCT04216589|168863127|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-4.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.78|-8.54|<0.001
84554762|NCT04216589|168863128|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|-3.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-3.99|-7.07|<0.001
84554763|NCT04216589|168863129|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.82||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-3.17|0.092
84554764|NCT04216589|168863131|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.32|< 0.001
84745041|NCT02074553|169243818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|79.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|83.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.19|76.84|
84554765|NCT04216589|168863132|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.09|-14.70|<0.001
84554766|NCT04216589|168863133|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-5.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.48|-12.26|<0.001
84554767|NCT04216589|168863134|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|2.89||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||2.89|-10.84|0.25
84554768|NCT04216589|168863135|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-4.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.08|-19.79|0.004
84554769|NCT04216589|168863136|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||5.05|-7.14|0.73
84554770|NCT04216589|168863137|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-13.85|0.051
84554771|NCT04216589|168863138|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|4.11||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||4.11|-0.02|0.053
84554772|NCT04216589|168863139|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||1.20|-2.76|0.43
84554773|NCT04216589|168863140|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-7.53||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-7.53|-46.04|0.007
84605368|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
84554774|NCT04216589|168863141|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.29|-4.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.01|-33.29|0.014
84554775|NCT04216589|168863142|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 12 (0.55; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 12.||0.94|0.55|0.016
84605369|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.48|-0.95|<0.0001
84554776|NCT04216589|168863142|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 24 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.74) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 24.||0.98|0.58|0.033
84554777|NCT01254851|168863154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.70
84554778|NCT03315455|168863239|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.016|<0.0001
84554779|NCT03315455|168863239|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.082||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.082|0.015|<0.0001
84554780|NCT03315455|168863242|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.026|<0.0001
84554781|NCT03315455|168863242|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.092||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.092|0.028|<0.0001
84554782|NCT03315455|168863245|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.053|0.006|<0.0001
84493095|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|52.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.46|63.87||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||63.87|42.46|
84745042|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.83|106.99|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.99|91.83|
84745043|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|101.17|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.17|86.94|
84745044|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.41|86.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.7|74.41|
84745045|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.92|91.07|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.07|83.92|
84745046|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.76|82.11|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.11|75.76|
84493096|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.48|124.08||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.08|82.48|
84554783|NCT03315455|168863245|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.059||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.059|0.007|<0.0001
84554784|NCT03315455|168863248|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.102||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.102|0.017|<0.0001
84554785|NCT03315455|168863248|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.013|<0.0001
84493097|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|87.03||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||87.03|61.81|
84493098|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|66.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|78.72||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||78.72|55.90|
84493099|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.81|126.47||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.47|89.81|
84554786|NCT03315455|168863251|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.163||Not controlled for Type I error|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|||0.163|0.016|<0.0001
84554787|NCT03315455|168863251|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.122||Not controlled for Type I error|ABR Ratio||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|||0.122|0.011|<0.0001
84554788|NCT03315455|168863256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.68||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.46||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||29.46|-0.10|0.0515
84554789|NCT03315455|168863256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|18.33||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|33.68||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||33.68|2.97|0.0204
84554790|NCT03315455|168863258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|6.06||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|18.4||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||18.40|-6.27|0.3281
84554791|NCT03315455|168863258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.01||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|26.59||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||26.59|1.44|0.0297
84605370|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.51|-0.98|<0.0001
84605371|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.34|-0.81|<0.0001
84605372|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
84605373|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.49|-0.95|<0.0001
84605374|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.56|-1.03|<0.0001
84554792|NCT03315455|168863261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.46||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|10.31||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||10.31|-17.23|0.6165
84605375|NCT01719003|168961958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.40|-0.86|<0.0001
84605376|NCT01719003|168961958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 25 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.62|0.15|0.6246
84669617|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1552|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1552
84554793|NCT03315455|168863261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-7.58||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.33||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||6.33|-21.48|0.2797
84554794|NCT03315455|168863263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.05||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||0.09|-0.18|0.4890
84554795|NCT03315455|168863263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||0.06|-0.22|0.2454
84554796|NCT00985426|168863286|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3|||||SPR difference = SPR for HEPLISAV-B minus SPR for Engerix-B.|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference in seroprotection rates (SPR) between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
84554797|NCT00985426|168863286|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPR between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
84554798|NCT00985426|168863291|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|21.2||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPRs between the HEPLISAV group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||21.2|4.4|
84554799|NCT02052596|168863293|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the last vaccine dose (Month 3 or Month 5), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control Group and the GSK1437173A Group had to be below (\<) 1.5,|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21||||Adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to two doses of the GSK1437173A vaccine when Boostrix vaccine was co-administered with the first GSK1437173A vaccine dose compared to two doses of GSK1437173A vaccine (administered separately from Boostrix vaccine), one month after the last vaccine dose.||1.21|1.02|
84554800|NCT02052596|168863294|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PT antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the vaccine dose.||1.36|1.00|
84554801|NCT02052596|168863294|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.44|1.07|
84554802|NCT02052596|168863294|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertactin (PRN) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.58|1.02|
84554803|NCT02052596|168863295|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.85||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for diphteria (D) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||2.85|-3.03|
84554804|NCT02052596|168863295|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.27||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for tetanus (T) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.27|-1.18|
84745047|NCT02074553|169243819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.53|81.92|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.92|75.53|
84554805|NCT00454818|168863332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
84554806|NCT00454818|168863332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
84554807|NCT00454818|168863332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84745048|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|99.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.12|82.33|
84745049|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.45|72.68|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.68|60.45|
84554808|NCT00001656|168863364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||.04
84554809|NCT00001656|168863365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.21
84554810|NCT00001656|168863366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.35
84554811|NCT00001656|168863367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.19
84554812|NCT00001656|168863368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.59
84554813|NCT00001656|168863369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.72
84554814|NCT00001656|168863370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.27
84554815|NCT00001656|168863371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||||||0.11
84554816|NCT00001656|168863372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84605377|NCT01719003|168961958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 10 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.63|0.16|0.6558
84608521|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.35|1.86|
84554817|NCT00001656|168863373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84554818|NCT00001656|168863375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84554819|NCT01892085|168863376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.015
84554820|NCT01892085|168863376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.339
84554821|NCT01892085|168863377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.024
84554822|NCT01892085|168863377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.317
84554823|NCT01892085|168863378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.031
84554824|NCT01892085|168863378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.298
84554825|NCT01892085|168863379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.05
84554826|NCT01892085|168863379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.27
84554827|NCT01892085|168863380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.069
84554828|NCT01892085|168863380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.244
84554829|NCT01892085|168863381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.094
84554830|NCT01892085|168863381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.235
84554831|NCT01892085|168863382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.123
84554832|NCT01892085|168863382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.210
84554833|NCT01892085|168863383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.143
84554834|NCT01892085|168863383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.196
84554835|NCT01892085|168863384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.185
84554836|NCT01892085|168863384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.183
84554837|NCT01892085|168863385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.229
84554838|NCT01892085|168863385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.170
84554839|NCT01892085|168863386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.314
84554840|NCT01892085|168863386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.162
84554841|NCT01892085|168863387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.377
84554842|NCT01892085|168863387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.149
84554843|NCT01892085|168863388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84554844|NCT01892085|168863389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
84554845|NCT01892085|168863390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||00.22
84554846|NCT01892085|168863391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84554847|NCT01892085|168863392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84554848|NCT01892085|168863393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
84554849|NCT01892085|168863394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84554850|NCT01892085|168863395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84745050|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|41.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|45.03|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||45.03|37.40|
84493100|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.15|90.74||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||90.74|83.15|
84554851|NCT01892085|168863396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84554852|NCT01629823|168863413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.5||Comparison of 5cm group to control. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Both the 5 and 10cm groups were compared to the control group, \<1cm H₂O||1.50|0.44|0.51
84554853|NCT01629823|168863413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||Regression, Linear|||||1.52|0.47|0.57
84554854|NCT00550862|168863474|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84554855|NCT00550862|168863474|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84554856|NCT00550862|168863474|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals||||<0.0001
84554857|NCT00550862|168863475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84554858|NCT00550862|168863476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0005
84554859|NCT00033657|168863512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.48
84608522|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.43|
84554860|NCT01683422|168863514|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||In the RTOG 9812 (NCT00003591) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, a one-year survival rate of 43% was observed. There were 109 analyzable patients on NCT00003591 with 61 still at risk for death at one year. Using the method of Dixon and Simon, a sample size of 39 analyzable patients followed over 12 months will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a minimum of 17% improvement in the one-year survival rate compared to NCT00003591 at the 0.10 significance level (with a one-sided test).||||0.1
84554861|NCT01928797|168863525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84554862|NCT01928797|168863526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84554863|NCT00475878|168863563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|.33|.19
84554864|NCT00475878|168863564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.84|-2.79|.18
84554865|NCT03280225|168863570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||2.82|0.73|.302
84554866|NCT03280225|168863571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a provider during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a provider in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.93|0.86|0.226
84554867|NCT03280225|168863572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.70|0.90|0.199
84554868|NCT03280225|168863573|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.76|1.08|0.011
84554869|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.08||Program Needs||||.018
84554870|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.78||Training Needs||||.136
84554871|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|Pressure for Change||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.39||||||.812
84554872|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|Staffing||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.10||||||.358
84554873|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|Mission||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||||||.748
84554874|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||Cohesion||||.748
84554875|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.88||Autonomy||||.005
84554876|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.44||Communication||||.224
84554877|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.52||Stress||||.043
84554878|NCT03280225|168863574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.01||Change||||.096
84605378|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-12.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-12.2|-25.5|<0.0001
84608523|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.16|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.16|1.95|
84493101|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|96.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||96.42|88.35|
84554879|NCT00435487|168863584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-2.6||||||95.0|-8.59|3.4|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% confidence interval (CI) is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.40|-8.59|
84554880|NCT00435487|168863584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|1.25||||||95.0|-3.02|5.52|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.52|-3.02|
84554881|NCT00435487|168863584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-1.35||||||95.0|-8.62|5.93|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death or Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.93|-8.62|
84554882|NCT00435487|168863585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.27||||1||95.0|-1.2|3.73|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.73|-1.20|1.0000
84554883|NCT00435487|168863586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
84554884|NCT00435487|168863587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
84554885|NCT02719938|168863594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
84554886|NCT02719938|168863595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
84554887|NCT02719938|168863596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
84554888|NCT02719938|168863597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84554889|NCT02719938|168863598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84554890|NCT02719938|168863599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84554891|NCT02719938|168863600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
84554892|NCT00955968|168863601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.4||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.40|0.19|0.54
84554893|NCT00955968|168863602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.01||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||4.01|0.11|0.66
84554894|NCT00955968|168863604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.81||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.81|0.09|0.44
84745051|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|91.09|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.09|81.77|
84554895|NCT00955968|168863605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.6||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.60|0.54|0.79
84554896|NCT00955968|168863606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.52|0.54|0.71
84554897|NCT00955968|168863607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.8||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||0.80|0.42|<0.001
84554898|NCT00955968|168863608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.72|0.10
84554899|NCT04972968|168863640|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.878||P-value \<= 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\].||||0.878|0.273|0.012
84554900|NCT04972968|168863640|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.794||P-value \<= 0.01|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.794|0.248|0.004
84554901|NCT04972968|168863640|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.419||P-value \<= 0.001|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.419|0.094|<0.001
84554902|NCT04972968|168863641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid (GC) use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.4|-4.0|0.107
84605379|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-16.3||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-16.3|-29.7|<0.0001
84554903|NCT04972968|168863641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|41.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.0|-3.1|0.092
84554904|NCT04972968|168863641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|62.3||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||62.3|21.4|< 0.001
84554905|NCT04972968|168863642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-88.67||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.04|30.71|||ANCOVA|P-value based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors.|95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[GC use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent);|||30.71|-208.04|0.144
84554906|NCT04972968|168863642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-164.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.62|-45.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI are based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone\] equivalent);|||-45.89|-283.62|0.007
84554907|NCT04972968|168863642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-182.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-300.52|-64.58||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)|||-64.58|-300.52|0.003
84554908|NCT04972968|168863643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.08||P-value \<= 0.05|ANCOVA|P-value based on ANCOVA adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)||||-0.08|-3.08|0.039
84554909|NCT04972968|168863643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.16||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.16|-4.15|<0.001
84554910|NCT04972968|168863643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.52||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.52|-4.49|<0.001
84554911|NCT00191282|168863650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||To achieve 80% power, 490 pts need to experience primary combined CV outcome to detect diff. between treatments, assuming: \>=18.5% reduction in incidence of outcomes, 18 mo. pt recruitment, 18 mo. pt follow-up, 10% annual drop-out rate, 2-yr outcome incidence rate of \>=40% (pts in least efficacious treatment), and nominal 2-sided signif. of 0.045.||||0.866
84554912|NCT00191282|168863651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.715||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.715
84554913|NCT00191282|168863652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.914||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.914
84493102|NCT04550234|168736154|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.71|93.54||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.54|85.71|
84493103|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|117.86||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||117.86|89.12|
84493104|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|144.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.75|166.31||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||166.31|125.75|
84493105|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.71|88.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.23|66.71|
84493106|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.64|110.62||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.62|83.64|
84493107|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.86|95.34||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||95.34|83.86|
84493108|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|100.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.40|88.31|
84493109|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|97.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.36|86.37|
84554914|NCT00191282|168863653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.706||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.706
84493110|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.01|94.56||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||94.56|88.01|
84605380|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-20.0|-33.5|<0.0001
84493111|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|103.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||103.61|96.43|
84493112|NCT04550234|168736155|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.95|93.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.42|86.95|
84493113|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|118.93||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||118.93|89.04|
84493114|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|146.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.82|169.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||169.40|126.82|
84493115|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.38|88.67||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.67|66.38|
84493116|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|110.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.23|82.52|
84493117|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|88.17||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.17|77.38|
84493118|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.63|93.01||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.01|81.63|
84493119|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|97.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.61|85.67|
84554915|NCT00191282|168863654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.982||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.982
84554916|NCT00191282|168863655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.816||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.816
84554917|NCT00191282|168863656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.948
84554918|NCT00191282|168863657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.581||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.581
84554919|NCT00191282|168863658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.647||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.647
84554920|NCT00191282|168863659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.525||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.525
84554921|NCT00191282|168863660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.800
84554922|NCT00191282|168863661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.662||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
84554923|NCT00191282|168863662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.863||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.863
84554924|NCT00191282|168863663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.471||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.471
84554925|NCT00191282|168863664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7168||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7168
84554926|NCT00191282|168863666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0860
84554927|NCT00191282|168863668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1424||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1424
84554928|NCT00191282|168863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1957
84554929|NCT00191282|168863673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2434
84554930|NCT00191282|168863675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2617
84554931|NCT02294461|168863700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.52|||Hazard Ratio|||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.52|0.27|<0.0001
84605381|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-9.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-9.2|-22.8|<0.0001
84745052|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|81.2|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.20|73.01|
84554932|NCT02294461|168863701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had died at the analysis date were censored at date last known alive. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.95|0.51|0.0208
84554933|NCT02294461|168863702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.46||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had an rPFS event were censored at the date of the last assessment showing no objective evidence of rPFS prior to scan modality change, new antineoplastic treatment, initiation of radiation therapy for prostate cancer, skeletal-related event (SRE) and 2 or more consecutive missed tumor assessments. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide.||0.46|0.20|<0.0001
84554934|NCT02294461|168863703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.52||P-value was based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not have an SRE were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of SRE. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||1.52|0.21|0.2501
84554935|NCT02294461|168863704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.66||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not start cytotoxic chemotherapy were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of cytotoxic chemotherapy usage. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.66|0.12|0.0020
84554936|NCT02294461|168863705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of response rate|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|64.2||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel %|||||64.2|47.4|<0.0001
84554937|NCT02294461|168863706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|37.4||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||When deriving the response category, it was based on the target, non-target and new lesions without confirming CR, PR, and Progressive disease (PD). Participants with no post baseline assessment were included in the category of Nonevaluable (NE). The best overall soft tissue objective response was defined as PR or CR based on the investigator assessments of target, non-target and new lesions while on the study treatment.||37.4|14.7|<0.0001
84554938|NCT01661933|168863756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
84554939|NCT01661933|168863757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.837
84554940|NCT01661933|168863758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.99|ONE_SIDED||||||Binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that irrespective of hookworm infection, GC-1g would result in a 2-point or more deterioration in the Marsh score. A binomial (yes=deterioration or no=no deterioration) distribution was applied to pre- and post-GC-1g paired biopsies.||||=0.99
84554941|NCT01661933|168863759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects model.|||||||=0.005
84554942|NCT02332239|168863766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects longitudinal regression||d=0.37|BDI Score where baseline \>=20: 8 week||||0.07
84554943|NCT02332239|168863767|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression models|Controlled for baseline and gender|d=0.46|CTS Score where baseline \>=4: 8 week||||0.01
84554944|NCT02332239|168863770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84554945|NCT01541839|168863778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|327.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||The mean time for closure with septal stapler was 35 +/-22 seconds versus 7 minutes +/- 1 minute 10 seconds for suture closure. The mean net difference between groups was 327 seconds, or 6 minutes 27 seconds.|The operative time required for closure and NOSE questionnaire scores were analyzed with unpaired and paired t-tests respectively. Chi-squared testing was used for post-operative complication rates. The mean closure time for septoplasty was estimated to be 10 minutes +/- 4 minutes. It was assumed that the septal stapler would take 5 minutes +/- 4 minutes. Assuming a one-sided test, an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, a total of 16 patients were needed.||||<0.0001
84554946|NCT01393132|168863791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0108
84554947|NCT01393132|168863792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Ocular Discomfort Index score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0141
84554948|NCT01393132|168863793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Tear Film Break up Time between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups.||||0.0162
84554949|NCT01432275|168863796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test|Comparison to 27 participants that preferred their usual method to FreeStyle InsuLinx. Twelve(12) participants did not have a preference.||||||<0.0001
84554950|NCT01935700|168863799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in median survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.4593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.4593
84554951|NCT01935700|168863799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.329|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3290
84554952|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0552||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pneumonia between two groups||||0.0552
84554953|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0184||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of biliary tract obstruction between two groups||||0.0184
84554954|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0931||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of cholangitis between two groups||||0.0931
84554955|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0506||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of peritonitis between two groups||||0.0506
84554956|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of sepsis between two groups||||1
84608524|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.96|1.12|
84554957|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5374||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of diarrhea between two groups||||0.5374
84554958|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of anorexia between two groups||||0.14
84554959|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.4584||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of abdominal pain between two groups||||0.4584
84554960|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of skin rash between two groups||||1
84554961|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome between two groups||||1
84554962|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypertension between two groups||||1
84554963|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5958||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hemorrhage between two groups||||0.5958
84554964|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypoglycemia between two groups||||0.14
84745053|NCT02074553|169243820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.71|79.82|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.82|71.71|
84745054|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.34|102.05|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.05|82.34|
84745055|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|74.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.79|60.44|
84554965|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hyperglycemia between two groups||||1
84554966|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypocalcemia between two groups||||1
84605382|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-8.9||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG of double-blind treatment||-8.9|-22.3|<0.0001
84745056|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|34.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.83|38.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||38.21|30.83|
84493120|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.98|93.94||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.94|87.98|
84554967|NCT01935700|168863800|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pleural effusion between two groups||||1
84554968|NCT00231283|168863821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||||95.0|91.5|99.4|||Qualitative Comparison|Reported in qualitative/semi-quantitative comparitive fashion due to study design.||||99.4|91.5|
84745057|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.1|101.62|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.62|89.10|
84745058|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.67|78.16|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.16|68.67|
84745059|NCT02074553|169243822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.48|72.33|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.33|63.48|
84493121|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|102.68||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.68|96.17|
84554969|NCT00231283|168863822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.6|||No formal statistical testing|||||8.6|0.6|
84554970|NCT00231283|168863823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.5|||Descriptive statistics|||||8.5|0.6|
84554971|NCT00231283|168863824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.4||||||95.0|5.1|18.3|||Descriptive statistics|||||18.3|5.1|
84554972|NCT00772005|168863825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8514||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8514
84554973|NCT00772005|168863825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6995
84554974|NCT00772005|168863825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9766
84554975|NCT00772005|168863826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7596
84554976|NCT00772005|168863826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5620
84554977|NCT00772005|168863826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6688
84554978|NCT00772005|168863827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1894
84554979|NCT00772005|168863827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4582
84554980|NCT00772005|168863827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
84554981|NCT00772005|168863828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3275||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3275
84554982|NCT00772005|168863828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2597
84554983|NCT00772005|168863828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0039
84554984|NCT00772005|168863829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0713
84745060|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.54|104.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||104.79|87.54|
84493122|NCT04550234|168736156|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|92.15||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||92.15|86.30|
84554985|NCT00772005|168863829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0431
84554986|NCT00772005|168863829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0063
84554987|NCT00772005|168863830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0619
84554988|NCT00772005|168863830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1137
84554989|NCT00772005|168863830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0598
84554990|NCT00772005|168863831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7093
84554991|NCT00772005|168863831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5129
84554992|NCT00772005|168863831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1097
84554993|NCT00772005|168863832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4291
84554994|NCT00772005|168863832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3195
84554995|NCT00772005|168863832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1591
84554996|NCT00772005|168863833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7768
84554997|NCT00772005|168863833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4014
84554998|NCT00772005|168863833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4016
84554999|NCT00772005|168863834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5612
84555000|NCT00772005|168863834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9704
84555001|NCT00772005|168863834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2424
84745061|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.97|86.04|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.04|71.97|
84493123|NCT04550234|168736168|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|124.49||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.49|94.13|
84605383|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-8.2|-21.4|<0.0001
84555002|NCT00772005|168863835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8847
84555003|NCT00772005|168863835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2958||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2958
84555004|NCT00772005|168863835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2660
84555005|NCT00772005|168863836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0524
84555006|NCT00772005|168863836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
84555007|NCT00772005|168863836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0084
84605384|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-21.5||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-21.5|-35.0|<0.0001
84745062|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|53.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.27|58.98|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||58.98|49.27|
84555008|NCT00772005|168863837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3651
84555009|NCT00772005|168863837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
84555010|NCT00772005|168863837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
84555011|NCT00772005|168863838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2091
84555012|NCT00772005|168863838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0706
84555013|NCT00772005|168863838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3052||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3052
84555014|NCT00772005|168863839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9960
84669618|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5979|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5979
84745063|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|94.37|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.37|86.14|
84555015|NCT00772005|168863839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3604
84555016|NCT00772005|168863839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9528
84555017|NCT00772005|168863840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9797||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9797
84555018|NCT00772005|168863840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6173
84555019|NCT00772005|168863840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5415||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5415
84555020|NCT00772005|168863841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
84555021|NCT00772005|168863841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6642
84605385|NCT01719003|168961959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-6.0|-19.1|0.0002
84605386|NCT01719003|168961960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.68||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.68|-3.33|<0.0001
84555022|NCT00772005|168863841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7395||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7395
84555023|NCT00772005|168863842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8124
84555024|NCT00772005|168863842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8961
84555025|NCT00772005|168863842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4999
84555026|NCT00772005|168863852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4540
84555027|NCT00772005|168863852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3580
84555028|NCT00772005|168863852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6271
84555029|NCT00772005|168863853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1459
84555030|NCT00772005|168863853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6004
84555031|NCT00772005|168863853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0192
84669619|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.4444|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4444
84669620|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.27||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3863
84555032|NCT00772005|168863854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8455
84555033|NCT00772005|168863854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8715
84555034|NCT00772005|168863854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0309
84555035|NCT00772005|168863855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2664
84605387|NCT01719003|168961960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.69||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.69|-3.35|<0.0001
84605388|NCT01719003|168961960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.37||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-1.37|-3.03|<0.0001
84605389|NCT01719003|168961960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.43||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.43|-3.09|<0.0001
84605390|NCT01344629|168961964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.9||||||90.0|97.7|104.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||104.2|97.7|
84605391|NCT01344629|168961965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|97.2||||||90.0|87.2|108.3||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||108.3|87.2|
84745064|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.52|77.15|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.15|70.52|
84745065|NCT02074553|169243824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|70.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|74.22|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.22|67.80|
84745066|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|102.78|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.78|84.24|
84745067|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|74.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.37|82.06|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.06|67.37|
84555036|NCT00772005|168863855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3528
84605392|NCT01344629|168961966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.7||||||90.0|98.3|105.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||105.2|98.3|
84605393|NCT01344629|168961967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|110.1||||||90.0|95.8|124.4||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||124.4|95.8|
84555037|NCT00772005|168863855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0380
84605394|NCT01344629|168961968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|91.4||||||90.0|85.6|97.6||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||97.6|85.6|
84605395|NCT01344629|168961969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.4||||||90.0|102.4|116.8||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||116.8|102.4|
84555038|NCT00772005|168863856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3316||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3316
84555039|NCT00772005|168863856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3490
84555040|NCT00772005|168863856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0926||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0926
84555041|NCT00772005|168863857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8835||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8835
84555042|NCT00772005|168863857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
84555043|NCT00772005|168863857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0883
84555044|NCT00772005|168863858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6948||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6948
84605396|NCT01344629|168961970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.0||||||90.0|101.5|117.1||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||117.1|101.5|
84605397|NCT00762996|168961971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"margin +/- 0.5 logMar lines~The range of non-inferiority for this value is 0.50 thus +/- 0.50 is considered non-inferior to the 0.0 mark.~logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00976||||95.0|-0.01389|0.2447|||Mixed Models Analysis||logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal.|Null Hypothesis: etafilcon A is greater than or equal to omafilcon A.||0.2447|-0.01389|
84745068|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.78|48.53|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||48.53|39.78|
84555045|NCT00772005|168863858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3345||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3345
84555046|NCT00772005|168863858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2447
84555047|NCT00772005|168863859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6115
84555048|NCT00772005|168863859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2233
84605398|NCT00762996|168961972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2505||||95.0|0.05563|0.4757|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|||0.4757|0.05563|
84605399|NCT02312765|168961978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84605400|NCT04063787|168961979|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is the difference is zero. Thus the equivalence margin equals zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Compare before and after use of Fist Assist||||0.012
84555049|NCT00772005|168863859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2343
84555050|NCT00772005|168863860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8228||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8228
84555051|NCT00772005|168863860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9373
84555052|NCT00772005|168863860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3190
84555053|NCT00772005|168863861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9769||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9769
84555054|NCT00772005|168863861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8374||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8374
84745069|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|94.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.49|86.12|
84745070|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|72.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|76.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||76.12|69.48|
84745071|NCT02074553|169243825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|69.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|72.61|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.61|66.23|
84745072|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|106.95|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.95|91.25|
84745073|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.65|99.08|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.08|84.65|
84745074|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.81|79.47|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.47|67.81|
84745075|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.62|92.13|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.13|85.62|
84745076|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.99|80.6|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||80.60|74.99|
84745077|NCT02074553|169243828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|79.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.49|73.92|
84745078|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.7|97.84|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||97.84|81.7|
84745079|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.12|73.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.1|61.12|
84555055|NCT00772005|168863861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7061
84555056|NCT00772005|168863862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9577||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9577
84493124|NCT04550234|168736168|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.96|102.53||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.53|90.96|
84493125|NCT04550234|168736168|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.27|102.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.36|95.27|
84493126|NCT04550234|168736169|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|126.29||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.29|94.55|
84493127|NCT04550234|168736169|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|102.97||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.97|90.38|
84493128|NCT04550234|168736169|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|100.73||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.73|94.34|
84493129|NCT04550234|168736170|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.03|161.02||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||161.02|107.03|
84493130|NCT04550234|168736170|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|114.39||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||114.39|81.23|
84493131|NCT04550234|168736170|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|99.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||99.40|91.08|
84493132|NCT01474291|168736184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 generalized estimating equation (GEE) Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Patient's Age (\>=65) upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||2.30|1.06|0.0230
84555057|NCT00772005|168863862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5106
84555058|NCT00772005|168863862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2655
84493133|NCT01474291|168736184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.43|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor No methotrexate (MTX) sequences within the two last years upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||8.43|3.92|<0.0001
84493134|NCT01474291|168736184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Past history of severe infectious disease upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||3.70|1.11|0.0212
84493135|NCT01474291|168736184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Higher Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joint Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) (unit=1) on physician decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy; DAS28-ESR was calculated from the number of swollen joints and tender joints using 28-joint count, ESR (millimeters per hour \[mm/hour\]) and patient's global assessment of disease activity; scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores correspond to greater disease activity (multivariate analysis)."||1.41|1.05|0.0076
84493136|NCT03471507|168736206|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and sex.||||||0.46
84493137|NCT01399619|168736215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value corresponds to a two sided test against the historical rate of 40%.|normal approximation|||the SVR12 rate in total Faldaprevir group compared with the historical rate of 40%.||||<0.0001
84493138|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (wk6-d0)||||0.343
84493139|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (m6-d0)||||0.69
84493140|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (wk6-d0)||||1
84493141|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (m6-d0)||||0.32
84493142|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (wk6-d0)||||1
84493143|NCT00750061|168736226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (m6-d0)||||0.582
84493144|NCT00750061|168736227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.257
84493145|NCT00750061|168736227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (M6 - D0)||||0.168
84493146|NCT00750061|168736227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.013
84493147|NCT00750061|168736227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (M6 - D0)||||0.137
84555059|NCT00772005|168863863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3825||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3825
84555060|NCT00772005|168863863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2003
84555061|NCT00772005|168863863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0625
84555062|NCT00772005|168863864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2981||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2981
84555063|NCT00772005|168863864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0104
84555064|NCT00772005|168863864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0150
84605401|NCT01527383|168962002|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
84669621|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6352|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6352
84555065|NCT00772005|168863865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4608||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4608
84555066|NCT00772005|168863865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0807
84555067|NCT00772005|168863865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2959||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2959
84605402|NCT01527383|168962003|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
84605403|NCT04883528|168962046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84605404|NCT04883528|168962047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84555068|NCT00772005|168863866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6759
84605405|NCT04883528|168962048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84605406|NCT04883528|168962049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
84605407|NCT04883528|168962050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84605408|NCT04883528|168962051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84605409|NCT04883528|168962052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84669622|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1265|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1265
84669623|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6161
84745080|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|42.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|46.32|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||46.32|38.68|
84745081|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.21|93.56|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.56|84.21|
84745082|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|79.86|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.86|71.99|
84555069|NCT00772005|168863866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2418||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2418
84555070|NCT00772005|168863866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9808
84555071|NCT00772005|168863867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7599
84555072|NCT00772005|168863867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4543
84555073|NCT00772005|168863867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6040
84555074|NCT00772005|168863868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2476
84555075|NCT00772005|168863868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9490
84555076|NCT00772005|168863868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9035
84555077|NCT00772005|168863869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9472
84555078|NCT00772005|168863869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8335||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8335
84555079|NCT00772005|168863869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5674
84605410|NCT04883528|168962053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
84745083|NCT02074553|169243829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.53|77.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.19|69.53|
84745084|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|105.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.21|89.85|
84555080|NCT00772005|168863870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3536
84555081|NCT00772005|168863870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1940
84605411|NCT04883528|168962054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84745085|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.59|94.26|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.26|80.59|
84555082|NCT00772005|168863870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2129
84555083|NCT00772005|168863871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5840
84555084|NCT00772005|168863871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6028
84555085|NCT00772005|168863871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1426
84745086|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.71|73.43|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.43|62.71|
84555086|NCT00772005|168863872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5989||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5989
84555087|NCT00772005|168863872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7411||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7411
84555088|NCT00772005|168863872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1566
84555089|NCT00772005|168863873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2610
84555090|NCT00772005|168863873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4457
84555091|NCT00772005|168863873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1342
84555092|NCT00772005|168863874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0974||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0974
84555093|NCT00772005|168863874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6640
84555094|NCT00772005|168863874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1507||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1507
84555095|NCT00772005|168863875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7649
84605412|NCT04883528|168962058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.64
84555096|NCT00772005|168863875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4866||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4866
84555097|NCT00772005|168863875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5002
84555098|NCT00772005|168863876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2076
84555099|NCT00772005|168863876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9355
84555100|NCT00772005|168863876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1890
84555101|NCT00772005|168863877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6320
84555102|NCT00772005|168863877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8777
84555103|NCT00772005|168863877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4378
84555104|NCT00772005|168863878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5544
84555105|NCT00772005|168863878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4446||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4446
84555106|NCT00772005|168863878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4483
84555107|NCT00772005|168863879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1914||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1914
84555108|NCT00772005|168863879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2543
84605413|NCT04883528|168962059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.55||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-14.59|0.04
84555109|NCT00772005|168863879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
84555110|NCT00772005|168863880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5312||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5312
84555111|NCT00772005|168863880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7522
84555112|NCT00772005|168863880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3183||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3183
84555113|NCT00772005|168863881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
84555114|NCT00772005|168863881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8910
84555115|NCT00772005|168863881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1795
84555116|NCT00772005|168863882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6378
84605414|NCT02726880|168962073|SUPERIORITY||F|1.13||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Number of days of gaming in the past week, measured at baseline, is included as a covariate in the model.||||||.296
84605415|NCT01822535|168962134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in percent changes in core body temperature from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed. Because individuals with tetraplegia have impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, we hypothesized that their percent change in core body temperature would be significantly larger than that of able-bodied controls.||||<0.01
84745087|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|91.63|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.63|85.06|
84555117|NCT00772005|168863882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8679
84555118|NCT00772005|168863882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5489||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5489
84555119|NCT00772005|168863883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9337
84555120|NCT00772005|168863883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9428
84555121|NCT00772005|168863883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5895||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5895
84555122|NCT00772005|168863884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8695
84745088|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.03|79.65|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.65|74.03|
84555123|NCT00772005|168863884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6637||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6637
84555124|NCT00772005|168863884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3152||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3152
84555125|NCT00772005|168863885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7472
84605416|NCT01822535|168962135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Stroop Interference T-scores from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.018
84605417|NCT01822535|168962136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Delayed Recall from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.0431
84555126|NCT00772005|168863885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4503
84555127|NCT00772005|168863885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3127||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3127
84555128|NCT00772005|168863886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9193||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9193
84555129|NCT00772005|168863886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4814
84555130|NCT00772005|168863886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6097
84555131|NCT00772005|168863887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8594||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8594
84555132|NCT00772005|168863887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6157
84555133|NCT00772005|168863887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4846||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4846
84555134|NCT00772005|168863888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6076
84555135|NCT00772005|168863888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5827
84555136|NCT00772005|168863888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7865
84605418|NCT01822535|168962137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"We hypothesized that administration of midodrine would attenuate the fall in core body temperature.~Within-group percent changes in core body temperature were analyzed to compare data from visit 1 (no drug) to visit 2 (drug)."||||0.30
84555137|NCT00772005|168863889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3045
84555138|NCT00772005|168863889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0617||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0617
84555139|NCT00772005|168863889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0580
84555140|NCT00772005|168863890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0194
84605419|NCT02558400|168962156|SUPERIORITY|To claim superiority PG324 had to be statistically superior to netarsudil and to latanoprost at all 9 of 9 primary efficacy timepoints|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
84669624|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5280
84555141|NCT00772005|168863890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2270
84555142|NCT00772005|168863890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1181
84555143|NCT00772005|168863891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
84555144|NCT00772005|168863891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0419
84555145|NCT00772005|168863891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0146
84555146|NCT00772005|168863892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1292
84605420|NCT02558400|168962156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
84555147|NCT00772005|168863892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3773
84555148|NCT00772005|168863892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
84555149|NCT00772005|168863893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9642
84555150|NCT00772005|168863893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7814
84555151|NCT00772005|168863893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1455
84555152|NCT00772005|168863894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5722
84555153|NCT00772005|168863894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1352
84555154|NCT00772005|168863894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0630
84555155|NCT00772005|168863895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4607
84555156|NCT00772005|168863895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2538||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2538
84555157|NCT00772005|168863895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3406
84555158|NCT00772005|168863896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8116
84555159|NCT00772005|168863896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6870
84555160|NCT00772005|168863896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8112
84555161|NCT00772005|168863897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9786||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9786
84669625|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1769
84669626|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.4743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4743
84669627|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6901|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6901
84669628|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
84745089|NCT02074553|169243830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.7|78.27|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.27|72.70|
84493148|NCT03417245|168736233|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.159||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression mode|||||0.159|0.064|<0.0001
84493149|NCT03417245|168736235|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.188||P-value derived from NB regression model during TP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.188|0.090|<0.0001
84555162|NCT00772005|168863897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
84555163|NCT00772005|168863897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3973
84555164|NCT00772005|168863898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4030
84555165|NCT00772005|168863898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3777
84745090|NCT02342743|169243854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84745091|NCT02342743|169243855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84493150|NCT03417245|168736237|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.141||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.141|0.049|<0.0001
84493151|NCT03417245|168736239|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.161||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.161|0.059|<0.0001
84555166|NCT00772005|168863898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6493||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6493
84555167|NCT00772005|168863899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9871||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9871
84555168|NCT00772005|168863899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5859
84555169|NCT00772005|168863899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
84555170|NCT00772005|168863900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2318
84555171|NCT00772005|168863900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6211
84745092|NCT02342743|169243856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84745093|NCT02342743|169243857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84745094|NCT02342743|169243858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84745095|NCT02342743|169243859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84493152|NCT03417245|168736241|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-19.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-12.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-12.50|-27.00|<0.0001
84745096|NCT02342743|169243861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
84745097|NCT00618618|169243920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
84745098|NCT00618618|169243920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
84745099|NCT00618618|169243920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.069
84555172|NCT00772005|168863900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3125
84555173|NCT00772005|168863901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2425
84745100|NCT00618618|169243921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||3.0|0.6|0.005
84745101|NCT00618618|169243921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.0|1.0|0.001
84745102|NCT00618618|169243921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||2.2|-0.3|0.122
84745103|NCT00618618|169243922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|65.7|||Fisher Exact|||||65.7|11.0|0.008
84745104|NCT00618618|169243922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|32.9||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|64.8|||Fisher Exact|||||64.8|1.0|0.172
84745105|NCT00618618|169243922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|22.9||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||||54.2|-8.4|0.252
84745106|NCT00618618|169243923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|46.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|75.9|||Fisher Exact|||||75.9|16.3|0.011
84745107|NCT00618618|169243923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|54.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|23.0|0.013
84745108|NCT00618618|169243923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|24.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|57.3|||Fisher Exact|||||57.3|-8.7|0.296
84745109|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.5|0.460
84555174|NCT00772005|168863901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
84555175|NCT00772005|168863901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4753
84745110|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.5|0.906
84745111|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.6|0.404
84745112|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.5|0.791
84745113|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|-0.3|0.410
84745114|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.733
84745115|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.3|0.542
84745116|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.4|0.882
84745117|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.4|-0.4|0.934
84745118|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.4|0.838
84745119|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.5|0.777
84745120|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.5|-0.4|0.795
84745121|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.852
84745122|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.3|-0.6|0.444
84493153|NCT03417245|168736242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.07|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-2.9||ANCOVA model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-11.23|=0.0011
84493154|NCT00679354|168736301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||1.000
84493155|NCT00679354|168736302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.56||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.057
84493156|NCT00679354|168736303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.22||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.495
84493157|NCT00679354|168736304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.48||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.114
84493158|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for overall product preference||||0.003
84493159|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Scent/odor||||<0.001
84493160|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Immediate taste||||<0.001
84555176|NCT00772005|168863902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1715
84555177|NCT00772005|168863902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3056
84555178|NCT00772005|168863902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0083
84555179|NCT00772005|168863903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2681
84669629|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7707|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7707
84745123|NCT00618618|169243924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.3|0.724
84493161|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for After-taste||||0.002
84493162|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less drip down throat||||0.037
84493163|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less run out nose||||<0.001
84493164|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for More soothing||||0.408
84493165|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less irritating||||0.070
84493166|NCT00398476|168736347|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Urge to sneeze||||0.587
84493167|NCT00398476|168736348|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ items||||<0.001
84555180|NCT00772005|168863903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1475
84493168|NCT00398476|168736348|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ items||||<0.001
84493169|NCT00398476|168736349|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.255||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||0.255
84493170|NCT00398476|168736350|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.056||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for all DAQ items||||0.056
84493171|NCT00398476|168736351|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.845||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ Irtems||||0.845
84493172|NCT00398476|168736352|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.871||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ Items||||0.871
84493173|NCT00398476|168736353|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84555181|NCT00772005|168863903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0647
84555182|NCT00772005|168863904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1670
84555183|NCT00772005|168863904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1737
84555184|NCT00772005|168863904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3720
84605421|NCT00131456|168962169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to analyze all dichotomous outcomes. The dichotomous primary outcome marijuana abstinence was modeled using independent predictors: treatment(Venlafaxine vs. Placebo) and baseline urine THC level. The initial analysis included an interaction between treatment and baseline urine THC levels which was deemed not significant and omitted from the final logistic model.||||<0.01
84669630|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4989
84669631|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0387|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0387
84669632|NCT01480076|169072608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4635
84669633|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1392
84669634|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1448
84745124|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.4|0.934
84745125|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.286
84555185|NCT00772005|168863905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
84555186|NCT00772005|168863905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6043
84555187|NCT00772005|168863905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0463
84555188|NCT00772005|168863906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9258
84555189|NCT00772005|168863906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9116
84555190|NCT00772005|168863906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4848
84605422|NCT01688739|168962210|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy Participants|||1.4|0.8|0.7595
84493174|NCT00398476|168736354|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.592||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
84493175|NCT00398476|168736355|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84493176|NCT00398476|168736356|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.434||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
84493177|NCT00398476|168736357|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.797
84555191|NCT00772005|168863907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7612
84555192|NCT00772005|168863907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5761
84555193|NCT00772005|168863907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1576||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1576
84605423|NCT01688739|168962212|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5481
84605424|NCT01688739|168962213|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5506
84493178|NCT00398476|168736357|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.296|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.296
84493179|NCT00398476|168736358|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||<0.001
84555194|NCT00772005|168863908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9565
84555195|NCT00772005|168863908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9178||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9178
84555196|NCT00772005|168863908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1491||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1491
84555197|NCT00772005|168863909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7056
84493180|NCT00398476|168736358|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in DAQ||||<0.001
84555198|NCT00772005|168863909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5179||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5179
84555199|NCT00772005|168863909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4585
84605425|NCT00765882|168962217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.72||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 90% based on study NCT00402337 (MCP-103-201) data."||5.72|1.50|0.0012
84605426|NCT00765882|168962217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.1||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 96% based on study NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) data."||8.10|2.20|<0.0001
84605427|NCT00598078|168962236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
84605428|NCT00598078|168962236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.713
84605429|NCT00598078|168962236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
84555200|NCT00772005|168863910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0690
84555201|NCT00772005|168863910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5324
84555202|NCT00772005|168863910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0946
84555203|NCT00772005|168863911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1878||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1878
84555204|NCT00772005|168863911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4294||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4294
84555205|NCT00772005|168863911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6504
84605430|NCT01479595|168962267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.811|-0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.217|-0.811|0.005
84605431|NCT02699450|168962278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-0.6|0.37
84493181|NCT00398476|168736359|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.968
84555206|NCT00772005|168863912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4022
84555207|NCT00772005|168863912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6246||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6246
84555208|NCT00772005|168863912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8655
84555209|NCT00772005|168863913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5676||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5676
84555210|NCT00772005|168863913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5239
84555211|NCT00772005|168863913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4092||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4092
84555212|NCT00772005|168863914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5195
84555213|NCT00772005|168863914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1732||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1732
84555214|NCT00772005|168863914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7455
84555215|NCT00772005|168863915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6885||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6885
84608525|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.31|1.67|
84745126|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.7|-0.1|0.190
84745127|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.5|0.402
84745128|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.7|0.290
84745129|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.4|-0.4|0.863
84745130|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.128
84745131|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||-0.1|-0.9|0.018
84745132|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.3|-0.5|0.489
84745133|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
84745134|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.4|-1.3|<0.001
84745135|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.1|-0.7|0.122
84555216|NCT00772005|168863915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5443
84745136|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-0.9|0.005
84745137|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|<0.001
84555217|NCT00772005|168863915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9343
84745138|NCT00618618|169243925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-1.0|0.007
84745139|NCT00618618|169243927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.8|-8.6|0.573
84745140|NCT00618618|169243927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|9.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||9.9|-6.3|0.653
84745141|NCT00618618|169243927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||8.1|-5.4|0.688
84745142|NCT00955253|169243935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between the placebo and guanfacine conditions||||0.013
84745143|NCT04797650|169243937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.37|0.25|<0.0001
84745144|NCT04797650|169243937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.45|0.27|<0.0001
84745145|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.46|0.31|<0.0001
84745146|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.45|0.26|<0.0001
84745147|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
84745148|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
84745149|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
84555218|NCT00772005|168863916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9093
84555219|NCT00772005|168863916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4701||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4701
84555220|NCT00772005|168863916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9764||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9764
84555221|NCT00772005|168863917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8115
84555222|NCT00772005|168863917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5378
84555223|NCT00772005|168863917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9144
84555224|NCT00772005|168863918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9812
84555225|NCT00772005|168863918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5464
84669635|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0187
84555226|NCT00772005|168863918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8811
84555227|NCT00772005|168863919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6487
84555228|NCT00772005|168863919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4204
84555229|NCT00772005|168863919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6955||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6955
84555230|NCT00772005|168863920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6042||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6042
84555231|NCT00772005|168863920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9783
84555232|NCT00772005|168863920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9739
84555233|NCT00772005|168863921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3466||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3466
84745150|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
84745151|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.52||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.38|<0.0001
84605432|NCT02699450|168962278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.5|5.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.6|1.5|0.03
84555234|NCT00772005|168863921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8469
84555235|NCT00772005|168863921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5439||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5439
84605433|NCT02699450|168962279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-2.3|0.63
84555236|NCT00772005|168863922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6059
84605434|NCT02699450|168962280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|4.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.3|0.2|0.15
84745152|NCT04797650|169243938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.58|0.40|<0.0001
84745153|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.01|-0.00|0.3175
84745154|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.00|0.1020
84555237|NCT00772005|168863922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7474
84555238|NCT00772005|168863922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4424
84555239|NCT00772005|168863923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4874||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4874
84555240|NCT00772005|168863923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8243
84555241|NCT00772005|168863923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9562
84555242|NCT00772005|168863924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3686||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3686
84555243|NCT00772005|168863924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0270
84745155|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.01|0.3103
84745156|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
84745157|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
84745158|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.14|<0.0001
84745159|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.13|<0.0001
84555244|NCT00772005|168863924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7322
84555245|NCT00772005|168863925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4646||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4646
84745160|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
84745161|NCT04797650|169243939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
84745162|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.9|-4.7|0.0039
84555246|NCT00772005|168863925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8783
84555247|NCT00772005|168863925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4213||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4213
84555248|NCT00772005|168863926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
84555249|NCT00772005|168863926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0262
84555250|NCT00772005|168863926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6652||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6652
84555251|NCT00772005|168863927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3355
84745163|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.2|-5.6|0.0027
84745164|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-5.1|-13.6|<0.0001
84745165|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-9.3|-19|<0.0001
84745166|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-17.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-17.3|-28.8|<0.0001
84745167|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-22.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-22.7|-35.9|< 0.0001
84745168|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-28.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-28.2|-41.4|< 0.0001
84745169|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-32.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-32.6|-47.8|< 0.0001
84745170|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-31.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-31.6|-45.9|< 0.0001
84555252|NCT00772005|168863927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0953||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0953
84555253|NCT00772005|168863927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9235||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9235
84555254|NCT00772005|168863928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4164
84555255|NCT00772005|168863928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3003
84555256|NCT00772005|168863928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6907
84555257|NCT00772005|168863929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2518||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2518
84555258|NCT00772005|168863929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0739
84555259|NCT00772005|168863929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5644||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5644
84555260|NCT00772005|168863930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4305||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4305
84555261|NCT00772005|168863930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8299||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8299
84555262|NCT00772005|168863930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7283
84555263|NCT00772005|168863931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7610
84555264|NCT00772005|168863931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6091
84555265|NCT00772005|168863931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3368||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3368
84555266|NCT00772005|168863932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8457
84555267|NCT00772005|168863932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4531
84555268|NCT00772005|168863932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6867
84555269|NCT00772005|168863933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9705
84555270|NCT00772005|168863933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0021
84745171|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-38.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-38.4|-54.8|< 0.0001
84745172|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-38.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-38.5|-53.4|< 0.0001
84745173|NCT04797650|169243940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-44.2|||MMRM|||Week 24||-44.2|-61.4|< 0.0001
84669636|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2920
84745174|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84745175|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84745176|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
84745177|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
84745178|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
84493182|NCT00398476|168736359|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.797
84493183|NCT00398476|168736360|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.221|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.221
84493184|NCT00398476|168736361|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.205|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.205
84493185|NCT00398476|168736362|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.108
84493186|NCT00398476|168736363|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.694
84493187|NCT00398476|168736364|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
84745179|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
84493188|NCT01258803|168736390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.154|0.094|<0.001
84555271|NCT00772005|168863933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5013
84555272|NCT00772005|168863934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7330
84745180|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84745181|NCT04797650|169243941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84555273|NCT00772005|168863934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0068
84555274|NCT00772005|168863934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1040
84555275|NCT00772005|168863935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8220
84555276|NCT00772005|168863935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0144
84605435|NCT02699450|168962280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|4.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.7|1.1|0.04
84555277|NCT00772005|168863935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9464
84555278|NCT02584959|168863998|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.744|-2.895|<0.0001
84555279|NCT02584959|168864000|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|-1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.677|-2.969|<0.0001
84555280|NCT02584959|168864003|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.113|-3.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-3.649|-6.113|<0.0001
84555281|NCT02584959|168864004|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.981|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.889|3.981|<0.0001
84745182|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84745183|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84493189|NCT01258803|168736391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.131|0.073|<0.001
84555282|NCT02584959|168864005|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.599|-2.750|<0.0001
84555283|NCT02584959|168864020|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-31.735||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.696|-20.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The Least Square means, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are based on mixed effect linear model with period, sequence, use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-20.773|-42.696|0.0001
84555284|NCT03660475|168864050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967
84555285|NCT03660475|168864051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
84555286|NCT03660475|168864052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
84555287|NCT03660475|168864053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
84555288|NCT03660475|168864054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
84555289|NCT03660475|168864055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
84555290|NCT03660475|168864056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
84555291|NCT03660475|168864058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.903
84555292|NCT03660475|168864059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898
84555293|NCT03660475|168864060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
84555294|NCT03660475|168864061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
84555295|NCT02847182|168864131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean of the 6-month change in VABS-II Socialization Subscale Standard Score is the same for the Cord Blood and Placebo groups.||3.86|-1.58|0.83
84555296|NCT00962091|168864185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.37|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||2.37|1.52|
84555297|NCT00962091|168864186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.78|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.78|1.08|
84745184|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
84555298|NCT00962091|168864192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.06|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.06|0.66|
84555299|NCT00962091|168864193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.34|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.34|0.80|
84555300|NCT00962091|168864194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.32|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUC values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.32|0.68|
84605436|NCT02699450|168962281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|12.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.8|-11.3|0.94
84605437|NCT02699450|168962281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|19.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.9|-5.4|0.46
84605438|NCT02699450|168962282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|20.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.5|-7.7|0.56
84605439|NCT02699450|168962283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|17.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.2|-4.0|0.43
84605440|NCT02699450|168962283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|17.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.0|-2.6|0.34
84605441|NCT02699450|168962284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|20.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.6|-1.6|0.27
84745185|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
84493190|NCT01258803|168736392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.052|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and MF/F MDI without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.052|-0.008|0.144
84745186|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
84745187|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
84745188|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84493191|NCT01258803|168736394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.048|-0.012|0.229
84555301|NCT02326298|168864201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.962|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.968|120.371||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||120.371|6.968|<0.0001
84555302|NCT02326298|168864201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.657|195.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||195.634|10.657|<0.0001
84555303|NCT02326298|168864201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.92|72.17|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||72.17|47.92|
84555304|NCT02326298|168864201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.65|80.99|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||80.99|57.65|
84555305|NCT02326298|168864202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.699|109.399||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||109.399|3.699|<0.0001
84555306|NCT02326298|168864202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.687|170.548||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.548|5.687|<0.0001
84555307|NCT02326298|168864202|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.86|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.86|30.70|
84555308|NCT02326298|168864202|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.33|65.94|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||65.94|41.33|
84669637|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3968|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3968
84555309|NCT02326298|168864203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.717|235.193||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment,region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||235.193|5.717|<0.0001
84555310|NCT02326298|168864203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.88|324.988||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.988|7.880|<0.0001
84555311|NCT02326298|168864203|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.85|49.87|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||49.87|20.85|
84555312|NCT02326298|168864203|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|58.71|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||58.71|27.56|
84745189|NCT04797650|169243942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
84555313|NCT02326298|168864204|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.18|-3.81||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.81|-8.18|<0.0001
84555314|NCT02326298|168864204|SUPERIORITY||Ajusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.05|-4.62||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.62|-9.05|<0.0001
84555315|NCT02086682|168864209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84555316|NCT02044874|168864210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.47|0.0027
84605442|NCT02699450|168962284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|18.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||18.5|-4.9|0.45
84555317|NCT02044874|168864210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.73|0.2427
84555318|NCT02044874|168864210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.01|0.0477
84555319|NCT02044874|168864211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|9.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.08|0.89|0.0784
84555320|NCT02044874|168864211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.17|0.51|0.3650
84555321|NCT02044874|168864211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.61|0.3438
84555322|NCT02044874|168864212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|1.04|0.0379
84555323|NCT02044874|168864212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.09|0.54|0.8628
84555324|NCT02044874|168864212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.99|0.0556
84555325|NCT02044874|168864213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.10|0.0219
84555326|NCT02044874|168864213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.66|0.5450
84555327|NCT02044874|168864213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.93|0.0868
84555328|NCT02044874|168864214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.43|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|||||-0.43|-1.51|0.0004
84555329|NCT02044874|168864214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||0.21|-0.89|0.2268
84555330|NCT02044874|168864214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.09|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||-0.09|-1.17|0.0217
84555331|NCT02889835|168864215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survival over 36 months. Test of survival distributions for the three arms were calculated using Log Rank (Mantel-Cox). Sample size is based on guidelines of the American Dental Association for obtaining approval as an amalgam replacement for posterior restorations - minimum of 40 restorations in a minimum of 20 subjects at 18 months. Sample size is based by taking subject attrition into account over the 36 month clinical evaluation.||||0.686
84555332|NCT02889835|168864216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.701
84555333|NCT02889835|168864217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.812
84555334|NCT02889835|168864218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.104
84555335|NCT02889835|168864219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
84745190|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
84555336|NCT02889835|168864220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.676
84555337|NCT02889835|168864221|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
84555338|NCT02889835|168864222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.764
84555339|NCT02889835|168864223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.323
84555340|NCT02889835|168864224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
84555341|NCT02889835|168864225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.846
84555342|NCT02889835|168864226|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
84555343|NCT02889835|168864227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
84555344|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.0|-3.3|< 0.001
84555345|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|30.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar|Type 3||30.0|18.7|< 0.001
84555346|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||6.4|0.0|< 0.001
84555347|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.8|-3.9|< 0.001
84555348|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||-1.6|-10.0|< 0.001
84555349|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||4.0|-5.7|< 0.001
84555350|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.7|-1.1|< 0.001
84555351|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||4.6|-1.9|< 0.001
84555352|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||4.7|-0.2|< 0.001
84555353|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||4.7|-2.1|< 0.001
84745191|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
84493192|NCT01258803|168736395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.025|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.025|-0.033|0.790
84493193|NCT01258803|168736396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.135|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of F DPI and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.135|0.077|<0.001
84555354|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.6|-1.9|< 0.001
84555355|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||1.9|-1.0|< 0.001
84555356|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||6.5|-2.9|< 0.001
84555357|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.9|-2.0|< 0.001
84555358|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 3||28.3|16.5|< 0.001
84555359|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||5.4|-1.4|< 0.001
84605443|NCT02699450|168962285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.8|15.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||15.5|-16.8|0.96
84605444|NCT02699450|168962286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|19.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.7|0.1|0.19
84493194|NCT00920582|168736398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|4.219|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.219|0.431|0.609
84555360|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.7|-4.1|< 0.001
84555361|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||2.8|-4.2|< 0.001
84555362|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||5.6|-3.7|< 0.001
84555363|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.4|-1.7|< 0.001
84493195|NCT00920582|168736398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.356||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|4.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.230|0.453|0.601
84745192|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
84493196|NCT00920582|168736398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|5.066|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.066|0.521|0.400
84493197|NCT00920582|168736400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.086|0.365
84493198|NCT00920582|168736400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.064|||ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.078|0.842
84669638|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6420
84669639|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0100
84669640|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8634|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8634
84669641|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0134
84669642|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8147
84669643|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.4035|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4035
84669644|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.7385|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7385
84669645|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0139
84669646|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5207|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5207
84745193|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
84745194|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2|< 0.0001
84493199|NCT00920582|168736400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.089|0.565
84493200|NCT00920582|168736405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.197||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|6.312|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.312|0.764|0.142
84493201|NCT00920582|168736405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|4.278|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.278|0.517|0.460
84493202|NCT00920582|168736405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.954||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.532|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.532|0.690|0.199
84493203|NCT05146999|168736422|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.81|94.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||94.87|72.81|<0.001
84493204|NCT03319160|168736425|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.7|||||"Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of appropriate shock events: 19 (17 subjects had one appropriate shock event, one subject had two appropriate shock events).~Length of exposure: 253 patient-years."|||8.7|6.3|
84493205|NCT03319160|168736427|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||||||Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of inappropriately shocked events: 8. Length of exposure: 253 patient-years.|4.4|1.9|
84493206|NCT00851721|168736440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||H0: μ(on-demand) = μ(prophylaxis) Versus H1: μ(on-demand) ≠ μ(prophylaxis) (Where H0 implies no difference in mean bleeding episode rate between prophylaxis and on-demand treatment arms and H1 implies otherwise. This test was performed at a significance level of 5%, two-sided, two sample)||||0.0003
84493207|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Bleeds||||0.0008
84493208|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Bleeds||||0.0199
84493209|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Joint Bleeds||||0.0006
84493210|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0227
84493211|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Joint Bleeds||||0.0013
84493212|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0030
84555364|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||5.2|-1.1|< 0.001
84605445|NCT02699450|168962286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|13.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||13.6|-5.3|0.57
84493213|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Joint Bleeds||||0.0254
84493214|NCT00851721|168736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9322|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.9322
84493215|NCT00851721|168736444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||||||0.0271
84493216|NCT00851721|168736451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney tests (Wilcoxon-Rank Sum)|||||||0.0067
84493217|NCT04533204|168736485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|24.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.67|12.28|<.001
84493218|NCT04533204|168736486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91||Performance on cued recall (error scores)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.91|.75|.004
84555365|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||3.1|-2.8|< 0.001
84493219|NCT01333501|168736530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|7.23|||ANCOVA|||||7.23|-3.51|0.4940
84493220|NCT01333501|168736531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.99|||ANCOVA|||||7.99|-4.06|0.5183
84493221|NCT01333501|168736532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-3.69|0.1334
84493222|NCT01333501|168736533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.81|||ANCOVA|||||2.81|-6.27|0.4501
84493223|NCT01333501|168736534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.49|||ANCOVA|||||5.49|-4.57|0.8561
84493224|NCT01333501|168736535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.40|-4.67|0.8858
84493225|NCT01333501|168736536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.76|0.7119
84493226|NCT01333501|168736537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.86|0.9496
84493227|NCT01333501|168736538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-2.18|0.8944
84493228|NCT01333501|168736539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.42|0.6757
84493229|NCT01333501|168736540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-6.82|0.3585
84493230|NCT01333501|168736541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|2.14|||ANCOVA|||||2.14|-12.62|0.1610
84493231|NCT00660829|168736567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5633|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3345|<|0.001||95.0|-2.22|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.91|-2.22|<0.001
84493232|NCT00660829|168736568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1677|<|0.001||95.0|-1.07|-0.42|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.42|-1.07|<0.001
84555366|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||5.9|-0.3|< 0.001
84555367|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.2|-2.5|< 0.001
84745195|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
84555368|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||0.9|-2.9|< 0.001
84555369|NCT02987972|168864228|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||8.7|-0.1|< 0.001
84555370|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.64|
84555371|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.23|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.23|1.75|
84555372|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.16|0.92|
84555373|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.89|0.68|
84555374|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.63|0.47|
84555375|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.26|0.84|
84555376|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.92|0.73|
84555377|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.00|0.77|
84605446|NCT02699450|168962287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|4.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.9|-10.5|0.64
84745196|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
84745197|NCT04797650|169243943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-2|-2.8|< 0.0001
84745198|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.8|< 0.0001
84745199|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-2|< 0.0001
84555378|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.03|0.75|
84555379|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||0.84|0.66|
84555380|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
84555381|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.98|0.79|
84555382|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.13|0.84|
84555383|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.84|104.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||104.81|80.84|
84745200|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-2|< 0.0001
84745201|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.3|< 0.0001
84745202|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2.2|< 0.0001
84745203|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.4|< 0.0001
84745204|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
84745205|NCT04797650|169243944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.8|< 0.0001
84745206|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.05|< 0.0001
84745207|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.17|0.06|< 0.0001
84745208|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.38|0.27|< 0.0001
84745209|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.28|< 0.0001
84745210|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.03|0.00|0.0409
84745211|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.09|0.01|0.012
84745212|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.26||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.26|0.16|< 0.0001
84745213|NCT04797650|169243945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.31|0.16|< 0.0001
84555384|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|41.54|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||41.54|28.50|
84745214|NCT04797650|169243946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.4|0.7|< 0.0001
84745215|NCT04797650|169243946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
84555385|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.94|0.74|
84555386|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.18|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.18|1.71|
84555387|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.14|0.90|
84555388|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.94|0.72|
84555389|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.66|0.49|
84555390|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.10|0.74|
84555391|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.91|0.72|
84555392|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.22|0.94|
84555393|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.97|0.71|
84555394|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.12|0.88|
84555395|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
84555396|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.01|0.81|
84555397|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.37|1.01|
84555398|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|91.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||91.24|70.30|
84555399|NCT02987972|168864229|OTHER||GMC Ratio|32.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.25|39.78|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||39.78|27.25|
84555400|NCT02987972|168864230|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||3.2|-3.1|
84555401|NCT02987972|168864230|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||5.0|-0.7|
84493233|NCT00660829|168736569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4403|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3406|<|0.001||95.0|-2.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.77|-2.11|<0.001
84555402|NCT02987972|168864231|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
84555403|NCT02987972|168864231|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
84555404|NCT02987972|168864232|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.8|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.8|-0.3|
84555405|NCT02987972|168864232|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.9|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.9|-0.2|
84555406|NCT02987972|168864233|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||5.2|-3.9|0.772
84555407|NCT02987972|168864233|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||7.0|-1.7|0.235
84555408|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.76|0.62|
84555409|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.28|1.75|
84555410|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.07|0.86|
84555411|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.96|0.78|
84555412|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.65|0.50|
84555413|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.39|1.06|
84555414|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.82|0.67|
84493234|NCT00660829|168736570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3204|<|0.001||95.0|-1.92|0.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||0.66|-1.92|<0.001
84493235|NCT00660829|168736571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.001
84555415|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.95|0.74|
84555416|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.76|0.58|
84555417|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Type 18C|IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|0.90|0.72|
84555418|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.91|0.69|
84605447|NCT02699450|168962287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.8|6.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.2|-9.8|0.78
84745216|NCT04797650|169243946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||1.8|1.1|< 0.0001
84555419|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.85|0.65|
84555420|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.07|0.79|
84555421|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|27.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|31.4|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|type 22F||31.40|24.64|
84669647|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0091
84555422|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.61|28.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||28.92|22.61|
84555423|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.85|0.69|
84555424|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.39|1.84|
84745217|NCT04797650|169243946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.3|< 0.0001
84555425|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.05|0.85|
84555426|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.95|0.77|
84555427|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.74|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.74|0.57|
84555428|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.28|0.97|
84555429|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.86|0.70|
84555430|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.97|0.76|
84555431|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.7|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.70|0.53|
84555432|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.34|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.34|1.07|
84745218|NCT04797650|169243947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
84745219|NCT04797650|169243947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.7|< 0.0001
84493236|NCT01798056|168736797|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria used: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A PreChemo group over Placebo PreChemo group) in anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations is greater than 3.|Adjusted GMC ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.0||||Difference of means between vaccines and placebo were calculated together with 2-sided confidence intervals and back-transformed to the original units||The analysis evaluated the anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2, following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo in subjects with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy (PreChemo Groups only).||30|17.9|
84493237|NCT02660489|168736822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84555433|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.94|0.71|
84555434|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.94|0.73|
84605448|NCT02699450|168962288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.7|8.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||8.2|-12.7|0.78
84493238|NCT02660489|168736823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84605449|NCT02699450|168962289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|6.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.7|-7.7|0.93
84745220|NCT04797650|169243947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2|1|< 0.0001
84493239|NCT02660489|168736824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84493240|NCT02660489|168736825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84555435|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.35|0.99|
84555436|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|29.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||29.68|23.31|
84555437|NCT02987972|168864234|OTHER||GMC Ratio|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|27.25|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||27.25|21.32|
84745221|NCT04797650|169243947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.1|1|< 0.0001
84745222|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84493241|NCT02660489|168736826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84493242|NCT02660489|168736827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84493243|NCT02660489|168736828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84493244|NCT02660489|168736829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84555438|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.62|
84555439|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.63|1.27|
84555440|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.02|0.76|
84555441|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.84|0.63|
84555442|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.82|0.62|
84555443|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.22|0.93|
84555444|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.77|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.77|0.59|
84555445|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.79|0.60|
84555446|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.02|0.76|
84555447|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.08|0.81|
84605450|NCT02699450|168962289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|4.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.4|-8.3|0.69
84555448|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||1.01|0.78|
84555449|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.10|0.85|
84555450|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||0.87|0.64|
84555451|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|149.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.23|172.06|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||172.06|130.23|
84605451|NCT02699450|168962290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.5||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.8|14.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||14.7|-27.8|0.69
84745223|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
84555452|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.93|102.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||102.12|79.93|
84555453|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.93|0.71|
84745224|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84555454|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.68|1.31|
84555455|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||0.94|0.70|
84555456|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.79|0.60|
84555457|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.76|0.58|
84555458|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||0.95|0.72|
84555459|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.81|0.62|
84555460|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.88|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.88|0.67|
84555461|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.98|0.73|
84555462|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.24|0.93|
84555463|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.93|0.72|
84555464|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.03|0.79|
84555465|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.08|0.79|
84555466|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|131.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.05|151.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||151.00|114.05|
84555467|NCT02987972|168864235|OTHER||GMC Ratio|78.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.82|89.36|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||89.36|69.82|
84555468|NCT00224406|168864265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.022||||0.8541|ONE_SIDED|95.0||50.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0).||50.26||0.8541
84555469|NCT00224406|168864265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426||||0.6996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||55.17|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at 24 Hours Post ICU Admission.||55.17||0.6996
84555470|NCT00224406|168864266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.377||||0.8654|ONE_SIDED|95.0||47.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||ICU Admission (Time 0)||47.15||0.8654
84555471|NCT00224406|168864266|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.386||||0.6789|ONE_SIDED|95.0||66.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||24 Hours Post ICU Admission||66.91||0.6789
84555472|NCT00224406|168864266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.968||||0.6345|ONE_SIDED|95.0||49.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||48 Hours Post ICU Admission||49.56||0.6345
84669648|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2312
84555473|NCT00224406|168864266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.908||||0.9858|ONE_SIDED|95.0||85.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||72 Hours Post ICU Admission||85.49||0.9858
84555474|NCT00224406|168864267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.867||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|11.302|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0). One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||11.302|0.727|0.7985
84555475|NCT00224406|168864267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 24h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||3.092|0.226|0.5606
84555476|NCT00224406|168864267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.716||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|5.552|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 48h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.552|0.531|0.8786
84555477|NCT00224406|168864267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.337||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|5.072|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 72h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.072|0.352|0.8499
84555478|NCT00224406|168864268|SUPERIORITY|at 24 hrs from mechanical ventilation|difference in event probability|0.0091||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1867|0.2049|||Log Rank|||||0.2049|-0.1867|0.7076
84555479|NCT00224406|168864268|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0316||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2092|0.146|||Log Rank|||at 48 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.1460|-0.2092|0.7076
84555480|NCT00224406|168864268|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0661||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2314|0.0993|||Log Rank|||at 72 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.0993|-0.2314|0.7076
84555481|NCT00224406|168864269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0364||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0858|0.0131|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 24 hours||0.0131|-0.0858|0.9632
84555482|NCT00224406|168864269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|0.0352||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.2162|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 48 h||0.2162|-0.1458|0.9632
84555483|NCT00224406|168864269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0179||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.1785|||Log Rank|||analysis at 72 h||0.1785|-0.2143|0.9632
84555484|NCT00224406|168864274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0566||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1188|0.0056|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 3 was reported.||0.0056|-0.1188|0.0111
84555485|NCT00224406|168864274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0943||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.0156|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 6 was reported.||-0.0156|-0.1730|0.0111
84555486|NCT00224406|168864274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.1132||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1985|-0.0279|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 9 was reported.||-0.0279|-0.1985|0.0111
84555487|NCT00224406|168864274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1334||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0413|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 12 was reported.||-0.0413|-0.2254|0.0111
84555488|NCT01556997|168864281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84555489|NCT01556997|168864282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84555490|NCT01010009|168864283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||>0.05
84555491|NCT01010009|168864283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
84555492|NCT01010009|168864284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
84605452|NCT02699450|168962290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.5|-1.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-1.2|-44.5|0.18
84555493|NCT01010009|168864284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
84555494|NCT01010009|168864285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
84608526|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.19|
84669649|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.7578|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7578
84555495|NCT01010009|168864285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
84555496|NCT03309696|168864298|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS - sham tDCS.|Examines the effect of tDCS preconditioning on P100 amplitudes. The effect size for this comparison was .33 (Cohen's).||||.055
84555497|NCT03309696|168864298|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sham tDCS - Sham tDCS and Active rTMS|Examines the effect of rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The calculated effect size is .35 (Cohen's).||||0.0418
84555498|NCT03309696|168864298|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted as this was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of tDCS preconditioning on active rTMS: active tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS - sham tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS.|Examines the additive effect of tDCS preconditioning on the P100 amplitude after rTMS. The effect size for this comparison was 0.14.||||0.40
84555499|NCT03309696|168864298|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was not adjusted for this planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS and Active rTMS - Sham tDCS and Sham rTMS.|Examines the combined effect of tDCS and rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The effect size for this comparison was .29 (Cohen's).||||.086
84555500|NCT05070468|168864299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
84555501|NCT05070468|168864300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.483
84555502|NCT05070468|168864301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
84555503|NCT02607280|168864302|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.14||||||||-1.14|-2.45|
84555504|NCT02607280|168864302|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.36||||||||-0.36|-3.77|
84555505|NCT00078949|168864303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The literature has suggested that the ORR is approximately 50% for this patient population treated with DHAP. The treatment difference is defined as the response rate for the DHAP arm minus that of GDP arm. We would consider GDP to be non-inferior to DHAP if we are 95% sure that the true difference is less than 10%. In order to rule out that the 10% difference with 80% power, we need to accrue a total of 630 eligible patients. The actual sample size for this final analysis is 619 patients.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|6.7||p-value for non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-9.0|0.005
84555506|NCT00078949|168864304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.55||95.0|-10.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-10.0|0.55
84555507|NCT00078949|168864305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Log Rank|||It was estimated that 240 patients will be eligible for the maintenance question, and randomized with a 1:1 ratio to either rituximab or observation. It is expected that the 2-year event-free survival will be 50% on the observation arm. In order to detect a 15% difference in the 2-year event-free survival with an 80% power using a two-sided 5% level test, 142 events are required to detect an HR of 0.622.||1.12|0.52|0.17
84555508|NCT00577005|168864307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.05425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03211||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly cocaine urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z=-1.68950 p = 0.09112|||||0.09
84555509|NCT00577005|168864308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04369||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly opioid urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z= 0.58823 p = 0.55638|||||0.55
84555510|NCT00577005|168864309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Log Rank|Chi-Square 0.175. df = 1, p=0.676||||||0.67
84605453|NCT02699450|168962291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-49.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.2|-14.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-14.2|-84.2|0.07
84605454|NCT02699450|168962292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.0|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-38.0|0.28
84669650|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.42||0.5575|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5575
84745225|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
84745226|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745227|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.4|-2|< 0.0001
84745228|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
84555511|NCT00577005|168864310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1557||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Interaction of time x group: Z = -1.5671, p = 0.11708|||||0.11
84555512|NCT01004432|168864311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage achive ACR 20 response|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|39.4||One sided test adjusting for conducting one interim analysis|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: proportion \<=0.2||39.4|30.4|<0.0001
84555513|NCT02453282|168864331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.54|0.564|1.019||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.019|0.564|0.036
84555514|NCT02453282|168864331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|98.77|0.611|1.173||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.173|0.611|0.202
84745229|NCT04797650|169243948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
84745230|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.43||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.25|< 0.0001
84745231|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.54|0.33|< 0.0001
84745232|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|< 0.0001
84745233|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.57|0.37|< 0.0001
84745234|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.5||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.5|0.34|< 0.0001
84745235|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.63||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.63|0.44|< 0.0001
84745236|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
84745237|NCT04797650|169243949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.62|0.42|< 0.0001
84745238|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
84745239|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
84745240|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745241|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745242|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
84745243|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
84745244|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745245|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
84745246|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84745247|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745248|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84745249|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84745250|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745251|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745252|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
84745253|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
84745254|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745255|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
84745256|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745257|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745258|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
84745259|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
84745260|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
84745261|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
84745262|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84745263|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84745264|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84745265|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745266|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84745267|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
84745268|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84745269|NCT04797650|169243950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84745270|NCT04797650|169243951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.0|-0.1|0.1206
84745271|NCT04797650|169243951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.5|0.5367
84745272|NCT04797650|169243951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.3|0.2|0.0064
84745273|NCT04797650|169243951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.7|0.4|0.0011
84555515|NCT02453282|168864332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.722|1.534||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.534|0.722|0.705
84555516|NCT02453282|168864333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.421||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.421|0.836|0.523
84555517|NCT02453282|168864334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.067|0.725|0.194
84555518|NCT02453282|168864334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.213||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.213|0.834|0.952
84555519|NCT02453282|168864334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.371||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.371|0.931|0.218
84555520|NCT02453282|168864335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.128||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.128|0.812|0.602
84745274|NCT04797650|169243952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.3||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.3|0.19|< 0.0001
84745275|NCT04797650|169243952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.18|< 0.0001
84555521|NCT02453282|168864335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.103||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.103|0.794|0.430
84555522|NCT02453282|168864335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.157||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.157|0.828|0.802
84555523|NCT02453282|168864336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.143||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.143|0.667|0.324
84745276|NCT00560560|169243958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis was intended to be a binomial test (death prior to 6 months, yes or no). However, 2 participants in the 30/kg mg group were censored prior to 6 months, so the six month Kaplan and Meier estimates were used for each group instead.|Test of probability of 6 month survival|p-Value \>0.05 applies to each group (20 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg). Greenwood's formula was used for standard deviation.||The hypotheses for each group were H0:p=0.45 vs H1:p\>0.45. There was one interim analysis for futility for each group based on the method of Case and Morgan. The futility boundary was not crossed for 20/kg mg group, but was crossed for the 30/kg mg group. It was recommended to investigators that participants be discontinued from treatment with 30 mg/kg of figitumumab.||||>0.05
84555524|NCT02453282|168864336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.541||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.541|0.911|0.207
84555525|NCT02453282|168864337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.339||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.339|0.894|0.383
84555526|NCT02453282|168864337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.678||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.678|1.136|0.001
84555527|NCT02453282|168864337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.403||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.403|0.954|0.138
84555528|NCT02453282|168864338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.475||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.475|1.043|0.015
84555529|NCT02453282|168864338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.485||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.485|1.054|0.010
84555530|NCT02453282|168864338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.179||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.179|0.845|0.984
84605455|NCT02699450|168962292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.8|-10.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-10.6|-47.8|0.05
84605456|NCT02699450|168962293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.7|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-29.7|0.36
84555531|NCT02453282|168864339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.437||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.437|0.582|0.698
84608527|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||6.61|2.76|
84555532|NCT02453282|168864339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.363||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.363|0.549|0.534
84745277|NCT01160289|169243970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|Treatment group (tx grp), baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.5
84745278|NCT01160289|169243970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|The model included tx grp, baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.498
84555533|NCT02453282|168864339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|1.496||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.496|0.601|0.820
84555534|NCT02453282|168864340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.000|0.480|0.050
84555535|NCT02453282|168864340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.959||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.959|0.464|0.029
84555536|NCT02453282|168864340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.43||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.430|0.661|0.887
84555537|NCT02453282|168864341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.908||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.908|0.462|0.012
84605457|NCT02699450|168962293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.7|-3.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.5|-38.7|0.13
84605458|NCT02699450|168962294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.9|-11.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-11.3|-65.9|0.07
84745279|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.722||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.722
84555538|NCT02453282|168864341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|1.048||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.048|0.543|0.093
84555539|NCT02453282|168864341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.647||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.647|0.818|0.406
84555540|NCT02453282|168864348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.975||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.975|0.597|0.030
84745280|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.253||0.634||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.634
84555541|NCT02453282|168864348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.994||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.994|0.606|0.045
84555542|NCT02453282|168864349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.08||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.080|0.746|0.255
84555543|NCT02453282|168864349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.132||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.132|0.787|0.534
84745281|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-4.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.218||0.147||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.147
84555544|NCT02453282|168864350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.131||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.131|0.824|0.663
84605459|NCT02699450|168962295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-20.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.4|-3.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.8|-36.4|0.12
84605460|NCT02699450|168962295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.3|-12.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-12.0|-41.3|0.02
84745282|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.02||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.020
84745283|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658||0.775||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.775
84745284|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.687||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.687
84745285|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||0.119||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.119
84745286|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-6.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.14||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.140
84745287|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|6.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.302||0.207||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.207
84493245|NCT01342445|168736848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Partial eta squared|0.34|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 10.9~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<0.001
84745288|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|9.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.079||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.079
84493246|NCT01342445|168736849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||partial eta squared|0.28|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 8.14~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<.001
84555545|NCT02453282|168864350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.027||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.027|0.746|0.103
84555546|NCT02327013|168864360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.5|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.5|-3.6|0.9723
84555547|NCT02327013|168864360|SUPERIORITY|The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||||4.8|-2.8|0.6010
84555548|NCT02380859|168864420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Group (real, sham) x Time (pre, 1d post) x Stepping Direction (forward, backward) ANOVA||||0.005
84555549|NCT02063178|168864476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This randomized clinical trial was designed to have 90% power to detect a 4% weight loss percent difference at 12 months between the two study arms.||||<0.001
84555550|NCT02063178|168864477|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||The association between weight change percent and attendance was described using Spearman rank correlation.||||<0.0001
84555551|NCT02063178|168864478|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
84555552|NCT02063178|168864479|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
84555553|NCT01313494|168864495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.095|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|Independent variables: treatment, baseline value of pre-bronchodilator FEV1, time and a treatment-by-time interaction.||The primary endpoint was tested in a confirmatory manner with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||0.095|0.046|<0.0001
84605461|NCT02699450|168962296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4948
84669651|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4486|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4486
84555554|NCT03747302|168864531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84555555|NCT03747302|168864532|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean scores for behavioral intent to vaccine: negative values: smaller values indicate more likely to vaccinate.||||>.05
84745289|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-5.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.301||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.301
84555556|NCT01032070|168864533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The study was not powered for this comparison due to small sample size.||||0.2200
84555557|NCT00738062|168864592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.438
84745290|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-2.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.067||0.568||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.568
84745291|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.464||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.464
84745292|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.463||0.356||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.356
84745293|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-11.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.418||0.038||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.038
84497339|NCT01569074|168745907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.45||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|4.09|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.09|-1.19|0.481
84555558|NCT00738062|168864593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHDAS Composite value at randomization.||||||0.554
84745294|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-10.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312||0.054||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.054
84745295|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.603||0.454||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.454
84745296|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.499||0.293||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.293
84745297|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-8.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.457||0.107||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.107
84745298|NCT01160289|169243971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.349||0.178||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.178
84745299|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.867||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.867
84745300|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.931||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.931
84745301|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.158||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.158
84745302|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.172||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.172
84745303|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.579||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.579
84745304|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.115||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.115
84745305|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.668||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.668
84745306|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.141||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.141
84497340|NCT00203892|168745925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84497341|NCT00203892|168745926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84745307|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.734||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.734
84745308|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.477||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.477
84745309|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.235||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.235
84745310|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.111||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.111
84745311|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.31||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.310
84745312|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.09||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.090
84555559|NCT00738062|168864594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Composite value at baseline.||||||0.198
84555560|NCT00738062|168864595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.286
84745313|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.03||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.030
84745314|NCT01160289|169243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.004||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.004
84745315|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
84555561|NCT00738062|168864596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.251
84745316|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.460
84745317|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.198
84745318|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84745319|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
84745320|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.259
84745321|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.441
84745322|NCT01160289|169243974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.433
84745323|NCT01160289|169243975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.13||||0.423||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.423
84745324|NCT01160289|169243975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.12||||0.443||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.443
84745325|NCT01160289|169243975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.084||||0.599||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.599
84745326|NCT01160289|169243975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.334||||0.029||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.029
84555562|NCT00738062|168864597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.708
84555563|NCT00738062|168864598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.873
84555564|NCT00738062|168864599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.252
84555565|NCT00738062|168864600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.330
84745327|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.152||||0.148||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.148
84745328|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.216||||0.033||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.033
84745329|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.124||||0.224||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.224
84745330|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.189||||0.056||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.056
84745331|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.211||||0.031||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.031
84493247|NCT02652793|168736850|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in lumbar spine BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.019||Statistical test applied to lumbar spine BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Regression, Linear|Per-protocol analysis; missing data excluded|Represents mean change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to Week 48.|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.019|0.001|0.0239
84493248|NCT02652793|168736850|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in left hip BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023||Left hip|Regression, Linear|Statistical test applied to left hip BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Represents mean change in left hip BMD from baseline to Week 48|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.023|0.004|0.0046
84493249|NCT01224171|168736881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|Clinical remission was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level with stratification according to concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and concomitant use of immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine \[6-MP\], azathioprine, or methotrexate) for the TNFα antagonist failure subpopulation.||10.5|-4.5|0.4332
84493250|NCT01928758|168736889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-175.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-133.1||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline cotinine after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2-weeks.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||-133.1|-218.3|<0.0001
84555566|NCT02248974|168864606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline Knowledge Scale score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.01
84745332|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.227||||0.017||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.017
84555567|NCT02248974|168864607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline KS score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.47
84555568|NCT02248974|168864608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.12
84555569|NCT02248974|168864609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.79
84745333|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.016||||0.866||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.866
84745334|NCT01160289|169243976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.032||||0.726||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.726
84745335|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-9.014|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84745336|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.547|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84745337|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-9.216|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84555570|NCT02248974|168864610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84555571|NCT02248974|168864611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84555572|NCT02248974|168864612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84555573|NCT02248974|168864613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84555574|NCT02248974|168864614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84745338|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.75|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84745339|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.977||||0.776||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
84745340|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.78||||0.814||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.814
84745341|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.629||||0.627||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.627
84745342|NCT01160289|169243977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.128||||0.968||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.968
84493251|NCT01928758|168736890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.65||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.65|-0.28|0.16
84555575|NCT02248974|168864615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84745343|NCT01160289|169243978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.006||||0.984||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.984
84745344|NCT01160289|169243978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.465||||0.076||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.076
84745345|NCT01160289|169243978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.387||||0.142||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.142
84745346|NCT01160289|169243978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.072||||0.776||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
84555576|NCT02248974|168864616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84555577|NCT02248974|168864618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84745347|NCT01160289|169243979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|5.031||||0.103||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.103
84745348|NCT01160289|169243979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean treatment difference|-3.225||||0.277||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.277
84745349|NCT01160289|169243979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|7.056||||0.019||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.019
84745350|NCT01160289|169243979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.201||||0.676||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.676
84745351|NCT03406078|169244043|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.28||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.35|||Proportional odds model|Response variable: categorised % reduction from baseline in final OCS dose. Covariates in the model: treatment, region and daily OCS dose at baseline.||||2.35|0.69|0.434
84745352|NCT05593445|169244087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.41|||Chi-squared|||||2.41|0.29|0.737
84745353|NCT05593445|169244087|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the response rate difference was constructed from approximately normal distribution.|||20.7|-29.2|
84745354|NCT05593445|169244088|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.47|-5.05|0.0188
84745355|NCT05593445|169244089|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-1.96|0.4674
84745356|NCT05593445|169244090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.869|||Log Rank||Cox regression model was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate.|||1.869|0.503|0.9072
84745357|NCT05559476|169244099|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the Upper Limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is less than or equal (\<=)1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.35|||||The comparison is done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.35|1.03|
84745358|NCT05559476|169244100|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.16|0.85|
84555578|NCT02248974|168864619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84555579|NCT02248974|168864623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84555580|NCT02248974|168864624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84555581|NCT02248974|168864625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84555582|NCT02248974|168864626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84555583|NCT02248974|168864627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84555584|NCT02248974|168864628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84555585|NCT02248974|168864630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84669652|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
84555586|NCT02248974|168864631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84555587|NCT02248974|168864632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84555588|NCT02248974|168864639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.98
84669653|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1185
84669654|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7523
84669655|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0214
84669656|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.12||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9826
84669657|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6627
84669658|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4674
84669659|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2965
84555589|NCT02248974|168864640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84555590|NCT02945254|168864662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84555591|NCT02945254|168864663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84555592|NCT00783224|168864664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84555593|NCT00783224|168864664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84555594|NCT01711619|168864665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 4% was predefined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation of the proportion for ITT.||||<0.0001
84605462|NCT02699450|168962296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4960
84669660|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1778
84745359|NCT05559476|169244100|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.09|0.80|
84745360|NCT05559476|169244100|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.03|0.88|
84555595|NCT01711619|168864666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
84555596|NCT01711619|168864667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||0.0002
84555597|NCT01711619|168864668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||<0.0001
84555598|NCT00334802|168864669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 1 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.169
84555599|NCT00334802|168864669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 2 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84555600|NCT03422159|168864676|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the results of the preliminary study of Marik et al, 5 we projected that the combination of ascorbic acid, thiamine, and hydrocortisone could reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation from 54 (+/-30 hours) vs 30 hours. For the additional primary outcome, we projected a greater change of SOFA score of 4 (+/-3) vs 2. Assuming a type 1 error of 5% (alpha of 0.05) and a power of 80%, this study would require a sample size of 94 patients.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84555601|NCT03436199|168864684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.136|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.136|-0.008|0.0811
84555602|NCT03436199|168864684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.174|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.174|0.023|0.0104
84555603|NCT03436199|168864685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.21|0.02|0.0162
84555604|NCT03436199|168864685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.22|0.02|0.0142
84555605|NCT03436199|168864686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.27|-1.85|0.1424
84555606|NCT03436199|168864686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||1.06|-1.14|0.9467
84555607|NCT03436199|168864687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7389||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.560|0.726|0.0176
84555608|NCT03436199|168864687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8196||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|7.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.104|-0.046|0.0530
84555609|NCT01225289|168864727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84555610|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 1.25 mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.009
84745361|NCT05559476|169244100|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.02|0.84|
84605463|NCT02699450|168962297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.08|5.49||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.49|-11.08|1.0000
84745362|NCT05559476|169244101|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.15|0.89|
84605464|NCT02699450|168962298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.12||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.41|3.17||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.17|-15.41|0.5759
84745363|NCT05559476|169244102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.74||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||4.74|-8.15|
84745364|NCT05559476|169244102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|2.48||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||2.48|-10.67|
84745365|NCT05559476|169244102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.29||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||-2.29|-14.75|
84745366|NCT05559476|169244102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|0.56||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||0.56|-12.28|
84745367|NCT00153062|169244164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.075|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs clopidogrel||1.11|0.92|0.7830
84745368|NCT00153062|169244165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs Clopidogrel||1.07|0.92|0.8292
84555611|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group||||<0.001
84745369|NCT00153062|169244166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates.||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.01|0.87|0.1073
84745370|NCT00153062|169244167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.04|0.65|0.1007
84745371|NCT00153062|169244168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline Modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs placebo||1.04|0.86|0.2312
84745372|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family-wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus Test: A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment,natural time(defined as natural log of months) and treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects(using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software,version 9;www.sas.com). A significant treatment by time interaction(p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests (see below). Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .01
84745373|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555612|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.66
84555613|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.49
84745374|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .25
84745375|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .98
84555614|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.45
84745376|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84745377|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84745378|NCT00910689|169244215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|>|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.29
84745379|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6 pair wise contrasts were conducted: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments to OAT + PL. The 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (PROC MIXED, SAS 9).When the treatment by time interaction was significant (p \< .05, 2-tailed)post-tests were conducted (see below).Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .03
84745380|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555615|NCT00336323|168864731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.90
84555616|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.42
84555617|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.67
84555618|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.48
84555619|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.82
84555620|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.01
84555621|NCT00336323|168864732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.003
84555622|NCT00336323|168864735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to those that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||<0.0001
84605465|NCT02699450|168962298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.15||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.02|11.33||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||11.33|-5.02|0.7437
84555623|NCT00336323|168864736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline score||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was \<65 letters compared to those that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.31
84493252|NCT01928758|168736891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||2.16|-1.40|0.67
84493253|NCT01928758|168736892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.05||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.05|-1.68|0.65
84493254|NCT04140942|168736907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Employment||||.15
84555624|NCT00336323|168864737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between those that were ≤66 years old compared to those that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.44
84555625|NCT00336323|168864738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.55
84555626|NCT00336323|168864739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had no history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to those that had history or treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.16
84605466|NCT02699450|168962299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.6|12.64||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.64|-8.60|1.0000
84669661|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.3903|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3903
84555627|NCT00336323|168864740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity that was \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to those that had baseline retinopathy severity that was proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.53
84555628|NCT00336323|168864741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline clinical diabetic macular edema characterized as typical/predominantly focal, neither predominantly focal or diffuse, or typical/predominantly diffuse. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.93
84745381|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84493255|NCT04140942|168736907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||6-Month Employment||||.001
84493256|NCT04140942|168736907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Employment||||.87
84493257|NCT04140942|168736908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures.||||||0.04
84493258|NCT04140942|168736909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.056
84493259|NCT04140942|168736909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.18
84555629|NCT00336323|168864742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline subretinal fluid that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that had no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.52
84555630|NCT00336323|168864743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.22
84555631|NCT00336323|168864744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline visual acuity letter score of \<65 letters compared to eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score of ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.006
84555632|NCT00336323|168864745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that were ≤66 years old at baseline compared to eyes that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.23
84555633|NCT00336323|168864746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.37
84555634|NCT00336323|168864747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that did not have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to eyes that did have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.04
84555635|NCT00336323|168864748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline retinopathy severity of \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.38
84745382|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555636|NCT00336323|168864749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline clinical diabetic macular edema (DME) characterization of typical/predominantly focal compared to neither predominantly focal or diffuse characterization at baseline and compared to typical/predominantly diffuse characterization at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.45
84669662|NCT01480076|169072609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.53||0.2794|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2794
84669663|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
84555637|NCT00336323|168864750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline subretinal fluid presence that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that there was no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.06
84555638|NCT01037127|168864763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|37.8|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||37.8|14.1|
84555639|NCT01037127|168864764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||48.4|2.1|
84555640|NCT01037127|168864764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|41.9|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.9|14.6|
84555641|NCT01037127|168864764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|41.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.4|14.3|
84555642|NCT01037127|168864764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|45.2|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||45.2|14.2|
84555643|NCT01037127|168864765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0||||||95.0|7.7|38.6|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||38.6|7.7|
84555644|NCT01726036|168864780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
84555645|NCT01047332|168864781|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
84555646|NCT01047332|168864782|OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.997
84555647|NCT03521817|168864787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.231
84745383|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|>|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .02
84745384|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35|>|0.79||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.79
84555648|NCT00778102|168864788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rate|12.3||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|35.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with R0, R1, or R2.||35.5|-11.0|0.2707
84605467|NCT00882908|168962329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|13.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|28.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 75mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC435 75 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 were compared with the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||28.0|-1.9|0.051
84605468|NCT00882908|168962329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|18.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|33.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 150mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC/PR 150 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 was compared the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||33.5|4.4|0.004
84605469|NCT00700102|168962367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.69|0.0062
84555649|NCT00778102|168864791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|-4.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|33.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with complete or major histopathological response.||33.5|-43.0|0.7817
84555650|NCT00778102|168864798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate (CR or PR)|18.9||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|40.0|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with confirmed best overall response of CR or PR.||40.0|-2.1|0.0612
84605470|NCT00700102|168962368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Estimate||1.05|0.77|0.1713
84605471|NCT00700102|168962370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
84745385|NCT00910689|169244216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|>|0.02||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.02
84745386|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); three additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure controlled the familywise type I error for the 6 contrasts at .05. Adjusted p=.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction and pretreatment Migraine Specific Quality of Life scores as covariate was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software, version 9; www. sas.com).A significant treatment by time interaction (p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests||||<.005
84555651|NCT03976323|168864835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.36|0.92|0.8721
84605472|NCT00700102|168962371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|-1.5|0.3113
84745387|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84745388|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555652|NCT03976323|168864836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.25|0.87|0.6649
84605473|NCT00700102|168962371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4315
84605474|NCT01811303|168962373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84605475|NCT01811303|168962373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.016||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
84605476|NCT02525939|168962375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The estimated HR was presented with a 95% CI and a p-value. The primary analysis was conducted at the 0.05 significance level.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the primary endpoint. This model included treatment as a main effect, and region and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event type as stratification factors. The null and alternative hypotheses tested with the above Cox model were: H0: λ = 1 vs HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the, assumed constant, hazard ratio (HR) for the time to occurrence of the composite events of the primary endpoint for the dalcetrapib and placebo treated groups.||1.03|0.75|0.12
84745389|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84745390|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84555653|NCT03976323|168864839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.36||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA) model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||1.36|-5.16|0.2533
84555654|NCT03976323|168864840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.24|0.76|0.8125
84555655|NCT03976323|168864841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.9364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|3.71||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.71|-4.02|0.9364
84555656|NCT03976323|168864842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.17|0.66|0.3782
84745391|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555657|NCT03976323|168864843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.83||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.83|-3.54|0.8285
84555658|NCT03976323|168864844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.51||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.51|0.78|0.6272
84555659|NCT03976323|168864845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.51||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.35|-5.38|0.4422
84555660|NCT03976323|168864846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.74|0.9156
84555661|NCT03976323|168864847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.93||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.93|-2.94|0.9962
84555662|NCT03976323|168864848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.40|0.83|0.5517
84745392|NCT00910689|169244217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|>|0.87||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.87
84555663|NCT01886781|168864872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine an effect size of 0.64 with 80% power, a sample size of 27 for each group (D-IBS, C-IBS and controls), with a type 1 error of 5% using a two sided test was sufficient. Sample size based on expected behaviour of primary outcome measure. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with the instrument used was 50 points.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intention-to -treat (ITT) analysis was performed on all patients who underwent randomization (n = 81). The results of the ITT analysis are presented. Changes in Severity Score was examined using the mixed model for analysis of variance to account for missing data. This model used group (treatment vs control) \& time as factors.||||<0.05
84555664|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24||||||||1.24|1|
84555665|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17||||||||1.17|0.95|
84555666|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
84555667|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
84745393|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84745394|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|>|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .83
84555668|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08||||||||1.08|0.9|
84555669|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|0.89|
84555670|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.1|0.91|
84555671|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
84555672|NCT01162122|168864923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
84555673|NCT01162122|168864924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.49||||||||1.49|1.32|
84605477|NCT02525939|168962376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.13|0.88|0.95
84555674|NCT01162122|168864924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|1.7||||||||1.7|1.52|
84555675|NCT01162122|168864924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21||||||||1.21|1.08|
84669664|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1166
84555676|NCT01162122|168864925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|11.3||||||||11.3|7.1|
84555677|NCT01162122|168864925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|14.9||||||||14.9|10.5|
84555678|NCT01162122|168864925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||||||||7.4|3.0|
84555679|NCT01162122|168864926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.46||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.46|1.29|
84555680|NCT01162122|168864926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.51|
84555681|NCT01162122|168864926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.2|1.08|
84555682|NCT01162122|168864927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||10.9|6.9|
84555683|NCT01162122|168864927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|14.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||14.8|10.6|
84555684|NCT01162122|168864927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||7.2|2.9|
84555685|NCT01162122|168864931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||||1.52|1.25|
84669665|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0451
84669666|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9327|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9327
84745395|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .05
84555686|NCT01162122|168864931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.72||||||||1.72|1.44|
84555687|NCT01162122|168864931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||||1.21|1.03|
84555688|NCT01162122|168864932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.6||||||||14.6|7.5|
84555689|NCT01162122|168864932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|17.2||||||||17.2|9.8|
84555690|NCT01162122|168864932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (B strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.5||||||||8.5|1.4|
84555691|NCT01162122|168864933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.45||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.45|1.2|
84555692|NCT01162122|168864933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.42|
84555693|NCT01162122|168864933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|1.03|
84555694|NCT01162122|168864937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||13.3|6.4|
84605478|NCT02525939|168962377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.07|0.79|0.27
84605479|NCT02266875|168962417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
84605480|NCT02266875|168962418|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84555695|NCT01162122|168864937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||16.6|9.5|
84555696|NCT01162122|168864937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||8.3|1.5|
84555697|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.63||||||||1.63|1.29|
84555698|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5||||||||1.5|1.23|
84555699|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||||||||1.21|0.98|
84555700|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk group)|1.35||||||95.0|1.13|1.61||||||||1.61|1.13|
84555701|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk group|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||||1.5|1.1|
84555702|NCT01162122|168864938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-high risk group)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3||||||||1.3|0.95|
84555703|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.67||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.67|1.33|
84555704|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.52|1.25|
84605481|NCT02481713|168962420|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyses were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84555705|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|0.99|
84605482|NCT02481713|168962421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.69|||Regression, zero-inflated Poisson|||||1.69|1.25|.0001
84672241|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.381||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||1.381|0.425|0.380
84555706|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-high risk)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.61||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.61|1.15|
84555707|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.48||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.48|1.1|
84555708|NCT01162122|168864939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-high risk)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.31|0.97|
84555709|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|15.9||||||||15.9|6.7|
84555710|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|16.6||||||||16.6|7.3|
84555711|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Slope|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.4||||||||8.4|-0.4|
84555712|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.9||||||||19.9|4.8|
84555713|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2Wisconsin-high risk|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.2||||||||20.2|5.0|
84555714|NCT01162122|168864940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain-high risk)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8||||||||11.8|-2.1|
84555715|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|16.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||16.9|8.1|
84555716|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.1||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||17.1|8.1|
84555717|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-overall)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||8.8|0.4|
84555718|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||19.6|5.2|
84555719|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-highrisk|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|20.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||20.3|5.8|
84555720|NCT01162122|168864941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-high risk)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||11.8|-1.6|
84555721|NCT03301844|168864960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared||||"Patient preference for one of the two treatments at Visit 3 was presented overall in terms of number and percentage of patients preferring the standard or the study treatment.~Patient preference was compared between the standard and the study treatment with a Chi-Square test for equal proportion."|||0.071
84669667|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4177
84555722|NCT03301844|168864961|OTHER|||||||0.7353|||||||Chi-squared||||"The incidence of all the treatment-emergent systemic Adverse Events recorded in the eCRF was presented overall at patient level; the incidence of all the treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events recorded in eCRF was presented by treatment group at eye level.~Incidence of treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events was compared between treatment groups by means of a Chi-square test."|||0.7353
84669668|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5885
84669669|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0059
84745396|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Significant post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555723|NCT00483704|168864976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.58|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.58|1.80|<0.001
84555724|NCT00483704|168864976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.27|2.15|<0.001
84555725|NCT00483704|168864977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.90|2.35|<0.001
84555726|NCT00483704|168864977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|2.17|<0.001
84555727|NCT00483704|168864978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||7.23|2.05|<0.001
84555728|NCT00483704|168864978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||11.39|3.36|<0.001
84669670|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3467|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3467
84555729|NCT00483704|168864979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.51|1.96|<0.001
84555730|NCT00483704|168864979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.34|2.41|<0.001
84555731|NCT00483704|168864980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.11|1.30|<0.001
84555732|NCT00483704|168864980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.14|1.31|<0.001
84555733|NCT00483704|168864981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.22|1.36|<0.001
84555734|NCT00483704|168864981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.06|1.26|<0.001
84669671|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
84555735|NCT00483704|168864982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.17|1.28|<0.001
84745397|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84555736|NCT00483704|168864982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.04|1.21|<0.001
84555737|NCT00483704|168864985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.07|1.78|<0.001
84555738|NCT00483704|168864985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.19|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.19|2.30|<0.001
84555739|NCT00483704|168864986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.69|1.56|<0.001
84555740|NCT00483704|168864986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.12|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.12|2.22|<0.001
84555741|NCT00483704|168864987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.38|1.65|<0.001
84555742|NCT00483704|168864987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.01|1.97|<0.001
84745398|NCT00910689|169244218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .20
84555743|NCT00483704|168864988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.54|1.52|<0.001
84555744|NCT00483704|168864988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.56|2.00|<0.001
84555745|NCT05727306|168865006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||||Calculated as the odds of having a depressive episode in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.25|
84555746|NCT05727306|168865007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.58|||||Calculated as the odds of having recurrent depressive disorder in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.58|1.32|
84555747|NCT05727306|168865008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.51|||||Calculated as the odds of having anxiety in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.51|1.30|
84555748|NCT05727306|168865009|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.46|||||Calculated as the incidence rate of attending primary care in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Incidence rate ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.37|
84555749|NCT05727306|168865010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|9.04|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||9.04|7.55|
84555750|NCT05727306|168865011|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.57|1.17|
84745399|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84745400|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
84745401|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84745402|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|>|0.04||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.04
84745403|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|>|0.33||95.0||||Bonerfoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.33
84555751|NCT05727306|168865012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.87|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.87|1.14|
84555752|NCT05727306|168865013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.61|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.61|1.38|
84555753|NCT00819780|168865029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.871||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.166|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.166|0.651|0.3531
84555754|NCT00819780|168865030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.723||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.111|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.111|0.470|0.1386
84555755|NCT00819780|168865031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||1.95|0.72|0.5497
84555756|NCT00819780|168865033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.874||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.185|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.185|0.645|0.3861
84745404|NCT00910689|169244219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|>|0.21||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.21
84555757|NCT00819780|168865036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.651||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.956|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.956|0.444|0.0286
84555758|NCT00819780|168865037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.579||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.869|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.869|0.386|0.0083
84555759|NCT00819780|168865038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.606||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.088|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant Oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.088|0.337|0.0934
84745405|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555760|NCT00819780|168865039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|0.902|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.902|0.239|0.0235
84555761|NCT00819780|168865040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.12|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.12|0.55|0.9426
84555762|NCT00819780|168865041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.15|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.15|0.52|1.0000
84555763|NCT00793624|168865079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
84745406|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555764|NCT00793624|168865079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
84555765|NCT00793624|168865079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.136|<0.0001
84555766|NCT00793624|168865080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.037|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.037|0.0002
84555767|NCT00793624|168865080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.044|<0.0001
84555768|NCT00793624|168865080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0088||95.0|0.014|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.095|0.014|0.0088
84555769|NCT00793624|168865081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.5843||95.0|-0.485|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.860|-0.485|0.5843
84555770|NCT00793624|168865081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9494||95.0|-0.656|0.699|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.699|-0.656|0.9494
84555771|NCT00793624|168865081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.5099||95.0|-0.908|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.451|-0.908|0.5099
84555772|NCT00793624|168865082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.0816||95.0|-5.19|0.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.307|-5.190|0.0816
84555773|NCT00793624|168865082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0155||95.0|-6.141|-0.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.648|-6.141|0.0155
84555774|NCT00793624|168865082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.4954||95.0|-3.691|1.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.787|-3.691|0.4954
84555775|NCT00793624|168865083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.387||0.045||95.0|-5.507|-0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.063|-5.507|0.0450
84555776|NCT00793624|168865083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.0002||95.0|-7.864|-2.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-2.425|-7.864|0.0002
84555777|NCT00793624|168865083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.2061||95.0|-4.474|0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.966|-4.474|0.2061
84555778|NCT00793624|168865084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.1878||95.0|-4.655|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.914|-4.655|0.1878
84555779|NCT00793624|168865084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.0126||95.0|-6.364|-0.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.767|-6.364|0.0126
84555780|NCT00793624|168865084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426||0.9913||95.0|-2.782|2.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.814|-2.782|0.9913
84555781|NCT00793624|168865085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034||95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
84555782|NCT00793624|168865085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004||95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
84555783|NCT00793624|168865085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009||95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
84555784|NCT00793624|168865086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.146|<0.0001
84555785|NCT00793624|168865086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.126|<0.0001
84669672|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3965
84669673|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8548
84745407|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
84555786|NCT00793624|168865086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.246|0.166|<0.0001
84555787|NCT00793624|168865087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.136|<0.0001
84555788|NCT00793624|168865087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.119|<0.0001
84555789|NCT00793624|168865087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.152|<0.0001
84555790|NCT00793624|168865088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.137|<0.0001
84555791|NCT00793624|168865088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.129|<0.0001
84555792|NCT00793624|168865088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.144|<0.0001
84555793|NCT00793624|168865089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.103|<0.0001
84605483|NCT01643876|168962450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the extent of palatal inflammation before and 3 months after palatal brushing. Assuming that the minimal practically important pre/post difference in the mean change score is 20 percent and the standard deviation of the distribution of the change in score is 0.8, a sample size of 44 participants is required to ensure a power of 90 % of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is indeed false.||||<0.0001
84605484|NCT01643876|168962451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-57.5|||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the number of Candida Colony-Forming Units (CFUs), before and 3 months after palatal brushing.||||<0.05
84555794|NCT00793624|168865089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.105|<0.0001
84555795|NCT00793624|168865089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.130|<0.0001
84555796|NCT00793624|168865090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.048|<0.0001
84555797|NCT00793624|168865090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.040|<0.0001
84555798|NCT00793624|168865090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
84555799|NCT00793624|168865091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.047|<0.0001
84555800|NCT00793624|168865091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.117|0.038|0.0001
84605485|NCT02469714|168962452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total scheduled appointments from 1-13 months||||.04
84605486|NCT02469714|168962452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total achieved appointments from 1-13 months||||.008
84605487|NCT02469714|168962453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.135
84605488|NCT02469714|168962454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.077
84745408|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|>|0.56||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.56
84555801|NCT00793624|168865091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.039|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.039|<0.0001
84555802|NCT00793624|168865092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.043|<0.0001
84555803|NCT00793624|168865092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.114|0.035|0.0002
84555804|NCT00793624|168865092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0037||95.0|0.019|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.100|0.019|0.0037
84555805|NCT00793624|168865093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0016||95.0|0.025|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.025|0.0016
84605489|NCT02469714|168962455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.0005
84555806|NCT00793624|168865093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0276||95.0|0.005|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.005|0.0276
84555807|NCT00793624|168865093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0426||95.0|0.001|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.082|0.001|0.0426
84605490|NCT02469714|168962456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.060
84605491|NCT02469714|168962457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.073
84669674|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.35||0.2405|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2405
84555808|NCT00793624|168865094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0237||95.0|0.006|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.006|0.0237
84555809|NCT00793624|168865094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0175||95.0|0.009|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.009|0.0175
84555810|NCT00793624|168865094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0339||95.0|0.003|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.003|0.0339
84555811|NCT00793624|168865095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0537||95.0|-0.001|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.001|0.0537
84555812|NCT00793624|168865095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0808||95.0|-0.004|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.078|-0.004|0.0808
84555813|NCT00793624|168865095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.2579||95.0|-0.017|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.065|-0.017|0.2579
84555814|NCT00793624|168865096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0011||95.0|0.027|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.027|0.0011
84605492|NCT02469714|168962458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.34
84605493|NCT02469714|168962459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.21
84605494|NCT01945775|168962472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.711|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.711|0.413|<0.0001
84605495|NCT01945775|168962473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status.||8.83|2.93|<0.0001
84555815|NCT00793624|168865096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0069||95.0|0.018|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.018|0.0069
84555816|NCT00793624|168865096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
84555817|NCT00793624|168865097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.135|<0.0001
84555818|NCT00793624|168865097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.108|<0.0001
84555819|NCT00793624|168865097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.148|<0.0001
84555820|NCT00793624|168865098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.124|<0.0001
84555821|NCT00793624|168865098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.109|<0.0001
84555822|NCT00793624|168865098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.139|<0.0001
84555823|NCT00793624|168865099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.122|<0.0001
84669675|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
84555824|NCT00793624|168865099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.116|<0.0001
84555825|NCT00793624|168865099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.130|<0.0001
84555826|NCT00793624|168865100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.104|<0.0001
84555827|NCT00793624|168865100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.112|<0.0001
84745409|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|>|0.08||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.08
84555828|NCT00793624|168865100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.211|0.123|<0.0001
84555829|NCT00793624|168865101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.095|<0.0001
84555830|NCT00793624|168865101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.095|<0.0001
84555831|NCT00793624|168865101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.206|0.117|<0.0001
84555832|NCT00793624|168865102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.297|0.149|<0.0001
84555833|NCT00793624|168865102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
84555834|NCT00793624|168865102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.381|0.233|<0.0001
84555835|NCT00793624|168865103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.161|<0.0001
84745410|NCT00910689|169244220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|>|0.03||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.03
84745411|NCT00932113|169244258|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84605496|NCT01945775|168962474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.073|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||1.073|0.670|0.1693
84605497|NCT01945775|168962482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on repeated measures mixed-effect model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate. Analysis was based on restricted maximum likelihood using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.3|4.6|<0.0001
84745412|NCT02480153|169244267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if the 2-sided 95% CI fell within (-14%, 14%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|4.44||||||||4.44|-10.38|
84745413|NCT02480153|169244267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if 2-sided 90% CI fell within (-12%, 15%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|3.28||||||||3.28|-9.25|
84745414|NCT01190514|169244328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|105.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.04|86.94|
84745415|NCT01190514|169244328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.64|97.17|
84555836|NCT00793624|168865103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.324|0.175|<0.0001
84555837|NCT00793624|168865103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.235|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.384|0.235|<0.0001
84605498|NCT01945775|168962483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.549|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.549|0.257|<0.0001
84745416|NCT01190514|169244328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|108.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||117.01|101.10|
84605499|NCT01945775|168962484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.392||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.775|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system).||0.775|0.198|0.0053
84605500|NCT02876328|168962485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Each active group is compared to placebo using a 2-sided .0167 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyses are stratified by site.||Analysis applies to both adults and children.||||<.001
84605501|NCT00892606|168962488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
84605502|NCT00892606|168962489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84605503|NCT00892606|168962490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0146
84605504|NCT01735708|168962491|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using multiple imputation by chained equation with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|standard error of difference in means|||-0.34|-2.28|0.008
84497342|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|bayesian multivariate hierarachical||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
84497343|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posertior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.7||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-minute Follow-up Analysis||1.7|-6.8|
84497344|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follolw-up Analysis||1.5|-6.9|
84497345|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||1.4|-6.5|
84497346|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.1|-5.8|
84497347|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.6|-5.0|
84497348|NCT03466060|168745940|NON_INFERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3|||Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
84497349|NCT03466060|168745940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Mutlivariate Hiearachical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||2.5|-5.8|
84497350|NCT03387267|168745941|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.64|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.72||||||||0.72||
84497351|NCT03387267|168745942|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84497352|NCT03387267|168745943|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84497353|NCT01610284|168745964|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||0.89|0.67|<0.001
84497354|NCT01610284|168745964|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||0.94|0.68|0.003
84497355|NCT01610284|168745964|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank|||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||0.97|0.60|0.015
84497356|NCT01610284|168745964|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.03|0.67|
84497357|NCT01610284|168745964|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||0.94|0.52|
84497358|NCT01610284|168745965|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||1.02|0.74|0.045
84497359|NCT01610284|168745965|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||1.09|0.75|0.144
84497360|NCT01610284|168745965|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08||||||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||1.08|0.61|
84555838|NCT00793624|168865104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.135|<0.0001
84555839|NCT00793624|168865104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.179|<0.0001
84555840|NCT00793624|168865104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.352|0.201|<0.0001
84555841|NCT00793624|168865105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.107|<0.0001
84605505|NCT01735708|168962492|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.4||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.||||0.40|-1.53|0.251
84605506|NCT01735708|168962493|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.61||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.61|-1.32|0.844
84605507|NCT01735708|168962494|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.15||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.15|-2.18|0.545
84605508|NCT01689350|168962516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.14|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the control group and experimental group in terms of frequency of leucopenia.(α=0.05） Chi-square test was applied to test the difference. The Chi-square value was 10.08 and the P-value was 0.0015, which indicated that the null hypothesis could be rejected.||14.14|1.76|<0.01
84605509|NCT01689350|168962517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.13|||Chi-squared|||||7.13|1.01|<0.05
84605510|NCT00130923|168962535|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment slopes|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment slopes in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||0.054
84605511|NCT00130923|168962536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.035
84555842|NCT00793624|168865105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.139|<0.0001
84555843|NCT00793624|168865105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.318|0.166|<0.0001
84605512|NCT00130923|168962537|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.57
84669676|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8105|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8105
84605513|NCT00130923|168962538|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.32
84605514|NCT00130923|168962539|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.44
84605515|NCT00130923|168962540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|Statistical test of hypothesis. Value of the Chi-squared statistic is 9.08||||||.003
84669677|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0470
84669678|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6067
84555844|NCT00793624|168865106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.103|<0.0001
84555845|NCT00793624|168865106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.126|<0.0001
84555846|NCT00793624|168865106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.320|0.166|<0.0001
84555847|NCT00793624|168865107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0781||95.0|-0.008|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.008|0.0781
84555848|NCT00793624|168865107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0455||95.0|0.002|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.153|0.002|0.0455
84555849|NCT00793624|168865107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.029||95.0|0.009|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.160|0.009|0.0290
84555850|NCT00793624|168865108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.035|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.035|0.0043
84555851|NCT00793624|168865108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0007||95.0|0.055|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.055|0.0007
84555852|NCT00793624|168865108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0005||95.0|0.06|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.212|0.060|0.0005
84745417|NCT01190514|169244330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||101.20|89.37|
84555853|NCT00793624|168865109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0136||95.0|0.02|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.020|0.0136
84555854|NCT00793624|168865109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0076||95.0|0.028|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.028|0.0076
84555855|NCT00793624|168865109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0294||95.0|0.009|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.163|0.009|0.0294
84555856|NCT00793624|168865110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.8674||95.0|-0.071|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|-0.071|0.8674
84555857|NCT00793624|168865110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6487||95.0|-0.06|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.096|-0.060|0.6487
84555858|NCT00793624|168865110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9267||95.0|-0.074|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.074|0.9267
84555859|NCT00793624|168865111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1603||95.0|-0.022|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|-0.022|0.1603
84555860|NCT00793624|168865111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0399||95.0|0.004|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.004|0.0399
84745418|NCT01190514|169244330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||108.40|94.66|
84745419|NCT01190514|169244330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|115.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.59|122.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||122.94|108.59|
84555861|NCT00793624|168865111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6328||95.0|-0.059|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.098|-0.059|0.6328
84555862|NCT00793624|168865112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.127||95.0|-0.017|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.017|0.1270
84555863|NCT00793624|168865112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1076||95.0|-0.014|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.014|0.1076
84555864|NCT00793624|168865112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1492||95.0|-0.021|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.021|0.1492
84555865|NCT00793624|168865113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0385||95.0|0.004|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.004|0.0385
84605516|NCT00554099|168962541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.3781|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.809|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||-0.809||0.3781
84745420|NCT01346475|169244347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Risk Ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Incident risk ratio|The model is adjusted for period effects.||This study had 80% power to detect a 50% reduction in HSV genital shedding rates for high-dose valacyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||0.66|0.44|<0.001
84493260|NCT01374516|168736979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||68.0|52.0|
84555866|NCT00793624|168865113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.142||95.0|-0.02|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.020|0.1420
84745421|NCT01156792|169244390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.02|=0.268
84745422|NCT01156792|169244390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.00|=0.080
84745423|NCT01156792|169244390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|0.01|=0.017
84555867|NCT00793624|168865113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0965||95.0|-0.012|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.147|-0.012|0.0965
84745424|NCT01156792|169244390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|0.03|=0.002
84745425|NCT01156792|169244391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.946|||=|0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|-4.91|=0.751
84745426|NCT01156792|169244391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.51|0.03|=0.049
84745427|NCT01156792|169244391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.983|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|11.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.35|=0.123
84745428|NCT01156792|169244391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|18.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.35|5.93|<0.001
84745429|NCT01156792|169244392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.651|||=|0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.27|-3.97|=0.563
84555868|NCT00793624|168865114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1394||95.0|-0.019|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.019|0.1394
84555869|NCT00793624|168865114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1532||95.0|-0.022|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.022|0.1532
84555870|NCT00793624|168865114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5511||95.0|-0.055|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.104|-0.055|0.5511
84555871|NCT00793624|168865115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.108|<0.0001
84555872|NCT00793624|168865115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.128|<0.0001
84555873|NCT00793624|168865115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.361|0.205|<0.0001
84555874|NCT00793624|168865116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.131|<0.0001
84745430|NCT01156792|169244392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.67|-0.47|=0.072
84745431|NCT01156792|169244392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.822|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.02|-1.37|=0.126
84555875|NCT00793624|168865116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
84555876|NCT00793624|168865116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.344|0.187|<0.0001
84555877|NCT00793624|168865117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
84555878|NCT00793624|168865117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.159|<0.0001
84555879|NCT00793624|168865117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.336|0.177|<0.0001
84555880|NCT00793624|168865118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.092|<0.0001
84555881|NCT00793624|168865118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.127|<0.0001
84555882|NCT00793624|168865118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.298|0.137|<0.0001
84555883|NCT00793624|168865119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003||95.0|0.07|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.070|0.0003
84555884|NCT00793624|168865119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.096|<0.0001
84745432|NCT01156792|169244392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.292|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|16.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.38|4.21|=0.001
84745433|NCT01156792|169244393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|1.06||||||||1.06|-9.36|
84745434|NCT01156792|169244393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.5||||||||5.50|-6.22|
84745435|NCT01156792|169244394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||=|0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.18|=0.957
84745436|NCT01156792|169244394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.28|=0.213
84745437|NCT01156792|169244394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.20|=0.647
84745438|NCT01156792|169244394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|||=|0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.17|=0.894
84555885|NCT00793624|168865119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.304|0.141|<0.0001
84745439|NCT01156792|169244395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||=|0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|=0.811
84745440|NCT01156792|169244395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.34|=0.200
84555886|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.962|24.173|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.173|5.962|0.0012
84555887|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.0012||95.0|5.949|24.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.049|5.949|0.0012
84555888|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|26.673|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||26.673|8.610|0.0001
84605517|NCT00554099|168962541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.815|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||0.815||0.6285
84605518|NCT00554099|168962541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Asacol|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.4365|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.573|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||3.573||0.4365
84605519|NCT00554099|168962542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0576|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||5.1|0.0576
84605520|NCT00554099|168962542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-10.2||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-10.2|0.3248
84745441|NCT01156792|169244395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.415
84555889|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.606||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|26.762|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.762|8.680|0.0001
84555890|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.484|27.458|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||27.458|9.484|<0.0001
84555891|NCT00793624|168865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.548|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.947|26.799|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.799|8.947|<0.0001
84555892|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.141|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.141|-0.665|0.0026
84555893|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.066|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.066|-0.587|0.0141
84605521|NCT00554099|168962542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.8596|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-30.8||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-30.8|0.8596
84605522|NCT00554099|168962543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.1266|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-1.3|0.1266
84745442|NCT01156792|169244395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|=0.358
84745443|NCT01156792|169244396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.666|||=|0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|-2.24|=0.285
84745444|NCT01156792|169244396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.22|0.38|=0.035
84745445|NCT01156792|169244396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.036|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-0.63|=0.090
84745446|NCT01156792|169244396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.602|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.14|0.06|=0.047
84745447|NCT01156792|169244397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
84745448|NCT01156792|169244397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
84745449|NCT01156792|169244397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
84605523|NCT00554099|168962543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.13||0.9288|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.9||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-38.9|0.9288
84745450|NCT01156792|169244397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
84745451|NCT01156792|169244398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.992|||=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.33|-2.35|=0.367
84555894|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.113|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.113|-0.406|0.2677
84555895|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|-0.266|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.266|-0.939|0.0005
84555896|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.247|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.247|-0.914|0.0007
84555897|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.018|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.018|-0.683|0.0391
84555898|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|-0.464|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.464|-1.518|0.0002
84745452|NCT01156792|169244398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.147|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.49|-2.20|=0.332
84745453|NCT01156792|169244398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.331|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-1.88|=0.277
84555899|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.378|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.378|-1.426|0.0008
84555900|NCT00793624|168865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.049|-0.994|0.0758
84745454|NCT01156792|169244398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.521|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.63|-2.59|=0.467
84745455|NCT01156792|169244399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.80|-3.65|=0.789
84745456|NCT01156792|169244399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.87|-0.54|=0.087
84745457|NCT01156792|169244399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-3.84|=0.923
84745458|NCT01156792|169244399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.137|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.08|=0.571
84745459|NCT01156792|169244400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
84745460|NCT01156792|169244400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
84745461|NCT01156792|169244400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
84745462|NCT01156792|169244400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
84745463|NCT01156792|169244401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
84745464|NCT01156792|169244401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.138||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.138
84745465|NCT01156792|169244401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.797||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.797
84745466|NCT01156792|169244401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
84745467|NCT02029872|169244419|OTHER|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.||||||||||||||||Due to low enrollment in the intervention, statistical analysis was not possible.|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.|||
84555901|NCT00793624|168865122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0003
84555902|NCT00793624|168865122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0073||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0073
84555903|NCT00793624|168865122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0017||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0017
84555904|NCT00793624|168865123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0021||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0021
84555905|NCT00793624|168865123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
84555906|NCT00793624|168865123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0121||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0121
84555907|NCT00793624|168865124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.032||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0320
84555908|NCT00793624|168865124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0447||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0447
84555909|NCT00793624|168865124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1332||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1332
84555910|NCT00793624|168865125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4105||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.4105
84555911|NCT00793624|168865125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0584||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0584
84555912|NCT00793624|168865125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1006||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1006
84605524|NCT00554099|168962543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.9962|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-54.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-54.1|0.9962
84669679|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.4309|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4309
84555913|NCT00793624|168865126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.0882||95.0|-0.085|1.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.227|-0.085|0.0882
84555914|NCT00793624|168865126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.0484||95.0|0.005|1.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.324|0.005|0.0484
84555915|NCT00793624|168865126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.0252||95.0|0.094|1.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.421|0.094|0.0252
84555916|NCT00793624|168865127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2625||95.0|-0.285|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.047|-0.285|0.2625
84555917|NCT00793624|168865127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.1109||95.0|-0.125|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.211|-0.125|0.1109
84669680|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.09||0.9761|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9761
84555918|NCT00793624|168865127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2507||95.0|-0.278|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.278|0.2507
84555919|NCT00793624|168865128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.4895||95.0|-0.439|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.902|-0.439|0.4895
84555920|NCT00793624|168865128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2073||95.0|-0.24|1.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.107|-0.240|0.2073
84555921|NCT00793624|168865128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9462||95.0|-0.653|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.700|-0.653|0.9462
84605525|NCT00554099|168962544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.3082|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.196|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.196||0.3082
84555922|NCT00793624|168865129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.6309||95.0|-0.511|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.842|-0.511|0.6309
84555923|NCT00793624|168865129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.9227||95.0|-0.717|0.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.649|-0.717|0.9227
84555924|NCT00793624|168865129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.503||95.0|-0.451|0.919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.919|-0.451|0.5030
84555925|NCT00793624|168865130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.7459||95.0|-0.793|0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.568|-0.793|0.7459
84555926|NCT00793624|168865130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.8534||95.0|-0.753|0.623|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.623|-0.753|0.8534
84555927|NCT00793624|168865130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.5099||95.0|-1.068|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.314|-1.068|0.5099
84555928|NCT00793624|168865131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.785||95.0|-0.587|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|-0.587|0.7850
84555929|NCT00793624|168865131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2755||95.0|-0.306|1.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.073|-0.306|0.2755
84493261|NCT01374516|168736980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.8||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.8|58.7|
84555930|NCT00793624|168865131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7618||95.0|-0.584|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.798|-0.584|0.7618
84555931|NCT00793624|168865132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3424||95.0|0.843|1.603|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.603|0.843|0.3424
84555932|NCT00793624|168865132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.3023||95.0|0.859|1.636|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.636|0.859|0.3023
84555933|NCT00793624|168865132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3589||95.0|0.605|1.205|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.205|0.605|0.3589
84555934|NCT00793624|168865133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.191||95.0|0.734|4.503|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.503|0.734|0.1910
84555935|NCT00793624|168865133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.2274||95.0|0.695|4.369|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.369|0.695|0.2274
84669681|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6261
84555936|NCT00793624|168865133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.5538||95.0|0.512|3.538|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||3.538|0.512|0.5538
84555937|NCT00793624|168865134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.5577||95.0|0.778|1.557|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.557|0.778|0.5577
84555938|NCT00793624|168865134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.9423||95.0|0.714|1.448|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.448|0.714|0.9423
84555939|NCT00793624|168865134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.1097||95.0|0.502|1.076|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.076|0.502|0.1097
84669682|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
84669683|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2884
84669684|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8854|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8854
84493262|NCT01374516|168736981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.9||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.9|58.7|
84493263|NCT01374516|168736982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||68.0|54.7|
84493264|NCT00635362|168737019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
84493265|NCT00635362|168737020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84493266|NCT00635362|168737021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84493267|NCT00635362|168737022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84493268|NCT00635362|168737023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84493269|NCT01830621|168737031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.88|0.337
84493270|NCT01830621|168737032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.76|0.837
84669685|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1226
84672242|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.723||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.723|0.635|0.877
84493271|NCT01830621|168737033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.00|0.48|0.955
84493272|NCT01830621|168737035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84493273|NCT03301272|168737044|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
84493274|NCT00736840|168737082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Provided above|Sensitivity|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6607|0.8809|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was sensitivity lower than 0.8. We assumed a sensitivity of 0.89 and required a power of 90% to test the hypothesis at a 5% level of significance, and calculated that 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed (for a one-sample binomial test of outcome versus constant).||0.8809|0.6607|0.0924
84497361|NCT01610284|168745965|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.24|0.77|
84497362|NCT01610284|168745965|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.06||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||1.06|0.52|
84497363|NCT00442338|168745973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the least square (LS) means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.||0.08|-0.07|0.871
84497364|NCT00442338|168745973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.06|-0.08|0.794
84497365|NCT00442338|168745973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.06|0.675
84497366|NCT01125358|168745974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.37|0.0|||Multiple Comparisons with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 10 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.00|-3.37|
84745468|NCT03699085|169244425|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.||||||0.38||||||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test is used, which ranks the values in each group, sums the ranks and determines the probability that they are the same. The probability p-value is reported.||||0.38
84493275|NCT00736840|168737083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size was calculated to enable the testing of both study hypotheses (together) with at least 80% power. Our best estimate of sensitivity of the HIS diagnosis in the population, was 0.9 and its specificity 0.79. Requiring a power of 90% for each of the hypotheses and a 5% level of significance, to test the null hypotheses 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed.Therefore a total of at least 414 subjects were required.|AUC ROC|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.834|0.737|<0.0001
84493276|NCT00643851|168737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.62||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET was superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.11|<0.0001
84493277|NCT00643851|168737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.45||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.94|<0.0001
84493278|NCT00643851|168737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.883|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-26.7|<0.0001
84493279|NCT00643851|168737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-19.8||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-19.8|-35.1|<0.0001
84493280|NCT00643851|168737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|modified logistic regression|||||39.0|20.8|<0.0001
84493281|NCT00643851|168737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.947||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||27.4|8.1|0.0003
84555940|NCT00793624|168865135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.1729||95.0|0.906|1.7304|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7304|0.9060|0.1729
84555941|NCT00793624|168865135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.2297||95.0|0.8808|1.6954|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6954|0.8808|0.2297
84555942|NCT00793624|168865135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1575||0.5354||95.0|0.6353|1.2659|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.2659|0.6353|0.5354
84669686|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.07||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7249
84669687|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5129
84493282|NCT00643851|168737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-1.72|<0.0001
84493283|NCT00643851|168737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.82||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-1.57|<0.0001
84493284|NCT00643851|168737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3388||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.61||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-0.72|0.8769
84555943|NCT00793624|168865136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.8821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0358||0.2508||95.0|0.6391|5.543|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||5.5430|0.6391|0.2508
84555944|NCT00793624|168865136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.3877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3119||0.1135||95.0|0.8122|7.0194|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||7.0194|0.8122|0.1135
84493285|NCT00643851|168737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.71||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.04|<0.0001
84555945|NCT00793624|168865136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6013||0.9611||95.0|0.3268|3.2395|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||3.2395|0.3268|0.9611
84555946|NCT00793624|168865137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.4002||95.0|0.8187|1.6497|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6497|0.8187|0.4002
84555947|NCT00793624|168865137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.6983||95.0|0.7503|1.5352|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.5352|0.7503|0.6983
84555948|NCT00793624|168865137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1516||0.2033||95.0|0.5336|1.1433|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.1433|0.5336|0.2033
84669688|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
84493286|NCT00643851|168737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.66||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.98|
84493287|NCT00643851|168737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.74|-2.40|
84493288|NCT03289676|168737106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84555949|NCT00793624|168865140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
84555950|NCT00793624|168865140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203||95.0|0.082|0.967||See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|pattern mixture model||"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
84555951|NCT00793624|168865140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166||95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
84555952|NCT03191864|168865157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84669689|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1086
84669690|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5746|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5746
84493289|NCT03289676|168737108|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|1.00|0.029
84555953|NCT03191864|168865157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84672243|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.102||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|2.139||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||2.139|0.568|0.791
84555954|NCT03191864|168865157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84555955|NCT03191864|168865157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84555956|NCT03191864|168865159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.26|-2.29|0.020
84555957|NCT03191864|168865159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.10|-3.07|<0.001
84555958|NCT03191864|168865159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-1.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.26|-3.23|<0.001
84555959|NCT03191864|168865159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.59|-2.59|0.005
84555960|NCT03191864|168865161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||0.12|-2.49|0.067
84555961|NCT03191864|168865161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.91|0.672
84555962|NCT03191864|168865161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
84555963|NCT03191864|168865161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.98|0.653
84745469|NCT03699085|169244426|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to determine whether patients in the intervention and control group manifested different patterns of change in days of heroin use in the past 30 days in terms of incidence-rate ratio. We applied a negative binomial distribution to help account for overdispersion of outcome data.|Incidence rate ratio|1.29||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.37||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Regression, Cox||A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence rate of heroin use in past 30 days for intervention group compared to control group|Comparison of control and intervention populations based on substance use measured utilizing a time-line follow back (TLFB) calendar administered by the research assistant to for past 30-day heroin use. This is a covariate-adjusted mixed effects regression model at TLFB timepoint of 6 months. A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence of heroin use in the past 30 days at the 6 month timepoint for intervention group compared to control group.||4.37|0.38|0.68
84555964|NCT03191864|168865163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.06|1.45|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.45|-19.06|0.079
84555965|NCT03191864|168865163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.14|4.78|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||4.78|-15.14|0.195
84555966|NCT03191864|168865163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.55|-2.58|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-2.58|-22.55|0.020
84555967|NCT03191864|168865163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.74|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-0.48|-20.74|0.043
84605526|NCT00554099|168962544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.5113|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.832|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.832||0.5113
84605527|NCT00554099|168962544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.836||0.6988|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.145|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.145||0.6988
84745470|NCT05383508|169244438|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|17.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|27.19||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||27.19|10.69|
84745471|NCT05383508|169244438|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|31.87||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||31.87|11.89|
84745472|NCT05383508|169244439|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||11.00|0.00|
84745473|NCT05383508|169244439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||4.00|0.00|
84745474|NCT05383508|169244440|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|28.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|50.04||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||50.04|16.00|
84745475|NCT05383508|169244440|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|26.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|53.69||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||53.69|12.74|
84745476|NCT05383508|169244441|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|10.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|21.1||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||21.10|5.57|
84555968|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|3.08|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.08|-3.49|0.459
84555969|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.8|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.80|-2.65|0.617
84555970|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|1.33|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.33|-5.07|0.167
84555971|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|2.61|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||2.61|-3.88|0.373
84555972|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|1.64|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.64|-4.96|0.203
84555973|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-1.13|-7.54|0.014
84555974|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|0.2|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.20|-6.23|0.061
84669691|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1831|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1831
84745477|NCT05383508|169244441|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|16.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|28.53||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||28.53|9.93|
84555975|NCT03191864|168865164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.69|-5.83|0.097
84555976|NCT01447927|168865178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7981|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Rum Test (1-sided)|||The null hypothesis was that the percent change in mean pS6K1 values (from pre to post) was the same or increased for the metformin arm as compared to placebo. Assuming equal standard deviations (i.e. 50%) across the metformin and placebo groups, 30 participants per arm yielded 84% power to detect at least a 35% decrease in the metformin arm as compared to placebo, using a 1-sided t-test with a significant level of 0.05.||||0.7981
84555977|NCT04231396|168865191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1456||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.279|||t-test, 1 sided|||The SNR Loss scores computed the means per client and week (1-12), with a smoothing method: isotonic regression (isoreg, via R). The slopes (lsfit, via R) calculated of the smoothed means separately per client, per 7-9 weeks (early training weeks), and per 10-12 weeks (final training weeks). This created slope differences, per client.||.279|.012|.037
84555978|NCT02172040|168865200|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin definition: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for amlodipine + celecoxib arm did not cross the 50% value for the amlodipine arm.|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The primary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine + celecoxib was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with amlodipine.||||= 0.001
84555979|NCT02172040|168865200|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.491|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The secondary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with placebo was superior to treatment with celecoxib. This was only to be performed if statistical significance was achieved for the primary comparison.||||= 0.491
84555980|NCT02172040|168865201|OTHER||||||=|0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.166
84555981|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.177
84555982|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555983|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555984|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555985|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555986|NCT02172040|168865202|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.719|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.719
84555987|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.069|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.069
84555988|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
84555989|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555990|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.097|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.097
84555991|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.064
84555992|NCT02172040|168865203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.924|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.924
84555993|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.038
84555994|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555995|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555996|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555997|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84555998|NCT02172040|168865204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.562
84745478|NCT01859988|169244458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-55.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-42.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|LS mean and standard error were obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and randomization strata (moderate vs severe;Japan vs rest of world) and relevant baseline values as covariates. Multiplicity was controlled using hierarchical testing procedure:highest dose vs. placebo was tested first. Comparison order was 300 mg qw,300 mg q2w,200 mg q2w,300 mg q4w \& 100 mg q4w, vs placebo respectively. Testing continues only if previous comparison was statistically significant.||-42.4|-68.9|<0.0001
84605528|NCT00554099|168962545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067||0.4448|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.541|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.541||0.4448
84555999|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.104
84556000|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556001|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556002|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.002
84556003|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556004|NCT02172040|168865205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.419
84556005|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.028
84556006|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556007|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556008|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.051
84556009|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.074
84556010|NCT02172040|168865206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.878
84556011|NCT02172040|168865207|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556012|NCT02172040|168865208|OTHER||||||=|0.977|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.977
84556013|NCT02172040|168865209|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556014|NCT02172040|168865210|OTHER||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.527
84556015|NCT02172040|168865211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556016|NCT02172040|168865211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556017|NCT02172040|168865211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84556018|NCT02172040|168865211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
84556019|NCT03334422|168865235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|1.12|0.026
84556020|NCT03334422|168865235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|8.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|1.64|0.001
84556021|NCT03334422|168865236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.02|0.90|0.085
84556022|NCT03334422|168865237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.12|0.024
84556023|NCT03334422|168865237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|7.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.04|1.73|<0.001
84556024|NCT03334422|168865237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|2.22|<0.001
84556025|NCT03334422|168865238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.99|0.053
84556026|NCT03334422|168865238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|1.44|0.007
84556027|NCT03334422|168865238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|15.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.91|2.42|<0.001
84556028|NCT03334422|168865239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-26.19|0.062
84556029|NCT03334422|168865239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.99|-38.78|<0.001
84556030|NCT03334422|168865239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-38.29|<0.001
84556031|NCT03334422|168865240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.76|0.86|0.086
84556032|NCT03334422|168865240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.49|1.58|0.006
84556033|NCT03334422|168865240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|21.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.83|2.51|<0.001
84556034|NCT03334422|168865241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|0.51|0.505
84556035|NCT03334422|168865241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.27|1.60|0.002
84556036|NCT03334422|168865241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|10.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.86|2.22|<0.001
84556037|NCT03334422|168865242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.57|0.074
84605529|NCT00554099|168962545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.151||0.6029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.903|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||4.903||0.6029
84556038|NCT03334422|168865242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
84556039|NCT03334422|168865242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.84|<0.001
84745479|NCT01859988|169244458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-37.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.0|-63.3|<0.0001
84745480|NCT01859988|169244458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-34.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.1|-60.6|<0.0001
84556040|NCT03334422|168865243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.05|0.580
84556041|NCT03334422|168865243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-2.54|<0.001
84556042|NCT03334422|168865243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-2.37|<0.001
84556043|NCT03334422|168865244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.92|0.094
84556044|NCT03334422|168865244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.11|1.65|<0.001
84605530|NCT00554099|168962545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.6615|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.129|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.129||0.6615
84745481|NCT01859988|169244458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-32.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.3|-58.5|<0.0001
84745482|NCT01859988|169244458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 100 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.7|-39.8|<0.0001
84745483|NCT02065687|169244479|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between BMI and metformin treatment (i.e. the parameter associated with the interaction term of BMI \* treatment is equal to 0).|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.01787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27472||0.9482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||The interaction between BMI and metformin treatment will be examined with an interaction term in a Cox proportional hazards model. Historical data indicate that approximately 50% of people are obese (BMI\>=30). For the purposes of examining the relationship, we will classify patients into two levels (high versus low) at the median BMI, which will increase the likelihood of detecting an interaction between metformin treatment and obesity.||||0.9482
84745484|NCT00682890|169244507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||P value on change at 3 months for placebo group||||0.63
84745485|NCT00682890|169244507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
84556045|NCT03334422|168865244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.51|1.80|<0.001
84556046|NCT03334422|168865245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.39|0.528
84556047|NCT03334422|168865245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.95|0.73|0.142
84556048|NCT03334422|168865245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.37|0.77|0.123
84556049|NCT03334422|168865246|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-14.03|0.059
84556050|NCT03334422|168865246|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.32|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.63|-21.32|<0.001
84556051|NCT03334422|168865246|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-20.69|<0.001
84556052|NCT03334422|168865247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.45|0.62|0.193
84556053|NCT03334422|168865247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|16.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.03|1.05|0.042
84556054|NCT03334422|168865247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.57|1.04|0.044
84556055|NCT03334422|168865248|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-12.53|0.058
84556056|NCT03334422|168865248|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-15.42|0.003
84556057|NCT03334422|168865248|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.30|-17.03|<0.001
84556058|NCT03334422|168865249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.189
84556059|NCT03334422|168865249|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84556060|NCT03334422|168865249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.383
84556061|NCT03334422|168865250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-31.45|0.081
84556062|NCT03334422|168865250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.62|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.70|-46.62|<0.001
84556063|NCT03334422|168865250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.29|-15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.27|-45.29|<0.001
84556064|NCT03334422|168865251|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-4.97|0.075
84745486|NCT00682890|169244508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
84745487|NCT00682890|169244508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84745488|NCT03028220|169244513|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84745489|NCT03028220|169244514|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84745490|NCT03028220|169244515|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84745491|NCT03028220|169244516|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84745492|NCT03028220|169244517|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84745493|NCT03028220|169244518|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
84745494|NCT03028220|169244519|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
84745495|NCT03028220|169244520|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.570
84745496|NCT03028220|169244521|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84745497|NCT03028220|169244522|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
84745498|NCT03028220|169244523|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.460
84745499|NCT03028220|169244524|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
84745500|NCT00141219|169244525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.115||||0.289||95.0|0.785|1.583||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||1.583|0.785|0.289
84745501|NCT00141219|169244526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.644||||0.041||95.0|0.915|2.954||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||2.954|0.915|0.041
84745502|NCT00141219|169244527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.049||95.0|-1.0|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from the general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypotheses stated there was no difference in pregabalin and placebo in the primary endpoint versus the alternative that there was. The target sample size was 234 subjects (156 and 78 respectively pregabalin vs placebo using a 2:1 ratio). The calculations assumed a 2-sided comparison at 0.05 alpha, 80% power and 3% dropout. Also, a treatment difference of 1 point and a standard deviation for endpoint mean pain scores of 2.5 were assumed based on previous studies.||-0.00|-1.00|0.049
84745503|NCT00141219|169244527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.729||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 1, a treatment by center independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across centers.||||0.729
84745504|NCT00141219|169244527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.979||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 2, a treatment by baseline mean pain independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across different baseline values.||||0.979
84745505|NCT00141219|169244528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.077||95.0|-1.0|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-1.00|0.077
84745506|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.042||95.0|-0.75|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Mean Pain Score Weeks 1 to 8~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.75|0.042
84745507|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071||95.0|-0.79|0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.03|-0.79|0.071
84497367|NCT01125358|168745974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|0.32|||Multiple Comparison with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 160 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.32|-2.42|
84745508|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.149||95.0|-0.72|0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.11|-0.72|0.149
84493290|NCT02451137|168737152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.4|1.01|1.39||Threshold for significance at 0.046 level.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used with treatment arm as a fixed effect and adjusted for: randomization strata of HbA1c target (\<8%,\<7%), sulfonylurea (SU) use (yes/no), glucagon like peptide1-receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) use (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c (as continuous).||1.39|1.01|0.0308
84669692|NCT01480076|169072610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8917
84493291|NCT03747497|168737165|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.8||||||||2.8|-14.0|
84497368|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|6.12||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||6.12|-25.80|0.222
84669693|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669694|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1152|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1152
84745509|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.057||95.0|-0.82|0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.01|-0.82|0.057
84493292|NCT02777554|168737175|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|108.5|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 Cmax.||108.5|95.1|
84493293|NCT02777554|168737176|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|102.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an ANOVA model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 AUC0-24.||102.2|88.9|
84493294|NCT02777554|168737177|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|103.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.4|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||115.4|93.6|
84493295|NCT02777554|168737177|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|101.3|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||101.3|81.6|
84493296|NCT02777554|168737177|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.3|128.1|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||128.1|103.3|
84493297|NCT02777554|168737177|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|126.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|140.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||140.8|113.7|
84493298|NCT02777554|168737178|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|106.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||106.2|81.3|
84493299|NCT02777554|168737178|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|98.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||98.7|74.9|
84556065|NCT03334422|168865251|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.08|-8.07|<0.001
84493300|NCT02777554|168737178|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.6|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||111.6|84.9|
84493301|NCT02777554|168737178|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
84556066|NCT03334422|168865251|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.68|-8.47|<0.001
84556067|NCT03334422|168865252|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.61|0.130
84556068|NCT03334422|168865252|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.94|<0.001
84556069|NCT03334422|168865252|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.00|<0.001
84493302|NCT02777554|168737179|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|105.9|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||105.9|81.1|
84556070|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.07|-1.95|0.067
84556071|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.04|-1.89|0.060
84556072|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||-0.38|-2.23|0.006
84669695|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669696|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4578
84669697|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0125
84669698|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0158|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
84669699|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669700|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2894
84669701|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669702|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7230
84669703|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
84669704|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
84669705|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84605531|NCT00554099|168962546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7165|ONE_SIDED|90.0||7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||7.9||0.7165
84605532|NCT00554099|168962546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1708|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||0.6||0.1708
84605533|NCT00554099|168962546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.1039|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||-0.6||0.1039
84605534|NCT00554099|168962547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.1907|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.0||0.1907
84605535|NCT00554099|168962547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.173|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.5||0.1730
84605536|NCT00554099|168962547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4613|ONE_SIDED|90.0||9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||9.0||0.4613
84669706|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
84493303|NCT02777554|168737179|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.0|98.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||98.8|75.0|
84497369|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-11.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.42|2.6||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||2.60|-26.42|0.105
84669707|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84497370|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|7.55||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||7.55|-23.46|0.308
84497371|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|2.54||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.54|-5.74|0.441
84497372|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.03||95.0|-8.01|-0.44||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||-0.44|-8.01|0.030
84497373|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|2.01||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.01|-5.96|0.323
84497374|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|2.12||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.12|-7.05|0.285
84497375|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||1.26|-7.10|0.166
84497376|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|2.05||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.05|-6.79|0.286
84497377|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|2.63||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.63|-13.96|0.177
84497378|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.4||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.40|-12.60|0.178
84497379|NCT01125358|168745975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|4.51||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||4.51|-11.72|0.377
84497380|NCT01125358|168745976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-0.10|0.077
84497381|NCT01125358|168745976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||||0.65|-1.12|0.592
84497382|NCT01125358|168745976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.32|||MMRM|||||1.32|-0.53|0.395
84497383|NCT01125358|168745977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|13.65|||MMRM|||||13.65|-4.37|0.306
84605537|NCT00554099|168962548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.3983|ONE_SIDED|90.0||12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||12.1||0.3983
84605538|NCT00554099|168962548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6721|ONE_SIDED|90.0||22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||22.2||0.6721
84605539|NCT00554099|168962548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.7703|ONE_SIDED|90.0||24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||24.6||0.7703
84605540|NCT03840525|168962552|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted. No group comparisons were done due to the fact that this was a feasibility trial and not an efficacy trial. 80% was used as the benchmark for acceptability.|||
84745510|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.044||95.0|-0.85|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.85|0.044
84497384|NCT01125358|168745977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|9.38|||MMRM|||||9.38|-7.74|0.849
84497385|NCT01125358|168745977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.259||95.0|-14.05|3.86|||MMRM|||||3.86|-14.05|0.259
84497386|NCT01125358|168745979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.354
84497387|NCT01125358|168745979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
84497388|NCT01125358|168745979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84497389|NCT03539952|168746008|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized the serum NCC values from all study visits that were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood based general linear model for correlated data. The correlation due to repeated measures was modeled by specifying the variance covariance matrix. Considering a comparison of means in both treatment arms (D-penicillamine minus TETA 4HCl) at the 1-sided 2.5% level of Type 1 error, a non-inferiority margin of 50 μg/L was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary endpoint was the assessment of the non-inferiority of TETA 4HCl in relation to D-penicillamine. The non-inferiority assessment was made on the basis of the mean serum NCC level at Week 36.||||
84497390|NCT01821391|168746015|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2665|||||||Paired Student's t test|||||||=0.2665
84497391|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.387|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.387|-0.960|
84497392|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (milligrams[mg])|33.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|48.948|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||48.948|15.566|
84497393|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.234||||||95.0|2.691|7.94|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||7.940|2.691|
84497394|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.738|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.738|0.748|
84497395|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.234|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.234|0.840|
84497396|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Alpha|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.014|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.014|-0.397|
84497397|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Minimally Effective Dose (MED) (mg)|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.342|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||2.342|0.000|
84497398|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of -0.25g/dL|2.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.15|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||4.150|0.000|
84497399|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Target Dose (TD) (mg)|4.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|5.995|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.995|2.544|
84497400|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.25 g/dL|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.698|8.01|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.010|4.698|
84497401|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.5 g/dL|8.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.931|10.523|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||10.523|6.931|
84497402|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.75 g/dL|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.024|14.004|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||14.004|9.024|
84497403|NCT01977482|168746031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 1 g/dL|13.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.891|18.916|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||18.916|10.891|
84497404|NCT01392469|168746064|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.33||||||||1.33|1.03|
84497405|NCT01392469|168746064|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.59||||||||1.59|1.23|
84497406|NCT01392469|168746065|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.62||||||||1.62|1.14|
84497407|NCT01392469|168746065|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|2.03||||||||2.03|1.43|
84497408|NCT01392469|168746066|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
84497409|NCT01392469|168746066|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.31||||||||1.31|0.88|
84497410|NCT01392469|168746067|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.61||||||||1.61|1.03|
84497411|NCT01392469|168746067|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
84745511|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.051||95.0|-0.85|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.00|-0.85|0.051
84745512|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.178||95.0|-0.72|0.13||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.13|-0.72|0.178
84497412|NCT03126682|168746087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
84497413|NCT03443973|168746090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline ADAS COG13 + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.17|-0.55|0.2998
84497414|NCT03443973|168746096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||-0.14|-2.41|0.0273
84497415|NCT03443973|168746097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||2.34|-0.70|0.2918
84556073|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.49|-1.50|0.321
84556074|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.24|-1.67|0.143
84745513|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.104||95.0|-0.78|0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.07|-0.78|0.104
84745514|NCT00141219|169244529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.039||95.0|-0.88|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.88|0.039
84745515|NCT00141219|169244530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.044||95.0|-0.74|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.74|0.044
84745516|NCT00141219|169244531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.018||95.0|-1.19|-0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.11|-1.19|0.018
84745517|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.024||95.0|-0.96|-0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Weeks 1 to 8 Mean Sleep Score~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.07|-0.96|0.024
84745518|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.12||95.0|-0.86|0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.10|-0.86|0.120
84745519|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.041||95.0|-0.99|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.99|0.041
84745520|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.017||95.0|-1.07|-0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.10|-1.07|0.017
84556075|NCT03334422|168865253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||-0.26|-2.11|0.012
84556076|NCT03334422|168865254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-3.67|0.071
84556077|NCT03334422|168865254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.26|-5.92|<0.001
84745521|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.033||95.0|-1.02|-0.04||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.04|-1.02|0.033
84745522|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.078||95.0|-0.93|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-0.93|0.078
84745523|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.038||95.0|-1.01|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.01|0.038
84745524|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.037||95.0|-1.02|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.02|0.037
84745525|NCT00141219|169244532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.015||95.0|-1.11|-0.12||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.12|-1.11|0.015
84556078|NCT03334422|168865254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-5.98|<0.001
84556079|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||9.34|-11.16|0.861
84493304|NCT02777554|168737179|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.0|111.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||111.8|85.0|
84493305|NCT02777554|168737179|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
84493306|NCT01008059|168737181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84493307|NCT02322866|168737199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-2.9|-5.8|< 0.0001
84493308|NCT02322866|168737200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|7.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|12.07||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||12.07|2.53|0.0038
84493309|NCT02322866|168737201|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-9.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-9.5|-19.4|< 0.0001
84493310|NCT02322866|168737202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-7.9|-17.3|< 0.0001
84493311|NCT02322866|168737203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-7.5|-16.1|< 0.0001
84493312|NCT02322866|168737204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-5.3|-13.5|< 0.0001
84493313|NCT02322866|168737205|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.2|< 0.0001
84493314|NCT02322866|168737206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.4|-5.0|< 0.0001
84493315|NCT02322866|168737207|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-1.7|-4.1|< 0.0001
84493316|NCT00798161|168737213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.36||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.36|-0.79|<0.0001
84493317|NCT00798161|168737213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.3||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.30|-0.73|<0.0001
84493318|NCT00798161|168737213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.55||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.55|-0.99|<0.0001
84493319|NCT00798161|168737213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.36|-0.92||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.92|-1.36|<0.0001
84493320|NCT00798161|168737214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.26|-0.56|<0.0001
84493321|NCT00798161|168737214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.23|-0.53|<0.0001
84493322|NCT00798161|168737214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs Linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 500mg||-0.35|-0.65|<0.0001
84493323|NCT00798161|168737214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
84669708|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9232|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9232
84672244|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.443||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||1.443|0.454|0.487
84605541|NCT03840525|168962553|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics was conducted to determine acceptability for both the qigong and sham qigong group. No between group comparisons were conducted. A benchmark of 80% was used to determine acceptability.|||
84745526|NCT00141219|169244533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.034||95.0|-10.82|-0.42||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Disturbance~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.42|-10.82|0.034
84745527|NCT00141219|169244534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.128||95.0|-1.47|11.58||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Snoring Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||11.58|-1.47|0.128
84493324|NCT00798161|168737215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.31|-0.72|<0.0001
84493325|NCT00798161|168737215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.22|-0.63|<0.0001
84493326|NCT00798161|168737215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.92|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.51|-0.92|<0.0001
84493327|NCT00798161|168737215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.16|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.75|-1.16|<0.0001
84745528|NCT00141219|169244535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.887||0.103||95.0|-6.81|0.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Awaken Short of Breath or Headache~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.63|-6.81|0.103
84493328|NCT00798161|168737216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
84493329|NCT00798161|168737216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.26|-0.69|<0.0001
84493330|NCT00798161|168737216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.94|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
84493331|NCT00798161|168737216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.86|-1.30|<0.0001
84493332|NCT00798161|168737217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0005||95.0|-27.2|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-7.6|-27.2|0.0005
84493333|NCT00798161|168737217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0006||95.0|-27.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.3|-27.1|0.0006
84493334|NCT00798161|168737217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.4|-14.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-14.8|-34.4|<0.0001
84493335|NCT00798161|168737217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.6|-31.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 1000mg||-31.0|-50.6|<0.0001
84493336|NCT00798161|168737218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.0003||95.0|-22.9|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-6.8|-22.9|0.0003
84493337|NCT00798161|168737218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.9|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.8|-24.9|<0.0001
84493338|NCT00798161|168737218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.5|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-13.4|-29.5|<0.0001
84493339|NCT00798161|168737218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-33.6|-17.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-17.6|-33.6|<0.0001
84493340|NCT00798161|168737219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-9.1|-26.7|<0.0001
84493341|NCT00798161|168737219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0002||95.0|-25.6|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.9|-25.6|0.0002
84493342|NCT00798161|168737219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-36.7|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-19.1|-36.7|<0.0001
84745529|NCT00141219|169244536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.018||95.0|0.08|0.8||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Quantity~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.80|0.08|0.018
84556080|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|10.97||Absenteeism|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.97|-8.94|0.841
84745530|NCT00141219|169244537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.504||95.0|0.67|2.24||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|OR estimated from model with Optimal sleep status (Yes/No) as response variable, and treatment, baseline Optimal sleep status as explanatory variables|"The OR estimates ratio of Odds of optimal sleep between Pregabalin and Placebo (ie, the former to the latter). Odds of optimal sleep in treatment group is ratio of Probability of having optimal sleep vs Probability of Not having optimal sleep"|"Week 8 Optimal Sleep~Optimal Sleep is a binary outcome derived from Sleep Quantity (SQ): the response is YES (or 1) if SQ = 7 or 8 hours per night.~Odds ratio measured the odds of optimal sleep in pregabalin to that in placebo.~Standard Error of the Mean equals Standard Error of the Odds Ratio (OR)."||2.24|0.67|.504
84745531|NCT00141219|169244538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.796||0.571||95.0|-5.33|9.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Adequacy~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.63|-5.33|0.571
84745532|NCT00141219|169244539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.349||0.046||95.0|0.08|9.34||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Somnolence~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.34|0.08|0.046
84745533|NCT00141219|169244540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.044||0.3||95.0|-6.15|1.91||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Overall Sleep Problem~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||1.91|-6.15|0.300
84745534|NCT00141219|169244541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325||0.429||95.0|-0.038|0.09||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Utility Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.090|-0.038|0.429
84745535|NCT00141219|169244542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375||0.142||95.0|-1.18|8.18||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint VAS Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||8.18|-1.18|0.142
84745536|NCT00141219|169244543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.038||95.0|-1.66|-0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Anxiety Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.05|-1.66|0.038
84745537|NCT00141219|169244544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.664||95.0|-1.05|0.67||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Depression Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.67|-1.05|0.664
84745538|NCT00141219|169244545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance. p-value is from comparing Pregabalin versus Placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.473
84745539|NCT00141219|169244546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.119
84745540|NCT01506609|169244548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.162|||Log Rank|||||1.162|0.536|0.227
84745541|NCT01506609|169244548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.858||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.702|||Log Rank|||||2.702|1.278|0.001
84745542|NCT01506609|169244549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.218|||Log Rank|||||1.218|0.590|0.368
84745543|NCT01506609|169244549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|2.127|||Log Rank|||||2.127|1.074|0.017
84493343|NCT00798161|168737219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-46.4|-28.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.8|-46.4|<0.0001
84556081|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||14.26|-3.95|0.264
84556082|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||8.02|-14.26|0.580
84493344|NCT00798161|168737220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0024||95.0|-23.7|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-5.1|-23.7|0.0024
84493345|NCT00798161|168737220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0002||95.0|-27.4|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.7|-27.4|0.0002
84493346|NCT00798161|168737220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-37.1|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-18.5|-37.1|<0.0001
84493347|NCT00798161|168737220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.8|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-32.2|-50.8|<0.0001
84493348|NCT00798161|168737221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-11.4|-30.4|<0.0001
84493349|NCT00798161|168737221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0003||95.0|-27.4|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.3|-27.4|0.0003
84493350|NCT00798161|168737221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-35.0|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-15.9|-35.0|<0.0001
84493351|NCT00798161|168737221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-48.5|-29.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5 mg with Metformin 1000 mg||-29.4|-48.5|<0.0001
84556083|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-2.86|-24.45|0.015
84556084|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-3.06|-23.20|0.011
84605542|NCT03840525|168962554|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine acceptability. Benchmark for acceptability was set at 80% of participant attending at least 70% of the classes.|||
84745544|NCT01506609|169244550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
84493352|NCT00798161|168737222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.0062||95.0|1.278|4.402|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||4.402|1.278|0.0062
84493353|NCT00798161|168737222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.163|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.343|7.397|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.397|2.343|<0.0001
84493354|NCT00798161|168737222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.854|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.363|9.973|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||9.973|2.363|<0.0001
84493355|NCT00798161|168737222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.238|35.471|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||35.471|8.238|<0.0001
84493356|NCT00798161|168737224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.465||||0.0102||95.0|1.342|8.943|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||8.943|1.342|0.0102
84493357|NCT00798161|168737224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.521||||0.0004||95.0|1.747|7.094|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.094|1.747|0.0004
84493358|NCT00798161|168737224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.521||||0.0053||95.0|1.564|13.069|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||13.069|1.564|0.0053
84493359|NCT00798161|168737224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.947|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.314|33.08|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||33.080|4.314|<0.0001
84493360|NCT00798161|168737226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.181|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.903|5.316|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||5.316|1.903|<0.0001
84493361|NCT00798161|168737226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.382||||0.0027||95.0|1.352|4.196|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||4.196|1.352|0.0027
84556085|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||11.49|-15.12|0.788
84556086|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||3.55|-22.51|0.152
84556087|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY|Overall Work Impairment|LSMean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.90|-21.17|0.135
84556088|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||6.12|-10.65|0.595
84556089|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|-6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.17|-22.43|<0.001
84556090|NCT03334422|168865255|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.83|-22.11|<0.001
84745545|NCT01506609|169244550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
84745546|NCT01506609|169244551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
84745547|NCT01506609|169244551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84745548|NCT01506609|169244552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.476||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||ANCOVA with treatment arm and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.60|-7.20|0.354
84745549|NCT02884908|169244566|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84745550|NCT02884908|169244567|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
84745551|NCT02884908|169244568|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
84745552|NCT00324116|169244594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent responders|85.0||||||95.0|76.0|95.0|||||Proportion of responders estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Proportion of responders along with 95% CI calculated directly from estimate of survival distribution function. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects without missing data.|||95|76|
84745553|NCT00324116|169244595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29||||||95.0|-6.83|-1.75|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|6 weeks||-1.75|-6.83|
84745554|NCT00324116|169244595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.86||||||95.0|-9.06|-2.67|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|12 weeks||-2.67|-9.06|
84745555|NCT00324116|169244595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.12||||||95.0|-16.28|-5.96|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|54 weeks||-5.96|-16.28|
84556091|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.07|-0.02|0.295
84605543|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.84
84745556|NCT00324116|169244596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|5.0||||||95.0|1.61|11.32|||||Proportion of subjects gaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations|||11.32|1.61|
84745557|NCT00324116|169244597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|22.5||||||95.0|14.22|32.11|||||Proportion of subjects maintaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||32.11|14.22|
84745558|NCT00324116|169244598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|13.75||||||95.0|7.39|22.24|||||Proportion of subjects with severe visual loss was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||22.24|7.39|
84745559|NCT00324116|169244599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|25.97||||||95.0|16.28|34.81|||||Proportion of subjects progressing to \<=20/200 was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||34.81|16.28|
84745560|NCT00662818|169244607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.25|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.25|0.62|0.329
84556092|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|0.001
84556093|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|<0.001
84556094|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.10|-0.03|0.334
84556095|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.04|0.001
84556096|NCT03334422|168865256|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.05|<0.001
84556097|NCT03334422|168865257|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.25|-6.44|0.907
84556098|NCT03334422|168865257|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||14.76|1.63|0.015
84556099|NCT03334422|168865257|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||15.01|2.62|0.006
84605544|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.76
84605545|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.53
84605546|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.07
84556100|NCT03334422|168865258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.93|0.30|0.905
84556101|NCT03334422|168865258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|0.95|0.064
84556102|NCT03334422|168865258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.74|2.25|<0.001
84669709|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.1249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1249
84745561|NCT00662818|169244608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.50|0.59|0.420
84556103|NCT01472939|168865259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.743|13.862|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.862|-1.743|0.128
84556104|NCT01472939|168865259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|15.212|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||15.212|-0.378|0.062
84556105|NCT01472939|168865259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.765|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||9.765|-6.100|0.650
84556106|NCT01472939|168865260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.344|14.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||14.850|-1.344|0.102
84556107|NCT01472939|168865260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.92||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|17.021|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||17.021|0.814|0.031
84556108|NCT01472939|168865260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.71||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|13.957|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.957|-2.540|0.175
84669710|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0093
84669711|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669712|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0937
84669713|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669714|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7814
84669715|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.2561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2561
84669716|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.0255|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0255
84669717|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84745562|NCT00662818|169244612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.85|0.52|0.648
84556109|NCT01472939|168865261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.141|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.141|-5.087|0.064
84605547|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.25
84605548|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.27
84605549|NCT01370837|168962577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||< 0.01
84605550|NCT04240093|168962578|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot intervention trial and was not powered to detect statistical significance.|Beta coefficient|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.2||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication doses in the past 30 days at follow-up.||0.20|-1.11|0.17
84605551|NCT04240093|168962579|SUPERIORITY|This pilot feasibility and acceptability study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.72||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a Poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication-related visits in the past 30 days at follow-up.||2.72|-3.09|0.90
84605552|NCT04240093|168962580|SUPERIORITY|As a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial, this study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-0.7||A priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling with a binomial distribution, controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: Fewer participants in the CoMBAT experimental arm will have a positive opioid toxicology screen at the 6-month follow-up compared to participants in the SOC control arm.||-0.70|-8.72|0.02
84605553|NCT02839902|168962581|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-17.147||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.344|-7.95|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-7.950|-26.344|0.0004
84605554|NCT02839902|168962581|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-9.774||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.986|2.439|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with triglycerides concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||2.439|-21.986|0.1141
84605555|NCT02839902|168962581|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-10.246||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.143|-1.349|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with free cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-1.349|-19.143|0.0248
84605556|NCT02839902|168962581|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-11.511||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-3.682|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with phospholipid concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-3.682|-19.340|0.0047
84605557|NCT02839902|168962582|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|9.499||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.623|23.622|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with TG to cholesterol ratio in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||23.622|-4.623|0.1826
84605558|NCT02839902|168962583|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.066||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.776|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.776|0.356|0.0040
84669718|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7241|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7241
84669719|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
84669720|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0427
84669721|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0498|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0498
84669722|NCT01480076|169072611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.9078|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9078
84669723|NCT02424383|169072631|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from Target LesionRevascularization (TLR) were reported through 12 months with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. In addition, Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were created.|||
84556110|NCT01472939|168865261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|-0.573|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.573|-5.818|0.017
84556111|NCT01472939|168865261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.813|0.519|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.519|-4.813|0.114
84605559|NCT02839902|168962583|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.553||||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.884|5.991|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by triglycerides using an ANCOVA model.||5.991|-2.884|0.4428
84605560|NCT02839902|168962583|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.76||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.544|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by free cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.544|-0.024|0.0570
84605561|NCT02839902|168962583|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.838||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.62|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by phospholipid using an ANCOVA model.||1.620|0.057|0.0360
84745563|NCT00662818|169244613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.07|0.31|0.647
84745564|NCT00662818|169244614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.60|0.73|0.201
84605562|NCT00740714|168962604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|2.51||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||2.51|-1.33|>0.025
84493362|NCT00798161|168737226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.622|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.153|6.093|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||6.093|2.153|<0.0001
84556112|NCT02539134|168865269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.06||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.374|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.374|0.741|0.757
84556113|NCT02539134|168865269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.078|1.664|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.664|1.078|0.042
84605563|NCT00740714|168962604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.03||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||3.03|-0.85|>0.025
84669724|NCT02424383|169072632|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from composite of safety events from the time following the index procedure through 30 days post procedure were reported with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were also calculated.|||
84669725|NCT01334723|169072649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||||95.0|0.35|0.412|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.412|0.350|
84669726|NCT01334723|169072649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.294||||||95.0|0.235|0.368|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.368|0.235|
84669727|NCT01334723|169072650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||||95.0|0.562|0.668|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.668|0.562|
84669728|NCT01334723|169072650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||||95.0|0.427|0.689|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.689|0.427|
84669729|NCT01334723|169072651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519||||||95.0|0.472|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.472|
84669730|NCT01334723|169072651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.436||||||95.0|0.333|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.333|
84669731|NCT02438722|169072690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.50|0.44
84669732|NCT02438722|169072691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.72|0.94
84669733|NCT02438722|169072693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.64|0.54
84669734|NCT02438722|169072694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.73|0.95
84669735|NCT02449174|169072702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8958|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8958
84669736|NCT02449174|169072703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.2059
84669737|NCT01520363|169072708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.294||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.086|0.722|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t= -1.291; p=.211|.722|-3.086|.211
84669738|NCT01520363|169072708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.345|1.432|||t-test, 2 sided|df=22||||1.432|-1.345|.949
84669739|NCT01520363|169072709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.456||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|1.451||df=20|t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=0.622; p=.541|1.451|-0.785|.541
84669740|NCT01520363|169072709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.956||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.206||df=23|t-test, 2 sided||||t=-.069; p=0.946|1.206|-1.290|.946
84556114|NCT02539134|168865270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.45|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.450|0.946|0.191
84556115|NCT02539134|168865270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.657|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.657|1.089|0.036
84556116|NCT02539134|168865271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.19||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.489|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.489|0.890|0.288
84556117|NCT02539134|168865272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.642|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.642|1.080|0.039
84556118|NCT04108988|168865301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.248
84556119|NCT04108988|168865301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.022
84556120|NCT04108988|168865301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.193
84556121|NCT04108988|168865302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.246
84745565|NCT00662818|169244615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.85|0.47|0.579
84556122|NCT04108988|168865302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.467
84669741|NCT01520363|169072710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.116||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.154|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=-0.342; p=0.736|1.154|-1.609|.736
84745566|NCT01642251|169244617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.51||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients within the male/abnormal LDH stratum||0.51|0.22|<0.001
84556123|NCT04108988|168865302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.550
84556124|NCT04108988|168865303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.596
84556125|NCT04108988|168865303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.974
84556126|NCT04108988|168865303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.651
84556127|NCT04108988|168865304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.089
84556128|NCT04108988|168865305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.095
84556129|NCT04108988|168865306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.136
84556130|NCT04108988|168865307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.133
84556131|NCT04108988|168865308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.210
84556132|NCT04108988|168865309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.392
84556133|NCT04108988|168865310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.411
84556134|NCT04108988|168865311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.294
84556135|NCT04108988|168865312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.031
84556136|NCT04108988|168865313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time||Test of interaction with treatment and time.||||0.262
84556137|NCT04108988|168865314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.116
84556138|NCT04108988|168865315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.016
84556139|NCT04108988|168865316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.667
84556140|NCT04108988|168865317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.09
84556141|NCT04108988|168865317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||P value 1 month||||0.72
84556142|NCT04108988|168865317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.97
84556143|NCT04108988|168865318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.53
84556144|NCT04108988|168865318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1||||0.303
84556145|NCT04108988|168865318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.042
84556146|NCT04108988|168865319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.246
84669742|NCT01520363|169072710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.143|1.961|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.548; p=0.589|1.961|-1.143|.589
84556147|NCT04108988|168865319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.467
84556148|NCT04108988|168865319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.55
84556149|NCT04108988|168865320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.987
84556150|NCT04108988|168865320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.898
84556151|NCT04108988|168865320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.238
84556152|NCT04108988|168865321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.148
84556153|NCT04108988|168865321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.557
84669743|NCT01520363|169072711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.429|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.203||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|0.029|||t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=-2.044; p=0.05|0.029|-2.886|.05
84745567|NCT01642251|169244617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.09||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients not in the male/abnormal LDH stratum.||1.09|0.60|0.18
84745568|NCT01642251|169244617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p value for the interaction by treatment and stratification factor|Regression, Cox|||If there was a significant treatment-by-stratification factor interaction, the results would be reported separately for each stratum. Significance was defined as the p value was less than 0.05.||||0.028
84493363|NCT00798161|168737226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.529|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.724|11.445|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||11.445|3.724|<0.0001
84556154|NCT04108988|168865322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.653
84556155|NCT04108988|168865323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
84556156|NCT04108988|168865324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.735
84556157|NCT04108988|168865324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.159
84556158|NCT04108988|168865325|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||3.19
84556159|NCT04108988|168865325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.487
84556160|NCT04108988|168865325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.165
84556161|NCT04108988|168865326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.473
84556162|NCT04108988|168865326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.316
84556163|NCT04108988|168865326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.345
84556164|NCT04108988|168865327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.141
84556165|NCT04108988|168865327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.314
84556166|NCT04108988|168865327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.444
84556167|NCT00355706|168865338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.964
84556168|NCT00355706|168865339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.892
84556169|NCT00355706|168865340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.560
84745569|NCT01642251|169244618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||1.07|0.64|0.17
84745570|NCT01642251|169244620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84745571|NCT03988920|169244644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7439
84556170|NCT04007107|168865397|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|34.8|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||34.8|26.6|<0.0001
84556171|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority (NI) for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 1: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of least square (LS) means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.65|
84556172|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9||||||Serotype 3: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.75|
84556173|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 4: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.02|0.77|
84669744|NCT01520363|169072711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.862||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.589|1.672|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.053; p=0.958|1.672|-1.589|0.958
84745572|NCT01942590|169244681|OTHER|||||||0.0512|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0512
84745573|NCT01942590|169244681|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
84745574|NCT01942590|169244682|OTHER|||||||0.0816||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0816
84745575|NCT01942590|169244682|OTHER|||||||0.3318||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3318
84493364|NCT00798161|168737227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.8893||95.0|-48.5|42.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||42.2|-48.5|0.8893
84556174|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||Serotype 5: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.79|
84556175|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.88|0.65|
84556176|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.94|0.71|
84556177|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.99|0.83|
84556178|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93||||||Serotype 8: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.93|0.70|
84556179|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.07|0.82|
84605564|NCT00740714|168962605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|1.68||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.68|-2.12|0.7943
84493365|NCT00798161|168737227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1||0.3234||95.0|-66.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||22.2|-66.2|0.3234
84493366|NCT00798161|168737227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.8||0.0373||95.0|-98.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-3.1|-98.5|0.0373
84556180|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.71|
84669745|NCT01520363|169072712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.897|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=0.706; p=0.488|0.897|-0.442|0.488
84669746|NCT01520363|169072712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.535||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.874|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.782; p=0.442|0.874|-0.394|0.442
84669747|NCT01520363|169072713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.682|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.317||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|1.709|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=1.380; p=0.182|1.709|-0.346|0.182
84669748|NCT01520363|169072713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.864|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.929|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=3.112; p=0.005|1.929|0.391|<0.005
84669749|NCT01520363|169072714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.504||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|1.644|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.122; p=0.90|1.644|-1.463|0.90
84669750|NCT01520363|169072714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.551||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|1.533|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.941; p=0.356|1.533|-0.573|0.356
84669751|NCT01520363|169072715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.136|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.493|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.209; p=0.836|1.493|-1.220|0.836
84745576|NCT01942590|169244683|OTHER|||||||0.2074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2074
84745577|NCT01942590|169244683|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.332
84745578|NCT01942590|169244684|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
84745579|NCT01942590|169244684|OTHER|||||||0.142||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.142
84745580|NCT01942590|169244685|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.019
84745581|NCT01942590|169244685|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.366
84745582|NCT01942590|169244686|OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.161
84745583|NCT01942590|169244686|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
84745584|NCT01942590|169244687|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.01
84745585|NCT01942590|169244687|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 52||||0.004
84745586|NCT01942590|169244687|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.154
84745587|NCT01942590|169244687|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.211
84745588|NCT01942590|169244688|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.006
84745589|NCT01942590|169244688|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.007
84745590|NCT01942590|169244688|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.297
84745591|NCT01942590|169244688|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.196
84745592|NCT01942590|169244689|OTHER|||||||0.3639|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline Week 18||||0.3639
84745593|NCT01942590|169244689|OTHER|||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0371
84745594|NCT01942590|169244690|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.268
84745595|NCT01942590|169244690|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0036
84745596|NCT01942590|169244690|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.286
84745597|NCT01942590|169244690|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.279
84745598|NCT01942590|169244691|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.479
84745599|NCT01942590|169244691|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.059
84745600|NCT01942590|169244691|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.152
84745601|NCT01942590|169244691|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.118
84745602|NCT01285609|169244702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.072|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.072|0.767|0.2517
84745603|NCT01285609|169244703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.061||p-value based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard of Ipilimumab over Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with several stratification factors and treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.061|0.792|0.2421
84745604|NCT01285609|169244704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.009|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.009|0.749|0.0678
84745605|NCT01143038|169244767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.1|||||Based on the t-distribution|||10.1|8.3|
84745606|NCT01143038|169244767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bootstrap mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.0|||||Estimates are based on bootstrap method with 1000 samples with replacement.|Bootstrap analysis||10.0|8.3|
84745607|NCT03310268|169244796|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.374|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.374|0.002|0.0476
84745608|NCT03310268|169244796|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.8411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.164|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.164|-0.202|0.8411
84745609|NCT03310268|169244796|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.393|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.393|0.020|0.0298
84745610|NCT03310268|169244797|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.649||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.376|1.975|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.975|-16.376|0.1232
84745611|NCT03310268|169244797|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.588||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.099|5.011|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.011|-13.099|0.3793
84745612|NCT03310268|169244797|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.648||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|6.017|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||6.017|-12.330|0.4979
84745613|NCT00706433|169244812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.7680
84745614|NCT00706433|169244813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7975||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7975
84493367|NCT00798161|168737227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.0018||95.0|-119.3|-28.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.6|-119.3|0.0018
84745615|NCT00706433|169244814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
84493368|NCT00798161|168737230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.326||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.973|0.109|0.0445
84493369|NCT00798161|168737230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.274||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.779|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.096|0.0151
84493370|NCT00798161|168737230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.996|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.996|0.177|0.0490
84493371|NCT00798161|168737230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.598||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.467|0.244|0.2617
84493372|NCT00933543|168737291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|63.18||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||63.18|0.65|0.0703
84493373|NCT00933543|168737293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|3.5||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||3.50|-11.35|0.2969
84493374|NCT00933543|168737294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|10.43||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||10.43|-9.09|0.8913
84493375|NCT04988035|168737317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.07|0.38|0.090
84493376|NCT04988035|168737318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).|Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan|1.53|0.31|0.358
84669752|NCT01520363|169072715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.698||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|1.233|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.222; p=0.826|1.233|-0.993|0.826
84745616|NCT00706433|169244815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
84493377|NCT04988035|168737319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||0.92|0.46|0.014
84493378|NCT04988035|168737320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.17|0.42|0.177
84745617|NCT00706433|169244817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.1103
84497416|NCT03443973|168746098|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.02|-1.70|0.0438
84497417|NCT03443973|168746099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.06|-0.01|0.0566
84497418|NCT03443973|168746100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.14|-2.24|0.0260
84497419|NCT03443973|168746101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.52|-0.59|0.9086
84497420|NCT03443973|168746102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.90|-0.08|0.0629
84556181|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.60|
84556182|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.97|0.69|
84556183|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.76|
84556184|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.86|0.57|
84556185|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.04|0.77|
84556186|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.78|
84556187|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.01|0.78|
84556188|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.62|
84605565|NCT00740714|168962605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.306||95.0|-2.79|1.04||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.04|-2.79|0.306
84669753|NCT01520363|169072716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.05|-11.80|0.42
84556189|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.92|0.66|
84669754|NCT01520363|169072717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|4.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.96|-7.02|<0.73
84669755|NCT01520363|169072718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4615|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8016||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3603|28.2834|||t-test, 2 sided|df=12|||t=0.903; p=0.371|28.2834|-11.3603|0.371
84669756|NCT01520363|169072718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9917|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0163||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4553|16.4387|||t-test, 2 sided|df=11|t=0.960; p=0.358|||16.4387|-6.4553|0.358
84556190|NCT04526574|168865403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.83|0.62|
84556191|NCT04526574|168865404|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||||||A/H1N1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.17|0.97|
84745618|NCT00706433|169244818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7228
84745619|NCT00706433|169244819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3416||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates||||0.3416
84556192|NCT04526574|168865404|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||||||A/H3N2: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.89|
84556193|NCT04526574|168865404|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||||||B/Victoria: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.93|
84556194|NCT04526574|168865404|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||||||B/Phuket: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.03|0.87|
84605566|NCT00740714|168962606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1615|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.06|-0.25|<0.1615
84605567|NCT00740714|168962606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-Adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plats and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.17|0.7627
84605568|NCT00740714|168962607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.6383|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|3.21||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.21|-2.10|0.6383
84745620|NCT00706433|169244820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5759||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5759
84556195|NCT04068688|168865408|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84556196|NCT04068688|168865408|OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
84556197|NCT04068688|168865409|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.655
84556198|NCT04068688|168865409|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
84745621|NCT00706433|169244821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4754
84745622|NCT00706433|169244822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4096
84745623|NCT00706433|169244823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5812||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5812
84745624|NCT00706433|169244824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8679
84556199|NCT04068688|168865410|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84556200|NCT04068688|168865410|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
84605569|NCT00740714|168962607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.17||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||2.17|-3.20|0.667
84605570|NCT00740714|168962608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.671|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.09|3.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.06|-2.09|0.671
84605571|NCT00740714|168962608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|1.87||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable||1.87|-3.34|0.671
84605572|NCT00740714|168962609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.04|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr Score will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.04|0.3445
84605573|NCT00740714|168962609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.239||95.0|-0.04|0.14||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided. with a Bonferroni-adjustd significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assess with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.14|-0.04|.239
84605574|NCT00740714|168962610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|1.091|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final visit to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for all treatment groups.||1.091|-0.018|0.0577
84605575|NCT00740714|168962610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|1.136|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day.||1.136|-0.647|0.5889
84669757|NCT01520363|169072719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.09412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.06228||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27756|15.4658|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|t=0.530; p=0.603|||15.46580|-9.27756|0.603
84745625|NCT00706433|169244825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3666
84556201|NCT04068688|168865411|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
84556202|NCT04068688|168865411|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.732
84556203|NCT04068688|168865412|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84556204|NCT04068688|168865412|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
84556205|NCT04068688|168865413|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
84556206|NCT04068688|168865413|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
84556207|NCT04068688|168865414|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84556208|NCT04068688|168865414|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84556209|NCT04068688|168865418|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84556210|NCT04068688|168865419|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
84556211|NCT04068688|168865420|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84556212|NCT04068688|168865420|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
84556213|NCT04068688|168865421|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84556214|NCT04068688|168865421|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84556215|NCT04068688|168865425|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84556216|NCT04068688|168865425|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
84556217|NCT04679051|168865430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to compare variables between time in bed conditions.||||0.36
84556218|NCT04679051|168865431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing the two time in bed protocols.||||0.51
84556219|NCT04679051|168865432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing peak forearm blood flow between sleep protocols.||||0.03
84745626|NCT00706433|169244826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
84745627|NCT00706433|169244827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84493379|NCT04988035|168737321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Proportional odds model|||Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 after discharge are given a score of 2.|Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|1.36|0.48|0.427
84493380|NCT04988035|168737356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.06|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|||1.06|0.56|0.109
84493381|NCT04988035|168737357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98|||Regression, Cox||||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|0.98|0.51|0.036
84556220|NCT04679051|168865433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test used to compare carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (index of arterial stiffness) between sleep protocols.||||0.29
84556221|NCT04679051|168865434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on Manikin throughput scores.||||<0.001
84556222|NCT04679051|168865435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of executive function following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on the number of correct answers during a Stroop color-word test.||||0.04
84556223|NCT04679051|168865436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on throughput scores from a Switching task.||||0.02
84556224|NCT00006305|168865437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.005||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.02||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Revascularization compared with Medical therapy|||0.020|-0.031|0.97
84556225|NCT00006305|168865437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.022|-0.029|0.89
84556226|NCT00006305|168865438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.013||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Revascularization compared with Medical Therapy|||0.022|-0.049|0.70
84745628|NCT00706433|169244828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745629|NCT00706433|169244829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84493382|NCT03602976|168737359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|190.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For GGT||||0.059
84493383|NCT03602976|168737359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.23
84493384|NCT03602976|168737360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84493385|NCT03602976|168737361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84493386|NCT03602976|168737362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
84556227|NCT00006305|168865438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.13||95.0|-0.06|0.012||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.012|-0.060|0.13
84669758|NCT01520363|169072719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.21479||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04665|8.9038|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.810; p=0.432|||8.90380|-4.04665|0.432
84745630|NCT00706433|169244830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3916||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3916
84556228|NCT00662558|168865439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Differences in treatment proportions and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference were estimated by calculating the risk difference between the treatment arms using a generalized linear model with treatment and center as factors. A lower 95% CI for the risk difference greater than -0.10 would demonstrate that celecoxib 200 mg BID is not inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.091||||||95.0|0.0255|0.1565||||||||0.1565|0.0255|
84745631|NCT00706433|169244831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8387||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8387
84745632|NCT00706433|169244832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1489||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1489
84745633|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
84745634|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4143||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4143
84745635|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
84745636|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0003
84556229|NCT00662558|168865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If celecoxib 200 mg BID was found to be non-inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID then the second step was to test the superiority of celecoxib 200 mg BID over tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID using a two-sided test of proportions. Differences in proportions were tested using the General Association Test of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) procedure stratified by center.||||0.008
84556230|NCT00662558|168865440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234||95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the least squares (LS) mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.13|-0.53|0.234
84745637|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
84745638|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
84493387|NCT03602976|168737363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84493388|NCT04837807|168737364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||"Each participant in the study was asked to complete the IDEEL work at their baseline, week 1 and week 2 visits. The IDEEL work is graded on a scale to 100 with higher numbers being deemed as better scores thus representing more comfort than previous weeks."||||<0.05
84556231|NCT00662558|168865441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.595||95.0|-4.39|2.52|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.52|-4.39|0.595
84556232|NCT00662558|168865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.829
84745639|NCT00706433|169244833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9700
84745640|NCT00706433|169244834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2544||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2544
84745641|NCT00706433|169244835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4321
84745642|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0317
84745643|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5818||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5818
84745644|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0395
84745645|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7426
84556233|NCT00662558|168865443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.470
84493389|NCT04837807|168737366|SUPERIORITY|OSDI scores were obtained across all three visits, baseline, week 1 and week 2. Lower OSDI scores indicate better eye health.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||||||<0.05
84745646|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0029
84745647|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2142||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2142
84745648|NCT00706433|169244836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0781
84493390|NCT00370994|168737461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons were made between groups and within the group between baseline and different time points.|Repeated measures ANOVA.|||||||<0.001
84556234|NCT00662558|168865444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.339||95.0|-0.95|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.95|0.339
84556235|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.741||95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|How Much Pain Now. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.36|0.741
84556236|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.796||95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Worst Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.29|-0.38|0.796
84556237|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.492||95.0|-0.41|0.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Average Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.41|0.492
84556238|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.893||95.0|-0.28|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With General Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.28|0.893
84556239|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.618||95.0|-0.4|0.24|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Mood. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.40|0.618
84556240|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.44||95.0|-0.19|0.43|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Walking Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.43|-0.19|0.440
84556241|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.806||95.0|-0.25|0.32|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Relations With Others. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.32|-0.25|0.806
84556242|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.739||95.0|-0.38|0.27|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.27|-0.38|0.739
84556243|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.992||95.0|-0.32|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Normal Work. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.32|0.992
84556244|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.793||95.0|-0.28|0.36|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Enjoyment of Life. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.36|-0.28|0.793
84556245|NCT00662558|168865445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.973||95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interference Subscale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.27|0.973
84556246|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.392||95.0|-4.26|1.67|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Disturbance. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.67|-4.26|0.392
84556247|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.691||95.0|-3.94|2.61|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Snoring. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.61|-3.94|0.691
84669759|NCT01520363|169072720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.765|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.276||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.745|25.275|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|||t=1.846; p=0.083|25.275|-1.745|0.083
84493391|NCT00370994|168737462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||There were significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index between both groups|Repeated measures of ANOVA|||||||0.001
84745649|NCT00706433|169244837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9886||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9886
84745650|NCT00706433|169244838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6907
84556248|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.549||95.0|-3.7|1.97|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Awaken Shortness of Breath or Headache. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.97|-3.70|0.549
84556249|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.336||95.0|-0.67|0.23|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Quantity of Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.67|0.336
84556250|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.37||95.0|-4.83|1.8|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Adequacy. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.80|-4.83|0.370
84556251|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.341||95.0|-3.9|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Somnolence. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.35|-3.90|0.341
84669760|NCT01520363|169072720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.378||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|15.802|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|||t=1.952; p=0.073|15.802|-0.802|0.073
84745651|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0047
84745652|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6116||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6116
84745653|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0209
84745654|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0513
84745655|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0019
84745656|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0089
84745657|NCT00706433|169244839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5260
84745658|NCT00706433|169244840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7820
84745659|NCT00706433|169244841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4965||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4965
84745660|NCT00706433|169244842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0728
84745661|NCT00706433|169244843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5480
84745662|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0301
84745663|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0564
84745664|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4470
84745665|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2804||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2804
84745666|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1835
84745667|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0103
84493392|NCT04278846|168737492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
84493393|NCT04278846|168737493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
84493394|NCT04278846|168737494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.57
84493395|NCT04278846|168737495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.3
84493396|NCT04278846|168737496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.99
84493397|NCT04278846|168737497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.33
84493398|NCT04278846|168737498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.26
84493399|NCT04278846|168737499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.79
84493400|NCT04278846|168737500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
84556252|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.604||95.0|-2.85|1.66|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index I. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.66|-2.85|0.604
84556253|NCT00662558|168865446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.547||95.0|-2.92|1.55|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index II. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.55|-2.92|0.547
84745668|NCT00706433|169244844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1319
84493401|NCT04278846|168737501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.94
84493402|NCT04278846|168737502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
84493403|NCT04278846|168737503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.54
84493404|NCT04278846|168737504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
84556254|NCT00662558|168865447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Optimal sleep was analyzed using CMH general association test.||||0.196
84556255|NCT00662558|168865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.252||95.0|-1.56|5.94|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Time Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|-1.56|0.252
84556256|NCT00662558|168865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.798||95.0|-3.21|4.17|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Physical Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.17|-3.21|0.798
84556257|NCT00662558|168865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.7||95.0|-3.03|4.51|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Output Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.51|-3.03|0.700
84556258|NCT00662558|168865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.902||95.0|-3.16|3.59|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Mental-Interpersonal Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||3.59|-3.16|0.902
84556259|NCT00662558|168865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.581||95.0|-0.65|1.16|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Index Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.16|-0.65|0.581
84556260|NCT00662558|168865449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 1.||||0.614
84493405|NCT04278846|168737505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.96
84745669|NCT00706433|169244845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84493406|NCT04278846|168737507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.088
84493407|NCT04278846|168737508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.42
84493408|NCT04278846|168737509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.88
84493409|NCT04278846|168737511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.12
84493410|NCT04278846|168737512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
84493411|NCT04278846|168737513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.76
84493412|NCT04278846|168737514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
84493413|NCT04278846|168737515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
84493414|NCT00796367|168737550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|10.03||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||10.03|7.39|<0.0001
84493415|NCT00796367|168737550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|9.09||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||9.09|5.95|<0.0001
84493416|NCT00796367|168737550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.68||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.68|-0.31|0.1189
84493417|NCT00796367|168737551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|14.16||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||14.16|6.24|<0.0001
84493418|NCT00796367|168737551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|11.19||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||11.19|4.36|<0.0001
84556261|NCT00662558|168865449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 3.||||0.786
84556262|NCT00662558|168865449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 6/ET.||||0.044
84745670|NCT00706433|169244846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4378
84556263|NCT00662558|168865450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.870
84556264|NCT00662558|168865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.545
84556265|NCT00662558|168865452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.218
84556266|NCT01075399|168865457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.883|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.929||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV max:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV max of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.929|0.802|<0.001
84605576|NCT00740714|168962610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|1.831|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day.||1.831|-0.569|0.3006
84745671|NCT00706433|169244847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3430
84745672|NCT00706433|169244848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84493419|NCT00796367|168737551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.15|0.84|0.2169
84556267|NCT01075399|168865457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.792|0.925||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV mean:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV mean of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.925|0.792|<0.001
84556268|NCT01075399|168865457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|0.967||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor to background SUV ratio:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing tumor to background SUV ratio (T/B) of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in T/B values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.967|0.904|<0.001
84556269|NCT00396877|168865458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|11.1||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|33.6||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.035 reflecting the adjustment for interim analyses. No other adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used.|The Relative Risk Reduction (Clopidogrel versus placebo) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated using Cox's proportional hazards model.|"Due to the limited knowledge in this population, 3 interim analyses were performed at approximatively 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of of the maximum number of 172 required primary efficacy events to evaluate the effect of Clopidogrel on the primary endpoint with the potential to end the trial in case of a clear efficacy advantage for Clopidogrel.~The study was designed with 80% power and an overall type I error rate of 5%."||33.6|-19.2|0.4340
84605577|NCT00740714|168962610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|4.633|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the placebo group.||4.633|-0.382|0.096
84605578|NCT00740714|168962611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.8|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||2.80|0.57|<0.05
84669761|NCT01520363|169072721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7474|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.711||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1269|16.6217|||t-test, 2 sided|df=18|t=0.612; p=0.549|||16.6217|-9.1269|0.549
84745673|NCT00706433|169244849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745674|NCT00706433|169244850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84493420|NCT01598831|168737558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.55||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was a two sided 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlled for the stratification factor.|Rates by Arm are 26.8% for ART-123 and 29.4% for Placebo||In a post hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome that accounted for pooled site as a random effect, the adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 24.8%in the rhsTM group vs 27.5%in the placebo group (P = .31).|8.77|-3.68|0.318
84556270|NCT02470403|168865461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of the 80% CI for treatment difference (LIK066 - placebo) was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-4.87|-6.52|<0.001
84556271|NCT02470403|168865461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.96|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included dysglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-5.73|-7.96|<0.001
84556272|NCT02470403|168865461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.76|-3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included normoglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-3.34|-5.76|<0.001
84556273|NCT02470403|168865463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.51|-2.16|<0.001
84556274|NCT02470403|168865463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.94|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.84|-2.94|<0.001
84745675|NCT00706433|169244851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745676|NCT00706433|169244852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745677|NCT00706433|169244853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745678|NCT00706433|169244854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745679|NCT00706433|169244855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84556275|NCT02470403|168865463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%"||-1.83|-2.93|<0.001
84745680|NCT00706433|169244856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745681|NCT00706433|169244857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745682|NCT00706433|169244858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745683|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0165||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0165
84493421|NCT00976521|168737648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.034
84493422|NCT00976521|168737649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.51
84493423|NCT01731600|168737650|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.067|||||The incidence of inhibitory antibodies was calculated as number of patients with inhibitors during the main phase of the trial divided by number of patients in the main phase of the trial.|A one-sided, upper 97.5% confidence limit was provided based on an exact calculation in the binomial distribution.||0.067||
84493424|NCT00465894|168737673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84493425|NCT00129220|168737724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-2.37|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-2.37|-8.87|<0.001
84493426|NCT00129220|168737725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|4.59|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olazapine minus Haloperidol.|||4.59|-6.15|0.774
84493427|NCT00129220|168737726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||40.4|1.6|0.064
84493428|NCT00129220|168737727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.21|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.21|-1.15|0.171
84493429|NCT00129220|168737728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.15||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.87|0.006
84493430|NCT00129220|168737728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.57|-0.82|0.722
84493431|NCT00129220|168737729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|20.1||P-value for 3-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-6.7|0.333
84493432|NCT00129220|168737729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.4||P-value for 6-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-21.0|0.908
84493433|NCT00129220|168737730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|19.2||P-value for 3-Week Remission Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||19.2|-7.3|0.384
84493434|NCT00129220|168737730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.8||P-value is for 6-Week Remission Rate|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||21.8|-21.3|0.982
84493435|NCT00129220|168737731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9||P-value for 3-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.9|-3.2|0.698
84493436|NCT00129220|168737731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.4||P-value for 6-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|-31.7|0.014
84493437|NCT00129220|168737732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.25||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-2.71|0.019
84493438|NCT00129220|168737732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.62||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||1.62|-1.95|0.855
84493439|NCT00129220|168737733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.7||P-value for 6-Week Syndromic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.7|-14.9|0.136
84493440|NCT00129220|168737734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Maximum Change from Baseline.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.003
84493441|NCT01883362|168737747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.12|0.2655
84493442|NCT01883362|168737748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
84493443|NCT01883362|168737749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.20|0.2424
84493444|NCT01883362|168737750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
84493445|NCT01883362|168737751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.19|0.3418
84493446|NCT01883362|168737752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.74|||Log Rank|||||2.74|0.09|0.4169
84493447|NCT01441882|168737789|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (lymph node size).||||0.0106
84493448|NCT01441882|168737789|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC)).||||0.19860
84493449|NCT01441882|168737789|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (spleen size).||||0.5167
84556276|NCT02631070|168865481|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|24.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|34.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.64|14.48|<0.0001
84745684|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2252||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2252
84745685|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0179
84493450|NCT02163759|168737819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|12.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|20.6||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||20.60|1.59|0.0173
84556277|NCT02631070|168865481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|11.259|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.259|2.278|<0.0001
84556278|NCT02631070|168865482|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|20.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|29.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|10.92|0.0002
84556279|NCT02631070|168865482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.071||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.002|12.844|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.844|2.002|0.0002
84556280|NCT02631070|168865483|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|21.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|31.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.51|11.23|0.0003
84556281|NCT02631070|168865483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.045||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.827|8.956|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.956|1.827|0.0003
84556282|NCT02631070|168865484|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|29.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.73|40.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.36|18.73|<0.0001
84745686|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0233
84745687|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1573
84556283|NCT02631070|168865484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.526|11.146|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.146|2.526|<0.0001
84556284|NCT02631070|168865486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||<0.0001
84556285|NCT02631070|168865486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||<0.0001
84745688|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2039||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2039
84556286|NCT02631070|168865487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 24||||<0.0001
84556287|NCT02631070|168865487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 48||||<0.0001
84556288|NCT02631070|168865488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|1.013|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.013|0.196|0.0445
84556289|NCT02631070|168865489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.699|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.699|0.362|0.5121
84556290|NCT02631070|168865491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.2382
84556291|NCT02631070|168865491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.5127
84556292|NCT02631070|168865492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.5479
84556293|NCT02631070|168865492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.2980
84745689|NCT00706433|169244859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745690|NCT00706433|169244860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1594||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1594
84556294|NCT02631070|168865493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-229.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.43||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.8|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 9 Through 24||-82.4|-375.8|0.0024
84556295|NCT02631070|168865493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-319.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.57||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-606.3|-32.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 33 Through 48||-32.7|-606.3|0.0294
84556296|NCT02631070|168865494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.18||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|38.2|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 9 Through 24||38.2|-120.3|0.3087
84556297|NCT02631070|168865494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.42||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.7|160.8|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 33 Through 48||160.8|-210.7|0.7903
84556298|NCT02631070|168865499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.636|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.636|0.595|0.9580
84556299|NCT00987402|168865531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||generalized estimating equation|||Power calculations assumed a 2-sided alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%. We performed power calculations using a statistical model for a cluster-randomized trial with 8, 10 or 12 clusters including 6 operating rooms each, with different levels of reduction (10%, 30%, 50%) in surgical site infection rates in the active intervention period. By reaching a sample size of 3133 patients, the study was powered to detect a 30% reduction effect in SSI rates, from 10% to 7%.||||<0.05
84556300|NCT03878875|168865536|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|116.044|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = -2.153.||||||< 0.0005
84745691|NCT00706433|169244861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5838||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5838
84556301|NCT03878875|168865537|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|12.839|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = 1.602.||||||< 0.0005
84556302|NCT03878875|168865538|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|8.391|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 1.059.||||||< 0.0005
84556303|NCT03878875|168865539|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|6.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 0.635.||||||< 0.001
84556304|NCT03878875|168865540|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|5.805|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was -0.383.||||||< 0.001
84745692|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0064
84493451|NCT02163759|168737820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.1||||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|6.37||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||6.37|-12.61|0.5055
84556305|NCT03878875|168865541|SUPERIORITY|A binary logistic regression was employed to assess the effect of conditioning on tinnitus change (i.e. increasing or not) at session 2, adjusting for tinnitus reported at session 1, age, gender, and event exposure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|1.071|< 0.005
84556306|NCT00551161|168865544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no adjustment for multiple testing was made. Although it would have been preferable to carry out an omnibus analysis, due to the small sample size, the descriptive approach described above was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine whether the change between t0 and t1 differed from the change between t1 and t2 \[(t2 - t1) - (t1 - t0)\] for each of the metabolites and ratios, in order to examine whether the rate of change differed while on monotherapy as compared with combination therapy.||||<0.05
84745693|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0939||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0939
84745694|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3173
84745695|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2207
84745696|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0183
84745697|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0254
84745698|NCT00706433|169244862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745699|NCT00706433|169244863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4753
84745700|NCT00706433|169244864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1728
84745701|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0002
84745702|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5313||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5313
84493452|NCT02163759|168737821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
84497421|NCT03443973|168746103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.09|-0.51|0.2348
84497422|NCT03443973|168746110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-56.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.36|-48.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-48.56|-64.36|<.0001
84605579|NCT00740714|168962612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.57|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subject experiencing a particular adverse experience||3.57|0.62|<0.05
84669762|NCT01520363|169072721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7143|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5084||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8174|10.246|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.162; p=0.874|||10.2460|-8.8174|0.874
84669763|NCT01520363|169072722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8167|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2609||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2046|23.8379|||t-test, 2 sided|df=17|t=0.402; p=0.693|||23.8379|-16.2046|0.693
84669764|NCT01520363|169072722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.8994||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6102|16.2902|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14|t=0.117; p=0.909|||16.2902|-14.6102|0.909
84669765|NCT01520363|169072723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.17|0.21
84745703|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
84497423|NCT03443973|168746111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
84745704|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
84745705|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0012
84745706|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0015
84745707|NCT00706433|169244865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84497424|NCT03443973|168746111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
84497425|NCT03443973|168746111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
84497426|NCT03443973|168746111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
84497427|NCT03443973|168746112|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-2.87|||ANCOVA|||||-2.87|-22.51|0.014
84497428|NCT03443973|168746113|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.88|-6.21|||ANCOVA|||||-6.21|-21.88|<0.001
84497429|NCT03443973|168746114|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-10.11|||ANCOVA|||||-10.11|-24.92|<0.001
84497430|NCT03443973|168746115|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-12.97|||ANCOVA|||||-12.97|-28.29|<0.001
84497431|NCT00467038|168746129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|\<0.004 p value was common for all time points.||||||<0.004
84497432|NCT00467038|168746130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's LSD post-hoc, trend level|||||||0.08
84497433|NCT02545868|168746168|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-10.8||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-10.8|-50.5|
84497434|NCT02545868|168746169|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-16.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-16.7|-56.0|
84497435|NCT02545868|168746170|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-30.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-30.7|-63.2|
84497436|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-38.8||||||Serotype 1||-38.8|-62.7|
84497437|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-30.1||||||Serotype 2||-30.1|-56.5|
84497438|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.2|-30.9||||||Serotype 3||-30.9|-65.2|
84497439|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 4||-48.4|-77.2|
84497440|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-39.7||||||Serotype 5||-39.7|-68.0|
84497441|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-20.7||||||Serotype 6B||-20.7|-54.4|
84497442|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-43.6||||||Serotype 7F||-43.6|-73.1|
84497443|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-20.1||||||Serotype 8||-20.1|-45.7|
84497444|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 9N||-30.4|-62.5|
84497445|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-40.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-25.1||||||Serotype 9V||-25.1|-55.7|
84497446|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 10A||-48.4|-77.2|
84497447|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-35.6||||||Serotype 11A||-35.6|-69.4|
84497448|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-38.3||||||Serotype 12F||-38.3|-72.8|
84497449|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-9.7||||||Serotype 14||-9.7|-41.4|
84497450|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-32.0||||||Serotype 15B||-32.0|-63.9|
84497451|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.4|-41.4||||||Serotype 17F||-41.4|-72.4|
84497452|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|-37.3||||||Serotype 18C||-37.3|-67.4|
84497453|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 19A||-30.4|-62.5|
84497454|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-36.1||||||Serotype 19F||-36.1|-68.8|
84497455|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|-45.4||||||Serotype 20||-45.4|-77.5|
84497456|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-42.0||||||Serotype 22F||-42.0|-71.7|
84497457|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-14.6||||||Serotype 23F||-14.6|-51.7|
84497458|NCT02545868|168746174|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-33.5||||||Serotype 33F||-33.5|-62.2|
84497459|NCT02545868|168746175|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-21.6|
84497460|NCT02545868|168746176|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-46.8||||||||-46.8|-72.6|
84497461|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-27.6||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-27.6|-62.7|
84497462|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
84497463|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.4|-29.2||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-70.4|
84497464|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|-36.3||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.3|-75.7|
84497465|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.4|-40.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.3|-76.4|
84497466|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-12.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-12.2|-55.7|
84497467|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
84497468|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
84497469|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-15.5||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-15.5|-58.9|
84497470|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-16.0||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-16.0|-57.3|
84497471|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|-43.5||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-43.5|-80.8|
84497472|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-29.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-71.0|
84497473|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-36.8||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.8|-76.9|
84497474|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-0.2||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-0.2|-41.4|
84497475|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-32.7||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.7|-72.8|
84745708|NCT00706433|169244866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0892||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0892
84605580|NCT00740714|168962613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||4.20|0.65|<0.05
84745709|NCT00706433|169244867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4575
84493453|NCT02163759|168737822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.62||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||20.62|-7.03|0.4434
84745710|NCT00706433|169244868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8848
84745711|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0008
84745712|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4091||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4091
84745713|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0176
84745714|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
84745715|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0020
84745716|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0022
84745717|NCT00706433|169244869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9372
84745718|NCT00706433|169244870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2390
84745719|NCT00706433|169244871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745720|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0463
84745721|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1261||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1261
84497476|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
84745722|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745723|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745724|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0947||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0947
84745725|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0886
84745726|NCT00706433|169244872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745727|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
84745728|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0255
84745729|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0576
84493454|NCT02163759|168737822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|16.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.07|-6.72|0.4122
84605581|NCT00740714|168962614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.79|||ANCOVA||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.79|0.46|<0.05
84745730|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0686
84745731|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0004
84745732|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
84497477|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
84745733|NCT00706433|169244873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745734|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0006
84497478|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.7||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-9.7|-50.6|
84745735|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
84745736|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745737|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745738|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0097
84745739|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0146
84497479|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
84497480|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|-40.0||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.0|-79.0|
84497481|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-32.8||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.8|-72.1|
84497482|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-5.4||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-5.4|-50.7|
84497483|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-29.7||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.7|-68.2|
84497484|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-45.4||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-45.4|-78.1|
84497485|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
84497486|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-36.5||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-36.5|-75.3|
84497487|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.6|-46.8||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-46.8|-82.6|
84497488|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
84497489|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
84497490|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|-40.9||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.9|-76.7|
84497491|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|-12.7||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-12.7|-46.1|
84497492|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-14.2||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-14.2|-56.4|
84493455|NCT02163759|168737823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
84556307|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.096||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.327
84556308|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.178||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.063
84556309|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
84556310|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.253||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.009
84556311|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.278||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
84556312|NCT01273155|168865578|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.098||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.312
84556313|NCT01273155|168865579|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.215||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.025
84605582|NCT00740714|168962615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.41|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.41|0.66|<0.05
84556314|NCT01273155|168865579|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
84556315|NCT01273155|168865579|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
84556316|NCT01273155|168865579|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.061||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.524
84556317|NCT01273155|168865579|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.246||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.010
84556318|NCT01273155|168865580|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.057||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.548
84669766|NCT01520363|169072724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|-0.66|0.28
84669767|NCT04191382|169072728|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 400 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||1.63|0.72|
84669768|NCT04191382|169072728|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.12||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 200 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||2.12|0.95|
84669769|NCT02530450|169072763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing the change between two time points within each group using Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||< 0.05
84669770|NCT01412866|169072800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.08
84669771|NCT03314584|169072825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=21.662, df = 1||||||<0.000
84669772|NCT03314584|169072826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.624, df=1||||||0.004
84669773|NCT03314584|169072827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=3.092, df=1||||||0.046
84669774|NCT03314584|169072828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.022, df=1||||||0.018
84669775|NCT03314584|169072829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.279, df=1||||||0.598
84669776|NCT03314584|169072830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.101, df=1||||||0.296
84669777|NCT03314584|169072831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.672, df = 1||||||0.033
84669778|NCT03314584|169072832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.268, df=1||||||0.606
84669779|NCT03314584|169072833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.142, df=1||||||0.287
84669780|NCT03314584|169072834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.039, df=1||||||0.049
84669781|NCT03314584|169072835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.084, df=1||||||0.338
84669782|NCT00499096|169072914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84669783|NCT02439320|169072928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.0|1.6|<0.001
84669784|NCT02439320|169072928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.6|2.0|<0.001
84669785|NCT02439320|169072929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
84745740|NCT00706433|169244874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84497493|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-18.2||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-18.2|-58.2|
84497494|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-43.7||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-43.7|-79.8|
84497495|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
84497496|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-39.6||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-39.6|-78.0|
84497497|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|2.1||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||2.1|-37.4|
84497498|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-30.4||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-30.4|-69.6|
84497499|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-24.2||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-24.2|-64.0|
84497500|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-44.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-44.2|-79.4|
84497501|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-33.6||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-33.6|-72.3|
84497502|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-40.1||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.1|-77.6|
84497503|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|-53.8||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-53.8|-87.4|
84497504|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8|-50.5||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-50.5|-84.8|
84497505|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-26.1||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-26.1|-68.0|
84497506|NCT02545868|168746178|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-31.5||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-31.5|-68.5|
84497507|NCT02545868|168746180|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-9.5||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-9.5|-41.6|
84497508|NCT02545868|168746180|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|7.3||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||7.3|-35.2|
84497509|NCT02545868|168746180|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-6.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-6.4|-45.5|
84497510|NCT02545868|168746180|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|11.8||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||11.8|-50.7|
84497511|NCT02545868|168746180|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
84497512|NCT02545868|168746181|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-21.7||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-21.7|-61.9|
84497513|NCT02545868|168746181|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-15.5||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.5|-59.7|
84497514|NCT02545868|168746181|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-40.7||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-40.7|-78.2|
84497515|NCT02545868|168746181|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-15.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.1|-76.0|
84497516|NCT02545868|168746181|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
84497517|NCT02545868|168746182|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-42.3|-80.2|
84497518|NCT02545868|168746182|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-34.4||||||Strain = BPHU13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-34.4|-75.3|
84497519|NCT02545868|168746182|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.1|-67.5||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-67.5|-97.1|
84497520|NCT02545868|168746182|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-6.1|-67.2|
84497521|NCT02545868|168746182|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||50.5|-63.8|
84497522|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-42.3|-80.2|
84497523|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-4.0||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-4.0|-88.0|
84493456|NCT02163759|168737824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|29.5||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||29.50|4.49|0.0173
84556319|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.091||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.340
84493457|NCT02163759|168737824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.4||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|18.32||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||18.32|-3.77|0.1886
84497524|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-38.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-38.1|-77.7|
84556320|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
84556321|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.268||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.005
84556322|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.242||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
84669786|NCT02439320|169072929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
84669787|NCT02439320|169072930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
84669788|NCT02439320|169072930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.9|<0.001
84497525|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-23.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-23.1|-88.0|
84497526|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-62.2||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-62.2|-94.8|
84497527|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-13.4|-100.0|
84497528|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-6.1|-67.2|
84497529|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|17.4||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||17.4|-67.4|
84497530|NCT02545868|168746183|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||50.5|-63.8|
84497531|NCT01777191|168746209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
84497532|NCT01932801|168746212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model stats: χ2(18, N=308) = 17.93, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .07||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.461
84497533|NCT01932801|168746212|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period|z score for parameters||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.18|-.79|.01
84497534|NCT01932801|168746212|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.15|-.67|.01
84497535|NCT01932801|168746212|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.06|-.52|.19
84605583|NCT00740714|168962616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.72|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9.72|0.81|<0.05
84605584|NCT00740714|168962617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.52|0.31|<0.05
84605585|NCT00740714|168962618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.70|0.36|<0.05
84605586|NCT00740714|168962619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.58|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.58|0.69|<0.05
84493458|NCT02163759|168737825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
84556323|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.114||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.231
84556324|NCT01273155|168865581|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.021
84605587|NCT00740714|168962620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.62|0.31|<0.05
84605588|NCT00740714|168962621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.77|<0.05
84556325|NCT01273155|168865582|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
84605589|NCT00740714|168962622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.12|||Fisher Exact||Odds ration \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.12|0.25|<0.05
84669789|NCT02439320|169072931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|1.1|=0.029
84556326|NCT01273155|168865583|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.06||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.531
84556327|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.224||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
84669790|NCT02439320|169072931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.3|=0.002
84669791|NCT02439320|169072932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
84669792|NCT02439320|169072932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.2|<0.001
84669793|NCT02439320|169072933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.120
84669794|NCT02439320|169072933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.035
84669795|NCT02439320|169072935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.386
84669796|NCT02439320|169072935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.470
84669797|NCT02439320|169072936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.006
84493459|NCT02163759|168737826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.8||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|22.15||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.15|2.97|0.1347
84556328|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.295||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
84669798|NCT02439320|169072936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|1.0|0.037
84669799|NCT02439320|169072937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.5|<0.001
84556329|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.335||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
84556330|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
84556331|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.127||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.275
84556332|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.002
84556333|NCT01273155|168865584|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.159||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.095
84556334|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.568
84556335|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
84745741|NCT00706433|169244875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4235
84745742|NCT00706433|169244876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745743|NCT00706433|169244877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0865||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0865
84556336|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.315||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
84556337|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
84556338|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.218||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.033
84556339|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.309||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
84745744|NCT00706433|169244878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6230
84745745|NCT00706433|169244879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0963
84745746|NCT00706433|169244880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4814
84745747|NCT00706433|169244881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7153
84556340|NCT01273155|168865585|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.032
84556341|NCT01256385|168865588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.73
84556342|NCT01256385|168865589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
84556343|NCT01256385|168865590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84556344|NCT01256385|168865591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm A was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.006
84556345|NCT01256385|168865591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||1-sided.|Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm B was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.037
84556346|NCT01256385|168865592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84556347|NCT01438814|168865596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|<0.0001
84497536|NCT01932801|168746213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|complete omnibus model statistics: χ2(20, N=308) = 21.89, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .02, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.347
84605590|NCT00740714|168962623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.01|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.01|0.64|<0.05
84605591|NCT00740714|168962624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio of \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.24|0.55|<0.05
84605592|NCT00740714|168962625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|0.48|<0.05
84605593|NCT00740714|168962626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.51|<0.05
84669800|NCT02439320|169072937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||02.2|1.4|<0.001
84669801|NCT03343483|169072940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.93|-2.21|.896
84669802|NCT03343483|169072941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84497537|NCT01932801|168746213|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.06||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-1.06|-3.39|.002
84497538|NCT01932801|168746213|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.25||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.25|-1.89|.208
84497539|NCT01932801|168746213|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.42||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.42|-2.73|.025
84497540|NCT01932801|168746214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||"p value reflects omnibus model close fit"|Chi-squared|χ2(13, N=308) = 24.34, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.028
84497541|NCT01932801|168746214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.42||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.76||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.76|-8.09|.047
84497542|NCT01932801|168746214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-2.19||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-2.19|-9.72|.009
84556348|NCT01438814|168865596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8924||95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|0.8924
84556349|NCT01438814|168865597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8201||95.0|0.672|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c||||1.370|0.672|0.8201
84556350|NCT01438814|168865598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.022||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.796|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and baseline HbA1c.||||1.796|0.582|0.9397
84556351|NCT01438814|168865599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3352||95.0|-2.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-2.1|0.3352
84556352|NCT01438814|168865600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact p-value presented due to small cell counts||||||0.0308
84556353|NCT01438814|168865601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0545||95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.0|0.0545
84556354|NCT01438814|168865602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.997||||0.9886||95.0|0.689|1.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.445|0.689|0.9886
84556355|NCT01438814|168865603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.2108||95.0|0.558|1.137|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.137|0.558|0.2108
84605594|NCT03688555|168962627|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.59||All Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) values observed between baseline and Week 12 were included in the analysis. Changes from baseline to post-baseline visits in NPS were analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM).|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.59|-0.06|= 0.062
84556356|NCT01438814|168865604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.9972||95.0|0.712|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.402|0.712|0.9972
84556357|NCT01438814|168865605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.2816||95.0|0.594|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.163|0.594|0.2816
84556358|NCT01438814|168865606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0011||95.0|0.25|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.25|0.0011
84556359|NCT01438814|168865607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.7682||95.0|0.681|1.328|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.328|0.681|0.7682
84556360|NCT03887429|168865619|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that treatment with SXC-2023 would reduce impulsivity as measured by SSRT in chronic cigarette smokers abstaining from nicotine for 5 days.||||=.009
84556361|NCT03887429|168865620|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects receiving placebo as treatment.||||=.015
84556362|NCT03887429|168865620|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would not result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects treated with SXC-2023.||||>.1
84556363|NCT00195494|168865628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (49.8%) - M (27.8%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
84556364|NCT00195494|168865629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (79.7%) - M (58.7%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
84556365|NCT03019003|168865631|OTHER||||||<|0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.036
84556366|NCT00926536|168865633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in DAP in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84556367|NCT00926536|168865634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|158.3||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in CD in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
84556368|NCT01267201|168865635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.23|96.15||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||96.15|88.23|
84556369|NCT01267201|168865635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|94.11||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||94.11|86.49|
84556370|NCT01267201|168865636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|101.98||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.98|88.06|
84605595|NCT03688555|168962628|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.316|=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|2.45|||ANCOVA|||||2.45|-10.41|= 0.161
84669803|NCT03343483|169072942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84669804|NCT03343483|169072943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84669805|NCT03343483|169072944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
84669806|NCT03343483|169072945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
84669807|NCT01272830|169072946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data.||||0.0063
84669808|NCT01272830|169072946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
84669809|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226||||||Significance threshold p\<0.5|paired|||Change from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.0226
84669810|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375||||||Significance threshold P\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.0375
84669811|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.0391
84669812|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.2137
84556371|NCT01267201|168865636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|90.17||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||90.17|78.06|
84556372|NCT00501059|168865639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis of time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant and the primary objective of the study will have been met if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.597
84556373|NCT00501059|168865640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.6125
84556374|NCT00501059|168865641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4505
84556375|NCT00501059|168865641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.229
84556376|NCT00501059|168865641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total non-fatal stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.3947
84556377|NCT00501059|168865641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.5125
84669813|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1312|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.1312
84556378|NCT00501059|168865642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9544|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.9544
84556379|NCT00501059|168865642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurrence of all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4422
84556380|NCT00501059|168865642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurence colon cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.611
84556381|NCT00501059|168865643|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.24|0.80|0.9459
84556382|NCT00501059|168865644|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.11|0.64|0.2325
84556383|NCT00501059|168865644|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.5072||95.0|0.8|1.55|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.55|0.80|0.5072
84556384|NCT00501059|168865644|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.901||95.0|0.62|1.52|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of cardiovascular death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.52|0.62|0.9010
84556385|NCT00501059|168865644|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.86|0.54|0.9979
84556386|NCT00501059|168865644|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.42|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.42|0.61|0.7455
84556387|NCT00501059|168865646|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.13|0.81|0.6038
84556388|NCT00501059|168865646|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.15|0.79|0.6190
84556389|NCT00501059|168865646|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.20|0.67|0.4562
84669814|NCT01272830|169072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.1578
84669815|NCT01272830|169072948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||0.0083
84669816|NCT01272830|169072948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data||||>0.05
84669817|NCT01272830|169072949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Change from baseline data||||0.01
84669818|NCT01272830|169072949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||paired t-test|Significant threshold p\<0.05||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
84669819|NCT03969992|169073017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||A closed test procedure is used to protect the type I error rate; the order of testing was: AeroFact high dose compared to control and if significant (p-value \<0.05), the AeroFact low dose was compared to the control.|Generalized estimating equation method|||||||0.1924
84556390|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.64|0.0756
84556391|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.61|0.0661
84556392|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.79|0.36|0.0014
84556393|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.84|0.36|0.0056
84556394|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6291||95.0|0.71|1.75|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.75|0.71|0.6291
84556395|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.77|0.60|0.9161
84556396|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.538||95.0|0.3|1.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.87|0.30|0.5380
84669820|NCT02063737|169073023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3882||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8272|0.0508|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for shift length|Adjusted difference between intervention groups (intervention - control) from the linear mixed model adjusting for shift length and repeated measures within individuals.|||0.0508|-0.8272|0.0830
84493460|NCT02163759|168737826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|0.5||||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|9.92||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.92|-8.95|0.9138
84556397|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.95|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.95|0.55|0.9181
84556398|NCT00501059|168865647|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.45|0.84|0.4796
84556399|NCT02124759|168865649|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Null hypothesis is that high fat diet will have no effect on M value, the measure of insulin sensitivity for each intervention as assessed by clamp.||||>0.05
84556400|NCT02923245|168865689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|77.2|||||These confidence intervals correspond to the bootstrap analysis|||77.2|23.4|
84556401|NCT02923245|168865690|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.0|||Test of proportions|||||25.0|5.3|0.006
84556402|NCT03246061|168865738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interim Analysis p-value for significance of \<0.025 for an overall alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value from an ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline ODI score. Values have been adjusted for multiple imputation. Note: 3 month visit is computed as post-treatment for the RF Ablation Arm, and post-randomization for the Control Arm.||||<0.001
84556403|NCT03246061|168865739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Estimates and p-value from ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84556404|NCT05459558|168865766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
84556405|NCT05459558|168865766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
84556406|NCT05459558|168865767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
84556407|NCT05459558|168865767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
84556408|NCT05459558|168865768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.62|-1.88|<0.0001
84556409|NCT05459558|168865768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.61|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.61|-1.87|<0.0001
84669821|NCT02063737|169073024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0114
84669822|NCT02063737|169073025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||.99
84556410|NCT05459558|168865768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.81||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.81|-2.08|<0.0001
84605596|NCT02008357|168962640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|0.22|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.220|-0.816|0.260
84605597|NCT02008357|168962642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|1.02|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||1.020|-0.089|0.100
84605598|NCT02008357|168962644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.076|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.076|-1.265|0.082
84605599|NCT02008357|168962646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||||-0.028|-0.057|<0.001
84745748|NCT00706433|169244882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3832
84556411|NCT05459558|168865768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.9||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.90|-2.18|<0.0001
84556412|NCT05459558|168865769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
84605600|NCT02008357|168962647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8719||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.02|68.498|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal fluid Tau Protein Immunoassay||68.498|-62.020|0.922
84605601|NCT02008357|168962647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6535||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.241|4.311|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau Protein Immunoassay||4.311|-6.241|0.717
84605602|NCT02008357|168962648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12738.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|998.7048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10757.047|14719.851|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-40 Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||14719.851|10757.047|<0.001
84605603|NCT02008357|168962648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|996.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.7404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|875.873|1116.948||p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + APOE4 + AGE + Treatment.|ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-42 Mod Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||1116.948|875.873|<0.001
84745749|NCT00706433|169244883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2908
84493461|NCT02163759|168737827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
84556413|NCT05459558|168865769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
84556414|NCT05459558|168865769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.31||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.31|-2.06|<0.0001
84556415|NCT05459558|168865769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.44||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.44|-2.19|<0.0001
84556416|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
84605604|NCT02008357|168962649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Total hippocampal volume||0.022|-0.131|0.161
84605605|NCT02008357|168962649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4513||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|1.236|||ANCOVA|||Total Lateral Ventricular Volume||1.236|-0.535|0.437
84605606|NCT03697993|168962671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|8.7|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||8.7|-43.4|0.264
84605607|NCT03697993|168962675|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|24.3|||Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-26.2|1.000
84745750|NCT00706433|169244884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8096
84605608|NCT03697993|168962676|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Proportional odds model using Wald test|||||2.5|0.3|0.894
84605609|NCT03697993|168962677|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|25.3|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||25.3|-26.3|0.973
84605610|NCT03582813|168962681|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime;||||<.01
84605611|NCT03582813|168962682|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-esteem that would be maintained longitudinally||||.031
84605612|NCT03582813|168962683|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in coping mastery that would be maintained longitudinally||||<0.01
84669823|NCT02063737|169073026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline measure||||||0.0927
84493462|NCT02163759|168737828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|26.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.86||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||37.86|12.10|0.0173
84556417|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
84556418|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-2.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.31|-2.69|<0.0001
84556419|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.44|-2.81|<0.0001
84556420|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.91|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.91|-2.22|<0.0001
84556421|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.89|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.89|-2.20|<0.0001
84556422|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-2.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.13|-2.45|<0.0001
84556423|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-2.25|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.25|-2.57|<0.0001
84556424|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.50|-0.76|<0.0001
84556425|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.51|-0.77|<0.0001
84556426|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
84556427|NCT05459558|168865770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
84556428|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.82|-0.97|<0.0001
84669824|NCT02063737|169073027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||0.0578
84556429|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.79|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.79|-0.95|<0.0001
84556430|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-1.01|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.01|-1.15|<0.0001
84556431|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-1.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.07|-1.22|<0.0001
84556432|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
84556433|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
84556434|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.90|-1.04|<0.0001
84556435|NCT05459558|168865771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.95|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.95|-1.08|<0.0001
84556436|NCT02921750|168865785|NON_INFERIORITY|In this non-inferiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 95% confidence interval, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test, for between-treatment differences (Exufiber - Aquacel Extra) in the mean percentage area change from baseline to 6 weeks. This means that if the lower limit of this confidence interval was found to be greater than 12%, non-inferiority will be established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-63.5|0.093
84556437|NCT01149421|168865809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.58|-1.0||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-4.58|<0.001
84669825|NCT02063737|169073028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.69
84669826|NCT02063737|169073029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.65
84669827|NCT02063737|169073030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.95
84556438|NCT01149421|168865809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.83|0.68||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.83|<0.001
84556439|NCT01149421|168865809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84556440|NCT01149421|168865809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
84556441|NCT01149421|168865810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.53|-0.79||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-4.53|<0.001
84605613|NCT03582813|168962684|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in perceived autonomy support that would be maintained longitudinally||||0.030
84605614|NCT03582813|168962685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of employment that would be maintained longitudinally||4.74|1.01|0.046
84605615|NCT03582813|168962686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.44|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of enrollment in educational classes that would be maintained longitudinally||11.44|1.50|<0.01
84669828|NCT02063737|169073031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.21
84669829|NCT02063737|169073032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.51
84669830|NCT02063737|169073033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.28
84669831|NCT02063737|169073034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0930
84669832|NCT02063737|169073035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.56
84669833|NCT02063737|169073036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.20
84669834|NCT01405963|169073055|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.65||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||16.60|-1.30|0.09
84669835|NCT01405963|169073055|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.91||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|18.23|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||18.23|1.59|0.02
84669836|NCT01405963|169073056|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||1.10|-9.80|0.11
84669837|NCT01405963|169073056|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.39|-9.71|0.07
84669838|NCT01405963|169073060|OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|17.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||17.13|0.01|0.05
84669839|NCT01405963|169073060|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.27||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|21.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||21.00|-0.46|0.06
84745751|NCT00706433|169244885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
84556442|NCT01149421|168865810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-3.54|0.12||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.54|<0.001
84556443|NCT01149421|168865810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84556444|NCT01149421|168865810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
84556445|NCT01149421|168865811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.8|1.43||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.80|<0.001
84556446|NCT01149421|168865811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.67|1.52||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|-0.67|<0.001
84556447|NCT01149421|168865811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.870
84556448|NCT01149421|168865811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.915
84556449|NCT01149421|168865811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.68|1.68||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|-0.68|<0.001
84556450|NCT01149421|168865811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.0|1.31||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-1.00|<0.001
84556451|NCT01149421|168865811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
84556452|NCT01149421|168865811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.776
84556453|NCT01149421|168865812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.52|4.16||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.16|1.52|0.556
84556454|NCT01149421|168865812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.32|2.92||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|0.32|0.018
84556455|NCT01149421|168865812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
84556456|NCT01149421|168865812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|97.3|2.1|4.91||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.10|0.904
84556457|NCT01149421|168865812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.13|2.64||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.13|0.005
84669840|NCT01405963|169073061|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.60|-11.56|0.03
84669841|NCT01405963|169073061|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-7.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.66|-14.22|0.03
84745752|NCT00706433|169244886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3208
84745753|NCT00706433|169244887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745754|NCT00706433|169244888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
84745755|NCT01236365|169244891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in LDL-C between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84745756|NCT01236365|169244892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in hsCRP (6months minus 0months) between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.913
84745757|NCT01236365|169244895|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84745758|NCT01183234|169244900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|0.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.993|0.915|
84745759|NCT01183234|169244901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.931|
84745760|NCT01183234|169244902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.492|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||||0.492|-0.150|
84745761|NCT00822172|169244903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.076
84745762|NCT00822172|169244904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.048
84745763|NCT00822172|169244905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.650
84745764|NCT00545051|169244910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.41|||ANCOVA|||||4.41|2.09|<0.001
84556458|NCT01149421|168865812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
84556459|NCT01149421|168865813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.00|<0.001
84556460|NCT01149421|168865813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.64||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.51|0.001
84556461|NCT01149421|168865813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.10|<0.001
84556462|NCT01149421|168865813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
84556463|NCT01149421|168865814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.84|0.218
84556464|NCT01149421|168865814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.06||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-1.16|0.931
84556465|NCT01149421|168865814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-1.72|0.315
84556466|NCT01149421|168865814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-1.54|0.465
84556467|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.61||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-5.04|<0.001
84556468|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.46||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.91|0.153
84556469|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.09||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-4.66|0.002
84556470|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.07||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-3.57|0.042
84556471|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.75||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-3.23|0.221
84556472|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.81||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-2.10|0.884
84556473|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.39||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-4.31|0.19
84556474|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.54||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-3.31|0.159
84556475|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.122
84556476|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
84556477|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84745765|NCT00545051|169244911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.23|||ANCOVA|||||3.23|1.22|<0.001
84556478|NCT01149421|168865815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.274
84556479|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-0.91|0.717
84556480|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.54||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.65|0.427
84556481|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.73||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.73|-0.53|0.300
84556482|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.26||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.96|0.788
84556483|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.37||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-0.20|0.098
84605616|NCT01048866|168962688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-196.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.0|-72.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-72.2|-321.0|0.0021
84556484|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.08||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|-0.44|0.203
84605617|NCT01048866|168962689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-9.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Baseline DSS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-9.3|-28.7|0.0002
84605618|NCT01048866|168962690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-179.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.7|-53.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-53.8|-305.7|0.0054
84605619|NCT01048866|168962691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-16.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-7.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-7.0|-25.9|0.0008
84556485|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.82||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.82|-0.88|0.493
84556486|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.6||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-1.06|0.692
84556487|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
84605620|NCT01048866|168962692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-168.4||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.7|-43.1|||ANOVA|||||-43.1|-293.7|0.0087
84556488|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.173
84556489|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
84556490|NCT01149421|168865816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
84556491|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.8||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.80|1.17|<0.001
84745766|NCT00545051|169244912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.25|-0.15|0.122
84556492|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.45||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.45|-0.14|0.080
84556493|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.91||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.23|<0.001
84556494|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.24||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.39|0.168
84556495|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.28||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|2.62|<0.001
84556496|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.09||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|1.47|<0.001
84605621|NCT01048866|168962693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-10.0|-28.0|<0.0001
84605622|NCT01048866|168962694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-118.9||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.3|57.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||57.5|-295.3|0.1844
84605623|NCT01048866|168962695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84605624|NCT01048866|168962696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8827
84605625|NCT01048866|168962697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by centre||||||0.0105
84745767|NCT00545051|169244912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.66|0.96|<0.001
84605626|NCT01048866|168962699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.9||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.6|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.6|-12.4|0.0743
84745768|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 1||||<0.001
84745769|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 6||||<0.001
84745770|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 12||||<0.001
84556497|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.47||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.47|2.49|<0.001
84556498|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.7||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|0.78|0.003
84556499|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84556500|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84556501|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84556502|NCT01149421|168865817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84605627|NCT01048866|168962700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.5||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.8|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with patient as a random effect.||||0.8|-11.7|0.0871
84605628|NCT01048866|168962701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-6.0||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.2|-12.3|0.0595
84605629|NCT01048866|168962702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.9|0.1|0.0195
84556503|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.43||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.43|-4.50|<0.001
84556504|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.75||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.79|<0.001
84556505|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-2.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.28|-4.52|<0.001
84556506|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.03||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-3.23|<0.001
84556507|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.07||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-3.43|<0.001
84556508|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.22||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.09|0.113
84605630|NCT01048866|168962703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||Regression, Logistic|Effect for centre||||||0.0322
84556509|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.62||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.62|-3.86|<0.001
84556510|NCT01149421|168865818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.51||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.72|0.004
84556511|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-2.22|0.128
84669842|NCT01405963|169073062|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.68|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.68|-0.01|0.05
84669843|NCT01405963|169073062|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.39||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.84|-0.06|0.08
84556512|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.13||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-1.32|0.883
84556513|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.72||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-1.84|0.390
84556514|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.79||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-1.72|0.463
84605631|NCT01048866|168962704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
84605632|NCT01048866|168962705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.2||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANOVA|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.0288
84605633|NCT01048866|168962706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4274
84605634|NCT02230683|168962721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.89|||Paired t-test||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.89|-3.16|0.257
84745771|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 1||||<0.001
84745772|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 6||||<0.001
84745773|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 12||||<0.001
84745774|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 1||||<0.001
84745775|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 6||||<0.001
84745776|NCT00545051|169244913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 12||||<0.001
84493463|NCT02163759|168737828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.2||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.94||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||24.94|0.93|0.0313
84493464|NCT02163759|168737829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
84556515|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.76||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-1.13|0.671
84556516|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.95||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|-0.90|0.471
84556517|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|-1.95|0.543
84745777|NCT01375114|169244915|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
84745778|NCT01375114|169244916|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84556518|NCT01149421|168865819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.2||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-1.72|0.728
84556519|NCT01149421|168865832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84556520|NCT01149421|168865832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84605635|NCT02230683|168962721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.32|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup||4.32|-0.52|0.1174
84745779|NCT01375114|169244917|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84556521|NCT01149421|168865832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84556522|NCT01149421|168865832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84556523|NCT00766467|168865851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84556524|NCT01153620|168865868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.006
84605636|NCT02230683|168962721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-1.46|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup||-1.46|-5.88|0.0025
84745780|NCT01375114|169244918|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84745781|NCT01375114|169244919|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84745782|NCT00952120|169244946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|robust standard errors were used to account for the multiple observations per patient||||||0.80
84745783|NCT00495586|169244948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.3|||Chi-squared|||For the comparison of the efficacy of antibiotic versus placebo, we accepted a null hypothesis if the cure rate in the intervention group was the same or ±7% as that observed in the placebo arm. Based on previous studies, the expected rate of cure among patients assigned to antibiotic therapy was 90%. For an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 and accepting possible losses of 15%, we calculated that the sample size is 677 patients in total.||24.3|3.7|<0.05
84745784|NCT03038438|169244950|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|82.5||||Fisher Exact|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint, primary patency at 12 months, was tested against a PG of 75%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: π ≤ PG vs. HA: π \> PG where π is the primary patency rate at 12 months in the study population and PG is the performance goal of 75%. The primary effectiveness objective will be met if the lower limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is above 75%."|||82.5|<0.0001
84745785|NCT03038438|169244951|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||5.0|||Fisher Exact|||"The primary safety endpoint, major adverse events at 30 days post-procedure, was tested against a performance goal of 12.5%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: P ≥ PG vs. HA: P \< PG where P is the primary safety endpoint at 30 days in the study population and PG is the performance goal.~The primary safety objective will be met if the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is below 12.5%."||5.0||<0.0001
84493465|NCT02163759|168737830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
84556525|NCT03000530|168865962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
84556526|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 2||-0.3|-4.3|0.0223
84556527|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 3||-1.7|-6.4|0.0010
84605637|NCT02230683|168962722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.03|-0.42|0.026
84605638|NCT02230683|168962722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.21|-0.72|0.001
84605639|NCT02230683|168962722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.18|-0.26|0.72
84605640|NCT02230683|168962723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-21.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.105
84605641|NCT02230683|168962723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-52.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-6|-109|0.016
84605642|NCT02230683|168962723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|12.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.839
84605643|NCT02230683|168962724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||0|-7|0.0084
84669844|NCT01405963|169073063|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.53|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.53|0.03|0.03
84605644|NCT02230683|168962725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||-1|-7|0.0131
84605645|NCT02230683|168962726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-772.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.0|-19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value is the ratio for the difference from baseline.|Statistical Analysis for the median change in concentration of Caspase 3/7 Relative Light Units from baseline to Day 28/EOT||-19|-1188|0.003
84605646|NCT00260065|168962730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|43.5||||||||43.5|24.2|
84605647|NCT00260065|168962731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|52.0||||||95.0|41.3|61.7||||||||61.7|41.3|
84605648|NCT03809910|168962753|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.09|<.0001
84669845|NCT01405963|169073063|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.66|-0.01|0.06
84669846|NCT01405963|169073064|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.70|0.12|0.01
84745786|NCT03406260|169245001|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|1.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||1.81|-1000|<0.0001
84669847|NCT01405963|169073064|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.72|0.11|0.01
84556528|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 4||-0.4|-5.5|0.0233
84556529|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 5||-1.1|-6.6|0.0066
84556530|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 6||-1.7|-7.3|0.0019
84556531|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 7||-1.5|-7.6|0.0043
84556532|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 8||-0.3|-6.4|0.0318
84556533|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 15||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
84556534|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 21||-1.4|-8.4|0.0064
84556535|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 28||-0.5|-7.6|0.0243
84556536|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 35||1.4|-6.0|0.2285
84556537|NCT03000530|168866029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 42||1.4|-6.0|0.2120
84556538|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 2||24.1|0.8|0.0884
84556539|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||6.4|0.9|0.0732
84556540|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||31.6|2.9|0.0002
84556541|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||19.7|2.3|0.0006
84556542|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||8.9|1.1|0.0379
84556543|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||9.0|1.0|0.0468
84556544|NCT03000530|168866030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||5.6|0.7|0.2208
84556545|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||3.7|0.6|0.4300
84556546|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||13.3|2.1|0.0005
84556547|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||8.0|1.2|0.0172
84556548|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||7.3|1.2|0.0221
84556549|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||3.5|0.6|0.4139
84556550|NCT03000530|168866031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||4.3|0.7|0.2332
84556551|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||0.3|-5.1|0.0836
84556552|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.6|-8.6|0.0864
84556553|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.8|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.8|-12.3|0.0021
84556554|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-1.3|-12.0|0.0157
84556555|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.1|-10.6|0.0533
84556556|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 35||2.6|-8.8|0.2878
84556557|NCT03000530|168866032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||3.4|-7.4|0.4664
84556558|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||-0.1|-3.6|0.0391
84556559|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.0|-5.1|0.0516
84556560|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.0|-7.3|0.0008
84556561|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-0.4|-6.5|0.0282
84556562|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.9|-5.3|0.1686
84556563|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||Day 35||1.5|-5.5|0.2488
84672245|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.85||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.850|0.556|0.976
84556564|NCT03000530|168866035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.2|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||1.2|-5.7|0.2037
84556565|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||17.9|1.7|0.0048
84556566|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||29.5|2.5|0.0007
84556567|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||13.6|1.4|0.0113
84556568|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||12.8|1.2|0.0227
84669848|NCT01405963|169073065|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.45|0.04|0.02
84669849|NCT01405963|169073065|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.44|-0.07|0.15
84669850|NCT01358357|169073181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||A hazard ratio of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for the lurasidone arm vs.placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model.Cox model included treatment effect as fixed effect, and stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||It was assumed that the recurrence event rates during the double-blind phase were to be 24% and 39% for subjects treated with lurasidone and placebo, respectively. A total of 120 recurrence events were required to achieve 90% power to detect the 15% difference in subjects who had a recurrence event during the double-blind phase between the treatment groups using a log-rank test with two sided alpha level of 0.05.||1.04|0.49|<0.078
84745787|NCT03406260|169245001|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|2.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||2.06|-1000|<0.0001
84745788|NCT02318992|169245053|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.157
84556569|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||7.2|0.7|0.1516
84556570|NCT03000530|168866036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||8.3|0.9|0.0793
84556571|NCT01430624|168866040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df 2, 109||||||.24
84556572|NCT01430624|168866041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 111||||||.89
84556573|NCT01430624|168866042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.01
84556574|NCT01430624|168866042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.48
84556575|NCT01430624|168866042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.17
84556576|NCT01430624|168866043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 154||||||.37
84556577|NCT01430624|168866043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 135||||||.15
84556578|NCT01430624|168866043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 121||||||.87
84556579|NCT01430624|168866044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.63
84556580|NCT01430624|168866044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.25
84556581|NCT01430624|168866044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.59
84556582|NCT01430624|168866045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.83
84556583|NCT01430624|168866045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.29
84556584|NCT01430624|168866045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.13
84556585|NCT01430624|168866046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.012
84556586|NCT01430624|168866046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.31
84556587|NCT01430624|168866046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2,116||||||.35
84556588|NCT01430624|168866047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 141||||||.15
84556589|NCT01430624|168866047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 127||||||.67
84556590|NCT01430624|168866047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 110||||||.40
84556591|NCT01672294|168866069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5376|||<|0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0776|2.1528||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.1528|-1.0776|<0.511
84556592|NCT01672294|168866069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4275||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3505|2.2055||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.2055|-1.3505|0.6348
84556593|NCT01672294|168866070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6836||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4278|2.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.7950|-1.4278|0.5225
84556594|NCT01672294|168866070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2764||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6728|3.2257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 weeks. Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||3.2257|-0.6728|0.1972
84493466|NCT02163759|168737830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.3374
84556595|NCT01672294|168866071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9358|||<|0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9726|2.8443|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.8443|-0.9726|<0.3332
84556596|NCT01672294|168866071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6929||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8783|2.2642||Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note - Missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks||2.2642|-0.8783|0.3842
84556597|NCT01672294|168866072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected change in difference in logs|0.0593||||0.8748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6784|0.797|||Standard negative binomial with offset||The expected change in the difference of the logs of expected Days in VA inpatient care or ED.|||0.797|-0.6784|0.8748
84556598|NCT01672294|168866073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01777||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1372|0.1017||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks.~Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks."||0.1017|-0.1372|0.7687
84556599|NCT01672294|168866073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00087||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.09861||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||0.09861|-0.1003|0.9863
84605649|NCT03809910|168962754|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.17|<0.0001
84605650|NCT03809910|168962755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.16|<0.0001
84605651|NCT03809910|168962756|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.19||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.25|<0.0001
84669851|NCT01358357|169073182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||<|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||A HR of time to discontinuation and corresponding 95% Wald CI were est. for lurasidone arm vs.the placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect,stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||0.98|0.54|<0.034
84745789|NCT02318992|169245054|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.041
84493467|NCT02163759|168737831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
84556600|NCT01672294|168866074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01166||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2475|0.2241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 5 weeks - Completion subscale||0.2241|-0.2475|0.9221
84556601|NCT01672294|168866074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1154||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.1158||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 week time point Note- Missing first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 week.||0.1158|-0.3466|0.3249
84556602|NCT03379792|168866077|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84556603|NCT03379792|168866077|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84556604|NCT03379792|168866077|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84556605|NCT01606202|168866121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain Numerical Rating Scale score from baseline to End of Treatment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale pain mean score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.51|0.708
84556606|NCT01606202|168866122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.57||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.48|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which escape medication was used was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and percentage of days on which escape medication was used as a covariate.||5.48|-6.62|0.852
84605652|NCT03809910|168962757|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.33||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.43|<0.0001
84745790|NCT02313233|169245057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84745791|NCT02313233|169245058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84556607|NCT01606202|168866123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.65|-0.54|0.860
84669852|NCT01358357|169073183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||A HR of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for lurasidone arm vs. placebo arm,using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional hazard Model|||||1.08|0.48|0.113
84556608|NCT01606202|168866124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.27|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasm was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm percentage of days on which spasm was experienced as a covariate.||7.27|-8.56|0.873
84556609|NCT01606202|168866125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.75|-0.61|0.830
84556610|NCT01606202|168866126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.4||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced as a covariate.||4.88|-4.08|0.860
84556611|NCT01606202|168866127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Modified Ashworth scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Modified Ashworth scale score as a covariate.||0.05|-0.33|0.142
84556612|NCT01606202|168866128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.9|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Short Orientation Memory Concentration score, was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Short Orientation Memory Concentration test score as a covariate.||0.90|-1.13|0.824
84556613|NCT01606202|168866129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score as a covariate.||0.40|-0.49|0.847
84556614|NCT01606202|168866130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.29||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Caregiver Strain Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline Caregiver Strain Index score as a covariate.||1.16|-3.74|0.287
84556615|NCT01606202|168866131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|33.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|50.64|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||50.64|17.07|<0.001
84556616|NCT01606202|168866132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.93||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Brief Pain Inventory score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Brief Pain Inventory score as a covariate.||-0.16|-3.69|0.032
84556617|NCT00306787|168866135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated power for non-inferiority test (90%) was based on the non-inferiority margin of 1.0 day.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||Hodges-Lehman|||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for famciclovir- time to healing for valacyclovir.||0.60|-0.15|
84556618|NCT02273908|168866141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.459|-0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.439|-1.459|<0.001
84556619|NCT02273908|168866142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.131|-1.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-1.387|-3.131|<0.001
84556620|NCT02273908|168866142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-1.071|-2.704|<0.001
84556621|NCT02273908|168866143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4903|5.1133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||5.1133|1.4903|<0.001
84556622|NCT02273908|168866143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|2.729||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9047|4.5533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.5533|0.9047|0.004
84556623|NCT02273908|168866144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.301|-0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-0.359|-1.301|<0.001
84556624|NCT02273908|168866144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.674||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-0.223|-1.125|0.004
84556625|NCT02273908|168866145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0091|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||0.0499|-0.0091|0.175
84669853|NCT01358357|169073185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12||analysis of ANCOVA model contains treatment ,pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.29|0.406
84745792|NCT02313233|169245061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84556626|NCT02273908|168866145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0329||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0058|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||0.0600|0.0058|0.017
84493468|NCT02163759|168737832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
84556627|NCT02273908|168866146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.697||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|8.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||8.842|0.552|0.026
84669854|NCT01358357|169073186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.162
84556628|NCT02273908|168866146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.292||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.282|4.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.866|-2.282|0.477
84556629|NCT02273908|168866147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84556630|NCT02273908|168866148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84556631|NCT04908475|168866154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|60.1||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|41.3|< 0.001
84745793|NCT02313233|169245062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84556632|NCT04908475|168866155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|66.0||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|47.7|< 0.001
84556633|NCT04908475|168866156|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|80.0|||Chi-squared|||||80.0|59.5|< 0.001
84745794|NCT03618823|169245070|EQUIVALENCE|All pain scores were included due to the sample size. Alpha =.05 Power = .80 Desired effect size of 0.30 Size of n=145 in each group was determined, however this was not reached for sufficient power.||||||0.912|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-way mixed-model analysis of variance||There will be no difference in pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups from before medication to after while controlling for total duration of mediation use (duration mean=10.11 days).||||.912
84745795|NCT03618823|169245071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.311||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|3.478|||Fisher Exact|||There will be no difference in ED (Emergency Department) or urgent care visits between opioid and non-opioid pain control groups.||3.478|.494|.630
84669855|NCT01358357|169073187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.07||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.27|0.496
84745796|NCT00577473|169245097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0455||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|16.11||4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day|Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||16.11|-7.01|0.4411
84745797|NCT00577473|169245098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0331||||0.5677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|8.04|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||8.04|-14.67|0.5677
84745798|NCT00577473|169245099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0445||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.7|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||7.7|-16.6|0.4730
84745799|NCT00577473|169245100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0339||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|15.26|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.26|-8.48|0.5761
84745800|NCT00577473|169245101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0766||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|19.74|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.74|-4.41|0.2150
84745801|NCT00577473|169245102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0351||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|15.2|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.20|-8.18|0.5569
84556634|NCT04908475|168866157|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|73.9||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\] for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|57.6|< 0.001
84556635|NCT04908475|168866158|SUPERIORITY||Difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|82.3|||Chi-squared|||||82.3|60.9|< 0.001
84556636|NCT04908475|168866159|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|80.2|||Chi-squared|||||80.2|58.6|< 0.001
84556637|NCT04250298|168866184|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84556638|NCT04250298|168866185|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
84556639|NCT04250298|168866186|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
84556640|NCT04250298|168866187|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
84605653|NCT03809910|168962758|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.39|<0.0001
84605654|NCT03809910|168962759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.13|<0.0001
84556641|NCT04250298|168866188|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84556642|NCT04250298|168866189|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
84556643|NCT04250298|168866190|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
84556644|NCT04250298|168866191|OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.548
84556645|NCT04250298|168866192|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
84556646|NCT04250298|168866193|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
84556647|NCT04250298|168866194|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
84556648|NCT04250298|168866200|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher Exact, Chi-Squared, Kolmogorv-Smirnow||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"sub-population 1 vs. sub-population 2: Parametric and nonparametric univariate tests: t-test for independent samples, Mann-Whitney-U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square homogeneity test; normal distribution check by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors -significance correction, type I error = 10%).~Estimate the true effect size:~Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (depending on the nature of the data sets: parametric, non-parametric or Clopper-Pearson) are calculated for all parameters."||||0.919
84556649|NCT04250298|168866202|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84669856|NCT01358357|169073188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pool country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.8|0.128
84669857|NCT01358357|169073189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasdione vs.Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.9|0.485
84556650|NCT04250298|168866203|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
84556651|NCT04250298|168866204|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
84556652|NCT04250298|168866205|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84556653|NCT04250298|168866210|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84556654|NCT04250298|168866211|OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862
84556655|NCT04250298|168866212|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
84556656|NCT04250298|168866213|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84556657|NCT04250298|168866214|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84556658|NCT04250298|168866215|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
84556659|NCT04250298|168866216|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
84556660|NCT04250298|168866217|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
84556661|NCT04250298|168866220|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
84556662|NCT04250298|168866221|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
84556663|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P-value for age over 65.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0074
84556664|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||P-value for female physicians.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0028
84556665|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Rheumatology versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84556666|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for other specialty versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84556667|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0||||P-value for use of opioids.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0064
84556668|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for use of NSAIDs.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84556669|NCT00725101|168866279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for number of medications participants were taking.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84556670|NCT00725101|168866280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for GAD-7 score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
84556671|NCT00725101|168866280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pregabalin use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
84556672|NCT00725101|168866280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for NSAID use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.050
84556673|NCT00824382|168866300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.131|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.131|0.051|<0.0001
84556674|NCT00824382|168866300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.091|<0.0001
84745802|NCT00577473|169245103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1091||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|22.91|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.91|-1.10|0.0769
84745803|NCT00577473|169245104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1139||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|22.92|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.92|-0.13|0.0551
84493469|NCT02163759|168737832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.6367
84556675|NCT00824382|168866300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.092|<0.0001
84556676|NCT00824382|168866301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.039|0.124|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.039|0.0002
84556677|NCT00824382|168866301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.098|<0.0001
84556678|NCT00824382|168866301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.199|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.115|<0.0001
84605655|NCT03809910|168962760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.31||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.21|<0.0001
84605656|NCT03809910|168962761|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.28||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|0.18|<0.0001
84605657|NCT03809910|168962762|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.15||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.09|<0.0001
84556679|NCT00824382|168866302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.182|0.095|<0.0001
84556680|NCT00824382|168866302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.241|0.154|<0.0001
84556681|NCT00824382|168866302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.236|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.236|0.150|<0.0001
84556682|NCT00824382|168866303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.191|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.191|0.101|<0.0001
84556683|NCT00824382|168866303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.247|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.247|0.157|<0.0001
84556684|NCT00824382|168866303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.240|0.151|<0.0001
84556685|NCT00824382|168866304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.275|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.275|0.107|<0.0001
84669858|NCT01358357|169073190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.8|0.582
84745804|NCT00577473|169245105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0738||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|19.43|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.43|-4.66|0.2306
84556686|NCT00824382|168866304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.276|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.276|0.106|<0.0001
84556687|NCT00824382|168866304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.270|0.103|<0.0001
84556688|NCT00824382|168866305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.345|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.345|0.160|<0.0001
84556689|NCT00824382|168866305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.343|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.343|0.156|<0.0001
84556690|NCT00824382|168866305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.325|0.141|<0.0001
84556691|NCT00824382|168866306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.351|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.351|0.155|<0.0001
84556692|NCT00824382|168866306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.341|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.341|0.142|<0.0001
84556693|NCT00824382|168866306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.324|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.324|0.129|<0.0001
84605658|NCT03809910|168962762|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.06|0.0214
84745805|NCT00577473|169245106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0652||||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|18.64|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||18.64|-5.60|0.2931
84745806|NCT00577473|169245107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0051||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|12.69|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||12.69|-11.67|0.9349
84745807|NCT00577473|169245108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|17.73|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||17.73|-4.72|0.2583
84745808|NCT02595073|169245112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353|||||||z-test, 2-tailed|||||||0.3353
84556694|NCT00824382|168866307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0045||95.0|0.035|0.188|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.035|0.0045
84556695|NCT00824382|168866307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.293|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.293|0.140|<0.0001
84556696|NCT00824382|168866307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.142|<0.0001
84556697|NCT00824382|168866308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0348||95.0|0.006|0.159|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.159|0.006|0.0348
84556698|NCT00824382|168866308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.100|<0.0001
84556699|NCT00824382|168866308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.115|<0.0001
84556700|NCT00824382|168866309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.476|<|0.0001||95.0|16.477|38.036|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.036|16.477|<0.0001
84556701|NCT00824382|168866309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|<|0.0001||95.0|18.41|40.357|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.357|18.410|<0.0001
84556702|NCT00824382|168866309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.0001||95.0|25.987|47.369|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.369|25.987|<0.0001
84556703|NCT00824382|168866310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534|<|0.0001||95.0|18.159|39.946|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.946|18.159|<0.0001
84745809|NCT02595073|169245113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6190
84745810|NCT02084056|169245134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.703|106.747|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||106.747|100.703|<0.0001
84556704|NCT00824382|168866310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.0001||95.0|19.861|42.049|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||42.049|19.861|<0.0001
84556705|NCT00824382|168866310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.489|<|0.0001||95.0|26.386|47.996|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.996|26.386|<0.0001
84556706|NCT00824382|168866311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.2016||95.0|-0.485|0.103|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.485|0.2016
84556707|NCT00824382|168866311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0029||95.0|-0.752|-0.156|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.156|-0.752|0.0029
84556708|NCT00824382|168866311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0095||95.0|-0.678|-0.095|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.095|-0.678|0.0095
84556709|NCT00415597|168866322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
84605659|NCT03809910|168962763|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.23||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|0.13|<0.0001
84669859|NCT01358357|169073191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.01||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.420
84745811|NCT02084056|169245134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.721|110.202|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||110.202|93.721|0.0003
84556710|NCT00415597|168866323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
84556711|NCT01313221|168866349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|35.82|||||Adjusted for treatment in a mixed model|||35.82|-3.50|
84556712|NCT01313221|168866350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|27.6||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 16||27.60|-5.13|
84556713|NCT01313221|168866350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|35.32||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 20||35.32|-2.21|
84556714|NCT03292458|168866422|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy outcome was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based linear mixed-effect model. The analysis included group, treatment, and treatment period as interacting fixed effects and subject as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84556715|NCT03292458|168866423|OTHER|The minimum and average efficacy (in % symptom change) of sodium oxybate versus placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline was determined using binomial logistic regression.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Regression, Logistic|||The minimum and average efficacy of sodium oxybate vs. placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline were determined using binomial logistic regression.||||0.05
84556716|NCT03292458|168866424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84556717|NCT03292458|168866425|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84556718|NCT03292458|168866426|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
84669860|NCT01358357|169073192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|0.788
84556719|NCT03292458|168866427|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
84556720|NCT02542293|168866428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.045||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab versus (Vs) Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.045|0.485|0.0808
84556721|NCT02542293|168866429|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.109|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.109|0.322|
84493470|NCT02163759|168737833|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
84493471|NCT02163759|168737834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.9|-2.4|0.3708
84493472|NCT02163759|168737834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.8|-1.8|0.4477
84556722|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.201|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.201|0.629|
84556723|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.213|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.213|0.726|
84556724|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.464|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.464|0.786|
84556725|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.302|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB \<20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.302|0.835|
84556726|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.353|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB non-evaluable analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.353|0.758|
84605660|NCT03809910|168962763|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.14|0.0010
84605661|NCT03809910|168962764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.25||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
84556727|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.008|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.008|0.309|
84556728|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.350|0.560|
84556729|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.251|0.614|
84556730|NCT02542293|168866430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.08|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.080|0.564|
84669861|NCT01358357|169073193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.380
84605662|NCT03809910|168962764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.09|0.1652
84605663|NCT04948307|168962819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7326
84605664|NCT04948307|168962820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7396|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7396
84605665|NCT04948307|168962821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8710
84556731|NCT02542293|168866431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.186|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.186|0.871|
84556732|NCT02542293|168866431|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.018|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25 and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.018|0.480|
84556733|NCT02542293|168866431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.078|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.078|0.654|
84556734|NCT02542293|168866431|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.065|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.065|0.289|
84556735|NCT02542293|168866431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.081|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.081|0.587|
84556736|NCT02542293|168866431|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.955|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||0.955|0.222|
84605666|NCT04948307|168962822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8816
84605667|NCT04948307|168962823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5281
84669862|NCT01358357|169073194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|0.37||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.88||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-2.14|0.772
84605668|NCT04948307|168962824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2996
84556737|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.146|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.146|0.514|
84556738|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.189|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.189|0.623|
84605669|NCT04948307|168962828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7201|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7201
84605670|NCT04948307|168962830|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|Summary statistics are presented|||
84605671|NCT04948307|168962832|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|||
84605672|NCT00734071|168962833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.38|-1.20|0.518
84605673|NCT00734071|168962834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.85||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05).||0.85|-1.29|0.685
84556739|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.193|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.193|0.714|
84556740|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.818|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||0.818|0.258|
84556741|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.228|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.228|0.524|
84556742|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.177|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.177|0.585|
84556743|NCT02542293|168866432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.017|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.017|0.534|
84556744|NCT02542293|168866433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.517|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.517|0.810|
84556745|NCT02542293|168866433|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.141|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||2.141|0.592|
84556746|NCT02542293|168866433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.253|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.253|0.924|
84556747|NCT02542293|168866433|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.362|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥ 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.362|0.655|
84556748|NCT02542293|168866433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.024|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.024|0.621|
84556749|NCT02542293|168866433|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|1.317|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.317|0.389|
84556750|NCT02542293|168866433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.01|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.010|0.542|
84556751|NCT02542293|168866433|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.251|0.335|
84556752|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|1.03||||||"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.030|0.236|
84556753|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.968||||||"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.968|0.288|
84556754|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.908||||||"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.908|0.336|
84556755|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|5.234||||||"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.234|0.752|
84556756|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|2.214||||||"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||2.214|0.482|
84556757|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.548||||||"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.548|0.430|
84556758|NCT02542293|168866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.486||||||"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.486|0.456|
84556759|NCT02542293|168866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.869|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.869|0.245|
84556760|NCT02542293|168866435|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|1.337|||Binomial exact test|||"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.337|0.124|
84556761|NCT02542293|168866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.647|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.647|0.356|
84556762|NCT02542293|168866435|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.660|0.450|
84556763|NCT02542293|168866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.079|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.079|0.443|
84556764|NCT02542293|168866435|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|4.919|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||4.919|0.658|
84556765|NCT02542293|168866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.291|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.291|0.449|
84556766|NCT02542293|168866435|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|5.27|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.270|0.585|
84556767|NCT02542293|168866436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.532|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.532|0.113|
84556768|NCT02542293|168866436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.639|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.639|0.196|
84556769|NCT02542293|168866436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.611|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.611|0.233|
84745812|NCT02084056|169245135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|114.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.687|121.908|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||121.908|107.687|0.0113
84745813|NCT02084056|169245135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.543|111.609|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||111.609|86.543|0.0064
84745814|NCT02084056|169245136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|101.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.97|91.23|<0.0001
84556770|NCT02542293|168866437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.787|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.787|0.199|
84556771|NCT02542293|168866437|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|2.86|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||2.860|0.183|
84556772|NCT02542293|168866437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.588|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.588|0.324|
84556773|NCT02542293|168866437|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.761|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.761|0.193|
84556774|NCT02542293|168866440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.058|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.058|0.494|
84556775|NCT02542293|168866440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.151|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.151|0.607|
84556776|NCT02542293|168866440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.146|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.146|0.689|
84556777|NCT02542293|168866441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.388|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.388|0.748|
84745815|NCT02084056|169245136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.47|105.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||105.63|90.47|0.0002
84556778|NCT02542293|168866441|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.219|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.219|0.360|
84556779|NCT02542293|168866441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.147|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.147|0.845|
84745816|NCT02084056|169245137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.046|104.257|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||104.257|92.046|<0.0001
84556780|NCT02542293|168866441|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.03|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.030|0.492|
84556781|NCT03030118|168866448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For the primary outcome (SLICC classification criteria count \[SLICC score\]), measured every 12 weeks over a 96-week period, we used an ordinal logistic regression model to compare the estimated slopes over time for the intervention (HCQ) and placebo groups. The model accounted for the ordinal and non-decreasing properties of the SLICC score. Our null hypothesis was that the intervention slope equaled the placebo slope, with a corresponding hypothesis that the slopes were not equal.||||0.72
84556782|NCT03030118|168866449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||Progression to SLE was defined as the number of subjects in whom a SLICC score of 4 was recorded, up to 96 weeks.||||0.81
84556783|NCT03030118|168866450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"For the SLEDAI score, we combined responses to model the following groups:~* Score of 0 or 1~* Score of 2 or 3~* Score of 4, 6, or 8"||||0.74
84556784|NCT03030118|168866451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||"For analysis, we combined responses ≥3 to model the following groups:~* Score of 0~* Score of 1~* Score of 2~* Score of 3 or higher"||||0.77
84556785|NCT03030118|168866452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.386
84556786|NCT03030118|168866453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.497
84745817|NCT02084056|169245137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.705|115.861|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||115.861|96.705|0.0030
84556787|NCT03030118|168866454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||||||0.99
84556788|NCT03030118|168866455|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84556789|NCT03030118|168866456|NON_INFERIORITY|Outcome with hydroxychloroquine is hypothesized to be not inferior to outcome with placebo.|||||>|0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.5
84745818|NCT02084056|169245138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.426|108.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||108.790|98.426|<0.0001
84556790|NCT03030118|168866457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84556791|NCT03030118|168866458|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84556792|NCT00310466|168866461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84556793|NCT00310466|168866462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84556794|NCT00310466|168866464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
84556795|NCT04643964|168866565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. No covariates were included.||||.54
84556796|NCT04643964|168866566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.92
84556797|NCT04643964|168866567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There were three covariates in this model: QIDS at Time 1, gender, and COVID interference.||||.37
84556798|NCT04643964|168866568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.87
84556799|NCT00869557|168866573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A total sample size of 75 participants randomized in a 2:1 ratio had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both treatment groups and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.~A total of 71 participants were enrolled in the study (4 fewer than planned)."|Difference in the response rates (%)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|20.1|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the response rate (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24) in the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla group.||20.1|-14.5|
84556800|NCT02368210|168866589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
84556801|NCT02368210|168866590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Scaling.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84556802|NCT02368210|168866590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: erythema.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84556803|NCT02368210|168866590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Plaque Elevation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84556804|NCT01492101|168866595|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test, stratified by geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.872|||=|0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.019|||Log Rank|||||1.019|0.747|= 0.0835
84556805|NCT01492101|168866596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||=|0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.075|||Log Rank|||||1.075|0.798|= 0.3017
84556806|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[2\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.33|||F-test|||Global health status/QoL: change from baseline to last assessment (Week 56)||4.33|-2.65|0.635
84556807|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[3\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|5.14|||F-test|||||5.14|-0.88|0.1656
84556808|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[4\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.82|||F-test|||||4.82|-3.9|0.8356
84556809|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[5\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|3.88|||F-test|||||3.88|-2.88|0.7727
84605674|NCT00734071|168962835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.28|-0.27|0.984
84556810|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[6\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.59|||F-test|||||3.59|-2.56|0.7446
84556811|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[7\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.45|||F-test|||||4.45|-4.0|0.9169
84556812|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[8\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|3.79|||F-test|||||3.79|-3.66|0.9731
84556813|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[9\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.67|||F-test|||||10.67|3.88|<0.0001
84556814|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[10\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|0.93|||F-test|||||0.93|-7.59|0.1252
84745819|NCT02084056|169245138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|112.708|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||112.708|91.130|0.0019
84745820|NCT02084056|169245139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|95.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|101.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.62|89.73|<0.0001
84745821|NCT02084056|169245139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.73|106.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||106.27|90.73|0.0002
84745822|NCT03954392|169245187|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Only one statistical test was conducted, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons was needed.||Statistical analysis will compare the post-intervention scores on the primary outcome (Faux Pas Recognition Test scores), controlling for pre-intervention scores.||||< 0.05
84745823|NCT03954392|169245188|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
84745824|NCT01226095|169245189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84745825|NCT03283072|169245198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.592
84745826|NCT03283072|169245199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.721
84556815|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[11\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.22|||F-test|||||1.22|-6.83|0.1717
84556816|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[12\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|3.18|||F-test|||||3.18|-5.95|0.5513
84556817|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[13\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|13.72|||F-test|||||13.72|3.57|0.0009
84556818|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[14\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|1.8|||F-test|||||1.8|-7.35|0.2337
84556819|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[15\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.98|||F-test|||||13.98|6.6|<0.0001
84556820|NCT01492101|168866601|EQUIVALENCE|\[16\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.69|||F-test|||||3.69|-3.74|0.99
84556821|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[17\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.29|||F-test|||||4.29|-2.42|0.5833
84556822|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[18\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|3.9|||F-test|||||3.9|-1.24|0.3098
84556823|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[19\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.63|||F-test|||||5.63|-3.39|0.6264
84556824|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[20\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.1|||F-test|||||-2.1|-7.11|0.0003
84556825|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[21\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.99|||F-test|||||0.99|-3.84|0.2473
84556826|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[22\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-0.23|||F-test|||||-0.23|-5.54|0.0333
84556827|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[23\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|3.28|||F-test|||||3.28|-12.2|0.2575
84556828|NCT01492101|168866603|EQUIVALENCE|\[24\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|12.34|||F-test|||||12.34|-1.22|0.1072
84556829|NCT00316914|168866608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||A priori threshold for the p-value is 0.05 and there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Comparison in Percentage of Patients With Oxaliplatin-induced Grade 2+ Chronic Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.038
84556830|NCT00316914|168866609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to Onset of Grade 2+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.0503
84556831|NCT00316914|168866610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Time to Onset of Grade 3+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.4048
84556832|NCT00316914|168866611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6556||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Average Duration of Chronic Neuropathic Toxicity between Arms||||0.6556
84556833|NCT00316914|168866612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3238||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of patients discontinuing therapy for chronic neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.3238
84556834|NCT00316914|168866615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7498||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of Patients With Acute Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.7498
84556835|NCT00316914|168866618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue NOW between two arms||||0.2340
84556836|NCT00316914|168866618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue USUAL between two arms||||0.2010
84556837|NCT00316914|168866618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue WORST between two arms||||0.9364
84745827|NCT03283072|169245200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANVOA (gender as covariate)||||||0.553
84556838|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue WORST||||0.9364
84556839|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6275||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walking||||0.6275
84745828|NCT02552368|169245201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-Test|||||||0.002
84745829|NCT02552368|169245202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Performance COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.022
84745830|NCT02552368|169245202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Satisfaction COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.031
84745831|NCT00911768|169245203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.05||95.0|-0.647|1.008|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.008|-0.647|<0.05
84669863|NCT01826487|169073195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.415||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|33.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05. Secondary endpoints were tested for significance, only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method including stratification factors for age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years), duration of use of corticosteroids at baseline (approx. \>=6 to \<12 months vs. \>=12 months), and baseline 6MWD category (\>=350 meters vs \<350 meters), as well as baseline 6MWD as covariate.||33.39|-7.44|0.213
84493473|NCT02163759|168737835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
84669864|NCT02590939|169073206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84745832|NCT00911768|169245204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of stimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.05||95.0|-0.576|-0.115|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.115|-0.576|<0.05
84745833|NCT00911768|169245205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of unstimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.05||95.0|-0.155|-0.017|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.017|-0.155|<0.05
84745834|NCT00467350|169245218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|"Similar to previous studies, the main outcome measure was the change in the child's main symptom. Changes were determined by the question Has your child's main symptom improved, stayed the same or gotten worse? The main symptom was defined as the chief complaint identified during the triage process. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into 2 groups: improved/better versus worse/same."|||||||||||||||||A χ2 test was used to examine the difference in probabilities of experiencing an outcome between treatment arms and differences were expressed by Mantel-Haenszel common OR estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI).|||
84556840|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6988||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Buttoning Shirt or Tying Laces||||0.6988
84745835|NCT03616977|169245219|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.06||||||||1.06|0.961|
84745836|NCT00515853|169245221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||CCI final||||0.54
84745837|NCT00189488|169245279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-17.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||-2.4|-33.4|0.034
84745838|NCT00189488|169245280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (%)|0.5||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.1|-11.0|0.929
84745839|NCT00189488|169245281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Day 11 Methotrexate GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||6.4|-19.4|0.352
84556841|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5124||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.5124
84556842|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.3103
84556843|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8601||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Abdominal Cramping||||0.8601
84556844|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Bowel Problems with Normal Activity||||0.2439
84745840|NCT00189488|169245282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe oral mucositis, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|"Participants with Unknown incidence are treated as Yes when constructing the differences, 95% confidence intervals and p-value."||9.0|-14.2|0.675
84745841|NCT00189488|169245283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||2.5|-1.5|0.953
84669865|NCT02590939|169073207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84745842|NCT00189488|169245284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.0||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with opioid analgesic use, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||16.5|-12.5|0.797
84745843|NCT00189488|169245285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||1.8|-12.7|0.186
84745844|NCT00189488|169245286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-4.1||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-12.2|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||4.0|-12.2|0.219
84745845|NCT02349425|169245287|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-41.222||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.294|-15.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.127|-59.294|0.0055
84745846|NCT02349425|169245287|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-51.973||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.23|-27.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-27.397|-68.230|0.0008
84745847|NCT02349425|169245287|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-46.853||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.291|-16.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.206|-66.291|0.0075
84493474|NCT02163759|168737835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
84556845|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9283||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Shortness of Breath (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.9283
84556846|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swallowing (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.4715
84556847|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5105||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Numbness in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.5105
84556848|NCT00316914|168866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2181||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tingling in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.2181
84556849|NCT00676572|168866621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated p values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84556850|NCT00426660|168866784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||75th percentile (median)|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.0|178.0||||||||178.0|135.0|
84556851|NCT00426660|168866784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||50th percentile (median)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|92.0||||||||92.0|82.0|
84556852|NCT00426660|168866784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||25th percentile (median)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|62.0||||||||62.0|57.0|
84556853|NCT00980174|168866789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||5.6|4.0|<0.0001
84556854|NCT00980174|168866790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||2.6|1.5|<0.0001
84556855|NCT00980174|168866791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.0|1.3|<0.0001
84556856|NCT00980174|168866792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.2||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.2|1.4|<0.0001
84556857|NCT00980174|168866793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||1.6|0.2|0.0144
84556858|NCT00980174|168866794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|Van Elteren Rank Test|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score||||||<0.0001
84556859|NCT00337779|168866795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1013||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8799|1.309|||Regression, Poisson||980 subjects randomized into two arms provide approximately 90% power to detect significant difference between groups of 30% or more in rate of confirmed relapses.|||1.3090|0.8799|0.4859
84556860|NCT02943785|168866815|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.85|0.0141
84556861|NCT02943785|168866816|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||||1.91|1.03|0.9267
84745848|NCT02349425|169245287|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-57.067||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.375|-30.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.771|-73.375|0.0009
84556862|NCT03313310|168866829|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.98
84556863|NCT03313310|168866829|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.05
84556864|NCT03313310|168866830|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.39
84556865|NCT03313310|168866830|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.76
84556866|NCT03313310|168866831|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||<0.001
84556867|NCT03313310|168866831|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
84556868|NCT03313310|168866832|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.51
84556869|NCT03313310|168866832|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.17
84556870|NCT03313310|168866833|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
84556871|NCT03313310|168866833|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
84556872|NCT03313310|168866834|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556873|NCT03313310|168866834|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.50
84556874|NCT03313310|168866835|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.63
84669866|NCT02590939|169073208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
84669867|NCT02590939|169073209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84669868|NCT02590939|169073210|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84669869|NCT02590939|169073211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
84669870|NCT02590939|169073212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84669871|NCT02590939|169073213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
84556875|NCT03313310|168866835|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556876|NCT03313310|168866836|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556877|NCT03313310|168866836|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.25
84556878|NCT03313310|168866837|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84669872|NCT00323492|169073231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034||95.0|-0.86|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were applied.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.86|0.034
84669873|NCT00323492|169073232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.031||95.0|-0.67|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum text|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
84556879|NCT03313310|168866837|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556880|NCT03313310|168866838|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
84556881|NCT03313310|168866838|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
84556882|NCT03313310|168866840|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556883|NCT03313310|168866840|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556884|NCT03313310|168866841|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556885|NCT03313310|168866841|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.75
84556886|NCT03313310|168866842|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.55
84556887|NCT03313310|168866842|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84556888|NCT03313310|168866843|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.45
84556889|NCT03313310|168866843|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.07
84556890|NCT01593254|168866867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84556891|NCT01260584|168866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the sample size calculations for the co-primary endpoints, no Type 1 error rate was adjusted and both co-primary endpoints will be tested at the 0.05 level.||15.8|-0.4|0.0624
84556892|NCT01260584|168866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|38.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.4|25.1|<0.0001
84556893|NCT01260584|168866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-3.3|0.2440
84556894|NCT01260584|168866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|41.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.0|28.4|<0.0001
84556895|NCT01260584|168866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||35.2|18.8|<0.0001
84556896|NCT01260584|168866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.65||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.2|-61.1|0.0048
84669874|NCT00323492|169073233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.009||95.0|-0.18|-0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.02|-0.18|0.009
84556897|NCT01260584|168866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.7|-71.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.0|-116.7|<0.0001
84556898|NCT01260584|168866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-45.9|0.0924
84556899|NCT01260584|168866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.3|-87.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-87.3|-130.3|<0.0001
84556900|NCT01260584|168866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.8|-47.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-47.5|-97.8|<0.0001
84556901|NCT01260584|168866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-15.0|0.0423
84556902|NCT01260584|168866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-29.0|<0.0001
84556903|NCT01260584|168866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-13.1|0.1184
84556904|NCT01260584|168866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-30.5|<0.0001
84556905|NCT01260584|168866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-24.3|<0.0001
84556906|NCT01260584|168866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.32|0.80|0.1331
84556907|NCT01260584|168866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.65|0.17|0.5813
84556908|NCT01260584|168866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|148.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||148.23|1.85|0.0127
84556909|NCT01260584|168866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.11||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|93.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.65|3.13|0.0013
84556910|NCT01260584|168866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|0.49|0.5684
84556911|NCT01260584|168866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|42.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.92|1.05|0.0447
84556912|NCT01260584|168866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|505.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||505.58|6.80|0.0003
84556913|NCT01260584|168866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|46.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.52|2.95|0.0006
84556914|NCT01260584|168866901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.7|130.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||130.8|93.7|
84556915|NCT01260584|168866901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|140.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||active metabolite R-130964||140.4|99.8|
84556916|NCT01260584|168866902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|117.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||147.3|94.4|
84556917|NCT01260584|168866902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|123.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|155.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Clopidogrel active metabolite R-130964||155.4|98.6|
84556918|NCT01592292|168866963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3037||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor (RF) status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3037
84556919|NCT01592292|168866964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0951
84556920|NCT01592292|168866965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2390
84556921|NCT01592292|168866966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3212||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3212
84556922|NCT01592292|168866966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7097||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7097
84556923|NCT01592292|168866967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2444||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2444
84556924|NCT01592292|168866967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3903
84556925|NCT01592292|168866968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5306||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5306
84556926|NCT01592292|168866968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2542||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2542
84556927|NCT01592292|168866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2549
84556928|NCT01592292|168866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7644||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7644
84556929|NCT01592292|168866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8987||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
84556930|NCT01592292|168866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5808||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
84556931|NCT01592292|168866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2282||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2282
84556932|NCT01592292|168866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5849
84556933|NCT01592292|168866972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4900
84556934|NCT01592292|168866972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1826
84556935|NCT01592292|168866973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1894
84556936|NCT01592292|168866973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1805
84556937|NCT01592292|168866974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0568||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0568
84556938|NCT01592292|168866975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1167||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1167
84556939|NCT02240069|168867021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.24|0.10
84556940|NCT02240069|168867021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Filtration group relative to Placebo group||0.13|-0.11|0.90
84556941|NCT02240069|168867022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.07|-0.24|0.28
84556942|NCT02240069|168867022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.16|-0.14|0.89
84556943|NCT02240069|168867023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.00|-0.05|0.06
84556944|NCT02240069|168867023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.03|0.71
84556945|NCT02240069|168867024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||4.54|-11.45|0.39
84556946|NCT02240069|168867024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||8.24|-7.73|0.95
84556947|NCT02240069|168867025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||3.42|-5.42|0.65
84556948|NCT02240069|168867025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||3.81|-4.97|0.79
84556949|NCT02240069|168867026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|42.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Education group relative to Placebo group||42.0|-33.6|0.88
84745849|NCT02349425|169245288|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-14.691||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.307|12.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.493|-35.307|0.2542
84745850|NCT02349425|169245288|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-25.165||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.014|-3.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.4210|-42.014|0.0267
84556950|NCT02240069|168867026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Filter group relative to Placebo group||-27.8|-66.1|<0.001
84556951|NCT01362244|168867027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for NR||||0.003
84556952|NCT01362244|168867027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for LOCF||||0.016
84556953|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.64|||Regression, Logistic||Week 1|||3.64|0.15|0.710
84556954|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.87|||Regression, Logistic||Week 2|||6.87|0.29|0.674
84556955|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.49|||Regression, Logistic||Week 5|||4.49|0.20|0.942
84556956|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|18.96|||Regression, Logistic||Week 9|||18.96|0.80|0.091
84556957|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|62.33|||Regression, Logistic||Week 13|||62.33|2.18|0.004
84556958|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||Week 17|||13.90|0.54|0.224
84556959|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.69|||Regression, Logistic||Week 21|||30.69|1.11|0.037
84745851|NCT02349425|169245288|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-37.146||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.345|-7.3821|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-7.3821|-57.345|0.0198
84745852|NCT02349425|169245288|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-55.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.923|-30.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.797|-71.923|0.0006
84745853|NCT02349425|169245293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-31.2|0.003
84556960|NCT01362244|168867028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|27.44|||Regression, Logistic||Week 25|||27.44|0.99|0.051
84556961|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.19|-0.10|0.567
84556962|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.21|-0.10|0.495
84556963|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.28|-0.10|0.365
84556964|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.34|-0.01|0.058
84556965|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.43|-0.01|0.056
84556966|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.42|0.03|0.028
84556967|NCT01362244|168867045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.34|-0.02|0.077
84556968|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.22|-0.10|0.486
84556969|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.22|-0.08|0.384
84556970|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.26|-0.14|0.546
84556971|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.39|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.39|0.00|0.050
84556972|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.45|-0.01|0.061
84556973|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.51|0.05|0.016
84556974|NCT01362244|168867046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.40|-0.03|0.094
84556975|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|30.12|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||30.12|-19.91|0.686
84556976|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.55||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|43.5|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||43.50|-14.40|0.321
84556977|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|44.6|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||44.60|-26.79|0.622
84556978|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|57.22|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||57.22|-10.75|0.178
84556979|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|76.66|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||76.66|-0.33|0.052
84556980|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.72||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|76.02|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||76.02|1.41|0.042
84556981|NCT01362244|168867047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|54.02|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||54.02|-25.76|0.484
84556982|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|35.83|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||35.83|6.49|0.005
84556983|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|32.01|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||32.01|1.77|0.029
84556984|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|27.03|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||27.03|-12.64|0.472
84556985|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|48.23|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||48.23|7.19|0.009
84556986|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|34.59|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||34.59|-3.80|0.114
84556987|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.51||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|52.96|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||52.96|6.06|0.014
84745854|NCT02349425|169245293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-12.1|-36.7|<0.001
84745855|NCT02349425|169245293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.5|-49.0|0.005
84745856|NCT02349425|169245293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-14.7|-44.6|<0.001
84745857|NCT02349425|169245294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||7.2|-21.0|0.332
84556988|NCT01362244|168867049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|50.21|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||50.21|3.10|0.027
84556989|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.79|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 2|||0.79|-0.61|0.790
84556990|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.97|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 5|||1.97|0.30|0.008
84556991|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.64|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 9|||1.64|-0.05|0.066
84556992|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.67|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 13|||1.67|-0.21|0.127
84556993|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.46|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 17|||1.46|-0.69|0.481
84556994|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 21|||1.90|-0.61|0.308
84556995|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.88|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 25|||1.88|-0.46|0.233
84556996|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.02|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 2|||1.02|-0.45|0.444
84556997|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.12|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 5|||2.12|0.50|0.002
84556998|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.6|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 9|||1.60|-0.24|0.143
84493475|NCT02163759|168737836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.9|0.6356
84556999|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.65|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 13|||1.65|-0.42|0.240
84557000|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.35|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 17|||1.35|-0.98|0.750
84557001|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.91|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 21|||1.91|-0.64|0.324
84557002|NCT01362244|168867050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 25|||1.66|-0.77|0.468
84557003|NCT01362244|168867051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed effects model|-13.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-4.22|||ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-22.2|0.005
84557004|NCT01362244|168867052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.06|
84557005|NCT01362244|168867053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|12.68||||||||12.68|-1.33|
84557006|NCT02407054|168867069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3967|0.869||||||||0.8690|0.3967|
84557007|NCT02407054|168867070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4123|1.0294||||||||1.0294|0.4123|
84557008|NCT01650545|168867074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
84557009|NCT01663857|168867114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
84557010|NCT01663857|168867116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4686
84557011|NCT01172808|168867144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.291|0.181|<0.0001
84557012|NCT01172808|168867144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre , week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.253|0.142|<0.0001
84557013|NCT01172808|168867145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.244|0.126|<0.0001
84557014|NCT01172808|168867145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction.||0.211|0.092|<0.0001
84745858|NCT02349425|169245294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-23.3|0.008
84745859|NCT02349425|169245294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-15.7|-44.7|<0.001
84745860|NCT02349425|169245294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.0|-42.3|0.001
84557015|NCT01172808|168867146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.114|<0.0001
84557016|NCT01172808|168867146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model. Spatial power used as covariance structure. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||0.162|0.042|0.0008
84557017|NCT01172808|168867147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.189|0.062|0.0001
84557018|NCT01172808|168867147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.012|0.0200
84557019|NCT01172808|168867148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.278|0.171|<0.0001
84557020|NCT01172808|168867148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.249|0.141|<0.0001
84557021|NCT01172808|168867149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.100|<0.0001
84557022|NCT01172808|168867149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.049|0.0003
84605675|NCT00734071|168962836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.04||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||2.04|-1.38|0.703
84745861|NCT02349425|169245295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
84745862|NCT02349425|169245295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.4|-26.1|<0.001
84745863|NCT02349425|169245295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.8|-31.1|0.002
84745864|NCT02349425|169245295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.3|-31.8|<0.001
84745865|NCT02349425|169245296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.0|-12.3|0.315
84745866|NCT02349425|169245296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.7|-13.7|0.030
84745867|NCT02349425|169245296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.1|-27.4|<0.001
84745868|NCT02349425|169245296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.0|-26.3|<0.001
84745869|NCT02349425|169245297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.6|-8.6|0.169
84745870|NCT02349425|169245297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.6|-7.5|0.341
84745871|NCT02349425|169245297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-5.8|0.311
84493476|NCT02163759|168737836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.1|-1.0|0.1253
84493477|NCT02163759|168737837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
84557023|NCT01172808|168867150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.113|47.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||47.700|28.113|<0.0001
84557024|NCT01172808|168867150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.825|43.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||43.529|23.825|<0.0001
84557025|NCT01172808|168867151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.203|-0.057|0.2717
84557026|NCT01172808|168867151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.201|-0.061|0.2956
84557027|NCT01172808|168867152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.085|-0.318|0.0007
84605676|NCT00734071|168962837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.795|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.795|0.713|0.602
84745872|NCT02349425|169245297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.1|-8.6|0.128
84745873|NCT02349425|169245298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.9|-3.5|0.613
84557028|NCT01172808|168867152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.016|-0.250|0.0262
84557029|NCT01172808|168867153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.11||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||2.11|1.02|0.0377
84557030|NCT01172808|168867153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.54||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||2.54|1.22|0.0022
84745874|NCT02349425|169245298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||3.1|-4.3|.743
84745875|NCT02349425|169245298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.3|-4.1|0.589
84745876|NCT02349425|169245298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.9|-13.2|0.205
84557031|NCT01172808|168867154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.726|39.455|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||39.455|21.726|<0.0001
84557032|NCT01172808|168867154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.533|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.772|32.549|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||32.549|14.772|<0.0001
84557033|NCT01172808|168867155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|36.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||36.880|19.440|<0.0001
84557034|NCT01172808|168867155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.462|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.619|33.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.120|15.619|<0.0001
84493478|NCT02163759|168737837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
84493479|NCT02163759|168737838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|10.9||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|19.48||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||19.48|-0.08|0.0364
84493480|NCT02163759|168737838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-4.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|5.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||5.07|-14.10|0.3383
84493481|NCT02163759|168737839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|6.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.3||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||12.30|-3.33|0.0900
84557035|NCT01172808|168867156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.624|-1.740|0.3550
84745877|NCT02349425|169245299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.1|-1.4|0.0811
84745878|NCT02349425|169245299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0097
84557036|NCT01172808|168867156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||2.771|0.388|0.0094
84745879|NCT02349425|169245299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.6|-2.6|0.0025
84745880|NCT02349425|169245299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.8|0.0050
84745881|NCT02349425|169245300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.0|-1.4|0.0506
84557037|NCT01172808|168867157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.139|0.022|0.0069
84557038|NCT01172808|168867157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.006|0.0810
84557039|NCT01172808|168867158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.004|0.0363
84557040|NCT01172808|168867158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.100|-0.022|0.2077
84557041|NCT01172808|168867159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.436|0.2447
84557042|NCT01172808|168867159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.419|-0.131|0.3046
84557043|NCT01172808|168867160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.102|-0.011|0.1178
84745882|NCT02349425|169245300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0447
84745883|NCT02349425|169245300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.2|0.0026
84745884|NCT02349425|169245300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-2.2|0.0405
84557044|NCT01172808|168867160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.053|-0.061|0.8880
84557045|NCT01172808|168867161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
84557046|NCT01172808|168867161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
84557047|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.527||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (Gamma-GT) in log10 international units per liter (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\]12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.306|0.0211
84557048|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.092|1.065|<0.0001
84745885|NCT02349425|169245301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.80|1.88|<0.001
84745886|NCT02349425|169245301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.38|1.66|<0.001
84493482|NCT02163759|168737839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.6||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|3.78||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||3.78|-11.07|0.3217
84557049|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.403|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.403|1.061|0.0053
84557050|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.464||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.818|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.818|0.264|0.0079
84745887|NCT02349425|169245302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-23.2|0.096
84745888|NCT02349425|169245302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.3|-33.6|0.005
84745889|NCT02349425|169245302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.6|-40.7|<0.001
84745890|NCT02349425|169245302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-19.1|-48.4|<0.001
84745891|NCT02349425|169245303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||6.2|-19.1|0.311
84745892|NCT02349425|169245303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.9|-19.7|0.232
84745893|NCT02349425|169245303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-27.6|0.012
84745894|NCT02349425|169245303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-30.4|0.043
84745895|NCT00252733|169245317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.001|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.001|0.673|0.0508
84745896|NCT00717067|169245319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.17||||||90.0|92.16|181.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||181.04|92.16|
84745897|NCT00717067|169245319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.31||||||90.0|61.97|125.83|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||125.83|61.97|
84745898|NCT00717067|169245319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|322.23||||||90.0|171.97|603.78|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||603.78|171.97|
84745899|NCT00717067|169245320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|151.99||||||90.0|109.53|210.92|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||210.92|109.53|
84745900|NCT00717067|169245320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|115.95||||||90.0|82.23|163.5|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||163.50|82.23|
84745901|NCT00717067|169245321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.01||||||90.0|83.15|176.13|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||176.13|83.15|
84745902|NCT00717067|169245321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|70.9||||||90.0|47.83|105.1|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||105.10|47.83|
84745903|NCT00717067|169245321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|238.73||||||90.0|106.83|533.48|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||533.48|106.83|
84745904|NCT00717067|169245323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|323.91||||||90.0|174.32|601.88|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||601.88|174.32|
84745905|NCT00522873|169245370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0119|||||The number of women who had a biopsy classified as 'hyperplasia or worse' was divided by the number of women with an evaluable biopsy (i.e. classified as 'normal' after 1 year of treatment or as 'hyperplasia or worse' at any time during the study).|Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion of participants with hyperplasia or worse at EoS||0.0119|0.0000|
84745906|NCT00522873|169245371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.734||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.734|0.637|
84745907|NCT00522873|169245371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.684||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.684|0.496|
84745908|NCT00522873|169245372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.83||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.830|0.743|
84745909|NCT00522873|169245372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|0.904||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.904|0.756|
84745910|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of Interest is left anterior insula.||||0.2960
84745911|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior insula.||||0.3450
84745912|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.1192
84493483|NCT02163759|168737840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.8|-8.3|0.7919
84493484|NCT02163759|168737840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.8||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.0||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.0|-8.7|0.8327
84493485|NCT02748096|168737850|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the radiographic parameters .|t-test, 2 sided|This test applies to comparison between the two treatment arms and assesses all the radiographic parameters||The sample size was calculated from a previous study that used similar radiological assessments to compare OUKAs performed using conventional instrumentation and computer navigation. In this study, the standard deviation of the tibia varus/valgus angle for the control group was 3.6°. Assuming a minimum clinically important difference of 3°, the SMD would be 0.8. Hence with a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, a total sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) was required.||||<0.05
84493486|NCT02748096|168737851|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84493487|NCT02748096|168737852|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84493488|NCT00451191|168737855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Simon's optimal two-stage design|||Simon's optimal two-stage design was applied to determine whether there was sufficient activity at either of the two dose levels to warrant further investigation. Each patient was considered either a successful or failed response. The response rate or proportion of patients treated successfully was examined in two stages. At both stages, the two dose levels were compared to pre-determined critical cut-off values. Sample size was based on significance level α=0.05 and power 90%.||||<0.05
84493489|NCT01966458|168737883|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 6% was pre-specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|10.7|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = HeartWare® VAS incidence rate - Control incidence rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confident interval is used.|The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority test comparing HeartWare® VAS to Control.||10.7|-5.5|0.1444
84493490|NCT01966458|168737884|SUPERIORITY||Percent of Participants|19.2||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.6|23.3|||Exact Binomial Test||Two-sided exact binomial confidence interval used|The first secondary endpoint is the percent of participants with stroke/TIA at 12 months on the originally implanted device. It will be compared to 17.7%, which is the lower bound of a pre-defined margin of superiority based on the Endurance clinical trial.||23.3|15.6|0.7363
84493491|NCT01966458|168737885|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin on the difference in success proportions is 15%.|Difference in Percentages|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-1.1|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = Control success rate - HeartWare® VAS success rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confidence interval is used|||-1.1|-17.2|<0.0001
84493492|NCT01966458|168737885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0354|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0354
84557051|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.153|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.153|0.471|0.1808
84557052|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.082|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.095|1.069|<0.0001
84557053|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.676||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|0.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kilogram (kg). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.844|0.542|0.0005
84493493|NCT01458535|168737886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.157
84493494|NCT01458535|168737886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.999
84493495|NCT01458535|168737886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
84493496|NCT00463385|168737899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
84493497|NCT00463385|168737899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84493498|NCT00463385|168737899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84557054|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.573||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.838|0.392|0.0041
84745913|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.6639
84745914|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.8295
84745915|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.0078
84557055|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.142|1.048|<0.0001
84557056|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.945||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.013|31.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||31.359|2.013|0.0031
84557057|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.959|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for body mass index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.959|0.844|0.0012
84557058|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.885|0.433|0.0085
84557059|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.174|1.087|<0.0001
84557060|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.982|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.982|0.626|0.0341
84557061|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.575||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.986|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.986|0.335|0.0443
84745916|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.||||0.7153
84745917|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.8511
84557062|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.144|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.144|1.057|<0.0001
84557063|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.867||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|191.56|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||191.56|2.730|0.0039
84557064|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.968|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||0.968|0.628|0.0244
84557065|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.172|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.172|1.086|<0.0001
84745918|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.4228
84745919|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.0611
84745920|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9879||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.9879
84745921|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2065||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.2065
84745922|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1837||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.1837
84745923|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8195||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.8195
84745924|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.6420
84745925|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7475||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.7475
84557066|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.547||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.987|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.987|0.303|0.0453
84557067|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.133||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.712|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.712|0.025|0.0184
84557068|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in Weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.134|1.072|<0.0001
84557069|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.543||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.798|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.798|0.370|0.0019
84745926|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.9049
84557070|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.679|0.189|0.0017
84557071|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.114|1.047|<0.0001
84557072|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.162|1.029|0.0042
84745927|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.1830
84745928|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.5318
84493499|NCT04579666|168737939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the ranks of the CAFS score with treatment as a fixed effect, adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, time from symptom onset, baseline Log neurofilament light chain (NfL), and the randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and edaravone).||13.5|-19.5|0.7205
84557073|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.893|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.893|0.320|0.0168
84557074|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.501||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.864|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.864|0.291|0.0128
84557075|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.305|0.558|0.4634
84557076|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.725|39.722|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (Rapid Virological Response \[RVR\] vs No RVR/EVR \[Early Virological Response\]). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||39.722|9.725|<0.0001
84745929|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9588||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.9588
84745930|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7551||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7551
84745931|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7895||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7895
84745932|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.9494
84745933|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4482||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.4482
84745934|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.9343
84557077|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.408|16.658|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR \[Complete Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||16.658|4.408|<0.0001
84557078|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.519||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR \[Partial Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.034|1.260|0.0089
84557079|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.969|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.969|0.851|0.0037
84557080|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.805|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.805|0.379|0.0020
84557081|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.537||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|74.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||74.849|3.654|0.0003
84557082|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.386||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|22.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||22.114|0.870|0.0733
84557083|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.352||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|14.031|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.031|0.394|0.3478
84605677|NCT00734071|168962838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.07||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||3.07|-3.09|0.995
84745935|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7711||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.7711
84745936|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.4755
84745937|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.3982
84557084|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.552|0.0264
84557085|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.658||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|27.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||27.946|1.586|0.0096
84557086|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.734||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|21.203|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.203|1.057|0.0421
84557087|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.602||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.014|0.090|0.6004
84557088|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.715||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.988|0.517|0.0418
84745938|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4622||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4622
84745939|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4604||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4604
84745940|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2485||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.2485
84745941|NCT00657020|169245373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.1931
84745942|NCT00657020|169245374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4535||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.4535
84745943|NCT00657020|169245374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1811
84557089|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.839|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.839|0.047|0.0279
84557090|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.474|223.61|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||223.61|7.474|<0.0001
84557091|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.724|206.02|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||206.02|8.724|<0.0001
84557092|NCT01066793|168867172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.247||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|39.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||39.908|1.704|0.0087
84557093|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.770|1.383|0.0002
84557094|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.337||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.661|6.705|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.705|1.661|0.0007
84557095|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.312|0.737|0.3611
84557096|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.958|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.958|0.929|<0.0001
84605678|NCT00734071|168962839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.83||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||6.83|-4.79|0.731
84605679|NCT03654885|168962858|NON_INFERIORITY|By assuming the margin of non-inferiority at 24%, the null hypothesis for this non-inferiority testing was to be set up as XEN implanted group (P1)-Trabeculectomy group (P2) ≤-0.24 versus the alternative hypothesis as P1-P2 \>-0.24. Equivalently, non-inferiority of P1 to P2 was to be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the above endpoint between the two treatment groups computed using normal approximation was found to be greater than -24%.|Percentage Difference|-6.1||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.8|-22.9|0.487
84745944|NCT00657020|169245375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.6261
84557097|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.897|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.897|0.615|0.0020
84557098|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.864||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.628|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.628|1.322|0.0004
84557099|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.124||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.338|1.040|0.0386
84557100|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.398||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.722|6.706|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.706|1.722|0.0004
84745945|NCT00657020|169245375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0106
84745946|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.5544
84493500|NCT04579666|168737944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.2|||MMRM|||The mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||2.2|-3.5|0.6447
84493501|NCT04579666|168737945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.6||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||1.2|-14.3|0.0949
84745947|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6716||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.6716
84493502|NCT04579666|168737946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||0.03|-0.42|0.0935
84493503|NCT04579666|168737948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.5||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.1|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||11.1|1.8|0.0069
84493504|NCT00401726|168737995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.25||||0.218|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.218
84493505|NCT00401726|168737996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.76||95.0|-0.92|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.92|0.76
84493506|NCT00401726|168737997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.148||95.0|-0.41|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.41|0.148
84493507|NCT00401726|168737998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.829||95.0|-1.09|0.87|||ANCOVA|||||0.87|-1.09|0.829
84493508|NCT00401726|168737999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
84493509|NCT00401726|168738000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.805||95.0|-2.24|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-2.24|0.805
84493510|NCT00401726|168738001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.27|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-2.27|0.123
84493511|NCT00401726|168738002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value based on comparison of mean score differences||CGI-I raw scores (range 1-7) analyzed by generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by study center using the ridit scoring option.||||0.961
84557101|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|2.428|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.428|0.776|0.2769
84493512|NCT02067728|168738004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0029
84493513|NCT02067728|168738005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3875
84493514|NCT02067728|168738006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84493515|NCT02067728|168738007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84493516|NCT02067728|168738008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84493517|NCT02067728|168738009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.9|||Chi-squared|||||4.9|2.2|<0.0001
84493518|NCT02067728|168738010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|2.0|<0.0001
84493519|NCT02067728|168738013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4835
84493520|NCT02067728|168738014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5880
84557102|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.960|0.931|<0.0001
84745948|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7511
84745949|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7959
84745950|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6418||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.6418
84745951|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2205||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.2205
84745952|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5135||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.5135
84745953|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9781||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.9781
84745954|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.3755
84745955|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.2612
84745956|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8486||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8486
84745957|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8318
84745958|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7554||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.7554
84745959|NCT00657020|169245376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5421||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.5421
84745960|NCT00657020|169245377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1963||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1963
84745961|NCT00657020|169245377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0959
84745962|NCT00657020|169245378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.5400
84493521|NCT00694070|168738018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 80%, with n=51, critical number is 38. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 87.43%."||||||0.0421|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0421
84605680|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.074|-3.538||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Day 1||-3.538|-8.074|<0.001
84745963|NCT00657020|169245378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1800
84745964|NCT00370331|169245401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2|||<|0.001||99.0|3.59|18.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||||18.73|3.59|<0.001
84745965|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.926||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.074|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a last-observation carried-forward (LOCF) method for missing observations.||1.074|0.799|0.1973
84605681|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.503|2.066||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 1||2.066|-2.503|0.851
84605682|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|4.309||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 2||4.309|-0.253|0.081
84745966|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.949||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.101|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.101|0.818|0.2808
84745967|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.878||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.017|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.017|0.758|0.0723
84745968|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.787||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.912|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.912|0.68|0.0039
84745969|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.755||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|0.875|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.875|0.651|0.0009
84745970|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.671|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|0.772|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.772|0.584|< 0.0001
84745971|NCT01874431|169245411|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.542|0.718|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.718|0.542|< 0.0001
84745972|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.107||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|0.003|0.0428
84745973|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.121||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.225|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.225|0.017|0.0223
84745974|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.305|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.305|0.096|0.0002
84745975|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.125||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.229|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.229|0.021|0.0181
84745976|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.166||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.061|0.0019
84745977|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.334|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.334|0.137|< 0.0001
84745978|NCT01874431|169245412|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.186||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.284|0.088|0.0002
84493522|NCT00694070|168738019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 95%, with n=51, critical number is 47. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 88.96%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
84493523|NCT00694070|168738020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 90%, with n=51, critical number is 43. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 93.57%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
84493524|NCT04246593|168738100|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites. In order to further explore the intervention effect, we fit GLMMs that adjust for (1) baseline dietary intake and (2) race and baseline income.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between the user and non-user groups.|GLMM|||||||0.84
84493525|NCT04246593|168738101|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between change in BMI for intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.61
84493526|NCT04246593|168738102|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.31||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference in change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.53
84493527|NCT04246593|168738103|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value applies to the mean difference in mean self-efficacy change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.75
84493528|NCT04246593|168738104|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value applies to the mean difference in mean total barriers score change between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.63
84557103|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.163||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.256|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.256|1.078|0.0001
84557104|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.091|2.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.932|1.091|0.0213
84557105|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.856|0.0002
84557106|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.538|0.0306
84493529|NCT00620191|168738106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
84493530|NCT00620191|168738106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog value|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
84493531|NCT00620191|168738107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.06
84493532|NCT00620191|168738107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog score.|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
84493533|NCT00620191|168738108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.36
84493534|NCT00620191|168738109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
84493535|NCT00674440|168738130|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|98.5||||||||98.5|80.9|
84493536|NCT00674440|168738130|OTHER||Specifity|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||||||||95.6|76.6|
84745979|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.786||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|1.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.765|-3.337|0.5454
84745980|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.61||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.177|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.957|-4.177|0.2186
84745981|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.918||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.667|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.667|-3.503|0.4859
84745982|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.8||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|0.759|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.759|-4.358|0.1677
84745983|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.613||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.183|-0.044|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.044|-5.183|0.0462
84745984|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.228||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|0.187|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.187|-4.643|0.0705
84745985|NCT01874431|169245413|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.446||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|-0.022|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.022|-4.869|0.048
84493537|NCT04604015|168738140|OTHER||absolute difference|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.2|||McNemar|||The study was powered based on the results of a meta-analysis reporting the pooled NeuralBot (TCD) sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection, and the pooled TTE sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection.||50.2|32.9|<0.001
84557107|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.061|0.0005
84557108|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.151|0.0122
84557109|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|5.424|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.424|0.872|0.0956
84557110|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.267||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.197|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.197|0.060|0.0846
84557111|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|0.945|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.945|0.852|<0.0001
84557112|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
84557113|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
84557114|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
84745986|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.863||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.022|0.297|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.297|-6.022|0.0757
84745987|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.643||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|2.565|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.565|-3.851|0.6941
84745988|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.976||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.155|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.203|-5.155|0.2228
84745989|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.932||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.098|1.234|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.234|-5.098|0.2313
84745990|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.342||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.509|-0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.176|-6.509|0.0386
84745991|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.634||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.624|2.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.355|-3.624|0.677
84745992|NCT01874431|169245414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.688||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.699|2.322|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.322|-3.699|0.6536
84745993|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.044||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.471|0.383|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.383|-6.471|0.0816
84745994|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.537||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|2.953|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.953|-4.027|0.7625
84745995|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.301|||=|0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.759|2.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.157|-4.759|= 0.4603
84745996|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.574||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.004|1.855|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.855|-5.004|0.3678
84745997|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.727||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.191|1.736|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.736|-5.191|0.3279
84745998|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.682||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.935|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-4.935|0.3102
84745999|NCT01874431|169245415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.511||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.778|0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.755|-5.778|0.1317
84493538|NCT02129192|168738143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|103.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.17|88.89|
84493539|NCT02129192|168738143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|103.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.13|99.70|
84493540|NCT02129192|168738143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|105.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||105.19|98.46|
84493541|NCT02129192|168738144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|30.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.99|36.38|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||36.38|24.99|1.0000
84493542|NCT02129192|168738144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|101.97|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||101.97|94.63|<0.0001
84493543|NCT02129192|168738144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|79.69||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.97|84.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||84.71|74.97|0.5422
84493544|NCT02129192|168738145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|102.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||102.38|96.14|
84493545|NCT02129192|168738145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.43||||||90.0|99.84|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.04|99.84|
84557115|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
84557116|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
84557117|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
84557118|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
84557119|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
84605683|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.157||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|4.484||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 1||4.484|-0.059|0.056
84557120|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
84493546|NCT02129192|168738145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|102.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.40|98.29|
84493547|NCT02129192|168738146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|63.66||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.98|68.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||68.71|58.98|1.0000
84557121|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
84557122|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.541|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.541|1.041|0.0182
84557123|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.254|1.122|0.0092
84557124|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|5.942|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.942|1.488|0.0020
84669875|NCT00323492|169073234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wicoxon Rank Sum test|no adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.27|-1.01|< 0.001
84557125|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.035|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.035|0.641|0.6524
84557126|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.311|0.037|<0.0001
84557127|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.389||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.156|0.0429
84669876|NCT00323492|169073235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|-0.44|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.19|-0.44|0.51
84669877|NCT00323492|169073236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.79||95.0|-0.03|0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.02|-0.03|0.79
84669878|NCT00323492|169073237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.86
84669879|NCT00323492|169073239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.65
84746000|NCT02937454|169245424|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.01|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.01|0.62|0.059
84746001|NCT02937454|169245424|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.96|0.59|0.024
84746002|NCT02937454|169245425|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.0|0.64|0.050
84746003|NCT02937454|169245425|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.97|0.62|0.024
84493548|NCT02129192|168738146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.48|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.48|97.08|<0.0001
84493549|NCT02129192|168738146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|93.7|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.70|85.80|0.0001
84493550|NCT02129192|168738147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.04|96.32|
84557128|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.380|0.523|0.5490
84557129|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.224|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.224|1.054|0.0008
84669880|NCT00323492|169073240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.11
84669881|NCT00323492|169073240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.34
84669882|NCT00323492|169073241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response. Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response||||1.00
84669883|NCT02486042|169073244|OTHER|T-test for equality in means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.22
84669884|NCT02486042|169073244|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.15
84669885|NCT02486042|169073244|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.78
84669886|NCT02486042|169073248|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.43
84669887|NCT02486042|169073248|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.44
84669888|NCT02486042|169073248|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.50
84746004|NCT02937454|169245426|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.58|0.013
84746005|NCT02937454|169245426|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.90|0.55|0.005
84746006|NCT02937454|169245427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.32|0.70|0.809
84493551|NCT02129192|168738147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.59|102.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||102.87|99.59|
84493552|NCT02129192|168738147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|102.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.10|98.23|
84493553|NCT02129192|168738148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|64.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.59|69.59|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||69.59|59.59|1.0000
84493554|NCT02129192|168738148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.69|102.29|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.29|96.69|<0.0001
84493555|NCT02129192|168738148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.02|93.79|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.79|86.02|<0.0001
84493556|NCT04557189|168738176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.452|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.452|0.031|
84493557|NCT04557189|168738177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|0.394|-0.044|
84493558|NCT04557189|168738178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.059|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.059|-0.253|
84493559|NCT04557189|168738179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.141|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.033|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.033|-0.316|
84493560|NCT04557189|168738180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.41|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.410|-0.029|
84557130|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|3.037|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.037|1.133|0.0140
84493561|NCT04557189|168738181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
84493562|NCT04557189|168738182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|-0.019|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||-0.019|-0.448|
84493563|NCT04557189|168738183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.393|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.259|||||The hazard ratio is derived from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group and the number of Apfel risk factors (3 or 4) as independent variables.|||1.259|0.122|
84493564|NCT04557189|168738184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.777||||||30 Minutes Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.777|-0.402|
84493565|NCT04557189|168738184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|1.059||||||1 Hour Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|1.059|-0.258|
84557131|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.126||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.068|0.015|0.0575
84746007|NCT02937454|169245427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||1.29|0.68|0.687
84746008|NCT02937454|169245428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.98|0.66|0.030
84557132|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|6.025|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.025|0.072|0.7128
84557133|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.040|0.5960
84557134|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.311|1.270|0.0033
84557135|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.113||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.002|0.0452
84557136|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.551|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.551|0.043|0.0040
84557137|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.393||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|1.131|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||1.131|0.137|0.0833
84557138|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.951|0.010|0.1439
84557139|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|5.194|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.194|0.024|0.4457
84557140|NCT01066793|168867186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.142||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.801|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||45.801|0.100|0.6258
84557141|NCT02667587|168867245|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||||1.25|0.90|
84557142|NCT02667587|168867246|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|96.39|0.87|1.43|||Log Rank|||All Randomized No Baseline Corticosteroids Participants||1.43|0.87|0.3402
84669889|NCT02486042|169073249|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
84669890|NCT02486042|169073249|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
84557143|NCT02667587|168867246|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||All Randomized Participants||1.33|0.91|
84557144|NCT02667587|168867250|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4||||||||1.40|0.99|
84557145|NCT02667587|168867251|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.89|
84557146|NCT00388297|168867257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-3|0.71
84557147|NCT00388297|168867257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-4|0.30
84557148|NCT00388297|168867258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84557149|NCT00388297|168867258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84557150|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 34 weeks||||0.81
84557151|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<34 weeks||||0.47
84557152|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<37 weeks||||0.44
84557153|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 37 weeks||||0.11
84557154|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||3|0|0.31
84557155|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||3|0|0.30
84746009|NCT02937454|169245428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.97|0.65|0.023
84746010|NCT02937454|169245429|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.97|0.47|0.035
84746011|NCT02937454|169245429|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.88|0.42|0.009
84746012|NCT02937454|169245430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.92|0.59|0.006
84746013|NCT02937454|169245431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.63|0.009
84746014|NCT02937454|169245432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.31|0.75|0.944
84746015|NCT02937454|169245433|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.39|||Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE)|The following variables are included in the GEE model: treatment, visit, baseline NYHA class, sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.39|0.93|0.196
84746016|NCT02937454|169245434|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.208
84557156|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.89
84557157|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (12 months)||3|0|0.54
84557158|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|-3|0.92
84557159|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.70
84557160|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||0|-3|0.20
84493566|NCT04557189|168738184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.786||||||2 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.786|0|
84557161|NCT00388297|168867259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||2|-3|0.71
84557162|NCT00388297|168867260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.89
84557163|NCT00388297|168867260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.48
84557164|NCT00388297|168867261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3|-2|0.90
84557165|NCT00388297|168867261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.64
84557166|NCT00388297|168867262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||7|-5|0.60
84557167|NCT00388297|168867262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||0|-8|0.22
84557168|NCT00388297|168867262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-6|0.52
84557169|NCT00388297|168867262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-4|0.91
84557170|NCT00388297|168867263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.63
84557171|NCT00388297|168867263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Motor (12 mo)||3|0|0.83
84557172|NCT00388297|168867263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|0|0.48
84557173|NCT00388297|168867263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.59
84557174|NCT00388297|168867264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.99
84746017|NCT02937454|169245434|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.408
84746018|NCT02937454|169245434|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.999
84746019|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 2||||0.227
84746020|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 4||||0.018
84746021|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.005
84746022|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 12||||0.006
84746023|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.028
84557175|NCT00388297|168867264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||2|-2|0.96
84557176|NCT00388297|168867264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.65
84746024|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 36||||0.136
84746025|NCT02937454|169245435|OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.329
84493567|NCT04557189|168738184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.286||||||6 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.286|-0.093|
84493568|NCT04557189|168738184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|-0.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.17||||||24 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.170|-0.575|
84493569|NCT04557189|168738185|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
84493570|NCT00656669|168738376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of sunitinib monotherapy||From Taghian et al., we used a mean IFP of 6.5 at baseline and a standard deviation of 6.1. We would like to detect a 50% reduction of IFP (to 3.25 mmHg) with sunitinib monotherapy, so the effect size would be 3.25/6.1=0.53. A two-sided paired t-test has 80% power to detect an effect size of .53 and level of significance .05 when the sample size is 30 patients.||||0.0001
84493571|NCT00656669|168738377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7963||||||a priori threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of paxlitaxel+sunitinib treatment||||||0.7963
84746026|NCT01014143|169245486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84746027|NCT00523640|169245524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion responding|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44||||||||0.44|0.10|
84493572|NCT00066573|168738442|SUPERIORITY|To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 between exemestane and anastrozole (ie, an improvement in 5-year EFS from 87.5% to 89.9%, with a two-sided 5% level test and 80% power, 6,840 patients and 630 events were needed for final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.87|0.85
84493573|NCT00066573|168738443|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation for secondary analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.77|0.46
84493574|NCT02646566|168738472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.003) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.003
84557177|NCT00388297|168867264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||1|-3|0.44
84493575|NCT02646566|168738472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.109) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.109
84557178|NCT00388297|168867265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-1|0.37
84746028|NCT00652327|169245527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.0026
84746029|NCT02081417|169245554|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the PCL-C if the interventions fell within 2.5 points of each other|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-3.4|0.01
84557179|NCT00388297|168867265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-2|0.98
84557180|NCT00388297|168867266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84557181|NCT00388297|168867266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84557182|NCT00388297|168867267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84557183|NCT00388297|168867267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84557184|NCT00388297|168867268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84557185|NCT00388297|168867268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84557186|NCT00388297|168867269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84557187|NCT00388297|168867269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84557188|NCT00388297|168867270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84746030|NCT01451827|169245601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0127
84746031|NCT01451827|169245601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.95|0.0108
84746032|NCT01451827|169245601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0155
84746033|NCT01451827|169245601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.99||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.01|0.97|0.2417
84746034|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||0.99|0.31|0.0002
84746035|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.08|0.40|< 0.0001
84746036|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.25|0.58|< 0.0001
84493576|NCT02646566|168738473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84557189|NCT00388297|168867270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
84746037|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.30|0.0004
84746038|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.29|0.0004
84746039|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.34|0.63|< 0.0001
84746040|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.30|0.42|0.0002
84746041|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.51|0.63|< 0.0001
84746042|NCT01451827|169245602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.66|0.80|< 0.0001
84746043|NCT01451827|169245603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.94|0.0209
84493577|NCT02646566|168738473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.059
84746044|NCT01451827|169245603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0287
84557190|NCT00388297|168867271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84746045|NCT01451827|169245603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0298
84746046|NCT01451827|169245603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.01|0.94|0.2306
84746047|NCT01856868|169245604|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
84746048|NCT01856868|169245605|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0185
84746049|NCT01856868|169245606|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
84746050|NCT01856868|169245607|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
84746051|NCT01856868|169245608|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
84746052|NCT01856868|169245609|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0082
84746053|NCT01856868|169245610|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84557191|NCT00388297|168867271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84557192|NCT00388297|168867272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
84557193|NCT00388297|168867272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84557194|NCT00388297|168867273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar at 1 min \< 4||||0.76
84557195|NCT00388297|168867273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \> 4 at 1 minute||||0.76
84557196|NCT00388297|168867273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.69
84557197|NCT00388297|168867273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.45
84557198|NCT00388297|168867274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84493578|NCT02646566|168738474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84493579|NCT02646566|168738474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.053
84493580|NCT02646566|168738475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84493581|NCT02646566|168738475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.021
84557199|NCT00388297|168867274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
84746054|NCT01856868|169245611|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
84557200|NCT00388297|168867275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84557201|NCT00388297|168867275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84605684|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.416|7.054||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 3||7.054|2.416|<0.001
84493582|NCT02646566|168738476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
84493583|NCT02646566|168738476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.084
84493584|NCT02646566|168738477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84493585|NCT02646566|168738477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84493586|NCT02646566|168738478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84493587|NCT02646566|168738478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
84493588|NCT02646566|168738479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84493589|NCT02646566|168738479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
84493590|NCT02646566|168738480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.065
84493591|NCT02646566|168738480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.520
84493592|NCT02646566|168738481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84493593|NCT02646566|168738481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
84493594|NCT02646566|168738482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84493595|NCT02646566|168738482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
84493596|NCT00830310|168738485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
84493597|NCT00830310|168738486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
84493598|NCT00830310|168738487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
84493599|NCT00830310|168738488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
84493600|NCT00830310|168738489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
84493601|NCT00830310|168738490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.011
84493602|NCT00830310|168738491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.038
84493603|NCT00830310|168738492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
84493604|NCT00830310|168738493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
84493605|NCT01050998|168738494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95 percent (%) unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-11.5|0.578
84493606|NCT01050998|168738494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|46.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.3|13.4|<0.001
84557202|NCT00388297|168867276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84557203|NCT00388297|168867276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84557204|NCT00388297|168867277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84557205|NCT00388297|168867277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
84557206|NCT00388297|168867278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84557207|NCT00388297|168867279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84557208|NCT00388297|168867279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84557209|NCT00388297|168867280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84557210|NCT00388297|168867280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84557211|NCT00388297|168867281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84557212|NCT00388297|168867281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84557213|NCT00388297|168867282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84557214|NCT00388297|168867282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84746055|NCT01856868|169245612|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0321
84746056|NCT01856868|169245613|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0182
84557215|NCT01642485|168867289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The effect of insulin, C-peptide and glucose on QTcF was investigated using linear mixed effect concentration-response models with the double difference of QTcF (difference to time matched placebo of the change from average baseline) as dependent variable and up to two of the variables change from time matched placebo in insulin, C-peptide and glucose as covariates.||||0.05
84557216|NCT01642485|168867290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The relevant confirmatory null hypotheses could all be rejected on the 5% level (one sided), i.e. a difference in QTcF between continental breakfast and placebo; between FDA breakfast and placebo could be ascertained.||||0.05
84557217|NCT01642485|168867290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-10.4|
84557218|NCT01642485|168867290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-4.3||||||||-4.3|-9.3|
84557219|NCT00956631|168867326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used throughout. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||4.13|2.29|<0.0001
84557220|NCT00956631|168867327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|22.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||22.83|12.33|<0.0001
84557221|NCT03114657|168867354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||||||||2.60|0.00|
84557222|NCT03114657|168867355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.89||||||||5.89|-2.40|
84557223|NCT03114657|168867356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|4.68||||||||4.68|-4.03|
84557224|NCT03114657|168867357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.20|
84557225|NCT03114657|168867358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.6||||||||1.60|-2.42|
84557226|NCT03114657|168867359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.7||||||||3.70|-8.74|
84605685|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|5.358||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 6||5.358|0.657|0.012
84605686|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.182|5.883||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 9||5.883|1.182|0.003
84746057|NCT01856868|169245614|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0371
84557227|NCT03114657|168867360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.501|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.92||||||||3.92|-6.29|
84669891|NCT02486042|169073249|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.01
84746058|NCT01856868|169245615|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0257
84557228|NCT03114657|168867361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.51||||||||3.51|-2.25|
84557229|NCT03114657|168867363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.23||||||||0.23|-1.75|
84557230|NCT03114657|168867364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.39||||||||2.39|-3.30|
84557231|NCT03114657|168867365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|17.44||||||||17.44|-4.35|
84557232|NCT03114657|168867366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.831|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|11.71||||||||11.71|-12.31|
84557233|NCT03114657|168867367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|4.73||||||||4.73|-11.50|
84557234|NCT03114657|168867373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.01|
84557235|NCT03114657|168867374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||||||||4.90|-1.70|
84557236|NCT03114657|168867375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.13|
84557237|NCT01546038|168867383|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.441|0.734||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by prognosis stratum according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||0.734|0.441|0.0020
84557238|NCT01546038|168867387|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2755||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3057|13.9994|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||13.9994|1.3057|0.0112
84557239|NCT04245202|168867453|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84557240|NCT04245202|168867454|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84557241|NCT04245202|168867455|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84557242|NCT04245202|168867456|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-1.05||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||-1.05|-23.53|<0.001
84746059|NCT01856868|169245618|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height and weight using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84746060|NCT01856868|169245619|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84493607|NCT01050998|168738494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|32.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.2|-1.6|0.099
84493608|NCT01050998|168738494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|50.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||50.6|17.8|<0.001
84493609|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|-11.9|0.543
84493610|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||43.6|7.2|0.011
84493611|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|35.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.5|-2.5|0.108
84557243|NCT04245202|168867457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.||-3.28|-22.05|<0.001
84605687|NCT03654885|168962860|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 12||5.183|0.358|0.024
84493612|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|32.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|49.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||49.0|12.5|0.001
84493613|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
84493614|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
84493615|NCT01050998|168738495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|46.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.9|-24.3|0.661
84493616|NCT01050998|168738496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||30.3|-4.2|0.152
84493617|NCT01050998|168738496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.3|7.0|0.008
84557244|NCT04245202|168867458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.86||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||0.86|-8.68|<0.001
84493618|NCT01050998|168738496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|3.9|0.020
84493619|NCT01050998|168738496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|45.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||45.0|11.3|0.002
84493620|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|29.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.4|-9.3|0.328
84493621|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|35.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.6|-2.0|0.084
84746061|NCT01856868|169245621|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
84746062|NCT01445301|169245633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-15.0|<0.001
84493622|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||38.2|0.7|0.049
84493623|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|40.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.7|3.2|0.030
84493624|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|60.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||60.7|-9.3|0.188
84493625|NCT01050998|168738497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|57.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|81.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||81.8|15.2|0.010
84493626|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.10|-0.71|0.137
84493627|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.27|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.27|-1.07|0.001
84493628|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.04|-0.75|0.080
84493629|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.33|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.33|-1.14|<0.001
84746063|NCT01445301|169245633|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.9|<0.001
84493630|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.08|-0.76|0.107
84493631|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.35|-1.17|<0.001
84493632|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.01|-0.83|0.046
84493633|NCT01050998|168738518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.38|-1.22|<0.001
84493634|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.85|0.086
84493635|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.10|-0.99|0.016
84669892|NCT00566150|169073251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.29
84669893|NCT00566150|169073252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.07
84669894|NCT00566150|169073253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for significance between groups.||Week 6||||.038
84669895|NCT00566150|169073254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups.||||0.79
84669896|NCT01527682|169073260|OTHER||Proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|89.4|||||||The statistical analysis was performed according to study design. Using a Fleming single stage design (A'Hern approach) setting the probability of erroneously concluding that the responders rate is greater than 35% at 5% (one-sided alpha=0.05) and the probability of correctly concluding that the responders rate is at least 50% at 80% (beta error = 0.20), the minimum number of responder eyes was set at 31 out of 68, since this result is associated with a lower limit of the 90% exact confidence interval of 35.2%.|89.4|64.1|
84669897|NCT03979638|169073263|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-10.8||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||4.0|-23.5|0.1424
84669898|NCT03979638|169073263|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-6.1||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||11.2|-20.8|0.4602
84669899|NCT03979638|169073263|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-7.8||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.5|-24.4|0.4181
84557245|NCT04245202|168867459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.||1.78|-6.62|0.003
84746064|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.5|-4.4|<0.001
84557246|NCT04245202|168867460|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.002
84557247|NCT04245202|168867461|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.001
84557248|NCT04245202|168867463|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84557249|NCT04245202|168867464|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84557250|NCT04245202|168867465|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84557251|NCT04245202|168867466|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84557252|NCT04245202|168867467|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84557253|NCT04245202|168867468|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84557254|NCT00424021|168867486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|17.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||17.3|-8.3|
84669900|NCT03979638|169073263|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-16.7||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||2.6|-32.3|0.0855
84557255|NCT00424021|168867487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|9.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||9.7|-30.3|
84557256|NCT00424021|168867488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|83.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|18.0||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||18.0|-27.4|
84557257|NCT00424021|168867489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|7.1||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||7.1|-34.9|
84557258|NCT00424021|168867491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.57||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.57|-0.15|
84669901|NCT03979638|169073264|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-20.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-9.5|-29.9|0.0010
84669902|NCT03979638|169073264|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-17.7||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.3|-29.9|0.0186
84557259|NCT00424021|168867492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.92||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.92|0.01|
84557260|NCT00424021|168867493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.02|-0.02|
84557261|NCT00424021|168867494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.721|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.93||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.93|-0.01|
84557262|NCT00424021|168867501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.7|-5.9|
84746065|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||0.4|-4.0|0.113
84557263|NCT00424021|168867502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||-0.3|-14.4|
84557264|NCT00424021|168867503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.8||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.8|-12.0|
84557265|NCT00424021|168867504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.6||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.6|-8.4|
84557266|NCT00904839|168867518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|11.5|||Kaplan-Meier||Difference in Kaplan-Meier Progression-free Survival Rates at 9 Months using Peto´s variance estimate.|||11.5|-27.8|
84557267|NCT00904839|168867523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.2|||Kaplan-Meier||confidence interval includes 0, meaning that the null hypothesis (no difference between the 2 groups) cannot be rejected (i.e. pvalue \> 0.05). The pvalue was not computed. Difference in Kaplan-Meier Resection Rates using Peto´s variance estimate.|||5.2|-15.3|
84557268|NCT00553358|168867573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|-4.85||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.6|8.16|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1500 mg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm1 (Lapatinib 1500 mg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg).|||8.16|-17.6|0.3416
84557269|NCT00553358|168867573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|21.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.08|34.23|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm3 (Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg)|||34.23|9.08|0.0001
84557270|NCT00553358|168867581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.57|0.548
84557271|NCT00553358|168867581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.52|0.66|0.981
84557272|NCT00553358|168867583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.46|0.379
84557273|NCT00553358|168867583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.60|0.58|0.880
84557274|NCT00553358|168867584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.00079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the EFS landmark analysis||0.73|0.31|0.00079
84557275|NCT00553358|168867584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.71|0.16|0.004
84746066|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||0.3|-4.2|0.084
84557276|NCT00553358|168867584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.532||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.16|0.21|0.134
84557277|NCT00553358|168867584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.20|0.28|0.163
84557278|NCT00553358|168867586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.366||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the OS landmark analysis||0.63|0.20|0.00041
84557279|NCT00553358|168867586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.58|0.07|0.002
84557280|NCT00553358|168867586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.17|0.12|0.125
84557281|NCT00553358|168867586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.00|0.15|0.058
84557282|NCT00076999|168867641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
84557283|NCT00076999|168867641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.78
84746067|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.3|-5.1|0.026
84557284|NCT00076999|168867642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
84557285|NCT00076999|168867642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557286|NCT00076999|168867643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
84557287|NCT00076999|168867643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557288|NCT00076999|168867644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
84557289|NCT00076999|168867644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557290|NCT00076999|168867645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.01
84557291|NCT00076999|168867645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557292|NCT00076999|168867646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.06
84557293|NCT00076999|168867646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557294|NCT00076999|168867647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.60
84557295|NCT00076999|168867647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557296|NCT00076999|168867648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.20
84557297|NCT00076999|168867648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557298|NCT00076999|168867649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.18
84557299|NCT00076999|168867649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
84557300|NCT00076999|168867651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
84557301|NCT00076999|168867651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.47
84557302|NCT00076999|168867652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
84557303|NCT00076999|168867652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.81
84557304|NCT00076999|168867653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
84557305|NCT00076999|168867653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.69
84557306|NCT00076999|168867655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.64
84557307|NCT00076999|168867655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.26
84557308|NCT00076999|168867656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.25
84557309|NCT00076999|168867656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.70
84557310|NCT00076999|168867657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.73
84557311|NCT00076999|168867657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.79
84557312|NCT00076999|168867659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.38
84557313|NCT00076999|168867659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.20
84557314|NCT00076999|168867660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.08
84557315|NCT00076999|168867660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.36
84557316|NCT00076999|168867661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.23
84557317|NCT00076999|168867661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.23
84557318|NCT04964986|168867669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.041
84557319|NCT04964986|168867671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.001
84557320|NCT04964986|168867671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
84557321|NCT04964986|168867675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.002
84557322|NCT04964986|168867675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
84557323|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 4||||0.294
84605688|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Day 1||0.18|-0.36|0.505
84669903|NCT03979638|169073264|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-19.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-1.9|-33.9|0.0320
84669904|NCT03979638|169073264|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-27.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-10.8|-40.3|0.0026
84493636|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.02|-0.87|0.059
84493637|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
84669905|NCT03979638|169073265|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-14.5|-39.5|0.0005
84669906|NCT03979638|169073265|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.0|-39.7|0.0003
84746068|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-0.3|-5.0|0.030
84557324|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 48||||0.155
84557325|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 4||||0.260
84557326|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 48||||0.024
84557327|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 4||||0.096
84557328|NCT04964986|168867677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 48||||0.075
84557329|NCT04964986|168867678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4||||0.063
84557330|NCT04964986|168867678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||paired t-test|||Week 48||||0.112
84557331|NCT04964986|168867679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.306
84557332|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3346||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7887|0.8748|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 4||0.8748|-0.7887|0.704
84557333|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7442|0.8896|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 48||0.8896|-2.7442|0.488
84557334|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.313|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 4||0.313|-0.896|0.382
84557335|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.566||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.279|-0.165|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 48||-0.165|-5.279|0.059
84557336|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.116||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|51.861|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 4||51.861|5.510|0.004
84557337|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.727||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.758|55.828|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 48||55.828|-27.758|0.337
84557338|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.618||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|14.931|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 4||14.931|-11.870|0.724
84669907|NCT03979638|169073265|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-29.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-13.2|-42.7|0.0014
84669908|NCT03979638|169073265|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-32.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.4|-45.3|0.0006
84669909|NCT02586896|169073267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84669910|NCT02586896|169073269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84669911|NCT02586896|169073270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
84669912|NCT02586896|169073271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
84557339|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|3.737|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 48||3.737|-18.880|0.115
84557340|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.297||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.551|52.617|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 4||52.617|-39.551|0.707
84557341|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.487||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.956|-20.068|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 48||-20.068|-159.956|0.009
84557342|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.281||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|0.96|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 4||0.960|-0.649|0.572
84557343|NCT04964986|168867680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.073|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 48||1.073|-1.060|0.981
84557344|NCT04964986|168867681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.066
84557345|NCT04964986|168867681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||0.015
84557346|NCT01217385|168867688|EQUIVALENCE|under the NULL, it is assume that there is no difference between a 40% decrease in TOI, and a less than 40% decrease or an increase in TOI in their ability to predict pCR+|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.667||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|23.04||5% alpha threshold for significance.|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis will look at the ability of the % change in DOSI measured tumor Optical Index (TOI) from baseline to mid-therapy to predict pathologic response using logistic regression.~Pathologic response (dichotomized into responders and non-responders) will be used as the reference standard and %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at -40%) will be used to estimate pCR (+/-)= alpha + beta1(%change TOI)"||23.04|0.95|0.059
84669913|NCT04646499|169073320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Sign test|||||||0.34
84669914|NCT04646499|169073321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Sign test|||||||0.024
84669915|NCT04646499|169073322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Sign test|||||||0.083
84669916|NCT04646499|169073323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Sign test|||||||0.049
84746069|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-0.4|-6.5|0.028
84746070|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.7|-9.1|0.004
84746071|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Odds Ratio (OR)|-5.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-1.9|-9.6|0.003
84746072|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-1.6|-9.4|0.006
84493638|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.09|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.09|-0.87|0.107
84557347|NCT01217385|168867689|EQUIVALENCE|test for the equivalence of %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at \<=-40%), between PR+ and PR- groups, with interaction|Slope|0.4463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.953||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|||||significance at alpha=0.05|Regression, Logistic|p-value represents the interaction between %TOI (dichotomized at \<=-40%), and PR status|Multivariate logistic regression model using % change in TOI ratio (T/N) (baseline to mid-therapy) dichotomized at -40%, PR status, and the corresponding interaction.|The Null is that the odd ratio is the same in both the PR+ and PR- subjects fro the model including %change in TOI form baseline to mid-therapy (dichotomized at \<=-40%), PR status (+/-) and the interaction between them.||||0.8193
84669917|NCT04646499|169073324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Sign test|||||||0.31
84746073|NCT01445301|169245635|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.7|-9.5|0.005
84746074|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.1|-3.9|<0.001
84746075|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.6|-4.7|<0.001
84746076|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-0.9|-4.1|0.002
84746077|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.9|-4.5|0.003
84746078|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.0|-4.6|0.002
84746079|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-3.2|-8.8|<0.001
84746080|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-4.7|-11.4|<0.001
84746081|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-6.2|-13.1|<0.001
84746082|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-5.1|-12.1|<0.001
84746083|NCT01445301|169245635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-4.8|-11.6|<0.001
84746084|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.12|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.12|-11.30|<0.001
84746085|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-3.77|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-3.77|-13.24|<0.001
84746086|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-4.41|-13.37|<0.001
84746087|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.43|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-4.43|-13.82|<0.001
84746088|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.75|-14.11|<0.001
84746089|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-5.97|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.97|-15.12|<0.001
84746090|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.21||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-1.69|-12.73|0.011
84746091|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.35|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-2.35|-12.93|0.005
84746092|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-3.26|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.26|-14.20|0.002
84557348|NCT01217385|168867690|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|250.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||250.15|1.09|0.043
84557349|NCT01217385|168867690|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|33.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.90|0.24|0.406
84557350|NCT01432561|168867692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.04
84557351|NCT01432561|168867692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.005
84557352|NCT01432561|168867693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.16
84557353|NCT01432561|168867693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.036
84557354|NCT01432561|168867694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||Fed high-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition.||||.30
84557355|NCT01432561|168867694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.05
84557356|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3375
84557357|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.516||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.516
84557358|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.786
84557359|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1496||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1496
84557360|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8428||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8428
84557361|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7345||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7345
84557362|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8928
84557363|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7343||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7343
84557364|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8798||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8798
84557365|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6837||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6837
84557366|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7226||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7226
84557367|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.641
84557368|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.478||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.478
84557369|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.9367
84557370|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5108||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5108
84557371|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8976||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8976
84557372|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8193||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8193
84557373|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1695
84557374|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4021||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.4021
84557375|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3603||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3603
84746093|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-3.06|-13.34|0.002
84746094|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-1.32|-10.29|0.011
84746095|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-2.50|-14.10|0.005
84746096|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-3.83|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.83|-14.72|<0.001
84557376|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5169||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5169
84557377|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1642||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1642
84557378|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6354||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6354
84557379|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3517||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3517
84557380|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7605||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7605
84557381|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3747
84557382|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8379
84557383|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1179||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1179
84557384|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7412||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7412
84557385|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3773||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3773
84557386|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7402||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7402
84557387|NCT00586508|168867699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2671||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.2671
84557388|NCT03434249|168867714|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"According to the results of a previous trial that looked at a probiotic's effect on infants with CI, it was estimated that when the sample size in each group is 33, the study has 80% power to detect an absolute difference of 35% in the treatment success rate (15% in the Placebo group and 50% in the treatment group) with a 0,05 alpha level.~The number of infants that was included in the study was 80, with an expected maximum dropout rate of 20%."||||0.0001
84557389|NCT03434249|168867715|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84557390|NCT03434249|168867717|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84557391|NCT02290925|168867774|OTHER|general linear model (GLM) with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Box's M tests was used. Mauchly's test was used to verify that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized-transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.||"We used intention to treat analysis. Since the missing data were more than 5%, we examined the dataset to determine whether it shows missing completely at random (MCAR) not missing at random (NMAR) or data missing at random (MAR). A sensitivity analysis was done to determine whether multiple imputations are required. It included complete case analysis, best-worst case and worst best case scenario with group mean±1SD."|||
84557392|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.157||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.157|0.085|<0.001
84557393|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.100|<0.001
84557394|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.174||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.174|0.110|<0.001
84605689|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 1||0.26|-0.28|0.949
84605690|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 2||0.34|-0.19|0.581
84669918|NCT02496533|169073340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported anxiety as self-reported change of VAS between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.001
84669919|NCT02496533|169073341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported systolic blood pressure measurements between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.02
84669920|NCT02496533|169073341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses were performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported diastolic blood pressure between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.09
84669921|NCT02496533|169073342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported respiration rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.009
84669922|NCT02496533|169073343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.45||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported pulse rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.45
84669923|NCT03722017|169073366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.006
84669924|NCT03722017|169073366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.110
84669925|NCT03722017|169073366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up Timepoint||||0.060
84669926|NCT03722017|169073367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.738
84669927|NCT03722017|169073367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.995
84669928|NCT03722017|169073367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow Up Timepoint||||0.721
84669929|NCT05083442|169073427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||1.9|-0.4|0.19
84669930|NCT05083442|169073428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.745
84669931|NCT04865354|169073455|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority to be concluded if least squares means difference upper confidence limit is less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.||LSM results based on general linear mixed effects model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect|Difference = PRECISION1 minus Clariti 1-Day|||0.009||
84669932|NCT00004888|169073465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.642||||||||0.642|0.31|
84493639|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
84493640|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.88|0.084
84493641|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.26|-1.20|0.002
84557395|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.13||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.130|0.067|<0.001
84557396|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.104|0.001|0.047
84557397|NCT01716520|168867778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.124||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.124|0.021|0.006
84557398|NCT02635009|168867788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level = 0.05||Proportion of participants with deterioration in HVLT-R delayed recall score at six months: Null hypothesis = No difference between the arms; Alternative hypothesis = Arm 2 will have less deterioration than Arm 1. Ninety-eight evaluable participants per arm at six months provides 80% statistical power to detect a 14.5% absolute difference between the arms in proportion of participants with deterioration at six months using a one-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.28
84557399|NCT02635009|168867789|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 \> 20%; Alternative hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 = 4.5%. Using a non-inferiority margin of 20% and an assumed difference in proportions of 4.5% under the alternative, a 2-sample test of difference in proportions with a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 requires 164 patients to achieve 85% statistical power. (Statistically significant p-value indicates non-inferiority.)||||||0.003|||||||Test of binomial proportions|||||||0.0030
84557400|NCT02635009|168867790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.0598
84557401|NCT02635009|168867791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.78
84557402|NCT02635009|168867791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.63
84557403|NCT02635009|168867791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.84
84493642|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||1.02|-0.78|0.785
84557404|NCT02635009|168867793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.56
84557405|NCT02635009|168867793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.75
84557406|NCT02635009|168867795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.81
84557407|NCT02635009|168867795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.93
84669933|NCT00004888|169073465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.61||||||||0.61|0.309|
84557408|NCT02635009|168867795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
84557409|NCT02635009|168867797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.54
84557410|NCT02635009|168867797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.43
84557411|NCT02635009|168867797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.25
84557412|NCT02635009|168867799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.71
84557413|NCT02635009|168867799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.079
84557414|NCT02635009|168867799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.85
84557415|NCT02635009|168867801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.043
84557416|NCT02635009|168867801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Fisher Exact|||6 months||||0.017
84493643|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.26|-2.13|0.014
84493644|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.86|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.86|-0.94|0.931
84493645|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.07|-1.80|0.070
84493646|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.82|-0.99|0.854
84493647|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.31|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.31|-2.19|0.011
84557417|NCT02635009|168867801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.057
84557418|NCT02635009|168867804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.10
84557419|NCT02635009|168867804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.33
84557420|NCT02635009|168867804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.29
84557421|NCT02635009|168867806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.0021
84557422|NCT02635009|168867806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.0070
84557423|NCT02635009|168867806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
84493648|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.40|-1.40|0.271
84493649|NCT01050998|168738519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.10|-1.97|0.031
84493650|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|7.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|20.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.5|-3.3|0.238
84493651|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|29.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.7|2.8|0.017
84493652|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|0.0|0.090
84557424|NCT02635009|168867808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.55
84557425|NCT02635009|168867808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.062
84557426|NCT02635009|168867808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.32
84557427|NCT02635009|168867810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.70
84557428|NCT02635009|168867810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.52
84557429|NCT02635009|168867810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.73
84557430|NCT02635009|168867812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.28
84557431|NCT02635009|168867812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.094
84493653|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||31.0|2.9|0.015
84557432|NCT02635009|168867812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
84557433|NCT02635009|168867814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months.||||0.16
84557434|NCT02635009|168867814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months. Assuming 50% of patients experience deterioration at 6 months, based on a prior study (RTOG-0212), a sample size of 198 participants per arm provides 94% power to detect a 50% relative reduction (50% on Arm 1 vs. 25% on Arm 2) in decline at 6 months using Fisher's exact test with a two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.017
84557435|NCT02635009|168867814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.56
84557436|NCT02635009|168867816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
84557437|NCT02635009|168867816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84557438|NCT02635009|168867816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84557439|NCT02635009|168867818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.35
84557440|NCT02635009|168867818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.99
84493654|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.0|-4.2|0.412
84493655|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.4|-2.9|0.237
84493656|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.1||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.8|-2.8|0.231
84493657|NCT01050998|168738520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.4|-4.1|0.406
84493658|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|24.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.4|-2.7|0.182
84493659|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|25.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.5|-1.2|0.110
84493660|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.3||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|26.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||26.9|-0.6|0.104
84493661|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.7|3.5|0.016
84557441|NCT02635009|168867818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.94
84493662|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|19.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.3|-1.0|0.115
84493663|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|21.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||21.6|0.6|0.052
84493664|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
84493665|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
84493666|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|46.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.2|-18.2|0.591
84493667|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|51.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||51.4|-16.6|0.570
84557442|NCT02635009|168867822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.79
84557443|NCT02635009|168867823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.93
84557444|NCT00981058|168867825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.962|||Log Rank|||||0.962|0.736|0.0120
84493668|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
84493669|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
84493670|NCT01050998|168738521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
84493671|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.604
84493672|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
84493673|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.145
84493674|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.282
84493675|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
84493676|NCT01050998|168738522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.047
84557445|NCT00981058|168867826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.975|||Log Rank|||||0.975|0.743|0.0201
84557446|NCT00981058|168867827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.45|0.86|0.3997
84746097|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.39|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.39|-14.28|0.002
84557447|NCT00981058|168867828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.953|||Log Rank|||||0.953|0.747|0.0061
84493677|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.237|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.237
84493678|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.005
84746098|NCT01445301|169245636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.30|-15.06|<0.001
84746099|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.48|-12.32|<0.001
84493679|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.134
84493680|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
84557448|NCT02696434|168867874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.28|0.407
84557449|NCT04105010|168867892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test against a null|||||||<0.0001
84746100|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|-7.16|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-7.16|-15.18|<0.001
84746101|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-8.35|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-8.35|-15.90|<0.001
84746102|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-7.30|-15.37|<0.001
84746103|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|-7.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.25|-15.11|<0.001
84746104|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.88|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-3.88|-12.76|<0.001
84746105|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.30|-13.83|<0.001
84493681|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.265
84493682|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.013
84557450|NCT01211483|168867907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.42||||||||1.420|0.674|
84557451|NCT01211483|168867907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.131||||||||1.131|0.523|
84605691|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 1||0.41|-0.13|0.302
84672246|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.694||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.25||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||3.250|0.882|0.111
84746106|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.62|-12.03|<0.001
84746107|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.53|-12.63|<0.001
84746108|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.41|-12.71|<0.001
84746109|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-4.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.68|-13.53|<0.001
84746110|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.80|-16.30|<0.001
84493683|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.952
84493684|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.004
84493685|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.246
84493686|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
84557452|NCT01211483|168867908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.369||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.846|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.846|0.161|0.0185
84493687|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.126
84493688|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.831
84493689|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.005
84493690|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.125
84493691|NCT01050998|168738523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
84493692|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.15||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio greater than (\>) 1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||1.69|0.78|0.486
84557453|NCT01211483|168867908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.663|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.663|0.125|0.0034
84557454|NCT01211483|168867909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.212|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.212|0.458|0.9879
84557455|NCT01211483|168867909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.222||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.746|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.746|0.544|0.6276
84557456|NCT02284568|168867945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1293||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.2705||significance at 0.05.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||The statistical model was a repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group, week, treatment group by week interaction, normalized brain volume at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||0.2705|-0.2390|0.903
84557457|NCT02284568|168867947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||significance at 0.05. p-value was from a log-rank test, and estimate and confidence limits were from a Cox model with treatment group as fixed effect, due to the violation of the proportionality assumption.|Log Rank||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.37|0.48|0.426
84557458|NCT02284568|168867948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.59|0.68|0.867
84557459|NCT02284568|168867949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2679||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.2||significance at 0.05. The p-value for ranked change from baseline values was from a repeated measures analysis of covariance with trt group, week, treatment group by week interaction, rank of T25FW score at baseline, and country as fixed effects.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo treatment effect|placebo n=121 Laquinimod 0.6 mg n=108 The estimate of parameter, standard error, and 95% confidence intervals for change from baseline was from a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test using Hodges-Lehmann estimates.||0.2000|-0.8500|0.248
84557460|NCT02284568|168867950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.69||significance at 0.05|negative binomial regression model||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo risk ratio|This analysis was performed using baseline adjusted negative binomial regression model (SAS® PROC GENMOD) in which 1 contrast for comparing laquinimod 0.6 mg to placebo was constructed. In addition to the treatment group, the natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, age at baseline and country/geographical region (CGR) were used as covariates.||0.69|0.26|0.001
84557461|NCT00460265|168867952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.1403||95.0|0.729|1.046|||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors (ECOG(0:1),previously treated w/ CT/RT(yes:no),primary tumor site(oropharynx/larynx:oral cavity/hypopharynx))|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors; hazard ratio presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.046|0.729|0.1403
84557462|NCT00460265|168867953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.98||||||95.0|3.13|18.68||||||||18.68|3.13|
84557463|NCT00460265|168867953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||||95.0|1.15|2.44||||||||2.44|1.15|
84557464|NCT00460265|168867957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||||95.0|0.659|0.922|||||Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors|||0.922|0.659|
84557465|NCT01832818|168867960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84557466|NCT01832818|168867961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
84557467|NCT00236899|168867966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.345||95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.87|0.345
84557468|NCT00236899|168867967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.885
84557469|NCT00236899|168867968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.71|0.976
84557470|NCT00236899|168867969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.442||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.754|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.754|0.259|0.0028
84557471|NCT00236899|168867970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.93|0.150
84557472|NCT00236899|168867971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.389|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.389|0.482|0.4567
84557473|NCT00236899|168867973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
84557474|NCT00236899|168867973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
84557475|NCT00236899|168867974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
84605692|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 3||0.66|0.12|0.005
84557476|NCT00236899|168867974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.476
84605693|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.59||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 6||0.59|0.04|0.026
84557477|NCT00568334|168867977|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (derived from IFA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.46|0.86|
84557478|NCT00568334|168867978|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMC ratio (derived from ELISA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.67.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.33|0.93|
84557479|NCT00625404|168867997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Hazard ratio (HR) for HIV infection based on proportional hazards model, stratified on site. Study was designed to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the HR for infection is \> 0.3||1.52|0.59|
84557480|NCT00625404|168867998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rate of grade 2 or higher creatinine, based on time to first event.||||0.45
84557481|NCT00625404|168868000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.59
84557482|NCT00625404|168868001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.79
84557483|NCT00625404|168868002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.62
84557484|NCT00625404|168868003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference on viral loads||||0.89
84557485|NCT00625404|168868004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in mean CD-4 counts||||0.82
84557486|NCT00625404|168868008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in change in number of sexual partners over time||||0.73
84557487|NCT03411902|168868049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
84557488|NCT03411902|168868050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
84557489|NCT03411902|168868051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
84557490|NCT03411902|168868052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84557491|NCT03411902|168868053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius 33 BMD||||0.337
84557492|NCT03411902|168868053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius UD BMD||||0.238
84557493|NCT03411902|168868054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.860
84746111|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-9.37|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-9.37|-18.97|<0.001
84746112|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-8.25|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-8.25|-17.83|<0.001
84746113|NCT01445301|169245636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-7.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.68|-17.05|<0.001
84746114|NCT01445301|169245637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84746115|NCT01445301|169245637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84746116|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.470
84557494|NCT05821296|168868074|OTHER|Change of sum of total lesions at the end of the study from baseline/Day 0 to evaluate the efficacy and clinical performance of Crystal Peel for the treatment of acne.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-11.84|||ANCOVA|||||-11.84|-17.31|<0.0001
84557495|NCT05821296|168868075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||||2.16|1.54|
84557496|NCT05821296|168868076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.2||||||||2.20|1.44|
84557497|NCT05821296|168868077|OTHER||Mean value in local tolerance score|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.44||||||||2.44|1.98|
84557498|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER|Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.|% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||||89|61|
84557499|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|98.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||98|80|
84557500|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|95.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||95|73|
84557501|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|68|
84557502|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|97.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||97|77|
84557503|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|69|
84557504|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|61|
84557505|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|62|
84605694|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.64||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 9||0.64|0.09|0.010
84669934|NCT00136084|169073470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.1559||95.0|0.832|3.205||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.041 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using a Monte Carlo approximation (10000 permutations) to an exact, risk-group stratified, test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a LDAC patient is MRD positive to the odds that a HDAC patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that HDAC and LDAC result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 186 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage O'Brien-Fleming group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect a change in the MRD-positive proportion from 0.50 to 0.30. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.205|.832|.1559
84669935|NCT00136084|169073471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.733||||||95.0|0.449|0.922|||Binomial proportion|||Estimate of the proportion of negative minimal residual disease.||.922|.449|
84746117|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.844
84746118|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.022
84746119|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
84746120|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
84493693|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.54||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.18|1.09|0.015
84493694|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.36|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.36|1.15|0.006
84493695|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.93|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.93|1.49|<0.001
84493696|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|0.97||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.55|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.55|0.61|0.906
84493697|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.71|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.71|1.31|<0.001
84493698|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.26||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.91|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.91|0.83|0.272
84493699|NCT01050998|168738524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.72|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.72|1.34|<0.001
84493700|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-12.1|0.589
84605695|NCT03654885|168962862|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 12||0.54|0.00|0.052
84493701|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.032||95.0|2.8|36.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.7|2.8|0.032
84605696|NCT03654885|168962863|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.183|0.358|0.024
84493702|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|18.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||18.0|-16.0|1.000
84493703|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|48.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||48.6|15.6|<0.001
84493704|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.6|-3.5|0.212
84493705|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|34.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.0|4.8|0.011
84493706|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|19.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.1|-7.0|0.446
84493707|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|7.6|0.003
84493708|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||9.7|-8.9|1.000
84493709|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||17.5|-4.1|0.317
84605697|NCT03654885|168962864|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.54|0.00|0.052
84493710|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||12.1|-7.2|1.000
84493711|NCT01050998|168738525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.5||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|23.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.5|-0.5|0.106
84493712|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
84669936|NCT00136084|169073472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.931||||||95.0|0.772|0.992|||Binomial proportion|||||.992|.772|
84746121|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.572
84746122|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.335
84746123|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.187
84746124|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
84493713|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|34.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.4|-3.1|0.120
84746125|NCT01445301|169245638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.006
84493714|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
84493715|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.1|9.7|0.005
84493716|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.9||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|55.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||55.9|-16.4|0.382
84669937|NCT00136084|169073473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.9||||||95.0|0.735|0.979|||Binomial proportion|||||.979|.735|
84493717|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.0||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|69.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||69.6|-2.7|0.087
84493718|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
84493719|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
84493720|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||27.9|-2.9|0.175
84557506|NCT05821296|168868078|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|87.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||87|59|
84746126|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.002
84669938|NCT00136084|169073475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84669939|NCT00136084|169073476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.0139||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0365|0.00873|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.00873|-0.0365|0.2287
84669940|NCT02174848|169073494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone.||||0.0500
84669941|NCT02174848|169073494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the extension study, during which patients in both groups received deferiprone.||||0.9781
84669942|NCT02174848|169073495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0206
84746127|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
84746128|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||<0.001
84746129|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
84746130|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
84746131|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.480
84746132|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
84746133|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.009
84746134|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||0.008
84746135|NCT01445301|169245639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.065
84746136|NCT01090427|169245662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746137|NCT01090427|169245662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746138|NCT01090427|169245663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746139|NCT01090427|169245663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746140|NCT01090427|169245664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||0.003
84746141|NCT01090427|169245664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||<0.001
84746142|NCT01090427|169245665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746143|NCT01090427|169245665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746144|NCT01090427|169245666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
84746145|NCT01090427|169245666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
84669943|NCT02174848|169073496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2684|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2684
84669944|NCT02174848|169073497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone||||0.0821
84746146|NCT01090427|169245666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
84746147|NCT01090427|169245666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
84746148|NCT01090427|169245667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
84746149|NCT01090427|169245667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
84746150|NCT01090427|169245667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||0.014
84746151|NCT01090427|169245667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||<0.001
84746152|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.003
84746153|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.028
84746154|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.005
84746155|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.063
84746156|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.007
84746157|NCT01090427|169245668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.020
84746158|NCT01090427|169245669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||0.027
84746159|NCT01090427|169245669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
84746160|NCT04493502|169245699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|41.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.4|-7.3|0.189
84746161|NCT04493502|169245700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-8.69|0.024
84746162|NCT04493502|169245701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.44|0.949
84746163|NCT02891837|169245702|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4930
84746164|NCT02891837|169245704|OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
84746165|NCT02891837|169245705|OTHER|||||||0.8678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
84746166|NCT02891837|169245712|OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6422
84746167|NCT02891837|169245713|OTHER|||||||0.7572|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7572
84746168|NCT02891837|169245715|OTHER|||||||0.3681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3681
84746169|NCT02891837|169245719|OTHER|"Sample size calculated with nQuery 7.0. Assumed standard deviation = 50 h, \& mean values of 44 h (placebo) \& 14 h (L-citrulline group), estimated effect size = 0.600, yielding a sample size N=92/group (two-sided Wilcoxon-rank-sum test with 0.01 significance level and 90% power). Assumptions for standard deviation \& mean based on Study CIT-002-01 results.~To allow for subjects being enrolled but not assigned to the full analysis set (FAS), an overall N=95 subjects per group were to be enrolled."|Location shift|219.0||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|626.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo For the mean and median values, that the estimated values are given in minutes \[min\]|H0: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group = placebo group H1: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group ≠ placebo group H0 tested using Wilcoxon-rank-sum test. Significance level = 1% (2-sided).||626.0|-88.0|0.1560
84746170|NCT02891837|169245719|OTHER||Location shift|813.1||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.5|1961.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The results of the T-test should be interpreted with caution since the endpoint is not normally distributed.|Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo. For the mean and median values, the estimated values are given in minutes|Post hoc analyses were done for US patients on mechanical ventilation for \<=48 hours. For all post hoc analyses a significance level of 5% was applied.||1961.6|-335.5|0.1627
84557507|NCT05821296|168868080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
84746171|NCT02891837|169245727|OTHER|||||||0.0326||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for all US patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0326
84746172|NCT02891837|169245727|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for ALL patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0026
84746173|NCT02632526|169245739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.31||||||||1.31|1.17|
84493721|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|34.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.1|2.4|0.026
84493722|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|24.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.9|-5.1|0.271
84493723|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|36.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.0|3.4|0.021
84493724|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
84746174|NCT02632526|169245739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0124|0.656||||||||0.656|-0.0124|
84746175|NCT02632526|169245740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.36||||||Day 1||1.36|1.08|
84493725|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.7||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|63.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||63.2|-8.8|0.283
84493726|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
84493727|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
84493728|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.2|-7.0|1.000
84493729|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.4|-3.7|0.242
84557508|NCT05821296|168868080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.010
84746176|NCT02632526|169245742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.38||||||Day 10||1.38|1.08|
84746177|NCT02632526|169245743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|1.66||||||||1.66|1.43|
84746178|NCT02632526|169245743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0315|0.669||||||||0.669|0.0315|
84746179|NCT02632526|169245744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.63||||||For Day 1||1.63|1.34|
84746180|NCT02632526|169245744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.6||||||Day 10||1.60|1.25|
84746181|NCT02632526|169245757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.98|37.73||||||Cmax||37.73|20.98|
84746182|NCT02632526|169245758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|64.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.34|76.74||||||AUC(0-τ)||76.74|54.34|
84746183|NCT03538301|169245782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004153||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008284|-0.000021|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.000021|-0.008284|0.049
84746184|NCT03538301|169245782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002112||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00626|0.002036|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.002036|-0.006260|0.316
84746185|NCT03538301|169245783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.091238||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199456|0.016979|||random coefficient model|||||0.016979|-0.199456|0.098
84746186|NCT03538301|169245783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039596||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148248|0.069056|||random coefficient model|||||0.069056|-0.148248|0.473
84557509|NCT05821296|168868080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.69|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.004
84557510|NCT05821296|168868080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.013
84669945|NCT02174848|169073497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the placebo-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the extension study; for the DFP-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the initial study||||0.5885
84669946|NCT02174848|169073498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3306
84669947|NCT00644969|169073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|21.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.78|1.03|0.0457
84493730|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.9|-5.1|0.410
84557511|NCT05821296|168868081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2832.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3217.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
84557512|NCT05821296|168868081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1754.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4220.25||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.025
84669948|NCT00644969|169073528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.71|0.75|0.0901
84669949|NCT00644969|169073529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.68|0.82|0.1524
84669950|NCT00644969|169073529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.05|0.45|0.9235
84669951|NCT00644969|169073530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.99|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 12 treatment difference||-0.99|-6.32|0.0077
84669952|NCT00644969|169073530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.52|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 24 treatment difference||3.52|-3.99|0.9022
84669953|NCT05620576|169073531|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-0.61|
84669954|NCT05620576|169073532|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.99|-0.47|
84669955|NCT05620576|169073533|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.78|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.78|-0.11|
84669956|NCT05620576|169073534|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.96|-0.56|
84669957|NCT05620576|169073535|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|7.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.75|-9.41|
84746187|NCT03538301|169245784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0997||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1988|-0.0005|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.0005|-0.1988|0.049
84746188|NCT03538301|169245784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0507||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1502|0.0489|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.0489|-0.1502|0.316
84746189|NCT03538301|169245785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.16||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|11.28|||random coefficient model|||||11.28|-17.59|0.668
84605698|NCT03654885|168962865|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.579|6.151||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||6.151|-2.579|0.421
84669958|NCT05620576|169073536|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.51|
84493731|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.5|2.7|0.030
84669959|NCT05620576|169073537|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
84746190|NCT03538301|169245785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|13.13|||random coefficient model|||||13.13|-16.57|0.821
84746191|NCT03538301|169245786|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1897||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7869|0.4075|||random coefficient model|||Change from baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||0.4075|-4.7869|0.098
84746192|NCT03538301|169245786|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9503||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5579|1.6573|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||1.6573|-3.5579|0.473
84746193|NCT03538301|169245787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.53||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|10.34|||random coefficient model|||||10.34|-15.40|0.700
84746194|NCT03538301|169245787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|12.07|||random coefficient model|||||12.07|-14.31|0.867
84746195|NCT03538301|169245790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6226|0.9147|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.9147|-0.6226|0.708
84746196|NCT03538301|169245790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7038||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0695|1.4771|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.4771|-0.0695|0.074
84746197|NCT03538301|169245790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6362|0.8641|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.8641|-0.6362|0.765
84557513|NCT05821296|168868081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2763.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4965.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.004
84557514|NCT05821296|168868081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1742.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3974.21||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.021
84746198|NCT03538301|169245790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1986|1.3107|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.3107|-0.1986|0.148
84746199|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.71|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.71|-3.68|0.765
84746200|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.47|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.47|-1.68|0.370
84746201|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.34|-0.70|0.499
84746202|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.54|-0.47|0.901
84557515|NCT05821296|168868082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
84746203|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.46|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.46|-2.25|0.676
84557516|NCT05821296|168868082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.029
84557517|NCT05821296|168868082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.006
84557518|NCT05821296|168868082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.037
84746204|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|4.42|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.42|-1.13|0.242
84746205|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.4|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.40|-2.82|0.140
84746206|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.56|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.56|-2.53|0.211
84746207|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|3.91|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.91|-2.16|0.568
84605699|NCT03654885|168962866|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.84||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.84|-0.16|0.180
84605700|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤18 mmHg||2.3|-33.0|0.064
84746208|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.09|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.09|-3.76|0.573
84746209|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.81|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.81|-6.35|0.012
84557519|NCT05821296|168868083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.001
84605701|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤17 mmHg||2.5|-32.7|0.078
84605702|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤16 mmHg||0.4|-34.7|0.051
84605703|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-16.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤15 mmHg||1.0|-34.1|0.064
84605704|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤14 mm Hg||4.8|-30.5|0.200
84746210|NCT03538301|169245791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|0.51|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.51|-4.82|0.112
84746211|NCT03538301|169245792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
84493732|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
84557520|NCT05821296|168868083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71||0.348|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.348
84605705|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-2.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤13 mm Hg||-2.0|-37.1|0.042
84746212|NCT03538301|169245792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
84746213|NCT03538301|169245793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.225|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.225|0.189|0.517
84746214|NCT03538301|169245793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.324|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.324|0.198|0.506
84746215|NCT03538301|169245793|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||5.5|-25.2|0.313
84746216|NCT03538301|169245793|SUPERIORITY|The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|9.2|||Chi-squared|||Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||9.2|-22.6|0.376
84746217|NCT03538301|169245794|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||9.6|-19.2|0.713
84746218|NCT03538301|169245794|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||10.7|-19.2|0.713
84746219|NCT03538301|169245795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.937
84746220|NCT03538301|169245795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.414
84746221|NCT03538301|169245795|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||10.9|-10.4|>0.999
84746222|NCT03538301|169245795|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||6.8|-13.1|>0.999
84557521|NCT05821296|168868083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.091
84669960|NCT05620576|169073538|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|23.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|152.33|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||152.33|-108.05|
84746223|NCT03538301|169245796|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|4.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||4.6|-16.6|0.494
84746224|NCT03538301|169245796|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.5|-16.2|0.494
84493733|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|39.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||39.5|-26.7|1.000
84746225|NCT00943111|169245803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size for study was based on expected stability rates of 95% for the Imiglucerase group and 85% for the Eliglustat group, power of 85%, a one-sided significance level of 0.025, a non-inferiority margin of 25%, and a 20% non-evaluable/drop-out rate. Eliglustat was declared non-inferior to Imiglucerase if the lower-bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of 25%.|Difference in Percentage Stable|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.2||||||||4.2|-17.6|
84746226|NCT05326815|169245863|OTHER|Spearman Correlation.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84752534|NCT04464265|169260166|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline. For an fMRI study of cognitive function, Desmond and Glover (J. Neurosci. Methods., 2002) reported that about 25 subjects are necessary to achieve 80% power for a 0.5% increase of activity. We analyzed 27 subjects that fulfilled the suggested optimal group size for reliable statistics in functional MRI studies (also see Thirion et al., Neuroimage, 2007).||||<0.001
84752535|NCT04464265|169260167|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|||||<0.001
84752536|NCT00056862|169260173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: first phase decline in HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.002
84752537|NCT00056862|169260175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the second phase slopes of HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.2
84752538|NCT00056862|169260176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the time to negativity for the two groups are same||||0.047
84752539|NCT04721821|169260184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||||||||1.44|0.82|
84752540|NCT04721821|169260185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16||||||||1.16|0.44|
84752541|NCT04721821|169260186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27||||||||1.27|0.73|
84752542|NCT04721821|169260187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.88||||||||1.88|0.79|
84752543|NCT04721821|169260188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.67||||||||1.67|0.79|
84752544|NCT04721821|169260189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76||||||||1.76|0.94|
84752545|NCT04721821|169260190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.89||||||||1.89|0.70|
84752546|NCT04721821|169260191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||||||||1.32|0.69|
84752547|NCT04721821|169260192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.16||||||||2.16|0.81|
84752548|NCT04721821|169260193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.87||||||||1.87|0.81|
84752549|NCT04721821|169260194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.66|0.80|
84752550|NCT04721821|169260194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.65|0.75|
84752551|NCT04721821|169260195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.99||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|0.57|
84752552|NCT04721821|169260195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.75|0.49|
84752553|NCT04721821|169260196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.58|0.79|
84752554|NCT04721821|169260196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.35|0.60|
84752555|NCT04721821|169260197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.29|0.77|
84752556|NCT04721821|169260197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.71|0.82|
84752557|NCT04721821|169260198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.24|0.81|
84493734|NCT01050998|168738526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
84557522|NCT05821296|168868083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.190
84605706|NCT03654885|168962867|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤12 mm Hg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
84669961|NCT03249779|169073568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0396
84669962|NCT03249779|169073569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1330
84669963|NCT03167879|169073577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|40.49||||||||40.49|2.79|
84669964|NCT03167879|169073578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||||||||2.09|0.25|
84669965|NCT03167879|169073579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|257.6||||||||257.6|0.02|
84669966|NCT02245841|169073581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||< .001
84669967|NCT02245841|169073582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
84669968|NCT02245841|169073583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.002
84669969|NCT02245841|169073584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.050
84669970|NCT02245841|169073585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
84669971|NCT02404350|169073655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||5.79|2.78|<0.0001
84669972|NCT02404350|169073655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||4.87|2.35|<0.0001
84669973|NCT02404350|169073655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|6.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||6.63|3.16|<0.0001
84669974|NCT02404350|169073656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0061
84669975|NCT02404350|169073656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0048
84669976|NCT02404350|169073656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0003
84669977|NCT02404350|169073657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|18.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||18.63|5.52|<0.0001
84669978|NCT02404350|169073657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|21.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||21.37|6.37|<0.0001
84669979|NCT02404350|169073657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|34.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||34.12|9.56|<0.0001
84752558|NCT04721821|169260198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.62|0.50|
84605707|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-3.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥25% IOP Reduction||14.2|-21.3|0.712
84746227|NCT02926898|169245877|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|-54.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-35.6||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ZX008 or placebo) and age group (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years) as factors, and with log baseline frequency as a covariate, and log CSF as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-67.2|<0.001
84557523|NCT05821296|168868084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
84557524|NCT05821296|168868084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.281
84605708|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.9||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|5.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥30% IOP Reduction||5.0|-30.3|0.201
84605709|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-2.3|-37.3|0.030
84605710|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-18.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-0.8|-36.0|0.043
84605711|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥45% IOP Reduction||0.0|-35.1|0.048
84746228|NCT02926898|169245878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model using a categorical response variable as a function of Treatment group, Baseline seizure frequency, and age group.||||||<0.001
84746229|NCT02926898|169245879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84752559|NCT04721821|169260199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.31||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.31|-0.88|
84752560|NCT04721821|169260199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.27||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.27|-2.73|
84752561|NCT04721821|169260200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.02|-1.24|
84752562|NCT04721821|169260200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.84|-0.92|
84752563|NCT04721821|169260201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.56||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.56|-1.68|
84752564|NCT04721821|169260201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.99||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|-0.51|
84752565|NCT04721821|169260202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-2.66|
84752566|NCT04721821|169260202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-3.52|
84752567|NCT04721821|169260203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.44||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.44|-2.30|
84752568|NCT04721821|169260203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.62|-2.60|
84752569|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.35|0.80|
84752570|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.67|0.86|
84752571|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.54|0.57|
84752572|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.41|0.77|
84752573|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.89|
84752574|NCT04721821|169260204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.60|0.85|
84752575|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.34|0.59|
84752576|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.15|0.39|
84752577|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.83|0.34|
84752578|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.42|0.56|
84752579|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.8||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.80|0.46|
84752580|NCT04721821|169260205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.48|0.19|
84752581|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.45|0.86|
84752582|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.26|0.67|
84752583|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.09||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.09|0.44|
84752584|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.38|0.74|
84746230|NCT02224690|169245897|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.21||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-4.09|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.09|-30.32|0.0135
84746231|NCT02224690|169245898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)||||4.97|1.33|0.0043
84746232|NCT02224690|169245899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-9.37|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-9.37|-33.26|0.0005
84746233|NCT02224690|169245900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.|Odds of participants recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.47|1.45|0.0012
84746234|NCT00825916|169245901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.078
84746235|NCT00825916|169245901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.086
84746236|NCT00825916|169245901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
84746237|NCT00825916|169245901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.49
84605712|NCT03654885|168962868|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-3.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-3.2|-38.1|0.015
84493735|NCT01050998|168738528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.162||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|28.15|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.15|-0.05|0.051
84746238|NCT00825916|169245902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.74
84746239|NCT00825916|169245902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
84746240|NCT00825916|169245902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
84746241|NCT00825916|169245902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||1.00
84746242|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.34
84746243|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.98
84746244|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.15
84746245|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.83
84746246|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
84746247|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
84746248|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.76
84746249|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.63
84746250|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
84746251|NCT00825916|169245903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
84746252|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
84746253|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.76
84746254|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.60
84746255|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.44
84746256|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.85
84746257|NCT00825916|169245904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.83
84746258|NCT02054741|169245924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||0.86|0.64|0.0001
84746259|NCT02054741|169245925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.85|0.39
84746260|NCT02054741|169245926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||1.78|1.06|0.015
84746261|NCT00190749|169245988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
84605713|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.7||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|6.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||6.3|-29.0|0.252
84605714|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.5||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|6.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤17 mmHg||6.5|-28.9|0.258
84605715|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤16 mm Hg||4.4|-30.9|0.139
84605716|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.7||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||3.3|-32.0|0.136
84605717|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.%.|Percentage Difference|-10.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|7.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||7.1|-28.2|0.274
84746262|NCT00190749|169245988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value is change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
84746263|NCT00190749|169245988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.204
84746264|NCT00190749|169245989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.184
84746265|NCT00190749|169245989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.295
84746266|NCT00190749|169245990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.256
84746267|NCT00190749|169245990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.277
84746268|NCT00190749|169245991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.766
84746269|NCT00190749|169245991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.622
84746270|NCT00190749|169245992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.829
84605718|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||0.3|-35.0|0.065
84605719|NCT03654885|168962869|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤12 mmHg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
84605720|NCT03654885|168962872|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|44.1|||Fisher Exact|||||44.1|-41.6|1.000
84605721|NCT03654885|168962873|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-32.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-66.8|0.215
84605722|NCT03654885|168962875|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|3.1|||Fisher Exact|||||3.1|-32.2|0.144
84605723|NCT03654885|168962876|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-10.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-28.0|0.254
84746271|NCT00190749|169245992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.714
84746272|NCT00190749|169245993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.672
84746273|NCT00190749|169245993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.191
84746274|NCT00190749|169245994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.994
84493736|NCT01050998|168738528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.028||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|35.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||35.07|7.39|0.003
84746275|NCT00190749|169245994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.456
84746276|NCT00190749|169245995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.454
84746277|NCT00190749|169245995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.974
84746278|NCT00190749|169245996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.249
84746279|NCT00190749|169245996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.163
84746280|NCT00190749|169245997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.201
84746281|NCT00190749|169245997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.168
84746282|NCT00190749|169245998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.793
84746283|NCT00190749|169245998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.777
84746284|NCT00190749|169245999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.815
84746285|NCT00190749|169245999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.675
84746286|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.393
84746287|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.033
84746288|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.392
84746289|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.129
84746290|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 3||||0.956
84746291|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 3||||0.846
84746292|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.675
84746293|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.306
84746294|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.468
84746295|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.739
84746296|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.404
84746297|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.711
84746298|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.281
84746299|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.805
84746300|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 8||||0.844
84746301|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 8||||0.359
84746302|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.642
84746303|NCT00190749|169246000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.043
84746304|NCT00190749|169246001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on Least Squares Mean (LSMean) change||||||<.001
84746305|NCT00190749|169246001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.019
84557525|NCT05821296|168868084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.46||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.060
84669980|NCT02404350|169073658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||8.83|2.31|<0.0001
84493737|NCT01050998|168738528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.136||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|21.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||21.14|-6.96|0.322
84557526|NCT05821296|168868084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.209
84557527|NCT05821296|168868085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26495.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33223.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
84557528|NCT05821296|168868085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14447.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44054.48||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.073
84557529|NCT05821296|168868085|OTHER|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25315.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49884.67||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
84557530|NCT05821296|168868085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13287.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39615.92||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.071
84557531|NCT05821296|168868086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7518.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13340.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
84557532|NCT05821296|168868086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7230.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17547.6||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.041
84557533|NCT05821296|168868086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9086.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18306.64||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
84557534|NCT05821296|168868086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14542.17||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.931
84493738|NCT01050998|168738528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|32.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.08|45.98|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||45.98|18.08|<0.001
84493739|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.981||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|30.22|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||30.22|-1.24|0.071
84493740|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.798||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|34.8|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||34.80|4.06|0.013
84493741|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|23.36|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||23.36|-7.68|0.320
84493742|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|46.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||46.89|15.85|<0.001
84493743|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|12.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|46.64|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||46.64|-22.41|0.483
84493744|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|65.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||65.77|-3.28|0.075
84669981|NCT02404350|169073658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||11.87|3.18|<0.0001
84669982|NCT02404350|169073658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|24.48|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||24.48|6.43|<0.0001
84746306|NCT00190749|169246001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.065
84493745|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.872||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|40.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||40.32|-31.89|0.815
84493746|NCT01050998|168738529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|36.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|70.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||70.63|1.58|0.041
84493747|NCT00234533|168738591|OTHER|An one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.92|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the evening series (defined as 12:00 to 24:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.92|0.88|
84557535|NCT05821296|168868087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.005
84746307|NCT00190749|169246002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||<.001
84746308|NCT00190749|169246002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.013
84746309|NCT00190749|169246002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
84746310|NCT00190749|169246003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.007
84746311|NCT00190749|169246003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.266
84746312|NCT00190749|169246003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.239
84746313|NCT00190749|169246004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-vales are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.274
84605724|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-7.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||14.2|-28.6|0.563
84605725|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|9.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤17 mm Hg||9.1|-33.5|0.188
84605726|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|5.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤16 mmHg||5.6|-36.7|0.118
84605727|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||2.1|-40.2|0.085
84669983|NCT02404350|169073659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||8.73|3.30|<0.0001
84669984|NCT02404350|169073659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||10.32|3.93|<0.0001
84669985|NCT02404350|169073659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||12.00|4.61|<0.0001
84746314|NCT00190749|169246004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change.||||||0.105
84746315|NCT00190749|169246004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.609
84746316|NCT00190749|169246005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.406
84746317|NCT00190749|169246005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.011
84746318|NCT00190749|169246005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
84746319|NCT00190749|169246006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.456
84746320|NCT00190749|169246006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.712
84746321|NCT00190749|169246006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.689
84746322|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Total Score||||0.111
84746323|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean changes||Total Score||||0.159
84746324|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Total Score||||0.951
84746325|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Positive Subscale||||0.012
84746326|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Positive subscale||||0.002
84746327|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Positive subscale||||0.467
84746328|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.365
84746329|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.846
84746330|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Negative subscale||||0.559
84746331|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.150
84746332|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.612
84746333|NCT00190749|169246007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.475
84746334|NCT00190749|169246008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
84746335|NCT00190749|169246008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.010
84746336|NCT00190749|169246008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of square ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.760
84746337|NCT00190749|169246009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.943
84746338|NCT00190749|169246009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.763
84746339|NCT00190749|169246009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.832
84605728|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||0.4|-42.0|0.059
84605729|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||-1.4|-43.9|0.045
84605730|NCT03654885|168962877|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.8||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤12 mm Hg||1.1|-41.3|0.076
84605731|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-9.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥ 25% IOP Reduction||12.1|-31.0|0.464
84605732|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥30% IOP Reduction||2.1|-40.6|0.069
84605733|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-26.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.7|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-4.7|-46.9|0.023
84605734|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-1.6|-43.9|0.046
84746340|NCT00190749|169246010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.623
84605735|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-27.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥45% IOP Reduction||-5.9|-47.6|0.014
84605736|NCT03654885|168962878|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-30.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-9.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-9.5|-50.8|0.006
84746341|NCT00190749|169246010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.853
84746342|NCT00190749|169246010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.591
84605737|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses: Day 1||1.72|0.33|0.004
84605738|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 1||1.88|0.47|0.001
84605739|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 2||1.20|-0.20|0.162
84605740|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 1||1.19|-0.23|0.185
84746343|NCT00190749|169246011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.302
84746344|NCT00190749|169246011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.922
84746345|NCT00190749|169246011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.479
84746346|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.004
84746347|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.001
84746348|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares, ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 1||||0.549
84746349|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.011
84746350|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.009
84752585|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.52|0.69|
84605741|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.79||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 3||0.79|-0.64|0.846
84605742|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.7||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 6||0.70|-0.73|0.965
84605743|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.33||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 9||1.33|-0.11|0.096
84605744|NCT03654885|168962885|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.43||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 12||1.43|-0.04|0.063
84605745|NCT03654885|168962886|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 1||0.000|-0.105|0.048
84605746|NCT03654885|168962886|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.045|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 3||0.045|-0.062|0.742
84605747|NCT03654885|168962886|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.051|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 6||0.051|-0.056|0.925
84669986|NCT02404350|169073660|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.15|-0.32|<0.0001
84669987|NCT02404350|169073660|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
84669988|NCT02404350|169073660|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast inj LS mean (Change)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.24|-0.42|<0.0001
84746351|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 2||||0.793
84746352|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.045
84746353|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.027
84746354|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 3||||0.699
84746355|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 4||||0.002
84746356|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||ITem 4||||0.019
84746357|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 4||||0.733
84746358|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.034
84746359|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.235
84746360|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 5||||0.532
84493748|NCT00234533|168738591|OTHER|An one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An ICC for the morning series (defined as 06:00 to 12:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.93|0.90|
84746361|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.242
84746362|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.186
84746363|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 6||||0.799
84746364|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.097
84746365|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.214
84746366|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 7||||0.827
84746367|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.151
84746368|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.071
84746369|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 8||||0.629
84746370|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.036
84746371|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.112
84746372|NCT00190749|169246012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 9||||0.806
84746373|NCT00190749|169246013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.156
84746374|NCT00190749|169246013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.829
84746375|NCT00190749|169246013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.352
84746376|NCT00190749|169246014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.740
84746377|NCT00190749|169246014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are frm t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.760
84746378|NCT00190749|169246014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.997
84746379|NCT00190749|169246015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.176
84746380|NCT00190749|169246015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.237
84746381|NCT00190749|169246015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.996
84746382|NCT00190749|169246016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.027
84746383|NCT00190749|169246016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.545
84746384|NCT00190749|169246016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.024
84746385|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.009
84746386|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.959
84746387|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline TReatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||HDL particles, total||||0.038
84605748|NCT03654885|168962886|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 12||-0.010|-0.118|0.021
84605749|NCT03654885|168962889|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3231||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2082|0.0851|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Week 1||0.0851|-1.2082|0.087
84746388|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.013
84746389|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.928
84746390|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||IDL||||0.049
84746391|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.009
84493749|NCT00234533|168738592|OTHER||Fisher's F statistic (F) value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the weekly timing effect (Week 21 versus Week 22 versus Week 23) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the weekly timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.79 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.1678.|||
84746392|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.662
84746393|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Medium small LDL||||0.12
84746394|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.099
84746395|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.304
84746396|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Small LDL||||0.024
84605750|NCT03654885|168962889|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3355||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|0.5324|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 1||0.5324|-0.8090|0.682
84605751|NCT03654885|168962889|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3484||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1483|0.2434|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 12||0.2434|-1.1483|0.199
84746397|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.176
84605752|NCT03654885|168962890|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2026||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4103|0.4086|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Day 1||0.4086|-0.4103|0.997
84605753|NCT03654885|168962890|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.6506|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Week 2||0.6506|-0.2068|0.302
84605754|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3289|1.0154|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Day 1||1.0154|-0.3289|0.309
84605755|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3278||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3993|0.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Week 2||0.9220|-0.3993|0.430
84605756|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4457||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3071|0.4882|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Day 1||0.4882|-1.3071|0.363
84605757|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4383||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3709|0.3954|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Week 2||0.3954|-1.3709|0.272
84746398|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Withn group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.246
84746399|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||Very small LDL||||0.033
84746400|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||<0.001
84746401|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||0.047
84493750|NCT00234533|168738592|OTHER||F value|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the daily timing effect (morning versus evening) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the daily timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.06 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.3035|||
84493751|NCT00234533|168738593|OTHER||F value|83.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's sex (male versus female) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's sex on the IGF-I levels; F value = 83.97 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
84605758|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4502||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6722|0.142|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Day 1||0.1420|-1.6722|0.096
84605759|NCT03654885|168962891|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4411||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4655|0.3129|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Week 2||0.3129|-1.4655|0.198
84605760|NCT03654885|168962902|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3331||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5597|5.4973|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Score||5.4973|-11.5597|0.485
84746402|NCT00190749|169246017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||VLDL mean particle size||||0.221
84746403|NCT00709852|169246019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84746404|NCT00709852|169246019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84746405|NCT00709852|169246019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84746406|NCT00709852|169246020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746407|NCT00709852|169246020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746408|NCT00709852|169246020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746409|NCT00709852|169246021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84493752|NCT00234533|168738593|OTHER||F value|68.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's pubertal status (pubertal versus prepubertal) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's pubertal status on the IGF-I levels; F value = 68.35 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
84605761|NCT03654885|168962902|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-10.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5666||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-1.5144|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Score||-1.5144|-19.5000|0.022
84605762|NCT03654885|168962902|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-7.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0382||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4841|0.4275|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Total Bothersome Score||0.4275|-15.4841|0.064
84746410|NCT00709852|169246021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746411|NCT00709852|169246021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746412|NCT00709852|169246022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746413|NCT00709852|169246022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746414|NCT00709852|169246022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746415|NCT00709852|169246023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.984|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 1||0.984|-0.199|
84746416|NCT00709852|169246023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|0.885|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval (CI) is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 2||0.885|-1.772|
84746417|NCT00709852|169246023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.0|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 3||1.000|0.125|
84746418|NCT00709852|169246023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.78|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||AR||0.780|-0.439|
84746419|NCT00709852|169246024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746420|NCT00709852|169246024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746421|NCT00709852|169246024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746422|NCT00709852|169246025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746423|NCT00709852|169246025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746424|NCT00709852|169246025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746425|NCT00709852|169246026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84605763|NCT03654885|168962902|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Frequency Score||0.37|-1.28|0.278
84746426|NCT00709852|169246026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746427|NCT00709852|169246026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746428|NCT00709852|169246027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746429|NCT00709852|169246027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746430|NCT00709852|169246027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746431|NCT00709852|169246028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746432|NCT00709852|169246028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84493753|NCT00234533|168738594|OTHER||F value|10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the disease condition (GHD versus TS) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 10.73 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0012.|||
84493754|NCT00234533|168738594|OTHER||F value|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the country cluster on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the country cluster on the IGF-I levels; F value = 2.20 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0701.|||
84605764|NCT03654885|168962902|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Frequency Score||-0.47|-2.96|0.007
84746433|NCT00709852|169246028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746434|NCT00709852|169246029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746435|NCT00709852|169246029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746436|NCT00709852|169246029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84605765|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.534|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Not at all||||0.534
84605766|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.263|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Somewhat||||0.263
84605767|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Moderately so||||1.000
84746437|NCT00709852|169246030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746438|NCT00709852|169246030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746439|NCT00709852|169246030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746440|NCT00709852|169246031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746441|NCT00709852|169246031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746442|NCT00709852|169246031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746443|NCT00709852|169246032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746444|NCT00709852|169246032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746445|NCT00709852|169246032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746446|NCT00709852|169246033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.851|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.851|-0.532|
84746447|NCT00709852|169246034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||||95.0|0.0004|0.078|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.078|0.0004|
84746448|NCT00709852|169246034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||||95.0|-0.009|0.082|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.082|-0.009|
84746449|NCT00709852|169246034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||||95.0|-0.006|0.059|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.059|-0.006|
84746450|NCT00709852|169246035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||||95.0|-0.601|0.622|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.622|-0.601|
84746451|NCT00709852|169246036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||||||||||for BR1|||||
84746452|NCT00709852|169246036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||||||||||for BR2|||||
84493755|NCT00234533|168738595|OTHER||F value|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the time of the year on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the time of the year on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.65 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0139.|||
84746453|NCT00709852|169246036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.8|||||||||||||for BR3|||||
84746454|NCT00709852|169246036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.4|||CI for paired percentages|confidence interval is given for AR; lower limit is compared to the noninferiority margin||||18.4|-0.5|
84746455|NCT00709852|169246037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|3.6||||||95.0|-5.9|13.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||13.1|-5.9|
84746456|NCT00709852|169246038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.3||||||95.0|-0.9|17.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||17.6|-0.9|
84746457|NCT00709852|169246039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746458|NCT00709852|169246039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746459|NCT00709852|169246040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.21||||95.0|-0.053|0.636|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.636|-0.053|
84746460|NCT00709852|169246041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746461|NCT00709852|169246041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746462|NCT00709852|169246042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746463|NCT00709852|169246042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746464|NCT00709852|169246043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746465|NCT00709852|169246043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746466|NCT00709852|169246044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.39||||95.0|-0.087|0.641|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.641|-0.087|
84746467|NCT00709852|169246045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746468|NCT00709852|169246045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746469|NCT00709852|169246046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746470|NCT00709852|169246046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746471|NCT00709852|169246047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|0.03|0.096|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.096|0.030|
84746472|NCT00709852|169246047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||||95.0|0.003|0.071|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.071|0.003|
84746473|NCT00709852|169246047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|0.003|0.055|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.055|0.003|
84746474|NCT00709852|169246048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||||95.0|-0.049|0.078|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.078|-0.049|
84746475|NCT00709852|169246049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|-0.009|0.065|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.065|-0.009|
84746476|NCT00709852|169246049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||95.0|-0.04|0.02|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.020|-0.040|
84746477|NCT00709852|169246049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||95.0|-0.015|0.035|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.035|-0.015|
84746478|NCT00709852|169246050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.042|0.153|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.153|0.042|
84746479|NCT00709852|169246050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.03|0.161|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.161|0.030|
84752586|NCT04721821|169260206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.33|0.46|
84752587|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.77|0.78|
84752588|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.71|
84752589|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.39||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.39|0.45|
84752590|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.40|0.50|
84752591|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.83||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.83|0.49|
84557536|NCT05821296|168868087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.035
84669989|NCT02404350|169073661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
84669990|NCT02404350|169073661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS Mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
84669991|NCT02404350|169073661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.67|-1.05|<0.0001
84669992|NCT02404350|169073662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.47|0.2250
84669993|NCT02404350|169073662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.29|0.0004
84669994|NCT02404350|169073662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.69|0.28|0.0004
84669995|NCT02404350|169073663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.22|0.0004
84669996|NCT02404350|169073663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.19|0.0003
84669997|NCT02404350|169073663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.44|0.13|<0.0001
84669998|NCT05389657|169073664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.617||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|2.283|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on training completion, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||2.283|0.167|0.47
84669999|NCT05389657|169073665|SUPERIORITY||adjusted group difference unstandardized|-1.268||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.618|1.083|||Regression, Linear|multilevel linear regression with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation||We used linear multilevel models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on knowledge acquisition at post-training, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline FBT-KA score, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||1.083|-3.618|.29
84670000|NCT05389657|169073666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|19.293|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on engagement in FBT consultation at 12 months, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline intent to seek FBT consultation, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||19.293|0.070|0.92
84670001|NCT03089606|169073667|OTHER|2-tailed Fisher's exact test||||||0.08|||||||2-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Null hypothesis. No association between baseline C11-AMT PET SUVmax value and antitumor response to pembrolizumab.||||0.08
84670002|NCT00335972|169073673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For MAP with a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg and expected the SD of 12, we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. Incorporating the two interim and one final analyses, we thus planned a maximum sample size of N=71/group (N=142 total).|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0||Noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest). Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing and 97.5% CI were reported.|repeated measures ANOVA||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-5|-13|<0.001
84670003|NCT00335972|169073673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-4|-13|<0.001
84670004|NCT00335972|169073674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For VRS pain, the standard deviation (SD) was expected to be about 1.75, such that with a noninferiority delta of 1, we needed a maximum of N= 66 per group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
84746480|NCT00709852|169246050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||||95.0|0.006|0.098|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.098|0.006|
84746481|NCT00709852|169246051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.2||||0.0082|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0082
84605768|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Mostly||||0.018
84746482|NCT00709852|169246052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746483|NCT00709852|169246053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.8||||0.0039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0039
84746484|NCT00709852|169246054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746485|NCT00709852|169246055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.8|2.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||2.9|-3.8|
84746486|NCT00709852|169246056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
84605769|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Completely||||0.350
84746487|NCT00709852|169246057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
84746488|NCT00709852|169246058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746489|NCT00709852|169246059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84746490|NCT00709852|169246060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
84746491|NCT00709852|169246061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
84746492|NCT00709852|169246062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7630
84746493|NCT00709852|169246063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-3.1|3.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.1|-3.1|
84746494|NCT00709852|169246064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-2.7|3.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.6|-2.7|
84746495|NCT00709852|169246065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-1.6||||||95.0|-10.1|6.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||6.9|-10.1|
84746496|NCT00709852|169246066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.5||||0.0006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0006
84746497|NCT00709852|169246067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|19.4||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
84746498|NCT00709852|169246068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.6547|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6547
84746499|NCT00709852|169246069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746500|NCT00709852|169246070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|21.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746501|NCT00709852|169246071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||0.0833|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0833
84746502|NCT00709852|169246072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.5||||0.0236|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0236
84605770|NCT03654885|168962903|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Missing||||0.264
84746503|NCT00709852|169246073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.9||||0.0186|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0186
84746504|NCT00709852|169246074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.7055|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7055
84746505|NCT00709852|169246075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746506|NCT00709852|169246076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
84746507|NCT00709852|169246077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1573
84746508|NCT00709852|169246078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||||95.0|0.2|3.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.9|0.2|
84746509|NCT00709852|169246079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|6.5||||||95.0|1.5|11.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||11.4|1.5|
84746510|NCT00709852|169246080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.4|-1.4|
84746511|NCT00709852|169246081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
84752592|NCT04721821|169260207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.95|0.33|
84752593|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.49|0.76|
84752594|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.37|0.55|
84752595|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.2||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.20|0.32|
84752596|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.30|0.59|
84752597|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.86|0.65|
84752598|NCT04721821|169260208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||||95.0|0.62|3.28||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||3.28|0.62|
84752599|NCT04721821|169260209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.15|0.94|
84752600|NCT04721821|169260209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.84|0.68|
84752601|NCT04721821|169260210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.67|0.41|
84752602|NCT04721821|169260210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.07|0.62|
84752603|NCT04721821|169260211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.52|0.66|
84752604|NCT04721821|169260211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.74|0.64|
84752605|NCT04721821|169260212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.94||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.94|0.80|
84752606|NCT04721821|169260212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.87||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.87|0.76|
84752607|NCT04721821|169260213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.27|0.73|
84752608|NCT04721821|169260213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.23|0.63|
84752609|NCT04721821|169260214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
84752610|NCT04721821|169260214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.01|
84752611|NCT04721821|169260215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.08|
84752612|NCT04721821|169260215|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.11|
84752613|NCT04721821|169260216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.07|
84752614|NCT04721821|169260216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.05|
84752615|NCT04721821|169260217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.06|
84752616|NCT04721821|169260217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.12|
84752617|NCT04721821|169260218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.09|
84752618|NCT04721821|169260218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.06|
84752619|NCT04721821|169260219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|0.90|
84752620|NCT04721821|169260219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.94|0.54|
84752621|NCT04721821|169260220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.11|0.53|
84752622|NCT04721821|169260220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.61|0.72|
84752623|NCT04721821|169260221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.21||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.21|0.73|
84493756|NCT00234533|168738595|OTHER||F value|7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I levels; F value = 7.38 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0073.|||
84493757|NCT00234533|168738595|OTHER||F value|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.86 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0511|||
84493758|NCT00234533|168738596|OTHER||Mean difference|-164.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.35|-153.77||||||The Bland and Altman method was used to compare the results of each of the three simultaneous random capillary and serum measurements were compared. The difference between the capillary blood spot method and the serum IGF-I measurements is presented||-153.77|-483.35|
84493759|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|37.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.0|15.9|<.0001
84493760|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|37.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.3|17.1|<.0001
84493761|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.7|14.9|<.0001
84493762|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|10.8|<.0001
84493763|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|147.0||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|93.7|0.1148
84493764|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|153.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|233.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||233|101|0.0440
84746512|NCT00709852|169246082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|1.1||||||95.0|-1.0|3.2|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.2|-1.0|
84746513|NCT00709852|169246083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-0.5|1.5|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.5|-0.5|
84746514|NCT00709852|169246084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746515|NCT00709852|169246085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746516|NCT00709852|169246086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||||||||||||||||
84746517|NCT00709852|169246087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84605771|NCT03654885|168962904|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-8.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1445||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8681|24.2624|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Health||24.2624|-40.8681|0.610
84746518|NCT00709852|169246088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84746519|NCT00709852|169246089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||||||||||||||||
84746520|NCT00709852|169246090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||for all three readers|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84746521|NCT00709852|169246092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||||||||||||||||
84746522|NCT00709852|169246093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6||||||||||||||||
84746523|NCT00857272|169246377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fifteen percent has been established as an acceptable non-inferiority margin for evaluation of investigational bowel preparations in previous studies of FDA approved preparations (e.g. NuLytely, MoviPrep).|Difference in success rates|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.8|||Chi-squared|||"The primary endpoint of preparation success was tested using a non-inferiority test based upon the difference D=P1-P2,~Null Hypothesis H0: P1-P2\<=D0 versus Alternative Hypothesis H1: P1-P2=D1\>D0,~Where P1 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 5mg group and P2 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 10mg group and D0 is the acceptable margin of equivalence equal to an absolute margin of 15%."||6.8|-11.9|0.005
84746524|NCT01049217|169246429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, dideoxynucleoside analogue (D-drug) anti-retroviral agent (ART) use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.30|0.7090
84746525|NCT01049217|169246430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.5049
84746526|NCT01049217|169246431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.4271
84746527|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.31|0.2084
84746528|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.43|0.1516
84746529|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.00|-0.56|0.0468
84746530|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.62|0.1224
84746531|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.02|-0.75|0.0373
84746532|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.12|-0.67|0.1660
84746533|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.21|-0.63|0.3246
84746534|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.28|-0.58|0.4879
84746535|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.19|-0.69|0.2669
84746536|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.30|-0.56|0.5452
84752624|NCT04721821|169260221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.39|0.77|
84752625|NCT04721821|169260222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.64|
84752626|NCT04721821|169260222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.64||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.64|0.69|
84752627|NCT04721821|169260223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.59||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.59|0.84|
84746537|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.59|0.5469
84746538|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.54|0.7843
84746539|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.44|-0.50|0.9008
84746540|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.45|0.9064
84746541|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.39|-0.57|0.7205
84746542|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.71|0.4334
84746543|NCT01049217|169246432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.35|-0.43|0.8402
84746544|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.08|-0.25|0.3098
84746545|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.09|-0.37|0.2429
84746546|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.00|-0.54|0.0504
84493765|NCT05664672|168738687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|136.0||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|210.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||210|87.8|0.2422
84493766|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.9||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|110.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||110|22.7|0.0994
84493767|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|65.8||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|32.0|0.4162
84746547|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.06|-0.58|0.1141
84557537|NCT05821296|168868087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.036
84557538|NCT05821296|168868087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.784
84557539|NCT05821296|168868088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4466.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
84746548|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.02|-0.66|0.0667
84746549|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.13|-0.61|0.2104
84746550|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.25|-0.53|0.4830
84746551|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.29|-0.51|0.5757
84746552|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.62|0.3231
84746553|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.63|0.3143
84746554|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.54|0.6300
84746555|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.32|-0.57|0.5752
84746556|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.46|0.8905
84746557|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.45|0.9991
84746558|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.48|0.8927
84746559|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.54|0.8067
84746560|NCT01049217|169246433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.35|0.9009
84746561|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.64|0.0948
84746562|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.23|-0.57|0.4167
84746563|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.39|0.8179
84746564|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.6913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.33|0.6913
84746565|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.39|0.9475
84746566|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.47|0.7412
84746567|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.43|-0.41|0.9715
84605772|NCT03654885|168962905|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|2.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Percent Activity Impairment Due to Health||2.52|-30.32|0.097
84605773|NCT02080260|168962941|SUPERIORITY||16-week PFS Rate|0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.317||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of the study. The study enrollment was stopped early due to futility.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The null hypothesis assumes a median PFS of 6 weeks, corresponding to a 16-week PFS rate of approximately 0.15. A single-stage design will be used to test that the 16-week PFS rate is less than or equal to 0.15. If at least 8 of the 32 subjects are alive and progression free at 16 weeks, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level, this will provide at least 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, assuming the true 16-week PFS rate is 0.35.||0.317|0.012|0.824
84605774|NCT02080260|168962942|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||7.1|2.9|
84605775|NCT02080260|168962943|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||17.0|8.1|
84605776|NCT02080260|168962944|OTHER|Estimation only|Overall Response Rate|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.249|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.249|0.001|
84605777|NCT02080260|168962945|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.543|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.543|0.119|
84605778|NCT02853435|168962955|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9809|1.1063|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1063|0.9809|
84605779|NCT02853435|168962955|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0459|1.1797|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1797|1.0459|
84746568|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.48|-0.38|0.8163
84605780|NCT02853435|168962956|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0408|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1062|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1062|0.9792|
84605781|NCT02853435|168962956|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.1838|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1838|1.0479|
84746569|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.22|0.3682
84605782|NCT02853435|168962958|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.0888|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.0888|0.8440|
84605783|NCT02853435|168962958|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0113|1.3047|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.3047|1.0113|
84605784|NCT02853435|168962959|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.233||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.267|0.0||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.267|0.309
84605785|NCT02853435|168962959|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.25||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.250|-0.500|<0.001
84746570|NCT01049217|169246434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.21|0.3511
84752628|NCT04721821|169260223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.65|
84752629|NCT04721821|169260224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.03|
84752630|NCT04721821|169260224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.04|
84752631|NCT04721821|169260225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.05|
84752632|NCT04721821|169260225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.07|
84752633|NCT04721821|169260226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.02|-0.06|
84752634|NCT04721821|169260226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.04|
84752635|NCT04721821|169260227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
84752636|NCT04721821|169260227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.10|
84752637|NCT04721821|169260228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.05|
84752638|NCT04721821|169260228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.06|
84752639|NCT04721821|169260229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.45|-2.65|
84605786|NCT00996801|168963086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.96||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.35|-3.58|0.012
84605787|NCT00996801|168963086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.25|-3.37|0.019
84605788|NCT00996801|168963086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.41|-3.23|0.019
84605789|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.38|-3.90|<0.001
84605790|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.40|-3.83|<0.001
84605791|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.02|-3.22|<0.001
84605792|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.74||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.52|-1.99|0.376
84605793|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-1.93|0.376
84605794|NCT00996801|168963087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.88||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.88|-1.32|0.699
84605795|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.64|-3.43|0.002
84605796|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.09|-2.48|0.035
84605797|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.38|-3.14|0.009
84746571|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9686
84605798|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.54|-2.26|0.335
84746572|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Squeezing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.4476
84746573|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.5630
84746574|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Electric Shocks: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9937
84746575|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Stabbing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8718
84746576|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Light Touching: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.4|-0.5|0.8241
84746577|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.2|-0.7|0.3164
84746578|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Cold of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8996
84752640|NCT04721821|169260229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.11||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.11|-2.59|
84493768|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|215.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||215|47.5|1.0000
84493769|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.94|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||4.94|1.01|<.0001
84493770|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2230.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|965.0|5160.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||5160|965|<.0001
84493771|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2940.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1350.0|6400.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||6400|1350|<.0001
84557540|NCT05821296|168868088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2315.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6197.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.074
84746579|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pins and Needles: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9676
84746580|NCT01049217|169246435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Tingling: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9091
84752641|NCT04721821|169260230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.38|-2.71|
84752642|NCT04721821|169260230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.95|-5.12|
84752643|NCT04721821|169260231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.94|
84752644|NCT04721821|169260231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|2.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.42|-3.61|
84752645|NCT04721821|169260232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||3.05|-4.39|
84752646|NCT04721821|169260232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.48|-9.19|
84752647|NCT04721821|169260233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.82||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.82|-3.59|
84752648|NCT04721821|169260233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.49||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.49|-2.97|
84752649|NCT04721821|169260234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.73|
84752650|NCT04721821|169260234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.66|
84752651|NCT04721821|169260235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.73|0.62|
84752652|NCT04721821|169260235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|0.50|
84752653|NCT04721821|169260236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.19|0.64|
84752654|NCT04721821|169260236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.26|0.60|
84752655|NCT04721821|169260237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.46|0.55|
84752656|NCT04721821|169260237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.51|0.47|
84752657|NCT04721821|169260238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.38|0.60|
84752658|NCT04721821|169260238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.50|0.56|
84752659|NCT04721821|169260239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.11|-0.69|
84752660|NCT04721821|169260239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.77||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.77|-2.79|
84752661|NCT04721821|169260240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.6||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|-5.02|
84752662|NCT04721821|169260240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.96||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.96|-2.85|
84752663|NCT04721821|169260241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.75|
84752664|NCT04721821|169260241|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.47||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.47|-3.54|
84752665|NCT04721821|169260242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|4.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.73|-2.36|
84752666|NCT04721821|169260242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.07|-7.36|
84752667|NCT04721821|169260243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|5.41||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||5.41|-0.66|
84752668|NCT04721821|169260243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|4.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.71|-2.69|
84752669|NCT04721821|169260244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.40|-0.16|
84752670|NCT04721821|169260244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.45||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-0.21|
84752671|NCT04721821|169260245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.43|-0.40|
84752672|NCT04721821|169260245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.29|-0.74|
84752673|NCT04721821|169260246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.10|-0.51|
84752674|NCT04721821|169260246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.42|
84752675|NCT04721821|169260247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.34|
84752676|NCT04721821|169260247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.69|
84752677|NCT04721821|169260248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.37|
84752678|NCT04721821|169260248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.59|-0.30|
84752679|NCT02019420|169260251|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in ITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid). Noninferiority is declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -10.|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.7|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||4.7|-8.2|
84752680|NCT02019420|169260252|OTHER|Difference in mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||7.1|-10.3|
84493772|NCT05664672|168738688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4530.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2020.0|10200.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10200|2020|<.0001
84493773|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.87|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||9.87|3.29|<.0001
84493774|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|13.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||13.4|4.88|<.0001
84493775|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|11.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||11.2|3.88|<.0001
84493776|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10.5|3.46|<.0001
84493777|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.4||||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|169.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||169|52.7|0.9972
84493778|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|134.0||||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|77.9|0.4655
84493779|NCT05664672|168738689|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|109.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|192.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||192|62.1|0.9851
84493780|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|19.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.2|9.72|<.0001
84493781|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.6|12.1|<.0001
84493782|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.68|<.0001
84746581|NCT01049217|169246436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Duration of Spontaneous Pain: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7300
84746582|NCT01049217|169246436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Pain Attacks: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.0559
84746583|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.05|0.9686
84746584|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressing Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.06|0.4711
84746585|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Paroxysmal Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.04|0.9215
84605799|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.11||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-1.30|0.857
84746586|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Evoked Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.05|0.6042
84746587|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, P/D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.04|-0.05|0.9394
84746588|NCT01049217|169246437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Total Score: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.04|0.7801
84746589|NCT01049217|169246438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.6012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint TST: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.6012
84746590|NCT01049217|169246438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint MIS: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0534
84746591|NCT01049217|169246439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0966
84605800|NCT00996801|168963088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.79||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.79|-1.96|0.542
84605801|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.91|<0.001
84746592|NCT01049217|169246440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0611|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0611
84746593|NCT01049217|169246441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8436.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6855.2||0.2195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.2195
84746594|NCT01049217|169246442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8241
84746595|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.66|-4.42|0.8528
84746596|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|9.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||9.14|-3.37|0.3650
84746597|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, SOB: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.86|-4.07|0.7237
84746598|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Quantity: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.15|-0.50|0.2783
84746599|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||8.16|-2.11|0.2475
84746600|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.933||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.96|-2.64|0.5492
84746601|NCT01049217|169246443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.614||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Problems Index: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.36|-3.00|0.9113
84746602|NCT01049217|169246444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Endpoint: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7399
84746603|NCT01049217|169246445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.8258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.84|-0.67|0.8258
84746604|NCT01049217|169246445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.38|-0.09|0.0840
84746605|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|5.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.92|-3.49|0.6114
84746606|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-P: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.53|-4.39|0.8209
84746607|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.335||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, BP: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.67|-4.52|0.9737
84746608|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.6966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, GH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.57|-3.05|0.6966
84746609|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.73|-1.44|0.8569
84746610|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Vit: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.31|-4.96|0.4734
84746611|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.159||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, So Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.28|-6.22|0.3625
84746612|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-E: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||7.79|-2.21|0.2736
84746613|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.811||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, MnH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.15|-3.98|0.8199
84605802|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.78|<0.001
84605803|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.74||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.74|-4.66|<0.001
84605804|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.93|0.180
84605805|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.81|0.180
84605806|NCT00996801|168963089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.22||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.23|-2.68|0.180
84605807|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.54|-2.18|0.001
84605808|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.55||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.55|-2.46|0.001
84670005|NCT00335972|169073674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
84746614|NCT01049217|169246446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Mn C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.98|-1.82|0.9361
84557541|NCT05821296|168868088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2700.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5962.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
84557542|NCT05821296|168868088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5021.2||0.779|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
84557543|NCT05821296|168868089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75800.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|142643.92||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
84746615|NCT00998335|169246462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline versus 3 months||||0.03
84746616|NCT01370590|169246498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10 mg/20 mg combination tablet was considered equivalent to co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg, if the two-sided 97.5% expanded confidence intervals of the treatment difference in least squares means for percent change in LDL-C from baseline after 6 weeks of treatment (combination minus co-administration) was contained within -4% and 4% (equivalence margins).|Difference in Least-square Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|3.3|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.4% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||3.3|-1.7|
84746617|NCT01370590|169246499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-square means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.8|
84746618|NCT01370590|169246500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.6|
84746619|NCT01370590|169246501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|
84746620|NCT01370590|169246502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.6|
84746621|NCT01370590|169246503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|6.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Analyses were based on log-transformed data.||6.3|-3.2|
84746622|NCT05172050|169246504|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.781||Upper limit is not estimable (NE) due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||1.781|0.0109
84746623|NCT05172050|169246504|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.414||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858||The upper limit is not estimable (NE), due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||0.858|0.0673
84746624|NCT05172050|169246504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.186||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm.|||2.147|0.0061
84752681|NCT02019420|169260253|OTHER|Difference in ITT clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-0.5|-14.7|
84752682|NCT02019420|169260254|OTHER|Difference in CE clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|2.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||2.1|-15.1|
84752683|NCT02019420|169260255|OTHER|Difference in MSSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||9.5|-12.5|
84752684|NCT02019420|169260256|OTHER|Difference in MRSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||18.9|-12.8|
84752685|NCT02019420|169260257|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
84752686|NCT02019420|169260258|OTHER|Difference in ME-1 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
84752687|NCT02019420|169260259|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-3.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-3.5|-21.5|
84752688|NCT02019420|169260260|OTHER|Difference in ME-2 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-1.2|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-1.2|-26.2|
84557544|NCT05821296|168868089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73517.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|197224.85||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.054
84557545|NCT05821296|168868089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90424.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|198264.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
84557546|NCT05821296|168868089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1314.03||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
84557547|NCT00672841|168868155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity %||Sensitivity \[1\] = (True positives \[n=6\]/ True positives + False negatives \[n=6\])|Clinical sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
84557548|NCT00672841|168868155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|50.0||||||95.0|||||% Specificity||Specificity \[0.50\]= True negatives \[n=28\]/ True negatives + False positives \[56\])|Clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for the study groups combined||||
84493783|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.2|11.2|<.0001
84493784|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.8||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|60.6|0.7167
84493785|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|105.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|147.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||147|75.3|0.9864
84493786|NCT05664672|168738690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|85.1||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|60.1|0.5911
84493787|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.0|21.8|<.0001
84493788|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.4|21.5|<.0001
84493789|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|44.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||44.2|24.8|<.0001
84493790|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|27.7|<.0001
84493791|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|78.8||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|57.3|0.1950
84493792|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|75.5||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|102.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||102|56.1|0.0699
84493793|NCT05664672|168738691|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.3||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|64.7|0.7041
84605809|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.91|-2.93|<0.001
84605810|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-1.21|0.383
84605811|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.45|-1.49|0.383
84605812|NCT00996801|168963090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.94||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.09|-1.96|0.084
84605813|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.88|0.680
84670006|NCT00335972|169073675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority.we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. We assumed for opioids that the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was about 0.4, resulting in a similar sample size (64/group) with noninferiority deltas of 20% of the observed mean|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil|||-5|-10|<0.001
84670007|NCT00335972|169073675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI)|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority||-3|-10|<0.001
84670008|NCT00867451|169073681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
84670009|NCT02039674|169073689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|26.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||||42.1|8.9|0.0016
84670010|NCT02039674|169073690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858|||||||Exact binomial distribution for testing|HO: ORR ≤20% versus H1: ORR \>20%||||||0.0858
84746625|NCT05172050|169246504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.936||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm|||0.938|0.0567
84746626|NCT05172050|169246505|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.663||||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|9.053|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.053|0.337|0.7121
84746627|NCT05172050|169246505|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|4.977|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.977|0.185|>0.999
84746628|NCT05172050|169246505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.153||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||20.153|0.350|0.5378
84746629|NCT05172050|169246505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|8.589||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||8.589|0.185|>0.999
84746630|NCT05172050|169246506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|5.708|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 14||5.708|0.219|>0.999
84557549|NCT00672841|168868157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity||Sensitivity = (true positives \[n=6\]/true positives + false negative \[n=6\])|The clinic sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
84746631|NCT05172050|169246506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.202||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|22.116|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||At day 14||22.116|0.541|0.2553
84746632|NCT05172050|169246506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|18.532|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||18.532|0.294|0.6189
84746633|NCT05172050|169246506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|413.499|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||413.499|0.586|0.1662
84746634|NCT05172050|169246507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|4.906|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||4.906|0.193|>0.999
84493794|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|18.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.4|9.57|<.0001
84557550|NCT00672841|168868157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|52.0||||||95.0|||||Specificity||Specificity \[0.52\]= (True negatives \[n=30\]/True negatives + false positives \[n=58\])|The clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
84746635|NCT05172050|169246507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.822|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||6.822|0.200|>0.999
84746636|NCT05172050|169246507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.066|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|5.478|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||5.478|0.208|>0.999
84746637|NCT05172050|169246507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.068||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|12.58|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||12.580|0.369|0.5465
84746638|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R60 vs Placebo||||0.3899
84746639|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120 mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
84752689|NCT01554488|169260335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.92||||||All of the comparisons were based on mixed effects linear regression models with visit and group\*visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Confidence intervals for the treatment difference (group\*visit interaction) were constructed using the Wald method.||2.92|-5.03|
84752690|NCT01474863|169260344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
84752691|NCT00708175|169260345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.24||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and baseline BMD as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||The sample size was calculated using a precision approach to estimate the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo treatment groups in the percent change from baseline in BMD.||0.24|-1.33|0.170
84746640|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R60 vs placebo||||0.3899
84605814|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.28||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.28|-1.30|0.993
84746641|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
84746642|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6846||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R60 vs placebo||||0.6846
84746643|NCT05172050|169246510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6614||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R120 vs placebo||||0.6614
84746644|NCT05172050|169246512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
84746645|NCT05172050|169246512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||p value= not estimable|Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
84746646|NCT02909764|169246515|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84746647|NCT02909764|169246516|OTHER|Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.||||<0.05
84746648|NCT02909764|169246517|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84746649|NCT02909764|169246518|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
84746650|NCT02909764|169246519|OTHER|General estimating equations (GEE)|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were conducted on the amount of cereal in grams ingested during 28 days home-exposure period. The GEE approach accounts for the repeated measurements of outcomes over time for each child and examines whether the slopes of the lines created differ between the treatment groups.||||<0.05
84746651|NCT02909764|169246520|OTHER|T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between groups|||||>|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between the two groups.||||>0.40
84746652|NCT04617275|169246530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.23|19.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||19.85|-15.23|0.5863
84746653|NCT04617275|169246530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.41||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.75|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-34.75|0.0494
84746654|NCT04617275|169246530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.09|-13.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.61|-48.09|0.0019
84746655|NCT04617275|169246530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|-16.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-16.32|-51.00|0.0009
84746656|NCT04617275|169246530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-37.12|0.0343
84746657|NCT04617275|169246531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.41|14.76||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||14.76|-21.41|0.3804
84746658|NCT04617275|169246531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.44|-1.87||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.87|-37.44|0.0348
84746659|NCT04617275|169246531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.8||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.54|-15.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-15.05|-50.54|0.0014
84746660|NCT04617275|169246531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.9|-17.81||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.81|-53.90|0.0007
84746661|NCT04617275|169246531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.6|-10.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-10.37|-46.60|0.0052
84746662|NCT04617275|169246532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.97|-4.18||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.18|-46.97|0.0250
84746663|NCT04617275|169246532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.95||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.95|-11.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-11.95|-53.95|0.0053
84605815|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-2.67|0.230
84605816|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.84||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.61|-2.29|0.333
84670011|NCT02039674|169073692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.83|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||0.83|0.35|0.00252
84670012|NCT02039674|169073693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||1.12|0.45|0.06762
84670013|NCT01408030|169073695|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84670014|NCT01408030|169073696|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||.47
84670015|NCT01408030|169073697|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.|||||<|0.001||||||"A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze ESS for drug and time (baseline, week 12) effects.~Listed P value is for time effect."|Mixed Models Analysis|Clinical site and patient were included in the model as random effects.||||||<0.001
84670016|NCT01408030|169073698|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values and random effect of clinic site.||||||0.43
84670017|NCT01408030|169073699|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
84670018|NCT01408030|169073700|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84670019|NCT00108160|169073701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Our null hypothesis was that no significant effect of mupirocin ointment (treatment) on S. aureus re-infection would be seen at 18 months compared with placebo ointment. Based on prior studies, we estimated that 198 participants would need to be enrolled assuming a 20% dropout rate; 84 participants per arm would be required to detect a 66% decrease in re-infection from 30% to 10% with a significance level alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.9.||||0.356
84670020|NCT05045144|169073709|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.13|0.92|
84670021|NCT05045144|169073709|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.05|0.85|
84670022|NCT05045144|169073709|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.03|0.83|
84746664|NCT04617275|169246532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.07||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.41|-18.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-18.73|-61.41|0.0012
84746665|NCT04617275|169246532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.85|-24.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-24.10|-66.85|0.0003
84746666|NCT04617275|169246532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.63||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.19|-12.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.08|-55.19|0.0055
84746667|NCT04617275|169246533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.79||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.12|-7.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-7.47|-48.12|0.0127
84746668|NCT04617275|169246533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.67||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.51|-5.83||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-5.83|-45.51|0.0171
84746669|NCT04617275|169246533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.16|-26.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-26.72|-67.16|0.0001
84746670|NCT04617275|169246533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.79||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.32|-13.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.27|-54.32|0.0037
84746671|NCT04617275|169246533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.85|-21.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-21.40|-62.85|0.0005
84746672|NCT04617275|169246534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.9|9.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||9.21|-34.90|0.1678
84746673|NCT04617275|169246534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.85|6.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||6.21|-35.85|0.1223
84746674|NCT04617275|169246534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.97||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.66|-12.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.28|-55.66|0.0054
84746675|NCT04617275|169246534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.5398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.38|22.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||22.99|-20.38|0.5398
84746676|NCT04617275|169246534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.56|7.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||7.72|-36.56|0.1409
84746677|NCT04617275|169246535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.65||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.31|-4.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.99|-52.31|0.0236
84746678|NCT04617275|169246535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.32||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.67|-4.97||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.97|-49.67|0.0226
84493795|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|17.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||17.9|9.84|<.0001
84605817|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.69|0.577
84605818|NCT00996801|168963091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.12|-3.07|0.078
84746679|NCT04617275|169246535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.85||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.11|-17.59||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.59|-64.11|0.0022
84605819|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.25|-4.22|0.094
84605820|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.66||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-3.82|0.157
84605821|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.38|-3.53|0.157
84746680|NCT04617275|169246535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.59|13.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||13.08|-33.59|0.2335
84746681|NCT04617275|169246535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.38||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.69|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-48.69|0.0494
84746682|NCT04617275|169246536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.13||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.13|-0.31|0.2485
84746683|NCT04617275|169246536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.04||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.04|-0.48|0.0252
84605822|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.76||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.76|-2.61|0.937
84746684|NCT04617275|169246536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-0.56|0.0053
84746685|NCT04617275|169246536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-0.54|0.0090
84493796|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.93|<.0001
84746686|NCT04617275|169246536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.05|-0.39|0.1066
84746687|NCT04617275|169246537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-0.40|0.2740
84746688|NCT04617275|169246537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-0.66|0.0196
84605823|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.01|-2.21|0.992
84605824|NCT00996801|168963092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.90|-1.93|0.992
84746689|NCT04617275|169246537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.30|-0.88|0.0006
84746690|NCT04617275|169246537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|-0.23||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.23|-0.82|0.0019
84746691|NCT04617275|169246537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-0.66|0.0243
84746692|NCT04617275|169246538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.15|-0.62|0.1587
84746693|NCT04617275|169246538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.27|-1.04|0.0027
84746694|NCT04617275|169246538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.24|0.0002
84746695|NCT04617275|169246538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.32|-1.10|0.0016
84746696|NCT04617275|169246538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.28|-1.07|0.0027
84746697|NCT04617275|169246539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.01||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.01|-0.86|0.0472
84746698|NCT04617275|169246539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.45|-1.29|0.0004
84746699|NCT04617275|169246539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.68|-1.53|<0.0001
84746700|NCT04617275|169246539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|-0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.50|-1.36|0.0003
84746701|NCT04617275|169246539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.34|0.0004
84746702|NCT04617275|169246540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.19|-1.18|0.0116
84746703|NCT04617275|169246540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.43|0.0008
84746704|NCT04617275|169246540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|-0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.67|-1.66|<0.0001
84746705|NCT04617275|169246540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|0.0017
84746706|NCT04617275|169246540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.55||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.55|-1.55|0.0004
84746707|NCT04617275|169246541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.20|-1.32|0.0132
84746708|NCT04617275|169246541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.46||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.55|0.0014
84746709|NCT04617275|169246541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.80|0.0002
84746710|NCT04617275|169246541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.16|-1.29|0.0174
84746711|NCT04617275|169246541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.82|0.0002
84746712|NCT04617275|169246542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.50|-1.02|0.2843
84746713|NCT04617275|169246542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-0.84|0.4310
84746714|NCT04617275|169246542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.43||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.43|-1.07|0.2402
84746715|NCT04617275|169246542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.26||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.26|-1.24|0.1397
84746716|NCT04617275|169246542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.71||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.71|-0.85|0.4393
84746717|NCT04617275|169246543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.45|-2.00|0.1491
84746718|NCT04617275|169246543|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.34||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.34|-1.09|0.5664
84746719|NCT04617275|169246543|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|0.09||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.09|-2.33|0.0632
84746720|NCT04617275|169246543|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.20|-2.23|0.0847
84746721|NCT04617275|169246543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.3||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.30|-1.20|0.5264
84746722|NCT04617275|169246544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-2.86|0.0395
84746723|NCT04617275|169246544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|1.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.10|-1.63|0.3726
84746724|NCT04617275|169246544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|-0.98||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.98|-3.74|0.0028
84746725|NCT04617275|169246544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-3.23|0.0139
84746726|NCT04617275|169246544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.64||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.64|-2.19|0.1815
84746727|NCT04617275|169246545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|-0.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.61|-3.71|0.0112
84493797|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|12.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.9|6.67|<.0001
84493798|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|202.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||202|101|0.0404
84746728|NCT04617275|169246545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|0.8||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.80|-2.24|0.2161
84746729|NCT04617275|169246545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-5.02|0.0002
84746730|NCT04617275|169246545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-3.59|0.0147
84746731|NCT04617275|169246545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|-1.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.37|-4.56|0.0013
84746732|NCT04617275|169246546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|-0.7||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.70|-4.22|0.0111
84746733|NCT04617275|169246546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-2.75|0.1600
84746734|NCT04617275|169246546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-2.52||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.52|-6.03|<0.0001
84493799|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.0|198.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||198|104|0.0243
84493800|NCT05664672|168738692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|146.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|205.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||205|105|0.0215
84746735|NCT04617275|169246546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|-0.94||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.94|-4.42|0.0061
84746736|NCT04617275|169246546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|-1.89||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.89|-5.52|0.0005
84746737|NCT04617275|169246547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.20|-5.22|0.0047
84746738|NCT04617275|169246547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.44||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.44|-3.45|0.1003
84746739|NCT04617275|169246547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|-2.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.95|-6.96|<0.0001
84746740|NCT04617275|169246547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-4.49|0.0197
84746741|NCT04617275|169246547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-2.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.85|-7.03|<0.0001
84746742|NCT04617275|169246548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-2.12|0.0836
84746743|NCT04617275|169246549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-3.07|0.0386
84746744|NCT04617275|169246550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|1.0||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.00|-3.99|0.1566
84746745|NCT04617275|169246551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.67|-5.91|0.0916
84746746|NCT04617275|169246552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|0.17||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.17|-6.31|0.0590
84746747|NCT04617275|169246553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|0.75||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.75|-8.23|0.0826
84746748|NCT04227704|169246565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
84746749|NCT04227704|169246566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84746750|NCT04227704|169246573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
84746751|NCT02317432|169246584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84746752|NCT02317432|169246585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84746753|NCT02317432|169246586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84746754|NCT02317432|169246587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84746755|NCT02317432|169246588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84746756|NCT04101318|169246612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.62|-0.38|0.625
84746757|NCT04101318|169246613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.908||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for itching evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.908|1.038|0.036
84746758|NCT04101318|169246614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|The mode had following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.20|-0.90|0.202
84746759|NCT04101318|169246615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.401||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for pain evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.401|0.781|0.267
84746760|NCT04101318|169246616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.30|-0.57|0.545
84746761|NCT04101318|169246617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.316||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|2.211||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for burning evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.211|0.783|0.293
84746762|NCT04101318|169246618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|There is no difference between the two arms.||1.27|0.53|0.375
84746763|NCT04101318|169246619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||1.40|0.49|0.482
84746764|NCT04101318|169246620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|1.14|0.43|0.151
84746765|NCT04101318|169246621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.725
84493801|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.80|3.69|<.0001
84746766|NCT04101318|169246622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
84746767|NCT04101318|169246623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.28|-0.38|0.753
84493802|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|7.96|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.96|4.01|<.0001
84493803|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.03|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.03|3.92|<.0001
84746768|NCT04101318|169246624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||4.18|-1.43|0.331
84746769|NCT04101318|169246625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|31.34||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||31.34|-7.98|0.239
84746770|NCT04101318|169246626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.31|-0.91|0.322
84746771|NCT04101318|169246627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.15|-0.44|0.343
84746772|NCT04101318|169246628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.21|-0.53|0.387
84746773|NCT04101318|169246629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.16|-0.18|0.899
84746774|NCT00558259|169246630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.02|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.25|0.02|<0.0001
84746775|NCT00558259|169246631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.27|0.03|<0.0001
84746776|NCT00558259|169246632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84746777|NCT00558259|169246632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.06|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in Dabigatran group.|||1.06|0.04|
84746778|NCT00558259|169246632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|5.17|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in placebo group.|||5.17|2.21|
84746779|NCT00558259|169246633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.0004
84746780|NCT00558259|169246633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in Dabigatran group.|||0.82|0.00|
84746781|NCT00558259|169246633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in placebo group.|||3.52|1.16|
84746782|NCT00558259|169246634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.2428
84746783|NCT00558259|169246634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in Dabigatran group.|||0.54|0.00|
84746784|NCT00558259|169246634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.09|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in placebo group.|||1.09|0.04|
84493804|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.89|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.89|4.17|<.0001
84493805|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.1||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|131.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||131|59.4|0.8335
84493806|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.9||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|134.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||134|64.2|0.9622
84493807|NCT05664672|168738693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.1||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|62.8|0.9531
84493808|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|22.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.3|14.4|<.0001
84605825|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.56|-2.50|0.824
84605826|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-2.28|0.824
84670023|NCT05045144|169073710|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for the A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.82|0.63|
84670024|NCT05045144|169073710|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||1.10|0.79|
84670025|NCT05045144|169073710|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.93|0.69|
84670026|NCT05045144|169073711|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of RSV MAT vaccine is demonstrated for RSV A neutralizing antibody titers, if the LL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by RSV MAT vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the RSV MAT vaccine when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine, compared to RSV MAT vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of GMTs of RSV A neutralizing antibody titers at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.97|0.78|
84670027|NCT05045144|169073712|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|10.29|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.29|-3.44|
84672247|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.979||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||1.979|0.620|0.760
84493809|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|22.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.1|14.8|<.0001
84493810|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|19.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.4|12.8|<.0001
84493811|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|22.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.7|14.6|<.0001
84670028|NCT05045144|169073712|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|10.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.32|-2.04|
84670029|NCT05045144|169073712|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|10.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.58|-2.46|
84670030|NCT00788827|169073731|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each participants Hba1c (%) lab result was analysed pre and post stem cell infusion to achieve 2 mean readings per participant.||||<0.05
84670031|NCT04365556|169073754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84670032|NCT04365556|169073755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.69
84670033|NCT00483223|169073771|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no association between expression ratio and response rate Ha: Participants with expression ratio greater than 2 would have higher response rate||||0.54
84670034|NCT00502697|169073785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The original proposed sample size for this study was 300. This sample size was based on previous evidence that indicated that a reduction of 15% in the rate of preterm birth would be detectable with groups of 150. Because of concerns with systemic changes in the study's health care delivery environment, an interim analysis was conducted after 200 women had delivered. As a result of that analysis a decision was made to stop recruitment.||||.64
84670035|NCT00589108|169073826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.64
84670036|NCT00589108|169073826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.80
84670037|NCT00589108|169073827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Function Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.06
84670038|NCT00589108|169073828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Pain Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.87
84670039|NCT00589108|169073829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.44
84670040|NCT00589108|169073829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.08
84670041|NCT00589108|169073830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the percentage of knees surviving between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.92
84670042|NCT01713868|169073831|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was significant, we presented results from the interaction model.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.34. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.01. Adjusted education only effect p=0.74. Adjusted mHealth only effect p=0.02. Adjusted mHealth and education effect: p=0.03|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction.We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||0.03
84746785|NCT00558259|169246635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4998||||||As the Cox model did not converge due to too few events, hazard ratios are not estimable.|Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo - Analysis of time to first occurrence of an MBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||||0.4998
84493812|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.4||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|78.2|0.9993
84746786|NCT00558259|169246635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in Dabigatran group.|||1.05|0.04|
84746787|NCT00558259|169246635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in placebo group.|||0.56|0.00|
84746788|NCT00558259|169246635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.6|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of a MBE or CRBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||5.60|1.52|0.0013
84746789|NCT00558259|169246635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of any bleeding event during the treatment period - FAS - as treated||2.68|1.23|0.0027
84746790|NCT04601870|169246671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
84746791|NCT04601870|169246671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
84746792|NCT04601870|169246671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|3.446|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.917 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 or $100 arm vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||3.446|.653|.3383
84746793|NCT04601870|169246672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|10.6751|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.243 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||10.6751|.5100|.2650
84746794|NCT04601870|169246672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8333||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1301|5.3369|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.037 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||5.3369|.1301|.8472
84746795|NCT04601870|169246672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.541||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3731|6.364|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.361 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 or $100 arms vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||6.3640|.3731|.5478
84746796|NCT04601870|169246672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3571||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06355|2.007|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.456 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $50 arm|||2.0070|.06355|.2276
84746797|NCT04193436|169246673|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|92.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|126.6||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log transformed data.||126.60|68.15|
84746798|NCT04193436|169246673|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|134.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.61|183.17||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||183.17|98.61|
84746799|NCT04193436|169246673|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.69|192.78||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||192.78|100.69|
84746800|NCT04193436|169246674|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.61|119.53||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||119.53|63.61|
84746801|NCT04193436|169246674|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|102.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.59|140.15||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||140.15|74.59|
84746802|NCT04193436|169246674|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|83.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.18|116.62||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||116.62|60.18|
84746803|NCT04193436|169246675|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.69|167.31||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||167.31|88.69|
84746804|NCT04193436|169246675|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|178.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.96|245.18||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||245.18|129.96|
84746805|NCT04193436|169246675|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|195.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.31|273.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||273.03|140.31|
84493813|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.9||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.7|123.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||123|79.7|0.9998
84493814|NCT05664672|168738694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.4||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|69.1|0.3019
84493815|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|13.2|<.0001
84493816|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|31.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||31.9|17.6|<.0001
84493817|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|26.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||26.4|14.2|<.0001
84493818|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.3|17.3|<.0001
84493819|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|76.1||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|107.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||107|54.0|0.1530
84746806|NCT04193436|169246676|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.13|148.63||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||148.63|88.13|
84746807|NCT04193436|169246676|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|136.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.75|176.67||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||176.67|104.75|
84746808|NCT04193436|169246676|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|117.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|155.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||155.03|89.61|
84746809|NCT00477334|169246693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.98|||Hodges-Lehman Shift Model||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for Famciclovir-time to healing for Placebo. Hodges-Lehman shift model is used to estimate the difference in treatment effect. P-value is from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status are imputed according to the distribution of the time to healing among the subjects in the placebo group whose time to healing is greater than or equal to the observed discontinuation time. (Censor time)||0.98|-0.40|0.4161
84746810|NCT00477334|169246693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Kaplan-Meier & Cox Regression||"Hazard ratio in time to healing=hazard rate of Famciclovir/hazard rate of Placebo.~Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center and gender as explanatory variables."|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study after 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status were censored at the time of the last clinical lesion observation.||1.39|0.74|0.9372
84746811|NCT02585232|169246733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline caregiver burden scores were included in the model as covariates.||||||.483
84746812|NCT02585232|169246734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores were included as covariates.||Only caregivers that were currently or previously in a romantic relationship (e.g., spouses, partners) with the person with dementia reported on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (i.e., N = 20, n = 9 in CC group and n = 11 in CC+C group).||||0.169
84746813|NCT02585232|169246735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline quality of life scores, education, and cognitive status were included as covariates in the model.||||||0.763
84746814|NCT02585232|169246736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline depression scores, cognitive status scores (i.e., MoCA), and education were included in the model as covariates.||||||0.780
84605827|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-3.23|0.624
84605828|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.78||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.82|-1.25|0.700
84605829|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.83||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.06|-1.39|0.700
84605830|NCT00996801|168963093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.19||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.19|-1.60|0.759
84605831|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.22||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|6.72||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||6.72|-39.15|0.227
84605832|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.85||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|21.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.61|-17.90|0.853
84746815|NCT02257567|169246751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.82||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.38|-14.53|0.5353
84746816|NCT02257567|169246751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates (4.89|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
84746817|NCT02257567|169246760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.69||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-19.68|0.8817
84746818|NCT02257567|169246760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|44.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.74|7.66|0.0061
84746819|NCT02257567|169246762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.0||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|16.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.46|-18.66|0.9523
84746820|NCT02257567|169246762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|47.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.37|9.48|0.0036
84746821|NCT02257567|169246763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.75||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|22.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.11|-15.14|0.6574
84746822|NCT02257567|169246763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
84746823|NCT02257567|169246766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.88||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|21.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.72|-14.49|0.6225
84746824|NCT02257567|169246766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|47.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.12|9.94|0.0032
84746825|NCT02257567|169246767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-6.13||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|12.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.12|-24.14|0.4835
84746826|NCT02257567|169246767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|42.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.33|5.39|0.0096
84746827|NCT02257567|169246768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|13.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.71|-15.07|0.9390
84746828|NCT02257567|169246768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|54.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.71|15.64|0.0006
84746829|NCT02257567|169246769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.82|54.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.62|15.82|0.0005
84746830|NCT02257567|169246770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.19|0.0245
84746831|NCT02257567|169246771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.25|0.2451
84746832|NCT02257567|169246772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.20|<.0001
84746833|NCT02257567|169246773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.23|0.0003
84746834|NCT01878214|169246825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84746835|NCT01878214|169246826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
84746836|NCT01878214|169246827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking frequency||||0.63
84746837|NCT01878214|169246827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking quantity||||0.30
84746838|NCT01878214|169246828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
84746839|NCT01878214|169246829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Motivation to quit||||0.09
84746840|NCT01878214|169246829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Thinking about quitting||||0.04
84746841|NCT00946101|169246830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of the power to rule out a 10% increase of fever rate in vaccine recipients with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), it is assumed that the true fever rate in the monovalent vaccine group is 3.0% to 8.0%,and the true fever rate in placebo group is 0% to 3% lower than the fever rate in the vaccine group.|rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.1|||score|||The rate of subjects with fever between the two treatment groups was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponds to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): rate difference \< 10%||3.1|-6.4|
84493820|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.6||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|136.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||136|71.7|0.9999
84493821|NCT05664672|168738695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|80.5||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|112.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||112|57.8|0.3025
84493822|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|30.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||30.4|17.0|<.0001
84746842|NCT00946101|169246831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|9.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||9.8|-12.8|
84493823|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.6|21.6|<.0001
84746843|NCT00946101|169246832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-9.6|
84746844|NCT00946101|169246833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.1|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||27.1|5.5|
84746845|NCT00946101|169246834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.6|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compated following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||17.6|-8.4|
84746846|NCT00946101|169246837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|25.7|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||25.7|-0.4|
84746847|NCT00946101|169246840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|6.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||6.1|-19.7|
84746848|NCT00946101|169246843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|7.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||7.1|-20.3|
84746849|NCT00946101|169246852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.7|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||14.7|-6.1|
84746850|NCT00946101|169246853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.1|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||15.1|-5.8|
84746851|NCT00946101|169246854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|25.2|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||25.2|5.9|
84746852|NCT06377488|169246859|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.056|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at distance was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||-0.056|-0.115|
84746853|NCT06377488|169246859|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.005|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at intermediate was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.005|-0.050|
84746854|NCT06377488|169246859|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.116|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at near was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.116|0.051|
84746855|NCT06377488|169246860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
84746856|NCT06377488|169246860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
84746857|NCT06377488|169246861|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.968|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.902 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.968|0.908|
84746858|NCT06377488|169246862|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.988|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.974|
84493824|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|36.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.2|20.8|<.0001
84493825|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|38.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||38.4|21.4|<.0001
84746859|NCT06377488|169246863|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.017|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.017|0.000|
84605833|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.14||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|9.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.39|-35.67|0.327
84672248|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|2.135||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||2.135|0.586|0.747
84746860|NCT06377488|169246864|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.011|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.011|0.000|
84746861|NCT06377488|169246865|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for hyperopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
84746862|NCT06377488|169246865|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for myopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
84746863|NCT06377488|169246866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|70.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||70.8|58.6|
84752692|NCT00708175|169260346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.56||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and the Month 12 BMD value as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.91|0.640
84605834|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.74||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.91|18.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||18.43|-23.91|0.940
84752693|NCT02038920|169260356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.958|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.958|0.816|0.1448
84752694|NCT02038920|169260357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|23.953|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group|||23.953|0.532|0.1779
84752695|NCT02038920|169260363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.673|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||4.673|0.720|0.1963
84752696|NCT02038920|169260365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|160.972|||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||160.972|1.473|0.0094
84752697|NCT02038920|169260366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|8.844|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group.|||8.844|0.254|0.6534
84752698|NCT02038920|169260367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||||0.2059
84752699|NCT00866697|169260376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.911||The P-value from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for the two stratification factors.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio was estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.911|0.643|0.0021
84752700|NCT00866697|169260377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.145|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank P-Value.|"The HR was estimated using a Pike estimator.~CIs were estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method."|||1.145|0.805|0.6431
84752701|NCT00447382|169260401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.649||95.0|0.86|1.26|||ANOVA|Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data).|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|"Null hypothesis:Treatment with detemir produced with the NN729 process result in a similar change in cross reacting antibody levels as the NN304 process. Alternative hypothesis: change in antibody levels differ after treatment with detemir produced by the two manufacturing processes.~The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA."||1.26|0.86|0.649
84670043|NCT01713868|169073832|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect: p=0.22. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.08.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up,this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
84670044|NCT01713868|169073833|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.07. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.54|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
84672249|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.576||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||2.576|0.726|0.330
84746864|NCT06377488|169246866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|69.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||69.5|59.0|
84746865|NCT06377488|169246867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|73.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||73.5|62.2|
84746866|NCT06377488|169246867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|71.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||71.8|62.2|
84746867|NCT06377488|169246868|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.966|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|0.988|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data.||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 5000 replicating trials, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.988|0.933|
84746868|NCT01288521|169246876|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the tacrolimus biovailability alone is equal to the tacrolimus bioavailability when given with ketoconazole.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|The bioavailability with Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using linear model adjusting for sex and creatinine clearance.||The bioavailability of Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using a general linear model including sex and creatinine clearance as covariates.||||0.006
84746869|NCT00552240|169246877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A point estimate of -6.5% or higher for the diff. in the prop. of responders (NVP - ATV/r) was to be considered consistent with a successful ArTEN study. In the worst case for both studies, if the 2 studies were to be pooled, the non-inferiority margin of -12% would then be outside the 95% confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.041||||0.7142||95.0|-0.183|0.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||With 75 evaluable patients per treatment group, this study had 80% power to observe a difference no lower than -6.5% assuming the true proportions of responders are both 65%.||0.101|-0.183|0.7142
84493826|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|79.4||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|58.6|0.1843
84605835|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|15.33||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|38.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||38.52|-7.86|0.273
84672250|NCT02659020|169080015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|2.965||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||2.965|0.636|0.411
84605836|NCT00996801|168963094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.33||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|19.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||19.90|-19.23|0.973
84746870|NCT00552240|169246878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for the primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.027||||0.6479||95.0|-0.167|0.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.113|-0.167|0.6479
84746871|NCT00552240|169246879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|0.084||||0.1477||95.0|-0.03|0.197|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.197|-0.030|0.1477
84746872|NCT00552240|169246880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.067||||0.3703||95.0|-0.215|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.080|-0.215|0.3703
84493827|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.1||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|73.9|0.9994
84746873|NCT00552240|169246881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.0314||95.0|0.46|0.964|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories.||Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine.||0.964|0.460|0.0314
84746874|NCT00552240|169246882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0172||95.0|0.428|0.921|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||"Responders only~Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine."||0.921|0.428|0.0172
84746875|NCT00552240|169246910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.7315||95.0|-8.4|11.9|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||11.9|-8.4|0.7315
84746876|NCT00552240|169246911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.3625||95.0|-33.4|12.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||12.3|-33.4|0.3625
84746877|NCT00552240|169246912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0164||95.0|0.9|8.8|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||8.8|0.9|0.0164
84746878|NCT00552240|169246913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9257||95.0|-8.4|9.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||9.3|-8.4|0.9257
84746879|NCT00552240|169246914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0375||95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0375
84746880|NCT00552240|169246915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.4645||95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.47|-1.02|0.4645
84746881|NCT02679573|169246925|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.1|||||Difference = Difference in responder rates (Delafloxacin treatment group minus Moxifloxacin treatment group). Confidence intervals are calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125 where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) were presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test, without stratification, was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.1|-4.4|
84746882|NCT02679573|169246926|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.3||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||16.3|3.0|
84746883|NCT02679573|169246927|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.8|-3.3|
84746884|NCT02679573|169246928|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.6|-3.0|
84752702|NCT00447382|169260403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.03||||0.758||95.0|-0.21|0.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.15|-0.21|0.758
84752703|NCT00447382|169260404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.1||||0.812||95.0|-0.89|0.7|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.7|-0.89|0.812
84752704|NCT00447382|169260406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|0.93||||0.15||95.0|0.84|1.03|||ANOVA|Adjustments:Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.03|0.84|0.15
84493828|NCT05664672|168738696|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|95.9||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|129.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||129|71.4|0.9891
84672251|NCT04382911|169080018|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 table was constructed among all patients with histopathologically identified endometriosis (true positive) to compare sensitivity for FES PET/MRI versus sensitivity of conventional MRI.||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
84746885|NCT02679573|169246929|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.9||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||5.9|-4.8|
84746886|NCT02679573|169246930|OTHER|||||||0.5951||||||The log-rank test was used to compare the time to all-cause mortality between the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.5951
84746887|NCT01415531|169246931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-7.7|<0.0001
84746888|NCT00122460|169246937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.986|||Stratified Log Rank|||"The primary analysis tested the equality of OS between treatment groups applying a 2-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account the strata used for randomization (previous chemotherapy (CTX) \[no vs. yes\] and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Hazard Ratio (HR) of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.986|0.644|0.036
84746889|NCT00122460|169246938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.672|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of PFS between treatment groups, a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%)was used, taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median PFS time was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.672|0.431|<0.0001
84746890|NCT00122460|169246939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.326||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||3.600|1.504|0.0001
84746891|NCT00122460|169246940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.441|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||4.441|1.870|<0.0001
84746892|NCT00122460|169246941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.727|||Stratified Log Rank|||"Treatment groups were compared applying a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median time to treatment failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.727|0.484|<0.0001
84746893|NCT00122460|169246942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.168|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of duration of response between treatment groups, the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%) was used taking strata used for randomization into account (previous CTX \[no vs. yes\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median duration of response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||1.168|0.497|0.21
84746894|NCT02483585|169246946|SUPERIORITY|A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the primary and efficacy secondary endpoints.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.47|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.47|-1.61|< 0.001
84746895|NCT02483585|169246947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.27|1.12|0.010
84746896|NCT02483585|169246948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.21|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.21|-0.96|0.002
84746897|NCT02483585|169246949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.71|0.87|0.26
84746898|NCT02483585|169246950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.90|0.92|0.13
84746899|NCT01502631|169246982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|13.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 2||13.14|-1.93|0.2182
84605837|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.29|-2.66|0.010
84670045|NCT01713868|169073834|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.33. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.29.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
84670046|NCT01713868|169073835|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
84670047|NCT01713868|169073836|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
84670048|NCT01713868|169073837|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
84670049|NCT01713868|169073838|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
84670050|NCT01023581|169073880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.37||For each set of comparisons in the primary analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected only if both comparisons between a combination and its constituent doses were statistically significant at the 2-sided 2.5% level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary efficacy analysis consisted of 2 separate sets of comparisons between each BID combination of alogliptin and metformin (alogliptin/metformin 12.5/500 mg BID and 12.5/1000 mg BID) and its constituent doses of alogliptin and metformin. The null hypothesis was that the combination of alogliptin and metformin had no additional effect on glycemic control at Week 26 either when compared with the constituent dose of alogliptin or with the constituent dose of metformin.||-0.37|-0.96|<0.001
84670051|NCT01023581|169073880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.27|-0.87|<0.001
84670052|NCT01023581|169073880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.71|-1.29|<0.001
84670053|NCT01023581|169073880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.16|-0.73|<0.001
84670054|NCT01933048|169073893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.43|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H1N1||||0.43
84670055|NCT01933048|169073893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.8|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H3N2||||0.80
84670056|NCT01933048|169073893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.55|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Yamagata||||0.55
84670057|NCT01933048|169073893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.16|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Brisbane||||0.16
84670058|NCT04476030|169073922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.9|-3.0|0.0004
84670059|NCT04476030|169073923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.5|-2.7|0.0054
84670060|NCT04476030|169073924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||0.6|-2.2|0.2477
84493829|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|45.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.7|30.4|<.0001
84605838|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.01|-2.29|0.053
84670061|NCT04476030|169073924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.5|-1.6|0.9248
84670062|NCT04476030|169073925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-1.8|0.4458
84605839|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.11|-2.19|0.053
84670063|NCT04476030|169073926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15|Generalized estimating equation is abbreviated as GEE in the method of estimation section.|1.69|0.78|0.4946
84670064|NCT04476030|169073926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.24|0.55|0.3579
84670065|NCT04476030|169073927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||2.24|0.89|0.1417
84670066|NCT04476030|169073927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.44|0.62|0.7872
84670067|NCT04476030|169073928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.1|-0.4|0.1993
84670068|NCT04476030|169073929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.47|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 3||3.47|1.21|0.0079
84670069|NCT04476030|169073929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||1.62|0.74|0.6588
84670070|NCT04476030|169073930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-3.4|0.2322
84670071|NCT04476030|169073931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.68|0.76|0.5439
84670072|NCT04476030|169073932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.69|0.70|0.7054
84670073|NCT04476030|169073933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.7|-1.7|0.4188
84493830|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|53.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.1|36.5|<.0001
84670074|NCT04476030|169073935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.0|-1.4|0.7758
84493831|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|34.4|<.0001
84493832|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|52.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.7|34.9|<.0001
84493833|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.9||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|70.0|0.3027
84493834|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|125.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||125|83.9|0.9926
84605840|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.58||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.60|-1.77|0.509
84670075|NCT02404311|169073967|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
84746900|NCT01502631|169246982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.583||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|16.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 4||16.27|-2.54|0.2260
84746901|NCT01502631|169246982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.023||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.15|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 8||13.21|-7.15|0.6184
84493835|NCT05664672|168738697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|97.5||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|79.1|0.9938
84493836|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.4|39.5|<.0001
84493837|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.4|48.0|<.0001
84493838|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||61.5|45.2|<.0001
84493839|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|54.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|64.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.5|46.7|<.0001
84605841|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.25||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.27|0.843
84670076|NCT02404311|169073967|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
84670077|NCT02404311|169073967|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
84670078|NCT02404311|169073968|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
84670079|NCT02404311|169073968|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
84670080|NCT02404311|169073968|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.895|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
84670081|NCT02404311|169073969|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0215
84670082|NCT02404311|169073969|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0003
84670083|NCT02404311|169073969|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.228||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0010
84746902|NCT01502631|169246982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.524||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.48|15.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 16||15.56|-6.48|0.4912
84670084|NCT02404311|169073970|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
84670085|NCT02404311|169073970|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
84670086|NCT02404311|169073970|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|6.099||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0002
84670087|NCT02404311|169073971|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
84670088|NCT02404311|169073971|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.6698
84670089|NCT02404311|169073971|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.125||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.1435
84670090|NCT02404311|169073972|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.965||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.9661
84670091|NCT02404311|169073972|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.118||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.8593
84670092|NCT02404311|169073972|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.138||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.4396
84670093|NCT01536496|169073981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test||||0.04
84670094|NCT01589445|169074039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.47|<|0.161||95.0|-88.0|118.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TC||118|-88.0|<0.161
84670095|NCT01589445|169074039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|143.22|<|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.0|976.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TG||976|-397.0|<0.913
84670096|NCT01589445|169074039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.59|<|0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|19.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HDL||19.0|-35.0|<0.322
84670097|NCT01589445|169074039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.05|<|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.8|76.2||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||LDL||76.2|-113.8|<0.210
84670098|NCT01589445|169074040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, Multiple Logistic Regression (MLR), OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA||The group 001 was divided according to Pro12Pro and Pro12Ala groups.There was no Ala12Ala group.These two groups were compared also in accordance with all parameters (glycemic levels, insulin levels, lipid profiles, BMI).|Change from Baseline in FSG at 3rd month||8.0|-7.9|<0.05
84670099|NCT01589445|169074041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|>0.05
84670100|NCT01589445|169074042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||0.27|-0.40|<0.001
84670101|NCT01589445|169074042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|15.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA IR||15.52|-14.12|<0.004
84670102|NCT01589445|169074043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.46|<|0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-346.4|328.1||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA B||328.10|-346.40|<0.808
84670103|NCT01589445|169074043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.0|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.7|180.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA S||180|-148.70|<0.025
84670104|NCT01589445|169074044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.04|26.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||FSI||26.52|-27.04|<0.039
84670105|NCT01420289|169074050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80|10|0.086
84670106|NCT01420289|169074051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|100.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||100|10|<0.05
84670107|NCT01928862|169074054|OTHER||Treatment difference|-31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.8|0.8||||||Confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||0.8|-58.8|
84493840|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|84.4||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|100.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||100|71.2|0.0504
84493841|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|86.4|0.9988
84493842|NCT05664672|168738698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|96.0||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|113.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||113|81.4|0.9238
84605842|NCT00996801|168963095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.26||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.92|-1.43|0.843
84605843|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|86.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|108.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||108.29|64.87|<0.001
84605844|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|82.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|101.66||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||101.66|63.00|<0.001
84605845|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|107.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|133.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||133.23|82.03|<0.001
84605846|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.87||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|49.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||49.68|-3.80|0.104
84670108|NCT01928862|169074054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|36.9||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||36.9|-25.3|
84670109|NCT01928862|169074054|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|26.3||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||26.3|-33.5|
84670110|NCT02053753|169074088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometrc Means (CP4:CP2)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.181|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.181|0.995|
84605847|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|18.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|42.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||42.56|-5.11|0.123
84670111|NCT02053753|169074089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means (CP4:CP2)|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.131|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.131|0.934|
84670112|NCT02972632|169074100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670113|NCT02972632|169074100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670114|NCT02972632|169074101|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670115|NCT02972632|169074101|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670116|NCT02972632|169074102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670117|NCT02972632|169074102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670118|NCT02972632|169074103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670119|NCT02972632|169074104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670120|NCT02972632|169074105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
84670121|NCT02016482|169074129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|53.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For US regulatory purposes, ranked first secondary endpoint.||53.6|32.8|< 0.001
84493843|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.31|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.31|1.88|<.0001
84493844|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|7.93|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.93|2.28|<.0001
84493845|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.14|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.14|2.20|<.0001
84493846|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|12.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.7|3.22|<.0001
84493847|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|57.9||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|28.3|0.1840
84493848|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.4||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|34.0|0.3552
84493849|NCT05664672|168738699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|33.0|0.3810
84493850|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|21.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||21.8|13.0|<.0001
84493851|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|25.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.9|16.2|<.0001
84493852|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|23.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.4|14.3|<.0001
84493853|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.1|13.7|<.0001
84493854|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.5||||0.9589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|72.0|0.9589
84605848|NCT00996801|168963096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|43.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|75.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||75.06|12.85|0.003
84670122|NCT02016482|169074130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|53.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked sixth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, this was the primary endpoint.||53.2|30.8|< 0.001
84746903|NCT00395460|169247008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by means of a Confidence Interval (CI) approach: noninferiority of Gadavist was assumed if the one-sided 95% CI for pGadavist-pMagnevist was lying entirely to the right of the value -delta, where p is the estimated change in CNR and with pre-defined non-inferiority margin delta of 15% (=6.52 or 15% of 43.467).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.939|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.83|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.897||||non-inferiority||||||-3.897|
84746904|NCT02943226|169247020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.4487
84605849|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|187.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.44|221.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||221.25|154.44|<0.001
84746905|NCT02943226|169247021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0112
84493855|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|115.0||||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|89.3|0.4442
84493856|NCT05664672|168738700|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|78.8|0.9975
84493857|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|55.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||55.6|23.9|<.0001
84493858|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|39.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|59.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.0|27.1|<.0001
84493859|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|45.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.5|20.1|<.0001
84605850|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|200.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.21|240.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||240.91|161.21|<0.001
84746906|NCT02943226|169247022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.0784
84746907|NCT02319525|169247028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84746908|NCT02319525|169247029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||We compared informed choice vs. no informed choice made between the decision aid and the pamphlet groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84746909|NCT02319525|169247030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||We compared concordance between preferred and actual roles vs. no concordance between roles between decision aid and pamphlet.||||0.252
84746910|NCT02319525|169247031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.504
84746911|NCT02319525|169247032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84746912|NCT02319525|169247033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Impact of lupus nephritis"||||0.006
84746913|NCT02319525|169247033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Risk factors"||||0.006
84746914|NCT02319525|169247033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the medication options"||||0.003
84746915|NCT02319525|169247033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the evidence about medications"||||<0.001
84746916|NCT02319525|169247033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the study about other patients"||||<0.001
84605851|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|224.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|180.19|270.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||270.39|180.19|<0.001
84605852|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|48.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|93.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||93.11|3.75|0.034
84746917|NCT02319525|169247034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||The test of significance compared all the rows, i.e., all response options for the statement.||||0.006
84605853|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|61.27||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|114.22||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||114.22|8.80|0.019
84605854|NCT00996801|168963097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|85.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|144.63||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||144.63|26.70|0.002
84746918|NCT01200589|169247059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49||||||||1.49|0.89|
84746919|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean (GLSM) ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|332.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||332|98|
84746920|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|881.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.0|1589.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||1589|488|
84746921|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3081.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2446.0|3881.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||3881|2446|
84746922|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|430.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.0|998.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||998|185|
84746923|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4417.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1867.0|10449.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||10449|1867|
84746924|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|14676.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7932.0|27153.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||27153|7932|
84746925|NCT02891408|169247079|OTHER||GLSM ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.0|173.0||||||AUClast of Fenofibric Acid||173|86|
84746926|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|337.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||337|100|
84746927|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|869.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|482.0|1568.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||1568|482|
84746928|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2976.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2389.0|3708.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||3708|2389|
84746929|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|399.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.0|892.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||892|179|
84746930|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3843.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1641.0|9000.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||9000|1641|
84746931|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|10712.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6525.0|17585.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||17585|6525|
84746932|NCT02891408|169247080|OTHER||GLSM ratio|125.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|174.0||||||AUCinf of Fenofibric Acid||174|89|
84746933|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|326.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||326|87|
84746934|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|905.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|537.0|1526.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||1526|537|
84746935|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2719.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1994.0|3708.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||3708|1994|
84746936|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|391.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.0|942.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||942|163|
84746937|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4470.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2170.0|9207.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||9207|2170|
84746938|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|9278.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4945.0|17407.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||17407|4945|
84746939|NCT02891408|169247081|OTHER||GLSM ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|146.0||||||Cmax of Fenofibric Acid||146|81|
84746940|NCT01043393|169247117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|11.126||||||||11.126|0.055|
84746941|NCT03143166|169247144|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|86.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.346|38.996|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||38.996|21.346|
84746942|NCT03143166|169247145|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|26.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.066|34.665|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||34.665|20.066|
84746943|NCT03143166|169247146|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.914|37.537|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||37.537|20.914|
84746944|NCT03143166|169247147|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|27.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.023|36.118|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||36.118|21.023|
84746945|NCT03143166|169247148|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.26|40.234|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.234|23.260|
84493860|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|48.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|75.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||75.0|31.9|0.0002
84493861|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|74.5||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|117.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||117|47.6|0.2938
84493862|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|81.6||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|53.7|0.5552
84493863|NCT05664672|168738701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|61.7||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|95.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||95.5|39.9|0.0254
84493864|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|67.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||67.1|40.4|<.0001
84670123|NCT02016482|169074131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-36.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked first secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked second secondary endpoint.||-36.0|-53.5|< 0.001
84746946|NCT03143166|169247149|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.404|40.037|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.037|23.404|
84746947|NCT02673515|169247153|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between groups was tested with student´s t-test or Mann Whitney-U-Test||||0.797
84746948|NCT01323972|169247180|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.65|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 2 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.65|1.06|
84746949|NCT01323972|169247180|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.32|0.85|
84746950|NCT01323972|169247180|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.64|1.0|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 2 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1|0.64|
84746951|NCT01323972|169247180|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the pilot scale lot (Control Group) over the pooled commercial scale lots (Pooled Log Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the commercial scale lots of GSK 257049 to the pilot scale lot in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.15|0.79|
84746952|NCT00589121|169247199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|The fixed rate of 37% comes from the published National Cancer Institute of Canada trial SR2 (CAN-NCIC-SR2: Phase III Randomized Study of Pre- vs Postoperative Radiotherapy in Curable Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma) receiving preoperative radiation therapy without image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Initially designed to test for a 20% absolute improvement from 37% (fixed rate) to 17% using Fisher's exact test, requiring 41 patients per cohort (51 with 20% ineligibility) with 5% type I error and 90% statistical power. During accrual, the sample size for cohort B was increased to 66 (83 with 20% ineligibility) to test for a 15% improvement with 5% type I error and 85% power.||||0.0005
84746953|NCT02545933|169247246|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|27.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|34.0|||ANOVA||DAPT group vs DAPT plus vorapaxar group|We hypothesized that adjunctive vorapaxar would result in a significant reduction of CAT-induced platelet aggregation. Assuming a 10% absolute reduction in CAT-induced maximal platelet aggregation with a common standard deviation of 13%, 37 patients per group with valid primary endpoint data were required to detect a significant difference with a 90% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||34|19|0.011
84746954|NCT05180500|169247263|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
84746955|NCT05180500|169247264|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
84746956|NCT05180500|169247267|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
84746957|NCT05180500|169247268|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84746958|NCT05180500|169247269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
84746959|NCT05180500|169247270|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
84746960|NCT05180500|169247271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
84746961|NCT05180500|169247272|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84746962|NCT03992846|169247278|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.46|4.49|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||4.49|1.46|<0.001
84746963|NCT03992846|169247278|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.86|15.91|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||15.91|4.86|<0.001
84746964|NCT03992846|169247279|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|2.45|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||2.45|0.83|0.279
84746965|NCT03992846|169247279|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.18|3.42|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||3.42|1.18|0.007
84746966|NCT01586910|169247376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.07. Posterior threshold for non-inferiority was 0.971|Posterior Median of the Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.9999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-5.2%, 2.3%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months.||||
84746967|NCT00346268|169247410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-0.53|-14.63|0.035
84605855|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|<0.001
84605856|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|0.001
84746968|NCT00346268|169247411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-15.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|-4.85||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-4.85|-25.47|0.004
84746969|NCT00346268|169247412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||0.257
84605857|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|131.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.7|152.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||152.94|110.70|<0.001
84746970|NCT00346268|169247413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANCOVA|Covariates:Total RBCUs and RBCUs substituted during surgery, baseline hemoglobin, swab and lavage weights, intraoperative blood loss fluid volume||||0.53|-0.68|0.810
84746971|NCT00346268|169247415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference (net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at rest prior to administration and pain at rest post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.35|-0.01|0.070
84746972|NCT00346268|169247415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at movement prior to administration and pain at movement post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.33|-0.02|0.074
84746973|NCT00346268|169247416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.26||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.26|-1.16|0.002
84746974|NCT00346268|169247416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.23||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.23|-1.22|0.004
84493865|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|62.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||62.2|39.0|<.0001
84605858|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|169.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.59|199.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||199.11|141.59|<0.001
84605859|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|58.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.42|88.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||88.04|29.42|<0.001
84605860|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|57.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|83.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||83.64|30.76|<0.001
84605861|NCT00996801|168963098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|95.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|130.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||130.91|60.40|<0.001
84746975|NCT00346268|169247417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.56||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.56|-1.77|0.001
84746976|NCT00346268|169247417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.24||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.24|-1.41|0.006
84746977|NCT04487834|169247432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84493866|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|52.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.1|32.0|<.0001
84493867|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.2|35.7|<.0001
84493868|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|86.8|0.5817
84493869|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||138|83.7|0.8852
84493870|NCT05664672|168738702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.9||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|115.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||115|68.7|0.6070
84493871|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|32.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||32.0|5.44|<.0001
84493872|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|53.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.3|10.7|<.0001
84493873|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|57.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||57.4|10.6|0.0003
84746978|NCT04487834|169247433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84746979|NCT04487834|169247434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4852
84746980|NCT00192647|169247460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by viral load and country||||1.52|0.88|0.2893
84746981|NCT00192647|169247461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||||||||1.63|0.91|
84746982|NCT00192647|169247462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27||||||Week 4||2.27|1.24|
84746983|NCT00192647|169247462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.17||||||Week 8||2.17|1.24|
84746984|NCT00192647|169247462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.53||||||Week 12||2.53|1.40|
84746985|NCT00192647|169247462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.98||||||Week 24||1.98|1.08|
84746986|NCT01828073|169247468|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|51.5|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, adverse birth outcome, death)||51.50|16.00|
84605862|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.31|68.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||68.60|39.31|<0.001
84746987|NCT01828073|169247468|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|70.9|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, death)||70.90|29.10|
84746988|NCT01828073|169247472|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in full term infants.||||0.747
84605863|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.37|66.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||66.38|41.37|<0.001
84746989|NCT01828073|169247472|OTHER|||||||0.341||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in LBW infants.||||0.341
84746990|NCT03057977|169247475|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~alpha = 0.0496 (resulting from interim analysis) eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.86|0.65|<0.0001
84746991|NCT03057977|169247476|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.58|0.85|||Joint frailty model||HR vs placebo of recurrent HFF|"Model accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.85|0.58|0.0003
84746992|NCT03057977|169247477|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.669|2.796|||Random intercept random coef. model||Empa vs Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with the same factors used for the primary endpoint (age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment) and additional factors time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr-by-time interaction. Only on-treatment data from treated patients were used.~alpha=0.001"||2.796|0.669|<0.0001
84746993|NCT03057977|169247478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||0.77|0.32|0.0019
84746994|NCT03057977|169247479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo|||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
84746995|NCT03057977|169247480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||1.12|0.75|0.4133
84746996|NCT03057977|169247481|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.10|0.77|0.3536
84605864|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|55.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.19|69.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||69.94|41.19|<0.001
84746997|NCT03057977|169247482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.19|0.62|0.3576
84605865|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|20.53||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
84605866|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Mean Squares|20.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
84605867|NCT00996801|168963099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.13||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|39.89||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||39.89|4.47|0.009
84746998|NCT03057977|169247483|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.96|||Mixed Model|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Comparison vs. placebo|Mixed model with age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, week reachable, treatment by visit interaction, baseline KCCQ - Clinical Summary Score by Visit interaction as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance structure has been used.||3.96|0.16|0.0340
84746999|NCT03057977|169247484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.95|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. placebo|Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline diabetes status and baseline LVEF. Model accounts for dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality.||0.95|0.75|0.0065
84747000|NCT02502097|169247486|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||5.1|-10.1|0.5096
84747001|NCT02502097|169247486|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.8983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||11.8|-13.4|0.8983
84747002|NCT02502097|169247490|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||7.2|-14.6|0.5005
84747003|NCT02502097|169247490|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.1|-19.8|0.8382
84747004|NCT02502097|169247491|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||9.2|-11.9|0.8008
84747005|NCT02502097|169247491|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||18.0|-17.6|0.9805
84747006|NCT02502097|169247494|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||2.4|-7.1|0.3279
84747007|NCT02502097|169247494|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||12.3|-9.2|0.7772
84747008|NCT02502097|169247495|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||3.6|-10.1|0.3493
84747009|NCT02502097|169247495|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.3|-14.3|0.8952
84747010|NCT02502097|169247496|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||5.2|-8.1|0.6597
84747011|NCT02502097|169247496|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||17.2|-13.1|0.7880
84747012|NCT02502097|169247500|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-6.3|0.1856
84747013|NCT02502097|169247500|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||12.1|-6.6|0.5658
84747014|NCT02502097|169247501|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.1|-17.2|0.0847
84747015|NCT02502097|169247501|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||5.4|-17.0|0.3083
84747016|NCT02502097|169247502|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-5.3|0.2290
84747017|NCT02502097|169247502|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||3.4|-3.5|0.9794
84747018|NCT02502097|169247503|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 1|||-0.4|-1.5|0.0009
84493874|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|54.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.1|9.21|0.0002
84493875|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|59.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|150.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||150|23.3|0.4280
84493876|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|255.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||255|44.8|0.9990
84747019|NCT02502097|169247503|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 2|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0050
84747020|NCT02502097|169247504|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||2.5|-8.2|0.2938
84493877|NCT05664672|168738703|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|110.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|272.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||272|44.9|0.9958
84493878|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-50.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-23.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-23.9|-77.7|<.0001
84605868|NCT00289198|168963104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.78||Change from Baseline (Day 1) in reflective total nasal symptom scores for Placebo versus that for fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
84605869|NCT00289198|168963105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.99||Mean change from Baseline in AM pre-dose instantaneous TNSS over entire period for Placebo versus that for Fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-1.93|<0.001
84605870|NCT00289198|168963106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression adjusting for age, gender and country||||||<0.001
84747021|NCT02502097|169247504|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||1.2|-9.2|0.1319
84605871|NCT00289198|168963107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.74|<0.001
84605872|NCT00289198|168963108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.77|<0.001
84605873|NCT00289198|168963109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-8.21|||ANCOVA|||||-8.21|-20.03|<0.001
84747022|NCT02502097|169247505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||0.4|-1.5|0.2175
84605874|NCT00289198|168963110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.13|-12.94|||ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-27.13|<0.001
84605875|NCT00289198|168963111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
84605876|NCT00289198|168963111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
84747023|NCT02502097|169247505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||0.7|-1.4|0.5312
84747024|NCT00876928|169247522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of patients developing diabetes|10.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|12.0||A chi square test was used for the number of participants developing diabetes and a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA for the disposition index|Chi-squared||Primary outcome compared the number of participants developing diabetes after receiving vitamin D or placebo for one year. Secondary outcome compared changes in 2-way repeated measures ANOVA; therefore,no confidence intervals/dispersion parameters|Null hypothesis is that there is no effect of vitamin D on the development of diabetes in people with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. There were no published data when this trial was started on the effect of vitamin D in pre-diabetes making a power calculation difficult.||12|8|0.61
84747025|NCT00876928|169247523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the changes in the Disposition Index between the 2 groups over the year.||||0.39
84747026|NCT02874924|169247524|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot study, therefore, no power calculation available.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis||4.86|-8.48|0.56
84747027|NCT05398237|169247588|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0122||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK).|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0122
84747028|NCT05398237|169247588|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.009||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.009
84747029|NCT05398237|169247589|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0063||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0063
84747030|NCT05398237|169247589|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0056||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.0056
84493879|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-20.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-20.3|-69.6|<.0001
84747031|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.132||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.132|0.042|0.0002
84747032|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.149||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.149|0.059|<.0001
84747033|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.120|0.030|0.0011
84747034|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.057|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.057|-0.034|
84747035|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.028|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.028|-0.063|
84493880|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-42.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-16.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-16.5|-68.2|0.0003
84605877|NCT00289198|168963111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.47|<0.001
84605878|NCT00289198|168963111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.27|-0.52|<0.001
84605879|NCT00289198|168963112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.22|-0.50|0.001
84605880|NCT00289198|168963112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.23|-0.51|0.001
84605881|NCT00289198|168963112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
84605882|NCT00289198|168963112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
84747036|NCT01383499|169247667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.074|||Mixed models repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.074|-0.016|
84747037|NCT02469389|169247705|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at BL (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.295|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc mixed effects model analyses of all outcomes were performed adjusting for BL CAINS MAP score.||Analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes utilized a linear mixed effects model accounting for random therapy group effects and included all available data at baseline (BL), post-treatment (PT; 12-week), and follow-up (FU; 24-week) timepoints (TPs). Error terms across TPs were assumed correlated with unstructured correlation matrix. To test time specific hypotheses, terms in the mean model included separate indicators for PT \& FU \& interaction terms between these indicators and conditions.||||0.295
84747038|NCT02469389|169247706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.182
84747039|NCT02469389|169247707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.114
84747040|NCT02469389|169247708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.220
84605883|NCT00289198|168963113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score,Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|0.001
84605884|NCT00289198|168963113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.314||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.17|-0.45|0.001
84747041|NCT02469389|169247709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84747042|NCT02469389|169247710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
84747043|NCT02469389|169247711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.535
84747044|NCT02469389|169247712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84747045|NCT02469389|169247713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
84747046|NCT02469389|169247714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
84747047|NCT02469389|169247715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
84747048|NCT02469389|169247716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.539
84747049|NCT01079663|169247717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-1.19|0.1629
84747050|NCT01079663|169247718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.46|0.0347
84747051|NCT03486457|169247746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.45|42.25|||Normal approximation|||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and placebo and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.25|22.45|<0.0001
84747052|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|24.83|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.83|6.05|0.0013
84747053|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.53|40.76|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.76|19.53|<0.0001
84747054|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|62.37|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||62.37|40.57|<0.0001
84747055|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|50.12|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||50.12|23.41|<0.0001
84747056|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.14|38.39|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||38.39|10.14|0.0008
84747057|NCT03486457|169247747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.85|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||27.85|0.09|0.0486
84747058|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||4.10|-1.90|0.4730
84747059|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.14|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||5.14|-1.48|0.2792
84747060|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.91|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||12.91|1.79|0.0095
84747061|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|19.84|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||19.84|6.63|<0.0001
84747062|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|22.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.44|4.03|0.0048
84747063|NCT03486457|169247748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|26.17|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.17|0.30|0.0449
84747064|NCT03486457|169247749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.42|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||7.42|-1.54|0.1985
84605885|NCT00289198|168963113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.324||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.19|-0.45|0.001
84605886|NCT00289198|168963113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.25|-0.50|0.001
84747065|NCT03486457|169247749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|13.8|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||13.80|2.38|0.0055
84747066|NCT03486457|169247749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|27.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|35.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||35.90|18.51|<0.0001
84605887|NCT00289198|168963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.43|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.15|-0.43|<0.001
84605888|NCT00289198|168963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
84605889|NCT00289198|168963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
84605890|NCT00289198|168963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.28|-0.54|<0.001
84747067|NCT03486457|169247749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|34.54|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||34.54|9.58|0.0005
84747068|NCT03486457|169247749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.57|4.20|0.0111
84747069|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0097
84747070|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.04|-0.22|0.0043
84747071|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.30|<0.0001
84747072|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.32|<0.0001
84493881|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-44.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-17.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-17.0|-72.6|0.0004
84493882|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-6.05||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||23.1|-35.2|0.9551
84493883|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-0.198||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||26.9|-27.3|1.0000
84493884|NCT05664672|168738704|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.48||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||30.6|-25.6|0.9981
84493885|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|53.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.9|18.7|<.0001
84605891|NCT00289198|168963115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.85|0.004
84747073|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.18|0.0535
84747074|NCT03486457|169247750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0940
84747075|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
84747076|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
84493886|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|46.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||46.2|17.6|<.0001
84493887|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|40.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.2|14.7|<.0001
84605892|NCT00289198|168963116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.491||||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.85|0.007
84605893|NCT00289198|168963117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.531||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.88|0.003
84747077|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
84605894|NCT00289198|168963118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
84493888|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|47.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||47.7|16.6|<.0001
84493889|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|197.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||197|64.7|0.9511
84605895|NCT00289198|168963119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.34|0.001
84605896|NCT00289198|168963119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.137||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.028
84605897|NCT00289198|168963119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.04|-0.27|0.010
84605898|NCT00289198|168963120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
84747078|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
84747079|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
84493890|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|170.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||170|60.4|1.0000
84493891|NCT05664672|168738705|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.5||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|50.6|0.9003
84493892|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|58.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||58.0|37.1|<.0001
84493893|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|52.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||52.9|35.1|<.0001
84493894|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||54.6|35.5|<.0001
84605899|NCT00289198|168963120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.016||95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing or watering, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.03|-0.29|0.016
84605900|NCT00289198|168963120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.24|0.076
84605901|NCT00289198|168963121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.211||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.34|0.001
84747080|NCT03486457|169247751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
84747081|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
84747082|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
84747083|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
84747084|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
84747085|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
84747086|NCT03486457|169247752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
84747087|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.45|-3.95|<0.0001
84747088|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.39|-5.20|<0.0001
84747089|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.39|-6.39|<0.0001
84747090|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.17|-7.53|<0.0001
84747091|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.04|-4.35|<0.0001
84747092|NCT03486457|169247753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.27|-3.91|0.0002
84747093|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.40|-5.40|0.0010
84747094|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.01|-7.05|<0.0001
84747095|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.66|-7.70|<0.0001
84747096|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.82|-9.20|<0.0001
84747097|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.83|-6.07|0.0003
84747098|NCT03486457|169247754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.20|-4.58|0.0323
84605902|NCT00289198|168963121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.27|0.023
84605903|NCT00289198|168963121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.05|-0.30|0.005
84747099|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.68|-11.46|0.0087
84747100|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.79|-16.60|<0.0001
84747101|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-10.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.63|-21.66|<0.0001
84747102|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.90|-27.84|<0.0001
84747103|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.29|-12.60|0.0163
84747104|NCT03486457|169247755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.76|-8.95|0.2977
84747105|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.93|-11.37|0.0211
84747106|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.58|-18.59|<0.0001
84747107|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-7.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.38|-18.93|<0.0001
84747108|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-12.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.49|-25.06|<0.0001
84747109|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.43|-12.59|0.0140
84747110|NCT03486457|169247756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.931||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.64|-10.93|0.0811
84747111|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.81|-13.46|<0.0001
84747112|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.98|-14.07|<0.0001
84747113|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.10|-21.85|<0.0001
84747114|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.36|-13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-13.48|-23.36|<0.0001
84605904|NCT00289198|168963122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.35|0.001
84605905|NCT00289198|168963122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye Tearing/Watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.25|0.040
84747115|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.38|-12.06|0.0037
84747116|NCT03486457|169247757|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.18|-12.13|0.0009
84747117|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.02|-9.39|<0.0001
84605906|NCT00289198|168963122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.022
84747118|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.56|-10.18|<0.0001
84747119|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.08|-9.74|<0.0001
84747120|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.39|-10.21|<0.0001
84493895|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|49.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||49.4|31.0|<.0001
84605907|NCT00289198|168963123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.376||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.04|||ANCOVA|||||14.04|2.71|0.004
84747121|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||1.51|-0.91|0.6264
84747122|NCT03486457|169247758|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-2.82|0.1008
84747123|NCT03486457|169247759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.90|-3.02|0.8032
84747124|NCT03486457|169247759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|14.21|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||14.21|0.73|0.0298
84747125|NCT03486457|169247759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.88|1.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||1.50|-23.88|0.0840
84747126|NCT03486457|169247760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.57|0.0020
84747127|NCT03486457|169247760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.32|-0.87|<0.0001
84747128|NCT03486457|169247760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.31|-0.30|0.9678
84747129|NCT03486457|169247761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|26.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.30|3.63|0.0097
84747130|NCT03486457|169247761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|40.97|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.97|8.81|0.0024
84747131|NCT03486457|169247761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|3.7|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.70|-39.55|0.1042
84747132|NCT03486457|169247762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.858||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.29|-41.49|0.0014
84747133|NCT03486457|169247762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.948||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.69|-17.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-17.13|-52.69|0.0002
84747134|NCT03486457|169247762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.663||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|26.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||26.51|-15.90|0.6200
84747135|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.862||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.21|-18.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-18.08|-61.21|0.0004
84747136|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.97|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-8.40|-41.97|0.0037
84493896|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|119.0||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|151.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||151|93.2|0.2351
84493897|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|110.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||138|87.7|0.6570
84747137|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.423||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.61|-42.00|0.0438
84493898|NCT05664672|168738706|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|113.0||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|142.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||142|89.1|0.5112
84493899|NCT04095039|168738713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||p-value is based on a sample that is less than 10% of the planned sample size (planned n=4,000)|Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method|||Primary outcome is for the individually randomized cohort since DSMB had concerns about selection bias for the cluster-randomized population due to differences in baseline characteristics that leaned towards the arm objectives.||||0.077
84747138|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.03|-28.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-28.19|-70.03|<0.0001
84747139|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.52|-10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.89|-48.52|0.0023
84493900|NCT01728194|168738781|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.025
84493901|NCT01728194|168738782|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
84493902|NCT02309372|168738783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.77|-2.28|0.32
84493903|NCT01314261|168738809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.336
84605908|NCT00289198|168963124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|3.52|0.002
84605909|NCT00289198|168963125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.638||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|13.39|||ANCOVA|||||13.39|1.89|0.009
84605910|NCT04172467|168963127|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|5.42||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||5.42|3.72|<0.001
84605911|NCT04172467|168963127|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.21||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||3.21|1.98|<0.001
84605912|NCT03369431|168963128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the percentage change from baseline in the ATEC Total between Vivomixx and Placebo.~A sample size of 72 participants was needed to determine an effect size of 0.50 with 80% power, with a type 1 error of 5% using a two-sided test. This calculation is based on the assumed effect size of the primary outcome measure, the ATEC. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with this instrument was 15 points."||||0.784
84605913|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Abdominal Pain between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.357
84605914|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Gaseousness between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.290
84605915|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Diarrhoea between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.418
84605916|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Constipation between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.734
84605917|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Pain on Stooling between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.362
84747140|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.08|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.49|-58.08|0.0009
84747141|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.495||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||27.90|-13.84|0.5048
84747142|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.273||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|33.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||33.57|-15.24|0.4575
84747143|NCT03486457|169247763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.539||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|23.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||23.65|-22.26|0.9523
84747144|NCT03486457|169247764|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.386||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.24|-12.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.15|-45.24|0.0008
84605918|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Difficulty Swallowing between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.705
84605919|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of vomiting between Vivomixx and placebo||||0.589
84605920|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in stool between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
84605921|NCT03369431|168963129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in vomit between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
84605922|NCT03369431|168963130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Irritability score between Vivomixx and Placebo||||0.635
84747145|NCT03486457|169247764|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-25.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-25.49|-67.45|<0.0001
84493904|NCT01314261|168738809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.171
84493905|NCT01314261|168738809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.030
84493906|NCT01314261|168738810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.102
84493907|NCT01314261|168738810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.362
84493908|NCT01314261|168738810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.079
84493909|NCT01314261|168738814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.083
84493910|NCT01314261|168738814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.515
84493911|NCT01314261|168738814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.221
84493912|NCT01314261|168738815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.155
84493913|NCT01314261|168738815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.214
84493914|NCT01314261|168738815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.231
84493915|NCT01314261|168738816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.127
84493916|NCT01314261|168738816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.328
84493917|NCT01314261|168738816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.166
84493918|NCT01314261|168738817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
84493919|NCT01314261|168738817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.029
84493920|NCT01314261|168738817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.105
84493921|NCT01314261|168738820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.028
84493922|NCT01314261|168738820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.051
84493923|NCT01314261|168738820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.021
84493924|NCT01231620|168738824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||Wilcoxon rank sum||IV Zanamivir 300 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.75|-1.79|0.25
84605923|NCT03369431|168963130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Lethargy/social withdrawal score between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.367
84747146|NCT03486457|169247764|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.778||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.05|-5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.47|-48.05|0.0141
84747147|NCT03486457|169247765|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.02|-15.48|<0.0001
84747148|NCT03486457|169247765|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.575|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-14.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-14.37|-24.52|<0.0001
84747149|NCT03486457|169247765|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.18|-11.22|0.0039
84747150|NCT03486457|169247766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|25.73|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.73|2.64|0.0160
84747151|NCT03486457|169247766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|25.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.86|41.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.44|9.86|0.0015
84747152|NCT03486457|169247766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|23.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|41.0|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.00|5.11|0.0118
84747153|NCT03486457|169247767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.259||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.60|-5.58|0.0156
84747154|NCT03486457|169247767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.10|-6.02|<0.0001
84747155|NCT03486457|169247767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.28|-1.65|0.0061
84747156|NCT03486457|169247768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|32.64|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.64|-6.59|0.1930
84747157|NCT03486457|169247768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|44.11|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||44.11|4.48|0.0162
84747158|NCT03486457|169247768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|25.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.30|-17.15|0.7068
84747159|NCT03486457|169247769|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-0.83|0.2811
84747160|NCT03486457|169247769|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.96|0.2140
84747161|NCT03486457|169247769|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.74|0.2817
84747162|NCT03486457|169247770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.37|0.9407
84747163|NCT03486457|169247770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.81|0.4295
84747164|NCT03486457|169247770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.29|-0.95|0.2946
84670124|NCT02016482|169074132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked second secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked third secondary endpoint.||11.3|1.8|0.008
84493925|NCT01231620|168738824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Oral oseltamivir 75 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.97|-2.11|0.39
84493926|NCT01231620|168738825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.506
84493927|NCT01231620|168738825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.41
84493928|NCT02486263|168738867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84605924|NCT03369431|168963130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in the ABC Stereotypic behaviour between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.609
84670125|NCT02016482|169074133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Percent Change|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked third secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fourth secondary endpoint.||-2.0|-3.3|< 0.001
84670126|NCT02016482|169074134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked fourth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fifth secondary endpoint.||-2.2|-3.6|< 0.001
84747165|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|32.33|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.33|10.32|0.0001
84747166|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|48.75|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||48.75|23.31|<0.0001
84747167|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|52.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.86|63.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||63.55|40.86|<0.0001
84747168|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|39.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.38|53.03|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||53.03|26.38|<0.0001
84493929|NCT02486263|168738868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||Used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Generalized Estimation Equation||Data presented as OR (95% CI) using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model with Conventional as reference.|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model was used for the comparison of differences between intervention groups from week 0 to week 5 for peristaltic response frequency.||1.6|0.4|0.99
84747169|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|32.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.55|4.22|0.0110
84493930|NCT02486263|168738869|SUPERIORITY|Weight velocity in grams/day||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84493931|NCT02486263|168738870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84493932|NCT02486263|168738871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84493933|NCT01740297|168738911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.5|1.5|0.002
84493934|NCT01740297|168738914|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4||P-value is descriptive|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||3.4|1.1|0.033
84493935|NCT01740297|168738915|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8||P-value is descriptive.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.8|1.4|0.007
84493936|NCT01740297|168738916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.49||P-value is descriptive|Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||2.49|0.80|0.228
84493937|NCT01740297|168738918|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.23|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.23|0.56|0.348
84493938|NCT01740297|168738919|OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.696
84493939|NCT01740297|168738920|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.46|0.44|0.474
84493940|NCT01740297|168738922|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.09|0.55|0.14
84493941|NCT01740297|168738923|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.24|0.56|0.37
84493942|NCT02985541|168738931|OTHER||3-year probability of getting pregnant|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.71||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) during Years 6-8||2.71|0.17|
84493943|NCT02383966|168738937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.803||||||||0.803|0.400|
84493944|NCT02383966|168738938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.795||||||||0.795|0.406|
84493945|NCT02383966|168738939|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.991||||||||0.991|0.502|
84493946|NCT02383966|168738940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.45||||||||5.45|1.52|
84493947|NCT02383966|168738941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.95||||||||3.95|1.15|
84493948|NCT02883400|168738944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84493949|NCT00333437|168738945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|0.1786|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1613||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.3277||Not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre FVC (liters) = 0||0.3277|0.0294|0.026
84493950|NCT00333437|168738946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1035||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|4.4945||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre neutrophil count = 0||4.4945|-10.49|0.3652
84493951|NCT00333437|168738946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.286|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.358||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|8.8426||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre eosinophil count = 0||8.8426|-21.41|0.3485
84670127|NCT02016482|169074135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|82.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked fifth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked sixth secondary endpoint.||82.0|33.8|0.002
84670128|NCT02016482|169074136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.2|31.3|< 0.001
84670129|NCT02016482|169074137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.5|33.2|< 0.001
84670130|NCT02016482|169074138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|10.6|< 0.001
84670131|NCT02016482|169074139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|46.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.9|25.0|< 0.001
84493952|NCT00333437|168738948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|194.66||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.256|444.32||Significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Not adjusted||H(0): post-pre walk distance = 0||444.32|84.256|0.0115
84493953|NCT00333437|168738949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5013||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4758|3.2527||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre DLCO = 0||3.2527|0.4758|0.0167
84493954|NCT03022526|168739009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7463
84493955|NCT03022526|168739010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5764
84493956|NCT03022526|168739011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7169
84493957|NCT03022526|168739012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4226
84493958|NCT03022526|168739013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6873
84493959|NCT03022526|168739014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0452
84493960|NCT03022526|168739015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0899
84493961|NCT03022526|168739016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1265|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1265
84493962|NCT03022526|168739017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0328
84493963|NCT03022526|168739018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6824
84493964|NCT03022526|168739019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
84493965|NCT03022526|168739020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5996
84493966|NCT03022526|168739021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8009
84747170|NCT03486457|169247771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|29.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.50|2.85|0.0173
84747171|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.47|-0.79|<0.0001
84747172|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.62|-0.99|<0.0001
84747173|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.66|-1.08|<0.0001
84493967|NCT03022526|168739022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5422
84493968|NCT03022526|168739023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7374
84493969|NCT01241591|168739034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% lower confidence intervals (LCIs) of the difference for PGA and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA response and PASI75 at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-11.76||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.76|-26.55|
84493970|NCT01241591|168739034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|32.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.51|40.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.81|23.51|
84493971|NCT01241591|168739034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|9.05||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||9.05|-5.22|
84493972|NCT01241591|168739034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|53.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.81|61.65||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||61.65|44.81|
84493973|NCT01241591|168739035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA and PASI75 response at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-11.83||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.83|-26.75|
84493974|NCT01241591|168739035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|33.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.06|40.76||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.76|27.06|
84747174|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.80|-1.28|<0.0001
84747175|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.18|-0.69|0.0009
84747176|NCT03486457|169247772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.06|-0.51|0.1202
84747177|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.69|1.76|0.0003
84747178|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.35|1.01|0.0043
84747179|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.82|1.42|0.0004
84747180|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.39|1.69|0.0002
84747181|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.41|0.67|0.0123
84747182|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.78|0.38|0.0216
84747183|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.67|-0.60|0.1290
84493975|NCT01241591|168739035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|12.23||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||12.23|-2.57|
84493976|NCT01241591|168739035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|58.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.25|64.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||64.81|51.25|
84747184|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.22|-0.40|0.1043
84493977|NCT01945034|168739080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|57.56||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||57.56|-11.49|0.190
84747185|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.763|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.27|2.26|<0.0001
84747186|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.10|-0.54|0.1318
84747187|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.95|0.11|0.0402
84747188|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.83|1.99|0.0004
84747189|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.40|3.18|<0.0001
84747190|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.76|2.79|<0.0001
84747191|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.80|-0.59|0.1254
84747192|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.68|2.00|0.0003
84747193|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.384||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.16|0.70|0.0140
84747194|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.98|0.97|0.0067
84747195|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.12|2.23|<0.0001
84747196|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.73|0.81|0.0094
84747197|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.049||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.46|-1.68|0.7098
84747198|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.47|-1.40|0.4019
84747199|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.71|-1.97|0.7537
84747200|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.85|-1.40|0.3595
84747201|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.99|-1.01|0.1919
84747202|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.67|-2.10|0.8163
84747203|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.93|-0.47|0.1048
84747204|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.45|-2.04|0.6118
84747205|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.39|-1.61|0.6996
84747206|NCT03486457|169247773|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.59|-1.03|0.2122
84747207|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0722
84747208|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.05|-0.27|0.0035
84747209|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.27|0.0475
84747210|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.26|0.0537
84747211|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.04|-0.20|0.1977
84747212|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.38|0.0001
84747213|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.07|-0.29|0.0018
84747214|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.19|-0.47|<0.0001
84747215|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.14|-0.42|0.0002
84670132|NCT02016482|169074140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.0|6.5|<0.001
84670133|NCT02016482|169074141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.3|< 0.001
84670134|NCT02016482|169074142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.8|-46.9|< 0.001
84670135|NCT02016482|169074143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-23.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-23.7|-33.5|< 0.001
84670136|NCT02016482|169074144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-41.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.3|< 0.001
84670137|NCT02016482|169074145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|2.4|0.004
84670138|NCT02016482|169074146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.1|< 0.001
84670139|NCT02016482|169074147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|< 0.001
84670140|NCT02016482|169074148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.4|-50.0|< 0.001
84670141|NCT02016482|169074149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-15.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-23.6|< 0.001
84670142|NCT02016482|169074150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.1||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-10.0|< 0.001
84670143|NCT02016482|169074151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|-55.0||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-55.0|-87.3|< 0.001
84670144|NCT02016482|169074152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|63.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 75||63.5|38.6|< 0.001
84670145|NCT02016482|169074152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|65.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 50||65.0|39.9|< 0.001
84670146|NCT02016482|169074152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|52.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 90||52.9|29.0|< 0.001
84670147|NCT02016482|169074152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|36.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 100||36.9|15.8|< 0.001
84747216|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.23|0.0835
84747217|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.21|0.0825
84747218|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.07|-0.13|0.5616
84747219|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0748
84747220|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.16|-0.15|0.9477
84670148|NCT02016482|169074153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|63.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|40.8|< 0.001
84670149|NCT02016482|169074154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|34.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|15.3|< 0.001
84670150|NCT02016482|169074155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|108.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||108.3|72.5|< 0.001
84670151|NCT02016482|169074156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-8.4|-13.9|< 0.001
84670152|NCT02016482|169074157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.9|-63.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-63.3|-97.9|< 0.001
84670153|NCT02016482|169074158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-37.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-37.8|-64.0|< 0.001
84670154|NCT02016482|169074159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-42.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-42.4|-73.1|< 0.001
84747221|NCT03486457|169247774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.19|-0.07|0.3829
84747222|NCT03486457|169247775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||10.12|1.90|0.0044
84747223|NCT03486457|169247775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||15.88|5.71|<0.0001
84605925|NCT03369431|168963130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Hyperactivity/Noncompliance between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.805
84747224|NCT03486457|169247775|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.74|-3.90|0.7062
84747225|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.7228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.63|-3.92|0.7228
84670155|NCT02016482|169074160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.001
84670156|NCT02016482|169074161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-21.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-21.6|-33.9|< 0.001
84670157|NCT02016482|169074162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.8|< 0.001
84670158|NCT02016482|169074163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|24.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0||24.3|7.1|< 0.001
84670159|NCT02016482|169074163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|37.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0/1||37.4|16.7|< 0.001
84670160|NCT02016482|169074164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||2.5|-1.0|0.416
84670161|NCT02016482|169074164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-11.6|-22.9|< 0.001
84670162|NCT02016482|169074164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Overall work impairment||-9.3|-21.0|< 0.001
84670163|NCT02016482|169074164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-15.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Activity impairment||-15.4|-27.3|< 0.001
84670164|NCT02016482|169074165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|0.1|< 0.001
84670165|NCT02016482|169074166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||9.8|1.2|0.012
84670166|NCT02016482|169074167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS anxiety score||-0.1|-2.0|0.025
84670167|NCT02016482|169074167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS depression score||-0.4|-2.3|0.005
84557551|NCT02638259|168868159|EQUIVALENCE|A margin of 0.6 can be statistically and clinically justified based on the results Keystone et al, Arthritis and Rheumatism, p353-363, (2004) and on the EULAR response criteria. The sample size of 155 per group with 90% power is based on the common SD of 1.46 and was calculated using nQuery 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2015 and Enbrel is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.12|-0.26|
84557552|NCT03578146|168868194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-73.14||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
84557553|NCT03578146|168868194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-153.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557554|NCT03578146|168868194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-189.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557555|NCT03578146|168868194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-239.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557556|NCT03578146|168868194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-231.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557557|NCT03578146|168868195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|52837.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557558|NCT03578146|168868195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|110388.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84747226|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.72|-15.39|0.1682
84747227|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.13|-15.56|0.1900
84557559|NCT03578146|168868195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|163880.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557560|NCT03578146|168868195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|263236.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557561|NCT03578146|168868195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|270297.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84747228|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.581||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.05|-6.22|0.6757
84557562|NCT03578146|168868196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-9.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84557563|NCT03578146|168868196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-15.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557564|NCT03578146|168868196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557565|NCT03578146|168868196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557566|NCT03578146|168868196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-19.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84557567|NCT00232596|168868276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84557568|NCT00232596|168868277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84557569|NCT01712334|168868296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the eRapid treatment to the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the LC Plus jet nebulizer treatment. The two nebulizers were considered equivalent if the 90% CI was within 80%-125%.|Ratio (Fieller's theorem)|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|102.3||||||||102.3|99.5|
84557570|NCT01253174|168868298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|102.26||||||90.0|96.65|108.2||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||108.20|96.65|
84557571|NCT01253174|168868299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|101.13||||||90.0|97.65|104.75||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.75|97.65|
84557572|NCT01253174|168868300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.66||||||90.0|93.37|104.24||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.24|93.37|
84557573|NCT01253174|168868301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.45||||||90.0|96.7|102.28||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.28|96.70|
84557574|NCT01253174|168868302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.19||||||90.0|99.18|113.68||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.68|99.18|
84557575|NCT01253174|168868303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|97.98||||||90.0|94.19|101.93||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.93|94.19|
84557576|NCT01253174|168868304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|104.9||||||90.0|98.83|111.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||111.34|98.83|
84747229|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|7.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.37|-12.13|0.6285
84747230|NCT03486457|169247776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.333||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|7.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.97|-13.23|0.6228
84747231|NCT03486457|169247777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.72|-18.90|<0.0001
84747232|NCT03486457|169247777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.28|-5.17|0.7384
84605926|NCT03369431|168963130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test used.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Inappropriate Speech between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.985
84747233|NCT00871780|169247784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0003
84747234|NCT00871780|169247784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0002
84747235|NCT00871780|169247785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0148
84747236|NCT00871780|169247785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0119
84747237|NCT00871780|169247786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
84747238|NCT00871780|169247786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0157
84747239|NCT00871780|169247787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
84747240|NCT00871780|169247787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||<0.0001
84747241|NCT00871780|169247788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747242|NCT00871780|169247788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84747243|NCT00871780|169247788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747244|NCT00871780|169247789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747245|NCT00871780|169247789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84747246|NCT00871780|169247789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747247|NCT00871780|169247790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747248|NCT00871780|169247790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84557577|NCT01253174|168868305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.63||||||90.0|95.73|103.69||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.69|95.73|
84557578|NCT01253174|168868307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.57||||||90.0|97.32|101.87||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.87|97.32|
84557579|NCT02436031|168868377|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||0.049
84557580|NCT02436031|168868377|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.135
84557581|NCT02227368|168868380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.1|-0.4|0.3441
84557582|NCT02227368|168868381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.6|-0.4|0.6186
84557583|NCT03282591|168868389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4||||0.9942|ONE_SIDED|95.0||56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.9||0.9942
84557584|NCT01973335|168868414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|123.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||2x2 factorial design: both acetazolamide groups together are compared with both high-dose loop diuretic groups together||123|-63|0.515
84747249|NCT00871780|169247790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747250|NCT00871780|169247791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747251|NCT00871780|169247791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84557585|NCT01973335|168868415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||2x2 factorial design: analysis according to spironolactone use||||0.270
84557586|NCT02603107|168868464|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 520 participants (260 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 90% power to establish a non-inferiority margin of 4% in the Week 48 response rate (HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL) between the 2 treatment groups. Sample size was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|2.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.5|-2.5|
84557587|NCT02603107|168868464|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84557588|NCT02603107|168868465|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.6|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.2|-1.6|
84557589|NCT02603107|168868465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84557590|NCT02603107|168868466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|25.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||||52|-2|0.068
84557591|NCT01887678|168868473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.35|||ANCOVA||A negative value of the Least Square mean difference indicates a result in favor of Traumeel-Zeel.|||-0.35|-12.40|0.0383
84557592|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-2.15||||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||2.58|-6.89|0.3715
84747252|NCT00871780|169247791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747253|NCT00871780|169247792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747254|NCT00871780|169247792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84747255|NCT00871780|169247792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747256|NCT00871780|169247793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747257|NCT00871780|169247793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84747258|NCT00871780|169247793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84747259|NCT00871780|169247794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747260|NCT00871780|169247794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0016
84747261|NCT00871780|169247794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||0.0866
84747262|NCT00871780|169247795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84747263|NCT00871780|169247795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84557593|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-5.87||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-0.60|-11.15|0.0293
84747264|NCT00871780|169247795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84557594|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.24||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.40|-10.88|0.0686
84557595|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-1.42|-13.08|0.0150
84557596|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.56||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.58|-13.54|0.0134
84557597|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.68|||Least Squares|||Day 71±3||-1.68|-13.52|0.0121
84557598|NCT01887678|168868474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.32||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||-0.37|-12.28|0.0376
84557599|NCT01887678|168868475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.76||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-11.05|0.1373
84557600|NCT01887678|168868476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.24||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|1.85|||ANCOVA|||||1.85|-10.33|0.1715
84557601|NCT01887678|168868477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.77||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.27|-10.82|0.1211
84557602|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.97||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||1.18|-11.12|0.1128
84557603|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-10.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-4.13|-16.85|0.0013
84557604|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.89||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||-0.09|-13.69|0.0472
84557605|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.82||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-2.05|-15.60|0.0109
84557606|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.88||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.95|-15.80|0.0123
84557607|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.88||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||-0.23|-13.52|0.0425
84557608|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.51||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.45|-12.47|0.1199
84557609|NCT01887678|168868482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.96||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||1.93|-11.86|0.1575
84557610|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||0.89|-1.45|0.6346
84557611|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||0.92|-1.49|0.6458
84557612|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.18||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.99|-1.35|0.7581
84557613|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.49||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||0.51|-1.48|0.3350
84557614|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.4||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||0.63|-1.44|0.4419
84747265|NCT02527343|169247797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-66.83||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.17|-29.48|||ANCOVA|||||-29.48|-104.17|0.0009
84747266|NCT02527343|169247798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-25.69||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.03|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.65|-54.03|0.0736
84747267|NCT02527343|169247798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-53.33||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.71|-18.95|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-18.95|-87.71|0.0039
84747268|NCT02527343|169247800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.3||||0.4108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.03|-0.43|0.4108
84747269|NCT02527343|169247800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.19||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.34|-0.95|0.7308
84747270|NCT02527343|169247800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 9||1.06|-1.45|0.7511
84747271|NCT02527343|169247800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.19||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.13|-1.52|0.7659
84747272|NCT00701220|169247814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures with two groups. The repeated measure was the proportion of circulating blood cells that were positive for aldehyde dehydrogenase using the commercially available Aldofluor assay. The two groups were those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This analysis permitted both intergroup and intragroup analysis of the change in aldehyde dehydrogenase positive cells.||||<0.05
84747273|NCT00912301|169247834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison low dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.031
84747274|NCT00912301|169247834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison high dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.010
84747275|NCT02344004|169247843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving culture conversion by Month 6 was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by smoking status and prior multi-drug regimen. The treatment comparison was tested at two-sided significance level of 0.05. The null hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is independent of treatment, and the alternative hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is associated with treatment.|The final analysis of the primary endpoint, the number of participants achieving culture conversion at by Month 6, was performed after the last participants completed Month 6 and his/her Month 6 sputum culture result was available.|||<0.0001
84747276|NCT02344004|169247844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84557615|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.37||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||0.58|-1.32|0.4460
84557616|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|0.25||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.33|-0.84|0.6552
84747277|NCT02344004|169247845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7804|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||This was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of change from Baseline at Months 4\&6. MMRM included treatment, month, treatment-by-month interaction, combination of smoking status \& prior MDR (4 levels: Yes/Yes, Yes/No, No/Yes, and No/No) as fixed factors, baseline 6MWD as a covariate \& baseline 6MWD-by-month interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the MMRM.|"* Baseline is defined as the last non-missing value prior to first dose of study drug.~* Statistics were obtained from an mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) model with pattern-mixture modeling of missing values due to dropout, which included treatment, month, the treatment-by-month interaction, and the combination of smoking status and prior multidrug regimen as fixed factors, the baseline 6MWT distance as a covariate and baseline 6MWT distance-by-month interaction. MMRM included postbaseline data through Month 6.~* For baseline, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and at least 1 postbaseline score. For Month 6, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and a postbaseline score at the summarized visit."|||0.7804
84747278|NCT02344004|169247846|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.63|||Regression, Cox|||Kaplan Meier estimates for the distribution of time to culture conversion were constructed for treatment arms. The treatment comparison was made using the stratified log rank test for the ITT population. The estimated median time to culture conversion for each treatment arm was not estimable. The time to culture conversion was analyzed using Cox regression model to estimate hazards ratio.||7.63|2.01|<0.0001
84747279|NCT01708213|169247852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Parametric Testing|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Parametric testing|||||||<0.05
84747280|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of partcipants|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|69.0|86.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||86|69|
84747281|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|71.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|71|
84747282|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|77.0|91.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||91|77|
84747283|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3022
84557617|NCT01887678|168868483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.19||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||0.95|-1.33|0.7443
84557618|NCT01887678|168868488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.2164
84557619|NCT01887678|168868488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions|Log Rank|||After second injection of study drug||||0.1651
84557620|NCT01887678|168868488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.2220
84747284|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7797||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.7797
84747285|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1557||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1557
84747286|NCT00116753|169247854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2208||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2208
84747287|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|88.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from after Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|72|
84747288|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|72|
84747289|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|78.0|92.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||92|78|
84747290|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3830
84747291|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9587
84747292|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2579||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2579
84747293|NCT00116753|169247855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2072||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2072
84747294|NCT00116753|169247856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|93|
84747295|NCT00116753|169247856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
84747296|NCT00116753|169247856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
84747297|NCT00986973|169247859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84747298|NCT00986973|169247860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.82
84747299|NCT00986973|169247861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.46
84747300|NCT00986973|169247862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.071
84747301|NCT00986973|169247863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.25
84493978|NCT01945034|168739080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|39.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||39.70|-24.20|0.633
84493979|NCT01945034|168739080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.87|23.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||23.30|-53.87|0.436
84493980|NCT01945034|168739081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|16.49||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (BLPSR), pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing (BLPIWB) terms. 95% CI not includes 0 for treatment effect. Upper limit of 95% CI\< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||16.49|-6.98|0.426
84493981|NCT01945034|168739081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.82||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||9.82|-11.90|0.850
84493982|NCT01945034|168739081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|7.32||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||7.32|-18.91|0.385
84493983|NCT01945034|168739082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|20.91||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||20.91|-0.92|0.072
84493984|NCT01945034|168739082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|4.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.70|-15.40|0.296
84493985|NCT01945034|168739082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|-3.16||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-3.16|-27.53|0.014
84493986|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo||0.30|-0.10|0.305
84557621|NCT01887678|168868489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.0264
84557622|NCT01887678|168868489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After second injection of study drug||||0.0346
84557623|NCT01887678|168868489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.0172
84557624|NCT02952872|168868516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Mixed Design ANOVA||||||<.05
84557625|NCT02952872|168868517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84557626|NCT02952872|168868518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84557627|NCT02952872|168868519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84605927|NCT03369431|168963131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||||||0.661
84605928|NCT01062061|168963133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9733
84747302|NCT00986973|169247864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.050
84747303|NCT00986973|169247865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84747304|NCT01809002|169247902|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint tested non-inferiority as compared to collagen nerve cuff and superior to no treatment. Non-inferiority is defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI about the difference of \> -2 and the upper limit of the 95% CI for s2PD for Avance of \< 13 in ITT table.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|1.574|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using a pre-defined standard statistical analysis with a non-response/failure assigned a worst-case scenario value of 16mm.||1.574|-1.087|
84747305|NCT01809002|169247903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
84747306|NCT01809002|169247903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
84747307|NCT01809002|169247904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||The number and percentage of all treated subjects who recovered s2PD in the target repair at Month 12 (i.e., s2PD of 2 - 15 mm) were summarized by repair type. Differences between the repair types were assessed using a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Responders were defined as subjects achieving s2PD of 2-15 mm on the target nerve repair.||||0.915
84747308|NCT01809002|169247905|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6316|5.9541||Pre-injury baseline was defined as s2PD in the contralateral digit associated with the target digit.|ANCOVA|This analysis was assessed in the ITT population, at Month 12 using the LS Mean differences from a repeated measures ANCOVA model.||||5.9541|-11.6316|
84747309|NCT01809002|169247906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Kaplan-Meier median and 95% CI|Differences between the repair types were assessed with a KM log-rank test that was appropriate for the handing of interval-censored data.||||||0.792
84747310|NCT01809002|169247907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed to detect a distribution shift of the MRCC score between repairs with PNA and repairs with nerve cuff at Month 12.||||||0.526
84747311|NCT01809002|169247908|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"This analysis compares the change in 12 Month Pain VAS scores from Baseline. Missing or incomplete data was extrapolated using a pre-defined repeated measures modeling approach for calculations in this analysis.~This analysis assesses each treatment group for clinically meaningful improvement in VAS from Baseline assuming a Meaningful Clinically Important Difference delta of 20 points (mm)."||||
84747312|NCT01809002|169247910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84747313|NCT01809002|169247911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed utilizing a one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||||0.037
84747314|NCT01809002|169247912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was utilized for this analysis.||||||0.021
84747315|NCT02831387|169247956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.696|9.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in the Subject Reported Dry Eye Questionnaire||9.936|-13.696|0.749
84747316|NCT02831387|169247957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Frequency Scores||5.3|-18.4|0.267
84747317|NCT02831387|169247958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Severity Scores||15.4|-7.6|0.495
84747318|NCT02831387|169247959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Fluorescein Staining of the Cornea||1.9|-0.6|0.316
84747319|NCT02831387|169247960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Lissamine Green Staining of the Conjunctiva||1.5|-1.9|0.823
84747320|NCT02831387|169247961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|7.184||||||Statistical Analysis 1 for the Number of participants with at least 20% improvement in symptoms from baseline to Day 29||7.184|0.515|
84747321|NCT02831387|169247962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.666||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|11.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 15 (Visit 3) in the Subject-reported Dry Eye Symptom Score||11.092|-7.759|0.723
84747322|NCT00118755|169247967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.67|0.3883
84747323|NCT00118755|169247968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2458
84747324|NCT00118755|169247969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.8||||||95.0|0.9|18.7|||||95% Wald asymptotic CI using normal approximation (continuity corrected)|||18.7|0.9|
84747325|NCT00118755|169247970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6294||95.0|0.66|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.66|0.6294
84605929|NCT01062061|168963134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84747326|NCT01016977|169247983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9597||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.9597
84747327|NCT01016977|169247983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
84747328|NCT01016977|169247983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6315||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.6315
84747329|NCT01016977|169247983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5655
84747330|NCT01016977|169247983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7917||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.7917
84747331|NCT01016977|169247984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5961||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.5961
84747332|NCT01016977|169247984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2293
84747333|NCT01016977|169247984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9852||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9852
84747334|NCT01016977|169247984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
84747335|NCT01016977|169247984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
84747336|NCT01016977|169247985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8545||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.8545
84747337|NCT01016977|169247985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2895
84747338|NCT01016977|169247985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
84747339|NCT01016977|169247985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3644||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.3644
84747340|NCT01016977|169247985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
84747341|NCT01016977|169247986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7546||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7546
84747342|NCT01016977|169247986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7705||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.7705
84747343|NCT01016977|169247986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0259||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.0259
84747344|NCT01016977|169247986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9252||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.9252
84747345|NCT01016977|169247986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2927
84747346|NCT01016977|169247987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4010
84747347|NCT01016977|169247987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
84747348|NCT01016977|169247987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9291
84747349|NCT01016977|169247987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5523||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5523
84747350|NCT01016977|169247987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2556||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2556
84747351|NCT01016977|169247988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4037||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4037
84747352|NCT01016977|169247988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.8662
84747353|NCT01016977|169247988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5951||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.5951
84747354|NCT01016977|169247988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2349||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.2349
84747355|NCT01016977|169247988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3461||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3461
84747356|NCT01016977|169247989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7250
84747357|NCT01016977|169247989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9743||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.9743
84747358|NCT01016977|169247989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9816||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9816
84747359|NCT01016977|169247989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8809||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.8809
84493987|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.29|-0.08|0.261
84493988|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.22|-0.22|0.996
84493989|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.08|0.210
84747360|NCT01016977|169247989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1679||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.1679
84747361|NCT01171807|169248044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84747362|NCT01981473|169248055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||As there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Logistic regression was to be used but the model was not fit as there were no antibodies in the etanercept group. Fisher's exact test was used.||This sample was to provide \>95% power to detect a difference of 12% in the proportion of participants positive for antidrug antibodies between the group of participants treated with a soluble receptor TNF inhibitor (etanercept) and the group of participants treated with mAB TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and infliximab) (5% vs 17%, respectively), using a Chi square test with continuity correction, an alpha of 0.05, and attrition rate of 15%.||||<0.0001
84747363|NCT00757588|169248074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.24||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-0.24|-0.59|<0.0001
84747364|NCT00757588|169248075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3829.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1165.99||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6122.4|-1537.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1537.1|-6122.4|0.0011
84747365|NCT00757588|169248076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-8.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-8.7|-37.2|0.0016
84747366|NCT00757588|169248077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.732||0.3958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|5.28||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||5.28|-13.32|0.3958
84747367|NCT00757588|169248079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1.1|-5.6|
84747368|NCT05062759|169248110|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.98||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model.||0.98|0.43|
84747369|NCT05062759|169248110|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.15|0.60|
84747370|NCT05062759|169248110|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.37|0.71|
84747371|NCT05062759|169248111|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
84747372|NCT05062759|169248111|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.17||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.17|0.72|
84747373|NCT05062759|169248111|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.07||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.07|0.73|
84747374|NCT05062759|169248111|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.48||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.48|0.54|
84747375|NCT05062759|169248112|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.04||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.04|0.52|
84493990|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.27||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.27|-0.14|0.556
84493991|NCT01945034|168739083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.17|-0.33|0.534
84493992|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.1||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.10|-0.27|0.354
84747376|NCT05062759|169248112|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.29||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.29|0.72|
84747377|NCT05062759|169248112|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.46|0.73|
84747378|NCT05062759|169248113|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.25|0.51|
84747379|NCT05062759|169248113|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
84747380|NCT05062759|169248113|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.99||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.99|0.49|
84747381|NCT05062759|169248113|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.52||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.52|0.70|
84747382|NCT01749904|169248122|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.|||||<|0.01||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol and also superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84747383|NCT01749904|169248123|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84493993|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.07|-0.28|0.237
84557628|NCT02069093|168868535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Incidence rate R|||A test of the incidence rate R was performed with null hypothesis H0: R\>= 0.33 and alternative hypothesis Ha: R\<0.33 with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. If the test statistic was negative (actual incidence rate was \<0.33), the one-sided p-value for the null hypothesis R\>=0.33 was presented. The null hypothesis was rejected if the statistic was negative and the corresponding p-value for the one-sided test was \<0.5.||||<0.001
84557629|NCT00561470|168868554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.817||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.34|0.713|0.937||Stratified Log-Rank test p-value. Stratified on ECOG Performance Status and prior Bevacizumab according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|||0.937|0.713|0.0032
84557630|NCT00561470|168868555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.758||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.99|0.578|0.995||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||0.995|0.578|0.00007
84747384|NCT01749904|169248124|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84747385|NCT01749904|169248125|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions.|||
84747386|NCT03536143|169248129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0216
84747387|NCT03536143|169248130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
84747388|NCT04055090|169248135|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. The Baseline average 24-hour pain score was included as a covariate.|||-0.02|-1.76|0.0460
84747389|NCT04055090|169248137|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2190
84747390|NCT04055090|169248138|OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. Baseline average 24-hour pain score is included as a covariate.|||-0.29|-2.67|0.0155
84747391|NCT04745026|169248139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.931|=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.21||Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Irritability (Week 12)||7.21|-0.48|=0.085
84747392|NCT04745026|169248139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|=|0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.36|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Social Withdrawal Week 12)||3.36|-1.08|=0.3107
84747393|NCT04745026|169248139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695|=|0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.42|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Stereotypic Behavior (Week 12)||1.42|-1.34|=0.9513
84747394|NCT04745026|169248139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.943|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.88|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (Week 12)||5.88|-1.86|=0.305
84493994|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.19|-0.23|0.871
84493995|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.00|-0.43|0.050
84557631|NCT00561470|168868556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||||0.0001
84557632|NCT02028169|168868566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557633|NCT02028169|168868567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557634|NCT02028169|168868568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline Vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557635|NCT02028169|168868569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557636|NCT02028169|168868570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557637|NCT02028169|168868570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557638|NCT02028169|168868570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557639|NCT02028169|168868573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557640|NCT02028169|168868573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557641|NCT02028169|168868573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557642|NCT02028169|168868574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557643|NCT02028169|168868574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557644|NCT02028169|168868574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557645|NCT02028169|168868575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557646|NCT02028169|168868576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557647|NCT02028169|168868576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557648|NCT02028169|168868576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557649|NCT02028169|168868578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557650|NCT02028169|168868580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557651|NCT02028169|168868580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557652|NCT02028169|168868580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557653|NCT02028169|168868581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557654|NCT02028169|168868581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557655|NCT02028169|168868581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557656|NCT02028169|168868582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557657|NCT02028169|168868582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557658|NCT02028169|168868582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557659|NCT02028169|168868583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557660|NCT02028169|168868583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557661|NCT02028169|168868583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557662|NCT02028169|168868584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
84557663|NCT02028169|168868584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
84557664|NCT02028169|168868584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
84557665|NCT04877535|168868638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-0.24|0.524
84557666|NCT04877535|168868638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.4|0.403
84557667|NCT04877535|168868639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.47|1.00
84557668|NCT04877535|168868640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.13|||Fisher Exact|||||11.13|1.81|<0.001
84557669|NCT04877535|168868640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.19|||Fisher Exact|||||4.19|0.23|1.00
84557670|NCT04877535|168868641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|39.25|||Fisher Exact|||||39.25|1.94|<0.001
84557671|NCT04877535|168868641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|14.86|||Fisher Exact|||||14.86|0.13|0.630
84557672|NCT01969084|168868654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were expressed as the median (25th:75th percentiles) for non-normally distributed data. The mean±sd for the groups was not analyzed as per the statistical plan.||||>0.05
84557673|NCT05079230|168868669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.178||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.637|||stratified log-rank test|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.637|0.848|0.3276
84557674|NCT05079230|168868670|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.826||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.251|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.251|0.545|0.3616
84557675|NCT05079230|168868671|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.856||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.307|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.307|0.560|0.4679
84557676|NCT05079230|168868672|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.946||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Stratified Log Rank||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||1.225|0.730|0.7903
84605930|NCT00046930|168963151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age (\< 70 vs. \>=70) and type of leukemia (de novo AML, secondary RAEB-t, or secondary RAEB AML)||The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a non-proportional hazards difference in OS at the one-sided 0.025 significance level of 30.2% vs 39.6%, 12.8% vs 27.1% and 7.0% vs 14.0% at 1 years, 2 years, and full information for zosuquidar and placebo, respectively.||||0.28
84605931|NCT00046930|168963152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age and type of leukemia||||||0.16
84670168|NCT02016482|169074168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Chi-squared|||||6|-0.9|0.164
84670169|NCT02016482|169074169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-3.4|< 0.001
84670170|NCT01289847|169074170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sample Poisson rate|||For the primary efficacy analysis, the SABI rate for GAMMAPLEX and the upper bound of its one-sided 99% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by using the exact method for a one-sample Poisson rate.||||0.01
84493996|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.25|0.640
84557677|NCT05079230|168868675|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.189||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.945|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.945|0.727|0.4873
84557678|NCT05079230|168868676|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.154||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.932|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.932|0.690|0.5842
84557679|NCT05079230|168868677|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.783||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.245|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|||1.245|0.492|0.3003
84493997|NCT01945034|168739084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.41||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.41|-0.08|0.180
84557680|NCT05079230|168868678|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.360|0.620|0.5790
84557681|NCT05079230|168868679|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.09||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.487|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI are calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.487|0.799|0.5796
84557682|NCT05079230|168868680|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.271||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.704|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.704|0.948|0.1026
84605932|NCT00046930|168963153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||Test was stratified on age and type of leukemia.|Mantel Haenszel||Zosuquidar/Placebo|Test of difference in the CR (complete remission) rate between the arms.||1.65|0.77|0.617
84670171|NCT01289847|169074171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|99.0|||||one-sample Poisson method|||||||0.01
84670172|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.82|0.68|0.000
84670173|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|1.14|0.000
84605933|NCT01657760|168963155|EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect difference p\<0.05 two tailed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||ANOVA, uncorrected for MC.|ANOVA|||||||0.87
84605934|NCT01694108|168963179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney-test comparing the decisional conflict scores of participating mothers vs. declining mothers.||||||<0.001
84605935|NCT03523273|168963263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84605936|NCT03523273|168963264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84605937|NCT02963987|168963279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84605938|NCT02963987|168963280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84605939|NCT02963987|168963281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84605940|NCT00394901|168963388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.262||95.0|-0.85|0.23|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.23|-0.85|0.262
84605941|NCT00394901|168963388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.002||95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
84605942|NCT00394901|168963388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.019||95.0|-1.15|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.15|0.019
84605943|NCT00394901|168963389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.016||95.0|-1.16|-0.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.12|-1.16|0.016
84493998|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.51|||ANOVA|||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.51|-0.38|0.771
84605944|NCT00394901|168963389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.008||95.0|-1.14|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.14|0.008
84605945|NCT00394901|168963390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.1160
84605946|NCT00394901|168963390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0015
84605947|NCT00394901|168963390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0107
84605948|NCT00394901|168963391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.038||95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.99|0.038
84605949|NCT00394901|168963391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
84605950|NCT00394901|168963391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.002||95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.19|0.002
84605951|NCT00394901|168963392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.048||95.0|-0.97|0.0|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.00|-0.97|0.048
84605952|NCT00394901|168963392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.47|<0.001
84670174|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.17|0.93|0.000
84670175|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.80|0.755
84670176|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.83|0.95|0.426
84670177|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.77|0.930
84670178|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.72|0.000
84670179|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.42|1.10|0.000
84670180|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.19|0.98|0.000
84670181|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.14|0.84|0.755
84670182|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|0.84|0.426
84605953|NCT00394901|168963392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.49|-0.56|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.49|<0.001
84605954|NCT00394901|168963393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.096||95.0|-0.89|0.07|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.07|-0.89|0.096
84670183|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.81|0.930
84670184|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.74|0.000
84670185|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.32|1.08|0.000
84670186|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.26|1.08|0.000
84670187|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.60|0.755
84670188|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||2.52|0.82|0.426
84670189|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.40|0.70|0.930
84670190|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.60|0.49|0.000
84670191|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.76|1.29|0.000
84670192|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.93|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.93|1.54|0.000
84670193|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.17|0.72|0.755
84670194|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.95|0.78|0.426
84670195|NCT03441633|169074176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.20|0.70|0.930
84670196|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.09|0.90|0.000
84670197|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.25|0.98|0.000
84670198|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.45|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.45|0.94|0.164
84670199|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.22|0.87|0.826
84670200|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|0.94|0.190
84670201|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.57|0.18|0.526
84670202|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||0.91|0.77|0.000
84670203|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.24|1.01|0.000
84670204|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.83|0.76|0.164
84670205|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.26|0.95|0.826
84670206|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.13|0.77|0.190
84670207|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.65|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.65|0.62|0.526
84670208|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.45|1.28|0.000
84670209|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.35|1.14|0.000
84670210|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.95|0.98|0.164
84670211|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.41|0.76|0.826
84670212|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.76|0.82|0.190
84670213|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.5|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||4.50|0.17|0.526
84670214|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.42|1.16|0.000
84670215|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|1.10|0.000
84557683|NCT01524783|168868686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.35|<0.001
84557684|NCT01524783|168868687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.66|0.259
84557685|NCT01524783|168868690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.50|0.073
84557686|NCT01524783|168868693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.539
84557687|NCT00824434|168868706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean In-stent Late Loss in WH Lesions|0.17|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.22|||t-test, 1 sided|||The Student t-test was used to compare the outcome to a prespecified performance goal of 0.44 mm based on an historical TAXUS Express workhorse 9-month in-stent late loss (0.41 mm) value plus delta (0.03 mm)||0.22||<0.0001
84557688|NCT00824434|168868707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Post-procedure Incomplete Apposi|5.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.6|||One-sided exact binomial test|||A one-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bound was derived and tested to determine if the outcome was less than a prespecified performance goal based on historical XIENCE V/PROMUS post-procedure incomplete apposition data from the SPIRIT III study (34.4%).||11.6||<0.0001
84605955|NCT00394901|168963393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.44|-0.48|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.48|-1.44|<0.001
84605956|NCT00394901|168963393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.46|<0.001
84605957|NCT00394901|168963394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.505||95.0|-2.16|1.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.06|-2.16|0.505
84605958|NCT00394901|168963394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.023||95.0|-3.46|-0.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-3.46|0.023
84605959|NCT00394901|168963394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.012||95.0|-3.56|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.44|-3.56|0.012
84605960|NCT00394901|168963395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.349||95.0|-0.91|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.91|0.349
84605961|NCT00394901|168963395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.024||95.0|-1.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.32|0.024
84670216|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.64|0.49|0.164
84557689|NCT05153148|168868727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and region.|21.1|-9.3|=0.446
84557690|NCT05153148|168868727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.6|8.6|=0.002
84557691|NCT05153148|168868727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.9|9.0|=0.002
84557692|NCT05153148|168868728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|16.6|-5.3|=0.312
84557693|NCT05153148|168868728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.1|5.0|=0.005
84557694|NCT05153148|168868728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.6|4.2|=0.009
84670217|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.34|0.84|0.826
84557695|NCT05153148|168868729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.7|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||12.7|-6.6|=0.532
84557696|NCT05153148|168868729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.1|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||20.1|-1.0|=0.101
84557697|NCT05153148|168868729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||19.4|-1.7|=0.158
84557698|NCT05153148|168868730|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.7|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-4.8|=0.268
84557699|NCT05153148|168868730|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.0|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-6.1|=0.051
84557700|NCT05153148|168868730|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.5|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.6|-5.6|=0.112
84557701|NCT05153148|168868731|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.7|-2.4|=0.280
84557702|NCT05153148|168868731|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.1|||=|0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.177
84557703|NCT05153148|168868731|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.196
84605962|NCT00394901|168963395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.045||95.0|-1.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-1.21|0.045
84605963|NCT00394901|168963396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.441||95.0|-2.93|1.28|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.28|-2.93|0.441
84557704|NCT05153148|168868732|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.9|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|5.9|-9.6|=0.637
84557705|NCT05153148|168868732|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.2|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.4|-17.0|=0.021
84557706|NCT05153148|168868732|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.7|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-0.9|-16.5|=0.030
84605964|NCT00394901|168963396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.017||95.0|-4.64|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-4.64|0.017
84670218|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.23|0.66|0.190
84605965|NCT00394901|168963396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.012||95.0|-4.65|-0.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-4.65|0.012
84605966|NCT00394901|168963397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.47||95.0|-8.28|3.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.83|-8.28|0.470
84670219|NCT03441633|169074177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.36|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.36|0.09|0.526
84557707|NCT05153148|168868733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|6.6|-8.4|=0.812
84557708|NCT05153148|168868733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.7|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.8|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.8|-14.2|=0.079
84557709|NCT05153148|168868733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.3|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-13.9|=0.102
84605967|NCT00394901|168963397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04||||0.008||95.0|-14.0|-2.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.06|-14.0|0.008
84605968|NCT00394901|168963397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43||||0.013||95.0|-13.3|-1.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-1.59|-13.3|0.013
84605969|NCT00394901|168963398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.178||95.0|-0.48|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.09|-0.48|0.178
84670220|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.53|1.20|0.000
84670221|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.15|0.89|0.014
84670222|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.99|0.77|0.000
84670223|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.97|0.75|0.000
84670224|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.97|0.74|0.013
84670225|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.31|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.31|0.84|0.157
84670226|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.82|0.124
84670227|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.61|0.062
84670228|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.22|0.78|0.079
84670229|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.38|0.86|0.140
84670230|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.45|1.17|0.000
84670231|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.09|0.87|0.014
84670232|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.12|0.91|0.000
84670233|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.05|0.85|0.000
84670234|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.93|0.74|0.013
84670235|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.13|0.76|0.157
84670236|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.20|0.81|0.124
84670237|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.65|0.062
84670238|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.48|1.02|0.079
84670239|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.49|0.99|0.140
84670240|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.05|0.88|0.000
84670241|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.99|0.84|0.014
84670242|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.90|0.76|0.000
84605970|NCT00394901|168963398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.003||95.0|-0.72|-0.15|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.72|0.003
84605971|NCT00394901|168963398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.03||95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
84605972|NCT00394901|168963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.30|-1.23|0.001
84605973|NCT00394901|168963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001||95.0|-1.27|-0.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.34|-1.27|0.001
84605974|NCT00394901|168963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.49|-1.40|<0.001
84605975|NCT00394901|168963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-14.2|-3.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-3.61|-14.2|0.001
84747395|NCT04745026|169248139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517|=|0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.66|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Inappropriate Speech (Week 12)||0.66|-1.4|=0.4754
84747396|NCT04745026|169248140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|=|0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|5.15|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Week 12||5.15|-4.26|=0.8506
84493999|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.07|-0.88|0.022
84494000|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.05|-1.03|0.032
84494001|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.38|0.720
84605976|NCT00394901|168963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.002||95.0|-13.5|-2.99|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.99|-13.5|0.002
84605977|NCT00394901|168963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-6.22|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-6.22|-16.5|<0.001
84605978|NCT00394901|168963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29||||0.245||95.0|-2.95|11.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.54|-2.95|0.245
84605979|NCT00394901|168963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.417||95.0|-4.2|10.11|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.11|-4.20|0.417
84605980|NCT00394901|168963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.007||95.0|2.67|16.74|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||16.74|2.67|0.007
84605981|NCT00394901|168963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.76||95.0|-3.83|5.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.24|-3.83|0.760
84605982|NCT00394901|168963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.754||95.0|-3.75|5.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.18|-3.75|0.754
84605983|NCT00394901|168963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.641||95.0|-5.43|3.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.35|-5.43|0.641
84747397|NCT04745026|169248141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||=|0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment arm, randomization variables and baseline score (CGI-S) covariates. Responders achieved a score of 1 or 2 at post-baseline visits.||Responders with 'Very Much Improved' or 'Much Improved' response at week 12||3.51|0.43|=0.7087
84747398|NCT04745026|169248142|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||=0.6108
84747399|NCT05478499|169248153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||15.3|2.5|<0.0001
84747400|NCT05478499|169248153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||18.4|2.7|<0.0001
84557710|NCT05153148|168868734|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.9|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-1.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.7|-16.2|=0.016
84557711|NCT05153148|168868734|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-3.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.4|-17.8|=0.004
84557712|NCT05153148|168868734|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.6|-18.2|=0.003
84557713|NCT05153148|168868735|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.07|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.08|-0.21|=0.357
84557714|NCT05153148|168868735|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.05|-0.24|=0.195
84557715|NCT05153148|168868735|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.05|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.09|-0.20|=0.467
84557716|NCT05153148|168868736|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|2.4|0.1|=0.031
84670243|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.91|0.77|0.000
84557717|NCT05153148|168868736|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-1.1|=0.860
84557718|NCT05153148|168868736|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-0.9|=0.758
84557719|NCT05153148|168868737|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.2|-1.2|=0.131
84670244|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.00|0.85|0.013
84670245|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.54|0.68|0.157
84494002|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.71|0.194
84494003|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.15|-0.89|0.163
84670246|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.53|0.124
84494004|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.64|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.64|-0.40|0.644
84670247|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.13|0.48|0.062
84670248|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.33|0.57|0.079
84557720|NCT05153148|168868737|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.7|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-1.3|=0.043
84557721|NCT05153148|168868737|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-0.8|=0.687
84557722|NCT05153148|168868738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|||=|0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|17.4|-6.1|=0.349
84557723|NCT05153148|168868738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.3|2.8|=0.017
84557724|NCT05153148|168868738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.3|3.3|=0.014
84605984|NCT00394901|168963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.955||95.0|-0.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.30|0.955
84605985|NCT00394901|168963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.084||95.0|-0.04|0.58|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.58|-0.04|0.084
84747401|NCT05478499|169248154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.6|352.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||352.0|4.6|<0.0001
84747402|NCT05478499|169248154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|317.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||317.6|4.4|<0.0001
84747403|NCT05478499|169248155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-1.6|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Full Analysis Set||-1.6|-3.3|<0.0001
84557725|NCT05153148|168868739|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.73|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.57|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.57|-9.04|=0.167
84557726|NCT05153148|168868739|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.43|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-1.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.13|-11.73|=0.018
84605986|NCT00394901|168963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.17||95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.52|-0.09|0.170
84605987|NCT00394901|168963404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01||||0.296||95.0|-3.52|11.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.55|-3.52|0.296
84605988|NCT00394901|168963404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.007||95.0|2.87|17.73|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.73|2.87|0.007
84747404|NCT05478499|169248155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||-1.5|-3.3|<0.0001
84747405|NCT05478499|169248156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|105.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||105.6|5.4|<0.0001
84747406|NCT04426851|169248162|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.4|50.9|||||"Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg tablet fasted/BI 1358894 (C-14) 100 ug i.v.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=14.3."|The Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed.||50.9|41.4|
84747407|NCT04426851|169248163|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|141.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.3|154.6|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra -individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=10.9.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||154.6|129.3|
84557727|NCT05153148|168868739|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.23|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|0.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.13|-10.59|=0.056
84557728|NCT05153148|168868740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.4|-5.7|=0.186
84557729|NCT05153148|168868740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|32.1|-2.8|=0.101
84557730|NCT05153148|168868740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|47.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|47.6|10.5|=0.002
84557731|NCT05153148|168868741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.0|-10.0|=0.540
84557732|NCT05153148|168868741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|||=|0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.3|-8.8|=0.466
84557733|NCT05153148|168868741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|31.3|1.2|=0.034
84557734|NCT02267135|168868744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between percentages|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|65.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for body weight (\< 90 kg, ≥ 90 kg)||||65|37|<0.001
84605989|NCT00394901|168963404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.106||95.0|-1.29|13.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.30|-1.29|0.106
84557735|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental,control) × 2(Activity: singing,verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, believability of thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
84557736|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
84557737|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in believability of thought from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
84670249|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.59|0.67|0.140
84670250|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.47|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||0.47|0.32|0.000
84670251|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.97|0.73|0.014
84670252|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.91|1.51|0.000
84557738|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
84557739|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
84557740|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in believability scores||||>0.05
84557741|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent believability scores across time.||||>0.05
84557742|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on believability scores||||>0.05
84557743|NCT03646305|168868777|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on believability||||>0.05
84605990|NCT00394901|168963405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.191||95.0|-1.97|9.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.83|-1.97|0.191
84670253|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||2.10|1.65|0.000
84670254|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.08|0.82|0.013
84670255|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.80|1.00|0.157
84670256|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.88|1.04|0.124
84494005|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.11|-0.85|0.129
84747408|NCT04426851|169248165|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|78.0|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=22.5.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||78.0|54.6|
84747409|NCT04426851|169248166|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|148.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.1|159.5|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) =8.7.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||159.5|138.1|
84557744|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appraisal of target thought were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84557745|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent across time.||||=0.005
84557746|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from baseline to post-intervention||||=0.002
84557747|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
84605991|NCT00394901|168963405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.21|||<|0.001||95.0|5.41|17.02|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.02|5.41|<0.001
84605992|NCT00394901|168963405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.23|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|19.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||19.95|8.50|<0.001
84747410|NCT02476279|169248177|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.066|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.066|0.006|
84747411|NCT02476279|169248177|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.06|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.060|-0.003|
84747412|NCT02476279|169248178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.043|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.043|-0.002|
84605993|NCT00394901|168963406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.061||95.0|-8.25|0.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-8.25|0.061
84494006|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.09|-1.07|0.096
84557748|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in negativity scores from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental conditions||||>0.025
84557749|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the experimental conditions would have no significant difference in negativity scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.025
84557750|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
84557751|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
84557752|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in negativity scores||||>0.05
84557753|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on negativity scores||||>0.05
84557754|NCT03646305|168868778|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on negativity scores||||>0.05
84571322|NCT00250588|168893579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.4||Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||7.4|0.63|0.05
84494007|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.57|-0.50|0.905
84557755|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at p\< .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of discomfort were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84557756|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would have no significant differences in discomfort levels from baseline to post-intervention across samples||||<0.001
84557757|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in discomfort levels from post-intervention to follow-up across samples||||<0.001
84557758|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
84557759|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
84557760|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of discomfort||||>0.05
84557761|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of discomfort across time||||>0.05
84557762|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of discomfort||||>0.05
84605994|NCT00394901|168963406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.133||95.0|-7.37|0.98|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.98|-7.37|0.133
84557763|NCT03646305|168868779|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on discomfort levels||||>0.05
84557764|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, willingness to engage with target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
84557765|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in willingness scores from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
84557766|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in willingness scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||=0.053
84557767|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal willingness scores||||>0.05
84557768|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal willingness to engage with the target thought||||>0.05
84557769|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in willingness to engage||||>0.05
84605995|NCT00394901|168963406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.24||95.0|-6.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.64|-6.52|0.240
84670257|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.05|0.55|0.062
84670258|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.26|0.67|0.079
84670259|NCT03441633|169074178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.15|0.56|0.140
84670260|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.25|0.91|0.000
84494008|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.77|0.279
84494009|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.29|-0.90|0.315
84494010|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.91|-0.19|0.203
84494011|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.18|-0.83|0.207
84494012|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.07|-1.30|0.030
84494013|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.84|-0.32|0.372
84494014|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.70|0.532
84494015|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.21|-1.08|0.189
84494016|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.24|0.264
84494017|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1:The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.81|0.260
84494018|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.23|0.054
84494019|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.37|0.456
84494020|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.42|0.639
84605996|NCT00394901|168963407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2842||95.0|0.34|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.37|0.34|0.2842
84494021|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.75|0.780
84494022|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.07|-0.04|0.071
84494023|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.32|-0.70|0.468
84605997|NCT00394901|168963407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0577||95.0|0.98|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.66|0.98|0.0577
84557770|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in willingness to engage with the target thought across time.||||>0.05
84557771|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on willingness to engage||||>0.05
84557772|NCT03646305|168868780|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on willingness to engage||||>0.05
84557773|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, avoidance of target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.01
84557774|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
84557775|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.05
84557776|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would show equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
84670261|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.23|0.58|0.202
84670262|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.09|0.88|0.000
84670263|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.93|0.76|0.003
84670264|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.03|0.66|0.083
84670265|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.18|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.18|0.68|0.011
84670266|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.06|0.75|0.227
84557777|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
84557778|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
84557779|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in avoidance of target thought across time.||||>0.05
84557780|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
84557781|NCT03646305|168868781|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
84557782|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, cognitive delusion were equivalent across time||||>0.05
84557783|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
84605998|NCT00394901|168963407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.1893||95.0|0.81|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.95|0.81|0.1893
84605999|NCT00394901|168963408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0466
84494024|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.08|-1.33|0.027
84557784|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
84557785|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
84557786|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion across time.||||>0.05
84557787|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
84557788|NCT03646305|168868782|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
84557789|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, weight dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84606000|NCT00394901|168963408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84747413|NCT02476279|169248178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.044|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.044|-0.004|
84747414|NCT00116337|169248179|OTHER|Statistical analyses was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value of \< 0.05 was taken as indicating statistical significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control; comparisons was made at various points in the study. Clinical parameters was assessed before the study and also at several end points following the Reconditioning Phase.||||<0.05
84747415|NCT00116337|169248181|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation were compared with data obtained after implantation of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Freidman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistical significance was assumed at P\<0.05. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± SEs.||||<0.05
84557790|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
84557791|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null: there would be no differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up||||<0.05
84557792|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557793|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal weight dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
84557794|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84606001|NCT00394901|168963408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84606002|NCT00394901|168963409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.3440
84494025|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.107
84606003|NCT00394901|168963409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84606004|NCT00394901|168963409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84670267|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.47|1.03|0.000
84670268|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.16|0.88|0.000
84670269|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.66|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.66|0.58|0.202
84670270|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.04|0.87|0.000
84670271|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.95|0.80|0.003
84670272|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.17|0.80|0.083
84670273|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||1.05|0.02|0.011
84747416|NCT01831856|169248208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85|||Log Rank|||The primary criterion, time to first Atrial Fibrillation (AF) recurrence or atrial flutter emergence, was described using survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method, reporting the first and third quartiles (Q1, Q3), median, and 95% confidence interval. The time to first AF recurrence or atrial flutter emergence was compared between treatment groups using the Log rank test. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with the Cox regression model.||1.85|0.71|0.5749
84494026|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.57|0.947
84571323|NCT00250588|168893579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|6.4||Bonferroni adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||6.4|-0.21|0.05
84747417|NCT00298090|169248217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.48|||repeated measures model||A repeated measures model was used to assess whether the one-minute average StO2 values differed systematically between pre and post arterial line placement.|||1.48|-0.80|0.55
84747418|NCT02996565|169248218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares model-predicted change in SBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth Care vs. Best Practice Clinic-Based Care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.33|-2.84|0.45
84747419|NCT02996565|169248219|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted all EHR-documented DBPs from treatment group, days elapsed from index to each DBP (time) and treatment group by time with random clinic and patient intercepts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares the model-predicted change in DBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth care vs. index to 365 days in clinic based care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.51|-0.95|0.64
84747420|NCT02996565|169248220|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.85|1.27|<0.001
84747421|NCT02996565|169248221|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.52|1.02|0.03
84747422|NCT02996565|169248222|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that smoking was current 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of current smoking at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|unadjusted|||1.07|0.95|0.73
84747423|NCT02996565|169248223|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.4|.98|0.08
84747424|NCT02996565|169248224|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.29|0.95|0.18
84747425|NCT02996565|169248225|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.87|0.77
84747426|NCT02996565|169248226|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.80|0.32
84557795|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in weight dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
84557796|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557797|NCT03646305|168868783|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557798|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appearance dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84747427|NCT02996565|169248227|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.19|0.76|0.62
84747428|NCT02996565|169248228|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.91|0.87
84747429|NCT02996565|169248229|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.82|0.51
84557799|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
84571324|NCT00250588|168893580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education||||1.38|0.18|0.21
84747430|NCT02996565|169248230|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.37|0.87|0.41
84571325|NCT00250588|168893580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.83||adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education|Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|0.53|0.85
84557800|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
84557801|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557802|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal appearance dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
84557803|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557804|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
84557805|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84571326|NCT00250588|168893581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|All analyses accounted for repeated measures and included the same terms in the model described previously.||Symptom frequency and utilization were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), with appropriate distribution and link functions. Nighttime symptoms is a dichotomous outcome and a logistic model was constructed.||0.82|0.13|0.011
84571327|NCT02330341|168893600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.380
84571328|NCT02330341|168893600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on placebo group||||0.695
84670274|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||0.98|0.72|0.227
84670275|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.35|0.99|0.000
84670276|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.82|1.47|0.000
84670277|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.25|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.25|0.98|0.202
84670278|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.38|1.20|0.000
84557806|NCT03646305|168868784|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
84557807|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, body state image satisfaction were equivalent across time||||<0.001
84557808|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention.||||<0.05
84557809|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from post intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
84571329|NCT02330341|168893601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.110
84670279|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.00|0.88|0.003
84670280|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.28|0.56|0.083
84571330|NCT02330341|168893601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.910
84571331|NCT02330341|168893602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.010
84571332|NCT02330341|168893602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on placebo group||||0.938
84571333|NCT02330341|168893603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.733
84571334|NCT02330341|168893603|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||1.0
84571335|NCT02330341|168893604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.03
84571336|NCT02330341|168893604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.900
84571337|NCT02330341|168893605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.519
84557810|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal body state image satisfaction||||>0.05
84557811|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal state body satisfaction scores||||>0.05
84557812|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
84557813|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in state body image satisfaction across time.||||>0.05
84571338|NCT02330341|168893605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.922
84571339|NCT02330341|168893606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.605
84494027|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.16|-1.18|0.134
84571340|NCT02330341|168893606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on placebo group||||0.105
84571341|NCT02330341|168893607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.687
84571342|NCT02330341|168893607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.021
84571343|NCT02330341|168893608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.339
84571344|NCT02330341|168893608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.246
84571345|NCT02330341|168893609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.775
84571346|NCT02330341|168893609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.195
84571347|NCT02330341|168893610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.040
84557814|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
84557815|NCT03646305|168868785|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
84557816|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, state body image satisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84557817|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention.||||<0.001
84557818|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up||||>0.05
84557819|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
84571348|NCT02330341|168893610|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||1.000
84571349|NCT02330341|168893611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.021
84571350|NCT02330341|168893611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.080
84670281|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.58|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||8.58|0.13|0.011
84670282|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.42|0.75|0.227
84670283|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.55|0.81|0.000
84670284|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.76|1.28|0.000
84670285|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.73|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.73|0.36|0.202
84670286|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.43|1.15|0.000
84747431|NCT02996565|169248231|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity was helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.06|0.77|0.18
84747432|NCT02996565|169248232|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.09|0.78|0.31
84557820|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
84557821|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of anxiety||||>0.05
84557822|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of anxiety across time||||>0.05
84557823|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
84557824|NCT03646305|168868786|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between the four conditions on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
84670287|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.06|0.86|0.003
84747433|NCT02996565|169248233|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.22|0.89|0.56
84747434|NCT02996565|169248234|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.03|0.68|0.08
84747435|NCT02996565|169248235|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|.73|0.32
84747436|NCT02996565|169248236|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.33|0.98|0.09
84747437|NCT02996565|169248237|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.83|0.77
84747438|NCT02996565|169248238|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.5|.97|0.09
84747439|NCT02996565|169248239|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||0.92|0.45|0.02
84747440|NCT02996565|169248240|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||.89|.55|0.006
84747441|NCT02996565|169248241|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.01|0.60|0.06
84494028|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.12|0.017
84557825|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of depressive mood were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
84606005|NCT00394901|168963410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51||||0.057||95.0|-0.1|7.13|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.13|-0.10|0.057
84494029|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.41|-0.60|0.715
84606006|NCT00394901|168963410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.67||95.0|-2.78|4.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.32|-2.78|0.670
84606007|NCT00394901|168963410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.559||95.0|-2.45|4.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.53|-2.45|0.559
84670288|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.68|0.95|0.083
84494030|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.15|-1.39|0.015
84557826|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from depressive mood from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
84557827|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.05
84606008|NCT00394901|168963411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.004||95.0|3.01|15.78|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.78|3.01|0.004
84670289|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.21|0.18|0.011
84670290|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.17|0.72|0.227
84670291|NCT03441633|169074179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.87|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.87|0.50|0.000
84670292|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.75|0.61|0.000
84670293|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.15|0.63|0.052
84670294|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.80|0.67|0.000
84670295|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.03|0.61|0.052
84670296|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.36|1.17|0.000
84670297|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.27|0.45|0.052
84670298|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.21|0.95|0.000
84670299|NCT03441633|169074180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.84|0.40|0.052
84670300|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.17|-0.26|0.000
84670301|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.01|-0.18|0.001
84670302|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.15|-0.23|0.000
84670303|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.04|-0.19|0.001
84670304|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.53|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.53|0.47|0.000
84670305|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.02|-0.32|0.001
84670306|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.23|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.23|0.12|0.000
84670307|NCT03441633|169074181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.10|-0.37|0.001
84670308|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.24|0.000
84747442|NCT02996565|169248242|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.10|0.94|0.65
84494031|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.027
84494032|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.65|-0.42|0.660
84494033|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.11|-1.18|0.107
84494034|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|0.10|0.020
84494035|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.55|0.749
84494036|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.12|-1.27|0.019
84494037|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.16|0.163
84494038|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.61|-0.43|0.727
84494039|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.32|-0.94|0.336
84571351|NCT02330341|168893612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.465
84494040|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
84494041|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.21|-0.73|0.277
84494042|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.04|-1.19|0.035
84494043|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.50|0.858
84494044|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.60|0.724
84571352|NCT02330341|168893612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.574
84571353|NCT02330341|168893613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.480
84557828|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
84557829|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
84571354|NCT02330341|168893613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.383
84747443|NCT02996565|169248243|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.25|0.83|0.83
84747444|NCT02996565|169248244|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.13|0.95|0.41
84747445|NCT02996565|169248245|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.94|0.40
84747446|NCT02996565|169248246|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.07|0.95|0.74
84747447|NCT02996565|169248247|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that a new statin was current at 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of a new statin medication that is current at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline SBP , baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.37|0.81|0.71
84571355|NCT02330341|168893614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.034
84571356|NCT02330341|168893614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.080
84571357|NCT02330341|168893615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.017
84571358|NCT02330341|168893615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.082
84571359|NCT02330341|168893616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.170
84571360|NCT02330341|168893616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure placebo group||||0.199
84571361|NCT03307174|168893620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84557830|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
84557831|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of depressive mood across time||||>0.05
84557832|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
84557833|NCT03646305|168868787|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
84557834|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of happiness were equivalent across time||||>0.05
84557835|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
84557836|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
84571362|NCT03444584|168893635|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-143.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.2|-87.98|||ANCOVA|||||-87.98|-198.20|<0.0001
84571363|NCT03444584|168893636|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||||-14.10|-30.24|<0.0001
84670309|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.35|0.000
84670310|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.18|-0.28|0.000
84494045|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.48|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.48|-0.76|0.651
84494046|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.05|-0.02|0.059
84494047|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.57|0.766
84494048|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.19|0.053
84494049|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.21|0.212
84494050|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.49|0.911
84494051|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.3|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.30|-0.96|0.305
84494052|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.05|0.075
84494053|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.39|0.684
84494054|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.21|-0.98|0.208
84494055|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.85|-0.27|0.304
84494056|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.27|0.356
84557837|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of happiness||||>0.05
84494057|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.58|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.58|-0.67|0.876
84571364|NCT01142336|168893665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjust for 3 primary outcomes using Holm Correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was Aβ42 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor variables were Aβ42 in CSF at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele.||||||0.53
84494058|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.15|0.10|0.020
84571365|NCT01142336|168893666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was total tau in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were total tau in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.36
84557838|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of happiness across time.||||>0.05
84557839|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
84571366|NCT01142336|168893667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction.|ANCOVA|Response variable was p-tau181 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were p-tau181 in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.25
84571367|NCT01704261|168893668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
84571368|NCT01704261|168893669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|20.8||||||||20.8|-1.4|
84670311|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.11|-0.31|0.000
84670312|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.25|0.17|0.000
84670313|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.30|-0.70|0.000
84670314|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.14|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.14|0.01|0.000
84670315|NCT03441633|169074182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.20|-0.54|0.000
84571369|NCT01704261|168893670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||||||||4.3|-4.3|
84670316|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.26|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.26|-0.42|0.000
84670317|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.19|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.19|-0.46|0.000
84571370|NCT01704261|168893671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the least squares means|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-7.8|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-7.8|-25.5|<0.001
84571371|NCT01704261|168893672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||27.6|11.7|<0.001
84571372|NCT01704261|168893672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|8.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||14.5|2.7|0.005
84571373|NCT00808340|168893674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4143|0.1644|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1644|-0.4143|
84571374|NCT00808340|168893674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6587|-0.07996|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as balafilcon A multifocal minus senofilcon A multifocal prod.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.07996|-0.6587|
84571375|NCT00808340|168893675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2485|0.3302|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.3302|-0.2485|
84571376|NCT00808340|168893675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7502|-0.1714|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.1714|-0.7502|
84571377|NCT00808340|168893676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.08153|0.02271|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.02271|-0.08153|
84557840|NCT03646305|168868788|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
84557841|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of confidence were equivalent across time.||||>0.05
84557842|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
84557843|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
84557844|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of confidence||||>0.05
84606009|NCT00394901|168963411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.67||||0.037||95.0|0.39|12.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.95|0.39|0.037
84494059|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.47|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.47|-0.50|0.940
84606010|NCT00394901|168963411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.643||95.0|-4.74|7.66|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.66|-4.74|0.643
84670318|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.32|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.32|-0.45|0.000
84494060|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.23|0.032
84494061|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.21|0.206
84494062|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.26|0.310
84494063|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.55|-0.74|0.771
84494064|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.24|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.24|0.13|0.016
84494065|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.54|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.54|-0.48|0.905
84494066|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.28|0.039
84494067|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.27|0.276
84494068|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.82|-0.29|0.343
84494069|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.60|-0.73|0.849
84494070|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.29|0.19|0.009
84494071|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.43|-0.58|0.763
84557845|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of confidence across time.||||>0.05
84494072|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.20|-1.43|0.010
84670319|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.15|-0.39|0.000
84670320|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||0.24|0.14|0.000
84670321|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.37|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.37|-0.86|0.000
84670322|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.01|-0.18|0.000
84494073|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.10|0.105
84557846|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
84557847|NCT03646305|168868789|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
84557848|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, level of self-esteem were equivalent across time.||||<0.05
84670323|NCT03441633|169074183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.21|-0.64|0.000
84494074|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.38|0.533
84557849|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
84571378|NCT00808340|168893676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1198|-0.01553|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senfilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.01553|-0.1198|
84670324|NCT03441633|169074184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.3|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||5.30|0.77|0.008
84670325|NCT03441633|169074184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.12|0.33|0.008
84670326|NCT03441633|169074184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.99|0.20|0.008
84670327|NCT03441633|169074184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.86|0.18|0.008
84670328|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.75|1.14|0.000
84670329|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.82|0.55|0.000
84670330|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||2.01|0.03|0.000
84670331|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.04|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||2.04|1.23|0.000
84670332|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.57|0.34|0.000
84670333|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.73|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||3.73|0.02|0.000
84670334|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.84|0.52|0.000
84670335|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||1.36|0.95|0.000
84571379|NCT00808340|168893677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.1183|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hyposthesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1183|-0.779|
84494075|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.35|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.35|-0.99|0.348
84494076|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.13|0.016
84494077|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.33|-0.69|0.483
84494078|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.25|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.25|-1.47|0.006
84494079|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.0|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.00|-0.19|0.177
84494080|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.70|-0.40|0.586
84494081|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.41|-0.92|0.448
84494082|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|0.02|0.043
84494083|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.39|-0.59|0.688
84494084|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.25|0.032
84494085|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.99|-0.19|0.179
84494086|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.40|0.609
84494087|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.40|-0.92|0.435
84494088|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.26|0.10|0.023
84494089|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.54|0.987
84494090|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.33|0.040
84606011|NCT00394901|168963412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.811||95.0|-4.5|5.75|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.75|-4.50|0.811
84747448|NCT00598273|169248282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.19|
84494091|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.31|0.319
84557850|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
84557851|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
84557852|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
84557853|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem across time.||||>0.05
84557854|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
84557855|NCT03646305|168868790|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
84606012|NCT00394901|168963412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07||||0.006||95.0|2.03|12.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.12|2.03|0.006
84494092|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.47|0.712
84557856|NCT03646305|168868791|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between intervention and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between intervention condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
84557857|NCT03646305|168868791|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between activity and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between activity condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
84557858|NCT03646305|168868792|OTHER|Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures.|||||<|0.001||||||No other outcome measure was moderated by thought-shape fusion scores.|Moderation Analyses|||All moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 1, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, and one moderator. Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures. Null: thought-shape fusion does not significantly moderate the relationship between intervention condition and state self-esteem||||<0.001
84557859|NCT01554176|168868793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Number of participants included for calculation of mean ± SD baseline and mean ± SD change from baseline MADRS Total Score is 119. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model uses efficacy Full Analysis Set (FAS) population (number of participants: filorexant 10 mg - 64, placebo - 64; total number of participants in cLDA analysis - 128).||2.5|-3.8|0.679
84557860|NCT01554176|168868794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||2.5|-3.2|0.820
84557861|NCT01554176|168868795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||1.3|-1.9|0.701
84557862|NCT01554176|168868796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3||Generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction.|Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||7.3|0.8|0.0965
84557863|NCT01554176|168868797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|31.4||||Between-group comparison of AE incident rate||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo) for participants with one or more AE.||31.4|-0.9|
84557864|NCT01554176|168868798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||||Between-group comparison of incidence rate of drug discontinuation due to AE||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued from study drug due to an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo).||7|-7|
84557865|NCT03053427|168868807|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|||MMRM with compound symmetry as the covariance structure was used. The explanatory variables of the model included treatment group, IRLS score at baseline, age category, estimated creatinine clearance category, time point, and interaction of treatment group and time point.||0.2|-2.6|0.088
84557866|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 1||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-2.2|0.051
84557867|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 2||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.8|0.020
84670336|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.41|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||3.41|0.06|0.000
84670337|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.85|0.50|0.000
84670338|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||1.37|0.90|0.000
84670339|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||5.85|0.22|0.000
84670340|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||3.99|2.86|0.000
84670341|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.13|0.09|0.000
84752705|NCT00447382|169260407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.0||||0.966||95.0|0.87|1.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.15|0.87|0.966
84557868|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 4||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.9|0.028
84557869|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 6||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
84557870|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 8||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-2.4|0.184
84557871|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 10||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-3.1|0.027
84557872|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 12||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-3.0|0.087
84557873|NCT03053427|168868808|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Time frame: EoT||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-2.4|0.312
84557874|NCT03053427|168868809|SUPERIORITY||difference|4.2||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-6.4|0.467
84557875|NCT03053427|168868810|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-4.8|0.300
84557876|NCT03053427|168868811|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in PSQI component and global scores from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.877
84557877|NCT03053427|168868812|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in total score of Athens insomnia scale from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.975
84557878|NCT03053427|168868813|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in RLS pain score from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.3|-0.4|0.838
84557879|NCT03816644|168868816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.07||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in dementia care outcomes between the intervention and control groups at 90 days post screening visit. Models are adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||5.07|2.32|
84557880|NCT03816644|168868817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.534||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in participants who were hospitalized or visited an ER 6 months post screening visit.||1.534|0.837|
84752706|NCT04600336|169260449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.76|-4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.46|-13.76|0.0019
84557881|NCT02607306|168868821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference lies entirely below 0.3%.|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for non-inferiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
84557882|NCT02607306|168868821|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.0%.|Treatment contrast|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.37||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs Lira is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.37|-0.60|<0.0001
84557883|NCT02607306|168868822|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.59|-1.80|0.0001
84606013|NCT00394901|168963412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03||||0.047||95.0|0.06|10.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.00|0.06|0.047
84494093|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.49|-0.91|0.557
84494094|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.28|0.14|0.015
84494095|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.26|0.326
84494096|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.19|-1.08|0.167
84494097|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.33|0.350
84494098|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.23|0.235
84494099|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.76|-0.65|0.881
84494100|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.16|0.04|0.036
84494101|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.63|-0.40|0.656
84494102|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.14|-1.11|0.130
84571380|NCT00808340|168893677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6767|0.2206|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternativie hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.2206|-0.6767|
84571381|NCT02783911|168893678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.808
84494103|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
84494104|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.78|-0.37|0.491
84494105|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.82|0.726
84494106|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.029
84494107|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.39|0.585
84494108|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.15|-1.15|0.131
84571382|NCT02475369|168893703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.271
84670342|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||1.52|0.11|0.000
84494109|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.04|-0.24|0.215
84494110|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.24|0.244
84557884|NCT02607306|168868823|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.68||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|Negative binomial regression|||The number of events is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the treatment emergent exposure time (100 years) as offset. The model includes treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors.||0.68|0.35|<0.0001
84557885|NCT02607306|168868824|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
84557886|NCT03240406|168868901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||Test of the between arm difference in the global composite at Burst 2, adjusted for the study arm, baseline (Burst 1) global composite, and the randomization stratification factors (baseline sex, age, and years of education)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of Burst 2 composite adjusted for arm, Burst 1 composite, sex, age, and education. Missing/invalid data were multiply imputed using MICE|Mean Difference of MHD Arm compared to control|||0.04|-0.15|0.259
84557887|NCT03240406|168868902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.27|-1.02|0.001
84557888|NCT03240406|168868903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54||Estimated from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and years of education at baseline.|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education.|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
84494111|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.885
84494112|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.04|0.067
84606014|NCT00394901|168963413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.013||95.0|1.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.50|1.10|0.013
84606015|NCT00394901|168963413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.07||95.0|-0.31|7.96|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.96|-0.31|0.070
84670343|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.91|0.78|0.000
84670344|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.09|0.00|0.000
84670345|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||18.00|0.07|0.000
84670346|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.75|0.45|0.000
84670347|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.63|0.41|0.000
84670348|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.01|123.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||123.80|11.01|0.000
84670349|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.86|0.91|0.000
84670350|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.17|0.05|0.000
84670351|NCT03441633|169074185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|46.5|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||46.50|2.81|0.000
84557889|NCT03240406|168868904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.11|-3.63|0.904
84557890|NCT03240406|168868905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; tocopherol biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.52|-0.76|0.721
84557891|NCT03240406|168868906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; carotenoid biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|-0.01|0.769
84557892|NCT03240406|168868907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.13|97.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||97.4|-100.13|0.978
84557893|NCT03240406|168868908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Monounsaturated Fat||0.51|-0.2|0.395
84494113|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.35|0.500
84557894|NCT03240406|168868908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Long Chain Saturated Fat||-0.02|-0.21|0.019
84557895|NCT03240406|168868908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for EPA||0.31|-0.07|0.201
84557896|NCT03240406|168868908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for DHA||0.53|0.01|0.039
84557897|NCT03240406|168868908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for n3 DPA||0.03|-0.06|0.619
84557898|NCT03240406|168868909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.73||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.73|-0.37|0.521
84557899|NCT03240406|168868910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|317.6||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||317.6|-27.7|0.101
84557900|NCT03240406|168868911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.63||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.16|79.89||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||79.89|-129.16|0.645
84557901|NCT03240406|168868912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|8.75||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||8.75|-2.23|0.245
84494114|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.29|-1.02|0.276
84494115|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.38|0.413
84571383|NCT02475369|168893704|OTHER|In order to calculate a correlation between baseline fecal elastase-1 and total CeD-GSRS score on PES treatment vs. placebo treatment, we calculated a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the two independent variables.||||||0.995|||||||Spearman rank coefficient|||||||0.995
84557902|NCT03240406|168868913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.4|0.02|0.032
84557903|NCT03240406|168868914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.26|0.08|<0.001
84557904|NCT03240406|168868915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.24||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.24|-6.95|0.635
84557905|NCT03240406|168868916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.52||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|0.59||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.59|-6.44|0.019
84606016|NCT00394901|168963413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.058||95.0|-0.13|8.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-0.13|0.058
84606017|NCT00394901|168963414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.443||95.0|-3.79|8.65|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.65|-3.79|0.443
84606018|NCT00394901|168963414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.018||95.0|1.28|13.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.54|1.28|0.018
84606019|NCT00394901|168963414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.549||95.0|-4.18|7.85|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.85|-4.18|0.549
84606020|NCT00394901|168963415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.15||||0.075||95.0|-0.63|12.92|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.92|-0.63|0.075
84670352|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.92|0.000
84670353|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.83|1.15|0.000
84670354|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.93|0.000
84670355|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.47|0.96|0.000
84670356|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.01|0.79|0.000
84670357|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|7.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||7.55|3.14|0.000
84670358|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.67|1.19|0.000
84670359|NCT03441633|169074186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||4.05|2.12|0.000
84670360|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.24|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||4.24|3.02|0.000
84670361|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.98|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||0.98|-0.77|0.000
84670362|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||2.17|0.84|0.000
84670363|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.8|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||2.80|1.16|0.000
84670364|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||1.39|0.41|0.000
84670365|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||-0.18|-4.32|0.000
84670366|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|29.48|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||29.48|27.56|0.000
84670367|NCT03441633|169074187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.9|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||4.90|-1.05|0.000
84670368|NCT05876273|169074190|OTHER|The statistical analysis included general linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC) and a covariate the 1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC. The data was analyzed using the GLM procedures of IBM SPSS 28.0.||||||0.2||||||1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller was included as a covariate in the analysis. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC.|GLM with Repeated Measures|General linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC)||||||0.2
84670369|NCT03552575|169074195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||1.0|-4.8|0.19
84670370|NCT03552575|169074196|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.85||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.16|0.63|0.31
84747449|NCT00598273|169248282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.48|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.48|0.04|
84494116|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.83|-0.37|0.448
84494117|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.76|0.917
84494118|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.03|-0.13|0.132
84494119|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.72|-0.35|0.505
84494120|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.38|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.38|-0.92|0.422
84494121|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.54|0.747
84747450|NCT00598273|169248283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.10|0.51|
84747451|NCT00598273|169248283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.56|0.62|
84747452|NCT00598273|169248284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.05|0.94|
84494122|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.34|0.386
84494123|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.89|-0.57|0.668
84494124|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.08|-0.09|0.099
84494125|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.29|0.365
84571384|NCT02475369|168893705|OTHER|In order to evaluate the estimated difference of the effect of Pancreatic Enzyme Supplement versus Placebo for the Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) scores, we used a linear mixed effects model with the nlme package.||||||0.08|||||||Linear Mixed Effects model|||||||0.08
84670371|NCT03552575|169074197|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.22|0.62|0.41
84670372|NCT03552575|169074198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-6.8|0.10
84670373|NCT03552575|169074199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||2.0|-6.6|0.29
84557906|NCT03240406|168868917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|9.92||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||9.92|-16.18|0.639
84557907|NCT03240406|168868918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.47|61.96||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||61.96|21.47|<0.001
84557908|NCT03240406|168868919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.37||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.44|3.69||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||3.69|-34.44|0.115
84557909|NCT03240406|168868920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.64||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.64|-0.53|0.847
84557910|NCT03240406|168868921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|118.57||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.62|295.76||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||295.76|-58.62|0.191
84557911|NCT03240406|168868922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|955.19||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.63|1745.74||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1745.74|164.63|0.019
84557912|NCT03240406|168868923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.74||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|29.19||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||29.19|-60.66|0.493
84557913|NCT03240406|168868924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.83||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|36.45||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||36.45|-6.78|0.18
84557914|NCT03240406|168868925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|436.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-534.05|1406.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1406.33|-534.05|0.379
84557915|NCT03240406|168868926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|784.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.73|1667.85||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1667.85|-99.73|0.083
84557916|NCT03240406|168868927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.35||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||2.35|0.32|0.011
84606021|NCT00394901|168963415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.111||95.0|-1.25|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-1.25|0.111
84606022|NCT00394901|168963415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.366||95.0|-3.55|9.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.60|-3.55|0.366
84670374|NCT03552575|169074200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.9|-2.0|0.46
84557917|NCT03240406|168868928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.31|-0.16|0.541
84557918|NCT03240406|168868929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.03|-0.01|0.273
84606023|NCT00394901|168963416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.039||95.0|0.29|11.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.00|0.29|0.039
84606024|NCT00394901|168963416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.006||95.0|2.14|12.69|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.69|2.14|0.006
84747453|NCT00598273|169248284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.95|
84752707|NCT04600336|169260449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.48|-9.70|0.0732
84752708|NCT04600336|169260452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0120
84752709|NCT04600336|169260455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0057
84557919|NCT03240406|168868930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.06|-0.01|0.116
84557920|NCT03240406|168868931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|0|0.213
84557921|NCT03240406|168868932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.09|0|0.036
84557922|NCT03240406|168868933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.43|-0.1|0.223
84557923|NCT03240406|168868934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.04|-0.38|0.119
84557924|NCT03240406|168868935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.33|-0.41|0.841
84557925|NCT03240406|168868936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.53|-0.04|0.088
84557926|NCT03240406|168868937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.11|-0.13|0.893
84557927|NCT03240406|168868938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.06|-2.81|0.042
84557928|NCT03240406|168868939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.5||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of processing speed over years between MHD Arm and Comparison Arm.|||-1.5|-31|0.031
84557929|NCT03240406|168868940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.51||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of error distance over years between MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.51|-0.27|0.55
84670375|NCT03552575|169074201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-3.5|0.16
84557930|NCT03240406|168868941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.018||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.054||Generalized Estimating equation Poisson model adjusted for arm, year, weekday vs weekend, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Generalized Estimating Equation|Adjusted for arm, year, wkday/wknd, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of log-transformed error rates over years between the MHD Arm and the Comparison Arm.|||0.054|-0.090|0.846
84557931|NCT01653327|168868957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3198
84557932|NCT01653327|168868958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3522
84557933|NCT02301039|168868960|SUPERIORITY|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.|Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|32.8|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval. Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||32.8|7.3|
84571385|NCT00885118|168893713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42828.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6487.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29936.586|55720.378|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate.||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||55720.378|29936.586|<0.0001
84670376|NCT03552575|169074202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
84672252|NCT04382911|169080021|OTHER|A random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of the pain rating, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age) was performed. The investigators included physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.748||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.24
84494126|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.41|-0.90|0.463
84494127|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.60|0.845
84494128|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.21|0.199
84494129|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.08|-0.41|0.375
84494130|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.27|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.27|0.07|0.028
84494131|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.18|0.188
84494132|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.37|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.37|-0.97|0.375
84494133|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.89|-0.47|0.552
84494134|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.12|-0.14|0.126
84494135|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.05|-0.47|0.460
84494136|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.09|0.095
84494137|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.14|0.146
84494138|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.56|-0.75|0.769
84494139|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.39|0.405
84494140|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.20|-0.05|0.073
84494141|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.04|-0.47|0.458
84670377|NCT03583996|169074203|OTHER||Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR)|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.882||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI ≤18.3 was the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for negative likelihood ratio (NLR) to rule out an NLR of \>0.52. For the null and alternate hypotheses, the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \>0.52 and the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \<=0.52, respectively. The confidence level for the CI was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.882|0.097|
84752710|NCT00523718|169260472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.24
84557934|NCT02301039|168868960|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval; Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||16.9|1.0|
84557935|NCT02301039|168868960|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|25.3|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||25.3|5.5|
84557936|NCT01160380|168868968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.289
84557937|NCT01160380|168868968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and Day 28||||<0.001
84557938|NCT01160380|168868968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and day 28||||<0.002
84557939|NCT01160380|168868968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the armodafinil arm||||0.449
84557940|NCT01160380|168868969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.954
84557941|NCT01160380|168868969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.007
84557942|NCT01160380|168868969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.369
84606025|NCT00394901|168963416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15||||0.117||95.0|-1.05|9.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.34|-1.05|0.117
84606026|NCT00394901|168963417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.154||95.0|-1.5|9.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05||9.49|-1.50|0.154
84747454|NCT02751320|169248399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.94||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.94|-8.11|0.7603
84747455|NCT02751320|169248399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|3.74||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||3.74|-10.34|0.3555
84747456|NCT02751320|169248399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|9.23||ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates)|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||9.23|-4.81|0.5335
84557943|NCT01160380|168868969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.973
84557944|NCT01160380|168868970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms at day 28||||0.699
84557945|NCT01160380|168868970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.984
84557946|NCT01160380|168868970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.239
84557947|NCT01160380|168868970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.089
84557948|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.636
84557949|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.531
84557950|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Forward test||||0.037
84557951|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Backward test||||0.656
84557952|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.028
84557953|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.805
84557954|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.692
84557955|NCT01160380|168868971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.863
84557956|NCT01160380|168868972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment- FACIT-F total||||0.559
84557957|NCT01160380|168868972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm- FACIT-F total||||<0.001
84557958|NCT01160380|168868972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.192
84606027|NCT00394901|168963417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.99||||0.012||95.0|1.58|12.4|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.40|1.58|0.012
84606028|NCT00394901|168963417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76||||0.079||95.0|-0.56|10.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.08|-0.56|0.079
84606029|NCT00394901|168963418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.6451||95.0|0.45|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.59|0.45|0.6451
84557959|NCT01160380|168868972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.495
84557960|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS anxiety||||0.945
84557961|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS depression||||0.316
84557962|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS anxiety||||0.005
84557963|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.005
84494142|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.39|0.20|0.009
84494143|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.90|-0.20|0.209
84557964|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.001
84606030|NCT00394901|168963418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0745||95.0|0.91|7.19|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.19|0.91|0.0745
84670378|NCT03583996|169074203|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.982||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI \<= 18.3 was the observed sensitivity must have been \>0.85. The confidence level for the confidence interval (CI) was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.982|0.775|
84557965|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.315
84557966|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.933
84557967|NCT01160380|168868973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS depression||||0.378
84557968|NCT01160380|168868974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment -ESS||||0.840
84557969|NCT01160380|168868974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-ESS||||0.050
84606031|NCT00394901|168963418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1787||95.0|0.73|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.58|0.73|0.1787
84670379|NCT03583996|169074204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.143||The odds ratio was for a 1-unit increase in DSI based on continuous DSI.|Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted (no covariates)||||1.143|1.047|<0.0001
84670380|NCT03583996|169074204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographic covariates, including age, race, sex, BMI, and ethnicity.||||1.163|1.058|<0.0001
84557970|NCT01160380|168868974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 and Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- ESS||||0.051
84557971|NCT01160380|168868974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.635
84557972|NCT03046056|168868992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|32.1||||||||32.1|-16.5|
84557973|NCT03046056|168868992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|32.0||||||||32.0|-15.9|
84557974|NCT03046056|168868993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|0.7||||||Difference in least squared means (Diff in LSM), and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-5.3|
84557975|NCT03046056|168868993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||3.1|-2.7|
84606032|NCT00394901|168963419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0732||95.0|0.93|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.52|0.93|0.0732
84670381|NCT03583996|169074204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.145|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, compensated cirrhosis (CP class A)||||1.145|1.041|<0.001
84557976|NCT03046056|168868994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|0.7||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-3.9|
84557977|NCT03046056|168868994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.2||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||1.2|-3.2|
84557978|NCT03046056|168868995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-2.2|
84557979|NCT03046056|168868995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-1.9|
84557980|NCT03046056|168868996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|25.5||||||||25.5|-28.6|
84557981|NCT03046056|168868996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|26.2||||||||26.2|-24.5|
84557982|NCT03046056|168868997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.3|37.0||||||||37.0|-47.3|
84557983|NCT03046056|168868997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.2|30.0||||||||30.0|-58.2|
84557984|NCT03046056|168868998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.4|86.5||||||||86.5|-32.4|
84557985|NCT03046056|168868999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|24.3||||||||24.3|-28.6|
84557986|NCT03046056|168868999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|11.3||||||||11.3|-39.4|
84557987|NCT03046056|168869000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|45.7||||||||45.7|-38.9|
84557988|NCT03046056|168869000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.5|40.8||||||||40.8|-47.5|
84557989|NCT03046056|168869001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|89.5||||||||89.5|-16.8|
84557990|NCT03046056|168869001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.1|63.3||||||||63.3|-46.1|
84557991|NCT03046056|168869002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|32.6||||||||32.6|-17.2|
84557992|NCT03046056|168869002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1|30.2||||||||30.2|-18.1|
84557993|NCT03046056|168869003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|28.1||||||||28.1|-22.1|
84557994|NCT03046056|168869003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.1|20.3||||||||20.3|-28.1|
84557995|NCT03046056|168869004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|40.4||||||||40.4|-7.6|
84494144|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.22|-1.11|0.193
84557996|NCT03046056|168869004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|26.5||||||||26.5|-21.2|
84557997|NCT03046056|168869005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-95.0|-1.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||-1|-95|
84557998|NCT03046056|168869005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.0|15.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||15|-76|
84557999|NCT03046056|168869006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.0|28.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||28|-68|
84558000|NCT03046056|168869006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|42.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||42|-52|
84558001|NCT02913105|168869020|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (Body Mass Index (BMI) group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||1.13|0.83|0.7489
84558002|NCT02913105|168869020|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.84|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.84|0.62|0.0005
84571386|NCT00885118|168893713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80964.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6303.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68437.16|93492.194|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||93492.194|68437.160|<0.0001
84558003|NCT02913105|168869020|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.85|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.85|0.65|0.0005
84558004|NCT02913105|168869025|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.83|0.5354
84558005|NCT02913105|168869025|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
84558006|NCT02913105|168869025|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.63|<.0001
84558007|NCT02913105|168869026|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|0.567|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.567|-0.724|0.8402
84558008|NCT02913105|168869026|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.927|0.639|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.639|-0.927|0.7607
84558009|NCT02913105|168869026|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.037|0.581|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.581|-1.037|0.6406
84558010|NCT02913105|168869026|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.294|0.979|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.979|-1.294|0.8185
84558011|NCT02913105|168869026|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.485|1.057|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||1.057|-1.485|0.7804
84558012|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.265|0.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.070|-1.265|0.1403
84558013|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.743|-0.117|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.117|-1.743|0.0603
84606033|NCT00394901|168963419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0353||95.0|1.07|6.53|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.53|1.07|0.0353
84606034|NCT00394901|168963419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0393||95.0|1.05|5.96|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.96|1.05|0.0393
84606035|NCT00394901|168963420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.227||95.0|-0.78|0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-0.78|0.227
84606036|NCT00394901|168963420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.34|<0.001
84606037|NCT00394901|168963420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.40|<0.001
84747457|NCT02751320|169248399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.02|29.9||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant -level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant -level pre-treatment acidchallenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates) .|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Treatment comparison corresponding to qualifying criteria for the analysis||29.90|16.02|<.0001
84747458|NCT05249829|169248410|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
84747459|NCT05249829|169248411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||2.010|1.546|
84747460|NCT05249829|169248412|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.409|1.672||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||1.672|1.409|
84747461|NCT05249829|169248413|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.713|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.583|1.853||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||1.853|1.583|
84747462|NCT05249829|169248414|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.958|1.147||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1818).||1.147|0.958|
84747463|NCT05249829|169248415|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.032|1.18||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1418).||1.180|1.032|
84747464|NCT05249829|169248422|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
84747465|NCT05249829|169248422|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=460).||2.010|1.546|
84494145|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.18|-0.18|0.149
84747466|NCT02842827|169248508|OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.3868
84747467|NCT02842827|169248509|OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.7744
84747468|NCT02842827|169248510|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.5080
84747469|NCT02842827|169248511|OTHER|||||||0.6109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.6109
84494146|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.06|-0.21|0.186
84747470|NCT02842827|169248512|OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.1151
84747471|NCT02842827|169248513|OTHER|||||||0.0791|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.0791
84747472|NCT01815138|169248515|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84747473|NCT01815138|169248516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84747474|NCT00825825|169248518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000704||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.000704
84747475|NCT00825825|169248519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.62e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000162
84747476|NCT00825825|169248520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.36e-06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00000936
84747477|NCT00825825|169248521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.0279
84747478|NCT00825825|169248522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00124||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00124
84747479|NCT00825825|169248523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.33e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the placebo and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000633
84747480|NCT00825825|169248524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0241
84494147|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.84|0.845
84494148|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.14|-0.04|0.067
84494149|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.22|0.242
84494150|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.43|-0.88|0.498
84494151|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.34|0.330
84747481|NCT02697292|169248525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|98.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||98.9|1.1|0.044
84747482|NCT02697292|169248526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
84747483|NCT00882687|169248529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3235
84747484|NCT00882687|169248529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9144
84747485|NCT00882687|169248529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3324
84747486|NCT00882687|169248530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5846
84747487|NCT00882687|169248530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1493
84747488|NCT00882687|169248530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0404
84747489|NCT00882687|169248531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0578
84571387|NCT00885118|168893713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88589.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6544.604|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75583.738|101595.79|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||101595.790|75583.738|<0.0001
84747490|NCT00882687|169248531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8988
84747491|NCT00882687|169248531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4709
84747492|NCT00882687|169248532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1773
84747493|NCT00882687|169248532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4222|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4222
84747494|NCT00882687|169248532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4326
84747495|NCT02649946|169248536|SUPERIORITY|TLPP evaluated at 6 months post-index procedure to assess if TLPP of COVERA is superior to that of PTA alone, by direct comparison.|||||<|0.001||||||Test successful if the one-side p-value is less than 0.025 and the result is in favor of the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent.|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis: The (survival) rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months is greater than that in subjects treated with PTA alone in the treatment of stenoses in the upper extremity venous outflow of subjects dializing with an AV fistula.~Sample size calculation: 238 randomized subjects \[214 evaluable\] will give 92% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||<0.001
84747496|NCT02649946|169248537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test is used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025.||||||0.0022|||||||Farrington and Manning|Non-inferiority test with non-inferiority margin of 10%.||"Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) is non-inferior to the safety rate in subjects treated with PTA alone through 30 days in the treatment of stenotic lesions.~Sample size: 238 randomized subjects \[226 evaluable\] will give 85% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||0.0022
84747497|NCT01588496|169248594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-18.62|-40.94|<0.001
84747498|NCT01588496|169248595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|-11.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.45|-34.83|<0.001
84747499|NCT01588496|169248596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.72|-12.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.05|-33.72|<0.001
84752711|NCT01436071|169260476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.026|0.012
84494152|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.14|0.124
84747500|NCT01588496|169248597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.48|1.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||1.82|-25.48|0.088
84747501|NCT01588496|169248598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|0.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||0.56|-23.11|0.088
84747502|NCT01588496|169248599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-18.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|LDL-C lowering was analyzed by comparing evolocumab and placebo. Statistical analysis was 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.00|-43.86|<0.001
84747503|NCT01551212|169248600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||8.91|-0.74|0.097
84747504|NCT01551212|169248601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.92|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||13.92|2.06|0.0085
84747505|NCT01551212|169248602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
84747506|NCT01775124|169248631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Descriptive, no hypothesis||-0.2|-2.95|
84747507|NCT02164383|169248643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||ANOVA results: F(1,28)=.04, p=.85, partial eta-squared (as a measure of effect size) = .001|||||.85
84747508|NCT01350336|169248644|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 2 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1251|0.0497||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 2||0.0497|-0.1251|
84747509|NCT01350336|169248644|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 3 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1197|0.0565||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 3||0.0565|-0.1197|
84747510|NCT01350336|169248644|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 4 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1444|0.0329||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 4||0.0329|-0.1444|
84747511|NCT01350336|169248644|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 5 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0765|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1661|0.013||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 5||0.0130|-0.1661|
84747512|NCT02563522|169248671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|45.81|||Fisher Exact|No imputation was performed for subjects with missing response data||The statistical hypotheses were H0: Pt = Pc versus Ha: Pt ≠ Pc, where Pt and Pc are the proportions of subjects with a confirmed target would closure by the 4-month follow-up for Active (Engensis) and Control (Placebo) groups, respectively. The hypothesis testing was a two-sided alpha of 0.05||45.81|-12.37|0.3455
84747513|NCT01052103|169248672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.732||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.732
84571388|NCT00885118|168893713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85620.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6610.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72484.181|98756.515|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||98756.515|72484.181|<0.0001
84747514|NCT01052103|169248673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.846
84747515|NCT01052103|169248674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.201||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.201
84752712|NCT00863109|169260515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Within-group comparison of Worry domain between BL Visit and WK72 Visit||||0.027
84752713|NCT00863109|169260516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in MCS||||0.038
84747516|NCT01052103|169248675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.136||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.136
84747517|NCT01052103|169248676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.739||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.739
84747518|NCT01052103|169248677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.190
84747519|NCT01052103|169248678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.702||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.702
84747520|NCT01052103|169248679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.851||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.851
84747521|NCT01052103|169248683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||P-value is for standing systolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.3|-4.3|0.999
84747522|NCT01052103|169248683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.7||P-value is for standing diastolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||6.7|1.0|0.009
84747523|NCT01052103|169248684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.9|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||3.9|-5.0|0.818
84747524|NCT01052103|169248685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.44||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.1|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.10|-1.98|0.571
84747525|NCT01052103|169248690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.682||95.0||||P-value is for treatment-emergent suicidal ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
84747526|NCT01052103|169248691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.727||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.727
84747527|NCT01052103|169248695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.305||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.305
84747528|NCT01052103|169248696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.42||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.420
84558014|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.182|-0.506|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.506|-2.182|0.0090
84752714|NCT00863109|169260517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Emotional Function domain||||0.014
84670382|NCT03583996|169074204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, decompensated cirrhosis (CP class B)||||1.142|1.038|<0.001
84670383|NCT01774786|169074241|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to show a significant difference with respect to the primary endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||The actual p-value significance threshold required for OS was 0.0455, after alpha spent at the interim analysis was taken into account.|Stratified Log-Rank|Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis. The null hypothesis is that the survival distribution of OS is the same in the two treatment arms.||1.00|0.71|0.0565
84670384|NCT01774786|169074241|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.99|0.72|
84747529|NCT04874415|169248697|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||5.3|-6.2|
84747530|NCT04874415|169248697|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Fixed step count is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||4.6|-9.4|
84747531|NCT04874415|169248697|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.1|||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-11|
84494153|NCT01945034|168739085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.92|-0.61|0.687
84494154|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.95|-0.85|0.166
84494155|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-4.42|0.199
84494156|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.56|-7.04|0.022
84494157|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.79|-1.30|0.260
84494158|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||2.32|-3.31|0.729
84494159|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.16|||ANOVA|||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||1.16|-5.64|0.196
84494160|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||47.28|2.49|0.030
84571389|NCT00885118|168893714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.936|-4.424|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-4.424|-20.936|0.0030
84571390|NCT00885118|168893714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.919|-11.921|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.921|-27.919|<0.0001
84571391|NCT00885118|168893714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.925|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-17.925|-34.490|<0.0001
84571392|NCT00885118|168893714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.586|-18.884|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-18.884|-35.586|<0.0001
84571393|NCT00885118|168893715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.861||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.529|-6.236|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-6.236|-29.529|0.0030
84752715|NCT00863109|169260517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Worry domain||||0.009
84494161|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.24|-5.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-5.23|-55.24|0.018
84494162|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|15.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||15.29|-25.98|0.611
84571394|NCT00885118|168893715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.308|-11.665|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.665|-33.308|<0.0001
84747532|NCT04874415|169248697|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.8|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||9.8|-1.0|
84747533|NCT04874415|169248698|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-686.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2997.0|1626.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||1626|-2997|
84747534|NCT04874415|169248698|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2340.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4794.0|115.0|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||115|-4794|
84747535|NCT04874415|169248698|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1293.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3477.0|890.0|||||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|890|-3477|
84747536|NCT04874415|169248698|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2424.0|2153.0|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2153|-2424|
84747537|NCT04874415|169248699|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.05|
84747538|NCT04874415|169248699|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.07|
84747539|NCT04874415|169248699|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|0.06|-0.02|
84747540|NCT04874415|169248699|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.04|
84747541|NCT04874415|169248700|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||10.3|-10.3|
84494163|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|37.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||37.36|-9.80|0.251
84494164|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||26.26|-17.37|0.689
84494165|NCT01945034|168739086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.69|17.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||17.01|-35.69|0.486
84494166|NCT01945034|168739087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|71.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||71.18|5.90|0.021
84494167|NCT01945034|168739087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.02|22.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||22.12|-38.02|0.603
84494168|NCT01945034|168739087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.93|-10.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-10.05|-82.93|0.013
84494169|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|87.7||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|161.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||161.85|13.48|0.021
84494170|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.8||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.59|80.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||80.11|-56.59|0.735
84494171|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.73|6.93|||ANOVA|||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||6.93|-158.73|0.072
84494172|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.43|126.52|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||126.52|-34.43|0.261
84494173|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|37.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.13|111.8|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||111.80|-37.13|0.325
84494174|NCT01945034|168739088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.64|81.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||81.22|-98.64|0.849
84494175|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.49|0.0|0.042
84494176|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.04|0.114
84494177|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.20|-0.34|0.598
84747542|NCT04874415|169248700|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
84747543|NCT04874415|169248700|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||12.7|-12.7|
84752716|NCT00863109|169260517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in CLDQ-HCV Global domain||||0.022
84558015|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.965|-0.609|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.609|-2.965|0.0134
84558016|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.439|-0.807|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.807|-3.439|0.0087
84558017|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.091|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.091|-1.130|0.1609
84558018|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.524|-0.049|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.049|-1.524|0.0797
84558019|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.872|-0.36|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.360|-1.872|0.0159
84558020|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.684|-0.575|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.575|-2.684|0.0118
84558021|NCT02913105|168869026|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.072|-0.746|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.746|-3.072|0.0076
84747544|NCT04874415|169248700|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
84747545|NCT04874415|169248701|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2311.0|2311.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2311|-2311|
84747546|NCT04874415|169248701|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0000004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|27.9|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||27.9|-27.9|
84670385|NCT01774786|169074242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||As pre-specified in the protocol, a p-value was only to be calculated for PFS if OS was statistically significant.|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Primary Analysis||0.86|0.62|
84670386|NCT01774786|169074242|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85|||||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Final Analysis||0.85|0.62|
84558022|NCT02913105|168869027|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.195|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.195|-0.260|0.8127
84571395|NCT00885118|168893715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.762|-14.768|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-14.768|-37.762|<0.0001
84670387|NCT01774786|169074243|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
84670388|NCT01774786|169074243|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
84747547|NCT04874415|169248701|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||6.8|-6.9|
84747548|NCT04874415|169248701|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|125.0|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||125|-126|
84494178|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.19|-0.24|0.833
84558023|NCT02913105|168869027|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.298|0.252|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.252|-0.298|0.8901
84558024|NCT02913105|168869027|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.381|0.205|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.205|-0.381|0.6209
84558025|NCT02913105|168869027|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.444|0.347|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.347|-0.444|0.8398
84558026|NCT02913105|168869027|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.515|0.369|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.369|-0.515|0.7839
84558027|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|-0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||-0.006|-0.476|0.0911
84670389|NCT01774786|169074244|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
84670390|NCT01774786|169074244|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
84747549|NCT04874415|169248702|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.9|-3.9|
84747550|NCT04874415|169248702|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.6|-2.6|
84747551|NCT04874415|169248702|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.02|
84747552|NCT04874415|169248702|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||||Daily Step Count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||22.8|-22.8|
84747553|NCT04874415|169248703|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|38.2|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||38.2|-38.3|
84670391|NCT01774786|169074245|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Primary Analysis||1.06|0.64|
84558028|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.623|-0.053|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.053|-0.623|0.0520
84558029|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.793|-0.187|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.187|-0.793|0.0085
84558030|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.067|-0.247|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.247|-1.067|0.0091
84558031|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.216|-0.302|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.302|-1.216|0.0070
84558032|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.423|0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.006|-0.423|0.1092
84558033|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.574|-0.056|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.056|-0.574|0.0457
84558034|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.676|-0.129|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.129|-0.676|0.0162
84558035|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.975|-0.242|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.242|-0.975|0.0070
84558036|NCT02913105|168869027|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.091|-0.281|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.281|-1.091|0.0060
84558037|NCT02913105|168869028|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.014|-0.015|0.9927
84558038|NCT02913105|168869028|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007|0.035|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.035|-0.007|0.2794
84670392|NCT01774786|169074245|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.98|0.62|
84747554|NCT04874415|169248703|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.3|-0.3|
84571396|NCT00885118|168893715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.699|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.665|-17.015|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-17.015|-39.665|<0.0001
84670393|NCT01774786|169074246|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.07|||||Difference in clinical benefit rate was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|||9.07|-2.34|
84558039|NCT02913105|168869028|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.013|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.013|-0.012|0.9032
84558040|NCT02913105|168869028|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.027|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.027|-0.009|0.4163
84558041|NCT02913105|168869028|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.022|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.014|-0.022|0.7001
84558042|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.021|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.021|-0.009|0.5367
84558043|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.014|0.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.030|-0.014|0.5496
84558044|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.6844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.016|-0.010|0.6844
84558045|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.012|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.012|-0.025|0.5695
84558046|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.016|-0.021|0.8015
84670394|NCT01774786|169074246|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.88|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|||1.88|0.86|
84494179|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.18|0.853
84494180|NCT01945034|168739089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.29|-0.20|0.733
84558047|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.020|-0.008|0.4923
84558048|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.014|-0.025|0.6200
84571397|NCT00885118|168893716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|-0.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.020|-0.498|0.0705
84670395|NCT02968979|169074278|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||likelihood-ratio test|||Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns.||||0.0032
84670396|NCT02968979|169074278|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical Analysis 2 for Frequency of the Different Stages of Cachexia, excluding the refractory cachexia stage, in the General NSCLC Population According to Molecular Abnormalities Associated With NSCLC.~Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns."||||0.0008
84670397|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84670398|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84670399|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84558049|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.014|-0.009|0.7423
84670400|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84670401|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER|||||||0.1085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.1085
84571398|NCT00885118|168893716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|-0.047|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.047|-0.545|0.0203
84571399|NCT00885118|168893716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.170|-0.687|0.0014
84571400|NCT00885118|168893716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.135|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.135|-0.654|0.0033
84571401|NCT00885118|168893717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.755||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.757|47.811|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||47.811|-22.757|0.4823
84571402|NCT00885118|168893717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.313||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.422|40.39|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||40.390|-28.422|0.7305
84571403|NCT00885118|168893717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.903||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|17.721|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||17.721|-53.438|0.3213
84571404|NCT00885118|168893717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.13||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.869|16.192|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||16.192|-55.869|0.2768
84571405|NCT00885118|168893718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.653|-2.731|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-2.731|-5.653|<0.0001
84571406|NCT00885118|168893718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.126|-3.091|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-3.091|-6.126|<0.0001
84571407|NCT00885118|168893718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|-2.508|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-2.508|-5.565|<0.0001
84571408|NCT00885118|168893718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.048|-2.726|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-2.726|-7.048|<0.0001
84571409|NCT00885118|168893719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.302|0.343|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||0.343|-1.302|0.2498
84571410|NCT00885118|168893719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.43|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||0.430|-1.189|0.3544
84571411|NCT00885118|168893719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|-0.516|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.516|-2.171|0.0018
84571412|NCT00885118|168893719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|-0.419|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.419|-2.094|0.0037
84571413|NCT00885118|168893720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.388|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.995|-64.833|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-64.833|-125.995|<0.0001
84571414|NCT00885118|168893720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.633|-80.327|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-80.327|-138.633|<0.0001
84571415|NCT00885118|168893720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.848|-100.824|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-100.824|-161.848|<0.0001
84571416|NCT00885118|168893720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.357|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.86|-105.823|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-105.823|-166.860|<0.0001
84747555|NCT04874415|169248703|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.8|-0.8|
84494181|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.97|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the Proportional Hazards (PH) model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||1.97|1.07|0.016
84494182|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.95|0.53|0.022
84494183|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.69|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.69|0.34|< 0.001
84494184|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.51|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||2.51|1.27|< 0.001
84494185|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.88|0.41|0.009
84494186|NCT01945034|168739091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.52|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.52|0.22|< 0.001
84494187|NCT01945034|168739093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.479
84494188|NCT01945034|168739093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.279
84494189|NCT01945034|168739093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.129
84494190|NCT02389621|168739099|SUPERIORITY||Difference|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|48.5||Statistical tests were performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted using the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||48.5|24.9|<0.0001
84494191|NCT02389621|168739100|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||46.8|22.8|<0.0001
84494192|NCT02389621|168739101|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|52.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|62.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||62.9|42.0|<0.0001
84494193|NCT02389621|168739102|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.||||||0.0002|||||||van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by platelet transfusion during the study.||||||0.0002
84494194|NCT02389621|168739103|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84670402|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER|||||||0.0482||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.0482
84747556|NCT04874415|169248703|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.4|-0.4|
84494195|NCT02222246|168739131|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in pain scores from arrival to discharge||||||0.0311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for pain change was conducted using Hierarchical Linear Mixed Effects Model (HLM), adjusting for nested patient and site effects (N=126)||||||0.0311
84494196|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Trajectory of pain across time (arrival to discharge)||||||0.0049||||||p-value for the protocol by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||The trajectory of change in pain score was evaluated every 30 minutes over 120 hours (2 hours) rather than 6 hours because of expected missing data after 120 minutes due to discharge from the ED.||||0.0049
84494197|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Arrival||||||0.9393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9393
84494198|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 30 minutes||||||0.7259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7259
84670403|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84747557|NCT04874415|169248704|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|31.5|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||31.5|-31.4|
84747558|NCT04874415|169248704|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|44.5|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||44.5|-44.3|
84747559|NCT04874415|169248704|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.2|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||14.2|-2.7|
84747560|NCT04874415|169248704|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.4|-13.3|
84747561|NCT04874415|169248705|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.1|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-3.1|
84606038|NCT00394901|168963421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.577||95.0|-0.62|0.35|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.35|-0.62|0.577
84606039|NCT00394901|168963421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
84670404|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84494199|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 60 minutes||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5300
84494200|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 90 minutes||||||0.3678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3678
84494201|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 120 minutes||||||0.2457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2457
84494202|NCT02222246|168739132|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Discharge||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84494203|NCT02222246|168739133|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of nausea during Emergency Department Visit - YES||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84494204|NCT02222246|168739134|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of vomiting (YES) during Emergency Department visit||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6625
84494205|NCT02222246|168739135|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in systolic BP (\>= 20% of baseline)||||||0.4473|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4473
84494206|NCT02222246|168739136|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in diastolic blood pressure (\>= 20% baseline)||||||0.5372|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5372
84494207|NCT02222246|168739137|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of oxygen desaturation (\<95%) YES during Emergency Department visit||||||0.2891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2891
84494208|NCT02222246|168739139|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of sedation during Emergency Department visit.||||||0.3915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3915
84494209|NCT02222246|168739140|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of the need for supplemental oxygen during Emergency Department visit||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0726
84494210|NCT03557775|168739205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Result for time by group interaction (threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05).|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.041
84494211|NCT03557775|168739206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction. Statistical threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
84494212|NCT03557775|168739207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.733
84494213|NCT03557775|168739208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.702
84494214|NCT03557775|168739209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.198
84494215|NCT03557775|168739210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.388
84494216|NCT03557775|168739211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.296
84494217|NCT03557775|168739212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.040
84494218|NCT03557775|168739213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
84494219|NCT03557775|168739214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.663
84558050|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.001|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.001|-0.032|0.1272
84670405|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84494220|NCT03557775|168739215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.026
84494221|NCT03557775|168739216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.721
84494222|NCT03557775|168739217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.408
84494223|NCT03557775|168739218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.638
84494224|NCT03557775|168739219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.715
84494225|NCT03557775|168739220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.708
84494226|NCT03557775|168739221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.988
84571417|NCT00885118|168893721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.152||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|48.805|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||48.805|-3.470|0.0883
84571418|NCT00885118|168893721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.941||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.859|56.293|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||56.293|4.859|0.0203
84747562|NCT04874415|169248705|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.3|-2.3|
84606040|NCT00394901|168963421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
84747563|NCT04874415|169248705|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.4|-3.4|
84747564|NCT04874415|169248705|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.5|-0.5|
84747565|NCT04874415|169248706|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00000001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.00002|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.00002|-0.00002|
84747566|NCT04874415|169248706|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
84747567|NCT04874415|169248706|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
84747568|NCT04874415|169248706|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.004|-0.004|
84747569|NCT03405792|169248707|OTHER|||||||||||||||||We will use one-sample log-rank test to compare PFS between the triple combination arm relative to the historical control arm.|We took a look at median survival time and CI of our population and we compared it to the median PFS and CI of the historical control descriptively. There is no yielded P value.|||
84747570|NCT03405792|169248708|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Every participant (26/26; 100%) experienced an adverse event.|||
84747571|NCT00372229|169248723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-39.7|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-39.7|
84747572|NCT00372229|169248724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.2|-3.4||||||||-3.4|-19.2|
84747573|NCT00372229|169248725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1838||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2271|0.7289|||F-test|||||0.7289|-0.2271|0.1739
84747574|NCT00372229|169248758|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.9||||||||13.9|-20.2|
84747575|NCT00372229|169248759|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.2||||||||24.2|-0.1|
84606041|NCT00394901|168963422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.275||95.0|-0.75|0.21|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.21|-0.75|0.275
84747576|NCT02700945|169248778|SUPERIORITY|The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate will be reported for each arm. The hazard ratio estimate for the treatment effect with its 95% confidence interval will be reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.3||A priori threshold is .05|Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that continuous monitoring arm is superior to control arm in detecting AF.|H0: h(t) = hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months HA: hC(t) ≠ hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months where hT(t) and hC(t) are the hazard functions of first detected and adjudicated AF at time t for subjects with and without the Reveal LINQ diagnostics for AF, respectively. Hazard functions and survival functions are transformations of each other.||21.3|2.6|<0.001
84747577|NCT04018092|169248793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||Only 2 values, thus not necessary to adjust.|Regression, Linear|The independent variable = intervention (active, sham); Covariates=baseline scores, site (Florida, Arizona), age (yrs), sex (m,f), and education (yrs)||linear regression was used to analyze pre-post intervention changes in the active vs sham group. Covariates in regression were baseline cognitive performance, site (University of Florida, University of Arizona), age (yrs), sex (F, M) and education (years)||||0.573
84747578|NCT04018092|169248794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Default Mode Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, Age, Sex, Education years, study site Baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.043
84747579|NCT04018092|169248794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Frontoparietal Control Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, age, sex, education years, study site and baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.285
84606042|NCT00394901|168963422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.001
84606043|NCT00394901|168963422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.22|0.002
84606044|NCT00394901|168963423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.334||95.0|-0.72|0.25|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.25|-0.72|0.334
84606045|NCT00394901|168963423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.38|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.38|<0.001
84606046|NCT00394901|168963423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.006||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
84670406|NCT02968979|169074288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
84747580|NCT04494256|169248827|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84|=|0.9924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|15.32||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||15.32|-15.47|=0.9924
84747581|NCT04494256|169248828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|=|0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.74||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||3.74|-4.14|=0.9203
84747582|NCT04494256|169248829|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.41|=0.1069
84747583|NCT04494256|169248830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.29|||=|0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|42.587|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL||||42.587|0.433|=0.1003
84747584|NCT04494256|169248831|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1143|||||||Kaplan-Meier product limit method|||||||=0.1143
84606047|NCT00394901|168963424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|-0.64|0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.33|-0.64|0.530
84606048|NCT00394901|168963424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
84606049|NCT00394901|168963424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.017||95.0|-1.05|-0.1|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.05|0.017
84606050|NCT00394901|168963425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.392||95.0|-0.7|0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.392
84606051|NCT00394901|168963425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.35|<0.001
84606052|NCT00394901|168963425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.016||95.0|-1.06|-0.11|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.11|-1.06|0.016
84606053|NCT00394901|168963426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.364||95.0|-0.71|0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.26|-0.71|0.364
84606054|NCT00394901|168963426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.39|<0.001
84672253|NCT04382911|169080021|OTHER|The investigators will implement a random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of EHP-30, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age). The investigators will include physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.406||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84747585|NCT01778023|169248836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.21|||ANOVA|The HV after 6 months of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with group and sex as fixed effects, and age as a covariate.||Let D be a mean difference of the primary endpoint between group A and group B. Null hypothesis H0: D = 0 vs. alternative H1: D ≠ 0 will be statistically tested by an ANOVA model.||6.21|4.09|<0.0001
84558051|NCT02913105|168869028|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.017|-0.015|0.8883
84558052|NCT02913105|168869029|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|0.84|0.9514
84558053|NCT02913105|168869029|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.5168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.78|0.5168
84558054|NCT02913105|168869029|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.80|0.3740
84558055|NCT02913105|168869030|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.9453
84558056|NCT02913105|168869030|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.01|0.96|0.4344
84558057|NCT02913105|168869030|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6390
84558058|NCT02913105|168869030|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.02|0.97|0.6329
84747586|NCT03086213|169248849|NON_INFERIORITY|the definition of non-inferiority analysis is that the new method is no less effective than standard interventions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||whether or not the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom|Paravertebral nerve block arm represents the numerator and intercostal block represents the denominator for relative risk|null hypothesis||95|5|0.025
84747587|NCT03086213|169248850|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84558059|NCT02913105|168869030|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6640
84747588|NCT03086213|169248853|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degree of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||0.05
84747589|NCT01616056|169248860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84747590|NCT01616056|169248862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84747591|NCT01616056|169248864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84747592|NCT01616056|169248867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84494227|NCT03948646|168739223|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.27|0.0029
84558060|NCT02913105|168869030|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.03|0.98|0.7517
84571419|NCT00885118|168893721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.289||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.434|32.382|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||32.382|-20.434|0.6541
84747593|NCT01249274|169248872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is the risk ratio estimate for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for the treatment variable.|||1.36|1.04|0.010
84747594|NCT01249274|169248873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|30.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|290.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||290.04|3.18|0.003
84494228|NCT03948646|168739224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.994||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-2.16|||ANCOVA|||||-2.16|-41.37|0.0296
84494229|NCT00276458|168739226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001||95.0|-25.2|-14.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-14.5|-25.2|<0.001
84494230|NCT00276458|168739227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.273||95.0|-1.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||6.6|-1.9|0.273
84494231|NCT00276458|168739228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-21.2|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.7|-21.2|<0.001
84494232|NCT00276458|168739229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.8|-8.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.6|-15.8|<0.001
84494233|NCT00276458|168739230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.159||95.0|-17.7|-0.4||ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value|Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||-0.4|-17.7|0.159
84494234|NCT00276458|168739231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|-17.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-9.6|-17.8|<0.001
84494235|NCT00276458|168739232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.681||95.0|-3.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||2.6|-3.9|0.681
84494236|NCT00276458|168739233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.7|-17.5|<0.001
84494237|NCT00276458|168739234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0|-26.5|-15.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-15.3|-26.5|<0.001
84494238|NCT00276458|168739235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.9|-8.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.3|-17.9|<0.001
84494239|NCT00276458|168739236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0|-23.2|-11.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.4|-23.2|<0.001
84494240|NCT00276458|168739237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.841||95.0|-23.8|28.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment|"Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||28.8|-23.8|0.841
84494241|NCT00276458|168739238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.839||95.0|-26.1|8.3|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline CRP value|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||8.3|-26.1|0.839
84494242|NCT00276458|168739239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001||95.0|3.8|19.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva + EZ versus Atorva.|||19.47|3.80|<0.001
84494243|NCT01049360|168739263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.245||Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.245|0.156|<0.0001
84747595|NCT01249274|169248873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|16.65||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|235.52|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction term for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 and 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure||235.52|1.18|0.038
84494244|NCT01049360|168739263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.245|0.158|<0.0001
84571420|NCT00885118|168893721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.612||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.036|38.066|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||38.066|-16.036|0.4206
84558061|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.19|0.77|0.7390
84558062|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.08|0.72|0.3086
84747596|NCT01249274|169248874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is the risk ratio for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for treatment.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||1.15|0.87|0.99
84747597|NCT01249274|169248875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|7.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||7.88|0.23|0.75
84494245|NCT01049360|168739264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.181|0.083|<0.0001
84494246|NCT01049360|168739264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.185|0.088|<0.0001
84494247|NCT01049360|168739265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.333|0.230|<0.0001
84558063|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.08|0.69|0.2880
84558064|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.12|0.73|0.4446
84558065|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.11|0.73|0.4127
84558066|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.25|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.25|0.85|0.8074
84558067|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.08|0.88|0.6935
84558068|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.09|0.90|0.9145
84747598|NCT01249274|169248875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.84|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|||5.84|0.24|0.84
84494248|NCT01049360|168739265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.325|0.224|<0.0001
84494249|NCT01694849|168739266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.795||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.795|0.427|0.8539
84558069|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.12|0.91|0.9131
84558070|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.91|0.9988
84558071|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.13|0.94|0.5873
84558072|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.92|0.9050
84558073|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1458
84558074|NCT02913105|168869031|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.12|0.98|0.2048
84558075|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.12|1.00|0.1051
84670407|NCT00729183|169074297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.32|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||A longitudinal ANCOVA was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[BL\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted Least Squares (LS) mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||4.32|2.66|<0.001
84670408|NCT00729183|169074298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.9||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.9|-12.3|
84670409|NCT00729183|169074299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|12.3||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||12.3|-3.2|
84670410|NCT00729183|169074300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|6.42|||LDA|||A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||6.42|4.36|<0.001
84670411|NCT00729183|169074301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.25|0.88|<0.001
84747599|NCT01249274|169248876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1030
84558076|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.15|1.01|0.0717
84558077|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.06|0.96|0.8083
84558078|NCT02913105|168869031|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.5361
84558079|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0858
84558080|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||0.97|0.88|0.0096
84558081|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||0.98|0.88|0.0284
84558082|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.01|0.89|0.1330
84558083|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.01|0.89|0.2032
84747600|NCT01249274|169248877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score Statistic For Type 3 GEE Analysis|0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Gamma distribution, logit link, 1st-order autoregressive covariance structure; p-value is for chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic|Estimated value is chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic for week\*treatment interaction term.|||||0.9116
84747601|NCT01249274|169248880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.71||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|20.5|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||20.50|1.09|0.048
84747602|NCT01249274|169248881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|13.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||13.30|0.92|0.06
84747603|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Week 6||0.36|-0.17|
84747604|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||90.0|-0.27|0.26||||||Week 12||0.26|-0.27|
84747605|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||||90.0|-0.29|0.26||||||Week 26||0.26|-0.29|
84747606|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||||90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 39||0.20|-0.36|
84747607|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-0.23|0.35||||||Week 52||0.35|-0.23|
84747608|NCT00138671|169248897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|-0.29|0.31||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.31|-0.29|
84747609|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.475||||||90.0|-23.47|14.518||||||Week 6||14.518|-23.47|
84747610|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91||||||90.0|-30.04|8.232||||||Week 12||8.232|-30.04|
84747611|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.84||||||90.0|-42.51|-3.166||||||Week 26||-3.166|-42.51|
84747612|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.222||||||90.0|-28.52|12.075||||||Week 39||12.075|-28.52|
84747613|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.329||||||90.0|-29.27|12.616||||||Week 52||12.616|-29.27|
84747614|NCT00138671|169248898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.406||||||90.0|-13.7|16.514||||||Week 52 LOCF||16.514|-13.70|
84747615|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||||90.0|-0.317|2.084||||||Week 1||2.084|-0.317|
84747616|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||||90.0|-0.728|1.668||||||Week 2||1.668|-0.728|
84558084|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.00|0.87|0.1141
84558085|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1342
84558086|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0771
84558087|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.01|0.91|0.1510
84558088|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.00|0.89|0.0744
84558089|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.06|0.93|0.8365
84558090|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.05|0.92|0.6091
84558091|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.03|0.90|0.3621
84558092|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.91|0.5031
84558093|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.04|0.96|0.9244
84558094|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.08|0.99|0.2360
84558095|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.07|0.96|0.6990
84558096|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1590
84558097|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.09|0.97|0.4256
84558098|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.4901
84558099|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.97|0.3648
84558100|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||1.12|0.91|0.8891
84558101|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.07|0.85|0.4817
84558102|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.6022
84558103|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.07|0.83|0.4470
84558104|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.07|0.83|0.4342
84558105|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||0.99|0.73|0.0891
84558106|NCT02913105|168869032|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.77|0.2260
84558107|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.87||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.97|0.78|0.0324
84747617|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.382||||||90.0|-0.815|1.579||||||Week 3||1.579|-0.815|
84747618|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405||||||90.0|-0.793|1.602||||||Week 4||1.602|-0.793|
84747619|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562||||||90.0|-0.642|1.766||||||Week 6||1.766|-0.642|
84494250|NCT01694849|168739266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|2.232||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.232|0.361|0.8160
84747620|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.416||||||90.0|-0.809|1.641||||||Week 9||1.641|-0.809|
84747621|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||||90.0|-1.416|1.454||||||Week 11||1.454|-1.416|
84558108|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||0.96|0.76|0.0291
84558109|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.5755
84558110|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.05|0.80|0.3070
84494251|NCT01694849|168739267|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.75|0.225
84571421|NCT00885118|168893722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.949|-0.789|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.789|-16.949|0.0318
84670412|NCT00729183|169074301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.26|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.26|2.39|<0.001
84747622|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||||90.0|-1.127|1.308||||||Week 12||1.308|-1.127|
84747623|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||||90.0|-1.551|0.934||||||Week 18||0.934|-1.551|
84747624|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.869||||||90.0|-2.123|0.384||||||Week 26||0.384|-2.123|
84747625|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.664||||||90.0|-2.968|-0.36||||||Week 39||-0.360|-2.968|
84747626|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116||||||90.0|-3.829|-0.403||||||Week 50||-0.403|-3.829|
84747627|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.801||||||90.0|-3.204|-0.397||||||Week 51||-0.397|-3.204|
84747628|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.026||||||90.0|-3.384|-0.668||||||Week 52||-0.668|-3.384|
84747629|NCT00138671|169248899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.451||||||90.0|-3.003|0.101||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.101|-3.003|
84558111|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.12|0.86|0.7752
84558112|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.03|0.75|0.1803
84558113|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.05|0.76|0.2414
84558114|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.95|0.77|0.0179
84558115|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.00|0.80|0.1125
84558116|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.12|0.88|0.9572
84558117|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.10|0.87|0.7372
84558118|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.17|0.92|0.6015
84558119|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.19|0.89|0.7261
84558120|NCT02913105|168869032|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.15|0.87|0.9892
84752717|NCT00702845|169260521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in the mean number of oocytes between the treatment groups. Org 36286 treatment was considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH) if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was between -3 and +5 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.9|||ANOVA|||||3.9|1.2|<0.001
84494252|NCT01694849|168739267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.76|0.254
84494253|NCT01694849|168739268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.339|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score.|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.339|0.493|0.8586
84494254|NCT01694849|168739268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.432|0.747|0.2265
84558121|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.95|0.87|0.0005
84558122|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.94|0.84|0.0005
84558123|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.96|0.86|0.0062
84558124|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||1.00|0.89|0.1214
84558125|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.95|0.84|0.0043
84558126|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||1.02|0.89|0.2615
84558127|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1331
84558128|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.89|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.89|0.81|<.0001
84558129|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.93|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.93|0.83|0.0001
84558130|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.88|0.79|<.0001
84558131|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.92|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.92|0.81|0.0002
84558132|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.88|0.77|<.0001
84752718|NCT01448213|169260545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
84752719|NCT01448213|169260546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
84494255|NCT01694849|168739269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.958|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.958|0.267|0.5231
84606055|NCT00394901|168963426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.031||95.0|-1.0|-0.05|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.00|0.031
84606056|NCT00394901|168963427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.326||95.0|-0.73|0.24|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.24|-0.73|0.326
84606057|NCT00394901|168963427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.43|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.43|<0.001
84670413|NCT00729183|169074302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.35|0.60|0.001
84494256|NCT01694849|168739269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.924|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.924|0.415|0.8459
84606058|NCT00394901|168963427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.007||95.0|-1.13|-0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.13|0.007
84606059|NCT00394901|168963428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.241||95.0|-0.78|0.2|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.20|-0.78|0.241
84606060|NCT00394901|168963428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.37|-1.34|0.001
84670414|NCT00729183|169074302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.93|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.93|2.69|<0.001
84606061|NCT00394901|168963428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.01||95.0|-1.1|-0.15|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-1.10|0.010
84670415|NCT00729183|169074303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.29|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.29|1.09|<0.001
84670416|NCT00729183|169074303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|6.89|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||6.89|4.08|<0.001
84670417|NCT00729183|169074304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||1.35|0.07|0.030
84670418|NCT00729183|169074304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.43|0.97|<0.001
84670419|NCT00729183|169074305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.73|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.73|0.69|0.001
84752720|NCT04682977|169260563|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.04
84558133|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.9|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.90|0.78|0.0002
84558134|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.02|0.89|0.2280
84558135|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.97|0.89|0.0090
84558136|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||1.04|0.93|0.6237
84558137|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.97|0.87|0.0080
84558138|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.97|0.86|0.0105
84558139|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.98|0.86|0.0217
84558140|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.94|0.82|0.0031
84558141|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.07|0.95|0.7740
84558142|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.01|0.89|0.1783
84606062|NCT00394901|168963429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.281||95.0|-0.76|0.22|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.22|-0.76|0.281
84606063|NCT00394901|168963429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
84672254|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Settings 1 and 2.|Slope|-0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01572||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04075|0.02095||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 1 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.02095|-0.04075|0.5291
84494257|NCT01694849|168739270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.529|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.529|0.161|0.5229
84670420|NCT00729183|169074305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.78|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.78|1.62|<0.001
84670421|NCT00729183|169074306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.16||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||0.95|-0.63|0.697
84747630|NCT00705523|169248965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|beta=-0.67, exp(beta)=0.51, chi-squared(1) = 0.2.71||Self-reported drinking results, as gathered by the TLFB, were compared by the generalized estimating equations (GEE) (Diggle et al., 1994), using Poisson models for counts of drinking and heavy drinking days, and logistic regression models for absence/presence binary indicators of drinking. In the GEE model, the pre-treatment of the response was included as a covariate, together with the treatment group indicator, and a linear time effect.||||0.10
84747631|NCT04619251|169248973|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|337.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|302.8|376.4|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =15.9|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||376.4|302.8|
84747632|NCT04619251|169248974|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|184.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|218.0|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =26.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||218.0|156.0|
84747633|NCT04619251|169248975|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|356.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.7|403.2|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =18.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||403.2|315.7|
84747634|NCT00803751|169248985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
84747635|NCT00803751|169248986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84747636|NCT00803751|169248987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84494258|NCT01694849|168739270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|4.875|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||4.875|.421|0.5646
84747637|NCT00803751|169248988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84747638|NCT00803751|169248989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84747639|NCT00803751|169248990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
84494259|NCT01694849|168739271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.656|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.656|0.088|0.1983
84747640|NCT03102645|169248991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS. DF=14.||CROS test||13.5|-0.5|0.07
84747641|NCT03102645|169248992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS test||CROS test||28.2|2.0|0.03
84747642|NCT01413087|169248993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.483
84747643|NCT01413087|169248994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.992
84747644|NCT05026710|169249006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
84747645|NCT05026710|169249007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
84747646|NCT05026710|169249008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
84747647|NCT05026710|169249009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
84747648|NCT05026710|169249010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84747649|NCT05026710|169249011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects; covariates: days since URS, study arm, days\*arm, baseline LURN, stone location; random intercept with unstructured covariance||||||0.80
84747650|NCT05026710|169249012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||WinRatio, unmatched unstratified|WinRatio using unmatched method.||||||0.25
84747651|NCT05026710|169249013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
84747652|NCT05026710|169249014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84747653|NCT01395888|169249035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.986|-0.468|0.484
84747654|NCT03218397|169249036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|5.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic modification (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||10|1.2|0.013
84747655|NCT03218397|169249037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
84494260|NCT01694849|168739271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|3.466|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.466|0.288|1.0000
84494261|NCT01694849|168739272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.609|0.265|0.3543
84494262|NCT01694849|168739272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.953|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.953|0.547|0.5780
84558143|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||0.97|0.84|0.0219
84558144|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||0.99|0.85|0.0719
84558145|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.02|0.85|0.2199
84558146|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.06|0.87|0.4928
84558147|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.05|0.85|0.3419
84558148|NCT02913105|168869033|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.88|0.7281
84670422|NCT00729183|169074306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.22||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.18|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.18|0.27|0.013
84747656|NCT03218397|169249038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T-test for the difference in mean length of stay (days) between treatment arms among subjects alive at 30 days.||||||0.093
84747657|NCT03218397|169249039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84747658|NCT03218397|169249040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|7.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||13.1|1.9|0.009
84747659|NCT03218397|169249041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||12.0|0.9|0.022
84747660|NCT03218397|169249042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.7|-1.2|0.46
84747661|NCT03218397|169249043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|4.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.6||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||9.6|-0.4|0.074
84747662|NCT03218397|169249044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||11.2|1.7|0.008
84558149|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.12|0.97|0.3180
84558150|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.10|0.95|0.6576
84558151|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.06|0.90|0.6035
84558152|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.17|0.96|0.3261
84558153|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.15|0.94|0.5246
84558154|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.14|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.14|0.92|0.7519
84558155|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.12|0.89|0.9577
84558156|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.18|1.03|0.0160
84558157|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.13||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.21|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.21|1.05|0.0052
84558158|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.15|0.99|0.1822
84558159|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.24|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.24|1.04|0.0159
84747663|NCT03218397|169249045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.2|-5.9|0.37
84752721|NCT04682977|169260564|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.26
84494263|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.24||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||7.81|-5.33|0.711
84747664|NCT00903682|169249071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with at least 1 treatment-emergent Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse event, observed between Baseline through Week 12 and judged to be at least possibly drug-related, is significantly lower in the ETR arm than in the EFV arm. Assuming a significance level of 5%, a sample size of 75 subjects per arm would provide over 90% power to detect a 29% difference in treatment-emergent, drug-related Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse events.||||<0.001
84747665|NCT00903682|169249072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.23|||||Difference in proportion of response ETR minus EFV|||15.23|-12.00|
84747666|NCT02495792|169249091|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.7||||||||21.7|1.6|
84747667|NCT00600886|169249092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.942||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusting for randomization stratification factor||Overall - All patients||3.168|1.190|0.007
84747668|NCT00600886|169249092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.79||||||Post surgery - patients with prior surgery but no previous medical treatment for acromegaly||4.790|1.140|
84747669|NCT00600886|169249092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|3.234||||||De novo - patients with de novo disease who refused pituitary surgery or for whom pituitary surgery was contraindicated.||3.234|0.846|
84747670|NCT01919814|169249252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold P-Value was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84747671|NCT01440374|169249259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.202||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.868|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||||0.868|0.047|0.0315
84747672|NCT02079610|169249330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84747673|NCT02079610|169249331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84747674|NCT02079610|169249332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84747675|NCT03907410|169249402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Experiment phase adherence (Months 1-3) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||28|2|
84747676|NCT03907410|169249402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Observation phase adherence (Months 4-6) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||7|-20|
84747677|NCT04776148|169249407|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0003
84747678|NCT04776148|169249408|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|85.0|0.75|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.77|0.75|0.7421
84747679|NCT04776148|169249409|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.5|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis|||13.5|4.7|<0.0001
84558160|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.19|0.99|0.1524
84558161|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.2|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.20|0.98|0.1749
84558162|NCT02913105|168869033|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.13|0.92|0.7503
84558163|NCT02913105|168869034|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.161|16.178|||ANCOVA|||||16.178|-2.161|0.2073
84558164|NCT02913105|168869034|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.106|16.563|||ANCOVA|||||16.563|-2.106|0.2014
84558165|NCT02913105|168869034|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.974|8.414|||ANCOVA|||||8.414|-7.974|0.9645
84558166|NCT04114656|168869050|OTHER||Posterior Ratio to placebo|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.02|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.020|0.968|
84558167|NCT04114656|168869051|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.12|0.89|
84558168|NCT04114656|168869052|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.05|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.05|0.91|
84558169|NCT00703326|168869053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.01|0.75|0.077
84558170|NCT00703326|168869054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||The gate-keeping strategy used to control overall type 1 error 0.05 (2-sided) or 0.025 (1-sided) to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. At final PFS analysis only if primary PFS test was significant would analysis of OS be inferential.|Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.10|0.81|0.487
84558171|NCT00703326|168869055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||0.99|0.73|0.033
84571422|NCT00885118|168893722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.966||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.225|-6.462|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-6.462|-22.225|0.0005
84747680|NCT04776148|169249410|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|3.3||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|14.3|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||14.3|-7.7|0.2456
84747681|NCT04776148|169249417|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.71||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|6.46||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||6.46|-1.03|0.1553
84558172|NCT00703326|168869056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(SCMH)|SCMH used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|Stratified odds ratio was calculated considering the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.71|1.03|0.027
84558173|NCT00703326|168869057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.06|0.67|0.150
84558174|NCT00703326|168869058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||P-value is for end of therapy. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline score was used to compare the 2 treatment arms.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
84558175|NCT03052920|168869084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 11.29||Mean difference in percent correct for CNC words at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558176|NCT03052920|168869085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 16.947||Mean difference in Soundfield thresholds (averaged across the frequency range in dB HL) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558177|NCT03052920|168869086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.14||Mean difference in degrees RMS error at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
84558178|NCT03052920|168869087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 4.02||Mean difference in percentage of understanding (words correct) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84670423|NCT00729183|169074307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|9.99|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||9.99|6.03|<0.001
84670424|NCT00729183|169074307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|13.97|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||13.97|8.96|<0.001
84494264|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||5.7|-7.58|0.78
84558179|NCT03052920|168869088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.58||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores in noise at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
84747682|NCT04776148|169249418|OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.16||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.51||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||4.51|-2.19|0.4967
84747683|NCT04776148|169249419|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.82||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||8.82|-2.10|0.2271
84494265|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.13||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||3.71|-15.97|0.221
84494266|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.45||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||0.49|-19.4|0.062
84494267|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-18.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||-18.88|-27.16|<0.001
84558180|NCT03052920|168869089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 3.16||Mean difference in dB SNR for BKB-SIN sentences with noise to the better ear at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.01
84558181|NCT03052920|168869090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 10.42||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores at 60 dB SPL for the poor ear alone at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558182|NCT03052920|168869091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.15||Mean difference in HHIE reported scores at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558183|NCT03052920|168869092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 4.34||Mean difference in HUI3 ratings at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558184|NCT03052920|168869093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.71||Mean difference in ratings for the SSQ total score at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558185|NCT03052920|168869094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.90||Mean difference in SSQ ratings at 12 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558186|NCT03052920|168869095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 2.31||Mean difference in SADL scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.05
84747684|NCT04776148|169249420|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.46||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.65||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||-0.65|-10.27|0.0264
84558187|NCT03052920|168869096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.27||Mean difference in the CPHI scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.001
84558188|NCT03052920|168869097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.65||Mean difference in HII-SOP scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
84558189|NCT03052920|168869098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.34||Mean difference in the dB SNR scores for BKB-SIN sentences at 6 months post-implant minus pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
84558190|NCT02173379|168869130|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 2.9%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0244|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Farrington-Manning|||"The hypothesis test is designed to show non-inferiority of Absorb BVS to XIENCE for the primary endpoint with a one-sided alpha of 0.025. The null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses are:~H0: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE ≥ ∆TLF HA: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE \< ∆TLF."||||0.0244
84558191|NCT02173379|168869131|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 4.8%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0006|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0006
84558192|NCT04997265|168869304|OTHER|Given the small sample size, simple descriptive were used. Between-group differences were performed using a Fisher exact test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84558193|NCT04767529|168869318|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 28 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 28 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||41.4|3.8|0.025
84606064|NCT00394901|168963429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.012||95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.09|0.012
84494268|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||2.12|-28.04|<0.001
84494269|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-31.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.78|-19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-19.05|-43.78|<0.001
84558194|NCT04767529|168869318|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|43.3||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors is used for comparison between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 50 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 50 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||43.3|1.6|0.036
84558195|NCT04767529|168869319|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|21.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|45.0||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||||45.0|-1.3|0.070
84558196|NCT04767529|168869319|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|72.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||72.7|31.2|<0.001
84558197|NCT04767529|168869320|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|31.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|50.9||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||50.9|12.9|0.002
84558198|NCT04767529|168869320|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|61.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|79.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||79.4|44.1|<0.001
84558199|NCT04767529|168869320|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|38.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|60.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||60.7|17.2|0.002
84558200|NCT04767529|168869320|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|33.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||55.8|10.5|0.006
84558201|NCT04767529|168869321|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|39.5||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||39.5|0.4|0.053
84606065|NCT02256267|168963450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0671|0.0886||||||||0.0886|0.0671|
84606066|NCT02256267|168963451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0376|0.0581||||||||0.0581|0.0376|
84606067|NCT05260333|168963452|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
84606068|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
84747685|NCT04776148|169249421|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.14|0.73|0.4338
84494270|NCT01694849|168739273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.84|-16.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-16.77|-41.84|<0.001
84494271|NCT01694849|168739274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.21|0.06|<0.001
84558202|NCT04767529|168869321|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|41.2||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||41.2|-1.5|0.069
84558203|NCT04767529|168869321|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|42.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||42.8|-4.8|0.123
84558204|NCT04767529|168869321|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|70.2||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||70.2|27.7|<0.001
84558205|NCT04767529|168869322|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-4.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariate for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-4.71|-9.09|<0.001
84558206|NCT04767529|168869322|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|-7.02||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-7.02|-11.47|<0.001
84747686|NCT04776148|169249422|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.87|0.4316
84558207|NCT04767529|168869322|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.18||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-1.18|-6.39|0.005
84558208|NCT04767529|168869322|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-3.25||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-3.25|-8.38|<0.001
84747687|NCT04776148|169249423|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.32|0.85|0.5587
84747688|NCT04776148|169249424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.73|0.6794
84494272|NCT01694849|168739274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.26|0.11|<0.001
84558209|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.17|-32.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-32.11|-71.17|<0.001
84747689|NCT04776148|169249425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||1.02|0.68|0.0379
84747690|NCT04776148|169249426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.60|0.3574
84558210|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.63|-35.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-35.71|-74.63|<0.001
84747691|NCT00666679|169249435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||0.033||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.09|0.00|0.033
84747692|NCT00666679|169249436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.15||||0.005||95.0|-0.26|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.05|-0.26|0.005
84558211|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.73|-20.27||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-20.27|-65.73|<0.001
84558212|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.39|-25.24||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-25.24|-70.39|<0.001
84558213|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.17|7.92|<0.001
84558214|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|15.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||15.57|9.35|<0.001
84558215|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|10.23||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||10.23|1.84|0.005
84558216|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.65||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.65|5.30|<0.001
84558217|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|-4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-4.53|-24.28|0.005
84606069|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
84747693|NCT00666679|169249437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.09||||0.015||95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.02|-0.17|0.015
84558218|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Median Difference (Net)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-3.76|-23.50|0.007
84558219|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|14.04||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.04|-13.86|0.990
84558220|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|13.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.71|-14.07|0.980
84558221|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|-11.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.71|-33.58|<0.001
84558222|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.74|-33.56|<0.001
84558223|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|9.56||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||9.56|-21.72|0.443
84606070|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0313
84606071|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
84606072|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
84494273|NCT01694849|168739275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|141.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|308.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||308.55|-24.99|0.095
84494274|NCT01694849|168739275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-70.57||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.85|98.71||Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of the least square mean|||98.71|-239.85|0.412
84494275|NCT01694849|168739276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|32.39||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|151.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||151.42|-86.63|0.592
84494276|NCT01694849|168739276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|31.35||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.42|152.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||152.12|-89.42|0.61
84494277|NCT01694849|168739277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.67||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.11|-2.77|0.459
84494278|NCT01694849|168739277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.67||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|-5.06|0.764
84494279|NCT01694849|168739278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.92||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.79|21.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||21.95|-47.79|0.466
84494280|NCT01694849|168739278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-5.82||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|29.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||29.42|-41.07|0.745
84494281|NCT01694849|168739279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-26.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.59|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-4.54|-48.59|0.018
84494282|NCT01694849|168739279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-40.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.61|-18.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-18.17|-62.61|<0.001
84558224|NCT04767529|168869323|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|7.36||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||7.36|-23.77|0.299
84494283|NCT01694849|168739279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|190.07||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.38|417.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||417.52|-37.38|0.101
84494284|NCT01694849|168739279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|228.33||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|458.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||458.82|-2.16|0.052
84752722|NCT04682977|169260565|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.51
84494285|NCT01694849|168739280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.29|0.002
84494286|NCT01694849|168739280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
84494287|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.54||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.07|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Hyaluronic acid||8.98|-42.07|0.203
84494288|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.79||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||18.9|-32.49|0.603
84494289|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.73||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.48|-1.95|0.235
84494290|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.81||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.41|-2.04|0.193
84494291|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.21||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|19.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||19.22|-6.81|0.348
84752723|NCT04682977|169260566|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.23
84752724|NCT04682977|169260567|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.44
84752725|NCT04682977|169260568|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.22
84752726|NCT04682977|169260569|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.91
84494292|NCT01694849|168739281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-14.66||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.81|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||1.51|-27.81|0.029
84558225|NCT04767529|168869332|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.72||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.72|-1.96|0.750
84558226|NCT04767529|168869332|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-0.09||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||-0.09|-4.75|0.042
84558227|NCT04767529|168869332|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (28 mg EFX - placebo) in body weight (kg)||5.29|-2.90|0.564
84558228|NCT04767529|168869332|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.14|-6.02|0.348
84558229|NCT04767529|168869333|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||0.4|-4.5|0.102
84558230|NCT04767529|168869333|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.8|-5.8|0.009
84558231|NCT04767529|168869333|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Threshold for significance set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.5|-6.2|0.021
84558232|NCT04767529|168869333|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-3.7|-9.4|<0.001
84672255|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 3.|Slope|0.1329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0988|0.1671||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 3 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.1671|0.09880|<0.001
84494293|NCT01694849|168739282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
84558233|NCT03706469|168869336|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|93.8||||||||93.80|74.50|
84558234|NCT03706469|168869336|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|102.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|114.7||||||||114.70|91.10|
84558235|NCT03706469|168869336|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.55|195.58||||||||195.58|152.55|
84747694|NCT00666679|169249438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.6||||0.073||95.0|-1.26|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.06|-1.26|0.073
84558236|NCT03706469|168869337|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|84.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|96.11||||||||96.11|73.92|
84558237|NCT03706469|168869337|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.88|111.63||||||||111.63|88.88|
84558238|NCT03706469|168869337|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|149.07|200.09||||||||200.09|149.07|
84558239|NCT03706469|168869338|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|79.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.36|92.99||||||||92.99|67.36|
84558240|NCT03706469|168869338|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|117.27||||||||117.27|84.94|
84558241|NCT03706469|168869338|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|173.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.05|200.16||||||||200.16|150.05|
84558242|NCT01636947|168869340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.191
84747695|NCT00666679|169249439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|6.08||||0.004||95.0|1.94|10.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|Least-Squares Means for average percentage of days are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|||10.23|1.94|0.004
84494294|NCT01694849|168739282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.08|<0.001
84494295|NCT01694849|168739283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
84494296|NCT01694849|168739283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
84494297|NCT01694849|168739284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.06||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.23|-0.11|0.471
84558243|NCT01636947|168869341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||Overall Stage p-value||||0.458
84558244|NCT00911586|168869374|OTHER|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|-4.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.806|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8060
84558245|NCT00911586|168869375|OTHER|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|4.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.456||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8286
84558246|NCT03003000|168869392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.48||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeated Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline placebo. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with placebo.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.|0.480|-0.168|0.3446
84558247|NCT03003000|168869392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.134||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with ibuprofen.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix|0.134|-0.392|0.3358
84558248|NCT03003000|168869393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.003||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.003|-0.572|0.0474
84558249|NCT03003000|168869393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.282||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|||0.282|-0.180|0.6658
84558250|NCT03003000|168869394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|-0.1||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.100|-0.698|0.0091
84558251|NCT03003000|168869394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.6387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.302||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||0.302|-0.185|0.6387
84747696|NCT00666679|169249440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-5.43|||<=|0.001||95.0|-8.67|-2.19|||ANCOVA|Model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|Least-Squares Means for percentage of days are derived from ANCOVA model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|||-2.19|-8.67|<=0.001
84747697|NCT00666679|169249441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.07||||0.013||95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for change from baseline are derived from mixed model with terms for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.01|-0.12|0.013
84494298|NCT01694849|168739284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.42|0.005
84494299|NCT01694849|168739285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.27|0.457
84558252|NCT03003000|168869395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.559||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|1.979||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.979|-0.861|0.4398
84558253|NCT03003000|168869395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.002|1.314||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|MMRM includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.314|-1.002|0.7911
84558254|NCT03003000|168869396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.777||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.642||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||2.642|1.195|0.0045
84558255|NCT03003000|168869396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.389||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||1.389|0.732|0.9603
84558256|NCT03003000|168869397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.592||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.592|0.663|0.9022
84558257|NCT03003000|168869397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.834||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.187||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.187|0.586|0.3129
84558258|NCT03003000|168869397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.354||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.494||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|2.494|0.736|0.3301
84558259|NCT03003000|168869397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.057||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.057|0.437|0.0864
84558260|NCT03003000|168869398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.9384
84558261|NCT03003000|168869398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3534||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.3534
84747698|NCT00666679|169249442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||0.002||95.0|0.03|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.03|0.002
84558262|NCT00419159|168869424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|4.929|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||4.929|0.657|0.253
84558263|NCT00419159|168869425|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|1.083|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.083|0.135|0.070
84558264|NCT00419159|168869426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.312|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.312|0.505|0.399
84558265|NCT00419159|168869426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.617|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.617|0.620|0.995
84558266|NCT00419159|168869427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.203||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.923|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.923|0.752|0.441
84558267|NCT00419159|168869427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.547||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|2.708|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||2.708|0.884|0.126
84494300|NCT01694849|168739285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.08||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.28|0.428
84558268|NCT00419159|168869428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.529||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.523|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.523|0.184|0.238
84558269|NCT00419159|168869429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.099|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||3.099|0.352|0.938
84558270|NCT00419159|168869430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.474||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|2.484|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||2.484|0.875|0.145
84606073|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0156
84747699|NCT00440999|169249459|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the crude cure rate on Day 14 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in cure rates on Day 14 was \>10%.|Difference in cure rate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Conclusion: non-inferiority between PA \& chloroquine.|"Null hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group is inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%.~Was tested against the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group was not inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%."||1.4|-2.6|
84747700|NCT04218084|169249468|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|Difference in LS mean|-7.73||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.03|-2.42|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||Week 24||-2.42|-13.03|0.0043
84494301|NCT01694849|168739286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.24|-13.19|<0.001
84494302|NCT01694849|168739286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.04|-13.12|<0.001
84558271|NCT00419159|168869430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.151||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.903|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.903|0.696|0.583
84558272|NCT00419159|168869431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.447|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.447|0.521|0.588
84558273|NCT00419159|168869431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.191|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.191|0.314|0.148
84558274|NCT04907227|168869448|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.46|0.32|
84494303|NCT01694849|168739287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.02||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.09|-0.05|0.531
84494304|NCT01694849|168739287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.02||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.08|0.638
84558275|NCT04907227|168869449|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.67|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.67|0.68|
84558276|NCT04907227|168869450|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.5|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.45|
84558277|NCT04907227|168869452|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|31.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||31.2|-24.1|
84606074|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
84606075|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1563||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.1563
84747701|NCT01602562|169249524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||16.11|0.00|
84747702|NCT01602562|169249524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.65|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||17.65|0.00|
84494305|NCT01694849|168739288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.12|-1.39|0.831
84558278|NCT04907227|168869454|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.99|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.99|0.17|
84558279|NCT04907227|168869455|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|18.24|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||18.24|0.15|
84558280|NCT04907227|168869456|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.46|0.41|
84558281|NCT04907227|168869457|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.17|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.17|0.43|
84558282|NCT01801241|168869468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84558283|NCT03759366|168869476|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.13|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 26 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-3.13|-8.40|0.0004
84606076|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4375||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.4375
84606077|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0781
84747703|NCT04964414|169249539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6
84747704|NCT04964414|169249540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.6
84747705|NCT04964414|169249541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.09
84747706|NCT04964414|169249546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
84747707|NCT04964414|169249547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
84747708|NCT01718353|169249549|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||%ARNL change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.02
84747709|NCT01718353|169249557|OTHER|||||||0.0927|||||||ANOVA|||MTB change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.0927
84747710|NCT00968227|169249566|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84747711|NCT02411357|169249570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Chi-square trend test|||||||<.001
84747712|NCT02112838|169249615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-910.6|950.5|||ANCOVA|||||950.5|-910.6|0.97
84494306|NCT01694849|168739288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.2||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.47|-1.07|0.754
84494307|NCT01694849|168739288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.3|-0.36|0.848
84494308|NCT01694849|168739288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.45|-0.22|0.511
84558284|NCT03759366|168869490|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-4.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.65|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 52 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-1.65|-6.93|0.0033
84558285|NCT02669082|168869518|OTHER|||||||0.2955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.2955
84558286|NCT02669082|168869519|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1358
84558287|NCT02669082|168869520|OTHER||Median|||||0.1706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1706
84558288|NCT02669082|168869521|OTHER|||||||0.1969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1969
84558289|NCT02669082|168869522|OTHER|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0534
84558290|NCT02669082|168869523|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.4125
84558291|NCT02669082|168869524|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0220
84558292|NCT02669082|168869525|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0420
84558293|NCT02669082|168869526|OTHER|||||||0.8166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.8166
84558294|NCT03041467|168869543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.001
84558295|NCT03041467|168869544|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-values for the primary safety endpoint was based on the Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test with a margin of 7.5%.||||||0.002|||||||Farrington-Manning Test|||||||0.002
84558296|NCT03041467|168869545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate access circuit primary patency.||||<0.001
84558297|NCT03041467|168869546|OTHER|There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate target lesion primary patency.|Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|||<0.001
84558298|NCT03041467|168869547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84558299|NCT03041467|168869551|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84558300|NCT03041467|168869552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.482
84558301|NCT03041467|168869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84558302|NCT00135356|168869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.03||||0.48||95.0|-0.06|0.12||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.12|-0.06|0.48
84558303|NCT00135356|168869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.07||||0.57||95.0|-0.07|12.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing. 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||12.0|-0.07|0.57
84747713|NCT02112838|169249615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-399.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1320.8|521.3|||ANCOVA|||||521.3|-1320.8|0.40
84747714|NCT03519971|169249630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.123|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||The hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age \[\< 65 versus (vs.) \>= 65 years\] and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.123|0.647|0.247
84747715|NCT03519971|169249631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-15.2|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|The CIs for difference in percentages were estimated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||16.3|-15.2|0.976
84747716|NCT03519971|169249632|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.386|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.386|0.778|0.823
84558304|NCT00135356|168869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.02||||0.73||95.0|-0.1|0.14||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.14|-0.10|0.73
84558305|NCT00135356|168869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|-0.01||||0.91||95.0|-0.14|0.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||0.13|-0.14|0.91
84558306|NCT00135356|168869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|5.2||||0.27||95.0|-3.9|15.1||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 VAT LOCF||15.1|-3.9|0.27
84558307|NCT00135356|168869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|1.8||||0.68||95.0|-6.7|11.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||VAT, Week 96 LOCF||11.2|-6.7|0.68
84558308|NCT00135356|168869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.4||||0.14||95.0|-1.4|10.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Trunk Fat LOCF||10.6|-1.4|0.14
84558309|NCT00135356|168869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.3||||0.14||95.0|-1.7|12.9||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Trunk Fat LOCF||12.9|-1.7|0.14
84558310|NCT00135356|168869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.0||||0.16||95.0|-1.6|10.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||SAT, Week 48, LOCF||10.0|-1.6|0.16
84558311|NCT00135356|168869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|6.8||||0.06||95.0|-0.2|14.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 SAT||14.2|-0.2|0.06
84558312|NCT00135356|168869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.6||||0.15||95.0|-1.7|11.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48, Limb Fat||11.4|-1.7|0.15
84558313|NCT00135356|168869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.7||||0.17||95.0|-2.3|14.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96, Limb Fat||14.4|-2.3|0.17
84606078|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
84606079|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0137
84747717|NCT03519971|169249633|SUPERIORITY|For the comparison between treatments, the Kaplan-Meier estimator of survival at 24 months for each treatment was used to obtain the HR and the test is based on the method described in Klein 2007. To account for the stratification factors, the estimates and test statistics in each strata were combined by weighting inversely proportionately according to each within stratum variance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.502|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.502|0.716|0.847
84747718|NCT03519971|169249634|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was performed using a CMH test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0|||||The CIs for difference in percentages was calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||3.0|-4.8|
84558314|NCT00135356|168869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|3.6||||0.19||95.0|-1.8|9.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 TAT||9.4|-1.8|0.19
84558315|NCT00135356|168869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|4.3||||0.16||95.0|-1.7|10.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 96 TAT||10.7|-1.7|0.16
84558316|NCT00135356|168869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.0||||0.0385||95.0|0.3|9.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Total Body Fat||9.7|0.3|0.0385
84558317|NCT00135356|168869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.9||||0.1||95.0|-1.0|13.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Total Body Fat||13.2|-1.0|0.10
84558318|NCT00135356|168869654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.72||||||||3.72|0.3|
84558319|NCT04591015|168869674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0626
84558320|NCT04591015|168869675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 90-day lab||||0.0496
84558321|NCT04591015|168869676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 180-day lab||||0.0651
84558322|NCT04591015|168869677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8739
84558323|NCT04591015|168869678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4702
84558324|NCT04591015|168869679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1258
84558325|NCT04591015|168869680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8635
84558326|NCT04591015|168869681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0471
84558327|NCT04591015|168869682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0218
84558328|NCT04591015|168869683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5090
84558329|NCT04591015|168869684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4034
84558330|NCT04591015|168869685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0175
84558331|NCT04591015|168869686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4435
84558332|NCT04591015|168869687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7417
84558333|NCT04591015|168869688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5779
84558334|NCT04591015|168869689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0493
84606080|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0547
84558335|NCT04591015|168869690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0773
84558336|NCT04591015|168869691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0921
84558337|NCT04591015|168869692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2404
84558338|NCT04591015|168869693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
84747719|NCT03519971|169249637|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.413|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.413|0.649|0.790
84747720|NCT03519971|169249638|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.071|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.071|0.614|0.132
84747721|NCT06729606|169249650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula \[HFNC\]/non-invasive ventilation \[NIV\] or invasive mechanical ventiliation \[IMV\]/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.55|0.80|0.54
84747722|NCT06729606|169249651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.41|0.77|0.78
84747723|NCT06729606|169249652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.08|0.94|0.10
84747724|NCT06729606|169249653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.44|0.95|0.15
84558339|NCT02509078|168869694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Wald test for the difference of two prop||Estimated value is a percentage|||5.9|-6.4|0.93
84558340|NCT02686814|168869725|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.7646
84606081|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0488
84747725|NCT06729606|169249654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.79|0.71
84747726|NCT00409773|169249659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-9.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-9.8|-16.5|<0.001
84747727|NCT00409773|169249659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-13.6|-6.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.9|-13.6|<0.001
84747728|NCT00409773|169249659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-11.3|-4.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.6|-11.3|<0.001
84558341|NCT02686814|168869725|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8984
84558342|NCT02686814|168869725|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8457
84606082|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
84747729|NCT00409773|169249660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-9.6|-4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
84747730|NCT00409773|169249660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.8|-2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.9|-7.8|<0.001
84747731|NCT00409773|169249660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.0|-6.8|<0.001
84747732|NCT00409773|169249661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.69||95.0|-5.4|3.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.3|-5.4|0.690
84747733|NCT00409773|169249661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.2||95.0|-1.6|7.1|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.1|-1.6|0.200
84747734|NCT00409773|169249661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48||95.0|-4.7|3.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.9|-4.7|0.480
84747735|NCT00409773|169249662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.013||95.0|0.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.0|0.7|0.013
84747736|NCT00409773|169249662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.378||95.0|-1.5|3.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.8|-1.5|0.378
84494309|NCT01694849|168739289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.83||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.29|-5.95|0.075
84747737|NCT00409773|169249662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003||95.0|1.3|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.6|1.3|0.003
84747738|NCT00409773|169249663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-13.3|-7.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-7.3|-13.3|<0.001
84747739|NCT00409773|169249663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-10.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-10.2|<0.001
84494310|NCT01694849|168739289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.07|-4.29|0.491
84494311|NCT01694849|168739290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.1|0.393
84494312|NCT01694849|168739290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.11|0.289
84494313|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
84494314|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
84494315|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
84494316|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.23|-0.64|<0.001
84494317|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
84494318|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
84494319|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.15|0.03|0.005
84494320|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.17|0.05|<0.001
84494321|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
84494322|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.09|-0.25|<0.001
84494323|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.02|-0.38|0.031
84494324|NCT01694849|168739291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
84606083|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0488
84747740|NCT00409773|169249663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.9|-9.9|<0.001
84747741|NCT00409773|169249664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.809||95.0|-5.7|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-5.7|0.809
84747742|NCT00409773|169249664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.217||95.0|-1.9|8.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||8.4|-1.9|0.217
84747743|NCT00409773|169249664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.796||95.0|-5.8|4.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.4|-5.8|0.796
84747744|NCT00409773|169249665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-12.1|-6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.6|-12.1|<0.001
84494325|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|5.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||11.14|0.31|0.038
84558343|NCT02686814|168869725|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.1309
84558344|NCT02686814|168869725|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||0.5000
84558345|NCT02686814|168869726|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.2783
84558346|NCT02686814|168869726|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0674
84558347|NCT02686814|168869726|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0371
84558348|NCT02686814|168869726|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.6953
84558349|NCT02686814|168869726|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||>0.9999
84558350|NCT02368886|168869729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|0.00|0.0434
84558351|NCT02368886|168869730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.47|0.1241
84606084|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1055||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.1055
84747745|NCT00409773|169249665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.1|-2.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.6|-8.1|<0.001
84494326|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|7.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||12.55|1.59|0.012
84494327|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-7.25|-17.56|<0.001
84558352|NCT02368886|168869731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3797
84558353|NCT02368886|168869732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.55|0.4614
84558354|NCT02368886|168869737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7319
84558355|NCT00253370|168869748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.409||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.284|0.544|||one-sample binomial test|||The study was designed to distinguish a response rate of 40% from 20%, the null hypothesis. With the planned sample size of 36 eligible patients, the study has 91% power based on a 0.09 level one-sided test.||0.544|0.284|0.0012
84558356|NCT01937884|168869762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84558357|NCT01937884|168869763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84558358|NCT01937884|168869764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed change in IFABP.||||||0.27
84558359|NCT01937884|168869765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed citrulline concentration on study day 5, by treatment group||||||0.04
84558360|NCT01937884|168869766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed percent change of claudin 3||||||0.43
84558361|NCT01937884|168869767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84558362|NCT01937884|168869768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
84558363|NCT01937884|168869769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84606085|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.9102
84747746|NCT00409773|169249665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.0|<0.001
84747747|NCT00409773|169249666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.042||95.0|0.1|4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.8|0.1|0.042
84747748|NCT00409773|169249666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-0.2|<0.001
84747749|NCT00409773|169249666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.0|-7.0|<0.001
84558364|NCT03292471|168869787|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.92|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.92|-2.07|
84558365|NCT03292471|168869787|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Follow-up) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.46|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.46|-2.38|
84558366|NCT03292471|168869788|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Entry, Exit) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0719|2.25|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.25|-0.0719|
84558367|NCT03292471|168869788|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time-point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|1.58|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||1.58|-0.596|
84558368|NCT03924505|168869789|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.35||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression|We adjusted for baseline rate due to baseline differences.|The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||2.35|1.42|<0.01
84558369|NCT03924505|168869790|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical signicance is p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression||The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||3.30|1.18|0.01
84558370|NCT03924505|168869791|OTHER|Testing for differences in means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.7|0.68
84558371|NCT02191046|168869798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between before and after treatment in syringe group||5.37|3.41|<0.05
84747750|NCT00409773|169249667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.0|-11.6|<0.001
84747751|NCT00409773|169249667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.2|<0.001
84494328|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|-4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-4.41|-14.81|<0.001
84494329|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||4.96|2.14|<0.001
84558372|NCT02191046|168869798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between 2 groups at 2 weeks after treatment||1.76|0.094|<0.05
84558373|NCT02191046|168869798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||satisfaction score between two groups at 2 weeks after treatment||-0.12|-0.82|<0.05
84558374|NCT02191046|168869798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power fo study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|6.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5s-score between before and after treatment in squeezable bottle group||6.69|4.62|<0.05
84747752|NCT00409773|169249667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-3.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.1|-8.7|<0.001
84747753|NCT00409773|169249668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-17.6|-10.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-10.5|-17.6|<0.001
84747754|NCT00409773|169249668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-13.2|-6.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.1|-13.2|<0.001
84747755|NCT00409773|169249668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-4.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.9|-12.0|<0.001
84747756|NCT00409773|169249669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-14.0|-8.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.0|-14.0|<0.001
84747757|NCT00409773|169249669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
84747758|NCT00409773|169249669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.7|-8.7|<0.001
84558375|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.4|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.2|-3.4|
84558376|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|1.6||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-3.7|
84558377|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-2.3|
84558378|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|2.8||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-5.4|
84558379|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.3|2.6||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.6|-5.3|
84558380|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|4.7||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.7|-4.7|
84672256|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 4.|Slope|0.2016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.2371||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 4 is significantly different from the slope for Setting|||0.2371|0.1660|<.0001
84747759|NCT00409773|169249670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.0|-8.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.1|-15.0|<0.001
84747760|NCT00409773|169249670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.6|-10.4|<0.001
84494330|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||7.53|4.67|<0.001
84747761|NCT00409773|169249670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-11.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-11.2|<0.001
84558381|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.7|1.6||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-2.7|
84558382|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|2.8||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-3.8|
84747762|NCT00409773|169249673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.42||95.0|-11.0|5.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||5.0|-11.0|0.420
84747763|NCT00409773|169249673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.555||95.0|-9.5|7.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.2|-9.5|0.555
84747764|NCT00409773|169249673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.41||95.0|-5.1|9.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||9.6|-5.1|0.410
84752727|NCT04682977|169260570|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.78
84747765|NCT02401867|169249682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We selected our initial sample size of 150 participants to detect a clinically meaningful % discordance between the two sampling approaches and achieve 90% power at the 0.05 alpha-level using McNemar's test adjusted for analysis of clustered matched-pair data.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was determined at an a priori threshold of p \<0.05|McNemar|Degrees of freedom = 1||Comparing the concordance of the HPV DNA-positive results to the cervical provider swab HPV DNA test results (reference) using the McNemar's test, a two-sample test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data. Null hypothesis: The sensitivities between swab 1 (self-vaginal) and swab 2 (provider-cervical) are equal \[ H0 : p1 = p2 \]||||.29
84747766|NCT02401867|169249682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||A priori threshold: p\<0.05|Kappa||Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.|Concordance of HPV DNA detection between self-swab and provider swab assessed via an unweighted Kappa (K) statistic to determine the percentage agreement beyond that expected by chance.||0.92|0.58|<0.001
84747767|NCT02401867|169249682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.82|88.72|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed sensitivity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||88.72|47.82|
84747768|NCT02401867|169249682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessed specificity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).|Specificity|98.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.59|99.78|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|||99.78|93.59|
84747769|NCT02401867|169249682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.56|98.54|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed positive predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.54|63.56|
84747770|NCT02401867|169249682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative predictive value|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|98.04|||||Used exact confidence intervals|Assessed negative predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.04|88.90|
84747771|NCT04234425|169249684|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.702|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
84747772|NCT04234425|169249685|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
84747773|NCT04234425|169249686|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.33||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
84747774|NCT02795429|169249696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561|||||||||||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model||Posterior probability that the odds ratio (ORRspartalizumab +capmatinib to ORRspartalizumab) was ≥ 1|||||
84747775|NCT03719170|169249724|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0000684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000413||||||"Power Calculation:~Assuming approximately the same number of eligible subjects in each VISN (with an average of 10,563 candidates per VISN) and an Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.12, randomizing 17 VISNs will give more than 80% power to detect % days on PPI of 75% vs. 50%, 85% vs. 60%, 80% vs. 55%, or 70% vs. 45%, but to detect a difference between 70% vs. 50%, power is only 61% using 0.05 level 2-sided test."||0.000413|-0.0003|
84747776|NCT03794908|169249735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|10.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at mid-treatment.||10.64|-3.03|0.28
84747777|NCT03794908|169249735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at end of treatment.||11.40|-2.44|0.21
84747778|NCT04363801|169249750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.98|0.9676
84558383|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|2.5||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.5|-4.3|
84558384|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|4.5||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.5|-1.6|
84558385|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.6|-1.6|
84558386|NCT01964716|168869800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|3.5||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC multidose vial (MDV) - 13vPnC single-dose syringe (SDS), expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.5|-4.4|
84558387|NCT01964716|168869800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|4.4||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.4|-4.3|
84571423|NCT00885118|168893722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.131||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.853|-7.432|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-7.432|-23.853|0.0003
84606086|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
84747779|NCT04363801|169249767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.3799
84747780|NCT04363801|169249770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.8679
84494331|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-1.25|-3.29|<0.001
84558388|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.22||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.87|
84558389|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.90|0.71|
84558390|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.18||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.86|
84558391|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.19||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.19|0.85|
84558392|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.86|
84558393|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.36||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.36|0.82|
84571424|NCT00885118|168893722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.339|-1.897|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-1.897|-18.339|0.0164
84494332|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-0.49|-2.52|0.004
84571425|NCT02717195|168893751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.13||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary enpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.13|-2.37|0.9196
84571426|NCT02717195|168893751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.94||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.94|-0.59|0.1474
84571427|NCT02717195|168893752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.78||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.78|-0.86|0.2998
84494333|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.92|-2.63|<0.001
84558394|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.08||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.82|
84558395|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.21|0.87|
84558396|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.24||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.75|
84558397|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.09|1.49||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.49|1.09|
84558398|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.82|
84558399|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.26||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.26|0.85|
84558400|NCT01964716|168869801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.48||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.48|0.98|
84558401|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.9||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.9|-17.2|
84558402|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.1|-4.4|
84558403|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
84558404|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.7||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||5.7|-10.6|
84747781|NCT04363801|169249770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.9676
84494334|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.29|-2|0.009
84558405|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-2.9|
84558406|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.6|-4.5|
84558407|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
84747782|NCT04363801|169249770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.05||||||||3.05|0.74|
84558408|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.1||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||14.1|-4.5|
84747783|NCT04363801|169249770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05||||||||2.05|0.98|
84747784|NCT04363801|169249771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|33.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Common Risk Difference and 95% CI: estimated by stratified Newcombe method, weighted by minimum risk|||33.6|-18.4|0.2649
84558409|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.0||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||-0.0|-15.8|
84558410|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.9|-2.9|
84558411|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.4||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-6.6|
84606087|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.1641
84558412|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.9|-6.3|
84606088|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0137
84606089|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
84747785|NCT04363801|169249771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.379
84494335|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.17|-0.75|0.002
84747786|NCT00069108|169249823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.00584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.24|0.87|0.00584
84747787|NCT00069108|169249824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While the study was not designed to demonstrate non-inferiority in PFS based on IRC assessments the pre-specified margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.17|0.74|0.00223
84747788|NCT00069108|169249825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||||1.37|0.91|
84747789|NCT00069108|169249826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||||1.47|0.95|
84494336|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.1|-0.68|0.008
84558413|NCT01964716|168869810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.0|-5.8|
84558414|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.20|0.70|
84558415|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.93|0.69|
84558416|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.39|0.89|
84606090|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
84606091|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
84558417|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.80|
84747790|NCT00069108|169249827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.77||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.79|0.4028
84747791|NCT00069108|169249828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||2.01|0.81|0.2911
84747792|NCT00069108|169249829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||||1.23|0.87|
84747793|NCT00069108|169249831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.68||||||||1.68|0.79|
84747794|NCT00069108|169249832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
84747795|NCT03401229|169249836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.852|-0.289||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.289|-0.852|<0.0001
84747796|NCT03401229|169249837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.083||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.083|-0.458|0.0048
84747797|NCT03401229|169249838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.212||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.087|0.664||Since both primary endpoints were significant at significant level of 0.01 level, this endpoint was tested at significant level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.664|-11.087|0.0821
84747798|NCT03401229|169249839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.02||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal because test for change from baseline in SNOT-22 at week 40 was not statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.02|0.55|0.0660
84747799|NCT03401229|169249840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.36|0.53|0.5008
84747800|NCT03401229|169249841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.074||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.074|-0.361|0.0029
84747801|NCT03401229|169249842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.141||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NPS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NPS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.141|-0.810|0.0054
84558418|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.06|0.70|
84558419|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.33|0.74|
84558420|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.00|0.70|
84747802|NCT03401229|169249843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.096||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NBS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NBS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.096|-0.477|0.0032
84747803|NCT03401229|169249844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.492||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.741|-1.243||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-1.243|-13.741|0.0188
84747804|NCT03401229|169249845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.237||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|-0.084||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.084|-0.389|0.0023
84747805|NCT03401229|169249846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.856||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|0.57||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following WP (WP for NP surgery), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline LMS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in LMS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in LMS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.570|-2.281|0.2375
84747806|NCT03401229|169249847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.43||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.43|0.51|0.5419
84747807|NCT03401229|169249848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.06|0.44|0.0913
84747808|NCT03401229|169249849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery or SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.97|0.44|0.0362
84747809|NCT03401229|169249850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.10|0.53|0.1505
84747810|NCT03401229|169249854|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Negative Bionomial Model|Model included treatment, US/non-US and prior use of SCS\_NP with total number of courses of SCS\_NP as outcome and log of follow-up time as an offset||The endpoint compared the rate of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Rate ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and Rate ratio less than 1 indicates less likely of SCS\_NP use.||1.15|0.54|0.2189
84752728|NCT04682977|169260571|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.83
84558421|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.27|0.79|
84494337|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.35||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||0.19|-4.89|0.069
84494338|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-3.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||-0.84|-5.95|0.01
84558422|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.48|
84558423|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.19||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||2.19|1.38|
84558424|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.16|0.74|
84558425|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.71|
84558426|NCT01964716|168869811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.25|0.67|
84558427|NCT01693185|168869826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||We wished to be able to distinguish a difference of 7.5 min,|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recovery time in patients administered remifentanil alone will be significantly shorter than that in patients administered midazolam-meperidine combination for colonoscopy.||||< 0.001
84558428|NCT01017601|168869840|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.50
84558429|NCT01017601|168869841|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.96
84558430|NCT01017601|168869842|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
84558431|NCT01017601|168869843|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84558432|NCT00187278|168869845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.0088||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.0088|0.789|0.3492
84558433|NCT00187278|168869846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.02||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.020|0.756|0.0882
84606092|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0547
84606093|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0195
84494339|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.84||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.61|-1.93|0.549
84494340|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.49||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.26|-2.28|0.728
84558434|NCT00187278|168869847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.74|0.8215
84558435|NCT00090584|168869875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cumulative success rates|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Lifetable analysis was used to compute the 8 month cumulative success rates.||0.12|-0.12|0.74
84558436|NCT00090584|168869876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.9||Mixed effect repeated measures analysis of variance controlling for study site.|ANOVA|||Test of hypothesis of no difference in change in episodes between the two groups.||5.9|-2.0|0.34
84558437|NCT00090584|168869877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||Repeated measures ANOVA controlling for clinical site.|ANOVA||Difference (group 1 - group 2) in change from baseline to follow-up in voids per day.|Null hypothesis of no difference between arms in change in number of voids per day from baseline to 10 weeks.||0.1|-1.7|0.08
84558438|NCT00090584|168869878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0006||95.0||||Repeated measures ANOVA|Mixed Models Analysis|Main hypothesis tested by F-test for treatment by time interaction (2 and 509 degrees of freedom). No parameters estimated.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between treatment groups in improvement in UDI over time||||0.0006
84558439|NCT00090584|168869879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for test of time by treatment group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for study site||Repeated measures analysis of difference in symptom bother over time by treatment group.||||0.0005
84558440|NCT00090584|168869880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in Combination therapy arm to Drug only arm.|Null hypothesis: no difference in satisfaction at 10 weeks||2.92|1.09|0.02
84747811|NCT03401229|169249855|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.854||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-0.608||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.608|-3.101|0.0036
84747812|NCT03401229|169249856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.028||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.028|-0.360|0.0941
84747813|NCT03401229|169249857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.027||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.027|-0.399|0.0246
84747814|NCT03401229|169249858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.672||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.074||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||3.074|-1.730|0.5833
84747815|NCT03401229|169249859|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.684||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|5.502||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||5.502|-0.134|0.0619
84747816|NCT03401229|169249860|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.057||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.129|1.015||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Following WP (WP for NP surgery rescued subjects), model included treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.015|-11.129|0.1020
84747817|NCT00690820|169249871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84747818|NCT00690820|169249872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84747819|NCT00690820|169249873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84494341|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.61|-2.14|<0.001
84747820|NCT00690820|169249874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84747821|NCT00690820|169249875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84747822|NCT00690820|169249876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.671
84494342|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.36|-1.89|0.004
84558441|NCT00090584|168869881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in combination therapy group compared to drug only group.|Null hypothesis: No difference in satisfaction at 8 months post intervention||3.70|1.11|0.02
84747823|NCT00690820|169249877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.003
84747824|NCT00690820|169249878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.023
84494343|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.53|-1.82|<0.001
84606094|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0059
84747825|NCT01498653|169249939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|36.9|||ANCOVA|||||36.9|20.1|<0.001
84747826|NCT03881553|169249945|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedmans||||||0.081||||||χ2 =5.03|Friedman's|||||||0.081
84747827|NCT03881553|169249945|OTHER|Post hoc: Wilcoxon||||||0.05||||||ON1 compared to OFF1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84747828|NCT03881553|169249945|OTHER|Post Hoc Wilcoxon||||||0.021||||||ON1 compared to OFF2|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84558442|NCT00090584|168869882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.13||P-value from logistic regression analysis|Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group||5.13|1.27|0.008
84558443|NCT00090584|168869883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement at 8 months between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group.||5.52|1.83|<0.0001
84558444|NCT00497770|168869888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A pre-specified logistic regression was used to assess non-inferiority of DCR in African American participants compared with Caucasian participants. The DCR for African Americans was to be considered non-inferior to the DCR for Caucasians if the upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio (OR) for African American versus Caucasian was \<1.78 which corresponds to a difference in proportions of approximately 14% assuming the DCR in the reference group to be 50%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.58||Adjusted:baseline characteristics, income, marital/insurance status, comorbid, time between end of 1st line therapy and start of pemetrexed, prior platinum- or Paclitaxel-containing regimen, number of cycles and best response during 1st line therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.580|0.427|
84558445|NCT01080391|168869902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.834||Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes)|Log Rank|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0127 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).||||0.834|0.570|< 0.0001
84558446|NCT01080391|168869903|SUPERIORITY|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0231 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.945|||Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes).||The final analysis of OS was to be performed after 510 deaths occur. A total of 510 deaths would provide 85% power to detect, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, a hazard ratio of 0.765 corresponding to a 23.5% reduction in risk for death for CRd versus Rd (39.2 vs. 30.0 months, respectively).||0.945|0.667|0.0045
84558447|NCT01080391|168869904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.411|5.001|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||5.001|2.411|< 0.0001
84558448|NCT01080391|168869905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.08|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.08|1.17|0.0044
84558449|NCT02117713|168869914|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.456||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.72|7.54|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 48 values for n= 26|||7.54|-64.72|0.1157
84558450|NCT02117713|168869915|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.934||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.48|19.19|||Student's t-test||||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=10|19.19|-109.48|0.1469
84558451|NCT02117713|168869916|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.353|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7124||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-1.606|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 218 values for n=6|||-1.606|-3.101|0.005
84558452|NCT02117713|168869917|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.32||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|166.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||166.4|-54.4|0.2607
84558453|NCT02117713|168869918|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|216.25||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-341.6|58.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||58.4|-341.6|0.1340
84606095|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
84747829|NCT01313689|169249965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.24|0.50|0.2677
84558454|NCT02117713|168869919|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|47.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.68||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|117.6|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||117.6|-22.4|0.1474
84558455|NCT02117713|168869920|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
84558456|NCT02117713|168869921|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||-0.4|-3|0.0167
84558457|NCT02117713|168869922|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|245.92||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|238.3|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||238.3|-216.6|0.9108
84558458|NCT02117713|168869923|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant(null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.882||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.45|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.45|-3.03|0.1207
84558459|NCT02117713|168869924|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2488||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.212|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.212|-2.098|0.0927
84558460|NCT00678470|168869933|OTHER||Correlation|1.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||||Using Fisher's non-parametric test of associations, correlations were determined between the patients who were intralesional responders with their response at ‡70% change in PASI score.|||0.0003
84558461|NCT02503254|168869934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|82.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.79|86.09||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||86.09|78.79|<.001
84558462|NCT02503254|168869935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|63.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.55|67.12||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively"||67.12|59.55|<0.001
84571428|NCT02717195|168893752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.12||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||1.12|-2.54|0.4478
84606096|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
84606097|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
84606098|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0039
84670425|NCT00729183|169074308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.58|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||7.58|3.77|<0.001
84747830|NCT01313689|169249965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.53|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.53|0.19|0.0837
84747831|NCT01313689|169249966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.87|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum.|||0.87|0.35|0.0030
84494344|NCT01694849|168739292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.43|-1.72|0.001
84494345|NCT01694849|168739293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.8||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Least square mean changes from baseline|||0.18|-5.79|0.066
84558463|NCT02503254|168869936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|88.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.46|89.62||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||89.62|86.46|<.001
84558464|NCT02503254|168869937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|58.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.56||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC respectively."||66.56|49.30|<.001
84558465|NCT02638051|168869969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Objective Response Rate (ORR)"||||0.0140
84558466|NCT02638051|168869970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to All Adverse Events rate"||||0.0016
84558467|NCT02638051|168869970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Abdominal pain rate"||||>0.05
84558468|NCT02638051|168869970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Gastrointestinal reactions"||||>0.05
84747832|NCT01313689|169249966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.21|0.0262
84747833|NCT01313689|169249967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.942||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|7.424|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||7.424|1.166|0.0223
84558469|NCT02638051|168869970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Damage of hepatic or renal function"||||>0.05
84558470|NCT02638051|168869970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Bone marrow depression"||||0.0215
84558471|NCT02638051|168869971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Better QoL"||||0.0053
84558472|NCT02638051|168869971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to No Change"||||0.0527
84558473|NCT02638051|168869971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Worse QoL"||||>0.05
84571429|NCT00855218|168893759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.072||95.0|0.588|1.08||stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and Alfa-fetoprotein (AFP) level at baseline.|Log Rank|||||1.080|0.588|0.072
84571430|NCT00855218|168893760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.295||95.0|0.606|1.33|||Log Rank|stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline.||||1.330|0.606|0.295
84747834|NCT01313689|169249967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||999.999|0.001|0.9985
84747835|NCT01313689|169249968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.899||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum included in the Strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||2.899|0.644|0.4159
84494346|NCT01694849|168739293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.77||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.77|-2.24|0.615
84494347|NCT01694849|168739294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-17.4||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||16.08|-50.88|0.307
84558474|NCT00432276|168870016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.47|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.35|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.||-0.35||
84558475|NCT00432276|168870016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.42|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 52. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group is inferior to the average change for the pioglitazone titration group. The alternative hypothesis was that the change from Baseline in HbA1c for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group was non-inferior to the change for the pioglitazone titration group for at Week 52.||-0.28||
84558476|NCT00432276|168870017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31||Statistical tests and resulting P-values are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 42.||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
84558477|NCT00432276|168870025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-5.7||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and FPG as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-5.7|-16.2|<0.001
84558478|NCT00432276|168870026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of marked hyperglycemia through Week 52.||||<0.001
84558479|NCT00432276|168870027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of hyperglycemic rescue through Week 52.||||<0.001
84558480|NCT00432276|168870028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and proinsulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-3.7|0.116
84558481|NCT00432276|168870029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and fasting insulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.04|-0.58|0.276
84747836|NCT01313689|169249968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|19.862||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum in the strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||19.862|0.076|0.8866
84494348|NCT01694849|168739294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-21.41||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|12.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.34|-55.17|0.213
84558482|NCT00432276|168870030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.041|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|-0.018||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.018|-0.063|<0.001
84558483|NCT00432276|168870031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.193||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline fasting C-peptide as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.193|-0.047|0.230
84558484|NCT00432276|168870032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.455||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA insulin resistance as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.455|-0.830|0.567
84558485|NCT00432276|168870033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.963|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.333|20.592||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA beta cell function as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||20.592|5.333|<0.001
84747837|NCT01313689|169249969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.48|0.1732
84747838|NCT01313689|169249969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||2.68|0.46|0.8128
84494349|NCT01694849|168739295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
84494350|NCT01694849|168739295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.29|0.068
84558486|NCT00432276|168870034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline body weight as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.04|-1.03|0.071
84558487|NCT00432276|168870035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-8.6|0.058
84558488|NCT00432276|168870036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-1.7|0.228
84558489|NCT00432276|168870037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.9|-6.5|0.132
84558490|NCT00432276|168870038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|1.0||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline triglycerides as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.0|-18.3|0.080
84558491|NCT00432276|168870039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0314||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.0012||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline free fatty acid as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.0012|-0.0640|0.059
84558492|NCT00432276|168870040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.6|-2.9|0.934
84558493|NCT00432276|168870041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A2 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-1.3|0.070
84558494|NCT00432276|168870042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein B as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.2|-5.9|0.064
84558495|NCT00432276|168870043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein C-III as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.1|-1.0|0.022
84558496|NCT00432276|168870044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.22||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline PAI-1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||5.22|-1.65|0.308
84558497|NCT00432276|168870045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8209||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3209|0.679||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline hsCRP as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.6790|-2.3209|0.283
84571431|NCT00855218|168893761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.586||||0.999||95.0|1.2|2.096|||Log Rank|startified one-sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline||||2.096|1.200|0.999
84571432|NCT00855218|168893762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.076||95.0|0.321|1.2|||Log Rank|stratified one sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted on region and AFP level at baseline||||1.200|0.321|0.076
84571433|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84571434|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||Post hoc analysis was done by Tukey test.||||0.001
84494351|NCT01694849|168739296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.27|-2.86|0.448
84571435|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|Tukey post hoc test|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84571436|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.044
84571437|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER||||||<|0.272||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.272
84571438|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.835
84571439|NCT02941640|168893779|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.199
84571440|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84747839|NCT03386110|169249998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-month follow-up, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||2.54|-0.15|0.08
84558498|NCT00432276|168870046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.27||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline adiponectin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-1.27|-4.57|<0.001
84558499|NCT00432276|168870047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||3.2|-15.4|0.197
84558500|NCT00207727|168870057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The p-value was non estimable because the observed trend was in the opposite direction of that stated in the one sided alternative hypothesis|Jonckheere Terpstra|Jonckheere Terpstra nonparametric trend test procedure with 5% level of significance was be used to test for the monotonic trend.||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis of no effect among the treatment groups was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the cumulative number of newly Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on cranial MRIs through Week 23 would decrease monotonically with dose at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.00
84558501|NCT00207727|168870058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.892
84558502|NCT00207727|168870058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.599
84558503|NCT00207727|168870058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.517
84558504|NCT00207727|168870058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group.||||0.967
84670426|NCT00729183|169074308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.77|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||11.77|6.98|<0.001
84747840|NCT03386110|169249998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.89|-0.49|0.25
84747841|NCT03386110|169249998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||3.09|0.49|0.007
84558505|NCT00207727|168870059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.720
84558506|NCT00207727|168870059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.152
84558507|NCT00207727|168870059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.431
84558508|NCT00207727|168870059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group with placebo..||||0.292
84558509|NCT03611582|168870077|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-8.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-8.57|-11.97|<.0001
84558510|NCT03611582|168870077|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-11.0|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-11.00|-14.34|<0.0001
84558511|NCT03611582|168870078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||9.26|4.04|<0.0001
84558512|NCT03611582|168870078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|17.81|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||17.81|7.64|<0.0001
84558513|NCT01783821|168870108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Type 3 Wald Test|||Overall p-value of the day by treatment interaction from the random effects model using a type 3 Wald test.||||0.02
84558514|NCT01783821|168870109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the two arms for the 3 categories.||||0.01
84558515|NCT01783821|168870110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84558516|NCT01783821|168870111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84558517|NCT01783821|168870112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cox Proportional Hazard, Fine/Gray adj.|||||||0.02
84558518|NCT01783821|168870113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84571441|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84571442|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84752729|NCT04682977|169260572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.67
84752730|NCT04682977|169260573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.77
84558519|NCT04459598|168870121|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.24|67.46|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||67.46|45.24|
84558520|NCT04459598|168870121|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|32.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.79|44.05|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||44.05|23.79|
84558521|NCT04459598|168870123|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.47|14.56|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||14.56|8.47|
84558522|NCT04459598|168870123|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.47|5.45|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.45|2.47|
84558523|NCT04459598|168870124|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.73|13.7|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||13.70|7.73|
84558524|NCT04459598|168870124|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|5.76|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.76|2.62|
84558525|NCT05206734|168870185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.46|||||HR was calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status, ethnicity and common childhood conditions. Reflects a comparison of the incidence rates between participants diagnosed with IBD and those without IBD.|||1.46|1.12|
84558526|NCT05206734|168870186|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.52|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.52|1.33|
84558527|NCT05206734|168870187|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.62|||||HR calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.62|1.02|
84558528|NCT05206734|168870188|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.43|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||4.43|1.76|
84558529|NCT05206734|168870190|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||1.58|1.12|
84558530|NCT05206734|168870191|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.75|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.75|1.29|
84558531|NCT02330172|168870194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84558532|NCT02330172|168870195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84558533|NCT00734656|168870196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - dutasteride does not affect blood alcohol following standardized dose of alcohol (0.8 gr/kg)||||0.28
84558534|NCT00734656|168870197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the sedative effect of alcohol||||0.010
84558535|NCT00734656|168870198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the stimulating effect of alcohol||||0.17
84558536|NCT00734656|168870199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - A single 4 mg dose of dutasteride does not reduce serum 3a-androstanediol glucuronide levels||||<0.001
84558537|NCT03214679|168870206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84558538|NCT01601067|168870211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
84558539|NCT01601067|168870212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||heavy drinking days|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.91
84571443|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84747842|NCT03386110|169249998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.36||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||1.53|-2.26|0.71
84494352|NCT01694849|168739296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.17||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.9|-3.25|0.267
84494353|NCT01694849|168739297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.11|0.095
84494354|NCT01694849|168739297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.13|0.022
84494355|NCT01694849|168739298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.96|0.077
84494356|NCT01694849|168739298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.16|-0.87|0.172
84494357|NCT01694849|168739299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.17|-0.24|0.732
84747843|NCT03386110|169249999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.37|-0.65|0.36
84494358|NCT01694849|168739299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.4|0.062
84494359|NCT01694849|168739300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.66||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.2|-4.89|0.4
84494360|NCT01694849|168739300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-7.44|-24.99|<0.001
84494361|NCT01694849|168739301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Fibrinogen||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
84571444|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84571445|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
84571446|NCT02941640|168893780|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||1.00
84606099|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
84494362|NCT01694849|168739301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors||Fibrinogen|Standard error of the least square mean|-0.08|-0.46|0.005
84494363|NCT01694849|168739301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
84494364|NCT01694849|168739301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
84494365|NCT01694849|168739302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||4.06|-2.9|0.742
84494366|NCT01694849|168739302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.9||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|6.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||6.43|-0.63|0.107
84494367|NCT01694849|168739302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.5||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.59|-0.58|0.362
84494368|NCT01694849|168739302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.07||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.18|-1.03|0.894
84494369|NCT01694849|168739303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.76||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.48|-2|0.229
84494370|NCT01694849|168739303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.45||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.76|-1.67|0.463
84494371|NCT01694849|168739304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.21||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
84558540|NCT01306214|168870234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.61|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
84558541|NCT01306214|168870234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.35||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.35|-0.69|<0.0001
84558542|NCT01306214|168870235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.69|-1.97||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.97|-15.69|0.004
84558543|NCT01306214|168870235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.09|-4.36||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-4.36|-18.09|0.0003
84558544|NCT01306214|168870236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.54|-1.24||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.24|-3.54|<0.0001
84558545|NCT01306214|168870236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.63|-1.33||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|hypothesis test: H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo||-1.33|-3.63|<0.0001
84606100|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
84747844|NCT03386110|169249999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.78|-1.15|0.63
84747845|NCT03386110|169249999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.54||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.77|-1.85|0.42
84494372|NCT01694849|168739304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.19||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.41|0.098
84494373|NCT01694849|168739305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.01|-1.61|0.553
84670427|NCT00729183|169074309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-54.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-43.26|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-43.26|-64.81|<0.001
84670428|NCT00729183|169074309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-28.96|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-28.96|-62.22|<0.001
84670429|NCT00729183|169074310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.77|-12.92|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||-12.92|-37.77|<0.001
84670430|NCT00729183|169074310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.07||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|5.56|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||5.56|-23.69|0.225
84670431|NCT02678676|169074346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||No adjustment to the p-value|Regression, Cox|||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.04|0.88|0.3444
84558546|NCT01306214|168870237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H0: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.13|-0.62|<0.0001
84670432|NCT02678676|169074347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.16|0.83|
84670433|NCT00380393|169074388|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|69.1|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||69.1|28.1|<0.001
84747846|NCT03386110|169249999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||-0.27|-3.14|0.02
84747847|NCT03386110|169250000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.44|-0.18|0.15
84606101|NCT00259298|168963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value if for whole body, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
84670434|NCT00380393|169074388|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|70.4|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||70.4|31.4|<0.001
84670435|NCT00380393|169074389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|70.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||70.0|31.2|<0.001
84670436|NCT00380393|169074389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|71.2|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.2|34.2|<0.001
84670437|NCT00380393|169074390|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|71.7|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.7|31.0|0.0003
84747848|NCT03386110|169250000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.92|-0.44|0.50
84606102|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
84747849|NCT03386110|169250000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use moderated the effect of condition on marijuana use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.31|-0.34|0.910
84558547|NCT01306214|168870237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.13|-0.62|0.0005
84558548|NCT01306214|168870237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H013: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha13: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
84558549|NCT01306214|168870237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
84558550|NCT01760447|168870238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-0.09|-0.90|= 0.018
84558551|NCT01760447|168870239|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.3|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||11.3|-13.9|
84606103|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0039
84606104|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
84606105|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1641
84606106|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0078
84752731|NCT04682977|169260574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.79
84752732|NCT04682977|169260575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.44
84752733|NCT04682977|169260576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r||||||0.65
84752734|NCT04682977|169260577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.66
84752735|NCT04682977|169260578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.81
84752736|NCT04682977|169260579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.89
84752737|NCT00733304|169260601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.31||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||2.31|-3.18|
84606107|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
84747850|NCT03386110|169250000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.75|-0.07|0.11
84558552|NCT01760447|168870240|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.0|-6.2|
84558553|NCT01760447|168870241|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|14.4|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||14.4|-8.9|
84558554|NCT01760447|168870242|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.8|-10.1|
84558555|NCT01760447|168870244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||4.3|-25.9|= 0.159
84558556|NCT01760447|168870246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||28.9|2.9|0.017
84558557|NCT01760447|168870247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||24.8|0.0|0.049
84606108|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
84747851|NCT01270971|169250032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84606109|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0781
84606110|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
84747852|NCT01270971|169250033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84747853|NCT01270971|169250034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84747854|NCT01270971|169250035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84747855|NCT04217590|169250036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.12|||Fisher Exact||The CI for OR is calculated as an exact CI. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|1.90|<0.001
84747856|NCT04217590|169250037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|15.55|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.55|2.64|<0.001
84747857|NCT04217590|169250038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.12|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|2.71|<0.001
84558558|NCT01760447|168870250|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Difference in Percentage|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.3|||Log-Rank Test|||"The percentage of participants initiating glycemic rescue therapy in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-5.3|-21.1|0.002
84558559|NCT00508157|168870288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.14|-2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: log of on-treatment to baseline ratio = log of baseline value, treatment, previous antipsychotic.|Relative difference of Aripiprazole vs. Control Group in terms of (mean % change from baseline/100)+1.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDLC between aripiprazole and the control group at Week 16||-2.66|-19.14|
84558560|NCT00508157|168870289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A relative risk \< 1 favors Aripiprazole over Control Group.||null hypothesis: no difference between Aripiprazole and Control Group||1.06|0.54|
84558561|NCT00862459|168870334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 sample t-test between the dose groups||||0.003
84558562|NCT00862459|168870334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.59||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
84494374|NCT01694849|168739305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.64|1.97|<0.001
84494375|NCT01694849|168739306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.44|-0.37|0.861
84494376|NCT01694849|168739306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|-0.81|0.052
84494377|NCT01694849|168739307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.02|-0.01|0.473
84494378|NCT01694849|168739307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|0|0.124
84494379|NCT01694849|168739308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.15|0.47|<0.001
84494380|NCT01694849|168739308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.19|0.5|<0.001
84494381|NCT01694849|168739309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.04|0.842
84494382|NCT01694849|168739309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.03|0.589
84558563|NCT00862459|168870335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92||||95.0|-0.825|0.69|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.69|-0.825|
84494383|NCT01694849|168739310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|48.93||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|146.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||146.6|-8.73|0.325
84747858|NCT04217590|169250039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|7.67|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||7.67|2.53|<0.001
84747859|NCT04217590|169250040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||||Endpoint analysed with Generalised linear mixed model. The CI for the mean difference was calculated by bootstrapping. A mean difference \> 0 favours SZC.|||1.64|0.77|
84494384|NCT01694849|168739310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|93.21||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|192.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||192.49|-6.06|0.066
84494385|NCT01694849|168739311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|1.1|<0.001
84494386|NCT01694849|168739311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.91|0.26|0.019
84494387|NCT01694849|168739312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.447
84494388|NCT01694849|168739312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.758
84494389|NCT01694849|168739313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.04|-1.12|0.942
84494390|NCT01694849|168739313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.66|-0.52|0.304
84494391|NCT00570492|168739329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to estimate the mean treatment difference in growth velocity over the treatment period, adjusting for baseline growth velocity, age, gender, and country.|||-0.06|-0.48|
84558564|NCT00862459|168870335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.18||||95.0|-0.9|0.79|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.79|-0.90|
84558565|NCT00862459|168870336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||||95.0|-1.17|-0.42|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.42|-1.17|
84558566|NCT00862459|168870336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||||95.0|-0.44|0.41|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.41|-0.44|
84558567|NCT00862459|168870337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||||95.0|-0.619|-0.17|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.17|-0.619|
84558568|NCT00862459|168870337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||||95.0|-0.25|0.22|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.22|-0.25|
84558569|NCT00862459|168870338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.18|-0.58|
84494392|NCT00908375|168739358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was determined based on the primary outcome variable, the VAS pain score at three weeks. Based on the results of the study of Siddall et al., group sample sizes of 19 and 19 achieve 82% power to detect a difference of 2.00 between the null hypothesis that both group means are 6.50 and the alternative hypothesis that the mean of pregabalin group is 4.50 with estimated group standard deviations of 2.10 and 2.10 and with a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided two-sample t-test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-6.0|3.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple application of the test to the same data set using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-6|0.279
84494393|NCT00908375|168739359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|1.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-2.0|0.282
84494394|NCT00908375|168739360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|16.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16|-42|0.139
84494395|NCT04419558|168739361|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.12|0.6579
84494396|NCT02279888|168739368|OTHER|the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate at 24 months is greater than 80%|Kaplan Meier|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84494397|NCT02279888|168739370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.47|||Andersen-Gill||This analysis applies to Primary Outcome: HFH Rate|||0.47|0.39|<0.0001
84494398|NCT02279888|168739372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.62|||Andersen-Gill|||||0.62|0.52|<0.0001
84494399|NCT01539512|168739386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.32|||Log Rank|P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||0.32|0.10|< 0.0001
84494400|NCT01539512|168739389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
84494401|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.32
84558570|NCT00862459|168870338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.1|0.31|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.31|-0.10|
84606111|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
84606112|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0391
84606113|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0313
84606114|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.2969
84606115|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5625||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.5625
84494402|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.38
84494403|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.83
84494404|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.42
84494405|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.32
84494406|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.83
84494407|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.38
84494408|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.38
84494409|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.32
84558571|NCT00862459|168870339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.45||||95.0|-37.11|2.02|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||difference in CNR between doses and confidence interval||2.02|-37.11|
84558572|NCT00862459|168870339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.11||||95.0|-15.86|25.35|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||25.35|-15.86|
84558573|NCT00862459|168870340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.8||95.0|-10.93|14.24|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for clustering||||14.24|-10.93|0.80
84558574|NCT00862459|168870340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
84606116|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0469||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0469
84606117|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
84606118|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.2324
84558575|NCT00862459|168870341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|13.43||||0.03||95.0|1.53|25.33|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||25.33|1.53|0.03
84558576|NCT00862459|168870341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-13.58||||0.02||95.0|-25.07|-2.09|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-2.09|-25.07|0.02
84558577|NCT00862459|168870342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-6.13||||0.11||95.0|-13.73|1.48|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||1.48|-13.73|0.11
84747860|NCT04217590|169250041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.73|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||10.73|3.15|<0.001
84747861|NCT00704405|169250047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|69.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||69.1|34.5|<0.001
84747862|NCT00704405|169250047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|64.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|78.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||78.3|45.2|<0.001
84747863|NCT00704405|169250047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.2|73.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||73.4|40.2|<0.001
84747864|NCT00704405|169250050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|63.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||63.2|29.2|<0.001
84494410|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.99
84558578|NCT00862459|168870342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|2.87||||0.55||95.0|-6.59|12.32|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||12.32|-6.59|0.55
84558579|NCT00862459|168870343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|24.63||||0.02||95.0|5.39|43.86|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||43.86|5.39|0.02
84606119|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0645
84747865|NCT00704405|169250051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|90.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||90.2|69.5|
84747866|NCT00704405|169250051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|86.7|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||86.7|60.1|
84494411|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.38
84606120|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0273
84606121|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.7344
84747867|NCT00704405|169250052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|53.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO patients (36.6%) with undetectable HCV RNA at Week 48 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||53.4|15.5|
84747868|NCT02641496|169250055|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.027||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Treatment 1 to Treatment 4 (approximately first 30 days of treatment)||||0.027
84494412|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.38
84494413|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.83
84558580|NCT00862459|168870343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-10.75||||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
84558581|NCT00862459|168870344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|12.91||||0.07||95.0|-1.44|27.26|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||27.26|-1.44|0.07
84558582|NCT00862459|168870344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-18.37||||0.02||95.0|-33.6|-1.35|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-1.35|-33.60|0.02
84558583|NCT00862459|168870345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|18.46||||0.02||95.0|3.15|33.77|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||33.77|3.15|0.02
84558584|NCT00862459|168870345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-5.29||||0.45||95.0|-18.83|8.24|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||8.24|-18.83|0.45
84558585|NCT00477607|168870398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|No adjustments. Right one-sided p-value.||H0: pr(Hearing loss arm 1) = pr(Hearing loss arm 2)||11.4|0.4|0.89
84558586|NCT00477607|168870399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3999||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean (MDA arm 1) = mean (MDA Arm 2)||0.64|-1.03|0.63
84747869|NCT02641496|169250055|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Last 30 Days of 1 Year Study||||0.919
84747870|NCT02641496|169250056|OTHER|||||||0.696||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.696
84747871|NCT02641496|169250057|OTHER|||||||0.593||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; two-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.593
84747872|NCT02641496|169250058|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.925
84747873|NCT04546789|169250096|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.82||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.82|0.86|
84747874|NCT04546789|169250096|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.38||||||Moderate hepatic impairment vs Normal hepatic impairment||2.38|1.60|
84747875|NCT04546789|169250097|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.99||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.99|0.77|
84747876|NCT04546789|169250097|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.26||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.26|1.51|
84494414|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.83
84558587|NCT00477607|168870400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|114.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(max dose arm 1) = mean(max dose arm 2)||114.6|-18.1|0.15
84558588|NCT01093651|168870432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for CD4+ T-cell count over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|Study subject was included in these models as a random variable to account for within-participant correlation.||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in CD4+ T-cell count between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
84558589|NCT01093651|168870433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
84558590|NCT01093651|168870434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum TNFR2 levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum TNFR2 levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
84558591|NCT01093651|168870435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0002||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for SDF1-alpha levels over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.0002.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum SDF1α levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.0002
84558592|NCT01093651|168870436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum RANTES levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum RANTES levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
84558593|NCT01093651|168870437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for area under the glucose tolerance curve over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.04.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in area under the glucose tolerance curves between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.04
84558594|NCT01093651|168870438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The non-paramteric test for adverse event cummulative frequency between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant)|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test of cell frequencies||||>0.05
84670438|NCT00380393|169074390|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.3|<0.001
84747877|NCT04546789|169250124|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.17||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.17|0.55|
84494415|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.38
84571447|NCT02858908|168893786|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6696||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.334|-0.0051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||-0.0051|-1.3340|0.0484
84670439|NCT00380393|169074391|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.8|<0.001
84747878|NCT04546789|169250124|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.63|0.42|
84747879|NCT04546789|169250127|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.25||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.25|0.93|
84606122|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.1934
84606123|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.7695
84558595|NCT01907217|168870440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4 point difference at the end of treatment between the bilateral and unilateral groups.~The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\] = -1.67 to 3.84."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.84||Primary statistical analysis was assessment of difference in HAM-D scores between arms at end-of-treatment, supplemented by 95% CIs and this interval compared with the pre-specified noninferiority threshold (-4 points). The p-value was calculated.|Regression, Linear|A regression model was fitted to end-of-treatment HAM-D measures, with baseline HAM-D scores, trial arm, randomization stratifiers as covariates.|The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4-point difference at the end of treatment between bitemporal and unilateral groups. The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\]=-1.67 to 3.84).|Based on a large bitemporal ECT series, we estimated that 69 patients were required per group to have 80% power to demonstrate, using a one-sided equivalence t test at 5% level, that the mean reduction in the 24-item HAM-D score following high-dose unilateral ECT was no more than 4 points (i.e., equivalent to 3 points on the 17-item HAM-D, deemed to be clinically relevant \[30\]) less than that achieved using bitemporal ECT.||3.84|-1.67|<0.05
84558596|NCT01907217|168870441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||As above|generalized linear models with a binomia|||"The AMI-SF at end of treatment was analyzed using generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link. Post treatment AMI-SF measures provide the number of baseline items recalled after ECT; such number of items recalled variables were therefore modeled as arising from binomial distributions, with maximum number of possible recalls set to the number of items obtained at baseline."||0.85|0.51|0.001
84558597|NCT01907217|168870442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Regression, Linear|Analyzed using a generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link.||||0.78|0.45|0.001
84558598|NCT01907217|168870443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Regression, Linear|generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link||||0.79|0.45|0.001
84558599|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.002
84558600|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.014
84558601|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.246
84558602|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.103
84558603|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.004
84558604|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558605|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.012
84558606|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.024
84558607|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.009
84558608|NCT02440854|168870494|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.008
84558609|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.027
84558610|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.030
84558611|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.351
84558612|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.143
84558613|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.163
84558614|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
84558615|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
84558616|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.036
84558617|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.043
84558618|NCT02440854|168870495|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.040
84558619|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558620|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.003
84606124|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
84606125|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.2324
84670440|NCT00380393|169074391|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|73.9|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.9|37.1|<0.001
84670441|NCT03865329|169074414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84670442|NCT03865329|169074415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84670443|NCT03865329|169074417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84670444|NCT03865329|169074418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84558621|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558622|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558623|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558624|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558625|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558626|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558627|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558628|NCT02440854|168870496|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.163
84558629|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.003
84558630|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.009
84558631|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.012
84558632|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.332
84670445|NCT00526058|169074420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the Futura system to the Secura system would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two systems (Secura-Futura) in percent change of LDL-C measurements from pre- to post-treatment is less than the noninferiority margin 5.7%.||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84670446|NCT04920123|169074426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.997
84670447|NCT04920123|169074427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.500
84670448|NCT04920123|169074428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.821
84670449|NCT04920123|169074429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.995
84670450|NCT04920123|169074430|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher scores indicate more severe depression.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.076
84670451|NCT04920123|169074431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.432
84670452|NCT04920123|169074432|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.750
84670453|NCT00218296|169074436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.99|0.26|0.04
84670454|NCT00218296|169074437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.83|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.83|0.07|0.019
84670455|NCT00218296|169074438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.94|0.18|0.03
84670456|NCT00218296|169074439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|.002
84670457|NCT00218296|169074440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.03|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||1.03|0.20|0.056
84670458|NCT00218296|169074441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48||There were no adjustments in the analysis.|Chi-squared||The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|0.002
84670459|NCT02623803|169074442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1459|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1459
84670460|NCT02623803|169074443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2050
84670461|NCT02623803|169074444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3989
84494416|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.38
84494417|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.83
84494418|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.30
84494419|NCT01484691|168739391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.38
84494420|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.26
84494421|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.26
84494422|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.26
84747880|NCT04546789|169250127|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|3.29||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.29|1.98|
84747881|NCT04546789|169250128|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.39||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.39|0.86|
84494423|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.87
84747882|NCT04546789|169250128|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.87|3.14||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.14|1.87|
84494424|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.29
84494425|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.75
84558633|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.029
84747883|NCT04546789|169250129|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.08||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.08|0.45|
84747884|NCT04546789|169250129|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.5||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.50|0.30|
84494426|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.36
84494427|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.89
84494428|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.48
84494429|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.87
84494430|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.53
84494431|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.57
84494432|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.26
84494433|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.75
84494434|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.89
84494435|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.26
84494436|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.87
84558634|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
84558635|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.177
84747885|NCT04016558|169250135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.007
84747886|NCT04016558|169250136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.006
84747887|NCT04016558|169250137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.82
84747888|NCT04016558|169250138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
84747889|NCT04016558|169250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
84747890|NCT04016558|169250141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
84747891|NCT04016558|169250142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.39
84747892|NCT04016558|169250143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
84747893|NCT04118374|169250151|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.5|<0.01
84747894|NCT05227703|169250153|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
84747895|NCT05227703|169250153|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
84747896|NCT05227703|169250154|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
84747897|NCT05227703|169250154|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
84747898|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.5|-4.0|0.1167
84494437|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.74
84747899|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-2.1|0.9254
84747900|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.8|-3.3|0.8792
84747901|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.0|-2.0|0.5094
84747902|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-4.8|0.4487
84752738|NCT00733304|169260601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-0.46||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||-0.46|-7.13|
84752739|NCT00733304|169260601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.78||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||-0.78|-7.52|
84494438|NCT01484691|168739392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.36
84558636|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.436
84670462|NCT02623803|169074445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5285
84747903|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.6|-2.2|0.4852
84747904|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||3.1|-4.2|0.7593
84747905|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.3|-2.8|0.6792
84747906|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.4|-5.9|0.3983
84747907|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||5.9|-2.3|0.3859
84747908|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
84747909|NCT05227703|169250155|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
84747910|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.02|-0.27|0.0865
84747911|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.9921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.14|0.9921
84747912|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.18|0.9720
84747913|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.21|-0.14|0.6621
84747914|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.3617
84558637|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.302
84558638|NCT02440854|168870497|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.291
84494439|NCT03457701|168739429|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference.|0.02||||0.9971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis was based on a mixed effects model fitted with fixed effect terms for treatment, period, and iron isotope type and a random participant effect.|The null hypotheses is defined as the difference in fractional iron absorption between treatment arms (Daprodustat - rhEPO \[i.e., epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa\]) is equal to zero.||10.16|-10.13|0.9971
84494440|NCT03039699|168739463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84747915|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.13|0.5456
84747916|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.24|0.8459
84747917|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.30|-0.12|0.3922
84747918|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.37|0.2915
84752740|NCT00733304|169260601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.53||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||0.53|-7.53|
84558639|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558640|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558641|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84752741|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|42.29||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||For Month 1 versus Screening visit||42.29|-25.72|
84752742|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|33.31||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||33.31|-35.73|
84752743|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|30.86||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||30.86|-41.08|
84752744|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|28.0||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||28.00|-47.83|
84752745|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|40.33||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||40.33|-35.50|
84494441|NCT03039699|168739464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
84494442|NCT03039699|168739464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
84494443|NCT03039699|168739464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5569||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.5569
84494444|NCT03039699|168739465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
84558642|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84752746|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.931|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|51.2||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 1 versus Screening visit||51.20|-33.09|
84752747|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|41.57||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||41.57|-44.05|
84494445|NCT03039699|168739465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
84558643|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84747919|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.33|-0.14|0.4425
84747920|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
84747921|NCT05227703|169250156|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
84747922|NCT05227703|169250157|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.33|0.68|0.4597
84747923|NCT05227703|169250157|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.16|0.28|0.1205
84747924|NCT05227703|169250164|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0493
84747925|NCT05227703|169250164|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0226
84747926|NCT05227703|169250164|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.6845
84747927|NCT05227703|169250164|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8950
84558644|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558645|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558646|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558647|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.002
84558648|NCT02440854|168870498|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
84558649|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558650|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84494446|NCT03039699|168739465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.1998
84494447|NCT03039699|168739466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
84558651|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558652|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84747928|NCT05227703|169250165|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.5073
84747929|NCT05227703|169250165|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.4650
84747930|NCT05227703|169250165|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.0672
84558653|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558654|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84747931|NCT05227703|169250165|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8030
84747932|NCT05227703|169250166|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8259
84747933|NCT05227703|169250166|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.5936
84494448|NCT03039699|168739467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of total CDS score from 24 hours to 48 and 72 hours of treatment between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
84558655|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558656|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558657|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.003
84558658|NCT02440854|168870499|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
84558659|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558660|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558661|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558662|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558663|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558664|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558665|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84494449|NCT03039699|168739468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0044
84494450|NCT03039699|168739469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 3 comparison||||0.5488
84494451|NCT03039699|168739469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 4 comparison||||0.8140
84558666|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558667|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558668|NCT02440854|168870500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558669|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558670|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558671|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558672|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558673|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558674|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558675|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558676|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558677|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558678|NCT02440854|168870501|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.002
84558679|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.022
84558680|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558681|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.004
84558682|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.032
84558683|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.066
84558684|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.042
84558685|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.045
84558686|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.014
84558687|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.015
84558688|NCT02440854|168870502|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.462
84747934|NCT05227703|169250166|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.0253
84747935|NCT05227703|169250166|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.2710
84747936|NCT03464097|169250167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.55|0.99|0.0539
84747937|NCT03464097|169250168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.65|0.86|0.1503
84747938|NCT03464097|169250169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.92|0.1121
84747939|NCT03464097|169250170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.91|0.1163
84747940|NCT03464097|169250171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.98|0.0561
84747941|NCT03464097|169250172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.86|0.60|0.5061
84747942|NCT03464097|169250173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.44|0.82|0.1179
84747943|NCT03464097|169250174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.94|0.0769
84558689|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558690|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.004
84747944|NCT03464097|169250175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.98|0.92|0.0623
84558691|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.008
84558692|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.315
84558693|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.237
84558694|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
84558695|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.002
84747945|NCT03464097|169250176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.00|0.89|0.1162
84747946|NCT03464097|169250177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.85|0.2143
84747947|NCT03464097|169250178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|0.97|0.0663
84747948|NCT03464097|169250179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.64|0.78|0.0774
84747949|NCT03464097|169250181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.33|1.06|0.0308
84747950|NCT03464097|169250182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.95|0.57|0.8745
84747951|NCT03464097|169250183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.04|0.0361
84747952|NCT03035201|169250184|OTHER|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean from linear contrast|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Not adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||Marginal effect of cocoa flavonal versus cocoa placebo based on the mean difference between linear contrasts.|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol.|0.08|-0.02|<0.05
84747953|NCT03035201|169250185|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean difference of linear contrasts|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Not adjusted|Wald test||Marginal effects of multivitamin versus multivitamin placebo|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol|0.12|0.02|<0.05
84747954|NCT03035201|169250186|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional hazards regression -- unadjusted two-sided test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.11||Not adjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo|||1.11|0.52|0.15
84747955|NCT03035201|169250187|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted 2-sided test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo.|||1.32|0.63|0.62
84747956|NCT03035201|169250188|EQUIVALENCE|Cocoa Flavonal minus Placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test comparing linear contrasts|Cocoa Flavonal minus placebo|||0.08|-0.02|0.24
84747957|NCT03035201|169250189|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts: cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Unadjusted 2-tailed test||0.09|-0.04|0.41
84747958|NCT03035201|169250190|EQUIVALENCE|2 sided test, multivitamin minus placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|2-sided test, unadjusted||0.11|0.01|0.02
84747959|NCT03035201|169250191|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided, unadjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.126||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|Multivitamin minus placebo||0.126|0.002|0.04
84558696|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.004
84558697|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.010
84606126|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.6523
84747960|NCT02390050|169250192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
84747961|NCT02390050|169250192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
84747962|NCT02390050|169250192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
84747963|NCT02390050|169250193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 5 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.3|0.8|0.1308
84747964|NCT02390050|169250193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 10 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.1|0.8|0.1294
84747965|NCT02390050|169250193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 20 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||10.3|1.7|0.0015
84747966|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.36||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-1.13|
84747967|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.38|-1.15|
84494452|NCT03039699|168739469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 6 comparison||||0.1248
84606127|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
84558698|NCT02440854|168870503|OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.683
84558699|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.062
84558700|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.062
84558701|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.027
84558702|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.170
84558703|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.271
84670463|NCT02623803|169074446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0697|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0697
84747968|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.61||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.61|-1.38|
84747969|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.52|-1.53|
84747970|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.94||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.94|-1.95|
84747971|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.01||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.01|-2.01|
84747972|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.76||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.76|-2.12|< 0.0001
84747973|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.91||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.91|-2.26|< 0.0001
84747974|NCT02390050|169250194|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.08||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.08|-2.43|< 0.0001
84670464|NCT02623803|169074447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1029
84670465|NCT02623803|169074448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3136
84670466|NCT02623803|169074449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2196
84670467|NCT02623803|169074450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3057
84670468|NCT02623803|169074451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
84670469|NCT02623803|169074452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5314
84670470|NCT02623803|169074453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3166
84670471|NCT02623803|169074454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
84670472|NCT02623803|169074455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9171
84670473|NCT02623803|169074456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4194
84670474|NCT02623803|169074457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
84670475|NCT02623803|169074458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5107
84670476|NCT02623803|169074459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8339
84670477|NCT02623803|169074460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8927
84670478|NCT00278954|169074490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SABI per subject per year|0.0||||0.01||99.0|0.0|0.101|||Poisson regression with log link||Mean SABI rate = 0 per subject per year. 1-sided 99% upper confidence bound could not be calculated.|The estimated serious acute bacterial infection (SABI) rate was calculated by dividing no. of infections by no.of subject years. The exponential of the upper limit of the 98% 2-sided Confidence Interval (CI) gave the upper, 1-sided, 99% confidence bound, estimated using Poisson regression. The equivalent upper bound per subject year was obtained by dividing this figure by total subject years.||0.101|0|0.01
84670479|NCT04452331|169074495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for clinical site||Diastolic BP||||0.06
84670480|NCT04452331|169074495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.90
84670481|NCT04452331|169074497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
84670482|NCT04452331|169074498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.10
84670483|NCT04452331|169074499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.44
84670484|NCT04452331|169074500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
84670485|NCT04452331|169074501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
84670486|NCT04452331|169074502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.54
84670487|NCT04452331|169074503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.74
84670488|NCT04452331|169074504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
84670489|NCT04452331|169074504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84670490|NCT04452331|169074505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||<0.001
84670491|NCT04452331|169074505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.03
84670492|NCT04452331|169074506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||<0.001
84670493|NCT04452331|169074506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||0.08
84670494|NCT04452331|169074507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||<.001
84670495|NCT04452331|169074507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||0.98
84670496|NCT04452331|169074508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.20
84670497|NCT04452331|169074508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.82
84670498|NCT04452331|169074508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.12
84670499|NCT04452331|169074508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.10
84670500|NCT03760796|169074510|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||0.88|0.26|0.018
84670501|NCT03760796|169074511|OTHER|A Markov Model of cost-effectiveness, based on 30-day readmission rates, was built to assess the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of adopting the Corrie Platform compared to standard of care for post AMI patients; taking into account the estimated cost of Corrie ($2,750 per patient for a 1-year use term). The reported value is a ratio of the relative cost of intervention compared to the standard of care divided by the change in the outcome, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).|Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A negative ICER means the intervention cost is lower than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive. A positive ICER means the intervention cost is greater than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive.|||||
84670502|NCT03760796|169074525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.98||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||2.98|0.69|0.33
84670503|NCT02211131|169074534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.96||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.96|0.58|0.070
84670504|NCT02211131|169074535|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.97||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.97|0.60|0.092
84494453|NCT03039699|168739469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 10 comparison||||0.3889
84494454|NCT03039699|168739470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3593
84494455|NCT00422227|168739480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84494456|NCT00422227|168739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 20||||<0.001
84494457|NCT00422227|168739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 50||||<0.001
84494458|NCT00422227|168739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 70||||0.009
84494459|NCT00422227|168739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Low Disease (DAS28 \<3.2)||||<0.001
84494460|NCT00422227|168739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Remission (DAS28 \<2.6)||||0.069
84494461|NCT00422227|168739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84558704|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.002
84670505|NCT02211131|169074537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|15.3||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||An 80% approximate exact CI for between-arm differences in binary rate is calculated using Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||15.3|-6.9|0.594
84670506|NCT02211131|169074538|OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.4|21.6||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||80% exact CI for binary rate of each arm is calculated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||21.6|7.4|0.003
84670507|NCT02211131|169074543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.81||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.81|0.36|0.050
84494462|NCT00422227|168739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84747975|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.06|-0.90|
84494463|NCT00422227|168739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥0.6||||0.003
84494464|NCT00422227|168739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥1.2||||0.001
84494465|NCT00422227|168739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Painful Joints at Week 16||||0.014
84494466|NCT00422227|168739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joints at Week 16||||<0.001
84494467|NCT00422227|168739487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Physician Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
84494468|NCT00422227|168739487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Subject Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
84494469|NCT00422227|168739488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.001
84494470|NCT00422227|168739489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||General Health Week 16||||<0.001
84494471|NCT00422227|168739489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Pain Week 16||||<0.001
84494472|NCT00422227|168739489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Fatigue Week 16||||0.001
84494473|NCT01790633|168739502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||We approached our analysis as a pilot study with the aim of addressing feasibility. 70% of patients seen at the MDM clinic obtain a test result with standard serology. Assuming a 20% increase in infection awareness and type 1 error of 0.05, and power of at least 0.9, a minimum of 82 participants per group would be needed.||||<0.001
84494474|NCT01790633|168739503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84494475|NCT02544607|168739506|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84494476|NCT02544607|168739507|OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
84494477|NCT02544607|168739508|OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84494478|NCT02544607|168739509|OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0499
84494479|NCT02544607|168739510|OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84494480|NCT00594568|168739513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
84494481|NCT00594568|168739513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
84494482|NCT00594568|168739513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
84494483|NCT00594568|168739514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
84494484|NCT00594568|168739514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
84494485|NCT00594568|168739514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.746
84494486|NCT00594568|168739515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
84494487|NCT00594568|168739515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84494488|NCT00594568|168739515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84494489|NCT00594568|168739516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
84494490|NCT00594568|168739516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
84494491|NCT00594568|168739516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
84494492|NCT00594568|168739517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84494493|NCT00594568|168739517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84494494|NCT00594568|168739517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84558705|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
84558706|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.157
84558707|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.064
84747976|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.48||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.31|
84606128|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
84747977|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.62||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.62|-1.45|
84747978|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.48||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.39|
84747979|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.72||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.72|-1.62|
84747980|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.65||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.65|-1.55|
84747981|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.41||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.41|-1.29|0.0002
84494495|NCT00594568|168739518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84747982|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.6||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.60|-1.49|< 0.0001
84747983|NCT02390050|169250195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.63||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.63|-1.52|< 0.0001
84747984|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.51||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||3.51|-3.90|
84747985|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.28||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.28|-6.09|
84747986|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.58||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.58|-7.93|
84494496|NCT00594568|168739518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
84494497|NCT00594568|168739518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
84494498|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
84747987|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.13||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.13|-2.50|
84494499|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
84494500|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84494501|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.347
84494502|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.820
84494503|NCT00594568|168739519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
84494504|NCT00594568|168739520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
84494505|NCT00594568|168739520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.931
84494506|NCT00594568|168739520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.718
84494507|NCT00594568|168739521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.634
84494508|NCT00594568|168739521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.901
84494509|NCT00594568|168739521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.659
84747988|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.56||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.56|-4.03|
84747989|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.14||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.14|-4.45|
84747990|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.9||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.90|-4.57|
84747991|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|0.34||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.34|-7.12|
84747992|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.2||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.20|-6.21|
84747993|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.66||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.66|-2.15|
84747994|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.38||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.38|-3.42|
84747995|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.54||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.54|-3.22|
84747996|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.16||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|1.94||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||1.94|-6.26|0.3001
84747997|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.41||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-0.33||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.33|-8.49|0.0343
84747998|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.83||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28|||ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.28|-7.95|0.0679
84747999|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.25||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.25|-4.73|0.0776
84748000|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.47||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|1.0||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.00|-3.95|0.2415
84748001|NCT02390050|169250196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.04||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.46||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.46|-4.54|0.1086
84748002|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.03|-0.20|
84748003|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
84748004|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
84748005|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.28||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.28|-0.62|
84748006|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.32||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.32|-0.66|
84494510|NCT00594568|168739524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
84558708|NCT02440854|168870504|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.439
84748007|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-0.70|
84748008|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
84748009|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
84494511|NCT00594568|168739524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84494512|NCT00594568|168739524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.669
84494513|NCT00594568|168739525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
84494514|NCT00594568|168739525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84558709|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.388
84558710|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
84558711|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
84558712|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558713|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.508
84558714|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84748010|NCT02390050|169250197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
84494515|NCT00594568|168739525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
84494516|NCT00594568|168739526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
84494517|NCT00594568|168739526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84494518|NCT00594568|168739526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.072
84494519|NCT00594568|168739527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
84494520|NCT00594568|168739527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84494521|NCT00594568|168739527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
84494522|NCT00594568|168739528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
84494523|NCT00594568|168739528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84494524|NCT00594568|168739528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
84494525|NCT00594568|168739529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84558715|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84494526|NCT00594568|168739529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84494527|NCT00594568|168739529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
84494528|NCT00594568|168739530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
84494529|NCT00594568|168739530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84494530|NCT00594568|168739530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
84494531|NCT00594568|168739531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
84494532|NCT00594568|168739531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
84494533|NCT00594568|168739531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
84494534|NCT00594568|168739532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
84494535|NCT00594568|168739532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
84494536|NCT00594568|168739532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
84494537|NCT04311411|168739583|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-534.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-668.2|-400.02|||ANCOVA|||||-400.02|-668.20|<.0001
84494538|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0439||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0994|0.1871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.1871|-0.0994|0.5437
84494539|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0441|0.2301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.2301|-0.0441|0.1806
84494540|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0491||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1846|0.0863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.0863|-0.1846|0.4720
84494541|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1079|0.1058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1058|-0.1079|0.9842
84494542|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0077||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1102|-0.0949|0.8822
84494543|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0087||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1111|0.0937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.0937|-0.1111|0.8657
84494544|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0043||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1736|-0.1650|0.9599
84494545|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0489||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1129|0.2107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.2107|-0.1129|0.5490
84494546|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0446||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.1176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1176|-0.2068|0.5854
84494547|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192||||0.7203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1259|0.0874|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0874|-0.1259|0.7203
84494548|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0404||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0617|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.1425|-0.0617|0.4330
84494549|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0596||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1619|0.0426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0426|-0.1619|0.2488
84494550|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1059|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0919|-0.1059|0.8886
84494551|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0684||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|0.1635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.1635|-0.0267|0.1563
84494552|NCT04311411|168739584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0754||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1704|0.0196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0196|-0.1704|0.1182
84494553|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.11|29.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||29.02|12.11|<.0001
84494554|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.63||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|14.79||Fasting|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||14.79|-1.53|0.1097
84558716|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558717|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558718|NCT02440854|168870505|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84494555|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|22.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||22.38|5.49|0.0015
84494556|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||8.09|-3.60|0.4469
84494557|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||6.31|-5.02|0.8227
84494558|NCT04311411|168739585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|7.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||7.45|-4.23|0.5861
84494559|NCT01982942|168739625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that the BPF rates of change in the treatment and placebo groups are equal, which can be evaluated based on as assessment of parameter estimates from a linear mixed model (LMM).||||0.04
84494560|NCT01151085|168739638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.030
84494561|NCT01151085|168739639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity of infections. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among mild, moderate and severe in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84606129|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
84748011|NCT00112047|169250199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming 70% response rate for each group at Week 48, 500 participants (250 per group) were sufficient to achieve at least 85% power to establish non-inferiority between the 2 study groups with a delta of 13%. The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||18.6|4.3|0.002
84748012|NCT00112047|169250200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|9.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||16.6|1.6|0.021
84494562|NCT01151085|168739640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past History in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.017
84494563|NCT01151085|168739641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for Risk Factors for the Proportion of Responders to Voriconazole treatment -Severity of infections.||||<0.001
84494564|NCT03413618|168739654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84494565|NCT03413618|168739655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
84494566|NCT03413618|168739657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84494567|NCT03413618|168739658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84494568|NCT03413618|168739660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84494569|NCT03413618|168739661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84494570|NCT04196023|168739683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||p-value was calculated using GLM. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|adjusted for age, sex, education and baseline overall MoCA score||||||0.20
84494571|NCT04196023|168739684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.90
84494572|NCT04196023|168739685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.01
84494573|NCT04196023|168739686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model and false discovery rate (FDR)-adjustment. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.05
84494574|NCT00489411|168739687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.20|0.26|0.003
84494575|NCT00489411|168739688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||||||||7.88|0.93|
84494576|NCT00489411|168739689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.00|0.15|0.03
84748013|NCT00112047|169250201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||18.6|3.7|0.004
84748014|NCT00112047|169250202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||15.6|0.1|0.058
84494577|NCT00489411|168739690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
84494578|NCT03841331|168739709|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.4||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used|At Week 10||11.1|-13.9|0.5861
84494579|NCT03841331|168739710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||8.7|-10.1|0.5651
84494580|NCT03841331|168739710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-4.1||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4|95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|6.7|-14.8|0.7769
84748015|NCT00112047|169250203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.003
84748016|NCT00112047|169250204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.046
84748017|NCT00112047|169250205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.026
84748018|NCT00112047|169250206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||||0.063
84494581|NCT03841331|168739710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|2.8||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||14.8|-9.1|0.3285
84494582|NCT03841331|168739710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.3||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.8|-14.4|0.6525
84558719|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558720|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558721|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558722|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558723|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558724|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558725|NCT02440854|168870506|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84494583|NCT03841331|168739711|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.0||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||5.7|-5.6|0.4952
84494584|NCT03841331|168739711|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.2||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 4||12.7|-2.3|0.0891
84494585|NCT03841331|168739711|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-4.2||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||3.7|-12.1|0.8447
84558726|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
84558727|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558728|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.607
84558729|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
84558730|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558731|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.453
84558732|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.688
84558733|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558734|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.250
84558735|NCT02440854|168870507|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558736|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
84558737|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||<0.001
84558738|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
84748019|NCT00112047|169250207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum-weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.06|-0.16|0.31
84748020|NCT00112047|169250208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|31.74||||0.002||95.0|8.96|54.52||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||54.52|8.96|0.002
84748021|NCT00112047|169250209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|21.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.1|4.3|0.004
84494586|NCT03841331|168739711|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.0||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.4|-7.5|0.4174
84558739|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.344
84558740|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.146
84558741|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.180
84558742|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.289
84558743|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.125
84558744|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558745|NCT02440854|168870508|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.500
84494587|NCT03841331|168739711|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.7||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 10||11.2|-5.8|0.2756
84558746|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.210
84558747|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.263
84558748|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558749|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558750|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.629
84558751|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558752|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558753|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558754|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558755|NCT02440854|168870509|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
84558756|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.098
84558757|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.359
84558758|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.393
84558759|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.055
84494588|NCT03841331|168739712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||0.57|-0.49|0.4409
84558760|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.124
84748022|NCT00112047|169250210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||15.0|-2.3|0.158
84748023|NCT00112047|169250211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Ther percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
84748024|NCT00112047|169250212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.124
84748025|NCT00112047|169250213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.025
84748026|NCT00112047|169250214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.41
84748027|NCT00112047|169250215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|-0.05||||0.45||95.0|-0.17|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 96 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.17|0.45
84748028|NCT00112047|169250216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|32.93||||0.036||95.0|0.87|64.99||The change from baseline to Week 96 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||64.99|0.87|0.036
84748029|NCT00112047|169250217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are not equal||||<0.001
84748030|NCT00112047|169250218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.025
84752748|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|59.06||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||59.06|-28.28|
84494589|NCT03841331|168739712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.57||At week 4|ANOVA|||At Week 4||0.57|-0.65|0.5496
84494590|NCT03841331|168739712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.55|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||0.55|-0.78|0.6311
84494591|NCT03841331|168739712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4738||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.69|||ANOVA|||At Week 8||0.69|-0.65|0.02
84558761|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.376
84558762|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.033
84494592|NCT03841331|168739712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.78|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||0.78|-0.60|0.3948
84558763|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.048
84748031|NCT00112047|169250219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
84748032|NCT00112047|169250220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|21.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.6|4.2|0.004
84748033|NCT00112047|169250221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|17.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||17.0|-0.8|0.082
84748034|NCT00112047|169250222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|11.6||||0.009||95.0|3.1|20.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||20.1|3.1|0.009
84748035|NCT00112047|169250223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|19.0||The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||19.0|1.8|0.019
84748036|NCT00112047|169250224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of loss of virological response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
84748037|NCT00112047|169250225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.056
84748038|NCT00112047|169250226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.066
84494593|NCT03841331|168739714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|9.87|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||9.87|-4.98|0.2440
84494594|NCT03841331|168739714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.65|||ANOVA|||At Week 4||6.65|-9.20|0.6349
84558764|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.071
84558765|NCT02440854|168870510|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.848
84748039|NCT00112047|169250227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.30
84494595|NCT03841331|168739714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3407||||1.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.23|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||10.23|-6.40|1.91
84558766|NCT02243046|168870523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.091
84748040|NCT00112047|169250228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 144 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.16|0.39
84748041|NCT00112047|169250229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.3||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|78.55||The change from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline toWeek 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||78.55|4.05|0.089
84748042|NCT00112047|169250230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.001
84748043|NCT00112047|169250231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.011
84748044|NCT00112047|169250232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
84748045|NCT00112047|169250242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.16
84748046|NCT00112047|169250243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.049
84748047|NCT00112047|169250244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.055
84558767|NCT02243046|168870524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84558768|NCT02243046|168870525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
84748048|NCT00112047|169250245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||<0.001
84494596|NCT03841331|168739714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|8.97|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||8.97|-8.52|0.4960
84494597|NCT04640168|168739719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.909
84494598|NCT04640168|168739736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.4||||||||13.4|1.8|
84494599|NCT04640168|168739737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5||||||||5.5|-4.3|
84558769|NCT02243046|168870526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.571
84558770|NCT02243046|168870527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
84558771|NCT02243046|168870528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
84748049|NCT00112047|169250246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.12
84494600|NCT04640168|168739755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
84494601|NCT04640168|168739756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
84494602|NCT04640168|168739757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
84494603|NCT04640168|168739758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
84494604|NCT04640168|168739759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
84494605|NCT01683565|168739820|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size was determined based on the goal of confirming trial feasibility and estimating effect sizes for a full-scale trial, not for a definitive test of efficacy. The enrollment goal was 40, which would have provided an indication of an expected effect size for a larger full-scale trial (e.g., 53% power to detect a 2-point decrease (approximately 0.7-SD based on a prior study) in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II score). Funding limitations capped enrollment at 31.||||0.67
84494606|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Competence scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.22
84494607|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in the BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Problem scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.92
84494608|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Dysregulation scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.88
84494609|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Externalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.23
84494610|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Internalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.91
84748050|NCT00112047|169250247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.037
84494611|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Austism Spectrum Disorder scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.03
84494612|NCT01683565|168739821|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Red Flag scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
84748051|NCT00112047|169250248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.013
84494613|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.31||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (10:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.31
84748052|NCT00112047|169250249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (bothers, does not bother) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.70
84748053|NCT00112047|169250250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.95
84748054|NCT00112047|169250251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.23
84748055|NCT03727438|169250252|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||alpha=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model parameters included a common intercept (baseline means constrained to be equal), stratification variables, timepoint, and arm by timepoint.||"Analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. All available data, including observations from participants who dropped out of the study, were used for primary and secondary analyses. Our modeling estimation approach was conducted with full-likelihood methods, providing unbiased treatment effect estimates under a missing-data framework known as missing at random (MAR)."||-2.4|-5.0|<0.01
84748056|NCT03727438|169250253|EQUIVALENCE|alpha= .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.5||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-26.7|<0.01
84748057|NCT03727438|169250254|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-12.0||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-29.1|<0.01
84748058|NCT03727438|169250255|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|alpha = 0.05||||14.3|7.7|<0.01
84748059|NCT03727438|169250256|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.1||Alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-12.5|> 0.05
84748060|NCT03727438|169250257|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||alpha =.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5|-.4|>0.05
84748061|NCT03727438|169250258|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.2|<0.05
84558772|NCT03539484|168870578|OTHER|A Bayesian approach is used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).|Posterior probability at dose 1.8 mg|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.5||There is no p-value derived; logistic regression is used to estimate the probability of DLT.|Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|2.10|
84748062|NCT02491632|169250325|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84748063|NCT02491632|169250325|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
84748064|NCT02491632|169250325|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84748065|NCT02491632|169250325|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
84748066|NCT02491632|169250326|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.003
84748067|NCT02491632|169250326|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
84748068|NCT02491632|169250326|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84748069|NCT02491632|169250326|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
84748070|NCT02491632|169250327|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84494614|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.47||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (12:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.47
84748071|NCT02491632|169250327|OTHER||||||<|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.065
84748072|NCT02491632|169250327|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84748073|NCT02491632|169250327|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
84748074|NCT02491632|169250328|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
84748075|NCT02491632|169250328|OTHER||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.30
84748076|NCT02491632|169250328|OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.19
84748077|NCT02491632|169250328|OTHER||||||=|0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.27
84748078|NCT01912456|169250331|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84748079|NCT01912456|169250331|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84748080|NCT01912456|169250331|OTHER||||||=|0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.114
84748081|NCT01912456|169250332|OTHER||difference in percentages of responder|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.7||||||||29.7|-2.8|
84748082|NCT01912456|169250333|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84748083|NCT01912456|169250333|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.018
84748084|NCT01912456|169250333|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.31
84748085|NCT03442985|169250338|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.109||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|7.638||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg versus (vs) Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.638|0.583|0.2556
84748086|NCT03442985|169250338|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.04||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|15.373||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||15.373|0.601|0.1788
84748087|NCT03442985|169250338|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.441||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|7.234||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.234|0.287|0.6570
84748088|NCT03442985|169250339|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4412.6||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15257.3|6432.1||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6432.1|-15257.3|0.4252
84748089|NCT03442985|169250339|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4640.9||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15570.8|6289.0||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6289.0|-15570.8|0.4053
84748090|NCT03442985|169250339|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-228.3||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11265.0|10808.4||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testings due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||10808.4|-11265.0|0.9677
84748091|NCT03442985|169250340|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.643||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|2.335|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.335|0.177|0.5025
84748092|NCT03442985|169250340|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.175|0.128|0.3763
84748093|NCT03442985|169250340|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|3.123|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||3.123|0.215|0.7714
84558773|NCT00571103|168870599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Slope|-0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Linear mixed effects|||||1|-1|0.05
84606130|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
84748094|NCT03442985|169250341|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.451||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.451|0.623|0.8155
84748095|NCT03442985|169250341|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.699||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.699|0.592|0.9918
84748096|NCT03442985|169250341|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.055||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.589||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.589|0.700|0.7997
84748097|NCT03442985|169250342|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.548||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|3.108||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||3.108|0.772|0.2186
84748098|NCT03442985|169250342|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.655||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|4.052||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||4.052|0.676|0.2700
84752749|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|27.63||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||27.63|-61.28|
84494615|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.38||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (14:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.38
84748099|NCT03442985|169250342|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|2.178||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||2.178|0.524|0.8546
84748100|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.14||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg versus (vs) placebo, centrally read||0.140|0.019|0.0213
84748101|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.056|0.199||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.199|0.056|0.0025
84748102|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.048|0.188||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.188|0.048|0.0040
84748103|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.064||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.064|-0.012|0.1803
84748104|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.159||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.159|0.002|0.0582
84748105|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.178||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.083|0.272||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.272|0.083|0.0014
84748106|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.122||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.036|0.208||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.208|0.036|0.0125
84748107|NCT01620255|169250354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.142|-0.009|0.0927
84748108|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.037|0.214||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.214|-0.037|0.1379
84748109|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.254||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.121|0.388||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.388|0.121|0.0011
84748110|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.163||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.032|0.293||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.293|0.032|0.0239
84748111|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.213||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.347|0.080|0.0052
84494616|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
84606131|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
84748112|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.075|0.2617
84494617|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.16||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:1n-7 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.16
84748113|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.212||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.347|0.077|0.0058
84748114|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.156||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.29||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.290|0.022|0.0326
84558774|NCT00564278|168870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GEE model Beta|17.46||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|51.53||All analyses presented are at 9 months.|t-test, 2 sided|t(193) = -1.14, p=.26||"We also conducted an analysis using a Generalized Estimating Equations model adjusting for a number of covariates.~We will conduct a three-part regression analysis assessing early/middle/late effects of MPT on retention. We will also conduct moderator analyses, as described in the original study grant, to determine whether there are specific patient groups for whom a significant difference in days in treatment is found."||51.53|-16.61|0.26
84558775|NCT00564278|168870604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.01||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean depressive symptoms over follow-up.|||1.01|-1.57|
84558776|NCT00564278|168870605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Work - Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.95||See under Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline work-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the work domain over follow-up.|||0.95|-0.50|
84558777|NCT00564278|168870605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Social-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.92||See under Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline social-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the social domain over follow-up.|||0.92|-0.49|
84558778|NCT00564278|168870605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Family-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.18||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline family-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the family domain over follow-up.|||1.18|-0.08|
84558779|NCT00564278|168870606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.64||See Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline QOL score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean percent of quality of life over follow-up.|||3.64|-3.61|
84558780|NCT00564278|168870607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline patient satisfaction and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean patient satisfaction over follow-up.|||0.66|-0.74|
84558781|NCT00564278|168870608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.57||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician to model the effect of MPT vs. SADT on the mean proportion of fully adherent days over the study period. We used an exchangeable covariance structure.|||15.57|2.71|
84558782|NCT00560703|168870609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation for this endpoint was driven by the assumptions made for the OSDI analysis||||||0.578||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
84558783|NCT00560703|168870610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that the difference between the treatment groups in mean reduction from baseline in OSDI scores will be approximately 7 points. A pooled standard deviation of 9.0 for the mean change from baseline OSDI score is expected. Under those assumptions a total of approximately 63 evaluable patients (42 COL-101 patients and 21 placebo patients) is sufficient to provide 80% power. The planned enrolment should provide enough evaluable patients to meet these assumptions.||||0.293
84558784|NCT04278924|168870625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.59|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|73.35|||Barnard's test||95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.35|0.81|=0.056
84748115|NCT01620255|169250355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.185||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.32||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.320|0.050|0.0145
84748116|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.081||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.162||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.162|0.000|0.0618
84558785|NCT04278924|168870625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.42|||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|71.38|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.38|-4.24|=0.088
84558786|NCT04278924|168870625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.83|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.21|87.29|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||87.29|29.21|=0.001
84558787|NCT04278924|168870626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.56|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.11|81.51|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||81.51|25.11|=0.001
84558788|NCT04278924|168870626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|78.95|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.95|19.63|=0.004
84494618|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
84494619|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:1n-9 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
84494620|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.21||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:2n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.21
84494621|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.34||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.34
84494622|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.24||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.24
84494623|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.5||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:4n-3 nmol/mL ) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.50
84494624|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.07||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
84494625|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:4n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
84494626|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
84558789|NCT04278924|168870626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|94.99|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||94.99|51.24|<0.001
84558790|NCT04278924|168870627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.9|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|67.75|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||67.75|-7.22|=0.120
84670508|NCT05664490|169074549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 12|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.22|0.64|0.44
84748117|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.187||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.284||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.284|0.091|0.0009
84494627|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.71||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.71
84494628|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:6n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
84494629|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (Total Omega-6) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
84494630|NCT01683565|168739822|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (total omega-3) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
84558791|NCT04278924|168870627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.23|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|73.77|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.77|-0.83|=0.060
84558792|NCT04278924|168870627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.14|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|82.42|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||82.42|21.33|=0.003
84558793|NCT04278924|168870628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0|||=|0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|78.17|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.17|-16.28|=0.187
84748118|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.159||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.25||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.250|0.068|0.0027
84494631|NCT04957979|168739840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||0.1|-4.1|0.19
84494632|NCT04957979|168739840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||-1.0|-5.6|0.005
84558794|NCT04278924|168870628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||=|0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|71.78|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.78|-28.85|=0.315
84748119|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.013|0.151||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.151|-0.013|0.0999
84748120|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.111|0.114||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.114|-0.111|0.5225
84748121|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.154||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.278||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.278|0.030|0.0246
84748122|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.253||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.253|0.008|0.0464
84748123|NCT01620255|169250356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.053|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.053|0.2000
84748124|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.88||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.623|-0.145|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.145|-1.623|0.0494
84748125|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.254|-0.809|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.809|-2.254|0.0005
84748126|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.12||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.845|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.390|-1.845|0.0117
84748127|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.27||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.016|-0.533|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.533|-2.016|0.0049
84748128|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.94||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.737|-0.137|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.137|-1.737|0.0543
84748129|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.372|-0.819|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.819|-2.372|0.0008
84748130|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.07||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.858|-0.284|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.284|-1.858|0.0255
84748131|NCT01620255|169250358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.29||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|-0.493|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.493|-2.082|0.0079
84748132|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed Model (LMM) with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.001|-0.511|0.1016
84748133|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.030|-0.529|0.0654
84558795|NCT04278924|168870628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|100.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|100.0|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||100.00|35.12|=0.004
84558796|NCT04847232|168870629|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.26|0.76|0.867
84558797|NCT04847232|168870630|OTHER|Test of OR = 1|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.26|||Regression, Logistic||SZC relative to Placebo|||4.26|2.64|<.0001
84558798|NCT04847232|168870631|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.56|0.80|0.510
84558799|NCT05600036|168870670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
84558800|NCT05600036|168870670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84558801|NCT05600036|168870670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84558802|NCT05600036|168870670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84748134|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.031|-0.472|0.1500
84748135|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.129|-0.637|0.0132
84748136|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.3||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|-0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.046|-0.555|0.0526
84748137|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.31||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.554|-0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.058|-0.554|0.0422
84748138|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.137|-0.637|0.0110
84748139|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.755|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.254|-0.755|0.0010
84558803|NCT05600036|168870670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84558804|NCT06010732|168870674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.4||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||5.4|-5.5|0.986
84558805|NCT06010732|168870674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.6|21.7|<0.001
84558806|NCT06010732|168870674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.7||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.7|21.7|<0.001
84606132|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
84748140|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.038|-0.475|0.1611
84748141|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.36||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.608|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.108|-0.608|0.0186
84748142|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.039|-0.465|0.1647
84494633|NCT04957979|168739841|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.58|1.04|0.02
84494634|NCT04957979|168739841|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.38|0.868|0.45
84494635|NCT04957979|168739842|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.69||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.69|1.08|0.01
84494636|NCT04957979|168739842|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.81|0.969|0.08
84494637|NCT04957979|168739843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||0.81|0.51|0.0001
84494638|NCT04957979|168739843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.72|0.84|0.32
84494639|NCT04957979|168739844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.05|0.69|0.14
84494640|NCT04957979|168739844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.08|0.51|0.12
84558807|NCT06010732|168870675|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(EFU)||1.32|0.93|0.230
84748143|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.35||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.607|-0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.097|-0.607|0.0231
84748144|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.658|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.260|-0.658|0.0002
84748145|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.322|-0.710|<0.0001
84748146|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.686|-0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.295|-0.686|<0.0001
84748147|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.587|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.192|-0.587|0.0012
84494641|NCT04957979|168739845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|4.861||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.861|0.243|0.914
84494642|NCT04957979|168739845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.114||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||3.114|0.327|0.987
84494643|NCT04957979|168739846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.79||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.79|0.883|0.204
84494644|NCT04957979|168739846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.399||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.958|0.166|0.04
84494645|NCT04957979|168739847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.939||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.939|0.814|0.302
84494646|NCT04957979|168739847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.092||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.092|0.647|0.192
84494647|NCT04957979|168739848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.22|0.086|0.318
84494648|NCT04957979|168739848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|7.426||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||7.426|0.433|0.421
84494649|NCT04957979|168739849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.356||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.356|0.606|0.632
84494650|NCT04957979|168739849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.845||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.366||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.366|0.523|0.492
84494651|NCT04957979|168739850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.856||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.234||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.234|0.594|0.405
84606133|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0098
84494652|NCT04957979|168739850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.559||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.834|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.834|0.374|0.004
84494653|NCT04957979|168739851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.151||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.173|0.02|0.071
84670509|NCT05664490|169074550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on reduced CMD symptoms at Week 12.|The reference category for the risk ratio presented is the Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm.|||1.42|0.71|0.99
84670510|NCT05664490|169074551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to estimate to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.89|1.03|0.03
84558808|NCT06010732|168870675|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|6.85||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.85|4.86|<0.001
84558809|NCT06010732|168870675|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|6.18||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.18|4.37|<0.001
84558810|NCT06010732|168870676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||8.6|-2.5|0.272
84558811|NCT06010732|168870676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|40.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||40.3|29.3|<0.001
84558812|NCT06010732|168870676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|37.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||37.3|26.2|<0.001
84558813|NCT06010732|168870677|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.32|0.93|0.191
84558814|NCT06010732|168870677|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||0.98|0.91|0.003
84558815|NCT06010732|168870677|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.97||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.01|0.93|0.092
84670511|NCT05664490|169074552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to assess the effect of the intervention on common mental disorders at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category.|||1.29|0.50|0.37
84670512|NCT00449956|169074581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||95.0|-1.3|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||-0.06|-1.30|
84670513|NCT00449956|169074581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 1.2 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||||95.0|-0.22|0.78|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.22|
84670514|NCT04064294|169074592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.63
84670515|NCT04064294|169074593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.09
84670516|NCT04064294|169074594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|threshold for significance is 0.05, degrees of freedom = 2||||||0.011
84670517|NCT04064294|169074595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 75||||||0.033
84670518|NCT01451775|169074596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|84.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.856|87.344|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||87.344|80.856|
84670519|NCT01451775|169074596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8988|0.9746||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||0.9746|0.8988|
84670520|NCT01451775|169074597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|63.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.736|70.439|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||70.439|56.736|
84558816|NCT06010732|168870678|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(∆Z)||1.13|0.90|0.905
84558817|NCT06010732|168870678|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.8||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.80|0.63|<0.001
84748148|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.081|-0.475|0.0207
84748149|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.432|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.048|-0.432|0.0402
84748150|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.124|-0.511|0.0071
84494654|NCT04957979|168739851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.268||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||0.268|0.002|0.003
84748151|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.664|-0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.275|-0.664|<0.0001
84748152|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.449|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.050|-0.449|0.0395
84748153|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.123|-0.511|0.0073
84748154|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.439|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.047|-0.439|0.0413
84748155|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.602|-0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.206|-0.602|0.0008
84494655|NCT04957979|168739852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.333||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.333|0.587|0.557
84558818|NCT06010732|168870678|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.79|0.63|<0.001
84558819|NCT06010732|168870679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.98||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||1.09|0.88|0.721
84558820|NCT06010732|168870679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.84|0.68|<0.001
84748156|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.19||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.421|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.046|-0.421|0.1862
84748157|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.455|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||-0.000|-0.455|0.0998
84748158|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.453|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.006|-0.453|0.1085
84748159|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.372|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.090|-0.372|0.3161
84494656|NCT04957979|168739852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.624||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.037||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.037|0.376|0.069
84494657|NCT04957979|168739853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.539||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.565||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.565|0.185|0.256
84558821|NCT06010732|168870679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.86|0.69|<0.001
84558822|NCT06010732|168870680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||1.84|-2.95|0.647
84748160|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.1||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.136|-0.328|0.4962
84748161|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.29||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.512|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||-0.060|-0.512|0.0371
84748162|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.013|-0.441|0.1212
84748163|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.045|-0.410|0.1870
84748164|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.459|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||0.009|-0.459|0.1133
84748165|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.43||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.653|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.198|-0.653|0.0022
84748166|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.016|-0.475|0.0788
84748167|NCT01620255|169250359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.022|-0.485|0.0717
84748168|NCT01620255|169250360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.08||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.286|0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.131|-0.286|0.5406
84748169|NCT01620255|169250360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.628|-0.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||-0.221|-0.628|0.0007
84748170|NCT01620255|169250360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.549|-0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||-0.137|-0.549|0.0063
84748171|NCT01620255|169250360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.436|-0.018|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||-0.018|-0.436|0.0748
84748172|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.9||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|97.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||97.14|-101.00|0.9744
84748173|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|74.9||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.77|171.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||171.66|-21.77|0.2023
84748174|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|32.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|130.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||130.79|-65.09|0.5808
84748175|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|37.6||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.12|138.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||138.34|-63.12|0.5388
84558823|NCT06010732|168870680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|8.75||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||8.75|3.95|<0.001
84748176|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-8.2||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.24|89.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||89.81|-106.24|0.8902
84748177|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|10.2||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.14|106.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||106.54|-86.14|0.8616
84748178|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-34.3||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.49|64.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||64.79|-133.49|0.5684
84748179|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|33.8||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.2|131.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||131.86|-64.20|0.5700
84748180|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-30.0||||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-130.56|70.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||70.57|-130.56|0.6234
84748181|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|36.0||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.44|134.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||134.38|-62.44|0.5474
84494658|NCT04957979|168739853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|4.047||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.047|0.308|0.866
84748182|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|78.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.48|177.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||177.56|-20.48|0.1918
84558824|NCT06010732|168870680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|9.31||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||9.31|4.49|<0.001
84558825|NCT05460078|168870689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|1.16|<0.001
84558826|NCT05460078|168870690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.18|<0.001
84748183|NCT01620255|169250361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-3.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.88|98.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||98.91|-104.88|0.9615
84748184|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|6.4||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-118.6|131.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||131.41|-118.60|0.9328
84558827|NCT05460078|168870691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|1.54|<0.001
84558828|NCT05460078|168870692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|1.17|<0.001
84558829|NCT02722746|168870702|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|47.3|||Z-test for proportions|||||47.3|-8.9|0.165
84558830|NCT02722746|168870702|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|14.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|42.2|||Z-test for proportions|||||42.2|-15.9|0.353
84558831|NCT02722746|168870703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For PACU spread||||0.06
84558832|NCT02722746|168870703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Pre-op spread||||0.22
84558833|NCT02722746|168870703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For POD 1||||0.74
84558834|NCT02722746|168870704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.551
84558835|NCT02722746|168870705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
84558836|NCT02722746|168870706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Pruritis||||0.18
84558837|NCT02722746|168870706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Nausea/Vomiting||||0.44
84558838|NCT02722746|168870706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Respirartory Depression||||0.74
84558839|NCT02722746|168870710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||ANOVA|||For SBP||||0.524
84494659|NCT04957979|168739854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.069||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.069|0.307|0.641
84494660|NCT04957979|168739854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.729||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.729|0.187|0.32
84494661|NCT04957979|168739855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|13.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||13|5.6|<.001
84558840|NCT02722746|168870710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||ANOVA|||For DBP||||0.585
84494662|NCT04957979|168739855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||18|4.2|0.002
84558841|NCT02722746|168870710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||For MAP||||0.199
84558842|NCT02722746|168870711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
84558843|NCT02722746|168870712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
84558844|NCT02722746|168870713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
84558845|NCT02722746|168870714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.567
84748185|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-9.8||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.91|113.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||113.39|-132.91|0.8962
84748186|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.5||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-110.83|133.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||133.74|-110.83|0.8775
84558846|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.92|||<|0.001||90.0|-63.84|-35.99|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-35.99|-63.84|<0.001
84558847|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.85|||<|0.001||90.0|-48.78|-20.93|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-20.93|-48.78|<0.001
84558848|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.72|||<|0.001||90.0|-62.1|-33.34|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-33.34|-62.10|<0.001
84558849|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.26|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.69|-17.82|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.82|-46.69|<0.001
84558850|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.36|||<|0.001||90.0|-60.07|-30.64|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-30.64|-60.07|<0.001
84558851|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.04|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.76|-17.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.32|-46.76|<0.001
84558852|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.8|||<|0.001||90.0|-61.12|-32.49|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-32.49|-61.12|<0.001
84558853|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.64|||<|0.001||90.0|-58.95|-30.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-30.32|-58.95|<0.001
84748187|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-17.0||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-142.02|107.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||107.94|-142.02|0.8224
84558854|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.53||||0.44||90.0|-20.51|7.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127||||7.44|-20.51|0.440
84558855|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.108||90.0|-28.53|0.33|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||0.33|-28.53|0.108
84558856|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.41||||0.013||90.0|-37.13|-7.69|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-7.69|-37.13|0.013
84558857|NCT01618916|168870740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.93||||0.042||90.0|-32.42|-3.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-3.44|-32.42|0.042
84558858|NCT03004924|168870741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|7.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-1.6|0.127
84558859|NCT03004924|168870742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|-12.8|0.500
84558860|NCT02867202|168870756|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0, using two-sided test, and a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
84558861|NCT02005627|168870764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84558862|NCT02005627|168870767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84748188|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-52.7||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-176.48|71.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||71.02|-176.48|0.4831
84748189|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.2||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.63|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||6.13|-236.63|0.1183
84748190|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.8||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.29|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||4.69|-236.29|0.1139
84748191|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-96.4||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-218.17|25.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||25.46|-218.17|0.1931
84748192|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-119.7||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-245.66|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||6.32|-245.66|0.1182
84748193|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-41.7||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-165.34|81.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||81.87|-165.34|0.5784
84748194|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-163.6||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.84|-41.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||-41.29|-285.84|0.0279
84748195|NCT01620255|169250362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-123.5||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-249.0|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||1.93|-249.00|0.1053
84748196|NCT01620255|169250363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.1||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.507|7.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||7.317|-9.507|0.8302
84748197|NCT01620255|169250363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|12.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.084|20.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||20.567|4.084|0.0141
84558863|NCT02005627|168870768|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null Hypothesis was no difference between Grazax and Placebo treatment at 12 months. 80% power to detect 30% difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) after nasal challenge|Comparison of nasal symptom score at 0-60 mins after nasal challenge after 12 months treatment with Grazax compared to Placebo treatment. Mixed model analysis. 80% power to detect a 30% difference at p\<0.05.|||
84748198|NCT01620255|169250363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.7||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.564|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||19.840|3.564|0.0182
84748199|NCT01620255|169250363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|15.48||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.056|23.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||23.907|7.056|0.0026
84748200|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.73||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.689|2.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||2.235|-3.689|0.6862
84748201|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.467|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.280|1.467|0.0135
84748202|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.16||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.293|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.023|1.293|0.0171
84748203|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.232|8.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||8.172|2.232|0.0041
84748204|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|0.22||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.897|3.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||3.339|-2.897|0.9072
84494663|NCT04957979|168739856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||11.0|0.86|0.023
84558864|NCT03743402|168870769|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|5.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect an average 24 MME/day difference between arms.||5.88|-10.55|0.58
84558865|NCT03743402|168870770|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.52|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect a 1.2-point average difference in PEG score between arms.||0.52|-0.51|0.98
84558866|NCT03743402|168870771|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in average MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.29|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|||8.29|-5.69|0.72
84558867|NCT03743402|168870772|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.05|-1.11|0.07
84558868|NCT03743402|168870773|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.04|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||18.04|-13.83|0.80
84748205|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.47||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|7.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.522|1.420|0.0161
84558869|NCT03743402|168870774|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.09|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||8.09|0.56|0.02
84748206|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.06||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.042|7.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.071|1.042|0.0271
84748207|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.778|9.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||9.026|2.778|0.0020
84748208|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.756|1.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||1.229|-1.756|0.7711
84748209|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.69||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.223|3.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.147|0.223|0.0582
84494664|NCT04957979|168739856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||7.0|-14.0|0.5
84494665|NCT04957979|168739857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.19|0.06|<0.001
84494666|NCT04957979|168739857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.32|0.06|<0.001
84494667|NCT04957979|168739858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.06|-0.16|<0.001
84494668|NCT04957979|168739858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.03|-0.2|0.006
84748210|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.68||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.235|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.120|0.235|0.0558
84558870|NCT03743402|168870775|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.82|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.82|-2.53|0.75
84558871|NCT03743402|168870776|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.87|-1.87|0.48
84558872|NCT03743402|168870777|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.81|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.81|-1.31|0.64
84558873|NCT03743402|168870778|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.51|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.51|-0.94|0.65
84558874|NCT03743402|168870779|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.10|0.12|0.02
84558875|NCT03743402|168870780|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.88|0.77|<0.01
84558876|NCT03743402|168870781|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.31|-0.13|0.42
84558877|NCT03743402|168870782|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.36|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.36|-0.10|0.26
84558878|NCT03743402|168870783|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||6.66|-3.47|0.54
84558879|NCT03743402|168870784|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.21|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||2.21|-1.26|0.59
84558880|NCT03743402|168870785|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in opioid craving score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.57|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.57|-0.66|0.90
84558881|NCT03743402|168870786|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.32|-1.03|0.30
84558882|NCT03743402|168870787|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.53|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||6.53|0.68|0.20
84558883|NCT03743402|168870788|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.32|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||3.32|0.54|0.53
84558884|NCT01370616|168870811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference between the two groups has a lower bound greater than -15%, then ertapenem sodium will be considered at least as effective as piperacillin/tazobactam sodium.|Estimated Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.0|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||0.0|-8.3|
84558885|NCT01370616|168870812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||1.8|-5.5|
84558886|NCT01370616|168870813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||2.8|-7.7|
84558887|NCT01370616|168870814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.4|-11.9|
84558888|NCT01370616|168870815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.3|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.3|-12.1|
84748211|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.66||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.161|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.153|0.161|0.0686
84748212|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.33||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.094|1.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||1.429|-2.094|0.7561
84558889|NCT01370616|168870816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|15.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||15.4|-0.9|
84558890|NCT01370616|168870817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||3.4|-8.5|
84558891|NCT01370616|168870818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||5.8|-2.0|
84558892|NCT01370616|168870819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.9|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||1.9|-5.7|
84558893|NCT00803205|168870827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3264
84558894|NCT00803205|168870828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78124||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|6.264||The p-value is the LS-mean for the comparison between active treatment and placebo. The level of significance was 0.04998.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean estimates based on mixed model for repeated measures (Weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48) of relative change in percent-predicted FEV1 as the dependent variable; independent variables including Baseline percent-predicted FEV1, treatment, visit, interactions between treatment and visit and between Baseline percent-predicted FEV1 and visit; and stratification factors of Baseline age, Baseline inhaled antibiotics, and Baseline percent-predicted FEV1.||6.2640|-0.7560|0.1235
84558895|NCT01490697|168870855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|16.0|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||16|-18|
84558896|NCT01490697|168870856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.7|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||14.7|-6.9|
84558897|NCT00379808|168870857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical power was calculated using G\*Power (Dusseldorf, Germany). Based on previously observed effects of statin drugs on hsCRP levels, 22 subjects provided 80% power to detect a moderate effect on hsCRP levels.||||0.22
84558898|NCT00379808|168870858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|3.8||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank|||Null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect HDL. Not powered for this endpoint||||0.57
84558899|NCT00379808|168870859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|7.4||||0.33|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||The null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect triglycerides. The study was not powered to this outcome measure.||||0.33
84558900|NCT00379808|168870860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|11.9||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect MCP-1. Study not powered to the biomarker.||||0.12
84558901|NCT00379808|168870861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|13.3||||0.03|||||||wilcoxon sign rank test|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect IL1ra.||||0.03
84558902|NCT00379808|168870862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.5||||0.09|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect ENA-78. The study is not powered to this biomarker||||0.09
84558903|NCT03409120|168870863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear mixed effects model|||We tested the equivalence of Burke-Fahn-Marsden scores over time (at baseline and at two time periods following DBS surgery) using a repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
84558904|NCT03725033|168870875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.0028
84558905|NCT03725033|168870876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0805
84558906|NCT03725033|168870877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.99
84558907|NCT03725033|168870878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.79
84558908|NCT01625689|168870892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||No comparison between the LAIV and placebo groups by type of solicited reaction had a p-value below 0.498.|Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.498
84558909|NCT01782352|168870924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.82|<0.05
84558910|NCT01782352|168870924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.76|<0.05
84558911|NCT01782352|168870925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.70|0.86|<0.05
84748213|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.17||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.447|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.891|0.447|0.0384
84558912|NCT01782352|168870925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.59|<0.05
84558913|NCT01782352|168870926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||||1.84|0.81|<0.05
84558914|NCT01782352|168870926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.48|<0.05
84558915|NCT01782352|168870927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.86|<0.05
84494669|NCT04957979|168739859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||0.00|-4.9|0.059
84558916|NCT01782352|168870927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.73|<0.05
84558917|NCT01782352|168870928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.33|<0.05
84558918|NCT01782352|168870928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.56|<0.05
84558919|NCT01782352|168870929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.69|<0.05
84558920|NCT01782352|168870929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.67|<0.05
84558921|NCT02134353|168870937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward). Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||100|8|0.020
84558922|NCT02134353|168870938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|92.0||Missing data for withdrawals due to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6,14 and 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||92|-12|0.128
84558923|NCT02134353|168870939|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.936|||Regression, Cox|||||1.936|0.671|0.629
84558924|NCT02134353|168870940|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.846|||Negative binomial model|||||2.846|0.198|0.673
84558925|NCT02134353|168870941|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.273||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|5.154|||Negative binomial model|||||5.154|0.315|0.735
84558926|NCT02134353|168870942|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.545||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.411|||Negative binomial model|||Patients withdrawing early without an exacerbation had rate imputed based on number of exacerbations in 12 months prior to screening.||2.411|0.990|0.055
84558927|NCT02134353|168870942|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.357||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.275|||Negative binomial model|||Sensitivity analysis with no imputation of missing data.||2.275|0.810|0.246
84558928|NCT02134353|168870943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.836|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.836|0.555|0.976
84558929|NCT02134353|168870944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.259||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF||||0.551|-0.034|0.083
84494670|NCT04957979|168739859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.3|-10.0|0.014
84558930|NCT02134353|168870945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|3.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||3.145|-1.406|0.453
84558931|NCT02134353|168870946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|155.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data due to withdrawals for reasons related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||155|20|0.012
84558932|NCT01953432|168870947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.75 that the OR exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.98-1.05)|||||
84558933|NCT01953432|168870947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.96 that the odds ratio exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.00-1.07)|||||
84670521|NCT01451775|169074597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9065|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8011|1.012||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||1.0120|0.8011|
84558934|NCT00474786|168870952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.71|0.1933
84558935|NCT00474786|168870953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.70|0.1888
84558936|NCT00474786|168870955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.63||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and MSKCC prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.63|1.05|0.0144
84558937|NCT02892513|168870961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84558938|NCT03168919|168871009|OTHER|Comparison||||||||||||||||The baseline and the end of therapy MRI parameters are compared.|Due to very small accrual, the statistical analysis couln't be performed.|||
84558939|NCT01085136|168871014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.85||P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test|stratified log-rank test|||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||0.85|0.44|0.0030
84606134|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4609||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.4609
84670522|NCT00176592|169074633|SUPERIORITY|This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.||||<0.05
84670523|NCT06049043|169074651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.84|-14.02|0.26
84494671|NCT04957979|168739860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||15.0|6.8|<0.001
84494672|NCT04957979|168739860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||20.0|4.7|0.001
84494673|NCT04957979|168739861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5|-10|<.001
84494674|NCT04957979|168739861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-2|-10|0.007
84494675|NCT04957979|168739862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.14|-4.8|0.046
84494676|NCT04957979|168739862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.52||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.52|-8.4|0.033
84494677|NCT04957979|168739863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
84494678|NCT04957979|168739863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-5.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5.6|-17.0|<0.001
84494679|NCT04957979|168739864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-4.1|-10.0|<0.001
84494680|NCT04957979|168739864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social|||-3.2|-13.0|0.002
84494681|NCT04957979|168739865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.4|-5.5|0.002
84494682|NCT04957979|168739865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||1.4|-6.1|0.3
84494683|NCT04410991|168739872|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|0.996||||0.9758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.315|0.754|0.9758
84558940|NCT01085136|168871016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||Stratified log-rank test.|P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test.||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||1.44|0.76|0.7905
84558941|NCT01085136|168871018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|6.543|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified for maximum treatment duration of prior erlotinib or gefitinib (\>=6 months vs \<6 months) and gender.||6.543|1.357|0.0065
84571448|NCT02858908|168893786|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6449||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3094|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||0.0195|-1.3094|0.0565
84606135|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
84494684|NCT04410991|168739873|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.891||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.891|0.380|0.0114
84494685|NCT04410991|168739874|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.925||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.925|0.444|0.0181
84494686|NCT04410991|168739875|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.165||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.502|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.502|0.905|0.2362
84494687|NCT04410991|168739876|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|2.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.987|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.987|1.502|<0.0001
84494688|NCT04410991|168739877|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.053||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.05|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.050|-0.156|0.3100
84494689|NCT04410991|168739878|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|-0.612||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.493|1.269|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||1.269|-2.493|0.5235
84494690|NCT04410991|168739879|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.652||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|2.383||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||2.383|1.145|0.0079
84494691|NCT04410991|168739880|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.044||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.153|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.153|-0.065|0.4266
84494692|NCT01195662|168739890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1485||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.02||Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure used.|Longitudinal repeated measures|Data from all weeks during the double-blind treatment period were included.||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using 'direct likelihood', with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline SBP value and baseline SBP value-by-week interaction. Unstructured matrix for within-subject error variance-covariance used. 80% power to detect a difference of 4 mmHg in mean change from baseline, 75% power to meet both co-primary endpoints with overall Type I error.||-2.02|-6.54|0.0002
84494693|NCT01195662|168739891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Longitudinal repeated measures|Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure was used.||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis used, with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, continuous fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-week interaction. Only data up to Week 12 included. All data used in the model even if participants discontinued prior to Week 12. A heirarchical closed testing procedure (sequential) was used and testing performed since first primary endpoint was significant.||-0.46|-0.76|<0.0001
84494694|NCT01195662|168739892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.76||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate was used. By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the prior endpoint was significant.||-1.76|-7.14|0.0012
84494695|NCT01195662|168739893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.39||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Longitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline seated diastolic BP value and baseline seated diastolic BP value by week interaction.||0.39|-2.32|0.1619
84494696|NCT01195662|168739894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the family-wise type I error rate related to the co-primary and secondary endpoints at the 2-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing of this endpoint was not performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not statistically significant.||-0.29|-3.68|
84606136|NCT00259298|168963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0273
84670524|NCT06049043|169074652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|5.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.85|-13.43|0.44
84670525|NCT06049043|169074653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.66|0.62
84748214|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.86||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.154|3.557|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.557|0.154|0.0729
84494697|NCT01195662|168739895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||lLongitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline serum uric acid value and baseline seated serum uric acid value by week interaction. By applying sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05, no testing was performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not significant.||-0.23|-0.57|
84571449|NCT02858908|168893787|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9102||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1526|2.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||2.9730|-1.1526|0.3732
84748215|NCT01620255|169250364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|4.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||4.715|1.190|0.0060
84494698|NCT05966129|168739931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 42.1|23.8|-18.3|0.7957
84494699|NCT05966129|168739932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 0.9|0.5|-0.4|0.8255
84494700|NCT05966129|168739933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9054
84606137|NCT00259298|168963510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 3 months.||||1.0
84670526|NCT06049043|169074654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|15.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.18|-2.50|0.16
84748216|NCT01620255|169250365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.002||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.145|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.142|-0.145|0.5201
84494701|NCT05966129|168739934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 2.4|0.5|-1.9|0.248
84494702|NCT05966129|168739935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 7.4|4.7|-2.7|0.6012
84494703|NCT05966129|168739936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7528|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7528
84494704|NCT05966129|168739937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84494705|NCT01298323|168739938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-Statistic|1.29||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|16.37||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 10%|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.37|-3.44|0.199
84494706|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.0|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.000|-0.337|0.0499
84748217|NCT01620255|169250365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.328||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||0.328|0.039|0.0217
84494707|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.313|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.313|-0.660|<.0001
84558942|NCT02195427|168871020|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||0.11|-0.17|
84571450|NCT02858908|168893787|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3897||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4525|0.6731|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||0.6731|-3.4525|0.1782
84606138|NCT00259298|168963510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||1.0
84606139|NCT00259298|168963512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for change at 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in whole skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
84494708|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.246|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.246|-0.596|<.0001
84494709|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod Emax model fit|Emax model fit assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
84494710|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption: No assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
84494711|NCT05182840|168739942|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0.0003|||||||MCPMod exponential model fit|Exponential model fit assumption: 15% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod). MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||||0.0003
84494712|NCT05182840|168739943|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|0.0|||||"Median of 3 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-0.0|-28.6|
84494713|NCT05182840|168739943|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.8|||||"Median of 10 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-26.8|-48.3|
84494714|NCT05182840|168739943|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-21.8|||||"Median of 20 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-21.8|-44.9|
84606140|NCT03131596|168963524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The p-value is not adjusted and a p-value of \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||200 patients were eligible and randomised in a 1:1 fashion. 9 patients did not complete the full protocol, resulting in 94 cases in the balloon group and 97 cases in the control group included in the final analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.The null hypothesis is the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in balloon group will less than the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in control group. A Chi-squared analysis was used.||||0.012
84606141|NCT03131596|168963525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84606142|NCT03131596|168963526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84606143|NCT03131596|168963527|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84558943|NCT02195427|168871020|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline"||0.06|-0.25|
84558944|NCT00386425|168871058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for change to Day 7|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84558945|NCT00386425|168871059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value is for the moderate Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84558946|NCT00386425|168871059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for the severe Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
84558947|NCT00386425|168871060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for Day 28 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
84558948|NCT00386425|168871061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||p-value is for Day 90 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.090
84558949|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for total SOFA difference between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
84558950|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||p-value is for difference in cardiovascular SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
84558951|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is for difference in respiratory SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
84558952|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value is for difference in renal SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
84558953|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||p-value is for difference in hematology SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
84558954|NCT00386425|168871062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||p-value is for difference in liver SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
84606144|NCT04332614|168963530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8791371||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7856042|0.9838058||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9838058|0.7856042|0.0248
84558955|NCT00386425|168871064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for difference between participants normalizing protein C and not normalizing protein C.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84558956|NCT00386425|168871065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||p-value is for 28-Day Mortality, Dead at Day 28 vs. Alive at Day 28|Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.622
84606145|NCT04332614|168963530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5980109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5159511|0.6931219||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6931219|0.5159511|<0.0001
84558957|NCT00386425|168871065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for Hospital Mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
84558958|NCT00435019|168871129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the mean HbA1c with insulin detemir was greater than or equal to the mean HbA1c with NPH insulin plus 0.4%. A sample size of 344 subjects, in total, with a drop-out rate of 20 percent would yield 274 subjects for evaluation of HbA1c. This would give 85 percent power to detect a difference in means of HbA1c of 0.4 percentage points assuming that the standard deviation was 1.1 using a two-sided t-test with a 0.05 significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||||95.0|-0.12|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.12|
84558959|NCT04607980|168871144|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference of PASI percent improvement from Baseline to Week 12 between ABP 654 versus (vs) ustekinumab with an equivalence margin of (-15, +15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.43||||||Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the 2 groups.||3.43|-3.16|
84558960|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.94||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||5.94|-2.05|
84558961|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.31||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.31|-2.97|
84606146|NCT04332614|168963530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8380003||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7285712|0.9638653||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9638653|0.7285712|0.0133
84606147|NCT04332614|168963531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3700794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2870513|0.4771231||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4771231|0.2870513|<0.0001
84606148|NCT04332614|168963531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.285144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1881589|0.4321194||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4321194|0.1881589|<0.0001
84670527|NCT06049043|169074654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.04|-0.13|0.28
84558962|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.07||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||4.07|-1.39|
84558963|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.98||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.98|-5.46|
84558964|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|3.28||||||"Week 44: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.28|-10.71|
84558965|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|7.13||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.13|-8.45|
84558966|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.59||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.59|-3.42|
84558967|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.48||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.48|-3.17|
84558968|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.17||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.17|-3.29|
84558969|NCT04607980|168871145|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|3.86||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.86|-2.46|
84558970|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.42||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||6.42|-4.02|
84558971|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|7.23||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.23|-7.87|
84558972|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|7.37||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.37|-5.75|
84558973|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.84||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||9.84|-2.37|
84558974|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference in dose intensification participants (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the generalized linear model adjusted for the baseline PASI and the stratification factors with an identity link was used to obtain the point estimate and 95% CI for the risk difference of PASI 75 response rate at each scheduled timepoint.|Response difference|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|21.76||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||21.76|-28.15|
84606149|NCT04332614|168963531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5565905||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4059477|0.7631354||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.7631354|0.4059477|0.0003
84606150|NCT04332614|168963532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72429741||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49167734|1.0669736||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0669736|0.49167734|0.103
84606151|NCT04332614|168963532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63578603||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35943749|1.1246013||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1246013|0.35943749|0.120
84606152|NCT04332614|168963532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06482385||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67282661|1.6852036||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.6852036|0.67282661|0.789
84494715|NCT05182840|168739944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.033|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.033|-0.488|0.0867
84558975|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.54||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.54|-3.74|
84558976|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.39||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.39|-4.89|
84558977|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|4.41||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||4.41|-8.61|
84558978|NCT04607980|168871146|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.43||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.43|-7.32|
84558979|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.21||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||3.21|-3.16|
84558980|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|8.18||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||8.18|-5.03|
84558981|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|11.17||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||11.17|-3.62|
84558982|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.78||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.78|-4.68|
84558983|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|8.89||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.89|-12.85|
84558984|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|7.73||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.73|-17.39|
84558985|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|13.3||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||13.30|-8.42|
84606153|NCT04332614|168963533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8837908||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7912382|0.9871694||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9871694|0.7912382|0.0286
84606154|NCT04332614|168963533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6000149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5193168|0.6932528||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6932528|0.5193168|<0.0001
84497543|NCT01932801|168746214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.12||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-0.36||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.36|-7.88|.072
84748218|NCT01620255|169250365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.045|0.237||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||0.237|-0.045|0.1473
84558986|NCT04607980|168871147|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|10.19||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||10.19|-14.91|
84558987|NCT04607980|168871148|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|10.71||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.71|-5.65|
84558988|NCT04607980|168871148|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|3.29||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.29|-15.41|
84558989|NCT04607980|168871148|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654/Ustekinumab vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.74|-18.41|
84558990|NCT04607980|168871149|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for treatment group A and treatment group B using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.1||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.10|-1.15|
84558991|NCT04607980|168871149|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated in dose intensification participants (treatment group A and treatment group B) using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.67||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.67|-0.90|
84558992|NCT04607980|168871149|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ABP 654/ ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.74|-0.99|
84558993|NCT04607980|168871149|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ustekinumab/ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.10|-0.90|
84558994|NCT04494425|168871162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor use (yes versus no) and HER2 IHC expression (IHC 1+ versus IHC 2+/ISH-) and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
84558995|NCT02242019|168871199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84558996|NCT02242019|168871200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84606155|NCT04332614|168963533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8225743||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7167043|0.9440832|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9440832|0.7167043|0.0055
84558997|NCT05025332|168871226|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots and histograms/bar charts were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||.0039
84558998|NCT05025332|168871227|OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0234
84558999|NCT05025332|168871228|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0313
84606156|NCT04332614|168963534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3948795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.310437|0.5022914||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.5022914|0.3104370|<0.0001
84670528|NCT06049043|169074655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|11.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.28|-7.31|0.67
84748219|NCT01620255|169250365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.112||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.038|0.261||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||0.261|-0.038|0.1231
84748220|NCT03645057|169250386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.433
84748221|NCT03645057|169250387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.836
84748222|NCT03645057|169250388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
84748223|NCT03645057|169250389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.989
84559000|NCT05025332|168871229|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0039
84559001|NCT05025332|168871230|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.1934
84559002|NCT05025332|168871231|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7480
84559003|NCT05025332|168871232|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.3203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3203
84559004|NCT05025332|168871233|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.3574|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3574
84559005|NCT05025332|168871234|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.4131|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.4131
84559006|NCT05025332|168871235|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.9063|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.9063
84559007|NCT05025332|168871236|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||1.00
84559008|NCT05025332|168871237|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.7002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7002
84559009|NCT05025332|168871238|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3750
84559010|NCT05025332|168871239|OTHER|||||||0.7695|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7695
84606157|NCT04332614|168963534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2790595|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875017|0.4153254||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4153254|0.1875017|<0.0001
84559011|NCT05025332|168871240|OTHER|||||||0.2402|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.2402
84748224|NCT03645057|169250390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.565
84748225|NCT03645057|169250391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.479
84748226|NCT03645057|169250392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.577
84748227|NCT03645057|169250393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
84748228|NCT03645057|169250394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.242
84748229|NCT03818204|169250432|OTHER||||||>=|0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of angular position was modeled using linear mixed-effects (multiple regression) models. The five angles were randomly mapped for the dependent variable interpalpebral fissure. Because there were repeated measurements on each eye and each participant might respond differently to each angular position, participant and angular position within participant-eye were included as random effects.||||>=0.46
84748230|NCT05754333|169250439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||paired t Test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||1.9|1.2|<0.001
84748231|NCT05754333|169250440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|||1.8|1.2|<0.001
84748232|NCT05754333|169250441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||1.7|1.0|<0.001
84748233|NCT05754333|169250443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
84748234|NCT05754333|169250444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
84559012|NCT02081014|168871242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559013|NCT02081014|168871242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559014|NCT02081014|168871242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559015|NCT02081014|168871243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559016|NCT02081014|168871243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559017|NCT02081014|168871243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559018|NCT02081014|168871244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point point ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559019|NCT02081014|168871244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559020|NCT02081014|168871244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559021|NCT02081014|168871245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559022|NCT02081014|168871245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559023|NCT02081014|168871245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559024|NCT02081014|168871246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point esimate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84606158|NCT04332614|168963534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6097538||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4528751|0.8209762||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8209762|0.4528751|0.0011
84559025|NCT02081014|168871246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559026|NCT02081014|168871246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559027|NCT02081014|168871247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559028|NCT02081014|168871247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559029|NCT02081014|168871247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559030|NCT02081014|168871248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84748235|NCT05754333|169250445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
84559031|NCT02081014|168871248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559032|NCT02081014|168871248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84559033|NCT02081014|168871249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559034|NCT02081014|168871249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
84748236|NCT05754333|169250446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
84748237|NCT05754333|169250447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
84559035|NCT02081014|168871249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559036|NCT02081014|168871250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3693.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1520.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84748238|NCT05754333|169250448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||||||||||Mean Difference is calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
84748239|NCT05754333|169250449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
84559037|NCT02081014|168871250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7548.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1542.93||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84559038|NCT02081014|168871250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3854.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1533.95|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84559039|NCT02081014|168871251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-144.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|741.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84559040|NCT02081014|168871251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1665.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|696.97|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84559041|NCT02081014|168871251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1520.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|700.92|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84559042|NCT02081014|168871252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559043|NCT02081014|168871252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559044|NCT02081014|168871252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559045|NCT02081014|168871253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84748240|NCT05754333|169250450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
84559046|NCT02081014|168871253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559047|NCT02081014|168871253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geometric means|||||>0.05
84559048|NCT01026818|168871254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.06||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||2.06|0.63|0.675
84559049|NCT01026818|168871254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.65||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||1.65|0.48|0.704
84559050|NCT01026818|168871255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.99||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||3.99|1.16|0.016
84559051|NCT01026818|168871255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.85||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.85|0.79|0.210
84559052|NCT01026818|168871255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.28||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.28|0.79|0.273
84559053|NCT01026818|168871255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.29||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.29|0.80|0.259
84748241|NCT05754333|169250451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
84748242|NCT05754333|169250452|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 1 Point Higher|67.01|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 1 point higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
84748243|NCT05754333|169250452|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 2 point higher|40.4|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 2 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
84748244|NCT05754333|169250452|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 3 point higher|20.2|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 3 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
84748245|NCT05754333|169250452|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 4 point higher|2.1|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 4 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated|||||
84559054|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.83||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.83|0.76|0.007
84559055|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean differences|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|3.6||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.60|-0.41|0.118
84559056|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.31||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.31|-1.79|0.802
84559057|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.79||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.79|-2.23|0.830
84559058|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.03||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.03|-0.78|0.184
84559059|NCT01026818|168871256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.16||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.16|-1.54|0.500
84559060|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.34||95.0|-0.39|1.14||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.14|-0.39|0.340
84559061|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.84|-0.67|0.821
84606159|NCT04332614|168963535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0049587||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72693253|1.3893201||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.3893201|0.72693253|0.976
84606160|NCT04332614|168963535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7576895||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4741259|1.2108458||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.2108458|0.47412590|0.246
84606161|NCT04332614|168963535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1728665||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79090107|1.7393021||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7393021|0.79090107|0.428
84606162|NCT04332614|168963536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9980487||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8680298|1.147543||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.147543|0.8680298|1
84559062|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.28|-0.36|0.268
84559063|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.80|-0.80|0.998
84606163|NCT04332614|168963536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953032||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7771682|1.031395||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.031395|0.7771682|0.276
84606164|NCT04332614|168963536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8970536||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7785981|1.033531||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.033531|0.7785981|0.289
84606165|NCT04332614|168963537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9313889||||0.94591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6003591|1.444944||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.444944|0.6003591|0.94591
84606166|NCT04332614|168963537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8998642||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2809137|2.817898||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.817898|1.2809137|0.0041
84606167|NCT04332614|168963537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0398184||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3648075|3.048678||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.048678|1.3648075|0.0015
84748246|NCT05754333|169250453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||2.2|1.6|<0.001
84748247|NCT05754333|169250453|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.431||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.431|-0.011|
84559064|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.97||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.97|-0.68|0.728
84559065|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.28|-1.33|0.203
84559066|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.49|-0.46|0.950
84559067|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.48||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.48|-0.45|0.950
84559068|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.51||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.39|0.792
84559069|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.55|-0.34|0.631
84559070|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.58||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.58|-0.38|0.691
84559071|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.41||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.41|-0.53|0.801
84559072|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.92||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.92|-0.06|0.065
84559073|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.51||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.51|-0.43|0.274
84559074|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.52||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.52|-0.55|0.359
84559075|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.11||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.11|-0.93|0.863
84559076|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.66||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.66|-0.53|0.314
84559077|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.01|-1.13|0.910
84559078|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.78||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.78|-0.40|0.532
84559079|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.73|-0.43|0.620
84559080|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.51||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
84559081|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.34|-0.82|0.410
84606168|NCT04332614|168963538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.180837||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6750639|2.065546||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.065546|0.6750639|0.829
84606169|NCT04332614|168963538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432003||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8279689|2.476702||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.476702|0.8279689|0.404
84748248|NCT05754333|169250453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||1.5|0.8|<0.001
84559082|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.955||95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.65|-0.68|0.955
84559083|NCT01026818|168871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.70|-0.59|0.868
84559084|NCT01026818|168871258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.56||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.56|0.10|0.005
84559085|NCT01026818|168871258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.45|0.01|0.041
84559086|NCT01026818|168871258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035||95.0|0.02|0.54||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.54|0.02|0.035
84559087|NCT01026818|168871258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.38|-0.12|0.316
84559088|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.76||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.76|-0.25|0.086
84559089|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.45||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.45|-1.50|0.637
84559090|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.53||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.53|-2.18|0.885
84559091|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.25||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.25|-2.34|0.972
84559092|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.36||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.36|-0.81|0.621
84559093|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.35||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.35|-0.78|0.598
84559094|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.21||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.21|-1.10|0.923
84559095|NCT01026818|168871259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.24|-1.03|0.857
84559096|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|25.83||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.83|3.92|0.008
84670529|NCT06049043|169074655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.08|-0.12|0.69
84748249|NCT05754333|169250453|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.282||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.282|-0.181|
84748250|NCT05754333|169250453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.6|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||2.6|1.9|<0.001
84494716|NCT05182840|168739944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.469||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.737|-0.201|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.201|-0.737|0.0007
84559097|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.04||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.04|0.63|0.038
84559098|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|21.0||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||21.00|-3.18|0.148
84559099|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|17.23||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.23|-6.48|0.373
84559100|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|20.66||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.66|1.14|0.029
84559101|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|14.17||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||14.17|-5.12|0.357
84559102|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|26.98||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||26.98|5.68|0.003
84559103|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.04||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.04|-3.80|0.212
84559104|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|16.68||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.68|-7.58|0.461
84559105|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|10.63||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.63|-13.16|0.835
84559106|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|25.46||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.46|1.27|0.030
84559107|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|17.89||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.89|-5.97|0.326
84559108|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.019||95.0|1.98|22.15||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.15|1.98|0.019
84559109|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|12.35||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.35|-7.38|0.621
84559110|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.968||95.0|-11.03|11.49||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||11.49|-11.03|0.968
84559111|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|5.54||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.54|-16.55|0.327
84670530|NCT06049043|169074656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.09|0.09
84670531|NCT06049043|169074656|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.59|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.59|-0.86|0.71
84670532|NCT06049043|169074657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|-0.07|0.08
84670533|NCT06049043|169074657|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.48|-1.21|0.39
84670534|NCT06049043|169074659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.95|0.89
84748251|NCT05754333|169250453|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.464||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.464|0.030|
84748252|NCT05754333|169250454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|For reader 2||2.0|1.4|<0.001
84748253|NCT05754333|169250454|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.429||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.429|-0.013|
84559112|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|24.09||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||24.09|-0.76|0.066
84559113|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|17.34||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.34|-7.17|0.415
84559114|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|20.94||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.94|2.79|0.011
84559115|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|12.72||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.72|-5.03|0.394
84559116|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.41||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.41|-11.28|0.684
84559117|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.02||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.02|-16.30|0.126
84559118|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|23.57||P-value is for Q4 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.57|-0.53|0.061
84559119|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|16.95||P-value is for Q4 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.95|-6.83|0.403
84559120|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.013||95.0|2.38|20.38||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.38|2.38|0.013
84559121|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|12.49||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.49|-5.11|0.410
84559122|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|6.22||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.22|-11.92|0.537
84559123|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.3||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.30|-17.48|0.058
84559124|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|23.41||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.41|-0.54|0.061
84559125|NCT01026818|168871270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.4||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.40|-6.23|0.353
84559126|NCT01026818|168871271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|2.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||2.08|-12.32|0.162
84559127|NCT01026818|168871271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.603||95.0|-8.99|5.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||5.24|-8.99|0.603
84670535|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|7.76||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.37|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 2||13.37|2.14|.0434
84670536|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|16.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.32|21.25|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 3||21.25|11.32|.0003
84748254|NCT05754333|169250454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 3||1.4|0.8|<0.001
84494717|NCT05182840|168739944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.429||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.707|-0.151|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.151|-0.707|0.0027
84494718|NCT05182840|168739945|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.4|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||3.4|-38.6|
84494719|NCT05182840|168739945|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-18.2|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517"|||-18.2|-52.2|
84494720|NCT05182840|168739945|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-14.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-14.0|-50.7|
84494721|NCT05182840|168739946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.119|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.119|-0.316|0.3737
84494722|NCT05182840|168739946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.275|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.275|-0.730|<.0001
84494723|NCT05182840|168739946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.184|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.184|-0.625|0.0004
84494724|NCT05182840|168739947|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.7|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||12.7|-27.1|
84559128|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|8.8||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||8.80|-1.82|0.196
84494725|NCT05182840|168739947|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-24.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-24.0|-51.8|
84494726|NCT05182840|168739947|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-16.8|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-16.8|-46.5|
84494727|NCT05182840|168739948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.72|1.16|0.0136
84559129|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.75||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.75|-4.69|0.841
84559130|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.4||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.40|-3.45|0.474
84494728|NCT05182840|168739948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|12.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||12.49|3.94|0.0000
84494729|NCT05182840|168739948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|9.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.71|3.09|0.0000
84606170|NCT04332614|168963538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212702||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7161724|2.05348||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053480|0.7161724|0.753
84559131|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.41||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.41|-5.21|0.971
84559132|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.17||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.17|-1.03|0.236
84559133|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.56||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.56|-1.52|0.429
84559134|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.24||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.24|-1.12|0.252
84559135|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.11||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.11|-1.08|0.251
84559136|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.95||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.95|-3.03|0.671
84559137|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.23||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.23|-2.64|0.868
84559138|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.57||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.57|-2.37|0.938
84559139|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.12||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.12|-2.69|0.813
84559140|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|15.99||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||15.99|3.10|0.004
84559141|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.0||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||9.00|-3.63|0.403
84559142|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|10.69||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.69|-4.34|0.406
84559143|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|6.53||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.53|-8.11|0.832
84559144|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.79||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.79|-0.99|0.197
84559145|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.72||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.72|0.06|0.045
84606171|NCT04332614|168963539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9747188||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8501783|1.1175028||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1175028|0.8501783|0.9284
84606172|NCT04332614|168963539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8518974||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741461|0.9787827||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9787827|0.7414610|0.0612
84494730|NCT05182840|168739949|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
84559146|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.1||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.10|-3.16|0.692
84559147|NCT01026818|168871275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.46||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.46|-2.65|0.943
84559148|NCT01026818|168871276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.93||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||7.93|0.47|0.028
84559149|NCT01026818|168871276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.14||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||2.14|-5.20|0.413
84559150|NCT01026818|168871276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.3||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||5.30|-0.55|0.112
84559151|NCT01026818|168871276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.03||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||6.03|0.29|0.031
84559152|NCT04575584|168871277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.45|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.45|0.68|0.5620
84559153|NCT04575584|168871277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.65|0.78|0.3145
84559154|NCT04575584|168871277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.47|0.69|0.4894
84559155|NCT04575584|168871280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.1|-2.3|0.1642
84559156|NCT04575584|168871280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||13.9|-1.1|0.0900
84559157|NCT04575584|168871280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.3|-2.3|0.1594
84559158|NCT04575584|168871281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.35|0.73|0.3623
84559159|NCT04575584|168871281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
84494731|NCT05182840|168739949|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
84559160|NCT04575584|168871281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
84559161|NCT04575584|168871282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.30|0.70|0.4398
84559162|NCT04575584|168871282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
84559163|NCT04575584|168871282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
84559164|NCT04575584|168871283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.85|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.85|0.77|0.2422
84559165|NCT04575584|168871283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
84559166|NCT04575584|168871283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.59|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.59|0.45|0.6052
84748255|NCT05754333|169250454|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.272||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.272|-0.191|
84559167|NCT04575584|168871284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
84559168|NCT04575584|168871284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
84559169|NCT04575584|168871284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
84559170|NCT04575584|168871285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9945
84559171|NCT04575584|168871285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
84559172|NCT04575584|168871285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
84559173|NCT04575584|168871286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.25|0.70|0.4472
84559174|NCT04575584|168871286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
84559175|NCT04575584|168871286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
84559176|NCT04575584|168871287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.21|0.67|0.5222
84559177|NCT04575584|168871287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
84559178|NCT04575584|168871287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
84559179|NCT04575584|168871288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.8|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.80|0.75|0.2627
84494732|NCT05182840|168739949|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
84559180|NCT04575584|168871288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
84559181|NCT04575584|168871288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.58|0.45|0.5938
84559182|NCT04575584|168871289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
84606173|NCT04332614|168963539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.873993||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7602296|1.0047804||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0047804|0.7602296|0.1407
84670537|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|15.98||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.26|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 4||25.26|6.7|.0198
84559183|NCT04575584|168871289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
84748256|NCT05754333|169250454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.5|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 4||2.5|1.8|<0.001
84559184|NCT04575584|168871289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
84559185|NCT04575584|168871290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9445
84559186|NCT04575584|168871290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
84559187|NCT04575584|168871290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
84559188|NCT04575584|168871291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.47|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.47|0.46|0.8732
84559189|NCT04575584|168871291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Wald Chi-square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.19|0.25|0.1277
84559190|NCT04575584|168871291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.33|0.4326
84559191|NCT04575584|168871292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.50|0.6830
84559192|NCT04575584|168871292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.39|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.39|0.42|1.000
84559193|NCT04575584|168871292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.2|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.20|0.37|0.8244
84559194|NCT04575584|168871293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.36|0.5022
84559195|NCT04575584|168871293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.5204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.37|0.5204
84559196|NCT04575584|168871293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.13|0.24|0.0991
84559197|NCT04575584|168871294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.29|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.29|0.60|0.6346
84559198|NCT04575584|168871294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.46|0.7596
84559199|NCT04575584|168871294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.84|0.49|0.8879
84559200|NCT04575584|168871295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.82|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.82|0.55|0.6002
84559201|NCT04575584|168871295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.21|0.58|0.4733
84748257|NCT05754333|169250454|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.451||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.451|0.014|
84748258|NCT05754333|169250455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||1.8|1.1|<0.001
84748259|NCT05754333|169250455|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.529||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.529|0.116|
84559202|NCT04575584|168871295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.78|0.38|0.6220
84559203|NCT04575584|168871296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.6|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.60|0.28|0.7871
84559204|NCT04575584|168871296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.06|0.31|0.9598
84559205|NCT04575584|168871296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.31|0.27|0.6670
84559206|NCT02634801|168871297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.77|||Fisher Exact|||||6.77|2.46|<.0001
84559207|NCT02634801|168871297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||1.56|1.06|0.0137
84559208|NCT03300050|168871360|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.29|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||4.29|1.73|<0.0001
84559209|NCT03300050|168871360|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06||||0.9411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.66|0.68|0.9411
84559210|NCT03300050|168871360|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||0.62|0.24|<0.0001
84559211|NCT03300050|168871361|OTHER||Difference|59.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.59|81.02|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||81.02|23.59|0.0025
84606174|NCT04332614|168963540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9089673||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6109603|1.352333||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352333|0.6109603|0.8848
84606175|NCT04332614|168963540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6914929||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1762411|2.43245||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.432450|1.1762411|0.0127
84748260|NCT05754333|169250455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||1.3|0.6|<0.001
84559212|NCT03300050|168871361|OTHER||Difference|17.9||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|49.0|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||49.00|-16.24|0.4421
84559213|NCT03300050|168871361|OTHER||Difference|-41.8||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.75|-4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||-4.80|-68.75|0.0461
84559214|NCT03300050|168871365|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.48|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.48|0.84|0.1665
84606176|NCT04332614|168963540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8608951||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2800275|2.705356||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.705356|1.2800275|0.0033
84606177|NCT04332614|168963541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8619131||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5709078|1.301251||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.301251|0.5709078|0.759
84748261|NCT05754333|169250455|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.4||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.400|-0.048|
84748262|NCT05754333|169250455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||2.3|1.6|<0.001
84748263|NCT05754333|169250455|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.495||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.495|0.070|
84748264|NCT05754333|169250456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
84748265|NCT05754333|169250456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
84748266|NCT05754333|169250456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
84559215|NCT03300050|168871365|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.20|0.55|0.9377
84559216|NCT03300050|168871365|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.64||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.31|0.3088
84559217|NCT03300050|168871366|OTHER||Difference|16.3||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|48.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||48.88|-19.85|0.4667
84559218|NCT03300050|168871366|OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.76|32.17|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||32.17|-34.76|>0.9999
84559219|NCT03300050|168871366|OTHER||Difference|-18.1||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.15|19.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||19.37|-51.15|0.4495
84559220|NCT03300050|168871370|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.77|0.94|0.0928
84559221|NCT03300050|168871370|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.77|0.4198
84559222|NCT03300050|168871370|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.45|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.45|0.47|0.6754
84559223|NCT03300050|168871371|OTHER||Difference|19.2||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|50.49|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.49|-17.19|0.4515
84559224|NCT03300050|168871371|OTHER||Difference|14.3||||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|46.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||46.19|-21.22|0.4837
84559225|NCT03300050|168871371|OTHER||Difference|-4.9|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|30.46|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||30.46|-38.80|>0.9999
84559226|NCT03300050|168871374|OTHER||Difference|2.93||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||7.49|1.56|0.0031
84606178|NCT04332614|168963541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0950508||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7331329|1.635633||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.635633|0.7331329|0.897
84606179|NCT04332614|168963541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2704886||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8377249|1.926816||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.926816|0.8377249|0.498
84670538|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|10.69||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|22.49|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 2||22.49|-1.67|.158
84494733|NCT05182840|168739950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.09||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.09|1.04|0.0348
84559227|NCT03300050|168871374|OTHER||Difference|1.25||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||2.23|0.73|0.2048
84559228|NCT03300050|168871374|OTHER||Difference|0.43||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||1.00|0.18|0.0392
84559229|NCT03300050|168871375|OTHER||Difference|1.16||||0.8243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||4.95|0.14|0.8243
84559230|NCT03300050|168871375|OTHER||Difference|1.74||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.06|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||6.06|0.67|0.2530
84559231|NCT03300050|168871375|OTHER||Difference|1.83||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|39.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||39.92|0.47|0.5654
84559232|NCT03300050|168871379|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.21||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.27|0.45|0.8830
84670539|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|24.52||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|37.74|||ANCOVA|||PGB Day 1 vs Day 3||37.74|11.3|.0127
84670540|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|28.45||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.64|47.27|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 4||47.27|9.64|.0328
84748267|NCT05754333|169250457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 2||||
84559233|NCT03300050|168871379|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.86||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.33|0.9238
84559234|NCT03300050|168871379|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.71||||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.97|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.97|0.26|0.6926
84559235|NCT03300050|168871380|OTHER||Difference|11.7||||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|45.82|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||45.82|-25.72|0.7036
84559236|NCT03300050|168871380|OTHER||Difference|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|31.31|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||31.31|-37.90|>0.9999
84559237|NCT03300050|168871380|OTHER||Difference|-15.5||||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.56|22.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||22.79|-49.56|0.6951
84559238|NCT03300050|168871384|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.32|0.3203
84559239|NCT03300050|168871384|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.72||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.47|0.35|0.5009
84559240|NCT03300050|168871384|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.37|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||2.37|0.51|0.9542
84559241|NCT03300050|168871385|OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|23.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||23.79|-30.62|>0.9999
84559242|NCT03300050|168871385|OTHER||Difference|6.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|30.34|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||30.34|-16.24|>0.9999
84559243|NCT03300050|168871385|OTHER||Difference|8.3||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|36.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||36.04|-19.94|0.4615
84559244|NCT03300050|168871389|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.8|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.80|0.38|0.9164
84559245|NCT03300050|168871389|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.79|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.79|0.21|0.8642
84559246|NCT03300050|168871389|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.63||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.27|0.18|0.6545
84559247|NCT03300050|168871390|OTHER||Difference|7.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|40.96|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||40.96|-27.10|>0.9999
84559248|NCT03300050|168871390|OTHER||Difference|30.8||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|58.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||58.19|-1.76|0.1045
84559249|NCT03300050|168871390|OTHER||Difference|23.1||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|50.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.86|-8.62|0.2292
84559250|NCT04401202|168871508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84606180|NCT02753127|168963544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.117||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on stratified log-rank test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification factors including Time to progression on 1st line therapy, RAS mutation, and Bev as part of study treatment.~A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.117|0.854|0.3629
84748268|NCT05754333|169250457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 3||||
84670541|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|12.2||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|489.8|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 2||489.8|-465.4|.9993
84748269|NCT05754333|169250457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 4||||
84559251|NCT01006590|168871538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||ANCOVA|With baseline value as covariate and treatment group as factor; comparison of LSmeans for treatment||The null hypothesis H0: µt-µC=0, where μT denotes the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients treated with saxagliptin (test medication, T) and μC the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients with uptitration of metformin (comparator, C) A sample size of 120 randomized and treated patients per treatment group yielded 80% power under the assumption of a true treatment difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.1%||0.07|-0.26|0.26
84606181|NCT02753127|168963544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard Ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin+ FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.179|0.797|0.3782
84606182|NCT02753127|168963545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.18||1-sided|Log Rank|"Based on stratified log rank test stratified by actual stratification factors~. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment."|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification~. A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.180|0.917|0.7307
84670542|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|454.5||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.87|1109.86|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 3||1109.86|-200.87|.2915
84670543|NCT02180412|169074661|OTHER||Slope|326.12||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.0|944.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 4||944.25|-292|.4382
84559252|NCT01006590|168871539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.1|-5.6|0.3202
84748270|NCT05754333|169250458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
84559253|NCT01006590|168871540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.3|-6.7|0.6203
84559254|NCT01006590|168871541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.38|0.7627
84559255|NCT01006590|168871542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-2.0|0.7701
84559256|NCT01006590|168871543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.93|||ANCOVA|||||10.93|-6.22|0.5882
84559257|NCT04942210|168871589|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.2|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.2|-1.2|
84559258|NCT01410240|168871655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.453
84559259|NCT01410240|168871656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.708
84559260|NCT01410240|168871657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.527
84559261|NCT01410240|168871658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.561
84559262|NCT01410240|168871659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.356
84559263|NCT01410240|168871660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.533
84606183|NCT02753127|168963545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.283||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox Proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.283|0.883|0.7434
84748271|NCT05754333|169250458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
84748272|NCT05754333|169250458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
84748273|NCT05754333|169250459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
84748274|NCT05754333|169250459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
84748275|NCT05754333|169250459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
84559264|NCT01410240|168871661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.734
84559265|NCT01410240|168871664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.314
84559266|NCT01410240|168871665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
84559267|NCT01410240|168871668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.058
84559268|NCT01410240|168871669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.421
84559269|NCT01410240|168871670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.161
84559270|NCT01410240|168871671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.016
84559271|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Pain||||0.534
84559272|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Stiffness||||0.269
84559273|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Physical Functioning||||0.693
84559274|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Average Score||||0.343
84559275|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Total Score||||0.343
84559276|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Pain||||0.978
84559277|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Stiffness||||0.709
84559278|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.594
84559279|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Average Score||||0.501
84559280|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Total Score||||0.501
84559281|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Pain||||0.171
84559282|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Stiffness||||0.077
84559283|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.026
84559284|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Average Score||||0.012
84559285|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Total Score||||0.012
84559286|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Pain||||0.126
84559287|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Stiffness||||0.044
84559288|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||||||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning|two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.153
84559289|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Average Score||||0.134
84559290|NCT01410240|168871673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Total Score||||0.134
84559291|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.962
84559292|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Physical||||0.714
84559293|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Bodily Pain||||0.668
84559294|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: General Health||||0.556
84559295|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Vitality||||0.705
84559296|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Social Functioning||||0.122
84606184|NCT02753127|168963546|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.1||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.2||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment .|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||5.2|-4.9|0.4797
84606185|NCT02753127|168963546|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-3.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||4.7|-11.0|0.783
84606186|NCT02753127|168963547|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-0.9||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||3.0|-4.8|0.6776
84559297|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Emotional||||0.254
84559298|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Mental Health||||0.500
84559299|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Component Summary||||0.849
84559300|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change Week 1: Mental Component Summary||||0.959
84559301|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.574
84559302|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Physical||||0.524
84559303|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Bodily Pain||||0.049
84559304|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: General Health||||0.447
84559305|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Vitality||||0.823
84559306|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Social Functioning||||0.661
84559307|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Emotional||||0.086
84559308|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Health||||0.635
84559309|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Component Summary||||0.481
84559310|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Component Summary||||0.140
84559311|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning||||0.107
84559312|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Physical||||0.298
84559313|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Bodily Pain||||0.071
84559314|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: General Health||||0.940
84559315|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Vitality||||0.293
84559316|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Social Functioning||||0.265
84559317|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Emotional||||0.036
84559318|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Health||||0.307
84559319|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Component Summary||||0.448
84748276|NCT05754333|169250460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-m in WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
84559320|NCT01410240|168871675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Component Summary||||0.255
84559321|NCT01410240|168871677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.052
84559322|NCT04348500|168871689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the use of clazakizumab as a treatment compared to placebo in reducing or eliminating the incidence of severe adverse events among patients with COVID-19.||||0.10
84559323|NCT04348500|168871695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that there is no change in the need for mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO at 14 days after the first administered dose in comparison to placebo.||||0.10
84559324|NCT02776670|168871696|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was deemed established if the lower limit of the 95% CI (equivalent to the 1-sided 97.5% CI) for the adjusted estimate of the difference (Systane Balance-Refresh Optive Advanced/Optive Plus) was above the noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.601||p-value for testing noninferiority of Systane Balance with respect to Refresh Optive Advanced/Refresh Optive Plus is calculated for predefined noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.601|-0.341|<0.0001
84559325|NCT02776670|168871697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.585|||MMRM|||||0.585|-0.349|0.310
84559326|NCT02776670|168871699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.7|||MMRM|||||4.7|-6.4|0.618
84559327|NCT02636699|168871704|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.8|||Wald|||Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||29.8|12.4|<0.001
84559328|NCT02636699|168871705|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|19.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|38.4|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 1:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||38.4|-6.4|0.105
84559329|NCT02636699|168871705|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.8|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 2:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||30.8|12.1|<0.001
84559330|NCT02636699|168871706|OTHER||Difference in Median CRD|297.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.0|317.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The treatment effect was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference in median CRDs at Month 12.||317.0|130.0|<0.001
84559331|NCT00703118|168871783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|56.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||56.7|36.8|<0.001
84571451|NCT02858908|168893788|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0213||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3368|0.2941|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.2941|-0.3368|0.8886
84606187|NCT02753127|168963547|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-2.0||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||3.7|-7.7|0.7513
84606188|NCT02936284|168963561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effect regression model including covariates: child sex, child birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid grouping|difference between music and play group change|||||0.016
84748277|NCT05754333|169250460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
84748278|NCT05754333|169250460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
84748279|NCT05754333|169250461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
84559332|NCT00703118|168871783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|59.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48 or T12(DS)/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12(DS)/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||59.7|39.9|<0.001
84559333|NCT03714776|168871793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84559334|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.454
84559335|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.909
84559336|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.132
84559337|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.659
84559338|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.474
84559339|NCT03714776|168871794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.483
84559340|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.064
84559341|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
84559342|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
84559343|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
84559344|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
84559345|NCT03714776|168871795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
84559346|NCT00212264|168871796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
84559347|NCT00212264|168871797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Note that the no-treatment control group completed the study after 2 months and was not included in this analysis of treatment effect durability.||||||.32
84559348|NCT02051335|168871798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.4|0.573
84559349|NCT02051335|168871798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.4|-1.8|0.210
84559350|NCT02051335|168871798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.2|-1.0|0.821
84559351|NCT02051335|168871798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.426
84748280|NCT05754333|169250461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
84559352|NCT02051335|168871798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.9|-0.2|0.126
84606189|NCT02936284|168963562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||music group vs. play group baseline to 24 months|mixed effect regression analysis, unstructured covariance, no covariates. Reporting group x time interaction||||0.70
84748281|NCT05754333|169250461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
84748282|NCT05754333|169250462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
84748283|NCT05754333|169250462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
84494734|NCT05182840|168739950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.08|2.40|0.0000
84559353|NCT02051335|168871799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||3.9|-0.1|0.057
84559354|NCT02051335|168871799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.8|0.394
84559355|NCT02051335|168871799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.0|0.1|0.042
84559356|NCT02051335|168871799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-1.9|0.928
84559357|NCT02051335|168871799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.7|1.0|0.004
84559358|NCT01578499|168871812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|56.8||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a two-sided Χ² test with a significance level of 0.05, and a 10% dropout rate, a sample size of approximately 124 participants was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in ORR4 in the brentuximab vedotin group.||56.8|27.5|<0.001
84559359|NCT01578499|168871813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|33.0||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.0|-2.5|0.0002
84559360|NCT01578499|168871814|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.577|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio brentuximab vedotin/ comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) with the 95% CI from a stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the explanatory variable and baseline disease diagnosis (MF or pcALCL) as stratification factor.|0.577|0.247|<0.001
84559361|NCT01578499|168871815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of difference|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||P-value is calculated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model controlling for baseline symptom domain score, eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status score (=0 and ≥1), and disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF) between the brentuximab vedotin and comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) arms.||-11.4|-26.7|<0.001
84559362|NCT00094536|168871836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||1-sided z-test|1-sided z-test with continuity correction (pooled)||||||.271
84748284|NCT05754333|169250462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
84559363|NCT01900431|168871837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by combining the log-transformation of odds ratio from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analyses of the different imputed datasets, using Rubin's formulae, and then by back-transforming the combined estimate. The CMH analyses were adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>= 4 versus VH \<4).||5.6|0.8|0.2354
84559364|NCT01900431|168871838|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.223|-0.262||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline adjudicated VH.||-0.262|-1.223|0.0127
84559365|NCT01900431|168871839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|6.093||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||6.093|0.11|1
84559366|NCT01900431|168871840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|9.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline BCVA.||9.67|1.99|0.0153
84748285|NCT05754333|169250463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
84559367|NCT01900431|168871841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.41|-2.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-2.68|-50.41|0.0683
84559368|NCT01900431|168871842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.374|-0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-0.35|-12.374|0.0825
84559369|NCT01900431|168871845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|3.845||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||3.845|0.306|1
84559370|NCT03782974|168871848|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.0001
84559371|NCT03782974|168871849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.59||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||0.59|0.10|<0.0001
84559372|NCT03782974|168871850|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||8.77|3.93|<0.001
84559373|NCT03782974|168871851|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||7.01|1.08|<0.05
84559374|NCT03782974|168871852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.6
84559375|NCT03782974|168871853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.054
84559376|NCT03782974|168871854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.13
84559377|NCT03782974|168871855|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.56|-0.96|<0.0001
84559378|NCT03704948|168871862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84571452|NCT02858908|168893788|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0152||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3003|0.3307|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.3307|-0.3003|0.9204
84571453|NCT02858908|168893789|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|-42.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.0|2178.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||2178.50|-1270.00|1.0000
84670544|NCT01354496|169074670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.18|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.18|0.897|
84571454|NCT02858908|168893789|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|426.75||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-289.5|1198.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||1198.50|-289.50|0.3125
84571455|NCT02858908|168893791|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.7||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.7|2.6|0.0030
84606190|NCT02936284|168963563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||increase in weight for length z-score for music group|mixed-effect regression analysis with covariates: child sex, birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid categories||||0.540
84748286|NCT05754333|169250463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
84559379|NCT01687283|168871869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|8.59||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, center, sex, age and treatment|ANCOVA||The analysis only included participants who had at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data in the baseline week prior to randomization and at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data after randomization.|||8.59|-12.19|0.733
84559380|NCT01687283|168871870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|8.38|||ANCOVA|||||8.38|-12.95|0.674
84559381|NCT01687283|168871871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|7.04|||ANCOVA|||||7.04|-12.57|0.579
84559382|NCT01687283|168871872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|-6.00|0.854
84559383|NCT01687283|168871873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median day-time symptom score||||0.123
84559384|NCT01687283|168871873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median night-time symptom score||||0.949
84559385|NCT01687283|168871874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-12.07|0.204
84559386|NCT01687283|168871875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank sum|||||||0.170
84559387|NCT01687283|168871876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.041||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, centre, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 2||0.041|-0.118|0.337
84559388|NCT01687283|168871876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.085||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 4||0.085|-0.101|0.866
84670545|NCT01354496|169074671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.22|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.22|0.922|
84748287|NCT05754333|169250463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
84748288|NCT05754333|169250464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
84748289|NCT05754333|169250464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
84559389|NCT01687283|168871876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.062||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 8||0.062|-0.113|0.566
84559390|NCT01687283|168871876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.112||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 12||0.112|-0.078|0.727
84559391|NCT00904917|168871907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.015
84559392|NCT00904917|168871909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.037
84559393|NCT00762034|168871911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.94896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.94896
84559394|NCT00762034|168871912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72997||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72997
84559395|NCT00762034|168871913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.20892|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20892
84559396|NCT00762034|168871914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.71|0.01206
84559397|NCT00762034|168871915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.67|0.006
84559398|NCT00762034|168871920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0||||Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.667
84748290|NCT05754333|169250464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
84748291|NCT04981366|169250478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84606191|NCT03859739|168963585|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.79|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 2.44 %.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
84606192|NCT03859739|168963585|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.97|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 7.60%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
84748292|NCT04981366|169250479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559399|NCT00762034|168871921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
84559400|NCT00762034|168871921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
84559401|NCT00762034|168871922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559402|NCT00762034|168871922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559403|NCT00762034|168871936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.681||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||0.681|0.338|<0.001
84606193|NCT03859739|168963585|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.58|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 74.99%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
84606194|NCT03859739|168963585|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.78|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 87.41%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
84748293|NCT04981366|169250480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748294|NCT04981366|169250481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84748295|NCT04981366|169250482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559404|NCT00762034|168871937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.316||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.316|0.654|0.673
84559405|NCT00762034|168871937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.521||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.729||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.729|0.157|0.287
84559406|NCT00762034|168871937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.157||p-value is for TS Nucleus Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.157|0.498|0.2
84559407|NCT00762034|168871937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.738||p-value is for TS Nucleus Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.738|0.540|0.915
84559408|NCT00762034|168871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.511||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.511|0.622|0.891
84559409|NCT00762034|168871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.023||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.023|0.342|0.060
84559410|NCT00762034|168871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||p-value for FR-α Membrane Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.880|0.490|0.905
84559411|NCT00762034|168871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.281||p-value for FR-α Membrane Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.281|0.575|0.455
84559412|NCT02442206|168871939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.209|14.331|||ANOVA|||||14.331|6.209|<0.0001
84559413|NCT02442206|168871940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.49|||ANOVA|||||0.49|0.36|<0.0001
84748296|NCT04981366|169250483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748297|NCT04981366|169250484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84748298|NCT04981366|169250485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748299|NCT04981366|169250486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84494735|NCT05182840|168739950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.67|2.91|0.0000
84494736|NCT05182840|168739951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
84494737|NCT05182840|168739951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
84494738|NCT05182840|168739951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
84494739|NCT05182840|168739952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.74|1.03|0.0419
84494740|NCT05182840|168739952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.08|2.64|0.0000
84494741|NCT05182840|168739952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.25||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.25|2.64|0.0000
84559414|NCT02442206|168871941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.80|0.55|<0.0001
84559415|NCT02442206|168871942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.541|||ANOVA|||||0.541|0.352|<0.0001
84748300|NCT04981366|169250487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748301|NCT04981366|169250488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559416|NCT02442206|168871943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.070|-0.285|0.0017
84559417|NCT02442206|168871944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.577|||ANOVA|||||-0.577|-0.925|<0.0001
84559418|NCT02442206|168871945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.945|-1.332|||ANOVA|||||-1.332|-1.945|<0.0001
84559419|NCT02442206|168871946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|-0.489|||ANOVA|||||-0.489|-0.761|<0.0001
84559420|NCT02442206|168871947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.209||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|2.836|||ANOVA|||LV EF||2.836|-0.419|0.1420
84748302|NCT04981366|169250489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84748303|NCT04981366|169250490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
84748304|NCT04981366|169250491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
84748305|NCT04981366|169250492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
84748306|NCT04981366|169250493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
84748307|NCT04981366|169250494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
84748308|NCT04981366|169250495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84748309|NCT04981366|169250496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
84748310|NCT04981366|169250497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84748311|NCT04981366|169250498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84748312|NCT04981366|169250499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84748313|NCT04981366|169250500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84748314|NCT04981366|169250501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748315|NCT04981366|169250502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
84748316|NCT04981366|169250503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.613
84494742|NCT05182840|168739953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
84559421|NCT02442206|168871947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.131||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.774|||ANOVA|||RV EF||2.774|-0.512|0.1732
84559422|NCT02442206|168871948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.241||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|4.417|||ANOVA|||LV ESV||4.417|0.066|0.0437
84559423|NCT02442206|168871948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.095||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|4.782|||ANOVA|||RV ESV||4.782|-0.591|0.1236
84559424|NCT02442206|168871949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.357||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.649|14.065|||ANOVA|||||14.065|4.649|0.0002
84748317|NCT04981366|169250504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
84748318|NCT04981366|169250505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
84748319|NCT04981366|169250506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748320|NCT04981366|169250507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559425|NCT02442206|168871950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.337||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.555|||ANOVA|||LVCO||0.555|0.118|0.0032
84748321|NCT04981366|169250508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748322|NCT04981366|169250510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748323|NCT04981366|169250511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84559426|NCT02442206|168871950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.281||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.512|||ANOVA|||RVCO||0.512|0.050|0.0182
84559427|NCT00497146|168871951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes treatment, visit, gender, baseline RAAS inhibitor use, country, baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction.||||||0.145
84559428|NCT02412878|168872048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.716|3.598||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value from CMH test stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||3.598|1.716|< 0.0001
84559429|NCT02412878|168872048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.563|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.563|1.707|<0.0001
84559430|NCT02412878|168872049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.883||Progression-free survival, overall response rate, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|To ensure proper control of type I error, analysis of PFS was performed under a group sequential design framework with the stopping boundaries constructed using the Lan-DeMets spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming approach. The inferential comparison between the 2 treatment groups for PFS used the 1-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors. A 1-sided p-value was compared against the prespecified adjusted alpha value of 0.011 to determine significance.||0.883|0.544|0.0014
84559431|NCT02412878|168872049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.913|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.913|0.567|0.0033
84748324|NCT04981366|169250512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748325|NCT04981366|169250513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748326|NCT04981366|169250514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
84748327|NCT04981366|169250515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748328|NCT04981366|169250516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
84748329|NCT04981366|169250517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
84748330|NCT04981366|169250518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
84748331|NCT04981366|169250519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
84748332|NCT04981366|169250520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
84748333|NCT04981366|169250521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.550
84748334|NCT04981366|169250522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.700
84748335|NCT04981366|169250523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
84748336|NCT04981366|169250524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
84748337|NCT04981366|169250525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
84748338|NCT04981366|169250526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
84748339|NCT04981366|169250527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
84748340|NCT04981366|169250528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.239
84748341|NCT04981366|169250529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.463
84748342|NCT04981366|169250530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
84748343|NCT04981366|169250531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.469
84748344|NCT04981366|169250532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84748345|NCT04981366|169250533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
84748346|NCT04981366|169250534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0314
84606195|NCT03859739|168963593|OTHER||Standard Error (SE)|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 0.25%.|The posterior probability (PP) that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
84606196|NCT03859739|168963593|OTHER||SE|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 65.41%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
84606197|NCT03859739|168963593|OTHER||SE|0.133|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.99%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
84606198|NCT03859739|168963593|OTHER||SE|0.163|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.98%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
84606199|NCT00733135|168963614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|||||||<0.05
84606200|NCT02590562|168963688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||<0.0001
84606201|NCT02590562|168963689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||0.0108
84748347|NCT04981366|169250535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0147
84606202|NCT00824005|168963695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the change in the cell group to the change in the placebo group.||2.34|-0.42|0.169
84606203|NCT00824005|168963696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|12.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end systolic volume over time.||12.07|-10.05|0.856
84748348|NCT04981366|169250536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84606204|NCT00824005|168963697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.3||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|10.1||Is the change in percent reversible defect the same between the two groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in percent of the defect that is reversible||10.1|-12.5|0.835
84606205|NCT00824005|168963700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||0.14|-0.30|0.471
84606206|NCT00824005|168963701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.784||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average improvement in Canadian Class Score over time between the two groups.||0.16|-0.66|0.227
84606207|NCT00824005|168963702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in NYHA score between the two groups||0.21|-0.56|0.361
84606208|NCT00824005|168963703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the proportion of particip|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.045||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Difference in the change in anti-anginal meds across groups||0.09|-0.01|0.28
84748349|NCT04981366|169250537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84748350|NCT04981366|169250538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84606209|NCT00824005|168963704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|104.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|409.0||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|303.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in six minute walk distance||303|-95|0.302
84606210|NCT00824005|168963705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in BNP(reg) between cell and placebo group||80|-150|0.55
84606211|NCT00824005|168963706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|23.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end diastolic volume between the two groups over time.||23.93|-5.03|0.198
84606212|NCT00824005|168963707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the incidence rates|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events between the two groups over time. (Incidence rate)||0.039|-0.133|0.47
84606213|NCT00824005|168963708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||3.36|-4.78|0.7
84606214|NCT03458702|168963714|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline that there were no differences between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84606215|NCT03458702|168963714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for TIME||||<0.001
84606216|NCT03458702|168963715|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline there would be no difference between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84606217|NCT03458702|168963715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: Condition x Time Interaction||||<0.001
84748351|NCT03339570|169250574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test was used if they were variables adjusted to a normal distribution, or the Mann-Whitney U test if they were non-normal variables.||||<0.01
84748352|NCT03421431|169250583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|12.46||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|24.891|||ANCOVA|||||24.891|0.029|0.0495
84748353|NCT03421431|169250583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.257||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.754|18.268|||ANCOVA|||||18.268|-5.754|0.3039
84748354|NCT03421431|169250583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.203||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|16.021|||ANCOVA|||||16.021|-3.615|0.2130
84748355|NCT03421431|169250584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.717||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.455|||ANCOVA|||||7.455|1.980|0.0009
84748356|NCT03421431|169250584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.934||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.766|3.635|||ANCOVA|||||3.635|-1.766|0.4946
84748357|NCT03421431|169250584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|5.858|||ANCOVA|||||5.858|1.708|0.0005
84748358|NCT03421431|169250585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.076||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|-0.062|0.2756
84748359|NCT03421431|169250585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.003||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|-0.136|0.9686
84606218|NCT03458702|168963715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.005
84606219|NCT03458702|168963716|EQUIVALENCE|It would be hypothesized that there would not be a difference at baseline.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
84606220|NCT03458702|168963716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: CONDITION X TIME INTERACTION||||0.042
84606221|NCT03458702|168963716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||ANOVA: TIME||||<0.001
84606222|NCT03458702|168963717|EQUIVALENCE|A difference at baseline was not expected.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84606223|NCT03458702|168963717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.016
84606224|NCT03458702|168963718|EQUIVALENCE|no difference is expected at baseline|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84606225|NCT03458702|168963718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA:TIME||||0.026
84606226|NCT03458702|168963719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
84606227|NCT00168103|168963724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.525||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.217|-0.033||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold was 0.024 (overall Type 1 error 0.025 adjusted for alpha spending for an interim analysis).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.033|-2.217|0.0025
84606228|NCT00168103|168963725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1088||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0392|0.3023||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Fisher Exact|1-sided|The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|Worsened intensity was evaluated between 2 and 4 hours after start of study treatment relative to baseline for at least 1 of the HAE symptoms present at baseline.||0.3023|0.0392|0.0014
84606229|NCT00168103|168963726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.292||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-1.05||1-sided, exploratory test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|This was an exploratory analysis.||-1.050|-5.150|0.0237
84559432|NCT02412878|168872050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.138||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||1.138|0.563|0.1070
84606230|NCT00168103|168963727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0642|0.4575|||||The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|This was an exploratory analysis.||0.4575|0.0642|
84606231|NCT00168103|168963728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.0329
84606232|NCT05268744|168963776|SUPERIORITY|Since all outcomes were normally distributed, one-sided paired t-test was used to compare mean pre- and post-treatment scores to see whether post-treatment scores of ABI-S and SRS had improved compared to pre-treatment scores|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was no improvement in mean ABI-S and SRS scores at the end of the study, compared to baseline||||<0.05
84606233|NCT01318070|168963786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.224|
84606234|NCT01318070|168963786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.225|
84670546|NCT01354496|169074672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.16|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.16|0.896|
84559433|NCT02412878|168872050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.164|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.164|0.578|0.1326
84559434|NCT01031004|168872134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.0466
84559435|NCT01031004|168872135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.1069
84606235|NCT01318070|168963787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.292||||||||-0.292|-0.434|
84606236|NCT01318070|168963787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|-0.287||||||||-0.287|-0.432|
84606237|NCT01318070|168963788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.484||||||||-0.484|-0.692|
84606238|NCT01318070|168963788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.526||||||||-0.526|-0.743|
84606239|NCT01318070|168963789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.47||||||||-4.47|-13.20|
84559436|NCT01031004|168872136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4605||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.4605
84559437|NCT01031004|168872137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.5774
84606240|NCT01318070|168963789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-8.26||||||||-8.26|-17.86|
84606241|NCT01318070|168963790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|-6.25||||||||-6.25|-16.22|
84606242|NCT01318070|168963790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.63||||||||-9.63|-20.00|
84606243|NCT01318070|168963791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-7.68||||||||-7.68|-18.09|
84606244|NCT01318070|168963791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-11.53||||||||-11.53|-22.64|
84606245|NCT01318070|168963792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-6.4||||||||-6.40|-18.51|
84606246|NCT01318070|168963792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-10.19||||||||-10.19|-22.78|
84670547|NCT01354496|169074673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.15|0.882|
84748360|NCT03421431|169250585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.079||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.184|||ANCOVA|||||0.184|-0.026|0.1406
84559438|NCT01031004|168872138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6403||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B will not be statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.6403
84748361|NCT03421431|169250586|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.125||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.363|||ANCOVA|||||0.363|-0.613|0.6130
84606247|NCT01318070|168963793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-21.51|
84748362|NCT03421431|169250586|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.049||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.423|||ANCOVA|||||0.423|-0.521|0.8366
84748363|NCT03421431|169250586|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.076||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.315|||ANCOVA|||||0.315|-0.466|0.7015
84748364|NCT03421431|169250587|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.186||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.613|0.3875
84748365|NCT03421431|169250587|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.248||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|-0.657|0.2331
84748366|NCT03421431|169250587|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.061||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.395|||ANCOVA|||||0.395|-0.272|0.7164
84606248|NCT01318070|168963793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-11.95||||||||-11.95|-30.43|
84748367|NCT03421431|169250588|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.311|||ANCOVA|||||0.311|0.110|<0.0001
84748368|NCT03421431|169250588|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.046||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.143|||ANCOVA|||||0.143|-0.051|0.3480
84748369|NCT03421431|169250588|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.243|||ANCOVA|||||0.243|0.085|<0.0001
84748370|NCT03421431|169250589|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.299||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.645|0.047|||ANCOVA|||||0.047|-0.645|0.0897
84748371|NCT03421431|169250589|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.251||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.085|||ANCOVA|||||0.085|-0.586|0.1411
84559439|NCT01031004|168872139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.7217
84559440|NCT02815267|168872147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||4.88|0.72|0.0083
84606249|NCT01318070|168963794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.586||||||||-0.586|-0.848|
84606250|NCT01318070|168963794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|-0.634||||||||-0.634|-0.913|
84748372|NCT03421431|169250589|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.048||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|-0.326|0.7330
84748373|NCT03421431|169250590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.873||||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.574|1005.32|||ANCOVA|||||1005.320|-901.574|0.9143
84748374|NCT03421431|169250590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|404.168||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.519|1297.854|||ANCOVA|||||1297.854|-489.519|0.3718
84748375|NCT03421431|169250590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-352.295||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1091.308|386.719|||ANCOVA|||||386.719|-1091.308|0.3466
84748376|NCT03421431|169250591|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.173||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.081|0.0003
84748377|NCT03421431|169250591|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.025||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.062|0.5685
84748378|NCT03421431|169250591|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|0.075|<0.0001
84748379|NCT03421431|169250592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.133||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|-0.015|||ANCOVA|||||-0.015|-0.252|0.0282
84748380|NCT03421431|169250592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.068||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.182|0.2412
84748381|NCT03421431|169250592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.066||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|||||0.027|-0.158|0.1649
84748382|NCT03421431|169250593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.009||||0.4357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.014|0.4357
84748383|NCT03421431|169250593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.023|||ANCOVA|||||0.023|-0.021|0.8989
84748384|NCT03421431|169250593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.026|||ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.011|0.4120
84748385|NCT03421431|169250594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.731||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.095|-0.368|||ANCOVA|||||-0.368|-3.095|0.0134
84748386|NCT03421431|169250594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|1.001|||ANCOVA|||||1.001|-1.656|0.6263
84748387|NCT03421431|169250594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.404||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.487|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.487|0.0115
84748388|NCT03421431|169250595|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.723||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.253|||ANCOVA|||||6.253|-13.700|0.4608
84748389|NCT03421431|169250595|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.377||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.962|7.207|||ANCOVA|||||7.207|-11.962|0.6238
84748390|NCT03421431|169250595|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.346||||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.268|6.576|||ANCOVA|||||6.576|-9.268|0.7367
84748391|NCT03421431|169250596|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.407||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.287|3.474|||ANCOVA|||||3.474|-4.287|0.8302
84748392|NCT03421431|169250596|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.192|2.632|||ANCOVA|||||2.632|-5.192|0.5053
84748393|NCT03421431|169250596|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.873||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.366|||ANCOVA|||||3.366|-1.620|0.4760
84748394|NCT03421431|169250597|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.91||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|0.351|||ANCOVA|||||0.351|-12.171|0.0639
84748395|NCT03421431|169250597|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.064||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.971|3.843|||ANCOVA|||||3.843|-7.971|0.4884
84748396|NCT03421431|169250597|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.846||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|1.464|||ANCOVA|||||1.464|-9.156|0.1532
84748397|NCT03421431|169250598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.978|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.978|0.0811
84559441|NCT02815267|168872148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|8.19||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.19|-1.54|0.1805
84559442|NCT02815267|168872149|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|21.39|||ANCOVA|||||21.39|4.07|0.0040
84559443|NCT02815267|168872150|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|1.85|0.0002
84559444|NCT02815267|168872150|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.40|2.38|<.0001
84559445|NCT02815267|168872151|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6|Risk Difference (RD)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.3|0.13|0.0395
84559446|NCT02815267|168872151|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 9.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|-0.28|0.0748
84559447|NCT02178358|168872176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.226|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.226|0.434|0.837
84559448|NCT02178358|168872176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.266|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.266|0.633|0.704
84559449|NCT04165135|168872208|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Heart zone minutes: Comparison among the age groups was performed by means of a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7630
84670548|NCT01354496|169074675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.951|
84670549|NCT01354496|169074675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.983|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.983|0.905|
84670550|NCT01354496|169074676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.04|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.926|
84670551|NCT01354496|169074676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.993|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.993|0.891|
84559450|NCT04165135|168872208|OTHER|||||||0.0913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Active zone minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0913
84559451|NCT04165135|168872208|OTHER|||||||0.0956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MVPA minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0956
84559452|NCT04165135|168872209|OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0649
84559453|NCT04165135|168872210|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
84559454|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.9493|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9493
84559455|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.8305|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8305
84559456|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.8725|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8725
84559457|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3380
84559458|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.9706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9706
84559459|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.1727|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1727
84559460|NCT04165135|168872211|OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0099
84559461|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.6151
84559462|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.9332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9332
84559463|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.4726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4726
84559464|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.4111|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4111
84559465|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.0892|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0892
84559466|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1642
84559467|NCT04165135|168872212|OTHER|||||||0.7256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7256
84559468|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0745
84670552|NCT00923559|169074728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.006||95.0|2.64|14.74||Null hypothesis MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 68.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||14.74|2.64|.006
84559469|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2177
84559470|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.2121|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2121
84559471|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2336
84559472|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4190
84606251|NCT04375397|168963798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|20.4|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at two-sided alpha = 0.2.||20.4|-9.2|=0.599
84748398|NCT03421431|169250598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.117||||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.601|||ANCOVA|||||0.601|-0.367|0.6312
84748399|NCT03421431|169250598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.577||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||||-0.143|-1.011|0.0099
84559473|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0252
84748400|NCT03421431|169250611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.356||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|3.034|||ANCOVA|||||3.034|-0.322|0.1120
84559474|NCT04165135|168872213|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2143
84559475|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0085
84559476|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.1098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1098
84559477|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.2703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2703
84559478|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.3366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3366
84559479|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.0992|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0992
84559480|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.1194|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1194
84559481|NCT04165135|168872214|OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0549
84559482|NCT04165135|168872215|OTHER|||||||0.0088|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison among age groups was performed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0088
84559483|NCT04000360|168872292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.85||This was the sole primary outcome. The test was conducted with a priori p-value threshold of α=0.05, with no multiple comparison adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test of equality of slopes with time (change in points/year) between aerobic exercise (AE) and usual and customary care (UCC) treatment arms.|Higher MDS-UPDRS III score reflects worse Parkinson's symptoms; increases reflect PD progression. The reported effect is the estimated difference between annual rates of change in scores of AE and UCC patients.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and AR(1) covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||-1.85|-5.40|<0.0001
84748401|NCT03421431|169250611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.647||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|2.24|||ANCOVA|||||2.240|-0.947|0.4229
84748402|NCT03421431|169250611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.996|||ANCOVA|||||1.996|-0.577|0.2764
84748403|NCT03421431|169250612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.037|||ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.020|0.5606
84748404|NCT03421431|169250612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.004|0.1002
84748405|NCT03421431|169250612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.014||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.036|0.2002
84748406|NCT03421431|169250613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-178.787||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1098.454|740.88|||ANCOVA|||||740.880|-1098.454|0.7014
84748407|NCT03421431|169250613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|52.307||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.934|935.547|||ANCOVA|||||935.547|-830.934|0.9070
84748408|NCT03421431|169250613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-231.094||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-967.273|505.086|||ANCOVA|||||505.086|-967.273|0.5360
84748409|NCT03421431|169250614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-753.153||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2183.92|677.614|||ANCOVA|||||677.614|-2183.920|0.2985
84494743|NCT05182840|168739953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
84559484|NCT04000360|168872293|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in squared 10 Meter Walk Test Comfortable Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in squared velocity slopes|12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.32||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 Meter Walk Test fast pace velocity, TUG duration \& turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slope of meters\^2/second, in 100ths of meters\^2/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Parkinson's progression limits mobility; higher slope reflects less progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test velocity was squared ((meters/second)\^2) for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||21.32|3.10|0.043
84559485|NCT04000360|168872294|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in 10 Meter Walk Test Fast Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.42||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration and turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of the AE and UCC treatment arms, in 100ths of meters/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Higher slope reflects less Parkinson's disease progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||8.42|-2.10|0.48
84606252|NCT04375397|168963798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|28.7|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at twosided alpha = 0.2.||28.7|-18.1|=0.599
84670553|NCT00923559|169074729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.68||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 69.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||4.68|0.46|.018
84670554|NCT00923559|169074730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.75||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom = 73.4||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.75|-0.21|.266
84670555|NCT00923559|169074731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.32|0.00|.052
84670556|NCT00923559|169074732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 61.2||see under the PIR-GAS||-0.08|-1.61|.031
84748410|NCT03421431|169250614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|139.107||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1236.689|1514.902|||ANCOVA|||||1514.902|-1236.689|0.8413
84748411|NCT03421431|169250614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-892.26||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2011.705|227.186|||ANCOVA|||||227.186|-2011.705|0.1168
84670557|NCT00923559|169074733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (df) = 71.2||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.31|-0.05|.158
84748412|NCT03421431|169250615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.984|48.998|||ANCOVA|||||48.998|17.984|<0.0001
84748413|NCT03421431|169250615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|30.814|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.802|45.825|||ANCOVA|||||45.825|15.802|<0.0001
84748414|NCT03421431|169250615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.677||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.300|-9.946|0.6757
84748415|NCT03421431|169250616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.533|38.067|||ANCOVA|||||38.067|4.533|0.0134
84748416|NCT03421431|169250616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.847||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.116|21.811|||ANCOVA|||||21.811|-10.116|0.4686
84748417|NCT03421431|169250616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.453||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.699|28.206|||ANCOVA|||||28.206|2.699|0.0181
84494744|NCT05182840|168739953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
84559486|NCT04000360|168872295|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes of inverse Timed Up and Go Test duration, i.e., of TUG completions/second, the speed of completing the test.|Difference in slopes|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.89||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test turning velocity, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference between estimated annual slopes in TUG completions/second/year for the AE and UCC groups.|Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a TUG completion/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was inverted to TUG completions/second. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||7.89|0.20|0.16
84606253|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.44|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||10.44|0.13|=0.886
84606254|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||=|0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.43|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -2~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||6.43|0.06|=0.705
84606255|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this 95% CI is infinite.||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"|||0.00|=0.996
84606256|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 0~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
84606257|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
84606258|NCT04375397|168963799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
84606259|NCT04375397|168963800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-1.5|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on supplemental oxygen was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.801
84606260|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
84606261|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
84606262|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
84606263|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
84606264|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
84670558|NCT04544293|169074734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Difference from placebo|||9.4|2.5|0.0007
84748418|NCT03421431|169250617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.324||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|8.756|||ANCOVA|||||8.756|-0.108|0.0557
84748419|NCT03421431|169250617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.305||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.955|6.566|||ANCOVA|||||6.566|-1.955|0.2867
84748420|NCT03421431|169250617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.019||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.429|||ANCOVA|||||5.429|-1.390|0.2437
84559487|NCT04000360|168872296|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of average turning velocities.|Difference in slopes.|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.88||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes of average turning velocity for the AE and UCC groups in degrees/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||4.88|-1.17|0.69
84571456|NCT02858908|168893791|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.6||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.6|2.4|0.0009
84670559|NCT04544293|169074735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.9||Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference from Placebo|||10.9|2.9|0.0008
84748421|NCT03421431|169250618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.019||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.491|3.53|||ANCOVA|||||3.530|-3.491|0.9913
84748422|NCT03421431|169250618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.995||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.323|4.314|||ANCOVA|||||4.314|-2.323|0.5530
84748423|NCT03421431|169250618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.976||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.665|1.713|||ANCOVA|||||1.713|-3.665|0.4729
84748424|NCT04147650|169250621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.62|||Regression, Logistic|||0.05 % VOS versus vehicle||7.62|0.62|0.1352
84748425|NCT04147650|169250621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||6.45|0.49|0.2823
84571457|NCT02858908|168893792|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||0.066|-0.330|0.1857
84571458|NCT02858908|168893792|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||-0.102|-0.549|0.0054
84571459|NCT02858908|168893795|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.162||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.731|-0.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||-0.593|-3.731|0.0111
84571460|NCT02858908|168893795|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|0.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||0.614|-2.525|0.2088
84748426|NCT04147650|169250621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.30|0.70|0.0889
84748427|NCT04147650|169250622|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||0.05% VOS versus vehicle||4.3|-9.6|0.3604
84748428|NCT04147650|169250622|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.4|||ANCOVA|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||4.4|-9.6|0.3737
84748429|NCT04147650|169250622|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.8||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6|||ANCOVA|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.6|-5.1|0.5307
84748430|NCT01959516|169250623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0250
84748431|NCT01959516|169250624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1439
84559488|NCT04000360|168872297|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of test performance speed (peg transfers/second/year) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|16.45||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) duration \& turning velocity and 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace.|Mixed Models Analysis||Manual dexterity expressed as peg transfers/second is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a peg transfer/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was transformed for modeling to peg transfers/second (18/seconds). Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||16.45|-23.68|0.72
84559489|NCT04000360|168872298|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of squared match scores (matches\^2/year) between AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.12||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.41|38.6||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Visual Memory Test and Trail Making Test B to A duration ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Processing speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of the test to increase. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes (matches\^2/year) between the AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was squared (matches\^2) for analysis. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||38.60|-232.41|0.48
84559490|NCT04000360|168872299|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of log(TMT B to TMT A duration ratio) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|8.46||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Visual Memory Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual attention and set switching speed decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of Trail Making Test B increases. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of (log TMT B/TMT A), i.e., change/year, between AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the ratios were transformed to their natural logarithms for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||8.46|-15.31|1.00
84559491|NCT04000360|168872300|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of squared test score.|Difference in slopes|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.91||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Trail Making Test Ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual memory declines with Parkinson's, hence the score declines. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes, i.e., changes in mean score\^2/year, for AE and UCC treatment arms, shown in hundreds. Higher slope indicates slower decline.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the score was squared for statistical modeling. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||2.91|-2.58|0.91
84559492|NCT01119846|168872371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.523|0.6335|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model.|||0.6335|0.5230|
84748432|NCT01178671|169250635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84748433|NCT01178671|169250636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84748434|NCT01178671|169250637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
84748435|NCT01178671|169250638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
84748436|NCT01178671|169250639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
84748437|NCT01178671|169250640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
84748438|NCT01178671|169250641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|1.1|0.042
84748439|NCT01178671|169250642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84748440|NCT01178671|169250643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84748441|NCT01178671|169250644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
84748442|NCT01078675|169250652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|-42.88|-45.44|-40.32||P-value\<0.001 at Month 24. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is made for individual age group.|ANCOVA|P-value is two-sided and based on ANCOVA using age group as the fixed factor, and study centre and the baseline value as covariates.||||-40.32|-45.44|<0.001
84748443|NCT02513303|169250701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2942|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2942
84752750|NCT00733304|169260602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|41.51||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||41.51|-45.83|
84752751|NCT01187550|169260605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.194
84752752|NCT01187550|169260606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.752
84752753|NCT01187550|169260607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.710
84748444|NCT01691768|169250712|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||||Univariate Linear Mixed Models were used to analyze primary outcome.|The least square mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the least square mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|Intent to treat population (all participants who were randomized, met pre-randomization eligibility criteria and who have post-enrollment follow-up data) was used for this analyses.|The primary endpoint was compared using univariate linear mixed model with compound symmetry structure.|0.21|-1.16|
84748445|NCT01691768|169250712|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.48||||Univariable Linear Mixed Models was used for the analyses|We calculated the difference in means between the two arms. The mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|This is the analyses from the per protocol population (excluding all subsequent data collected from participants who were not dispensed product for more than 120 days).||0.48|-0.98|
84752754|NCT01187550|169260608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.265
84559493|NCT01119846|168872373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5282|0.6375|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-24.|||0.6375|0.5282|
84559494|NCT01119846|168872373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5325|0.6291|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-last.|||0.6291|0.5325|
84559495|NCT01119846|168872388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.1||||||||1.10|-1.17|
84559496|NCT01119846|168872388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.90|
84559497|NCT01119846|168872388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.10|
84559498|NCT01119846|168872388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.80|
84559499|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.80|
84752755|NCT01187550|169260609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.308
84559500|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.76|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.76|-1.53|
84559501|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.54|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.54|-1.64|
84559502|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.39|
84559503|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.95|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||1.95|-2.53|
84559504|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.3|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.30|-2.35|
84559505|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.15|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.15|-2.48|
84559506|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.21|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.21|-1.88|
84559507|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.87|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.87|-1.58|
84559508|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.13|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.13|-1.41|
84559509|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.18|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.18|-1.36|
84559510|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.91|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.91|-1.33|
84559511|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.68|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.68|-1.68|
84559512|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.21|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||1.21|-1.24|
84559513|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.95|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.95|-1.44|
84559514|NCT01119846|168872389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.4|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.40|-1.72|
84559515|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-479.74|379.94|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||379.94|-479.74|
84559516|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-507.32|384.04|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||384.04|-507.32|
84559517|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.07|358.37|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||358.37|-530.07|
84559518|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.09|291.25|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||291.25|-494.09|
84559519|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.32|261.85|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||261.85|-340.32|
84559520|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-429.61|194.74|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.74|-429.61|
84559521|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.14|189.18|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||189.18|-433.14|
84559522|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.07|194.03|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.03|-356.07|
84559523|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.812|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|13.7|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||13.70|-8.08|
84752756|NCT01187550|169260610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For total cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.078
84748446|NCT01691768|169250713|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.35|||z-test|We used z-test to compare incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HIV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HIV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|The power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.35|0.40|0.928
84559524|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|14.32|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||14.32|-8.27|
84559525|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|22.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||22.74|0.23|
84559526|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|2.86|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||2.86|-17.04|
84559527|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|12.28|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||12.28|-7.28|
84559528|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|13.67|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||13.67|-6.61|
84559529|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|18.04|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||18.04|-2.17|
84559530|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|1.88|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||1.88|-15.99|
84559531|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.76|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.76|-0.79|
84752757|NCT01187550|169260610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For HDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.033
84559532|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.82|-0.78|
84559533|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.85|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.85|-0.78|
84559534|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|4.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||4.17|2.74|
84559535|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.75|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.75|-0.78|
84559536|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.80|-0.79|
84559537|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.83|-0.79|
84559538|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||4.11|2.69|
84559539|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.17|-2.06|
84559540|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.42|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.42|-1.97|
84559541|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.02|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||4.02|-0.35|
84559542|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.3|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||0.30|-3.56|
84559543|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.86|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||1.86|-1.70|
84559544|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.13|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.13|-1.56|
84559545|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.6|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.60|-1.08|
84559546|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.29|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||0.29|-2.96|
84559547|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.18|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||6.18|-4.26|
84559548|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.69|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.69|-2.56|
84559549|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|8.01|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.01|-2.98|
84559550|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|4.13|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||4.13|-5.56|
84559551|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.67|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||0.67|-6.40|
84559552|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.95|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||2.95|-4.68|
84559553|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.29|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||3.29|-4.16|
84559554|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||1.71|-4.86|
84559555|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.38|118.9|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||118.90|-168.38|
84559556|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.16|136.7|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||136.70|-161.16|
84559557|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.07|138.81|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||138.81|-158.07|
84559558|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.15|64.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||64.28|-198.15|
84752758|NCT01187550|169260610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For LDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.041
84752759|NCT01187550|169260610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For triglycerides: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.091
84748447|NCT01691768|169250714|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||z-test|We used z-test to compare pregnancy incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the pregnancy incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the pregnancy incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|Power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.04|0.45|0.895
84748448|NCT01691768|169250715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Log-binomial|||Power was not calculated for all secondary outcomes.||1.24|0.94|0.304
84559559|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.57|78.48|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||78.48|-150.57|
84559560|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.27|96.22|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.22|-141.27|
84559561|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.36|96.36|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.36|-140.36|
84559562|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.95|38.3|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||38.30|-170.95|
84559563|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|14.62|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||14.62|-2.66|
84559564|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|17.86|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||17.86|-0.05|
84606265|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
84606266|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
84606267|NCT04375397|168963801|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
84748449|NCT01691768|169250716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
84559565|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.24|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||23.24|5.39|
84559566|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|2.45|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||2.45|-13.33|
84559567|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|11.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||11.87|-1.87|
84559568|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|14.03|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||14.03|-0.22|
84559569|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||16.14|1.93|
84559570|NCT01119846|168872390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.11|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||-0.11|-12.67|
84559571|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.56|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.56|-2.69|
84559572|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.36|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.36|-3.05|
84559573|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.02|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.02|-3.37|
84559574|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.33|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.33|-2.56|
84559575|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.39|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.39|-1.64|
84559576|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.09|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.09|-2.01|
84559577|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.06|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.06|-2.15|
84559578|NCT01119846|168872391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.07|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.07|-1.91|
84559579|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.57|506.49|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||506.49|-200.57|
84559580|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.69|480.42|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||480.42|-252.69|
84559581|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.89|479.83|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||479.83|-250.89|
84559582|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.32|459.6|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||459.60|-186.32|
84559583|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|163.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.31|454.55|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||454.55|-127.31|
84559584|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-243.57|359.72|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||359.72|-243.57|
84559585|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.32|379.0|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||379.00|-222.32|
84670560|NCT04544293|169074736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-11.40|0.0072
84748450|NCT01691768|169250718|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.33||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.32|||z-test||We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HPV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HPV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|||1.32|0.06|0.097
84606268|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
84748451|NCT01691768|169250719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Log-binomial|||||1.18|0.70|0.462
84494745|NCT05182840|168739954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.42|0.93|0.0767
84559586|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.73|422.82|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||422.82|-108.73|
84559587|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|17.87|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||17.87|-4.79|
84559588|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|15.84|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||15.84|-7.65|
84559589|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||24.74|1.33|
84559590|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|7.52|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||7.52|-13.17|
84559591|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|15.93|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||15.93|-3.47|
84670561|NCT04544293|169074737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.52|-14.10|0.0149
84670562|NCT04544293|169074738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.06|0.0845
84748452|NCT00819390|169250731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.428
84559592|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|14.65|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||14.65|-5.46|
84559593|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|19.51|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||19.51|-0.54|
84559594|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|6.08|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||6.08|-11.65|
84559595|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.52|-0.38|
84559596|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.72|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.72|-0.21|
84559597|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.51|-0.42|
84559598|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||3.11|2.28|
84559599|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.5|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.50|-0.36|
84559600|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.69|-0.20|
84559601|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.47|-0.41|
84559602|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||3.04|2.25|
84559603|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.55|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.55|-1.44|
84559604|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.82|-1.28|
84559605|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.44|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||2.44|-0.65|
84559606|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||-0.12|-2.85|
84559607|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.34|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.34|-1.18|
84559608|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.63|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-0.97|
84559609|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.12|-1.48|
84559610|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||-0.04|-2.34|
84670563|NCT04544293|169074739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.87||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-10.76|0.1046
84670564|NCT04544293|169074740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|-13.57|0.1216
84670565|NCT04544293|169074741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline compared to placebo.|||1.03|0.07|0.0234
84748453|NCT00819390|169250731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.247
84748454|NCT01191268|169250760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed to enroll 837 randomized participants (279 per treatment arm) with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 248 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.07|-0.38|<0.001
84748455|NCT01191268|169250760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.33|<0.001
84748456|NCT01191268|169250760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
84559611|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|3.98|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||3.98|-1.51|
84748457|NCT01191268|169250760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.33|0.015
84748458|NCT01191268|169250761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.42|<0.001
84748459|NCT01191268|169250761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.37|<0.001
84748460|NCT01191268|169250761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.42|0.005
84748461|NCT01191268|169250761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.37|0.014
84748462|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
84748463|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
84559612|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||5.71|0.04|
84559613|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.16|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||4.16|-1.21|
84559614|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.74|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||2.74|-2.20|
84559615|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.56|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.56|-4.92|
84748464|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.027
84748465|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.384
84559616|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.93|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.93|-4.74|
84559617|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.63|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-3.74|
84559618|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.22|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.22|-3.72|
84559619|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.82|122.59|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.59|-95.82|
84559620|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.25|123.21|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||123.21|-103.25|
84559621|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.43|145.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||145.28|-80.43|
84748466|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84748467|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.250
84748468|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.272
84748469|NCT01191268|169250762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.623
84748470|NCT01191268|169250763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84748471|NCT01191268|169250763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84748472|NCT01191268|169250763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84748473|NCT01191268|169250763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84748474|NCT01191268|169250764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.35|0.628
84748475|NCT01191268|169250764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.15|0.368
84748476|NCT01191268|169250764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.16|0.370
84748477|NCT01191268|169250764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.26|0.879
84748478|NCT01191268|169250765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.79||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|0.83|<0.001
84748479|NCT01191268|169250765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.28||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|1.32|<0.001
84748480|NCT01191268|169250765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.64||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.55|<0.001
84748481|NCT01191268|169250765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|0.88|<0.001
84748482|NCT01191268|169250767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.59||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.59|-3.81|<0.001
84494746|NCT05182840|168739954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.89|0.0003
84559622|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.77|122.76|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.76|-76.77|
84748483|NCT01191268|169250767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.54||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-2.76|<0.001
84748484|NCT01191268|169250767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.48||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.48|-3.99|<0.001
84748485|NCT01191268|169250767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.27||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.78|<0.001
84748486|NCT01191268|169250769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.96||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-1.44|<0.001
84748487|NCT01191268|169250769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.03|<0.001
84748488|NCT01191268|169250769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.94||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.55|<0.001
84748489|NCT01191268|169250769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.06|<0.001
84559623|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.79|90.97|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||90.97|-86.79|
84559624|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.47|91.84|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||91.84|-92.47|
84559625|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|111.91|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||111.91|-71.80|
84559626|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|104.8|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||104.80|-57.59|
84559627|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|10.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||10.14|-3.13|
84559628|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.18|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||14.18|0.41|
84559629|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||13.87|0.15|
84559630|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.51|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||3.51|-8.62|
84559631|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|7.17|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||7.17|-2.13|
84559632|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.12|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||10.12|0.47|
84559633|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.53|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||6.53|-3.08|
84559634|NCT01119846|168872392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.74|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||0.74|-7.75|
84559635|NCT01119846|168872393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.32||||||||1.32|-0.84|
84559636|NCT01119846|168872393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|-0.60|
84559637|NCT01119846|168872393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.17|
84559638|NCT01119846|168872393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.81|
84559639|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.06|-0.08|
84559640|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
84559641|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
84559642|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.08|-0.04|
84606269|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
84606270|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
84606271|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
84606272|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
84670566|NCT04544293|169074742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-8.84|0.1043
84670567|NCT04903249|169074760|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
84670568|NCT04903249|169074761|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
84670569|NCT04903249|169074762|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
84670570|NCT04903249|169074768|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
84670571|NCT04903249|169074769|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84670572|NCT04903249|169074770|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.327
84670573|NCT04903249|169074771|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
84559643|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|12.85|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||12.85|-8.31|
84559644|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|13.93|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.93|-8.01|
84559645|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.99|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||16.99|-4.88|
84559646|NCT01119846|168872394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|13.68|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.68|-5.65|
84559647|NCT01119846|168872395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.22|-0.28|
84559648|NCT01119846|168872395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.31|-0.20|
84559649|NCT01119846|168872395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.23|-0.29|
84559650|NCT01119846|168872395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.19|-0.27|
84559651|NCT01119846|168872396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.06|
84559652|NCT01119846|168872396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.82|
84559653|NCT01119846|168872396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.38||||||||1.38|-2.16|
84559654|NCT01119846|168872396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.7||||||||1.70|-1.43|
84559655|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.0|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.00|-3.04|
84559656|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.94|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.94|-3.07|
84559657|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|4.57|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||4.57|-0.45|
84559658|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.82|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.82|-2.19|
84559659|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.02|-3.99|
84559660|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.68|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.68|-3.27|
84559661|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.15|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||2.15|-2.78|
84559662|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||4.91|-0.03|
84559663|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.34|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||3.34|-1.58|
84559664|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.24|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.24|-3.69|
84559665|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.03|-2.06|
84559666|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.51|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.51|-1.56|
84559667|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.55|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.55|-0.53|
84748490|NCT02481947|169250821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 12.6% (pre-specified)||||||0.016||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.016
84559668|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.26|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.26|-0.80|
84559669|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||1.02|-3.05|
84559670|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.67|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||2.67|-3.05|
84559671|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.3|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.30|-2.39|
84559672|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||5.56|-0.14|
84559673|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.91|-1.78|
84559674|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.14|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||0.14|-5.55|
84606273|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
84748491|NCT01337115|169250822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.55|45.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between mean VAS pain scores. Power 80%. Null hypothesis states there is no difference between pains scores in both groups||45.34|11.55|0.001
84748492|NCT01337115|169250823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||||||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in patient satisfaction distribution by the three categories used (Bad; Reasonable; Good/Very Good) between groups.|Fisher's exact test|Fisher's Exact test allows to test for the significance of the distribution in the results table with three categories.||||||0.537
84559675|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.7|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.70|-2.41|
84559676|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.99|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.99|-2.09|
84559677|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.96|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||4.96|-0.13|
84559678|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||3.60|-1.47|
84559679|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||1.03|-4.05|
84559680|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.60|-4.20|
84559681|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.56|-4.21|
84559682|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.89|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||3.89|-1.89|
84559683|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.62|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.62|-3.14|
84559684|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.37|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.37|-3.40|
84559685|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.26|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.26|-2.29|
84559686|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.55|-1.99|
84559687|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.28|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.28|-1.28|
84559688|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.65|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.65|-1.98|
84559689|NCT01119846|168872397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.73|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||0.73|-2.81|
84559690|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.72|73.8|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||73.80|-214.72|
84559691|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-151.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.98|-7.46|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||-7.46|-295.98|
84559692|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.48|75.25|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||75.25|-213.48|
84559693|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.72|39.78|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||39.78|-248.72|
84559694|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-118.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.93|27.01|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||27.01|-263.93|
84559695|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-114.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.78|36.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||36.10|-264.78|
84559696|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.9|33.98|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||33.98|-266.90|
84559697|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.75|146.35|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||146.35|-154.75|
84559698|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|102.16|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||102.16|-198.70|
84559699|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.31|101.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||101.10|-202.31|
84559700|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|26.38|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||26.38|-40.84|
84559701|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|28.58|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||28.58|-38.63|
84559702|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|43.16|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||43.16|-24.11|
84559703|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.22|30.99|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||30.99|-36.22|
84559704|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|54.69|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||54.69|-13.09|
84559705|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.11|38.38|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.38|-156.11|
84559706|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.15|19.35|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||19.35|-175.15|
84559707|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|125.65|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||125.65|-69.00|
84559708|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.74|72.74|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||72.74|-121.74|
84606274|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
84606275|NCT04375397|168963802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
84606276|NCT04375397|168963803|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.851|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of mechanical ventilation-free survival, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.851
84606277|NCT04375397|168963804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|0.0|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on mechanical ventilation were compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.745
84606278|NCT04375397|168963805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.5|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test]||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median duration of hospitalization was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.977
84606279|NCT04375397|168963806|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of time to discharge from hospital, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.969
84606280|NCT05545644|168963814|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
84606281|NCT05545644|168963815|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
84606282|NCT05545644|168963816|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
84606283|NCT05545644|168963816|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Hedges g = .04; SE = .42|||
84559709|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.82|38.31|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.31|-157.82|
84559710|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.85|69.4|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||69.40|-69.85|
84559711|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.28|61.98|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.98|-77.28|
84559712|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.55|76.85|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||76.85|-62.55|
84559713|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|102.36|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||102.36|-36.89|
84559714|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|61.49|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.49|-81.01|
84559715|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.36|84.18|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||84.18|-123.36|
84559716|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.69|56.85|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||56.85|-150.69|
84559717|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.16|128.59|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||128.59|-79.16|
84559718|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.73|95.8|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||95.80|-111.73|
84559719|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|109.29|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||109.29|-103.08|
84559720|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.114|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|4.89|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||4.89|-25.12|
84559721|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.71|6.28|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.28|-23.71|
84559722|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|14.38|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||14.38|-15.63|
84559723|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|2.88|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.88|-27.78|
84559724|NCT01119846|168872398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|6.66|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.66|-24.02|
84606284|NCT05545644|168963817|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
84670574|NCT04903249|169074772|OTHER|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
84670575|NCT04903249|169074773|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.279
84670576|NCT04903249|169074774|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84748493|NCT01337115|169250824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|28.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Power 80%||28.33|5.52|0.006
84748494|NCT01337115|169250825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|11.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states there is no difference between both groups. Power 80% to detect 15% difference in means||11.83|-16.93|0.723
84748495|NCT03426267|169250826|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84748496|NCT03426267|169250827|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84748497|NCT01209780|169250833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if for all three strains the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 10 percentage points.|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||2|-4|
84494747|NCT05182840|168739954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.24|2.15|0.0001
84559725|NCT00048997|168872418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.38||One-sided significance level of 0.025.|Log Rank||Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|This study was designed to detect a 20% relative improvement in hazard rate: null hypothesis (observation): MST (median survival time) = 23.5 mo.; alternative hypothesis (PCI): MST= 29.4 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 1007 patients (527 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.38|0.84|0.2853
84559726|NCT00048997|168872419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.01
84559727|NCT00048997|168872420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.008
84606285|NCT00610441|168963818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6996||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.911|-0.4881||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||-0.4881|-10.911|0.0147
84748498|NCT01209780|169250833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||14|6|
84748499|NCT01209780|169250833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to the control TIV against B influenza strain||3|-5|
84748500|NCT01209780|169250835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.56||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||1.56|1.11|
84748501|NCT01209780|169250835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.64||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||1.64|1.34|
84748502|NCT01209780|169250835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against B influenza strain||1.07|0.85|
84748503|NCT03110185|169250881|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.0761||||||Delirium Incidence. There were no multiple comparisons, but includes age as a regressor. a priori threshold was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized logistic regression for delirium incidence and total DMN fc with age as a regressor.||||||0.0761
84559728|NCT00048997|168872421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.20
84559729|NCT00048997|168872422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.14
84559730|NCT00048997|168872423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.52
84559731|NCT00048997|168872424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.51
84559732|NCT00048997|168872425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Other [Z-test, 2-sided]|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.11
84559733|NCT00048997|168872426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = PCI arm|The development of CNS metastases was assessed using logistic regression modeling comparing presence vs. absence of brain metastases at 1 year.||4.80|1.32|0.005
84559734|NCT03763058|168872427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.012
84559735|NCT03763058|168872428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.002
84559736|NCT03763058|168872429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.045
84606286|NCT00610441|168963818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9926||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2961|5.2814||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.2814|-3.2961|0.5910
84606287|NCT00610441|168963819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|26.0878|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||26.0878|1.7990|
84606288|NCT00610441|168963819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3119|2.8701|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||2.8701|0.3119|
84606289|NCT00610441|168963820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6712|58.1395|||||Since no participants in the Placebo group achieved a 50% reduction, the comparison was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and 0.5 was added to both groups.|||58.1395|0.6712|
84606290|NCT00610441|168963820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|1.388|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||1.3880|0.0152|
84606291|NCT00610441|168963823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5654|2.5785|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||2.5785|0.5654|
84606292|NCT00610441|168963823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6951|4.9494|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||4.9494|0.6951|
84606293|NCT00610441|168963824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5402|3.2008|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.2008|0.5402|
84606294|NCT00610441|168963824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|3.7309|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.7309|0.5240|
84606295|NCT00610441|168963825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3163||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8138|1.1812||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1812|-1.8138|0.6155
84606296|NCT00610441|168963825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2934||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7449|3.3317||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||3.3317|-0.7449|0.1330
84606297|NCT00610441|168963826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5501||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9427|2.0429||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||2.0429|-0.9427|0.3907
84670577|NCT03556579|169074775|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.36|-1.01|
84606298|NCT00610441|168963826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0065||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9486|0.9357||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||0.9357|-0.9486|0.9872
84606299|NCT00610441|168963827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1543||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4898|1.1811||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1811|-1.4898|0.7828
84606300|NCT00610441|168963827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4222||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5187|1.363||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.3630|-0.5187|0.2883
84606301|NCT00610441|168963828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9685||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9599|4.0229|||MMRM|To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||4.0229|-5.9599|0.6532
84748504|NCT03075410|169250915|OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.34|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.34|0.87|
84559737|NCT03763058|168872430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
84559738|NCT03763058|168872431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||Total HAD score||||<0.001
84559739|NCT02759835|168872432|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.56
84559740|NCT02759835|168872434|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.40
84559741|NCT00055497|168872467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.142
84559742|NCT00055497|168872468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84559743|NCT00055497|168872469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.330
84606302|NCT00610441|168963828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1022||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8951|5.0996||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.0996|-2.8951|0.5247
84606303|NCT00334282|168963841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||1e-07||95.0|0.34|0.62||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing pazopanib to placebo.|||0.62|0.34|.0000001
84748505|NCT03075410|169250916|OTHER||Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.26|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is use|||1.26|0.71|
84748506|NCT03075410|169250917|OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.23|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.23|0.76|
84748507|NCT03075410|169250918|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.23|||||Fixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter t1/2 Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.23|0.64|
84748508|NCT03075410|169250919|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.5|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimation is used to calculate the 90% confidence interval.|||2.50|-0.50|
84559744|NCT00055497|168872469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.001
84559745|NCT00055497|168872469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
84559746|NCT00055497|168872469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.044
84559747|NCT00055497|168872470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.191
84559748|NCT00055497|168872470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.003
84559749|NCT00055497|168872470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
84559750|NCT00055497|168872470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.004
84559751|NCT00055497|168872471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84559752|NCT00048165|168872478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-12.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.3|-20.9|0.007
84559753|NCT00048165|168872479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-8.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5|-17.7|0.063
84559754|NCT00048165|168872482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 6 months were presented||||0.0005
84559755|NCT00048165|168872482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 12 months were presented||||0.0008
84559756|NCT02379273|168872507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.||||<0.001
84559757|NCT02379273|168872507|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84559758|NCT02379273|168872508|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84559759|NCT02379273|168872508|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84559760|NCT02379273|168872509|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84559761|NCT02379273|168872510|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||<0.001
84559762|NCT02379273|168872511|SUPERIORITY|Pre- and postoperative mean scores were compared based on Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84571461|NCT02858908|168893796|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||0.18|-3.71|0.0728
84559763|NCT01153009|168872515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|0.91||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 15 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in a sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.91|-3.86|0.224
84559764|NCT01153009|168872515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues for this dose.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.38|-5.12|0.023
84559765|NCT01153009|168872515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.69|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.69|-6.46|<0.001
84559766|NCT01153009|168872516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.984|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.984|0.786|0.348
84559767|NCT01153009|168872516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.994||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.792|0.332
84559768|NCT01153009|168872516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.991||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.171|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.171|1.250|0.004
84559769|NCT01153009|168872517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.16|-0.39|0.400
84559770|NCT01153009|168872517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.08|-0.46|0.177
84559771|NCT01153009|168872517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.07|-0.61|0.014
84748509|NCT03075410|169250923|OTHER||Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.1|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 5mg Day 1-14||1.10|1.09|
84748510|NCT03075410|169250923|OTHER||Slope|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.08|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 15mg Day 1-14||1.08|1.07|
84559772|NCT01153009|168872518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.45|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||5.45|-3.58|0.684
84559773|NCT01153009|168872518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.419||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||4.15|-5.40|0.797
84559774|NCT01153009|168872518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.278||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|0.45|||Mixed model for repeated mesurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.45|-8.54|0.078
84559775|NCT01153009|168872519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.775|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.775|0.625|0.845
84559776|NCT01153009|168872519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.713|0.503
84559777|NCT01153009|168872519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.098||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.860|0.648|0.728
84559778|NCT01153009|168872520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.13|-2.24|0.962
84559779|NCT01153009|168872520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.29|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.29|-3.05|0.427
84559780|NCT01153009|168872520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.22|-4.19|0.078
84559781|NCT00410072|168872521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 96||14.9|-1.0|0.0882
84559782|NCT00410072|168872522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.8|||NC=F|||||24.8|2.3|
84670578|NCT03556579|169074775|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.81|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.81|-1.45|
84748511|NCT03075410|169250924|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.1|||||A slope of 1 indicates the pharmacokinetics are dose proportional. A slope greater than 1 indicates the increase in PK is greater than proportional to dose.||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|1.10|0.82|
84748512|NCT03075410|169250925|OTHER||Slope|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.39|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.39|1.24|
84748513|NCT03075410|169250926|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.11|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.11|0.81|
84559783|NCT00410072|168872522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||NC=F|||||12.0|-7.7|
84748514|NCT03075410|169250927|OTHER||Slope|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.33|||||Day 1.Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.33|1.15|
84559784|NCT00410072|168872522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|0.2|0.0460
84559785|NCT00410072|168872522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.5|||NC=F|||||9.5|-12.0|
84559786|NCT00410072|168872523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|16.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||16.0|-1.8|
84559787|NCT00410072|168872523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|15.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||15.2|-1.1|
84559788|NCT00410072|168872524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.1|-1.5|
84559789|NCT00410072|168872524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|17.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.3|-0.2|
84559790|NCT00410072|168872526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.0|||NC+F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-2.0|-18.8|
84559791|NCT00410072|168872526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-4.1|-21.5|
84559792|NCT00410072|168872527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||4.2|-15.9|
84559793|NCT00410072|168872527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||2.3|-20.6|
84559794|NCT00410072|168872528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|5.6|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||5.6|-13.8|
84559795|NCT00410072|168872528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-0.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||-0.1|-21.5|
84559796|NCT00410072|168872529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||1.9|-5.3|
84559797|NCT00410072|168872529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||6.1|-3.9|
84559798|NCT00410072|168872530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||2.0|-2.2|
84559799|NCT00410072|168872530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||4.9|-2.3|
84559800|NCT01212159|168872539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of mean reduction in LDL cholesterol between no monitor (control) and monitor (intervention) groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test analysis of 6 month change in LDL cholesterol for no monitor and self monitor groups Independent sample t-test to compare ldl change between groups||||0.391
84559801|NCT02131233|168872581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.204|5.223|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||5.223|-4.204|
84559802|NCT02131233|168872582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|1.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|7.308|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||7.308|-4.410|
84559803|NCT02131233|168872583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|26.7|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||26.7|-30.9|
84559804|NCT02131233|168872584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|31.6|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||31.6|-32.8|
84559805|NCT02095197|168872599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84559806|NCT02095197|168872600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84559807|NCT02095197|168872601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84606304|NCT01511809|168963860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the two proportions of treatment failure (triple therapy-monotherapy) below the pre-specified margin of non-inferiority of -10% established inferiority. A sample size of 342 patients (171 per treatment arm) provided 80% power (one-sided, alpha 0.05) to establish non-inferiority of ATV/r monotherapy as compared to ATV/r triple therapy with an overall treatment failure (TF) rate of 15% at week 48.|difference between TF proportions|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Here are reported the results of the 48-week interim analyses according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. ITT=F (with re-intensification=failure) and the ITT=S (with re-intensification=success) treatment failure results are shown.~Based on the efficacy data review, in June 2013, an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommended to stop further patients' enrolment and to follow-up the enrolled patients until 96 weeks, after having signed an updated informed consent."||||
84606305|NCT02818114|168963888|OTHER|Assessment of number of PE sessions attended, review of direction of change in PTSD Checklist scores||||||||||||||||This is a single-arm feasibility study. With N=8, formal hypothesis testing is not possible. We were assessing the extent to which veterans would be willing to engage in the intervention, and if the direction of change in symptoms is still in the expected direction when peer support services are added. Outcomes are reported more qualitatively.|As a feasibility trial, tests of statistical significance are not appropriate.|||
84606306|NCT03461406|168963915|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
84606307|NCT03461406|168963915|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8|Relative risk|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Soft Tissue)||1.16|0.91|< 0.001
84606308|NCT03461406|168963916|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
84606309|NCT03461406|168963916|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
84606310|NCT03461406|168963917|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.02|0.94|< 0.001
84606311|NCT03461406|168963917|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
84606312|NCT01969500|168963922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|6.96|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||6.96|-8.37|.85
84606313|NCT01969500|168963923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.06|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||2.06|-4.66|.44
84606314|NCT01741532|168963937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0761
84606315|NCT01741532|168963938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7279
84606316|NCT01741532|168963939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part I||||0.7228
84606317|NCT01741532|168963939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part II||||0.3677
84606318|NCT01741532|168963939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part III||||0.2182
84670579|NCT03556579|169074776|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-4.55|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-4.55|-13.16|
84606319|NCT01741532|168963939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part VI||||0.1749
84606320|NCT01741532|168963940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1524
84606321|NCT01741532|168963941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2026
84559808|NCT02095197|168872602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
84559809|NCT03517449|168872672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.66|0.47|<0.0001
84559810|NCT03517449|168872673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
84559811|NCT03517449|168872674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|22.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||22.9|11.5|<0.0001
84559812|NCT04677387|168872697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00325||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression using a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model clustering on pharmacy.||||||0.473
84559813|NCT04677387|168872698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.007
84559814|NCT04677387|168872699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.002
84559815|NCT04677387|168872700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||0.169
84559816|NCT00938587|168872708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.24|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean difference using mixed-model repeated measure (MMRM) where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and compound symmetry (CS) as covariance structure.||-0.24|-1.21|0.0141
84748515|NCT03075410|169250927|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.90|
84748516|NCT03075410|169250928|OTHER||Slope|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.46|||||Day 1. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.46|0.92|
84748517|NCT03075410|169250928|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.89|
84748518|NCT02186847|169251010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.73|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = Chemoradiation|The study was powered to detect an improvement of the 1-year progression-free survival rate from 50% (no metformin) to 65% (metformin) or equivalently a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.622, at one-sided type 1 error of 0.1 and 85% power with at least 102 progression-free survival events.||1.73|0.77|0.7563
84748519|NCT02186847|169251011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.68|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.68|0.64|0.8910
84748520|NCT02186847|169251012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
84748521|NCT02186847|169251013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
84748522|NCT02186847|169251014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.8|||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.80|0.47|0.6266
84559817|NCT00938587|168872708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.79|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 % CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.79|-1.73|<0.0001
84748523|NCT03938545|169251038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||=|0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|54.1||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 680 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||54.1|-11.3|=0.1993
84748524|NCT03938545|169251038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||=|0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.2||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 340 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||53.2|-4.8|=0.1016
84748525|NCT03938545|169251038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3|||=|0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 255 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||7.3|-24.0|=0.2963
84748526|NCT03938545|169251040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-60.085|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.857|-31.313|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-31.313|-88.857|<0.001
84748527|NCT03938545|169251040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.927|-38.358|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-38.358|-91.927|<0.001
84748528|NCT03938545|169251040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.323|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.455|-4.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-4.190|-70.455|=0.0284
84748529|NCT03938545|169251041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-73.003|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.309|-63.697|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-63.697|-82.309|<0.001
84748530|NCT03938545|169251041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-59.005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.821|-50.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-50.190|-67.821|<0.001
84748531|NCT03938545|169251041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-51.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-41.012|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-41.012|-62.660|<0.001
84748532|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-81.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.203|-69.777|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-69.777|-93.203|<0.001
84748533|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.562|-56.62|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-56.620|-78.562|<0.001
84748534|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.073|-53.394|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-53.394|-81.073|<0.001
84748535|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-74.865|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.898|-62.832|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-62.832|-86.898|<0.001
84559818|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.865||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.54|1.63|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.63|-4.54|0.4370
84559819|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.58|0.57|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.57|-5.58|0.1802
84748536|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.799|-41.596|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-41.596|-64.799|<0.001
84559820|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.07|-3.99|0.6012
84559821|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.04|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-5.04|0.2753
84559822|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|3.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.55|-2.56|0.7892
84559823|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|1.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.49|-4.92|0.3765
84559824|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|-0.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.49|-6.69|0.0571
84606322|NCT01741532|168963942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Patient self-report, total score||||0.9759
84606323|NCT01741532|168963942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5781|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Parent proxy-report, total score||||0.5781
84606324|NCT01741532|168963943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6323
84606325|NCT01741532|168963944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0000
84606326|NCT00613080|168963947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion (reported as percentage)|51.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This study was designed for a one-sided chi-square test to detect at least 12% reduction in the 40% rate of ≥ grade 2 treatment-related preoperative GI AEs from the conventional radiotherapy / capecitabine /oxaliplatin arm of study RTOG-0247 (NCT00081289) with 80% power and a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10.||||0.93
84606327|NCT02360293|168963956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|122.7|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Active Minutes as a function of arm and f/u time, adjusted for Sex, Baseline PA Goal (AM), and type of Smart Phone. Represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|Estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA, adjusted for baseline AM goal, Type of Smart Phone, and Sex.||122.7|-119.0|
84606328|NCT02360293|168963957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|5.81|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Weight as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||5.81|-15.85|
84606329|NCT02360293|168963958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|0.646|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting PHQ-8 Score as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.646|-2.969|
84748537|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.552|-39.245|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-39.245|-67.552|<0.001
84748538|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-88.764|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.039|-74.489|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-74.489|-103.039|<0.001
84559825|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.29|-3.99|0.6553
84559826|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.33|-5.78|0.1427
84559827|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|3.97|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.97|-2.23|0.6430
84559828|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|4.22|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.22|-2.13|0.5868
84606330|NCT02360293|168963959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.353|||||"Estimate generated through ANCOVA predicting Pain In Past Week as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.."|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.353|-1.044|
84606331|NCT02741570|168963988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.59|1.03|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.03|0.59|0.0469
84606332|NCT02741570|168963989|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|97.9|0.8|1.13|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.13|0.80|0.4951
84606333|NCT02741570|168963990|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||||0.95|0.68|
84606334|NCT02741570|168963991|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.63|||||All Randomized Participants|||1.63|1.19|
84606335|NCT02741570|168963991|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3|||||All Randomized PD-L1 CPS \>= 20 Participants|||1.30|0.77|
84606336|NCT02741570|168963994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
84606337|NCT02741570|168963995|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
84606338|NCT01498185|168963996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|35.86||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||35.86|-40.85|
84670580|NCT03556579|169074776|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|-20.62|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-20.62|-29.24|
84670581|NCT03556579|169074777|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.15|
84748539|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.742|-52.686|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-52.686|-78.742|<0.001
84606339|NCT01498185|168963996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|33.82||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||33.82|-35.36|
84606340|NCT01498185|168963996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|28.45||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||28.45|-42.21|
84606341|NCT01498185|168963996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.4617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.22|37.16||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||37.16|-39.22|
84606342|NCT00946322|168964004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.028
84606343|NCT00946322|168964005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests were used. Due to variable skewness, variables were logarithm-transformed to improve their distributions.||||.022
84606344|NCT00946322|168964006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.043
84606345|NCT00946322|168964007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.482
84606346|NCT00946322|168964008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.009
84606347|NCT00946322|168964009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.001
84606348|NCT00946322|168964010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.027
84606349|NCT00946322|168964011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.177
84606350|NCT01710527|168964012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed Cmax fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|96.85||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|102.11|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|||102.11|91.86|0.3125
84606351|NCT01710527|168964013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-t fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.52||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.45|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-t||106.45|98.74|0.2701
84606352|NCT01710527|168964013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-infinity fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.44||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.23|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-infinity.||106.23|98.78|0.2702
84606353|NCT01075971|168964022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.19||Analysis of variance with repeated measurements (daily scores from day 1 to day 5) for the whole set of patients was performed adjusted on the formulation (SL vs. FDT). Other independent factors were the subject and the day.|Analysis of variance|||||2.19|1.35|<0.0001
84748540|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-66.685|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.157|-50.214|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-50.214|-83.157|<0.001
84748541|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-68.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.877|-56.568|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-56.568|-80.877|<0.001
84670582|NCT03556579|169074778|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Generalized linear mixed model|Generalized Linear mixed model with a lognormal distribution using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.65|0.46|
84748542|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-55.554|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.182|-43.926|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-43.926|-67.182|<0.001
84748543|NCT03938545|169251042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.948|-38.21|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-38.210|-67.948|<0.001
84559829|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-4.12|0.5860
84559830|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|4.95|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.95|-1.27|0.3288
84559831|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846||0.9027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|2.83|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.83|-3.28|0.9027
84559832|NCT00938587|168872709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.89|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.89|-2.30|0.6710
84559833|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|2.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.09|-1.63|0.8370
84559834|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.81|-0.11|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.11|-3.81|0.0819
84559835|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.67|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.67|-1.98|0.8892
84748544|NCT01060540|169251043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for family history (low/unknown vs. high/moderate) and BMI\>=35 (yes vs no) stratification variables||||0.7|-0.3|0.44
84748545|NCT01060540|169251044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||adjusted for baseline BMI class and family history level stratification variables|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.19
84559836|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|-0.52|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.52|-4.17|0.0353
84559837|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.45|-2.22|0.7283
84559838|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-1.81|0.9083
84559839|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.29|-3.45|0.1641
84559840|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|2.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.18|-1.64|0.8170
84559841|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|0.4|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.40|-3.29|0.1958
84559842|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|2.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.00|-1.74|0.9070
84559843|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.5|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.50|1.67|0.0023
84559844|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|3.49|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.49|-0.25|0.1531
84559845|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.53|-0.24|0.1506
84559846|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|1.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.53|-2.16|0.7800
84559847|NCT00938587|168872710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-3.80|0.0883
84559848|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.87|-1.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-1.07|-15.87|0.0599
84670583|NCT03556579|169074779|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||-0.15|-1.07|
84670584|NCT03556579|169074780|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.14|
84559849|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.436||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.61|-5.96|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.96|-20.61|0.0030
84559850|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.483||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.03|-5.22|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.22|-20.03|0.0053
84559851|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.445||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.78|-10.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-10.10|-24.78|0.0001
84559852|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.46|3.16|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.16|-11.46|0.3492
84559853|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.38|-1.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure||-1.98|-17.38|0.0389
84559854|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.51|-3.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-3.68|-18.51|0.0142
84494748|NCT05182840|168739955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
84559855|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.13|-5.89|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.89|-21.13|0.0037
84559856|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.27|-7.58|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-7.58|-22.27|0.0009
84559857|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.23|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-11.23|0.3939
84559858|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|19.13|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||19.13|3.95|0.0127
84559859|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|7.74|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.74|-7.09|0.9425
84559860|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.544||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|18.59|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||18.59|3.58|0.0155
84559861|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.48|7.21|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.21|-7.48|0.9757
84559862|NCT00938587|168872711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.9184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.86|6.94|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||6.94|-7.86|0.9184
84559863|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.38|0.2403
84559864|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.08|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.08|-0.52|0.0270
84559865|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.09|-0.36|0.3139
84559866|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.05|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.05|-0.50|0.0415
84559867|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.25|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.25|-0.20|0.8585
84559868|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.18|-0.28|0.7284
84559869|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.10|-0.55|0.0171
84748546|NCT01060540|169251045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||adjusted for stratification variables baseline BMI and family history|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.38
84606354|NCT01688921|168964030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.12|0.88|
84606355|NCT01688921|168964031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.21|0.96|
84606356|NCT01688921|168964032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.06|0.83|
84606357|NCT01688921|168964033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||6.5|-4.8|
84606358|NCT01688921|168964034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates(rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points|Seroconversion Rate Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||7.1|-4.5|
84606359|NCT01688921|168964035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Seroconversion rate was defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer.~The upper-bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in seroconversion rates for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains did not exceed 10 percentage points (6.5, 7.1, and 5.9 respectively)."|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 91% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||5.9|-5.2|
84606360|NCT01688921|168964036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immediate adverse events were reported within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination; therefore, they are all considered related to study treatment.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84606361|NCT01688921|168964037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The safety population included subjects who received the vaccination and for whom follow-up data were available for a specific safety analysis. Therefore, the denominators for different safety tables vary, depending on the availability of the data.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84670585|NCT03556579|169074781|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|-25.46|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||-25.46|-31.66|
84494749|NCT05182840|168739955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
84606362|NCT04384107|168964043|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.1|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||3.6|-5.9|= 0.641
84606363|NCT04384107|168964043|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site induration||5.6|-6.1|= 0.937
84559870|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.39|0.2277
84559871|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.22|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.22|-0.67|0.0013
84559872|NCT00938587|168872712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.11|-0.34|0.3908
84559873|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.093||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.43|8.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.10|-15.43|0.6067
84559874|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.101||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.32|2.23|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.23|-21.32|0.1816
84559875|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.029||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|8.82|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.82|-14.50|0.6873
84559876|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.42|2.98|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.98|-20.42|0.2188
84559877|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.024||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.82|12.47|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||12.47|-10.82|0.9067
84670586|NCT03556579|169074781|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.48|-10.27|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test Minus Control.|||-10.27|-20.48|
84559878|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.254||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.05|8.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.00|-16.05|0.5803
84559879|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.16|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-20.16|0.2490
84559880|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.178||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.52|0.28|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.28|-23.52|0.1081
84559881|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.098||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.66|-4.12|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-4.12|-27.66|0.0271
84559882|NCT00938587|168872713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.121||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.41|4.21|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.21|-19.41|0.2881
84559883|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.059||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.23|5.19|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.19|-18.23|0.3579
84670587|NCT01951157|169074791|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|48.4||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed.||48.4|13.2|
84606364|NCT04384107|168964043|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|7.1|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||13.8|0.5|= 0.036
84494750|NCT05182840|168739955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
84559884|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.046||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.24|3.14|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.14|-20.24|0.2274
84559885|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.973||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.72|1.41|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.41|-21.72|0.1482
84559886|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.962||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.74|-0.64|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.64|-23.74|0.0828
84559887|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.17|7.9|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.90|-15.17|0.6021
84559888|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.213||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.24|9.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.68|-14.24|0.7528
84559889|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.94|3.6|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.60|-19.94|0.2523
84559890|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.118||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.43|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.17|-23.43|0.1049
84559891|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.006||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.14|-5.91|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.91|-29.14|0.0138
84559892|NCT00938587|168872714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.05|2.34|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.34|-21.05|0.1873
84559893|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|5.32|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.32|-12.40|0.5090
84559894|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.78|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-17.78|0.0998
84670588|NCT01951157|169074791|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|37.9||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||37.9|5.7|
84670589|NCT01951157|169074791|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|46.7||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||46.7|12.6|
84670590|NCT01951157|169074792|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.3873|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.3873
84670591|NCT01951157|169074796|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.0177|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.0177
84670592|NCT01951157|169074797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Pre-specified||||||0.3526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3526
84670593|NCT01951157|169074798|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified||||||0.9026|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9026
84670594|NCT01951157|169074798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9862|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9862
84670595|NCT01951157|169074798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8057|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of ilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.8057
84559895|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.282||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.52|8.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.01|-9.52|0.8866
84606365|NCT04384107|168964043|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-4.0|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||2.2|-10.2|= 0.208
84606366|NCT04384107|168964044|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.4|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Decreased appetite||6.0|-6.7|= 0.912
84670596|NCT00744627|169074799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-1.88||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.88|-5.74|<0.001
84670597|NCT00744627|169074800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.2||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis||||-1.20|-3.39|<0.001
84670598|NCT00744627|169074801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
84606367|NCT04384107|168964044|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|5.9|||=|0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Irritability||13.0|-1.3|= 0.108
84670599|NCT00744627|169074802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.901||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.18||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.18|-3.74|0.031
84670600|NCT00744627|169074803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.496|3.83||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||3.830|1.496|<0.001
84670601|NCT00744627|169074804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.6||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.60|-7.61|<0.001
84670602|NCT00744627|169074805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.25||SF-36 social functioning subscore was the last endpoint to be tested in the hierarchical testing sequence.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||Results presented are for the number of participants at week 8 only.||14.25|3.32|0.002
84670603|NCT03608774|169074862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. P-value was derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|Chi-squared||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. Estimates were derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|||0.36|0.16|<0.001
84670604|NCT03608774|169074863|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||||||||0.22|0.00|
84670605|NCT03608774|169074864|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.01|
84670606|NCT03608774|169074865|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.38||||||||0.38|0.15|
84606368|NCT04384107|168964044|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.0|||=|0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Somnolence||8.4|-6.4|= 0.792
84606369|NCT04384107|168964044|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Urticaria||2.8|-3.5|= 0.843
84606370|NCT04384107|168964045|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
84606371|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
84606372|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.5|1.0|< 0.001
84670607|NCT03608774|169074866|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
84670608|NCT03608774|169074867|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
84494751|NCT05182840|168739956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.04|0.82|0.1398
84606373|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
84670609|NCT01586819|169074873|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-3.3902||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have lower scores on the facial wrinkle severity scale post-treatment.||||.002
84670610|NCT01586819|169074874|SUPERIORITY||Z score|3.6115||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have higher difference scores, pre- to post-treatment, on the facial wrinkle severity scale suggesting a more pronounced effect of the chemical peel in combination with the Botox A therapy.||||.001
84670611|NCT01883427|169074881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Too few included to reach power||||>0.05
84606374|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
84670612|NCT01324349|169074882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank||Median difference equals control median minus Hemostatic Patch median in minutes.|The primary effectiveness endpoint was time to hemostasis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis for each treatment. Subjects who did not achieve hemostasis by 10 minutes were to be censored as of that time point. For each treatment, 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence intervals for the median were computed based upon the sign test.||||<0.0001
84606375|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.2|-2.6|< 0.001
84670613|NCT01324349|169074883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|47.3|||Suissa and Shuster test||Risk difference equals percentage hemostasis for Hemostatic Patch minus percentage hemostasis for control.|The secondary effectiveness endpoint was hemostasis within 3 minutes. The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes are presented for each treatment group. The proportions of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes were compared between treatments using the Suissa and Shuster test. Additionally, a 95% Blyth-Still-Casella confidence interval for the true proportion was computed for each treatment.||47.3|1.9|0.0339
84748547|NCT01060540|169251046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.2|0.05
84748548|NCT01060540|169251047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|generalized linear model for count data|||||1.2|0.7|0.68
84748549|NCT02647320|169251050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.309|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.309|-0.211|.755
84559896|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.88|2.66|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.66|-14.88|0.2499
84559897|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.283||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.99|11.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||11.55|-5.99|0.5995
84559898|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|9.61|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.61|-8.40|0.9117
84559899|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.381||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.84|-0.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.98|-18.84|0.0684
84559900|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.366||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.39|2.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.42|-15.39|0.2292
84559901|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|-8.19|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-8.19|-25.81|0.0018
84559902|NCT00938587|168872715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.95|1.76|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.76|-15.95|0.1867
84559903|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|4.38|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.38|-4.64|0.9624
84748550|NCT02647320|169251050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.371|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.371|-0.160|.512
84559904|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.58|-4.24|0.9493
84559905|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|8.02|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.02|-1.10|0.2100
84559906|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.18|-0.66|0.1602
84559907|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.10|-0.92|0.1892
84559908|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.38|-3.89|0.7899
84559909|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.49|-0.56|0.1490
84559910|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.24|-5.97|0.6238
84748551|NCT02647320|169251050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.312|0.151|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.151|-0.312|.566
84748552|NCT02647320|169251050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.655|-0.197|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.197|-0.655|.002
84748553|NCT02647320|169251051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.58|-9.76|.144
84748554|NCT02647320|169251051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.14|4.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.31|-6.14|.773
84559911|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|6.35|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.35|-2.64|0.4933
84559912|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.739||0.4445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.46|-6.67|0.4445
84559913|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.897||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.34|-1.31|0.2288
84559914|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.844||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||9.50|0.03|0.0980
84559915|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|10.43|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||10.43|0.64|0.0637
84559916|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.07|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.50|2.07|0.0190
84748555|NCT02647320|169251051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|4.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.48|-4.73|.963
84748556|NCT02647320|169251051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.64|1.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||1.42|-7.64|.258
84748557|NCT02647320|169251052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.74|2.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.43|-15.74|.228
84748558|NCT02647320|169251052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|9.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||9.84|-8.36|.894
84494752|NCT05182840|168739956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|19.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||19.02|3.73|0.0000
84559917|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.81|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.86|-2.81|0.4886
84559918|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|3.14|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.14|-3.12|0.9951
84559919|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|4.34|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.34|-1.71|0.4721
84559920|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.36|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.36|-3.90|0.6835
84559921|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|3.56|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-2.49|0.7701
84559922|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.831||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|2.27|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.27|-3.83|0.6710
84559923|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|7.73|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.73|-1.69|0.2886
84559924|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.86|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.86|-0.42|0.1340
84748559|NCT02647320|169251052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.97|7.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||7.08|-8.97|.846
84748560|NCT02647320|169251052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|3.93|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.93|-11.82|.409
84748561|NCT02647320|169251053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|5.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.73|-2.83|.576
84748562|NCT02647320|169251053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|3.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.12|-5.53|.646
84494753|NCT05182840|168739956|OTHER|P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|10.9|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.90|2.28|0.0001
84559925|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.95|-1.48|0.2563
84559926|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.771||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|9.05|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.05|-0.18|0.1138
84559927|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.793||0.9386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.87|-4.44|0.9386
84670614|NCT01324349|169074884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.5029|||||||Fisher Exact||Risk difference equals percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in control group minus percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in Hemostatic Patch group.|The incidence of subjects experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (defined under this protocol as Adverse Events) was summarized by MedDRA system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) for each treatment group for the safety population. Tests for differences between the two treatments in the proportion of subjects experiencing any adverse event were made using Fisher's Exact Test.||||0.5029
84670615|NCT00851799|169074886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-4.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.9|-0.4||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||-0.4|-8.9|0.013
84670616|NCT00851799|169074886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|1.5||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.5|-7.0|0.15
84670617|NCT00851799|169074886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.4|6.2||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||6.2|-2.4|0.31
84670618|NCT00851799|169074887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.63|1.11||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort A: ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV+FTC/TDF); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.11|-0.63|0.53
84670619|NCT00851799|169074887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change (%)|-0.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|0.55||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort B - Cohort A and C); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||0.55|-0.98|0.53
84670620|NCT01538862|169074915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
84670621|NCT00244712|169074918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the ABC/3TC to the TDF/FTC would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 \[ABC/3TC minus TDF/FTC\] was -12% or greater.|difference in response percentage|0.39||||0.913||95.0|-6.63|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response percentage = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||7.40|-6.63|0.913
84748563|NCT02647320|169251053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.52|4.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.08|-3.52|.902
84748564|NCT02647320|169251053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|2.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.13|-5.35|.478
84748565|NCT02647320|169251054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.57|-0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.64|-14.57|.072
84748566|NCT02647320|169251054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.15|5.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.92|-8.15|.794
84559928|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.701||0.8814|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.90|-4.09|0.8814
84559929|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.37|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.37|-0.42|0.1363
84670622|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|106.2|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.2|90.2|
84748567|NCT02647320|169251054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|5.94|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.94|-6.45|.946
84559930|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.20|-3.74|0.7864
84559931|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.619||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|8.66|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.66|-0.06|0.1048
84748568|NCT02647320|169251054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.99|3.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.18|-8.99|.431
84748569|NCT02647320|169251055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.43|3.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.78|-24.43|.228
84748570|NCT02647320|169251055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||14.77|-13.70|.951
84748571|NCT02647320|169251055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|11.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||11.13|-13.96|.852
84559932|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.08|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.73|-4.08|0.9024
84559933|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.98|-3.74|0.4954
84559934|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.735||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|11.36|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.36|-1.08|0.1729
84559935|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.57|-4.15|0.5650
84559936|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|10.94|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.94|-1.48|0.2087
84748572|NCT02647320|169251055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|8.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||8.48|-16.13|.608
84748573|NCT02647320|169251056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.289||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.932|30.566|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||30.566|-19.932|.728
84748574|NCT02647320|169251056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.853||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.446|22.914|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||22.914|-29.446|.837
84748575|NCT02647320|169251056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.747||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.352|19.051|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||19.051|-26.352|.791
84748576|NCT02647320|169251056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.472||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.283|-17.787|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-17.787|-62.283|.003
84748577|NCT02647320|169251057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.396||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.312|38.087|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||38.087|-29.312|.830
84748578|NCT02647320|169251057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.335||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.354|57.848|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||57.848|-9.354|.235
84494754|NCT05182840|168739957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
84494755|NCT05182840|168739957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
84559937|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|5.87|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.87|-6.69|0.9139
84559938|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.371||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.11|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.12|-4.11|0.6559
84559939|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.67|-4.37|0.7304
84559940|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.369||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.25|-0.98|0.1729
84559941|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.335||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.83|-1.28|0.2038
84559942|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.328||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.67|-2.41|0.3503
84606376|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-1.3|-6.9|< 0.001
84670623|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|102.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|||102.4|89.9|
84670624|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|106.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.1|96.3|
84559943|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.63|-3.06|0.8875
84559944|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.25|-1.31|0.3203
84559945|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.72|-2.09|0.5232
84559946|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.28|-0.28|0.1324
84559947|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.40|-2.34|0.6134
84559948|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.387||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.91|-3.38|0.5059
84559949|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.99|-2.10|0.3042
84494756|NCT05182840|168739957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
84494757|NCT05182840|168739958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.46||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.46|0.76|0.2140
84494758|NCT05182840|168739958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.85||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.85|1.93|0.0003
84494759|NCT05182840|168739958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|11.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.71|2.52|0.0000
84494760|NCT05182840|168739959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
84494761|NCT05182840|168739959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
84494762|NCT05182840|168739959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
84494763|NCT05182840|168739960|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.61||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.61|1.32|0.0024
84559950|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.82|-2.47|0.3519
84559951|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|9.92|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.92|-1.21|0.1966
84748579|NCT02647320|169251057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.72||0.331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.03|46.529|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||46.529|-12.030|.331
84748580|NCT02647320|169251057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.393||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.254|-0.775|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.775|-58.254|.091
84748581|NCT02647320|169251058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.835|16.815|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||16.815|-13.835|.873
84748582|NCT02647320|169251058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.505||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.79|7.604|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||7.604|-23.790|.395
84559952|NCT00938587|168872716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.345||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|6.48|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.48|-4.66|0.7860
84748583|NCT02647320|169251058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.306||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.247|11.185|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||11.185|-16.247|.761
84606377|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
84606378|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
84606379|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
84606380|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
84606381|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
84606382|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
84606383|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.2|-4.0|< 0.001
84606384|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.3|0.4|<0.001
84748584|NCT02647320|169251058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.22|-14.236|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-14.236|-41.220|<0.001
84748585|NCT02647320|169251059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.001||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.441|12.221|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.221|-27.441|.527
84748586|NCT02647320|169251059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.927|12.138|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.138|-26.927|.532
84606385|NCT04384107|168964046|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-6.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-3.5|-10.6|= 0.048
84606386|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.67|||Linear model|||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.67|0.55|< 0.001
84606387|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.05|||Linear model|||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||2.05|1.67|< 0.001
84748587|NCT02647320|169251059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.421||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.635|12.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.807|-21.635|.672
84748588|NCT02647320|169251059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.229||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.482|-14.676|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-14.676|-48.482|.002
84606388|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Linear model|||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||0.93|0.76|< 0.001
84606389|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||Linear model|||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.87|0.69|< 0.001
84606390|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.56|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.63|||Linear model|||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.63|0.50|= 0.019
84606391|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.59|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||Linear model|||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.68|0.51|= 0.015
84606392|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||Linear model|||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|< 0.001
84670625|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|101.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||101.1|86.8|
84670626|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
84748589|NCT02647320|169251060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||3.60|-15.90|.298
84748590|NCT02647320|169251060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.37|-6.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-6.27|-26.37|.008
84748591|NCT02647320|169251060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|-0.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-0.75|-18.31|.074
84748592|NCT02647320|169251060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.96|-18.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-18.38|-35.96|<0.001
84748593|NCT02647320|169251061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|8.63|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||8.63|-11.04|.840
84748594|NCT02647320|169251061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.94|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-1.91|-21.94|.050
84748595|NCT02647320|169251061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.21|2.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||2.33|-15.21|.227
84748596|NCT02647320|169251061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.83|-4.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-4.43|-21.83|0.13
84748597|NCT02647320|169251062|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.77|13.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||13.88|-7.77|.642
84748598|NCT02647320|169251062|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.52|6.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||6.68|-15.52|.512
84606393|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Linear model|||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.97|0.78|< 0.001
84606394|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85|||Linear model|||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.85|0.66|< 0.001
84606395|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.67|< 0.001
84748599|NCT02647320|169251062|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|5.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||5.54|-13.66|.486
84748600|NCT02647320|169251062|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.31|-7.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||-7.16|-26.31|.004
84748601|NCT02647320|169251063|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.09|4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.70|-22.09|.285
84748602|NCT02647320|169251063|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.73|-5.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-5.49|-31.73|.020
84748603|NCT02647320|169251063|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-1.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-1.35|-24.60|.067
84748604|NCT02647320|169251063|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.76|-6.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-6.03|-28.76|.012
84559953|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.01|-0.93|0.1090
84606396|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||Linear model|||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.72|0.59|< 0.001
84670627|NCT03754959|169075000|OTHER||Ratio|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|96.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||96.7|83.8|
84670628|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|116.9|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||116.9|95.6|
84748605|NCT00596427|169251065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared.||||<0.01
84748606|NCT00596427|169251066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups was compared.||||<0.001
84748607|NCT00596427|169251067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|This model had fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and a random subject effect.||Comparison of change from baseline between groups (treatment effect)||||<0.1
84748608|NCT00596427|169251068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.01
84748609|NCT00596427|169251069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.05
84748610|NCT00596427|169251070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared (treatment effect)||||<0.1
84748611|NCT00596427|169251071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.05
84748612|NCT00596427|169251072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.6
84748613|NCT00596427|169251073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||0.3
84748614|NCT00596427|169251074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.0001
84748615|NCT00596427|169251075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.01
84748616|NCT00596427|169251076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.1
84748617|NCT00320541|169251077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required.|Fisher Exact|||Assuming the response rate for the PB arm is 34% and the addition of gemcitabine will improve it to 54%, then a sample size of 170 evaluable participants (85 per arm) will give an 80% statistical power to detect the difference, using a 1-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. Confidence levels are exact binomial 95% Confidence Intervals.||||0.117
84559954|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.38|0.0014
84606397|NCT04384107|168964047|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.69|< 0.001
84748618|NCT00320541|169251078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.247
84748619|NCT00320541|169251079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
84748620|NCT00320541|169251080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.010
84748621|NCT00320541|169251081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.119
84748622|NCT00320541|169251082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.023
84748623|NCT00320541|169251083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.002
84748624|NCT00320541|169251084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.004
84748625|NCT00320541|169251085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.067
84748626|NCT00320541|169251086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.036
84748627|NCT01605292|169251087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84748628|NCT01605292|169251088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84748629|NCT01605292|169251089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84748630|NCT01605292|169251090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
84748631|NCT01605292|169251091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84748632|NCT01605292|169251092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84748633|NCT01605292|169251093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
84748634|NCT01605292|169251095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84494764|NCT05182840|168739960|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.86||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.86|2.39|0.0000
84748635|NCT04281004|169251110|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84748636|NCT04281004|169251111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.869
84748637|NCT04281004|169251112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.007
84748638|NCT04281004|169251112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.953
84748639|NCT04281004|169251112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.841
84748640|NCT04281004|169251112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.137
84748641|NCT04281004|169251113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
84748642|NCT04281004|169251114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.594
84748643|NCT04281004|169251115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.663
84748644|NCT04281004|169251115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.416
84748645|NCT04281004|169251115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.890
84748646|NCT04281004|169251115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.192
84748647|NCT04281004|169251116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.057
84748648|NCT04281004|169251116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.528
84748649|NCT04281004|169251116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.210
84748650|NCT04281004|169251116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.853
84748651|NCT02482870|169251126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square value = 2.424; degrees of freedom = 1||Sample size was calculated according to the first 60 patients. To obtain 90% power with an alpha error of 0.05, a total of 378 patients were required. Considering a possible drop-out rate of 2.5% due to unexpected complications, we aimed for 388 patients.||||0.119
84748652|NCT02482870|169251127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|3|<0.0001
84748653|NCT02482870|169251128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
84748654|NCT02482870|169251129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t value = -11.224, degrees of freedom = 773.99||"For each patient, the difference between Cormack-Lehane score and Mallampati class was calculated for each laryngoscope. As an example, the first patient had a Mallampati score 3. Macintosh laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 2, therefore the difference is - 1, calculated as 2 - 3. In the same patient, King Vision video laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 1, therefore the difference is - 2, calculated as 1 - 3. T-test was used to compare the differences."||-0.67|-0.95|<0.0001
84748655|NCT02482870|169251130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-square test with Yates' continuity correction: chi-square = 0.101; degrees of freedom = 1||||||0.75
84748656|NCT02382016|169251149|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted by treatment, background PAH-specific therapy at baseline and region as factors \& log-transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at Week 12 as a ratio of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed ratio of PVR at Week 12 to baseline PVR.||0.72|0.59|0.0001
84748657|NCT02382016|169251150|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|9.73||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|33.95||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|mixed-effect model repeated measure||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in 6MWD (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|The main analysis on 6MWD was performed using a mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) adjusted for treatment, visit, region, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline 6MWD and WHO functional class (FC) as covariates.||33.95|-14.50|0.4264
84748658|NCT02382016|169251151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.253||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|298.376||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model (exact) adjusted for treatment, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and region as covariates was used to analyze worsening in WHO FC.||298.376|0.714|0.1278
84559955|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.09|-1.03|0.0506
84559956|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.55|-1.48|0.0004
84559957|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.56|0.7272
84748659|NCT02382016|169251152|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.874||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.196||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA|||||1.196|0.639|0.3951
84748660|NCT02382016|169251153|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.67||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.44||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mRAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||3.44|-0.10|0.0637
84748661|NCT02382016|169251154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.57||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mPAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-3.57|-8.40|0.0001
84748662|NCT02382016|169251155|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in cardiac index (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||0.81|0.22|0.0009
84670629|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.5|129.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||129.6|106.5|
84748663|NCT02382016|169251156|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-171.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.67|-119.3||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in TPR (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-119.30|-223.67|0.0001
84748664|NCT02382016|169251157|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.91||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in SVO2 (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||2.91|-2.85|0.9844
84748665|NCT00084266|169251158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The final p-value was compared against an O'Brien-Fleming boundary of 0.048.||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-squared test was used to calculate p-value. P-value was calculated for participants with clinical outcome as cure."||||0.042
84748666|NCT00084266|169251170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.9344
84748667|NCT00084266|169251171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.5985
84559958|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-1.05|0.0604
84559959|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.59|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.59|-1.53|0.0003
84606398|NCT04384107|168964048|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|107.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.18|120.03||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||120.03|96.18|
84748668|NCT00084266|169251172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
84748669|NCT01535014|169251173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84559960|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|-0.13|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.13|-1.09|0.0377
84559961|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.65|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.65|-1.57|0.0001
84559962|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8612
84559963|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.93|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.93|-0.04|0.1330
84559964|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8542
84606399|NCT04384107|168964048|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|32.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.72|38.05||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||38.05|27.72|
84748670|NCT01535014|169251173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84748671|NCT01535014|169251173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
84748672|NCT01535014|169251174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84748673|NCT01535014|169251174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84748674|NCT01535014|169251175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84748675|NCT01535014|169251175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84748676|NCT01535014|169251176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 12, 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84748677|NCT01535014|169251176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84748678|NCT01535014|169251177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84748679|NCT01535014|169251177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84748680|NCT01535014|169251178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
84559965|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.82|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.82|-0.13|0.2339
84559966|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.61|0.5927
84559967|NCT00938587|168872717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.57|0.7304
84559968|NCT00938587|168872718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-0.97|0.0956
84606400|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
84606401|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||||||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||5.8|1.8|
84748681|NCT01535014|169251178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
84748682|NCT01535014|169251179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.02
84748683|NCT01535014|169251179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.63
84748684|NCT01535014|169251179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.60
84748685|NCT01535014|169251179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.98
84748686|NCT02047643|169251181|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.45
84748687|NCT02047643|169251182|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.66
84748688|NCT04256603|169251183|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||wilcox two sample test||||0.67
84748689|NCT00120406|169251186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|z-test, one-sided|||||||<0.01
84606402|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
84606403|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606404|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606405|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606406|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84748690|NCT00120406|169251187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||<0.01
84748691|NCT00879762|169251190|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.868|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.868|0.398|
84748692|NCT00879762|169251191|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.853|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.853|0.384|
84748693|NCT00879762|169251197|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.97|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||0.97|-0.20|
84748694|NCT00879762|169251198|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||1.00|-0.17|
84748695|NCT01313637|169251201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.198|0.122|<0.001
84748696|NCT01313637|169251201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.162|0.086|<0.001
84748697|NCT01313637|169251201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.276|0.200|<0.001
84606407|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606408|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606409|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606410|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606411|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
84606412|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.9|-1.1|
84606413|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|96.7||||||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||96.7|91.8|
84559969|NCT00938587|168872718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.40|0.0016
84559970|NCT00938587|168872718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.17|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0258
84559971|NCT00938587|168872718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|-0.62|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.62|-1.56|0.0002
84559972|NCT00938587|168872718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.5692||90.0|-0.63|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.63|0.5692
84559973|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|35.98|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||35.98|-8.65|0.1460
84559974|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|38.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.25|59.46|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||59.46|12.25|0.0052
84559975|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|24.66|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||24.66|-22.00|0.5094
84559976|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.11||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|48.34|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||48.34|-0.69|0.0551
84748698|NCT01313637|169251201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.112|0.046|<0.001
84748699|NCT01313637|169251201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.148|0.081|<0.001
84748700|NCT00676065|169251208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
84559977|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.99||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.09|8.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||8.78|-34.09|0.9999
84559978|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.56||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|37.67|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||37.67|-17.18|0.3027
84559979|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.67||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.24|46.16|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||46.16|-6.24|0.1074
84559980|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.46||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.08|43.7|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||43.70|-10.08|0.2340
84559981|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|28.57||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|53.07|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||53.07|0.91|0.0442
84559982|NCT00938587|168872719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.9||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.82|32.92|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||32.92|-19.82|0.3813
84559983|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|27.09|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.09|-3.90|0.1017
84559984|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.49|0.0218
84559985|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|27.06|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.06|-3.71|0.1082
84559986|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.81|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.81|0.0166
84559987|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.61|25.87|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||25.87|-21.61|0.4776
84559988|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|27.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|50.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||50.78|2.53|0.0347
84559989|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|7.94||||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.71|31.59|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||31.59|-13.71|0.3343
84559990|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|33.33||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.35|55.0|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||55.00|8.35|0.0117
84559991|NCT00938587|168872720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.71||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.86|27.04|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||27.04|-15.86|0.3720
84559992|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
84559993|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
84559994|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
84559995|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
84748701|NCT00676065|169251208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
84494765|NCT05182840|168739960|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|6.55||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.55|2.29|0.0000
84494766|NCT05182840|168739961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
84494767|NCT05182840|168739961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
84559996|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.23|0.0477
84559997|NCT00938587|168872721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.65|0.0442
84670630|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|112.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|123.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.1|102.9|
84748702|NCT00676065|169251209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.8|
84748703|NCT00676065|169251209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.0|0.5|
84748704|NCT00676065|169251210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.4|0.5|
84748705|NCT00676065|169251210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.5|0.6|
84748706|NCT04572841|169251303|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.02||||||Analysis was performed for change from baseline using a mixed model for repeated measures with visit, intervention group (SAR441344 and Placebo), and visit by intervention group interaction as fixed categorical effects, and participant specific baseline ESSDAI as continuous covariate.||2.02|-1.39|
84559998|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5403
84559999|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.48|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.48|-0.61|0.8374
84606414|NCT04384107|168964049|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|91.6||||||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||91.6|84.5|
84494768|NCT05182840|168739961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
84670631|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|110.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|135.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||135.1|90.1|
84670632|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|110.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||110.1|84.5|
84670633|NCT03754959|169075001|OTHER||Ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|106.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.4|74.9|
84670634|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.8|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.8|84.2|
84670635|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.9|109.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||109.3|87.9|
84670636|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.6|134.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||134.6|102.6|
84670637|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|104.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||104.4|85.5|
84670638|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
84670639|NCT03754959|169075002|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|114.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.0|84.3|
84670640|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|112.1|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||112.1|81.3|
84670641|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|122.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||122.0|91.5|
84670642|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|116.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|148.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||148.7|90.9|
84670643|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|123.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.4|92.4|
84670644|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|98.9|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||98.9|71.2|
84748707|NCT01205152|169251324|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-002-08 (NCT00744042). The RGI-C score represents evaluation of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-002-08 using an ordinal scale. Therefore, an RGI-C score is not applicable for radiographs obtained at Baseline.||||0.0020
84494769|NCT05182840|168739962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.74|1.02|0.0418
84560000|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.28|0.4305
84560001|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.53|-0.55|0.9733
84560002|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.6|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.60|-0.48|0.8613
84560003|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.78|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.78|-0.35|0.5245
84560004|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.8917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.51|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.51|-0.60|0.8917
84560005|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-0.09|0.1695
84560006|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5339
84606415|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.59||||||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.59|0.47|
84560007|NCT00938587|168872724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.30|0.4520
84560008|NCT00548249|168872737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals comparing each SFP treatment group to placebo, and p-value from cox proportional hazards model||3.32|0.30|0.999
84560009|NCT00548249|168872737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.09|||Log Rank|||||4.09|0.33|0.807
84560010|NCT00548249|168872737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.21|0.748
84560011|NCT00548249|168872737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.19|||Log Rank|||||5.19|0.60|0.299
84560012|NCT00548249|168872738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.234||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect.||||0.234
84560013|NCT00548249|168872738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.049
84560014|NCT00548249|168872738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.375
84560015|NCT00548249|168872738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.625
84560016|NCT04006509|168872779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
84560017|NCT04006509|168872780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.539
84560018|NCT04006509|168872781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
84560019|NCT04006509|168872782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.743
84606416|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.9||||||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||1.90|1.53|
84606417|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05||||||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||1.05|0.80|
84670645|NCT03754959|169075003|OTHER||Ratio|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|103.5|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||103.5|73.5|
84560020|NCT04006509|168872783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.886
84560021|NCT04006509|168872784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.107
84560022|NCT04006509|168872785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.687
84560023|NCT04006509|168872786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.871
84560024|NCT04006509|168872787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.376
84560025|NCT04006509|168872788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.770
84560026|NCT04006509|168872789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.237
84560027|NCT00002525|168872813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided log-rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.178
84560028|NCT00002525|168872814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.847||||||two-sided log rank test|Log Rank|||||||0.847
84560029|NCT03304184|168872817|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0001
84560030|NCT03304184|168872817|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over timepoints|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0005
84560031|NCT03304184|168872818|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between two groups for treatment|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0910
84560032|NCT03304184|168872818|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over time points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between the two arms for treatment time points with analysis|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0262
84560033|NCT03304184|168872819|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in brief pain inventory scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over different time points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0289
84560034|NCT01505179|168872820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84560035|NCT01505179|168872821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84560036|NCT01505179|168872822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84560037|NCT01505179|168872823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84560038|NCT02651688|168872850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7103|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7103
84560039|NCT02651688|168872850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4529|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4529
84560040|NCT02651688|168872851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9302
84560041|NCT02651688|168872851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7509
84560042|NCT02651688|168872852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5095|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5095
84560043|NCT02651688|168872852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6230
84560044|NCT02651688|168872853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2960
84560045|NCT02651688|168872853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2723|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2723
84560046|NCT02651688|168872854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0034
84560047|NCT02651688|168872854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0027
84560048|NCT02651688|168872855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0146
84560049|NCT02651688|168872855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0018
84560050|NCT02651688|168872856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1524
84560051|NCT02651688|168872856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0227
84560052|NCT02651688|168872857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5873|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5873
84560053|NCT02651688|168872857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9509
84560054|NCT02651688|168872858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4341|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4341
84560055|NCT02651688|168872858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.0000
84560056|NCT02651688|168872859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0220
84560057|NCT02651688|168872859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3677
84560058|NCT02651688|168872860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9074
84560059|NCT02651688|168872860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4517
84560060|NCT02651688|168872861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2962
84560061|NCT02651688|168872861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3261
84560062|NCT02651688|168872862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0450
84560063|NCT02651688|168872862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2235
84560064|NCT02651688|168872863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8260
84748708|NCT02783768|169251343|OTHER|Testing for difference in the outcome measure according to the exposure (which was not a treatment) in a randomized crossover setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.98||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.012|23.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Measurements were included for participants with at least one valid MRI measurement.|"Within-person effects of e-cigarette exposure on pulmonary microvascular blood flow (PMBF) was assessed via mixed models accounting for order effects.~Null hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure is NOT associated with a change in PMBF.~Alternative hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure IS associated with a change in PMBF.~Power calculation: not applicable since this was a pilot/feasibility study."||23.94|4.012|0.012
84748709|NCT01468831|169251361|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.1|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||26.1|-10.6|
84748710|NCT01468831|169251362|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84560065|NCT02651688|168872863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4183
84560066|NCT02651688|168872864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1144
84560067|NCT02651688|168872864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3263|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3263
84560068|NCT02651688|168872865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1546
84560069|NCT02651688|168872865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5732
84560070|NCT02651688|168872866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5581
84560071|NCT02651688|168872866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5833
84748711|NCT01468831|169251363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.||||
84560072|NCT02651688|168872867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0168
84560073|NCT02651688|168872867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0364
84560074|NCT02651688|168872868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0992
84560075|NCT02651688|168872868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1333|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.1333
84560076|NCT02651688|168872869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0139|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0139
84560077|NCT02651688|168872869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0225
84560078|NCT02993354|168872902|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.95||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.69|0.75
84560079|NCT01421147|168872908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.108||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|-0.002|0.055
84560080|NCT01421147|168872909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-0.23|0.205
84560081|NCT01421147|168872909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.21||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.40|0.320
84560082|NCT01421147|168872909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.21||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.46|0.373
84560083|NCT01421147|168872909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.86||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.86|-0.25|0.131
84560084|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.072||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.072|-0.087|0.860
84560085|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.215||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.011|0.030
84560086|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.208||P-value is for change at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.012|0.080
84560087|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.177||P-value is for change at 36 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.177|-0.057|0.314
84560088|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.127||P-value is for change at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.119|0.948
84560089|NCT01421147|168872910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.14||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.140|-0.099|0.737
84560090|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69||P-value is for Baseline-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.33|0.489
84560091|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||P-value is for Baseline-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.00|0.066
84560092|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16||P-value is for Baseline-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.71|0.209
84560093|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82||P-value is for Baseline-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.20|0.232
84560094|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58||P-value is for Baseline-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.49|0.856
84560095|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.44||P-value is for Baseline-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.66|0.693
84560096|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.41||P-value is for Baseline-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.61|0.700
84560097|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.23|0.399
84560098|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.18|0.248
84560099|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.44|0.883
84560100|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.687
84560101|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-0.24|0.364
84560102|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.05||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk- Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.95|0.030
84560103|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.86|0.033
84560104|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.68|0.230
84670646|NCT03450707|169075006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.5||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.~Lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) for patients who expired."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 24 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||2.50|-1.82|0.72
84560105|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.76|0.148
84560106|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.43|0.866
84560107|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.56|0.545
84560108|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.44|0.955
84560109|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.92|0.031
84560110|NCT01421147|168872911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23||P-vale is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.65|0.355
84560111|NCT01421147|168872912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.52|0.320
84560112|NCT01421147|168872912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.781
84560113|NCT01421147|168872912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
84560114|NCT01421147|168872913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.23|0.823
84560115|NCT01421147|168872913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.47||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.25|0.541
84560116|NCT01421147|168872913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.59||P-value is for change at 18 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.25|0.435
84560117|NCT01421147|168872913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.71||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.23|0.320
84560118|NCT01421147|168872913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.93||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-0.25|0.253
84560119|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.15||P-value is for Baseline-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-0.86|0.401
84560120|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.55||P-value is for 24 weeks-Behavior TS|ANCOVA|||||1.55|-1.16|0.778
84560121|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.45||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.12|0.804
84560122|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||0.304||95.0|-1.1|3.51||P-value is for Baseline-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.51|-1.10|0.304
84560123|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.34||P-value is for 24 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.34|-1.10|0.323
84560124|NCT01421147|168872914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.824||95.0|-1.92|2.41||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-1.92|0.824
84560125|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.89||P-value is for IR-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.89|-4.42|0.681
84560126|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.9||P-value is for IR-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|-2.79|0.744
84560127|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.41||P-value is for IR-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-4.29|0.582
84560128|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.89||P-value is for LF-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.89|-3.26|0.694
84560129|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.77||P-value is for LF-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.77|-3.08|0.673
84560130|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.97||P-value is for LF-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.97|-4.79|0.645
84560131|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.81||P-value is for GC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.81|-3.62|0.961
84560132|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.61||P-value is for GC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-2.10|0.463
84560133|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.41||P-value is for GC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-2.59|0.609
84560134|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||P-value is for HC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.708
84560135|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.03||P-value is for HC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.03|-4.09|0.510
84560136|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||P-value is for HC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.422
84748712|NCT01468831|169251364|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.3|-3.9|
84560137|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.8||P-value is for IDD-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-4.85|0.367
84748713|NCT01468831|169251365|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||0.3|-4.5|
84560138|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.35||P-value is for IDD-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.35|-2.54|0.786
84560139|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59||P-value is for IDD-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.16|0.845
84560140|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.18||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.18|-3.36|0.676
84560141|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.78||P-value is for ITSQ Total-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.78|-2.33|0.862
84494770|NCT05182840|168739962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.65||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.65|2.30|0.0000
84606418|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.75||||||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.75|0.59|
84670647|NCT03450707|169075007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||As AUC-VO2s turned out to be normally distributed, we used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2s between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.58|-1.34|0.43
84748714|NCT01468831|169251366|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.5|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.5|-7.5|
84748715|NCT01468831|169251367|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.4|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.4|-9.4|
84560142|NCT01421147|168872915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.07||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.07|-3.15|0.685
84560143|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.014||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.036|-0.009|0.235
84560144|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.038||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.026|0.726
84560145|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.023|0.377
84560146|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.018||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.042||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.007|0.159
84560147|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.032||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.034|0.957
84560148|NCT01421147|168872916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.028|0.450
84560149|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.724||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|3.755||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.755|-0.308|0.096
84560150|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.267||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|4.065||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.065|-1.531|0.374
84560151|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.964||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|7.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||7.010|-1.081|0.151
84560152|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.059||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|4.305||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.305|-0.187|0.072
84560153|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.702||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.058|3.462||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.462|-2.058|0.617
84560154|NCT01421147|168872917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|6.971||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||6.971|-1.370|0.188
84560155|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline \<7.0 %.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
84560156|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
84606419|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73||||||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.73|0.56|
84606420|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.84|0.65|
84748716|NCT01468831|169251368|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2|-9.5|
84748717|NCT01468831|169251369|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||28.6|-17.1|
84748718|NCT01468831|169251370|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|127.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||127.6|-231.2|
84748719|NCT01468831|169251371|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|153.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.6|431.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||431.6|-522.6|
84748720|NCT01468831|169251372|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|163.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.1|487.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||487.6|-513.1|
84748721|NCT01468831|169251373|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|156.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.0|468.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||468|-487|
84748722|NCT01468831|169251374|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748723|NCT01468831|169251375|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748724|NCT01468831|169251376|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748725|NCT01468831|169251376|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84560157|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84748726|NCT01468831|169251376|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748727|NCT01468831|169251377|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748728|NCT01468831|169251377|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748729|NCT01468831|169251377|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
84748730|NCT01037244|169251379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|6.73|||ANCOVA|Baseline Domain Score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||6.73|3.36|<0.0001
84748731|NCT01037244|169251379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|8.86|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||8.86|5.49|<0.0001
84748732|NCT01037244|169251379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|9.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||9.63|6.27|<0.0001
84748733|NCT01037244|169251380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.72|25.48|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.48|11.72|<0.0001
84560158|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
84560159|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.398
84560160|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.170
84560161|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.926
84560162|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
84560163|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.385
84670648|NCT03450707|169075008|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test, testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the distribution of 72-hour lactates between thiamine and placebo groups.|No parameter estimated other than p-value = 0.88 from Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|||0.88
84560164|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.408
84560165|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.551
84560166|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.900
84670649|NCT03450707|169075009|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||0.80|0.01|0.072
84560167|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
84560168|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
84560169|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
84670650|NCT03450707|169075010|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.7||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||4.7|0.1|0.044
84670651|NCT03450707|169075011|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.0|200.0||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH quantity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||200.0|-297.0|0.828
84670652|NCT03450707|169075014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.22||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||4.22|0.47|0.10
84670653|NCT03450707|169075016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in Basal Respiration between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.|Mean difference uses a non-logged version of the variable.|||1.6|-3.6|0.43
84670654|NCT03450707|169075017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.78||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||1.78|-0.27|0.02
84670655|NCT00004412|169075019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of ulcers undergoing partial and complete healing compared at 12 weeks. Mean Ulcer areas were calculated utilizing computerized planimetry, ulcer area tracings, and photography for baseline and 12 weeks and compared between the two study Arms.||||0.05
84670656|NCT00481195|169075021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0439||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment ands concurrent treatment for bipolar disorders as factors. A significant treatment-by baseline interaction was observed in the total score that violates the assumption of parallelism on which an ANCOVA is based, so the data was analyzed using ANOVA without baseline as a covariate rather than ANCOVA.||||0.0439
84670657|NCT00481195|169075022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0795
84670658|NCT00481195|169075023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0272
84670659|NCT00481195|169075024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0802||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0802
84670660|NCT00481195|169075025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2407||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2407
84670661|NCT00481195|169075026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0502
84670662|NCT00481195|169075027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0612
84670663|NCT00481195|169075028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1980
84494771|NCT05182840|168739962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|6.05||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.05|2.11|0.0000
84560170|NCT01421147|168872918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
84560171|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
84670664|NCT00481195|169075029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8960
84560172|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-52-wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
84560173|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
84560174|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
84560175|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
84560176|NCT01421147|168872919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
84560177|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.717
84560178|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
84560179|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.669
84560180|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
84670665|NCT00481195|169075030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2575
84670666|NCT00481195|169075031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3129||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3129
84494772|NCT05182840|168739963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
84560181|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
84606421|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.71|
84670667|NCT00481195|169075032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1565
84670668|NCT00481195|169075033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6737
84670669|NCT00481195|169075034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2249
84560182|NCT01421147|168872920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
84560183|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.08
84560184|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Mi/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
84560185|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.9
84606422|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.73|
84606423|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.96|0.74|
84670670|NCT00481195|169075035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0862||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0862
84670671|NCT00481195|169075036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9281
84670672|NCT00481195|169075037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.4428
84670673|NCT00481195|169075038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0965
84670674|NCT00481195|169075039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5389||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5389
84670675|NCT00481195|169075040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0793
84670676|NCT00481195|169075041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3814
84670677|NCT00481195|169075042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.8099
84670678|NCT00481195|169075043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0968
84670679|NCT00481195|169075044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1605
84670680|NCT00481195|169075045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1869||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1869
84494773|NCT05182840|168739963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
84494774|NCT05182840|168739963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
84560186|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.7
84560187|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.4
84560188|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.6
84560189|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
84560190|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy ofMI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
84748734|NCT01037244|169251380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.13|35.9|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||35.90|22.13|<0.0001
84748735|NCT01037244|169251380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|31.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|38.34|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||38.34|24.68|<0.0001
84748736|NCT01037244|169251381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
84560191|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
84560192|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
84560193|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.9
84670681|NCT00481195|169075046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0817||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0817
84748737|NCT01037244|169251381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
84748738|NCT01037244|169251381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
84748739|NCT01037244|169251381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
84748740|NCT01037244|169251382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.59|0.30|<0.0001
84748741|NCT01037244|169251382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.83|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.54|<0.0001
84560194|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
84560195|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.7
84560196|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.1
84560197|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
84560198|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.5
84560199|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
84748742|NCT01037244|169251382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.95|0.66|<0.0001
84748743|NCT01037244|169251383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|16.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|22.11|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||22.11|11.23|<0.0001
84748744|NCT01037244|169251383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|22.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.11|28.03|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||28.03|17.11|<0.0001
84748745|NCT01037244|169251383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|33.79|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||33.79|22.98|<0.0001
84560200|NCT00136214|168872921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Crat time points 1 and 2||||0.9
84560201|NCT00136214|168872922|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
84560202|NCT00136214|168872922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for ROCF||||< 0.05
84560203|NCT00136214|168872922|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
84560204|NCT00136214|168872922|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for ROCF||||>0.05
84560205|NCT02757352|168872925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.51|1.23|0.009
84560206|NCT02757352|168872925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.25|1.48|0.002
84560207|NCT02757352|168872926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.38|0.004
84560208|NCT02757352|168872926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.40|0.004
84560209|NCT02757352|168872927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.81|<0.001
84560210|NCT02757352|168872927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.94|<0.001
84560211|NCT02757352|168872928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.96|<0.001
84560212|NCT02757352|168872928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
84560213|NCT02757352|168872930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6092|5.0926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0926|0.6092|0.013
84560214|NCT02757352|168872930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1278||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|4.9694|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9694|0.5299|0.015
84560215|NCT02757352|168872931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6467||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9525|7.4477|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4477|0.9525|0.012
84560216|NCT02757352|168872931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6455||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3629|7.8533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8533|1.3629|0.006
84560217|NCT02757352|168872932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.76|1.30|0.008
84560218|NCT02757352|168872932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.66|<0.001
84560219|NCT02757352|168872933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|2.02|<0.001
84560220|NCT02757352|168872933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|9.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.05|1.76|<0.001
84560221|NCT02757352|168872934|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.28|0.031
84560222|NCT02757352|168872934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.61|0.001
84748746|NCT01037244|169251384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.61|||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.61|1.17|<0.0001
84494775|NCT05182840|168739964|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.45||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.45|1.09|0.0285
84560223|NCT02757352|168872935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.92|0.006
84560224|NCT02757352|168872935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-2.08|0.002
84560225|NCT02757352|168872936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-4.58|<0.001
84560226|NCT02757352|168872936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.751|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-5.68|<0.001
84560227|NCT02757352|168872937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.35|0.849
84560228|NCT02757352|168872937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.93|-1.48|0.648
84560229|NCT02757352|168872938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.93|0.018
84560230|NCT02757352|168872938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
84560231|NCT02757352|168872939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.47|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|1.47|0.0011
84560232|NCT02757352|168872939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|15.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.66|1.14|0.031
84560233|NCT02757352|168872940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8507||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.418|1.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.804|-9.418|0.183
84560234|NCT02757352|168872940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8202||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.294|2.807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.807|-8.294|0.331
84560235|NCT02757352|168872941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.69|0.008
84560236|NCT02757352|168872941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.60|0.038
84560237|NCT02757352|168872942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-0.59|0.871
84560238|NCT02757352|168872942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.30|0.295
84560239|NCT02757352|168872943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.26|0.257
84560240|NCT02757352|168872943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.56|0.057
84560241|NCT02757352|168872944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.85|0.082
84560242|NCT02757352|168872944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.82|0.088
84560243|NCT02757352|168872945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||1.09|-4.66|0.219
84560244|NCT02757352|168872945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.388||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||-0.76|-6.30|0.013
84560245|NCT02757352|168872945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.26|-1.68|0.009
84560246|NCT02757352|168872945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.06|-1.46|0.034
84560247|NCT02757352|168872947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.5|0.325
84560248|NCT02757352|168872947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.6|0.206
84560249|NCT02757352|168872948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.77|0.330
84560250|NCT02757352|168872948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.15|0.110
84560251|NCT02757352|168872949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.348
84560252|NCT02757352|168872949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.3|0.386
84494776|NCT05182840|168739964|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.96||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.96|1.41|0.0038
84494777|NCT05182840|168739964|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.72|1.97|0.0002
84560253|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.835||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||-4.20|-23.32|0.005
84560254|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.697||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||3.00|-15.58|0.183
84560255|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||0.26|-12.05|0.060
84560256|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||1.97|-10.27|0.182
84560257|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.62|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||-4.60|-22.62|0.003
84560258|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.446||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||2.58|-15.00|0.164
84560259|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-3.41|||LS Mean Difference|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-3.41|-17.85|0.004
84670682|NCT00481195|169075047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3712
84560260|NCT02757352|168872950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-2.86|-17.12|0.006
84560261|NCT01088711|168872976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|99.37|||Difference in geometric means (GMs)|||||99.37|82.70|
84560262|NCT01088711|168872978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.38|||||GMR is ratio of active GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||2.38|1.55|
84560263|NCT01088711|168872979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.17|||||GMR is ratio of total GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||1.17|0.72|
84560264|NCT01240902|168872981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|30.1|||z-test, 1 sided||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System meets the Performance Goal in the 12 month rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke H0: = πMCS TAVI ≥ 43.0% HA: = πMCS TAVI \< 43.0% In the above expressions πMCS TAVI denotes the rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke during a fixed follow-up of 1 year.||30.1|22.3|<0.0001
84560265|NCT01240902|168872981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|No performance goal created, only descriptive statistics are provided.||||
84560266|NCT01240902|168872981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 12 month all-cause mortality estimated rate was 20% for each group with a noninferiority margin of 7.5 percentage points. Assuming a 1:1 ratio in the treatment assignments, we estimated that a total of 355 patients were required in each group for the study to have power of 80% at a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. Accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up, we calculated that we would need to enroll 790 patients.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84560267|NCT01240902|168872982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #5, MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge; whichever was longer. K-M rates TAVR 8.21%, SAVR 10.93%, Difference -2.73%, Standard Error 2.16%, and Upper 95% CI 1.5%.|Kaplan-Meier Point Estimate|Using Greenwood formula||"Powered Secondary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System was superior to SAVR in binary rate of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer:~H0: πMCS TAVR = πSAVR HA: πMCS TAVR \< πSAVR In the above expression πMCS TAVR and πSAVR denoted rates of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer.~Assumptions:~1:1 treatment allocation ratio One-sided alpha=0.025 SAVR = 20.0% MCS TAVI = 12.1% Power = \>80%"||||0.1033
84560268|NCT01240902|168872986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #5. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
84560269|NCT01240902|168872986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.375. For subjects with NYHA categories at both baseline and 1 year visit, the NYHA classification improvements were calculated as NYHAbaseline - NYHA1year.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #5. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean number of classification improvements in NYHA from baseline to 1 year."||||<0.0001
84494778|NCT05182840|168739965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
84494779|NCT05182840|168739965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
84606424|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||1.14|0.87|
84606425|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||||||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.73|
84748747|NCT01037244|169251384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.99|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.99|1.54|<0.0001
84748748|NCT01037244|169251384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.73|2.30|<0.0001
84748749|NCT01037244|169251385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.03|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.03|0.81|<0.0001
84748750|NCT01037244|169251385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.26|1.04|<0.0001
84748751|NCT01037244|169251385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.59|1.37|<0.0001
84748752|NCT01037244|169251386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.21|0.0019
84606426|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94||||||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|
84606427|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7||||||Serotype 23F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.70|0.52|
84606428|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|86.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.61|96.95||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||96.95|77.61|
84606429|NCT04384107|168964050|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|45.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.07|51.54||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||51.54|40.07|
84560270|NCT01240902|168872989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #8. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
84560271|NCT01240902|168872989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 5||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -5 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -5 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the KCCQ score from baseline to 1 year."||||0.0063
84560272|NCT01240902|168872989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #6. Item #5 failed, therefore, item #6 also fails. Nominal p- value provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The two-sided two-sample t-test was used to test at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR = µ SAVR HA: µ MCS TAVR ≠ µ SAVR In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days."||||<0.0001
84560273|NCT01240902|168872990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 2 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
84560274|NCT01240902|168872990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 0.375|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 1 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year measured in cm2."||||<0.0001
84560275|NCT01240902|168872991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 2 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
84560276|NCT01240902|168872991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 15|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 1 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level of 0.05 the hypotheses: H0: μ MCS TAVR ≤ μ SAVR -15 HA: μ MCS TAVR \> μ SAVR -15 In the above expression μ MCS TAVR and μ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in mean gradient from Baseline to 1 year measured in mmHg."||||<0.0001
84560277|NCT03543176|168873012|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||P-value for low impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
84560278|NCT03543176|168873012|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||P-value for medium impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84560279|NCT03543176|168873012|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||P-value for high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
84560280|NCT03543176|168873012|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for very high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
84560281|NCT03543176|168873013|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||P-value for breathlessness reported in COPD assessed using mMRC is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.176
84560282|NCT03543176|168873014|OTHER|||||||0.732||||||P-value for Baseline comorbidity burden score was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
84560283|NCT03543176|168873015|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value for count of unique medications was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84560284|NCT03543176|168873016|OTHER|||||||0.178||||||P-value for total number of medications dispensing was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.178
84560285|NCT03543176|168873022|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||P-value for count of unique COPD medications was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692
84560286|NCT03543176|168873023|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for total number of COPD medications dispensing was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84560287|NCT01964989|168873047|SUPERIORITY|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE; ≥6 to \<72 months) rVE = (1-HR) is the relative vaccine efficacy of aQIV and HR is defined as hazard ratio between aQIV and non adjuvanted comparator.|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|15.41||||||||15.41|-19.81|
84560288|NCT01964989|168873054|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.8|
84560289|NCT01964989|168873054|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
84560290|NCT01964989|168873054|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.8||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.8|1.6|
84560291|NCT01964989|168873054|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.7||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.7|1.4|
84606430|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.78|0.55|
84494780|NCT05182840|168739965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
84560292|NCT01964989|168873054|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.4||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.4|2.0|
84560293|NCT01964989|168873054|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
84560294|NCT01964989|168873054|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.6||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.6|2.0|
84560295|NCT01964989|168873054|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.1||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.1|1.6|
84560296|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.0|0.8|
84560297|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.9|
84560298|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
84560299|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
84560300|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
84560301|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
84560302|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
84560303|NCT01964989|168873056|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.2|0.7|
84560304|NCT01964989|168873058|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||11.3|5.0|
84560305|NCT01964989|168873058|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.4||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||8.4|1.9|
84560306|NCT01964989|168873058|SUPERIORITY||Seroconversion difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|24.5||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||24.5|18.1|
84560307|NCT01964989|168873058|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|17.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||17.3|10.0|
84560308|NCT01964989|168873059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|13.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||13.7|9.4|
84560309|NCT01964989|168873059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||9.7|6.1|
84560310|NCT01964989|168873059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|25.6||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||25.6|18.1|
84560311|NCT01964989|168873059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||25.7|15.9|
84560312|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.7|5.9|
84560313|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||11.9|7.8|
84560314|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.7||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||18.7|13.5|
84560315|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|26.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||26.4|19.8|
84560316|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|27.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||27.6|20.6|
84606431|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.59||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||1.59|1.23|
84560317|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||7.5|4.5|
84606432|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||1.10|0.85|
84606433|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.80|
84606434|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.89|0.65|
84606435|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.69|
84606436|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.70|
84606437|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.94|0.71|
84606438|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.38|0.97|
84606439|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.11|0.90|
84670683|NCT00481195|169075048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5427
84560318|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.6|6.1|
84560319|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||13.9|9.6|
84560320|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|22.0||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||22.0|16.1|
84560321|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|24.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||24.3|17.8|
84606440|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.77|0.61|
84606441|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.04||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.84|
84606442|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.74||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.74|0.53|
84606443|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|560.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.05|662.63||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||662.63|474.05|
84606444|NCT04384107|168964051|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|196.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.85|271.21||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||271.21|141.85|
84606445|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.75|0.38|
84606446|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||2.03|1.28|
84606447|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||0.93|0.57|
84606448|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.13|0.66|
84606449|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.91|0.57|
84606450|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.83|0.52|
84606451|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.07|0.68|
84606452|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.84|0.50|
84606453|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.9||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.90|1.16|
84494781|NCT05182840|168739966|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.69||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.69|0.67|0.4092
84494782|NCT05182840|168739966|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|7.58||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.58|1.77|0.0005
84494783|NCT05182840|168739966|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|8.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.49|1.92|0.0002
84560322|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|32.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||32.3|25.1|
84560323|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|29.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||29.9|22.6|
84560324|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|25.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||25.3|18.3|
84560325|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||14.5|8.6|
84560326|NCT01964989|168873060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.4|4.3|
84560327|NCT02769312|168873101|OTHER||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.46
84560328|NCT02769312|168873102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.12||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
84560329|NCT02769312|168873103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
84560330|NCT00424593|168873107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Model included treatment, non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use (Yes/No), investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pain severity, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.004
84560331|NCT00424593|168873108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
84560332|NCT00424593|168873109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for 13 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84560333|NCT00424593|168873110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84560334|NCT00424593|168873110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.014
84560335|NCT00424593|168873110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Night Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84560336|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84560337|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84560338|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84560339|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84560340|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for General Activity Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.068
84560341|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Mood Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84560342|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Walking Ability Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84560343|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Normal Work Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
84560344|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Relations With People Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84560345|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
84560346|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84560347|NCT00424593|168873111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84560348|NCT00424593|168873112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
84560349|NCT00424593|168873113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
84560350|NCT00424593|168873114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
84560351|NCT00424593|168873115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.329
84560352|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
84560353|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.220
84560354|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84560355|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
84560356|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.093
84606454|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.48|0.95|
84606455|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||1.01|0.60|
84606456|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.52|1.00|
84606457|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.49|0.28|
84560357|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
84560358|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.170
84560359|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
84560360|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
84606458|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|155.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.84|238.59||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||238.59|101.84|
84606459|NCT04384107|168964052|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|16.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.74|24.08||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||24.08|11.74|
84606460|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based physical functioning score||||.81
84560361|NCT00424593|168873116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
84560362|NCT00424593|168873117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.117
84560363|NCT00424593|168873118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value for Absenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84560364|NCT00424593|168873118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||P-value for Presenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.452
84560365|NCT00424593|168873118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Work Productivity Loss Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.736
84560366|NCT00424593|168873118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Work Activity Impairment Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84560367|NCT00424593|168873119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
84560368|NCT00424593|168873120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
84560369|NCT00424593|168873120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||P-value for Depression Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.262
84560370|NCT00424593|168873121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.046
84560371|NCT00424593|168873122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.008
84560372|NCT00424593|168873123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
84560373|NCT00424593|168873124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0||||P-value for SBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.764
84560374|NCT00424593|168873124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for DBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
84560375|NCT00424593|168873125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
84560376|NCT00482170|168873162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.77|0.87|<0.001
84606461|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-physical score||||.18
84606462|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based bodily pain score||||.48
84606463|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based general health score||||.26
84606464|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based vitality score||||.23
84606465|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based social functioning score||||.36
84606466|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-emotional score||||.41
84606467|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based mental health score||||.80
84606468|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized physical component score||||.80
84606469|NCT01307462|168964105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized mental component score||||.23
84606470|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT physical well-being||||0.28
84606471|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT social/family well-being||||0.1
84606472|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT emotional well-being||||0.63
84606473|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT functional well-being||||0.78
84606474|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT BMT subscale||||.84
84606475|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT trial outcome index||||.37
84494784|NCT05182840|168739967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.43||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.43|1.06|0.0348
84494785|NCT05182840|168739967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|13.57||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||13.57|2.73|0.0000
84606476|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G||||.71
84606477|NCT01307462|168964106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-BMT total||||.54
84606478|NCT01307462|168964107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP maximum activity score - highest item still doing||||.37
84606479|NCT01307462|168964107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP adjusted activity score - MAS minus stopped||||.39
84606480|NCT01307462|168964107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Modified HAP adjusted activity score||||.39
84606481|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom skin scale||||.11
84748753|NCT01037244|169251386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.10|0.38|<0.0001
84606482|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom energy scale||||.007
84606483|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom lung scale||||.20
84606484|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom eye scale||||.002
84606485|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom nutrition scale||||.52
84606486|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom psychological scale||||.22
84606487|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom mouth scale||||.002
84606488|NCT01307462|168964108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom overall summary scale||||<0.001
84606489|NCT03875664|168964122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84606490|NCT05065190|168964129|OTHER||Adjusted difference|106.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.13|260.28|||||Adjusted difference between treatment groups was based on a random slope and intercept model with fixed effects for treatment, HRCT pattern, and baseline FVC \[mL\], and including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.|||260.28|-47.13|
84606491|NCT00086502|168964234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.54||"Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic~agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]"|ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.85|<0.001
84606492|NCT00086502|168964235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9|<|0.001||95.0|-24.3|-11.0||Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]|ANCOVA|||||-11.0|-24.3|<0.001
84606493|NCT01304329|168964236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|105.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||105.29|98.90|
84606494|NCT01304329|168964237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|128.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone"||128.07|80.06|
84606495|NCT01304329|168964237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.09|122.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||122.07|90.09|
84606496|NCT01304329|168964238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|123.69|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||123.69|96.91|
84606497|NCT01304329|168964239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.3|123.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||123.77|76.30|
84606498|NCT01304329|168964239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.44|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||111.44|84.90|
84748754|NCT01037244|169251386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.21|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.21|0.49|<0.0001
84560377|NCT00482170|168873163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% CI of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA using a mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.87|0.95|<0.001
84560378|NCT00482170|168873164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.12||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|126.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||126.9|2.05|0.008
84560379|NCT00482170|168873164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|51.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||51.83|2.44|0.002
84560380|NCT00482170|168873164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|27.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||27.44|2.26|0.001
84560381|NCT00482170|168873164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|29.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used for the analysis.||29.47|2.59|<0.001
84560382|NCT00482170|168873165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.34|0.00|0.045
84606499|NCT01304329|168964240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.06|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone.||106.06|99.10|
84606500|NCT01304329|168964241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.39|130.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||130.29|80.39|
84606501|NCT01304329|168964241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|129.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||129.02|95.93|
84606502|NCT01842581|168964245|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance=upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio less than (\<) 1.56.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.959||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|3.672|||Score statistics|||Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.672|1.045|0.0359
84670684|NCT00481195|169075049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3463
84670685|NCT00481195|169075050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2730
84560383|NCT00482170|168873166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, female and male (reference).||0.39|-0.58|0.707
84560384|NCT00482170|168873167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, high school or baccalaureate level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.14|-0.89|0.195
84560385|NCT00482170|168873167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.55||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, university level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.11|-1.21|0.195
84606503|NCT01842581|168964246|SUPERIORITY|2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.739||||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|3.382||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by analysis region. Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.382|0.894|0.0985
84560386|NCT00482170|168873168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-A: =\< 4, HAD-A: \> 4 to 7, HAD-A: \> 7 to 10 and HAD-A: \> 10; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.36|0.493
84560387|NCT00482170|168873168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-D: =\< 3, HAD-D: \> 3 to 5, HAD-D: \> 5 to 8 and HAD-A: \> 8; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.14|-0.46|0.287
84560388|NCT00482170|168873169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.30|-0.04|0.123
84560389|NCT00482170|168873170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.28|-0.76|0.359
84560390|NCT00482170|168873171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.12|-0.08|0.693
84560391|NCT00482170|168873172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.22||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.53||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.53|-0.09|0.170
84560392|NCT00482170|168873173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.04|-0.01|0.211
84606504|NCT02068118|168964284|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.23|0.77|=0.80
84670686|NCT00481195|169075051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7791||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.7791
84560393|NCT00482170|168873174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.18|0.00|0.045
84560394|NCT00482170|168873175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.11|-0.12|0.913
84560395|NCT00482170|168873176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.17|0.968
84560396|NCT00482170|168873177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current tobacco usage: yes and current tobacco usage: no (reference).||0.32|-0.61|0.531
84560397|NCT00482170|168873177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.44||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current alcohol usage: yes and current alcohol usage: no (reference).||0.90|-0.02|0.061
84560398|NCT00482170|168873178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.73||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.92||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||3.92|-5.37|0.759
84560399|NCT00482170|168873179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.55|-0.37|0.713
84670687|NCT00481195|169075052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9007
84606505|NCT02068118|168964285|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.82|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.1|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.10|0.62|=0.18
84606506|NCT02068118|168964286|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.6|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||0.92|0.39|=0.02
84606507|NCT02068118|168964287|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.68
84560400|NCT00482170|168873180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.49|1.63|<0.001
84606508|NCT02068118|168964289|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Log Rank|||Time to death from any cause compared using the log-rank test||||=0.85
84560401|NCT00482170|168873180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4:A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.67|1.61|<0.001
84606509|NCT02068118|168964290|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).||1.21|0.78|=0.77
84606510|NCT02068118|168964291|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths from cardiovascular cause that occurred during a hospitalization for cardiovascular cause with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.27|0.74|=0.83
84606511|NCT02068118|168964292|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.84|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.15|0.62|=0.28
84606512|NCT02068118|168964293|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.71|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.04|0.48|=0.078
84606513|NCT02068118|168964294|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.5|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||0.91|0.28|=0.023
84560402|NCT00482170|168873180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.21|1.78|<0.001
84560403|NCT00482170|168873180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.8||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.80|1.66|<0.001
84560404|NCT00482170|168873181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.89||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.89|1.22|0.004
84748755|NCT01037244|169251387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.19|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.19|1.13|<0.0001
84560405|NCT00482170|168873181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.72||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.72|1.10|0.017
84560406|NCT00482170|168873181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.73||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.73|1.47|<0.001
84560407|NCT00482170|168873181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.32|0.001
84560408|NCT00482170|168873182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.64|1.07|0.025
84560409|NCT00482170|168873182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.64|0.63|0.936
84560410|NCT00482170|168873182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.99||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.99|0.75|0.420
84560411|NCT00482170|168873182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.79|0.71|0.625
84560412|NCT00482170|168873183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.94||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.94|0.86|0.210
84560413|NCT00482170|168873183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.85|0.227
84606514|NCT02068118|168964295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.99|0.62|=0.044
84494786|NCT05182840|168739967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|7.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.52|1.71|0.0007
84494787|NCT05182840|168739968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
84494788|NCT05182840|168739968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
84494789|NCT05182840|168739968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
84494790|NCT05182840|168739969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.44|1.06|0.0342
84494791|NCT05182840|168739969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.24|1.93|0.0003
84560414|NCT00482170|168873183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.84|0.220
84560415|NCT00482170|168873183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.0||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.00|0.84|0.249
84560416|NCT00482170|168873184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.48|<0.001
84560417|NCT00482170|168873184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.62|1.62|<0.001
84606515|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.06|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.61||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with physical functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.61|-2.48|=0.17
84606516|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.8|||=|0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.21||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Physical score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role physical score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||6.21|-2.61|=0.23
84494792|NCT05182840|168739969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|6.73||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.73|1.52|0.0023
84494793|NCT05182840|168739970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
84560418|NCT00482170|168873184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.51||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.51|1.58|<0.001
84560419|NCT00482170|168873184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.59||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.59|1.64|<0.001
84606517|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.46|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.33||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Bodily Pain score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with bodily pain score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||8.33|0.59|=0.50
84606518|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.52|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|5.12||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA General Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with general health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||5.12|-0.07|=0.19
84606519|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.38|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.85||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Vitality score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with vitality score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.85|-0.09|=0.034
84606520|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.03|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.47||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Social Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with social functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||7.47|0.60|=0.025
84606521|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.01|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.81||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Emotional score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role emotional score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.81|-2.79|=0.90
84670688|NCT00481195|169075053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6431
84670689|NCT00481195|169075054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder.||||||0.6631
84670690|NCT00481195|169075055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.9768
84748756|NCT01037244|169251387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.29|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.29|1.23|<0.0001
84560420|NCT00482170|168873185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.65||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.65|1.50|<0.001
84560421|NCT00482170|168873185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.77||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.77|1.83|<0.001
84560422|NCT00482170|168873185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.12||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.12|1.62|<0.001
84560423|NCT00482170|168873185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.86|1.55|<0.001
84560424|NCT00482170|168873186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.62|0.73|0.681
84560425|NCT00482170|168873186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.54|0.67|0.947
84560426|NCT00482170|168873186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.36|0.59|0.604
84560427|NCT00482170|168873186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.27||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.27|0.57|0.430
84560428|NCT00482170|168873187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.03|0.48|0.072
84560429|NCT00482170|168873187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.86|0.205
84606522|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.26|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with mental health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.37|0.16|=0.19
84670691|NCT00481195|169075056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment fro bipolar disorder||||||0.9873
84670692|NCT00481195|169075057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4567||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4567
84560430|NCT00482170|168873187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.78||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.78|0.78|0.434
84560431|NCT00482170|168873187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.55|0.69|0.857
84560432|NCT00482170|168873188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.70|0.837
84560433|NCT00482170|168873188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.15|0.87|0.172
84560434|NCT00482170|168873188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|0.94|0.096
84670693|NCT00481195|169075058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.6475
84494794|NCT05182840|168739970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
84560435|NCT00482170|168873188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.88|0.164
84560436|NCT00482170|168873189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.69|0.83|0.356
84560437|NCT00482170|168873189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.73|0.737
84560438|NCT00482170|168873189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.156
84560439|NCT00482170|168873189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.76||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.76|0.85|0.290
84494795|NCT05182840|168739970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
84494796|NCT05182840|168739971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
84560440|NCT00482170|168873190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.50|0.065
84606523|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|0.9|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.28||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Component Summary (PCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with PCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.28|-0.48|=0.26
84606524|NCT02068118|168964296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.2|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Component Summary (MCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with MCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.31|0.08|=0.17
84606525|NCT02068118|168964301|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.03
84560441|NCT00482170|168873190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.06|0.50|0.100
84560442|NCT00482170|168873190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.21|0.54|0.298
84560443|NCT00482170|168873190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.11|0.51|0.148
84560444|NCT00482170|168873191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.94|0.098
84560445|NCT00482170|168873191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.87|0.82|0.311
84560446|NCT00482170|168873191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.85||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.85|0.79|0.376
84560447|NCT00482170|168873191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.86|0.83|0.299
84560448|NCT00482170|168873192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.28|0.60|0.494
84560449|NCT00482170|168873192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.97|0.44|0.036
84560450|NCT00482170|168873192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.04|0.45|0.079
84606526|NCT02068118|168964302|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.15
84606527|NCT02068118|168964303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.95|0.53|=0.02
84606528|NCT02068118|168964304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.98|0.39|=0.043
84606529|NCT00140842|168964305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups for peak growth hormone on the growth hormone stimulation test.||||<0.05
84606530|NCT00140842|168964306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups for visceral adipose tissue||||<0.05
84606531|NCT01515475|168964312|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||18|-12|0.72
84606532|NCT01515475|168964312|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|4.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||4|-31|0.14
84606533|NCT01515475|168964320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|1.09||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.09|0.11|0.002
84560451|NCT00482170|168873192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.46|0.063
84560452|NCT00482170|168873193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.33|0.62|0.628
84560453|NCT00482170|168873193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.15|0.51|0.203
84560454|NCT00482170|168873193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.17|0.51|0.222
84670694|NCT00481195|169075059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5066||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.5066
84606534|NCT01515475|168964320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.1|1.06||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.06|0.10|0.002
84670695|NCT00481195|169075060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4438||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4438
84560455|NCT00482170|168873193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.19|0.53|0.263
84560456|NCT00482170|168873194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.50|0.70|0.914
84560457|NCT00482170|168873194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.57||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.57|0.70|0.827
84560458|NCT00482170|168873194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.40|0.61|0.712
84560459|NCT00482170|168873194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.39|0.62|0.733
84560460|NCT00482170|168873195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.95|0.95|0.090
84560461|NCT00482170|168873195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.154
84560462|NCT00482170|168873195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.22||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.22|1.02|0.037
84560463|NCT00482170|168873195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|1.05|0.028
84560464|NCT00482170|168873196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.21|1.06|0.022
84560465|NCT00482170|168873196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.41||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.41|1.17|0.005
84560466|NCT00482170|168873196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.97|0.076
84560467|NCT00482170|168873196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|1.00|0.049
84560468|NCT00482170|168873197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.83|1.32|<0.001
84560469|NCT00482170|168873197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.87|1.78|<0.001
84560470|NCT00482170|168873197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.19|1.42|<0.001
84560471|NCT00482170|168873197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.39|1.52|<0.001
84560472|NCT00482170|168873198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|0.99|0.057
84560473|NCT00482170|168873198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.96|0.90|0.151
84560474|NCT00482170|168873198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.44|1.06|0.024
84560475|NCT00482170|168873198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.39|1.06|0.025
84606535|NCT01515475|168964320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.51|0.84||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.84|-0.51|0.53
84606536|NCT01515475|168964320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.43|0.86||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.86|-0.43|0.38
84606537|NCT01515475|168964321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-49.0|1.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||1|-49|0.013
84606538|NCT01515475|168964321|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-18.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|8.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||8|-42|0.08
84606539|NCT01515475|168964322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.04|-0.02|0.22
84560476|NCT00482170|168873199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.49|0.24|<0.001
84560477|NCT00482170|168873199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.37|0.18|<0.001
84560478|NCT00482170|168873199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.45|0.21|<0.001
84560479|NCT00482170|168873199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.47|0.23|<0.001
84606540|NCT01515475|168964322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.03|-0.06|0.41
84748757|NCT01037244|169251387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.09|2.03|<0.0001
84560480|NCT00482170|168873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.54|0.27|<0.001
84560481|NCT00482170|168873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.21|<0.001
84560482|NCT00482170|168873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
84560483|NCT00482170|168873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
84560484|NCT00482170|168873201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.24|<0.001
84606541|NCT01515475|168964322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.01|-0.12|0.02
84606542|NCT01515475|168964322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.05|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.05|-0.19|0.15
84606543|NCT01515475|168964323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
84606544|NCT01515475|168964323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|14.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||14|-18|0.79
84606545|NCT01515475|168964324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
84606546|NCT01515475|168964324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.0|16.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||16|-24|0.68
84606547|NCT01515475|168964325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.05||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.05|-0.12|0.21
84560485|NCT00482170|168873201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.22|<0.001
84560486|NCT00482170|168873201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.56|0.26|<0.001
84560487|NCT00482170|168873201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.58||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.58|0.28|<0.001
84560488|NCT00482170|168873202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the first injection: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.26|0.60|0.470
84560489|NCT00482170|168873202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.20|0.57|0.325
84560490|NCT00482170|168873202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.13|0.55|0.197
84560491|NCT00482170|168873202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.14|0.56|0.212
84560492|NCT00482170|168873203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Baseline- after the training: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an auto-regressive correlation structure was used to calculate 95% CI.||0.46|-0.91|0.515
84560493|NCT00482170|168873203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.6||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 4: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.60|-0.74|0.842
84560494|NCT00482170|168873203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 12: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.61|-0.67|0.928
84560495|NCT00482170|168873203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Last observation: ANOVA method was used for the analysis.||0.64|-0.62|0.974
84560496|NCT00482170|168873204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.030
84606548|NCT01515475|168964325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.1|0.04||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.04|-0.10|0.25
84560497|NCT00482170|168873204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
84560498|NCT00482170|168873205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.984
84560499|NCT00482170|168873205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.549
84560500|NCT00482170|168873206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.158
84560501|NCT00482170|168873206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.808
84560502|NCT00482170|168873207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.029
84560503|NCT00482170|168873207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
84560504|NCT00482170|168873207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.411
84560505|NCT00482170|168873207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
84560506|NCT00482170|168873208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.039
84560507|NCT00482170|168873208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.006
84560508|NCT00482170|168873209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.752
84560509|NCT00482170|168873209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.700
84494797|NCT05182840|168739971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
84494798|NCT05182840|168739971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
84494799|NCT00863265|168739974|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|289.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The estimation parameter is the difference between the placebo group and the ezetimibe group.|Phytosterol Diet compared to Ezetimibe||||0.01
84494800|NCT00863265|168739974|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|457.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
84494801|NCT00863265|168739974|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal|Mean Difference (Final Values)|168.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Ezetimibe vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
84494802|NCT00863265|168739975|EQUIVALENCE|Not applicable in this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal||||<0.01
84494803|NCT00863265|168739975|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
84494804|NCT00863265|168739975|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
84560510|NCT00482170|168873210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.697
84560511|NCT00482170|168873210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.159
84560512|NCT00482170|168873211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.004
84494805|NCT00863265|168739976|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
84494806|NCT00863265|168739976|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that all groups are equal||||<0.01
84494807|NCT00863265|168739976|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.05
84494808|NCT05510297|168739989|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84494809|NCT05510297|168739990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2653.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5110.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.76522|5604.07522||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; data were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test where p\>0.05 was interpreted as likely normal distribution.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5604.07522|-297.76522|0.074
84494810|NCT05510297|168739991|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made;|Mean Difference (Net)|4.44067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.59009||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59116|27.47249|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.47249|-18.59116|0.685
84494811|NCT05510297|168739992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44656||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31374|0.28841|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28841|-1.31374|0.191
84494812|NCT05510297|168739993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35026||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19775|0.29775|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29775|-1.19775|0.218
84494813|NCT05510297|168739994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.924|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19396||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13898|0.29098|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29098|-2.13898|0.125
84560513|NCT00482170|168873211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
84560514|NCT00482170|168873212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.652
84560515|NCT00482170|168873212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
84560516|NCT00482170|168873213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.560
84560517|NCT00482170|168873213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.474
84560518|NCT00482170|168873214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.023
84560519|NCT00482170|168873214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.089
84560520|NCT00482170|168873215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.494
84560521|NCT00482170|168873215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.782
84560522|NCT00482170|168873216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.444
84560523|NCT00482170|168873216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.947
84560524|NCT00482170|168873217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.787
84560525|NCT00482170|168873217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.379
84560526|NCT00482170|168873217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.098
84560527|NCT00482170|168873217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.166
84606549|NCT01515475|168964326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||13|-18|0.51
84606550|NCT01515475|168964326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.0|17.0||No p-value, because there was 0% difference||||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||17|-17|
84606551|NCT01515475|168964327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.11|0.14||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit, anisometropia at the most recent visit, and stereoacuity at enrollment.||0.14|-0.11|0.74
84606552|NCT01515475|168964327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit and anisometropia at the most recent visit.||0.1|-0.4|0.15
84560528|NCT00482170|168873218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.535
84560529|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.178||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.178|-0.067|
84560530|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.151||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.151|-0.102|
84560531|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.045|-0.204|
84560532|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.34||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.340|0.009|
84560533|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.056||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.056|-0.297|
84560534|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.117||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.117|-0.225|
84560535|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.184||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.184|-0.068|
84560536|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.082||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.082|-0.167|
84560537|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.113||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.113|-0.144|
84606553|NCT01515475|168964328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-14.0|26.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||26|-14|0.53
84670696|NCT02932904|169075061|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.78||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA with last observation carried forward (LOCF) model was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||4.78|0.69|0.009
84606554|NCT01515475|168964328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|2.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||2|-40|0.02
84606555|NCT01996592|168964348|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||"PROMIS -perceived stress scale was utilized (a validated test). Scoring ranges from 0-40, with the following ranges indicative of low, moderate, or high perceived stress:~0-13=low stress 14-26=moderate stress 27-40=high perceived stress"||||<0.01
84606556|NCT01996592|168964349|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84606557|NCT00870194|168964350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority Margin of 0.4%||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.012
84606558|NCT00870194|168964350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Standard Error of the Least Square Mean|Power calculation: 80% assuming 200 patients (100 in each arm), no true difference and 1.0% standard deviation.||0.53|0.07|.012
84606559|NCT00870194|168964351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.038
84606560|NCT00870194|168964352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.027
84606561|NCT00870194|168964353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.480
84606562|NCT00870194|168964354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.038
84606563|NCT00870194|168964355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.266
84606564|NCT00870194|168964356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.095
84606565|NCT00870194|168964357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.567
84606566|NCT00870194|168964358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.207
84606567|NCT00870194|168964359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.055
84606568|NCT00870194|168964360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.269
84606569|NCT00870194|168964361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.622
84606570|NCT00870194|168964362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.888
84606571|NCT00870194|168964363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.287
84606572|NCT00870194|168964364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.498
84606573|NCT00870194|168964365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.247
84606574|NCT00870194|168964366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||1.00
84606575|NCT00707746|168964367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was 20%. A sample size of 30 patients was planned for this study: 20 patients in the mipomersen group and 10 patients in the placebo group. A 2-sided t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 was expected to provide ≥90% power to detect a 30% difference in LDL-C percent reduction between the 2 groups (35% reduction for the mipomersen group and 5% reduction for the placebo group).||||<0.001
84606576|NCT00707746|168964370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
84606577|NCT00707746|168964372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84606578|NCT00707746|168964374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84606579|NCT00707746|168964376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84606580|NCT00707746|168964378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84606581|NCT00707746|168964380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84606582|NCT00707746|168964382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84606583|NCT00707746|168964384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
84606584|NCT00707746|168964386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
84494814|NCT05510297|168739995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.10148||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05486|0.5753|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5753|-0.05486|0.960
84560538|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.295||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.295|-0.006|
84560539|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.088||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.088|-0.207|
84560540|NCT01134263|168873219|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.073||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.073|-0.242|
84560541|NCT01134263|168873220|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.192||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||0.192|-0.009|
84560542|NCT01134263|168873220|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.466||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.466|0.202|
84560543|NCT01134263|168873220|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||0.021|-0.173|
84606585|NCT01443130|168964434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2441||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2441
84606586|NCT01443130|168964434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
84606587|NCT01443130|168964435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4941||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4941
84606588|NCT01443130|168964435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4990
84606589|NCT01443130|168964436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3089||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3089
84494815|NCT05510297|168739999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6553||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53867|0.29467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29467|-1.53867|0.168
84494816|NCT01738672|168740000|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84494817|NCT01738672|168740001|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84560544|NCT01134263|168873220|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.103||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||0.103|-0.137|
84560545|NCT02007278|168873233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power=95%; significance level=5%, characteristic operation curves were used with a non-central F distribution for the calculation of the sample size||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
84560546|NCT02033200|168873272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.744|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.744|-0.592|0.8216
84560547|NCT02033200|168873272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.771|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had adequate power to detect a meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.771|-0.258|0.324
84560548|NCT02033200|168873273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.031|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.031|-0.024|0.7864
84560549|NCT02033200|168873273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.012|-0.056|0.1953
84560550|NCT02033200|168873274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.039|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||-0.039|-0.280|0.0101
84560551|NCT02033200|168873274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.035|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.035|-0.209|0.1583
84560552|NCT02033200|168873275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.685|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in Intraocular Pressure between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.685|-0.746|0.9324
84560553|NCT02033200|168873275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.44|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||1.44|0.057|0.0343
84560554|NCT02033200|168873276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.051|-0.017|0.3139
84560555|NCT02033200|168873276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.042|-0.045|0.9334
84560556|NCT02033200|168873277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.125|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.125|-0.093|0.7723
84560557|NCT02033200|168873277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.122|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.122|-0.109|0.9107
84560558|NCT02033200|168873278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.475|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.475|-0.632|0.7787
84560559|NCT02033200|168873278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.865|0.504|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.504|-0.865|0.6013
84560560|NCT02033200|168873279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|0.887|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.887|-0.705|0.8209
84606590|NCT01443130|168964436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6973
84606591|NCT01443130|168964437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
84494818|NCT01738672|168740002|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84560561|NCT02033200|168873279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.884|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.884|-0.430|0.4931
84560562|NCT02670382|168873305|SUPERIORITY||mean values, log transformed|||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84560563|NCT02670382|168873305|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84560564|NCT02670382|168873305|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
84560565|NCT02670382|168873306|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84560566|NCT02670382|168873306|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84560567|NCT02670382|168873306|SUPERIORITY||mean differences, log transformed values|||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84560568|NCT02670382|168873307|EQUIVALENCE|primary hypothesis is that EPA will not differ from placebo|mean differences|||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84560569|NCT02670382|168873307|SUPERIORITY||mean difference|||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84560570|NCT02670382|168873307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84560571|NCT03244618|168873309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.377|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours first named toothpaste.|||-0.377|-0.712|<0.001
84560572|NCT03244618|168873310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first names toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||14.0|7.5|<0.001
84560573|NCT03244618|168873311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.5|-16.4|<0.001
84560574|NCT03244618|168873312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.489|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative value favours the first named toothpaste.|||-0.489|-0.850|<0.001
84560575|NCT03244618|168873313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|15.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours first named toothpaste|||15.1|8.6|<0.001
84560576|NCT03244618|168873314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.2|-16.6|<0.001
84560577|NCT04424914|168873328|OTHER|||||||0.3006|||||||Chi-squared|p-values for comparison of proportions of CLASS I+II vs CLASS III+IV were based on a Chi-square test.||||||0.3006
84560578|NCT04424914|168873329|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84606592|NCT01443130|168964437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
84560579|NCT00822328|168873340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
84560580|NCT00822328|168873342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
84560581|NCT02620384|168873368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2439.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|646.2707|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1160.8485|3718.1734|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3718.1734|1160.8485|<0.0001
84560582|NCT02620384|168873369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.3294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|608.2782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3454.4999|-1044.1589|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1044.1589|-3454.4999|<0.0001
84560583|NCT02620384|168873370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.717121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8637732|-1.54651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.546510|-3.8637732|<0.0001
84560584|NCT02620384|168873371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2806||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2506|-0.1403||Represents BORG\_48\_hours|t-test, 2 sided||Method of estimation is for 48 hour measure.|||-.1403|-1.2506|.014
84560585|NCT02620384|168873372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.4074||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1395694.0|147.1545|||t-test, 2 sided|||||147.1545|-1395694|.959
84560586|NCT02620384|168873373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.144
84606593|NCT01443130|168964438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4979||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4979
84606594|NCT01443130|168964438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1166
84560587|NCT02620384|168873374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.171
84560588|NCT02620384|168873375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.558|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.558|-1.346|.885
84560589|NCT02620384|168873376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.804
84560590|NCT02620384|168873377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
84560591|NCT02620384|168873378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
84560592|NCT02620384|168873379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.559
84560593|NCT03403621|168873421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.42
84560594|NCT03403621|168873421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.72
84560595|NCT03403621|168873421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.51
84560596|NCT03403621|168873421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.58
84560597|NCT03403621|168873422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.03
84560598|NCT03403621|168873422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.08
84560599|NCT03403621|168873422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.02
84560600|NCT03403621|168873422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.007
84560601|NCT03403621|168873423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.21
84560602|NCT03403621|168873423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.18
84560603|NCT03403621|168873423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.33
84560604|NCT03403621|168873423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.5
84560605|NCT01078298|168873424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.21|2.16|<0.0001
84560606|NCT01078298|168873425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 24, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||4.10|1.56|0.0001
84560607|NCT01078298|168873425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 52, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.98|1.40|0.0011
84560608|NCT01078298|168873426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 12, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.78|2.53|<0.0001
84560609|NCT01078298|168873426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 24, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.33|1.40|0.0004
84560610|NCT01078298|168873426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 52, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.28|0.0020
84560611|NCT01078298|168873427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.26|0.0027
84560612|NCT02798354|168873456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||5.3|2.4|<0.0001
84560613|NCT02798354|168873457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||20|12.3|<0.0001
84560614|NCT02798354|168873458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||3.1|-1.0|0.302
84560615|NCT02798354|168873459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||30.7|22.4|<0.0001
84560616|NCT02798354|168873460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||24.1|16.2|<0.0001
84560617|NCT02798354|168873461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||17.7|10.3|<0.0001
84560618|NCT02798354|168873462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||1.9|-1.8|0.922
84606595|NCT01443130|168964439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6237
84606596|NCT01443130|168964439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
84748758|NCT01037244|169251388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|17.4|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||17.40|7.29|<0.0001
84560619|NCT01579669|168873494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post comparison||||0.0269
84560620|NCT01579669|168873495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||<0.0001
84560621|NCT01579669|168873496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||0.016
84560622|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.73||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.73
84560623|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.69||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.69
84560624|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
84560625|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.002||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
84560626|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.049||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.049
84560627|NCT03441685|168873497|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.016||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.016
84560628|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.76||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.76
84560629|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
84560630|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||1.00
84560631|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.003||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
84560632|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.029||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.029
84560633|NCT03441685|168873498|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
84560634|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.72||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.72
84560635|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.46||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.46
84560636|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.89||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.89
84560637|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
84560638|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.018||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.018
84560639|NCT03441685|168873499|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
84560640|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.64||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.64
84560641|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.16||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.16
84560642|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
84560643|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
84560644|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.034||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.034
84606597|NCT01443130|168964440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5187
84560645|NCT03441685|168873500|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.063||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.063
84560646|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.35||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.35
84560647|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
84560648|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.58
84560649|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.006||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.006
84560650|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.02||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84560651|NCT03441685|168873501|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.18
84560652|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.56||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.56
84560653|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.10
84560654|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.71||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.71
84560655|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
84560656|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.024||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.024
84560657|NCT03441685|168873502|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
84560658|NCT00527124|168873525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2973||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.624|||Regression, Cox|||||1.624|0.506|0.7428
84560659|NCT00527124|168873525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7425
84560660|NCT00795769|168873559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||18% n=9 of the patients vomited compared to the FHCRC historic rate of 28%. p=0.03. PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC.||||0.03
84560661|NCT00795769|168873559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Twelve patients (24%) had a greater than two-point increase in MAT score for nausea from baseline by the end of their infusion. That rate compares to the FHCRC historic rate of 58% (p \<0.0001). PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC||||<0.0001
84560662|NCT04475718|168873560|OTHER|Preliminary Efficacy|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84560663|NCT03230838|168873565|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.9|||||Ceftolozane/Tazobactam (C/T) minus Meropenem (Mero)|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.9|-19.7|
84560664|NCT03230838|168873566|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.5|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||5.5|-9.5|
84560665|NCT03230838|168873567|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|10.05|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||10.05|-17.99|
84560666|NCT03230838|168873568|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|8.88|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||8.88|-14.09|
84560667|NCT03230838|168873569|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|17.4|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.40|-17.13|
84606598|NCT01443130|168964440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2163||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2163
84606599|NCT01443130|168964441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5959||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5959
84606600|NCT01443130|168964441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.8127
84606601|NCT01443130|168964442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2566
84606602|NCT01443130|168964442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.7839
84606603|NCT01443130|168964443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2553
84606604|NCT01443130|168964443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4354
84606605|NCT01443130|168964444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3690
84606606|NCT01443130|168964444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4947||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4947
84606607|NCT01443130|168964445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0630
84748759|NCT01037244|169251388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|24.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.36|14.23|<0.0001
84606608|NCT01443130|168964445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4184
84606609|NCT01443130|168964446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0268
84606610|NCT01443130|168964446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1646
84606611|NCT01443130|168964447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4501||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4501
84606612|NCT01443130|168964447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1758
84560668|NCT03230838|168873570|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with CMH weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|13.41|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||13.41|-12.67|
84560669|NCT00435188|168873572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus p value for group difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84560670|NCT00435188|168873575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value reporting overall differences between groups for group and group by time interaction with two degrees of freedom||||0.47
84560671|NCT00435188|168873578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value for overall difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction on two degrees of freedom||||0.04
84560672|NCT00435188|168873579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||<0.001
84560673|NCT00435188|168873582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall difference between groups at the end of the study||||0.29
84606613|NCT00364533|168964452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|91.4|||<|0.001||95.0|49.77|133.07|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||133.07|49.77|<0.001
84606614|NCT00364533|168964452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|38.66|124.29|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||124.29|38.66|<0.001
84606615|NCT00364533|168964452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|39.21|123.8|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||123.80|39.21|<0.001
84670697|NCT02932904|169075061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.05||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.05|-0.95|0.303
84560674|NCT00435188|168873585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.35
84560675|NCT00435188|168873588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.08
84560676|NCT00497055|168873597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.41||95.0|0.66|1.16|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.16|.66|.41
84560677|NCT00497055|168873598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84560678|NCT00497055|168873599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.99
84560679|NCT01778751|168873611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months||-0.2|-1.7|0.012
84560680|NCT01778751|168873611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months||-0.0|-2.0|0.050
84560681|NCT01778751|168873612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||8.4|-2.7|0.303
84560682|NCT01778751|168873612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||14.4|0.9|0.027
84560683|NCT01778751|168873613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||2.34|0.35|0.830
84560684|NCT01778751|168873613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.19|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||Comparison at 6 months||3.19|0.33|0.970
84560685|NCT01778751|168873614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||1.4|-3.3|0.428
84560686|NCT01778751|168873614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||3.6|-1.4|0.397
84560687|NCT01215435|168873660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean HbA1c treatment difference was below or equal to 0.4%. This is equivalent to using a one-sided test of size 2.5%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||H0: D \> 0.4% against H1: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (pre-breakfast OD minus pre-dinner OD)||0.13|-0.40|<0.001
84606616|NCT00364533|168964452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|82.4|||<|0.001||95.0|38.96|125.88|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||125.88|38.96|<0.001
84606617|NCT04557787|168964488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|44.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.6|12.2|0.001
84606618|NCT04557787|168964488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|44.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.4|12.0|0.001
84606619|NCT04557787|168964488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||16.3|-16.0|0.983
84560688|NCT01215435|168873661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-3.14||||0.6215||95.0|-15.65|9.37|||Regression, Linear|||||9.37|-15.65|0.6215
84560689|NCT05811026|168873663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.075
84560690|NCT05811026|168873664|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4727
84560691|NCT05811026|168873665|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.7326|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.7326
84560692|NCT05811026|168873666|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0757
84560693|NCT05811026|168873667|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|37.75||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0376
84560694|NCT05811026|168873668|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3123
84606620|NCT04557787|168964489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.4|17.0|<0.001
84670698|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.37|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.37|-0.10|0.072
84670699|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.5|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.50|0.09|0.035
84670700|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.89|-0.44|0.149
84560695|NCT05811026|168873669|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.1009
84560696|NCT05811026|168873670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0088
84560697|NCT05811026|168873671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4274
84560698|NCT05811026|168873672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6497
84560699|NCT05811026|168873673|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0006
84560700|NCT05811026|168873674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0002
84560701|NCT05811026|168873675|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6231
84560702|NCT05811026|168873676|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3327
84560703|NCT05811026|168873677|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.25||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0752
84560704|NCT05811026|168873678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0982
84560705|NCT05811026|168873679|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.8541
84560706|NCT05811026|168873680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0758
84560707|NCT05811026|168873681|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|41.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.066
84560708|NCT05811026|168873682|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6961|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6961
84560709|NCT05811026|168873683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0067
84670701|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.48|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.48|-0.78|0.303
84606621|NCT04557787|168964489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|46.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||46.0|13.5|<0.001
84748760|NCT01037244|169251388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.14|24.18|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled sites as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.18|14.14|<0.0001
84560710|NCT02870205|168873685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84560711|NCT02870205|168873685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84560712|NCT02870205|168873685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84560713|NCT02870205|168873685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84606622|NCT04557787|168964489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.7|-12.6|0.667
84606623|NCT04557787|168964490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||7.0|-14.2|0.503
84606624|NCT04557787|168964490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-10.1|0.916
84606625|NCT04557787|168964490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied||6.5|-14.8|0.438
84560714|NCT02870205|168873685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84560715|NCT01420016|168873718|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis used a time-by-condition mixed model to estimate the annual rate of change in post-index CV risk values by treatment group. The models included fixed effects for study arm (CDS vs. UC), time (years since index), and study-arm-by-time comparing the rate of change in CDS versus UC and a random clinic intercept. The intervention effect was the difference in rate of change in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Slope Difference (Net)|-2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.04||A priori power analysis (power=.80, α2=.05) estimated detectable group difference in CVR at 1 year of \~2-3%, assuming 18 clinics, 1000 patients per clinic (actual 400), 3 CVR per patient (actual 2.3), and ICC=.01-03 (actual .019). p-value calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention effect was the difference in annualized rates of change (slope) in CV risk in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|||-1.04|-3.45|<0.05
84560716|NCT01945294|168873748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SVR12 percentage|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-23.2|
84560717|NCT01156051|168873760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.005
84560718|NCT01156051|168873761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in ADHD Rating Scales - IV total scores from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||<0.001
84560719|NCT01156051|168873762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.392
84560720|NCT01156051|168873763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.059
84560721|NCT02179749|168873793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
84606626|NCT04557787|168964491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||10.9|-10.3|0.955
84606627|NCT04557787|168964491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||2.2|-19.2|0.118
84606628|NCT04557787|168964491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.5|-1.8|0.104
84560722|NCT02179749|168873793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth model includes one week on study drug and two weeks after the last dose of study drug. Principal predictors were drug plasma concentration and baseline treatment goal of abstinence or non abstinence. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||0.038
84560723|NCT02179749|168873794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.7||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|411 and 102 degrees of freedom||||||0.50
84560724|NCT00603382|168873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.221|||ANCOVA|||||0.221|-0.018|0.095
84560725|NCT00603382|168873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.247|||ANCOVA|||||0.247|0.011|0.033
84560726|NCT00603382|168873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.319|||ANCOVA|||||0.319|0.089|<0.001
84560727|NCT00603382|168873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.111|<0.001
84560728|NCT00603382|168873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.010|0.074
84748761|NCT01037244|169251389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.43|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.43|10.70|<0.0001
84748762|NCT01037244|169251389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|23.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.12|30.94|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||30.94|16.12|<0.0001
84560729|NCT01180049|168873922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.027||||||||1.027|0.520|
84560730|NCT01180049|168873923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.568|1.064||||||||1.064|0.568|
84560731|NCT01180049|168873924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in arms|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|20.3||||||Independent assessment- Difference (%) TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||20.3|-6.9|
84560732|NCT01180049|168873925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|26.7||||||Investigator's assessment- Difference (%)TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||26.7|-0.4|
84560733|NCT01180049|168873926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|0.922||||||||0.922|0.453|
84560734|NCT01738191|168873930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||two sided|Global Statistical Test|df=28||The primary comparison between ATM and placebo used O'Brien's Global Statistical Test (GST) to analyze change from baseline to 10 weeks for the set of neuropsychological measures included in the primary efficacy outcome.||||0.25
84560735|NCT00350779|168873942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|<|0.001||95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.49|-0.95|<0.001
84560736|NCT00350779|168873943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.3|<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-10.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-10.9|-27.2|<0.001
84560737|NCT00350779|168873944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.7|<|0.001||95.0|-50.2|-25.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-25.5|-50.2|<0.001
84560738|NCT00350779|168873945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.50|-1.04|<0.001
84560739|NCT00350779|168873946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.6|<|0.001||95.0|-26.4|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-8.4|-26.4|<0.001
84560740|NCT00350779|168873947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0|<|0.001||95.0|-48.4|-19.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-19.9|-48.4|<0.001
84560741|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1522||0.0207||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0207
84560742|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1541||0.0005||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
84560743|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1518|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84560744|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.91|
84560745|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-0.86|
84560746|NCT00528372|168873948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||||||||-0.27|-0.85|
84560747|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.734||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|||Week 24|||||
84560748|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.806||0.0007||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||0.0007
84560749|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||<0.0001
84560750|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-10.3||||||||-10.3|-32.6|
84560751|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-12.0||||||||-12.0|-34.4|
84560752|NCT00528372|168873949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-14.5||||||||-14.5|-36.4|
84560753|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6307||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.||||||||
84560754|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6388||0.3101||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3101
84560755|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6223||0.1189||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
84606629|NCT04557787|168964492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.22|0.352
84606630|NCT04557787|168964492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.41|0.980
84494819|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.0001
84560756|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-2.86|
84560757|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-2.60|
84560758|NCT00528372|168873951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
84560759|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.324||||||||||||||||
84560760|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.342||||||||||||||||
84560761|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.176||||||||||||||||
84560762|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-20.3|
84560763|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-24.7|
84560764|NCT00528372|168873953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||||||||-9.5|-26.2|
84560765|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|9.7||||||||||||||||||
84560766|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|12.6||||||||||||||||||
84560767|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.2||||||||||||||||||
84560768|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.7||||||||34.7|4.9|
84560769|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|27.3||||||||27.3|-2.5|
84560770|NCT00528372|168873955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|34.5||||||||34.5|5.3|
84560771|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||||||||||||||||
84560772|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6828||||||||||||||||
84560773|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6404||||||||||||||||
84560774|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
84560775|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
84560776|NCT00528372|168873956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
84560777|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
84560778|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
84560779|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1708||||||||||||||||
84560780|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.95|
84560781|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-0.89|
84560782|NCT00528372|168873957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.92|
84560783|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.526||||||||||||||||
84560784|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.761||||||||||||||||
84560785|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.334||||||||||||||||
84560786|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.1||||||||32.1|5.5|
84560787|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|24.4||||||||24.4|-1.8|
84560788|NCT00528372|168873958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.9||||||||23.9|-1.0|
84560789|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||||||||||||||||
84560790|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7371||||||||||||||||
84748763|NCT01037244|169251389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.92|43.59|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||43.59|28.92|<0.0001
84560791|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7078||||||||||||||||
84560792|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
84560793|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
84560794|NCT00528372|168873959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7135||||95.0|-2.37|0.44||||||||0.44|-2.37|
84560795|NCT02432144|168873981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-62.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.946|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.98|-52.59||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 0||-52.59|-71.98|< 0.0001
84560796|NCT02432144|168873981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-67.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.49|-60.86||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 12||-60.86|-73.49|< 0.0001
84560797|NCT02432144|168873981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.99|-56.24||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 24||-56.24|-71.99|< 0.0001
84560798|NCT02432144|168873981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.992|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.54|-49.06||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 36||-49.06|-72.54|< 0.0001
84560799|NCT02432144|168873981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-57.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|-43.82||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 48||-43.82|-71.87|< 0.0001
84560800|NCT01037816|168874014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect of the FS-67 patch was estimated by computing the difference in LS means of the FS-67 and placebo patches from the ANCOVA model||||0.137
84560801|NCT01037816|168874015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
84560802|NCT00727090|168874016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Change in serum sodium from baseline is not different between groups||||<0.05
84560803|NCT02371668|168874048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84560804|NCT02371668|168874049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
84560805|NCT02371668|168874050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4989
84560806|NCT02371668|168874051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1412
84560807|NCT02371668|168874052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
84560808|NCT02371668|168874053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2445
84560809|NCT02371668|168874054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
84560810|NCT02371668|168874055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.230
84560811|NCT02371668|168874056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
84560812|NCT04378569|168874068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.53|0.49|0.5788
84560813|NCT04378569|168874068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.17|0.33|0.6488
84560814|NCT04378569|168874068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.25|0.32|0.5653
84560815|NCT04378569|168874069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.78|0.25|0.5033
84606631|NCT04557787|168964492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.21|0.339
84494820|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
84560816|NCT04378569|168874069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.79|0.25|0.4975
84560817|NCT04378569|168874069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||P value was not evaluable|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.55|0.04|
84560818|NCT04378569|168874070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.44|0.23|0.7237
84560819|NCT04378569|168874070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.10|0.17|0.8380
84606632|NCT04557787|168964493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.62|0.700
84606633|NCT04557787|168964493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.84||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.84|-0.20|0.227
84560820|NCT04378569|168874070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||p-value was unevaluable||Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.55|0.04|
84606634|NCT04557787|168964493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.10|-0.94|0.112
84606635|NCT04557787|168964494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.17|0.22|0.013
84560821|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.07|0.31|0.9604
84560822|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.25|0.32|0.9752
84560823|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.03|0.11|0.5077
84560824|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||2.15|0.26|0.5916
84560825|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.27|0.3320
84560826|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.14|0.1922
84606636|NCT04557787|168964494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.51|-0.05|0.065
84670702|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.78|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.22|0.028
84560827|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.81|0.23|0.4188
84560828|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.92|0.29|0.5520
84606637|NCT04557787|168964494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.04|-0.51|0.497
84670703|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.15|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.15|-1.33|0.645
84494821|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
84606638|NCT04557787|168964495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.88|0.06|0.027
84606639|NCT04557787|168964495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|0.19|0.005
84606640|NCT04557787|168964495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.28|-0.54|0.532
84606641|NCT04557787|168964496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-0.26|0.461
84606642|NCT04557787|168964496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.73||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.73|-0.09|0.120
84606643|NCT04557787|168964496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.24|-0.58|0.404
84560829|NCT04378569|168874071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||2.20|0.21|0.69
84606644|NCT04557787|168964497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.71||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.71|-0.33|0.478
84606645|NCT04557787|168964497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.58||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.58|-0.46|0.824
84606646|NCT04557787|168964497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-0.39|0.626
84670704|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.77|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.77|0.06|0.043
84560830|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY|Week 2|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.21|-0.33|0.6464
84560831|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.25|-0.29|0.8881
84606647|NCT04557787|168964498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.64|0.09|0.030
84606648|NCT04557787|168964498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.66||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.66|0.11|0.027
84606649|NCT04557787|168964498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.75||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.75|-0.80|0.956
84606650|NCT04557787|168964499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.78|-0.05|0.084
84606651|NCT04557787|168964499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.81||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.81|-0.02|0.063
84606652|NCT04557787|168964499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.38|-0.44|0.885
84606653|NCT02700165|168964502|OTHER||sucess proportion|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|95.3|||||Independent physician reviewers correctly identified 13/14, 11/14 and 10/14, respectively for an overall percentage of correct identification of 34/42 or 81%. Two of three reviewers correctly identified 11/14 (78.6%) photos.|||95.3|49.2|
84606654|NCT05714943|168964513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.99
84560832|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.46|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.46|-0.20|0.4360
84560833|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.36|-0.29|0.8196
84560834|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.34|-0.31|0.9217
84606655|NCT05714943|168964514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
84606656|NCT05714943|168964515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
84606657|NCT05714943|168964516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
84606658|NCT05714943|168964517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
84606659|NCT05714943|168964518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
84606660|NCT05714943|168964519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
84606661|NCT05714943|168964520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.21
84606662|NCT05714943|168964521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
84606663|NCT05714943|168964522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
84606664|NCT05714943|168964523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.86
84606665|NCT05714943|168964524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
84560835|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.4783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.53|-0.25|0.4783
84560836|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.43|-0.32|0.7725
84560837|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.33|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.33|-0.43|0.7861
84606666|NCT05714943|168964525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
84606667|NCT05714943|168964526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
84606668|NCT05714943|168964527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
84606669|NCT05714943|168964528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
84606670|NCT05714943|168964529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
84606671|NCT05714943|168964530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.88
84606672|NCT05714943|168964531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.94
84606673|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.1||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference was First named treatment-second named treatment that a negative difference implied the mean of the second named treatment was larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.15|-0.35|0.4321
84606674|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
84606675|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.24|-0.74|0.0002
84606676|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.38||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.13|0.0028
84606677|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline waas the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.14|0.0022
84606678|NCT01831817|168964536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.01||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.24|-0.25|0.9606
84606679|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.38|-0.30|0.8030
84494822|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
84560838|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.68|-0.24|0.3521
84560839|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.14|-0.62|0.2166
84606680|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.48|-1.16|<0.0001
84560840|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.27|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.27|-0.52|0.5262
84494823|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
84560841|NCT04378569|168874072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.54|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.54|-0.39|0.7575
84560842|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified|Stratified|Week 2||4.70|0.64|0.2662
84560843|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.00|0.59|0.3798
84560844|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.17|0.90|0.0611
84560845|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.93|0.64|0.3129
84560846|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.74|0.35|0.9586
84560847|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|15.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||15.29|0.87|0.0643
84560848|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||6.88|0.84|0.0932
84560849|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.59|0.44|0.5730
84560850|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|25.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.66|0.96|0.0389
84560851|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.53|0.60|0.2813
84560852|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.03|0.17|0.6841
84560853|NCT04378569|168874074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|9.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.21|0.49|0.3113
84560854|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||10.67|0.46|0.2674
84560855|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|17.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||17.54|0.44|0.2850
84560856|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|16.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||16.52|0.42|0.3086
84560857|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||40.83|0.46|0.1655
84560858|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|7.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||7.67|0.26|0.7154
84560859|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|14.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||14.64|0.27|0.5371
84560860|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|57.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||57.83|0.43|0.2170
84560861|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|18.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||18.22|0.41|0.3408
84560862|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||14.20|0.41|0.3270
84560863|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||||0.0719
84560864|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||8.43|0.07|0.8527
84560865|NCT04378569|168874077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|13.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||13.11|0.37|0.3545
84560866|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.4|-9.2|0.0725
84560867|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||-1.0|-10.7|0.0183
84560868|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables||Week 2||4.3|-7.7|0.5701
84560869|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||2.3|-10.4|0.2116
84560870|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||1.4|-11.5|0.1235
84560871|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||5.9|-9.7|0.6334
84560872|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||2.1|-11.4|0.1788
84606681|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.53|-1.20|<0.0001
84606682|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.19|0.53|<0.0001
84606683|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.23|0.58|<0.0001
84606684|NCT01831817|168964537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.04||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.28|-0.37|0.7872
84560873|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.8|-14.4|0.0292
84560874|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.5|-17.1|0.0371
84560875|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||3.5|-11.3|0.2971
84560876|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||-1.9|-17.2|0.0150
84560877|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||1.9|-15.8|0.1245
84560878|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||2.1|-12.7|0.1591
84560879|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||0.3|-14.8|0.0600
84560880|NCT04378569|168874078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||5.5|-12.0|0.4640
84560881|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.064|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.064|-0.196|0.3184
84560882|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.123|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.123|-0.149|0.8514
84560883|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.249|-0.068|0.2603
84560884|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.019|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.019|-0.323|0.0273
84560885|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.021|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.021|-0.339|0.0266
84560886|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.9023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.173|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||0.173|-0.196|0.9023
84560887|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.098|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.098|-0.291|0.3298
84560888|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.15|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.150|-0.251|0.6205
84560889|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.217|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.217|-0.253|0.8817
84560890|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.058|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.058|-0.302|0.1837
84560891|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.088|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|||0.088|-0.293|0.2896
84560892|NCT04378569|168874079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.227|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.227|-0.205|0.9190
84560893|NCT01048944|168874080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are adjusted for multiple comparisons except for specific a priori directional predictions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance assessed Treatment x Day of abstinence (days 3, 24, 45, and 66) based on changes from pre-quit baseline to values of the four post-quit time points (days 3, 24, 45, and 66).||||<0.05
84560894|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||>.05
84560895|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||<.001
84560896|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.001
84560897|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Negative Conflict Management for the Control Group||||>.05
84560898|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
84560899|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
84560900|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes in the Relationship Quality subscale from Pre-test to post-test in the control group||||<.05
84560901|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes in the Relationship Quality Subscale from pretest to posttest in the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
84560902|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Qualitty subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
84560903|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.05
84606685|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.9642
84560904|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
84560905|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Emotional Abuse subscale|The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
84560906|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
84560907|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560908|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Satisfactionn subscale||||<.001
84560909|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560910|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560911|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
84560912|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
84560913|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
84560914|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Depression subscale||||>.05
84560915|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560916|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560917|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test and post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test and post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
84606686|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0016
84560918|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.05
84560919|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560920|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Budgeting subscale||||<.10
84560921|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||<.10
84560922|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560923|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
84560924|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560925|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84560926|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to pos-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
84560927|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Positive values indicate an increase whereas a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for control group||||>.05
84560928|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560929|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Banking subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|||>.05
84560930|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560931|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560932|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Parenting stresss subscale||||>.05
84560933|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
84560934|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560935|NCT04227405|168874086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
84606687|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0100
84606688|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0020
84606689|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0122
84606690|NCT01831817|168964538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.7138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.7138
84606691|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|-5.00|0.9834
84606692|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0001
84560936|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560937|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560938|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
84560939|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606693|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|2.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0003
84606694|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|<0.0001
84606695|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|0.0002
84606696|NCT01831817|168964539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.2894
84606697|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.24||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.56|-1.03|0.5555
84606698|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.06||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.73|-0.86|0.8769
84606699|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.76||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.02|-1.55|0.0562
84606700|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.18||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.60|-0.95|0.6562
84606701|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.53||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.30|-0.24|0.1788
84606702|NCT01831817|168964540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.07|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.07|-1.47|0.0734
84560940|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Manageement subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
84494824|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
84494825|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
84494826|NCT00948896|168740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Daily TS arm compare with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the daily TS arm||||<0.01
84560941|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-i\[in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
84560942|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560943|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560944|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables. Pvalue set at \<.05|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Relationship Quality subscale||||<.10
84560945|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.10
84560946|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560947|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||<.10
84560948|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560949|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560950|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
84560951|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606703|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.19||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.10|-0.71|0.6727
84560952|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560953|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
84560954|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560955|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for th eintervention group||||>.05
84560956|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
84560957|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560958|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560959|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
84560960|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560961|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560962|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale||||>.05
84560963|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560964|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84606704|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.24||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.34|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.34|-2.14|0.0072
84670705|NCT02932904|169075062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.49|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.49|-1.14|0.465
84670706|NCT02932904|169075063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.41|-2.84|0.009
84560965|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||>.05
84606705|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.27||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.38|-2.16|0.0056
84606706|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change diference|1.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.31|0.56|0.0016
84606707|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|1.46||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.33|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.33|0.59|0.0011
84606708|NCT01831817|168964541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.03||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.84|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.84|-0.90|0.9413
84606709|NCT00958217|168964544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2nd order effects of time (2 slope|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values based on likelihood ratio tests for the significance of the first and second order trajectory parameters. Primary tests compared curvilinear trajectories of the two treatment groups.|Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Data analyses included comparison of mean scores and linear mixed effects models used to ascertain trajectories for depression symptoms.||||<.05
84606710|NCT00958217|168964545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|57.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|||||<.05
84606711|NCT00958217|168964546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model.|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Analysis of substance use was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of substance use (any alcohol or drug use) on a particular day.||||<.05
84606712|NCT00958217|168964546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Second statistical analysis evaluates trajectories of heavy drinking (\<5 drinks on a given day) Analysis of heavy drinking was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of heavy drinking (5 or more drinks) on a particular day.||||<.05
84606713|NCT01999218|168964561|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|||0.22|-0.02|
84606714|NCT01999218|168964561|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||"Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.~Time was treated as a categorical variable."|||0.30|0.06|
84606715|NCT01999218|168964562|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-4.5|
84606716|NCT01999218|168964562|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.5||||||||6.5|-5.6|
84606717|NCT01999218|168964563|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4||||||||6.4|-0.3|
84606718|NCT01999218|168964563|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.7||||||||4.7|-1.7|
84606719|NCT01999218|168964564|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.8|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-9.8|-18.4|<0.001
84670707|NCT02932904|169075063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.35|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.35|-2.93|0.123
84606720|NCT01999218|168964564|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.2|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-12.2|-20.3|<0.001
84560966|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560967|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
84560968|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship satisfaction subscale||||>.05
84560969|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560970|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560971|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||>.05
84560972|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560973|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560974|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Banking subscale||||>.05
84560975|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.001
84560976|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560977|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Banking subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.10
84560978|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills for the control group||||>.05
84560979|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84560980|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to pay bills subscale||||>.05
84606721|NCT01999218|168964565|OTHER||Difference in LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-3.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis||LSM=Least Squares Means||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.80|-4.77|<0.001
84606722|NCT01999218|168964565|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-3.38|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.38|-4.36|<0.001
84560981|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560982|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560983|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale||||>.05
84560984|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p vallue|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
84560985|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84560986|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Depression subscale||||>.05
84560987|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606723|NCT01999218|168964566|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-3.25|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.25|-6.29|<0.001
84606724|NCT01999218|168964566|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|-4.73|-1.67|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-1.67|-4.73|<0.001
84560988|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560989|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale||||>.05
84560990|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
84560991|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84560992|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Anxiety subscale||||>.05
84560993|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560994|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
84560995|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
84560996|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606725|NCT03780959|168964570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by study center and the number of active joints at randomization||||||0.0030
84606726|NCT03780959|168964571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84560997|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84560998|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
84560999|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561000|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561001|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Parenting Stress subscale||||>.05
84561002|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561003|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Parter subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84606727|NCT06504524|168964639|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128|||=|0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.804|||Regression, Cox||IPTW hazard ratio (HR) were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.804|0.705|=0.615
84606728|NCT06504524|168964640|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.64|0.85|=0.4429
84606729|NCT06504524|168964641|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.115|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.115|0.390|=0.120
84561004|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
84561005|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.001
84561006|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561007|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
84561008|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561009|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
84561010|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.05
84561011|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606730|NCT06504524|168964642|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.71|0.38|=0.0011
84606731|NCT06504524|168964643|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.710|0.337|=0.503
84606732|NCT06504524|168964644|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.57|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.57|0.26|<0.0001
84606733|NCT06504524|168964645|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.436|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.436|0.587|=0.706
84561012|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561013|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
84561014|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561015|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84606734|NCT06504524|168964646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.88|0.52|=0.0182
84606735|NCT01114360|168964661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures mixed model ANOVA.||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.075
84606736|NCT01114360|168964661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
84606737|NCT01114360|168964662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
84606738|NCT01114360|168964663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
84606739|NCT01114360|168964664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
84606740|NCT01114360|168964665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84606741|NCT01114360|168964666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84748764|NCT01037244|169251390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|25.6|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.60|10.79|<0.0001
84748765|NCT01037244|169251390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|32.69|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||32.69|17.82|<0.0001
84561016|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
84561017|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.001
84606742|NCT01114360|168964667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84606743|NCT01114360|168964668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.75
84561018|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84561019|NCT04227405|168874087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
84561020|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561021|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84606744|NCT01114360|168964669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.71
84606745|NCT01114360|168964670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.38
84606746|NCT01114360|168964671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.11
84606747|NCT01114360|168964672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
84606748|NCT01114360|168964673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84606749|NCT01114360|168964674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
84606750|NCT01804582|168964677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent to treat analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model to determine if there was any significant difference in change from baseline to 3 months based on time and condition. Data for all participants was included at baseline and 3 months.||||.15
84606751|NCT01804582|168964678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d was calculated to measure the estimation parameter.|||||.53
84606752|NCT01804582|168964679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.80
84606753|NCT01804582|168964680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.33
84606754|NCT01804582|168964681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wald Chi-Squared|||||||.21
84606755|NCT01804582|168964682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Phi|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi Squared (1, N = 229) = 7.99.||The total n=229 included those on medication at 90 days (119 never filled the prescription or changed to a different med)||||.005
84606756|NCT00159913|168964683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.056||95.0|-0.19|15.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons have been made.|ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||15.60|-0.19|0.056
84606757|NCT00159913|168964683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||95.0|-6.11|13.73|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||13.73|-6.11|
84606758|NCT00159913|168964683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||||95.0|1.72|20.94|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||20.94|1.72|
84606759|NCT00159913|168964683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||||95.0|-1.64|17.6|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||17.60|-1.64|
84606760|NCT00159913|168964684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.172||95.0|-7.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.3|-7.5|0.172
84606761|NCT00159913|168964684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||||95.0|-4.5|7.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||7.6|-4.5|
84606762|NCT00159913|168964684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-8.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.9|-8.9|
84561022|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
84561023|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561024|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84561025|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.001
84561026|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561027|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
84561028|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
84561029|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84606763|NCT00159913|168964684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-12.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||-2.1|-12.4|
84606764|NCT00159913|168964685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.041||95.0|-8.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-0.2|-8.0|0.041
84606765|NCT00159913|168964685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-5.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||4.7|-5.9|
84606766|NCT00159913|168964685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-9.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||0.3|-9.3|
84606767|NCT00159913|168964685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||||95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-2.7|-11.7|
84606768|NCT00159913|168964686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.795||95.0|-4.07|5.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||5.30|-4.07|0.795
84606769|NCT00159913|168964686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||||95.0|-3.31|8.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||8.54|-3.31|
84606770|NCT00159913|168964686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||||95.0|-7.09|4.5|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||4.50|-7.09|
84606771|NCT00159913|168964686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.24|6.28|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||6.28|-5.24|
84606772|NCT00159913|168964687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.139||95.0|-3.05|21.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.54|-3.05|0.139
84606773|NCT00159913|168964687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||95.0|-5.21|25.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||25.90|-5.21|
84670708|NCT02932904|169075063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.1|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.10|-3.61|0.039
84561030|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561031|NCT04227405|168874089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
84561032|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561033|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84561034|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Aceptance subscale||||<.001
84606774|NCT00159913|168964687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||||95.0|-3.78|26.64|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||26.64|-3.78|
84606775|NCT00159913|168964687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||||95.0|-9.16|21.08|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.08|-9.16|
84606776|NCT00159913|168964688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.172||95.0|-7.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.3|-7.1|0.172
84670709|NCT02932904|169075063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.66|-4.32|0.008
84748766|NCT01037244|169251390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.63|44.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||44.36|29.63|<0.0001
84561035|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561036|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84561037|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.01
84561038|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561039|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84561040|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.001
84561041|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561042|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the Intervention group||||>.05
84561043|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
84561044|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561045|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561046|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
84561047|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||||>.05
84561048|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561049|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Copinng subscale||||>.05
84561050|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Plannning subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561051|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
84670710|NCT02932904|169075063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.75|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.75|-4.78|0.007
84561052|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||>.05
84561053|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561054|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561055|NCT04227405|168874090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
84561056|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561057|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.01
84561058|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
84561059|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561060|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
84561061|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale||||<.05
84561062|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
84561063|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the Intervention group||||<.05
84561064|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
84561065|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561066|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
84561067|NCT04227405|168874092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
84561068|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561069|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
84561070|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
84561071|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561072|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
84670711|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.71|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.71|-1.70|0.419
84494827|NCT00948896|168740017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|7.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|28.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference group.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||28|-19|0.57
84561073|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.10
84561074|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
84561075|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
84561076|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.01
84561077|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561078|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
84561079|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
84561080|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561081|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
84561082|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale||||>.05
84561083|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561084|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping in the intervention group||||>.05
84561085|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||>.05
84561086|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561087|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
84561088|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in Planning subscale||||>.05
84561089|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
84561090|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
84606777|NCT00159913|168964688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||5.9|-5.5|
84606778|NCT00159913|168964688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-8.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.7|-8.5|
84606779|NCT00159913|168964688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-10.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||-0.7|-10.3|
84606780|NCT00159913|168964689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.34|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.34|0.14|0.015
84606781|NCT00159913|168964689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||||95.0|-0.1|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.52|-0.10|
84606782|NCT00159913|168964689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||95.0|-0.12|1.35|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.35|-0.12|
84606783|NCT00159913|168964689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||||95.0|0.21|1.58|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.58|0.21|
84606784|NCT00159913|168964690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44||95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.77|-1.77|0.440
84606785|NCT00159913|168964690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||||95.0|-1.91|1.57|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.57|-1.91|
84606786|NCT00159913|168964690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||||95.0|-1.73|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.36|-1.73|
84606787|NCT00159913|168964690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||||95.0|-2.61|0.33|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.33|-2.61|
84606788|NCT00159913|168964691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.75||95.0|-4.45|3.21|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||3.21|-4.45|0.750
84606789|NCT00159913|168964691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||||95.0|-4.21|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|-4.21|
84606790|NCT00159913|168964691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||||95.0|-4.68|5.15|||ANCOVA|||||5.15|-4.68|
84606791|NCT00159913|168964691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||||95.0|-7.37|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|-7.37|
84606792|NCT00159913|168964692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.784||95.0|-3.41|2.58|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.58|-3.41|0.784
84606793|NCT00159913|168964692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||||95.0|-3.49|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.30|-3.49|
84606794|NCT00159913|168964692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||||95.0|-5.99|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-5.99|
84606795|NCT00159913|168964692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||||95.0|-3.06|3.97|||ANCOVA|||||3.97|-3.06|
84606796|NCT00159913|168964693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.184||95.0|0.75|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||4.45|0.75|0.184
84606797|NCT00159913|168964693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.409||95.0|0.18|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.01|0.18|0.409
84606798|NCT00159913|168964693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.146||95.0|0.75|6.69|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||6.69|0.75|0.146
84606799|NCT00159913|168964693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006||95.0|1.56|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||13.10|1.56|0.006
84606800|NCT00159913|168964694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.179||95.0|-2.74|14.53|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||14.53|-2.74|0.179
84606801|NCT00159913|168964694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||||95.0|-9.49|11.77|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||11.77|-9.49|
84606802|NCT00159913|168964694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||||95.0|0.66|21.96|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||21.96|0.66|
84606803|NCT00159913|168964694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||||95.0|-5.02|15.5|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||15.50|-5.02|
84606804|NCT00689793|168964716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||Significant level of treatment effect was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Level of fatigue at four weeks:dependant variable. Group allocation and level of fatigue at baseline: independant variables.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in fatigue VAS scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 4 weeks||10|0|0.69
84561091|NCT04227405|168874093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Supportt subscale||||>.05
84561092|NCT04227405|168874095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
84561093|NCT04227405|168874095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest for the intervention group||||<.01
84561094|NCT04227405|168874095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test t in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
84561095|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561096|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the intervention group||||<.10
84561097|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up||||>.05
84561098|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561099|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561100|NCT04227405|168874096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up||||>.05
84561101|NCT04227405|168874098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Difficulties in Emotion Regulation for the control group||||>.05
84561102|NCT04227405|168874098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
84561103|NCT04227405|168874098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
84561104|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
84561105|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561106|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||>.05
84561107|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561108|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561109|NCT04227405|168874099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
84561110|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological agggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
84561111|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84561112|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Psychological Aggression subscale||||<.10
84561113|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to post-test in physical assault subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
84561114|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the physical assault subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84561115|NCT04227405|168874101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
84561116|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
84561117|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Psychological Aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
84561118|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
84606805|NCT00689793|168964717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5|<|0.05||95.0|0.0|10.0|||Regression, Linear|Hemoglobin value at four weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and hemoglobin value at baseline : independant variables.||||10|0|<0.05
84670712|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.85|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.85|-1.51|0.581
84606806|NCT00689793|168964718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0|||Regression, Linear|Ferritin level at 4 weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and ferritin level at baseline: independant variables.||||30|0|<0.05
84606807|NCT00689793|168964719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||Regression, Linear|Aerobic capacity at 4 weeks : dependant variables. Group allocation and aerobic capacity at baseline : independant variable.||||6|0|0.05
84606808|NCT00357656|168964727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority by the 200% margin of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of a 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the ratio of means did not exceed 200%.|Mean ratio CI/BI|0.924||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.046||one-sided p-value against the null hypothesis of ration \>=200%|Hypothesis test|||The main analysis used a point estimate and a two-sided 95% confidence interval for ratio of the primary outcome measure of CI over BI combined over the three strata: stratum A: unilateral knee replacement, stratum B: hip surgery, stratum C: shoulder/elbow/ankle/knee (except knee replacement) surgery.||1.046|0.816|0.001
84608528|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.45|1.97|
84670713|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.56|-1.69|0.938
84561119|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group in the psychological aggression subscale||||<.10
84561120|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the psychological aggresssion subscale||||>.05
84561121|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
84561122|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the physical assault subscale||||>.05
84561123|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault Subscale||||<.05
84561124|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
84561125|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
84561126|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
84561127|NCT04227405|168874102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
84561128|NCT04227405|168874104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group||||<.001
84561129|NCT04227405|168874104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.001
84561130|NCT04227405|168874104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time||||<.05
84561131|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||<.05
84561132|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group||||<.001
84561133|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||<.05
84561134|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561135|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
84561136|NCT04227405|168874105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
84561137|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale||||>.05
84561138|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
84561139|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
84561140|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the common dyadic coping subscale||||>.05
84561141|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
84561142|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
84561143|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
84561144|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.05
84561145|NCT04227405|168874107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
84561146|NCT04227405|168874108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
84561147|NCT04227405|168874108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.05
84561148|NCT04227405|168874108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
84561149|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subcale||||>.05
84561150|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.001
84561151|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||<.01
84561152|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
84561153|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.001
84608529|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.1|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|0.98|
84608530|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.32|
84608531|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|1.27|
84608532|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.74|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.96|
84670714|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.17|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.17|-2.04|0.592
84561154|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
84561155|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
84561156|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.10
84561157|NCT04227405|168874110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
84561158|NCT04985942|168874139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-3.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-3.44|-6.38|<0.0001
84561159|NCT04985942|168874140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.48|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-0.48|-0.85|<0.0001
84561160|NCT00885378|168874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for Saxagliptin - adjusted mean change for Placebo.|||2.66|-21.68|0.1248
84494828|NCT00948896|168740017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|28.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||44|7|0.01
84561161|NCT00885378|168874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.4|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||25.4|1.1|
84561162|NCT00885378|168874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|24.7|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||24.7|3.0|
84561163|NCT00885378|168874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo at Week 12(LOCF) was adjusted for baseline.|difference between week t value - baseline value = baseline value + treatment.|||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
84561164|NCT03252145|168874209|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
84561165|NCT03252145|168874210|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
84561166|NCT03252145|168874211|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
84561167|NCT03252145|168874212|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
84561168|NCT03252145|168874213|OTHER|||||||0.552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
84561169|NCT03252145|168874214|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
84561170|NCT03252145|168874215|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm Only||||0.264
84561171|NCT03252145|168874215|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.224
84561172|NCT03252145|168874216|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.125
84561173|NCT03252145|168874216|OTHER|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.241
84561174|NCT03252145|168874217|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm||||0.261
84561175|NCT03252145|168874217|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected Arm||||0.597
84561176|NCT03252145|168874218|OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.596
84561177|NCT03252145|168874218|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.219
84561178|NCT03252145|168874219|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842
84561179|NCT03252145|168874220|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772
84561180|NCT03252145|168874221|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
84561181|NCT03252145|168874222|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
84561182|NCT03252145|168874223|OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.679
84561183|NCT03252145|168874224|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
84561184|NCT03252145|168874225|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
84561185|NCT03252145|168874226|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
84561186|NCT03252145|168874227|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
84561187|NCT03252145|168874229|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
84606809|NCT02573246|168964734|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.056||A priori threshold for significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The results presented are between the active right and sham conditions.|A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||-.056|-.590|0.019
84561188|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.068
84561189|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.808
84561190|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.557
84606810|NCT02573246|168964734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||.508|-.034|.08
84606811|NCT02573246|168964734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was set to .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|we controlled for baseline and for the distance between the brain and the scalp||Regulation duration was transformed using a logarithmic transformation to achieve normality||-.020|-.434|.033
84494829|NCT00948896|168740017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|67.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||67|45|<0.001
84561191|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.049
84561192|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.279
84606812|NCT02573246|168964735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.256||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||A univariate general linear model was employed to test of regulation duration, transformed for normality.||.256|-0.504|.51
84606813|NCT02573246|168964735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.378|||ANOVA|||||.378|-.364|.97
84670715|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.89|-1.60|0.870
84561193|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.020
84561194|NCT03252145|168874230|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.009
84561195|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.038
84561196|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.108
84561197|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.467
84561198|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.078
84561199|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.147
84561200|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.004
84561201|NCT03252145|168874231|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.032
84561202|NCT03252145|168874232|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
84561203|NCT03252145|168874233|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
84561204|NCT03252145|168874234|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
84561205|NCT03252145|168874235|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
84561206|NCT03252145|168874236|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
84561207|NCT01441245|168874243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.04
84561208|NCT01441245|168874244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage and compared with chi-square test. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.01
84670716|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.27|-3.16|0.098
84606814|NCT02573246|168964735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167031||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215936|0.511921||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||A t test of the variable 'time it took to return to HR baseline', transformed for normality was used to examine between condition differences at the 1 month follow up.||0.511921|-0.215936|0.39
84606815|NCT02573246|168964736|SUPERIORITY|HF-HRV was transformed using the function lg10\*(HF-HRV\*1000000) in order to be normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.267||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||In the original study (CR+active left rTMS vs CR+ active right rTMS vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation.||.267|.044|.022
84606816|NCT02573246|168964736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000037|0.213074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMANOVA||0.213074|0.000037|0.0499
84670717|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.24|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.24|-2.39|0.532
84606817|NCT02573246|168964736|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.215||Significance threshold was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMANOVA analysis used an unstructured covariance structure.|In the supplemental study (CR+active left rTMS with functional targeting vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation when compared with sham.||.215|.129|<.000001
84561209|NCT01441245|168874245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84561210|NCT01441245|168874246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84561211|NCT01441245|168874247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84561212|NCT01441245|168874247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.57|||Regression, Linear||BNP levels at discharge \>500 pg/ml (RR: 2.06 \[1.65-2.57\];).|||2.57|1.65|0.01
84561213|NCT01441245|168874248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.03
84606818|NCT02573246|168964737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091544||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078086|0.300661||A priori threshold was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in dlPFC activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.|Parameter estimate is the value of the difference between active stimulation and sham stimulation.|Difference between treatment conditions in dlPFC activation change between feeling negative emotions and downregulation of negative affect a week after intervention, when controlling for baseline activation difference||0.300661|-0.078086|.236
84670718|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.03|-3.60|0.046
84561214|NCT01441245|168874249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.01
84561215|NCT01441245|168874250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant||||0.05
84561216|NCT01441245|168874251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage of partecipants and compared with chi-square test. p-value equal or lower than 0.05 are considered statistically significant.||||<0.01
84561217|NCT01267929|168874256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the second month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the second month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||6.5|-2.3|0.34
84561218|NCT01267929|168874256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.7||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the sixth month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the sixth month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||4.7|-6.3|0.78
84561219|NCT04727528|168874266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|563.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test||Logistic regression model included response status (response / non-response) as the dependent variable and randomized treatment as an independent factor.|||563.6|5.6|0.001
84561220|NCT04727528|168874267|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups||3.29|-0.00|0.050
84561221|NCT04727528|168874268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|15.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||15.8|0.6|0.153
84561222|NCT04727528|168874269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
84561223|NCT04727528|168874270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||8.6|0.5|0.271
84670719|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.97|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.97|-2.03|0.977
84561224|NCT04727528|168874271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|102.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||102.8|1.1|0.039
84561225|NCT04727528|168874272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
84561226|NCT01393522|168874281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1
84561227|NCT01393522|168874281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84561228|NCT01393522|168874282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84561229|NCT01393522|168874283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
84561230|NCT01393522|168874283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84561231|NCT01393522|168874284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84561232|NCT01393522|168874285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84561233|NCT01393522|168874286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84561234|NCT01393522|168874287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84561235|NCT02085070|168874291|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% response|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|47.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||47.0|15.9|
84561236|NCT02085070|168874291|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% of patients|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|48.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||48.0|10.0|
84561237|NCT01796301|168874292|SUPERIORITY|A two-step, step-down, fixed-sequential testing procedure was used to test the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints for the comparison of romosozumab to teriparatide in the order presented for multiplicity adjustment to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05. The Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoints are the first 8 secondary endpoints reported below.|Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||The primary analysis to assess the treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) employed a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures. The model included main effects for treatment group, visit (categorical), baseline sCTX, baseline hip DXA BMD value, machine type (categorical), and machine type-by-baseline value interaction (to adjust for the effect of machine type on baseline DXA BMD value) as fixed main effects using an unstructured within-subject variance-covariance structure.||3.8|2.7|< 0.0001
84670720|NCT02932904|169075064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|0.25|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.25|-3.68|0.087
84606819|NCT02573246|168964737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.359024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144067||0.020347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.657049||Threshold was set at 0.05 a priori|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vlpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vlPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted using FSL featquery. A univariate general linear model excluding one outlier from the active condition was conducted for this outcome measure.||0.657049|0.061000|0.020347
84606820|NCT02573246|168964737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461481||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.732963|1.17633||A priori threshold was set to .05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vmpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vmPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with FSL featquery.||1.176330|-0.732963|0.635
84561238|NCT01796301|168874293|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.7|2.5|< 0.0001
84561239|NCT01796301|168874294|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
84561240|NCT01796301|168874295|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
84561241|NCT01796301|168874296|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.3|3.9|< 0.0001
84561242|NCT01796301|168874297|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.5|< 0.0001
84561243|NCT01796301|168874298|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
84561244|NCT01796301|168874299|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.8|2.4|< 0.0001
84606821|NCT02573246|168964737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178029||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188868|0.547692||a priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in amygdala activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the amygdala when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with featquery (FSL).||0.547692|-0.188868|.324
84561245|NCT01796301|168874300|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.3|2.1|< 0.0001
84561246|NCT01796301|168874301|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.6|< 0.0001
84561247|NCT01796301|168874302|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
84606822|NCT02573246|168964737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071185||0.76819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126027|0.168489||A priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in insula activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the insula when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. FSL featquery tool was used to extract ROI (region of interest) data.||0.168489|-0.126027|0.768190
84606823|NCT02573246|168964738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|1.293||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||Likert-type questions about acceptability were rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) and then averaged to create a mean for acceptability. This average score was normally distributed and therefore was entered into a univariate general linear model where acceptability was entered as a dependent variable and condition as a fixed factor.||1.293|-0.553|0.69
84606824|NCT02573246|168964738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|1.139|||ANOVA|||||1.139|-.592|.53
84606825|NCT02573246|168964738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.27||a priory threshold for significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|||we compared differences in acceptability between conditions using an independent samples t-test (acceptability was normally distributed)||0.27|-1.59|0.15
84606826|NCT02573246|168964739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.912||a priori threshold was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||We compared differences between conditions in the perceived feasibility of the procedures. Feasibility average was normally distributed and therefore a general linear model, univariate was employed to test between condition effects.||0.912|-0.322|0.551
84494830|NCT00948896|168740018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|9.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|38.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||38|-35|0.065
84494831|NCT00948896|168740018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|49.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|66.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||66|23|0.001
84561248|NCT01796301|168874303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.9|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.9|2.5|< 0.0001
84561249|NCT01796301|168874304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.6|< 0.0001
84561250|NCT01796301|168874305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.6|2.9|< 0.0001
84606827|NCT02573246|168964739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.571|||ANOVA|||||.571|-.567|.995
84606828|NCT02573246|168964739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8672|0.6681||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 23||We examined differences in feasibility between the active and sham condition in the sub-study where fMRI targeting was utilized. Average feasibility was normally distributed and therefore an independent samples t-test was used to test this outcome.||0.6681|-0.8672|0.791
84606829|NCT02573246|168964740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.048||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.522964|21.60462||A priori threshold was set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the long-term effects of the intervention, a MMANOVA model was conducted examining between-condition differences at the 1-week and 1-month follow-up in the OQ-45. Baseline was co-varied.||21.604620|-9.522964|0.61
84606830|NCT02573246|168964740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|14.02||a priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.02|-15.83|.90
84606831|NCT02573246|168964740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.971581|26.892619||threshold was set to 0.05 a priori|Mixed Models Analysis||HLM models used a compound symmetry covariance structure.|||26.892619|-5.971581|.20
84561251|NCT01796301|168874306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.4|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.4|3.4|< 0.0001
84561252|NCT01537835|168874344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84561253|NCT03077607|168874357|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant % coefficient of variation (CV) of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.26|172.87||||||Confidence interval (CI): 90 percent (%) CI on geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA)||172.87|113.26|
84561254|NCT03077607|168874358|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|150.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.47|166.43||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||166.43|136.47|
84561255|NCT03077607|168874359|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|156.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.58|177.42||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||177.42|137.58|
84561256|NCT03077607|168874360|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.2|180.87||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||180.87|103.20|
84561257|NCT03077607|168874361|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.04|113.24||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||113.24|98.04|
84561258|NCT03077607|168874362|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|102.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|110.74||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||110.74|94.02|
84748767|NCT01037244|169251391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|27.26|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||27.26|12.69|<0.0001
84670721|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.201|0.037|0.515
84561259|NCT04957212|168874411|EQUIVALENCE|We used an equivalence margin of 0.2 for the primary endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.16|0.54
84561260|NCT04957212|168874412|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||Chi-squared|||||0.06|-0.21|0.26
84561261|NCT04957212|168874413|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84561262|NCT04957212|168874414|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84561263|NCT00519584|168874439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39|||Log Rank||Ropivacaine/dex vs. Ropivacaine/saline|||0.39|0.08|<0.001
84561264|NCT00519584|168874439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83|||Log Rank||bupivacaine/dex vs. bupivacaine/Saline|||0.83|0.23|<0.001
84561265|NCT00519584|168874440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84561266|NCT00519584|168874440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84561267|NCT00519584|168874441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||adjusted significance level is 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84561268|NCT00519584|168874441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84561269|NCT00519584|168874442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84561270|NCT00519584|168874442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84561271|NCT05259917|168874443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
84561272|NCT05259917|168874443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0013
84561273|NCT05259917|168874444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0036
84561274|NCT05259917|168874444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0032
84561275|NCT05259917|168874445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0022
84561276|NCT05259917|168874445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
84561277|NCT00592592|168874446|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.0||||||||18.0|5.7|
84561278|NCT00592592|168874448|OTHER||% hypothalamus normal tissue spared|88.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
84561279|NCT00592592|168874448|OTHER||% pituitary normal tissue spared|73.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
84561280|NCT00592592|168874448|OTHER||% lens (contra) normal tissue spared|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
84561281|NCT00592592|168874448|OTHER||% maxilla normal tissue spared|42.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
84561282|NCT00592592|168874449|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|87.7||||||||87.7|73.0|
84561283|NCT03585712|168874450|OTHER|Is the overall mean change from baseline different from zero? Or did the infringement of schedule regardless the type of infringement lead to a change in mucus score?||||||0.26||||||P value from model testing intercept (does infringement change mucus score?) P-value from a repeated measures mixed model with the period, intervention, sequence and time (visit) as covariates. P-values ≤0.050 are considered significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed model for repeated measures using as response delta to Day41, delta to Day42, delta to Day70 and delta to Day71.~Covariates: period, intervention (missed pill or delayed pill), sequence of intervention (missed pill then delayed pill and vice versa), time and subject.~Subject as random effect + time repeated effect within each combination subject\* period"||||0.26
84561284|NCT03585712|168874451|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Absence of risk increase||||>0.999
84748768|NCT01037244|169251391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.29|34.88|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||34.88|20.29|<0.0001
84561285|NCT03585712|168874451|OTHER|||||||0.655||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Transient risk increase||||0.655
84561286|NCT03585712|168874451|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Prolonged risk increase||||0.317
84561287|NCT03585712|168874452|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
84561288|NCT03585712|168874452|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period.||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
84561289|NCT03585712|168874453|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.127
84561290|NCT03585712|168874453|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||\* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05).|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period.||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.018
84561291|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9|5.0|<0.0001
84561292|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.0|10.2|<0.0001
84561293|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.2|11.7|<0.0001
84561294|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|9.9|<0.0001
84561295|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.9|0.0014
84561296|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.5|0.7601
84561297|NCT01096680|168874464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.1|0.0351
84561298|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.1123
84561299|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.8|0.0002
84561300|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
84561301|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0947
84561302|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9393
84606832|NCT02573246|168964741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062356|-0.043203||A priori threshold was set to .05 for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) right before the intervention were co-varied as baseline.|Results reported are for active left vs. sham comparison.|Hypothesized that active neurostimulation would lead to lower daily distress than sham stimulation. We used a hierarchical linear model (HLM) for this analysis with an identity covariance structure (random intercept and random slope).||-0.043203|-1.062356|.034
84606833|NCT02573246|168964741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.47||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesized that active neurostimulation will lead to less daily distress than sham neurostimulation during the ambulatory data collection. An HLM analysis was conducted using an unstructured covariance structure and reported distress right before the intervention as baseline.||1.47|-.208|.133
84606834|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.300772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.670936||0.629061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708548|4.107||A priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Intake values for the dependent measures were covaried. The time by condition interaction term was included.||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less functional impairment than sham neurostimulation.||4.107|-6.708548|0.629061
84561303|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.0297
84561304|NCT01096680|168874465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0004
84606835|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.977394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.605189||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.255223|4.300434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We expected lower functional impairment in the active right versus the sham condition.||4.300434|-6.255223|0.71
84606836|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.292137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.314194||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.157811|3.573537||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline WSAS was covaried|The analysis compared sham versus active stimulation.|Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology in the substudy also. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less impairment than sham neurostimulation.||3.573537|-10.157811|0.331
84606837|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276698||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27603|0.845209||A priori set threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.845209|-0.276030|0.31
84606838|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.129377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.150339||0.275257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.394724|28.653479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that active right neurostimulation would yield lower emotional dysregulation after the intervention when compared to sham neurostimulation.||28.653479|-8.394724|0.275257
84748769|NCT01037244|169251391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.57|45.03|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||45.03|30.57|<0.0001
84494832|NCT00948896|168740018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||80|53|<0.001
84494833|NCT01590810|168740025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.15|-1.59|0.503
84494834|NCT01590810|168740025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.55|-2.86|<0.0001
84494835|NCT01590810|168740025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.34|-10.13|<0.0001
84494836|NCT01590810|168740025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.58|-9.10|<0.0001
84561305|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.7758
84561306|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.9|-0.2|0.1798
84561307|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.7|-0.4|0.6090
84561308|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||1.0|-0.1|0.1169
84561309|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3028
84561310|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.5|-0.5|0.9831
84748770|NCT02294227|169251473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|1.66|0.0002
84606839|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212753||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.002351|-0.372281||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation.||-0.372281|-26.002351|0.044
84606840|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.927909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.603423||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.508252|20.364071||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||We expected active stimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation. A MMANOVA model was employed, controlling for baseline.||20.364071|-18.508252|.924
84606841|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267983||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.560994|0.525901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we expected more use of cr following active right neurostimulation then after following sham neurostimulation.||0.525901|-0.560994|.95
84606842|NCT02573246|168964742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389897||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.900919|0.707481||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline use of cognitive restructuring was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.707481|-0.900919|.806
84494837|NCT01590810|168740025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.92|-12.89|<0.0001
84494838|NCT01590810|168740026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.02|-5.79|0.052
84494839|NCT01590810|168740026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.43|-9.49|0.010
84561311|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.2|-0.8|0.2887
84561312|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.4395
84561313|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.9019
84561314|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3419
84561315|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.9581
84561316|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.2|-0.9|0.2572
84561317|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.8085
84561318|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3678
84561319|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.3732
84561320|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.4924
84561321|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.9798
84561322|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.7|-0.6|0.8557
84561323|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.1|-1.2|0.0998
84561324|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.2|-1.1|0.1479
84561325|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.8358
84606843|NCT00815191|168964755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority delta of 0.5°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.321|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.321|-0.139|<0.0001
84748771|NCT02294227|169251473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.97|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.97|1.76|0.0003
84748772|NCT00887432|169251479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84||Significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, df=86||Evaluated the change in PSA under the vitamin D and placebo conditions using the combined data (n=87).||0.84|-0.36|0.431
84748773|NCT00887432|169251480|SUPERIORITY|Comparing the mean PSA slopes between conditions (on vitamin D versus on placebo).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00019||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00042|0.000045||Significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.000045|-0.00042|0.112
84748774|NCT00899548|169251482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.52|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.52|1.23|.0002
84748775|NCT00899548|169251483|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio||1.32|1.07|0.001
84561326|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.1|-1.6|0.0199
84561327|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.6|-0.9|0.7625
84561328|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.1936
84561329|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||1.0|-0.5|0.4534
84561330|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.5|-2.0|0.0012
84561331|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.2072
84561332|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.0|-1.5|0.0413
84561333|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.1|-1.5|0.1086
84561334|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.6|-1.0|0.5843
84561335|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.0|-1.6|0.0571
84606844|NCT02639338|168964756|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
84606845|NCT02639338|168964756|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
84748776|NCT00899548|169251486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.45|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.45|1.18|.001
84748777|NCT05007808|169251553|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline to Week 4/EOT as the outcome (dependent) variable, treatment as the independent variable, and baseline score as covariate. The p-value was derived from the t-test for the comparison of adjusted LS means between the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.701|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.701|-1.081|0.6742
84561336|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.5|-1.2|0.3965
84561337|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
84561338|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.1|-1.8|0.0211
84561339|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.4|-1.2|0.2863
84561340|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0428
84561341|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||1.2|-0.5|0.3757
84561342|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.8|-2.4|0.0002
84561343|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.4|-1.2|0.3535
84561344|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-1.1|-2.7|<0.0001
84561345|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1131
84561346|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.4|-2.0|0.0039
84561347|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1302
84561348|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||1.1|-0.6|0.6138
84561349|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.6|-2.3|0.0008
84561350|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.3|-1.5|0.1643
84561351|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.8|-2.5|0.0002
84561352|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.1|-1.6|0.0782
84561353|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0441
84561354|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0193
84561355|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.8|-1.2|0.7071
84561356|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.9|-2.9|0.0002
84561357|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-1.9|0.0611
84606846|NCT01291836|168964779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Area under Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC)|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.73||||||Null Hypothesis: ROC AUC of 0.58; using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.73|0.586|
84606847|NCT01291836|168964780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ROC AUC|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.702||||||Null Hypothesis: AUC ≤0.55, using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.702|0.598|
84606848|NCT02945553|168964793|OTHER|Mixed model analysis of variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1596.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|202.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84606849|NCT02945553|168964798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84606850|NCT02827500|168964812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.33|1.88|0.002
84606851|NCT02827500|168964813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
84606852|NCT02827500|168964814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in change in heart rate between the treatment arms.||||0.011
84606853|NCT02827500|168964815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The apriori threshold for statistical significance is alpha=0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|The p-value is obtained using the F-test (combination of Chi-Squared tests) due to multiple imputation.||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the treatment arms in the proportion of patients with heart rate \< 70 BPM.||||0.054
84606854|NCT02827500|168964816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.717
84494840|NCT01590810|168740026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.79|-14.20|<0.001
84561358|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
84606855|NCT02827500|168964817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.784
84606856|NCT01241760|168964818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of -11%, non-inferiority was established.|Difference in proportion of response, %|1.5||||||95.0|-4.9|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|The 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was estimated using a logistic regression model.|Observed data|||12|-4.9|
84561359|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0160
84561360|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-2.0|0.0480
84561361|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0234
84561362|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.7|-1.3|0.5624
84670722|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|7.051|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.051|0.049|0.677
84606857|NCT02725593|168964825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.15|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.15|-1.65|0.101
84606858|NCT02725593|168964826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.85|-2.42|0.340
84606859|NCT02725593|168964827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|9.62|||Fisher's exact test|||||9.62|-20.11|0.655
84561363|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
84606860|NCT02725593|168964828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|41.11|||Fisher's exact test|||||41.11|0.50|0.056
84606861|NCT01428336|168964862|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT||0.60|-0.20|
84606862|NCT01428336|168964862|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT||-0.01|-0.69|
84494841|NCT01590810|168740026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.52|-16.51|<0.0001
84561364|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
84606863|NCT01428336|168964862|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT||0.04|-0.65|
84606864|NCT01428336|168964863|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||0.65|-0.24|
84606865|NCT01428336|168964863|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.15|-0.91|
84606866|NCT01428336|168964863|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.14||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.14|-0.94|
84606867|NCT00316524|168964889|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 4 (vaccinia experienced subjects receiving a single vaccination) is non-inferior to Group 1 (vaccinia naive subjects receiving 2 vaccinations) in terms of seroconversion rate 2 weeks after the last vaccination was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-3.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.36||||||||||-7.36|
84606868|NCT02789410|168964969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
84561365|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.6|-3.7|<0.0001
84561366|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0008
84561367|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.1|-1.9|0.0883
84561368|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.5|-1.5|0.3093
84561369|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||1.1|-0.9|0.8871
84561370|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
84561371|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
84561372|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.4|-3.4|<0.0001
84561373|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0006
84561374|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.4|-1.6|0.2462
84561375|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.6|-1.4|0.4427
84561376|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||1.4|-0.6|0.4405
84561377|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.9|-3.0|0.0003
84606869|NCT02789410|168964970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.590
84606870|NCT02789410|168964971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
84561378|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0279
84561379|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
84561380|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.7|-2.7|0.0015
84561381|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.2|-1.8|0.1246
84561382|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3067
84561383|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||1.1|-1.0|0.8940
84561384|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0034
84561385|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.1|-2.0|0.0708
84561386|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
84606871|NCT01751776|168964972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1843|2.9168|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the first adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 1.||2.9168|1.1843|
84606872|NCT01751776|168964972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0869|1.7584|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the last (fourth) adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7584|1.0869|
84606873|NCT01751776|168964973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1706|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6607|2.3575|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUC 0-infinity was explored after the last adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||2.3575|1.6607|
84494842|NCT01590810|168740026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.53|-12.93|<0.0001
84494843|NCT01590810|168740027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|8.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.25|-16.44|0.480
84494844|NCT01590810|168740027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.79|-23.37|0.086
84494845|NCT01590810|168740027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.18|-28.85|0.006
84494846|NCT01590810|168740028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.59|-16.84|<0.0001
84606874|NCT01751776|168964974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0876|1.7574|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUCtau was explored after the last administration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7574|1.0876|
84561387|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.8|-2.9|0.0006
84561388|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.4|-1.7|0.2476
84561389|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.4|-1.8|0.2310
84494847|NCT01590810|168740028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.45|-13.94|<0.0001
84494848|NCT01590810|168740028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.45|<0.0001
84561390|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||1.0|-1.2|0.8369
84561391|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0035
84606875|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.7|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Observed difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
84494849|NCT01590810|168740028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.49|<0.0001
84494850|NCT01590810|168740029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.11|-4.73|0.061
84494851|NCT01590810|168740029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.45|-4.00|0.016
84494852|NCT01590810|168740029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.82|-14.42|<0.0001
84494853|NCT01590810|168740029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.96|-11.34|<0.0001
84494854|NCT01590810|168740029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-12.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.75|-20.81|<0.0001
84494855|NCT01590810|168740030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.34|-5.56|0.029
84494856|NCT01590810|168740030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.22|-11.29|0.005
84494857|NCT01590810|168740030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-6.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.93|-20.03|<0.001
84494858|NCT01590810|168740030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-14.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-14.68|-21.98|<0.0001
84494859|NCT01590810|168740030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|-12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.19|-20.29|<0.0001
84561392|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.0|-2.2|0.0498
84561393|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
84561394|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.8|-3.0|0.0007
84561395|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3198
84561396|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.7|-0.6|0.3750
84561397|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.0|-1.3|0.7978
84561398|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.8|-1.5|0.5197
84606876|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Expected difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
84561399|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.1|-2.2|0.0751
84561400|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.2|-2.1|0.1079
84561401|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||-0.5|-2.8|0.0065
84561402|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.8|-0.5|0.2529
84606877|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 0%||||
84606878|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 5%||||
84606879|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|98.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 10%||||
84606880|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|96.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 15%||||
84561403|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6364
84561404|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||1.0|-1.1|0.9417
84561405|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.2|-2.3|0.0200
84561406|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.0|-2.1|0.0527
84561407|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.3|-2.5|0.0107
84561408|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0303
84561409|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6889
84561410|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.1|-1.2|0.9552
84561411|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.3|-1.0|0.7558
84561412|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.4|-1.9|0.1824
84561413|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.6|-1.7|0.3323
84561414|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.0|-2.4|0.0413
84561415|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.2|-2.2|0.0925
84561416|NCT01096680|168874466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.9|-1.4|0.7133
84561417|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
84561418|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-45.5|<0.0001
84494860|NCT01590810|168740031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.93|-7.12|0.539
84561419|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.6|-36.7|<0.0001
84561420|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
84561421|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-10.1|0.9945
84561422|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-18.9|0.0814
84561423|NCT01096680|168874467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-10.2|0.9743
84561424|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||0.2|-19.4|0.0544
84561425|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||6.0|-13.6|0.4410
84561426|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||1.7|-17.9|0.1046
84561427|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||7.5|-12.0|0.6467
84561428|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||3.4|-16.2|0.1971
84494861|NCT01590810|168740031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.50|-12.23|0.113
84561429|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||9.2|-10.4|0.9052
84561430|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||4.0|-15.6|0.2420
84561431|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-8.3|-25.1|0.0001
84561432|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||11.6|-5.0|0.4321
84606881|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|90.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 20%||||
84494862|NCT01590810|168740031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.91|-19.69|<0.001
84561433|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-10.1|-26.7|<0.0001
84561434|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||9.9|-6.7|0.6999
84561435|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-9.8|-26.4|<0.0001
84561436|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||10.2|-6.4|0.6566
84561437|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-11.7|-28.3|<0.0001
84561438|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.1|<0.0001
84561439|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7824
84561440|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.0|<0.0001
84561441|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7867
84561442|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-15.6|-37.4|<0.0001
84561443|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||8.0|-13.7|0.6029
84561444|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-12.8|-34.5|<0.0001
84561445|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-24.1|-50.1|<0.0001
84561446|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.8684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||14.1|-11.9|0.8684
84561447|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-40.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-40.3|-66.3|<0.0001
84561448|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-2.1|-28.1|0.0228
84561449|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-27.0|-53.0|<0.0001
84494863|NCT01590810|168740032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-9.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.11|-15.62|<0.0001
84494864|NCT01590810|168740032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.42|-13.74|<0.0001
84494865|NCT01590810|168740032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-11.13|-16.12|<0.0001
84494866|NCT01590810|168740032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-10.08|-15.85|<0.0001
84494867|NCT01590810|168740033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.60|-0.50|0.175
84494868|NCT01590810|168740033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.61|-0.25|0.076
84494869|NCT01590810|168740033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.32|1.04|0.001
84494870|NCT01590810|168740033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.15|3.14|<0.0001
84494871|NCT01590810|168740033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.67|0.63|0.008
84494872|NCT01590810|168740034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.05|-3.70|0.557
84494873|NCT01590810|168740034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.70|-3.65|0.175
84561450|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||11.2|-14.8|0.7852
84494874|NCT01590810|168740034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.23|-3.04|0.951
84494875|NCT01590810|168740034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.88|1.34|<0.001
84494876|NCT01590810|168740034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.24|3.00|<0.0001
84494877|NCT01590810|168740035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.12|-4.01|0.241
84494878|NCT01590810|168740035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.48|-3.63|0.664
84494879|NCT01590810|168740035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.33|-1.03|0.114
84494880|NCT01590810|168740036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|14.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.81|-5.96|0.385
84494881|NCT01590810|168740036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|15.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||15.32|-6.16|0.385
84494882|NCT01590810|168740036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|14.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.74|-4.44|0.276
84494883|NCT01590810|168740036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||19.81|-0.81|0.069
84494884|NCT01590810|168740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-1.28|0.383
84494885|NCT01590810|168740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.70|-2.79|0.002
84494886|NCT01590810|168740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|-6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.14|-10.08|<0.0001
84494887|NCT01590810|168740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-9.74|<0.001
84494888|NCT01590810|168740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.78|-12.84|<0.0001
84494889|NCT01590810|168740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.30|-5.43|0.216
84494890|NCT01590810|168740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.10|-9.51|0.046
84561451|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-25.2|-51.2|<0.0001
84561452|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-25.1|-51.3|<0.0001
84561453|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||17.0|-9.1|0.5528
84494891|NCT01590810|168740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-14.10|0.002
84494892|NCT01590810|168740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.68|-16.64|<0.001
84494893|NCT01590810|168740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.80|-12.70|<0.0001
84494894|NCT01590810|168740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.96|-12.50|0.635
84494895|NCT01590810|168740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-19.58|0.143
84494896|NCT01590810|168740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-6.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.01|-25.01|0.004
84494897|NCT01590810|168740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.89|-13.79|<0.0001
84494898|NCT01590810|168740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.91|-11.18|<0.0001
84494899|NCT01590810|168740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.84|-13.44|<0.0001
84494900|NCT01590810|168740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-8.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.29|-13.97|<0.0001
84494901|NCT01590810|168740041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.73|-3.19|0.547
84494902|NCT01590810|168740041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.62|-2.79|0.004
84494903|NCT01590810|168740041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.94|-6.23|<0.0001
84494904|NCT01590810|168740041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.76|-4.98|<0.001
84494905|NCT01590810|168740041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.59|-8.24|<0.0001
84494906|NCT01590810|168740042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.67|-6.19|0.017
84494907|NCT01590810|168740042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.84|-8.43|<0.001
84494908|NCT01590810|168740042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.04|-9.94|0.005
84494909|NCT01590810|168740042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-10.90|<0.001
84561454|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-40.9|-67.0|<0.0001
84561455|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||1.2|-24.9|0.0747
84561456|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-36.1|-62.2|<0.0001
84561457|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||6.0|-20.1|0.2868
84561458|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-29.1|-55.2|<0.0001
84561459|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|-16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-16.2|-59.1|0.0007
84561460|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||20.2|-22.7|0.9089
84561461|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-31.4|-74.3|<0.0001
84561462|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||5.0|-37.9|0.1307
84561463|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.8|-57.7|0.0011
84561464|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||21.6|-21.3|0.9903
84561465|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.9|-57.8|0.0010
84561466|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||9.0|-51.7|0.1655
84606882|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|79.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 25%||||
84561467|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|28.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||28.5|-32.4|0.8975
84561468|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||-5.8|-66.5|0.0199
84561469|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||13.7|-47.2|0.2785
84561470|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||20.1|-40.6|0.5048
84561471|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||39.6|-21.3|0.5533
84561472|NCT01096680|168874468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||11.1|-49.9|0.2098
84561473|NCT02697734|168874469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|343.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||343.19|7.06|<.0001
84561474|NCT04333225|168874551|OTHER|Other: estimating risk reduction|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0718||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|1.15|0.0112
84561475|NCT04333225|168874552|OTHER|Other: Estimating hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.17|0.0105
84561476|NCT03951753|168874567|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.29|0.87|<0.001
84561477|NCT03951753|168874567|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.24|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||2.24|1.59|<0.001
84561478|NCT03951753|168874567|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.21|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.21|0.46|<0.001
84561479|NCT03951753|168874568|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-30.7|||ANCOVA|||||-30.7|-45.4|<0.001
84561480|NCT03951753|168874568|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-39.5|||ANCOVA|||||-39.5|-54.6|<0.001
84561481|NCT03951753|168874568|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-15.4|0.006
84561482|NCT03951753|168874569|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14696.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17045.0|-12347.3|||ANCOVA|||||-12347.3|-17045.0|<0.001
84561483|NCT03951753|168874569|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17873.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20239.0|-15507.4|||ANCOVA|||||-15507.4|-20239.0|<0.001
84561484|NCT03951753|168874569|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3177.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5194.3|-1159.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1159.8|-5194.3|0.002
84561485|NCT03951753|168874570|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.67|-2.18|<0.001
84561486|NCT03951753|168874570|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.08|-2.58|<0.001
84561487|NCT03951753|168874570|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.63|<0.001
84561488|NCT03951753|168874571|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|279.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.366|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.1|313.18|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||313.18|245.10|<0.001
84561489|NCT03951753|168874571|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|381.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|339.29|423.17|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||423.17|339.29|<0.001
84561490|NCT03951753|168874571|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|102.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.84|152.33|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||152.33|51.84|<0.001
84561491|NCT03951753|168874572|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|17.7|||ANCOVA|||||17.7|4.9|<0.001
84561492|NCT03951753|168874572|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1|||ANCOVA|||||26.1|13.4|<0.001
84561493|NCT03951753|168874572|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANCOVA|||||14.0|3.0|0.003
84561494|NCT03951753|168874573|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-5.5|<0.001
84561495|NCT03951753|168874573|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-6.3|<0.001
84561496|NCT03951753|168874573|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.4|0.277
84561497|NCT03951753|168874574|OTHER||Slope|-296.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|-7.5|||ANCOVA|||||-7.5|-584.8|0.044
84561498|NCT03951753|168874574|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-637.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-925.2|-350.2|||ANCOVA|||||-350.2|-925.2|<0.001
84561499|NCT03951753|168874574|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-341.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.2|-97.9|||ANCOVA|||||-97.9|-585.2|0.006
84606883|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|62.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 30%||||
84670723|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|11.912|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.912|0.181|0.720
84670724|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.861|0.053|0.732
84561500|NCT03951753|168874575|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-245.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-357.7|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-133.3|-357.7|<0.001
84670725|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|11.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.303|0.066|0.913
84561501|NCT03951753|168874575|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-309.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-423.0|-196.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-196.6|-423.0|<0.001
84494910|NCT01590810|168740042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.69|-7.76|<0.001
84561502|NCT03951753|168874575|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-64.3||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.7|-160.3|0.187
84571462|NCT02858908|168893796|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.04|-3.94|0.0456
84571463|NCT02858908|168893796|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.80|-4.03|0.0058
84571464|NCT02858908|168893796|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.34|-3.56|0.0208
84571465|NCT02858908|168893797|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||-0.017|-0.092|0.0068
84571466|NCT02858908|168893797|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||0.028|-0.047|0.6090
84571467|NCT02858908|168893798|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||3.7|3.0|0.0011
84571468|NCT02858908|168893798|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.4||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||4.4|3.6|1.0000
84670726|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.507|0.090|0.164
84494911|NCT01590810|168740043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.42|-21.27|0.311
84494912|NCT01590810|168740043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.69|-27.44|0.078
84494913|NCT01590810|168740043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.19|-29.87|0.027
84494914|NCT01590810|168740044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.65|-12.90|<0.0001
84494915|NCT01590810|168740044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.81|-11.57|0.003
84494916|NCT01590810|168740044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.98|-12.40|0.001
84494917|NCT01590810|168740044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-11.69|0.001
84561503|NCT04633291|168874576|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard Male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.58|-0.50|0.88
84561504|NCT04633291|168874577|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.44||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.44|-0.72|0.62
84494918|NCT01590810|168740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.45|-1.82|0.765
84494919|NCT01590810|168740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.20|-2.49|0.023
84494920|NCT01590810|168740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.36|-9.18|<0.0001
84494921|NCT01590810|168740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.44|-9.46|0.010
84494922|NCT01590810|168740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.94|-11.28|<0.0001
84494923|NCT01590810|168740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.86|-4.89|0.160
84494924|NCT01590810|168740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.24|-8.40|0.039
84494925|NCT01590810|168740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.92|-12.58|0.003
84494926|NCT01590810|168740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|-5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.09|-14.49|<0.001
84494927|NCT01590810|168740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.31|-11.30|<0.0001
84494928|NCT01590810|168740047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.09|-10.54|0.675
84494929|NCT01590810|168740047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.46|-16.98|0.174
84748778|NCT01886378|169251576|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|423.594||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.66|1002.85||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||1002.85|-155.66|0.1518
84494930|NCT01590810|168740047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.81|-22.55|0.006
84494931|NCT01590810|168740048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.03|-12.22|<0.0001
84494932|NCT01590810|168740048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|-3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.99|-9.73|<0.0001
84494933|NCT01590810|168740048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.64|-11.51|<0.0001
84494934|NCT01590810|168740048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.50|-12.55|<0.0001
84494935|NCT00412360|168740050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant. The targeted sample size of 110 participants per treatment group was sufficient to maintain a type I error rate of 5% and provide more than 86% power to detect an increase in overall survival from 57% among participants receiving a single unit graft to 77% for those receiving a double-unit graft.||||0.17
84748779|NCT01886378|169251577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.011||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||0.01|-0.04|0.3964
84494936|NCT00412360|168740051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in disease-free survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.11
84494937|NCT00412360|168740052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.29
84571469|NCT02858908|168893799|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-3.47|-8.35|<0.0001
84494938|NCT00412360|168740052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.04
84748780|NCT01886378|169251578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|4.671||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.86||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||9.86|-0.52|0.0777
84748781|NCT01886378|169251579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|181.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|386.45||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||386.45|-23.70|0.0830
84494939|NCT00412360|168740054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.78
84494940|NCT00412360|168740054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade III-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.02
84494941|NCT00412360|168740055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.51
84494942|NCT00412360|168740055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.05
84494943|NCT00412360|168740057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of relapse between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.12
84494944|NCT00412360|168740058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.43
84494945|NCT02260804|168740063|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of ±17% was predefined.|Difference in proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.43|10.2||||||||10.2|-6.43|
84494946|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.18||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||9.18|4.00|<.001
84561505|NCT04633291|168874578|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.57||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.57|-0.36|0.63
84561506|NCT04633291|168874579|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.08|-0.38|0.19
84561507|NCT04633291|168874580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||6.60|0.47|0.381
84561508|NCT04633291|168874581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|34.0||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|"OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.~Of note: Log transformed estimates."|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||34.00|-18.40|0.541
84561509|NCT04633291|168874582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|265.95||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||265.95|0.19|0.269
84561510|NCT04633291|168874583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.83||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||64.83|0.02|1.0
84561511|NCT04633291|168874584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||12.87|0.08|1.0
84561512|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (less than or equal to (\<=) 90 kilogram (kg), greater than (\>) 90 kg).||||0.002
84561513|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561514|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561515|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561516|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561517|NCT01483599|168874600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561518|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561519|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561520|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84606884|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|42.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 35%||||
84606885|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|24.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 40%||||
84606886|NCT01751776|168964976|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|11.1||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 45%||||
84670727|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.287|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.287|0.050|0.098
84670728|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.731|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.731|0.383|0.758
84670729|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|1.814|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.814|0.107|0.256
84494947|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|7.76||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||7.76|3.36|<.001
84561521|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561522|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561523|NCT01483599|168874601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
84561524|NCT01483599|168874602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||-4.0|-44.0|
84561525|NCT01483599|168874602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|23.5||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||23.5|-17.9|
84561526|NCT01483599|168874602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.3||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||39.3|1.5|
84561527|NCT01483599|168874602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|45.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||45.6|9.8|
84670730|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.561|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.561|0.059|0.154
84561528|NCT01483599|168874602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6||||||||43.6|7.2|
84561529|NCT01483599|168874603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|6.9||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||6.9|-37.7|
84670731|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.497|0.087|0.160
84561530|NCT01483599|168874603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|32.4||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||32.4|-10.7|
84748782|NCT01886378|169251580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.185||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||-0.02|-0.35|0.0320
84748783|NCT01886378|169251581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|12.44||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|26.6||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||26.60|-1.72|0.0850
84494948|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||5.17|2.17|<.001
84561531|NCT01483599|168874603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|43.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||43.6|1.8|
84494949|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|11.71||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||11.71|1.16|.038
84494950|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||7.54|0.63|.256
84494951|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.89||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||5.89|0.43|.531
84494952|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||1.54|0.91|.202
84494953|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||0.88|0.49|.005
84494954|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||4.16|0.69|.276
84494955|NCT03965754|168740078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||2.16|0.25|.592
84494956|NCT03965754|168740079|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.65||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|1.04|.020
84494957|NCT03965754|168740079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).||0.75|0.44|<.001
84494958|NCT03965754|168740079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).||1.38|0.41|.359
84494959|NCT03965754|168740079|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.||||2.90|1.05|.035
84494960|NCT00437294|168740082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||||||The 1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Log Rank|||||||0.237
84494961|NCT00437294|168740087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84494962|NCT00437294|168740088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
84494963|NCT00437294|168740089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.181
84494964|NCT01422876|168740126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
84494965|NCT01422876|168740126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
84494966|NCT01422876|168740126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.25|-0.59|<0.0001
84606887|NCT01751776|168964977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference, unadjusted|18.2||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|38.6|||One-sided exact test (see description)|One-sided exact test for superiority testing|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||38.6|-6.6|0.0754
84561532|NCT01483599|168874603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|49.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||49.0|8.5|
84748784|NCT01886378|169251582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.16||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|6.94||The LS Mean, standard error (SE), 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||6.94|-2.62|0.3754
84748785|NCT01886378|169251583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.816||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|5.97||The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||5.97|-4.34|0.7564
84494967|NCT01422876|168740126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
84561533|NCT01483599|168874603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|52.8||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||52.8|13.0|
84561534|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||0.008
84561535|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
84561536|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
84561537|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
84561538|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
84606888|NCT01751776|168964977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|39.0|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)|adjusted||39.0|-4.6|
84670732|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|2.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||2.679|0.252|0.744
84561539|NCT01483599|168874604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
84561540|NCT01128400|168874652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84561541|NCT01128400|168874653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84606889|NCT01751776|168964978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, unadjusted|4.5||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|22.3|||one-sided exact test (see description)|one-sided exact test for superiority testing.|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||22.3|-18.4|0.3938
84670733|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|9.317|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.317|0.636|0.194
84748786|NCT01886378|169251584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|12.08||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model|||||12.08|5.67|<0.0001
84748787|NCT01886378|169251585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|9.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|17.54||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||17.54|1.87|0.0152
84748788|NCT02656160|169251611|OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||tonic||||0.85
84748789|NCT02656160|169251611|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phasic activity||||0.322
84748790|NCT02656160|169251612|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84561542|NCT02362425|168874654|SUPERIORITY|An a priori power calculation, with power at 80% and a two-sided α of 0·05, determined that n=76 participants (n=38 per group) would be required to detect a statistically significant post-intervention difference in plasma glutathione (GSH) concentration between NAC and placebo groups. After the primary endpoint was changed, re-evaluation of the sample size determined that a larger sample (total n=182) would be required. As per protocol, the study was completed at this time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Model comparing 12 m corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane conc. controlling for pre-intervention value. Investigated covariates: smoking and drinking status.||Null Hypothesis: In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane concentration and/or corrected 15=f2t-Isop:PGR2alpha ratio between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||1.6|-1.4|0.88
84561543|NCT02362425|168874655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|53.4||Model controlled for six-month(pre-intervention) distance and treatment group. Investigated covariates: height|Regression, Linear|||In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in 6MWT (six minute walk test) total distance between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||53.4|-5.5|.11
84561544|NCT02362425|168874656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-3.6|0.14
84561545|NCT02362425|168874657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.62
84561546|NCT02362425|168874658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-1.1|0.05
84561547|NCT02362425|168874659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-2.1|0.25
84561548|NCT02362425|168874660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-2.1|0.05
84606890|NCT01751776|168964978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.1|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||21.1|-18.9|
84494968|NCT01422876|168740127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|-9.48|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-9.48|-23.37|<0.0001
84494969|NCT01422876|168740127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-15.10|-29.30|<0.0001
84561549|NCT02362425|168874661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-0.6|0.09
84561550|NCT02362425|168874662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-1.3|0.69
84561551|NCT02362425|168874663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.5|0.31
84561552|NCT02362425|168874664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|-0.8|0.22
84561553|NCT02362425|168874665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2.6|0.93
84561554|NCT02362425|168874666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.3|0.66
84561555|NCT02362425|168874667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-0.4|0.09
84748791|NCT03513588|169251613|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.28|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.70|-31.28|<0.001
84561556|NCT02362425|168874668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.0|-0.7|0.09
84561557|NCT02362425|168874669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-13.4|0.15
84561558|NCT02362425|168874670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-13.7|0.08
84561559|NCT02362425|168874671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|47.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.5|-80.1|0.39
84561560|NCT02362425|168874672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|39.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.5|-59.5|0.57
84561561|NCT02362425|168874673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-5.0|0.12
84561562|NCT02362425|168874674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-3.6|0.76
84494970|NCT01422876|168740127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-4.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-4.37|-18.31|0.0015
84561563|NCT02362425|168874675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|-2.5|0.72
84561564|NCT02362425|168874676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-1.8|0.70
84606891|NCT01751776|168964981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|32.7|||||The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||32.7|-17.6|
84606892|NCT01751776|168964981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|34.2|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||34.2|-15.9|
84670734|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.261|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.261|0.181|0.871
84748792|NCT03513588|169251613|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.78|-27.47|||ANCOVA|||||-27.47|-39.78|<0.001
84494971|NCT01422876|168740127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.21|-12.03|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-12.03|-26.21|<0.0001
84561565|NCT02362425|168874677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-2.8|0.88
84561566|NCT02362425|168874678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.2|-10.3|0.61
84561567|NCT02362425|168874679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-7.4|0.87
84561568|NCT02362425|168874680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.9|-38.9|0.28
84561569|NCT02771860|168874715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||16.9|1.0|0.024
84561570|NCT02771860|168874716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.11|<0.001
84748793|NCT01275131|169251647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.95||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.37|20.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 2/6||20.54|7.37|0.0009
84748794|NCT01275131|169251647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|18.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.55|24.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 4/8||24.72|11.55|<0.0001
84561571|NCT02771860|168874717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.0|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||24.0|4.6|0.003
84561572|NCT04304508|168874724|OTHER|Dose-response test by using multiple comparison procedures (MCP) Mod.||||||0.7976|||||||MCP Mod|||Dose-response test||||0.7976
84561573|NCT04304508|168874724|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8105|1.3478||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3478|0.8105|
84561574|NCT04304508|168874724|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.1963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.5428||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.5428|0.9281|
84561575|NCT04304508|168874724|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.0485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8082|1.3619||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3619|0.8082|
84561576|NCT04304508|168874732|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.724|||=|0.1507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|3.215|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||3.215|0.924|= 0.1507
84561577|NCT04304508|168874732|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.285|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|2.494|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.494|0.662|= 0.5339
84561578|NCT04304508|168874732|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.749|||=|0.1401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|3.262|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.262|0.938|= 0.1401
84561579|NCT04304508|168874732|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.585|||=|0.1653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.736|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Total Asundexian group versus Placebo group||2.736|0.918|= 0.1653
84561580|NCT02688764|168874747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.1465
84561581|NCT02688764|168874750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects||||0.0872
84561582|NCT02688764|168874751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6207||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.6207
84561583|NCT02688764|168874751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3226||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.3226
84561584|NCT02688764|168874769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5682||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=2 years to \<6 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5682
84561585|NCT02688764|168874769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2271||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=6 years to \<12 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.2271
84748795|NCT01275131|169251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.86|20.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 2/7||20.97|11.86|<0.0001
84748796|NCT01275131|169251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.55|18.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 3/8||18.65|9.55|<0.0001
84748797|NCT01275131|169251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.32||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 5/10||9.88|0.77|0.0552
84748798|NCT02858349|169251703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.05|0.0042
84561586|NCT02688764|168874769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=12 years to \<=18 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0220
84748799|NCT02594826|169251719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|114.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the calculated p-value, which is adjusted for age, marital status, prior screening, health insurance, and having a healthcare provider.||||114.9|11.1|<0.001
84748800|NCT02594826|169251720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|Controlling for: marital status, education, language spoken at home, health insurance, regular physician, language of physician, ever had Pap test.||The null hypothesis is that the two conditions would not differ in their knowledge following program participation. The study biostatistician conducted full regression models to examine change in knowledge (from pre- to post-program) within each group and across groups over time. The models controlled for relevant covariates.||||0.005
84561587|NCT02688764|168874770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline above Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0058
84561588|NCT02688764|168874770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5801||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline below or within Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5801
84561589|NCT05725824|168874778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
84561590|NCT05725824|168874779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
84561591|NCT05725824|168874780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Arms/Groups were collapsed for RM-ANOVA to compare between various earmold types. A post-hoc paired t-test w/ Bonferroni correction was utilized to compare ear mold material types.|Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
84494972|NCT01422876|168740128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||2.11|-12.74|0.1605
84561592|NCT05725824|168874781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
84561593|NCT03026283|168874795|OTHER|||||||1||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement McNemar's test comparing sensitivity and specificity for CCTA alone and FFR-CT, assuming conditional dependence.|Chi-squared|||Reference test is positive (test of sensitivity).||||1.00
84561594|NCT03026283|168874795|OTHER||||||<|0.0047||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement Mcnemar's test comparing sensitive and pscificity for CCTA and FFR-CT assuming dependence.|Chi-squared|McNemar's chi-squared = 8.00||Reference test is Negative||||<0.0047
84561595|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||7.4|-4.0|
84561596|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||13.4|-4.0|
84561597|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.7|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||19.1|-2.7|
84561598|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.6|15.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||15.5|-2.6|
84561599|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.0|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||8.9|-2.0|
84561600|NCT03782571|168874826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.3|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||10.3|-4.3|
84561601|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-1.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||17.8|-1.0|
84561602|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-7.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-7.8|
84670735|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|8.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.037|0.497|0.329
84670736|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.514|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.514|0.119|0.187
84670737|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||2.476|0.273|0.729
84670738|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|9.917|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.917|0.739|0.133
84748801|NCT00231153|169251734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|2.25||||0.082||95.0|-0.3|4.81||The primary null hypothesis was tested using the CMH chi-square test stratified region: North America or Europe. Alpha for this test will be 0.05, tow-tailed. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Adequate power was provided to test the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between treatment groups for LCSI. Overall LCSI rate was assumed to be approx. 7.5%, with reduction of LCSI by 40% with omiganan. LCSI rates in placebo and omiganan groups would be 9.375% and 5.625%. Sample size of 1548 in MITT set would provide 80% power to detect this difference between treatments. Sample size was also increased by 19% to account for deaths, for total of 1850 planned patients.||4.81|-0.30|0.082
84748802|NCT00231153|169251735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|3.67||||0.002||95.0|1.4|5.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.93|1.40|0.002
84561603|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-15.1|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-15.1|
84561604|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-20.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||9.4|-20.4|
84561605|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-12.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||5.3|-12.6|
84561606|NCT03782571|168874827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-13.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||10.3|-13.9|
84670739|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|4.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.961|0.266|0.852
84670740|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|8.472|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.472|0.585|0.240
84561607|NCT04656301|168874840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 1.92||||||<0.001
84571470|NCT02858908|168893799|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-0.83|-5.71|0.0116
84670741|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||1.789|0.166|0.317
84748803|NCT00231153|169251736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|11.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|16.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.11|6.70|<0.001
84748804|NCT00081770|169251737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.567||95.0|0.79|1.14||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.14|0.79|0.567
84494973|NCT01422876|168740128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.61|-13.25|0.1246
84494974|NCT01422876|168740128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-16.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-16.21|-31.06|<0.0001
84561608|NCT01704755|168874870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The study planned to enroll 380 subjects to a 12- or 24-week treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint (SVR12) was assessed for each arm. With a total sample size of 380 and assuming that 68% of the subjects in each arm would achieve SVR12, the study had greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority and superiority with a 2-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound greater than 43% and 54%, respectively, based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion.||96.1|87.6|
84561609|NCT01704755|168874870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The primary efficacy endpoints were the SVR12 rates in each arm. The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between the arms using a Bonferroni correction of 0.025. A 2-sided 97.5% CI of the SVR12 rate per arm was computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. A gatekeeping testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, and the primary endpoints for Arm A were tested separately from Arm B in a pre-specified order.||96.1|87.6|
84561610|NCT01704755|168874870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
84561611|NCT01704755|168874870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
84748805|NCT00081770|169251737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.195||95.0|0.9|1.3||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.30|0.90|0.195
84494975|NCT01422876|168740128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.71|-14.88|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-14.88|-29.71|<0.0001
84494976|NCT01422876|168740129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.03||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.03|-0.65|0.6604
84561612|NCT01704755|168874871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To test the hypothesis that the percentages of participants who achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was different between the two treatment groups, the percentages were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a), IL28B genotype (CC, non CC), and peginterferon-ribavirin treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced) as predictors.||||0.051
84561613|NCT02187029|168874885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.32|-48.78|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-48.780|-56.320|
84561614|NCT02187029|168874885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.31|-61.54|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-61.540|-71.310|
84561615|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.06|-0.55|
84561616|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.28|-0.95|
84561617|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-1.16|-1.52|
84561618|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-1.33|-2.38|
84561619|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-1.48|-2.18|
84561620|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-1.37|-2.11|
84561621|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|-2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-2.06|-2.89|
84561622|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-2.20|-3.29|
84561623|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-2.21|-3.39|
84561624|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-2.41|-3.72|
84561625|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.03|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day7, Hour 4||-2.77|-4.03|
84561626|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-2.79|-3.82|
84561627|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-2.68|-3.72|
84561628|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-2.32|-3.30|
84561629|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.19|-3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-3.92|-5.19|
84561630|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.75|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-3.88|-4.75|
84561631|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-4.08|-5.02|
84561632|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.47|-4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-4.47|-5.47|
84561633|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.02|-5.83|
84561634|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.05|-6.08|
84561635|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-4.82|-5.86|
84561636|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-4.18|-5.12|
84561637|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.97|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.79|-2.97|
84561638|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.32|-0.92|
84561639|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.75|-1.61|
84561640|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-2.69|-3.14|
84561641|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.36|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-3.03|-4.36|
84561642|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-3.40|-4.28|
84561643|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-3.94|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-3.00|-3.94|
84561644|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-4.23|-5.29|
84561645|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-5.00|-6.62|
84561646|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.72|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-4.95|-6.72|
84561647|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.17|-5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-5.19|-7.17|
84561648|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|-5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||-5.55|-7.46|
84748806|NCT00081770|169251739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.9||||||95.0|36.9|42.9|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||42.9|36.9|
84748807|NCT00081770|169251739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|33.1|39.0|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||39.0|33.1|
84494977|NCT01422876|168740129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.44|-3.15|<0.0001
84494978|NCT01422876|168740129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.77||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.77|-0.91|0.8757
84494979|NCT01422876|168740129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.05|-2.77|<0.0001
84494980|NCT01422876|168740130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.06|-0.33|0.1785
84494981|NCT01422876|168740130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
84561649|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-5.51|-7.07|
84561650|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-5.44|-7.03|
84561651|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-4.99|-6.50|
84561652|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.59|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-4.65|-6.59|
84748808|NCT00081770|169251739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0||||||95.0|42.0|48.1|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||48.1|42.0|
84561653|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-5.10|-6.42|
84561654|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-5.24|-6.67|
84561655|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-5.38|-6.90|
84561656|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.81|-7.03|
84561657|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.87|-7.41|
84561658|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-5.63|-7.18|
84561659|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-5.07|-6.47|
84748809|NCT03435497|169251742|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.017
84748810|NCT03435497|169251743|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.2|.05
84494982|NCT01422876|168740130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
84494983|NCT01422876|168740130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.37|-0.76|<0.0001
84494984|NCT01422876|168740131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.14||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||1.14|-0.88|0.8010
84561660|NCT02187029|168874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||-0.35|-4.96|
84561661|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0423|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1103|0.0394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.0394|-0.1103|
84748811|NCT03435497|169251744|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
84748812|NCT03435497|169251745|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.012
84748813|NCT03435497|169251746|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|1.5|0.022
84748814|NCT00362453|169251747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.66|-53.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-53.94|-183.66|0.0005
84748815|NCT00362453|169251748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-324.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.98|-135.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-135.22|-513.98|0.001
84748816|NCT00362453|169251748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.58|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||6.18|-372.58|0.06
84494985|NCT01422876|168740131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.54||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||0.54|-1.48|0.3616
84561662|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.0966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.0966|-0.1269|
84561663|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1078|0.0417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.0417|-0.1078|
84561664|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.0820|-0.0750|
84561665|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1153|0.0149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.0149|-0.1153|
84561666|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1058|0.0899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.0899|-0.1058|
84748817|NCT00362453|169251748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.68|84.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 week||84.08|-294.68|0.3
84748818|NCT00362453|169251749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 week||7.24|-53.04|0.1
84748819|NCT00362453|169251749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|15.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 week||15.34|-44.94|0.3
84748820|NCT00362453|169251749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|26.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||26.49|-33.79|0.8
84748821|NCT00362453|169251750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.81|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-2.09|-131.81|0.05
84561667|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1538|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.0460|-0.1538|
84561668|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0793|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.1010|-0.0793|
84561669|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0554|0.1213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.1213|-0.0554|
84561670|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0733|0.0905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.0905|-0.0733|
84561671|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0865|0.0378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.0378|-0.0865|
84561672|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0973|-0.0079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-0.0079|-0.0973|
84561673|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0331|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0889|0.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.0292|-0.0889|
84561674|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0268|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0649|0.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.0315|-0.0649|
84748822|NCT00362453|169251750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.01|18.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||18.71|-111.01|0.2
84748823|NCT00362453|169251751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.49|-3.82|0.01
84748824|NCT00362453|169251751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||1.02|-2.31|0.4
84748825|NCT00362453|169251751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||1.70|-1.62|1.0
84748826|NCT00362453|169251752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.66|-2.75|0.002
84748827|NCT00362453|169251752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||0.51|-1.58|0.3
84748828|NCT00362453|169251752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||0.02|-2.09|0.06
84748829|NCT00362453|169251753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.88||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-5.84|-15.91|0.00005
84748830|NCT00362453|169251753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-0.08|-10.15|0.05
84748831|NCT00362453|169251753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-0.91|-11.06|0.02
84748832|NCT00362453|169251754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.08||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|110.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||110.50|-10.34|0.1
84748833|NCT00362453|169251754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|102.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||102.50|-15.07|0.1
84494986|NCT01422876|168740131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-2.23|0.0178
84670742|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.233|0.410|0.790
84748834|NCT00362453|169251754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.61||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|78.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||78.59|-49.36|0.7
84748835|NCT00362453|169251755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||0.34|-0.54|0.7
84748836|NCT00362453|169251755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||0.52|-0.37|0.7
84748837|NCT00362453|169251755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||0.34|-0.55|0.6
84494987|NCT01422876|168740131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.95|-2.97|0.0001
84748838|NCT00362453|169251756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-1.77|-11.63|0.009
84748839|NCT00362453|169251756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||-0.37|-10.23|0.04
84748840|NCT00362453|169251756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-3.97|-13.83|0.0006
84748841|NCT00362453|169251757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||1.39|0.03|0.04
84748842|NCT00362453|169251757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||1.53|0.17|0.02
84748843|NCT00362453|169251757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||1.64|0.28|0.007
84748844|NCT00362453|169251758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||12.36|2.50|0.004
84748845|NCT00362453|169251758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||9.45|-0.42|0.08
84748846|NCT00362453|169251758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.25|1.38|0.01
84748847|NCT00362453|169251759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||6.57|-6.15|0.9
84748848|NCT00362453|169251759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||6.25|-6.47|1.0
84748849|NCT00362453|169251759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.13|-1.59|0.10
84494988|NCT01422876|168740132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.319|7.573|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.573|2.319|<0.0001
84494989|NCT01422876|168740132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|8.184|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||8.184|2.474|<0.0001
84494990|NCT01422876|168740132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.363|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||6.363|1.920|<0.0001
84494991|NCT01422876|168740132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|5.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.001|1.562|0.0005
84494992|NCT01422876|168740133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.893||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|3.274|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||3.274|1.095|0.0224
84494993|NCT01422876|168740133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.961||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|5.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.169|1.697|0.0001
84494994|NCT01422876|168740133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|5.314|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.314|1.768|<0.0001
84494995|NCT01422876|168740133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.462|7.522|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.522|2.462|<0.0001
84561675|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.1222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.1222|0.0010|
84561676|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0104|0.1945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.1945|0.0104|
84748850|NCT01765192|169251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|0.1795|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model adapted for the crossover design. The following fixed factors and covariates were included in the model: Treatment, sequence, period, and baseline FEV1 measurement of the respective treatment period. The reported analysis results are for the 2 crossover treatment periods combined.||0.1795|0.0219|0.013
84561677|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.0952|-0.0827|
84561678|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0672|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.0919|-0.0672|
84561679|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0408|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.0547|-0.0918|
84748851|NCT01765192|169251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0185|0.1422||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FVC measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1422|-0.0185|0.129
84494996|NCT01366846|168740143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
84494997|NCT01366846|168740143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.004
84494998|NCT01366846|168740144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of participants with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
84494999|NCT01366846|168740145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
84495000|NCT01366846|168740145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.027
84495001|NCT01366846|168740146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
84495002|NCT01366846|168740147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
84495003|NCT01366846|168740148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
84561680|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1192|0.0365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.0365|-0.1192|
84561681|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3916|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2968|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.0990|-0.2968|
84561682|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0537|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0223|0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.2127|0.0223|
84561683|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2424|0.5266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.5266|0.2424|
84561684|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0536|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2862|0.4762|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.4762|0.2862|
84561685|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0563|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1843|0.3838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.3838|0.1843|
84561686|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0635|0.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.2289|0.0635|
84561687|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0702|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0436|0.2924|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.2924|0.0436|
84561688|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0172|0.2778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.2778|-0.0172|
84561689|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||||90.0|0.0625|0.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.3281|0.0625|
84561690|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0729|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.6707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.6707|0.4110|
84561691|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4032|0.6438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.6438|0.4032|
84561692|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2944|0.4769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.4769|0.2944|
84561693|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0368|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0439|0.0872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.0872|-0.0439|
84670743|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|14.911|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.911|0.888|0.073
84495004|NCT05299359|168740175|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \>= 0.67, then the immune response to a single heterologous booster vaccination of TAK-019 is considered to be non-inferior of that to the primary series of TAK-019.|LS Mean Difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||GMT ratio was calculated GMT of TAK-019-3001 on Day 15 divided by GMT of TAK-019-1501 study on Day 36.||1.47|0.95|
84561694|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0486|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0841|0.2574|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.2574|0.0841|
84561695|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0982|0.2338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.2338|0.0982|
84561696|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2667|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.4380|0.2667|
84561697|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.6932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.6932|0.4330|
84561698|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4549|0.7065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.7065|0.4549|
84670744|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|8.902|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.902|0.442|0.371
84495005|NCT00423137|168740245|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.181||0.5305|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.||||||0.5305
84561699|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0627|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1688|0.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.3940|0.1688|
84561700|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0945|0.3019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.3019|0.0945|
84670745|NCT02932904|169075065|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|17.063|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.063|1.027|0.046
84495006|NCT00423137|168740246|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1498|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1498
84495007|NCT00423137|168740249|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.4472|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4472
84561701|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0615|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0361|0.2569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.2569|0.0361|
84561702|NCT02187029|168874896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4796|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0017|1.7112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.7112|0.0017|
84561703|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.707|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.010|-0.707|
84561704|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.533|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.175|-0.533|
84561705|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.568|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.052|-0.568|
84561706|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||||90.0|-0.39|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.298|-0.390|
84561707|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||||90.0|-0.575|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.006|-0.575|
84561708|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.569|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.237|-0.569|
84748852|NCT01765192|169251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.2364||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2364|0.0113|0.032
84495008|NCT00423137|168740250|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.6829|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.6829
84495009|NCT00423137|168740251|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.1565|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1565
84495010|NCT00423137|168740252|OTHER||Difference of least square means|1.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.185||0.3709|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.3709
84495011|NCT00423137|168740253|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-52.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.48||0.0044|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0044
84495012|NCT00423137|168740254|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-67.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29||0.0056|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0056
84561709|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.132|-0.657|
84748853|NCT01765192|169251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.105||0.635||95.0|-23.0531|37.466||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||37.4660|-23.0531|0.635
84748854|NCT01765192|169251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1896|24.0553||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||24.0553|3.1896|0.011
84748855|NCT01765192|169251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.0271||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Daytime Asthma Symptom Score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0271|-0.3850|0.025
84748856|NCT01765192|169251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2426|0.0563||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Nighttime Asthma Symptoms measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.0563|-0.2426|0.217
84748857|NCT00388453|169251792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
84748858|NCT02901041|169251796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.45|-1.41|.98
84748859|NCT02901041|169251797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.26|-1.92|.13
84748860|NCT02901041|169251798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.33, df=72.65||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.17|.19
84748861|NCT02901041|169251799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.99, df=56.00||||0.00|-0.34|.05
84495013|NCT00423137|168740255|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-62.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.42||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0025
84495014|NCT00423137|168740256|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-40.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8||0.0439|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0439
84495015|NCT00423137|168740257|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-57.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0129
84495016|NCT00423137|168740258|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-55.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0037|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0037
84495017|NCT00423137|168740259|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9076|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.9076
84561710|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.299|-0.460|
84561711|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.392|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.228|-0.392|
84561712|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.408|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.242|-0.408|
84748862|NCT02901041|169251800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.37,df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.17|-0.11|.71
84748863|NCT02901041|169251801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.59,df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.26|.12
84748864|NCT02901041|169251802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|10.18|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||||10.18|-9.89|.98
84561713|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.508|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.095|-0.508|
84561714|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.451|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.191|-0.451|
84561715|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.445|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.196|-0.445|
84561716|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.097|-0.472|
84561717|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.434|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.130|-0.434|
84561718|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.504|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.043|-0.504|
84561719|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.722|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-0.088|-0.722|
84606893|NCT01751776|168964982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.39|||||difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo. The ANCOVA model was used. In this model the mean was adjusted for region, anti-TNF history and baseline DAS28-CRP.|difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo.||0.39|-0.67|
84561720|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.062|-0.560|
84561721|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.467|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.141|-0.467|
84561722|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.633|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-0.002|-0.633|
84561723|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.683|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.496|-0.683|
84561724|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.406|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.505|-0.406|
84561725|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.193|0.707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.707|-0.193|
84561726|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.302|0.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.485|-0.302|
84561727|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.768|-0.107|
84748865|NCT02901041|169251803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||||1.83|-13.43|.13
84561728|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.653|-0.087|
84561729|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||1.000|-0.024|
84561730|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.356|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.768|-0.356|
84561731|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.656|-0.410|
84561732|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.818|-0.025|
84561733|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.523|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.368|-0.523|
84606894|NCT02117349|168965001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.8|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|401.0||Study was terminated early at 55 randomized subjects, therefore p-value is considered nominal|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) and Wald-based 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) are from logistic regression model comparing the response between treatment arms.||401.0|4.58|= 0.0010
84606895|NCT02033213|168965013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.410
84748866|NCT02901041|169251804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.06|198.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.32,df=61.00||||198.20|-144.06|.75
84561734|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.661|-0.154|
84561735|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.564|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.315|-0.564|
84561736|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.897|0.019|
84561737|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.043|0.792|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.792|0.043|
84561738|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.893|0.150|
84561739|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.172|0.888|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.888|0.172|
84561740|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.782|-0.069|
84561741|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.503|-0.328|
84561742|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.812|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.812|0.000|
84561743|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.047|0.802|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.802|-0.047|
84748867|NCT02901041|169251805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.05||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.11|309.21|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.95, df=46.00||||309.21|-111.11|.35
84748868|NCT02901041|169251806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.67, df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.40|-1.69|.51
84748869|NCT02901041|169251807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.61,df=36||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.98|-1.82|.55
84748870|NCT02901041|169251808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|4.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.07,df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||4.45|-4.15|.95
84495018|NCT00423137|168740260|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-13453.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16118.0||0.4121|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4121
84495019|NCT00423137|168740261|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-78.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|298.91||0.7948|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.7948
84495020|NCT00423137|168740262|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0640
84495021|NCT00423137|168740263|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0587|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0587
84495022|NCT01797458|168740280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Twenty-five teeth experienced at least one 'Minor' failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, and secondary caries): NRCT 9 (6.4%), CR 14 (10%), HT 2 (1.4%).|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was no difference at 2 yrs among any of the 3 arms for the primary outcome of success or minor failure.||||0.02
84561744|NCT02187029|168874897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.949|0.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.502|-0.949|
84561745|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|316.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.91|611.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||611.88|21.91|
84561746|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-94.87|218.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||218.82|-94.87|
84561747|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|287.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||287.11|-71.20|
84748871|NCT02901041|169251809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|11.62|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.82, df=38.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||11.62|-4.93|.42
84561748|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|433.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.3|808.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||808.13|58.30|
84561749|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|125.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-208.07|234.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||234.47|-208.07|
84561750|NCT02187029|168874898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.26|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||225.60|-285.26|
84748872|NCT02901041|169251810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.8||Equal variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.39, df=36.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.80|-0.15|.17
84748873|NCT02901041|169251811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.53, df=24.05||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.97|-0.14|0.14
84748874|NCT02901041|169251812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.16||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.51,df=39.34||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||7.16|-1.03|.14
84495023|NCT04753606|168740294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
84495024|NCT04753606|168740294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
84748875|NCT02901041|169251813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|10.75||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.85, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||10.75|-4.39|.40
84495025|NCT04753606|168740295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
84495026|NCT04753606|168740295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
84495027|NCT04753606|168740296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
84495028|NCT04753606|168740296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
84748876|NCT02901041|169251814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.81||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.97, df=38.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.81|-0.01|.06
84561751|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||6.17|0.71|
84561752|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.37|1.97|
84561753|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||9.96|6.24|
84561754|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.65|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||16.59|9.65|
84561755|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.49|30.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||30.49|25.49|
84561756|NCT02187029|168874899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.14|31.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||31.41|26.14|
84561757|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||3.10|-1.31|
84561758|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.11|0.71|
84561759|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||5.85|1.33|
84561760|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||4.31|-1.29|
84561761|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.57|10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.89|4.57|
84561762|NCT02187029|168874900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||12.23|5.91|
84561763|NCT00264290|168874902|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84561764|NCT01188668|168874938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.39|110.76|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||110.76|101.39|
84561765|NCT01188668|168874939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.94|109.87|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||109.87|92.94|
84748877|NCT02901041|169251815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t=.06, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.05|-1.00|.96
84561766|NCT01188668|168874944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|102.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|112.46|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||112.46|94.21|
84561767|NCT01188668|168874945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.97|111.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||111.85|100.97|
84561768|NCT01124370|168874989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was conducted using a 0.05 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in AHI from baseline.||||<.001
84561769|NCT00073008|168874998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|34.5||||||95.0|13.7|55.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||55.4|13.7|
84561770|NCT00073008|168874998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|19.7||||||95.0|2.9|36.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||36.4|2.9|
84561771|NCT00073008|168874999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|27.1||||||95.0|11.9|42.3|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||42.3|11.9|
84561772|NCT00073008|168874999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|18.3||||||95.0|3.9|32.6|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||32.6|3.9|
84561773|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||15 minutes after exposure||||0.58
84561774|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour and 15 minutes after exposure||||0.39
84561775|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Hours 15 minutes after exposure||||.51
84561776|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 hours, 15 minutes after exposure||||.36
84561777|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 day after exposure||||.86
84561778|NCT00808470|168875014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 week after exposure||||.24
84561779|NCT01454414|168875034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Protective effectiveness= 1 - rate ratio|0.646||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.824|||Poisson regression|||Protective effectiveness (1 - the incidence rate ratio) and 95% CIs for comparing reported tick bites between the treatment and control groups were calculated using a GEE model with a Poisson distribution and log link, and included terms for treatment, year of follow-up, and the interaction of treatment and year of follow-up, with an offset variable for log outdoor work hours.||0.824|0.288|0.004
84561780|NCT00856843|168875088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in success rates|8.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|0.9|0.038
84561781|NCT00856843|168875089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84561782|NCT00856843|168875090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
84561783|NCT00856843|168875091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.644
84561784|NCT00856843|168875092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
84561785|NCT00856843|168875093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.173
84561786|NCT00856843|168875094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84495029|NCT04753606|168740297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
84495030|NCT04753606|168740297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
84495031|NCT04753606|168740298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
84495032|NCT04753606|168740298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
84495033|NCT04753606|168740299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
84495034|NCT04753606|168740299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
84495035|NCT04753606|168740300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
84495036|NCT04753606|168740300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
84495037|NCT04753606|168740301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
84495038|NCT04753606|168740301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
84495039|NCT04753606|168740302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
84561787|NCT00856843|168875095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84561788|NCT00856843|168875096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84561789|NCT00856843|168875097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.013
84495040|NCT04753606|168740302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
84495041|NCT04753606|168740303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
84495042|NCT04753606|168740303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
84495043|NCT04753606|168740304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
84495044|NCT04753606|168740304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
84495045|NCT04753606|168740305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
84495046|NCT04753606|168740305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
84495047|NCT04753606|168740306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
84495048|NCT04753606|168740306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
84495049|NCT04753606|168740307|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
84495050|NCT04753606|168740307|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
84495051|NCT04753606|168740308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
84495052|NCT04753606|168740308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
84561790|NCT00856843|168875098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
84561791|NCT01133704|168875147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable, stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T)|||1.70|0.69|0.719
84561792|NCT01133704|168875148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable, and stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T).|||2.07|0.78|0.331
84606896|NCT02033213|168965013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.621
84561793|NCT03372382|168875149|EQUIVALENCE|We prespecified an equivalence margin of -10 to 10mm. We would consider non-opioid analgesia to be equivalent to opioid analgesia if the pain score mean difference between the groups and it's 95% confidence interval (CI) were within the prespecified margin. Pain score mean difference or 95% CI boundaries outside this range would be considered a clinically important difference between treatments|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.9|||||The upper boundary of the CI is out of pre-specified limits.|Sample size calculations were based on VAS pain score at 2-4 weeks, assuming a mean of 10mm and standard deviation (SD) of 20 mm in the opioid group Assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power to detect equivalence, a total of 138 participants would be needed. To account for a 25% expected attrition rate and crossover, a total of 170 participants would be needed.||11.9|-2.1|
84748878|NCT02901041|169251816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|9.64|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.53,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||9.64|-5.58|.60
84561794|NCT03479008|168875155|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the thigh comparison baseline to during stimulation||||<0.0001
84561795|NCT03479008|168875155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the calf comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.0001
84561796|NCT03479008|168875155|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This statistical analysis presents the data for the biceps comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.001
84748879|NCT02901041|169251817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.27, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.15|.21
84561797|NCT03479008|168875156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||The P value below applies to the VO2||||<0.0001
84561798|NCT03479008|168875156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||This p value applies to the VCO2||||<0.001
84561799|NCT03479008|168875157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
84561800|NCT03479008|168875158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
84561801|NCT03479008|168875159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||0.094
84561802|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for Muscle bellies of Soleus (SO)||||0.011
84670746|NCT02932904|169075068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.51||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.51|1.25|0.002
84561803|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for tibialis anterior (TA)||||0.012
84561804|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for gastrocnemius lateralis (GL)||||0.003
84561805|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus medialis (VM)||||<0.001
84561806|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus lateralis (VL)||||<0.0001
84561807|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for rectus femoris (RF)||||0.59
84748880|NCT02901041|169251818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.74,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.04|-0.60|.09
84748881|NCT02901041|169251819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.69, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.07|-0.78|.10
84748882|NCT02901041|169251820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.25,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.19|-0.15|0.80
84561808|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for semitendinosus (ST)||||0.86
84561809|NCT03479008|168875160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for deltoideus medius||||0.006
84561810|NCT02259400|168875164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of sample size we used the duration of ventilation as the main primary outcome. As no basic data are available for this population, we were able to retrieve from the database of our two NICUs the duration of ventilation on NIV. We assumed a difference of 24-h between the two groups in the duration of NIV as clinically relevant. We used a confidence level α=0.05; the power level desired was 0.80 and consequently we needed 62 patients for each group.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84561811|NCT02384538|168875178|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.944|4.99||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.990|-1.944|0.386
84748883|NCT02901041|169251821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.34|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.84,df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.34|-14.56|.41
84748884|NCT03249714|169251831|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.232|||negative binominal regression model|||||0.232|0.018|<0.001
84561812|NCT02384538|168875180|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.55||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.214|8.308||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||8.308|-3.214|0.383
84561813|NCT02384538|168875181|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.979||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.979|-0.677|0.719
84561814|NCT02384538|168875182|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.448|13.945||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.945|-5.448|0.387
84561815|NCT02384538|168875183|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|1.272||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.272|-0.373|0.281
84561816|NCT02384538|168875184|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.336||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.336|-0.300|0.212
84561817|NCT02872909|168875185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.54||calculated as \<0.05 for 85% power|t-test, 2 sided|Analysed on log transformed data||Sample size requirement estimation - Preliminary data showed pain scores of 1.25 with ambulatory PDT (n=12) and 5.26 (SD 2.38) for conventional PDT (n=50). Estimated that for 85% power to detect as significant at 5% level a difference in mean pain score in one group of 2cm compared with 4 cm in the other group, assuming two-sided testing, a minimum of 45 subjects needed. We aimed for 50 subjects, with an allocation ratio of 2 (twice as many randomised to ambulatory PDT as conventional PDT)||2.54|0.71|<0.05
84561818|NCT02872909|168875188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84561819|NCT00809094|168875195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change in human neutrophil activity measured from baseline to end of the study (24 weeks)||0.48|-0.07|0.14
84561820|NCT01535443|168875202|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Traza Pillai|The test was performed with degrees of freedom: 2||||||.374
84561821|NCT02620683|168875214|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-5.86|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||for a cross over design difference in blood level was calculate buffered lidocaine minus non-buffered lidocaine|The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||-5.86|-34.6|0.006
84561822|NCT02620683|168875215|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using ProcTTEST (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||0.13|-1.46|0.096
84561823|NCT02620683|168875216|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||1|-4|0.23
84561824|NCT03299101|168875245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in grip strength across all 4 time points.||||0.872
84561825|NCT03299101|168875245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.423
84561826|NCT03299101|168875245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.853
84561827|NCT03299101|168875245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
84561828|NCT03299101|168875246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.256
84561829|NCT03299101|168875246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.091
84606897|NCT02033213|168965014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.791
84748885|NCT03249714|169251832|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.136||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.513||Statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level|negative binomial regression|||||0.513|0.036|0.003
84670747|NCT02932904|169075068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.73||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.73|-0.47|0.129
84670748|NCT02932904|169075069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.43||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||6.43|2.19|<0.001
84561830|NCT03299101|168875246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.066
84561831|NCT03299101|168875246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
84561832|NCT03299101|168875247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.003
84561833|NCT03299101|168875247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.003
84561834|NCT03299101|168875247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.005
84561835|NCT03299101|168875247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.290
84561836|NCT03299101|168875248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in maximal inspiratory pressure across all 4 time points.||||0.009
84561837|NCT03299101|168875248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.006
84561838|NCT03299101|168875248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.015
84561839|NCT03299101|168875248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.802
84670749|NCT02932904|169075069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.17||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.17|0.95|0.005
84561840|NCT03299101|168875249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in Mean MEP across all 4 time points.||||0.010
84561841|NCT03299101|168875249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.004
84561842|NCT03299101|168875249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.042
84561843|NCT03299101|168875249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
84748886|NCT03249714|169251832|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||negative binominal regression|Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level.||||0.000|0.000|< 0.001
84606898|NCT02033213|168965014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.410
84606899|NCT02033213|168965015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement aws assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.322
84606900|NCT02033213|168965015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.574
84606901|NCT02033213|168965016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.030
84606902|NCT02033213|168965016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.096
84606903|NCT02033213|168965017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.362
84606904|NCT02033213|168965018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.020
84561844|NCT03299101|168875250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.814
84561845|NCT03299101|168875250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.91||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.734
84748887|NCT03249714|169251833|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.284||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||negative binominal regression|||||0.620|0.130|0.002
84748888|NCT03249714|169251834|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.42||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|1.25|||negative binominal regression|||||1.250|0.141|0.119
84561846|NCT03299101|168875250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.12||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.341
84606905|NCT03474081|168965028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.128||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.128|0.062|<0.001
84606906|NCT03474081|168965029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.15||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.150|0.094|<0.001
84606907|NCT03474081|168965030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.118||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.118|0.056|<0.001
84606908|NCT01058941|168965041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.13||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADL changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||3.13|-3.97|0.82
84606909|NCT01058941|168965042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.46||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADAS-cog changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||-1.46|-5.90|0.001
84606910|NCT02739321|168965074|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesized benchmark of 30%|Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84606911|NCT02739321|168965075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84606912|NCT02739321|168965076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84606913|NCT02739321|168965077|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
84606914|NCT02739321|168965078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.058
84606915|NCT02739321|168965079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84606916|NCT02739321|168965080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.232
84606917|NCT02739321|168965081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
84606918|NCT02739321|168965082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
84606919|NCT02739321|168965083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
84606920|NCT02739321|168965084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
84606921|NCT02739321|168965085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.471
84606922|NCT02739321|168965086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84748889|NCT01996813|169251843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.115||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.034||The exact p-value was estimated|Regression, Logistic|The method was exact logistic regression||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of a cerebral desaturation event between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||1.034|0.002|.0553
84561847|NCT03299101|168875250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.61||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.448
84561848|NCT03299101|168875251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.419
84561849|NCT03299101|168875251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.03||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.439
84561850|NCT03299101|168875251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.069
84561851|NCT03299101|168875251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.96||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.328
84561852|NCT03299101|168875252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in serum prealbumin across all 4 time points.||||0.196
84561853|NCT03299101|168875252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.562
84561854|NCT03299101|168875252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.087
84561855|NCT03299101|168875252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.226
84670750|NCT04534764|169075074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.006|-0.039|
84748890|NCT01996813|169251844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|60.39|||t-test, 2 sided|A Satterthwaite correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the average length of surgery between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||60.39|20.22|<.001
84748891|NCT00655863|169251846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-307.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-443.168|-171.29||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD and placebo groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curver for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-171.290|-443.168|<0.001
84561856|NCT03299101|168875253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in gait speed across all 4 time points.||||0.001
84561857|NCT03299101|168875253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.001
84561858|NCT03299101|168875253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.001
84561859|NCT03299101|168875253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.874
84561860|NCT03299101|168875254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SPPB across all 4 time points.||||0.854
84561861|NCT03299101|168875254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.298|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.298
84561862|NCT03299101|168875254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.684|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.684
84606923|NCT02739321|168965087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84606924|NCT02739321|168965088|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of mattress technology was 5.61 (SE = 0.25).|||
84670751|NCT04534764|169075074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.031|-0.014|
84561863|NCT03299101|168875254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.485
84561864|NCT03299101|168875255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in RAI across all 4 time points.||||0.067
84561865|NCT03299101|168875255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.089
84561866|NCT03299101|168875255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.006
84561867|NCT03299101|168875255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
84561868|NCT03299101|168875256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SGA across all 4 time points.||||0.860
84561869|NCT03299101|168875256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.410
84670752|NCT03161483|169075075|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|11.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.00|-6.57|0.214
84561870|NCT03299101|168875256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.622|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.622
84561871|NCT03299101|168875256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.757
84561872|NCT03299101|168875257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test across all 4 time points.||||0.362
84561873|NCT03299101|168875257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.06||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and day of surgery.||||.203
84606925|NCT02739321|168965089|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of actigraph watch was 5.51 (SE = 0.13).|||
84606926|NCT02739321|168965090|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely difficult, 7 = extremely easy) that was used to rate ease of use.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported ease of us of the mattress technology was 6.04 (SE = 0.15).|||
84561874|NCT03299101|168875257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.357
84561875|NCT03299101|168875257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.163|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.163
84606927|NCT02739321|168965091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84670753|NCT03161483|169075075|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.0||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|19.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.48|-9.77|0.512
84670754|NCT03161483|169075075|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|33.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.42|4.12|0.011
84670755|NCT03161483|169075076|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|10.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|27.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.97|-7.66|0.264
84561876|NCT03299101|168875258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across all 4 time points.||||0.068
84561877|NCT03299101|168875258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.043
84561878|NCT03299101|168875258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.092
84561879|NCT03299101|168875258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.292
84561880|NCT03299101|168875259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across both time points.||||0.625
84670756|NCT03161483|169075076|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.00|-8.45|0.399
84670757|NCT03161483|169075076|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|33.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.36|4.01|0.012
84561881|NCT03836209|168875266|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.071||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.205|0.062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.062|-0.205|0.366
84561882|NCT03836209|168875267|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.059||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|0.073||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.073|-0.191|0.446
84561883|NCT03836209|168875268|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.047||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.084|0.178||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.178|-0.084|0.539
84561884|NCT03836209|168875269|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.131||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.242||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.242|0.020|0.042
84561885|NCT01753115|168875274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of AUC|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|0.948||||||Analysis of Ciprofloxacin Area Under the Curve at Day 5 and Day 44.||0.948|0.831|
84561886|NCT01753115|168875274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Cmax|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.046||||||Analysis of Cmax at Day 5 and Day 44||1.046|0.852|
84561887|NCT01753115|168875275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.67.|Ratio of GMT|1.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.787||||||||1.787|0.898|
84561888|NCT01461473|168875319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Analysis of covariance (GLM)|||These data were analyzed using an analysis of covariance via general linear model (GLM). The GLM has an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA plus covariates for baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline NMAP. The primary hypothesis tested is that the 2-month means differ between study arms, after adjustment for the above covariates. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.2067
84561889|NCT01461473|168875320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||GLMM|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3902
84561890|NCT01461473|168875321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9319|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.9319
84561891|NCT01461473|168875322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3895
84561892|NCT01461473|168875323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3449
84561893|NCT01461473|168875324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1531|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.1531
84670758|NCT03161483|169075077|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|24.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|53.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.11|-12.38|0.446
84670759|NCT03161483|169075077|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|39.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.38|-27.64|>0.999
84670760|NCT03161483|169075077|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|14.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|44.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.48|-19.54|0.488
84670761|NCT03161483|169075078|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.4||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|24.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.07|-2.74|0.092
84561894|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in SBP|t- tests were done to compare group mean differences between self-management and usual care and within groups Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.72
84561895|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in DBP|Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.15
84561896|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in SBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||0.01
84561897|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group.||||<0.05
84561898|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||<0.01
84561899|NCT03224624|168875338|EQUIVALENCE|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within usual care group.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|||||0.34
84561900|NCT01884545|168875341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1073
84561901|NCT01884545|168875341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
84561902|NCT01884545|168875342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6732
84608448|NCT01294163|168967862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Xenon was to be concluded non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the prespecified margin of 0.63 ng/mL. Assuming a margin of 0.63, a same concentration of troponin I at 24 hours in the xenon and sevoflurane groups, a common standard deviation of 1.9 ng/mL and a one-sided type I error of 0.025, 164 patients per group were deemed necessary to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95%CI assessed using ANCOVA with 24h troponin I as response, treatment group and pre-induction troponin I as covariates.||||0.47|-1.27|0.02
84748892|NCT00655863|169251846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-253.711|||<|0.001||95.0|-394.161|-113.262||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD + Pioglitazone 30 mg QD and placebo QD groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curve for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-113.262|-394.161|<0.001
84561903|NCT01884545|168875342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3754
84561904|NCT01884545|168875343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.853||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|6.139|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.139|1.326|0.0073
84670762|NCT03161483|169075078|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.3||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.06|-18.43|0.434
84561905|NCT01884545|168875343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.183|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.183|0.5|0.9068
84561906|NCT01884545|168875344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
84561907|NCT01884545|168875344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
84561908|NCT01884545|168875345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7985
84561909|NCT01884545|168875345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1642
84561910|NCT01884545|168875346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8027
84561911|NCT01884545|168875346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7751|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7751
84561912|NCT01884545|168875347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5557|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5557
84561913|NCT01884545|168875347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7834|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7834
84561914|NCT01884545|168875348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1439
84561915|NCT01884545|168875348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2275|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2275
84670763|NCT03161483|169075078|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|8.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.65|-3.88|0.182
84561916|NCT01884545|168875349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7639|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7639
84561917|NCT01884545|168875349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9999
84561918|NCT01884545|168875350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4673
84561919|NCT01884545|168875350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2297
84561920|NCT01884545|168875351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2192
84561921|NCT01884545|168875351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9062|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9062
84561922|NCT01884545|168875352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1466|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1466
84561923|NCT01884545|168875352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2070
84561924|NCT01884545|168875353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6289
84561925|NCT01884545|168875353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9631|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9631
84748893|NCT00712673|169251868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.312||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.312|-0.657|<0.0001
84748894|NCT00712673|169251868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.193||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.193|-0.540|<0.0001
84748895|NCT01122862|169251905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.03|-0.45|0.0915
84748896|NCT01122862|169251906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
84748897|NCT01122862|169251907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.21|-0.14|0.6682
84561926|NCT01884545|168875354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2313
84561927|NCT01884545|168875354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8029
84561928|NCT01884545|168875355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0710
84561929|NCT01884545|168875355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8069|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8069
84561930|NCT01884545|168875356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0512|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0512
84670764|NCT03161483|169075079|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|23.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.78|-2.98|0.098
84561931|NCT01884545|168875356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4478
84561932|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Consequences subscale||||0.7923
84561933|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Personal control||||0.0636
84561934|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Treatment control||||0.2063
84561935|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2529|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Emotional representations||||0.2529
84561936|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), Consequences subscale||||0.1085
84561937|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), personal control subscale||||0.3370
84561938|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3483|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), treatment control subscale||||0.3483
84561939|NCT01884545|168875359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5384|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), emotional representations||||0.5384
84748898|NCT01122862|169251907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.92|0.57|<0.0001
84748899|NCT01122862|169251908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.05|-0.44|0.1100
84748900|NCT01122862|169251908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.93|1.44|<0.0001
84748901|NCT01122862|169251909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.728||95.0|-0.16|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.23|-0.16|0.7280
84561940|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Consequences subscale||||0.7447
84561941|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6378|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Personal control||||0.6378
84561942|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3209|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Treatment control||||0.3209
84561943|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Emotional representations||||0.0058
84561944|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3769|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), Consequences subscale||||0.3769
84561945|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), personal control||||0.0872
84561946|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment control||||0.4302
84561947|NCT01884545|168875360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), emotional representations||||0.4133
84561948|NCT01884545|168875361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3106
84561949|NCT01884545|168875361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7087|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7087
84561950|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.034||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.094|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Weight reduction||2.094|0.511|0.9259
84670765|NCT03161483|169075079|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|8.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.92|-17.36|0.521
84561951|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.252||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.234|4.111|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Exercise behavior||4.111|1.234|0.0082
84561952|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Smoking behavior||2.120|0.084|0.2954
84561953|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.376|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Healthier eating behavior||2.376|0.622|0.5669
84561954|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.622||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Stress behavior||1.134|0.341|0.1210
84561955|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.872|||Regression, Logistic|||Weight reduction||1.872|0.461|0.8355
84561956|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||Exercise behavior||3.311|1.011|0.0459
84561957|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.563||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.629|||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking behavior||2.629|0.121|0.4650
84561958|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.808|||Regression, Logistic|||Healthier eating behavior||1.808|0.478|0.8303
84561959|NCT01884545|168875362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|2.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Stress behavior||2.439|0.744|0.3254
84561960|NCT01884545|168875363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0174
84561961|NCT01884545|168875363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8694
84561962|NCT01884545|168875364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4768
84561963|NCT01884545|168875364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8452|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8452
84561964|NCT01884545|168875365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|7.544|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.544|0.335|0.5589
84561965|NCT01424241|168875366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|300.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||None available.||||<0.05
84561966|NCT01424241|168875366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84561967|NCT02937636|168875374|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment, gender, smoking status and baseline MGI stratification as factors and baseline as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.07|-0.12|<.0001
84606928|NCT00897390|168965094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.075||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|1.009|
84561968|NCT00583011|168875386|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84561969|NCT04208412|168875391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||0.0010
84561970|NCT04208412|168875392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Prescott's Test|||||||0.0045
84561971|NCT04208412|168875393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||"Gehan's Generalized Wilcoxon Test:~600 mg KVD900 vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
84561972|NCT04208412|168875394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
84561973|NCT04208412|168875395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
84748902|NCT01122862|169251909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.08|0.68|<0.0001
84608449|NCT01294163|168967871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was to be concluded that xenon was non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the margin of 0.15 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As the residuals from the primary ANCOVA model were non-normal and skewed, the non-inferiority analysis was repeated using log-transformed blood troponin levels.||0.11|-0.30|0.0186
84670766|NCT03161483|169075079|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|18.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.55|-5.24|0.267
84748903|NCT02875977|169251948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|4.119|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of completing half of the recommended PFPT visits between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||4.119|0.782|0.17
84561974|NCT02259699|168875412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T1||||0.582
84608450|NCT01563172|168967872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.98||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||10.98|2.91|0.0008
84561975|NCT02259699|168875412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.053
84561976|NCT02259699|168875412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.288
84561977|NCT02259699|168875413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.087
84561978|NCT02259699|168875413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.910
84561979|NCT02259699|168875414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
84561980|NCT02259699|168875415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.071
84561981|NCT02259699|168875415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.332
84561982|NCT02259699|168875416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.177
84561983|NCT02259699|168875416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.745
84561984|NCT03658642|168875430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.43|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site and multiple covariates.||||2.43|0.61|0.58
84561985|NCT03658642|168875431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.47|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.47|0.43|0.95
84561986|NCT03658642|168875433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.16|1.11|0.01
84561987|NCT03658642|168875434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||1.57|0.91|0.48
84561988|NCT03658642|168875435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.14|0.81|0.27
84561989|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561990|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561991|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561992|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561993|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561994|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561995|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561996|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561997|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561998|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84561999|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84562000|NCT00524680|168875475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
84562001|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8244
84562002|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1025
84562003|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU.||||0.1744
84562004|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1281
84562005|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.9688
84562006|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
84562007|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8241
84562008|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1828
84562009|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1348
84562010|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.2214
84562011|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0079
84562012|NCT00524680|168875476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0631
84562013|NCT03078127|168875499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||No comparable preliminary data exists on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in response to airway clearance therapy methods (ACTs) for a power calculation. However, prior studies of medication effect on MCC gave a baseline mean change of Ave270 clr of 27.7% (std dev of 15.1%). Thus, the investigators estimated a mean change of 20% for effective ACT with the same estimate for variability (Std Dev of 15.1%). Using a paired 2-tailed test to compare means, 7 subjects were estimated to be needed.||||0.615
84562014|NCT03078127|168875500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.696
84562015|NCT03078127|168875502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The investigators compared FENO before and after ACT in a pooled manner (i.e., grouping each of the comparisons together), as the study was not powered for FENO comparisons within each ACT type.||||0.001
84562016|NCT03078127|168875502|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in FENO and Ave90Clr||||||0.692||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (i.e., slope different than zero) between MCC and FENO was 0.05|Regression, Linear|||if the difference between pre and post-ACT FENO was significant (defined as p\<0.05), it was investigated whether change in FENO correlated with MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr)||||0.692
84670767|NCT03161483|169075080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.5|-0.2|0.116
84670768|NCT03161483|169075080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-0.1|0.094
84562017|NCT03078127|168875503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.146
84562018|NCT03078127|168875504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.041
84562019|NCT03078127|168875504|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC and Ave90Clr||||||0.047||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||If the difference between pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC was significant (defined as p\<0.05), the correlation between change in adenosine concentration and MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr) was investigated.||||0.047
84562020|NCT03078127|168875505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.070
84562021|NCT01249833|168875522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-30.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||-0.1|-60.7|.0492
84562022|NCT01249833|168875523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.8||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.42|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||6.42|1.14|0.0054
84562023|NCT01249833|168875524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.9||||0.9685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-190.1|197.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||197.9|-190.1|.9685
84562024|NCT01249833|168875525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.9||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.7|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Alertness: the higher the value, the greater the alertness.||5.7|-1.9|.3195
84562025|NCT01249833|168875525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care AL one was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Calmness: the higher the value, the greater the calmness.||2.9|-4.1|.7219
84562026|NCT01249833|168875525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.3||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.4|||ANCOVA||The LS means of Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Contentedness: the higher the value, the greater the contentedness.||7.4|-.8|.1162
84562027|NCT03796676|168875526|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|16.7||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||29.9|3.5|0.0147
84562028|NCT03796676|168875526|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||33.9|7.3|0.0030
84562029|NCT03796676|168875527|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||39.8|13.1|0.0002
84562030|NCT03796676|168875527|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.5|16.3|<0.0001
84606929|NCT00897390|168965094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.019||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.019|0.958|
84608451|NCT01563172|168967873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.66||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||9.66|1.74|0.0049
84562031|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.7||||0.0119||95.0|3.5|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||25.9|3.5|0.0119
84562032|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||38.3|13.9|<0.0001
84562033|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|10.9||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||23.6|-1.8|0.0971
84562034|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.9|16.0|<0.0001
84562035|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||37.7|8.0|0.0035
84748904|NCT02875977|169251949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of initiating PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||1.014|0.314|0.056
84748905|NCT02875977|169251950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|The statistical test of the hypothesis excludes the three individuals with unknown PFPT discharge status||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of discharge from PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||2.110|0.517|0.90
84748906|NCT02875977|169251951|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|-1.4262||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Among those who initiated PFPT therapy, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the number of days to initiating PFPT therapy between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||||0.16
84748907|NCT02875977|169251952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5481||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6149|8.7028|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from pre-PFPT to post-PFPT UDI-6 scores between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||8.7028|-17.6149|0.50
84748908|NCT00679627|169251992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84748909|NCT00679627|169251993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.37|0.011
84748910|NCT00679627|169251994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84748911|NCT00679627|169251995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84748912|NCT00679627|169251998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
84562036|NCT03796676|168875528|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|25.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|40.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||40.6|10.6|0.0013
84748913|NCT00679627|169251998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Month 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.835
84562037|NCT03796676|168875529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||0.0|-1.1|0.0664
84670769|NCT03161483|169075080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||0.8|-0.6|0.881
84748914|NCT00679627|169251999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Orientation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
84670770|NCT03161483|169075081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|-0.4|0.160
84748915|NCT00679627|169251999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Registration subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.353
84748916|NCT00679627|169251999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Attention and Calculation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84562038|NCT03796676|168875529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0142
84562039|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.6797||95.0|-0.83|1.22|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.22|-0.83|0.6797
84562040|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.4811||95.0|-1.54|0.77|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.77|-1.54|0.4811
84748917|NCT00679627|169251999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||||||Recall subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
84748918|NCT00679627|169251999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Language subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
84748919|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Initiation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84748920|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||||||Planning and Organization subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84748921|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Effective Performance subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84748922|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Basic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84748923|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||||||Instrumental subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
84748924|NCT00679627|169252000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||Leisure subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
84748925|NCT02318797|169252004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||<0.0001
84748926|NCT02318797|169252004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.0019
84748927|NCT02318797|169252005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4103
84748928|NCT02318797|169252005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
84748929|NCT02318797|169252005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4068
84748930|NCT02318797|169252005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.2656
84748931|NCT02318797|169252006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4582
84748932|NCT02318797|169252006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
84748933|NCT02318797|169252006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.05
84748934|NCT02318797|169252006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1792|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.1792
84748935|NCT02318797|169252007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.2179
84748936|NCT02318797|169252007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
84748937|NCT02318797|169252007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4797|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4797
84748938|NCT02318797|169252007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.0014
84748939|NCT02318797|169252008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0058
84748940|NCT02318797|169252009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0014
84748941|NCT02318797|169252010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0001
84748942|NCT02318797|169252011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5566|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.5566
84748943|NCT02318797|169252011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
84748944|NCT02318797|169252012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.002
84562041|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.1693||95.0|-1.67|0.33|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.33|-1.67|0.1693
84562042|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.4034||95.0|-1.78|0.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline) , Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.87|-1.78|0.4034
84562043|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.1935||95.0|-2.36|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.50|-2.36|0.1935
84748945|NCT02318797|169252013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0029
84748946|NCT02318797|169252014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0021
84748947|NCT02318797|169252015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1183
84562044|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0694||95.0|-2.83|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.12|-2.83|0.0694
84562045|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713||0.0396||95.0|-3.02|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-3.02|0.0396
84562046|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.1531||95.0|-1.25|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 8 hours post-dose.||0.24|-1.25|0.1531
84562047|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.0951||95.0|-2.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 10 hours post-dose.||0.29|-2.79|0.0951
84748948|NCT02318797|169252015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.0569
84748949|NCT02318797|169252016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0745
84748950|NCT02318797|169252016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
84748951|NCT02318797|169252017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1653
84748952|NCT02318797|169252017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.1772
84748953|NCT02318797|169252018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||<0.0001
84748954|NCT02318797|169252019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0202
84748955|NCT02318797|169252020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.4715
84748956|NCT02318797|169252020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.9209
84748957|NCT00511472|169252035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.71|69.5|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-Breakfast for Titration Group 1||69.50|22.71|0.001
84748958|NCT00511472|169252035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.68|72.88|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-breakfast for Titration Group 2||72.88|27.68|<0.001
84748959|NCT00446992|169252041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||<0.001
84748960|NCT00446992|169252042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||.043
84748961|NCT00446992|169252043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.690
84748962|NCT00446992|169252044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Intervariate|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.691
84748963|NCT00446992|169252045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.877
84748964|NCT00446992|169252046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.003
84497544|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.6
84562048|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.0614||95.0|-2.84|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 12 hours post-dose.||0.09|-2.84|0.0614
84562049|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.1946||95.0|-2.29|0.54|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: pre-dose.||0.54|-2.29|0.1946
84562050|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.2843||95.0|-2.2|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||0.84|-2.20|0.2843
84562051|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.215||95.0|-2.75|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.65|-2.75|0.2150
84562052|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9601||95.0|-0.44|0.42|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.42|-0.44|0.9601
84562053|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.867||95.0|-0.64|0.74|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.74|-0.64|0.8670
84562054|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.9024||95.0|-0.94|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.84|-0.94|0.9024
84562055|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.9708||95.0|-0.67|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||0.65|-0.67|0.9708
84562056|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1078||95.0|-1.62|0.19|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.19|-1.62|0.1078
84562057|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.446||95.0|-1.28|0.61|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 8 hours post-dose.||0.61|-1.28|0.4460
84562058|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.5266||95.0|-1.13|0.62|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 10 hours post-dose.||0.62|-1.13|0.5266
84748965|NCT00446992|169252047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= .005
84748966|NCT00446992|169252048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.696
84748967|NCT00446992|169252049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.013
84495053|NCT04436497|168740309|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.307||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. zilucoplan slowed progression) was 0.2418. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by zilucoplan relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.307|0.874|
84495054|NCT04436497|168740311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.48|-4.66|0.5495
84562059|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.029||95.0|-1.29|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 12 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-1.29|0.0290
84562060|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.183||95.0|-2.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 24 hours post-dose.||0.45|-2.01|0.1830
84670771|NCT03161483|169075081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|0.0|0.056
84670772|NCT03161483|169075081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-1.0|0.621
84670773|NCT03161483|169075083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.5|-4.7|0.546
84670774|NCT03161483|169075083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.6||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.4|-3.7|0.681
84748968|NCT00406653|169252050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA 3mg/kg, \~10mg/kg, 30/\~10mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=91%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 25%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=45%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=99%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=25%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=55%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||2.4|0.6|0.611
84748969|NCT00406653|169252053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.44||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA mg/kg, \~10 mg/kg, 30/\~10 mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=80%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% signficance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=95%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=15%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=35%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||3.44|0.4|
84748970|NCT00406653|169252054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.436
84748971|NCT00406653|169252061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.112
84748972|NCT00953745|169252117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||paired t-test thresholded at cluster level significance of p=0.001; family-wise error multiple comparisons corrected|t-test, 1 sided|||A region of increased relative Fluorodopa (FDOPA) uptake in the right medial caudate was anticipated for the aripiprazole augmentation responders over the 6 weeks of augmentation treatment (Weeks 10-16).||||0.029
84748973|NCT00953745|169252118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84748974|NCT00953745|169252118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
84562061|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.9884||95.0|-0.9|0.91|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 36 hours post-dose.||0.91|-0.90|0.9884
84562062|NCT00978341|168875604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.8082||95.0|-0.87|0.69|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 48 hours post-dose.||0.69|-0.87|0.8082
84606930|NCT00897390|168965096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.013|1.077||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.077|1.013|
84562063|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.2101||95.0|-2.39|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 2. Combined analysis: values for the two patient groups were analyzed together using ANOVA and/or mixed models.||0.55|-2.39|0.2101
84562064|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.1065||95.0|-2.33|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 3.||0.24|-2.33|0.1065
84562065|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0697||95.0|-1.11|0.05|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 4.||0.05|-1.11|0.0697
84562066|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4589||95.0|-1.83|0.85|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 5.||0.85|-1.83|0.4589
84606931|NCT00897390|168965096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.022||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.022|0.962|
84606932|NCT00897390|168965097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.185||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.185|0.978|
84606933|NCT00897390|168965097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.083||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.083|0.900|
84670775|NCT03161483|169075083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||4.4|-1.6|0.350
84670776|NCT03161483|169075084|SUPERIORITY|\<= 7.5 mg/day|Stratified difference|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|15.91|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||15.91|-15.13|>0.999
84670777|NCT03161483|169075084|SUPERIORITY|\< 10 mg/day|Stratified difference|-3.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|13.0|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||13.00|-17.74|>0.999
84670778|NCT03161483|169075085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|2.8||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||11.6|-6.0|0.535
84670779|NCT03161483|169075085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|4.2||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||12.2|-3.9|0.309
84670780|NCT03161483|169075085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|6.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.1|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||14.1|-1.0|0.091
84670781|NCT00591942|169075137|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI were used|KM Survival Curves|0.5637||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.5637
84670782|NCT00694369|169075150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|"Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value~for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)."||||||<0.001
84670783|NCT00694369|169075150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
84748975|NCT00557947|169252130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|difference proportions of successes (%)|4.8||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||10.9|-0.0|0.2188
84748976|NCT00557947|169252131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||0.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84748977|NCT00557947|169252132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.3877
84562067|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742||0.1326||95.0|-2.69|0.38|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 6.||0.38|-2.69|0.1326
84562068|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.282||95.0|-2.45|0.9|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 7.||0.90|-2.45|0.2820
84562069|NCT00978341|168875605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.0108||95.0|-2.21|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 8.||-0.44|-2.21|0.0108
84562070|NCT00978341|168875606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.06||0.9068||95.0|-41.78|37.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 1: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||37.27|-41.78|0.9068
84562071|NCT00978341|168875606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.813||0.7807||95.0|-30.53|39.57|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: pre-dose (including Baseline).||39.57|-30.53|0.7807
84562072|NCT00978341|168875606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.526||0.2293||95.0|-61.79|16.78|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||16.78|-61.79|0.2293
84562073|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.3774||95.0|-0.54|1.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.27|-0.54|0.3774
84562074|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.4153||95.0|-0.33|0.7|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.70|-0.33|0.4153
84562075|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.147||95.0|-0.23|1.2|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||1.20|-0.23|0.1470
84562076|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1862||95.0|-1.18|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.29|-1.18|0.1862
84562077|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8321||95.0|-0.45|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.55|-0.45|0.8321
84562078|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.4251||95.0|-0.42|0.88|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.88|-0.42|0.4251
84670784|NCT00694369|169075150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.06||||||95.0|-1.37|1.48|||||Difference in Least squares means (LS Means) (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.48|-1.37|
84748978|NCT00557947|169252133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
84748979|NCT00557947|169252134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84748980|NCT03756129|169252135|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.67|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-4.83|-11.67|0.0013
84562079|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.6394||95.0|-0.53|0.8|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.80|-0.53|0.6394
84562080|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.9964||95.0|-0.68|0.68|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.68|-0.68|0.9964
84562081|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3638||95.0|-0.47|1.11|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.11|-0.47|0.3638
84562082|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1202||95.0|-0.15|0.99|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.99|-0.15|0.1202
84562083|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.1204||95.0|-0.19|1.39|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||1.39|-0.19|0.1204
84562084|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.4213||95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.93|-0.44|0.4213
84562085|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.6028||95.0|-0.34|0.56|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.56|-0.34|0.6028
84670785|NCT00694369|169075150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.43||||||95.0|-0.73|1.6|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.60|-0.73|
84748981|NCT03756129|169252135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-2.20|-9.22|0.0196
84748982|NCT03756129|169252136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.06|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.06|-11.06|0.0130
84748983|NCT03756129|169252136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.18|-11.57|0.0133
84495055|NCT04436497|168740312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|5.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||5.65|-7.73|0.7602
84562086|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.3624||95.0|-0.68|1.64|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||1.64|-0.68|0.3624
84748984|NCT03756129|169252137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.37|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||0.19|-10.37|0.1082
84495056|NCT04436497|168740313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6891|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6891
84748985|NCT03756129|169252137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.42||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.83|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||-0.02|-10.83|0.0993
84748986|NCT03756129|169252137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.78|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||-1.15|-11.78|0.0598
84748987|NCT03756129|169252137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.86|2.74|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||2.74|-8.86|0.2491
84748988|NCT04576455|169252154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.10|0.60|0.1757
84748989|NCT04576455|169252155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.60|0.85|0.3446
84748990|NCT04576455|169252156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||4.07|0.86|0.1126
84748991|NCT04576455|169252156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|12.78|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||12.78|-1.97|
84495057|NCT00750373|168740348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||We estimated that a sample size of 74 patients would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with respect to the primary end point at the 2-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming that the in-hospital event rate would be 23% in the conventional treatment group and 3% in the early surgery group.||||<0.05
84495058|NCT00634933|168740366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH), stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) use and geographic region, was used.||||0.061
84748992|NCT04576455|169252158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||3.04|1.06|0.0289
84748993|NCT04576455|169252158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rates|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|20.86|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||20.86|0.33|
84748994|NCT04576455|169252159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 mutation detected at baseline||1.03|0.35|0.0610
84748995|NCT04576455|169252159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 Mutation not detected at baseline||1.42|0.54|0.5947
84748996|NCT04576455|169252160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.40|0.58|
84748997|NCT04576455|169252161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.12|0.49|
84748998|NCT04576455|169252162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.35|0.53|
84748999|NCT04576455|169252163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.69|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.69|0.72|
84749000|NCT04576455|169252164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.18|0.47|
84749001|NCT01340196|169252170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|121.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.714|132.999|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||132.999|111.714|
84495059|NCT00634933|168740366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.120
84495060|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.570
84495061|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.200
84495062|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.616
84495063|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.671
84495064|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.108
84562087|NCT00978341|168875607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.3163||95.0|-0.52|1.49|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||1.49|-0.52|0.3163
84749002|NCT01340196|169252171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.215|105.29|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||105.290|85.215|
84749003|NCT01340196|169252172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|147.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||||90.0|134.482|160.943|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||160.943|134.482|
84562088|NCT00978341|168875608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.738||0.5919||95.0|-16.26|27.04|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1.||27.04|-16.26|0.5919
84562089|NCT00978341|168875608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.603||0.3981||95.0|-17.7|42.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||42.87|-17.70|0.3981
84562090|NCT00978341|168875608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.123||0.8314||95.0|-24.0|29.28|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||29.28|-24.00|0.8314
84606934|NCT00897390|168965100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.03||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.030|0.921|
84495065|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.174
84495066|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.010
84495067|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.029
84495068|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
84562091|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7569||95.0|-0.14|0.1|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.10|-0.14|0.7569
84562092|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4814||95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.13|-0.26|0.4814
84606935|NCT00897390|168965100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.966||||||90.0|0.915|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.915|
84670786|NCT00694369|169075150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus cetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|3.9||||||95.0|2.04|5.76|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.76|2.04|
84495069|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.021
84495070|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.062
84495071|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.049
84495072|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.030
84495073|NCT00634933|168740367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.005
84495074|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.014
84495075|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.025
84562093|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.6222||95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.23|-0.37|0.6222
84562094|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.3035||95.0|-0.35|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.12|-0.35|0.3035
84562095|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.1881||95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
84562096|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.3159||95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.24|-0.09|0.3159
84562097|NCT00978341|168875609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8203||95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.27|-0.22|0.8203
84562098|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.454
84606936|NCT00897390|168965101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.962||||||90.0|0.906|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.906|
84749004|NCT01340196|169252173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|85.15|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||85.15|71.24|
84749005|NCT01340196|169252174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.56|93.34|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||93.34|71.56|
84749006|NCT01340196|169252175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|75.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.71|82.45|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||82.45|68.71|
84749007|NCT00604279|169252196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predetermined margin for non-inferiority of paliperidone palmitate was 5.5 points|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||||95.0|-5.2|0.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.63|-5.20|
84749008|NCT00604279|169252197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||||95.0|-2.14|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||3.12|-2.14|
84749009|NCT00604279|169252198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.10|-0.33|
84749010|NCT00604279|169252199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||||95.0|-0.67|7.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Quality of sleep||7.50|-0.67|
84749011|NCT00604279|169252199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-5.04|2.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Daytime drowsiness||2.90|-5.04|
84749012|NCT00604279|169252200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate of relative risk|0.9||||||95.0|0.81|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.81|
84749013|NCT00601419|169252222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.556
84749014|NCT00601419|169252223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.845
84749015|NCT00601419|169252224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With TSH deficiency and Without TSH deficiency in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.038
84749016|NCT00601419|169252225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past history. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history and Without past history in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
84749017|NCT00601419|169252226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Initial Dose and the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.037
84749018|NCT00601419|169252226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of initial dose."||||=0.063
84749019|NCT00601419|169252228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years of age and \>=65 years of age in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.019
84749020|NCT00601419|169252229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between male and female in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=1.000
84749021|NCT00601419|169252230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was ACTH deficiency. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With ACTH deficiency and Without ACTH deficiency in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.037
84749022|NCT01786174|169252231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|9.96|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||9.96|-7.17|0.746
84749023|NCT01786174|169252232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.03|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||2.03|-1.53|0.780
84749024|NCT01786174|169252233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.99|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||3.99|-5.00|0.823
84749025|NCT01786174|169252235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|12.33|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||12.33|-3.78|0.294
84495076|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.794
84562099|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.402
84562100|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.901
84562101|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.540
84562102|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.523
84562103|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.260
84562104|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.139
84562105|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562106|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562107|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.464
84562108|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.007
84562109|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562110|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.411
84606937|NCT00897390|168965101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974||||||90.0|0.92|1.032||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.032|0.920|
84495077|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.966
84562111|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562112|NCT03035916|168875612|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84670787|NCT00694369|169075150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|4.27||||||95.0|2.61|5.94|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.94|2.61|
84562113|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.412
84562114|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.592
84562115|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.796
84562116|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.576
84562117|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.427
84670788|NCT00694369|169075150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.38||||||95.0|-1.8|1.05|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib 120 mg minus etoricoxib 90 mg)|||1.05|-1.80|
84749026|NCT02245672|169252243|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84562118|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.201
84749027|NCT02245672|169252243|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established.For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84749028|NCT02245672|169252244|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.237|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for the FEV1 AUEC0-12 clinical endpoint|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.237|1.016|
84749029|NCT02245672|169252245|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84749030|NCT02245672|169252245|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84749031|NCT02245672|169252246|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.22|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for change from baseline in trough FEV1 endpoint on Day 29|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.220|0.938|
84749032|NCT01215422|169252263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.15||||Regression, Logistic||||||0.15|>0.05
84749033|NCT01215422|169252264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The p-value represents the comparison of the two interventions combined and compared against baseline for Grades III and IV summed together.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84749034|NCT01215422|169252267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.16|||>|0.05||95.0||||Correlation between years of experience (all anesthesiologists, pooled) and time to intubation (both GS and KS VLSs, pooled)|Correlation|||||||>0.05
84749035|NCT06336603|169252270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
84749036|NCT06336603|169252271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
84749037|NCT06336603|169252272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
84495078|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.770
84670789|NCT00694369|169075150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|10.59||||||95.0|8.72|12.47|||||Difference in LS Means (ibuprofen 2400 mg minus placebo)|||12.47|8.72|
84749038|NCT02113241|169252297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
84749039|NCT02113241|169252297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.089
84749040|NCT02113241|169252298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.003
84749041|NCT02113241|169252298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.248
84749042|NCT02113241|169252299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.161
84749043|NCT02113241|169252299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.079
84749044|NCT02113241|169252300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.067
84749045|NCT02113241|169252300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.918
84749046|NCT02113241|169252301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.128
84749047|NCT02113241|169252301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
84749048|NCT02113241|169252302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.433
84562119|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.872
84562120|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562121|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562122|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.165
84562123|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562124|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562125|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.305
84562126|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562127|NCT03035916|168875613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562128|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.673
84562129|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.824
84562130|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.547
84562131|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.303
84562132|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.026
84562133|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.002
84562134|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
84562135|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562136|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562137|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.069
84562138|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562139|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562140|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.561
84608452|NCT01563172|168967874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-6.94||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-6.94|-14.77|<0.0001
84670790|NCT00694369|169075150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.75||||||95.0|4.53|8.97|||||Difference in LS Means (acetaminophen 2400 mg/codeine 240 mg minus placebo)|||8.97|4.53|
84749049|NCT02113241|169252302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.407
84495079|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.456
84495080|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.880
84495081|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.814
84495082|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.042
84495083|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.035
84495084|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.086
84562141|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562142|NCT03035916|168875614|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562143|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.249
84495085|NCT00634933|168740368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.082
84495086|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.325
84495087|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.338
84495088|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.983
84495089|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.296
84608453|NCT01563172|168967875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.54||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-5.54|-13.68|<0.0001
84670791|NCT00694369|169075151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant).||||||<0.001
84495090|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.575
84495091|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||1.000
84495092|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.573
84495093|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.563
84495094|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.768
84495095|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.977
84495096|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.249
84495097|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.268
84495098|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.089
84495099|NCT00634933|168740369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.079
84495100|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.106
84495101|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.322
84495102|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.059
84495103|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.250
84495104|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.255
84562144|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.091
84749050|NCT02113241|169252303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
84562145|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.493
84562146|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.067
84562147|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
84562148|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
84562149|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
84562150|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84606938|NCT00897390|168965102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.016||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.016|0.864|
84670792|NCT00694369|169075151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
84670793|NCT00694369|169075151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used, and the nominal p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was not reported.||||||0.161
84495105|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.105
84562151|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562152|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."|t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.314
84670794|NCT00694369|169075151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.014
84749051|NCT02113241|169252303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.826
84749052|NCT02113241|169252304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.791
84495106|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.001
84495107|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.019
84495108|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.011
84495109|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.113
84562153|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562154|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562155|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.087
84562156|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
84749053|NCT02113241|169252304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.413
84749054|NCT02113241|169252305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.075
84749055|NCT02113241|169252305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.432
84749056|NCT02113241|169252306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
84562157|NCT03035916|168875615|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84749057|NCT02113241|169252306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.835
84749058|NCT02113241|169252307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
84749059|NCT02113241|169252307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.778
84749060|NCT02113241|169252308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.338
84495110|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.002
84562158|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.384
84562159|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.530
84562160|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.819
84495111|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
84562161|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.108
84562162|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.667
84562163|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.046
84749061|NCT02113241|169252308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.309
84749062|NCT02113241|169252309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.049
84749063|NCT02113241|169252309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.563
84749064|NCT02113241|169252310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.850
84749065|NCT02113241|169252310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.206
84749066|NCT02113241|169252311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.006
84749067|NCT02113241|169252311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.950
84749068|NCT02113241|169252312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.011
84749069|NCT02113241|169252312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
84749070|NCT02113241|169252313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.652
84749071|NCT02113241|169252313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.055
84749072|NCT02113241|169252314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.254
84749073|NCT02113241|169252314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.787
84749074|NCT02113241|169252315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.129
84749075|NCT02113241|169252315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.365
84749076|NCT02113241|169252316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
84749077|NCT02113241|169252316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.175
84606939|NCT00897390|168965102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.042||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.042|0.891|
84606940|NCT03159104|168965114|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|The difference between final and initial total scholastic skill score was calculated for each participant. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of these differences because data distribution differs from normal.||9|1|0.0113
84606941|NCT03159104|168965115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||5|0|0.0608
84606942|NCT03159104|168965116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||0|0|0.0824
84606943|NCT03159104|168965117|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||1|0|0.2391
84670795|NCT00694369|169075151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.007
84562164|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.006
84749078|NCT02113241|169252317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.392
84749079|NCT02113241|169252317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.123
84562165|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.406
84562166|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.042
84562167|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.655
84562168|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.262
84562169|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.143
84749080|NCT02113241|169252318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.176
84749081|NCT02113241|169252318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.268
84562170|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.494
84562171|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
84562172|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
84562173|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
84562174|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.411
84606944|NCT03159104|168965118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0033
84749082|NCT02113241|169252319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.064
84749083|NCT02113241|169252319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.462
84749084|NCT02113241|169252320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.346
84749085|NCT02113241|169252320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.002
84606945|NCT03159104|168965119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
84749086|NCT02434939|169252329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a clinically significant difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3. assuming both treatments are on average equal, 240 patients provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV low dose ketamine is non inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.2|-2.2|0.18
84562175|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.167
84562176|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.445
84562177|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.489
84562178|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.159
84562179|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.720
84562180|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.026
84562181|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.011
84562182|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.763
84562183|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.187
84562184|NCT03035916|168875616|OTHER|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.112
84562185|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
84749087|NCT02434939|169252332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A clinically meaningful difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3.Assuming both treatments are on average equal, a sample size of 240 patients (120 per group) provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV LDK is non-inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84749088|NCT03581825|169252333|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens are greater than 40 points.|Least-Square Mean|56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|61.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||61.4|51.2|
84562186|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
84562187|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.314
84562188|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.003
84562189|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.367
84562190|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.031
84562191|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.009
84562192|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.873
84562193|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.026
84562194|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.411
84562195|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.787
84562196|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.306
84749089|NCT03581825|169252334|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control was concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference was above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||7.4|-0.5|
84495112|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.034
84495113|NCT00634933|168740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.003
84495114|NCT02276274|168740385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-72) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
84562197|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.921
84562198|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
84495115|NCT02276274|168740386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
84495116|NCT02276274|168740387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0405|0.2769|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.2769|-0.0405|
84495117|NCT02276274|168740389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0598|0.032|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0320|-0.0598|
84495118|NCT02276274|168740404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0638|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-48) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0638|-0.0918|
84562199|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
84562200|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
84562201|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.058
84562202|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.166
84495119|NCT02276274|168740405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0934|0.0605|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0605|-0.0934|
84670796|NCT02907359|169075158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19||OS between Guadecitabine vs Treatment Choice using stratified log-rank test. Due to pre-specified hierarchical testing plan, other endpoints were not evaluated for statistical significance.|Stratified Log-rank test|||||1.19|0.74|0.6063
84670797|NCT00746941|169075199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7132|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.7132
84670798|NCT00746941|169075200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9086|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.9086
84670799|NCT04654117|169075228|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel model predicting the effect of the overall consultation model on manual adherence, averaged across clinicians.|unstandardized beta|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
84670800|NCT04654117|169075229|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
84670801|NCT04654117|169075230|OTHER|multilevel modeling|multilevel modeling|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel modeling|||||||<.05
84670802|NCT04654117|169075231|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA|17.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84495120|NCT02276274|168740407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2356|-0.068|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||-0.0680|-0.2356|
84495121|NCT02276274|168740409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.095|0.0591|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0591|-0.0950|
84670803|NCT04654117|169075232|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
84670804|NCT04654117|169075233|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model (beta)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
84670805|NCT04007523|169075252|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.653|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.653
84670806|NCT04007523|169075252|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.614|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.614
84670807|NCT04007523|169075252|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
84670808|NCT02531321|169075323|OTHER|Unpaired t test with Welch's correction|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84670809|NCT00082433|169075369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0005||95.0|0.69|0.9|||Log Rank|||The analysis was conducted when 903 progressions or deaths (446 in combination:457 in capecitabine) were observed in 960 participants.||.90|.69|.0005
84670810|NCT00082433|169075370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.50|1.44|<.0001
84606946|NCT01742065|168965120|SUPERIORITY|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclinic correlation coefficient was 0.05 after model covariates adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.8||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||6.8|.1|.05
84606947|NCT01742065|168965121|OTHER|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.05 after covariable adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||7|.6|.02
84670811|NCT00082433|169075374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||<0.0001
84749090|NCT01668667|169252335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.52|-4.62|0.014
84495122|NCT03522506|168740445|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The least squares mean (LSM) sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|Least square mean difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.35|26.77|||Linear mixed effect model|||||26.77|13.35|<0.001
84495123|NCT03522506|168740445|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|24.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.64|31.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||31.06|17.64|<0.001
84495124|NCT03522506|168740445|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM Difference|19.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.49|||Linear mixed effects model|||||26.49|13.30|<0.001
84562203|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.288
84562204|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.299
84562205|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.051
84562206|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.186
84562207|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.555
84670812|NCT00082433|169075375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1162||95.0|0.78|1.03||The test was stratified by (taxane resistance \[yes/no\], measurable disease versus non-measurable disease, prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease \[yes/no\], and anthracycline resistance \[yes/no\]).|Log Rank|The analysis was conducted at the 0.05 level and no adjustments were performed||This primary analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided, α=0.05 level log-rank test (to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival). The analysis was conducted when 880 deaths (430 in combination:450 in capecitabine) were observed from the 1221 randomized participants.||1.03|.78|.1162
84670813|NCT00082433|169075375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0231||95.0|0.75|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This prespecified secondary analysis was a Cox model adjusted for age, Karnofsky performance status, number of organ sites, estrogen receptor status, hepatic impairment, time from diagnosis, liver/lung metastases.||.98|.75|.0231
84562208|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.065
84606948|NCT02440789|168965124|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.56
84606949|NCT02440789|168965126|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.11
84606950|NCT02440789|168965128|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test; results less than the analysis lower limit (0.7 cp/mL) were imputed to a value of one half the analysis lower limit.||||||0.93
84606951|NCT02440789|168965130|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.041
84495125|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.2||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.13|0.664
84562209|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.168
84562210|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.739
84562211|NCT03035916|168875617|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
84562212|NCT03035916|168875618|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
84562213|NCT03035916|168875618|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84606952|NCT02440789|168965133|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
84606953|NCT02440789|168965135|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.26
84606954|NCT02440789|168965137|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.75
84606955|NCT02440789|168965139|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.97
84562214|NCT03035916|168875618|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84562215|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.056
84606956|NCT02440789|168965141|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
84606957|NCT02440789|168965143|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.47
84606958|NCT02440789|168965145|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.72
84606959|NCT02440789|168965147|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
84562216|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.009
84562217|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
84606960|NCT02440789|168965149|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
84606961|NCT02440789|168965151|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
84606962|NCT02440789|168965153|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.77
84606963|NCT02440789|168965155|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.93
84606964|NCT02440789|168965157|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.65
84606965|NCT02440789|168965159|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.22
84606966|NCT02440789|168965161|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.031
84606967|NCT02440789|168965163|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.005
84606968|NCT02440789|168965165|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.69
84606969|NCT02440789|168965167|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
84606970|NCT05160766|168965195|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.03143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|23.946|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.||23.946|1.168|0.03143
84606971|NCT05160766|168965195|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.671||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.621|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.||7.621|1.04|0.0101
84606972|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.04405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|23.998|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|23.998|0.338|0.04405
84606973|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767||0.01744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|25.814|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|25.814|2.61|0.01744
84606974|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.02039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|26.173|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|26.173|2.305|0.02039
84606975|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.636||0.04989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|18.656|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|18.656|0.005|0.04989
84606976|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|10.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373||0.02259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|19.111|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|19.111|1.514|0.02259
84749091|NCT01668667|169252335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.54|-4.68|0.014
84749092|NCT01668667|169252335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.53|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||0.53|-3.63|0.144
84749093|NCT01668667|169252336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.95|1.30|0.004
84749094|NCT01668667|169252336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.77|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.77|1.23|0.007
84749095|NCT01668667|169252336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.94|1.27|0.005
84749096|NCT01668667|169252337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For the mean change from Baseline for IRLS Rating Scale total score at the EOT, the linear contrast test based on an analysis of variance with treatment effect was used to detect linear dose-response trends across increasing levels of GEn dosage.||||0.022
84749097|NCT01668667|169252337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment effect||||0.072
84495126|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.24||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.17|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.17|-0.69|0.605
84562218|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.198
84749098|NCT01668667|169252338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A significant p-value will indicate a nonzero linear effect across increasing levels of GEn dosage.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.012
84562219|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.047
84562220|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
84562221|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.102
84749099|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.938
84749100|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.451||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.451
84749101|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.819||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.819
84749102|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.5||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.500
84562222|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
84562223|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562224|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562225|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
84562226|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562227|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.425
84562228|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.124
84562229|NCT03035916|168875619|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.052
84562230|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.176
84562231|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
84562232|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.228
84562233|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562234|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84495127|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.66|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.66|-1.17|0.574
84562235|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
84562236|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562237|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562238|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.004
84562239|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
84562240|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562241|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
84562242|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
84562243|NCT03035916|168875620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
84562244|NCT03035916|168875621|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
84562245|NCT03035916|168875621|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84562246|NCT03035916|168875621|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84562247|NCT03035916|168875622|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
84562248|NCT03035916|168875622|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
84562249|NCT03035916|168875622|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84562250|NCT03035916|168875623|OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
84562251|NCT03035916|168875623|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84562252|NCT03035916|168875623|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84562253|NCT03035916|168875624|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910
84562254|NCT03035916|168875624|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.864
84562255|NCT03035916|168875624|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
84562256|NCT03035916|168875625|OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
84562257|NCT03035916|168875625|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
84562258|NCT03035916|168875625|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
84562259|NCT02526160|168875643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) testing for association between achieving mean serum phosphorus levels above lower limit of normal (LLN) and treatment group, adjusting for stratification of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
84562260|NCT02526160|168875644|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.05|GEE model|||||0.08|-1.00|0.0919
84562261|NCT02526160|168875645|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.251||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|-1.94||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.0167|GEE model|||||-1.94|-14.68|0.0106
84562262|NCT02526160|168875646|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-0.05||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.025|GEE model|||||-0.05|-9.76|0.0478
84562263|NCT00398216|168875676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84749103|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<.001
84562264|NCT00398216|168875676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84562265|NCT00398216|168875676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84562266|NCT00398216|168875676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84562267|NCT00398216|168875679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.250
84562268|NCT00398216|168875679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.122
84562269|NCT00398216|168875679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.124
84562270|NCT00398216|168875679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.123
84749104|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.001
84749105|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
84562271|NCT02207400|168875685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.191|-10.033|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-10.033|-13.191|<0.0001
84562272|NCT02207400|168875686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|-0.566|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.566|-0.738|<0.0001
84562273|NCT04560868|168875695|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was a difference in expected number of log ins of exactly 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|19.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|Based on a priori power calculations we had 80% power to detect an average increase of 3.8 log ins in the experimental relative to the control arm.||19.05|6.41|<0.01
84562274|NCT04560868|168875696|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of relative risk equal to exactly 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Regression, Poisson||relative risk=experimental/control|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 33% - 35% increase in the proportion of experimental participants who successfully quit smoking for at least 24 hours relative to controls.||1.85|0.55|0.98
84562275|NCT04560868|168875697|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 risk difference between arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference = experimental - control.|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 28% - 33% increase in 7-day smoking abstinence in the experimental arm relative to the control arm at 3 months.||0.24|-0.08|0.35
84562276|NCT04560868|168875698|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.87|-0.35|0.40
84562277|NCT04560868|168875699|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.60|-0.68|0.90
84562278|NCT04560868|168875700|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.4|-0.5|0.39
84562279|NCT04560868|168875701|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was for a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.3|-0.1|0.11
84562280|NCT04560868|168875703|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected number of badges earned in each arm by 3 months post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|6.65|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||6.65|1.72|<0.01
84562281|NCT04560868|168875704|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.18|-1.02|0.96
84562282|NCT04560868|168875705|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null hypothesis of exactly 0 difference in expected score between the arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.66|-1.55|0.31
84562283|NCT04560868|168875709|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was of the exact same proportion of control and experimental subjects requesting NRT.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.9|||Regression, Poisson||RR=experimental/control|||16.9|0.9|0.06
84562284|NCT04560868|168875710|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in probability of the outcome between arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.65|||Regression, Poisson||risk ratio=experimental/control|||2.65|0.38|0.99
84562285|NCT04560868|168875711|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change from baseline in number of cigarettes smoked per day between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.99|||Regression, Linear||treatment difference=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (one month)-baseline.|||3.99|-1.21|0.30
84495128|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.29||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.11|-0.53|0.483
84495129|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.84|-0.81|0.972
84562286|NCT04560868|168875712|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change in daily cigarette usage between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.5|||Regression, Linear||treatment effect=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (three month)-baseline.|||5.5|-2.51|0.47
84562287|NCT04560868|168875713|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was risk difference of exactly 0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||Regression, Linear||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.11|-0.03|0.30
84495130|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.18||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.63|-0.99|0.654
84495131|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.85|-0.86|0.984
84562288|NCT01763827|168875714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.14|-53.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.14|-61.14|<0.001
84562289|NCT01763827|168875714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.46|-51.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.10|-58.46|<0.001
84670814|NCT01796197|169075376|SUPERIORITY||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Two stage design, exact method||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 15% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 40% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: pCR rate is less than or equal to 15% Alternative Hypothesis: pCR rate is greater than or equal to 40% Hypothesized False Positive Rate (alpha) : 3.9% Hypothesized False Negative Rate (1-beta) : 9.9%||||
84749106|NCT06020118|169252343|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
84749107|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.894||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.894
84562290|NCT01763827|168875714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.28|-35.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.31|-43.28|<0.001
84562291|NCT01763827|168875714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|-33.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.86|-41.24|<0.001
84606977|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.634||0.01583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.279|20.924|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|20.924|2.279|0.01583
84562292|NCT01763827|168875715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.95|-53.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.04|-59.95|<0.001
84562293|NCT01763827|168875715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-54.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.14|-60.66|<0.001
84562294|NCT01763827|168875715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.87|-35.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.94|-42.87|<0.001
84562295|NCT01763827|168875715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-42.97|<0.001
84562296|NCT01763827|168875716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-74.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.2|-85.0|<0.001
84562297|NCT01763827|168875716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-81.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-76.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-76.9|-87.0|<0.001
84562298|NCT01763827|168875716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-49.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-49.9|-60.7|<0.001
84606978|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.00856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.166|20.56|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|20.56|3.166|0.00856
84606979|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.249|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|11.249|2.41|0.00258
84606980|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|10.466|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|10.466|1.63|0.00748
84562299|NCT01763827|168875716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-51.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-51.0|-61.1|<0.001
84562300|NCT01763827|168875717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.4|-74.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.3|-86.4|<0.001
84606981|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.782||0.00922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.821|12.782|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.782|1.821|0.00922
84606982|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.07136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|10.001|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|10.001|-0.419|0.07136
84606983|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.196||0.07218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|8.29|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|8.29|-0.36|0.07218
84606984|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.202||0.02949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|9.155|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|9.155|0.484|0.02949
84562301|NCT01763827|168875717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|-72.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-72.2|-83.4|<0.001
84749108|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.104||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.104
84749109|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.815||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.815
84562302|NCT01763827|168875717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-49.0|-61.1|<0.001
84562303|NCT01763827|168875717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-47.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-47.3|-58.5|<0.001
84562304|NCT01763827|168875718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||80.2|64.4|<0.001
84562305|NCT01763827|168875718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.0|62.2|<0.001
84562306|NCT01763827|168875718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.9|62.4|<0.001
84562307|NCT01763827|168875718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||75.5|58.3|<0.001
84562308|NCT01763827|168875719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.2|<0.001
84562309|NCT01763827|168875719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||72.9|55.6|<0.001
84562310|NCT01763827|168875719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.3|<0.001
84562311|NCT01763827|168875719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|71.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||71.6|53.5|<0.001
84562312|NCT01763827|168875720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-45.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.61|-52.01|<0.001
84562313|NCT01763827|168875720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-50.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.33|-56.23|<0.001
84562314|NCT01763827|168875720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.79|-32.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.38|-38.79|<0.001
84562315|NCT01763827|168875720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-32.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.53|-38.44|<0.001
84562316|NCT01763827|168875721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|-46.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.27|-53.34|<0.001
84606985|NCT05160766|168965196|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.263||0.08403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|8.382|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|8.382|-0.531|0.08403
84606986|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.42797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.475|31.145|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|31.145|-13.475|0.42797
84562317|NCT01763827|168875721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.49|-47.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.90|-54.49|<0.001
84562318|NCT01763827|168875721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|-31.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.71|-38.74|<0.001
84562319|NCT01763827|168875721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.51|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.90|-36.51|<0.001
84562320|NCT01763827|168875722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-43.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.51|-50.67|<0.001
84562321|NCT01763827|168875722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.59|-54.27|<0.001
84562322|NCT01763827|168875722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|-29.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.99|-37.15|<0.001
84606987|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.575||0.73961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|24.929|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|24.929|-17.85|0.73961
84749110|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.814||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.814
84606988|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.683||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.524|29.695|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|29.695|-13.524|0.45370
84606989|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.187||0.87323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.969|22.241|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|22.241|-18.969|0.87323
84749111|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
84562323|NCT01763827|168875722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.99|-31.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.28|-37.99|<0.001
84562324|NCT01763827|168875723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-44.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.05|-51.56|<0.001
84606990|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.848||0.93489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.109|20.728|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis relfects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|20.728|-19.109|0.93489
84606991|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.845||0.74784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.425|25.448|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|25.448|-18.425|0.74784
84562325|NCT01763827|168875723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-44.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.79|-52.07|<0.001
84562326|NCT01763827|168875723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.78|-30.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.30|-37.78|<0.001
84749112|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
84562327|NCT01763827|168875723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-28.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-28.92|-36.21|<0.001
84562328|NCT01763827|168875724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-35.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.86|-42.00|<0.001
84562329|NCT01763827|168875724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-42.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.27|-49.39|<0.001
84562330|NCT01763827|168875724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|-26.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-26.28|-32.43|<0.001
84562331|NCT01763827|168875724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-23.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-23.94|-31.08|<0.001
84562332|NCT01763827|168875725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.30|-42.97|<0.001
84749113|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
84749114|NCT06020118|169252344|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
84562333|NCT01763827|168875725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|-40.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.68|-48.66|<0.001
84562334|NCT01763827|168875725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-25.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-25.10|-31.73|<0.001
84562335|NCT01763827|168875725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-21.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-21.31|-29.31|<0.001
84562336|NCT01763827|168875726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.12|-45.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.12|-53.12|<0.001
84562337|NCT01763827|168875726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-50.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.78|-59.12|<0.001
84562338|NCT01763827|168875726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.73|-30.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.73|-38.73|<0.001
84562339|NCT01763827|168875726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-32.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.42|-40.81|<0.001
84562340|NCT01763827|168875727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.78|-45.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.36|-53.78|<0.001
84562341|NCT01763827|168875727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.28|-48.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.26|-57.28|<0.001
84562342|NCT01763827|168875727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.95|-31.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.57|-39.95|<0.001
84562343|NCT01763827|168875727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.48|-29.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.45|-38.48|<0.001
84562344|NCT01763827|168875728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.28|-11.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.68|-25.28|<0.001
84562345|NCT01763827|168875728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-15.28|-23.20|<0.001
84562346|NCT01763827|168875728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-12.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.35|-24.39|<0.001
84562347|NCT01763827|168875728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-11.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.08|-23.23|<0.001
84562348|NCT01763827|168875729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.76|-13.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-13.06|-27.76|<0.001
84562349|NCT01763827|168875729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-11.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.12|-24.51|<0.001
84562350|NCT01763827|168875729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.69|-28.13|<0.001
84562351|NCT01763827|168875729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-15.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-7.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.14|-24.39|<0.001
84562352|NCT01763827|168875730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.27||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|2.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.73|-13.27|0.72
84562353|NCT01763827|168875730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|-10.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.20|-30.98|<0.001
84495132|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.29||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.14|0.508
84562354|NCT01763827|168875730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.71||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.45|-16.86|0.027
84749115|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.699||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.699
84749116|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.88||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.880
84495133|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.22||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.62|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.62|-1.06|0.605
84495134|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.11||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.29|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.29|-1.06|0.847
84562355|NCT01763827|168875730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-11.73||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-2.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-2.27|-21.19|0.044
84562356|NCT01763827|168875731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-6.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||3.95|-16.41|0.72
84562357|NCT01763827|168875731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm|||-8.63|-26.67|<0.001
84562358|NCT01763827|168875731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.14||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|1.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.26|-17.54|0.027
84562359|NCT01763827|168875731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-13.23||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-4.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.77|-21.69|0.044
84562360|NCT01763827|168875732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-4.59||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.12|-11.30|0.072
84562361|NCT01763827|168875732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.68|-30.11|<0.001
84562362|NCT01763827|168875732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|2.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.71|-14.13|0.082
84562363|NCT01763827|168875732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.84||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baselie value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-3.54|-22.14|0.044
84562364|NCT01763827|168875733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|2.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.92|-18.81|0.72
84606992|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.409||0.84202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.966|23.143|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|23.143|-18.966|0.84202
84562365|NCT01763827|168875733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-16.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.02|-25.64|<0.001
84562366|NCT01763827|168875733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.58||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||0.94|-18.10|0.082
84562367|NCT01763827|168875733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.72||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-4.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.54|-20.89|0.044
84606993|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.15477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.207|13.821|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|13.821|-2.207|0.15477
84749117|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.72||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.720
84562368|NCT01763827|168875734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.23|0.007
84562369|NCT01763827|168875734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|11.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||11.43|5.53|<0.001
84562370|NCT01763827|168875734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|4.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.78|0.85|0.013
84562371|NCT01763827|168875734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|3.81||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|8.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline visit|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.39|-0.77|0.044
84562372|NCT01763827|168875735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.91||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||10.16|1.67|0.007
84562373|NCT01763827|168875735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|9.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|13.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||13.34|5.32|<0.001
84562374|NCT01763827|168875735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|7.56||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||12.00|3.11|0.013
84562375|NCT01763827|168875735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.22|0.044
84495135|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.44||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.61|0.455
84562376|NCT03746405|168875736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Give the limited sample size, this p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significant was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Active rTMS applied over the node in the medial prefrontal cortex the most strongly negatively connected to the right amygdala will decrease amygdala BOLD activation compared to sham rTMS||||= 0.03
84562377|NCT00412932|168875737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
84562378|NCT00412932|168875738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84562379|NCT00412932|168875739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. This P-Value applies to both the daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84562380|NCT00412932|168875740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. The P-Value of \<0.0001 applies to both daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84562381|NCT00112918|168875744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024||95.0|||||Closed test procedure|||Adjustments for multiplicity was done using a closed test procedure which tests for differences between all three treatment groups at the 5% alpha level first. Only in case of a significant result, the pair-wise comparison between the control arm and each of the bevacizumab arm will be tested, again at the 5% alpha level.||||0.2024
84606994|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.984||0.37773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.327|11.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|11.368|-4.327|0.37773
84606995|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.29212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.821|12.647|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.647|-3.821|0.29212
84562382|NCT01763203|168875761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
84562383|NCT01763203|168875762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84562384|NCT01763203|168875764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84606996|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|13.919|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|13.919|-1.998|0.14140
84562385|NCT01763203|168875765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84562386|NCT01763203|168875766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84562387|NCT01763203|168875767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84606997|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.875||0.5709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|9.832|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|9.832|-5.434|0.57090
84562388|NCT01763203|168875768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84562389|NCT01763203|168875769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84562390|NCT01763203|168875770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84562391|NCT01763203|168875771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
84562392|NCT01763203|168875772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
84562393|NCT01763203|168875773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84562394|NCT01763203|168875774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84562395|NCT01763203|168875775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
84749118|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.238||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.238
84749119|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.28||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.280
84495136|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.58||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.74|0.317
84562396|NCT01763203|168875776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84562397|NCT01763203|168875777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84562398|NCT01763203|168875778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84562399|NCT01763203|168875779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84562400|NCT01763203|168875780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84562401|NCT02187861|168875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|21.23||||||||21.23|-13.38|
84562402|NCT02187861|168875782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|19.81||||||||19.81|-15.89|
84562403|NCT02187861|168875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|20.99||||||||20.99|-17.07|
84562404|NCT02187861|168875784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|11.32||||||||11.32|-27.01|
84562405|NCT02187861|168875785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|31.69||||||At 6-8 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||31.69|-4.24|
84749120|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.094||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.094
84562406|NCT02187861|168875785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|20.82||||||At Year 1||20.82|-12.98|
84562407|NCT02187861|168875786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-15.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|0.49||||||At 4-10 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||0.49|-31.87|
84562408|NCT02187861|168875786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.56|6.87||||||At Year 1||6.87|-22.56|
84562409|NCT02187861|168875792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and DOR of prior cancer therapy.||1.27|0.38|
84562410|NCT02187861|168875792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.40|0.43|
84562411|NCT02187861|168875794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and PFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
84562412|NCT02187861|168875794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
84562413|NCT02187861|168875796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and EFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
84562414|NCT02187861|168875796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
84562415|NCT02187861|168875798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.37|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and OS of prior cancer therapy.||5.37|0.04|
84562416|NCT02187861|168875798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.63|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||5.63|0.05|
84562417|NCT02756819|168875805|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562418|NCT02756819|168875806|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562419|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562420|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562421|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562422|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562423|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)||||||<0.001
84562424|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84670815|NCT02818218|169075397|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.0005||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.161|0.17|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.170|-0.161|0.944
84749121|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.216||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.216
84749122|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.||||||0.436||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.436
84749123|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.615||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.615
84562425|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562426|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562427|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562428|NCT02756819|168875809|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562429|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562430|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562431|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562432|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562433|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562434|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562435|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562436|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562437|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84562438|NCT02756819|168875810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84670816|NCT02818218|169075398|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.11|0.42|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.42|0.11|<0.001
84749124|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
84749125|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.87||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.870
84562439|NCT02144077|168875877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.5||||Farrington and Manning Test|Difference of proportions|||||-6.5|<0.0001
84562440|NCT01462305|168875885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||interaction effect and week of treatment condition|ANOVA|||To test the hypothesis that depressed SAD patients would demonstrate greater antidepressant therapeutic benefit from the \~465nm (shorter wavelength) source compared with the \~595nm (longer wavelength) source, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.3 with treatment (\~465nm vs. \~595nm) as a between-subject factor and time (treatment visit 1, treatment visit 2, treatment visit 3, phone assessment 1, phone assessment 2, and treatment visit 4) as a within-subject factor.||||0.74
84562441|NCT01462305|168875885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed no significant effect or interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.9
84562442|NCT01462305|168875885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed significant effect of treatment week|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84562443|NCT01462305|168875887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
84562444|NCT00368459|168875888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||For this pilot trial, we did not anticipate power to detect significant, clinically-meaningful between-group differences of the magnitude provided by FDA-approved AD therapies over a 12 month treatment period, but we specified that we would report trends (alpha \<0.1) as a guide to future effectiveness studies.||||>0.1
84562445|NCT00368459|168875889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562446|NCT00368459|168875890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84670817|NCT02818218|169075399|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.19|0.48|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.48|0.19|<0.001
84562447|NCT00368459|168875891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562448|NCT00368459|168875892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562449|NCT00368459|168875893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562450|NCT00368459|168875894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562451|NCT00368459|168875895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Favoring placebo, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84562452|NCT00368459|168875896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562453|NCT00368459|168875897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84562454|NCT02020889|168875910|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|13.03|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||13.03|2.68|<0.001
84562455|NCT02020889|168875911|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|77.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||77.56|3.61|<0.001
84562456|NCT02020889|168875912|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.502|||Cox Proportional Hazard regression|Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.502|0.206|<0.001
84562457|NCT02020889|168875913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.41|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.41|0.09|<0.001
84562458|NCT02020889|168875914|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|167.93|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||167.93|2.30|0.007
84562459|NCT02020889|168875915|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.74|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||10.74|2.63|<0.001
84562460|NCT02020889|168875916|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||19.87|2.60|<0.001
84562461|NCT02020889|168875917|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|55.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region.|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||55.24|2.35|0.003
84562462|NCT02087943|168875959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.01||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.52|4.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-34.52|0.1308
84562463|NCT02087943|168875959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-1.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from Baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-39.70|0.0347
84562464|NCT02087943|168875960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-2.7||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.8||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-10.2|0.4938
84562465|NCT02087943|168875960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|8.0||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.2||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, CMH weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.2|-2.3|0.1368
84562466|NCT02087943|168875961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-1.5||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||14.9|-18.0|0.8589
84562467|NCT02087943|168875961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|9.9||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||26.6|-6.7|0.2476
84562468|NCT02087943|168875962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.17||||0.5286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|10.99|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||10.99|-21.34|0.5286
84562469|NCT02087943|168875962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|11.88|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||11.88|-20.22|0.6092
84562470|NCT01690299|168875967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.1||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||40.1|14.9|< 0.0001
84562471|NCT01690299|168875968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|48.5||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||48.5|23.3|<0.0001
84670818|NCT02818218|169075401|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.07||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.1|0.24|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.24|-0.10|0.298
84749126|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||<0.001
84562472|NCT01690299|168875969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|27.7||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||27.7|8.4|0.0005
84562473|NCT01690299|168875969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.5||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.||||35.5|14.8|<0.0001
84562474|NCT01690299|168875970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.33|-19.46|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-19.46|-43.33|<0.0001
84562475|NCT01690299|168875970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.78|-27.92|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-27.92|-51.78|<0.0001
84562476|NCT01690299|168875971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|29.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|43.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||43.9|14.9|0.0002
84562477|NCT01690299|168875971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|62.7||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||62.7|36.9|<0.0001
84562478|NCT01690299|168875972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.82|<0.0001
84562479|NCT01690299|168875972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.60|-6.27|0.0004
84562480|NCT01690299|168875973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.93||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.90|-2.05|0.7112
84562481|NCT01690299|168875973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|2.22||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|5.19|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||5.19|-0.75|0.1719
84562482|NCT01690299|168875974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.6||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||28.6|7.6|0.0011
84562483|NCT01690299|168875974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||26.9|6.5|0.0021
84562484|NCT00551525|168876019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test|binomial proportion|||||||<0.001
84562485|NCT00551525|168876022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.063||||||Modeling the association of age with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]).||1.063|0.910|
84562486|NCT00551525|168876022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.169||||||Modeling the association of baseline PSA with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||1.169|0.890|
84562487|NCT00551525|168876022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|4.697||||||Modeling the association of clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for baseline PSA, Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||4.697|0.364|
84562488|NCT00551525|168876022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.659|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|2.006||||||Modeling the association of Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and age.||2.006|0.217|
84562489|NCT04676724|168876058|OTHER||Difference in SVR Rate|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|11.0|||||The point estimate of SVR and its 95% highest posterior density Credible Interval (CI) are estimated from a Bayesian model that incorporates the analysis stratification factors and treatment arm.|||11|-29|
84562490|NCT02488018|168876067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||ANOVA|Degree of freedom for the model (treatment) was 8.||Hypothesis Ho: Honey plant origin does not affects the glycemic index of human subjects. Ha: Honey plant origin affects the glycemic index of human subjects.||||<0.01
84670819|NCT02818218|169075402|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.05|0.37|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.37|0.05|0.002
84495137|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.83|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.83|-3.18|0.001
84670820|NCT02818218|169075403|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.17|0.47|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.47|0.17|<0.001
84562491|NCT01129804|168876080|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal Linear mixed modeling|Slope|0.1|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Tested the null hypothesis that slopes of PDA over time would not differ between treatment conditions, as indicated by the significance of the Treatment main effect and Treatment X Time interaction effect, at the level of p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Multilevel longitudinal modeling (MLM) with random effects and maximum likelihood estimation (Proc MIXED; SAS Institute, 1999) was used to evaluate the effects of treatment over time for each of the continuously scaled outcome variables described above. The MLM approach was used because it employs maximum likelihood estimation of covariance matrices rather than raw data, allowing us to take advantage of all data collected for anyone randomized to treatment. Each repeated dependent variable was analyzed as a unction of treatment condition, time since intake (in months), and the interaction of treatment condition by time.|||<.04
84562492|NCT04399538|168876085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-52.36|||<|0.0001||80.0|-60.07|-43.17|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-43.17|-60.07|<0.0001
84670821|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84562493|NCT04399538|168876085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-56.58|||<|0.0001||80.0|-63.88|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-47.80|-63.88|<0.0001
84562494|NCT04399538|168876085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-58.8|||<|0.0001||80.0|-65.66|-50.57|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. Relative change was converted to percent change as follows: Percent change = 100\*(RC-1). 80% CI was calculated based on difference in LS mean between groups.||-50.57|-65.66|<0.0001
84562495|NCT04399538|168876085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-45.8||||0.0003||80.0|-55.86|-33.46|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-33.46|-55.86|0.0003
84562496|NCT00492232|168876099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.71||||0.484||95.0|0.27|1.85||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using the logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of treatment and pooled center.||||1.85|0.27|0.484
84562497|NCT00492232|168876100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.946||95.0|-6.23|5.81||P-values are from t-tests of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the difference in least squares (LS) means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||5.81|-6.23|0.946
84562498|NCT00492232|168876101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.901||95.0|-5.31|6.03||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.03|-5.31|0.901
84562499|NCT00492232|168876102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.538||95.0|-4.32|8.23||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||8.23|-4.32|0.538
84562500|NCT00492232|168876103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.517||95.0|-9.09|4.6||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||4.60|-9.09|0.517
84562501|NCT00492232|168876104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965||95.0|-6.28|6.56||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.56|-6.28|0.965
84670822|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670823|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670824|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670825|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670826|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670827|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670828|NCT03026257|169075407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
84670829|NCT00265616|169075446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84670830|NCT00265616|169075447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84670831|NCT00265616|169075448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84670832|NCT00265616|169075450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
84606998|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.071||0.11012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.491|14.548|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|14.548|-1.491|0.11012
84606999|NCT05160766|168965199|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.29755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.759|12.237|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|12.237|-3.759|0.29755
84607000|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.191||0.39426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.995|32.275|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|32.275|-12.995|0.39426
84607001|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.765||0.42055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.011|30.539|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|30.539|-13.011|0.42055
84607002|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.953||0.44391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.683|30.627|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|30.627|-13.683|0.44391
84607003|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.82||0.43775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.402|30.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|30.368|-13.402|0.43775
84607004|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.53511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|26.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|26.2|-13.819|0.53511
84607005|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.801||0.67576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.295|26.399|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|26.399|-17.295|0.67576
84607006|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.168||0.45443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|31.027|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|31.027|-14.15|0.45443
84670833|NCT00265616|169075451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84670834|NCT01988571|169075458|SUPERIORITY|Power described in protocol.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7787||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for multiple imputation of missing data||Linear models adjusting for baseline values and utilized multiple imputation for missing data.||||0.84
84670835|NCT03144180|169075473|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.|Confidence Interval for a mean|49.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.459|82.571||||||||82.571|15.459|
84670836|NCT03144180|169075474|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.0295||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
84607007|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.218||0.38904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.768|29.569|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|29.569|-11.768|0.38904
84607008|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.47466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.147|27.751|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|27.751|-13.147|0.47466
84607009|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.824||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.993|22.749|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|22.749|-16.993|0.77110
84607010|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.753||||0.86646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|22.701|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|22.701|-19.195|0.86646
84607011|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.705||0.57972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|25.049|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|25.049|-14.21|0.57972
84607012|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.408||0.90166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.859|20.199|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|20.199|-17.859|0.90166
84607013|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.92279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.099|22.136|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|22.136|-20.099|0.92279
84607014|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.496||0.71191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.675|22.74|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|22.74|-15.675|0.71191
84670837|NCT03144180|169075475|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.403||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
84670838|NCT03387813|169075477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.05|0.74|0.1624
84670839|NCT03387813|169075481|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.6||||||||0.60|0.44|
84670840|NCT03387813|169075485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.03|0.70|0.0958
84670841|NCT03387813|169075489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.01|0.68|0.0644
84670842|NCT03387813|169075493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.77|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.77|0.61|0.8867
84670843|NCT03387813|169075497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.70|0.70|0.7119
84562502|NCT00492232|168876105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.617||95.0|-0.27|0.45||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.45|-0.27|0.617
84562503|NCT00492232|168876106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.541||95.0|-0.39|0.74||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.74|-0.39|0.541
84562504|NCT00492232|168876107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.163||95.0|-0.23|1.33||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.33|-0.23|0.163
84562505|NCT00492232|168876108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.757||95.0|-0.79|1.08||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.08|-0.79|0.757
84562506|NCT00492232|168876109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.82||95.0|-0.93|1.17||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.17|-0.93|0.820
84562507|NCT00492232|168876111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.01||||0.284||95.0|0.55|7.34||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||7.34|0.55|0.284
84607015|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.755||0.73415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.714|20.703|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|20.703|-14.714|0.73415
84670844|NCT03387813|169075501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.47|-4.16|0.3484
84670845|NCT03387813|169075501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.26|-3.51|0.6684
84670846|NCT03387813|169075503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.71|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.71|-2.68|0.9901
84670847|NCT03387813|169075503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.24|-1.29|0.2947
84670848|NCT03387813|169075505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.60|-10.32|0.5741
84670849|NCT03387813|169075505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.27|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.27|-12.41|0.7077
84670850|NCT03387813|169075508|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the CI of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55||||||||0.55|0.38|
84670851|NCT03387813|169075512|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84670852|NCT03387813|169075516|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84670853|NCT03387813|169075520|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84670854|NCT03387813|169075526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.54|0.39|<0.0001
84670855|NCT03387813|169075527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.76|0.53|<0.001
84670856|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||2.78|0.29|0.0160
84670857|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.56|0.03|0.0427
84670858|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||2.08|0.19|0.0188
84670859|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.92|-0.66|0.3405
84670860|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||0.99|-0.59|0.6174
84670861|NCT03387813|169075532|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.38|-0.58|0.4231
84670862|NCT03387813|169075533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Systolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0214
84670863|NCT03387813|169075533|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Diastolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.1002
84749127|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.64||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.640
84562508|NCT00492232|168876112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.389||95.0|0.64|3.13||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||3.13|0.64|0.389
84749128|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||<0.001
84749129|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.444||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.444
84562509|NCT02756364|168876114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.26|0.47|0.537
84562510|NCT02756364|168876114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.45|0.53|0.849
84562511|NCT02756364|168876115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.40|0.36|0.276
84562512|NCT02756364|168876115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.68|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.68|0.47|0.470
84749130|NCT06020118|169252345|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||<0.001
84749131|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.793||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.793
84562513|NCT02756364|168876116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.25|0.46|0.495
84562514|NCT02756364|168876116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.38|0.49|0.646
84495138|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-2.44|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.44|-4.79|<0.001
84562515|NCT02756364|168876117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.29|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||7.29|0.68|
84562516|NCT02756364|168876117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.39|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.39|0.34|
84749132|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.326||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.326
84749133|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.933||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.933
84562517|NCT02756364|168876118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.94|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||6.94|0.94|
84562518|NCT02756364|168876118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.44|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.44|0.69|
84562519|NCT02223364|168876120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
84562520|NCT02223364|168876120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84562521|NCT02223364|168876120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
84562522|NCT02223364|168876121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84670864|NCT03387813|169075533|OTHER|||||||0.0402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Mean Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0402
84562523|NCT02223364|168876121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84749134|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.424||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.424
84562524|NCT02223364|168876121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84562525|NCT02223364|168876122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84562526|NCT02223364|168876122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84562527|NCT02223364|168876122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
84562528|NCT02223364|168876123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
84562529|NCT02223364|168876123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84607016|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.548||0.45798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|26.469|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|26.469|-12.155|0.45798
84607017|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.23582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.169|12.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|12.808|-3.169|0.23582
84607018|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.074||0.19354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.713|13.337|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|13.337|-2.713|0.19354
84607019|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|13.899|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|13.899|-2.471|0.17033
84749135|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
84562530|NCT02223364|168876123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
84562531|NCT02223364|168876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
84562532|NCT02223364|168876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
84562533|NCT02223364|168876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
84562534|NCT02223364|168876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.958
84562535|NCT02223364|168876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
84607020|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.997||0.13895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|13.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|13.808|-1.94|0.13895
84607021|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.812||0.26924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.288|11.732|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|11.732|-3.288|0.26924
84607022|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.382|13.362|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|13.362|-2.382|0.17080
84670865|NCT03387813|169075534|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|37.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.52||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.38|185.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||185.77|-111.38|0.6227
84670866|NCT03387813|169075535|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|59.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.87||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|211.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||211.01|-91.44|0.4373
84562536|NCT02223364|168876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
84562537|NCT02223364|168876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
84562538|NCT02223364|168876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
84562539|NCT02223364|168876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
84562540|NCT02223364|168876127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
84562541|NCT02223364|168876127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.991
84562542|NCT02223364|168876127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
84562543|NCT02223364|168876128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
84562544|NCT02223364|168876128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
84562545|NCT02223364|168876128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
84562546|NCT02223364|168876130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84562547|NCT02223364|168876130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84562548|NCT02223364|168876130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.293
84562549|NCT02223364|168876131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
84562550|NCT02223364|168876131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84562551|NCT02223364|168876131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
84562552|NCT02223364|168876132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
84562553|NCT02223364|168876132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
84562554|NCT02223364|168876132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
84562555|NCT02223364|168876133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
84562556|NCT02223364|168876134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.623
84562557|NCT02223364|168876134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.001
84562558|NCT02223364|168876134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and three months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.048
84562559|NCT02685072|168876139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5818||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1968|1.7202|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1|Odds ratio represents odds of smoking abstinence in TPN + progesterone group versus TPN + placebo group|||1.7202|0.1968|0.3253
84562560|NCT02685072|168876140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0781||||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|3.2744|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo groups|||3.2744|0.3550|0.8944
84562561|NCT02685072|168876141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7619||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2247|2.5838|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.5838|0.2247|0.6620
84562562|NCT02685072|168876142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3171|2.6287|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.6287|0.3171|0.8661
84607023|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.18502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.683|13.818|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|13.818|-2.683|0.18502
84607024|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.938||0.38344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|11.195|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|11.195|-4.318|0.38344
84607025|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.982||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.565|11.124|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|11.124|-4.565|0.41100
84607026|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.014||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.237|10.577|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|10.577|-5.237|0.50660
84562563|NCT02685072|168876143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided||(Placebo + TPN) - (Progesterone + TPN)|||9.0|-27.1|0.31
84562564|NCT02685072|168876144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9747|1.2707|||t-test, 2 sided||(placebo + TPN) - (progesterone + TPN)|||1.2707|-0.9747|0.7910
84607027|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.28604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|12.891|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|12.891|-3.82|0.28604
84607028|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.11715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.582|14.1|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|14.1|-1.582|0.11715
84670867|NCT03387813|169075536|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|468.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.65||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|973.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 6months between Treatment vs Control group||973.30|-37.09|0.0692
84562565|NCT02685072|168876145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.81|2.71|0.0065
84562566|NCT02685072|168876156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|.6449
84607029|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957||0.33567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|11.613|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|11.613|-3.978|0.33567
84670868|NCT03387813|169075537|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|284.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|268.72||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.27|813.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||813.60|-244.27|0.2903
84670869|NCT03387813|169075538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.78|0.53|<0.0001
84562567|NCT02685072|168876157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of prolonged abstinence in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|0.6449
84562568|NCT03597139|168876165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-1.7|0.1491
84670870|NCT03387813|169075539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.81|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.81|0.57|<0.0001
84670871|NCT01052545|169075556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the incidence rates per 1,000 bed-days and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for urine cultures ordered, ASB overtreatment and CAUTI under-treatment in each study period.|Regression, Logistic|to test whether there was a significant difference in monthly urine cultures ordered between the two study sites over time.||||||<0.05
84670872|NCT01052545|169075562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||We used χ2 test, Fisher's exact test and one-way ANOVA to determine if patient-level covariates differed between the baseline, intervention and maintenance periods at each study site.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84562569|NCT03597139|168876166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-1.6|0.1187
84562570|NCT03597139|168876167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.5|-3.7|0.2128
84562571|NCT03597139|168876168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|||||9.6|-11.8|0.8408
84562572|NCT03597139|168876169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-6.1|0.5356
84562573|NCT03597139|168876170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.1|||ANCOVA|||||14.1|-2.7|0.1787
84562574|NCT03597139|168876171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|-12.6|0.7666
84562575|NCT03597139|168876172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.4|-10.7|0.8082
84562576|NCT03597139|168876173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|60.3|||ANCOVA|||||60.3|-37|0.6362
84562577|NCT03597139|168876174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.9||Frequency|ANCOVA|||Frequency||20.9|-1.7|0.0961
84562578|NCT03597139|168876174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||Severity||18.7|-3.4|0.1722
84562579|NCT03597139|168876175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.9||Left Eye|ANCOVA|||Left Eye||8.9|1.6|0.0051
84562580|NCT03597139|168876175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||8.4|1.1|0.0104
84562581|NCT03597139|168876176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Left Eye|ANCOVA||Add in RE LE info|Left Eye||-1.0|-3.2|0.0003
84562582|NCT03597139|168876176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||-0.5|-2.6|0.0038
84562583|NCT04811664|168876178|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|80.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||80.3|-14.1|
84562584|NCT04811664|168876181|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||92.3|-9.5|
84562585|NCT04811664|168876182|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|74.9|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||74.9|-37.7|
84562586|NCT02717442|168876205|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.957||Study week was based on each 4-week interval and was modeled as a categorical variable, and an offset for the log of the number of diary entries recorded for each 4-week interval post-baseline was included for each subject.|Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.957|0.453|=0.029
84607030|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.022||0.15232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.147|13.697|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|13.697|-2.147|0.15232
84607031|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.21234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.766|12.383|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|12.383|-2.766|0.21234
84607032|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.22687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.866|12.026|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|12.026|-2.866|0.22687
84670873|NCT03792672|169075563|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|115.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.0||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-128.0|359.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||359|-128|0.4278
84562587|NCT02717442|168876206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.896|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.896|0.388|=0.014
84562588|NCT05052697|168876254|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A1||2.20|0.34|
84562589|NCT05052697|168876254|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.7|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A2||2.70|0.86|
84562590|NCT05052697|168876254|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.28|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B1||2.28|0.40|
84562591|NCT05052697|168876254|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.18|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B2||1.18|0.25|
84562592|NCT05052697|168876255|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|53.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A1||53.5|-4.5|
84562593|NCT05052697|168876255|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|49.4|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A2||49.4|-19.2|
84749136|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
84749137|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
84562594|NCT05052697|168876255|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|19.1|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B1||19.1|-41.7|
84562595|NCT05052697|168876255|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B2||32.5|-29.2|
84562596|NCT02724410|168876274|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.7188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7188
84562597|NCT02724410|168876275|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5933
84562598|NCT02724410|168876276|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence|||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
84562599|NCT02724410|168876277|OTHER|T-test for difference between groups|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
84562600|NCT01289574|168876278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score statistics, adjusting for investigational site||||||0.1919
84562601|NCT01289574|168876279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
84562602|NCT01289574|168876280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0857
84562603|NCT01402986|168876281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Poisson regression|||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 but less than or equal to \[=\<\] 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.31|0.67|0.709
84562604|NCT01402986|168876281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \> 2 but =\< 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.46|0.71|0.904
84562605|NCT01402986|168876298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.51|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.51|0.26|0.293
84562606|NCT01402986|168876298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.44|0.27|0.270
84562607|NCT01402986|168876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.57|0.257
84562608|NCT01402986|168876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.56|0.225
84562609|NCT01402986|168876300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.37|0.538
84562610|NCT01402986|168876300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.37|0.561
84562611|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.17|0.46|0.190
84562612|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.61|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.61|0.56|0.856
84607033|NCT05160766|168965204|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.38832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.475|11.47|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|11.47|-4.475|0.38832
84607034|NCT04271475|168965238|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.16|||MMRM||Least square mean and SE of the mean was estimated by mixed model repeated measurements method.|||0.16|-32.34|0.974
84607035|NCT02046070|168965262|OTHER|||||||0.4859|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.4859
84607036|NCT02046070|168965262|OTHER|||||||0.6757|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.6757
84607037|NCT02046070|168965263|OTHER|||||||0.9688|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR+PR rate=60% obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.9688
84562613|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.81|0.71|0.602
84607038|NCT05601102|168965289|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
84607039|NCT05601102|168965290|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale analysis||||.01
84495139|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.01|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.01|-4.32|<0.001
84495140|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.6|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.60|-2.78|0.003
84562614|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.5|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.50|0.55|0.703
84607040|NCT05601102|168965290|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.42
84749138|NCT06020118|169252346|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
84562615|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.28|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.28|0.58|0.455
84607041|NCT05601102|168965291|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84749139|NCT01257425|169252374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin defined as 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.88|
84749140|NCT01257425|169252375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.82|
84749141|NCT01257425|169252376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|0.81|
84562616|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.57|0.66|0.929
84607042|NCT05601102|168965292|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
84607043|NCT05601102|168965293|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
84607044|NCT05601102|168965294|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
84607045|NCT05601102|168965295|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84749142|NCT01257425|169252378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.09|0.85
84749143|NCT01257425|169252379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
84495141|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-3.21|-5.39|<0.001
84607046|NCT05601102|168965296|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84749144|NCT01257425|169252380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
84749145|NCT04262817|169252383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
84749146|NCT04262817|169252383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.34
84749147|NCT04262817|169252384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.38
84749148|NCT04262817|169252384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.85
84749149|NCT04262817|169252385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.39
84749150|NCT04262817|169252385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.77
84607047|NCT05601102|168965297|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
84607048|NCT05601102|168965298|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84607049|NCT05601102|168965299|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84607050|NCT00385723|168965318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.028||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months||-0.028|-0.19|0.03
84749151|NCT04262817|169252386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.43
84749152|NCT04262817|169252386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.05
84749153|NCT04262817|169252387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.05
84749154|NCT04262817|169252387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.04
84749155|NCT04262817|169252388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
84749156|NCT04262817|169252388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.38
84749157|NCT03430206|169252389|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.206
84749158|NCT03430206|169252390|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.101
84562617|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.51|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||2.51|0.63|0.507
84562618|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.89|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||1.89|0.44|0.805
84562619|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||1.75|0.44|0.716
84562620|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.51||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.43|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||3.43|0.66|0.328
84562621|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Poission regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.41|0.64|0.804
84562622|NCT01402986|168876301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.05|0.47|0.088
84562623|NCT01402986|168876302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.29|0.50|0.365
84562624|NCT01402986|168876302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.68|0.56|0.922
84749159|NCT03430206|169252391|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.371
84562625|NCT01402986|168876302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.84|0.67|0.685
84562626|NCT01402986|168876302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.70|0.66|0.813
84562627|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.56|0.335
84562628|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.41|0.54|0.586
84749160|NCT03430206|169252393|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.601
84749161|NCT03430206|169252394|OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.738
84749162|NCT02668185|169252432|SUPERIORITY|Generalised linear mixed model with a Poisson error structure|Mean Difference (Net)|29.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|42.87||Intention to treat adjusted means.|generalised linear mixed model with a Po|Adjusted for intention to treat||||42.87|17.39|<0.0001
84749163|NCT02668185|169252433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84749164|NCT02668185|169252434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84749165|NCT02668185|169252435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84749166|NCT02668185|169252436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84749167|NCT01013597|169252441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84749168|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.78|1.10|
84495142|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-2.76|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.76|-4.91|<0.001
84495143|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.21|-1.63|0.130
84562629|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.36||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.52|0.73|0.331
84562630|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.71|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.71|0.73|0.311
84562631|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.35|0.48|0.414
84562632|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||2.36|0.68|0.463
84562633|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.68|0.67|0.793
84562634|NCT01402986|168876303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.49|0.264
84562635|NCT01402986|168876304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.32|0.33|0.245
84562636|NCT01402986|168876304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.54|0.37|0.438
84562637|NCT01402986|168876304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.57|0.66|0.947
84495144|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.4|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.40|-4.24|<0.001
84562638|NCT01402986|168876304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.59|0.59|0.916
84562639|NCT01402986|168876305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.56|0.52|0.723
84562640|NCT01402986|168876305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.86|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.86|0.60|0.852
84562641|NCT01402986|168876305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.23|0.60|0.409
84562642|NCT01402986|168876305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.58|0.72|0.744
84607051|NCT00385723|168965318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.052||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.052|-0.22|0.004
84607052|NCT00385723|168965319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.21|-0.62|0.0003
84495145|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.8|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.80|-3.62|<0.001
84562643|NCT01402986|168876306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.52|0.58|0.802
84562644|NCT01402986|168876306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.00|0.36|0.050
84562645|NCT01402986|168876306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.56|0.56|0.792
84562646|NCT01402986|168876306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.38|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||2.38|0.81|0.231
84562647|NCT01402986|168876307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||0.98|0.06|0.046
84562648|NCT01402986|168876307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||1.48|0.15|0.197
84562649|NCT01402986|168876307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||2.79|0.50|0.708
84562650|NCT01402986|168876307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||3.57|0.48|0.594
84562651|NCT01402986|168876308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||7.67|0.14|0.975
84562652|NCT01402986|168876308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||6.67|0.41|0.473
84562653|NCT01402986|168876308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.14|0.21|0.099
84562654|NCT01402986|168876308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.36|0.13|0.148
84562655|NCT01402986|168876309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.19|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||2.19|0.31|0.698
84562656|NCT01402986|168876309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.70|0.18|0.299
84562657|NCT01402986|168876309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.34|0.05|0.105
84607053|NCT00385723|168965319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.22||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.22|-0.64|0.0002
84607054|NCT00385723|168965320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.18|-0.64|0.80
84607055|NCT00385723|168965320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.21|-0.61|1.0
84607056|NCT01189292|168965324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|42.0|||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: Incidence of PONV is the same in both treatment arms||42|12|0.001
84607057|NCT01189292|168965325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||per protocol analysis||40|7|0.006
84607058|NCT01189292|168965328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model over the mean ranks at all time points measured (4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 hours)||||||0.674
84607059|NCT01189292|168965329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.835
84607060|NCT00353873|168965331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|1.7|0.012
84607061|NCT00353873|168965332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|3.2|0.003
84670874|NCT03792672|169075563|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|338.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.0||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|585.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||585|90.5|0.0269
84562658|NCT01402986|168876309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||2.47|0.20|0.576
84607062|NCT00353873|168965333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.7|0.389
84607063|NCT00353873|168965334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.7|0.535
84607064|NCT03743064|168965335|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.851|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MWp H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.851|0.718|<0.0001
84562659|NCT01402986|168876310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.25|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.25|0.19|0.133
84562660|NCT01402986|168876310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.46||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.67|0.13|0.241
84562661|NCT01402986|168876310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.84|0.12|0.510
84562662|NCT01402986|168876310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.85|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.85|0.19|0.661
84562663|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|13.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||13.79|-0.21|0.057
84562664|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.57||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|7.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||7.68|-6.54|0.874
84670875|NCT03792672|169075564|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.595||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.595|-1.37|0.5089
84749169|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.32|0.90|
84749170|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.13||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.13|1.19|
84495146|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.68|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.68|-1.20|0.577
84562665|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.37||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.95|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||13.95|0.80|0.028
84562666|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.09||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|7.66|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||7.66|-5.48|0.745
84562667|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|12.58|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||12.58|1.66|0.011
84562668|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.48||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.97|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||4.97|-5.93|0.863
84562669|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|16.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||16.27|-3.80|0.221
84562670|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|19.07|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||19.07|-1.91|0.108
84562671|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|9.89||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|21.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||21.35|-1.57|0.090
84562672|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.7||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||12.59|-11.19|0.908
84562673|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.52||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.64|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||11.64|1.41|0.013
84562674|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.23||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||6.29|-3.84|0.635
84562675|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|15.94|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||15.94|1.84|0.014
84562676|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|11.02|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||11.02|-3.19|0.280
84562677|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.22||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.22|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||9.22|-2.78|0.292
84562678|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.18||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.64|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||4.64|-6.99|0.691
84670876|NCT03792672|169075564|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.773||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.773|-1.19|0.7208
84749171|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.62|0.93|
84749172|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|17.08||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||17.08|8.63|
84670877|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|42.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||42.8|-14.8|0.4174
84562679|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.83||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|14.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||14.81|2.85|0.004
84562680|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.25||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|10.43|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||10.43|-1.92|0.177
84562681|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|14.5|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||14.50|-2.39|0.159
84562682|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.72||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|7.18|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||7.18|-8.63|0.857
84562683|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|13.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|22.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||22.22|5.28|0.002
84562684|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|5.23||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|14.02|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||14.02|-3.56|0.243
84562685|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.24|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||10.24|-1.50|0.144
84562686|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.46|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil cou|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μ||6.46|-5.01|0.804
84562687|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|11.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||21.23|1.15|0.029
84562688|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|10.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||10.62|-9.19|0.887
84562689|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||12.59|2.76|0.002
84562690|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.79||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.74|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||7.74|-2.15|0.268
84562691|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|13.01|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||13.01|2.64|0.003
84562692|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.42||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.62|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||7.62|-2.78|0.361
84562693|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.34||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|15.75|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||15.75|-3.06|0.185
84562694|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.34|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||9.34|-9.50|0.986
84562695|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.87||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|16.44|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||16.44|-14.70|0.912
84562696|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.46||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|14.84|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||14.84|-17.76|0.860
84562697|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.36|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||12.36|2.76|0.002
84562698|NCT01402986|168876311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.28||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|6.06|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||6.06|-3.51|0.601
84562699|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.08|-0.57|0.145
84562700|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.05||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.38|-0.28|0.759
84562701|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.35|-0.38|0.936
84670878|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|31.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||31.5|-25.3|0.3832
84562702|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.28||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.08|-0.64|0.127
84562703|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.13||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.14|-0.41|0.343
84562704|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.27|-0.29|0.928
84562705|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.23||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.28|-0.74|0.374
84562706|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.29||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.22|-0.81|0.259
84562707|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
84670879|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|6.58||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.58|-7.23|0.9368
84607065|NCT03743064|168965336|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.923|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant. The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||0.923|-0.641|0.7241
84607066|NCT03743064|168965337|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|3.216|||ANOVA|||||3.216|0.946|0.0003
84607067|NCT03743064|168965338|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.337|||ANOVA|||||3.337|1.471|<0.0001
84607068|NCT03743064|168965339|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|1.472|||ANOVA|||||1.472|-0.215|0.1443
84607069|NCT03743064|168965340|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|1.036|||ANOVA|||||1.036|-0.734|0.7376
84495147|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.32|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.32|-3.20|<0.001
84562708|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
84562709|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
84562710|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
84562711|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.11|-0.59|0.181
84562712|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.25||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.10|-0.60|0.161
84562713|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
84562714|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
84562715|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.22||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||0.08|-0.52|0.154
84562716|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μ||0.13|-0.48|0.271
84562717|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.36|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.36|-0.51|0.725
84562718|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.28|-0.53|0.559
84562719|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||-0.08|-0.87|0.019
84562720|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.21|-0.61|0.348
84562721|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.29|-0.35|0.855
84562722|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.11|-0.50|0.203
84607070|NCT00973102|168965358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|5.25|||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||5.25|1.16|.252
84562723|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.44||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.01|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.01|-0.89|0.055
84562724|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.08|-0.82|0.104
84562725|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.23|-0.37|0.652
84562726|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.32|-0.28|0.905
84562727|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.10|-0.49|0.198
84562728|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.18||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.11|-0.47|0.226
84607071|NCT00973102|168965359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.895
84670880|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|10.7||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.7|-3.32|0.3790
84607072|NCT00966719|168965360|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Fisher Exact|||||1.24|0.56|0.40
84607073|NCT00966719|168965361|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||||3.02|0.44|1
84607074|NCT00966719|168965362|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.91|1
84607075|NCT00966719|168965363|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.85|0.78
84607076|NCT00966719|168965364|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.30|0.32|0.32
84607077|NCT00966719|168965365|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.95|0.09
84607078|NCT00966719|168965366|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||||1.27|0.83|0.77
84607079|NCT00966719|168965367|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.15|||Fisher Exact|||||3.15|0.58|0.6
84562729|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.14||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.28|-0.56|0.513
84562730|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.42|-0.43|0.974
84562731|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.23|-0.97|0.226
84562732|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.15||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.75|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.75|-0.44|0.613
84562733|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.09|-0.43|0.198
84562734|NCT01402986|168876312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.08|-0.45|0.165
84607080|NCT03553498|168965370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84607081|NCT03553498|168965371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
84607082|NCT03553498|168965372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
84607083|NCT03553498|168965373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
84607084|NCT03343080|168965428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.776
84607085|NCT03343080|168965429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hours post-extubation||||0.296
84607086|NCT01636713|168965438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.191|0.110|<0.001
84607087|NCT01636713|168965438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference= UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.257|0.175|<0.001
84607088|NCT03689244|168965441|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.95||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Ratio of Geometric mean of Selexipag to Placebo was reported.||1.07|0.84|0.412
84562735|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.60|-0.13|0.211
84562736|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.53|-0.21|0.397
84562737|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||Repeated Measure Model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.56|-0.18|0.315
84607089|NCT01739803|168965443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||To control for experiment-wise Type I error rate in this analysis, a comparison-wise alpha of 0.01 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We projected mean composite adherence rate for all participants to be approximately 80% ± 15. We anticipated at least 10% increase in intervention group adherence at end of intervention. To have 80% power to detect expected difference of 10% at the 2-tailed 5% significance level, sample size needed to be at least 36 RTRs per group. We took a conservative approach, in combination with anticipated attrition over the course of study, and increased enrollment.||||<0.05
84607090|NCT01739803|168965444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84607091|NCT01739803|168965445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84670881|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|18.2||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||18.2|-3.44|0.2580
84670882|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||20.2|-1.45|0.1524
84607092|NCT00915148|168965446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The reported p-value corresponds with each area under the ROC assessments|Chi-squared|||In a previous study we investigated women before induction of labor. Using 40 mm as cut-off level for fetal head - perineum distance, the Cesarean section rate in primiparous women was 7% in the group with a short distance and 27% in the group with a long distance. We assumed similar results, with alpha 0.05, power 0.8 and a ratio of 1 : 1 for the numbers of women with a long and short distance. We would need to include 110 women in the study.||||<0.01
84670883|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.06|29.4||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||29.4|5.06|0.0220
84495148|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.72|-2.57|<0.001
84495149|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.31||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.16|-0.55|0.475
84562738|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.63|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.63|-0.11|0.166
84562739|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.262||95.0|-0.13|0.47|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.47|-0.13|0.262
84562740|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.44|-0.17|0.379
84562741|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.81|-0.32|0.387
84562742|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.84|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.84|-0.26|0.303
84562743|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
84562744|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
84562745|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
84562746|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
84562747|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.69|-0.06|0.102
84562748|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.3||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.68|-0.08|0.116
84562749|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
84562750|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
84562751|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.15|0.295
84607093|NCT00915148|168965447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||the reported p-value corresponds with each log rank comparison|Log Rank|||"Kaplan Meier plots were used to compare time from a defined prolonged labor in the first stage to delivery for~1. women with fetal head-perineum distance ≤40 mm vs. women with distance \>40 mm measured with 2D ultrasound.~2. women with angle of progression ≥110 degrees vs. women with angle \<110 degrees measured with 2D ultrasound"||||<0.01
84607094|NCT02525094|168965468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33||||||||4.33|0.90|
84670884|NCT03792672|169075565|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|21.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||21.8|-2.59|0.1927
84562752|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.17|0.342
84562753|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.18||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.60|-0.24|0.406
84562754|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.38||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.79|-0.03|0.069
84562755|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.62|-0.23|0.371
84562756|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.51|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.51|-0.37|0.766
84562757|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.57|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.57|-0.09|0.147
84562758|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.35||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.68|0.03|0.031
84495150|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.14||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.72|-0.99|0.753
84562759|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.09|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||1.09|0.10|0.020
84562760|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.77|-0.18|0.226
84562761|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.33|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.33|-0.31|0.964
84562762|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.42|-0.22|0.533
84562763|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.50|-0.15|0.292
84562764|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.59|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.59|-0.05|0.097
84562765|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.67|-0.18|0.260
84562766|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.53|-0.33|0.648
84562767|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.28||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.93|-0.37|0.398
84562768|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.32||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.32|-0.95|0.327
84562769|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.52|-0.05|0.105
84562770|NCT01402986|168876313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.60|0.03|0.030
84562771|NCT01402986|168876314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.44|0.62|0.803
84562772|NCT01402986|168876314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.35|0.52|0.457
84562773|NCT01402986|168876314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.27|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.27|0.40|0.250
84562774|NCT01402986|168876314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.74|0.66|0.794
84562775|NCT01402986|168876315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.46|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.46|0.59|0.614
84562776|NCT01402986|168876315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.74|0.61|0.506
84562777|NCT01402986|168876315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.243||95.0|0.53|1.18|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.18|0.53|0.243
84562778|NCT01402986|168876315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.34|0.57|0.531
84562779|NCT02634983|168876324|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Ventilated Lung Volume||8.60|1.40|0.0254
84562780|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|8.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Ventilation||8.44|1.11|0.0350
84670885|NCT03792672|169075566|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|10.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.5|-21.8|0.5590
84495151|NCT03522506|168740455|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.99||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.022
84562781|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Ventilation||9.84|0.08|0.0946
84562782|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|9.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Ventilation||9.07|0.87|0.0486
84562783|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|9.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Ventilation||9.35|1.42|0.0286
84562784|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|7.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Ventilation||7.17|-0.63|0.1650
84562785|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|11.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Ventilation||11.94|-0.71|0.1421
84562786|NCT02634983|168876325|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|12.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Ventilation||12.47|2.98|0.0099
84562787|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Perfusion||2.50|-0.64|0.3230
84562788|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Perfusion||2.97|-0.29|0.1717
84562789|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Perfusion||2.43|-1.05|0.5031
84562790|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Perfusion||3.65|0.15|0.0760
84562791|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Perfusion||2.16|-1.02|0.5465
84562792|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Perfusion||1.87|-1.85|0.9913
84562793|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Perfusion||4.40|-1.39|0.3837
84562794|NCT02634983|168876326|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Perfusion||2.48|-0.73|0.3624
84562795|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.18|0.11|<0.0001
84670886|NCT03792672|169075566|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.5|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||0.242|-32.5|0.1049
84670887|NCT03792672|169075566|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|6.06||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.06|-39.4|0.2238
84670888|NCT03792672|169075566|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||4.56|-41.3|0.1847
84749173|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.48||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.48|1.82|
84749174|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.87||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.87|1.98|
84749175|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.08||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||4.08|2.00|
84749176|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.21|0.64|
84562796|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
84562797|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.24|0.13|<0.0001
84562798|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.27|0.16|<0.0001
84562799|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
84562800|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
84670889|NCT00453999|169075569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Differences between groups by log-rank statistic stratified by oxygen saturation and duration of illness at randomization, and flu season.||||||0.306
84670890|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Sore Throat: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84749177|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.51||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.51|1.39|
84749178|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.41||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.41|1.56|
84749179|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.28|0.72|
84670891|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nasal Congestion: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84670892|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cough: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84670893|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Aches and Pains: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84670894|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Fatigue: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84495152|NCT03522506|168740456|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|22.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|29.3|||Linear mixed effect model|||||29.30|16.58|<0.001
84670895|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Headache: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84749180|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|7.33||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||7.33|3.67|
84749181|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.73|1.08|
84749182|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.19|0.81|
84749183|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.77||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.77|1.07|
84749184|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|1.01|1.8||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.80|1.01|
84749185|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.15|1.30|
84749186|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.12||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.24|
84749187|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.79|1.03|
84749188|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5||||||95.0|1.11|1.98||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.98|1.11|
84749189|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.12||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.16|
84749190|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.47|0.86|
84607095|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
84670896|NCT00453999|169075570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Feeling Feverish: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
84670897|NCT00453999|169075571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.276
84670898|NCT00453999|169075573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.994
84670899|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 12 hours||||>0.05
84670900|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 24 hours||||>0.05
84749191|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.69|1.16|
84749192|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.54|0.87|
84749193|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.84||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.84|0.94|
84749194|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.87||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.87|2.03|
84749195|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||1.13|0.84|
84749196|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.76|1.92|
84749197|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.42||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.42|1.55|
84495153|NCT03522506|168740456|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.59|37.31|||Linear mixed effects model|||||37.31|24.59|<0.001
84670901|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 36 hours||||>0.05
84670902|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 48 hours||||>0.05
84670903|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 72 hours||||>0.05
84670904|NCT00453999|169075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 96 hours||||>0.05
84670905|NCT00802412|169075576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.5|0.4|0.51
84670906|NCT00802412|169075576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.66|.45
84670907|NCT02767427|169075587|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test on data from a parallel-group design with sample sizes of 18 in the reference group and 18 in the treatment group achieves 80% power. The significance was set at 5%. The standard deviation was 1.00, and the equivalence limits were set at -1.00 and 1.00.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests were conducted with 18 in each group.||||||<0.05
84670908|NCT04630093|169075593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs. 6 months after receiving panel-based pharmacogenetic testing||||0.001
84670909|NCT01073865|169075597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower limit of the CI of the difference is greater than or equal to -17.5%. This non-inferiority margin was pre-defined in the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|13.9|||||%PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - %PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in %PFS at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||13.90|-11.40|
84670910|NCT01073865|169075598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|9.67|||||ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in ORR at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||9.67|-15.47|
84670911|NCT04120610|169075637|OTHER||Correlation|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.41||||||Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.41|0.10|
84670912|NCT04120610|169075638|OTHER||Correlation|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.03|-0.46|
84670913|NCT04120610|169075638|OTHER||Correlation|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.51|
84670914|NCT04120610|169075638|OTHER||Correlation|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.14|-0.38|
84670915|NCT04120610|169075639|OTHER||Correlation|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.52|
84670916|NCT04120610|169075639|OTHER||Correlation|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.15|-0.52|
84495154|NCT03522506|168740456|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|32.75|||Linear mixed effect model|||||32.75|20.24|<0.001
84495155|NCT03522506|168740457|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|22.08|||Linear mixed effect model|||||22.08|7.04|<0.001
84495156|NCT03522506|168740457|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|32.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|39.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.73|24.68|<0.001
84495157|NCT03522506|168740457|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|25.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|33.14|||Linear mixed effect model|||||33.14|18.33|<0.001
84495158|NCT03522506|168740458|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|15.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||15.85|3.35|0.003
84495159|NCT03522506|168740458|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|33.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|39.58|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.58|27.08|<0.001
84495160|NCT03522506|168740458|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|23.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||23.06|10.77|<0.001
84562801|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.26|<0.0001
84495161|NCT03522506|168740459|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.36|||ANOVA|||||3.36|-7.68|0.436
84562802|NCT02634983|168876327|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.38|0.26|<0.0001
84562803|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.15|<0.0001
84562804|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.0001
84562805|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.42|0.20|<0.0001
84670917|NCT04120610|169075639|OTHER||Correlation|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.02|-0.47|
84495162|NCT03522506|168740459|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.29||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.23|||ANOVA|||||3.23|-7.81|0.409
84749198|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.67|1.84|
84562806|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.001
84562807|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
84562808|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
84562809|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.54|0.36|<0.0001
84562810|NCT02634983|168876328|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
84562811|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||3.12|1.21|0.0006
84562812|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||3.33|0.78|0.0106
84562813|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||3.44|1.20|0.0013
84562814|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||4.23|1.41|0.0017
84562815|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|5.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.09|2.51|<0.0001
84562816|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.02|2.45|<0.0001
84562817|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.16|6.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||6.03|3.16|<0.0001
84670918|NCT04120610|169075640|OTHER||Correlation|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.36|-0.08|
84607096|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
84607097|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.51|
84607098|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|11.57||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||11.57|1.37|
84607099|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.46|
84607100|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.48|
84749199|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|5.93||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.13|
84749200|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.49||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.49|2.41|
84607101|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.48|
84607102|NCT00969436|168965480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.29||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||10.29|-1.59|
84607103|NCT01018095|168965489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at TOC was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||1.00|0.25|.045
84607104|NCT01018095|168965489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98||Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.21|<0.05
84749201|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.52||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.52|2.34|
84670919|NCT04120610|169075640|OTHER||Correlation|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.39|-0.02|
84670920|NCT04120610|169075640|OTHER||Correlation|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.47|-0.02|
84749202|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.93||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.01|
84749203|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.79||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.79|1.91|
84749204|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.66|2.02|
84749205|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.6||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.60|2.44|
84749206|NCT00427895|169252446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.31||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.31|3.31|
84749207|NCT00427895|169252447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|45.1||||||||45.1|33.0|
84562818|NCT02634983|168876329|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||6.39|3.56|<0.0001
84562819|NCT02634983|168876330|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Clearance Index||0.60|-0.62|0.9820
84562820|NCT02634983|168876331|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffusion Capacity of Lung for CO||1.27|0.04|0.0821
84562821|NCT00076258|168876333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission rate|29.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Both unadjusted and adjusted rates (for significant covariates) were reported||||||<0.05
84562822|NCT00076258|168876333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission Rate|28.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||For the covariate adjusted GLMM the remission rates were 15.5 for the LD and 28.3 for the PHD with a p \< 0.06 and the NNT of 7.8 for the PHD versus the LD.||||<0.05
84562823|NCT04679948|168876359|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|112.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.02|124.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =16.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||124.30|101.02|
84571471|NCT02858908|168893800|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||4.3|-6.5|0.6631
84571472|NCT02858908|168893800|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||5.2|-5.5|0.9546
84571473|NCT03191552|168893809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84571474|NCT03191552|168893810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
84571475|NCT03191552|168893811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
84607105|NCT01018095|168965490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||0.98|.21|=0.03
84670921|NCT03373383|169075641|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|17.2|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|33.9||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||33.9|-3.8|=0.102
84562824|NCT04679948|168876360|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|102.23|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 8.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||102.23|91.55|
84562825|NCT04679948|168876361|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|110.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.15|113.71|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.71|107.15|
84562826|NCT04679948|168876362|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|113.01|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 6.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.01|104.11|
84562827|NCT04679948|168876363|OTHER||Ratio of GLSM [%]|99.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.66|110.95|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =12.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||110.95|89.66|
84562828|NCT04679948|168876364|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|71.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|113.96|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =87.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.96|44.64|
84562829|NCT04679948|168876365|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|126.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.15|135.05|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =10.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||135.05|119.15|
84562830|NCT04679948|168876366|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.25|139.92|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =11.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||139.92|121.25|
84562831|NCT02636439|168876367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|112.0|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||112|-25|0.21
84562832|NCT02636439|168876368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.8|-1.0|0.86
84562833|NCT02636439|168876369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.8|-2.8|0.77
84562834|NCT02636439|168876370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.2|-0.3|0.85
84562835|NCT02636439|168876371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|12.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||12.9|-0.1|0.053
84562836|NCT02636439|168876372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.13|0.00|0.043
84562837|NCT02636439|168876373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0|-10|0.07
84562838|NCT02636439|168876374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.3|-4.4|0.79
84562839|NCT02494401|168876377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84562840|NCT02494401|168876377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84562841|NCT02494401|168876377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84562842|NCT02494401|168876378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84562843|NCT02494401|168876378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84562844|NCT02494401|168876378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p value 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84562845|NCT02494401|168876379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84562846|NCT02494401|168876379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84562847|NCT02494401|168876379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84562848|NCT02494401|168876380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84562849|NCT02494401|168876380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84562850|NCT02494401|168876380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84562851|NCT02494401|168876381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84562852|NCT02494401|168876381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84562853|NCT02494401|168876381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84562854|NCT02494401|168876382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84562855|NCT02494401|168876382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84562856|NCT02494401|168876382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84562857|NCT02494401|168876383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84562858|NCT02494401|168876383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84562859|NCT02494401|168876383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84562860|NCT02494401|168876384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84562861|NCT02494401|168876384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84562862|NCT02494401|168876384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84562863|NCT02494401|168876385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84562864|NCT02494401|168876385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84562865|NCT02494401|168876385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84562866|NCT02494401|168876386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84562867|NCT02494401|168876386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84562868|NCT02494401|168876386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84562869|NCT02494401|168876387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84562870|NCT02494401|168876387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84562871|NCT02494401|168876387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84562872|NCT02494401|168876388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84562873|NCT02494401|168876388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84562874|NCT02494401|168876388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84562875|NCT02494401|168876389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84562876|NCT02494401|168876389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84562877|NCT02494401|168876389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84562878|NCT02494401|168876390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84562879|NCT02494401|168876390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84562880|NCT02494401|168876390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84562881|NCT02494401|168876391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84562882|NCT02494401|168876391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84562883|NCT02494401|168876391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
84562884|NCT02494401|168876392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84562885|NCT02494401|168876392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84562886|NCT02494401|168876392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84562887|NCT02494401|168876393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84562888|NCT02494401|168876393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84562889|NCT02494401|168876393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84749208|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.09||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||5.09|2.32|
84749209|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.16||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.13|
84562890|NCT02849704|168876425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84562891|NCT02849704|168876426|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84562892|NCT02849704|168876427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84562893|NCT02849704|168876428|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84562894|NCT02849704|168876429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84562895|NCT02849704|168876430|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84562896|NCT00802672|168876478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary efficacy analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-0.20% to +0.20%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.61|2.45|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||2.45|-17.61|
84562897|NCT02579382|168876494|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.107||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.282||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.282|-0.067|0.227
84562898|NCT02579382|168876494|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.018||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.191||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.191|-0.156|0.840
84562899|NCT02579382|168876494|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.301||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.047|0.151
84562900|NCT04336475|168876517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. p value stands for the comparison of final oral aperture measurements between two groups. (after 2 months' period)|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||0.564
84562901|NCT01990573|168876523|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.002||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
84562902|NCT01990573|168876524|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.962||||0.962|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.962
84562903|NCT03188523|168876529|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>98%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
84562904|NCT03188523|168876529|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>95%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
84562905|NCT03188523|168876545|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
84562906|NCT03188523|168876545|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
84562907|NCT01649362|168876555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84562908|NCT01649362|168876556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84562909|NCT01649362|168876557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84749210|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.98||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.98|0.88|
84749211|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.97||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.97|2.04|
84749212|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.00|1.50|
84749213|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|7.99||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||7.99|2.76|
84495163|NCT03522506|168740459|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|22.18|||ANOVA|||||22.18|11.37|<0.001
84495164|NCT05643573|168740460|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.457|5.833|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.833|2.457|<.0001
84495165|NCT05643573|168740460|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.839|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.839|2.460|<.0001
84495166|NCT05643573|168740461|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.552|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.552|0.185|<.0001
84495167|NCT05643573|168740461|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.547|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.547|0.182|<.0001
84495168|NCT05643573|168740462|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.61||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.149|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.149|1.207|0.0011
84495169|NCT05643573|168740462|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.599||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.197|2.134|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.134|1.197|0.0013
84495170|NCT04409262|168740487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7414
84562910|NCT01400906|168876617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.38|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.380|-0.037|
84562911|NCT01400906|168876617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.37|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.370|-0.047|
84562912|NCT01400906|168876622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.836|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.836|0.440|
84562913|NCT01400906|168876622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.859|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.859|0.463|
84562914|NCT01400906|168876623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.333|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.333|0.018|
84562915|NCT01400906|168876623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.323|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.323|0.008|
84562916|NCT01400906|168876624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.627|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.627|0.326|
84562917|NCT01400906|168876624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.680|0.380|
84562918|NCT02700425|168876692|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
84749214|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.97||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.97|0.93|
84562919|NCT02700425|168876692|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
84562920|NCT02700425|168876693|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
84495171|NCT04409262|168740488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.72|0.8993
84495172|NCT04409262|168740489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.44|0.77|0.7648
84495173|NCT04409262|168740490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.65|0.7867
84495174|NCT04409262|168740491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.63|0.4602
84495175|NCT04409262|168740492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.982||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.80|0.8664
84495176|NCT04409262|168740493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.75|0.9569
84495177|NCT04409262|168740494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.78|0.6331
84495178|NCT04409262|168740495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.70|0.9622
84495179|NCT04409262|168740496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.79|0.4850
84495180|NCT04409262|168740497|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.2||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.9|-10.2|0.5915
84495181|NCT04409262|168740497|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.5||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||5.6|-10.5|0.5494
84495182|NCT04409262|168740498|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||9.2|-37.4|0.2590
84562921|NCT02700425|168876693|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome of His Bundle Pacing was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
84562922|NCT02700425|168876694|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.62||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular hospitalization or death by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.62
84562923|NCT02700425|168876695|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of Coronary Sinus Pacing arm was presented at baseline as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.09
84562924|NCT02700425|168876695|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of the His Bundle Pacing arm was presented at baseline and 12 months as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.32
84562925|NCT02700425|168876696|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with His Bundle Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.35
84562926|NCT02700425|168876696|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with Coronary Sinus Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.07
84562927|NCT02700425|168876697|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular rehospitalization by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
84562928|NCT02700425|168876698|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first treated VT/VF by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
84670922|NCT03373383|169075641|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.1|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.4||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.4|-1.2|=0.064
84495183|NCT04409262|168740498|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||7.8|-37.0|0.2290
84562929|NCT01301079|168876699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.113
84562930|NCT01301079|168876700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
84562931|NCT01301079|168876701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
84495184|NCT04409262|168740499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1125||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.38|||Regression, Linear|||||8.38|-2.16|0.2434
84495185|NCT04409262|168740500|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|0.6||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||5.6|-4.4|0.8222
84562932|NCT01301079|168876702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84670923|NCT03373383|169075641|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.2|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.5||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.5|-1.2|=0.063
84670924|NCT03373383|169075641|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|12.4|||=|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|30.1||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp\[diff\]), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||30.1|-9.7|=0.248
84495186|NCT04409262|168740500|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-1.3||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.2|-7.8|0.6944
84495187|NCT04409262|168740500|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-3.0||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||4.0|-10.1|0.3919
84495188|NCT04409262|168740501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.78|0.6778
84495189|NCT04409262|168740502|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.9||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.8|-8.7|0.7692
84495190|NCT04409262|168740503|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.3||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|-7.8|0.9334
84562933|NCT01301079|168876703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
84562934|NCT01301079|168876704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
84495191|NCT03677440|168740529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||This involves a repeated-measures ANOVA testing a condition (i.e., treadmill walking exercise training vs. stretching-and-toning exercise training)-by-time (i.e., baseline, follow-up) interaction on Symbol Digit Modalities Test scores.||||.34
84495192|NCT03677440|168740530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.01
84562935|NCT01301079|168876705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
84749215|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.39||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.39|0.99|
84749216|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.5||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.50|1.37|
84749217|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.68||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.68|1.78|
84749218|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.01||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.01|1.77|
84749219|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.13||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||6.13|1.99|
84749220|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.08||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.08|2.87|
84749221|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.30|2.26|
84749222|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.80|1.72|
84749223|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|10.19||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.19|4.09|
84749224|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.63||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.63|1.83|
84749225|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.03||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.03|2.41|
84495193|NCT03677440|168740531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
84495194|NCT03677440|168740532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||.63
84495195|NCT03677440|168740533|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.067||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.20
84495196|NCT03677440|168740534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||.96
84495197|NCT03677440|168740535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
84562936|NCT01301079|168876706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.386
84495198|NCT03677440|168740536|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.087||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.14
84562937|NCT01301079|168876707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.499
84562938|NCT01301079|168876708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.909
84562939|NCT01301079|168876709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
84562940|NCT01301079|168876710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.872
84562941|NCT01301079|168876711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598
84562942|NCT01301079|168876712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
84562943|NCT01301079|168876713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.744
84749226|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|10.82||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.82|3.13|
84495199|NCT03677440|168740537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
84495200|NCT03677440|168740538|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.048||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.28
84495201|NCT00931515|168740539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84495202|NCT03655951|168740540|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
84495203|NCT03655951|168740541|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
84495204|NCT03655951|168740542|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
84495205|NCT03655951|168740543|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
84495206|NCT03655951|168740544|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
84495207|NCT03655951|168740545|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
84495208|NCT03655951|168740546|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
84495209|NCT03655951|168740547|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
84495210|NCT03655951|168740548|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
84495211|NCT03655951|168740549|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84749227|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.84||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.84|1.30|
84495212|NCT03655951|168740550|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
84495213|NCT03655951|168740551|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
84495214|NCT03655951|168740552|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.42
84495215|NCT03655951|168740553|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
84495216|NCT03655951|168740554|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0003
84495217|NCT03655951|168740555|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
84495218|NCT03655951|168740556|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
84495219|NCT03655951|168740557|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.70
84495220|NCT03655951|168740558|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84495221|NCT03655951|168740559|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
84495222|NCT03655951|168740560|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
84562944|NCT01301079|168876714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
84562945|NCT01301079|168876715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
84562946|NCT01301079|168876716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.586
84562947|NCT01301079|168876717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
84562948|NCT01301079|168876718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
84562949|NCT01301079|168876719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
84562950|NCT01301079|168876720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
84562951|NCT01301079|168876721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
84562952|NCT01301079|168876722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
84562953|NCT01301079|168876723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
84562954|NCT01301079|168876724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
84607106|NCT01274611|168965494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84670925|NCT03373383|169075642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.39||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||8.39|0.88|=0.081
84562955|NCT01301079|168876725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.611
84607107|NCT01274611|168965495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|||>|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.01
84670926|NCT03373383|169075642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.41||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||7.41|0.76|=0.137
84562956|NCT01301079|168876726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
84562957|NCT01301079|168876727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
84562958|NCT01301079|168876728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
84562959|NCT01301079|168876729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
84670927|NCT03373383|169075642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||6.89|0.68|=0.192
84562960|NCT01301079|168876730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.422
84562961|NCT01301079|168876731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.500
84562962|NCT01301079|168876732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.435
84562963|NCT01301079|168876733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
84562964|NCT01301079|168876734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557
84562965|NCT01639703|168876743|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.21|0.47|0.2476
84562966|NCT01639703|168876744|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.66|0.77|0.5354
84562967|NCT01639703|168876745|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.13|0.71|0.3487
84562968|NCT01639703|168876746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.29|0.90|0.4195
84562969|NCT01639703|168876747|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.54|0.53|0.7127
84608454|NCT01563172|168967876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|15.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|19.31||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||19.31|11.45|<0.0001
84562970|NCT01639703|168876748|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||2.31|0.86|0.1753
84562971|NCT04472494|168876755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test|||||4.49|0.26|0.9297
84562972|NCT04472494|168876756|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|0.64||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.82|-0.55|0.7400
84562973|NCT04472494|168876757|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.1||||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test||Estimate of Difference is based on minimum risk weights|||20.34|-20.55|0.9684
84562974|NCT04472494|168876758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.97|0.18|0.8504
84562975|NCT04472494|168876759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|0.53|0.2724
84562976|NCT04472494|168876759|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|36.17|||||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|36.17|-10.61|
84562977|NCT04472494|168876760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.64|0.33|0.4734
84562978|NCT04472494|168876760|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|27.57|||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|||27.57|-16.71|
84562979|NCT00169104|168876805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.29|t-test, 2 sided|df=15||T test||||>0.05
84607108|NCT00541346|168965541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|33.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change (Pre-Post) Score at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||33.1|19.6|<0.001
84607109|NCT00541346|168965542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|29.3||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||29.3|16.9|<0.001
84608455|NCT01563172|168967877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|514.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|283.02|744.99||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||744.99|283.02|<0.0001
84562980|NCT04819438|168876824|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of Cmax geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|117.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.43|124.06|||ANOVA|||||124.06|110.43|<0.0001
84749228|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.78|2.02|
84562981|NCT04819438|168876825|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-t geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.25|115.5|||ANOVA|||||115.50|108.25|<0.0001
84562982|NCT04819438|168876827|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-∞ geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.19|115.29|||ANOVA|||||115.29|108.19|<0.0001
84562983|NCT01882803|168876847|OTHER||||||<=|0.0001||||||'\<=' represents '≤'|Exact Binomial Test|The p-value was calculated by 1-sided exact binomial test with the null hypothesis that ORR ≤30%.||ORR was tested against the null (≤30%) by 1-sided exact binomial test at 0.025 level.||||<=0.0001
84562984|NCT01515696|168876859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84562985|NCT01515696|168876860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84562986|NCT01515696|168876861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84562987|NCT00237692|168876879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.7|
84562988|NCT00237692|168876879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patients with controled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|64.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||64.0|55.7|
84562989|NCT00237692|168876879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patinets with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
84562990|NCT00237692|168876879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
84562991|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 6 months.||66.7|49.3|
84562992|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|60.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|69.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||69.3|52.5|
84562993|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.9|73.1|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||73.1|56.9|
84562994|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||72.0|55.6|
84562995|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||14.9|-9.0|
84562996|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||18.7|-4.7|
84562997|NCT00237692|168876880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||17.6|-6.0|
84562998|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|68.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||68.3|51.4|
84562999|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months||80.7|65.6|
84749229|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.76||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.76|1.87|
84563000|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||80.7|66.1|
84749230|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|6.58||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.58|2.97|
84563001|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|76.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 12 months.||76.6|60.5|
84563002|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.4|2.0|
84563003|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.6|2.4|
84563004|NCT00237692|168876881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.2||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||20.2|-2.9|
84563005|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|70.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 18 months||70.6|53.0|
84563006|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|67.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at 18 months||67.9|50.8|
84563007|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months.||72.0|55.1|
84563008|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|79.5|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months||79.5|63.7|
84563009|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|9.7||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||9.7|-14.6|
84563010|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|13.8||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||13.8|-10.3|
84563011|NCT00237692|168876882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|21.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||21.4|-1.9|
84563012|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||7.1|-3.1|
84563013|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Dif in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||3.8|-2.7|
84563014|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.5|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management.||5.5|-4.8|
84563015|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nuse Med Management||4.0|-2.6|
84563016|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.6|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|-3.3|
84563017|NCT00237692|168876884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|0.3|
84563018|NCT00351936|168876890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84563019|NCT00351936|168876891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84608456|NCT01563172|168967878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|265.92||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|492.83||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||492.83|39.00|0.0218
84749231|NCT00427895|169252448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.41||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||9.41|3.20|
84563020|NCT00351936|168876892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.747
84563021|NCT00351936|168876893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.208
84563022|NCT00351936|168876894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.665
84563023|NCT00351936|168876895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.999
84563024|NCT00351936|168876896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84563025|NCT02081001|168876897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|0.74|0.23
84563026|NCT02081001|168876897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|0.69|0.52
84563027|NCT02081001|168876897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.25|0.59|0.49
84563028|NCT02081001|168876898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.88|0.23
84563029|NCT02081001|168876898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.01|0.09
84563030|NCT02081001|168876898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|1.11|0.02
84563031|NCT02081001|168876899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.97|0.15
84563032|NCT02081001|168876899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.90|0.24
84563033|NCT02081001|168876899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.60|0.31
84563034|NCT02081001|168876900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|1.01|0.09
84749232|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.2||||||Serotype 1: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.2|1.9|
84749233|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.1|-0.3|
84563035|NCT02081001|168876900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.93|0.29
84749234|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||||||Serotype 4: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-0.2|
84749235|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-2.6|
84749236|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|31.7||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||31.7|21.7|
84749237|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.0||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|3.2|
84495223|NCT03655951|168740561|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
84495224|NCT03655951|168740562|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
84495225|NCT03655951|168740563|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
84495226|NCT03655951|168740564|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
84495227|NCT03655951|168740565|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
84749238|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||17.4|7.3|
84749239|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|19.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||19.5|8.7|
84749240|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.8||||||Serotype 14: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.8|-5.6|
84749241|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.5|2.6|
84495228|NCT03655951|168740566|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
84563036|NCT02081001|168876900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.96|0.24
84495229|NCT03655951|168740567|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
84563037|NCT02081001|168876901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.60|0.70
84563038|NCT02081001|168876901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|0.94|0.19
84607110|NCT00541346|168965543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.||Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||16.8|5.4|<0.001
84670928|NCT03373383|169075642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.42||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||9.42|1.05|=0.041
84563039|NCT02081001|168876901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estmate ratio|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|1.07|0.052
84563040|NCT02081001|168876902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.66|0.87|0.16
84563041|NCT02081001|168876902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.54|0.68|0.48
84563042|NCT02081001|168876902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.57|0.28
84563043|NCT02081001|168876903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|0.87|0.61
84563044|NCT02081001|168876903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|0.94|0.22
84563045|NCT02081001|168876903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.66|0.26
84563046|NCT02081001|168876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.96|0.19
84563047|NCT02081001|168876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.95|0.21
84563048|NCT02081001|168876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|0.97|0.19
84670929|NCT03373383|169075646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.3||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||4.30|1.02|=0.045
84495230|NCT03655951|168740568|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
84563049|NCT02081001|168876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-17.1|0.24
84563050|NCT02081001|168876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.7|-30.1|0.0005
84563051|NCT02081001|168876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-34.0|<0.0001
84563052|NCT02081001|168876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.1|0.22
84563053|NCT02081001|168876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-4.0|0.58
84563054|NCT02081001|168876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-6.7|0.03
84563055|NCT04274075|168876907|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.12|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.12|0.945|
84563056|NCT04274075|168876907|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|0.859|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.859|0.726|
84563057|NCT04274075|168876908|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|1.5|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.50|-0.225|
84563058|NCT04274075|168876908|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.45|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||2.45|1.26|
84563059|NCT04274075|168876911|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.04|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.04|0.903|
84563060|NCT04274075|168876911|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.988|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.988|0.855|
84563061|NCT04274075|168876912|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.05|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.05|0.908|
84563062|NCT04274075|168876912|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.985|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.985|0.856|
84563063|NCT01151345|168876934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|88.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|96.75||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||96.75|81.23|
84607111|NCT00541346|168965544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||11.1|3.3|<0.001
84607112|NCT00541346|168965545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|4.1|||<|0.01||95.0|1.2|6.9||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.9|1.2|<0.01
84607113|NCT00541346|168965546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian random intercept model.|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.2||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||5.2|1.8|<0.001
84607114|NCT00541346|168965547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.4||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-5.4|-16.8|<0.001
84607115|NCT00541346|168965548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|1.94|||>|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.82||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.82|-2.98|>0.21
84607116|NCT00541346|168965549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-3.4|||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||0.80|-7.9|>0.06
84749242|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.1|1.2|
84749243|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.2||||||Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.||3.2|-5.5|
84563064|NCT01151345|168876935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.83|99.34||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||99.34|83.83|
84563065|NCT01151345|168876936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|83.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.08|103.31||||||Natural-log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||103.31|67.08|
84749244|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.3||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||29.3|17.0|
84563066|NCT01904032|168877004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0537||0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2691|4.8656|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the CES-D change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||4.8656|-3.2691|.6982
84563067|NCT01904032|168877005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6619||0.9908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2946|7.2097|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the PAID change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||7.2097|-7.2946|.9908
84563068|NCT01904032|168877006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1474||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7366|6.7298|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||6.7298|-5.7366|.8749
84563069|NCT01904032|168877007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8636||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1784|5.2033|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in diastolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||5.2033|-2.1784|.4187
84563070|NCT02432209|168877008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.48|0.404
84563071|NCT04485637|168877059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||2.79|1.00|=0.05
84563072|NCT04485637|168877059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||2.76|1.00|=0.05
84563073|NCT04485637|168877060|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||3.26|0.71|=0.29
84563074|NCT04485637|168877060|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced graph \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||1.93|0.48|=0.90
84749245|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.5||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.5|-0.2|
84749246|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.1|-3.6|
84749247|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.5|-0.4|
84749248|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.9|-5.8|
84563075|NCT04485637|168877061|SUPERIORITY||Unst|-0.14|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.13
84563076|NCT04485637|168877061|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.14|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.12
84563077|NCT04485637|168877062|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Unstandardized B|-0.08|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.25|=0.33
84563078|NCT04485637|168877062|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.09|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||0.08|-0.26|=0.29
84563079|NCT02774005|168877063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.352|3.884|||Wald Chi-square|||||3.884|1.352|0.0021
84563080|NCT02774005|168877064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|2.918|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||2.918|0.929|0.0873
84749249|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.8|-0.4|
84749250|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|0.8|
84563081|NCT02774005|168877065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.323||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|25.912|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||25.912|2.339|0.0005
84563082|NCT01451554|168877066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||2 tailed t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using the 2 sample T-test.||||0.06
84563083|NCT01451554|168877067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using a 2 sample T-test.||||0.31
84563084|NCT02576977|168877081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.99324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.08|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|||2.08|1.08|0.99324
84563085|NCT02576977|168877082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.99989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.55|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|||The Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals were based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|2.55|1.32|0.99989
84563086|NCT02576977|168877083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. SOC|-5.2||||0.79921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|6.9|-17.1|0.79921
84563087|NCT01677182|168877135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.783|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|3.0||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.0|-1.4|0.783
84563088|NCT01677182|168877135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.329|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|1.7||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.7|-2.6|0.329
84563089|NCT01677182|168877136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|1.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.1|0.088
84563090|NCT01677182|168877136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.642|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.5||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-0.7|0.642
84563091|NCT01677182|168877137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.792|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.792
84563092|NCT01677182|168877137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.1|-0.4|0.171
84563093|NCT01677182|168877138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.653
84563094|NCT01677182|168877138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.673|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.2||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-0.3|0.673
84608457|NCT01563172|168967879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-822.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.34|-598.42||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-598.42|-1047.34|<0.0001
84563095|NCT01677182|168877139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|2.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.0|-0.4|0.119
84563096|NCT01677182|168877139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.791|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.0|-1.3|0.791
84563097|NCT01677182|168877140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|2.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.1|-1.0|0.422
84563098|NCT01677182|168877140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.655|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.9|-1.3|0.655
84563099|NCT01677182|168877141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.5|2.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.8|-4.5|0.696
84563100|NCT01677182|168877141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.472|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|3.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.8|-3.6|0.472
84563101|NCT01677182|168877142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.53||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.530|0.651|0.994
84563102|NCT01677182|168877142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.352||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352|0.580|0.575
84495231|NCT03655951|168740569|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0001
84495232|NCT03655951|168740570|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
84563103|NCT01677182|168877143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.577||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.577|0.606|0.927
84563104|NCT01677182|168877143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.397||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.397|0.536|0.553
84563105|NCT02501161|168877144|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
84563106|NCT02501161|168877145|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
84563107|NCT03159299|168877198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.15
84563108|NCT00762762|168877234|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84495233|NCT03655951|168740571|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
84563109|NCT00762762|168877235|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84749251|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.2||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.2|0.6|
84495234|NCT03655951|168740572|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
84495235|NCT03655951|168740573|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
84495236|NCT03655951|168740574|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.14
84563110|NCT00762762|168877236|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563111|NCT00762762|168877237|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563112|NCT00762762|168877238|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563113|NCT00762762|168877239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563114|NCT00762762|168877240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563115|NCT00762762|168877241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563116|NCT00762762|168877242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84670930|NCT03373383|169075646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.93||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.93|0.93|=0.079
84563117|NCT00762762|168877243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84563118|NCT01703169|168877248|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of platelet response in a previous study (PMID:22762314) was 0.36 (9/25). The null hypothesis of no difference between the platelet response rate in this study and that of the previous study was tested using a two-sided exact test of binomial proportions. A p-value of 0.40 was obtained. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|||
84563119|NCT00929994|168877300|OTHER||||||=|0.06||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts. Assumption of sphericity was met for all analyses determined by the Mauchley test of sphericity (all \>.05).|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance of 6MWD, was utilized between the 3 test times 0, 3, and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts.||||=0.06
84563120|NCT00929994|168877300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84563121|NCT00929994|168877301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84749252|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.9||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.9|-0.3|
84749253|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Perecentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.7|-0.1|
84749254|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||2.5|-3.8|
84749255|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||1.9|-2.1|
84749256|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.2||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.2|-2.4|
84495237|NCT03655951|168740575|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.008
84749257|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|-4.7|
84495238|NCT03655951|168740576|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
84495239|NCT03655951|168740577|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84495240|NCT03655951|168740578|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
84495241|NCT03655951|168740579|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.4
84495242|NCT03655951|168740580|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
84607117|NCT00541346|168965550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-5.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-1.18||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-1.18|-9.37|<0.01
84608458|NCT01563172|168967880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-574.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.08|-341.5||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-341.50|-808.08|<0.0001
84749258|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.6||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.6|4.3|
84749259|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.9|-0.3|
84749260|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.9||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.9|2.1|
84749261|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.1|1.4|
84749262|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.1||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.1|1.7|
84749263|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.3|4.1|
84749264|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.6|5.4|
84749265|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.4|4.8|
84749266|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.9||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.9|8.0|
84749267|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.7||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|0.9|
84563122|NCT00929994|168877302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of CES-D was utilized between the 3 test times baseline, 3 and 6 months.||||0.04
84563123|NCT00929994|168877303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of MoCA was utilized between the 3 test times (-3, 0 and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.||||>0.05
84563124|NCT03258645|168877308|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at index date was applied.||||< 0.001
84749268|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.1|0.3|
84749269|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|5.4|
84749270|NCT00427895|169252449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.7|6.8|
84495243|NCT03655951|168740581|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
84495244|NCT03655951|168740582|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
84495245|NCT03655951|168740583|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
84495246|NCT03655951|168740584|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.89
84563125|NCT03258645|168877309|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at index date was applied.||||0.01
84563126|NCT03258645|168877310|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Relation between age and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.25|1.02|0.016
84571476|NCT03191552|168893812|SUPERIORITY|Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.||||||0.004||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was performed to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84749271|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.51||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.51|1.52|
84563127|NCT03258645|168877311|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.04|0.002
84749272|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.99||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.99|0.95|
84749273|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.64|1.47|
84563128|NCT03258645|168877312|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between CHA2DS2-VASc and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.00|0.04
84563129|NCT03258645|168877313|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Relation between HAS-BLED and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.00|0.45|0.051
84563130|NCT03258645|168877314|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Relation between History/Predisposition To Bleeding and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||0.93|0.9|0.026
84563131|NCT00828061|168877352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.25||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.54||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.54|0.12|0.002
84563132|NCT00828061|168877352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.15||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.15|0.03|<0.001
84563133|NCT00828061|168877353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.537||95.0|-15.48|17.26||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||17.26|-15.48|0.537
84571477|NCT03191552|168893813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.837
84749274|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.12|0.92|
84749275|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.01|
84749276|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.67|
84749277|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.92|0.94|
84749278|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.23|0.80|
84495247|NCT03655951|168740585|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
84571478|NCT03191552|168893814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.570
84571479|NCT03191552|168893815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.334
84563134|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.02||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.25|0.78|0.028
84563135|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.96|2.50|<0.001
84563136|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.33|8.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.79|4.33|<0.001
84563137|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.95|3.60|<0.001
84563138|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.37|2.74|<0.001
84563139|NCT00572455|168877355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.79|8.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.25|3.79|<0.001
84563140|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.32|-0.21|0.171
84563141|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.553
84563142|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.555
84563143|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.73|0.22|0.053
84563144|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.80|1.29|<0.001
84749279|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.68|
84563145|NCT00572455|168877356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.81||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to Latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.07|0.56|0.018
84563146|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.90|1.34|0.011
84563147|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.47|1.91|0.004
84563148|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|4.19|<0.001
84563149|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.11|7.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.54|3.11|<0.001
84563150|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|3.66|<0.001
84563151|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|3.52|<0.001
84563152|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|-0.14|0.120
84563153|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|7.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.14|1.97|0.005
84563154|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|3.58|<0.001
84571480|NCT03191552|168893816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84563155|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.54|3.52|<0.001
84749280|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.66|0.80|
84495248|NCT03655951|168740586|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
84495249|NCT03655951|168740587|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
84495250|NCT03655951|168740588|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
84495251|NCT03655951|168740589|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.13
84495252|NCT03655951|168740590|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
84495253|NCT03655951|168740591|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.96
84495254|NCT03655951|168740592|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
84495255|NCT03655951|168740593|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.24
84495256|NCT03655951|168740594|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
84495257|NCT03655951|168740595|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.18
84495258|NCT03655951|168740596|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||.67
84495259|NCT03655951|168740597|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
84495260|NCT03655951|168740598|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
84749281|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.79||||||95.0|1.07|3.0||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.00|1.07|
84495261|NCT03655951|168740599|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.84
84495262|NCT03655951|168740600|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
84495263|NCT03655951|168740601|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
84571481|NCT03191552|168893817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
84571482|NCT03191552|168893818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.889
84749282|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.24|0.95|
84749283|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.12|1.53|
84563156|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.95|4.66|<0.001
84495264|NCT03655951|168740602|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
84495265|NCT03655951|168740603|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
84495266|NCT03655951|168740604|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.47
84563157|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its Vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|2.91|<0.001
84749284|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.91||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.91|1.06|
84749285|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.55||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.55|1.71|
84749286|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.74||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.74|1.45|
84749287|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.76||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.76|1.50|
84749288|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.58|1.32|
84749289|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.62||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.62|1.46|
84749290|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.91||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.91|1.32|
84749291|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.97|0.94|
84749292|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.03||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.03|1.08|
84749293|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||5.12|2.19|
84495267|NCT03655951|168740605|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.003
84495268|NCT03655951|168740606|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.77
84563158|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.53|1.56|0.009
84563159|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.49|<0.001
84563160|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.11|10.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.11|5.11|<0.001
84563161|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|9.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.53|4.64|<0.001
84749294|NCT00427895|169252451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.83|1.41|
84563162|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.62|3.40|<0.001
84563163|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.11|11.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.30|6.11|<0.001
84563164|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.66||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|0.29|0.066
84608459|NCT01563172|168967881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1294.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1069.24|1519.43||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||1519.43|1069.24|<0.0001
84749295|NCT00585195|169252477|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.59|179.63||||||||179.63|96.59|
84749296|NCT00585195|169252477|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|331.93||||||||331.93|172.14|
84495269|NCT03655951|168740607|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84495270|NCT03655951|168740608|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
84563165|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.76|0.006
84563166|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.49|3.76|<0.001
84563167|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.51|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.51|<0.001
84563168|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.53|0.010
84563169|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.93|3.03|<0.001
84563170|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.19|1.91|0.006
84608460|NCT02014584|168967937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.8|||Fisher's Exact Test|||||18.8|-4.7|0.27
84608461|NCT02014584|168967983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 4|||3.4|-10.4|0.62
84608462|NCT02014584|168967983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|17.6|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 12|||17.6|-4.7|0.34
84608463|NCT02014584|168967983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 24|||16.7|-4.2|0.31
84608464|NCT02014584|168967985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 4|||3.0|-0.2|0.082
84608465|NCT02014584|168967985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.9|-3.4|0.25
84608466|NCT02014584|168967985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||2.1|-2.0|0.99
84608467|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 4|||0.9|-0.4|0.46
84608468|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 12|||0.3|-1.8|0.14
84670931|NCT03373383|169075646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.02||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.02|0.68|=0.338
84670932|NCT03373383|169075646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.87||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.87|0.91|=0.087
84670933|NCT03373383|169075647|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.4|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|21.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.89|-6.59|=0.316
84670934|NCT03373383|169075647|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.99|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|23.26||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||23.26|-3.15|=0.133
84749297|NCT00585195|169252477|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|201.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.33|291.58||||||||291.58|139.33|
84749298|NCT00585195|169252478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|216.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.41|289.56||||||||289.56|161.41|
84749299|NCT00585195|169252478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|350.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.09|868.23||||||||868.23|141.09|
84749300|NCT00585195|169252478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|365.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|263.22|507.31||||||||507.31|263.22|
84749301|NCT00585195|169252481|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.89|22.26||||||||22.26|10.89|
84749302|NCT00585195|169252482|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|20.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.59|29.18||||||||29.18|14.59|
84495271|NCT03655951|168740609|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.91|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.91
84670935|NCT03373383|169075647|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.19|||=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|21.37||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.37|-3.95|=0.203
84670936|NCT03373383|169075647|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.39|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.65|17.79||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||17.79|-13.65|=0.784
84749303|NCT00585195|169252484|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|157.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.89|180.97||||||||180.97|136.89|
84749304|NCT00585195|169252485|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|132.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.1|148.1||||||||148.10|119.10|
84495272|NCT03655951|168740610|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
84670937|NCT00544076|169075670|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin that would be possible to detect (had the protocol reached intended accrual) was 20%,|||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
84495273|NCT03655951|168740611|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.12
84670938|NCT00544076|169075671|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments done|Chi-squared|no adjustments||compare percentage of patients potent at 6 and 18 months across pairs of treatment arms (arm I vs arm II, arm I vs arm III, arm II vs arm III)||||>0.1
84670939|NCT00544076|169075672|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||no adjustments done.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
84670940|NCT00544076|169075673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|ANOVA|no adjustments for df||"ANOVA test to compare difference of penile length (from baseline to month 18) across arms.~calculations are underpowered, as study did not accrue or retain patients as intended, and many patients declined to have measurements taken."||||0.08
84749305|NCT03534284|169252513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761||||||0.05 threshold for significance; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 7||||0.6761
84749306|NCT03534284|169252514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 25||||0.8375
84749307|NCT04737187|169252537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Overall Survival Median analysis: The primary estimand was defined to assess the effect of the randomized treatments on the survival duration in all participants regardless of whether or not intercurrent events had occurred (treatment policy strategy).||0.77|0.49|< 0.001
84749308|NCT04737187|169252541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|PFS Median analysis: A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle key secondary endpoint analysis. When the primary outcome measure significant testing was then performed sequentially on the key secondary outcome measure. statistically significant at 0.05 level.||0.54|0.36|< 0.001
84563171|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.66|7.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.94|2.66|0.002
84563172|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.87|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.16|4.87|<0.001
84563173|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.57|11.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.71|6.57|<0.001
84563174|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|8.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.44|2.94|0.002
84749309|NCT03373201|169252550|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.7|||ANOVA|||||76.7|44.0|<.0001
84749310|NCT03373201|169252551|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|85.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.3|106.6|||ANOVA|||||106.6|64.3|<.0001
84749311|NCT03373201|169252552|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.0|-26.2|<.0001
84749312|NCT03373201|169252553|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-54.3|||ANOVA|||||-54.3|-94.8|<.0001
84563175|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.62|4.16|<0.001
84749313|NCT03373201|169252554|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|-0.5||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|0.0083
84563176|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.58|-0.91|0.269
84563177|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.49||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|7.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.24|1.75|0.009
84563178|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.57|4.08|<0.001
84749314|NCT03373201|169252555|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|6.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|1.6|0.0099
84495274|NCT03655951|168740612|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
84563179|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.84|3.52|<0.001
84563180|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|2.71|0.002
84749315|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 1 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 1 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 1||||0.61
84563181|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.01|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.01|<0.001
84571483|NCT03191552|168893819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
84571484|NCT03191552|168893820|SUPERIORITY||||||,|0||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0,001
84571485|NCT03191552|168893821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
84571486|NCT03191552|168893822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
84571487|NCT03191552|168893823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84571488|NCT03191552|168893824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
84571489|NCT03191552|168893825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84571490|NCT04030598|168893880|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-90.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-76.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100 percentage (%) × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-76.00|-96.00|0.001
84571491|NCT04030598|168893881|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-89.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-77.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-77.00|-95.00|0.003
84571492|NCT04030598|168893882|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-96.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-65.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-65.00|-100.00|0.004
84571493|NCT04030598|168893883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|95.7|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 50% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||95.7|17.5|0.004
84571494|NCT04030598|168893883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|96.5|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 70% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||96.5|26.8|0.003
84563182|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.36||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.76|0.95|0.024
84563183|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|7.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.66|2.82|<0.001
84563184|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|9.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.06|4.23|<0.001
84563185|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|7.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.58|2.87|<0.001
84563186|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.37|1.39|0.012
84563187|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|9.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.48|4.48|<0.001
84563188|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|6.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.72|2.11|0.003
84563189|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|7.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.33|2.72|<0.001
84563190|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.27|8.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.88|4.27|<0.001
84563191|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.31|7.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.78|3.31|<0.001
84563192|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.82|2.06|0.003
84563193|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.47|4.70|<0.001
84563194|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.84|-0.02|0.103
84563195|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.18|1.32|0.013
84607118|NCT00541346|168965551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.6|||>|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|20.7||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||20.7|-5.6|>0.11
84608469|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 24|||0.5|-1.9|0.27
84563196|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|8.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.39|3.53|<0.001
84563197|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|8.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.23|3.50|<0.001
84563198|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.18|<0.001
84563199|NCT00572455|168877360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.46|8.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.48|3.46|<0.001
84563200|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.72||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.08|-0.63|0.377
84563201|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||-0.35|-3.01|0.039
84563202|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.98|-1.67|0.668
84563203|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|-0.07|0.121
84563204|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.67||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.99|0.34|0.039
84563205|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.31|-0.34|0.220
84563206|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|0.01|0.098
84563207|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-0.77|0.519
84563208|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.55|-1.00|0.724
84563209|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.74|0.19|0.059
84749316|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 2 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 2 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 2||||0.787
84563210|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.98|1.43|<0.001
84563211|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.37|0.82|0.008
84563212|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.32||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.51|0.13|0.068
84563213|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.18|-1.16|0.994
84563214|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-0.70|0.494
84749317|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 4||||0.234
84563215|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.62|0.16|0.063
84563216|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.34|0.95|0.004
84563217|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.97|0.004
84607119|NCT04253587|168965552|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was no difference between mean change scores for time-points X conditions.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Mixed effects ANOVA applied family wise error for post-hoc tests according to a priori hypothesis|ANOVA|||||0.06|-0.06|= 0.016
84607120|NCT04253587|168965553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|effect of condition (F1,20 = 1.616, p = 0.22), effect of time (F1,20 = 0.613, p = 0.44)||||0.03|-0.03|= 0.22
84563218|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.55||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.32|0.038
84749318|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 14 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 14 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 14||||0.256
84563219|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM : Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.68|-0.72|0.512
84563220|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.89|-0.56|0.373
84563221|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|2.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.56|0.05|0.088
84563222|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.98|0.004
84563223|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.57|1.09|0.003
84563224|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.04|0.69|0.010
84607121|NCT03323736|168965558|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.80) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.91|0.80|
84749319|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 21 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 21 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 21||||0.292
84749320|NCT00822523|169252565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and month 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and month 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and month 4||||0.589
84749321|NCT00822523|169252566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in the three baseline force measurements H0: There no significant difference in the three baseline force measurements HA: There is a significant difference in the three baseline force measurements||||0.636
84749322|NCT00822523|169252566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in baseline force by treatment arm. H0: There is no difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm HA: There is a difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm||||0.178
84563225|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.05|-0.27|0.205
84607122|NCT03323736|168965558|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.82) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.93||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.93|0.82|
84749323|NCT00822523|169252567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change (from baseline) in force for contrast of day 14 and day 21 H0: There is no difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21 HA: There is a difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21||||0.995
84607123|NCT03323736|168965559|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mean tube placement FPS-R score to a performance goal of 4.2.||||||0.0072||||||Mean FPS-R score hypothesized to be less than (superior to) a performance goal of 4.2, at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0072
84749324|NCT00822523|169252567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2088|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||"Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change in force from baseline for day 14 and 21 by treatment arm.~H0: There is no significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm HA: There is a significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm"||||0.2088
84749325|NCT00822523|169252569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84749326|NCT00822523|169252569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749327|NCT00822523|169252569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
84749328|NCT00822523|169252571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84749329|NCT00822523|169252571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749330|NCT00822523|169252571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
84563226|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.63|0.26|0.045
84563227|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.31|0.88|0.005
84563228|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.70|1.33|<0.001
84563229|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.48|1.10|0.002
84563230|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-1.15|0.757
84563231|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.27|-1.54|0.878
84563232|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.17|-1.64|0.780
84749331|NCT00822523|169252572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84563233|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-1.04|0.670
84749332|NCT00822523|169252572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749333|NCT00822523|169252572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
84749334|NCT00822523|169252573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84563234|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.98||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.58|0.021
84563235|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.71|-0.10|0.126
84563236|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.26|-0.32|0.215
84749335|NCT00822523|169252573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749336|NCT00822523|169252573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
84563237|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.91|-1.65|0.635
84563238|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.35|0.934
84571495|NCT04030598|168893883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|99.8|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 90% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||99.8|48.0|<0.001
84571496|NCT04030598|168893884|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-95.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-52.0|||Wald Chi-Square|||||-52.00|-99.00|0.009
84571497|NCT04030598|168893887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|33.9|||Fisher Exact|||Week 9||33.9|-59.1|1.000
84571498|NCT04030598|168893887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact|||Week 17||27.1|-64.9|0.521
84571499|NCT04030598|168893888|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-14.74||||||Week 9||-14.74|-37.10|
84571500|NCT04030598|168893888|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-8.68||||||Week 17||-8.68|-32.70|
84571501|NCT03658980|168893889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.415|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.415|0.131|<0.001
84571502|NCT03141359|168893891|SUPERIORITY||Rate|0.627||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.75|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|We used a single-stage design to test null hypothesis (H0) that 1-yr PFS is \<= 0.60. Assuming one-sided α= 0.10, 60 patients provided 98% power to reject H0, assuming the true 1-yr PFS is 0.80. Since not all enrolled subjects received durva, study power was affected. For patients who did not receive durva, H0 was assumed to be 0.40 versus an alternative of 0.60. Including these subjects reduced power from 98%. The conditional power given that 13 evaluable subjects didn't receive durva was 88%.||0.750|0.492|.388
84571503|NCT03141359|168893894|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.712|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.712|0.422|
84571504|NCT03141359|168893895|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.853|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.853|0.621|
84571505|NCT03141359|168893903|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.281|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.281|0.082|
84571506|NCT03141359|168893904|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.373|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.373|0.145|
84563239|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.87|-0.74|0.478
84563240|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.87|1.26|0.002
84563241|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.30|0.68|0.013
84563242|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.57|-1.04|0.736
84563243|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.61|-1.96|0.386
84563244|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.24|-1.35|0.948
84563245|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.41|0.908
84749337|NCT00822523|169252574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84563246|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|3.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.28|0.65|0.015
84563247|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.92|0.29|0.046
84495275|NCT03655951|168740613|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
84563248|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.89|0.31|0.042
84495276|NCT03655951|168740614|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
84563249|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.34|-1.22|0.940
84563250|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.53|-0.05|0.114
84563251|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.28|-0.35|0.228
84563252|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.60|0.98|0.005
84608470|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.8|-0.1|0.13
84563253|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.79|0.17|0.063
84563254|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.91|-0.92|0.562
84749338|NCT00822523|169252574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749339|NCT00822523|169252574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
84749340|NCT00822523|169252575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
84749341|NCT00822523|169252575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
84749342|NCT00822523|169252575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
84563255|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.67||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.07|-0.73|0.431
84749343|NCT00822523|169252576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84749344|NCT00822523|169252576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84563256|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-1.18|0.795
84749345|NCT00822523|169252576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
84749346|NCT00822523|169252577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84749347|NCT00822523|169252577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84749348|NCT00822523|169252577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
84749349|NCT00822523|169252578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84563257|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.23|0.43|0.032
84563258|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.13|1.34|0.002
84563259|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.64|0.017
84563260|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.60|-0.09|0.124
84563261|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.41|-1.25|0.920
84563262|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.46|0.887
84563263|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.42||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.08|0.083
84563264|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.01|1.29|0.002
84563265|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.66|0.94|0.006
84563266|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.78|-0.80|0.533
84563267|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.26|-1.29|0.985
84749350|NCT00822523|169252578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84749351|NCT00822523|169252578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
84749352|NCT00822523|169252579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84749353|NCT00822523|169252579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84749354|NCT00822523|169252579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
84749355|NCT00822523|169252580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84749356|NCT00822523|169252580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84749357|NCT00822523|169252580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
84749358|NCT00822523|169252581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
84749359|NCT00822523|169252581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
84749360|NCT00822523|169252581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
84495277|NCT03655951|168740615|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
84495278|NCT03655951|168740616|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
84495279|NCT03655951|168740617|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.15
84563268|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-0.95|0.665
84563269|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.15|-0.44|0.276
84563270|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.65|1.04|0.004
84563271|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|3.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.35|0.74|0.011
84563272|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.78||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.14|0.41|0.033
84563273|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.19|-0.50|0.302
84563274|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.94||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.30|-0.42|0.255
84563275|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.46|-0.30|0.198
84749361|NCT01439360|169252586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.8|72.3|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort.|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above (\>) 25%.||72.3|51.8|
84563276|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.06|1.30|0.002
84563277|NCT00572455|168877362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.68||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.06|0.30|0.046
84749362|NCT01439360|169252587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.8|56.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for VE is above 15%.||56.8|41.8|
84495280|NCT01375491|168740620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||See published paper.|ANOVA|See published paper.||See published paper.||||<0.05
84495281|NCT05436067|168740627|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - left between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
84563278|NCT00909220|168877365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-C score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-C score at week 16).||0.49|0.27|0.05
84563279|NCT00909220|168877366|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-SR score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-SR score at week 16).||0.59|0.31|<0.05
84563280|NCT00909220|168877367|OTHER|Multiple regression analyses|beta|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \<0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||||.02
84749363|NCT03319849|169252611|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.0082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0082|-0.0890|0.0186
84749364|NCT01072877|169252638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-3.72|=0.0001
84749365|NCT01072877|169252638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.29|||ANCOVA|||||-2.29|-4.80|<0.0001
84749366|NCT01072877|169252638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-3.98|<0.0001
84563281|NCT00909220|168877368|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) , an ordinary least square (OLS) regression-based analysis.|Slope|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.77||The variation of slopes among participants for each variable were calculated. If significant, a second level of analysis focused on predictors of the variation was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|df = 31||A two-level hierarchical linear model assessing the effects of negativity bias and positivity offset at pre-treatment on the rate of depression severity (IDS-SR) over 16 weeks of treatment (time). First level units were 'weeks in BA treatment', with participants limited to those who attended five or more therapy sessions, resulting in a total of 421 treatment weeks for analysis. Second-level units were the 'subjects entering BA treatment'.||2.77|1.22|<0.05
84563282|NCT02821416|168877369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, time post-allergen challenge , treatment\*time post-allergen challenge, allergen induced at screening||||-0.94|-10.69|0.0208
84563283|NCT02821416|168877370|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.535||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.045|8.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, maximum percent decrease in FEV1 late asthma response||||8.116|-3.045|0.3630
84563284|NCT02256917|168877373|OTHER|Confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test.|ABR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|5.79||A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|one-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.96-5.93|||5.79|4.06|
84563285|NCT02256917|168877373|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Negative Binomial regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|11.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.86|||Negative binomial regression model|||||18.86|7.50|<0.0001
84563286|NCT02256917|168877373|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Poisson regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|16.8|||Poisson regression model|||||16.80|6.12|<0.0001
84563287|NCT02256917|168877374|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean spontaneous ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|3.87|||One-sided one-sample Poisso|||||3.87|2.48|
84563288|NCT02256917|168877375|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with 2x/week prophylaxis or less with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.39|||One-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.76-6.60|||6.39|3.90|
84563289|NCT03066778|168877459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.88|0.60|0.00069
84495282|NCT05436067|168740627|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - right between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
84563290|NCT03066778|168877460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.98|0.64|0.01643
84495283|NCT05436067|168740627|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Difference in head angle yaw - extension between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.042
84563291|NCT03066778|168877461|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|8.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||17.4|0.2|0.02270
84563292|NCT03066778|168877466|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|4.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.66|||Log Rank|||||8.66|0.21|0.040
84749367|NCT01072877|169252638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.46|||ANCOVA|||||-2.46|-4.84|<0.0001
84749368|NCT01072877|169252639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.17|=0.0001
84749369|NCT01072877|169252639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||||-0.86|-1.65|<0.0001
84749370|NCT01072877|169252639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-1.85|<0.0001
84749371|NCT01072877|169252639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.23|||ANCOVA|||||-1.23|-1.98|<0.0001
84749372|NCT01072877|169252640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.66|=0.0001
84607124|NCT03323736|168965560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>80%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Patency endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with patent tubes was greater than (superior to) 80% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
84607125|NCT03323736|168965561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>88%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Retention endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with retained tubes was greater than (superior to) 88% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
84607126|NCT03323736|168965562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>85%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||The Anesthesia Effectiveness endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with successful anesthesia was greater than (superior to) 85% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
84607127|NCT02262078|168965601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84607128|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \<1250 gm||||0.571
84607129|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \<1250 gm while anemic||||0.345
84670941|NCT02136576|169075685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||"This p-value is for the Air Schiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||0.72
84670942|NCT02136576|169075685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the Air VAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
84670943|NCT02136576|169075685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||"This p-value is for the WaterSchiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.77
84670944|NCT02136576|169075685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the WaterVAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
84670945|NCT00537381|169075688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.728||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|2.686|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.686|1.112|0.014
84670946|NCT00537381|169075689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.795
84749373|NCT01072877|169252640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.0001
84495284|NCT05436067|168740627|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Difference in head angle yaw - flexion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.111
84607130|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in superior mesenteric artery blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \>1250 gm||||0.006
84607131|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \>1250 gm while anemic||||0.035
84607132|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.910
84607133|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.850
84607134|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.507
84607135|NCT00167388|168965607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.286
84607136|NCT05501795|168965622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84607137|NCT04692077|168965634|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Reported Grade 2 and Above AEs|99.7|51.8|
84670947|NCT00537381|169075690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
84749374|NCT01072877|169252640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.97|<0.0001
84495285|NCT05436067|168740628|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Difference in pitch range of motion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.023
84495286|NCT05436067|168740628|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
84495287|NCT05436067|168740629|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Difference in pitch velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.057
84495288|NCT05436067|168740629|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Difference in yaw velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.003
84495289|NCT05436067|168740630|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Weight shift exercise - mediolateral range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.035
84495290|NCT05436067|168740630|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Weight shift balance exercise anteroposterior range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.006
84495291|NCT05436067|168740630|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Single leg balance range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.024
84495292|NCT05436067|168740630|OTHER|||||||0.257||||||Single leg balance fluency|Shapiro Wilcoxon test|Data was not normally distributed.||||||0.257
84495293|NCT05689554|168740638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.306|||Log Rank|||||1.306|.944|0.11
84495294|NCT05689554|168740639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, modified Poisson|||||1.7|.9|0.183
84495295|NCT00157157|168740651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||||95.0|1.29|19.06||||||||19.06|1.29|
84495296|NCT00157157|168740652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||||95.0|1.18|14.82||||||||14.82|1.18|
84495297|NCT00157157|168740653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||||95.0|1.05|19.25||||||||19.25|1.05|
84495298|NCT01678794|168740654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84495299|NCT01678794|168740655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84495300|NCT02277665|168740677|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|.17|= 0.33
84495301|NCT02277665|168740678|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84495302|NCT02277665|168740679|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.35|||Chi-squared|||||1.35|0.15|= 0.16
84495303|NCT02277665|168740680|SUPERIORITY||Means Ratio|0.97||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.87
84495304|NCT02277665|168740681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84495305|NCT02277665|168740682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84495306|NCT03246152|168740799|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between change in BCVA and the pre treatment, post treatment, and change in vascular density following 3-6 injections was performed.||||>0.05
84495307|NCT03478982|168740800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
84495308|NCT03478982|168740800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
84495309|NCT01005810|168740804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.05|0.029
84495310|NCT04359758|168740805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||The study was powered assuming 10% genetic testing uptake UC compared to 35% in ST. assuming these uptake rates and a two-tailed alpha of 0.05, a sample size of n=50 per arm would yield greater than 80% power.||||0.14
84495311|NCT04359758|168740805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Because education and marital status have been associated with genetic testing participation in prior research, we conducted a follow-up analysis in which we adjusted for education and marital status.||6.29|1.05|0.039
84495312|NCT04359758|168740806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|101 degrees of freedom.||||||0.13
84495313|NCT04359758|168740807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102||||||0.78
84495314|NCT04359758|168740808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS anxiety||||0.97
84495315|NCT04359758|168740808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS Depression||||0.34
84495316|NCT01828164|168740914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|29.0||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in tooth movement rate on the treatment side as compared to the control side.|||||0.0164
84495317|NCT01828164|168740915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change|220.8||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in root resorption rate on the control side as compared to the treatment side.|||||0.0423
84495318|NCT01828164|168740916|NON_INFERIORITY|1 point on the 10-point pain scale was used as the non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bootstrapped mean difference|This test bootstrapped the mean difference (Treatment Arm - Control Arm) less 1, the non-inferiority margin, 1000 times.||||||<0.001
84495319|NCT04983589|168740917|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|37.4||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||37.4|17.3|<0.0001
84495320|NCT04983589|168740918|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
84495321|NCT04983589|168740919|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|46.7||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated based on the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||46.7|22.7|<0.0001
84571507|NCT01419535|168893921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.60
84571508|NCT01419535|168893922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
84571509|NCT01419535|168893923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
84571510|NCT01419535|168893924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
84607138|NCT04692077|168965635|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|48.3|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|48.3|0.3|
84607139|NCT04692077|168965636|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|95.7|22.3|
84607140|NCT04692077|168965640|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase.|99.7|51.8|
84749375|NCT01072877|169252640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.11|<0.0001
84749376|NCT01138007|169252662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||The p-value was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates. The multiplicity was adjusted by Dunnett's step-down procedure.|ANCOVA||The confidence interval was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates.|||1.7|-2.7|0.853
84749377|NCT01138007|169252662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||||95.0|||||||In the analysis plan, the second comparison of interest was not to be performed if the first comparison failed to show statistical significance.|||||
84749378|NCT03548987|169252671|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-13.50|-16.00|<0.0001
84670948|NCT00537381|169075691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.476||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|2.522|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.522|0.853|0.163
84749379|NCT03548987|169252671|OTHER||Treatment difference|-15.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-14.13|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-14.13|-16.52|<0.0001
84749380|NCT01287065|169252764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg PM minus Placebo|||0.462|0.293|
84749381|NCT01287065|169252764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.337|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minus Placebo|||0.507|0.337|
84749382|NCT01287065|169252764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minusFF/VI 100/25 µg PM|||0.036|-0.125|
84749383|NCT01259726|169252769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<=0.0001
84749384|NCT01259726|169252769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84607141|NCT04692077|168965641|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Completed All Scheduled Injections among those who received at least one Injection|99.7|51.8|
84607142|NCT05149313|168965645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|27.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.63|40.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.14|15.63|<0.0001
84607143|NCT05149313|168965646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.8||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.03|28.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.57|7.03|0.0052
84607144|NCT05149313|168965647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|18.15||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|30.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.83|5.47|0.0114
84749385|NCT01259726|169252769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84749386|NCT01259726|169252770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
84607145|NCT04243330|168965681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.48||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-0.46|0.18
84670949|NCT00680901|169075695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (PE population)||1.12|0.73|0.3492
84749387|NCT01259726|169252770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.002
84749388|NCT01259726|169252770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
84749389|NCT01259726|169252771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.054
84749390|NCT01259726|169252771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.008
84749391|NCT01259726|169252771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.101
84749392|NCT01259726|169252772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
84749393|NCT01259726|169252772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.066
84749394|NCT01259726|169252772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
84749395|NCT01211197|169252777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.75|105.67|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted.||105.67|95.75|
84563293|NCT03066778|168877469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||1.14|0.56|0.208
84563294|NCT01765569|168877473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|2.02||||||||2.02|1.63|
84563295|NCT01765569|168877477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.65||||||||1.65|1.3|
84563296|NCT00423813|168877481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||0.001
84563297|NCT00423813|168877481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 4.5g and placebo||||<0.001
84563298|NCT00423813|168877481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 6.0g and placebo||||0.001
84563299|NCT01386944|168877482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-1.0|
84563300|NCT01386944|168877483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-1.5|
84563301|NCT01386944|168877484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
84563302|NCT01386944|168877485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
84607146|NCT04243330|168965682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.58||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.28||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.28|-0.11|.06
84749396|NCT01211197|169252777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|100.33|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||100.33|89.85|
84749397|NCT01211197|169252778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|107.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||107.49|91.76|
84495322|NCT04983589|168740920|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|32.6||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||32.6|8.6|0.001
84563303|NCT01386944|168877486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
84563304|NCT01386944|168877487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
84563305|NCT03883477|168877489|OTHER|The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||||0.013||||||1 week P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84563306|NCT03883477|168877489|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||1 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.007
84563307|NCT03883477|168877489|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||6 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.804
84563308|NCT03883477|168877490|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
84607147|NCT04243330|168965683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.9||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-4.5|0.60
84563309|NCT03883477|168877491|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
84563310|NCT03883477|168877492|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.748
84563311|NCT03883477|168877493|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.184
84563312|NCT03883477|168877494|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
84563313|NCT03883477|168877495|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
84563314|NCT00305565|168877522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.02|-2.34|0.803
84563315|NCT00305565|168877522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.05|-2.39|0.813
84563316|NCT00502853|168877603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.1776
84563317|NCT00502853|168877603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1215|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1215
84607148|NCT04243330|168965684|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.7||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-12.8|0.36
84607149|NCT04243330|168965685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.67||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-8.3|.02
84563318|NCT00502853|168877603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1231||0.2246|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.2246
84563319|NCT00502853|168877604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8989|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.8989
84563320|NCT00502853|168877604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8834|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.8834
84563321|NCT00502853|168877604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9051||0.8841|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8841
84563322|NCT00502853|168877605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.5911
84563323|NCT00502853|168877605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1475
84607150|NCT04243330|168965686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-5.5|0.82
84749398|NCT01211197|169252778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|64.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|73.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||73.87|55.97|
84563324|NCT00502853|168877605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1123||0.1463|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1463
84563325|NCT00502853|168877606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1101
84563326|NCT00502853|168877606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0003
84563327|NCT00502853|168877606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
84563328|NCT00502853|168877606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.0857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4965||0.0023|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0023
84495323|NCT00585468|168740924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0163
84563329|NCT00502853|168877607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.3358
84563330|NCT00502853|168877607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.9158
84563331|NCT00502853|168877607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.003418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02345||0.8877|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8877
84607151|NCT03826342|168965696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.2964
84607152|NCT03826342|168965696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3404|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.3404
84607153|NCT03826342|168965697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7915|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.7915
84607154|NCT03826342|168965697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2131|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.2131
84607155|NCT03826342|168965698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8357|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.8357
84749399|NCT01211197|169252779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.03|106.11|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||106.11|96.03|
84495324|NCT00585468|168740925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84495325|NCT00585468|168740927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
84563332|NCT00502853|168877608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7624|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7624
84563333|NCT00502853|168877608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0212
84563334|NCT00502853|168877608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.0712|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0712
84563335|NCT00502853|168877609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0240
84563336|NCT00502853|168877609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0045
84563337|NCT00502853|168877609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
84563338|NCT00502853|168877609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04524||0.0019|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0019
84563339|NCT00502853|168877610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8623||0.0074|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0074
84563340|NCT00502853|168877610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1273
84563341|NCT00502853|168877610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0132
84563342|NCT00502853|168877610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1542
84563343|NCT00502853|168877611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1396|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1396
84563344|NCT00502853|168877611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0050
84563345|NCT00502853|168877611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0050
84563346|NCT00502853|168877611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07966||0.0054|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0054
84563347|NCT00502853|168877612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0254
84563348|NCT00502853|168877612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0384|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0384
84563349|NCT00502853|168877612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0271
84563350|NCT00502853|168877612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.7586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5278||0.0124|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0124
84563351|NCT00502853|168877613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7376
84563352|NCT00502853|168877613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.1631
84563353|NCT00502853|168877613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8816|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8816
84563354|NCT00502853|168877613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9408||0.8835|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8835
84563355|NCT00502853|168877614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1312|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1312
84563356|NCT00502853|168877614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0662
84607156|NCT03826342|168965698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.0950
84749400|NCT01211197|169252779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.22|99.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||99.87|89.22|
84749401|NCT01211197|169252780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.59|111.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.25|95.59|
84563357|NCT00502853|168877614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.4133
84563358|NCT00502853|168877614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|8.8196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4534||0.6049|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.6049
84563359|NCT00502853|168877615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1725|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1725
84563360|NCT00502853|168877615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0832
84607157|NCT03826342|168965699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7496|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.7496
84607158|NCT03826342|168965700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4492|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.4492
84670950|NCT00680901|169075696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (ITT population)||1.10|0.74|0.3244
84749402|NCT01211197|169252780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|96.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.23|107.78|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||107.78|87.23|
84563361|NCT00502853|168877615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1685|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1685
84563362|NCT00502853|168877615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-55.4458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5821||0.1331|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1331
84563363|NCT00502853|168877616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.2938
84563364|NCT00502853|168877616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2216|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2216
84563365|NCT00502853|168877616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5670
84563366|NCT00502853|168877617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0934|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0934
84563367|NCT00502853|168877617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.4047
84495326|NCT00585468|168740928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4937
84563368|NCT00502853|168877617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.2101
84563369|NCT00502853|168877617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.1451|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1451
84607159|NCT03826342|168965701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
84607160|NCT03826342|168965702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
84495327|NCT00585468|168740929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9669
84495328|NCT00585468|168740931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9607
84563370|NCT00502853|168877618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.4963
84563371|NCT00502853|168877618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2198
84563372|NCT00502853|168877618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.6773
84563373|NCT00502853|168877618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5987||0.5531|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.5531
84563374|NCT00502853|168877619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5002
84563375|NCT00502853|168877620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||1.0000
84563376|NCT00502853|168877621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.7002
84563377|NCT00502853|168877622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3132
84563378|NCT00502853|168877623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8597
84563379|NCT00502853|168877624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3617
84607161|NCT03826342|168965703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4302
84607162|NCT03826342|168965704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.8070
84563380|NCT03124537|168877625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health||Tested whether weekly steps increased from the baseline week in both conditions (main effect of time).||||< .001
84563381|NCT03124537|168877625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether weekly step increases from the baseline week differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.846
84563382|NCT03124537|168877626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571||||||Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether exercise self-efficacy increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.571
84563383|NCT03124537|168877626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise self efficacy increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.361
84563384|NCT03124537|168877627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.564
84563385|NCT03124537|168877627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control belief increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.641
84563386|NCT03124537|168877629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to mood within-persons.||||< .001
84563387|NCT03124537|168877629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to energy within-persons.||||.003
84563388|NCT03124537|168877629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and mood differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
84563389|NCT03124537|168877629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and energy differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
84563390|NCT03124537|168877630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.011
84495329|NCT04259905|168740932|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84563391|NCT03124537|168877630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.232
84563392|NCT03124537|168877631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.530
84563393|NCT03124537|168877631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.831
84563394|NCT03124537|168877632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.199
84563395|NCT03124537|168877632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.203
84563396|NCT03681184|168877633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-53.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.314|-44.778||P=1.685E-14|MMRM|||The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-44.778|-62.314|<0.0001
84563397|NCT03681184|168877634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.772||P=1.225E-11|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.772|-1.177|<0.0001
84563398|NCT03681184|168877635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-51.7718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2653|-39.2784||P=5.032E-10|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate:creatinine ratio as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-39.2784|-64.2653|<0.0001
84563399|NCT03681184|168877636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||P=8.341E-07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤1.5 x ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.94|0.55|<0.0001
84571511|NCT01419535|168893925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.004
84495330|NCT04259905|168740933|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84495331|NCT04259905|168740934|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84495332|NCT00978120|168740956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84563400|NCT03681184|168877637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.70|0.23|0.0010
84563401|NCT03681184|168877638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-28.87||P=2.862E-08|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-28.87|-50.10|<0.0001
84563402|NCT03681184|168877639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-5.98||P=3.893E-07|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-5.98|-11.45|<0.0001
84563403|NCT03162328|168877654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.363
84563404|NCT03162328|168877655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.291
84563405|NCT03268005|168877710|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4% non-inferiority was considered established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANOVA||Faster aspart-NovoRapid|Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, region and metformin use at baseline (Yes/No) as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.03|-0.11|0.310
84563406|NCT02672176|168877795|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563407|NCT02672176|168877796|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84495333|NCT00978120|168740957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84563408|NCT02672176|168877797|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563409|NCT02672176|168877798|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563410|NCT02672176|168877799|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563411|NCT02672176|168877800|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84607163|NCT03007745|168965708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
84495334|NCT00978120|168740960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
84495335|NCT00978120|168740961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
84563412|NCT02672176|168877801|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563413|NCT02672176|168877802|EQUIVALENCE|Information in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563414|NCT02672176|168877803|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84563415|NCT02179047|168877827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84607164|NCT03007745|168965708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
84495336|NCT00978120|168740962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.284
84495337|NCT00978120|168740963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84495338|NCT00978120|168740964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
84495339|NCT00978120|168740965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
84495340|NCT00978120|168740966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84495341|NCT00978120|168740967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
84495342|NCT00978120|168740968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.362
84495343|NCT00978120|168740969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84495344|NCT00978120|168740970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84495345|NCT00978120|168740971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
84563416|NCT02179047|168877828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84563417|NCT02179047|168877829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84563418|NCT01563198|168877848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Change in Non-completion Rate of MRI Scans From Baseline at Average of One Year (All Schedule Patients)||||<0.0001
84563419|NCT01563198|168877849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84563420|NCT01563198|168877850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84563421|NCT01490840|168877851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 90 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.8, assuming that the common standard deviation is 9.05, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.44|||ANCOVA|||||2.44|-5.39|0.4579
84563422|NCT00905567|168877875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|93.01||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
84607165|NCT03007745|168965708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted mean changes and adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values|ANCOVA|||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9171
84607166|NCT03007745|168965708|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that the lower bound of the non-inferiority analysis of FOSQ-10 would be greater than the a-priori threshold of -1.0.|||||>|0.05||||||"Adjusted group difference in mean change in FOSQ-10 score from baseline to Month 3, controlling for baseline FOSQ and site, was -0.06 ± 061 (SEM) (P = 0.917).~The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -1.08"|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84607167|NCT03007745|168965709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
84749403|NCT01211197|169252781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|102.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.87|111.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.15|93.87|
84607168|NCT03007745|168965709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
84607169|NCT03007745|168965709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.9251|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9251
84607170|NCT03007745|168965710|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||0.4116|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Within arm change from baseline to 3 month follow-up||||0.4116
84607171|NCT03007745|168965710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.2201|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group||||0.2201
84749404|NCT01211197|169252781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|110.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||110.51|91.70|
84495346|NCT03992456|168740973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5126|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5126
84607172|NCT03007745|168965710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes between groups from baseline to month 3 in participants initiated on CPAP (LOCF applied using 1-month data).||||0.1732
84607173|NCT03007745|168965711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|<|0.0003|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0003
84607174|NCT03007745|168965711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
84607175|NCT03007745|168965711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.6730
84749405|NCT01211197|169252782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|112.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||112.39|95.30|
84607176|NCT03007745|168965712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||<0.0001
84607177|NCT03007745|168965712|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.0001
84608471|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.5|-0.8|0.73
84495347|NCT03992456|168740974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1512
84495348|NCT03992456|168740975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2506
84495349|NCT03992456|168740976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8865|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8865
84495350|NCT03992456|168740977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5455
84563423|NCT00905567|168877876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.62||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
84563424|NCT00905567|168877877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.43||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
84563425|NCT02542397|168877878|SUPERIORITY|"It has been reported that, based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) pain scale, about 30% of cancer patients receiving standard of care pain management experienced \>= 2-point improvement in pain score between visits \[Ref\].~Ref: Scharpf, J., et al., The role of pain in head and neck cancer recurrence and survivorship. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2009. 135(8): p. 789-94."|Exact binomial proportion|0.5556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|0.6908||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.10.|Exact binomial test of proportions|||A single-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the pain improvement rate, assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, is \<= 0.30. Our study targeted enrollment of 71 evaluable subjects for the final analysis; 54 subjects met the criteria at study closure. Assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level, 71 evaluable subjects would provide approximately 90% power to reject the null hypothesis (based on an exact binomial test) assuming the true pain improvement rate is 0.45.||.6908|.4140|<0.0001
84563426|NCT02362191|168877884|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.758
84563427|NCT02362191|168877885|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84563428|NCT01473940|168877892|OTHER|||||||||||||P-Value not used||||A 3 + 3 enrollment design was adopted to monitor safety and determine the MTD based on DLTs obsesved. The MTD is the highest dose at which 0 of 3 or 1 of 6 DLTs are detected. The MTD is exceeded if 2 of 3 or 2 of 6 DLTs are detected. There will be no dose escalation within a cohort.|The number of DLTs seen at each cohort were used to determine the MTD for the expansion cohort. The MTD was determined to be Gemcitabine - 1,000 mg/m2, Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg|||
84608472|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.8|0.64
84608473|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.1|0.23
84608474|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.5|0.33
84749406|NCT01211197|169252782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|75.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.68|88.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||88.64|63.68|
84749407|NCT03318809|169252847|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and confidence interval (CI) are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
84749408|NCT03318809|169252848|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.27|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.27|0.88|
84563429|NCT00547248|168877899|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the difference in terms of incidence of post-immunization febrile reactions (rectal temperature \> 39.0°C) in Synflorix™ vaccine minus Prevenar™ did not exceed the pre-defined clinically acceptable threshold of 5% + half the incidence in Prevenar.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.59|||Philips' statistical test|||||5.59|-4.82|
84563430|NCT00534248|168877927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.698|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.806|||Conditional Exact Method||The point estimate was for vaccine efficacy with respect to incidence of HZ.|Vaccine efficacy with respect to HZ was defined as the relative reduction in incidence rate of HZ point estimate (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the ratio of the estimated incidence rates of HZ in the zoster vaccine group and the placebo group.||.806|.541|<.001
84563431|NCT00534248|168877928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean titre ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.4|||linear mixed longitudinal analysis model|||||2.4|2.2|<.001
84563432|NCT00534248|168877929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.595||||||Analysis of proportion of participants reporting one or more serious adverse experiences reported within 42 days postvaccination.||1.595|.805|
84571512|NCT01419535|168893926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.002
84571513|NCT01287936|168894019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
84571514|NCT01287936|168894021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.004
84571515|NCT00427934|168894035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.73||||0.79||90.0|-15.13|8.68|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||8.68|-15.13|0.790
84571516|NCT00427934|168894035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.43||||0.477||90.0|-13.67|11.64|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||11.64|-13.67|0.477
84571517|NCT00427934|168894035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.03||||0.37||90.0|-12.85|16.77|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||16.77|-12.85|0.370
84571518|NCT00427934|168894035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|8.66||||0.175||90.0|-7.07|22.03|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||22.03|-7.07|0.175
84563433|NCT03498313|168877985|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo represents the reference treatment.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.08|-.41|.002
84571519|NCT00427934|168894036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.42||90.0|-6.34|6.01|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||6.01|-6.34|0.420
84608475|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.6|0.64
84749409|NCT03318809|169252851|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
84749410|NCT00307125|169252855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis by Fisher's exact test counting participants with 50% decrease in anti-HLA antibodies at any time within 12 months post treatment initiation||||>0.999
84749411|NCT00307125|169252860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84749412|NCT00307125|169252861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84749413|NCT00051363|169252872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||||||"2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).~After correction for multiple comparisons (sequential Bonferroni) P Value=0.0444 (NS)"|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.0074
84749414|NCT00051363|169252872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2254||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.2254
84749415|NCT00051363|169252873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4538||||||DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.4538
84571520|NCT00427934|168894036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||7.95|-5.08|0.258
84571521|NCT00427934|168894036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.46||||1||90.0|-14.39|3.42|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||3.42|-14.39|1.000
84571522|NCT00427934|168894036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.899||90.0|-13.56|7.92|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.92|-13.56|0.899
84571523|NCT00427934|168894036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.489||90.0|-11.24|10.96|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||10.96|-11.24|0.489
84571524|NCT00427934|168894037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||1.28|-13.59|1.000
84571525|NCT00427934|168894037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.95|-5.08|0.258
84571526|NCT00427934|168894037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||1.28|-13.59|1.000
84571527|NCT00427934|168894038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.335||90.0|-0.79|2.99||This analysis was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.99|-0.79|0.335
84571528|NCT00427934|168894038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.816||90.0|-1.82|2.41||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.41|-1.82|0.816
84571529|NCT00427934|168894038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.996||90.0|-2.35|2.36||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.36|-2.35|0.996
84571530|NCT00427934|168894038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.263||90.0|-3.98|0.76||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.76|-3.98|0.263
84563434|NCT03498313|168877985|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo Represents the Reference Condition.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.10|-.22|.46
84563435|NCT02964338|168877988|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.5||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||9.82|-2.80|0.2741
84563436|NCT02964338|168877988|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|3.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.01|-9.59|0.3047
84749416|NCT00051363|169252873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.0860
84563437|NCT05076604|168878009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative packed red blood cell transfusion||||0.354
84563438|NCT05076604|168878009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative red blood cell transfusion||||0.314
84563439|NCT00320242|168878012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed paired t-test||||2.23|0.26|0.0152
84563440|NCT00320242|168878013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||76.1|23.9|0.005
84607178|NCT03007745|168965712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure|ANCOVA|Adjusted differences in mean changes estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for group differences in mean baseline values||Between group comparison of change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.9903
84607179|NCT03007745|168965716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||>0.05
84607180|NCT03007745|168965717|NON_INFERIORITY|The a-priori lower bound selected for the non-inferiority analysis of average daily CPAP use over 3 months was -0.75 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Group difference (REVAMP - In-person) in mean CPAP daily use over all days adjusted for investigative site.|ANCOVA|The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -0.22.||||||0.308
84607181|NCT03921554|168965718|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with AGS score as outcome and an indicator variable for 52 weeks. An exchangeable correlation structure was used to model intra-participant association of AGS scores. The model allowed for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis is that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in AGS is zero.~45 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 6 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants were included in the analysis."||1.2|0.5|<0.0005
84563441|NCT00320242|168878014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||||0.02
84563442|NCT00320242|168878015|OTHER|The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||||0.002||||||Two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0. This analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||0.002
84563443|NCT01724177|168878016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"A one sample binomial one sided exact test for the ORR (CR, CRu, or PR) was performed to provide the p-value (significance level: 0.05). The hypotheses of interest:~H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \> 5%"|Exact Test|||||||<0.0001
84563444|NCT03193047|168878043|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.324|-19.199|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-19.199|-41.324|<0.001
84563445|NCT03193047|168878044|SUPERIORITY||Lease squares mean difference|-35.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.303|-25.466|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-25.466|-46.303|<0.001
84563446|NCT03193047|168878045|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.558|-26.944|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 1||-26.944|-49.558|<0.001
84563447|NCT03193047|168878045|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.176|-18.626|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 2||-18.626|-41.176|<0.001
84563448|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.509|-16.553|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 1||-16.553|-37.509|<0.001
84563449|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.225|-15.713|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 2||-15.713|-33.225|<0.001
84563450|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-31.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.689|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.116|-22.163|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 1||-22.163|-41.116|<0.001
84608476|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 4|||0.7|-0.1|0.19
84563451|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.987|-14.505|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 2||-14.505|-33.987|<0.001
84749417|NCT00051363|169252873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103||||||6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.2103
84749418|NCT00051363|169252874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7936||||||DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7936
84749419|NCT00051363|169252874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5444||||||2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.5444
84563452|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.153|-14.729|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 1||-14.729|-29.153|<0.001
84563453|NCT03193047|168878046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.201|-9.839|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 2||-9.839|-25.201|<0.001
84563454|NCT03193047|168878047|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-32.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.395||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.524|-2.339|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 1||-2.339|-70.524|0.046
84563455|NCT03193047|168878047|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-28.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.124||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.455|-3.93|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 2||-3.930|-51.455|0.029
84563456|NCT00705341|168878052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Log-linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess the dose effect on PC20.||||0.65
84563457|NCT03665077|168878059|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684
84749420|NCT00051363|169252874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7569||||||6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7569
84563458|NCT03665077|168878060|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02
84563459|NCT03665077|168878061|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058
84607182|NCT03921554|168965719|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 673 - Day 0)|1.09|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of AGS on day of treatment (modeled with cubic splines with knots at days 0, 84, 168, 336, 506, 673, and 1006). Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with AR(1) correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 673 of treatment (Day 673 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||1.62|0.57|<0.0005
84563460|NCT00435461|168878062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
84563461|NCT00435461|168878062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
84563462|NCT00435461|168878062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.3|0.816
84563463|NCT00435461|168878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-1.6|<0.001
84563464|NCT00435461|168878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
84563465|NCT00435461|168878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
84563466|NCT00435461|168878064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
84563467|NCT00435461|168878064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
84749421|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5606||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5606
84749422|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.6487
84749423|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5667||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5667
84495351|NCT00762073|168740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.239||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5282
84495352|NCT00762073|168740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.86||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0092
84749424|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3972||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3972
84749425|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3973
84495353|NCT00762073|168740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.009||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0174
84495354|NCT00762073|168740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1786
84495355|NCT00762073|168740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0090
84495356|NCT00762073|168740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
84495357|NCT00762073|168740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4959
84495358|NCT00762073|168740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0040
84495359|NCT00762073|168740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84608477|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.7|0.28
84608478|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
84749426|NCT00051363|169252875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3055
84749427|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3699||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3699
84563468|NCT00435461|168878064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.136
84563469|NCT00435461|168878065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-1.6|<0.001
84563470|NCT00435461|168878065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.3|<0.001
84563471|NCT00435461|168878065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
84563472|NCT00435461|168878066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001
84563473|NCT00435461|168878066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
84563474|NCT00435461|168878066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
84563475|NCT00435461|168878067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.007
84563476|NCT00435461|168878067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
84563477|NCT00435461|168878067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.106
84563478|NCT00435461|168878068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
84563479|NCT00435461|168878068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
84563480|NCT00435461|168878068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
84563481|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-1|-1.7|<0.001
84563482|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
84563483|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||0.1|-0.6|0.193
84563484|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
84563485|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.6|0.058
84563486|NCT00435461|168878069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.5|0.16
84563487|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.9|5.7|<0.001
84563488|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.5|5.3|<0.001
84563489|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||2.7|-3.6|0.779
84563490|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||9.6|3.1|<0.001
84563491|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||10.3|3.8|<0.001
84563492|NCT00435461|168878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||4|-2.5|0.662
84563493|NCT00435461|168878071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84563494|NCT00435461|168878071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.203
84563495|NCT00435461|168878071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
84563496|NCT00205660|168878077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.03
84563497|NCT00205660|168878078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.01
84495360|NCT00762073|168740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0108
84563498|NCT01768559|168878079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.064|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine QD|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.064|-0.17|
84563499|NCT01768559|168878079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.328|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at significance level = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between Lixisenatide vs Insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||0.328|0.095|
84563500|NCT01768559|168878080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-1.396||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|The superiority was assessed by comparing the P-value at significance level = 0.025 or 0.0125.|Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at α = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||-1.396|-2.593|< 0.0001
84563501|NCT02504320|168878103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9528|1.235|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.2350|0.9528|
84563502|NCT02504320|168878103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.7709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6767|0.8782|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.8782|0.6767|
84571531|NCT00427934|168894038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.294||90.0|-3.82|0.85||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.85|-3.82|0.294
84571532|NCT00427934|168894039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7||90.0|-1.7|1.06||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||1.06|-1.70|0.700
84571533|NCT00427934|168894039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.799||90.0|-1.45|1.97||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||1.97|-1.45|0.799
84571534|NCT00427934|168894039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.867||90.0|-1.35|1.66||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.66|-1.35|0.867
84571535|NCT00427934|168894039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.167||90.0|-3.17|0.28||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.28|-3.17|0.167
84571536|NCT00427934|168894039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.966||90.0|-1.91|1.81||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.81|-1.91|0.966
84571537|NCT00427934|168894040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.925||90.0|-6.41|5.72||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||5.72|-6.41|0.925
84563503|NCT02504320|168878103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8246|1.0689|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0689|0.8246|
84749428|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9673||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9673
84749429|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3426||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3426
84749430|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3901
84749431|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9464
84749432|NCT00051363|169252876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4372||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.4372
84749433|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9656||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9656
84749434|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.6765
84495361|NCT00762073|168740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0208
84608479|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.2|0.28
84608480|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.3|-0.5|0.64
84608481|NCT02014584|168967987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.5|0.69
84749435|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5288||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.5288
84495362|NCT00762073|168740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84495363|NCT00762073|168740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1095
84563504|NCT02504320|168878104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.984|1.1066|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.1066|0.9840|
84563505|NCT02504320|168878104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.8777|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8274|0.9311|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9311|0.8274|
84563506|NCT02504320|168878104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8996|1.0117|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0117|0.8996|
84563507|NCT02504320|168878105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0283|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9691|1.0911|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0911|0.9691|
84563508|NCT02504320|168878105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8516|0.963|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9630|0.8516|
84563509|NCT02504320|168878105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimates|0.9463|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8909|1.0051|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0051|0.8909|
84563510|NCT00685360|168878115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.534|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.124|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.124|1.107|=0.0083
84563511|NCT00685360|168878115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.416|||=|0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.98||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.980|1.012|=0.0393
84563512|NCT00685360|168878127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.599|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.177|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.177|1.175|=0.0021
84563513|NCT00685360|168878127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.939|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|2.595|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.595|1.449|<.0001
84563514|NCT00685360|168878128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2419
84563515|NCT00685360|168878128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2239|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2239
84495364|NCT00762073|168740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0264
84495365|NCT00762073|168740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
84607183|NCT03921554|168965720|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|2.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.4|-1.9|0.295
84607184|NCT03921554|168965720|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||12.0|1.9|0.007
84607185|NCT03921554|168965720|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.26||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.2|-5.7|0.932
84495366|NCT00762073|168740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3769
84495367|NCT00762073|168740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9363
84607186|NCT03921554|168965721|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 3 - Day 0)|-8.76|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a QLS model of ISG on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select QLS model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from pre to post treatment (Day 3 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-5.81|-11.7|<0.0005
84607187|NCT03921554|168965722|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (day 335 minus day 0)|-0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of diary average score on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 335 (Day 335 - Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-0.04|-0.18|0.002
84607188|NCT01299571|168965749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.8||||||95.0|3.2|4.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with adverse events.|||4.4|3.2|
84607189|NCT01173029|168965769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' tests Yates's corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test, when appropriate Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||4.1|0.7|0.19
84607190|NCT01173029|168965770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' test Yates' corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||7.3|1.01|0.01
84608482|NCT02014584|168967989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||3.4|-1.1|0.33
84608483|NCT02014584|168967989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||5.6|1.1|0.004
84495368|NCT00762073|168740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1235
84608484|NCT02014584|168967991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.4|-1.7|0.22
84608485|NCT02014584|168967991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||1.0|-2.0|0.50
84608486|NCT01555125|168968035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84495369|NCT00762073|168740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3444
84608487|NCT01555125|168968035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84563516|NCT00685360|168878128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9544|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.9544
84563517|NCT00685360|168878129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0246
84563518|NCT00685360|168878129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0529
84563519|NCT00685360|168878129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.7508
84563520|NCT00685360|168878130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.272|||=|0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.627|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.627|0.995|=0.0518
84563521|NCT00685360|168878130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.203|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.550|0.934|=0.1506
84563522|NCT00685360|168878131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.234|||=|0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.612|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.612|0.945|=0.1201
84563523|NCT00685360|168878131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.099|||=|0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.456|0.829|=0.5112
84563524|NCT00685360|168878132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.323|||=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|1.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.661|1.053|=0.0141
84563525|NCT00685360|168878132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.438|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.155|1.791|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.791|1.155|=0.0008
84563526|NCT00685360|168878133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.341|||=|0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.722|1.044|=0.0196
84563527|NCT00685360|168878133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.503|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.909|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.909|1.183|=0.0006
84608488|NCT01555125|168968036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84608489|NCT01555125|168968036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84608490|NCT02651220|168968058|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|100.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.78|103.91||||||||103.91|96.78|
84749436|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7807||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.7807
84563528|NCT00685360|168878134|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||Cochran-Armitage Linear Trend Test|Cochran-Armitage test was performed for dose response with the treatment group ordered as placebo, delamanid 100 mg BID, and delamanid 200 mg BID.||||||=0.0468
84563529|NCT00685360|168878135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.856|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.255|2.745|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.745|1.255|=0.0011
84563530|NCT00685360|168878135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.849|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|2.743|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.743|1.246|=0.0013
84563531|NCT00685360|168878136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.926|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|2.82|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.820|1.315|=0.0004
84563532|NCT00685360|168878136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.189|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||3.189|1.504|<.0001
84563533|NCT00685360|168878137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.727|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.591|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.591|1.152|=0.0056
84563534|NCT00685360|168878137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.585|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|2.399|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.399|1.048|=0.0232
84563535|NCT00685360|168878138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.846|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|2.759|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.759|1.235|=0.0016
84563536|NCT00685360|168878138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.301|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.555|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||3.405|1.555|<.0001
84563537|NCT02497404|168878154|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|62.8||||||||62.8|30.1|
84608491|NCT02651220|168968059|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.04|103.56||||||||103.56|96.04|
84608492|NCT02651220|168968060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84749437|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9603||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9603
84749438|NCT00051363|169252877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3075
84749439|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4262||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.4262
84749440|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3161||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.3161
84607191|NCT01173029|168965770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportional-risk hypothesis was tested using the correlation between Schoenfeld's residuals and time (Schoenfeld's global test). The correlation rho was -0.08, Chi-squared was 0.12, and p was 0.73. Therefore, the hypothesis of proportional risk was accepted, validating the correct application model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.8||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic groups|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for both groups.||Cox proportional hazard model for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction) was assessed. By taking pseudo-resistant arterial hypertension as baseline reference, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated.||4.8|1.1|0.04
84607192|NCT01173029|168965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistic|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||At an optimal value of \>3, polygenic risk score yielded 90% sensitivity and 40% specificity for composite endpoint.|z test|Area under receiver operating characteristic curve.|The optimal cutoff value for polygenic risk score was set to \>3.|Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the polygenic score as predictor of composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction)||0.76|0.56|<0.01
84607193|NCT01173029|168965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic group|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for polygenic risk score\<=3 and \>3.||Cox proportional hazard model of the polygenic risk score\<=3 and \> 3 for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction). By taking polygenic risk score\<=3, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated for polygenic risk score\>3 .||9.2|1.2|0.04
84749441|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.1835
84749442|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2462||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2462
84607194|NCT05432167|168965773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.79|-13.36|0.003
84608493|NCT03907033|168968067|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Hydrocodone use||||1.000
84749443|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2069||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2069
84563538|NCT02497404|168878155|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
84563539|NCT02497404|168878156|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
84563540|NCT02497404|168878157|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|97.1||||||||97.1|75.8|
84563541|NCT02497404|168878158|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
84563542|NCT02497404|168878159|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|55.4||||||Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.||55.4|23.4|
84563543|NCT02497404|168878160|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the graft failure proportion.|Proportion (percent)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.5||||||||13.5|0.07|
84563544|NCT02497404|168878161|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the GVHD proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
84749444|NCT00051363|169252878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5235||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.5235
84749445|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5419||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5419
84563545|NCT02497404|168878162|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the high-risk extensive chronic graft-versus-host-disease proportion.|Proportion (percent)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|15.3||||||||15.3|0.63|
84563546|NCT00547157|168878171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||||difference is PRT - CRT|||0.07|-0.26|
84563547|NCT00547157|168878172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.656|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.656|0.980|0.0601
84563548|NCT00547157|168878173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.731||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|2.806|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.806|1.068|0.0259
84563549|NCT00547157|168878174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.793|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy|||2.793|0.909|0.1039
84563550|NCT00547157|168878175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.785|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||1.785|0.342|0.5744
84563551|NCT00547157|168878175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.112|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.112|-0.187|
84563552|NCT00547157|168878176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.278||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|4.043|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||4.043|0.438|0.8070
84563553|NCT00547157|168878176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in complete response rate|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.141|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.141|-0.103|
84563554|NCT03275389|168878254|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS03) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|2.06|2.95|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS03 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 3) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.95|2.06|
84571538|NCT00427934|168894040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.239||90.0|-12.62|2.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.11|-12.62|0.239
84571539|NCT00427934|168894040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.872||90.0|-6.79|8.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||8.25|-6.79|0.872
84563555|NCT03275389|168878254|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS01) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|1.46|2.1|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS01 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 4, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 5 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 6) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.1|1.46|
84563556|NCT00995722|168878300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|N=80, (40 per group), 80% power to detect a group difference of 30%-35% and 5% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used to compare mean values adjusting for the baseline value|QMG Score ranges from 0-15, where 0 is normal and a reduction in score represents imrovement.|Mean Ocular QMG Changes from Baseline to Week 16 . 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||2.8|-7.20|0.37
84563557|NCT00995722|168878301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|6.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|15.71|||ANCOVA||Scores ranges fro 0-100 , where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||15.71|-2.59|0.13
84563558|NCT00995722|168878302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|1.75|||ANCOVA||Ranges from 0-60, where 0 is Normal and a reduction in score represents improvement.|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||1.75|-9.37|0.15
84563559|NCT00995722|168878303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.98||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|43.17|||ANCOVA||Ranges 0-100, where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement.|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||43.17|-9.22|0.16
84563560|NCT00947310|168878308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.85|0.24|0.01
84563561|NCT00947310|168878308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||1.02|0.30|0.06
84607195|NCT05432167|168965774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.051||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-1.19|-13.24|0.019
84607196|NCT05432167|168965775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.87|-15.10|0.004
84607197|NCT02553538|168965792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84607198|NCT02553538|168965793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84607199|NCT02553538|168965794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84607200|NCT02553538|168965795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84670951|NCT05544786|169075712|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.77|124.53|||||The ratios (and 90% confidence Intervals \[CIs\]) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||124.53|102.77|
84608494|NCT03907033|168968067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Oxycodone use||||0.010
84670952|NCT05544786|169075712|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.75|134.2|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||134.20|110.75|
84670953|NCT05544786|169075712|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|125.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.43|137.61|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||137.61|114.43|
84749446|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8900
84563562|NCT00947310|168878309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.47|0.71|0.39
84563563|NCT00947310|168878309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.05|0.58|0.80
84563564|NCT00947310|168878310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.34|0.13|<0.001
84563565|NCT00947310|168878310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.40|0.15|<0.001
84563566|NCT02171429|168878314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.2||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|16.12||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||16.12|-3.83|0.1729
84563567|NCT02171429|168878315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-6.8||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|2.73||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.73|-16.26|0.1458
84563568|NCT02171429|168878316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
84563569|NCT02171429|168878317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|27.19||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||27.19|-0.12|0.1729
84749447|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0031
84563570|NCT02171429|168878317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.5||||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|9.01||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.01|-13.83|0.6726
84563571|NCT02171429|168878318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
84608495|NCT03907033|168968068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Ibuprofen use||||0.248
84563572|NCT02171429|168878319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.95||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||21.95|-4.31|0.2372
84563573|NCT02171429|168878319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-3.5||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|7.82||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.82|-14.76|0.5341
84563574|NCT02171429|168878320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
84563575|NCT02171429|168878321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|11.2||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|19.76||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||19.76|0.59|0.2372
84563576|NCT02171429|168878321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|2.33||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.33|-17.20|0.1192
84563577|NCT02171429|168878322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
84607201|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||||90.0|-3.8|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.59|-3.80|
84563578|NCT02171429|168878323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|9.6||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|22.02||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.02|-4.71|0.2729
84563579|NCT02171429|168878323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-14.8||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|-2.04||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-2.04|-26.97|0.0215
84563580|NCT02171429|168878324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
84608496|NCT03907033|168968068|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Tylenol use||||1.000
84563581|NCT02171429|168878325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
84563582|NCT02171429|168878325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.2864
84563583|NCT02171429|168878326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
84563584|NCT02171429|168878327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
84563585|NCT02171429|168878327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4174||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.4174
84571540|NCT00427934|168894040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.745||90.0|-9.91|6.65||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.65|-9.91|0.745
84749448|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8703
84749449|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.1838
84749450|NCT00051363|169252879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0739
84749451|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0450
84749452|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4512||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4512
84749453|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6672||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.6672
84749454|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8197||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8197
84563586|NCT02171429|168878328|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
84749455|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9890
84749456|NCT00051363|169252880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5029
84749457|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9518||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9518
84749458|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4108||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4108
84749459|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4528
84563587|NCT02171429|168878329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-2.8|0.1659
84571541|NCT00427934|168894040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.644||90.0|-10.14|5.71||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||5.71|-10.14|0.644
84749460|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8391||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8391
84563588|NCT02171429|168878329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||1.4|-1.3|0.9182
84563589|NCT02171429|168878330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
84563590|NCT02171429|168878330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
84563591|NCT02171429|168878331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0116
84563592|NCT02171429|168878331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.8|0.6771
84563593|NCT02171429|168878332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
84563594|NCT02171429|168878332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
84571542|NCT00427934|168894041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.524||90.0|-8.49|3.77||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||3.77|-8.49|0.524
84571543|NCT00427934|168894041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.338||90.0|-10.8|2.87||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.87|-10.80|0.338
84571544|NCT00427934|168894041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.83||90.0|-8.55|6.58||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||6.58|-8.55|0.830
84571545|NCT00427934|168894041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68||||0.118||90.0|-15.76|0.4||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.40|-15.76|0.118
84571546|NCT00427934|168894041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.712||90.0|-9.73|6.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.18|-9.73|0.712
84571547|NCT00427934|168894042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.54||90.0|-0.28|0.13||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.13|-0.28|0.540
84749461|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2771||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.2771
84749462|NCT00051363|169252881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8961
84749463|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||||||DX- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.6540
84563595|NCT02171429|168878333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.9||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.87||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.87|-3.19|0.1382
84749464|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.9778
84749465|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8314||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.8314
84749466|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5018||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5018
84749467|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||2M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0052
84571548|NCT00427934|168894042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.757||90.0|-0.28|0.19||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.19|-0.28|0.757
84749468|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.2476
84749469|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7520
84749470|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
84749471|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||6M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0022
84749472|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7630
84749473|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5170
84749474|NCT00051363|169252882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
84749475|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||||||DX- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9291
84749476|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6152||||||DX- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.6152
84749477|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||DX- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.7040
84563596|NCT02171429|168878333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|2.22||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.22|-17.10|0.1163
84563597|NCT02171429|168878334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|2.9||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|10.14||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.14|-6.47|0.4772
84607202|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||||90.0|-3.55|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.31|-3.55|
84607203|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||||90.0|-7.69|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.30|-7.69|
84608497|NCT03907033|168968070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 24 hours post-surgery||||0.846
84608498|NCT03907033|168968070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 48 hours post-surgery||||0.490
84749478|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9537||||||DX- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9537
84749479|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||2M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0004
84749480|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886||||||2M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3886
84563598|NCT02171429|168878334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.2||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|2.63||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.63|-12.95|0.1801
84563599|NCT02171429|168878335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|4.0||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||15.2|-7.2|0.4833
84563600|NCT02171429|168878335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.1|-9.2|0.9931
84749481|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||2M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0236
84563601|NCT04846270|168878346|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of manual checks has been reduced.||"POWER is a single arm investigation with cross-over design. Each participating subject will use the study device and act as its own control.~The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week.~The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that there is a reduction in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week."||||0.0006
84563602|NCT04846270|168878348|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of leakages had been reduced.||||||0.0051
84563603|NCT04846270|168878351|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of fecal incidents had been reduced.||||||0.76
84563604|NCT03492437|168878353|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|151.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|179.93||||||||179.93|127.35|
84607204|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-4.58|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.34|-4.58|
84563605|NCT03492437|168878354|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|144.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.89|170.39||||||||170.39|122.89|
84563606|NCT03492437|168878355|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|138.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.59|157.65||||||||157.65|121.59|
84563607|NCT03492437|168878356|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
84563608|NCT05133323|168878365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0106|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6||0.0106
84563609|NCT04152083|168878376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||1.98|1.20|0.0006
84563610|NCT04152083|168878377|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||2.19|1.41|<0.0001
84563611|NCT04152083|168878378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.72|1.39|0.0009
84563612|NCT04152083|168878379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on CMH test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.25|1.55|<0.0001
84563613|NCT03280056|168878383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.798|||Chi-squared|||||2.798|0.632|0.453
84749482|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||2M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
84749483|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||6M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
84495370|NCT00762073|168740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9258
84495371|NCT00762073|168740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3215
84495372|NCT00762073|168740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.6729
84495373|NCT00762073|168740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8894
84495374|NCT00762073|168740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1532
84749484|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3796||||||6M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3796
84495375|NCT00762073|168740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4197
84495376|NCT00762073|168740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9787|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9787
84495377|NCT00762073|168740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
84495378|NCT01068418|168740998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the mean arterial pressure (mean of five measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.05
84495379|NCT01068418|168740999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the renal plasma flow (mean of three measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.01
84495380|NCT03155269|168741000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1057|0.0211||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.0211|-0.1057|0.1324
84495381|NCT03155269|168741001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|0.489||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.489|-0.030|0.0469
84495382|NCT04637815|168741022|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables|||||||TWO_SIDED|0.0||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
84495383|NCT04637815|168741023|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
84563614|NCT03280056|168878384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.395|||Chi-squared|||||2.395|0.416|0.997
84563615|NCT03280056|168878385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.926||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.20|-1.47|0.693
84563616|NCT03280056|168878386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.176||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|13.72|||ANCOVA|||||13.72|-10.65|0.804
84563617|NCT03318003|168878404|SUPERIORITY||Pearson Chi Square|0.76||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments made|Chi-squared|||||||0.92
84749485|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||||||6M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0106
84749486|NCT00051363|169252883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||6M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0010
84495384|NCT04637815|168741024|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
84495385|NCT04637815|168741025|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
84495386|NCT04637815|168741026|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
84495387|NCT01265875|168741071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 4.||||.25
84495388|NCT01265875|168741071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 7.||||.19
84495389|NCT01265875|168741071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.27
84495390|NCT01265875|168741073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 4.||||.52
84495391|NCT01265875|168741073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.34
84495392|NCT00145795|168741128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.81
84495393|NCT00145795|168741129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.03
84495394|NCT00145795|168741130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.08
84495395|NCT00145795|168741131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
84495396|NCT00145795|168741132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
84495397|NCT00145795|168741133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.04
84495398|NCT00145795|168741134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.21
84495399|NCT00145795|168741135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.61
84495400|NCT03480243|168741196|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.27|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.27|1.59|
84749487|NCT00926211|169252887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Initial planned sample size of 26 would provide approximately 90% power if the survival rate in the implanted transected follicles is at least 40%. Sample size used was 36 with 35 participants completing the 9 month study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.023|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.9||t-test comparison to the upper limit of the non-inferiority margin|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test compared to the non-inferiority margin of 4 follicles.|The number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested using the computer assisted method was subtracted from the number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested manually.|The hypothesis to be tested is one of non-inferiority. Tests of non-inferiority are one-sided tests and the significance level will be 0.025.||3.9||0.023
84563618|NCT01029262|168878425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.616|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.639|42.702|||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group||||42.702|2.639|<0.001
84563619|NCT01029262|168878426|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.||||||1.000
84563620|NCT01029262|168878427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA for risk ratio is due to 0 responder in placebo group.|P-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact||||||0|< 0.001
84563621|NCT01029262|168878428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.||||||0.639
84563622|NCT01029262|168878429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.276||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.877||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact|||||1.877|0.867|0.252
84563623|NCT01029262|168878431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.864
84563624|NCT01029262|168878432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.980
84670954|NCT05544786|169075712|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.42|132.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||132.79|110.42|
84670955|NCT05544786|169075713|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.96|125.4|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||125.40|102.96|
84563625|NCT01029262|168878434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Baseline||||0.823
84563626|NCT01029262|168878434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 12 (±3 days)||||0.371
84563627|NCT01029262|168878434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 24 (±3 days)||||0.391
84563628|NCT01029262|168878434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 36 (±3 days)||||1.000
84563629|NCT01029262|168878434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 48 (±3 days)||||0.508
84563630|NCT01029262|168878435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.||Week 12||||0.323
84563631|NCT01029262|168878435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.071
84563632|NCT01029262|168878436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.760
84563633|NCT01029262|168878436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.251
84563634|NCT01029262|168878437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.424
84563635|NCT01029262|168878437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.116
84563636|NCT01029262|168878438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.746
84563637|NCT01029262|168878438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||||||0.460
84563638|NCT01029262|168878439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.265
84563639|NCT01029262|168878439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||3\]: P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.047
84563640|NCT01029262|168878440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.2909
84563641|NCT01029262|168878440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.0759
84563642|NCT01029262|168878441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6957|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6957
84563643|NCT01029262|168878441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1729
84563644|NCT01029262|168878442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.||Week 12||||0.3975
84563645|NCT01029262|168878442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1714
84563646|NCT01029262|168878443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6408
84563647|NCT01029262|168878443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.5750
84563648|NCT01029262|168878444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments||Week 12||||0.2848
84670956|NCT05544786|169075713|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.02|135.22|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||135.22|111.02|
84563649|NCT01029262|168878444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||0.1053
84563650|NCT01029262|168878445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.042
84563651|NCT01029262|168878445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.448
84563652|NCT01029262|168878446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.825
84563653|NCT01029262|168878446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.568
84563654|NCT01029262|168878447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.119
84563655|NCT01029262|168878447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.172
84563656|NCT01029262|168878448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values were calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.792
84563657|NCT01029262|168878448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.279
84563658|NCT01029262|168878449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.476
84563659|NCT01029262|168878449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.052
84563660|NCT01029262|168878450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.759||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.856||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||2.856|1.083|0.017
84749488|NCT00926211|169252888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was powered for the primary efficacy outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.146|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.004||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||Paired data with each subject as their own control (treatment was randomly assigned to the left or right side of the scalp). Paired difference was analyzed.|||-.004|<0.001
84749489|NCT01242800|169252900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used for arm comparison||||||0.32
84563661|NCT04607135|168878480|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||F-statistic = 11.71|Welch's ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84563662|NCT04607135|168878480|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||q-statistic = 6.74|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.002
84563663|NCT04607135|168878480|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||q-statistic = 2.34|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.24
84563664|NCT04607135|168878480|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||q-statistic = 2.04|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.35
84563665|NCT04607135|168878481|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
84563666|NCT04607135|168878482|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
84563667|NCT01408901|168878495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|52.3||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.3|5.1|0.052
84563668|NCT01408901|168878495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|17.6||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||17.6|-30.2|0.91
84563669|NCT01408901|168878495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|22.4||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||22.4|-25.2|0.91
84563670|NCT01408901|168878495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|57.7||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||57.7|9.4|0.02
84563671|NCT01408901|168878496|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.61||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.44||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.44|-1.67|0.49
84563672|NCT01408901|168878496|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.67||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.51||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-1.84|0.49
84563673|NCT01408901|168878496|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.38||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|-0.66|0.49
84563674|NCT01408901|168878496|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.59||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|-0.64|0.49
84563675|NCT01408901|168878497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.0||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|2.1|<0.01
84563676|NCT01408901|168878497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.1|0.44
84563677|NCT01408901|168878497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.1|0.44
84563678|NCT01408901|168878497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.2||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|2.2|<0.01
84563679|NCT01408901|168878498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
84495401|NCT03480243|168741196|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.16|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.16|1.51|
84495402|NCT03480243|168741197|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.17|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.17|1.50|
84495403|NCT03480243|168741197|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.97|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||1.97|1.36|
84495404|NCT03480243|168741198|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|2.55|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.55|1.77|
84495405|NCT03480243|168741198|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|2.56|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.56|1.78|
84495406|NCT03480243|168741199|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.03|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||3.03|2.02|
84495407|NCT03480243|168741199|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.73|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.73|1.82|
84495408|NCT00761085|168741224|OTHER|No statistical comparisons||||||||||||||||"No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in patients receiving methadone vs not receiving methadone (children or adults).~No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in children vs adults"|No statistical comparisons|||
84495409|NCT00761085|168741225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84495410|NCT01522755|168741228|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84495411|NCT01522755|168741229|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84495412|NCT01522755|168741230|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84563680|NCT01408901|168878499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.001|-0.010|0.03
84495413|NCT03414658|168741231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.35|0.025
84495414|NCT03414658|168741231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.8|0.32
84495415|NCT02388906|168741235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.86|0.60|0.0003
84495416|NCT02388906|168741236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.11|0.69|
84495417|NCT02388906|168741243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.90|0.63|
84495418|NCT05770401|168741245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.76|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in LCQ total score change from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||5.76|.72|.014
84495419|NCT05770401|168741246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.804||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in Cough Severity VAS Scores from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||0.46|-32.7|.056
84495420|NCT05261126|168741279|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-34.7|-47.8|<0.001
84495421|NCT05261126|168741279|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.1|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-49.1|-62.3|<0.001
84495422|NCT05261126|168741279|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.7|-52.5|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-52.5|-65.7|<0.001
84495423|NCT05261126|168741279|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-54.3|-67.6|<0.001
84495424|NCT05261126|168741280|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.8|||||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||15.8|-15.5|
84495425|NCT05261126|168741280|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.2|||||MK-0616 12 mg vs Placebo|||11.2|-20.0|
84495426|NCT05261126|168741280|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.1|||||MK-0616 18 mg vs Placebo|||15.1|-16.3|
84495427|NCT05261126|168741280|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.8|||||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||13.8|-17.5|
84495428|NCT05261126|168741282|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-26.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-26.9|-38.6|<0.001
84749490|NCT02640157|169252906|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.1|-5.6|
84749491|NCT02640157|169252906|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.2|98.4||||||||98.4|92.2|
84749492|NCT02640157|169252906|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.2|3.7||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.7|-6.2|
84563681|NCT01408901|168878500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
84749493|NCT02640157|169252907|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.0||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm C - Arm A)||4.0|-4.8|
84749494|NCT02640157|169252907|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Percentage of participants|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|91.0|98.8||||||||98.8|91.0|
84749495|NCT02640157|169252907|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|4.6||||||||4.6|-5.4|
84749496|NCT00710021|169252911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84749497|NCT00710021|169252912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
84749498|NCT00710021|169252913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
84563682|NCT01408901|168878501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.002|-0.009|0.17
84749499|NCT00710021|169252914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84749500|NCT00710021|169252915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.31
84749501|NCT00710021|169252916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.019
84749502|NCT00710021|169252917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.28
84749503|NCT00710021|169252918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.050
84749504|NCT00710021|169252919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.29
84563683|NCT05446142|168878551|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|99.9||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.90|90.82|
84608499|NCT03907033|168968070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 72 hours post-surgery||||0.564
84607205|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88||||||90.0|-7.58|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.19|-7.58|
84607206|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||||90.0|-5.44|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.20|-5.44|
84607207|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-4.74|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.64|-4.74|
84607208|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||||90.0|-3.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.15|-3.38|
84607209|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||||90.0|-4.77|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.62|-4.77|
84607210|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||90.0|-2.49|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.74|-2.49|
84607211|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-4.99|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-4.99|
84608500|NCT03907033|168968071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.264
84608501|NCT03907033|168968071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.970
84563684|NCT05446142|168878551|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.71|101.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||101.12|91.71|
84563685|NCT05446142|168878551|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.91|112.47||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||112.47|82.91|
84608502|NCT03907033|168968071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.536
84608503|NCT03907033|168968072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.957
84608504|NCT03907033|168968072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.353
84608505|NCT03907033|168968072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.165
84608506|NCT03907033|168968074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.802
84608507|NCT03907033|168968074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 7-10 days post-surgery||||0.656
84608508|NCT01439373|168968077|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.905. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.22 to 0.68.|||||
84563686|NCT05446142|168878551|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.59|94.95||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.95|82.59|
84563687|NCT05446142|168878552|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|119.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||119.04|91.40|
84563688|NCT05446142|168878552|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.17|103.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||103.12|79.17|
84563689|NCT05446142|168878552|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|79.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.7|108.08||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||108.08|58.70|
84563690|NCT05446142|168878552|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|80.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.82|100.68||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.68|64.82|
84563691|NCT05446142|168878553|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|100.59||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.59|90.37|
84563692|NCT05446142|168878553|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|99.88||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.88|89.73|
84563693|NCT05446142|168878553|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.1|109.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||109.04|84.10|
84607212|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||||90.0|-2.47|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.77|-2.47|
84607213|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||||90.0|-6.91|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.52|-6.91|
84607214|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51||||||90.0|-4.13|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-4.13|
84607215|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||||90.0|-4.63|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.76|-4.63|
84749505|NCT00710021|169252920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.014
84749506|NCT00710021|169252921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.96
84749507|NCT00710021|169252922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.67
84563694|NCT05446142|168878553|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.36|94.7||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.70|82.36|
84563695|NCT02098395|168878565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus placebo was planned to be concluded if and only if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c was less than zero.||-0.2|-0.5|< 0.0001
84563696|NCT02098395|168878565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was planned to be evaluated only if superiority for liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded.||-0.08|-0.38|= 0.0021
84563697|NCT02098395|168878565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg versus placebo was planned to be evaluated only if superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was concluded.||-0.1|-0.39|= 0.0011
84563698|NCT01509612|168878570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
84563699|NCT01509612|168878571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those groups were compared who received an intervention||||0.02
84563700|NCT00282152|168878584|NON_INFERIORITY|Because the purpose of this trial was to provide preliminary safety and tolerability data, the primary hypothesis was that the DBS+ODT group would not worsen more quickly than the ODT group. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to reach a four-point worsening of the UPDRS-III score following a one week treatment washout as assessed by the blinded rater.||||||0.968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.968
84563701|NCT00282152|168878585|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Study power was calculated based on the amount of PD medication consumed. We anticipated that the control group (ODT) would have a baseline value of 400 which would increase to 600, and that the treated group (DBS+ODT) would decrease from 400 to 300. A sample size of 12 patients per group (n=15, assuming 20% drop out) would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 300 assuming that the common standard deviation is 250 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.40
84563702|NCT02182830|168878626|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the primary endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"MMRM model : HbA1c baseline, treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and HbA1c baseline by treatment interaction. Treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, and visit by treatment interaction were fixed classification effects, and HbA1c baseline was a linear covariate. The interaction visit by HbA1c baseline interaction was based on the linear covariate HbA1c baseline."||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
84563703|NCT02182830|168878627|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-1.18|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 12 weeks of treatment was evaluated by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-1.18|-9.24|0.0117
84563704|NCT02182830|168878628|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-0.81|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"ANCOVA mode:~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-0.81|-11.16|0.0237
84563705|NCT02182830|168878629|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||-0.07|-2.39|0.0382
84563706|NCT02182830|168878630|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||1.09|-9.16|0.1215
84571549|NCT00427934|168894042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.767||90.0|-0.31|0.21||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.21|-0.31|0.767
84571550|NCT00427934|168894042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.112||90.0|-0.52|0.01||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.01|-0.52|0.112
84749508|NCT00710021|169252923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.59
84749509|NCT00710021|169252924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.65
84749510|NCT00710021|169252925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.86
84563707|NCT02182830|168878631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-3.04|-13.74|0.0025
84563708|NCT02182830|168878632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.96|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|The respective ANCOVA model includes treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the respective secondary endpoint.||-0.96|-5.90|0.0069
84563709|NCT02182830|168878633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.46|-8.35|0.0058
84563710|NCT02182830|168878634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-2.48|-12.37|0.0036
84563711|NCT02182830|168878635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||1.25|-4.93|0.2402
84563712|NCT02182830|168878636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.29|-7.21|0.0053
84749511|NCT00710021|169252926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749512|NCT00710021|169252927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score.||||||0.62
84749513|NCT00710021|169252928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84563713|NCT01990768|168878637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.1809|ONE_SIDED|||||Based on an interim futility analysis, a one-sided P-value less than .1028 was required to declare benefit.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for regional site. Missing outcomes were multiply imputed.|Odds ratio for unfavorable GOS-E (\<=4) for the Combined TXA Arms (numerator) vs. Placebo (denominator)|This study was designed with an asymmetric boundary for tests for treatment harm and benefit. The conventional 0.025 level was used to test for harm while a 0.1 level was used to determine benefit for this Phase II trial. Statistical significance for the primary analysis was conducted under a group-sequential design that included a single, interim futility analysis using a Wang-Tsiatis boundary with parameter 0.8 based on outcome data from the first 200 subjects.||||.1809
84749514|NCT00710021|169252929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749515|NCT00710021|169252930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749516|NCT00710021|169252931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749517|NCT00710021|169252932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749518|NCT00710021|169252933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749519|NCT00710021|169252934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84563714|NCT02029274|168878674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5519||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.447|23.549|||Repeated measures analysis|||||23.549|-22.447|0.9621
84563715|NCT02029274|168878674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9297||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.128|6.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||||6.391|-37.128|0.1637
84563716|NCT02029274|168878674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6016||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.806|9.388|||Repeated measures|||||9.388|-36.806|0.2409
84563717|NCT03749109|168878680|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.74||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|13.94|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.94|-10.45|0.78
84563718|NCT03749109|168878680|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|3.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|9.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||9.59|-2.89|0.29
84749520|NCT00710021|169252935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749521|NCT00710021|169252936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84749522|NCT00710021|169252937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Note that none of the Grade 3 or above events were considered by the investigators to be related to study treatment.||||||0.10
84749523|NCT04508023|169252949|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.15|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the time from COVID-19 positive test to randomization.||||2.15|0.63|0.626
84563719|NCT03749109|168878680|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.33||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||10.99|-10.33|0.95
84563720|NCT03749109|168878681|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.99||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|22.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||22.82|-36.80|0.65
84563721|NCT03749109|168878681|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.13||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|20.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||20.51|-22.77|0.92
84563722|NCT03749109|168878681|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.92||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|29.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||29.10|-40.94|0.74
84563723|NCT03749109|168878682|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.82|0.38|0.95
84563724|NCT03749109|168878682|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||2.17|0.14|0.39
84563725|NCT03749109|168878683|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.65|0.19|0.60
84563726|NCT03749109|168878683|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||1.79|0.07|0.21
84563727|NCT03749109|168878684|OTHER||Rate Ratio|2.53||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|8.39|||Negative-binomial regression|||Endometrioma - Disappearing Lesions||8.39|0.76|0.13
84563728|NCT03749109|168878684|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.41|||Negative-binomial regression|||Adenomyosis - Disappearing Lesions||5.41|0.04|0.56
84563729|NCT03749109|168878685|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.23||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|13.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.23|-12.78|0.97
84563730|NCT03749109|168878685|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.72||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||5.07|-3.63|0.74
84670957|NCT05544786|169075713|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|126.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|139.27|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||139.27|115.00|
84670958|NCT05544786|169075713|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.11|134.57|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||134.57|111.11|
84563731|NCT03749109|168878686|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|10.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|35.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||35.00|-14.74|0.42
84563732|NCT03749109|168878687|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||2.38|-0.20|0.10
84563733|NCT03749109|168878687|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.28||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||1.58|-1.02|0.67
84563734|NCT03749109|168878687|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.32||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||1.71|-1.06|0.64
84563735|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.21||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 1||1.44|-1.02|0.73
84563736|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.42||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||1.82|-0.97|0.54
84563737|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 3||0.85|-1.86|0.46
84563738|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.53||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||2.05|-0.99|0.49
84563739|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 1||1.30|-1.32|0.99
84563740|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||1.71|-1.38|0.83
84563741|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.74||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 3||0.63|-2.11|0.28
84563742|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||2.07|-0.57|0.26
84563743|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 1||2.31|-0.49|0.19
84563744|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||1.58|-1.45|0.93
84563745|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.13||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 3||1.32|-1.58|0.85
84563746|NCT03749109|168878688|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||1.69|-1.68|0.99
84749524|NCT00511901|169252991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84749525|NCT00511901|169252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 3 weeks||||1.00
84749526|NCT00511901|169252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 8 weeks||||0.17
84749527|NCT00511901|169252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 12 weeks||||0.59
84607216|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||||90.0|-3.94|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.70|-3.94|
84607217|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||||90.0|-8.22|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.50|-8.22|
84607218|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||||90.0|-6.29|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.56|-6.29|
84608509|NCT01439373|168968078|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.122|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.822. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.17 to 0.6|||||
84749528|NCT00511901|169252993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84749529|NCT00511901|169252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 3 weeks||||0.66
84749530|NCT00511901|169252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 8 weeks||||1.00
84749531|NCT00511901|169252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 12 weeks||||0.53
84749532|NCT00511901|169252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 3 weeks||||0.96
84749533|NCT00511901|169252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 8 weeks||||1.00
84495429|NCT05261126|168741282|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-39.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-39.9|-51.7|<0.001
84495430|NCT05261126|168741282|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-42.8|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-42.8|-54.6|<0.001
84749534|NCT00511901|169252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 12 weeks||||0.66
84563747|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.97|39.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||39.27|-53.97|0.75
84563748|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|17.31||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.41|60.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||60.04|-25.41|0.42
84563749|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-17.66||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|30.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||30.98|-66.30|0.47
84563750|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|25.61||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|72.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||72.27|-21.05|0.27
84563751|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-20.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.83|29.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||29.92|-71.83|0.41
84563752|NCT03749109|168878689|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.25||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|54.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||54.06|-49.57|0.93
84563753|NCT01972464|168878739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.52||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age (18-25 years versus \>25 years) and pre-quit smoking level (\<10 versus \>10 cigarettes per day)|OR represents of odds of abstinence in progesterone group versus placebo group|Null hypothesis- odds of week 8 point prevalence abstinence were equal between placebo and progesterone group.||6.52|0.48|0.39
84563754|NCT01972464|168878740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.38||a priori threshold = 0.05|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and pre-quit smoking level|Hazard ratio is placebo / progesterone|||3.38|0.66|0.41
84563755|NCT01972464|168878741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||general estimating equation|adjusted for age \& pre-quit smoking level; specified a gamma distribution, log link, autoregressive correlation structure|risk ratio is progesterone versus placebo|null hypothesis rate of change in QSU-brief scores were equal between treatment groups||0.96|0.86|<0.001
84563756|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-4.4|
84563757|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-6.2|
84749535|NCT00511901|169252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 3 weeks||||0.64
84749536|NCT00511901|169252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 8 weeks||||0.83
84749537|NCT00511901|169252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 12 weeks||||0.46
84749538|NCT00511901|169252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 3 weeks||||0.37
84749539|NCT00511901|169252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.39||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 8 weeks||||0.69
84749540|NCT00511901|169252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 12 weeks||||0.36
84749541|NCT00511901|169252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.97||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 3 weeks||||0.97
84749542|NCT00511901|169252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 8 weeks||||0.46
84749543|NCT00511901|169252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 12 weeks||||0.68
84571551|NCT00427934|168894042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.49||90.0|-0.42|0.17||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.17|-0.42|0.490
84749544|NCT03261700|169253010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on Empowerment via the Personal Progress Scale Revised||||<.05
84749545|NCT03261700|169253011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on self-efficacy via the General Self-Efficacy Scale||||<.05
84749546|NCT00529958|169253041|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on 88 ACL-deficient patients with surgical intervention and an ACL-QOL score of 74.5 (SD=20.1) at a mean 39-month follow-up, a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points, power=0.80 and p=0.05.|||||<|0.05||||||A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used in the sample size calculation, resulting in 90 patients per group. With a 20% lost-to-follow-up rate, the final sample size was 108 patients per group for a total of 324 patients.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a 5% significance level for all analyses. The ACL-QOL scores for each study group were analyzed using adjusted Bonferroni comparisons and repeated-measures analyses, using a mixed-model analysis of variance for treatment group over time of assessment."||||<0.05
84749547|NCT04947527|169253061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-4.2|0.279
84749548|NCT04947527|169253062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages/proportions|-14.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||||-2.1|-26.7|0.023
84749549|NCT04947527|169253063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
84749550|NCT03316300|169253064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.13|<0.0001
84749551|NCT01315353|169253101|SUPERIORITY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Cumulative rate difference|1.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.9||||||The lower bound of the (lower) one-sided 95% confidence interval was provided.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN2+ with 95% one-sided confidence interval.|||-7.9|
84749552|NCT01315353|169253102|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by ART use at screening.||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to time to CIN2+.||||0.94
84749553|NCT01315353|169253103|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN3+ with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||13.6|-4.8|
84749554|NCT01315353|169253104|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to rate of premature study discontinuation.||||0.445
84749555|NCT01315353|169253105|OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value for the week 26 comparison. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 26.||||1.000
84749556|NCT01315353|169253105|OTHER|||||||0.279||||||"P-value for the week 52 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 52.||||0.279
84749557|NCT01315353|169253105|OTHER|||||||0.781||||||"P-value for the week 78 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 78.||||0.781
84749558|NCT01315353|169253105|OTHER|||||||0.375||||||"P-value for the week 104 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 104.||||0.375
84563758|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
84563759|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.9||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.9|-9.6|
84563760|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-4.0|-13.0|
84563761|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-3.7||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-3.7|-14.0|
84563762|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.8|
84563763|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-6.4|
84495431|NCT05261126|168741282|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Square Means|-51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-45.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-45.9|-57.7|<0.001
84495432|NCT05261126|168741283|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-29.4|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-29.4|-42.4|<0.001
84495433|NCT05261126|168741283|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|-44.0|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-44.0|-57.0|<0.001
84563764|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-4.4|
84563765|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
84563766|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.1|
84563767|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.7|
84571552|NCT00427934|168894043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.464||90.0|-0.19|0.07||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.07|-0.19|0.464
84571553|NCT00427934|168894043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.068||90.0|-0.35|-0.02||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.35|0.068
84571554|NCT00427934|168894043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.532||90.0|-0.23|0.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.11|-0.23|0.532
84571555|NCT00427934|168894043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.063||90.0|-0.41|-0.03||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.03|-0.41|0.063
84571556|NCT00427934|168894043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.396||90.0|-0.36|0.12||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.12|-0.36|0.396
84563768|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.2||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.2|-9.5|
84563769|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|3.0|
84563770|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-26.2|-40.7|
84563771|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
84563772|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.5||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-12.5|-25.7|
84563773|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.6||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||9.6|2.2|
84563774|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
84563775|NCT04530838|168878760|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||6.0|-3.2|
84563776|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-1.7||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-1.7|-10.4|
84563777|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.9||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-5.2|
84563778|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
84563779|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-4.5|
84563780|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|-0.2|
84563781|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-12.5|
84607219|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||||90.0|-10.77|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.05|-10.77|
84607220|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79||||||90.0|-8.15|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.42|-8.15|
84563782|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-5.4|
84563783|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-7.7|
84563784|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-4.4|
84563785|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
84563786|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-3.0|
84563787|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
84749559|NCT01315353|169253105|OTHER|||||||0.444||||||"P-value for the week 130 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 130.||||0.444
84563788|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.1||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.1|-6.9|
84749560|NCT01315353|169253106|OTHER|||||||0.132||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.132
84563789|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.2|
84563790|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.6||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.6|-9.8|
84563791|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
84563792|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.2|-8.2|
84563793|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.3|
84563794|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
84563795|NCT04530838|168878760|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.2||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-7.5|
84563796|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.72|0.54|
84563797|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.81||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.81|0.63|
84563798|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.51|
84571557|NCT00427934|168894044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.481||90.0|-7.36|2.96||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.96|-7.36|0.481
84571558|NCT00427934|168894044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.698||90.0|-4.34|6.99||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.99|-4.34|0.698
84571559|NCT00427934|168894044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.233||90.0|-1.79|11.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.10|-1.79|0.233
84571560|NCT00427934|168894044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48||||0.32||90.0|-2.29|9.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||9.25|-2.29|0.320
84571561|NCT00427934|168894044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.912||90.0|-5.81|6.64||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.64|-5.81|0.912
84495434|NCT05261126|168741283|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-46.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-46.7|-59.7|<0.001
84495435|NCT05261126|168741283|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-49.3|-62.3|<0.001
84495436|NCT05261126|168741284|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|79.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||79.0|56.2|<0.001
84495437|NCT05261126|168741284|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|75.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.9|84.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||84.0|62.9|<0.001
84563799|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.71|0.49|
84563800|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.50|
84495438|NCT05261126|168741284|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|87.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||87.1|67.1|<0.001
84495439|NCT05261126|168741284|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|87.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||87.4|67.9|<0.001
84495440|NCT03901274|168741299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.42|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on three month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||0.42|-0.74|
84495441|NCT03901274|168741299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.09|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on six month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||-0.09|-1.20|
84495442|NCT03671746|168741344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|=|0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using Length of Stay (LOS) as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||=0.275
84495443|NCT03671746|168741345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using LOS as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
84495444|NCT03671746|168741346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The VAS model was adjusted for baseline levels as a covariate, which differed significantly between groups.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
84563801|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.64||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.64|0.40|
84563802|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.84|0.62|
84563803|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.80|0.60|
84563804|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.01|0.70|
84563805|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.77|0.57|
84563806|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.87|0.65|
84563807|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.85|0.67|
84563808|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.78|0.53|
84670959|NCT05544786|169075714|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|110.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.01|122.82|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||122.82|99.01|
84497545|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.83
84563809|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.79||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||4.79|3.36|
84563810|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.76|0.48|
84563811|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|8.13||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||8.13|5.69|
84563812|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.76|
84563813|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|9.92||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||9.92|6.75|
84571562|NCT00427934|168894045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.653||90.0|-0.31|0.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.18|-0.31|0.653
84571563|NCT00427934|168894045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.703||90.0|-0.41|0.26||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.26|-0.41|0.703
84749561|NCT01315353|169253107|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.227
84563814|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|7.12||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||7.12|5.00|
84571564|NCT00427934|168894045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.968||90.0|-0.37|0.39||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.39|-0.37|0.968
84571565|NCT00427934|168894045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.21||90.0|-0.72|0.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.10|-0.72|0.210
84571566|NCT00427934|168894045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.696||90.0|-0.53|0.33||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.33|-0.53|0.696
84571567|NCT00427934|168894047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.09||||0.155||90.0|-6.16|21.83||p-value (one-sided) was based on Barnard exact test if more than 20% of expected cell counts were \< 5 otherwise Pearson chi-square test.|Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|||21.83|-6.16|0.155
84571568|NCT00427934|168894053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.698||90.0|-1.87|3.01||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.01|-1.87|0.698
84571569|NCT00427934|168894053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.344||90.0|-4.62|1.26||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.26|-4.62|0.344
84571570|NCT00427934|168894054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.734||90.0|-2.71|4.11||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||4.11|-2.71|0.734
84571571|NCT00427934|168894054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.818||90.0|-3.5|4.62||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.62|-3.50|0.818
84571572|NCT00427934|168894055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
84571573|NCT00427934|168894056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9826
84571574|NCT00148798|168894072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (Stage IIIb vs IV, ECOG 0/1 vs 2) (α=5%).||||0.0441
84571575|NCT00148798|168894073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%).||||0.3869
84571576|NCT00148798|168894074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.0101
84571577|NCT00148798|168894075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The disease control rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.6801
84571578|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.05 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.00 to 1.10).|GMC ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 1."||0.18|0.14|
84571579|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1106 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.45 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.38 to 1.53).|GMC ratio|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.25||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 4."||0.25|0.2|
84571580|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.70 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.62 to 1.78).|GMC ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 5."||0.29|0.23|
84749562|NCT01315353|169253108|OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||1.000
84563815|NCT04530838|168878761|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.51||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||2.51|1.69|
84563816|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.99|0.73|
84563817|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.98|0.74|
84563818|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.83|
84563819|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
84563820|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.44|0.98|
84563821|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.21|0.72|
84563822|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.12|0.82|
84563823|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.85|
84563824|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.04|0.72|
84563825|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.07|0.79|
84563826|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.84|
84563827|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.10|0.87|
84563828|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
84563829|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.87|
84563830|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.73|
84563831|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.06|0.81|
84563832|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.71|
84563833|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.18|0.85|
84563834|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.02|0.78|
84563835|NCT04530838|168878761|OTHER||GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.79|
84749563|NCT03567434|169253111|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.283||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Frequency (Burst/Min)||||0.283
84495445|NCT03671746|168741347|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.564
84563836|NCT00803712|168878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis to be tested: the proportion of participants achieving the specified PTH target of ≥ 30% reduction in PTH from baseline will be greater in the cinacalcet plus low dose active vitamin D group than in the control group during the efficacy assessment phase at month 6 (weeks 22 to 26).||||<0.0001
84563837|NCT00803712|168878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
84563838|NCT00803712|168878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Adjusted p-value is presented. P-value is adjusted using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method of adjusting for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0139
84563839|NCT00803712|168878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2386
84749564|NCT03567434|169253111|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst incidence would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.92||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Incidence (Burst/100hb)||||0.920
84749565|NCT03567434|169253113|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.888||||||The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
84749566|NCT05269355|169253138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.45|0.0017
84749567|NCT01880528|169253152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84749568|NCT01880528|169253153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0337|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0337
84749569|NCT01880528|169253154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0427
84563840|NCT00803712|168878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0875
84563841|NCT00803712|168878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4304
84563842|NCT00803712|168878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0910
84749570|NCT01880528|169253155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0237
84749571|NCT00081497|169253156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in Slope Mean|-0.029||||0.013||95.0|-0.051|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with a population level (fixed effect) intercept and slope and a subject level (random effect) intercept and slope.||The statistical analysis represents the primary outcome measure results.||-0.007|-0.051|0.0130
84749572|NCT00081497|169253157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-6.787||||0.0027||95.0|-11.123|-2.45|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 1 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup \>60.||-2.450|-11.123|0.0027
84749573|NCT00081497|169253157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.33||||0.1268||95.0|-0.685|5.345|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 2 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup ≤ 60.||5.345|-0.685|0.1268
84749574|NCT02254278|169253162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||binomial|One-sided significance level=0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.04
84749575|NCT02254278|169253162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||bionmial|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.23
84749576|NCT02254278|169253163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||0.90|0.17|0.02
84749577|NCT02254278|169253164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.08|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||5.08|0.4|0.58
84749578|NCT02254278|169253165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.95||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||2.95|0.31|0.93
84563843|NCT00803712|168878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9520
84749579|NCT02254278|169253166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||End of RT||||<0.0001
84749580|NCT02254278|169253166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||One month after end of RT||||0.17
84749581|NCT02254278|169253166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Six months after end of RT||||0.16
84749582|NCT02254278|169253166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||One year after end of RT||||0.26
84497546|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.89
84563844|NCT00803712|168878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84563845|NCT00803712|168878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0611
84607221|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||||90.0|-9.66|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.94|-9.66|
84749583|NCT02254278|169253166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Two years after the end of RT||||0.82
84749584|NCT02254278|169253168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Progression-free survival: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.3
84749585|NCT02254278|169253168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Local-regional control: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.07
84749586|NCT02254278|169253169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.28
84749587|NCT02254278|169253170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.03
84749588|NCT02254278|169253174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.08
84749589|NCT02254278|169253175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84563846|NCT00803712|168878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3298
84563847|NCT00803712|168878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4436|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4436
84563848|NCT00803712|168878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||<0.0001
84563849|NCT00803712|168878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
84563850|NCT00803712|168878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||0.0040
84563851|NCT00803712|168878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
84563852|NCT00803712|168878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium||||||<0.0001
84563853|NCT00803712|168878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
84563854|NCT00803712|168878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
84563855|NCT00803712|168878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
84563856|NCT00803712|168878788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0085
84749590|NCT06609135|169253176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
84749591|NCT06609135|169253177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
84749592|NCT06609135|169253178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
84749593|NCT06609135|169253179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
84749594|NCT06609135|169253180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
84749595|NCT06609135|169253181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
84749596|NCT06609135|169253182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
84749597|NCT06609135|169253183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
84497547|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
84607222|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.65||||||90.0|-9.01|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-4.29|-9.01|
84607223|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27||||||90.0|-8.13|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.41|-8.13|
84607224|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||||90.0|-6.01|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.29|-6.01|
84607225|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-5.91|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.81|-5.91|
84607226|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||||90.0|-3.46|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.27|-3.46|
84607227|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-6.16|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.56|-6.16|
84607228|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||||90.0|-5.79|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.06|-5.79|
84607229|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||||90.0|-7.33|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-7.33|
84749598|NCT06609135|169253184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
84749599|NCT06609135|169253185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
84749600|NCT06609135|169253186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
84749601|NCT06609135|169253187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
84749602|NCT05437510|169253188|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|84.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.493|92.411|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||92.411|69.493|<0.0001
84749603|NCT05437510|169253189|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|77.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.249|93.432|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||93.432|39.249|0.0014
84749604|NCT05437510|169253190|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.676|98.813||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for France: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||98.813|63.676|<0.0001
84749605|NCT05437510|169253190|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|83.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.589|97.593||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for UK: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||97.593|33.589|0.0036
84749606|NCT05437510|169253190|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.62||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.74|92.595||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for Germany: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||92.595|29.740|0.0051
84495446|NCT03671746|168741348|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.118
84749607|NCT05437510|169253191|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|57.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.36|70.76|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||70.760|40.360|<0.0001
84749608|NCT05437510|169253191|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|52.48||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.121|72.36|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||72.360|20.121|0.0039
84749609|NCT05437510|169253191|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|58.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.115|78.049|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||78.049|25.115|0.0024
84749610|NCT05437510|169253191|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|70.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.567|89.396|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.396|29.567|0.0037
84495447|NCT03671746|168741349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||0.215
84563857|NCT00803712|168878789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0710
84563858|NCT00803712|168878790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3546|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.3546
84563859|NCT00803712|168878791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.7518
84563860|NCT02861664|168878802|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.4||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.4|-0.8|<.0001
84563861|NCT02258217|168878843|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two ADL scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post ADL scores."||-0.66|-2.9|0.003
84563862|NCT02258217|168878844|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse) This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.22|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two RSH scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post RSH scores."||1.22|-1.22|0.99
84563863|NCT02258217|168878846|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in PCS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~PCS score (new relapse) - PCS score (after treatment of current relapse). This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||Paired t-test, two sided|||"We compared the two PCS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post PCS scores."||-0.18|-3.67|0.03
84607230|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||||90.0|-5.62|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-5.62|
84563864|NCT02258217|168878847|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS physical score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS physical score (new relapse) - MSIS physical score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||"We compared the two MSIS physical scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post MSIS physical scores."||||0.19
84607231|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||||90.0|-4.13|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||3.59|-4.13|
84563865|NCT02258217|168878848|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS psychological score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS psychological score (new relapse) - MSIS psychological score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.45|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two MSIS psychological scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post MSIS psychological scores."||5.45|0.74|0.01
84563866|NCT02258217|168878849|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in EDSS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~EDSS score (new relapse) - EDSS score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the median difference in EDSS scores is 0.0 to 0.5|"We compared the two EDSS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post EDSS scores."||||0.23
84563867|NCT02258217|168878850|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in SAGE score variable. This was calculated as follows:~SAGE score (new relapse) - SAGE score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the difference in medians is -1 to 0.|"We compared the two SAGE scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post SAGE scores."||||0.44
84749611|NCT05437510|169253192|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.271|91.357|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.357|67.271|<0.0001
84563868|NCT00614874|168878853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Comparison is between baseline and week 12|ANOVA|||||||0.048
84563869|NCT00614874|168878854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0||0.183||95.0||||comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.183
84563870|NCT00614874|168878855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95||0.398||95.0||||Comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.398
84670960|NCT05544786|169075714|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|140.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.57|157.01|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||157.01|126.57|
84563871|NCT03173456|168878867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only do individual comparisons between means if the overall test of the analysis of variance (AVOVA) was statistically significant|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that all means are equal. The alternate hypothesis is that one or more mean is less than or more than another.||||0.69
84563872|NCT03173456|168878868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only compare means if the overall test of AVOVA was statistically significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.85
84563873|NCT03173456|168878869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84563874|NCT03173456|168878871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84563875|NCT03173456|168878872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501||||||0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||||||0.0501
84563876|NCT01733121|168878873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<.0001
84563877|NCT01733121|168878874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
84749612|NCT05437510|169253192|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.283|96.459|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.459|60.283|<0.0001
84749613|NCT05437510|169253192|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.084|97.183|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.183|50.084|0.0004
84563878|NCT01733121|168878875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.7|0.0005
84563879|NCT01733121|168878876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
84563880|NCT02609984|168878885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8568||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5507|1.333||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.3330|0.5507|0.4900
84563881|NCT02609984|168878886|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2145||||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|2.0684||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.0684|0.7131|0.4737
84749614|NCT05437510|169253192|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.36||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.006|92.518|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.518|29.006|0.0055
84607232|NCT00853840|168965804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||||90.0|-4.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.10|-4.62|
84670961|NCT05544786|169075714|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|149.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.86|168.96|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||168.96|132.86|
84749615|NCT05437510|169253193|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|75.31||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.012|91.747|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.747|38.012|0.0013
84749616|NCT05437510|169253193|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|78.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|97.697|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.697|-5.823|0.0620
84497548|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.87
84563882|NCT02609984|168878890|OTHER|||||||0.3645||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3645
84563883|NCT02609984|168878891|OTHER|||||||0.3466||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3466
84563884|NCT02609984|168878892|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7006||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4241|1.1574||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.1574|0.4241|0.1622
84563885|NCT02609984|168878893|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1849||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5817|2.4134||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.4134|0.5817|0.6397
84563886|NCT02609984|168878894|OTHER|||||||0.1128|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.1128
84563887|NCT02609984|168878895|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
84563888|NCT02609984|168878896|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.4050
84563889|NCT02609984|168878897|OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.0127
84563890|NCT02420262|168878902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus (IGlar + IAsp) was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.30% or equivalent for non-inferiority using one-sided test for null hypothesis (H0): D ≥0.30% against alternative hypothesis (HA): D \<0.30% was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus basal-bolus).|Treatment contrast|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model.||0.12|-0.16|<0.0001
84563891|NCT02420262|168878903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Negative binomial regression model||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment rate ratio was entirely below 1.0.|Hypoglycaemic episodes were analysed using a negative binomial regression. The model included treatment and region as fixed factors and logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode considered treatment emergent as offset. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||0.17|0.08|<0.0001
84749617|NCT05437510|169253193|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|91.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.156|99.791|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||99.791|38.156|0.0060
84563892|NCT02420262|168878904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was below 0 or equal to zero.|Body weight measurements were analysed using a linear mixed model with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline bodyweight as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||-2.95|-4.19|<0.0001
84563893|NCT00941304|168878907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.34||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|-5.94|.4739
84563894|NCT00941304|168878907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.26||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.34|||ANCOVA|||||16.34|-3.81|.2183
84563895|NCT00941304|168878907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.74||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|18.56|||ANCOVA|||||18.56|-1.11|.0809
84607233|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||||90.0|4.18|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.72|4.18|
84607234|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51||||||90.0|2.73|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.28|2.73|
84607235|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||||90.0|0.87|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.42|0.87|
84670962|NCT05544786|169075714|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|147.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.4|165.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||165.83|130.40|
84563896|NCT03293394|168878918|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.001
84607236|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||||90.0|0.12|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.67|0.12|
84607237|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||||90.0|-0.71|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||4.83|-0.71|
84607238|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||||90.0|2.68|8.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.22|2.68|
84670963|NCT05544786|169075715|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.31|107.23|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||107.23|87.31|
84563897|NCT03293394|168878919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84563898|NCT03293394|168878920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
84563899|NCT03293394|168878921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.652
84563900|NCT03293394|168878922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
84563901|NCT03293394|168878923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84563902|NCT03293394|168878924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84563903|NCT03293394|168878925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84563904|NCT00086450|168878926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.9||||0.005||95.0|3.3|12.5|||Regression, Cox|||||12.5|3.3|0.005
84563905|NCT00086450|168878927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.74||||0.004||95.0|1.91|3.89|||Regression, Cox|||||3.89|1.91|0.004
84563906|NCT00086450|168878928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.049||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
84563907|NCT00086450|168878929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
84563908|NCT00784719|168878934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|57.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||57.0|
84563909|NCT00784719|168878934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|58.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||58.0|
84607239|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||||90.0|1.34|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.89|1.34|
84749618|NCT05437510|169253193|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|26.01||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.329|89.162|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.162|-337.329|0.9851
84749619|NCT05437510|169253194|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|43.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.677|58.057|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||58.057|24.677|<0.0001
84749620|NCT05437510|169253194|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|34.78||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.148|59.648|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||59.648|-4.148|0.0754
84563910|NCT00784719|168878934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||29.0|
84563911|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.0|28.0||||||||28.0|9.0|
84563912|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|27.0||||||||27.0|8.0|
84563913|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|27.0||||||||27.0|15.0|
84563914|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
84563915|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
84563916|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|43.0||||||||43.0|8.0|
84563917|NCT00784719|168878936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|30.0||||||||30.0|15.0|
84563918|NCT05415462|168878966|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.952|1.071||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.071|0.952|
84563919|NCT05415462|168878966|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.562|1.757||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.757|1.562|
84563920|NCT05415462|168878966|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.665|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.702||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Victoria Lineage||0.702|0.630|
84563921|NCT05415462|168878966|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.693||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Yamagata Lineage||0.693|0.630|
84563922|NCT05415462|168878967|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.12|8.38||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.38|3.12|
84749621|NCT05437510|169253194|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|40.67||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|62.156|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||62.156|8.211|0.0177
84749622|NCT05437510|169253194|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|66.38||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.952|86.137|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||86.137|25.952|0.0046
84749623|NCT05437510|169253199|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.826|91.49|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.490|67.826|<0.0001
84563923|NCT05415462|168878967|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|16.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.27|19.54||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||19.54|14.27|
84563924|NCT05415462|168878967|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-17.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.22|-14.43||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Victoria Lineage||-14.43|-20.22|
84563925|NCT05415462|168878967|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-15.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.57|-12.76||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Yamagata Lineage||-12.76|-18.57|
84563926|NCT02651337|168878991|OTHER|It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.|||||||||||||||||The study tested the hypothesis that the Alivio flusher could increase flow in occluded or sluggish flowing catheters. Analysis was made on the basis of the procedural results related to priming the flusher, connecting the flusher to the shunt, flushing the system by dome compression, the ability to refill the dome, and the ability to evacuate the dome.|||
84497549|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.91
84563927|NCT02137226|168878992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 12, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-12.0%, 15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|12.7|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 12 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.7|-0.9|
84563928|NCT02137226|168878993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 12 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.05|-0.25|
84563929|NCT02137226|168878993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 24 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.23|-0.17|
84563930|NCT02137226|168878995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 24, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-15.0%;+15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.5|-3.4|
84563931|NCT02373137|168879014|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity.|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.8 lines better vision at 6 months.|||-1.0|-2.8|<0.001
84563932|NCT02373137|168879015|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.5 lines better vision at 3 months.|Comparison of 3-Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
84563933|NCT02373137|168879015|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.4 lines better vision at 12 months.|Comparison of 12 Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
84563934|NCT02373137|168879017|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-77.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.0|172.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 3 months.|||172|-326|0.53
84563935|NCT02373137|168879017|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-150.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.0|66.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 6 months.|||66|-356|0.17
84563936|NCT02373137|168879017|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-215.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-430.0|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 12 months.|||-0.4|-430|0.051
84563937|NCT02373137|168879023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84563938|NCT01087203|168879062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.16|-2.28|0.025
84563939|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.32|-0.92|0.332
84563940|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.36|-1.15|0.297
84563941|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.10|-1.81|0.029
84563942|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.30|-2.17|0.010
84563943|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.34|-2.30|0.009
84749624|NCT05437510|169253199|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.34|96.464|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.464|60.340|<0.0001
84563944|NCT01087203|168879063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.27|-2.36|0.015
84670964|NCT05544786|169075715|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|96.26|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||96.26|78.38|
84670965|NCT05544786|169075715|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|112.8|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||112.80|87.39|
84749625|NCT05437510|169253199|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|97.311|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.311|52.850|0.0002
84749626|NCT05437510|169253199|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.39||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.077|92.525|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.525|29.077|0.0054
84497550|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.54
84563945|NCT02559570|168879091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.252|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.252|-0.335|0.7789
84563946|NCT02559570|168879091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.284|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.284|-0.282|0.9930
84563947|NCT02559570|168879091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.408|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.408|-0.167|0.4107
84563948|NCT02559570|168879092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|0.552|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.552|-1.729|0.3097
84563949|NCT02559570|168879092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.913|-1.286|0.7384
84563950|NCT02559570|168879092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|1.477|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.477|-0.748|0.5188
84563951|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|0.444|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.444|-0.543|0.8426
84563952|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.448|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.448|-0.525|0.8770
84749627|NCT05437510|169253200|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|41.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.073|56.333|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||56.333|23.073|<0.0001
84563953|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.842|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.842|-0.131|0.1502
84563954|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.410|-0.535|0.7949
84563955|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.392|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.392|-0.540|0.7543
84563956|NCT02559570|168879093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.728|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.728|-0.204|0.2676
84563957|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.359|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.359|-0.465|0.7997
84563958|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.288|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.288|-0.530|0.5602
84563959|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.170|-0.641|0.2529
84563960|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.352|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.352|-0.461|0.7923
84563961|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.290|-0.517|0.5802
84563962|NCT02559570|168879094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.201|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.201|-0.600|0.3263
84563963|NCT02559570|168879095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.349|-0.252|0.7507
84563964|NCT02559570|168879095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.317|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.317|-0.262|0.8505
84563965|NCT02559570|168879095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.332|-0.254|0.7933
84563966|NCT02559570|168879096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.463|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.463|-1.313|0.3461
84607240|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45||||||90.0|0.68|6.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.22|0.68|
84563967|NCT02559570|168879096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.624|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.624|-1.095|0.5892
84563968|NCT02559570|168879096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.949|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.949|-0.789|0.8560
84563969|NCT04388176|168879098|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in treatment groups in the primary endpoint (log (AUC)) was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0146|||=|0.3801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9859|1.0442|||ANCOVA|||||1.0442|0.9859|=0.3801
84563970|NCT04388176|168879099|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0346|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0086|1.0613|||ANCOVA|||||1.0613|1.0086|=0.0356
84563971|NCT04388176|168879100|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Difference in least square means|-0.4991|||=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8234|-0.1749|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at the 10 min point||-0.1749|-0.8234|=0.0154
84563972|NCT04388176|168879101|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|0.8301|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6206|1.1102|||ANCOVA|||||1.1102|0.6206|=0.282
84563973|NCT04388176|168879102|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.3989|||=|0.3722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1718|0.3739|||ANCOVA|||||0.3739|-1.1718|=0.3722
84563974|NCT04388176|168879103|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.109|||=|0.4982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4074|0.1895|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy before cold||0.1895|-0.4074|=0.4982
84607241|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33||||||90.0|3.7|10.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.95|3.70|
84607242|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|3.2|10.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.45|3.20|
84563975|NCT04388176|168879103|EQUIVALENCE|A difference between treatment groups was detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.0637|||=|0.6219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3037|0.1763|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy post recovery||0.1763|-0.3037|=0.6219
84607243|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02||||||90.0|1.4|8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.65|1.40|
84607244|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||||90.0|1.09|8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.34|1.09|
84563976|NCT02497937|168879108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|2.512|||||Difference estimate of DLco on Day 7 has been presented for Mayo site|||2.512|-0.925|
84563977|NCT01903993|168879159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||Log rank (Stratified)|||Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by a Cox regression model.||0.92|0.52|= 0.0106
84607245|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||||90.0|0.43|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||7.67|0.43|
84563978|NCT01903993|168879160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|0.59|||=|0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|8.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.85|-7.67|= 0.8884
84563979|NCT01903993|168879161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Log rank (Stratified)|||HR were estimated by a Cox regression model. The two treatment comparison was based on a stratified log-rank test.||1.20|0.71|=0.5563
84563980|NCT01903993|168879162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7|||Log rank (unstratified)|||HR were estimated by a unstratified Cox regression model.||0.70|0.15|= 0.0028
84563981|NCT03790865|168879170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
84563982|NCT04672044|168879192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
84563983|NCT00792116|168879203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
84563984|NCT00792116|168879204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
84563985|NCT02453256|168879205|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.73||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.32|||Repeated Measure|||Difference in least square means between the TCZ group and the Placebo group at week 48. Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the TCZ group and the placebo group in mean change in mRSS from baseline to Week 48.||0.32|-3.78|0.0983
84563986|NCT02453256|168879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.91||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 20% improvement in mRSS.||34.6|9.2|0.0007
84563987|NCT02453256|168879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|4.32||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 40% improvement in mRSS.||17.3|-8.7|0.5139
84563988|NCT02453256|168879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-5.41||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 60% improvement in mRSS.||5.4|-16.2|0.3276
84563989|NCT02453256|168879207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||P-value from Van Elteren analysis stratified by IL-6 level (\<10; \>=10 pg/mL) at screening.|Van Elteren|||||||0.0015
84563990|NCT02453256|168879208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.167||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.25|||Repeated Measure|||||0.250|0.083|0.0001
84563991|NCT02453256|168879209|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.053||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.085|||Repeated Measure|||||0.085|-0.192|0.4489
84563992|NCT02453256|168879210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.44||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|3.7|||Repeated Measure|||||3.70|-8.57|0.4339
84563993|NCT02453256|168879211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.46||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|3.79|||Repeated Measure|||||3.79|-8.72|0.4378
84563994|NCT02453256|168879212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.06|||Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.06|0.37|0.0821
84563995|NCT03479944|168879263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.289|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-1.289|-1.720|<0.0001
84497551|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control effects on alcohol-related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
84563996|NCT03479944|168879264|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3.3|-0.9|0.2602
84563997|NCT03479944|168879265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|-7.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-7.18|-15.87|
84563998|NCT01680653|168879298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||In analyzing prolonged events on remote monitoring versus control, we used x squared analysis or Fisher's exact test to analyze data on 2 x 2 contingency tables. Significance was defined as P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was a feasibility and preliminary safety study. As such, the sample size was not statistically derived and the protocol was not powered to provide for definitive conclusions. The study was limited to 20 participants at each camp session. A hypoglycemic event was defined as at least two consecutive CGM readings (10 mins) below the hypoglycemic threshold of \<70 mg/dL. Recovery from a hypoglycemic event required readings above threshold for \> or = 25 minutes.||||0.106
84607246|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||||90.0|2.73|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.98|2.73|
84607247|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.08||||||90.0|1.45|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.70|1.45|
84563999|NCT01680653|168879299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
84564000|NCT01680653|168879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's exact test|||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the P value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL longer than one hour||||0.003
84564001|NCT01680653|168879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL that were greater than 2 hours||||0.010
84564002|NCT01680653|168879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events that were \<50 mg/dL for \> 30 minutes||||0.021
84564003|NCT01680653|168879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact|||This is the P value for the number of events \<50 mg/dL that were \>1 hr||||0.077
84564004|NCT03373461|168879301|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||||||0.038
84564005|NCT03373461|168879301|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.0||||||||1.00|0.86|
84564006|NCT03373461|168879301|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|0.98||||||||0.98|0.76|
84564007|NCT03373461|168879301|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
84564008|NCT03373461|168879301|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.92||||||||0.92|0.66|
84564009|NCT03373461|168879302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|6.344||||||||6.344|0.210|
84564010|NCT03373461|168879302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.642|9.01||||||||9.010|2.642|
84564011|NCT03373461|168879302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.427|6.7||||||||6.700|0.427|
84564012|NCT03373461|168879302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.882|8.638||||||||8.638|2.882|
84564013|NCT03373461|168879303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.253|-3.145||||||||-3.145|-15.253|
84564014|NCT03373461|168879303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.499|-3.0||||||||-3.000|-15.499|
84564015|NCT03373461|168879303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.04|0.26||||||||0.260|-12.040|
84564016|NCT03373461|168879303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.763|-4.471||||||||-4.471|-15.763|
84564017|NCT03373461|168879305|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.742|1.222||||||||1.222|0.742|
84564018|NCT03373461|168879305|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.356||||||||1.356|0.830|
84564019|NCT03373461|168879305|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.569|0.928||||||||0.928|0.569|
84564020|NCT03373461|168879305|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.05||||||||1.050|0.669|
84564021|NCT03373461|168879306|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.741|1.25||||||||1.250|0.741|
84564022|NCT03373461|168879306|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.872|1.458||||||||1.458|0.872|
84564023|NCT03373461|168879306|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.574|0.957||||||||0.957|0.574|
84564024|NCT03373461|168879306|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.706|1.132||||||||1.132|0.706|
84564025|NCT03373461|168879307|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.214||||||||1.214|0.794|
84564026|NCT03373461|168879307|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.835|1.269||||||||1.269|0.835|
84607248|NCT00853840|168965805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||||90.0|-1.74|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.51|-1.74|
84564027|NCT03373461|168879307|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.616|0.942||||||||0.942|0.616|
84607249|NCT03242018|168965817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.051|-0.628|0.0962
84607250|NCT03242018|168965818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.431|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.431|-0.338|0.8124
84670966|NCT05544786|169075715|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|79.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.07|89.73|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||89.73|70.07|
84670967|NCT05544786|169075716|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.45|106.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||106.44|86.45|
84564028|NCT03373461|168879307|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.704|1.027||||||||1.027|0.704|
84564029|NCT03373461|168879308|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.723|1.172||||||||1.172|0.723|
84564030|NCT03373461|168879308|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.767|1.249||||||||1.249|0.767|
84564031|NCT03373461|168879308|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.577|0.937||||||||0.937|0.577|
84564032|NCT03373461|168879308|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.052||||||||1.052|0.678|
84564033|NCT03373461|168879317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|7.472||||||||7.472|0.420|
84564034|NCT03373461|168879317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.747|4.39||||||||4.390|-2.747|
84564035|NCT03373461|168879317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.745|3.262||||||||3.262|-2.745|
84564036|NCT03373461|168879317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.368|5.337||||||||5.337|-1.368|
84564037|NCT03373461|168879318|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.579||||||||1.579|0.680|
84564038|NCT03373461|168879318|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.607|1.39||||||||1.390|0.607|
84564039|NCT03373461|168879318|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.153||||||||1.153|0.558|
84564040|NCT03373461|168879318|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.614|1.362||||||||1.362|0.614|
84564041|NCT03373461|168879320|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.792|1.692||||||||1.692|0.792|
84564042|NCT03373461|168879320|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.945||||||||0.945|0.446|
84564043|NCT03373461|168879320|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.518|0.997||||||||0.997|0.518|
84564044|NCT03373461|168879320|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.146||||||||1.146|0.558|
84564045|NCT03373461|168879321|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.765|1.699||||||||1.699|0.765|
84564046|NCT03373461|168879321|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.984||||||||0.984|0.446|
84564047|NCT03373461|168879321|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.501|0.995||||||||0.995|0.501|
84564048|NCT03373461|168879321|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.107||||||||1.107|0.520|
84564049|NCT01243177|168879322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.8|-5.5|
84749628|NCT05437510|169253200|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|32.19||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.188|57.545|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||57.545|-7.188|0.1003
84564050|NCT01243177|168879323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.7|-5.3|
84564051|NCT03020550|168879328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity.||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in GSR (galvanic skin response). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.034
84564052|NCT03020550|168879329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in RMSSD (high frequency HRV). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.56
84564053|NCT03020550|168879330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||The outcome measure was calculated using a Pearson correlation to compare the session index representing the amount of concordance in GSR between patient and physician and the percent change in patients' GERD symptoms. Visit type assignment was not included in the analysis.||||0.80
84564054|NCT01431313|168879333|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84564055|NCT01431313|168879333|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84564056|NCT01431313|168879333|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84564057|NCT01431313|168879335|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84607251|NCT03242018|168965819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5431|0.822|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.8220|-1.5431|0.5501
84607252|NCT03242018|168965819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5298||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7524|0.3246|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.3246|-1.7524|0.1779
84497552|NCT01932801|168746215|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
84564058|NCT01431313|168879335|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84564059|NCT01431313|168879335|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84564060|NCT01431313|168879336|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
84564061|NCT01431313|168879336|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84564062|NCT01431313|168879336|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84564063|NCT01431313|168879337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84564064|NCT01431313|168879337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84564065|NCT01431313|168879337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84564066|NCT01431313|168879338|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84564067|NCT01431313|168879338|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84564068|NCT01431313|168879338|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84564069|NCT01431313|168879339|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84564070|NCT01431313|168879339|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84564071|NCT01431313|168879340|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84564072|NCT01431313|168879340|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84564073|NCT01431313|168879340|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84564074|NCT00472732|168879368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in posterior cingulate gray matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||0.003
84564075|NCT00472732|168879368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in parietal white matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||<0.001
84564076|NCT00472732|168879368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in posterior cingulate gray matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||0.001
84564077|NCT00472732|168879368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in parietal white matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
84564078|NCT00472732|168879369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for family wise error rate correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-way between-group t-tests restricted to the prefrontal cortex were performed to compare activation during for the 2-Back\> 1-Back contrast between OTCD patients and controls.||||<0.05
84564079|NCT00472732|168879370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that fractional anisotropy, a marker of white matter integrity, would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
84564080|NCT00856999|168879377|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
84607253|NCT03242018|168965820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|0.557|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.557|-2.197|0.2432
84607254|NCT03242018|168965820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.008|-2.810|0.0487
84607255|NCT03242018|168965821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.066|2.792|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.792|-7.066|0.3954
84497553|NCT01932801|168746216|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on alcohol frequency and alcohol craving (PACS).|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
84564081|NCT00856999|168879378|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0004
84564082|NCT02609386|168879380|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.102||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.1|0.6|0.6176
84564083|NCT02609386|168879381|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.3889
84564084|NCT02609386|168879382|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.5091
84564085|NCT00105989|168879395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. The primary efficacy analysis compared the time to recurrence during the maintenance phase between all duloxetine and placebo patients using the log-rank test, stratified by country at α=.05.|Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||A total of 257 randomized patients (randomly assigned with equal probability to the two treatment groups) were needed to have 90% power to detect 40% versus 20% recurrence rates over 52 weeks, using a log rank test at a two-sided significance level of .05.||||<0.001
84564086|NCT00105989|168879396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies are analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator||||||<0.001
84564087|NCT00105989|168879397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||||||0.003
84564088|NCT00105989|168879398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator.||||||0.003
84564089|NCT00105989|168879399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564090|NCT00105989|168879399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.016
84564091|NCT00105989|168879400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84564092|NCT00105989|168879401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564093|NCT00105989|168879401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.153
84564094|NCT00105989|168879402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84564095|NCT00105989|168879403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
84564096|NCT00105989|168879403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
84564097|NCT00105989|168879404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84749629|NCT05437510|169253200|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|39.83||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.449|60.911|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||60.911|8.449|0.0164
84564098|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint for all Subscales during Acute phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564099|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.334
84607256|NCT03242018|168965821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|0.386|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.386|-9.185|0.0716
84749630|NCT05437510|169253200|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|64.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.386|84.478|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||84.478|23.386|0.0058
84749631|NCT01097785|169253277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
84749632|NCT01097785|169253278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
84497554|NCT01932801|168746216|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails 2 treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.46
84564100|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Core Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.019
84749633|NCT00719563|169253306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.0737
84749634|NCT02864381|169253323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.1||P-value is derived from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) stratification factor status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio is derived from CMH test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||6.1|0.4|0.8
84749635|NCT02864381|169253324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.189||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.189|0.589|0.306
84564101|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Maier Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.046
84564102|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564103|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.319
84564104|NCT00105989|168879405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Depressed Mood Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.275
84564105|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84564106|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Core Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84564107|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Maier Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84564108|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Retardation Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84564109|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Sleep Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84564110|NCT00105989|168879406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Depressed Mood Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84564111|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for all Change from Baseline to Endpoint measures in the Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564112|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.273
84564113|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-value for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.968
84749636|NCT02864381|169253325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.257||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.257|0.491|0.312
84497555|NCT01932801|168746216|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol-related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.45
84564114|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0||||P-value for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.998
84564115|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||P-value for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.703
84564116|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0||||P-value for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.346
84564117|NCT00105989|168879407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.963
84749637|NCT02683941|169253342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.95|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for interactive web response system (IWRS) tumour subtype (typical versus \[vs\] atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.95|0.48|0.866
84749638|NCT02683941|169253343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.88|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.88|0.48|0.837
84564118|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
84564119|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.407
84749639|NCT02683941|169253344|OTHER||Percentage difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|37.86||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (central review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||37.86|-10.97|
84749640|NCT02683941|169253344|OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|26.53||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (local review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||26.53|-22.69|
84564120|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
84564121|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
84564122|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
84564123|NCT00105989|168879408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
84564124|NCT00105989|168879409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564125|NCT00105989|168879409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.157
84564126|NCT00105989|168879410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
84564127|NCT00105989|168879411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564128|NCT00105989|168879411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in the Continuation Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564129|NCT00105989|168879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Global Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84495448|NCT03671746|168741350|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.043
84564130|NCT00105989|168879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Work/School.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84564131|NCT00105989|168879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Social Life.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
84564132|NCT00105989|168879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Family Life/Home Responsibilities.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84564133|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SF-36 subscales in the Acute Phase were \<0.001|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564134|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.947
84564135|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change to Endpoint|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564136|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.118
84564137|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.550
84564138|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Physical Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.029
84564139|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564140|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perceptions Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
84564141|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84607257|NCT03242018|168965822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.365|0.881|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.881|-7.365|0.1232
84564142|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Social Function Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564143|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564144|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||P-value for Rate Current Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.815
84564145|NCT00105989|168879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Health Compared to a Year Ago Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564146|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
84564147|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84564148|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.731
84564149|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Bodily Pain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.438
84564150|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Physical.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84564151|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Emotional problems.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84749641|NCT02683941|169253345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.50|0.50|0.582
84564152|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-General Health Perceptions.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
84564153|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84564154|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Social Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
84564155|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Vitality.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
84564156|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Rate General Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.615
84564157|NCT00105989|168879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Health Compared to a Year Ago.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
84564158|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider Visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.838
84497556|NCT01932801|168746217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model : χ2(12, N=308) = .75, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .008||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.95
84564159|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564160|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.236
84564161|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.145
84564162|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.423
84564163|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.325
84564164|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84752760|NCT00129623|169260611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9613|5.2838||The primary analysis was an ANOVA (two way classification), including treatment group and time since menopause (as a binary variable; 0.5-3 years, \>3 years) as independent factors.|ANOVA|||"H0 (null hypothesis): There was no statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD).~H1 (alternative hypothesis): There was a statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD)."||5.2838|2.9613|<0.0001
84564165|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.915
84564166|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.223
84564167|NCT00105989|168879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.362
84564168|NCT00105989|168879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Primary Health Care Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
84564169|NCT00105989|168879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychiatrist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
84564170|NCT00105989|168879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychologist/Therapist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
84564171|NCT00105989|168879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other Specialist Physician visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
84564172|NCT00105989|168879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other (Specified by Patient) Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
84564173|NCT00105989|168879417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.506
84497557|NCT01932801|168746217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|Chi-squared|||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.16|-.24|.75
84564174|NCT00105989|168879417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.057
84564175|NCT00105989|168879418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.826
84497558|NCT01932801|168746217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.04|-.34|.20
84564176|NCT00105989|168879419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.105
84564177|NCT00105989|168879419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.174
84564178|NCT00105989|168879420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84564179|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.785
84564180|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.354
84607258|NCT03242018|168965822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.433|-1.292|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.292|-9.433|0.0098
84607259|NCT03242018|168965823|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-20.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.75|14.77|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||14.77|-44.75|0.222
84670968|NCT05544786|169075716|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.96|95.98|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||95.98|77.96|
84564181|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.170
84564182|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.825
84564183|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.877
84564184|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.009
84564185|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.670
84564186|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.100
84564187|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.021
84564188|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.047
84564189|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.023
84564190|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.668
84564191|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.136
84564192|NCT00105989|168879421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.152
84749642|NCT00325039|169253353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success rate (RMUS-TMUS)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.6||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||9.6|-3.6|
84749643|NCT00325039|169253354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1||||0.14||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Although the primary aim of the study was designed as an equivalence trial, the secondary aims were considered as superiority tests.||||0.14
84497559|NCT01932801|168746217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.29|-.09|.39
84497560|NCT01932801|168746218|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.98|||>|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||z|||We conducted a generalized estimating equations analysis (negative binomial distribution, log link) to test whether number of adverse events reported increased from baseline to the follow-ups differentially across placebo and XR-NTX groups||1.16|.83|>.84
84497561|NCT01856686|168746221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56593|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.56593
84497562|NCT01856686|168746221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44929|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.44929
84564193|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564194|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84749644|NCT00325039|169253355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success (RMUS - TMUS)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.3||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||14.3|-1.6|
84749645|NCT00325039|169253356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to quality of life, as measured by the IIQ.||||0.47
84749646|NCT00325039|169253357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The UDI measure was compared using a two-sample t test.||||0.41
84749647|NCT01776424|169253402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Independent DSMB recommended to stop rivaroxaban/aspirin arms on 06FEB2017. At first interim analysis(\~50% events) the log-rank test statistic for one primary comparison had crossed the modified Haybittle-Peto boundary(z=4) consistently over 3 months|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.66|0.00004
84749648|NCT01776424|169253402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.79|0.11490
84749649|NCT01776424|169253403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.05|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||2.05|1.40|<0.00001
84749650|NCT01776424|169253403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.84|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.84|1.25|0.00003
84749651|NCT01776424|169253404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.83|0.63|0.00001
84564195|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564196|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564197|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.005
84564198|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.050
84564199|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.022
84564200|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
84564201|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564202|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564203|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564204|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.186
84564205|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564206|NCT00105989|168879422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.308
84564207|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
84564208|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
84749652|NCT01776424|169253404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.77|0.06437
84749653|NCT01776424|169253405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.85|0.65|0.00001
84564209|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
84564210|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
84749654|NCT01776424|169253405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.03995||95.0|0.77|0.99||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.77|0.03995
84564211|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
84564212|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
84564213|NCT00105989|168879423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.566
84564214|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
84564215|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
84564216|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
84564217|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163
84564218|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
84564219|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
84564220|NCT00105989|168879424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84564221|NCT00105989|168879425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84607260|NCT03242018|168965823|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-21.17||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.05|13.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||13.10|-45.05|0.1965
84749655|NCT01776424|169253406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.71|0.01062
84564222|NCT00105989|168879425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564223|NCT00105989|168879426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.314
84670969|NCT05544786|169075716|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|88.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.97|106.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||106.83|72.97|
84497563|NCT01856686|168746221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81844|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.81844
84497564|NCT01856686|168746222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71152|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71152
84497565|NCT01856686|168746222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
84497566|NCT01856686|168746222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47616|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.47616
84497567|NCT01856686|168746223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.10036|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.10036
84497568|NCT01856686|168746223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group changes||||0.00820
84497569|NCT01856686|168746223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||1.00000
84497570|NCT01856686|168746224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92193|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.92193
84497571|NCT01856686|168746224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50704|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.50704
84749656|NCT01776424|169253406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.12|0.84|0.66418
84749657|NCT00426153|169253410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Rank-sum test|||P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.048
84749658|NCT00426153|169253411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.045
84749659|NCT00426153|169253412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P Values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.98
84749660|NCT01630434|169253427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.091||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Wald Method|||||-0.01||0.004
84749661|NCT01630434|169253427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.038||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.045|||Wald Method|||||0.045||0.06
84749662|NCT01630434|169253428|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|-0.015||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Wald Method|||||0.016||0.0003
84749663|NCT01630434|169253428|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|0.006||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.044|||Wald Method|||||0.044||0.027
84749664|NCT01630434|169253429|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.035||||0.118|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.091|||Wald Method|||||0.091||0.118
84749665|NCT01630434|169253429|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.065||||0.389|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Wald Method|||||0.124||0.389
84749666|NCT01630434|169253430|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%|Difference of proportions|0.043|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.071||||||||0.071||
84749667|NCT01630434|169253430|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%.|Difference of proportions|0.054|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.087||||||||0.087||
84749668|NCT01630434|169253431|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.7.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.047|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.047||<0.0001
84749669|NCT00343252|169253510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.642
84749670|NCT00343252|169253511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.683
84749671|NCT00343252|169253512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.809
84749672|NCT00343252|169253513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 12-month endpoint.||||0.986
84749673|NCT00343252|169253514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.85|0.746
84749674|NCT00343252|169253515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.25|0.86|0.719
84497572|NCT01856686|168746224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42314|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.42314
84564224|NCT00105989|168879427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564225|NCT00105989|168879427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
84564226|NCT00105989|168879428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
84564227|NCT00105989|168879429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.659
84564228|NCT00105989|168879429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.064
84564229|NCT00105989|168879429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.224
84564230|NCT00105989|168879429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.210
84564231|NCT00105989|168879430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: systolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.134
84564232|NCT00105989|168879430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: diastolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.816
84564233|NCT00105989|168879431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564234|NCT00105989|168879432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.007
84497573|NCT01856686|168746225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08946|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.08946
84564235|NCT00105989|168879433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.035
84564236|NCT00105989|168879434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
84564237|NCT00105989|168879435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564238|NCT00105989|168879436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.019
84564239|NCT00105989|168879437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.005
84564240|NCT00105989|168879438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.031
84564241|NCT00105989|168879439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564242|NCT00105989|168879440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564243|NCT00105989|168879441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564244|NCT00105989|168879442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564245|NCT00105989|168879443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564246|NCT00105989|168879444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.004
84564247|NCT00105989|168879445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.010
84564248|NCT00105989|168879446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.003
84564249|NCT00105989|168879447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84497574|NCT01856686|168746225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
84497575|NCT01856686|168746225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.01090
84497576|NCT01856686|168746226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73209|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.73209
84497577|NCT01856686|168746226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07965|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07965
84497578|NCT01856686|168746226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61613|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.61613
84497579|NCT01856686|168746227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33027|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.33027
84497580|NCT01856686|168746227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00013|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00013
84670970|NCT05544786|169075716|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|77.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.04|93.76|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||93.76|64.04|
84497581|NCT01856686|168746227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28019|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.28019
84564250|NCT00105989|168879448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.015
84564251|NCT00105989|168879449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
84564252|NCT00105989|168879450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564253|NCT00105989|168879451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.032
84564254|NCT00105989|168879452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564255|NCT00105989|168879453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
84564256|NCT00105989|168879454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.028
84564257|NCT00105989|168879455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.008
84564258|NCT00105989|168879456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.046
84564259|NCT00105989|168879457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.035
84564260|NCT00105989|168879458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.011
84497582|NCT01856686|168746228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94449|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.94449
84670971|NCT05544786|169075717|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.71|118.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||118.44|87.71|
84497583|NCT01856686|168746228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
84497584|NCT01856686|168746228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85428|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.85428
84497585|NCT01856686|168746229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83929|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.83929
84564261|NCT00105989|168879459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.744
84564262|NCT00105989|168879459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for non-fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.030
84564263|NCT02820870|168879481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|With clustering by provider and team.||||4.9|1.84|<0.01
84564264|NCT02820870|168879482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|With cluster by provider and team.||||2.77|0.99|0.06
84564265|NCT02754518|168879490|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84564266|NCT02754518|168879491|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84564267|NCT02754518|168879492|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84607261|NCT03242018|168965824|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||8.66|-2.17|0.2420
84497586|NCT01856686|168746229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97213|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.97213
84670972|NCT05544786|169075717|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|107.38|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||107.38|79.52|
84670973|NCT05544786|169075717|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|120.1|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||120.10|78.40|
84670974|NCT05544786|169075717|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.92|87.19|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||87.19|56.92|
84670975|NCT05544786|169075718|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|103.37|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.37|90.08|
84670976|NCT05544786|169075719|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|103.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.59|90.13|
84670977|NCT05544786|169075720|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|98.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|110.36|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.36|87.28|
84670978|NCT05544786|169075721|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|78.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.42|85.07|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||85.07|72.42|
84670979|NCT05544786|169075722|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|87.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.45|110.92|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.92|69.45|
84670980|NCT05544786|169075723|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.87|92.68|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||92.68|56.87|
84670981|NCT04809220|169075763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.43|<.001
84670982|NCT04809220|169075764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<.001
84670983|NCT04809220|169075765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.87|0.71|0.560
84670984|NCT04809220|169075765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c \< 7%||2.45|1.05|0.028
84670985|NCT04809220|169075766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-14.4|<.001
84670986|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning premeal-fasting||-2.7|-11.7|0.002
84670987|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-1.9|-18.3|0.016
84670988|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Midday premeal||-2.3|-14.2|0.007
84670989|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Midday 2-hour post meal||-4.5|-20.5|0.002
84670990|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Evening premeal||1.5|-9.3|0.158
84670991|NCT04809220|169075767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||Evening 2-hour post meal||-3.7|-19.0|0.004
84670992|NCT04809220|169075768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.8|0.213
84670993|NCT05218018|169075769|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84670994|NCT02120794|169075772|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.395||||||||0.395|0.125|
84670995|NCT04258605|169075784|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<.0001
84749675|NCT00343252|169253516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction for average back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.86|0.681
84749676|NCT00343252|169253517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in average back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.23|0.86|0.789
84497587|NCT01856686|168746229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58323|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.58323
84564268|NCT02754518|168879493|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84564269|NCT02754518|168879494|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84564270|NCT02754518|168879495|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84564271|NCT02754518|168879496|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84564272|NCT02754518|168879497|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.|paired t-test|||0.13
84564273|NCT02754518|168879498|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.95
84564274|NCT02754518|168879499|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84564275|NCT02754518|168879500|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84564276|NCT02754518|168879501|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.65
84564277|NCT02754518|168879502|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.06
84564278|NCT02754518|168879503|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.76
84749677|NCT00343252|169253518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 3-month endpoint.||||0.968
84497588|NCT01856686|168746230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05158|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.05158
84497589|NCT01856686|168746230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
84497590|NCT01856686|168746230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09331|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.09331
84495449|NCT03671746|168741351|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.617|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.617
84564279|NCT02754518|168879504|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as frequency and percentages based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Fisher exact test.||||0.07
84564280|NCT02754518|168879505|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
84564281|NCT02754518|168879508|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.03
84564282|NCT02754518|168879509|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84564283|NCT02754518|168879510|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.02
84564284|NCT02754518|168879511|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
84564285|NCT02754518|168879512|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.82
84564286|NCT02754518|168879513|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84749678|NCT00343252|169253519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.568
84749679|NCT00343252|169253520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.932
84497591|NCT01856686|168746231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17383|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.17383
84564287|NCT02754518|168879514|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.01
84564288|NCT02754518|168879515|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.11
84670996|NCT04258605|169075785|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
84749680|NCT00343252|169253521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.814
84749681|NCT00343252|169253522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.572
84749682|NCT00343252|169253525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.600
84497592|NCT01856686|168746231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00092|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00092
84497593|NCT01856686|168746231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15544|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.15544
84564289|NCT02754518|168879516|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.17
84564290|NCT02754518|168879517|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.035
84564291|NCT02754518|168879518|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.059
84564292|NCT02754518|168879519|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.054
84564293|NCT02754518|168879520|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.28
84607262|NCT03242018|168965824|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||12.93|0.04|0.0513
84670997|NCT04258605|169075786|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
84749683|NCT00343252|169253526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.399
84749684|NCT00343252|169253527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.89|0.453
84670998|NCT04258605|169075787|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
84749685|NCT00343252|169253528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.91|0.353
84749686|NCT00343252|169253529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
84749687|NCT00343252|169253530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.553
84749688|NCT02076178|169253531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any Grade 2 or higher event, any Grade 2 or higher event Vs Cabotegravir||||<0.01
84497594|NCT01856686|168746232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39707|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.39707
84497595|NCT01856686|168746232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27945|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27945
84497596|NCT01856686|168746232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.19739
84497597|NCT01856686|168746233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50964|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.50964
84497598|NCT01856686|168746233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0071|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00710
84749689|NCT00731120|169253548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.71||Hierarchical testing stopped at 10 mg versus placebo for HAM-A total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||P-values were tested at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.71|-2.45|0.279
84749690|NCT00731120|169253548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.791||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||||0.74|-2.36|0.306
84749691|NCT00394953|169253570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.79|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of responders treated with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta versus the proportion of responders treated with darbepoetin alpha during the evaluation period.||3.79|1.83|<0.0001
84749692|NCT01592864|169253643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
84749693|NCT01592864|169253644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
84607263|NCT03242018|168965825|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|20.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||20.61|3.48|0.0066
84749694|NCT01592864|169253645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.8||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||22.8|11.1|<0.0001
84749695|NCT01592864|169253646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.9||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favors first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||13.9|5.4|<0.0001
84749696|NCT01326533|169253647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||<0.01
84495450|NCT03671746|168741353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||<0.05
84495451|NCT03810417|168741356|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84495452|NCT03810417|168741356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84749697|NCT01326533|169253648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||0.013
84749698|NCT04677179|169253651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.32|0.03|0.750
84749699|NCT04677179|169253651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.21|0.10|0.838
84749700|NCT04677179|169253652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|0.10|0.563
84749701|NCT04677179|169253652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.17|0.759
84495453|NCT00056472|168741390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Predicting remission rates of 40% in combination therapy and 20% in monotherapy subjects, 260 subjects randomized into the two treatment groups would provide \>80% power at a two-tailed alpha level of .05. Treatment efficacy was compared between groups based on intent-to-treat analyses for the longitudinal binary outcome of remission using mixed effects logistic regression with a random intercept that included treatment and time as fixed effects and a treatment by time interaction effect.||1.47|1.12|<.001
84495454|NCT00056472|168741391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean CGI-S score compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|This was a longitudinal analysis of CGI-S scores compared to baseline.||Intent-to-treat changes in global improvement from week to week compared to baseline (CGI-S) over the course of the trial using longitudinal mixed effects linear regression models. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall change in CGI-S.||||.02
84564294|NCT02754518|168879521|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.002
84564295|NCT02754518|168879522|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.008
84564296|NCT02754518|168879523|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.005
84564297|NCT02754518|168879524|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.056
84564298|NCT00411450|168879532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||21|-11|
84564299|NCT00411450|168879532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|23.0||||||Difference at Week 25||23|-9|
84564300|NCT00411450|168879534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|||23|-11|
84495455|NCT00056472|168741392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean across all time points between each treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat between group comparison using longitudinal mixed effects regression.||||<.001
84497599|NCT01856686|168746233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00595|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00595
84564301|NCT00411450|168879535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|31.4|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||31.4|-6.3|
84564302|NCT00411450|168879535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|30.2||||||Difference at Week 25||30.2|-8.4|
84749702|NCT04677179|169253653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.02|0.163
84749703|NCT04677179|169253653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.77|0.11|0.439
84607264|NCT03242018|168965825|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|21.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||21.75|4.28|0.0043
84749704|NCT04677179|169253654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|9.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.88|0.17|0.821
84564303|NCT00411450|168879536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
84564304|NCT00411450|168879537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||25|-14|
84564305|NCT00411450|168879537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0||||||Difference at Week 25||25|-14|
84564306|NCT00411450|168879538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||2.0|0.2|
84564307|NCT00411450|168879539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||0.9|0.4|
84749705|NCT04677179|169253654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.49|0.37|0.572
84749706|NCT04677179|169253655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|10.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.16|0.14|0.886
84749707|NCT04677179|169253655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.18|0.14|0.784
84749708|NCT04677179|169253656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.43|0.06|0.331
84749709|NCT04677179|169253656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.52|0.10|0.407
84749710|NCT04677179|169253657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.00|0.38|0.564
84749711|NCT04677179|169253657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|10.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.97|0.21|0.681
84749712|NCT04677179|169253658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|-3.3|0.317
84749713|NCT04677179|169253658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.1|-2.3|0.238
84564308|NCT00411450|168879540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
84564309|NCT00411450|168879541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.2|0.5|
84564310|NCT00397189|168879545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a comparison of sleep latency as measured by the sleep diary at Visit 3 in the ITT 65-80 population, using a linear regression model with terms for treatment (Circadin® 2mg vs. Placebo) and baseline sleep latency.||-6|-25.3|<0.05
84564311|NCT00141518|168879549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Total Score, Change From Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.017
84564312|NCT00141518|168879550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.919|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.919
84564313|NCT00141518|168879551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.002
84564314|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 0 (n=27)||||0.001
84564315|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 3 (n=23)||||<0.001
84564316|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 6 (n=24)||||0.022
84607265|NCT01541917|168965855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since group procedures were initiated.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time (regardless of group) on the outcome variable||-.02|-.06|<.001
84749714|NCT04677179|169253659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.935||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|31.6|||ANCOVA|||||31.60|-12.17|0.378
84495456|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-12.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-24.24|0.043
84564317|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 9 (n=23)||||0.005
84495457|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.16|-24.70|0.457
84497600|NCT01856686|168746234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48336|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.48336
84564318|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=23)||||0.126
84749715|NCT04677179|169253659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.406||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|19.88|||ANCOVA|||||19.88|-21.78|0.928
84749716|NCT02988622|169253680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1205|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5499||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0492
84497601|NCT01856686|168746234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08739
84564319|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 18 (n=22)||||0.049
84749717|NCT02988622|169253681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.241|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0817||0.0817|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0817
84564320|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 24 (n=21)||||0.203
84564321|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 30 (n=21)||||0.733
84564322|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 36 (n=20)||||0.414
84564323|NCT00141518|168879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Endpoint (n=27)||||0.534
84564324|NCT00141518|168879587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.016
84564325|NCT00141518|168879587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.188
84564326|NCT00141518|168879588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.008
84564327|NCT00141518|168879588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.107
84564328|NCT00141518|168879589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
84564329|NCT00141518|168879589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.010
84564330|NCT00141518|168879590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
84564331|NCT00141518|168879590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
84749718|NCT02988622|169253682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3659|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7951||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0686
84749719|NCT02988622|169253683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0843|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5789||0.6278|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6278
84749720|NCT02988622|169253684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3373|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7619||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0848
84749721|NCT02988622|169253685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0788||0.3418|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3418
84495458|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.61||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.81|-24.03|0.067
84495459|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.61||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.80|-16.02|0.567
84495460|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.92|-22.71|0.070
84495461|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.50|-16.87|0.647
84564332|NCT00141518|168879591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.001
84564333|NCT00141518|168879591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
84495462|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.00|-20.46|0.075
84495463|NCT00563706|168741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|8.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.04|-10.92|0.765
84495464|NCT04074109|168741432|OTHER|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
84495465|NCT04074109|168741432|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used. We report percentages and frequencies to show feasibility|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
84495466|NCT03315780|168741442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.76|-170.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-170.28|-337.76|< 0.0001
84495467|NCT03315780|168741445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|46.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||46.87|8.05|0.0100
84495468|NCT03315780|168741446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|0.63|0.0263
84495469|NCT03315780|168741447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-20.16|0.0800
84495470|NCT03315780|168741448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.39||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.35|87.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.57|-118.35|0.7475
84495471|NCT02983305|168741464|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area at baseline.||||.0001
84749722|NCT02988622|169253686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2375|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5528||0.1752|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1752
84564334|NCT00141518|168879592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||1.000
84564335|NCT00141518|168879592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.002
84564336|NCT00141518|168879593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.017
84564337|NCT00141518|168879593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||||||0.191
84749723|NCT02988622|169253688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5685||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0281
84749724|NCT01296347|169253699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84749725|NCT01296347|169253700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 weeks||||0.71
84749726|NCT01296347|169253700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 month||||1.0
84749727|NCT01296347|169253700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 months||||0.32
84749728|NCT01296347|169253702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84749729|NCT01296347|169253703|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84749730|NCT01296347|169253704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84749731|NCT01296347|169253705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84749732|NCT06729593|169253748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.11||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula(HFNC)/non-invasive ventilation(NIV) or invasive mechanical ventiliation(IMV)/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.11|0.45|0.96
84749733|NCT06729593|169253749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.39|0.37
84564338|NCT00141518|168879594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
84564339|NCT00141518|168879594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||<0.001
84564340|NCT00141518|168879595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.047
84564341|NCT00141518|168879595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.847
84564342|NCT00141518|168879596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.012
84564343|NCT00141518|168879596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.035
84564344|NCT00141518|168879597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.599
84607266|NCT01541917|168965855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.027|||Multilevel growth model||The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.027|-.055|.51
84607267|NCT01541917|168965856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.46|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.46|.27|<.001
84749734|NCT06729593|169253750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.14|0.37|0.80
84495472|NCT02983305|168741464|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area under intervention conditions.||||0.0001
84607268|NCT01541917|168965856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.252|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.252|-.144|.59
84607269|NCT01541917|168965857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.14|.10|<.001
84670999|NCT04681482|169075789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of MB between cohorts.||0.70|0.54|<0.001
84671000|NCT04681482|169075791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of stroke/SE between cohorts.||1.03|0.66|0.088
84671001|NCT04681482|169075793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of net clinical benefit between cohorts.||0.76|0.60|<0.001
84749735|NCT06729593|169253751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.67|0.64|0.88
84749736|NCT06729593|169253752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.50|0.43|0.50
84749737|NCT01101477|169253754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The patients with at lease one episode of hypoxemia (SPaO2\<90%) during FB were analyzed by Chi-square test. P value less 0.05 means significance, 2-sided.||||0.05
84564345|NCT00141518|168879597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
84564346|NCT00141518|168879598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.026
84564347|NCT00141518|168879598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.208
84564348|NCT00141518|168879599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.010
84564349|NCT00141518|168879599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.073
84564350|NCT00141518|168879600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
84564351|NCT00141518|168879600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.030
84564352|NCT00141518|168879601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.208
84564353|NCT00141518|168879601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
84564354|NCT01806168|168879609|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
84564355|NCT01806168|168879609|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84564356|NCT01806168|168879609|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84564357|NCT01806168|168879610|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test primary and secondary outcomes, we utilized intention to treat data and linear mixed models with a group random effect. Significance was set to a \< 0.05.||||0.93
84564358|NCT01806168|168879611|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84564359|NCT01806168|168879612|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84749738|NCT00720941|169253760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority is defined as excluding a difference of greater than 25% in the hazards. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval must be \<1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8982|1.2195|||||The HR is estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR is adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase (\<=1.5xULN, \>1.5xULN).|||1.2195|0.8982|
84749739|NCT00420017|169253779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|0.16|0.02
84564360|NCT01806168|168879613|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84564361|NCT01806168|168879614|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
84495473|NCT02983305|168741464|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.003||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the visual field area (average of both eyes) detected between baseline and intervention.||||.003
84564362|NCT03410992|168879615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|496.318|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.798|2975.086||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2975.086|82.798|<0.001
84564363|NCT03410992|168879616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|657.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.792|4083.333||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||4083.333|105.792|<0.001
84564364|NCT03410992|168879617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|220.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.757|1683.639||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1683.639|28.757|<0.001
84564365|NCT03410992|168879618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.13|1676.425||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1676.425|30.130|<0.001
84564366|NCT03410992|168879619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|316.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.423|2543.254||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2543.254|39.423|<0.001
84495474|NCT02983305|168741465|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.38||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed at baseline.||||0.38
84495475|NCT02983305|168741465|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.27||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed under intervention conditions.||||0.27
84564367|NCT03410992|168879620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|82.856||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||82.856|14.220|<0.001
84564368|NCT03410992|168879621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.728|120.295||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||120.295|15.728|<0.001
84564369|NCT03410992|168879622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.56|180.669||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haensze (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||180.669|20.560|<0.001
84564370|NCT03410992|168879623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|158.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.263|506.745||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||506.745|49.263|<0.001
84564371|NCT03410992|168879624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.622|109.672||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||109.672|18.622|<0.001
84564372|NCT03410992|168879624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.887|128.673||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||128.673|18.887|<0.001
84749740|NCT00420017|169253780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84749741|NCT00420017|169253781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
84749742|NCT00420017|169253782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84749743|NCT01128738|169253783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|62.3|||Fisher Exact||Percentage difference was estimated as BTX 50 U minus placebo.|||62.3|38.1|<0.001
84749744|NCT00892723|169253841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.87
84671002|NCT00896337|169075797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||9-month major adverse event rate|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.5||A one-sided exact-test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the Epic-treated cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 17.0%.|One-sided exact-test|||MAE rate was compared to a predefined performance goal of 17.0%, based on literature-derived expected rate of 8.0% for iliac stenting plus a 9.0% margin. Study had 87% statistical power to show the MAE rate (accounting for 9-month attrition of \<=15%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MAE rate of 8.0%. If the exact one-sided 95% upper confidence bound of the observed rate is lower than the performance goal, the Epic stent would be considered to have acceptable performance.||8.5|0.9|<0.0001
84495476|NCT02983305|168741465|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.79||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the gait speed detected between baseline and intervention.||||0.79
84495477|NCT00347776|168741467|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||"The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the tetracycline arm and the azithromycin arms combined.~The Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate risk factors and adjust for confounding in predicting recurrence."||0.98|0.45|.047
84564373|NCT03410992|168879624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.087|101.75||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||101.750|22.087|<0.001
84564374|NCT01468454|168879634|OTHER||Specificity|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|97.1||||||||97.1|75.2|
84564375|NCT01468454|168879634|OTHER||Sensitivity|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|92.0||||||||92|72.3|
84564376|NCT01100723|168879636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
84564377|NCT01100723|168879637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||<0.05
84564378|NCT01100723|168879638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
84564379|NCT01100723|168879639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
84564380|NCT01100723|168879640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with Ca values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
84564381|NCT01100723|168879641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Proportion of subjects on specified medications were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects on the specified medications was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
84671003|NCT04448210|169075873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.25
84564382|NCT03060291|168879660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.549
84564383|NCT03060291|168879660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.854
84564384|NCT03060291|168879660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.469
84564385|NCT03060291|168879661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.535
84564386|NCT03060291|168879661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.081
84564387|NCT03060291|168879661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.295
84564388|NCT03060291|168879662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.149
84564389|NCT03060291|168879662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.207
84564390|NCT03060291|168879662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.871
84564391|NCT03060291|168879663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.547
84671004|NCT04448210|169075874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||.72
84671005|NCT04448210|169075875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||.16
84671006|NCT04448210|169075876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||.43
84671007|NCT04448210|169075877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
84749745|NCT00892723|169253841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.86
84495478|NCT00347776|168741468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||"We tried to evaluate if treating the immediate family members of the subject with oral azithromycin along with the subject had added advantage in reducing the rate of recurrent trichiasis in comparison to treating the subject alone with oral azithromycin post surgery.~The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the two intervention arms.The comparison results were expressed in person-years."||||0.19
84564392|NCT03060291|168879663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.575
84564393|NCT03060291|168879663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.964
84564394|NCT03060291|168879664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.236
84564395|NCT03060291|168879664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.142
84564396|NCT03060291|168879664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.810
84749746|NCT00892723|169253841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.11
84564397|NCT03060291|168879665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.599
84671008|NCT04448210|169075878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||.38
84749747|NCT00892723|169253841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.91
84749748|NCT00892723|169253842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
84495479|NCT00347776|168741469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group was the tetracycline group.|Surgery was considered a failure if there was trichiasis recurrence at 6 week follow-up.||1.10|0.36|
84495480|NCT01969201|168741471|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was evaluated by calculating the 95% CI for the differences in pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups. If the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was greater than -0.10 (i.e. 10%), then Fostimon was to be considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|4.42|||Fisher Exact|||||4.42|-9.88|0.49
84564398|NCT03060291|168879665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.523
84564399|NCT03060291|168879665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.252
84564400|NCT03060291|168879666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.867
84749749|NCT00892723|169253842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.82
84749750|NCT00892723|169253842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
84749751|NCT00892723|169253842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.71
84749752|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.73
84749753|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.94
84749754|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.14
84495481|NCT01969201|168741472|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84495482|NCT01969201|168741473|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84495483|NCT01969201|168741474|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84564401|NCT03060291|168879666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.127
84564402|NCT03060291|168879666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||.101
84564403|NCT00718094|168879667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84564404|NCT02585713|168879687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1316|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1316
84564405|NCT01150903|168879688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
84564406|NCT01150903|168879689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
84564407|NCT00656175|168879735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon sign-rank test used for statistical significance.||||0.52
84671009|NCT04448210|169075879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
84671010|NCT04448210|169075880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
84671011|NCT04448210|169075881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||.30
84672257|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
84749755|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.68
84749756|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.56
84564408|NCT00534638|168879798|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|49.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|68.2||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||68.2|20.1|0.004
84564409|NCT00534638|168879798|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|23.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|51.1||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||51.1|-19.0|0.232
84564410|NCT00534638|168879799|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-52.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|3.3||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Cervarix/Engerix-B B was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||3.3|-139.4|0.069
84564411|NCT02500719|168879821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1319||||0.029|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This test is to determine if the difference between engagement and disengagement of emotional arousal is increased by real-time neurofeedback guidance in PTSD participants.||||.029
84564412|NCT03538691|168879850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.669|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.669|0.776|0.5100
84564413|NCT03538691|168879851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.23||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.16|0.2393
84564414|NCT03538691|168879852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.177||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.615|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% CI were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.615|0.857|0.3086
84607270|NCT01541917|168965857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.03|-.05|.63
84495484|NCT01969201|168741475|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84495485|NCT01969201|168741476|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84564415|NCT03538691|168879853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6030
84564416|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 21||||0.7081
84607271|NCT01541917|168965858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||-.01|-.18|.02
84749757|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.32
84495486|NCT01969201|168741477|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84495487|NCT01969201|168741478|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
84495488|NCT04621227|168741481|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|202.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|167.14|246.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 4\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||246.41|167.14|
84495489|NCT04621227|168741481|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|283.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.68|344.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 7\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||344.51|233.68|
84564417|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 23||||0.4589
84564418|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 25||||0.5314
84564419|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 29||||0.1433
84564420|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9636|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 33||||0.9636
84564421|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7596|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 37||||0.7596
84564422|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 41||||0.2402
84564423|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 45||||0.8363
84564424|NCT03538691|168879854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8308|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 46||||0.8308
84749758|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.33
84749759|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.65
84749760|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.21
84749761|NCT00892723|169253843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.90
84749762|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.16
84749763|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.74
84749764|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.45
84749765|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.079
84495490|NCT04621227|168741482|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.27|60.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 5\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.50|42.27|
84564425|NCT03538691|168879855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.49|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||1.49|-1.73|0.8806
84564426|NCT03538691|168879856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||0.24|-0.18|0.7956
84564427|NCT03538691|168879857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.61||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Work/School||0.61|-0.31|0.5223
84607272|NCT01541917|168965858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.155|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.155|-.174|.91
84607273|NCT01541917|168965859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.04|.02|<.001
84607274|NCT01541917|168965859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.013|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.013|-.02|.67
84607275|NCT01541917|168965860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.01|-.01|.58
84607276|NCT01541917|168965860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.018|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.018|-.009|.49
84607277|NCT02011490|168965861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.12|7.11|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.11|4.12|
84495491|NCT04621227|168741482|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.06|60.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 8\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.78|42.06|
84564428|NCT03538691|168879857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Social Life||0.77|-0.06|0.0904
84607278|NCT02011490|168965861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.17|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.17|1.84|
84607279|NCT02011490|168965862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.22|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.22|4.18|
84672258|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
84497602|NCT01856686|168746234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37046|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.37046
84497603|NCT01856686|168746236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45013|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.45013
84564429|NCT03538691|168879857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Family Life||0.67|-0.16|0.2289
84564430|NCT00636636|168879889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.88|0.0125
84495492|NCT00124709|168741501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0046||||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.0381|||ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, gender, baseline age (months), baseline EASI score, and baseline TBSA as explanatory variables||"A disease-free day in Step 2 or less was defined as a diary day with variable No or almost no eczema?=yes and medication used variable=no except emollients, yellow label medication 2X day, or medication deviation of yellow label medication 1x day."||0.0381|-0.0290|0.7901
84564431|NCT00636636|168879890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.092||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.18|-0.00|0.0434
84564432|NCT00636636|168879891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.102||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.19|0.01|0.0268
84564433|NCT00636636|168879892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.35|||ANCOVA||P-value versus Placebo for pairwise test of difference of LS mean change from baseline between G-ER and Placebo groups is based on t-test of Type III analysis.|||-0.35|-1.07|0.0001
84564434|NCT00636636|168879893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.96|0.007
84564435|NCT01237327|168879894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7799||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.294|||Log Rank|||Overall survival compared using the hazard ratio; hazard ratio \<1.0 is in favor of exemestane.||1.294|0.47|0.3348
84564436|NCT03397121|168879933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|-43.99||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-43.99|-55.04|<.0001
84564437|NCT03397121|168879934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|-40.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.12|-48.48|<0.0001
84564438|NCT03397121|168879935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.11|-60.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-60.67|-77.11|<0.0001
84564439|NCT03397121|168879936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-56.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-56.48|-69.01|<0.0001
84564440|NCT03397121|168879937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.65|-73.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-73.04|-83.65|<0.0001
84564441|NCT03397121|168879938|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.59|-27.94||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-27.94|-35.59|<0.0001
84495493|NCT01728376|168741515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|25.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||25.3|-30.3|
84495494|NCT01728376|168741515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|45.7|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||45.7|-13.0|
84495495|NCT01728376|168741515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|72.4|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||72.4|-21.0|
84564442|NCT03397121|168879939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-32.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-32.14|-39.99|<0.0001
84564443|NCT03397121|168879940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.32|-37.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-37.40|-47.32|<0.0001
84564444|NCT04085601|168879945|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|0.8902||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in electronic data capture (EDC) data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8902|0.572|<0.0001
84564445|NCT04085601|168879946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1470.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2113.44|-827.32||p-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-827.32|-2113.44|<0.0001
84564446|NCT04085601|168879947|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.7431||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7431|0.339|<0.0001
84564447|NCT04085601|168879948|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-103.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|-48.74||P-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-48.74|-158.9|0.0002
84564448|NCT04085601|168879949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.35||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||4.35|0.99|0.0019
84564449|NCT04085601|168879950|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9041|-0.5969||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5969|-0.9041|<0.0001
84564450|NCT04085601|168879951|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5583|0.8899||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8899|0.5583|<0.0001
84749766|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.16
84749767|NCT00892723|169253844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.45
84564451|NCT04085601|168879952|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0||Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||4|2|<0.0001
84564452|NCT04085601|168879953|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.51||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|9.24||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||9.24|-0.21|0.061
84564453|NCT04085601|168879954|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3645||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1648|0.5642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5642|0.1648|0.001
84564454|NCT04085601|168879955|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3682|0.7502|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7502|0.3682|<0.0001
84564455|NCT04085601|168879956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|34.16||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||34.16|9.35|0.0006
84564456|NCT04085601|168879957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|55.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|94.74||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||94.74|16.83|0.005
84564457|NCT04085601|168879958|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4639||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2529|0.675||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.675|0.2529|0.0002
84564458|NCT04085601|168879959|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.091||Hazard ratio is based on cox proportional hazards model.|Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.091|0.004|<0.0001
84564459|NCT04085601|168879960|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.121|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.121|0.005|<0.0001
84564460|NCT02418234|168879963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84564461|NCT02418234|168879964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84564462|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Global health status/quality of life scale||0.89|0.55|0.003
84749768|NCT03021954|169253886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is in the intervention group, we expect a decrease in the area of the levator hiatus at 40 days and 3 months post-partum. Power 90 % confidence interval β = 0.10, α = 0.05||||0.086
84497604|NCT01856686|168746236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17374|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.17374
84564463|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Physical functioning scale||0.76|0.50|<0.001
84564464|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Role functioning scale||0.79|0.51|<0.001
84564465|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Emotional functioning scale||1.25|0.76|0.818
84564466|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Cognitive functioning scale||0.89|0.54|0.004
84564467|NCT02028507|168880018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Social functioning scale||0.78|0.49|<0.001
84564468|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Fatigue scale||0.86|0.57|0.001
84564469|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Nausea and vomiting scale||0.76|0.45|<0.001
84564470|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Pain scale||0.99|0.62|0.042
84564471|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Dyspnea scale||1.44|0.81|0.599
84564472|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Insomnia scale||1.10|0.64|0.196
84564473|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Appetite loss scale||0.92|0.54|0.011
84564474|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Constipation scale||1.41|0.83|0.564
84564475|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Diarrhea scale||0.55|0.32|<0.001
84749769|NCT03021954|169253887|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is platelet rich plasma can maintain or increase levator ani muscle contractions post-partum||||0.29
84749770|NCT02120716|169253944|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.2|0.6|0.13
84749771|NCT02120716|169253945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7|||<|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The reported percentages were captured at two separate time points (baseline, and at 4-Month Follow-Up).||33.0|4.2|<0.015
84749772|NCT04079803|169253946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0088 and CFB was 13.4. In percent change from baseline with these two subjects removed, P=0.004.|||0.087
84564476|NCT02028507|168880019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Financial difficulties scale||1.07|0.56|0.118
84564477|NCT02028507|168880020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Body image scale||1.21|0.74|0.659
84564478|NCT02028507|168880020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Future perspective scale||1.39|0.74|0.928
84564479|NCT02028507|168880021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Systemic side-effects scale||0.98|0.64|0.029
84564480|NCT02028507|168880021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Breast symptoms scale||1.21|0.71|0.571
84564481|NCT02028507|168880021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Arm symptoms scale||1.09|0.66|0.187
84564482|NCT03990051|168880032|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline, Active - Placebo.||||||0.0197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0197
84564483|NCT03990051|168880033|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0039
84564484|NCT03990051|168880034|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84564485|NCT03990051|168880035|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84607280|NCT02011490|168965862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.18|1.84|
84564486|NCT03990051|168880036|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0138
84564487|NCT03990051|168880037|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
84607281|NCT02011490|168965863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.21|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.21|0.73|
84564488|NCT03990051|168880038|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0849
84564489|NCT03990051|168880039|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
84564490|NCT03990051|168880040|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
84564491|NCT03990051|168880041|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0143|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0143
84564492|NCT03990051|168880042|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0398
84564493|NCT03990051|168880043|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||-3.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||-3.97
84564494|NCT03990051|168880044|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84564495|NCT03990051|168880045|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84564496|NCT03990051|168880046|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
84564497|NCT03990051|168880047|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0636
84564498|NCT03990051|168880048|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
84564499|NCT03990051|168880049|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
84564500|NCT03990051|168880050|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
84564501|NCT03990051|168880051|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
84564502|NCT03990051|168880052|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0155|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0155
84564503|NCT03990051|168880053|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0160
84564504|NCT03990051|168880054|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
84564505|NCT03990051|168880055|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.4649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4649
84564506|NCT03990051|168880056|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
84564507|NCT03990051|168880057|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0225|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0225
84564508|NCT03990051|168880058|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1822|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1822
84564509|NCT03990051|168880059|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0515
84749773|NCT04079803|169253946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0006 and CFB was 16.9. In percent change from baseline with this subject removed, P=0.0004.|||0.01
84749774|NCT04079803|169253947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P\<0.0001 and CFB was -19.8.|||<0.0001
84749775|NCT04079803|169253947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.001 and CFB was -14.9.|||0.0012
84749776|NCT04079803|169253948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -3.2.|||0.005
84564510|NCT03990051|168880060|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
84564511|NCT03990051|168880061|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes of score from baseline.||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.083
84564512|NCT03990051|168880062|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.7147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7147
84607282|NCT02011490|168965863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.18|0.72|
84607283|NCT02449018|168965883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.24|0.130
84564513|NCT03990051|168880063|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.8251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8251
84607284|NCT03995355|168965896|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.1|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis||Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||20.1|2.6|
84607285|NCT03995355|168965897|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.4|-5.3|
84607286|NCT03995355|168965898|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.77|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|||1.770|0.528|
84749777|NCT04079803|169253948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -2.5.|||0.002
84564514|NCT03990051|168880064|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0435|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0435
84564515|NCT03990051|168880065|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84564516|NCT03990051|168880066|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.3205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3205
84564517|NCT03990051|168880067|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1401|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1401
84564518|NCT03990051|168880068|SUPERIORITY|Comparison in changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0098|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0098
84564519|NCT03990051|168880069|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1032
84564520|NCT03990051|168880070|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0389
84564521|NCT03990051|168880071|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Score in 1 year compared to baseline||||<0.00001
84564522|NCT03990051|168880072|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564523|NCT03990051|168880073|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84607287|NCT03995355|168965898|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.203|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|30-Day follow-up||2.203|0.610|
84607288|NCT03995355|168965899|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|19.616|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||19.616|0.178|
84749778|NCT04079803|169253949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -681.|||0.0002
84749779|NCT04079803|169253949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0005 and CFB was -527.|||0.0005
84495496|NCT01728376|168741516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|39.8|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||39.8|-29.8|
84495497|NCT01728376|168741516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|75.1|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||75.1|0.7|
84564524|NCT03990051|168880074|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564525|NCT03990051|168880075|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84564526|NCT03990051|168880076|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84564527|NCT03990051|168880077|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564528|NCT03990051|168880078|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564529|NCT03990051|168880079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564530|NCT03990051|168880080|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564531|NCT03990051|168880081|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564532|NCT03990051|168880082|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564533|NCT03990051|168880083|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84564534|NCT03990051|168880084|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564535|NCT03990051|168880085|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564536|NCT03990051|168880086|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564537|NCT03990051|168880087|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564538|NCT03990051|168880088|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84564539|NCT00996034|168880136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This is a comparison of scan 1 and scan 2||||<0.05
84564540|NCT01720524|168880137|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-2.08|0.9850
84564541|NCT01720524|168880138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.6||||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|-14.1|0.4935
84564542|NCT01720524|168880139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9885
84564543|NCT01720524|168880140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4910
84564544|NCT01720524|168880141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|22.9|||Fisher Exact|||Additional Treatment||22.9|-15.2|0.7065
84564545|NCT01720524|168880141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||ECMO||18.5|-18.5|>0.999
84564546|NCT01720524|168880141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Death||22.8|-5.5|0.2373
84564547|NCT01720524|168880142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||15.3|-7.5|0.4984
84564548|NCT01720524|168880142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||13.7|-5.5|0.3956
84564549|NCT01720524|168880142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||3.3|-7.6|0.4249
84564550|NCT01720524|168880143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||5.8|-4.3|0.7686
84564551|NCT01720524|168880143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||1.9|-17.8|0.1112
84564552|NCT01720524|168880143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||4.8|-21.2|0.2089
84564553|NCT01720524|168880144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|37.2||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|79.5|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||79.5|-5.0|0.0829
84564554|NCT01720524|168880144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|65.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||65.9|-12.7|0.1802
84564555|NCT01720524|168880144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|79.9||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|192.2|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||192.2|-32.5|0.1576
84564556|NCT00527826|168880178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.73||95.0|||||Negative binomial model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.73
84749780|NCT04079803|169253950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -78.5.|||0.0003
84749781|NCT04079803|169253950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0008 and CFB was -51.0.|||0.0058
84564557|NCT00527826|168880180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Poisson model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.66||95.0|||||Poisson model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.66
84564558|NCT00158262|168880193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|16.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||16.7|-2.7|
84564559|NCT00158262|168880194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.3|||||Placebo-Propranolol|CAPS Total Score at Month 1||15.3|-15.5|
84564560|NCT00158262|168880194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|16.0||||||CAPS Total Score at Month 3||16.0|-20.3|
84564561|NCT00158262|168880195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||10.7|-4.8|
84564562|NCT02256839|168880212|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|99.3||||||||99.3|95.3|
84564563|NCT02256839|168880212|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI|2 x 2 contingency table|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.4|99.3||||||||99.3|85.4|
84564564|NCT01843803|168880213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"P-Value = 0.029 after adjusting for clinical and demographic, and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.~Comparison of adjusted CARES score yielded a significant difference."|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was ran with CARES as the dependent variable, adjusted for demographic and clinical measures , and provider as a random effect.||Mixed model adjusted for gender, race, education, marital status, mental health condition, substance disorder, COPD, heart failure, diabetes, coronary artery disease, study site and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.||||0.029
84607289|NCT03995355|168965900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||15.4|0.7|
84749782|NCT04079803|169253951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0001 and CFB was -23.7.|||0.0001
84564565|NCT01843803|168880215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.86||P-Value derived after adjusting model provider clustering and treating it as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessed whether a person in the intervention group vs the attention control group was more likely to be probed at least once by their provider after adjusting for other measures and accounting for the provider clustering.||2.86|0.99|.065
84564566|NCT01843803|168880216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square||||<0.05
84564567|NCT01850394|168880217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|300.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84564568|NCT01850394|168880217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|150.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|200.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84564569|NCT01850394|168880218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84564570|NCT01850394|168880218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84564571|NCT01850394|168880219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84564572|NCT01850394|168880220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84564573|NCT01850394|168880221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84749783|NCT04079803|169253951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -20.9.|||0.0001
84749784|NCT04079803|169253952|OTHER||Effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
84749785|NCT04079803|169253952|OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
84749786|NCT04079803|169253953|OTHER||Effect size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was almost identical (0.45) when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
84749787|NCT04079803|169253953|OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
84749788|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.0078
84607290|NCT03995355|168965901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||17.0|1.7|
84607291|NCT01355796|168965903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.75|-1.76|<0.05
84607292|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance between baseline and 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
84749789|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.019
84749790|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0002
84749791|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0007
84749792|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
84749793|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
84749794|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.0001
84749795|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.046
84749796|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.012
84749797|NCT04079803|169253954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.014
84749798|NCT04079803|169253955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.005
84607293|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
84607294|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
84564574|NCT00436826|168880245|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.63|||Wald Chi-square|||||0.63|0.22|<0.001
84564575|NCT04550364|168880264|OTHER|Semi-structured interview, background information, DSM 5 diagnosis and ED symptoms.||||||||||||||||23 of 24 women were used ideal type analysis as the methods. EDE-Q and DSM 5 diagnosis were measured.|Ideal type analysis as main method of analysis|||
84564576|NCT04550364|168880265|OTHER|Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)||||||||||||||||of the 24 mothers there were 7 of them that had undergone In vitro fertilization. These women were interviewed twice and IPA were used in analysis the material.|IPA|||
84564577|NCT04550364|168880266|OTHER|Grounded theory was used analysis method. 5 distinct ED trajectories into motherhood were identified based on the womens experiences from pregnancy to postpartum.||||||||||||||||This study was based on interviews conducted with 24 participants during pregnancy and postpartum. Semi-structured interview with 24 women at two time points: 1. During pregnancy and 2. 4-6 months after birth. DSM 5 diagnosis at both time points were also assessed and symptoms at eating disorders through EDE-Q.|Qualitative methods using Ground theory|||
84564578|NCT03138577|168880316|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
84749799|NCT04079803|169253955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as ratios of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.009
84749800|NCT04079803|169253955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
84749801|NCT04079803|169253955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
84564579|NCT03138577|168880317|OTHER|||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
84564580|NCT03138577|168880318|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
84564581|NCT03138577|168880318|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
84564582|NCT03138577|168880319|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
84564583|NCT03138577|168880320|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
84564584|NCT03138577|168880321|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
84749802|NCT04079803|169253956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.01
84749803|NCT04079803|169253956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.02
84564585|NCT03138577|168880321|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
84564586|NCT03138577|168880322|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84564587|NCT05464420|168880324|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.6||||||Injection site erythema: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.6|3.0|
84564588|NCT05464420|168880324|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3||||||Injection site pain: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||17.3|8.0|
84564589|NCT05464420|168880324|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.2||||||Injection site swelling: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.2|2.6|
84564590|NCT05464420|168880326|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Fatigue: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||6.0|-3.2|
84564591|NCT05464420|168880326|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.7||||||Headache: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||9.7|1.6|
84564592|NCT05464420|168880326|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.5||||||Myalgia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||10.5|4.5|
84564593|NCT05464420|168880326|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||Pyrexia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||2.1|-1.0|
84749804|NCT04079803|169253956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|This p value is for the main effect of treatment of the ANOVA.||||||0.009
84749805|NCT04079803|169253957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84749806|NCT04079803|169253957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
84749807|NCT01881750|169253981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Effects Regression Model|||Group X Time Interaction Cohen's d||||0.42
84749808|NCT01519466|169253988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.55|0.0926
84749809|NCT01519466|169253988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||||||||||||||||
84749810|NCT01519466|169253989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.3251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.27|0.3251
84607295|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance from baseline to 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
84607296|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.747
84607297|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
84607298|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
84607299|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms success rate from baseline to 24 month recall. For Esthetic and Biological-FDI comparison p values were \> 0.05. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
84671012|NCT00828191|169075888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-2.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||4.4|-9.4|0.52
84495498|NCT01728376|168741516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-10.0||||||95.0|-60.3|40.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||40.3|-60.3|
84607300|NCT02698371|168965914|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms retention rate from baseline to 24 month recall. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
84607301|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
84607302|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
84607303|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
84607304|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
84607305|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.154
84607306|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
84607307|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
84671013|NCT00828191|169075889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.0|||ANOVA|||||4.0|-7.6|0.54
84671014|NCT00828191|169075890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-8.8|0.62
84671015|NCT01667978|169075911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84495499|NCT01683331|168741523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.06|||Chi-squared|||||1.06|1.01|0.87
84495500|NCT01683331|168741524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|1.2|0.92
84495501|NCT03491800|168741529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84607308|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
84607309|NCT02698371|168965915|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
84607310|NCT02698371|168965916|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Esthetic of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Esthetic outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
84749811|NCT01519466|169253989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||||||||||||||||
84749812|NCT01519466|169253990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycaemia, glucose above 10mmol/l (180mg/dL)||0.58|-0.33|0.5798
84495502|NCT03491800|168741530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84564594|NCT05464420|168880328|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||0.2|-0.7|
84564595|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.24|0.96|<0.001
84564596|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.90|<0.001
84564597|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA Model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.83|<0.001
84564598|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.35|0.97|<0.001
84607311|NCT02698371|168965916|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Functional outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
84607312|NCT02698371|168965916|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.998||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Biologic FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Biological outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||0.998
84607313|NCT02698371|168965917|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.029||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.029
84607314|NCT02698371|168965917|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.002||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall;||||0.002
84607315|NCT02698371|168965917|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.618||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.618
84607316|NCT02698371|168965918|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.009||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.009
84607317|NCT02698371|168965918|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.059||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.059
84749813|NCT01519466|169253990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycaemia, glucose below 3.9mmol/l (70mg/dL)||0.06|-0.68|0.0960
84749814|NCT01519466|169253990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment Satisfaction||6.71|2.01|0.0007
84749815|NCT00178126|169254022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84495503|NCT03491800|168741530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84495504|NCT03491800|168741531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.28||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84495505|NCT03491800|168741531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84749816|NCT01281969|169254028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.15||p-value is unadjusted. a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|ANCOVA|F(1,34)=0.62, p=.44||Analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline scores. A priori power calculations based on the Perlmutter et al. study (IVIG effect size 1.2) suggested that a sample size of 16 per group would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 1.0 with 80% power.||3.15|-7.1|0.44
84749817|NCT01281969|169254029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank sum in the placebo group = 19.92; mean rank sum in the IVIG group = 15.97. Z = -1.18, p=.12||The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare CGI-Improvement ratings (an ordinal variable) at week 6. Power calculation was based on CYBOCS as primary outcome.||||.12
84564599|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.22|0.88|<0.001
84564600|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.77|<0.001
84564601|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.34|1.01|<0.001
84564602|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.25|0.94|<0.001
84564603|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
84564604|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8 V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.16|0.92|<0.001
84749818|NCT01281969|169254030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|X2 = 0.72, p=.40||Chi-squared test was used to compare distribution of responders by randomization group. Power calculation was based on CY-BOCS (primary outcome).||||.40
84564605|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.93|<0.001
84564606|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.90|<0.001
84564607|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.94|<0.001
84564608|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.87|<0.001
84564609|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.80|<0.001
84749819|NCT02240693|169254043|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.223||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.223|-0.074|0.3236
84749820|NCT02240693|169254043|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.082||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.082|-0.220|0.3694
84749821|NCT02240693|169254043|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.139||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.139|-0.171|0.8374
84749822|NCT02240693|169254043|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.199||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.199|-0.106|0.5484
84749823|NCT02240693|169254043|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.121||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.121|-0.092|0.7905
84749824|NCT02240693|169254044|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.04||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|2.04|-2.33|0.8973
84564610|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
84752761|NCT00129623|169260617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|30.56||||||Lumbar BMD: Adjusted treatment effect - The treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||30.56|5.12|
84752762|NCT00129623|169260617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|19.42||||||Proximal femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg once monthly/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||19.42|3.80|
84752763|NCT00129623|169260617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|36.79||||||Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable, and treatment group (oral IBN150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||36.79|5.17|
84752764|NCT05341700|169260639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PINP between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.246
84752765|NCT05341700|169260640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CTX between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.714
84564611|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
84564612|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.93|<0.001
84564613|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
84564614|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
84564615|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.90|<0.001
84564616|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.96|<0.001
84749825|NCT02240693|169254044|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.63||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|3.63|-0.82|0.2141
84749826|NCT02240693|169254044|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.67||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.67|-2.64|0.6553
84564617|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
84749827|NCT02240693|169254044|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.144||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|2.69|-1.85|0.7166
84752766|NCT05341700|169260641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.309
84752767|NCT05341700|169260642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of IGF1 between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.308
84752768|NCT05341700|169260643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ferritin between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.207
84564618|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
84564619|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.22|0.89|<0.001
84564620|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.86|<0.001
84607318|NCT02698371|168965918|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.829||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.829
84607319|NCT02698371|168965919|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
84749828|NCT02240693|169254045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.46|-0.49|0.9491
84749829|NCT02240693|169254045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.84||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.84|-0.15|0.1699
84749830|NCT02240693|169254045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.33|-0.69|0.4948
84749831|NCT02240693|169254045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.58|-0.42|0.7548
84749832|NCT02240693|169254046|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.89||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.89|-2.40|0.8137
84495506|NCT03491800|168741532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.25||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84607320|NCT02698371|168965919|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
84607321|NCT02698371|168965919|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.064||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.064
84607322|NCT02698371|168965920|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.006||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.006
84607323|NCT02698371|168965920|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
84495507|NCT03491800|168741533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84495508|NCT03491800|168741534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84495509|NCT03491800|168741535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-38.25||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84564621|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.12|0.82|<0.001
84564622|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.38|0.95|<0.001
84564623|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.42|0.97|<0.001
84564624|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.23|0.85|<0.001
84564625|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
84564626|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.11|0.84|<0.001
84564627|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.15|0.87|<0.001
84564628|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
84564629|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
84749833|NCT02240693|169254046|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.60|-2.84|0.5801
84564630|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.92|<0.001
84564631|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.15|0.91|<0.001
84564632|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.84|<0.001
84564633|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.04|0.82|<0.001
84564634|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.14|0.84|<0.001
84564635|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.24|0.92|<0.001
84564636|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.27||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.27|0.94|<0.001
84564637|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.29|0.93|<0.001
84564638|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.87|<0.001
84564639|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.10|0.80|<0.001
84564640|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cDLA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.85|<0.001
84564641|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.86|<0.001
84564642|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.87|<0.001
84564643|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.48|1.00|<0.001
84564644|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.80|<0.001
84564645|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||0.97|0.66|<0.001
84749834|NCT02240693|169254046|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.0||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.00|-3.25|0.2978
84749835|NCT02240693|169254046|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.39||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|-0.39|-4.64|0.0209
84752769|NCT00729781|169260667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|57.8||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|97.5|42.2||||One-sided, binomial exact test|||This study had two independent primary endpoints (cosmetic and functional improvement). Therefore, the assumed type I error rate for each was 2.5% in order to maintain an overall 5% type I error rate. For each endpoint, the percent of subjects with improvement of the total number implanted was to be compared to a rate of 50% using a one-sided, binomial exact test. If the p-value was \< 0.025, the objective would have been met.|||42.2|0.19
84752770|NCT00729781|169260668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|15.6|||>|0.99|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.05||||One-sided, binomial exact test||||||0.05|>0.99
84564646|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.18|0.88|<0.001
84564647|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.88|<0.001
84564648|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
84564649|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.20|0.87|<0.001
84564650|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.87|<0.001
84564651|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.85|<0.001
84607324|NCT02698371|168965920|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.054||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.054
84607325|NCT02698371|168965921|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.01||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.010
84607326|NCT02698371|168965921|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.071||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.071
84607327|NCT02698371|168965921|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.898||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.898
84749836|NCT02240693|169254047|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.120|-0.101|0.8694
84495510|NCT03491800|168741535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84495511|NCT03491800|168741535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
84495512|NCT03491800|168741536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84495513|NCT03491800|168741536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84495514|NCT05604521|168741543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3944|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any local solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3944
84495515|NCT05604521|168741543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any systemic solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3717
84495516|NCT05604521|168741543|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any related unsolicited AEs after any vaccination.||||1.0
84495517|NCT01491737|168741556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the PFS time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the PFS time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to PFS was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.89|0.48|0.0070
84495518|NCT01491737|168741556|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis||0.89|0.50|0.0059
84495519|NCT01491737|168741557|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.91|0.69|0.5850
84749837|NCT02240693|169254047|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.109|-0.116|0.9512
84495520|NCT01491737|168741557|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.52|0.73|0.7833
84495521|NCT01491737|168741558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.3||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||ORR for Arm A vs Arm B||21.3|-6.0|0.2537
84495522|NCT01491737|168741559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CBR|1.8||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.8||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||CBR for Arm A vs. Arm B||14.8|-11.2|0.7743
84497605|NCT01856686|168746236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07548|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07548
84497606|NCT01856686|168746237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23226|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.23226
84497607|NCT01856686|168746237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08812|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08812
84497608|NCT01856686|168746237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00776|||||||Pairedt-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00776
84564652|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.33|0.93|<0.001
84749838|NCT02240693|169254047|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.115|-0.105|0.9321
84564653|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.29|0.90|<0.001
84564654|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.81|<0.001
84564655|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.91|<0.001
84564656|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
84671016|NCT02013167|169075948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by age (\< 35 years; ≥ 35 years), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).|Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicated a lower average event rate and longer survival time for blinatumomab relative to SOC chemotherapy.|||0.93|0.55|0.012
84749839|NCT02240693|169254047|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.025|-0.199|0.1288
84752771|NCT00006392|169260680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.95|1.35||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.35|0.95|< .01
84671017|NCT02013167|169075949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||26.2|9.6|< 0.001
84752772|NCT00006392|169260680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.24||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.24|0.87|< .01
84564657|NCT05464420|168880329|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.89|<0.001
84564658|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
84564659|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.02|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.02|3.01|
84564660|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.18|
84564661|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.77|
84749840|NCT02240693|169254047|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.061|-0.098|0.6492
84749841|NCT01585987|169254048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.439||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.085|1.908||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its associated two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) was estimated via a stratified Cox model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model|||1.908|1.085|0.0972
84564662|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.85|
84749842|NCT01585987|169254049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.588||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.199|2.103||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank|||||2.103|1.199|0.0336
84749843|NCT01585987|169254050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.602|1.269||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||HR was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model.|||1.269|0.602|0.6433
84749844|NCT01585987|169254052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0549||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7009|47.6447||Significance level used: 0.2|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.6447|0.7009|0.3686
84749845|NCT00413972|169254053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84749846|NCT00413972|169254053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84749847|NCT00413972|169254053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84749848|NCT01992393|169254054|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE|||||||0.036
84749849|NCT01992393|169254055|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.042
84749850|NCT01992393|169254055|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU||||0.204
84749851|NCT01992393|169254056|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.129
84749852|NCT01992393|169254056|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.978
84749853|NCT01992393|169254057|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.128
84749854|NCT01992393|169254057|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.015
84749855|NCT01992393|169254058|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.759
84749856|NCT01992393|169254058|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.471
84749857|NCT01992393|169254059|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.775
84749858|NCT01992393|169254059|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.433
84749859|NCT01992393|169254060|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.936
84749860|NCT01992393|169254060|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.600
84749861|NCT01992393|169254061|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.560
84749862|NCT01992393|169254061|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.305
84749863|NCT02678247|169254080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.3|0.8|<0.001
84749864|NCT02678247|169254081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.04|-0.06|0.664
84749865|NCT02678247|169254082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.23||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.23|-3.17|0.026
84749866|NCT02678247|169254083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.42||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.42|-2|0.847
84749867|NCT02678247|169254084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.34||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.34|-2.42|<0.017
84749868|NCT02678247|169254085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.77||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.77|-0.53|0.7
84749869|NCT02678247|169254086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||7.0|-1.6|0.20
84495523|NCT01491737|168741560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.91||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the DOR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the DOR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to DOR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.91|0.36|0.0181
84749870|NCT02678247|169254087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||3.7|-6.0|0.62
84749871|NCT02678247|169254088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||5.3|-0.2|0.07
84564663|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.48|1.18|
84564664|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.95|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.95|1.56|
84671018|NCT02013167|169075950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||28.7|9.9|< 0.001
84749872|NCT02678247|169254089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||1.1|-5.4|0.18
84749873|NCT02678247|169254090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.9|-0.4|0.47
84749874|NCT02678247|169254091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.0|-1.4|0.68
84749875|NCT02618642|169254162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.3879
84495524|NCT01491737|168741560|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.93|||Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Final Analysis.||0.93|0.41|0.0205
84497609|NCT01856686|168746238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.90843|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.90843
84749876|NCT02618642|169254162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter were compared||||0.5361
84749877|NCT02618642|169254163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) vs the control group (placebo) (n=15) were compared.||||0.4669
84749878|NCT02618642|169254163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4161
84749879|NCT02618642|169254164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.9596
84749880|NCT02618642|169254164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0907
84749881|NCT02618642|169254165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.0110
84564665|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.56|1.22|
84564666|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|4.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio v116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.56|3.56|
84749882|NCT02618642|169254165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||0.1165
84749883|NCT02618642|169254166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.0200
84564667|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|3.38|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.38|2.49|
84564668|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.17||||||Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.17|3.32|
84749884|NCT02618642|169254166|SUPERIORITY|comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
84749885|NCT02181387|169254167|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
84749886|NCT02181387|169254167|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
84749887|NCT02881957|169254169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test evaluated comparing length of stay in vitamin D3 vs. placebo treated patients utilizing patients as randomized (e.g., intent-to-treat) using a p\<0.05 as significant. Adverse events were monitored until discharge.||||0.2
84749888|NCT02881957|169254170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
84749889|NCT02881957|169254171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
84749890|NCT02881957|169254172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84749891|NCT02881957|169254173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84749892|NCT02881957|169254174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.99
84749893|NCT02881957|169254175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.6
84749894|NCT02881957|169254176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.7
84495525|NCT01491737|168741561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|The log-rank test from unstratified analysis was based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including the induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the TTR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the TTR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to TTR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||1.57|0.78|0.5597
84495526|NCT02354352|168741566|NON_INFERIORITY|Using a Type I error rate of 5%, we conducted a power calculation using a non-inferiority test on 12-month change in Ecc. If there is truly no difference in the 12-month Ecc change between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups, 46 patients (23 in each group) would result in at least 80% power to ensure that the lower limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval for the true difference between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups to be above the non-inferiority limit of -1.75.||||||0.5867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5867
84495527|NCT00505765|168741622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
84495528|NCT00505765|168741622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
84495529|NCT02743117|168741627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-8.1|
84495530|NCT02743117|168741628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|4.6||||||Up to Day 8||4.6|-22.2|
84495531|NCT02743117|168741628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|5.9||||||Up to Day 15||5.9|-21.6|
84495532|NCT01207219|168741632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for statistical significance in these analyses was 0.01 adjusted for multiple comparisons .|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model analysis with a repeated-measures approach including an unstructured variance matrix||Data analysis was based on the Intention-to-Treatment (ITT) method. Differences between the three intervention groups over time (baseline and 12 weeks) were assessed with a Group x Time interaction term. A priori comparisons of the active intervention groups with the waitlist group were carried out with the same strategy if analyses including all the three groups meet the criterion of statistical significance (P\<0.01).||||<0.01
84749895|NCT02881957|169254177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.4
84749896|NCT02881957|169254178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.1
84749897|NCT01078220|169254212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|9.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||9.21|3.91|
84495533|NCT01453296|168741650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
84495534|NCT01453296|168741650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
84495535|NCT01453296|168741650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
84495536|NCT01453296|168741651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
84495537|NCT01453296|168741651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
84495538|NCT01453296|168741651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
84495539|NCT01453296|168741652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||||Day 1 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.6|-4.5|
84495540|NCT01453296|168741652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.3|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.3|-3.2|
84749898|NCT01078220|169254212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.08|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||7.08|1.18|
84749899|NCT01078220|169254216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.3|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||2.3|1.17|
84749900|NCT01078220|169254216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
84749901|NCT01078220|169254216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.98|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||1.98|0.53|
84749902|NCT01078220|169254216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.21|0.5|
84495541|NCT01453296|168741652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.7|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-3.0|
84752773|NCT00006392|169260680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.01||99.0|0.88|1.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 99% power to detect a 44% reduction in prostate cancer for combination vs. Placebo.||1.25|.88|< .01
84607328|NCT02698371|168965922|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
84607329|NCT02698371|168965922|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
84607330|NCT02698371|168965922|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
84607331|NCT02698371|168965923|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
84607332|NCT02698371|168965923|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||.317
84495542|NCT01453296|168741666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.61|||||Day 1 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.61|-2.59|
84495543|NCT01453296|168741666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|7.81|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.81|-1.93|
84495544|NCT01453296|168741666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.08|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.08|-0.70|
84607333|NCT02698371|168965923|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.575||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion \& Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.575
84607334|NCT02698371|168965924|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
84671019|NCT02013167|169075951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71|||||The hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for Blinatumomab relative to SOC Chemotherapy.|||0.71|0.43|
84671020|NCT02431754|169076064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||Normal approximation (Z-test)|||||||0.0937
84671021|NCT02431754|169076065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.69|0.1485
84671022|NCT00394212|169076072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value from non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test comparing treatments.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on a 2-group test of means for unequal variance and unequal sample size (2:1 randomization ratio) with alpha = 0.05 and a power of 80%, the sample size required was 132; 88 subjects in the Transoral Suturing arm and 44 in the Sham Endoscopy arm. The study was prematurely discontinued due to reasons unrelated to safety and effectiveness and therefore was underpowered for evaluation of the primary and secondary hypotheses.||||0.066
84671023|NCT00394212|169076073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieving 15% EWL at 6 months for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.317
84671024|NCT00394212|169076074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84497610|NCT01856686|168746238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00413|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00413
84497611|NCT01856686|168746238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00775|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00775
84564669|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.91|1.53|
84564670|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
84564671|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.67|1.30|
84749903|NCT03081052|169254230|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome (e.g. PGD grade 3 (PGD-3)) of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of PGD-3 under iEPO treatment is 0.30 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.19, we will need 200 lung transplant patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.049||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.162|||two one sided test p-value|||||0.162|-0.064|0.019
84749904|NCT03081052|169254231|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of moderate or severe RV failure under iEPO treatment is 0.113 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.15, we will need 224 heart failure patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.116|||two one-sided test p-value|||||0.116|-0.066|0.012
84749905|NCT03081052|169254232|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|-3|0.747
84749906|NCT03081052|169254232|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|-1|0.638
84749907|NCT03081052|169254234|OTHER||mean ratio|1.19||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||log-linear regression|||||1.87|0.76|0.453
84749908|NCT03081052|169254234|OTHER||mean ratio|0.94||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56|||log-linear regression|||||1.56|0.57|0.816
84749909|NCT03081052|169254235|OTHER||mean ratio|1.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||log-linear regression|||||1.41|0.75|0.864
84495545|NCT00620776|168741667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis (differential slopes over time) comparing the 26 patients who received combined treatment with at least one CBT session to the 35 patients randomized to venlafaxine XR alone (and received at least one dose) on HAM-A total scores. Only available scores were used (no imputation for missing data). Because the HAM-A demonstrated a relatively rapid improvement early in treatment and then a leveling off, a shifted log-transformation of time of assessment was implemented.||||.17
84749910|NCT03081052|169254235|OTHER||mean ratio|0.97||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||log-linear regression|||||1.28|0.73|0.825
84749911|NCT03081052|169254236|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.61|||Chi-squared|||||2.61|0.78|0.251
84749912|NCT03081052|169254236|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.58|0.619
84749913|NCT03081052|169254238|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|23.82|||Fisher Exact|||||23.82|0.19|0.614
84749914|NCT03081052|169254238|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Fisher Exact|||||2.12|0.17|0.5424
84749915|NCT02525861|169254318|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.398|||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
84749916|NCT02525861|169254319|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.259|||<|0.001|||||||mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on functional A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
84749917|NCT02175004|169254480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-9.56||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 78||-9.56|-26.12|<0.001
84564672|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.53|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.53|1.17|
84564673|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|9.31|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.31|6.84|
84564674|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|23.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|28.55|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|28.55|19.71|
84564675|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|22.88|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|22.88|16.70|
84564676|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|13.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|15.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|15.71|11.68|
84564677|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.73|
84749918|NCT02175004|169254480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-8.95||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 156||-8.95|-31.27|<0.001
84749919|NCT02175004|169254481|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||P-value=MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 78||0.20|-0.32|0.638
84495546|NCT00620776|168741668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.54
84564678|NCT05464420|168880330|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.09|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.09|3.36|
84749920|NCT02175004|169254481|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 156||0.29|-0.30|0.965
84749921|NCT02175004|169254482|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.5||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 78||-0.50|-1.68|<0.001
84749922|NCT02175004|169254482|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.05||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 156||0.05|-1.38|0.067
84749923|NCT02175004|169254483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.36||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 78||3.36|-2.67|0.821
84749924|NCT02175004|169254483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.9||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 156||1.90|-6.21|0.293
84749925|NCT02175004|169254484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-0.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 78||-0.03|-5.53|0.047
84749926|NCT02175004|169254484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.07||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.13||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 156||-0.13|-6.00|0.041
84495547|NCT00620776|168741669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.86
84749927|NCT02175004|169254485|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.92|-8.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the NIS Composite Score at Week 52 of Year 4||-8.03|-26.92|<0.001
84749928|NCT02175004|169254486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Cranial Nerves Score Score at Week 52 of Year 4||0.17|-0.19|0.941
84749929|NCT02175004|169254487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-2.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Muscle Weakness Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.16|-16.97|0.011
84749930|NCT02175004|169254488|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.18||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Reflexes Score at Week 52 of Years 4||1.18|-3.28|0.356
84749931|NCT02175004|169254489|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-2.19||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Sensory Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.19|-8.58|<0.001
84749932|NCT02175004|169254490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.31||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.14||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||-1.14|-17.48|0.026
84495548|NCT00620776|168741670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.051
84564679|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.09|0.88|
84749933|NCT02175004|169254490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|1.62||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 156||1.62|-16.41|0.107
84495549|NCT00620776|168741671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.06
84564680|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.85|
84671025|NCT00394212|169076075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
84564681|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.87|
84564682|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|0.95|
84564683|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.86|
84564684|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.77|
84564685|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
84564686|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.90|
84749934|NCT02175004|169254490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|9.77||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 52 of Year 4||9.77|-15.22|0.669
84749935|NCT02175004|169254491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|1.15||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Change From CS2 Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||1.15|-13.75|0.097
84564687|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.93|
84564688|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.86|
84564689|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
84564690|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|
84564691|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
84564692|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.77|
84564693|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.98|0.74|
84564694|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
84564695|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.83|
84564696|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
84564697|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
84564698|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.91|
84564699|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
84564700|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.80|
84564701|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.84|
84564702|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.89|
84564703|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
84564704|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.83|
84564705|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
84564706|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.91|
84564707|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.89|
84564708|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|
84564709|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.78|
84564710|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.78|
84564711|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
84749936|NCT02175004|169254491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|1.11||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the Norfolk QoL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 156||1.11|-18.88|0.081
84749937|NCT02175004|169254491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.87||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|5.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 52 of Year 4||5.16|-28.89|0.171
84564712|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
84564713|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.93|
84564714|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.88|
84564715|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
84564716|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.79|
84564717|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|
84564718|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.83|
84564719|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
84564720|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|
84564721|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
84564722|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
84564723|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
84564724|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.84|
84564725|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.83|
84564726|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.85|
84564727|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
84564728|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.79|
84564729|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.77|
84564730|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.80|
84564731|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.84|
84495550|NCT00620776|168741672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.95
84564732|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|
84564733|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.77|
84564734|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.88|
84671026|NCT03240133|169076078|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-2.6|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 750mg berotralstat or placebo.||-2.6|-11.37|0.0024
84749938|NCT00820027|169254506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.08|-0.89|0.018
84749939|NCT00820027|169254506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14|||LDA|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.14|-0.95|0.009
84749940|NCT00820027|169254507|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.85|0.56|<0.001
84749941|NCT00820027|169254507|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.82|0.54|<0.001
84749942|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-3.3|0.506
84749943|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
84749944|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
84495551|NCT00620776|168741673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.17
84749945|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-1.3|0.316
84749946|NCT00820027|169254508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-1.7|>0.999
84749947|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||3.8|-1.7|>0.999
84749948|NCT00820027|169254508|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-2.5|0.309
84495552|NCT00620776|168741674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.53
84495553|NCT00620776|168741675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA with baseline data as covariate.||||.23
84564735|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.30|1.00|
84564736|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.89|
84564737|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
84564738|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
84564739|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.90|
84564740|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
84564741|NCT05464420|168880331|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|
84749949|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.1|-9.2|0.054
84749950|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-8.4|0.209
84749951|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.3|-8.4|0.227
84749952|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.6|-3.7|0.415
84749953|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.0|0.965
84495554|NCT00620776|168741676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA including baseline data as covariate.||||.07
84749954|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||8.4|-1.3|0.227
84495555|NCT00620776|168741677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.63
84495556|NCT00620776|168741678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
84495557|NCT00766727|168741679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||
84495558|NCT00761969|168741690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Survival, major-event-free survival and event-free survival of patients with PAD and control subjects was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. The numbers of non-fatal events and revascularization procedures (which could be more than one per person) were compared using the Poisson regression - the outcome being the number of events per person-year.||||<0.001
84495559|NCT03056456|168741692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.23||||||Day 1||1.23|0.810|
84495560|NCT03056456|168741692|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.25||||||Day 3||1.25|0.817|
84495561|NCT03056456|168741693|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.808|1.31||||||Day 1||1.31|0.808|
84495562|NCT03056456|168741693|SUPERIORITY|Day 3|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.32||||||||1.32|0.820|
84495563|NCT04668066|168741722|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|32.6|||ANCOVA|||||32.6|-21.4|0.6343
84495564|NCT02369874|168741723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.85|0.7624
84564742|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.21|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|1.01|
84495565|NCT02369874|168741723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.72|0.1993
84564743|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.45|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.45|3.43|
84564744|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.72|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.72|1.38|
84495566|NCT02369874|168741724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.73|0.4590
84495567|NCT02369874|168741724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||||||||1.36|0.85|
84495568|NCT02369874|168741725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||||1.39|0.63|
84495569|NCT02369874|168741726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||||||||1.33|0.90|
84495570|NCT02369874|168741726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||||||||1.25|0.84|
84495571|NCT02369874|168741727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||||||||1.70|0.67|
84495572|NCT02369874|168741727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||||1.68|0.66|
84495573|NCT02369874|168741729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52||||||6 Month analysis||1.52|0.67|
84495574|NCT02369874|168741729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46||||||6 Month analysis||1.46|0.64|
84495575|NCT02369874|168741729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75||||||12 Month analysis||1.75|0.72|
84495576|NCT02369874|168741729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57||||||12 Month analysis||1.57|0.63|
84495577|NCT02369874|168741732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||||||||1.21|0.76|
84495578|NCT02369874|168741733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||||||||2.39|0.74|
84495579|NCT01015118|168741754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level Area under curve 5 (AUC5) vs. Area under curve 6 (AUC6).||0.98|0.72|0.0239
84495580|NCT01015118|168741755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.75|0.0286
84495581|NCT01015118|168741756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.97|0.72|0.0186
84497612|NCT00468312|168746239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
84564745|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.89|0.73|
84564746|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.91|
84564747|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.66|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.66|1.30|
84749955|NCT00820027|169254509|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.8||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.6|-1.7|0.437
84749956|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.5|-5.3|0.806
84749957|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.4|-7.4|0.278
84564748|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.52|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.26|
84564749|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.62|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.62|1.23|
84564750|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|7.65|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.65|6.08|
84564751|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.67|2.86|
84564752|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|7.19|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.19|5.83|
84564753|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.07|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|2.07|1.66|
84607335|NCT02698371|168965924|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.107||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.107
84607336|NCT02698371|168965924|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.592||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.592
84495582|NCT01015118|168741757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.74|0.0256
84495583|NCT01015118|168741758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.17|0.83|0.8653
84495584|NCT01015118|168741759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.01|0.77|0.0749
84564754|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.98|
84564755|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.71|1.37|
84564756|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.17|
84564757|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|8.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|9.23|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.23|7.19|
84564758|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|6.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|6.48|5.08|
84564759|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|14.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|16.4|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|16.40|12.77|
84564760|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|10.59|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|10.59|8.61|
84564761|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.73|
84564762|NCT05464420|168880332|OTHER||GMC Ratio|7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|7.77|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.77|6.41|
84564763|NCT04346199|168880379|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.722||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.722|0.323|
84564764|NCT04346199|168880387|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||||95.0|0.69|1.353|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.353|0.690|
84564765|NCT00627926|168880390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|30.0||||||||30.0|15.9|
84564766|NCT00627926|168880390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.1||||||||36.1|22.4|
84564767|NCT00627926|168880391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|62.8||||||||62.8|51.4|
84749958|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.9|-5.7|0.971
84564768|NCT00627926|168880391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|64.0||||||||64.0|52.7|
84564769|NCT00627926|168880392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|54.6||||||||54.6|43.0|
84564770|NCT00627926|168880392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|50.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|56.2||||||||56.2|44.6|
84564771|NCT00627926|168880393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|42.4||||||||42.4|29.0|
84564772|NCT00627926|168880393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|44.1||||||||44.1|30.9|
84564773|NCT00627926|168880394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.0||||||||24.0|11.2|
84564774|NCT00627926|168880394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.2||||||||29.2|17.0|
84671027|NCT03240133|169076078|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.1||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|7.29|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 500mg berotralstat or placebo.||7.29|-11.49|0.6424
84671028|NCT03240133|169076078|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.57||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.03|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 250mg berotralstat or placebo.||6.03|-4.9|0.8283
84671029|NCT03240133|169076079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.196||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.559|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 750 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.196 that of a placebo attack.||0.559|0.069|0.0029
84749959|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-3.2|0.786
84749960|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.0|-5.2|0.184
84749961|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||5.7|-3.9|0.971
84749962|NCT00820027|169254510|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-5.8|0.113
84749963|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.0|-17.0|0.365
84749964|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-7.2||||0.222||95.0|-18.8|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-18.8|0.222
84749965|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.9|-17.2|0.349
84564775|NCT00627926|168880395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.4||||||||32.4|18.5|
84564776|NCT00627926|168880395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|37.9||||||||37.9|24.4|
84564777|NCT00627926|168880396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|32.2||||||||32.2|18.2|
84564778|NCT00627926|168880396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|38.5||||||||38.5|24.9|
84564779|NCT00627926|168880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|31.9||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||31.9|17.9|
84564780|NCT00627926|168880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|37.7||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||37.7|24.1|
84564781|NCT00627926|168880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.6||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||32.6|18.8|
84564782|NCT00627926|168880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.2||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||39.2|25.9|
84564783|NCT00099632|168880424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants between treatment durations (7-day vs. 21 day), pooled over ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV, FTC/TDF, and LPV/r), stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.37
84749966|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.2||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||9.0|-8.7|0.965
84749967|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.6||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||7.3|-10.5|0.718
84749968|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||17.2|-5.9|0.349
84749969|NCT00820027|169254511|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.6|-7.0|0.684
84749970|NCT00820027|169254512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.36|
84749971|NCT00820027|169254512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.42|
84607337|NCT02698371|168965925|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
84607338|NCT02698371|168965925|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
84607339|NCT02698371|168965925|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
84607340|NCT02698371|168965926|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.011||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.011
84607341|NCT02698371|168965926|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.034||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.034
84607342|NCT02698371|168965926|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.885||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.885
84749972|NCT00820027|169254513|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
84749973|NCT00820027|169254513|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.18|0.85|
84749974|NCT00820027|169254513|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
84749975|NCT02982187|169254518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.047||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||11.047|<0.001
84607343|NCT02698371|168965927|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
84607344|NCT02698371|168965927|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
84607345|NCT02698371|168965927|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.403||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.403
84607346|NCT02698371|168965928|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
84607347|NCT02698371|168965928|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
84607348|NCT02698371|168965928|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.04||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.040
84749976|NCT02982187|169254518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.512||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||10.512|<0.001
84749977|NCT02982187|169254519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.248||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.416||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.416|0.029
84495585|NCT01015118|168741760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.82|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours nintedanib.|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for, macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.82|0.81|0.3490
84497613|NCT00468312|168746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.026
84564784|NCT00099632|168880424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants among ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV vs. FTC/TDF vs. LPV/r), pooled over treatment durations 7-day and 21-day, stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.091
84564785|NCT00461097|168880492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.9||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of egg white solid was compared using Barnard's statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||43.9|4.3|0.025
84564786|NCT01554163|168880498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the betweentreatment difference in LS mean time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks in WOMAC Pain Subscale (VAS) is no greater than 10 mm (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.63||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.37|0.390
84564787|NCT01554163|168880499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.32||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|-4.88|0.464
84564788|NCT01554163|168880500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.30|-5.48|0.624
84564789|NCT01554163|168880501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.26|0.369
84564790|NCT01554163|168880502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.25|0.294
84564791|NCT01554163|168880503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-4.96|0.679
84564792|NCT01554163|168880504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.1||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.30|0.314
84564793|NCT02603211|168880529|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"We will obtain 20 tactile image data sets from the breast tumor patients. The tactile images will be converted to size and deformation index. Then these two parameters will be converted to the risk score. This is a small number of patients for statistically significance study. Therefore, we plan to use the Leave-One-Out-Cross-Validation (LOOCV) technique to validate the human test results to determine the performance of the device.~We obtain the Risk Score. Risk Score is a unit less numerical value, which can be used as a scale to classify the tumor as malignant and benign. Based on the calculated size of the tumor and measured deformation index, the breast tumors are classified as benign and malignant using scoring method. The risk score will range from 0 to 5, where 0 represents the benign and 5 represents the malignant tumor.~Comparing the Risk Score and the Pathology reports we obtain sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the system."|||
84749978|NCT02982187|169254519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.855||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.394||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.394|0.026
84497614|NCT00468312|168746241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
84564794|NCT00524771|168880530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves . These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; VTE incidence rate of 9.1 VTE/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COCs is higher or equal to 2. This analysis represents the a priori defined primary statistical analysis.||1.5|0.5|
84564795|NCT00524771|168880530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COC2 is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.4|
84495586|NCT01015118|168741761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.69|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference presented is the Adjusted mean difference. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo. High values represent a worse level of symptoms.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||6.69|3.88|<0.0001
84497615|NCT00468312|168746242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
84564796|NCT00524771|168880530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of less than 6 months.||2.2|0.3|
84564797|NCT00524771|168880530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of 6 - 12 months.||2.6|0.3|
84564798|NCT00524771|168880530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of \> 12 months.||2.3|0.3|
84564799|NCT00524771|168880531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||The hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, Smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.3|0.2|
84564800|NCT00524771|168880531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.6|0.2|
84607349|NCT02698371|168965929|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
84607350|NCT02698371|168965929|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
84607351|NCT02698371|168965929|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.211||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.211
84607352|NCT02698371|168965930|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.102||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.102
84607353|NCT02698371|168965930|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
84607354|NCT02698371|168965930|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.99||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.990
84607355|NCT02698371|168965931|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.157||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.157
84564801|NCT00377637|168880532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Covariates included Treatment, Race, Geographical Region, and WHO Lupus Nephritis Class V and specified interaction terms.||||||0.478
84564802|NCT00377637|168880533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Testing at the alpha=0.05 level was applied with no adjustments made for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||The difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups (MMF-AZA) was assessed using a log-rank test, which is a non-parametric test to compare the survival distributions of two groups commonly used to analyze time-to-event endpoints.||||0.003
84564803|NCT02915159|168880564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.4421
84564804|NCT02915159|168880565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3367|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.3367
84564805|NCT02915159|168880566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5841|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||.5841
84564806|NCT04534517|168880605|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points|Mean Estimate|58.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|64.9|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included Hyperope group only|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||64.9|52.3|
84564807|NCT04534517|168880605|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for Myopes|Mean Estimate|63.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|69.6|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included myope group only.|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||69.6|57.9|
84564808|NCT04534517|168880606|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.10 logMAR for Distance|Mean estimate|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|-0.057|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.125|
84564809|NCT04534517|168880606|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate|Mean Estimate|-0.057|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|-0.024|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.024|-0.091|
84564810|NCT04534517|168880606|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near|Mean Estimate|0.066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.098|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.098|0.031|
84497616|NCT00468312|168746243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.269
84564811|NCT04534517|168880607|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 5%.|Mean Proportion|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.004|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.004|0.000|
84564812|NCT04534517|168880608|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Proportion|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.018|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.018|0.000|
84564813|NCT04534517|168880609|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Proportion|0.992|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.999|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.999|0.973|
84564814|NCT02121795|168880610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95.002% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage difference|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by third agent.|Difference in percentages of virologic success between treatment groups and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by the third agent stratum.|||5.1|-2.5|0.5
84564815|NCT00823264|168880620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84564816|NCT02372344|168880674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.77|0.54|
84564817|NCT02372344|168880674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.86|0.59|
84564818|NCT02372344|168880675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.47||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.47|0.27|
84564819|NCT02372344|168880675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.59||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.59|0.33|
84564820|NCT02372344|168880675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.57|0.36|
84497617|NCT02723786|168746296|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of participants with DGF was 0.57, highest Posterior Density (HPD) 95% Credible interval (CI) (0.25,0.90). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<30% was 0.07 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<50% was 0.34 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]).|||
84671030|NCT03240133|169076079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.472||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.988|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 500 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.472 that of a placebo attack.||2.988|0.074|0.4048
84671031|NCT03240133|169076079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.587||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.733|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 250 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.587 that of a placebo attack.||4.733|0.073|0.5984
84749979|NCT02982187|169254520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.459|0.400
84749980|NCT02982187|169254520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
84749981|NCT02982187|169254521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.268||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||9.268|<0.001
84749982|NCT02982187|169254521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.239||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||7.239|<0.001
84749983|NCT02982187|169254522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.237||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.124|0.067
84749984|NCT02982187|169254522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.357||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.219||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||2.219|0.003
84749985|NCT02982187|169254523|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||stratified exact logistic model|||Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|These statistics were only presented when the model successfully converged. A stratified exact logistic model was used with participant included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|||
84671032|NCT00116831|169076085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma volume|-4.58||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671033|NCT00116831|169076086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen volume|0.32||||||95.0||||||||||||
84564821|NCT02372344|168880675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.71|0.45|
84564822|NCT02372344|168880676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.45|
84564823|NCT02372344|168880676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.55||||||95.0|0.44|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before Meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.44|
84564824|NCT02372344|168880676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.04|0.73|
84564825|NCT02372344|168880676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.02|0.72|
84564826|NCT00872521|168880677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.09
84564827|NCT00872521|168880678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
84607356|NCT02698371|168965931|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
84749986|NCT02982187|169254523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
84564828|NCT00872521|168880679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
84564829|NCT00872521|168880680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.56
84564830|NCT00872521|168880681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.01
84564831|NCT00872521|168880682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.28
84564832|NCT00875563|168880743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exact test method (Sidik K. 2003, Statistics in Medicine 22: 265-278) for matched controls was used, at a type I error rate of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. 38 pairs of patients were determined necessary, and the power was calculated to be 0.92.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact test for matched pairs|||Patients treated with the Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft were compared with matched patients treated with the Zenith® AAA Endovascular Graft.||||0.02
84607357|NCT02698371|168965931|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.334||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.334
84607358|NCT02698371|168965932|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.132||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.132
84749987|NCT02982187|169254524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
84607359|NCT02698371|168965932|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.257||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.257
84749988|NCT02982187|169254524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
84749989|NCT02982187|169254528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84749990|NCT02982187|169254528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84749991|NCT02982187|169254529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84564833|NCT02427841|168880746|SUPERIORITY|Tested against the standard R0 rate of 37%. Given all evaluable patients are included in the denominator, R0 of 56% was not achieved. Specifically, of the 19 evaluable patients, 11 proceeded to surgery. Of the 11 who underwent surgery, 8 \[42% of those enrolled, but 72.7% of those resected\] achieved R0 resection.|binomial|42.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|67.0||Study was underpowered.|2-sided exact binomial||Test for superiority over standard R0 resection rate of 37%. Study was closed due to slow enrollment, meaning the primary endpoint was underpowered with only 19 of an expected 44 patients enrolled.|Study closed early due to lack of enrollment. Study expected to enrolled 44 evaluable patients to achieve 83% power using the 2-sided binomial test at 10% significance. Study enrolled only 19 evaluable patients, meaning the study was underpowered at \< 62%||67|20|.404
84564834|NCT00313846|168880760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate mean|||||||.0026
84564835|NCT03428100|168880768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.071
84564836|NCT03428100|168880768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.07|0.031
84564837|NCT03428100|168880769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.65|0.427
84564838|NCT03428100|168880770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|0.55|0.513
84564839|NCT03428100|168880770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|0.73|0.242
84564840|NCT03428100|168880770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.90|1.09|0.030
84564841|NCT03428100|168880771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.45|0.611
84564842|NCT03428100|168880771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.99|0.63|0.325
84564843|NCT03428100|168880771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.14|0.85|0.100
84564844|NCT03428100|168880772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|-6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.58|-28.71|0.002
84749992|NCT02982187|169254529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84564845|NCT03428100|168880772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-22.83|0.006
84564846|NCT03428100|168880772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.554||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.54|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.70|-31.54|0.0002
84564847|NCT03428100|168880773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|24.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.29|0.71|0.115
84564848|NCT03428100|168880773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.88|1.11|0.037
84564849|NCT03428100|168880773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|28.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.08|0.81|0.083
84564850|NCT03428100|168880774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.29|0.012
84564851|NCT03428100|168880774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.66|1.59|0.002
84607360|NCT02698371|168965932|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
84749993|NCT02604433|169254530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.53||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||14.53|2.17|<0.0001
84564852|NCT03428100|168880774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|16.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.82|2.79|0.00002
84564853|NCT03428100|168880775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.82|0.039
84564854|NCT03428100|168880775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.23
84564855|NCT03428100|168880775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.18|0.0001
84564856|NCT03428100|168880776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-1.47|0.0714
84564857|NCT03428100|168880776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.50|0.0134
84564858|NCT03428100|168880776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.21|0.0002
84564859|NCT03428100|168880777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.78|0.183
84564860|NCT03428100|168880777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.76|0.235
84564861|NCT03428100|168880777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.43|0.991
84564862|NCT03428100|168880778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.77|0.263
84749994|NCT02604433|169254530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|10.0|
84749995|NCT02604433|169254530|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference|16.5||||||95.0|9.9|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|9.9|
84671034|NCT00116831|169076087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel volume|-3.56||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671035|NCT00116831|169076089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma area|-0.13||||||95.0||||||||||||
84749996|NCT02604433|169254531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|18.26||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the CMH test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate for outcomes 2-4, the testing procedure was implemented strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing that erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group from Week 13 to Week 24 (primary endpoint).||18.26|2.27|<0.0001
84749997|NCT02604433|169254532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|18.79||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and 33% hematological improvement was achieved in the luspatercept group in outcome 2.||18.79|0.96|0.0402
84752774|NCT00006392|169260681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.05||99.0|0.64|1.55||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.55|.64|> .05
84495587|NCT01015118|168741762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.41|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference calculated is the Adjusted mean. High values represent a better level of functioning. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||-0.41|-3.35|0.0124
84495588|NCT04365387|168741763|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|14.5|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).|||14.5|-10.3|
84564863|NCT03428100|168880778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.13|0.016
84564864|NCT03428100|168880778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.52|1.06|0.031
84564865|NCT03428100|168880779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.98|0.058
84564866|NCT03428100|168880779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.072
84564867|NCT03428100|168880779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.18|0.76|0.224
84564868|NCT03428100|168880780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|86.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||86.08|0.29|0.265
84564869|NCT03428100|168880780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|43.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.09|0.15|0.520
84564870|NCT03428100|168880780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|0.45|0.164
84564871|NCT03428100|168880781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.948||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-11.88|0.040
84564872|NCT03428100|168880781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.533||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|-1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-11.54|0.010
84564873|NCT03428100|168880781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-15.51|<0.001
84564874|NCT03428100|168880782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|73.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.93|0.31|0.265
84564875|NCT03428100|168880782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|38.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.40|0.16|0.511
84564876|NCT03428100|168880782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||77.11|0.32|0.253
84564877|NCT03428100|168880783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.078||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-12.26|0.044
84564878|NCT03428100|168880783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.632||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-10.67|0.037
84564879|NCT03428100|168880783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-14.37|0.006
84564880|NCT03428100|168880784|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
84564881|NCT03428100|168880784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
84564882|NCT03428100|168880784|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
84564883|NCT03428100|168880785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.45|||ANCOVA|||||17.45|-0.22|0.056
84564884|NCT03428100|168880785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|13.19|||ANCOVA|||||13.19|-2.24|0.164
84564885|NCT03428100|168880785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|16.15|||ANCOVA|||||16.15|-1.66|0.110
84607361|NCT02138240|168965936|OTHER|Pre-post comparison|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
84671036|NCT00116831|169076090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen area|0.02||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671037|NCT00116831|169076091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel area|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671038|NCT00116831|169076094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.64||||0.1221||95.0|-1.457|0.173|||ANCOVA|||||0.173|-1.457|0.1221
84671039|NCT00116831|169076095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-5.12||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671040|NCT00116831|169076097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-1.72||||||95.0||||||||||||
84607362|NCT02138240|168965939|OTHER|Pre-post comparison of baseline median weight to median weight at 6-month follow up||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||0.21
84671041|NCT00116831|169076099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
84749998|NCT02604433|169254533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|86.29||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and achievement of objective in the luspatercept group in outcomes 2+3.||86.29|1.65|0.0017
84607363|NCT01122108|168965940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||If a sequence was not found to be statistically significant, then that term was removed from final model. Normality of residuals was investigated for each outcome variable using the Shapiro-Wilk test.|repeated measures analysis of variance|Sensitivity analyses were run to evaluate possible product by sequence interactions||"The BASA scale was previously developed to effectively compare differing Bile acid sequestrant forumulations. The BASA scale should differentiate subject acceptability of Colesevelam HCl 3.75 vs Cholestyramine 12g based upon the sum of ratings for taste, texture, appearance and mixability.~If normality hypothesis was rejected, then further inspection of the distribution utilizing normal quantile-quantile and kernel density plots was employed."||||<0.05
84607364|NCT03495102|168965945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
84749999|NCT02604433|169254534|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.93||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline transfusion burden as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LSM = least squares mean||-0.93|-1.76|<0.0001
84750000|NCT02604433|169254535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.51||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA||luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 P-value ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline LIC as covariates. LS = least square||1.51|-1.10|0.7598
84607365|NCT03495102|168965945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
84607366|NCT03495102|168965946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
84607367|NCT03495102|168965946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-2.1|<0.001
84607368|NCT03495102|168965947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|1.12|0.006
84607369|NCT03495102|168965947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.65|<0.001
84671042|NCT00116831|169076100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
84750001|NCT02604433|169254536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-68.0||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|49.7||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferasirox: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||49.7|-185.8|0.2552
84607370|NCT03495102|168965948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-7.8|0.084
84607371|NCT03495102|168965948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.3|<0.001
84607372|NCT02408523|168966028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.774||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.774|0.377|<0.001
84607373|NCT02408523|168966029|SUPERIORITY||KM seizure free of LCM vs Placebo|14.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.1||Superiority of LCM vs Placebo p-value was based on a chi-square test on 1 degree of freedom.|Mantel Haenszel||Stratified difference in proportion of subjects who are seizure-free from PGTCS on Lacosamide (FAS) vs Placebo (FAS).|The key secondary efficacy variable was evaluated using an extended Mantel-Haenszel testing procedure. Baseline PGTCS Frequency from Combined Baseline and development (age from interactive response technology (IRT)) were calculated from IRT.||25.1|3.2|=0.011
84607374|NCT02408523|168966030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.921||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.921|0.507|=0.012
84607375|NCT03344172|168966033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.71|||Fisher Exact|||||6.71|0.30|0.63
84671043|NCT00116831|169076101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.88||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671044|NCT00116831|169076102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-47.23||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671045|NCT00116831|169076103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-16.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671046|NCT00116831|169076105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to GLP as % difference from GLP|30.591||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671047|NCT00116831|169076106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.642||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671048|NCT00116831|169076107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.316||||||95.0||||||||||||
84564886|NCT03428100|168880786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|21.88|||ANOVA|||||21.88|-118.00|0.178
84564887|NCT03428100|168880786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.9||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.56|3.77|||ANOVA|||||3.77|-117.56|0.066
84564888|NCT03428100|168880786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.57||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.24|-1.6|||ANOVA|||||-1.60|-141.24|0.045
84564889|NCT03428100|168880787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-24.33|0.088
84564890|NCT03428100|168880787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.725||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.16|-26.67|0.007
84564891|NCT03428100|168880787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.583||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.82|-32.71|0.003
84564892|NCT03428100|168880788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.263||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-28.28|0.055
84564893|NCT03428100|168880788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.297||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-27.15|0.020
84607376|NCT03344172|168966034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.00|0.13
84564894|NCT03428100|168880788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.216||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.01|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-32.01|0.014
84564895|NCT03428100|168880789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.47|0.095
84564896|NCT03428100|168880789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-5.16|0.004
84564897|NCT03428100|168880789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.70|-7.48|<0.001
84564898|NCT03428100|168880790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.53|0.097
84750002|NCT02604433|169254536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-76.4||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-612.9|460.1||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferiprone: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||460.1|-612.9|0.7746
84564899|NCT03428100|168880790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.52|0.033
84564900|NCT03428100|168880790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.86|<0.001
84564901|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.45|-1.58|0.272
84671049|NCT00116831|169076108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|15.731||||||95.0||||||||||||
84750003|NCT02604433|169254536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-147.3||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-673.1|378.5||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferoxamine Mesilate / Deferoxamine: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||378.5|-673.1|0.5186
84564902|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||-0.24|-1.99|0.013
84564903|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.16|-1.85|0.099
84564904|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.74|-1.30|0.584
84564905|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.25|-1.51|0.162
84564906|NCT03428100|168880791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||-0.15|-2.18|0.024
84564907|NCT03428100|168880792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.23|0.228
84564908|NCT03428100|168880792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.876||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.35|0.065
84564909|NCT03428100|168880792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.02|-4.99|0.003
84564910|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline (CFB) Absenteeism||5.67|-7.50|0.784
84564911|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||7.34|-3.75|0.525
84564912|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||6.53|-6.11|0.947
84607377|NCT00300677|168966041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
84495589|NCT04365387|168741764|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|5.7|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.7|-14.9|
84495590|NCT04365387|168741766|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.9|-3.2|
84495591|NCT04365387|168741767|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|26.4|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH for non-Imputed values|||26.4|0.1|
84564913|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||11.74|-5.62|0.488
84564914|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||7.62|-7.02|0.936
84750004|NCT02604433|169254537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-342.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-498.3|-186.87||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline serum ferritin as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||-186.87|-498.30|<0.0001
84495592|NCT04365387|168741768|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||11.9|-9.3|
84564915|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||8.45|-8.35|0.991
84750005|NCT02604433|169254538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Total Hip Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.01|0.9201
84564916|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||10.88|-8.57|0.816
84564917|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.38|-8.08|0.971
84564918|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.804||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.56|-10.36|0.852
84750006|NCT02604433|169254538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.02|0.4620
84750007|NCT02604433|169254539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.04||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline myocardial T2\* as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least square||0.04|-4.48|0.0543
84750008|NCT02604433|169254540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Health Domain Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.666
84750009|NCT02604433|169254540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.384
84750010|NCT02604433|169254541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.918
84750011|NCT02604433|169254541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.857
84750012|NCT02604433|169254541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||PCS - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.839
84750013|NCT02604433|169254544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|32.9||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||32.9|1.8|0.0015
84750014|NCT02604433|169254547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.63|-10.91||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 33% Transfusion Burden Reduction||-10.91|-123.63|0.0195
84564919|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.877||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||5.63|-9.61|0.607
84495593|NCT00480077|168741769|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of the study, all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure, was analyzed on a time-to-first-event basis with the log-rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) associated with allocation to the access arm relative to control was estimated with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model containing the treatment group as a categorical factor.||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
84495594|NCT01215968|168741790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.83|2.62|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 10 over Day 3.||||2.62|1.83|
84495595|NCT01215968|168741790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.33|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 17 over Day 3.||||2.33|1.61|
84495596|NCT01215968|168741790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.29|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 24 over Day 3.||||2.29|1.59|
84564920|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||2.12|-10.92|0.186
84564921|NCT03428100|168880793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||0.06|-14.96|0.052
84564922|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|-0.01|0.131
84564923|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|0.01|0.017
84564924|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.11|0.02|0.003
84564925|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.11|-0.01|0.102
84564926|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.12|0.01|0.014
84564927|NCT03428100|168880794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.15|0.03|0.003
84564928|NCT03428100|168880795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.39|-2.41|0.221
84564929|NCT03428100|168880795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.807||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.65|-4.40|0.689
84564930|NCT03428100|168880795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|9.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-2.95|0.294
84564931|NCT03428100|168880796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.70|0.382
84564932|NCT03428100|168880796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.65|0.638
84495597|NCT01215968|168741790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.22|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 31 over Day 3.||||2.22|1.52|
84564933|NCT03428100|168880796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.83|0.169
84564934|NCT03428100|168880797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.674||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|11.66|||Regression, Linear|||||11.66|-26.38|0.447
84564935|NCT03428100|168880797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.454||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.74|||Regression, Linear|||||12.74|-20.50|0.646
84564936|NCT03428100|168880797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.14|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||||1.77|-36.14|0.075
84564937|NCT01096160|168880826|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|2.92|||Linear mixed effects model|||||2.92|-17.1|0.1194
84564938|NCT01096160|168880826|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-2.48|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-2.48|-23.7|0.0224
84564939|NCT01096160|168880826|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.91|||Linear mixed effects model|||||10.91|-10.3|0.4791
84564940|NCT01096160|168880826|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|1.01|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.01|-17.4|0.0705
84564941|NCT01096160|168880827|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|9.22|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.22|-1.51|0.1161
84564942|NCT01096160|168880827|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|12.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||12.97|1.60|0.0189
84564943|NCT01096160|168880827|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|5.95|||Linear mixed effects model|||||5.95|-5.42|0.4689
84564944|NCT01096160|168880827|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|9.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||9.01|-0.89|0.0869
84564945|NCT01096160|168880828|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.7|-4.09|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-4.09|-15.7|0.003
84564946|NCT01096160|168880828|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|-5.1|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.10|-17.3|0.002
84564947|NCT01096160|168880828|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|0.95|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||0.95|-11.3|0.080
84564948|NCT01096160|168880828|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in AIx (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|-1.46|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||-1.46|-12.1|0.019
84564949|NCT01096160|168880829|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.05|||Linear mixed effects model|||||3.05|0.53|0.318
84564950|NCT01096160|168880829|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.17|||Linear mixed effects model|||||4.17|0.66|0.17
84564951|NCT01096160|168880829|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.02|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||1.02|0.16|0.054
84671050|NCT00116831|169076109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|3.998||||||95.0||||||||||||
84564952|NCT01096160|168880829|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.73|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.73|0.35|0.297
84750015|NCT02604433|169254547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.24||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.87|201.34||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 50% Transfusion Burden Reduction||201.34|-144.87|0.7473
84495598|NCT01054443|168741819|OTHER||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test Statistic|0.173||||0.431|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The primary efficacy evaluation was to test if there was a linear relationship existing such that the higher the dose level, the larger the percentage of responders. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was employed by assigning the score 0, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 to placebo, lusutrombopag 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mg group, respectively, at the 0.025 level of significance (1-sided) to determine the test statistic for detecting a dose-response in the percentage of responders.||||0.431
84564953|NCT01556932|168880850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2541|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84564954|NCT01808261|168880853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809||0.713||95.0|-0.119|0.2||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 3/Day 90.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.2|-0.119|0.713
84564955|NCT01808261|168880854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0857||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.247||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 6/Day 180.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.247|-0.093|0.828
84564956|NCT01808261|168880856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.067|7.883||||||Statistical data for Day 30. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||7.883|-3.067|
84564957|NCT01808261|168880856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|8.735||||||Statistical data for Day 60. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||8.735|-2.704|
84564958|NCT01808261|168880856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.668|9.538||||||Statistical data for Day 90. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||9.538|-4.668|
84564959|NCT01808261|168880856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|11.037||||||Statistical data for Day 180. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||11.037|-3.15|
84564960|NCT04501952|168880883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
84564961|NCT04501952|168880885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.191||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.555|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.555|0.065|0.0024
84564962|NCT04501952|168880888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
84564963|NCT04501952|168880889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.43|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.430|0.023|0.0019
84564964|NCT04501952|168880890|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|Least squares Mean (LSM), standard error (SE) and 95% CI were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|||0.24|-0.10|0.4318
84564965|NCT04501952|168880891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.405||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|2.693|||Log Rank|p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with baseline stratification factor as strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||2.693|0.733|0.2987
84564966|NCT04501952|168880893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2163
84564967|NCT02080364|168880894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3386||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3386
84564968|NCT02080364|168880894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||p-value for compairons to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1992
84564969|NCT02080364|168880895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9394
84564970|NCT02080364|168880895|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||MMRM model does not converge. LS Mean and p-value are NA.|||
84608510|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.75|
84750016|NCT01128894|169254562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test testing whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - liraglutide) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.08|0.0846
84750017|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|88.8||||||||88.8|53.1|
84750018|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|62.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|65.9||||||||65.9|59.2|
84750019|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.8||||||||5.8|3.4|
84607378|NCT00300677|168966041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
84607379|NCT00300677|168966042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
84607380|NCT00300677|168966042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
84607381|NCT00300677|168966043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
84607382|NCT00300677|168966043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
84607383|NCT00300677|168966044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted mean|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plama (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
84608511|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.94|1.24|
84495599|NCT01054443|168741820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25544.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6202.8|44885.3|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||44885.3|6202.8|
84671051|NCT00116831|169076110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|11.728||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671052|NCT00116831|169076111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-6.768||||||95.0||||||||||||
84750020|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.6||||||||99.6|98.1|
84495600|NCT01054443|168741820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11801.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8809.3|32411.9|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||32411.9|-8809.3|
84750021|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750022|NCT00973362|169254581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.1|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Positive Result) / absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Negative Result) \] .|||13.1|1.8|
84750023|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|94.5||||||||94.5|62.4|
84750024|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|52.2||||||||52.2|45.2|
84495601|NCT01054443|168741820|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|756.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18794.3|20307.5|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||20307.5|-18794.3|
84564971|NCT05568797|168880921|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is less than or equal (\<=) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.13|1.53|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.53|1.13|
84607384|NCT00300677|168966044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted mean|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
84607385|NCT01300351|168966045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||With a sample size of 220 randomised patients and 150 progression events, if treatment effect is consistent between ethnicities/the study populations, there is an 89% chance the HR \<1.|Log Rank|||The results of this study would be considered to be consistent with that of the CONFIRM study if the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for the treatment comparison was \<1 (ie, it favoured fulvestrant 500 mg), without the requirement for the benefit of fulvestrant 500 mg to be statistically significant.||1.03|0.54|0.078
84607386|NCT01300351|168966046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.93|0.107
84607387|NCT01300351|168966047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|1.04|0.023
84607388|NCT00673881|168966063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0042
84607389|NCT00673881|168966064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison baseline to end-of-treatment||||0.0002
84607390|NCT00673881|168966065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||NS|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison from baseline to end-of-treatment||||NS
84607391|NCT00673881|168966073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84607392|NCT03968159|168966075|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.8|-2.5|0.2956
84750025|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.4||||||||4.4|2.9|
84607393|NCT00413010|168966088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||||95.0|-2.16|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, pooled center baseline, HAM-A total score,time,and treatment-by time|Since an interim analysis was conducted and the sample size was larger than the targeted 173 subjects per group, a critical t-value adjustment was 1.977, yielding an adjusted 95% CI shown above.|Null hypothesis: no difference between Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) BID and Placebo BID treatment groups. An initial sample size of 173 subjects per double-blind treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to detect an effect size (ie, difference in the true means between 2 treatment groups/standard deviation) of 0.36 for the HAM-A total score change from Baseline using a 2-sided nominal significance level of 4.9%.||-0.26|-2.16|
84607394|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||||95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||-0.4|-2.3|
84750026|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.8||||||||99.8|98.1|
84607395|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||||95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.1|-2.2|
84607396|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||||95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||-0.2|-2.7|
84671053|NCT00116831|169076112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-14.478||||||95.0||||||||||||
84750027|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750028|NCT00973362|169254582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Positive Result) / absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Negative Result) \] .|||16.7|1.4|
84750029|NCT00973362|169254583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity(%)|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|92.3||||||||92.3|78.4|
84750030|NCT00973362|169254583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificty|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|66.0||||||||66.0|59.6|
84750031|NCT00973362|169254583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|22.0||||||||22.0|18.1|
84750032|NCT00973362|169254583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|98.8||||||||98.8|96.5|
84750033|NCT00973362|169254583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750034|NCT00973362|169254584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.5|93.8||||||||93.8|80.5|
84564972|NCT05568797|168880921|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.91|1.18|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.18|0.91|
84564973|NCT05568797|168880921|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.9|1.06|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.06|0.90|
84564974|NCT05568797|168880921|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.95|1.13|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the Flu vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.13|0.95|
84564975|NCT05568797|168880922|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-A neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.87|1.12|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.12|0.87|
84564976|NCT05568797|168880923|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-B neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.03|1.3|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the CoAd Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.30|1.03|
84564977|NCT05568797|168880924|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|3.5|16.9||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||16.90|3.50|
84564978|NCT05568797|168880924|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.16|8.47||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||8.47|-5.16|
84564979|NCT05568797|168880924|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.92|5.46||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||5.46|-4.92|
84564980|NCT05568797|168880924|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.54|6.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||6.17|-4.54|
84564981|NCT02797678|168880935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.061
84564982|NCT02797678|168880938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.301
84564983|NCT03131687|168880939|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564984|NCT03131687|168880939|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564985|NCT03131687|168880939|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564986|NCT03131687|168880939|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564987|NCT03131687|168880940|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564988|NCT03131687|168880940|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564989|NCT03131687|168880940|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564990|NCT03131687|168880940|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
84564991|NCT03131687|168880941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
84564992|NCT03131687|168880941|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.2|<0.001
84607397|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.1|-2.6|
84497618|NCT03170271|168746317|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate of benralizumab was equal to the exacerbation rate of placebo.|Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Negative binomial|||Comparison of annual exacerbation rates for benralizumab vs placebo (rate ratio). Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the negative binomial model as covariates. The log of each patient's corresponding follow-up time was used as an offset variable in the model to adjust for patients having different follow-up times during which events occurred.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
84607398|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||||95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-2.1|
84607399|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||||95.0|-2.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.1|-2.5|
84564993|NCT03131687|168880941|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-2.5|<0.001
84564994|NCT03131687|168880941|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-2.9|<0.001
84607400|NCT00413010|168966089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||||95.0|-2.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.2|-2.9|
84671054|NCT00116831|169076113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.462||||||95.0||||||||||||
84564995|NCT03131687|168880942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84671055|NCT00116831|169076114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.0164||||||95.0||||||||||||
84671056|NCT00116831|169076115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.118||||||95.0||||||||||||
84564996|NCT03131687|168880942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.0|<0.001
84564997|NCT03131687|168880942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-2.3|<0.001
84564998|NCT03131687|168880942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.4|<0.001
84564999|NCT03131687|168880943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.7|0.655
84565000|NCT03131687|168880943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.001
84565001|NCT03131687|168880943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-10.5|<0.001
84565002|NCT03131687|168880943|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-13.3|<0.001
84565003|NCT03131687|168880944|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
84565004|NCT03131687|168880944|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
84565005|NCT03131687|168880944|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565006|NCT03131687|168880944|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565007|NCT03131687|168880945|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.193
84565008|NCT03131687|168880945|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.036
84565009|NCT03131687|168880945|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84565010|NCT03131687|168880945|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84565011|NCT03131687|168880946|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.030
84565012|NCT03131687|168880946|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84671057|NCT00116831|169076116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.14||||||95.0||||||||||||
84750035|NCT00973362|169254584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity(%)|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|59.3||||||||59.3|52.3|
84750036|NCT00973362|169254584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV(%)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|20.4||||||||20.4|17.0|
84750037|NCT00973362|169254584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV(%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|98.8||||||||98.8|96.2|
84495602|NCT02207413|168741930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (D-QIV\_LP/ D-QIV\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.11|0.85|
84565013|NCT03131687|168880946|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84671058|NCT00110812|169076144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|134.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|198.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||198|70|<.001
84671059|NCT00110812|169076144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|133.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|199.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||199|68|<.001
84750038|NCT00973362|169254584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence(%)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750039|NCT02168842|169254617|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.61|0.073
84750040|NCT02168842|169254618|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison the risk of need for dyskinesia in Isradipine group to the risk in a placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.01|||Log Rank|||||3.01|0.78|0.21
84750041|NCT02168842|169254619|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.56|0.35
84750042|NCT00150969|169254637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84750043|NCT00150969|169254644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84750044|NCT01054846|169254659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|2.696|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Differences between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||<0.01
84750045|NCT01054846|169254659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|1.351|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||>0.05
84750046|NCT02446886|169254665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previously published reproducibility of our MWF imaging (FAST-T2) has been established to be +/- 2.0 Our hypothesis for this study was the monthly ACTH would lead to greater remylination in acute MS lesions. However, to reach this goal, improvement must be beyond established reproducibility. Note: Since MWF is a fraction of myelin water to total water, it does not have a unit.||||0.04
84752775|NCT00006392|169260681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.72||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.72|0.73|> .01
84565014|NCT03131687|168880946|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565015|NCT03131687|168880947|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
84565016|NCT03131687|168880947|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565017|NCT03131687|168880947|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565018|NCT03131687|168880947|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84565019|NCT03131687|168880948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-39.4|0.010
84565020|NCT03131687|168880948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.5|-72.9|<0.001
84565021|NCT03131687|168880948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-76.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.3|-59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.2|-93.3|<0.001
84565022|NCT03131687|168880948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|-55.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-55.2|-90.9|<0.001
84565023|NCT03131687|168880949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.1|0.396
84565024|NCT03131687|168880949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.903
84565025|NCT03131687|168880949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.536
84565026|NCT03131687|168880949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.0|0.325
84565027|NCT03131687|168880950|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.4|0.565
84565028|NCT03131687|168880950|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
84565029|NCT03131687|168880950|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
84565030|NCT03131687|168880950|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84565031|NCT03131687|168880951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.7|0.164
84565032|NCT03131687|168880951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84565033|NCT03131687|168880951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.001
84565034|NCT03131687|168880951|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
84565035|NCT03131687|168880952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.919
84565036|NCT03131687|168880952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.194
84565037|NCT03131687|168880952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.145
84607401|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||||95.0|1.37|8.24||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at each week with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||8.24|1.37|
84565038|NCT03131687|168880952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.067
84565039|NCT03131687|168880953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.1|0.539
84607402|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||||95.0|0.9|2.87||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.87|0.90|
84607403|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||||95.0|1.76|5.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||5.66|1.76|
84607404|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|1.06|3.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||3.05|1.06|
84607405|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||||95.0|0.9|2.73||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.73|0.90|
84607406|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||||95.0|0.86|2.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.66|0.86|
84607407|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||||95.0|1.08|3.22||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||3.22|1.08|
84565040|NCT03131687|168880953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-6.1|0.001
84565041|NCT03131687|168880953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.7|-8.4|<0.001
84607408|NCT00413010|168966090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||||95.0|1.12|2.79||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (last observation carried forward, LOCF)||2.79|1.12|
84671060|NCT00110812|169076146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.54|.08|.01
84671061|NCT00110812|169076146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.6|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.60|.12|.003
84565042|NCT03131687|168880953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-11.3|<0.001
84565043|NCT00869128|168880971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||ANOVA, The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||||0.04
84565044|NCT03828214|168881012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||C2, C3, C4 were compared to C1 the comparison condition.||||0.973
84565045|NCT02716584|168881024|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of exercise sessions attended as a covariate.||||0.02
84565046|NCT02716584|168881025|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.06
84565047|NCT02716584|168881026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.13
84565048|NCT02716584|168881027|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.73
84565049|NCT02716584|168881027|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.73||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at baseline and a midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.33
84565050|NCT02716584|168881028|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.21||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.62
84565051|NCT02716584|168881028|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.77||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at a baseline and midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.23
84565052|NCT02716584|168881029|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.57
84565053|NCT02716584|168881030|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.12
84565054|NCT02716584|168881031|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.07
84607409|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||||95.0|0.94|8.8||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 1||8.80|0.94|
84671062|NCT00110812|169076147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.8||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with stratification by region and adjustment for baseline CD4||||||.009
84565055|NCT02716584|168881032|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.88
84565056|NCT02716584|168881033|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.86
84565057|NCT01868165|168881038|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.77|||||"Linear regression slope and 95% confidence intervals for the association between calcium channel blocker use and cognitive change was 0.58 (-0.60:1.77).~Multiple adjustments including; age, sex, education."|||1.77|-0.60|
84565058|NCT00103285|168881041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points.|Physical Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||16.63|1.61|
84565059|NCT00103285|168881041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Social Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.27|1.21|
84671063|NCT00110812|169076147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.2||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline CD4||||||.02
84671064|NCT00110812|169076150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.08||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|43.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 alone compared to patients not taking IL-2.|||43.6|0.59|.14
84671065|NCT00110812|169076150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|53.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 plus pericycle HAART compared to patients not receiving IL-2|||53.6|0.80|.08
84671066|NCT00110812|169076151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 without ART vs control group|||.99|.34|.048
84671067|NCT00110812|169076151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.62|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 with pericycle HAART compared to control|||.62|.17|<.001
84565060|NCT00103285|168881041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.34|1.03|
84565061|NCT00103285|168881042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.974|3.273|||Regression, Cox|||4981 eligible evaluable patients enrolled on AALL0331 had MRD evaluation at Day 29 of induction. MRD status defined as negative (\<0.1%) or positive (\>=0.1%). MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with EFS using Cox regression analysis.||3.273|1.974|
84565062|NCT00103285|168881044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.17|||Chi-squared|||MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with Early Marrow Status (M1 vs M2/M3) using Chi Square test.||0.17|0.101|
84565063|NCT00103285|168881045|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Parents of 159 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the BASC-2 Anxiety Scale at 1 month after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy. Of these 159 had data at 1 month after diagnosis and 96 at 3 months post therapy.||12.73|1.31|
84565064|NCT03654729|168881132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3842||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8172|2.3446|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||2.3446|0.8172|0.2266
84565065|NCT03654729|168881132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0951||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6356|1.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||1.8870|0.6356|0.7434
84565066|NCT01919164|168881157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.03|-0.01|
84565067|NCT01919164|168881157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.04|-0.01|
84565068|NCT01919164|168881157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.06|0.02|
84565069|NCT01919164|168881157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.07|0.03|
84565070|NCT03442725|168881172|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.297|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.805||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of Cmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||2.805|0.600|
84565071|NCT03442725|168881172|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|2.247||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.247|0.901|
84565072|NCT03442725|168881173|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||0.950|-1.000|0.7452
84565073|NCT03442725|168881173|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% CIs was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||1.000|-1.000|0.7039
84565074|NCT03442725|168881175|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.48||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-inf for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.480|0.914|
84565075|NCT03442725|168881176|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.498||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlast for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.498|0.915|
84565076|NCT03442725|168881180|OTHER||Arithmetic Mean Difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.068||||||ANOVA comparison of fu of LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||0.068|-0.030|
84565077|NCT03442725|168881181|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|3.443||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmaxu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.443|0.866|
84565078|NCT03442725|168881182|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|3.699||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-infu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.699|0.903|
84671068|NCT00110812|169076152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.64|0.03|.03
84671069|NCT00110812|169076152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.85|0.24|<.001
84565079|NCT03442725|168881183|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.726||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlastu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.726|0.904|
84565080|NCT03272347|168881201|OTHER|The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||18.3|-12.5|
84565081|NCT03272347|168881201|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||23.0|-3.8|
84565082|NCT03272347|168881201|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||16.3|-16.0|
84565083|NCT03272347|168881202|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.4|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.4|-12.2|
84565084|NCT03272347|168881202|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.6|-12.2|
84565085|NCT03272347|168881202|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|14.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||14.8|-27.1|
84565086|NCT03272347|168881203|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|20.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.5|-15.7|
84565087|NCT03272347|168881203|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|20.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.8|-15.0|
84565088|NCT03272347|168881203|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|10.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||10.1|-29.4|
84750047|NCT02446886|169254670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were implemented to assess the variables of interest (lesion MWF) among patients randomized to once versus the monthly ACTH treatment group. The modeling strategy accounts for multiple lesions per patient, repeated measurements (longitudinal analysis) and the following covariates were always considered: patient age, gender, disease duration, individual T2w lesion volume, time on disease modifying treatments (DMT) prior to enrollment, and DMT during the study.|Linear mixed-effects models were implemented|||0.077
84750048|NCT01294683|169254688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|0.936|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.936|-1.434|0.654
84750049|NCT01294683|169254688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.304||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|3.768|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.768|-0.427|0.090
84750050|NCT01294683|169254689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.779|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.779|-1.303|0.563
84495603|NCT02207413|168741930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.18|0.94|
84565089|NCT03272347|168881204|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||14.5|-13.4|
84565090|NCT03272347|168881204|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-16.4|
84565091|NCT03272347|168881204|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||18.1|-10.8|
84750051|NCT01294683|169254689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
84750052|NCT01294683|169254691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
84750053|NCT01294683|169254694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.617||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|2.023|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||2.023|-0.575|0.255
84565092|NCT03272347|168881205|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|6.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||6.6|-26.1|
84565093|NCT03272347|168881205|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|9.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||9.1|-21.5|
84565094|NCT03272347|168881205|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||8.8|-23.9|
84565095|NCT03272347|168881206|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|27.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||27.7|-23.4|
84565096|NCT03272347|168881206|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|22.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||22.1|-29.6|
84750054|NCT01294683|169254694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.395||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|2.966|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||2.966|-2.091|0.690
84750055|NCT01294683|169254695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.967|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.967|-0.967|>0.999
84565097|NCT03272347|168881206|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|25.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||25.2|-27.7|
84565098|NCT03272347|168881208|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|138.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||138.1|18.8|
84671070|NCT00110812|169076155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by region.|IL-2 group compared to control group|||5.45|0.38|.59
84750056|NCT01294683|169254696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.301|5.252|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Periods I/II||5.252|-7.301|
84565099|NCT03272347|168881208|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|133.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||133.1|-31.7|
84565100|NCT03272347|168881208|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|64.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.7|-63.0|
84565101|NCT03272347|168881209|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|75.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||75.3|-74.1|
84750057|NCT01294683|169254696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|9.338|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||9.338|-7.599|
84750058|NCT01294683|169254697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|3.45||||||Periods I/II||3.450|-4.280|
84495604|NCT02207413|168741930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.16|0.91|
84565102|NCT03272347|168881209|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|73.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||73.8|-70.7|
84565103|NCT03272347|168881209|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.6|4.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||4.0|-165.6|
84565104|NCT03272347|168881210|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|83.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||83.8|-134.8|
84565105|NCT03272347|168881210|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.1|-3.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-3.1|-212.1|
84565106|NCT03272347|168881210|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-132.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-21.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-21.9|-242.9|
84565107|NCT03272347|168881211|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|64.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.0|-195.3|
84750059|NCT01294683|169254697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.916|2.619|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||2.619|-3.916|
84497619|NCT03170271|168746318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-4.82|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SGRQ total score = Treatment + baseline SGRQ total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.||-4.82|-11.41|<0.0001
84565108|NCT03272347|168881211|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.7|66.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||66.8|-188.7|
84565109|NCT03272347|168881211|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|16.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||16.9|-231.2|
84565110|NCT03272347|168881213|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|29.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||29.6|-20.3|
84565111|NCT03272347|168881213|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||33.5|-15.4|
84565112|NCT03272347|168881213|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|20.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.7|-30.6|
84565113|NCT03272347|168881214|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-17.9|
84565114|NCT03272347|168881214|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.2|-17.9|
84565115|NCT03272347|168881214|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.6|-11.5|
84565116|NCT00511173|168881257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in warfarin dose (mg/wk) between pharmacist dosing and algorithm dosing. In order to gather all SNP groups, the power analysis resulted in \> 100 patients enrolled into each group.||||< 0.05
84565117|NCT03782987|168881326|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%) (T/ R)|649.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|541.29|779.29|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||779.29|541.29|
84671071|NCT00110812|169076156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.4||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Last measured CD4 is imputed if month 24 CD4 count is missing. Analysis is adjusted for baseline CD4.|IL-2 group minus control group CD4.|||||.05
84750060|NCT03552822|169254713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84750061|NCT03552822|169254714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
84750062|NCT03552822|169254715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84750063|NCT03552822|169254716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84750064|NCT03552822|169254717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
84750065|NCT03552822|169254718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
84750066|NCT03552822|169254719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84750067|NCT03552822|169254720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84750068|NCT03552822|169254721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
84565118|NCT03782987|168881327|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|166.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.42|187.64|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||187.64|148.42|
84565119|NCT03782987|168881328|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|931.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|785.19|1104.85|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||1104.85|785.19|
84565120|NCT00707057|168881340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the analgesic efficacy using the SPID 8-12 was compared between the 2 treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)model with each subject's outcome being his/her SPID 8-12 as the dependent variable in the ANCOVA model with terms for gender, treatment, and baseline pain score categories (stratified as ≤7 and \>7).||||<0.0001
84565121|NCT00707057|168881341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the durability of analgesic efficacy using the PID scores at 24, 36, and 48 hours.An individual subject was to achieve the 2-point reduction at all 3 terminal time points in order to be defined as responder.||||<0.0017
84565122|NCT00707057|168881342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
84565123|NCT00707057|168881343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
84565124|NCT00707057|168881344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84497620|NCT03170271|168746319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 = Treatment + baseline pre-BD FEV1 + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + gender + age + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||0.23|0.09|<0.0001
84607410|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||||95.0|0.72|3.06||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 2||3.06|0.72|
84750069|NCT00561951|169254734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.002||95.0|-0.56|-0.13||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.13|-0.56|0.002
84565125|NCT00707057|168881345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84565126|NCT00707057|168881345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Estimated Confidence Interval: 95%Method: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84565127|NCT00707057|168881346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|With terms for treatment, gender, and baseline pain score categories stratified as ≤7 and \>7.||The PID at each time point prior to dose 2 was derived by substracting the pain intensity from the base line pain intensity, so that a higher value was indicative of a greater improvement. Time weighted SPID for each specified interval was derived by first multiplying each PID score by the time from the previous time point, and adding them together for each scheduled time point within the time interval. Time weighted TOTPAR for ech specified interval was similarly derived.||||<0.0001
84565128|NCT00707057|168881347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84565129|NCT00707057|168881348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportions of subjects who rescued at or prior to hour 8, hour 10, and hour 12 were reported and 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding parameters were calculated.||||<0.0001
84607411|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||||95.0|1.09|3.97||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 3||3.97|1.09|
84565130|NCT00707057|168881349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The pain relief and PID scores at individual time points were summarized by descriptive statistics. The test and reference were compared at each individual time point at 24, 36 and 48 hours.||||<0.0001
84565131|NCT00707057|168881350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation for dose 1, either at the time of rescue or at dose 2 whichever came first were summarized by descriptive statistics based on non-missing data. The range went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS).||||<0.0001
84671072|NCT00110812|169076158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 groups vs. control|||.97|.52|.03
84750070|NCT00561951|169254734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.6|-0.17||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.17|-0.60|<0.001
84750071|NCT00561951|169254736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002||95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-0.91|0.002
84565132|NCT00707057|168881351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P- value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Global evaluation scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 2 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
84565133|NCT00707057|168881351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain scores categories.|ANCOVA|||"Maximum relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide maximum relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
84565134|NCT00707057|168881351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Overall relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide overall relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
84565135|NCT00707057|168881352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 3 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565136|NCT00707057|168881352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and basee pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565137|NCT00707057|168881352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565138|NCT00707057|168881353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 4 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565139|NCT00707057|168881353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565140|NCT00707057|168881353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
84565141|NCT01000974|168881392|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL.|difference in percentage|-8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-4.07|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||-4.07|-12.28|
84565142|NCT01000974|168881392|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBVIPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 0.15 μg/mL.|Difference in percentage|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.82|-1.98|
84750072|NCT00561951|169254736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.32|-1.01|<0.001
84750073|NCT00561951|169254738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.003||95.0|-1.07|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-1.07|0.003
84565143|NCT01000974|168881393|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to diphtheria (Anti-D).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.81|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-D antibody concentrations||1.81|-1.26|
84750074|NCT00561951|169254738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.002||95.0|-1.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.23|-1.09|0.002
84750075|NCT00561951|169254740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002||95.0|-0.63|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.14|-0.63|0.002
84750076|NCT00561951|169254740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.03||95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.03|-0.52|0.030
84750077|NCT00561951|169254742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.624||95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.11|-0.18|0.624
84495605|NCT02207413|168741930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.21|0.90|
84565144|NCT01000974|168881393|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to tetanus (Anti-T).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.8|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-T antibody concentrations||1.8|-1.26|
84607412|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|0.99|3.28||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 4||3.28|0.99|
84750078|NCT00561951|169254742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.129||95.0|-0.26|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.03|-0.26|0.129
84750079|NCT03824639|169254769|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84565145|NCT01000974|168881395|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid \[PT\].|GMC ratio|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.918|1.127|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PT||1.127|0.918|
84565146|NCT01000974|168881395|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to filamentous hemagglutinin \[FHA\].|GMC ratio|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.983|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-FHA||1.204|0.983|
84565147|NCT01000974|168881395|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertactin \[PRN\]|GMC ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.382|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PRN||1.382|1.03|
84607413|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.82|2.85||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 5||2.85|0.82|
84750080|NCT03824639|169254770|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750081|NCT03454828|169254773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
84750082|NCT06515483|169254774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.254||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.254|-0.095|0.323
84750083|NCT06515483|169254774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.084||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.084|-0.156|0.371
84750084|NCT06515483|169254774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.115||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in PLI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||0.031|-0.262|0.120
84565148|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.873|1.159|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 1 concentrations||1.159|0.873|
84565149|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.921|1.192|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 3 concentrations||1.192|0.921|
84565150|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.886|1.13|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 4 concentrations||1.13|0.886|
84565151|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.19|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 5 concentrations||1.19|0.874|
84565152|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.894|1.188|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6A concentrations||1.188|0.894|
84565153|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.871|1.32|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6B concentrations||1.32|0.871|
84565154|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.964|1.251|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 7F concentrations||1.251|0.964|
84495606|NCT02207413|168741931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.28|0.90|
84497621|NCT03170271|168746320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score = Treatment + baseline ACQ-6 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.0001
84565155|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 9V concentrations||1.204|0.89|
84565156|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.929|1.294|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 14 concentrations||1.294|0.929|
84607414|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||95.0|0.71|2.48||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 6||2.48|0.71|
84671073|NCT01714310|169076205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Group: F=.31, df=1/140|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.58
84565157|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.207|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 18C concentrations||1.207|0.9|
84565158|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.859|1.167|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19A concentrations||1.167|0.859|
84565159|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.855|1.098|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19F concentrations||1.098|0.855|
84565160|NCT01000974|168881396|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.862|1.232|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 23F concentrations||1.232|0.862|
84565161|NCT01000974|168881397|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group||Difference in seroresponse Anti-FHA||||<0.0001
84565162|NCT01000974|168881397|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PT||||<0.0001
84565163|NCT01000974|168881397|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PRN||||<0.0001
84565164|NCT01000974|168881398|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 1.|Difference in percentage|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.24|0.87|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 1 concentrations||0.87|-2.24|
84565165|NCT01000974|168881398|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 2.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|2.91|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 2 concentration||2.91|-1.45|
84565166|NCT01000974|168881398|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 3.|Difference in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|0.88|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 3 concentration||0.88|-2.2|
84495607|NCT02207413|168741931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.39|1.00|
84565167|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071225
84607415|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|0.85|2.83||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8||2.83|0.85|
84607416|NCT00413010|168966091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.92|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Foward (LOCF)||2.53|0.92|
84607417|NCT00413010|168966092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0137||||||P-value corresponds to the 2-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Kaplan Meier product limit estimate for calculating median time in days to onset sustained HAM-A Improvement.||||0.0137
84565168|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092027
84565169|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601716
84565170|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639911
84565171|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842476
84565172|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999941
84565173|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883479
84565174|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.782208
84565175|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607134
84565176|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.939549
84565177|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86475
84565178|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704759
84565179|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999989
84565180|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997568
84565181|NCT03365934|168881433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999518
84565182|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985332
84565183|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84565184|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870459
84565185|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004963
84565186|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071935
84565187|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988995
84565188|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545378
84607418|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||||95.0|0.96|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the CGI-I responders at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||2.47|0.96|
84495608|NCT02207413|168741931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.27|0.91|
84565189|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000649
84750085|NCT06515483|169254775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.204||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.204|-0.048|0.270
84565190|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014600
84607419|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||||95.0|1.01|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.47|1.01|
84607420|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||||95.0|1.09|2.82||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||2.82|1.09|
84750086|NCT06515483|169254775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.033||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.033|-0.203|0.071
84750087|NCT06515483|169254775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.077|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in MGI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.077|-0.249|<0.001
84565191|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854566
84565192|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004322
84565193|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0651
84565194|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.300536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300536
84565195|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.753883
84565196|NCT03365934|168881434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97621
84565197|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027774
84565198|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08431|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08431
84565199|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049247
84565200|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000126
84565201|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010829
84565202|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565203|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565204|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565205|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565206|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999533
84565207|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4205363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4205363
84565208|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9802252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9802252
84565209|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6845362
84565210|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9992002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9992002
84565211|NCT03365934|168881435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8562779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8562779
84565212|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0403539
84565213|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2953049
84565214|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.290551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290551
84565215|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.47e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000247
84565216|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0133001
84565217|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.67e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000167
84565218|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.12e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000212
84565219|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565220|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84750088|NCT06515483|169254776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|6.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||6.85|-6.23|0.902
84495609|NCT02207413|168741931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate||1.38|0.99|
84495610|NCT01361308|168741975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84565221|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99999995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99999995
84495611|NCT01361308|168741975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0090
84495612|NCT01361308|168741976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 4|Logit model|||||||0.001
84495613|NCT01361308|168741976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 12|Logit model|||||||0.055
84495614|NCT01361308|168741992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
84495615|NCT01361308|168741992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.1658
84495616|NCT00706901|168741996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
84495617|NCT00706901|168741996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
84495618|NCT00706901|168741997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
84750089|NCT06515483|169254776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|0.02||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.02|-16.46|0.006
84495619|NCT00706901|168741997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||.0002
84495620|NCT00706901|168741998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To examine differences between GMI and TCC on SECs, a two-component Weibull mixture model for effectively dealing with zero-heavy continuous data was conducted.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Weibull mixture model|||||||0.04
84495621|NCT00706901|168741998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A generalized linear mixed model with correlated errors to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the response within subjects was conducted.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84495622|NCT00706901|168741999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
84495623|NCT00706901|168741999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||<.0001
84495624|NCT00706901|168742000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<.0001
84495625|NCT00706901|168742000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
84495626|NCT00706901|168742001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||0.17
84495627|NCT00706901|168742001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.67
84565222|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0792013
84565223|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870163
84565224|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.103828
84565225|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.900265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900265
84565226|NCT03365934|168881436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.570015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.570015
84565227|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882449
84565228|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088558
84565229|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081846
84565230|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565231|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000303
84495628|NCT03433482|168742002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.57|0.94|
84495629|NCT03433482|168742002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5. Non-inferiority hypotheses testing will be conducted sequentially, starting from MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and subsequently with MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination.||1.42|0.87|
84495630|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.19|0.58|
84495631|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.24|0.72|
84495632|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.44|0.82|
84495633|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.64|0.79|
84495634|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.45|0.84|
84495635|NCT03433482|168742003|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.26|0.72|
84495636|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||6.40|-1.94|
84495637|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|4.72|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||4.72|-8.94|
84495638|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||5.80|-8.11|
84495639|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|4.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||4.74|-7.88|
84495640|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||4.07|-4.29|
84495641|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||9.30|-3.63|
84495642|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|10.88|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||10.88|-2.89|
84495643|NCT03433482|168742005|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.26|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||3.26|-8.91|
84495644|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.32|-2.69|
84495645|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|13.84|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||13.84|0.01|
84495646|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|9.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||9.58|-3.33|
84750090|NCT06515483|169254776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.53||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|-0.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in BOMP from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.75|-16.31|0.032
84750091|NCT00147823|169254804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Using baseline (6 wk) and two year post operative predicted effects data, and setting desirable power to detect our effects to 80%||The sample size provided at least 80% power at a 5% alpha level to detect a medium to large effect in patients receiving Vitoss alone compared to combination therapy consisting of Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate. Since a random coefficients model was used to analyze the data, the sample size calculation was estimated under this model assuming a 3% attrition rate between all measurement times.||||<0.01
84750092|NCT00147823|169254805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.01
84750093|NCT02072434|169254883|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.43||||||||1.43|0.12|
84750094|NCT02072434|169254884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.55||||||||3.55|0.64|
84495647|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||6.80|-4.86|
84495648|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||5.22|-2.24|
84565232|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001817
84750095|NCT02072434|169254885|OTHER||Difference between percentages|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||||||||0.15|-1.59|
84495649|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||5.46|-6.32|
84495650|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||4.18|-7.05|
84495651|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||6.90|-2.81|
84750096|NCT00402363|169254890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||||1.46|0.90|0.263
84750097|NCT00402363|169254891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Log Rank|||||2.92|0.92|0.089
84750098|NCT00402363|169254891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.98|0.081
84750099|NCT00402363|169254892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.91|0.213
84495652|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.33|-3.32|
84565233|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001825|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001825
84565234|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565235|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565236|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
84565237|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038836
84565238|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184508
84565239|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062829
84565240|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.253458
84565241|NCT03365934|168881437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987798
84565242|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516068
84565243|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358412
84565244|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834145
84565245|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000035
84750100|NCT00402363|169254892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Log Rank|||||2.69|0.83|0.171
84750101|NCT00402363|169254893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.98|0.082
84750102|NCT00402363|169254894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.89|0.331
84750103|NCT00402363|169254894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.79|0.297
84750104|NCT00402363|169254895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.168
84750105|NCT00402363|169254896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.90|0.270
84750106|NCT00402363|169254896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.73|0.486
84750107|NCT00402363|169254897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.167
84750108|NCT00402363|169254898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.81|0.565
84750109|NCT00402363|169254898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.15|0.89|0.103
84750110|NCT00402363|169254899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.92|0.185
84750111|NCT00402363|169254900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.461
84750112|NCT00402363|169254900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.79|0.206
84495653|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.35|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||7.35|-6.60|
84495654|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|5.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||5.23|-7.75|
84565246|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000843
84565247|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002997
84565248|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051717
84565249|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565250|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565251|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985602
84565252|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046422
84565253|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28061
84565254|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011015
84565255|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089156
84750113|NCT00402363|169254901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|0.92|0.188
84750114|NCT00402363|169254902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.08|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.08|-0.09|0.290
84495655|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|4.98|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||4.98|-6.69|
84565256|NCT03365934|168881438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963882
84565257|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00526
84565258|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84565259|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.914409
84565260|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013004
84565261|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028517|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028517
84565262|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001356
84565263|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||5.9e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000059
84565264|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565265|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565266|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.859272
84565267|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002821
84565268|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007492
84565269|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208803
84565270|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341884
84565271|NCT03365934|168881439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999531
84565272|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066788
84565273|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942653
84565274|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893545
84565275|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165225
84565276|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.140475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140475
84565277|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002026
84565278|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001916
84565279|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565280|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565281|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999957
84565282|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672573
84565283|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.630145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630145
84565284|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832757
84565285|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803277|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.803277
84565286|NCT03365934|168881440|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84565287|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.943522
84565288|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002376
84565289|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565290|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565291|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565292|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061015
84565293|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000211
84565294|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565295|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565296|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412626
84565297|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104388
84565298|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197791
84565299|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994413
84750115|NCT00402363|169254902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.063||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-0.08|0.479
84750116|NCT00402363|169254902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.039||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.49|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.06|0.218
84495656|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||2.96|-4.24|
84565300|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84565301|NCT03365934|168881441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999621
84565302|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193667
84565303|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526573
84565304|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898749
84565305|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.975044
84565306|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.760706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.760706
84565307|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985237
84495657|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|6.64|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||6.64|-3.99|
84565308|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837995
84565309|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592697
84565310|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912495
84565311|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99245
84565312|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925553
84495658|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||9.33|-1.11|
84565313|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999171
84565314|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999324
84565315|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999913
84565316|NCT03365934|168881442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990516
84565317|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92106
84565318|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.976812
84565319|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.233992
84565320|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007591
84565321|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038958
84565322|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99809
84565323|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773028
84565324|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135805
84565325|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.350556|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350556
84565326|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61046
84565327|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062163
84565328|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203418
84565329|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942304
84565330|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995238
84565331|NCT03365934|168881443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99858
84565332|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998949
84565333|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111084
84565334|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456846
84565335|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00062
84565336|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006871
84565337|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039407|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039407
84565338|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.245375
84565339|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
84565340|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001612
84565341|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988067
84565342|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.599171
84565343|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928722|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928722
84565344|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256079
84565345|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626498
84565346|NCT03365934|168881444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988693
84565347|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99916
84565348|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016246
84565349|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.289112
84565350|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.8e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000038
84565351|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014558
84565352|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03731
84565353|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465745
84565354|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000112
84565355|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034575
84565356|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889597
84750117|NCT00402363|169254903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.321||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.21|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.21|-0.18|0.218
84565357|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726932
84565358|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999998
84565359|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.130235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130235
84565360|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.910989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910989
84565361|NCT03365934|168881445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616933
84565362|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999952
84565363|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421347
84750118|NCT00402363|169254903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.216||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.14|-0.14|0.188
84565364|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598141
84565365|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000197
84565366|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000115
84565367|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511155
84565368|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693868
84565369|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000232
84565370|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000133
84565371|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999894
84565372|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078046
84565373|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054975|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054975
84565374|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050132
84565375|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034793
84565376|NCT03365934|168881446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
84565377|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997406
84565378|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354187
84565379|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883222
84565380|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000412
84565381|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000332
84565382|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626878
84565383|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984465
84565384|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001845
84565385|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001507
84565386|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.970029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.970029
84565387|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19886
84565388|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177549
84565389|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041698
84565390|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036131
84565391|NCT03365934|168881447|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84565392|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84565393|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.317315
84565394|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.829352
84565395|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010561
84565396|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001099
84565397|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175148
84565398|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.728796
84565399|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001992
84565400|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
84565401|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974567
84565402|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668933
84565403|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239446
84565404|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283848
84565405|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06829
84565406|NCT03365934|168881448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979516
84565407|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996522
84565408|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875832
84565409|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
84565410|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038527
84565411|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018334
84565412|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512209
84565413|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665529
84565414|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002257
84565415|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000728|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000728
84565416|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
84565417|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417914
84565418|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277469
84565419|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385419
84750119|NCT00402363|169254903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.181||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.10|0.097
84750120|NCT00402363|169254904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.242||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.17|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.17|-0.19|0.239
84671074|NCT01714310|169076205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.03, df=1/140||||||.85
84671075|NCT01714310|169076205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=1.28, df=1/140||||||.26
84565420|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257647
84671076|NCT01714310|169076206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Group: F=0.00, df=1/44|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.97
84671077|NCT01714310|169076206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=136.22, df=1/44||||||<.0002
84671078|NCT01714310|169076206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=64.90, df=1/44||||||<.0001
84565421|NCT03365934|168881449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999897
84565422|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.862516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862516
84565423|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00473
84565424|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085238
84565425|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565426|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565427|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168409
84565428|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652654
84671079|NCT01714310|169076207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=41.85, df=1/89, p\<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
84565429|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001436
84565430|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000235
84565431|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974842
84565432|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557877
84565433|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277244
84565434|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195527
84565435|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.070843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070843
84671080|NCT01714310|169076208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.65, df=1/92, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
84671081|NCT01714310|169076209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=40.35, df=1/89, p \< .0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
84671082|NCT01714310|169076210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.36, df=1/29, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
84671083|NCT01714310|169076211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Group: F=.60, df=1/157|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.44
84750121|NCT00402363|169254904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.249||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.31|-0.09|0.152
84565436|NCT03365934|168881450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997565
84565437|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016628
84565438|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217862
84565439|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812915
84565440|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999971
84565441|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275557
84565442|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870124
84565443|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.380144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.380144
84565444|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029518
84565445|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815476
84565446|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944307
84565447|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.313389
84565448|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999996
84565449|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894272
84565450|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969093
84565451|NCT03365934|168881451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383434
84565452|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.393119
84565453|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.890335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890335
84565454|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021978
84565455|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000983
84565456|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006615
84565457|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951883
84565458|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692455
84565459|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257254
84565460|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.530181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530181
84565461|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219274
84565462|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029675
84565463|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111454
84565464|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995849
84565465|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999994|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999994
84565466|NCT03365934|168881452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998744
84565467|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999858
84565468|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215132
84565469|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958812
84565470|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00622
84565471|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017733
84607421|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.77|2.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||2.05|0.77|
84495659|NCT03433482|168742006|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|5.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||5.13|-4.16|
84565472|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.330576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.330576
84565473|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990334
84565474|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013025
84565475|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034707
84565476|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771698
84565477|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.790117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790117
84565478|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923224
84565479|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112245
84565480|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216229
84671084|NCT01714310|169076211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=22.39, df=1/157||||||<.0001
84565481|NCT03365934|168881453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999663
84565482|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91874
84565483|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013582
84565484|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523284
84565485|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000315
84565486|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059485
84565487|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15037
84565488|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967277|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967277
84565489|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008729
84565490|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421603
84565491|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647267
84565492|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953645
84565493|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987387
84565494|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147361
84565495|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.930371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.930371
84565496|NCT03365934|168881454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6094
84565497|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99253
84565498|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795279
84565499|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855067
84565500|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003915
84565501|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000221
84565502|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97816
84565503|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98972
84565504|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01764
84565505|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001185
84565506|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
84565507|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.119961
84565508|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013468
84565509|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112192
84565510|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013135
84565511|NCT03365934|168881455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965966|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965966
84565512|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968005
84565513|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526293
84565514|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994384
84565515|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004967
84565516|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000948
84565517|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.936394
84565518|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999945
84565519|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050032
84565520|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01256
84565521|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886978
84565522|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391295
84565523|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163678
84565524|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047937
84565525|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013231
84565526|NCT03365934|168881456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996358
84565527|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995862
84565528|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223341
84565529|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834338
84565530|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.030267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030267
84565531|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00104
84565532|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377217
84565533|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965547
84565534|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052284
84565535|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001348
84565536|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927936
84565537|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946487
84565538|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.327918
84565539|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475038
84565540|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.060057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060057
84565541|NCT03365934|168881457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857177
84565542|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999997
84565543|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938793
84565544|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965993
84607422|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.72|2.11||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.11|0.72|
84607423|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.84|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.50|0.84|
84565545|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057803
84565546|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022816
84671085|NCT01714310|169076211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=4.40, df=1/157||||||.04
84565547|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945179
84565548|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972522
84565549|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033704
84565550|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010747
84565551|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
84565552|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385474
84565553|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213798
84565554|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388682
84565555|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22386
84565556|NCT03365934|168881458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999494
84565557|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891244
84565558|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022659
84565559|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693615
84565560|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000237
84565561|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000005
84565562|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352008
84565563|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998761
84565564|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017832
84565565|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000974
84565566|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638238
84565567|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777423
84565568|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249909
84565569|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068196
84565570|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005786
84565571|NCT03365934|168881459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954163
84565572|NCT03365934|168881461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1279|-1.8688|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-1.8688|-13.1279|0.009
84565573|NCT03365934|168881461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7083|0.5508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.5508|-10.7083|0.077
84565574|NCT03365934|168881461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0399|3.2192|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||3.2192|-8.0399|0.399
84565575|NCT03365934|168881461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9144|6.3446|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||6.3446|-4.9144|0.802
84495660|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|5.99|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||5.99|-3.37|
84565576|NCT03365934|168881462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3738|-5.3723|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-5.3723|-17.3738|<0.001
84607424|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||||95.0|0.61|1.84||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||1.84|0.61|
84607425|NCT00413010|168966093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.71|1.76||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (LOCF) Last Observation Carried Forward||1.76|0.71|
84607426|NCT00413010|168966094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||||95.0|1.07|2.3||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Cumulative Logit Model|Based on fitting a logistic regression model for ordinal response of CGI-S scores at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. The odds of having an increasingly better response for pregabalin relative to the odds of having an increasingly better response for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.30|1.07|
84607427|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||||95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||0.0|-1.5|
84607428|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.2|-1.5|
84671086|NCT01714310|169076212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Group: F=3.81, df=1/145|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|||No significant group\*time interactions. Group trend likely due to baseline differences.|||.05
84671087|NCT01714310|169076212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Tie: F=15.28, df=1/145||||||.0001
84671088|NCT01714310|169076212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=5.42, df=1/145||||||.02
84671089|NCT01714310|169076213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|Chi Square = .10, df=1, p=.76||||||.76
84671090|NCT01714310|169076214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Group: F=.78, df=1/220|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.38
84495661|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|14.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||14.13|0.25|
84565577|NCT03365934|168881462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6789|-6.6775|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-6.6775|-18.6789|<0.001
84565578|NCT03365934|168881462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9571|4.0444|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||4.0444|-7.9571|0.521
84607429|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||0.1|-1.6|
84607430|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.6|-2.1|
84607431|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-1.3|
84671091|NCT01714310|169076214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.42
84750122|NCT00402363|169254904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.11|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.08|0.094
84750123|NCT01942720|169254909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|-0.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman test|||Relationship of total PillCam SB Lewis score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.631
84495662|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|10.39|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||10.39|-2.57|
84565579|NCT03365934|168881462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3925|14.394|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||14.3940|2.3925|0.006
84750124|NCT01942720|169254909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|0.022||||0.882|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of total PillCam SB CECDEIS score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.882
84750125|NCT01942720|169254910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.735|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI Lewis scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
84750126|NCT01942720|169254910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI CECDEIS scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
84495663|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.44|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||7.44|-4.44|
84565580|NCT03365934|168881463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3967|-22.2538|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-22.2538|-41.3967|<0.001
84565581|NCT03365934|168881463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8727|-17.7298|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-17.7298|-36.8727|<0.001
84565582|NCT03365934|168881463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2784|-4.1355|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-4.1355|-23.2784|0.005
84565583|NCT03365934|168881463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4969|19.6398|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||19.6398|0.4969|0.039
84565584|NCT03365934|168881464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0324|-29.7496|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-29.7496|-51.0324|<0.001
84750127|NCT01942720|169254911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.493||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB Lewis score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.002
84495664|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||5.46|-1.94|
84565585|NCT03365934|168881464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4787|-27.1959|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-27.1959|-48.4787|<0.001
84565586|NCT03365934|168881464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6336|-10.3508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-10.3508|-31.6336|<0.001
84565587|NCT03365934|168881464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8871|19.3957|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||19.3957|-1.8871|0.106
84565588|NCT03365934|168881465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3249|-22.4838|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-22.4838|-43.3249|<0.001
84565589|NCT03365934|168881465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7279|-16.8868|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-16.8868|-37.7279|<0.001
84565590|NCT03365934|168881465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1785|-8.3374|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-8.3374|-29.1785|<0.001
84750128|NCT01942720|169254911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.531|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB CECDEIS score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
84750129|NCT01942720|169254912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB Lewis score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
84750130|NCT01942720|169254912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB CECDEIS score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
84750131|NCT03952806|169254926|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-0.60|0.4656
84750132|NCT01498289|169255020|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.41|0.83
84495665|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||4.70|-6.66|
84565591|NCT03365934|168881465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6303|17.2107|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||17.2107|-3.6303|0.200
84750133|NCT01498289|169255021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.50|0.02
84750134|NCT01498289|169255022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.61|0.20
84750135|NCT01498289|169255023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84750136|NCT01498289|169255024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q1 ERCC1||1.40|0.44|0.41
84565592|NCT03365934|168881466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5325|-22.265|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-22.2650|-39.5325|<0.001
84565593|NCT03365934|168881466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9669|-16.6993|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-16.6993|-33.9669|<0.001
84565594|NCT03365934|168881466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2588|-11.9912|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-11.9912|-29.2588|<0.001
84565595|NCT03365934|168881466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.362|12.9055|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||12.9055|-4.3620|0.330
84565596|NCT03365934|168881467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.368|-6.5419|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-6.5419|-21.3680|<0.001
84565597|NCT03365934|168881467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9563|-4.1302|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-4.1302|-18.9563|0.002
84607432|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||95.0|-1.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.0|-1.8|
84607433|NCT00413010|168966095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.1|-2.1|
84607434|NCT00443781|168966096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||McNemar|Exact test was used.||Mcnemar test was used to test the difference between paired PD (provocative discography) and F.A.D. (Functional Anesthetic Discography) proportions.||||0.002
84495666|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||4.18|-7.05|
84495667|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.80|-2.67|
84607435|NCT02690649|168966121|SUPERIORITY||estimated adherence rate for the interve|94.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|95.0|||Regression, Linear|||estimated adherence rate for the intervention group Generalized linear models were used to test the effect of the intervention on medication adherence. These generalized linear models used a Poisson distribution to estimate the rate of adherence with the log of total prescribed doses as an offset term in the linear predictor.||95|92|0.28
84495668|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||6.83|-3.32|
84495669|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.71|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||10.71|-3.00|
84565598|NCT03365934|168881467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4867|-2.6606|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-2.6606|-17.4867|0.008
84565599|NCT03365934|168881467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5447|14.2814|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||14.2814|-0.5447|0.069
84565600|NCT03365934|168881468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1631|3.6504|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||3.6504|-9.1631|0.397
84565601|NCT03365934|168881468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6006|7.2129|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||7.2129|-5.6006|0.804
84565602|NCT03365934|168881468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7231|-2.9096|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-2.9096|-15.7231|0.005
84565603|NCT03365934|168881468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3452|6.4683|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||6.4683|-6.3452|0.985
84565604|NCT03365934|168881470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.0458|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0458|-0.1290|0.348
84565605|NCT03365934|168881470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1904|-0.0178|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-0.0178|-0.1904|0.019
84607436|NCT02690649|168966122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A negative binomial distribution because the outcome was a count variable and it was over-dispersed.|Regression, Linear|Age, previous patient portal logins, and gender were used as co-variates in the model.||||||<0.001
84750137|NCT01498289|169255024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q2 ERCC1||1.02|0.32|0.06
84750138|NCT01498289|169255024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q3 ERCC1||1.58|0.49|0.66
84750139|NCT01498289|169255024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q4 ERCC1||1.31|0.42|0.30
84750140|NCT01794923|169255026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||||0.200
84495670|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|5.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||5.77|-7.24|
84495671|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.75|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||4.75|-6.99|
84565606|NCT03365934|168881470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1437|0.0278|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0278|-0.1437|0.183
84565607|NCT03365934|168881470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0725|0.1023|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.1023|-0.0725|0.736
84565608|NCT03365934|168881471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.0687|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0687|-0.1360|0.516
84565609|NCT03365934|168881471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|-0.0412|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-0.0412|-0.2459|0.006
84565610|NCT03365934|168881471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1235|0.0798|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0798|-0.1235|0.671
84565611|NCT03365934|168881471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0504|0.2578|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.2578|0.0504|0.004
84565612|NCT03365934|168881472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1896|0.0579|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0579|-0.1896|0.292
84565613|NCT03365934|168881472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2773|-0.0297|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-0.0297|-0.2773|0.016
84565614|NCT03365934|168881472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1622|0.0853|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0853|-0.1622|0.538
84565615|NCT03365934|168881472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.2515|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.2515|-0.0059|0.061
84750141|NCT01794923|169255026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|19.92|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||19.92|-4.81|0.230
84750142|NCT01794923|169255026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|7.99|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||7.99|-16.81|0.484
84565616|NCT03365934|168881473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3265|-0.0895|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.0895|-0.3265|0.001
84565617|NCT03365934|168881473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3614|-0.1243|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.1243|-0.3614|<0.001
84565618|NCT03365934|168881473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.0471|-0.1899|0.236
84565619|NCT03365934|168881473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0902|0.1492|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.1492|-0.0902|0.627
84565620|NCT03365934|168881474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3331|-0.1305|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1305|-0.3331|<0.001
84750143|NCT01794923|169255026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|25.25|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||25.25|-1.32|0.077
84750144|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.860
84671092|NCT01714310|169076214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.13
84671093|NCT01714310|169076215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Group: F=1.56, df=1/222|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.21
84671094|NCT01714310|169076215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=63.11, df=1/222||||||<.0001
84671095|NCT01714310|169076215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=12.86, df=1/222||||||.0004
84750145|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.38|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||32.38|-18.30|0.584
84750146|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|28.06|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.06|-22.77|0.838
84495672|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||2.96|-4.24|
84671096|NCT01714310|169076216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group: F=5.42, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.02
84671097|NCT01714310|169076216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.77, df=1/223||||||.18
84671098|NCT01714310|169076216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.47, df=1/223||||||.49
84671099|NCT01714310|169076217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Group: F=.02, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.90
84495673|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.16|-5.16|
84750147|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|31.61|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||31.61|-22.81|0.750
84750148|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.533
84750149|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.81|13.95|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||13.95|-41.81|0.326
84495674|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||9.33|-1.11|
84565621|NCT03365934|168881474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3091|-0.1092|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1092|-0.3091|<0.001
84565622|NCT03365934|168881474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2439|-0.0457|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.0457|-0.2439|0.005
84565623|NCT03365934|168881474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.2252|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||0.2252|0.0197|0.020
84565624|NCT03365934|168881475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4019|-0.2044|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.2044|-0.4019|<0.001
84565625|NCT03365934|168881475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3655|-0.1679|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1679|-0.3655|<0.001
84565626|NCT03365934|168881475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3338|-0.1377|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1377|-0.3338|<0.001
84565627|NCT03365934|168881475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0767|0.1231|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||0.1231|-0.0767|0.646
84565628|NCT03365934|168881476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0384|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0384|-0.2254|0.006
84565629|NCT03365934|168881476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|-0.0574|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0574|-0.2444|0.002
84565630|NCT03365934|168881476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2541|-0.0682|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0682|-0.2541|0.001
84750150|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|28.94|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.94|-26.98|0.945
84495675|NCT03433482|168742007|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.37|-3.88|
84495676|NCT01646268|168742013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-2.45|||ANCOVA||Value describes the difference value of the mean change from baseline between Rotigotine and Placebo groups. The Value for this outcome was -4.6.|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the change in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+II) between the active treatment and the placebo groups (i.e., the change from Baseline in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+III) is the same for both groups).||-2.45|-7.18|<0.0001
84495677|NCT00461591|168742023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.54|0.1068
84495678|NCT00461591|168742024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.59|0.0412
84495679|NCT00518531|168742033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.7||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|1.3|0.0259
84495680|NCT00518531|168742034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.3||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||41.3|20.6|<0.0001
84495681|NCT00518531|168742035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|2.2|0.0138
84495682|NCT00518531|168742036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||37.7|17.6|<0.0001
84495683|NCT00518531|168742037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||18.5|1.1|0.0291
84565631|NCT03365934|168881476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0891|0.0998|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||0.0998|-0.0891|0.911
84565632|NCT03365934|168881477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0818|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0818|0.937
84565633|NCT03365934|168881477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1663|-0.0108|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0108|-0.1663|0.026
84565634|NCT03365934|168881477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1562|-0.0017|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0017|-0.1562|0.045
84671100|NCT01714310|169076217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.60, df=1/223||||||.21
84671101|NCT01714310|169076217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.12, df=1/223||||||.73
84671102|NCT01714310|169076218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Group: F=2.05, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.15
84495684|NCT00518531|168742038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||36.7|18.1|<0.0001
84495685|NCT03681769|168742055|EQUIVALENCE|Non-equivalence determined by p\<.05.||||||0.83||||||No site X time interaction (F12,270 = 0.614, p = 0.830).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
84495686|NCT03681769|168742056|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.53
84495687|NCT04888377|168742057|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested by calculating the mean difference between treatment arms and its associated 90% confidence interval for the primary outcome. If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval was greater than -4, then LDA was assumed to be non-inferior to placebo. If non-inferiority were assumed, a one-sided t-test would test the benefit of LDA compared to placebo. All models controlled for site as the original randomization stratification factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||For each outcome, the adjusted mean difference between treatment groups and the associated 95% confidence interval based on an ANCOVA model is presented.|ANCOVA||Mean difference is Aspirin-Placebo.|Assuming a non-inferiority margin of 4 points in the BSID-III cognitive score as clinically significant, and a true effect of LDA of not more than a 1 point decrease, a total sample size of 620 was determined to provide 80% power for a one-sided test for non-inferiority with a type I error of 5%. To test this secondary hypothesis, the sample size also provided over 90% power, at a two-sided type I error of 5%, to detect a difference of 4 points between LDA and placebo based on a two-sided test.||0.6|-2.2|0.25
84495688|NCT00526162|168742076|OTHER||percentage|0.0|||<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.0||||Using a confidence interval of 97%, the exact binomial upper confidence bound was 9.5% which is lower than the 10% set for the primary safety objective. Therefore, the actual p-value has not been calculated further.|One proportion binomial exact||The confidence interval was calculated based on 35 patients who completed 1-month follow-up at interim analysis.|||||<0.03
84565635|NCT03365934|168881477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0799|0.956
84565636|NCT04194489|168881489|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
84565637|NCT04194489|168881490|OTHER|Effect size|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
84565638|NCT04194489|168881491|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
84565639|NCT04194489|168881492|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
84565640|NCT02485483|168881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.74||"Convergent Validity Criterion Correlation coefficient (ρ) \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 221||0.74|0.59|<0.001
84565641|NCT02485483|168881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||0.76|0.62|<0.001
84565642|NCT02485483|168881504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 203||0.66|0.48|0.057
84565643|NCT02485483|168881504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 200||0.80|0.67|<0.001
84565644|NCT02485483|168881505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.79||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 258||0.79|0.67|<0.001
84565645|NCT02485483|168881506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.77||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 214||0.77|0.64|<0.001
84671103|NCT01714310|169076218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.29, df=1/223||||||.59
84565646|NCT02485483|168881507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.59||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.49||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.49|-0.67|0.034
84565647|NCT02485483|168881507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.52||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 223||-0.52|-0.68|0.010
84565648|NCT02485483|168881507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.66|-0.78|<0.001
84565649|NCT02485483|168881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.54||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.43||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 202||-0.43|-0.63|0.219
84565650|NCT02485483|168881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.6||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 199||-0.60|-0.75|<0.001
84565651|NCT02485483|168881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.7||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 205||-0.70|-0.82|<0.001
84565652|NCT04611542|168881514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84565653|NCT04611542|168881515|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84565654|NCT04611542|168881516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||<0.001
84671104|NCT01714310|169076218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=2.15, df=1/223||||||.14
84565655|NCT02291029|168881517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.89||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.89|-3.70|0.397
84565656|NCT02291029|168881517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.96||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||-0.96|-9.46|0.009
84565657|NCT02291029|168881517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.45||two-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||7.45|-2.78|0.344
84565658|NCT02291029|168881518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.8|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.80|-2.97|0.205
84565659|NCT02291029|168881518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.5|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.50|-2.41|0.188
84565660|NCT02291029|168881518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.35|-2.08|0.663
84750151|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.85|15.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||15.03|-44.85|0.327
84750152|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.988
84565661|NCT02291029|168881519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|7.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||7.38|-37.90|0.161
84565662|NCT02291029|168881519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-2.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||-2.38|-21.94|0.017
84565663|NCT02291029|168881520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.45||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|17.3|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||17.30|-36.20|0.456
84565664|NCT02291029|168881520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.14||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|10.39|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||10.39|-26.67|0.376
84565665|NCT02291029|168881521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|2.91|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.91|-13.91|0.172
84607437|NCT02690649|168966123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.07||baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level were all used as co-variates.|Regression, Linear|generalized linear model tested whether AF knowledge at study completion was related to baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level||||-0.07|-1.14|0.03
84607438|NCT00530920|168966141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.997
84565666|NCT02291029|168881521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
84607439|NCT00530920|168966141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||1
84607440|NCT00530920|168966141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.998
84607441|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.26|0.53|0.3598
84607442|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.39|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.39|0.59|0.6544
84750153|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.31|41.81|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||41.81|-48.31|0.887
84750154|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.88|42.5|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||42.50|-47.88|0.907
84750155|NCT01794923|169255027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|47.83|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||47.83|-48.95|0.982
84750156|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.630
84565667|NCT02291029|168881522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|8.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||8.35|-8.49|0.986
84565668|NCT02291029|168881522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
84565669|NCT02291029|168881523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|13.15|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||13.15|-10.48|0.807
84565670|NCT02291029|168881523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|1.01|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.01|-20.66|0.074
84565671|NCT00522548|168881524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.29
84565672|NCT00522548|168881525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.39
84750157|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-0.39|0.342
84565673|NCT00522548|168881526|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.0
84565674|NCT00522548|168881527|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.00
84565675|NCT00522548|168881528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.14
84565676|NCT00522548|168881529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.34
84565677|NCT00522548|168881530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.51
84565678|NCT00522548|168881531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.95
84750158|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.34|0.600
84495689|NCT05279807|168742081|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.5|||Paired Samples T-Test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting diastolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 4 (Week 8, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-12.5|-14.5|< 0.001
84565679|NCT00522548|168881532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.57
84565680|NCT00522548|168881533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 4 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.45
84565681|NCT00522548|168881533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 24 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.58
84565682|NCT00522548|168881534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||This p value is for data at week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.012
84750159|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.34|0.691
84750160|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.091
84565683|NCT00522548|168881534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for data at week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic Group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.046
84565684|NCT00522548|168881535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value represents data for week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.27
84565685|NCT00522548|168881535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value represents data for week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.23
84565686|NCT04155463|168881536|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-18.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for all participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to 29.8.|Based on previous pesticide research, we calculated a sample size of 40 participants to provide a power of 0.80 at a 0.05 significance level in a two-sided test. We assumed a standard deviation of 0.5 µg/L.||||0.17
84565687|NCT04155463|168881536|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-24.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for far-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to -8.8.|||||0.06
84750161|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.16|-0.44|0.351
84495690|NCT01169259|168742082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.88|0.47
84565688|NCT04155463|168881536|OTHER||Median Percent Change|1.4||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for near-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -41.9 to 43.0.|||||0.83
84565689|NCT00113295|168881538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided||This analysis applies to the additional reduction from phase 2 randomization to phase 2 endpoint in HAM-A scores.|In phase 2, comprising randomized double-blind quetiapine augmentation, change scores were examined with two-tailed, two-sample t tests, utilizing scores at phase 2 randomization as baseline. All analyses were intention to treat (ITT) with the last visit carried forward (LVCF) for subjects that did not complete the study.||||<0.05
84565690|NCT06597084|168881548|OTHER||Percentiles of time to first US|92.0||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|95.0|||Log Rank|||||95|25|0.2081
84565691|NCT06597084|168881554|OTHER||Overall Survival|||||0.0542|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0542
84565692|NCT00913081|168881571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow. Because quercetin has not been used to inhibit flushing from niacin in humans, sample size could not be determined statistically. A sample size of 8 men and 8 women was expected to allow separate estimates of effect size, variability, and shape of distribution for men and women.||||0.5
84565693|NCT00913081|168881571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.8
84565694|NCT00913081|168881571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.5
84565695|NCT03569098|168881572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.7669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.19||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Dysport 300 U versus Placebo.||1.19|-0.55|0.7669
84565696|NCT03569098|168881572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|MMRM|||Dysport 500 U versus Placebo.||0.51|-1.24|0.2085
84565697|NCT00758498|168881586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.71|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||3.71|2.07|<0.0001
84565698|NCT00758498|168881586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|7.69|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||7.69|6.06|<0.0001
84565699|NCT00758498|168881587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.25|||ANOVA|||||0.25|-0.20|0.8341
84565700|NCT00758498|168881587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.50|0.0441
84565701|NCT00758498|168881588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84565702|NCT00758498|168881588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84565703|NCT00758498|168881589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons made use of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0012
84565704|NCT00758498|168881589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84565705|NCT00758498|168881590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84565706|NCT00758498|168881590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84565707|NCT00758498|168881591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0022
84565708|NCT00758498|168881591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons was based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0033
84565709|NCT00758498|168881597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84565710|NCT00758498|168881597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84565711|NCT00758498|168881598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84565712|NCT00758498|168881598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84495691|NCT01169259|168742082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.93|0.56
84495692|NCT01169259|168742083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.85|0.69
84495693|NCT01169259|168742083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.80|0.24
84495694|NCT01169259|168742084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.67|0.08
84495695|NCT01169259|168742084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.79|0.79
84495696|NCT01169259|168742085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.79|0.90
84495697|NCT01169259|168742085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.70|0.43
84495698|NCT01169259|168742086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.72|0.19
84495699|NCT01169259|168742086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.94|0.17
84495700|NCT01169259|168742087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.73|0.67
84495701|NCT01169259|168742087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.83|0.31
84495702|NCT01169259|168742088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.86|0.53
84495703|NCT01169259|168742088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.21
84495704|NCT01169259|168742089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.78|0.73
84495705|NCT01169259|168742089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.59|0.003
84495706|NCT01169259|168742090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.76|0.68
84565713|NCT00758498|168881599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84565714|NCT00758498|168881599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is from an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84565715|NCT00758498|168881601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8262
84565716|NCT00758498|168881601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0040
84565717|NCT00758498|168881602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9595
84565718|NCT00758498|168881602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|||||0.3539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3539
84565719|NCT00758498|168881603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1038
84565720|NCT00758498|168881603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8112
84495707|NCT01169259|168742090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.83|0.72
84495708|NCT01169259|168742091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.88|0.38
84495709|NCT01169259|168742091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.76|0.73
84495710|NCT01169259|168742092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.87|0.87
84495711|NCT01169259|168742092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.90|0.79
84495712|NCT01169259|168742093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.83|0.33
84495713|NCT01169259|168742093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|1.00|0.056
84495714|NCT01169259|168742094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.79|0.38
84495715|NCT01169259|168742094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.76|0.18
84495716|NCT01169259|168742095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.59|0.024
84495717|NCT01169259|168742095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.73|0.58
84495718|NCT01169259|168742096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.84|0.62
84495719|NCT01169259|168742096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.84|0.72
84495720|NCT01169259|168742097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.79|0.78
84495721|NCT01169259|168742097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.63|0.016
84495722|NCT01169259|168742098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.55|0.058
84495723|NCT01169259|168742098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.73|0.94
84495724|NCT01169259|168742099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.83|0.61
84495725|NCT01169259|168742099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.71|0.016
84495726|NCT01169259|168742100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.83|0.61
84495727|NCT01169259|168742100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.74|0.74
84495728|NCT01169259|168742101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.42|0.37
84495729|NCT01169259|168742101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||||2.39|0.72|0.37
84495730|NCT01169259|168742102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06|||Regression, Cox|||||3.06|0.84|0.15
84607443|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.58|0.64|0.9958
84495731|NCT01169259|168742102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.26|0.04
84565721|NCT01516736|168881612|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
84495732|NCT01169259|168742103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.95|||Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.83|0.27
84565722|NCT01516736|168881612|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
84565723|NCT02781818|168881627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84565724|NCT02781818|168881627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84565725|NCT02781818|168881628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
84565726|NCT02781818|168881628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84565727|NCT02781818|168881629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84565728|NCT02781818|168881629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
84607444|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.37|0.59|0.6276
84565729|NCT01877668|168881630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|30.21|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR)=non-response (NR)||||30.21|4.06|0.0102
84565730|NCT01877668|168881630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|40.26|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||40.26|14.22|<0.0001
84565731|NCT01877668|168881630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|31.66|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||31.66|5.45|0.0055
84565732|NCT01877668|168881631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06173||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|-0.0483|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0483|-0.2910|0.0062
84565733|NCT01877668|168881631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06184||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|-0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0980|-0.3411|0.0004
84565734|NCT01877668|168881631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06145||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3213|-0.0797|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0797|-0.3213|0.0012
84565735|NCT01065571|168881704|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric analysis of interval to relapse||||||0.046||||||result from log rank test|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was performed to compare the two groups. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in relapses between the two groups during the study.||||0.046
84671105|NCT01675882|169076289|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.81||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.11|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05. Thus, no conclusion can be made on the comparison of viaskin peanut 50 µg vs placebo.||3.11|1.05|0.0292
84495733|NCT01169259|168742103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.49|0.198
84495734|NCT01169259|168742104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.46|0.58
84495735|NCT01169259|168742104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.60|0.76
84565736|NCT01065571|168881705|SUPERIORITY|fecal calprotectin (micrograms/gm stool)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84565737|NCT01065571|168881706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||not adjusted for muliple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing baseline and value at end of participation||||0.02
84565738|NCT04878055|168881707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|3.514|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||3.514|0.752|0.216
84565739|NCT04878055|168881708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||||||0.377
84495736|NCT01169259|168742105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.56
84565740|NCT04878055|168881709|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Date 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.468||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|1.386|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||||1.386|0.158|0.17
84565741|NCT04878055|168881710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.277|0.247|0.168
84565742|NCT04878055|168881711|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. Estimates were calculated taking into account the following competing risks: Death, discontinuation for AEs and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.167|||||||Gray's Test|||Until Day 28||||0.167
84565743|NCT04878055|168881712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||At Day 3 - please note that the number of subjects is 268 (180+88) and not 270.||||0.55
84565744|NCT04878055|168881712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared mean.||At Day 7 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 266 (n=179 in the Reparixin group and n=87 in the placebo group).||||0.128
84565745|NCT04878055|168881712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 256 (n=173 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.235
84565746|NCT04878055|168881712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 21 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255 (n=172 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.281
84565747|NCT04878055|168881712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 50 (n=33 in the Reparixin group and n=17 in the placebo group).||||0.273
84565748|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.047
84565749|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.262
84671106|NCT01675882|169076289|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.64||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.85|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05.||2.85|0.95|0.1074
84495737|NCT01169259|168742105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.55|0.014
84565750|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.367
84565751|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.882
84565752|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.19
84565753|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||At Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.161
84565754|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||0.853
84565755|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.068
84565756|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.672
84565757|NCT04878055|168881713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At end of treatment (EoT) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.153
84565758|NCT04878055|168881714|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Death, reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.07|||||||Grey's test|||||||0.07
84565759|NCT04878055|168881715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Gray's test|||number of patients included in the analysis=25||||0.07
84495738|NCT01169259|168742106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||||||||1.27|0.92|
84495739|NCT01169259|168742106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||||||||1.15|0.83|
84495740|NCT01169259|168742107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||||||||1.26|0.82|
84495741|NCT01169259|168742107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
84495742|NCT04242446|168742108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.979|4.089|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.089|0.979|0.030
84495743|NCT04242446|168742108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.234||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.159|4.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.307|1.159|0.006
84565760|NCT04878055|168881716|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Comparison at day 28||||0.668
84565761|NCT04878055|168881717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Number of patients included in the analysis = 59||||0.668
84565762|NCT04878055|168881718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Gray's test|||Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||0.23
84565763|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 3 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.444
84565764|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 7 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 246||||0.357
84565765|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 14 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.484
84565766|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 21 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.753
84565767|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 28 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.26
84565768|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 60 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.19
84671107|NCT01675882|169076289|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05.||3.38|1.18|0.0108
84495744|NCT04242446|168742109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.615|3.26||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.260|0.615|0.350
84565769|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 90 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||1.000
84565770|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.074
84565771|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||EOT - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.193
84495745|NCT04242446|168742109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.021|4.635|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.635|1.021|0.021
84495746|NCT04242446|168742110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.574||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.472|-0.675||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.675|-4.472|0.002
84565772|NCT04878055|168881719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Hospital discharge - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.131
84565773|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 155.||||0.997
84565774|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 143.||||0.712
84565775|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.241
84565776|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 92.||||0.528
84565777|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 106.||||0.814
84565778|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.242
84565779|NCT04878055|168881720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 65.||||0.722
84565780|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 246.||||0.053
84565781|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 225.||||0.245
84565782|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 118.||||0.067
84565783|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 54.||||0.051
84565784|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 32.||||0.684
84671108|NCT01675882|169076290|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.95||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.49|||Fisher Exact|||||6.49|1.34|0.0035
84750162|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.04|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||-0.04|-0.64|0.029
84495747|NCT04242446|168742110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.394|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.970|-4.394|<0.001
84495748|NCT04242446|168742111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.551||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.521|0.418||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||0.418|-1.521|0.201
84565785|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 14.||||1.00
84565786|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 3.||||0.48
84565787|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 152.||||0.638
84565788|NCT04878055|168881721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 212.||||0.137
84565789|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 157||||0.399
84565790|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 139||||0.07
84565791|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 73||||0.4
84565792|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 23||||0.517
84565793|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 17||||0.445
84607445|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.49|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.49|0.63|0.8819
84495749|NCT04242446|168742111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.186||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.05|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.050|0.002
84565794|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 113||||0.324
84565795|NCT04878055|168881722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 67.||||0.752
84565796|NCT04878055|168881723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 255, because patients who used supplement oxygen were 174 in the Reparixin group and 81 in the placebo group.||||0.447
84565797|NCT04878055|168881724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||At day 28 - Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 245, because patients requiring IMV or ECMO were 163 in the Reparixin group and 82 in the placebo group.||||0.065
84565798|NCT04878055|168881724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test||||||0.072
84565799|NCT04878055|168881725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||Number of subjects included in analysis: 98|two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.485
84565800|NCT04878055|168881726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Number of subjects included in analysis: 17||||0.267
84565801|NCT04878055|168881727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.137
84565802|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 168||||0.002
84565803|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 146||||0.943
84565804|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 76||||0.88
84565805|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 38||||0.458
84565806|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 23.||||0.285
84565807|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 8||||0.885
84565808|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.583|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 74||||= 0.583
84565809|NCT04878055|168881728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at End of treatment - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 131.||||0.5
84565810|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 245||||0.005
84565811|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 221||||0.283
84750163|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-0.13|0.238
84750164|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.305
84565812|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 117||||0.512
84671109|NCT01675882|169076290|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.38||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||||5.47|1.04|0.0453
84750165|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.20|-0.54|0.370
84565813|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 51||||0.174
84565814|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 206||||||0.133|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.133
84565815|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 28 ± 2 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 29||||0.009
84565816|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 144||||0.593
84565817|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 3||||0.540
84565818|NCT04878055|168881729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.224
84565819|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 15||||0.68
84565820|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.272
84565821|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||1.000
84565822|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 9||||0.903
84565823|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.432
84565824|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 6||||0.105
84565825|NCT04878055|168881730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 8||||0.551
84565826|NCT04878055|168881731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|1.522||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 60 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Regression, Logistic|||up to day 60||1.522|0.178|0.232
84565827|NCT04878055|168881731|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 90 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.246||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.782|||Regression, Logistic|||Up to Day 90||1.782|0.034|0.158
84565828|NCT04878055|168881732|SUPERIORITY|Freedom from (time to) death or respiratory failure (need of invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO or admission to ICU linked to worsening of respiratory parameters compared to baseline) up to Day 90 was performed using the same Kaplan-Meier analysis and the one-sided log-rank test that were used to test for differences between groups||||||0.33607|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.33607
84565829|NCT01765296|168881823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy outcome measure is the change in the WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint at Week 6 vs. pre-dose Baseline and was analyzed using a mixed effect ANCOVA. Statistical tests to determine superiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and placebo, are two-sided, and Non-inferiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and celecoxib 200 mg is based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval of the difference.||||0.011
84671110|NCT01675882|169076290|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.14|||Fisher Exact|||||6.14|1.25|0.0076
84671111|NCT01675882|169076291|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.5||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.7112
84671112|NCT01675882|169076291|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.28|||Fisher Exact|||||2.28|0.10|0.4048
84671113|NCT01675882|169076291|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.75||||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.95|||Fisher Exact|||||4.95|0.62|0.4705
84671114|NCT01675882|169076292|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.5||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.13|0.5921
84671115|NCT01675882|169076292|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.43||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Fisher Exact|||||2.88|0.71|0.3260
84750166|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.09|-0.66|0.130
84495750|NCT04242446|168742112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.618||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.489|5.352||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.352|0.489|0.367
84565830|NCT01765296|168881823|NON_INFERIORITY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.425|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.425
84565831|NCT03257436|168881825|OTHER|"A power calculation using a sample size of 61 subjects as the non-responders with the LV MSP on was calculated based on a one-sided exact test for a single binomial proportion, using SAS Version 9.4 with the following assumptions:~* Performance goal = 90%~* Expected LV MSP feature-related CFR rate between 6 and 12 Month Visit = 98%~* Significance level = 5%~* Power = 80%"|Kaplan Meir Methodology|99.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.1|||||||"The LV MSP feature-related CFR between the 6 Month Visit and the 12 Month Visit was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.~H0: LV MSP feature-related complication-free rate between 6 Month Visit and 12 Month Visit ≤ 90%.~The sample size of 61 subjects was required to evaluate the Primary Safety Endpoint using an exact test since a power calculation cannot be directly calculated for a one group Kaplan-Meier analysis."|||94.1|
84607446|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.42|0.60|0.7197
84607447|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.70|0.73|0.6204
84607448|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.84|0.75|0.4779
84671116|NCT01675882|169076292|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.46|1.0000
84671117|NCT01675882|169076293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|70.2||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|193.69||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on log transformed values for peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The least squares (LS) mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||193.69|-2.41|0.0607
84750167|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.51|-0.28|0.561
84750168|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.209
84750169|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.68|0.277
84607449|NCT00907296|168966158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9952
84607450|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.14|0.47|0.1713
84607451|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9958
84565832|NCT03257436|168881826|OTHER|Even though fewer subjects (78) were available for the effectiveness endpoint analysis than originally planned (110), the study was still powered at approximately 90%|Proportion|51.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|41.1|||||||"The effectiveness endpoint for SMART MSP PAS is the proportion of the LV MSP Group with an Improved CCS. For this endpoint, those subjects in the LV MSP Group that become responders will be defined as having an Improved CCS.~H0: Proportion of LV MSP Group subjects with Improved CCS from 6 Month Visit through 12 Month Visit ≤ 5%"|||41.1|
84565833|NCT01619852|168881827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
84495751|NCT04242446|168742112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|8.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.364|0.909|0.041
84495752|NCT05644756|168742172|OTHER|The primary analysis examined changes in measurement-based care (MBC) collection over time using ANOVA. The study was not designed as a superiority, non-inferiority, or equivalence trial.|||||>|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.01
84495753|NCT04058990|168742173|NON_INFERIORITY|13.2% non-inferiority margin||||||0.0012|||||||Farrington-Manning|||\[Not Specified\]||||0.0012
84495754|NCT03985982|168742175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This outcome measure is the first to be assessed in a hierarchical testing sequence using a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84607452|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.97|0.81|0.2950
84750170|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.05|-0.82|0.085
84495755|NCT03985982|168742176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the second test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous test shows statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84495756|NCT03985982|168742176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the third test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous two tests show statistical significance at the alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84565834|NCT01619852|168881828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84565835|NCT01619852|168881829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84565836|NCT01619852|168881829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-Sensory-discriminative dimension||||0.69
84750171|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.61|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-0.32|0.546
84750172|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.185
84750173|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.26|-0.64|0.400
84750174|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
84750175|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.71|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.25|0.350
84750176|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.493
84750177|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.48|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.48|-0.53|0.922
84750178|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.22|-0.80|0.265
84750179|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.81|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.81|-0.28|0.342
84750180|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.311
84750181|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.58|-0.49|0.865
84750182|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.89|0.193
84750183|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.97|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.97|-0.17|0.170
84750184|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.383
84495757|NCT03985982|168742176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the forth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous three tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
84495758|NCT03985982|168742176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the fifth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous four tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84565837|NCT01619852|168881829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-affective dimension||||0.75
84565838|NCT01619852|168881829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief Pain Inventory||||0.81
84565839|NCT01619852|168881830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
84565840|NCT01619852|168881831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
84565841|NCT01305811|168881845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||general estimating equations|||||||0.03
84565842|NCT01305811|168881846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In our original proposal to the funder, to protect our main outcome from possibly large attrition, we proposed to initially test mean differences between groups following 2 months of treatment or wait list using Student's t-tests at an alpha=0.05.||||=0.22
84607453|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.05|0.44|0.0844
84495759|NCT03985982|168742176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the sixth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous five tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
84671118|NCT01675882|169076293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|97.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|237.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||237.82|14.45|0.0150
84671119|NCT01675882|169076293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|242.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.03|482.65||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||482.65|100.03|<0.0001
84750185|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.62|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.62|-0.48|0.802
84495760|NCT05981365|168742219|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1673|1.3663||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3663|1.1673|
84565843|NCT01411852|168881873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.25|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating vs. blunt or no trauma (1 patient had neither blunt nor penetrating trauma), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||1.25|0.12|
84495761|NCT05981365|168742219|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0758|1.3042||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3042|1.0758|
84565844|NCT01411852|168881874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-26.5|
84565845|NCT01411852|168881875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.4||||||||0.40|-2.76|
84565846|NCT01411852|168881876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.08||||||||0.08|-1.61|
84565847|NCT01411852|168881877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.8|
84565848|NCT01411852|168881878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
84565849|NCT01411852|168881879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-42.5|
84565850|NCT01411852|168881880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.06|
84565851|NCT01411852|168881881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-22.4|
84565852|NCT01411852|168881882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.4||||||||1.4|-39.2|
84565853|NCT01411852|168881883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.8||||||||8.8|-29.6|
84565854|NCT01411852|168881884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-16.6|
84565855|NCT01411852|168881885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.8|
84565856|NCT01411852|168881886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-3.6|
84565857|NCT01411852|168881887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||||3.1|-2.9|
84565858|NCT01411852|168881888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.92|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||0.92|0.03|
84565859|NCT01411852|168881889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|19.11|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS).|||19.11|0.19|
84750186|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.24|-0.87|0.260
84750187|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.21|0.199
84565860|NCT01411852|168881890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.77|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating mechanism (yes/no), and ISS (linear).|||1.77|0.22|
84565861|NCT02499120|168881951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.253||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.253|0.536|0.1800
84565862|NCT02499120|168881952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.495||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.495|0.669|0.4953
84565863|NCT01689441|168881964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84565864|NCT01689441|168881965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84565865|NCT01689441|168881966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84565866|NCT01603407|168881986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3904|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3904
84565867|NCT01603407|168881986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5690
84565868|NCT01603407|168881986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1518
84565869|NCT01603407|168881987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7365
84750188|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.139
84750189|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.80|-0.35|0.441
84750190|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.18|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.96|0.183
84565870|NCT01603407|168881987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84565871|NCT01603407|168881987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84565872|NCT01603407|168881988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2456
84565873|NCT01603407|168881988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0369
84495762|NCT05981365|168742220|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0215|1.393||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3930|1.0215|
84565874|NCT01603407|168881988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3589|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3589
84565875|NCT01603407|168881989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7335
84565876|NCT01603407|168881989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
84565877|NCT01603407|168881989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84565878|NCT01603407|168881990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9532
84565879|NCT01603407|168881990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0040
84565880|NCT01603407|168881990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0046
84565881|NCT01603407|168881991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3320
84565882|NCT01603407|168881991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1248
84565883|NCT01603407|168881991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5854
84565884|NCT01603407|168881992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.30814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30814
84565885|NCT01603407|168881992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1405
84565886|NCT01603407|168881992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6640
84565887|NCT01603407|168881994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8345
84565888|NCT01603407|168881994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
84565889|NCT01603407|168881994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5059
84565890|NCT01603407|168881995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5947
84565891|NCT01603407|168881995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1098
84565892|NCT01603407|168881995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2803
84565893|NCT01603407|168881996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3875
84565894|NCT01603407|168881996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4240
84565895|NCT01603407|168881996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9683
84565896|NCT01603407|168881997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6161
84565897|NCT01603407|168881997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7302|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7302
84565898|NCT01603407|168881997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9007
84565899|NCT01603407|168881998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8138
84565900|NCT01603407|168881998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5995
84565901|NCT01603407|168881998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7616
84565902|NCT01603407|168881999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6800
84565903|NCT01603407|168881999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4365
84565904|NCT01603407|168881999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
84750191|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.23|-0.00|0.050
84495763|NCT05981365|168742221|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0496|1.2189||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2189|1.0496|
84565905|NCT01603407|168882000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.545||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.6611|-0.2479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2479|-2.6611|0.0041
84565906|NCT01603407|168882000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9076||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.248|1.1331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1331|-1.248|0.9076
84565907|NCT01603407|168882000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3971||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.2014|2.5927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5927|0.2014|0.0054
84495764|NCT05981365|168742222|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8228||||||90.0|0.6992|0.9683||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9683|0.6992|
84565908|NCT01603407|168882001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3242|-0.6358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6358|-2.3242|<0.0001
84565909|NCT01603407|168882001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|2.2222|3.8857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8857|2.2222|<0.0001
84565910|NCT01603407|168882001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.534|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|3.6941|5.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3738|3.6941|<0.0001
84565911|NCT01603407|168882002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6205||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.4845|0.2434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2434|-1.4845|0.0853
84565912|NCT01603407|168882002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7292|-0.0229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0229|-1.7292|0.0143
84607454|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.24|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.24|0.52|0.3225
84671120|NCT01675882|169076294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|73.9||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|225.85||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||225.85|2.96|0.0372
84671121|NCT01675882|169076294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|96.7||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|278.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||278.11|12.92|0.0143
84565913|NCT01603407|168882002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2555||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.1117|0.6007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6007|-1.1117|0.4731
84565914|NCT03705286|168882003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.17|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Physical Component Score (PCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||3.17|-4.21|0.78
84565915|NCT03705286|168882003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|1.07|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Mental Component Score (MCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||1.07|-7.03|0.15
84565916|NCT03705286|168882004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.07|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|-0.07|0.05
84565917|NCT03705286|168882005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.126||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||Regression, Logistic|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the risk of laryngeal injury between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups, comparing their respective risk difference (i.e., probability\[PU-EVAC\] - probability \[PVC\]). We fit a logistic regression model and incorporated robust (i.e., Huber-White heteroskedastic consistent) standard error estimates for our hypothesis test and 95% confidence interval estimates.||0.26|-0.01|0.05
84565918|NCT02106351|168882012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived least squares (LS) means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.0118
84607455|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.81|0.76|0.4754
84495765|NCT05981365|168742223|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.5738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4523|1.7054||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.7054|1.4523|
84495766|NCT05981365|168742224|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1491|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0807|1.222||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2220|1.0807|
84495767|NCT05981365|168742224|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8759|1.0291||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0291|0.8759|
84495768|NCT05981365|168742225|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2558|1.4121||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4121|1.2558|
84495769|NCT05981365|168742226|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.1896||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1896|1.0700|
84495770|NCT05981365|168742227|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7173|0.9027||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9027|0.7173|
84565919|NCT02106351|168882012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANCOVA on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||<0.0001
84750192|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.221
84750193|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.79|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.40|0.526
84495771|NCT05981365|168742228|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8789|2.2609||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2609|1.8789|
84495772|NCT05981365|168742229|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1374|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0672|1.2122||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2122|1.0672|
84495773|NCT05981365|168742229|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0162||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0162|0.8643|
84750194|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.96|0.232
84750195|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.19|-0.08|0.089
84750196|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.190
84750197|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.85|-0.31|0.365
84750198|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.27|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.27|-0.89|0.295
84750199|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.20|-0.05|0.069
84750200|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.197
84750201|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.92|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.92|-0.29|0.309
84750202|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.33|-0.89|0.359
84750203|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.25|-0.05|0.072
84750204|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.151
84750205|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.32|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.32|-0.10|0.090
84750206|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.889
84750207|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.42|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.42|-0.10|0.088
84750208|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.673
84750209|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.41|0.393
84750210|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.78|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.78|-0.67|0.887
84607456|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.75|0.74|0.5578
84495774|NCT05981365|168742230|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2713|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1939|1.3538||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3538|1.1939|
84565920|NCT02106351|168882013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.2043
84565921|NCT02106351|168882013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANOVA on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.1880
84565922|NCT02106351|168882014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.7|0.7648
84565923|NCT02106351|168882014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.6|0.7429
84565924|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.91|
84671122|NCT01675882|169076294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|260.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.83|625.95||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||625.95|89.83|<0.0001
84671123|NCT01675882|169076295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.1||||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|236.0||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||236.00|-59.58|0.6596
84671124|NCT01675882|169076295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.9||||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|189.96||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||189.96|-65.90|0.8702
84565925|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.93|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.93|0.85|
84565926|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.97|0.88|
84495775|NCT05981365|168742231|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0688|1.1883||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1883|1.0688|
84607457|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||2.07|0.87|0.1864
84750211|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.51|0.507
84750212|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.873
84750213|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.0|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.00|-0.58|0.605
84750214|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.86|||ANOVA|||26 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.86|-0.72|0.860
84750215|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.98|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.71|0.751
84750216|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.528
84495776|NCT05981365|168742232|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7039|0.9031||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9031|0.7039|
84565927|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.95|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.95|0.86|
84565928|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.99|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.99|0.90|
84565929|NCT01401543|168882022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.07|0.97|
84565930|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.91|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.91|0.77|
84565931|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.85|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.85|0.71|
84607458|NCT00907296|168966161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.59|0.68|0.8488
84671125|NCT01675882|169076295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|562.31||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||562.31|-5.50|0.0630
84671126|NCT01675882|169076296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-80.2||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.22|782.24||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||782.24|-237.22|0.6776
84750217|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-1.09|0.486
84750218|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.02|-0.60|0.610
84750219|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.37|-1.36|0.261
84495777|NCT05981365|168742233|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8496|2.2193||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2193|1.8496|
84495778|NCT05981365|168742234|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|0.8737||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8737|0.7160|
84607459|NCT00316888|168966218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218|||||||one sample binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.218
84607460|NCT00316888|168966218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592|||||||one sample binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.592
84607461|NCT01302054|168966239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-2.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.02|-2.63|<0.0001
84750220|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.943
84750221|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.68|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.68|-0.96|0.733
84750222|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.77|-0.87|0.902
84607462|NCT01302054|168966240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.13||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used. Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Multiple hypothesis testing was carried out in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner. Statistical testing between fesoterodine and placebo (Analysis of covariance \[ANCOVA\]) was carried out only if the change from baseline at Week 12 in UUI episodes for fesoterodine group was found statistically significant (paired t-test).||-0.13|-0.87|0.0079
84671127|NCT01675882|169076296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.8||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.1|1478.83||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1478.83|-166.10|0.5068
84495779|NCT05981365|168742235|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9723|1.2065||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2065|0.9723|
84495780|NCT05981365|168742236|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1871|1.4541||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4541|1.1871|
84495781|NCT05981365|168742237|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|0.8534||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8534|0.7420|
84495782|NCT05981365|168742238|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0322|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9531|1.1179||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1179|0.9531|
84671128|NCT01675882|169076296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|53.8||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.9|1085.38||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1085.38|-193.90|0.7972
84671129|NCT01675882|169076297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|120.0||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|321.8||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||321.80|2.30|0.0444
84671130|NCT01675882|169076297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|147.6||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|365.51||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||365.51|19.67|0.0175
84671131|NCT01675882|169076297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|386.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.67|771.16||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||771.16|159.67|<0.0001
84671132|NCT01675882|169076298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.6||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||0.52|-1.55|0.2510
84671133|NCT01675882|169076298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.05||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.05|-1.24|0.6820
84671134|NCT01675882|169076298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.8||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.47||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.47|-0.42|0.2117
84671135|NCT01675882|169076300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|17.4||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|38.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||38.82|1.17|0.0337
84671136|NCT01675882|169076300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|49.45||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||49.45|8.38|0.0020
84750223|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.79|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.97|0.840
84565932|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.85|
84565933|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.84|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.84|0.70|
84565934|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.00|0.84|
84565935|NCT01401543|168882023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.08|0.91|
84565936|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||||1.05|0.93|
84565937|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||||1.00|0.89|
84607463|NCT01302054|168966241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.07||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||0.07|-0.86|0.0931
84671137|NCT01675882|169076300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|20.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|40.91||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||40.91|3.85|0.0120
84495783|NCT05981365|168742239|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0972|1.3069||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3069|1.0972|
84495784|NCT05981365|168742240|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7472|0.8604||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8604|0.7472|
84495785|NCT05981365|168742241|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9888|1.1427||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1427|0.9888|
84565938|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
84565939|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
84495786|NCT05981365|168742242|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1114|1.3385||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3385|1.1114|
84565940|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
84565941|NCT01401543|168882024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
84565942|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.77|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.77|0.68|
84565943|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.76|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.76|0.66|
84565944|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.05|0.92|
84565945|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.74|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.74|0.65|
84565946|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.02|0.90|
84565947|NCT01401543|168882025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.04|0.91|
84607464|NCT01302054|168966242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-0.02|-1.37|0.0438
84607465|NCT01302054|168966243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84671138|NCT01675882|169076304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.90|0.72|<0.0001
84495787|NCT02203305|168742311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: Interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84565948|NCT00069823|168882026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||2.0|0.8|0.35
84565949|NCT00069823|168882027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.6|0.79
84671139|NCT01675882|169076304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.01||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.01|0.79|<0.0001
84671140|NCT01675882|169076304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||3.11|1.39|<0.0001
84671141|NCT00735371|169076308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
84750224|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.758
84607466|NCT01302054|168966244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0095
84607467|NCT01302054|168966245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.58||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-3.58|-11.10|0.0001
84671142|NCT00735371|169076308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84671143|NCT00735371|169076308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84671144|NCT00735371|169076309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0235
84671145|NCT00735371|169076309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84671146|NCT00735371|169076309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84671147|NCT01604343|169076311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.8|22.8|< 0.001
84671148|NCT01604343|169076311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|21.6|< 0.001
84607468|NCT01302054|168966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|12.91||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||12.91|5.12|<0.0001
84607469|NCT01302054|168966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.62||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||11.62|3.87|<0.0001
84607470|NCT01302054|168966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.45||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.45|2.60|0.0012
84607471|NCT01302054|168966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.36||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Social Interaction Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||7.36|0.90|0.0123
84607472|NCT01302054|168966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|10.57||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Total HRQL - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.57|3.63|<0.0001
84671149|NCT01604343|169076312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84671150|NCT01604343|169076312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84671151|NCT01604343|169076313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
84671152|NCT01604343|169076313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.32|<0.001
84671153|NCT01604343|169076314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|13.1|< 0.001
84671154|NCT01604343|169076314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|16.1|< 0.001
84671155|NCT01604343|169076315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|16.4|< 0.001
84671156|NCT01604343|169076315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|15.8|< 0.001
84671157|NCT01604343|169076316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|1.4|0.001
84671158|NCT01604343|169076316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.8|4.6|< 0.001
84671159|NCT03663283|169076362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0197
84671160|NCT03663283|169076363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||0.584
84671161|NCT03663283|169076363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 weeks||||.5800
84671162|NCT03663283|169076364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84671163|NCT03663283|169076365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||.7018
84671164|NCT03663283|169076365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3||||.5327
84750225|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.54|-1.12|0.493
84750226|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.82|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.82|-0.84|0.974
84565950|NCT00069823|168882028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||The rates of EPACs were compared using incidence-rate ratios (IRR). IRR and P value were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.8|0.66
84565951|NCT00069823|168882029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.6|0.62
84671165|NCT02346136|169076373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||Tested as two-tailed p\<0.025 to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.62
84750227|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-1.16|0.543
84750228|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.238
84750229|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.14|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-1.46|0.106
84750230|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.71|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.90|0.817
84750231|NCT01794923|169255028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.3|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.30|-1.43|0.197
84495788|NCT02203305|168742311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84565952|NCT00069823|168882030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.8|0.87
84671166|NCT02346136|169076374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.535||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.57|0.182|0.194
84750232|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.702
84750233|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|15.53|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||15.53|-9.91|0.664
84750234|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|9.68|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||9.68|-15.77|0.637
84750235|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|19.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||19.57|-7.85|0.401
84750236|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.926
84750237|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|21.1|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||21.10|-29.51|0.743
84750238|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.55|26.08|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.08|-24.55|0.952
84750239|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|22.3|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||22.30|-32.25|0.719
84750240|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.284
84750241|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.21|8.28|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||8.28|-46.21|0.171
84750242|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.08|29.42|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||29.42|-25.08|0.875
84565953|NCT00069823|168882031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62||95.0|0.7|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.7|0.62
84565954|NCT00069823|168882032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.4|0.6|0.70
84671167|NCT02346136|169076375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.53|.50
84671168|NCT02346136|169076376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait NW velocity variable||.05|-.04|.85
84671169|NCT02346136|169076376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait DT velocity variable||.06|-.02|.26
84671170|NCT02346136|169076377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.84
84671171|NCT02346136|169076378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.61|.26
84565955|NCT00069823|168882033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||P values were calculated with the use of linear regression.|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group, e.g. 0.00 - (-0.02) = -0.03 (rounding)|The treatment effect is the mean change in the Esomeprazole group - mean change in placebo group||0.08|-0.03|0.36
84671172|NCT02346136|169076379|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.3|-13.9|.92
84671173|NCT02346136|169076380|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-17.2|.88
84671174|NCT02346136|169076381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical component score||3.71|-2.00|.55
84750243|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|8.23|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||8.23|-50.50|0.157
84750244|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.699
84565956|NCT00069823|168882034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.09|-0.03|0.30
84565957|NCT00069823|168882035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||16.0|-4.0|0.24
84671175|NCT02346136|169076381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental component score||2.21|-4.41|.51
84671176|NCT02346136|169076382|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.60|.69
84671177|NCT02346136|169076383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|7.26||to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.26|-2.98|0.41
84671178|NCT02346136|169076385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.476||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.05|0.216|0.060
84671179|NCT02346136|169076386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-0.40|0.13
84671180|NCT01417481|169076411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
84671181|NCT01417481|169076412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
84671182|NCT01417481|169076413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
84671183|NCT01417481|169076414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.061
84750245|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.58|26.9|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.90|-62.58|0.433
84750246|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.73|43.78|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||43.78|-45.73|0.966
84750247|NCT01794923|169255029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-16.9||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.08|31.36|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||31.36|-65.08|0.491
84750248|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.219
84495789|NCT02203305|168742311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84495790|NCT02203305|168742311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84495791|NCT02203305|168742311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.429||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and group (p=0.429). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.387).||Comparison of word recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.429
84565958|NCT00069823|168882036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-1.8||||0.04||95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-3.6|0.04
84565959|NCT00069823|168882037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.2|0.0|0.11
84565960|NCT00069823|168882038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||-0.02|-0.05|0.11
84565961|NCT00069823|168882039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.1|-0.2|0.33
84565962|NCT00069823|168882040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.4|-2.0|0.16
84565963|NCT00069823|168882041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||2.2|-1.1|0.56
84607473|NCT01302054|168966247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
84565964|NCT00069823|168882042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.07|-0.05|0.76
84565965|NCT00069823|168882043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.3|-0.8|0.39
84565966|NCT01801111|168882052|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0005
84565967|NCT01801111|168882053|OTHER|||||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0599
84565968|NCT01801111|168882055|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0001
84607474|NCT01302054|168966248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
84607475|NCT01302054|168966249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 4: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0427
84607476|NCT01302054|168966249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 12: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1461
84750249|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.08|-0.37|0.214
84607477|NCT02968914|168966278|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|101.21|||ANOVA|||||101.21|88.16|
84607478|NCT02968914|168966279|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.41|98.58|||ANOVA|||||98.58|87.41|
84607479|NCT02968914|168966280|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.34|98.75|||ANOVA|||||98.75|86.34|
84607480|NCT00576472|168966294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|-0.0208|||ANOVA|||||-0.0208|-0.0452|<.0001
84607481|NCT00576472|168966295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.038|||ANOVA|||||0.0380|0.0190|<.0001
84607482|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000204|0.0285|||ANOVA|||||0.0285|0.000204|0.025
84607483|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0292|0.0591|||ANOVA|||||0.0591|0.0292|<.0001
84607484|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.0586|||ANOVA|||||0.0586|0.0396|<.0001
84607485|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00974|0.0499|||ANOVA|||||0.0499|0.00974|.0004
84750250|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.29|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.29|-0.16|0.555
84565969|NCT01223937|168882090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||"The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.02|-0.42|0.0280
84565970|NCT01223937|168882091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.||2.86|1.19|0.0061
84565971|NCT01223937|168882092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids, using last observation carried forward.||Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.||-0.07|-0.54|0.0104
84565972|NCT01223937|168882093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||||3.05|0.98|0.0586
84671184|NCT01417481|169076415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.068
84671185|NCT01417481|169076416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.040
84671186|NCT01417481|169076417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
84671187|NCT01417481|169076418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
84750251|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.03|-0.45|0.090
84750252|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.161
84565973|NCT01223937|168882094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.03||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|81.7||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void, using last observation carried forward.||||81.70|16.35|0.0034
84565974|NCT01223937|168882095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.56||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.74|-28.38||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||-28.38|-138.74|0.0031
84565975|NCT01223937|168882096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.91||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.42|34.6||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||34.60|-180.42|0.1829
84565976|NCT03284853|168882099|OTHER|The primary analysis was performed on the ITT population with imputation by Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.|||||<|0.05||||||Linear model with IOP at the given visit and time point as the response, baseline IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect factor at each time point (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours at the Week 2, Week 6, and Month 3 Visits).|Regression, Linear|Non-inferiority for PG324 was concluded if the UL of the 95% CI was ≤ l.5 mmHg at all 9 time points and ≤ l.0 mmHg at the majority of time points||Assuming no difference between PG324 and Ganfort, a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 (2-sided 95% CI) at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.5 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of ≤ 0.60, 200 ITT subjects per arm were necessary to have 85% power to show clinical non-inferiority of PG324 to Ganfort in the mean change from baseline IOP.||||<0.05
84565977|NCT00765817|168882113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84565978|NCT00765817|168882114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84565979|NCT00765817|168882115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84565980|NCT00765817|168882116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.174
84565981|NCT00765817|168882118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.203
84565982|NCT00765817|168882119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84565983|NCT00765817|168882120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.745
84565984|NCT00765817|168882121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.933
84671188|NCT01417481|169076419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.01
84671189|NCT01417481|169076420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
84750253|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.01|-0.55|0.056
84750254|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.16|-0.40|0.395
84495792|NCT02203305|168742312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.019||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.19) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.019).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.019
84495793|NCT02203305|168742312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.012) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.004).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.012
84565985|NCT00765817|168882122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84565986|NCT00765817|168882123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.226
84565987|NCT00765817|168882124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84565988|NCT00765817|168882125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
84565989|NCT00765817|168882126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84565990|NCT00765817|168882127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84565991|NCT00765817|168882128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.666
84565992|NCT00765817|168882129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
84565993|NCT01043133|168882139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log-binomial|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.79|||log-binomial regression||Robust Huber-White standard errors account for clustering|||11.79|1.34|.01
84565994|NCT01043133|168882140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.78||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-.03|-2.48|.05
84565995|NCT00255164|168882153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84565996|NCT00255164|168882153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84565997|NCT00255164|168882153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
84565998|NCT00255164|168882154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84750255|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.15|-0.45|0.324
84565999|NCT00255164|168882154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84750256|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.246
84566000|NCT00255164|168882154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
84566001|NCT00255164|168882156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84566002|NCT00255164|168882156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84566003|NCT00255164|168882156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
84566004|NCT00255164|168882157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84566005|NCT00255164|168882157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84566006|NCT00255164|168882157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
84566007|NCT04776928|168882176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Two-part regression model|||||||0.010
84566008|NCT01781208|168882180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.68, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation.|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
84750257|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.05|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.05|-0.68|0.094
84607486|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.0445|||ANOVA|||||0.0445|0.0250|<.0001
84607487|NCT00576472|168966296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00865|0.0185|||ANOVA|||||0.0185|-0.00865|.552
84671190|NCT01907828|169076428|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis performed to provide freedom from atrial fibrillation rates at one year for each randomization arm using date of ablation procedure to date of first event.||||0.22
84750258|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.24|-0.50|0.491
84607488|NCT00576472|168966297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3|||ANOVA|||||-3.3|-11.0|.0005
84607489|NCT00576472|168966298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-6.5|0.0413
84607490|NCT00576472|168966299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-11.0|<.0001
84607491|NCT00576472|168966300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0|||ANOVA|||||-7.0|-12.0|<.0001
84607492|NCT00576472|168966301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|4.4|<.0001
84607493|NCT00576472|168966302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|.8425
84607494|NCT00576472|168966303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-3.9|.0016
84671191|NCT01907828|169076432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766|||||||Paired Student's t-test|||||||0.2766
84671192|NCT01907828|169076433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.7663
84671193|NCT01907828|169076436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.21||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|0.88|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months||0.88|-12.61|0.0849
84671194|NCT01907828|169076436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.52|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.52|-9.12|0.0014
84671195|NCT01907828|169076436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|8.02|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months.||8.02|-14.16|0.5599
84671196|NCT01907828|169076436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.99|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.99|-13.87|0.0052
84671197|NCT01907828|169076437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.84||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|1.93|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||1.93|-13.34|0.1326
84671198|NCT01907828|169076437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-3.83|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-3.83|-10.06|0.0002
84671199|NCT01907828|169076437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.41||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|-0.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||-0.70|-16.47|0.0354
84671200|NCT01907828|169076437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.53||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-4.91|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-4.91|-15.75|0.0015
84671201|NCT01907828|169076438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.3|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 12 months.||11.3|-6.0|0.5399
84671202|NCT01907828|169076438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in Office Diastolic Blood Pressure (ODBP) at 12 months||3.8|-4.6|0.8489
84671203|NCT01907828|169076438|SUPERIORITY|Change in Office Systolic Blood Pressure (OSBP) at 12 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||||18.6|-14.6|0.7999
84671204|NCT01907828|169076438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.4|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 12 months||3.4|-14.2|0.2076
84671205|NCT01907828|169076439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.3||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||9.1|-7.9|0.8820
84671206|NCT01907828|169076439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||4.7|-3.7|0.8019
84671207|NCT01907828|169076439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.9||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||19.6|-4.8|0.2177
84671208|NCT01907828|169076439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||5.2|-11.2|0.4502
84671209|NCT04414553|169076495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This compares pre/post data.||||0.29
84671210|NCT04414553|169076496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84671211|NCT04414553|169076497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84671212|NCT04414553|169076498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84671213|NCT04414553|169076499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
84671214|NCT03317431|169076508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD1 expression.||||<0.01
84671215|NCT03317431|169076509|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD2 expression.||||>0.01
84671216|NCT03317431|169076510|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with TH expression.||||>0.01
84566009|NCT01781208|168882180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.73, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation score|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTIQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
84750259|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-0.58|0.359
84566010|NCT03506438|168882181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.2|0.018
84566011|NCT03506438|168882182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.5|0.48
84566012|NCT03506438|168882183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.4|0.73
84566013|NCT03506438|168882184|SUPERIORITY||estimated mean difference|0.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.0|0.47
84566014|NCT03506438|168882185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.6|0.29
84566015|NCT03506438|168882186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84607495|NCT00576472|168966304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||||2.3|-1.9|.8329
84750260|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.294
84750261|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.10|-0.74|0.136
84566016|NCT03506438|168882187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84566017|NCT03506438|168882188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
84566018|NCT02363387|168882237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|2.7|<0.001
84566019|NCT04391179|168882250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation represents log-scale difference between average daily change in D-Dimer for Dipyridamole patients minus placebo average daily change. Negative estimates indicate that D-Dimer levels decline faster in Dipyridamole versus placebo patients.|||.023|-.089|0.24
84566020|NCT04391179|168882251|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.78|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel||win ratio= (the probability of a win for the dipyridamole patient)/(probability of a win for the placebo patient)|A win ratio analysis of the hierarchical composite outcome requiring direct comparison of outcomes between each dipyridamole patient and placebo patient. The patient with the superior outcome is adjudicated the 'winner' and receives a +1 score, while the 'loser' scores -1.||1.29|0.78|.98
84607496|NCT00576472|168966306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0077
84750262|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-0.65|0.293
84750263|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.36|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.55|0.682
84750264|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.747
84566021|NCT04391179|168882252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
84566022|NCT04391179|168882253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Log Rank|||||||.09
84566023|NCT04391179|168882254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.94|||regression, negative binomial||estimated ratio of days on mechanical ventilation for dipyridamole and placebo|||3.94|0.02|0.36
84566024|NCT04391179|168882255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.51|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of a 50 point drop in the dipyridamole group relative to the placebo group.|||2.51|0.43|.94
84566025|NCT04391179|168882256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.95
84566026|NCT03442088|168882267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84566027|NCT03442088|168882268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.98||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2324.0|2516.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2516|-2324|0.934
84566028|NCT03442088|168882269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|0.3097|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3097|-1.685|0.1632
84566029|NCT03442088|168882270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.344||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|0.5992|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5992|-5.248|0.1063
84566030|NCT03442088|168882271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.333|14.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.81|-8.333|0.5611
84566031|NCT01001520|168882276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.88
84607497|NCT00576472|168966306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84607498|NCT00576472|168966306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1408||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1408
84607499|NCT00576472|168966307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
84607500|NCT00576472|168966307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
84607501|NCT00576472|168966307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4258
84607502|NCT00576472|168966308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
84750265|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.60|0.592
84750266|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.64|0.473
84750267|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.55|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.55|-0.46|0.866
84750268|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.776
84495794|NCT02203305|168742312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84566032|NCT01001520|168882277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Accuracy was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would increase subject's accuracy during the N-back working memory task.||||0.017
84566033|NCT01001520|168882278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would reduce subject's reaction time during the N-back working memory task.||||0.88
84566034|NCT01001520|168882279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers would smoke fewer cigarettes while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo).||||0.85
84566035|NCT01001520|168882280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience less cigarette craving during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.40
84566036|NCT01001520|168882281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience fewer withdrawal symptoms during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.43
84750269|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.43|-0.59|0.761
84566037|NCT01001520|168882282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.18
84566038|NCT01001520|168882283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the dorsal cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.67
84566039|NCT01001520|168882284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.98
84750270|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.33|-0.69|0.477
84750271|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-0.44|0.705
84607503|NCT00576472|168966308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84750272|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.600
84750273|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.56|-0.52|0.931
84750274|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.78|0.381
84671217|NCT03317431|169076511|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DDC expression.||||>0.01
84671218|NCT03317431|169076512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with Ac-a-tubulin expression.||||<0.01
84671219|NCT04753164|169076513|OTHER|Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in the number of BE days per week = baseline number of BE days per week + sex (Male; Female) + BMI group (\< 30 ; ≥ 30 kg/m2) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|LS Mean Difference to Placebo|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69|||Mixed effects model f. repeated measures|||||0.69|-0.69|0.9992
84495795|NCT02203305|168742312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84566040|NCT01001520|168882285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.002
84566041|NCT00357877|168882286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.11||No interim analyses were done and no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|The primary outcome analysis included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||We hypothesized a lower increment score for the active treatment group but carried out two-tailed hypothesis testing. Sample size was estimated with simulated data with rank normalized scores. We calculated that 832 participants would yield a power of 90% to detect a 20% reduction in caries incidence (from a hypothesized mean increment of 1.5), and adopted a target of 1000 randomized participants to allow for attrition.||1.11|-0.60|0.56
84566042|NCT00357877|168882287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||hypothesized a reduced caries increment in active arm, though conducted two-tailed hypothesis test.||1.46|-0.77|0.54
84566043|NCT00357877|168882288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|treatment and site included as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized lower increment in active arm, though hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.23|-1.25|0.18
84566044|NCT00357877|168882289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables, and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized a lower increment for active treatment arm, although hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.45|-1.80|0.24
84566045|NCT02541422|168882290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||p-value calculated for the total hangover scale|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84566046|NCT02541422|168882290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value calculated for symptom of headache|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84671220|NCT01465464|169076532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.352|||Log Rank|||||1.352|0.878|0.435
84566047|NCT02541422|168882290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p value calculated for symptom of nausea|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84566048|NCT02541422|168882290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p value calculated for symptom of weakness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84566049|NCT03570047|168882317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.766|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.766|0.558|<0.0001
84566050|NCT03570047|168882317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.977|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.977|0.642|0.0291
84566051|NCT03570047|168882317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.842|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.842|0.592|0.0001
84566052|NCT03570047|168882317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.591|0.0012
84671221|NCT00403273|169076668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84671222|NCT00403273|169076669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||comparison of proportions|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made, since we analyzed only one primary outcome. 19 patients per group were needed for 80% power and 24 patients per group for 90% power to detect a difference of 43% in proportion with primary outcome|comparison of proportions|compare proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change in 0-10 VAS pain (at least 2-point reduction on VAS pain) at 2-mths \& all timepoints|we hypothesized a greater proportion with meaningful reduction in pain on 0-10 scale in intervention versus placebo group.|For primary outcome analysis, we compared the proportion of responders with clinically meaningful change \[improvement\] in 0-10 VAS Pain, i.e. those with 2-point reduction in 0-10 VAS pain score at 2-mths, in the 2 groups using comparison of proportions. Proportion of responders were also analyzed at all efficacy timepoints using generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling. We used GEE for between-group comparisons in secondary outcomes at all efficacy endpoints, adjusted for baseline scores.||||<0.05
84671223|NCT00403273|169076670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84495796|NCT02203305|168742312|OTHER|correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.42|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and sound source localization (RMS) at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.033
84566053|NCT03570047|168882318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.843|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.843|0.614|<0.0001
84566054|NCT03570047|168882318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.825|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.825|0.529|0.0003
84566055|NCT03570047|168882318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.618|0.0007
84566056|NCT03570047|168882318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.874|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.874|0.583|0.0011
84566057|NCT03570047|168882319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.984|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.984|0.872|0.0127
84566058|NCT03570047|168882319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.2893||95.0|0.881|1.039|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.039|0.881|0.2893
84566059|NCT03570047|168882319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.004|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.004|0.881|0.0640
84566060|NCT03570047|168882319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.103|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.103|0.958|0.4404
84566061|NCT02762084|168882363|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.030
84566062|NCT02762084|168882363|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.756
84566063|NCT02762084|168882364|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.500
84566064|NCT02762084|168882364|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.681
84566065|NCT02762084|168882368|OTHER|One-sided comparison||||||0.048|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.048
84566066|NCT02762084|168882368|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.096|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.096
84566067|NCT02762084|168882369|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.008|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.008
84566068|NCT00447772|168882379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.322|||=|0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.233|||ANCOVA||The comparative analysis is based on adjusted means data.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included the baseline total Tsui score (patient in sitting position) as covariate and the main type of CD as between-group factor (due to non-significance the interaction between baseline total Tsui score and the main type of CD was removed from the model).||0.233|-0.877|=0.2552
84566069|NCT04556760|168882388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.9528||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.5082|-9.3973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-9.3973|-256.5082|0.036
84566070|NCT04556760|168882388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.033||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-554.8722|270.8061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||270.8061|-554.8722|0.432
84566071|NCT04556760|168882388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.8829||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.0426|-17.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||-17.7233|-236.0426|0.030
84566072|NCT04556760|168882389|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-0.9314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-0.9314|-2.0820|<0.001
84566073|NCT04556760|168882389|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7257|-0.4941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||-0.4941|-1.7257|<0.001
84566074|NCT04556760|168882389|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1601||||0.547||95.0|-0.693|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3729|-0.6930|0.547
84566075|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2258|-0.7773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.7773|-2.2258|<0.001
84566076|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8643|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.5611|-1.1674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[24 to 48 h\])||-1.1674|-2.5611|<0.001
84566077|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5998|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3025|-0.8971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.8971|-2.3025|<0.001
84566078|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8474||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4465|-0.2484|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.2484|-1.4465|0.013
84566079|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7778||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6022|0.0466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.0466|-1.6022|0.061
84566080|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.143||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7622|-0.5238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.5238|-1.7622|0.003
84566081|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8338|0.1138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[00 to 24 h\])||0.1138|-0.8338|0.125
84566082|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0845||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9706|0.8016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.8016|-0.9706|0.840
84566083|NCT04556760|168882390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1298||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.3864|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[48 to 72 h\])||0.3864|-0.6460|0.571
84566084|NCT04556760|168882391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.40|-0.55|0.753
84566085|NCT04556760|168882391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.37|-0.46|0.802
84750275|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.85|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.85|-0.32|0.371
84495797|NCT02203305|168742312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249||||||There were significant main effects of group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). There was a non-significant interaction between group and interval (p=0.249).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.249).||Comparison of sound source localization between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.249
84566086|NCT04556760|168882391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.37|-0.37|0.985
84566087|NCT04556760|168882392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20498.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10819.2|30178.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||30178.2|10819.2|<0.001
84566088|NCT04556760|168882392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3321.4||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12975.8|19618.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||19618.6|-12975.8|0.659
84566089|NCT04556760|168882392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2698.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14849.0|9451.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9451.3|-14849.0|0.521
84566090|NCT04556760|168882393|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1002.5864||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1620.215|-384.9577|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-384.9577|-1620.2150|0.003
84566091|NCT04556760|168882393|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9836||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.6968|608.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||608.6640|-526.6968|0.865
84566092|NCT04556760|168882393|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.4137||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.8097|831.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||831.6370|-628.8097|0.754
84607504|NCT00576472|168966308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4086||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4086
84566093|NCT04556760|168882394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1225.905||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2007.2241|-444.5859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-444.5859|-2007.2241|0.004
84566094|NCT04556760|168882394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.9802||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1521.5088|587.5485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||587.5485|-1521.5088|0.313
84566095|NCT04556760|168882394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-375.3161||||0.404||95.0|-1433.6265|682.9943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||682.9943|-1433.6265|0.404
84566096|NCT04556760|168882395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|365.6323||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.7973|1829.0618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1829.0618|-1097.7973|0.608
84566097|NCT04556760|168882395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.236||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3214.3323|3590.8043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3590.8043|-3214.3323|0.897
84566098|NCT04556760|168882395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1061.4494||||0.381||95.0|-3588.2233|1465.3244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||1465.3244|-3588.2233|0.381
84566099|NCT04556760|168882396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.4211|||<|0.001||95.0|29.4904|91.3518|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||91.3518|29.4904|<0.001
84566100|NCT04556760|168882396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.4529||||0.432||95.0|-44.9414|97.8471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||97.8471|-44.9414|0.432
84566101|NCT04556760|168882396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0243||||0.282||95.0|-74.0731|26.0245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||26.0245|-74.0731|0.282
84566102|NCT04556760|168882397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6023||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5463|1.3416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1.3416|-2.5463|0.531
84566103|NCT04556760|168882397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0933|3.0176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||3.0176|-2.0933|0.682
84566104|NCT04556760|168882398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0679||||0.526||95.0|-0.152|0.2866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.2866|-0.1520|0.526
84566105|NCT04556760|168882398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0882||||0.569||95.0|-0.2653|0.4416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg||0.4416|-0.2653|0.569
84566106|NCT04556760|168882398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1257||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0677|0.3191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3191|-0.0677|0.166
84566107|NCT04556760|168882399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0072|0.0271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0271|-0.0072|0.226
84607505|NCT00576472|168966309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84607506|NCT00576472|168966309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84607507|NCT00576472|168966309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7007
84607508|NCT00576472|168966310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84607509|NCT00576472|168966310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
84607510|NCT00576472|168966310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6237
84607511|NCT00576472|168966311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84750276|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.670
84750277|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.58|-0.54|0.941
84671224|NCT00403273|169076671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84671225|NCT00403273|169076672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84671226|NCT00403273|169076673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84566108|NCT04556760|168882399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0033||||0.619||95.0|-0.0128|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0195|-0.0128|0.619
84566109|NCT04556760|168882399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.917||95.0|-0.0189|0.0207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0207|-0.0189|0.917
84566110|NCT04556760|168882400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0007||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0022|-0.0008|0.357
84566111|NCT04556760|168882400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0003||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0012|0.0017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0017|-0.0012|0.676
84566112|NCT04556760|168882400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012||||0.096||95.0|-0.0002|0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0026|-0.0002|0.096
84566113|NCT04556760|168882401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||5.95|-9.40|0.646
84566114|NCT04556760|168882401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97||||0.11||95.0|-25.39|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3.44|-25.39|0.110
84566115|NCT04556760|168882401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.932||95.0|-10.32|9.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9.61|-10.32|0.932
84566116|NCT04556760|168882402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|32.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||32.7|-17.4|0.533
84566117|NCT04556760|168882402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.311||95.0|-26.7|71.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||71.3|-26.7|0.311
84566118|NCT04556760|168882402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.204||95.0|-21.9|83.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||83.9|-21.9|0.204
84566119|NCT04556760|168882412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0066||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|0.8748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.8748|-8.8880|0.103
84566120|NCT04556760|168882412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7535||||0.005||95.0|2.6034|8.9036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||8.9036|2.6034|0.005
84566121|NCT04556760|168882412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0619||||0.023||95.0|1.674|16.4499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||16.4499|1.6740|0.023
84566122|NCT02849743|168882419|OTHER||Least Means Square|-0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.92
84566123|NCT02849743|168882420|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-15784.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
84671227|NCT00403273|169076674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84566124|NCT02849743|168882421|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|48.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84566125|NCT02849743|168882422|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-2.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84566126|NCT02849743|168882423|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|1.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
84566127|NCT02849743|168882424|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
84566128|NCT02849743|168882425|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
84566129|NCT02849743|168882426|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
84566130|NCT02849743|168882428|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
84566131|NCT02849743|168882429|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
84566132|NCT02849743|168882430|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Anxiety||||0.91
84566133|NCT02849743|168882430|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Depression||||0.91
84566134|NCT02849743|168882430|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Cognition||||0.04
84566135|NCT02849743|168882430|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Social Function||||0.36
84671228|NCT04041869|169076675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to test the effect of the intervention on physical activity, linear mixed models examined changes in steps per day from study baseline (week 0) to the end of the active intervention (week 8).||||<0.01
84671229|NCT01336738|169076680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.29||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on LS mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.13|0.6803
84671230|NCT01336738|169076680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.28||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.28|-0.71|0.0017
84671231|NCT01336738|169076680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.36||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.80|0.0003
84750278|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.78|0.437
84566136|NCT02849743|168882431|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
84566137|NCT02849743|168882432|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
84566138|NCT03677635|168882435|OTHER||Standardised Effect Size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.86|.21|
84566139|NCT03677635|168882436|OTHER|Cohen's d was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.48|-.59|
84566140|NCT03064113|168882437|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|173.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.4|235.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||235.3|112.4|<0.001
84566141|NCT03064113|168882437|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|169.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.8|230.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||230.8|107.8|<0.001
84607512|NCT00576472|168966311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84750279|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.84|-0.36|0.429
84495798|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Speech, Spatial, \& Qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
84566142|NCT03064113|168882437|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|175.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.1|237.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||237.2|114.1|<0.001
84566143|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY||Slope|112.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|180.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||180.5|44.5|0.001
84566144|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|123.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|192.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||192.3|54.6|<0.001
84566145|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|15.3||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|94.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||94.1|-53.5|0.659
84566146|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|102.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|151.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||151.5|54.1|<0.001
84566147|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|136.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|185.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||185.3|87.8|<0.001
84566148|NCT03064113|168882438|SUPERIORITY|Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr|Difference of LS Mean|-24.2||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|-72.9|0.327
84566149|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||34.8|18.0|<0.001
84566150|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||37.4|20.8|<0.001
84566151|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||33.9|17.3|<0.001
84566152|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||28.2|12.1|<0.001
84566153|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|33.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||33.4|17.4|<0.001
84566154|NCT03064113|168882439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|10.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hr||18.6|2.5|0.010
84566155|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
84566156|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.046
84566157|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
84566158|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
84607513|NCT00576472|168966311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6071
84607514|NCT00576472|168966312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1386
84607515|NCT00576472|168966312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0905
84607516|NCT00576472|168966312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8039
84607517|NCT00576472|168966313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7496||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7496
84607518|NCT00576472|168966313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9489||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9489
84607519|NCT00576472|168966313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7021
84750280|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.484
84750281|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.78|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.78|-0.38|0.504
84750282|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-0.77|0.528
84750283|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.01|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.01|-0.24|0.229
84750284|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.536
84750285|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.70|-0.49|0.728
84495799|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.056
84495800|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.448||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.488).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.448
84566159|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.048
84566160|NCT03064113|168882440|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.007
84566161|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.054
84566162|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.045
84566163|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.503
84566164|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.183
84566165|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.422
84566166|NCT03064113|168882441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.0|-0.1|0.287
84671232|NCT01336738|169076680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|-0.5||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
84566167|NCT03064113|168882443|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|3975.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2007.3|5943.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5943.7|2007.3|<0.001
84566168|NCT03064113|168882443|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|5888.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3924.4|7853.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7853.4|3924.4|<0.001
84566169|NCT03064113|168882443|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2654.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|689.7|4619.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4619.6|689.7|0.009
84566170|NCT00121719|168882468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This was a pilot study and a statistical sample size calculation was not performed.||||0.0146
84566171|NCT01705977|168882484|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.51|||||95% Confidence Interval was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-0.31|
84566172|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.85|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.85|-1.55|
84566173|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.20|-1.60|
84566174|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.31|
84566175|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
84566176|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
84566177|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.96|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.96|-0.44|
84566178|NCT01705977|168882485|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
84566179|NCT01705977|168882487|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.13|||||95% CI was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.13|-1.03|
84566180|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.51|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-2.02|
84607520|NCT00576472|168966314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0190
84750286|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.35|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-0.84|0.414
84750287|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.99|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.29|0.280
84750288|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.402
84750289|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.81|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.81|-0.41|0.513
84495801|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.299||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: subscale (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.072). Interaction: subscale and interval (p=0.299).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.299
84495802|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018||||||There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001), and their interaction (p\<0.018).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.018).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.018
84607521|NCT00576472|168966314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84671233|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292||0.4757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|14.2||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.20|-6.64|0.4757
84495803|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.767). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.542).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.767
84495804|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.242|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.003) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.242).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.242
84495805|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|Bivariate pearson correlation||||||0.37|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||0.370
84495806|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.865||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.865
84495807|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.005
84495808|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.67|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.006
84495809|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.33|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.152
84495810|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.761|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.761
84495811|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.315|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.315
84495812|NCT02203305|168742313|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.666|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.666
84495813|NCT02203305|168742313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.912), interval (p=0.463), and subscale (p=0.483). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.175).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing subscales during the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.175
84495814|NCT02203305|168742314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.161||||||"Significant effect of interval (p=0.046) and of condition (p\<0.001) and a non-significant interaction (p=0.161).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.046) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.161).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.161
84495815|NCT02203305|168742314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.107||||||"Significant effect of condition (p\<0.001) and the interaction (p\<0.001). Non-significant effect of interval (p=0.107).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval p=0.107). Interaction of condition and interval (p\<0.001).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.107
84495816|NCT02203305|168742314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84495817|NCT02203305|168742314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
84607522|NCT00576472|168966314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1622
84607523|NCT00576472|168966315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1202||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1202
84607524|NCT00576472|168966315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0103
84607525|NCT00576472|168966315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2831
84607526|NCT00576472|168966316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7027
84607527|NCT00576472|168966317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7493
84607528|NCT00576472|168966318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7339||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7339
84607529|NCT00576472|168966319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6148
84566181|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.04|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||-0.04|-1.96|
84566182|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.24|-0.44|
84566183|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
84566184|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
84607530|NCT00576472|168966320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4456
84607531|NCT00576472|168966321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5866||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5866
84671234|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.296||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|11.75||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.75|-9.11|0.8031
84671235|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.364||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|7.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.34|-13.78|0.5490
84671236|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-4.55||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.55|-25.58|0.0051
84495818|NCT02203305|168742314|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.58||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and speech recognition in noise at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation.||||=0.580
84566185|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||1.05|-0.42|
84566186|NCT01705977|168882488|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
84566187|NCT01705977|168882490|OTHER||Odds ratio versus placebo|1.3||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI and P-value was calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between belimumab and placebo including treatment group, Baseline prednisone dose, screening SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 versus \>=10) and region|||1.65|1.03|0.0284
84566188|NCT01852513|168882565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
84566189|NCT01852513|168882566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
84566190|NCT01852513|168882567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
84566191|NCT01462110|168882594|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.192|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.192|-0.276|<0.001
84566192|NCT01462110|168882595|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|-1.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-1.071|-1.392|<0.001
84566193|NCT01462110|168882596|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.071|-0.140|<0.001
84607532|NCT00576472|168966322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8918||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8918
84607533|NCT00576472|168966323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4427||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4427
84607534|NCT00576472|168966324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4203||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4203
84607535|NCT00576472|168966325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5754||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5754
84607536|NCT00576472|168966326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
84607537|NCT00576472|168966327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1049
84607538|NCT00121641|168966331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.33|-0.90|<.0001
84671237|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|7.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.46|-12.31|0.6291
84566194|NCT01462110|168882597|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.639|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.639|-1.020|<0.001
84566195|NCT01462110|168882598|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.029|-0.059|<0.001
84566196|NCT01462110|168882599|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|-0.043|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.043|-0.078|<0.001
84566197|NCT00672633|168882655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||The study was designed with 80% power to detect a net improvement of Triglyceride elevles with a sample size of 60.||||0.52
84566198|NCT00672633|168882656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations done for this outcomes||||0.06
84566199|NCT00672633|168882657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations were conducted for this outcome||||0.27
84566200|NCT02359110|168882712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||1.3|-1.2|0.89
84566201|NCT02359110|168882712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 Analysis||1.5|-1.6|0.94
84566202|NCT02359110|168882712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||1.3|-2.2|0.64
84566203|NCT02359110|168882712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 Analysis||2.8|-1.6|0.59
84566204|NCT02359110|168882713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||15.8|-8.1|0.52
84566205|NCT02359110|168882713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||15.3|-11.9|0.80
84566206|NCT02359110|168882714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84566207|NCT00823134|168882736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84566208|NCT00823134|168882737|OTHER|The number of events found per category (PSG and ApneaLink Plus recording) will be compared. Events are Apneas and Hypopneas per hour of sleep, measured as Apnea-Hypopnea-Index (AHI), Apnea-Index (AI), Obstructive AI, Central AI, Hypopnea-Index (HI) and Oxygen Desaturation Index (ODI).|Correlation coefficient (Bland-Altman)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Per recording, the number of events found per category with PSG and ApneaLink Plus will be compared. As a summary, all PSG values and all ApneaLink Plus values per category will be collected in one graph (Bland-Altmann Plot). The correlation coefficient will be calculated per category. A correlation of \>75% will be seen as threshold for validity.||||
84566209|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5221
84566210|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.25||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.25
84566211|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.50
84566212|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
84566213|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8665||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8665
84566214|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
84566215|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.84||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.84
84566216|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.57||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.57
84566217|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3052||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all B cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3052
84566218|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.||||||>0.9999
84566219|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84566220|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
84566221|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0698||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NK cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0698
84566222|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566223|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
84566224|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84566225|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0127||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NKT cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0127
84566226|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84607539|NCT00121641|168966331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.36||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.36|-0.93|<.0001
84495819|NCT02203305|168742314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.743||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effects: SNR (p=0.026) \& masker condition (p\<0.001). Interactions: cohort \& condition (p\<0.001), interval \& condition (p=0.015). Others (p\>0.140).||Comparison of speech recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) for the three masker configurations (noise towards the better hearing ear, noise towards the poorer hearing ear, and noise from the front) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; 0, 5, or 10 dB SNR) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.743
84566227|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.41||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.41
84566228|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.07
84566229|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0654||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all cDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0654
84566230|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
84566231|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.21
84566232|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
84566233|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0457||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all pDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0457
84566234|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566235|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.55||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.55
84750290|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.36|||ANOVA|||11 hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.86|0.424
84750291|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.1|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.10|-0.21|0.178
84750292|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.442
84495820|NCT02203305|168742314|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||=|0.036||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||=0.036
84495821|NCT02203305|168742315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.183||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.183) and condition (p=0.012). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.081).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.183
84566236|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84566237|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7114||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all MDSC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7114
84566238|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566239|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
84566240|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.91
84566241|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2666||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all Treg cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2666
84566242|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
84566243|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.45||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.45
84566244|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
84566245|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0076
84566246|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
84750293|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.91|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.91|-0.33|0.357
84566247|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.22||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.22
84566248|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.10
84566249|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7144||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7144
84566250|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84566251|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.06
84566252|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84750294|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.49|-0.75|0.675
84750295|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.09|-0.25|0.215
84495822|NCT02203305|168742315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.196||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.010) and condition (p=0.100). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.196).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.196
84495823|NCT02203305|168742315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||0.056
84495824|NCT02203305|168742315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||=0.210
84495825|NCT02203305|168742316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.071||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.071) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.051)||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.071
84495826|NCT02203305|168742316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.109||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.109) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.052).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.109
84495827|NCT02203305|168742316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84495828|NCT02203305|168742316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84495829|NCT02203305|168742317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.018) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.024).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.024
84566253|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3741||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3741
84566254|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566255|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
84750296|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.643
84750297|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.46|0.466
84750298|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.64|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.64|-0.81|0.818
84750299|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.13|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.13|-0.43|0.373
84495830|NCT02203305|168742317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.187) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.219).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.219
84671238|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.001||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.72||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.72|-5.98|0.4396
84671239|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|3.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.34|-16.46|0.1934
84671240|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.039||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-7.4||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.40|-27.24|0.0007
84671241|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|13.37||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.37|-7.11|0.5479
84566256|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566257|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3386||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3386
84566258|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
84566259|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0215||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0215
84566260|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
84566261|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5076
84566262|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566263|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.68||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.68
84566264|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.73||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.73
84566265|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6577||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6577
84566266|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
84566267|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
84566268|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.20
84566269|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6295||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6295
84750300|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.984
84750301|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.68|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.68|-0.79|0.874
84566270|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566271|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.999
84566272|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
84566273|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8314||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8314
84566274|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
84566275|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.64
84566276|NCT01519817|168882751|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.30
84566277|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
84566278|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4808||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IFNg cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4808
84566279|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7334
84566280|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7109||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon|||||||0.7109
84566281|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4347||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL10 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4347
84566282|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon|||||||>0.9999
84750302|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.74|-0.73|0.990
84750303|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.73|-0.85|0.875
84750304|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.841
84750305|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.57|-1.01|0.580
84750306|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.77|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.77|-0.81|0.958
84750307|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.65|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-1.05|0.643
84750308|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.299
84566283|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.748||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.748
84566284|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 4.||||||0.8203
84566285|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL12p70 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5625
84566286|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566287|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566288|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 14|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
84566289|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6846||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL1b cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6846
84566290|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566291|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
84671242|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.209||0.4276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|6.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||6.12|-14.39|0.4276
84750309|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.31|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.26|0.230
84566292|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566293|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-2 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4375
84566294|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566295|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566296|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.75||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.75
84566297|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4525||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-6 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.4525
84566298|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
84566299|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 3.||||||0.4316|||||||Wilcoxon test|||Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||0.4316
84566300|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84566301|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9906||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-8 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9906
84750310|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.94|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.94|-0.63|0.694
84750311|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.21|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-1.48|0.140
84750312|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.503
84750313|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-1.28|0.262
84497622|NCT03170271|168746321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours benralizumab to be associated with a longer time from randomization to the first exacerbation than placebo.|Comparison of time to first asthma exacerbation for benralizumab vs placebo. Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the Cox proportional hazard model as covariates.||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
84750314|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.75|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.75|-0.88|0.871
84750315|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.48|-1.27|0.373
84750316|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.413
84750317|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.4|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-1.22|0.317
84750318|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.97|-0.66|0.708
84566302|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.625
84566303|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.791
84566304|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8203
84750319|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.44|0.202
84750320|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.190
84750321|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.11|-1.44|0.094
84750322|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.76|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.76|-0.80|0.960
84566305|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all TNF cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
84750323|NCT01794923|169255030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.2|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-1.48|0.132
84750324|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.163
84750325|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|11.02|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.02|-1.86|0.162
84750326|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|4.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||4.57|-8.42|0.559
84750327|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|13.45|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.45|-0.44|0.066
84750328|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.957
84750329|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.33|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.33|-11.20|0.864
84750330|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|11.45|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.45|-13.30|0.883
84750331|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|15.22|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||15.22|-11.24|0.767
84566306|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
84566307|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9658||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9658
84566308|NCT01519817|168882752|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6523||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6523
84566309|NCT01519817|168882753|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2901||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD27 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2901
84566310|NCT01519817|168882753|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
84566311|NCT01519817|168882753|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2036||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2036
84566312|NCT01519817|168882753|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0742||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0742
84566313|NCT01519817|168882754|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1004||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all ratio sCD27:sCD40AL cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.1004
84566314|NCT01519817|168882754|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.625
84566315|NCT01519817|168882754|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6772||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6772
84607540|NCT00121641|168966331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.44|-1.02|<.0001
84671243|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|2.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.92|-17.69|0.1596
84750332|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.243
84566316|NCT01519817|168882754|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
84566317|NCT01519817|168882755|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0621||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD40L cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0621
84566318|NCT01519817|168882755|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
84566319|NCT01519817|168882755|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2402||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2402
84566320|NCT01519817|168882755|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
84607541|NCT00121641|168966332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.47|-9.72||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-9.72|-31.47|0.0002
84607542|NCT00121641|168966332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-3.97||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-3.97|-25.50|0.0074
84750333|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|3.7|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||3.70|-20.12|0.176
84750334|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||14.03|-10.00|0.741
84566321|NCT02922153|168882756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided, two-sample t-test.||||||0.0223
84750335|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.07|2.62|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||2.62|-23.07|0.118
84750336|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.920
84566322|NCT02922153|168882757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided two-sample t-test.||||||0.6259
84566323|NCT02922153|168882757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||||0.518
84750337|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.23|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||16.23|-24.64|0.685
84750338|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|19.19|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.19|-22.04|0.892
84495831|NCT02203305|168742317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84566324|NCT02922153|168882758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||FEV1 one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0201
84495832|NCT02203305|168742317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
84566325|NCT02922153|168882758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||FVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
84566326|NCT02922153|168882758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||SVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
84750339|NCT01794923|169255031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|19.25|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.25|-24.82|0.804
84750340|NCT01794923|169255032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||||0.533
84566327|NCT02922153|168882759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3085||||||72 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.3085
84566328|NCT02922153|168882759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8196||||||96 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.8196
84566329|NCT02922153|168882759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7269||||||120 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.7269
84566330|NCT02922153|168882761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Analysis is the time from end of procedure to oral endotracheal extubation||||0.4421
84566331|NCT02922153|168882762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4352||||||Total Post-Procedure for Hospital Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||||||0.4352
84750341|NCT01794923|169255032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.38|-0.38|0.266
84750342|NCT01794923|169255032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.05|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.05|-0.74|0.730
84566332|NCT02922153|168882763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2939||||||ICU Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.2939
84566333|NCT02922153|168882763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0998||||||Hospital Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.0998
84566334|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.2877
84566335|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5311|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.5311
84566336|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4908|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.4908
84566337|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8621|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.8621
84566338|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
84566339|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.0133
84566340|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.0037
84566341|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1671|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.1671
84566342|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1.000
84566343|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
84750343|NCT01794923|169255032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.30|-0.61|0.479
84750344|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.189
84750345|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.17|0.389
84566344|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||1
84566345|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2757
84566346|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9025|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.9025
84566347|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.7942
84607543|NCT00121641|168966332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|-11.84||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-11.84|-33.79|<.0001
84607544|NCT00121641|168966333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|11.1||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.9||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||24.9|-3.1|0.1141
84671244|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-12.6||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.60|-33.06|<0.0001
84750346|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.05|0.273
84750347|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.01|-0.25|0.069
84566348|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
84566349|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3492|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.3492
84566350|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2644|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2644
84607545|NCT00121641|168966333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|14.0||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|27.6||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||27.6|-0.1|0.0443
84607546|NCT00121641|168966333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.1||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||31.0|2.8|0.0133
84607547|NCT00121641|168966334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6221.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1701.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9570.0|-2872.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2872|-9570|0.0003
84607548|NCT00121641|168966334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6249.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1675.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9546.0|-2952.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2952|-9546|0.0002
84607549|NCT00121641|168966334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1707.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10798.0|-4076.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-4076|-10798|<.0001
84607550|NCT04468074|168966371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84750348|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.716
84566351|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.8258
84566352|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.67
84566353|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5693|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.5693
84566354|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189|||||||Chi-squared|||Discharge: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.1189
84566355|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to stand up||||1
84566356|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6992|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to walk||||0.6992
84566357|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4429|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4429
84566358|NCT02922153|168882764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4563
84566359|NCT01111565|168882773|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.4|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.5|=0.079
84566360|NCT01111565|168882773|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.2|=0.085
84566361|NCT01111565|168882774|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.1|-1.1|=0.148
84607551|NCT04468074|168966372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0159
84750349|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.15|0.735
84671245|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|10.43||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.43|-12.63|0.8509
84495833|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as measured with the global score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.011
84495834|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.264||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses were compared to responses over the post-activation period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||=0.264
84495835|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.005) and subscales (p=0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.023).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.023
84607552|NCT04468074|168966373|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.85||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0066
84671246|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|3.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|-20.17|0.1505
84671247|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|5.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.08|-18.31|0.2662
84671248|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.97|-10.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-10.07|-32.97|0.0003
84495836|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.643) and subscale (p=0.005). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.480).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.643
84495837|NCT02203305|168742318|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation (one-tailed)|||||=|0.947||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.947
84607553|NCT01184417|168966403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|32.0||||||||32|4|
84607554|NCT01184417|168966404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|49.0||||||||49|4|
84607555|NCT01184417|168966405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|82.0||||||||82|-4|
84607556|NCT01184417|168966407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0||||||||23|-11|
84607557|NCT00128713|168966411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
84671249|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|11.66||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.66|-15.68|0.7724
84671250|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.986||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|13.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.07|-14.47|0.9202
84671251|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.998||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.18||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.18|-15.40|0.8183
84671252|NCT01336738|169076681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.821||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.53||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-11.53|-38.40|0.0003
84750350|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.08|-0.19|0.414
84495838|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.500
84750351|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.17|-0.11|0.652
84671253|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.03|-0.10|0.2327
84750352|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.622
84750353|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.17|0.830
84750354|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.26|0.442
84750355|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.11|0.358
84750356|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.714
84750357|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.29|0.683
84750358|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.14|-0.34|0.413
84750359|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.21|0.699
84750360|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.244
84750361|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.21|0.833
84750362|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.41|0.156
84750363|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.06|0.128
84750364|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.359
84750365|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.43|-0.12|0.278
84750366|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.22|-0.33|0.699
84750367|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.172
84750368|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.515
84750369|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.37|-0.19|0.527
84750370|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.19|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.37|0.545
84750371|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.47|-0.12|0.250
84750372|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.568
84750373|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.41|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.41|-0.16|0.381
84750374|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.31|0.863
84750375|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.16|0.330
84750376|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.167
84750377|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.165
84750378|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.39|0.564
84566362|NCT01111565|168882774|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.3|-1.0|=0.242
84566363|NCT01111565|168882775|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.8|=0.910
84566364|NCT01111565|168882775|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|=0.291
84566365|NCT02683239|168882788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|-0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.293|-1.159|= 0.0010
84566366|NCT02683239|168882788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.646|< 0.0001
84566367|NCT02683239|168882788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.664|< 0.0001
84607558|NCT00128713|168966411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
84750379|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.62|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.62|-0.02|0.068
84750380|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.131
84750381|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.56|-0.06|0.119
84566368|NCT02683239|168882788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.606|-1.477|< 0.0001
84566369|NCT02683239|168882789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.309|-1.163|= 0.0007
84566370|NCT02683239|168882789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.768|-1.624|< 0.0001
84566371|NCT02683239|168882789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|-0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.822|-1.698|< 0.0001
84566372|NCT02683239|168882789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.695|-1.564|< 0.0001
84566373|NCT02683239|168882790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.028|-0.380|= 0.0230
84566374|NCT02683239|168882790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.093|-0.437|= 0.0025
84566375|NCT02683239|168882790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.145|-0.496|= 0.0003
84566376|NCT02683239|168882790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.118|-0.466|= 0.0010
84566377|NCT01004978|168882867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4
84607559|NCT00128713|168966411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.66
84671254|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.04||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-0.08|0.3580
84750382|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.39|0.616
84750383|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.01|0.056
84750384|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.255
84750385|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.57|-0.08|0.144
84495839|NCT02203305|168742318|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.51|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.023
84750386|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.34|0.935
84750387|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.61|-0.10|0.153
84750388|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.128
84750389|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.63|-0.02|0.067
84750390|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.33|-0.33|0.999
84750391|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.05|0.088
84750392|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.195
84750393|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.67|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.67|-0.12|0.175
84750394|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.30|-0.50|0.610
84750395|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.81|-0.05|0.083
84750396|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.884
84566378|NCT01004978|168882868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
84750397|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.35|-0.43|0.833
84750398|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.29|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.49|0.620
84750399|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.48|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.48|-0.36|0.788
84566379|NCT00814138|168882877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-488.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2443.4|1467.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1467.3|-2443.4|0.26
84750400|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.755
84750401|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.34|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.34|-0.45|0.787
84750402|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.25|-0.56|0.455
84750403|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.33|0.654
84750404|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.370
84750405|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.51|0.472
84750406|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.23|0.427
84750407|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.69|0.159
84566380|NCT00814138|168882878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.8|-9.7|0.26
84566381|NCT00814138|168882879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.5|-4.9|0.29
84566382|NCT00814138|168882880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.8|-6.3|0.28
84566383|NCT00814138|168882881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.4|-7.2|0.82
84566384|NCT00814138|168882882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.8|-3.7|0.21
84566385|NCT00814138|168882883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.5|-7.1|0.09
84566386|NCT00583908|168882892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|<|0.0001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||||<0.0001
84671255|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.07||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.07|-0.20|0.0036
84750408|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.480
84566387|NCT00583908|168882892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.0002||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having less degree of rotation||||0.0002
84566388|NCT00583908|168882892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|<|0.0001||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having less degree of rotation||||<0.0001
84566389|NCT00583908|168882893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0083||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.0083
84566390|NCT00583908|168882893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.052
84566391|NCT00583908|168882893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.015
84566392|NCT00583908|168882894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.16
84566393|NCT00583908|168882894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.73
84566394|NCT00583908|168882894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.044
84566395|NCT00583908|168882895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.044
84750409|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.15|-0.59|0.238
84750410|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.32|-0.42|0.794
84750411|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.57|0.395
84750412|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.400
84750413|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.61|0.176
84750414|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.47|0.573
84750415|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.53|0.466
84566396|NCT00583908|168882895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
84566397|NCT00583908|168882895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.44
84750416|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.092
84750417|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.04|-0.67|0.086
84495840|NCT02203305|168742318|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.55|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.033
84495841|NCT02203305|168742318|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.541), interval (p=0.446), and subscale (p=0.208). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.287).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the ease of communication, background noise, and reverberation subscales over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.208
84495842|NCT02203305|168742319|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.221||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.221
84566398|NCT00583908|168882896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.78
84566399|NCT00583908|168882896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.68
84566400|NCT00583908|168882896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.78
84750418|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.45|-0.27|0.616
84495843|NCT02203305|168742319|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.538
84495844|NCT02203305|168742319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.218||||||There were no significant main effects of cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). There was no significant interaction between cohort and interval (p=0.218).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). Interaction: cohort and interval (p=0.218).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.218
84566401|NCT00583908|168882897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.11
84566402|NCT00583908|168882897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
84566403|NCT00583908|168882897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.16
84566404|NCT00583908|168882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.061||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.061
84566405|NCT00583908|168882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.47
84566406|NCT00583908|168882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.38
84566407|NCT00583908|168882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.17
84566408|NCT00583908|168882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.89
84566409|NCT00583908|168882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.56
84566410|NCT00583908|168882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.0080
84566411|NCT00583908|168882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.0049||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.0049
84566412|NCT00583908|168882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.0058
84566413|NCT00583908|168882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.27
84750419|NCT01794923|169255033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||-0.02|-0.79|0.040
84750420|NCT01794923|169255034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||||0.751
84750421|NCT01794923|169255034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.20|-0.28|0.696
84566414|NCT00583908|168882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilocon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.85
84566415|NCT00583908|168882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omifilcon A|||||0.73
84566416|NCT01064414|168882915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.066|-0.529|0.012
84566417|NCT01064414|168882915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.635|<0.001
84566418|NCT01064414|168882916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.73|0.227
84566419|NCT01064414|168882916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.04|1.19|0.017
84566420|NCT01064414|168882917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|-2.307|||ANCOVA|||||-2.307|-28.45|0.021
84607560|NCT00128713|168966412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84607561|NCT00128713|168966412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84750422|NCT01794923|169255034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.29|-0.21|0.760
84750423|NCT01794923|169255034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.16|-0.36|0.463
84566421|NCT01064414|168882917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.683||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|0.962|||ANCOVA|||||0.962|-25.36|0.069
84607562|NCT00128713|168966412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84607563|NCT00128713|168966413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84607564|NCT00128713|168966413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84607565|NCT00128713|168966413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84607566|NCT00128713|168966415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.51
84750424|NCT00752622|169255050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to evaluation Week 10.||||<.0001
84566422|NCT00249873|168882918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0133||95.0|0.81|0.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of any component of the primary event for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.98|0.81|0.0133
84607567|NCT00128713|168966415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.82
84607568|NCT00128713|168966415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.68
84671256|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.01||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.01|-0.12|0.1251
84750425|NCT00752622|169255050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 30 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
84750426|NCT00752622|169255050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 54 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
84566423|NCT00249873|168882919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|0.62|0.83||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of stroke for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.83|0.62|<0.001
84566424|NCT00249873|168882920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.696||95.0|0.89|1.08||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||1.08|0.89|0.696
84566425|NCT00249873|168882921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84566426|NCT02168491|168882998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||paired t test|||||||<0.02
84566427|NCT02168491|168882999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||paired t test|||||||0.24
84566428|NCT02168491|168883000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t test|||||||0.28
84566429|NCT00809445|168883001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.57|5.72||a-prior threshold for statistical significance is .025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The numerator is the two HIV rapid testing arms The denominator is the HIV testing referral arm|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a higher rate of HIV testing than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||5.72|3.57|<0.001
84566430|NCT00809445|168883002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate raios (IRR)|1.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.14||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator includes the two HIV rapid testing groups Denominator is the HIV testing referral group|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a lower rate of unprotected sexual episodes than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||1.14|0.95|0.39
84566431|NCT00809445|168883002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.26||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator is the HIV rapid test and counseling arm Denominator is the HIV rapid test and info arm|"The data analysis information presented is for the comparison of the 2 on-site testing groups.~Hypothesis: HIV rapid test and counseling group will have fewer unprotected sexual acts than will HIV rapid test and info group"||1.26|0.84|0.81
84566432|NCT00809445|168883003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for significance was .05|Chi-squared|Note that this is a 3 by 3 chi-square: the 3 conditions by discontinued sharing needles /no change in sharing needles/initiated sharing needles||||||0.044
84566433|NCT00809445|168883004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Chi-squared|chi-square = 428.2466, Df=2||||||<0.0001
84566434|NCT02256696|168883075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis||2.12|0.93|0.10
84566435|NCT02256696|168883075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.87|1.24|0.003
84566436|NCT02256696|168883075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.15|0.95|0.09
84566437|NCT02256696|168883075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.89|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.89|1.21|0.005
84566438|NCT02256696|168883078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.44|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.44|1.07|0.02
84607569|NCT00424190|168966416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||6.2|-4.2|
84671257|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.06||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.11|0.3466
84566439|NCT02256696|168883078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||mITT analysis||2.75|1.18|0.006
84566440|NCT02256696|168883078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.42|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.42|1.05|0.03
84566441|NCT02256696|168883078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.85|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.85|1.18|0.007
84566442|NCT03877744|168883093|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 2.5 was set prior to study initiation with a Type I error of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2558||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.1894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controls technician,site,seat type;Techn. nested in site modeled as random effect;Model allowed heterogeneous variances across arms w Kenward-Roger df|Mixed model allowed the arms to have unequal variance estimates. Degrees of freedom estimated using Kenward-Rogers.|||2.1894||0.0008
84566443|NCT03361306|168883094|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true VGPR+ rate is 40% under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. For the originally planned enrollment of 40 subjects, if at least 21 subjects achieved VGPR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Response Rate|0.467||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.734||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment on the study. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.734|0.213|0.390
84566444|NCT02038179|168883116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Intent-to-Treat Analysis using multiple imputation. Imputed Means and Imputed Standard Errors of the Mean.|paired t-test|||||||0.83
84566445|NCT02038179|168883117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84566446|NCT02038179|168883118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.84
84566447|NCT00327717|168883138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
84566448|NCT00327717|168883139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
84566449|NCT00327717|168883140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.211
84566450|NCT00327717|168883141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
84750427|NCT01323634|169255114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.124|||ANCOVA|||||0.124|0.037|<0.001
84566451|NCT00327717|168883142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||X^2 test|||||||0.044
84566452|NCT00327717|168883143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
84750428|NCT01182194|169255117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.53|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.03|85.53|
84752776|NCT00006392|169260681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9|1.16||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.16|0.90|>.01
84566453|NCT00327717|168883144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
84566454|NCT00327717|168883145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.162
84566455|NCT00327717|168883146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.678
84566456|NCT01630135|168883152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.76|||ANCOVA||The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for Treatment, Baseline, Age, and Sex.|||-0.76|-1.41|<0.001
84566457|NCT04767373|168883168|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|60.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|71.9|||Exact method|One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- Relative Risk \[RR\]) \& 95% confidence interval (CI). The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.9|44.1|<0.001
84566458|NCT04767373|168883169|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||||Estimated percentage difference beteween Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.5|-2.6|
84566459|NCT04767373|168883170|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.0|-1.4|
84566460|NCT04767373|168883171|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.2|-5.0|
84566461|NCT04767373|168883172|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-0.3|
84566462|NCT04767373|168883173|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.5|-0.4|
84566463|NCT04767373|168883176|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|92.6||One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|Exact method||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||92.6|66.6|<0.001
84566464|NCT04767373|168883177|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.1|||||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.1|43.3|
84566465|NCT00186485|168883191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the HAM-D rating scale: total scores (F (4,96) = 19.88, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures Anova||ANOVA with partial eta accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.001
84566466|NCT00186485|168883192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the BDI total scores (F (4,96) = 19.35, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.,|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA with partial eta; accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.01
84495845|NCT02203305|168742320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.322||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.084) and condition (p=0.322). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.125).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.322
84495846|NCT02203305|168742320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.317||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.014) and condition (p=0.317). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.118).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.317
84495847|NCT02203305|168742320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.017
84495848|NCT02203305|168742320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.292
84495849|NCT02203305|168742320|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
84495850|NCT02203305|168742321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.581||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.039) and condition (p=0.007). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.581).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.581
84495851|NCT02203305|168742321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.817||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p=0.005) and interval (p=0.528). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.817).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.817
84495852|NCT02203305|168742321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.008
84495853|NCT02203305|168742321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.009
84495854|NCT02203305|168742321|OTHER|bivariate correlation|||||=|0.049||||||"Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.~This correlation was no longer significant when controlling for the hearing threshold at 8000 Hz."|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and performance at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.049
84495855|NCT02203305|168742321|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
84566467|NCT00186485|168883193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the CGI scores (F (4,88) = 5.31, p \< .01) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|||Repeated Measures ANOVA with partial eta; p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons over the course of treatment||||<0.01
84495856|NCT02203305|168742322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.070) and condition (p=0.440). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.047).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.440
84566468|NCT03804268|168883200|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|30.8||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||30.8|14.3|<0.0001
84566469|NCT03804268|168883201|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||17.0|2.3|0.0114
84566470|NCT03804268|168883202|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||8.5|-4.4|1.0000
84750429|NCT01182194|169255118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.66|101.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.96|95.66|
84750430|NCT01182194|169255119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.35|101.7|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.70|95.35|
84566471|NCT03804268|168883203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.5||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||6.5|3.7|0.0114
84566472|NCT03804268|168883204|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|18.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||26.7|10.6|0.0114
84566473|NCT03804268|168883205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.6|0.0114
84566474|NCT03804268|168883206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.6|2.4|0.0114
84566475|NCT03804268|168883207|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||5.0|-7.1|1.0000
84566476|NCT03804268|168883208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.9||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.9|1.3|0.0114
84752777|NCT00006392|169260682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.73||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.73|0.69|> .05
84566477|NCT03804268|168883209|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||21.6|3.5|0.0171
84566478|NCT03804268|168883210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.5|0.0114
84566479|NCT03804268|168883211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.3|-0.6|0.0114
84566480|NCT03804268|168883212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
84566481|NCT01246895|168883213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.017
84566482|NCT01246895|168883214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.026
84752778|NCT00006392|169260682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.67||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.67|0.66|> .05
84750431|NCT01182194|169255120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|109.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.08|94.36|
84750432|NCT01182194|169255121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.71|94.55|
84750433|NCT01182194|169255122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|96.07|
84566483|NCT01246895|168883215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Pain||||0.474
84566484|NCT01246895|168883215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Stiffness||||0.236
84566485|NCT01246895|168883215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Physical function||||0.326
84607570|NCT01672866|168966424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.0|-1.3|
84750434|NCT02197767|169255131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
84750435|NCT02197767|169255132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
84566486|NCT01246895|168883216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Physical count|||||||0.01
84566487|NCT01246895|168883217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Physical component||||0.478
84607571|NCT01672866|168966424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||0.8|-1.5|
84607572|NCT01672866|168966425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.73
84750436|NCT00803270|169255144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||||0.44|-0.28|0.99
84750437|NCT00803270|169255145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of proportions|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.87||Fisher's Exact Test of equality of percent meeting optimal outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||0.87|0.03|0.08
84566488|NCT01246895|168883217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Mental component||||0.125
84566489|NCT01156805|168883223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects linear regression, adjusted for clustering within schools and children to assess the effect of intervention on changes in BMI over time||||||0.05
84566490|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.37|
84566491|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.31||||||Comparison of midazolam||2.31|0.77|
84566492|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.62||||||Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.56|
84566493|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.23|
84671258|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0439
84750438|NCT01231516|169255177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and RAL at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - RAL) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority were established, superiority would be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted difference in proportion which is based on the difference in percentage, adjusted for Baseline (BL) stratification factors.|Analysis was adjusted for BL stratification factors: HIV-1 RNA (\<=50000 versus \[vs\]\>50000 c/mL), darunavir-ritonavir use without primary protease inhibitor mutations (yes vs no), and phenotypic susceptibility score (2 vs \<2) to background regimen.|||14.2|0.7|0.030
84750439|NCT05266586|169255193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
84750440|NCT05266586|169255194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
84750441|NCT05266586|169255195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
84750442|NCT05266586|169255196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
84495857|NCT02203305|168742322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.379|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.250). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.379).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.379
84566494|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.93|0.53|
84566495|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.47|1.51|
84750443|NCT05266586|169255197|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
84750444|NCT05266586|169255198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
84750445|NCT05266586|169255199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
84566496|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.48|2.62|
84566497|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|6.44|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||6.44|1.78|
84566498|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.31|0.76|
84750446|NCT05266586|169255200|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
84750447|NCT05266586|169255201|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
84750448|NCT05266586|169255202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
84750449|NCT05266586|169255203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
84750450|NCT05266586|169255204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
84750451|NCT05266586|169255205|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
84750452|NCT05266586|169255206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
84750453|NCT05266586|169255207|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
84750454|NCT05266586|169255208|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
84566499|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.42|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.42|1.12|
84750455|NCT05266586|169255209|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
84750456|NCT05266586|169255210|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
84750457|NCT02910739|169255249|OTHER|The pharmacokinetic condition to initiate Part 2 of the study would be met if the point estimate for the AUC0-∞ ratio of geometric means (participants with moderate HI / healthy matched control participants) exceeds 1.5.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.3|||||GMR = geometric least squares mean (GLSM) for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-∞; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.83|
84750458|NCT02910739|169255250|OTHER||GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.5|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on Cmax; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.50|0.77|
84750459|NCT02910739|169255251|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-last; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.31|0.82|
84750460|NCT02910739|169255252|OTHER||GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.27|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.27|0.80|
84750461|NCT02910739|169255253|OTHER||GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on C24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.90|
84750462|NCT03226275|169255362|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|106.09||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting state||106.09|93.25|
84750463|NCT03226275|169255362|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.95|100.73||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||100.73|92.95|
84750464|NCT03226275|169255362|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|108.76||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.76|90.02|
84750465|NCT03226275|169255362|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.53|111.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||111.20|95.53|
84750466|NCT03226275|169255363|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|103.74||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||103.74|92.29|
84750467|NCT03226275|169255363|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.03||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||106.03|94.37|
84566500|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.13|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.13|0.73|
84566501|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.27|0.74|
84607573|NCT01672866|168966425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.85
84750468|NCT03226275|169255363|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|93.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.56|104.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||104.20|84.56|
84495858|NCT02203305|168742322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.021
84495859|NCT02203305|168742322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
84495860|NCT02203305|168742323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.639||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.639). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.280).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.639
84566502|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.72|0.64|
84607574|NCT00424268|168966426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
84607575|NCT00424268|168966427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
84607576|NCT00424268|168966428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.146||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.146|0.515|0.1957
84750469|NCT03226275|169255363|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|106.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|116.08||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||116.08|97.82|
84566503|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.38|0.88|
84750470|NCT03226275|169255364|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||0.50|0.00|
84750471|NCT03226275|169255364|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||0.00|-1.00|
84750472|NCT03226275|169255364|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
84750473|NCT03226275|169255364|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
84750474|NCT03226275|169255366|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|106.79||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||106.79|93.61|
84750475|NCT03226275|169255366|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|104.28||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||104.28|93.38|
84750476|NCT03226275|169255366|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|108.15||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.15|89.75|
84750477|NCT03226275|169255366|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|112.66||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||112.66|96.11|
84750478|NCT03971422|169255405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.091|-1.249||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.249|-4.091|<0.001
84750479|NCT03971422|169255405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.994|-1.163||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.163|-3.994|<0.001
84750480|NCT03971422|169255406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.882||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||14.882|2.100|<0.001
84750481|NCT03971422|169255406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|11.791||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||11.791|1.653|<0.001
84495861|NCT02203305|168742323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.637). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.450).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.637
84495862|NCT02203305|168742323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
84495863|NCT02203305|168742323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.002
84495864|NCT02203305|168742324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.020) and condition (p=0.406). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.671).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.671
84495865|NCT02203305|168742324|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.124) and condition (p=0.845). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.960).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.124
84495866|NCT02203305|168742324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.025
84495867|NCT02203305|168742324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.442
84495868|NCT02203305|168742325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct values were converted to rationalized arcsine units prior to analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
84495869|NCT02203305|168742325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
84495870|NCT02203305|168742326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listened with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
84495871|NCT02203305|168742326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listening with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
84495872|NCT02203305|168742326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
84495873|NCT02203305|168742326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
84495874|NCT02203305|168742327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
84495875|NCT02203305|168742327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
84566504|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.76|0.68|
84750482|NCT03971422|169255407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.901|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.634|-1.245||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.245|-6.634|<0.001
84750483|NCT03971422|169255407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.303|-2.968||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.968|-8.303|<0.001
84750484|NCT03971422|169255408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.614|-1.584||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.584|-5.614|<0.001
84750485|NCT03971422|169255408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.756|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.821|-2.859||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.859|-6.821|<0.001
84495876|NCT02203305|168742327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p\<0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.001
84495877|NCT02203305|168742327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p=0.010). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.010
84495878|NCT02203305|168742328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||<0.001
84750486|NCT03971422|169255409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.441|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.804|-4.089||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.089|-21.804|<0.001
84495879|NCT02203305|168742328|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||=0.003
84750487|NCT03971422|169255409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.596|-6.45||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-6.450|-23.596|<0.001
84750488|NCT03971422|169255410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.058|-0.134||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.134|-18.058|0.012
84750489|NCT03971422|169255410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.759|-5.936||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-5.936|-23.759|<0.001
84750490|NCT03971422|169255411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.958|-4.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.998|-18.958|<0.001
84750491|NCT03971422|169255411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.787|-3.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-3.998|-17.787|<0.001
84750492|NCT03566810|169255437|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Mean%|98.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|105.64||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||105.64|92.20|
84750493|NCT03566810|169255437|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.05||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||106.05|93.15|
84750494|NCT03566810|169255438|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|107.44||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||107.44|91.08|
84750495|NCT03566810|169255438|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|96.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.87|104.46||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.46|89.87|
84750496|NCT03566810|169255439|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||0.00|-0.50|
84750497|NCT03566810|169255439|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||0.50|-0.50|
84750498|NCT03566810|169255441|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|97.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|104.86||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||104.86|91.38|
84750499|NCT03566810|169255441|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|104.14||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.14|92.37|
84750500|NCT00826111|169255453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.0122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.01220|-0.1390|0.88
84495880|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
84750501|NCT00826111|169255454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.224|-0.286|0.79
84750502|NCT00826111|169255455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.0136|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.0136|-0.580|0.16
84750503|NCT00826111|169255456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.77|-1.35|0.29
84750504|NCT00826111|169255457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0077|0.0174|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0174|-0.0077|0.37
84750505|NCT00826111|169255458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0042||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.1481|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1481|-0.0037|0.21
84750506|NCT00826111|169255459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.46|-1.76|0.10
84495881|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
84566505|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.17|0.43|
84750507|NCT00826111|169255460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|10.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.51|-9.31|0.89
84750508|NCT00826111|169255461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.91|-10.31|0.66
84750509|NCT02425644|169255480|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.695||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.536|0.902|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.902|0.536|0.0003
84750510|NCT02425644|169255481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-5.83|0.0019
84750511|NCT02425644|169255482|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.542|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.542|0.364|<.0001
84750512|NCT02425644|169255483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.58|0.2939
84750513|NCT02425644|169255484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3720
84750514|NCT00567268|169255491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.004
84750515|NCT00567268|169255492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
84750516|NCT00567268|169255492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
84750517|NCT00567268|169255493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
84750518|NCT00567268|169255494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
84750519|NCT00567268|169255494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of age categories."||||<0.001
84750520|NCT00567268|169255495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure . The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.008
84750521|NCT00567268|169255495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||=0.002
84750522|NCT00567268|169255496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.018
84750523|NCT00567268|169255497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
84750524|NCT00567268|169255497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||<0.001
84750525|NCT00567268|169255498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.025|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was baseline creatinine clearance. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the baseline creatinine clearance."||||=0.025
84750526|NCT00567268|169255499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the non-drug therapy and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.043
84750527|NCT02349451|169255507|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|57.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||57.7|17.2|<0.001
84750528|NCT02349451|169255507|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|50.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|67.4||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||67.4|28.1|<0.001
84750529|NCT02349451|169255508|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-3.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.1||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||12.1|-18.5|0.723
84750530|NCT02349451|169255508|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.215
84750531|NCT02349451|169255509|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|24.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|39.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.3|3.9|0.021
84750532|NCT02349451|169255509|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-0.9||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|14.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-16.5|0.611
84497623|NCT03170271|168746322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|20.11||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.79|33.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in morning PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||33.44|6.79|0.0031
84566506|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.41|0.53|
84750533|NCT02349451|169255509|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|55.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.1|<0.001
84750534|NCT02349451|169255509|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|15.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|31.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||31.3|-0.3|0.039
84750535|NCT02349451|169255510|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|18.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|29.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.7|1.5|0.034
84750536|NCT02349451|169255510|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-5.8|0.185
84750537|NCT02349451|169255510|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|27.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.0||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.0|9.6|0.004
84750538|NCT02349451|169255510|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|16.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|29.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.3|2.3|0.017
84750539|NCT02349451|169255511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
84750540|NCT02349451|169255511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.561
84750541|NCT02349451|169255511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
84750542|NCT02349451|169255511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.106
84750543|NCT02349451|169255512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.57||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
84750544|NCT02349451|169255512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.48|0.479
84750545|NCT02349451|169255512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.89||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-1.90|<0.001
84750546|NCT02349451|169255512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.81|0.012
84750547|NCT02349451|169255513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.53||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.81|<0.001
84750548|NCT02349451|169255513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.36||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.54|0.696
84750549|NCT02349451|169255513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.77||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-2.04|<0.001
84750550|NCT02349451|169255513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.77|0.151
84750551|NCT02349451|169255514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.19||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.19|-4.14|<0.001
84750552|NCT02349451|169255514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.81||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.021
84750553|NCT02349451|169255514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.75||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-3.70|<0.001
84750554|NCT02349451|169255514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.06|0.288
84495882|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001) and interaction (p=0.001).~A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.001
84495883|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.034).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.034
84495884|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
84750555|NCT00186069|169255533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Fisher Exact|||||1.86|0.77|0.68
84750556|NCT00186069|169255534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84750557|NCT00186069|169255535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.95
84750558|NCT00078754|169255544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.622
84750559|NCT00078754|169255545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||LHA score main effect.|ANCOVA|The LHA Score F\[1,83\] = 4.91, p = 0.029; Condition F\[2,83\] = 0.20, p = 0.815; Condition x LHA Score F\[2,83\] = 0.255, p = 0.799.||The hypothesis was that subjects with LHA Scores = 18 or more would respond better to divalproex (than fluoxetine) while those with LHA scores = or \< 17 would respond better to fluoxetine (than divalproex).||||0.029
84750560|NCT00078754|169255545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline OAS-M Aggression score as covariate.||ANCOVA at endpoint with baseline OAS-M AGG score as covariate.||||0.80
84750561|NCT04668586|169255546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.006
84750562|NCT04668586|169255547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.008
84750563|NCT04668586|169255549|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84750564|NCT04668586|169255550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.09
84750565|NCT00986440|169255580|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic for difference|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||2-sided P value for z test|||||||<0.0001
84750566|NCT00986440|169255580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84750567|NCT00986440|169255581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0380
84750568|NCT00986440|169255581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1773|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1773
84750569|NCT00986440|169255581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2844
84750570|NCT00986440|169255581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.1140
84750571|NCT00986440|169255582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1213
84750572|NCT03291587|169255602|SUPERIORITY|With 418 analyzable participants across 13 clinics per group, we have 80% power to detect a group difference in primary outcome (7-day abstinence). This assumes control abstinence rate will be 10% versus 20% intervention rate using a 2-sided Z-test for proportions with alpha=0.05 (2-sided). To account for the clustering we used an intra-class correlation value of 0.03. We plan to enroll 1114-1300 patients (or approximately 42-50 per site) to conservatively allow for 25%- 35.5% loss to follow-up.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.652|1.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized estimating equation marginal model was used in an intent-to-treat analysis to predict the 7-day tobacco use binary outcome. A binomial distribution with logit link was specified with group, time, and the interaction of group by time included as covariates while allowing intercept and time to vary by participants within site with an exchangeable working correlation matrix designation.||1.433|0.652|0.865
84750573|NCT03933774|169255649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The degree of hyperpigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.002
84750574|NCT03933774|169255650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|McNemar|||Null hypothesis: The number of participants who showed ≥75% repigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.479
84750575|NCT00504881|169255652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction over Placebo|7.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA on log-transformed partial seizure frequency per week over the treatment period, with log-transformed baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate, and including terms for treatment and stratification factors.||15.9|-2.2|=0.125
84750576|NCT01777269|169255674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.79|||mixed-model repeated-measures|||||-5.79|-10.22|<0.001
84750577|NCT01777269|169255675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-2.21|-6.01|<0.001
84750578|NCT01777269|169255675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.41|||Adjusted mean difference||Month 3|||-4.41|-8.45|<0.001
84750579|NCT01777269|169255675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-6.77|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-6.77|-11.31|<0.001
84750580|NCT01777269|169255675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-6.67|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-6.67|-10.96|<0.001
84750581|NCT01777269|169255677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.23|-0.62|0.37
84566507|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.46|0.89|
84566508|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.14|0.85|
84750582|NCT01777269|169255677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.24|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.24|-0.71|0.33
84750583|NCT01777269|169255677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||0.15|-0.88|0.16
84750584|NCT01777269|169255677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.17|-1.19|0.009
84750585|NCT01777269|169255677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.07|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||0.07|-0.99|0.091
84750586|NCT01777269|169255678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.7|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.70|-4.07|<0.001
84750587|NCT01777269|169255678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.9|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-3.90|-6.59|<0.001
84750588|NCT01777269|169255678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.34|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-5.34|-8.30|<0.001
84750589|NCT01777269|169255678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-5.59|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-5.59|-8.51|<0.001
84750590|NCT01777269|169255678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-5.38|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-5.38|-8.47|<0.001
84750591|NCT01777269|169255679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-0.21|-1.67|0.012
84750592|NCT01777269|169255679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.17|-1.69|0.017
84750593|NCT01777269|169255679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.88|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.88|-2.57|<0.001
84750594|NCT01777269|169255679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.30|-2.01|0.009
84750595|NCT01777269|169255679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.01|-1.65|0.047
84750596|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.85|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.85|-2.45|<0.001
84750597|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-1.47|0.24
84750598|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.36|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.36|-2.19|0.006
84750599|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.72|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.72|-2.74|<0.001
84750600|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.34||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.28|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.28|-2.40|0.013
84750601|NCT01777269|169255680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.83|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.83|-3.12|<0.001
84750602|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.78|0.036
84750603|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-0.37|1.00
84750604|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.15|-0.67|0.21
84750605|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.15|-1.09|0.009
84750606|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||0.01|-0.91|0.056
84750607|NCT01777269|169255681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.58||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.08|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.08|-1.08|0.023
84750608|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-2.1|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-2.10|-3.89|<0.001
84750609|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.06|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.06|-3.15|<0.001
84750610|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.98|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.98|-3.25|<0.001
84750611|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-1.30|-3.76|<0.001
84750612|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.05|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.05|-2.56|0.042
84750613|NCT01777269|169255682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.14|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-2.14|-4.87|<0.001
84750614|NCT01777269|169255683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.49|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=2 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.49|-10.07|<0.001
84750615|NCT01777269|169255683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-4.99|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=3 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-4.99|-9.79|<0.001
84750616|NCT01777269|169255684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.35|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=25 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.35|-10.22|<0.001
84495885|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.192|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.192). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.192
84495886|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
84750617|NCT01783041|169255697|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
84750618|NCT01783041|169255698|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis applies to all sub-scales that were compared between the 2 study groups.||||||<0.05
84750619|NCT01783041|169255699|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Reported p values have been calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|Differences between the groups were analyzed using a two sided t-test.||||||<0.05
84750620|NCT01783041|169255700|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
84750621|NCT02092220|169255734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.56||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided||Bionic Pancreas Arm - Usual Care Arm|||-12.56|-28.00|<0.0001
84750622|NCT02092220|169255735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
84750623|NCT00593957|169255767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.40
84750624|NCT00593957|169255767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.62
84750625|NCT00593957|169255767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.38
84750626|NCT00593957|169255769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there would be no significant difference in social abilities as measured by the SSI score in this treatment group baseline to 6 months post-treatment.||||<0.10
84750627|NCT00593957|169255769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.50
84750628|NCT00593957|169255769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.48
84750629|NCT00593957|169255770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.947|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84750630|NCT02411578|169255774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the crossover trial primary analysis, analyzed events were study treatment events meeting the following criteria: a) a survey was completed in the smart phone application, b) the initial BG measurement was 40 to 69 mg/dL, c) BG measurements were performed at both the 15-minute (in a window of 13 to 20 minutes) and 30-minute (28 to 40 minutes) time points, and d) appropriate treatment including dose was taken both at the initial and 15-minute time points.||||0.99
84750631|NCT02411578|169255775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.34
84750632|NCT02411578|169255776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.01
84750633|NCT02411578|169255777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.02
84750634|NCT02411578|169255778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.86
84750635|NCT02411578|169255779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.95
84750636|NCT02411578|169255780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.78
84495887|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.479|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.479).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.479
84495888|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.804|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.804). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.090).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.804
84566509|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.22|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.22|0.57|
84566510|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.49|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.49|0.76|
84566511|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.29|0.75|
84566512|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.81|0.65|
84566513|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.33|0.46|
84566514|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.45|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.45|0.33|
84566515|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||5.14|0.75|
84566516|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.16|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.16|0.49|
84566517|NCT03311841|168883227|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.86|0.27|
84566518|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.40|
84750637|NCT02411578|169255781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.21
84566519|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.09|0.76|
84750638|NCT02411578|169255782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.09
84566520|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.52|0.57|
84566521|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.25|
84566522|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.73|0.53|
84750639|NCT02411578|169255783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.49
84750640|NCT02411578|169255784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.63
84566523|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||4.32|1.32|
84566524|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.48|1.75|
84566525|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||2.64|0.80|
84566526|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.2|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.20|0.78|
84566527|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.09|1.09|
84566528|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.09|0.77|
84566529|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.85|
84566530|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.56|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.56|0.68|
84671259|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.09||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.27|0.0040
84671260|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.29|0.0009
84671261|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.02||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.23|0.1405
84566531|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.92|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.92|0.83|
84750641|NCT02411578|169255785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.41
84750642|NCT02411578|169255786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.80
84566532|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.63|0.73|
84566533|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.29|0.56|
84671262|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.36|0.0067
84671263|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.24||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.24|-0.50|0.0001
84750643|NCT02411578|169255787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.13
84750644|NCT02411578|169255788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.70
84750645|NCT02411578|169255789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
84750646|NCT02411578|169255790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84750647|NCT02411578|169255791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84750648|NCT02876835|169255802|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|
84495889|NCT02203305|168742329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.005).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.005
84495890|NCT02203305|168742330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
84495891|NCT02203305|168742330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.034
84566534|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.23|0.55|
84566535|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.11|0.89|
84566536|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.77|0.83|
84566537|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.71|0.78|
84566538|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.34|0.70|
84495892|NCT02203305|168742331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
84566539|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.28|0.78|
84566540|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.74|0.62|
84750649|NCT02876835|169255803|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13||||||||0.13|0.03|
84750650|NCT02876835|169255804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.670884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|0.670884
84750651|NCT02876835|169255805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.800813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22||The p-value was compared against 0.012500 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.93|0.800813
84750652|NCT02876835|169255806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.886195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.886195
84495893|NCT02203305|168742331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.037
84495894|NCT02203305|168742332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||<0.001
84495895|NCT02203305|168742332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
84495896|NCT02203305|168742333|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) with a bone-conduction device (preoperative interval) and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation interval. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices.||||=0.004
84495897|NCT02203305|168742333|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.004
84495898|NCT02203305|168742334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||<0.001
84495899|NCT02203305|168742334|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.727
84495900|NCT02203305|168742335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.001
84495901|NCT02203305|168742335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.090
84495902|NCT02203305|168742341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.923|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: electrode (p\<0.001), target stimulus (p=0.923), and interval (p=0.226). Interaction: electrode and interval (p=0.496).||A linear mixed effects model compared the main effects of target stimulus (click, tone), electrode (1-5), and interval (1, 3, 6, and 12 months) on the normalized pitch match.||||<0.923
84495903|NCT02203305|168742341|OTHER||||||>|0.164|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and word recognition with the CI alone.||||>0.164
84566541|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.82|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.82|0.62|
84495904|NCT02203305|168742341|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.367|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and speech recognition in noise (masker from the front, masker towards the better hearing ear, and masker towards the poorer hearing ear).||||>0.367
84495905|NCT02203305|168742341|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.349|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and sound source localization (RMS error).||||>0.349
84495906|NCT02203305|168742342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz at the preoperative and initial activation intervals for the 25 participants with unaided threshold of 80 dB HL or better at the preoperative interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||<0.001
84566542|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.67|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.67|0.58|
84566543|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.63|1.09|
84566544|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.93|0.72|
84671264|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.46|0.0002
84566545|NCT03311841|168883229|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.19|0.51|
84750653|NCT02876835|169255807|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.98||||0.36947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.84|0.369470
84750654|NCT02876835|169255808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.20|0.87|0.6197
84750655|NCT02876835|169255809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.58|0.91|0.8976
84750656|NCT02876835|169255810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.40|0.80|0.6581
84750657|NCT02876835|169255811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||2.07|0.85|0.8940
84750658|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.98|0.9422
84750659|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
84566546|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.36|
84566547|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.28|0.75|
84566548|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.61|0.55|
84566549|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.69|0.23|
84566550|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.95|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.95|0.53|
84566551|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.74|1.57|
84750660|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.39|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.39|0.82|0.6789
84750661|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||2.19|0.85|0.9016
84750662|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
84750663|NCT02876835|169255812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.46|0.92|0.8989
84566552|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.87|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.87|2.83|
84566553|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.07|1.39|
84566554|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.34|0.76|
84750664|NCT02876835|169255813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.33|0.88|0.7673
84750665|NCT02876835|169255814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.15|0.96|0.8601
84750666|NCT02876835|169255815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.86|0.6207
84750667|NCT02876835|169255816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.26|0.97|0.9393
84495907|NCT02203305|168742342|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||ANOVA|generalized linear mixed-effects model||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz from the initial activation to the 12-month post-activation interval for the 9 participants with an unaided threshold of 95 dB HL or better at the initial activation interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||=0.47
84566555|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.46|1.12|
84750668|NCT02876835|169255817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.56|0.95|0.9412
84750669|NCT02876835|169255818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.84|0.88|0.8994
84750670|NCT02876835|169255819|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.75|0.2073
84750671|NCT02876835|169255820|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|1.0||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.84|0.5068
84750672|NCT02876835|169255821|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.88||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.54|0.51|0.3285
84750673|NCT02876835|169255822|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.05|
84750674|NCT02876835|169255823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for current ESA use and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||11.4|5.2|<0.0001
84750675|NCT02876835|169255824|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|7.11|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||7.11|2.04|
84566556|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.15|0.72|
84566557|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.36|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.36|0.76|
84566558|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.65|0.64|
84566559|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.24|0.87|
84566560|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.71|0.68|
84750676|NCT02876835|169255825|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.57|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.57|0.53|<0.0001
84750677|NCT02876835|169255826|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.91|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||5.91|1.90|
84750678|NCT02876835|169255827|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.56|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.56|0.52|<0.0001
84495908|NCT02203305|168742343|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.739
84495909|NCT02203305|168742343|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.553
84495910|NCT02203305|168742344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.345||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: interval (p=0.027) and masker condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.345).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.345
84566561|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.45|
84566562|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.52|0.53|
84671265|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.17||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.17|-0.18|0.4887
84750679|NCT02876835|169255828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.9|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.90|-0.79|0.7916
84750680|NCT02876835|169255828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.38|-0.09|0.9581
84750681|NCT02876835|169255828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.43|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.43|-0.22|0.9241
84750682|NCT02876835|169255829|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.02|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||1.02|-1.18|0.4420
84566563|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.62|0.90|
84750683|NCT02876835|169255829|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.75|-0.52|0.6369
84750684|NCT02876835|169255829|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.74|-0.65|0.5490
84495911|NCT02203305|168742344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.577||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: masker condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.577). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.055).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.577
84566564|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.23|0.84|
84566565|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.35|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.35|0.58|
84566566|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.97|0.71|
84495912|NCT02203305|168742345|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: coding strategy (p=0.023). Interaction: coding strategy and electrode (p=0.044). All other main effects and interactions were p\>0.160.||A linear mixed effect model assessed the main effects of stimulus, electrode, and coding strategy, and their interactions.||||>0.023
84495913|NCT02203305|168742345|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Pitch perception for electrode 1 (p=0.035). All other comparisons were p\>0.318.||Paired samples t-tests evaluated whether pitch perception (mean normalized pitch) differed between coding strategy for each electrode.||||>0.035
84750685|NCT02876835|169255830|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.88||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs estimated using negative binomial model with treatment,current ESA use at randomization and region as covariates and logarithm of time on treatment as offset variable for treatment group comparison.|||0.98|0.79|0.0074
84495914|NCT02203305|168742346|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.084|||||||ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.960) and interval (p=0.084). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.433).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.084
84495915|NCT02203305|168742346|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.434|||||||ANOVA|Main effect: condition (p=0.434) or interval (p=0.687). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.678).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.434
84566567|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||3.19|0.89|
84566568|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.14|0.63|
84566569|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.57|0.44|
84750686|NCT02876835|169255832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, current ESA use and region.|||0.94|0.42|0.0113
84750687|NCT02876835|169255833|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||0.11|-0.83|0.9320
84750688|NCT02876835|169255833|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.36|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.36|-0.59|0.6761
84750689|NCT02876835|169255833|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.3335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.67|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.67|-0.43|0.3335
84750690|NCT02876835|169255833|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.41|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-0.81|0.7423
84750691|NCT02876835|169255834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.90|0.8268
84750692|NCT02876835|169255834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6851
84750693|NCT02876835|169255834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.35|-1.01|0.8316
84750694|NCT02876835|169255834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.46|-1.16|0.8032
84750695|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.28|||MMRM||B pain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.28|-0.95|0.8562
84495916|NCT02203305|168742347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.935||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.018), interval (p=0.012), and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval and masker (p\<0.001). Other interactions: p\>0.117.||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.935
84566570|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.91|0.56|
84566571|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.81|1.21|
84566572|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.18|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.18|0.70|
84566573|NCT03311841|168883230|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.08|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.08|0.43|
84566574|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.48|0.63|
84566575|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.69|
84566576|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.41|0.62|
84566577|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.83|0.36|
84566578|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.61|0.44|
84566579|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.89|
84607577|NCT00424268|168966429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.7|0.1|0.0032
84566580|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.93|
84566581|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.38|0.38|
84566582|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.92|
84566583|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.98|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.98|1.14|
84566584|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.11|0.84|
84566585|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.38|0.91|
84566586|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.75|0.81|
84566587|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.76|0.82|
84750696|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||B pain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6849
84495917|NCT02203305|168742347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.977||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|Effects: interval (p=0.012) and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval\&masker (p=0.020) \& condition, interval, \&masker (p=0.035). Others: (p\>0.131).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.977
84566588|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.57|0.75|
84566589|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.31|0.61|
84566590|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.75|0.58|
84566591|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.85|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||5.85|1.11|
84607578|NCT00424268|168966430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.8||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||-0.8|-4.5|0.0051
84671266|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.57|0.0020
84566592|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||4.81|0.97|
84566593|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||6.77|1.28|
84566594|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.07|0.59|
84566595|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.17|0.71|
84566596|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.62|0.55|
84607579|NCT04327024|168966435|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.08|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.08|-1.28|0.862
84607580|NCT04327024|168966436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.64|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.64|-0.76|0.472
84671267|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.41||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.41|-0.76|<0.0001
84750697|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.24|||MMRM||B pain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.24|-1.22|0.9074
84750698|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.32|||MMRM||B pain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.32|-1.26|0.8765
84495918|NCT01335620|168742409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Compare baseline to 24 weeks||||0.018
84750699|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||MMRM||GH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.40|-0.56|0.6252
84566597|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.96|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.96|0.64|
84566598|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.64|0.46|
84566599|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.32|0.81|
84750700|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.29|||MMRM||GH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.29|-0.68|0.7852
84750701|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||MMRM||GH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.66|-0.46|0.3614
84495919|NCT02951182|168742411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.5|0.0016
84566600|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.53|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.53|0.51|
84566601|NCT03311841|168883231|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.41|0.45|
84566602|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||3.62|0.78|
84566603|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.23|0.75|
84566604|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.41|1.15|
84566605|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.66|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||1.66|0.58|
84566606|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.03|0.52|
84566607|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.97|0.77|
84750702|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.54|||MMRM||GH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.54|-0.70|0.5991
84750703|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.27|||MMRM||MH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.27|-0.88|0.8526
84750704|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.61|||MMRM||MH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.61|-0.56|0.4673
84495920|NCT02951182|168742411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.8|5.5|0.0001
84495921|NCT02951182|168742411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|17.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||17.4|6.7|0.0001
84566608|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.05|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.05|0.56|
84495922|NCT02951182|168742412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.4||||||||-12.4|-32.1|
84566609|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.30|
84566610|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.94|0.84|
84750705|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.33|||MMRM||MH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.33|-0.95|0.8262
84750706|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.51|||MMRM||MH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.51|-1.00|0.7380
84750707|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.62|||MMRM||RE,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.62|-0.80|0.5997
84750708|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.7649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.45|||MMRM||RE,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.45|-0.98|0.7649
84750709|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.18|0.8175
84750710|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.47|0.8591
84750711|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.06|||MMRM||RP,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.06|-1.06|0.9588
84750712|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.23|||MMRM||RP,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.23|-0.90|0.8761
84750713|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.7|||MMRM||RP,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.70|-0.58|0.4293
84750714|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.6983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.53|||MMRM||RP,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.53|-0.92|0.6983
84750715|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||MMRM||SF,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.00|-1.25|0.9743
84750716|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.31|||MMRM||SF,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.31|-0.94|0.8405
84750717|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.56|||MMRM||SF,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.56|-0.82|0.6459
84750718|NCT02876835|169255835|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.41|||MMRM||SF,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-1.17|0.8272
84750719|NCT02876835|169255836|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||-0.02|-1.09|0.9786
84495923|NCT02951182|168742412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-24.8||||||||-24.8|-44.7|
84495924|NCT02951182|168742412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-18.3||||||||-18.3|-48.5|
84495925|NCT02951182|168742413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|24.2||||||||24.2|5.3|
84566611|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.73|0.81|
84566612|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.47|0.84|
84566613|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.78|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.78|0.63|
84566614|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.61|0.95|
84750720|NCT02876835|169255836|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.44|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.44|-0.68|0.6642
84495926|NCT02951182|168742413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.6||||||||28.6|9.7|
84566615|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.86|1.64|
84566616|NCT03311841|168883232|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.24|0.95|
84607581|NCT04327024|168966437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||8.94|-2.65|0.287
84671268|NCT01336738|169076682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.42||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
84750721|NCT02876835|169255836|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.52|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.52|-0.72|0.6261
84566617|NCT01466361|168883253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.23||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 1 minute post dosing.||0.44|-14.89|0.0643
84566618|NCT01466361|168883253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.16||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|2.61|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 3 minute post dosing.||2.61|-16.93|0.1489
84671269|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.73|-0.16|0.2067
84495927|NCT02951182|168742413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.1||||||||29.1|10.8|
84750722|NCT02876835|169255836|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.21|-1.19|0.9161
84495928|NCT02951182|168742414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|26.8||||||||26.8|5.4|
84495929|NCT02951182|168742414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.1||||||||29.1|7.9|
84495930|NCT02951182|168742414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.4||||||||28.4|11.9|
84495931|NCT00145119|168742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion (%)|8.0||||||||||||||||||
84566619|NCT01466361|168883253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.33||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 5 minute post dosing.||3.90|-16.56|0.2225
84607582|NCT04327024|168966438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||5.61|-5.90|0.960
84607583|NCT03938324|168966441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.0034
84607584|NCT03938324|168966442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.5137
84607585|NCT03938324|168966443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4107||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.4107
84607586|NCT03938324|168966444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.1708
84671270|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.48|-0.40|0.8602
84671271|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.42||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-0.47|0.9200
84607587|NCT03938324|168966445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7982||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.7982
84607588|NCT01266590|168966447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0664||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.0664
84607589|NCT04732949|168966463|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to hospital discharge - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.27|0.89|0.509
84607590|NCT04732949|168966464|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to OSCI recovery - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.81|0.888
84607591|NCT04732949|168966465|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for progression to severe disease or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.15|0.44|0.161
84607592|NCT04732949|168966466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for intubation or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.61|0.45|0.610
84671272|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.9||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.90|0.02|0.0399
84750723|NCT02876835|169255837|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.24|-0.88|0.8703
84750724|NCT02876835|169255837|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.67|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.67|-0.41|0.3167
84566620|NCT01466361|168883253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.11||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|5.66|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 10 minutes post dosing.||5.66|-15.87|0.3491
84750725|NCT02876835|169255837|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.47|0.3155
84495932|NCT00299546|168742537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Group 1 vs. Combined Groups 2 and 3. A sample size of 140 patients per group provides a \>90% power assuming 50% of patients used Methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and 30% ACR 20 response in placebo and 40\~55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups.||||<0.001
84566621|NCT01466361|168883253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.59|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 15 minutes post dosing.||6.59|-16.60|0.3936
84566622|NCT01466361|168883254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.58||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|4.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, at 1 minute post dosing.||4.70|-11.85|0.3922
84566623|NCT01466361|168883254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.7||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 3 minutes post dosing.||0.20|-19.59|0.0547
84566624|NCT02358031|168883257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.11|0.78|0.21211
84566625|NCT02358031|168883258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.02|0.69|0.03697
84566626|NCT02358031|168883259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.02951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.01|0.58|0.02951
84566627|NCT02358031|168883260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the fourteenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.87|0.60|0.00025
84566628|NCT02358031|168883261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the twelfth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.80|0.53|0.00002
84566629|NCT02358031|168883262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the eleventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.82|0.45|0.00044
84566630|NCT02358031|168883263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the third primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.53|1.09|0.99830
84607593|NCT04732949|168966467|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.67|0.38|0.544
84750726|NCT02876835|169255837|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.41|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-1.06|0.8069
84566631|NCT02358031|168883264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the second primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.36|0.94|0.89580
84566632|NCT02358031|168883265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.46791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the first primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.29|0.76|0.46791
84566633|NCT02358031|168883266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the tenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.99|0.70|0.01985
84566634|NCT02358031|168883267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the eighth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.90|0.61|0.00133
84566635|NCT02358031|168883268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the seventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.78|0.44|0.00010
84566636|NCT02358031|168883275|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-0.8||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.2||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||7.2|-8.7|0.5740
84566637|NCT02358031|168883276|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|0.5||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||9.1|-8.2|0.4586
84566638|NCT02358031|168883277|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|5.0||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|17.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||17.4|-7.5|0.2161
84671273|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.77|-0.18|0.2266
84750727|NCT02876835|169255838|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0234||||0.9724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0474|0.0005|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0005|-0.0474|0.9724
84566639|NCT02358031|168883278|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|4.26||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||4.26|-3.46|0.839
84566640|NCT02358031|168883279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.94|0.9497
84566641|NCT02358031|168883280|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.02||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.02|0.93|0.9476
84750728|NCT02876835|169255839|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.9|-1.5|0.2687
84750729|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.40|0.9780
84566642|NCT02358031|168883281|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.59||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.59|0.69|0.5836
84566643|NCT02358031|168883288|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-19.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-12.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive , Not Strongly Positive).||-12.1|-25.8|1.0000
84566644|NCT02358031|168883289|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-15.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-8.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||-8.3|-23.4|1.0000
84566645|NCT02358031|168883290|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-12.8||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-1.5||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||-1.5|-23.8|0.9869
84566646|NCT02358031|168883291|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.24||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||3.82|-3.34|0.893
84495933|NCT00299546|168742537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 2: 50 mg.||||0.001
84495934|NCT00299546|168742537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 3 :100 mg.||||<0.001
84566647|NCT02358031|168883292|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.95|0.9530
84566648|NCT02358031|168883293|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.21|0.53|0.1501
84566649|NCT02358031|168883294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.88||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.88|0.85|0.8751
84566650|NCT00078403|168883362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||||||P-value is pre-specified 1-sided test that PEG slows liver fibrosis progression. Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted at interim review for lack of fibrosis progression in Arm B (control arm). P-value is unadjusted for interim analysis.|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted for futility at the first independent interim review of the primary endpoint conducted on May 2, 2007.||||0.58
84566651|NCT00737100|168883414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.001||95.0|1.19|4.7||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.70|1.19|0.001
84607594|NCT04732949|168966468|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.64|0.85|0.323
84750730|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.23|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.23|-2.18|0.9430
84495935|NCT00299546|168742538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||0.003
84495936|NCT00299546|168742538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.021
84495937|NCT00299546|168742538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
84750731|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.77|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.77|-1.98|0.8042
84750732|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-3.11|0.9770
84750733|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.20|-2.20|0.9905
84750734|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.8939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.37|||LS mean difference||CP/SOB,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.37|-1.67|0.8939
84566652|NCT00737100|168883414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39||||0.0001||95.0|1.67|5.12||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.67|0.0001
84566653|NCT00737100|168883415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.0184||95.0|0.38|4.11||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.11|0.38|0.0184
84671274|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.43|0.8493
84566654|NCT00737100|168883415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0179||95.0|0.38|4.06||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||4.06|0.38|0.0179
84566655|NCT00737100|168883416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.0756||95.0|-0.19|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||3.86|-0.19|0.0756
84750735|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.66|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.66|-1.70|0.8070
84566656|NCT00737100|168883416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.0023||95.0|1.12|5.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.12|0.0023
84566657|NCT00737100|168883417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.3857||95.0|-1.08|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||2.79|-1.08|0.3857
84750736|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.13|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-2.49|0.9615
84750737|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.39|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.39|-1.91|0.9015
84750738|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.03|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.32|0.9781
84750739|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.53|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|-2.07|0.8778
84495938|NCT00299546|168742539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methorexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
84750740|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.65||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.19|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.19|-3.11|0.9864
84750741|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.3|0.9725
84750742|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.8|-1.5|0.7188
84750743|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.5|-2.3|0.8903
84750744|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.6|-1.6|0.5011
84750745|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.2|0.9716
84750746|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.4|0.6908
84750747|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.8|0.7462
84495939|NCT00299546|168742539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
84566658|NCT00737100|168883417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.2199||95.0|-0.72|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||3.11|-0.72|0.2199
84566659|NCT00737100|168883418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0363||95.0|0.27|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||8.11|0.27|0.0363
84566660|NCT00737100|168883418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34||||0.0073||95.0|1.45|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||9.23|1.45|0.0073
84566661|NCT00737100|168883419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7414||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||0.08|-0.06|0.7414
84566662|NCT00737100|168883419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1418||95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||0.12|-0.02|0.1418
84750748|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.9|0.9770
84750749|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.3|-3.2|0.9471
84750750|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-2.6|0.8330
84750751|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.7|-3.2|0.8918
84566663|NCT00737100|168883420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.8515||95.0|0.37|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates of treatment and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||1.72|0.37|0.8515
84750752|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.1|-5.4|0.9986
84750753|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.1|-1.2|0.3035
84495940|NCT00299546|168742539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
84495941|NCT00299546|168742540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
84495942|NCT00299546|168742540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
84671275|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.46|-0.49|0.9511
84495943|NCT00299546|168742540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
84495944|NCT00299546|168742541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
84495945|NCT00299546|168742541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
84495946|NCT00299546|168742541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
84495947|NCT01256086|168742628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Relative potency of Novolizer compared to Aerolizer. Equivalence was to be concluded if the CI for the relative potency was completely covered by the interval (0.67, 1.50) according to OIP Guideline.|Relative potency|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.38|||||Fieller confidence interval for logarithm of relative potency|||1.38|0.94|
84495948|NCT00617175|168742655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
84495949|NCT03586427|168742657|OTHER|Mixed model of repeated measures least square estimates of change compared to placebo|||||>|0.05||||||Comparison of each dose level change from baseline to placebo baseline yielded P values \>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Each dose group was compared to placebo||||>0.05
84495950|NCT00593385|168742672|OTHER||Meta-Analysis|9.67||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.57||An exact one sided upper 95% confidence interval of the primary endpoint rate was calculated based on primary analysis population.|Exact test of the binomial distribution||To estimate primary endpoint rate, a meta-analysis was performed on data from 3 previous studies. The meta-analytical rate derived was 9.67%|The composite event rate to determine the performance metric of 16.57% was based on a meta-analysis performed on data from 3 previous studies(9.67%). A 6.9% margin was deemed acceptable at the time of study design. Rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the iCAST Covered Stent primary endpoint rate was significantly below 16.57%. Other assumptions for the analysis included a power of 80% and one-sided alpha error of 5%.||16.57||0.005
84495951|NCT00924313|168742717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of the histopathologic confirmed tumor and normal prostate tissue.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||<0.0001
84495952|NCT00924313|168742717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the BPH high uptake level.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.65
84495953|NCT00924313|168742720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.55
84566664|NCT00737100|168883420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5565||95.0|0.33|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||1.59|0.33|0.5565
84750754|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.2|-3.1|0.9563
84495954|NCT00924313|168742722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.407
84495955|NCT01283009|168742723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.40|0.58|0.635
84495956|NCT01353586|168742735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of events|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|79.8|||||The above supplemental analysis is to estimate the rate of subjects without documented symptomatic AF at Day 240 using the Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis method to accommodate the censored information from the two withdrawn subjects.|||79.8|63.3|
84495957|NCT05027958|168742742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05714
84495958|NCT02234427|168742757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-06||||||Above noted p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Analysis was performed using the TopHat/Cufflinks pipeline. The differential expression algorithm uses a beta distribution and the overdispersion with a negative binomial distribution.|negative binomial|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in gene expression before and after aspirin therapy||||<0.000005
84495959|NCT02242942|168742758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
84495960|NCT02242942|168742759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.53|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.53|0.23|<0.0001
84495961|NCT02242942|168742760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.43||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|21.38||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||21.38|5.47|0.0007
84495962|NCT02242942|168742761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.41|35.36||P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||35.36|17.41|<0.0001
84495963|NCT02242942|168742762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|40.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||49.10|31.45|<0.0001
84495964|NCT02242942|168742763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|39.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.27|48.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||48.36|31.27|<0.0001
84495965|NCT02242942|168742765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|32.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|41.98|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||41.98|23.76|<0.0001
84566665|NCT00705757|168883429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Upper Lid||||0.769
84566666|NCT00705757|168883429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Lower Lid||||0.230
84566667|NCT00705757|168883429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of cheek/face||||0.851
84566668|NCT01272908|168883437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.253|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 12 versus (vs) Week 4||||0.253
84566669|NCT01272908|168883437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.019||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.005
84566670|NCT01272908|168883437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.552||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.023
84566671|NCT01272908|168883437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.861||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 24 vs. Week 4||||0.001
84566672|NCT01272908|168883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.099||||0.667|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.667
84566673|NCT01272908|168883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.589|||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||<0.001
84566674|NCT01272908|168883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.138||||0.44|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.440
84566675|NCT01272908|168883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.009||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.012
84566676|NCT01272908|168883443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||<0.001
84566677|NCT01272908|168883443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12||||<0.001
84750755|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.5|-2.3|0.6548
84566678|NCT01272908|168883443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||<0.001
84566679|NCT01272908|168883443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 36||||<0.001
84566680|NCT01272908|168883443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 48||||<0.001
84566681|NCT01272908|168883445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566682|NCT01272908|168883447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566683|NCT01272908|168883449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84750756|NCT02876835|169255840|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.2|-4.5|0.9832
84566684|NCT01272908|168883451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566685|NCT01272908|168883453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566686|NCT01272908|168883455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566687|NCT01272908|168883457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566688|NCT01272908|168883459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84566689|NCT01272908|168883463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 12||||<0.001
84566690|NCT01272908|168883463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
84750757|NCT02876835|169255841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.08|-0.05|0.6917
84566691|NCT02221648|168883465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4470
84566692|NCT02221648|168883466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0293
84566693|NCT02221648|168883467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0448
84566694|NCT02937623|168883482|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.591|-0.297|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as factors and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.297|-0.591|<.0001
84566695|NCT00810069|168883486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier Analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Kaplan-Meier Estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.213
84566696|NCT00810069|168883487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate difference|0.02||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.10|-0.06|0.653
84566697|NCT00810069|168883488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.947
84566698|NCT00810069|168883489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.597
84566699|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||0.13|-0.22|0.624
84566700|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.06|-0.29|0.208
84566701|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0||P-value for Week 10: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||-0.00|-0.37|0.044
84566702|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interactions, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.02|-0.35|0.086
84566703|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.06|-0.33|0.181
84566704|NCT00810069|168883490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.20|-0.20|0.994
84495966|NCT02242942|168742766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|38.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|46.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||46.71|30.15|<0.0001
84566705|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
84566706|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.12|-0.87|0.010
84566707|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||P-value for Week 10: analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||0.24|-0.55|0.445
84566708|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.12|-0.71|0.169
84566709|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.25||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.25|-0.63|0.393
84566710|NCT00810069|168883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.3||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline scores and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.30|-0.61|0.510
84566711|NCT00810069|168883492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.47|-0.19|0.401
84566712|NCT00810069|168883492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.46|-0.27|0.618
84607595|NCT04732949|168966468|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.70|0.81|0.406
84495967|NCT02242942|168742767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.85||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|8.33||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||8.33|-4.63|0.5612
84495968|NCT02242942|168742769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.93||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|6.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.51|-4.66|0.7169
84566713|NCT00810069|168883492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.36|-0.43|0.856
84566714|NCT00810069|168883493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.01|-0.10|0.021
84566715|NCT00810069|168883493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.00|-0.09|0.071
84566716|NCT00810069|168883493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.06|-0.05|0.792
84566717|NCT00810069|168883494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.0||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||1.00|-1.74|0.597
84566718|NCT00810069|168883494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.78||P-value for Week 12: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.78|-2.13|0.360
84566719|NCT00810069|168883494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||P-value for Week 16: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||1.65|-1.52|0.937
84566720|NCT00810069|168883495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Kaplan-Meier estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.075
84671276|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.11|0.1369
84671277|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.15|0.1562
84750758|NCT02876835|169255841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.11|-0.01|0.9510
84566721|NCT00810069|168883496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Survival rate difference|-0.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan-Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.02|-0.16|0.116
84671278|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.72|0.4913
84750759|NCT02876835|169255841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1136
84495969|NCT05014672|168742796|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|0.994|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.994|0.746|0.0206
84495970|NCT05014672|168742796|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.81||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.939|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.939|0.703|0.0057
84566722|NCT02533934|168883516|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
84566723|NCT02533934|168883516|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
84566724|NCT02533934|168883516|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
84566725|NCT02533934|168883516|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
84566726|NCT02533934|168883518|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Signed Rank Test)|||||||<0.001
84566727|NCT01585246|168883533|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)|960.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) was used The TITE-CRM incorporated a decision rule for the allocation of next participant to a dose of SP based on the current estimate of toxicity. The first men were allocated to lowest dose (320 mg); when no adverse event was reported during 12 weeks, the dose was increased to 640 mg for next men, and then to 960 mg in the absence of advert event.||||
84566728|NCT03421379|168883534|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin is (10%)|Treatment Difference Wald's Method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.47||||||||1.47|-1.47|
84566729|NCT00382785|168883552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||univariate analysis|||Power calculation indicated that 60 subjects would be needed. Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in perceived social support based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.315
84566730|NCT00382785|168883553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||univariate analysis|Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between the moderated and peer-led groups based on type of online support (moderated; peer-led)||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in depressive symptoms based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.23
84566731|NCT00382785|168883554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Univariate Analysis|||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in quality of life (QOL) based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.32
84566732|NCT03066830|168883582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.574|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.574|-0.946|< 0.0001
84566733|NCT03066830|168883583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1685|-1.0471|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-1.0471|-2.1685|< 0.0001
84566734|NCT03066830|168883584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|1.669|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.669|-3.316|0.5172
84750760|NCT02876835|169255841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-0.03|0.8859
84566735|NCT03066830|168883585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|0.907|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 30 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.907|-2.946|0.2994
84566736|NCT03066830|168883586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.932|-0.884|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.884|-1.932|< 0.0001
84566737|NCT03066830|168883587|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|10.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130,≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at the screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||10.47|3.03|0.0004
84566738|NCT03066830|168883588|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|23.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||23.73|11.16|< 0.0001
84566739|NCT04878120|168883594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||"The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. To test the hypothesis that HCL Control with Smart Bolus Calculator reduces exposure to hypoglycemia with respect to Standard HCL Control, a mixed ANOVA was performed with LBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor."||||0.733
84607596|NCT04732949|168966468|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.43|0.64|0.828
84566740|NCT04878120|168883595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.824
84750761|NCT02876835|169255842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.33|-0.74|0.7716
84566741|NCT04878120|168883596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent in 70-180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.402
84566742|NCT04878120|168883597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.300
84566743|NCT04878120|168883598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||For interaction between study arm and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with HBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.168
84566744|NCT04878120|168883599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with CGM coefficient of variation as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.476
84566745|NCT04878120|168883600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with total amount of carbohydrate administered as rescue treatments as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.914
84566746|NCT00520039|168883601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.03|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The denominator of the Odds ratio represents the odds of improvement for the Standard Care Only (SCO) group.|Test of the null hypothesis that there is no improvement in MEE at Visit 3 using tympanogram.||2.03|0.15|0.02
84566747|NCT00520039|168883602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.62|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The odds of Resolution of MEE before OMT is represented in the denominator of the odds ratio|||1.62|-1.00|0.32
84566748|NCT00520039|168883603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|df = 1||||1.28|-0.78|.31
84566749|NCT00325819|168883604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||The study sample size of 1000 children was selected to have 80% power to detect a 30% reduction in risk of the primary outcome of rectal temperature \>=38 following vaccination. In 2009, during the enrollment period of our trial, another paper reported the results of a randomized trial of acetaminophen prophylaxis in infants which found significantly lower immune responses to various vaccines in the acetaminophen group. In light of thse findings we elected to stop enrollment in our trial.||1.01|0.41|0.053
84750762|NCT00883051|169255860|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||<0.0001
84566750|NCT00325819|168883605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84566751|NCT00325819|168883606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.12|0.02
84566752|NCT00325819|168883607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.28|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.28|0.16|0.14
84566753|NCT00325819|168883608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.70|0.25|0.001
84566754|NCT00325819|168883609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.88|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.88|0.21|0.40
84566755|NCT00325819|168883610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.94|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||3.94|0.25|1.00
84566756|NCT00325819|168883611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.34|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||14.34|0.60|0.18
84566757|NCT00490971|168883656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 85.0% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0195.|Weighted Z- test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo in the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms related to bipolar I disorder. An interim analysis was performed when approximately 85% of the required number of recurrences were reported in Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo treatment groups. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||0.017
84750763|NCT00883051|169255861|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend]|||||||=0.0006
84750764|NCT03282240|169255881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.224||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.224|0.958|
84750765|NCT03282240|169255881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.129||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.129|0.881|
84495971|NCT05014672|168742797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|-2.16||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.785|3.458|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.458|-7.785|0.2214
84495972|NCT05014672|168742797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.63||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.859|6.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.120|-4.859|0.5910
84607597|NCT04732949|168966468|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.40|0.61|0.706
84750766|NCT03282240|169255881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.932||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||0.932|0.744|
84495973|NCT05014672|168742800|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.42||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|5.285|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.285|-4.454|0.5675
84495974|NCT05014672|168742800|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.02||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.886|4.926|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.926|-4.886|0.5032
84495975|NCT05014672|168742801|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.85||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.033|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.033|0.692|0.0491
84495976|NCT05014672|168742801|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.95||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.158|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.158|0.783|0.3099
84495977|NCT05014672|168742807|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.84||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.954|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.954|0.743|0.0039
84607598|NCT04732949|168966469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||3.22|0.90|0.101
84495978|NCT05014672|168742808|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.3905||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.496|4.153|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.153|-5.496|0.3905
84607599|NCT04732949|168966469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.45|0.67|0.942
84750767|NCT03282240|169255881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.066||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.066|0.842|
84750768|NCT03282240|169255882|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|2.7||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||2.70|-7.66|
84566758|NCT00490971|168883657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 81.9% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0198.|Weighted z-test|||At the time of interim analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of recurrence of manic symptoms was 81.9% of the number of recurrence of manic symptoms at final analysis. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||<0.001
84566759|NCT00490971|168883658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.46||Cox proportional hazards regression was performed with treatment (Pali/Placebo, Pali/Pali) as a factor. The 2 treatment groups were compared by means of a hazard ratio (Pali/Placebo: Pali/Pali)|Regression, Cox|The percent of participants who reported recurrence of depressive symptoms was: 18% Pali/Placebo, 24% Pali/Pali.|Hazard ratio was estimated with Pali/Placebo in the numerator and Pali/Pali in the denominator|||1.46|0.53|
84566760|NCT00490971|168883659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||-1.98|-6.92|<0.001
84566761|NCT00490971|168883660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||2.55|-1.87|0.763
84566762|NCT00490971|168883661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||10.09|1.40|0.010
84566763|NCT00490971|168883662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model on ranks with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||||0.007
84566764|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.9|2.9||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.9|-3.9|0.16
84671279|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.71||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.71|-0.36|0.5130
84750769|NCT03282240|169255882|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.53||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.53|-7.04|
84750770|NCT03282240|169255882|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|3.42||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.42|-4.83|
84571581|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.33 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.30 to 0.36).|GMC ratio|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 6B."||0.23|0.16|
84750771|NCT03282240|169255882|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.86||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||0.86|-7.37|
84495979|NCT05014672|168742809|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.21||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.968|4.381|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.381|-3.968|0.5393
84566765|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.1|2.4||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.4|-4.1|0.16
84566766|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.7|1.3||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.3|-4.7|0.16
84566767|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.7|1.6||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.6|-5.7|0.16
84566768|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.5|2.1||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.1|-4.5|0.16
84607600|NCT04732949|168966469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.35|0.68|0.824
84607601|NCT04732949|168966469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.66|0.613
84607602|NCT04732949|168966471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNG001 vs Placebo||0.3|-0.1|0.410
84607603|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 once daily (QD) minus Placebo|||0.298|0.191|<0.0001
84607604|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg|||0.172|0.065|<0.0001
84607605|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.167|0.061|<0.0001
84607606|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.271|0.164|<0.0001
84671280|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.12|0.06|0.0298
84750772|NCT03282240|169255883|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.804|2.315||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.315|1.804|
84495980|NCT05014672|168742810|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.9||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.065|0.759|0.1079
84495981|NCT02268214|168742862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
84495982|NCT02268214|168742862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0696|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.31|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.31|-0.58|<0.0001
84495983|NCT02268214|168742863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9555|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-4.88|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-4.88|-12.56|<0.0001
84495984|NCT02268214|168742863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-9.43|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-9.43|-16.75|<0.0001
84495985|NCT02268214|168742864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.41|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-2.41|-3.68|<0.0001
84495986|NCT02268214|168742864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-3.08|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-3.08|-4.34|<0.0001
84495987|NCT02268214|168742865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-10.46|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-10.46|-20.22|<0.0001
84495988|NCT02268214|168742865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-13.11|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.11|-22.95|<0.0001
84495989|NCT02268214|168742866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.46|-12.14|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-12.14|-22.46|<0.0001
84495990|NCT02268214|168742866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-13.73|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.73|-24.13|<0.0001
84495991|NCT02268214|168742867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|11.39|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||11.39|6.83|<0.0001
84495992|NCT02268214|168742867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1689|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|12.94|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||12.94|8.35|<0.0001
84495993|NCT02268214|168742868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.10|<0.0001
84750773|NCT03282240|169255883|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|2.288||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.288|1.802|
84495994|NCT02268214|168742868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.23|<0.0001
84607607|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.038|0.0008
84495995|NCT04584294|168742874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||The threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and a priori adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||3.06|0.70|0.31
84495996|NCT04584294|168742874|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."|P-value and estimated OR (95% CI) is not available because the model did not converge.|||
84495997|NCT04584294|168742875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.38||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||2.38|0.79|0.26
84495998|NCT04584294|168742875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|9.76||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||9.76|1.23|0.019
84495999|NCT04584294|168742876|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.48||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||0.48|-1.71|0.27
84607608|NCT01533922|168966531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.141|0.034|0.0015
84750774|NCT03282240|169255885|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|29.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|33.29||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||33.29|24.78|
84750775|NCT03282240|169255885|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|20.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|24.61||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||24.61|16.5|
84496000|NCT04584294|168742876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.22||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||1.22|-2.91|0.42
84496001|NCT04584294|168742877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.26||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||1.26|-0.56|0.45
84496002|NCT04584294|168742877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.02||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||2.02|-0.15|0.09
84566769|NCT00593450|168883664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.9|0.8||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||0.8|-5.9|0.16
84566770|NCT04754542|168883683|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0121||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1321|0.1287|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test fr difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1287|-0.1321|0.124
84566771|NCT04754542|168883684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
84566772|NCT04754542|168883685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.964
84566773|NCT04754542|168883686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.819
84566774|NCT04754542|168883687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
84566775|NCT04754542|168883688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388
84566776|NCT04754542|168883689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
84566777|NCT04754542|168883690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
84566778|NCT04754542|168883691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998
84566779|NCT04754542|168883692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
84566780|NCT04754542|168883693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
84566781|NCT04754542|168883694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84566782|NCT04754542|168883695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.514
84566783|NCT04754542|168883696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84566784|NCT04754542|168883697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
84566785|NCT04754542|168883698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358
84566786|NCT04754542|168883699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
84566787|NCT04754542|168883700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
84566788|NCT04754542|168883701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.656
84566789|NCT04754542|168883702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
84566790|NCT04754542|168883703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for ordinal-nominal association was used||||||0.063
84566791|NCT03101150|168883720|OTHER|A sample size of minimum 152 was calculated to be able to determine incidence of preeclampsia that is in the range of 8-17% with 80% power assuming an alpha of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.163|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Eligible and consented study subjects were randomized according to permuted block design scheme to be allocated in 400 IU arm and 4000 IU arm.||1.32|0.02|<0.05
84566792|NCT03101150|168883721|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84566793|NCT03101150|168883722|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.19|<0.02
84566794|NCT01116921|168883742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.13|0.006
84566795|NCT03429348|168883754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values.||||||0.0000009
84671281|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|-0.35|0.3196
84671282|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.77|0.8884
84671283|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.84||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.84|-0.59|0.7325
84671284|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.04||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.04|-0.36|0.3395
84496003|NCT04584294|168742878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|5.42||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||5.42|-9.94|0.56
84496004|NCT04584294|168742878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.37|-2.06||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||-2.06|-25.37|0.02
84496005|NCT04584294|168742879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.47|-0.38|0.84
84496006|NCT04584294|168742879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.25||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.25|-0.35|0.27
84496007|NCT04584294|168742891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.99||threshold for significance set at \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.99|-0.22|0.21
84496008|NCT04584294|168742891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.04||95.0|0.04|1.75||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.75|0.04|0.04
84496009|NCT04242498|168742898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.422||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.221|4.804|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.804|1.221|0.004
84496010|NCT04242498|168742898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.22|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|1.220|0.003
84566796|NCT03429348|168883754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||1.8e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values||||||0.000018
84671285|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7514
84671286|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7529
84671287|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.79|0.9638
84496011|NCT04242498|168742899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.182|6.267|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.267|1.182|0.007
84496012|NCT04242498|168742899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.374|6.581|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.581|1.374|0.002
84496013|NCT04242498|168742900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.378|1.683|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.683|0.378|0.497
84496014|NCT04242498|168742900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.541|2.041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.041|0.541|0.868
84496015|NCT04242498|168742901|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.92|-0.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.867|-3.920|<0.001
84496016|NCT04242498|168742901|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.309|||<|0.001||97.5|-3.705|-0.914||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.914|-3.705|<0.001
84750776|NCT04223856|169255898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.538||P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.005.|Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.538|0.377|<0.00001
84750777|NCT04223856|169255899|SUPERIORITY|P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.01548.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.582|||Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.582|0.376|<0.00001
84750778|NCT01444651|169255942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in HOMA-IR (3 month minus baseline value), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline HOMA-IR.||||0.34
84496017|NCT04242498|168742902|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.898||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.684|-0.113||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.113|-1.684|0.010
84496018|NCT04242498|168742902|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.978|-0.552||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.552|-1.978|<0.001
84566797|NCT02692586|168883773|SUPERIORITY|To detect an RV/LV ratio change \> 0.12 with a power of 80% at one-sided alpha = 0.025, the necessary sample size was calculated to be ≥ 52, 31, or 21 patients (to detect RV/LV ratio changes of 0.20, 0.225, or 0.25, respectively).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84566798|NCT02692586|168883774|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesized composite MAE rate was expected to be about 13%. The necessary sample size to detect a difference from an expected MAE rate of 13% with 80% power was calculated to be 103 patients (with a one-sided p value = 0.05).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84566799|NCT03934216|168883794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|0.3|0.5935
84566800|NCT03934216|168883795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7|0.6|0.3051
84566801|NCT03934216|168883796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|0.3|0.8764
84566802|NCT03934216|168883797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.5|0.2235
84566803|NCT01053741|168883798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in epithelial surface disruption when comparing the two interventions. Power calculation was based on identifying a median difference in histology grade of 0.83, using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 with 90% power in 10 subjects.||||<0.05
84566804|NCT00619827|168883799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.99|0.0003
84566805|NCT01063855|168883813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.542||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, PDE5I stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as cofactors and baseline Average IELT as a covariate.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm minus PDE5I + Placebo arm difference.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observations carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \>0.||2.542|0.837|<0.001
84566806|NCT01063855|168883814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + placebo arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF). Alternative hypothesis: Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \> 0.||22.3|4.9|0.001
84607609|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.132|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.292|1.132|<0.0001
84750779|NCT01444651|169255943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda Index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.18
84607610|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.070|0.937|0.9633
84750780|NCT01444651|169255944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the difference in EndoPAT (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline values.||||0.76
84750781|NCT01444651|169255945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in insulinogenic index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.06
84750782|NCT01444651|169255946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in oral disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.009
84496019|NCT04242498|168742903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.273||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.974|10.997||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.997|0.974|0.028
84496020|NCT04242498|168742903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.756||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.189|11.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.867|1.189|0.010
84496021|NCT05405218|168743018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.13|0.46
84496022|NCT05405218|168743019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.2|0.92
84496023|NCT05405218|168743021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-0.08|0.09
84750783|NCT01444651|169255947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.05
84496024|NCT05405218|168743022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.06|0.9
84496025|NCT04938687|168743044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84566807|NCT01063855|168883815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.2||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + Placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF).||17.2|1.1|0.013
84566808|NCT01063855|168883816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|2.619||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis: PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.619|1.204|0.002
84566809|NCT01063855|168883817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|2.394||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carrried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.394|1.108|0.007
84566810|NCT01063855|168883818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|3.568||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.568|1.642|<0.001
84566811|NCT01063855|168883819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|1.965||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||1.965|0.897|>0.05
84566812|NCT01063855|168883820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|3.423||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.423|1.425|<0.001
84607611|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.061|0.930|0.8415
84607612|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|1.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.351|1.184|<0.0001
84607613|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.119|0.980|0.1717
84607614|NCT01533922|168966532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated asTiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.110|0.972|0.2610
84607615|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0004
84496026|NCT04938687|168743044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84496027|NCT04938687|168743044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84496028|NCT04938687|168743045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
84496029|NCT04938687|168743045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84496030|NCT04938687|168743045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
84566813|NCT00735709|168883821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-2.86||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.86|-6.99|<0.001
84566814|NCT00735709|168883821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-2.08||Hierarchical testing stopped at SDS total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.08|-6.17|<0.001
84566815|NCT00735709|168883821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||This treatment arm is not in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.47|-5.57|<0.001
84566816|NCT00735709|168883822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.48||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.48|-3.56|0.135
84566817|NCT00735709|168883822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.84|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.84|-3.07|0.263
84566818|NCT00735709|168883822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.94|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||1.94|-2.03|0.963
84566819|NCT00735709|168883823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.30|-0.80|<0.001
84566820|NCT00735709|168883823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.22|-0.71|<0.001
84566821|NCT00735709|168883823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.23|-0.72|<0.001
84566822|NCT00735709|168883824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|5.618|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo.|||5.618|1.995|<0.001
84566823|NCT00735709|168883824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|4.598|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||4.598|1.631|<0.001
84566824|NCT00735709|168883824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|5.063|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||5.063|1.799|<0.001
84566825|NCT00735709|168883825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.84|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.84|-7.34|0.001
84607616|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.002|-0.001|0.8291
84752779|NCT00006392|169260682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|2.0||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||2.00|0.82|> .05
84566826|NCT00735709|168883825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-1.62|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.62|-7.32|0.002
84566827|NCT00735709|168883825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.37|-6.90|0.004
84566828|NCT00735709|168883826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.951||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|3.517|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.517|1.082|0.026
84566829|NCT00735709|168883826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.673|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.673|1.150|0.015
84607617|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.8570
84607618|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
84607619|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.7294
84607620|NCT01533922|168966533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.4567
84566830|NCT00735709|168883826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.158|0.973|0.062
84566831|NCT01165307|168883847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84566832|NCT01165307|168883848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 Physical Scale.||||0.82
84566833|NCT01165307|168883848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 mental scale.||||0.11
84566834|NCT01165307|168883849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84566835|NCT01165307|168883850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84566836|NCT01165307|168883851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84607621|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.352|0.293|<0.0001
84750784|NCT02445196|169255948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed the condition by time (baseline to posttreatment) interaction effects covarying PTSD treatment. Following the ITT principle, data from all randomized participants were analyzed and multiple imputation replaced missing values. A power analysis indicated that to achieve 80% power to detect an effect size in the magnitude (i.e., d = 0.25 to .33) with alpha of .05 and a correlation between repeated measures of .5, 60 participants per condition would be needed.||||.035
84750785|NCT02445196|169255949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.086
84566837|NCT01165307|168883852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84566838|NCT01165307|168883853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84566839|NCT01165307|168883857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84566840|NCT03150082|168883909|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|103.0|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.00|91.13|
84566841|NCT03150082|168883910|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.09|100.82|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||100.82|86.09|
84566842|NCT03150082|168883911|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|103.11|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.11|91.17|
84566843|NCT03150082|168883912|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.||||||0.3499||||||"P value was analyzed using a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test."|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.3499
84566844|NCT01718483|168883934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.70|<0.001
84566845|NCT01718483|168883935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84566846|NCT01718483|168883936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84566847|NCT01718483|168883937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.54|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.54|-7.17|<0.001
84566848|NCT01718483|168883938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-5.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.88|-8.93|<0.001
84566849|NCT01718483|168883939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.310|<0.001
84566850|NCT01718483|168883940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.092|||ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.330|<0.001
84566851|NCT01718483|168883941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.07|0.308
84566852|NCT01718483|168883942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84566853|NCT01718483|168883943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.3||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.24|<0.001
84566854|NCT01718483|168883944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.57||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.57|0.72|<0.001
84566855|NCT01718483|168883944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-3.39||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-3.39|-4.98|<0.001
84566856|NCT01718483|168883944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-3.91||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.91|-5.49|<0.001
84607622|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.160|0.101|<0.0001
84607623|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.143|0.084|<0.0001
84607624|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.256|<0.0001
84750786|NCT02445196|169255950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.007
84496031|NCT04938687|168743046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
84496032|NCT04938687|168743046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84496033|NCT04938687|168743046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
84750787|NCT02445196|169255951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
84750788|NCT02445196|169255952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.113
84750789|NCT02952001|169256012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. No adjustments made or required for multiplicity.|Log-rank chi-square test|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the survival time distributions was tested.||||0.562
84750790|NCT01570036|169256095|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||||1.25|.31|0.18
84750791|NCT01570036|169256097|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Comparison of the mean LVEF from baseline to 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; this time period includes the therapy period of trastuzumab.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84750792|NCT01570036|169256097|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The mean LVEF compared at baseline to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months; this time period includes the duration of trastuzumab therapy and 1 year after completion of trastuzumab therapy.|ANOVA|||||||0.58
84750793|NCT01570036|169256097|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Evaluating LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model, this analysis compared cardiac ejection fraction over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
84750794|NCT01570036|169256097|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between randomization arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.91
84496034|NCT04938687|168743047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84566857|NCT01718483|168883945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|-8.21||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-8.21|-12.43|<0.001
84566858|NCT01718483|168883946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.31||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-1.93|0.706
84566859|NCT04547140|168883960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Dying||||
84566860|NCT04547140|168883960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Requiring ICU Admission||||
84566861|NCT04547140|168883961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on High Flow Oxygen Devices||||
84566862|NCT04547140|168883961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation||||
84566863|NCT04547140|168883962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.22||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.87||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||2.87|-0.43|0.1453
84566864|NCT04547140|168883962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.86||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||1.86|-1.44|0.8015
84566865|NCT04547140|168883964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|1.48||||0.5135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.0||P-value was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including the length of hospital stay (days) as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||6.00|-3.04|0.5135
84566866|NCT04547140|168883965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.41||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|7.76||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days in the ICU as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.76|-0.94|0.1221
84566867|NCT04547140|168883966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|2.78||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|8.48||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||8.48|-2.92|0.3329
84566868|NCT04547140|168883967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.48||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.77||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.77|-0.81|0.1092
84566869|NCT04547140|168883968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.17||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||0.17|-1.43|0.1189
84566870|NCT04547140|168883968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.07||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||-0.07|-1.64|0.0341
84566871|NCT04547140|168883972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.9||||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|28.3||P-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentages of participants experiencing sustained normalization of fever.|Chi-squared|||||28.3|-24.1|0.8809
84566872|NCT00873730|168883983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6031
84566873|NCT00873730|168883984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9166
84566874|NCT00873730|168883985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7564|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7564
84566875|NCT00873730|168883986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3266
84566876|NCT00873730|168883987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7481|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7481
84496035|NCT04938687|168743047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84496036|NCT04938687|168743047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
84496037|NCT04938687|168743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
84496038|NCT04938687|168743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84496039|NCT04938687|168743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84496040|NCT04938687|168743049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84496041|NCT04938687|168743049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84496042|NCT04938687|168743049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84496043|NCT04938687|168743050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84496044|NCT04938687|168743050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84566877|NCT00873730|168883988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7721|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7721
84750795|NCT01570036|169256097|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between the arms over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
84566878|NCT00873730|168883989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Nocturnal Back Pain.||||0.6660
84566879|NCT00873730|168883989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Overall Spinal Pain.||||0.5364
84566880|NCT00873730|168883990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9426|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Physician Global Assessment.||||0.9426
84566881|NCT00873730|168883990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Patient Global Assessment.||||0.4969
84566882|NCT00873730|168883991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6687
84566883|NCT00873730|168883992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6739
84566884|NCT00873730|168883993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2772
84566885|NCT00873730|168883994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1560
84566886|NCT00873730|168883995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2099|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Mobility.||||0.2099
84566887|NCT00873730|168883995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8009|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Self-care.||||0.8009
84607625|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
84566888|NCT00873730|168883995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Usual activities.||||0.4290
84566889|NCT00873730|168883995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Pain/Discomfort.||||0.0461
84566890|NCT00873730|168883995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Anxiety/Depression.||||0.5620
84566891|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical functioning.||||0.3476
84566892|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical role limitations.||||0.9045
84566893|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Bodily pain.||||0.8558
84566894|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for General health.||||0.3123
84566895|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Vitality.||||0.3327
84566896|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Social functioning.||||0.8334
84566897|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Emotional role limitations.||||0.7998
84607626|NCT01533922|168966534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.106|0.047|<0.0001
84750796|NCT01570036|169256098|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related local toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||The safety group consisted of any patients who received NPS with GM-CSF or placebo with GM-CSF inoculations.||||0.149
84566898|NCT00873730|168883996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Mental health.||||0.7125
84566899|NCT00873730|168883998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7404
84566900|NCT00048035|168884007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.42|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X / Week||0.42|0.32|
84566901|NCT00048035|168884007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.76|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb change.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X /2 Week||0.76|0.53|
84750797|NCT01570036|169256098|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related systemic toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||||||0.901
84566902|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|1.00|
84566903|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.01|0.99|
84566904|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|0.99|
84566905|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.04|1.00|
84566906|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.98|
84566907|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
84750798|NCT00568321|169256101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Least square (LS) mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.50|0.687
84750799|NCT00568321|169256101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.19|-1.25|0.111
84750800|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.79|0.399
84496045|NCT04938687|168743050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84496046|NCT04938687|168743053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
84496047|NCT04938687|168743053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84496048|NCT04938687|168743053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84496049|NCT01656850|168743087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84496050|NCT01656850|168743088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2786
84496051|NCT01656850|168743089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.420
84496052|NCT01656850|168743090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84496053|NCT01656850|168743091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2412
84496054|NCT01656850|168743092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3837
84496055|NCT01656850|168743093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9784
84496056|NCT01656850|168743094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5868
84496057|NCT01656850|168743095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1101
84566908|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.97|
84566909|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.05|0.98|
84566910|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.99|
84566911|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.98|
84566912|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
84496058|NCT01656850|168743096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7823
84496059|NCT01656850|168743097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5570
84496060|NCT01656850|168743098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6263
84496061|NCT01656850|168743099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8328
84496062|NCT01656850|168743100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7758
84496063|NCT01656850|168743101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
84496064|NCT01656850|168743102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1205
84496065|NCT01656850|168743103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1512
84496066|NCT01656850|168743104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7364
84496067|NCT01656850|168743105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1995
84496068|NCT01656850|168743106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8528
84496069|NCT00296192|168743118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||||95.0|-2.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.7|-2.9|
84496070|NCT00296192|168743118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||||95.0|-5.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||6.0|-5.7|
84496071|NCT00296192|168743118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||||95.0|-2.8|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.6|-2.8|
84496072|NCT00296192|168743118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||4.6|-7.4|
84496073|NCT00296192|168743119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.5|-25.7|
84496074|NCT00296192|168743119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||||95.0|-34.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||0.4|-34.0|
84496075|NCT00296192|168743119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||||95.0|-18.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||15.4|-18.2|
84566913|NCT04110314|168884013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.04|1.00|
84566914|NCT02619617|168884032|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.308||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.082|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.082|0.419|0.698
84566915|NCT02619617|168884033|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.033||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|7.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.790|0.530|0.385
84750801|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.32|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-1.06|0.189
84496076|NCT00296192|168743119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||||95.0|-23.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||12.2|-23.3|
84566916|NCT01711983|168884077|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin based on 1) the lower 95% confidence bound (= 0.82) for estimated 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (219/253=0.866), and 2) a worst-case analysis of 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (0.81, assuming the 18 subjects with missing echo evaluations were failures).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0366|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05.|2-sample binomial proportions test||Difference is control - test. Confidence interval is the upper one-sided 95% Wald confidence interval.|"Test null hypothesis of inferiority of test device (test) compared to historical device (control).~H0: Pc - Pt ≥ Δ vs H1: Pc - Pt \< Δ, where Pt and Pc are true proportions of 6-month clinical success for test and control, respectively, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin.~Given Nc = 253, then Nt = 135 test subjects provides 86% power to reject H0 with 95% confidence if Δ = 0.10 and Pc = Pt = 0.866 under H0."||0.007||<0.0001
84566917|NCT02326272|168884084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.965|111.983||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) placebo (PBO).|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||111.983|9.965|<0.0001
84566918|NCT02326272|168884084|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.12|82.36|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||82.36|57.12|
84566919|NCT02326272|168884084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.686|122.713||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||122.713|10.686|<0.0001
84566920|NCT02326272|168884084|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.47|83.43|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||83.43|58.47|
84607627|NCT02648217|168966535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.02||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, sex, region, previous OAD treatment, pre-Ramadan trial exposure and visit as factors and age and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates are included in the model.||0.24|-0.20|0.8426
84607628|NCT04135859|168966544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
84607629|NCT04135859|168966545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
84607630|NCT04135859|168966546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
84607631|NCT02636946|168966652|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||-0.13|-1.28|0.0166
84607632|NCT02636946|168966653|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.05|-1.09|0.0735
84671288|NCT01336738|169076684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.47||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.47|-0.12|0.0962
84752780|NCT00006392|169260683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.91|1.17||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.17|0.91|> .05
84496077|NCT00296192|168743120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.6||||||95.0|-53.3|12.1|||Confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||12.1|-53.3|
84750802|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.33|0.802
84496078|NCT00296192|168743120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
84496079|NCT00296192|168743120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||||95.0|-30.6|30.6|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||30.6|-30.6|
84496080|NCT00296192|168743120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
84496081|NCT03504839|168743123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84496082|NCT02074982|168743129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|2.01|<0.0001
84496083|NCT02411110|168743168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline value as a covariate; treatment group and stratification (age: \< 40 or ≥ 40 years and baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 6 or \> 6) as factors.|LiRIS® - Placebo|||||0.505
84566921|NCT02326272|168884085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|106.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.572|1178.843||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1178.843|9.572|<0.0001
84607633|NCT02636946|168966654|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 24: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.32|-0.81|0.3928
84750803|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.61|0.582
84750804|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.36|0.789
84607634|NCT04405245|168966669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.63|0.8070
84750805|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-0.94|0.290
84496084|NCT01354015|168743178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||All statistical analysis used intent-to-treat methodology and all comparisons used a two-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. Continuous variables are reported as means and standard deviations. W||||0.2539
84496085|NCT02871921|168743180|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among participants with normal cognition||||0.87
84496086|NCT02871921|168743180|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among MCI||||.03
84496087|NCT02871921|168743181|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category fluency animals Among participants with normal cognition||||0.03
84496088|NCT02871921|168743181|OTHER|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category Fluency (Animals) at Month 6 Among MCI participants||||0.46
84496089|NCT02871921|168743182|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Stroy Immediate Recall score at Month 6, controlling for its baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Stroy Immediate Recall (paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.45
84496090|NCT02871921|168743182|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Immediate Recall (paraphrase) Among MCI||||0.41
84750806|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.65|0.568
84750807|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.20|-1.27|0.116
84566922|NCT02326272|168884085|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.16|77.46|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||77.46|52.16|
84566923|NCT02326272|168884085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|133.163|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.904|1489.578||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1489.578|11.904|<0.0001
84497624|NCT03170271|168746322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.09||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.62|36.55|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in evening PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||36.55|9.62|0.0008
84750808|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.40|-1.11|0.218
84752781|NCT00006392|169260683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.15||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.15|0.89|> .05
84752782|NCT00006392|169260683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||>|0.05||99.0|0.9|1.16||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.16|0.90|> .05
84752783|NCT00006392|169260684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||>|0.05||99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo is the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
84752784|NCT00006392|169260684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.19||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.19|0.82|> .05
84752785|NCT00006392|169260684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
84752786|NCT00006392|169260685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.88|1.09||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.09|0.88|> .05
84752787|NCT00006392|169260685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.92|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.13|0.92|> .05
84752788|NCT00006392|169260685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.1||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.10|0.89|> .05
84752789|NCT02378220|169260694|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.28||P-value for 30 days measure.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.28|0.32|0.21
84752790|NCT02378220|169260694|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.82||P-Value for 60 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||0.82|0.27|0.007
84752791|NCT02378220|169260695|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.21||P-Value for 30 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||1.21|0.31|0.16
84750809|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.06|0.261
84750810|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.11|0.252
84750811|NCT00568321|169256102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|0.36|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.36|-1.26|0.182
84750812|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.84|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.46|0.683
84750813|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.46|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.46|-0.85|0.310
84750814|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.46|0.668
84750815|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.26|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.26|-0.99|0.165
84750816|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.55|0.546
84750817|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-0.92|0.190
84750818|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-0.60|0.467
84566924|NCT02326272|168884085|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|81.77|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||81.77|57.48|
84566925|NCT02326272|168884086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.386|134.432||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||134.432|4.386|<0.0001
84566926|NCT02326272|168884086|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.04|61.26|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||61.26|35.04|
84750819|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.94|0.153
84750820|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.54|0.632
84752792|NCT02378220|169260695|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.99|0.34|0.045
84607635|NCT04405245|168966669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.64|0.0130
84750821|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-1.22|0.094
84750822|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.61|-0.68|0.468
84750823|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.03|0.167
84750824|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-0.72|0.394
84750825|NCT00568321|169256103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.21|-1.04|0.138
84750826|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.51|0.764
84750827|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.54|0.750
84750828|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.03|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.03|-0.46|0.734
84750829|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.77|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.77|-0.73|0.514
84750830|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|4.5|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.50|-1.76|0.765
84607636|NCT02576860|168966694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.799
84750831|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|3.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.86|-2.43|0.646
84750832|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.22|0.895
84750833|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.34|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.34|-0.50|0.776
84750834|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.03|0.944
84752793|NCT02378220|169260696|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.31|0.10
84752794|NCT02378220|169260697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.33|0.09
84607637|NCT02576860|168966695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.858
84607638|NCT02391961|168966725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842672|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.842672
84566927|NCT02326272|168884086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.895|151.198||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||151.198|4.895|<0.0001
84752795|NCT05105789|169260708|SUPERIORITY|"One-sample binomial test. Null hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is at most 91%.~Alternative hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is greater than 91%."|Kappa Co-efficient|100.0||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||one-sample binomial test||binary outcome|Negative Predictive Value||100|95|0.0015
84496091|NCT02871921|168743183|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall) (Paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.74
84496092|NCT02871921|168743183|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall (Paraphrase scoring) Among MCI||||0.90
84496093|NCT00491322|168743187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84496094|NCT00807040|168743189|OTHER|We tested this hypothesis in an intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level. This analysis accommodated nonignorable missing LVESVI outcomes owing to the death of patients by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order on the basis of the time of death. We used multiple imputation for data that were missing for reasons other than death to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was designed with a power of 90% to detect a between-group difference of 15 ml per square meter in the LVESVI from baseline to 12 months. We assumed a baseline LVESVI of 100 ml per square meter, improvements of 20 ml per square meter in the repair group and 35 ml per square meter in the replacement group, and equal 1-year mortality of 10 to 20% in the two groups. The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.18
84496095|NCT00807040|168743190|OTHER|We used the log-rank test to compare rates of death from baseline to 2 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35|||Log Rank|||||1.35|0.46|0.39
84496096|NCT05455684|168743270|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||1.49|-3.24|=0.467
84496097|NCT05455684|168743275|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.52||||||||0.52|-2.21|
84496098|NCT05204563|168743283|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||||||||4.0|-3.5|
84496099|NCT05204563|168743284|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||||8.7|-0.4|
84496100|NCT05204563|168743285|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.4||||||Day 14||9.4|-3.0|
84496101|NCT05204563|168743285|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.3||||||Day 28||11.3|-3.4|
84496102|NCT05204563|168743286|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.3||||||Day 14||6.3|-5.4|
84496103|NCT05204563|168743286|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.8||||||Day 28||9.8|-3.9|
84496104|NCT05204563|168743287|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||||||Day 14||3.3|-4.9|
84496105|NCT05204563|168743287|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.2||||||Day 28||7.2|-2.7|
84496106|NCT05204563|168743288|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.9||||||Day 14||8.9|-4.7|
84496107|NCT05204563|168743288|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.1||||||Day 28||9.1|-6.5|
84496108|NCT05204563|168743289|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 14||9.7|-25.3|
84496109|NCT05204563|168743289|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 28||9.7|-25.3|
84496110|NCT05204563|168743290|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.2||||||Day 4||13.2|-6.0|
84496111|NCT05204563|168743290|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|12.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||12.3|-5.3|
84496112|NCT05204563|168743290|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.3||||||TOC (Day 21)||9.3|-9.4|
84496113|NCT05204563|168743290|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.2|-6.9|
84496114|NCT05204563|168743291|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.6||||||Day 4||13.6|-18.1|
84496115|NCT05204563|168743291|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||26.3|-1.6|
84496116|NCT05204563|168743291|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-10.5|
84496117|NCT05204563|168743291|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-6.9|
84496118|NCT05204563|168743292|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.4||||||Day 4||14.4|-12.7|
84496119|NCT05204563|168743292|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|20.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.3|-3.7|
84496120|NCT05204563|168743292|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|21.9||||||TOC (Day 21)||21.9|-4.8|
84496121|NCT05204563|168743292|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|24.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.2|-3.0|
84496122|NCT05204563|168743293|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.8||||||Day 4||12.8|-8.3|
84671289|NCT03003520|169076696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84750835|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.31|0.835
84750836|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|6.37|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||6.37|0.09|0.955
84750837|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|5.49|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.49|-0.88|0.884
84750838|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.57|0.737
84750839|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.74|0.628
84750840|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.43|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.43|-0.10|0.925
84750841|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.79|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.75|0.518
84750842|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|4.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.88|-1.49|0.810
84750843|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|3.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.70|-2.72|0.600
84750844|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.18|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.18|-0.73|0.651
84750845|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.73|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.73|-1.21|0.342
84496123|NCT05204563|168743293|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||10.1|-6.7|
84750846|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.14|-0.44|0.768
84750847|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.41|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.41|-1.19|0.211
84496124|NCT05204563|168743293|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||10.0|-9.2|
84496125|NCT05204563|168743293|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.6|-7.7|
84496126|NCT05204563|168743294|OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.2||||||Day 4||12.2|-21.4|
84496127|NCT05204563|168743294|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||21.2|-5.8|
84496128|NCT05204563|168743294|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-9.4|
84750848|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|3.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.85|-2.73|0.610
84750849|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|1.91|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.91|-4.76|0.241
84750850|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.45|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.45|-0.50|0.789
84750851|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.88|0.570
84496129|NCT05204563|168743294|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|27.1||||||LFU (Day 28)||27.1|-5.9|
84496130|NCT05204563|168743295|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|32.1||||||Day 4||32.1|-20.3|
84750852|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.19|-0.43|0.782
84750853|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-1.08|0.295
84496131|NCT05204563|168743295|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||42.1|-5.4|
84566928|NCT02326272|168884086|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|64.19|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.19|37.75|
84566929|NCT02326272|168884089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.88|-4.36||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.36|-8.88|<0.0001
84566930|NCT02326272|168884089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.46|-3.93||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.93|-8.46|<0.0001
84566931|NCT02185417|168884114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||Log Rank|||Primary analyses were performed with the use of unadjusted log-rank tests that were stratified according to VA health care system.||1.16|0.94|0.45
84496132|NCT05204563|168743295|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|47.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||47.5|-1.5|
84496133|NCT05204563|168743295|OTHER||Treatment difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|39.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||39.7|-11.6|
84496134|NCT05204563|168743296|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-3.5|
84496135|NCT05204563|168743296|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|22.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.4|-9.7|
84496136|NCT05204563|168743296|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-7.3|
84496137|NCT05204563|168743297|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|23.5||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||23.5|-2.3|
84496138|NCT05204563|168743297|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-7.2|
84496139|NCT05204563|168743297|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|18.9||||||LFU (Day 28)||18.9|-8.2|
84566932|NCT04073303|168884158|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|40.1|<0.0001
84566933|NCT04073303|168884159|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|71.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.3|60.7|<0.0001
84566934|NCT04073303|168884160|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.5|45.6|<0.0001
84566935|NCT04073303|168884161|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.4|40.6|<0.0001
84566936|NCT04073303|168884162|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|59.6|<0.0001
84566937|NCT04073303|168884163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-5.64|<0.0001
84566938|NCT00905424|168884176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.5|0.0902
84566939|NCT00905424|168884177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.6||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.4|0.3091
84566940|NCT00905424|168884178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|-0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.0573
84607639|NCT02391961|168966726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972866|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.972866
84607640|NCT02391961|168966727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: RA at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and RA at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.95
84750854|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|5.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.11|-1.62|0.804
84750855|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|4.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.22|-2.58|0.655
84750856|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.86|-1.13|0.409
84496140|NCT05204563|168743298|OTHER||Treatment difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|44.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||44.8|-6.4|
84607641|NCT02391961|168966728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.9
84607642|NCT02391961|168966729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990995|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.990995
84750857|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-1.03|0.482
84750858|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.71|0.592
84752796|NCT05105789|169260708|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.3308|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.3308
84496141|NCT05204563|168743298|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-24.3|
84496142|NCT05204563|168743298|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
84496143|NCT05204563|168743299|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|20.4||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.4|-7.9|
84496144|NCT05204563|168743299|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|24.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||24.5|-9.5|
84496145|NCT05204563|168743299|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.0||||||LFU (Day 28)||26.0|-8.6|
84496146|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|42.3||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||42.3|4.3|
84607643|NCT02391961|168966730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean VFQ-25 scores on dalfampridine vs mean VFQ-25 scores on placebo||||0.71
84496147|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|29.2||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||29.2|-13.6|
84496148|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||33.5|-9.6|
84566941|NCT00905424|168884179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2368
84566942|NCT00905424|168884182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|-0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-0.5|-5.4|0.0463
84566943|NCT00905424|168884182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||0.3|-4.3|0.1431
84566944|NCT00905424|168884182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.8||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-0.8|-5.8|0.0281
84566945|NCT00905424|168884183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-6.0|0.0920
84566946|NCT00905424|168884184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.2|0.0774
84607644|NCT02391961|168966731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean 10-item NOS scores on dalfampridine vs mean 10-item NOS scores on placebo||||0.95
84607645|NCT03263780|168966732|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.25||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.46||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.46|0.19|0.056
84496149|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|63.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||63.7|-18.6|
84607646|NCT03263780|168966732|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.56||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.78|0.44|0.56
84607647|NCT03263780|168966732|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.47||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.47|0.17|0.060
84607648|NCT03263780|168966732|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.5||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.74||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.74|0.39|0.083
84607649|NCT03263780|168966733|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.35||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.65|0.26|0.096
84607650|NCT03263780|168966733|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
84607651|NCT03263780|168966733|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.66|0.23|0.063
84607652|NCT03263780|168966733|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
84607653|NCT01792518|168966736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline HbA1c by visit and baseline log10 (UACR) by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.43|-0.78|<0.0001
84607654|NCT01792518|168966737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.94||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||ANCOVA||Ratio of relative change for Linagliptin 5 mg over placebo is presented.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in UACR is analysed using analysis of covariance model. Model includes baseline HbA1c and baseline log10 (UACR) as linear covariates and treatment as fixed effect.||1.03|0.85|0.1954
84607655|NCT01792518|168966738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Change in eGFR is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c by visit, baseline log10 (UACR) by visit and baseline eGFR by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||2.68|-7.95|0.3306
84607656|NCT01014455|168966741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
84607657|NCT00249613|168966743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79||Odds ratio is 0.40, confidence interval is 0.21-0.79.|Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only participants are less likely than Mixed-Gender participants to engage in criminal activities.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.79|0.21|0.01
84607658|NCT00249613|168966744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.7|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models do not separate arms: group status (women-only vs mixed-gender) is the dependent variable. Because we were not able to randomly assign, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (education, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, history of sexual abuse, criminal justice funding source, had child, mental health symptoms, and a time in treatment by group interaction term) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.70|-2.11|0.33
84608512|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.74|
84496150|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|47.6||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||47.6|-30.2|
84496151|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|38.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||38.9|-37.5|
84750859|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.66|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.66|-1.00|0.368
84750860|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.98|2.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.88|-3.98|0.396
84750861|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|3.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.69|-3.21|0.545
84750862|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-1.04|0.486
84750863|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.75|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-1.33|0.324
84750864|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.76|0.563
84496152|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||46.3|-46.3|
84496153|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||46.3|-46.3|
84566947|NCT00905424|168884185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|4.0||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.6|0.4726
84750865|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.56|-1.16|0.282
84750866|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.01||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.01|-3.99|0.409
84750867|NCT00568321|169256104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|2.39||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.39|-4.76|0.293
84750868|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.62|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.62|-1.03|0.343
84752797|NCT05105789|169260708|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.0536|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0536
84496154|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|56.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||56.9|-38.7|
84496155|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|37.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||37.9|-100.0|
84496156|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||17.9|-100.0|
84496157|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||17.9|-100.0|
84496158|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|53.3||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||53.3|-100.0|
84496159|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-100.0|
84496160|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
84496161|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
84566948|NCT00905424|168884186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-1.4|0.5182
84566949|NCT00905424|168884187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.1|0.4630
84566950|NCT00905424|168884188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.523||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5230
84750869|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.75|0.576
84750870|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.10|0.460
84496162|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
84496163|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
84496164|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
84496165|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
84496166|NCT05204563|168743300|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
84496167|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|35.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||35.5|0.4|
84496168|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|48.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||48.3|-11.3|
84750871|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-1.15|0.435
84496169|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|45.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||45.7|-27.0|
84496170|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
84496171|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
84496172|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|29.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.6|-100.0|
84496173|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0||||||Serratia marcescens EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|0.0|
84496174|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|20.0||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-19.4|
84496175|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|40.7||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||40.7|-22.1|
84496176|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|39.8||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||39.8|-28.2|
84671290|NCT03003520|169076696|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.477||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their CD8 density.||||0.872
84496177|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex TOC (Day 21)||90.3|-90.3|
84496178|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-75.0|
84496179|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|9.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.6|-100.0|
84496180|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|54.9||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||54.9|-100.0|
84496181|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
84496182|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
84496183|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Serratia marcescens TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
84496184|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|22.7||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||22.7|-17.1|
84496185|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|34.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||34.3|-28.4|
84496186|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|33.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||33.0|-33.9|
84750872|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-1.62|0.104
84750873|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.42|0.204
84750874|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.58|-0.08|0.931
84750875|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.67|-0.04|0.941
84750876|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|2.01|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-0.08|0.936
84750877|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|2.23|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.23|0.11|0.965
84750878|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.51|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.51|-0.33|0.855
84750879|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.38|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.38|-0.54|0.765
84496187|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex LFU (Day 28)||90.3|-90.3|
84750880|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.85|-0.84|0.504
84496188|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-75.0|
84750881|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.06|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.06|-0.67|0.643
84750882|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-1.09|0.486
84750883|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.24|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.24|-0.91|0.600
84750884|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.82|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.82|-1.05|0.418
84750885|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.95|0.515
84496189|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|68.5||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||68.5|-100.0|
84496190|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|36.5||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||36.5|-100.0|
84750886|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.93|0.456
84496191|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
84496192|NCT05204563|168743301|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
84566951|NCT00905424|168884191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.7||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||4.7|-1.0|0.2876
84566952|NCT00905424|168884191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.4||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||4.4|-2.1|0.5590
84566953|NCT00905424|168884191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||5.2|-0.7|0.2079
84566954|NCT00905424|168884192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-8.0|0.1489
84566955|NCT00905424|168884193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.0852
84566956|NCT00379899|168884194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor (≥ 30 to 399, ≥ 400 to 999, and ≥ 1000)||||||0.073
84566957|NCT00379899|168884195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094||95.0|0.36|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Logit estimates (Cinacalcet:Control)|||1.08|0.36|0.094
84607659|NCT00249613|168966745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only treatment participants are less likely than the Mixed-Gender group to use drugs or alcohol during the 30 days prior to the 12-Mo follow-up.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.82|0.22|0.01
84607660|NCT04728594|168966759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.69||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.69|1.65|<.001
84671291|NCT03003520|169076697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0403
84496193|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|39.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||39.6|2.4|
84496194|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|62.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||62.0|-25.7|
84496195|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||33.9|-51.6|
84566958|NCT00379899|168884196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.018
84566959|NCT00379899|168884198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.258
84566960|NCT00379899|168884199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.011
84566961|NCT00379899|168884200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
84566962|NCT00379899|168884201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
84566963|NCT00379899|168884202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.025
84566964|NCT00379899|168884203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.021
84566965|NCT00379899|168884204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
84566966|NCT00379899|168884205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
84566967|NCT01261390|168884206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.915|0.561|||||Presented average of the treatment effects on 24hr SBP at 6months and 12months: (6mo + 12mo)/ 2; Comparison: ActivePAP Control. Adjusted for randomization factors (CVD; site; sleepstudy type) with subjectspecific slopes and intercepts.|"We conducted a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) to estimate the treatment effect of CPAP on mean 24hour Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). Timepoint, treatment, and the timepoint\* treatment interaction were included as fixed effects, as were randomization stratification factors. Subject was included as a random effect. Let: y = observed SBP; β = fixed effects; u = random effects; X = known design matrix; Z = vector of subjects~Then our model is:~y = Xβ + Zu + ε"||0.561|-5.915|
84566968|NCT01261390|168884207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), and randomization (CVD; site; diagnostic sleep study type; PAP device type).|Estimated value is minutes of use per night.|We performed a mixed effects analysis of the effect of Motivational Enhancement (ME) on nightly CPAP adherence. Our model included every night of data and adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), as well as randomization stratification factors (CVD; site; diagnostic sleepstudy type; PAP device type).||||0.003
84566969|NCT04235504|168884252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1|||linear mixed model|||||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
84566970|NCT04235504|168884253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.59|33.6|||linear mixed model|||||33.60|21.59|<0.0001
84671292|NCT03003520|169076697|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of total cells.||||0.523
84671293|NCT03003520|169076698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84671294|NCT03003520|169076698|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of tumor cells.||||0.557
84671295|NCT03003520|169076699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
84671296|NCT03003520|169076699|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.6||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their IFNG-Score.||||0.399
84671297|NCT01332149|169076702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.01|-0.58|0.0559
84671298|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.47|0.0527
84566971|NCT04235504|168884254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-21.55|||linear mixed model|||||-21.55|-34.16|<0.0001
84566972|NCT04235504|168884255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.61|||linear mixed model|||||0.61|-0.37|0.6227
84566973|NCT04235504|168884256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.0||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.00|-2.17|
84566974|NCT04235504|168884257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.34|45.28||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||45.28|12.34|
84566975|NCT04235504|168884258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-11.64||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||-11.64|-45.27|
84566976|NCT04235504|168884259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.59||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.59|-1.32|
84671299|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.50|0.0279
84671300|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.48|0.0508
84566977|NCT03430856|168884365|NON_INFERIORITY|Change from baseline in HbA1c at 24 weeks of treatment, was analyzed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) where all available post-baseline HbA1c measurements obtained up to Week 24 was entered as the dependent variables; visit and treatment were included as fixed factors, with Baseline HbA1c and stratification factor variables as covariates. Furthermore, the interaction terms of visit by treatment, visit by stratification factors and visit by Baseline HbA1c were included in the model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.47|||||Insulin Tregopil 45 mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.470|0.502|
84566978|NCT03430856|168884365|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.37|||||Insulin Tregopil 30mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.370|0.414|
84566979|NCT00974311|168884396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.75|0.53|<0.0001
84566980|NCT00974311|168884397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.47|0.35|<0.0001
84566981|NCT00974311|168884398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|0.835|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.835|0.566|0.0001
84566982|NCT00974311|168884399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||30.9|18.8|<0.0001
84750887|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-0.82|0.556
84750888|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.19|0.448
84750889|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.95|0.600
84750890|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-1.41|0.225
84750891|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.83|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-1.18|0.387
84750892|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.67|0.657
84496196|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|61.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||61.0|-100.0|
84496197|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||69.3|-100.0|
84496198|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.1||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||32.1|-12.7|
84566983|NCT00974311|168884400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.303||Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.303|0.204|<0.0001
84750893|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.40|-0.43|0.808
84750894|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.57|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.57|-0.68|0.742
84750895|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|2.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.14|-0.16|0.923
84750896|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.01|0.490
84496199|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|53.2||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||53.2|-31.4|
84496200|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||33.9|-51.6|
84496201|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100|-100.0|
84496202|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||69.3|-100.0|
84496203|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
84496204|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
84496205|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
84496206|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|35.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||35.6|-10.5|
84496207|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|43.5||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||43.5|-39.9|
84496208|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|49.6||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||49.6|-45.1|
84496209|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
84496210|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||69.3|-100.0|
84750897|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|1.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|-0.86|0.609
84750898|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.71|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.71|-1.10|0.362
84750899|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.77|0.610
84750900|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.93|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.93|-1.37|0.376
84750901|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.73|0.733
84750902|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-1.33|0.303
84750903|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.12|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.12|-0.97|0.548
84496211|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
84566984|NCT00974311|168884401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Rate of Pain Palliation|38.2||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs. 2).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||57.0|19.4|0.0079
84750904|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-0.77|0.609
84750905|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.1|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-0.83|0.590
84750906|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.27|-1.07|0.556
84750907|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-1.32|0.443
84750908|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.07|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.07|-0.99|0.527
84496212|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
84496213|NCT05204563|168743302|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
84566985|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 14 mm.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.4|36.4||||||||36.4|28.4|
84496214|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|64.8||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||64.8|-4.2|
84496215|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|43.2||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||43.2|-19.1|
84496216|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|29.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||29.9|-29.0|
84496217|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|41.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||41.1|-57.9|
84496218|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|9.4||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.4|-89.1|
84496219|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.8|3.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||3.5|-93.8|
84496220|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|100.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|-59.8|
84566986|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.7|19.6||||||||19.6|11.7|
84607661|NCT04728594|168966759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.87||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.87|1.77|<.001
84607662|NCT04728594|168966759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||1.30|0.88|<.001
84496221|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|76.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||76.9|-82.0|
84607663|NCT04881747|168966797|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.919||||||||0.919|0.834|
84607664|NCT04881747|168966797|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|0.934||||||||0.934|0.846|
84607665|NCT04881747|168966798|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.976||||||||0.976|0.914|
84607666|NCT04881747|168966798|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.978||||||||0.978|0.914|
84607667|NCT04881747|168966799|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.972||||||||0.972|0.910|
84607668|NCT04881747|168966799|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|0.977||||||||0.977|0.913|
84607669|NCT00351273|168966813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentages of participants with response between all those who received combination therapy vs. placebo||||0.01
84607670|NCT01378429|168966821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.|LS Mean Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|22.6||\<0.025 for a one-sided test.|ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as Placebo - Ciclesonide.|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.||22.6|-7.4|
84496222|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|59.4||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||59.4|-95.3|
84496223|NCT05204563|168743303|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
84496224|NCT05204563|168743304|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-4.9|
84496225|NCT05204563|168743304|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||19.0|-13.0|
84496226|NCT05204563|168743304|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|23.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||23.5|-7.6|
84496227|NCT05204563|168743305|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|20.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.8|-5.8|
84496228|NCT05204563|168743305|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|15.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||15.5|-11.6|
84496229|NCT05204563|168743305|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.4||||||LFU (Day 28)||17.4|-9.2|
84496230|NCT05204563|168743306|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.2|-10.6|
84496231|NCT05204563|168743306|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-14.0|
84496232|NCT05204563|168743306|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||25.6|-8.4|
84496233|NCT05204563|168743307|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|36.9||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||36.9|-14.5|
84496234|NCT05204563|168743307|OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|17.6||||||TOC (Day 21)||17.6|-28.4|
84496235|NCT05204563|168743307|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
84566987|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.3|24.3||||||||24.3|16.3|
84566988|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|27.6||||||||27.6|19.6|
84566989|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 100 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|20.8||||||||20.8|12.8|
84566990|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 200 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|16.1||||||||16.1|8.10|
84496236|NCT04411641|168743310|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.88||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation.Covariates were treatment group,age at screening (\>40,\<=40 years),geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US),baseline EDSS score \& baseline gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).In this analysis, for participants who completed study with 3-month confirmation and continued to meet disability progression criteria throughout EOS, their 6-month CDP status was imputed via multiple imputation method.||0.880|0.546|0.0026
84496237|NCT04411641|168743311|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.944||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.944|0.607|0.0134
84496238|NCT04411641|168743312|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Relative Risk|0.622||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.897||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Derived using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score, and baseline number of T2 lesions as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||0.897|0.432|0.0110
84496239|NCT04411641|168743313|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.286||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||1.286|0.735|0.8428
84496240|NCT04411641|168743314|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.919|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.919|0.640|0.0040
84496241|NCT04411641|168743315|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|3.214|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||3.214|1.102|0.0206
84496242|NCT04411641|168743316|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.197|-0.034|0.1646
84496243|NCT04342390|168743335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
84496244|NCT04342390|168743336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.633
84496245|NCT04342390|168743337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.433
84566991|NCT03286218|168884412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 400 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.8||||||||12.8|4.8|
84566992|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.5|37.7||||||Overall Drug Liking||37.7|28.5|
84566993|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|23.2||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.2|14.0|
84566994|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.5|23.8||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.8|14.5|
84566995|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|28.9||||||Overall Drug Liking||28.9|19.7|
84566996|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|38.9||||||Take drug again||38.9|29.1|
84566997|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|24.0||||||Take drug again||24.0|14.2|
84566998|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|25.6||||||Take drug again||25.6|15.7|
84566999|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.3|30.2||||||Take drug again||30.2|20.3|
84567000|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|77.4||||||Good effects||77.4|62.1|
84567001|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.9|43.2||||||Good effects||43.2|27.9|
84567002|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.4|59.7||||||Good effects||59.7|44.4|
84567003|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.4|60.6||||||Good effects||60.6|45.4|
84567004|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|27.2||||||Bad effects||27.2|13.6|
84567005|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|11.8||||||Bad effects||11.8|-1.76|
84567006|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|14.1||||||Bad effects||14.1|0.487|
84567007|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.69|19.3||||||Bad effects||19.3|5.69|
84567008|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.2|83.5||||||Any effects||83.5|67.2|
84567009|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.8|53.0||||||Any effects||53.0|36.8|
84607671|NCT01280695|168966889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.0|-34.0|0.4195
84607672|NCT01280695|168966889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.0||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-38.0|0.0811
84750909|NCT00568321|169256111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.22|-0.95|0.583
84607673|NCT01280695|168966889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-38.0|0.0639
84607674|NCT01280695|168966889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-12.0|-50.0|0.0022
84750910|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.81|0.111
84496246|NCT04342390|168743338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.822
84496247|NCT04342390|168743339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
84496248|NCT04342390|168743340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.186
84496249|NCT04342390|168743341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
84567010|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.7|64.9||||||Any effects||64.9|48.7|
84567011|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|73.0||||||Any effects||73.0|56.7|
84567012|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|76.6||||||High||76.6|60.6|
84567013|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.4|42.4||||||High||42.4|26.4|
84567014|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|55.5||||||High||55.5|39.5|
84567015|NCT03286218|168884415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|66.3||||||High||66.3|50.4|
84567016|NCT03286218|168884416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567017|NCT03286218|168884416|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0781
84567018|NCT03286218|168884416|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
84567019|NCT03286218|168884416|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
84567020|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-25.9||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-25.9|-34.0|
84567021|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-12.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-12.8|-20.9|
84567022|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|-15.5||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-15.5|-23.6|
84567023|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|-20.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-20.8|-28.8|
84567024|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|-26.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-26.5|-35.0|
84567025|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-15.3||||||Agitation/relaxation||-15.3|-23.7|
84567026|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-17.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-17.5|-25.9|
84567027|NCT03286218|168884417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-24.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-24.5|-33.0|
84567028|NCT00458003|168884419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.38
84567029|NCT00458003|168884420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.10
84567030|NCT00643201|168884424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing: non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025 with margin of 1.8. Demonstration of non-inferiority using both relative risk (RR) (margin = 1.8) and risk difference (RD) (margin = 0.035) were required to achieve the primary objective.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||This is the first test in a sequential testing sequence. p-value calculated based on the Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test stratified by index event strata for non-inferiority. Tested at 1-sided α=0.025|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|For a successful trial; rejection of the null hypotheses for both RR and RD was required.||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatal PE)/VTE-related death.||1.1802|0.5965|<0.0001
84607675|NCT05011513|168966895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6027|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6027
84607676|NCT05011513|168966897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796||||||P-value reported for COVID-19 hospitalization and death due to any cause.|Normal approximation|||||||0.1796
84607677|NCT05011513|168966899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0971|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.0971
84607678|NCT05011513|168966901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.819||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.084|0.618|0.1622
84607679|NCT05011513|168966902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4298
84750911|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.02|0.523
84567031|NCT00643201|168884424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing; non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025. If non-inferiority demonstrated for both RR and RD, the primary objective was achieved.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0128|0.004||Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test statistic for risk difference (RD).|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatalPE)/VTE-related death as measured by risk difference.||0.0040|-0.0128|<0.0001
84567032|NCT00643201|168884424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||Tested at 2-sided α=0.05 significance. Further inferential statistical testing halted due to failure to reject the null hypothesis of equivalence for VTE/VTE-related death.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relative risk, CI, and p-value were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.||Hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing required demonstration of non-inferiority using both RR and RD plus demonstration of superiority for major bleeding.||1.1802|0.5965|0.3128
84750912|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|1.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|-0.28|0.887
84750913|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.92|-0.23|0.903
84750914|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.11|0.472
84750915|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.87|0.628
84496250|NCT01233284|168743350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
84496251|NCT01233284|168743350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
84750916|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-1.58|0.243
84750917|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.87|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.87|-1.42|0.346
84750918|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-1.19|0.467
84750919|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.85|0.670
84496252|NCT01233284|168743350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.236|0.140|<0.0001
84496253|NCT01233284|168743351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.078|<0.0001
84496254|NCT01233284|168743351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
84496255|NCT01233284|168743351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.096|<0.0001
84496256|NCT01233284|168743352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.083|<0.0001
84750920|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.76|-1.55|0.286
84496257|NCT01233284|168743352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.081|<0.0001
84496258|NCT01233284|168743352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.132|<0.0001
84567033|NCT00643201|168884425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8151||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6146|1.0812||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0812|0.6146|0.1554
84567034|NCT00643201|168884426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7994||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5737|1.1137||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. . Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1137|0.5737|0.1848
84750921|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.35|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.35|-1.00|0.598
84750922|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.26|0.453
84567035|NCT00643201|168884427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6236||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4682|0.8306||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.8306|0.4682|0.0011
84750923|NCT00568321|169256114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|1.17|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.17|-1.28|0.472
84496259|NCT01233284|168743353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0034||95.0|0.026|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.132|0.026|0.0034
84496260|NCT01233284|168743353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0087||95.0|0.018|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.018|0.0087
84496261|NCT01233284|168743353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.085|<0.0001
84496262|NCT01233284|168743354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0732||95.0|-0.005|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.113|-0.005|0.0732
84496263|NCT01233284|168743354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0177||95.0|0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.012|0.0177
84496264|NCT01233284|168743354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0012||95.0|0.039|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.039|0.0012
84496265|NCT01233284|168743355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0149||95.0|0.013|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.115|0.013|0.0149
84496266|NCT01233284|168743355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0043||95.0|0.024|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.024|0.0043
84496267|NCT01233284|168743355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.086|<0.0001
84496268|NCT01233284|168743359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|11.204|25.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||25.895|11.204|<0.0001
84496269|NCT01233284|168743359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|10.55|25.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||25.240|10.550|<0.0001
84496270|NCT01233284|168743359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739|<|0.0001||95.0|13.497|28.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.195|13.497|<0.0001
84567036|NCT00643201|168884428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4658|0.6569||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6569|0.4658|<0.0001
84496271|NCT01233284|168743360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001||95.0|13.84|28.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||28.662|13.840|<0.0001
84496272|NCT01233284|168743360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0001||95.0|7.166|21.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||21.988|7.166|0.0001
84496273|NCT01233284|168743360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.773|<|0.0001||95.0|14.166|28.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.997|14.166|<0.0001
84496274|NCT01233284|168743361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.8574||95.0|-1.363|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||1.134|-1.363|0.8574
84496275|NCT01233284|168743361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.3954||95.0|-1.789|0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.708|-1.789|0.3954
84496276|NCT01233284|168743361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.9034||95.0|-1.327|1.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||1.173|-1.327|0.9034
84496277|NCT01233284|168743362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0296||95.0|-0.443|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.023|-0.443|0.0296
84496278|NCT01233284|168743362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0454||95.0|-0.424|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.004|-0.424|0.0454
84496279|NCT01233284|168743362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.061||95.0|-0.41|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.009|-0.410|0.0610
84496280|NCT01233284|168743363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0183||95.0|-0.273|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.273|0.0183
84496281|NCT01233284|168743363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0288||95.0|-0.262|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.014|-0.262|0.0288
84496282|NCT01233284|168743363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0781||95.0|-0.235|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.013|-0.235|0.0781
84496283|NCT01233284|168743364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1303||95.0|-0.193|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.025|-0.193|0.1303
84567037|NCT00643201|168884429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3735|1.0787|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0787|0.3735|
84567038|NCT00643201|168884430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6363|1.8793|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.8793|0.6363|
84567039|NCT00643201|168884431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.5889|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.5889|0.3560|
84607680|NCT05011513|168966905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.802||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status (positive/negative), vaccination status (complete/not vaccinated) and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL).||1.050|0.613|0.1086
84750924|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.56|-1.81|0.548
84567040|NCT00643201|168884432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3419|1.2508|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.2508|0.3419|
84567041|NCT00643201|168884433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5287|1.1906|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1906|0.5287|
84567042|NCT00643201|168884434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.307|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1728|0.5452||p-value calculated on the CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and CI were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Hypothesis: apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. As per the hierarchical statistical testing cascade, inferential testing for adjudicated major bleeding occurred because non-inferiority for VTE/VTE-related death (Primary efficacy endpoint) was demonstrated earlier. Rejection of the null hypothesis for equivalence for major bleeding allowed inferential testing for superiority of VTE/VTE-related death.||0.5452|0.1728|<0.0001
84750925|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.96|-0.48|0.117
84607681|NCT05011513|168966906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.333||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.163|192.472|||Breslow-Day Test|||||192.472|13.163|0.3262
84607682|NCT05011513|168966906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.36|59.08||||||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1||59.080|8.360|
84750926|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-2.69|0.779
84750927|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.25|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.25|-1.52|0.375
84750928|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|0.54|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.54|-3.26|0.881
84750929|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|1.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.52|-2.33|0.636
84567043|NCT00643201|168884435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3566|0.5453||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing was not conducted because the null hypothesis pertaining to superiority for VTE/VTE-related death was not rejected.||0.5453|0.3566|<0.0001
84567044|NCT00643201|168884436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3815|0.6022||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6022|0.3815|<0.0001
84567045|NCT00643201|168884437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|0.7034||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.7034|0.5432|<0.0001
84671301|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
84671302|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.46|0.0672
84671303|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.00|-0.48|0.0469
84671304|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.51|0.0280
84671305|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.06|-0.54|0.0140
84671306|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.01|-0.49|0.0375
84671307|NCT01332149|169076703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Overall change was estimated from the mixed effect model treatment main effect.|Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0164
84671308|NCT01332149|169076705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.07|-0.49|0.1340
84671309|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.13|-0.37|0.3438
84671310|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.40|0.2482
84671311|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.41|0.2249
84671312|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.05|-0.46|0.1094
84671313|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.09|-0.41|0.2095
84671314|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.50|0.0531
84671315|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.44|0.1628
84567046|NCT00643201|168884438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5937|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5318|0.6629||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6629|0.5318|<0.0001
84567047|NCT02976519|168884446|OTHER||Slope|1.2705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1067|1.4343|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4343|1.1067|
84750930|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|0.39|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.39|-3.46|0.905
84496284|NCT01233284|168743364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2191||95.0|-0.177|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.041|-0.177|0.2191
84607683|NCT01073930|168966930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.4||||||||||3.4|
84750931|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.00|-2.00|0.499
84750932|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.56|0.297
84750933|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.74|0.09|0.035
84750934|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.31|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.31|-0.48|0.222
84750935|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.70|-0.09|0.069
84750936|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.15|-0.68|0.338
84567048|NCT02976519|168884446|OTHER||Slope|1.1361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9598|1.3123|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.3123|0.9598|
84567049|NCT02976519|168884447|OTHER||Slope|1.2743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1231|1.4255|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4255|1.1231|
84671316|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.48|0.0770
84750937|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.75|0.381
84750938|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.64|0.306
84750939|NCT00568321|169256128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.87|0.440
84750940|NCT00823901|169256140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84750941|NCT01369511|169256141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.527
84750942|NCT01369511|169256141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.291
84567050|NCT02976519|168884447|OTHER||Slope|1.0924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0793|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9296|1.2551|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.2551|0.9296|
84750943|NCT01369511|169256141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.129
84750944|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.751
84750945|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.066
84750946|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.031
84750947|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.315
84750948|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.002
84750949|NCT01369511|169256142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.007
84750950|NCT01376349|169256146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84750951|NCT01376349|169256146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84750952|NCT01176968|169256147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.756||All analyses for primary endpoint were tested at two-sided, α-level of 0.05, without adjusting for multiplicity.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio, and p-value for the Primary Analysis based on a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with/without previous MI, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI anterior or non-anterior.||0.756|0.446|< 0.0001
84567051|NCT00928434|168884448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound (LCL) of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the intermittent and pooled continuous treatments, CADT, (intermittent - continuous) of greater than -12.5%.|Percentage difference|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.33||||||||3.33|-0.19|
84567052|NCT03933449|168884535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.82|0.36|0.0015
84567053|NCT03933449|168884536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.69|0.17|0.0008
84567054|NCT03933449|168884537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.83|0.37|0.0021
84750953|NCT01176968|169256148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.308|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||6.308|0.050|0.6406
84750954|NCT01176968|169256149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.726||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||1.990|0.265|0.5338
84750955|NCT01176968|169256151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||2.040|0.575|0.8042
84750956|NCT01176968|169256152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.598||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.791|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||0.791|0.452|0.0003
84750957|NCT01176968|169256153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.069||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|5.371|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||5.371|0.213|0.9353
84750958|NCT01176968|169256154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|4.525|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||4.525|0.566|0.3757
84750959|NCT01176968|169256155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.65|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with observed value as the dependent variable, treatment as a major factor, and baseline QRS duration, baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, time (in hours) of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI (anterior versus all other locations) as covariates.||0.65|-3.55|0.1744
84750960|NCT01176968|169256156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.14|-0.10|0.7123
84567055|NCT03933449|168884538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.9||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||24.5|2.7|0.0084
84567056|NCT03933449|168884539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.0||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||38.0|-2.3|0.0403
84567057|NCT03933449|168884540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||25.2|2.8|0.0083
84567058|NCT03933449|168884541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.58|0.177
84567059|NCT03933449|168884542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.44|0.238
84567060|NCT03933449|168884543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.57|0.171
84567061|NCT02513550|168884551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.005
84567062|NCT02513550|168884551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.522
84567063|NCT02513550|168884552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.006
84567064|NCT02513550|168884552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.118
84567065|NCT00243919|168884570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.391||The trial tested the superiority of LTP delivered early or late, compared to HEP, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05. The study-wide error rate was controlled by applying the Hochberg step-up procedure to the two primary comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Early-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression). Assuming that 30% of HEP participants would improve functional level of walking, we derived a sample size of 400 to detect a clinically relevant 20% effect size with 85% power, adjusting for an loss-to-follow-up rate of 15%.||1.391|0.497|0.481
84567066|NCT00243919|168884570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Late-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||1.985|0.715|0.501
84567067|NCT00243919|168884571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.242||95.0||||We did not formally conduct statistical inference on the timing effect because the first primary null hypotheses is accepted. The p-value provided is the smallest alpha level that one would claim significant difference between early- and late-LTP.|Regression, Linear||Even though there was no formal inference of timing effect, we still provided descriptive statistics for the 6-month and 12-month changes. In addition, paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements.|The second primary analysis assessed the timing effect and its interaction with initial severity of gait impairment on walking speed change from baseline to 1 year after stroke.||||0.242
84567068|NCT00243919|168884572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: Early-LTP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between early-LTP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.21|1.18|0.010
84567069|NCT00243919|168884572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: HEP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between HEP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.42|1.22|0.007
84567070|NCT00243919|168884573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between early-LTP and late-LTP.||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
84567071|NCT00243919|168884573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between HEP and late-LTP.||0.14|0.05|<.0001
84567072|NCT00243919|168884574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 12-month post stroke.|ANOVA|||Primary 12 month analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.45
84752798|NCT05105789|169260709|EQUIVALENCE|Concordance between the PCR test results will be evaluated by calculating the Kappa statistic which will be reported along with corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval. The nonparametric bootstrap technique will be used to construct the confidence interval. A kappa statistic of \>0.95 will be considered as sufficient to define lollipop swab test non-inferior to the gold-standard PCR testing of nasal swabs.|Kappa Co-efficient|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Kappa statistics for Nasal Swab PCR vs Lollipop Swab PCR||1.00|0.78|
84567073|NCT00243919|168884574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
84567074|NCT00243919|168884575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.10
84567075|NCT00243919|168884575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.04
84567076|NCT00243919|168884576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.48
84750961|NCT01176968|169256156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.13|-0.05|0.4105
84750962|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750963|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.5552
84750964|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750965|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750966|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750967|NCT01176968|169256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.3347
84567077|NCT00243919|168884576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
84567078|NCT00243919|168884577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.07
84750968|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0005
84750969|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750970|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.1558
84750971|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0008
84750972|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750973|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0293
84750974|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.1723
84496285|NCT01233284|168743364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1163||95.0|-0.196|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.022|-0.196|0.1163
84607684|NCT01073930|168966931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.9|||||||Ascending colon comparison|||4.9|
84750975|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0295
84750976|NCT01176968|169256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- PINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0865
84750977|NCT01176968|169256159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0944
84750978|NCT01176968|169256159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0360
84750979|NCT01176968|169256159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.6459
84750980|NCT01176968|169256160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84750981|NCT01176968|169256160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
84567079|NCT00243919|168884577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
84567080|NCT00243919|168884578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.69
84567081|NCT00243919|168884578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<.0001
84567082|NCT00243919|168884579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.13
84567083|NCT00243919|168884579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
84607685|NCT01073930|168966931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.6|||||||Mid colon comparison|||1.6|
84607686|NCT01073930|168966931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||0.4|
84607687|NCT01073930|168966931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.2|||||||Overall: Ascending, mid, and recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||5.2|
84607688|NCT01073930|168966932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84607689|NCT01073930|168966933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84607690|NCT01073930|168966934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84607691|NCT01073930|168966935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84607692|NCT01073930|168966936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84607693|NCT01073930|168966937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84607694|NCT01192568|168966939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.90|-2.45|0.0928
84607695|NCT01192568|168966940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.089||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.13|58.7|||ANCOVA|||||58.70|11.13|0.0054
84607696|NCT01192568|168966941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.215||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|80.07|||ANCOVA|||||80.07|-14.89|0.1739
84607697|NCT01192568|168966942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Results from a pre-specified test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p \<= 0.05) determined that the Pre-Am3 and Post-Am3 OTG data should be analyzed separately for the primary analysis.||0.15|-0.53|0.2660
84607698|NCT01192568|168966942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.21|-1.13|0.0070
84607699|NCT00599755|168966946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55||||||||0.55|0.27|
84607700|NCT00599755|168966947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Concordance correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.92||||||||0.92|0.85|
84607701|NCT00599755|168966951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
84607702|NCT03320330|168966965|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503), administered to children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors (Part A), was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Recommended Phase 2 dose|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503) is 20 mg/kg.|||||
84607703|NCT02198794|168966978|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and dopamine receptor antagonist status at the pre-withdrawal visit as fixed effects and the pre-withdrawal visit value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.42|0.121
84607704|NCT01885910|168966989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
84607705|NCT01023672|168967014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis was done per protocol (n=17)||||0.003
84607706|NCT02905006|168967017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84567084|NCT00243919|168884580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
84567085|NCT00243919|168884580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.001
84567086|NCT00243919|168884581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.62
84496286|NCT01233284|168743365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7501||95.0|-0.073|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.052|-0.073|0.7501
84496287|NCT01233284|168743365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.8401||95.0|-0.069|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.056|-0.069|0.8401
84567087|NCT00243919|168884581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
84567088|NCT01039467|168884618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567089|NCT01039467|168884619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567090|NCT01039467|168884620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.833
84567091|NCT01039467|168884621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.265
84567092|NCT01039467|168884622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84671317|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.43|0.1651
84567093|NCT01039467|168884623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567094|NCT01039467|168884624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
84567095|NCT01039467|168884625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84567096|NCT01039467|168884626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
84567097|NCT01922258|168884660|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|||=|0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|0.82|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.82|-5.49|=0.1454
84671318|NCT01332149|169076706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.04|-0.40|0.1006
84671319|NCT01332149|169076707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.74||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||1.74|0.93|0.1309
84671320|NCT01332149|169076710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.628||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||-0.05|-6.45|0.0463
84671321|NCT01332149|169076711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.05|-0.19|0.2748
84671322|NCT01332149|169076713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.97|-4.22|0.4758
84671323|NCT01332149|169076714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||7.67|-1.05|0.1363
84671324|NCT01332149|169076715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.371||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.90|-2.49|0.8808
84567098|NCT04552132|168884679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
84567099|NCT04552132|168884680|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84567100|NCT04552132|168884681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
84567101|NCT04552132|168884682|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84567102|NCT04552132|168884683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84567103|NCT04552132|168884684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
84567104|NCT04552132|168884685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84671325|NCT01332149|169076716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.40|-0.03|0.0887
84567105|NCT04552132|168884686|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84567106|NCT04552132|168884687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84567107|NCT04552132|168884688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4993
84567108|NCT04552132|168884689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84567109|NCT04552132|168884690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
84567110|NCT01431339|168884702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||4.6|-7.4|
84567111|NCT01871077|168884708|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.890
84607707|NCT02905006|168967017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84607708|NCT02905006|168967017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84607709|NCT02905006|168967017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84496288|NCT01233284|168743365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.3237||95.0|-0.094|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.031|-0.094|0.3237
84607710|NCT02905006|168967018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.43|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|101.88|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||101.88|4.51|=0.0001
84607711|NCT02905006|168967018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|309.83|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||309.83|12.90|<0.0001
84607712|NCT02905006|168967018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|308.29|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||308.29|12.61|<0.0001
84607713|NCT02905006|168967018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|693.51|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||693.51|24.50|<0.0001
84607714|NCT02905006|168967018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.07|342.4|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||342.40|14.07|<0.0001
84567112|NCT01871077|168884709|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
84567113|NCT01871077|168884710|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Friedman test|||||||1.000
84567114|NCT01871077|168884711|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.497
84567115|NCT02686164|168884726|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.983||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam Versus (vs.) Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.983|0.850|
84567116|NCT02686164|168884726|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.404||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.404|0.938|
84567117|NCT02686164|168884726|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.335||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.335|0.940|
84607715|NCT02905006|168967019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.23|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|87.76|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||87.76|3.79|=0.0003
84671326|NCT01332149|169076717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.53|0.72|0.7929
84567118|NCT02686164|168884726|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.057|1.36||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady-state) + Midazolam vs.Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.360|1.057|
84567119|NCT02686164|168884727|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|0.988||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.988|0.753|
84567120|NCT02686164|168884727|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.238||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.238|0.852|
84567121|NCT02686164|168884727|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.268||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.268|0.879|
84567122|NCT02686164|168884727|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.845|1.046||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.046|0.845|
84607716|NCT02905006|168967019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.19|191.59|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||191.59|8.19|<0.0001
84607717|NCT02905006|168967019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.19|392.93|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||392.93|15.19|<0.0001
84750982|NCT01176968|169256160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0801
84496289|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.276||MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.276|-0.040|0.1402
84496290|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.305|-0.010|0.0656
84496291|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.299|-0.015|0.0766
84496292|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.249|-0.086|0.3371
84567123|NCT01691378|168884729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.3|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BHS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BHS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BHS as function of arm \& T1 BHS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.3|.52|.03
84567124|NCT01691378|168884729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-1.3|-7.9|.01
84567125|NCT01691378|168884729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.2|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-3.2|-9.3|.0007
84750983|NCT00819286|169256170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.003
84750984|NCT00819286|169256170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.01
84607718|NCT02905006|168967019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.26|767.72|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||767.72|26.26|<0.0001
84607719|NCT02905006|168967019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|288.0|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||288.00|11.89|<0.0001
84607720|NCT02905006|168967020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84750985|NCT00819286|169256171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Plates vs Wires||||0.93
84496293|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.303|-0.031|0.1097
84607721|NCT02905006|168967020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84750986|NCT05193500|169256180|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|one-sample t-test, compared to 0.5 (chance)||||||0.085
84496294|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.363|0.029|0.0220
84607722|NCT02905006|168967020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84750987|NCT05193500|169256180|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84750988|NCT05193500|169256181|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84750989|NCT02993523|169256199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.723||Stratified log-rank test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|Log Rank||HR from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|||0.723|0.465|<0.001
84496295|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.256|-0.056|0.2062
84496296|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.297|-0.014|0.0731
84496297|NCT01233284|168743366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.324|0.014|0.0333
84671327|NCT01332149|169076718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||4.92|-2.83|0.5960
84750990|NCT02993523|169256200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).||||||<0.001
84750991|NCT03694418|169256208|OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.95|1.02|<0.05
84567126|NCT01691378|168884730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BSS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BSS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BSS as function of arm \& T1 BSS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.0|-.29|.07
84750992|NCT01806129|169256217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.31|||||Odds ratio represents the odds of adopting the appropriate reproductive health management for patients with intervention compared to the odds among patients without intervention. Odds ratio was calculated by GEE analysis.|||3.31|1.29|
84750993|NCT00744523|169256273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of the primary endpoint|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.2|||t-test, 1 sided||"Parameter Dispersion Type of Standard Error of the mean is meant to state that 'mean is the mean of proportions in the sense of a central-limit theorem"|The ARMOUR trial tested the null hypothesis that the MACCE rate was greater than or equal to the Performance Goal (PG) of 13% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MACCE rate was less than the PG. The sample size was calculated based on 90% power and a Type I error rate of 0.05 (one-sided). The Performance Goal was calculated from results of carotid artery stenting trials that utilized embolic protection devices (EPD).||5.2||<0.05
84567127|NCT01691378|168884730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||3.1|-3.3|.94
84671328|NCT01332149|169076719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.67|-3.36|0.8216
84750994|NCT00784693|169256303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.69||||||Week 8: Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with main effects of treatment, contraceptive use and baseline severity of pain.||1.69|-0.87|
84750995|NCT03588728|169256339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.781
84750996|NCT03588728|169256340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.409
84750997|NCT03588728|169256341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.697
84750998|NCT03588728|169256342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates interaction term.||Test of between subjects effects||||.193
84750999|NCT03588728|169256343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.185
84751000|NCT03588728|169256344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-measures effects||||.198
84671329|NCT01332149|169076720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.49||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.49|-3.14|0.4829
84671330|NCT01332149|169076721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.00|-0.29|0.0431
84751001|NCT03588728|169256345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||ANOVA|||Test of between-subjects effects||||.638
84751002|NCT03588728|169256346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effectd||||.574
84751003|NCT03588728|169256347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.564
84751004|NCT03588728|169256348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjects effects||||.998
84751005|NCT03588728|169256349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjecs effects||||.348
84751006|NCT00195507|169256352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment and center as main effects, and baseline score as a covariant.||||-0.43|-0.64|<0.001
84751007|NCT00195507|169256353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84751008|NCT00195507|169256355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
84751009|NCT02888665|169256367|OTHER||see above|||||||||||see above. target ORR was not met.|||see above. target ORR was not met.|The primary objective of the phase II design compared ORR with historical rates (Judson et al. Lancet Onc., 2014). A 2-stage design with null hypothesis of 15% using a 1-sided 0.05 α level test has 85% power to detect an increase to 35%. This required up to 35 patients. After 2 responses in stage 1 (20 pts), the study moved to stage 2 (15 pts). If 10 responses were seen (29%), this would have ruled out an ORR of 15%. The study was closed when it became clear we would not meet this benchmark.|see above. target ORR was not met.|||
84751010|NCT00696761|169256424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84751011|NCT00696761|169256425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test were used to compare changes from baseline to endpoint after treatment.||||<0.05
84496298|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.312|-0.081|0.2451
84496299|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.405|0.012|0.0379
84567128|NCT01691378|168884730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.12|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||.12|-7.0|.06
84567129|NCT01691378|168884731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.9|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BDI compared bet arms controlling for T1 BDI. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BDI as function of arm \& T1 BDI. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||12.9|-1.7|.13
84671331|NCT01332149|169076722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||0.01|-0.28|0.0602
84671332|NCT01332149|169076724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.24|-0.57|0.4172
84671333|NCT01332149|169076725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.23|-0.62|0.3724
84671334|NCT01852292|169076748|OTHER|Double Criteria for PFS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||||||||0.94|0.44|
84671335|NCT01852292|169076749|OTHER|Double criteria for OS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||||||||1.04|0.49|
84671336|NCT01888497|169076778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|13.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|17.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam versus (vs) placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||17.40|10.85|<0.001
84751012|NCT00412971|169256444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in recurrence rate|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
84496300|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.363|-0.030|0.0957
84567130|NCT01691378|168884731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-3.6|-13.8|.003
84496301|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.273|-0.139|0.5207
84671337|NCT01888497|169076778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was 2.4 cm.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.33|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.33|-0.66|
84671338|NCT01888497|169076778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|1.02||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.51||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.51|-0.39|0.134
84751013|NCT01106404|169256447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.865|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.765||||Fisher Exact||In this ITT analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|"ITT analysis:~Hypothesis: The percentage of subjects who succeed must be greater than 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 HA: p \> 0.25"|||0.765|< 0.001
84751014|NCT01106404|169256447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.901|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.807||||Fisher Exact||In this completed case analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|Completed case analysis|||0.807|< 0.001
84751015|NCT01106404|169256448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.098|||||The combined percentage of subjects with worsened pain relief was reported.|||0.098|0.003|
84751016|NCT01106404|169256449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
84751017|NCT01106404|169256450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
84496302|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.404|-0.009|0.0606
84496303|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.387|-0.026|0.0855
84567131|NCT01691378|168884731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-5.3|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-5.3|-18.0|.002
84567132|NCT02465164|168884732|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
84567133|NCT01481558|168884737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84751018|NCT01106404|169256450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
84567134|NCT00870467|168884745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84496304|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.287|-0.104|0.3564
84496305|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.399|0.007|0.0424
84496306|NCT01233284|168743367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.370|-0.022|0.0815
84567135|NCT00870467|168884746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84567136|NCT00870467|168884747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84567137|NCT00870467|168884748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84567138|NCT00870467|168884749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84567139|NCT00870467|168884750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84567140|NCT03839394|168884759|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.012
84751019|NCT02460666|169256552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
84751020|NCT02460666|169256553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
84751021|NCT02460666|169256554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
84751022|NCT02460666|169256555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84751023|NCT05245097|169256557|OTHER|For the multiple imputation, a total of 50 imputed datasets will be calculated (Graham et al.). Fully conditional specification (FCS) discriminant function method will be used to impute missing primary endpoint using the baseline covariates of age, sex, race, ethnicity, mobility level, and BIMS Score. The FCS logistic method was replaced with the FCS discriminant function method due to a quasi-separation caused by only one observed primary endpoint event in the treatment group.||||||0.004||||||The null hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level of significance using a logistic regression analysis to compare treatment groups while controlling for propensity score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
84752799|NCT05105789|169260710|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.201|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.2010
84752800|NCT05105789|169260710|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.0705|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0705
84752801|NCT00628251|169260744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56||If the observed p-value for the combined olaparib groups is \<0.02 (1-sided) then the result will be regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 mg bd (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.56|0.51|0.6604
84752802|NCT00628251|169260744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7794||95.0|0.48|1.74||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.74|0.48|0.7794
84752803|NCT00628251|169260744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.62||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.62|0.45|0.6604
84607723|NCT02905006|168967020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84607724|NCT02905006|168967020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84607725|NCT02905006|168967021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|156.38|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||156.38|6.82|<0.0001
84607726|NCT02905006|168967021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|94.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.54|481.86|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||481.86|18.54|<0.0001
84607727|NCT02905006|168967021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.08|626.89|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||626.89|22.08|<0.0001
84607728|NCT02905006|168967021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.06|1789.24|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||1789.24|44.06|<0.0001
84567141|NCT03839394|168884760|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z-test of Proportions|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.05
84567142|NCT03839394|168884761|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.750
84751024|NCT05245097|169256558|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The hip fracture due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84496307|NCT01875731|168743472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|1.57|0.01
84567143|NCT03839394|168884762|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.860
84607729|NCT02905006|168967021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|107.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.82|558.57|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||558.57|20.82|<0.0001
84607730|NCT02905006|168967022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0001
84567144|NCT03839394|168884763|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.760
84607731|NCT02905006|168967022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0002
84607732|NCT02905006|168967022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
84607733|NCT02905006|168967022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
84607734|NCT02905006|168967022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
84607735|NCT05063539|168967053|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|3.771|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.771|-0.375|
84607736|NCT05063539|168967053|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|-1.042|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-1.042|-5.354|
84607737|NCT05063539|168967054|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|3.697|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.697|-0.443|
84607738|NCT05063539|168967054|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.277|-2.862||||||||-2.862|-7.277|
84607739|NCT05063539|168967055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.488|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.488|-0.763|0.665
84607740|NCT05063539|168967055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.736|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.736|0.435|0.001
84607741|NCT05063539|168967056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.749|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.749|-0.641|0.878
84607742|NCT05063539|168967056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.05|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.050|0.615|<0.001
84607743|NCT05063539|168967057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.073|0.811|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.811|-3.073|0.252
84751025|NCT05245097|169256558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84751026|NCT05245097|169256559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The emergency department visit due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple ED visits due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.001
84567145|NCT02493517|168884792|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.6 SDS for the upper limit of 95% CI of the LS mean difference of the log-transformed IGF-1 SDS without back-transformation.|Treatment difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||||||"The Least Square (LS) Means and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were based on the generalised linear model (GLM) with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented."||0.11|-0.74|
84567146|NCT02493517|168884792|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the back-transformed LS Mean ratio of IGF-1 SDS of lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR is exp (0.6) = 1.822.|LS Mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11||||||"The LS Means and 95% CIs were based on the GLM with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The LS Mean ratio (lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR) is presented."||1.11|0.48|
84567147|NCT02493517|168884793|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.7||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of normal IGF-1 SDS values at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||17.7|-5.2|
84567148|NCT02493517|168884794|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.4||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||14.4|-17.5|
84567149|NCT02493517|168884795|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.0||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤1 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.0|-8.9|
84567150|NCT02493517|168884796|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.5||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage subjects with normal IGF-1 levels and who have GH levels \>1 mcg/L and ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.5|-3.1|
84567151|NCT02493517|168884797|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|11.25||||||Treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented.||11.25|-3.98|
84567152|NCT02493517|168884798|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|13.3||||||Risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of subjects with at least 20% reduction in the solid component of tumour volume compared to Baseline is presented.||13.3|-24.3|
84567153|NCT03718429|168884807|SUPERIORITY|In line with recommendations for pilot investigations, since there were no preliminary data exploring the pharmacodynamic effects of vascular dose rivaroxaban in addition to antiplatelet therapy, we arbitrarily chose a sample size of 20 patients per treatment cohort.||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
84567154|NCT03718429|168884808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.488
84567155|NCT03718429|168884809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84567156|NCT05404711|168884812|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
84567157|NCT05404711|168884813|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
84751027|NCT05245097|169256560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The hospitalization due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple hospitalizations due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.003
84751028|NCT00692978|169256572|EQUIVALENCE|Log transformed parametric ANOVA|||||<|0.05||||||calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84751029|NCT03231943|169256629|OTHER||Power model|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8982|0.9971|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-inf) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9971|0.8982|
84751030|NCT03231943|169256630|OTHER||Power model|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8877|0.9683|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9683|0.8877|
84567158|NCT05404711|168884814|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
84567159|NCT05404711|168884815|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
84567160|NCT05404711|168884816|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
84567161|NCT05404711|168884817|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
84567162|NCT05404711|168884818|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
84567163|NCT05404711|168884819|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
84751031|NCT03231943|169256631|OTHER||Power Model|0.9352|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.9734|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9734|0.8970|
84496308|NCT01875731|168743473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.09|||Chi-squared|||||4.09|0.1|0.71
84567164|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and HbA1c.||||0.3
84567165|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and HbA1c.||||0.005
84607744|NCT05063539|168967057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|1.797|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.797|-2.252|0.825
84751032|NCT03231943|169256632|OTHER||Power model|0.7968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6424|0.9512|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-tau) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9512|0.6424|
84751033|NCT03231943|169256633|OTHER||Power model|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6149|0.9631|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Ctrough) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9631|0.6149|
84751034|NCT03231943|169256634|OTHER||Power model|0.7955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6562|0.9349|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9349|0.6562|
84496309|NCT03417102|168743474|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.092|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.192||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.192|0.044|<0.0001
84567166|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and HbA1c.||||0.01
84567167|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.23||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.2
84567168|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.5
84567169|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose (mg/dL) and HbA1c.||||0.1
84567170|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM correlation of variability (CV) and HbA1c.||||0.4
84567171|NCT05404711|168884820|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation and HbA1c.||||0.7
84567172|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and laboratory-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.2
84567173|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
84751035|NCT03231943|169256639|OTHER||Power model|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5649|0.9091|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9091|0.5649|
84751036|NCT03231943|169256640|OTHER||Power model|0.7397|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5576|0.9218|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9218|0.5576|
84496310|NCT03417102|168743476|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.207||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during TP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.207|0.056|<0.0001
84567174|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
84751037|NCT03444324|169256652|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis of this endpoint was to test non-inferiority in the Per-protocol Set. The final analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the least squares mean (LSM) was less than the non-inferiority margin (150 mL).|Difference in LSM|-279.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-552.38|-6.48||p-value from Van Elteren test, stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to = 2,000 mL and \>2,000 mL)|Van Elteren test|||||-6.48|-552.38|<0.001
84751038|NCT03444324|169256653|OTHER||Difference in response rate|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to ≤ 2,000 mL and \> 2,000 mL).||||50.3|26|<0.001
84751039|NCT03444324|169256654|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84496311|NCT03417102|168743478|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.056|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.121||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.121|0.026|<0.0001
84567175|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
84567176|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
84567177|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.35||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.05
84567178|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
84751040|NCT03444324|169256660|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-15.5|||<|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.83|126.88|||ANOVA|||||126.88|-157.83|<0.831
84751041|NCT03444324|169256661|OTHER||Difference in LSM|12.4|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.84|113.66|||ANOVA|||||113.66|-88.84|=0.809
84751042|NCT03444324|169256662|OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.8|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.7|-8.9|=0.022
84751043|NCT01117454|169256667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank with continuity correction||||||0.008
84751044|NCT04796896|169256688|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if:~The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.413||||||||1.413|1.061|
84751045|NCT04796896|169256689|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.139||||||||1.139|0.870|
84751046|NCT04796896|169256689|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|1.434||||||||1.434|1.101|
84751047|NCT04796896|169256690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.2|
84751048|NCT04796896|169256691|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||||||||1.5|-2.5|
84751049|NCT04796896|169256691|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||||||||2.4|-0.8|
84751050|NCT04796896|169256692|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.158|4.808||||||||4.808|3.158|
84751051|NCT04796896|169256692|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|4.657||||||||4.657|3.404|
84751052|NCT04796896|169256694|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.4|
84751053|NCT04796896|169256694|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||||||||2.4|-2.2|
84496312|NCT03417102|168743480|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.210|0.046|<0.0001
84496313|NCT03417102|168743482|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-28.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-18.37||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-18.37|-39.07|<0.0001
84567179|NCT05404711|168884821|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.7
84751054|NCT04796896|169256703|OTHER|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.873|||||Vaccine efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.873|0.325|
84751055|NCT04796896|169256703|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.509|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.509|0.287|
84751056|NCT04796896|169256703|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.474|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.474|0.127|
84751057|NCT04796896|169256704|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.882|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.882|0.151|
84496314|NCT03417102|168743483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|-8.33||ANCOVA model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-8.33|-21.37|<0.0001
84567180|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.6
84751058|NCT04796896|169256704|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.48|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.480|-0.007|
84671339|NCT01888497|169076778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.98||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||3.98|1.01|<0.001
84671340|NCT01888497|169076779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.47||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.47|0.26|<0.001
84751059|NCT04796896|169256704|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|0.352|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.352|-0.832|
84567181|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
84567182|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
84567183|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
84671341|NCT01888497|169076779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 0.1 m/sec.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.05|-0.07|
84671342|NCT01888497|169076779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.02|0.012
84751060|NCT04796896|169256705|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.965|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.965|-0.416|
84567184|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.27||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
84567185|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.08
84607745|NCT05063539|168967058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.779|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.779|-2.527|0.733
84607746|NCT05063539|168967058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|3.877|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||3.877|-0.565|0.143
84607747|NCT05063539|168967059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.802|2.158|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.158|-1.802|0.860
84607748|NCT05063539|168967059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.567|-0.456|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.456|-4.567|0.017
84607749|NCT05063539|168967060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.949|1.387|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.387|-2.949|0.479
84607750|NCT05063539|168967060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|-1.788|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-1.788|-6.239|<0.001
84607751|NCT05063539|168967061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|1.642|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.642|-0.445|0.259
84607752|NCT05063539|168967061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|0.541|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.541|-1.629|0.324
84607753|NCT05063539|168967062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.313|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.313|-0.946|0.749
84607754|NCT05063539|168967062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.462|-0.134|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.134|-2.462|0.029
84607755|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.03|-0.01|0.346
84607756|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.01|-0.04|0.412
84607757|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.02|-0.04|0.421
84496315|NCT03309072|168743488|OTHER|To compare the old and new faces' hit rate, we calculated the true positive rate (TPR: the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the TPR for both old and new faces as within-subjects variable and group (active vs sham) as between-subjects variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|||<|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between active tDCS and sham tDCS|||||<.049
84567186|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.4
84496316|NCT00795210|168743489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis Test for overall difference between groups||||0.01
84496317|NCT00795210|168743490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
84496318|NCT01817764|168743503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.110|0.038|<0.001
84496319|NCT00337727|168743577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
84496320|NCT00337727|168743578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
84496321|NCT00517868|168743579|NON_INFERIORITY|A paired student t comparison was used to assess treatment differences as measured by 11 point numerical rating scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.14||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.43|2.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.16|-44.43|0.0363
84496322|NCT06067191|168743584|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-312.28||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.17|-135.38|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-135.38|-489.17|0.0009
84567187|NCT05404711|168884822|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
84567188|NCT02002871|168884873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was performed on the difference of the change from baseline of the Blue light treated plaque versus the Control plaque.||||0.0152
84496323|NCT06067191|168743585|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.45||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-0.47|-2.43|0.0047
84496324|NCT06067191|168743586|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84496325|NCT06067191|168743587|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0051
84496326|NCT06067191|168743588|OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0077
84496327|NCT06067191|168743589|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-87.4||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.3|-10.49|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-10.49|-164.30|0.0268
84496328|NCT06067191|168743590|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.99||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.15|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.15|-2.13|0.0865
84496329|NCT06067191|168743591|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
84496330|NCT06067191|168743592|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8579
84496331|NCT06067191|168743593|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
84496332|NCT06067191|168743594|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
84496333|NCT06067191|168743595|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.93||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.52|-2.38|0.2030
84496334|NCT01833897|168743638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||F1,6.4=161.8,|linear mixed model|||||||<0.001
84496335|NCT01833897|168743639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84496336|NCT01833897|168743640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84496337|NCT01833897|168743641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84496338|NCT01833897|168743642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84496339|NCT01244516|168743659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.91|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - AOA.|This comparison is between galyfilcon and lotrafilcon B. Ho: galyfilcon A -lotrafilcon B \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A - lotrafilcon B \> -5.||6.70|-5.91|
84496340|NCT01244516|168743659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.96|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - BIO.|This comparison is between galyfilcon A and comfilcon A. Ho: gayfilcon A- comfilcon A \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A- comfilcon A\> -5.||6.79|-5.96|
84607758|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.00|-0.05|0.080
84607759|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.01|-0.07|0.192
84607760|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.02|-0.07|0.279
84607761|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.02|-0.04|0.693
84607762|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||-0.00|-0.07|0.040
84671343|NCT01888497|169076779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.01|0.014
84496341|NCT01244516|168743660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP/AOA.|The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and lotrafilcon B (AOA) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/AOA). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/AOA).||2.44|1.14|
84567189|NCT03877224|168884895|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.16||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.01||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||6.01|0.36|0.07905
84607763|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.03|-0.03|0.838
84607764|NCT05063539|168967063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.00|-0.06|0.055
84607765|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.04|-0.02|0.455
84607766|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.02|-0.03|0.745
84607767|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.04|-0.02|0.676
84607768|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.03|-0.03|0.794
84607769|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.03|-0.05|0.643
84607770|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.04|-0.05|0.880
84607771|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.03|-0.04|0.844
84671344|NCT01888497|169076780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|103.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|130.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||130.50|72.00|<0.001
84607772|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY|Lateral temporal|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.388
84607773|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.04|-0.03|0.815
84607774|NCT05063539|168967064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.02|-0.04|0.562
84607775|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.14|0.04|<0.001
84607776|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.18|0.08|<0.001
84607777|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.21|-3.53|<0.001
84607778|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.43|-2.84|0.008
84607779|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.715|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.56|4.79|<0.001
84607780|NCT05063539|168967065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.804|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|12.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||12.92|5.81|<0.001
84607781|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.13|0.04|<0.001
84607782|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|0.08|<0.001
84607783|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.08|-3.33|<0.001
84607784|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.28|-2.57|0.015
84607785|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||10.40|3.95|<0.001
84607786|NCT05063539|168967066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.47|4.85|<0.001
84496342|NCT01244516|168743660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.||The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and comfilcon A (BIO) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/BIO). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/BIO).||2.44|1.14|
84567190|NCT03877224|168884896|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.12||||0.23215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.37||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.00005 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||5.37|-0.09|0.23215
84567191|NCT03877224|168884897|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|1.6||||0.66801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00005: H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||9.0|-5.9|0.66801
84567192|NCT03877224|168884898|SUPERIORITY|Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|0.19||||0.12523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48|||Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||0.48|-0.06|0.12523
84567193|NCT01001429|168884899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
84567194|NCT01001429|168884899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||UMSS scores with subjects propofol vs. Dexmetomidine group||||0.68
84567195|NCT03143257|168884910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567196|NCT03143257|168884910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84567197|NCT03143257|168884910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84567198|NCT03143257|168884913|SUPERIORITY||Overall Benefit Score|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The overall benefit can be determined by subtracting the aided and unaided scores of Ease of Communication, Reverberation, Background Noise \& Aversiveness. A negative score in overall benefit indicates a positive benefit to the subject.|||||
84751061|NCT04796896|169256705|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.574|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.574|0.328|
84496343|NCT04456998|168743693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.5|-8.8|||ANCOVA||GB002 vs. Placebo|||-8.8|-183.5|0.0310
84567199|NCT02492802|168884918|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||The Wald Type III test|||||||0.77
84567200|NCT04033146|168884971|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|||"H1. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for young adults.~H2. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for older adults."||||<0.001
84567201|NCT04428385|168884975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.16||||||||2.16|0.34|
84567202|NCT04428385|168884976|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78||||||||1.78|0.47|
84567203|NCT04428385|168884977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
84567204|NCT04428385|168884978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
84567205|NCT04428385|168884979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.9||||||||1.90|0.62|
84567206|NCT02346708|168885007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.42||We determined whether there was a significant group difference between the real and sham treated PD-MCI patients on the DRS-2 change following rTMS using mixed model regression (MMR) to fit longitudinal models.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 46||We estimated a sample size of 20 per group would provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 to detect a between-group difference of 10 on the Matthis Dementia Rating Scale-2, an effect size similar to prior studies of rivastigmine.||0.42|-4.56|0.1
84496344|NCT04456998|168743694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB002 vs. Placebo|||30.9|-17.9|0.5972
84496345|NCT03707145|168743696|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
84567207|NCT03416270|168885008|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84567208|NCT03416270|168885008|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84567209|NCT03416270|168885009|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.303
84496346|NCT03707145|168743697|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
84496347|NCT04221477|168743703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|24.84||Test 1 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.84|1.95|0.0232
84496348|NCT04221477|168743704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.88||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|23.18||Test 2 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.18|0.57|0.0421
84496349|NCT04221477|168743705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.68||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|25.36||Test 3 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.04 with fallback method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.36|2.01|0.0227
84496350|NCT04221477|168743706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.84||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.51||Test 4 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||9.51|-1.83|0.1842
84567210|NCT03416270|168885010|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
84567211|NCT03416270|168885011|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.599
84567212|NCT03416270|168885012|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84671345|NCT01888497|169076780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 8 lanes.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.5|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||16.50|-4.00|
84671346|NCT01888497|169076780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|3.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||9.00|-3.00|0.213
84496351|NCT04221477|168743707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-16.83||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-6.23||Ranked 5 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control. P-value is nominal as the hierarchical testing stops at the first non-significant endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.23|-27.42|0.0026
84751062|NCT04796896|169256705|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.576|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.576|0.232|
84496352|NCT04221477|168743708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|20.12||Ranked 6 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.12|-3.41|0.1670
84496353|NCT04221477|168743709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.35||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.2||Ranked 7 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.89|0.2991
84496354|NCT04221477|168743710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.57|0.0006
84496355|NCT04221477|168743711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||Not type I error controlled|ANCOVA|||||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
84496356|NCT04221477|168743712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.87||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||2.87|-3.11|0.9384
84496357|NCT04221477|168743713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.89||Not type I error controlled.|Log Rank|||||1.89|0.91|0.1324
84496358|NCT04221477|168743714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.37||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|24.82||Not type I error controlled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.82|1.91|0.0237
84496359|NCT00965562|168743744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84496360|NCT00965562|168743745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84496361|NCT00965562|168743746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84496362|NCT00965562|168743747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
84496363|NCT00965562|168743748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84496364|NCT00965562|168743749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84496365|NCT00965562|168743750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group IDS score as compared to placebo|||0.24|-5.51|0.07
84496366|NCT00965562|168743750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group IDS scores as compared to placebo|||2.65|-2.85|0.94
84567213|NCT03416270|168885013|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
84567214|NCT03416270|168885014|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
84567215|NCT03416270|168885015|OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
84567216|NCT03416270|168885016|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
84567217|NCT03416270|168885017|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84567218|NCT03416270|168885018|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
84567219|NCT03416270|168885019|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
84567220|NCT03416270|168885020|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.802
84567221|NCT03416270|168885021|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
84567222|NCT03416270|168885022|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
84567223|NCT03416270|168885023|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
84567224|NCT03416270|168885024|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||12 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84567225|NCT03416270|168885024|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84567226|NCT03416270|168885025|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84567227|NCT03416270|168885025|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84751063|NCT02021292|169256707|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at rest in Week 16 in percent of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed % of baseline PVR at rest at Week 16.||0.99|0.70|0.0410
84751064|NCT02021292|169256708|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|34.04||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|65.2||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline in 6MWD at Week 24 is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||65.2|2.9|0.0326
84751065|NCT02021292|169256709|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.39||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.43||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is Analysis of Covariance including Borg dyspnea index at baseline as a covariate, with Treatment as factor in the model.||0.43|-1.21|0.3492
84751066|NCT02021292|169256710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.464||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is the odds of worsening are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Logistic regression is used for Treatment Group vs. Placebo comparison to generate odds ratio, confidence levels, and p-values with treatment and WHO functional class at baseline as factors in the model.||1.464|0.001|0.0962
84567228|NCT02157519|168885077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline MMAS-4 scores (dichotomous) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of participants who self-reported adherence problems (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) at post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline self-reported adherence (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.33|0.23|0.186
84567229|NCT02157519|168885078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.68||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the percentage of medication taken (as recorded by MEMS) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||5.68|-10.35|0.57
84567230|NCT02157519|168885079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.53||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom severity (MDASI-severity) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.53|-0.31|0.603
84567231|NCT02157519|168885079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom interference (MDASI-interference) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment.||0.65|-0.64|0.982
84751067|NCT02021292|169256711|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The same statistical model as for the predefined analysis (ANCOVA) was applied, including 13 subjects with corrected hemodynamic values.||0.95|0.70|0.0098
84751068|NCT02021292|169256712|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|0.68|0.0061
84751069|NCT02021292|169256713|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.99|0.73|0.0414
84567232|NCT02157519|168885080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.83||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in overall QOL (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.83|-5.66|0.144
84567233|NCT02157519|168885080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.61||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in physical QOL (FACT-Physical Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) baseline from baseline to post-assessment.||0.61|-2.00|0.294
84567234|NCT02157519|168885080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.21||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in social QOL (FACT-Social Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||-0.21|-3.12|0.025
84567235|NCT02157519|168885080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in emotional QOL (FACT-Emotional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.63|-0.64|0.392
84567236|NCT02157519|168885080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.44||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in functional QOL (FACT-Functional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.44|-1.94|0.216
84607787|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.228||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.04|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.040|-0.417|0.0179
84751070|NCT02021292|169256714|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|37.19||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|73.83||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||||73.83|0.54|0.0468
84671347|NCT01888497|169076780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|11.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||20.50|4.00|0.003
84751071|NCT04356183|169256715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84751072|NCT04356183|169256716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84751073|NCT04356183|169256717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84751074|NCT01177787|169256719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.669|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.503
84496367|NCT00965562|168743750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
84751075|NCT00992511|169256732|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.46||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.46|0.77|
84751076|NCT00992511|169256732|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.61||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.61|0.86|
84496368|NCT00965562|168743750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.94
84496369|NCT00965562|168743751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||0.34|-3.60|0.10
84567237|NCT02157519|168885081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with clinician explanations (FACIT-TS-PS-Clinician Explanations) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.17|-0.93|0.170
84567238|NCT02157519|168885081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in satisfaction with interpersonal treatment (FACIT-TS-PS Interpersonal Treatment) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.01|-0.72|0.057
84751077|NCT01676909|169256750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.362
84567239|NCT02157519|168885081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.45||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with comprehensive care (FACIT-TS-PS Comprehensive Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.45|-2.39|0.178
84567240|NCT02157519|168885081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with nursing care (FACIT-TS-PS Nursing Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.75|-0.35|0.481
84671348|NCT04013191|169076784|OTHER||Point Estimate|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.19|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.19|0.725|
84567241|NCT02157519|168885081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.35||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with trust in clinicians (FACIT-TS-PS Trust in Clinicians) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.35|-0.34|0.970
84567242|NCT02157519|168885082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of emergency department (ED) visits over the study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.10|-0.15|0.682
84671349|NCT04013191|169076785|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.67|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.67|0.894|
84751078|NCT01676909|169256751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.026
84496370|NCT00965562|168743751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.81||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||1.09|-2.71|0.40
84496371|NCT00965562|168743751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.10
84496372|NCT00965562|168743751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.40
84567243|NCT02157519|168885083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of hospitalizations over they study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||0.15|-0.24|0.640
84567244|NCT01656395|168885084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.127|||cLDA model|||Difference in least squares (LS) means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.127|-0.084|0.685
84567245|NCT01656395|168885084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.07|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.07|-0.149|0.477
84567246|NCT01656395|168885084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.13|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.13|-0.092|0.733
84567247|NCT01656395|168885084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.115|0.89
84671350|NCT04013191|169076786|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.68|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.68|0.893|
84671351|NCT04013191|169076787|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.26|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.26|0.829|
84496373|NCT00965562|168743752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.03|-0.73|0.07
84567248|NCT01656395|168885084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.109|0.935
84567249|NCT01656395|168885087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|3.08|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||3.08|-17.48|0.169
84567250|NCT01656395|168885087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.092||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|1.485|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.485|-19.67|0.092
84567251|NCT01656395|168885087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.469||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|1.25|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.25|-20.19|0.083
84567252|NCT01656395|168885087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.666||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.501|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||5.501|-14.83|0.367
84567253|NCT01656395|168885087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.247||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|4.871|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||4.871|-15.36|0.308
84496374|NCT00965562|168743752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.20|-0.54|0.36
84496375|NCT00965562|168743752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.92||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
84496376|NCT00965562|168743752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.36
84496377|NCT00965562|168743753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||-0.04|-0.53|0.02
84567254|NCT01656395|168885088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.182|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.182|-0.427|0.429
84567255|NCT01656395|168885088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.169|0.370
84567256|NCT01656395|168885088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.225|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.225|-0.402|0.579
84567257|NCT01656395|168885088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.142|0.305
84567258|NCT01656395|168885088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.163|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.163|-0.434|0.372
84567259|NCT01656395|168885089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.184|0.128|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use(Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.128|-1.184|0.114
84567260|NCT01656395|168885089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.6|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.6|-0.75|0.827
84607788|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|-0.02|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.020|-0.398|0.0307
84567261|NCT01656395|168885089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.569|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.569|-0.789|0.75
84567262|NCT01656395|168885089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.921|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.921|-0.371|0.403
84607789|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|-0.046|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.046|-0.425|0.0151
84607790|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0053|||||||MCP-Mod E-max model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0053
84607791|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0102|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0102
84607792|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.023|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: no assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0230
84607793|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0292|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0292
84607794|NCT04736628|168967083|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0468|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0468
84496378|NCT00965562|168743753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||0.28|-0.16|0.58
84567263|NCT01656395|168885089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|0.257|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.257|-1.035|0.237
84567264|NCT01656395|168885090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|0.583|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.583|-1.066|0.565
84567265|NCT01656395|168885090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.983|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.983|-0.713|0.754
84567266|NCT01656395|168885090|SUPERIORITY||cLDA model|-0.251||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|0.603|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.603|-1.104|0.563
84607795|NCT04736628|168967084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.018|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.018|-0.416|0.0327
84607796|NCT04736628|168967084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|-0.005|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.005|-0.408|0.0447
84567267|NCT01656395|168885090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|0.571|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.571|-1.053|0.559
84567268|NCT01656395|168885090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.741|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.741|-0.883|0.863
84567269|NCT01656395|168885091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|21.007|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||21.007|-19.92|0.958
84671352|NCT04013191|169076788|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.53|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.53|0.908|
84671353|NCT03711162|169076800|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.12||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|97.6||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||||97.6|-52.3|0.5525
84671354|NCT03711162|169076800|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.53||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|47.1||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||47.1|-100.5|0.4776
84752804|NCT00628251|169260745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.32||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.32|0.79|0.1291
84567270|NCT01656395|168885091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|27.307|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||27.307|-14.81|0.559
84567271|NCT01656395|168885091|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.575||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|30.766|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||30.766|-11.62|0.374
84607797|NCT04736628|168967084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.012|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.012|-0.387|0.0654
84671355|NCT03711162|169076801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.56|0.9648
84496379|NCT00965562|168743753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.02
84496380|NCT00965562|168743753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.58
84496381|NCT00965562|168743754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||-0.35|-1.70|0.04
84567272|NCT01656395|168885091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.114||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.272|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||25.272|-15.04|0.618
84567273|NCT01656395|168885091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.604||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|18.554|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||18.554|-21.76|0.876
84567274|NCT01656395|168885092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.44|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.440|-0.288|0.682
84567275|NCT01656395|168885092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.329|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.329|-0.422|0.807
84567276|NCT01656395|168885092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.552|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.552|-0.222|0.403
84567277|NCT01656395|168885092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.375||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.751|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.751|-0.001|0.051
84567278|NCT01656395|168885092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.683|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.683|-0.045|0.086
84567279|NCT01656395|168885093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|21.3|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.3|-16.0|0.7687
84496382|NCT00965562|168743754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||0.46|-0.86|0.54
84567280|NCT01656395|168885093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|12.2|||MN Method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||12.2|-24.9|0.4943
84567281|NCT01656395|168885093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||29.6|-9.4|0.3003
84567282|NCT01656395|168885093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.7|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.7|-1.9|0.0774
84567283|NCT01656395|168885093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.5|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.5|-0.4|0.0555
84496383|NCT00965562|168743754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.04
84496384|NCT00965562|168743754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.54
84496385|NCT04755283|168743795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.513|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.513|0.192|<0.001
84607798|NCT04736628|168967085|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.79||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.79|1.01|0.0476
84567284|NCT01656395|168885094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.288|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.288|-0.495|0.603
84671356|NCT03711162|169076801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.60|0.8530
84671357|NCT03711162|169076802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.05|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.05|0.50|
84671358|NCT03711162|169076802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.88|0.47|
84496386|NCT04755283|168743795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.602|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.602|0.243|<0.001
84496387|NCT04755283|168743796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.572|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.572|0.121|<0.001
84567285|NCT01656395|168885094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.372|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.372|-0.436|0.875
84567286|NCT01656395|168885094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.265|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.265|-0.568|0.476
84567287|NCT01656395|168885094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.362||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.042|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.042|-0.767|0.079
84567288|NCT01656395|168885094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.227||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.166|||cLDA model|||"Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo.~cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast)."||0.166|-0.621|0.257
84567289|NCT01656395|168885095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|21.1|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.1|-15.1|0.742
84567290|NCT01656395|168885095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|15.4|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||15.4|-22.1|0.7248
84496388|NCT04755283|168743796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.325||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.663|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.663|0.159|0.001
84496389|NCT04755283|168743797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.638|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.638|0.332|<0.001
84567291|NCT01656395|168885095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|22.6|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||22.6|-15.6|0.6991
84567292|NCT01656395|168885095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.2|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||26.2|-10.6|0.3934
84567293|NCT01656395|168885095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|20.5|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||20.5|-16.0|0.8032
84671359|NCT03711162|169076803|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||3.3|-4.4|0.7850
84671360|NCT03711162|169076803|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||4.1|-3.4|0.8617
84671361|NCT03711162|169076804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|85.7|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||85.7|-46.9|
84671362|NCT03711162|169076804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|35.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||35.8|-93.9|
84496390|NCT04755283|168743797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.912|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.912|0.512|0.010
84496391|NCT03222570|168743798|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-0.88||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|4.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||4.7|-6.56|0.76
84751079|NCT01676909|169256752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.032
84751080|NCT01676909|169256753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A logistic mixed effects model over two 6-month time periods (prior to baseline and between baseline and the 6-month follow-up visit) was used. Terms in the model included group, binary time (pre-f/u versus pre-baseline), and group by time interaction. Two-sided alpha = .05 level tests were used. The hypothesis that the proportion with ER visits would decrease in the Living Well group versus the control group was tests by test of the interaction term.||||.64
84496392|NCT03222570|168743799|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-2.52||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|2.3|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||2.3|-7.42|0.32
84496393|NCT04410978|168743851|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.061||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.393||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.393|0.808|0.6691
84567294|NCT01656395|168885096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.004|0.853|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 10 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.853|-1.004|0.873
84567295|NCT01656395|168885096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.326|0.575|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.575|-1.326|0.437
84567296|NCT01656395|168885096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.423|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.423|-1.504|0.270
84567297|NCT01656395|168885096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.839|0.997|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.997|-0.839|0.865
84567298|NCT01656395|168885096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.6|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.600|-1.219|0.503
84567299|NCT02318849|168885097|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The anaylsis was adjusted for student characteristics.||The null hypothesis was that the of number students who report being a donor (or talking to parents about organ donation) both before and after exposure to the intervention would be equivalent. A secondary null hypothesis would be that longer expsosures to the intervention over time would not increase the number who report becoming a donor at the final assessment.||||0.009
84567300|NCT02318849|168885098|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
84567301|NCT02389959|168885133|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||0.26|-2.47|0.111
84567302|NCT02389959|168885133|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2.||0.38|-2.9|0.131
84567303|NCT02389959|168885133|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||0.88|-2.57|0.332
84567304|NCT02389959|168885133|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6.||1.3|-2.25|0.597
84567305|NCT02389959|168885134|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|7.13|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||7.13|-1.44|0.191
84567306|NCT02389959|168885134|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|5.61|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||5.61|-5.02|0.914
84671363|NCT03711162|169076805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.95|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.95|0.68|
84751081|NCT01676909|169256754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||<.0001
84751082|NCT01676909|169256755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
84567307|NCT02389959|168885134|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.28|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||7.28|-4.17|0.592
84567308|NCT02389959|168885134|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|9.12|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||9.12|-2.92|0.31
84567309|NCT02389959|168885135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||3.11|-8.38|0.366
84567310|NCT02389959|168885135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|7.76|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||7.76|-6.12|0.816
84567311|NCT02389959|168885135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|3.02|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||3.02|-11.61|0.247
84567312|NCT02389959|168885135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.18||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.76|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||-0.6|-15.76|0.035
84567313|NCT02389959|168885136|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at baseline.||||0.030
84496394|NCT04410978|168743852|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.278||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.278|0.565|0.4888
84567314|NCT02389959|168885136|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 2.||||0.719
84567315|NCT02389959|168885136|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 6.||||0.467
84567316|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.3||||||95.0|0.1|157.7|||ED-50: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED50 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 50: dose providing 50% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||157.7|0.1|
84671364|NCT03711162|169076805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.09|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||2.09|0.74|
84751083|NCT01676909|169256756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.544
84751084|NCT01676909|169256757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.699
84751085|NCT01676909|169256758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.006
84751086|NCT01676909|169256759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.762
84751087|NCT01676909|169256760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.326
84751088|NCT01676909|169256761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.667
84751089|NCT01676909|169256762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.142
84751090|NCT01676909|169256763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.342
84751091|NCT01676909|169256764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.563
84751092|NCT01676909|169256765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.004
84751093|NCT01676909|169256766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.727
84567317|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|123.9||||||95.0|0.4|523.9|||ED 90: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED90 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 90: dose providing 90% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||523.9|0.4|
84607799|NCT04736628|168967085|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.94||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.94|1.25|0.0119
84751094|NCT01676909|169256767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.446
84567318|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472||0.0983||95.0|-8.97|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.77|-8.97|0.0983
84567319|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.415||0.0966||95.0|-8.78|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-8.78|0.0966
84671365|NCT03711162|169076806|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.0|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||19.0|-11.5|
84751095|NCT01676909|169256768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.459
84751096|NCT01676909|169256769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
84751097|NCT01676909|169256770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.238
84567320|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0013||95.0|-13.31|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.28|-13.31|0.0013
84567321|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.437||0.0353||95.0|-9.96|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.36|-9.96|0.0353
84567322|NCT00676403|168885137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.469||0.0006||95.0|-13.4|-3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.67|-13.40|0.0006
84567323|NCT00676403|168885138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8784
84567324|NCT00676403|168885138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6767||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6767
84567325|NCT00676403|168885138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8955||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8955
84567326|NCT00676403|168885138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9505
84567327|NCT00676403|168885138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0466
84567328|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3876
84671366|NCT03711162|169076806|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|16.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||16.8|-11.1|
84671367|NCT03711162|169076807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.78|0.65|
84671368|NCT03711162|169076807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.98|0.76|
84567329|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7959
84567330|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2032
84567331|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7032
84751098|NCT01676909|169256771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.011
84751099|NCT01676909|169256772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.709
84751100|NCT01676909|169256773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.134
84751101|NCT01676909|169256774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.045
84751102|NCT01676909|169256775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.099
84751103|NCT01676909|169256776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.852
84751104|NCT01676909|169256777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.285
84751105|NCT01676909|169256778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.222
84751106|NCT01067326|169256846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in EPCs from baseline to 4 months||||0.02
84751107|NCT01067326|169256847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||.006
84751108|NCT01067326|169256848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||0.04
84567332|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0551||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0551
84567333|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4100
84567334|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6524||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6524
84567335|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3219||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3219
84567336|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3509
84671369|NCT03711162|169076810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.81|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.81|0.44|
84671370|NCT03711162|169076810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.5|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.50|0.42|
84671371|NCT03711162|169076811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
84567337|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0053
84567338|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9835||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9835
84567339|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6668||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6668
84567340|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2823||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2823
84567341|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5687
84567342|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0043||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0043
84567343|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8662||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8662
84567344|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3656
84567345|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0806||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0806
84567346|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5381||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5381
84567347|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0090
84567348|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9748
84567349|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3936
84607800|NCT04736628|168967085|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.45||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||7.45|1.58|0.0019
84671372|NCT03711162|169076811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
84671373|NCT03711162|169076812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
84567350|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1563||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1563
84567351|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6357||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6357
84567352|NCT00676403|168885139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0133
84751109|NCT01067326|169256849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for intergroup comparison of change from baseline to month 4||||0.94
84567353|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.4133||95.0|-22.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.4|0.4133
84567354|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.6676||95.0|-19.0|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Conrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.2|-19.0|0.6676
84607801|NCT04736628|168967086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.55||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.55|1.00|0.0497
84607802|NCT04736628|168967086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.61||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.61|1.00|0.0502
84671374|NCT03711162|169076812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
84567355|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.9355||95.0|-16.5|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.2|-16.5|0.9355
84607803|NCT04736628|168967086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.49||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.49|0.98|0.0572
84496395|NCT04410978|168743853|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.819||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.151||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.151|0.582|0.2991
84567356|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.9355||95.0|-15.1|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-15.1|0.9355
84567357|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.1895||95.0|-26.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-26.1|0.1895
84567358|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1443||95.0|-27.8|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-27.8|0.1443
84567359|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.2946||95.0|-24.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-24.0|0.2946
84567360|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.3686||95.0|-23.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.8|-23.6|0.3686
84567361|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.6079||95.0|-19.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-19.9|0.6079
84567362|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.0016||95.0|-41.2|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-9.7|-41.2|0.0016
84567363|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.5976||95.0|-20.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-20.5|0.5976
84567364|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8527||95.0|-14.3|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-14.3|0.8527
84607804|NCT04908280|168967098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0308
84607805|NCT02066415|168967138|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04."|Difference in LS Means|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.39|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.39|-3.52|<0.001
84751110|NCT02430051|169256852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjusted for attained age and first or second clinic visit.||||||0.01
84751111|NCT02430051|169256853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjustment for attained age and first and second clinic visit.||||||0.25
84567365|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6973||95.0|-19.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.1|-19.6|0.6973
84567366|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.6895||95.0|-19.2|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.7|-19.2|0.6895
84567367|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.0209||95.0|-35.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.9|-35.2|0.0209
84567368|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.4084||95.0|-22.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.9|0.4084
84567369|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3958||95.0|-22.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.9|-22.5|0.3958
84567370|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.5776||95.0|-20.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-20.9|0.5776
84567371|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5665||95.0|-20.5|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.3|-20.5|0.5665
84567372|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.13||0.0041||95.0|-39.6|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.5|-39.6|0.0041
84567373|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1842||95.0|-27.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-27.1|0.1842
84567374|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8269||95.0|-17.5|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.0|-17.5|0.8269
84567375|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.3319||95.0|-24.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.3|-24.5|0.3319
84567376|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7552||95.0|-13.4|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-13.4|0.7552
84671375|NCT03711162|169076813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.91|0.59|
84751112|NCT02430051|169256854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84751113|NCT02430051|169256855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84751114|NCT02430051|169256856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84751115|NCT02430051|169256857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84751116|NCT02430051|169256858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84751117|NCT02430051|169256859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84567377|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0137||95.0|-36.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-4.2|-36.3|0.0137
84567378|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1157||95.0|-29.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.2|-29.2|0.1157
84567379|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.3791||95.0|-22.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.7|-22.9|0.3791
84567380|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.1329||95.0|-29.2|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.9|-29.2|0.1329
84567381|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7723||95.0|-13.6|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.3|-13.6|0.7723
84567382|NCT00676403|168885140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0063||95.0|-38.6|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.4|-38.6|0.0063
84567383|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1715||95.0|-0.15|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.85|-0.15|0.1715
84567384|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.7944||95.0|-0.43|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.43|0.7944
84567385|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1994||95.0|-0.17|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.83|-0.17|0.1994
84671376|NCT03711162|169076813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.46|0.43|
84567386|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.3652||95.0|-0.27|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.72|-0.27|0.3652
84671377|NCT03711162|169076814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.91|0.59|
84496396|NCT04410978|168743854|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.084||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.342|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.342|0.876|0.4575
84671378|NCT03711162|169076814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.46|0.43|
84751118|NCT02430051|169256860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84751119|NCT02430051|169256861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84751120|NCT02430051|169256862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
84751121|NCT02430051|169256863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate linear regression|Adjusted for autism severity, IQ, dental fear and anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, general anxiety, expressive communication, gender, and age.||||||<0.0001
84607806|NCT02066415|168967138|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01."|Difference in LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.38|-3.51|<0.001
84607807|NCT02066415|168967139|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.27|1.46|<0.001
84607808|NCT02066415|168967139|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.51|1.56|<0.001
84607809|NCT02066415|168967140|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.13|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.13|-2.60|<0.001
84607810|NCT02066415|168967140|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.82|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.82|-3.28|<0.001
84607811|NCT02066415|168967141|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-9.54||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|7.9|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||7.90|-26.98|0.28
84607812|NCT02066415|168967141|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-19.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|-1.92|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.92|-36.71|0.030
84751122|NCT02430051|169256864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear mixed model|||||||0.61
84607813|NCT03973905|168967145|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|65.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|92.68|||||Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy (at least 14 days before delivery) at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.68|-64.93|
84607814|NCT03973905|168967146|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|42.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1071.8|97.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.13|-1071.80|
84672259|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
84751123|NCT04526197|169256896|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.001||||||||1.001|0.776|
84751124|NCT04526197|169256897|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.077||||||||1.077|0.959|
84607815|NCT03973905|168967146|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|62.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439.75|97.35|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during first or second trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.35|-439.75|
84607816|NCT03973905|168967146|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.37|52.16|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||52.16|-166.37|
84607817|NCT03973905|168967147|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.51|92.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix at any time during pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.13|-57.51|
84751125|NCT04526197|169256898|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.07||||||||1.070|0.954|
84751126|NCT00381303|169256902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|0.68||P-Value for difference (Female - Male): Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Regression, Logistic|Estimates from logistic regression analysis include baseline log10 viral load and baseline CD4 cell count as covariates and gender as a factor.||"Confidence interval of the difference in proportion of response between two sexes estimated by:~* Application of delta method to be obtained Standard Error (SE)~* Calculation of lower and upper bound using normal approximation to the difference in response rates"||0.68|-19.85|0.30
84751127|NCT00267631|169256912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.026
84567387|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0481||95.0|0.0|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.99|0.00|0.0481
84496397|NCT04410978|168743855|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|2.548|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.548|1.358|0.0001
84496398|NCT04410978|168743856|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.035||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.124|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.053|0.4320
84496399|NCT04410978|168743857|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|1.873||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|3.88|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||3.880|-0.135|0.0675
84567388|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.2501||95.0|-0.21|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.80|-0.21|0.2501
84567389|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.5191||95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.66|-0.33|0.5191
84607818|NCT03973905|168967148|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|17.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12529.0|99.46|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||99.46|-12529.0|
84607819|NCT03973905|168967148|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|85.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|98.03|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||98.03|-13.91|
84607820|NCT03973905|168967148|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|37.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|79.25|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||79.25|-87.40|
84607821|NCT00110461|168967161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.5|-8.49|<0.0001
84607822|NCT00110461|168967161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.77|-10.7|<0.0001
84751128|NCT00372385|169256942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.424|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.340|1.424|0.0026
84751129|NCT00372385|169256942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.709||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.212|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.212|0.910|0.959
84496400|NCT04410978|168743858|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.245||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.245|0.554|0.3594
84607823|NCT00110461|168967162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.08|-8.7|<0.0001
84607824|NCT00110461|168967162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
84751130|NCT00372385|169256942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.589||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.125|0.309|0.1089
84751131|NCT00372385|169256943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.632||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|5.097|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.097|1.359|0.0041
84751132|NCT00372385|169256943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.050|0.864|0.1324
84751133|NCT00372385|169256943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.591||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|1.126|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.126|0.311|0.1099
84751134|NCT01966471|169256948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.827||95.0|0.71|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.71|0.8270
84751135|NCT01966471|169256949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9291||95.0|0.77|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.77|0.9291
84496401|NCT04410978|168743859|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.196||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.298|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.298|0.093|0.0002
84567390|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0817||95.0|-0.06|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.97|-0.06|0.0817
84751136|NCT01966471|169256950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8756||95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.74|0.8756
84751137|NCT01966471|169256951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9341||95.0|0.75|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.75|0.9341
84751138|NCT01966471|169256952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4577||95.0|0.61|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.61|0.4577
84751139|NCT01966471|169256953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2864||95.0|0.83|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|0.83|0.2864
84751140|NCT01323621|169256974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.267||95.0|-0.022|0.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA analysis was conducted with covariates for country, smoking status, reversibility, and Baseline FEV1.|||0.080|-0.022|0.267
84751141|NCT00458341|169257007|OTHER|||||||0.133||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.133
84751142|NCT00458341|169257007|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.190
84751143|NCT00458341|169257007|OTHER|||||||0.123||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.123
84496402|NCT00318357|168743868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||Mortality is compared between the arms of the CARE-HF study, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Data from the original CARE-HF trial and the CARE-HF Long Term Follow-up trial were combined for the analysis.||||0.007
84496403|NCT05153629|168743872|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of back pain.||||0.93
84751144|NCT00458341|169257007|OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.592
84751145|NCT00458341|169257008|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
84751146|NCT00458341|169257008|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
84751147|NCT00458341|169257008|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
84751148|NCT00458341|169257008|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.518
84751149|NCT05461794|169257024|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.9|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||23.9|0.3|
84751150|NCT05461794|169257024|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|19.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||19.5|-9.3|
84751151|NCT05461794|169257026|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||1.61|0.45|
84751152|NCT05461794|169257027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||6.8|0.9|
84751153|NCT05461794|169257027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||3.7|0.3|
84751154|NCT05461794|169257027|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|43.3|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||43.3|-1.5|
84751155|NCT05461794|169257027|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|28.4|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||28.4|-24.5|
84751156|NCT05461794|169257028|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||40.8|0.7|
84751157|NCT05461794|169257028|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||2.9|0.1|
84751158|NCT05461794|169257028|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||29.5|-2.3|
84751159|NCT05461794|169257028|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|13.8|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||13.8|-34.7|
84567391|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.1146||95.0|-0.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.90|-0.10|0.1146
84567392|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0054||95.0|0.21|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.21|0.21|0.0054
84567393|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.3389||95.0|-0.26|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.26|0.3389
84567394|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.5079||95.0|-0.33|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.67|-0.33|0.5079
84567395|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.0453||95.0|0.01|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.01|0.0453
84567396|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1622||95.0|-0.15|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.86|-0.15|0.1622
84567397|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0003||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.48|0.45|0.0003
84567398|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0383||95.0|0.03|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.03|0.0383
84567399|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.4495||95.0|-0.31|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.69|-0.31|0.4495
84567400|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0135||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0135
84496404|NCT05153629|168743872|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of abdominal/groin pain.||||0.76
84672260|NCT04521166|169080022|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
84496405|NCT05153629|168743872|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain frequency.||||0.56
84496406|NCT05153629|168743872|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of nausea intensity.||||0.26
84496407|NCT05153629|168743873|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in back pain.||||0.55
84496408|NCT05153629|168743873|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in abdominal/groin pain.||||0.28
84751160|NCT05461794|169257029|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.96|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||0.96|0.29|
84751161|NCT05461794|169257029|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||4.82|0.79|
84567401|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1423||95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.87|-0.13|0.1423
84567402|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0035||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.27|0.25|0.0035
84567403|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0125||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0125
84567404|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8021||95.0|-0.44|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.44|0.8021
84567405|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0249||95.0|0.08|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.13|0.08|0.0249
84567406|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3383||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.75|-0.26|0.3383
84567407|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0001||95.0|0.55|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.57|0.55|0.0001
84567408|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0133||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0133
84567409|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.382||95.0|-0.28|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-0.28|0.3820
84567410|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0053||95.0|0.23|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.28|0.23|0.0053
84751162|NCT05461794|169257030|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||2.7|0.1|
84751163|NCT02083705|169257032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesised that during neonatal CPR, CC+SI will reduce the time needed to achieve ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants \<33 weeks of gestation.~For this pilot study, based on the local incidence of CPR in preterm neonates, a convenient sample size of five patients per group was enrolled. Our primary outcome was time to achieve ROSC measured using ECG."||||0.05
84751164|NCT00467285|169257038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of changes in BMD at 6months compared to baseline||||<0.05
84751165|NCT03891524|169257073|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||MCP-mod analysis|||||||0.0004
84751166|NCT03891524|169257074|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||MCP-MOD analysis|||||||0.7188
84496409|NCT05153629|168743873|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in pain frequency.||||0.39
84751167|NCT03019796|169257075|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.040
84751168|NCT03019796|169257076|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.054
84751169|NCT03019796|169257077|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.040
84751170|NCT03019796|169257078|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.321
84751171|NCT03019796|169257079|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.401
84751172|NCT03019796|169257080|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.021
84751173|NCT00475033|169257081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-5.3|
84751174|NCT00475033|169257082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Ratio of GMs (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.96|
84751175|NCT00475033|169257083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.7|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.6|
84751176|NCT00475033|169257083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-1.3|
84751177|NCT00475033|169257083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||4.2|-1.7|
84751178|NCT00475033|169257083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FIM: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage||1.2|-5.5|
84751179|NCT00475033|169257084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-1.4|
84672261|NCT02614547|169080023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-3.67|||MMRM|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure (MMRM) used an unstructured covariance model time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-3.67|-20.77|0.008
84751180|NCT00475033|169257085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.5|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Meningococcal C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.50|1.08|
84751181|NCT00475033|169257090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.27|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PT: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.27|1.02|
84751182|NCT00475033|169257090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FHA: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.25|1.01|
84751183|NCT00475033|169257090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRN: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.24|0.89|
84751184|NCT00475033|169257090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FIM: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.78|
84751185|NCT00475033|169257091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-4.4|
84751186|NCT00475033|169257092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRP in Hib: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.12|0.75|
84496410|NCT05153629|168743873|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in nausea intensity.||||0.26
84496411|NCT05153629|168743874|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84751187|NCT00475033|169257093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRP: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-9.4|
84751188|NCT01598311|169257141|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in adjusted percentage of cured subjects was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.6||||||||7.6|-4.9|
84751189|NCT01598311|169257143|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the adjusted difference in sustained response was \> 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2||||||||12.2|-3.6|
84752805|NCT00628251|169260745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.01||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.01|0.55|0.3131
84752806|NCT00628251|169260745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||9.76|0.81|0.1079
84496412|NCT05153629|168743875|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84567411|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3258||95.0|-0.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.25|0.3258
84567412|NCT00676403|168885141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0005||95.0|0.41|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.43|0.41|0.0005
84567413|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1429||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1429
84567414|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0547||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0547
84567415|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0095||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0095
84567416|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3676||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3676
84567417|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2959||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2959
84567418|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3435||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3435
84567419|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0895||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0895
84672262|NCT02614547|169080024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|37.67|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||37.67|0.49|0.198
84672263|NCT02614547|169080024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
84672264|NCT02614547|169080024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|62.08|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||62.08|0.70|0.086
84672265|NCT02614547|169080025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.33||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1152.71|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||1152.71|1.56|0.008
84752807|NCT00628251|169260751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.7||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.70|0.41|0.5781
84496413|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall USDT score.||||0.80
84496414|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of urinary symptoms.||||0.72
84567420|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0844||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0844
84567421|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0675||95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.1|0.0675
84567422|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.225||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.2250
84567423|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3728||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3728
84607825|NCT00110461|168967163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|12.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||12.84|5.77|<0.0001
84607826|NCT00110461|168967163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
84607827|NCT00110461|168967164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.48|-1.15|<0.0001
84671379|NCT03034954|169076835|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Reported p-value represents Time (baseline to post-tDCS) x Condition (Active or Sham) interaction for all OLTT Accuracy Measures. If the multivariate statistic is not significant no univariate statistical analyses are completed.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|repeated measures (OLTT baseline and post-tDCS); between-subjects (active vs. sham)||We used a multivariate statistic to compare OLTT means (Free Recall Total Error, Free Recall Average Error, Cued Recall Total Error, Cued Recall Average Error, Recognition Total Correct) at baseline (Version B) to post HD-tDCS OLTT means (Version C), by groups (active vs. sham). The overall statistic represents the simultaneous comparison of baseline OLTT measures to post HD-tDCS OLTT measures.||||.300
84752808|NCT00628251|169260751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.55||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.55|0.27|0.3417
84752809|NCT00628251|169260751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.27||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||2.27|0.44|0.9877
84752810|NCT00728481|169260756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a histologic response||||1.00
84671380|NCT03034954|169076837|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Statistic represents the interaction between Time (baseline to post-tDCS) by Condition (Active vs. Sham).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham). The multivariate analyses included OLTT Response Times (i.e., Free Recall Average Response Time, Cued Recall Average Response Time, Recognition Average Response Time)||||.044
84671381|NCT03034954|169076837|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Free Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.006
84496415|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain.||||0.45
84496416|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of daily life.||||0.42
84496417|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of sexual life.||||0.36
84607828|NCT00110461|168967164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.59|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.93|-1.59|<0.0001
84672266|NCT02614547|169080025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.003
84752811|NCT00728481|169260761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a symptomatic response||||0.76
84751190|NCT04417127|169257179|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the primary outcome was conducted using a doubly-robust generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on baseline covariates; Rubin's rule was used for variance estimation. The GEE model included the intervention arm, used an independence working correlation matrix and variance was estimated using a sandwich variance estimator for clustered data.|Odds Ratio, log|0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||Baseline values of variables (county, gender, age, education, income, viral load) were used for differential dropout adjustment for the primary comparison and differential dropout and confounding adjustments for comparisons to matched participants.|Wald test|Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Microfinance with Usual Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|The intervention effect was estimated using the log odds ratio coefficient associated with the intervention in the GEE. The primary hypothesis test of intervention effect was conducted using a Wald test and 95% Wald-based confidence intervals.|For the primary outcome, the primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all randomized participants comparing viral suppression at 18-months. Following studies of the effect of financial interventions, we powered the study to have at least 80% power to detect a 15% additive increase in viral suppression among microfinance group members receiving integrated community care compared to those receiving facility-based care, assuming 15% dropout.||1.12|0.63|0.23
84751191|NCT04417127|169257179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.19||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||3.19|1.48|<0.001
84751192|NCT04417127|169257179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.42||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Usual (Facility-based) Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||1.92|1.05|0.023
84751193|NCT04417127|169257180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.26|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||4.26|2.58|<0.001
84496418|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of medical care/analgesic use.||||0.49
84567424|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2686||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2686
84567425|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0753||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.2|0.0753
84567426|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1335||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1335
84607829|NCT00110461|168967165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.25|-4.81|0.0767
84607830|NCT00110461|168967165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.32|-3.69|0.3515
84496419|NCT05153629|168743876|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall quality of life.||||0.88
84496420|NCT04089566|168743882|SUPERIORITY|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) Section 2 (HINE 2), baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|Least square (LS) mean difference|26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.941|34.172|||ANCOVA|||||34.172|17.941|< 0.0001
84607831|NCT00110461|168967166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.73|-8.02|<0.0001
84672267|NCT02614547|169080025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|140.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||140.57|1.01|0.030
84496421|NCT04089566|168743905|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.46|71.81|||Fisher Exact||Exact unconditional confidence interval|||71.81|39.46|<0.0001
84607832|NCT00110461|168967166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.32|-7.40|<0.0001
84671382|NCT03034954|169076840|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Cued Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.15
84567427|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.022||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0220
84567428|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5754||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.5754
84567429|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.348||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3480
84567430|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0554
84567431|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4362||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4362
84567432|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3631||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3631
84567433|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1152||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1152
84567434|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4741||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4741
84567435|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0091||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0091
84751194|NCT04417127|169257180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.55|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||9.55|6.00|<0.001
84567436|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1721||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.1721
84567437|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0262||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0262
84751195|NCT04417127|169257180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.06|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||3.06|2.14|<0.001
84607833|NCT00110461|168967167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-5.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.43|-12.3|<0.0001
84751196|NCT04417127|169257181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|2.183|||Wald test|||||2.183|-2.595|
84567438|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9505||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9505
84567439|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-0.7|0.6877
84567440|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1271||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1271
84567441|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9136||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9136
84567442|NCT00676403|168885142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4072||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.4072
84567443|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68||0.186||95.0|-35.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-35.2|0.1860
84567444|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.653||95.0|-25.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-25.5|0.6530
84567445|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.79||0.6263||95.0|-26.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-26.5|0.6263
84567446|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.63||0.4266||95.0|-29.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-29.4|0.4266
84567447|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.4023||95.0|-29.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-29.6|0.4023
84567448|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.1041||95.0|-38.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.6|-38.8|0.1041
84607834|NCT00110461|168967167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-4.83|-11.6|<0.0001
84607835|NCT00110461|168967168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|13.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.93|5.07|<0.0001
84607836|NCT00110461|168967168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|14.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.14|5.87|<0.0001
84607837|NCT00110461|168967169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.33|-1.08|0.0003
84671383|NCT03034954|169076842|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Recognition Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.3
84751197|NCT04417127|169257182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4478|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.194|||Wald test|||||-0.194|-0.701|
84496422|NCT04089566|168743906|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.812|34.526||ANCOVA model was used treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||34.526|18.812|<0.0001
84751198|NCT02087748|169257201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0324
84496423|NCT04089566|168743907|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84496424|NCT04089566|168743908|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.251|=|0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|11.299||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||11.299|-9.29|=0.8484
84496425|NCT04089566|168743909|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497|=|0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693|14.939||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||14.939|-2.693|=0.1734
84496426|NCT04089566|168743910|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.51|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.33|=0.002
84496427|NCT04089566|168743953|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log CSF NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.62|=0.3785
84496428|NCT03378921|168743967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|||The sample size (n = 26) was calculated according to the estimation that the remission rate in the FMT group would be 80% and 25% in the placebo group during the follow-up of 1 year. This difference of 55% was considered to be clinically meaningful. The significance level was selected to be 1%, and the power was set to 90%.||||0.183
84496429|NCT03743571|168743970|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
84496430|NCT03743571|168743971|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
84497625|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.35||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.28|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for physical functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.28|1.42|0.0077
84567449|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5084||95.0|-27.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.8|-27.9|0.5084
84567450|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.262||95.0|-34.3|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-34.3|0.2620
84751199|NCT02087748|169257202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3688
84751200|NCT02087748|169257203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0275
84751201|NCT03219320|169257206|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84751202|NCT03078907|169257214|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.366|40.944|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Freedson '98||40.944|13.366|
84751203|NCT03078907|169257214|OTHER||LS means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.782|15.396|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in MVPA (minutes), Freedson '98||15.396|-10.782|
84751204|NCT03078907|169257214|OTHER||LS mean|17.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|41.619|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Koster '16||41.619|-6.003|
84751205|NCT03078907|169257215|OTHER||LS mean|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Freedson '98||3.060|-1.713|
84497626|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|11.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to physical health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||11.14|2.45|0.0022
84567451|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.3347||95.0|-31.4|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-31.4|0.3347
84567452|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.1142||95.0|-37.7|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-37.7|0.1142
84567453|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.1237||95.0|-38.8|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-38.8|0.1237
84567454|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8302||95.0|-18.7|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-18.7|0.8302
84567455|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.3039||95.0|-33.6|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.5|-33.6|0.3039
84567456|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.4595||95.0|-29.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.2|-29.2|0.4595
84567457|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.4338||95.0|-30.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-30.2|0.4338
84567458|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0647||95.0|-42.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-42.0|0.0647
84567459|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.5651||95.0|-27.0|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.8|-27.0|0.5651
84567460|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.1634||95.0|-37.6|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.4|-37.6|0.1634
84607838|NCT00110461|168967169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.66|-1.41|<0.0001
84607839|NCT00110461|168967170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.04|-0.54|0.0878
84671384|NCT03034954|169076847|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||MANOVA|||A Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare Active vs. Sham groups on discriminability measures (i.e. 0-back d', 2-back d', semantic 2-back d') and calculated working memory measures (i.e., 2-back d' minus 0-back d', semantic 2-back d' minus 0-back d').||||.450
84671385|NCT03034954|169076848|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared tests were conducted to determine group differences in actual condition assignment vs. estimated/perceived condition||||.078
84671386|NCT03034954|169076849|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.233
84567461|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.2209||95.0|-34.4|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.0|-34.4|0.2209
84567462|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.84||0.1293||95.0|-37.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-37.8|0.1293
84567463|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0161||95.0|-48.5|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-48.5|0.0161
84567464|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8506||95.0|-23.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-23.0|0.8506
84567465|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.31||0.0067||95.0|-53.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-8.6|-53.2|0.0067
84567466|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1997||95.0|-35.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-35.0|0.1997
84567467|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0159||95.0|-47.9|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-47.9|0.0159
84567468|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0388||95.0|-44.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.2|-44.4|0.0388
84567469|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.9962||95.0|-21.2|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-21.2|0.9962
84567470|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.0839||95.0|-42.3|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.7|-42.3|0.0839
84567471|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.5216||95.0|-28.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-28.3|0.5216
84567472|NCT00676403|168885143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0534||95.0|-42.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-42.9|0.0534
84607840|NCT00110461|168967170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.03|-0.55|0.0752
84671387|NCT03034954|169076851|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.600
84567473|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0199||95.0|2.2|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.4|2.2|0.0199
84567474|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0768||95.0|-1.1|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.7|-1.1|0.0768
84567475|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.6|-0.7|0.0642
84567476|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.2643||95.0|-5.0|18.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.2|-5.0|0.2643
84567477|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.0358||95.0|0.8|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.7|0.8|0.0358
84567478|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0428||95.0|0.4|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.4|0.0428
84567479|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1993||95.0|-4.0|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.9|-4.0|0.1993
84567480|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.0331||95.0|1.1|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.8|1.1|0.0331
84567481|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0415||95.0|0.5|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.5|0.0415
84607841|NCT00110461|168967171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.51|0.2553
84567482|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0295||95.0|1.3|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.3|1.3|0.0295
84567483|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.1267||95.0|-2.6|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.6|0.1267
84607842|NCT00110461|168967171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-0.71|0.0166
84607843|NCT00110461|168967172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.51|-1.16|<0.0001
84671388|NCT03034954|169076852|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
84671389|NCT03034954|169076853|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.281
84671390|NCT03034954|169076854|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.082
84567484|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4175||95.0|-6.8|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.2|-6.8|0.4175
84567485|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0342||95.0|1.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.0|1.0|0.0342
84567486|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1038||95.0|-2.0|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.5|-2.0|0.1038
84567487|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0537||95.0|-0.2|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.4|-0.2|0.0537
84567488|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0772||95.0|-1.2|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.4|-1.2|0.0772
84567489|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1296||95.0|-2.6|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-2.6|0.1296
84567490|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.014||95.0|3.1|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||27.0|3.1|0.0140
84607844|NCT00110461|168967172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.86|-1.51|<0.0001
84607845|NCT00110461|168967173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.40|-1.13|<0.0001
84607846|NCT00110461|168967173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.0001
84607847|NCT00110461|168967174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-4.69|0.1729
84607848|NCT00110461|168967174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.75586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-3.17|0.75586
84607849|NCT00110461|168967175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.61|-6.90|<0.0001
84607850|NCT00110461|168967175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.50|-6.78|<0.0001
84607851|NCT00110461|168967176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.03|-3.67|0.0468
84607852|NCT00110461|168967176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.20|-3.85|0.0296
84671391|NCT03034954|169076855|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.490
84671392|NCT03034954|169076856|OTHER|||||||0.488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.488
84671393|NCT03034954|169076857|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.219
84496431|NCT03743571|168743972|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
84567491|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.7|-0.7|0.0642
84567492|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.073||95.0|-1.0|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.3|-1.0|0.0730
84567493|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0215||95.0|2.1|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.8|2.1|0.0215
84567494|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.3785||95.0|-6.4|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.7|-6.4|0.3785
84567495|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12||0.0089||95.0|4.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.2|4.1|0.0089
84567496|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0609||95.0|-0.5|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.0|-0.5|0.0609
84567497|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0064||95.0|4.7|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.1|4.7|0.0064
84567498|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0241||95.0|1.8|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|1.8|0.0241
84567499|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.1032||95.0|-2.0|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.0|0.1032
84567500|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0076||95.0|4.4|28.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.7|4.4|0.0076
84567501|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1257||95.0|-2.6|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.9|-2.6|0.1257
84567502|NCT00676403|168885144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0131||95.0|3.2|26.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.6|3.2|0.0131
84567503|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.1824||95.0|-23.0|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.0|0.1824
84567504|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0767||95.0|-25.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-25.5|0.0767
84567505|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0492||95.0|-28.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-28.1|0.0492
84567506|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.2023||95.0|-22.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-22.2|0.2023
84567507|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0116||95.0|-30.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.9|-30.9|0.0116
84567508|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1819||95.0|-23.2|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.2|0.1819
84567509|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.2806||95.0|-20.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.0|-20.6|0.2806
84567510|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.1465||95.0|-24.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.4|0.1465
84567511|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0046||95.0|-33.1|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.1|-33.1|0.0046
84567512|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0187||95.0|-30.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-30.0|0.0187
84567513|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.6128||95.0|-10.2|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-10.2|0.6128
84567514|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.3488||95.0|-19.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-19.7|0.3488
84671394|NCT02904057|169076878|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Imputed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
84671395|NCT02904057|169076878|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Observed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with CI was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
84751206|NCT03078907|169257215|OTHER||LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.351|1.258|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in MVPA (%), Freedson '98||1.258|-1.351|
84671396|NCT01275066|169076880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.0174||95.0||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.0174
84497627|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.5|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.50|-1.36|0.1741
84567515|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.1472||95.0|-24.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.5|0.1472
84567516|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0791||95.0|-25.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|-25.7|0.0791
84567517|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0282||95.0|-29.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.7|-29.1|0.0282
84567518|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1623||95.0|-23.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-23.9|0.1623
84567519|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.3739||95.0|-19.6|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-19.6|0.3739
84567520|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0517||95.0|-28.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-28.5|0.0517
84567521|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0815||95.0|-25.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.5|-25.8|0.0815
84567522|NCT00676403|168885145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.0031||95.0|-34.7|-7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.1|-34.7|0.0031
84567523|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.3368||95.0|-8.0|23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.1|-8.0|0.3368
84567524|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4232||95.0|-21.5|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.1|-21.5|0.4232
84567525|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7082||95.0|-12.9|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-12.9|0.7082
84671397|NCT01275066|169076880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.9542||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.9542
84751207|NCT03078907|169257215|OTHER||LS mean|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|3.618|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Koster '16||3.618|-1.104|
84567526|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.9466||95.0|-15.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.7|-15.7|0.9466
84567527|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.3746||95.0|-22.1|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-22.1|0.3746
84567528|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.9336||95.0|-15.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.3|-15.0|0.9336
84567529|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.2029||95.0|-25.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-25.0|0.2029
84567530|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.3833||95.0|-23.3|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-23.3|0.3833
84567531|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.8152||95.0|-17.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.4|-17.0|0.8152
84567532|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.1739||95.0|-26.1|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-26.1|0.1739
84567533|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.3392||95.0|-8.0|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-8.0|0.3392
84567534|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.913||95.0|-16.0|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-16.0|0.9130
84567535|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.6||95.0|-20.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-20.5|0.6000
84567536|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4445||95.0|-9.3|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.2|-9.3|0.4445
84567537|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.85||0.9656||95.0|-15.8|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.1|-15.8|0.9656
84567538|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.5679||95.0|-11.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.4|-11.2|0.5679
84607853|NCT00110461|168967177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.43|-3.31|0.1309
84496432|NCT03743571|168743973|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
84567539|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.5619||95.0|-19.9|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-19.9|0.5619
84567540|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.993||95.0|-16.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-16.3|0.9930
84567541|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.6892||95.0|-12.2|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-12.2|0.6892
84567542|NCT00676403|168885146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.4928||95.0|-21.0|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.1|-21.0|0.4928
84567543|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2719||95.0|-4.4|15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.6|-4.4|0.2719
84567544|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.693||95.0|-7.9|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-7.9|0.6930
84567545|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.7178||95.0|-12.2|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-12.2|0.7178
84567546|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.8037||95.0|-11.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-11.0|0.8037
84567547|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0832||95.0|-1.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.6|-1.2|0.0832
84567548|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3554||95.0|-5.4|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.9|-5.4|0.3554
84567549|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.9538||95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.0|-9.5|0.9538
84567550|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.5593||95.0|-13.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.4|0.5593
84567551|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8663||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-8.9|0.8663
84567552|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.119||95.0|-2.1|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.1|-2.1|0.1190
84567553|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.1544||95.0|-2.8|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.5|-2.8|0.1544
84567554|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8439||95.0|-8.8|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-8.8|0.8439
84567555|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.9925||95.0|-10.5|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.4|-10.5|0.9925
84567556|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.8784||95.0|-9.1|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-9.1|0.8784
84567557|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.8948||95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-9.5|0.8948
84567558|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.2197||95.0|-3.9|16.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.8|-3.9|0.2197
84567559|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.6183||95.0|-7.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-7.4|0.6183
84567560|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.4484||95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.5|-14.8|0.4484
84567561|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3857||95.0|-5.6|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-5.6|0.3857
84567562|NCT00676403|168885147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8824||95.0|-11.0|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-11.0|0.8824
84567563|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.1673||95.0|-4.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.4|-4.6|0.1673
84607854|NCT00110461|168967177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.77|-4.51|0.0058
84567564|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.9839||95.0|-15.0|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.3|-15.0|0.9839
84567565|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.2905||95.0|-7.3|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.4|-7.3|0.2905
84567566|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.5513||95.0|-10.6|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.7|-10.6|0.5513
84567567|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1589||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1589
84567568|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.0541||95.0|-0.3|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||31.0|-0.3|0.0541
84567569|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.5987||95.0|-11.0|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.1|-11.0|0.5987
84567570|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.4372||95.0|-9.6|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.2|-9.6|0.4372
84567571|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.8336||95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.6|-16.8|0.8336
84607855|NCT00110461|168967178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-4.20|0.0430
84607856|NCT00110461|168967178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.76|-2.37|0.7696
84567572|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.0804||95.0|-1.7|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||29.4|-1.7|0.0804
84567573|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.2985||95.0|-7.4|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.9|-7.4|0.2985
84567574|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.4991||95.0|-9.9|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-9.9|0.4991
84607857|NCT00110461|168967179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
84751208|NCT03078907|169257216|OTHER||LS mean|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.632|146.958|||ANCOVA|||Volume of total daily activities (counts / minute)||146.958|-105.632|
84567575|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.2675||95.0|-7.0|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.1|-7.0|0.2675
84567576|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1593||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1593
84567577|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0179||95.0|3.3|34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||34.6|3.3|0.0179
84567578|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0281||95.0|1.9|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||33.7|1.9|0.0281
84567579|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1883||95.0|-5.0|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|-5.0|0.1883
84567580|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.23||95.0|-6.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-6.3|0.2300
84567581|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7575||95.0|-13.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.8|-13.0|0.7575
84567582|NCT00676403|168885148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.0757||95.0|-1.5|30.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||30.1|-1.5|0.0757
84567583|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.2817||95.0|-18.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-18.0|0.2817
84567584|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.6796||95.0|-13.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-13.7|0.6796
84567585|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.2505||95.0|-18.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.9|-18.8|0.2505
84567586|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.5102||95.0|-15.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.5|-15.1|0.5102
84567587|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.5706||95.0|-14.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.1|-14.7|0.5706
84567588|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4708||95.0|-16.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-16.0|0.4708
84567589|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.6202||95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.1|-8.4|0.6202
84567590|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4177||95.0|-16.8|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-16.8|0.4177
84567591|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.6509||95.0|-8.7|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.9|-8.7|0.6509
84567592|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.8273||95.0|-10.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.8|-10.3|0.8273
84567593|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2842||95.0|-18.1|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.3|-18.1|0.2842
84567594|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.7041||95.0|-9.1|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.5|-9.1|0.7041
84567595|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.7216||95.0|-14.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-14.1|0.7216
84567596|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.6188||95.0|-14.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-14.3|0.6188
84567597|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.8096||95.0|-10.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-10.2|0.8096
84567598|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0157||95.0|-26.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-26.5|0.0157
84607858|NCT00110461|168967179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.67|0.19
84751209|NCT03078907|169257216|OTHER||LS means|27.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.945|156.976|||ANCOVA|||Volume of non-sedentary activity (counts/minute), Koster '16||156.976|-101.945|
84607859|NCT00110461|168967180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
84751210|NCT03078907|169257217|OTHER||LS means|58409.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64985.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70444.0|187263.0|||ANCOVA|||||187263|-70444|
84751211|NCT03078907|169257218|OTHER||LS means|201.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.977|646.163|||ANCOVA|||||646.163|-242.977|
84751212|NCT03078907|169257219|OTHER||LS means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.510|-0.366|
84567599|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.6007||95.0|-14.4|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-14.4|0.6007
84567600|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.1057||95.0|-22.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.1|-22.1|0.1057
84567601|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.7764||95.0|-13.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-13.1|0.7764
84567602|NCT00676403|168885149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.7146||95.0|-13.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-13.9|0.7146
84567603|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2978||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.2978
84567604|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7242||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7242
84567605|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0773||95.0|-0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.1|0.0773
84607860|NCT00110461|168967180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.61|0.8377
84607861|NCT00110461|168967181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.08|-2.71|0.3969
84607862|NCT00110461|168967181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.68|-3.09|0.2101
84607863|NCT00110461|168967182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.64|-10.5|<0.0001
84671398|NCT01275066|169076881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.4935||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.4935
84497628|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.92|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for general health perceptions at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||8.92|2.32|0.0009
84607864|NCT00110461|168967182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.16|-8.94|0.0014
84671399|NCT01275066|169076881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.7783||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.7783
84671400|NCT01275066|169076882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84671401|NCT01275066|169076882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84567606|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7831||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7831
84567607|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3291||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3291
84567608|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3692||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3692
84567609|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7614||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7614
84567610|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0355||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0355
84567611|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5068||95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.8|-0.4|0.5068
84567612|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0561||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0561
84567613|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2223||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.0|-0.2|0.2223
84567614|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6791||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.6791
84567615|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0188||95.0|0.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|0.1|0.0188
84567616|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1314||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.1314
84567617|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.09||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.0900
84751213|NCT01672788|169257236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.93|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.93|96.89|
84751214|NCT01672788|169257236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|103.29|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||103.29|97.40|
84751215|NCT01672788|169257237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|105.41|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||105.41|97.94|
84751216|NCT01672788|169257237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|103.08|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.08|94.24|
84567618|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4144||95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.4|0.4144
84567619|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7699||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7699
84567620|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0406||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0406
84567621|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7574||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7574
84567622|NCT00676403|168885150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0554
84567623|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.5409||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5409
84567624|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.823||95.0|-11.5|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.2|-11.5|0.8230
84751217|NCT01672788|169257238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.71|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.71|96.89|
84567625|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.2958||95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.5|0.2958
84567626|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.3708||95.0|-15.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.7|-15.1|0.3708
84607865|NCT00110461|168967183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|32.4|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||32.40|5.01|0.0074
84567627|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.1853||95.0|-17.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.4|0.1853
84567628|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1834||95.0|-17.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.9|0.1834
84567629|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8711||95.0|-11.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-11.1|0.8711
84567630|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.3252||95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-16.3|0.3252
84567631|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.3205||95.0|-15.7|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-15.7|0.3205
84567632|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0837||95.0|-19.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-19.8|0.0837
84567633|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.8895||95.0|-11.4|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.9|-11.4|0.8895
84567634|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.6469||95.0|-12.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.9|-12.7|0.6469
84567635|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.2687||95.0|-17.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-17.0|0.2687
84567636|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1757||95.0|-17.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.3|-17.7|0.1757
84567637|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.0306||95.0|-22.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.1|-22.3|0.0306
84567638|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.0857||95.0|-20.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.2|0.0857
84607866|NCT00110461|168967183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.68|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||51.68|23.41|<0.0001
84751218|NCT01672788|169257238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|103.3|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.30|97.41|
84567639|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2932||95.0|-16.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-16.0|0.2932
84567640|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0613||95.0|-21.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-21.6|0.0613
84567641|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.5431||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5431
84567642|NCT00676403|168885151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.0262||95.0|-22.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.4|-22.7|0.0262
84567643|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.1547||95.0|-18.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.0|-18.5|0.1547
84567644|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2532||95.0|-16.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-16.6|0.2532
84567645|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0848||95.0|-20.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.6|0.0848
84567646|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.2424||95.0|-16.8|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.3|-16.8|0.2424
84567647|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.047||95.0|-21.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.2|0.0470
84567648|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.1494||95.0|-18.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.9|-18.8|0.1494
84671402|NCT01344369|169076883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.08|112.75|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.75|93.08|
84671403|NCT01344369|169076884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.66|96.66|
84751219|NCT01672788|169257239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||106.81|98.75|
84567649|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5081||95.0|-13.9|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-13.9|0.5081
84567650|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.2141||95.0|-17.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-17.9|0.2141
84567651|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.1484||95.0|-18.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.8|-18.4|0.1484
84567652|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0963||95.0|-19.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.6|-19.7|0.0963
84567653|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.8519||95.0|-11.8|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-11.8|0.8519
84567654|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.477||95.0|-14.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.7|-14.2|0.4770
84567655|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.2166||95.0|-18.0|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-18.0|0.2166
84567656|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1062||95.0|-19.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.9|-19.4|0.1062
84567657|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0475||95.0|-21.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.6|0.0475
84607867|NCT00110461|168967184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|37.24|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||37.24|9.57|0.0009
84607868|NCT00110461|168967184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|42.87|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||42.87|15.05|<0.0001
84671404|NCT01344369|169076885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.48|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.48|96.43|
84607869|NCT00110461|168967185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.66|-1.29|<0.0001
84751220|NCT01672788|169257239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.94|106.27|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||106.27|95.94|
84607870|NCT00110461|168967185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.0001
84567658|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.0537||95.0|-21.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-21.7|0.0537
84567659|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.3153||95.0|-15.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-15.9|0.3153
84567660|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0424||95.0|-22.8|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.4|-22.8|0.0424
84567661|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.3077||95.0|-16.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.2|0.3077
84567662|NCT00676403|168885152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0224||95.0|-23.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.8|-23.4|0.0224
84567663|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.0646||95.0|0.9|15.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.0|0.9|0.0646
84607871|NCT00110461|168967186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.24|-1.04|0.0020
84607872|NCT00110461|168967186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.41|-1.19|0.0001
84607873|NCT00110461|168967187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.26|-0.96|0.0010
84607874|NCT00110461|168967187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.16|-0.85|0.0053
84671405|NCT01344369|169076886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.00|93.69|
84671406|NCT01344369|169076887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|100.77|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.77|92.76|
84607875|NCT00110461|168967188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||0.11|-0.64|0.1726
84607876|NCT00110461|168967188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.12|-0.89|0.0113
84607877|NCT00110461|168967189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.67|-1.31|<0.0001
84607878|NCT00110461|168967189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.72|-1.39|<0.0001
84607879|NCT00110461|168967190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.22|-1.04|0.0030
84607880|NCT00110461|168967190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.40|-1.18|0.0001
84607881|NCT02715726|168967217|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-30.7|-40.6|<0.0001
84567664|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.2947||95.0|0.5|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||9.1|0.5|0.2947
84567665|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0249||95.0|1.2|17.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||17.2|1.2|0.0249
84607882|NCT02715726|168967218|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-32.6|-42.1|<0.0001
84607883|NCT02715726|168967219|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.2|-39.5|<0.0001
84751221|NCT01672788|169257240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|104.09|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||104.09|95.39|
84751222|NCT01672788|169257240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|102.15|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.15|93.82|
84607884|NCT02715726|168967220|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.7|-40.0|<0.0001
84607885|NCT02715726|168967221|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|LS mean difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-23.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.9|-30.8|<0.0001
84607886|NCT02715726|168967222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.4|-31.2|<0.0001
84672268|NCT02614547|169080026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.536||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-4.22|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.22|-27.50|0.010
84567666|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7671||95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.9|0.3|0.7671
84567667|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0169||95.0|1.3|15.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.9|1.3|0.0169
84607887|NCT02715726|168967223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-23.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.6|-31.8|<0.0001
84607888|NCT02715726|168967224|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.7|-32.6|<0.0001
84607889|NCT02715726|168967225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-17.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.2|-23.1|<0.0001
84496433|NCT03743571|168743974|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
84496434|NCT03743571|168743975|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
84496435|NCT03743571|168743976|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.67||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.19, p = .67||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.67
84496436|NCT03743571|168743977|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.96||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) \< .01, p = .96||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.96
84496437|NCT03743571|168743978|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham),||||||0.43||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.65, p = .43||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.43
84496438|NCT04115488|168743979|EQUIVALENCE|Data was analyzed using a negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function and fixed effects for the treatment group and stratification factors. Equivalence was tested based 95% confidence interval.|Exponentiated Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.944|||||Difference calculated as Tysabri minus PB006.|||0.944|-0.613|
84567668|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.9569||95.0|0.2|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.3|0.2|0.9569
84567669|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.0711||95.0|0.9|11.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means.Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||11.4|0.9|0.0711
84567670|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.1073||95.0|0.8|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||10.2|0.8|0.1073
84567671|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.1583||95.0|0.7|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||8.1|0.7|0.1583
84607890|NCT02715726|168967226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-23.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.2|-29.8|<0.0001
84672269|NCT02614547|169080026|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-4.5|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.50|-27.43|0.009
84751223|NCT01672788|169257241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|105.21|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.21|97.95|
84567672|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0385||95.0|1.1|15.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.6|1.1|0.0385
84567673|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4923||95.0|0.4|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.1|0.4|0.4923
84567674|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7169||95.0|0.4|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.4|0.4|0.7169
84567675|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4156||95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.2|0.5|0.4156
84567676|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4165||95.0|0.5|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.6|0.5|0.4165
84567677|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.4673||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.0|0.4|0.4673
84567678|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.9855||95.0|0.2|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.1|0.2|0.9855
84567679|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9566||95.0|0.3|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||3.3|0.3|0.9566
84567680|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.4632||95.0|0.4|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.6|0.4|0.4632
84567681|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2042||95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||1.6|0.1|0.2042
84567682|NCT00676403|168885153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3382||95.0|0.5|7.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||7.5|0.5|0.3382
84567683|NCT00676403|168885154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.3932||95.0|-6.0|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.2|-6.0|0.3932
84567684|NCT00676403|168885154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1585||95.0|-2.9|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-2.9|0.1585
84567685|NCT00676403|168885154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.285||95.0|-4.9|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||16.5|-4.9|0.2850
84567686|NCT00676403|168885154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8645||95.0|-9.4|11.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.1|-9.4|0.8645
84607891|NCT02715726|168967227|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.8|-30.5|<0.0001
84751224|NCT01672788|169257241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|102.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.81|94.50|
84567687|NCT00676403|168885154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.3031||95.0|-5.0|15.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.8|-5.0|0.3031
84567688|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5384||95.0|-13.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.0|-13.2|0.5384
84567689|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8015||95.0|-10.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.5|-10.9|0.8015
84567690|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.4429||95.0|-14.5|6.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.4|-14.5|0.4429
84567691|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.886||95.0|-10.5|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.1|-10.5|0.8860
84607892|NCT02715726|168967228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-16.5|-22.1|<0.0001
84751225|NCT02464228|169257259|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.000
84567692|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9963||95.0|-10.0|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.9|-10.0|0.9963
84567693|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.3421||95.0|-6.3|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-6.3|0.3421
84497629|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.51||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|9.08|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for vitality at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.08|1.95|0.0025
84567694|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2849||95.0|-5.4|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-5.4|0.2849
84567695|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.3058||95.0|-6.1|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|-6.1|0.3058
84567696|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9604||95.0|-12.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.5|-12.1|0.9604
84567697|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.1661||95.0|-3.6|20.6|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.6|-3.6|0.1661
84567698|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.1441||95.0|-3.1|20.9|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.9|-3.1|0.1441
84607893|NCT02715726|168967229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||17.7|7.1|<0.0001
84607894|NCT02715726|168967230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
84567699|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.3076||95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-5.6|0.3076
84567700|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1209||95.0|-2.7|22.7|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||22.7|-2.7|0.1209
84567701|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2791||95.0|-5.3|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.0|-5.3|0.2791
84567702|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0644||95.0|-0.7|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.7|0.0644
84567703|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7544||95.0|-9.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.9|-9.5|0.7544
84567704|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5142||95.0|-10.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||5.2|-10.3|0.5142
84567705|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8158||95.0|-7.4|9.4|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.4|-7.4|0.8158
84607895|NCT02715726|168967231|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.273|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.262|-29.285||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.285|-39.262|<0.0001
84607896|NCT02715726|168967232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.9|-1.2|0.2280
84607897|NCT02855944|168967292|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.639||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.835|||Regression, Cox|||||0.835|0.489|0.0010
84607898|NCT02855944|168967293|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.665||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.858|||Regression, Cox|||||0.858|0.516|0.0017
84751226|NCT02464228|169257259|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
84567706|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.4599||95.0|-10.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||4.9|-10.8|0.4599
84567707|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8636||95.0|-8.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.3|-8.7|0.8636
84567708|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.5281||95.0|-7.8|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-7.8|0.5281
84567709|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.6566||95.0|-8.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.5|-8.5|0.6566
84607899|NCT02855944|168967296|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.589||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.976|||Regression, Cox|||||0.976|0.356|0.0401
84607900|NCT02855944|168967297|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.564||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.927|||Regression, Cox|||||0.927|0.343|0.0240
84607901|NCT01852383|168967331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84607902|NCT01852383|168967332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|Corrlation|||||||<0.1
84607903|NCT01852383|168967333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84607904|NCT01852383|168967334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson correlation coefficient. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 for statistical significance threshold.|Pearson correlation|||Correlation of maximum duloxetine dose with change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from 0 Weeks to 12 Weeks.||||<.001
84607905|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.359|0.083|1.000
84607906|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.23||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.492|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.492|0.111|0.9999
84751227|NCT02464228|169257259|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.026
84567710|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.0677||95.0|-0.8|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.8|0.0677
84751228|NCT02464228|169257259|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
84567711|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.4443||95.0|-6.8|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-6.8|0.4443
84567712|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.2543||95.0|-4.7|17.7|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.7|-4.7|0.2543
84567713|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9416||95.0|-11.0|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.9|-11.0|0.9416
84567714|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5824||95.0|-14.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.9|-14.1|0.5824
84567715|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.5668||95.0|-15.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.4|-15.3|0.5668
84567716|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.7769||95.0|-9.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-9.6|0.7769
84751229|NCT00148954|169257265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|1.11|0.003
84567717|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.1753||95.0|-3.5|19.1|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.1|-3.5|0.1753
84567718|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.1508||95.0|-3.2|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.7|-3.2|0.1508
84496439|NCT00710840|168744024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome, difference in quadriceps torque between intervention (TKA Min) and Control TKA at 4 weeks, was tested using an analysis of covariance model. Confirmatory measures were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery in the same way. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were compared using 2-sample t tests for continuous measures or a χ2 test for independent proportions for categorical measures. A 2-sided α level of .05 was designated for statistical significance.||||0.07
84496440|NCT00710840|168744025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84567719|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0916||95.0|-1.6|21.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.4|-1.6|0.0916
84567720|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.6222||95.0|-9.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-9.2|0.6222
84567721|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.085||95.0|-1.4|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.8|-1.4|0.0850
84567722|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8||||0.0154||95.0|2.9|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||26.7|2.9|0.0154
84567723|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7201||95.0|-11.9|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.2|-11.9|0.7201
84567724|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8875||95.0|-9.1|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.5|-9.1|0.8875
84567725|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.3735||95.0|-5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-5.7|0.3735
84567726|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8621||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.6|-8.9|0.8621
84567727|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.1203||95.0|-2.1|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.8|-2.1|0.1203
84567728|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.4966||95.0|-5.4|11.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.0|-5.4|0.4966
84567729|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5776||95.0|-5.6|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.1|-5.6|0.5776
84567730|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.3955||95.0|-4.9|12.3|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.3|-4.9|0.3955
84567731|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.7994||95.0|-6.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.0|-6.9|0.7994
84567732|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.2073||95.0|-2.9|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.2|-2.9|0.2073
84607907|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.568|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.568|0.121|0.9997
84567733|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5148||95.0|-6.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-6.4|0.5148
84567734|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.5255||95.0|-6.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.2|-6.3|0.5255
84496441|NCT00710840|168744026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84496442|NCT00710840|168744027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84567735|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.3793||95.0|-5.5|14.4|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.4|-5.5|0.3793
84607908|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.66|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.660|0.136|0.9997
84607909|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.632|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.632|0.133|0.9991
84607910|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.46||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|1.081|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.081|0.213|0.9631
84672270|NCT02614547|169080026|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.213||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.09|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.09|-26.05|0.010
84567736|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.312||95.0|-4.5|14.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.1|-4.5|0.3120
84607911|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9941||95.0|0.157|0.789|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.789|0.157|0.9941
84496443|NCT00157820|168744028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An additional primary analysis was pre-planned: the odds ratio of CSAE-score between DC and SC obtained from SAS GENMOD procedure with the length of follow-up as an 'offset'.|"The assumed effect of the DC treatment was a reduction from 30 to 15% in the proportion of patients who develop a CSAE, as well as a 15% reduction in the mean of CSAE (from 6 to 5.1). The estimated sample size was 200 (DC true) vs. 100 (SC true) patients followed for 8 months, with a two-sided alfa \< 0.05 and a power of 88.8%.~The sample size was set up to 360 patients (120 patients per arm), considering losses in follow-up."||0.67|0.14|0.0028
84496444|NCT01939834|168744041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84567737|NCT00676403|168885155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0442||95.0|0.3|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|0.3|0.0442
84567738|NCT00676403|168885156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4452
84567739|NCT00676403|168885156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4342||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4342
84567740|NCT00676403|168885156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0942
84567741|NCT00676403|168885156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1873
84567742|NCT00676403|168885156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4709
84567743|NCT04585919|168885197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.005
84567744|NCT04585919|168885198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.19
84567745|NCT05209880|168885202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5835
84567746|NCT03675360|168885230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||linear mixed effects model|||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.05
84567747|NCT03675360|168885231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-4.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.9|-15.6|<0.05
84567748|NCT03675360|168885232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.9|-7.3|<0.05
84567749|NCT03675360|168885233|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.05|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.05|-0.31|<0.05
84567750|NCT03675360|168885234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.4|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.4|-7.4|<0.05
84567751|NCT03675360|168885235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.0|-10.5|<0.05
84567752|NCT03675360|168885236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||linear mixed effects model|||||-1.1|-3.7|<0.05
84567753|NCT03675360|168885237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||0|-5.2|<0.05
84567754|NCT03675360|168885238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.6|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.6|-6.7|<0.05
84567755|NCT03675360|168885239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.3|-1.8|<0.05
84567756|NCT03143101|168885240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|30.9||p-value is calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.9|4.8|0.006
84567757|NCT03143101|168885244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|47.8||p-value is calculated from the CMH test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|14.4|<0.001
84567758|NCT01435759|168885258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.14, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model EMax.|||||0.004
84567759|NCT01435759|168885258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.48, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.032
84567760|NCT01435759|168885258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.26 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
84567761|NCT01435759|168885258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.88, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.010
84567762|NCT01435759|168885258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.12, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
84567763|NCT01435759|168885259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.86 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax.|||||0.011
84751230|NCT01681628|169257269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.0||This was an a priori threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||Means and differences were calculated for both groups before (time 1) and after treatment (or no treatment) (time 2). Also, the differences in mean scores from time 1 to 2 were compared between the two groups, the primary outcome. The numbers in the groups were considered adequate based on previous similar studies. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in any mean change in scores from time 1 to 2, between both groups.||24.0|16.1|<0.001
84751231|NCT01681628|169257269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PCL-C scores from before to after treatment.||34.7|29.1|<0.001
84751232|NCT01681628|169257269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in PCL-C scores for control group after no treatment.||17.1|11.4|<0.001
84496445|NCT02060526|168744051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.286||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.745|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.745|-0.297|0.4615
84607912|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.891|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.891|0.179|0.9875
84751233|NCT01681628|169257269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|22.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 94||Change in control group PCL-C scores after treatment, that is from time 2 to time 3.||22.5|17.1|<0.001
84567764|NCT01435759|168885259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.59, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.023
84567765|NCT01435759|168885259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MCP-Mod Analysis|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Least Squares Means|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.28, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
84567766|NCT01435759|168885259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.93, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.009
84567767|NCT01435759|168885259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.13, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
84567768|NCT01435759|168885260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.24, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax|||||<0.001
84567769|NCT01435759|168885260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.36, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Expontential.|||||0.002
84567770|NCT01435759|168885260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||<0.001
84567771|NCT01435759|168885260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||<0.001
84567772|NCT01435759|168885260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||<0.001
84567773|NCT01435759|168885261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Betamod.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||1.000
84607913|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.759|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.759|0.151|0.9956
84607914|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.747|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.747|0.157|0.9964
84751234|NCT01681628|169257270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test of any change in PCL-C from time 1 to time 2.||||<0.001
84751235|NCT01681628|169257270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with PCL score > 50|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage with diagnostic scores in the wait list group after no treatment at times 1 and 2.||||<0.001
84751236|NCT01681628|169257270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84672271|NCT02614547|169080027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|90.81|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||90.81|0.73|0.080
84567774|NCT01435759|168885261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.942|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.41, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Emax.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.942
84567775|NCT01435759|168885261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.995|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.20, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Linear.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.995
84567776|NCT01435759|168885261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.978|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.30, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Logistic.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||0.978
84567777|NCT03126786|168885278|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was determined such that the difference in visual acuity between the ACTIVE treatment group and CONTROL treatment group could be estimated within +/- five ETDRS letters. Week 24 data from the Eylea prescribing information was used to estimate a pooled standard deviation of 9.17 letters. With 28 subjects per arm, a two-sided 90% confidence interval with a distance from the mean difference to the limits (half of interval width) will be less than 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.4||There was a single primary outcome tested at a single primary endpoint, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed. The primary endpoint was assess with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.100.|Mixed model for repeat measures|The covariance structure was assumed to be unstructured.|Estimated Value calculated as Active minus Control.|The primary efficacy analysis comparing ACTIVE with CONTROL on the mean change from baseline (Visit 2, Day 0) BCVA at Week 12 was be performed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). This model included treatment (ACTIVE or CONTROL), visit (Visit 3 (Week 4), Visit 4 (Week 8), and Visit 5 (Week 12), Visit 6 (Week 16), Visit 7 (Week 20) and Visit 8 (Week 24), and the 2-way interactions of treatment and visit, and the BCVA baseline included as the covariate.||1.4|-6.2|0.288
84567778|NCT03243305|168885280|OTHER||Seven-cycle Pregnancy Percentage|13.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.91|17.39|||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary hypothesis to be tested is whether subjects using Amphora vaginal gel have a 7-cycle cumulative pregnancy percentage less than or equal to 21%||17.39|9.91|
84567779|NCT02689804|168885282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84567780|NCT02689804|168885283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84567781|NCT01569126|168885316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.026||||||95.0|||||||The correlation of time-matched change from baseline QTcF interval (dependent variable) to the time-matched plasma concentration of total fluoxetine and norfluoxetine (covariate) and participant (random effect).|||||
84567782|NCT03113968|168885331|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington-Manning score test was used to assess the noninferiority of KET.|||||<|0.001|||||||The Farrington-Manning score test|||||||<.001
84607915|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.532|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.532|0.114|0.9999
84607916|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.647|0.130|0.9991
84607917|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.36||||0.9852|TWO_SIDED|0.9852|0.137|0.906|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.906|0.137|0.9852
84751237|NCT01681628|169257271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Both the original treatment and control groups were combined as both groups had been treated at a similar time before the nineteen month assessment. The null hypothesis was that there had been no change in the PCL-C scores at nineteen months compared to one week following treatment.||20.5|15.2|<0.001
84751238|NCT02634346|169257308|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-2.8|-10.0|<0.001
84567783|NCT03113968|168885332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||P-values not reported|||
84607918|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.014|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.014|0.230|0.9719
84607919|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.263|6.919|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||6.919|2.263|1.0000
84607920|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.46||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.976|6.052|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||6.052|1.976|1.000
84607921|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.59||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||6.345|2.060|1.0000
84607922|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.82||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|3.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||3.170|1.031|0.9806
84672272|NCT02614547|169080027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
84607923|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.5||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.636|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||2.636|0.828|0.9129
84607924|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.92||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.098|3.349|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.349|1.098|0.9891
84607925|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.316|3.974|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||3.974|1.316|0.9983
84607926|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.94||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||3.359|1.112|0.9900
84672273|NCT02614547|169080027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|142.2|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||142.20|1.04|0.030
84567784|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7451.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5857.0|9045.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||9045|5857|
84496446|NCT02060526|168744051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.143||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.647|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.647|-0.423|1.0000
84567785|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|11545.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8827.0|14263.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||14263|8827|
84567786|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|63.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||63|58|
84567787|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|53.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||53|49|
84567788|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|231.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|227.0|234.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||234|227|
84567789|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|295.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.0|299.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||299|290|
84567790|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|873.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|827.0|919.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||919|827|
84567791|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1080.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1022.0|1138.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1138|1022|
84567792|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1267.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1251.0|1283.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1283|1251|
84567793|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1234.0|1266.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1266|1234|
84567794|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1083.0|1267.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1267|1083|
84567795|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1566.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1438.0|1695.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1695|1438|
84567796|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2991.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2922.0|3059.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3059|2922|
84567797|NCT01387178|168885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|3304.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3221.0|3386.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3386|3221|
84567798|NCT01387178|168885334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.2198||95.0|0.909|1.022||Risk of Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||1.022|0.909|0.2198
84567799|NCT01387178|168885334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.0406||95.0|0.752|0.994||Risk of Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||0.994|0.752|0.0406
84567800|NCT01387178|168885334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.0962||95.0|0.901|1.009||Risk of Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Cox|||||1.009|0.901|0.0962
84567801|NCT04805671|168885336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
84751239|NCT02634346|169257308|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-1.7|-8.9|0.004
84751240|NCT02634346|169257309|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
84751241|NCT02634346|169257309|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
84751242|NCT03170154|169257365|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.99|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 92.5 for the AAS at 12 months.|||||
84567802|NCT04805671|168885341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
84751243|NCT03170154|169257366|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.98|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 96.7 for the BAS at 12 months.|||||
84751244|NCT01163721|169257371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.13||P-value is from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline HbA1c value as covariate. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, there were no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%, 60 evaluable participants would provide 93% power to detect a statistically significant -1.0% difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 12 between ranolazine and placebo (2-sided alpha = 0.05). 80 participants were randomized to ensure at least 60 evaluable participants.||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
84751245|NCT01163721|169257372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LSM|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.83||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|10.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.2|-41.0|0.234
84751246|NCT01163721|169257373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|16.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.2|-21.1|0.794
84751247|NCT00954421|169257377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-4.65|||two-sided sign-rank test||p-value assessed via sign-rank test (pre-planned method)|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Tremor Rating Scale score from baseline to six months post-implant (with VIM and VO stimulators turned ON) will be zero||-4.65|-30.61|.026
84751248|NCT00954421|169257378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5||Sign rank test was pre-planned for P-value|Sign-Rank test||p-value assessed using sign rank test|The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when both stimulators are on (VIM and VO), versus when both stimulators are off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having both stimulators on versus both stimulators off)||14.5|2.2|0.011
84567803|NCT04805671|168885342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
84496447|NCT01441401|168744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.045
84751249|NCT00954421|169257378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49||0.68||95.0|-4.96|6.42|||two-sided sign rank test|two sided sign rank test as pre-planned||The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when VO is on and VIM is off, versus when VIM is on and VO is off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having exclusively VIM versus VO on)||6.42|-4.96|.68
84567804|NCT04805671|168885343|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
84567805|NCT04805671|168885344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.586|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||1.586|0.964|0.0938
84607927|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|2.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||2.163|0.729|0.7996
84607928|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|2.087|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||2.087|0.718|0.7778
84607929|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.24||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.113|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.113|0.705|0.7730
84751250|NCT02979925|169257382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.246
84751251|NCT02979925|169257383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.651
84751252|NCT02979925|169257384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
84751253|NCT05629962|169257385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.954
84751254|NCT05640648|169257392|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||2.09|1.62|<0.001
84567806|NCT04805671|168885345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|1.162|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.162|0.016|0.0361
84567807|NCT04805671|168885346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.617|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.617|0.974|0.0781
84567808|NCT04805671|168885347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||ANCOVA|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||0.32|-0.66|0.4976
84567809|NCT04805671|168885348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.048||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.364|||Regression, Cox|||||1.364|0.806|0.7239
84567810|NCT04805671|168885349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.1||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.70|-21.42|0.0364
84567811|NCT04805671|168885350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|15.31||The p-value and risk difference reported was calculated based on the Day 5 timepoint.|Regression, Logistic|||||15.31|1.15|0.0227
84567812|NCT04805671|168885351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-15.49|0.1124
84567813|NCT02849587|168885369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||<0.001
84567814|NCT02849587|168885370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Generalized least squares model|Raw data converted to z-score based on pre-smoking performance of entire sample.||||||0.022
84567815|NCT02849587|168885371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.283
84567816|NCT02849587|168885372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Generalized estimating equations model|||||||0.0503
84567817|NCT02849587|168885373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.024
84567818|NCT02849587|168885374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analyses.||||||0.716
84567819|NCT02849587|168885375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analysis.||||||0.005
84567820|NCT02849587|168885376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||||.366
84567821|NCT02849587|168885377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Generalized least squares model|Outcome was log10 transformed prior to analyses.||||||.225
84567822|NCT02849587|168885378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was transformed using logit function prior to analyses. Model included treatment (3 groups), time (5 times), and their interaction.||||||.592
84567823|NCT02849587|168885379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.294
84567824|NCT02849587|168885380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.144
84567825|NCT02849587|168885381|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.09|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.090
84567826|NCT02849587|168885381|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.0006|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||.0006
84567827|NCT02849587|168885381|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.053|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.053
84567828|NCT02849587|168885382|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.3|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.300
84567829|NCT02849587|168885382|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.038|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.038
84567830|NCT02849587|168885382|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.175|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.175
84567831|NCT01275144|168885453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.94|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||0.94|0.86|
84567832|NCT01275144|168885454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of paired differences|0.5||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.00|0.50|0.0021
84567833|NCT01275144|168885455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.08|1.01|
84567834|NCT05607576|168885477|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values blood glucose readings (mg/dL) were grouped based on radiation exposure (\>0-500 µGy and \>500 µGy). A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by cumulative scatter||||||<0.05
84567835|NCT05607576|168885478|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects over time were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by time||||||<0.05
84567836|NCT01386606|168885597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||||0.056
84567837|NCT01386606|168885597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-45.77||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|51.98||P-value for Androxal 25 mg treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||51.98|-143.5|0.436
84567838|NCT01386606|168885597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-110.9||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.6|-11.23||P-value for Androxal 12.5 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-11.23|-210.6|0.068
84567839|NCT01386606|168885597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-148.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-54.05||P-value for Androxal 6.25 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-54.05|-242.9|0.011
84567840|NCT01386606|168885597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79||P-value for morning total testosterone (adjusted for treatment effect if treatment group is significant).|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||0.79|0.37|<0.001
84567841|NCT01386606|168885598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84567842|NCT01386606|168885598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84751255|NCT05640648|169257393|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|7.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||26.95|2.06|0.002
84751256|NCT05640648|169257394|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects poisson model adjusting for time and group (paired healthcentres, based on randomization)||||2.42|0.65|0.50
84496448|NCT01441401|168744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||0.017
84496449|NCT01441401|168744072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.018
84567843|NCT01386606|168885598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84567844|NCT01386606|168885599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.90993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cavg at Week 6.||||<0.0001
84567845|NCT01386606|168885599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.86541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmin at Week 6.||||<0.0001
84567846|NCT01386606|168885599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.89643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmax at Week 6.||||<0.0001
84567847|NCT01386606|168885601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84567848|NCT01386606|168885601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84567849|NCT01386606|168885601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
84567850|NCT02357459|168885605|SUPERIORITY|The analysis included all study weeks of data, and was not confined to only that at Baseline and Week 12. Descriptive statistics included number of observations, unadjusted mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum, and baseline adjusted means from the mixed model. Treatment differences from control was presented, and estimated via least squares means from the analysis model along with 95% confidence intervals and associated 2-sided p-values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.49||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|longitudinal mixed repeated measures|||||-0.49|-1.47|<0.0001
84496450|NCT01441401|168744073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.034
84496451|NCT01441401|168744073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the increasing number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||0.005
84496452|NCT01441401|168744074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was treatment period with gabapentin. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the treatment period with gabapentin and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
84567851|NCT03246347|168885619|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.6111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4346|0.7686|||One-sided test for binomial proportions|||The 12-month PSA CR rate with ADT + docetaxel is 27.7% (Sweeney 2015); we estimated that the lower limit of the 95% CI was 23.4%. We sought to test the null hypothesis that the 52-week PSA CR rate for subjects treated with study therapy was \<=25%. We anticipated enrolling 39 subjects and this design would provide 90% power with a 1-sided alpha =0.10 significance level, assuming the true 52-week PSA CR rate was 45%. An improvement from 25% to 45% in 52-week PSA CR rate was considered important.||.7686|.4346|<0.001
84567852|NCT01548599|168885628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.028||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|3.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.289|0.766|0.002
84567853|NCT01548599|168885629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84567854|NCT01548599|168885630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84567855|NCT01548599|168885631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|5.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.165|0.013|0.378
84567856|NCT01548599|168885632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84567857|NCT01548599|168885633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
84567858|NCT01228591|168885649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.0187|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0187|-0.0044|
84607930|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.45||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.604|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.604|0.814|0.8951
84607931|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.57||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||1.183|0.276|0.9324
84607932|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.63||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.257|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.257|0.351|0.8982
84567859|NCT01228591|168885649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0146|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"High Luminance/ Low Contrast grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0146|-0.0086|
84567860|NCT01228591|168885650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0041|0.0282|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference represents: Test lens (Advance Plus) - Control lens (Advance).|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast Grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.0282|0.0041|
84567861|NCT01228591|168885650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.3305|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference is defined to be: test lens (Advance Plus) - control lens (Advance).|"For High Luminance/ Low Contrast Grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior from the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.3305|0.0090|
84607933|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|4.22||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.905|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||8.905|1.910|0.9998
84607934|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.67||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|7.97|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||7.970|1.689|0.9993
84607935|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|5.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|11.754|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||11.754|2.392|1.0000
84607936|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.25||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|5.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||5.136|0.972|0.9713
84607937|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.19||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.975|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||4.975|0.940|0.9649
84607938|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.59||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|3.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.473|0.711|0.8749
84607939|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.99||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|4.342|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||4.342|0.899|0.9566
84607940|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.91||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|4.173|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||4.173|0.862|0.9549
84671407|NCT01344369|169076888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|100.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.84|92.22|
84671408|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 4||||0.1260
84607941|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.81||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|4.005|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||4.005|0.816|0.9275
84607942|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.32||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|3.007|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||3.007|0.584|0.7483
84607943|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.675|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.675|0.516|0.6480
84607944|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.76||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|4.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||4.170|0.741|0.9038
84607945|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.915|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||3.915|0.490|0.7339
84607946|NCT01597635|168967439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|3.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.321|0.651|0.7714
84607947|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.032|1.0000
84607948|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.209|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.209|0.048|1.0000
84567862|NCT00754741|168885655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.763
84671409|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3525|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 4||||0.3525
84671410|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 12||||0.0127
84567863|NCT00754741|168885655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.285
84567864|NCT00754741|168885656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.380
84567865|NCT00754741|168885656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.084
84567866|NCT00754741|168885657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.667
84567867|NCT00754741|168885657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
84567868|NCT00754741|168885658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
84567869|NCT00754741|168885658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.849
84567870|NCT00754741|168885659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
84567871|NCT00754741|168885659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.714
84567872|NCT00754741|168885660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.291
84567873|NCT00754741|168885660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.968
84567874|NCT00754741|168885661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.671
84567875|NCT00754741|168885661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
84567876|NCT00754741|168885662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.829
84567877|NCT00754741|168885662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
84567878|NCT00754741|168885663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.971
84567879|NCT00754741|168885663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.115
84567880|NCT00754741|168885664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
84567881|NCT00754741|168885664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
84567882|NCT00754741|168885665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.469
84567883|NCT00754741|168885665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.369
84567884|NCT00754741|168885666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.779
84567885|NCT00754741|168885666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.733
84567886|NCT00754741|168885667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
84567887|NCT00754741|168885667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.856
84567888|NCT00754741|168885668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.419
84567889|NCT00754741|168885668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.998
84567890|NCT04152200|168885677|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.82|15.16|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||15.16|-81.82|
84567891|NCT04152200|168885678|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-34.15|||MMRM|||REML based Mixed Model Repeated Measures MMRM was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||-34.15|-50.71|
84567892|NCT00593814|168885722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84567893|NCT02699996|168885727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||RTQ-Survivor Adolescent Responsibility Score||0.86|0.17|<.01
84567894|NCT02699996|168885727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||RTQ-Overall Readiness Score||1.07|0.27|<.01
84567895|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI-total Score||0.42|0.05|0.02
84567896|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Knowledge score||0.73|0.26|<.01
84567897|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Skills/Self-Efficacy Score||0.60|-0.0044|0.053
84567898|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Beliefs/Expectations score||0.24|0.02|0.03
84567899|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Goals/Motivation score||0.69|0.11|<.01
84567900|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Relationship/Communication Score||0.26|-0.16|0.61
84567901|NCT02699996|168885728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Psychosocial/Emotional Score||0.57|-0.37|0.65
84567902|NCT02699996|168885729|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|4.34|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||||4.34|-7.62|.56
84567903|NCT02699996|168885730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||2.75|-6.23|.42
84567904|NCT02699996|168885731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.23|-0.80|.26
84567905|NCT02699996|168885732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.52|0.03|.03
84567906|NCT02699996|168885733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Body Health Subscale||0.52|-0.12|.20
84567907|NCT02699996|168885733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Personal Growth Subscale||0.20|-0.46|.40
84567908|NCT02699996|168885733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Memory Subscale||0.29|-0.09|.29
84567909|NCT02699996|168885734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.03|-0.40|.08
84567910|NCT01921517|168885735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0481
84567911|NCT01095835|168885738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84607949|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.243|0.054|1.0000
84607950|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.547|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.547|0.113|0.9996
84607951|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.634|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.634|0.130|0.9991
84607952|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.32||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.682|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.682|0.149|0.9979
84607953|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.19||||1||95.0|0.091|0.417|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.417|0.091|1.0000
84607954|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.539|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.539|0.119|0.9998
84671411|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 12||||0.0299
84671412|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 24||||0.0123
84671413|NCT02342704|169076901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 24||||0.0076
84671414|NCT02342704|169076902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T1 Lesion Volume Change||||0.5318
84671415|NCT02342704|169076902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T2 Lesion Volume Change||||0.0528
84671416|NCT02342704|169076904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2632|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||||||0.2632
84671417|NCT02462967|169076913|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84671418|NCT02462967|169076913|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84671419|NCT02462967|169076914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.447
84671420|NCT02462967|169076914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
84607955|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.666|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.666|0.141|0.9985
84607956|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.73|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.730|0.162|0.9977
84607957|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.22||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.468|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.468|0.105|0.9999
84607958|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.570|0.119|0.9996
84607959|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.82||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|2.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||2.136|0.319|0.6621
84607960|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.79||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.847|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.847|0.324|0.7085
84607961|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.028|1.0000
84607962|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.216|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.216|0.043|1.0000
84607963|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.177|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.177|0.034|1.0000
84607964|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.2||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.453|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.453|0.086|0.9998
84607965|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.400|0.075|0.9999
84607966|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.4||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.901|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.901|0.173|0.9863
84671421|NCT02462967|169076915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.522
84671422|NCT02462967|169076915|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84671423|NCT02462967|169076916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
84671424|NCT02462967|169076916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.492
84671425|NCT02462967|169076917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.832
84671426|NCT02462967|169076917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.558
84671427|NCT02462967|169076918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.362
84671428|NCT02462967|169076918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.602
84671429|NCT02462967|169076919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.633
84671430|NCT02462967|169076919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.814
84671431|NCT02872116|169076927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.59|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.59|<0.0001
84671432|NCT02872116|169076928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.56|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
84671433|NCT03917420|169076945|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|-0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84671434|NCT03917420|169076946|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84671435|NCT03917420|169076947|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84671436|NCT03917420|169076948|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.285|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84607967|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.529|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.529|0.103|0.9998
84607968|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.28||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.626|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.626|0.119|0.9992
84607969|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.561|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.561|0.102|0.9995
84607970|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.729|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.729|0.131|0.9964
84671437|NCT03712410|169076968|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.186||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1860
84671438|NCT03712410|169076968|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.2752||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2752
84671439|NCT03712410|169076968|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.6233||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6233
84671440|NCT03712410|169076969|OTHER|Group Comparison||||||0.5638||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5638
84751257|NCT05640648|169257397|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||10.91|2.07|<0.001
84751258|NCT01005459|169257412|OTHER|unpaired t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
84751259|NCT01005459|169257412|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
84751260|NCT03254485|169257418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.95|=0.3681
84751261|NCT03254485|169257419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.74|||=|0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.38|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.90|-47.38|=0.2817
84751262|NCT03254485|169257420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.297|||=|0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.591|0.997|||ANCOVA|||||0.997|-1.591|=0.6508
84607971|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.584|0.107|0.9995
84607972|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.578|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.578|0.098|0.9993
84607973|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.969|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.969|0.119|0.9781
84607974|NCT01597635|168967440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|1.341|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.341|0.154|0.9375
84607975|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.215|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.215|0.752|0.2598
84607976|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.273|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.273|0.783|0.3949
84607977|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.294|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.294|0.791|0.4175
84607978|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.292|0.806|0.4420
84607979|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.262|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.262|0.811|0.4432
84607980|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.229|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.229|0.818|0.4578
84607981|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.167|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.167|0.790|0.3365
84607982|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.163|0.770|0.3339
84607983|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.166|0.786|0.3608
84607984|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.168|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.168|0.788|0.3584
84607985|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.073|0.725|0.1219
84607986|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.21|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.210|0.814|0.4662
84607987|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.247|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.247|0.828|0.5748
84671441|NCT03712410|169076969|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9848||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9848
84751263|NCT03645954|169257478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84751264|NCT03645954|169257479|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84751265|NCT03645954|169257480|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84497630|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.46|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for social functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.46|-1.22|0.1583
84567912|NCT00871624|168885763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference in the mean four-point NIV intolerance score of 1 over the course of the study or between groups was considered through investigator consensus to be clinically meaningful. Assuming that the SD of NIV intolerance scores was 1 and that an alpha of 0.05 would be used for testing, it was determined that 18 subjects were needed in each group to achieve an 80% power.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.44|0.54
84567913|NCT00871624|168885764|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
84567914|NCT01298700|168885821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9||P-value was stratified by baseline prostaglandin analogue (PGA) treatment(yes/no) and by baseline active ocular surface finding (present/absent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic solution - bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution|||1.9|-11|0.148
84567915|NCT04006145|168885823|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in serum LDL-C at Week 16 was analyzed using ANCOVA after the missing data imputation, with treatment group as a factor, baseline serum LDL-C, baseline LDL-C-by-treatment interaction values, and baseline lipid-lowering medications (Yes or No) as covariates. Missing data for serum LDL-C was imputed through multiple imputation method as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-0.04|-0.76|0.029
84567916|NCT00643760|168885846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.35||||0.295||95.0|-1.02|0.31||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.31|-1.02|0.295
84567917|NCT00643760|168885846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.02||||0.946||95.0|-0.71|0.66||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.66|-0.71|0.946
84567918|NCT00643760|168885846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.55||||0.105||95.0|-1.1|0.01||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.01|-1.10|0.105
84567919|NCT00643760|168885846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.43||||||95.0|-0.22|1.08||||||||1.08|-0.22|
84567920|NCT01307787|168885891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.002
84567921|NCT01307787|168885892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.47
84751266|NCT03645954|169257481|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84567922|NCT01307787|168885893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.24
84567923|NCT01307787|168885894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.16
84567924|NCT01307787|168885895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.21
84567925|NCT01307787|168885896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.07
84567926|NCT01307787|168885897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.4
84567927|NCT01307787|168885898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.6
84567928|NCT00789321|168885930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||0.001||90.0|-18.1|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||-5.4|-18.1|0.001
84567929|NCT00789321|168885931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|39.0||||0.001||95.0|17.9|60.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||60.1|17.9|0.001
84567930|NCT01965327|168885932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward.||||||0.027
84567931|NCT01965327|168885933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
84751267|NCT03645954|169257482|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84671442|NCT03712410|169076969|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9169||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9169
84671443|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84671444|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84671445|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0155||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0155
84671446|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84671447|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84671448|NCT03712410|169076970|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0504||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0504
84671449|NCT00314236|169076979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84671450|NCT00314236|169076980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.033
84671451|NCT03316885|169076985|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
84671452|NCT03316885|169076986|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
84671453|NCT04180020|169076999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84671454|NCT02739269|169077030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
84671455|NCT02739269|169077031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84567932|NCT00104052|168885934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal approximation to the binomial|0.654||||||95.0|0.564|0.744||||||||0.744|0.564|
84567933|NCT01294423|168885946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
84567934|NCT01294423|168885946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.23||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.23|-0.56|<0.0001
84567935|NCT01294423|168885947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-8.7|-20.1|<0.0001
84567936|NCT01294423|168885947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-13.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.8|-25.2|<0.0001
84567937|NCT01294423|168885948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3533||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.59|-1.98|0.0003
84567938|NCT01294423|168885948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.69||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.69|-2.08|0.0001
84567939|NCT02452047|168885976|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FOR %|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.5|21.4|||||Stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method by infection type|||21.4|-27.5|
84567940|NCT02452047|168885977|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in AE %|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|18.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||18.0|-33.1|
84567941|NCT02452047|168885978|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in SAE %|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.3|-47.8|
84671456|NCT02244580|169077032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.726|||Regression, Cox|||||0.726|0.246|0.0018
84671457|NCT02244580|169077033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.25|0.001
84671458|NCT00405548|169077038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84671459|NCT00405548|169077039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84567942|NCT02452047|168885979|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related AE %|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.2|-42.3|
84751268|NCT03645954|169257483|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84751269|NCT00174265|169257499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 365.||||0.0148
84567943|NCT02452047|168885980|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related SAE %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|11.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.2|-19.7|
84567944|NCT02452047|168885981|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in discontinuation %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-6.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-6.2|-43.3|
84567945|NCT02452047|168885982|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related discon %|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-0.3|-36.3|
84567946|NCT02452047|168885983|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in pyrexia %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|19.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||19.7|-25.2|
84567947|NCT02452047|168885983|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference blood creatinine inc %|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-10.1|-49.8|
84567948|NCT02452047|168885984|OTHER|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
84567949|NCT02452047|168885984|OTHER|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047||95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
84567950|NCT02452047|168885985|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in nephrotoxicity %|-45.9||||0.002||95.0|-69.1|-18.4|||Fisher Exact||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-18.4|-69.1|0.002
84567951|NCT02452047|168885986|OTHER|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|51.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.5|1.3|
84567952|NCT02452047|168885987|OTHER|Difference in mortality %|Difference in mortality %|-17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.4|6.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||6.7|-46.4|
84567953|NCT02452047|168885988|OTHER|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||61.1|7.4|
84671460|NCT00405548|169077040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84567954|NCT02452047|168885989|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|53.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||53.6|3.1|
84751270|NCT00174265|169257500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0||||Significant level adjusted for one interim analysis was set as 0.049 two-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Week 52.||||0.8100
84567955|NCT02452047|168885990|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EFU FCR %|Difference in EFU FCR %|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|51.4|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.4|3.8|
84567956|NCT02452047|168885991|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
84567957|NCT02452047|168885992|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
84567958|NCT02452047|168885993|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.8|12.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.8|-52.8|
84567959|NCT01868646|168885994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84567960|NCT01868646|168885995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0426
84567961|NCT01868646|168885996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5990
84567962|NCT01868646|168885997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of mean value at baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
84567963|NCT01868646|168885998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.6155
84567964|NCT01868646|168885998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.7507
84567965|NCT01868646|168885998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4195||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.4195
84671461|NCT00405548|169077041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the BNP group.||||0.004
84671462|NCT00405548|169077041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the Placebo group.||||0.43
84751271|NCT03471871|169257514|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.07|-0.78|0.099
84751272|NCT03471871|169257514|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.14|-0.72|0.176
84751273|NCT03471871|169257515|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.83||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.83|-1.95|0.948
84567966|NCT01868646|168885998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3609||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3609
84567967|NCT01868646|168885999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0605
84567968|NCT01868646|168886000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0726
84567969|NCT01868646|168886001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
84567970|NCT01868646|168886002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2934
84567971|NCT01868646|168886003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3410
84567972|NCT01868646|168886004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction||||0.1577
84567973|NCT01868646|168886004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycemia||||0.5262
84567974|NCT01868646|168886004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycemia||||0.7417
84567975|NCT02035553|168886020|SUPERIORITY||Diff in MMRM LSM|-1.84||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-3.64|0.0451
84567976|NCT01854697|168886031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.2|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||28.2|1.3|
84567977|NCT01854697|168886031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
84672274|NCT02614547|169080028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-0.86|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-0.86|-11.24|0.025
84751274|NCT03471871|169257516|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.76||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.76|-1.72|0.639
84567978|NCT01854697|168886032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||6.65|-2.39|0.351
84567979|NCT01854697|168886032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|9.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.47|2.19|0.002
84567980|NCT01854697|168886032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|8.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.54|2.01|0.002
84567981|NCT01854697|168886033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|9.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.44|2.72|<0.001
84567982|NCT01854697|168886033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.85|3.55|<0.001
84567983|NCT01854697|168886033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|9.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.37|4.36|<0.001
84567984|NCT01854697|168886034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and interleukin 28B (IL28B) genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||38.0|1.4|0.021
84567985|NCT01854697|168886034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|33.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||33.6|7.9|
84567986|NCT01854697|168886034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|241.1|||Regression, Logistic|Calculated using logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and IL28B genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||241.1|3.3|0.002
84567987|NCT01854697|168886034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel after adjusting for IL28B genotype (CC or non-CC).||||||0.005
84567988|NCT01854697|168886037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1a HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|27.0|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.0|-0.4|
84567989|NCT01854697|168886037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|32.7|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.7|6.5|
84567990|NCT01854697|168886037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
84567991|NCT00917124|168886045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Hypothesis: intraoperative monitoring of cerebral oxigenation with INVOS system will improve cognitive outcome of patients undergoing CABG procedure.~Sample size was determined assuming 50% incidence of cognitive impairment after cardiac surgery and possibility of decreasing that incidence to 30% using cerebral oximetry. Based on 0.8 power to detect a significant difference (p=0.05), 90 patients were required for each study group."||||0.002
84567992|NCT02674503|168886083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Linear fixed effect models adjusted for time in months|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84567993|NCT02674503|168886087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear effects model adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.13
84567994|NCT02674503|168886089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects models adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.02
84567995|NCT01022203|168886096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes, for veterans and their partners. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.0001
84567996|NCT01022203|168886097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes for veterans. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.001
84567997|NCT01022203|168886098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models with main effects of treatment, time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions as described for previous analyses.||||<0.0001
84567998|NCT03163446|168886117|OTHER|Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.4||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|27.19|||Fisher Exact|||||27.19|-6.35|0.3137
84567999|NCT03163446|168886127|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|42.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|71.4|||Fisher Exact|||||71.4|14.3|0.0101
84751275|NCT03471871|169257516|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.08||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.08|-3.40|0.297
84568000|NCT03163446|168886128|OTHER|P value was ad hoc. Descriptive statistics were performed.||||||0.0646|||||||Fisher Exact||||Descriptive statistics were performed.|||0.0646
84568001|NCT03163446|168886130|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.3||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.1|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5|-45.1|0.0556
84568002|NCT02371616|168886148|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferences: upper end of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the estimated effect of Test relative to Comparator, for success, should be \<=6mm. (i.e., Test is no more than 6mm inferior to Comparator).|Least square (LS) mean difference|2.67||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.4||From ANCOVA model: change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group, baseline Schiff stratum and study site as fixed effects, with baseline VAS score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Statistical analysis applies to change from baseline at week 8 for test and comparator dentifrice.||7.40|-2.06|0.2678
84568003|NCT03205150|168886173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.8|-3.78|||ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-22.80|0.075
84568004|NCT03205150|168886173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.33|-11.94|||ANCOVA|||||-11.94|-31.33|0.005
84568005|NCT03205150|168886173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|16.29|||ANCOVA|||||16.29|0.41|0.178
84568006|NCT03205150|168886174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.6|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-3.60|0.235
84568007|NCT03205150|168886174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.14|-2.37|||ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.14|0.004
84568008|NCT03205150|168886174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|4.07|||ANCOVA|||||4.07|0.98|0.037
84568009|NCT03205150|168886175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|-2.08|||ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-4.22|<.001
84568010|NCT03205150|168886175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.28|-3.08|||ANCOVA|||||-3.08|-5.28|<.001
84568011|NCT03205150|168886175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|0.12|0.148
84568012|NCT03205150|168886183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.50|-16.79|0.013
84751276|NCT03471871|169257517|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.17||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.17|-2.22|0.979
84751277|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.185||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.405||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<90%||0.405|-0.034|0.095
84751278|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.245||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.464||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||When SpO2 is \<90%||0.464|0.025|0.030
84568013|NCT03205150|168886183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.43|-8.98|||ANCOVA|||||-8.98|-20.43|0.001
84568014|NCT03205150|168886183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.15|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|-1.15|0.332
84568015|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.2868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1594|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-4.421|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group B||-4.4210||
84568016|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.3283|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||20.8083|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group B||20.8083||
84568017|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.9241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2146|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.6959|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group A||-43.6959||
84568018|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.6486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8753|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.8584|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group B vs. Group A||-43.8584||
84751279|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.067||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.067|-0.058|0.885
84671463|NCT01228747|169077042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.24|-44.02||Statistical testing was 2-sided, and was performed using a significance (α) level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical hypotheses, null hypothesis (H0) and alternate hypothesis (H1), are stated below:~H0: μLEV = μPBO vs. H1: μLEV ≠ μPBO~ANCOVA on the endpoint percentage change from Combined Baseline of GTC seizures per week using treatment and country as factors (categorical predictors) and Combined Baseline GTC seizure frequency per week as a covariate (a continuous predictor) where μLEV and μPBO are adjusted means for LEV and PBO, respectively."||-44.02|-68.24|<0.0001
84671464|NCT04652479|169077056|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0028
84671465|NCT04652479|169077056|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0005
84568019|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-90.9353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1044|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-68.8494|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group A||-68.8494||
84671466|NCT04652479|169077057|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0027
84751280|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.044||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.107||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.107|-0.018|0.158
84568020|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5376|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.6571|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group C||-3.6571||
84568021|NCT03652818|168886191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||38.1014|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group E vs. Group D||38.1014||
84568022|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.6821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1209|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.7011||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group B|||7.7011|
84568023|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.1658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3312|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-20.0868||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group B|||-20.0868|
84568024|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|77.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4347|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|49.662||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group A|||49.6620|
84568025|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|71.1737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0123|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|44.0417||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group B vs. Group A|||44.0417|
84671467|NCT04652479|169077057|OTHER|||||||0.0043||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0043
84671468|NCT04652479|169077058|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
84751281|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.005||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.005|-0.002|0.462
84568026|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|104.8558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2975|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|77.3555||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group A|||77.3555|
84568027|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.5163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5918|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.9272||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group C|||0.9272|
84568028|NCT03652818|168886192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.1223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.1776|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-63.924||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group E vs. Group D|||-63.9240|
84568029|NCT03964207|168886196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-5.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.48|||Mixed-effects Model||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||-1.48|-9.07|0.007
84568030|NCT03964207|168886197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect||-0.56|-7.72|0.024
84568031|NCT03964207|168886198|SUPERIORITY||Difference rate (%)|13.0||||0.249|||||||Chi-square test||The Difference rate was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|Chi-squared test was used to analyze proportion of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8. All participants have used both treatments at this point: Handihaler (4 weeks) and Respimat (4 weeks).||||0.249
84568032|NCT03964207|168886199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.72||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.15|||The mixed model for repeated measures||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||0.15|-9.59|0.057
84568033|NCT03964207|168886200|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.38||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||4.86|-13.63|0.347
84568034|NCT00830219|168886201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.53||||||90.0|99.16|108.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.09|99.16|
84497631|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to emotional problems at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||6.27|-1.38|0.2103
84568035|NCT00830219|168886202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3||||||90.0|97.56|107.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.27|97.56|
84568036|NCT00830219|168886203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.54||||||90.0|97.53|107.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.8|97.53|
84751282|NCT03471871|169257518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.006||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.006|-0.001|0.166
84568037|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|1.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.37|-4.44|0.2968
84568038|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.95|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-10.95|-19.77|<.0001
84568039|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-21.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-21.49|-33.06|<.0001
84568040|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.69|-28.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-28.41|-41.69|<.0001
84568041|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|-31.11|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-31.11|-45.87|<.0001
84751283|NCT03471871|169257520|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.46||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.46|-0.31|0.699
84751284|NCT03471871|169257520|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.61||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.61|-0.11|0.169
84751285|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.312||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.181||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<90%||1.181|-0.558|0.472
84751286|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.067||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.258||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<85%||0.258|-0.124|0.479
84751287|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.023||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<80%||0.023|-0.019|0.852
84751288|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.088||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.607||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<90%||0.607|-0.431|0.733
84751289|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.228||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: When SpO2 is \<85%||0.228|-0.117|0.518
84751290|NCT03471871|169257521|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.006||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.026||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<80%||0.026|-0.015|0.576
84751291|NCT03040622|169257523|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84751292|NCT03040622|169257524|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84568042|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-30.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-30.88|-48.46|<.0001
84751293|NCT03040622|169257525|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84751294|NCT03434353|169257527|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) \& corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive,negative).|||26.4|-30.4|
84751295|NCT03434353|169257527|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-0.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||-0.2|-49.2|
84751296|NCT03434353|169257527|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|8.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||8.2|-43.7|
84568043|NCT05556148|168886241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.69|-41.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-41.51|-63.69|<.0001
84568044|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.86|-1.27|0.7112
84568045|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-3.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-3.92|-8.51|<.0001
84751297|NCT03434353|169257529|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.7|
84751298|NCT03434353|169257529|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|4.3|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.3|-38.1|
84751299|NCT03434353|169257529|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.9|
84751300|NCT04533451|169257610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0385
84751301|NCT04533451|169257612|EQUIVALENCE|Relatively large sample size and groups are independent.||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
84568046|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-9.22|-15.00|<.0001
84568047|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|-12.71|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-12.71|-19.24|<.0001
84568048|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-15.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-15.59|-23.29|<.0001
84568049|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-14.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.69|-24.03|<.0001
84568050|NCT05556148|168886242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|-18.93|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-18.93|-31.87|<.0001
84751302|NCT04658186|169257645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.31||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.61|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the restricted mean event time (RMET), with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||1.61|-1.00|0.647
84751303|NCT04658186|169257645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.81||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||Wald Chi-square||Results obtained from generalized linear model for RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as effect of interest.|||2.09|-0.47|0.214
84496453|NCT00464308|168744104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.11|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|Non-inferiority||Assumed that the true resolution rates in the rab20 and eso40 groups would be 30% (0.3). Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
84568051|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.02|-3.64|0.0481
84568052|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-6.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-6.55|-11.74|<.0001
84568053|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-11.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-11.88|-18.44|<.0001
84568054|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|-15.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-15.30|-22.84|<.0001
84568055|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-14.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-14.75|-23.35|<.0001
84568056|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.92|-25.70|<.0001
84568057|NCT05556148|168886243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-21.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-21.92|-32.48|<.0001
84568058|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.31|1.0000
84568059|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-0.97|0.0003
84751304|NCT04658186|169257648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.0||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.27|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.27|-0.27|0.124
84568060|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.70|-1.50|<.0001
84568061|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.24|-2.20|<.0001
84568062|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.16|-2.33|<.0001
84568063|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.28|-2.51|<.0001
84568064|NCT05556148|168886244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.64|-3.29|<.0001
84568065|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.14|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.14|-0.64|0.0023
84568066|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-1.12|-1.82|<.0001
84568067|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.58|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.58|-2.40|<.0001
84568068|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-2.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-2.00|-2.86|<.0001
84568069|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-2.49|-3.51|<.0001
84568070|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.18|-3.36|<.0001
84568071|NCT05556148|168886245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.57|-4.10|<.0001
84568072|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.18|-0.40|0.4495
84568073|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.54|-1.19|<.0001
84568074|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.82|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.82|-1.59|<.0001
84568075|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.12|-2.05|<.0001
84751305|NCT04658186|169257648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.22||||0.064||95.0|-0.07|2.51|||Wald Chi-sqaure||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.51|-0.07|0.064
84568076|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.33|-2.40|<.0001
84568077|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.24|-2.45|<.0001
84568078|NCT05556148|168886246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.75|-3.19|<.0001
84568079|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.42|-0.20|0.4758
84568080|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.24|-0.99|0.0016
84568081|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.79|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.79|-1.67|<.0001
84568082|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.16|-2.18|<.0001
84568083|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.51|-2.46|<.0001
84568084|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.39|-2.77|<.0001
84568085|NCT05556148|168886247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-2.08|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.08|-3.65|<.0001
84568086|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.28|-0.36|0.8017
84568087|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-1.05|0.0005
84568088|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.89|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.89|-1.69|<.0001
84568089|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.97|-1.86|<.0001
84568090|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.47|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.47|-2.50|<.0001
84568091|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.29|-2.61|<.0001
84568092|NCT05556148|168886248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.54|-3.26|<.0001
84568093|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.25|0.8311
84568094|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.04|-0.78|0.0313
84568095|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.39|-1.28|0.0003
84568096|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.59|-1.51|<.0001
84568097|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.66|-1.74|<.0001
84568098|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.42|-1.69|0.0018
84568099|NCT05556148|168886249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.43|-2.10|0.0041
84568100|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.27|-0.25|0.9380
84568101|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.01|-0.72|0.0416
84568102|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.62|-1.29|<.0001
84568103|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.76|-1.60|<.0001
84568104|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.27|-2.25|<.0001
84568105|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.05|-2.33|<.0001
84568106|NCT05556148|168886250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.52|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.52|-3.08|<.0001
84568107|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.33|-0.25|0.7821
84568108|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.39|-1.14|<.0001
84568109|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.19|-2.05|<.0001
84568110|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.86|-2.73|<.0001
84751306|NCT03153137|169257653|SUPERIORITY|For each stage, the p-value from the ANCOVA model including randomized treatment, geographical region, and baseline peak VO2 was used to construct the final adjusted p-value.|Median unbiased estimate and repeated CI|0.62|||=|0.193|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.62|1.85||Final adjusted p-value (from weighted inverse normal combination test)|ANCOVA|||Due to adaptive nature of the design, the main analysis was conducted on FAS using the inverse normal combination method with pre-specified weights to combine first and second stage p-values.||1.85|-0.62|= 0.1930
84568111|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.94|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.94|-2.98|<.0001
84568112|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.92|-3.36|<.0001
84568113|NCT05556148|168886251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.21|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.21|-4.19|<.0001
84568114|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.68|0.21|0.0003
84568115|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||0.24|-0.38|0.6460
84568116|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.22|-0.95|0.0021
84568117|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.41|-1.25|0.0002
84568118|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.73|-1.68|<.0001
84568119|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.68|-2.04|0.0003
84568120|NCT05556148|168886252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.32|-2.95|<.0001
84568121|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.45|-0.04|0.1074
84568122|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.02|-0.67|0.0364
84568123|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.91|-1.68|<.0001
84751307|NCT01821378|169257680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-8.4|0.255
84751308|NCT01821378|169257680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|||<|-0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-14.9|<-0.001
84568124|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.36|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.36|-2.25|<.0001
84568125|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.69|-2.78|<.0001
84568126|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.45|-2.70|<.0001
84568127|NCT05556148|168886253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.1|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.10|-3.84|<.0001
84568128|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.43|-2.33|<.0001
84568129|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.90|<.0001
84568130|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.39|-3.41|<.0001
84568131|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-2.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.77|-3.82|<.0001
84568132|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.37|-3.53|<.0001
84568133|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.53|-3.98|<.0001
84568134|NCT05556148|168886254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.16|-4.08|<.0001
84568135|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.31|-2.14|<.0001
84568136|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.70|-2.55|<.0001
84568137|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.9|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.90|-2.71|<.0001
84568138|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-2.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.29|-3.23|<.0001
84568139|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.39|-3.31|<.0001
84568140|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.64|-3.72|<.0001
84568141|NCT05556148|168886255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.43|-3.90|<.0001
84568142|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.57|-2.39|<.0001
84568143|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.81|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.81|-2.66|<.0001
84751309|NCT01821378|169257681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.169
84751310|NCT01821378|169257681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.83|<0.001
84568144|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-2.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.32|-3.14|<.0001
84751311|NCT01821378|169257682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|0.706
84568145|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.43|-3.40|<.0001
84568146|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.66|-3.68|<.0001
84568147|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.54|-4.02|<.0001
84568148|NCT05556148|168886256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.70|-4.24|<.0001
84568149|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.55|-2.37|<.0001
84568150|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.83|<.0001
84568151|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.53|-3.41|<.0001
84751312|NCT01821378|169257682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.3|0.003
84568152|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.87|-3.81|<.0001
84568153|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.87|-3.84|<.0001
84568154|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.56|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.56|-3.91|<.0001
84568155|NCT05556148|168886257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.92|-4.48|<.0001
84568156|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.34|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.34|-2.17|<.0001
84568157|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.67|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.67|-2.51|<.0001
84568158|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.97|-2.86|<.0001
84568159|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-2.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.27|-3.22|<.0001
84568160|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.16|-3.30|<.0001
84568161|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-2.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.19|-3.56|<.0001
84568162|NCT05556148|168886258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.39|-4.01|<.0001
84568163|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.51|-2.35|<.0001
84568164|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.2|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.20|-3.00|<.0001
84568165|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-2.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.22|-3.09|<.0001
84568166|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.62|-3.53|<.0001
84568167|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-2.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.75|-3.76|<.0001
84568168|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.78|-4.04|<.0001
84568169|NCT05556148|168886259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.64|-4.30|<.0001
84751313|NCT01821378|169257683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|0.8|0.173
84751314|NCT01821378|169257683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|2.0|<0.001
84751315|NCT01821378|169257684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-14.3|0.023
84751316|NCT01821378|169257685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.9|0.464
84751317|NCT01821378|169257685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.1|0.122
84751318|NCT01821378|169257686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-1.7|0.258
84568170|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.66|-2.49|<.0001
84568171|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.33|-3.20|<.0001
84568172|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.78|-3.63|<.0001
84568173|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-3.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.00|-3.98|<.0001
84568174|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-3.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.33|-4.33|<.0001
84568175|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.46|-4.65|<.0001
84568176|NCT05556148|168886260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.46|-4.81|<.0001
84607988|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.204|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.204|0.786|0.4104
84607989|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.246|0.817|0.5114
84751319|NCT01821378|169257686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|3.2|<0.001
84751320|NCT01821378|169257687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.70|0.052
84568177|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.77|-2.66|<.0001
84568178|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.31|-3.15|<.0001
84568179|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.73|-3.60|<.0001
84568180|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.05|-4.00|<.0001
84568181|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-3.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.27|-4.19|<.0001
84568182|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-3.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.45|-4.55|<.0001
84568183|NCT05556148|168886261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|-3.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.39|-4.74|<.0001
84568184|NCT03191799|168886280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568185|NCT03191799|168886280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568186|NCT03191799|168886280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568187|NCT03191799|168886280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568188|NCT03191799|168886280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84607990|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.200|0.783|0.4213
84607991|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.132|0.731|0.2663
84607992|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.142|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.142|0.720|0.2373
84607993|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.149|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.149|0.721|0.2575
84607994|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.127|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.127|0.708|0.2173
84607995|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.143|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.143|0.717|0.2406
84607996|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.151|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.151|0.721|0.2471
84607997|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.157|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.157|0.727|0.2585
84607998|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.170|0.737|0.3101
84671469|NCT04652479|169077058|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
84751321|NCT01821378|169257688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.084||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.018|0.012
84751322|NCT01821378|169257688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.081|<0.001
84751323|NCT01821378|169257689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-6.6|0.992
84751324|NCT01821378|169257689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-14.4|0.044
84568189|NCT03191799|168886282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568190|NCT03191799|168886282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568191|NCT03191799|168886282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568192|NCT03191799|168886282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568193|NCT03191799|168886282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568194|NCT03191799|168886293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||0.0001
84568195|NCT03191799|168886293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568196|NCT03191799|168886293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568197|NCT03191799|168886293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568198|NCT03191799|168886293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||0.0004
84568199|NCT03191799|168886295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568200|NCT03191799|168886295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84751325|NCT01821378|169257690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.45|0.578
84751326|NCT01821378|169257690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.96|0.003
84568201|NCT03191799|168886295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568202|NCT03191799|168886295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568203|NCT03191799|168886295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568204|NCT03191799|168886305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568205|NCT03191799|168886305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568206|NCT03191799|168886305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568207|NCT03191799|168886305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568208|NCT03191799|168886305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568209|NCT03191799|168886306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568210|NCT03191799|168886306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568211|NCT03191799|168886306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568212|NCT03191799|168886306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84568213|NCT03191799|168886306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
84752812|NCT00778622|169260768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HbA1c was covariate.||"Standard deviation assumed for changes from baseline in HbA1c maximally was 1.0 across the baseline BMI subgroups. 97 participants in a single subgroup would be sufficient to estimate mean change in HbA1c with precision of 0.20% within the subgroup. Given number of baseline BMI subgroups and no correction for reason of multiplicity was made to the 95% CI within each BMI subgroup, total sample size calculated as 291. Sample size used the method CI for mean for one group in nQuery Advisor v6.0."||||0.0806
84568214|NCT01746862|168886351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age and baseline height as the covariates.||||4.78|2.17|<0.0001
84568215|NCT03834493|168886382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.22|0.88|0.6621
84568216|NCT03834493|168886383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.14|0.84|0.4073
84568217|NCT03834493|168886384|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.83|
84568218|NCT03834493|168886385|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||8.3|-1.5|
84568219|NCT03834493|168886386|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||4.1|-3.4|
84568220|NCT03834493|168886387|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.1|-0.2|
84568221|NCT03834493|168886389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.15|0.86|
84568222|NCT03834493|168886390|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.74|
84568223|NCT03834493|168886391|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.35|0.82|
84568224|NCT03834493|168886392|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.51|0.85|
84568225|NCT04817332|168886409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92|||Odds ratio Ordinal Logistic Regression|adjusted for the stratifying factors of age as a fixed effect and site using robust standard errors to account for clustering||||0.92|0.57|0.008
84568226|NCT04817332|168886410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.058
84568227|NCT04817332|168886413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||||1.13|0.84|
84568228|NCT04817332|168886415|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
84568229|NCT04817332|168886416|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.74||||||||1.74|0.73|
84568230|NCT04817332|168886417|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04||||||||1.04|0.69|
84568231|NCT04817332|168886418|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58||||||||2.58|1.09|
84568232|NCT04817332|168886419|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||||1.15|0.92|
84568233|NCT04817332|168886420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88||||||||1.88|1.06|
84568234|NCT04817332|168886434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.0|-31.0||||||||-31|-102|
84496454|NCT00464308|168744107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.051|||<|0.05||95.0||||All statistical tests were interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
84496455|NCT00464308|168744108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.053|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
84568235|NCT04817332|168886438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.066||||||||0.066|-0.06|
84568236|NCT02554760|168886455|OTHER||success proportion|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|92.3|||Catagorical tabulation|||||92.3|60.4|
84568237|NCT02554760|168886455|OTHER||success proportion|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|93.9||||||||93.9|54.4|
84568238|NCT02782741|168886498|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference of avalglucosidase alfa minus alglucosidase alfa was greater than (\>) -1.1.|LS mean difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.99|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||4.99|-0.13|0.0074
84568239|NCT02782741|168886498|SUPERIORITY|A test for superiority of avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa was performed with an overall 5% level of significance.||||||0.0626||||||Threshold for significance at \<0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||||0.0626
84568240|NCT02782741|168886499|SUPERIORITY|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|30.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|58.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted) and baseline 6MWT (distance walked in meter), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||58.69|1.33|0.0405
84568241|NCT02782741|168886500|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|13.57|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MIP % predicted adjusted for MIP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||13.57|-7.31|0.5522
84568242|NCT02782741|168886501|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|9.29|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MEP % predicted adjusted for MEP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||9.29|-13.17|0.7321
84568243|NCT02782741|168886502|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|106.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.17||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|240.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for HHD lower extremity muscle strength composite score adjusted for summary HHD lower extremity score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||240.50|-26.56|0.1150
84568244|NCT02782741|168886503|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of QMFT.|LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.95||Nominal p-value.|mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM models adjust for total QMFT score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.95|0.22|0.0288
84568245|NCT02782741|168886504|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.67|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (PCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.67|-2.13|0.5996
84568246|NCT02782741|168886504|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (MCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||5.69|-1.46|0.2427
84568247|NCT00196105|168886553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.057
84568248|NCT00196105|168886554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.04
84752813|NCT00778622|169260768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1984||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1984
84568249|NCT00196105|168886554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Death is censored for Kaplan-Meier analysis.|Log Rank|||||||.007
84568250|NCT00196105|168886554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.69
84568251|NCT00196105|168886554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||6 mm Zilver vs. 10 mm Zilver and 10 mm Wallstent combined||||.02
84568252|NCT00196105|168886555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.16
84568253|NCT00196105|168886557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.32
84568254|NCT00196105|168886557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.69
84568255|NCT04863872|168886558|OTHER|Difference|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.3|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression with binary primary outcome, estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and robust variance estimation.||||1.30|0.39|0.27
84568256|NCT04010461|168886587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.355|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject was excluded from analysis as extraction of FPN eigenvalues failed due to technical deficiencies with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source methods for pre-processing . First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters. Statistical testing was done to establish whether more or less BOLD (neural activity) change occurred between two conditions.||0.355|-0.037|=0.11
84568257|NCT04010461|168886587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.227|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject excluded from analysis as FPN extraction of eigenvalues failed due to technical issues with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source routes for slice timing correction, field map correction, realignment, smoothing (6 mm Gaussian kernel) and spatial normalization (MNI-152). First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters.||0.227|-0.245|0.94
84568258|NCT04010461|168886588|OTHER|Group-level analyses were performed using a General Linear Model (GLM). For each individual voxel, a separate GLM was estimated, with first-level connectivity measures at this voxel as dependent variables, and groups or other subject-level identifiers as independent variables. Voxel-level hypotheses were evaluated using multivariate parametric statistics with random effects across subjects and sample covariance estimation across multiple measurements.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferences were performed at the level of individual clusters (groups of contiguous voxels). Cluster-level inferences were based on parametric statistics from Gaussian Random Field theory.|random field theory|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and cluster-size threshold of 25 voxels|Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs active)|The contrast reflects the difference in connectivity between the conditions/sessions, at the level of each subject, then spatially averaged across all subjects. Functional connectivity strength for the dlPFC seed was represented by Fisher-transformed bivariate correlation coefficients from a weighted general linear model (weighted-GLM), defined separately for each pair of seed and target areas, modeling the association between their BOLD signal time series.||||1
84568259|NCT04010461|168886588|OTHER|The applied test with random field theory uses a metric of spatial dispersion, testing against the null hypothesis that spatial clusters of difference across the analyzed region are no different from chance clustering.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||random field theory||Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs control)|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and a corrected false discovery rate (FDR) p \< 0.05 cluster-size threshold.||||1
84752814|NCT00778622|169260768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0232
84497632|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.59|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for mental health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||4.59|-1.23|0.2581
84568260|NCT04010461|168886589|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84568261|NCT04010461|168886590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
84568262|NCT04010461|168886590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||||||.65
84568263|NCT04010461|168886591|OTHER||cluster size|42.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Active, testing whether the cluster size is greater than chance.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain.||||0.54
84607999|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.16|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.160|0.727|0.2476
84608000|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.222|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.222|0.767|0.3887
84752815|NCT00778622|169260768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3589
84568264|NCT04010461|168886591|SUPERIORITY||cluster size|16.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Control, testing whether the size of this cluster is greater than one would expect by chance alone.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain..||||0.93
84568265|NCT04010461|168886592|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.22||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in cerebral blood flow (perfusion) in the frontoparietal network||||0.8
84568266|NCT04010461|168886593|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|3.96||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84568267|NCT04010461|168886593|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
84568268|NCT04010461|168886594|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA for 1- and 2-back conditions|F-ratio|0.72||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84568269|NCT04010461|168886594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
84568270|NCT02227784|168886595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.3|||ANCOVA|||||-23.3|-44.4|<0.001
84568271|NCT02227784|168886595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-36.6|<0.001
84568272|NCT02227784|168886595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.14||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-12.2|0.045
84568273|NCT02227784|168886596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|125.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.1|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||133.6|117.1|<0.001
84568274|NCT02227784|168886596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|131.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.5|139.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.5|123.5|<0.001
84568275|NCT02227784|168886596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|127.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.1|135.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.0|120.1|<0.001
84568276|NCT02227784|168886597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|46.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.79|51.98|||ANCOVA|||||51.98|40.79|<0.001
84568277|NCT02227784|168886597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.12|57.33|||ANCOVA|||||57.33|47.12|<0.001
84568278|NCT02227784|168886597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|48.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.82|52.86|||ANCOVA|||||52.86|43.82|<0.001
84568279|NCT02227784|168886598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-33.4|<0.001
84568280|NCT02227784|168886598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-28.4|<0.001
84568281|NCT02227784|168886598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.68|-11.5|<0.001
84568282|NCT02227784|168886599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.5|||ANCOVA|||||-16.5|-30.00|<0.001
84568283|NCT02227784|168886599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-10.6|||ANCOVA|||||-10.6|-22.3|<0.001
84568284|NCT02227784|168886599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-8.47|0.062
84568285|NCT02227784|168886600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|38.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.17|45.88|||ANCOVA|||||45.88|30.17|<0.001
84568286|NCT02227784|168886600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|49.76|||ANCOVA|||||49.76|34.29|<0.001
84568287|NCT02227784|168886600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.08|||ANCOVA|||||46.08|33.20|<0.001
84568288|NCT02227784|168886601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-44.9|<0.001
84568289|NCT02227784|168886601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-32.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-44.0|<0.001
84568290|NCT02227784|168886601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-42.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-50.9|<0.001
84568291|NCT03110133|168886617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0488
84568292|NCT03110133|168886620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0347
84568293|NCT00808067|168886622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
84568294|NCT00808067|168886629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.84|0.5119
84568295|NCT00808067|168886630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.94|0.2371
84568296|NCT00808067|168886631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.89|0.5052
84568297|NCT00808067|168886632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2241||95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.2241
84568298|NCT00689338|168886641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of survival|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.9|||Kaplan-Meier|||Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at Day 90 (survivor function).||60.9|45.9|
84568299|NCT04414787|168886655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (\~1 week post-randomization)||6.21|-6.21|1.00
84568300|NCT04414787|168886656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.72|-1.83|0.95
84568301|NCT04414787|168886657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.86|-1.28|0.72
84671470|NCT04652479|169077059|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.161
84752816|NCT00778622|169260769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4614||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in FPG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline FPG was covariate.||||||0.4614
84752817|NCT00778622|169260769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4696||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4696
84496456|NCT00464308|168744109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.061|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
84671471|NCT04652479|169077059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.66||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.201
84496457|NCT03533608|168744126|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84496458|NCT03533608|168744127|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84568302|NCT04414787|168886658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||5.14|-2.44|0.48
84568303|NCT04414787|168886659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (target \~1 week post-randomization)||1.2|0.20|0.12
84568304|NCT04414787|168886660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84568305|NCT04414787|168886661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84568306|NCT04414787|168886662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84568307|NCT00418028|168886663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If we assume that the non-inferiority level is up to 15% lower (equivalent to a median progression-free time of 3 months), for a one-sided error α=0.05, and 80% power, are necessary 88 patients per group.~Considering an dropout rate of around 10%, the number of patients would be 98 per group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|0.9|0.1224
84568308|NCT00418028|168886664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8269|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8269
84671472|NCT04652479|169077059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-67.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
84568309|NCT00418028|168886665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.07|||Log Rank|||||2.07|0.67|0.5703
84568310|NCT00418028|168886666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.83|0.4676
84568311|NCT00418028|168886667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.66|0.5688
84568312|NCT00418028|168886668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4984
84568313|NCT00418028|168886669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.88|0.2556
84568314|NCT03574974|168886710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84568315|NCT01421498|168886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.10|0.0007
84568316|NCT01421498|168886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.15|0.7860
84568317|NCT02059239|168886773|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|98.6||||||||98.6|65.3|
84568318|NCT02059239|168886773|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.9||||||||95.9|54.4|
84568319|NCT02059239|168886774|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
84568320|NCT02059239|168886774|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|100.0||||||||100.0|75.3|
84568321|NCT02059239|168886775|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
84568322|NCT02059239|168886775|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.8||||||||99.8|64.0|
84568323|NCT02059239|168886776|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
84568324|NCT02059239|168886776|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|84.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|98.1||||||||98.1|54.6|
84671473|NCT04652479|169077060|OTHER|||||||0.145||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.145
84671474|NCT04652479|169077060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.111
84752818|NCT00778622|169260769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5305
84568325|NCT02059239|168886777|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
84568326|NCT02059239|168886777|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|74.9||||||||74.9|19.2|
84751327|NCT00323297|169257763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.722||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.843|17.087||A sequential closed-testing procedure was implemented for all secondary endpoints. If no statistically significant treatment effect was found for the primary endpoint then statistical tests were not to be performed on the secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|The mean difference in method of estimation is the difference between Sildenafil - placebo.||"The estimated sample size was based upon the primary endpoint. A sample size of 51 subjects per treatment group was required to detect a difference of 30 meters between treatments with 80% power at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 60 meters.~This primary statistical analysis was carried for Week 12 data."||17.087|-21.843|0.5802
84751328|NCT01786239|169257819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0493
84751329|NCT02511678|169257836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0746||||||The 1-sided p-value was based on a t-test against a performance goal of -2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0746
84751330|NCT01295281|169257848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Two catheters were tested regarding subjects' perception when using them, in a cross over design. After using each catheter for 1 week the subjects were asked: Do you experience discomfort when using your catheter?, and the subjects were supposed to answer Yes or No. The hypothesis to be investigated was that the tolerability/perception was about the same for each type of catheter, i.e. the POBE 2.0 should be non-inferior compared to PVC. H0: p(disc. POBE - Yes) = p(disc. PVC - Yes)"||||||0.0066|||||||McNemar|||The size of the target population was estimated by calculating 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of a possible difference between the two catheter types. The width of the interval was decided on the proportion of patients who would prefer one or the other catheter. Max width was seen when both proportions were 0.5. A total of 90 evaluable subjects limited the maximum width to 0.41, which was considered narrow enough from a scientific point of view, why this sample size was used in the study.||||0.0066
84568327|NCT02059239|168886778|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0.0|
84568328|NCT02059239|168886778|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|45.4||||||||45.4|1.9|
84568329|NCT02059239|168886779|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|86.7||||||||86.7|41.0|
84568330|NCT02059239|168886779|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|70.1||||||||70.1|19.8|
84751331|NCT00292461|169257861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.240
84751332|NCT00292461|169257862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.460
84568331|NCT02059239|168886780|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4||||||||98.4|61.7|
84568332|NCT02059239|168886780|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|76.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|95.0||||||||95.0|46.2|
84751333|NCT00292461|169257863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.079
84751334|NCT00292461|169257864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.860
84751335|NCT05090995|169257865|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84568333|NCT02059239|168886781|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|96.0||||||||96.0|54.4|
84568334|NCT02059239|168886781|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|61.4||||||||61.4|9.1|
84568335|NCT02059239|168886782|OTHER|Median PFS in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Median (95% CI)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|25.0||||||||25|5|
84568336|NCT02219685|168886786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84568337|NCT02219685|168886786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84568338|NCT02219685|168886786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84568339|NCT02219685|168886787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84568340|NCT02219685|168886787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84568341|NCT02219685|168886787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84568342|NCT02219685|168886788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84751336|NCT05090995|169257866|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84751337|NCT05090995|169257867|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84751338|NCT05090995|169257868|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84751339|NCT05090995|169257869|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline consequences||||<.0001
84751340|NCT05090995|169257869|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||<.0001
84751341|NCT05090995|169257870|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84751342|NCT05090995|169257871|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of baseline sleep scores||||<.0001
84751343|NCT05090995|169257871|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||0.04
84568343|NCT02219685|168886788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84568344|NCT02219685|168886788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84568345|NCT02219685|168886789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0795
84568346|NCT02219685|168886790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7007
84568347|NCT02219685|168886791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2677||||||The p-value was ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2677
84568348|NCT02219685|168886792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9870
84568349|NCT02219685|168886793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3388||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3388
84568350|NCT03519009|168886812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.3|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||6.3|1.8|<0.001
84568351|NCT03519009|168886813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.4|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||4.4|1.5|<0.001
84568352|NCT00731822|168886814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.1||||||||5.1|-3.9|
84568353|NCT00359203|168886823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96|||Log Rank|The risk of syncope recurrence was based on HR obtained by means of the univarate Cox model, with the use of the Breslow method for ties.|numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the Pm ON arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This analysis was planned as a comparison of the cumulative risk of syncope between the 2 groups with the use of a log-rank test.||0.96|0.19|0.04
84568354|NCT00359203|168886823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the treatment arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96||For the final analysis the threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.04.|Log Rank||Numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|||0.96|0.19|0.039
84568355|NCT02131064|168886840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in tpCR rate|-11.71||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-2.48||Threshold for significance at 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in tPCR rates between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-2.48|-20.95|0.0126
84608001|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.146|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.146|0.749|0.2294
84496459|NCT00471237|168744154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.37|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||1.37|-0.78|0.590
84568356|NCT02131064|168886841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||3.96|0.37|0.7557
84568357|NCT02131064|168886842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in BCS rate|-10.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in BCS rate between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-1.47|-20.21|0.0228
84568358|NCT02131064|168886843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.61||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.98|||Log Rank|The Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||4.98|1.36|0.0027
84568359|NCT02131064|168886844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.4||||||||2.40|0.52|
84568360|NCT02131064|168886847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-24.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-15.19||||||95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in GHS/QoL score between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-15.19|-33.98|
84568361|NCT02131064|168886848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Log Rank|Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||Stratified cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate Hazard Ratio and CI. Stratification by hormonal receptor status and clinical stage at presentation (stratification factors).||0.78|0.46|0.0001
84568362|NCT02131064|168886859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-6.94||||||This is the statistical analysis for cognitive functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-6.94|-26.32|
84568363|NCT02131064|168886859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-32.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|-23.34||||||This is the statistical analysis for physical functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-23.34|-41.74|
84608002|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.234|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.234|0.916|0.8522
84608003|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.164|0.890|0.5885
84608004|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.230|0.940|0.8558
84751344|NCT05090995|169257872|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment group and time||||0.02
84568364|NCT02131064|168886859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-28.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|-19.8||||||This is the statistical analysis for role functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-19.80|-37.95|
84751345|NCT05090995|169257872|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||0.02
84568365|NCT00593918|168886862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.04
84568366|NCT00593918|168886863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Analysis was per protocol based on the number of children enrolled by genotype and completed nasal washes at first visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.14
84568367|NCT00871234|168886897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.36
84568368|NCT01764841|168886916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7331||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5027|1.069|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.0690|0.5027|0.0650
84568369|NCT01764841|168886916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5333||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3568|0.7971|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% CI was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 14/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||0.7971|0.3568|0.0005
84568370|NCT01764841|168886917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8615||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6264|1.1848|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 28 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.1848|0.6264|0.2944
84568371|NCT01764841|168886917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.7329||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5237|1.0256|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.0256|0.5237|0.0382
84568372|NCT00549549|168886975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||This was the primary analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group and region as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.74|
84568373|NCT00549549|168886975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.52|
84568374|NCT00549549|168886975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|0.29|
84568375|NCT00549549|168886975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.05|
84568376|NCT00549549|168886975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.17|
84568377|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.29|
84568378|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.02|-0.42|
84568379|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.47|0.04|
84568380|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.39|-0.04|
84568381|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
84568382|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.16|-0.26|
84568383|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.03|-0.40|
84568384|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.32|-0.11|
84568385|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
84568386|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.13|-0.30|
84568387|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.33|
84568388|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.11|-0.53|
84568389|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day /early termination analysis||0.37|-0.05|
84568390|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.25|-0.17|
84751346|NCT05090995|169257872|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||0.0007
84751347|NCT05090995|169257872|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84751348|NCT05090995|169257873|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of day of the week.||||0.0001
84751349|NCT05090995|169257874|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment condition and time||||0.04
84751350|NCT05090995|169257874|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||<.0001
84568391|NCT00549549|168886976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.05|-0.38|
84568392|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.29|
84568393|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.16|-0.35|
84568394|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.34|-0.17|
84568395|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.30|-0.20|
84568396|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.25|-0.26|
84568397|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.11|-0.36|
84568398|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.04|-0.44|
84568399|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.46|-0.01|
84568400|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.33|-0.14|
84568401|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.26|-0.22|
84568402|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.38|
84568403|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.04|-0.52|
84568404|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.39|-0.08|
84568405|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.26|-0.22|
84568406|NCT00549549|168886977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.12|-0.36|
84568407|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6402
84568408|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.9739
84568409|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4581
84568410|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.2962
84568411|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4951
84568412|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4957
84568413|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.8364
84568414|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.6892
84568415|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4110
84568416|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5981
84568417|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.9317
84568418|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0831
84568419|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5747
84568420|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.6204
84568421|NCT00549549|168886978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analysis||||0.2556
84568422|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1444
84751351|NCT05090995|169257874|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||<0.0001
84751352|NCT05090995|169257874|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84751353|NCT01389765|169257936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatment states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.05|0.97|
84751354|NCT01389765|169257937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatments states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.01|0.92|
84608005|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.224|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hour||1.224|0.932|0.8374
84751355|NCT01389765|169257938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Analyzed were the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment states (fed versus fasted) and the 90% confidence interval.||||1.50|0.50|0.0031
84751356|NCT03877432|169257939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 1T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.012
84568423|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.7532
84568424|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4722
84568425|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.3878
84568426|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.6717
84568427|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.3098
84568428|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4356
84568429|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5703
84568430|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4986
84568431|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.7855
84568432|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0169
84568433|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.1353
84568434|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.3690
84568435|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0787
84568436|NCT00549549|168886979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5687
84568437|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular), region and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.60|
84568438|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||-0.25|-0.75|
84568439|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.78|0.29|
84568440|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.44|-0.06|
84568441|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.28|-0.21|
84568442|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.04|-0.52|
84568443|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||-0.18|-0.74|
84568444|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.84|0.29|
84568445|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.60|0.05|
84568446|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.39|-0.17|
84568447|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.03|-0.53|
84568448|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||-0.26|-0.83|
84568449|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.88|0.32|
84568450|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.64|0.08|
84608006|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.152|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.152|0.887|0.5886
84608007|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.18|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.180|0.918|0.7532
84608008|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.179|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.179|0.906|0.7108
84608009|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.190|0.918|0.7445
84751357|NCT03877432|169257939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 2T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.017
84751358|NCT03877432|169257939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 3T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.003
84568451|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.34|-0.22|
84568452|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.00|-0.56|
84568453|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.28|-0.84|
84568454|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.90|0.35|
84568455|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.62|0.07|
84568456|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.34|-0.21|
84568457|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.07|-0.64|
84568458|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.38|-0.94|
84568459|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.93|0.37|
84568460|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.57|0.02|
84568461|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.27|-0.29|
84568462|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.10|-0.65|
84568463|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.29|-0.84|
84568464|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.83|0.29|
84671475|NCT04652479|169077060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
84568465|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.46|-0.08|
84672275|NCT02614547|169080028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-1.34|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.34|-11.57|0.016
84568466|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.26|-0.28|
84568467|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.04|-0.61|
84568468|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.34|-0.92|
84568469|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.78|0.21|
84568470|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.45|-0.11|
84568471|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.15|-0.42|
84568472|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.00|-0.57|
84568473|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.27|-0.84|
84568474|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.70|0.14|
84568475|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.41|-0.15|
84568476|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.14|-0.42|
84568477|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.02|-0.61|
84568478|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.23|-0.82|
84568479|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.76|0.18|
84568480|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.44|-0.13|
84568481|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.23|-0.35|
84568482|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.01|-0.59|
84568483|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||-0.16|-0.76|
84568484|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.69|0.10|
84751359|NCT03877432|169257939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 4T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.004
84568485|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.41|-0.18|
84568486|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.23|-0.36|
84568487|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.05|-0.56|
84568488|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||-0.17|-0.77|
84568489|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.69|0.10|
84568490|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.44|-0.16|
84568491|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.23|-0.37|
84568492|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.09|-0.53|
84568493|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||-0.15|-0.77|
84568494|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.57|-0.04|
84568495|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.36|-0.25|
84568496|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.11|-0.50|
84568497|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.07|-0.56|
84568498|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||-0.19|-0.81|
84568499|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.51|-0.10|
84568500|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.26|-0.35|
84568501|NCT00549549|168886980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.01|-0.60|
84568502|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.28|
84568503|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.03|-0.39|
84568504|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.52|0.11|
84568505|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.45|0.04|
84568506|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.34|-0.08|
84568507|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.08|-0.37|
84568508|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.48|
84568509|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.58|0.14|
84568510|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.44|0.00|
84568511|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.34|-0.11|
84568512|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.17|-0.32|
84568513|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||-0.06|-0.56|
84568514|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.67|0.18|
84568515|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.59|0.11|
84568516|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.36|-0.13|
84568517|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.10|-0.42|
84568518|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||-0.11|-0.63|
84568519|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.70|0.19|
84568520|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.55|0.03|
84568521|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.34|-0.18|
84568522|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.07|-0.46|
84568523|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.57|
84568524|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.68|0.16|
84568525|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.49|-0.04|
84568526|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.38|-0.15|
84568527|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.14|-0.40|
84568528|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||-0.05|-0.59|
84568529|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.74|0.20|
84568530|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.61|0.08|
84568531|NCT00549549|168886981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.42|-0.11|
84568532|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-0.09|
84608010|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.115|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.115|0.863|0.3759
84751360|NCT02673619|169257947|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|75.1||||||||75.1|-21.1|
84671476|NCT00811577|169077062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.57
84751361|NCT02673619|169257947|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|59.2||||||||59.2|-10.2|
84496460|NCT00471237|168744154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.44|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12||||2.44|0.28|0.028
84751362|NCT02673619|169257948|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.7|32.0||||||||32.0|-59.7|
84568533|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.40|0.04|
84568534|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.14|-0.50|
84568535|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.41|
84568536|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.08|-0.28|
84568537|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.29|-0.10|
84568538|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.45|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.45|0.06|
84568539|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.16|-0.55|
84568540|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.07|-0.45|
84568541|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.09|-0.29|
84568542|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.35|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.35|-0.08|
84568543|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.51|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.51|0.08|
84568544|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.18|-0.61|
84568545|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.47|
84608011|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.118|0.859|0.3980
84608012|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.103|0.849|0.3231
84751363|NCT02673619|169257948|OTHER||Percentage Difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|52.1||||||||52.1|-18.8|
84568546|NCT00549549|168886982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.11|-0.32|
84568547|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.0459
84568548|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0017
84568549|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0001
84568550|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0410
84568551|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.5592
84568552|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0277
84568553|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0018
84568554|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||<.0001
84568555|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0394
84568556|NCT00549549|168886983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.4603
84568557|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5528
84568558|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1779
84751364|NCT02673619|169257952|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.0|59.7||||||||59.7|-32.0|
84751365|NCT02673619|169257952|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|42.3||||||||42.3|-27.7|
84568559|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1754
84568560|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.3384
84568561|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5005
84568562|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0845
84568563|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0213
84568564|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1231
84568565|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6636
84568566|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5378
84568567|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0818
84568568|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0317
84568569|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1592
84568570|NCT00549549|168886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.7956
84608013|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.056|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.056|0.812|0.1245
84751366|NCT03602261|169257992|OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5536
84751367|NCT02960113|169258018|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing nausea equal between groups||||0.98
84751368|NCT02960113|169258019|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing vomiting equal across groups||||0.90
84751369|NCT02960113|169258020|OTHER|Null hypothesis: Mean scores equal across treatment groups||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84751370|NCT02960113|169258021|OTHER|Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84568571|NCT00549549|168886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.31|-0.17|
84568572|NCT00549549|168886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.02|
84751371|NCT02960113|169258022|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.80
84751372|NCT02960113|169258023|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.82
84568573|NCT00549549|168886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.50|
84568574|NCT00549549|168886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|
84568575|NCT00549549|168886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.28|
84751373|NCT02960113|169258024|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.93
84568576|NCT00549549|168886988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.3173
84568577|NCT00549549|168886989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.4724
84568578|NCT00549549|168886989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
84568579|NCT00549549|168886989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
84568580|NCT02688933|168886999|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model with identity link||Analysis was performed using generalized linear model with identity link, had percentage of time glucose concentration within target range 70-180 mg/dL as dependent variable, treatment group as an independent variable, adjusting variables including baseline characteristics: duration of diabetes, baseline BMI, age, and randomization strata (HbA1c at screening \[\<8.0% vs ≥8.0%\], frequency of Lantus injection at screening, current CGM use \[yes/no\], and mealtime insulin titration algorithm).||||0.8494
84568581|NCT00248651|168887007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment effect from logistic regression model incorporating balancing factors. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.05
84568582|NCT00248651|168887010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for overall quality of life. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
84568583|NCT00248651|168887010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Eat/Drink subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
84751374|NCT02960113|169258025|OTHER|Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||||||0.55
84568584|NCT00248651|168887010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Interference subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
84751375|NCT02960113|169258026|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.71
84568585|NCT00248651|168887010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Sleep Disturbance subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.01
84568586|NCT00248651|168887010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Work/Study subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
84568587|NCT04622969|168887016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84568588|NCT04622969|168887018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.56
84568589|NCT04622969|168887022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.99
84568590|NCT04622969|168887024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
84568591|NCT04622969|168887026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.802|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
84751376|NCT02960113|169258027|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.55
84751377|NCT02960113|169258028|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.20
84751378|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.026||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R' and represented in the text as adjusted p-value.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60 years and \>/= 60 years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.026
84751379|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.496||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.496
84568592|NCT04622969|168887028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.062
84568593|NCT04622969|168887028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.78
84568594|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-11.0|-18.0|<0.001
84568595|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.09|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-7.09|-14.0|<0.001
84568596|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.55|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.55|-14.4|<0.001
84568597|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.93|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-5.93|-12.9|<.001
84568598|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.46|||ANCOVA|||Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.46|-14.4|<0.001
84568599|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-2.94|||ANCOVA|||Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-2.94|-9.96|<0.001
84608014|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.134|0.870|0.4631
84568600|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg vs Placebo||-2.41|-9.47|<0.001
84608015|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.047|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.047|0.801|0.1026
84751380|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on leptin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
84752819|NCT00778622|169260769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9145||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9145
84568601|NCT05616013|168887029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.68||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg vs Placebo||0.82|-6.18|0.133
84568602|NCT05116202|168887070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|27.7||||||||27.70|-22.25|
84568603|NCT05116202|168887070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-32.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.01|0.46||||||||0.46|-65.01|
84568604|NCT05116202|168887070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-17.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|15.21||||||||15.21|-49.75|
84568605|NCT05116202|168887072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.31|17.68||||||||17.68|-31.31|
84568606|NCT05116202|168887072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.79|0.16||||||||0.16|-63.79|
84568607|NCT05116202|168887072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.8||||||||9.80|-53.44|
84568608|NCT05116202|168887073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.42||||||||10.42|0.42|
84568609|NCT05116202|168887073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.7||||||||19.70|0.79|
84568610|NCT05116202|168887073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|53.7||||||||53.70|0.73|
84568611|NCT05116202|168887074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.75||||||||7.75|0.25|
84568612|NCT05116202|168887074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|12.62||||||||12.62|0.35|
84568613|NCT05116202|168887074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.32||||||||26.32|0.22|
84568614|NCT05116202|168887075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|12.39||||||||12.39|0.05|
84568615|NCT05116202|168887075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|28.65||||||||28.65|0.23|
84568616|NCT05116202|168887075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.58||||||||18.58|0.07|
84568617|NCT05116202|168887076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-21.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.55|7.37||||||||7.37|-50.55|
84568618|NCT05116202|168887076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|9.99||||||||9.99|-58.17|
84568619|NCT05116202|168887076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|35.4||||||||35.40|-33.58|
84568620|NCT03834506|168887088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.09|0.78|0.1677
84608016|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.101|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.101|0.850|0.3152
84608017|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.035|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.035|0.803|0.0762
84608018|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.0274||95.0|0.763|1.003|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.003|0.763|0.0274
84608019|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.112|0.853|0.3594
84608020|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.197|0.906|0.7027
84608021|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.246|0.941|0.8661
84608022|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.228|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.228|0.924|0.8084
84568621|NCT03834506|168887089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.71|0.0335
84568622|NCT03834506|168887090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.74|0.0331
84568623|NCT03834506|168887092|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|7.1||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||7.1|-10.7|0.6545
84568624|NCT03834506|168887094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.43|0.77|0.6178
84568625|NCT03834506|168887095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.33|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||2.33|1.01|0.9788
84568626|NCT03834506|168887096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.12|0.82|0.2970
84568627|NCT03834506|168887097|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.15|0.78|0.2876
84751381|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
84751382|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
84752820|NCT00778622|169260770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TC at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TC was covariate.||||||0.0305
84568628|NCT04391842|168887108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84568629|NCT04391842|168887109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84568630|NCT00810199|168887110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.799||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.799|0.882|0.2055
84568631|NCT00810199|168887110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.814||Logistic regression including treatment , region and baseline DAS28.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.||||1.814|0.889|0.1894
84568632|NCT00810199|168887111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8742||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8742
84568633|NCT00810199|168887111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6212
84568634|NCT00810199|168887111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.0963
84568635|NCT00810199|168887112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.2969
84568636|NCT00810199|168887112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.2215
84568637|NCT00810199|168887112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1243||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.1243
84568638|NCT00810199|168887113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6775||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.6775
84568639|NCT00810199|168887113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9976||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.9976
84568640|NCT00810199|168887113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2168
84568641|NCT00810199|168887114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8369||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8369
84568642|NCT00810199|168887114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6528
84751383|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin, leptin, IGF1 and 2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
84568643|NCT00810199|168887114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2546||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2546
84568644|NCT00810199|168887115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1018
84568645|NCT00810199|168887116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7176
84752821|NCT00778622|169260770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0080
84568646|NCT00810199|168887117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8526
84568647|NCT00810199|168887118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2217
84568648|NCT00810199|168887119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Baseline DAS28 as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.41|0.0008
84568649|NCT00810199|168887120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment, region and baseline DAS28.|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.|||2.109|1.053|0.0245
84568650|NCT00810199|168887120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.0258||95.0|1.048|2.095||Stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.095|1.048|0.0258
84568651|NCT00810199|168887121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 24||||0.0287
84568652|NCT00810199|168887121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 52||||0.2240
84568653|NCT00810199|168887122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.0497
84568654|NCT00810199|168887122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.3918
84568655|NCT00810199|168887123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.0019
84568656|NCT00810199|168887123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.1181
84568657|NCT00810199|168887124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.7776
84568658|NCT00810199|168887124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8843
84568659|NCT00810199|168887125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9095
84568660|NCT00810199|168887125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7179
84568661|NCT00810199|168887126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.3113
84568662|NCT00810199|168887126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2931||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.2931
84568663|NCT00810199|168887127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2451||95.0||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2451
84568664|NCT00810199|168887127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8841||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8841
84608023|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.300|0.976|0.9504
84568665|NCT00810199|168887128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9655
84568666|NCT00810199|168887128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.0308
84568667|NCT00810199|168887129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.5186
84568668|NCT00810199|168887129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7706||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7706
84568669|NCT00810199|168887130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.6067
84568670|NCT00810199|168887130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.6810
84568671|NCT00810199|168887131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9323
84568672|NCT00810199|168887131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1448
84568673|NCT00810199|168887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.09|-0.43|0.2034
84568674|NCT00810199|168887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.32||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.32|-0.88|0.3611
84568675|NCT00810199|168887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.05||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.05|-1.16|0.0342
84568676|NCT00810199|168887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.16|-0.23|0.7095
84568677|NCT00810199|168887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.57||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.57|-0.45|0.8147
84608024|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.164|0.871|0.5300
84608025|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.243|0.942|0.8595
84751384|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.014||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.014
84568678|NCT00810199|168887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||0.04|-0.67|0.0778
84568679|NCT00810199|168887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||-0.00|-0.25|0.0441
84568680|NCT00810199|168887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||-0.13|-0.54|0.0012
84568681|NCT00810199|168887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.02|-0.56|0.0372
84568682|NCT00810199|168887135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.75||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|14.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||Week 52||14.52|-1.02|0.0694
84568683|NCT00810199|168887135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Week 104||||0.1695
84568684|NCT00810199|168887136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.91||||0.0496||95.0|-5.86|0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||0.05|-5.86|0.0496
84568685|NCT00810199|168887137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.48||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||3.62|-6.59|0.5188
84568686|NCT00810199|168887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2652
84568687|NCT00810199|168887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1970
84568688|NCT00810199|168887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1671|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1671
84568689|NCT00810199|168887140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|5.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.64|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||11.64|-1.20|0.1110
84568690|NCT00810199|168887141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|-2.11||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.85|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||5.85|-10.07|0.6027
84568691|NCT00810199|168887142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1695
84568692|NCT00810199|168887143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0096
84568693|NCT00810199|168887144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0734
84568694|NCT02864407|168887164|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568695|NCT02864407|168887165|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84751385|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.006||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of leptin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.006
84568696|NCT02864407|168887166|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568697|NCT02864407|168887167|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568698|NCT02864407|168887168|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84568699|NCT02864407|168887169|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84568700|NCT02864407|168887170|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84568701|NCT02864407|168887171|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
84568702|NCT02864407|168887172|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568703|NCT02864407|168887173|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of 52±2 weeks versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568704|NCT02864407|168887174|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568705|NCT02864407|168887175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84568706|NCT02731300|168887205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
84568707|NCT02731300|168887206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
84568708|NCT02713178|168887207|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-20.249||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.361|31.864|||ANOVA|||||31.864|-72.361|0.4463
84568709|NCT02713178|168887207|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-28.796||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.483|22.892|||ANOVA|||||22.892|-80.483|0.2749
84568710|NCT02713178|168887208|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.853||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.014|||ANOVA|||||1.014|0.717|0.0716
84568711|NCT02713178|168887208|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.913||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.084|||ANOVA|||||1.084|0.769|0.3004
84568712|NCT02713178|168887210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1896|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.1896
84568713|NCT02713178|168887210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2549|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.2549
84568714|NCT02155985|168887232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.8||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((300 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||8.8|-5.5|0.70
84568715|NCT02155985|168887232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|13.3||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((100 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||13.3|-1.7|0.14
84568716|NCT01939314|168887282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|27.1||||||||27.1|-13.0|
84751386|NCT04697264|169258030|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.019||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of IGF1 and IGF2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.019
84752822|NCT00778622|169260770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0422
84568717|NCT01939314|168887284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|43.6||||||||43.6|2.6|
84568718|NCT00078286|168887285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|\*Power analysis already provided.|Difference in mean change score|-0.3||||0.89||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Significance was tested at p=.05.||A hierarchical mixed model was used, analyzing the fixed effects of treatment, the natural log of time, natural log of time squared, the interactions of time and time squared with treatment and site, as well as the random effects of patient, patient-by-time, and square of patient-by-time.||||0.89
84568719|NCT00078286|168887286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tests for differences of proportions were used to examine the composite cardiovascular status outcome at the end of acute treatment. Chi-square tests were used to test for overall treatment differences, with a Mantel Haenszel test performed to examine treatment differences when controlling for clinical site. The primary analyses were conducted on the tri-level cardiovascular status outcome.||||.78
84568720|NCT01107925|168887308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in median MPA in response to 20 μM ADP in LBW participants who received 5 mg prasugrel to the 75th percentile of MPA response to 20 μM ADP in HBW participants who received10 mg prasugrel at the end of Study Period 1 (Baseline through Day 12) was estimated from the observed data.|Estimate of the difference|-10.1||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|0.2|||bootstrap (to determine 95% CI)||Estimate of the difference = \[median (low body weight) - Q3 (higher body weight)\]|||0.20|-23.40|0.526
84568721|NCT00490919|168887330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Double-blind analysis (comparison between BTDS and placebo TDS) at week 12 of the double-blind phase.|Missing average pain over the last 24 hours scores after treatment discontinuation were imputed using BOCF for adverse event-related withdrawals and LOCF for withdrawals due to other reasons.||-0.14|-1.02|.0104
84568722|NCT00490919|168887331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.048||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||Mean comparison from weeks 2-12 of the double-blind phase.|||0.048|-0.296|.1586
84568723|NCT00490919|168887332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-1.25||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Treatment comparison over Weeks 4, 8, and 12.|The primary comparison between groups was based on estimates and contrasts for the weeks 4, 8, and 12 mean values.||-1.25|-7.55|.0062
84568724|NCT03256578|168887338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
84568725|NCT03256578|168887339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
84568726|NCT03256578|168887340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.847
84568727|NCT03256578|168887341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
84568728|NCT03256578|168887342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
84568729|NCT03256578|168887343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
84568730|NCT03256578|168887344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
84568731|NCT03256578|168887345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.434
84568732|NCT03256578|168887346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.903
84568733|NCT03256578|168887347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.699
84568734|NCT03256578|168887348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.231
84568735|NCT03256578|168887349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.593||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.561|||Chi-squared|||||1.561|0.225|0.283
84568736|NCT03256578|168887350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.864||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|4.599|||Chi-squared|||||4.599|0.756|0.168
84568737|NCT03256578|168887351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.947|||Chi-squared|||||0.947|0.474|0.024
84568738|NCT03256578|168887352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
84568739|NCT03256578|168887353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.342
84568740|NCT03256578|168887354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
84568741|NCT03256578|168887356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.059||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.313|||Chi-squared|||||1.313|0.854|0.518
84568742|NCT03256578|168887357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.629|||Chi-squared|||||1.629|0.555|0.855
84568743|NCT03256578|168887358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.994||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.186|||Chi-squared|||||1.186|0.834|0.524
84568744|NCT03256578|168887359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.649||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|1.434|||Chi-squared|||||1.434|0.294|0.280
84568745|NCT03256578|168887360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.393||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.76|||Chi-squared|||||2.760|0.703|0.339
84568746|NCT03256578|168887361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.486
84568747|NCT03256578|168887362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.655
84568748|NCT03256578|168887363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.99|1.00
84568749|NCT00129441|168887395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84568750|NCT00129441|168887396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.162
84568751|NCT00129441|168887397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84568752|NCT00129441|168887398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84568753|NCT00129441|168887399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.249
84568754|NCT00129441|168887400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||At week 4, mean BPRS total scores were nearly the same for the placebo group and L-830982 group as a result of a significant reduction in positive symptoms reported for the placebo group (F=9.12, df=1,13, p=0.01). For the L-830982-treated group, neither total BPRS scores nor any of the factor scores changed over the course of the trial.||||0.01
84568755|NCT00129441|168887401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84752823|NCT00778622|169260771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4508||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline LDL-C was covariate.||||||0.4508
84568756|NCT00129441|168887402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84568757|NCT01811732|168887403|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in sample rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.8|
84568758|NCT00536510|168887412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001||95.0|-18.6|-10.9||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The primary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||-10.9|-18.6|<0.001
84568759|NCT00536510|168887413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001||95.0|12.6|19.2||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The secondary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||19.2|12.6|<0.001
84568760|NCT02026141|168887414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84568761|NCT01249417|168887417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.38||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.13|-0.64|0.0029
84568762|NCT01249417|168887417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
84568763|NCT01249417|168887418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.14|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.14|0.50|<0.0001
84568764|NCT01249417|168887418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.10|0.45|<0.0001
84568765|NCT01249417|168887419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|5.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.32|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||8.32|2.31|0.0006
84568766|NCT01249417|168887419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.65||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|7.71|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||7.71|1.59|0.0031
84568767|NCT03074695|168887434|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.03||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|20.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline characteristics (parturient race, ethnicity, height, and induction status).||||20.08|-14.02|0.766
84568768|NCT03843372|168887459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The AHI was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare AHI between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
84568769|NCT03843372|168887460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The oxygen desaturation index was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare oxygen desaturation index between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
84568770|NCT03843372|168887461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The total sleep time was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare total sleep time between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
84608026|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.261|0.943|0.8802
84751387|NCT04697264|169258031|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.033||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of LVSI on adiponectin levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of LVSI) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.033
84751388|NCT04697264|169258031|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.015||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of MELF on TNF levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of MELF) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.015
84568771|NCT03843372|168887462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The sleep efficiency was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare sleep efficiency between CPAP and HFNC||||0.008
84568772|NCT02337062|168887463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test.||||<0.001
84568773|NCT02337062|168887464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84568774|NCT02337062|168887465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84568775|NCT02337062|168887466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84568776|NCT02337062|168887467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84568777|NCT02337062|168887468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84568778|NCT01239797|168887494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.89|0.60|0.0014
84752824|NCT00778622|169260771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0526
84568779|NCT01239797|168887495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.87|0.60|0.0005
84568780|NCT01239797|168887496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by B2 microglobulin (\<3.5 mg/L vs \>=3.5 mg/L), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>=2), and immunomodulatory drug use at randomization||Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||2.78|1.36|0.0002
84568781|NCT01239797|168887496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|19.3||||||Difference of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab minus Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird (weighted average over the strata)||19.3|6.2|
84568782|NCT02631941|168887529|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|100.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|105.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.69|95.82|<0.001
84568783|NCT02631941|168887529|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|102.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||109.13|95.55|<0.001
84568784|NCT02631941|168887530|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|92.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||92.86|83.31|0.002
84568785|NCT02631941|168887530|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.94|99.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.04|83.94|0.005
84568786|NCT02631941|168887531|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|157.86||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.12|172.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.91|144.12|1.00
84568787|NCT02631941|168887531|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|166.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.35|187.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.57|148.35|1.00
84568788|NCT02631941|168887532|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|85.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.66|91.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.17|79.66|0.012
84568789|NCT02631941|168887532|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.48|94.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||94.47|81.48|0.020
84608027|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.11||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.278|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.278|0.958|0.9232
84751389|NCT04697264|169258031|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of tumour grade (Grade 1/2), stage (Stage 1/ \>/=1), histology (type 1 and type 2), and MSI (presence or absence) on the biomarker levels (adiponectin, leptin, IGF 1 and 2, IL6 and TNF) were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations to facilitate comparisons.||||>0.05
84751390|NCT04697264|169258032|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.0001
84568790|NCT00501631|168887544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0|||||Van der Waerden test|||The null hypothesis that there is no difference between two treatment groups (i.e. Placebo and Vivitrol) was tested using a two-sided Van der Waerden test. Response profiles were tabulated as a cumulative percent of subjects at each decile of percent heavy drinking days.||||0.336
84568791|NCT04456686|168887554|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.70|-0.77|
84568792|NCT04456686|168887555|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.96|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.96|-0.82|
84568793|NCT04456686|168887556|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.63|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.63|-0.45|
84568794|NCT04456686|168887557|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||5.06|-3.31|
84568795|NCT04456686|168887558|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.50|-0.46|
84568796|NCT04456686|168887559|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.91|-0.72|
84568797|NCT04456686|168887560|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|12.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.20|-7.27|
84568798|NCT04456686|168887561|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.85|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.85|-0.04|
84568799|NCT04456686|168887562|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|168.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.22|379.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||379.20|-38.22|
84751391|NCT04697264|169258033|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||>0.05
84568800|NCT04456686|168887563|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.06|-0.07|
84568801|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.1498|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1498
84568802|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0640
84568803|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.2807|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2807
84568804|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.1228|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1228
84568805|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0289
84568806|NCT02858401|168887571|OTHER|||||||0.5895|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5895
84568807|NCT02858401|168887572|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568808|NCT02858401|168887572|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568809|NCT02858401|168887572|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568810|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
84568811|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
84568812|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.8288|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8288
84568813|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
84568814|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.6056|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6056
84568815|NCT02858401|168887573|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
84568816|NCT02858401|168887574|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568817|NCT02858401|168887574|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568818|NCT02858401|168887574|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568819|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568820|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568821|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
84568822|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568823|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568824|NCT02858401|168887575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568825|NCT02858401|168887576|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568826|NCT02858401|168887576|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568827|NCT02858401|168887576|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
84568828|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568829|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568830|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
84568831|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568832|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568833|NCT02858401|168887577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568834|NCT02858401|168887578|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568835|NCT02858401|168887578|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568836|NCT02858401|168887578|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568837|NCT02858401|168887579|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84751392|NCT04697264|169258034|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.05
84752825|NCT00778622|169260771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1295||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1295
84568838|NCT02858401|168887579|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568839|NCT02858401|168887579|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568840|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568841|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568842|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
84568843|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568844|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568845|NCT02858401|168887580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568846|NCT02858401|168887581|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84672276|NCT02614547|169080028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-1.35|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.35|-12.25|0.018
84568847|NCT02858401|168887581|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568848|NCT02858401|168887581|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568849|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
84496461|NCT00471237|168744154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.65|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.65|0.51|0.011
84568850|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568851|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||0.4278|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4278
84568852|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568853|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568854|NCT02858401|168887582|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568855|NCT02858401|168887583|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568856|NCT02858401|168887583|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
84568857|NCT02858401|168887583|OTHER|||||||0.1869|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1869
84568858|NCT02858401|168887583|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568859|NCT02858401|168887583|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568860|NCT02858401|168887584|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
84568861|NCT02858401|168887584|OTHER|||||||0.4237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4237
84568862|NCT02858401|168887584|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
84568863|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
84568864|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.3971|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3971
84568865|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1301
84568866|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
84568867|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
84568868|NCT02858401|168887585|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
84568869|NCT02858401|168887586|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568870|NCT02858401|168887586|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
84568871|NCT02858401|168887586|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
84568872|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568873|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568874|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
84568875|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568876|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568877|NCT02858401|168887587|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568878|NCT02858401|168887588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568879|NCT02858401|168887588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568880|NCT02858401|168887588|OTHER|||||||0.2763|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2763
84568881|NCT02858401|168887588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568882|NCT02858401|168887588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568883|NCT02858401|168887589|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568884|NCT02858401|168887589|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568885|NCT02858401|168887589|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568886|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568887|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568888|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
84568889|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568890|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568891|NCT02858401|168887590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568892|NCT02858401|168887591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568893|NCT02858401|168887591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568894|NCT02858401|168887591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568895|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568896|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
84568897|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
84751393|NCT04697264|169258035|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
84751394|NCT04697264|169258035|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||0.09
84751395|NCT04697264|169258035|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the association between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
84751396|NCT04697264|169258036|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.004
84751397|NCT04697264|169258036|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.0002
84751398|NCT04697264|169258036|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||>0.05
84751399|NCT04697264|169258037|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0007
84751400|NCT04697264|169258038|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Leptin levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||>0.05
84751401|NCT04697264|169258038|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF1 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||0.004
84568898|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568899|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568900|NCT02858401|168887592|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84751402|NCT04697264|169258038|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF2 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||<0.0001
84751403|NCT04697264|169258040|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.0001
84751404|NCT04697264|169258040|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin and their receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.05
84568901|NCT02858401|168887593|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568902|NCT02858401|168887593|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568903|NCT02858401|168887593|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568904|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
84568905|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.3755|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3755
84568906|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.4577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4577
84568907|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
84568908|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
84568909|NCT02858401|168887594|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
84496462|NCT00471237|168744154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.69|0.51|0.012
84568910|NCT02858401|168887595|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568911|NCT02858401|168887595|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
84568912|NCT02858401|168887595|OTHER|||||||0.7526|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7526
84568913|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.5546|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5546
84568914|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.6937|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6937
84568915|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
84568916|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568917|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568918|NCT02858401|168887596|OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7878
84568919|NCT02858401|168887597|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568920|NCT02858401|168887597|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568921|NCT02858401|168887597|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568922|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84751405|NCT04697264|169258040|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
84751406|NCT04697264|169258041|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymph node tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.0002
84751407|NCT04697264|169258041|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.011
84751408|NCT04697264|169258041|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of IL6 receptor (IL6R) was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.009
84751409|NCT04697264|169258041|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of adiponectin receptor, leptin receptor, IGF1 and IGF 2 receptors, IL6, TNF, IGF1 and IGF2 were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
84751410|NCT04697264|169258042|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating adiponectin levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using correlation studies.||||>0.05
84751411|NCT04697264|169258043|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating leptin, IGF1 and IGF2 levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
84751412|NCT04697264|169258044|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating IL6 and TNF levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
84751413|NCT05344092|169258059|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app intervention score (approximately 4 week) for the VetEd Mobile Application user group.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
84496463|NCT00471237|168744162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.48|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.48|-1.38|0.680
84568923|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568924|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568925|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568926|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84568927|NCT02858401|168887598|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
84568928|NCT02858401|168887599|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568929|NCT02858401|168887599|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
84568930|NCT02858401|168887599|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
84568931|NCT02858401|168887599|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568932|NCT02858401|168887599|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568933|NCT02858401|168887600|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568934|NCT02858401|168887600|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568935|NCT02858401|168887600|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568936|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568937|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
84568938|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.1784|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1784
84568939|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568940|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568941|NCT02858401|168887601|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
84568942|NCT02858401|168887602|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568943|NCT02858401|168887602|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84751414|NCT05344092|169258061|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
84751415|NCT05344092|169258062|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.68
84751416|NCT04498169|169258063|SUPERIORITY|With a sample size of up-to 20 subjects within a treatment group, the study had 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant mean change from baseline, assuming the true effect size (mean change / SD) was 0.577 or larger (e.g. assuming the true mean change from baseline was 34.6 μm and the SD was 60 μm), a one sample t-test and a two-sided alpha = 0.10.||||||0.0021|||||||One-sample t-test (within group)|||The primary analysis used the mITT population with available data per subject at eye level (ie., ODO). Robustness analyses was also performed based on the MI methodology under different assumptions of missingness and intercurrent events (where missing data or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or AEs were imputed using FCS regression method and missing data for all other reasons were imputed using worst within subject observation prior to the intercurrent event).||||0.0021
84751417|NCT01383161|169258064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.5
84751418|NCT01383161|169258064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84751419|NCT01383161|169258064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84751420|NCT01383161|169258065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
84751421|NCT01383161|169258065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
84751422|NCT01383161|169258065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84751423|NCT01383161|169258066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.05
84751424|NCT01383161|169258066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84751425|NCT01383161|169258066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84751426|NCT01383161|169258067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
84751427|NCT01383161|169258067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84751428|NCT01383161|169258067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84751429|NCT01383161|169258068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.04
84751430|NCT01383161|169258068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84751431|NCT01383161|169258068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84568944|NCT02858401|168887602|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568945|NCT02858401|168887603|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568946|NCT02858401|168887603|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568947|NCT02858401|168887603|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568948|NCT02858401|168887604|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
84568949|NCT02858401|168887604|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
84568950|NCT02858401|168887605|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568951|NCT02858401|168887605|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568952|NCT02858401|168887605|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84608028|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.256|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.256|0.902|0.7911
84568953|NCT02858401|168887606|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568954|NCT02858401|168887606|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568955|NCT02858401|168887606|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
84568956|NCT02858401|168887607|OTHER|||||||0.8504|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8504
84568957|NCT02858401|168887607|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
84568958|NCT02858401|168887607|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
84568959|NCT02858401|168887607|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568960|NCT02858401|168887607|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
84568961|NCT02858401|168887608|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568962|NCT02858401|168887608|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568963|NCT02858401|168887608|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568964|NCT02858401|168887609|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568965|NCT02858401|168887609|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568966|NCT02858401|168887609|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568967|NCT02858401|168887610|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
84568968|NCT02858401|168887610|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
84568969|NCT02858401|168887611|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568970|NCT02858401|168887611|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568971|NCT02858401|168887611|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568972|NCT02858401|168887612|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568973|NCT02858401|168887612|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568974|NCT02858401|168887612|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
84568975|NCT02858401|168887613|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568976|NCT02858401|168887613|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568977|NCT02858401|168887613|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
84568978|NCT02858401|168887614|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568979|NCT02858401|168887614|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568980|NCT02858401|168887614|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
84568981|NCT02858401|168887615|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568982|NCT02858401|168887615|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
84568983|NCT02858401|168887615|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
84568984|NCT02858401|168887616|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568985|NCT02858401|168887616|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
84568986|NCT02858401|168887616|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
84568987|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568988|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568989|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568990|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568991|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568992|NCT02858401|168887619|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568993|NCT02858401|168887620|OTHER|||||||0.3333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3333
84568994|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568995|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568996|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568997|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568998|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84568999|NCT02858401|168887621|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569000|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569001|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569002|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569003|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569004|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569005|NCT02858401|168887622|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569006|NCT02858401|168887623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84608029|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.28||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.514|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.514|1.059|0.9946
84608030|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.444|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.444|1.019|0.9830
84608031|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.261|0.910|0.8024
84608032|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.166|0.843|0.4806
84496464|NCT00471237|168744162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.89|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.89|0.01|0.192
84496465|NCT00471237|168744162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.73|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.73|-1.12|0.680
84496466|NCT00471237|168744162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.29|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.29|-0.59|0.680
84496467|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.04|-1.32|0.037
84569007|NCT02858401|168887623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569008|NCT02858401|168887623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569009|NCT02858401|168887624|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569010|NCT02858401|168887624|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569011|NCT02858401|168887624|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569012|NCT02858401|168887626|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569013|NCT02858401|168887626|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569014|NCT02858401|168887626|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84569015|NCT01240382|168887637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in mean change in fluorescein staining score from baseline was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.34) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||95.0|-0.405|0.338|||l|||||0.338|-0.405|
84608033|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.223|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.223|0.869|0.6658
84496468|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.14|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.14|-1.43|0.017
84496469|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.64|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.64|-1.92|0.000
84569016|NCT01240382|168887638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.01||95.0|-1.18|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.67|-1.18|0.010
84569017|NCT02456727|168887639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.0291|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0291|-0.7720|0.0691
84496470|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.65|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.65|-1.95|0.000
84496471|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.17|-1.61|0.015
84496472|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.30|-1.74|0.006
84496473|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.63|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.63|-2.04|0.000
84496474|NCT00471237|168744163|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.84|-2.30|0.000
84496475|NCT00848965|168744176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.68|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.68|-2.08|
84569018|NCT02456727|168887640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6452|0.319|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.319|-0.6452|0.5077
84569019|NCT02456727|168887641|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.1506|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1506|-0.0058|0.24
84569020|NCT02456727|168887642|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0487||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1485|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1485|-0.0422|0.17
84569021|NCT02456727|168887643|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0396||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0151|0.1401|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1401|-0.0151|0.17
84608034|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.212|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.212|0.856|0.6131
84608035|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.197|0.856|0.5795
84672277|NCT02614547|169080030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.461||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.04|||ANCOVA|||60 Hours||7.04|-3.30|0.457
84608036|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.993|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||0.993|0.716|0.0209
84671477|NCT00811577|169077062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.56
84569022|NCT02456727|168887644|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0488||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.184|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.184|-0.0075|0.40
84569023|NCT02456727|168887645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1782||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6136|0.0851|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0851|-0.6136|0.1387
84671478|NCT00811577|169077062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.61
84569024|NCT02456727|168887646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6497|0.1829|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1829|-0.6497|0.2725
84569025|NCT02456727|168887647|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1185|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1185|-0.0334|0.07
84569026|NCT02456727|168887648|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0651|0.1218|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1218|-0.0651|0.07
84569027|NCT02456727|168887649|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0436|0.0961|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0961|-0.0436|0.02
84671479|NCT00811577|169077062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.80
84671480|NCT00811577|169077063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.47
84671481|NCT00811577|169077063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.080
84608037|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.187|0.830|0.4823
84608038|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||0.0406|0.85||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.021|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.021|0.703|0.0406
84608039|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.169|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.169|0.844|0.5186
84608040|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.132|0.824|0.3870
84672278|NCT02614547|169080030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.47||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 7||4.55|-7.50|0.613
84569028|NCT02456727|168887650|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0539|0.1186|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1186|-0.0539|0.06
84751432|NCT01383161|169258069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.3
84569029|NCT02456727|168887651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.0795|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0795|-0.5288|0.1475
84751433|NCT01383161|169258069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84751434|NCT01383161|169258069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84569030|NCT02456727|168887652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.1706|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1706|-0.546|0.3038
84569031|NCT02456727|168887653|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0392||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.1018|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1018|-0.0517|0.03
84751435|NCT02856893|169258117|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|56.4|75.9|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till + blood test/progression then Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||75.9|56.4|
84751436|NCT02856893|169258117|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|42.3|63.5|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till progression than Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||63.5|42.3|
84751437|NCT03801902|169258126|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"If 0-1 of initial 6 evaluable patients on an arm have a safety event, then the regimen will be deemed safe and that arm will continue to the second part of the study to enroll 6 additional evaluable patients. However, if 2 or more of the 6 patients develop a safety event, then that arm is considered not safe and will not continue to second part. The probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% is at least 77%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, then the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is at least 70%.~If fewer than 4 of the total of 12 evaluable patients on an arm experience a safety event, then the treatment will be considered tolerable. With a cohort of 12 patients, the probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% at least 78%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is 85%."|||
84496476|NCT00848965|168744176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.93|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.93|-2.16|
84496477|NCT00848965|168744176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.11|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.11|-2.33|
84569032|NCT02456727|168887654|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0925|0.096|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.096|-0.0925|0.02
84608041|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.065|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.065|0.770|0.1281
84608042|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.181|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.181|0.837|0.4754
84608043|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.217|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.217|0.856|0.5627
84608044|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.22|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.220|0.848|0.5552
84496478|NCT00848965|168744176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.19|||||Treatment difference is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.19|-2.60|
84751438|NCT03952585|169258132|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.42|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||19.46|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||19.46||
84751439|NCT03952585|169258132|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||14.85|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||14.85||
84751440|NCT03952585|169258135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|20.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|403.31|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||403.31|1.05|
84569033|NCT02456727|168887655|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.0602|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0602|-0.081|0.00
84569034|NCT02456727|168887656|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0755|0.1063|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1063|-0.0755|0.03
84496479|NCT02329834|168744194|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval 80\<ratio of AUC\<125. The FDA guided Bioequivalence limit of 80 to 125% for the ratio of the product averages has been adopted for use of an average BE criterion.|% diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|104.75||||||||104.75|94.77|
84496480|NCT02329834|168744195|OTHER||% Diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.79|104.75||||||||104.75|94.79|
84569035|NCT02456727|168887657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5336||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9659|1.13|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.13|-0.9659|0.8778
84569036|NCT02456727|168887658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8667|1.5912|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.5912|-0.8667|0.5626
84569037|NCT02456727|168887659|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0419|0.1144|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1144|-0.0419|0.05
84569038|NCT02456727|168887660|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0466||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.156|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.156|-0.0266|0.22
84569039|NCT02456727|168887661|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.1335|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1335|-0.029|0.12
84608045|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.201|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.201|0.843|0.5030
84608046|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.218|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.218|0.840|0.5558
84608047|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.135|0.769|0.2709
84608048|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.208|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.208|0.795|0.4143
84608049|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.7886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.348|0.891|0.7886
84608050|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.353|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.353|0.885|0.7607
84569040|NCT02456727|168887662|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.1903|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1903|-0.0047|0.44
84569041|NCT02456727|168887663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5753||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6468|1.6129|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.6129|-0.6468|0.4014
84569042|NCT02456727|168887664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9334|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.9334|-0.61|0.307
84569043|NCT02456727|168887665|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0555|0.0873|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0873|-0.0555|0.01
84569044|NCT02456727|168887666|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.1117|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1117|-0.0544|0.05
84569045|NCT02456727|168887667|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0335|0.1112|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1112|-0.0335|0.05
84569046|NCT02456727|168887668|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.1463|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1463|-0.0247|0.18
84569047|NCT02456727|168887669|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1658|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1658
84608051|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|1.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.400|0.922|0.8677
84672279|NCT02614547|169080030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.871||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|3.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 30||3.93|-8.13|0.474
84569048|NCT02456727|168887670|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1172|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1172
84569049|NCT02456727|168887671|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0326
84569050|NCT02456727|168887672|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0026
84569051|NCT02456727|168887673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
84569052|NCT02456727|168887674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84569053|NCT02456727|168887675|SUPERIORITY|Difference in change in proportion pre and post-treatment differs by treatment arm.||||||0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0059
84569054|NCT02456727|168887676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
84608052|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.302|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.302|0.847|0.7012
84608053|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.230|0.805|0.5156
84608054|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.178|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.178|0.783|0.3524
84608055|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.292|0.845|0.6380
84751441|NCT03952585|169258135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|287.93|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||287.93|0.58|
84569055|NCT01418339|168887718|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.63|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-1.63||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-1.63|-7.62|=0.0028
84569056|NCT01418339|168887719|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.52|||=|0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.12|-0.93|=0.0124
84569057|NCT01418339|168887720|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||=|0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|4.32||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||4.32|-8.31|=0.5317
84608056|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.241|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.241|0.743|0.4003
84569058|NCT02974868|168887739|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|31.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.78|43.5||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.50|18.78|<.0001
84569059|NCT02974868|168887739|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|49.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.62|61.74||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||61.74|36.62|<.0001
84569060|NCT02974868|168887740|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|25.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.98|43.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.58|7.98|0.0094
84569061|NCT02974868|168887740|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.02|64.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||64.20|29.02|<.0001
84569062|NCT02974868|168887745|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.2|60.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||60.7|34.2|<.0001
84671482|NCT00811577|169077063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.96
84671483|NCT00811577|169077063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.22
84569063|NCT02974868|168887745|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.2|73.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||73.6|48.2|<.0001
84569064|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|0.914|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparison|||0.914|0.799|
84569065|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.721|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.721|0.635|
84569066|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|0.682|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.682|0.594|
84569067|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.747|0.864|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.864|0.747|
84569068|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.608|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.566|0.655|||ANOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.655|0.566|
84569069|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.518|0.599|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.599|0.518|
84569070|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.876|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.876|0.766|
84569071|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.68|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.680|0.595|
84569072|NCT02634073|168887791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.548|0.626|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.626|0.548|
84569073|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.08|||ANCOVA||C24 comparison|||1.08|0.916|
84569074|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.21|1.03|
84569075|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.18|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.18|1.000|
84569076|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.56|1.13|
84608057|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.16||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.502|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.502|0.907|0.8817
84608058|NCT01597635|168967441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.14||||0.8145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.505|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.505|0.804|0.8145
84608059|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.321|0.765|0.6468
84608060|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.136|0.658|0.1965
84569077|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.71|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.71|1.25|
84569078|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.63|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.63|1.18|
84569079|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.798|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.798|0.657|
84569080|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.434|0.527|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.527|0.434|
84569081|NCT02634073|168887792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|0.5|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.500|0.412|
84569082|NCT02634073|168887793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|1.11|
84569083|NCT02634073|168887793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.88|||ANCOVA|||||1.88|1.25|
84569084|NCT02634073|168887793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|1.04|
84569085|NCT02634073|168887794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.094|1.251|||ANCOVA|||||1.251|1.094|
84569086|NCT02634073|168887794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|1.576|||ANCOVA|||||1.576|1.386|
84751442|NCT03952585|169258136|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.46|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||9.46|0.34|
84569087|NCT02634073|168887794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.466|1.684|||ANCOVA|||||1.684|1.466|
84569088|NCT01255163|168887829|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold for significance (p \< 0.05)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84569089|NCT01255163|168887830|OTHER|||||||0.098||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 52.008) = 1.902, p = 0.098"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED MMSE.tot BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.098
84569090|NCT01255163|168887831|OTHER|||||||0.295||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects for Group\*VisitLong F (6, 52.281) = 1.254, p = 0.295"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED ADAS70 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.295
84569091|NCT01255163|168887832|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 47.485) = 1.704, p = 0.141|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.141
84569092|NCT01255163|168887833|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (6, 51.955) = 2.553, p = 0.031. Univarate Exendin-4 F(3, 51.386) = 2.734, p = 0.053. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.035).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR.sob BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.031
84569093|NCT01255163|168887834|OTHER|||||||0.703||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.251) = 0.360, p = 0.703.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED TAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.703
84569094|NCT01255163|168887835|OTHER|||||||0.845||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.828) = 0.170, p = 0.845.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED pTAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.845
84608061|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.129|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.129|0.694|0.1681
84569095|NCT01255163|168887836|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (2, 16.614) = 5.142, p = 0.018. Univariate tests: Placebo F(1, 16.595) = 4.138, p = 0.058; Exendin-4 F(1, 16.595) = 6.262, p = 0.022. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.022).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED Ab42 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.018
84569096|NCT01255163|168887837|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (8, 72.603) = 2.816, p = 0.009. Univarate Exendin-4 F(4, 72.944) = 4.834, p = 0.002. Pairwise comparisons for Exendin-4 showed a decrease in BMI baseline vs. 6 months (p = 0.029).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED BMI BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.009
84569097|NCT00490035|168887838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage Reduction over Placebo|6.5|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.9|||ANCOVA|||In order to control the Type I error testing was performed in sequence starting with 50 mg, then 100 mg and finally 20 mg Brivaracetam per day versus Placebo, only moving to the next test if the previous one was significant at the 5 % level.||16.9|-5.2|=0.261
84569098|NCT06058390|168887861|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.14|0.91|
84569099|NCT06058390|168887862|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.15|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.15|0.96|
84569100|NCT06058390|168887863|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.18|0.88|
84569101|NCT06058390|168887864|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.09|0.88|
84569102|NCT06058390|168887865|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.13|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.13|0.87|
84569103|NCT06058390|168887866|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.08|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.08|0.87|
84569104|NCT02495389|168887868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7741|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|29.57|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) score after 12 weeks of therapy.||29.57|18.35|<.0001
84569105|NCT02495389|168887869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.04|-39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Urinary Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-39.20|-64.04|<.0001
84569106|NCT02495389|168887870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-18.27|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-18.27|-40.33|<.0001
84569107|NCT02495389|168887871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.35|-19.65|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Colo-Rectal-Anal Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-19.65|-44.35|<.0001
84569108|NCT03585270|168887886|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.072||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.396|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.2785).|||0.396|-0.426|0.7338
84569109|NCT03585270|168887887|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.341||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8644).|||0.642|-0.213|0.177
84569110|NCT03585270|168887888|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
84671484|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.87
84751443|NCT03952585|169258136|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.45|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||8.45|0.24|
84496481|NCT00659945|168744201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary endpoint was the incidence of emesis at any time within the first 48 hours after surgery. Power analysis showed that a sample size of 69 patients per group was necessary to detect a significant decrease in the incidence of emesis from 33% in the placebo group to 15% in the aprepitant group using a Chi-square test with an alpha value of 0.05 and power of 80%.||||<0.05
84496482|NCT01976104|168744203|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|33.7|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|51.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||51.6|15.8|=0.0006
84569111|NCT03585270|168887889|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
84569112|NCT03585270|168887890|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.119||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.425|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1706).|||0.425|-0.349|0.5591
84569113|NCT03585270|168887891|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.267||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.505|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.4580)|||0.505|-0.085|0.1179
84569114|NCT03585270|168887892|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.139||||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1685)|||0.457|-0.365|0.5217
84569115|NCT05559905|168887893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.29||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.58|-1.16|0.578
84569116|NCT05559905|168887894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.69||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-0.79|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||-0.79|-6.17|0.201
84751444|NCT03952585|169258137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|46.41|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||46.41|0.67|
84569117|NCT05559905|168887900|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|2.42|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.42|-3.65|0.736
84569118|NCT05559905|168887901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.93||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.88|5.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||5.02|-8.88|0.646
84569119|NCT05559905|168887902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.14||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.04|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.04|-1.31|0.849
84569120|NCT05559905|168887903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.09||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.78|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.78|-5.97|0.371
84569121|NCT05559905|168887904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.82||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.11|1.47|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.47|-5.11|0.360
84569122|NCT05559905|168887905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.46||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.57|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.57|-1.50|0.459
84569123|NCT05559905|168887907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|24.5||||||||24.50|-18.28|
84569124|NCT05559905|168887908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|25.69||||||||25.69|-19.37|
84569125|NCT05559905|168887909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|19.91||||||||19.91|-25.07|
84569126|NCT05559905|168887910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-16.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|5.64||||||||5.64|-36.77|
84569127|NCT05559905|168887911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|19.37||||||||19.37|-25.69|
84608062|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.075|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.075|0.669|0.0877
84608063|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.159|0.715|0.2011
84751445|NCT03952585|169258137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|41.74|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||41.74|0.57|
84752826|NCT00778622|169260772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1431||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HDL-C was covariate.||||||0.1431
84569128|NCT05559905|168887912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.69||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.31|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.31|-1.68|0.253
84569129|NCT05559905|168887913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.1708||95.0|0.83|3.57|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.57|0.83|0.1708
84569130|NCT05559905|168887914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.93||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.61|2.75|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.75|-14.61|0.257
84569131|NCT05559905|168887915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.71|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.71|-1.88|0.453
84569132|NCT05559905|168887916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.51|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.51|0.44|0.9121
84569133|NCT05559905|168887917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.83||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|1.6|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.60|-5.25|0.377
84569134|NCT05559905|168887918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.13||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|4.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||4.02|-4.28|0.958
84569135|NCT05559905|168887919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.98|-2.21|0.520
84569136|NCT05559905|168887921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.07|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||5.07|0.99|0.0459
84608064|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.345|0.842|0.6855
84671485|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.15
84569137|NCT02756910|168887946|OTHER||percentile method|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bootstrapping|||||||<0.05
84569138|NCT01211145|168887947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.5||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.50|0.75|.312
84569139|NCT01211145|168887947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.26||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.26|0.95|.071
84569140|NCT01211145|168887947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.39||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||3.39|1.40|<.001
84569141|NCT01211145|168887948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.91|0.70|.575
84569142|NCT01211145|168887948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.31||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.31|1.06|.032
84569143|NCT01211145|168887948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.95||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||1.95|0.91|.137
84569144|NCT01211145|168887949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.96|0.74|.458
84569145|NCT01211145|168887949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.03||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.03|1.09|.021
84569146|NCT01211145|168887949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.32|1.12|.010
84569147|NCT01211145|168887950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.84||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.84|0.64|.753
84569148|NCT01211145|168887950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.79||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.79|0.86|.145
84569149|NCT01211145|168887950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.04||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.04|0.91|.127
84569150|NCT01211145|168887951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.32|0.79|.274
84608065|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.325|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.325|0.800|0.6093
84608066|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.253|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.253|0.765|0.4350
84569151|NCT01211145|168887951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.67||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.91|0.96|.067
84569152|NCT01211145|168887951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.08|0.91|.127
84569153|NCT01211145|168887952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.16|0.38|.153
84569154|NCT01211145|168887952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||1.08|0.33|.087
84569155|NCT01211145|168887952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||0.83|0.36|.004
84608067|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.195|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.195|0.722|0.2232
84672280|NCT01120210|169080034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.564|||ANCOVA|one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||0.564|-0.016|0.0595
84496483|NCT01976104|168744203|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|72.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||72.7|36.5|<0.0001
84569156|NCT00791999|168887953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, treatment comparisons versus placebo for the two CDP870 dose groups, the CDP870 200 mg group the CDP870 400 mg, were performed. The ACR20 responder rate in the CDP870 100 mg group was used for the secondary analysis.||||<0.025
84569157|NCT00791999|168887954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84569158|NCT00427908|168887962|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to be greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenA.|Difference in percentage|6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|16.04||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenA. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenA titer from pre to post vaccination.||16.04|1.15|
84569159|NCT00427908|168887962|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenC.|Difference in percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|24.32||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenC. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenC titer from pre to post vaccination.||24.32|4.79|
84569160|NCT00427908|168887962|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenW-135.|Difference in percentage|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|12.21||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenW-135. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenW-135 titer from pre to post vaccination.||12.21|1.51|
84608068|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.200|0.733|0.2716
84608069|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.190|0.726|0.2866
84608070|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.270|0.780|0.5033
84608071|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.12|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.120|0.684|0.1493
84608072|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.301|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.301|0.759|0.4947
84608073|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.89||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.161|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.161|0.678|0.1951
84751446|NCT03258554|169258158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12||One-sided significance level = 0.2|Log Rank||Reference arm = radiation therapy + cetuximab|Sixty-nine progression-free survival (PFS) events provides 0.80 power for a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.20 to detect an improvement in PFS corresponding to a median of 2.35 years (RT+Durvalumab) compared to 1.53 years (RT+Cetuximab). A hazard ratio (RT+Durvalumab/RT+Cetuximab) ≤ 0.806 would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (no difference between the arms) and the study would continue to phase III; otherwise, the study would not continue to phase III.||2.12|0.84|0.8878
84569161|NCT00427908|168887962|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrux minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenY.|Difference in percentage|16.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|26.78||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenY. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenY titer from pre to post vaccination.||26.78|8.99|
84569162|NCT00427908|168887965|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority (serogroup C only): one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Meningitec Group) in the percentage of subjects with rSBA titer ≥ 1:8 is greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limit of -15%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|7.89||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed Meningitec™ vaccine for MenC as measured by rSBA.||7.89|-0.27|
84569163|NCT00791219|168888076|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|6.47|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.77||||||||||-1.77|
84569164|NCT00791219|168888076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
84569165|NCT00791219|168888077|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|10.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.92|||||||To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||0.92|
84569166|NCT00791219|168888077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
84569167|NCT00791219|168888078|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|3.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.62||||||||||-10.62|
84569168|NCT00791219|168888078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
84569169|NCT00791219|168888081|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|-0.57|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|||||||If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||-12.91|
84751447|NCT03258554|169258159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28||One-side significance level = 0.025|Log Rank|||||2.28|0.74|0.8175
84751448|NCT03258554|169258160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.28||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||3.28|0.89|0.1001
84751449|NCT03258554|169258161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||1.77|0.32|0.5197
84751450|NCT03258554|169258162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.38||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||5.38|0.57|0.3201
84751451|NCT03258554|169258163|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84751452|NCT03258554|169258164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0688
84751453|NCT03258554|169258167|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS ≥ 1||1.97|0.62|
84751454|NCT03258554|169258167|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS = 0||4.06|0.66|
84751455|NCT03258554|169258167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 1, CPS = 0)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.41
84751456|NCT03258554|169258168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.51|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-positive||2.51|0.57|
84569170|NCT00791219|168888082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||It the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated.|A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
84569171|NCT00791219|168888082|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0853|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
84569172|NCT05630196|168888114|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.00|-0.22|
84569173|NCT05630196|168888115|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.77|-0.44|
84569174|NCT05630196|168888116|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.23|
84569175|NCT05630196|168888117|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.18|-0.13|
84569176|NCT05630196|168888118|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||11.87|-3.51|
84569177|NCT05630196|168888119|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.74|
84569178|NCT05630196|168888120|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.85|136.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||136.77|-159.85|
84569179|NCT05630196|168888121|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
84569180|NCT03438266|168888122|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper limit of the confidence interval at Month 1 was less than 0.5, then treatment with cannula was considered non-inferior to treatment with needle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||||The 95% CI is based on the paired t-test.|Change from Baseline at Month 1||0.25|-0.05|
84569181|NCT03438266|168888123|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|3.98||||||||3.98|-7.31|
84569182|NCT00641056|168888181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: 205 patients per treatment group would provide approximately 92% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects. Superiority of exenatide once weekly to insulin glargine is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[exenatide once weekly-insulin glargine\]\<0; noninferiority is concluded if this upper limit\<0.3%.||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
84569183|NCT00641056|168888182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.097
84671486|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.77
84751457|NCT03258554|169258168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.89|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-negative||2.89|0.83|
84751458|NCT03258554|169258168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and p16 status (positive, negative)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.61
84751459|NCT02260882|169258191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
84751460|NCT02260882|169258191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
84751461|NCT02260882|169258191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
84569184|NCT00641056|168888183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.002
84569185|NCT00641056|168888184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in FSG as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.00|0.25|0.001
84569186|NCT00641056|168888185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.52||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in BW as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||-3.52|-4.57|<.001
84569187|NCT00641056|168888186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in total cholesterol as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline total cholesterol, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.06|-0.21|0.292
84569188|NCT00641056|168888187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in HDL as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.05|0.377
84569189|NCT00641056|168888188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by MMRM ANCOVA with change in triglycerides as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline triglycerides, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.15|0.99|0.077
84569190|NCT01774981|168888212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0449
84569191|NCT01774981|168888212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0808|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0808
84608074|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.8||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.050|0.612|0.0512
84569192|NCT01774981|168888212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2219
84569193|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.:~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||2.36|1.0|0.048
84569194|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for OS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported. The study was designed to enroll 46 evaluable participants to detect a log hazard ratio of 1.279 for TBmax with HV as a covariate with a 50% event rate||1.81|.75|0.50
84569195|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|0.97|0.97|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.03|0.97|0.90
84569196|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.34|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.34|1.02|0.024
84569197|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.72|1.01|0.045
84569198|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.37|0.90|0.31
84608075|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.279|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.279|0.775|0.4700
84608076|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.368|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.368|0.811|0.6340
84608077|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.183|0.689|0.2129
84569199|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.29|0.88|0.51
84569200|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the lower ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.26|0.79|0.9700
84569201|NCT00902577|168888216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the higher ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.09|0.91|0.9007
84569202|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for Progression Free Survival time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.91|.80|0.33
84569203|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.4|.61|0.72
84569204|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.04|.98|0.355
84569205|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.23|0.99|0.074
84569206|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.63|1.04|0.021
84569207|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time.~The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.54|1.06|0.0096
84569208|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.38|1.01|0.038
84569209|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression for SUVpeak to predict PFS6||1.463|0.318|0.3253
84569210|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.434|||Regression, Logistic|||TBmax was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6.||2.434|0.403|0.9836
84569211|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.017|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a logistic regression model for 6month progression free survival (PFS6) .||1.017|0.900|0.1566
84752827|NCT00778622|169260772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4066||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4066
84569212|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||"Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.273|0.775|0.9554
84569213|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||"Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6"||1.402|0.602|0.6941
84569214|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.744||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV).~nRCBV was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.095|0.506|0.1340
84608078|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.411|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.411|0.798|0.6418
84671487|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.75
84751462|NCT02119325|169258201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.64||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.03||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial glucose peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with glucose as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||-0.03|-9.26|0.0487
84569215|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.161|0.580|0.2642
84569216|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.855||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) low values were modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6||1.357|0.539|0.5069
84569217|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) high values were modeled with a univariate Logistic regression model for PFS6||1.064|0.735|0.1921
84569218|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79||||||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.79|0.42|
84569219|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.78||||||"T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.78|0.39|
84569220|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.46|
84569221|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83||||||"mean ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of mean ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.42|
84569222|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.84||||||"Median ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of Median ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.84|0.44|
84752828|NCT00778622|169260772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4071||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
84752829|NCT00778622|169260773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TG was covariate.||||||0.0210
84569223|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||||||nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.54|
84672281|NCT01120210|169080034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.595||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||0.595|0.064|0.0215
84569224|NCT00902577|168888217|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||nCBF provides a measure of vascular permeability and perfusion. Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.55|
84569225|NCT01663402|168888262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world).||0.93|0.78|0.0003
84569226|NCT01663402|168888263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region(North America,South America,Western Europe,Eastern Europe,Asia, Rest of the world).A hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall type-I error at 0.0249 one-sided alpha level(0.0498 two-sided).Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported.Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.95|0.81|0.0013
84569227|NCT01663402|168888264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.96||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.96|0.80|0.0060
84752830|NCT00778622|169260773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2507||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2507
84569228|NCT01663402|168888265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.94|0.81|0.0003
84569229|NCT01663402|168888266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.93|0.79|0.0003
84569230|NCT01663402|168888267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.11|0.76|0.3824
84569231|NCT00678418|168888277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis = the distribution function of opioid-free weeks is the same for both treatment groups.||||0.0002
84569232|NCT00678418|168888278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||A total of 114 subjects continued on-study beyond the 168-day endpoint for Part A; these subjects were censored as of the first dosing day in Part B.|Kaplan Meier|||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test for the null hypothesis: the distribution of days to discontinuation does not differ by treatment.||||0.0042
84569233|NCT00678418|168888279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"P-value was calculated using the Chi-square test for the null hypothesis: mean treatment difference = 0.~Calculations were based on the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model (normal distribution, identity link and AR(1) correlation structure) for repeated data on change from baseline with treatment and visit as main effects, and baseline as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method."||||<0.0001
84569234|NCT00678418|168888280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0154||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square test was used to calculate the p-value for treatment. Null hypothesis = no association between relapse to dependence and study treatment.~Subjects who discontinued prematurely from the study were imputed as having a positive naloxone challenge test result."||0.95|0.60|0.0154
84569235|NCT00678418|168888281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis: Treatment difference=0. Missing data from subjects due to early discontinuation during Part A were imputed using the baseline rate; thus data for subjects who discontinued early were imputed as having no change from baseline.||||0.0031
84569236|NCT03575702|168888282|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is considered as change in mean daily urination episodes of 0,8 episodes per day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.5595|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.38|||ANCOVA|The number of urination episodes at the initiation of therapy is used as covariate, and the therapy group is used as a factor.||"The null hypothesis is that effect of Urotol according to the assessment of mean daily urination episodes exceeds effect of Uritos.~A sample containing of 222 patients (111 per study group) is considered sufficient to prove the alternative hypothesis at the significance level 0.025% and study power 80%. Given the expected drop out rate during the treatment period, the total number of patients to be randomized is 300 (150 in each group)."||0.38||=0.5595
84569237|NCT03575702|168888283|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0008
84569238|NCT03575702|168888284|OTHER||||||=|0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0099
84496484|NCT01976104|168744204|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|73.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||73.5|46.8|<0.0001
84569239|NCT03575702|168888285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84569240|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||<0.0001
84569241|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.0236
84569242|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
84569243|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0018
84569244|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||=|0.3835|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.3835
84569245|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||=|0.0088|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||=0.0088
84569246|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0004
84569247|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||<0.0001
84569248|NCT03575702|168888286|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
84569249|NCT03575702|168888287|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84569250|NCT03575702|168888288|OTHER||||||=|0.1348|||||||ANCOVA|Week 2 changes||||||=0.1348
84569251|NCT03575702|168888288|OTHER||||||=|0.3199|||||||ANCOVA|Week 4 changes||||||=0.3199
84569252|NCT03575702|168888288|OTHER||||||=|0.9537|||||||ANCOVA|Week 8 changes||||||=0.9537
84569253|NCT03575702|168888289|OTHER||||||=|0.5321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.5321
84569254|NCT03575702|168888290|OTHER||||||=|0.4839|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.4839
84569255|NCT03575702|168888291|OTHER||||||=|0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.86
84751463|NCT02119325|169258202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-6.79||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|20.44||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial triglyceride peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with triglyceride as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||20.44|-34.02|0.6116
84751464|NCT01063829|169258221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84751465|NCT01063829|169258221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84569256|NCT03903172|168888297|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 0||||=0.25
84569257|NCT03903172|168888297|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||=.93
84569258|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used acetominophen||||=1.0
84569259|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used ibuprofen||||=1.0
84569260|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Cyclobenzaprine||||=1.0
84569261|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Methocarbamol||||=.11
84569262|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Hydroxyzine||||=.49
84569263|NCT03903172|168888298|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used an 'Other' non-pharmacologic medication||||=1.0
84569264|NCT03903172|168888299|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any narcotic medication used||||=1.0
84569265|NCT01545388|168888300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.678|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.489|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.489|-0.868|<0.001
84569266|NCT01545388|168888300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.337|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.337|-0.713|<0.001
84569267|NCT01545388|168888300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin (Δ) is set as 0.3% to show the non-inferiority of metformin 500 mg q.d. to metformin 250 mg b.i.d.|Difference in least squares means|0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.306||||||||0.306|0.000|
84569268|NCT01545388|168888301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-11.24|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-11.24|-25.94|<0.001
84569269|NCT01545388|168888301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-16.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.06|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-9.06|-23.62|<0.001
84569270|NCT01545388|168888301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|8.14||||||||8.14|-3.63|
84569271|NCT01076543|168888514|OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose in mg|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||"The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the traditional 3+3 design and was the maximum dose level such that less than 33% of the patients (i.e, \<1 of 3 or \<2 of 6) experience dose-limiting toxicity."|||||
84569272|NCT01076543|168888516|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||>0.10
84751466|NCT01063829|169258221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
84569273|NCT01076543|168888516|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 50% vs. 70% alternative.|The follicular subgroup did not reach its accrual goal and was closed.|||
84569274|NCT01076543|168888516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test.|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||<0.10
84569275|NCT01791985|168888556|OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Proportion of change in tumour size at 12 weeks (or progression if prior to week 12), when used in combination with either anastrozole or letrozole in ER positive breast cancer patients who have progressed on treatment with either anastrozole or letrozole in any setting||||
84569276|NCT04195061|168888561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.303
84569277|NCT04195061|168888562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84569278|NCT04195061|168888563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84569279|NCT01091246|168888647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16|||Bootstrapping|||A/H1N1: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H1N1 strain||1.16|0.98|
84751467|NCT01063829|169258222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84751468|NCT01063829|169258222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.126
84751469|NCT01063829|169258222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.148
84751470|NCT01063829|169258223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84751471|NCT01063829|169258223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84751472|NCT01063829|169258223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
84751473|NCT01372410|169258317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Day 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
84751474|NCT01372410|169258317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Pooled Day 7 and 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
84751475|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.058|<0.001
84751476|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.045|<0.001
84751477|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.179|0.068|<0.001
84751478|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|0.127|<0.001
84751479|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|0.069|<0.001
84751480|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.083|<0.001
84569280|NCT01091246|168888647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Bootstrapping|||A/H3N2: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H3N2 strain||1.14|0.94|
84569281|NCT01091246|168888647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37||||||B/Yamagata: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Yamagata strain||1.37|1.07|
84569282|NCT01091246|168888647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||||||B/Victoria: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Victoria strain||1.18|0.93|
84569283|NCT00596271|168888684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. IC51+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for anti- JEV neutralizing antibody at day 56. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis||||<0.0001
84569284|NCT00596271|168888688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. HAVRIX+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for HAV antibody at day 28. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis.||||<0.0001
84569285|NCT04794751|168888703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.002|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Distance (4m)||0.002|-0.039|
84751481|NCT01372410|169258318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.157|0.045|<0.001
84751482|NCT04884763|169258416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.35||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.35|-0.76|0.567
84751483|NCT04884763|169258417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.21||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.21|-0.91|0.778
84496485|NCT01976104|168744204|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.8|71.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||71.6|35.8|<0.0001
84752831|NCT00778622|169260773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6546||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6546
84752832|NCT02558231|169260814|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|0.96||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.86|0.4239
84751484|NCT04884763|169258418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.96||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.96|-0.20|0.105
84751485|NCT04884763|169258419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.7||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||42.7|-7.6|0.163
84751486|NCT04884763|169258420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.01|-1.13|0.910
84569286|NCT04794751|168888703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.018|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Intermediate (64cm)||0.018|-0.032|
84569287|NCT04794751|168888703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.015|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Near (40cm)||0.015|-0.034|
84569288|NCT04794751|168888704|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the least-square mean difference was greater than -5.|least-square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||4.8|-4.6|
84569289|NCT03311945|168888724|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This was a single-arm study without a comparator group; therefore, no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The primary endpoint-therapeutic failure at 48 weeks-was analyzed descriptively. The proportion of participants experiencing therapeutic failure was calculated for both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) populations. Exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the failure rates.|||
84569290|NCT02997163|168888801|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|157.26||||||||157.26|80.06|
84569291|NCT02997163|168888801|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.03|198.42||||||||198.42|103.03|
84569292|NCT02997163|168888801|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|263.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.88|369.06||||||||369.06|187.88|
84569293|NCT02997163|168888802|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.4|166.01||||||||166.01|74.40|
84569294|NCT02997163|168888802|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|194.25||||||||194.25|89.12|
84569295|NCT02997163|168888802|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|189.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.74|282.8||||||||282.80|126.74|
84569296|NCT02997163|168888803|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.85|167.7||||||||167.70|83.85|
84569297|NCT02997163|168888803|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|139.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|195.06||||||||195.06|99.53|
84569298|NCT02997163|168888803|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|286.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.66|405.33||||||||405.33|202.66|
84569299|NCT02997163|168888804|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.74|172.99||||||||172.99|79.74|
84569300|NCT02997163|168888804|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|128.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.05|186.72||||||||186.72|88.05|
84569301|NCT02997163|168888804|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|206.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.91|303.51||||||||303.51|139.91|
84751487|NCT04884763|169258421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.80|-0.83|0.972
84752833|NCT02558231|169260815|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.43||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.393|16.538|||ANCOVA|||||16.538|-19.393|0.8758
84569302|NCT00922636|168888832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.008||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Change is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.008
84608079|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.315|0.754|0.4797
84751488|NCT04884763|169258422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.43|0.18|0.037
84608080|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.199|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.199|0.703|0.2659
84751489|NCT04884763|169258423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||3.43|-3.95|0.885
84751490|NCT04884763|169258424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.81|-0.87|0.474
84496486|NCT01976104|168744205|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|32.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from Baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% CI was the asymptotic (Moses) CI|||32.0|19.5|<0.0001
84671488|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.050
84569303|NCT00922636|168888832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.04||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Value is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.006
84569304|NCT00922636|168888835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.938||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.938
84751491|NCT04884763|169258425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.56||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.56|-1.94|0.822
84569305|NCT00922636|168888835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.002
84569306|NCT03268343|168888910|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|74.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.39|84.08|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||84.08|66.39|
84671489|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.83
84608081|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.159|0.687|0.2102
84608082|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.240|0.740|0.3623
84752834|NCT02558231|169260816|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.03||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.371|||ANCOVA|||||1.371|0.770|0.8529
84569307|NCT03268343|168888911|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.98|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.98|94.20|
84569308|NCT03268343|168888912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||Hodges-Lehmann method|||2.25|0.50|< 0.0001
84569309|NCT03268343|168888913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|96.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|99.85|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.85|93.30|
84569310|NCT03268343|168888917|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|104.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.97|110.87|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||110.87|98.97|
84569311|NCT00496769|168888924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.32|<0.00001
84569312|NCT00496769|168888925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||0.83|0.53|0.00026
84569313|NCT00496769|168888926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.06782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||Log Rank||All-cause death|||1.02|0.62|0.06782
84569314|NCT00496769|168888926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Log Rank||Composite endpoint of major vascular events and major bleeding-net clinical benefit|||0.90|0.60|0.00280
84569315|NCT00496769|168888926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.36586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||1.17|0.65|0.36586
84569316|NCT00496769|168888927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.45|||Log Rank||Major bleeding|||2.45|0.96|0.0716
84569317|NCT00496769|168888927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank||All bleeding|||1.53|1.10|0.0017
84569318|NCT00496769|168888927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||Log Rank||Major or CNRM bleeding|||1.78|1.07|0.0144
84569319|NCT00496769|168888928|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|1.10|0.0017
84569320|NCT03028142|168888933|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.05||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0022
84569321|NCT03028142|168888933|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.05|<0.0001
84569322|NCT03028142|168888934|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.0988
84569323|NCT03028142|168888934|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0009
84569324|NCT03028142|168888935|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.02||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.98|0.2496
84569325|NCT03028142|168888935|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|1.02|0.0039
84569326|NCT03028142|168888936|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.1404
84569327|NCT03028142|168888936|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.04||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|1.01|0.0228
84569328|NCT02308046|168888937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.002
84569329|NCT02308046|168888938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84569330|NCT02308046|168888939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 7-14 days||||<0.001
84569331|NCT02308046|168888939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 21-30 days||||<0.001
84569332|NCT02308046|168888940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.088
84569333|NCT01181167|168888971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Difference in incidence of thromboembolic events between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.~Incidence of thromboembolic events and 95% CI also calculated by treatment group.~Only when null hypothesis H01 was rejected, upper limit of 95% CI for difference between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups was confirmed. When upper limit of 95% CI was below 0%, DU-176b was considered to be superior to enoxaparin in terms of the prevention of VTE."|Cox Proportional Hazard|-4.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Farrington Manning Method|ANCOVA|||Hypothesis testing of proportion of subjects who experienced at least one thromboembolic events, defined as primary endpoint, carried out using Farrington-Manning method. Null hypothesis H˅01: Incidence of thromboembolic events in DU-176b group (P˅DU) = Incidence of thromboembolic events in enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (8%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (significance level: One-sided, 0.025)||||<0.001
84569334|NCT02812186|168888973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84569335|NCT02812186|168888974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84569336|NCT02812186|168888975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84569337|NCT01573000|168888976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|65.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||65|35|
84569338|NCT01573000|168888976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|36.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||36|9|
84569339|NCT01573000|168888977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) before Crossover.|||32|0|
84569340|NCT01573000|168888977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|97.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) after Crossover.|||97|61|
84569341|NCT01573000|168888978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|39.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||39|13|
84569342|NCT01573000|168888978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||17|0|
84569343|NCT01573000|168888979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84751492|NCT04884763|169258426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.91||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.91|-0.88|0.455
84751493|NCT04884763|169258427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|27.0||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||27.0|-12.8|0.467
84751494|NCT04884763|169258428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.07||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.07|-0.79|0.755
84751495|NCT04884763|169258429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.71||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.71|-1.18|0.613
84751496|NCT04884763|169258430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.22||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||4.22|0.94|0.003
84751497|NCT04884763|169258431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.08||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.08|-2.70|0.536
84751498|NCT01387230|169258432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.202|0.052|<0.001
84751499|NCT01387230|169258432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.229|0.076|<0.001
84751500|NCT02340091|169258454|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
84751501|NCT02708095|169258483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|0.73|0.392
84751502|NCT02708095|169258483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.29|1.02|0.041
84751503|NCT02708095|169258484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.71|0.440
84751504|NCT02708095|169258484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.15|0.015
84751505|NCT02708095|169258485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.23|0.600
84751506|NCT02708095|169258485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.58||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-1.55|0.243
84751507|NCT02708095|169258486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.16||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.45|0.285
84751508|NCT02708095|169258486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.62|0.026
84752835|NCT02558231|169260818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.834|1.386|||ANCOVA|||||1.386|-2.834|0.4998
84752836|NCT02558231|169260819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.830|-1.003|0.8528
84569344|NCT01573000|168888980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response before Crossover.|||0|0|
84569345|NCT01573000|168888980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|64.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response after Crossover.|||64|20|
84751509|NCT03829319|169258509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.05|0.74|0.07976
84751510|NCT03829319|169258510|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.70818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.26|0.88|0.70818
84569346|NCT01573000|168888981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||7|0|
84569347|NCT01573000|168888981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||8|0|
84569348|NCT01573000|168888982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
84569349|NCT01573000|168888982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR after Crossover.|||15|0|
84569350|NCT01573000|168888983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|45.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||45|17|
84569351|NCT01573000|168888983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
84569352|NCT01573000|168888984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
84751511|NCT03829319|169258511|OTHER||Percent Difference|6.3||||0.08643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|15.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50% ).||15.4|-2.8|0.08643
84751512|NCT03829319|169258515|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.01||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||1.80|-3.83|0.4805
84751513|NCT03829319|169258516|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||3.36|-3.95|0.8747
84751514|NCT03829319|169258517|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.91||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.43|-4.24|0.5941
84569353|NCT01573000|168888984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR after Crossover.|||70|25|
84569354|NCT01573000|168888985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|28.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||28|5|
84752837|NCT02558231|169260820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.368|74.178|||ANCOVA|||||74.178|-69.368|0.9474
84496487|NCT01976104|168744205|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|45.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs. placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||45.5|25.5|<0.0001
84569355|NCT01573000|168888985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
84569356|NCT01573000|168888986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84569357|NCT01573000|168888988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.495
84569358|NCT01573000|168888989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.677
84752838|NCT02558231|169260821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.328|||ANCOVA|||||0.328|-0.066|0.1902
84752839|NCT02558231|169260822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|0.327|||ANCOVA|||||0.327|-2.737|0.1227
84752840|NCT02558231|169260823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.32|0.0867
84752841|NCT03933397|169260827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.909
84751515|NCT03829319|169258518|OTHER||covariate|-2.16||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.03|-6.36|0.3115
84569359|NCT01573000|168888992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.119
84569360|NCT01573000|168888993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
84751516|NCT03829319|169258519|OTHER||covariate|-0.37||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.72|-3.47|0.8134
84569361|NCT01573000|168889006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR before Crossover.|||32|0|
84569362|NCT01573000|168889006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR after Crossover.|||52|11|
84569363|NCT00729521|168889024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effects Poisson Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.95|0.88|<0.05
84751517|NCT03829319|169258520|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.47|0.92|0.2133
84751518|NCT03829319|169258521|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.94|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.94|1.02|0.0377
84569364|NCT00729521|168889024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effected Poisson Model Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.94|0.88|<.05
84569365|NCT01507181|168889041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84569366|NCT01507181|168889042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84569367|NCT01507181|168889043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Statistics are calculated by comparing 24-h scores using separate ANCOVAs and controlling for baseline severity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84569368|NCT01130272|168889055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.457||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.077|||ANCOVA|||||6.077|0.994|0.052
84569369|NCT01130272|168889055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.383||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|5.478|||ANCOVA|||||5.478|1.036|0.041
84569370|NCT01130272|168889055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.842|||ANCOVA|||||4.842|0.893|0.090
84569371|NCT01130272|168889055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.797||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|6.376|||ANCOVA|||||6.376|1.227|0.015
84608083|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.225|0.730|0.3499
84569372|NCT01130272|168889056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.689|||ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.306|0.449
84569373|NCT01130272|168889056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.373|||ANCOVA|||||2.373|0.615|0.583
84569374|NCT01130272|168889056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.014||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|3.795|||ANCOVA|||||3.795|1.069|0.030
84569375|NCT01130272|168889056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.395||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.716|||ANCOVA|||||2.716|0.717|0.326
84569376|NCT03845894|168889081|NON_INFERIORITY|There have been no studies to evaluate pain scores ISB w/ plain bupi+adjuvants. Power to detect difference at least 0.4 on the VAS scale. Threshold for inferiority is difference \>=2 points on the VAS scale. Will use two-sample t test with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1. Postop opioid consumption, total post-op opioid @ 1st 48 hours in oxycodone equivalents. Mean opioid consumption per cohort is calculated, \& the cohorts compared for statistical difference with two-sample t test, with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84569377|NCT01248455|168889084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No patients obtained a 50% reduction in M-protein concentration and the study did not continue to the second stage of enrollment due to the lack of efficacy as defined by out criteria. This statistical analysis includes all participants (i.e., stable disease (SD), minimal response (MR), biochemical progression (BP), and progressive disease (PD)).||||0.56
84569378|NCT01324102|168889092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .004 value exceeds this value. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row and category of anxiety.|ANOVA|F=10.25||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing anxiety scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups for changes in anxiety.||||.004
84569379|NCT01324102|168889092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||F=4.07. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .056 value does not exceed it. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row/category of insomnia.|ANOVA|||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing insomnia scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups. This measures changes in insomnia.||||.056
84608084|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.377|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.377|0.787|0.6494
84751519|NCT03829319|169258522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.21|0.62|0.4084
84751520|NCT03829319|169258523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.36|0.79|0.7955
84569380|NCT03238417|168889093|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance comparing change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 12 month.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-3.3|0.623
84569381|NCT03238417|168889094|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-value is from the interaction term of EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||1.8|-2.8|0.678
84569382|NCT03238417|168889095|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 12-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 12-month||0.35|-0.17|0.364
84569383|NCT03238417|168889096|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||P-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 24-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 24-month||0.10|-0.33|0.29
84569384|NCT03238417|168889097|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.13||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Difference-in-Differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.13|-1.52|0.10
84569385|NCT03238417|168889098|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.29||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.29|-1.25|0.22
84496488|NCT02181673|168744222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.8|60.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.90|45.80|<0.001
84569386|NCT03238417|168889099|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences in outcome between EBQI and control groups over 12 month period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||5.4|-7.1|0.788
84569387|NCT03238417|168889100|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for differences in outcomes between EBQI and control arms from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.35||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and control arms.|ANOVA|||||4.35|-7.35|0.61
84569388|NCT03238417|168889101|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|21.11||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||21.11|-21.45|0.987
84569389|NCT03238417|168889102|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|17.08||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||17.08|-24.89|0.708
84569390|NCT03238417|168889103|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|13.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||13.40|-22.43|0.613
84751521|NCT03829319|169258525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.28|0.84|0.7191
84751522|NCT04498832|169258526|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was greater than (\>) 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H1N1||3.20|2.46|
84751523|NCT04498832|169258526|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H3N2-like||2.50|2.03|
84569391|NCT03238417|168889104|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|20.13||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||20.13|-18.26|0.922
84751524|NCT04498832|169258526|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|2.81|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Victoria-like||2.81|2.31|
84569392|NCT03238417|168889105|NON_INFERIORITY|two-way ANOVA testing change in a composite score of gender-neutral preventive care between EBQI and control arms over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.89||The p-value represents the interaction term between EBQI and control.|ANOVA|||||4.89|-3.74|0.789
84569393|NCT03238417|168889106|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcomes over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.33||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|The analysis is adjusted for EBQI and time.||||3.33|-6.60|0.51
84569394|NCT03238417|168889107|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA testing for change in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.9||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||19.9|-13.7|0.711
84608085|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.358|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.358|0.766|0.5567
84569395|NCT03238417|168889108|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|26.1||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||26.1|-9.1|0.335
84569396|NCT03238417|168889109|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control groups from baseline to 12 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|11.1||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||11.1|-38.7|0.268
84569397|NCT03238417|168889110|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences between EBQI and control from baseline and 24 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.6||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.3||P-value is from the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||25.3|-25.6|0.991
84569398|NCT01249131|168889116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|107.0|||||LS mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||107|83.9|
84569399|NCT01249131|168889116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|124.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124|98.2|
84569400|NCT01249131|168889117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|111.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||111|84.2|
84569401|NCT01249131|168889117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|123.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||123|93.8|
84569402|NCT00433836|168889121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority delta of 3.5 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.17|||ANOVA|||||1.17|-3.80|
84569403|NCT00113607|168889137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.65|0.0190
84569404|NCT00113607|168889138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.86||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.72|0.0835
84569405|NCT00113607|168889139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.367|||Fisher Exact|||||2.367|1.144|0.0080
84569406|NCT00113607|168889140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.62|0.8203
84569407|NCT03924323|168889162|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.42||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.15|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.15|-2.69|0.0281
84569408|NCT03924323|168889163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|2.258|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.258|0.695|0.4521
84608086|NCT01597635|168967442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.073|0.615|0.1095
84608087|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.644|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.644|0.721|0.6098
84569409|NCT03924323|168889164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.387|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.387|0.560|0.6928
84569410|NCT03863353|168889189|SUPERIORITY||Rebression coefficient|2.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.4||Adjusted for repeated measures and effects of covariates|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis was tested using multivariable regression models (generalized estimating equation)||3.40|0.86|.001
84569411|NCT03863353|168889190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||adjusted for covariates|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model examined the effect of the intervention on the outcome (collapsed intentions/behaviors)||1.90|0.72|0.534
84569412|NCT00323063|168889300|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
84569413|NCT02240667|168889328|OTHER|||||||0.8496|||||||stratified log-rank test|||Persistence in both treatment groups was compared by means of the stratified Log-rank test||||0.8496
84569414|NCT01578772|168889331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||0.1|-0.1|<0.05
84569415|NCT01578772|168889332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||1.9|-1.3|<0.05
84569416|NCT04613518|168889333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|43.4||||||||43.4|-35.7|
84569417|NCT03217591|168889339|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-16.0|||=|0.2142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 20 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated confidence intervals (CIs) were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||5.8|-33.3|=0.2142
84569418|NCT03217591|168889339|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-14.6|||=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.7|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 40 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||8.3|-32.7|=0.2718
84569419|NCT03217591|168889339|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-15.3|||=|0.1736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat overall. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||3.6|-30.7|=0.1736
84569420|NCT04577794|168889340|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with a multiple imputation method to handle missing values, with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as covariate.||1.7|-1.7|0.981
84608088|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.35||||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|2.068|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||2.068|0.931|0.9441
84608089|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.621|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.621|0.749|0.7173
84671490|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.37
84608090|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.949|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.949|0.810|0.8292
84608091|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.832|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.832|0.775|0.8008
84608092|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.2||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.799|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.799|0.776|0.7905
84671491|NCT00811577|169077064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.43
84671492|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.16
84671493|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.14
84671494|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.69
84671495|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.89
84671496|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.30
84751525|NCT04498832|169258526|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|3.42|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Yamagata||3.42|2.85|
84751526|NCT04498832|169258527|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|33.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H1N1||33.5|25.7|
84751527|NCT04498832|169258527|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|32.0|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H3N2-like||32.0|24.0|
84496489|NCT00326625|168744233|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||ANCOVA||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis compares the ALSFRS-R slopes of change from baseline between treatment groups. Analysis includes the following covariates: time from randomization, treatment group, time by treatment interaction, center, Riluzole use, age, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset and baseline ALSFRS-R score.||0.10|-0.22|0.4807
84496490|NCT00326625|168744234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.005|||Regression, Cox||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis covariates are center, riluzole use, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline slow vital capacity (VC) and baseline body mass index (BMI).||2.005|0.560|0.8583
84496491|NCT04764669|168744239|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: DLB without amyloid copathology versus DLB with amyloid copathology|Least squares mean difference|-20.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.635|37.591||||||||37.591|-77.635|
84496492|NCT04764669|168744239|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: PDD without amyloid copathology versus PDD with amyloid copathology.|Least squares mean difference|-175.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.407|-63.893||||||||-63.893|-287.407|
84569421|NCT02849080|168889360|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Pattern mixture model||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||6.70|2.89|<0.0001
84569422|NCT02849080|168889360|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Logistic||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on multiple imputation, imputing sequentially using post-baseline measurements up to and including week 52. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||8.68|3.54|<0.0001
84569423|NCT02849080|168889361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.2|-2.6|<0.0001
84608093|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.958|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.958|0.737|0.7566
84608094|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|2.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||2.050|0.812|0.8349
84751528|NCT04498832|169258527|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|35.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Victoria-like||35.2|27.4|
84751529|NCT04498832|169258527|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|39.3|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Yamagata||39.3|31.4|
84496493|NCT01783860|168744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
84496494|NCT01783860|168744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84496495|NCT01783860|168744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
84496496|NCT01783860|168744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||> 0.05
84496497|NCT01783860|168744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84496498|NCT01783860|168744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
84751530|NCT00607022|169258558|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis values between each loading group and for Wilcoxon Signed Rank for measures on the mesial vs buccal side of the implant.|||||>|0.05||||||0.0501 \< p \< 0.9797|Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated ISQ at each time point..||Comparison between loading groups at 16 weeks - loading at baseline, Loading at 6 weeks, and loading at 12 weeks. Scores for all groups were compared at 16 weeks from implant placement..||||>0.05
84496499|NCT03992261|168744254|OTHER|"Mean, median, SD, minimum/maximum determined for total amount of test article used by each subject in Safety, Evaluable, and PK populations HPA Axis Suppression: Proportion of subjects manifesting laboratory evidence of adrenal suppression at EOS were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Evaluable and Safety populations. Descriptive statistics for daily dose of test article were tabulated separately for suppressed and non-suppressed subjects.~PK: Screening, Day 8, Day 15"||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome measure: extent of exposure, HPA axis suppression, and pharmacokinetic analysis.||||0.05
84496500|NCT00258310|168744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||||.90|.59|
84496501|NCT00256217|168744259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|1.8|0.004
84569424|NCT02849080|168889361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 52. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.5|-2.9|<0.0001
84569425|NCT02849080|168889378|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.39||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.39|0.09|<0.0001
84569426|NCT02849080|168889379|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.91|0.37|0.0175
84751531|NCT03049735|169258567|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|54.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|64.78||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix + E2/NETA minus placebo.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix + E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||64.78|44.3|<0.0001
84751532|NCT03049735|169258568|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|46.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.31|56.35||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||56.35|37.31|<0.0001
84569427|NCT02849080|168889398|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.4381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.50|0.39|0.4381
84569428|NCT02849080|168889399|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.09||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.09|0.20|0.0790
84569429|NCT01121263|168889447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.8||95.0|0.666|1.697|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|The Cox model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.697|0.666|0.80
84569430|NCT01121263|168889448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.53||95.0|0.556|1.355|||Regression, Cox||The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by the propensity score to account for the difference in baseline risk between groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.355|0.556|0.53
84569431|NCT00288912|168889482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-1.0|0.007
84496502|NCT00256217|168744260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.49|0.10|0.016
84569432|NCT00288912|168889482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.1|-0.8|0.105
84569433|NCT00288912|168889483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.0|-0.5|0.093
84569434|NCT00288912|168889483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-0.2|0.43
84569435|NCT00288912|168889484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.78
84569436|NCT00288912|168889484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.79
84569437|NCT00288912|168889485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.8|0.0|0.043
84569438|NCT00288912|168889485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.7|0.0|0.066
84569439|NCT00526474|168889576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.82|0.001
84569440|NCT00526474|168889577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.80|<0.001
84671497|NCT00811577|169077065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.46
84569441|NCT00526474|168889578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.74|1.31|<0.001
84569442|NCT00526474|168889579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.51|1.31|<0.001
84569443|NCT00526474|168889580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.85|0.009
84569444|NCT00526474|168889581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.78|0.002
84671498|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.086
84751533|NCT03049735|169258569|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-48.6||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance. Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-48.6|-73.5|<0.0001
84496503|NCT00806416|168744272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and the 70 mg alendronate market tablet, the GMR of the combination tablet/alendronate only tablet are contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.91|1.17||||||If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR) for total urinary excretion of alendronate of 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to alendronate alone is 1.00 then a sample size =208 provided 99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for the total urinary excretion GMR within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. These calculations were based on the observed-pooled within-subject standard deviation (log scale) of 0.521 obtained from earlier Phase 1 studies.||1.17|0.91|
84608095|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.527|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.527|0.713|0.4739
84608096|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.647|0.763|0.6291
84608097|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.18||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.814|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.814|0.830|0.8032
84671499|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.66
84671500|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.069
84497633|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.81|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 physical health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||3.81|0.84|0.0022
84608098|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.416|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.416|0.626|0.3250
84671501|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.68
84608099|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.63|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.630|0.687|0.5828
84608100|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.512|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.512|0.661|0.4546
84608101|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.639|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.639|0.719|0.6158
84608102|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.77|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.770|0.752|0.7748
84608103|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.714|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.714|0.686|0.6565
84608104|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.87||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.38|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.380|0.566|0.2773
84608105|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.467|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.467|0.610|0.3606
84608106|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.317|0.555|0.2211
84608107|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.348|0.587|0.2860
84608108|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.51|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.510|0.609|0.4079
84608109|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.663|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.663|0.614|0.5284
84608110|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.458|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.458|0.568|0.3586
84608111|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.853|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.853|0.672|0.6768
84496504|NCT00806416|168744273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio for AUC0-120 hr|0.88||||||90.0|0.81|0.95||||||If the true GMRs for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample size=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC(0-120 hr) and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC(0-120 hr) (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.81|
84496505|NCT00806416|168744274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|least-squares mean for Cmax|0.89||||||90.0|0.84|0.95||||||If the true GMR ratios for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample of N=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC0-120 hr and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC0-120 hr (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.84|
84496506|NCT04035694|168744280|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
84496507|NCT04035694|168744281|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.11
84496508|NCT04035694|168744282|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
84496509|NCT04035694|168744283|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.38
84496510|NCT04035694|168744284|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
84496511|NCT04035694|168744285|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.09
84496512|NCT04035694|168744286|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.40
84569445|NCT00526474|168889582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.81|<0.001
84608112|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.77||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.39|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.390|0.488|0.1574
84496513|NCT04035694|168744287|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
84569446|NCT00526474|168889583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.86|0.001
84569447|NCT00526474|168889584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.85|<0.001
84569448|NCT00526474|168889585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.76|0.151
84569449|NCT00526474|168889586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
84569450|NCT00526474|168889587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.75|0.108
84569451|NCT00526474|168889588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.14|0.83|0.733
84569452|NCT00526474|168889589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression||Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.07|0.85|0.411
84569453|NCT00526474|168889590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
84569454|NCT00526474|168889591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
84569455|NCT00526474|168889592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.76|<0.001
84569456|NCT00526474|168889593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.89|0.73|<0.001
84569457|NCT00526474|168889594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.71|1.23|<0.001
84608113|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.584|0.521|0.3900
84671502|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.095
84751534|NCT03049735|169258570|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|28.26|||=|0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|52.84||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||52.84|3.68|= 0.0377
84496514|NCT04035694|168744288|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.66
84496515|NCT04035694|168744289|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
84496516|NCT04035694|168744290|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.52
84496517|NCT04035694|168744291|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
84569458|NCT00526474|168889595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.31|<0.001
84569459|NCT00526474|168889596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.79|<0.001
84569460|NCT00526474|168889597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.75|<0.001
84569461|NCT00526474|168889598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.77|<0.001
84569462|NCT00526474|168889599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
84569463|NCT00526474|168889600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.83|<0.001
84569464|NCT00526474|168889601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.71|0.108
84671503|NCT00811577|169077066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.62
84569465|NCT00526474|168889602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.73|0.002
84671504|NCT00811577|169077067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.44
84496518|NCT04035694|168744292|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.21
84496519|NCT04035694|168744293|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.27
84496520|NCT04035694|168744294|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
84496521|NCT04035694|168744295|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.23
84496522|NCT04035694|168744296|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
84496523|NCT04035694|168744297|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
84496524|NCT04035694|168744298|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.19
84496525|NCT04035694|168744299|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.92
84496526|NCT04035694|168744300|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
84496527|NCT04035694|168744301|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
84671505|NCT00811577|169077067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.41
84751535|NCT03049735|169258571|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|47.56||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||47.56|18.36|<0.0001
84751536|NCT03049735|169258572|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|2.0||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||2|-26.3|0.0921
84751537|NCT03049735|169258573|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.3||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-23|0.0002
84751538|NCT03049735|169258574|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-21.5||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level. LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-21.5|-36.3|<0.0001
84751539|NCT03049735|169258577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84751540|NCT03049735|169258582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84751541|NCT03049735|169258583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84751542|NCT03049735|169258584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84751543|NCT03049735|169258585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84751544|NCT03049735|169258586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
84751545|NCT03049735|169258587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||0.0117
84569466|NCT00526474|168889603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.74|0.127
84569467|NCT00526474|168889604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.87|0.52|0.002
84569468|NCT00526474|168889605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.06|0.80|0.249
84671506|NCT02442778|169077129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit,baseline,baseline-by-visit,baseline Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation/Aggression(NPI AA)(≤6 vs. \>6),falls risk assessment,baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications,cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.5|-2.7|0.789
84751546|NCT03049735|169258588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0084
84751547|NCT03049735|169258589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751548|NCT03049735|169258590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84569469|NCT00526474|168889606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.76|0.019
84751549|NCT03049735|169258591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751550|NCT03049735|169258592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751551|NCT03049735|169258593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between Relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84496528|NCT04035694|168744302|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
84569470|NCT00526474|168889607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
84569471|NCT01674725|168889626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%.|Planned enrollment is 210 to allow ≥200 GT1b-infected participants to be treated with combination formulation of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 with and without RBV. Enrollment terminated after 187 participants were randomized. Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|95.9|
84569472|NCT01674725|168889626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|94.6|
84569473|NCT01674725|168889627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84569474|NCT01674725|168889628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|||100.0|94.6|
84569475|NCT01674725|168889628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority|||100|95.9|
84569476|NCT01674725|168889628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.4|-0.8|
84496529|NCT04035694|168744303|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.82
84608114|NCT01597635|168967443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.516|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.516|0.748|0.5915
84608115|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.06828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.501|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.501|0.528|0.06828
84608116|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.609|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.609|0.570|0.5674
84569477|NCT02089347|168889631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.61||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-booster response for Diphtheria.||4.61|-0.31|
84569478|NCT02089347|168889631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by the data if lower bound ot the two-sided 95% is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.84||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination booster response for tetanus||10.84|3.32|
84569479|NCT02089347|168889632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|3.15||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Diphtheria post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||3.15|-0.61|
84569480|NCT02089347|168889632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%.|Wilson score method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.14||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Tetanus post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||2.14|-1.09|
84569481|NCT01474486|168889654|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84569482|NCT05222880|168889676|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.00 logMAR was used for distance.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|-0.08||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Distance.||-0.08|-0.12|
84569483|NCT05222880|168889676|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for Intermediate.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Intermediate.||-0.02|-0.06|
84569484|NCT05222880|168889676|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for near.|Mean Population Estimate|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.09||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 48 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Near.||0.09|0.05|
84569485|NCT05222880|168889677|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 36 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 14 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
84569486|NCT05222880|168889677|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
84608117|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.66||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.316|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.316|0.321|0.8855
84569487|NCT05222880|168889678|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0076|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0076|0.0000|
84671507|NCT02442778|169077129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.0|-5.0|0.200
84569488|NCT05222880|168889679|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0078|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0078|0.0000|
84569489|NCT05222880|168889680|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 16 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
84569490|NCT05222880|168889680|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 46 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 15 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
84608118|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.76|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.760|0.531|0.5358
84608119|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.155|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.155|0.622|0.6990
84608120|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.721|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.721|0.549|0.5130
84671508|NCT02442778|169077130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.484
84608121|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.73||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.731|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.731|0.300|0.7696
84569491|NCT05222880|168889681|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 52 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|68.1|77.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores.||77.1|68.1|
84569492|NCT05222880|168889682|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 53 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|63.0|72.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores.||72.1|63.0|
84569493|NCT05222880|168889683|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.985|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0071|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.959|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.98 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 92 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 80% with 99% central posterior credible.||0.997|0.959|
84751552|NCT03049735|169258594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751553|NCT03049735|169258595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84569494|NCT01077323|168889701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||1.28|0.59|
84569495|NCT01077323|168889702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||||ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.Rate ratios adjusted for propensity score of exenatide initiation using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||1.5|0.8|
84569496|NCT01077323|168889703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.09|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.09|0.36|
84751554|NCT03049735|169258596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751555|NCT03049735|169258597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84751556|NCT03049735|169258599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84496530|NCT04035694|168744304|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.97
84569497|NCT01077323|168889704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.25|0.86|
84569498|NCT02848664|168889715|OTHER|Same DOSS score before and after device use for 3 months or improved DOSS score after device use for 3 months|||||<|0.025||||||p values adjusted for multiple comparisons (two outcome measures)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Examined change in DOSS for each participant from before to after three months of device use. Examined numbers of participants who showed either worsening of DOSS, no improvement in DOSS or improvement of DOSS.||||<0.025
84569499|NCT02848664|168889716|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the level of swallowing handicap is changed following device use|Mean Difference (Net)|22.571||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.003|39.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.140|6.003|0.016
84569500|NCT02848664|168889717|EQUIVALENCE|whether the degree of laryngeal elevation relative to hyoid elevation became greater or less after device use for 3 months||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84608122|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.289|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.289|0.203|0.9254
84608123|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.72||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|2.419|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.419|0.216|0.7088
84608124|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.47||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|1.69|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.690|0.112|0.8787
84751557|NCT03049735|169258606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
84751558|NCT02146326|169258611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
84751559|NCT02146326|169258612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
84496531|NCT04035694|168744305|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
84497634|NCT03170271|168746323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 mental health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||2.44|-0.70|0.2751
84751560|NCT02146326|169258613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.54
84751561|NCT02146326|169258614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.94
84751562|NCT02146326|169258615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.96
84751563|NCT02146326|169258616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
84569501|NCT02848664|168889718|EQUIVALENCE|pairwise comparison within subject comparing baseline with 3 months post device use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.751|-4.809|||ANOVA|||||-4.809|-100.751|0.037
84751564|NCT02146326|169258617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.47
84751565|NCT02146326|169258618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.60
84751566|NCT02146326|169258619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
84751567|NCT02146326|169258620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.83
84751568|NCT02146326|169258621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
84751569|NCT02146326|169258622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
84751570|NCT02146326|169258623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.13
84569502|NCT00767572|168889728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-post brachial artery diameter changes do not differ between placebo and atorvastatin||||>0.05
84751571|NCT02146326|169258624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.93
84751572|NCT02146326|169258625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
84569503|NCT01687218|168889748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the Daily Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.44|0.73|0.88
84569504|NCT01687218|168889748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the RAI Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.21|0.64|0.43
84569505|NCT01687218|168889749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.50|0.15|<0.0001
84569506|NCT01687218|168889749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.70|0.20|0.002
84569507|NCT01687218|168889750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.08|0.29|0.08
84569508|NCT01687218|168889750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.56|0.37|0.46
84569509|NCT01687218|168889751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.65|0.22|0.0004
84569510|NCT01687218|168889751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.25|0.39|0.23
84569511|NCT01687218|168889752|OTHER||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the daily rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.30|-1.53|<0.001
84569512|NCT01687218|168889752|OTHER||Slope|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the RAI rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.70|-1.95|<0.001
84569513|NCT01687218|168889753|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.83|0.49|<0.001
84671509|NCT02442778|169077130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.704
84671510|NCT02442778|169077131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.9|0.416
84671511|NCT02442778|169077131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.3|0.066
84671512|NCT02442778|169077132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.249
84751573|NCT02146326|169258626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.21
84671513|NCT02442778|169077132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.199
84751574|NCT02146326|169258628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
84751575|NCT02146326|169258629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84496532|NCT04035694|168744306|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.69
84496533|NCT04035694|168744307|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.63
84496534|NCT04035694|168744308|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.79
84496535|NCT04035694|168744309|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.93
84496536|NCT04035694|168744310|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
84496537|NCT04035694|168744311|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.11
84671514|NCT02442778|169077133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.7|-0.7|0.975
84751576|NCT02146326|169258630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84751577|NCT02146326|169258631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
84751578|NCT02146326|169258632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.04
84751579|NCT02146326|169258633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.34
84751580|NCT02146326|169258634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.71
84496538|NCT04035694|168744312|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
84569514|NCT01687218|168889753|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.15|-0.46|0.31
84569515|NCT01687218|168889754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only were used in this analysis.||0.50|0.10|0.004
84569516|NCT01687218|168889754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-0.47|-0.92|<0.001
84569517|NCT01687218|168889755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.50|-2.82|<0.001
84569518|NCT01687218|168889755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.49|-2.81|<0.001
84569519|NCT01687218|168889756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
84569520|NCT01687218|168889756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
84569521|NCT01687218|168889757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.84|-2.16|<0.001
84569522|NCT01687218|168889757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.74|-2.07|<0.001
84569523|NCT01687218|168889758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.72|0.35|<0.001
84569524|NCT01687218|168889758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.31|-0.28|0.92
84569525|NCT01687218|168889759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||0.63|0.19|0.0005
84608125|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.197|0.714|0.7338
84751581|NCT02146326|169258635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.22
84496539|NCT04035694|168744313|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.64
84496540|NCT04035694|168744314|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
84496541|NCT04035694|168744315|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.65
84569526|NCT01687218|168889759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.81|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||1.81|0.43|0.74
84569527|NCT02175225|168889821|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.006|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.068|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.068||
84569528|NCT02175225|168889822|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
84569529|NCT02175225|168889823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56||||||||1.56|0.57|
84569530|NCT02175225|168889824|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than13% in favor of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.062|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.121|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference\[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.121||
84569531|NCT02175225|168889825|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.086|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.156|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.156||
84569532|NCT02175225|168889826|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.029|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.029||
84569533|NCT02175225|168889827|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||The p value reflects the significance of the interaction term between treatment and onset to treatment time.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.83
84569534|NCT02175225|168889828|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||||The estimation parameter is the adjusted common odds ratio.|||1.67|0.72|
84569535|NCT02175225|168889829|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||||1.93|0.82|
84751582|NCT02146326|169258636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
84751583|NCT02146326|169258637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
84496542|NCT04035694|168744316|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||<.01
84496543|NCT04035694|168744317|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.20
84496544|NCT04035694|168744318|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.28
84496545|NCT04035694|168744319|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.58
84496546|NCT04035694|168744320|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.49
84569536|NCT02175225|168889832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.97|||||Confidence interval is exact (rather than asymptotic) due to small number of events.|||14.97|0.0|
84569537|NCT02175225|168889833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||||Confidence interval constructed only for all cause owing to small number of events caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome.|||1.54|0.51|
84569538|NCT02175225|168889834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.35||||||||5.35|0.63|
84496547|NCT04035694|168744321|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.55
84569539|NCT02668640|168889841|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0002
84569540|NCT02668640|168889842|OTHER||||||=|0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0006
84569541|NCT02668640|168889843|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84569542|NCT02668640|168889843|OTHER||||||=|0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 12||||=0.1233
84569543|NCT02668640|168889843|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 24||||<0.001
84569544|NCT02668640|168889843|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 24||||=0.001
84569545|NCT02668640|168889844|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84671515|NCT02442778|169077133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-1.0|0.334
84671516|NCT02442778|169077134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.2|-2.4|0.934
84569546|NCT02668640|168889844|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
84569547|NCT02668640|168889845|OTHER||||||=|0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0137
84569548|NCT02668640|168889845|OTHER||||||=|0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0607
84569549|NCT02668640|168889846|OTHER||||||=|0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0026
84569550|NCT02668640|168889846|OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0001
84569551|NCT01062308|168889849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|-11.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-22.6|0.03
84569552|NCT01062308|168889850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|6.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|-2.7|0.16
84496548|NCT04035694|168744322|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
84569553|NCT02322749|168889872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.25|10.53|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||10.53|8.25|
84569554|NCT02322749|168889873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|24.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.62|26.03|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||26.03|22.62|
84569555|NCT02322749|168889874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS mean ratio|22.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.65|23.69|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||23.69|20.65|
84569556|NCT02322749|168889875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.42|14.65|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.65|11.42|
84569557|NCT02322749|168889876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.44|28.09|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||28.09|24.44|
84569558|NCT02322749|168889877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.02|25.3|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||25.30|22.02|
84569559|NCT02322749|168889878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|9.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|10.97|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect|||10.97|8.5|
84608126|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.415|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.415|0.703|0.4955
84569560|NCT02322749|168889878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.45|14.86|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.86|11.45|
84569561|NCT02322749|168889879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|13.05|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||13.05|9.80|
84569562|NCT02322749|168889879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.07|14.8|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.80|11.07|
84608127|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.788|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.788|0.541|0.5264
84608128|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.742|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.742|0.454|0.6183
84569563|NCT01409239|168889888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to determine differences between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Since this was a pilot study no formal power analysis was possible. It was hypothesized that IV insulin would be associated with lower LF/HF HRV.||||0.05
84569564|NCT01190813|168889890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|11.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact|It was not possible to adjust for baseline VA in these secondary analyses due to the small number of subjects meeting secondary outcome criteria.|Treatment group difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|A sample size of 129 participants provided 80% power with 1-sided type I error rate of 5% to reject the hypothesis of no difference between groups if the proportion improved was 30% in the levodopa group compared with 10% in the placebo group.||28|-7|0.06
84569565|NCT01190813|168889893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|18.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||18|-17|
84569566|NCT01190813|168889894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|10.0||||||||10|-25|
84608129|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|2.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.118|0.483|0.5291
84608130|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.448|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.448|0.828|0.7400
84608131|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.683|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.683|0.937|0.9375
84569567|NCT01190813|168889895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|13.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||13|-22|
84569568|NCT01190813|168889903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|||1.3|-1.9|0.65
84569569|NCT01190813|168889905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.6|0.44
84569570|NCT01190813|168889907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-1.2|0.20
84569571|NCT01190813|168889909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84569572|NCT01190813|168889913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3||The alpha level was set to 0.0485 for the primary analysis to adjust for alpha spending of 0.015 for one interim analysis for efficacy conducted when outcome data were available for 50% of participants.|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|With 129 participants, assuming a 1-sided type I error rate of 4.85%, there was 96% power to detect a difference in mean visual acuity between treatment groups at 18 weeks adjusted for baseline and for 1 interim analysis for futility if the true difference was 5 letters with SD of 7 letters and 82% power if the true difference was 3.75 letters||3.3|-0.4|0.06
84569573|NCT02100124|168889987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.56|1.0
84569574|NCT02100124|168889987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.70|1.0
84569575|NCT02100124|168889987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.82|0.53
84569576|NCT02100124|168889988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.71|0.48
84569577|NCT02100124|168889988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.87|1.0
84569578|NCT02100124|168889988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.99|0.07
84569579|NCT02100124|168889989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.84|1.0
84569580|NCT02100124|168889989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.82|1.0
84569581|NCT02100124|168889989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.79|1.0
84608132|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.771|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.771|0.896|0.9118
84608133|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.43||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.382|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.382|0.866|0.9217
84671517|NCT02442778|169077134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.4|-1.2|0.342
84569582|NCT02100124|168889990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.83|1.0
84569583|NCT02100124|168889990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.81|1.0
84569584|NCT02100124|168889990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.75|1.0
84569585|NCT04350827|168889991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.433
84569586|NCT04265261|168889995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.19||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|14.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.23|-11.86|0.8586
84569587|NCT04265261|168889995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.93||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.31|-15.18|0.6388
84569588|NCT02990000|168890000|SUPERIORITY|We used the Optimal Design program to determine the minimum numbers of therapists and patients needed to detect a moderate effect of condition (standardized difference between change rates = .50). Based on this a priori power analysis, we will need a total of 44 therapists and 211 patients to achieve a power of .80 to detect moderate condition effects. Factoring in a 25% dropout rate, enrolling 281 patients should provide sufficient statistical power.|condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.03|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the TOP-CS average z-scores. Given that higher TOP-CS z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.03|-0.05|.02
84569589|NCT02990000|168890001|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the SCL-10 total score. Given that higher SCL-10 scores indicate greater psychological distress, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.02|-0.30|.03
84569590|NCT02990000|168890002|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the patient-rated WAI. Given that higher WAI scores indicate better quality therapeutic alliances, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in alliance during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.21|-0.33|.65
84608134|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.48||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.064|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.064|0.730|0.8676
84608135|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.135|0.609|0.8835
84496549|NCT04035694|168744323|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
84496550|NCT04035694|168744324|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
84496551|NCT04035694|168744325|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.75
84496552|NCT04035694|168744326|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
84496553|NCT04035694|168744327|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
84496554|NCT04035694|168744328|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
84496555|NCT04035694|168744329|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.02
84496556|NCT04035694|168744330|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
84496557|NCT04035694|168744331|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.57
84496558|NCT04035694|168744332|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.91
84497635|NCT03170271|168746324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.25|1.06|0.0233
84751584|NCT02146326|169258638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.55
84569591|NCT02990000|168890003|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the OE subscale of the CEQ. Given that higher OE scores indicate more optimistic expectations, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in OE during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.07|-0.17|.41
84569592|NCT02990000|168890004|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.006|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the log-transformed TOP-CS domain-specific z-scores. Given that higher z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.006|-0.01|.01
84496559|NCT04035694|168744333|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.72
84569593|NCT02990000|168890005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||Multilevel logistic regression analysis with patients nested within therapists (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0). Statistically significant odds ratios that are greater than 1 would indicate that patients in the Scientific Match Condition were more likely to discontinue treatment early, whereas odds ratios that are less than 1 would indicate the opposite.||||.48
84569594|NCT02990000|168890006|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on satisfaction|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.31|||2-level hierarchical linear model|||Due to the nested nature of the data (patients nested within therapists), we used a two-level hierarchical linear model to test the effect of condition on provider satisfaction at posttreatment. Because higher values indicate more satisfaction, a positive condition effect would indicate that Scientific Match patients were more satisfied than Pragmatic Match patients, whereas a negative condition effect would indicate the opposite.||1.31|-0.57|.44
84569595|NCT01949545|168890007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|144.43||||0.02232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.48|187.12|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||187.12|111.48|0.02232
84569596|NCT01949545|168890007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.08||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.59|168.06|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||168.06|94.59|0.1812
84608136|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.33|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.330|0.723|0.5446
84608137|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.333|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.333|0.679|0.6267
84569597|NCT01949545|168890008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|151.84||||0.02137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.59|202.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||202.96|113.59|0.02137
84569598|NCT01949545|168890008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|143.53||||0.07247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.28|199.45|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||199.45|103.28|0.07247
84569599|NCT01669434|168890063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||||0.97|0.67|0.03
84608138|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.26|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.260|0.612|0.7668
84751585|NCT02146326|169258639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.91
84751586|NCT02146326|169258640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.48
84751587|NCT02146326|169258641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
84496560|NCT04035694|168744334|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.07
84569600|NCT01669434|168890064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.60|0.23|0.44
84569601|NCT01669434|168890065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.99|||Fisher Exact|||||2.99|0.48|1.0
84569602|NCT01669434|168890066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.81|1.0
84569603|NCT01669434|168890067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34|||Fisher Exact|||||3.34|1.14|0.01
84569604|NCT01669434|168890068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.28|0.02
84569605|NCT00723229|168890130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||Regression, poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||The trial had 80% power to detect a 35% reduction in genital shedding rates for acyclovir 400 mg twice daily.||0.25|0.17|<0.001
84569606|NCT00723229|168890130|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seronegative individuals.||0.08|0.03|<0.001
84569607|NCT00723229|168890130|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seropositive individuals.||0.6|0.4|<0.001
84569608|NCT02709746|168890134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||4.2|-1.94|0.4702
84569609|NCT02709746|168890134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.6373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.27|-3.71|0.6373
84569610|NCT02709746|168890134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||-0.72|-6.74|0.0152
84569611|NCT02709746|168890134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.82|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.82|-2.41|0.8778
84569612|NCT02900352|168890162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84569613|NCT02900352|168890163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
84569614|NCT02900352|168890164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||.054
84569615|NCT02900352|168890165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
84569616|NCT02900352|168890166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.889
84569617|NCT02900352|168890167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.482
84569618|NCT02900352|168890168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84569619|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.146||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|9.196||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||9.196|-6.904|0.7756
84569620|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.291||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|11.421||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||11.421|-4.840|0.4194
84569621|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.28|30.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||30.120|14.280|<0.0001
84569622|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.145||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.874|10.164||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||10.164|-5.874|0.5927
84569623|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|21.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.189|28.919||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||28.919|13.189|<0.0001
84608139|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.509|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.509|0.588|0.6100
84608140|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.68||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.623|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Renin, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.623|0.291|0.8159
84751588|NCT02146326|169258642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.77
84496561|NCT04035694|168744335|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
84569624|NCT00752089|168890169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|18.909|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.036|26.783||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||26.783|11.036|<0.0001
84608141|NCT01597635|168967446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.53||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|2.657|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Aldosterone, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.657|0.106|0.7988
84751589|NCT02146326|169258643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.59
84751590|NCT02146326|169258644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
84608142|NCT01597635|168967447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.024|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||2.024|0.626|0.6536
84608143|NCT01597635|168967447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.3||||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.955|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.955|0.876|0.9066
84751591|NCT02146326|169258645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.05
84751592|NCT02146326|169258646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.06
84751593|NCT02146326|169258647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.84
84751594|NCT02146326|169258648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
84751595|NCT02146326|169258649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.45
84751596|NCT03153111|169258650|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.88|0.7923
84751597|NCT03153111|169258651|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.17|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-8.17|0.2172
84751598|NCT03153111|169258652|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.3665
84751599|NCT02684357|169258664|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|78.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||78.2|66.8|< 0.001
84751600|NCT02684357|169258665|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|84.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.5|72.4|< 0.001
84608144|NCT01597635|168967447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|2.066|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.066|0.723|0.7859
84751601|NCT02684357|169258666|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|54.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.2|40.9|< 0.001
84751602|NCT02684357|169258667|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|54.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.6|41.9|< 0.001
84608145|NCT01597635|168967447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.963|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.963|0.413|0.6058
84671518|NCT02442778|169077135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.6|-0.7|0.888
84671519|NCT02442778|169077135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.019
84671520|NCT02442778|169077136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||4.0|-2.9|0.756
84671521|NCT02442778|169077136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-7.0|0.038
84671522|NCT02442778|169077137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.468
84671523|NCT02442778|169077137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.158
84671524|NCT02442778|169077138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.400
84751603|NCT02684357|169258668|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|68.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||68.9|55.5|< 0.001
84751604|NCT02684357|169258669|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|36.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.6|25.7|< 0.001
84496562|NCT04035694|168744336|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.17
84608146|NCT01597635|168967447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.29||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|3.632|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||3.632|0.456|0.6921
84671525|NCT02442778|169077138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.566
84671526|NCT02442778|169077139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-0.2|0.751
84608147|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.140|0.737|0.7934
84671527|NCT02442778|169077139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.320
84751605|NCT02684357|169258670|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|38.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||38.5|16.7|< 0.001
84608148|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.317|0.782|0.5205
84608149|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.865|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.865|0.673|0.6682
84751606|NCT02684357|169258671|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.5|12.0|< 0.001
84496563|NCT04035694|168744337|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
84496564|NCT04035694|168744338|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
84569625|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-321.438||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-818.118|175.242||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||175.242|-818.118|0.1990
84569626|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-72.68||||0.7718||95.0|-574.398|429.039||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||429.039|-574.398|0.7718
84569627|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1784.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|1296.044|2273.306||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2273.306|1296.044|<0.0001
84569628|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|248.758||||0.3164||95.0|-245.962|743.478||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included tratment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||743.478|-245.962|0.3164
84608150|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.315|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.315|0.744|0.5304
84608151|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.81||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.112|0.582|0.9078
84608152|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.526|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.526|1.042|0.9907
84608153|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.606|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.606|1.005|0.9973
84608154|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.61||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.331|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.331|1.130|0.9954
84608155|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.65||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|2.588|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.588|1.045|0.9830
84608156|NCT01597635|168967448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.52||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|2.737|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.737|0.867|0.9312
84608157|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.||1.07|0.74|
84671528|NCT02442778|169077140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.4|-1.8|0.782
84751607|NCT02684357|169258672|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||37.0|17.0|< 0.001
84751608|NCT02684357|169258673|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.4|16.1|< 0.001
84497636|NCT03170271|168746324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.16|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Important Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.16|1.02|0.0401
84569629|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2106.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1620.906|2591.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2591.320|1620.906|<0.0001
84569630|NCT00752089|168890170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1857.355|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1371.637|2343.072||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period and fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2343.072|1371.637|<0.0001
84569631|NCT00975416|168890179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to deterimine whether oxytocin increased compared to placebo measures of therapeutic alliance (as measured by the Helping alliance questionnaire) pre compared to post 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.927
84569632|NCT00975416|168890179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova to determine if oxytocin compared to placebo increased therpeutic alliance as measured by the working alliance inventory after 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.60
84569633|NCT01329198|168890207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean change in YGTSS scores from Baseline to 6 Months across all study participants presented.|||||0.013
84569634|NCT00473083|168890217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8769||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Chi-squared|||||||0.8769
84569635|NCT00473083|168890217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.147
84569636|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1503
84569637|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681||||||P(arm2 v arm3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4681
84569638|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0196
84569639|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1658
84569640|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||"P(arm 2 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3.~P-value was calculated to be \>0.9999 using the Wilcoxon Rank Sumtest by comparing between the two treatment arms."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
84569641|NCT00473083|168890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
84569642|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5097|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 1||||0.5097
84569643|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 2a||||0.4740
84569644|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.2123
84569645|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.5004
84569646|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9072|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.9072
84569647|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.0464
84569648|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.6759
84569649|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0065
84569650|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5898|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.5898
84569651|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.1921
84569652|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0882|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.0882
84569653|NCT00473083|168890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0344
84569654|NCT00473083|168890220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3834
84569655|NCT00473083|168890222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0147
84608158|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.||1.23|0.84|
84608159|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.||1.15|0.83|
84608160|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.26|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.||1.26|0.69|
84497637|NCT03170271|168746325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.86|1.47|<0.0001
84569656|NCT02915835|168890224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.70
84569657|NCT02915835|168890225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84569658|NCT02915835|168890226|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569659|NCT02915835|168890227|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569660|NCT02915835|168890228|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569661|NCT02915835|168890229|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569662|NCT02915835|168890230|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569663|NCT02915835|168890231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569664|NCT02915835|168890232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569665|NCT02915835|168890233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569666|NCT02915835|168890234|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569667|NCT02915835|168890235|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569668|NCT02915835|168890236|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569669|NCT02915835|168890237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||.56
84569670|NCT02915835|168890238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||.35
84569671|NCT02915835|168890240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
84569672|NCT02915835|168890241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.57
84569673|NCT02915835|168890242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
84569674|NCT02915835|168890243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.49
84569675|NCT02915835|168890244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.75
84569676|NCT02915835|168890245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
84569677|NCT02915835|168890246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84569678|NCT02915835|168890247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
84569679|NCT02915835|168890248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84569680|NCT02915835|168890249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
84569681|NCT02915835|168890250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
84569682|NCT02915835|168890251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
84569683|NCT02915835|168890252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.90
84569684|NCT02915835|168890253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
84569685|NCT02915835|168890254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.25
84569686|NCT02915835|168890255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.95
84569687|NCT02915835|168890256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
84569688|NCT02915835|168890257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.82
84569689|NCT02915835|168890258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.47
84569690|NCT02915835|168890259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84569691|NCT02915835|168890260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
84569692|NCT02915835|168890261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84569693|NCT02915835|168890263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
84569694|NCT02915835|168890264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
84569695|NCT02915835|168890265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84569696|NCT02915835|168890266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
84569697|NCT02915835|168890267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84569698|NCT02915835|168890268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
84569699|NCT02915835|168890269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84751609|NCT02684357|169258674|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|40.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.9|19.6|< 0.001
84751610|NCT02684357|169258675|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
84751611|NCT02684357|169258676|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
84496565|NCT04035694|168744339|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
84496566|NCT04035694|168744340|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
84569700|NCT02915835|168890270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84569701|NCT02915835|168890271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
84569702|NCT02915835|168890272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
84569703|NCT02915835|168890273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84569704|NCT02915835|168890274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84569705|NCT02915835|168890275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
84496567|NCT04035694|168744341|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.34
84496568|NCT00318409|168744361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84569706|NCT02915835|168890276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84569707|NCT02915835|168890277|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84569708|NCT02915835|168890278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
84569709|NCT02915835|168890279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
84569710|NCT02915835|168890280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
84569711|NCT02915835|168890281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
84569712|NCT02915835|168890282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
84569713|NCT02915835|168890283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84569714|NCT04210986|168890346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.02||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for fisetin group, relative to the placebo group.|Null hypothesis: no difference in proportion of participants experiencing any TEAE between Fisetin and Placebo groups.||4.02|0.25|>0.9
84569715|NCT04210986|168890347|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-3.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||3.6|-10.6|0.9728
84569716|NCT04210986|168890347|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-2.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||2.8|-7.8|0.9728
84671529|NCT02442778|169077140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.0|-2.1|0.991
84569717|NCT04210986|168890347|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-20.5||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||-3.3|-37.7|0.0829
84569718|NCT04210986|168890347|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Contrast of LS Means|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||||0.9728
84569719|NCT04210986|168890348|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|2.52|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|54.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||54.5|-49.4|>0.99
84569720|NCT04210986|168890348|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|11.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|58.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||58.8|-36.8|>0.99
84569721|NCT04210986|168890348|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-40.3||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.6|17.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||17.1|-97.6|0.6594
84569722|NCT04210986|168890348|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-6.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|31.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||31.7|-45.5|>0.99
84569723|NCT04210986|168890349|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|10.5||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|33.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||33.9|-12.9|0.7480
84569724|NCT04210986|168890349|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.6||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|21.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||21.1|-22.2|0.9572
84569725|NCT04210986|168890350|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.47|>0.99
84569726|NCT04210986|168890350|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.07|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.47|-0.33|>0.99
84671530|NCT02442778|169077141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.2|0.0|0.038
84752842|NCT03684642|169260864|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.14|-0.20|
84608161|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel Group groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.||1.13|0.82|
84496569|NCT02325739|168744369|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fasted) is 120mg.|||||
84569727|NCT04210986|168890351|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.37|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.87|-1.61|>0.99
84569728|NCT04210986|168890351|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.16|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.13|-0.80|>0.99
84569729|NCT04210986|168890352|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.022||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.045|0.130
84569730|NCT04210986|168890352|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.024||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.049|0.130
84569731|NCT04210986|168890353|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.22||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.40|-0.84|0.9584
84569732|NCT04210986|168890353|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.12||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.69|0.9584
84569733|NCT04210986|168890354|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.88||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|8.84||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||8.84|-5.07|0.5905
84569734|NCT04210986|168890354|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|3.86||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|10.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||10.79|-3.08|0.5414
84569735|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.05|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 3 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.85|-0.75|>0.99
84496570|NCT02325739|168744369|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fed) is 120mg.|||||
84496571|NCT02325739|168744369|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for FGF401 120mg.|||||
84751612|NCT02684357|169258677|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.8|9.5|< 0.001
84569736|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.44|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.34|-0.45|>0.99
84569737|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.54||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.54|-0.70|>0.99
84569738|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.06|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.78||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.78|-0.91|>0.99
84569739|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.47|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 15 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.56|-1.50|>0.99
84569740|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.77||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.77|-1.16|>0.99
84569741|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.96||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 21 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.96|-0.58|>0.99
84569742|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.97||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 24 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.97|-0.76|>0.99
84569743|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 27 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.76|-0.74|>0.99
84569744|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.38|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 30 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.44|-1.20|>0.99
84608162|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.16|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.||1.16|0.78|
84496572|NCT02325739|168744369|OTHER||RP2D|300.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for PDR001 300mg.|||||
84496573|NCT02181075|168744461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval (CI)||A paired t-test was used for Part I (Arm 1) only. Analysis only applies to Part I (Arm 1) because only this study arm has matched Post-LTLD (i.e. post-drug alone) and Post-LTLD+FUS biopsy samples obtained from the same liver tumours before and after targeted drug delivery. In Part II of the study design in which drug delivery occurred completely non-invasively, no Post-LTLD tissue sample is obtained and only a single tumour biopsy is obtained following drug delivery (Post-LTLD+FUS).||||0.024
84496574|NCT04150107|168744467|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|Least mean squares||||<|0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9223
84496575|NCT04150107|168744468|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.8871|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.8871
84496576|NCT04150107|168744469|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9641|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9641
84496577|NCT04150107|168744470|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.7922|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.7922
84496578|NCT04150107|168744471|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9898|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9898
84496579|NCT04150107|168744472|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.5165|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.5165
84496580|NCT00650806|168744473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.1|-1.6|0.031
84496581|NCT00650806|168744473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.001
84496582|NCT00650806|168744473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.6|-2.1|<0.001
84496583|NCT00650806|168744474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.02|-1.58|0.045
84496584|NCT00650806|168744474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.80|-2.40|<0.001
84496585|NCT00650806|168744474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.51|-2.07|0.001
84496586|NCT00650806|168744475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.031
84496587|NCT00650806|168744475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
84496588|NCT00650806|168744475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
84751613|NCT02684357|169258678|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.3|7.8|< 0.001
84569745|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.89||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 33 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.89|-0.69|>0.99
84751614|NCT02684357|169258679|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.4|9.1|< 0.001
84751615|NCT02684357|169258680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.102|-5.648|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.648|-7.102|< 0.001
84751616|NCT02684357|169258681|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|84.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|90.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||90.4|79.0|< 0.001
84751617|NCT02684357|169258682|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||39.6|18.5|< 0.001
84751618|NCT02684357|169258683|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|14.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||23.5|5.9|0.001
84751619|NCT01839487|169258716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.01|0.54|0.058
84751620|NCT01839487|169258718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-high was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.10|0.30|0.092
84751621|NCT01839487|169258718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-low was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.31|0.59|0.514
84751622|NCT01839487|169258719|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-Value and relative risk were based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method using KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||1.68|0.88|0.225
84496589|NCT00650806|168744476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.317||95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||5.6|0.6|0.317
84608163|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.||1.21|0.85|
84751623|NCT01839487|169258720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.19|0.70|0.495
84496590|NCT00650806|168744476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||11.1|0.9|0.059
84496591|NCT00650806|168744476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||10.0|1.0|0.027
84496592|NCT00650806|168744477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.117
84496593|NCT00650806|168744477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.225
84496594|NCT00650806|168744477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.317
84569746|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 36 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-1.02|>0.99
84569747|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 39 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.70|>0.99
84569748|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.62|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 42 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.13|-1.36|>0.99
84569749|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.23|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 7 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.55|-1.01|>0.99
84569750|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 8 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.89|>0.99
84569751|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.02|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.67|-0.63|>0.99
84569752|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.17|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 10 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-0.95|>0.99
84671531|NCT02442778|169077141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.5|-0.6|0.911
84496595|NCT00650806|168744478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.17|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||2.17|-2.68|0.835
84496596|NCT00650806|168744478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.59|-3.47|0.466
84496597|NCT00650806|168744478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.09|-3.87|0.273
84496598|NCT00650806|168744479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.59|-3.85|0.149
84569753|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 11 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.34|-1.18|>0.99
84569754|NCT04210986|168890355|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.35|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.71||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.71|-1.41|>0.99
84569755|NCT04210986|168890356|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.86||||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.82||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||6.82|-3.09|0.9106
84569756|NCT04210986|168890356|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-4.2||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|1.53||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.53|-9.93|0.4424
84569757|NCT04210986|168890356|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.03||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||5.48|-5.55|0.9901
84569758|NCT04210986|168890357|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.69|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.95|32.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||32.3|-30.95|>0.99
84569759|NCT04210986|168890357|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-11.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|24.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||24.2|-46.9|>0.99
84569760|NCT04210986|168890358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.21||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox proportional hazards model constructed. Score (log rank) test to assess between group difference in hazard rate.|Hazard ratio expresses the hazard rate of the Fisetin group in the numerator and the hazard rate of the Placebo group in the denominator|With only 4 participants that converted to an alternative treatment modality, this analysis is underpowered.||4.21|0.05|0.474
84569761|NCT02984982|168890370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|1.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Standard of Care vs Alirocumab|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed categorical effects of treatment arm and randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline normalized TAV.||1.04|-4.32|0.2279
84569762|NCT02616783|168890409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.427|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.517|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||3.517|1.337|<0.001
84569763|NCT02616783|168890410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.036|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.904|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.904|1.168|<0.001
84569764|NCT02616783|168890411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.749|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.771|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.771|0.726|<0.001
84569765|NCT02616783|168890412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.351|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.099|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.099|0.602|<0.001
84569766|NCT02616783|168890413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.6||P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact||Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||1.6|-11.8|0.18
84569767|NCT02616783|168890414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||9.3|-8.5|1.00
84569768|NCT02616783|168890415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|52.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|106.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in least square means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||106|-1|0.053
84569769|NCT02616783|168890416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|57.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|115.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||115|0|0.051
84569770|NCT01103323|168890429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.005178||95.0|0.636|0.942||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 432 death events at 2nd IA, the pre-specified alpha (false positive rate) for this analysis was 0.009279 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 33.3% increase in median OS (i.e. hazard ratio of 0.75, Regorafenib / Placebo). Assuming 1-sided overall alpha of 0.025, randomization ratio of 2:1 for Regorafenib and Placebo, and 2 formal interim analyses of OS using an O'Brien-Fleming-type error spending function, a total of 582 death events were required for primary completion. Results based on 2nd planned formal IA with 432 total events.||0.942|0.636|0.005178
84569771|NCT01103323|168890430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.419|0.582||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo)|Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.||0.582|0.419|<0.000001
84569772|NCT01103323|168890431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.6||||0.188432||95.0|-1.74|0.53||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||0.53|-1.74|0.188432
84608164|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.|GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over ), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.||2.03|1.28|
84608165|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.||1.36|0.82|
84608166|NCT00652951|168967478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.||1.23|0.7|
84608167|NCT00652951|168967479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns protein D.||1.06|0.77|
84569773|NCT01103323|168890432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.94|||<|1e-06||95.0|-32.06|-19.82||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||-19.82|-32.06|<0.000001
84569774|NCT04536701|168890448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total DASS score reported.||||0.444
84569775|NCT04536701|168890448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depressive Mood DASS score reported||||0.8378
84569776|NCT04536701|168890448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety DASS score reported||||0.4087
84569777|NCT04536701|168890448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stress DASS score reported||||0.4124
84569778|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total RMBPC frequency reported||||0.0508
84569779|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of disruptive symptoms on RMBP reported||||0.026
84569780|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of depressive symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.1861
84569781|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of memory symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.9535
84569782|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction total is reported||||0.0411
84569783|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction disruptive symptoms is reported||||0.0058
84569784|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction depressive symptoms is reported||||0.2527
84569785|NCT04536701|168890449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction memory symptoms||||0.3542
84569786|NCT04536701|168890450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3857|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3857
84569787|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) total reported||||0.7213
84569788|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Observing reported||||0.6075
84569789|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Describing reported||||0.4136
84569790|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Acting with Awareness reported||||0.8378
84569791|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonjudging reported||||0.7193
84569792|NCT04536701|168890451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonreactivity reported||||0.4145
84569793|NCT04536701|168890452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5368
84569794|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Total reported||||0.2845
84569795|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Problem Solving is reported||||0.1386
84569796|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Communication is reported||||0.7551
84569797|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Roles is reported||||0.7213
84569798|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Responsiveness is reported||||0.3233
84569799|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Involvement is reported||||0.2832
84569800|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Behavior Control is reported||||0.6831
84569801|NCT04536701|168890453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD General Functioning is reported||||0.6075
84569802|NCT02314728|168890467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84569803|NCT02314728|168890468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||NICU admission||||0.60
84569804|NCT02314728|168890468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||histologic chorioamnionitis||||0.13
84569805|NCT01614470|168890469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.678|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2559|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.1000|7.2559|<0.0001
84569806|NCT01614470|168890470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3366|0.9881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9881|0.3366|<0.0001
84569807|NCT01614470|168890472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.1667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9527|-41.3807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.3807|-56.9527|<0.0001
84569808|NCT01614470|168890475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.6105||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4874|14.7336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7336|4.4874|0.0004
84569809|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|91.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.7|80.3|
84569810|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.0|77.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.6|68.0|
84569811|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|98.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.8|86.5|
84569812|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|76.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|81.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||81.8|71.6|
84569813|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|133.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|151.9|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.6.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||151.9|117.2|
84569814|NCT04232839|168890479|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|127.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.2.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||127.6|102.3|
84569815|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|91.4|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.4|80.0|
84569816|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|77.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.1|67.4|
84569817|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|98.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.6|86.3|
84569818|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|80.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||80.7|70.6|
84569819|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|134.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.6|153.0|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||153.0|117.6|
84569820|NCT04232839|168890480|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|128.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||128.1|102.9|
84569821|NCT02360488|168890485|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial aimed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 30% of the change in Fugl-Meyer score in the In-Clinic group. Under these assumptions at alpha=0.05 and assuming SD=3.8 points, 124 subjects would need to be enrolled to provide 85% power; this sample was pursued independent of subject dropouts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.26|||Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for study site, age, time post-stroke, stroke subtype, and baseline Fugl-Meyer score.||||2.26|-2.14|.96
84569822|NCT03669588|168890535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.951|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.213|11.528|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese versus (vs) non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||11.528|2.213|<0.0001
84569823|NCT03669588|168890536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.179|31.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline QMG total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||31.200|4.179|<0.0001
84569824|NCT03669588|168890537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.699|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|7.578|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the overall population, stratified by AChR-Ab status (seropositive vs seronegative), Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||7.578|1.854|<0.0001
84569825|NCT03669588|168890538|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|22.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.949|33.181|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in the AChR-Ab seropositive population with treatment, baseline MG-ADL total score, Japanese vs non-Japanese, and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment as the covariates.||33.181|10.949|0.0001
84751624|NCT03714425|169258730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary research objective to measure perceived improvement in pain at three months was assessed using a two-sample t-test of PGIC scores between the two treatment groups using a type I error rate of 0.05 (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|Most of the analyses involved delta scores reflecting changes within subjects, though we compared PGIC raw scores rather than change scores.||||||<0.05
84569826|NCT03669588|168890539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis was performed in the AChR-Ab seropositive population and the p-value was calculated using the log-rank test, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment.||||0.2604
84569827|NCT02008526|168890541|SUPERIORITY||F|1.16||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.3137
84569828|NCT02008526|168890542|SUPERIORITY||F|0.16||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.8494
84671532|NCT02442778|169077143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.6|-0.6|0.236
84751625|NCT03622619|169258732|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84751626|NCT03622619|169258733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84751627|NCT03622619|169258734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
84751628|NCT03622619|169258735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Burning/stinging||||||0.90
84608168|NCT02593825|168967521|SUPERIORITY|Significance was based on α = .05. Hedges' g, corrected for small sample bias, was calculated as a measure of effect size using the model-predicted group differences in rate of change in the numerator and the pooled standard deviation estimated from the 3 or 12 month assessment (for short- and long-term effects, respectively) in the denominator.|Slope|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Piecewise linear mixed modeling (LMM) was performed to address the study questions. LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months) and post-intervention (3 to 12 months) phases, and accounted for variation in the time between assessments across children. All models controlled for intercept-level differences by site, as well as intercept- and slope-level differences by baseline-adjusted age and motor severity. Intervention effects were derived via intervention by slope interaction terms. Three-way interaction terms were subsequently added to the models to obtain intervention effects stratified by severity.|||<0.05
84751629|NCT03622619|169258735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Grittiness/foreign body sensation||||||0.30
84751630|NCT03622619|169258735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Dryness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84751631|NCT03622619|169258735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Blurred vision|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84569829|NCT00492726|168890545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreement with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-3.8||||||95.0|-7.9|0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||0.4|-7.9|
84569830|NCT00492726|168890546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in improvement rates (in %)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||2.7|-0.4|
84569831|NCT00492726|168890547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
84569832|NCT00492726|168890548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.5||||||95.0|-5.0|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-5.0|
84569833|NCT00492726|168890549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
84569834|NCT00492726|168890550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.8||||||95.0|-9.0|1.5|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without super- or reinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.5|-9.0|
84569835|NCT00492726|168890551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-2.9||||||95.0|-7.6|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-7.6|
84569836|NCT01100502|168890559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.40|0.001
84751632|NCT03622619|169258735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Overall discomfort|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84496599|NCT00650806|168744479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.6|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.6|-3.05|0.541
84569837|NCT00721799|168890563|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.08
84569838|NCT00721799|168890563|OTHER||C-statistic|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
84569839|NCT00721799|168890564|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
84569840|NCT00721799|168890564|OTHER||C-statistic|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
84569841|NCT00721799|168890565|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
84569842|NCT00721799|168890565|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
84751633|NCT01658826|169258740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||non-linear mixed effects model|||||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
84751634|NCT04567615|169258743|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.3|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||5.3|-10.7|
84751635|NCT04567615|169258746|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
84751636|NCT04567615|169258747|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.4|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||7.4|-9.2|
84751637|NCT04567615|169258750|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
84751638|NCT04567615|169258751|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.49|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.49|0.74|
84751639|NCT05028517|169258758|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|0.511||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.602
84496600|NCT00650806|168744479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.47|-4.03|0.121
84496601|NCT00650806|168744480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0071|0.0286|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0286|-0.0071|0.239
84496602|NCT00650806|168744480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0198|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0198|-0.0174|0.900
84569843|NCT00721799|168890566|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.73
84569844|NCT00721799|168890566|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
84569845|NCT00721799|168890567|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.78
84608169|NCT02593825|168967522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear piecewise modeling|||||||.05
84496603|NCT00650806|168744480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0092||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.0202|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0202|-0.0160|0.822
84496604|NCT02080273|168744481|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.919
84496605|NCT02080273|168744482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
84496606|NCT02080273|168744483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
84496607|NCT02080273|168744484|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
84496608|NCT02080273|168744485|OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.922
84569846|NCT00721799|168890567|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
84569847|NCT00721799|168890568|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
84569848|NCT00721799|168890568|OTHER||C-statistic|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
84569849|NCT00721799|168890569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
84569850|NCT00721799|168890569|OTHER||C-statistic|0.58||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
84569851|NCT00721799|168890570|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.58
84569852|NCT00721799|168890570|OTHER||C-statistic|0.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
84569853|NCT00721799|168890571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.89
84569854|NCT00721799|168890571|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.42
84569855|NCT00721799|168890572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.43
84569856|NCT00721799|168890572|OTHER||C-statistic|0.47||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.80
84569857|NCT00721799|168890573|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
84671533|NCT02442778|169077143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.9|-1.3|0.684
84751640|NCT05028517|169258759|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|1.245||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.294
84751641|NCT05028517|169258760|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.585||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.039
84751642|NCT05028517|169258761|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.723||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.032
84751643|NCT05028517|169258762|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.588||||0.672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.672
84751644|NCT05028517|169258763|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.612||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
84751645|NCT05028517|169258764|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.196||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.940
84751646|NCT05028517|169258765|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.59||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.671
84751647|NCT05028517|169258766|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.896||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.468
84751648|NCT05028517|169258767|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|3.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84751649|NCT05028517|169258768|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.384||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.257
84751650|NCT05028517|169258769|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.686||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.192
84496609|NCT02080273|168744486|OTHER|||||||0.848||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline||||0.848
84496610|NCT02080273|168744487|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
84496611|NCT02080273|168744488|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
84496612|NCT00972309|168744512|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84496613|NCT05554471|168744520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: the time to ambulation for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used.||||<0.001
84751651|NCT05028517|169258770|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.651||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.524
84751652|NCT05028517|169258771|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.32||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.255
84751653|NCT00221195|169258795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxin signed-rank test was used to compare the frequency of bleeds between the prophylaxis and on-demand periods.||||<0.001
84751654|NCT01423812|169258808|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value||||<0.05
84751655|NCT01423812|169258809|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84751656|NCT01621230|169258813|OTHER|The median (first and third quartile) lengths of the second stage of labor were estimated at 28min (15, 58) in women without epidural analgesia. Assuming a one-third increase in the length of the second stage to 37min due to epidural bupivacaine, a sample size of 155 per arm (310 total) was required for 80% power to detect such a difference using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84751657|NCT01621230|169258816|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.55
84496614|NCT05554471|168744521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: the time to hemostasis for the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD device is at least 5 minutes less than manual compression.||||<0.001
84496615|NCT05554471|168744523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: The time to discharge eligibility for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used||||<0.001
84496616|NCT00741026|168744572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank|||||||0.0203
84496617|NCT00741026|168744573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0105
84496618|NCT00741026|168744574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0166
84496619|NCT00741026|168744575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0184
84496620|NCT00741026|168744576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0170
84496621|NCT02712359|168744600|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-23.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-18.29|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 8 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-18.29|-28.78|<0.0001
84496622|NCT02712359|168744601|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-24.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-19.03|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 10 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-19.03|-30.11|<0.0001
84569858|NCT00721799|168890573|OTHER||C-statistic|0.69||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.07
84569859|NCT00721799|168890574|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
84569860|NCT00721799|168890574|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.25
84569861|NCT00721799|168890575|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
84569862|NCT00721799|168890575|OTHER||C-statistic|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.27
84569863|NCT00721799|168890576|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
84569864|NCT00721799|168890576|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
84569865|NCT00721799|168890577|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.41
84569866|NCT00721799|168890577|OTHER||C-statistic|0.54||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.69
84751658|NCT01621230|169258817|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.57
84751659|NCT02616614|169258829|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80,1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
84751660|NCT02616614|169258829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84751661|NCT02616614|169258829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84751662|NCT02616614|169258830|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.11||||||||1.11|0.90|
84496623|NCT00798707|168744630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.69|-0.75|0.452
84496624|NCT00798707|168744630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.72||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.72|0.28|0.016
84496625|NCT00798707|168744631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.160
84496626|NCT00798707|168744631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure.p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.028
84496627|NCT00798707|168744632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.01|0.066
84496628|NCT00798707|168744632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|0.01|0.038
84569867|NCT00721799|168890578|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
84569868|NCT00721799|168890578|OTHER||C-statistic|0.64||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
84569869|NCT00721799|168890579|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
84569870|NCT00721799|168890579|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
84608170|NCT02593825|168967523|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||data shown is for the 12 month time point for the severely delayed group comparison|Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)||||<0.05
84608171|NCT02593825|168967525|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children. Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months).|||<0.05
84608172|NCT02593825|168967526|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months)|||<0.05
84608173|NCT02593825|168967527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
84608174|NCT06359080|168967531|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between post treatment CARS scores and pre treatment CARS scores will be statistically significant as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|6.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|8.19||It's a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.19|5.36|<0.05
84608175|NCT00511134|168967532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Descriptive data|||It was hypothesized that the Zyban+Lunesta group would report lower ISI scores at end of trial than the Zyban+Placebo group.||||<0.05
84671534|NCT02641379|169077149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.1002
84751663|NCT02616614|169258830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84751664|NCT02616614|169258830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
84751665|NCT02616614|169258831|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.043|||||Equivalence was based on difference in the number of subjects with success. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).||0.043|-0.087|
84569871|NCT00721799|168890580|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
84569872|NCT00721799|168890580|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
84569873|NCT00721799|168890581|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
84569874|NCT00721799|168890581|OTHER||C-statistic|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
84569875|NCT00721799|168890582|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.92
84569876|NCT00721799|168890582|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
84569877|NCT00721799|168890583|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.76
84569878|NCT00721799|168890583|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
84569879|NCT00721799|168890584|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
84569880|NCT00721799|168890584|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
84608176|NCT00511134|168967533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Degrees of freedom=1||It is predicted that subjects taking eszopiclone will be more likely to report abstinence at trial endpoint than those taking placebo.||||<0.05
84608177|NCT03242252|168967573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.054|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.054|-0.245|0.2095
84608178|NCT03242252|168967573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.085|-0.386|0.0021
84608179|NCT03242252|168967574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2397||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0564|-0.1169|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.1169|-1.0564|0.0144
84751666|NCT02748018|169258832|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.4||||||||-0.4||
84751667|NCT02748018|169258833|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.6||||||||-3.6||
84608180|NCT03242252|168967574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2368||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|-0.0136|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.0136|-0.942|0.0436
84671535|NCT02641379|169077149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0184
84671536|NCT02641379|169077149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0910
84671537|NCT02641379|169077149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||1.0000
84671538|NCT02641379|169077150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The SVR rate i.e., 32.1% participants with genotype I who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 20.3 to 46.0 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype I.||||0.0021
84569881|NCT00721799|168890585|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
84671539|NCT02641379|169077150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031||||||The SVR rate i.e., 20.0% participants with genotype IV who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 0.5 to 71.6 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype IV||||0.3031
84671540|NCT01165138|169077164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.222|||ANCOVA|||||0.222|0.051|0.002
84751668|NCT02748018|169258834|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
84751669|NCT02748018|169258835|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
84569882|NCT00721799|168890585|OTHER||C-statistic|0.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.35
84569883|NCT00721799|168890586|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.48
84751670|NCT02748018|169258836|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
84751671|NCT02748018|169258837|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.2||||||||-0.2||
84751672|NCT02748018|169258838|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.9||||||||-0.9||
84751673|NCT02748018|169258839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
84569884|NCT00721799|168890586|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
84569885|NCT00721799|168890587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.67
84569886|NCT00721799|168890587|OTHER||C-statistic|0.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.11
84569887|NCT00721799|168890588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.40
84569888|NCT00721799|168890588|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
84569889|NCT00721799|168890589|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
84569890|NCT00721799|168890589|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
84569891|NCT00721799|168890590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.26
84569892|NCT00721799|168890590|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
84569893|NCT00721799|168890591|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.37
84569894|NCT00721799|168890591|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
84751674|NCT02748018|169258840|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.7||||||||-3.7||
84751675|NCT02748018|169258841|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|14.5||||||||||14.5|
84751676|NCT02748018|169258842|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.8||||||||||8.8|
84751677|NCT02748018|169258843|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||||||||-2.6||
84751678|NCT02748018|169258844|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
84751679|NCT02748018|169258845|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-1.9||||||||-1.9||
84751680|NCT02748018|169258846|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
84751681|NCT02748018|169258847|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.7||||||||-4.7||
84569895|NCT00721799|168890592|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.90
84569896|NCT00721799|168890592|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.87
84569897|NCT00721799|168890593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
84569898|NCT00721799|168890593|OTHER||C-statistic|0.56||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
84569899|NCT00721799|168890594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.20
84569900|NCT00721799|168890594|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
84569901|NCT02860988|168890610|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
84751682|NCT02748018|169258848|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|11.1||||||||||11.1|
84751683|NCT02748018|169258849|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|9.9||||||||||9.9|
84569902|NCT02860988|168890611|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.88
84671541|NCT01165138|169077164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|||||0.258|0.087|<0.001
84569903|NCT02860988|168890612|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.89
84671542|NCT01165138|169077164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.120|-0.048|0.405
84751684|NCT02748018|169258850|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
84751685|NCT02748018|169258851|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0||||||||0.0||
84751686|NCT02748018|169258852|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.7||||||||0.7||
84751687|NCT02748018|169258853|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
84751688|NCT02748018|169258854|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.2||||||||0.2||
84751689|NCT02748018|169258855|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.3||||||||||8.3|
84751690|NCT02748018|169258856|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.3||||||||||3.3|
84496629|NCT00798707|168744633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.68|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.68|-0.68|0.242
84569904|NCT02860988|168890613|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.26||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.61
84569905|NCT02860988|168890614|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.61||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
84569906|NCT02860988|168890615|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
84569907|NCT02860988|168890616|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
84569908|NCT02860988|168890617|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
84569909|NCT01926028|168890619|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|0.17|0.03
84569910|NCT01926028|168890620|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.27|0.10
84671543|NCT01165138|169077165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.186||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.310|0.062|0.003
84751691|NCT02748018|169258857|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
84751692|NCT02748018|169258858|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
84569911|NCT00737048|168890629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.06|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
84569912|NCT00737048|168890629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 2 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
84569913|NCT01115452|168890654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32||||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|7.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||7.50|-8.14|0.9347
84569914|NCT01115452|168890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.24||Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.24|-8.20|0.9963
84569915|NCT01115452|168890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|12.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.25|-4.45|0.3582
84569916|NCT01115452|168890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.88||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|12.22||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.22|-4.46|0.3600
84569917|NCT01115452|168890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91||||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|7.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.30|-9.13|0.8265
84569918|NCT01115452|168890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|7.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.45|-9.25|0.8314
84569919|NCT01115452|168890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|8.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.35|-8.33|0.9978
84608181|NCT03242252|168967575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.265|1.709|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.709|-6.265|0.2627
84671544|NCT01165138|169077165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.426|||ANCOVA|||||0.426|0.178|<0.001
84751693|NCT01324323|169258864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean (%)|179.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.3|200.7|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||200.7|160.3|
84751694|NCT01324323|169258865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|178.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.4|199.4|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||199.4|159.4|
84671545|NCT01165138|169077165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.236|||ANCOVA|||||0.236|-0.005|0.060
84671546|NCT01644175|169077193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-39.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-39.3|-52.5|<0.0001
84751695|NCT01324323|169258866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|179.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|201.0|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||201.0|160.5|
84751696|NCT01324323|169258867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|159.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.8|186.5|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||186.5|135.8|
84608182|NCT03242252|168967575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.052|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1|-6.052|0.1602
84608183|NCT03242252|168967576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|0.958|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.958|-4.142|0.2212
84608184|NCT03242252|168967576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.171|0.912|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.912|-4.171|0.2089
84608185|NCT03242252|168967577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.644|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.644|-1.92|< 0.0001
84608186|NCT03242252|168967577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|-0.156|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.156|-1.487|0.0155
84608187|NCT03242252|168967578|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-30.72||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-13.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-13.07|-44.78|0.0015
84608188|NCT03242252|168967578|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-36.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-18.68|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-18.68|-49.91|0.0003
84496630|NCT00798707|168744633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.73|0.39|0.016
84608189|NCT03242252|168967579|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.21|-2.23|0.4328
84608190|NCT03242252|168967579|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.17|-2.2|0.4328
84608191|NCT03242252|168967580|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|12.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||12.21|-0.23|0.0614
84608192|NCT03242252|168967580|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|7.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||13.65|1.08|0.023
84608193|NCT01116427|168967583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84608194|NCT01116427|168967584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the total number of new lesions were converted to ranks and then compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84608195|NCT01116427|168967585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84672282|NCT01120210|169080034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.921||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.921|0.214|0.0049
84496631|NCT00798707|168744634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-0.62|0.802
84496632|NCT00798707|168744634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.43|0.01|0.048
84608196|NCT01116427|168967586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and the ranks were compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84569920|NCT01115452|168890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.44|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.44|-4.00|0.3122
84569921|NCT01115452|168890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|7.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.08|-9.62|0.7646
84751697|NCT01324323|169258868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.01|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + rifampin minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||1.01|-1.0|0.7910
84569922|NCT01115452|168890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.49||||0.1957||95.0|-13.83|2.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.85|-13.83|0.1957
84569923|NCT01115452|168890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.35||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.92|-9.62|0.7472
84569924|NCT01115452|168890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.66||||0.8767||95.0|-7.75|9.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.08|-7.75|0.8767
84569925|NCT01115452|168890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.6367||95.0|-6.39|10.42||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.42|-6.39|0.6367
84569926|NCT01115452|168890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.95||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|6.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.32|-10.22|0.6417
84569927|NCT01115452|168890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|8.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.85|-7.99|0.9200
84608197|NCT01116427|168967587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which mean numbers of new lesions per participant were converted to ranks and compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84751698|NCT00537485|169258873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.7|0.002
84751699|NCT00537485|169258874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||44.6|16.7|<0.001
84751700|NCT00537485|169258874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|12.0|<0.001
84608198|NCT01116427|168967588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
84751701|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.225|0.766|||||LS mean and confidence interval (CI) were based on back log-transformation of those from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||0.766|0.225|
84751702|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.187|0.446|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||0.446|0.187|
84751703|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.517|1.203|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.203|0.517|
84751704|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.949|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.949|0.794|
84496633|NCT00798707|168744635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.363||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.99|0.93|0.1099
84751705|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.329|1.472|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.472|0.329|0.5320
84751706|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|4.013|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||4.013|0.900|0.2700
84569928|NCT01115452|168890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.38||||0.5766||95.0|-6.02|10.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.78|-6.02|0.5766
84569929|NCT01115452|168890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.58||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|4.68||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.68|-11.65|0.3930
84569930|NCT01115452|168890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.71|-10.12|0.6896
84569931|NCT01115452|168890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustes mean difference|1.88||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|10.28||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.28|-6.52|0.6591
84569932|NCT01115452|168890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.08||||0.6301||95.0|-10.6|6.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.45|-10.60|0.6301
84569933|NCT01115452|168890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.76||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|6.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.93|-10.46|0.6888
84569934|NCT01115452|168890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.32||||0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.00|-8.37|0.9428
84569935|NCT01115452|168890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.58||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.95||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.95|-11.10|0.5504
84569936|NCT01115452|168890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.60|-10.80|0.6340
84608199|NCT01116427|168967590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per subject were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84608200|NCT01116427|168967591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84608201|NCT01116427|168967592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84751707|NCT01284062|169258883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.0||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.403|6.409|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||6.409|1.403|0.0666
84751708|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.466|1.048||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.048|0.466|
84751709|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.552|1.185||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.185|0.552|
84751710|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.488|1.027||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.027|0.488|
84751711|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.195||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.195|0.500|
84751712|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.631|1.328||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.328|0.631|
84751713|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.339|0.655||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.655|0.339|
84751714|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.269||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.269|0.669|
84569937|NCT01115452|168890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.48||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.16|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.16|-8.20|0.9127
84569938|NCT01115452|168890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.15||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|6.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.38|-10.67|0.6192
84569939|NCT01115452|168890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6||||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.30|-8.10|0.8912
84569940|NCT01115452|168890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.75||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|11.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.43|-5.93|0.5321
84569941|NCT01115452|168890664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.37||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|4.63||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.63|-11.37|0.4055
84569942|NCT01115452|168890664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.74||||0.8573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|8.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.91|-7.42|0.8573
84569943|NCT01115452|168890664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|12.27||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.27|-4.03|0.3193
84569944|NCT01115452|168890665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.23||||0.4264||95.0|-4.77|11.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.23|-4.77|0.4264
84751715|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.388|0.779||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.779|0.388|
84751716|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.454|1.331||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.331|0.454|
84751717|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.236|0.553||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.553|0.236|
84751718|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.757|1.722||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.722|0.757|
84751719|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.338|0.788||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.788|0.338|
84751720|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.374|1.084||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.084|0.374|
84751721|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.122|0.297||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.297|0.122|
84569945|NCT01115452|168890665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.04||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|9.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.21|-7.42|0.8008
84569946|NCT01115452|168890665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.18||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.97|-10.33|0.5969
84569947|NCT01115452|168890666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.14||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|2.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.86|-13.14|0.2059
84569948|NCT01115452|168890666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.77||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.77|-8.56|0.9248
84569949|NCT01115452|168890666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.75||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.90|-3.40|0.2508
84569950|NCT01115452|168890667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.12||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|9.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.10|-6.86|0.7822
84569951|NCT01115452|168890667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.44||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|9.41||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.41|-6.52|0.7208
84569952|NCT01115452|168890668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.36||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|6.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.46|-9.18|0.7318
84569953|NCT01115452|168890668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.05||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.03|-6.93|0.7949
84569954|NCT01115452|168890668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.41||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|10.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.37|-5.56|0.5507
84751722|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.623|1.465||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.465|0.623|
84751723|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.411|1.076||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.076|0.411|
84751724|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.16||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.663|2.021|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.021|0.663|0.7352
84751725|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.586|1.753|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.753|0.586|0.9754
84751726|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.11||||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.609|2.008|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.008|0.609|0.8277
84751727|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.51||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.313|0.846|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.846|0.313|0.0885
84751728|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.617|1.644|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.644|0.617|0.9856
84751729|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.6||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.361|1.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.000|0.361|0.1996
84751730|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.46||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.233|0.926|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.926|0.233|0.1553
84751731|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.47||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.748|2.882|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.882|0.748|0.4633
84569955|NCT01115452|168890669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Investigator applied the participants with 5% potassium nitrate solution on each of the three individual sensitive tooth for two minutes (mins), in each of the five day treatment period|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.10|-8.54|0.8549
84569956|NCT01115452|168890669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.15||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|7.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.83|-8.13|0.9705
84569957|NCT01115452|168890669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.57||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|8.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.54|-7.39|0.8867
84569958|NCT01587885|168890682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.548|||<|0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0480
84569959|NCT02932943|168890695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.72|-1.07|0.6482
84569960|NCT02932943|168890696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.87|-1.61|0.5590
84569961|NCT02932943|168890697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.95|-1.53|0.8131
84569962|NCT02932943|168890698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.21|-2.05|0.6108
84608202|NCT01116427|168967593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84608203|NCT01116427|168967594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84672283|NCT01120210|169080035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.312|2.131||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.131|-2.312|0.4729
84751732|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.66||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.335|1.316|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.316|0.335|0.4409
84569963|NCT00386334|168890705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569964|NCT00386334|168890708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0014
84569965|NCT00386334|168890711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569966|NCT00386334|168890714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0005
84569967|NCT00386334|168890717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84608204|NCT01116427|168967596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84608205|NCT03344640|168967601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.84|7.3|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All Patients at day 99||7.30|-8.84|0.875
84608206|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|8.97|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patientts at day 15||8.97|-1.03|0.190
84496634|NCT00798707|168744635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.32|1.09|0.0154
84496635|NCT00798707|168744636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.41|0.54|0.5929
84496636|NCT00798707|168744636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.474||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.29|0.95|0.0852
84496637|NCT00798707|168744637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.277||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.89|0.86|0.2232
84496638|NCT00798707|168744637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||2.69|1.24|0.0022
84496639|NCT00798707|168744638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.67|0.80|0.4313
84569968|NCT00386334|168890720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569969|NCT00386334|168890723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569970|NCT00386334|168890726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84751733|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.3||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|0.598|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.598|0.150|0.0283
84496640|NCT00798707|168744638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.97|0.95|0.0888
84496641|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.29|-0.10|0.073
84496642|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.24|-0.12|0.078
84496643|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.73|-0.13|0.176
84496644|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.77|-0.08|0.109
84496645|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.84|-0.02|0.064
84496646|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.78|-0.07|0.104
84569971|NCT00386334|168890729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569972|NCT00386334|168890732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569973|NCT00386334|168890735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1175||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.1175
84569974|NCT00386334|168890738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0717
84569975|NCT00386334|168890741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1182
84496647|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score.||5.57|-2.98|0.538
84496648|NCT00798707|168744640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score||2.62|-1.76|0.689
84496649|NCT00798707|168744641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-1.67|0.066
84496650|NCT00798707|168744641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-1.48|0.150
84496651|NCT00798707|168744642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.78|0.51|0.8758
84496652|NCT00798707|168744642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||2.21|0.61|0.6397
84496653|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
84496654|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
84496655|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
84496656|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
84496657|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
84569976|NCT00386334|168890744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.3010
84569977|NCT00386334|168890747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.7800
84496658|NCT00798707|168744644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
84496659|NCT00929201|168744662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and coadministration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the AUC0-∞ for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin AUC0-∞GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||1.00|0.95|
84496660|NCT00929201|168744663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and co-administration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the Cmax for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin Cmax GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/ co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.95||||||90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||0.98|0.93|
84496661|NCT00566969|168744664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hierarchical linear model was used to account for unequal variance and covariance structures across time.||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||.10
84496662|NCT01107834|168744679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.27
84496663|NCT01107834|168744680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.46
84496664|NCT01107834|168744681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.13
84569978|NCT00386334|168890750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0803
84751734|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.5||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.758|2.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.970|0.758|0.4434
84496665|NCT01107834|168744682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.59
84496666|NCT01107834|168744683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.09
84496667|NCT01107834|168744684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.03
84496668|NCT03722849|168744685|OTHER||||||=|0.0028||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0028
84496669|NCT03722849|168744686|OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0070
84496670|NCT03722849|168744687|OTHER|Group comparisons (Cough versus healthy) for each measurement using repeated measures ANOVA.|||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|with repeated measures||||||=0.0019
84496671|NCT03722849|168744689|OTHER|Group-wise comparisons using unpaired t-tests or one way ANOVA|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84496672|NCT01900392|168744715|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.1
84496673|NCT04633434|168744717|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the pretest and posttest scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Estimation parameter based on paired t-test.|||||.690
84496674|NCT04633434|168744718|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest score change is greater than zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
84496675|NCT04633434|168744719|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.135
84496676|NCT04633434|168744720|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
84496677|NCT04633434|168744721|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84496678|NCT04633434|168744722|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84496679|NCT04633434|168744723|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
84496680|NCT04633434|168744724|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84496681|NCT04633434|168744725|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.352
84569979|NCT00386334|168890753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2643
84569980|NCT00386334|168890756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0765
84569981|NCT00386334|168890759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2967
84671547|NCT01644175|169077194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-43.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-43.6|-56.2|<0.0001
84496682|NCT04633434|168744726|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
84496683|NCT04633434|168744729|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.106
84496684|NCT04633434|168744730|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
84496685|NCT04633434|168744731|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.082
84496686|NCT00297882|168744746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
84496687|NCT00297882|168744747|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
84569982|NCT00386334|168890762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0634
84496688|NCT04242264|168744748|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided Chi-squared test with alpha=0.05 was used to test the null hypothesis that the vaccine efficacy is zero, which is equivalent to testing that the relative risk of shigellosis is one.|Vaccine efficacy|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Chi-squared||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate.|The null hypothesis is that the absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) of preventing shigellosis is zero. The alternative hypothesis is that the absolute VE is greater than zero.||0.96|0.71|<0.001
84496689|NCT04242264|168744749|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.92||||||||0.92|0.44|
84496690|NCT04242264|168744749|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||||1.00|0.78|
84569983|NCT00386334|168890765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84569984|NCT01026493|168890786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-NAIVE|||1.48|0.66|0.95
84569985|NCT01026493|168890786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.53|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-FAILURE|||1.53|0.57|0.93
84751735|NCT01284062|169258890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.04||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.141|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.141|0.510|0.9372
84751736|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.53|59.81|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||59.81|25.53|
84496691|NCT04242264|168744749|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||||||||1.00|0.71|
84569986|NCT03093181|168890809|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.12||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.56||From Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||5.56|0.68|0.0128
84751737|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|43.59|74.43|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||74.43|43.59|
84751738|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|34.74|65.26|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||65.26|34.74|
84751739|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.58|31.96|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||31.96|6.58|
84751740|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.33||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.13|39.98|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||39.98|-6.13|0.4495
84751741|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|8.33||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.37|30.54|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||30.54|-15.37|0.7177
84751742|NCT01284062|169258895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-26.28||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.45|-3.15|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-3.15|-46.45|0.2016
84751743|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.14|34.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||34.22|7.14|
84751744|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|20.08|49.88|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||49.88|20.08|
84751745|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|18.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.4|33.92|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||33.92|9.40|
84751746|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|11.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||11.22|0.00|
84751747|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.67||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|35.76|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||35.76|-5.33|0.4082
84751748|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|2.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.8|19.99|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||19.99|-17.80|1.0000
84751749|NCT01284062|169258896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.67||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.22|-1.95|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-1.95|-34.22|0.2200
84751750|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.332|-0.3||||||||-0.300|-2.332|
84608207|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.11|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 29||9.11|-3.39|
84608208|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.761||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.81|6.08|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 57||6.08|-8.81|0.761
84751751|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|-1.374||||||||-1.374|-3.190|
84751752|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.178|-1.419||||||||-1.419|-3.178|
84751753|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.761|0.19||||||||0.190|-1.761|
84751754|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.335|0.403|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.403|-2.335|0.3639
84496692|NCT01353209|168744790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.4
84751755|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.98||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|0.355|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.355|-2.320|0.3446
84751756|NCT01284062|169258897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.884|1.945|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||1.945|-0.884|0.6285
84751757|NCT01603082|169258908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.7|-123.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|||-123.5|-194.7|<0.001
84751758|NCT01603082|169258909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||9.7|-50.5|0.182
84751759|NCT01603082|169258909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.4|-127.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose.||-127.7|-189.4|<0.001
84751760|NCT01603082|169258909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of PCI.||-10.7|-76.5|0.010
84751761|NCT00852592|169258912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.005
84751762|NCT00852592|169258913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.004
84751763|NCT01026142|169258917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02||The primary endpoint, IRF-assessed PFS, is tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Two-sided and stratified by: prior CNS disease present/absent, measurable disease at baseline, and response to trastuzumab in 1L metastatic setting.|The stratified Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the HR between the two treatment arms and its 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the two treatment groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the treatment and the control arms are different:~H0: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> = IRF PFS\<control\> vs. H1: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> ≠ IRF PFS\<control\>"||1.02|0.65|0.0731
84751764|NCT00846885|169258927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
84751765|NCT00846885|169258928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0||||||90.0|102.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|102|
84569987|NCT03093181|168890809|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.96||From ANCOVA with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||3.96|-0.95|0.2262
84569988|NCT03093181|168890811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||3.15|1.08|0.0243
84751766|NCT00846885|169258929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|101|
84751767|NCT01862640|169258930|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.77|||=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-0.17|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.17|-7.38|=0.0404
84569989|NCT03093181|168890811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||1.78|0.61|0.8931
84751768|NCT01862640|169258930|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|||=|0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.86|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||3.86|-3.40|=0.9015
84751769|NCT01862640|169258931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.06|-0.39|=0.1566
84751770|NCT01862640|169258931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||=|0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.32|-0.14|=0.4440
84751771|NCT02178553|169258933|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.1|0.142
84751772|NCT02178553|169258934|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.101
84751773|NCT02178553|169258935|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.014
84751774|NCT02178553|169258936|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.3|0.375
84671548|NCT01644175|169077195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-41.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.3|-53.6|<0.0001
84671549|NCT01644175|169077196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-55.3|<0.0001
84751775|NCT00448435|169259011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin + or - 15 L/min|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.6383||95.0|-9.1|14.69||Confidence Interval|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between treatments \[(SLM + FP)- SFC\](SE) 2.8 (5.91)||14.69|-9.10|0.6383
84569990|NCT03093181|168890811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.25|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||3.25|1.12|0.0181
84751776|NCT00809523|169259026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed at the follow up timepoint (4 weeks) to test for differences between the experimental groups.||||0.007
84751777|NCT00809523|169259027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84751778|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.051
84569991|NCT03093181|168890811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.63|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||1.63|0.55|0.8319
84569992|NCT03093181|168890812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0279
84751779|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.206
84751780|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.765
84751781|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at follow-up.||||0.991
84751782|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.963
84569993|NCT03093181|168890812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.14|-0.12|0.8887
84569994|NCT03093181|168890812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0224
84569995|NCT03093181|168890812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.12|-0.15|0.8253
84569996|NCT03154086|168890881|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.077|||ANOVA|||||1.077|0.5940|0.204
84569997|NCT03154086|168890882|OTHER||Ratio|0.7325||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5267|1.019|||ANOVA|||||1.019|0.5267|0.118
84569998|NCT03154086|168890883|OTHER||Ratio|0.6502||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3876|1.091|||ANOVA|||||1.091|0.3876|0.157
84569999|NCT03555149|168890903|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
84751783|NCT04561765|169259048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.916
84751784|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.005
84751785|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.270
84751786|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.177
84751787|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P Value at follow-up.||||0.300
84751788|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.996
84751789|NCT04561765|169259049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.334
84751790|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.212
84751791|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.965
84751792|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.294
84570000|NCT03555149|168890903|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
84751793|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.207
84751794|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.158
84570001|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.73||||||||2.73|0.67|
84570002|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.88||||||||4.88|1.08|
84570003|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18||||||||2.18|0.29|
84570004|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.24||||||||6.24|0.64|
84570005|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.63||||||||3.63|0.83|
84570006|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63||||||||1.63|0.39|
84570007|NCT03555149|168890904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|33.82||||||||33.82|0.94|
84570008|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.93||||||Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.93|0.71|
84570009|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||||||Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.81|0.68|
84570010|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.72||||||Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.72|0.30|
84751795|NCT04561765|169259051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.988
84751796|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.295
84751797|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.718
84751798|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.738
84751799|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.797
84751800|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.260
84751801|NCT04561765|169259053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.616
84751802|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.333
84751803|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.003
84751804|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.106
84570011|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.84||||||Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||3.84|0.42|
84570012|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.88||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.88|0.39|
84570013|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.96||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.96|0.43|
84671550|NCT01644175|169077197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-30.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.3|-41.3|<0.0001
84751805|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.541
84751806|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.202
84751807|NCT04561765|169259054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.791
84751808|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.026
84751809|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.15
84570014|NCT03555149|168890905|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.85||||||Atezolizumab + LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||24.85|0.33|
84570015|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
84570016|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.78|16.79||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.79|-49.78|
84751810|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.745
84751811|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.021
84570017|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-14.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.37|15.47||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||15.47|-44.37|
84570018|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.14||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||11.14|-32.25|
84570019|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|16.87||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.87|-38.62|
84570020|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-23.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|9.78||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||9.78|-56.10|
84671551|NCT01644175|169077198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-32.0||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.0|-43.0|<0.0001
84671552|NCT01644175|169077199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-31.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.4|-43.5|<0.0001
84751812|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.155
84496693|NCT01353209|168744791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.7
84570021|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.19|23.62||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||23.62|-39.19|
84570022|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|29.63||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||29.63|-24.08|
84570023|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
84570024|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|16.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|58.07||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||58.07|-24.39|
84570025|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|18.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|72.3||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||72.30|-34.53|
84751813|NCT04561765|169259055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.652
84751814|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.343
84751815|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.995
84751816|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.371
84751817|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.228
84751818|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.282
84751819|NCT04561765|169259056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.986
84751820|NCT04561765|169259057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.421
84570026|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|57.08||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||57.08|-38.19|
84570027|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|36.28||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.28|-54.70|
84570028|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.74|40.43||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.43|-66.74|
84570029|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.26|38.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||38.36|-57.26|
84570030|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|53.73||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||53.73|-38.18|
84570031|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|21.56||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||21.56|-32.03|
84570032|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|40.6||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.60|-23.33|
84570033|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|40.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.06|-29.19|
84570034|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|36.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.06|-22.64|
84570035|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.31|26.22||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||26.22|-21.31|
84570036|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|10.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|41.34||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||41.34|-20.99|
84570037|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|31.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||31.36|-33.59|
84570038|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|37.94||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||37.94|-19.06|
84570039|NCT03555149|168890906|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab +LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
84570040|NCT00289211|168890910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.048||||0.048||95.0|1.008|4.164|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who did not experience beginning of substantial relief of the defining symptom within 4 hours after initial treatment were included in the analysis as censored observations. Entries of 4.0 (hours) for median time to event or 95% CI indicate that data were NE (see Population Description). As non-numeric data are not supported by the median and 95% CI fields, entry of the actual results (ie, NE or \>4.0) was not possible.||4.164|1.008|0.048
84570041|NCT00289211|168890911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.062||95.0|0.87|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.87|0.062
84570042|NCT00289211|168890912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.717||||0.001||95.0|1.471|5.02|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who had not experienced complete resolution of the HAE attack at the time of the follow-up telephone call, or who were lost to follow-up, were censored at 72 hours.||5.020|1.471|0.001
84570043|NCT00289211|168890913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84570044|NCT00289211|168890913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84570045|NCT00289211|168890913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84570046|NCT00289211|168890913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
84751821|NCT04561765|169259057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.556
84570047|NCT00289211|168890914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84570048|NCT00289211|168890914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84751822|NCT03027557|169259062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84570049|NCT00289211|168890914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84570050|NCT00289211|168890914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Percent change 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
84570051|NCT00289211|168890915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
84570052|NCT00289211|168890915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5218||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5218
84570053|NCT00289211|168890915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.121||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1210
84570054|NCT00289211|168890915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
84570055|NCT02295644|168890928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Interaction test of duty cycle and intensity for self reported pain score|ANOVA|||||||0.17
84751823|NCT03027557|169259063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84751824|NCT03027557|169259064|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0019
84751825|NCT03027557|169259065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.096|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.096
84751826|NCT03027557|169259066|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
84751827|NCT03027557|169259067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84496694|NCT01353209|168744792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.8
84496695|NCT01353209|168744792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
84570056|NCT02295644|168890928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Main effect of duty cycle on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||0.14
84570057|NCT02295644|168890928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Main effect of intensity on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||1.0
84570058|NCT02295644|168890929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||.24
84570059|NCT02295644|168890929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Main effect for intensity.|ANOVA|||||||0.019
84570060|NCT02295644|168890929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||0.17
84570061|NCT02295644|168890930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
84570062|NCT02295644|168890930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||ANOVA|||Main effect for intensity.||||0.475
84570063|NCT02295644|168890930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||.178
84570064|NCT00572832|168890954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The formula used for calculating sample size for the treatment arm (NT) is NT = (1 + 1/u) (Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMC) -δ0\] where u is the ratio of the size of the control and treatment arms, one sided alpha that is divided by 4, a non-inferiority margin (δ0 of natural log 0.5), the expected ratio of geometric mean concentrations RGMC set at 0.8, and a standard deviation of 1.26 (the largest for HPV-16). The calculated sample size for a power of 80% was 75 participants in each arm.||||||0.025||95.0||||Non-inferiority was tested against a one-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type. Results: GMT ratios were 2.23, 3,17, 2.14, and 1.68 for types 6,11,16,\& 18.|ANOVA|Log transformed the data and calculated GMTs. Tested if post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||Non-inferiority tested against 1-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||||.025
84570065|NCT00966433|168890955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.79|-13.61|.0051
84570066|NCT00966433|168890956|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|2.97|.0001
84570067|NCT00966433|168890961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|-8.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-8.92|-18.88|.0001
84570068|NCT00324155|168890965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||1.740|0.799|0.4067
84496696|NCT01353209|168744793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use. P value was obtained for testing zero slope for log(VEGF-D).||||||0.015
84570069|NCT00324155|168890973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.872||p-value was via stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio via stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||0.872|0.588|0.0009
84570070|NCT01924533|168891000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.00|0.63|0.0262
84570071|NCT01924533|168891001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.4|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.40|0.2458
84570072|NCT01924533|168891002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.04|0.67|0.0645
84570073|NCT01924533|168891003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|1.29|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.29|0.42|0.2199
84570074|NCT01924533|168891004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.92|0.0548
84496697|NCT03112720|168744796|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||\< 0.01 study terminated because of covid and no meaningfull numbers participated|||<0.01
84496698|NCT03237325|168744817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1798
84496699|NCT02684370|168744818|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|76.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||76.7|64.0|<0.001
84496700|NCT02684370|168744819|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|79.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|86.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.3|73.5|<0.001
84570075|NCT01924533|168891005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|23.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.23|0.95|0.0309
84570076|NCT01924533|168891006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.05|0.64|0.0716
84570077|NCT01924533|168891007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.34|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.16|0.34|0.0927
84570078|NCT04233879|168891012|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8|||||Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||5.8|-4.5|
84570079|NCT04233879|168891013|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||9.6|-0.8|
84751828|NCT03027557|169259068|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0027
84496701|NCT02684370|168744820|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.8|28.6|<0.001
84496702|NCT02684370|168744821|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|41.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||41.0|30.0|< 0.001
84496703|NCT02684370|168744822|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|65.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||65.3|50.4|< 0.001
84570080|NCT04233879|168891014|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.9|0.4|
84570081|NCT04233879|168891017|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.7|-3.1|
84570082|NCT04233879|168891018|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||6.1|-4.1|
84570083|NCT04233879|168891029|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 0.|Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.02|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA model was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||1.02|-0.71|0.73
84570084|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||Sample size of 12 subjects, a two-sided 90% CI for the difference in paired PK parameter means on the log scale will have an interval that extends no more than 0.221 units from the observed difference with 90% coverage probability. Assumes CV of 35% for the difference on the original scale.||20.3|7.5|
84570085|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|16.3||||||||16.3|6.5|
84570086|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER|relative bioavailibilty|Geometric Mean ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.5|137.6||||||||137.6|50.5|
84570087|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.21|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
84570088|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.13|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
84570089|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
84570090|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
84570091|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.17|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
84570092|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
84751829|NCT03027557|169259069|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.081|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.081
84751830|NCT03027557|169259070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0071|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0071
84751831|NCT03027557|169259071|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
84570093|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.08|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
84570094|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|0.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
84570095|NCT03292016|168891034|OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
84570096|NCT03292016|168891035|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0625
84570097|NCT03292016|168891035|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0313
84570098|NCT03292016|168891035|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Sign test|||||||>0.9999
84570099|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.1|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.1|
84570100|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.0|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.3|13.0|
84751832|NCT03027557|169259072|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
84751833|NCT03027557|169259073|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.38
84751834|NCT03027557|169259078|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.83
84751835|NCT03027557|169259081|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84751836|NCT03027557|169259082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0077|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0077
84751837|NCT03027557|169259083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
84751838|NCT03027557|169259084|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
84751839|NCT03027557|169259085|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
84751840|NCT03027557|169259086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84496704|NCT02684370|168744823|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|32.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.9|21.2|< 0.001
84570101|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|126.4||||||||126.4|74.2|
84570102|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
84570103|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
84570104|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
84751841|NCT03027557|169259087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
84751842|NCT03027557|169259088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
84751843|NCT03027557|169259089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
84570105|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
84570106|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
84570107|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
84570108|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.15|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
84570109|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.14|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
84570110|NCT03292016|168891036|OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
84570111|NCT03292016|168891037|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.7|
84570112|NCT03292016|168891037|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.6|13.7|
84570113|NCT03292016|168891037|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.6|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.8|76.6|
84570114|NCT03292016|168891042|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
84570115|NCT03292016|168891042|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
84570116|NCT03292016|168891042|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
84570117|NCT04275336|168891050|OTHER||H value|1.344||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.511
84751844|NCT03027557|169259091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.5
84496705|NCT02684370|168744824|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|44.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.3|22.7|< 0.001
84570118|NCT04275336|168891051|OTHER||H value|5.272||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.072
84570119|NCT04275336|168891052|OTHER||H value|0.198||||0.906|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
84570120|NCT04275336|168891053|OTHER||H value|6.679||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
84751845|NCT03027557|169259092|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.85
84570121|NCT04275336|168891054|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.844
84570122|NCT04275336|168891055|OTHER||H value|1.651||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.438
84570123|NCT04275336|168891056|OTHER||H value|0.341||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.843
84570124|NCT04275336|168891057|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
84570125|NCT04664205|168891071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84570126|NCT04664205|168891072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.069
84570127|NCT04664205|168891073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.478
84570128|NCT02439164|168891082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|32.87|||t-test, 2 sided|bonferroni correction was used for post hoc analysis, P value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|this described the difference during midazolam sedation between the glioma and control group without dividing into subgroups.||Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference among hands in a certain time point. General linear model for repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the time difference of test before and after drug administration,|32.87|14.16|<0.01
84751846|NCT03027557|169259093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.22
84751847|NCT03027557|169259094|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.18
84751848|NCT01699789|169259099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.57|
84752843|NCT03684642|169260864|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.09|-0.25|
84751849|NCT01699789|169259100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.26|0.48|
84751850|NCT01699789|169259101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.|In an analysis of change from baseline in likelihood of Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, CEP showed a significant advantage at 6 months, but not at 12 months.|0.97|0.61|
84570129|NCT03118934|168891090|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.5. With a sample size of 80/group, there was approximately 83% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in fit with assumed standard deviation of 0.6 and expected difference of 0.25 (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
84570130|NCT02343224|168891092|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|76.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of event-free survival among study participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|52.1|
84570131|NCT02343224|168891093|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of overall survival among participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|50.3|
84570132|NCT04249427|168891094|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in mean number of days with significant mid-facial pain in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
84751851|NCT01699789|169259102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.3|0.7|
84751852|NCT01699789|169259103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
84751853|NCT01699789|169259104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.59||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.59|1.19|
84751854|NCT01699789|169259105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.04|1.03|
84496706|NCT02684370|168744825|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|35.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||35.0|15.2|< 0.001
84570133|NCT04249427|168891095|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in SNOT-22 score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
84570134|NCT04249427|168891096|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Physical Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84570135|NCT04249427|168891097|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Usual Activities as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84570136|NCT04249427|168891098|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Social Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.058|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.058
84570137|NCT04249427|168891099|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Emotional Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84570138|NCT04249427|168891100|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Overall Impact (global) as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.0036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0036
84570139|NCT04249427|168891101|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant nasal congestion in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84752844|NCT03684642|169260864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7064
84496707|NCT02684370|168744826|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.1|15.5|< 0.001
84570140|NCT04249427|168891102|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant significant rhinorrhea in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84608209|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.765||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.27|9.03|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 85||9.03|-6.27|0.765
84608210|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.491||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|11.45|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 127||11.45|-4.73|0.491
84608211|NCT03344640|168967602|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|2.44||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|11.07|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at end of study||11.07|-6.19|0.639
84608212|NCT03344640|168967603|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.23||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|7.28||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||7.28|-4.81|0.735
84608213|NCT03344640|168967603|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.51||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|7.79|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD analysis set) at End of Study||7.79|-4.76|0.689
84608214|NCT03344640|168967604|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI vesus placebo|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|10.54|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at day 99||10.54|-3.54|0.411
84608215|NCT03344640|168967604|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|1.14||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|8.78|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at End of Study set)||8.78|-6.50|0.804
84608216|NCT03344640|168967605|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.26||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|4.29|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in Your Health Today Score at day 99||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||4.29|-6.81|0.706
84608217|NCT03344640|168967605|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|4.99|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in Your Health Today score||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study||4.99|-8.79|0.647
84751855|NCT01699789|169259106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.98||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.98|1.14|
84608218|NCT03344640|168967606|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.01||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.03|0.613
84608219|NCT03344640|168967606|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.04|0.740
84751856|NCT01699789|169259107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.96|0.38|
84497638|NCT03170271|168746325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.7|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||6.70|1.77|0.0003
84608220|NCT03344640|168967607|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-5.55||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|2.97|||LS Mean|LS MMean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||2.97|-14.07|0.281
84608221|NCT03344640|168967607|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.49||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.33|7.35|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at End of Study||7.35|-10.33|0.780
84608222|NCT03344640|168967608|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-3.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.28|4.64|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||4.64|-11.28|0.489
84608223|NCT03344640|168967608|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-8.29||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.26|-0.32|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale at End of Study||-0.32|-16.26|0.087
84608224|NCT03344640|168967609|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 99% CL versus placebo|6.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|13.91|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at day 99||13.91|-1.90|0.210
84608225|NCT03344640|168967609|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-0.37||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|8.11|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at End of Study||8.11|-8.86|0.942
84608226|NCT03426631|168967634|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84608227|NCT04971941|168967640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||This P value applies to comparison of IAN with and without DentalVibe|t-test, 2 sided|df =58||Sample size estimation from Nanitsos 2010: Using the P value from the paired T test with 61 degrees of freedom the T statistic calculated at 4.365. From mean difference 9.3 SD was calculated as 16.66 for an effect size of 0.558. This generated a sample size of 44 subjects, receiving 2 injections (1 with DV3 and 1 without), is necessary to attain 95% power for a paired t-test comparing the 2 pain measures at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. P value for IAN||2.1|0.4|0.001
84608228|NCT04971941|168967640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|df= 58||||-1.5|-1.7|0.02
84608229|NCT04971941|168967640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|0.4|0.004
84608230|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|14.0|0.4|4.8||This P value applies to comparing IAN with or with DV as measured by SSI tolerability/ability to endure|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.8|0.4|0.001
84608231|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84608232|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84608233|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
84608234|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84608235|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
84608236|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84608237|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84608238|NCT04971941|168967641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84608239|NCT04971941|168967642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between use of DV and numb times. There were no studies from which to perform a power calculation for this outcome measure||||0.459
84751857|NCT01699789|169259108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.70|0.69|
84608240|NCT01264770|168967648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.9|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.90|0.23|0.006
84751858|NCT01699789|169259109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N= 249), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.09|0.32|
84751859|NCT01699789|169259110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.28|
84608241|NCT01264770|168967648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.84|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.84|0.14|0.022
84608242|NCT01264770|168967648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.56|-0.12|0.280
84608243|NCT01264770|168967649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.005
84608244|NCT01264770|168967649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.27|-0.94|0.020
84608245|NCT01264770|168967649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.004
84608246|NCT01264770|168967650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|5.86|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.86|1.59|0.005
84570141|NCT04249427|168891103|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in doses of rescue pain medications in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84570142|NCT04249427|168891104|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change from baseline in mean daily pain score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
84570143|NCT03886272|168891105|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|112.96||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|124.26||P-value for ratio outside 80% -125%.|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as: T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2|Relative bioavailability||124.26|102.70|0.0413
84570144|NCT03886272|168891105|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|115.49||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|126.74||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative bioavailability||126.74|105.23|0.0776
84570145|NCT03886272|168891105|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|78.05||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.71|87.38||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as Tc3/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||87.38|69.71|0.6443
84608247|NCT01264770|168967650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|8.05|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.05|2.10|<0.001
84608248|NCT01264770|168967650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.83|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.76|0.335
84608249|NCT01264770|168967651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.68|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.68|0.20|0.007
84608250|NCT01264770|168967651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.89|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.89|0.26|0.051
84671553|NCT01644175|169077200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-34.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.4|-46.4|<0.0001
84751860|NCT01699789|169259111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.88||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.88|0.14|
84752845|NCT03684642|169260864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3427||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3427
84752846|NCT03739437|169260882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.384
84752847|NCT05564299|169260932|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.053
84570146|NCT03886272|168891105|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|45.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.05|51.48||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||51.48|41.05|1.00
84570147|NCT03886272|168891106|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|144.62||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.82|167.57||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1|Relative bioavailability||167.57|124.82|0.9485
84570148|NCT03886272|168891106|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|129.69||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.51|140.73||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted geometric mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 12.2.|Relative Bioavailability||140.73|119.51|0.7813
84570149|NCT03886272|168891106|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|75.09||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.58|87.32||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||87.32|64.58|0.7616
84570150|NCT03886272|168891106|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|41.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.61|48.25||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||48.25|35.61|1.00
84671554|NCT01644175|169077201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-29.3|<0.0001
84570151|NCT03886272|168891107|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|111.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|120.01||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||120.01|102.87|0.0092
84570152|NCT03886272|168891107|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|114.13||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.58|124.56||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.0.|Relative Bioavailability||124.56|104.58|0.0442
84608251|NCT01264770|168967651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.65|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.65|0.20|0.004
84608252|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.4||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.40|0.17|<0.001
84608253|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|0.18|<0.001
84608254|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.31||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.31|0.07|0.007
84671555|NCT01644175|169077202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-32.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.7|-43.7|<0.0001
84671556|NCT01644175|169077203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-46.2|<0.0001
84671557|NCT01644175|169077204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-21.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-31.1|<0.0001
84671558|NCT01644175|169077205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-34.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.3|-51.6|<0.0001
84671559|NCT01644175|169077206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|89.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||89.8|16.5|<0.0001
84751861|NCT01699789|169259112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||Median cut point for baseline variable.|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.52|
84751862|NCT01699789|169259113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition||1.41|0.69|
84570153|NCT03886272|168891107|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|80.1||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.54|89.68||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||89.68|71.54|0.4928
84570154|NCT03886272|168891107|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|48.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|54.69||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||54.69|43.60|1.00
84570155|NCT00402727|168891111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreeance with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-5.3|
84751863|NCT01699789|169259114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.46|0.70|
84751864|NCT01699789|169259115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=298), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||4.94|1.40|<.01
84570156|NCT00402727|168891112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|1.3||||||95.0|-3.8|6.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||6.3|-3.8|
84570157|NCT00402727|168891113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||0.6|-1.6|
84570158|NCT00402727|168891114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|1.4||||||95.0|-1.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-1.3|
84608255|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.16||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.03||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.03|-0.30|0.049
84751865|NCT01699789|169259116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.21|0.66|
84752848|NCT03672461|169260955|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.29||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value. Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||Null Hypothesis: Yoga is not associated with improvement in change from baseline in Total Urinary Incontinence Episodes||0.6|-0.01|0.056
84570159|NCT00402727|168891115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|2.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.4|-3.1|
84570160|NCT00402727|168891116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|1.6||||||95.0|-2.4|5.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.3|-2.4|
84570161|NCT00402727|168891117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.5||||||95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-1.4|-17.0|
84570162|NCT00402727|168891118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.6||||||95.0|-17.6|-0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.4|-17.6|
84751866|NCT01699789|169259117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.40|0.61|
84751867|NCT01699789|169259118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.25||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.34|
84751868|NCT01699789|169259119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.82||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=553), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||0.82|0.30|
84751869|NCT01699789|169259120|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.8||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=588), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.80|1.39|
84751870|NCT01699789|169259121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|24.9||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=410), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||24.9|1.5|
84570163|NCT00402727|168891119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||1.4|-9.5|
84570164|NCT00402727|168891120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-5.6||||||95.0|-11.4|-0.8|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.8|-11.4|
84497639|NCT03170271|168746325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.87|1.48|<0.0001
84570165|NCT00402727|168891121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-0.1||||||95.0|-6.9|5.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.4|-6.9|
84570166|NCT00402727|168891122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-2.9||||||95.0|-9.3|2.2|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.2|-9.3|
84570167|NCT02084511|168891131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|131.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||131.1|-76.3|
84570168|NCT02084511|168891131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|157.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||157.1|-50.2|
84570169|NCT02084511|168891131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.3|-70.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-70.9|-278.3|
84671560|NCT01644175|169077207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|121.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||121.0|20.6|<0.0001
84570170|NCT02084511|168891131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.4|-44.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-44.7|-252.4|
84570171|NCT02084511|168891132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.7|-2.3|
84570172|NCT02084511|168891132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.0|-3.0|
84752849|NCT03672461|169260956|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.2|-0.15|0.757
84570173|NCT02084511|168891132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-2.2|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.2|-10.3|
84570174|NCT02084511|168891132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.9|-11.0|
84570175|NCT02084511|168891133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|27.8|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||27.8|-16.0|
84570176|NCT02084511|168891133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|42.5|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||42.5|-1.3|
84570177|NCT02084511|168891133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.6|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||8.6|-35.2|
84570178|NCT02084511|168891133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|23.3|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||23.3|-20.6|
84570179|NCT02084511|168891134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.2503
84570180|NCT02084511|168891134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.1851
84570181|NCT02084511|168891134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0167
84570182|NCT02084511|168891135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.4150
84570183|NCT02084511|168891135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.3093
84570184|NCT02084511|168891135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0074
84570185|NCT00461734|168891140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4347|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.4347
84570186|NCT00461734|168891141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.338
84608256|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.12||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.16|0.803
84570187|NCT00461734|168891142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2257
84570188|NCT00461734|168891143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5480
84608257|NCT01264770|168967652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|-0.1||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.10|-0.37|0.003
84570189|NCT00461734|168891144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8868
84570190|NCT00461734|168891145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6151
84570191|NCT00461734|168891149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0525
84570192|NCT00461734|168891150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1852
84570193|NCT00461734|168891152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9719
84570194|NCT00461734|168891153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8779
84570195|NCT01257347|168891165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<=|0.001||||||We included a stopping rule in which recruitment would be stopped at the midpoint for futility if the z-score was negative or for efficacy if the z-score was positive and the p-value ≤ 0.001.|GEE model|GEE models (logit link) with clinician as the cluster variable, appropriateness of management as outcome, intervention group as explanatory variable.||The sample size was calculated to have sufficient power to detect meaningful differences in appropriateness of clinician management between intervention and control groups. Each patient-clinician encounter was treated as independent and the sample size was inflated to account for the design effect (DE) of clustering of patients within clinician. GEE stands for generalized estimating equation.||||<=0.001
84570196|NCT03204643|168891169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.54|0.06
84570197|NCT03204643|168891170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.70|0.76
84570198|NCT03204643|168891171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.65|0.62
84570199|NCT03204643|168891172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.96|0.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.96|0.08
84570200|NCT00944710|168891178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.0|||Binomial regression|adjusted for visual acuity at randomization||||30|-10|0.33
84570201|NCT00944710|168891183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.|Positive values favor the Intensified Treatment group|The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||0.12|-0.01|0.12
84570202|NCT00944710|168891191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in fellow-eye visual acuity change at the 12-week exam was evaluated using an ANCOVA model, adjusting for the fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization.||0.43|-0.23|0.55
84570203|NCT00944710|168891200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.23
84570204|NCT00944710|168891201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.66
84570205|NCT03044314|168891256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: inhalation with iNO (the gold standard) would provide greater response than the comparator (iloprost).||||0.148
84570206|NCT03044314|168891258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that fewer patients receiving iloprost (new agent) would respond compared to iNO (the gold standard).||||0.346
84570207|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||<0.001
84570208|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||0.057
84570209|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|18.53||||||95.0|7.84|28.65|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||28.65|7.84|
84570210|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|10.0||||||95.0|-0.66|20.46|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||20.46|-0.66|
84570211|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|9.18||||||95.0|-1.25|19.39|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||19.39|-1.25|
84570212|NCT00264147|168891261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|6.49||||||95.0|-3.76|16.61|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||16.61|-3.76|
84570213|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.002
84570214|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.221
84570215|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||||95.0|-6.44|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-6.44|
84570216|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||95.0|-3.91|0.93||||||||0.93|-3.91|
84570217|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||||95.0|-5.13|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-5.13|
84570218|NCT00264147|168891262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-4.88|-0.12||||||||-0.12|-4.88|
84570219|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.001
84570220|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.125||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.125
84570221|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||||95.0|-3.64|-0.84||||||||-0.84|-3.64|
84570222|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-2.44|0.41||||||||0.41|-2.44|
84570223|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||||95.0|-2.63|0.18||||||||0.18|-2.63|
84570224|NCT00264147|168891263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||||95.0|-1.89|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.89|
84570225|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84570226|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84570227|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84570228|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.023
84570229|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.16||||||95.0|-19.38|-8.95||||||||-8.95|-19.38|
84570230|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21||||||95.0|-14.52|-3.9||||||||-3.90|-14.52|
84570231|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87||||||95.0|-14.11|-3.63||||||||-3.63|-14.11|
84751871|NCT01699789|169259122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.57||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.57|0.59|
84751872|NCT01699789|169259123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||||When analyzed as change from baseline, CEP showed significant reductions in likelihood of behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months (P \< 0.01) and 12 months (P \< 0.01).|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.22|.40|
84751873|NCT01699789|169259124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.66|.66|
84751874|NCT01699789|169259125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.42|0.74|
84751875|NCT01699789|169259126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.05|.60|
84751876|NCT01699789|169259127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.32|0.72|
84570232|NCT00264147|168891264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05||||||95.0|-11.27|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-11.27|
84570233|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84608258|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.01|0.059
84751877|NCT01699789|169259128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.39|0.55|
84751878|NCT01699789|169259129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a log link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.29|0.65|
84751879|NCT01699789|169259130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.2|
84570234|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84570235|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84608259|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.17||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.01|0.071
84497640|NCT03170271|168746325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.51|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||4.51|2.02|<0.0001
84671561|NCT01644175|169077208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-7.9|-21.3|<0.0001
84671562|NCT01644175|169077209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.0|3.6|0.0001
84671563|NCT01644175|169077210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.0|-8.3|0.8699
84671564|NCT01113879|169077258|OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|85.0|||||Weighted Tau U|||Weighted Tau U effect size mean values in Block 1 of treatment (no aerobic exercise or stretching) were compared to weighted Tau U mean values in Block 2 of treatment (aerobic exercise or stretching adjuvant).||||< 0.001
84751880|NCT01699789|169259131|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.8|0.1|
84751881|NCT01699789|169259132|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||3.7|0.4|
84751882|NCT01699789|169259133|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.8|
84751883|NCT01699789|169259134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.1|0.5|
84751884|NCT01699789|169259135|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.6|0.7|
84570236|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
84671565|NCT00913744|169077282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|28.4|||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fisher's exact test, comparing sham and ocriplasmin.||||28.4|-3.7|0.262
84570237|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||||95.0|-0.77|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-0.77|
84570238|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-0.55|
84671566|NCT01218516|169077298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.63||Per Primary Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.92|0.3519
84671567|NCT01218516|169077298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|1.74||Per Final Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.74|1.03|0.1555
84671568|NCT01632891|169077311|SUPERIORITY|Test used alpha level of 0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare proportions of Pf SCP clearance between treatment arms||||1.00
84671569|NCT00782210|169077346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
84671570|NCT00782210|169077346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
84570239|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.61|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.61|
84570240|NCT00264147|168891265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||||95.0|-0.46|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.46|
84751885|NCT01699789|169259136|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||4.0|0.3|
84496708|NCT02684370|168744827|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|31.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.6|14.3|< 0.001
84570241|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
84570242|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
84570243|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.017
84570244|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.080
84570245|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44||||||95.0|-19.62|-9.26||||||||-9.26|-19.62|
84570246|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||||95.0|-11.52|-0.92||||||||-0.92|-11.52|
84570247|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32||||||95.0|-11.53|-1.12||||||||-1.12|-11.53|
84570248|NCT00264147|168891266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||||95.0|-9.81|0.55||||||||0.55|-9.81|
84570249|NCT03312738|168891312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.71||||||||0.71|0.40|
84570250|NCT03312738|168891313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67||||||||0.67|0.32|
84570251|NCT03312738|168891314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.89||||||||1.89|0.69|
84570252|NCT03499795|168891338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8633|||||||Clopper-Pearson|P-value was calculated based on the exact method of Clopper-Pearson and superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value is \<0.05.||||||0.8633
84570253|NCT00879190|168891357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84570254|NCT00879190|168891358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84570255|NCT00879190|168891359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
84608260|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.01||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|-0.05|0.758
84608261|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.12||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-0.24|0.114
84752850|NCT03672461|169260957|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.45|0|0.048
84570256|NCT01450813|168891363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size needed for a one-way ANOVA test with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to rule out the null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence was a total of 64 or 16 per Group.|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons of the means were accomplished via student's t-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence.||||< 0.05
84570257|NCT01935089|168891366|OTHER|"Hypothesis: 20 weeks of treatment (baseline week 3 to endpoint week 24) will result in a change in the levels of integrated HIV-1 DNA (copies/CD4 T cell Variable name: intDNA).~Test if the mean difference (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) is significantly different from zero (i.e. no change) Null hypothesis: Mean (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) = 0; reject if p\<0.05"||||||0.0797||||||significant if \<0.05|signed rank test|||||||0.0797
84570258|NCT01079780|168891370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84570259|NCT01079780|168891371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84570260|NCT01079780|168891373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
84752851|NCT03672461|169260958|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.82||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|15.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||15.23|-13.6|0.911
84752852|NCT03672461|169260959|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|3.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.13|0.13|0.041
84751886|NCT01699789|169259137|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.7|0.4|
84751887|NCT01699789|169259138|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.6|0.2|
84751888|NCT01699789|169259139|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.8|0.4|
84751889|NCT01699789|169259140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.6|1.2|
84751890|NCT01699789|169259141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.5|
84751891|NCT01699789|169259142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.3|1.0|
84751892|NCT01699789|169259143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.7|
84751893|NCT01699789|169259144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.5|
84751894|NCT01699789|169259145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|1.0|
84751895|NCT01699789|169259146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
84751896|NCT01699789|169259147|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.50|0.83|>.05
84751897|NCT01699789|169259148|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.52|0.99|>0.05
84751898|NCT01699789|169259149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.99||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||2.99|1.00|
84570261|NCT01178294|168891381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||Summary statistics for the percentage of participants with serious bleeding episodes responsive at 24 hours after the initiation of treatment are presented, along with the 95% confidence interval (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval).||||<0.001
84751899|NCT01699789|169259150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.54||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.54|1.24|
84570262|NCT01004614|168891411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|98.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.09|104.46|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||104.46|93.09|
84570263|NCT01004614|168891411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|105.45|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||105.45|97.28|
84608262|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.14||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.078
84608263|NCT01264770|168967653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.09||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.09|-0.32|0.003
84751900|NCT01009554|169259151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.306||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.306|-0.054|0.168
84608264|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.03||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.03|-0.07|0.460
84608265|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.06||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.06|-0.05|0.903
84608266|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.01||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.01|-0.08|0.172
84608267|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.21|0.082
84608268|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.00|-0.21|0.092
84570264|NCT01004614|168891412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.28|106.28||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.28|92.28|
84570265|NCT01004614|168891412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|106.0||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.00|95.93|
84671571|NCT00782210|169077347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.054|<0.0001
84671572|NCT00782210|169077347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.064|<0.0001
84751901|NCT01009554|169259153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.139||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.139|-0.127|0.928
84570266|NCT01569022|168891419|EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint of the study was tested by comparing difference in residual AHI using the paired t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84570267|NCT01569022|168891420|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ESS||||0.97
84570268|NCT01569022|168891420|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCL||||0.98
84570269|NCT01569022|168891420|EQUIVALENCE|t-test assuming non unequal variance||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PSQI||||0.31
84570270|NCT01569022|168891421|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84570271|NCT01569022|168891422|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84570272|NCT00447083|168891431|OTHER|||||||0.1811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1811
84570273|NCT02965924|168891445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84570274|NCT01038687|168891470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
84570275|NCT01038687|168891470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.18
84570276|NCT01038687|168891470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.04
84570277|NCT01038687|168891471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.81
84570278|NCT01038687|168891471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.89
84570279|NCT01038687|168891471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.76
84570280|NCT01038687|168891472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
84570281|NCT01038687|168891472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.058
84570282|NCT01038687|168891472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.164
84570283|NCT01038687|168891473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
84570284|NCT01038687|168891473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg vs placebo||||0.98
84570285|NCT01038687|168891473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.079
84570286|NCT01038687|168891474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
84570287|NCT01038687|168891474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.32
84570288|NCT01038687|168891474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.034
84570289|NCT01038687|168891475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84570290|NCT01038687|168891475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
84570291|NCT01038687|168891475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.001
84671573|NCT00782210|169077348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.233|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.113|<0.0001
84671574|NCT00782210|169077348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.108|<0.0001
84570292|NCT01038687|168891476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
84570293|NCT01038687|168891476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.99
84570294|NCT01038687|168891476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.103
84570295|NCT01038687|168891477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84570296|NCT01038687|168891477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
84570297|NCT01038687|168891477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.001
84570298|NCT01038687|168891478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84751902|NCT01009554|169259154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.378|0.092|0.002
84751903|NCT01009554|169259155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1235||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.286||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.286|-0.205|0.741
84751904|NCT01009554|169259156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.115||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.115|-0.437|0.249
84751905|NCT01009554|169259157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|0.077||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.077|-0.479|0.154
84570299|NCT01038687|168891478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.053
84570300|NCT01038687|168891478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
84570301|NCT02175121|168891483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.49|-29.16||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-29.16|-51.49|<0.0001
84570302|NCT02175121|168891483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.08|-33.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-33.99|-57.08|<0.0001
84570303|NCT02175121|168891483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.92|-57.65||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-57.65|-79.92|<0.0001
84570304|NCT02175121|168891483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.46|-56.78||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-56.78|-79.46|<0.0001
84570305|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-6.6||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-6.60|-25.90|0.0060
84570306|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.81|-17.15||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-17.15|-36.81|<0.0001
84570307|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-30.0||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-30.00|-49.20|<0.0001
84570308|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.46|-36.98||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-36.98|-56.46|<0.0001
84570309|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.89|-18.25||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-18.25|-35.89|<0.0001
84570310|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.21|-27.14||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-27.14|-45.21|<0.0001
84751906|NCT01009554|169259158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0746||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|-0.047||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.047|-0.343|0.011
84751907|NCT01009554|169259159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0703|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.195||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.195|-0.474|<0.001
84496709|NCT02684370|168744828|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|48.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||48.6|27.9|< 0.001
84570311|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.29|-42.65||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-42.65|-60.29|<0.0001
84570312|NCT02175121|168891484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.12|-48.22||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-48.22|-66.12|<0.0001
84570313|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.13||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|29.62||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||29.62|-3.91|0.2063
84570314|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.33||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|30.11||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||30.11|-4.05|0.2087
84570315|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|22.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||22.30|-11.11|0.5802
84570316|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|31.59||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||31.59|-2.32|0.1553
84570317|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|10.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.47|-14.87|0.7741
84570318|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|12.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||12.47|-13.28|0.9588
84570319|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.17|14.01||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.01|-11.17|0.8523
84570320|NCT02175121|168891485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|19.08||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.08|-6.49|0.4166
84570321|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|5.93||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.93|-4.73|0.8516
84570322|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|9.42||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||9.42|-1.48|0.2303
84752853|NCT03672461|169260960|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.07||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.3|-0.16|0.564
84496710|NCT02684370|168744829|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|44.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.6|25.7|< 0.001
84496711|NCT02684370|168744830|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|45.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||45.9|27.0|< 0.001
84496712|NCT02684370|168744831|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||26.6|7.4|< 0.001
84496713|NCT02684370|168744832|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||27.3|7.3|< 0.001
84570323|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|6.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.52|-4.15|0.7132
84570324|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|15.16||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||15.16|4.32|0.0034
84570325|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.89|3.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||3.92|-5.89|0.7394
84608269|NCT01264770|168967654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.08||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.08|-0.27|0.002
84608270|NCT01264770|168967655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|23.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.57|40.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||40.00|9.57|<0.001
84608271|NCT01264770|168967655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|22.97||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.84|38.34|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||38.34|7.84|0.006
84570326|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|5.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.53|-4.50|0.8652
84570327|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-4.30|0.8370
84608272|NCT01264770|168967655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|5.72||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|21.68|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||21.68|-3.20|0.234
84671575|NCT00782210|169077349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
84496714|NCT02684370|168744833|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||34.0|11.9|< 0.001
84570328|NCT02175121|168891486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|14.58||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.58|4.60|0.0018
84570329|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|4.91||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||4.91|-9.15|0.6182
84570330|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|8.84||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.84|-5.52|0.7028
84570331|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.33|6.73||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.73|-7.33|0.9445
84570332|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|16.21||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.21|1.93|0.0373
84570333|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.25|6.67||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.67|-7.25|0.9448
84570334|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|7.49||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.49|-6.74|0.9312
84570335|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|6.85||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.85|-7.07|0.9791
84570336|NCT02175121|168891487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.26|19.41||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.41|5.26|0.0044
84608273|NCT01264770|168967656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.01|0.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-25.01|0.030
84608274|NCT01264770|168967656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.49||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.0|6.96|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||6.96|-25.00|0.207
84608275|NCT01264770|168967656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.01|-6.25|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-6.25|-30.01|0.002
84608276|NCT01264770|168967657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.38|0.09|0.007
84608277|NCT01264770|168967657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.37|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.37|0.07|0.016
84608278|NCT01264770|168967657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.00|0.094
84671576|NCT00782210|169077349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.139|<0.0001
84751908|NCT01009554|169259160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0939||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.027||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.027|-0.401|0.025
84496715|NCT02684370|168744834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.496|-5.035|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.035|-6.496|<0.001
84496716|NCT00627094|168744836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96||In order to obtain 90% power to show superiority of Biatain Ibu compared to Biatain, a sample size of 60 pts per group (assuming a 15% drop-out rate) was found by simulating data from multi-nomial distributions over time.|Chi-squared|Result based on ITT population (evening). PP-analysis show a strong tendency (not significant) in favour of Biatain Ibu supporting the ITT-analysis||The null hypothesis to be tested was that the distributions of categorical responses were the same.||2.96|1.02|0.0438
84496717|NCT00561600|168744840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority of proportion successful with 8% non inferiority margin at 24 months|percentage difference|0.139||||0.872|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.225|||Chi-squared||The upper confidence limit was a priori determined to be a secondary endpoint|A non-inferiority test of the proportion successful for each treatment group will be the primary test of efficacy in this investigation. The null hypothesis is Ho: Xc-Xt ≥ 0.08 and the alternative hypothesis is HA:Xc-Xt \< 0.08 Sample size of 126 per group was needed assuming 93% success rates, this was increased to 150 per group to account for attrition.||.225||0.872
84496718|NCT00561600|168744841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite||||||0.167
84496719|NCT00561600|168744844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
84570337|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.78|8.33||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.33|-4.78|0.6553
84570338|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|11.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||11.30|-2.09|0.2569
84570339|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|14.18||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||14.18|1.09|0.0553
84570340|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.26|19.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||19.53|6.26|0.0016
84570341|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.8717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|6.51||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.51|-5.35|0.8717
84496720|NCT00561600|168744845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
84570342|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|7.26||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.26|-4.86|0.7430
84570343|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|10.48||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.48|-1.36|0.2041
84671577|NCT00782210|169077350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.144|<0.0001
84671578|NCT00782210|169077350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.156|<0.0001
84752854|NCT03672461|169260961|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
84496721|NCT00561600|168744846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
84496722|NCT00561600|168744847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
84496723|NCT00561600|168744848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
84608279|NCT01264770|168967658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.04|-0.36|0.043
84608280|NCT01264770|168967658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.02|-0.31|0.158
84496724|NCT00561600|168744849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.032
84496725|NCT00561600|168744850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
84496726|NCT00561600|168744851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.882
84496727|NCT00561600|168744852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.005
84496728|NCT00561600|168744853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.237
84496729|NCT00561600|168744854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
84496730|NCT00561600|168744855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.121
84496731|NCT00561600|168744856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum Cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.012
84496732|NCT00561600|168744857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.103
84496733|NCT00561600|168744858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
84608281|NCT01264770|168967658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.16|-0.47|0.001
84496734|NCT00561600|168744859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.300
84496735|NCT00561600|168744860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.079
84496736|NCT00561600|168744861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.766
84496737|NCT00561600|168744862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.018
84496738|NCT00561600|168744863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.689
84496739|NCT00561600|168744864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.048
84496740|NCT00561600|168744865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.782
84496741|NCT00561600|168744866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.061
84496742|NCT00561600|168744867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.957
84496743|NCT04139642|168744875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect was used to test the main effect of arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related diagnosis as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||<0.0001
84752855|NCT03672461|169260962|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
84496744|NCT04139642|168744876|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15||||||Mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect. Statistical significance a priori threshold set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related referral as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||=0.15
84570344|NCT02175121|168891488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.92|20.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||20.92|8.92|<0.0001
84570345|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|6.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.87|-6.62|0.9750
84570346|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|10.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||10.87|-2.90|0.3396
84570347|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|5.24||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.24|-8.23|0.7142
84570348|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|16.63||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.63|2.94|0.0192
84570349|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-7.20|0.8277
84608282|NCT01264770|168967659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.45|-5.08|0.050
84608283|NCT01264770|168967659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.33||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|1.06|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.06|-3.73|0.360
84608284|NCT01264770|168967659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.70|-5.29|0.032
84671579|NCT00782210|169077351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.133|<0.0001
84570350|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.93|7.06||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.06|-5.93|0.8857
84570351|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|5.79||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.79|-6.93|0.8824
84570352|NCT02175121|168891489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|15.69||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||15.69|2.77|0.0192
84608285|NCT01264770|168967660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.95|1.92|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.92|-3.95|0.568
84751909|NCT01009554|169259161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.168|-0.055|0.319
84671580|NCT00782210|169077351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.130|<0.0001
84752856|NCT03672461|169260963|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
84570353|NCT01251042|168891526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Information about the size of the standard deviation (SD) for the change was obtained from an earlier study. The SD for the change from pre-operation until 24 hours after start of transfusion was 0.2305. Due to the imprecise measuring device (if values below 0.3 g/l) and the large SD, a non-inferiority margin (∆) of 0.2 g/l was decided to be used in this study, resulting in a total number of 42 evaluable subjects, i.e. 21 subjects per group.||||||0.6294||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6294
84570354|NCT02557399|168891596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.83||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.78||The analysis method was mixed model repeated measures analysis with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.78|-11.88|0.008
84570355|NCT02557399|168891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.25||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1|||4.35|-4.85|0.916
84570356|NCT02557399|168891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.42||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4|||-1.42|-10.29|0.010
84570357|NCT02557399|168891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-2.35||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|1.72||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8|||1.72|-6.42|0.257
84570358|NCT02557399|168891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.24||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|0.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12|||0.16|-6.64|0.062
84570359|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.08||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|1.25||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.25|-11.41|0.115
84570360|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-8.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.35|-2.51||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.51|-14.35|0.005
84570361|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-4.33||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-4.33|-14.42|<0.001
84671581|NCT00782210|169077352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.136|<0.0001
84751910|NCT01009554|169259162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.405||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.405|0.139|<0.001
84496745|NCT01040624|168744878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided binomial test of univariate probability distributions||||||<0.0001
84570362|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-2.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.16|-11.21|0.004
84570363|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.89||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs|||-0.89|-8.10|0.015
84570364|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|2.71||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||8.80|-3.38|0.382
84570365|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.69||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|0.78||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.78|-12.17|0.085
84570366|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.89||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|1.88||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.88|-9.67|0.186
84570367|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.59||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|4.44||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.44|-5.61|0.818
84496746|NCT03733301|168744894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.92|0.082
84496747|NCT03733301|168744894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.56|1.38|0.004
84570368|NCT02557399|168891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|0.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.35|-7.92|0.073
84570369|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.4|-4.6|0.961
84570370|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.2||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.2|-11.2|0.015
84570371|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.1|-9.2|0.044
84570372|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||3.5|-4.9|0.747
84570373|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.8|-5.3|0.338
84570374|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-3.8|0.068
84570375|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.1|-4.8|0.002
84570376|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.0||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.0|-4.3|0.002
84570377|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.4|-3.4|0.012
84570378|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-2.4|0.078
84570379|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||5.7|-2.1|0.367
84496748|NCT03733301|168744895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|1.44|0.002
84496749|NCT03733301|168744895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|1.80|< 0.001
84570380|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.1|-7.4|0.148
84570381|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.9||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.9|-5.9|0.314
84570382|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.7|-2.3|0.494
84570383|NCT02557399|168891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||2.3|-3.5|0.684
84570384|NCT02557399|168891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1.The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.6|0.1|0.047
84570385|NCT02557399|168891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.3|-1.3|0.185
84570386|NCT02557399|168891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.9|-2.5|0.251
84570387|NCT02557399|168891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||18.0|2.4|0.006
84570388|NCT02557399|168891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|20.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.4|0.9|0.022
84570389|NCT02557399|168891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.3|-0.7|0.129
84570390|NCT02557399|168891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.9|-3.4|0.612
84570391|NCT02557399|168891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.2||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.2|1.1|0.016
84496750|NCT03733301|168744896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.59|0.574
84496751|NCT03733301|168744896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|1.02|0.045
84496752|NCT03733301|168744897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.256||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.73|-23.42|0.013
84570392|NCT02557399|168891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.5|0.3|0.034
84671582|NCT00782210|169077352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.123|<0.0001
84496753|NCT03733301|168744897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-11.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.78|-32.48|<0.001
84496754|NCT03733301|168744898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.61|0.364
84496755|NCT03733301|168744898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.34|1.15|0.022
84496756|NCT03733301|168744899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|1.48|0.002
84496757|NCT03733301|168744899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.46|1.98|<0.001
84496758|NCT03733301|168744900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.23|<0.001
84496759|NCT03733301|168744900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
84496760|NCT03733301|168744901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.78|<0.001
84496761|NCT03733301|168744901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.30|<0.001
84496762|NCT03733301|168744902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.49|1.47|<0.001
84496763|NCT03733301|168744902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.32|2.00|<0.001
84496764|NCT03733301|168744903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.31|0.32|0.715
84570393|NCT02557399|168891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||21.3|1.4|0.018
84496765|NCT03733301|168744903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.56|0.86|0.083
84496766|NCT03733301|168744904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.663||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.24|-13.72|0.002
84496767|NCT03733301|168744904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.14|-19.62|<0.001
84496768|NCT03733301|168744905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|19.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.37|0.53|0.204
84496769|NCT03733301|168744905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|38.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.53|1.27|0.025
84496770|NCT03733301|168744906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-14.07|<0.001
84496771|NCT03733301|168744906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.584|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|-6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.61|-16.78|<0.001
84496772|NCT03733301|168744907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.721
84496773|NCT03733301|168744907|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84496774|NCT03733301|168744908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.149||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.87|-17.65|||ANOVA|||||-17.65|-112.87|0.0073
84496775|NCT03733301|168744908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.038||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.43|-43.85|||ANOVA|||||-43.85|-138.43|0.0002
84496776|NCT03733301|168744909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.27|-25.60|< 0.001
84496777|NCT03733301|168744909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.672|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|-15.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.03|-33.42|< 0.001
84496778|NCT03733301|168744910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.96|0.006
84496779|NCT03733301|168744910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-7.28|< 0.001
84496780|NCT03733301|168744911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.63|0.005
84496781|NCT03733301|168744911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.75|< 0.001
84496782|NCT03733301|168744912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.10|-1.57|0.083
84496783|NCT03733301|168744912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.19|-1.85|0.016
84496784|NCT03733301|168744912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.00|-1.63|0.051
84496785|NCT03733301|168744912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.72|0.028
84496786|NCT03733301|168744913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-3.56|0.022
84496787|NCT03733301|168744913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-4.94|< 0.001
84496788|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||7.08|-3.06|0.435
84752857|NCT03672461|169260964|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
84751911|NCT01009554|169259163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.565|0.231|<0.001
84496789|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||6.04|-4.10|0.706
84496790|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY|Presenteeism|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-16.78|0.066
84608286|NCT01264770|168967660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.66||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.69|1.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.38|-4.69|0.368
84608287|NCT01264770|168967660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|0.43|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|-5.38|0.160
84608288|NCT01325714|168967661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||This is the p value from the discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|DF = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the comparison group.|"Univariate time-to-event analyses, using discrete-time Cox regression models to evaluate differences between PAVeD and EU-PC in the primary outcome of incidence of aggression over time.~We expected that patients with dementia among dyads randomized to PAVeD arm would be less likely to develop aggression compared to those randomized to the enhanced usual care arm."||1.11|0.45|0.13
84608289|NCT01325714|168967661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39||From discrete time-cox regression time-to-event analysis.|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the reference group.|Comparison of incidence of non-verbal aggression between treatment groups.||1.39|0.43|0.39
84608290|NCT01325714|168967661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset (the primary outcome) over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and type I error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group (anticipated based on estimated rates from prior work) versus 19% for the treatment group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37||From discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The usual care arm is the reference group.|Examination of group differences in incidence of verbal aggression. We expected those in paved to have lower incidence of verbal aggression relative to those in enhanced usual care.||1.37|0.51|0.84
84608291|NCT01325714|168967662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 0.86||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.46
84608292|NCT01325714|168967663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.23
84608293|NCT01325714|168967664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.45||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 1.45||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported overall pain over time.||||0.23
84608294|NCT01325714|168967665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 409) = 0.59||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in patient-reported overall pain over time.||||0.62
84671583|NCT00782210|169077353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.134|<0.0001
84752858|NCT03672461|169260965|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.24||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.43|-0.95|0.691
84496791|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism||-2.17|-19.30|0.014
84496792|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY|Work Productivity Loss|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-16.84|0.081
84751912|NCT01009554|169259164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.084||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.084|-0.024|0.270
84751913|NCT01009554|169259165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0324|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.202||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.202|0.073|<0.001
84570394|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||12.3|-4.5|0.379
84570395|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.7||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.1||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.1|-5.7|0.409
84570396|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||17.0|-3.1|0.180
84570397|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.7|-8.8|0.810
84570398|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|9.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.0|-5.2|0.648
84570399|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||19.6|-1.3|0.048
84570400|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.6|1.8|0.016
84608295|NCT01325714|168967666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.94||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 453) = 0.94.||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in depression over time.||||0.42
84570401|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||16.9|0.4|0.044
84608296|NCT01325714|168967667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 457) = 1.10||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in pleasant events over time.||||0.35
84671584|NCT00782210|169077353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.131|<0.0001
84608297|NCT01325714|168967668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 2.00||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver burden over time.||||0.11
84608298|NCT01325714|168967669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 3.84||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported mutuality over time.||||0.01
84671585|NCT00782210|169077354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
84751914|NCT01009554|169259166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.273||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.273|0.114|<0.001
84751915|NCT01009554|169259167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|-0.020|0.217
84496793|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.473||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work productivity Loss||1.88|-19.55|0.018
84570402|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.6||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||11.0|-3.8|0.345
84570403|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.7|-3.5|0.424
84570404|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.5|-9.4|0.527
84570405|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.4|-6.7|0.584
84570406|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||14.3|-6.5|0.519
84570407|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.8||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.5||The P-values are based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.5|-10.1|0.766
84570408|NCT02557399|168891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||10.5|-5.8|0.666
84570409|NCT02557399|168891606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
84752859|NCT03672461|169260966|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
84496794|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.511||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-2.89|-16.71|0.006
84570410|NCT02557399|168891606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
84570411|NCT02557399|168891606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.03|-0.41|0.024
84570412|NCT02557399|168891606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.02|-0.36|0.080
84570413|NCT00931632|168891644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.427
84570414|NCT01419314|168891654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.33|52.05|||ANOVA|Sphericity was not tenable for the factor pain scores, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates, df (1.71,56.46).||A repeated measure ANOVA was performed to evaluate the contrasts of interest.||52.05|38.33|0.001
84752860|NCT03672461|169260967|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
84608299|NCT04075409|168967704|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.83|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.830|1.112|
84608300|NCT04075409|168967704|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9619|1.584|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.584|0.9619|
84608301|NCT04075409|168967704|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9008|1.483|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.483|0.9008|
84608302|NCT04075409|168967705|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.706|2.638|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.638|1.706|
84671586|NCT00782210|169077354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.075|<0.0001
84608303|NCT04075409|168967705|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.037|1.603|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.603|1.037|
84608304|NCT04075409|168967705|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.323|2.046|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.046|1.323|
84671587|NCT00782210|169077355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
84671588|NCT00782210|169077355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.054|<0.0001
84671589|NCT00782210|169077356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.061|<0.0001
84671590|NCT00782210|169077356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|0.064|<0.0001
84671591|NCT00782210|169077357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.049|<0.0001
84671592|NCT00782210|169077357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.051|<0.0001
84671593|NCT00782210|169077358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.054|<0.0001
84671594|NCT00782210|169077358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.048|<0.0001
84752861|NCT03672461|169260968|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
84752862|NCT03672461|169260969|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
84608305|NCT04075409|168967706|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|2.639|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.639|1.709|
84671595|NCT00782210|169077359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.069|<0.0001
84751916|NCT01009554|169259168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.200|0.073|<0.001
84751917|NCT01009554|169259169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.276||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.276|0.114|<0.001
84752863|NCT03672461|169260970|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
84752864|NCT03672461|169260971|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
84570415|NCT01419314|168891654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.39||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test contrasting pain scores from baseline to week six of the trial-Splint group. The statistical power for the within splint intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.99.|Null hypothesis: Is there a difference in baseline pain scores compared to those at week 6 in the splinting group?||23.39|8.80|<0.0005
84570416|NCT01419314|168891654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|7.47||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided|df(35)|The statistical power for the between intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.26|Null Hypothesis: There is not difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week three.||7.47|-13.93|0.155
84570417|NCT01419314|168891654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.85|||t-test, 2 sided|df(35)||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week six.||3.85|-23.20|0.155
84570418|NCT01328964|168891661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.974||The p-value is a comparison of the combined hospitalization/emergency department visit endpoint|Regression, Cox|||||0.974|0.51|<0.0001
84570419|NCT01328964|168891662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.0||P-value is based on the differences in the total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-9|-19|<0.001
84570420|NCT01328964|168891663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.999||P-value is based on the comparison of combined endpoint of hospitalization/emergency department visits|Regression, Cox|||||0.999|0.565|0.0495
84570421|NCT01328964|168891664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-27.0||P-value is based on difference in total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-27|-28|<0.0001
84570422|NCT02563899|168891715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|39.9||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-30%||39.9|-42.2|
84570423|NCT02563899|168891715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|42.2||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD vs Vehicle: \<=-50%||42.2|-39.9|
84570424|NCT02563899|168891715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|44.0||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-70%||44.0|-25.2|
84570425|NCT02563899|168891717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|62.6||||||||62.6|-8.5|
84570426|NCT01721447|168891766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84570427|NCT01721447|168891767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84570428|NCT00434252|168891861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in survival rates|3.5||||0.5724||95.0|-8.7|15.7|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.||||15.7|-8.7|0.5724
84570429|NCT00434252|168891862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|12.2||||0.0982||95.0|-2.3|26.6|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method||||26.6|-2.3|0.0982
84570430|NCT00720278|168891875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-2.98|-1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.14|-2.98|<0.001
84570431|NCT00720278|168891875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001||95.0|-3.91|-2.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-2.09|-3.91|<0.001
84570432|NCT00720278|168891876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.479|<|0.001||95.0|-2.72|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.84|-2.72|<0.001
84570433|NCT00720278|168891876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4735|<|0.001||95.0|-3.6|-1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.74|-3.60|<0.001
84570434|NCT00720278|168891877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.376|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.418||0.001||95.0|-2.2|-0.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.56|-2.20|0.001
84570435|NCT00720278|168891877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.432|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4145|<|0.001||95.0|-3.24|-1.62|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.62|-3.24|<0.001
84751918|NCT01009554|169259170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0716||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.197||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.197|-0.087|0.444
84751919|NCT01009554|169259171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.517||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.517|0.182|<0.001
84496795|NCT03733301|168744914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|-3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-3.61|-17.39|0.003
84496796|NCT03733301|168744915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.06|-0.01|0.176
84496797|NCT03733301|168744915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.09|0.02|0.004
84496798|NCT03733301|168744915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.08|-0.01|0.176
84496799|NCT03733301|168744915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.12|0.02|0.003
84496800|NCT03733301|168744916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-0.98|0.113
84496801|NCT03733301|168744916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.16|0.96|0.020
84496802|NCT03733301|168744917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|18.36|||ANCOVA|||||18.36|1.46|0.022
84496803|NCT03733301|168744917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|25.88|||ANCOVA|||||25.88|8.79|< 0.001
84496804|NCT03733301|168744918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.03|1.46|0.006
84570436|NCT01677286|168891880|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|171.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|328.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||BNP pg/mL, baseline versus end study values||328|14.1|0.035
84570437|NCT01677286|168891881|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|0.0072||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.0234|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||Troponin I ng/mL, baseline versus end study levels.||0.0234|-0.009|0.340
84570438|NCT01677286|168891882|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|-7.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Creatinine clearance, baseline versus end study levels.||-1.67|-13.12|0.017
84570439|NCT01677286|168891883|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|0.091||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Proteinuria (g/24 hours), baseline versus end study levels.||0.466|-0.285|0.603
84496805|NCT03733301|168744918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.87|1.77|0.002
84570440|NCT00408499|168891892|OTHER|Maximum tolerated dose was derived from toxicity data obtained from dose level 1-4.|Maximum tolerated dose|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be dose level 4: 150 mg Erlotinib, 250 mg/m2 Cetuximab|||||
84570441|NCT02351934|168891947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.564
84496806|NCT01965431|168744928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is the maximum acceptable extent of statistical and clinical noninferiority of an experimental treatment. Non-inferiority margin for this trial is 10ms.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.37|10.43|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|||10.43|5.37|
84496807|NCT01965431|168744929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.32|16.08|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||16.08|9.32|
84496808|NCT01965431|168744930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|1.73|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||1.73|-1.38|
84496809|NCT01965431|168744931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.98|-2.87|||||Minimum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||-2.87|-5.98|
84496810|NCT00577031|168744981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||Signed-rank test|||Change from baseline to last visit||||0.0076
84752865|NCT03672461|169260972|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|1.21||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||8.67|-6.25|0.747
84752866|NCT03672461|169260973|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.459
84496811|NCT00943826|168744982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.74||Stratified by Region and Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.74|0.55|<0.0001
84570442|NCT02351934|168891948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.675
84570443|NCT02351934|168891949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.125
84570444|NCT02351934|168891951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.595
84570445|NCT02351934|168891952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.985
84570446|NCT02683109|168891953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the Tio+Olo FDC versus the Tio/Olo free combination was tested at the one-sided α-level of 0.025 using a non-inferiority margin of 0.1 L.|Adjusted mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.067|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was conducted using an Analysis of Covariance \[ANCOVA\] model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.067|-0.020|<0.0001
84570447|NCT02683109|168891954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.073|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.073|-0.061|0.8648
84570448|NCT02683109|168891955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.384|0.729|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.729|-1.384|0.5420
84570449|NCT00368251|168891956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.15|||=|0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|24.96||All hypotheses are tested at the 5 % level. The multiplicity scheme (hierarchical testing procedure) assures strong control of the type I error at the 5 % level.|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo was calculated.|"The first hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day.~The second hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. However, this second hypothesis will only be tested when all the hypotheses for placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day are significant for the primary three UMRS related secondary endpoints.~The hypotheses will be tested using nonparametric analysis. The study was designed to have 80 % power."||24.96|-26.12|=0.942
84570450|NCT00368251|168891956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|-18.05|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|4.86||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint and the three UMRS related secondary endpoints comparing placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day are significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||4.86|-39.31|=0.105
84570451|NCT00368251|168891957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|1.24|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|31.06||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Primary Outcome testing Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann(unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|If primary efficacy is proven for Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the following secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day. The testing scheme will be hierarchical, thus statistical significance at 5 % on BRV 150 mg/day on a secondary endpoint is needed to continue testing BRV 150 mg/day at 5 % significance level for the next secondary endpoint.||31.06|-21.90|=0.672
84570452|NCT00368251|168891957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|18.75||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint testing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intevals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|"In case the three endpoints are significant for placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the primary endpoint will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. In case of significance, the three UMRS related secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day, provided the previous is significant at 5 %. Secondary endpoints are tested in the following order:~* Functional Disability~* Stimulus Sensitivity~* Myoclonus Patient Questionnaire"||18.75|-33.33|=0.806
84671596|NCT00782210|169077359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.068|<0.0001
84671597|NCT00782210|169077360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.055|<0.0001
84671598|NCT00782210|169077360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.053|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.129|0.053|<0.0001
84671599|NCT00782210|169077361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.115|<0.0001
84671600|NCT00782210|169077361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.131|<0.0001
84671601|NCT00782210|169077362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.137|<0.0001
84570453|NCT00368251|168891958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|100.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Willcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||100.00|-25.00|=0.549
84570454|NCT00368251|168891958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|66.67||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||66.67|-50.00|=0.654
84751920|NCT01009554|169259172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.754||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.754|0.331|<0.001
84751921|NCT01009554|169259173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0344||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.100|-0.037|0.361
84751922|NCT01009554|169259174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.256||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.256|0.092|<0.001
84751923|NCT01009554|169259175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0504|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.164|<0.001
84751924|NCT01009554|169259176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.102|-0.035|0.331
84751925|NCT01009554|169259177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.259||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.259|0.095|<0.001
84751926|NCT01009554|169259178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.368||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.368|0.162|<0.001
84751927|NCT01009554|169259179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.282||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.282|-0.006|0.060
84751928|NCT01009554|169259180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.510|0.165|<0.001
84752867|NCT03672461|169260974|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.556
84496812|NCT00943826|168744983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by Region and RPA Class|Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||1.02|0.76|0.0987
84496813|NCT00943826|168744984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.71||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.71|0.53|<0.0001
84570455|NCT00368251|168891959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|14.29|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|39.39||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||39.39|-1.76|=0.037
84496814|NCT04342130|168744989|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84570456|NCT00368251|168891959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|10.0|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|30.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||30.00|-5.56|=0.111
84496815|NCT00127192|168744998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.3|-3.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-3.0|-4.3|<0.001
84570457|NCT00368251|168891960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||||||=0.931
84752868|NCT03672461|169260975|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.26||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.7|-13.2|0.516
84570458|NCT00368251|168891960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.253||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||P-value for pairwise comparison of each Brivaracetam dose versus Placebo.||||=0.253
84570459|NCT02669849|168891979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.69|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||3.69|-5.08|0.7519
84570460|NCT04745351|168891988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test, stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.321|0.504|0.6132
84570461|NCT04745351|168891989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.388||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.388|0.497|0.3881
84570462|NCT04745351|168891990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.207||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cox model with death as the competing risk and baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||2.207|0.493|0.9116
84671602|NCT00782210|169077362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.150|<0.0001
84671603|NCT00782210|169077363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
84671604|NCT00782210|169077363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
84671605|NCT00782210|169077364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.123|<0.0001
84671606|NCT00782210|169077364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
84671607|NCT00782210|169077365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.134|<0.0001
84671608|NCT00782210|169077365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.110|<0.0001
84671609|NCT00782210|169077366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.128|<0.0001
84671610|NCT00782210|169077366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.121|<0.0001
84671611|NCT00782210|169077367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.359|0.216|<0.0001
84671612|NCT00782210|169077367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.258|<0.0001
84671613|NCT00782210|169077368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.224|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.224|<0.0001
84671614|NCT00782210|169077368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.255|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.255|<0.0001
84751929|NCT01009554|169259181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.612||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.612|0.176|<0.001
84751930|NCT01009554|169259182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.143||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.143|0.002|0.045
84496816|NCT00127192|168744998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.6|-3.9|<0.001
84496817|NCT00127192|168744998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.7||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.7|-3.9|<0.001
84496818|NCT00127192|168744998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-2.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.0|-3.2|<0.001
84496819|NCT00127192|168744999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Tukeys linear trend test based on ANCOVA|Linear contrast including all groups was tested using ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline||||||<0.001
84496820|NCT00127192|168744999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.21|-0.86||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, but the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.86|-1.21|<0.001
84496821|NCT00127192|168744999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.14|-0.79||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.79|-1.14|<0.001
84496822|NCT00127192|168744999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.82||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.82|-1.16|<0.001
84496823|NCT00127192|168744999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.52||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
84496824|NCT00127192|168745000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-29.8|-16.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-16.6|-29.8|<0.001
84570463|NCT04745351|168891993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8541||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.8541
84570464|NCT04745351|168891994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.4974
84570465|NCT04745351|168891995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283||||||P-value was calculated based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4283
84570466|NCT04745351|168891996|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.89||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.091||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.091|0.731|0.2773
84496825|NCT00127192|168745000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.4|-14.3||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-14.3|-27.4|<0.001
84570467|NCT04745351|168891997|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.97||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.155||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using CMH analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.819|0.7538
84570468|NCT02014272|168892000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|98.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||98.94|92.07|
84570469|NCT02014272|168892000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|107.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||107.75|99.33|
84570470|NCT02014272|168892001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.13|101.01||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||101.01|83.13|
84570471|NCT02014272|168892001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|107.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|120.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||120.47|96.07|
84570472|NCT02014272|168892002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|99.43||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||99.43|92.54|
84570473|NCT02014272|168892002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.76|106.19||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||106.19|98.76|
84570474|NCT03176771|168892019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.6|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): MT-5199 80 mg vs. placebo.~* AIMS: MT-5199 40 mg vs. PBO. For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.6|-4.5|<0.001
84570475|NCT03176771|168892019|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.001
84570476|NCT03176771|168892020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
84570477|NCT03176771|168892020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84570478|NCT03176771|168892021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.3|-2.7|0.013
84570479|NCT03176771|168892021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-3.5|<0.001
84570480|NCT03176771|168892022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.021
84570481|NCT03176771|168892022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
84570482|NCT02265510|168892025|OTHER|Descriptive Statistics|||||||||||||||||The analysis of the primary endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570483|NCT02265510|168892026|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for ORR were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
84570484|NCT02265510|168892027|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for response were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
84570485|NCT02265510|168892028|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84751931|NCT01009554|169259183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.260|0.095|<0.001
84751932|NCT01009554|169259184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.300|0.094|<0.001
84751933|NCT01009554|169259185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.147||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.147|0.006|0.034
84751934|NCT01009554|169259186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.247||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.247|0.089|<0.001
84751935|NCT01009554|169259187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.296||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.296|0.091|<0.001
84751936|NCT01009554|169259188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.042||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.042|-0.082|0.524
84751937|NCT01009554|169259189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.133||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.133|-0.024|0.172
84751938|NCT01009554|169259190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.203||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.203|0.028|0.010
84570486|NCT02265510|168892029|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570487|NCT02265510|168892030|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570488|NCT02265510|168892031|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570489|NCT02265510|168892032|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570490|NCT02265510|168892033|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570491|NCT02265510|168892034|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570492|NCT02265510|168892035|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
84570493|NCT02530385|168892048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84570494|NCT02530385|168892049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
84570495|NCT02530385|168892050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
84570496|NCT02530385|168892051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
84570497|NCT02530385|168892052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84570498|NCT02111083|168892054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.01||||||||1.01|0.965|
84570499|NCT02111083|168892055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|0.919||||||||0.919|0.828|
84570500|NCT02111083|168892056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.375||||||||0.375|0|
84570501|NCT02111083|168892057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.02||||||||1.02|0.954|
84570502|NCT02111083|168892058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.0||||||||1.00|0.901|
84570503|NCT02111083|168892059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least squares means|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.164|0.685||||||||0.685|0.164|
84570504|NCT02111083|168892060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.01||||||||1.01|0.975|
84751939|NCT01009554|169259191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.015||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.015|-0.043|0.348
84608306|NCT04075409|168967706|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.604|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.604|1.039|
84608307|NCT04075409|168967706|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.645|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.324|2.044|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.044|1.324|
84608308|NCT04075409|168967709|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8859|1.339|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.339|0.8859|
84671615|NCT00782210|169077369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.181|<0.0001
84671616|NCT00782210|169077369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.220|<0.0001
84671617|NCT00782210|169077370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.201|<0.0001
84671618|NCT00782210|169077370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.219|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.219|<0.0001
84608309|NCT04075409|168967709|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
84671619|NCT00782210|169077371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
84671620|NCT00782210|169077371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
84671621|NCT00782210|169077372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.319|0.169|<0.0001
84671622|NCT00782210|169077372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.346|0.196|<0.0001
84671623|NCT00782210|169077373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.076|<0.0001
84671624|NCT00782210|169077373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.113|<0.0001
84671625|NCT00782210|169077374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.059|0.0003
84671626|NCT00782210|169077374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.213|0.069|0.0001
84671627|NCT00782210|169077375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0019||95.0|0.043|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.043|0.0019
84671628|NCT00782210|169077375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.088|<0.0001
84496826|NCT00127192|168745000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-11.2||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.2|-24.2|<0.001
84496827|NCT00127192|168745000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-9.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-9.6|-22.3|<0.001
84496828|NCT01856257|168745001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.512||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.999|15.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||The p-value, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 2 to Group 1.|||15.024|-7.999|0.544
84496829|NCT01856257|168745001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.481|20.121|||Mixed Models Analysis||P-value estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 3 to Group 1.|||20.121|-10.481|0.531
84496830|NCT00077766|168745035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 90% power assuming that the true difference between the RO0503821 group and darbepoetin was not larger than 0.3 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.408||The p-value for the non-inferiority test was derived using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|Degrees of Freedom : 246|Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model.|RO0503821 group was compared to darbepoetin alfa group, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the independent variable as treatment group and Hb at baseline and geographical region as covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in adjusted mean between 2 groups. If this lower limit was \> or = to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 group was regarded as clinically non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa group, with 90% power.||0.408|-0.049|< 0.0001
84496831|NCT01360021|168745064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Geometic Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid vs Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid|The comparison of Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid for post dose FEV1||1.14|1.06|0.001
84497641|NCT03170271|168746326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.68|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) =Treatment + baseline average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score for the average of top 3 ranked symptoms/impairments at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.68|-1.62|<0.0001
84570505|NCT00644059|168892062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.66|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
84570506|NCT00644059|168892065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
84570507|NCT00644059|168892065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.92|98.94|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||98.94|80.92|
84570508|NCT00644059|168892065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.73|0.13|
84608310|NCT04075409|168967709|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
84608311|NCT04075409|168967710|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.653|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.653|1.092|
84752869|NCT03672461|169260976|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.38||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.91|-5.68|0.154
84751940|NCT01009554|169259192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.062|-0.012|0.185
84570509|NCT00644059|168892065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.38|0.02|
84570510|NCT00644059|168892066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine Efficacy|79.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|90.42|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||90.42|54.78|
84570511|NCT00644059|168892066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.35|97.24|||Poisson Regression Model|||Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza. Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)||97.24|77.35|
84570512|NCT00644059|168892066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.21|83.28|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||83.28|23.21|
84570513|NCT00644059|168892066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|85.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.95|94.99|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||94.99|58.95|
84570514|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.02|0.67|
84570515|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.42|
84570516|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||21|11|
84570517|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|8.68|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||8.68|4.83|
84570518|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.21|0.85|
84570519|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|12.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||12|7.76|
84570520|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||20|12|
84570521|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|6.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||6.65|3.64|
84570522|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.91|
84570523|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.9|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.9|1.19|
84570524|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|8.53|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||8.53|5.72|
84570525|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.5|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||3.5|2.44|
84570526|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.04|0.64|
84570527|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.78|0.83|
84497642|NCT03170271|168746326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.66|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PSIA score (top ranked) =Treatment + baseline PSIA score (top ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score of top ranked symptom/impairment at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.66|-1.64|<0.0001
84570528|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1]|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.33|
84570529|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.55|2.4|
84570530|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.74|
84570531|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.51|||GMT|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.51|2.78|
84570532|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||16|10|
84570533|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.95|2.61|
84570534|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1|1|
84570535|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.11|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.11|1.02|
84570536|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.92|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.92|1.57|
84570537|NCT00644059|168892072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.08|0.92|
84570538|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.19|0.78|
84570539|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|8.76|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.76|4.69|
84570540|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||11|6.36|
84570541|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.65|3.38|
84570542|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of Geometric Mean Titers GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.35|0.82|
84570543|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|8.73|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.73|4.72|
84570544|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||10|6.2|
84570545|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.05|2.42|
84570546|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.05|0.9|
84570547|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.93|1.26|
84570548|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|5.88|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.88|4.25|
84751941|NCT01009554|169259193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|0.010|0.014
84751942|NCT01009554|169259194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.024||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.024|-0.040|0.623
84751943|NCT01009554|169259195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.061||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.061|-0.013|0.192
84751944|NCT01009554|169259196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.099|0.014|0.009
84751945|NCT01009554|169259197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0384||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.071||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.071|-0.081|0.893
84751946|NCT01009554|169259198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.116||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.116|-0.073|0.655
84751947|NCT01009554|169259199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0693||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.359||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.359|0.084|0.002
84752870|NCT03672461|169260977|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.22||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.72|-7.17|0.375
84752871|NCT03672461|169260978|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.75||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.5|-5|0.287
84752872|NCT03672461|169260979|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.58||adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.58|-3.85|0.147
84570549|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.93|2.22|
84570550|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|0.75|
84570551|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.51|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.51|1.17|
84570552|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|7.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||7.63|4.08|
84570553|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.2|2.3|
84570554|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.3|0.74|
84570555|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.49|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.49|2.19|
84671629|NCT00782210|169077376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.057|0.0005
84752873|NCT03672461|169260980|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.37||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.61|-5.36|0.495
84751948|NCT01009554|169259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.035||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.035|-0.039|0.914
84570556|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|9.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||9.82|5.51|
84570557|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||3.55|2|
84570558|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.01|0.98|
84570559|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|1.05|
84570560|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|1.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.97|1.63|
84570561|NCT00644059|168892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.17|1|
84570562|NCT02497469|168892087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|15.0|2.5|0.0061
84570563|NCT02497469|168892088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|18.5|5.3|0.0005
84570564|NCT02497469|168892089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.3||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|0.4|-18.9|0.0641
84570565|NCT00843492|168892120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.15|<0.001
84751949|NCT01009554|169259201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.056|-0.035|0.646
84751950|NCT01009554|169259202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.163||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.163|0.040|0.001
84751951|NCT01009554|169259203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.037||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.037|-0.034|0.930
84570566|NCT00369343|168892127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.53|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) used baseline as a covariate and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus placebo adjusted mean change.|||6.11|2.53|<0.001
84570567|NCT00369343|168892128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||DVS SR compared to Placebo for CGI-I scores of either 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84570568|NCT00369343|168892129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.132||||0.008||95.0|1.22|3.74||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||3.74|1.22|0.008
84570569|NCT00369343|168892130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125|||<|0.001||95.0|1.85|5.27||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||5.27|1.85|<0.001
84570570|NCT00369343|168892131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.24|4.23||Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||4.23|1.24|<0.001
84570571|NCT00369343|168892132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.18|-0.06||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment and site as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
84570572|NCT00369343|168892139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||100mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.553
84751952|NCT01009554|169259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.060|-0.029|0.486
84570573|NCT00369343|168892139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||200mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.034
84751953|NCT01009554|169259205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.180|0.045|0.001
84751954|NCT01009554|169259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.320|-0.080|0.237
84751955|NCT01009554|169259207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.743||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.743|0.298|<0.001
84751956|NCT01009554|169259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.839||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.839|0.295|<0.001
84751957|NCT01009554|169259209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0491||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.160|-0.036|0.210
84570574|NCT00794664|168892140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Enrollment was to be conducted such that at least 51 patients were randomized to allow for potential exclusions from an analysis set.||||<0.001
84570575|NCT00794664|168892142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84570576|NCT00794664|168892144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84751958|NCT01009554|169259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.372||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.372|0.153|<0.001
84751959|NCT01009554|169259211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.411||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.411|0.151|<0.001
84570577|NCT00794664|168892146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84570578|NCT00794664|168892148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
84570579|NCT00794664|168892150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84570580|NCT00794664|168892152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.032||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.032
84570581|NCT00794664|168892154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84570582|NCT00794664|168892156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
84751960|NCT01009554|169259212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.165||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.165|-0.033|0.187
84751961|NCT01009554|169259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.148|<0.001
84570583|NCT00794664|168892158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
84570584|NCT00720499|168892160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.031|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.031|-0.035|0.8937
84570585|NCT00720499|168892161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.061|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.061|-0.015|0.2425
84570586|NCT00720499|168892163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.021|-0.010|0.5198
84570587|NCT00720499|168892163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.051|-0.011|0.2110
84671630|NCT00782210|169077376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.089|<0.0001
84752874|NCT03672461|169260981|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.82||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.59|-8.22|0.303
84570588|NCT00720499|168892163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.027|-0.029|0.9368
84570589|NCT00720499|168892164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.014|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.014|-0.027|0.5339
84570590|NCT00720499|168892164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.058|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.058|-0.015|0.2408
84570591|NCT00720499|168892164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.7139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.042|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.042|-0.029|0.7139
84570592|NCT00720499|168892165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.034|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.034|-0.026|0.7906
84570593|NCT00720499|168892166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.067|0.8473
84752875|NCT03672461|169260982|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|2.97||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||7.51|-1.56|0.196
84752876|NCT00315939|169260987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
84752877|NCT02113579|169261045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05) with estimated difference of \>= 20%, testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 4, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||<0.001
84752878|NCT02113579|169261046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-9.87||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-9.87|-18.68|<0.001
84751962|NCT01009554|169259214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.406||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.406|0.140|<0.001
84751963|NCT02554903|169259220|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7393||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5798|0.9426|||ANCOVA|||||0.9426|0.5798|0.0158
84751964|NCT04427501|169259230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58||||||||0.58|0.15|
84751965|NCT04427501|169259230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||||||||0.31|0.04|
84751966|NCT04427501|169259231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.4||||||||0.40|0.13|
84751967|NCT04427501|169259232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.35|0.6921
84751968|NCT04427501|169259232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.71|0.2110
84751969|NCT04427501|169259232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-0.13|0.1630
84497643|NCT03170271|168746327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.91||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.4|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score = Treatment + baseline SNOT-22 total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-1.40|-16.42|0.0204
84570594|NCT00720499|168892167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.029|0.2944
84570595|NCT00720499|168892167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.066|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.066|-0.046|0.7180
84751970|NCT04427501|169259232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.00|0.0099
84751971|NCT04427501|169259237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.86||||||||1.86|1.13|
84751972|NCT04427501|169259237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
84751973|NCT04427501|169259237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.53||||||||2.53|1.06|
84751974|NCT04427501|169259238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93||||||||1.93|1.17|
84751975|NCT04427501|169259238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
84751976|NCT04427501|169259238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.9||||||||2.9|1.22|
84751977|NCT04427501|169259239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64||||||||0.64|0.18|
84751978|NCT04427501|169259239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38||||||||0.38|0.07|
84751979|NCT04427501|169259239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|0.06|
84751980|NCT04427501|169259240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.46|<0.0000000
84751981|NCT04427501|169259240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.34|<0.0000000
84751982|NCT04427501|169259240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||3.777e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.45|0.00003777
84751983|NCT04427501|169259241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
84751984|NCT04427501|169259241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.130
84751985|NCT04427501|169259241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.012
84751986|NCT04427501|169259242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
84751987|NCT04427501|169259242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.033
84751988|NCT04427501|169259242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.017
84751989|NCT04427501|169259243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.31|0.499
84751990|NCT04427501|169259243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.64|0.492
84751991|NCT04427501|169259243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.11|0.125
84751992|NCT04427501|169259243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.069
84751993|NCT04427501|169259244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.04|0.034
84751994|NCT04427501|169259244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
84751995|NCT04427501|169259244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.79|0.291
84751996|NCT04427501|169259244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.88|0.143
84751997|NCT04427501|169259245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.14|0.014
84751998|NCT04427501|169259245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.64|0.828
84751999|NCT04427501|169259245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|1.09|0.022
84752000|NCT04427501|169259245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.43|0.90|0.119
84752001|NCT04427501|169259248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.04|0.098
84752002|NCT04427501|169259248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.09|0.165
84752003|NCT04427501|169259248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.10|0.191
84752004|NCT04427501|169259248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.04|0.075
84570596|NCT00720499|168892169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.032|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.032|-0.029|0.9384
84570597|NCT00720499|168892169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.088|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.088|-0.014|0.1583
84570598|NCT00720499|168892169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.025|0.2914
84570599|NCT00720499|168892170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.024|0.2485
84570600|NCT00720499|168892171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.130|-0.039|0.2875
84570601|NCT00720499|168892172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.038||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.046|5.015|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.015|-3.046|0.6299
84570602|NCT00720499|168892172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.156||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.553|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||12.553|0.070|0.0475
84570603|NCT00720499|168892172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|6.833|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.833|-3.729|0.5620
84570604|NCT00720499|168892173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.812|4.454|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||4.454|-4.812|0.9391
84570605|NCT00720499|168892173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.559||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.52|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||13.520|-0.560|0.0709
84570606|NCT00720499|168892173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.134||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.298|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||9.298|-3.100|0.3245
84570607|NCT00720499|168892174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.914|8.514|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.514|-9.914|0.8808
84570608|NCT00720499|168892175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.429|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.429|-3.190|0.6081
84570609|NCT00720499|168892175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.296|5.973|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.973|-3.296|0.5686
84752005|NCT04427501|169259249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.616
84752006|NCT04427501|169259249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.281
84752007|NCT04427501|169259249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.815
84752008|NCT04427501|169259249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.334
84752009|NCT04484259|169259342|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 45 PRU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|38.0||||||The primary end point was non-inferiority of Ticagrelor 60 mg monotherapy vs. aspirin plus Ticagrelor 60 mg||38|-23|
84752010|NCT03951220|169259347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7343
84752011|NCT03951220|169259348|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman (r)|0.39||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Spearman's rank correlation coeffcieitn|||||0.68|0.00|0.0445
84752012|NCT03951220|169259349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test|Kruskal-Wallis|||For baseline P1NP||||0.0079
84752013|NCT03951220|169259349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482||||||Dunn's multiple comparison test|ANOVA|||For baseline sclerostin||||0.0482
84752014|NCT03951220|169259360|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test|||||||0.015
84570610|NCT00720499|168892175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.294||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.888|5.194|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.194|-3.888|0.7765
84570611|NCT00720499|168892175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.379|6.686|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.686|-3.379|0.5166
84570612|NCT00720499|168892176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.585||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|8.418|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.418|-1.813|0.2037
84570613|NCT00720499|168892176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|6.813|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.813|-4.027|0.6118
84570614|NCT00720499|168892176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.251|6.64|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.640|-3.251|0.4988
84570615|NCT00720499|168892176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.478||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.944|3.865|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||3.865|-5.944|0.6757
84570616|NCT00720499|168892177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.169|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.169|-0.147|0.8901
84570617|NCT00720499|168892177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.050|-0.290|0.1647
84570618|NCT00720499|168892177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.176|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.176|-0.180|0.9822
84608312|NCT04075409|168967710|OTHER||LS means ratio|0.9991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.812|1.229|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.229|0.8120|
84608313|NCT04075409|168967710|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.345|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.655|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.655|1.093|
84608314|NCT00162266|168967714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||||38.4|12.8|<0.001
84608315|NCT00162266|168967714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.4|-6.2|0.31
84570619|NCT00720499|168892177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.137|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.137|-0.218|0.6542
84570620|NCT00720499|168892178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.115|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.115|-0.342|0.3269
84570621|NCT00720499|168892179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.171|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.171|-0.181|0.9557
84570622|NCT00720499|168892179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.14|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.140|-0.178|0.8096
84608316|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||16.7|-4.9|0.283
84608317|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-11.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-2.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||-2.3|-20.9|0.015
84608318|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||23.8|-0.8|0.067
84608319|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-9.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||2.2|-20.8|0.113
84608320|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|34.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||34.8|9.3|<0.001
84608321|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||11.3|-13.5|0.86
84752015|NCT03951220|169259363|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.007
84496832|NCT01360021|168745064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid for post dose FEV1.||1.05|0.97|
84570623|NCT00457730|168892189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84570624|NCT00457730|168892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84570625|NCT00457730|168892191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
84570626|NCT01618968|168892192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.61|134.7||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration AUC(0-inf).||134.70|121.61|
84570627|NCT01618968|168892192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|125.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.43|131.84||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following oral administration to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-Inf).||131.84|119.43|
84570628|NCT01618968|168892192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|101.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.41|104.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-inf)||104.36|99.41|
84570629|NCT01618968|168892193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.28|134.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||134.36|121.28|
84570630|NCT01618968|168892193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|125.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.16|131.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||131.55|119.16|
84570631|NCT01618968|168892193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|104.31||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||104.31|99.39|
84570632|NCT01618968|168892194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.42|104.06||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||104.06|86.42|
84570633|NCT01618968|168892194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|82.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.16|88.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||88.55|76.16|
84570634|NCT01618968|168892194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|122.86||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||122.86|108.83|
84570635|NCT01621009|168892195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.36|.78|>0.05
84570636|NCT01621009|168892195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|.52|>0.05
84570637|NCT04356937|168892204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|0.38|0.64
84570638|NCT04356937|168892205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.10|0.59|0.73
84570639|NCT04356937|168892206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.69
84570640|NCT00921024|168892213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84570641|NCT00921024|168892214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84570642|NCT02873689|168892267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.057
84570643|NCT02873689|168892268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.268
84570644|NCT00737178|168892273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
84570645|NCT00737178|168892275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84608322|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|31.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||31.4|5.9|0.004
84752016|NCT04908189|169259371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
84752017|NCT04908189|169259372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
84608323|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||15.4|-9.8|0.664
84608324|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||36.7|11.1|<0.001
84608325|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||19.9|-6.0|0.292
84608326|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||35.8|10.2|<0.001
84608327|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|21.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||21.3|-4.3|0.193
84671631|NCT00782210|169077377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0261||95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.010|0.0261
84671632|NCT00782210|169077377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.05|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.050|0.0010
84671633|NCT00782210|169077378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0154||95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.165|0.018|0.0154
84671634|NCT00782210|169077378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0011||95.0|0.049|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.049|0.0011
84752018|NCT04908189|169259374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||3.105|0.980|0.0002
84752019|NCT04908189|169259377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
84497644|NCT02701049|168746331|OTHER|Among 109,994 patients who entered the ED during Mode 1, 19,742 had SOGI collected (18%). Among 88,143 patients who entered the ED during Mode 2, 3,630 had SOGI collected (4%).||||||||||||||||Historical controls included all patients entering participating EDs as identified by the Electronic Health Record.|Results were compared to historical control population from an electronic health record database, no other data were collected for these participants.|||
84608328|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||38.4|12.8|<0.001
84608329|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31||95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||19.4|-6.2|0.31
84608330|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|40.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||40.1|14.5|<0.001
84608331|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.7||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|18.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||18.4|-7.1|0.384
84608332|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|41.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||41.8|16.2|<0.001
84608333|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||17.2|-8.0|0.476
84608334|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|39.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||39.3|13.7|<0.001
84608335|NCT00162266|168967715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.8||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|18.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||18.6|-7.0|0.377
84608336|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-0.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||2.9|-4.5|0.679
84608337|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||0.5|-5.5|0.101
84671635|NCT00782210|169077379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0006||95.0|0.057|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.057|0.0006
84671636|NCT00782210|169077379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.080|<0.0001
84671637|NCT00782210|169077380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0134||95.0|0.019|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.168|0.019|0.0134
84671638|NCT00782210|169077380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025||95.0|0.04|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.040|0.0025
84671639|NCT00782210|169077381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.187|<0.0001
84570646|NCT02470741|168892283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.85||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|Null hypotheses: Letrozole is not associated with an improvement in the UFSQOL Overall Score.||9.23|-32.92|0.24
84570647|NCT00485836|168892284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|11.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.7|15.3||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||15.3|7.7|<0.0001
84570648|NCT00485836|168892284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|13.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.3|17.4||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||17.4|10.3|<0.0001
84570649|NCT00485836|168892285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|18.8|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||39.7|18.8|<0.0001
84570650|NCT00485836|168892285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|19.6|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||40.9|19.6|<0.0001
84570651|NCT00485836|168892286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.0019||95.0|4.3|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||18.2|4.3|0.0019
84570652|NCT00485836|168892286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||20.1|7.2|<0.0001
84608338|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||15.7|0.4|0.039
84671640|NCT00782210|169077381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.225|0.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.376|0.225|<0.0001
84570653|NCT00485836|168892287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|41.6|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||62.3|41.6|<0.0001
84570654|NCT00485836|168892287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|54.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|44.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||64.1|44.0|<0.0001
84570655|NCT00485836|168892288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-272.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-329.9|-214.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-214.5|-329.9|<0.0001
84570656|NCT00485836|168892288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-283.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-337.8|-229.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-229.8|-337.8|<0.0001
84608339|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||3.6|-7.7|0.474
84608340|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||16.5|-3.3|0.192
84671641|NCT00782210|169077382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.188|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.341|0.188|<0.0001
84671642|NCT00782210|169077382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.216|<0.0001
84671643|NCT00782210|169077383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.174|<0.0001
84671644|NCT00782210|169077383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.358|0.203|<0.0001
84671645|NCT00782210|169077384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.174|<0.0001
84671646|NCT00782210|169077384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.338|0.183|<0.0001
84570657|NCT00485836|168892289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.8||||0.0019||95.0|2.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.4|2.1|0.0019
84570658|NCT00485836|168892289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.9||||0.0099||95.0|1.2|8.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||8.6|1.2|0.0099
84570659|NCT00485836|168892290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.3||||0.0002||95.0|3.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||9.5|3.1|0.0002
84570660|NCT00485836|168892290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0199||95.0|0.7|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.7|0.0199
84608341|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.8||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.4|-11.0|0.702
84608342|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||21.7|1.8|0.02
84671647|NCT00782210|169077385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
84570661|NCT04539275|168892312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||||0.14|-0.15|1.00
84570662|NCT04539275|168892313|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.65|0.749
84570663|NCT04539275|168892314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.23|||Log Rank|||||4.23|0.21|0.943
84570664|NCT04539275|168892315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.25|0.4014
84671648|NCT00782210|169077385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.154|<0.0001
84671649|NCT00782210|169077386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.168|<0.0001
84671650|NCT00782210|169077386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.181|<0.0001
84671651|NCT00782210|169077387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.422|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.422|0.181|<0.0001
84570665|NCT04539275|168892316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.96|||Log Rank|||||1.96|0.18|0.3762
84608343|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.8|-4.8|0.339
84608344|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|28.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||28.9|7.0|0.001
84608345|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.0||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||11.7|-7.6|0.682
84608346|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|31.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||31.8|9.3|<0.001
84608347|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|1.2||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||10.9|-8.6|0.813
84608348|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||35.7|13.8|<0.001
84608349|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||20.9|1.2|0.027
84671652|NCT00782210|169077387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.37|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.370|0.128|<0.0001
84671653|NCT00782210|169077388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.005|21.709|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||21.709|5.005|0.0018
84496833|NCT01360021|168745065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid, for pre-dose FEV1.||1.08|0.99|
84496834|NCT01360021|168745066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were be made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|14.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid||14.80|-11.81|0.825
84570666|NCT04539275|168892317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||||0.09|-0.17|0.6867
84671654|NCT00782210|169077388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.248||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.114|23.8|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.800|7.114|0.0003
84752020|NCT04908189|169259381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02831||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0088|0.1198|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1198|0.0088|0.0231
84570667|NCT04539275|168892318|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.68|0.6494
84570668|NCT04539275|168892319|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.59|0.9338
84570669|NCT04539275|168892323|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.70|0.5682
84570670|NCT04539275|168892325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|-2.3|0.8642
84570671|NCT01373164|168892329|SUPERIORITY|The planned primary analysis for this study utilized a Bayesian exponential-likelihood model, incorporating historical overall survival (OS) data from 2 studies (Oettle et al. 2005; Saif et al. 2009). The primary analysis was performed using strong borrowing from the historical data. The model was estimated to borrow approximately 37 events from the historical studies.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.085|||Bayesian Analysis|Primary comparison was to be considered successful if there was at least 0.85 posterior probability that the hazard ratio (HR) for OS of LY+Gem is \<1.|This is a Credible Interval estimated from the Bayesian analysis.|||1.085|0.590|
84570672|NCT00607893|168892340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23|||Regression, Linear||F2-isoprostanes/Cr was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.23|-0.090|0.38
84671655|NCT00782210|169077389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.849|25.523|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||25.523|8.849|<0.0001
84671656|NCT00782210|169077389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.259|22.86|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.860|6.259|0.0006
84671657|NCT00782210|169077390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.162|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.162|-0.878|0.0045
84671658|NCT00782210|169077390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.291|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.291|-1.005|0.0004
84671659|NCT00782210|169077391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.185|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.185|-0.979|0.0041
84671660|NCT00782210|169077391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.394|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.394|-1.189|0.0001
84671661|NCT00782210|169077392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|-0.409|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.409|-1.799|0.0019
84671662|NCT00782210|169077392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.74|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.740|-2.130|<0.0001
84671663|NCT00782210|169077393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
84671664|NCT00782210|169077393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
84671665|NCT00782210|169077394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
84496835|NCT01360021|168745066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.11|46.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid minus Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid||46.93|20.11|0.001
84496836|NCT01360021|168745066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|13.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||13.61|-10.66|0.810
84496837|NCT01360021|168745066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|44.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid and Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid.||44.49|20.01|0.001
84496838|NCT01360021|168745067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.35|-0.10|0.272
84570673|NCT00607893|168892341|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|21.07|||Regression, Linear|||||21.07|-17.42|0.85
84496839|NCT01360021|168745068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||-0.79|-11.41|0.025
84570674|NCT00607893|168892342|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|-2.60|0.92
84570675|NCT00607893|168892343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.91|||Regression, Linear|||||0.91|-0.48|0.55
84671666|NCT00782210|169077394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
84570676|NCT00607893|168892344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92|||Regression, Linear|||||0.92|-0.16|0.17
84570677|NCT00607893|168892345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||||5.07|-0.26|0.076
84570678|NCT00607893|168892346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear||sIL-6R was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.11|0.010|0.019
84671667|NCT00782210|169077395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
84671668|NCT00782210|169077395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
84671669|NCT00782210|169077396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0109||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0109
84671670|NCT00782210|169077396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
84671671|NCT00782210|169077397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.016|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.016|0.522|0.0658
84671672|NCT00782210|169077397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.107|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.107|0.576|0.1701
84671673|NCT00782210|169077398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.374|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.374|0.313|0.2754
84752021|NCT04908189|169259381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03126||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.0697|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0697|-0.0528|0.7865
84752022|NCT04908189|169259381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03386||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1179|0.0148|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||0.0148|-0.1179|0.1280
84752023|NCT04908189|169259381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean differnce|-0.0541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.0137|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.0137|-0.1219|0.1180
84496840|NCT01360021|168745069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between BAI Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and pMDI Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.71|-0.19|0.258
84671674|NCT00782210|169077398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.9792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.961|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.961|0.521|0.9792
84671675|NCT00782210|169077399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.078|0.506|0.1194
84671676|NCT00782210|169077399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.174|0.561|0.2570
84671677|NCT00782210|169077400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5524|1.1054|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1054|0.5524|0.1631
84671678|NCT00782210|169077400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6015|1.1889|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1889|0.6015|0.3342
84671679|NCT00782210|169077401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2664||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2947|1.4556|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.4556|0.2947|0.2985
84570679|NCT00607893|168892347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-0.64|0.68
84570680|NCT00607893|168892348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.31|||Regression, Linear|||||6.31|-3.60|0.59
84570681|NCT00607893|168892349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.81|||Regression, Linear|||||10.81|3.04|<0.001
84570682|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
84570683|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
84570684|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
84570685|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
84570686|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.45|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||1.45|-1.37|
84570687|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.68|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.68|-0.46|
84570688|NCT01799941|168892350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.69|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.69|-0.39|
84570689|NCT01799941|168892351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570690|NCT01799941|168892351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570691|NCT01799941|168892351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570692|NCT01799941|168892351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570693|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570694|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570695|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570696|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 assessment||||<0.0001
84570697|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570698|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570699|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84671680|NCT00782210|169077401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4103||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5464|2.3003|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.3003|0.5464|0.7550
84671681|NCT00782210|169077402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5438|1.2008|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2008|0.5438|0.2911
84671682|NCT00782210|169077402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1686||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5743|1.2535|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2535|0.5743|0.4086
84671683|NCT00436748|169077407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa QW group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84671684|NCT00436748|169077407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa Q2W group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||0.293
84671685|NCT01610791|169077423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ALT from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
84752024|NCT04908189|169259381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
84752025|NCT04908189|169259386|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4384||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|1.551|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||1.551|-0.168|0.1147
84752026|NCT04908189|169259386|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5147||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|3.008|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||3.008|0.991|0.0001
84496841|NCT00530621|168745074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.544||95.0|0.77|1.65||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.77|0.544
84496842|NCT00530621|168745075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.171||95.0|0.42|1.17||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.17|0.42|0.171
84570700|NCT01799941|168892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
84570701|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.445|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regreesion Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 30 assessment||0.445|0.407|<0.0001
84570702|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.293|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 90 assessment||0.293|0.262|<0.0001
84570703|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.534|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 30 assessment||0.534|0.469|<0.0001
84570704|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.349|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 90 assessment||0.349|0.299|<0.0001
84570705|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.383|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 30 assessment||0.383|0.323|<0.0001
84570706|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.282|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 90 assessment||0.282|0.231|<0.0001
84570707|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.425|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 30 assessment||0.425|0.352|<0.0001
84570708|NCT01799941|168892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.245|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 90 assessment||0.245|0.189|<0.0001
84570709|NCT01799941|168892357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570710|NCT01799941|168892357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570711|NCT01799941|168892357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570712|NCT01799941|168892357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
84570713|NCT01248416|168892376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.006
84570714|NCT01248416|168892378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.906
84570715|NCT01248416|168892379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
84570716|NCT01248416|168892381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84570717|NCT01248416|168892382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84671686|NCT01610791|169077423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AST from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
84671687|NCT01610791|169077424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffrence in total cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
84671688|NCT01610791|169077424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
84752027|NCT04908189|169259386|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||3.105|0.980|0.0002
84752028|NCT04908189|169259390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.827|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.827|-1.396|0.6159
84496843|NCT00530621|168745076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11||||0.01||95.0|1.19|3.75|||Regression, Cox|||||3.75|1.19|0.010
84570718|NCT01248416|168892383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84570719|NCT01516216|168892400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
84570720|NCT01516216|168892401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
84570721|NCT01516216|168892402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84570722|NCT01516216|168892404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84570723|NCT01516216|168892407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9801|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9801
84570724|NCT01516216|168892408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7444|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7444
84570725|NCT02369653|168892435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0403
84496844|NCT00530621|168745077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.194||95.0|0.81|2.77||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||2.77|0.81|0.194
84570726|NCT02369653|168892436|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
84570727|NCT01603602|168892497|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.379||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.379|-0.938|<0.001
84570728|NCT01603602|168892497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.992|-0.426||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||-0.426|-0.992|<0.001
84570729|NCT01603602|168892498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.511||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.511|-0.082|0.155
84570730|NCT01603602|168892498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.523||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.523|-0.079|0.147
84570731|NCT01603602|168892499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.091||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|-0.861|0.111
84570732|NCT01603602|168892499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|0.051||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.933|0.078
84570733|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.305||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.305|-0.498|0.636
84608350|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|15.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||27.0|4.0|0.008
84608351|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|0.8||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|11.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||11.4|-9.8|0.885
84608352|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|35.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||35.4|12.6|<0.001
84608353|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||16.9|-3.4|0.19
84608354|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|33.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||33.4|9.7|<0.001
84608355|NCT00162266|168967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||13.5|-8.1|0.625
84752029|NCT04908189|169259390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|2.054|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||2.054|-0.396|0.1847
84570734|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.318||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.318|-0.502|0.658
84570735|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.635||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.635|-0.162|0.243
84570736|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.576||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.576|-0.237|0.412
84570737|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.361||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.361|-0.408|0.904
84570738|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.135||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.135|-0.641|0.200
84570739|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.978||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.978|0.210|0.003
84570740|NCT01603602|168892500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.58||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.580|-0.194|0.327
84570741|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.089|27.293||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||27.293|-3.089|0.117
84570742|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.41||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.717|23.527||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||23.527|-6.717|0.273
84570743|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.958|26.458||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||26.458|2.958|0.015
84570744|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.85||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|23.504||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||23.504|0.203|0.046
84570745|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.801|33.137||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||33.137|8.801|<0.001
84570746|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.35||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|23.362||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||23.362|-0.662|0.064
84570747|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.317|27.178||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||27.178|3.317|0.013
84752030|NCT04908189|169259390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|2.464|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.464|-0.174|0.0888
84496845|NCT00530621|168745078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
84496846|NCT02596009|168745082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|30.24|||paired t-test|||||30.24|23.70|<0.0001
84570748|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.488|18.934||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||18.934|-4.488|0.225
84570749|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|15.236||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||15.236|-6.239|0.409
84570750|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|14.419||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||14.419|-6.690|0.470
84752031|NCT04908189|169259391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.3|-1.6|0.1924
84752032|NCT04908189|169259391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.8|-1.20|0.7601
84752033|NCT04908189|169259391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||2.4|0.1|0.0303
84752034|NCT04908189|169259391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||1.7|-0.8|0.4747
84752035|NCT04908189|169259391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
84752036|NCT04908189|169259393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.122|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.122|-0.276|0.4459
84752037|NCT04908189|169259393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1164||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.004|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||-0.004|-0.460|0.0461
84752038|NCT04908189|169259393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.339|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.339|-0.857|<0.0001
84752039|NCT04908189|169259393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.882|-0.327|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.327|-0.882|<0.0001
84570751|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.962|4.706||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||4.706|-16.962|0.263
84752040|NCT04908189|169259393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1455|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.501|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.501|-1.071|<0.0001
84752041|NCT04908189|169259394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9227||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|2.1609|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||2.1609|-1.4560|0.7025
84752042|NCT04908189|169259394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93331||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2023|0.4562|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.4562|-3.2023|0.1413
84752043|NCT04908189|169259394|SUPERIORITY||Adjused mean difference|-3.7522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.10374||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9155|-1.589|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-1.5890|-5.9155|0.0007
84752044|NCT04908189|169259394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.8072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0388|-2.5757|||ANOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-2.5757|-7.0388|<0.0001
84752045|NCT04908189|169259394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.2006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6082|-3.793|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-3.7930|-8.6082|<0.0001
84752046|NCT04908189|169259398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05613||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0782|0.1419|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1419|-0.0782|0.5707
84752047|NCT04908189|169259398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06303||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|0.0402|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0402|-0.2069|0.1862
84496847|NCT02596009|168745082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|58.72|||paired t-test|||||58.72|49.15|<0.0001
84570752|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.846|-3.36||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||-3.360|-25.846|0.012
84570753|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.277|1.996||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||1.996|-23.277|0.098
84570754|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|0.068||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||0.068|-26.260|0.051
84752048|NCT04908189|169259398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07854||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4497|-0.1418|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.1418|-0.4497|0.0002
84570755|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.031|-4.189||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||-4.189|-30.031|0.010
84570756|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.622|2.131||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||2.131|-24.622|0.098
84570757|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.888|-5.537||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-5.537|-29.888|0.005
84570758|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.293|-3.194||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-3.194|-28.293|0.015
84570759|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-2.492||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-2.492|-28.010|0.020
84570760|NCT01603602|168892501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.52||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.797|-0.243||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-0.243|-26.797|0.046
84570761|NCT00316004|168892510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.55
84570762|NCT00316004|168892511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥4.||||0.59
84570763|NCT00316004|168892512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.67
84570764|NCT00316004|168892513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥2.||||0.57
84570765|NCT00316004|168892514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients at any level of disability between the three groups.||||.84
84671689|NCT02121483|169077481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7276|1.1704|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-inf. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed.|||1.1704|0.7276|
84752049|NCT04908189|169259398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4889|-0.1635|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.1635|-0.4889|<0.0001
84752050|NCT04908189|169259398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
84570766|NCT00316004|168892515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
84570767|NCT00316004|168892516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the day discharged from the hospital after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
84570768|NCT00316004|168892517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive and free of ARDS from the day of injury to the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.91
84752051|NCT04908189|169259401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07069||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2144|0.0627|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0627|-0.2144|0.2836
84752052|NCT04908189|169259401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09431|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7396|-0.3699|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.3699|-0.7396|<0.0001
84752053|NCT04908189|169259401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7826|-0.3843|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3843|-0.7826|<0.0001
84752054|NCT04908189|169259402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2143
84752055|NCT04908189|169259402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.2|-0.8|0.0001
84752056|NCT04908189|169259402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
84752057|NCT04908189|169259402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
84496848|NCT02255422|168745089|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0446||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1051|0.0743||P-Value relates to difference in change in peak work from baseline relative to placebo for all doses pooled. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null hypothesis: wk 12 mean change from baseline (\[μ RTA 408\] - \[μ Placebo\]) in peak work = 0 w/kg. Positive change from baseline suggests improvement||Primary Objective: To evaluate the change in peak work during maximal exercise testing||0.0743|-0.1051|0.7321
84570769|NCT00316004|168892518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.81
84570770|NCT00316004|168892519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.77
84570771|NCT00316004|168892520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.76
84570772|NCT00316004|168892521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.43
84570773|NCT00316004|168892522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with any nosocomial infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
84570774|NCT00316004|168892522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with pneumonia through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.3
84570775|NCT00316004|168892522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with bloodstream infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.04
84570776|NCT00316004|168892522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with urinary tract infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
84497645|NCT01984229|168746334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|137.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals (CIs).||137|102|
84570777|NCT00316004|168892522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with wound infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.88
84570778|NCT00316004|168892523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.68
84608356|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|6.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||6.8|0.2|0.04
84752058|NCT04908189|169259405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.801||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.15|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Absenteeism||3.15|-3.91|0.8316
84752059|NCT04908189|169259405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.827||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Presenteeism||0.63|-6.54|0.1060
84752060|NCT04908189|169259405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.05|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Work Productivity||1.05|-6.47|0.1578
84752061|NCT04908189|169259405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.22|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Activity Impairment||-4.22|-10.96|<0.0001
84497646|NCT01984229|168746335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|177.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|198.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||198|159|
84570779|NCT00316004|168892524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.43
84570780|NCT00316004|168892525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died during hospitalization between the three groups.||||0.88
84570781|NCT00316004|168892525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to home between the three groups.||||0.26
84570782|NCT00316004|168892525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to inpatient rehabilitation facilities between the three groups.||||0.16
84570783|NCT00316004|168892525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to skilled nursing facilities between the three groups.||||0.17
84570784|NCT00977197|168892572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.008
84570785|NCT00977197|168892573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.009
84570786|NCT00977197|168892574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender; rank scale.||||||0.389
84570787|NCT00977197|168892575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.049
84570788|NCT00977197|168892576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.044
84570789|NCT00977197|168892577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Intent to treat analysis, not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.350
84752062|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01224||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0291|0.0239|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Utility Score||0.0239|-0.0291|0.8487
84570790|NCT00977197|168892578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.020
84570791|NCT00977197|168892579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.024
84570792|NCT00977197|168892580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.417
84570793|NCT00977197|168892581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84570794|NCT00977197|168892582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.016
84570795|NCT00977197|168892583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||Intent to Treat analysis; not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
84570796|NCT03558516|168892607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.315
84570797|NCT03558516|168892608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
84570798|NCT03558516|168892609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
84570799|NCT01462942|168892633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.160|0.090|<0.0001
84570800|NCT01462942|168892633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.069||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.105|0.034|0.0001
84570801|NCT01462942|168892634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.119|0.051|<0.0001
84570802|NCT01462942|168892634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.053||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.087|0.019|0.0022
84570803|NCT01462942|168892635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.859|0.728|<0.0001
84570804|NCT01462942|168892635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||1.730|0.593|<0.0001
84570805|NCT01462942|168892636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.653||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.082|1.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.776|-3.082|0.5980
84671690|NCT02121483|169077482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7356|1.1838|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-tz. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1838|0.7356|
84752063|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01531||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0065|0.0665|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Utility Score||0.0665|0.0065|0.0171
84752064|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Mobility||0.1|-0.1|0.9254
84570806|NCT01462942|168892636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.828||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.604|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||0.604|-4.259|0.1406
84570807|NCT02449434|168892637|OTHER|Using the presence or absence of severe erosive wear as the dependent variable, the unadjusted, sex-and-age- adjusted and fully adjusted associations of the included variables with erosive tooth wear were estimated using unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios (OR).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Only results from fully adjusted regression models will be deemed as significant|Regression, Logistic|Unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals||A minimum sample size of 490 participants (245 in each group) was needed. This calculation assumed the proportion of adults with high dietary acid intake (3+ times/day) was 55% among cases and 40% among controls (expected odds ratio of 2.25), case- control ratio of 1-to-1, 90% statistical power and 95% significance level.||||<0.05
84570808|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||0.5152
84570809|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||1.0000
84570810|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
84570811|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
84570812|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
84752065|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Mobility||0.0|-0.2|0.0566
84497647|NCT01984229|168746336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0|195.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||195|157|
84570813|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
84570814|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||1.0000
84570815|NCT02737722|168892639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||0.3636
84570816|NCT02737722|168892640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.172
84570817|NCT02737722|168892640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.365
84570818|NCT02737722|168892640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.619
84570819|NCT02737722|168892641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.432
84570820|NCT02737722|168892641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.435
84570821|NCT02737722|168892641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.715
84570822|NCT02737722|168892642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
84570823|NCT02737722|168892642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
84570824|NCT02737722|168892642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
84570825|NCT02737722|168892643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
84570826|NCT02737722|168892643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
84570827|NCT02737722|168892643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
84570828|NCT02737722|168892644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.361
84570829|NCT02737722|168892644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
84570830|NCT02737722|168892644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
84570831|NCT02737722|168892645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
84570832|NCT02737722|168892645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
84570833|NCT02737722|168892645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
84570834|NCT02737722|168892647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
84570835|NCT02737722|168892647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
84570836|NCT02737722|168892647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
84570837|NCT02662569|168892648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-65.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.16|-75.43|<0.0001
84570838|NCT02662569|168892648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.67|-65.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-65.41|-74.67|<0.0001
84752066|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Ajudted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Self-Care||0.1|-0.1|0.8933
84752067|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Self-Care||0.0|-0.2|0.0738
84570839|NCT02662569|168892649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.61|-65.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.93|-77.61|<0.0001
84570840|NCT02662569|168892649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.97|-59.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-59.89|-69.97|<0.0001
84570841|NCT02662569|168892650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-56.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.9|-68.2|<0.0001
84570842|NCT02662569|168892650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.8|-68.4|<0.0001
84570843|NCT02662569|168892651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-57.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-57.6|-69.7|<0.0001
84570844|NCT02662569|168892651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-53.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-53.3|-64.3|<0.0001
84570845|NCT02662569|168892652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-56.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.29|-65.51|<0.0001
84570846|NCT02662569|168892652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-55.29|-63.52|<0.0001
84496849|NCT02255422|168745090|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-33.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6473||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.855|-10.042||P-value comparison is for difference in change in six minute walk distance from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo. Statistical significance defined as p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 4||-10.042|-56.855|0.0060
84570847|NCT02662569|168892653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.82|-56.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.45|-66.82|<0.0001
84570848|NCT02662569|168892653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-49.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.74|-58.70|<0.0001
84570849|NCT02662569|168892654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.93|-60.93|<0.0001
84570850|NCT02662569|168892654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.52|-51.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.18|-58.52|<0.0001
84608357|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||5.9|-0.2|0.063
84570851|NCT02662569|168892655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.59|-52.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.54|-61.59|<0.0001
84570852|NCT02662569|168892655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.31|-45.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-45.53|-53.31|<0.0001
84570853|NCT02662569|168892656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|-38.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.10|-44.95|<0.0001
84570854|NCT02662569|168892656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.47|-36.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-36.53|-42.47|<0.0001
84570855|NCT02662569|168892657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.02|-38.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.42|-46.02|<0.0001
84570856|NCT02662569|168892657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.12|-32.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.67|-39.12|<0.0001
84570857|NCT02662569|168892658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.64|-40.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-40.54|-47.64|<0.0001
84570858|NCT02662569|168892658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-40.44|-46.90|<0.0001
84570859|NCT02662569|168892659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.97|-47.90|<0.0001
84570860|NCT02662569|168892659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-37.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.04|-44.08|<0.0001
84570861|NCT02662569|168892660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.15|-54.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.25|-62.15|<0.0001
84570862|NCT02662569|168892660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-52.93|-60.53|<0.0001
84570863|NCT02662569|168892661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.59|-53.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.84|-62.59|<0.0001
84570864|NCT02662569|168892661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-47.59|-55.81|<0.0001
84608358|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||13.9|3.5|0.001
84570865|NCT02662569|168892662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||74.8|60.4|<0.0001
84608359|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.3|0.3|0.032
84608360|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|7.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.3|2.4|0.005
84752068|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Usual Activities||0.1|-0.1|0.6176
84752069|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Usual Activities||0.0|-0.2|0.1544
84497648|NCT01984229|168746340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.1|35.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||35.5|23.1|
84570866|NCT02662569|168892662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|77.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||77.9|64.1|<0.0001
84570867|NCT02662569|168892663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||73.9|58.9|<0.0001
84570868|NCT02662569|168892663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|75.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||75.3|60.6|<0.0001
84570869|NCT02662569|168892664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.64|-18.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-18.40|-92.64|<0.0001
84608361|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||8.2|-0.3|0.07
84608362|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||16.7|2.7|0.007
84608363|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395||95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-3.1|0.395
84608364|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|10.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||17.7|3.4|0.004
84608365|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||7.8|-3.1|0.395
84608366|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||22.2|7.5|<0.001
84608367|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||14.9|2.7|0.005
84608368|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||21.4|5.0|0.002
84608369|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||10.1|-3.0|0.292
84608370|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||29.5|12.4|<0.001
84608371|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||14.3|1.6|0.014
84608372|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||22.2|4.4|0.003
84752070|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Pain/Discomfort||0.1|-0.2|0.4707
84752071|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Pain/Discomfort||0.0|-0.3|0.0114
84752072|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.6594
84752073|NCT04908189|169259406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.7123
84752074|NCT04908189|169259407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.97|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.97|-0.99|0.9834
84570870|NCT02662569|168892664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.82|-37.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.72|-63.82|<0.0001
84570871|NCT02662569|168892665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.89|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-14.03|-110.89|<0.0001
84570872|NCT02662569|168892665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-28.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-28.77|-61.87|<0.0001
84570873|NCT02662569|168892666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-10.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-10.14|-25.89|0.0002
84570874|NCT02662569|168892666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-9.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-9.58|-21.69|<0.0001
84570875|NCT02662569|168892667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-8.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-8.19|-24.63|0.0002
84570876|NCT02662569|168892667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|-5.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.86|-18.76|<0.0001
84570877|NCT02662569|168892668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.33|3.36|0.0003
84752075|NCT04908189|169259407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.82|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.82|-1.39|0.6099
84752076|NCT04908189|169259407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||0.40|-1.71|0.2205
84752077|NCT02217436|169259410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84570878|NCT02662569|168892668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||10.65|5.10|<0.0001
84570879|NCT02662569|168892669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|9.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.27|2.49|0.0003
84570880|NCT02662569|168892669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|11.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.25|5.03|<0.0001
84570881|NCT02662569|168892670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-20.17|-34.20|<0.0001
84570882|NCT02662569|168892670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-18.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-18.14|-29.88|<0.0001
84752078|NCT02217436|169259411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84570883|NCT02027025|168892794|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|-1.73|0.4532
84570884|NCT02027025|168892794|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.76|0.4704
84570885|NCT02027025|168892795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.56|0.3013
84570886|NCT02027025|168892795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.58|0.2994
84570887|NCT02027025|168892796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3815
84570888|NCT02027025|168892796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7491
84570889|NCT02027025|168892797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8991|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8991
84570890|NCT02027025|168892797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8829
84608373|NCT00162266|168967717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|12.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||12.6|-3.0|0.227
84671691|NCT02121483|169077483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5504|1.1603|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and Cmax. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1603|0.5504|
84671692|NCT01203072|169077494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level for Cochran-Armitage test and comparison using Shirley-Williams method was set at one-sided, 0.025. For other tests, significance level and confidence coefficient were set at two-sided, 0.05 and 0.95, respectively, unless specified|Cochran-Armitage|||As the primary analysis, the dose-response relationship in the incidence of thromboembolic event was verified using the Cochran-Armitage test.||||<0.001
84570891|NCT00828711|168892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MVI 100 and MVI 200 based on the proportion of vaginal deliveries within 24 hours. A minimum sample size of approximately 120 subjects per arm would provide 84 subjects per arm with vaginal delivery, which would ensure \>80% power (with two-sided alpha of 5%) to detect a 20% improvement in the proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours||||0.057
84570892|NCT00828711|168892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-563.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.018
84570893|NCT00828711|168892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-8.46||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.153
84570894|NCT00828711|168892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.37||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.65
84570895|NCT00828711|168892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||<.001
84570896|NCT00828711|168892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-368.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdraw consent prior to delivery will be censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.007
84570897|NCT01387269|168892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
84570898|NCT01387269|168892815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.1475
84570899|NCT01387269|168892816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0004
84570900|NCT01387269|168892817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0544
84570901|NCT01387269|168892818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
84570902|NCT01141608|168892833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
84570903|NCT02753881|168892849|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicin.||||.036
84570904|NCT02753881|168892849|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicinol.||||0.002
84570905|NCT02753881|168892851|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicin.||||0.023
84570906|NCT02753881|168892851|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicinol.||||0.041
84608374|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||5.61|-1.56|0.2676
84608375|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||-0.14|-7.46|0.0418
84608376|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||12.41|2.08|0.0061
84608377|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|4.16||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||4.16|-6.45|0.6713
84608378|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|17.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||17.84|5.67|0.0002
84671693|NCT02272413|169077497|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was to be rejected in favor of equivalence if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio in best ORR between the treatments was entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7697|0.9506|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9506|0.7697|
84671694|NCT02272413|169077497|EQUIVALENCE|Additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed for Japan according to a local protocol amendment Japan. For the submission in Japan, to conclude on equivalence, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of best ORR between the treatments had to be entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7543|0.97|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9700|0.7543|
84671695|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Score exact method|||At least 1 AE selected for comparability assessment, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.37|0.99|
84671696|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.88|||Score exact method|||Infusion reactions, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.88|0.88|
84671697|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.32|||Score exact method|||Thromboembolic events, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.32|0.64|
84752079|NCT02656420|169259412|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance of the treatment effect (p \< 0.01) for the lower doses compared to the high dose as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.57||Using a linear mixed effects model with random intercepts and slope, SF level (in the log scale) was regressed on categorical treatment group (medium dose and low dose; high as the reference) as well as day (continuous variable).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the urinary sulforaphane levels are equal across treatment arms. Sulforaphane metabolite levels were measured daily for 10 days in each arm.||-1.57|-1.89|<0.001
84752080|NCT02656420|169259413|SUPERIORITY|To summarize first 12-hour SPMA levels over the study course by participant, the SPMA geometric mean (in the log scale) for each individual was calculated and used as the outcome. Treatment arms (placebo, fifth, half and full doses) were independent (categorical) variables in a linear regression model with placebo as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|140.9|||Regression, Linear||This Estimation Parameter was based on the comparison between the full dose group and the placebo group.|All broccoli sprout arms were compared with the placebo arm.||140.9|10.6|<0.05
84752081|NCT01215175|169259443|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
84752082|NCT01215175|169259444|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||||95.0|-7.9|26.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.9|
84608379|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||6.82|-5.62|0.8495
84608380|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|18.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||18.56|5.63|0.0003
84608381|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|10.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||10.81|-2.44|0.0003
84608382|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|21.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||21.81|7.28|0.0001
84608383|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|10.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||10.64|-3.43|0.3141
84608384|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|25.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||25.43|8.49|0.0001
84752083|NCT01215175|169259444|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-15.5|22.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-15.5|
84752084|NCT01215175|169259445|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.5|-11.5|
84496850|NCT02255422|168745090|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-3.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.133|19.207||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 8||19.207|-27.133|0.7325
84570907|NCT00506675|168892856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
84570908|NCT00506675|168892857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
84570909|NCT00506675|168892858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
84570910|NCT01149655|168892866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.461||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.879|||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.|Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were derived from the Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as term. Hazard ratio \< 1 is in favor of oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg group for superiority test.|The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||0.879|0.242|0.0161
84570911|NCT01149655|168892868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||Statistical Analysis for Last Visit. The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0962
84570912|NCT01149655|168892869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9025
84570913|NCT01149655|168892870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value was derived from the log-rank tests.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
84570914|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis at Baseline. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3862
84570915|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 1. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8861
84570916|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 2. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8189
84570917|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 3. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3689
84570918|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 4. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9723
84570919|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 6. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.2985
84570920|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 8. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0883
84570921|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0228
84752085|NCT01215175|169259446|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.2|10.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||10.6|-12.2|
84752086|NCT01215175|169259446|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.3|-12.3|
84752087|NCT01215175|169259447|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
84752088|NCT01215175|169259448|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||||95.0|-10.6|30.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||30.9|-10.6|
84752089|NCT01215175|169259448|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-19.1|26.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.0|-19.1|
84752090|NCT03872453|169259457|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3|10.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-2.3|0.1214
84752091|NCT03872453|169259457|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|0.4|0.0113
84752092|NCT03872453|169259457|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.1|14.3||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.3|1.1|0.0055
84752093|NCT03872453|169259458|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.8|13.6||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|-2.8|0.1162
84752094|NCT03872453|169259458|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|0.1|0.0155
84752095|NCT03872453|169259458|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.9||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.7|17.0||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|0.7|0.0094
84752096|NCT03872453|169259459|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.1||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.3|15.4||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.4|-1.3|0.0439
84752097|NCT03872453|169259459|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.5||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.8|15.9||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.9|-0.8|0.0302
84752098|NCT03739762|169259504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|-10.79|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||The sample size of 284 ensured 90% power to detect a 41-minute difference in sitting time between I-STAND and the attention control from baseline to 6 months, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 97 minutes/day for change in sitting time (based on our pilot data), and 15% loss to follow-up. Sample and power calculations were performed using R software version 3.5 \[39\] via simulation, assuming specified SDs and differences between means.||-10.79|-52.91|0.003
84671698|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.76|||Score exact method|||Febrile neutropenia, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.76|0.51|
84752099|NCT03739762|169259505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.28|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||-0.28|-6.68|.033
84752100|NCT03739762|169259506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.16|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.16|-1.63|.784
84752101|NCT03739762|169259507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.38|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.38|-2.61|.927
84496851|NCT02255422|168745090|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-18.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0004||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.739|11.55||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 12||11.550|-48.739|0.2210
84752102|NCT03739762|169259508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.47|-0.42|.916
84752103|NCT03739762|169259509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.36|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.36|-1.09|.325
84752104|NCT05104476|169259521|SUPERIORITY||Bayesian Progression Model|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||||Reported here is the estimated effect parameter from the Bayesian Progression Model and the associated Credibility Interval for the active arm.|||1.13|0.56|
84752105|NCT03865940|169259540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Testing null hypothesis that guanfacine has no effect on time from injection to return to baseline.||||||0.374
84570922|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 12. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0274
84752106|NCT03865940|169259541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeated measures. Effect of study drug was tested using a four degree-of-freedom test.||||||<0.001
84752107|NCT03865940|169259542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.775
84752108|NCT03865940|169259543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.099
84752109|NCT03865940|169259544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||Proportional Odds Regression|The analysis was not adjusted for baseline factors.||||||0.907
84752110|NCT03865940|169259545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for use of pain medication at baseline||||||0.373
84752111|NCT01008696|169259549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8849||||||Homozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8849
84752112|NCT01008696|169259549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Heterozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8650
84752113|NCT01008696|169259549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Poor metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.2660
84752114|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7734||||||Change at Day 57: Heartburn|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7734
84752115|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6414||||||Change at Day 57: Regurgitation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6414
84752116|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7809||||||Change at Day 57: Globus sensation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7809
84752117|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8294||||||Change at Day 57: Chronic cough|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8294
84570923|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 14. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0135
84752118|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9874||||||Change at Day 57: Epigastric pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9874
84752119|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2776||||||Change at Day 57: Non cardiac chest pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2776
84752120|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6295||||||Change at Day 57: Hoarseness|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6295
84752121|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5335||||||Change at Day 57: Dysphagia|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5335
84608385|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|10.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||10.37|-3.73|0.3552
84752122|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8068||||||Change at Day 57: Abdominal distension|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8068
84752123|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||||||Change at Day 57: Bloating|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5680
84752124|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5913||||||Change at Day 57: Post-prandial discomfort|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5913
84752125|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5566||||||Change at Day 57: Early satiety|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5566
84752126|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047||||||Change at Day 57: Nausea|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7047
84752127|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3654||||||Change at Day 57: Vomitting|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3654
84752128|NCT01008696|169259550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||Change at Day 57: Belching|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5310
84752129|NCT01008696|169259551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5032|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5032
84752130|NCT02366728|169259552|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.072
84752131|NCT02366728|169259552|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
84752132|NCT02366728|169259553|OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0195
84752133|NCT02366728|169259554|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
84752134|NCT02366728|169259555|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
84752135|NCT02366728|169259556|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
84752136|NCT02366728|169259556|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.078
84752137|NCT02366728|169259557|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
84752138|NCT02366728|169259558|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
84752139|NCT01601847|169259571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Poisson|Poisson regression using GEE with robust variance estimation (e.g. Zou, American Journal Epidemiology, 2004)||||0.94|0.47|0.02
84752140|NCT01601847|169259571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.522||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.897|||logistic regression with GEE|||||0.897|0.304|0.0185
84752141|NCT01601847|169259572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For secondary outcomes, GEE is used to assess randomization arm association.||||0.228
84752142|NCT01601847|169259573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.798
84752143|NCT01807923|169259574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than (\<)18 versus greater than equal to (\>=18) years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||5.44|2.62|<0.0001
84752144|NCT01807923|169259574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.01|1.18|0.0003
84570924|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 16. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0059
84608386|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|30.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||30.54|10.19|0.0001
84752145|NCT01807923|169259575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|9.19|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||9.19|4.27|<0.0001
84752146|NCT01807923|169259575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.8|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.80|1.86|0.0006
84752147|NCT01807923|169259576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.35|-0.04|0.1122
84752148|NCT01807923|169259576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.32|-0.07|0.1938
84752149|NCT01807923|169259577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.88||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.05||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||7.05|0.70|0.0168
84752150|NCT01807923|169259577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.69|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.69|-1.69|0.3569
84752151|NCT01807923|169259578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8786|4.5941||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.5941|1.8786|<0.0001
84752152|NCT01807923|169259578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0592||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.292|3.2819||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.2819|1.2920|0.0023
84608387|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|14.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||14.60|0.16|0.0451
84752153|NCT01807923|169259579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.7186||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.9987|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9987|0.5170|0.0491
84497649|NCT01984229|168746341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|77.4|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||77.4|56.7|
84570925|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 18. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
84608388|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|26.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||26.44|8.83|0.0001
84608389|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|10.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||10.28|-4.73|0.4669
84608390|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|31.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||31.48|10.51|0.0001
84608391|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||3.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|10.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||10.41|-4.15|3.13
84608392|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|30.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||30.56|10.20|0.0001
84608393|NCT00162266|168967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|11.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||11.72|-3.61|0.2989
84608394|NCT00162266|168967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2132.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1067.32|3197.94||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||3197.94|1067.32|0.0001
84671699|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|32.82|||Score exact method|||Gastrointestinal perforations, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||32.82|0.79|
84752154|NCT01807923|169259579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6643||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4749|0.9291||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.9291|0.4749|0.0169
84752155|NCT01807923|169259580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||0.96|-0.16|0.1565
84752156|NCT01807923|169259580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.86|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.86|-0.26|0.2992
84752157|NCT01807923|169259581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.233|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.2330|-0.0370|0.1539
84752158|NCT01807923|169259581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0781||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.2176|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.2176|-0.0615|0.2713
84672284|NCT01120210|169080035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.164|1.464||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||1.464|-4.164|0.2123
84752159|NCT01807923|169259582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0396
84752160|NCT01807923|169259582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0385
84752161|NCT01807923|169259583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6565||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4266|1.0103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||1.0103|0.4266|0.0552
84752162|NCT01807923|169259583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6438||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4142|1.0005|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.0005|0.4142|0.0512
84752163|NCT01807923|169259584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0142|0.0262|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0262|-0.0142|0.5604
84496852|NCT02062385|168745091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (Incidence V260 / Incidence Placebo)|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|79.7|||Clopper-Pearson|To calculate the confidence interval and associated p-value, an exact conditional method based on a Poisson distribution was used.||V260 will be considered efficacious if the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval for efficacy is \>0% at the final analysis||79.7|54.5|<0.001
84752164|NCT01807923|169259584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0095||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0298|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0298|-0.0109|0.3613
84752165|NCT01807923|169259585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||4.9|-0.7|0.1342
84752166|NCT01807923|169259585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.2|-1.3|0.3071
84497650|NCT01984229|168746342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|87.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||87.7|64.4|
84497651|NCT01418365|168746353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|0.998|||ANOVA|||||0.998|0.961|
84752167|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.96|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||9.96|1.03|0.0160
84752168|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.35|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||10.35|1.25|0.0126
84752169|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.13|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-1.13|-7.23|0.0074
84752170|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.74||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.63|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.63|-7.85|0.0029
84752171|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.7721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.71|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.71|-3.50|0.7721
84752172|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|7.25|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.25|-1.09|0.1472
84752173|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.58|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||10.58|0.40|0.0345
84752174|NCT01807923|169259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.89|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||11.89|1.55|0.0109
84752175|NCT03836807|169259591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
84496853|NCT02513095|168745131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|76.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||76.8|0.6|0.396
84570926|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 20. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0065
84570927|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 22. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0175
84570928|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 24. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0107
84570929|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 26. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0118
84570930|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 28. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0232
84570931|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 30. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0337
84752176|NCT03836807|169259592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84570932|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 32. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0507
84570933|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 34. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0791
84570934|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 36. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0898
84752177|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at Baseline (at 0')||5.0|-5.5|0.914
84496854|NCT01299272|168745139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.485
84496855|NCT03926728|168745168|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
84608395|NCT00162266|168967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|353.47||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-544.46|1251.41||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||1251.41|-544.46|0.4393
84496856|NCT03926728|168745168|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
84570935|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 38. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
84570936|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 40. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0833
84570937|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 42. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0824
84570938|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 44. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
84570939|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 46. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0737
84570940|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 48. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0893
84570941|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 50. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0706
84570942|NCT01149655|168892873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 52. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0657
84570943|NCT01265498|168892877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status.|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.8|1.3|0.0002
84570944|NCT01265498|168892878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|0.9|0.08
84570945|NCT01265498|168892879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.7|1.1|0.004
84570946|NCT01265498|168892880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.01
84671700|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Score exact method|||Hypertension, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.39|0.66|
84496857|NCT03926728|168745168|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.0007
84570947|NCT01265498|168892881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
84570948|NCT01265498|168892882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.1|1.0|0.03
84570949|NCT01265498|168892883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.0|-0.5|0.03
84570950|NCT01265498|168892884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.3|1.2|0.001
84570951|NCT01265498|168892885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
84570952|NCT01265498|168892886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.2|1.1|0.006
84752178|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||7.4|-4.9|0.685
84752179|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||6.8|-7.4|0.930
84752180|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.1||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||6.1|-10.3|0.615
84496858|NCT03926728|168745171|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
84570953|NCT01265498|168892887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0006
84570954|NCT01265498|168892888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||1.7|0.6|0.90
84570955|NCT01265498|168892889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-0.1|0.59
84570956|NCT01265498|168892890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-11|-28|<0.0001
84570957|NCT01265498|168892891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-6|-18|0.0001
84570958|NCT01265498|168892892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||24|13|<0.0001
84570959|NCT01265498|168892893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-14|-35|<0.0001
84570960|NCT01265498|168892894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.002
84570961|NCT01265498|168892895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.60|0.16|0.0009
84570962|NCT01265498|168892896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.10|0.01
84570963|NCT01265498|168892897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
84570964|NCT01265498|168892898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.30|-0.35|0.88
84570965|NCT01265498|168892899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.8|0.72
84570966|NCT01265498|168892900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.01|-0.01|0.71
84570967|NCT01265498|168892901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.4|-1.8|0.002
84570968|NCT01265498|168892902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.4|-0.2|0.40
84570969|NCT01265498|168892903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||26|7|0.001
84570970|NCT01265498|168892904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-1.4|0.03
84570971|NCT01265498|168892905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.04|0.00|0.04
84752181|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|0.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||0|-17.0|0.051
84496859|NCT03926728|168745171|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
84496860|NCT03926728|168745172|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
84608396|NCT00162266|168967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5641.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2823.46|8459.74||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||8459.74|2823.46|0.0001
84608397|NCT00162266|168967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1054.38||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-955.59|3064.35||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||3064.35|-955.59|0.3029
84608398|NCT00162266|168967723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|42.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||42.66|12.67|0.0003
84608399|NCT00162266|168967723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||||0.3253
84608400|NCT00162266|168967723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|48.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||48.33|16.14|0.0001
84608401|NCT00162266|168967723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|26.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||26.78|-1.82|0.0869
84752182|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||-0.3|-16.6|0.043
84752183|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||-1.3|-16.7|0.023
84752184|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-10.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-2.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||-2.7|-18.2|0.009
84752185|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||-1.7|-17.0|0.018
84752186|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-5.5||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||2.6|-13.6|0.182
84752187|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-4.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|3.2|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 4h||3.2|-12.9|0.236
84752188|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-3.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5h||3.5|-10.6|0.320
84496861|NCT03926728|168745172|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
84608402|NCT01595581|168967791|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 6 weeks post operative."||||0.35
84608403|NCT01595581|168967791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 12 weeks post operative."||||0.48
84608404|NCT01595581|168967791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 24 weeks post operative."||||0.74
84608405|NCT02265796|168967799|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||the reported p value is for all between group comparisons of the SAQ domains.|t-test, 2 sided|||between group comparison for all SAQ domains||||>0.05
84608406|NCT02265796|168967799|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation, angina frequency and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
84608407|NCT02265796|168967799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
84608408|NCT02265796|168967799|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
84608409|NCT02265796|168967799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability, angina frequency and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
84608410|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||"between group comparison for the excellent/good"||||0.58
84608411|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Between group analysis for fair/poor"||||0.80
84608412|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.50
84608413|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.48
84608414|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.19
84608415|NCT02265796|168967800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.067
84608416|NCT02265796|168967801|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84608417|NCT03449433|168967802|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.1||||||||1.10|0.985|
84671701|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Score exact method|||Proteinuria, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.57|0.74|
84671702|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.79|||Score exact method|||Pulmonary haemorrhage, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||10.79|0.28|
84671703|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Score exact method|||Other hemorrhages, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.74|0.88|
84671704|NCT02272413|169077498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.57|||Score excat method|||Wound healing complications/ abscesses/ fistulas, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||3.57|0.47|
84671705|NCT02272413|169077499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.45|1.02|
84496862|NCT03926728|168745174|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
84671706|NCT02272413|169077500|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.51|1.00|
84752189|NCT03836807|169259593|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||5.6|-10.0|0.572
84608418|NCT00849108|168967807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|0.769||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|0.884||P-Value for sensitivity comparison of PET MPI for the same reader|McNemar|two-sided McNemar test with 1 degree of freedom.|No standard deviation can be calculated for PET sensitivity|||0.884|0.655|0.02
84608419|NCT00849108|168967807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.596||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.73||p-value for sensitivity comparison for SPECT MPI for the same reader|McNemar||No standard deviation can be calculated for SPECT sensitivity|||0.730|0.463|0.02
84496863|NCT03926728|168745174|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
84496864|NCT03926728|168745174|OTHER|||||||0.3229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.3229
84496865|NCT03993288|168745192|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean value calculated by the least squares method did not exceed the predetermined boundary of non-inferiority of 5 g/L|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.86|0.0032
84608420|NCT00849108|168967809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PET specificity|0.877||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.952||p-value for comparison of PET specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for PET specficity|||0.952|0.801|0.317
84608421|NCT00849108|168967809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SPECT specificity|0.836||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.921||p-value for comparison of SPECT specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for SPECT specificity|||0.921|0.751|0.317
84608422|NCT02963701|168967810|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|99.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.52|101.89|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.89|96.52|
84671707|NCT02272413|169077501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.48|0.88|
84752190|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||8.4|-3.1|0.361
84496866|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84496867|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7||||||95.0|-4.8|3.3||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥26.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.8|
84570972|NCT01265498|168892906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.05|-0.03|0.53
84570973|NCT01265498|168892907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||5.0|0.2|0.03
84570974|NCT01265498|168892908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||29|0|0.05
84570975|NCT01265498|168892909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-1.2|0.13
84570976|NCT01265498|168892910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.6|-0.5|0.31
84570977|NCT01265498|168892911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.16
84570978|NCT01265498|168892912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.04|0.002
84570979|NCT01265498|168892913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.8|-0.2|0.26
84570980|NCT01265498|168892914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|69.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||69|6|0.02
84570981|NCT01265498|168892915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||23|3|0.01
84608423|NCT02963701|168967811|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|89.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|94.76|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||94.76|83.88|
84608424|NCT02963701|168967812|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||103.95|95.73|
84608425|NCT02963701|168967813|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|107.27|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||107.27|97.30|
84608426|NCT02963701|168967814|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|98.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.44|101.57|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%)of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.57|96.44|
84608427|NCT02963701|168967815|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|104.04|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.04|95.48|
84608428|NCT02963701|168967816|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|95.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|100.4|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.40|91.70|
84671708|NCT01067768|169077502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||The primary outcome analysis was performed using relative risk (RR) between the rate of urinary tract infection per 1,000 days of exposure of the test subjects to intervention and that of patients undergoing routine care.|The sample size was calculated for the primary outcome. An infection rate 15 per 1,000 urinary catheter days in the control group and an expected reduction in the intervention group 40% clinically important effect. Mapping one to one, 5% alpha error and beta error 20%.||1.3|0.50|
84671709|NCT01067768|169077503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||The difference between groups was evaluated with a U test Mann Whitney. The difference was statistically significant with p values less than 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: On average catheterization are the same in patients with daily review of the indication and control group patients||||0.016
84671710|NCT05583903|169077536|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84671711|NCT05583903|169077537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
84671712|NCT05583903|169077538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84671713|NCT05583903|169077539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84671714|NCT05583903|169077540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84671715|NCT05583903|169077541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84671716|NCT05583903|169077542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84752191|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|4.2||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||12.3|-3.8|0.298
84671717|NCT05583903|169077543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84671718|NCT05583903|169077544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84671719|NCT05583903|169077545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84671720|NCT05583903|169077546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84671721|NCT05583903|169077547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84752192|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|8.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||19.8|-2.1|0.112
84752193|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|36.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||36.8|7.8|0.003
84570982|NCT01265498|168892916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.7|0.71
84671722|NCT05583903|169077548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84752194|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|36.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||36.7|5.6|0.008
84570983|NCT01265498|168892917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
84570984|NCT01265498|168892918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-1.3|0.01
84570985|NCT01265498|168892919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.5|-2.2|0.70
84570986|NCT01265498|168892920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.02|-0.01|0.57
84570987|NCT01265498|168892921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0|-7|0.05
84570988|NCT01265498|168892922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1|-4|0.23
84570989|NCT01265498|168892923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||3|-1|0.22
84570990|NCT01265498|168892924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2|-3|0.65
84570991|NCT05994963|168892966|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|58.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.45|85.6|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||85.60|40.45|
84671723|NCT05583903|169077549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84671724|NCT05583903|169077550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84672285|NCT01120210|169080035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.639|0.483||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.483|-5.639|0.0821
84752195|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|18.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||34.0|3.3|0.018
84752196|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|37.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||37.0|7.7|0.003
84496868|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84570992|NCT05994963|168892967|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|56.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.71|83.73|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||83.73|38.71|
84570993|NCT05994963|168892968|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.01|76.13|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||76.13|33.01|
84570994|NCT05994963|168892969|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|202.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.43|296.27|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||296.27|138.43|
84570995|NCT05994963|168892970|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.01|293.55|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||293.55|131.01|
84570996|NCT05994963|168892971|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|230.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.53|364.2|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||364.20|145.53|
84570997|NCT05994963|168892972|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|161.19|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||161.19|93.61|
84570998|NCT05994963|168892973|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|115.94|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||115.94|94.54|
84570999|NCT05994963|168892974|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|124.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.46|166.09|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||166.09|93.46|
84571000|NCT01898078|168892983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Cmax plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric means.||1.12|0.85|
84752197|NCT03836807|169259594|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|36.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||36.1|8.0|0.003
84571001|NCT01898078|168892984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.34|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC(last) plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean.||1.34|1.01|
84571002|NCT01898078|168892985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.39|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log(PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC∞ plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean||1.39|0.96|
84571003|NCT01075048|168892993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3815
84571004|NCT01075048|168892993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1900
84571005|NCT01075048|168892993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1986|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1986
84571006|NCT01075048|168892993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2617
84571007|NCT01075048|168892994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4488|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4488
84571008|NCT01075048|168892994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.2887
84571009|NCT01075048|168892994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1851
84571010|NCT01075048|168892994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2495|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2495
84571011|NCT01075048|168892996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2804|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 12 Oct 2012||||0.2804
84571012|NCT01075048|168892996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2469|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 29 Mar 2013||||0.2469
84608429|NCT02963701|168967817|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|96.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|100.51|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.51|91.92|
84608430|NCT02963701|168967818|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|90.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.87|97.21|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||97.21|84.87|
84608431|NCT02963701|168967819|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|104.46|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.46|99.33|
84608513|NCT00574548|168968119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.00|1.01|
84671725|NCT04296396|169077627|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority design assumed a noninferiority margin of 5%. For 90% power and 0.025 significance level 1-sided, a total sample size of 4,300 participants was required to state that the IOPP is not inferior to the fixed amount of 20 tablets. Given the short window to assess pain at 1-week post-discharge, a 20% missing rate was incorporated which gives a final sample size of 5,500 (2,750 per group).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|3.37|||||The risk difference is the rate in the fixed group minus the rate in the IOPP group. IOPP was to be determined as non-inferior if the lower 95% confidence limit for the risk difference is -5 percentage points or greater (i.e., closer to zero).|||3.37|-2.03|
84671726|NCT04296396|169077628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|96.25|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval is 96.25% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||1.51|0.99|0.046
84671727|NCT04296396|169077629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84671728|NCT04296396|169077630|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.6|-3.5|||quantile regression||Confidence interval is 97.5% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-3.5|-6.6|<0.001
84671729|NCT04296396|169077631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-19.2|-10.8|||quartile regression||Confidence interval is 98.75% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-10.8|-19.2|<0.001
84671730|NCT04296396|169077632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||quantile regression|||||0|0|1.0
84496869|NCT00366678|168745198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-6.4|1.7||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥36.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.7|-6.4|
84671731|NCT04296396|169077633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.85|0.52
84671732|NCT04296396|169077634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1.00|0.98|0.15
84671733|NCT01874262|169077656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84671734|NCT00847288|169077714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0||Cox proportional hazard model was fitted with the group effect and other key baseline variables. The p-value for the main group effect is 0.0043, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.5, monthly vs quarterly.|Regression, Cox|||"Let TM and TQ denote the median survival time to initiation of clinical action in monthly and quarterly review groups respectively. Null Hypothesis (HO): The time to initiation of clinical action is not affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM=TQ Alternative Hypothesis (HA): The time to initiation of clinical action is affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM≠TQ~Cox proportional hazard model will be fitted to estimate the hazard ratio."||2.0|1.1|0.0043
84671735|NCT00847288|169077716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.74|||logistic GEE for repeated observations|||The probability of action taken in three months interval is evaluated using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method under a logistic regression model. Univariate analysis is performed first for potential predictors and only those with a p-value less than 0.10 through univariate analysis are included in the multivariate model. Here we report the odds ratio of monthly arm against quarterly arm, adjusting for OptiVol crossing, new or chronic device, and AF or no AF.||1.74|1.20|0.0001
84671736|NCT00181961|169077734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.016
84671737|NCT00962104|169077857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.91||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline CAARS-Inv:SV 18-Item Total ADHD Symptom score .|ANCOVA|||||-3.91|-7.66|<0.001
84671738|NCT00962104|169077858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|7.56||First gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline AAQoL total score.||||7.56|1.97|<0.001
84608533|NCT00574548|168968120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.05|
84608534|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.54|
84608535|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.49|0.99|
84608536|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.43|
84608537|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
84608538|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.67|
84608539|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.71|
84608540|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.49|0.24|
84608541|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.51|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.26|
84608542|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.60|
84608543|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.54|
84608544|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.53|
84608545|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
84571582|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1107 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.72 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.64 to 1.80).|GMC ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.31||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 7F."||0.31|0.25|
84571583|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1103 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.32 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.25 to 1.38).|GMC ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.27||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 9V."||0.27|0.22|
84571584|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 2.90 µg/mL with 95% CI = (2.75 to 3.05).|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 14."||0.33|0.25|
84571585|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.66 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.56 to 1.77).|GMC ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 18C."||0.12|0.09|
84505185|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.65||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.09|0.0162
84571586|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.84 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.71 to 1.98).|GMC ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 19F."||0.12|0.09|
84571587|NCT01027845|168894158|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.53 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.50 to 0.57).|GMC ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 23F."||0.29|0.21|
84571588|NCT01258049|168894230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.85|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.25|67.45|||Regression, Logistic|||In ART003, the parasite success rate for quinine was 67.7%. On the assumption that the parasite success rate was 70% for quinine in this study and in order to demonstrate that ArTiMist™ is superior to quinine by at least 20% the success rate for ArTiMist™ should be at least 90%. Using these figures, and assuming a power of 80%, an alpha of 0.05 (two sided) and based on an equal allocation to the ArTiMist™ and quinine treatment arms, the number of subjects (n) required on each treatment was 59.||67.45|42.25|<0.005
84571589|NCT01258049|168894231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-15.72|||ANCOVA|||||-15.72|-62.22|<0.05
84571590|NCT01258049|168894232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.91|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||||-8.44|-17.38|<0.005
84571591|NCT01258049|168894233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.16|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71||||Regression, Cox|||||- 6.61|-11.71|<0.005
84505186|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission rate|1.03||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.90|0.37|0.9498
84571592|NCT01258049|168894234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.02|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|80.98|||ANCOVA|||||80.98|27.05|<0.005
84571593|NCT01258049|168894235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|358.61|||ANCOVA||mean parasite counts increased in the first 12 hours for patients on quinine treatment|||358.61|-10.44|0.06
84571594|NCT01258049|168894236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.08|||Regression, Cox|||||12.08|-10.16|0.86
84571595|NCT01258049|168894237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.42|0.99
84571596|NCT01258049|168894240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|55.01|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.44|67.58|||Regression, Linear|||||67.58|42.44|<0.005
84672321|NCT01554618|169080212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting plasma glucose value, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting plasma glucose by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.7|-49.0|0.119
84571597|NCT02309359|168894246|OTHER|Under the assumption of monotonicity, a Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed as the primary efficacy analysis. Data were analyzed according to the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle; thus, subjects were analyzed according to the treatment to which they were assigned. Subjects with missing ACR20 response at Week 12 were treated as non responders (non responder imputation approach).||||||0.172|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The null hypothesis of this test was that there is no difference in the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response between the treatment groups and the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response increases with increasing dose level.||||0.172
84571598|NCT00477685|168894320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the postoperative intraocular pressure at 90 days equals the preoperative intraocular pressure at baseline.||||0.01
84571599|NCT03704064|168894361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84571600|NCT03704064|168894362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.4|0.89
84571601|NCT03704064|168894363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|1.0|0.06
84571602|NCT03704064|168894364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84571603|NCT03704064|168894365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84571604|NCT03704064|168894366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|0.6|0.24
84571605|NCT03704064|168894367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|0.6|0.24
84571606|NCT03704064|168894368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.6|0.9|0.07
84571607|NCT03704064|168894369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|0.6|0.21
84571608|NCT03704064|168894370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.62
84571609|NCT03704064|168894370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.92
84571610|NCT03704064|168894370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.16
84571611|NCT03704064|168894370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.41
84571612|NCT03704064|168894371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.46
84571613|NCT03704064|168894371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.87
84571614|NCT03704064|168894371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.07
84571615|NCT03704064|168894371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.5||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.17
84571616|NCT03704064|168894372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.63
84571617|NCT03704064|168894372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.72
84571618|NCT03704064|168894372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.52
84571619|NCT03704064|168894372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.27
84571620|NCT03704064|168894373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|151.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84571621|NCT03704064|168894374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|137.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84571622|NCT03704064|168894375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|163.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|154.0||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84571623|NCT03704064|168894376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84571624|NCT03704064|168894377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84571625|NCT03704064|168894378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
84571626|NCT03704064|168894379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84571627|NCT03704064|168894380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
84571628|NCT03704064|168894381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84571629|NCT03704064|168894382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
84571630|NCT03704064|168894383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84571631|NCT03704064|168894384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.80
84571632|NCT03704064|168894384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
84571633|NCT03704064|168894385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.07
84571634|NCT03704064|168894385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.96
84571635|NCT03704064|168894386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84571636|NCT03704064|168894387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84571637|NCT03704064|168894388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
84571638|NCT03704064|168894389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|0.5|0.38
84571639|NCT03704064|168894390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.3|0.95
84571640|NCT03704064|168894391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.3|0.99
84571641|NCT03704064|168894392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.06
84571642|NCT03704064|168894392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.06
84571643|NCT03704064|168894392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.19
84571644|NCT03704064|168894393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.05
84571645|NCT03704064|168894393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.18
84571646|NCT03704064|168894393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.046
84571647|NCT03704064|168894394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.07
84571648|NCT03704064|168894394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.11
84571649|NCT03704064|168894394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.15
84571650|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.04
84571651|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.35
84571652|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
84571653|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.01
84571654|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||<0.001
84571655|NCT03704064|168894395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||<0.001
84571656|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.24
84571657|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.28
84571658|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
84571659|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.34
84571660|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||0.008
84571661|NCT03704064|168894396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||0.001
84571662|NCT00111761|168894459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|9.8|46.7||||||||46.7|9.8|
84571663|NCT00111761|168894460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0||||||95.0|34.0|80.0||||||||80|34|
84571664|NCT00111761|168894461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|33.3||||||95.0|15.6|55.3||||||||55.3|15.6|
84571665|NCT00111761|168894466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.4||||||95.0|24.4|71.1||||||||71.1|24.4|
84571666|NCT04609514|168894504|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.51
84571667|NCT04609514|168894505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.001
84571668|NCT04609514|168894510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A robust Yuen's test was conducted with an apriori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. No covariates were introduced in the model.|Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.39
84571669|NCT04609514|168894511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.40
84571670|NCT04609514|168894512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.478
84571671|NCT04609514|168894513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.51
84571672|NCT04609514|168894515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.119|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.119|0.23|0.8392
84571673|NCT04609514|168894516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction.||||||1.00
84571674|NCT01981616|168894533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"With 55 evaluable participants in each group, the study would have at least 80% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming a 90% seroconversion rate (anti-HBs of 10 IU/L) for hepatitis B vaccine.~If the lower bound of this interval was less than -15% (ie, more negative), then the null hypothesis was accepted."|Difference from placebo|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-12.7|
84571675|NCT01981616|168894534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 55 evaluable subjects in the vedolizumab 750 mg IV group and 55 evaluable participants in the placebo group provided at least 71% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% CI on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming an 85% seroconversion rate to the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral).|Difference from placebo|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-3.9||||||||-3.9|-24.6|
84571676|NCT01499810|168894556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571677|NCT01499810|168894558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571678|NCT01499810|168894559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571679|NCT01499810|168894560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571680|NCT01499810|168894561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571681|NCT01499810|168894562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571682|NCT01499810|168894563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
84571683|NCT01499810|168894564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
84571684|NCT01499810|168894565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
84571685|NCT01499810|168894566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
84571686|NCT01499810|168894567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00007
84571687|NCT01499810|168894568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00009
84571688|NCT01499810|168894569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||4e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00004
84571689|NCT01499810|168894570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
84571690|NCT01499810|168894571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0007
84571691|NCT01499810|168894572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.001
84571692|NCT01499810|168894573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0004
84571693|NCT01499810|168894574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0002
84571694|NCT01499810|168894575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.57
84571695|NCT01499810|168894576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.54
84571696|NCT01499810|168894577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.87
84571697|NCT01499810|168894578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.77
84571698|NCT01499810|168894579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.06
84571699|NCT01499810|168894580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.07
84571700|NCT01499810|168894581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
84571701|NCT01499810|168894582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
84571702|NCT01499810|168894583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.72
84571703|NCT01499810|168894584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.37
84571704|NCT01499810|168894585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.99
84571705|NCT01499810|168894586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
84672322|NCT01554618|169080213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.189||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline body weight by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-3.59|0.307
84571706|NCT01499810|168894587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.08
84672323|NCT01554618|169080214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|94.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.26||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6|285.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting insulin, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting insulin by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||285.5|-95.6|0.323
84571707|NCT01499810|168894588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
84571708|NCT01499810|168894589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.22
84571709|NCT01499810|168894590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.29
84571710|NCT01499810|168894591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.89
84571711|NCT01499810|168894592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.65
84571712|NCT01499810|168894593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
84571713|NCT01499810|168894594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Repeated measures analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
84571714|NCT01499810|168894595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.92
84571715|NCT01499810|168894596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
84571716|NCT01499810|168894597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.40
84571717|NCT01499810|168894598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.17
84571718|NCT01499810|168894599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.014
84571719|NCT05079321|168894608|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84571720|NCT05079321|168894609|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84571721|NCT05079321|168894610|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84571722|NCT05079321|168894611|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84571723|NCT05079321|168894612|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84571724|NCT05079321|168894613|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84571725|NCT05079321|168894614|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84571726|NCT05079321|168894615|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84571727|NCT05079321|168894617|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84571728|NCT05079321|168894618|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84571729|NCT05079321|168894619|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84571730|NCT05079321|168894620|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
84571731|NCT05079321|168894621|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84571732|NCT05079321|168894622|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
84505187|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
84571733|NCT00032591|168894632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A target of 363 patients with primary events required to discern a 32% relative drop in annual primary event rates with 90% power (from 5.5% for HQACM to 3.75% for PST) was based on a sample size of 3200 patients with 1 year of enrollment and a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Due to slower than planned enrollment, we randomized 2922 patients over 2.75 years, with a mean follow-up of 3 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was the hazard ratio was equal to 1.||||0.14
84571734|NCT02543840|168894660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni four comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.26|<0.01
84608546|NCT00574548|168968121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.13|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.13|1.15|
84571735|NCT02543840|168894660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.82||Adjusted for comparisons (Bonferroni for 4 comparisons.)|Regression, Linear|||Among Veteran participants,we used a linear contrast comparing a) those with complex clinical presentations, defined as receiving treatment for three or more mental health diagnoses in the prior year to b) those with two or fewer diagnoses during the facilitation year from T0 to T12..||7.82|2.24|<0.001
84571736|NCT02543840|168894661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.3||Adjusted for comparison (Bonferroni for four comparisons.)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.04|<0.04
84571737|NCT02543840|168894662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.2|>0.05
84672324|NCT01554618|169080215|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
84571738|NCT02543840|168894663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.3|>0.05
84571739|NCT02543840|168894664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.6|>0.05
84571740|NCT02543840|168894665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.084|-0.074|>0.05
84571741|NCT02543840|168894666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.077|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.077|-0.056|>0.05
84571742|NCT02543840|168894667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||0.262|0.044|<0.001
84571743|NCT02543840|168894668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.289|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.289|0.083|<0.01
84571744|NCT02543840|168894669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.07||Repeated patient binary outcome models for hospitalized (0/1) across 8 quarters.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted (Bonferroni four comparisons).||||-0.07|-0.16|<0.001
84571745|NCT03427892|168894731|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
84571746|NCT03427892|168894732|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.93||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.93
84571747|NCT03427892|168894733|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.49||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is RAVLT Score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.49
84571748|NCT03427892|168894733|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.56||||||Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.Reported is delay score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.56
84571749|NCT03427892|168894734|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.221||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. Reported is CW score.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.221
84571750|NCT03427892|168894734|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.306||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Reported is Inter. score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.306
84571751|NCT03427892|168894735|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.07||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is TMT A.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.07
84571752|NCT03427892|168894735|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.19||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.The above reported is TMT B.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.19
84571753|NCT03427892|168894736|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
84571754|NCT03427892|168894737|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.022||||||To analyze separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, week 4, week 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Above is from baseline to week 8 for C-SSRS AA, IA, and ABA.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, wk 4, wk 8) included as within-subject factor. Above is for C-SSRS AA,IA, and ABA.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.022
84608547|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.55|
84672325|NCT01554618|169080215|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c ≤ 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
84672326|NCT01554618|169080215|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7.0%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||39.0|6.5|0.020
84672327|NCT01554618|169080217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in SBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline SBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline SBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.4|-8.0|0.284
84672328|NCT01554618|169080217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in DBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline DBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline DBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.1|-2.0|0.376
84505188|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.93||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.17|0.40|0.8609
84571755|NCT03427892|168894737|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.163||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.163
84571756|NCT03427892|168894738|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.133||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.133
84571757|NCT03427892|168894739|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
84571758|NCT03427892|168894740|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
84571759|NCT03427892|168894741|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.005||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.005
84571760|NCT03427892|168894742|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
84497654|NCT03226366|168746356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for hospital mortality after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in odds of hospital mortality after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for observed change in outcome over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||2.61|0.25|0.72
84497655|NCT03226366|168746357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department length of stay (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department length of stay after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||7.0|-25.9|0.26
84497656|NCT03226366|168746358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Estimated change in emergency department door-to-physician evaluation time (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-physician evaluation time after versus before implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||1.8|-3.3|0.55
84497657|NCT00518011|168746365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.842||||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|7.027|||Log Rank|||||7.027|0.483|0.3644
84497658|NCT00518011|168746369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|4.824|||Log Rank|||||4.824|0.339|0.7165
84497659|NCT03409328|168746375|OTHER||F|38.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||<.001
84497660|NCT03409328|168746376|OTHER||F|6.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.013
84497661|NCT03409328|168746377|OTHER||F|5.07||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.029
84497662|NCT03409328|168746378|OTHER||F|0.38||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.542
84497663|NCT03409328|168746379|OTHER||F|3.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is internalized stigma.||||.084
84571761|NCT03427892|168894743|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.295||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.295
84497664|NCT03409328|168746379|OTHER||F|0.67||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is identity affirmation.||||.417
84571762|NCT02034006|168894763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.44|223.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of active leakage.||223.42|23.44|<0.0001
84571763|NCT02034006|168894769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|27.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of macular edema.||27.36|3.18|<0.0001
84497665|NCT03701516|168746400|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.781|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.53|3.85|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.85|-4.53|
84497666|NCT03701516|168746401|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.263|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.36|0.61|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.61|-5.36|
84497667|NCT03701516|168746402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.10|-0.22|
84497668|NCT03701516|168746403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.006|||Bayesian repeated measurement random-eff|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.006|-0.005|
84497669|NCT03701516|168746404|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.002|-0.009|
84672329|NCT01554618|169080219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|90.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.207||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.27|238.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-B:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-B, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-B by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||238.00|-57.27|0.211
84571764|NCT02034006|168894770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|42.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of cysts.||42.67|3.76|<0.0001
84571765|NCT02034006|168894771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|213.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of intra-retinal fluid.||213.50|11.62|<0.0001
84571766|NCT02034006|168894772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield thickness vs previous visit.||1.00|0.99|0.1514
84571767|NCT02034006|168894773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield volume vs previous visit.||5.63|0.00|0.1265
84571768|NCT02034006|168894775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|30.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of clinically significant abnormalities.||30.23|1.58|0.0103
84571769|NCT02034006|168894776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 5 letters vs. Gain \>= 5 letters.||5.33|0.90|0.0854
84571770|NCT02034006|168894777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 10 letters vs. Gain \>= 10 letters.||5.17|1.23|0.0114
84571771|NCT02034006|168894778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Improved vs. No change. For retreated subjects, the last scheduled assessment prior to the first retreatment was considered. For subjects treated only once, the last scheduled assessment available was considered.||0.91|0.25|0.0049
84571772|NCT02034006|168894778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|44.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Worsened vs. No change||44.52|0.69|0.0461
84571773|NCT02100631|168894779|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two sided 95% Wald CI on the difference in seroconversion rate was estimated by inverting a Z test with pooled variance. The lower limit of the CI had be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority. The lower bound of the CI on the older adults serconversion rate was required to exceed 70%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4||||||||0.4|-6.7|
84571774|NCT02100631|168894780|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57||||||||0.57|0.34|
84571775|NCT02100631|168894781|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.5||||||||3.5|-2.2|
84571776|NCT02100631|168894782|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.||||||0.0062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0062
84571777|NCT01125930|168894785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.93
84571778|NCT01125930|168894786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.79
84571779|NCT01125930|168894787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.94
84571780|NCT01125930|168894787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.57
84571781|NCT01125930|168894787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
84571782|NCT01125930|168894787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.38
84571783|NCT01125930|168894787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.24
84571784|NCT01125930|168894788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess photodamage.||||0.87
84571785|NCT01125930|168894789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea.||||1.00
84571786|NCT01125930|168894789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.62
84571787|NCT01125930|168894789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
84571788|NCT01125930|168894789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
84571789|NCT01125930|168894789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.45
84497670|NCT03930615|168746405|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-16.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-6.5||A one-sided p-value ≤0.0249 was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo|It was hypothesized that LET is superior to placebo in the prevention of clinically significant CMV infection.|95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-6.5|-25.8|0.0005
84571790|NCT01125930|168894790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
84571791|NCT01125930|168894790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
84571792|NCT01125930|168894790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
84571793|NCT01125930|168894790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
84571794|NCT01125930|168894790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||1.00
84608548|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.52|
84571795|NCT01125930|168894791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
84571796|NCT01125930|168894791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.41
84571797|NCT01125930|168894791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
84571798|NCT01125930|168894791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.92
84608549|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.49|
84608550|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.03|0.67|
84608551|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.57|
84608552|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.52|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.52|0.35|
84608553|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
84608554|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
84608555|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.58|
84608556|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.74|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.58|
84672330|NCT01554618|169080219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-S:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-S, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-S by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||6.29|-19.80|0.289
84608557|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.39|0.89|
84608558|NCT00574548|168968122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.50|
84608559|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.03|
84608560|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.89|1.18|
84676525|NCT03224468|169088454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.3|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of repetition errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.3|-7.4|
84753022|NCT04409353|169261542|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.79||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.32||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.32|-0.74|0.3101
84571799|NCT01125930|168894791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.80
84571800|NCT01125930|168894792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TAC1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.003
84571801|NCT01125930|168894792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCR4 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.35
84571802|NCT01125930|168894792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCL12 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.68
84571803|NCT01125930|168894792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TNFa at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.76
84571804|NCT01125930|168894793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||1.00
84571805|NCT01125930|168894793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.25
84571806|NCT01125930|168894793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.41
84571807|NCT01125930|168894793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.02
84571808|NCT01125930|168894793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-9 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.61
84571809|NCT01125930|168894794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||1.00
84571810|NCT01125930|168894794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.44
84571811|NCT01125930|168894794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.41
84571812|NCT01125930|168894794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.94
84571813|NCT01125930|168894795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
84571814|NCT01125930|168894796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.13
84571815|NCT01125930|168894797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
84571816|NCT01125930|168894798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.75
84571817|NCT01125930|168894799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.68
84497671|NCT03930615|168746406|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.7|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|4.7|-11.8|
84608561|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.07|
84608562|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.61|1.77|
84608563|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.88|1.94|
84608564|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|12.6|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||12.60|5.68|
84608565|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||10.22|4.45|
84608566|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.18|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.02|
84608567|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.89|2.01|
84608568|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.13|1.92|
84497672|NCT03930615|168746407|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.6|-2.7|
84608569|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.44|1.80|
84608570|NCT00574548|168968123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.28|1.92|
84608571|NCT02020408|168968139|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
84608572|NCT02020408|168968140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|General Linear Model|||A General Linear Model using log(\[11C\]raclopride BPND) after amphetamine administration as dependent variable and Diagnostic Group as independent variable was used. Baseline (before amphetamine administration) \[11C\]raclopride BPND was used as covariate.||||<0.05
84608573|NCT03268941|168968170|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.52||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||13.52|4.03|<0.001
84608574|NCT03268941|168968170|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|21.41||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||21.41|5.91|<0.001
84608575|NCT03268941|168968170|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.94|23.59||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration - covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||23.59|6.94|<0.001
84753023|NCT04409353|169261542|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.6328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.3||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.30|-2.13|0.6328
84753024|NCT04409353|169261542|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.16||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.64||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.64|-0.33|0.1260
84753025|NCT04409353|169261542|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.03||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.03|-2.05|0.5150
84753026|NCT04409353|169261543|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.43||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.61|0.25|.0180
84753027|NCT04409353|169261543|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.82|-1.48|0.5742
84753028|NCT04409353|169261544|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.39||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.62||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- Anxiety score obtained at Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.62|-1.85|0.7338
84672331|NCT00653224|169080264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.33|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.33|<0.001
84571818|NCT01125930|168894800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.77
84608576|NCT03268941|168968171|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.648||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.89|37.41||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.41|-21.89|0.599
84608577|NCT03268941|168968171|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.469||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|37.59||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.59|-25.04|0.687
84608578|NCT03268941|168968171|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|39.33||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||39.33|-23.22|0.605
84608579|NCT03268941|168968172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.708||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|31.19||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||31.19|-16.06|0.522
84608580|NCT03268941|168968172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.143||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|37.43||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||37.43|-11.58|0.293
84608581|NCT03268941|168968172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.654||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|30.52||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||30.52|-16.52|0.551
84608582|NCT03268941|168968173|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-18.14||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.58|13.56||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||13.56|-307.58|0.274
84608583|NCT03268941|168968173|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-26.95||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.73|530.49||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||530.49|-229.73|0.481
84608584|NCT03268941|168968173|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-24.49||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.87|98.91||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE on time measured by the SmartPill Day 7 in Part 1.||98.91|-225.87|0.382
84608585|NCT01216683|168968178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study was designed to detect a 16% difference in CR rate from 50% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab arms to 66% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab + Bortezomib arm, with 90% power at the one-sided alpha 0.15 level.||||0.02
84608586|NCT01216683|168968179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires status and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index||||||0.02
84608587|NCT02100969|168968203|SUPERIORITY||"proportion of successes"|0.864||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.0||No adjustment is required as we are not doing multiple comparisons for the primary outcome analyses.|One sample Z test of proportions||One sample Z test of proportions is used. Method of handling missing data (as per protocol) is Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF). Only 2 participants had missing values and in our case the LOCF results reflect a 'best-case' scenario.|"Sample size/power calculations are mentioned in the study protocol.~The study hypotheses are as follows:~H0: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase ≤ 0.65 HA: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase \> 0.65"||1.000|0.720|0.0179
84608588|NCT02100969|168968204|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed rank test statistic is 44.50.|||||0.113
84608589|NCT02100969|168968205|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.612
84608590|NCT02100969|168968206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed-rank test statistic is 53.|||||0.047
84608591|NCT02100969|168968207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.901
84608592|NCT02100969|168968208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.510
84608593|NCT02100969|168968209|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.289
84608594|NCT02100969|168968210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|715.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.0028
84608595|NCT02888743|168968245|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.6|||Chi-squared||Arm A compared with Arm C; normal approximation for confidence interval|||14.6|-14.6|0.99
84608596|NCT02888743|168968245|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|-3.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|9.6|||Chi-squared||Arm B compared with Arm C; normal approximation used for confidence interval.|||9.6|-17.3|0.64
84608597|NCT02888743|168968246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.60|0.92
84608598|NCT02888743|168968246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.50|0.55
84608599|NCT02888743|168968247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.30|0.24
84608600|NCT02888743|168968247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.36|0.44
84608601|NCT02888743|168968251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84608602|NCT01424566|168968252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.42|0.9173
84608603|NCT01943552|168968282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|154.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.08|218.63|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of FEV1 from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||218.63|91.08|<0.0001
84608604|NCT01943552|168968283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.48||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|158.46|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of forced vital capacity (FVC) from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||158.46|-56.55|0.3509
84608605|NCT01943552|168968284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.07|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||7.07|-1.54|0.2069
84608606|NCT01943552|168968285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for Oxygen saturation between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||0.93|-0.19|0.1899
84608607|NCT01943552|168968286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaCO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||1.55|-0.72|0.4758
84608608|NCT01943552|168968287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Statistic|1.82||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For main post-operative pulmonary complications, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis was performed on the SCS. Mantel-Haenszel test with strata based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age was used to compare the number of patients with main post-operative pulmonary complications between the two arms.||||0.1779
84608609|NCT01177969|168968288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.04
84608610|NCT01177969|168968289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.25
84608611|NCT02358044|168968304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Primary Analysis Approach: Non-Inferiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|<0.001
84608612|NCT02358044|168968304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to zero to evaluate superiority. The M=F approach was used to handle missing values.||"Secondary Analysis Approach: Superiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the M\&N method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir +elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% CIs and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|0.001
84608613|NCT02358044|168968305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-31.9||||||The percentage of participants with an event were assessed via point estimates with 95% CIs provided for between-group comparisons.||-31.9|-51.1|
84644057|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.6|-3.9|
84571819|NCT01125930|168894801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.41
84608614|NCT02358044|168968307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Total Tier 1 AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-19.6|-35.5|<0.001
84644058|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||36.6|20.2|
84571820|NCT01125930|168894801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||1.00
84571821|NCT01125930|168894801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.96
84571822|NCT01125930|168894801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.91
84571823|NCT01125930|168894802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
84571824|NCT01125930|168894802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
84571825|NCT01125930|168894802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
84571826|NCT01125930|168894802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
84571827|NCT01125930|168894803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.54
84571828|NCT01125930|168894803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.06
84644059|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|51.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||51.9|31.0|
84644060|NCT02478398|169024003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.0|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-2.00|-3.45|< 0.001
84571829|NCT01125930|168894803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.02
84571830|NCT01125930|168894803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.09
84571831|NCT01125930|168894804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.18
84644061|NCT02478398|169024004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.27|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.27|-2.46|< 0.001
84571832|NCT01125930|168894804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
84571833|NCT01125930|168894804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
84571834|NCT01125930|168894804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.35
84571835|NCT01125930|168894805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.80
84571836|NCT01125930|168894805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.31
84571837|NCT01125930|168894805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.25
84571838|NCT01125930|168894805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.46
84571839|NCT01125930|168894806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.41
84571840|NCT01125930|168894806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.05
84571841|NCT01125930|168894806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.16
84571842|NCT01125930|168894806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.14
84571843|NCT01125930|168894807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.36
84571844|NCT01125930|168894807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.88
84571845|NCT01125930|168894807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.18
84571846|NCT01125930|168894807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.17
84571847|NCT01125930|168894808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.21
84571848|NCT01125930|168894808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||<0.01
84571849|NCT01125930|168894808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.04
84571850|NCT01125930|168894808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.10
84608615|NCT02358044|168968307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Serious drug-related AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||0.6|-6.8|0.078
84608616|NCT02358044|168968307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"DC due to drug-related AE:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||2.1|-4.4|0.312
84608617|NCT02358044|168968307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.0||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Neutrophil count \<0.75 x 10\^9/L:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-8.0|-19.7|<0.001
84608618|NCT02358044|168968307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-7.9||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Hemoglobin \<10 g/dL:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-7.9|-20.8|<0.001
84608619|NCT02358044|168968308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.7||||||Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided.||15.7|3.3|
84571851|NCT01125930|168894809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||1.00
84608620|NCT00903331|168968317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between ACT-064922 and placebo for the change in FVC from baseline to the end of Period 1. The aim was to detect a placebo-corrected change in FVC of ≥ 0.1 L (Standard Deviation = 0.2 L) at a two-sided 0.05 type 1 error level and 80% power.||0.08|-0.09|0.9631
84608621|NCT00903331|168968318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.996|||Log Rank|||||1.996|0.626|0.7056
84608622|NCT01571453|168968324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vortioxetine was declared to be non-inferior to venlafaxine if the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference at Week 8 between vortioxetine and venlafaxine was less than +2.5 MADRS units versus venlafaxine.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.199||95.0|-3.03|0.63||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The sample size calculation was based on a non-inferiority comparison of the treatment groups in the change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score using a two-sided 95% CI against a margin of +2.5 points. Assuming a standard deviation of 9.0 points and an expected true mean difference between treatments of 0 points, a total of 410 patients (205 per treatment group) were needed to provide a power of 80% for correctly concluding non-inferiority.||0.63|-3.03|0.199
84571852|NCT01125930|168894809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.02
84571853|NCT01125930|168894809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.08
84753029|NCT04409353|169261544|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.63||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.6||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Anxiety score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.60|-1.34|0.5279
84571854|NCT01125930|168894809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.15
84571855|NCT01125930|168894810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.67
84571856|NCT01125930|168894810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.18
84608623|NCT01571453|168968325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.09|-0.39|0.228
84571857|NCT01125930|168894810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 21 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.02
84571858|NCT01125930|168894810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.42
84571859|NCT02058095|168894875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84571860|NCT02058095|168894877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84571861|NCT01499511|168894879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.624
84571862|NCT01499511|168894880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84608624|NCT01571453|168968326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.06|-0.35|0.174
84608625|NCT01571453|168968327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.45||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.45|-2.09|0.207
84497673|NCT03930615|168746408|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
84571863|NCT01499511|168894881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.304
84571864|NCT01499511|168894882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.641
84571865|NCT01499511|168894883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.915
84571866|NCT02842866|168894894|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95 percent (%) confidence internal (CI) of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than (\>) -10 percent (%) for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|22.2||||||Serogroup A||22.2|9.08|
84608626|NCT01571453|168968328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.272||95.0|0.84|1.86||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|0.84|0.272
84608627|NCT01571453|168968329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.731||95.0|0.73|1.58||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.73|0.731
84571867|NCT02842866|168894894|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|33.5||||||Serogroup C||33.5|21.2|
84571868|NCT02842866|168894894|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|37.0||||||Serogroup Y||37.0|24.6|
84571869|NCT02842866|168894894|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.2||||||Serogroup W||24.2|11.2|
84571870|NCT02842866|168894895|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2||||||Serogroup A||2.20|1.40|
84571871|NCT02842866|168894895|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.33||||||Serogroup C||5.33|3.16|
84571872|NCT02842866|168894895|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.23||||||Serogroup Y||4.23|2.57|
84608628|NCT00129961|168968331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Poisson regression was used to model NMSC counts using the years in study as an offset. The generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach was used to estimate parameters and compare treatment differences.|Poisson regression|Adjusted by baseline strata; Poisson model = strata + treatment.||||||0.022
84571873|NCT02842866|168894895|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.31||||||Serogroup W||2.31|1.42|
84571874|NCT03720119|168894904|OTHER|Analysis of Variance for repeated measurements.|day effect F|27.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The calculated P-Value represents the repeated measurement/Day (all times versus Day 1)|Dunnett's post-hoc test|||||||0.0001
84571875|NCT01944423|168894906|SUPERIORITY||Logit difference (final values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.97||p=ns 2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||||0.97|-2.25|
84571876|NCT01944423|168894907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.94||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At end-of-treatment||7.94|0.25|.038
84571877|NCT01944423|168894908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.26||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At 6 month follow-up||5.26|1.15|.003
84571878|NCT02897349|168894909|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (%)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.16|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||-0.16|-0.65|0.0016
84571879|NCT02897349|168894910|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||3.8|-16.2|0.2241
84571880|NCT02897349|168894911|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-31.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.15|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effect treatment and type of insulin, and linear covariates baseline HbA1c and baseline 2-h PPG.||-15.75|-48.15|0.0001
84608629|NCT00129961|168968332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline lesions||||||0.047
84571881|NCT02897349|168894912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.780|0.673|0.2431
84571882|NCT02897349|168894913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.481||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|7.105|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||7.105|0.309|0.6235
84571883|NCT02897349|168894914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.286|4.091|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.091|1.286|0.0049
84571884|NCT03055013|168894931|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||Log Rank|stratified logrank test (one-sided)|hazard ratio : arm A vs. arm B|||1.22|0.74|0.34
84571885|NCT03435055|168894943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that the results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.001
84571886|NCT03435055|168894944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.006
84608630|NCT00129961|168968333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.015
84571887|NCT03435055|168894945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t tests were conducted to determine whether changes in stimulus intensity: post stimulus at baseline and under subanesthetic dose of nitrous oxide. Statistical tests were completed in SPSS 26 and determined by p \< 0.05.||||<0.01
84571888|NCT03435055|168894946|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0622|||||||Paired t-test|||Delta||||0.0622
84571889|NCT03435055|168894946|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0292|||||||Paired t-test|||Theta||||0.0292
84608631|NCT00129961|168968334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
84608632|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Well differentiated||||0.014
84608633|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Moderately differentiated||||0.491
84608634|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Poorly differentiated||||0.905
84608635|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive||||0.018
84608636|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC In Situ||||0.012
84608637|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive with Perineural Invasion||||0.463
84608638|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive without Perineural Invasion||||0.004
84608639|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Superficial||||0.094
84608640|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Nodular||||0.720
84608641|NCT00129961|168968335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Infiltrative||||0.227
84608642|NCT00129961|168968336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.748
84608643|NCT00129961|168968337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.425
84608644|NCT00129961|168968340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
84608645|NCT00129961|168968341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.672
84608646|NCT00129961|168968342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
84608647|NCT00129961|168968343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
84608648|NCT00129961|168968344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
84608649|NCT00129961|168968345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
84608650|NCT01985360|168968347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29||||||||1.29|0.79|
84608651|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.504
84608652|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.010
84608653|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.038
84608654|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.016
84608655|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.058
84608656|NCT03869333|168968446|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.038
84608657|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.129
84608658|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.017
84608659|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.008
84608660|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.011
84608661|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.029
84608662|NCT03869333|168968447|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.042
84608663|NCT03869333|168968448|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.226
84608664|NCT03869333|168968448|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.601
84608665|NCT03869333|168968448|OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.628
84608666|NCT03869333|168968448|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.878
84608667|NCT03869333|168968449|OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.762
84608668|NCT03869333|168968449|OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.335
84608669|NCT03869333|168968449|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.229
84608670|NCT03869333|168968449|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.102
84608671|NCT03869333|168968450|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.828
84608672|NCT03869333|168968450|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.629
84608673|NCT03869333|168968450|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||>0.999
84608674|NCT03869333|168968450|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
84571890|NCT03435055|168894946|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.5905|||||||Paired t-test|||Alpha comparison||||0.5905
84571891|NCT01259245|168894957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.012||Regression coefficients from ANCOVA for Tai Chi intervention (PRP as reference) at 6 months after adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable, age, sex, BMI, smoking and education|ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.046|0.252
84571892|NCT01259245|168894958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.442||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.447|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and smoking||power0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.447|-0.438|0.984
84571893|NCT01259245|168894959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.433||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.061|4.805|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and education||power of 0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||4.805|-4.061|0.869
84608675|NCT03869333|168968450|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||0.825
84608676|NCT03869333|168968451|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.005
84608677|NCT03869333|168968451|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.082
84608678|NCT03869333|168968451|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.293
84608679|NCT03869333|168968451|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
84608680|NCT03869333|168968451|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||>0.999
84608681|NCT03869333|168968452|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||0.828
84608682|NCT03869333|168968452|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.913
84608683|NCT03869333|168968452|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.924
84608684|NCT03869333|168968453|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||>0.999
84608685|NCT03869333|168968453|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.412
84608686|NCT03869333|168968453|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.847
84608687|NCT03869333|168968454|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.009
84608688|NCT03869333|168968454|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.037
84608689|NCT03869333|168968454|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.009
84608690|NCT03869333|168968454|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.036
84608691|NCT03869333|168968454|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.042
84608692|NCT03869333|168968455|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.028
84608693|NCT03869333|168968455|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.088
84608694|NCT03869333|168968455|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.146
84608695|NCT03869333|168968455|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.126
84608696|NCT03869333|168968455|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.273
84608697|NCT03869333|168968457|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 8||||0.348
84608698|NCT03869333|168968457|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 29||||0.179
84608699|NCT03869333|168968457|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.089
84608700|NCT02598128|168968460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The independent variables in the mixed model analysis included fixed effect factors for treatment (placebo or RELiZORB).||||||<0.001
84608701|NCT03002454|168968462|EQUIVALENCE|"Control: 99mTc MDP Injection:fission Investigation: 99mTc MDP Injection:neutron-bombardment~Anticipated sample size of 50 participants with sample size parameters of:~Alpha 0.05 Power 80% Kappa of significance 0.7 - 0.8 Prevalence of abnormal bone scans 30%~Actual study population of 4 participants with 4 out of 4 demonstrating gross abnormal biodistribution therefore the study was terminated and no statistical analysis was conducted."|||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis - insufficient study population|||
84608702|NCT02299076|168968484|SUPERIORITY|Welch Two Sample t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84608703|NCT02228096|168968514|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
84644062|NCT02478398|169024005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.99|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-0.99|-1.81|< 0.001
84644063|NCT02478398|169024006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.08|||Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.08|-2.60|< 0.001
84753030|NCT04409353|169261545|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.19||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.94||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.94|-0.56|0.1833
84753031|NCT04409353|169261545|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.37|-2.04|0.7006
84753032|NCT04409353|169261546|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.76||||0.1913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.15|0.50|0.1913
84753033|NCT04409353|169261546|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.24|0.55|0.3670
84753034|NCT04409353|169261547|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.83||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.33||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.33|-1.98|0.1619
84753035|NCT04409353|169261547|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.24|-1.31|0.9569
84571894|NCT01259245|168894960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.706||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.001|3.411|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium size effect at 5% level of significance||3.411|-6.001|0.588
84571895|NCT01259245|168894961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.477||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.627|2.327|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.327|-6.627|0.345
84571896|NCT01259245|168894962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.062||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.753|2.372|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.372|-5.753|0.413
84608704|NCT01969721|168968554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.147|0.103|<0.0001
84753036|NCT04409353|169261548|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.86||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.86|-1.80|0.9727
84571897|NCT01259245|168894963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.049|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|21.939|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||21.939|4.159|0.004
84753037|NCT04409353|169261548|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.43||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.26||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.26|-1.40|0.6427
84571898|NCT01259245|168894964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.226||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.184|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.184|-0.100|0.560
84644064|NCT02478398|169024007|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|37.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.82|43.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||43.12|31.82|< 0.001
84571899|NCT01259245|168894965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.128|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.128|-0.054|0.425
84571900|NCT01259245|168894966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||6.8|-3.5|0.528
84571901|NCT00204737|168894968|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at 2 Weeks||||0.06
84644065|NCT02478398|169024008|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.39|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.53|-0.57|= 0.320
84571902|NCT00204737|168894968|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 6 Weeks||||0.18
84644066|NCT02478398|169024009|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.92|-0.92|= 0.996
84644067|NCT01205581|169024041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
84644068|NCT01205581|169024044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84571903|NCT00204737|168894968|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 weeks||||0.5
84571904|NCT04649359|168895013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 30%.||||<0.0001
84571905|NCT04649359|168895013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort B was 15%.||||<0.0001
84571906|NCT04649359|168895014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 12%.||||<0.0001
84497674|NCT03930615|168746409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
84571907|NCT04649359|168895015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 38%.||||<0.0001
84571908|NCT02326064|168895041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
84571909|NCT02326064|168895042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
84571910|NCT03040726|168895043|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84571911|NCT03040726|168895044|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84571912|NCT03040726|168895045|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84571913|NCT03040726|168895046|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84571914|NCT02908347|168895055|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.36|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.36|-2.09|0.8785
84571915|NCT02908347|168895058|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 29||||1
84571916|NCT02908347|168895058|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 29||||1
84571917|NCT02908347|168895058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 43||||0.5136
84571918|NCT02908347|168895058|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 43||||1
84571919|NCT03104374|168895066|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|24.0|<0.0001
84571920|NCT03104374|168895066|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|31.1|<0.0001
84571921|NCT03104374|168895067|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.12|-0.30|<0.0001
84571922|NCT03104374|168895067|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.40|<0.0001
84571923|NCT03104374|168895068|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.1|19.2|<0.0001
84571924|NCT03104374|168895068|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|22.3|<0.0001
84571925|NCT03104374|168895069|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.9|25.6|<0.0001
84571926|NCT03104374|168895069|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|29.9|<0.0001
84644069|NCT01205581|169024045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
84644070|NCT01205581|169024046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84644071|NCT01205581|169024047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84644072|NCT01205581|169024048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84753038|NCT04409353|169261549|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|691.58||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-602.98|1986.14||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1986.14|-602.98|0.2910
84753039|NCT04409353|169261549|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|405.68||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-741.79|1553.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1553.15|-741.79|0.4842
84753040|NCT04409353|169261550|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.49||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||3.49|-1.48|0.4228
84753041|NCT04409353|169261550|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.28||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||2.37|-2.92|0.8363
84753042|NCT04409353|169261551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.44||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||1.44|0.48|0.514
84753043|NCT04409353|169261551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.36||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||2.36|0.78|0.280
84753044|NCT02499770|169261557|OTHER||||||=|0.0097||||||The p-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as the stratification factor. Significance level was set as two-sided 0.2.|Stratified log-rank test|p-value calculated using stratified log-rank test with baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as stratification factor. Significance level was two-sided 0.2.||||||= 0.0097
84753045|NCT02564926|169261608|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.346|-1.819|||ANCOVA|||||-1.819|-3.346|<0.001
84753046|NCT02564926|169261609|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-0.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.094|-0.821|0.014
84753047|NCT02564926|169261610|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|3.113|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.113|0.673|0.343
84571927|NCT03104374|168895070|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.98|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.98|2.07|<0.0001
84644073|NCT00992589|169024087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.449||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in daily average frequency of regurgitation from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.190|-1.087|0.168
84571928|NCT03104374|168895070|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|6.88|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.88|3.99|<0.0001
84497675|NCT03930615|168746412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-5.0|-23.3|0.0012
84571929|NCT03104374|168895071|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.4|2.0|<0.0001
84571930|NCT03104374|168895071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.||6.4|3.1|<0.0001
84571931|NCT03104374|168895072|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.6|16.0|<0.0001
84571932|NCT03104374|168895072|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.5|19.7|<0.0001
84497676|NCT03930615|168746413|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.1|-16.5|0.1494
84497677|NCT03930615|168746414|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.3|-3.8|0.6244
84497678|NCT03930615|168746415|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|8.4|-7.9|0.5264
84497679|NCT00956813|168746446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84497680|NCT00956813|168746448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
84571933|NCT03104374|168895073|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-18.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.4|-27.4|<0.0001
84753048|NCT02564926|169261611|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/dL)|-18.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-5.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.351|-31.140|0.006
84497681|NCT00956813|168746449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for vasomotor-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.19
84497682|NCT00956813|168746449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Psychosocial-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.78
84497683|NCT00956813|168746449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Physical-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.238
84497684|NCT00956813|168746449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Sexually-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.497
84497685|NCT00956813|168746450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
84497686|NCT02864953|168746451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.71||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates: region, and IRT stratification factors including rtPA usage (yes/no), thrombectomy usage (yes/no), use of ASPECTS for screening (yes/no), baseline NIHSS (\<=20 vs. \>20).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.80|=0.4150
84497687|NCT02864953|168746453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.6||A logistic regression model was used to estimate an odds ratio (and 95% CI) of improvement on the mRS dichotomized as 0-4 vs. 5-6 at Day 90.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.72|=0.7413
84753049|NCT02564926|169261612|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.667|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-4.667|<0.001
84571934|NCT03104374|168895073|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-23.8|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.8|-32.7|<0.0001
84753050|NCT02564926|169261613|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm)|-2.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|-0.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.635|-3.785|0.006
84753051|NCT02564926|169261614|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg/m2)|-1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.990|-1.742|<0.001
84753052|NCT02564926|169261615|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-6.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.969|-2.641|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.641|-10.969|0.002
84753053|NCT02564926|169261616|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-2.61||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.600|-5.829|0.110
84753054|NCT02564926|169261617|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-17.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.603|-6.489|||ANCOVA|||||-6.489|-28.603|0.002
84753055|NCT02564926|169261618|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.561|-9.218|||ANCOVA|||||-9.218|-27.561|<0.001
84753056|NCT02564926|169261619|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.127|0.503
84753057|NCT02564926|169261620|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.992|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.540|-1.992|<0.001
84753058|NCT02564926|169261621|OTHER||LS mean difference (ng/mL)|657.71||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.325|1297.101|||ANCOVA|||||1297.101|18.325|0.044
84753059|NCT02564926|169261622|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/L)|-0.12||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|0.625|||ANCOVA|||||0.625|-0.858|0.756
84753060|NCT02564926|169261623|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-1.082|||ANCOVA|||||-1.082|-2.807|<0.001
84753061|NCT03610165|169261624|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.04|-0.03|0.757
84753062|NCT03610165|169261625|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7|-12|0.715
84753063|NCT03610165|169261626|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-3.3|0.328
84753064|NCT03610165|169261627|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.011|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.011|-0.001|0.376
84753065|NCT03610165|169261628|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.226
84753066|NCT03610165|169261629|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|-0.67|0.610
84753067|NCT03610165|169261630|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.302
84571935|NCT03104374|168895074|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.9|20.1|<0.0001
84571936|NCT03104374|168895074|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.9|25.9|<0.0001
84753068|NCT03610165|169261631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.67|-0.67|0.889
84753069|NCT03610165|169261632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.403
84753070|NCT04223791|169261644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (DOR/ISL-BIC/FTC/TAF) is less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.96||p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.96|-1.19|<.001
84753071|NCT04223791|169261645|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||3.4|-10.4|
84753072|NCT04223791|169261646|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||2.6|-2.7|
84753073|NCT04223791|169261659|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model included terms for baseline weight, sex, race, and treatment.|Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.39|-0.99|0.392
84753074|NCT04667247|169261665|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.94||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84753075|NCT04667247|169261668|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|1.022||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84753076|NCT04667247|169261670|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|4.828||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.061
84753077|NCT04667247|169261671|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.526||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.100
84753078|NCT04667247|169261672|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.005||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84753079|NCT04667247|169261673|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.036||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.162
84753080|NCT04667247|169261675|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.151||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.00
84753081|NCT04667247|169261676|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.908||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.174
84753082|NCT04667247|169261677|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.846
84753083|NCT04667247|169261678|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.041||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.841
84753084|NCT04667247|169261679|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.261||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.612
84753085|NCT04667247|169261680|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.161||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.690
84753086|NCT04667247|169261681|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.671||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.109
84753087|NCT04667247|169261682|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.039||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.844
84753088|NCT04667247|169261683|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.044
84753089|NCT04667247|169261684|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.001||||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.989
84571937|NCT03104374|168895075|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.9|4.2|<0.0001
84571938|NCT03104374|168895075|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.0|<0.0001
84571939|NCT03104374|168895076|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.4|14.3|<0.0001
84571940|NCT03104374|168895076|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.2|15.1|<0.0001
84608705|NCT01969721|168968554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.15||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.150|0.107|<0.0001
84753090|NCT04667247|169261685|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.186||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.010
84753091|NCT04667247|169261686|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.345||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.560
84753092|NCT04667247|169261687|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.143||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.707
84753093|NCT04667247|169261688|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||0.765
84753094|NCT04667247|169261689|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.835||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.005
84753095|NCT04667247|169261690|SUPERIORITY||F value|16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||<0.001
84753096|NCT04124614|169261714|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-5.59||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-2.38|||MMRM|||||-2.38|-8.79|0.0007
84497688|NCT02864953|168746454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||=|0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the two study arms to assess the treatment effects on midline shift.|ANOVA|||||1.87|-0.23|=0.1242
84753097|NCT04124614|169261715|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-0.47||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.17|||MMRM|||||-0.17|-0.76|0.0019
84753098|NCT04124614|169261716|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-12.03||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-4.62|||MMRM|||||-4.62|-19.44|0.0016
84753099|NCT02462928|169261728|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.2|0.3|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.3|-8.2|
84753100|NCT02462928|169261728|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.7|0.0|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.0|-8.7|
84753101|NCT02462928|169261729|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-4.7|
84753102|NCT02462928|169261729|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-6.0|-1.3|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-6.0|
84571941|NCT00909870|168895160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||"H0: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group = the proportion of responders in the Control group.~HA: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group ≠ the proportion of responders in the Control group.~The proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group was compared with the proportion of responders in the control group using the uncorrected chi-square test for 2x2 contingency tables. The difference between the groups was expected to be 13%."||||0.1030
84571942|NCT00909870|168895161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.4046||95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.4046
84571943|NCT00909870|168895162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0||||0.0239||95.0||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||Pre-specified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.0239
84571944|NCT01773928|168895170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The probability that the modified process is noninferior to the current one (i.e. lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of geometric means \[modified vs. current\] is greater than or equal to 0.67) is above 99% for one strain, and it is around 97% for all three strains (considering the three strains to be independent, 0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99=0.97)|ANCOVA|0.67|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.67||||||||||0.67|
84571945|NCT01773928|168895172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANCOVA|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||"The overall power to prove the similarity between the three lots for all three strains is approximately 99%.~For the two primary co-analyses (Noninferiority and Lot Consistency), the overall power of the immunogenicity analyses is approximately 96% (calculated as 0.97 x 0.99=0.96)."||1.5|0.67|
84571946|NCT01773928|168895173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Differences between fever incidences (95% CI) between treatment groups VCIV Modified (Total) and TIV was computed for each age cohort separately. The Confidence Interval estimation method was the method of Miettinen \& Nurminen, as described in the StatXact User Manual (i.e. the score statistics, also called Chan's method, page 283).~Noninferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI (VCIV modified-TIV) is \<5%."|Method of Miettinen & Nurminen|1.8||||||95.0|0.1|3.3||||||||3.3|0.1|
84571947|NCT03054428|168895175|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (less than \[\<\] 60 kilogram \[kg\] vs greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 kg).||31.87|12.2|< 0.0001
84571948|NCT03054428|168895175|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|15.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||24.31|6.7|= 0.0007
84571949|NCT03054428|168895176|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.07|45.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||45.39|21.07|< 0.0001
84571950|NCT03054428|168895176|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|41.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||41.78|17.94|< 0.0001
84571951|NCT03054428|168895177|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-29.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-29.04|-55.6|< 0.0001
84571952|NCT03054428|168895177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-28.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-28.02|-54.44|< 0.0001
84571953|NCT03054428|168895178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.54|-18.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-18.38|-39.54|< 0.0001
84571954|NCT03054428|168895178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.45|15.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||15.63|-37.45|< 0.0001
84644074|NCT00992589|169024088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.108|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Double-blind (DB) Baseline as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weight-for-Age Z-Score from DB Baseline to DB Endpoint between Rabeprazole Sodium Total and Placebo.||0.108|-0.047|0.440
84644075|NCT00992589|169024090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.632|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Regurgitation Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.632|-0.619|0.984
84753103|NCT02462928|169261730|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|20.9|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||20.9|-3.8|
84571955|NCT03054428|168895179|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|51.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||51.84|26.9|< 0.0001
84571956|NCT03054428|168895179|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.97|41.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||41.32|16.97|< 0.0001
84571957|NCT03054428|168895180|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.45|43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||43.2|20.45|< 0.0001
84571958|NCT03054428|168895180|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.7|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|32.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||32.28|11.21|= 0.0001
84571959|NCT03759379|168895195|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|-12.22||P=3.542E-12|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-12.22|-21.78|<0.0000001
84571960|NCT03759379|168895196|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.8||P=5.426E-09|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-10.8|-21.7|<0.0000001
84571961|NCT03759379|168895197|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.193||P=3.103E-05|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset, baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||0.193|0.070|<0.0000001
84571962|NCT02325414|168895209|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||One-year data analysis were carried out using linear mixed-effects models. Covariate adjustments for baseline value of the corresponding outcome and ambulatory status (measured by WISCI) were performed by fitting these variables as fixed factors. The repeated measures were addressed using participant identification as random intercepts in the model.|||0.05
84571963|NCT04817189|168895224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.49|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the probability to experience a per cycle complete response between the treatment arms."|2.49|1.12|<0.05
84571964|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Sleep ≥ 7 h, compared to Sleep \< 7 h.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of \< 7 h of sleep the night before chemotherapy increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.17|0.68|0.412
84676526|NCT03224468|169088455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recognize previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.1|-0.2|
84644076|NCT00992589|169024091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Discomfort Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.325|-0.690|0.479
84753104|NCT02462928|169261730|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-10.1|14.7|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.7|-10.1|
84753105|NCT02462928|169261731|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-11.5|2.1|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||2.1|-11.5|
84753106|NCT02462928|169261731|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-14.7|-1.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||-1.5|-14.7|
84753107|NCT02462928|169261732|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.7|0.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.0|-3.7|
84753108|NCT02462928|169261732|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.0|-2.7|
84753109|NCT00395863|169261733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84753110|NCT00395863|169261733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84753111|NCT00395863|169261733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
84608706|NCT01969721|168968554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.124||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.124|0.081|<0.0001
84753112|NCT00395863|169261734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0001
84753113|NCT00395863|169261734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84753114|NCT00395863|169261734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
84753115|NCT00395863|169261735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84753116|NCT00395863|169261735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84753117|NCT00395863|169261735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84753118|NCT00395863|169261736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.3||Mean difference of MultiHance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|0.14|<0.0001
84753119|NCT00395863|169261737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.38||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.22|<0.0001
84753120|NCT00395863|169261738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|0.18|<0.0001
84753121|NCT00395863|169261739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.78||0.0062||95.0|20.72|61.26||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||61.26|20.72|0.0062
84753122|NCT00395863|169261740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.64||0.0027||95.0|16.57|45.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||45.33|16.57|0.0027
84753123|NCT00395863|169261741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.37||0.02||95.0|12.41|37.67||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||37.67|12.41|0.02
84753124|NCT00395863|169261742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.51||0.0019||95.0|14.28|51.25||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||51.25|14.28|0.0019
84753125|NCT00395863|169261743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.16||0.0008||95.0|16.75|50.47||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.47|16.75|0.0008
84753126|NCT00395863|169261744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.5||0.0026||95.0|14.63|52.81||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.81|14.63|0.0026
84753127|NCT03503513|169261745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2|||differences in incidence rate ratio|An incidence rate ratio per person/month was determined by comparing the total number of UTIs in relation to time points.||comparison between pre and during treatment rates of UTI||0.20|0.03|<0.0001
84753128|NCT03503513|169261746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13|<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.3||a priori threshold p value of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Baseline to end of 6 month treatment score comparisons; (higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for incontinence pre-post comparison; small sample size did not allow for power calculation.||0.3|-7.9|<0.06
84608707|NCT01969721|168968554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.128||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.128|0.085|<0.0001
84608708|NCT01969721|168968555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.103||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.103|0.061|<0.0001
84608709|NCT01969721|168968555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.107||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.107|0.065|<0.0001
84608710|NCT01969721|168968555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.086||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.086|0.045|<0.0001
84608711|NCT01969721|168968555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.09||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.090|0.048|<0.0001
84608712|NCT01969721|168968556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.071|0.022|0.0002
84608713|NCT01969721|168968556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
84608714|NCT01969721|168968556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.067||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.067|0.018|0.0007
84608715|NCT01969721|168968556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.078||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.078|0.029|<0.0001
84608716|NCT01969721|168968557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.062||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.062|0.017|0.0007
84608717|NCT01969721|168968557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.065||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.065|0.021|0.0002
84608718|NCT01969721|168968557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.051||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.051|0.006|0.0146
84608719|NCT01969721|168968557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.054||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.054|0.009|0.0055
84608720|NCT01969721|168968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.166||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.166|0.118|<0.0001
84644077|NCT00992589|169024092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.192||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.366|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Eating Behavior Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.366|-0.751|0.498
84497689|NCT00981019|168746456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Study was exploratory, thus no hypotheses had been formalized beforehand.~To analyze repeated measures outcomes (e.g., effect of the four different statistic scenarios on doctors' recommendation of screening, their judgment of screening's effectiveness, etc.), we used the McNemar chi-square test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.~To test for order effects (scenarios were randomly presented)Pearson's chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used."||||<0.05
84497690|NCT03252015|168746509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.049||||||Day 7||0.049|-0.412|
84497691|NCT03252015|168746509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||Day 7||0.224|-0.081|
84497692|NCT03252015|168746509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
84497693|NCT03252015|168746509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
84571965|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Without history, compared to With history.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of History of any nausea and vomiting such as motion sickness, vestibular dysfunction, … increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.80|0.71|0.592
84497694|NCT03252015|168746510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Day 7||0.050|-0.340|
84497695|NCT03252015|168746510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||||0.224|-0.081|
84497696|NCT03252015|168746510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.294||||||Day 21||0.294|-0.151|
84497697|NCT03252015|168746510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
84497698|NCT00903409|168746519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The difference between Non-switchers and Switchers in the percent change in non-HDL-C level from the end of the OM6 double-blind study (average of Weeks 6 and 8 for the statistical analysis) to 4 months of OM6X open-label treatment (Month 4).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84497699|NCT00379821|168746560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1746||0.8097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4463||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4463|0.7497|0.8097
84497700|NCT00379821|168746560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8333|1.6211||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.6211|0.8333|0.3767
84497701|NCT00379821|168746560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1795||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7708|1.4872||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4872|0.7708|0.6277
84497702|NCT00379821|168746594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||Not adjusted, 0.05|Regression, Cox|There are no adjustments.|The reference category is those who did not travel.|||1.34|0.68|0.79
84497703|NCT03256526|168746606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.45||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|25.09|||ANCOVA|||||25.09|-2.19|0.1654
84497704|NCT03256526|168746606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.73||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.55|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.90|-33.55|0.0395
84571966|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anticipatory, compared to Anticipatory.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anticipatory nausea and/or vomiting increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.65|0.80|0.458
84571967|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anxiety, compared to Anxiety.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anxiety over the past 24hrs increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.56|0.75|0.663
84571968|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.68|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to \< 10 units per week, compared to \>= 10 units per week.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Alcohol intake (\>= 10 units per week vs \< 10 units per week) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratio."||1.68|0.46|0.691
84497705|NCT01607398|168746611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.05||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The analysis was done using the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|From Van-Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, adjusted for smoking status strata and Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the 95% CI, not stratified and unadjusted for multiplicity.|||7.600|-20.500|0.5146
84497706|NCT01461369|168746633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.17|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-19.17|0.0024
84753129|NCT03503513|169261746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||(higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for storage and voiding; pre-post comparison. Due to small sample size (n=11) no power calculations were conducted.||1.7|-3.8|<0.39
84608721|NCT01969721|168968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.171||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.171|0.123|<0.0001
84608722|NCT01969721|168968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
84608723|NCT01969721|168968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.14||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.140|0.092|<0.0001
84608724|NCT03480009|168968594|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
84608725|NCT03480009|168968594|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
84608726|NCT03480009|168968595|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.81
84608727|NCT03480009|168968595|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||acetaminophen||||.24
84608728|NCT03480009|168968595|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||oxycodone||||.54
84608729|NCT03480009|168968595|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.61
84608730|NCT03480009|168968595|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Acetaminophen||||.24
84608731|NCT03480009|168968596|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wald Chi Square|Wald Chi Square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.99
84608732|NCT03480009|168968596|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wald Chi Square|P-value from Wald chi-square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.56
84608733|NCT03480009|168968597|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.07
84608734|NCT03480009|168968597|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.50
84608735|NCT04268745|168968599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.603||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.634|-1.573|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.573|-25.634|0.027
84608736|NCT04268745|168968600|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.405||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.474|8.335|||Regression, Linear|||||8.335|4.474|0.0001
84608737|NCT04268745|168968601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.703||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.235|-9.172|||Regression, Linear|||||-9.172|-28.235|0.0002
84608738|NCT04268745|168968602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.556||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|16.174|||Regression, Linear|||||16.174|0.938|0.028
84608739|NCT04268745|168968603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.665|||Regression, Linear|||||0.665|-0.443|0.695
84497707|NCT01461369|168746633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-13.94|0.0795
84608740|NCT04268745|168968604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.514||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.901|0.874|||Regression, Linear|||||0.874|-1.901|0.469
84608741|NCT01174173|168968613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed with p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
84608742|NCT01174173|168968614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for change in 6-minute walk test and p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84608743|NCT01174173|168968615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for difference from baseline and 3-month KCCQ score. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84608744|NCT01174173|168968617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84608745|NCT01174173|168968618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84608746|NCT00528801|168968627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, age, and education.|Cases are lower than controls.|Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the WAIS-III Perormance IQ (PIQ) Index. A linear model controlling for gender, age, and education was used to compare controls versus cases using an F statistic. Based on sample-size calculations, 120 patients and 36 controls were needed to have 80% power to detect an 8-point difference on the WAIS-III PIQ Index.||||0.008
84608747|NCT00528801|168968628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.048||95.0|0.026|0.199|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the proportion of subjects with lacunae. This was tested using a Fisher's Exact Test.||.199|.026|0.048
84608748|NCT01364740|168968630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
84608749|NCT01364740|168968631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
84608750|NCT01364740|168968632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
84608751|NCT01364740|168968633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
84608752|NCT00789672|168968651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Given this was pilot study, no formal sample size estimates were calculated.||1|-6|
84608753|NCT04473664|168968657|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.1|117.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||117|77.1|
84608754|NCT04473664|168968659|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|201.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||201|59.5|
84608755|NCT04473664|168968659|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|207.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||207|57.9|
84608756|NCT04473664|168968663|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|74.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|173.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||173|32.0|
84497708|NCT01461369|168746634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.552|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.83|-22.82|<0.0001
84608757|NCT04473664|168968665|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.3|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||111|35.3|
84608758|NCT04473664|168968665|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.8|104.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||104|46.8|
84608759|NCT04473664|168968668|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|44.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||111|18.0|
84608760|NCT04473664|168968669|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|165.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||165|16.0|
84644078|NCT00992589|169024093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.042||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.615|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in I-GERQ-R Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.700|-1.615|0.960
84497709|NCT01461369|168746634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.481||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.95|-16.66|0.0052
84571969|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.14|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Male, compared to Female.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Gender increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||2.14|1.02|0.037
84608761|NCT04473664|168968669|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|168.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||168|15.8|
84753130|NCT03503513|169261746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications referred as consequences.|Pre and post test comparisons of mean NBSS scores for the consequences domain. Power calculations were not conducted due to small sample size.||0.8|-4.6|<0.14
84571970|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No fatigue experience, compared to Fatigue experience.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Fatigue experience (symptom) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.42|0.84|0.514
84571971|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Non smoker, compared to Former smoker or smoker.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Smoking status increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.08|0.52|0.127
84571972|NCT04817189|168895226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||generalized linear model||The OR was calculated as the change in weight per 10 kg.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Weight increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||0.97|0.77|0.014
84571973|NCT04817189|168895233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.96|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the score per cycle between the treatment arms."|6.96|0.05|<0.05
84608762|NCT02252965|168968673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of this efficacy outcome measure is -0.4%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.10|
84571974|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - acute phase|||0.01|-0.13|<0.05
84571975|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - delayed phase|||-0.12|-0.50|<0.05
84608763|NCT02252965|168968674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-1.52||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.56|-8.60|0.674
84608764|NCT02429791|168968685|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||3.0|-4.3|
84608765|NCT02429791|168968687|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||4.0|-1.9|
84753131|NCT03503513|169261747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.99|<|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-6.8|<0.34
84753132|NCT02953639|169261762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.38|-2.11|0.730
84753133|NCT02953639|169261762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.02|-1.47|0.793
84571976|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||generalized linear model||||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 2|-0.02|-0.21|<0.05
84571977|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 3|||0.04|-0.17|<0.05
84571978|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 4|||0.05|-0.16|<0.05
84571979|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 5|||0.05|-0.13|<0.05
84571980|NCT04817189|168895244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - overall phase|||-0.14|-0.60|<0.05
84753134|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.91||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Attention/Vigilance)||1.64|-3.46|0.556
84571981|NCT02555254|168895255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon's rank test|||||||0.55
84571982|NCT04736199|168895256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.707||One-sided|Log Rank|||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.707|0.413|<0.0001
84608766|NCT02429791|168968698|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84608767|NCT02429791|168968698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.034||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.034|0.888|0.275
84608768|NCT02429791|168968698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.025||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.025|0.793|0.112
84608769|NCT02429791|168968698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.847||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.942||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||0.942|0.763|0.002
84608770|NCT02429791|168968700|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84608771|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.772||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.772|0.679|<.001
84753135|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Attention/Vigilance)||2.05|-2.59|0.848
84753136|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.16|-2.08|0.973
84608772|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.918||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.918|0.742|<.001
84608773|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.884||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.884|0.742|<.001
84608774|NCT02429791|168968700|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
84608775|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.863||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.863|0.774|<.001
84608776|NCT02429791|168968700|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84753137|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.57||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.67|-1.53|0.651
84753138|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.44||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Social Cognition)||1.08|-3.89|0.350
84497710|NCT01461369|168746635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-19.87|0.0011
84608777|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.943||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.943|0.823|<.001
84608778|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.829||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.930|0.740|0.001
84608779|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.759||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.759|0.628|<.001
84608780|NCT02429791|168968700|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
84608781|NCT02429791|168968700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.872||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.872|0.742|<.001
84608782|NCT02429791|168968713|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
84608783|NCT02429791|168968713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.5|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.5|-7.7|
84753139|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.18||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Social Cognition)||4.50|-0.14|0.121
84753140|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Speed of Processing)||1.83|-2.10|0.911
84753141|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Speed of Processing)||2.03|-1.99|0.987
84753142|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Verbal Learning)||1.93|-2.62|0.803
84608784|NCT02429791|168968713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.0|||||INI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||9.0|-5.1|
84753143|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.94||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Verbal Learning)||1.38|-3.26|0.502
84753144|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Visual Learning)||2.52|-2.74|0.945
84753145|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.11||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Visual Learning)||3.76|-1.54|0.488
84753146|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Working Memory)||0.64|-3.38|0.262
84753147|NCT02953639|169261763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Working Memory)||1.23|-3.01|0.489
84753148|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.63||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA I total raw score)||0.52|-3.78|0.211
84753149|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.35||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA I total raw score)||2.52|-1.81|0.787
84571983|NCT04736199|168895257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.118||One-sided|Log Rank||significance level of 0.0185 (one-sided)|Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||1.118|0.591|0.1007
84497711|NCT01461369|168746635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.707||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.74|-12.86|0.1349
84571984|NCT04736199|168895258|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|0.508||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.508|0.321|
84571985|NCT04736199|168895259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.558||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.558|0.288|
84571986|NCT04736199|168895260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.405||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.405|0.231|
84571987|NCT04736199|168895261|OTHER||Rate difference|44.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|51.2||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||51.2|37.4|
84571988|NCT04736199|168895262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.957||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.957|0.544|
84571989|NCT02775851|168895264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null pCR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 25%. This single stage design had an alpha of 3.4% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 90% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true pCR is 25%) with 25 eligible participants.||||<0.001
84571990|NCT02775851|168895265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null CR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 20%. This single stage design had an alpha of 8.5% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 82% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 20%) with 21 eligible participants.||||<0.001
84571991|NCT00486044|168895383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.966
84571992|NCT00486044|168895384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84571993|NCT00486044|168895385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.113
84571994|NCT00486044|168895386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
84571995|NCT01206764|168895389|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|27.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|35.29||||||Single arm open label study||35.29|21.86|
84571996|NCT01206764|168895393|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|45.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.29|106.43||||||The median overall survival was not evaluable, this presents the 25th percentile of overall survival||106.43|31.29|
84571997|NCT00997893|168895396|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||treatment x time p=.004|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.004
84571998|NCT00997893|168895397|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||visit x time x treatment interaction p=.98|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo before and after a psychosocial stressor. Predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.98
84571999|NCT00997893|168895398|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||treatment x time (before and after the psychosocial stressor) x visit p=.68|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on emotional memory following a laboratory induced stress. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.68
84608785|NCT02429791|168968713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.8|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||10.8|-5.3|
84608786|NCT02429791|168968721|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.940
84608787|NCT02429791|168968721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.588||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-1.588|-4.260|<.001
84608788|NCT02429791|168968721|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84608789|NCT02429791|168968721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.192||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|0.271||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.271|-2.656|0.110
84608790|NCT02429791|168968721|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
84608791|NCT02429791|168968721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.569||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.048|-0.09||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.090|-3.048|0.038
84608792|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
84608793|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84753150|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II total raw score)||0.94|-0.37|0.477
84608794|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
84608795|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84753151|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.91||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II total raw score)||1.58|0.23|0.028
84753152|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||0.91|-1.51|0.683
84608796|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84608797|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.005
84608798|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
84497712|NCT01461369|168746636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.377||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-6.59|||ANCOVA|||||-6.59|-19.89|0.0001
84608799|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
84608800|NCT02429791|168968724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.099
84608801|NCT02596230|168968773|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.249||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.249|0.322|0.188
84608802|NCT02596230|168968774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.017||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||2.017|0.300|0.606
84753153|NCT02953639|169261764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||1.22|-1.13|0.954
84753154|NCT02953639|169261765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.45||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM I)||3.17|-0.27|0.164
84753155|NCT02953639|169261765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.56||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM I)||2.14|-1.02|0.559
84753156|NCT02953639|169261765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.12||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM II)||1.94|-1.70|0.912
84753157|NCT02953639|169261765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM II)||1.22|-1.93|0.706
84608803|NCT02596230|168968775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.885||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.885|0.299|0.542
84608804|NCT02596230|168968776|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|"Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.~Hazard Ratio is actually \<0.01~95% Confidence Interval is not calculable (NA) due to insufficient number of participants with events."|||||0.996
84608805|NCT02596230|168968777|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.828||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.828|0.402|0.690
84608806|NCT04051827|168968811|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.42|||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of midazolam Cmax on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.42|0.739|
84608807|NCT04051827|168968812|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.859|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||0.859|0.532|
84497713|NCT01461369|168746636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-14.00|0.0248
84497714|NCT01461369|168746637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|-5.94|||ANCOVA|||||-5.94|-19.32|0.0002
84572000|NCT00997893|168895399|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||treatment x time p=.11|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate). Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.11
84572001|NCT00997893|168895400|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||treatment x time p=.86|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate)Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.86
84572002|NCT00961415|168895401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.37|<0.001
84572003|NCT00961415|168895402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.47|0.230
84753158|NCT02953639|169261766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.15|0.94|0.527
84753159|NCT02953639|169261766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.17|0.92|0.636
84753160|NCT02953639|169261767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.36||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.91|-3.63|0.323
84753161|NCT02953639|169261767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.95||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.88|-3.77|0.579
84753162|NCT02953639|169261768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.67||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.94|-2.27|0.493
84753163|NCT02953639|169261768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.07|-2.32|0.926
84753164|NCT02953639|169261769|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.17|-0.22|0.839
84753165|NCT02953639|169261769|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.15|-0.27|0.625
84753166|NCT02953639|169261770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.23|-0.28|0.865
84753167|NCT02953639|169261770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.29|-0.31|0.964
84497715|NCT01461369|168746637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-13.60|0.0363
84497716|NCT01461369|168746638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.60|-17.16|0.0028
84497717|NCT01461369|168746638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.385||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|-12.13|0.1081
84497718|NCT01598740|168746642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.0662
84572004|NCT00961415|168895404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.34|0.006
84572005|NCT00961415|168895405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.38|<0.001
84572006|NCT05911841|168895417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-30.6|
84572007|NCT05911841|168895417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-19.4|
84572008|NCT05911841|168895417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.7||||||||1.7|-31.6|
84572009|NCT05911841|168895418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.7||||||||8.7|-17.6|
84753168|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.27||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||6.95|-0.40|0.142
84753169|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.32||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.04|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||2.40|-7.04|0.416
84753170|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||5.83|-1.86|0.394
84753171|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.71||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||4.87|-3.44|0.776
84753172|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.43||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Total Score)||5.94|-1.09|0.254
84753173|NCT02953639|169261771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Total Score)||3.50|-4.64|0.816
84753174|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.14|0.93|
84753175|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.13|0.92|
84753176|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.12|0.88|
84572010|NCT05911841|168895418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|15.1||||||||15.1|-12.3|
84572011|NCT05911841|168895418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.9||||||||1.9|-21.8|
84753177|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.85|
84572012|NCT05063448|168895453|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.47. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.47|||||Five cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.47|-1.47|
84572013|NCT05063448|168895453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori alpha is set at 95% with two tails.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.547, df = 16. N at time 3 = 18.||Paired samples t-test was used to compare group average pretest (time 1) and posttest (time 3) scores of self-perceptions of the parental role, a measure of parenting confidence.||||0.022
84572014|NCT05063448|168895454|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±1.84. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.84|||||Three cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||2.84|-0.84|
84572015|NCT05063448|168895455|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±5.97. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.97||||Two cases demonstrated reliable and one case demonstrated a reliable increase in work-family role conflict at posttest.|Two cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval and one case fell outside of the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||6.97|-4.97|
84608808|NCT04051827|168968813|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.92|||||The GMR of midazolam Cmax on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.92|0.886|
84608809|NCT04051827|168968814|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.673|1.04|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.04|0.673|
84608810|NCT00548717|168968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 1.||||0.77
84608811|NCT00548717|168968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 2.||||0.59
84608812|NCT00548717|168968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 3.||||0.92
84608813|NCT00548717|168968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 8.||||0.63
84676527|NCT03224468|169088456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number recalled for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recall previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.0|-0.2|
84753178|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.86|
84608814|NCT00548717|168968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 12.||||0.79
84753179|NCT01830855|169261778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948||1.14|0.88|
84753180|NCT01798992|169261831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.685
84753181|NCT01798992|169261832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.071
84497719|NCT01598740|168746643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1899||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.1899
84497720|NCT00703261|168746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||cLDA|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)||||0.006
84497721|NCT00703261|168746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.277
84497722|NCT00703261|168746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|4.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|9.6|||cLDA|||||9.6|-1.0|0.088
84497723|NCT00703261|168746670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.195
84497724|NCT01612780|168746680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Values of p \<0.05 were deemed statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Study sample size was established to test the hypothesis that the mean SNOT-20 score is reduced by at least 0.8 points from baseline to 1 year post procedure. Using this delta, a 1-sided alpha of 0.25, and 90% power, a sample size of 19 participants was adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
84497725|NCT02964910|168746696|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95% CI of the seroconversion rate difference was not less than -10%.|the seroconversion rate difference(%)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|0.22||||||||0.22|-5.23|
84497726|NCT02964910|168746697|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95%CI of the GMC ratio was not lower than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
84497727|NCT02964910|168746701|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.778|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.778
84608815|NCT02809053|168968921|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate (%)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.35|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Adjusted Difference Rate (%) in Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 28.||6.35|-14.80|
84753182|NCT02294682|169261838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|97.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|85.1||||||GSK2140944 1500 mg||||85.1|
84497728|NCT02964910|168746702|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
84497729|NCT02964910|168746703|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.949
84497730|NCT02964910|168746704|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.614|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.614
84497731|NCT02964910|168746705|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
84753183|NCT02294682|169261838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|84.7||||||GSK2140944 3000 mg||||84.7|
84497732|NCT02115373|168746713|OTHER||Median|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.446|7.195|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||7.195|1.446|
84497733|NCT02115373|168746713|OTHER||Median|3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.858|4.238|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.238|2.858|
84497734|NCT02115373|168746714|OTHER||Median|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.68|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.680|1.413|
84497735|NCT02115373|168746714|OTHER||Median|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|16.53|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||16.53|0.03|
84497736|NCT02115373|168746715|OTHER||Median|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.844|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.844|1.413|
84497737|NCT02115373|168746715|OTHER||Median|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|4.172|||||PFS time in months was was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.172|2.760|
84753184|NCT01516970|169261856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||||||The discontinuation rates were compared with a statistical test (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\]-Test) with p-value: 0.2434|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2434
84753185|NCT01516970|169261857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8839||||||The percentage of participants with TEAEs were compared with a statistical test (Fisher's Exact Test) with p-value: 0.8839.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8839
84753186|NCT00892177|169261868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84753187|NCT00892177|169261869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.262|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference in proportion|||0.262|-0.052|0.22
84753188|NCT00892177|169261871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.4|0.61|0.7
84497738|NCT02115373|168746717|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.68|10.119|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||10.119|3.680|
84497739|NCT02115373|168746717|OTHER||Median|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.092|8.181|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||8.181|5.092|
84497740|NCT00962013|168746747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin is 7%||||||0.0136|||||||Exact Binomial|||This revision study will demonstrate a 5-year survivorship of the Restoration Modular system not seven percent worse than an expected 95% survival rate using a lower 95% one-sided confidence bound.||||0.0136
84497741|NCT00962013|168746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from HHS pre-op to HHS 5 year||||<0.0001
84497742|NCT00962013|168746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from SF-36 Role-Physical pre-op score to 2 and 5 year scores||||<0.0001
84497743|NCT00962013|168746752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial|||Post-surgery femoral stem crack/fracture rate compared to 21% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates) Femoral subsidence rate compared to 18% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates)||||<0.0001
84497744|NCT04007406|168746781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold value for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84608816|NCT02809053|168968922|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|0.61|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Adjusted Difference Rate of Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 12.||0.61|-20.92|
84497745|NCT04007406|168746782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84497746|NCT04007406|168746783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84497747|NCT04007406|168746784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84497748|NCT04007406|168746785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical threshold was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84497749|NCT03159611|168746786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84497750|NCT03159611|168746787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84497751|NCT03159611|168746788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84572016|NCT05063448|168895456|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.78.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.78|||||Three cases fell below the confidence interval and two cases fell above the confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score..||5.78|-3.78|
84572017|NCT05063448|168895457|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±3.37. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|4.37|||||Three cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||4.37|-2.27|
84608817|NCT02809053|168968927|OTHER|The estimated Hazard Ratio with 95% CI was obtained from Cox regression model; however, stratification factors, ie, FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk), were only taken into account if FLIPI-2 score=all.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|3.482|||||Hazard Ration of TTE SAIT101:MabThera|Time to Event (TTE) Hazard Ratio (HR) of SAIT101:MabThera. The TTE is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date when an event occurs; an event is disease progression as assessed by Investigator, death due to any cause, or the start of new treatment, whichever comes first.||3.482|0.853|
84753189|NCT00892177|169261872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.7|0.76|0.52
84497752|NCT03159611|168746789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
84497753|NCT03159611|168746790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84497754|NCT00116207|168746791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.32
84497755|NCT00116207|168746791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24-MONTH||||0.045
84497756|NCT00116207|168746792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.52
84497757|NCT00116207|168746792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.82
84497758|NCT00116207|168746793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.24
84497759|NCT00116207|168746794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.83
84497760|NCT02072174|168746795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0242
84753190|NCT00892177|169261873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is the net difference between Arm A and Arm B total score using information from all cycles. A negative value means that Arm A has a lower quality of life and a positive value means Arm A has a higher reported quality of life.|||||0.96
84497761|NCT02072174|168746796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||patient diary data||||0.0026
84497762|NCT02072174|168746796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||doctor's examination data||||0.0127
84497763|NCT02072174|168746797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate. Treatment\*visit interaction p-value is 0.3220."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0394
84497764|NCT02072174|168746797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3220
84497765|NCT02072174|168746798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0043
84497766|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 2 (patient diary data)||||0.0104
84608818|NCT02809053|168968928|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|101.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.86|107.24|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure pharmacokinetic parameter AUC0-168,w1 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Curve Day 0 to Week 1 (AUC0-168,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||107.24|95.86|
84608819|NCT02809053|168968928|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|96.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter AUC0-168,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) %) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Cure Day 0 to Week 4 (AUC0-168,w4) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
84753191|NCT00892177|169261874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6325
84753192|NCT01186796|169261900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84753193|NCT01186796|169261901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
84753194|NCT01186796|169261902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Unit of mass secreted per burst is in ug/L. An automated deconvolution method was used and mathematically verified by direct statistical proof and empirically validated using hypothalamopituitary sampling and a simulated pulsatile time series."|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
84753195|NCT01186796|169261903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
84753196|NCT01186796|169261904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
84753197|NCT01936909|169261913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||This test reflects a comparison between baseline and 2 weeks (both rows).||||>0.20
84753198|NCT01936909|169261914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired analysis versus baseline||||<0.01
84753199|NCT01936909|169261915|SUPERIORITY|Log-rank test||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
84753200|NCT00744211|169261916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<0.05; Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84753201|NCT00744211|169261917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84753202|NCT00744211|169261918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84753203|NCT00744211|169261919|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square tests for differences between groups.||||||0.015||||||P-value is associated with the hematological/lymphatic adverse event.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
84753204|NCT01829425|169261928|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%.|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney|Due dispersion, medians were calculated. Exact Mann Whitney test was used for this analysis.|Hypnotherapy - Pharmacotherapy. % difference in median % change in UUI episodes with lower bounds \> - 5% would be consistent with non-inferiority||||5|<.025
84753205|NCT01829425|169261929|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%. If|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney||||||5|<.025
84753206|NCT03606980|169261941|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant. A 95% confidence interval was computed using logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.11||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|9.005|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||9.005|1.073|0.0366
84753207|NCT03606980|169261941|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.215|14.273|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||14.273|1.215|0.0232
84753208|NCT03606980|169261941|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|4.615|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||4.615|0.389|0.64
84753209|NCT03606980|169261942|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
84753210|NCT03606980|169261943|EQUIVALENCE|p\<00.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84753211|NCT03606980|169261944|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84753212|NCT03606980|169261945|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were performed using the SAS Studio. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.57
84753213|NCT01294150|169261947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Assuming unequal variances comparing mean improvement in the UL group to 125% of the mean improvement in the Control group. A p-value of 0.025 or less associated with UL is considered evidence of statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84753214|NCT03427125|169261962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84753215|NCT03427125|169261963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0020
84753216|NCT05390580|169261974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.24
84644079|NCT00992589|169024094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.024||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.167|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weekly Average I-GERQ-DD Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.214|-1.167|0.968
84572018|NCT05063448|168895458|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.80. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8|||||Two cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.80|-1.80|
84572019|NCT05063448|168895460|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.03. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|5.03|||||One case fell outside of the upper confidence interval, while 5 participants fell below the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||5.03|-3.03|
84572020|NCT05469438|168895469|OTHER|We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||||||||||||||||We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||
84572021|NCT04777331|168895470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.01|0.69|0.0657
84572022|NCT04777331|168895471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.03|0.66|0.0914
84572023|NCT04777331|168895472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.05|0.73|0.1574
84572024|NCT04777331|168895473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.01|0.69|0.0622
84572025|NCT04777331|168895474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.17|0.75|0.5515
84572026|NCT04777331|168895475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.05|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.05|-1.84|0.5944
84572027|NCT04777331|168895476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.24|||MMRM|||||1.24|-1.08|0.8955
84572028|NCT04108468|168895502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.12|0.064
84572029|NCT04108468|168895503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline BASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.24|-1.48|0.007
84572030|NCT04108468|168895504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.11|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.11|-1.26|0.096
84572031|NCT04108468|168895505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.59|-0.72|0.844
84572032|NCT04108468|168895506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.04|-1.88|0.041
84644080|NCT05508074|169024096|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted on baseline ALSFRS-R and treatment.||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||6.60|-7.27|0.923
84753217|NCT05390580|169261975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.0001
84753218|NCT05390580|169261976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.26
84753219|NCT05390580|169261977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.14
84753220|NCT05390580|169261979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; linearly for in-hospital NIHSS scores based on panel data plots. Interaction terms were utilized to delineate differences amongst trajectories of the outcome of interest.||||0.69
84753221|NCT05390580|169261980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated using a mixed model that includes a random effect for person, based on actual day of the mRS, 90 day assessment. Restricted to participants who survived to an mRS assessment for day 90 , leaving 14 participants (28 mRS scores) in the treatment group and 17 participants (34 mRS scores) in the sham group.||||0.48
84753222|NCT05390580|169261981|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in hypotension.||||0.49
84753223|NCT05390580|169261982|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in bradycardia.||||0.66
84753224|NCT05315947|169262001|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for Cmax was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7814|0.9686||||||||0.9686|0.7814|
84753225|NCT05315947|169262002|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(0-t) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9756|1.003||||||||1.003|0.9756|
84753226|NCT04252287|169262005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|0.8|0.016
84497767|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (patient diary data)||||0.0041
84753227|NCT04252287|169262006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.4|344.1|||ANCOVA|||||344.1|-284.4|0.852
84753228|NCT00789867|169262073|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
84753229|NCT00789867|169262074|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
84753230|NCT00789867|169262075|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
84753231|NCT00789867|169262076|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
84753232|NCT00789867|169262077|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
84753233|NCT00789867|169262078|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84753234|NCT00594516|169262082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of (-2, 2). A prespecified equivalence margin of (-2,2) was used for equivalence analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Comparison of Tapentadol IR to ER analysis of variance model with factors for treatment, double blind cross-over period and subject.||0.28|-0.09|
84753235|NCT01493557|169262087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|29.49|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||29.49|-6.54|0.2554
84753236|NCT01493557|169262088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|24.58|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||24.58|-11.24|0.3165
84753237|NCT01493557|169262089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|35.98|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||35.98|0.71|0.0273
84497768|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0484||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 4 (patient diary data)||||0.0484
84497769|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (patient diary data)||||0.0603
84572033|NCT04108468|168895507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.54|-1.41|0.375
84572034|NCT04108468|168895508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.58|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.58|-1.46|0.392
84572035|NCT04108468|168895509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.71|-1.34|0.541
84572036|NCT04108468|168895510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|7.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||7.43|-12.14|0.633
84572037|NCT04108468|168895511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|12.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||12.43|-9.95|0.826
84572038|NCT04108468|168895512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|6.25|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||6.25|-1.76|0.268
84572039|NCT04108468|168895513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.83|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.83|-3.42|0.605
84572040|NCT04108468|168895514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.54|-4.23|0.620
84572041|NCT04108468|168895515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.24|-5.02|0.449
84572042|NCT04108468|168895516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.48|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.48|-2.04|0.364
84572043|NCT04108468|168895517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.61|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.61|-3.60|0.806
84572044|NCT04108468|168895518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.89|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.89|-2.79|0.588
84572045|NCT04108468|168895519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.93|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.93|-2.45|0.372
84572046|NCT04108468|168895520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.55|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.55|-2.05|0.781
84753238|NCT01493557|169262090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.22|28.4|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.40|-44.22|0.7104
84572047|NCT04108468|168895521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-0.14|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.14|-4.39|0.037
84572048|NCT04108468|168895522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.93|0.058
84572049|NCT04108468|168895523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.35|-1.54|0.213
84572050|NCT04108468|168895524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.5|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.50|-0.88|0.606
84572051|NCT04108468|168895525|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.14|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.14|0.48|0.971
84572052|NCT04108468|168895526|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.49|0.817
84572053|NCT04108468|168895527|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.35||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.93|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.93|0.63|0.441
84572054|NCT04108468|168895528|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.29||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.03|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.03|0.55|0.563
84572055|NCT04108468|168895529|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.17||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.26|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.26|0.02|0.083
84572056|NCT04108468|168895530|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.64|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||7.64|0.01|0.432
84572057|NCT04108468|168895531|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.11||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.21|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.21|0.01|0.071
84572058|NCT04108468|168895532|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.84|0.00|0.037
84572059|NCT04108468|168895533|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.68||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.41|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.41|0.32|0.296
84572060|NCT04108468|168895534|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.51||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.09|0.23|0.081
84572061|NCT04108468|168895535|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.75||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.59|0.36|0.458
84572062|NCT04108468|168895536|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.12||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.72|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.46|0.798
84572063|NCT04108468|168895537|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.77|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.77|-1.53|0.512
84497770|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (doctor's examination)||||0.0056
84497771|NCT02072174|168746799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (doctor's examination)||||0.0994
84753239|NCT01493557|169262091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.94|40.44|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||40.44|-32.94|1.0000
84497772|NCT02072174|168746800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1-7 (patient diary data)||||0.0084
84497773|NCT02072174|168746800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1, 3, 5 and 7 (doctor's examination)||||0.0233
84572064|NCT04108468|168895538|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.44|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.44|-1.33|0.320
84572065|NCT04108468|168895539|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.28|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.28|-1.22|0.220
84572066|NCT04108468|168895540|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.95|-0.85|0.912
84572067|NCT04108468|168895541|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.42|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.42|-1.42|0.281
84572068|NCT04108468|168895542|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.47|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.47|-1.44|0.985
84572069|NCT04108468|168895543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.60|0.45|0.869
84572070|NCT04108468|168895544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.13|0.38|0.802
84608820|NCT02809053|168968929|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with Cmax,w1 exposure within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 1 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
84572071|NCT04108468|168895545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.48|0.767
84572072|NCT04108468|168895546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.55|0.26|0.315
84572073|NCT04108468|168895547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.27|0.55|0.516
84572074|NCT04108468|168895548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.38|0.39|0.939
84572075|NCT04108468|168895549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.94|0.48|0.701
84572076|NCT04108468|168895550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.22|0.19|0.124
84644081|NCT05508074|169024096|OTHER|FAS post hoc|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.2||post hoc analysis on the FAS population, adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters|ANCOVA|||post hoc analysis adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters||8.2|-5.1|0.65
84497774|NCT02072174|168746801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0721
84497775|NCT02072174|168746802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84497776|NCT02072174|168746803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3383
84572077|NCT04108468|168895551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.63|0.78|0.161
84572078|NCT04108468|168895552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.70|0.251
84572079|NCT04108468|168895553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.60|0.63|0.363
84572080|NCT04108468|168895554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.40|0.991
84572081|NCT04108468|168895555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||9.10|1.07|0.037
84572082|NCT04108468|168895556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||6.40|0.98|0.056
84572083|NCT04108468|168895557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.57|0.65|0.277
84572084|NCT04108468|168895558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.92|0.48|0.548
84572085|NCT04108468|168895559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||10.97|1.25|0.018
84608821|NCT02809053|168968929|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ration (%)|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|105.92|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Cmax,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 4 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||105.92|92.96|
84753240|NCT01493557|169262092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.25|28.77|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.77|-41.25|1.0000
84572086|NCT04108468|168895560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.28|0.926
84753241|NCT01493557|169262096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.9|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for the Duration of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS).||8.9|-9.9|
84572087|NCT04108468|168895561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.94|0.50|0.385
84572088|NCT04108468|168895562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.12|0.32|0.684
84572089|NCT04108468|168895563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.72||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|326.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||326.19|0.86|0.063
84572090|NCT04108468|168895564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.9||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|72.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||72.42|1.09|0.041
84572091|NCT04108468|168895565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|52.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||52.14|0.86|0.069
84572092|NCT04108468|168895566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|16.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||16.66|0.33|0.397
84644082|NCT05508074|169024097|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.186|||binomial exact method|||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||0.186|-0.408|0.398
84644083|NCT05508074|169024098|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.271|||binomial exact method|||calculation based on estimand 1 (see SAP)||0.271|-0.326|0.835
84572093|NCT04108468|168895567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.83|0.04|0.309
84608822|NCT02809053|168968932|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.85|102.55|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Ctrough,d29 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing period (Day 29) (Ctrough,d29) (µg/mL) . The statistical comparison of the log-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||102.55|88.85|
84753242|NCT01493557|169262096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.3|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Complete effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||6.3|-3.5|
84497777|NCT05674721|168746804|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements if the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|102.47||||||||102.47|88.31|
84497778|NCT05674721|168746805|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|112.35||||||||112.35|93.54|
84497779|NCT05674721|168746806|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|101.61||||||||101.61|96.76|
84572094|NCT04108468|168895568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.60|0.17|0.871
84572095|NCT04108468|168895569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.52|0.04|0.555
84572096|NCT04108468|168895570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.72|0.11|0.009
84572097|NCT03260023|168895572|OTHER|Enough participants will be treated to obtain 22 evaluable as a first stage. If at least 3/22 participants are considered responders, the enrolment will be continued, otherwise it will be stopped. For the second stage of the trial, enough participants will be treated to obtain a total of 40 evaluable participants and consider the study positive if at least 8/40 of them are considered responders.||||||||||||||||A Simon's two-stage design will be used. The null hypothesis for response rate H0 is set at 10% corresponding to the response rate observed in second line participants, the alternate hypothesis of efficacy is set at HA=25%, the type I error α is set at 5% one sided, the type II error β is set at 20% (power=80%).|With a hierarchical strategy on the final analysis, a subgroup analysis performed in oropharyngeal SCCHN patients and with a null hypothesis for response rate (H0) set at 10% and the alternative hypothesis of efficacy set at HA = 35%, 18 oropharyngeal SCCHN patients would have been needed to reach a power of 81% and actual alpha at 2.8%. This analysis would have been considered positive with at least 5 responders among the 18 SCCHN patients. The second stage of the Simon's design has not been done following the decision to exclude oropharyngeal SCCHN and to change to a randomized controlled two-arms study (phase II part 2).|||
84572098|NCT03260023|168895573|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is performed using a one-sided log-rank unstratified test to compare Progression-Free Survival of TG4001 in combination with avelumab vs avelumab alone in participants with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HPV-16 positive advanced malignancies and without liver metastases at baseline. PFS will be evaluated based on RECIST1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified with one-sided p-value||Efficacy will be evaluated by comparing the PFS between TG4001 arm versus TG4001 \& avelumab arm with an adaptive approach. With one-sided type I error α at 5%, 76 events are needed to reach a power of 95%, corresponding to around 80 participants enrolled. To stick with initial timelines for final analyses and limiting the loss of statistical power, PFS analysis will be performed based on at least 69 events.||1.29|0.59|0.2810
84572099|NCT03260023|168895575|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||At level 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity testing, pvalue is calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In Phase II part 2 cohort A, statistical Test stratified by indication to compare the Overall Response Rate between TG4001+Avelumab versus Avelumab alone.||||0.832
84572100|NCT05816070|168895583|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -10% based on the general standard of antibacterial drug. Non-inferiority is established when P\<0.05.||||||0.0137|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0137
84572101|NCT06494761|168895597|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|127.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.1|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.10|96.90|
84644084|NCT05508074|169024099|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|20.34|||ANCOVA|||based on estimand 1 (see SAP). change of SVC percentage from baseline to 6 months||20.34|-9.72|0.481
84572102|NCT06494761|168895597|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.35|153.39|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.2|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.39|110.35|
84572103|NCT06494761|168895598|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|117.9|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.90|98.57|
84572104|NCT06494761|168895598|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|116.93|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.4|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||116.93|95.41|
84572105|NCT06494761|168895599|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.96|122.72|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 24.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||122.72|75.96|
84572106|NCT06494761|168895599|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.86|130.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||130.20|61.86|
84572107|NCT06494761|168895600|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|129.84|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 16.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||129.84|105.56|
84572108|NCT06494761|168895600|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|144.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.53|168.71|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.9|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||168.71|123.53|
84608823|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.0|45.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 1 (AUEC0-168,w1), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||45.4|-31.0|
84608824|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|57.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 2 (AUEC0-168,w2), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||57.6|-21.6|
84608825|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|61.0|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 3 (AUEC0-168,w3), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||61.0|-18.3|
84672332|NCT00653224|169080265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
84572109|NCT06494761|168895601|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.92|121.52|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.1|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||121.52|100.92|
84753243|NCT01493557|169262096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|48.5|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Partial effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||48.5|-8.2|
84497780|NCT05674721|168746807|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|107.3||||||||107.30|98.15|
84572110|NCT06494761|168895601|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.3|126.81|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.81|108.30|
84572111|NCT06494761|168895602|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.9|126.3|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 77.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.30|49.90|
84572112|NCT06494761|168895602|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|62.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.69|86.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 49.1|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||86.20|44.69|
84572113|NCT06494761|168895603|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.58|127.24|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.5|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.24|96.58|
84497781|NCT05674721|168746808|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.82|101.63||||||||101.63|96.82|
84572114|NCT06494761|168895603|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.7|153.59|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.59|109.70|
84572115|NCT06494761|168895604|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.79|119.41|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.3|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.41|98.79|
84497782|NCT05674721|168746809|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.34||||||||107.34|98.31|
84572116|NCT06494761|168895604|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|106.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.49|117.73|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.73|95.49|
84644085|NCT05508074|169024109|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANCOVA|||based on available data at V4||1.21|0.89|0.609
84672333|NCT00653224|169080266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
84672334|NCT00653224|169080267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
84672335|NCT00653224|169080268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.042||95.0|-0.49|-0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.01|-0.49|0.042
84672336|NCT00653224|169080269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.014||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
84753244|NCT02592551|169262097|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare in ratios of intratumoral cytotoxic T cells to regulatory T cells (CD8/Treg) between pre and post of MEDI4736+Tremelimumab||||0.109
84572117|NCT06494761|168895605|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.9|146.35|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.9|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||146.35|79.90|
84572118|NCT06494761|168895605|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.01|127.53|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 38.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.53|75.01|
84572119|NCT04865289|168895610|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41||||||||1.41|0.51|
84572120|NCT04865289|168895611|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||||||||1.21|0.48|
84753245|NCT02592551|169262098|OTHER|Compare the tissue biomarker for the immune response of ICOS+ CD4 T cells to before and after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1
84753246|NCT02592551|169262099|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) before and after treatment with combination MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||0.461
84753247|NCT02592551|169262100|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg (ratio of CD8/treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and after MEDI4736 alone||||0.954
84753248|NCT02592551|169262101|OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg(ratio of CD8/Treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and at day 1 of untread control group||||0.799
84572121|NCT04865289|168895612|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5831415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.5831415
84572122|NCT04865289|168895612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6980186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.6980186
84572123|NCT04865289|168895613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.52046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.80|0.57|0.52046
84753249|NCT02592551|169262104|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and after MEDI-4736 alone||||0.418
84753250|NCT02592551|169262105|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and before and at day 1 of untreated||||0.932
84753251|NCT02012296|169262193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84753252|NCT02012296|169262194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.21
84753253|NCT02012296|169262197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
84572124|NCT04865289|168895614|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-10.5||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||9.3|-29.2|0.8497
84572125|NCT04865289|168895615|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||8.0|-25.5|0.8522
84572126|NCT04865289|168895616|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|6.27|||cLDA model|||||6.27|-10.54|0.6138
84572127|NCT04865289|168895617|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.73||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|6.46|||cLDA model|||||6.46|-7.93|0.8398
84572128|NCT01232283|168895622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|29.6|||Chi-squared|||||29.6|16.3|<0.0001
84572129|NCT01232283|168895623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|10.2|<0.0001
84572130|NCT01232283|168895624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-42.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-33.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-33.20|-51.11|<0.0001
84572131|NCT01232283|168895625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-27.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-27.2|-42.4|<0.0001
84572132|NCT01232283|168895626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|26.9|< 0.0001
84572133|NCT01232283|168895627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-14.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-14.2|-28.4|<0.0001
84608826|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|60.2|||||comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 4 (AUEC0-168,w4), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||60.2|-19.3|
84572134|NCT01232283|168895628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.8|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-2.8|-5.3|<0.0001
84572135|NCT01232283|168895629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.63||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.56|0.69|0.0078
84572136|NCT01232283|168895630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20.0|8.5|<0.0001
84572137|NCT01232283|168895631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.408|17.399|||Log Rank|||||17.399|3.408|<0.0001
84572138|NCT01081626|168895687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0135||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1325|0.1637|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.1637|-0.1325|0.9560
84572139|NCT01081626|168895688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7642|1.549|||Chi-squared|||||1.5490|0.7642|0.7924
84572140|NCT01081626|168895692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5331
84608827|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|54.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 12 (AUEC0-168,w12), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||54.6|-23.1|
84608828|NCT02809053|168968936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|51.8|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 28 (AUEC0-168,w28), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||51.8|-26.0|
84644086|NCT02142387|169024116|OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84644087|NCT02142387|169024117|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84572141|NCT01081626|168895693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.015||||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7175|1.435|||Chi-squared|||||1.4350|0.7175|0.9351
84572142|NCT03114150|168895698|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group, learning rate, and session.|We tested the prediction that learning rate would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.01|-.04|<.05
84572143|NCT03114150|168895699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of exercise condition (intensity) and session.|We tested the prediction that hippocampal-cortical functional connectivity would change more for the moderate-to-vigorous acute condition compared to the light intensity condition. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.02|-.01|<.05
84572144|NCT03114150|168895700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom||We tested the prediction that functional connectivity strength would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group and session.|.02|-.03|<.05
84572145|NCT03114150|168895701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Residualized change model, as reported in our protocol paper.||We tested the prediction that cardiorespiratory fitness would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, as reported in our protocol paper.||2.59|.27|<.05
84572146|NCT03675308|168895715|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.0||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of baseline psoriasis (≥ 3%/\< 3% body surface area), presence of dactylitis (yes/no), presence of enthesitis (yes/no) and current csDMARD use (0/≥ 1).||30.0|18.0|<0.001
84572147|NCT03675308|168895716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.14||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.26|<0.001
84572148|NCT03675308|168895717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||49.3|35.6|<0.001
84572149|NCT03675308|168895718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||29.4|16.8|<0.001
84572150|NCT03675308|168895719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||19.4|10.2|<0.001
84572151|NCT03675308|168895720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.68||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-2.68|-5.70|<0.001
84572152|NCT03675308|168895721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84608829|NCT02809053|168968940|OTHER|||||||0.587||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis: Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Region (European Union / Other). The interaction p-value for the Region subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.587
84608830|NCT02809053|168968940|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Overall Response Rate by Age Group (18-60 years and \>60 years). The interaction p-value for the Age subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.421
84753254|NCT02012296|169262198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84608831|NCT02809053|168968940|OTHER|||||||0.288||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Gender (Male / Female). The interaction p-value for the Gender subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate. The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.||||0.288
84644088|NCT02142387|169024118|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84753255|NCT02012296|169262199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84644089|NCT02984943|169024119|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
84644090|NCT02984943|169024120|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
84644091|NCT02984943|169024121|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
84644092|NCT02984943|169024122|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
84644093|NCT02984943|169024123|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
84753256|NCT01681810|169262215|OTHER|Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose disposal at end of 12 weeks on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) insulin stimulated glucose disposal.||||||0.2068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2068
84753257|NCT01681810|169262216|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.||||||0.0074||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
84572153|NCT03675308|168895722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.2||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use and extent of psoriasis at Baseline and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of enthesitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||20.2|7.6|<0.001
84572154|NCT03675308|168895723|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, extent of psoriasis at Baseline, and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of dactylitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||26.4|7.5|<0.001
84572155|NCT03675308|168895724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factors and baseline value as covariates.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||0.17|-0.36|0.496
84572156|NCT03675308|168895725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.22||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.22|2.42|<0.001
84572157|NCT03675308|168895726|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.7|1.5|<0.001
84572158|NCT03675308|168895727|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.2|17.3|<0.001
84572159|NCT03675308|168895728|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.2|6.9|<0.001
84572160|NCT03729362|168895797|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD, age, height, weight (all as continuous covariates), enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), gender, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. Time was used as a repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance approach was applied.|LS Mean Difference|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.481||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|31.02||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|MMRM|||"The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested in hierarchical order as follows:~The test for the primary endpoint was conducted first at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level, and if significant, the ordered key secondary endpoints were similarly tested. If at any point the null hypothesis for superiority failed to be rejected, then that comparison and any other comparison below it could not be claimed as successful and would be considered nominal."||31.02|-2.6|0.048
84572161|NCT03729362|168895798|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.95||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in sitting FVC was the first of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||4.95|0.37|0.012
84608832|NCT02809053|168968940|OTHER|||||||0.588||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Wilson|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Anti-drug Antibody (ADA) status (Positive / Negative). The interaction p-value for the ADA subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.588
84608833|NCT02411929|168968941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test (oral)/Reference (IV) of means|104.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.64|107.91|||||Natural log transformed AUCinf(dn) and AUClast(dn) from Period 1 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences were exponentiated.|Ratio - Test (oral) / Reference (IV) of means||107.91|101.64|
84753258|NCT01681810|169262217|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84753259|NCT01681810|169262218|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84608834|NCT02411929|168968951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.71|||||||||||||The ratio (Test/Reference) of the geometric means of dose normalized natural log transformed Total 14\^C in Urine will be estimated. Total 14\^C\_Urine\_IV is the Reference formulation and Total 14C\_Urine\_Oral is the Test formulation (expressed as a %).|Ratio - Test (Oral) / Reference (IV) (%)||||
84644094|NCT02984943|169024124|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
84753260|NCT01681810|169262219|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing methemoglobin percent over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) methemoglobin percent.||||||0.0127||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0127
84572162|NCT03729362|168895799|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.727||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.4||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the MMT score for the lower extremities was the second of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.4|-0.48|0.095
84572163|NCT03729362|168895800|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.261||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|20.57||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 26 in 6MWD was the third of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||20.57|-4.24|0.097
84753261|NCT03034460|169262227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.158|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied CD5024 1% Cream on one side of face and CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo on other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (CD5024 1% Cream \[n=48\] versus CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo \[n=48\]).||||= 0.158
84753262|NCT03034460|169262227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde on one side of face and Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo on the other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde \[n=22\] versus Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo \[n=22\]).||||= 0.002
84753263|NCT03823404|169262252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0455||||||The interim analysis was conducted at significance level of 0.05 and the significance level was adjusted for final analysis.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0455
84753264|NCT03823404|169262253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|455|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0455
84572164|NCT03729362|168895801|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|5.25||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Physical Function was the fourth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||5.25|-1.51|0.138
84572165|NCT03729362|168895802|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.2||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Fatigue was the fifth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.2|-2.12|0.515
84572166|NCT03729362|168895803|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|-1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|-0.364||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the GSGC was the sixth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||-0.364|-2.463|0.004
84572167|NCT05172609|168895830|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 standard deviation (SD) or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for AIM||||.47
84572168|NCT05172609|168895831|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 SD or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for FIM||||.88
84572169|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.46
84572170|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.40
84572171|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.56
84753265|NCT01002456|169262275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||||Proportional odds ratio to measure the trend of change in concordance with guideline recommendations, with Arm 1 as the comparator.|||3.2|1.1|
84572172|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.68
84572173|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.87
84572174|NCT05172609|168895832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS planning at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.43
84572175|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.59
84572176|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.59
84572177|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.25
84572178|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.35
84644095|NCT02984943|169024125|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
84753266|NCT03239483|169262296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||two-sided Fisher's Exact Test||||0.072
84753267|NCT03239483|169262301|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This is a calculated p-value. P-values of 1.0 are possible when using the Fisher Exact test method.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84753268|NCT03239483|169262302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.591
84753269|NCT01178333|169262303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.90|0.09
84572179|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.88
84572180|NCT05172609|168895833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy intervening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.71
84572181|NCT05172609|168895834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.88
84572182|NCT05172609|168895834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.55
84572183|NCT05172609|168895834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: CSR screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.36
84572184|NCT05172609|168895835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.24
84572185|NCT05172609|168895835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.88
84608835|NCT00721175|168969110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2407407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0920078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4210726|-0.0604089|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0604089|-.4210726|0.011
84608836|NCT00721175|168969111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
84676528|NCT01978119|169088457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by capsule-based unit dose DPI versus FSC administered BID by multi-dose DPI is greater than -125 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.08|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.080|-0.024|
84753270|NCT01178333|169262303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.65|0.45
84572186|NCT05172609|168895835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SPIRS at timepoints 3 and 4||||.10
84572187|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.88||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.44|0.055
84572188|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.55|<0.001
84572189|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.68||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.44|0.22
84572190|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.49|<0.001
84572191|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.64|<0.05
84572192|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.57|<0.05
84572193|NCT00042289|168895843|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.35||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.35|0.71|0.78
84572194|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.42|<0.05
84572195|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.63|<0.05
84572196|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.03
84572197|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.51|0.001
84608837|NCT00721175|168969113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929622||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4609466|-0.0965414|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0965414|-.4609466|0.004
84608838|NCT01064687|168969147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.88||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.88|-1.22|<0.001
84753271|NCT01178333|169262305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|40.87|||Regression, Cox|||||40.87|0.55|0.15
84753272|NCT01178333|169262305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|11.25|||Regression, Cox|||||11.25|0.16|0.78
84753273|NCT01178333|169262306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.79|||Regression, Cox|||||5.79|0.98|0.06
84753274|NCT01178333|169262306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.21|||Regression, Cox|||||4.21|0.87|0.11
84753275|NCT01178333|169262307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.22|||Regression, Cox|||||5.22|1.50|0.001
84572198|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.34||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0684
84572199|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.49|<0.05
84572200|NCT00042289|168895844|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.68||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.53|<0.05
84572201|NCT00042289|168895845|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||0.88|0.60|0.008
84572202|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.75||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.75|0.52|0.002
84572203|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.63|0.0003
84572204|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.09
84572205|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.82||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.82|0.54|0.004
84572206|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.27||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.27|0.50|0.27
84572207|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.12||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.66|0.70
84572208|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.34||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.29|0.46
84572209|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.39||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.39|0.63|0.50
84572210|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.0|0.57|<0.10
84572211|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.42|<0.10
84572212|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.47|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.10
84572213|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.54|0.36|<0.10
84572214|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.74||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.53|0.1875
84753276|NCT01178333|169262307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|1.12|0.02
84572215|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.46||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.11||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.11|0.19|0.1563
84572216|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.03||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.85|0.241
84572217|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.32||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.32|0.90|0.837
84572218|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.55|<0.05
84572219|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.72|0.0046
84572220|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.85|0.52|<0.05
84572221|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572222|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572223|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84572224|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84753277|NCT01178333|169262310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84572225|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572226|NCT00042289|168895846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572227|NCT00042289|168895847|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.97||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.13|0.83|0.07
84572228|NCT00042289|168895847|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.96||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.61|<0.05
84572229|NCT00042289|168895847|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.62|<0.05
84572230|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.81||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.01||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.01|0.64|0.148
84572231|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.62|<0.001
84572232|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.61|0.0098
84572233|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.75||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.88|0.64|0.0025
84753278|NCT01178333|169262311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84608839|NCT01064687|168969147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.0001
84608840|NCT01064687|168969147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.67||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.67|-1.01|<0.001
84608841|NCT01064687|168969147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.001
84608842|NCT01064687|168969147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
84608843|NCT01064687|168969147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
84608844|NCT01064687|168969148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
84608845|NCT01064687|168969148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
84608846|NCT01064687|168969148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
84608847|NCT01064687|168969148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
84608848|NCT01064687|168969149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-3.58|<0.001
84608849|NCT01064687|168969149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.88|0.571
84608850|NCT01064687|168969149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-2.06|0.007
84608851|NCT01064687|168969149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|0.64|<0.001
84676529|NCT01978119|169088458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.039|0.334||||||||0.334|-1.039|
84608852|NCT01064687|168969149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-3.39|<0.001
84608853|NCT01064687|168969150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-1.25|0.507
84608854|NCT01064687|168969150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.19|0.32|0.009
84608855|NCT01064687|168969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.27|<0.001
84608856|NCT01064687|168969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.31|0.568
84608857|NCT01064687|168969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
84608858|NCT01064687|168969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.24|<0.001
84608859|NCT01064687|168969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.20|<0.001
84608860|NCT01064687|168969152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.42|0.580
84608861|NCT01064687|168969152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|0.14|0.005
84608862|NCT01064687|168969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-23.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.02|-34.50|<0.001
84608863|NCT01064687|168969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.62|-5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.06|-13.62|<0.001
84608864|NCT01064687|168969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-29.80|<0.001
84676530|NCT01978119|169088459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.927||||||||0.927|-0.372|
84676531|NCT01978119|169088460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.088|||||Day 28 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.088|-0.074|
84572234|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.64||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.64|0.46|<0.0001
84572235|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.56||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.76||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.76|0.41|0.0024
84572236|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.795||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|1.269||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.269|0.499|0.438
84572237|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.531||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.186|1.512||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.512|0.186|0.219
84572238|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.05||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.18|0.94|0.296
84572239|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.56||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.56|1.01|0.007
84572240|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22||2nd Trimester vs Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed as the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||1.22|0.56|0.16
84572241|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.93|||Wilcoxson signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed in the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||0.93|0.58|0.03
84608865|NCT01064687|168969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-8.95|0.038
84608866|NCT01064687|168969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-25.18|<0.001
84608867|NCT01064687|168969154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.52|-12.84|0.004
84572242|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum since the sample size for 2nd trimester was 1)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||1.08|0.68|>0.05
84572243|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.89||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||Third Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.79|0.1636
84572244|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.91||3rd Trimester vs Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||0.91|0.53|<0.05
84572245|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.24||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since there was no Second Trimester data available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.24|0.99|0.16
84572246|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84608868|NCT01064687|168969154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-9.66|0.092
84608869|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.4||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.4|7.4|<0.001
84608870|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.1|3.9|<0.001
84608871|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.0|2.8|<0.001
84644096|NCT02984943|169024126|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
84644097|NCT02984943|169024127|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
84572247|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572248|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572249|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572250|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84572251|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84572252|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572253|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572254|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.34||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 2 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.85|0.67
84572255|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.91||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.91|0.59|0.08
84572256|NCT00042289|168895848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.72|0.55|<0.01
84572257|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.57|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.68|0.48|<0.05
84572258|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.85||3rd Trimester vs.Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.62|<0.05
84572259|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.09
84572260|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
84572261|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.34||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 5 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.036
84644098|NCT02984943|169024128|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
84644099|NCT02984943|169024129|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
84644100|NCT02984943|169024130|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
84608872|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
84753279|NCT01178333|169262312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84753280|NCT01178333|169262313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
84753281|NCT01178333|169262314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
84753282|NCT01178333|169262315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84753283|NCT01178333|169262316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.55|||Regression, Cox|||||4.55|1.35|0.003
84753284|NCT01178333|169262316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.85|||Regression, Cox|||||2.85|0.96|0.07
84753285|NCT01178333|169262318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84753286|NCT01178333|169262319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.56|0.72
84753287|NCT01178333|169262319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.54|0.34
84753288|NCT01241552|169262330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.7||||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.5|-8.6|0.3182
84753289|NCT01241552|169262330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.9|0.0003
84753290|NCT01241552|169262330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-5.9|-17.4|< 0.0001
84753291|NCT01241552|169262330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-3.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-3.4|-16.9|0.0013
84753292|NCT01241552|169262330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||3.9|-6.7|0.2997
84608873|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.3|0.004
84753293|NCT01241552|169262331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-8.3||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-0.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.2|-16.3|0.9775
84753294|NCT01241552|169262331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|4.8||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||11.7|-2.1|0.0861
84608874|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.8|6.7|<0.001
84608875|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
84608876|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.9||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.9|3.7|<0.001
84753295|NCT01241552|169262331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|3.5||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.4|-3.5|0.1646
84753296|NCT01241552|169262331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|19.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||19.7|3.5|0.0025
84753297|NCT01241552|169262331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.5|-8.3|0.6532
84753298|NCT01241552|169262332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.7||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.7|-6.9|0.6505
84608877|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.6|<0.001
84608878|NCT01064687|168969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.6|1.6|<0.001
84608879|NCT01064687|168969156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.6|2.4|<0.001
84608880|NCT01064687|168969156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|1.1|0.008
84608881|NCT01064687|168969156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|2.3|<0.001
84608882|NCT01064687|168969156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.4|<0.001
84505189|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.22|0.2846
84608883|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.26|43.16||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.16|27.26|<0.001
84608884|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.97|27.28||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.28|14.97|<0.001
84608885|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|30.72||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|14.63|<0.001
84608886|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.87||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.87|2.31|0.007
84608887|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|22.11||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.11|6.06|<0.001
84608888|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.17||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|-14.56|0.207
84608889|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|5.32||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.32|-8.41|0.659
84608890|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|7.56||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-10.37|0.759
84608891|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|9.76||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.76|-4.25|0.441
84608892|NCT01064687|168969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.15||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.79||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.79|-13.10|0.362
84608893|NCT01064687|168969158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.08||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.08|15.20|<0.001
84608894|NCT01064687|168969158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|18.68||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.68|5.56|<0.001
84608895|NCT01064687|168969158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.43||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|-10.90|0.307
84608896|NCT01064687|168969158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.55||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.55|-9.05|0.638
84608897|NCT00377364|168969239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline RAVLT scores used as covariate.||||<0.05
84608898|NCT00377364|168969242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ISS scores used as a covariate. ANCOVA results were not significant.||||||<0.05
84608899|NCT00377364|168969243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as a covariate.||||<0.05
84608900|NCT00377364|168969245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline YMRS scores used as a covariate.||||||0.05
84608901|NCT00377364|168969247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ACQ scores used as a covariate.||||||<0.05
84608902|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|41.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.25|21.76|
84608903|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|41.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.17|21.66|
84608904|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.89|41.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||41.12|21.89|
84608905|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Difference in percentages|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|3.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.36|-3.15|
84608906|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.54|48.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.90|28.54|
84644101|NCT02984943|169024131|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
84644102|NCT02984943|169024132|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
84644103|NCT02984943|169024133|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
84497783|NCT04466956|168746832|OTHER|Statistical analysis was by intention-to-treat including all randomised participants, using Stata-12 software. Continuous data were summarised as mean and standard deviation, and categorical data as counts and percentages. Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean worst pain scores were 5.98 and 6.88 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.9 (95% CI -2.1 - 0.28), p value 0.13. Mean anxiety scores at the end of the procedure were 3.94 and 4.4 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.46 (95% CI -2.1, 1.1), p value 0.57.||||<0.01
84572262|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.02||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.02|0.69|>0.05
84572263|NCT00042289|168895849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.68|>0.05
84572264|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.61||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.09||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.09|0.34|0.14
84608907|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|39.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|49.46|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.46|29.16|
84497784|NCT00203931|168746835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84497785|NCT00203931|168746836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.91
84497786|NCT00203931|168746837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84497787|NCT00203931|168746838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.046
84497788|NCT00203931|168746839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
84497789|NCT03506425|168746840|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84572265|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.81|0.50|0.002
84572266|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.77||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.23||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.23|0.49|0.24
84572267|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.17||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.17|0.60|0.53
84572268|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.58||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.11||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.11|0.30|0.2
84572269|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.55||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.55|0.58|0.12
84572270|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.92||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.2||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.2|0.71|0.358
84572271|NCT00042289|168895850|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.72||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.93||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.93|0.55|0.0156
84572272|NCT00042289|168895851|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since no Second Trimester data was available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.58|0.007
84572273|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.12||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.39|0.109
84572274|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.69||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.69|0.49|<0.001
84572275|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|1.65||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.65|0.14|0.44
84572276|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.43|<0.001
84497790|NCT03506425|168746841|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84497791|NCT03506425|168746842|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84497792|NCT00118209|168746844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6519
84497793|NCT00118209|168746845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84497794|NCT00118209|168746846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.75|0.6414
84505190|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.99|0.75|0.2480
84572277|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.1||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.10|0.63|0.43
84572278|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.44|0.69|0.31
84572279|NCT00042289|168895852|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.16||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.16|0.71|0.49
84572280|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.32|<0.05
84572281|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.58|<0.05
84572282|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.78||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.78|0.23|0.02
84572283|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.08|0.56|0.3
84644104|NCT02984943|169024134|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
84572284|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.41||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.036
84572285|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.52||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.52|0.32|<0.05
84572286|NCT00042289|168895853|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.57||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.05
84572287|NCT00042289|168895854|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||1.01|0.72|0.10
84572288|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.35|0.0039
84572289|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.52|0.0062
84572290|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
84572291|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
84572292|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.15|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.30|0.08|<0.10
84572293|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.21|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.36||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.36|0.12|<0.10
84572294|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.51||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.51|0.20|<0.10
84572295|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.94||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.94|0.11|>0.10
84572296|NCT00042289|168895855|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.97|0.78|0.079
84644105|NCT02984943|169024135|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
84572297|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.09||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.09|0.77|0.01
84572298|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.37|<0.05
84572299|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.96||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.71|0.0325
84572300|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.77||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.77|0.54|<0.05
84572301|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572302|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572303|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84572304|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
84572305|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572306|NCT00042289|168895855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84572307|NCT00042289|168895856|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.06||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.06|0.73|<0.05
84572308|NCT00042289|168895856|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.9||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.90|0.55|<0.05
84572309|NCT00042289|168895856|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.23||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.23|0.57|<0.05
84572310|NCT00042289|168895860|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.59||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical analysis is for LPV PK.||1.59|0.97|0.114
84572311|NCT00042289|168895861|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.1||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical test is for ATV PK.||1.44|0.84|0.367
84572312|NCT00042289|168895861|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.02||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation||The statistical test is for EFV PK.||1.13|0.92|0.561
84572313|NCT04953338|168895924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having a depression episode versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.32|0.92|
84572314|NCT04953338|168895927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with anxiety disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.51|1.01|
84572315|NCT04953338|168895928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.56|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with recurrent depressive disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.56|1.01|
84572316|NCT04810962|168895934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572317|NCT04810962|168895935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572318|NCT04810962|168895937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572319|NCT04810962|168895938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84644106|NCT02984943|169024136|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
84644107|NCT02984943|169024137|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
84644108|NCT02984943|169024138|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
84644109|NCT02984943|169024139|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
84572320|NCT04810962|168895939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572321|NCT04810962|168895940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572322|NCT04810962|168895941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572323|NCT04810962|168895942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572324|NCT04810962|168895943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572325|NCT04810962|168895944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84676532|NCT01978119|169088460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022||||||95.0|-0.049|0.092|||||Day 56 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.092|-0.049|
84753299|NCT01241552|169262332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-3.8|-17.7|0.0013
84572326|NCT04810962|168895945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.0|-1.4|<0.001
84572327|NCT04810962|168895946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84572328|NCT04810962|168895947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
84572329|NCT04810962|168895948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
84572330|NCT04810962|168895949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.10|<0.001
84572331|NCT04810962|168895950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.11|<0.001
84572332|NCT04810962|168895951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84572333|NCT00534469|168895959|OTHER|Two-sided test.||||||0.43||||||Log-rank test (Mantel-Haenszel test). This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: All four groups are drawn from the same distribution. Alternative hypothesis: At least one of the groups has measurably different survival from the others.||||0.43
84572334|NCT04530552|168895961|OTHER||See above|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 50%||||
84572335|NCT04530552|168895961|OTHER||See above|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 25%||||
84572336|NCT04530552|168895962|OTHER|Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)||||||0.034||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.034
84572337|NCT04530552|168895962|OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.252
84572338|NCT04530552|168895963|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
84572339|NCT04530552|168895963|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
84572340|NCT04530552|168895964|OTHER|||||||0.658||||||two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.658
84572341|NCT04530552|168895964|OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.167
84572342|NCT01225055|168895968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.84
84572343|NCT01225055|168895968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
84572344|NCT01225055|168895968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.26
84572345|NCT01225055|168895969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
84572346|NCT01225055|168895969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
84572347|NCT01225055|168895969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.09
84572348|NCT01225055|168895970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.72
84572349|NCT01225055|168895970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.58
84572350|NCT01225055|168895970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.44
84572351|NCT01225055|168895971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.02
84676533|NCT01978119|169088461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|10.05||||||||10.05|-1.34|
84676534|NCT01978119|169088462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.20|
84753300|NCT01241552|169262332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-18.6|0.0006
84753301|NCT01241552|169262332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-5.2|-22.5|0.0007
84497795|NCT00440193|168746848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events was calculated to give a power of 90% to prove that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided α=0.05). A mean incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and at least 1465 participants per group were determined to be necessary. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2179|<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.04|0.44|< 0.0001
84497796|NCT00440193|168746849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1616||0.044||95.0|0.53|0.99||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.99|0.53|0.044
84497797|NCT00440193|168746850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1828||0.027||95.0|0.47|0.95||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.95|0.47|0.027
84497798|NCT00440193|168746852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1204||0.77||95.0|0.76|1.22||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.22|0.76|0.77
84497799|NCT02587117|168746868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.004
84497800|NCT02587117|168746869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.224
84497801|NCT00090259|168746873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|0.988|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.988|0.818|0.027
84497802|NCT00090259|168746874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.006|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.006|0.848|0.068
84497803|NCT00090259|168746875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.044|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.044|0.840|0.235
84497804|NCT00090259|168746876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.982|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.982|0.762|0.025
84497805|NCT00090259|168746877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|0.984|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.984|0.808|0.023
84753302|NCT01241552|169262332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.0||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.8|-7.7|0.3906
84497806|NCT00345969|168746882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84497807|NCT00345969|168746883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
84497808|NCT00345969|168746884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
84497809|NCT00345969|168746885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84497810|NCT00345969|168746886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
84497811|NCT00345969|168746887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
84497812|NCT00345969|168746888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
84497813|NCT00345969|168746889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
84497814|NCT00345969|168746890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
84497815|NCT00345969|168746891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
84497816|NCT00345969|168746892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
84497817|NCT00345969|168746893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84497818|NCT00345969|168746894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84497819|NCT01275170|168746906|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Renal Impairment/Healthy Control\]|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.39||||||||2.39|1.12|
84497820|NCT01275170|168746906|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|3.18||||||||3.18|1.51|
84497821|NCT01275170|168746906|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|7.04||||||||7.04|3.37|
84497822|NCT01275170|168746906|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.45|13.46||||||||13.46|6.45|
84497823|NCT01275170|168746906|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.58||||||||2.58|1.20|
84497824|NCT01275170|168746907|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.88||||||||1.88|0.64|
84572352|NCT01225055|168895971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.10
84608908|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|49.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||49.06|29.03|
84497825|NCT01275170|168746907|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.77||||||||1.77|0.62|
84497826|NCT01275170|168746907|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.2||||||||2.20|0.77|
84497827|NCT01275170|168746907|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|3.96||||||||3.96|1.39|
84497828|NCT01275170|168746907|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.44||||||||1.44|0.50|
84497829|NCT01275170|168746908|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.9||||||||0.90|0.42|
84497830|NCT01275170|168746908|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.66||||||||0.66|0.31|
84497831|NCT01275170|168746908|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.3||||||||0.30|0.14|
84497832|NCT01275170|168746908|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||||||0.16|0.07|
84572353|NCT01225055|168895971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
84608909|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.92|-4.12|
84608910|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|59.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.49|69.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||69.32|49.49|
84644110|NCT02984943|169024140|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
84644111|NCT02984943|169024141|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
84497833|NCT01275170|168746908|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.84||||||||0.84|0.39|
84497834|NCT01275170|168746909|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
84497835|NCT01275170|168746909|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.22||||||||1.22|0.84|
84497836|NCT01275170|168746909|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.08||||||||1.08|0.74|
84497837|NCT01275170|168746909|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.16||||||||1.16|0.79|
84497838|NCT01275170|168746909|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|4.0||||||||4.00|2.70|
84497839|NCT01275170|168746912|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.84||||||||1.84|1.07|
84497840|NCT01275170|168746912|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.99||||||||1.99|1.17|
84497841|NCT01275170|168746912|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.26||||||||3.26|1.93|
84497842|NCT01275170|168746912|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.39|4.03||||||||4.03|2.39|
84497843|NCT01275170|168746912|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
84497844|NCT01275170|168746913|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.06||||||||2.06|0.65|
84497845|NCT01275170|168746913|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.89||||||||1.89|0.61|
84497846|NCT01275170|168746913|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.32||||||||2.32|0.75|
84497847|NCT01275170|168746913|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.33||||||||4.33|1.40|
84497848|NCT01275170|168746913|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.51||||||||1.51|0.49|
84497849|NCT01275170|168746914|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.93||||||||0.93|0.54|
84497850|NCT01275170|168746914|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.85||||||||0.85|0.50|
84497851|NCT01275170|168746914|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52||||||||0.52|0.31|
84497852|NCT01275170|168746914|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|0.25|
84497853|NCT01275170|168746914|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.31||||||||1.31|0.78|
84497854|NCT01275170|168746915|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.08||||||||1.08|0.61|
84497855|NCT01275170|168746915|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.26||||||||1.26|0.72|
84497856|NCT01275170|168746915|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.06||||||||1.06|0.61|
84497857|NCT01275170|168746915|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|0.63|
84497858|NCT01275170|168746915|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.36||||||||3.36|1.93|
84497859|NCT01275170|168746918|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.49||||||||2.49|1.03|
84497860|NCT01275170|168746918|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.87||||||||2.87|1.21|
84572354|NCT01225055|168895972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
84572355|NCT01225055|168895972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.34
84572356|NCT01225055|168895972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.20
84644112|NCT02984943|169024142|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
84497861|NCT01275170|168746918|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.64|8.59||||||||8.59|3.64|
84608911|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|57.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.71|66.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||66.88|46.71|
84608912|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|58.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.32|67.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||67.94|48.32|
84608913|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.62|-1.17|
84608914|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.11|55.47|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.47|35.11|
84497862|NCT01275170|168746918|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.96|21.12||||||||21.12|8.96|
84572357|NCT01225055|168895973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
84572358|NCT01225055|168895973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
84572359|NCT01225055|168895973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
84572360|NCT04220021|168895981|SUPERIORITY|For the sign and binomial test our two outcomes are decreased (success) percentage change in RAN protein levels and increased (failure) percentage change in RAN protein levels.||||||0.0245||||||A priori test for significance is p less than or equal to 0.05|Sign test|One-tailed sign and binomial test||Sign and binomial test with one-tail analysis where the null hypothesis predicts a 50/50 split (p=0.5) for two outcomes.||||0.0245
84572361|NCT04935879|168895984|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline hydroxyurea (HU) use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.25|0.71|0.6967
84572362|NCT04935879|168895985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22|||Log Rank|||Analysis was stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.22|0.63|0.4298
84572363|NCT04935879|168895987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.3||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to study entry (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||22.2|-1.6|0.0912
84572364|NCT04935879|168895988|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of the world).||1.47|0.71|0.9246
84572365|NCT04935879|168895989|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92|||=|0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.87|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.87|0.46|=0.8263
84572366|NCT01721798|168896098|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary Outcome Analysis: Proportion of women with detectable genital viral load across 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||GEE|||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.62|0.47|0.66
84572367|NCT01721798|168896099|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Proportion with Detectable plasma viral load users at 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.86|||GEE|Adjusted as-treated analysis||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.86|0.37|0.64
84572368|NCT01721798|168896101|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Allocated IUC continuation at 24 months|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.4|||Regression, Cox|||C-IUD is comparator group.||24.4|3.03|<0.001
84572369|NCT00336544|168896103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0769||95.0|-11.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.6|-11.9|0.0769
84644113|NCT02984943|169024143|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644114|NCT02984943|169024144|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644115|NCT02984943|169024145|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644116|NCT02984943|169024146|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84497863|NCT01275170|168746918|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.32|5.69||||||||5.69|2.32|
84497864|NCT01275170|168746919|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.08||||||||2.08|0.75|
84644117|NCT02984943|169024147|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84753303|NCT01241552|169262333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||12.8|-2.5|0.185
84572370|NCT00336544|168896105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.0775||95.0|-9.1|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.3|-9.1|0.0775
84572371|NCT01649765|168896107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||||||||3.46|0.64|
84572372|NCT01649765|168896108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.54|||||Definition 1|||6.54|1.15|
84572373|NCT01649765|168896108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.17|||||Definition 2|||7.17|1.19|
84572374|NCT03427411|168896153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as response rates which were sufficiently similar (p\>0.20 by Fisher's exact test).||||||0.6143||||||The p value was calculated and was 0.6143 which is \> 0.2 (pre-defined threshold).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6143
84572375|NCT00089648|168896169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|23.0||||||95.0|13.2|35.5|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total number of subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, were refractory to bevacizumab, had a baseline disease assessment and had the correct histological cancer type.|||35.5|13.2|
84572376|NCT03183908|168896190|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 5%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|The null hypothesis is allV3 is inferior (i.e., allV3 will have higher rates of moderate/severe injection site pain) to IIV3-HD in regards to the proportion of subjects having moderate or severe injection site pain in the first week post vaccination.||0.4|-5.8|
84572377|NCT03183908|168896192|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.47||||||||4.47|1.09|
84572378|NCT03183908|168896192|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.23||||||||2.23|0.16|
84572379|NCT03183908|168896193|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and noninferiority margin of 10%. The null hypothesis is the allV3 H3N2 seroconversion rate is inferior to IIV3-HD seroconversion rate.|Difference in Proportions|-0.0579||||0.1245|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1291||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The directional comparison was the lower bound of the confidence interval using a 10% non-inferiority margin.||||-.1291|0.1245
84572380|NCT03183908|168896194|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.0|1.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||1.0|-5.0|
84572381|NCT03183908|168896194|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.3|-3.1|
84572382|NCT03183908|168896194|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-7.5|-0.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-0.3|-7.5|
84572383|NCT03183908|168896194|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
84572384|NCT03183908|168896195|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||0.2|-5.2|
84572385|NCT03183908|168896195|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.9|-2.3|
84572386|NCT03183908|168896195|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-1.1|-8.1|
84644118|NCT02984943|169024148|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644119|NCT02984943|169024149|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644120|NCT02984943|169024151|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84753304|NCT01241552|169262333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.4||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.1|-3.3|0.323
84753305|NCT01241552|169262333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.5|-9.1|0.507
84753306|NCT01241552|169262334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.7|-1.5|0.246
84572387|NCT03183908|168896195|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
84572388|NCT03183908|168896195|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||0.4|-6.9|
84572389|NCT03183908|168896196|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||7.3|-7.3|
84572390|NCT03183908|168896196|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.7|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||5.7|-9.5|
84572391|NCT03183908|168896196|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||6.1|-8.6|
84572392|NCT03183908|168896196|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||8.3|-5.7|
84572393|NCT03183908|168896196|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||5.4|-7.9|
84572394|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.4|-1.7|
84608915|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|42.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.34|53.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||53.04|32.34|
84608916|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|43.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.92|54.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||54.14|33.92|
84608917|NCT02986854|168969248|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.3|-0.86|
84608918|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.41|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.41|1.23|
84608919|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|10.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|16.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.14|3.54|
84608920|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|13.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.58|2.72|
84608921|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|3.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.24|-8.17|
84608922|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|14.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||14.15|-3.57|
84608923|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|16.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.52|-1.77|
84644121|NCT02984943|169024152|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84572395|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.8|2.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.3|-2.8|
84644122|NCT02984943|169024153|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644123|NCT02984943|169024155|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644124|NCT02984943|169024156|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84572396|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.0|1.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.5|-4.0|
84572397|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.8|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.3|-0.8|
84572398|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||2.0|-2.5|
84572399|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.0|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.0|
84572400|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||5.4|-1.7|
84572401|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|4.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.4|-3.3|
84572402|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|1.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.6|-3.1|
84572403|NCT03183908|168896197|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
84572404|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.8|-1.1|
84572405|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.0|-3.0|
84753307|NCT01241552|169262334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.8|-0.3|0.069
84608924|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|13.48|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.48|-2.34|
84608925|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.82|-9.84|
84608926|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|54.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.60|30.25|
84644125|NCT02984943|169024157|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84644126|NCT02984943|169024158|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
84753308|NCT01241552|169262334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-2.1|0.464
84497865|NCT01275170|168746919|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.87||||||||1.87|0.69|
84572406|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.8|-3.5|
84572407|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.0|-1.1|
84572408|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||-0.4|-3.0|
84572409|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.2|
84676535|NCT01978119|169088464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|2.46||||||||2.46|-6.97|
84753309|NCT01241552|169262335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||14.7|0.9|0.027
84753310|NCT01241552|169262335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||7.2|-4.1|0.594
84572410|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||4.5|-2.5|
84572411|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.3|-3.1|
84572412|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.3|-3.3|
84572413|NCT03183908|168896198|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
84608927|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|38.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|48.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.58|23.93|
84608928|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.15|49.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.72|28.15|
84608929|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|17.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.71|-5.31|
84608930|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|37.65|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.65|19.25|
84608931|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.95|19.60|
84608932|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|37.76|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.76|19.50|
84608933|NCT02986854|168969254|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.86|-2.56|
84608934|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|38.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.27|16.23|
84608935|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.78|31.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.03|8.78|
84608936|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|24.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|33.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.86|13.28|
84608937|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|15.42|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.42|-0.76|
84676536|NCT01978119|169088465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.9|
84572414|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||6.4|-7.2|
84497866|NCT01275170|168746919|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44||||||||2.44|0.90|
84497867|NCT01275170|168746919|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.09||||||||4.09|1.51|
84572415|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||-0.6|-8.1|
84572416|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||10.9|-3.6|
84572417|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||6.6|-2.4|
84572418|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||12.2|2.0|
84572419|NCT03183908|168896199|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||7.3|-7.3|
84572420|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5862
84572421|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5648
84572422|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4196
84572423|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.2418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2418
84572424|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0746|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0746
84572425|NCT03183908|168896200|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5497
84572426|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6278
84572427|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5622
84572428|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5538
84572429|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2310
84572430|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0435|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0435
84608938|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.04|42.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||42.14|11.04|
84497868|NCT01275170|168746919|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.54||||||||1.54|0.57|
84572431|NCT03183908|168896201|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6519
84572432|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
84572433|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
84572434|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4953
84572435|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8669
84572436|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8451
84676537|NCT01978119|169088466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.11||||||||3.11|-4.64|
84572437|NCT03183908|168896202|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7376
84572438|NCT03183908|168896203|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7407
84572439|NCT03183908|168896204|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4032
84572440|NCT03183908|168896205|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4079
84572441|NCT03183908|168896206|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7948
84572442|NCT03183908|168896207|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. Alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7953
84572443|NCT03183908|168896208|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.9329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.9329
84572444|NCT01588509|168896234|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.2|||ANOVA|||||3.20|1.05|0.002
84572445|NCT01588509|168896234|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|3.14|||ANOVA|||||3.14|1.02|0.002
84572446|NCT01588509|168896235|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.05|||ANOVA|||||3.05|1.07|<0.001
84572447|NCT01588509|168896235|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.89|||ANOVA|||||2.89|0.95|0.002
84572448|NCT01588509|168896236|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|0.81|<0.001
84572449|NCT01588509|168896236|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.96|||ANOVA|||||1.96|0.84|<0.001
84572450|NCT00393367|168896271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||The difference in median improvement between treatment groups was expected to be greater than 2.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84644127|NCT00046891|169024171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total HSCS Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores between the two treatment arms.||||0.84
84497869|NCT01275170|168746920|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.97||||||||0.97|0.40|
84497870|NCT01275170|168746920|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.83||||||||0.83|0.35|
84497871|NCT01275170|168746920|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.27||||||||0.27|0.12|
84572451|NCT00393367|168896272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.14|0.97
84572452|NCT00393367|168896273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-7|
84572453|NCT00393367|168896274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3|-3|
84572454|NCT00393367|168896275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|-1|
84572455|NCT00393367|168896276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.69||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.20|0.69
84572456|NCT00393367|168896277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Chi-squared|||||0.47|-0.02|0.08
84572457|NCT00393367|168896278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.37|0.22
84497872|NCT01275170|168746920|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
84497873|NCT01275170|168746920|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||||||||0.43|0.18|
84572458|NCT00393367|168896280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.6|0.78
84572459|NCT00091819|168896283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-4.8|6.8||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||6.8|-4.8|
84572460|NCT02054156|168896342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||0.83|0.37|0.0043
84572461|NCT02054156|168896343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||1.55|0.64|0.9915
84572462|NCT02054156|168896344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-2.5||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.7|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||8.7|-13.7|0.7531
84572463|NCT02054156|168896344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|4.4||||0.3593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson.|||12.6|-3.5|0.3593
84497874|NCT01275170|168746921|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
84572464|NCT02054156|168896345|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||0.94|0.80|0.0004
84572465|NCT02054156|168896345|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||1.78|0.88|0.2098
84572466|NCT03185208|168896346|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
84572467|NCT03185208|168896347|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-0.08835||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84572468|NCT03185208|168896348|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.08738||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84572469|NCT03185208|168896350|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.012||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
84572470|NCT03185208|168896351|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-351.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84572471|NCT03185208|168896352|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|58.95||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
84572472|NCT01311661|168896371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.152|<0.0001
84572473|NCT01311661|168896371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.111|<0.0001
84572474|NCT01311661|168896371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.266|0.190|<0.0001
84572475|NCT01311661|168896371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.170|<0.0001
84572476|NCT01311661|168896372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.150|<0.0001
84572477|NCT01311661|168896372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.121|<0.0001
84572478|NCT01311661|168896372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.253|0.175|<0.0001
84572479|NCT01311661|168896372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
84572480|NCT01311661|168896373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.238|0.153|<0.0001
84572481|NCT01311661|168896373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.102|<0.0001
84572482|NCT01311661|168896373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.285|0.200|<0.0001
84572483|NCT01311661|168896373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.156|<0.0001
84572484|NCT01311661|168896374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.228|0.138|<0.0001
84676538|NCT00812812|169088467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.5|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was estimated as paroxetine minus placebo.|||2.5|-11.7|0.198
84572485|NCT01311661|168896374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.108|<0.0001
84572486|NCT01311661|168896374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.267|0.177|<0.0001
84572487|NCT01311661|168896374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.165|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.165|<0.0001
84753311|NCT01241552|169262335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||0.0|-10.6|0.051
84572488|NCT01311661|168896375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.203|0.109|<0.0001
84572489|NCT01311661|168896375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.054|<0.0001
84572490|NCT01311661|168896375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.243|0.149|<0.0001
84572491|NCT01311661|168896375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.125|<0.0001
84572492|NCT01311661|168896376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.180|0.091|<0.0001
84572493|NCT01311661|168896376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.078|<0.0001
84572494|NCT01311661|168896376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.186|0.098|<0.0001
84753312|NCT01241552|169262336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-0.3|0.115
84753313|NCT01241552|169262336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.170
84497875|NCT01275170|168746921|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.17||||||||1.17|0.71|
84497876|NCT01275170|168746921|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||||||||1.03|0.62|
84753314|NCT01241552|169262336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placeb + SOC|||1.6|-0.9|0.544
84753315|NCT01241552|169262337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.192
84572495|NCT01311661|168896376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.103|<0.0001
84572496|NCT01311661|168896377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.206|0.110|<0.0001
84572497|NCT01311661|168896377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.090|<0.0001
84572498|NCT01311661|168896377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.218|0.123|<0.0001
84572499|NCT01311661|168896377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.087|<0.0001
84572500|NCT01311661|168896378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.188|0.102|<0.0001
84676539|NCT03095417|169088472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
84753316|NCT01241552|169262337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-0.7|0.311
84753317|NCT01241552|169262337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|> 0.999
84572501|NCT01311661|168896378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.085|<0.0001
84572502|NCT01311661|168896378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.198|0.113|<0.0001
84572503|NCT01311661|168896378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.098|<0.0001
84572504|NCT01311661|168896379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.084|<0.0001
84572505|NCT01311661|168896379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.073|<0.0001
84572506|NCT01311661|168896379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.093|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.195|0.093|<0.0001
84572507|NCT01311661|168896379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.075|<0.0001
84572508|NCT01311661|168896380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.165|0.055|0.0001
84572509|NCT01311661|168896380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.001||95.0|0.037|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.037|0.0010
84572510|NCT01311661|168896380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.063|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.172|0.063|<0.0001
84572511|NCT01311661|168896380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.057|<0.0001
84572512|NCT01311661|168896381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.757|0.500|<0.0001
84572513|NCT01311661|168896381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.473|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.730|0.473|<0.0001
84572514|NCT01311661|168896381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.503|0.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.758|0.503|<0.0001
84572515|NCT01311661|168896381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.558|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.813|0.558|<0.0001
84572516|NCT01311661|168896382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.532|0.799|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.799|0.532|<0.0001
84572517|NCT01311661|168896382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.431|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.698|0.431|<0.0001
84572518|NCT01311661|168896382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.569|0.835|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.835|0.569|<0.0001
84572519|NCT01311661|168896382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.467|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.732|0.467|<0.0001
84572520|NCT01311661|168896383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.516|0.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.765|0.516|<0.0001
84608939|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|16.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|0.04|
84753318|NCT01241552|169262338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.7|-1.0|
84676540|NCT03095417|169088473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
84753319|NCT01241552|169262338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.5|0.2|
84753320|NCT01241552|169262338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.2|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.6|
84753321|NCT01241552|169262339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|3.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-16.8|
84572521|NCT01311661|168896383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.701|0.453|<0.0001
84572522|NCT01311661|168896383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.544|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.790|0.544|<0.0001
84572523|NCT01311661|168896383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.766|0.519|<0.0001
84572524|NCT01311661|168896384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.436|0.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.746|0.436|<0.0001
84572525|NCT01311661|168896384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.366|0.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.677|0.366|<0.0001
84572526|NCT01311661|168896384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.439|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.749|0.439|<0.0001
84572527|NCT01311661|168896384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.468|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|0.468|<0.0001
84572528|NCT01311661|168896385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.396|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.662|0.396|<0.0001
84572529|NCT01311661|168896385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.543|0.277|<0.0001
84572530|NCT01311661|168896385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.736|0.471|<0.0001
84572531|NCT01311661|168896385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.349|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.613|0.349|<0.0001
84572532|NCT01311661|168896386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.0001||95.0|26.709|39.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||39.206|26.709|<0.0001
84572533|NCT01311661|168896386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.167|<|0.0001||95.0|26.409|38.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.855|26.409|<0.0001
84572534|NCT01311661|168896386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|25.448|37.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.872|25.448|<0.0001
84572535|NCT01311661|168896386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|22.683|35.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.107|22.683|<0.0001
84572536|NCT01311661|168896387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.046|<|0.0001||95.0|22.884|34.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||34.856|22.884|<0.0001
84572537|NCT01311661|168896387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.034|<|0.0001||95.0|26.094|38.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.018|26.094|<0.0001
84572538|NCT01311661|168896387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|25.864|37.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.767|25.864|<0.0001
84753322|NCT01241552|169262339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-9.6|-26.3|
84753323|NCT01241552|169262339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-7.7|-24.5|
84753324|NCT01241552|169262340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|8.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.6|-20.1|
84753325|NCT01241552|169262340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-25.5|
84676541|NCT03095417|169088474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
84753326|NCT01241552|169262340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-1.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.6|-26.8|
84572539|NCT01311661|168896387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|27.375|39.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.278|27.375|<0.0001
84572540|NCT01311661|168896388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.262|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.900|-2.262|<0.0001
84572541|NCT01311661|168896388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.104|-0.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.748|-2.104|<0.0001
84572542|NCT01311661|168896388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.415|-1.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-1.062|-2.415|<0.0001
84572543|NCT01311661|168896388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.0458||95.0|-1.366|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.013|-1.366|0.0458
84572544|NCT01311661|168896389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.484|<|0.0001||95.0|135.099|211.682|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||211.682|135.099|<0.0001
84572545|NCT01311661|168896389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.406|<|0.0001||95.0|116.961|193.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||193.234|116.961|<0.0001
84572546|NCT01311661|168896389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|111.204|187.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||187.333|111.204|<0.0001
84572547|NCT01311661|168896389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|112.377|188.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||188.505|112.377|<0.0001
84572548|NCT01311661|168896390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.997|<|0.0001||95.0|104.916|179.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.586|104.916|<0.0001
84572549|NCT01311661|168896390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.92|<|0.0001||95.0|94.954|169.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||169.322|94.954|<0.0001
84572550|NCT01311661|168896390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|105.021|179.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.251|105.021|<0.0001
84572551|NCT01311661|168896390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|120.192|194.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||194.420|120.192|<0.0001
84572552|NCT01311661|168896391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.329|-0.780|<0.0001
84572553|NCT01311661|168896391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.862|-0.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.412|-0.862|<0.0001
84572554|NCT01311661|168896391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.364|-0.813|<0.0001
84572555|NCT01311661|168896391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.322|-0.770|<0.0001
84572556|NCT01311661|168896396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.461|-0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.253|-0.461|<0.0001
84572557|NCT01311661|168896396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.4|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.400|<0.0001
84753327|NCT01241552|169262341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|21.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||21.0|-16.9|
84676542|NCT03095417|169088475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
84676543|NCT03095417|169088476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
84676544|NCT03095417|169088477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
84676545|NCT03095417|169088478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.719
84572558|NCT01311661|168896396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
84753328|NCT01241552|169262341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.4|-28.3|
84753329|NCT01241552|169262341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.9|-26.2|
84753330|NCT01241552|169262342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|10.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.0|-30.1|
84753331|NCT01241552|169262342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-6.1|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-6.1|-43.7|
84753332|NCT01241552|169262343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|3.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.9|-24.9|
84753333|NCT01241552|169262343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-24.7|
84572559|NCT01311661|168896396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
84753334|NCT01241552|169262343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-4.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.0|-27.8|
84753335|NCT01241552|169262344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-23.2|
84572560|NCT00701363|168896402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||One subject (Group B) had missing IGF-1 value at Week 48. One subject (Group A) had missing IGF-1 value at Baseline.||||0.0013
84753336|NCT01241552|169262344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-23.2|
84753337|NCT01241552|169262344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-4.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-28.4|
84753338|NCT05395104|169262350|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.0865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9724|1.2141||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2141|0.9724|
84608940|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|36.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.11|6.73|
84608941|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||21.60|-0.42|
84753339|NCT05395104|169262352|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9784|1.2762||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2762|0.9784|
84753340|NCT05395104|169262353|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.2776||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2776|0.9887|
84753341|NCT01505010|169262391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the baseline 24-h systolic blood pressure|Difference at 6 months in 24-h systolic blood pressure (control minus intervention)|We used mixed models to compare blood pressure changes between randomized groups at 6 months, while adjusting for the baseline blood pressure; statistical significance was a P-value less than 0.05 on two-sided tests.||||0.018
84572561|NCT00701363|168896402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84572562|NCT00701363|168896402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84572563|NCT00701363|168896403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
84572564|NCT00701363|168896403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84753342|NCT01505010|169262392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between control and intervention group at 6 months||||0.86
84753343|NCT01505010|169262393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcocon rank sum test||||0.032
84753344|NCT01505010|169262393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84753345|NCT01368042|169262408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.9||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.03
84753346|NCT01368042|169262409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.2||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.05
84753347|NCT01368042|169262410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.4||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.003
84753348|NCT01368042|169262411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.5|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
84753349|NCT01368042|169262412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
84572565|NCT00701363|168896403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84572566|NCT00701363|168896403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0170
84572567|NCT00701363|168896404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in baseline IGF-1 levels between 108 subjects with normalized IGF-1 levels at week 24 (A+B+C) and 14 subjects with uncontrolled IGF-1 levels at week 24.||||0.0103
84572568|NCT00833755|168896498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.274
84572569|NCT00833755|168896499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.552
84572570|NCT00833755|168896500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84572571|NCT00560404|168896512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean Hb within target range during efficacy evaluation period within plus or minus 1 g/dL of their reference Hb and between the target range with a non-inferiority limit of -0.15.|Difference of response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.25|
84572572|NCT00471497|168896560|OTHER||Difference in response rate|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.5|<0.0001
84572573|NCT00471497|168896560|OTHER||Difference in response rate|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|12.9|<0.0001
84572574|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.5||||||(Low)||27.5|2.1|
84608942|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.65|58.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.93|28.65|
84608943|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|63.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.13|33.45|
84572575|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|40.2||||||(Low)||40.2|14.6|
84572576|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.4||||||(Intermediate)||40.4|15.0|
84608944|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|46.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.52|60.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||60.59|31.52|
84608945|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.69|-11.84|
84676546|NCT03095417|169088479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
84676547|NCT03095417|169088480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.910
84676548|NCT03095417|169088481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
84572577|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.8||||||(Intermediate)||29.8|4.6|
84572578|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|38.1||||||(High)||38.1|10.7|
84572579|NCT00471497|168896561|OTHER||Difference in response rate|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.6||||||(High)||28.6|2.1|
84572580|NCT00471497|168896562|OTHER||Difference in response rate|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.8||||||||28.8|13.9|
84572581|NCT00471497|168896562|OTHER||Difference in response rate|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0||||||||26.0|11.3|
84572582|NCT00471497|168896564|OTHER||Absolute difference|-1.6||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-9.8|0.6987
84572583|NCT01420536|168896605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by a researcher who was unaware of all procedures performed. The questionnaire about denture satisfaction originated a general score that was compared using the Wilcoxon test, according to the two tested conditions.||||0.569
84572584|NCT01420536|168896606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.339
84572585|NCT01420536|168896607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.515
84572586|NCT01420536|168896608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.485
84572587|NCT01420536|168896609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.111
84572588|NCT01420536|168896610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.399
84572589|NCT01420536|168896611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.550
84572590|NCT01420536|168896612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.609
84572591|NCT01420536|168896613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.600
84572592|NCT01420536|168896614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.611
84572593|NCT01420536|168896615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.044
84572594|NCT01420536|168896616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.677
84608946|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|21.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.22|7.53|
84608947|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||20.89|7.10|
84608948|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|21.05|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.05|7.34|
84672337|NCT00653224|169080270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.036||95.0|-0.51|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-0.51|0.036
84753350|NCT01368042|169262413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
84753351|NCT01368042|169262414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.8|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
84572595|NCT01420536|168896617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.885||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.885
84608949|NCT02986854|168969255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
84608950|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|25.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.39|3.46|
84572596|NCT03533751|168896633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.235||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4066|27.8983|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||27.8983|-12.4066|0.4498
84608951|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.89|5.00|
84676549|NCT03095417|169088482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.626
84753352|NCT01368042|169262415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.9||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.38
84753353|NCT01368042|169262416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
84753354|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Physical functioning scale||||0.03
84572597|NCT03533751|168896633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.774|12.1262|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||12.1262|-24.7740|0.5010
84608952|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|25.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.62|4.91|
84753355|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to physical health scale||||0.02
84753356|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to emotional problems scale||||0.01
84572598|NCT03533751|168896633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.454||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6037|20.5476|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.5476|-16.6037|0.8349
84572599|NCT03533751|168896633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1892|26.8275|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||26.8275|-17.1892|0.6662
84572600|NCT03533751|168896634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.9509|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.9509|0.4200|0.7992
84572601|NCT03533751|168896634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|3.3572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.3572|0.7570|0.2197
84572602|NCT03533751|168896634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5345|2.4774|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.4774|0.5345|0.7197
84572603|NCT03533751|168896634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.8404|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.8404|0.3910|0.6772
84572604|NCT03533751|168896635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3922|2.6994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.6994|0.3922|0.9537
84572605|NCT03533751|168896635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6323|3.8895|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.8895|0.6323|0.3316
84572606|NCT03533751|168896635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5331|3.4944|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.4944|0.5331|0.5166
84572607|NCT03533751|168896635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|3.0223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.0223|0.4545|0.7426
84572608|NCT03533751|168896636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3998|7.7615|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||7.7615|0.3998|0.4543
84572609|NCT03533751|168896636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6314|10.4827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||10.4827|0.6314|0.1874
84572610|NCT03533751|168896636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6506|11.0814|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||11.0814|0.6506|0.1721
84572611|NCT03533751|168896636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|4.2141|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||4.2141|0.1086|0.6755
84572612|NCT03533751|168896637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2481|2.2543|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||2.2543|0.2481|0.6058
84572613|NCT03533751|168896637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3356|2.7923|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.7923|0.3356|0.9521
84572614|NCT03533751|168896637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4457|3.3878|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||3.3878|0.4457|0.6905
84572615|NCT03533751|168896637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3671|2.9518|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.9518|0.3671|0.9399
84753357|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Energy/fatigue scale||||<0.001
84572616|NCT03533751|168896638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.5268|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.5268|0.3290|0.7659
84572617|NCT03533751|168896638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3895|4.776|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.7760|0.3895|0.6273
84572618|NCT03533751|168896638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5734|6.1879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||6.1879|0.5734|0.2967
84572619|NCT03533751|168896638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4152|5.1476|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||5.1476|0.4152|0.5544
84572620|NCT03533751|168896639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3175|3.9513|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||3.9513|0.3175|0.8600
84753358|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Emotional well-being scale||||0.002
84753359|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Social functioning scale||||0.002
84753360|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Bodily pain scale||||<0.001
84753361|NCT01368042|169262417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||General health perceptions scale||||0.56
84753362|NCT01368042|169262418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.6||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.001
84753363|NCT01368042|169262419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.03
84753364|NCT01368042|169262420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.06
84753365|NCT01368042|169262421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.84
84753366|NCT01368042|169262422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.67
84753367|NCT01368042|169262423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|324.8||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n= 215 (paired samples)|||||0.02
84753368|NCT01368042|169262424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||||||0.12
84753369|NCT02663271|169262425|SUPERIORITY|We used one-sample log rank test to compare to historical control.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84753370|NCT01572675|169262435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
84753371|NCT01572675|169262435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
84753372|NCT01572675|169262440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Duration of treatment comparison (More than one year vs Up to thirty days) for intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use. The analysis assessed whether long-term treatment was more correlated with intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use compared to short-term treatment.||||<0.001
84753373|NCT01572675|169262443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.104
84572621|NCT03533751|168896639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5511|6.1214|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1214|0.5511|0.3222
84572622|NCT03533751|168896639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6089|6.431|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.4310|0.6089|0.2564
84572623|NCT03533751|168896639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5806|6.1275|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1275|0.5806|0.2912
84608953|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.50|-8.51|
84753374|NCT01572675|169262443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.0049
84753375|NCT01572675|169262443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.618|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.618
84753376|NCT01572675|169262444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.012
84753377|NCT01572675|169262444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.175
84753378|NCT01572675|169262446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.701
84753379|NCT01572675|169262446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.007
84753380|NCT01572675|169262446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.955|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for significant past treatments||||0.955
84753381|NCT01572675|169262449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for previous treatment with other agents prior to initiation of Arcoxia® and Celebrex® for the main study indications||||0.049
84753382|NCT01572675|169262452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) of adverse events experienced during treatment||||0.165
84753383|NCT01667107|169262511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.53||||0.139|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.139
84753384|NCT01667107|169262511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.59||||0.057|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.057
84572624|NCT03533751|168896640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2117|15.8686|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||15.8686|-18.2117|0.8927
84676550|NCT03095417|169088483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.774
84753385|NCT02039726|169262558|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.983|||P-value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||0.983|0.584|0.0185
84572625|NCT03533751|168896640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.019||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2767|21.1463|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||21.1463|-14.2767|0.7035
84572626|NCT03533751|168896640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.608||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.159|7.6237|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||7.6237|-26.1590|0.2819
84572627|NCT03533751|168896640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8452|10.7333|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||10.7333|-22.8452|0.4793
84572628|NCT03533751|168896641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.677||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5723|19.7054|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||19.7054|-6.5723|0.3262
84572629|NCT03533751|168896641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.366||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7439|11.2782|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||11.2782|-13.7439|0.8465
84572630|NCT03533751|168896641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.396||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0587|15.082|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.||||15.0820|-10.0587|0.6947
84572631|NCT03533751|168896641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8451|20.3626|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.3626|-6.8451|0.3288
84572632|NCT03533751|168896642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4081|2.9218|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.9218|-2.4081|0.8497
84572633|NCT03533751|168896642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5636|1.7473|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||1.7473|-3.5636|0.5016
84572634|NCT03533751|168896642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.167|2.287|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.2870|-3.1670|0.7511
84572635|NCT03533751|168896642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3133|3.1824|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||3.1824|-2.3133|0.7558
84572636|NCT06070610|168896646|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|111.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 12.3|||111.10|93.59|
84572637|NCT06070610|168896647|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|109.65|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.4|||109.65|93.60|
84572638|NCT06070610|168896648|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|117.02|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.4|||117.02|87.36|
84572639|NCT06070610|168896649|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.58|114.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5|||114.49|102.58|
84572640|NCT06070610|168896650|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.54|115.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.7|||115.49|102.54|
84608954|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|34.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.83|5.25|
84753386|NCT02039726|169262559|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.157|||P value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||1.157|0.697|0.2034
84753387|NCT04415658|169262560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||80% power to detect a 10% increase in hearts transplanted||1.07|0.97|0.57
84676551|NCT02571452|169088484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-6.65|.021
84608955|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|35.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.50|5.88|
84608956|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|34.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.58|6.53|
84572641|NCT06070610|168896651|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|101.11|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 20.5|||101.11|75.27|
84572642|NCT02485860|168896655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
84572643|NCT00576758|168896659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.9|18.7|||Chi-squared|||||18.7|3.9|0.1587
84572644|NCT00576758|168896660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.6||||||||16.6|-2.9|
84572645|NCT00576758|168896664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.3||||||||18.3|-13.9|
84572646|NCT00576758|168896665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44||||||||1.44|0.62|
84572647|NCT00576758|168896667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||||1.50|0.67|
84572648|NCT04154956|168896707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.512||One-sided significance level was 0.01|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.512|0.864|0.8204
84572649|NCT04154956|168896708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.109||One-sided significance level was 0.00174.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.109|0.644|0.1120
84572650|NCT04154956|168896709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and its 2-sided CI were provided from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified according to the stratification factors.|||1.42|0.55|0.6972
84572651|NCT04154956|168896710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.972||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.972|0.546|0.0157
84572652|NCT04154956|168896711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.763||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.763|0.388|0.0002
84572653|NCT04154956|168896712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.014||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.014|0.533|0.0305
84572654|NCT01348269|168896727|OTHER|T-test (with MITT, omitting outlier value of one patient in placebo group)|||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
84572655|NCT01348269|168896727|OTHER|Mann-Whitney-Test|||||=|0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.015
84572656|NCT02701634|168896760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-value was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84753388|NCT04415658|169262561|NON_INFERIORITY|Six percent margin, assuming 96% graft survival in control group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Non-inferiority analysis for thyroxine vs saline||6.0|-2.3|<0.001
84753389|NCT00763971|169262593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-15.7|||ANCOVA|||||-15.7|-21.5|<0.001
84572657|NCT02701634|168896765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
84572658|NCT02701634|168896766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84572659|NCT02701634|168896767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84608957|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||8.40|-9.67|
84753390|NCT00763971|169262593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-15.9|<0.001
84753391|NCT00763971|169262594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|63.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|74.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||74.1|53.0|<0.001
84753392|NCT00763971|169262594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|57.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.7|34.6|<0.001
84572660|NCT02701634|168896768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.18||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or MMF|||2.18|0.55|0.800
84572661|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 5 vs 1)||7.0|-13.6|= 0.525
84572662|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||=|0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 4 vs 1)||5.8|-14.7|= 0.396
84676552|NCT02571452|169088485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.30|-1.26|.568
84753393|NCT00763971|169262595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.0|||ANCOVA|||||-17.0|-25.5|<0.001
84753394|NCT00763971|169262595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||ANCOVA|||||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
84753395|NCT00763971|169262597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|6.1|<0.001
84608958|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|45.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.45|16.78|
84608959|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.29|49.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.20|21.29|
84608960|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|32.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|47.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.13|19.30|
84608961|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.74|-9.45|
84608962|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
84608963|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
84608964|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.94|9.28|
84608965|NCT02986854|168969256|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
84608966|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|32.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.25|10.19|
84753396|NCT00763971|169262597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|4.6|<0.001
84753397|NCT00763971|169262598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
84497877|NCT01275170|168746921|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.97||||||||0.97|0.59|
84608967|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|25.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.29|3.15|
84608968|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.92|7.44|
84608969|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|15.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.17|-1.20|
84608970|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|36.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.37|5.57|
84608971|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.00|6.05|
84608972|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|35.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.38|6.89|
84676553|NCT02571452|169088486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-2.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-5.87|<.001
84753398|NCT00763971|169262598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84572663|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 3 vs 1)||1.6|-18.8|= 0.097
84572664|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 2 vs 1)||0.3|-19.9|= 0.057
84572665|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.4|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 5 vs 1)||1.2|-17.8|= 0.085
84572666|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 4 vs 1)||-0.0|-18.9|= 0.050
84572667|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.5|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-16.1|= 0.183
84572668|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 2 vs 1)||0.8|-18.1|= 0.074
84572669|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.6|-7.0|= 0.525
84572670|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 4 vs 1)||9.7|-10.8|= 0.915
84572671|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 3 vs 1)||12.2|-8.4|= 0.714
84572672|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.7|-10.7|= 0.926
84572673|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 5 vs 1)||8.7|-8.7|> 0.999
84572674|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 4 vs 1)||6.4|-10.8|= 0.609
84572675|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.8|||=|0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 3 vs 1)||10.7|-7.1|= 0.688
84572676|NCT03620162|168896778|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|4.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 2 vs 1)||4.3|-12.6|= 0.336
84572677|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.1|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group5 vs1)||8.8|-11.0|= 0.825
84572678|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group4 vs1)||9.3|-10.4|= 0.912
84608973|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|11.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.03|-12.11|
84608974|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.26|54.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.95|24.26|
84572679|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.8|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group3 vs1)||0.9|-18.3|= 0.074
84497878|NCT01275170|168746921|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.65||||||||3.65|2.16|
84572680|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Percentage of Participants|-3.7|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group2 vs1)||6.1|-13.4|= 0.458
84572681|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|2.8|||=|0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 5 vs1)||12.3|-6.8|= 0.568
84572682|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 4 vs1)||10.2|-9.1|= 0.910
84572683|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 3 vs1)||5.2|-14.5|= 0.354
84753399|NCT03383289|169262608|SUPERIORITY||Beta estimate of the percent who fell|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MIANALYZE was used to model missing data. Models were adjusted for the design effects of clustering.||||||0.4170
84753400|NCT03383289|169262610|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.998|||paired t test|||Analysis of adjusted mean differences using a paired t test procedure||-0.998|-1.708|<0.001
84753401|NCT03383289|169262611|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.6364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1797|1.0931|||Poisson regression|||||1.0931|0.1797|0.0064
84572684|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 2 vs1)||3.1|-16.6|= 0.178
84572685|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.5|-6.8|= 0.520
84572686|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 4 vs 1)||10.2|-10.2|> 0.999
84572687|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 3 vs 1)||10.0|-10.5|= 0.963
84572688|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||=|0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.0|-11.4|= 0.821
84572689|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 5 vs 1)||5.0|-6.1|= 0.836
84572690|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.7|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 4 vs 1)||7.6|-4.2|= 0.562
84572691|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.6|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 3 vs 1)||3.7|-7.1|= 0.527
84572692|NCT03620162|168896779|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 2 vs 1)||1.5|-8.6|= 0.160
84572693|NCT03620162|168896780|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
84572694|NCT03620162|168896780|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 4 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
84572695|NCT03620162|168896780|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-1.6|
84572696|NCT03620162|168896780|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 2 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
84572697|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.69|
84572698|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.77|
84497879|NCT01275170|168746927|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.15||||||||2.15|1.07|
84497880|NCT01275170|168746927|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.9||||||||0.90|0.45|
84497881|NCT01275170|168746927|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.94||||||||0.94|0.47|
84497882|NCT01275170|168746928|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.83||||||||1.83|0.63|
84497883|NCT01275170|168746928|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.01||||||||1.01|0.35|
84497884|NCT01275170|168746928|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04||||||||1.04|0.36|
84497885|NCT01275170|168746929|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.4||||||||3.40|0.63|
84572699|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.00|0.70|
84572700|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.19|0.86|
84572701|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.80|
84572702|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.25|0.90|
84572703|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.66|
84608975|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.71|57.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||57.17|26.71|
84608976|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.12|55.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.55|26.12|
84497886|NCT01275170|168746929|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.0||||||||2.00|0.41|
84497887|NCT01275170|168746929|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.78||||||||1.78|0.37|
84497888|NCT00865306|168746933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
84497889|NCT00865306|168746934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
84497890|NCT02262507|168746971|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84497891|NCT00902486|168746988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.15|||Cochran-Armitage trend test||LOGISTIC regression model for odds ratio estimates : LOGIT(Response 0/1) = Treatment + Biologics|The prespecified primary analysis for ACR 20 was the Cochran-Armitage trend test looking for a dose-response relationship. The treatment effect was also assessed using a logistic regression model including background therapy (more than 8 weeks of biologics or not) and treatment.||6.15|0.77|0.0619
84497892|NCT00902486|168746988|OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 4 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1978
84497893|NCT00902486|168746988|OTHER|||||||0.0437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 7 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.0437
84497894|NCT00902486|168746988|OTHER|||||||0.1236|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 10 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1236
84497895|NCT01563029|168747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|22.4|||ANCOVA|Gate-keeper analysis||||22.4|9.6|<0.001
84497896|NCT01563029|168747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.8|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 μg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparison.|||19.8|5.1|<0.001
84497897|NCT01563029|168747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|26.9|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 µg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparsion.|||26.9|12.1|<0.001
84497898|NCT01563029|168747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 25 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for both the FF 100 ug versus placebo comparison and the FF 50 ug versus placebocomparison.|||26.0|11.3|<0.001
84497899|NCT01563029|168747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|6.7|<0.001
84497900|NCT01563029|168747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.201|||ANCOVA|||||0.201|0.051|<0.001
84497901|NCT01563029|168747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.094|||ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.050|0.551
84497902|NCT01563029|168747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|-0.041|0.379
84497903|NCT01563029|168747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-0.010|0.089
84497904|NCT01563029|168747045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9|||ANCOVA|||||16.9|0.0|0.050
84572704|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.03|0.68|
84572705|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.08|0.72|
84572706|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.64|
84572707|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.29|0.84|
84572708|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.14|0.75|
84572709|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.66|
84572710|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.37|0.91|
84572711|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.36|0.92|
84572712|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 4 vs 1)||1.31|0.88|
84572713|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 3 vs 1)||1.32|0.88|
84572714|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.49||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 2 vs 1)||1.49|1.02|
84608977|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.73|-10.41|
84608978|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|32.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.08|15.26|
84672338|NCT00653224|169080271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.01||95.0|-0.48|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.48|0.010
84572715|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.95|0.64|
84572716|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.21|0.81|
84572717|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.35|0.92|
84572718|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.70|
84753402|NCT03383289|169262611|SUPERIORITY||Estimated log mean|-4.0168||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5827|-2.4509|||Poisson regression|||||-2.4509|-5.5827|0.001
84753403|NCT03383289|169262612|OTHER|adjusted mean differences from paired t tests|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|-0.138|||paired t test|||||-0.138|-0.774|0.005
84753404|NCT02606461|169262620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7026||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5191|0.9509|||Log Rank|||||0.9509|0.5191|0.0114
84572719|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 3 vs 1)||1.06|0.73|
84753405|NCT02606461|169262622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.1521||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5357|2.4778|||Log Rank|||||2.4778|0.5357|0.6051
84753406|NCT00789750|169262649|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
84753407|NCT00789750|169262650|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
84753408|NCT00789750|169262651|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
84753409|NCT00789750|169262652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.20|-0.51|<0.001
84753410|NCT00789750|169262653|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
84753411|NCT00789750|169262654|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-7.49|-21.93|<0.0001
84753412|NCT00789750|169262655|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84753413|NCT00789750|169262656|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84753414|NCT00789750|169262657|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
84753415|NCT00789750|169262658|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84753416|NCT00789750|169262659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-12.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-12.18|-20.62|<0.001
84753417|NCT00789750|169262660|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.39|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||4.39|-0.75|0.1652
84753418|NCT00789750|169262661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-6.16|-13.44|<0.0001
84572720|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.79|
84572721|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.28|0.83|
84753419|NCT00789750|169262662|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.01||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.5|||ANCOVA||The treatment difference and its 95% confidence interval are estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator and Moses method. The parameter dispersion Type is actually IQR of the Median Difference.|Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||17.5|5.3|0.0004
84753420|NCT00789750|169262663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.23|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||5.23|1.58|0.0003
84753421|NCT00789750|169262664|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|-5.78|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-5.78|-11.75|<0.0001
84608979|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|31.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.74|14.86|
84753422|NCT00789750|169262665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||2.9|-4.1|0.7286
84753423|NCT00789750|169262666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||0.0|-0.4|0.0653
84753424|NCT00789750|169262667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||1.3|-1.5|0.8862
84753425|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.44|21.89|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.89|10.44|0.0008
84753426|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|23.07|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.07|11.11|<0.0001
84753427|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|25.3|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||25.30|13.28|0.0002
84753428|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|23.57|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||23.57|13.47|<0.0001
84753429|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.62|23.05|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.05|16.62|<0.0001
84753430|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|26.03|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||26.03|14.16|<0.0001
84753431|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|24.56|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||24.56|19.44|<0.0001
84753432|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.45|26.99|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||26.99|15.45|<0.0001
84753433|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|21.64|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.64|2.02|0.0268
84753434|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.82|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||22.82|9.45|<0.0001
84572722|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.78||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.78|1.15|
84572723|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.71||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.71|1.13|
84572724|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 4 vs 1)||1.30|0.88|
84572725|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.76||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 3 vs 1)||1.76|1.18|
84572726|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.83||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 2 vs 1)||1.83|1.25|
84572727|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.69|
84572728|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.07|0.72|
84572729|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.77|
84572730|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 4 vs 1)||1.15|0.81|
84572731|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.26|0.88|
84572732|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.21|0.86|
84572733|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.96|0.61|
84572734|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 3 vs 1)||0.99|0.63|
84608980|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.08|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|15.08|
84676554|NCT02571452|169088487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.61|.173
84572735|NCT03620162|168896781|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.17|0.76|
84572736|NCT03620162|168896782|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||2.0|-3.7|< 0.001
84572737|NCT03620162|168896783|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||ANCOVA|||GMT Ratio (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||1.34|0.70|< 0.001
84572738|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.86|0.60|
84572739|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.44||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.44|1.04|
84572740|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.10|0.73|
84572741|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.97|0.64|
84572742|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.84|0.57|
84572743|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 5 vs 1)||1.15|0.78|
84572744|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.82|0.55|
84572745|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 5 vs 1)||1.18|0.82|
84572746|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.07|0.70|
84572747|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 5 vs 1)||1.25|0.85|
84572748|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.95|0.65|
84572749|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 5 vs 1)||1.02|0.72|
84608981|NCT02986854|168969257|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
84608982|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|11.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.23|2.08|
84608983|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|12.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.74|3.28|
84644128|NCT00420641|169024188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS total score at Week 10.||1.05|-2.60|0.485
84644129|NCT00420641|169024188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.75|-2.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-2.22|-5.75|0.000
84676555|NCT00908960|169088492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|43.17|||Fine and Gray regression|||||43.17|1.03|0.06
84497905|NCT01563029|168747045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.2|||ANCOVA|||||18.2|1.3|0.023
84572750|NCT03620162|168896786|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.91|0.59|
84572751|NCT05824026|168896788|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The purpose of the primary analysis was to show non-inferiority to the performance of a historical control (a silver containing gelling fiber) on proportion of wounds healed, 77%, with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 57%. An exact confidence interval for the proportion was applied. In the primary analysis missing data was not included. In the post hoc sensitivity analysis missing data was imputed using multiple imputation for 3 wounds where data was assumed to be missing at random, and otherwise imputed as wound not healed.~The supplemental analysis addressed a more conservative analysis than performed for the historical control. Hence, no formal non-inferiority criteria was applied for this analysis."|||
84572752|NCT00284856|168896808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.92||||||95.0|0.28|11.56|||||Estimated Value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.56|0.28|
84572753|NCT00284856|168896808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.14||||||95.0|4.5|15.78|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||15.78|4.50|
84572754|NCT00284856|168896808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.22||||||95.0|-9.83|1.38|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||1.38|-9.83|
84572755|NCT00284856|168896809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||||95.0|-0.25|-0.05|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||-0.05|-0.25|
84572756|NCT00284856|168896809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||-0.10|-0.30|
84753435|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.59||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.04|18.24|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||18.24|6.04|0.0028
84572757|NCT00284856|168896809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05||||||95.0|-0.05|0.15|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.15|-0.05|
84753436|NCT03740997|169262668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|21.61|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||21.61|10.04|<0.0001
84497906|NCT01563029|168747045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.5|||ANCOVA|||||20.5|3.8|0.004
84572758|NCT00284856|168896810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.09||||||95.0|-1.27|11.45|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.45|-1.27|
84572759|NCT00284856|168896810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.21||||||95.0|4.85|17.58|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||17.58|4.85|
84572760|NCT00284856|168896810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.13||||||95.0|-12.46|0.2|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.20|-12.46|
84572761|NCT02592824|168896865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided Student's t-test used for sample size estimation which was based on data from the first GLUTAMICS trial.||||0.086
84572762|NCT02592824|168896866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84572763|NCT02592824|168896867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84572764|NCT02592824|168896872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84572765|NCT02855268|168896883|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|6.48||Threshold of significance was 1-sided \<0.025.|Linear mixed effect model|||Annualized rate of change in eGFR during the placebo-controlled treatment period was compared between lademirsen and placebo using a random coefficient linear mixed effect model which included time as a continuous variable.||6.48|-6.92|0.9472
84608984|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|10.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.78|2.87|
84753437|NCT01750931|169262681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.45||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|105.59|||ANOVA|||||105.59|99.40|0.4396
84753438|NCT01750931|169262683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|105.02||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.69|110.63|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-t between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||110.63|99.69|0.9712
84497907|NCT01563029|168747045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.6|||ANCOVA|||||14.6|-2.1|0.143
84497908|NCT01563029|168747046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|3.4|0.005
84497909|NCT01563029|168747046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.1|||ANCOVA|||||21.1|5.7|<0.001
84497910|NCT01563029|168747046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||ANCOVA|||||16.1|0.7|<0.033
84572766|NCT05033041|168896926|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is based on an equivalence hypothesis of -17mL \<difference in differences \< 17mL.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the means using two one-sided t tests (TOST)||||.001
84572767|NCT00914069|168896983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Threshold for significance was p less than or equal to 0.05 by a one-tailed Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84572768|NCT00914069|168896986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84572769|NCT00071981|168896992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare CTL response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that CTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that CTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
84572770|NCT00071981|168896993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to 6MHP among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
84572771|NCT00071981|168896994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to tetanus peptide among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
84572772|NCT00071981|168896995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that objective response rate is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that objective response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||0.741
84572773|NCT00071981|168896996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare overall survival curves among four arms.||||0.532
84572774|NCT04513366|168897011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.23|0.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.64|0.23|<.0001
84572775|NCT04513366|168897011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.32|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.73|0.32|<.0001
84572776|NCT04513366|168897012|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.18|-3.42|||ANCOVA|||||-3.42|-7.18|<.001
84572777|NCT04513366|168897012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.57|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-7.57|<.001
84572778|NCT04513366|168897013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-87.85|-40.85|||ANCOVA|||||-40.85|-87.85|<.001
84572779|NCT04513366|168897013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-92.16|-47.35|||ANCOVA|||||-47.35|-92.16|<.001
84676556|NCT04165291|169088530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
84676557|NCT04165291|169088531|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||.08
84572780|NCT04513366|168897014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
84572781|NCT04513366|168897014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.472
84572782|NCT04513366|168897015|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.91|||Chi-squared|||||0.91|0.25|0.0003
84572783|NCT04513366|168897015|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.25||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|-0.36|0.1895
84572784|NCT04513366|168897016|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.43||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.72|||Chi-squared|||||0.72|0.14|0.0035
84572785|NCT04513366|168897016|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|-0.02|0.0428
84572786|NCT04513366|168897017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.10|0.517
84572787|NCT04513366|168897017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-0.39|0.230
84572788|NCT04513366|168897018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.35|0.250
84572789|NCT04513366|168897018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.16|0.506
84572790|NCT04513366|168897019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.55|0.653
84753439|NCT01750931|169262683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.31||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.05|105.69|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-infinity between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||105.69|99.05|0.9951
84608985|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.49|-6.10|
84572791|NCT04513366|168897019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.36|0.629
84572792|NCT04513366|168897020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.54|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.54|-0.40|0.731
84572793|NCT04513366|168897020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.58|-0.35|0.583
84572794|NCT00392223|168897021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||||95.0|-2.48|1.54|||||Comparison between treatment groups was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, with treatment, center, and baseline value GAGS global score included as covariates.|||1.54|-2.48|
84572795|NCT00392223|168897025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||||95.0|-2.58|0.84|||||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, center and treatment.|||0.84|-2.58|
84572796|NCT00269152|168897040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|71.5||||||||71.5|46.4|
84572797|NCT00269152|168897040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|36.1|63.9||||||||63.9|36.1|
84572798|NCT02814526|168897048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
84572799|NCT02814526|168897049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
84572800|NCT02814526|168897050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009447||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8284
84608986|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|12.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.44|-3.04|
84644130|NCT00420641|169024189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.23|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in Bech score at Week 10.||0.23|-1.28|0.252
84572801|NCT02814526|168897051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02024||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7086
84572802|NCT02814526|168897052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84572803|NCT02814526|168897053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
84572804|NCT02814526|168897054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
84572805|NCT02814526|168897055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
84572806|NCT02814526|168897056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
84572807|NCT02814526|168897057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
84572808|NCT02814526|168897058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0005||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.817
84572809|NCT02814526|168897059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
84572810|NCT02814526|168897060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
84572811|NCT02814526|168897061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
84572812|NCT03082729|168897128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
84753440|NCT01006265|169262812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.384|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.384|0.133|<0.0001
84572813|NCT03082729|168897129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84572814|NCT03082729|168897130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
84572815|NCT03082729|168897131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
84572816|NCT03082729|168897132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
84572817|NCT03082729|168897133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
84572818|NCT03082729|168897134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
84572819|NCT03082729|168897135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
84572820|NCT03082729|168897136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.390
84572821|NCT03082729|168897137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
84572822|NCT03082729|168897138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
84608987|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|13.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.01|-2.71|
84753441|NCT01006265|169262812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.289|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.289|0.100|<0.0001
84572823|NCT03082729|168897139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
84572824|NCT03082729|168897140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
84572825|NCT03082729|168897141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
84572826|NCT03082729|168897142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
84572827|NCT03082729|168897143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
84572828|NCT03082729|168897144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84753442|NCT01006265|169262812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.566||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.952|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.952|0.337|0.0318
84572829|NCT03082729|168897145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
84572830|NCT03082729|168897146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.491
84572831|NCT03082729|168897147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.924
84572832|NCT03082729|168897148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.868
84753443|NCT00307333|169262815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84572833|NCT03082729|168897149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
84572834|NCT03082729|168897150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
84572835|NCT03082729|168897151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.453
84572836|NCT03082729|168897152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
84572837|NCT03082729|168897153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
84572838|NCT03082729|168897154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
84608988|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.90|-2.66|
84753444|NCT00307333|169262816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84572839|NCT03082729|168897155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963
84572840|NCT03082729|168897156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
84572841|NCT03082729|168897157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
84572842|NCT03082729|168897158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
84572843|NCT03082729|168897159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
84572844|NCT03082729|168897160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
84572845|NCT03082729|168897161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
84572846|NCT03082729|168897162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
84572847|NCT03082729|168897163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
84572848|NCT03082729|168897164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
84572849|NCT03082729|168897165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
84572850|NCT03082729|168897166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925
84572851|NCT03082729|168897167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
84572852|NCT03082729|168897168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
84572853|NCT03082729|168897169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
84572854|NCT03082729|168897170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
84572855|NCT03082729|168897171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
84572856|NCT03082729|168897172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
84572857|NCT03082729|168897173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
84572858|NCT03082729|168897174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
84572859|NCT03082729|168897175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.911
84572860|NCT03082729|168897176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
84572861|NCT03082729|168897177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
84572862|NCT03082729|168897178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
84572863|NCT03082729|168897179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
84572864|NCT03082729|168897180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
84572865|NCT03082729|168897181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
84572866|NCT03082729|168897182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
84572867|NCT03082729|168897183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
84572868|NCT03082729|168897184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
84676558|NCT04165291|169088532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.116
84753445|NCT00307333|169262817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84497911|NCT01563029|168747046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.7|||ANCOVA|||||15.7|0.3|0.042
84497912|NCT01563029|168747047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.7|||ANCOVA|||||21.7|0.7|0.037
84497913|NCT01563029|168747047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6|||ANCOVA|||||23.6|2.6|0.014
84497914|NCT01563029|168747047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|-4.5|0.266
84572869|NCT03082729|168897185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
84572870|NCT03082729|168897186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84572871|NCT03082729|168897187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.884
84572872|NCT03082729|168897188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84572873|NCT03082729|168897189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84572874|NCT03082729|168897190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84572875|NCT03082729|168897191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
84572876|NCT03082729|168897192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84572877|NCT03082729|168897193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
84572878|NCT03082729|168897194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.555
84572879|NCT03082729|168897195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
84572880|NCT03082729|168897196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
84572881|NCT03082729|168897197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84572882|NCT03082729|168897197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84572883|NCT03082729|168897197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
84572884|NCT03082729|168897198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84572885|NCT03082729|168897198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84572886|NCT03082729|168897198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
84572887|NCT03082729|168897199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572888|NCT03082729|168897199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572889|NCT03082729|168897200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572890|NCT03082729|168897200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572891|NCT03082729|168897201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572892|NCT03082729|168897201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572893|NCT03082729|168897202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84572894|NCT03082729|168897202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84572895|NCT03082729|168897204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
84572896|NCT03082729|168897204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
84572897|NCT03082729|168897205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84572898|NCT03082729|168897205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.762
84572899|NCT03082729|168897206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.973
84572900|NCT03082729|168897206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
84572901|NCT03082729|168897207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951
84572902|NCT03082729|168897207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.661
84572903|NCT03082729|168897208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
84572904|NCT03082729|168897208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
84572905|NCT03082729|168897209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.322
84572906|NCT03082729|168897209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84572907|NCT03082729|168897210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
84572908|NCT03082729|168897210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
84572909|NCT03082729|168897211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
84572910|NCT03082729|168897211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
84572911|NCT03082729|168897212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
84572912|NCT03082729|168897212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219
84572913|NCT03082729|168897213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
84572914|NCT03082729|168897213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
84572915|NCT03082729|168897214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.302
84572916|NCT03082729|168897214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
84572917|NCT03082729|168897215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
84572918|NCT03082729|168897215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
84572919|NCT03082729|168897216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812
84572920|NCT03082729|168897216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
84572921|NCT03082729|168897217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
84572922|NCT03082729|168897217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.250
84572923|NCT03082729|168897218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
84572924|NCT03082729|168897218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249
84572925|NCT03082729|168897219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
84572926|NCT03082729|168897219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.632
84572927|NCT03082729|168897220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
84572928|NCT03082729|168897220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
84572929|NCT03082729|168897221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84572930|NCT03082729|168897221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84572931|NCT03082729|168897222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
84572932|NCT03082729|168897222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
84572933|NCT03082729|168897223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
84572934|NCT03082729|168897223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
84572935|NCT03082729|168897224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.102
84572936|NCT03082729|168897224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
84608989|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.43|-7.27|
84608990|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|50.63|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.63|28.85|
84608991|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|36.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.39|46.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.34|24.39|
84572937|NCT03082729|168897225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
84572938|NCT03082729|168897225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
84572939|NCT03082729|168897226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
84572940|NCT03082729|168897226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
84572941|NCT03082729|168897227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
84572942|NCT03082729|168897227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
84572943|NCT03082729|168897228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
84572944|NCT03082729|168897228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
84572945|NCT03082729|168897229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.440
84572946|NCT03082729|168897229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
84572947|NCT03082729|168897230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
84572948|NCT03082729|168897230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
84572949|NCT03082729|168897231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
84572950|NCT03082729|168897231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.284
84572951|NCT03082729|168897232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.880
84608992|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.61|46.33|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.33|27.61|
84608993|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|15.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.83|-7.04|
84608994|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.68|41.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.79|22.68|
84572952|NCT03082729|168897232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84572953|NCT03082729|168897233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
84572954|NCT03082729|168897233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.199
84572955|NCT03082729|168897234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.814
84572956|NCT03082729|168897234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84572957|NCT03082729|168897235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.494
84572958|NCT03082729|168897235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
84572959|NCT03082729|168897236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
84572960|NCT03082729|168897236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84572961|NCT03082729|168897237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
84572962|NCT03082729|168897237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.869
84572963|NCT03082729|168897238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
84572964|NCT03082729|168897238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84572965|NCT03082729|168897239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
84572966|NCT03082729|168897239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
84572967|NCT03082729|168897240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.260
84572968|NCT03082729|168897240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
84572969|NCT03082729|168897241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
84572970|NCT03082729|168897241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.690
84572971|NCT03082729|168897242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.542
84572972|NCT03082729|168897242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.344
84572973|NCT03082729|168897243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
84572974|NCT03082729|168897243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84572975|NCT03082729|168897244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
84572976|NCT03082729|168897244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
84572977|NCT03082729|168897245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84572978|NCT03082729|168897245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
84572979|NCT03082729|168897246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
84572980|NCT03082729|168897246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177
84572981|NCT03082729|168897247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
84572982|NCT03082729|168897247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
84572983|NCT03082729|168897248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
84572984|NCT03082729|168897248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
84572985|NCT03082729|168897249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
84572986|NCT03082729|168897249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
84572987|NCT03082729|168897250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
84572988|NCT03082729|168897250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
84497915|NCT01563029|168747047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.6|||ANCOVA|||||16.6|-4.2|0.242
84572989|NCT03082729|168897251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
84572990|NCT03082729|168897251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
84572991|NCT03082729|168897252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.362
84572992|NCT03082729|168897252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
84572993|NCT03082729|168897253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.813
84572994|NCT03082729|168897253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84572995|NCT03082729|168897254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
84572996|NCT03082729|168897254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
84608995|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.85|41.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.08|21.85|
84608996|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.39|41.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.38|22.39|
84608997|NCT02986854|168969258|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.52|-1.81|
84572997|NCT03082729|168897255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.251
84572998|NCT03082729|168897255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
84608998|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|38.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.83|19.55|
84608999|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|29.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.69|10.48|
84676559|NCT04165291|169088533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84572999|NCT03082729|168897256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
84573000|NCT03082729|168897256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
84573001|NCT03082729|168897257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
84573002|NCT03082729|168897257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
84753446|NCT00307333|169262818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||||HR = hazard for intervention / hazard for control|||0.99|0.61|
84497916|NCT01563029|168747048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|31.3|||ANCOVA|||||31.3|10.0|<0.001
84573003|NCT03082729|168897258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.139
84573004|NCT03082729|168897258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
84573005|NCT03082729|168897259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
84573006|NCT03082729|168897259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.285
84573007|NCT03082729|168897260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
84573008|NCT03082729|168897260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
84573009|NCT03082729|168897261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
84573010|NCT03082729|168897261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
84573011|NCT03082729|168897262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.101
84573012|NCT03082729|168897262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
84573013|NCT03082729|168897263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
84573014|NCT03082729|168897263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84573015|NCT03082729|168897264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
84573016|NCT03082729|168897264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.378
84573017|NCT03082729|168897265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
84573018|NCT03082729|168897265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815
84573019|NCT03082729|168897266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
84573020|NCT03082729|168897266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84573021|NCT03082729|168897267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
84573022|NCT03082729|168897267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
84573023|NCT03082729|168897268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
84573024|NCT03082729|168897268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
84573025|NCT03082729|168897269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84573026|NCT03082729|168897269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
84609000|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|33.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.21|15.79|
84644131|NCT00420641|169024189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|-1.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-1.05|-2.49|0.000
84644132|NCT00420641|169024190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.87|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||0.87|-4.19|0.279
84676560|NCT04165291|169088534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||.13
84573027|NCT03082729|168897270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84573028|NCT03082729|168897270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
84573029|NCT03082729|168897271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
84573030|NCT03082729|168897271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
84573031|NCT03082729|168897272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84573032|NCT03082729|168897272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
84573033|NCT03454555|168897290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3|-16.6|0.31
84573034|NCT03454555|168897291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-10.3|0.963
84573035|NCT03454555|168897292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-16.8|0.253
84573036|NCT03454555|168897293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5|-10.1|0.90
84573037|NCT03454555|168897294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-13.7|0.65
84573038|NCT03454555|168897295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8|-1.9|0.102
84573039|NCT03454555|168897296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.75|0.50|0.83
84573040|NCT03454555|168897297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.50|0.42|0.47
84573041|NCT03454555|168897298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.90|0.54|0.96
84573042|NCT03454555|168897299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.33|0.38|0.28
84573043|NCT03454555|168897300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.71|0.47|0.75
84609001|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|17.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.16|1.01|
84609002|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|38.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.90|8.82|
84609003|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|29.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.86|-0.44|
84573044|NCT03454555|168897301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.31|0.35|0.25
84573045|NCT03454555|168897302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.70
84573046|NCT03454555|168897303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.1|0.92
84573047|NCT03454555|168897304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.7|0.64
84573048|NCT03454555|168897305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
84573049|NCT03454555|168897306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.69
84573050|NCT03454555|168897307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|0.33
84573051|NCT03454555|168897308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.8|0.86
84573052|NCT03454555|168897309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.4|0.76
84573053|NCT03454555|168897310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.55
84573054|NCT03454555|168897311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.1|0.52
84573055|NCT03454555|168897312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.2|0.37
84573056|NCT03454555|168897313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.91
84573057|NCT03454555|168897314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.33
84573058|NCT03454555|168897315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.46
84573059|NCT03454555|168897316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Chi-squared|||||0.04|-0.08|0.52
84573060|NCT03454555|168897317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.59|0.85|0.17
84573061|NCT03454555|168897318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.31|0.71|0.41
84573062|NCT03454555|168897319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
84573063|NCT03454555|168897320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
84644133|NCT00420641|169024190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|-2.68|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||-2.68|-7.55|0.001
84573064|NCT05539131|168897369|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.862||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.862
84573065|NCT05539131|168897370|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.662||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
84573066|NCT05539131|168897371|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.318||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|ANOVA|||||||0.318
84573067|NCT05539131|168897372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.273
84573068|NCT05539131|168897373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.639
84609004|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|33.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.08|5.32|
84609005|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|20.68|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||20.68|-2.45|
84609006|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|50.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.09|63.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.67|34.09|
84497917|NCT01563029|168747048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.6|||ANCOVA|||||28.6|7.2|0.001
84573069|NCT05539131|168897374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.452
84573070|NCT03405870|168897376|OTHER|Determined maximum tolerated dose|Value of Maximum Tolerated Dose (g/kg)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Using sequential dose escalation, participants received 2 doses of 1.0 to 1.6 g/kg of lipid emulsion (Smoflipid 20% lipid emulsion) within 48 hours of enrollment to test the maximum tolerated dose of study drug. The maximum tolerated dose was defined by patients exhibiting specific dose-related toxicities from administration of escalating doses of the study drug. Of 9 patients, adverse events were only considered dose-limiting toxicities if they met the predefined study protocol criteria.||||
84573071|NCT00498550|168897379|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.088
84573072|NCT02807259|168897380|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations did not account for stratification used in the randomisation or include adjustment for baseline levels of the outcome, since the correlation over time was not known. Results suggested that the trial had \>80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.77, if the coefficient of between-cluster variation was between 0.15 and 0.25.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculations were conducted assuming an IPV prevalence (past 12 months) of 47% and consistent condom use (past 12 months) of 38% based on initial assessments. The power calculation was performed by analysing simulated data from 800 women, distributed across clusters using empirical data with a range in variance across cluster-level proportions of IPV (15% to 25% of the total variation) and a narrow range of effect sizes (risk ratio= 0.75-0.80).||3.01|0.71|0.298
84573073|NCT02807259|168897381|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|0.68|0.378
84573074|NCT02807259|168897382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.58|0.748
84573075|NCT02807259|168897383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|0.4|0.025
84573076|NCT02807259|168897384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.26|0.42|0.372
84573077|NCT02807259|168897385|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.61|0.845
84573078|NCT02807259|168897386|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.82|1.02|0.042
84644134|NCT00420641|169024191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|1.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||1.12|-5.23|0.287
84676561|NCT04165291|169088535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
84573079|NCT00849056|168897388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.95|<0.0001
84573080|NCT03643848|168897396|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.033|<|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|REML; Satterwaite method for t-tests.Participant is random effect. Addtnl fixed effects: Valence, Condition, Anxiety Severity, Gender, Age (months).||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 1 week. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||<.046
84573081|NCT03643848|168897397|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|included additional fixed effects: Anxiety severity, gender, age (months)||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 12 hour test. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||=.61
84573082|NCT02314546|168897408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84573083|NCT02314546|168897409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84644135|NCT00420641|169024191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-3.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||-3.25|-9.21|0.001
84676562|NCT02248922|169088536|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4099
84497918|NCT01563029|168747048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|0.9|0.033
84497919|NCT01563029|168747048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.3|||ANCOVA|||||27.3|6.0|0.002
84497920|NCT01563029|168747049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|-6.1|0.619
84497921|NCT01563029|168747049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.161||95.0|-2.3|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-2.3|0.161
84497922|NCT01563029|168747049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|-4.1|0.340
84573084|NCT02314546|168897410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.26
84573085|NCT02314546|168897411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84573086|NCT02314546|168897412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
84609007|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|63.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.01|33.21|
84497923|NCT01563029|168747049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.1|||ANCOVA|||||11.1|-5.0|0.459
84573087|NCT02314546|168897413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
84573088|NCT02314546|168897414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
84573089|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Independent reader assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||0.224
84573090|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||<0.001
84573091|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
84609008|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|62.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.60|34.42|
84497924|NCT01563029|168747050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84497925|NCT01563029|168747050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84573092|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||<0.001
84573093|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||>0.05
84573094|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.024
84573095|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.099
84573096|NCT00274456|168897415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
84573097|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.027
84573098|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.009
84573099|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.017
84573100|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
84573101|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
84676563|NCT02248922|169088537|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6961
84676564|NCT02248922|169088538|OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3540
84497926|NCT01563029|168747050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84497927|NCT01563029|168747050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84497928|NCT02861534|168747055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.06|0.81|0.269
84497929|NCT02861534|168747056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.00|0.81|0.048
84497930|NCT02861534|168747057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.82|0.019
84497931|NCT02861534|168747058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Andersen-Gill model|||||0.99|0.84|0.023
84497932|NCT02861534|168747059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.83|0.021
84497933|NCT02861534|168747060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.07|0.84|0.377
84676565|NCT02248922|169088539|OTHER|||||||0.591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5910
84573102|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
84573103|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.085
84573104|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparison was performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed disease control rate (DCR), ie, SD \>= 16 weeks, or CR or PR||||0.007
84573105|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
84573106|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.009
84573107|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.005
84573108|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
84573109|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.098
84573110|NCT00274456|168897416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.014
84573111|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0498||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0498
84573112|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.0524|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0524
84573113|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0065|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0065
84573114|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
84609009|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.92|-8.30|
84573115|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
84573116|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
84573117|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
84573118|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.008
84573119|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84609010|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|39.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.75|21.34|
84676566|NCT02248922|169088540|OTHER|||||||0.4249|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4249
84573120|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573121|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.012
84573122|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.972||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.001
84573123|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.076
84573124|NCT00274456|168897417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573125|NCT00274456|168897418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
84573126|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.013
84573127|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.022
84573128|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573129|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573130|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.005
84573131|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573132|NCT00274456|168897419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
84573133|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||||||0.047
84573134|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
84573135|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
84644136|NCT00420641|169024192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.41|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||0.41|-1.47|0.352
84676567|NCT02248922|169088541|OTHER|||||||0.3963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3963
84497934|NCT02861534|168747063|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||2.8|-0.3|0.121
84497935|NCT02861534|168747064|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.6|-0.5|0.303
84497936|NCT02780115|168747065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|1.96||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.74|||ANCOVA|||||4.74|-0.83|0.1663
84497937|NCT02780115|168747065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|1.98|0.0009
84497938|NCT02780115|168747065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.54||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.29|||ANCOVA|||||7.29|1.79|0.0014
84497939|NCT02780115|168747065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.81||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.58|||ANCOVA|||||7.58|2.03|0.0008
84497940|NCT01211873|168747084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84497941|NCT01211873|168747085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84497942|NCT01211873|168747085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84497943|NCT01211873|168747086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84573136|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
84497944|NCT01211873|168747086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84497945|NCT03359473|168747135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|10.36|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||10.36|-1.30|
84497946|NCT03359473|168747135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|14.76|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.76|0.83|
84497947|NCT03359473|168747136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.86|23.56|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||23.56|9.86|
84497948|NCT03359473|168747136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|14.78|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.78|-4.09|
84497949|NCT03359473|168747137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.67|15.01|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||15.01|-4.67|
84497950|NCT03359473|168747137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|13.58|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.58|0.46|
84497951|NCT03359473|168747138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|13.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.2|-1.4|
84497952|NCT03359473|168747138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|25.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.5|1.6|
84497953|NCT03359473|168747139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|31.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||31.2|10.1|
84497954|NCT03359473|168747139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|25.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.8|-11.1|
84497955|NCT03359473|168747140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|18.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||18.4|-2.5|
84497956|NCT03359473|168747140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|24.0|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||24.0|-0.5|
84497957|NCT03359473|168747141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|1.121|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.121|0.643|
84497958|NCT03359473|168747141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.156|0.738|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.738|-0.156|
84497959|NCT03359473|168747142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|1.334|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.334|0.629|
84497960|NCT03359473|168747142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.682|1.571|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.571|0.682|
84573137|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.069||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
84573138|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
84497961|NCT03359473|168747143|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.795|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.795|0.964|
84497962|NCT03359473|168747143|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.654|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.654|0.594|
84573139|NCT00274456|168897420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.008
84573140|NCT00375752|168897424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-1.8|0.106
84676568|NCT02248922|169088542|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3502
84753447|NCT01621542|169262877|OTHER|None specified||||||||||||||||The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|||
84573141|NCT01140906|168897436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.4||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.40|-7.66|<0.0001
84573142|NCT01140906|168897436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-4.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-4.97|-9.21|<0.0001
84753448|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.081|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84573143|NCT01140906|168897436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-7.35||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-7.35|-11.55|<0.0001
84573144|NCT01140906|168897437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.47||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.47|1.76|<0.0001
84573145|NCT01140906|168897437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.36||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||5.36|2.10|<0.0001
84573146|NCT01140906|168897437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|9.78||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|||||9.78|3.61|<0.0001
84573147|NCT01140906|168897438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.44||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.44|-0.94|<0.0001
84573148|NCT01140906|168897438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.70|-1.20|<0.0001
84573149|NCT01140906|168897438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.87||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-1.36|<0.0001
84573150|NCT01140906|168897439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.22||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.22|-8.25|0.0007
84753449|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84573151|NCT01140906|168897439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.31||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.31|-9.53|<0.0001
84609011|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|39.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.74|21.32|
84644137|NCT00420641|169024192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.81|-2.62|0.002
84497963|NCT03359473|168747144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.658|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.658|0.677|
84497964|NCT03359473|168747144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.222|1.623|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.623|0.222|
84497965|NCT03359473|168747145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.493|2.678|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.678|1.493|
84497966|NCT03359473|168747145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|2.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.600|0.801|
84497967|NCT03359473|168747146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.271|2.945|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.945|1.271|
84497968|NCT03359473|168747146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|3.277|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.277|0.949|
84497969|NCT03359473|168747147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
84497970|NCT03359473|168747147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.5|-0.4|
84497971|NCT03359473|168747148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
84497972|NCT03359473|168747148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.2|
84497973|NCT03359473|168747149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.4|
84676569|NCT00684424|169088558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||R-ratio|-56.723|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.9499||||95.0|||||summary statistic|||R-ratio of seizure frequency summaries = \[(t-b)/(t+b)\]\*100; where t= treatment seizure frequency and b= baseline seizure frequency.||||
84497974|NCT03359473|168747149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.5|
84573152|NCT01140906|168897439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-5.69||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-5.69|-11.73|<0.0001
84497975|NCT03359473|168747150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|0.977|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.977|-2.082|
84497976|NCT03359473|168747150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.977|0.832|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.832|-0.977|
84497977|NCT03359473|168747151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.252|0.619|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.619|-2.252|
84497978|NCT03359473|168747151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.096|1.422|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.422|-1.096|
84497979|NCT03359473|168747152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.668|0.748|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.748|-2.668|
84497980|NCT03359473|168747152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.208|1.333|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.333|-5.208|
84497981|NCT03359473|168747153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.314|0.233|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.233|-0.314|
84497982|NCT03359473|168747153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.209|0.324|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.324|-0.209|
84497983|NCT03359473|168747154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.077|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.077|-0.650|
84497984|NCT03359473|168747154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.534|0.152|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.152|-0.534|
84497985|NCT03359473|168747155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|0.532|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.532|-0.555|
84609012|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.35|39.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.73|21.35|
84497986|NCT03359473|168747155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.541|0.08|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.080|-0.541|
84573153|NCT01140906|168897440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.91||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||3.91|1.37|0.0016
84573154|NCT01140906|168897440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.44||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.44|1.58|0.0002
84573155|NCT01140906|168897440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.37||Wald's test. This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted for Odds Ratio|||||8.37|2.99|<0.0001
84573156|NCT01140906|168897441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.97|-5.51|0.0054
84573157|NCT01140906|168897441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|-1.73||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.73|-6.11|0.0005
84573158|NCT01140906|168897441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-4.7||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-4.70|-9.16|<0.0001
84573159|NCT01140906|168897442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.48||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.48|-1.83|0.2524
84573160|NCT01140906|168897442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.68||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.68|-1.64|0.4186
84573161|NCT01140906|168897443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.67||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|-0.95|0.7372
84573162|NCT01140906|168897443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.37||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.37|-0.24|0.1690
84573163|NCT02690727|168897472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|128.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.13|138.59|||ANOVA|||||138.59|119.13|0.0002
84573164|NCT02690727|168897474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|139.27||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.01|174.73|||ANOVA|||||174.73|111.01|0.0278
84497987|NCT03359473|168747156|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.1|79.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||79.2|-57.1|
84609013|NCT02986854|168969259|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.67|-1.60|
84609014|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|28.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.67|5.85|
84497988|NCT03359473|168747156|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-149.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-280.6|-18.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||-18.1|-280.6|
84573165|NCT05352815|168897483|SUPERIORITY|Change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 is analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing HbA1c values at week 52 are imputed by using multiple imputation. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
84573166|NCT00402831|168897501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||Measles difference||2.6|-2.5|
84573167|NCT00402831|168897501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3||||||Mumps difference||3.3|-3.0|
84573168|NCT00402831|168897501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||||||Rubella difference||4.1|-2.3|
84573169|NCT00402831|168897501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||||||Varicella||4.1|-2.1|
84573170|NCT04773028|168897514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93054.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84573171|NCT03043053|168897520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
84573172|NCT03043053|168897521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.9|82.6|||||Controlled for lean mass. Reported values are outputted by STATA.|||82.6|-141.9|
84573173|NCT03043053|168897522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1036.0|1428.0||||||||1428|-1036|
84573174|NCT03043053|168897523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-152.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.3|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-302.3|
84573175|NCT02139540|168897559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome (HDRS-21) was analyzed with a repeated-measures mixed effects linear model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. To adjust for the observed carryover effect, the model included a randomization group term and a three-way interaction (treatment × time × randomization group)||||<0.05
84573176|NCT02139540|168897560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84573177|NCT02966834|168897576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.75|
84609015|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.25|6.39|
84609016|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|28.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.28|6.85|
84609017|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||7.20|-8.32|
84609018|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|30.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.38|-0.98|
84672339|NCT00653224|169080272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.026||95.0|-0.43|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.43|0.026
84676570|NCT01071512|169088568|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data from subjects, including those who dropped out early.||||0.17
84609019|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.16|7.30|
84609020|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|33.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.37|4.14|
84676571|NCT01071512|169088569|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.6
84573178|NCT02966834|168897576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.31||||||||0.31|-2.07|
84573179|NCT02966834|168897576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.28||||||||0.28|-2.03|
84573180|NCT02966834|168897576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.03||||||||0.03|-2.29|
84573181|NCT02966834|168897576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.65||||||||0.65|-1.71|
84573182|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Symptoms|||2.3|-1.9|
84573183|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||||Symptoms|||2.5|-1.5|
84573184|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||Symptoms|||0.8|-3.1|
84573185|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||Symptoms|||2.0|-1.8|
84573186|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||||Symptoms|||1.9|-2.0|
84573187|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||||Itch|||2.2|-1.3|
84573188|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.8|
84573189|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Itch|||1.2|-1.9|
84573190|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||||Itch|||0.5|-2.6|
84573191|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.9|
84573192|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||||Fatigue|||3.2|-4.5|
84573193|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||||Fatigue|||4.2|-2.8|
84573194|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||Fatigue|||7.0|0.0|
84573195|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||Fatigue|||5.1|-1.8|
84573196|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||||Fatigue|||3.6|-3.6|
84573197|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Cognitive|||2.6|-2.5|
84573198|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Cognitive|||1.7|-2.9|
84573199|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.1|
84573200|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Cognitive|||2.8|-1.8|
84573201|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.2|
84573202|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Emotional|||0.4|-2.1|
84573203|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||||Emotional|||1.3|-0.9|
84573204|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
84573205|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||Emotional|||0.3|-1.9|
84573206|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
84573207|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||||Social|||3.0|-2.4|
84573208|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||||Social|||3.7|-1.3|
84573209|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||||Social|||2.7|-2.3|
84573210|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||||Social|||0.1|-4.8|
84573211|NCT02966834|168897577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||||Social|||2.4|-2.8|
84609021|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|2.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.38|-18.34|
84609022|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|54.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.07|23.76|
84609023|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|56.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||56.98|27.08|
84609024|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.91|55.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.15|25.91|
84609025|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.89|-10.20|
84644138|NCT00420641|169024193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.2|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||0.20|-2.27|0.168
84573212|NCT02966834|168897578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.7|38.2||||||||38.2|-251.7|
84573213|NCT02966834|168897578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.5|23.8||||||||23.8|-198.5|
84573214|NCT02966834|168897578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.6|126.5||||||||126.5|-125.6|
84573215|NCT02966834|168897578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.5|54.8||||||||54.8|-211.5|
84573216|NCT02966834|168897578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.7|110.7||||||||110.7|-170.7|
84573217|NCT02966834|168897580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|15.5||||||||15.5|-58.4|
84573218|NCT02966834|168897580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|16.4||||||||16.4|-41.9|
84573219|NCT02966834|168897580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|20.0||||||||20.0|-49.9|
84573220|NCT02966834|168897580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|10.4||||||||10.4|-63.3|
84573221|NCT02966834|168897580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|37.1||||||||37.1|-36.7|
84573222|NCT02966834|168897581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|12.74||||||||12.74|-52.73|
84573223|NCT02966834|168897581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|1.39||||||||1.39|-50.80|
84573224|NCT02966834|168897581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.39|8.16||||||||8.16|-53.39|
84573225|NCT02966834|168897581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.44|0.09||||||||0.09|-63.44|
84573226|NCT02966834|168897581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|26.74||||||||26.74|-38.33|
84573227|NCT02966834|168897582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-6.8||||||||-6.8|-205.1|
84573228|NCT02966834|168897582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|17.6||||||||17.6|-148.5|
84573229|NCT02966834|168897582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|50.9||||||||50.9|-136.5|
84573230|NCT02966834|168897582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.2|29.5||||||||29.5|-161.2|
84573231|NCT02966834|168897582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.6|45.3||||||||45.3|-153.6|
84573232|NCT02966834|168897583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.929|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-11.929|
84573233|NCT02966834|168897583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.962|2.289||||||||2.289|-6.962|
84573234|NCT02966834|168897583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.679|3.215||||||||3.215|-7.679|
84573235|NCT02966834|168897583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.413|4.43||||||||4.430|-7.413|
84573236|NCT02966834|168897583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|11.063||||||||11.063|-0.591|
84573237|NCT02966834|168897584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.7|
84573238|NCT02966834|168897584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1||||||||2.1|-1.5|
84573239|NCT02966834|168897584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||||||||2.7|-1.2|
84573240|NCT02966834|168897584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.1|
84573241|NCT02966834|168897584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.5|
84753450|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.028|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84753451|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Posterior probability of the DLT rate ly|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84753452|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.012|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84753453|NCT02632721|169262894|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
84753454|NCT04207801|169262906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy of AUR101 was tested against placebo with respect to the primary endpoint (PASI75 response). A sample size of 25 in each of the three arms provided an 80% power with a one-sided Type I error of 0.05, if the true placebo response rate was 7% and the response rate on investigational arm(s) was 35%. The sample size was increased to 30 to account for \~ 15-20% dropouts over the study period.||||0.01
84753455|NCT04166383|169262918|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P≤0.10 (alpha 0.1); power = 90% (beta 0.1)|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.10
84753456|NCT03346057|169262923|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-17.5|0.026
84753457|NCT03346057|169262923|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|0.2|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||0.2|-17.3|0.058
84609026|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
84753458|NCT03346057|169262923|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|8.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||8.6|-17.8|0.730
84753459|NCT03346057|169262924|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-14.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-4.0|-28.8|0.007
84753460|NCT03346057|169262924|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-26.1|0.036
84753461|NCT03346057|169262924|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-9.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|3.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||3.6|-27.6|0.158
84753462|NCT03346057|169262925|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||4.0|-9.4|0.637
84753463|NCT03346057|169262925|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||1.5|-10.6|0.134
84753464|NCT03346057|169262925|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||5.8|-14.7|0.577
84497989|NCT03359473|168747157|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.7|29.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||29.2|-42.7|
84609027|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
84676572|NCT01071512|169088570|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.3
84753465|NCT03346057|169262926|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.5||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||18.5|-2.6|
84753466|NCT03346057|169262926|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.1||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||13.1|-9.3|
84609028|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.75|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.75|
84573242|NCT02966834|168897585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.08|
84573243|NCT02966834|168897585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.09|
84573244|NCT02966834|168897585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.06|
84573245|NCT02966834|168897585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
84573246|NCT02966834|168897585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.10|
84609029|NCT02986854|168969260|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
84609030|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|30.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.60|11.44|
84609031|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|26.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.43|7.34|
84609032|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|27.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.43|10.09|
84609033|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.04|-3.80|
84609034|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|30.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.99|2.92|
84573247|NCT02966834|168897586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.63||||||||0.63|-0.33|
84609035|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|31.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.06|2.83|
84672340|NCT00653224|169080273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.018||95.0|-0.45|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
84573248|NCT02966834|168897586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.51|
84573249|NCT02966834|168897586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.34|
84609036|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|29.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||29.39|3.83|
84573250|NCT02966834|168897586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.54|
84573251|NCT02966834|168897586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41||||||||0.41|-0.54|
84573252|NCT02966834|168897596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||12.02|0.69|
84573253|NCT02966834|168897596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.02|0.48|
84573254|NCT02966834|168897596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
84573255|NCT02966834|168897596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
84573256|NCT02966834|168897596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.13|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.13|0.43|
84573257|NCT02966834|168897597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.47|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.47|0.41|
84573258|NCT02966834|168897597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.65|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.65|0.95|
84573259|NCT02966834|168897597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.53|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.53|0.62|
84573260|NCT02966834|168897597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.92|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.92|0.74|
84573261|NCT02966834|168897597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.51|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.51|0.69|
84573262|NCT02966834|168897598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.04|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.04|0.27|
84573263|NCT02966834|168897598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.91|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.91|0.73|
84573264|NCT02966834|168897598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.08|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.08|0.35|
84753467|NCT03346057|169262926|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||17.7|-8.4|
84753468|NCT03346057|169262927|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||14.3|-5.5|
84497990|NCT03359473|168747157|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|2.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||2.4|-72.0|
84573265|NCT02966834|168897598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.42|0.73|
84573266|NCT02966834|168897598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.99|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.99|0.67|
84573267|NCT02966834|168897599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|39.0||||||||39.00|-2.59|
84573268|NCT02966834|168897599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.53||||||||29.53|-7.42|
84573269|NCT02966834|168897599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|36.06||||||||36.06|0.82|
84573270|NCT02966834|168897599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|43.95||||||||43.95|7.00|
84573271|NCT02966834|168897599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|31.99||||||||31.99|-5.47|
84573272|NCT02966834|168897600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|35.1||||||||35.10|-5.13|
84573273|NCT02966834|168897600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.84||||||||24.84|-10.90|
84573274|NCT02966834|168897600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|28.82||||||||28.82|-5.27|
84573275|NCT02966834|168897600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|39.7||||||||39.70|3.96|
84573276|NCT02966834|168897600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|39.69||||||||39.69|3.46|
84573277|NCT02966834|168897601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|27.06||||||||27.06|-14.76|
84676573|NCT01071512|169088571|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.02
84676574|NCT01071512|169088572|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.9
84676575|NCT02076412|169088586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for treatment difference (risk difference) was based on the normal approximation|||27.1|0.5|0.1519
84497991|NCT03359473|168747158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.9|-2.6|
84573278|NCT02966834|168897601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|25.84||||||||25.84|-11.32|
84573279|NCT02966834|168897601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|26.85||||||||26.85|-8.59|
84573280|NCT02966834|168897601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|38.51||||||||38.51|1.36|
84573281|NCT02966834|168897601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.87||||||||45.87|8.20|
84573282|NCT02966834|168897602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.92||||||||0.92|-1.46|
84573283|NCT02966834|168897602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.62||||||||0.62|-1.58|
84573284|NCT02966834|168897602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.53|
84573285|NCT02966834|168897602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.12||||||||0.12|-2.03|
84573286|NCT02966834|168897602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.40|
84573287|NCT02966834|168897603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.49|
84573288|NCT02966834|168897603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.41|
84573289|NCT02966834|168897603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.72||||||||0.72|-1.24|
84573290|NCT02966834|168897603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.39|
84573291|NCT02966834|168897603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.28|
84573292|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Duration|||0.5|-0.7|
84573293|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Duration|||0.9|-0.2|
84573294|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||||Duration|||0.1|-1.0|
84573295|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||||Duration|||0.7|-0.3|
84573296|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||||Duration|||0.6|-0.4|
84573297|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.8|
84573298|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.5|
84573299|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.6|
84573300|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.7|
84573301|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||||Degree|||0.4|-0.6|
84573302|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Direction|||0.7|-0.7|
84573303|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.7|
84573304|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Direction|||0.5|-0.8|
84573305|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||||Direction|||0.2|-1.0|
84573306|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.6|
84573307|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.1|
84573308|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Disability|||0.5|-0.8|
84573309|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
84573310|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
84753469|NCT03346057|169262927|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||9.3|-9.2|
84573311|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
84573312|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.9|
84573313|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
84573314|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||||Distribution|||0.0|-1.0|
84573315|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
84573316|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.7|
84609037|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|11.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.39|-11.35|
84672341|NCT00653224|169080274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.002||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.002
84676576|NCT02076412|169088591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.05|0.4927
84753470|NCT03346057|169262927|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||12.7|-15.1|
84753471|NCT03346057|169262928|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.8||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 2 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||3.8|-11.8|
84573317|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.3|-3.3|
84573318|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||2.1|-2.2|
84573319|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.7|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||0.7|-3.5|
84609038|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.64|62.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.38|32.64|
84573320|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.2|-3.0|
84573321|NCT02966834|168897604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.6|-2.7|
84573322|NCT02966834|168897608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.28||||||||0.28|-1.69|
84573323|NCT02966834|168897608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.26||||||||0.26|-1.49|
84573324|NCT02966834|168897608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-1.76|
84573325|NCT02966834|168897608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.05|
84573326|NCT02966834|168897608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.85|
84573327|NCT02966834|168897609|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.471||||||||1.471|0.635|
84573328|NCT02966834|168897609|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.712||||||||1.712|0.8|
84573329|NCT02966834|168897609|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.316||||||||1.316|0.627|
84573330|NCT02966834|168897609|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.005||||||||1.005|0.474|
84573331|NCT02966834|168897609|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.207||||||||1.207|0.564|
84573332|NCT02966834|168897610|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.995||||||||1.995|0.932|
84573333|NCT02966834|168897610|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|2.887||||||||2.887|1.456|
84573334|NCT02966834|168897610|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.758|3.436||||||||3.436|1.758|
84573335|NCT02966834|168897610|OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.206|4.435||||||||4.435|2.206|
84573336|NCT02966834|168897610|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|3.81||||||||3.81|1.915|
84573337|NCT03699748|168897611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.27|14.58|||Type III F test|||||14.58|7.27|<0.001
84573338|NCT03699748|168897614|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 4 Months|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||12.88 (9.49 - 16.28)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person. The effect estimate column shows the difference between change in the intervention group from baseline and the change in the control group from baseline.|||
84573339|NCT03699748|168897615|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 12 Months|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||20.65 (6.97 - 24.32)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person.|||
84573340|NCT03699748|168897616|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|15.0|||Type III F-test|||||15.00|7.09|0.001
84609039|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.87|61.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||61.79|31.87|
84753472|NCT03346057|169262928|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.4||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 4 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||8.4|-8.1|
84573341|NCT03699748|168897618|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.91 (0.40-2.09)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
84573342|NCT03699748|168897619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.27 (0.03 - 2.85)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
84573343|NCT03699748|168897620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.18-0.76)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
84573344|NCT03699748|168897621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.42 (0.22-0.79)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
84573345|NCT03699748|168897622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.08-1.75)||Odds Ratios for Hospitalization Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
84609040|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.04|61.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||61.31|33.04|
84753473|NCT03346057|169262928|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.1||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 16 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||11.1|-13.5|
84753474|NCT00705432|169262982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
84573346|NCT03699748|168897623|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
84573347|NCT03699748|168897624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
84573348|NCT03699748|168897625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
84573349|NCT03699748|168897626|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
84573350|NCT03699748|168897627|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|8.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
84573351|NCT03699748|168897628|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
84573352|NCT03699748|168897629|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.65 (0.44-0.98)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data after adjustment for length of follow-up.|||
84609041|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||10.04|-8.60|
84573353|NCT03699748|168897630|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.57 (0.28 - 1.18)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data.|||
84573354|NCT03699748|168897631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
84573355|NCT03699748|168897632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
84573356|NCT03699748|168897633|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Palliative Care were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
84573357|NCT03699748|168897634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||4.33 (0.89-21.08)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
84573358|NCT03699748|168897635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||2.76 (1.01-7.55)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
84573359|NCT03699748|168897636|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Hospice Receipt were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
84573360|NCT02431299|168897660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Whether there were significant changes in the IMRS baseline scores to IMRS follow up scores.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.78, df = 182||||||<0.01
84573361|NCT02431299|168897661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesized that higher levels of IMR competence would predict higher IMRS outcomes.||||<0.05
84573362|NCT03880474|168897669|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Log Binominal Model|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
84573363|NCT03880474|168897669|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
84573364|NCT03880474|168897670|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Log Binomial Model|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|1.0000
84573365|NCT03880474|168897670|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|0.9799
84573366|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-287.1||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-872.75|298.59|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Day 28||298.59|-872.75|0.3284
84573367|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.39||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.26|125.47|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Week26||125.47|-152.26|0.8468
84573368|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-465.7||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.21|943.75|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Day 28||943.75|-1875.21|0.5087
84573369|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-83.68||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.67|444.32|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Week 26||444.32|-611.67|0.7509
84573370|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-81.17||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.72|88.39|||ANOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Day 28||88.39|-250.72|0.3398
84573371|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.15||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|90.26|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Week 26||90.26|-37.95|0.4154
84573372|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.84||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|150.18|||ANCOVA|||Titers of neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Day 28||150.18|-104.50|0.7193
84573373|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|52.38||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|124.35|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Week 26||124.35|-19.59|0.1496
84573374|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.76||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.57|263.06|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Day 28||263.06|-296.57|0.9044
84573375|NCT03880474|168897672|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|38.64||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|134.24|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Week 26||134.24|-56.97|0.4198
84573376|NCT03880474|168897673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.90|0.4159
84573377|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Feeling Hot (AUC)||1.19|0.83|0.9550
84609042|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|45.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.62|26.50|
84609043|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|44.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.28|24.94|
84573378|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.0||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Temperature (AUC)||1|1|0.8933
84573379|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Cough (AUC)||1.09|0.7|0.2156
84573380|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.88||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Sore Throat AUC||1.10|0.71|0.2216
84573381|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Blocked Nose AUC||1.09|0.69|0.2306
84573382|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Chest Pain AUC||1.13|0.97|0.8038
84573383|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Muscle Pain AUC||1.21|0.84|0.9319
84573384|NCT03880474|168897674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Shortness of Breath AUC||1.19|0.86|0.8399
84573385|NCT03880474|168897675|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|743.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|443.71|1043.84|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Day 28 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||1043.84|443.71|0
84573386|NCT03880474|168897675|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|177.1||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|367.33|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Week 26 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||367.33|-13.14|0.0673
84753475|NCT00705432|169262982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.8|20.8|<0.0001
84609044|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.78|44.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||44.93|25.78|
84609045|NCT02986854|168969261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.60|0.10|
84609046|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4- Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.94|-6.08|
84609047|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|6.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.21|-5.32|
84609048|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.09|-5.68|
84753476|NCT00705432|169262982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|19.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.9|1.6|0.0440
84497992|NCT03359473|168747158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|2.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.1|-3.4|
84609049|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|3.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.01|-4.98|
84609050|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.38|44.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.07|22.38|
84609051|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|26.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|36.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.13|14.67|
84609052|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|30.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.42|37.97|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||37.97|19.42|
84609053|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|18.81|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||18.81|-3.25|
84609054|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.35|-14.26|
84609055|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|-8.70|
84609056|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.90|-11.35|
84609057|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-0.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-0.57|-12.25|
84609058|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|40.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.37|50.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.92|25.37|
84609059|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|47.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.90|22.14|
84609060|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.79|47.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.57|24.79|
84676577|NCT02076412|169088592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.32|0.2499
84672342|NCT00653224|169080275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.41|0.006
84753477|NCT00705432|169262982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|29.7||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||47.1|12.2|0.0035
84753478|NCT00705432|169262983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.2|19.2|<0.0001
84497993|NCT03359473|168747159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-2.9|
84573387|NCT03573297|168897678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.43|0.48|0.5745
84573388|NCT03573297|168897678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.51|0.52|0.6308
84573389|NCT02273167|168897707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CL. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|4.5||||0.055|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-4.00|0.055
84573390|NCT02273167|168897707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The CLs were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidences limits. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|1.59||||0.328|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.91|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were two alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-6.91|0.328
84573391|NCT02273167|168897708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|16.56|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.11|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||8.11|<0.001
84609061|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|14.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||14.73|-8.44|
84609062|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|2.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.31|-14.28|
84573392|NCT02273167|168897708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CLs) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|18.74|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|10.32|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||10.32|<0.001
84573393|NCT02273167|168897709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
84573394|NCT02273167|168897709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
84573395|NCT02273167|168897710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-0.29||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|8.02||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||8.02|-8.74|0.569
84573396|NCT02273167|168897710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|0.8||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|9.11||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||9.11|-7.65|0.455
84676578|NCT00958880|169088593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|10.46||||0.015||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.015
84573397|NCT02273167|168897711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|7.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|15.47|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||15.47|-1.41|0.024
84609063|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|11.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.60|-7.40|
84609064|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.66|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||5.66|-10.70|
84676579|NCT00958880|169088594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.575||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.575
84573398|NCT02273167|168897711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits. Non-inferiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP was proven.|Difference in PDR|2.37||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|10.82||Superiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP not demonstrated statistically.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||10.82|-6.12|0.268
84573399|NCT02273167|168897712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals.|Difference in PDR|-0.49||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|8.0|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||8.00|-8.85|0.579
84497994|NCT03359473|168747159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.5|0.0|
84573400|NCT02273167|168897712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|0.61||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|9.09|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||9.09|-7.78|0.478
84573401|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of baseline values||||0.643
84573402|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.018
84573403|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.027
84573404|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
84573405|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
84573406|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.326
84573407|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.019
84573408|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.014
84573409|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.427
84573410|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
84573411|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.021
84573412|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Value||||0.545
84573413|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
84573414|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.670
84573415|NCT03074500|168897737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.192
84573416|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.633
84573417|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.282
84573418|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.015
84573419|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.677
84573420|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.344
84573421|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.596
84573422|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
84573423|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.257
84573424|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.449
84573425|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
84573426|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.019
84573427|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.325
84573428|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.003
84672343|NCT00653224|169080276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.003
84672344|NCT00653224|169080277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
84497995|NCT03359473|168747160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.6|-8.9|
84573429|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.323
84573430|NCT03074500|168897738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.641
84573431|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.715
84573432|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.227
84573433|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.012
84573434|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.907
84573435|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.482
84573436|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.485
84573437|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.129
84573438|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
84573439|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.935
84573440|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.002
84573441|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.036
84573442|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.056
84573443|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.016
84573444|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.618
84573445|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.48
84573446|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.034
84573447|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.041
84573448|NCT03074500|168897739|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||1
84573449|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.103
84573450|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
84573451|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.008
84573452|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.76
84573453|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
84573454|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.056
84573455|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
84573456|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
84609065|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|-1.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-1.80|-13.89|
84609066|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.35|49.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.88|24.35|
84609067|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|37.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.23|48.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.95|23.23|
84609068|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|47.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.56|24.80|
84609069|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|12.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.60|-10.51|
84609070|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.36|0.15|
84609071|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|9.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.24|-3.15|
84609072|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|9.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.55|-1.41|
84609073|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|9.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.54|-2.48|
84609074|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|39.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.76|50.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.29|25.76|
84609075|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|48.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|58.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.34|33.89|
84609076|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|43.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.79|52.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||52.37|30.79|
84609077|NCT02986854|168969262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-8.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|3.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.45|-19.61|
84609078|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.7||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.70|0.93|
84609079|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.82||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.82|0.98|
84609080|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.72|0.97|
84609081|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.17|0.76|
84644139|NCT00420641|169024193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.27|-0.97|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.97|-3.27|0.002
84573457|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.117
84573458|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.006
84573459|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
84573460|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.487
84573461|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.002
84573462|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.102
84573463|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.165
84573464|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.007
84573465|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.028
84573466|NCT03074500|168897740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.83
84573467|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.837
84573468|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.215
84573469|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.078
84573470|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.699
84573471|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.846
84573472|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.56
84573473|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.087
84573474|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.183
84573475|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.719
84573476|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
84573477|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.196
84573478|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.318
84573479|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.001
84573480|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.483
84573481|NCT03074500|168897741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
84573482|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.897
84573483|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.325
84573484|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.172
84573485|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.622
84573486|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.909
84573487|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.79
84573488|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.24
84573489|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
84573490|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.909
84573491|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.255
84573492|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.058
84573493|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
84573494|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.007
84573495|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.614
84573496|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.072
84573497|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.447
84573498|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.084
84573499|NCT03074500|168897742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.235
84573500|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.958
84573501|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.597
84573502|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.518
84573503|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.88
84573504|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.733
84609082|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|9.47||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.47|2.84|
84609083|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.5||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||7.50|2.24|
84609084|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|8.15||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||8.15|2.62|
84609085|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.91||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.91|0.84|
84573505|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
84573506|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.404
84573507|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.97
84573508|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.362
84573509|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.271
84573510|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.519
84609086|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|8.85||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||8.85|4.84|
84609087|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|9.98||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|5.44|
84609088|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|9.21||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.21|5.23|
84573511|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
84573512|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
84573513|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.973
84573514|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.886
84573515|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.82
84573516|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.017
84573517|NCT03074500|168897743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.734
84573518|NCT03353220|168897784|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84573519|NCT03353220|168897785|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84573520|NCT03353220|168897786|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
84573521|NCT03353220|168897790|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
84609089|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.72|
84609090|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|between group GMT ratios|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.04||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.04|1.95|
84644140|NCT00420641|169024194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||0.09|-0.46|0.257
84753479|NCT00705432|169262983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.8|21.5|<0.0001
84573522|NCT03857256|168897802|SUPERIORITY|Mean changes from Week 0 in LDL-C were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach including effects of treatment group, time (Week 6 and Week 12) and treatment group x time interaction as well as the covariates of Week 0 value of LDL-C and Week 0 value of LDL-C x time interaction. An unstructured covariance structure were used to model the within-patient errors. Contrasts under this model allowed for the three main comparisons.||||||0.0167||||||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation were used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).||||0.0167
84753480|NCT00705432|169262983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|21.3||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||40.2|2.3|0.0366
84573523|NCT00315341|168897813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||shift table analyses|||categorized changes in ALT/AST from BL:(1)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)≤2X upper limit of normal(ULN)\& remained at this level;(2)BL transaminases ≤2X ULN(either ALT/AST)but increased(either ALT/AST)above this level at any time;(3)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& decreased and remained at ≤2X ULN(both ALT/AST);(4)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)\>2X ULN \&remained at this level(both ALT/AST);(5)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& increased 2X above this level ever(either ALT/AST).||||< 0.05
84573524|NCT04770753|168897836|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimated adjusted difference in response rate, 95% CI, and p-value are based on Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.||49.8|32.0|<0.0001
84573525|NCT04770753|168897837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lean Square (LS) Mean|3.4||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.59|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes average change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue subscale score from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.59|1.21|0.0026
84573526|NCT04770753|168897838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.46|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an ANCOVA model which includes average change from baseline in Hb concentrations from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline Hb concentration and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||11.46|7.80|<0.0001
84573527|NCT04780659|168897860|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
84573528|NCT04780659|168897863|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
84573529|NCT04780659|168897864|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
84573530|NCT04588259|168897882|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using mixed-effect model for repeated measurement (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits were included in analysis. Model included treatment and stratification of type 1 diabetes mellitus/ type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix described the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||0.09|-0.19|0.5102
84573531|NCT04588259|168897883|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.03||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits are included in the analysis. The model includes treatment and stratification (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to describe the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||1.03|-2.08|0.5102
84573532|NCT04460885|168897911|NON_INFERIORITY|The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.|Treatment difference|-0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.36|<0.0001
84573533|NCT02469233|168897929|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-3.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.025
84573534|NCT02469233|168897929|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.52||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.28
84753481|NCT00705432|169262983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|27.2||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||45.3|9.0|0.0107
84573535|NCT02469233|168897930|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.001
84573536|NCT02469233|168897930|SUPERIORITY||maximum likelihood estimation|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.03
84573537|NCT02469233|168897931|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
84573538|NCT02469233|168897931|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||<0.0001
84573539|NCT02469233|168897932|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
84573540|NCT02469233|168897932|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.027
84573541|NCT02469233|168897933|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.32
84573542|NCT02469233|168897933|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.08
84573543|NCT02469233|168897934|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.72
84573544|NCT02469233|168897934|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.74
84609091|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.77|1.21|
84573545|NCT02469233|168897935|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-2.46||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.73
84573546|NCT02469233|168897935|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.02
84573547|NCT02469233|168897936|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.68||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.03
84573548|NCT02469233|168897936|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
84573549|NCT02469233|168897936|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.45||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.43
84573550|NCT02469233|168897936|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.55||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.40
84573551|NCT02469233|168897937|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-12.68||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.59
84573552|NCT02469233|168897937|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.22
84497996|NCT03359473|168747160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|3.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.1|-7.2|
84497997|NCT03359473|168747161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|-0.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.4|-9.5|
84497998|NCT03359473|168747161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|2.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.2|-10.3|
84497999|NCT03359473|168747162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.3|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.3|-5.9|
84498000|NCT03359473|168747162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|4.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.2|-4.6|
84498001|NCT03359473|168747163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|8.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||8.8|-0.8|
84498002|NCT03359473|168747163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||9.4|-2.3|
84498003|NCT03359473|168747164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-1.9|-6.5|
84498004|NCT03359473|168747164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-4.1|
84498005|NCT03359473|168747165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.8|-3.8|
84498006|NCT03359473|168747165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.2|-4.6|
84498007|NCT03359473|168747170|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|7.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.4|-1.4|
84498008|NCT03359473|168747170|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-2.3|
84498009|NCT03359473|168747171|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||10.1|-5.0|
84498010|NCT03359473|168747171|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|7.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.5|-8.4|
84573553|NCT02469233|168897937|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|4.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.80
84573554|NCT02469233|168897937|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.57||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.68
84573555|NCT02469233|168897938|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-76.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.34
84498011|NCT03359473|168747172|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.1|-3.2|
84498012|NCT03359473|168747172|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-5.6|
84498013|NCT03359473|168747173|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|8.6|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||8.6|-1.7|
84498014|NCT03359473|168747173|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.7|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.7|-0.7|
84498015|NCT05302414|168747178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
84498016|NCT05302414|168747178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
84498017|NCT05302414|168747178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
84498018|NCT05302414|168747179|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For pretest at the 0 week||||<0.05
84573556|NCT02469233|168897938|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-87.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.28
84573557|NCT02469233|168897938|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.18
84573558|NCT02469233|168897938|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.02
84573559|NCT02469233|168897939|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.09
84573560|NCT02469233|168897939|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome.||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.79
84573561|NCT02469233|168897940|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome,||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.46
84573562|NCT02469233|168897940|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.10
84573563|NCT02469233|168897941|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.002
84573564|NCT02469233|168897941|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
84609092|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.64||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.64|1.60|
84609093|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.40|1.07|
84573565|NCT02469233|168897942|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|24.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.23
84573566|NCT02469233|168897942|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|34.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.09
84573567|NCT02469233|168897942|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-19.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.19
84573568|NCT02469233|168897942|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.76||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.91
84609094|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|25.19||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.19|7.51|
84609095|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|24.66||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||24.66|7.31|
84609096|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.0||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||24.00|7.70|
84573569|NCT02469233|168897943|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-39.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.04
84573570|NCT02469233|168897943|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.13
84573571|NCT02469233|168897943|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.21
84573572|NCT02469233|168897943|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-16.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.25
84573573|NCT02469233|168897944|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Bedtime (BT) mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.10
84573574|NCT02469233|168897944|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.04
84573575|NCT02469233|168897944|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.20
84573576|NCT02469233|168897944|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.07
84573577|NCT02469233|168897945|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.33||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.39
84573578|NCT02469233|168897945|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.96
84498019|NCT05302414|168747179|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
84573579|NCT02469233|168897945|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.047
84573580|NCT02469233|168897945|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.30
84573581|NCT02469233|168897946|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.66
84573582|NCT02469233|168897946|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-13.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.19
84573583|NCT02469233|168897946|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.05||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.77
84573584|NCT02469233|168897946|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.20
84498020|NCT05302414|168747179|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
84498021|NCT05302414|168747180|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
84753482|NCT02281357|169263014|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the average percentage change in OCS dose on tralokinumab was equal to the average percentage change in OCS dose on placebo.|LS Mean difference|-7.78||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.15|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model utilised a sandwich estimator for the variance.|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. All group comparisons from the ANCOVA model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Comparison of percent change from baseline in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||6.15|-21.70|0.271
84753483|NCT02281357|169263015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of OCS dose ≤5.0 mg: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.73|0.65|0.442
84498022|NCT05302414|168747180|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
84498023|NCT05302414|168747180|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|43.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
84498024|NCT05302414|168747181|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
84498025|NCT05302414|168747181|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
84498026|NCT05302414|168747181|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
84498027|NCT05302414|168747182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
84498028|NCT05302414|168747182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
84498029|NCT05302414|168747182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
84753484|NCT02281357|169263016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of ≥50% reduction in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.74|0.70|0.356
84498030|NCT05302414|168747183|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||<0.05
84498031|NCT00742859|168747184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|1.14|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||1.14|0.017|0.035
84498032|NCT00742859|168747184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.711||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.24|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||2.24|0.225|0.546
84498033|NCT00742859|168747184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|2.39|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||2.39|0.239|0.712
84498034|NCT00742859|168747185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.856|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||0.856|0.301|0.011
84498035|NCT00742859|168747185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.22|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||1.22|0.481|0.308
84498036|NCT00742859|168747185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.914|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||0.914|0.332|0.022
84498037|NCT01523301|168747202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||=|0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.33||The null hypothesis was assessed with a 2-sided test and not rejected at p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline to the end of the Maintenance period in the score of the HAM-D of rotigotine-treated subjects has been compared with those subjects on placebo in the EES. The null hypothesis (H0) was that there was no difference in the change of the HAM-D score between the active treatment and the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that there was a difference in the change of HAM-D score between the rotigotine and the placebo arm.||0.33|-2.56|=0.1286
84498038|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% confidence interval for the true difference in the incidence of MACE between the two treatment groups. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Total MACE: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.3|-7.3|0.9237
84498039|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence limits were calculated by the exact unconditional inference. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Death: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of events was less than 5.||10.7|-10.7|1.0000
84498040|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Myocardial Infarction: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.2|-7.2|0.9158
84498041|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5104|1.6846|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval calculated by including treatment group as the only covariate in the logistic regression model. Reference group = usual care.||1.6846|0.5104|0.80
84498042|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4887|1.8836|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted odds ratio: model includes treatment group and potential confounding covariates age, gender, country, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, LVEF \<=40, and use of beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, angiotension receptor blockers, calcium channel antagonists, and diuretics. Reference group = usual care.||1.8836|0.4887|0.90
84498043|NCT00728988|168747209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier log rank test.||MACE-free survival up to Day 30. A censoring variable with a value of 1 denoted that the subject had the event and 0 indicated that the subject was censored. A log-rank test was applied to investigate any differences on the survival distribution function between two treatment groups.||||0.8494
84498044|NCT00728988|168747210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care.|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.3|-5.6|1.0000
84498045|NCT00728988|168747211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|6.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care .|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.5|-9.7|0.7896
84498046|NCT00728988|168747212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.4|-10.1|0.631
84498047|NCT00728988|168747212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.5|-12.1|0.518
84498048|NCT00728988|168747212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||12.0|-9.6|0.236
84498049|NCT00728988|168747213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||15.9|-6.2|0.425
84498050|NCT00728988|168747213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||16.7|-6.1|0.392
84498051|NCT00728988|168747213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.9|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||10.9|-10.7|1.000
84498052|NCT00728988|168747214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||4.3|-9.6|0.529
84573585|NCT03979313|168897966|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|62.15||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|86.8|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||86.80|-8.57|0.0708
84498053|NCT00728988|168747214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||3.6|-5.8|0.827
84573586|NCT03979313|168897967|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|74.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|87.12|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||87.12|49.63|<0.0001
84498054|NCT00728988|168747214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||11.5|-10.3|0.616
84498055|NCT00728988|168747215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.53||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.87|156.81|||ANOVA|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||156.81|-215.87|0.7554
84498056|NCT00728988|168747215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.58||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-253.42|354.58|||ANOVA|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||354.58|-253.42|0.7436
84498057|NCT00728988|168747215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.22||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.12|101.68|||ANOVA|||30 days post-PCI: difference (% change).||101.68|-218.12|0.4741
84498058|NCT00091507|168747217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
84498059|NCT00091507|168747218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.30|0.08
84498060|NCT00091507|168747219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
84573587|NCT03979313|168897968|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.27|85.18|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||85.18|62.27|<0.0001
84573588|NCT03979313|168897969|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.36|89.41|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||89.41|49.36|0.0002
84609097|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.56|0.67|
84498061|NCT00091507|168747220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.40|0.27
84573589|NCT02631057|168897974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.717|-1.251|||Abadie-Imbens|LoS Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATET) \[Dabigatran group\], dispersion analysed with Abadie-Imbens's standard error.|The ATET of LoS from oral anticoagulant initiation to hospital discharge was calculated as \[Dabigatran - Warfarin\] in the matched cohort of matching ratio 1:3.|||-1.251|-3.717|<0.001
84573590|NCT02030600|168898001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.8|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period"||0.80|0.61|<0.0001
84573591|NCT02030600|168898002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period."||0.74|0.46|<0.0001
84573592|NCT02030600|168898003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure:~Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes in the maintenance period."||||0.3458
84573593|NCT02030600|168898005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDeg against IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM) with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.23|-0.04|
84573594|NCT02030600|168898005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%|Treatment contrast|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a MMRM with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.18|-0.07|
84573595|NCT05452239|168898044|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-4); 2. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12); 3. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-4); 4. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-12); 5. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-4), 6. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-12), 7. Change in average Daily Pain assessment score (Weeks 1-2); 8. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-4), 9. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-12).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.23||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.23|-4.16|<0.0001
84753485|NCT02281357|169263017|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Negative binomial||Treatment group, OCS dose at baseline, and number of exacerbations in the previous year are included in the model as covariates.|Comparison of AAER: tralokinumab vs placebo.||1.12|0.57|0.186
84753486|NCT01162239|169263043|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84753487|NCT01162239|169263044|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
84753488|NCT00228566|169263045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Responders = 201/241|83.4||||||95.0|78.7|88.1|||Descriptive Statistics||The Overall Endpoint includes the last postbaseline value for each patient in the full analysis set, regardless of evaluation period. The Number of Responders (at least minimal improvement) at this Overall Endpoint equaled a total of 201 patients.|This was an open label study, with all patients receiving treatment with armodafinil||88.1|78.7|
84573596|NCT05452239|168898045|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.86|<0.0001
84609098|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|27.51||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.51|13.73|
84609099|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|25.12||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.12|12.50|
84644141|NCT00420641|169024194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||-0.25|-0.77|0.001
84573597|NCT05452239|168898046|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.22|-4.07|<0.0001
84573598|NCT05452239|168898046|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.83|<0.0001
84573599|NCT05452239|168898047|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.94||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.94|2.18|<0.0001
84573600|NCT05452239|168898047|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.9||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.90|1.93|<0.0001
84573601|NCT05452239|168898048|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 7 of testing order.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with the average Daily Pain at baseline as a covariate and including treatment group, country, and previous treatment failures, as categorical variables.||-0.22|-0.39|<0.0001
84573602|NCT05452239|168898049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.67||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 8 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.67|-4.59|<0.0001
84609100|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|18.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|25.73||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||25.73|13.40|
84609101|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.40|0.86|
84498062|NCT00091507|168747221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.27|0.01
84609102|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.11||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.11|1.13|
84609103|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.08||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.08|1.48|
84498063|NCT02426125|168747242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.943||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||0.943|0.607|0.0118
84573603|NCT05452239|168898049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-2.48||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 9 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.48|-4.23|<0.0001
84573604|NCT02921256|168898111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
84753489|NCT01624259|169263080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a serial gatekeeping strategy.~This calculation assumed a 0 difference in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 1.5-mg arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide, 0.4% margin of noninferiority, common Standard Deviation (SD) of 1.3% for change from baseline in HbA1c, 0.05 two-sided significance level, and 25% dropout rate at 26 weeks."|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment).|Mixed Models Analysis|||To show noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide with 90% power, 222 completers (444 total) at 26 weeks were required. Noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide arm was below 0.4%.||0.07|-0.19|<0.001
84753490|NCT01624259|169263080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||0.07|-0.19|0.186
84753491|NCT01624259|169263081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.26||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model at 26 weeks.||1.26|0.17|0.010
84753492|NCT01624259|169263082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.05|0.013
84753493|NCT01624259|169263083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|4.56||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||4.56|-5.69|0.828
84573605|NCT02921256|168898111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
84753494|NCT01624259|169263084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|1.41||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value from pairwise comparison of LS means at 26 weeks from REML-based MMRM.||||1.41|-5.91|0.228
84753495|NCT01624259|169263085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.86||P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels ≤6.5%||1.86|0.81|0.322
84753496|NCT01624259|169263085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels \<7.0%.||1.63|0.64|0.925
84753497|NCT01624259|169263086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|6.92|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||||6.92|-4.06|0.608
84753498|NCT00782288|169263120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Measures were compared between Baseline, Treatment \& Recovery periods to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin dose levels. Kruskal-Wallis equity of population rank test was performed on the changes Day 28 minus Day 1. To compare the change from baseline to treatment period between the two arms, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed. To determine whether induced sputum Il-8 returned to baseline at the final visit, a one sample sign test was performed.||||>0.05
84753499|NCT00782288|169263126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline,Treatment and Recovery periods were compared to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin doses.||||>0.05
84573606|NCT01933594|168898128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84573607|NCT01933594|168898129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.94
84573608|NCT01933594|168898129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.74
84573609|NCT01933594|168898129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.18
84573610|NCT01933594|168898129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.16
84498064|NCT02426125|168747243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.086||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||1.086|0.724|0.2461
84573611|NCT01933594|168898130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84573612|NCT01933594|168898131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.9
84573613|NCT01933594|168898131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.07
84573614|NCT01933594|168898131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
84573615|NCT01933594|168898131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.92
84573616|NCT01933594|168898132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 6 hours post infusion||||0.44
84753500|NCT02877927|169263133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.3|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||10.3|-0.2|
84753501|NCT02877927|169263134|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.9|-2.2|
84753502|NCT02877927|169263135|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||5.6|-0.6|
84573617|NCT01933594|168898132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 12 hours post infusion||||0.024
84573618|NCT01933594|168898132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.37
84573619|NCT01933594|168898132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.79
84573620|NCT01933594|168898132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.34
84573621|NCT01933594|168898133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84573622|NCT01933594|168898134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84753503|NCT00601250|169263136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.5|-0.78|<0.0001
84753504|NCT00601250|169263137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.333|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.333|-0.530|<0.0001
84753505|NCT00601250|169263138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.721|-0.471|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.471|-0.721|<0.0001
84753506|NCT00601250|169263139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.785|-0.512|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.512|-0.785|<0.0001
84573623|NCT01933594|168898135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84573624|NCT01933594|168898137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.19
84573625|NCT01933594|168898137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.63
84573626|NCT01933594|168898137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.94
84573627|NCT01933594|168898137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.66
84573628|NCT01933594|168898137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
84573629|NCT01933594|168898138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion||||0.73
84573630|NCT01933594|168898138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.9
84573631|NCT01933594|168898139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.8
84573632|NCT01933594|168898139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.73
84573633|NCT01933594|168898139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.84
84573634|NCT01933594|168898139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
84573635|NCT01933594|168898139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.64
84573636|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.34
84573637|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
84573638|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
84573639|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.008
84573640|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 2 weeks post infusion 4||||0.55
84573641|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 5 weeks post infusion 4||||0.48
84573642|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.54
84573643|NCT01933594|168898147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 18 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
84573644|NCT01933594|168898149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.95
84573645|NCT01933594|168898149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.07
84573646|NCT01933594|168898149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.26
84573647|NCT01933594|168898150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.89
84753507|NCT00601250|169263140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.3|-14.96|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.96|-27.3|<0.0001
84498065|NCT02426125|168747246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.158|||Log Rank|||||1.158|0.473|0.189
84573648|NCT01933594|168898150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.14
84573649|NCT01933594|168898150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.74
84573650|NCT01933594|168898151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.71
84573651|NCT01933594|168898151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.79
84573652|NCT01933594|168898151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.38
84573653|NCT01933594|168898152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||1
84573654|NCT01933594|168898152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.92
84573655|NCT01933594|168898152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.66
84573656|NCT01933594|168898153|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||1
84573657|NCT01933594|168898153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.9
84573658|NCT01933594|168898153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
84573659|NCT01933594|168898154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.63
84573660|NCT01933594|168898154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||hange from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
84573661|NCT01933594|168898154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.028
84573662|NCT01933594|168898155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.62
84573663|NCT01933594|168898155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
84573664|NCT01933594|168898155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.69
84573665|NCT01933594|168898156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.28
84573666|NCT01933594|168898156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
84573667|NCT01933594|168898156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.81
84573668|NCT01933594|168898157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
84573669|NCT01933594|168898157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.22
84573670|NCT01933594|168898157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.031
84573671|NCT01933594|168898158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
84573672|NCT01933594|168898158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.39
84573673|NCT01933594|168898158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.12
84573674|NCT01933594|168898159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.7
84573675|NCT01933594|168898159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
84573676|NCT01933594|168898159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
84573677|NCT01933594|168898160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.78
84573678|NCT01933594|168898160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.41
84573679|NCT01933594|168898160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
84573680|NCT01933594|168898161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD4||||0.69
84573681|NCT01933594|168898161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD4||||0.27
84573682|NCT01933594|168898162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD8||||0.81
84573683|NCT01933594|168898162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD8||||0.81
84573684|NCT01933594|168898163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.37
84573685|NCT01933594|168898163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
84573686|NCT01933594|168898163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.28
84573687|NCT01933594|168898163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.16
84573688|NCT01933594|168898163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.12
84609104|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.44||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||3.44|1.33|
84644142|NCT00420641|169024195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.0|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR Item 5 score at Week 10.||-0.00|-0.33|0.096
84573689|NCT01933594|168898164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.027
84573690|NCT01933594|168898164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
84573691|NCT01933594|168898164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
84573692|NCT01933594|168898164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
84753508|NCT00601250|169263141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.76|-11.29|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.29|-21.76|<0.0001
84753509|NCT00601250|169263142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.44|-11.01|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.01|-22.44|<0.0001
84753510|NCT00601250|169263143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.81|-14.84|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.84|-26.81|<0.0001
84573693|NCT01933594|168898164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
84573694|NCT04848480|168898165|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the estimated treatment difference was below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks was analysed using ANCOVA model with treatment, region, HbA1c group at screening and pre-trial basal insulin treatment as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.23|-0.13|0.0065
84573695|NCT05352763|168898183|OTHER|No statistical analysis performed|||||||||||||||||The classical summary of count and percentages will be provided for basic safety tabulations and dispositions as appropriate. All data will be presented in by-subject data listings. No inferential statistics will be produced.|||
84573696|NCT00362232|168898184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.17|-5.25|<0.001
84573697|NCT00362232|168898184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71||||0.036||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.17|-5.25|0.036
84573698|NCT00362232|168898185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.19||||0.012||95.0|-5.67|-0.71|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.71|-5.67|0.012
84573699|NCT00362232|168898186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.456||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.6|-1.34|0.456
84573700|NCT00362232|168898186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.6|-1.34|<0.001
84573701|NCT00362232|168898187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.124||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.22|-1.82|0.124
84609105|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.53|
84753511|NCT00601250|169263144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.395|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.41|8.013|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||8.013|2.410|<0.0001
84573702|NCT00362232|168898187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.22|-1.82|<0.001
84573703|NCT00362232|168898188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.59|0.66|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.59|
84573704|NCT00362232|168898189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72||||||95.0|-1.81|0.36|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.36|-1.81|
84573705|NCT00362232|168898190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38||||||95.0|-4.84|0.07|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.07|-4.84|
84573706|NCT00362232|168898191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.67||||||95.0|-5.02|-0.32|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||-0.32|-5.02|
84573707|NCT00362232|168898192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24||||||95.0|-0.22|0.71|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.71|-0.22|
84573708|NCT00362232|168898193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||||95.0|-0.35|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.35|
84573709|NCT00362232|168898194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.56|0.94|||||Exact methods for difference to Enoxaparin|||0.94|-1.56|
84609106|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|12.22||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.22|4.05|
84753512|NCT00601250|169263146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.0016||95.0|1.907|15.614|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||15.614|1.907|0.0016
84753513|NCT00601250|169263148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.754|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.486|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.669|2.486|<0.0001
84498066|NCT02426125|168747247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.167||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|Global health status/QoL||1.167|0.663|0.357
84573710|NCT00362232|168898195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47||||0.054||95.0|-4.99|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.04|-4.99|0.054
84573711|NCT00362232|168898195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.49|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.04|-4.49|<0.001
84573712|NCT00362232|168898196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97||||0.017||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||-0.53|-5.42|0.017
84573713|NCT00362232|168898196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.53|-5.42|<0.001
84753514|NCT00601250|169263149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-67.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.69|-39.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-39.58|-94.69|<0.0001
84753515|NCT00601250|169263150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-21.89|-61.71|<0.0001
84753516|NCT01791803|169263153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.4||||||||11.4|1.1|
84753517|NCT01791803|169263153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.7||||||||9.7|1.04|
84753518|NCT01791803|169263154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.2||||Adjusted for gender, marital status, diagnosis at enrollment.||||6.2|0.8|
84753519|NCT01791803|169263154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||||||||10|1.2|
84753520|NCT01791803|169263155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking status at 12 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or pulmonary diagnosis||||< 0.001
84753521|NCT01791803|169263155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking stars at 26 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or a pulmonary illness||||0.07
84753522|NCT02229539|169263171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.02
84753523|NCT02229539|169263171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.004
84753524|NCT02060383|169263184|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.08|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (Cushing's vs. Acromegaly; baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|All Patients||0.08|-0.63|
84753525|NCT02060383|169263184|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.95|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Cushing's Disease||0.95|-0.96|
84573714|NCT00362232|168898197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.27||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.44|-1.57|0.270
84609107|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|15.66||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||15.66|5.16|
84609108|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|13.35||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||13.35|4.72|
84753526|NCT02060383|169263184|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Acromegaly||0.02|-0.74|
84753527|NCT03426787|169263224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.30216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.6531|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.6531|-18.95|<0.001
84753528|NCT03426787|169263225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4717||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9355|-0.00793|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00793|-0.9355|0.0463
84753529|NCT03426787|169263226|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.936|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4086|3.5365|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5365|-7.4086|>0.05
84753530|NCT00713817|169263235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.89||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.56|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||2.56|-0.78|0.273
84573715|NCT00362232|168898197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.44|-1.57|<0.001
84573716|NCT00362232|168898198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98||||0.074||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.10|-2.06|0.074
84573717|NCT00362232|168898198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided) .|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.10|-2.06|<0.001
84573718|NCT00362232|168898199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.11||95.0|-0.09|0.88|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.88|-0.09|0.110
84573719|NCT00855582|168898202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573720|NCT00855582|168898203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84753531|NCT00713817|169263236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.62||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|13.75|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||13.75|-4.51|0.296
84573721|NCT00855582|168898204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.181||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.181
84573722|NCT00855582|168898205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573723|NCT00855582|168898206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573724|NCT00855582|168898207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84609109|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.14|0.54|
84573725|NCT00855582|168898208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573726|NCT00855582|168898209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.156
84609110|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.83|35.65||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.65|17.83|
84644143|NCT00420641|169024195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|-0.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR Item 5 at Week 10.||-0.22|-0.53|0.000
84573727|NCT00855582|168898210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.226||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.226
84573728|NCT00855582|168898210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84753532|NCT00713817|169263237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-square|0.048||||0.826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed using Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis methodology. The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution function between treatments was assessed using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||||0.826
84753533|NCT00713817|169263238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|9.62|||Hodges-Lehmann|||The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution functions between treatments was assessed using the Wilcoxon test with an estimate of the median difference between groups in response level (percent change from baseline) provided by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||9.62|-39.7|0.54
84753534|NCT00713817|169263239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.29|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||1.29|-1.45|0.902
84753535|NCT00713817|169263240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.557||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|8.261|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated the parent Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). The interaction between treatment group and parent RCTs was investigated, but was dropped from the model if found to have little influence. The test was performed at the 10% significance level. The final model was then treatment group and parent RCTs, i.e. the treatment effect was adjusted for parent RCTs baseline.||8.261|0.293|0.603
84753536|NCT03627767|169263245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.424||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.424|0.286|< 0.0001
84753537|NCT03627767|169263245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.27||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.270|0.176|< 0.0001
84753538|NCT03627767|169263245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.78||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.780|0.503|< 0.0001
84498067|NCT03728257|168747357|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.8793||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8793
84498068|NCT03728257|168747358|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.9597||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9597
84498069|NCT03728257|168747359|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84573729|NCT00855582|168898211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.121
84573730|NCT00855582|168898211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.169||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.169
84676580|NCT01971346|169088595|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Type III TNF-alpha p-value=0.36. Type III IFN-alpha p-value=0.36. Interaction was not included in this model.|Regression, Linear|||A cumulative score reflecting change in PASI during the course of treatment was calculated and treated as a continuous response variable. Linear modeling was done to determine if change in PASI score was associated with the baseline TNF-alpha signal, baseline IFN-alpha signal and/or an interaction between these two signals.||||0.38
84498070|NCT03728257|168747360|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.81||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84498071|NCT03728257|168747361|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.2262||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2262
84498072|NCT03728257|168747362|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84573731|NCT00855582|168898211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573732|NCT00855582|168898211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573733|NCT00855582|168898212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573734|NCT00855582|168898212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573735|NCT00855582|168898212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573736|NCT00855582|168898212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573737|NCT00855582|168898213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573738|NCT00855582|168898213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573739|NCT00855582|168898213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573740|NCT00855582|168898213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573741|NCT00855582|168898214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.215||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.215
84573742|NCT00855582|168898214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.325
84573743|NCT00855582|168898214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573744|NCT00855582|168898214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.011
84609111|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|48.23||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.23|24.06|
84644144|NCT00420641|169024196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.91|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||0.91|-1.84|0.576
84573745|NCT00855582|168898215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.23||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.230
84573746|NCT00855582|168898215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573747|NCT00855582|168898216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.191||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.191
84573748|NCT00855582|168898216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573749|NCT00855582|168898217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.763||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.763
84753539|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.1|-1.0|= 0.9495
84753540|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||=|0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.6|= 0.5717
84753541|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.7|
84753542|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|47.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.8|33.1|< 0.0001
84573750|NCT00855582|168898217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.075||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.075
84573751|NCT00855582|168898218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.384||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.384
84573752|NCT00855582|168898218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.082
84573753|NCT00855582|168898219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84753543|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.1|< 0.0001
84573754|NCT00855582|168898219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573755|NCT00855582|168898220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573756|NCT00855582|168898220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84753544|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.9|14.3|
84573757|NCT00855582|168898221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573758|NCT00855582|168898221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573759|NCT00855582|168898222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573760|NCT00855582|168898222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573761|NCT00855582|168898223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573762|NCT00855582|168898223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573763|NCT00855582|168898224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573764|NCT00855582|168898224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573765|NCT00855582|168898225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573766|NCT00855582|168898225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
84573767|NCT00855582|168898226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
84573768|NCT00855582|168898226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
84573769|NCT00855582|168898227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||0.006
84573770|NCT00855582|168898227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
84573771|NCT00855582|168898228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
84573772|NCT00855582|168898228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
84573773|NCT00855582|168898228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
84573774|NCT00855582|168898228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
84573775|NCT00855582|168898229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.027
84573776|NCT00855582|168898229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.186
84573777|NCT01107015|168898232|OTHER|Sample size was determined on the basis of the primary outcome, change in glycated hemoglobin. The comparison of UC, which included 56 patients from nine practices, to CPDS, which included 62 patients from seven practices, had 80% power to detect a difference in mean glycated hemoglobin changes of 0.65 SD, corresponding to 1.0% if SD was 1.58%, using a two-sided test with 0.05 type I error after accounting for a within cluster correlation of 0.10.||||||0.027||||||CO (P = 0.027) and CPP (0.40) mean HbA1c levels decreased over 12 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin. Secondary analyses jointly compared 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month changes between groups. Random effects accounted for within-practice clustering and within-patient correlation.||||0.027
84573778|NCT01107015|168898232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin.||||0.001
84573779|NCT01155323|168898233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be superior to omafilcon A for comfort.||0.23|-0.21|
84573780|NCT01155323|168898234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for vision.||0.25|-0.19|
84573781|NCT01155323|168898235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22|||||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for lens handling.||0.22|-0.22|
84573782|NCT01155323|168898236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/-0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A for corneal staining.||0.01|-0.03|
84573783|NCT01155323|168898237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for quality perceptions.||0.29|-0.15|
84573784|NCT01155323|168898238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/- 0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A from limbal hyperemia.||0.06|-0.01|
84573785|NCT04428151|168898292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.97|1.11|0.9963
84573786|NCT04428151|168898293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.28|0.74|0.4181
84573787|NCT04428151|168898294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.5||||0.9266219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0. The reported p-value is nominal.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||2.3|-15.4|0.9266219
84573788|NCT02421939|168898309|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm|Stratified analysis where tratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.||0.830|0.490|0.0004
84573789|NCT02421939|168898311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.089||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT||1.089|0.577|0.0415
84573790|NCT02421939|168898312|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.4||Stratified P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Treatment difference = gilteritinib -chemotherapy.||18.4|2.8|0.0106
84573791|NCT02421939|168898313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889||||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.563||Unstratified p-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|The LFS was analyzed for participants who achieved remission using the stratified log-rank test with strata to control for response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy. Duration of LFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.||1.563|0.506|0.6654
84498073|NCT03728257|168747363|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84573792|NCT02421939|168898314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.206||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.886||Unstratified|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm.|||1.886|0.022|0.1189
84573793|NCT02421939|168898315|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|42.6||Unstratified 2-sided P-value|2-sided Fisher's exact test|||Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy. The 95% CIs were asymptotic confidence limits using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||42.6|22.3|<0.0001
84573794|NCT02421939|168898316|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.2||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.1||Unstratified 2-sided P-value.|2-sided Fisher's exact test|Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy.||||19.1|1.2|0.0333
84573795|NCT02421939|168898317|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2567||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||C1D8: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.0000
84573796|NCT02421939|168898317|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1574||||0.8037|||||||ANCOVA|||C2D1: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.8037
84573797|NCT02421939|168898318|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference,|18.6|||<|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|27.4||Stratified 1-sided P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Pooled strata were used as shown in Table 12.3.3.2. Treatment differences were adjusted based on pooled strata. Treatment difference = gilteritinib 120 mg - chemotherapy.||27.4|9.8|<0.0171
84573798|NCT04770779|168898322|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|17.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||27.2|8.0|0.0003
84573799|NCT04770779|168898323|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|11.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||17.0|5.1|0.0003
84573800|NCT04770779|168898324|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||19.1|7.7|<0.0001
84573801|NCT04770779|168898325|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|6.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||10.9|1.9|0.0056
84573802|NCT02799602|168898342|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.801||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.801|0.568|<0.0001
84573803|NCT02799602|168898345|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.357|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.421||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.421|0.302|<0.0001
84573804|NCT02799602|168898347|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.950|0.660|0.0058
84753545|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|42.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.0|28.1|< 0.0001
84573805|NCT02799602|168898349|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.718||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.718|0.516|<0.0001
84573806|NCT02799602|168898351|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.94||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.940|0.539|0.0081
84573807|NCT02799602|168898353|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio, log|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.458||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.458|0.328|<0.0001
84573808|NCT02799602|168898355|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.217||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|1.217|0.894|0.7073
84573809|NCT02799602|168898357|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.906||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.906|0.523|0.0037
84573810|NCT06006208|168898359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
84573811|NCT06006208|168898360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.891
84753546|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.4|44.6|< 0.0001
84573812|NCT04345913|168898406|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.5259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5259
84753547|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.8||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|8.1|
84753548|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.2|< 0.0001
84753549|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.9|< 0.0001
84573813|NCT04345913|168898411|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.706|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7060
84573814|NCT05516758|168898423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.14|0.014
84573815|NCT05516758|168898423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.92|0.098
84573816|NCT05516758|168898423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.66|0.534
84573817|NCT03818854|168898444|SUPERIORITY|Using the change in oxygenation index over 36 hours from the baseline as the primary outcome with measurements taken at 6 time points, the trial was estimated to have 80% power to detect an effect size difference of 0.43 between the trial arms.||||||0.34||||||The mixed model included the following variables: treatment arm, 6 time-points, sites, pre-defined randomization stratifications and the baseline characteristics with bivariate analyses P \< 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84573818|NCT03818854|168898445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 1.||||0.92
84573819|NCT03818854|168898445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 2.||||0.37
84573820|NCT03818854|168898445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 3.||||0.54
84573821|NCT03818854|168898445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 7.||||0.19
84573822|NCT03818854|168898447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 1.||||0.35
84573823|NCT03818854|168898447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 2.||||0.25
84573824|NCT03818854|168898447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 3.||||0.69
84573825|NCT03818854|168898447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 7.||||0.08
84573826|NCT03818854|168898448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
84573827|NCT03818854|168898449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
84573828|NCT03818854|168898450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84573829|NCT03818854|168898451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84573830|NCT03818854|168898452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed incision/wound infection events by day 14.||||0.36
84573831|NCT03818854|168898452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed organ/space infection events by day 14.||||0.50
84573832|NCT03818854|168898452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia by day 14.||||0.20
84753550|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.6|5.9|
84573833|NCT03818854|168898453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84573834|NCT03818854|168898454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 3.||||0.32
84573835|NCT03818854|168898454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 7.||||0.33
84573836|NCT03818854|168898455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 3.||||0.39
84573837|NCT03818854|168898455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 7.||||0.26
84573838|NCT03818854|168898456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between two arms at Day 14.||||0.29
84573839|NCT03818854|168898456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 28.||||0.83
84573840|NCT03818854|168898456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 60.||||0.56
84753551|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.5|18.5|< 0.0001
84573841|NCT03818854|168898457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84573842|NCT03818854|168898458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.56
84573843|NCT03818854|168898458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.79
84573844|NCT03818854|168898458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.62
84573845|NCT03818854|168898458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.67
84573846|NCT03818854|168898459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.60
84573847|NCT03818854|168898459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.04
84573848|NCT03818854|168898459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.09
84573849|NCT03818854|168898459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.38
84573850|NCT03818854|168898460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.28
84573851|NCT03818854|168898460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.10
84573852|NCT03818854|168898460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.15
84573853|NCT03818854|168898460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.34
84573854|NCT03818854|168898461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.85
84573855|NCT03818854|168898461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.50
84573856|NCT03818854|168898461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.64
84573857|NCT03818854|168898461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.70
84573858|NCT03818854|168898462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.32
84573859|NCT03818854|168898462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
84573860|NCT03818854|168898462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
84573861|NCT03818854|168898462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.19
84573862|NCT03818854|168898463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.16
84753552|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|49.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.7|35.3|< 0.0001
84573863|NCT03818854|168898463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.64
84573864|NCT03818854|168898463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.80
84573865|NCT03818854|168898463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.40
84573866|NCT03818854|168898464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.85
84573867|NCT03818854|168898464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.22
84573868|NCT03818854|168898464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.61
84753553|NCT03627767|169263246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|25.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.6|
84753554|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
84573869|NCT03818854|168898464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.98
84573870|NCT03818854|168898470|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84753555|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.||0.0|0.0|
84573871|NCT06178991|168898483|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.52|1.25|
84573872|NCT06178991|168898483|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.86|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.86|1.58|
84573873|NCT06178991|168898483|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.73|0.61|
84573874|NCT06178991|168898484|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|21.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H1N1||21.6|14.1|
84573875|NCT06178991|168898484|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|29.3|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H3N2||29.3|21.7|
84573876|NCT06178991|168898484|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|Victoria||-10.0|-17.5|
84573877|NCT06178991|168898485|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.10|0.94|
84573878|NCT06178991|168898486|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|||4.6|-0.9|
84573879|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.34|1.01|
84573880|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.11|0.85|
84573881|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.97|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.97|1.56|
84573882|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.03|0.82|
84573883|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.66|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.66|0.52|
84573884|NCT06178991|168898487|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||1.40|1.11|
84573885|NCT06178991|168898488|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm F titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.01|0.82|
84573886|NCT04739800|168898489|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.31|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||2.31|0.44|
84609112|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|29.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|40.52||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||40.52|21.09|
84753556|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
84573887|NCT04739800|168898489|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.84|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||2.84|0.52|
84573888|NCT04739800|168898489|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|3.08|0.58|
84573889|NCT04739800|168898492|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.47|||||This is the Hazard Ratio for Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||4.47|0.44|
84573890|NCT04739800|168898492|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.19|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||4.19|0.40|
84573891|NCT04739800|168898492|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|||3.08|0.58|
84573892|NCT05227677|168898494|SUPERIORITY|FAS analysis||||||0.9917||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.9917
84573893|NCT05227677|168898494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6555|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.6555
84573894|NCT05227677|168898495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0649||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS analysis||||0.0649
84573895|NCT05227677|168898495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0342
84573896|NCT05227677|168898496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS Analysis||||0.2199
84573897|NCT05227677|168898496|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.||||||0.0769|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0769
84573898|NCT05227677|168898497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0200
84573899|NCT05227677|168898497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0147
84573900|NCT05227677|168898498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||FAS analysis||||0.0256
84573901|NCT05227677|168898498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||PPS analysis||||0.0181
84573902|NCT05227677|168898499|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit3 (FAS)||||>0.999
84573903|NCT05227677|168898499|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.6175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 4 (FAS)||||0.6175
84573904|NCT05227677|168898499|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 3 (PPS)||||>0.999
84573905|NCT05227677|168898499|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.5979||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit4 (PPS)||||0.5979
84573906|NCT05227677|168898500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0404
84573907|NCT05227677|168898500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0330
84573908|NCT05227677|168898501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0408
84573909|NCT05227677|168898501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0322
84573910|NCT05227677|168898502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0303
84573911|NCT05227677|168898502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0264
84573912|NCT05227677|168898503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0374
84573913|NCT05227677|168898503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0313
84573914|NCT05227677|168898504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0086
84573915|NCT05227677|168898504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0156
84573916|NCT05227677|168898505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0118
84573917|NCT05227677|168898505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0191
84573918|NCT05227677|168898506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
84573919|NCT05227677|168898506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0175
84573920|NCT05227677|168898507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0065
84573921|NCT05227677|168898507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0188||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0188
84573922|NCT05227677|168898508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0087
84573923|NCT05227677|168898508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0152
84573924|NCT05227677|168898509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0103
84573925|NCT05227677|168898509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
84573926|NCT03907488|168898510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||One sided P-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis of PFS used a stratified log rank test statistic and is reported as two-sided test. Stratified Cox regression was used to estimate treatment hazard ratios for treatment effect. 95% two-sided intervals are reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS curves.||||<0.005
84573927|NCT03570892|168898520|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted stratified cox model hazard r|1.07|||=|0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Stratified log-rank test one-sided|||||1.40|0.82|= 0.694
84573928|NCT04761822|168898657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.06||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.060|-0.002|0.066
84573929|NCT04761822|168898658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.016|0.267
84573930|NCT04761822|168898659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
84573931|NCT04761822|168898660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
84573932|NCT04761822|168898661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046|||Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
84644145|NCT00420641|169024196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-1.64|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||-1.64|-4.28|0.000
84573933|NCT04761822|168898662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
84573934|NCT04761822|168898663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.055||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.055|-0.045|0.4574
84573935|NCT04761822|168898664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.086|0.3242
84573936|NCT04761822|168898665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.07||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.070|-0.037|0.3100
84573937|NCT04761822|168898666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0783|0.0366||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.0366|-0.0783|0.8070
84498074|NCT03728257|168747364|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.78||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84573938|NCT04761822|168898667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.040|1.000
84573939|NCT04761822|168898668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.053|0.250
84573940|NCT04761822|168898669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.058||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.101||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.101|0.024|0.004
84573941|NCT04761822|168898670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.124||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.124|0.039|<0.001
84573942|NCT06023563|168898672|OTHER|The required sample size for medium effect size (f = 0.25) and power of 0.80 was calculated to be 6 participants in each group (n =12) (G\*power 3.1.9.7 software). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical package (version 29.0.1.0).|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||A virtual reality active video gaming intervention will be more effective than traditional physical therapy based balance exercises, both based on motor learning principles, in improving static and dynamic balance in youth and young adults with ASD and these improvements will be retained at 4 weeks after the intervention.||||< 0.05
84573943|NCT06023563|168898673|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573944|NCT06023563|168898674|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573945|NCT06023563|168898675|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573946|NCT06023563|168898676|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573947|NCT06023563|168898677|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573948|NCT06023563|168898678|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84573949|NCT06023563|168898679|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
84498075|NCT03728257|168747365|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.7073||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
84573950|NCT00090103|168898693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.8||||0.18||95.0|0.58|1.11||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
84573951|NCT00090103|168898693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||0.45|0.26|<0.001
84753557|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|50.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.1|35.3|< 0.0001
84573952|NCT00090103|168898695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||0.18
84573953|NCT00090103|168898695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84573954|NCT00090103|168898697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.52|0.8|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.||||0.80|0.52|<0.001
84573955|NCT00090103|168898697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.48|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.48|<0.001
84573956|NCT00090103|168898698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.65
84573957|NCT00090103|168898698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Hanenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.10
84573958|NCT00090103|168898699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.95
84573959|NCT00090103|168898699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.24
84573960|NCT04476043|168898736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||||-0.3|-5.2|0.0277
84573961|NCT04476043|168898736|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.9|||MMRM|||||-1.9|-6.8|0.0006
84753558|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|49.1|< 0.0001
84573962|NCT04476043|168898736|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||MMRM|||||-1.4|-6.2|0.0021
84644146|NCT00420641|169024197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||0.05|-0.38|0.209
84753559|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|7.9|
84573963|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.3|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||5.3|1.0|0.0445
84573964|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84573965|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.6|0.9|0.0998
84573966|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84573967|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.7|0.9|0.0829
84573968|NCT04476043|168898737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84573969|NCT00782067|168898754|OTHER|Single arm study|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null hypothesis: ORR \<= 30% Alternative hypothesis: ORR \>= 50%|Exact Binomial Test||||Exact Binomial 95% Confidence Interval|||<0.001
84573970|NCT02328105|168898777|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true overall response rate is 0.20 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 81% power to detect a difference of 0.15 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.09 significance level. A three stage design with n=15, 30 and 45 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 15, the rejection region in number of responses (CR or PR) is 0 - 2, for n = 30 it is 3 - 6, and for n = 45 it is 7 - 12.|Response Rate|0.364||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.692||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.692|0.109|0.161
84573971|NCT02328105|168898778|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.977|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.977|0.482|
84573972|NCT02328105|168898779|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||13.0|2.2|
84573973|NCT02328105|168898780|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate.||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||2.2|
84573974|NCT02328105|168898781|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||11.9|4.9|
84573975|NCT02328105|168898782|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median disease control duration.|||13.0|3.0|
84573976|NCT00614393|168898783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.99|0.06
84573977|NCT00614393|168898783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|0.89|0.18
84573978|NCT00614393|168898784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.98|0.07
84573979|NCT00614393|168898784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.83|0.44
84573980|NCT03345004|168898790|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.091|||=|0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.408|0.845|= 0.5009
84573981|NCT03345004|168898790|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.557|||=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.153|1.126|= 0.0078
84573982|NCT01013753|168898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.097|<0.0001
84609113|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.94|0.58|
84609114|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.07||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.07|1.36|
84498076|NCT03728257|168747366|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.313||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
84573983|NCT01013753|168898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.140|<0.0001
84573984|NCT01013753|168898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.163|<0.0001
84573985|NCT01013753|168898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.186|<0.0001
84573986|NCT01013753|168898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.126|<0.0001
84573987|NCT01013753|168898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.116|<0.0001
84573988|NCT01013753|168898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.166|<0.0001
84573989|NCT01013753|168898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.186|<0.0001
84573990|NCT01013753|168898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.203|<0.0001
84573991|NCT01013753|168898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.231|0.137|<0.0001
84573992|NCT01013753|168898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.073|<0.0001
84573993|NCT01013753|168898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
84573994|NCT01013753|168898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.135|<0.0001
84609115|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.54|1.51|
84609116|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.14||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.14|1.48|
84498077|NCT03728257|168747367|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.91||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
84573995|NCT01013753|168898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.164|<0.0001
84573996|NCT01013753|168898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.194|0.110|<0.0001
84573997|NCT01013753|168898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.056|<0.0001
84573998|NCT01013753|168898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.090|<0.0001
84573999|NCT01013753|168898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.116|<0.0001
84574000|NCT01013753|168898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.134|<0.0001
84574001|NCT01013753|168898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.120|<0.0001
84574002|NCT01013753|168898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.058|<0.0001
84574003|NCT01013753|168898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.088|<0.0001
84574004|NCT01013753|168898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.124|<0.0001
84574005|NCT01013753|168898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.244|0.153|<0.0001
84574006|NCT01013753|168898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.147|0.058|<0.0001
84574007|NCT01013753|168898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.052|<0.0001
84574008|NCT01013753|168898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.106|<0.0001
84574009|NCT01013753|168898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
84574010|NCT01013753|168898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.118|<0.0001
84574011|NCT01013753|168898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.153|0.051|<0.0001
84574012|NCT01013753|168898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0107||95.0|0.014|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.107|0.014|0.0107
84574013|NCT01013753|168898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.069|<0.0001
84574014|NCT01013753|168898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.161|0.069|<0.0001
84574015|NCT01013753|168898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.098|<0.0001
84644147|NCT00420641|169024197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|-0.19|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||-0.19|-0.60|0.002
84574016|NCT01013753|168898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.137|0.044|0.0001
84574017|NCT01013753|168898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.036|0.0005
84574018|NCT01013753|168898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.090|<0.0001
84574019|NCT01013753|168898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.083|<0.0001
84574020|NCT01013753|168898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.111|<0.0001
84753560|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|53.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|37.9|< 0.0001
84574021|NCT01013753|168898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.143|0.051|<0.0001
84574022|NCT01013753|168898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0952||95.0|-0.008|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.008|0.0952
84574023|NCT01013753|168898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0003||95.0|0.048|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.048|0.0003
84498078|NCT03728257|168747368|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84574024|NCT01013753|168898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0016||95.0|0.034|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.034|0.0016
84574025|NCT01013753|168898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.071|<0.0001
84574026|NCT01013753|168898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0096||95.0|0.018|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.129|0.018|0.0096
84574027|NCT01013753|168898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.147||95.0|-0.013|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.088|-0.013|0.1470
84574028|NCT01013753|168898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003||95.0|0.042|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.042|0.0003
84574029|NCT01013753|168898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.060|<0.0001
84574030|NCT01013753|168898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.078|<0.0001
84574031|NCT01013753|168898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0448||95.0|0.001|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.101|0.001|0.0448
84574032|NCT01013753|168898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.539|0.277|<0.0001
84574033|NCT01013753|168898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.438|0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.695|0.438|<0.0001
84574034|NCT01013753|168898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.482|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.743|0.482|<0.0001
84574035|NCT01013753|168898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.539|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.801|0.539|<0.0001
84574036|NCT01013753|168898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.457|0.718|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.718|0.457|<0.0001
84574037|NCT01013753|168898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.213|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.461|0.213|<0.0001
84574038|NCT01013753|168898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.363|0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.606|0.363|<0.0001
84574039|NCT01013753|168898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.408|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.655|0.408|<0.0001
84574040|NCT01013753|168898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.524|0.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.772|0.524|<0.0001
84574041|NCT01013753|168898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.428|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.674|0.428|<0.0001
84574042|NCT01013753|168898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.493|0.253|<0.0001
84574043|NCT01013753|168898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.409|0.645|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.645|0.409|<0.0001
84574044|NCT01013753|168898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.692|0.453|<0.0001
84574045|NCT01013753|168898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.54|0.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.781|0.540|<0.0001
84574046|NCT01013753|168898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.451|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.689|0.451|<0.0001
84753561|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|69.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.5|56.4|< 0.0001
84574047|NCT01013753|168898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.436|0.168|<0.0001
84574048|NCT01013753|168898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.297|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.561|0.297|<0.0001
84574049|NCT01013753|168898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.599|0.333|<0.0001
84574050|NCT01013753|168898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.4|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.669|0.400|<0.0001
84574051|NCT01013753|168898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.637|0.371|<0.0001
84574052|NCT01013753|168898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002||95.0|0.127|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.127|0.0002
84574053|NCT01013753|168898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.602|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.602|0.333|<0.0001
84574054|NCT01013753|168898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.348|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.620|0.348|<0.0001
84574055|NCT01013753|168898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.487|0.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.761|0.487|<0.0001
84574056|NCT01013753|168898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.311|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.583|0.311|<0.0001
84574057|NCT01013753|168898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.0001||95.0|14.802|29.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||29.223|14.802|<0.0001
84609117|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.33|0.61|
84753562|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||24.7|10.7|
84753563|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|33.6|< 0.0001
84753564|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|58.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.2|51.3|< 0.0001
84753565|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.6|
84753566|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|42.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|27.8|< 0.0001
84753567|NCT03627767|169263247|OTHER||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|62.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.4|48.3|< 0.0001
84753568|NCT03627767|169263247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.5|12.1|
84753569|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.7|||=|0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.7|-0.3|= 0.1848
84574058|NCT01013753|168898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001||95.0|21.931|36.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||36.114|21.931|<0.0001
84574059|NCT01013753|168898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|<|0.0001||95.0|20.755|35.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.019|20.755|<0.0001
84574060|NCT01013753|168898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668|<|0.0001||95.0|25.73|40.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.139|25.730|<0.0001
84574061|NCT01013753|168898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001||95.0|16.371|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||30.686|16.371|<0.0001
84609118|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|17.64||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.64|5.47|
84644148|NCT00420641|169024198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||0.12|-1.23|0.175
84574062|NCT01013753|168898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001||95.0|7.77|22.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.071|7.770|<0.0001
84574063|NCT01013753|168898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.0001||95.0|17.801|31.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.866|17.801|<0.0001
84574064|NCT01013753|168898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601|<|0.0001||95.0|16.539|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||30.686|16.539|<0.0001
84574065|NCT01013753|168898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.637|<|0.0001||95.0|21.305|35.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.594|21.305|<0.0001
84574066|NCT01013753|168898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001||95.0|13.341|27.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||27.538|13.341|<0.0001
84574067|NCT01013753|168898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.989|-0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.999|-2.989|<0.0001
84753570|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.6|-0.9|= 0.5971
84574068|NCT01013753|168898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.073|-1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-1.116|-3.073|<0.0001
84753571|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.4|-1.1|
84574069|NCT01013753|168898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0003||95.0|-2.824|-0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.849|-2.824|0.0003
84574070|NCT01013753|168898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0004||95.0|-2.783|-0.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.795|-2.783|0.0004
84574071|NCT01013753|168898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0118||95.0|-2.258|-0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.283|-2.258|0.0118
84574072|NCT01013753|168898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0002
84574073|NCT01013753|168898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.081|<0.0001
84574074|NCT01013753|168898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.087|<0.0001
84574075|NCT01013753|168898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.121|<0.0001
84574076|NCT01013753|168898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0001
84574077|NCT01013753|168898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0362||95.0|0.003|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.003|0.0362
84574078|NCT01013753|168898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0006||95.0|0.035|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.035|0.0006
84574079|NCT01013753|168898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0002||95.0|0.042|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.042|0.0002
84574080|NCT01013753|168898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.070|<0.0001
84574081|NCT01013753|168898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.001||95.0|0.032|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.125|0.032|0.0010
84574082|NCT01013753|168898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.770|<0.0001
84574083|NCT01013753|168898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0004||95.0|-0.671|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.671|0.0004
84574084|NCT01013753|168898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.237|-0.720|0.0001
84574085|NCT01013753|168898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.901|-0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.413|-0.901|<0.0001
84609119|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|17.19||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.19|5.31|
84609120|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|16.79||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||16.79|5.59|
84609121|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.54|0.69|
84574086|NCT01013753|168898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0003||95.0|-0.691|-0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.207|-0.691|0.0003
84574087|NCT01013753|168898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.178|<0.0001
84574088|NCT01013753|168898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002||95.0|0.099|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.099|0.0002
84574089|NCT01013753|168898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.151|<0.0001
84574090|NCT01013753|168898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.429|0.205|<0.0001
84574091|NCT01013753|168898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.426|0.203|<0.0001
84574092|NCT01013753|168898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.432|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.210|-0.432|<0.0001
84644149|NCT00420641|169024198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|-0.5|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.50|-1.79|0.003
84644150|NCT00420641|169024198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|-0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.05|-1.92|0.082
84574093|NCT01013753|168898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.403|-0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.184|-0.403|<0.0001
84574094|NCT01013753|168898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.436|-0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.215|-0.436|<0.0001
84574095|NCT01013753|168898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.505|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.505|<0.0001
84574096|NCT01013753|168898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.457|-0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.235|-0.457|<0.0001
84574097|NCT01013753|168898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6187||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6187
84574098|NCT01013753|168898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6022||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6022
84574099|NCT01013753|168898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.8641||95.0|0.984|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.014|0.984|0.8641
84574100|NCT01013753|168898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.998||||0.7664||95.0|0.983|1.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.013|0.983|0.7664
84574101|NCT01013753|168898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.003||||0.6757||95.0|0.988|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.018|0.988|0.6757
84574102|NCT01013753|168898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.993||||0.4423||95.0|0.975|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.975|0.4423
84753572|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|56.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||56.8|42.0|< 0.0001
84753573|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|71.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|59.3|< 0.0001
84574103|NCT01013753|168898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.0218||95.0|0.962|0.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.997|0.962|0.0218
84574104|NCT01013753|168898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.977||||0.0109||95.0|0.96|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.995|0.960|0.0109
84574105|NCT01013753|168898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0283||95.0|0.962|0.998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.998|0.962|0.0283
84574106|NCT01013753|168898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.3085||95.0|0.973|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.009|0.973|0.3085
84574107|NCT01013753|168898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.9112||95.0|0.984|1.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.015|0.984|0.9112
84574108|NCT01013753|168898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.992||||0.2955||95.0|0.977|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.977|0.2955
84574109|NCT01013753|168898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.1029||95.0|0.973|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.003|0.973|0.1029
84574110|NCT01013753|168898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.2552||95.0|0.975|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.975|0.2552
84574111|NCT01013753|168898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.994||||0.4803||95.0|0.979|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.010|0.979|0.4803
84574112|NCT03556683|168898876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect immediately following hypertonic saline treatment.||||<0.001
84574113|NCT03556683|168898877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of hypertonic saline 4 hours after treatment.||||0.99
84574114|NCT04757636|168898879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.861409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.84|||MMRM|||||1.84|-2.20|0.861409
84574115|NCT04757636|168898879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.416264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.18|||MMRM|||||1.18|-2.86|0.416264
84574116|NCT04757636|168898880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.981348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.7|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.7|-7.5|0.981348
84574117|NCT04757636|168898880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.0|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.0|-8.5|0.856000
84574118|NCT04757636|168898881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.655104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||5.6|-8.9|0.655104
84574119|NCT04757636|168898881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.821257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.5|-8.2|0.821257
84574120|NCT04757636|168898882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.199828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.16|||MMRM|||||0.16|-0.76|0.199828
84574121|NCT04757636|168898882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.188725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.15|||MMRM|||||0.15|-0.77|0.188725
84574122|NCT04757636|168898883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.84781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||4.6|-5.6|0.847810
84574123|NCT04757636|168898883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.718699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.1|-4.2|0.718699
84574124|NCT03286504|168898884|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.212|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.212|-0.112|0.55
84609122|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|28.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|40.2||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||40.20|20.23|
84609123|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|26.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.02||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.02|19.09|
84609124|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.26||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||38.26|20.10|
84574125|NCT03286504|168898885|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.033||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.211|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.211|-0.145|0.71
84574126|NCT03286504|168898887|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.169|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.169|-0.269|0.65
84574127|NCT03286504|168898888|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.226||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.438|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.438|0.015|0.04
84574128|NCT03286504|168898889|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.208||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.393|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm.|||0.393|0.023|0.03
84574129|NCT00621530|168898914|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculation assumed that all subjects would have an area of hypersensitivity surrounding the wound at 48 hours. We found that only 1 subject in the placebo group and 3 subjects in the ketorolac group had non-zero areas of hypersensitivity.||||=0.94
84574130|NCT00621530|168898915|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.78
84574131|NCT00621530|168898916|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.87
84574132|NCT00621530|168898917|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.66
84574133|NCT00621530|168898918|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.83
84574134|NCT03813654|168898919|OTHER|Mixed model analysis with post-hoc tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between the control and 8-h Free Sleep Group.|||||<0.05
84574135|NCT03813654|168898924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The groups had unequal variances, so we adjusted for unequal variances when doing the t-test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for unequal variances between the two groups.||We compared the PVT taken at the start of the final night shift between Group B and those in Group C who slept in the morning and had complete data. Our hypothesis was that Group B would have faster RTs.||||0.09
84574136|NCT01732692|168898934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint was analyzed by a non-inferiority test using the exact Farrington-Manning method. Non-inferiority of the two treatments was to be concluded if the lower end of the confidence interval of the difference the experimental treatment group (morning-only dose) - control treatment group (split dose) was above a non-inferiority margin of -0.15%.|Treatment Difference|0.0286|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.097||||Exact Farrington - Manning||Treatment Difference is the difference in proportion of participants with successful colon cleansing between treatments -experimental vs. control||||-0.097|<0.001
84574137|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.76|0.57|
84574138|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.52|
84609125|NCT02986854|168969263|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|0.83|
84498079|NCT03428217|168747369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PDL1) inhibitor therapy (yes vs no) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) prognostic risk group (favorable vs intermediate vs poor).||1.21|0.74|0.6528
84574139|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.58|
84574140|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|0.53|
84574141|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.57|
84574142|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.61|
84574143|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.51|0.53|
84574144|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.89|0.38|
84574145|NCT02081807|168898945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.50|
84574146|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.69|0.38|
84574147|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.86|0.68|
84574148|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.65|
84574149|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.26|0.88|
84574150|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.92|
84574151|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.94|
84574152|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.66|0.39|
84574153|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.68|0.49|
84574154|NCT02081807|168898946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.64|0.49|
84574155|NCT02081807|168898947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.11|0.69|
84574156|NCT02081807|168898947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.02|0.66|
84574157|NCT02081807|168898947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
84574158|NCT02081807|168898948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||3.30|1.03|
84574159|NCT02081807|168898948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.71|0.65|
84574160|NCT02081807|168898948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.10|
84574161|NCT02081807|168898949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.63|
84574162|NCT02081807|168898949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.57|
84574163|NCT02081807|168898949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.45|
84574164|NCT02081807|168898950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.78|0.18|
84574165|NCT02081807|168898950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.72|0.58|
84574166|NCT02081807|168898950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.87|0.38|
84574167|NCT02081807|168898952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.59|0.25|
84574168|NCT02081807|168898952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.95|0.51|
84574169|NCT02081807|168898952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.03|0.43|
84753574|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.3||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|10.3|
84574170|NCT02081807|168898953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.67|
84574171|NCT02081807|168898953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.97|
84574172|NCT02081807|168898953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.63|0.47|
84574173|NCT02081807|168898954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.77|
84574174|NCT02081807|168898954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.36|1.07|
84574175|NCT02081807|168898954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.72|0.48|
84574176|NCT02081807|168898955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.44|
84574177|NCT02081807|168898955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.57|0.98|
84574178|NCT02081807|168898955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.54|
84574179|NCT02081807|168898956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.08|0.79|
84574180|NCT02081807|168898956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|1.05|
84574181|NCT02081807|168898956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.44|
84574182|NCT02081807|168898958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|78.0|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||078|0.59|
84498080|NCT03428217|168747369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.24|0.76|0.8193
84574183|NCT02081807|168898958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.93|
84574184|NCT02081807|168898958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.47|
84574185|NCT02081807|168898959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.82|0.34|
84574186|NCT02081807|168898959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.29|0.55|
84574187|NCT02081807|168898959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.42|0.41|
84574188|NCT02081807|168898960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.15|0.60|
84498081|NCT03428217|168747369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.25|0.76|0.8345
84498082|NCT03428217|168747369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.27|0.78|0.9479
84574189|NCT02081807|168898960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.63|
84574190|NCT02081807|168898960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.18|0.53|
84574191|NCT02081807|168898961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.50|
84574192|NCT02081807|168898961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.01|0.69|
84574193|NCT02081807|168898961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.76|0.37|
84574194|NCT02081807|168898962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
84574195|NCT02081807|168898962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.65|
84753575|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|50.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.2|35.2|< 0.0001
84753576|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.0|< 0.0001
84753577|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|27.4||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|12.3|
84753578|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|46.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.9|32.1|< 0.0001
84753579|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|63.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.7|49.8|< 0.0001
84574196|NCT02081807|168898962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.92|0.39|
84574197|NCT02081807|168898963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.47|
84574198|NCT02081807|168898963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.05|0.60|
84574199|NCT02081807|168898963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.73|0.24|
84574200|NCT03104413|168898964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
84574201|NCT03104413|168898964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|< 0.001
84574202|NCT03104413|168898965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|< 0.001
84753580|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.3|
84574203|NCT03104413|168898965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
84574204|NCT03104413|168898966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|<0.001
84574205|NCT03104413|168898966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
84574206|NCT03104413|168898967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|6.4|0.001
84574207|NCT03104413|168898967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
84574208|NCT03104413|168898968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
84574209|NCT03104413|168898968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3.0|0.008
84753581|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|40.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.4|25.7|< 0.0001
84498083|NCT03428217|168747370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.6|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.6|0.83|0.3867
84498084|NCT03428217|168747370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.62|0.85|0.3367
84574210|NCT03104413|168898969|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|< 0.001
84574211|NCT03104413|168898969|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
84574212|NCT03104413|168898970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
84574213|NCT03104413|168898970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
84574214|NCT03104413|168898971|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|2.3|0.010
84574215|NCT03104413|168898971|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|1.1|0.023
84574216|NCT03104413|168898972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|8.5|<0.001
84574217|NCT03104413|168898972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|11.1|<0.001
84574218|NCT03104413|168898973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.0|<0.001
84574219|NCT03104413|168898973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|10.8|<0.001
84574220|NCT03104413|168898974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|12.1|<0.001
84574221|NCT03104413|168898974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
84574222|NCT03104413|168898975|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
84574223|NCT03104413|168898975|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
84574224|NCT03104413|168898976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4.0|0.006
84574225|NCT03104413|168898976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
84574226|NCT03104413|168898977|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
84574227|NCT03104413|168898977|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
84574228|NCT03104413|168898978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
84574229|NCT03104413|168898978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
84574230|NCT03104413|168898979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
84574231|NCT03104413|168898979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
84574232|NCT03104413|168898980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Chi-squared|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
84574233|NCT03104413|168898980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Chi-squared|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
84574234|NCT03104413|168898981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Chi-squared|||||15.7|-28.1|1
84753582|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.8|44.6|< 0.0001
84753583|NCT03627767|169263248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.6||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|10.8|
84753584|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6|||=|0.3994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-3.3|= 0.3994
84753585|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.5542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.8|-4.1|= 0.5542
84753586|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.0|-6.5|
84753587|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|44.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.9|30.2|< 0.0001
84753588|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|69.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.8|56.8|< 0.0001
84753589|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|17.7|
84753590|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|44.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.0|29.9|< 0.0001
84753591|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|61.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.0|47.3|< 0.0001
84498085|NCT03428217|168747370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.69|0.88|0.2416
84498086|NCT03428217|168747370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.64|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.64|0.86|0.3043
84574235|NCT03104413|168898981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Chi-squared|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
84574236|NCT03104413|168898982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
84574237|NCT03104413|168898982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|<0.001
84574238|NCT03104413|168898983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
84753592|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|25.5||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.9|
84498087|NCT03428217|168747371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.25|0.79|0.9692
84574239|NCT03104413|168898983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3|0.008
84574240|NCT03104413|168898984|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|2.6|0.006
84574241|NCT03104413|168898984|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|3.7|0.002
84574242|NCT03104413|168898985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|<0.001
84574243|NCT03104413|168898985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
84574244|NCT03104413|168898986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
84574245|NCT03104413|168898986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
84574246|NCT03104413|168898987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||19.8|5.0|0.001
84574247|NCT03104413|168898987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||22.4|7.7|<0.001
84574248|NCT03104413|168898988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.7|7.1|<0.001
84574249|NCT03104413|168898988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.2|10.3|<0.001
84574250|NCT03104413|168898989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
84574251|NCT03104413|168898989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
84574252|NCT03104413|168898990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4|0.006
84574253|NCT03104413|168898990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
84574254|NCT03104413|168898991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
84574255|NCT03104413|168898991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
84574256|NCT03104413|168898992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
84574257|NCT03104413|168898992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
84574258|NCT03104413|168898993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
84574259|NCT03104413|168898993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
84574260|NCT03104413|168898994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
84574261|NCT03104413|168898994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
84574262|NCT03104413|168898995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||15.7|-28.1|1.00
84574263|NCT03104413|168898995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
84574264|NCT03104413|168898996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.323||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.399|1.753|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||1.753|-16.399|0.113
84574265|NCT03104413|168898996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.759||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.518|-0.001|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-0.001|-17.518|0.050
84574266|NCT03104413|168898997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.221||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|3.865|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||3.865|0.577|0.008
84574267|NCT03104413|168898997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.714||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|4.351|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.351|1.077|0.001
84574268|NCT03104413|168898998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24|6.4|0.001
84574269|NCT03104413|168898998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
84574270|NCT01208051|168899000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is stratified by randomization factors.|Log Rank|The conditional power was 7.8%, reaching the futility boundary of \<15%. Patients on the combination arm were then crossed over to cediranib alone.||||||0.26
84574271|NCT01208051|168899001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
84574272|NCT01208051|168899003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.80
84574273|NCT01208051|168899004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84574274|NCT00973973|168899016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 4||-0.03|-0.45|0.0262
84574275|NCT00973973|168899016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.46|-1.06|< 0.0001
84574276|NCT00973973|168899018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.04|-0.38|0.0163
84574277|NCT00973973|168899018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.08|-0.48|0.0066
84574278|NCT00973973|168899020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.06|-0.38|0.0089
84574279|NCT00973973|168899020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.14|-0.53|0.0011
84574280|NCT00973973|168899022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change form baseline at week 4||-0.02|-0.52|0.0360
84574281|NCT00973973|168899022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.11|-0.65|0.0070
84574282|NCT00973973|168899028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.939||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-2.05|-17.63|0.0137
84574283|NCT00973973|168899028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-4.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-4.70|-20.19|0.0019
84574284|NCT00973973|168899030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.81|-11.61|0.0244
84574285|NCT00973973|168899030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-1.30|-11.39|0.0141
84574286|NCT00973973|168899032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|0.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||0.49|-6.72|0.0893
84574287|NCT00973973|168899032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.938||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||0.32|-7.35|0.0720
84574288|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of the change from baseline in CPSSS total score||-1.26|-3.26|< 0.0001
84574289|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dysmenorrhea score||-0.69|-1.41|< 0.0001
84574290|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of non-menstrual pelvic pain score||-0.07|-0.64|0.0139
84574291|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dyspareunia score||0.06|-0.63|0.1052
84574292|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of pelvic tenderness score||-0.10|-0.67|0.0081
84574293|NCT00973973|168899034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of induration score||-0.04|-0.53|0.0240
84574294|NCT00973973|168899036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 4||-0.3|-1.2|0.0012
84574295|NCT00973973|168899036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 8||-0.5|-1.5|0.0002
84574296|NCT00973973|168899038|SUPERIORITY||Difference|19.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|34.4|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 4||34.4|4.4|0.0136
84574297|NCT00973973|168899038|SUPERIORITY||Difference|30.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|46.7|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 8||46.7|13.6|0.0007
84574298|NCT02471339|168899044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance. Analyses for primary and secondary outcomes were two-tailed and alpha was set to 0.05. An a priori analysis suggested that, to detect a change of .68 standard deviation on the primary outcome measure between the two groups at .80 power, 41 patients per group would be needed.||||0.05
84574299|NCT02471339|168899045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84574300|NCT02471339|168899048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test|||||||.05
84574301|NCT02471339|168899052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
84574302|NCT04880850|168899096|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin glargine) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.15|-0.11|<0.0001
84574303|NCT04091451|168899106|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the incidence of HZ recurrence between HZ/su group and Placebo group was below (\<) 5.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||Poisson||IRR = incidence rate of HZ recurrence in HZ/su group divided by the incidence rate of HZ recurrence in Placebo group. Poisson method was used to adjust for differences in follow-up time across individuals.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of HZ/su vaccine compared to placebo in terms of incidence of HZ recurrence from 30 days post-second vaccination (Month 3) until study end (duration of approximately 2 years to 4 years and 5 months).||0.46|0.00|
84574304|NCT00320086|168899148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.05
84574305|NCT00300053|168899160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.020
84574306|NCT00300053|168899160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.035
84574307|NCT00300053|168899160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.167
84574308|NCT00300053|168899160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.181
84574309|NCT00300053|168899161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.014
84574310|NCT00300053|168899161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.017
84574311|NCT00300053|168899161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.097
84574312|NCT00300053|168899161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.134
84753593|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|37.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|22.7|< 0.0001
84498088|NCT03428217|168747371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.27|0.8|0.9235
84574313|NCT02385318|168899166|EQUIVALENCE|85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.38|14.44|||Yates correction|||||14.44|-4.38|
84574314|NCT02594111|168899172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84574315|NCT00984867|168899192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives, based on data from both strata combined|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
84574316|NCT00984867|168899193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
84574317|NCT00984867|168899194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1106|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.62|-1.05|<0.0001
84574318|NCT00984867|168899195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-21.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-21.40|-34.45|<0.0001
84574319|NCT00984867|168899196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4659||0.5583||95.0|-3.75|2.03||Not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||2.03|-3.75|0.5583
84574320|NCT00984867|168899197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-7.90|-21.73|
84672345|NCT00653224|169080278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.57|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
84574321|NCT00984867|168899198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|26.4||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0.||26.4|11.1|
84498089|NCT03428217|168747371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.26|0.8|0.9549
84574322|NCT02110693|168899256|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.75||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.75|.64|
84574323|NCT02110693|168899256|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.79|.68|
84498090|NCT03428217|168747371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.29|0.82|0.8193
84574324|NCT02110693|168899257|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.79|.63|
84574325|NCT02110693|168899257|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.77|.62|
84574326|NCT02110693|168899258|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.67|.47|
84574327|NCT02110693|168899258|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.69|.50|
84574328|NCT02110693|168899259|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
84574329|NCT02110693|168899259|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
84574330|NCT02110693|168899263|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard AUDIT-C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.66|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.66|.59|
84574331|NCT02110693|168899263|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the AUDIT C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.68|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C Score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.68|.61|
84574332|NCT02110693|168899265|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between the TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnare. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet computer) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.33|.25|
84574333|NCT02110693|168899265|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the score on the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.32|.24|
84574334|NCT02110693|168899266|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the results of the oral fluid test was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.48|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the results of the Oral Fluid Test. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.48|.35|
84574335|NCT02110693|168899266|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.46|||||The estimated value is a point estimate of the Spearman Correlation between the TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the Oral Fluid Cannabis Screen. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|||.46|.33|
84498091|NCT03889197|168747372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
84498092|NCT03889197|168747373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.242
84498093|NCT03889197|168747374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
84574336|NCT01928849|168899269|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|Univariable Logistic regression||||1.74|0.34|0.53
84574337|NCT01928849|168899270|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of residual limb pain between treatment groups||||0.95
84574338|NCT01928849|168899270|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of Phantom limb pain between treatment groups||||0.74
84574339|NCT01928849|168899271|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
84574340|NCT01928849|168899271|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 24-48||||0.27
84574341|NCT01928849|168899272|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI average pain score||||0.59
84574342|NCT01928849|168899272|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI Interference question sum||||0.16
84574343|NCT01928849|168899273|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84498094|NCT03889197|168747375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
84498095|NCT03889197|168747376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.445
84498096|NCT03889197|168747377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.746
84574344|NCT01928849|168899274|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS numeric pain score||||0.42
84574345|NCT01928849|168899274|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS supplemental question sum||||0.19
84574346|NCT01928849|168899275|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
84574347|NCT01928849|168899275|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 24-48||||0.26
84574348|NCT00297167|168899277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-19.32|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-19.32|-31.73|<0.001
84574349|NCT00297167|168899278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-16.14|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA)model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-16.14|-26.85|<0.001
84574350|NCT00920816|168899297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.053||||||First-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1).||1.053|0.559|
84574351|NCT00920816|168899298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.058||||||Second-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment (sunitinib versus cytokine-containing regimen).||1.058|0.506|
84574352|NCT01953237|168899326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5580
84574353|NCT04167462|168899327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|42.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.98|6.33|<0.0001
84574354|NCT04167462|168899328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|61.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.46|9.60|<0.0001
84609126|NCT02530996|168969266|OTHER|Power calculations were performed using G\*Power computer software version 3. Sample-size calculations were based on the number of patients needed to detect significant differences in FMD between placebo and BH4.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistics were performed using SPSS software (IBM, Chicago, IL). Paired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between placebo and BH4. Unpaired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between ordered groups. Based on data published in PMID: 25511849 power calculations for this study of SSc patients were made.||||<0.05
84498097|NCT03889197|168747378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.979
84498098|NCT03889197|168747379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
84574355|NCT04167462|168899329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|291.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||291.26|5.82|<0.0001
84574356|NCT04167462|168899333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|49.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.25|6.06|<0.0001
84574357|NCT04167462|168899334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|11.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.91|2.19|<0.0001
84574358|NCT04167462|168899335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.28|0.64|0.0947
84574359|NCT04167462|168899336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.74|0.47|0.1741
84574360|NCT03416179|168899360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.532|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2 compared to Placebo + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2.||1.532|0.755|0.6579
84574361|NCT03416179|168899361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.388|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO QD + Azacitidine compared to Placebo + Azacitidine||1.388|0.775|0.5955
84574362|NCT03416179|168899362|OTHER|||||||0.5095|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.5095
84574363|NCT03416179|168899363|OTHER|||||||0.8359|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8359
84574364|NCT01129128|168899404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-173.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of 0.9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.87
84574365|NCT01129128|168899404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|705.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of .9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.82
84574366|NCT01129128|168899405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15793.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.82
84574367|NCT01129128|168899405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23472.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.68
84574368|NCT01129128|168899406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.9||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.90
84574369|NCT01129128|168899406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.76||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.76
84574370|NCT01129128|168899407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.98
84574371|NCT01129128|168899407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.0||||0.34||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.34
84574372|NCT01900314|168899410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA at 4 weeks with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.16
84574373|NCT01900314|168899411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.04
84574374|NCT03282097|168899413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4393
84574375|NCT03282097|168899414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.2262
84574376|NCT03282097|168899415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0023
84574377|NCT03282097|168899416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6075
84574378|NCT03282097|168899417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
84574379|NCT03282097|168899418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84574380|NCT04497883|168899434|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|110.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|132.94|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||132.94|91.70|
84574381|NCT04497883|168899435|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|122.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.83|154.95|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||154.95|96.83|
84574382|NCT04497883|168899436|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|125.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|159.64|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||159.64|97.99|
84574383|NCT01394276|168899454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0237
84498099|NCT03889197|168747380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.940
84574384|NCT01394276|168899455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0003
84574385|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.4|-0.3|0.8080
84574386|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.5|0.4884
84574387|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.7|0.0947
84574388|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.8181
84574389|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.9721
84574390|NCT01394276|168899467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.5|-0.3|0.5832
84574391|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.2|-5.1|0.4211
84574392|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-7.9|0.6749
84574393|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|15.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||15.9|-3.0|0.1817
84574394|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||11.4|-5.8|0.5182
84574395|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||22.6|4.9|0.0025
84574396|NCT01394276|168899468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-4.4|0.3540
84574397|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.7343
84574398|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.0|-0.4|0.1098
84574399|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.3|0.4932
84574400|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.4|0.2468
84574401|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.9639
84574402|NCT01394276|168899469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.2|0.6696
84574403|NCT02696798|168899478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.17|0.017
84574404|NCT02696798|168899478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.33|1.48|0.003
84574405|NCT02696798|168899479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.26|0.006
84574406|NCT02696798|168899479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.16|0.013
84574407|NCT02696798|168899480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-1.32|<0.001
84574408|NCT02696798|168899480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-1.30|<0.001
84574409|NCT02696798|168899481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.21|0.015
84574410|NCT02696798|168899481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.49|1.29|0.010
84574411|NCT02696798|168899482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.81|<0.001
84574412|NCT02696798|168899482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.76|<0.001
84609127|NCT02409342|168969280|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.89|||Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.890|0.398|0.0106
84574413|NCT02696798|168899483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-1.63|<0.001
84574414|NCT02696798|168899483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-1.89|<0.001
84574415|NCT02696798|168899484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|33.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.98|0.41|0.242
84574416|NCT02696798|168899484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|47.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||47.54|0.62|0.127
84574417|NCT02696798|168899485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.86|1.50|0.006
84574418|NCT02696798|168899485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.18|1.55|0.006
84574419|NCT02696798|168899486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2863||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7629|3.3007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.3007|-1.7629|0.550
84574420|NCT02696798|168899486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3338||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7151|3.536|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.5360|-1.7151|0.495
84574421|NCT02696798|168899486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0204|7.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.4090|3.0204|<0.001
84574422|NCT02696798|168899486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.494|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.0230|2.4940|<0.001
84574423|NCT02696798|168899487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-1.94|0.026
84574424|NCT02696798|168899487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-1.63|0.149
84574425|NCT02696798|168899488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
84574426|NCT02696798|168899488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.2|<0.001
84574427|NCT02696798|168899489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-10.0|0.001
84574428|NCT02696798|168899489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.978|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-11.2|<0.001
84574429|NCT02696798|168899490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7463|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.187|-13.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.444|-28.187|<0.001
84574430|NCT02696798|168899490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.518|-10.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.163|-25.518|<0.001
84574431|NCT02696798|168899491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1275||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.053|-0.555|0.018
84574432|NCT02696798|168899491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|-0.431|0.194
84574433|NCT02696798|168899492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-0.53|0.170
84574434|NCT02696798|168899492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.04|-1.57|0.800
84574435|NCT02696798|168899493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.521||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.34|0.547
84574436|NCT02696798|168899493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-2.06|0.064
84609128|NCT02409342|168969281|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.14|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||1.140|0.661|0.3091
84609129|NCT02409342|168969281|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.037||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC/1/2/3-WT||1.037|0.688|0.1070
84609130|NCT02409342|168969282|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.884||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.884|0.449|0.0070
84574437|NCT02696798|168899494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.0|0.861
84574438|NCT02696798|168899494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-1.4|0.626
84574439|NCT02696798|168899495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.6|0.504
84574440|NCT02696798|168899495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.1|0.860
84574441|NCT02696798|168899496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-3.0|0.362
84574442|NCT02696798|168899496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-3.3|0.303
84574443|NCT02696798|168899497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.5|0.813
84574444|NCT02696798|168899497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.0|0.410
84498100|NCT03889197|168747381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.126
84574445|NCT02696798|168899499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.9|<0.001
84574446|NCT02696798|168899499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.6|0.005
84574447|NCT02696798|168899500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.5|0.088
84574448|NCT02696798|168899500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|0.366
84574449|NCT02696798|168899501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-0.60|-21.65|0.038
84574450|NCT02696798|168899501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.341||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.23|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-3.10|-24.23|0.012
84753594|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.6|< 0.0001
84498101|NCT03889197|168747382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
84574451|NCT02696798|168899501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||0.5|-13.2|0.071
84574452|NCT02696798|168899501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.1|-15.5|0.024
84574453|NCT00671060|168899569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Rates of success were compared across study arms. The study was a separate, non-comparative efficacy study. In order to have 80% power (alpha=.05) to demonstrate that each misoprostol regimen was 95%, ± 5%, effective, we enrolled 73 women in each arm of the study, or 146 women total. The sample size also provided 80% power (alpha=.05) to detect a significant difference between treatments should 200μg prove 98% effective and 100μg prove 88% effective.||||<0.05
84574454|NCT00303186|168899584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||5.10|2.40|<0.0001
84574455|NCT00303186|168899584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||5.78|1.65|<0.001
84574456|NCT00303186|168899584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.76|-1.50|0.518
84574457|NCT00303186|168899585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.38|23.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||23.07|12.38|<0.0001
84574458|NCT00303186|168899585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|18.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.21|6.99|<0.0001
84574459|NCT00303186|168899585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.61|-5.70|0.833
84574460|NCT00303186|168899586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.18|2.26|<0.0001
84574461|NCT00303186|168899586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.87|1.59|<0.0001
84574462|NCT00303186|168899586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.27|-0.83|0.309
84574463|NCT00303186|168899588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|8.301|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||8.301|1.619|0.004
84498102|NCT03889197|168747383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
84498103|NCT03889197|168747384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.996
84574464|NCT00303186|168899589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|-1.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-1.355|-12.155|0.015
84574465|NCT00303186|168899590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.41||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.666|2.546|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.546|-1.666|0.676
84574466|NCT00303186|168899591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.486|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||2.05|0.918|<0.0001
84574467|NCT00303186|168899591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.99|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.99|1.01|<0.001
84574468|NCT00303186|168899591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.32||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.46|-0.35|0.223
84574469|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|7.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 12: swollen joints.||7.47|5.10|<0.0001
84574470|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|7.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||7.92|4.48|<0.0001
84574471|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
84574472|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|11.13|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 12: tender joints.||11.13|6.86|<0.0001
84574473|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||11.10|6.10|<0.0001
84574474|NCT00303186|168899592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.92||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||3.07|-1.76|0.588
84574475|NCT00303186|168899596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.82|-1.30|0.330
84574476|NCT00303186|168899596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.28||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.37|16.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||16.26|-33.37|0.449
84574477|NCT00303186|168899596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.17||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|7.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.04|-37.04|0.165
84574478|NCT00303186|168899597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.44|35.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||35.91|26.44|<0.0001
84574479|NCT00303186|168899597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|35.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||35.10|22.42|<0.0001
84574480|NCT00303186|168899597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.60|-8.70|0.538
84574481|NCT00303186|168899598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.04|37.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||37.63|30.04|<0.0001
84574482|NCT00303186|168899598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.96|44.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||44.12|31.96|<0.0001
84574483|NCT00303186|168899598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.38|-2.62|0.343
84574484|NCT00303186|168899599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.88|36.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||36.49|25.88|<0.0001
84574485|NCT00303186|168899599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|36.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||36.09|21.52|<0.0001
84574486|NCT00303186|168899599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.77||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||3.07|-9.74|0.301
84574487|NCT00303186|168899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|50.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||50.40|2.01|<0.0001
84574488|NCT00303186|168899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|18.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.57|7.81|<0.0001
84609131|NCT02409342|168969283|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.82||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.820|0.501|0.0004
84498104|NCT03889197|168747385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.095
84574489|NCT00303186|168899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.77|-6.40|0.132
84574490|NCT00303186|168899601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|150.1|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|46.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||46.04|-13.52|<0.0005
84574491|NCT00303186|168899601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.33|83.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||83.29|22.33|<0.0001
84574492|NCT00303186|168899601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|147.25||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|77.64|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||77.64|-10.84|0.034
84574493|NCT00303186|168899603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.62|0.35|<0.0001
84574494|NCT00303186|168899603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
84574495|NCT00303186|168899603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.14|-0.24|0.600
84574496|NCT00303186|168899604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
84574497|NCT00303186|168899604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-0.12|-0.31|<0.0001
84574498|NCT00303186|168899604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.06|-0.08|0.789
84574499|NCT00303186|168899605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.59|24.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||24.22|14.59|<0.0001
84574500|NCT00303186|168899605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|-6.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-6.59|-18.77|0.0001
84574501|NCT00303186|168899605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.22||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|10.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||10.92|-1.21|0.115
84574502|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 12: physical component score.||-4.47|-10.34|<0.0001
84574503|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||-3.32|-8.56|<0.0001
84753595|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.3||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.3|8.5|
84574504|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.83||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||3.68|-1.19|0.308
84574505|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 12: mental component score.||1.80|-3.14|0.589
84574506|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.06|-9.12|0.003
84574507|NCT00303186|168899606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.18|-9.23|0.002
84574508|NCT00267670|168899608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Sample size estimates were based on 30% reduction in ALT in the treatment group \& 15% reduction in the placebo group. With a sample size of 30 planned (20 treatment:10 placebo), the study was designed to have a power of 90% to detect a difference in means of 1.25 standard deviations (ES=1.25), \& a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 1.1 standard deviations (ES=1.1), based on calculations using power index, z-table, \& accounting for unequal sample size: n1 = 20, n2 = 10, a = 0.05.||||0.46
84574509|NCT00267670|168899609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between mean hepatic expression of TNF-alpha receptors in patient with NASH. This was a secondary outcome and no power analysis was done.||||0.16
84574510|NCT00267670|168899610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84574511|NCT00267670|168899611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84574512|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0145||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0145
84574513|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0148||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0148
84753596|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|34.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|20.4|< 0.0001
84574514|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0089||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809 .||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0089
84574515|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0038||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0038
84574516|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0085||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0085
84753597|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|50.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.9|36.7|< 0.0001
84753598|NCT03627767|169263249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|25.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.2|8.4|
84753599|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.1|-7.5|= 0.9313
84753600|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||=|0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.7|-9.8|= 0.6043
84753601|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-10.0|
84574517|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.228||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2280
84574518|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8205||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.892||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.892|-1.332|0.7330
84574519|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8074||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.724||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.724|-1.450|0.8655
84574520|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7875||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|3.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.530|0.434|0.0122
84574521|NCT02832037|168899622|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7884||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|3.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.280|0.181|0.0287
84574522|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.066||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0660
84574523|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.1619||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1619
84574524|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0832||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0832
84574525|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0625||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0625
84609132|NCT02409342|168969283|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.863||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.863|0.595|0.0004
84609133|NCT02409342|168969284|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in ORR|9.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|23.56||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||23.56|-4.07|
84609134|NCT02409342|168969285|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|12.42||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||12.42|-9.14|
84609135|NCT02409342|168969285|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|7.39||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||7.39|-8.84|
84498105|NCT01516684|168747437|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||T-test and chi-square|||Raw mean total dose administered and raw percentage of times additional propofol was administered will be presented by sedation group treating each event (sedation with lumbar puncture) as the unit. T-test and chi-square tests will be performed as appropriate for the outcome. GEE methods will be used when analyzing the percentage of times additional propofol was administered. Mixed model regression methods will be used when analyzing the total dose administered.||||0.036
84574526|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0768||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0768
84574527|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.7479||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.7479
84574528|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7306||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|2.613||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.613|-0.258|0.11
84574529|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7224||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.257|0.582||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.582|-2.257|0.25
84574530|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7152||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|1.142||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.142|-1.669|0.71
84574531|NCT02832037|168899623|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7125||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.473|0.328||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.328|-2.473|0.13
84574532|NCT02326883|168899625|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33||A priori two-sided comparison of Care Management condition to Usual Care|Log Rank|A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt among participants assigned to Care Management was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 - 1.33) higher compared to participants assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of participants assigned to Care Management intervention to those assigned to continued Usual Care||1.33|0.86|0.61
84574533|NCT02326883|168899625|SUPERIORITY|A priori two-sided comparison of Skills Training to usual care.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.59||A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Log Rank||To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt in participants assigned to Skills Training was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59) times higher than in those assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of Skills Training to Usual Care||1.59|1.05|0.02
84574534|NCT02107898|168899628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-59.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.8|-68.5|<0.0001
84574535|NCT02107898|168899629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-61.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.3|-69.4|<0.0001
84574536|NCT02107898|168899630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|-57.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.7|-65.3|<0.0001
84574537|NCT02107898|168899631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.8|-58.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.3|-65.8|<0.0001
84574538|NCT02107898|168899632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-49.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.1|-57.5|<0.0001
84574539|NCT02107898|168899633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-49.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-57.8|<0.0001
84609136|NCT02409342|168969286|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.8||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.800|0.166|
84574540|NCT02107898|168899634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.5|-61.5|<0.0001
84574541|NCT02107898|168899635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-54.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.8|-62.3|<0.0001
84574542|NCT02107898|168899636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-38.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.4|-44.6|<0.0001
84574543|NCT02107898|168899637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-54.9|<0.0001
84574544|NCT02107898|168899638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.1|-57.9|<0.0001
84574545|NCT02107898|168899639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-36.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.4|-41.7|<0.0001
84574546|NCT02107898|168899640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|552.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|2886.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2886.8|105.6|<0.0001
84574547|NCT02107898|168899641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1367.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.8|13578.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13578.3|137.8|<0.0001
84609137|NCT02409342|168969287|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.409||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.409|0.135|
84498106|NCT01516684|168747439|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.094
84574548|NCT02107898|168899642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-36.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.0|-48.0|<0.0001
84574549|NCT02107898|168899643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.1|-30.9|<0.0001
84574550|NCT02107898|168899644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.4|2.1|0.0020
84574551|NCT02107898|168899645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|0.2|0.0382
84574552|NCT02107898|168899646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-35.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.7|-47.0|<0.0001
84574553|NCT02107898|168899647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.6|-24.4|0.0007
84574554|NCT02107898|168899648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.3|3.7|<0.0001
84609138|NCT02409342|168969287|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.424||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.424|0.190|
84753602|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|16.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.5|6.6|< 0.0001
84609139|NCT02409342|168969288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|14.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|28.55||||||1-Year TC3 or IC3-WT Population||28.55|-0.03|
84609140|NCT02409342|168969289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|38.47||||||2-Years TC3 or IC3-WT Population||38.47|2.94|
84609141|NCT02409342|168969290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|15.4||||||1-Year TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||15.40|-5.93|
84609142|NCT02409342|168969290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|13.4||||||1-Year TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||13.40|-3.27|
84498107|NCT01516684|168747440|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
84574555|NCT02107898|168899649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.0|3.6|<0.0001
84574556|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial confidence interval (CI) were determined.|||0.986|0.903|
84574557|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.986|0.908|
84574558|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.928|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.928|0.801|
84574559|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|0.943|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.943|0.804|
84574560|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.900|0.760|
84574561|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.933|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.933|0.776|
84574562|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.937|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.937|0.811|
84574563|NCT01401166|168899661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.956|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.956|0.827|
84574564|NCT04383132|168899669|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIT between two groups. The statistical significance level was accepted as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||In sample size calculation, CIT and SD were used. It was found that 326 patients (163 per group) were required to detect a 60-second difference in CIT (SD 192 secs), with 80% power and two-sided alpha 0.05. The frequency of the auxiliary maneuvers was calculated that 324 patients were required for a 20% reduction in the auxiliary maneuvers. In case of becoming lost to follow up and withdrawal, the number of patients was expanded by 5%, and a total of 346 patients, were included in the study.||||0.388
84574565|NCT04383132|168899670|OTHER|||||||0.069||||||For the comparison of ancillary maneuvers Pearson chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test were used.|Chi-squared|||||||0.069
84574566|NCT04383132|168899671|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIL between two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
84574567|NCT04383132|168899672|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.822
84574568|NCT04383132|168899673|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
84574569|NCT04383132|168899674|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84574570|NCT04383132|168899675|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
84574571|NCT02469857|168899688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the mITT analysis population.||||0.135
84574572|NCT02469857|168899688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the US-mITT analysis population.||||0.025
84574573|NCT02469857|168899692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
84574574|NCT02469857|168899693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
84574575|NCT02469857|168899694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
84574576|NCT02469857|168899695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.596
84574577|NCT02469857|168899696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
84574578|NCT02469857|168899697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84574579|NCT02469857|168899698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.50|0.554
84574580|NCT02469857|168899699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.23|0.148
84498108|NCT01516684|168747441|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
84574581|NCT02469857|168899700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.46|0.736
84574582|NCT02469857|168899701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.09|0.093
84574583|NCT02469857|168899702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.35|0.352
84574584|NCT02469857|168899703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.04|0.031
84574585|NCT02469857|168899704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
84574586|NCT02469857|168899705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84574587|NCT02469857|168899706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
84574588|NCT02469857|168899707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84574589|NCT03483103|168899738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One sided P-value is calculated based on the null hypothesis ORR \<= 50.2%|Exact binomial test|||||||<.0001
84609143|NCT02409342|168969291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|19.45||||||2-Years TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||19.45|-1.99|
84609144|NCT02409342|168969291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.04||||||2-Years TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||19.04|2.83|
84609145|NCT02409342|168969292|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.984||||||Cough in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.984|0.657|
84609146|NCT02409342|168969292|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.43||||||Dyspnoea in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.430|0.555|
84574590|NCT00435942|168899775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|Proportion free|0.97|||>|0.8|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.93||||1-sided z-test|97.5% 1-sided confidence interval||The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|||.93|>0.80
84574591|NCT02320396|168899795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.51|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in TNSS was estimated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 2 weeks) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.||-0.51|-1.14|<0.001
84574592|NCT02320396|168899798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.5|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 1: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.50|-1.14|<0.001
84574593|NCT02320396|168899798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.46|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 2: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post- BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.46|-1.23|<0.001
84574594|NCT02320396|168899799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
84574595|NCT02320396|168899799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
84753603|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|19.4|< 0.0001
84574596|NCT02320396|168899799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.008
84574597|NCT02320396|168899799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
84574598|NCT02320396|168899800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.13|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.13|-0.36|<0.001
84574599|NCT02320396|168899800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
84609147|NCT02409342|168969292|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.049||||||Chest pain in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.049|0.737|
84609148|NCT02409342|168969294|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|2.03||||||Cough for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.030|0.477|
84753604|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.4|6.6|
84574600|NCT02320396|168899800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.01|-0.18|0.037
84574601|NCT02320396|168899800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
84574602|NCT02320396|168899801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Sneezing During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
84574603|NCT02320396|168899801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Rhinorrhea During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
84574604|NCT02320396|168899801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Congestion During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.009
84574605|NCT02320396|168899801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Itching During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.~cLDA model"||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
84574606|NCT02320396|168899802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
84574607|NCT02320396|168899802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
84753605|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|7.7|< 0.0001
84574608|NCT02320396|168899802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
84574609|NCT02320396|168899803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
84574610|NCT02320396|168899803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.03|-0.24|0.010
84609149|NCT02409342|168969294|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.604||||||Dyspnea for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.604|0.569|
84574611|NCT02320396|168899803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
84574612|NCT02320396|168899804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Eye Pruritus During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
84574613|NCT02320396|168899804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Watering Eyes During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.23|<0.001
84574614|NCT02320396|168899804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in the worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
84574615|NCT02320396|168899805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.24|<0.001
84574616|NCT02320396|168899805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.09|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
84574617|NCT02320396|168899805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Interference with Daily Activities During 2 Wks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Interference with Daily Activities estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.26|<0.001
84574618|NCT02320396|168899806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Investigator: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo."||2.303|0.966|0.071
84505191|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.13||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.54|0.7513
84574619|NCT02320396|168899807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Participant: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo"||3.280|1.408|<0.001
84574620|NCT03331562|168899808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Fisher Exact||Lower bound cannot be estimated because there were 0 events in the comparison group.||||0|.31
84574621|NCT01186770|168899848|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.83||||0.1692||95.0|-1.21|6.86||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||6.86|-1.21|0.1692
84574622|NCT01186770|168899848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.51||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||10.55|2.47|0.0016
84574623|NCT01186770|168899848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|13.18||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||13.18|5.09|< 0.0001
84574624|NCT01186770|168899849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.84||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||1.84|0.82|0.3076
84609150|NCT02409342|168969294|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.222||||||Chest pain for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.222|0.472|
84574625|NCT01186770|168899849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.29|1.03|0.0339
84574626|NCT01186770|168899849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0043||95.0|1.2|2.66||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.66|1.20|0.0043
84574627|NCT01186770|168899850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.55|-0.36|0.6920
84574628|NCT01186770|168899850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.97||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.97|0.06|0.0274
84574629|NCT01186770|168899850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.98||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.98|0.07|0.0237
84574630|NCT01033136|168899860|EQUIVALENCE|To test if MCET is equivalent to CPT in decreasing PTSD symptoms, we test the equivalence of the proportion of patients whose CAPS scores decrease by 10 from baseline, by testing whether the difference in proportions between the 2 interventions ≤ to the equivalence margin δb of .20. Results are reported based on 3-month follow-up data.||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
84574631|NCT01033136|168899861|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 2, 54||Longitudinal analysis of PDSS scores||||0.68
84574632|NCT00142415|168899873|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The occurrence of DLTs was compared across cohorts.|Maximum tolerated dose (mCi/m^2)|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84574633|NCT05383209|168899876|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|13.4||||||||13.4|-24.9|
84753606|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|32.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.0|19.9|< 0.0001
84574634|NCT05383209|168899876|OTHER||Slope|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|20.6||||||||20.6|-20.6|
84505192|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.82||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.35|0.99|0.0554
84574635|NCT05383209|168899877|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0||||||||26.0|-13.2|
84574636|NCT00149643|168899930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Groups' categorical baseline measures were compared by chi-square analysis, corrected for continuity. Statistical analyses were completed on an intent to-treat study group basis. Outcome measures for depression and for cannabis use and alcohol use across treatment groups were compared by repeated measures analysis of variance. The last observation carried forward (LOCF)method was used for handling missing data in the data analyses.||||<0.05
84574637|NCT05233761|168899940|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.5|0.1|0.0350
84574638|NCT05233761|168899941|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.6|0.4|0.0019
84574639|NCT05233761|168899941|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.2|-.6|0.52
84609151|NCT02409342|168969295|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||1.000|0.500|
84609152|NCT02409342|168969295|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.956||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.956|0.502|
84609153|NCT02409342|168969295|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.018||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||1.018|0.579|
84609154|NCT02409342|168969296|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.89||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||0.890|0.511|
84574640|NCT05233761|168899941|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
84574641|NCT05233761|168899941|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.0|-.5|0.24
84574642|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||13.3|1.7|0.0117
84574643|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.9|0.7|0.0126
84574644|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.3|-2.7|0.51
84505193|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.87|0.76|0.2409
84574645|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||0.2|-13.7|0.0574
84609155|NCT02409342|168969296|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.904||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.904|0.539|
84609156|NCT02409342|168969296|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.91||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||0.910|0.577|
84609157|NCT02409342|168969297|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.301||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.301|0.578|
84609158|NCT02409342|168969297|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.351||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||1.351|0.414|
84609159|NCT02409342|168969297|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.638||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.638|0.362|
84609160|NCT02409342|168969298|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.052||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.052|0.525|
84609161|NCT02409342|168969298|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.924||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||0.924|0.331|
84609162|NCT02409342|168969298|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.062||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.062|0.295|
84609163|NCT00279812|168969303|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84609164|NCT00279812|168969304|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84609165|NCT00279812|168969305|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84609166|NCT02720692|168969323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 applies to Day 1 (0-24 Hours; p=0.0033), Days 1-2 (0-48 Hours; p=0.0077), and Days 1-3 (0-72 Hours; p=0.0152).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84574646|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||6.9|-2.4|0.3
84574647|NCT05233761|168899942|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Total Sleep Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Total Sleep Time (min) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.4|-16.1|0.14
84574648|NCT05233761|168899943|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.3|-.7|0.53
84574649|NCT05233761|168899943|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.7|-0.6|0.32
84574650|NCT05233761|168899943|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.4|0.20
84574651|NCT05233761|168899943|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.6|-0.7|0.45
84574652|NCT05233761|168899943|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.8|0.4
84609167|NCT03878758|168969332|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in incidence of needle bending with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.04|||Fisher Exact|||||1.04|-1.82|0.591
84609168|NCT03878758|168969332|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.06|||Fisher Exact|||||3.06|-2.8|0.931
84574653|NCT04058717|168899944|OTHER||H-statistic|10.23||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84574654|NCT04058717|168899945|OTHER||H-statistic|7.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.056
84574655|NCT04058717|168899946|OTHER||H-statistic|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
84753607|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.6|6.3|
84574656|NCT04058717|168899947|OTHER||Slope|4.13||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.248
84574657|NCT04058717|168899948|OTHER||H-statistic|9.33||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
84574658|NCT04058717|168899949|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.289
84574659|NCT03513952|168899950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 will be considered for the test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||Estimations were done separately in each treatment arm; the difference between treatments was not calculated.|||0.428
84574660|NCT03513952|168899951|EQUIVALENCE|"Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the CBR was performed, which is used for testing zero effect or equivalence between treatments. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 will be considered for the test."|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-36.3|0.702
84574661|NCT00846365|168899958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
84574662|NCT00846365|168899958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.4||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.4|-9.1|<0.001
84574663|NCT00846365|168899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.7||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-8.5|<0.001
84574664|NCT00846365|168899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-4.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
84574665|NCT00846365|168899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-7.5|<0.001
84753608|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|6.5|< 0.0001
84574666|NCT00846365|168899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-5.2||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-5.2|-9.1|<0.001
84574667|NCT03320369|168900047|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84574668|NCT00844519|168900060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.17
84574669|NCT00844519|168900060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.90
84574670|NCT03769493|168900067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
84574671|NCT03769493|168900068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
84574672|NCT05473039|168900118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2629
84574673|NCT05473039|168900119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3582
84574674|NCT05473039|168900120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2187
84574675|NCT05473039|168900121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3005
84574676|NCT05473039|168900122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0314
84574677|NCT05473039|168900123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9214
84574678|NCT05473039|168900123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||0.042
84574679|NCT05473039|168900123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||<0.001
84574680|NCT05473039|168900124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59695
84574681|NCT05473039|168900124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.466503
84574682|NCT05473039|168900124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.959877
84574683|NCT05473039|168900125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062810
84574684|NCT05473039|168900125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.417757
84574685|NCT05473039|168900125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.968525
84574686|NCT05473039|168900126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686488
84574687|NCT05473039|168900126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.395120
84574688|NCT05473039|168900126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.127135
84574689|NCT05473039|168900127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257496
84574690|NCT04530344|168900142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.990|0.180|0.0414
84609169|NCT03878758|168969332|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.75|||Fisher Exact|||||2.75|-1.91|0.723
84498109|NCT00526227|168747474|OTHER|An exact one-sided 97% upper confidence bound or a p-value will be calculated based on the observed percentage of subjects with an USADE within the first month post-implant. This rate will be considered acceptable if the one-sided 97% upper confidence bound is less than 10% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.0304.|Percentage|7.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0|||||||The CI was calculated based on 44 patients at interim analysis: 0 USADE were reported within 1-month post implant, ie 0% of subjects experienced a USADE. The one-sided 97% exact binomial upper confidence bound was 7.7% which is lower than 10%.|"H 0 (null hypothesis): P ≥ 10%; H A (alternative hypothesis): P \< 10%, where P is the percentage of subjects experiencing a USADE through the 1-month post implant.~An upper limit of the confidence interval of the percentage subjects with USADE not greater than or equal to 10% at the 1-month follow-up visit provides a reasonably-sized clinical study with sufficient power to detect USADEs."||||
84498110|NCT00684645|168747493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.609|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to PFS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.609|0.257|<0.0001
84574691|NCT04530344|168900143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.606|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.606|0.165|0.0003
84574692|NCT00157755|168900180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.215
84574693|NCT00157755|168900180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||1.0
84574694|NCT00157755|168900181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.903
84574695|NCT00157755|168900181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.932
84574696|NCT00157755|168900182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84574697|NCT00157755|168900182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84574698|NCT00157755|168900183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||0.014
84574699|NCT00157755|168900183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||<0.001
84574700|NCT00157755|168900184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84609170|NCT03878758|168969333|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-9.0|<0.001
84609171|NCT03878758|168969333|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-1.69||Although a site difference was detected - all sites combined p-value was generated,|Fisher Exact|||||-1.69|-26.49|0.026
84574701|NCT00157755|168900184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84574702|NCT00157755|168900185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84676581|NCT01971346|169088596|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.03 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.38 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.31|ANOVA|||The strength of the TNF-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if TNF-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.03
84609172|NCT03878758|168969333|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs.Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.6|-1.9|0.644
84609173|NCT03878758|168969334|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98||||||||0.98|0.62|
84574703|NCT00157755|168900185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.043
84574704|NCT00157755|168900186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.009
84574705|NCT00157755|168900186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.001
84574706|NCT00157755|168900187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84574707|NCT00157755|168900187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
84574708|NCT00157755|168900188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.016
84574709|NCT00157755|168900188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.236
84574710|NCT01719653|168900193|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 was lower than 3,4,5; 2 was lower than 5. Modified Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 were lower than 5. Chicago BPS Fluid Score -- 1 was dryer than 3,4,5; 2 was dryer than 3,4,5; 3 was wetter than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.005
84574711|NCT01719653|168900194|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||1 was lower than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.001
84574712|NCT01719653|168900195|OTHER||||||>|0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.||||>0.005
84753609|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|31.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.8|19.6|< 0.0001
84753610|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.2||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|7.0|
84574713|NCT01192178|168900234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.819||Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for investigative center|Regression, Cox||The risk of having an asthma exacerbation during the treatment period was analyzed.|||1.819|0.519|0.928
84574714|NCT02164916|168900252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.31|0.001
84574715|NCT00296517|168900259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.805||95.0|-1.6|2.0|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: The population mean change from baseline on HAM-D total score at Week 12 of the placebo group is equal to the population mean change from baseline on HAMD total score at Week 12 of the Bupropion hydrochloride sustained release group.||2.0|-1.6|0.805
84574716|NCT00296517|168900269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
84574717|NCT01143324|168900279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.3||||||||1.3|1.2|
84574718|NCT01143324|168900280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.9|-3.6|<0.0001
84574719|NCT01143324|168900281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.3|-4.2|<0.0001
84574720|NCT01143324|168900282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|0.30|<0.0001
84574721|NCT01143324|168900284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.0|||||||||||||61/226 patients underwent a rehabilitation programs between 6 and 12 months follow up visit, making it 27.0 % of the total.|||||
84574722|NCT01143324|168900285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.2|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at treated level was 1.2% (3/252) patients.|||||
84574723|NCT01143324|168900286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.6|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at the same level was 1.6% (4/252) patients.|||||
84574724|NCT01143324|168900287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage at 12 months|47.6||||||||||||||||||
84574725|NCT01143324|168900289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.5|-25.5|<0.0001
84574726|NCT01143324|168900290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.7||||||||||||||||||
84574727|NCT01143324|168900291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||95.0|2.9|3.4||||||||3.4|2.9|
84574728|NCT01101178|168900314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.21|114.47|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||114.47|105.21|
84574729|NCT01101178|168900315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.71|96.64|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||96.64|92.71|
84574730|NCT01101178|168900316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|97.02|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.02|92.90|
84574731|NCT04901624|168900369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Personal + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.97|0.42|0.003
84574732|NCT04901624|168900369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||2.24|0.68|<0.001
84574733|NCT04901624|168900369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Lottery relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.96|0.26|0.01
84574734|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.4|-0.98|0.409
84574735|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||1.10|-0.09|0.098
84574736|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.73|-0.71|0.982
84574737|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.12|-0.67|0.177
84753611|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.0|9.2|< 0.0001
84753612|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|18.4|< 0.0001
84753613|NCT03627767|169263250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.2|2.7|
84574738|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.74|-0.08|0.117
84574739|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.50|-0.39|0.809
84574740|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.41|-0.34|0.847
84574741|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.38|-0.39|0.993
84574742|NCT04901624|168900370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.33|-0.51|0.671
84574743|NCT03479905|168900373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0004
84574744|NCT00720759|168900381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A general linear model was employed. The independent variables were baseline WMFT score, treatment (condensed vs distributed), treatment (d-cycloserine vs placebo), and treatment interaction effect. The dependent measure was WMFT score at 3 months post treatment.||||<0.05
84574745|NCT03100747|168900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.97|1.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.97|0.039
84574746|NCT03100747|168900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.54|2.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|1.54|<0.0001
84498111|NCT00684645|168747494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.864|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to OS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.864|0.151|0.0221
84753614|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-5.0|= 0.6082
84498112|NCT01186744|168747500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
84498113|NCT01186744|168747500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84498114|NCT01186744|168747501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0027
84498115|NCT01186744|168747501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84498116|NCT02547779|168747625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84498117|NCT02547779|168747626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84498118|NCT03349437|168747682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This p-value is in reference to the total Modified 6MWT Distance|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
84574747|NCT03100747|168900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.29|1.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|1.29|<0.0001
84574748|NCT03100747|168900396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.65|1.08||p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.65|0.094
84574749|NCT03100747|168900396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.38|0.67||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons, the a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
84574750|NCT03100747|168900396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.45|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.45|<0.0001
84753615|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||=|0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.0|-6.7|= 0.9640
84574751|NCT03100747|168900401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.64|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.64|0.24
84574752|NCT03100747|168900401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.49|0.0037
84574753|NCT03100747|168900401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.57|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.57|0.08
84574754|NCT04070703|168900505|SUPERIORITY|The co-primary outcome data were analyzed via a Group by Time mixed-effects model with repeated measures on the second factor (i.e., outcome measures assessed at baseline and 6 months. In the presence of a Group by Time interaction effect, pre-specified follow-up pair-wise comparisons were performed to determine between-group differences.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|2.1|0.0125
84574755|NCT04070703|168900505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.07|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|.07|.0125
84609174|NCT03878758|168969334|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||||||||1.16|0.8|
84498119|NCT02367729|168747693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3947||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.93|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.93|1.37|0.003
84574756|NCT04070703|168900506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.6|2.8|.0125
84574757|NCT04070703|168900506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|12.6|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.2|12.6|.0125
84753616|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||4.4|-9.1|
84753617|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|31.2|< 0.0001
84574758|NCT04070703|168900507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.5|0.05
84609175|NCT03878758|168969334|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||||||||0.49|0.13|
84574759|NCT04070703|168900507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.3|-.7|.05
84574760|NCT04070703|168900508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8|-20|.05
84574761|NCT04070703|168900508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16|-28|.05
84574762|NCT04070703|168900509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.1|-.4|<.05
84574763|NCT04070703|168900509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|.4|<.05
84574764|NCT04070703|168900510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|.5|<.05
84574765|NCT04070703|168900510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.6|<.05
84574766|NCT04070703|168900511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-.4|<.05
84574767|NCT04070703|168900511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|3.1|<.05
84574768|NCT04070703|168900512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.7|-.3|<.05
84574769|NCT04070703|168900512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.4|<.05
84574770|NCT04070703|168900513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4|-1.4|<.05
84574771|NCT04070703|168900513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|.8|<.05
84574772|NCT04070703|168900514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-.1|<.05
84574773|NCT04070703|168900514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|1.6|<.05
84574774|NCT04070703|168900515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.8|-.7|<.05
84574775|NCT04070703|168900515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.1|<.05
84574776|NCT04070703|168900516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-.3|<.05
84574777|NCT04070703|168900516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.2|-1.8|<.05
84574778|NCT04070703|168900517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2|-.4|<.05
84574779|NCT04070703|168900517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|3.1|<.05
84574780|NCT04070703|168900518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.03|-.04|<.05
84574781|NCT04070703|168900518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.11|.03|<.05
84574782|NCT04070703|168900519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6|-2|<.05
84574783|NCT04070703|168900519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|166.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166|84|<.05
84753618|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|52.7|< 0.0001
84753619|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|29.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|12.7|
84574784|NCT04070703|168900520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.3|<.05
84574785|NCT04070703|168900520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.4|-.7|<.05
84574786|NCT01134042|168900528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.277|||ANCOVA|||||0.277|0.108|<0.001
84574787|NCT01134042|168900528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.294|||ANCOVA|||||0.294|0.127|<0.001
84574788|NCT01134042|168900528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI: 0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in change from Baseline in clinic visit trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FP 500 µg BID was greater than -125 milliliters.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.102||||||||0.102|-0.066|
84574789|NCT01134042|168900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.270|0.001|0.048
84574790|NCT01134042|168900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.206||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.339|||ANCOVA|||||0.339|0.073|0.003
84574791|NCT00770367|168900554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A twosample comparison of mean treatment differences conducted using a pre-determined significance level of alpha level \<0.05. 2 a comparison of means for NOx levels at 12 weeks b/w groups. 3 on the change F2-isoprostanes at 12 weeks b/w groups.||||.37
84574792|NCT03881371|168900563|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|-0.555||"Analysis was based on a covariance model (ANCOVA) with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily OFF time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.555|-1.643|<.0001
84574793|NCT03881371|168900564|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.382||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline NRS measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.382|-0.440|0.8901
84574794|NCT03881371|168900565|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.515||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.515|0.274|0.0049
84574795|NCT03881371|168900566|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.753||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time with no/non-troublesome Dyskinesia measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||||1.753|0.392|0.0021
84574796|NCT03881371|168900567|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.842|-3.141||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-3.141|-8.842|<.0001
84574797|NCT03881371|168900568|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.511||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part II (ADL) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.511|-2.521|0.0033
84574798|NCT03881371|168900569|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749|-1.856||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part III (motor function) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.856|-5.749|0.0002
84574799|NCT03881371|168900570|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-S at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.000|0.000|0.0150
84574800|NCT03881371|168900571|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-C score at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.000|0.000|0.0007
84574801|NCT03881371|168900572|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-1.128||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factor, baseline Summary Index score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.128|-5.589|0.0033
84574802|NCT04666298|168900584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|-49.0||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-49.0|-64.2|<.0001
84574803|NCT04666298|168900584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.3|-67.6|<.0001
84574804|NCT04666298|168900584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-58.6||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-58.6|-72.0|<.0001
84574805|NCT01532089|168900600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.31|||Log Rank|Comparisons of PFS between arms were conducted using a stratified log-rank test.||||1.31|0.50|0.39
84574806|NCT01532089|168900601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.71|0.33
84574807|NCT01532089|168900602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
84574808|NCT01995201|168900610|OTHER|||||||0.5231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5231
84574809|NCT03329001|168900653|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.9706|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9706|0.8550|
84574810|NCT03329001|168900654|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8631|0.9841|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9841|0.8631|
84505194|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.02|0.69|0.5538
84574811|NCT03329001|168900655|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.0593|||||Relative bioavailability (Cmax\[tablet\]/Cmax\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||1.0593|0.8489|
84574812|NCT03329001|168900660|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-t|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9199|1.0006|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0006|0.9199|
84574813|NCT03329001|168900661|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-inf|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9164|0.9986|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||0.9986|0.9164|
84574814|NCT03329001|168900662|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9124|1.014|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0140|0.9124|
84574815|NCT03329001|168900667|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.3154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1742|1.4735|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4735|1.1742|
84574816|NCT03329001|168900668|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.2771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1537|1.4137|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4137|1.1537|
84574817|NCT03329001|168900669|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9408|1.3164|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.3164|0.9408|
84574818|NCT02178956|168900697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||two-sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.02|0.86|0.8596
84574819|NCT02178956|168900698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||two sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucuasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.19|0.85|0.9028
84574820|NCT02178956|168900699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.44|0.60|0.7359
84574821|NCT02178956|168900700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.3||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.30|0.66|0.6555
84574822|NCT00622518|168900702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is based on rating\*group interaction term|linear mixed model|||||||.002
84574823|NCT01104766|168900721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-10.1|0.0044
84574824|NCT01104766|168900721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-12.9|<0.0001
84574825|NCT01104766|168900721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-11.0|0.0008
84574826|NCT01104766|168900722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
84574827|NCT01104766|168900722|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
84574828|NCT01104766|168900722|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0001
84753620|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|41.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|26.6|< 0.0001
84753621|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.3|48.2|< 0.0001
84574829|NCT04225832|168900742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.26||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm||Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|6.26|1.01|.049
84574830|NCT04225832|168900743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm|||1.81|0.62|.83
84574831|NCT04225832|168900744|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Linear|Regression results control for immigration status, length of time in U.S., and baseline value of the outcome|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm|"Unlike the observed at any FU primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant."||||.14
84574832|NCT01138735|168900759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by analysis center, using general association statistics||"null hypothesis: no difference in Success rate in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle).~power calculation: 90%"||||<0.001
84574833|NCT01138735|168900760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|normality assumption is not met. ANCOVA Model: Ranked Change in Total Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment.||null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline in total lesion count in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle)||||<0.001
84574834|NCT01138735|168900761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with row mean difference statistic using relative to an identified distribution(RIDIT) score, controlling for analysis center||||||<0.001
84574835|NCT01138735|168900762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Ranked Change in Inflammatory Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Inflammatory Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment||||||<0.001
84574836|NCT05850494|168900806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.200 L at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||P-Value not applicable since a non-inferiority test was used for the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.037|
84574837|NCT03034967|168900883|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90 percent (%) credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.00|
84574838|NCT03034967|168900883|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.52|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||1.52|0.00|
84574839|NCT03034967|168900883|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.97|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.97|0.43|
84574840|NCT03034967|168900883|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.03|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.03|0.72|
84574841|NCT03034967|168900883|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.07|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.07|0.79|
84574842|NCT03034967|168900884|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.42|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.42|0.00|
84574843|NCT03034967|168900884|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.87|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.87|0.00|
84574844|NCT03034967|168900884|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.08|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.08|0.23|
84574845|NCT03034967|168900884|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.1|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.10|0.37|
84574846|NCT03034967|168900884|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.12|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.12|0.40|
84574847|NCT03034967|168900885|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.16|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.16|0.00|
84574848|NCT03034967|168900885|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.43|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.43|0.00|
84574849|NCT03034967|168900885|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.61|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.61|0.04|
84574850|NCT03034967|168900885|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.64|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.64|0.21|
84609176|NCT03878758|168969335|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD Nano Pro vs Artsana 34G||-0.141||<0.001
84574851|NCT03034967|168900885|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.26|
84574852|NCT03034967|168900886|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model.||0.23|-0.21|
84574853|NCT03034967|168900886|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.25|-0.23|
84574854|NCT03034967|168900886|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.29|-0.27|
84574855|NCT03034967|168900886|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.3|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.30|-0.28|
84574856|NCT03034967|168900886|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.31|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.31|-0.29|
84574857|NCT03034967|168900893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.86||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.86|1.02|0.089
84574858|NCT03034967|168900893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.79||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.79|0.62|0.881
84574859|NCT03034967|168900893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.48||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.48|0.51|0.674
84574860|NCT03034967|168900893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.54|0.804
84644151|NCT00420641|169024198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.9|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.90|-2.64|0.001
84574861|NCT03034967|168900893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.71||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.71|0.59|0.987
84574862|NCT03034967|168900895|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.6|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX versus (vs.) Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1)at Screening.|2.6|0.5|
84574863|NCT03034967|168900895|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.4|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.4|0.4|
84574864|NCT03034967|168900895|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|3.2|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|3.2|0.6|
84574865|NCT03034967|168900895|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.3|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.3|1.0|
84574866|NCT03034967|168900895|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|4.5|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.5|0.9|
84574867|NCT03034967|168900898|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.2|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator %predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.2|1.0|
84574868|NCT03034967|168900898|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.7|0.8|
84574869|NCT03034967|168900898|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.6|0.7|
84574870|NCT03034967|168900898|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.1|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.1|1.0|
84574871|NCT03034967|168900898|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.3|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.3|1.1|
84574872|NCT03034967|168900899|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.5|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.5|0.7|
84574873|NCT03034967|168900899|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.8|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.8|0.7|
84574874|NCT03034967|168900899|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.6|0.7|
84644152|NCT00420641|169024199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CGI-S score at Week 10.||0.06|-0.45|0.208
84644153|NCT00420641|169024199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.28|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CGI-S score at Week 10.||-0.28|-0.76|0.000
84644154|NCT00420641|169024200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.24|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MEI total score at Week 10.||6.24|-2.71|0.516
84574875|NCT03034967|168900899|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|6.9|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|6.9|0.9|
84574876|NCT03034967|168900899|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.7|0.2|
84753622|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.2||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|13.2|
84498120|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.976|6.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||6.255|5.976|<.0001
84498121|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.963|6.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||6.183|5.963|<.0001
84498122|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.736|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.605|5.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.868|5.605|<.0001
84498123|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|5.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.897|5.687|<.0001
84498124|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.701|5.969|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.969|5.701|<.0001
84505195|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.44||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.85|0.1743
84574877|NCT03034967|168900902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.59||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.59|0.88|0.208
84574878|NCT03034967|168900902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.73|0.482
84644155|NCT00420641|169024200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|10.48|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MEI total score at Week 10.||10.48|1.97|0.016
84644156|NCT00420641|169024201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|3.57|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||3.57|-0.13|0.126
84574879|NCT03034967|168900902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.53||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||2.53|0.86|0.239
84574880|NCT03034967|168900902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.26||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.26|0.75|0.426
84574881|NCT03034967|168900902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.52|0.763
84574882|NCT03034967|168900904|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.76||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||1.76|0.58|0.973
84574883|NCT03034967|168900904|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.63||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.63|0.53|0.825
84574884|NCT03034967|168900904|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.66||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.66|0.55|0.887
84574885|NCT03034967|168900904|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.13||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.13|0.69|0.567
84574886|NCT03034967|168900904|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.72|0.501
84574887|NCT03806296|168900915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.07|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||-0.07|-0.77|0.018
84574888|NCT03806296|168900915|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||1.07|0.28|0.001
84574889|NCT03806296|168900916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||1.59|0.61|<0.001
84574890|NCT03806296|168900916|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||-0.43|-1.09|<0.001
84574891|NCT03806296|168900917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.24|-0.64|0.365
84574892|NCT03806296|168900917|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
84574893|NCT03806296|168900918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|8.82|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||8.82|-2.18|0.234
84574894|NCT03806296|168900918|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-6.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||-1.06|-11.25|0.018
84574895|NCT03806296|168900919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.94|0.07|0.024
84574896|NCT03806296|168900919|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.35|-0.55|0.660
84574897|NCT03806296|168900920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.03|0.592
84574898|NCT03806296|168900920|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.11|0.550
84574899|NCT03806296|168900921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.04|-0.07|0.550
84574900|NCT03806296|168900921|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.02||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.10|0.556
84574901|NCT03806296|168900922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.01|0.124
84574902|NCT03806296|168900922|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.05|0.925
84574903|NCT03806296|168900923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.752||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.513|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (lower RR indicates less likelihood of cannabis use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary cannabis use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||1.513|0.374|0.42
84753623|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|36.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.7|22.7|< 0.0001
84753624|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|38.4|< 0.0001
84574904|NCT03806296|168900924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.236||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.171|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher RR indicates higher likelihood of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary alcohol use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||2.171|0.704|0.461
84574905|NCT03806296|168900924|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|3.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.9|||negative binomial glm||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher IRR indicates greater days of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group than in the Early/Middle Sleep group).|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a negative binomial GLM to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on days of alcohol use, accounting for age and sex.||7.90|1.36|0.007
84574906|NCT04279483|168900941|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.74
84574907|NCT04279483|168900941|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.69
84574908|NCT04279483|168900942|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that cigarettes smoked would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.49
84574909|NCT04279483|168900942|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.72
84574910|NCT02763566|168900963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.719|||Log Rank|||||0.719|0.346|0.0001
84574911|NCT02763566|168900964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.588|||Log Rank|||||0.588|0.240|<0.0001
84574912|NCT02763566|168900966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84574913|NCT02763566|168900966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84574914|NCT02763566|168900968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0456
84574915|NCT02763566|168900968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84574916|NCT02763566|168900969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84574917|NCT02763566|168900969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84574918|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.59|-5.36|0.287
84574919|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning||2.10|-3.64|0.597
84574920|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role Functioning||3.93|-4.55|0.885
84574921|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||5.10|-1.77|0.340
84574922|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive Functioning||1.03|-5.37|0.182
84574923|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.29|-5.05|0.678
84574924|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||4.91|-1.77|0.355
84574925|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||3.03|-1.14|0.372
84574926|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.66|-3.75|0.740
84574927|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||5.78|-1.46|0.240
84574928|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom scales - Insomnia||2.97|-4.60|0.673
84574929|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||9.07|2.23|0.001
84574930|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||1.91|-5.04|0.375
84574931|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|18.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||18.84|12.81|0.000
84574932|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial Difficulties||4.10|-7.59|0.557
84574933|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.49|-8.43|0.169
84574934|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical Functioning||5.29|-2.12|0.400
84574935|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role functioning||2.99|-6.42|0.472
84574936|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
84574937|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Social Functioning||6.55|-5.26|0.830
84574938|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||7.72|-2.26|0.281
84574939|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||6.52|-1.33|0.194
84574940|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.14|-7.45|0.275
84574941|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||2.06|-7.04|0.280
84574942|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia||7.72|-3.78|0.499
84574943|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|13.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||13.23|1.68|0.012
84574944|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||2.27|-6.83|0.321
84609177|NCT03878758|168969335|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Artsana 33G. A significant site effect was detected at one site; the most conservative p-value is reported.||0.016||0.104
84753625|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|24.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.6|7.4|
84753626|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.8|13.0|< 0.0001
84753627|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|48.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.1|32.8|< 0.0001
84753628|NCT03627767|169263251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|30.0||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|11.8|
84753629|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The least squares mean (LSM) differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9207
84753630|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9998
84753631|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|
84753632|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
84753633|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
84753634|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.4|
84753635|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|< 0.0001
84753636|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|< 0.0001
84753637|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.9|
84753638|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.7|= 0.0039
84505196|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.3||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|0.81|0.2843
84644157|NCT00420641|169024201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|1.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||1.81|-1.69|0.957
84574945|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|17.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|22.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||22.41|13.25|0.000
84574946|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial DIfficulties||9.19|-3.21|0.342
84574947|NCT02763566|168900970|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
84574948|NCT00790036|168900972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value was obtained from the one-sided unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.69|0.276
84574949|NCT00790036|168900973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||There was no formal testing of the OS between treatment since the primary endpoint was not statistically significant.||||||1.09|0.52|
84574950|NCT00790036|168900974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07||||||||1.07|0.41|
84574951|NCT00879658|168901017|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.524||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|1.257||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.|||An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|1.257|0.219|0.148
84574952|NCT00879658|168901017|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.34||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.956||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||0.956|0.121|0.041
84753639|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.5|< 0.0001
84753640|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.3|
84753641|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.2|= 0.1488
84574953|NCT00879658|168901017|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|1.051||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|2.273||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||2.273|0.486|0.899
84574954|NCT00879658|168901018|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.915||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.925|||Regression, Logistic|"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."||||2.925|0.288|0.879
84574955|NCT00879658|168901018|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.745||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|7.167||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||7.167|0.484|0.399
84574956|NCT00879658|168901018|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.697||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|8.296||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||8.296|0.438|0.454
84574957|NCT00879658|168901018|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.509||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.511||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||1.511|0.166|0.223
84574958|NCT00879658|168901018|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.785||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|2.392||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||2.392|0.253|0.668
84574959|NCT00879658|168901019|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.996||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.||||5.669|0.731|0.178
84644158|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 1.||1.93|0.21|0.5061
84644159|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|3.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 1.||3.25|0.46|0.7398
84753642|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|= 0.0003
84753643|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|
84753644|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|= 0.9294
84753645|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|= 0.4081
84753646|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|
84753647|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
84574960|NCT00879658|168901019|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|4.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|14.681||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.681|1.328|0.014
84574961|NCT00879658|168901019|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.266||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.494||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.494|0.468|0.642
84574962|NCT00879658|168901020|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.408|||Regression, Logistic|new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose groups and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.408|0.047|<0.001
84574963|NCT00879658|168901020|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.307||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.771||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.771|0.123|0.012
84574964|NCT00879658|168901020|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.358||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.358|0.036|<0.001
84574965|NCT00879658|168901020|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.375||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.86||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.860|0.163|0.021
84574966|NCT00879658|168901020|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.478||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.037||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.037|0.220|0.062
84574967|NCT00879658|168901021|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|Lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.376|||Regression, Logistic|new lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||||0.376|0.063|<0.001
84574968|NCT00879658|168901021|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.228||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.641||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.641|0.081|0.005
84574969|NCT00879658|168901021|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.188|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.509||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.509|0.070|<0.001
84574970|NCT00879658|168901022|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.279||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.628||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.628|0.124|0.002
84753648|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-2.7|< 0.0001
84753649|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.9|
84753650|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.2|= 0.0035
84753651|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.6|< 0.0001
84753652|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.8|
84753653|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0136
84574971|NCT00879658|168901022|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.396||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.861||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.861|0.182|0.019
84753654|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
84753655|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-0.8|
84753656|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.0|= 0.2887
84753657|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.6|= 0.0025
84753658|NCT03627767|169263254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.0|
84498125|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.694|5.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.904|5.694|<.0001
84574972|NCT00879658|168901022|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.4||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.400|0.059|<0.001
84574973|NCT00879658|168901022|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.454||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.945||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.945|0.219|0.035
84753659|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||=|0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.4|-1.4|= 0.4244
84753660|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||2.4|-3.1|= 0.8092
84753661|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.0|-4.1|
84753662|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|54.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.2|39.2|< 0.0001
84753663|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|70.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||70.0|57.2|< 0.0001
84753664|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.4|
84753665|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|48.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.7|33.9|< 0.0001
84753666|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|53.1|< 0.0001
84753667|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|10.8|
84753668|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|29.6|< 0.0001
84753669|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|47.6|< 0.0001
84753670|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|26.0||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.0|9.4|
84753671|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|37.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.4|22.6|< 0.0001
84753672|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|58.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.1|43.8|< 0.0001
84753673|NCT03627767|169263255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|29.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.5|12.8|
84753674|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4|||=|0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.8|-6.1|= 0.7232
84574974|NCT00879658|168901022|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.555||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.283|1.09||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.090|0.283|0.087
84574975|NCT00879658|168901023|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.273||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.273|0.033|<0.001
84574976|NCT00879658|168901023|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.47||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.470|0.069|<0.001
84574977|NCT00879658|168901023|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.434||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.434|0.069|<0.001
84574978|NCT00879658|168901024|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.259||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.670|0.100|0.005
84574979|NCT00879658|168901024|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.276||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.676||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.676|0.112|0.005
84574980|NCT00879658|168901024|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.409||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.409|0.034|<0.001
84574981|NCT00879658|168901024|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.683||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|1.991||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.991|0.234|0.485
84574982|NCT00879658|168901024|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.591||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.193||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.193|0.292|0.142
84574983|NCT00879658|168901025|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.421||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.421|0.062|<0.001
84574984|NCT00879658|168901025|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.197||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.527||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.527|0.074|0.001
84574985|NCT00879658|168901025|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.416||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.331||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.331|0.130|0.139
84753675|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.2|||=|0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-9.8|= 0.5694
84574986|NCT00879658|168901026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.227
84574987|NCT00879658|168901026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.020
84574988|NCT00879658|168901026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84574989|NCT00879658|168901026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.122
84644160|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 2.||2.08|0.52|0.9209
84574990|NCT00879658|168901026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.034
84574991|NCT00879658|168901027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.335
84574992|NCT00879658|168901027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.022
84574993|NCT00879658|168901027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
84753676|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.8||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-11.2|
84753677|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|22.2|< 0.0001
84753678|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|64.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.5|51.2|< 0.0001
84753679|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|20.8|
84574994|NCT00879658|168901028|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.129||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.561||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.561|0.030|0.006
84574995|NCT00879658|168901028|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.159||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.578||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.578|0.044|0.005
84574996|NCT00879658|168901028|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.052||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.405||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.405|0.007|0.005
84574997|NCT00879658|168901028|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.271||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.807||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.||0.807|0.091|0.019
84574998|NCT00879658|168901028|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.504||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.337||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.337|0.190|0.169
84644161|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 2.||3.13|0.78|0.2908
84644162|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.72|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 3.||0.72|0.23|0.0086
84644163|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.83|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 3.||1.83|0.64|0.8087
84644164|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 4.||0.52|0.18|0.0002
84644165|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.94|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 4.||1.94|0.78|0.4606
84644166|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 5.||1.05|0.40|0.1399
84574999|NCT00879658|168901029|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.499||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.499|0.091|<0.001
84575000|NCT00879658|168901029|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.24||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.779||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.074|0.018
84575001|NCT00879658|168901029|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.231||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.653||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.653|0.081|0.006
84575002|NCT01654276|168901043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84575003|NCT04478266|168901055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.209||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.557||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of De-novo metastatic disease, Postmenopausal women and Visceral metastasis according to IRT.|Letrozole + Palbociclib versus Amcenestrant + Palbociclib|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.557|0.939|0.9304
84609178|NCT03878758|168969335|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Comfort EZ 33G||-0.017||0.003
84609179|NCT03878758|168969336|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
84753680|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|37.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|23.9|< 0.0001
84753681|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|48.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|55.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|42.1|< 0.0001
84498126|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.713|5.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.048|4.713|<.0001
84609180|NCT03878758|168969336|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
84609181|NCT03878758|168969336|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
84609182|NCT01769196|168969338|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.45|0.88|0.329
84753682|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|9.8|
84575004|NCT01080261|168901097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 91% statistical power to demonstrate that the 9-month rate for MACE (accounting for an expected 9-month attrition rate of 10%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MACE rate of 8.2%.|Percent of patients experiencing a MACE|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the percentage of patients experiencing a MACE event (primary endpoint) in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 24.1% (based on historical outcomes with plain balloon angioplasty \[20.2%\] plus an adjustment of 3.9% for small vessels).||4.9||<0.0001
84575005|NCT01431976|168901125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.39|59.22||||||||59.22|15.39|
84575006|NCT00055237|168901133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion estimate,binomial exact 95%CI|31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|58.7|||sample estimate with 95% CI||As stated in the Outcome statistical Analysis 1. Section, the confidence interval was calculated using binomial exact statistics. The standard deviation is based on that calculation.|||58.7|11|
84575007|NCT01126424|168901148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.986||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.58|26.607|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||26.607|-68.580|0.3771
84575008|NCT01126424|168901148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|17.508||||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.854|63.87|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||63.870|-28.854|0.4487
84575009|NCT01126424|168901149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.152||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|18.326|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||18.326|-0.023|0.0505
84575010|NCT01126424|168901149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.846||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|10.713|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||10.713|-7.020|0.6753
84575011|NCT01126424|168901150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.507||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|1.279|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||1.279|-2.293|0.5684
84575012|NCT01126424|168901150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.792||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|0.538|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.538|-2.122|0.2348
84575013|NCT01126424|168901151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.127|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.127|-0.208|0.6275
84575014|NCT01126424|168901151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.046||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.103|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.103|-0.194|0.5361
84575015|NCT01126424|168901152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.655||||0.6315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.858|24.167|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||24.167|-14.858|0.6315
84575016|NCT01126424|168901152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.457||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.976|16.062|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||16.062|-18.976|0.8670
84575017|NCT01126424|168901153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.919||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.814|216.976|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||216.976|-372.814|0.5953
84575018|NCT01126424|168901153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|157.783||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.015|497.581|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||497.581|-182.015|0.3526
84575019|NCT02127671|168901154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-22.9|
84753683|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.5|18.4|< 0.0001
84505197|NCT01360632|168761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.92|0.74|0.4640
84753684|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|32.7|< 0.0001
84575020|NCT02127671|168901156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||||||||0.9|-0.7|
84753685|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.8||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.8|6.3|
84753686|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|18.1|< 0.0001
84753687|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|45.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.3|31.6|< 0.0001
84753688|NCT03627767|169263256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|22.3||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|5.6|
84753689|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||=|0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|-5.3|= 0.4815
84753690|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||=|0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.6|-10.3|= 0.6748
84753691|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|3.2||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.2|-13.4|
84753692|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|30.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|17.8|< 0.0001
84753693|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.0|35.6|< 0.0001
84753694|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|26.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||26.6|10.2|
84753695|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.0|18.2|< 0.0001
84753696|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|47.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.3|33.7|< 0.0001
84575021|NCT02127671|168901160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-17.6|
84575022|NCT02127671|168901161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.3|
84575023|NCT02127671|168901162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-2.6||||||||-2.6|-18.4|
84575024|NCT02127671|168901163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.5||||||systolic||1.5|-5.1|
84575025|NCT02127671|168901163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5||||||diastolic||0.5|-3.8|
84575026|NCT02127671|168901165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.7||||||||4.7|-13.3|
84575027|NCT02127671|168901166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-12.7|
84575028|NCT02127671|168901167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||||3.8|-1.8|
84575029|NCT02127671|168901168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|29.6||||||||29.6|-13.4|
84575030|NCT00248560|168901174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.32||||||||0.32|0.08|
84575031|NCT03834168|168901178|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression (Cosinor Fit)|||||||0.003
84575032|NCT03834168|168901178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84575033|NCT00764517|168901184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.16|0.002
84575034|NCT00764517|168901185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.21|0.011
84575035|NCT01433913|168901189|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84575036|NCT01433913|168901190|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84575037|NCT01433913|168901191|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84575038|NCT01433913|168901192|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84575039|NCT01433913|168901193|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84575040|NCT01433913|168901197|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84575041|NCT01433913|168901198|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84575042|NCT01433913|168901199|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84575043|NCT01433913|168901200|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84575044|NCT01433913|168901201|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84575045|NCT02239328|168901204|OTHER|Multilevel random coefficient models estimated the mean score of each PROMIS domain as a function of time elapsed between date of surgery and assessment (in years), and patient comorbidity. Statistical significance of estimated fixed effects were assessed by the F-test statistic for type 3 tests, p \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84575046|NCT00460798|168901205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Obective Response Rate (Percent)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|46.0|||||Exact method based on binomial distribution|Objective Response Rate (ORR) = Percentage of participants with best overall response of CR or PR||46.0|35.5|
84575047|NCT02313155|168901266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.858|11.592|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H1N1 Strain||11.592|-24.858|
84575048|NCT02313155|168901266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.779|2.87|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H3N2 Strain||2.870|-33.779|
84575049|NCT02313155|168901266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.048|6.547|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|B Strain||6.547|-30.048|
84575050|NCT00311168|168901325|SUPERIORITY|A target of an 80% reduction in percentage of ventricular pacing with VIP™ is proposed in this study. In order to achieve an 80% power of detecting an 80% reduction in the percentage of ventricular paced events and using a two group two-sided t-test of equal means, a minimum sample size of 39 patients per group was required. To account for possible withdrawal or loss to follow-up, this study targeted to enroll 100 patients (50 per group).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in the percentage of intrinsic ventricular events is presented as, VIP Off - VIP On.|||-52.9|-67.5|<0.0001
84575051|NCT02452190|168901350|SUPERIORITY|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the primary and secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.|CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.79||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.124||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group, randomization stratification factors, and number of prior exacerbations as model factors and the logarithm of treatment duration excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.124|0.562|0.194
84575052|NCT06001021|168901364|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.78||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|-32.19||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||-32.19|-38.90|0.000
84575053|NCT06001021|168901365|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008). Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis.~2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.14||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.59|28.32||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||28.32|19.59|0.000
84644167|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 5.||2.73|1.10|0.0461
84644168|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 6.||1.05|0.41|0.1400
84644169|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.21|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 6.||4.21|1.74|0.0002
84575054|NCT06001021|168901366|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.43||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|95.46||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||95.46|78.33|0.00
84575055|NCT06001021|168901367|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.15||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.41|25.12||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||25.12|19.41|0.000
84575056|NCT06001021|168901368|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.55||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.02|17.87||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||Physical Domain of Quality of Life||17.87|15.02|0.000
84575057|NCT06001021|168901368|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.16|18.04||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Psychological Domain of Quality of Life||18.04|15.16|0.000
84575058|NCT06001021|168901368|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.52|9.01||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain of Quality of Life||9.01|7.52|0.000
84575059|NCT06001021|168901368|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.07||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|25.81||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||||25.81|21.64|0.000
84575060|NCT06001866|168901371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
84575061|NCT06001866|168901371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84575062|NCT06001866|168901372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84753697|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.1||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.1|7.6|
84575063|NCT06001866|168901372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84575064|NCT06001866|168901373|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.78
84753698|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|12.6|< 0.0001
84575065|NCT06001866|168901373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<.00001
84575066|NCT06001866|168901374|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
84644170|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 8.||1.64|0.59|0.9596
84575067|NCT06001866|168901374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84575068|NCT06001866|168901375|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.75|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.75
84575069|NCT06001866|168901375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.01
84575070|NCT06001866|168901376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84575071|NCT06001866|168901376|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.62
84575072|NCT06001866|168901377|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.16
84575073|NCT06001866|168901377|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.33|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.33
84575074|NCT06001866|168901378|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.54
84575075|NCT06001866|168901379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84575076|NCT00207740|168901380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that for combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming a standard deviation of 23%, there is 86% power to detect a 10% difference at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.802
84575077|NCT00207740|168901380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.945
84575078|NCT00207740|168901380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.717
84575079|NCT00207740|168901380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.357
84575080|NCT00207740|168901381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.286
84575081|NCT00207740|168901381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
84575082|NCT00207740|168901381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84575083|NCT00207740|168901381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
84575084|NCT00207740|168901382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the number of severe exacerbations per patient from baseline through week 24 for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming 1 severe exacerbation over 6 months per patient in the placebo group, there is 79% power to detect a 35% reduction in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab group at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
84575085|NCT00207740|168901382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.779
84575086|NCT00207740|168901382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.649
84575087|NCT00207740|168901382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.256
84575088|NCT00207740|168901383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.894
84575089|NCT00207740|168901383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.572
84575090|NCT00207740|168901383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
84575091|NCT00207740|168901383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.856
84575092|NCT00207740|168901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.273
84575093|NCT00207740|168901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.382
84575094|NCT00207740|168901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.350
84575095|NCT00207740|168901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
84575096|NCT00207740|168901385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.986
84575097|NCT00207740|168901385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
84575098|NCT00207740|168901385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.858
84575099|NCT00207740|168901385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84575100|NCT00207740|168901386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.833
84575101|NCT00207740|168901386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.814
84575102|NCT00207740|168901386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.897
84575103|NCT00207740|168901386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.726
84575104|NCT05168800|168901677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.99
84575105|NCT05168800|168901677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.98
84575106|NCT05168800|168901677|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 1800 LTCWs (600 per arm) was identified to provide 80% power to detect an 8% difference in the rate of individuals reporting vaccine confidence between arms with 95% confidence. This sample size was sufficient to retain 80% power to detect a 10% difference after 40% attrition. Per study design, the equivalence margin is +/- 10% with anticipated attrition using the binomial confidence interval.||||||0.85||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or +/- 2.45 standard deviations of the mean for the equivalency test.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.85
84575107|NCT05168800|168901678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
84575108|NCT05168800|168901678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
84575109|NCT05168800|168901678|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
84575110|NCT05168800|168901679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84575111|NCT05168800|168901679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84575112|NCT05168800|168901679|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84575113|NCT05168800|168901680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
84575114|NCT05168800|168901680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84575115|NCT05168800|168901680|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84575116|NCT05168800|168901681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
84575117|NCT05168800|168901681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
84575118|NCT05168800|168901681|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.48
84575119|NCT05168800|168901682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.95
84575120|NCT05168800|168901682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.98
84575121|NCT05168800|168901682|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.66|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.66
84575122|NCT05168800|168901683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84575123|NCT05168800|168901683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
84753699|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|41.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.5|27.6|< 0.0001
84498127|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.711|4.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||4.977|4.711|<.0001
84498128|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.021|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.350|5.021|<.0001
84498129|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.933|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.801|5.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.066|4.801|<.0001
84498130|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.852|5.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.175|4.852|<.0001
84498131|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.763|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.020|4.763|<.0001
84498132|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|-0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.112|-0.646|0.0013
84498133|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.065|-0.496|0.0034
84498134|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.012|-0.549|0.0354
84575124|NCT05168800|168901683|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
84575125|NCT05168800|168901684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
84575126|NCT05168800|168901684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
84575127|NCT05168800|168901684|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84575128|NCT05168800|168901685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84575129|NCT05168800|168901685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84575130|NCT05168800|168901685|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.88
84753700|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|23.7||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|7.5|
84575131|NCT05168800|168901686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.92
84575132|NCT05168800|168901686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
84575133|NCT05168800|168901686|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.83
84575134|NCT05168800|168901687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
84575135|NCT05168800|168901687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.49
84575136|NCT05168800|168901687|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.23|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.23
84575137|NCT05168800|168901688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.90
84575138|NCT05168800|168901688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.94
84575139|NCT05168800|168901688|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.86|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.86
84575140|NCT05168800|168901689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
84575141|NCT05168800|168901689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.0
84575142|NCT05168800|168901689|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.49|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.49
84575143|NCT05168800|168901690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.88
84575144|NCT05168800|168901690|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
84753701|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|25.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.0|12.4|< 0.0001
84505198|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.97|0.18|0.3867
84575145|NCT05168800|168901690|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.02|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.02
84575146|NCT05168800|168901691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.82
84575147|NCT05168800|168901691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.97
84575148|NCT05168800|168901691|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.18|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.18
84575149|NCT02629159|168901731|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|39.2||This comparison was the primary analysis for US/FDA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|29.0|<0.001
84575150|NCT02629159|168901731|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||13.8|1.2|0.018
84575151|NCT02629159|168901732|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|26.5||This comparison was the primary analysis for EU/EMA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.5|18.6|<0.001
84575152|NCT02629159|168901732|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.1||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.1|5.3|<0.001
84575153|NCT02629159|168901733|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|-1.194||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use, and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.194|-1.469|<0.001
84575154|NCT02629159|168901733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.295||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.295|-0.638|<0.001
84644171|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 8.||5.23|2.01|0.0000
84575155|NCT02629159|168901734|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.37||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-0.97|<0.001
84575156|NCT02629159|168901734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.51|-0.23|0.448
84575157|NCT02629159|168901735|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.253||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.253|-0.372|<0.001
84575158|NCT02629159|168901735|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.036||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.036|-0.184|0.004
84575159|NCT02629159|168901736|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.3|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.3|9.9|
84575160|NCT02629159|168901736|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.||||||<0.001
84575161|NCT02629159|168901736|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|35.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|25.6|<0.001
84575162|NCT02629159|168901737|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.15||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|3.52|<0.001
84575163|NCT02629159|168901737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.62||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.62|0.62|0.002
84609183|NCT01769196|168969339|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 50th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.43|0.74|0.851
84753702|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.4|< 0.0001
84753703|NCT03627767|169263264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.7||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.7|5.6|
84609184|NCT01769196|168969340|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 75th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.00|0.72|0.475
84575164|NCT02629159|168901738|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|35.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.8|26.5|<0.001
84575165|NCT02629159|168901738|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.5|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.5|10.0|
84575166|NCT02629159|168901738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use||||||<0.001
84575167|NCT02629159|168901739|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|28.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.8|19.4|<0.001
84575168|NCT02629159|168901739|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|16.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.7|4.2|0.001
84575169|NCT02629159|168901740|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-44.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-32.69||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.69|-55.39|<0.001
84575170|NCT02629159|168901740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.89|4.05||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||4.05|-23.89|0.164
84575171|NCT02629159|168901741|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.16||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.16|3.13|<0.001
84575172|NCT02629159|168901741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.51||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.76||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.76|0.27|0.017
84609185|NCT01769196|168969341|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.37|0.61|0.602
84609186|NCT01769196|168969342|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.28|0.43|0.988
84609187|NCT01769196|168969343|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.99|0.30|0.925
84753704|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.5|= 0.7373
84753705|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.8092
84575173|NCT02629159|168901742|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-3.27||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-3.27|-9.63|<0.001
84575174|NCT02629159|168901742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-13.71||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.71|-18.89|<0.001
84575175|NCT02629159|168901743|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.1||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.1|3.0|<0.001
84575176|NCT02629159|168901743|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||1.5|-8.2|0.187
84575177|NCT02629159|168901744|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|23.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.7|16.3|<0.001
84575178|NCT02629159|168901744|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.4|6.5|<0.001
84575179|NCT05722015|168901745|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.06|1.22|||Welch's t test|One-sided p-value was calculated using the Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of geometric mean (GM) of Cycle 1 AUC0-6 weeks in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 96% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.22|1.06|<0.00001
84672346|NCT00653224|169080279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
84575180|NCT05722015|168901746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.67|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.52|1.84|||Welch's t test|One sided p-value was calculated using Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of GM of Cycle 3 Ctrough in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 94% CI were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.84|1.52|<0.00001
84753706|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.8|
84753707|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-6.1|< 0.0001
84575181|NCT05523297|168901761|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was one-sided Farrington-Manning score test with non-inferiority margin 10% at a significance level of 2.5%. If the 95% CI for treatment effect not only lay above -10% (the non-inferiority margin) but also above 0, then there was evidence of superiority.|percent difference|17.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|26.4|||Two-sided Farrington-Manning score test.||Difference between Octaplex and FP arms for effectiveness|||26.4|8.7|<0.0001
84575182|NCT05523297|168901762|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.88|1.26|0.0022
84575183|NCT05523297|168901763|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-170.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.24|-91.22|||ANOVA|||12 hours after chest closure||-91.22|-250.24|<0.0001
84672347|NCT00653224|169080280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.59|<0.001
84575184|NCT05523297|168901763|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-231.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.17|-125.67|||ANOVA|||24 hours after chest closure||-125.67|-338.17|<0.0001
84575185|NCT05523297|168901764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
84575186|NCT05523297|168901764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||4.52|1.83|<0.0001
84575187|NCT05523297|168901764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
84575188|NCT05523297|168901765|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Counting regression|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
84575189|NCT05523297|168901766|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.71||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Counting regression|||||0.88|0.57|0.0015
84672348|NCT00653224|169080281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.55|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
84676582|NCT01971346|169088597|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.34 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.73 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.57|ANOVA|||The strength of the IFN-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if IFN-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.34
84505199|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
84575190|NCT05523297|168901767|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||Counting regression|||During the first 24 hours after IMP start||0.82|0.46|0.0010
84575191|NCT05523297|168901767|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Counting regression|||During the first 7 days after IMP start||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
84575192|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
84575193|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.82|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||4.82|0.15|0.8522
84575194|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Negative binomial regression|||RBCs (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84575195|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.65||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.92|0.45|0.0169
84575196|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.57||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.76|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||1.76|0.18|0.3288
84575197|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.06|0.04|<0.0001
84575198|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.63||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.84|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||2.84|0.14|0.5439
84575199|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Negative binomial regression|||Red blood cells (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.74|0.47|<0.0001
84575200|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.58||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.84|0.40|0.0042
84575201|NCT05523297|168901768|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.49||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.56|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||1.56|0.15|0.2241
84575202|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.52|0.32|0.8364
84575203|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.11|1.42|0.0002
84575204|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.91|0.89|0.1742
84575205|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
84575206|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.55|1.12|0.0129
84575207|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.94|0.63|0.3297
84575208|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.76|1.20|0.0049
84575209|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.84|0.86|0.2417
84575210|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
84575211|NCT05523297|168901769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.47|0.99|0.0564
84575212|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.73|0.69|0.6956
84575213|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.70|1.12|0.0317
84575214|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
84575215|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.334||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.07|0.86|0.1981
84575216|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.87|0.75|0.4599
84575217|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||rFVIIa (Within 7 days after IMP start)||50.70|1.12|0.0317
84575218|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
84575219|NCT05523297|168901770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.21|0.93|0.1073
84575220|NCT05523297|168901773|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
84753708|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-7.6|< 0.0001
84753709|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.4|
84575221|NCT05523297|168901773|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
84575222|NCT05523297|168901773|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.332||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5902|3.0062|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||3.0062|0.5902|0.4899
84575223|NCT05523297|168901774|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANOVA|||||-0.04|-0.26|0.0081
84676583|NCT02755831|169088618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test||||<0.05
84676584|NCT02755831|169088619|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<.05
84676585|NCT02755831|169088620|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<0.05
84575224|NCT05523297|168901775|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.63||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.45|41.18|||ANOVA|||||41.18|-60.45|0.6735
84575225|NCT05523297|168901776|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.93||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|414.28|||ANOVA|||||414.28|-450.13|0.9033
84575226|NCT05523297|168901777|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-1.10|0.1808
84575227|NCT05523297|168901778|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-14.78|0.9698
84575228|NCT05523297|168901779|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|3.42|||ANOVA|||||3.42|-9.61|0.3363
84575229|NCT05523297|168901780|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.42||||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|11.16|||ANOVA|||||11.16|-6.33|0.5736
84575230|NCT05523297|168901781|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.19||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|10.67|||ANOVA|||||10.67|-37.05|0.2667
84575231|NCT05523297|168901782|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.25||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|25.38|||ANOVA|||||25.38|-0.87|0.0658
84575232|NCT05523297|168901783|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||ANOVA|||||0.02|-0.40|0.0726
84575233|NCT05523297|168901788|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.183||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4211|3.3235|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3235|0.4211|0.7497
84575234|NCT02512419|168901790|SUPERIORITY||regression parameter (median diff)|37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|Models regressed outcome at 6 months on treatment assigned, baseline value of the outcome and actigraph wear time. Effect sizes reported are adjusted|Effects are unstandardized regression coefficients. They represent difference in median outcome between conditions at 6m controlling for baseline and covariates.|To examine potential intervention effects on the primary outcome (MVPA at 6 months), we used a series of quantile regression models which model median outcome at follow-up as a function of baseline value of the outcome (MVPA), treatment condition and covariates. Note that the adjusted difference in median MVPA between conditions at follow-up will not equal the difference in median minutes as seen in the unadjusted tables as these estimates are adjusted||||.04
84575235|NCT02512419|168901791|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|||Quantile regression was used.||||0.10
84575236|NCT00315445|168901793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P values are from a repeated measures model|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0350
84575237|NCT00315445|168901793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624||||||Repeated measures analysis to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center. Missing values = last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates: gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0624
84575238|NCT00315445|168901794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|48.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||48.7|40.2|
84575239|NCT00315445|168901794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|52.4|||Day 84 Mean|||||52.4|43.3|
84575240|NCT00315445|168901794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.7|50.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||50.2|41.7|
84575241|NCT00315445|168901795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|26.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||26.2|5.2|
84575242|NCT00315445|168901795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.7|32.0|||Day 84 Mean|||||32.0|10.7|
84575243|NCT00315445|168901795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|35.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.2|16.0|
84575244|NCT00315445|168901796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452||||||Multiple linear regression|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0452
84575245|NCT00315445|168901796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0962
84575246|NCT00315445|168901797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.3|35.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.6|24.3|
84575247|NCT00315445|168901797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.0|40.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||40.3|29.0|
84575248|NCT00315445|168901797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.1|42.5|||Day 84 Mean|||||42.5|32.1|
84575249|NCT00315445|168901798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.4||||||90.0|50.3|56.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||56.6|50.3|
84575250|NCT00315445|168901798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|58.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.3|51.8|
84575251|NCT00315445|168901798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.3|58.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.6|52.3|
84575252|NCT00315445|168901801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.8|67.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||67.9|49.8|
84575253|NCT00315445|168901801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.9|65.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||65.3|45.9|
84575254|NCT00315445|168901801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.1|70.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||70.9|53.1|
84575255|NCT00315445|168901802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|68.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.6|61.3|
84575256|NCT00315445|168901802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|68.8|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.8|61.7|
84575257|NCT00315445|168901802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|68.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.7|62.0|
84575258|NCT00315445|168901807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.054|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.054
84575259|NCT00315445|168901807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.138|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.138
84575260|NCT00315445|168901808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0105|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcomes no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0105
84676586|NCT02755831|169088621|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences in treatment group only.||||||<0.05
84575261|NCT00315445|168901808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.0024|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0024
84575262|NCT00315445|168901809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.033
84575263|NCT00315445|168901809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.043
84575264|NCT00315445|168901810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.011
84575265|NCT00315445|168901810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.034
84575266|NCT00315445|168901811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.038
84575267|NCT00315445|168901811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
84575268|NCT00315445|168901812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
84575269|NCT00315445|168901812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.066
84575270|NCT00315445|168901813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.607
84575271|NCT00315445|168901813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.940
84575272|NCT00315445|168901814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.702
84575273|NCT00315445|168901814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.634
84575274|NCT01299909|168901815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.67|0.35
84575275|NCT01299909|168901816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
84575276|NCT01299909|168901817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.02
84575277|NCT01299909|168901818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
84575278|NCT01155570|168901825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84575279|NCT01155570|168901826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
84575280|NCT01155570|168901827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575281|NCT01155570|168901828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575282|NCT01155570|168901829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575283|NCT01155570|168901830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575284|NCT01155570|168901835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575285|NCT01155570|168901836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575286|NCT01155570|168901837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84575287|NCT01155570|168901838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575288|NCT01155570|168901840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575289|NCT01155570|168901841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84575290|NCT01155570|168901842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575291|NCT01155570|168901843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575292|NCT01155570|168901844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
84575293|NCT01155570|168901845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
84575294|NCT01155570|168901846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84575295|NCT02774889|168901858|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.27|0.55
84575296|NCT02774889|168901859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-2.89|||Fisher Exact|||at 3 months||-2.89|-6.61|0.001
84575297|NCT02774889|168901859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-1.68|||Fisher Exact|||at 6 months||-1.68|-6.47|0.001
84609188|NCT00321464|168969372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|<0.0001
84575298|NCT02774889|168901860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.16|0.00|0.05
84575299|NCT02774889|168901860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.22|0.07|0.0003
84575300|NCT02774889|168901861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.44|-0.40|0.88
84575301|NCT02774889|168901861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.37|-0.48|0.83
84575302|NCT02774889|168901862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.54|-0.20|0.36
84575303|NCT02774889|168901862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.77|-0.11|0.14
84575304|NCT02774889|168901863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.85|-0.43|0.52
84575305|NCT02774889|168901863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.85|-0.31|0.36
84575306|NCT02774889|168901864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.32|-0.58|0.43
84575307|NCT02774889|168901864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.49|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.49|-0.42|0.26
84575308|NCT02774889|168901865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.61|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.61|-0.09|0.16
84575309|NCT02774889|168901865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.17|-0.55|0.29
84575310|NCT02774889|168901867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.40|-2.66|0.91
84575311|NCT02774889|168901867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||2.15|-2.79|0.80
84575312|NCT02774889|168901868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.64|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.64|-1.44|0.54
84575313|NCT02774889|168901868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||3.81|-1.49|0.38
84575314|NCT02774889|168901870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.71|||Fisher Exact|||Inside Balance||3.71|0.06|0.04
84575315|NCT02774889|168901870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.51|||Fisher Exact|||Outside Balance||3.51|-0.02|0.05
84609189|NCT00321464|168969373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01||95.0|0.71|0.95||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|0.010
84644172|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 10.||1.93|0.69|0.6530
84575316|NCT02774889|168901870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||Strength||3.81|-0.08|0.06
84575317|NCT02774889|168901871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.17|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 3 months||2.17|0.54|0.003
84575318|NCT02774889|168901871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.24|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 6 Months||2.24|-0.22|0.11
84575319|NCT02774889|168901872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.89|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 3 months||1.89|0.23|0.01
84575320|NCT02774889|168901872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.67|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 6 months||1.67|-0.16|0.11
84575321|NCT02774889|168901873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||3.30|-1.30|0.38
84575322|NCT02774889|168901873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.73|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||4.73|0.43|0.02
84575323|NCT02774889|168901874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.97|-0.33|0.33
84575324|NCT02774889|168901874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.27|-0.02|0.06
84575325|NCT02774889|168901875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.28|-0.03|0.06
84575326|NCT02774889|168901875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.81|||Fisher Exact|||||0.81|-0.45|0.59
84575327|NCT01706328|168901880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.059|||ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.008|0.137
84575328|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Sensitivity|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.15|99.95|||Diagnostic accuracy|Diagnostic performance was analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and likelihood ratios, all reported with 95% confidence interval||The primary objective of the study was to assess the external validation of the Falls Decision Rule. In this evaluation, patients were categorized into two groups based on the rule: those for whom a CT scan was recommended and those for whom it was not.||99.95|89.15|
84575329|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Specificity|31.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.63|35.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||35.42|28.63|
84575330|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Negative predictive value|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.17|99.94|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||99.94|97.17|
84575331|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Positive predictive value|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|9.1|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||9.1|8.1|
84575332|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||0.42|0.01|
84575333|NCT06525727|168901894|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.53|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||1.53|1.35|
84575334|NCT00933933|168901897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.62|99.88|||Exact binomial|||||99.88|99.62|
84505200|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|0.21|0.3200
84575335|NCT00933933|168901898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.31|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.31|
84575336|NCT00933933|168901898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.63|
84575337|NCT00933933|168901898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|98.18|
84575338|NCT00933933|168901899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.18|
84575339|NCT00933933|168901899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.48|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.48|
84575340|NCT00933933|168901900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.06|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.06|
84575341|NCT00933933|168901900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.40|
84575342|NCT03112603|168901934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.80|1.86|<0.0001
84575343|NCT03112603|168901936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.51||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.510|0.268|<0.0001
84575344|NCT03112603|168901937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.485|||||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.485|0.268|
84575345|NCT03112603|168901938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.52||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|||3.52|1.34|0.0011
84575346|NCT03112603|168901940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.39||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a stratified CMH test.|||4.39|1.75|<0.0001
84575347|NCT03112603|168901942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.331||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||1.331|0.544|0.2396
84575348|NCT04725188|168901958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.53|0.0910
84575349|NCT04725188|168901958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.96|0.9622
84575350|NCT04725188|168901959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.9|2.1|0.0113
84575351|NCT04725188|168901959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||0.0|-19.6|0.9750
84575352|NCT04725188|168901960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.50|0.0943
84575353|NCT04725188|168901960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.70|0.5974
84575354|NCT00695019|168902023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
84609190|NCT00321464|168969374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.77||||0.001||95.0|0.66|0.89||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Anderson-Gill model||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.89|0.66|0.001
84609191|NCT01206582|168969383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0002
84609192|NCT01206582|168969383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 7||||0.008
84575355|NCT00695019|168902024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84575356|NCT00695019|168902025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
84575357|NCT00695019|168902026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.30
84575358|NCT00695019|168902027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84575359|NCT00695019|168902028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023||95.0||||Analysis not adjusted to account for baseline differences between the groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0023
84575360|NCT00695019|168902029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fibrotest provides an estimate of liver fibrosis based on the values of 5 serum markers. Scores range from 0 to 1 with higher scores indicating a greater level of liver fibrosis. A negative change in Fibrotest score is therefore deemed to indicate improvement (reduction in fibrosis), while a positive change indicates worsening condition.||||0.21
84575361|NCT00695019|168902030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84575362|NCT00695019|168902030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84575363|NCT03116230|168902048|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment A vs Control||||||0.005
84575364|NCT03116230|168902048|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment B vs Control||||||0.64
84575365|NCT04896385|168902053|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.004
84753710|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.7|-5.3|< 0.0001
84575366|NCT04896385|168902053|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.41
84609193|NCT01206582|168969384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0003
84609194|NCT01206582|168969391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
84753711|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-6.4|< 0.0001
84575367|NCT04896385|168902053|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.0002
84575368|NCT04896385|168902053|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.91
84575369|NCT05258721|168902058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84575370|NCT05258721|168902059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84575371|NCT05258721|168902060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84575372|NCT00230737|168902084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3594.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84575373|NCT02612155|168902095|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84575374|NCT04235374|168902157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84575375|NCT04235374|168902158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84575376|NCT04235374|168902159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84609195|NCT01206582|168969392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
84609196|NCT01206582|168969393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Platelets on Day 4||||0.01
84609197|NCT01755455|168969395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||0.81
84609198|NCT01755455|168969396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||<0.05
84609199|NCT01755455|168969397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||<0.05
84609200|NCT01755455|168969398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||0.16
84609201|NCT00344500|168969423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted trajectory of mean weight change between matched UC and LB subjects over 12 months (treatment\*time interaction: F(1,1275)=68.75, p\<.01).||General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) used to illustrate the magnitude of difference between slopes for major outcomes for two hypothetical participants with identical baseline characteristics over 12 months.||||<0.01
84676587|NCT02755831|169088622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test used to compare mean difference in hospital costs at time of delivery.||||||<0.05
84575377|NCT04235374|168902160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84575378|NCT04235374|168902161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84575379|NCT05495997|168902172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.015
84575380|NCT05495997|168902173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.993
84575381|NCT05495997|168902174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.517
84575382|NCT05495997|168902175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.817
84575383|NCT02296125|168902198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.57|0.37|<0.0001
84575384|NCT02296125|168902198|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.37|0.0065
84575385|NCT02296125|168902200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|1.03|0.036
84575386|NCT02296125|168902200|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.61|0.485
84575387|NCT02296125|168902201|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.09|||Regression, Linear|||||5.09|1.21|0.0133
84575388|NCT02296125|168902201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.08|||Regression, Linear|||||3.08|1.68|<0.0001
84575389|NCT02296125|168902202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.78|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||6.78|1.25|0.0110
84575390|NCT02296125|168902202|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|12.98|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours osimertinib|||12.98|0.27|0.5772
84575391|NCT02296125|168902203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.205|-2.403|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.403|-11.205|0.0025
84575392|NCT02296125|168902203|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.59||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.246|2.072|||Regression, Linear|||||2.072|-15.246|0.1348
84575393|NCT02296125|168902204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6409|0.9963|||Log Rank|||||0.9963|0.6409|0.0462
84575394|NCT02296125|168902204|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5568|1.291|||Log Rank|||||1.2910|0.5568|0.4416
84575395|NCT04357795|168902211|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84575396|NCT04357795|168902212|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84575397|NCT04357795|168902213|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84609202|NCT02207491|168969426|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical noninferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CIs around the difference (AR-13324 - timolol) was within 1.5 mmHg at all time points and was within 1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated p-value|ANCOVA|Statistical analysis applies at all 3 timepoints on Day 15, Day 43, and Day 90||Assuming zero difference between AR-13324 and timolol, a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05 at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.0 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of 0.60 or less, 170 PP subjects per arm were necessary to have 90% power to show clinical noninferiority of AR-13324 to timolol in mean IOP.||||<0.0001
84575398|NCT04357795|168902214|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84575399|NCT04357795|168902215|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0323|||||||Paired t-test|OD- Right eye p value||||||0.0323
84575400|NCT04357795|168902215|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.3447||||||OS: P-Value|Paired t-test|||||||0.3447
84575401|NCT04357795|168902216|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84575402|NCT04357795|168902217|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0029|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0029
84575403|NCT05845619|168902219|SUPERIORITY|There was no power calculation because this was a pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Numerator: pilot; denominator: prospective controls|In this pilot study, we hypothesized that pilot participants would have a reduced risk of viremia 6 months after the intervention compared to controls.||1.76|0.83|0.33
84575404|NCT05845619|168902219|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation, pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.73|0.41
84575405|NCT02685735|168902274|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.882||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastophizing-optimism construct.||||0.882
84575406|NCT02685735|168902280|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.137||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastrophizing-optimism construct.||||0.137
84575407|NCT02685735|168902281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|14 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis (H0) is that modeled trajectory of change in pain intensity report after total hip or total knee arthroplasty does not differ between oral gabapentin and placebo in a manner dependent on its interaction with preferred cognitive style and pre-surgery pupil resting diameter . The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that there is a difference between the two groups which is dependent on these interactions.|A likelihood ratio test was conducted to compare these two models, conditional on the difference in the degrees of freedom in both models. A statistically significant likelihood ratio test would be interpreted as evidence that the three mechanistic predictors (Catastrophising-Optimism construct, Study Group, resting Pupil diameter) impact some aspect of the change in pain that occurs after surgery. If a statistically significant effect is observed, the individual interaction parameters will be interpreted.|||<0.0001
84575408|NCT04133909|168902298|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100 mg/Placebo)|0.79||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (less than or equal to \[\<=\]2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline percent (%) predicted Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable.||0.94|0.66|0.011
84609203|NCT00126776|168969433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mean cumulative frequency|||primary outcome is mean cumulative frequency of COPD related hospitlaizations and ED visits ;ver 1 yr: 0.48 for disease management; 0.82 for usual care, difference 0.34 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; P\<0.001)||||< 0.001
84609204|NCT00448747|168969445|OTHER||ROC AUC|0.923|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0|0.85|||||||Summary of ROC Analyses following macimorelin administration.|||0.850|
84753712|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.1|
84575409|NCT04133909|168902299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate or severe exacerbations in previous year \<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs former).||0.93|0.64|0.009
84575410|NCT04133909|168902300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.09|0.60|0.161
84575411|NCT04133909|168902301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.57|0.87|0.291
84575412|NCT04133909|168902302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.12|0.60|0.209
84575413|NCT04133909|168902303|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (\<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable. Estimates based on weighting applied to each level of class variable determined from observed proportions.||0.96|0.43|0.032
84575414|NCT00724945|168902315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.08591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||95.0|-0.08591|-0.06857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal would be better than or equal to 0.1 logMAR units.||-0.06857|-0.08591|
84575415|NCT00724945|168902316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||97.5|0.02711|0.04445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens would be better than or equal to 0.17 logMAR units.||0.04445|0.02711|
84575416|NCT00724945|168902317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1279||||97.5|-0.1797|0.07407|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens will have subjective vision that is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.07407|-0.1797|
84575417|NCT00770809|168902362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.13
84609205|NCT00448747|168969445|OTHER|Sensitivity|sensitivity (percent)|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
84753713|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.5|= 0.0150
84753714|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
84575418|NCT00770809|168902362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.072
84575419|NCT01787838|168902369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.96|||Chi-squared|||Prospective data from 12 months were compared to data that had been collected for the previous 12 month period to determine statistical significance and trended outcomes for comparative periods. Patients were screened for eligibility during the first 12 months, and staff and patients received the interventions during the second 12 month period.||1.96|1.65|<.0001
84575420|NCT03755076|168902378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84753715|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.3|
84575421|NCT03755076|168902379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84575422|NCT00689936|168902458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.85|0.61|0.00006
84575423|NCT00689936|168902458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.82|0.60|0.00001
84609206|NCT00448747|168969445|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity (percent)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
84609207|NCT00448747|168969445|OTHER|Misclassification|misclassification (percent)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
84609208|NCT00448747|168969446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Summary of IGF-1 before and after AEZS-130 administration: post - pre differences||||
84609209|NCT00448747|168969446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84575424|NCT00689936|168902458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.70349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.20|0.89|0.70349
84575425|NCT00689936|168902459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.79|0.59|<0.00001
84753716|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-2.4|= 0.3616
84753717|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-4.3|= 0.0012
84753718|NCT03627767|169263265|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-3.0|
84575426|NCT00689936|168902459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.81|0.60|<0.00001
84575427|NCT00689936|168902459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.14|0.86|0.91161
84575428|NCT00689936|168902460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.67|0.00234
84753719|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|||=|0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|-0.6|= 0.3339
84575429|NCT00689936|168902460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.82903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.20|0.86|0.82903
84753720|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|||=|0.4653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-0.8|= 0.4653
84753721|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.1|-1.3|
84575430|NCT00689936|168902460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.9||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.90|0.66|0.00119
84575431|NCT00689936|168902461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.37|||Fisher Exact|||||2.37|1.41|<0.00001
84575432|NCT00689936|168902461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.53065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||||1.44|0.83|0.53065
84575433|NCT00689936|168902461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||||2.15|1.29|0.00010
84575434|NCT00689936|168902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68|||Fisher Exact|||||2.68|1.53|<0.00001
84575435|NCT00689936|168902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.54|||Fisher Exact|||||1.54|0.85|0.40500
84575436|NCT00689936|168902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32|||Fisher Exact|||||2.32|1.35|0.00004
84575437|NCT00689936|168902463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.76|0.51|<0.00001
84575438|NCT00689936|168902463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.72|0.50|<0.00001
84575439|NCT00689936|168902463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.23|0.86|0.76740
84575440|NCT00689936|168902464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.51|<0.00001
84575441|NCT00689936|168902464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.52|<0.00001
84575442|NCT00689936|168902464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.17|0.85|0.99537
84575443|NCT00689936|168902465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84575444|NCT00689936|168902465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46672
84753722|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-6.2|< 0.0001
84753723|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.3|-8.2|< 0.0001
84753724|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.3||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-3.6|
84575445|NCT00689936|168902465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84575446|NCT00689936|168902466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84575447|NCT00689936|168902466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46987
84575448|NCT00689936|168902466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84575449|NCT00689936|168902467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.68|0.00012
84753725|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.1|-1.8|= 0.9083
84753726|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||=|0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|-3.0|= 0.2439
84575450|NCT00689936|168902467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.93|0.71|0.00187
84575451|NCT00689936|168902467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.08|0.84|0.45973
84753727|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-2.6|
84575452|NCT00689936|168902468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.67|0.00002
84575453|NCT00689936|168902468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.72|0.00126
84575454|NCT00689936|168902468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.27704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.06|0.83|0.27704
84575455|NCT00689936|168902469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.78|0.56|<0.00001
84575456|NCT00689936|168902469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.63|0.00067
84575457|NCT00689936|168902469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.75|0.12333
84575458|NCT00689936|168902470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.73||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||.73|0.54|<0.00001
84575459|NCT00689936|168902470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.83|0.61|0.00001
84575460|NCT00689936|168902470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.05821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.76|0.05821
84575461|NCT00689936|168902471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.75|0.93824
84575462|NCT00689936|168902471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.08836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||Fisher Exact|||||1.03|0.56|0.08836
84575463|NCT00689936|168902471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.04974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||Fisher Exact|||||1.79|1.01|0.04974
84498135|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.274||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.059|-0.489|0.0044
84498136|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.930|-1.539|<.0001
84498137|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.983|-1.475|<.0001
84498138|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.630|-1.230|<.0001
84505201|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.62|0.23|0.3266
84575464|NCT00689936|168902472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.02134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.59|||Fisher Exact|||||2.59|1.08|0.02134
84575465|NCT00689936|168902472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||Fisher Exact|||||1.59|0.64|1.00000
84575466|NCT00689936|168902472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.02374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.53|||Fisher Exact|||||2.53|1.08|0.02374
84575467|NCT00689936|168902473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.11152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.21|||Fisher Exact|||||3.21|0.91|0.11152
84575468|NCT00689936|168902473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.86336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.83|||Fisher Exact|||||1.83|0.47|0.86336
84575469|NCT00689936|168902473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.96|0.07321
84575470|NCT00689936|168902474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.00043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|1.55|0.00043
84575471|NCT00689936|168902474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.31274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||||2.43|0.78|0.31274
84753728|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-2.4|= 0.7405
84575472|NCT00689936|168902474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.01936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||||3.19|1.13|0.01936
84575473|NCT00689936|168902475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.82128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2.80|0.46|0.82128
84575474|NCT00689936|168902475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.11041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.19|0.11041
84575475|NCT00689936|168902475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.91|||Fisher Exact|||||5.91|1.01|0.07302
84575476|NCT01932606|168902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84644173|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|5.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 10.||5.73|2.11|0.0000
84575477|NCT01932606|168902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure.||||0.0003
84575478|NCT01932606|168902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure.||||0.01
84575479|NCT01932606|168902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure.||||0.002
84575480|NCT01932606|168902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the 2 arms for change in PCWP.||||<0.0001
84575481|NCT01932606|168902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84575482|NCT01932606|168902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.11
84575483|NCT01932606|168902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean blood pressure.||||0.2
84575484|NCT01932606|168902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR.||||0.7
84575485|NCT01932606|168902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery compliance.||||0.1
84575486|NCT01932606|168902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR.||||0.3
84575487|NCT01932606|168902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW.||||0.3
84575488|NCT01932606|168902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in VO\_2.||||0.8
84575489|NCT01932606|168902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for arteriovenous oxygen content difference.||||0.1
84575490|NCT01932606|168902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output.||||0.4
84575491|NCT01932606|168902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume.||||0.4
84575492|NCT01932606|168902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
84575493|NCT01932606|168902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (exercise).||||0.01
84575494|NCT01932606|168902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
84575495|NCT01932606|168902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PCWP (exercise).||||0.0002
84575496|NCT01932606|168902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in heart rate.||||0.3
84575497|NCT01932606|168902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.2
84575498|NCT01932606|168902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.05
84575499|NCT01932606|168902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
84575500|NCT01932606|168902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PA compliance after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
84575501|NCT01932606|168902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR after study drug (exercise).||||0.007
84575502|NCT01932606|168902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW after study drug (exercise)||||0.0003
84575503|NCT01932606|168902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in oxygen consumption (VO\_2) after study drug (exercise).||||0.02
84575504|NCT01932606|168902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in arteriovenous oxygen difference after study drug (exercise).||||0.6
84575505|NCT01932606|168902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output after study drug (exercise).||||0.002
84644174|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||3.48|0.23|0.8844
84753729|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-4.1|= 0.0410
84753730|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.1|
84505202|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.47||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.10|0.70|0.3027
84753731|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-3.5|= 0.4026
84753732|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-4.2|= 0.0944
84753733|NCT03627767|169263266|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-2.5|
84753734|NCT03627767|169263267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate p-value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.341|0.211|< 0.0001
84753735|NCT03627767|169263267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.136||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.136|0.070|< 0.0001
84753736|NCT03627767|169263267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.516||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.516|0.255|< 0.0001
84753737|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7556
84753738|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7484
84753739|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.5|
84753740|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
84753741|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.9|< 0.0001
84753742|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
84753743|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0242
84753744|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.4|= 0.0012
84575506|NCT01932606|168902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume after study drug (exercise).||||0.0002
84575507|NCT00876343|168902557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.7|0.006
84575508|NCT00876343|168902557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-4.6|<0.001
84575509|NCT00848185|168902562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for three groups||||<0.001
84575510|NCT04435626|168902572|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold =0.04967;|stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.95|0.74|0.0072
84575511|NCT04435626|168902574|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold=0.04967;|Stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.94|0.71|0.0062
84575512|NCT04435626|168902576|OTHER|mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.34||Two-sided p-value;|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Difference in LS Mean||2.34|0.79|<.0001
84575513|NCT04435626|168902577|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||Two-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (finerenone /placebo)||1.15|0.88|0.9295
84609210|NCT04201093|168969456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
84609211|NCT04201093|168969456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
84575514|NCT04435626|168902578|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio|1.33||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.89||two-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio||1.89|0.94|0.1071
84575515|NCT04435626|168902579|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|cause-specific hazard ratio|0.93||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||two-sided p-value|stratified log-rank||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio||1.06|0.83|0.2794
84575516|NCT04426656|168902580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.85
84575517|NCT04426656|168902581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84609212|NCT04201093|168969457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
84609213|NCT04201093|168969457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
84609214|NCT04201093|168969458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.339|11.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.321|3.339|<0.0001
84609215|NCT04201093|168969458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.968|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|11.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.062|3.220|<0.0001
84644175|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|4.68|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||4.68|0.36|0.7425
84644176|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.07|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||2.07|0.39|0.8355
84575518|NCT04426656|168902582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
84575519|NCT04426656|168902583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
84575520|NCT04426656|168902584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.928
84575521|NCT04426656|168902585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.678
84575522|NCT04426656|168902586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison test was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.26
84575523|NCT04426656|168902587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.08
84575524|NCT04426656|168902588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.03
84575525|NCT04426656|168902589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This comparison was made using data at Week 12.||||0.58
84575526|NCT04426656|168902590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.85
84575527|NCT02595892|168902635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.98|||Log Rank|||||.98|.33|0.044
84575528|NCT02595892|168902638|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-Sided Fisher's exact test.||||||0.44
84575529|NCT03785366|168902661|OTHER|"For the primary analysis, a ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect was used to analyze the uncorrected PK parameters Cmax, Cmean, and AUC0-56 days.~Analysis methodology for the secondary analysis mirrored the approach for the primary analysis applied to the baseline-corrected PK parameters."|test to Reference geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.80|
84575530|NCT05252702|168902683|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 78% vs. H1: CFR \> 78%~where 78% was the performance goal (PG)."|binomial proportion|90.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.0|||The CFR was estimated as a binomial proportion and a one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound of the CFR was calculated using the normal approximation. The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.|||||87|<0.0001
84575531|NCT05252702|168902684|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 76.5% vs. H1: CFR \> 76.5%~where 76.5% is the performance goal. The CFR was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the 97.5% lower confidence bound of CFR was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates."|Kaplan-Meier|88.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|84.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 76.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|||||84.5|<0.0001
84575532|NCT05252702|168902685|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|90.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 82.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 3 month was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 82.5% vs. H1: Rate \> 82.5%~where 82.5% was the performance goal (PG)."|||87.5|<0.0001
84575533|NCT05252702|168902686|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|92.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|89.7|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 80%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The Rate at 12 months was estimated as a binomial proportion and the one-sided 97.5% LCB of the Rate was calculated using the normal approximation.|"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 80% vs. H1: Rate \> 80%~where 80% was the performance goal (PG)."|||89.7|<0.0001
84575534|NCT05252702|168902687|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|98.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|96.6|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 83%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #2 hypothesis was formally expressed as:~H0: RateAV ≤ 83% vs. H1: RateAV \> 83%~where 83% is the performance goal."|||96.6|<0.0001
84575535|NCT05252702|168902688|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|91.3||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower confidence bound exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 84%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was to be calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.||"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 84% vs. H1: CFRA \> 84%~where 84% was the performance goal."|||88.1|0.0003
84575536|NCT05252702|168902689|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier|91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 82%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The 97.5% lower confidence bound (LCB) of CFRA was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates.|"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 82% vs. H1: CFRA \> 82%~where 82% is the performance goal."|||87.1|<0.0001
84575537|NCT05252702|168902690|OTHER||mixed effects model for repeated measure|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST), with an alpha level of 0.025, and n-1 degrees of freedom.||"An analysis of these data provided an estimate of the 95% confidence interval for the mean slope across analyzable subjects, which had a pre-specified success criterion requiring that this confidence interval must fall between slopes of 65% and 135%. The following hypothesis was evaluated:~H0: Mean Slope \< 0.65 or Mean Slope \> 1.35~H1: 0.65 ≤ Mean Slope ≤ 1.35"||1.04|0.78|<0.001
84575538|NCT04153864|168902691|NON_INFERIORITY|The Non-Inferiority Margin (NIM) was defined as 10% of the mean EPDS score in the Specialist group (8.91), which corresponded to a value of 0.89. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).||0.86||<0.05
84575539|NCT04153864|168902691|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.92), which corresponded to a value of 1.16. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.77||<0.05
84575540|NCT04153864|168902691|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.81), which corresponded to a value of 1.15. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this is per protocol analysis. Due to institutional pandemic-related restrictions, 21 participants were switched from In-Person to Telemedicine and met criteria for the per protocol analyses.||0.91||<0.05
84575541|NCT04153864|168902693|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 10% of the mean GAD-7 score for the Specialist group (6.36), which corresponded to a value of 0.64. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).This analysis was performed on 3-months post-randomization scores.||0.57||<0.05
84575542|NCT04153864|168902693|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean GAD-7 score in the In-Person group (6.29), which corresponded to a value of 0.82. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.73||<0.05
84575543|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
84575544|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
84575545|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575546|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575547|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575548|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
84575549|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
84505203|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.17||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.52|0.54|0.6960
84575550|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
84575551|NCT06442800|168902695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
84575552|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
84575553|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
84575554|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575555|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575556|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575557|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
84575558|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
84575559|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
84575560|NCT06442800|168902696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
84575561|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
84575562|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
84575563|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575564|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575565|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
84575566|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
84575567|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
84575568|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||0.02
84575569|NCT06442800|168902697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
84575570|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|Student t-Test|||Right Cingulate Body||||0.0012
84575571|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Posterior Cingulate||||0.02
84575572|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Anterior Cingulate||||0.0015
84575573|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Prefrontal Cortex||||0.0015
84575574|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.0138||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Insula||||0.0138
84575575|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Pons Micturition Center||||0.049
84575576|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Cerebellum||||0.001
84575577|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
84609216|NCT04201093|168969459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
84575578|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
84575579|NCT03033355|168902722|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Amygdala/parahippocampal Gyrus||||0.015
84575580|NCT04717557|168902769|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84609217|NCT04201093|168969459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
84575581|NCT04717557|168902769|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575582|NCT04717557|168902770|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575583|NCT04717557|168902771|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575584|NCT04717557|168902772|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.5
84609218|NCT04201093|168969460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.1|-14.4|<0.0001
84609219|NCT04201093|168969460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.3|-14.7|<0.0001
84644177|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||4.32|0.86|0.1786
84644178|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||0.97|0.26|0.0835
84575585|NCT04717557|168902773|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Underpowered - no statistically significant difference.||||>0.5
84575586|NCT04717557|168902774|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575587|NCT04717557|168902775|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575588|NCT04717557|168902776|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575589|NCT04717557|168902777|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
84575590|NCT06354257|168902810|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of EE.||1.41|0.55|
84575591|NCT06354257|168902810|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of LNG.||1.23|0.98|
84575592|NCT06354257|168902811|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of EE.||1.09|0.85|
84575593|NCT06354257|168902811|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of LNG.||1.19|0.97|
84575594|NCT03488524|168902829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.9||Significance testing was 2-tailed and considered statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope.||Participants who did not enter the open-label extension (OLE) were included in this analysis.||7.90|0.56|0.0239
84575595|NCT03488524|168902830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.995|||Hazard ratio|||Cox Proportional Hazards analysis||0.995|0.416|0.0475
84575596|NCT03488524|168902831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.957|||Hazard Ratio|||||0.957|0.403|0.0308
84575597|NCT03488524|168902832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.75|0.80|0.0291
84575598|NCT03488524|168902833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.923||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|12.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.47|-2.95|0.2261
84575599|NCT03488524|168902834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|20.69||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.69|0.63|0.0372
84505204|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.07||CMH general association test controlling for trial site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.07|0.86|0.1368
84575600|NCT03488524|168902835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
84575601|NCT01811238|168902836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||||<0.05
84575602|NCT01811238|168902837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|The change(difference) in EQ-5D score at Week 8 from baseline was analyzed by using paired t-test.||||1.12|0|<0.05
84575603|NCT00434434|168902843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.13
84575604|NCT00434434|168902843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0133
84575605|NCT00434434|168902844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.09
84575606|NCT00434434|168902844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0028
84575607|NCT01922934|168902846|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84575608|NCT02290184|168902856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|A multi-level regression was employed to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected confidence interval (CI).|cross-level interaction|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.0|-1.1|||||"Multilevel regression analysis was used. The primary test of between-group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months.||-1.1|-3.0|
84575609|NCT02290184|168902857|SUPERIORITY|Multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.9|-1.4|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in % weight change compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months||-1.4|-3.9|
84644179|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||1.98|0.58|0.8558
84575610|NCT02290184|168902858|SUPERIORITY|A multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.91|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between -group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in waist-circumference (cm) compared to the Active Control from baseline to 3-months||-.91|-4.5|
84575611|NCT02354118|168902863|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84575612|NCT01069939|168902864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.65|0.02|0.41||An interim analysis was done so that the significance level was adjusted using the Pocock-like alpha-spending function with Lan-DeMets approach. The adjusted significance level was the two-sided 3.35%.|Log Rank|||The above two groups were compared.||0.41|0.02|<0.001
84575613|NCT03160170|168902892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84575614|NCT03160170|168902893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84575615|NCT03160170|168902894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84575616|NCT02811159|168902895|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.1797
84575617|NCT02811159|168902896|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1250
84575618|NCT02811159|168902897|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
84575619|NCT02811159|168902898|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
84575620|NCT02811159|168902899|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
84575621|NCT02811159|168902900|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||1.0000
84575622|NCT02811159|168902901|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.8750
84575623|NCT02811159|168902902|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
84575624|NCT02811159|168902903|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
84575625|NCT02811159|168902904|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
84575626|NCT02811159|168902905|OTHER|||||||0.0645|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0645
84575627|NCT04603066|168902910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204257||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2624635|0.2216122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2216122|-0.2624635|0.8651
84575628|NCT04603066|168902911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01727052||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005895|0.03513063|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03513063|-0.0005895|0.056
84575629|NCT01525589|168902918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0909
84575630|NCT01525589|168902922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84575631|NCT01525589|168902926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0561|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0561
84609220|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.5|-1.0|0.4822
84505205|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.89|0.76|0.2387
84575632|NCT04835441|168902935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
84575633|NCT04835441|168902936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.308
84575634|NCT04835441|168902937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
84575635|NCT04835441|168902938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||0.788
84575636|NCT04835441|168902939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.792
84575637|NCT04835441|168902940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Mixed models for repeated measures|||||||0.302
84609221|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.6|-0.9|0.7742
84609222|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
84575638|NCT04835441|168902941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.506
84575639|NCT04835441|168902942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
84609223|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
84609224|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-7.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.3|-10.8|<0.0001
84644180|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||0.67|0.20|0.0067
84644181|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||1.98|0.67|0.6647
84644182|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.74|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||1.74|0.55|0.9553
84644183|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.004||90.0|1.5|4.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||4.42|1.50|0.0040
84498139|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.896|-1.383|<.0001
84498140|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.009|0.436|<.0001
84498141|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.901|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.134|0.667|<.0001
84498142|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.109|0.533|<.0001
84498143|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.907|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.140|.675|<.0001
84498144|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.188|-0.453|.8291
84498145|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.213|-0.308|0.9997
84644184|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||1.43|0.52|0.6327
84498146|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.488|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.488|-0.145|0.5755
84498147|NCT03692078|168747699|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.301|-0.217|0.9999
84498148|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.317|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.940|2.317|<.0001
84498149|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.321|2.943|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.943|2.321|<.0001
84498150|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.298|1.714|<.0001
84498151|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.440|1.847|<.0001
84498152|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|1.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.284|1.690|<.0001
84498153|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.559|1.964|<.0001
84644185|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||3.79|1.47|0.0027
84609225|NCT04201093|168969461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-7.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.6|-11.2|<0.0001
84609226|NCT04201093|168969462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
84505206|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.26||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.28|0.69|0.4498
84609227|NCT04201093|168969462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
84609228|NCT04201093|168969463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84609229|NCT04201093|168969463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84753745|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.6|
84498154|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.109|-0.635|0.1658
84609230|NCT04201093|168969464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84609231|NCT04201093|168969464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
84644186|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.29|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||1.29|0.45|0.3961
84753746|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|= 0.1240
84644187|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|3.06|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||3.06|1.17|0.0298
84498155|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.036|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.282|-1.036|0.0007
84609232|NCT04201093|168969465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.5|-0.8|0.6047
84609233|NCT04201093|168969465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.3|-1.0|0.2570
84644188|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.61|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||1.61|0.56|0.8826
84644189|NCT00420641|169024205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|4.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||4.05|1.52|0.0022
84505207|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.6||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.91|0.1009
84609234|NCT04201093|168969466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.1|-1.4|0.8516
84609235|NCT04201093|168969466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.0|-1.6|0.6421
84609236|NCT03270891|168969526|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 6 month values||||0.0115
84498156|NCT03692078|168747701|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.064|-0.667|0.1055
84609237|NCT03270891|168969526|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.027
84609238|NCT03270891|168969527|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline p value to six month||||0.0327
84609239|NCT03270891|168969527|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.2088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison p value||||0.2088
84753747|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|= 0.0107
84498157|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.243||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.617|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.132|-0.617|0.2040
84498158|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.116|-0.603|0.1829
84505208|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.45||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.87|0.1499
84609240|NCT03270891|168969528|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.947
84609241|NCT06225466|168969538|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.047|||ANOVA|||||0.047|-0.005|0.123
84609242|NCT06225466|168969539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.26|0.102
84609243|NCT06225466|168969540|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|2.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.52|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||4.52|1.25|0.008
84609244|NCT00257660|168969653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-4.74||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the analysis at Week 4 excludes the scores for the 7 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.74|-12.94|<0.0001
84609245|NCT00257660|168969654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.91|-4.71||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 8 analysis excludes the scores for the 24 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.71|-12.91|<0.0001
84609246|NCT00257660|168969655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12||||0.019||95.0|-7.55|-0.68||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 12 analysis excludes the scores for the 27 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-0.68|-7.55|0.019
84644190|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.89|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||1.89|0.22|0.5072
84753748|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.8|
84498159|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.115|-0.612|0.1801
84498160|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.019|-1.225|0.0391
84498161|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.119|-1.096|0.1864
84498162|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
84498163|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
84498164|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-2.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.202|-3.580|<.0001
84753749|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.1|= 0.3139
84753750|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.3|= 0.0853
84753751|NCT03627767|169263268|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.7|
84753752|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|0.0|= 0.0674
84644191|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||2.93|0.52|0.6886
84644192|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.04|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.04|0.56|0.8664
84505209|NCT01360632|168761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.18|0.78|0.3012
84575734|NCT04338581|168903020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of F-VASI35 Responders between the two treatment groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares AMG 714 and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.411
84575735|NCT05028569|168903023|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.69|-0.62|=0.914
84575736|NCT05028569|168903023|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.55|-0.76|=0.745
84575737|NCT05028569|168903025|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.01|-0.42|=0.414
84609247|NCT00257660|168969656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.0|-6.4||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 4 subjects (and 13 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.4|-24.0|<0.001
84644193|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.79|0.80|0.2897
84644194|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||1.18|0.39|0.2474
84575738|NCT05028569|168903025|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.76|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.76|-0.66|=0.889
84575739|NCT05028569|168903026|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|2.2|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|11.46|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||11.46|-7.08|=0.451
84575740|NCT05028569|168903026|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|1.2|||=|0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|10.4|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||10.40|-7.94|=0.762
84575741|NCT05028569|168903027|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.74|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.74|-0.48|=0.686
84575742|NCT05028569|168903027|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-0.57|=0.913
84575743|NCT05028569|168903028|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|3.93|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||3.93|-3.18|=0.837
84575744|NCT05028569|168903028|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||4.31|-2.74|=0.662
84575745|NCT05028569|168903029|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.63|-1.32|=0.834
84575746|NCT05028569|168903029|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||1.90|-1.06|=0.578
84753753|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||=|0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.1|= 0.1437
84753754|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.5|
84753755|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
84575747|NCT05028569|168903030|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.96|-1.69|=0.589
84575748|NCT05028569|168903030|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|=|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-2.00|=0.310
84575755|NCT04609553|168903044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.64
84644195|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.47|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||2.47|0.89|0.2007
84644196|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|0.82|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||0.82|0.29|0.0214
84644197|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||2.23|0.88|0.2368
84644198|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.59|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||1.59|0.63|0.9870
84644199|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||3.00|1.21|0.0193
84644200|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||1.50|0.59|0.8351
84644201|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||4.77|1.90|0.0001
84644202|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||1.80|0.67|0.7510
84644203|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||3.80|1.47|0.0029
84644204|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|2.55|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||2.55|0.92|0.1707
84644205|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|5.36|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||5.36|1.99|0.0001
84644206|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.48|0.05|0.2050
84644207|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.24|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.24|0.11|0.1735
84644208|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.75|0.78|0.2305
84644209|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.50|0.77|0.2507
84644210|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||1.64|0.35|0.5608
84644211|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||2.42|0.60|0.6526
84644212|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||0.77|0.21|0.0208
84644213|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.22|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||1.22|0.39|0.2859
84644214|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||1.66|0.49|0.7921
84644215|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.31|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||2.31|0.79|0.3620
84644216|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||1.34|0.44|0.4331
84644217|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|3.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||3.75|1.42|0.0047
84644218|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||1.32|0.46|0.4431
84644219|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||2.44|0.90|0.1901
84644220|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||1.66|0.56|0.9222
84644221|NCT00420641|169024206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||2.43|0.93|0.1665
84644222|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||1.98|0.20|0.5057
84644223|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||3.30|0.38|0.8633
84644224|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.16|0.55|0.8428
84644225|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.84|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.84|0.76|0.3416
84644226|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.26|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||1.26|0.40|0.3287
84498165|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.985|-2.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.597|-3.985|<.0001
84498166|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.605|-2.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.255|-3.605|<.0001
84498167|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.190|-3.559|<.0001
84498168|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|2.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.896|1.604|<.0001
84498169|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|3.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.046|1.737|<.0001
84498170|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.879|1.582|<.0001
84498171|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|3.162|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.162|1.857|<.0001
84498172|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|0.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.705|-0.743|1.0000
84609248|NCT00257660|168969657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS CD symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 3 subjects (and 8 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.1|-22.3|<0.001
84575756|NCT04609553|168903044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.46
84575757|NCT04609553|168903045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.84
84575758|NCT04609553|168903045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.82
84575759|NCT04609553|168903045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.001
84609249|NCT00257660|168969658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-25.8|-8.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-8.1|-25.8|<0.001
84644227|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.57|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||2.57|0.88|0.2112
84644228|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||0.76|0.26|0.0134
84753756|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
84753757|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.4|
84575760|NCT04609553|168903045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.16
84575761|NCT04609553|168903046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.93
84609250|NCT00257660|168969659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-7.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-7.8|-24.2|<0.001
84609251|NCT00257660|168969660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05||||0.007||95.0|-19.0|-3.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-3.1|-19.0|0.007
84609252|NCT00257660|168969661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.05||||0.028||95.0|-13.3|-0.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-0.8|-13.3|0.028
84609253|NCT00257660|168969662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.061||95.0|-0.17|7.47||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 mental health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.47|-0.17|0.061
84609254|NCT00257660|168969663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.002||95.0|1.73|7.58||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 physical health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.58|1.73|0.002
84672349|NCT00653224|169080282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.59|<0.001
84575762|NCT04609553|168903046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up, A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.04
84575763|NCT04609553|168903046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.08
84575764|NCT04609553|168903046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.03
84575765|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.002
84609255|NCT00257660|168969664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.206|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|17.26||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|odds ratio|The odds ratio represents the odds of success on Dysport versus Placebo stratified for strata and country||The number of participants considered treatment successes was analysed using a logistic model with treatment, strata (naive or non-naive) and center as factors in the model.||17.26|3.01|<0.0001
84609256|NCT02437084|168969665|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|SSPG concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 69||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
84609257|NCT02437084|168969666|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Insulin secretion rate AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63.||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in insulin secretion rate AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||<0.001
84609258|NCT02437084|168969667|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma glucose concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.10
84609259|NCT02437084|168969668|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Fasting plasma insulin concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 68||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma insulin concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
84609260|NCT02437084|168969669|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT glucose AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.03
84753758|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1136
84505210|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|0.75|0.2873
84753759|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0276
84753760|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.5|
84753761|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0108
84753762|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-1.3|= 0.0677
84753763|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.2|
84753764|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.1|= 0.1320
84753765|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.9|= 0.2975
84753766|NCT03627767|169263269|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
84753767|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-1.3|= 0.3531
84753768|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-0.8|= 0.9282
84753769|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.3|-0.4|
84753770|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-7.3|< 0.0001
84753771|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-10.3|< 0.0001
84753772|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.1|-4.0|
84609261|NCT02437084|168969670|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|OGTT insulin AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT insulin AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 weeks.||||0.27
84753773|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.2|< 0.0001
84672350|NCT00653224|169080283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.21|-0.63|<0.001
84672351|NCT00653224|169080284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
84672352|NCT00653224|169080285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-0.63|<0.001
84672353|NCT00653224|169080286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.53|<0.001
84672354|NCT00653224|169080287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.52|<0.001
84672355|NCT00653224|169080288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.14||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
84672356|NCT00653224|169080289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.32|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.32|<0.001
84753774|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-8.3|< 0.0001
84753775|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-3.3|
84753776|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.5|= 0.0082
84498173|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.411||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.142|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.320|-1.142|0.5639
84609262|NCT03945019|168969671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
84609263|NCT03945019|168969672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
84753777|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.6|-7.4|< 0.0001
84753778|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.6||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-4.2|
84753779|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.4|||=|0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-4.5|= 0.0313
84753780|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.0001
84753781|NCT03627767|169263270|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-4.1|
84753782|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|= 0.4832
84753783|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.3|= 0.6553
84753784|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
84753785|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-1.5|< 0.0001
84753786|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.2|< 0.0001
84753787|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.9|
84753788|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.7|< 0.0001
84753789|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
84644229|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||2.17|0.81|0.3412
84644230|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.54|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||1.54|0.58|0.8434
84644231|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||2.63|1.03|0.0819
84644232|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||1.19|0.44|0.2832
84644233|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|3.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||3.97|1.54|0.0016
84753790|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
84753791|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|< 0.0001
84575766|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.80
84753792|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.2|< 0.0001
84753793|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
84575767|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.79
84575768|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.96
84575769|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.22
84609264|NCT04598269|168969702|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSM) % Differences|-33.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.95|-18.08||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Week 4: Least Square Means (LSM) % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|||-18.08|-47.95|<0.001
84609265|NCT04598269|168969703|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.47|-8.59||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|MMRM||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 8: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 8 statistical analysis||-8.59|-38.47|0.005
84609266|NCT04598269|168969703|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.38|-8.5||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 15: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 15 statistical analysis||-8.50|-38.38|0.005
84609267|NCT04598269|168969704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|63.2||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||63.2|3.9|<0.001
84609268|NCT04598269|168969705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|17.0||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Linear||Active/Vehicle|||17.0|2.1|0.003
84609269|NCT04598269|168969706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.3||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||5.3|0.6|0.203
84609270|NCT04598269|168969707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.148
84609271|NCT04598269|168969707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.017
84609272|NCT04598269|168969707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.002
84609273|NCT04598269|168969708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.088
84609274|NCT04598269|168969708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.022
84753794|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|= 0.0020
84753795|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.2|< 0.0001
84505211|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.36|0.79|0.2677
84609275|NCT04598269|168969708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||<0.001
84609276|NCT04598269|168969709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.014
84609277|NCT04598269|168969709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.069
84609278|NCT04598269|168969709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.060
84609279|NCT03101085|168969710|OTHER|We performed a paired T-test analysis to ascertain whether the COX/CS activity while on S-equol was comparable or different than the COX/CS while on placebo. For each participant, the COX/CS value while on S-equol was subtracted from their COX/CS value while on placebo.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||As the order of the intervention does not matter, all 39 participants who contributed data to the final analysis are included together.||||>0.05
84753796|NCT03627767|169263271|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|
84609280|NCT04484207|168969741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||GEE|||||||0.031
84609281|NCT04232215|168969752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.1|||Regression, Linear|A generalized linear model adjusting by intervention group and the order of randomization was conducted.||Difference in ease of use between our standard fetal Doppler and HeraBEAT™ device, as measured by the System Usability Survey (SUS) will be the primary outcome. We aim to recruit 50 participants (50 per arm, with cross-over) for a 99.7% power to detect a 10-point difference in SUS, as this accounts for a withdraw / post-randomization exclusion as high as 10% (assuming a proportion of expectant mothers to withdraw participation after being enrolled or found to not meet criteria after the fact).||6.1|-10.2|0.64
84609282|NCT04232215|168969753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.53|||Chi-squared|||||2.53|0.57|0.63
84609283|NCT02100475|168969775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment and baseline IDegLira dose strata as fixed factors and baseline response as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using LOCF.||0.46|-1.05|0.427
84609284|NCT03109184|168969778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-Month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
84575770|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||<0.001
84609285|NCT03109184|168969778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between group odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
84609286|NCT03109184|168969778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
84609287|NCT03109184|168969778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
84609288|NCT03109184|168969779|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
84609289|NCT03109184|168969779|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
84753797|NCT03523728|169263306|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|21.32|||=|0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|58.22|||linear mixed effect model|||||58.22|-5.77|=0.1367
84609290|NCT03109184|168969780|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
84753798|NCT03523728|169263306|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|0.34|||=|0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|33.36|||linear mixed effect model|||||33.36|-24.57|=0.9812
84753799|NCT03523728|169263307|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|101.32|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.63|233.72|||linear mixed effect model|||||233.72|35.63|=0.0005
84753800|NCT03523728|169263307|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|104.17|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.54|236.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||236.45|39.54|=0.0002
84753801|NCT03523728|169263308|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|51.01|||=|0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|125.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||125.45|7.01|=0.0197
84753802|NCT03523728|169263308|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|46.36|||=|0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|119.01|||linear mixed effect model|||||119.01|3.21|=0.0337
84753803|NCT03523728|169263310|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.556|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.556|-0.342|=0.6374
84753804|NCT03523728|169263310|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.185|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.185|-0.689|=0.2560
84753805|NCT03523728|169263311|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|0.747|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.747|-0.971|=0.7900
84753806|NCT03523728|169263311|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.5|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.500|-0.808|=0.6322
84753807|NCT03523728|169263312|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.839|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.839|-0.506|=0.6245
84753808|NCT03523728|169263312|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.281|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.281|-1.044|=0.2567
84753809|NCT03523728|169263313|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.485|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.485|-2.232|=0.2023
84753810|NCT03523728|169263313|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.537|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.537|-1.610|=0.3205
84753811|NCT00621751|169263344|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|36.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||CBZ (up to 800 mg daily) vs placebo significantly improves behavior (Rasch NPI irritability \& aggression rated by observer) baseline to day-42 among individuals \>6 months post-traumatic brain injury and moderate-severe irritability.|ANCOVA|||The primary outcome was a composite measure of observer-rated NPI-I \& NPI-A domains transformed to a Rasch logit scale ranging 0 (best) to 100 (worse) units (i.e., observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores). Mean day-42 observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores were compared between the placebo vs. carbamazepine groups using ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate.||||0.60
84753812|NCT00621751|169263345|OTHER|A prespecified secondary analysis compared proportions of participants that experienced a decrease of \> 1 MCID in the NPI-I/A Rasch construct score (i.e., participants that are considered to have meaningful reduction in irritability/aggression) from baseline to day-42 between the groups using a chi-square test. MCID was defined as 0.5 times the standard deviation of baseline scores.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< .05
84753813|NCT03349775|169263381|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-8.32|0.35
84753814|NCT03349775|169263382|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.92|-1.65|0.37
84753815|NCT04439071|169263386|OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.949
84753816|NCT04439071|169263405|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.033
84753817|NCT01179672|169263438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
84753818|NCT01179672|169263439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12-week endpoint in night pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.95|0.008
84753819|NCT01179672|169263439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12 week endpoint in worst pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-1.00|0.017
84753820|NCT01179672|169263440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.90|0.016
84753821|NCT01179672|169263441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.48|0.081
84498174|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.656|-0.771|1.0000
84505212|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.68|1.21|0.0031
84609291|NCT03109184|168969780|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
84609292|NCT03109184|168969780|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
84609293|NCT03109184|168969780|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
84609294|NCT03109184|168969781|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
84609295|NCT03109184|168969781|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
84609296|NCT03109184|168969781|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
84609297|NCT03109184|168969781|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
84609298|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
84609299|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
84609300|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
84753822|NCT01179672|169263442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.40|0.034
84753823|NCT01179672|169263443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment, pooled investigator and baseline.||||-0.16|-2.07|0.022
84753824|NCT01179672|169263444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.014
84753825|NCT01179672|169263444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.006
84753826|NCT01179672|169263444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.193
84753827|NCT01179672|169263445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.003
84753828|NCT01179672|169263445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.001
84609301|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
84609302|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
84609303|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
84609304|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
84609305|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
84609306|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
84609307|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
84609308|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
84609309|NCT03109184|168969782|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
84609310|NCT03109184|168969783|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
84609311|NCT03109184|168969783|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
84753829|NCT01179672|169263445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.168
84498175|NCT03692078|168747701|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.732|-0.721|1.0000
84498176|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.519|2.863|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.863|2.519|<.0001
84498177|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.718|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.890|2.546|<.0001
84609312|NCT03109184|168969784|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
84609313|NCT03109184|168969784|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
84753830|NCT01179672|169263446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
84753831|NCT01179672|169263447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-2.33|0.020
84753832|NCT00314249|169263451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||||95.0|-8.56|-4.19|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.19|-8.56|
84753833|NCT00314249|169263452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||ANOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors.||-0.38|-0.69|
84753834|NCT00314249|169263453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||||95.0|-3.27|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-3.27|
84753835|NCT00314249|169263454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.94||Closed testing procedure used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia syndrome tested prior to fibromyalgia pain|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline pain score, and baseline SF-36 PCS score as explanatory variables.||2.94|1.45|<0.001
84753836|NCT00314249|169263455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.51||Closed testing procedure was used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia pain tested after statistically significant fibromyalgia syndrome test|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with the treatment group and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.||2.51|1.38|<0.001
84753837|NCT00314249|169263456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||95.0|0.86|2.44|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.44|0.86|
84753838|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
84609314|NCT01209078|168969850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for end of therapy Clinical Success.||||
84609315|NCT01209078|168969850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-24.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Follow-up Clinical Success.||||
84609316|NCT01209078|168969851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
84609317|NCT01209078|168969852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
84609318|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 exudate or pus score.||0.74|-0.41|
84498178|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|2.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.577|2.252|<.0001
84575771|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.96
84575772|NCT04609553|168903047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.12
84575773|NCT04609553|168903048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
84575774|NCT04609553|168903048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
84609319|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 exudate or pus score.||0.45|-0.70|
84609320|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 exudate or pus score.||0.43|-0.74|
84644234|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||1.63|0.60|0.9727
84498179|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.276|2.603|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.603|2.276|<.0001
84498180|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.583|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.417|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.748|2.417|<.0001
84575775|NCT04609553|168903049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
84575776|NCT04609553|168903049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
84575777|NCT04609553|168903050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.80
84575778|NCT04609553|168903050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.06
84575779|NCT04609553|168903050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2."||||0.81
84575780|NCT04609553|168903050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.08
84609321|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 exudate or pus score.||0.95|-0.25|
84575781|NCT04609553|168903051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.07
84575782|NCT04609553|168903051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.91
84575783|NCT04609553|168903051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.39
84609322|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 exudate or pus score.||0.72|-0.49|
84644235|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||4.13|1.60|0.0010
84505213|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.7||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.15|0.0066
84575784|NCT04609553|168903051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3."||||0.10
84575785|NCT04609553|168903052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.19
84575786|NCT04609553|168903052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.18
84575787|NCT04609553|168903052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.18
84575788|NCT04609553|168903052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.45
84575789|NCT04609553|168903053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||<.001
84575790|NCT04609553|168903053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.68
84575791|NCT04609553|168903053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.16
84575792|NCT04609553|168903053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.39
84575793|NCT04609553|168903054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.87
84575794|NCT04609553|168903054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.14
84575795|NCT04609553|168903054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.007
84575796|NCT04609553|168903054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.34
84575797|NCT04609553|168903055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.99
84575798|NCT04609553|168903055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.07
84575799|NCT04609553|168903055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.41
84575800|NCT04609553|168903055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.03
84575801|NCT04390750|168903166|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.11|-0.11|0.939
84575802|NCT04390750|168903166|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.09||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.02|-0.21|0.103
84575803|NCT04390750|168903167|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.995||95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.16|-0.16|0.995
84575804|NCT04390750|168903167|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.12||||0.132||95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.04|-0.28|0.132
84575805|NCT04390750|168903168|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.06|-0.16|0.402
84575806|NCT04390750|168903168|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.1||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.01|-0.21|0.072
84575807|NCT04390750|168903169|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.04|-0.36|0.014
84575808|NCT04390750|168903169|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||Linear mixed effects model.|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.07|-0.39|0.005
84575809|NCT03829475|168903189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84575810|NCT04190225|168903200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|37.28|||quantile regression||Median difference is not the difference in the two medians, but is the median of differences between groups (why it is 18.4 and not 23)|||37.28|4.67|0.04
84575811|NCT04190225|168903201|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|32.76|||quantile regression|||||32.76|8.35|0.03
84575812|NCT04190225|168903202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||quantile regression|||||||<.001
84575817|NCT04044690|168903263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.371008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|2.309||Threshold of significance at \<= 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule applied following MI.|||2.309|0.551|0.371008
84575818|NCT04044690|168903264|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.360939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|9.57||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||9.570|-6.651|0.360939
84575819|NCT04044690|168903265|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.730994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|5.33||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||5.33|-10.15|0.730994
84575820|NCT04044690|168903266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3||||0.001647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.82||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||-1.82|-8.72|0.001647
84644236|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||1.80|0.64|0.8312
84644237|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|5.02|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||5.02|1.86|0.0002
84644238|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.6|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||2.60|0.13|0.5530
84575821|NCT04044690|168903267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.335347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.766||Descriptive p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule for combination applied following MI.|||2.766|0.520|0.335347
84672357|NCT00653224|169080290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.36|-1.39|<0.001
84672358|NCT00653224|169080291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.49|-1.20|<0.001
84672359|NCT00653224|169080292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.35|-1.18|<0.001
84672360|NCT00653224|169080293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.17|<0.001
84672361|NCT00653224|169080294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.31|-1.17|<0.001
84672362|NCT00653224|169080295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.005||95.0|-1.26|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-1.26|0.005
84672363|NCT00653224|169080296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-1.18|<0.001
84753839|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Exponential model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
84753840|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax1 model fit|Model Assumption: 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
84753841|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax2 model fit|Model Assumption: 70% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
84753842|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 2.4 mg, 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
84753843|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-0.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.41|-6.33|0.0257
84753844|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-6.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation as used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-6.81|-12.57|<.0001
84753845|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-7.49||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.49|-13.32|<.0001
84753846|NCT04667377|169263457|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.24|-15.00|<.0001
84505214|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.34||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.83|0.98|0.0665
84609323|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.66|-0.53|
84753847|NCT04667377|169263458|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.84||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||6.84|1.57|0.0015
84609324|NCT01209078|168969855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.58|-0.65|
84672364|NCT00653224|169080297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.87|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-0.87|<0.001
84672365|NCT00653224|169080298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.91|-0.24||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.24|-0.91|<0.001
84609325|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
84753848|NCT04667377|169263458|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|19.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||19.46|4.00|<.0001
84609326|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
84609327|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
84609328|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
84609329|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
84753849|NCT04667377|169263458|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|16.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||16.41|3.41|<.0001
84575885|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi-square test is to detect the difference in the prevalence of hypertension between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.244||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.244
84575886|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is to detect the difference in prevalence of diabetes mellitus between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.584||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.584
84575887|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of insulin resistance between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.067||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.067
84609330|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
84575888|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of dyslipidemia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.365||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.365
84575889|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of metabolic syndrome between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.033||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84575890|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteopenia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.196||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.196
84575891|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteoporosis between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||1.000
84609331|NCT01209078|168969856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
84575892|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|||||||0.572||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of vitamin D deficiency between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.572
84575893|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|||||||0.698||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence in renal disease between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.698
84575894|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of kidney tubular dysfunction between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||||0.848||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.848
84575895|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>1.3) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.274||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.274
84575896|NCT03483584|168903561|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||||||1.000
84609332|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
84609333|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
84609334|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
84575897|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|6.45|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||6.450|0.352|
84575898|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|14.919|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.919|0.251|
84575899|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|1.155|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.155|0.099|
84575900|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|1.948|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.948|0.132|
84575901|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.397|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.397|0.395|
84609335|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
84609336|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
84609337|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
84644239|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.41|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||3.41|0.28|0.9780
84575902|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.759|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.759|0.444|
84498181|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.426|2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.757|2.426|<.0001
84498182|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.314|0.901|<.0001
84498183|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.225|0.810|<.0001
84498184|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.031|1.624|<.0001
84498185|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.782|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.577|1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.988|1.577|<.0001
84498186|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.350|-0.750|<.0001
84575903|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|5.139|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||5.139|0.274|
84575904|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|5.688|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||5.688|0.257|
84609338|NCT01209078|168969857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
84575905|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|3.739|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.739|0.196|
84575906|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.631|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||2.631|0.108|
84575907|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|11.35|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||11.350|0.172|
84575908|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|9.317|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||9.317|0.119|
84575909|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
84609339|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.8|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 wound area.||-4.95|-132.8|
84609340|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.54|60.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 wound area.||60.43|-66.54|
84609341|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|31.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|96.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 wound area.||96.47|-33.53|
84609342|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|110.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 wound area.||110.31|-22.43|
84609343|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|101.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 wound area.||101.45|-33.03|
84609344|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|103.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up wound area.||103.40|-28.25|
84609345|NCT01209078|168969858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|105.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up wound area.||105.56|-30.77|
84753850|NCT04667377|169263458|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|24.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||24.31|4.77|<.0001
84609346|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.4|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Staphylococcus aureus (all).||||
84609347|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MRSA.||||
84609348|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.6|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MSSA.||||
84609349|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-66.7|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Streptococcus pyogenes.||||
84609350|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Gram-negative pathogens.||||
84609351|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for All pathogens.||||
84609352|NCT01209078|168969859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for No pathogens.||||
84575910|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
84575911|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|7.122|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||7.122|0.679|
84575912|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|3.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|14.833|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.833|0.850|
84575913|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.077|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.077|0.465|
84575914|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.638|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||4.638|0.510|
84575915|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.331|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.331|0.408|
84609353|NCT00924508|168969861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
84609354|NCT00924508|168969861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
84575916|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|7.18|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||7.180|0.615|
84575917|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.995|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.995|0.159|
84575918|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|3.493|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||3.493|0.244|
84609355|NCT00924508|168969861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
84644240|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||3.03|0.43|0.8312
84644241|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||5.25|0.83|0.1881
84575919|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
84575920|NCT03483584|168903562|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
84575922|NCT04063163|168903585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.763|||Log Rank|||Defined as a period from randomization through death regardless of causality. Data of patients without a death record will be censored on the last known survival date. COX proportional risk model will be used to estimate HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI); the Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate the median, and the Kaplan-Meier curve will be plotted.||0.763|0.496|<0.001
84575923|NCT04063163|168903586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.576|||Log Rank|||||0.576|0.381|0.001
84609356|NCT01939366|168969896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.04||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.04|-1.43|0.0621
84609357|NCT01939366|168969896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.02||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.02|-1.50|0.0564
84672366|NCT00653224|169080299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.86|-0.28||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.28|-0.86|<0.001
84753851|NCT04667377|169263459|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|1.29|0.0120
84609358|NCT01939366|168969896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.2||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||-0.20|-1.83|0.0153
84609359|NCT00680797|168969897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of pre- to post-intervention insulin levels between the groups receiving E only versus the group receiving no hormone replacement.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.023
84575946|NCT01964404|168903767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p-FDR|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84575947|NCT01964404|168903769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.4|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.4|-0.77|0.31
84575948|NCT01964404|168903769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.18|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||0.18|-2.4|.62
84575949|NCT01964404|168903770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.45|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Negative symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||3.45|-1|0.28
84575950|NCT01964404|168903770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.85|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive negative scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.85|-1.1|0.39
84575951|NCT01964404|168903771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.424||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|-3.18||We set threshold of p\<.01 for statistical significance due to multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for pre-drug exposure cognitive functioning||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different verbal learning scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||-3.18|-16.06|0.004
84575952|NCT01964404|168903772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|15.75|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||15.75|-3.62|.22
84609360|NCT00680797|168969897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison in the change in insulin levels between the groups receiving E with or without T.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.042
84609361|NCT01192412|168969962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.35||||||We estimated that with a sample size of 514 per group, the study would have 80% power, at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05, assuming primary outcome rates of 33% in the tight-control group and 25% in the less-tight-control group, a 10% rate of crossover, a 1% loss to follow-up, and two interim analyses, as calculated with the chi-square test with the use of East software (Cytel) and the Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming-type boundaries for early stopping.||1.35|0.77|
84609362|NCT01192412|168969963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.84||||||||3.84|0.79|
84609363|NCT00151476|168969968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|14.49||||||95.0|3.48|301.64|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|"Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); twenty-fifth (25th) percentile presented due to limited number of subjects.~Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.~Only 13 matched pairs identified: p-values not computed in analysis of time-to-event endpoints"||301.64|3.48|
84609364|NCT00151476|168969968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.06||||||95.0|3.48|11.76|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||11.76|3.48|
84609365|NCT00151476|168969968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.52||||||95.0|3.48|14.49|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||14.49|3.48|
84575953|NCT01964404|168903772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.7|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||5.70|-5.87|0.98
84609366|NCT00151476|168969969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.98||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
84575954|NCT01964404|168903773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|90.9|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different drug experience ratings of liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||90.9|10.9|0.13
84609367|NCT00151476|168969969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
84575955|NCT01964404|168903773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|94.07|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different drug liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||94.07|8.01|.002
84609368|NCT00151476|168969970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|137.34||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile. Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.||183.48|104.73|
84575956|NCT01964404|168903774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-1.0|0.002
84575957|NCT05528510|168903782|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||27.6|14.5|<0.001
84575958|NCT05528510|168903783|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||39.2|21.6|<0.001
84575959|NCT05528510|168903784|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||31.9|16.6|<0.001
84609369|NCT00151476|168969970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|169.94||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||183.48|104.73|
84609370|NCT00151476|168969971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|11.28||||||95.0|9.07|38.24|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||38.24|9.07|
84575960|NCT05528510|168903785|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|21.6|<0.001
84575961|NCT05528510|168903786|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||26.9|12.4|<0.001
84575962|NCT05528510|168903787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|35.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.1|16.7|<0.001
84575963|NCT05528510|168903787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||36.2|17.9|<0.001
84575964|NCT05528510|168903788|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|18.5|<0.001
84609371|NCT00151476|168969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.63||||||95.0|8.05|48.03|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||48.03|8.05|
84753852|NCT04667377|169263459|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|25.86||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||25.86|4.36|<.0001
84575965|NCT05528510|168903788|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|35.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.3|14.3|<0.001
84575966|NCT05528510|168903789|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|37.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||37.6|18.5|<0.001
84575967|NCT05528510|168903789|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||42.3|23.1|<0.001
84575968|NCT05528510|168903790|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|43.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||43.4|21.3|<0.001
84575969|NCT05528510|168903790|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||41.0|20.0|<0.001
84609372|NCT00151476|168969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|40.21||||||95.0|8.31|105.68|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||105.68|8.31|
84609373|NCT00151476|168969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|16.03|56.34|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||56.34|16.03|
84609374|NCT00151476|168969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.22||||||95.0|12.35|40.31|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||40.31|12.35|
84753853|NCT04667377|169263459|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|23.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||23.79|4.02|<.0001
84753854|NCT04667377|169263459|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|35.55||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||35.55|5.91|<.0001
84753855|NCT04667377|169263460|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|0.56|0.2654
84753856|NCT04667377|169263460|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|30.95||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||30.95|2.89|0.0002
84609375|NCT00151476|168969974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|21.22||||||95.0|4.07|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|4.07|
84609376|NCT00151476|168969974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|3.68|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|3.68|
84609377|NCT04099511|168969989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.693
84609378|NCT04099511|168969990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.536
84609379|NCT04099511|168969991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.260
84609380|NCT04099511|168969992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.387
84609381|NCT04099511|168969993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
84609382|NCT04099511|168969994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
84609383|NCT04099511|168969995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
84609384|NCT04099511|168969996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
84609385|NCT02868229|168969998|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-5.666||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.082|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-2.250|-9.082|0.002
84609386|NCT02868229|168969998|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-6.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.613|-3.214|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-3.214|-10.613|<0.001
84609387|NCT02868229|168969998|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-9.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.217|-5.965|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-5.965|-13.217|<0.001
84753857|NCT04667377|169263460|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|38.36||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||38.36|3.62|<.0001
84575982|NCT05360056|168903826|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|paired t-test|||Paired t-test was performed comparing the %Time in range from 2 weeks to 12 weeks||||0.03
84575983|NCT05360056|168903828|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon signed rank|9.85|||<|0.0001|||||||paired Wilcoxon rank test|||||||<0.0001
84609388|NCT04268173|168970188|EQUIVALENCE|A two sample t-test was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the pre-intervention mean response was equivalent to the post-intervention mean response in the Prevention Navigation group. Hypothesis: A p-value greater than 0.05 suggests the means are not statistically different from one another.||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84609389|NCT00869401|168970200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||Using Logrank Test|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.54|.222
84609390|NCT00869401|168970202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.59|0.183
84753858|NCT04667377|169263460|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|21.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|68.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||68.28|6.47|<.0001
84753859|NCT04667377|169263461|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-1.61|-7.44|0.0025
84505215|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.91|1.05|0.0250
84609391|NCT03233438|168970204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|0.6|0.003
84609392|NCT03233438|168970205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.6|0.003
84644242|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||1.69|0.39|0.6384
84576004|NCT04707469|168904067|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.27||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.12||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.12|-0.42|0.0006
84576005|NCT04707469|168904067|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.38|-0.68|<.0001
84576018|NCT02003924|168904319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.292|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.352||P-value was based on stratified log-rank test by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.352|0.241|<0.0001
84576019|NCT02003924|168904320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.081||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.||0.081|0.054|<0.0001
84576020|NCT02003924|168904321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.258||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
84576021|NCT02003924|168904322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.885||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per interactive voice/web recognition system (IXRS).|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05,parallel testing strategy between OS(with allocated type I error rate 0.03)and remaining key secondary endpoints(time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02)was performed.OS tested at error rate 0.05 when both time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy were significant. When either failed to show significance.OS was tested at error 0.03.||0.885|0.608|0.0011
84644243|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.37|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||3.37|0.84|0.2160
84644244|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||0.79|0.20|0.0259
84576022|NCT02003924|168904323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.149||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.149|0.801|0.6534
84576023|NCT02003924|168904324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.507||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.507|0.282|<0.0001
84576024|NCT02003924|168904327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|73.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.91|77.02||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 50%||77.02|70.91|<0.0001
84576025|NCT02003924|168904327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.28|58.76||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 90%||58.76|52.28|<0.0001
84576026|NCT02003924|168904327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|11.54||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease to Undetectable Level||11.54|7.75|<0.0001
84753860|NCT04667377|169263461|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-9.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.19|-14.94|<.0001
84644245|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.35|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||1.35|0.39|0.3959
84644246|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||1.34|0.39|0.3857
84644247|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||2.52|0.80|0.3126
84753861|NCT04667377|169263461|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.07||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-10.07|-15.85|<.0001
84753862|NCT04667377|169263461|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-15.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-12.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-12.90|-18.67|<.0001
84609393|NCT02219503|168970235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 72.7%.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|94.0|
84609394|NCT02219503|168970235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|The superiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Superiority was declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 83.2%.||100.0|94.0|
84609395|NCT01786252|168970241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the vehicle group.||||<0.05
84609396|NCT01786252|168970241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the hCG group.||||>0.05
84609397|NCT01786252|168970241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare stromal staging between hCG and IVF media group.||||<0.01
84609398|NCT01786252|168970241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular dating between hCG and IVF media groups.||||>0.05
84609399|NCT01786252|168970242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84609400|NCT01786252|168970243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84609401|NCT01786252|168970244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84753863|NCT04667377|169263462|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.98|-7.74|0.0116
84609402|NCT00343382|168970278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1675|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1675
84609403|NCT00343382|168970278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5974|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5974
84609404|NCT00343382|168970279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Rigors among arms.||||0.002
84609405|NCT00343382|168970279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Urinary Frequency among arms||||0.006
84609406|NCT00343382|168970279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of nausea among arms||||0.030
84609407|NCT00343382|168970279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of sweating among arms||||0.062
84609408|NCT02337725|168970284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.25|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the least squares mean difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-4.250|-8.530|<0.0001
84609409|NCT01561963|168970307|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% confidence interval (CI) limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.56|104.82|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.82|88.56|
84644248|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||1.03|0.36|0.1182
84644249|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||3.43|1.29|0.0125
84644250|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||1.13|0.42|0.2147
84609410|NCT01561963|168970307|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.63|30.34|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.34|25.63|
84644251|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||2.69|1.03|0.0783
84644252|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9067||90.0|0.57|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||1.64|0.57|0.9067
84644253|NCT00420641|169024207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.92|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||2.92|1.15|0.0328
84644254|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|3.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||3.76|0.44|0.6928
84644255|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|5.01|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||5.01|0.69|0.3039
84753864|NCT04667377|169263462|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-7.66||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.66|-14.39|<.0001
84753865|NCT04667377|169263462|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|-7.67||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.67|-14.33|<.0001
84498187|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.650|-1.051|<.0001
84505216|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.90|0.2224
84753866|NCT04667377|169263462|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|-8.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-8.71|-15.39|<.0001
84498188|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.276||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.057|-0.609|0.1608
84644256|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||2.70|0.89|0.1938
84505217|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.68|1.01|0.0369
84644257|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||3.16|1.08|0.0600
84644258|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.53|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||1.53|0.61|0.8989
84644259|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|3.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||3.05|1.25|0.0136
84644260|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||1.18|0.50|0.3099
84644261|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.27|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||2.27|0.98|0.1137
84609411|NCT01561963|168970308|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.99|104.12|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.12|87.99|
84609412|NCT01561963|168970308|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|30.41|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.41|25.70|
84609413|NCT01561963|168970309|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.18|123.91|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||123.91|103.18|
84609414|NCT01561963|168970309|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.84|62.25|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||62.25|51.84|
84609415|NCT01561963|168970310|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.25||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + IV Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-0.75|0.2656
84609416|NCT01561963|168970310|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-1.00|0.1141
84609417|NCT02925728|168970353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84609418|NCT00752726|168970354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.491||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for treatment, baseline VAT and center effect using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined. For this primary analysis, only one statistical test was performed and therefore, no multiple comparison adjustment was done.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.491|0.035|0.0244
84672367|NCT00653224|169080300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.34|<0.001
84609419|NCT00752726|168970355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0834||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.337||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline VAT and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 12 between the two treatment groups.||0.337|0.007|0.0415
84609420|NCT00752726|168970356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline weight and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.74|0.25|0.026
84609421|NCT00752726|168970357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|3.065||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.065|0.219|0.0242
84609422|NCT00752726|168970358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2.87|0.07|0.039
84498189|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.613|0.1575
84498190|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.226|-0.442|0.9728
84498191|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.208|-0.461|0.9262
84498192|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.584|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.963|-1.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.204|-1.963|<.0001
84498193|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.081|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.320|-2.081|<.0001
84498194|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|-0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.489|-1.237|<.0001
84498195|NCT03692078|168747703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.560|-1.312|<.0001
84498196|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.630|3.310|<.0001
84498197|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|3.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.668|3.348|<.0001
84498198|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.741|3.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.042|2.741|<.0001
84498199|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|3.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.027|2.719|<.0001
84498200|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.775|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.082|2.775|<.0001
84498201|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.742|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.049|2.742|<.0001
84498202|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.864|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.055|0.672|<.0001
84498203|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.786|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.981|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.981|0.592|<.0001
84609423|NCT00752726|168970359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline waist circumference and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.63|-0.24|0.085
84644262|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8682||90.0|0.67|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||1.64|0.67|0.8682
84644263|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|4.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||4.03|1.63|0.0006
84644264|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.51|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||1.51|0.62|0.8992
84644265|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.09|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||4.09|1.67|0.0004
84505218|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.36||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.75|1.05|0.0179
84753867|NCT04667377|169263463|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|0.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.35|-7.82|0.0733
84753868|NCT04667377|169263463|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|1.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.53|-9.71|<.0072
84753869|NCT04667377|169263463|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.17||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.17|-10.23|0.0027
84753870|NCT04667377|169263463|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|-2.06||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.06|-10.25|0.0033
84753871|NCT04667377|169263464|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.05||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.05|-3.92|0.2569
84753872|NCT04667377|169263464|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.00|-4.97|0.0495
84753873|NCT04667377|169263464|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 -placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.01|-4.90|0.0506
84753874|NCT04667377|169263464|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.46|-5.40|0.0202
84753875|NCT02092350|169263472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||The primary hypothesis was that the SVR12 rate in the Immediate Treatment plus Intensive PK arm would be \>45%.||||0.001
84753876|NCT00962390|169263525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4678
84753877|NCT00962390|169263525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4892
84753878|NCT00962390|169263525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.0|-0.8|0.8185
84753879|NCT04422990|169263539|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in mean CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures model||Least squares mean difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity).|||0.01|-0.01|
84753880|NCT04422990|169263540|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects was used for the statistical analysis. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Generalized linear mixed model||Lens difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity)|||0.02|-0.04|
84498204|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.829|0.452|<.0001
84498205|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.680|0.290|<.0001
84672368|NCT00653224|169080301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
84753881|NCT05417607|169263577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.86||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.22|1.27|0.0047
84753882|NCT05417607|169263578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.02|-1.6|0.2383
84753883|NCT05417607|169263579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||0.80|-2.22|0.3426
84753884|NCT00698932|169263584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.34|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.34|-0.65|<0.0001
84753885|NCT00698932|169263585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-0.39|-1.06|<0.0001
84753886|NCT00698932|169263586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.12|-7.13|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-7.13|-19.12|<0.0001
84753887|NCT00698932|169263587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-182.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.4||0.001||95.0|-289.0|-74.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-74|-289|0.001
84753888|NCT00698932|169263588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3280.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|980.0||0.001||95.0|-5214.0|-1345.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-1345|-5214|0.001
84753889|NCT00698932|169263589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.9|24.9|||ANCOVA|||||24.9|8.9|<0.0001
84753890|NCT03044886|169263606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.576
84753891|NCT03044886|169263607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.489
84753892|NCT03044886|169263608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
84753893|NCT03044886|169263608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.041
84753894|NCT03044886|169263609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.710
84753895|NCT03044886|169263610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.340
84753896|NCT03044886|169263611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
84753897|NCT03044886|169263611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.038
84753898|NCT03044886|169263612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.521
84753899|NCT03044886|169263613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.742
84753900|NCT03044886|169263614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||<0.05
84753901|NCT03044886|169263614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.073
84753902|NCT03044886|169263615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.348
84753903|NCT03044886|169263616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.685
84609424|NCT00752726|168970361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.023||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline liver fat and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.023|-0.069|0.3235
84753904|NCT03044886|169263617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.075
84753905|NCT03044886|169263617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.083
84753906|NCT00683163|169263703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in percent change from baseline (Concurrent - Sequential)||9.2|-11.5|0.82
84753907|NCT00088907|169263704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
84753908|NCT00088907|169263705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
84753909|NCT04050670|169263713|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|0.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.970|0.935|
84753910|NCT04050670|169263713|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.01|0.972|
84753911|NCT04050670|169263714|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.909|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.909|0.818|
84753912|NCT04050670|169263714|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|0.971|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.971|0.874|
84753913|NCT00525044|169263723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||ANOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Differences between the treatment groups with regard to the primary endpoint SPIDnorm was tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects.~Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.01|-0.12|0.0156
84753914|NCT00525044|169263724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0|-0.4|0.1280
84753915|NCT00525044|169263724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
84609425|NCT00752726|168970362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|783.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|726.54||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-657.3|2224.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total calories expended and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2224.9|-657.3|0.28
84609426|NCT00752726|168970363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.542||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.72||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean difference was adjusted for the treatment, baseline value and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as placebo minus orlistat.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the treatment groups.||4.72|-1.40|0.2847
84498206|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.932|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.932|0.562|<.0001
84644266|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.23|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage o|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||2.23|0.85|0.2800
84644267|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|6.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||6.08|2.24|0.0000
84644268|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||3.13|1.10|0.0507
84644269|NCT00420641|169024208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|4.88|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||4.88|1.81|0.0003
84498207|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.021|0.645|<.0001
84498208|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.268|-0.889|<.0001
84498209|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|-0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.321|-0.949|<.0001
84498210|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.231|-0.853|<.0001
84498211|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.301|-0.924|<.0001
84498212|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|-2.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.253|-2.959|<.0001
84498213|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|-2.366|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.366|-3.078|<.0001
84498214|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.177|-2.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.481|-3.177|<.0001
84498215|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.378|-2.669|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.669|-3.378|<.0001
84498216|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.811|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.811|<.0001
84609427|NCT02039856|168970372|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences using ordered logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights. We verified that proportional odds assumption was met.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.33|||difference-in-differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of WH-PACT achievement, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in the odds of achieving a higher WH-PACT element.||1.33|0.627|0.637
84753916|NCT00525044|169263724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
84753917|NCT00525044|169263724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
84753918|NCT00525044|169263725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.1280
84753919|NCT00525044|169263725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
84753920|NCT00525044|169263725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
84753921|NCT00525044|169263725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
84753922|NCT00525044|169263726|OTHER|||||||0.9939|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.9939
84753923|NCT00525044|169263726|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.5552
84753924|NCT00525044|169263727|OTHER|||||||0.0343|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0343
84753925|NCT00525044|169263727|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0119
84753926|NCT01817907|169263731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84609428|NCT02039856|168970373|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender sensitivity score between EBQI and control over time||0.57|0.10|0.006
84609429|NCT02039856|168970374|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.87|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in team functioning score between EBQI and control over time.||0.87|-0.01|0.055
84609430|NCT02039856|168970375|SUPERIORITY|We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1922||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is the predicted mean, adjusting for weights, worked in women's health vs general PC clinic, years worked at the VA, race/ethnicity, gender, full-time employment, and percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility.|||1.04|0.13|0.058
84609431|NCT02039856|168970376|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.36|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA primary care visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient primary care visits between EBQI and control over time||2.36|0.14|0.008
84609432|NCT02039856|168970377|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA women's health visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient visits to women's health care between EBQI and control over time||2.51|0.88|0.000
84609433|NCT02039856|168970378|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA hospitalization, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient hospitalization for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.12|-0.15|0.794
84609434|NCT02039856|168970379|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.306|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA emergency room visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of emergency room visits for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.306|-0.265|0.888
84609435|NCT00896441|168970388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||||||<0.01
84609436|NCT00896441|168970390|OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group t-test||||||<.006
84498217|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|2.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.379|1.701|<.0001
84498218|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|2.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.516|1.846|<.0001
84498219|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.725|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.400|1.725|<.0001
84498220|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.117||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.490|-0.256|0.9705
84498221|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.425|1.0000
84498222|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.263|-0.475|0.9835
84498223|NCT03692078|168747705|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.029|-0.725|0.0854
84498224|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.901|3.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.154|2.901|<.0001
84498225|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.927|3.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.141|2.927|<.0001
84644270|NCT00420641|169024209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||1.50|0.62|0.8782
84644271|NCT00420641|169024209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||3.86|1.56|0.0011
84609437|NCT01304589|168970391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84609438|NCT01304589|168970392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|paired T-test|"Subjects completed a tampon insertion pain test once a week. The values were averaged and compared pre-treatment versus post-treatment."||||||.003
84609439|NCT01304589|168970393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84609440|NCT01304589|168970394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84609441|NCT00602420|168970419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.24|0.10|0.037
84609442|NCT00602420|168970419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||||0.007
84609443|NCT00767806|168970435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain score after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.001
84609444|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P-value is for BPI severity of worst pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
84498226|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.483|2.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.722|2.483|<.0001
84498227|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.465|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.670|2.465|<.0001
84498228|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.595|2.838|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.838|2.595|<.0001
84498229|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.541|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.746|2.541|<.0001
84498230|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.386|1.083|<.0001
84498231|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.304|1.045|<.0001
84753927|NCT00785044|169263751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Analysis was performed using the null hypothesis for the AUC stated as: H0: θ ≤A versus H1: θ \>A, where the AUC (θ) value was: 'A' selected based on the diagnostic utility desired from the use of myocardial 123 I-mIBG uptake measured using H/M ratio. A smooth parametric model of the ROC curve was fitted to the data. The AUC for the resulting model was calculated and 95% confidence interval for the AUC was reported. The hypothesis was tested using the Z-statistics at 'A' at level of 0.70.|Mean|0.581|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|0.63||At 0.05 level of significance.|Z-statistic|||"Analysis was performed on all HF participants from both groups AdreView™ - HF Group (With No Adverse Cardiac Events) and AdreView™ - HF Group (With Adverse Cardiac Events) based on H/M ratio."||0.630|0.532|<0.001
84753928|NCT01086410|169263752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.12|0.87|
84753929|NCT01086410|169263752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.10|0.86|
84609445|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.14||P-value is for BPI severity of least pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of least pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.14|-0.85|0.006
84753930|NCT01086410|169263752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||0.41|0.28|
84753931|NCT04196803|169263774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||<0.05
84609446|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46||P-value is for BPI severity of pain right now - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of pain right now score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
84609447|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.35||P-value is for BPI interference with general activity - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with general activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.16|<0.001
84609448|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34||P-value is for BPI interference with mood score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with mood score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.34|-1.09|<0.001
84609449|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||P-value is for BPI interference with walking ability - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with walking ability score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.84|0.020
84672369|NCT00653224|169080302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.33|-0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
84753932|NCT04196803|169263775|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
84753933|NCT04196803|169263776|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
84753934|NCT04196803|169263777|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||=0.08
84753935|NCT01809132|169263801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||.30
84753936|NCT01809132|169263802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the observational subject was lost to follow-up||||.42
84753937|NCT01809132|169263803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
84498232|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.368|1.070|<.0001
84498233|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.306|1.046|<.0001
84498234|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.322|1.029|<.0001
84609450|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11||P-value is for BPI interference with normal work - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with normal work score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.11|-0.90|0.012
84753938|NCT01809132|169263804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
84498235|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.300|1.049|<.0001
84609451|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value is for BPI interference with relations to others - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with relations to others score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.22|-0.92|0.001
84609452|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.27||P-value is for BPI interference with sleep score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with sleep score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.27|-1.13|0.002
84609453|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18||P-value is for BPI interference with enjoyment of life score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with enjoyment of life score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.18|-0.96|0.005
84609454|NCT00767806|168970436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||P-value is for BPI average interference score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory average interference score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-0.92|<0.001
84609455|NCT00767806|168970437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.35||p-value is for weekly 24-hour average pain rating score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour average pain rating score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.05|<0.001
84609456|NCT00767806|168970437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||p-value is for weekly 24-hour worst pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
84609457|NCT00767806|168970437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||p-value is for weekly 24-hour night pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour night pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.87|0.004
84609458|NCT00767806|168970438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.108
84609459|NCT00767806|168970439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.006
84609460|NCT00767806|168970440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is difference between duloxetine and placebo in number of patients who achieve criteria described in null hypothesis|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity rating from baseline to endpoint and baseline to earlier visit than last visit and maintains a \>=20% reduction of BPI average pain rating from baseline at every visit.||||0.082
84609461|NCT00767806|168970441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical overall cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction|Kolnogorov-Smirnov test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction.||||0.013
84753939|NCT01756040|169263820|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intestinal permeability as measured by urinary lactulose/rhamnose ratio would be higher in the lower gestational age (\<29 weeks) compared to the more mature infants (≥29 weeks gestation) at postnatal age 7-10 days.||||0.932
84753940|NCT01756040|169263821|OTHER|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that stool A1AT would be higher in infants with high IP as measured by urinary La/Rh compared to those with low IP.||||0.316
84609462|NCT00767806|168970442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score after 12 weeks of treatment.||0.02|-0.33|0.077
84609463|NCT00767806|168970443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: PGI-I=Treatment+Investigator+Baseline(Type III sums of squares). PGI-Severity score from baseline visit was used as the baseline.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.56|0.011
84753941|NCT01756040|169263822|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The significance value was estimated using Bayesian goodness-of-fit p-value to assess the significance of the association of the relative abundance of Clostridiales and IP categories. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Bayesian goodness of fit|||||||0.011
84753942|NCT01756040|169263823|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh ratio ≤0.05) would have been fed breastmilk for longer duration than infants with impaired barrier function (La/Rh\>0.05).||||0.0023
84609464|NCT00767806|168970444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.34|-1.28|0.255
84672370|NCT00653224|169080303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.11||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.11|-0.32|<0.001
84505219|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.89|1.17|0.0011
84609465|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.38|<0.001
84609466|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|-0.90|0.133
84753943|NCT01756040|169263824|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84753944|NCT01756040|169263825|OTHER|||||||0.461||||||A priori threshold \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.461
84609467|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.46|<0.001
84609468|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||1.88|0.38|0.003
84609469|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.43|-0.93|0.469
84609470|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.17||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.98|0.006
84609471|NCT00767806|168970445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|-1.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-1.60|-6.41|0.001
84609472|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.02|-0.53|0.168
84609473|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.96||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.96|0.53|0.010
84609474|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.58||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.3||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||8.30|0.86|0.016
84609475|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|2.15|<0.001
84498236|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.181|-0.669|<.0001
84609476|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.67||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||5.67|-0.50|0.101
84609477|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|7.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.12|-0.12|0.058
84753945|NCT01756040|169263826|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with impaired barrier function as measured by high urinary La/Rh (\>0.05) ratio at 7-10 days of age would require longer time to reach full enteral feedings than infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh≤0.05)||||0.019
84753946|NCT02022085|169263846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 6 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84576500|NCT00177671|168904972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.41|||Log Rank|||We followed the intention to treat principle. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to quantify the percentage of participants who were free of depression recurrence over time. Cox proportional hazard models quantified hazard ratios comparing the 2 treatment groups.||4.41|1.00|.05
84576501|NCT02293499|168904974|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.043
84576502|NCT02293499|168904974|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
84576503|NCT02293499|168904974|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.4119||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on quality of life||||.0079
84576504|NCT02293499|168904974|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.1132||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of ACQ Total score subscale on quality of life||||.0172
84576505|NCT02293499|168904975|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||0.295
84609478|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.37|-1.52|0.227
84609479|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.21||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.21|-2.39|0.383
84609480|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|0.38|0.030
84609481|NCT00767806|168970446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.60|0.59|0.022
84609482|NCT00767806|168970447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|0.03|<0.001
84576506|NCT02293499|168904975|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
84609483|NCT00767806|168970447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.08|0.02|0.002
84753947|NCT02022085|169263846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 12 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84753948|NCT02022085|169263846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 24 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84576507|NCT02293499|168904976|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.140
84576508|NCT02293499|168904976|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
84576509|NCT02293499|168904977|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.268
84576510|NCT02293499|168904977|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.14
84576511|NCT02293499|168904978|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.238
84576512|NCT02293499|168904978|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.43
84576513|NCT02293499|168904978|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.203||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.024
84576514|NCT02293499|168904979|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.484
84576515|NCT02293499|168904979|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
84576516|NCT02293499|168904980|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.648
84576517|NCT02293499|168904980|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.04
84609484|NCT00767806|168970448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.06|-0.03|0.461
84609485|NCT00767806|168970448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.03|-0.09|0.374
84576518|NCT02293499|168904981|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.020
84576519|NCT02293499|168904981|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.23
84753949|NCT02022085|169263847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 24 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
84576520|NCT02293499|168904982|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.049
84576521|NCT02293499|168904982|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
84576522|NCT02293499|168904982|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.294||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
84576523|NCT02293499|168904982|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|-2.3505||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on ACQ total||||.0093
84576524|NCT05370326|168905002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|5.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.46|-3.67|0.69
84576525|NCT05370326|168905007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.89|0.67
84576526|NCT05370326|168905008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.34|-1.16|0.50
84576527|NCT05370326|168905009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-1.09|0.74
84576528|NCT05370326|168905011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84576529|NCT05370326|168905012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84576530|NCT01991314|168905020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We calculated, on the premise that there is non-inferiority between adolescent and adult groups in the difference in increase of mean haemoglobin levels of 0.35g/dL, with estimated standard deviation 0.7g/dL following treatment, that 45 patients in each group would be required, derived using power 80% power, 1-sided significance level 0.05 and R 0.5 for the covariate; this calculation took into account planned ANCOVA methodology and 20% patients who might be lost to follow up or withdraw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||To test the hypothesis of non-inferiority with maximal statistical power, ANCOVA (one-tailed P\<0.05) was employed to compare the change in mean haemoglobin levels between adults and adolescents after accounting for necessary covariates|ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84576531|NCT01991314|168905021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions (expressed as percentages) of total number of participants in each group who were iron intolerant||Chi squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.||||<0.05
84576532|NCT01991314|168905022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unpaired Students t test||||0.96
84576533|NCT01991314|168905023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||0.49
84576534|NCT01991314|168905024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.85
84576535|NCT01991314|168905025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.69
84576536|NCT01991314|168905026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||<0.0001
84576537|NCT01035788|168905045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p value was obtained from the contrast of the linear mixed model||We sought to obtain a sample size of 18 per group to provide 80% power to detect a .97 standard deviation difference in mean change in CAPS between MB-CBCT and the CBCT-Communication Skills at treatment end based on a two-tailed t-test at 5% significance. Linear mixed models with repeated measures were performed to address the primary hypotheses that MB-CBCT would result in a greater improvement for Veterans and their partners than CBCT-Communication Skills at the end of treatment.||13.2|-1.39|.849
84576538|NCT00884065|168905065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.49|-9.93|>0.05
84753950|NCT02022085|169263848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 12 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
84753951|NCT02022085|169263849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 6 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
84576539|NCT00884065|168905066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.01||95.0|5.72|17.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.08|5.72|<0.01
84576540|NCT00884065|168905067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|2.03|<0.01
84576541|NCT00884065|168905068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-1.53|>0.05
84576542|NCT00884065|168905069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|-3.81|>0.05
84576543|NCT00884065|168905070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.09|0.08|<0.01
84576544|NCT01970371|168905090|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|51.2|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||51.2|-0.7|
84576545|NCT01970371|168905091|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|52.5|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||52.5|0.7|
84576546|NCT01970371|168905092|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in clinical cure percentage at the TOC visit between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.9|26.8|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||26.8|-26.9|
84576547|NCT01970371|168905093|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the unadjusted hazard ratio between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin:plazomicin) is based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|14.61|||1-sided logrank test|||||14.61|1.08|
84576548|NCT01970371|168905094|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|40.3|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||40.3|-13|
84576549|NCT04132050|168905143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent of Participants|36.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|59.3|||Fisher Exact||"The difference in the achievement rate of Stable platelet response (= platelet count of ≥ 50000/μL at 4 or more of the 6 visits from Weeks 14 to 24) between two groups and its two-sided 95% CI were calculated."|||59.3|3.1|0.030
84576550|NCT05965427|168905145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
84576551|NCT05965427|168905146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis of Any of the specified clinical complications measure"||||0.005
84576552|NCT05965427|168905147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84576553|NCT05965427|168905149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to not presenting with skin lesions measure"||||0.002
84576554|NCT05965427|168905153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug treatment for mpox measure"||||0.114
84576555|NCT05965427|168905154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug for complications measure"||||<0.001
84576556|NCT05965427|168905155|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis relates to lesion onset measure"|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84609486|NCT00767806|168970448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.05|-0.09|0.557
84609487|NCT00767806|168970448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.02|-0.10|0.007
84609488|NCT00767806|168970450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in uric acid - change|ANOVA|Change Variable = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares). Rank-transformed change was used as change variable in the ANOVA model.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of uric acid during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.010
84576557|NCT00927472|168905173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0386
84576558|NCT00927472|168905174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3675
84576559|NCT00927472|168905175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0490
84576560|NCT00927472|168905176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84576561|NCT00927472|168905177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84576562|NCT00927472|168905178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
84576563|NCT00927472|168905179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3817
84576564|NCT00927472|168905180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1059
84576565|NCT00927472|168905181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1088
84576566|NCT00927472|168905182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1527
84609489|NCT00767806|168970451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in albumin - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Albumin during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.031
84609490|NCT00767806|168970452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alkaline phosphatase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of alkaline phosphatase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.004
84576567|NCT05317546|168905236|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.33||||||alpha \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||An a priori power analysis was conducted to ensure power to detect differences in neurometabolite levels in the dACC. Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.33
84576568|NCT05317546|168905237|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.75||||||alpha \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.75
84576569|NCT05317546|168905238|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Several studies have demonstrated that CBD can modulate resting-state or task-based BOLD signal under similar study design (acute dosing, 600 mg CBD) with sample sizes smaller than our sample. Due to the modeling, only participants with usable data from both medication allocation visits were included. Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages.||||>0.05
84609491|NCT00767806|168970453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alanine aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Alanine Aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.013
84609492|NCT00767806|168970454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||p-value for difference between duloxetine and placebo in aspartate aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of aspartate aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.039
84609493|NCT00767806|168970455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in creatinine - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of creatinine during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.024
84609494|NCT00767806|168970456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in total protein - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of total protein during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.019
84609495|NCT00767806|168970457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.329
84609496|NCT00767806|168970457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.562
84609497|NCT00767806|168970459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in pulse rate - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of pulse rate during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.680
84609498|NCT01815840|168970461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.7|||||Asymptotic confidence intervals are presented for the difference between treatment arms.|The mean difference in the mean relative reduction between treatment arms, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, was estimated by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect and the following covariates: number of basal cell carcinomas at baseline, geographical region, immunosuppression status, confirmed basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome.||5.7|-22.2|
84753952|NCT02022085|169263850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 6 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84753953|NCT02022085|169263850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 12 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84576570|NCT05317546|168905239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.82
84576571|NCT05317546|168905240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.21
84609499|NCT00568126|168970473|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|25.2||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||25.2|0.18|0.55
84753954|NCT02022085|169263850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 24 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
84609500|NCT00568126|168970474|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.34||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||7.34|0.40|0.47
84609501|NCT03002311|168970495|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a conditional power analysis 120 days after 6 months of enrollment. We determined the effect size based on the difference of proportions of follow-up attendance in the intervention and control arms. We used the effect size of 20% to estimate the sample size needed for a two-sided alpha of 0.05 at 90% power and a 1:1 ratio to require 266 participants. Loss to follow-up was estimated to be 20%, increasing target enrollment to 334 total participants.|||||<|0.001|||||||Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence function.||||||<0.001
84753955|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
84753956|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
84753957|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
84753958|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
84753959|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
84609502|NCT03002311|168970496|SUPERIORITY|This was a secondary analysis so no power analysis was done.||||||0.8||||||We used a two-sided alpha of 0.05 to determine significance.|Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence functions.||||||0.8
84609503|NCT04676867|168970544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
84753960|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
84576572|NCT01063114|168905246|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|37.0||||||||37|16|
84576573|NCT01063114|168905246|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|38.0||||||||38|17|
84576574|NCT01063114|168905247|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|57.0||||||||57|34|
84576575|NCT01063114|168905247|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|77.0||||||||77|54|
84576576|NCT01063114|168905248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.01024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||-2.9|-19.2|0.01024
84576577|NCT01063114|168905249|OTHER||3-Year Survival Probability|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|91.3||||||||91.3|75.8|
84576578|NCT01063114|168905249|OTHER||5-Year Survival Probability|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.5||||||||88.5|71.7|
84576579|NCT04635423|168905260|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|89.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|98.2||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||98.2|55.4|<0.001
84576580|NCT04635423|168905261|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|45.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||45.5|34.5|
84576581|NCT04635423|168905262|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||5.2|-4.4|
84576582|NCT04635423|168905265|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|63.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|86.0||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||86.0|2.7|0.023
84576583|NCT01147458|168905328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
84576584|NCT01147458|168905328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
84576585|NCT01147458|168905329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
84576586|NCT01147458|168905329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
84609504|NCT04676867|168970545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
84609505|NCT04676867|168970546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
84609506|NCT04676867|168970547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
84609507|NCT04676867|168970548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
84609508|NCT04676867|168970549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
84609509|NCT04676867|168970550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
84609510|NCT04676867|168970551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
84609511|NCT04676867|168970552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84609512|NCT04676867|168970553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
84753961|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
84576587|NCT01147458|168905330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.29|-0.15|
84576588|NCT01147458|168905330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.35|-0.09|
84576589|NCT01147458|168905331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.239|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.85|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||2.85|-0.34|
84609513|NCT04676867|168970554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
84609514|NCT04676867|168970556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
84609515|NCT04676867|168970557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
84609516|NCT00997620|168970570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was of t testing of the difference of the mean between the baseline and after two weeks. The power analysis was prior to data collection was not performed for this test. The null hypothesis is no different, no difference between placebo and active treatment.||||< .05
84753962|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
84753963|NCT02022085|169263851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
84498237|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.256|-0.677|<.0001
84498238|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.311||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.066|-0.556|0.0052
84498239|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.182|-0.600|<.0001
84498240|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.516|-2.070|<.0001
84498241|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.098|<.0001
84498242|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.535|-2.082|<.0001
84576590|NCT01147458|168905331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.95|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.28|-1.95|
84576591|NCT01147458|168905332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|4.25|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||4.25|-0.13|
84609517|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||60.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.85|60.66
84609518|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||95.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|0.97|95.21
84753964|NCT02022085|169263852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.38
84576592|NCT01147458|168905332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|1.88|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.88|-2.53|
84753965|NCT02022085|169263852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.84
84576593|NCT01147458|168905333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|1.58|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.58|-0.03|
84576594|NCT01147458|168905333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.65|-0.97|
84576595|NCT01147458|168905334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.20|-0.18|
84576596|NCT01147458|168905334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.07|
84576597|NCT01147458|168905335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.12|
84576598|NCT01147458|168905335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.11|
84576599|NCT01017250|168905352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.04
84576600|NCT01017250|168905353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
84576601|NCT01017250|168905354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.02
84576602|NCT01017250|168905355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.0005
84576603|NCT01017250|168905356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.53
84576604|NCT01017250|168905357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
84576605|NCT01017250|168905358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.76
84576606|NCT01017250|168905359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.34
84576607|NCT06717399|168905369|OTHER|The number of participants (n=15) was calculated using an effect size of 0.89. This effect size was based on a randomized clinical trial utilizing a structured mindfulness meditation program on moderate sleep disturbances in older adults (Black et al. 2015). A power of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05 was utilized to calculate the sample size, a minimum of 12 participants is required to demonstrate significance in this study. To account for 20% attrition total participants needed is 15.||||||0.00058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~● There will not be a change in sleep quality after participation in eight mindfulness meditation sessions as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index."||||0.00058
84576608|NCT06717399|168905370|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84576609|NCT01121926|168905388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax,ss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.99|63.94|||||Test/reference (%)|||63.94|49.99|
84576610|NCT01121926|168905389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|85.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|90.67|||||Test/reference (%)|||90.67|81.05|
84576611|NCT01149785|168905438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|316.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.17|349.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||349.73|286.17|
84576612|NCT01149785|168905439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|328.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|296.42|363.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||363.63|296.42|
84576613|NCT01149785|168905442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|144.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.42|164.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||164.33|126.42|
84576614|NCT01149785|168905445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|519.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|460.42|586.5||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||586.50|460.42|
84753966|NCT02022085|169263852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.89
84498243|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.858|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.096|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.096|<.0001
84505220|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.12||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.41|0.89|0.3249
84576615|NCT01149785|168905446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|516.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|457.88|583.72||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||583.72|457.88|
84576616|NCT01149785|168905448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|161.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.09|182.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||182.09|143.09|
84576617|NCT01201863|168905452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.07816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3315||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||comparison of slopes|Slopes by group and slope difference||To investigate a difference in change in outcome over time between treatment and control, a trend analysis was used in place of a profile analysis, where both control and treatment arms are described more parsimoniously i.e. by a slope (change in outcome over time) (Fitzmaurice 2011).||||0.9540
84576618|NCT00817063|168905459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
84576619|NCT00817063|168905459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|31.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||31.7|18.0|<0.001
84576620|NCT00817063|168905460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-17.85|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.85|-30.40|<0.001
84576621|NCT00817063|168905461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||6.07|2.71|<0.001
84576622|NCT00817063|168905461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|32.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.3|18.7|<0.001
84576623|NCT00817063|168905462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-13.73|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-13.73|-31.00|<0.001
84576624|NCT00817063|168905463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
84576625|NCT00817063|168905464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.068
84576626|NCT00817063|168905465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84576627|NCT00817063|168905474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|1.204||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD||1.204|-0.226|0.179
84576628|NCT00817063|168905474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|1.071||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Femur BMD||1.071|-0.077|0.089
84576629|NCT01496456|168905478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for baseline lesion size and for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.002
84576630|NCT01496456|168905479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.045
84576631|NCT01496456|168905480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Discreet Time Survival Analysis|Controlled for correlation among tooth pairs (GEE model).||||||0.0077
84576632|NCT04919161|168905481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due sample size differences and pairwise nature of the data, a Kruskal-Wallis was conducted.||Null hypothesis for this analysis is that there will be no differences between pre-scores and post-scores across the different treatment arms. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
84576633|NCT04919161|168905481|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0025
84576634|NCT04919161|168905481|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0001
84576635|NCT04919161|168905481|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
84753967|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.34
84576636|NCT04919161|168905481|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison would be that there would be no significant difference between post-scores of the two treatment groups.||||>0.9999
84576637|NCT04919161|168905482|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: ScoreChange=(PostTest) - (PreTest). These changes in score were then compared.|||||=|0.3045||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.3045
84576638|NCT04919161|168905483|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: PercentScoreChange = (\[(PostTest)-(PreTest)\]/\[PreTest\]) x 100%|||||=|3152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Two-Tailed Welch t test|Due to unequal standard deviation, a two-tailed Welch's t test was used.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=3152
84576639|NCT04919161|168905484|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9568||||||Prior to analysis, the score change between post assessment and pre-assessment was calculated. The threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|An unpaired T-test was used. Normality and F-test for Variances were conducted and found to be normal.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.9568
84576640|NCT04919161|168905485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the pairwise nature and abnormal distribution of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null Hypothesis, there would be no difference between the pre-score and post-score of each treatment group. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
84576641|NCT04919161|168905485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
84609519|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||74.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.88|74.29
84609520|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||99.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|1.06|99.48
84609521|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||13.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.66|13.98
84609522|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.28||||97.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|1.01|97.92
84609523|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||80.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.84|80.24
84645228|NCT02081248|169026057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the main goal of the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the main goal of the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.73
84645229|NCT02081248|169026057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find who to contact for questions between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find who to contact for questions was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
84576642|NCT04919161|168905485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
84576643|NCT04919161|168905485|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
84576644|NCT04919161|168905485|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
84576645|NCT04919161|168905486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to missing measurements and the pairwise nature of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
84576646|NCT04919161|168905486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
84576647|NCT04919161|168905486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
84576648|NCT04919161|168905486|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
84576649|NCT04919161|168905486|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
84576650|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the missing measurement and the pairwise nature of the perturbation levels between participants, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, normality testing was conducted using a Shapiro-Wild test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
84576651|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Reported p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established as p\<0.05.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for any comparisons would be that there is no significant mean perturbation level between sessions.|The p-value reported above was the result for 15 comparisons of the recorded perturbation levels in sessions: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4, 3 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, 4 vs 6, 4 vs 7, 4 vs 8, 5 vs 6, 5 vs 7, 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7, 6 vs 8, and 7 vs 8.|||>0.9999
84576652|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0629|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0629
84576653|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0069
84576654|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0003
84576655|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
84576656|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
84576657|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
84576658|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6497|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.6497
84576659|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0743|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0743
84576660|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0198|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0198
84576661|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0017
84576662|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0006
84576663|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5297|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.5297
84576664|NCT04919161|168905487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2595|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.2595
84576665|NCT04919161|168905488|OTHER|This is a descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4671|15.3||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males and females between treatment arms.||15.300|0.4671|=0.3898
84576666|NCT02489773|168905489|OTHER|Calculate the pearson correlation within whole subjects (across Group 1 and Group 2)|pearson correlation coefficient|0.6342|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84576667|NCT02489773|168905489|OTHER|Diffenrence between Pearson correlations within whole subjects (accross Group 1 and Group 2) and PG, 0.8.|Difference with PG 0.8|-0.1658|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2204|-0.1113|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1113|-0.2204|>0.9999
84576668|NCT02489773|168905490|OTHER|The difference in Spearman correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficients|0.249|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.364|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.364|0.130|<0.0001
84576669|NCT02489773|168905491|OTHER|The difference in Kendall correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficient|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.265|0.096|<0.0001
84576670|NCT02903914|168905601|OTHER|||||||0.0731|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0731
84576671|NCT02903914|168905601|OTHER||pairwise geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.11||||||||1.110|0.784|
84576672|NCT02903914|168905601|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.271||||||||1.271|0.908|
84576673|NCT02903914|168905601|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.034|1.463||||||||1.463|1.034|
84753968|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0004
84753969|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
84505221|NCT01360632|168761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|1.06|0.0122
84576674|NCT02903914|168905602|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1496
84576675|NCT02903914|168905603|OTHER|||||||0.2867|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2867
84576676|NCT02903914|168905603|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.23||||||||1.230|0.825|
84576677|NCT02903914|168905603|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.311||||||||1.311|0.892|
84576678|NCT02903914|168905603|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.507||||||||1.507|1.011|
84576679|NCT02903914|168905604|OTHER|||||||0.6167|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6167
84576680|NCT02903914|168905604|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.255||||||||1.255|0.820|
84576681|NCT02903914|168905604|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.281||||||||1.281|0.849|
84576682|NCT02903914|168905604|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.447||||||||1.447|0.945|
84576683|NCT02903914|168905608|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0745
84576684|NCT02903914|168905608|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.341||||||||1.341|0.947|
84576685|NCT02903914|168905608|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.18||||||||1.180|0.833|
84576686|NCT02903914|168905608|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.064|1.486||||||||1.486|1.064|
84576687|NCT02903914|168905609|OTHER|||||||0.0518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0518
84576688|NCT02903914|168905610|OTHER|||||||0.1723|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1723
84576689|NCT02903914|168905610|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.42||||||||1.420|0.941|
84576690|NCT02903914|168905610|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.198||||||||1.198|0.794|
84576691|NCT02903914|168905610|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.503||||||||1.503|1.012|
84576692|NCT02903914|168905611|OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1705
84753970|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.64
84576693|NCT02903914|168905611|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.359||||||||1.359|0.863|
84576694|NCT02903914|168905611|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|1.132||||||||1.132|0.719|
84576695|NCT02903914|168905611|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.554||||||||1.554|0.945|
84576696|NCT02903914|168905615|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.057||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.483|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.483|0.753|0.7702
84576697|NCT02903914|168905615|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.012||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.346|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.346|0.762|0.9384
84576698|NCT02903914|168905615|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.07||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.809|1.415|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.415|0.809|0.6733
84576699|NCT02903914|168905615|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.238||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.847|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.847|0.830|0.3456
84576700|NCT02903914|168905616|OTHER|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.0441
84753971|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.039
84576701|NCT02903914|168905616|OTHER|||||||0.4092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.4092
84576702|NCT02903914|168905616|OTHER|||||||0.7748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.7748
84753972|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.012
84753973|NCT02022085|169263853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||<0.0001
84576703|NCT02903914|168905616|OTHER|||||||0.1948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.1948
84576704|NCT02903914|168905617|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.92||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.363|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.363|0.620|0.7050
84576705|NCT02903914|168905617|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.929||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.31|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.310|0.658|0.7030
84576706|NCT02903914|168905617|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.999||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.377|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.377|0.725|0.9952
84576707|NCT02903914|168905617|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.742||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.394|1.397|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.397|0.394|0.4012
84576708|NCT02903914|168905618|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.992||||0.9623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.349|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.349|0.729|0.9623
84576709|NCT02903914|168905619|OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||||0.7540
84576710|NCT02903914|168905620|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.951||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.261|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.261|0.718|0.7514
84753974|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.11
84576711|NCT02903914|168905621|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.954||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|1.277|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.277|0.712|0.7707
84576712|NCT02320175|168905648|OTHER|We compared percent top-box experience ratings pre- vs. post-intervention using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response for the given survey item (e.g., 5=Extremely; 5=Excellent). Missing data was accounted for through use of multiple imputations appropriate for missing data in clustered studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes|||||||<.05
84576713|NCT00975923|168905651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||infection rates per device days|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||p-value and confidence intervals|Regression, Linear|||Infection rates were analyzed using hierarchical negative binomial regression models to model infection rate changes over time and account for clustering of ICUs within hospitals and adjusting for baseline covariates. Power was calculated a priori with a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and group size of 30; a 50% decrease in infection rates in the Collaborative group and 15% for the Tool Kit group, yielding power ranging from 82% to 91% for testing group differences.||3.0|1.0|<.05
84576714|NCT00975923|168905652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentages|10.0|||<|5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||Power calculation used alpha = .05 and group size = 30.The estimated effect was a 50% decrease in infection rates for the Collaborative Group and from 10% to 15% decrease in the Tool Kit group.Power ranged from 82%-91% for testing group differences.|It was hypothesized that the Collaborative group would engage in more processes and tools than the Tool Kit group. Power was based on infection rates.||||<05
84576715|NCT00088153|168905653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||After controlling for baseline age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|We also used a mixed model analysis of variance (PROC MIXED), to analyze longitudinal data.||Power analysis: We have previously demonstrated that normal female adolescents gain bone density at the rate of 0.039 +/- 0.0507 per year. The pooled SD in that study was 0.046. Based on these data, with a sample size of 110 girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), half of whom are randomized to receive estrogen and half placebo (with a 10% drop-out rate), there will be an 80% chance that we will detect an increase in bone density to 75% of normal in the girls who receive estrogen.||||<0.05
84498244|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.688|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.688|1.166|<.0001
84576716|NCT00088153|168905654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups for changes in P1NP levels over time||||>0.05
84576717|NCT00088153|168905655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p value was adjusted for age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ for changes in spine bone density z-scores over the study duration||||<0.05
84576718|NCT00373672|168905656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model with time (baseline, 6 weeks) as the within-subjects factor and treatment group (armodafinil, placebo) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.016
84576719|NCT00143507|168905793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.10|0.91|0.945
84576720|NCT00143507|168905794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.22|0.94|0.316
84576721|NCT00143507|168905795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.72|0.159
84576722|NCT00143507|168905796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.86|0.850
84753975|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.066
84576723|NCT00143507|168905797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.16|0.92|0.547
84576724|NCT00143507|168905798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.12|0.71|0.331
84576725|NCT00143507|168905799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.02|0.67|0.078
84753976|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.71
84753977|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.78
84753978|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.015
84498245|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.393|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.620|1.166|<.0001
84498246|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|1.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.803|1.278|<.0001
84498247|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.695|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.695|1.243|<.0001
84498248|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.351|-0.233|0.9987
84498249|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.253|1.0000
84576726|NCT00143507|168905800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.40|0.83|0.583
84576727|NCT00143507|168905801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.11|0.81|0.501
84576728|NCT00143507|168905802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.04|0.78|0.141
84576729|NCT00143507|168905803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.86|0.411
84753979|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.035
84576730|NCT00143507|168905804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.15|0.94|0.484
84576731|NCT00143507|168905805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.90|0.835
84576732|NCT00876395|168905806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.73|0.1166
84576733|NCT00876395|168905807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.0049
84576734|NCT00876395|168905810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7276|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.7276
84753980|NCT02022085|169263854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0013
84576735|NCT00876395|168905811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.4085
84576736|NCT00876395|168905812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9573|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.9573
84576737|NCT00876395|168905813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6382|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.6382
84753981|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
84576738|NCT00970944|168905824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We will have 80% power to detect a one point difference in DRS score between the groups across the four week treatment window. With this sample size, we will be able to detect any unforeseen adverse events that have a prevalence of at least 2.5% in each group with 90% probability. With 92 patients per group we will be able to estimate the rate of adverse events to within ±10%.||||0.045
84576739|NCT00970944|168905825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.007||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||The final analysis used a significance level of 0.045.|Mixed Models Analysis|Final analysis adjusted for early v. late enrollment relative to date of injury, baseline CRS-R rating category (MCS vs. VS), and site.||The planned sample size of 184 patients provided 80% power to detect a difference between the AH and placebo in the rate of Disability Rating Scale (DRS) score change of 0.3 points/week (1.22 DRS point mean difference by the end of the 4-week treatment interval). Two blinded interim analyses were conducted at 60 and 120 patients recruited using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary, with alpha levels of 0.0005 and 0.014. The final analysis used an alpha level of 0.045.||-0.07|-0.41|0.007
84609524|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.3||||97.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|1.01|97.79
84609525|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.81|51.27
84753982|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.26
84576740|NCT03915067|168905832|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|80.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|51.5|<0.0001
84576741|NCT03915067|168905832|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|88.9||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||88.9|63.6|<0.0001
84576742|NCT03915067|168905855|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|73.5||P-value was derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.5|42.3|<0.0001
84576743|NCT03915067|168905855|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|84.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.1|56.4|<0.0001
84576744|NCT02034591|168905861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|0.748||||||||0.748|0.621|
84576745|NCT02034591|168905862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.863||||||||0.863|0.766|
84576746|NCT02034591|168905863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|0.86||||||||0.860|0.764|
84576747|NCT02034591|168905864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.942||||||||0.942|0.830|
84576748|NCT02034591|168905865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.997||||||||0.997|0.905|
84576749|NCT02034591|168905866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|0.994||||||||0.994|0.903|
84576750|NCT00712920|168905880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03||95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.10|-1.70|0.03
84576751|NCT00712920|168905880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08||95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.1|-1.5|0.08
84609526|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||90.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.93|90.66
84753983|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
84576752|NCT00712920|168905881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6419|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3924||0.102||95.0|-1.41|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.13|-1.41|0.102
84576753|NCT00712920|168905881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3935||0.044||95.0|-1.56|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.02|-1.56|0.044
84576754|NCT00712920|168905882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4394|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3631||0.226||95.0|-1.15|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||0.27|-1.15|0.226
84576755|NCT00712920|168905882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1252|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3649||0.002||95.0|-1.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||-0.41|-1.84|0.002
84576756|NCT00712920|168905883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.292
84576757|NCT00712920|168905883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.040
84576758|NCT04556097|168905961|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a negative binomial distribution and log link that provides rate ratio estimate of the relative difference.|The rate ratio is estimated for intervention patients as compared to controls.|||1.20|0.31|0.05
84609527|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|54.89
84753984|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.57
84505222|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.49|0.60|0.5836
84576759|NCT04556097|168905962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.12|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a Gaussian distribution and identity link that provides linear estimate of the relative point difference.||||1.12|-6.53|0.05
84576760|NCT03409367|168905963|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, log-binomial||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio is equal to 1.||0.97|0.73|0.019
84576761|NCT03409367|168905964|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of parent-reported AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.90|0.65|0.002
84576762|NCT03409367|168905965|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by modified UK Working Party criteria does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.15|0.65|0.323
84576763|NCT03409367|168905966|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by CEQ does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.99|0.70|0.044
84753985|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
84753986|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
84753987|NCT02022085|169263855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
84753988|NCT02022085|169263856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.46
84753989|NCT02022085|169263856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.19
84753990|NCT02022085|169263856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.31
84753991|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.43
84753992|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.16
84753993|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.65
84753994|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.93
84753995|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.094
84753996|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.44
84753997|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.021
84753998|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.024
84753999|NCT02022085|169263857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.59
84754000|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
84754001|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Vision||||0.88
84754002|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Hearing||||0.020
84754003|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Speech||||0.039
84754004|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
84576764|NCT03409367|168905967|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD with prescription or OTC therapies in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.84|0.55|0.0004
84576765|NCT03409367|168905968|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of recommended treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 199 missing outcomes.|Regression, proportional odds|||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.89|0.55|0.004
84576766|NCT03409367|168905969|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.93|0.56|0.013
84576767|NCT03409367|168905970|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of skin infections in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||1.17|0.73|0.509
84576768|NCT03409367|168905971|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of asthma in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.50|0.900
84576769|NCT03409367|168905972|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|The daily emollient is in the numerator and the natural skin is in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.21|0.98|0.064
84576770|NCT03409367|168905973|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily emollient in the numerator and natural skin in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.30|1.14|0.007
84576771|NCT03409367|168905974|EQUIVALENCE|The ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily moisturizer is the numerator and natural skin is the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.97|0.070
84576772|NCT03409367|168905975|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.91|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.||1.91|0.96|0.085
84576773|NCT03409367|168905976|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of immediate food allergy reactions does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.03|0.55|0.079
84576774|NCT03409367|168905977|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of food allergies does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.66|0.45|0.669
84576775|NCT03409367|168905978|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.95|0.62|0.013
84609528|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.45
84754005|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Dexterity||||0.38
84576776|NCT03409367|168905979|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.94|0.67|0.009
84576777|NCT03409367|168905980|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 121 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.94|0.63|0.012
84576778|NCT03409367|168905981|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 78 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.10|0.73|0.303
84576779|NCT03824158|168906003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
84576780|NCT03824158|168906004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.76
84576781|NCT03824158|168906005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84576782|NCT03824158|168906006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84672371|NCT00653224|169080304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.008||95.0|-0.3|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.30|0.008
84576783|NCT03824158|168906007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Advance directive or living will||||0.002
84576784|NCT03824158|168906007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||POLST||||0.02
84576785|NCT03824158|168906007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Code Status||||0.78
84576786|NCT03824158|168906007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||Goals of Care discussion||||0.61
84576787|NCT03824158|168906008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84576788|NCT03824158|168906009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84576789|NCT02141113|168906034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These changed scores show the total change in ADHD symptoms over the course of the trial. Higher values indiicate improved functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.779
84576790|NCT02141113|168906035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||ANOVA|||||||.834
84576791|NCT02141113|168906036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.705
84576792|NCT02141113|168906037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.322
84576793|NCT02141113|168906038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
84576794|NCT02141113|168906039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
84576795|NCT02266576|168906062|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs month 6||||0.04
84576796|NCT02266576|168906062|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12||||0.02
84576797|NCT02266576|168906063|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 6 in physical component score||||0.004
84576798|NCT02266576|168906063|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12 in physical component score||||0.01
84576799|NCT00879359|168906093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||||99|64|
84576800|NCT01001104|168906121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84576801|NCT01001104|168906121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576802|NCT01001104|168906121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576803|NCT01001104|168906121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576804|NCT01001104|168906122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
84576805|NCT01001104|168906122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84576806|NCT01001104|168906122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84576807|NCT01001104|168906122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84576808|NCT01001104|168906123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
84576809|NCT01001104|168906123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.358
84576810|NCT01001104|168906123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84576811|NCT01001104|168906123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84576812|NCT01001104|168906124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576813|NCT01001104|168906124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84576814|NCT01001104|168906124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.54||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84576815|NCT01001104|168906124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.48|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84754006|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Emotion||||0.43
84576816|NCT01001104|168906125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576817|NCT01001104|168906125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576818|NCT01001104|168906125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.63|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576819|NCT01001104|168906125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.49|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576820|NCT01001104|168906126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.987
84576821|NCT01001104|168906126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84576822|NCT01001104|168906126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45||||0.311||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.311
84576823|NCT01001104|168906126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.556||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.556
84576824|NCT01001104|168906127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||This is the p-value from the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
84576825|NCT01001104|168906127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.91||||0.917||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.917
84576826|NCT01001104|168906127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.81||||0.264||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
84576827|NCT01001104|168906127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4||||0.346||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
84576828|NCT01001104|168906128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576829|NCT01001104|168906128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.1||||0.036||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
84576830|NCT01001104|168906128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.73||||0.002||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84576831|NCT01001104|168906128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84576832|NCT01001104|168906130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test (dose-effect).|Cochran-Armitage|||||||0.073
84576833|NCT01001104|168906130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84576834|NCT01001104|168906130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
84576835|NCT03439514|168906131|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.936||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.246|34.118||Two-sided p-value|Van Elteren test||The Week 24 change from baseline in 6MWT between PF 07265803 and placebo was estimated using the stratified HL median difference, considering only participants who survived 24 weeks.|||34.118|-24.246|0.818
84576836|NCT03439514|168906137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.13|0.2257
84576837|NCT03439514|168906138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.63|||Log Rank|||||4.63|0.30|0.8370
84576838|NCT02175758|168906144|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.96|152.48||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||152.48|109.96|
84576839|NCT02175758|168906144|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|129.29||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||129.29|93.25|
84576840|NCT02175758|168906144|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|149.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.12|176.21||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||176.21|127.12|
84576841|NCT02175758|168906146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level. If superiority was demonstrated in the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group, then the SVR12 rate for participants aged 3 to \< 12 years would be compared with 80% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84576842|NCT02175758|168906146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 3 to \< 12 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84576843|NCT02299167|168906168|OTHER|The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Mean (95% CI) of effective dose in 90% (|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.1|||||The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Descriptive statistics were considered to calculate the mathematic mean (SD) of demographic, surgical, and other postoperative continuous data and to calculate the median (range) of sensory and motor block levels, as well as the degree of patient and surgeon satisfaction||2.1|1.7|
84576844|NCT04871074|168906251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.74
84754007|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Cognition||||0.85
84576845|NCT04871074|168906252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.66
84576846|NCT04871074|168906253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model, fixed effects coefficient test with a Wald test||||||.135
84576847|NCT04871074|168906257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects estimate, Wald test||||||.39
84576848|NCT02516241|168906319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|98.66|0.688|1.063||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.063|0.688|0.0751
84576849|NCT02516241|168906320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|96.99|0.695|1.139||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.139|0.695|0.3039
84576850|NCT02516241|168906321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.169||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.169|0.830|0.8637
84576851|NCT02516241|168906322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.928||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.928|0.589|0.0091
84576852|NCT02516241|168906323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.359||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.359|0.799|0.7599
84576853|NCT02516241|168906323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.175|0.692|0.4424
84576854|NCT02516241|168906327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.304||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.304|0.931|0.2579
84576855|NCT02516241|168906327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|1.567||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.567|1.124|0.0008
84576856|NCT02516241|168906328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.091||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.091|0.705|0.2395
84576857|NCT02516241|168906328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.406||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.406|0.917|0.2431
84576858|NCT02516241|168906329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.99||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.990|1.177|0.0014
84576859|NCT02516241|168906329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.209||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.209|0.729|0.6236
84576860|NCT02516241|168906333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.998||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.998|0.683|0.0477
84609529|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.98|94.09
84498250|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.246|0.9999
84498251|NCT03692078|168747707|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.251|1.0000
84498252|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.283|2.531|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.531|2.283|<.0001
84498253|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.253|2.543|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.543|2.253|<.0001
84498254|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.187|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.420|2.187|<.0001
84498255|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.112|2.389|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.389|2.112|<.0001
84498256|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.285|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.166|2.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.404|2.166|<.0001
84498257|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|2.412|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.412|2.133|<.0001
84576861|NCT02516241|168906333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.175|0.809|0.7885
84576862|NCT02516241|168906334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.901||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.901|0.549|0.0053
84754008|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Pain||||0.25
84576863|NCT02516241|168906334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.059||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.059|0.651|0.1336
84576864|NCT02516241|168906335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.391||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.391|0.772|0.8148
84576865|NCT02516241|168906335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.134||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.134|0.636|0.2684
84576866|NCT02516241|168906336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.788||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.788|0.422|0.0005
84576867|NCT02516241|168906336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.485||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.485|0.253|<0.0001
84576868|NCT02516241|168906337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7708
84576869|NCT02516241|168906337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.61||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.610|0.268|<0.0001
84576870|NCT02516241|168906338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.406||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.406|0.135|<0.0001
84576871|NCT02516241|168906338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.566||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.566|0.469|0.6195
84576872|NCT02516241|168906340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.759|0.410|0.0002
84576873|NCT02516241|168906340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.500|0.267|<0.0001
84576874|NCT02516241|168906341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.291||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.291|0.590|0.4959
84672372|NCT00653224|169080305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
84576875|NCT02516241|168906341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.679||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.679|0.305|0.0001
84576876|NCT02516241|168906342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.448||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.448|0.160|<0.0001
84754009|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
84576877|NCT02516241|168906342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.836||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.836|0.623|0.8074
84576878|NCT02516241|168906343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.802||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.802|0.432|0.0008
84576879|NCT02516241|168906343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.512||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.512|0.270|<0.0001
84576880|NCT02516241|168906344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7717
84576881|NCT02516241|168906344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.682||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.682|0.303|0.0001
84576882|NCT02516241|168906345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.439||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.439|0.151|<0.0001
84576883|NCT02516241|168906345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.759|0.556|0.9692
84576884|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.59||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||3.59|-0.6|0.1617
84576885|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|4.29||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.29|-0.07|0.0578
84576886|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.32||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||4.32|-0.91|0.2003
84576887|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.0||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||6.00|0.57|0.0178
84576888|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|5.17||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||5.17|-1.96|0.3765
84576889|NCT02516241|168906353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.81||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||7.81|0.40|0.0300
84576890|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.36||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.36|-0.6|0.1373
84576891|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.27||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||6.27|1.26|0.0034
84576892|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.39||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||5.39|-1.00|0.1774
84754010|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Vision||||0.63
84754011|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Hearing||||0.045
84754012|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Speech||||0.016
84576893|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|8.65||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||8.65|2.19|0.0011
84576894|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||6.38|-2.27|0.3494
84576895|NCT02516241|168906354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|11.71||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||11.71|2.96|0.0011
84754013|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
84754014|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test failed to approximate p value so Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test instead||24 months change in Dexterity||||0.50
84754015|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Emotion||||0.29
84754016|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Cognition||||0.92
84754017|NCT02022085|169263858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Pain||||0.020
84754018|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Ease of communication||||<0.0001
84754019|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Background noise||||<0.0001
84754020|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Reverberation||||<0.0001
84754021|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Aversiveness||||0.69
84754022|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Global||||<0.0001
84754023|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Ease of communication||||<0.001
84576896|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|1.69||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.69|-4.35|0.3865
84576897|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.49||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.49|-5.05|0.2840
84576898|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.66||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.66|-5.41|0.2970
84576899|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.83||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.83|-5.85|0.3026
84576900|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||2.38|-7.29|0.3168
84576901|NCT02516241|168906355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.96||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||1.96|-8.51|0.2179
84576902|NCT02516241|168906356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.6|0.8|0.2419
84576903|NCT02516241|168906356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.8|0.9|0.1553
84576904|NCT02516241|168906356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.8|1.4|0.0003
84754024|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Background noise||||<0.001
84754025|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Reverberation||||<0.001
84754026|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Aversiveness||||0.84
84754027|NCT02022085|169263859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Global||||<0.001
84754028|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
84754029|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
84754030|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
84505223|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.73|0.3792
84754031|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
84754032|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
84754033|NCT02022085|169263860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
84754034|NCT05097716|169263884|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|109.77|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||109.77|96.66|
84754035|NCT05097716|169263885|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.01|106.62|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||106.62|92.01|
84754036|NCT00791258|169263887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|75.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|78.5||||||||78.5|73.0|
84498258|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.140|1.844|<.0001
84498259|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.069|1.719|<.0001
84498260|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.248|1.955|<.0001
84498261|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.250|1.900|<.0001
84498262|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|2.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.033|1.746|<.0001
84576905|NCT02516241|168906356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|1.1|0.0148
84576906|NCT02516241|168906357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.4|0.7|0.2473
84576907|NCT02516241|168906357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.8|0.8|0.0148
84576908|NCT02516241|168906357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.0|1.2|0.0090
84576909|NCT02516241|168906357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|0.9|0.1510
84609530|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.91|62.95
84754037|NCT00791258|169263888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|86.5||||||||86.5|81.8|
84754038|NCT00791258|169263889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|74.1||||||12 week analysis||74.1|68.3|
84505224|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.77||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Ratio of response rate|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.74|1.14|0.0101
84576910|NCT02516241|168906358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.2|0.5|0.6763
84576911|NCT02516241|168906358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.3|0.5|0.6539
84576912|NCT02516241|168906358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||4.0|1.2|0.0092
84576913|NCT02516241|168906358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.5|1.1|0.0324
84576914|NCT04738487|168906363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.35|0.83|0.6712
84576915|NCT04738487|168906364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.13|0.82|0.3320
84576916|NCT04738487|168906365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.11|0.72|0.1646
84576917|NCT01260948|168906454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|103.53|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.53|94.13|
84576918|NCT01260948|168906455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|98.47|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.47|91.30|
84672373|NCT00653224|169080306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.384||95.0|-0.15|0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.06|-0.15|0.384
84576919|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for primary efficacy composite endpoint.||1.09|0.40|= 0.101
84576920|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.91|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for Symptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||2.91|0.43|= 0.814
84576921|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic lower extremity distal DVT.||2.07|0.08|= 0.260
84576922|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic upper extremity DVT.||2.39|0.19|= 0.538
84576923|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic non-fatal PE.||3.52|0.29|= 0.977
84576924|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.11|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for asymptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||1.11|0.11|= 0.063
84576925|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.62|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for incidental PE.||1.62|0.21|= 0.301
84576926|NCT02555878|168906460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for VTE-related death.||3.18|0.03|= 0.314
84576927|NCT02555878|168906461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.49|||Log Rank|||||6.49|0.59|= 0.265
84576928|NCT00768053|168906497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||F test for H0: ICC = 0|F test|||Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)||||0.000
84754039|NCT00791258|169263889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|87.0||||||20 week analysis||87.0|82.4|
84754040|NCT00791258|169263890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-13.8|-15.4|<0.0001
84754041|NCT00791258|169263890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-15.7|-17.7|<0.0001
84505225|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.75||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.63|1.17|0.0065
84576929|NCT00768053|168906497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standard error of measurement|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75||||||Standardized response mean: standard error of measurement||0.75|0.57|
84576930|NCT00768053|168906499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
84576931|NCT00768053|168906500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
84576932|NCT00768053|168906501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
84576933|NCT00768053|168906502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
84576934|NCT00768053|168906503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
84576935|NCT00768053|168906504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
84576936|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
84576937|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||<0.001
84576938|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.837
84576939|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.035
84576940|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.351
84754042|NCT00791258|169263890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-20.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-20.9|-22.7|<0.0001
84754043|NCT00791258|169263890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-25.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-25.0|-27.0|<0.0001
84754044|NCT00791258|169263890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-25.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-25.7|-27.8|<0.0001
84754045|NCT00791258|169263891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-7.6|-8.6|<0.0001
84754046|NCT00791258|169263891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-8.5|-9.7|<0.0001
84754047|NCT00791258|169263891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-11.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-11.4|-12.5|<0.0001
84576941|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.025
84576942|NCT00768053|168906505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
84576943|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
84576944|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||0.052
84576945|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.895
84576946|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.153
84754048|NCT00791258|169263891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-14.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-14.0|-15.2|<0.0001
84754049|NCT00791258|169263891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-13.8|-15.1|0.0001
84754050|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure||-13.4|-16.2|<0.0001
84754051|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-14.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-14.8|-17.8|<0.0001
84498263|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.944|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.775|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.114|1.775|<.0001
84498264|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.8674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.137|-0.345|0.8674
84498265|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.133|-0.429|0.6519
84498266|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.363|0.7301
84576947|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.029
84576948|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.043
84576949|NCT00768053|168906506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
84576950|NCT01164475|168906523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|9.17|||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison was done using the logistic regression model, adjusted for country and baseline PB CD34+ cell count.||9.17|0.44|0.395
84576951|NCT01018979|168906595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.023
84576952|NCT01018979|168906595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.038
84498267|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.154|-0.405|0.8076
84576953|NCT03018938|168906622|NON_INFERIORITY|If Lower limit (L) \>-0.4%, the Non-inferiority (NI) of basal insulin analog QD to insulin analog mid mixture BID is established; If Upper limit (U) \<0.4%, the NI of insulin analog mid mixture BID to basal insulin analog QD is established|LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0959||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.346|0.1009
84609531|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.26|0.99|96.86
84645230|NCT02081248|169026057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the risks and benefits section between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the risks and benefits section was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.74
84576954|NCT03018938|168906623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||||-0.026|-0.376|0.0246
84576955|NCT03018938|168906624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.95|0.0941
84576956|NCT03018938|168906625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.72|0.8592
84576957|NCT03018938|168906626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|0.000|0.0497
84576958|NCT03018938|168906627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1955||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.031|||ANCOVA|||||1.031|0.263|0.0010
84576959|NCT03018938|168906628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2191||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.7|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.700|-0.161|0.2193
84576960|NCT03018938|168906628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3331||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.571|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.571|-0.739|0.8014
84576961|NCT03018938|168906629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2033||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.891|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.891|0.092|0.0160
84576962|NCT03018938|168906629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3028||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.582|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.582|-0.608|0.9661
84576963|NCT03018938|168906631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2776||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.211|||ANCOVA|||||1.211|0.122|0.0166
84576964|NCT03018938|168906632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2864||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.316|||ANCOVA|||||1.316|0.192|0.0086
84576965|NCT03018938|168906635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.89|0.2009
84576966|NCT03018938|168906636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.72|0.8054
84609532|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.98|94.16
84576967|NCT03018938|168906637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.8|0.7553
84576968|NCT00191100|168906639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PFS Probability Difference at 3 Years|0.095||||0.029||95.0|0.01|0.179||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Z Statistic||Difference in progression-free survival probability between Gem/Cis/Rad and Cis/Rad. The difference in PFS probability between the two treatment arms can also be presented as a percentage (ie, PFS at 3 years was 9.5% better in the Gem/Cis/Rad arm).|||0.179|0.010|0.029
84576969|NCT00191100|168906640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
84576970|NCT00191100|168906641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||"Note: There were 2 patients with unknown site of progressive disease; these patients were counted as a Local failure.~Note: There was 1 patient with both local and distant failure; this patient was counted as a Local failure."||||0.096
84576971|NCT00191100|168906642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
84576972|NCT00191100|168906643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0224
84576973|NCT00191100|168906644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0227
84576974|NCT01769586|168906645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Chi-squared|||||.50|.24|<0.001
84576975|NCT04950686|168906661|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.983
84576976|NCT04950686|168906661|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
84576977|NCT04950686|168906662|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
84576978|NCT04950686|168906662|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
84576979|NCT04950686|168906663|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
84576980|NCT04950686|168906663|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
84576981|NCT04950686|168906664|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|0.24|0.682
84576982|NCT04950686|168906664|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.69|0.28|0.630
84576983|NCT04950686|168906665|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.82|0.12|0.418
84576984|NCT04950686|168906665|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|0.13|0.194
84576985|NCT04950686|168906666|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.07|0.10|0.731
84576986|NCT04950686|168906666|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.34|0.16|0.786
84576987|NCT04950686|168906667|SUPERIORITY|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|0.16|0.710
84576988|NCT04950686|168906667|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.73|0.16|0.610
84576989|NCT04950686|168906668|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.33|.09|0.270
84609533|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.86|48.99
84609534|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.98|94.51
84609535|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||94.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.97|94.59
84576990|NCT04950686|168906668|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|18.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.57|0.08|0.465
84576991|NCT04950686|168906669|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|11.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.95|0.07|0.702
84576992|NCT04950686|168906669|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|0.19|0.538
84645231|NCT02081248|169026057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find how to leave the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find how to leave the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.56
84645232|NCT02081248|169026057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find study procedures between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find study procedures was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.79
84576993|NCT04950686|168906670|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
84576994|NCT04950686|168906670|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
84576995|NCT04950686|168906671|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
84576996|NCT04950686|168906671|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.854
84576997|NCT04950686|168906672|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.499
84576998|NCT04950686|168906672|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
84576999|NCT04950686|168906673|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|0.14|0.618
84577000|NCT04950686|168906673|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.13|0.10|0.626
84577001|NCT04950686|168906674|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.18|0.23|.232
84645233|NCT02081248|169026058|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||1.00
84498268|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.142|-0.689|0.0004
84577002|NCT04950686|168906674|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.22|0.811
84577003|NCT04950686|168906675|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|0.16|0.427
84577004|NCT04950686|168906675|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.68|0.25|0.337
84577005|NCT04950686|168906676|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
84577006|NCT04950686|168906676|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.808
84498269|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|-0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.185|-0.822|0.0002
84498270|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|-0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.034|-0.578|0.0183
84498271|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.005|-0.641|0.0443
84498272|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.414||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.672|0.155|0.0002
84577007|NCT04950686|168906677|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
84577008|NCT04950686|168906677|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
84498273|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.306||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.608|0.004|0.0454
84498274|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.396||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.655|0.136|0.0004
84498275|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.630|0.026|0.0261
84505226|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.99|1.00|0.0526
84577009|NCT04950686|168906678|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
84754052|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-10.8|-14.1|<0.0001
84672374|NCT00653224|169080307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.063||95.0|-0.24|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.24|0.063
84498276|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.392|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.392|-0.187|0.9455
84577010|NCT04950686|168906678|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.226
84577011|NCT04950686|168906679|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.630
84577012|NCT04950686|168906679|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.880
84577013|NCT04950686|168906680|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
84577014|NCT04950686|168906680|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
84577015|NCT04950686|168906681|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
84577016|NCT04950686|168906681|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
84577017|NCT04950686|168906682|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
84577018|NCT04950686|168906682|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
84577019|NCT04950686|168906683|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
84577020|NCT04950686|168906683|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
84577021|NCT04950686|168906684|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.301|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.301
84577022|NCT04950686|168906684|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.702
84577023|NCT04950686|168906685|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.13|0.10|0.352
84609536|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||61.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.86|61.27
84609537|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||96.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.99|96.63
84609538|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.97|94.02
84609539|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.87|53.24
84609540|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|70.84
84609541|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||74.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|74.15
84609542|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||65.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.87|65.43
84609543|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||97.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|97.15
84609544|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||63.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.81|63.99
84609545|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||91.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.94|91.99
84609546|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.94|76.81
84754053|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-11.6|-15.7|<0.0001
84754054|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-11.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-11.2|-14.7|<0.0001
84754055|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-10.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-10.9|-14.3|<0.0001
84754056|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.3|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure||-8.5|-10.3|<0.0001
84577024|NCT04950686|168906685|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.11|0.445
84577025|NCT04950686|168906686|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.60|0.12|0.039
84577026|NCT04950686|168906686|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.17|0.073
84577027|NCT04950686|168906687|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.93|0.13|0.110
84577028|NCT04950686|168906687|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.78|0.11|0.174
84577029|NCT04950686|168906688|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
84577030|NCT04950686|168906688|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
84577031|NCT04950686|168906689|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.483
84577032|NCT04950686|168906689|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.933
84577033|NCT04950686|168906690|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
84577034|NCT04950686|168906690|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.418
84577035|NCT04950686|168906691|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|98.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||98.76|0.05|0.220
84577036|NCT04950686|168906691|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.3||||||||11.30|0.10|
84577037|NCT04950686|168906692|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|63.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.29|0.03|0.506
84577038|NCT04950686|168906692|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|36.32||||||||36.32|0.04|
84577039|NCT04950686|168906693|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.37|0.04|0.877
84609547|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Central; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.95|67.01
84754057|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-9.6|-11.7|<0.0001
84609548|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||63.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.85|63.91
84609549|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||96.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|96.47
84609550|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||72.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.93|72.17
84609551|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||74.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|74.38
84609552|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|53.85
84609553|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||95.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.98|95.02
84609554|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||92.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.97|92.27
84609555|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.88|54.65
84609556|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||87.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.95|87.93
84609557|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||77.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|77.57
84609558|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|77.07
84609559|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||78.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|78.42
84754058|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-6.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-6.4|-8.8|<0.0001
84609560|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.93|44.15
84609561|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.79
84577040|NCT04950686|168906693|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.92||||||||26.92|0.02|
84577041|NCT04950686|168906694|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84577042|NCT04950686|168906694|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00001
84577043|NCT04950686|168906695|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.314
84577044|NCT04950686|168906695|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.176
84577045|NCT04950686|168906696|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84577046|NCT04950686|168906696|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84609562|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.51
84577047|NCT04950686|168906697|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.132
84577048|NCT04950686|168906697|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84577049|NCT04950686|168906698|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.941
84577050|NCT04950686|168906698|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
84609563|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||93.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|93.16
84609564|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||73.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.70
84577051|NCT04950686|168906699|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.354
84609565|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|81.04
84609566|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.94|52.58
84609567|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||15.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.86|15.85
84609568|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.90|48.69
84577052|NCT04950686|168906699|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84609569|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|52.25
84577053|NCT04950686|168906700|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
84577054|NCT04950686|168906700|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
84577055|NCT04950686|168906701|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
84577056|NCT04950686|168906701|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
84577057|NCT04950686|168906702|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
84609570|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||66.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.91|66.48
84609571|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||9.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.72|9.12
84609572|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||16.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.78|16.95
84577058|NCT04950686|168906702|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.103
84609573|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.75|0.89
84609574|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.86|50.40
84609575|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||7.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.76|7.44
84754059|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.0|-7.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-7.2|-10.0|<0.0001
84577059|NCT04950686|168906703|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
84577060|NCT04950686|168906703|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.054
84754060|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-6.8|-9.2|<0.0001
84505227|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.11|1.08|0.0156
84577061|NCT04950686|168906704|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
84577062|NCT04950686|168906704|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
84577063|NCT04950686|168906705|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
84577064|NCT04950686|168906705|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
84577065|NCT04950686|168906706|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
84577066|NCT04950686|168906706|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
84577067|NCT04950686|168906707|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.485
84577068|NCT04950686|168906707|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
84676588|NCT01516879|169088666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 52 in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.85|-61.08|<0.001
84577069|NCT04950686|168906708|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.583|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.583
84577070|NCT04950686|168906708|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.971
84577071|NCT04950686|168906709|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
84577072|NCT04950686|168906709|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
84577073|NCT04950686|168906710|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
84577074|NCT04950686|168906710|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.578
84498277|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.387|0.9999
84498278|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.212||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.498|-0.074|0.2633
84498279|NCT03692078|168747709|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.465|-0.205|0.8769
84498280|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.315|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.520|5.315|<.0001
84498281|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.324|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.548|5.324|<.0001
84498282|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.957|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|5.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.053|4.860|<.0001
84609576|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||56.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.87|56.35
84609577|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.87|4.03
84609578|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|24.79
84672375|NCT00653224|169080308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.124||95.0|-0.19|0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.02|-0.19|0.124
84754061|NCT00791258|169263903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-6.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-6.6|-8.8|<0.0001
84505228|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.63|0.92|0.1689
84577075|NCT04950686|168906711|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
84577076|NCT04950686|168906711|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
84577077|NCT04950686|168906712|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.662|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
84577078|NCT04950686|168906712|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
84577079|NCT04950686|168906713|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
84577080|NCT04950686|168906713|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
84577081|NCT04950686|168906714|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.171
84577082|NCT04950686|168906714|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.278
84577083|NCT04950686|168906715|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
84577084|NCT04950686|168906715|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
84577085|NCT04950686|168906716|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
84577086|NCT04950686|168906716|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
84577087|NCT04950686|168906717|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
84577088|NCT04950686|168906717|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.828
84754062|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-19.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean systolic blood pressure||-19.3|-22.6|<0.0001
84754063|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-21.4|-25.1|<0.0001
84754064|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-15.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-15.6|-19.4|<0.0001
84754065|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
84754066|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-16.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-16.3|-20.2|<0.0001
84577089|NCT04950686|168906718|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.336
84577090|NCT04950686|168906718|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
84577091|NCT04950686|168906719|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.629|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
84577092|NCT04950686|168906719|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.318
84577093|NCT04950686|168906720|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
84577094|NCT04950686|168906720|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.299
84577095|NCT04950686|168906721|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84577096|NCT04950686|168906721|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
84609579|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|77.08
84498283|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.974|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.867|5.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.081|4.867|<.0001
84577097|NCT04950686|168906722|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
84577098|NCT04950686|168906722|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
84577099|NCT04950686|168906723|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.810
84577100|NCT04950686|168906723|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.901
84577101|NCT04950686|168906724|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
84609580|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||23.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.89|23.07
84577102|NCT04950686|168906724|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
84577103|NCT04950686|168906725|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
84577104|NCT04950686|168906725|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
84577105|NCT04950686|168906726|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
84577106|NCT04950686|168906726|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.271
84609581|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.88|18.58
84609582|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||44.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.92|44.94
84577107|NCT04950686|168906727|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
84577108|NCT04950686|168906727|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.952
84577109|NCT04950686|168906728|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
84609583|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||2.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.80|2.21
84609584|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.83|6.09
84609585|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||66.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.92|66.60
84672376|NCT00653224|169080309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.002||95.0|-0.28|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.28|0.002
84577110|NCT04950686|168906728|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
84577111|NCT04950686|168906729|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.495
84672377|NCT00653224|169080310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.016||95.0|-0.28|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.28|0.016
84676589|NCT01516879|169088667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-53.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-53.3|-62.3|<0.001
84577112|NCT04950686|168906729|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
84577113|NCT04950686|168906730|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
84577114|NCT04950686|168906730|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
84577115|NCT04950686|168906731|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.541
84577116|NCT04950686|168906731|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
84577117|NCT04950686|168906732|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.375
84577118|NCT04950686|168906732|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
84676590|NCT01516879|169088668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|75.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|79.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by the stratification factor. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value at Week 52.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||79.7|70.8|<0.001
84754067|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-16.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-16.0|-19.7|<0.0001
84505229|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|1.04|0.0231
84577119|NCT04950686|168906733|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84577120|NCT04950686|168906733|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
84577121|NCT04950686|168906734|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84577122|NCT04950686|168906734|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
84577123|NCT04950686|168906735|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
84577124|NCT04950686|168906735|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.137
84577125|NCT04950686|168906736|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84754068|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-12.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure||-12.2|-14.4|<0.0001
84754069|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-13.8|-16.2|<0.0001
84754070|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
84505230|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.84|1.06|0.0175
84577126|NCT04950686|168906736|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
84577127|NCT04950686|168906737|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84577128|NCT04950686|168906737|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
84577129|NCT04950686|168906738|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
84609586|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||3.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.23
84609587|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||20.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|20.83
84609588|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.96|87.60
84609589|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||7.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.84|7.90
84577130|NCT04950686|168906738|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
84577131|NCT04950686|168906739|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
84577132|NCT04950686|168906739|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.532
84577133|NCT04950686|168906740|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
84577134|NCT04950686|168906740|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
84609590|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.39
84577135|NCT04950686|168906741|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
84577136|NCT04950686|168906741|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.726|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.726
84577137|NCT04950686|168906742|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
84577138|NCT04950686|168906742|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.591
84577139|NCT04950686|168906743|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
84577140|NCT04950686|168906743|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
84577141|NCT04950686|168906744|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.rt-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
84577142|NCT04950686|168906744|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
84577143|NCT04950686|168906745|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.460
84577144|NCT04950686|168906745|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
84577145|NCT04950686|168906746|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
84577146|NCT04950686|168906746|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.939
84577147|NCT04950686|168906747|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
84754071|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-10.8|-13.8|<0.0001
84577148|NCT04950686|168906747|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.315
84577149|NCT04950686|168906748|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.966
84577150|NCT04950686|168906748|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
84577151|NCT04950686|168906749|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
84577152|NCT04950686|168906749|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
84577153|NCT04950686|168906750|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.217
84609591|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|76.16
84609592|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||22.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.87|22.54
84609593|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||58.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.91|58.17
84609594|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||6.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.76|6.22
84754072|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-10.2|-12.9|<0.0001
84577154|NCT04950686|168906750|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.879|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.879
84577155|NCT04950686|168906751|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.866
84577156|NCT04950686|168906751|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.695
84577157|NCT04950686|168906752|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
84754073|NCT00791258|169263904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-10.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-10.0|-12.6|<0.0001
84754074|NCT03334409|169263975|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84754075|NCT03334409|169263976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
84609595|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.85
84609596|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|25.44
84754076|NCT03334409|169263977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
84754077|NCT03334409|169263978|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84754078|NCT03334409|169263979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
84754079|NCT03334409|169263980|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84754080|NCT05215262|169264000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|0.04|0.04
84754081|NCT05215262|169264000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-1.59|0.82
84754082|NCT05215262|169264000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference-in-differences results, comparing GSES scores between the Intervention and Standard of Care groups at the three-month time point.||4.23|-0.89|0.20
84754083|NCT03496324|169264006|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% confidence interval (CI) (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|94.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|103.38||||||||103.38|85.81|
84754084|NCT03496324|169264006|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|111.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.84|120.07||||||||120.07|103.84|
84754085|NCT03496324|169264007|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|101.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|107.16||||||||107.16|96.28|
84754086|NCT03496324|169264007|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|104.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.4|107.63||||||||107.63|101.4|
84754087|NCT00239226|169264014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.93||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
84754088|NCT00646906|169264024|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The primary hypothesis is that acetaminophen given two hours before aspirin will antagonize the effects of aspirin, while reversing the order of administration will not. Percent change from start (8:00 am on day 1) to finish (8:00 am on day 7) of period in serum thromboxane B2 for each order of drug administration will be primary endpoint of interest.||||>0.05
84754089|NCT00646906|169264025|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84754090|NCT01892306|169264041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-A were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||.02
84754091|NCT01892306|169264042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-D were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.02
84754092|NCT01892306|169264043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the CSQ were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.24
84754093|NCT01892306|169264044|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores.||||.62
84754094|NCT01892306|169264044|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores||||.03
84754095|NCT01892306|169264045|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.95
84754096|NCT01892306|169264045|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.03
84754097|NCT01892306|169264046|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.87
84754098|NCT01892306|169264046|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.37
84754099|NCT01892306|169264047|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO- Neuroticism scores.||||0.17
84754100|NCT01892306|169264047|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO-Neuroticism scores||||.04
84577158|NCT04950686|168906752|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
84577159|NCT04950686|168906753|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
84577160|NCT04950686|168906753|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
84577161|NCT04950686|168906754|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.236
84577162|NCT04950686|168906754|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
84577163|NCT04950686|168906755|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
84577164|NCT04950686|168906755|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.500
84577165|NCT04950686|168906756|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
84577166|NCT04950686|168906756|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
84609597|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||18.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|18.15
84577167|NCT04950686|168906757|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
84577168|NCT04950686|168906757|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.957
84577169|NCT04950686|168906758|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
84577170|NCT04950686|168906758|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
84577171|NCT04950686|168906759|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
84645234|NCT02081248|169026058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.77
84645235|NCT02081248|169026058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.69
84577172|NCT04950686|168906759|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
84577173|NCT04950686|168906760|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.634|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.634
84577174|NCT04950686|168906760|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.308
84577175|NCT04950686|168906761|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
84577176|NCT04950686|168906761|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
84577177|NCT04950686|168906762|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
84672378|NCT00653224|169080311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.003||95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
84577178|NCT04950686|168906762|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.369
84577179|NCT04950686|168906763|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
84577180|NCT04950686|168906763|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
84577181|NCT04950686|168906764|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84577182|NCT04950686|168906764|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
84577183|NCT04950686|168906765|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.585|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
84577184|NCT04950686|168906765|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
84577185|NCT04950686|168906766|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.259
84577186|NCT04950686|168906766|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
84577187|NCT04950686|168906767|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
84577188|NCT04950686|168906767|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.491
84577189|NCT04950686|168906768|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
84577190|NCT04950686|168906768|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
84577191|NCT04950686|168906769|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
84577192|NCT04950686|168906769|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84577193|NCT04950686|168906770|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84577194|NCT04950686|168906770|EQUIVALENCE|This arm will receive Health Aware for Young Adults in between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Health Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program. The program contains the same health content as Media Aware for Young Adults but without the media literacy education components. The program is self-paced and includes four modules.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
84577195|NCT04950686|168906771|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.841
84577196|NCT04950686|168906771|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.270
84609598|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||8.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|8.12
84609599|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.39
84609600|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|10.00
84609601|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|29.88
84609602|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||12.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.89|12.63
84609603|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.91|32.29
84609604|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||69.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.95|69.92
84609605|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||6.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.84|6.10
84609606|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||33.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|33.63
84609607|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||86.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.07
84609608|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||41.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|41.38
84577197|NCT04950686|168906772|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
84577198|NCT04950686|168906772|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
84577199|NCT04950686|168906773|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
84577200|NCT04950686|168906773|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
84577201|NCT04950686|168906774|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.931
84577202|NCT04950686|168906774|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.666
84577203|NCT04950686|168906775|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
84577204|NCT04950686|168906775|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
84577205|NCT04950686|168906776|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.540
84609609|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|24.88
84577206|NCT04950686|168906776|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
84577207|NCT04950686|168906777|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
84577208|NCT04950686|168906777|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.136
84577209|NCT04950686|168906778|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
84577210|NCT04950686|168906778|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.748|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
84577211|NCT04950686|168906779|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.490
84577212|NCT04950686|168906779|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.831
84577213|NCT04950686|168906780|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
84577214|NCT04950686|168906780|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.235
84577215|NCT04950686|168906781|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
84577216|NCT04950686|168906781|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
84577217|NCT04950686|168906782|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.63|0.24|0.242
84577218|NCT04950686|168906782|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.72|0.11|0.207
84577219|NCT04950686|168906783|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|0.51|0.576
84609610|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|29.89
84645236|NCT02081248|169026058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1301 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1501 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
84577220|NCT04950686|168906783|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
84577221|NCT04950686|168906784|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.45|0.22|0.467
84577222|NCT04950686|168906784|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
84577223|NCT04950686|168906785|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84577224|NCT04950686|168906785|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.432
84577225|NCT04950686|168906786|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84577226|NCT04950686|168906786|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
84577227|NCT04950686|168906787|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.277
84577228|NCT04950686|168906787|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
84577229|NCT04253626|168906810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84577230|NCT04253626|168906814|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.88
84609611|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||7.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.87|7.13
84609612|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.90|32.91
84577231|NCT04253626|168906815|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.27
84577232|NCT04253626|168906816|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.72
84577233|NCT04253626|168906817|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.009
84577234|NCT03043573|168906820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7011||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8605|30.4583|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||30.4583|-31.8605|0.9644
84577235|NCT03043573|168906820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4595||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3472|37.2661|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||37.2661|-32.3472|0.8880
84577236|NCT03043573|168906820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5119||||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5024|35.4785|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||35.4785|-36.5024|0.9773
84577237|NCT03043573|168906820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6667||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0598|78.3931|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 52||78.3931|-47.0598|0.6173
84577238|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1302||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5767|4.8371|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.8371|-2.5767|0.5454
84577239|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9618||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8038|6.7275|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||6.7275|-0.8038|0.1212
84577240|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.095||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7476|4.9377|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.9377|-2.7476|0.5710
84577241|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5524||||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5256|2.4209|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||2.4209|-5.5256|0.4377
84577242|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8937||||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4439|5.2312|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.2312|-3.4439|0.6813
84577243|NCT03043573|168906821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9457||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|7.1148|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.1148|-1.2234|0.1620
84577244|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0319||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6668|2.7305|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.7305|-2.6668|0.9813
84577245|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0564||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4397|3.3268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||3.3268|-3.4397|0.9735
84577246|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0611||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1885|4.3107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3107|-2.1885|0.5164
84577247|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0651|1.0651|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||1.0651|-5.0651|0.1970
84577248|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0907|3.8146|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||3.8146|-3.0907|0.8342
84645237|NCT01037088|169026060|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 1 after Administration of Cannabis||||>.05
84645238|NCT01037088|169026060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0002
84645239|NCT01037088|169026060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 3 after Administration of Cannabis (after the second inhalation of cannabis)||||<.0001
84577249|NCT03043573|168906822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2424|4.7758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||4.7758|-2.2424|0.4717
84577250|NCT03043573|168906823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9318||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8176|5.9539|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||5.9539|-11.8176|0.5130
84577251|NCT03043573|168906823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4835||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2306|7.2967|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||7.2967|-15.2306|0.4835
84577252|NCT03043573|168906823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.156||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3357|6.0238|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||6.0238|-16.3357|0.3590
84577253|NCT03043573|168906823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1083||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1598|15.3765|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||15.3765|-13.1598|0.8760
84609613|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.96|81.15
84609614|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|21.87
84609615|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|24.49
84577254|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0606||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|0.0628|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A Baseline||0.0628|-0.1841|0.3248
84577255|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6953||||0.3615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2261|0.8354|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A - Week 12||0.8354|-2.2261|0.3615
84577256|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9917||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9664|3.9498|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Baseline||3.9498|-1.9664|0.5046
84577257|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0607||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2821|0.1607|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 12||0.1607|-4.2821|0.0679
84577258|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8929||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1825|0.3968|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 24||0.3968|-2.1825|0.1669
84577259|NCT03043573|168906824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8115|0.9543|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 52||0.9543|-3.8115|0.2178
84577260|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.558||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3747|4.4908|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.4908|-1.3747|0.2932
84577261|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7043||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4659|4.8744|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||4.8744|-1.4659|0.2871
84577262|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9167||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4737|4.307|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.3070|-2.4737|0.5910
84577263|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0238||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0469|2.9993|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9993|-5.0469|0.6128
84577264|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9276||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0231|5.8783|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.8783|-2.0231|0.3326
84577265|NCT03043573|168906825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0741||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8522|6.0004|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||6.0004|-1.8522|0.2935
84577266|NCT04766333|168906875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||Healthcare Arm is the reference category|||1.23|0.17|<0.05
84577267|NCT02734667|168906891|SUPERIORITY||t statistic from GLM/regression|-0.47||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
84577268|NCT02734667|168906892|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|-2.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
84577269|NCT02734667|168906893|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|3.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
84577270|NCT05177094|168906907|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.40|-0.70|
84577271|NCT05177094|168906908|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.66|
84645240|NCT01037088|169026060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0004
84645241|NCT01037088|169026060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 5 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0018
84754101|NCT01892306|169264048|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||0.007
84577272|NCT05177094|168906909|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.72|
84577273|NCT05177094|168906910|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.98|
84609616|NCT02294734|168970596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||55.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|55.52
84645242|NCT02216812|169026063|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in DPC six weeks after fracture of the distal radius between patients taking vitamin C and placebo.||||0.63
84754102|NCT01892306|169264048|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||.14
84754103|NCT02871778|169264075|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.519||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|2.995|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.995|0.044|0.0437
84754104|NCT02871778|169264075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.509|2.589|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.589|-2.509|0.9755
84754105|NCT02871778|169264075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.318||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.856|||Mixed-effects Model|||||4.856|-0.22|0.0731
84754106|NCT02871778|169264075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.799||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|3.348|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.348|-1.751|0.5373
84754107|NCT02871778|169264075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.838||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|3.045|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.045|-1.368|0.453
84577274|NCT05177094|168906911|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-0.61|
84577275|NCT05177094|168906912|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.58|
84577276|NCT05177094|168906913|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.45|-0.68|
84577277|NCT05177094|168906914|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.77|-0.65|
84577278|NCT05177094|168906915|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|4.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.28|-10.43|
84577279|NCT05177094|168906916|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|7.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.00|-10.04|
84577280|NCT05177094|168906917|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.54|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.54|-0.32|
84577281|NCT05177094|168906918|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.65|-0.24|
84577282|NCT05177094|168906919|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|44.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.73|204.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||204.00|-114.73|
84645243|NCT00873873|169026068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Is there a difference in airway wall thickness among the 4 groups?||||0.2
84754108|NCT02653300|169264086|OTHER|||||||0.03125|||||||Sign test|||||||0.03125
84754109|NCT02289352|169264101|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test product to the Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|5.33||||||||5.33|-6.49|
84754110|NCT02289352|169264101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84754111|NCT02289352|169264101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84754112|NCT02289352|169264102|EQUIVALENCE|"The secondary efficacy variable is the proportion of patients with a clinical response of treatment success on Day 1.~If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both the CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, 20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test to Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated."|Mean Difference (Net)|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|15.41||||||||15.41|-1.54|
84754113|NCT02289352|169264102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84754114|NCT02289352|169264102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0045
84754115|NCT01390272|169264104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||1.6|-5.9|0.26
84577283|NCT05177094|168906920|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.86|34.49|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||34.49|-231.86|
84577284|NCT05177094|168906921|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.05|
84577285|NCT05177094|168906922|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
84577286|NCT01033942|168906923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6983||||||The p-value is for the difference in treatment (TX) groups overall. The interaction between TX group and study time that tests whether the TX groups differed over time could not be tested due to small no. of subjects that missed visits during study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6983
84577287|NCT01033942|168906924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8722
84577288|NCT01033942|168906925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6921||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6921
84577289|NCT01033942|168906926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4655||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4655
84577290|NCT01033942|168906927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84609617|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||59.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.84|59.55
84645244|NCT03036800|169026102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|12.88|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.88|2.09|<0.001
84577291|NCT01033942|168906928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2297
84577292|NCT01033942|168906929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1886||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1886
84577293|NCT01033942|168906930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1908|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1908
84577294|NCT01033942|168906931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2240
84577295|NCT01033942|168906932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1538||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1538
84577296|NCT01033942|168906933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2151
84577297|NCT01033942|168906934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2809
84577298|NCT01033942|168906935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1850
84577299|NCT01033942|168906936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2366||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2366
84577300|NCT01033942|168906937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4089||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4089
84577301|NCT01033942|168906938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577302|NCT01033942|168906939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577303|NCT01033942|168906940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577304|NCT01033942|168906941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7007
84577305|NCT01033942|168906942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577306|NCT01033942|168906943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577307|NCT01033942|168906944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8934|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8934
84577308|NCT01033942|168906945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577309|NCT01033942|168906946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577310|NCT01033942|168906947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
84577311|NCT01033942|168906948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4003
84577312|NCT01033942|168906949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6462|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6462
84577313|NCT01033942|168906950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8505
84577314|NCT01033942|168906958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7434
84577315|NCT01033942|168906959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6153
84577316|NCT01033942|168906960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2000
84577317|NCT01033942|168906961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5265
84577318|NCT01033942|168906962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2559|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2559
84577319|NCT01033942|168906963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3846
84577320|NCT01033942|168906964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5133
84577321|NCT01033942|168906965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1661
84577322|NCT01033942|168906966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0729
84577323|NCT01033942|168906967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1912
84577324|NCT01033942|168906968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2829
84577325|NCT01033942|168906969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2685
84577326|NCT01033942|168906970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2342
84577327|NCT01033942|168906971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7314
84577328|NCT01033942|168906972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3770
84577329|NCT01033942|168906973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7004
84577330|NCT01033942|168906974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4668
84577331|NCT01033942|168906975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7573|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7573
84577332|NCT01033942|168906976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0356
84609618|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||94.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.96|94.01
84609619|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||82.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.90|82.27
84609620|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||99.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|1.06|99.22
84754116|NCT01390272|169264105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-4.9|0.50
84577333|NCT01033942|168906977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3176
84577334|NCT01033942|168906978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1348
84577335|NCT01033942|168906979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0420
84577336|NCT01033942|168906980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4906|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4906
84577337|NCT01033942|168906981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0544
84577338|NCT01033942|168906982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5645|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5645
84577339|NCT01033942|168906983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7847
84577340|NCT01033942|168906984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0288
84609621|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||46.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.75|46.24
84609622|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||98.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.64|1.02|98.30
84577341|NCT01033942|168906985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0945
84577342|NCT01033942|168906986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3884|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3884
84577343|NCT01033942|168906987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2235
84577344|NCT01033942|168906988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0467
84577345|NCT01033942|168906989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6331|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6331
84577346|NCT01033942|168906990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0948
84577347|NCT01033942|168906991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5826|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5826
84577348|NCT01033942|168906992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0087
84577349|NCT01033942|168906993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1934
84577350|NCT01033942|168906994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2146
84577351|NCT01033942|168906995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5317
84577352|NCT01033942|168906996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1733
84577353|NCT01033942|168906997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1747
84577354|NCT01033942|168906998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1203
84577355|NCT01033942|168906999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8243
84577356|NCT01033942|168907000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6202
84577357|NCT01033942|168907001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8351
84577358|NCT01033942|168907002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0484
84577359|NCT01033942|168907003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4207
84577360|NCT01033942|168907004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2187
84754117|NCT01390272|169264106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-5.6|0.43
84754118|NCT01390272|169264108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 6 months||1.6|0.7|0.83
84577361|NCT01033942|168907005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
84577362|NCT01033942|168907006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1524
84577363|NCT01033942|168907007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4700
84577364|NCT01033942|168907008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4686
84577365|NCT01033942|168907009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3791|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3791
84577366|NCT01033942|168907010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7374|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7374
84577367|NCT01033942|168907011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9363
84577368|NCT01033942|168907012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6267
84577369|NCT01033942|168907013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6434
84577370|NCT01033942|168907014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8582
84609623|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||92.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.92|92.60
84609624|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||99.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.81||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.81|1.05|99.01
84609625|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||58.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.82|58.80
84609626|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||86.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.91|86.82
84609627|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|67.37
84609628|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||98.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|1.01|98.35
84577371|NCT01033942|168907015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5778
84577372|NCT01033942|168907016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9881
84577373|NCT01033942|168907017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9771
84577374|NCT01033942|168907018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2301
84577375|NCT02397837|168907021|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84577376|NCT02397837|168907022|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84577377|NCT02397837|168907023|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84577378|NCT02397837|168907024|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84577379|NCT02397837|168907025|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84577380|NCT02397837|168907026|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84577381|NCT02397837|168907027|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Tabulation of participants with suicidal acknowledgements over 12-week study|||
84577382|NCT02397837|168907028|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84577383|NCT02397837|168907029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84577384|NCT02397837|168907030|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84577385|NCT03928327|168907040|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|3.3|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect(treatment), random-effect(participants). Geometric mean ratios(GMR), 90% confidence interval(CI) calculated using exponentiation of treatment least squares means(LSMs) difference.|||3.30|2.48|
84577386|NCT03928327|168907041|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.11|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.11|0.07|
84577387|NCT03928327|168907042|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|7.56|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||7.56|5.20|
84577388|NCT03928327|168907043|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.07|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.07|0.04|
84577389|NCT00407511|168907047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of treatment/last observation carried forward (EOT/LOCF): value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline visits scores. Mean change: the arithmetic mean change and p-value from the single sample t-test. If \< = 7 and \> = 4 post-baseline scores were available, the mean pain score was computed using the available scores. The mean was not calculated if there were less than 4 post-baseline scores prior to study termination.||||< 0.0001
84577390|NCT00407511|168907048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
84577391|NCT00407511|168907048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.3|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8||-3.5|-4.3|< 0.0001
84577392|NCT00407511|168907048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
84577393|NCT00407511|168907049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8, FAS. Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (49 to 63 days).||-3.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
84577394|NCT00407511|168907049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.1|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= 78 days).||-4.1|-5.1|< 0.0001
84577395|NCT00407511|168907049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
84609629|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.99|96.86
84609630|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||86.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.95|86.18
84645245|NCT03036800|169026103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.4|2.45|<0.001
84754119|NCT01390272|169264109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 12 months||1.4|0.5|0.53
84754120|NCT01390272|169264110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 18 months.||2.3|0.9|0.09
84754121|NCT01390272|169264113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and diabetes control.||||1.5|0.7|0.95
84577396|NCT00407511|168907050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (Day 49 to 63).||-3.4|-4.2|< 0.0001
84577397|NCT00407511|168907050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= Day 78)||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
84577398|NCT00407511|168907050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
84577399|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 1 assessment if their visit fell within Days 4 to 10.||-14.0|-22.3|< 0.0001
84754122|NCT01390272|169264114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link.Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 12 months||2.1|0.9|0.12
84577400|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-32.4|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 2 assessment if their visit fell within Days 11 to 17.||-24.0|-32.4|< 0.0001
84577401|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-38.5|-30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 3 assessment if their visit fell within Days 18 to 24.||-30.0|-38.5|< 0.0001
84577402|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.2|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 4 assessment if their visit fell within days 25 to 35.||-36.7|-45.2|< 0.0001
84577403|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.2|-41.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 8 assessment if their visit fell within Days 49 to 63.||-41.4|-50.2|< 0.0001
84577404|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-52.8|-44.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 12 assessment if their visit fell \>= Day 78.||-44.0|-52.8|< 0.0001
84577405|NCT00407511|168907053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change is the arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
84577406|NCT00407511|168907054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-43.4|-33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 8 assessment only if their visit fell within Days 49 and 63.||-33.9|-43.4|< 0.0001
84577407|NCT00407511|168907054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 12 assessment only if their visit fell \>=Day 78.||-35.9|-45.5|< 0.0001
84609631|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||98.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|1.02|98.89
84676591|NCT01516879|169088669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-54.45|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-54.45|-60.57|<0.001
84577408|NCT00407511|168907054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change= arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
84577409|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.0001
84577410|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
84609632|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||91.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.97|91.94
84577411|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.9|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.2|-2.9|< 0.0001
84577412|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.5|-3.2|< 0.0001
84577413|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 5: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.3|< 0.0001
84577414|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.4|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 6: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.4|< 0.0001
84577415|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 7: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.5|< 0.0001
84577416|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
84577417|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 9: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.9|-3.7|< 0.0001
84577418|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 10: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
84577419|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Visit 11: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.8|< 0.0001
84577420|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
84577421|NCT00407511|168907055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline sleep scores; mean change = arithmetic mean change; p-value: from single sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
84577422|NCT02493855|168907058|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.311|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.311
84577423|NCT02493855|168907058|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.561
84577424|NCT03086343|168907059|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of upadacitinib 15 mg versus abatacept was tested using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
84577425|NCT03086343|168907060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
84577426|NCT03086343|168907061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.2||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factor of prior failed bDMARD was used.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||23.2|10.4|< 0.001
84577427|NCT01922011|168907074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is greater than -15%|Common Difference|-6.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.4|||Wald||Daptomycin - Comparator|95% confidence interval of the common difference was based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.||7.4|-19.4|0.421
84577428|NCT01922011|168907075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|||7.9|-21.6|0.467
84577429|NCT01922011|168907076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.2||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOIV visit||5.0|-17.5|0.313
84609633|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.32
84609634|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||97.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|1.00|97.17
84609635|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||96.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.99|96.57
84577430|NCT01922011|168907076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.9||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOT visit||4.0|-19.8|0.239
84577431|NCT01922011|168907076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|5.8|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At TOC visit||5.8|-19.1|0.370
84645246|NCT03036800|169026104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|14.01|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.01|1.81|0.002
84645247|NCT03036800|169026105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.64|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.64|1.88|0.002
84577432|NCT01922011|168907077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||5.4|-26.3|0.230
84577433|NCT01922011|168907077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|4.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||4.4|-28.5|0.164
84577434|NCT01922011|168907077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-15.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.1|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||1.1|-31.2|0.043
84577435|NCT01922011|168907077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wald|||MRSA||||0.450
84609636|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||79.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.90|79.13
84754123|NCT01390272|169264115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 18 months||1.9|0.8|0.30
84754124|NCT01177384|169264116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.44||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline A1C.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.79|<.001
84754125|NCT01177384|169264117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.0||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-21.8|<.001
84577436|NCT01922011|168907077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wald|||Other Pathogen||||0.280
84609637|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||99.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|1.05|99.54
84609638|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||97.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|1.00|97.80
84754126|NCT01849497|169264120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-16.3|
84577437|NCT01922011|168907078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.5|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|EOT||5.5|-18.2|0.272
84577438|NCT01922011|168907078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-4.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|TOC||7.9|-17.6|0.480
84577439|NCT01922011|168907079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|4.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||4.2|-24.8|
84754127|NCT01849497|169264121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|2.99||||||||2.99|-10.38|
84754128|NCT00823303|169264124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|On the basis of prior published reports, we estimated a 5% rate of hypercalcemia with paricalcitol and a 30% rate with calcitriol. To have a 90% power to detect a difference at the P=0.05 confidence level, 42 patients per group were needed. Assuming a 30% dropout rate over the course of the study, we planned to randomize 110 patients.||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
84754129|NCT01540825|169264136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1831|1.3112|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (powder in bottle (PIB)) for Cmax was analysed.||1.3112|1.1831|
84754130|NCT01540825|169264138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1195|1.2057|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC 0- tz was analysed.||1.2057|1.1195|
84754131|NCT01540825|169264139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.1941|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC0-inf was analysed||1.1941|1.1080|
84754132|NCT01641237|169264143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
84754133|NCT01641237|169264143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3748||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.3748
84577440|NCT01922011|168907079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|2.8|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||2.8|-27.2|
84577441|NCT01922011|168907079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|5.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||5.2|-25.4|
84577442|NCT00924482|168907092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient (R^2)|0.63||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression between the average of six thermodilution cardiac output measurements was compared to the average of six ECOM output measurements||||||
84577443|NCT00063622|168907115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.001
84577444|NCT00063622|168907115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.04
84577445|NCT00063622|168907116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84577446|NCT00063622|168907116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84577447|NCT00063622|168907117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84577448|NCT00063622|168907117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84577449|NCT00063622|168907118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84577450|NCT00063622|168907118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84577451|NCT00063622|168907119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84577452|NCT00063622|168907119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84754134|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||5.43|-1.09|0.1898
84754135|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no dose-response relationship between %SMHR and fluoride concentration in the dentifrice.||8.86|2.35|0.0009
84754136|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.43||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.68||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||6.68|0.18|0.0389
84577453|NCT00063622|168907120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84577454|NCT00063622|168907120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84577455|NCT03384966|168907121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.4|154.8||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values."||154.8|22.4|< 0.0001
84645248|NCT03036800|169026122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||19.48|5.26|<0.001
84645249|NCT03036800|169026123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||9.36|2.86|<0.001
84577456|NCT03384966|168907121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.1|162.3||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values in the main analysis."||162.3|23.1|< 0.0001
84577457|NCT03384966|168907125|OTHER|Logistic regression (Type III analysis)||||||0.1915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1915
84577458|NCT03384966|168907127|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-27.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach.||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment to 8 hours after injection.||-19.6|-35.4|<.0001
84577459|NCT03384966|168907127|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-31.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment up to 8 hours after injection.||-23.1|-39.0|<.0001
84577460|NCT02202616|168907130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.21|0.14|
84609639|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||71.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|71.94
84609640|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||85.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.94|85.30
84609641|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||82.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.94|82.15
84609642|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.88|72.55
84609643|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||98.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|1.02|98.44
84577461|NCT02202616|168907131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.17|0.11|
84577462|NCT02202616|168907132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.3|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit.||Week 4||2.30|1.74|
84577463|NCT02202616|168907132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit||Week 16||2.85|2.21|
84577464|NCT02202616|168907133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.3|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 4||-4.3|-5.7|
84577465|NCT02202616|168907133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.7|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 16||-5.7|-7.3|
84577466|NCT04502524|168907140|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||For overall satisfaction, a reliable estimate could not be calculated using a logistic regression model as all the responses were the same in the Vet Flexiquit arm. We calculated the p-value using the Fisher's exact test.||||.999
84577467|NCT04502524|168907141|OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.56|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.56|-0.46|0.852
84609644|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||78.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.86|78.24
84672379|NCT00653224|169080312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.088||95.0|-0.2|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.20|0.088
84577468|NCT04502524|168907142|OTHER||Slope|-0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.71|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.71|-1.60|0.451
84577469|NCT04502524|168907143|OTHER||Slope|-0.73||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.003|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.003|-1.46|0.508
84577470|NCT04502524|168907144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.13|0.602
84577471|NCT04502524|168907145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|0.17|0.941
84577472|NCT04502524|168907146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.12|0.09|0.612
84577473|NCT04502524|168907147|OTHER||Slope|0.56||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.26|||Regression, Linear|||||2.26|-1.13|0.504
84577474|NCT04502524|168907148|OTHER||Slope|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||||0.61|-0.40|0.670
84577475|NCT04327271|168907149|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.25% set as lower bound of 95% CI for the maximum mean difference between the proportion of cumulative AEs between control and 2wT arms to conclude that 2wT is non-inferior. This margin was set considering the average AE rate of 0.5% from routine SSA MC programs at scale, and assuming that 2wT increases AE ascertainment to 2.0%, similar to 1.9% of Zimbabwe RCT and the widely-accepted standard 2% AE rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|||||||With 10% loss to follow-up (LTFU), a sample size of 1104 men provides at least 80% power to rule out a decrease in AE ascertainment of more than 0.25% based on the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI. The one tailed alpha was set 0.05.|||-.09|
84577476|NCT04327271|168907150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21|||Fisher Exact|||The mean number of in-person clinic visit, excluding non-study visits, were compared between the two arms using a t-test. The proportion of potential AEs was calculated as number of potential AE responses divided by the total number of daily responses (no AE and potential AE). A superiority test was performed on the safety outcomes using a two-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value using Fisher's exact test.||1.21|1.03|0.001
84577477|NCT04837521|168907168|SUPERIORITY||γ01|0.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||analysis completed using the 1 week follow up data|||||.03
84577478|NCT04837521|168907169|OTHER|The conditions were expected to be similar, and the primary interest of the analysis was changes over time across both groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.49||To estimate the mean improvement in PSFS across the entire sample, we calculated a posterior predictive distribution of within-person change scores between time fixed equal to 0 and equal to -1.|Bayesian framework|||PSFS scores were analyzed using mixed-effects linear growth models with time, treatment condition, and their interaction as predictors. Random effects modeled variation in intercepts, slopes over time, and their covariance. Time was specified as a continuous variable, centered on the final observation date. The SG group served as the reference level for the treatment factor. Models were estimated in a Bayesian framework using default priors in the brms package.||4.49|2.32|
84577479|NCT03487445|168907187|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 8 mg is described in statistical analysis 2: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 8 mg dose.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.001
84577480|NCT03487445|168907187|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 8 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.142||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.142
84577481|NCT03487445|168907187|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 16 mg is described in statistical analysis 4: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 16 mg dose.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.0001
84577482|NCT03487445|168907187|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 16 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.009||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.009
84577483|NCT03487445|168907188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.2280
84577484|NCT03487445|168907188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.0201
84577485|NCT00221104|168907194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.29|0.73|0.8234
84577486|NCT00221104|168907195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.74|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||0.74|0.15|0.0047
84577487|NCT00221104|168907196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.91|0.81|0.3075
84577488|NCT00221104|168907197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||9.14|0.61|0.1986
84609645|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||96.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.52|0.99|96.80
84609646|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||91.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.97|91.11
84754137|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|13.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||13.13|6.58|<0.0001
84754138|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.96||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||10.96|4.41|<0.0001
84609647|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||89.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|89.30
84609648|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||74.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.87|74.67
84754139|NCT01641237|169264144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.25||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.53||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||7.53|0.98|0.0112
84577489|NCT00221104|168907198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.22|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||2.22|0.45|0.9953
84577490|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||10.96|-29.52|0.215
84577491|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.79|-48.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-48.43|-69.79|<0.001
84577492|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.21|-82.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-82.92|-90.21|<0.001
84577493|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.69|-2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-2.51|-33.69|0.015
84577494|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.23|-56.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-56.92|-72.23|<0.001
84577495|NCT02989389|168907205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.97|-78.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-78.38|-88.97|<0.001
84577496|NCT04470427|168907214|OTHER||VE|93.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|94.8|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|VE (percent) is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the VE is above 30%.|VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|"Vaccine efficacy was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard of the primary endpoint (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).~Null hypothesis of Vaccine Efficacy ≤30%, 95% CI."||94.8|91.0|<.0001
84577497|NCT04470427|168907220|OTHER||VE|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.6|||VE||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||99.6|92.8|
84609649|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||98.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|1.02|98.25
84672380|NCT00653224|169080313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.117||95.0|-0.23|0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.03|-0.23|0.117
84754140|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
84754141|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0002
84754142|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.18|39.59||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||39.59|25.18|<0.0001
84577498|NCT04470427|168907221|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.2|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||84.2|79.5|
84577499|NCT04470427|168907222|OTHER|VE|VE|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.4|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.4|
84577500|NCT04470427|168907224|OTHER||VE|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.1|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.1|
84577501|NCT04470427|168907225|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.3|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||84.3|79.5|
84577502|NCT04470427|168907226|OTHER||VE|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|68.5|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||68.5|56.6|
84577503|NCT04470427|168907232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on Ratio of GMC is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of Ratio of GMC ≥ 0.67.|Ratio of GMC|6.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.509|7.52||||||Ratio of GMC 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57).||7.520|6.509|
84577504|NCT04470427|168907233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on SRR difference is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of SRR difference \> -10%.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||||95% CI were calculated using adjusted Wald method for the paired binary data.|Seroresponse 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57)||1.8|0.1|
84577505|NCT04333498|168907263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-221.03||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.33|-45.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-45.73|-396.33|.014
84577506|NCT04333498|168907264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1103.96||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.532|2502.722|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2502.722|-296.532|0.122
84577507|NCT04333498|168907265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.614|3.391|||t-test, 2 sided|||Adherence percentage||3.391|-8.614|.218
84577508|NCT04333498|168907265|OTHER|Linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Slope|0.046||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.128|||Regression, Linear|||||0.128|-0.036|0.272
84577509|NCT01565694|168907266|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84577510|NCT01565694|168907266|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577511|NCT01565694|168907267|OTHER|P-Value was obtained from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that Change from Baseline=0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84577512|NCT01565694|168907268|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.029
84577513|NCT01565694|168907268|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.026
84577514|NCT01565694|168907269|OTHER|From a Wilcoxon Signed Rank testing the null hypothesis is that the Median at Week 24 is equal to Baseline Median.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84609650|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.96|87.80
84609651|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||91.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.97|91.54
84609652|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||68.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|68.89
84609653|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|1.01|98.19
84577515|NCT01565694|168907270|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.006
84577516|NCT01565694|168907270|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.001
84577517|NCT01565694|168907271|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.001
84577518|NCT01565694|168907271|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.004
84577519|NCT01565694|168907272|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.003
84577520|NCT01565694|168907272|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.028
84577521|NCT01565694|168907273|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.068
84577522|NCT01565694|168907273|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.075
84577523|NCT01565694|168907274|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84609654|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||94.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|94.07
84754143|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|38.67||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||38.67|24.25|<0.0001
84754144|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.02||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||28.02|13.60|<0.0001
84754145|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.1||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||8.10|-6.25|0.8000
84754146|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.57||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|18.74||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||18.74|4.40|0.0017
84754147|NCT01641237|169264145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|17.81||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||17.81|3.48|0.0038
84754148|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
84754149|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0008
84754150|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
84754151|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.85||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.85|1.36|<0.0001
84754152|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.86|0.38|<0.0001
84754153|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.29|-0.19|0.6680
84754154|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.28|0.80|<0.0001
84609655|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|75.74
84577524|NCT01565694|168907274|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577525|NCT01565694|168907275|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84577526|NCT01565694|168907275|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577527|NCT01565694|168907276|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84577528|NCT01565694|168907276|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577529|NCT01565694|168907277|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84609656|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||95.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.99|95.83
84505231|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|1.22|0.0004
84577530|NCT01565694|168907277|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577531|NCT01565694|168907278|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.010
84577532|NCT01565694|168907278|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.004
84577533|NCT01565694|168907279|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
84577534|NCT01565694|168907279|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
84577535|NCT01565694|168907280|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.568
84577536|NCT01565694|168907280|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.573
84577537|NCT02906618|168907289|OTHER|A mixed-effect analysis of variance model was applied to the log-transformed dose-adjusted AUC(0-∞) of LY3039478 after oral dosing and IV administration of 13C 15N 2H-LY3039478. The model contained a fixed effect for formulation (oral or IV) and a random effect for participant.|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.572|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.615||||||||0.615|0.532|
84577538|NCT00541229|168907318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.8||||0.004||95.0|-53.1|-10.5|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||-10.5|-53.1|0.004
84577539|NCT00541229|168907318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.6|-20.2|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group.||-20.2|-63.6|<0.001
84577540|NCT00541229|168907318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis stated that the lower bound of 80% one-sided confidence interval for the comparison in 24-hour WMG reduction between sitagliptin 200 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg is above -5 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||||80.0|0.61|9999999.0|||||This is a 1-sided 80% confidence interval and the upper bound 9999999 was used here to indicate positive infinity.|This was pre-defined as a non-superiority test, i.e., to show that sitagliptin 200 mg is not superior to sitagliptin 100 mg. For this comparison, the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||9999999|0.61|
84577541|NCT03720847|168907319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|||||.012
84577542|NCT03720847|168907320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates a greater perimenstrual increase in the outcome in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.030
84577543|NCT03720847|168907321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.013
84577544|NCT03720847|168907322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual change in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.018
84577545|NCT03720847|168907323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.073
84577546|NCT03720847|168907324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.25
84577547|NCT03720847|168907325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.23
84577548|NCT01115231|168907337|OTHER|multivariable logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||||||||4.42|0.93|
84577549|NCT02260986|168907349|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|36.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||36.26|16.34|<0.0001
84645250|NCT03036800|169026124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.22|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||7.22|2.39|<0.001
84505232|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.55|0.94|0.1396
84577550|NCT02260986|168907349|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|33.28||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||33.28|20.33|<0.0001
84577551|NCT02260986|168907350|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.72|55.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||55.66|35.72|<0.0001
84577552|NCT02260986|168907350|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|47.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||47.81|33.74|<0.0001
84577553|NCT02260986|168907351|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.53|49.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||49.65|28.53|<0.0001
84754155|NCT01641237|169264146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.23|0.75|<0.0001
84577554|NCT02260986|168907351|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||38.39|23.84|<0.0001
84577555|NCT02260986|168907352|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|48.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||48.31|27.56|<0.0001
84577556|NCT02260986|168907352|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.31|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||42.05|27.31|<0.0001
84577557|NCT02260986|168907353|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.72|34.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.19|12.72|<0.0001
84577558|NCT02260986|168907353|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.42|34.58||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.58|20.42|<0.0001
84577559|NCT02260986|168907354|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|54.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||54.65|32.50|<0.0001
84577560|NCT02260986|168907354|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.91|50.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||50.06|34.91|<0.0001
84577561|NCT02260986|168907355|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-17.43||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.43|-35.04|<0.0001
84609657|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||79.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.94|79.80
84609658|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||95.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|95.29
84754156|NCT01301456|169264172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.766||0.219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.26|0.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||0.93|-43.26|0.219
84754157|NCT01301456|169264172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.189||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.2|-14.16|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-14.16|-54.20|0.034
84754158|NCT01301456|169264172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-33.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.806||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.5|-12.84|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-12.84|-54.50|0.044
84754159|NCT01301456|169264172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.111||0.857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.16|18.31|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||18.31|-24.16|0.857
84577562|NCT02260986|168907355|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|-20.73||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-20.73|-32.83|<0.0001
84577563|NCT02260986|168907356|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|49.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||49.66|26.96|<0.0001
84577564|NCT02260986|168907356|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|33.45||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||33.45|18.76|<0.0001
84577565|NCT02260986|168907357|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|51.35||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||51.35|28.76|<0.0001
84577566|NCT02260986|168907357|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|34.76||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.76|19.81|<0.0001
84577567|NCT02260986|168907358|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.34|48.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||48.40|27.34|<0.0001
84645251|NCT03036800|169026125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.84|1.23|0.010
84645252|NCT03036800|169026126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|12.39|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.39|2.14|<0.001
84577568|NCT02260986|168907358|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.65|34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||34.70|20.65|<0.0001
84577569|NCT02260986|168907359|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|31.15||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||31.15|10.59|<0.0001
84577570|NCT02260986|168907359|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|10.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||17.31|4.15|0.0021
84577571|NCT02260986|168907360|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|17.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||17.63|1.61|0.0062
84577572|NCT02260986|168907360|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|5.5||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|10.51||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||10.51|0.56|0.0344
84577573|NCT02260986|168907361|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.297|-1.322||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-1.322|-2.297|<0.0001
84577574|NCT02260986|168907362|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.37|-17.82||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.82|-46.37|<0.0001
84609659|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|96.27
84577575|NCT02260986|168907363|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.583|-14.187||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-14.187|-22.583|<0.0001
84577576|NCT02260986|168907364|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-21.9|-33.46|<0.0001
84609660|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.94|47.62
84609661|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||71.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.92|71.55
84645253|NCT03036800|169026127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|12.86|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.86|3.32|<0.001
84609662|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|1.01|98.29
84609663|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian repeated measures model|1.08||||95.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.99|95.09
84577577|NCT02260986|168907365|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-3.02||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-3.02|-5.31|<0.0001
84577578|NCT02260986|168907366|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-5.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-5.93|-8.85|<0.0001
84577579|NCT02260986|168907367|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.37||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||0.37|-2.27|0.1596
84577580|NCT02827708|168907412|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
84577581|NCT02827708|168907412|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84577582|NCT02827708|168907413|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
84577583|NCT02827708|168907413|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.5|<0.0001
84609664|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||93.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.98|93.68
84645254|NCT03036800|169026128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|17.16|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||17.16|3.80|<0.001
84577584|NCT02827708|168907429|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.23|0.34|=0.1834
84577585|NCT02827708|168907430|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.04|0.17|=0.0610
84577586|NCT00898807|168907460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values are two-sided and p\<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model w/ random intercept for patient, visit indicator, treatment by visit interactions and adjusted for baseline NBRS-A \& cognition.|Negative numbers favor citalopram group.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the NBRS-A, the study was designed to have 85% power to detect a standardized difference at week 9 of 40% for citalopram compared to placebo at week 9.||-0.06|-1.80|0.036
84577587|NCT00898807|168907461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.69||All p-values are two-sided and p \<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Proportional odds|estimated treatment effect from the proportional odds model|Positive numbers favors citalopram.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the CGIC proportional odds analysis, the study was designed to have power greater than 80% to detect a difference of 20% between citalopram and placebo in the proportions of patients who improve (or worsen).||3.69|1.23|0.007
84577588|NCT02111980|168907523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84577589|NCT01482221|168907533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.695||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.152||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.152|-4.519|0.630
84609665|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|1.00|96.58
84645255|NCT03036800|169026129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||5.47|0.95|0.065
84577590|NCT01482221|168907533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.701||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.563|2.134||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.134|-4.563|0.476
84577591|NCT01482221|168907534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.816||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.628|1.522||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.522|-5.628|0.630
84645256|NCT03036800|169026130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|14.34|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.34|0.56|0.206
84577592|NCT01482221|168907534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.485||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.485|-2.720|0.630
84577593|NCT01482221|168907535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.089||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.089|0.544|0.852
84577594|NCT01482221|168907535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|2.115||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.115|0.552|0.821
84577595|NCT01482221|168907536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.686|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.686|0.485|0.751
84577596|NCT01482221|168907536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.233|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.233|0.650|0.555
84577597|NCT01482221|168907537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.301|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.301|0.699|0.434
84577598|NCT01482221|168907537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.334|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.334|0.377|0.286
84577599|NCT01482221|168907538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.007|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.007|0.672|0.357
84577600|NCT01482221|168907538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.84|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.840|0.622|0.463
84577601|NCT01482221|168907539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|2.031|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.031|0.532|0.911
84577602|NCT01482221|168907539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.613|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.613|0.382|0.509
84577603|NCT01482221|168907540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.609|2.264||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.264|-2.609|0.889
84577604|NCT01482221|168907540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|2.501||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.501|-2.477|0.992
84577605|NCT01482221|168907540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|3.678||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.678|-1.448|0.392
84609666|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||56.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.95|56.99
84577606|NCT01482221|168907540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|3.908||Analysis for changed in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.908|-1.327|0.333
84577607|NCT01482221|168907541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.34|-0.49|0.728
84577608|NCT01482221|168907541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.29|-0.54|0.562
84577609|NCT01482221|168907541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.19||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.64|0.283
84577610|NCT01482221|168907541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||Analysis for changed in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.55|-0.29|0.540
84577611|NCT01482221|168907542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|3.141|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||3.141|0.962|0.067
84577612|NCT01482221|168907542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.558|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.558|0.798|0.230
84577613|NCT01482221|168907543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.447|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.447|0.780|0.268
84577614|NCT01482221|168907543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.75|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||1.750|0.533|0.909
84577615|NCT01482221|168907544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.13|-2.29|0.505
84577616|NCT01482221|168907544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.91||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.91|-1.56|0.842
84577617|NCT01482221|168907544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.51||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.51|-1.98|0.788
84577618|NCT01482221|168907544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.12||Analysis for changed in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.12|-0.42|0.133
84577619|NCT04900272|168907545|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.785
84577620|NCT04900272|168907546|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.583
84577621|NCT04900272|168907547|OTHER|||||||0.5015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5015
84577622|NCT04900272|168907548|OTHER|||||||0.3536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3536
84577623|NCT04900272|168907549|OTHER|||||||0.2688|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2688
84577624|NCT04900272|168907550|OTHER|||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
84577625|NCT04900272|168907551|OTHER|||||||0.473|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.473
84577626|NCT04900272|168907552|OTHER|||||||0.4161|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4161
84577627|NCT04900272|168907553|OTHER|||||||0.3356|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3356
84577628|NCT04900272|168907554|OTHER|||||||0.9825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9825
84577629|NCT01047501|168907564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-16.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-16.2|-26.7|<0.0001
84577630|NCT01047501|168907564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-15.7|0.0005
84577631|NCT01047501|168907565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-1.7|-10.5|0.0067
84577632|NCT01047501|168907565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.5|-7.9|0.0867
84577633|NCT01047501|168907566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-9.9|-17.2|0.0001
84577634|NCT01047501|168907566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.0140
84577635|NCT01047501|168907567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-17.0||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-17.0|-31.9|0.0001
84577636|NCT01047501|168907567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-2.5|-18.3|0.0170
84577637|NCT01047501|168907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-15.7||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-15.7|-22.2|0.0001
84577638|NCT01047501|168907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-11.6|0.0004
84754160|NCT01301456|169264173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.54|0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.12|-0.54|0.419
84754161|NCT01301456|169264173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.12|-0.71|0.077
84577639|NCT01047501|168907569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.1|-12.3|0.0001
84577640|NCT01047501|168907569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-6.9|0.0170
84577641|NCT04602000|168907574|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by age (≥60 vs. \<60 years), baseline comorbidities (Yes vs. No) and region (US vs. EU vs. Other)|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights was presented.|||-4.5|-11.7|<0.0001
84577642|NCT01846871|168907603|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84577643|NCT01846871|168907604|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84577644|NCT01846871|168907605|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
84577645|NCT01846871|168907606|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84577646|NCT04871113|168907617|OTHER||Emax|-1.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.225|-1.472|||||Emax is defined as maximum response.|||-1.472|-2.225|
84577647|NCT04871113|168907617|OTHER||EC50|68.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.866|121.29|||||EC50 is defined as the dose (in mg) that attains the 50% of the maximal effect.|||121.290|15.866|
84754162|NCT01301456|169264173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.147|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.04|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.65|0.147
84754163|NCT01301456|169264173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.11|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.11|-0.76|0.086
84754164|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.16|16.37|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||16.37|-8.16|0.663
84577648|NCT04871113|168907617|OTHER||s2e|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.368|||||e is defined as random error assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero and constant variance (s2).|||0.368|0.145|
84577649|NCT01257542|168907641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||p-value was calculated using negative binomial regression model with treatment, site and baseline of cough count terms with log (exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Negative binomial regression|||Odds Ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were assessed from the negative binomial regression model.||1.15|0.59|0.252
84577650|NCT01257542|168907642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-square (LS) means from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||0.08|-0.60|0.134
84577651|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.768
84577652|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.23|-0.64|0.358
84577653|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.74|0.139
84577654|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.25|-0.68|0.364
84577655|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.90|0.039
84577656|NCT01257542|168907643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.16||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.16|-0.75|0.206
84577657|NCT01257542|168907644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.43|0.304
84577658|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.97|-1.03|0.954
84609667|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||13.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.85|13.08
84609668|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.99
84609669|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||60.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.90|60.75
84577659|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.65|-1.54|0.426
84609670|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.92|75.23
84609671|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||28.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.78|28.14
84609672|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||38.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.84|38.43
84577660|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.60|-1.49|0.396
84577661|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.66|-1.63|0.402
84672381|NCT00653224|169080314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.065||95.0|-0.21|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.21|0.065
84577662|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.69||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.38|-1.75|0.204
84577663|NCT01257542|168907645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.39|-2.06|0.179
84577664|NCT01257542|168907646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39||p-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.39|-0.21|0.523
84577665|NCT01257542|168907647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24||p-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.24|-0.35|0.796
84754165|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.472||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.03|9.25|||mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.25|-13.03|0.825
84754166|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.791||0.878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.2|12.92|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.92|-10.20|0.878
84754167|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.829||0.936|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.89|12.33|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.33|-10.89|0.936
84754168|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.037||0.959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.46|17.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||17.82|-16.46|0.959
84577666|NCT00081458|168907648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84577667|NCT00081458|168907649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An efficacy responder was defined as achieving at least a 20% reduction from Baseline to Week 20 and maintained at Week 24 in weekly actual PN infusion volume.||||0.005
84577668|NCT04822194|168907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects behavioral analyses of longitudinal reappraisal training data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects require 36 per group.||||0.053
84577669|NCT04822194|168907698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed models on natural log of RMSSD, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously obtained for within and between-subjects analyses of respiratory sinus arrhythmia data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.741
84609673|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||25.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.80|25.21
84609674|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||81.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.91|81.73
84609675|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.76|9.87
84754169|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.872||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.07|-16.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-16.85|-48.07|0.011
84609676|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||63.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.87|63.15
84609677|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.86|4.03
84754170|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.212||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.67|13.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.45|-18.67|0.833
84754171|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.47|9.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.05|-23.47|0.565
84754172|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.713||0.703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.52|9.02|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.02|-16.52|0.703
84577670|NCT04822194|168907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects a group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using a within-subject fMRI effect size estimate for right amygdala affective reactivity from a meta-analysis of Human Connectome Project data of approx. d=.70, applying to between-subjects effects as well, indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 participants per group.||||0.021
84577671|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran linear mixed models, p-value reflects a group by session interaction for the UGRS composite scores.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses of an effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects analyses of questionnaire outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, grief rumination, perceived stress, reappraisal usage) indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) for between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.724
84577672|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on counterfactuals adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.835
84577673|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on injustice adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.090
84577674|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on meaning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.983
84577675|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on reaction adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.760
84577676|NCT04822194|168907700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on relations adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.402
84577677|NCT04822194|168907701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.092
84609678|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
84577678|NCT04822194|168907702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.585
84577679|NCT04822194|168907703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.70
84577680|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional problems adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.696
84577681|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional well-being adjusted for covariates, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.452
84577682|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model on energy adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.650
84577683|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on general health perceptions adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.224
84577684|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on pain adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference in groups||||0.256
84577685|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical function adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.984
84577686|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical health adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.363
84577687|NCT04822194|168907704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on social functioning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.045
84577688|NCT04822194|168907705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of logged IL-6 serum, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.422
84577689|NCT04822194|168907705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of TNFα, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.438
84577690|NCT03976375|168907706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.23|0.78|0.4342
84577691|NCT03976375|168907707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.12|0.70|0.1563
84754173|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.827||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.07|-13.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.85|-37.07|0.008
84754174|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.061||0.253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.51|1.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.32|-22.51|0.253
84754175|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.198||0.128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-2.38|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-2.38|-26.57|0.128
84577692|NCT03976375|168907708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Docetaxel|8.4||||0.01818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|16.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen and Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%)|||16.3|0.5|0.01818
84577693|NCT03976375|168907709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Lenvatinib|10.2||||0.06009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.9|-3.1|0.06009
84577694|NCT03976375|168907713|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.36||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||2.60|-5.32|0.4998
84577695|NCT03976375|168907714|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.86||||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.44|-9.16|0.1531
84577696|NCT03976375|168907715|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, timing of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.27|-2.31|0.3084
84577697|NCT03976375|168907716|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.04||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-2.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||-2.35|-13.73|0.0058
84577698|NCT03976375|168907717|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.89||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|7.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.01|-1.23|0.1681
84577699|NCT03976375|168907718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.31|0.63|0.6145
84577700|NCT03976375|168907719|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||0.98|0.38|0.0398
84577701|NCT03976375|168907720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.85|0.59|0.8724
84577702|NCT03976375|168907721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.49|0.1944
84577703|NCT03976375|168907722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.41|0.71|0.9837
84577704|NCT03976375|168907723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.60|0.2903
84577705|NCT03279458|168907786|OTHER|least square regression analysis|correlation coefficient (R)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||0.97|0.88|<0.05
84577706|NCT01913353|168907787|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 1 (after 2 doses of MVA-BN) is non-inferior to Group 2 (after 1 dose of ACAM2000) in terms of PRNT GMTs at the respective peak visit (Week 6 in Group 1 / Week 4 in Group 2) was predefined as '1/2 (i.e. 0.5)' for the GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2).|GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|2.397||||||||2.397|1.562|
84754176|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.421||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.17|-0.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.13|-30.17|0.196
84754177|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.393||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.84|-14.51|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-14.51|-41.84|0.012
84754178|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.773||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.65|-8.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-8.32|-36.65|0.047
84754179|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.837||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-13.06|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.06|-44.19|0.023
84577707|NCT01913353|168907788|SUPERIORITY|Predefined threshold of clinical relevance for the area attenuation ratio (AAR): 40%|Area attenuation ratio (AAR)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.3|||||The AAR, i.e. the reduction in MLA \[1 - MLA ratio (Group 1/Group 2)\] after scarification was to be significantly above 40%. The MLA ratio and the corresponding 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the shift for log-transformed MLAs.|||98.3|96.6|
84577708|NCT03807843|168907854|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 28 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 28 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.1|1.2|0.004
84577709|NCT03807843|168907854|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.8|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 56 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 56 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.8|1.5|<0.001
84577710|NCT03807843|168907854|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 196 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 196 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||1.7|0.9|0.121
84577711|NCT01312129|168907857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||=0.05 is the actual computed p-value via the ANOVA.|ANOVA|The ANOVA is comparing the % increase in BOLD response above baseline during cue presentation (Alcohol vs. Control) b/w placebo \& Sulfasalazine .||||||=.05
84577712|NCT00924651|168907871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.3327|||ANCOVA|||||0.3327|-0.3710|0.9148
84577713|NCT02383173|168907895|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|Sandwich estimators were used to adjust for the small number of clusters.||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses of post-intervention data were used to account for clustering. We adjusted for age, race, cancer, length of stay and study year.||||0.445
84577714|NCT01625182|168907904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.7|0.6|0.9838
84577715|NCT00429299|168907918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exploratory comparison between the combined two single anti-HER2 arms and the dual anti-HER2 arm was performed (Arm 3 versus Arms 1 and 2).|percentage of participants|25.0||||0.019||90.0|13.1|36.9||Exploratory analysis|Chi-squared||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus trastuzumab treatment group with pathological complete response.|||36.9|13.1|0.019
84577716|NCT00429299|168907918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.3||||||90.0|14.5|38.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus lapatinib 1500 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||38.1|14.5|
84577717|NCT00429299|168907918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|58.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus traztuzumab plus lapatinib 1000 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||58.9|34.4|
84577718|NCT00315822|168907927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.52|0.80
84577719|NCT00693303|168907928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.27
84577720|NCT00195429|168907942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84577721|NCT00195429|168907943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.361
84577722|NCT05561140|168907952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-10.9|=1.0000
84577723|NCT05561140|168907954|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|||=|0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for stratification factors.||-0.8|-15.6|=0.0297
84577724|NCT05561140|168907955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.1|||=|0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-26.9|=0.3456
84577725|NCT02949934|168907959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, baseline drinks per day, and whether participant participated before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group.||||0.013
84577726|NCT02949934|168907960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, and baseline drinks per day.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group||||0.014
84577727|NCT02949934|168907961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.062
84577728|NCT02949934|168907962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.83
84577729|NCT02949934|168907962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between medication group and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.026
84577730|NCT00849472|168907976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.64|27.55|||||The estimated value (EV) represents the percentage of participants with pCR. Participants with missing data were excluded from the denominator (n=89; 4 participants with missing data) for the calculation of the EV.|||27.55|10.64|
84754180|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.576||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.77|22.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||22.93|-12.77|0.711
84754181|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|21.66|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||21.66|-10.86|0.666
84754182|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.333||0.807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.27|13.17|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.17|-19.27|0.807
84577731|NCT04615507|168907988|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Mean estimate|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.083|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.083|-0.180|
84577732|NCT04615507|168907988|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Mean estimate|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.017|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.017|-0.115|
84577733|NCT04615507|168907988|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Mean estimate|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.121|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.121|0.022|
84577734|NCT04615507|168907989|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of the LSM is above the predefined threshold 32 points.|Least-square mean|59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|66.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||||66.8|52.3|
84577735|NCT04615507|168907989|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above -5 points.|Least-square mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.2|0.9|
84577736|NCT00248547|168907990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.041
84577737|NCT05494632|168907995|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84577738|NCT01590875|168908044|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||no relevant statistical analysis|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||<0.01
84577739|NCT01590875|168908045|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||kappa statistic|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||< 0.01
84577740|NCT02347787|168908046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Determination of targeted sample size was based on detecting a between-arm difference in mean change in SF-12 Physical Component Summary of 3 points, which is the minimal clinically significant difference for this instrument. To achieve at least 80% power with a type I error rate of 5%, we required 444 total participants. To account for 25% attrition, we aimed to accrue 592 participants.||||0.30
84577741|NCT02347787|168908047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-1.3|0.21
84577742|NCT02347787|168908048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-0.7|0.21
84577743|NCT02347787|168908049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2|-2.2|0.21
84577744|NCT02347787|168908050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.8|-14.3|0.21
84577745|NCT02347787|168908051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
84577746|NCT02347787|168908052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84577747|NCT02347787|168908053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.6|0.98
84577748|NCT02347787|168908055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84577749|NCT02347787|168908056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
84577750|NCT02347787|168908057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
84577751|NCT02347787|168908059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
84577752|NCT02347787|168908060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84577753|NCT03244189|168908101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||||1.20|0.77|
84577754|NCT03244189|168908102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37||||||||1.37|0.72|
84577755|NCT03244189|168908103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.29||||||||2.29|0.91|
84577756|NCT04633447|168908174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6|||=|0.638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.9|-14.7|=0.638
84577757|NCT00639379|168908208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.436|0.967|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens orientation within 5 degrees.||0.967|0.436|
84754183|NCT01301456|169264175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.877||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.15|23.72|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||23.72|-10.15|0.603
84754184|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.387|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.21|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.21|-0.24|0.387
84577758|NCT00639379|168908209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.68|1.416|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens stability within 5 degrees.||1.416|0.680|
84577759|NCT00639379|168908210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.0517|0.1868|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for lens comfort.||0.1868|-0.0517|
84577760|NCT00639379|168908211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08566|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.2337|-0.01185|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for subjective vision.||-0.01185|-0.2337|
84577761|NCT00639379|168908212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01265|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.01267|0.01986|||||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric by having a lower level of corneal staining.||0.01986|-0.01267|
84577762|NCT05630755|168908215|NON_INFERIORITY|A margin of 4 percentage points is used to define non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.003
84577763|NCT05630755|168908215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.192
84609679|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||80.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.95|80.34
84609680|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||25.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|25.65
84609681|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.88|24.36
84754185|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.18|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.18|-0.14|0.309
84577764|NCT04868682|168908234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided||The parameter estimate is the difference in means (treatment vs. control) during the first 180 nights following randomization.|||1.91|0.65|.0001
84609682|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.91|48.45
84645257|NCT03036800|169026131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥32% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||8.90|1.17|0.023
84577765|NCT04868682|168908235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||0.87|-2.29|0.378
84577766|NCT04868682|168908236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.27|-4.09|<0.001
84577767|NCT04868682|168908237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||1.18|-1.40|0.865
84754186|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.518||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.65|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.65|-0.71|0.956
84754187|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|1.67|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.67|0.24|0.089
84754188|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|1.95|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.95|-0.48|0.434
84577768|NCT01479530|168908264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.92|0.0228
84577769|NCT01479530|168908265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
84577770|NCT01479530|168908266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.75|0.0075
84577771|NCT01479530|168908267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-3.05|0.0317
84577772|NCT00303628|168908288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified log rank test. The above P value was for one-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.876
84577773|NCT00303628|168908289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided stratified log rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.299
84577774|NCT04925934|168908294|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.8|||=|0.7474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.4|=0.7474
84577775|NCT04925934|168908294|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.9942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||14.1|-14.2|=0.9942
84577776|NCT04925934|168908295|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|37.2|||=|0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|74.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||74.7|-0.3|=0.1626
84577777|NCT04925934|168908295|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|24.1|||=|0.2873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|55.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||55.8|-7.5|=0.2873
84577778|NCT04925934|168908296|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.6|||=|0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||22.7|-5.6|=0.3220
84577779|NCT04925934|168908296|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.9|||=|0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.2|=0.7364
84577780|NCT04925934|168908297|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|11.7|||=|0.2805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|29.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||29.4|-6.1|=0.2805
84577781|NCT04925934|168908297|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|9.4|||=|0.3926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|27.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||27.3|-8.6|=0.3926
84577782|NCT04925934|168908298|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.5|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|29.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||29.0|4.0|=0.0370
84577783|NCT04925934|168908298|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9|||=|0.4939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|16.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||16.4|-6.7|=0.4939
84577784|NCT03158688|168908310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox model hazard ratio|0.63||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.854||alpha level of 0.025|Log Rank||KdD/Kd|Stratification factors used in the Log-rank p-value (1-sided) and the Cox model hazard ratio (KdD/Kd) were as assessed at randomization: International Staging System stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3); prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no); number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>= 2).||0.854|0.464|0.0014
84577785|NCT03158688|168908311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||KdD/Kd|"Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.~P-values were calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test."||3.129|1.184|0.0040
84577786|NCT03158688|168908312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.364|25.858|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.||25.858|2.364|
84577787|NCT03158688|168908313|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.784||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.033|||Log Rank||KdD/Kd|"Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards models.~1-sided p-value from the log-rank test controlling for the randomization stratification factors."||1.033|0.595|0.0417
84505233|NCT01360632|168761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.46||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.86|1.15|0.0016
84577788|NCT03158688|168908322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|9.656|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method.||9.656|2.007|
84577789|NCT03158688|168908323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.35|||linear mixed effects model||The overall treatment difference (KdD - Kd)|Analysis was performed based on a linear mixed effects model. The model included fixed effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), baseline QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, randomization stratification factors (ISS stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3), prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2)), interaction between treatment and time, and random effects of participant intercept and random slope of time.||2.35|-2.52|0.9480
84577790|NCT03301714|168908349|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||baseline demographics, correlated errors due to repeated measures, and bias due to lost to follow-up were accounted for via Generalized Estimating Equation (statistical threshold \<0.01)|Regression, Linear||Mean change difference in oral health related quality of life among control, intervention 1: group-based oral health education and intervention 2: individual-based oral health education using motivational interviewing.|||||.000
84577791|NCT05073315|168908378|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Least Square Mean (GMR)|1.0516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.2273||||||||1.2273|0.9010|
84577792|NCT05073315|168908379|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Least Square Mean Ratio|1.0044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8717|1.1574||||||||1.1574|0.8717|
84577793|NCT05073315|168908382|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.29||||||||0.29|-5.23|
84577794|NCT01529268|168908389|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.1|0.8|0.34
84577795|NCT01529268|168908390|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.90
84577796|NCT01529268|168908391|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Steatosis: patients with improvement||1.1|0.5|0.15
84577797|NCT01529268|168908392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Steatosis: change in score||0.4|-0.2|0.59
84577798|NCT01529268|168908393|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|1.1|0.03
84577799|NCT01529268|168908394|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.06
84609683|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||1.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.99|0.81|1.95
84577800|NCT01529268|168908395|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.4|0.29
84577801|NCT01529268|168908396|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.15
84577802|NCT01529268|168908397|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|0.6|0.57
84577803|NCT01529268|168908398|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.76
84577804|NCT01529268|168908399|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.6|0.6|0.98
84577805|NCT01529268|168908400|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.24
84577806|NCT01529268|168908401|NON_INFERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic and weight group||||18.3|0.4|0.29
84577807|NCT01529268|168908402|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks in serum alanine aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum alanine aminotransferase.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-24.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum alanine aminotransferase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The change in ALT is adjusted for the baseline ALT value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-44|0.02
84577808|NCT01529268|168908402|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in serum aspartate aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum aspartate aminotransferase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum aspartate aminotransferase.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST). The change in AST is adjusted for the baseline AST value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-26|0.008
84577809|NCT01529268|168908402|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase on treatment group and baseline value of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT). The change in GGT is adjusted for the baseline GGTvalue; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-1|-13|0.02
84577810|NCT01529268|168908403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-value and adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in weight (kg) on treatment group and baseline weight (kg).|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline weight (kg).||Adjusted difference in mean changes in weight (kg). The change in weight is adjusted for the baseline weight value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.1|-4.1|0.25
84577811|NCT01529268|168908404|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in body mass index (BMI). The change in BMI is adjusted for the baseline BMI value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||0.5|-1.1|0.42
84577812|NCT01529268|168908405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.1|0.11
84609684|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||14.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.85|14.15
84609685|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||80.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.95|80.61
84609686|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||3.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.30
84609687|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.88|42.22
84609688|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||95.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.99|95.24
84609689|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.83|6.38
84676592|NCT01516879|169088670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-33.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.11|-37.19|<0.001
84577813|NCT01529268|168908406|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in waist circumference on treatment group and baseline value of waist circumference.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline waist circumference (cm)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in waist circumference (cm). The change in waist circumference is adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||2.6|-2.3|0.89
84577814|NCT01529268|168908407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting serum glucose on treatment group and baseline fasting serum glucose value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-4.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum glucose value.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting serum glucose. The change in fasting serum glucose is adjusted for the baseline fasting serum glucose value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||3|-11|0.24
84577815|NCT01529268|168908408|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting insulin on treatment group and baseline fasting insulin.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-6.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline fasting insulin.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting insulin. The change in fasting insulin is adjusted for the baseline fasting insulin value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||6|-18|0.34
84577816|NCT01529268|168908409|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in HOMA-IR on treatment group and baseline HOMA-IR value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HOMA-IR.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in HOMA-IR. The change in HOMA-IR is adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.0|-6.2|0.15
84577817|NCT01529268|168908410|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in systolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline systolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|1.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in systolic blood pressure. The change in systolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline systolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||4|-3|0.71
84577818|NCT01529268|168908411|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in diastolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline diastolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in diastolic blood pressure. The change in diastolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline diastolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1|-4|0.31
84577819|NCT01529268|168908412|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in self-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline self-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.77
84609690|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.86|28.82
84609691|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||87.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.97|87.39
84609692|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.27
84609693|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.82
84609694|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.77|9.67
84609695|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.89|70.73
84609696|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|25.61
84754189|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|2.35|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.35|0.14|0.150
84754190|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.41|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.41|-0.86|0.752
84754191|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.492|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|1.79|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.79|-0.55|0.492
84577820|NCT01529268|168908412|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in Pyschosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.64
84577821|NCT01529268|168908412|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-9|0.58
84577822|NCT01529268|168908412|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-6|0.85
84577823|NCT01529268|168908413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84577824|NCT05643794|168908434|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.54||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||Longitudinal linear mixed effect model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.16|-1.24|0.129
84577825|NCT05643794|168908437|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.51||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 24 weeks minus PBO 24 weeks.|||0.58|-1.60|0.358
84577826|NCT05643794|168908438|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-2.96|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo|||-2.96|-13.84|0.003
84577827|NCT05643794|168908439|SUPERIORITY||Differences from Placebo|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.64|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The differences presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.64|-0.55|0.878
84609697|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|44.10
84609698|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||10.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|10.14
84609699|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.90|62.87
84577828|NCT05643794|168908440|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.28||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.31|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.31|-0.86|0.352
84577829|NCT04167670|168908447|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|6.76|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||6.76|-7.39|0.0037
84577830|NCT04167670|168908447|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|12.62|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||12.62|-0.75|<0.0001
84577831|NCT04167670|168908448|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|52.56|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||52.56|20.54|<0.0001
84577832|NCT04167670|168908448|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.74|48.12|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||48.12|17.74|<0.0001
84577833|NCT04167670|168908449|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|15.44|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||15.44|1.86|0.0063
84645258|NCT03036800|169026132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|18.93|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||18.93|0.89|0.070
84609700|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||11.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|11.82
84609701|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.95|51.44
84577834|NCT04167670|168908449|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|12.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.81|||Farrington and Manning test|||Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.|The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|18.81|5.72|0.0001
84577835|NCT03921541|168908472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84645259|NCT03036800|169026133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
84577836|NCT03921541|168908473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5961
84577837|NCT03921541|168908474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1087
84577838|NCT03921541|168908475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84754192|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|2.4|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.40|-0.40|0.358
84754193|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.33|0.110
84754194|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|2.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.05|-0.56|0.461
84754195|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|2.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.45|-0.23|0.286
84754196|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.362|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|2.63|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.63|-0.45|0.362
84754197|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.07|0.179
84754198|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.342|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|2.49|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.49|-0.38|0.342
84577839|NCT03921541|168908476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84577840|NCT03921541|168908477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84577841|NCT03921541|168908479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84577842|NCT03921541|168908480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84577843|NCT03921541|168908481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84577844|NCT03921541|168908482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
84754199|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.129||0.272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|2.75|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.75|-0.22|0.272
84754200|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.317||0.979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|1.7|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.70|-1.77|0.979
84754201|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.88|-2.27|0.568
84754202|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.311|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.82|-0.34|0.311
84577845|NCT03921541|168908483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4434
84577846|NCT03921541|168908484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5301
84577847|NCT03921541|168908485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2515
84577848|NCT01112267|168908502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value for percentage of participants with reduction in pain intensity was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups||||||0.0367
84577849|NCT01112267|168908503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value for change in reduction in pain intensity at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.0095
84577850|NCT01112267|168908504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 8 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0202
84577851|NCT01112267|168908504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 15 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
84577852|NCT01112267|168908504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.4652
84577853|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in physical conditioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3524
84577854|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role physical at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
84577855|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5712||||||p-value for change from Baseline in bodily pain at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5712
84577856|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||||||p-value for change from Baseline in general health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0395
84754203|NCT01301456|169264177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|2.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.13|-1.18|0.710
84754204|NCT01509079|169264185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
84754205|NCT01338415|169264199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.399|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||4.399|0.470|
84754206|NCT01338415|169264199|OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate WHO FC at baseline is related to the time to PAH worsening|Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0526
84754207|NCT01338415|169264199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||||95.0|0.371|3.681|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||3.681|0.371|
84754208|NCT01338415|169264199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit|log(e) likelihood ratio|||Test of improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.076
84754209|NCT01338415|169264200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|6.428|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||6.428|0.582|
84754210|NCT01338415|169264200|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Cox|p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate is related to the time to the time to death up to end-of-study||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0085
84754211|NCT01338415|169264200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|5.052|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||5.052|0.437|
84754212|NCT01338415|169264200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||log(e) likelihood ratio|p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit||Test of the improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.014
84754213|NCT00718549|169264224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.028
84754214|NCT00718549|169264224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.033||95.0|0.187|0.933|||Cox's proportional hazards regression|||Univariate comparison||0.933|0.187|0.033
84754215|NCT00718549|169264224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.052||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.972|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison||1.972|0.001|0.111
84754216|NCT00718549|169264225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.654||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|28.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate Comparison||28.337|0.674|0.155
84754217|NCT00718549|169264226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate comparison||4.114|0.073|0.634
84754218|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|3.92|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||3.920|0.151|0.752
84754219|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|2.158|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.158|0.002|0.128
84754220|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.282||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|240.864|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||240.864|0.022|0.728
84754221|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|26.275||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|666.708|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||666.708|1.036|0.048
84754222|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|9.1|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||9.100|0.005|0.417
84754223|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.197||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|1.647|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||1.647|0.024|0.134
84754224|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.373||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|1568.717|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||1568.717|0.045|0.426
84754225|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.438||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|50.334|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||50.334|0.004|0.733
84754226|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.621||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|34.422|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||34.422|0.200|0.463
84754227|NCT00718549|169264227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.122|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||5.122|0.016|0.397
84754228|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.531|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.531|0.393|0.969
84754229|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.488|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||1.488|0.183|0.260
84754230|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|1.242|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||1.242|0.177|0.121
84754231|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.957|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||0.957|0.137|0.045
84754232|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.809||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|163.316|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||163.316|1.655|0.040
84754233|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.921||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.851|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||2.851|0.287|0.887
84754234|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|6.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||6.839|0.186|0.936
84505234|NCT04128696|168761138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.29||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.29|0.99|0.973
84754235|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|5.012|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||5.012|0.719|0.199
84754236|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.668||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|5.649|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.649|0.566|0.375
84754237|NCT00718549|169264228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|7.275|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||7.275|0.173|0.961
84754238|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|10.189|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||10.189|0.237|0.768
84754239|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|3.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||3.653|0.086|0.657
84754240|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|34.486|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||34.486|0.229|0.655
84754241|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.635||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||3.730|0.117|0.595
84754242|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|8.102|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||8.102|0.164|1.000
84754243|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|6.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||6.636|0.093|0.882
84754244|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|4.405|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||4.405|0.005|0.216
84754245|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.361||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.971|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||2.971|0.017|0.396
84754246|NCT00718549|169264229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|6.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||6.572|0.103|0.776
84754247|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|2.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.114|0.131|0.357
84754248|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.694||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.800|0.138|0.623
84754249|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|28.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||28.158|0.901|0.097
84754250|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|89.588|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||89.588|0.484|0.233
84754251|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.681|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||3.681|0.161|0.826
84754252|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|5.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.581|0.246|0.933
84754253|NCT00718549|169264230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.727||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.779|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||15.779|0.080|0.794
84754254|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|41.751|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||41.751|0.225|0.591
84754255|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|9.222|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||9.222|0.147|0.796
84609702|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||9.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.88|9.54
84609703|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
84609704|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||73.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.03
84609705|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||4.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.83|4.64
84609706|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.89|42.13
84609707|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||93.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.98|93.33
84609708|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||27.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|27.33
84609709|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||34.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|34.15
84609710|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||58.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|58.42
84609711|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||5.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.86|5.93
84609712|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||35.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|35.88
84754256|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|69.479|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||69.479|0.375|0.338
84754257|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|29.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||29.008|0.201|0.486
84754258|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|4.722|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||4.722|0.074|0.691
84577857|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in vitality at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0524
84609713|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||86.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.41
84754259|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.563|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||13.563|0.212|0.691
84754260|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|24.621|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||24.621|0.076|1.000
84754261|NCT00718549|169264231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|22.791|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||22.791|0.099|1.000
84754262|NCT01576172|169264232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84754263|NCT01576172|169264233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.39 on 112.7 degrees of freedom (Satterthwaite)||||||0.70
84754264|NCT01576172|169264234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84754265|NCT01576172|169264235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
84754266|NCT01576172|169264236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84754267|NCT01958788|169264245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754268|NCT01958788|169264245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754269|NCT01958788|169264245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754270|NCT01958788|169264246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754271|NCT01958788|169264246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754272|NCT01958788|169264246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754273|NCT01958788|169264247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment follow-up||||
84754274|NCT01958788|169264247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84577858|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||||||p-value for change from Baseline in social functioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.115
84577859|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7788||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role emotional at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7788
84577860|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||p-value for change from Baseline in mental health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7776
84577861|NCT01112267|168908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||||||p-value for change from Baseline in Reptd. health transition at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0047
84577862|NCT01112267|168908506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527||||||p-value for change from Baseline in ODI- Korean version at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0527
84577863|NCT01112267|168908507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0917||||||p-value for investigator's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0917
84577864|NCT01112267|168908508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5632||||||p-value for participant's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5632
84577865|NCT06059066|168908519|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure immediately after received intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.57
84577866|NCT06059066|168908519|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure asses 6-weeks after intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.83
84577867|NCT06059066|168908520|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total ICIQ-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.59
84577868|NCT06059066|168908520|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ICIQ QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.29
84577869|NCT06059066|168908521|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total NBSS-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.57
84754275|NCT01958788|169264247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754276|NCT01958788|169264248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754277|NCT01958788|169264248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754278|NCT01958788|169264248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754279|NCT01958788|169264249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754280|NCT01958788|169264249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754281|NCT01958788|169264249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84577870|NCT06059066|168908521|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.42
84754282|NCT01958788|169264250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754283|NCT01958788|169264250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754284|NCT01958788|169264250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754285|NCT01958788|169264251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
84754286|NCT01958788|169264251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754287|NCT01958788|169264251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
84754288|NCT00240981|169264270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|215.6||The unadjusted analysis using two-sample Student's t-tests of equal change in the trial groups, allowing unequal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||215.6|43.9|0.003
84754289|NCT00240981|169264270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|215.4||Adjusted analysis used multiple linear regression, with adjustment for baseline total score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, and self-report of limitations in mobility.|Regression, Linear|||||215.4|43.5|0.004
84754290|NCT00240981|169264271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|55.8||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||55.8|13.2|0.002
84754291|NCT00240981|169264271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|56.2||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||56.2|13.1|0.002
84577871|NCT06059066|168908521|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF incontinence domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.24
84754292|NCT00240981|169264272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|26.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.7|-9.2|0.34
84754293|NCT00240981|169264272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|26.2||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||26.2|-9.9|0.37
84754294|NCT00240981|169264273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.1|0.69
84754295|NCT00240981|169264273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-1.1|0.71
84577872|NCT06059066|168908521|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF storage and voiding domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.93
84754296|NCT00240981|169264274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.135|-0.035|0.26
84754297|NCT00240981|169264274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.133||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||0.133|-0.037|0.27
84754298|NCT00240981|169264275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|60.1||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.1|0.3|0.05
84754299|NCT00240981|169264275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.3||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||59.3|0.2|0.05
84754300|NCT00240981|169264277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5||Month 3 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|1.2|0.2
84754301|NCT00240981|169264277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2||Month 6 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|0.4|<.0001
84754302|NCT00240981|169264278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||3 Months Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.002
84505235|NCT04128696|168761139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.44|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.82||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||9.82|2.01|>0.999
84577873|NCT06059066|168908521|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF consequences domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.64
84577874|NCT06059066|168908522|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84577875|NCT06059066|168908523|OTHER||||||<|2e-05||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in post-procedural pain as compared to baseline||||<0.00002
84577876|NCT01807520|168908571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-14.3|||Mixed model reapeated measures|||||-14.3|-39.1|<0.0001
84577877|NCT01807520|168908571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-23.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-23.5|-45.2|<0.0001
84577878|NCT04307394|168908610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
84577879|NCT00138294|168908611|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.91||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2007-2008)||0.91|0.87|
84577880|NCT00138294|168908612|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.71||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.71|0.67|
84577881|NCT00138294|168908613|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.76||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.76|0.73|
84577882|NCT01177410|168908644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.369||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|5.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.467|1.027|0.0432
84577883|NCT01177410|168908644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.267||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.515|0.6059
84577884|NCT01177410|168908645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.232||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|4.664|||Proportional Odds Model|||Proportional odds model was used to compare the number of months the subjects are responders.||4.664|1.068|0.0327
84577885|NCT01177410|168908645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.148||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|2.483|||Proportional Odds Model|||||2.483|0.531|0.7260
84577886|NCT03927157|168908673|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.39|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.39|0.17|<0.001
84577887|NCT03927157|168908674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|0.16|<0.001
84577888|NCT03927157|168908675|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.14|0.001
84577889|NCT03927157|168908676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
84577890|NCT03927157|168908677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.27|0.001
84577891|NCT02232698|168908734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84577892|NCT02232698|168908735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9556
84577893|NCT02232698|168908736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84577894|NCT02232698|168908736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<40 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84577895|NCT02232698|168908737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||<0.0001
84577896|NCT02232698|168908737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||<0.0001
84577897|NCT02232698|168908737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<40 mg/dL||||<0.0001
84577898|NCT02232698|168908738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5623|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5623
84577899|NCT02232698|168908738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.0247
84577900|NCT02232698|168908739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84577901|NCT02232698|168908742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||<0.0001
84577902|NCT02232698|168908742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.0713
84577903|NCT02232698|168908742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.0001
84577904|NCT03491917|168908765|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is delta = 0.05.|||||<|0.01||||||The average difference in AUC was 0.023 (two-sided 95% CI: -0.012, 0.059; non-inferiority p \< 0.01 for non-inferiority margin delta = -0.05).|t-test, 2 sided|df: 417.0 for FFDM, 424.6 for DBT plus S-View, and (1, 18.9) for the difference.||The primary endpoint for this study was a non-inferior per-subject average area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) requiring correct lesion localization for DBT (digital breast tomosynthesis) plus S-View (synthesized view) versus FFDM (full field digital mammography). AUCs for each reader were estimated in each review condition based on per-subject probability of malignancy (POM) scores requiring correct lesion localization.||||<0.01
84577905|NCT01068912|168908766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A step-down approach was applied to the primary analysis, with the higher dose of favipiravir first tested against placebo.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Time required from first study drug administration to alleviation of the 6 primary influenza symptoms and fever. The primary influenza symptoms included cough, sore throat, headache, nasal congestion, body aches and pains, and fatigue. Symptoms were considered alleviated when all were decreased to ≤1 and decrease persisted unchanged ≥ 21.5 hours. Fever was considered alleviated when maintained at \< 38.0°C (age 20 to \< 65 years) or \< 37.8°C (age ≥ 65 years) ≥ 21.5 hours.||||.05
84577906|NCT02762604|168908767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|15.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in normal pace gait speed pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||15.12|-19.36|
84577907|NCT02762604|168908767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|32.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention||32.97|1.40|
84577908|NCT02762604|168908768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.99|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in the number of correct letters generated pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letters generated pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.99|0.21|
84754303|NCT00240981|169264278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.2||6 Month Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-2.8|<.0001
84754304|NCT00240981|169264279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.05|0.24
84754305|NCT00240981|169264279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.209||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||0.209|-0.030|0.14
84754306|NCT00766090|169264280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.153|||ANCOVA|||||0.153|0.064|<0.001
84754307|NCT00766090|169264280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.142|||ANCOVA|||||0.142|0.054|<0.001
84577909|NCT02762604|168908769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.85|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the functional activation/deactivation pattern (factor score) during imagery of walking-while talking (relative to walking and talking alone) pre and post intervention - as a function of of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||16.85|-12.04|
84577910|NCT02762604|168908770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|13.07|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails a time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||13.07|-14.15|
84577911|NCT02762604|168908771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.92|27.51|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails b time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.51|-51.92|
84754308|NCT00766090|169264280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.161|||ANCOVA|||||0.161|0.014|0.020
84645260|NCT03036800|169026134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-3.4|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.4|-5.85|<0.001
84754309|NCT00766090|169264280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FF 100 µg BID was greater than -110 milliliters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.035|0.641
84754310|NCT00766090|169264280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.205|||ANCOVA|||||0.205|0.059|<0.001
84754311|NCT01910116|169264338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming that an improvement in AUSCAN pain score of \>10 is clinically meaningful, and assuming an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed), a power of 0.80, and a dropout rate of 20%, the sample size calculation revealed that 220 patients should be enrolled.||||0.014
84577912|NCT02762604|168908772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.12|26.47|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails B minus A time pre and post intervention.||26.47|-48.12|
84754312|NCT01910116|169264339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84754313|NCT01910116|169264340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84754314|NCT01910116|169264341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84754315|NCT01910116|169264342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.728
84754316|NCT01910116|169264343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
84754317|NCT01910116|169264344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
84754318|NCT01910116|169264345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
84754319|NCT01910116|169264346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
84754320|NCT01910116|169264347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
84754321|NCT01910116|169264349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84754322|NCT01910116|169264350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84754323|NCT01910116|169264351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84754324|NCT01910116|169264352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84754325|NCT01910116|169264353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
84754326|NCT01910116|169264354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.174
84754327|NCT01910116|169264355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.124
84754328|NCT01910116|169264356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84754329|NCT01910116|169264357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
84754330|NCT01910116|169264358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84754331|NCT01910116|169264359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
84754332|NCT01910116|169264360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84754333|NCT01910116|169264361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.186
84754334|NCT01910116|169264362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
84577913|NCT02762604|168908773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.79|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letter number sequences pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.79|-2.65|
84577914|NCT02762604|168908774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|26.78|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in Stroop interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||26.78|-24.00|
84754335|NCT01910116|169264363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
84754336|NCT01910116|169264364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.604
84577915|NCT02762604|168908775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.94|163.47|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in flanker interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||163.47|-149.94|
84754337|NCT01910116|169264365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
84754338|NCT01910116|169264366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
84754339|NCT01910116|169264367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.485
84754340|NCT01910116|169264368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84754341|NCT01910116|169264369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
84754342|NCT01910116|169264370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
84754343|NCT01910116|169264371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
84754344|NCT01910116|169264372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84754345|NCT01910116|169264373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.060
84754346|NCT01196533|169264374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||All data in the outcome measure table is presenting the percentage of error.|||
84754347|NCT00911625|169264383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.502||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.341|18.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two treatment cohorts on their average blood glucose level||18.341|-19.341|.958
84754348|NCT00911625|169264384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of experiencing at least one blood glucose level below 70 mg/dL between the two treatment cohorts.||1.114|0.172|.0828
84754349|NCT00955279|169264394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.543
84754350|NCT00955279|169264394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.126
84754351|NCT00955279|169264395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.896
84754352|NCT00955279|169264395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.063
84754353|NCT00955279|169264396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.374
84754354|NCT00955279|169264396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.073
84754355|NCT00955279|169264397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1931
84754356|NCT00955279|169264397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2772
84754357|NCT00955279|169264398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.451
84754358|NCT00955279|169264398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.546
84754359|NCT01159912|169264404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.036|0.009
84754360|NCT01159912|169264404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.145||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.033|0.011
84754361|NCT02456662|169264414|SUPERIORITY|Based on previous work as well as anecdotal data from our clinic population, we expect vomiting to occur in approximately 30% of our patients who take their doxycycline the night before their procedure. To have 80% power to detect a 50% decrease in nausea and vomiting, we will need 122 patients in each arm of the study.||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00
84754362|NCT02374021|169264421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.19|0.79
84754363|NCT02374021|169264422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.14|0.05
84754364|NCT02374021|169264423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.11|0.05
84754365|NCT02374021|169264424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.05
84609714|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||13.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|13.52
84609715|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||32.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|32.84
84609716|NCT02294734|168970597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||78.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.98|78.09
84609717|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||60.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.66|60.07
84754366|NCT02374021|169264425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.05
84754367|NCT04029961|169264444|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
84577916|NCT02762604|168908776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|24.41|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||24.41|5.99|
84577917|NCT02762604|168908777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.2|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||-0.20|-3.73|
84577918|NCT02762604|168908779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|10.84|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in total free recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||10.84|-5.98|
84577919|NCT02762604|168908780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|2.0|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed figure copy recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.00|-5.88|
84577920|NCT02762604|168908781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|7.28|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in word fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||7.28|-20.01|
84577921|NCT02762604|168908782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|17.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in semantic fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||17.97|-6.51|
84577922|NCT02762604|168908783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.03||||||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in digit symbol substitution performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)|The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|16.03|-16.10|
84577923|NCT02762604|168908785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|18.42|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in immediate maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||18.42|-11.14|
84577924|NCT02762604|168908786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|27.18|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.18|-20.65|
84577925|NCT02762604|168908787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.9|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in maze errors pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.90|-0.45|
84498284|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.984|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.886|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.082|4.886|<.0001
84577926|NCT02762604|168908788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.26|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in depressive symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.26|-1.74|
84577927|NCT02762604|168908789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.49|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in anxiety symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||1.49|-3.38|
84577928|NCT02762604|168908790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in cortical thickness pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.12|-0.04|
84577929|NCT01257438|168908804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood's estimate of variance|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79|||Log Rank|||Subjects at risk (at 6 months) is a calculation in Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses that refers to subjects who have not had ACPP failure through the 6 months (i.e., are event-free through 6 months).||0.79|0.44|<0.001
84577930|NCT01257438|168908805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is based on a non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test. The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%).||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Farrington and Manning Exact Test|The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%)||||||0.007
84754368|NCT04029961|169264445|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
84754369|NCT04029961|169264446|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
84754370|NCT04029961|169264447|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
84754371|NCT04029961|169264448|OTHER|"A univariate analysis comparing the proportion of each arm that indicated an item was met, evaluated for each item at each time point."|||||<|0.05|||||||Univariate analysis|||"The statistical test described below was only performed on the top 10 items on the scale rated the highest in importance by participants. The top 10 items were determined by computing the mean rating for each item (participants gave each item a rating from '1' - '9' with higher values representing greater importance) and selecting the 10 items with the largest mean values, excluding the item the radiation oncologist who will be treating me as that item was not addressed in either intervention."||||<0.05
84754372|NCT02347488|169264449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|3.32|||ANCOVA|||Average displacement difference in cm, tape vs. tube-holder. 17 participants was the estimated enrollment needed to detect a difference of 1 SD from the mean between the 2 fixation techniques at 80% power; additional enrollment was included to increase the power of results and to include a larger variety of patients undergoing different surgical procedures.||3.32|2.88|<0.001
84754373|NCT05314712|169264453|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model (repeated measures model) of sleep trouble||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. Under the assumption that the likert scale data was treated as continuous, the data was analyzed using a linear mixed model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final sleep trouble model included the covariates timing of survey, DASS scale, and indicator variable if child played outside.|||
84754374|NCT05314712|169264453|OTHER|Mixed effects linear regression model of hours slept||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. The data was analyzed using a mixed effects linear regression model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final model for hours slept included the covariates number of children in the household, indicator variable if child played outside, and baseline hours slept.|||
84754375|NCT00232141|169264463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3914||95.0|-0.83|0.32||The analysis procedures planned will control the Type I error for the primary analysis. No multiplicity adjustment is needed for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Primary hypotheses : null (H0): µA=µP vs alternative (HA): µA≠µP (µA and µP represent true means for primary endpoint in active treatment \& placebo groups respectively). Assumptions in power calculation: 2-sided test with type I error at α =0.05, type II error at β =0.10, \& a common s.d of 2.2 for primary endpoint (based on previous clinical trial data). With n=150 subjects/ group (300 subjects overall) at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of at least 1.1 in primary endpoint||0.32|-0.83|0.3914
84754376|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0131||95.0|-0.81|-0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.10|-0.81|0.0131
84577931|NCT03010501|168908850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84577932|NCT03010501|168908851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 80% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84577933|NCT03010501|168908851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 120% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84577934|NCT03010501|168908852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84577935|NCT01059851|168908915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Severe Renal Impairment Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants.~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is greater than 0.50 and no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.6|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single oral dose would be similar between participants with renal impairment and healthy matched control participants."||1.60|0.93|
84577936|NCT01917773|168908919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Reported MIs and SDs in healthy volunteers from an adult study were used to calculate sample size (1). A sample size of 13 patients was deemed adequate to detect a 25% change in MI with 80% power.~Reference: Rao SS, Kavelock R, Beaty J, Ackerson K, et al. Effects of fat and carbohydrate meals on colonic motor response. Gut. Feb 2000;46(2):205-211."||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 15 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.087
84609718|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||51.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.65|51.75
84609719|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|0.60|65.66
84609720|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||81.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.59|81.67
84754377|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0393||95.0|-0.96|-0.02||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.02|-0.96|0.0393
84754378|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0554||95.0|-1.08|0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||0.01|-1.08|0.0554
84754379|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1513||95.0|-0.99|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.99|0.1513
84754380|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3345||95.0|-0.89|0.3||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.30|-0.89|0.3345
84754381|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0879||95.0|-1.13|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.08|-1.13|0.0879
84754382|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0307||95.0|-1.32|-0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.07|-1.32|0.0307
84754383|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0156||95.0|-1.36|-0.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.14|-1.36|0.0156
84577937|NCT01917773|168908919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 30 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.552
84577938|NCT01917773|168908919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 45 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.807
84609721|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||89.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.51|89.98
84609722|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||43.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.70|43.88
84754384|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0981||95.0|-1.15|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.15|0.0981
84754385|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.306||95.0|-0.93|0.29||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.29|-0.93|0.3060
84577939|NCT00308685|168908931|OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|5.163||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.478|7.847||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline FEV1 as covariate and fixed effects of pooled center and treatment group.||7.847|2.478|0.0002
84577940|NCT04937387|168908933|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.147|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.147|-0.030|
84577941|NCT04937387|168908933|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.025|0.115|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.115|0.025|
84577942|NCT04937387|168908933|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.123|0.005|
84754386|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.1874||95.0|-1.08|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.21|-1.08|0.1874
84754387|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1025||95.0|-1.22|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.11|-1.22|0.1025
84577943|NCT04937387|168908934|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.084|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.084|-0.094|
84577944|NCT04937387|168908934|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.103|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.103|-0.071|
84577945|NCT04937387|168908934|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.023||||||95.0|-0.086|0.11|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.110|-0.086|
84577946|NCT04937387|168908935|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0823|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.134|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.134|-0.190|
84577947|NCT04937387|168908935|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.276|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.276|-0.052|
84577948|NCT02743494|168908969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.4|0.56|0.86|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||0.86|0.56|0.0003
84645261|NCT03036800|169026135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-4.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.02|-7.76|<0.001
84577949|NCT02743494|168908970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||1.03|0.070|0.1064
84577950|NCT05399485|168908972|SUPERIORITY||[Difference in Least square (LS) Mean]|-1.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization), month, and month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.38|-1.73|0.0021
84577951|NCT05399485|168908973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.3||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.9||P-value \>0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel|||The percentages of participants with reductions were compared between treatment groups using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation with stratification by randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization; yes, no).||15.9|-1.4|0.0989
84577952|NCT02642679|168909009|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we had 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VAS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point with a two sided two sample t-test each at alpha=0.17 level.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in pain. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
84577953|NCT02642679|168909010|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in re-epithelialization from 14.6 days to 10 days assuming a common standard deviation of 2.9 days.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing rate. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
84577954|NCT02642679|168909011|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VSS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing quality. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
84577955|NCT01022580|168909024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.89
84754388|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0662||95.0|-1.3|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||0.04|-1.30|0.0662
84577956|NCT01022580|168909025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.33
84577957|NCT01500096|168909045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.15
84577958|NCT01500096|168909045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms||||0.73
84577959|NCT01500096|168909046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1329
84577960|NCT01500096|168909046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1191
84577961|NCT01500096|168909047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7454
84609723|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||36.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.91|0.64|36.10
84609724|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.47|95.74
84577962|NCT01500096|168909047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7391
84577963|NCT01500096|168909048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.6818
84577964|NCT01500096|168909048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.0579
84577965|NCT01500096|168909049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.17
84577966|NCT01500096|168909049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.51
84577967|NCT01500096|168909050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7884
84577968|NCT01500096|168909050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.5532
84577969|NCT01500096|168909051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.9885
84577970|NCT01500096|168909051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sides Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.2898
84577971|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.60
84577972|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.28
84577973|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
84577974|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.72
84577975|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.34
84577976|NCT01500096|168909052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.58
84577977|NCT01500096|168909053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 5 are significantly different between arms.||||0.31
84577978|NCT01500096|168909053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.71
84577979|NCT01500096|168909054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.18
84577980|NCT01500096|168909054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.19
84754389|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1856||95.0|-1.21|0.24||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.24|-1.21|0.1856
84754390|NCT00232141|169264464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7925||95.0|-0.66|0.5||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.50|-0.66|0.7925
84754391|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1191||95.0|0.802|5.935||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||5.935|0.802|0.1191
84754392|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5041||95.0|0.666|2.301||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||2.301|0.666|0.5041
84609725|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.67|50.74
84609726|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||72.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.51|72.81
84676593|NCT01516879|169088671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-30.68|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-30.68|-36.21|<0.001
84754393|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6859||95.0|0.638|1.985||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||1.985|0.638|0.6859
84754394|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.414||95.0|0.735|2.116||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.116|0.735|0.4140
84754395|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7852||95.0|0.644|1.794||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.794|0.644|0.7852
84754396|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7399||95.0|0.654|1.817||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.817|0.654|0.7399
84754397|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1055||95.0|0.913|2.701||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||2.701|0.913|0.1055
84754398|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2107||95.0|0.829|2.401||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.401|0.829|0.2107
84754399|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.527||95.0|0.697|2.046||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||2.046|0.697|0.5270
84754400|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6845||95.0|0.513|1.546||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.546|0.513|0.6845
84754401|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7737||95.0|0.522|1.619||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||1.619|0.522|0.7737
84609727|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.73||||94.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.50|94.41
84609728|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||81.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.55|81.07
84609729|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||69.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.50|69.29
84609730|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||73.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.54|73.67
84577981|NCT01500096|168909055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.47
84577982|NCT01500096|168909055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
84577983|NCT01771913|168909077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.310
84577984|NCT01771913|168909078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84577985|NCT01771913|168909079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.103
84577986|NCT00447278|168909101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-2.25||P-value for Change from Baseline at 6 Months. P-value is not adjusted and the threshold is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure analysis with terms for corresponding baseline T-score, treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.25|-6.47|<0.001
84577987|NCT00447278|168909101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-2.63||P-value for Change from Baseline: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.63|-6.56|<0.001
84577988|NCT00447278|168909102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.13||P-value for Change from Baseline: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.13|-5.08|0.002
84577989|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-1.15||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.15|-4.92|0.002
84577990|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.2||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.20|-4.01|0.031
84577991|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.77||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.77|-1.68|0.629
84577992|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.38||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.38|-3.30|0.421
84577993|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|1.34||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.34|-3.44|0.388
84577994|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.09||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.09|-4.66|0.059
84577995|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.04||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.04|-6.09|0.006
84577996|NCT00447278|168909103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.91||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-0.33||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.33|-5.49|0.027
84577997|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.073||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.131||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.131|0.014|0.015
84577998|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.143||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.027|0.004
84577999|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.094||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.192||P-value for Home Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.192|-0.005|0.063
84578000|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.172||P-value for Home Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.172|-0.022|0.131
84609731|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||75.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.59|75.82
84754402|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8853||95.0|0.597|1.818||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||1.818|0.597|0.8853
84754403|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7712||95.0|0.612|1.946||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||1.946|0.612|0.7712
84754404|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9586||95.0|0.574|1.796||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.796|0.574|0.9586
84754405|NCT00232141|169264465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3482||95.0|0.486|1.283||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.283|0.486|0.3482
84754406|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1132||95.0|0.882|2.969||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||2.969|0.882|0.1132
84754407|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4687||95.0|0.731|1.978||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||1.978|0.731|0.4687
84754408|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1546||95.0|0.877|2.375||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||2.375|0.877|0.1546
84754409|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4216||95.0|0.7444|2.025||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.025|0.7444|0.4216
84754410|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7479||95.0|0.556|1.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.527|0.556|0.7479
84754411|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3842||95.0|0.481|1.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.330|0.481|0.3842
84754412|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845||95.0|0.627|1.769||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||1.769|0.627|0.8450
84754413|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.864|2.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.527|0.864|0.1602
84754414|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6815||95.0|0.66|1.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||1.890|0.660|0.6815
84754415|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5635||95.0|0.486|1.482||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.482|0.486|0.5635
84754416|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.49||95.0|0.699|2.104||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||2.104|0.699|0.4900
84578001|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.124||P-value for Daily Living Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.124|-0.020|0.156
84609732|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||54.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.69|54.22
84645262|NCT03036800|169026136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-4.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.71|-9.03|<0.001
84754417|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.856|2.575||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||2.575|0.856|0.1602
84754418|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5819||95.0|0.663|2.079||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||2.079|0.663|0.5819
84754419|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2796||95.0|0.768|2.432||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||2.432|0.768|0.2796
84754420|NCT00232141|169264466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5437||95.0|0.534|1.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.390|0.534|0.5437
84754421|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5425||95.0|-3.44|6.52||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Disturbance.||6.52|-3.44|0.5425
84754422|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3184||95.0|-0.75|0.25||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Quantity||0.25|-0.75|0.3184
84754423|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9886||95.0|-5.81|5.72||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Adequacy||5.72|-5.81|0.9886
84754424|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.5742||95.0|-3.53|6.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache||6.35|-3.53|0.5742
84754425|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.5775||95.0|-3.54|6.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Somnolence||6.33|-3.54|0.5775
84754426|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.004||95.0|3.02|15.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Snoring||15.66|3.02|0.0040
84754427|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.5882||95.0|-2.83|4.97||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index I||4.97|-2.83|0.5882
84498285|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.082|4.868|<.0001
84609733|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||66.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.35|0.63|66.46
84498286|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.367|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.612|3.367|<.0001
84498287|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.347|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.212|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.483|3.212|<.0001
84498288|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.418|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.660|3.418|<.0001
84498289|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.419|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.284|3.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.554|3.284|<.0001
84498290|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|3.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.611|3.373|<.0001
84578002|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.143||P-value for Daily Living Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.001|0.046
84578003|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.084||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.084|-0.003|0.068
84578004|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.073||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.073|-0.016|0.212
84578005|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.121||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.208||P-value for School Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.208|0.034|0.006
84578006|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236||P-value for School Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.236|0.064|<0.001
84578007|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.24||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.240|0.009|0.034
84578008|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.119||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.233||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.233|0.005|0.040
84609734|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||21.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.71||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28 . The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.71|0.79|21.45
84609735|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||69.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.50|69.91
84609736|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||75.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.57|75.29
84609737|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|0.68|44.05
84609738|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||94.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.65|94.93
84609739|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||97.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.59|97.11
84609740|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||85.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.41
84754428|NCT00232141|169264467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.4516||95.0|-2.3|5.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index II||5.14|-2.30|0.4516
84754429|NCT00232141|169264468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5105||95.0|-0.51|1.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Anxiety||1.03|-0.51|0.5105
84754430|NCT00232141|169264468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.2513||95.0|-0.3|1.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Depression||1.14|-0.30|0.2513
84754431|NCT00232141|169264469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5834||95.0|-0.38|0.67||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Severity Index||0.67|-0.38|0.5834
84609741|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||54.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.62|54.73
84609742|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||72.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|0.61|72.31
84609743|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||15.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|15.05
84754432|NCT00232141|169264469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7783||95.0|-0.43|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Interference Index||0.57|-0.43|0.7783
84754433|NCT00232141|169264470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4776||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.73|0.4776
84754434|NCT00232141|169264471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0077
84754435|NCT00232141|169264472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3852||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3852
84754436|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3097||95.0|-0.03|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Burning||0.10|-0.03|0.3097
84754437|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6147||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pressing||0.04|-0.07|0.6147
84754438|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6838||95.0|-0.05|0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paroxysmal||0.07|-0.05|0.6838
84754439|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6479||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Evoked||0.04|-0.07|0.6479
84754440|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1849||95.0|-0.02|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paresthesia/dysesthesia||0.11|-0.02|0.1849
84754441|NCT00232141|169264473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5898||95.0|0.0|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Total Score||0|0|0.5898
84578009|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.166||p-value for Social Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.166|0.003|0.042
84578010|NCT00447278|168909104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.134||P-value for Social Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.134|-0.038|0.271
84578011|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.307||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|4.44||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.440|0.173|0.034
84578012|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.072||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|5.202||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||5.202|0.942|0.005
84578013|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.721||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.899||P-value for Inattention Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.899|0.544|0.004
84578014|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.269|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.453||P-value for Inattention Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.453|1.086|<0.001
84672382|NCT00653224|169080315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
84578015|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.676||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.676|-0.515|0.298
84578016|NCT00447278|168909105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.865||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|1.956||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.956|-0.225|0.119
84578017|NCT00447278|168909106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.104||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.329||P-value for Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.329|-0.122|0.366
84609744|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||84.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.68|84.87
84609745|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||92.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.63|92.24
84609746|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||63.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.75|63.42
84609747|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.17||||9.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.93|9.05
84609748|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||66.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.74|66.40
84578018|NCT00447278|168909106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.169||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.407||P-value for Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.407|-0.070|0.165
84578019|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.04||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.04|-4.74|0.054
84578020|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.26||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.26|-6.16|0.003
84578021|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.14||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.14|-3.33|0.033
84609749|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.78||||97.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.60|97.39
84609750|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||16.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.89|16.02
84609751|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||75.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.68|75.69
84609752|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||90.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.69|90.22
84645263|NCT03036800|169026137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-2.53|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.53|-8.34|<0.001
84609753|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||9.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|0.91|9.64
84609754|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||20.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.82|20.44
84609755|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.73|55.06
84609756|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.36||||5.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.97|0.94|5.29
84609757|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.77|28.82
84609758|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.61|93.00
84609759|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||1.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.95||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.95|1.03|1.64
84609760|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.38|0.72|50.71
84609761|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.68||||99.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.91|0.51|99.52
84609762|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.99|3.10
84672383|NCT00653224|169080316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.002||95.0|-0.33|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.33|0.002
84754442|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6865||95.0|-0.45|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Static mechanical allodynia||0.68|-0.45|0.6865
84754443|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3787||95.0|-0.71|0.27||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Dynamic mechanical allodynia||0.27|-0.71|0.3787
84754444|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7704||95.0|-0.79|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Punctate hyperalgesia testing area||0.59|-0.79|0.7704
84754445|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6088||95.0|-0.82|0.48||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Temporal summation to tactile stimuli||0.48|-0.82|0.6088
84754446|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3767||95.0|-0.93|0.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold allodynia testing area||0.35|-0.93|0.3767
84754447|NCT00232141|169264474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7689||95.0|-0.64|0.86||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold hyperalgesia testing area||0.86|-0.64|0.7689
84754448|NCT00232141|169264475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1277||95.0|-0.86|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.86|0.1277
84754449|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0469||95.0|-0.71|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.00|-0.71|0.0469
84754450|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0067||95.0|-1.08|-0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.18|-1.08|0.0067
84754451|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.031||95.0|-1.1|-0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||-0.05|-1.10|0.0310
84754452|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2088||95.0|-0.86|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.19|-0.86|0.2088
84609763|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||75.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.71|75.39
84609764|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||93.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.68|93.29
84609765|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.33||||3.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.82||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.82|0.97|3.79
84609766|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||36.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.76|36.75
84609767|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.72||||99.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.93|0.56|99.32
84609768|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||18.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.93|18.91
84609769|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.87|47.35
84609770|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|78.00
84672384|NCT00653224|169080317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
84609771|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||2.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.67|1.00|2.65
84609772|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||58.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.73|58.48
84609773|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||99.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.92|0.61|99.64
84505236|NCT04128696|168761140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.86||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.86|1.05|0.989
84609774|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|1.01|1.90
84754453|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1849||95.0|-0.87|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.17|-0.87|0.1849
84754454|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0452||95.0|-1.09|-0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||-0.01|-1.09|0.0452
84754455|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0359||95.0|-1.18|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.04|-1.18|0.0359
84754456|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0184||95.0|-1.26|-0.12||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.12|-1.26|0.0184
84754457|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1043||95.0|-1.06|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.06|0.1043
84754458|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1053||95.0|-1.04|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.10|-1.04|0.1053
84754459|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.144||95.0|-1.03|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.15|-1.03|0.1440
84754460|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0866||95.0|-1.17|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
84754461|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0359||95.0|-1.3|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.04|-1.30|0.0359
84754462|NCT00232141|169264476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0711||95.0|-1.3|0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.05|-1.30|0.0711
84754463|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0685||95.0|-0.89|0.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.03|-0.89|0.0685
84754464|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928||95.0|-0.52|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.57|-0.52|0.9280
84754465|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6672||95.0|-0.71|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.71|0.6672
84609775|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||63.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.81|63.03
84609776|NCT02294734|168970598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||99.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.97|0.72|99.19
84609777|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||67.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.64|67.19
84609778|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.66|44.80
84609779|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||59.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.61|59.90
84609780|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||70.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.63|70.12
84609781|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||83.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.54|83.98
84609782|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.57|0.73|34.93
84609783|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||32.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.96|0.65|32.45
84609784|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.46|95.35
84645264|NCT03036800|169026138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.80|-4.63|<0.001
84645265|NCT03036800|169026139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-3.25|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.25|-6.14|<0.001
84578022|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.88||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.88|-4.12|0.003
84578023|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.50|-1.50|0.623
84578024|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.29||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.29|-1.96|0.880
84578025|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.5||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.50|-3.31|0.149
84578026|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.98||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-4.58|0.003
84578027|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.52||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.52|-4.71|0.015
84578028|NCT00447278|168909107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.98||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-5.26|0.004
84578029|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.6||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||6.60|-1.83|0.263
84578030|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.36||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.36|-3.60|0.848
84578031|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.64||P-value for Statisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.64|-3.01|0.895
84754466|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9731||95.0|-0.57|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.57|0.9731
84578032|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-0.19||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.19|-6.22|0.038
84578033|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.98||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.98|-3.59|0.854
84578034|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.92||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.92|-5.45|0.161
84578035|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.58||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.58|-2.98|0.540
84578036|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.98||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.44||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.44|-4.40|0.106
84578037|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.08||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.08|-2.49|0.833
84578038|NCT00447278|168909108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.54||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.54|-5.21|0.110
84578039|NCT03677401|168909110|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.158
84578040|NCT03677401|168909111|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.75|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.750
84578041|NCT03677401|168909112|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation||||||0.674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.674
84578042|NCT03677401|168909113|SUPERIORITY|P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.060
84578043|NCT03677401|168909113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.401
84578044|NCT03677401|168909113|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.185
84578045|NCT03677401|168909113|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.164|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.164
84578046|NCT03677401|168909114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.283
84578047|NCT03677401|168909114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.701
84754467|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9045||95.0|-0.61|0.69||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.69|-0.61|0.9045
84754468|NCT00232141|169264478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8298||95.0|-0.53|0.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.66|-0.53|0.8298
84578048|NCT03677401|168909114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.033
84754469|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8605||95.0|-0.52|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.44|-0.52|0.8605
84754470|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8348||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.58|0.8348
84754471|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2227||95.0|-0.83|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.19|-0.83|0.2227
84754472|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4753||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.34|-0.73|0.4753
84754473|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6017||95.0|-0.4|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.68|-0.40|0.6017
84754474|NCT00232141|169264479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6158||95.0|-0.38|0.64||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.64|-0.38|0.6158
84505237|NCT04128696|168761141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.99||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||1.99|1.10|0.996
84578049|NCT03677401|168909115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.797
84578050|NCT03677401|168909116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.845
84754475|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.239||95.0|-0.69|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.17|-0.69|0.2390
84578051|NCT03677401|168909117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.385
84578052|NCT03677401|168909117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.786
84578053|NCT03677401|168909117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.502
84578054|NCT03677401|168909118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.197
84578055|NCT03677401|168909118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.694
84578056|NCT03677401|168909118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.916
84578057|NCT02810327|168909120|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MUSC Bioinformatics Core analyzed group genomic data for variant association with COPD severity score, including single variant association or type of variant association with symptoms. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using statistical package SAS 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).||||0.054
84498291|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.306|3.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.568|3.306|<.0001
84498292|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.262|-0.660|<.0001
84498293|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.679|<.0001
84498294|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.433|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.233|-0.633|<.0001
84498295|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.678|<.0001
84505238|NCT04128696|168761142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||2.43|0.98|
84578058|NCT06262607|168909121|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|21.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||21.53|-9.54|0.4422
84578059|NCT01692756|168909122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
84578060|NCT01692756|168909123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
84578061|NCT01692756|168909124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
84578062|NCT01692756|168909125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84609785|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.66|50.10
84578063|NCT01692756|168909126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
84578064|NCT01692756|168909127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.003
84578065|NCT01692756|168909128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.007
84578066|NCT01692756|168909129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.63
84578067|NCT01692756|168909130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84578068|NCT01692756|168909131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
84578069|NCT01692756|168909132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.02
84578070|NCT01692756|168909133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.20
84609786|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||59.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.55|59.37
84578071|NCT01692756|168909134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
84578072|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.33|-4.95||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.95|-12.33|0.0005
84505239|NCT04128696|168761143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.53|1.00|
84672385|NCT00653224|169080318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.30|<0.001
84672386|NCT00653224|169080319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.006||95.0|-0.29|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
84672387|NCT00653224|169080320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
84578073|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.99|0.3||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-6.99|0.0963
84578074|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|-3.37||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-10.76|0.0046
84578075|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.63|0.77||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-6.63|0.0963
84578076|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.63|-6.51||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.51|-13.63|<0.0001
84578077|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.79|-2.33||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.79|0.0158
84578078|NCT02969018|168909135|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.24|-1.09||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-8.24|0.0488
84672388|NCT00653224|169080321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
84672389|NCT00653224|169080322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.011||95.0|-0.29|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
84676594|NCT01516879|169088672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.25|-46.28|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-46.28|-54.25|<0.001
84578079|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|33.87|||||||Logistic regression|33.87|2.95|
84578080|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|7.36|||||||Logistic regression|7.36|0.61|
84578081|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|30.48|||||||Logistic regression|30.48|2.71|
84578082|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
84754476|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9444||95.0|-0.49|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.45|-0.49|0.9444
84578083|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.8|160.68|||||||Logistic regression|160.68|10.80|
84754477|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7386||95.0|-0.63|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.63|0.7386
84505240|NCT04128696|168761148|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.0||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||4.0|-14.6|
84578084|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
84672390|NCT00653224|169080323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
84672391|NCT00653224|169080324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.004||95.0|-0.27|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
84672392|NCT00653224|169080325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
84672393|NCT00653224|169080326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
84672394|NCT00653224|169080327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
84672395|NCT00653224|169080328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Lehmann, 1975 page 23) is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
84672396|NCT00653224|169080329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.027||95.0|-2.56|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-2.56|0.027
84672397|NCT00653224|169080330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.554||95.0|-1.56|0.84||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.84|-1.56|0.554
84676595|NCT01516879|169088673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.56|-40.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-40.85|-47.56|<0.001
84578085|NCT02969018|168909136|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|12.74|||||||Logistic regression|12.74|1.17|
84754478|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3493||95.0|-0.79|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.28|-0.79|0.3493
84578086|NCT02969018|168909137|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.57|-11.43|<0.0001
84578087|NCT02969018|168909137|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-10.48|<0.0001
84578088|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual. Sample sizing calculated based on results from previous methodology studies performed using the same cold pain test; primary criteria was ability to detect a significant gabapentin effect over placebo.||4.38|-3.82|
84578089|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.53|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.68|-3.53|
84578090|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.99|
84578091|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||5.44|-1.15|
84578092|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.48|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.89|-14.48|
84578093|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||8.78|2.20|
84609787|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.8||||87.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.55|87.99
84754479|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6596||95.0|-0.46|0.73||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.73|-0.46|0.6596
84754480|NCT00232141|169264480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4075||95.0|-0.31|0.77||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.77|-0.31|0.4075
84754481|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0202||95.0|-1.01|-0.09||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.09|-1.01|0.0202
84754482|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8865||95.0|-0.55|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.55|0.8865
84754483|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9964||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.54|-0.54|0.9964
84578094|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.08|-5.53|
84578095|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.74|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-9.13|-18.74|
84609788|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||70.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.59|70.87
84609789|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||63.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.51|63.71
84609790|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||65.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.57|65.99
84754484|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5993||95.0|-0.7|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.70|0.5993
84754485|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3553||95.0|-0.33|0.9||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.90|-0.33|0.3553
84754486|NCT00232141|169264481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2771||95.0|-0.25|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.88|-0.25|0.2771
84754487|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2352||95.0|-0.82|0.2||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.20|-0.82|0.2352
84754488|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7607||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.60|0.7607
84578096|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.78|-2.01|
84578097|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.32|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||6.96|-5.32|
84578098|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.14|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.09|-19.14|
84578099|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.60|-4.45|
84578100|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.39|2.32||||||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||2.32|-7.39|
84578101|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.44|-4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-4.73|-14.44|
84578102|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.85|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.85|-4.85|
84578103|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.23|
84578104|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.19|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-3.75|-11.19|
84578105|NCT01119222|168909155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||3.45|-3.99|
84578106|NCT01119222|168909156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-4.24|
84578107|NCT01119222|168909156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.07|-5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.79|-13.07|
84578108|NCT01119222|168909156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.48|-2.80|
84754489|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6563||95.0|-0.64|0.4||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.40|-0.64|0.6563
84754490|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8319||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.47|-0.58|0.8319
84754491|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3086||95.0|-0.28|0.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.89|-0.28|0.3086
84754492|NCT00232141|169264482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7972||95.0|-0.48|0.62||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.62|-0.48|0.7972
84754493|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1863||95.0|-0.94|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.18|-0.94|0.1863
84754494|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.31||0.5953||95.0|-0.77|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.77|0.5953
84754495|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.508||95.0|-0.73|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.36|-0.73|0.5080
84754496|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5842||95.0|-0.7|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.39|-0.70|0.5842
84754497|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4286||95.0|-0.35|0.83||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.83|-0.35|0.4286
84754498|NCT00232141|169264483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5766||95.0|-0.4|0.71||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.71|-0.40|0.5766
84754499|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5493||95.0|-0.73|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.39|-0.73|0.5493
84754500|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9875||95.0|-0.58|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.59|-0.58|0.9875
84754501|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6931||95.0|-0.68|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.68|0.6931
84754502|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4614||95.0|-0.34|0.75||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.75|-0.34|0.4614
84754503|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1467||95.0|-0.16|1.06||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.06|-0.16|0.1467
84578109|NCT02942407|168909175|NON_INFERIORITY|Due to a lower recruitment rate than anticipated in the early stage of the trial, the sample size was curtailed from 760 to 230 patients. Thus, under the initial protocol assumptions, the study is considered under-powered for the two-sided upper 95% CI on the HR to rule-out the non-inferiority margin of 1.40.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin)|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|Exploratory analysis due to failure to reach initial sample size: Non-inferiority (NI) null hypothesis: HR \>= 1.4 (Non-inferiority).||2.3|0.63|0.321
84578110|NCT02942407|168909175|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis due to lack of achieving initial sample size.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||If upper limit of 95% confidence interval \< 1 this would be considered evidence of superiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin).|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|||2.3|0.63|0.583
84578111|NCT02942407|168909177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.93||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of study date (July 27, 2019).||2.93|0.74|
84578112|NCT02942407|168909186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.17||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of stud date (July 27, 2019).||2.17|0.67|
84578113|NCT02337946|168909230|SUPERIORITY||Difference of PFS rate between groups|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.0|||||||Agresti-Caffo method was used for estimation of 95% CI.|19.0|-17.2|
84578114|NCT02337946|168909231|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.43|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.43|0.60|0.7349
84578115|NCT02337946|168909232|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||2.88|0.69|0.3485
84578116|NCT02337946|168909234|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.33|0.60|0.5901
84578117|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.6346
84578118|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.2757
84578119|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.1321
84578120|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.5543
84578121|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3940
84578122|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.7891
84578123|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.4829
84578124|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.4526
84609791|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||71.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.60|71.95
84578125|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.2485
84645266|NCT03036800|169026140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-3.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.71|-7.02|<0.001
84645267|NCT03036800|169026141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.77|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.77|-6.42|0.001
84645268|NCT03036800|169026142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.91|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.91|-3.5|<0.001
84609792|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.71|48.28
84754504|NCT00232141|169264484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2819||95.0|-0.25|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.25|0.2819
84754505|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8727||95.0|-0.55|0.46||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.46|-0.55|0.8727
84754506|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6897||95.0|-0.65|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.65|0.6897
84578126|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.6252
84578127|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.4003
84578128|NCT00544882|168909286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8841
84578129|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.8892
84578130|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.7678
84578131|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.5782
84578132|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.8083
84578133|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||1.0000
84578134|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.4122
84578135|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.6675
84754507|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7527||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.44|-0.60|0.7527
84754508|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6394||95.0|-0.67|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.67|0.6394
84578136|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.8445
84578137|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.3772
84578138|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.1918
84578139|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.6675
84578140|NCT00544882|168909288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9226|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.9226
84578141|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.0979
84578142|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.0629
84578143|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8464
84578144|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.6316
84578145|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3000
84578146|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.0955
84578147|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 25 time point.||||0.1523
84645269|NCT03036800|169026143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.86|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.86|-2.91|<0.001
84578148|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.2809
84609793|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||61.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.65|61.06
84498296|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-1.701|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.701|-2.154|<.0001
84498297|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.089|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|-1.842|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.842|-2.336|<.0001
84498298|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.102|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.656|-2.102|<.0001
84498299|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.262|-1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.772|-2.262|<.0001
84578149|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 28 time point.||||0.8829
84578150|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.9262
84578151|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 -Day 4 time point.||||0.7811
84578152|NCT00544882|168909289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.3703
84578153|NCT02583269|168909304|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||Overall FACT G score p value baseline to week 8||||0.76
84578154|NCT02583269|168909304|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G functional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.25
84754509|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1188||95.0|-0.13|1.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.11|-0.13|0.1188
84754510|NCT00232141|169264485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2685||95.0|-0.24|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.24|0.2685
84578155|NCT02583269|168909304|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||FACT G emotional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.18
84578156|NCT02583269|168909304|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G physical well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.87
84578157|NCT02583269|168909304|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G social well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.22
84578158|NCT02583269|168909312|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84578159|NCT02583269|168909313|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks log IL-8||||0.119
84578160|NCT02583269|168909313|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 8 weeks log IL-8||||0.414
84578161|NCT02583269|168909314|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.851
84578162|NCT02583269|168909314|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. 8 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.688
84609794|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||18.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.74||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.74|0.82|18.05
84578163|NCT01039675|168909315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|UMEC/VI will be declared non-inferior to placebo in terms of weighted mean pulse rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval around the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean pulse rate is less than the non-inferiority margin of +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||||Estimated from repeated measures analysis of covariance.|||4.5|-5.5|
84609795|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||61.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.53|61.12
84609796|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||64.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.61|64.40
84578164|NCT03712852|168909337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||||||Multiple univariate analyses for each variable were performed. GT was analyzed by non-parametric Cliff's delta tests to assess group dominance and by a Heteroscedastic ANOVA with Games-Howell posthoc tests. A sensitivities analysis with different types of robust analyses (M-estimators and High Breakdown LTS Estimators, both with Huber's, Hampel's and Biweight's loss functions) was conducted to get an effect-size estimate by means of Bootstrap Bias Corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% Confidence Intervals.|1.17|0.68|
84578165|NCT03712852|168909338|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.55|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|3.55|3.00|
84578166|NCT03712852|168909339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.46|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|2.46|-0.46|
84645270|NCT03036800|169026144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.80|-5.77|0.01
84498300|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.679|1.250|<.0001
84672398|NCT00653224|169080331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.015||95.0|-2.72|-0.29||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.29|-2.72|0.015
84754511|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4991||95.0|-0.74|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.36|-0.74|0.4991
84754512|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6094||95.0|-0.73|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.73|0.6094
84754513|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3669||95.0|-0.76|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.28|-0.76|0.3669
84754514|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7641||95.0|-0.43|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.43|0.7641
84754515|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9428||95.0|-0.51|0.55||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.55|-0.51|0.9428
84754516|NCT00232141|169264486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9508||95.0|-0.52|0.49||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.49|-0.52|0.9508
84754517|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073||95.0|-1.18|-0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.19|-1.18|0.0073
84754518|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2202||95.0|-0.96|0.22||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.22|-0.96|0.2202
84754519|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1824||95.0|-0.95|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.18|-0.95|0.1824
84754520|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1872||95.0|-0.98|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.19|-0.98|0.1872
84754521|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4374||95.0|-0.38|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.88|-0.38|0.4374
84754522|NCT00232141|169264487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4406||95.0|-0.36|0.82||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.82|-0.36|0.4406
84498301|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.537|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.303|<.0001
84578167|NCT03712852|168909340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|0.69|-0.40|
84578168|NCT03712852|168909341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.81|||||||CAL was analyzed with both Nemenyi's tests and a Moderated Regression (Treatment by Baseline values)|3.81|2.96|
84754523|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2277||95.0|-0.86|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.21|-0.86|0.2277
84754524|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8407||95.0|-0.71|0.58||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.58|-0.71|0.8407
84754525|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8809||95.0|-0.62|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.53|-0.62|0.8809
84754526|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6288||95.0|-0.72|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.43|-0.72|0.6288
84754527|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9739||95.0|-0.59|0.61||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.61|-0.59|0.9739
84754528|NCT00232141|169264488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8926||95.0|-0.61|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.53|-0.61|0.8926
84754529|NCT00232141|169264491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7136||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7136
84754530|NCT00232141|169264492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6729
84754531|NCT02273726|169264496|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.591|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.591|0.365|<0.0001
84754532|NCT02273726|169264497|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was established when the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference of LS means between the 2 treatment groups using the MMRM model lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.687|0.404|<0.0001
84754533|NCT02273726|169264498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.3||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||14.3|0.9|
84754534|NCT02273726|169264499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||9.7|-4.3|
84498302|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|1.707|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.707|1.277|<.0001
84754535|NCT02273726|169264500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-11.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-11.695|-17.640|<0.0001
84754536|NCT02273726|169264501|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.869||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the MI strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.869|0.503|<0.0001
84754537|NCT02273726|169264502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.975||0.00091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.842|-6.445||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-6.445|-33.842|0.00091
84754538|NCT02273726|169264503|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|0.97|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.970|0.466|0.0337
84754539|NCT02273726|169264504|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||2.142|-0.760|0.3500
84754540|NCT01479829|169264507|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|5.3466||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 5.3466.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the response rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||.02
84754541|NCT01479829|169264508|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|13.3821|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 13.3821.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the remission rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||<.001
84505241|NCT04128696|168761149|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.5||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.5|-27.8|
84578169|NCT04764539|168909344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.294|<|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.796||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||0.796|-1.276|<0.555
84578170|NCT04764539|168909344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5383|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.659|<|0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|1.548||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.548|-0.471|<0.2128
84578171|NCT04764539|168909344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.365|<|0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.915|1.511||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.511|-0.915|<0.533
84578172|NCT04764539|168909345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.388|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|4.539||Sample size too small for statistical power. In addition, automated speech recognition for child speech had a very poor state-of-the-art at the time of this study.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR goggles group)|The percentage of correctly transcribed words using automatic speech recognition will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||4.539|-1.763|<0.289
84578173|NCT04764539|168909346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.68|42.66||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|Articulation Accuracy does not statistically differ for the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||42.66|-49.68|0.4296
84578174|NCT04764539|168909346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.19|<|0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|65.2||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||65.2|-25.7|<0.294
84754542|NCT00257166|169264538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-2.31|-8.12|0.0005
84754543|NCT00257166|169264539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9422||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1045|-1.4046|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4046|-5.1045|0.0006
84754544|NCT00257166|169264539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4184||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3705|-0.8009|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.8009|-6.3705|0.0117
84754545|NCT00257166|169264539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.8665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7154||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2345|-1.4985|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4985|-8.2345|0.0047
84754546|NCT00257166|169264540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5696|-0.1812|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.1812|-0.5696|0.0002
84754547|NCT00257166|169264540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8256|-0.2936|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.2936|-0.8256|<0.0001
84754548|NCT00257166|169264540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0024|-0.3572|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3572|-1.0024|<0.0001
84754549|NCT00257166|169264540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1761||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0342|-0.3426|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3426|-1.0342|0.0001
84754550|NCT00257166|169264541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects was used for the analysis.||-0.34|-1.18|0.0004
84754551|NCT02142738|169264542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.68|0.37|<0.001
84609797|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||38.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|0.69|38.12
84609798|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.67|91.00
84609799|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||94.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.62|94.52
84754552|NCT02142738|169264543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.86|0.47|0.002
84754553|NCT02142738|169264544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|16.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.0||One-sided p-value for testing|Miettinen & Nurminem method|Stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||H0: difference in %=0 vs. H1: difference in % \>0||27.0|6.0|0.0011
84754554|NCT01704287|169264555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1); lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% Upper Limit of Normal (ULN)\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
84754555|NCT01704287|169264555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.6||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.60|0.37|<0.0001
84754556|NCT01704287|169264555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|||1.05|0.66|0.1247
84754557|NCT01704287|169264556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.67|0.1173
84754558|NCT01704287|169264556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.96|0.57|0.0106
84754559|NCT01704287|169264556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.12|0.67|0.2905
84754560|NCT01704287|169264557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.68|0.1146
84754561|NCT01704287|169264557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.90|0.55|0.0023
84609800|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||82.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.72|82.11
84578175|NCT04764539|168909346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9|<|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|66.36||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||66.36|-33.86|<0.419
84578176|NCT04764539|168909347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|<|0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.436|9.096||Sample size to small for statistical power.|ANOVA||difference = (iPad group mean - VR goggles group mean)|||9.096|-6.436|<0.659
84578177|NCT04764539|168909348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.67|<|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.91|84.7|||ANOVA|Sample size too small for statistical power.|Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR Goggles group)|||84.7|-68.91|<0.789
84578178|NCT04764539|168909348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.94|<|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|101.17||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||101.17|-40.85|<0.304
84578179|NCT04764539|168909348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.26|<|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|88.43||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||88.43|-43.91|<0.403
84578180|NCT04764539|168909349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|6.11||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The response to treatment stimuli will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||6.11|-10.79|<0.485
84754562|NCT01704287|169264557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.07|0.66|0.1490
84609801|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.64|48.10
84754563|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1-Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.28|0.66|0.3113
84754564|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.99|0.50|0.0208
84754565|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.00|0.50|0.0496
84754566|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.76|0.65|0.6043
84754567|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.04|0.37|0.0335
84754568|NCT01704287|169264558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.13||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.13|0.44|0.1504
84754569|NCT02716675|169264665|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|26.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|51.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||51.8|-11.7|0.15
84754570|NCT02716675|169264665|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|52.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||52.0|-25.5|
84578181|NCT04764539|168909349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|<|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|11.9||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||11.9|-0.569|<0.065
84578182|NCT04764539|168909349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|17.53||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||17.53|-10.85|<0.549
84754571|NCT02716675|169264665|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|58.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||58.0|-13.9|
84754572|NCT02716675|169264667|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|73.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|89.9||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||89.9|27.6|
84754573|NCT02716675|169264667|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.3|67.8||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||67.8|-174.3|
84754574|NCT02716675|169264667|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|50.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||50.3|-68.1|
84754575|NCT02170779|169264753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84578183|NCT01779362|168909360|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
84578184|NCT01779362|168909361|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84578185|NCT01779362|168909362|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
84754576|NCT02170779|169264754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
84609802|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.64|65.66
84754577|NCT02170779|169264755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8434
84754578|NCT02170779|169264756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.638
84754579|NCT02170779|169264757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
84754580|NCT02170779|169264758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis refers to the physical component of the MSIS-29||||0.144
84754581|NCT02170779|169264758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This refers to the psychological analysis for the MSIS-29.||||0.953
84754582|NCT02170779|169264759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.915
84754583|NCT02170779|169264760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84498303|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.304|<.0001
84754584|NCT02170779|169264761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84754585|NCT01478360|169264770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.617|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.285|-0.617|0.5392
84754586|NCT04666350|169264808|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.025||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.109|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.109|-0.160|0.711
84754587|NCT04666350|169264808|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.016||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.107|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.107|-0.139|0.795
84754588|NCT04666350|169264809|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.7||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.70|0.21|0.019
84754589|NCT04666350|169264809|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.45|0.11|0.003
84754590|NCT04666350|169264810|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.023||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.118|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.118|-0.164|0.750
84754591|NCT04666350|169264810|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.031||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.117|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.117|-0.178|0.681
84754592|NCT03044249|169264880|SUPERIORITY||Response Ratio|4.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|25.0|||Fisher Exact|||||25|-18|0.48
84754593|NCT03044249|169264882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.16|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-11.16|0.14
84754594|NCT03044249|169264883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-4.47|0.37
84754595|NCT03044249|169264887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|-2.00|0.94
84754596|NCT03734016|169264920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.04|<0.0001
84578186|NCT01779362|168909363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For all 3 secondary outcomes at M12, p\<0.001, with the Liraglutide+Metformin group different from the 3 others (all p\<0.001).|ANOVA|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||<0.001
84578187|NCT01137812|168909366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and sitagliptin of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.025, it was estimated that 234 patients per group would provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with sitagliptin.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to sitagliptin at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus sitagliptin\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to sitagliptin would be concluded.||-0.250|-0.500|<0.05
84676596|NCT01516879|169088674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.41|-33.87|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.87|-40.41|<0.001
84754597|NCT03734016|169264920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0035
84578188|NCT01137812|168909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.48|1.30|
84578189|NCT01137812|168909368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.89|-18.24|||ANCOVA|||||-18.24|-29.89|<0.001
84578190|NCT01137812|168909369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-3.3|<0.001
84578191|NCT01137812|168909370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.883|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-4.175|||ANCOVA|||||-4.175|-7.642|<0.001
84578192|NCT01137812|168909371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-9.8|0.554
84578193|NCT01137812|168909372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|4.6|<0.001
84578194|NCT00845182|168909373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84578195|NCT00845182|168909373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84578196|NCT04621760|168909376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
84578197|NCT04621760|168909377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|one sided Fisher's exct test, given small cell sizes.||||||0.62
84578198|NCT04621760|168909378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small sample size||||||0.207
84578199|NCT04621760|168909379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.496
84578200|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly identifying PrEP is a daily pill to prevent HIV"||||0.02
84578201|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly responding to prompt: PrEP is for all adults"||||0.01
84578202|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified: PrEP will not work if taken once a week"||||<0.01
84578203|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test of proportion who correctly identified PrEP does not prevent STDs other than HIV"||||<0.01
84609803|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||11.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.80|0.87|11.46
84609804|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||77.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.70|77.20
84609805|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||87.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.66|87.35
84609806|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||56.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.77|56.53
84672399|NCT00653224|169080332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.016||95.0|-8.34|-0.86||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.86|-8.34|0.016
84578204|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, PrEP side effects do not last forever"||||<0.01
84578205|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, A baby could be norm to HIV discordant parents without transmitting HIV"||||0.03
84578206|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified There is medication you can take after sex to prevent HIV"||||<0.01
84578207|NCT04621760|168909380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test for proportion who correctly identified PrEP efficacy is \> 95%"||||0.29
84578208|NCT04621760|168909381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.04
84578209|NCT04621760|168909382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.02
84578210|NCT04621760|168909383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.05
84609807|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||7.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.94|7.29
84609808|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.75|55.09
84498304|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.237|-0.242|1.0000
84498305|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.172|-0.351|0.9399
84578211|NCT04621760|168909384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.03
84578212|NCT04621760|168909385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.07
84578213|NCT04621760|168909386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.10
84578214|NCT04621760|168909387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong negative skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with highest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.22
84578215|NCT04621760|168909388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.51
84578216|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PrEP||||0.90
84609809|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.79||||96.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.61|96.49
84578217|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use abstinence||||0.75
84578218|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PEP||||0.32
84609810|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||14.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.90|14.54
84609811|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||66.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.71|66.85
84578219|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use HIV testing||||0.40
84578220|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use STD testing||||0.34
84578221|NCT04621760|168909389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use Treatment as Prevention||||0.10
84578222|NCT04621760|168909390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84578223|NCT04621760|168909391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt The information was easy to understand"||||0.26
84578224|NCT04621760|168909391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: I got all of the information I needed"||||0.26
84578225|NCT04621760|168909391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84609812|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||85.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.77
84578226|NCT04621760|168909391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: The information felt useful to me"||||0.17
84578227|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of abstinence method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.74
84578228|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of condoms method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.59
84578229|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.66
84578230|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PrEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.49
84578231|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of HIV testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.94
84578232|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of STD testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.95
84578233|NCT04621760|168909392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of Treatment as prevention method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.39
84578234|NCT04621760|168909398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
84578235|NCT04621760|168909399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84578236|NCT02421211|168909400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|6.5||||||||6.5|3.4|
84578237|NCT02421211|168909401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|2.8||||||||2.8|2.0|
84578238|NCT02421211|168909402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|3.8||||||||3.8|2.4|
84578239|NCT02421211|168909403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.0||||||||2.0|1.5|
84609813|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.24||||8.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.91|8.67
84645271|NCT03036800|169026145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-1.94|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.94|-9.09|0.003
84578240|NCT02421211|168909404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.9||||||||1.9|1.4|
84578241|NCT02421211|168909405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.0||||||||2.0|1.6|
84578242|NCT00471354|168909423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.293
84578243|NCT00471354|168909424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Language Scores|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.276
84578244|NCT00471354|168909424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Math Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.110
84578245|NCT00471354|168909424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Science Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.464
84578246|NCT00471354|168909425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Language Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578247|NCT00471354|168909425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Math Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578248|NCT00471354|168909425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Science Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578249|NCT00471354|168909425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Total Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578250|NCT00471354|168909426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578251|NCT00471354|168909427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578252|NCT00471354|168909429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84578253|NCT04999020|168909451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.38||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.55|8.48|||Barnard's unconditional exact test|||||8.48|-38.55|0.4192
84578254|NCT00827242|168909473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.004||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84578255|NCT00827242|168909474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.029||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
84578256|NCT00827242|168909475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.057||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.057
84578257|NCT00827242|168909476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS storage subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84676597|NCT01516879|169088675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.79|-42.63|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-42.63|-49.79|<0.001
84754598|NCT03734016|169264921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.05|<0.0001
84754599|NCT03734016|169264921|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0007
84578258|NCT00827242|168909477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.02||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS voiding subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
84578259|NCT00827242|168909478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.233||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS nocturia question. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.233
84578260|NCT00827242|168909479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.013||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS QoL Index. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84578261|NCT00827242|168909480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.021
84578262|NCT00827242|168909481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.009
84578263|NCT00827242|168909482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.146||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 1 week between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
84578264|NCT00827242|168909483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84578265|NCT00827242|168909484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IIEF-EF domain score. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84578266|NCT00827242|168909485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for Qmax. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.300
84578267|NCT00827242|168909488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for PVR volume. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.500
84578268|NCT00471107|168909489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Power analysis was based on WMS-III Word Lists performance. With an effect comparable to the effect on verbal fluency in an earlier study of left frontal TDCS in healthy subjects, it would require 10 subjects per group (30 total) for a significance level of 0.05 and 80% power.||||>0.05
84578269|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.04||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||A sample size of 400 parents and children was calculated to yield 80% power to detect one or more differences between the intervention and control arms, of 45% in talking about alcohol, 20% about marijuana, and 20% about other drugs, using a two-sided Bonferroni-corrected 1.5% level of significance (based on estimates from the pilot trial).||4.04|2.02|<0.001
84578270|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using e-cigarettes or vaping"|Generalized estimation|||||3.45|1.67|<0.001
84578271|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.43||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using marijuana"|Generalized estimation|||||3.43|1.62|<0.001
84578272|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.08||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on smoking cigarettes"|Generalized estimation|||||5.08|2.34|<0.001
84578273|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.86||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using other drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||3.86|1.58|<0.001
84578274|NCT03925220|168909490|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.06||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||||2.06|1.02|0.04
84578275|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported have warned your child about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||1.45|1.18|<0.001
84609814|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||14.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|14.80
84609815|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||45.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.75|45.69
84609816|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||2.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.06|0.99|2.94
84609817|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||13.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.73|0.85|13.92
84609818|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||86.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.65|86.40
84672400|NCT00653224|169080333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.017||95.0|-7.88|-0.79||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.79|-7.88|0.017
84754600|NCT03734016|169264922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested with a non-inferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
84754601|NCT03734016|169264922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
84754602|NCT03734016|169264923|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was tested with a noninferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Stratified Wald test||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
84609819|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.46||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.00|1.06|0.88
84609820|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||41.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.75|41.25
84578276|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.83||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have talked to your child about how to handle offers of alcoholic drinks and drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.83|1.32|<0.001
84754603|NCT03734016|169264923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
84754604|NCT03734016|169264924|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.6|||Chi-squared||Rate difference is the zanubrutinib rate minus the ibrutinib rate.|||-3.6|-12.4|0.0004
84578277|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.63||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.63|1.73|<0.001
84578278|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have lectured or given your child a speech about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.25|1.25|0.001
84578279|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.9||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.90|1.21|<0.001
84578280|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child stories of people who drink alcohol, have been drunk, or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.47|1.06|0.008
84578281|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child you would be disappointed in her/him if they were to drink alcohol or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.10|1.29|<0.001
84578282|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.15||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have shown your child information on the web, TV, or in the news about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.15|1.24|<0.001
84578283|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.93||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have asked your child about their thoughts and opinions about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.93|1.40|<0.001
84578284|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.74|1.12|0.003
84578285|NCT03925220|168909491|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.78|1.06|0.01
84578286|NCT04425018|168909501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|29.0|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms."|||29.0|-5.8|0.188
84578287|NCT04425018|168909502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR+ subjects"|||40.1|-2.2|0.0715
84578288|NCT04425018|168909503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|26.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR- subjects."|||26.1|-36.5|0.7754
84578289|NCT01944774|168909531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.291||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.457||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.457|0.058|0.133
84578290|NCT01944774|168909531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|2.788||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.788|0.087|0.423
84578291|NCT01944774|168909532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|1.385||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.385|0.055|0.118
84578292|NCT01944774|168909532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.999||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.999|0.104|0.636
84754605|NCT03734016|169264927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.72|0.41|
84754606|NCT03734016|169264930|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.11|0.51|
84672401|NCT00653224|169080334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.25||||0.027||95.0|-8.02|-0.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.47|-8.02|0.027
84672402|NCT00653224|169080335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44||||0.023||95.0|-8.25|-0.63||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.63|-8.25|0.023
84754607|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 24. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.77|0.23|0.0338
84505242|NCT04128696|168761150|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-1.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.1|-22.4|
84578293|NCT01944774|168909533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.93||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.930|0.091|0.456
84578294|NCT01944774|168909533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.883||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.883|0.090|0.445
84578295|NCT01944774|168909534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.941||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.941|0.091|0.458
84578296|NCT01944774|168909534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|4.144||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.144|0.107|0.664
84578297|NCT01944774|168909535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.959
84578298|NCT01944774|168909535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.961
84578299|NCT01944774|168909536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.960
84578300|NCT01944774|168909536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
84578301|NCT01944774|168909537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.950
84578302|NCT01944774|168909537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
84578303|NCT01944774|168909538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.949
84578304|NCT01944774|168909538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
84578305|NCT01944774|168909539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.609||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.609|0.042|0.491
84578306|NCT01944774|168909539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.531||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|6.444||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.444|0.044|0.619
84578307|NCT01944774|168909540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.708||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.708|0.042|0.501
84578308|NCT01944774|168909540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
84578309|NCT01944774|168909541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|8.832||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.832|0.061|0.807
84578310|NCT01944774|168909541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
84578311|NCT01944774|168909542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|8.445||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.445|0.058|0.779
84578312|NCT01944774|168909542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
84578313|NCT03188185|168909550|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05 .|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4||ALK 5461 was compared to placebo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline.Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately, and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2).||0.4|-3.5|0.128
84578314|NCT00896233|168909553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.81|
84578315|NCT00896233|168909553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.98|0.71|
84578316|NCT00896233|168909553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.78|
84578317|NCT00896233|168909553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.75|
84578318|NCT00896233|168909554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.80|
84578319|NCT00896233|168909554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.78|
84578320|NCT00896233|168909554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.87|
84578321|NCT00896233|168909554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.88|
84578322|NCT02965456|168909557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
84578323|NCT02965456|168909558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
84578324|NCT02965456|168909559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||0.007
84578325|NCT04465955|168909562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|0.227|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q4W and Pooled Sham||0.227|-0.528|0.4345
84578326|NCT04465955|168909562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.225|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q8W and Pooled Sham||0.225|-0.536|0.4217
84578327|NCT01327703|168909647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of Panzytrat® versus Kreon® exceeded -10%.|Treatment difference|-2.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|4.02||As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis method was used for comparison using log-transformed percent CFA as the response variable, fixed effect factors for treatment, period, treatment sequence and pooled site and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||4.02|-7.23|0.4590
84578328|NCT06038643|168909721|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using False Discovery Rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84578329|NCT06038643|168909724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We conducted one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to assess the effect of group (intervention vs. control) on post-intervention secondary outcomes, including cognition (Test My Brain Digital Neuropsychology Toolkit). Covariates in all models included age, sex, years of education, APOE4 status, and baseline scores.||||<0.01
84578330|NCT03998462|168909742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84578331|NCT03998462|168909743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
84578332|NCT03998462|168909744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84609821|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||99.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.52|99.20
84609822|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.98|3.49
84609823|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||73.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.72|73.09
84609824|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||92.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.69|92.41
84578333|NCT05710224|168909745|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||p-value, GMT Ratio, and CI are calculated using t-distribution with the variance estimate from serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-1 GMT Ratio (V181/Butantan - DV)||0.99|0.76|<0.001
84578334|NCT05710224|168909745|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|8.35||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-2 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||8.35|6.03|<0.001
84578335|NCT05710224|168909745|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t- distribution|||DENV-3 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.53|0.39|1.000
84609825|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||2.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.89||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.89|1.01|2.29
84609826|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||23.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters.Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.56|0.81|23.67
84645272|NCT03036800|169026165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|28.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||28.97|3.83|<0.001
84645273|NCT03036800|169026166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|70.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||70.67|7.55|<0.001
84609827|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||98.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.96|0.59|98.87
84609828|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||14.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.95|14.50
84609829|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||30.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.91|30.26
84609830|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||62.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.89|62.84
84578336|NCT05710224|168909745|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.35||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.42||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-4 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.42|0.29|1.000
84578337|NCT05710224|168909746|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-1 Difference in percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||1.3|-1.8|<0.001
84578338|NCT05710224|168909746|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.5||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-2 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||18.5|12.0|<0.001
84578339|NCT05710224|168909746|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in percentage|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.6||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-3 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||-1.6|-5.8|<0.001
84578340|NCT05710224|168909746|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.8||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-4 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-0.8|-6.7|<0.001
84609831|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||2.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|1.01|2.06
84578341|NCT05710224|168909748|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.2||||||Erythema: Difference in Percentage (V181-Butantan - DV)||7.2|1.4|
84609832|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.76|49.97
84609833|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.76||||99.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.62|99.43
84645274|NCT03036800|169026169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||21.60|2.75|<0.001
84578342|NCT05710224|168909748|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||||||Pain: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV).||3.9|-4.3|
84578343|NCT05710224|168909748|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||Swelling: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||2.3|-1.1|
84578344|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Arthralgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.3|-5.5|
84578345|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.1||||||Fatigue: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.1|-7.5|
84578346|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||||||Headache: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||1.9|-8.2|
84578347|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.7||||||Myalgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.7|-13.1|
84578348|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.3||||||Pyrexia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.3|-8.2|
84578349|NCT05710224|168909749|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.8||||||Rash: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||11.8|1.9|
84578350|NCT01181479|168909782|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Lessina for cycles 1-6.||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.067
84578351|NCT01121575|168909834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|69.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.22|88.44|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||88.44|54.22|
84645275|NCT03036800|169026170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|32.32|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||32.32|1.16|0.032
84578352|NCT01121575|168909835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|78.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.9|105.54|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUC10 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC10 was based on data from 6 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||105.54|58.90|
84578353|NCT01121575|168909837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjust geometric mean|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.71|91.12|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||91.12|54.71|
84578354|NCT01121575|168909840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|117.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.97|213.61|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||213.61|64.97|
84578355|NCT01121575|168909841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|121.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|211.66|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUC24 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC24 was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||211.66|70.20|
84578356|NCT01121575|168909843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|130.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.46|206.73|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||206.73|82.46|
84578357|NCT00223821|168909846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|25.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||The effectiveness of each intervention was calculated by comparing the weekly frequency of incontinent episodes (derived from seven-day bladder diaries) during baseline to that in the immediate post-intervention period (week 8). The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat, in which post-treatment frequency of incontinence for non-completers was derived from the most recent week of diaries.||25.54|-5.13|.16
84578358|NCT00223821|168909847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|24.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||||24.33|-10.73|.37
84578359|NCT00835978|168909870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.578||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|2.448||A priori defined threshold for statistical significance was: alpha=0.10 (one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on the endpoint. Both a point estimate and a 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a normal approximation.||2.448|1.017|0.0189
84578360|NCT00835978|168909871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.348|||Log Rank|||||1.348|0.535|0.2444
84578361|NCT01363440|168909901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.35|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|9.35|<.0001
84578362|NCT01363440|168909901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.73|13.17|||ANCOVA|||||13.17|7.73|<.0001
84578363|NCT01363440|168909902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.7|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.0|34.7|.0001
84578364|NCT01363440|168909902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.2|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|27.2|.0001
84578365|NCT01363440|168909903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.4|24.1|<0.0001
84578366|NCT01363440|168909903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|13.5|<.0001
84578367|NCT01363440|168909904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|9.0|<.0001
84676598|NCT01516879|169088676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-18.55|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.55|-26.15|<0.001
84578368|NCT01363440|168909904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|4.4|0.0017
84578369|NCT01363440|168909905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-141.3|-80.22|||ANCOVA|||||-80.22|-141.3|<.0001
84578370|NCT01363440|168909905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-113.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-144.2|-82.75|||ANCOVA|||||-82.75|-144.2|<.0001
84578371|NCT01363440|168909906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19||||0.0168||97.5|0.33|10.04|||ANCOVA|||||10.04|0.33|0.0168
84578372|NCT01363440|168909906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|8.93|||ANCOVA|||||8.93|-0.21|0.0323
84578373|NCT01363440|168909907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.86||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.82|7.54|||ANCOVA|||||7.54|-1.82|0.1702
84578374|NCT01363440|168909907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.83|6.13|||ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.83|0.4067
84578375|NCT03695094|168909908|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.586|0.896|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.896|0.586|
84578376|NCT03695094|168909910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.801|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.801|0.504|
84578377|NCT01952678|168909954|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
84578378|NCT01952678|168909954|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.1|-25.8|0.4608
84578379|NCT01952678|168909954|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
84578380|NCT01952678|168909954|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
84578381|NCT01952678|168909955|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
84578382|NCT01952678|168909955|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|12.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.2|-26.1|0.4599
84578383|NCT01952678|168909955|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
84578384|NCT01952678|168909955|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
84578385|NCT01952678|168909956|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.0|-22.0|1.0000
84578386|NCT01952678|168909956|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
84578387|NCT01952678|168909956|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||18.5|-23.0|1.0000
84578388|NCT01952678|168909956|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
84578389|NCT01952678|168909957|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.8|-22.8|1.0000
84578390|NCT01952678|168909957|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|26.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||26.2|-16.7|0.5187
84578391|NCT01952678|168909957|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|21.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||21.5|-21.5|1.0000
84578392|NCT01952678|168909957|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|23.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||23.9|-19.1|0.7123
84609834|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.2||||1.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|1.02|1.17
84609835|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.84|49.78
84609836|NCT02294734|168970599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||98.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.98|0.73|98.66
84676599|NCT01516879|169088677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-5.86|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-5.86|-17.21|<0.001
84578393|NCT01952678|168909958|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.3|-13.3|1.0000
84578394|NCT01952678|168909958|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||9.8|-17.7|0.5731
84578395|NCT01952678|168909958|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||13.8|-13.8|1.0000
84578396|NCT01952678|168909958|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||14.7|-12.8|0.8340
84578397|NCT01952678|168909959|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.6|-13.5|1.0000
84578398|NCT01952678|168909959|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.0|-16.1|0.8429
84609837|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|32.51
84609838|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.99|6.21
84578399|NCT01952678|168909959|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.0|-13.0|0.8214
84754608|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 48. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.06|-1.37|0.3304
84754609|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||4.12|-0.47|0.1189
84754610|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.44|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.44|-1.15|0.3274
84754611|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.66|-2.40|0.6821
84754612|NCT03734016|169264931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.00|-1.40|0.2701
84754613|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.87|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.87|-4.70|0.1778
84754614|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.62|-3.32|0.8174
84754615|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.89|-1.48|0.6294
84754616|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.96|-1.99|0.4933
84754617|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.43||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.66|-4.51|0.3643
84754618|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.77|-5.62|0.1363
84578400|NCT01952678|168909959|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||16.1|-12.0|0.6577
84578401|NCT05558410|168909968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84578402|NCT05558410|168909969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2781|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2781
84578403|NCT05558410|168909970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84578404|NCT05558410|168909971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84578405|NCT05558410|168909972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578406|NCT05558410|168909973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||<0.0001
84578407|NCT05558410|168909974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84578408|NCT05558410|168909975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84578409|NCT05558410|168909976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0237
84578410|NCT05558410|168909977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0080
84578411|NCT02265744|168909987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9745|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9745
84578412|NCT02265744|168909987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6217|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.6217
84578413|NCT02265744|168909987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8295|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.8295
84578414|NCT02265744|168909987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9439
84578415|NCT00923702|168910021|NON_INFERIORITY|To test for non-inferiority of antibody concentrations in different dose groups, log-transformed mean MFIs in linear regression models were used to obtain MFI ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Antibody titres at months 0, 7, 12, 36 and 48 were compared and non-inferiority was inferred when the lower bound of the confidence interval of the ratio of the immunogenicity measures exceeded 0.5.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||ONE_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The lower bound of the 95% CI ratio of immunogeneicity measures was used instead. No p-values were estimated.|||||
84578416|NCT00923702|168910022|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84578417|NCT01086475|168910029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84578418|NCT01086475|168910030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
84609839|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||15.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|15.91
84578419|NCT01086475|168910031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
84578420|NCT00997126|168910100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
84578421|NCT01835756|168910153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
84578422|NCT01835756|168910154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84578423|NCT02508207|168910166|OTHER|||||||0.7151||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7151
84578424|NCT02508207|168910167|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
84578425|NCT02508207|168910168|OTHER|||||||0.3345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.||||||0.3345
84578426|NCT02508207|168910169|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84578427|NCT02122952|168910174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Pediatric Neuromuscular Clinical Research \[PNCR\], Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 0 participants were able to sit independently.||||<0.001
84578428|NCT00387127|168910198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|10.7||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by an independent radiological review.|||37.3|-13.4|0.3658
84578429|NCT00387127|168910199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|28.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|53.6||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by the investigator.|||53.6|5.7|0.0130
84578430|NCT00387127|168910208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rate|16.3||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|42.1||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Overall response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a PR or CR as determined by the investigator.|||42.1|-8.6|0.1969
84578431|NCT02965833|168910218|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0073
84578432|NCT05942040|168910254|OTHER|Pre-post test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.43|0.17
84578433|NCT04337021|168910256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||There were no statistical differences between the two treatment groups (chi-square=0.43, p=0.513)||||0.513
84578434|NCT04337021|168910257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.184
84578435|NCT04337021|168910258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
84578436|NCT04337021|168910259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.723
84578437|NCT04337021|168910260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
84578438|NCT05675020|168910355|OTHER|The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0. We analyzed the percentage of correct responses for knowledge survey questions from pre- and post-intervention survey responses.|||||||||||||||||Participant data was collected from the REDCap pre- and post-intervention questionnaires completed by the adolescents and parents/legal guardians that participated in the project. Data was collected from October to December 2022. The sample size was nine parent-adolescent dyads. Descriptive analysis was used to assess differences in sociodemographic variables, including age, gender, race, material status, employment status, salary, height, and weight. The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0.|||
84578439|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|115.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.04|125.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.22|107.04|
84578440|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Astellas Ratio|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.12|95.91|
84578441|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.89|92.30|
84578442|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio|103.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.83|112.11|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and Cmax parameters||112.11|95.83|
84578443|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and parameters||110.0|94.03|
84609840|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.99|6.73
84609841|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||27.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|27.65
84609842|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||12.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|12.19
84578444|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddys Ratio X 100|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.26|120.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.70|103.26|
84578445|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.27|125.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.49|107.27|
84578446|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.27|120.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.81|103.27|
84609843|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||11.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.98|11.62
84676600|NCT01516879|169088678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||7.56|3.28|<0.001
84609844|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||7.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.99|7.66
84609845|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.88
84609846|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.28
84754619|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.84|-4.01|0.2001
84578447|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|113.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.3|123.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||123.08|105.30|
84578448|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.08|112.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.40|96.08|
84578449|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio x 100|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|108.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||108.21|92.50|
84578450|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|110.29|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.29|94.28|
84578451|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|96.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.05|104.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.09|89.05|
84578452|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|98.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||106.12|90.72|
84578453|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|110.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.19|94.27|
84578454|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|109.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|119.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||119.25|100.42|
84578455|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|109.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||109.03|91.28|
84609847|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||27.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|27.87
84609848|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||9.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC Region; Upper Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.99|9.83
84754620|NCT03734016|169264932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.43|-4.12|0.1121
84754621|NCT02414399|169265065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.29||Alpha =0.045 (to account for .005 alpha spending at interim analysis)|Regression, Cox||azithromycin is the numerator and placebo is the denominator|Death or rehospitalization||1.29|.64|0.58
84754622|NCT02414399|169265065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Regression, Cox||Azithromycin-numerator and placebo-denominator|Death alone||1.58|0.39|0.49
84754623|NCT02414399|169265065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.47|||Regression, Cox||numerator-azithromycin denominator-placebo|Rehospitalization alone||1.47|.70|.94
84754624|NCT02414399|169265073|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||M0||||0.77
84578456|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.99|111.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.06|92.99|
84754625|NCT02414399|169265073|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3||||0.088
84578457|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|116.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||116.06|97.17|
84578458|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.25|113.75|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||113.75|95.25|
84609849|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|21.87
84754626|NCT02414399|169265073|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||M6||||0.44
84578459|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|110.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|120.24|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.24|100.66|
84578460|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|118.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||118.02|98.82|
84754627|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.28||||||A/H1N1: 60-64 years||2.28|1.58|
84754628|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.08||||||A/H3N2: 60-64 years||2.08|1.38|
84754629|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.74||||||B1: 60-64 years||1.74|1.30|
84754630|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.04||||||B2: 60-64 years||2.04|1.53|
84754631|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.15||||||A/H1N1: \>=65 years||2.15|1.44|
84754632|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.65||||||A/H3N2: \>=65 years||2.65|1.74|
84505243|NCT04128696|168761151|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-1.4||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.4|-33.7|
84578461|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|103.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|112.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.94|94.56|
84578462|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.48|115.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||115.23|96.48|
84578463|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ration X 100|98.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.82|107.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.28|89.82|
84578464|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.96|102.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||102.65|85.96|
84578465|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|104.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.74|87.69|
84578466|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|104.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.58|87.56|
84578467|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|97.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|107.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.71|89.34|
84578468|NCT02014103|168910358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Pancea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|102.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.36|111.51|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.51|93.36|
84578469|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|141.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.73|160.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||160.16|125.73|
84609850|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|18.58
84609851|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.98|22.28
84676601|NCT01516879|169088679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-18.08|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.08|-40.23|<0.001
84578470|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|117.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||117.45|92.33|
84578471|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|130.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.87|102.87|
84578472|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|108.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|122.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||122.94|96.51|
84609852|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||10.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|10.86
84578473|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|94.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|106.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||106.16|83.33|
84578474|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr. Reddys Ratio X 100|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.82|153.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||153.70|120.82|
84578475|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.37|138.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||138.04|108.37|
84578476|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|130.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.43|147.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||147.04|115.43|
84578477|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|150.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.77|170.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||170.18|133.77|
84578478|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||101.30|79.52|
84578479|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|107.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.90|84.71|
84578480|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|124.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||124.96|98.10|
84578481|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|106.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|120.15|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||120.15|94.44|
84578482|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|139.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||139.23|109.30|
84578483|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|115.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|130.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.62|102.68|
84676602|NCT01516879|169088680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|3.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment group and stratification factor as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||3.48|-3.76|0.94
84578484|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|112.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|127.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.20|100.32|
84578485|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|114.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||114.57|90.37|
84578486|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astella Ratio X 100|113.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.82|127.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.83|100.82|
84578487|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||111.64|88.06|
84578488|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|95.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.89|107.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.61|84.89|
84676603|NCT01720069|169088681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.772
84676604|NCT01720069|169088682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.891
84676605|NCT01720069|169088683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
84676606|NCT01720069|169088684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84609853|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.89
84578489|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|111.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.59|125.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||125.00|98.59|
84578490|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.38|112.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||112.04|88.38|
84578491|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|113.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.18|128.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.28|101.18|
84578492|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.96|133.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.08|104.96|
84578493|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan|89.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.61|100.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||100.93|79.61|
84578494|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.15|115.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||115.55|91.15|
84578495|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|119.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||119.88|94.55|
84578496|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|114.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.68|128.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.92|110.68|
84578497|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.48|133.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.74|105.48|
84578498|NCT02014103|168910359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|116.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||116.81|92.13|
84578499|NCT05638737|168910361|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|7.5||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|20.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline ALT as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables.||||20.5|-4.1|0.893
84578500|NCT05638737|168910362|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|-0.9||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline Pro-C3 as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables||||6.1|-7.5|0.396
84578501|NCT00327171|168910371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.58|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor|||1.58|0.80|0.5043
84578502|NCT00327171|168910374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.48|0.81|0.5592
84578503|NCT00327171|168910375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4 mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.64|0.77|0.5457
84578504|NCT00422461|168910412|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.36|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||0.36|-5.97|0.0822
84578505|NCT00422461|168910412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-0.85|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.85|-8.47|0.0170
84578506|NCT00422461|168910412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-2.48|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-2.48|-11.45|0.0026
84578507|NCT00422461|168910413|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.32|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.32|-5.09|0.0264
84578508|NCT00422461|168910413|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-1.77|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-1.77|-7.35|0.0016
84578509|NCT00422461|168910413|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-3.89|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-3.89|-10.03|<0.0001
84578510|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.05|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||4.05|-3.79|0.9479
84578511|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||-0.72|-8.78|0.0215
84578512|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.53|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||0.53|-7.39|0.0886
84578513|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.41|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||1.41|-4.30|0.3173
84578514|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-0.99|-6.64|0.0087
84578515|NCT00422461|168910414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-1.15|-6.76|0.0062
84578516|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.31|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.31|-5.51|0.8091
84578517|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|4.48|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.48|-5.21|0.8809
84578518|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||-0.29|-10.04|0.0382
84578519|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||0.29|-6.35|0.0731
84578520|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.22|-7.77|0.0077
84578521|NCT00422461|168910416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.00|-7.58|0.0111
84676607|NCT01720069|169088685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.054
84578522|NCT00422461|168910418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-5.32|0.2567
84578523|NCT00422461|168910418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-6.29|0.0860
84578524|NCT00422461|168910418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.85|0.0103
84578525|NCT02357485|168910424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.004
84578526|NCT02357485|168910425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84578527|NCT02357485|168910426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84578528|NCT02357485|168910427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84578529|NCT01060111|168910437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6207|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.6207
84578530|NCT01060111|168910437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferioirity was to be concluded if the ratio of percentage decrease in migraine episodes was greater than 0.7. Power of calculation was 0.9, significance level was 0.025.|Ratio of percentage decrease|0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.737|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.737|0.519|0.5
84578531|NCT01060111|168910438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.7247
84578532|NCT01060111|168910439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9872|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.9872
84578533|NCT01060111|168910440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4326||||||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.4326
84578534|NCT01004393|168910448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.161
84578535|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
84578536|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paited t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
84578537|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578538|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578539|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578540|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84676608|NCT01720069|169088686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.168
84676609|NCT01720069|169088686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.363
84676610|NCT01720069|169088686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
84754633|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.79||||||B1: \>=65 years||1.79|1.34|
84754634|NCT04024228|169265088|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.03||||||B2: \>=65 years||2.03|1.52|
84754635|NCT01901575|169265143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.15|0.65|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||"null hypothesis:~Remifentanil IVPCA sedation in patients undergoing ablation of the idiopathic ventricular tachycardia does not cause suppression of PVC's"||0.8|0.65|0.05
84754636|NCT00709111|169265154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||The p-value is one-sided with a nominal level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank, 1-sided|||The change in CD4+ T-cell count from baseline to week 24 was compared against the null hypothesis of change \<20 cells/mm\^3. The study was powered to yield 80% power to show that there was \>=20 cells/mm\^3 increase in CD4+ T-cell count assuming an underlying change in CD4+ T-cell counts induced by MVC of 50 cells/mm\^3, a standard deviation of 60 cells/mm\^3 around the mean CD4+ T-cell count change, 10% lost-to-follow-up or premature MVC discontinuation rate, and one-sided type 1 error of 0.05.||||0.97
84754637|NCT00290290|169265190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85|||Log Rank|||The average baseline rate of surgical-site infection at the six participating hospitals was 14% after clean-contaminated surgery with povidone-iodine skin preparation, and we estimated that substituting chlorhexidine-alcohol for povidone-iodine would reduce this rate to 7%. Therefore, we planned to enroll approximately 430 patients in each study group who could be evaluated in order for the study to have 90% power to detect a significant difference in the rates of surgical-site infection.||0.85|0.41|0.004
84754638|NCT02015442|169265191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. treatment period||||0.390
84676611|NCT00594256|169088696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||=0.002
84754639|NCT02015442|169265191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.204
84578541|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84754640|NCT02015442|169265192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.001
84754641|NCT02015442|169265192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.244
84754642|NCT02015442|169265192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.244
84754643|NCT04013789|169265198|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was set at 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model||DACP FreshTech minus DACP|||0.03||
84754644|NCT00119041|169265200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.153|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at baseline||||>0.153
84754645|NCT00119041|169265200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at 18 months||||>0.25
84754646|NCT05111041|169265204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|3.309||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.309|0.302|1.000
84754647|NCT05111041|169265205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|2.972||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.972|0.215|0.7389
84676612|NCT00594256|169088697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.02
84676613|NCT00594256|169088698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.04
84754648|NCT05111041|169265207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|3.602||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.474|0.6058
84754649|NCT05111041|169265208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|2.866||||||||2.866|0.349|
84578542|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578543|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
84578544|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578545|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578546|NCT01336972|168910450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578547|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578548|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578549|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578550|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578551|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84672403|NCT00653224|169080336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56||||0.015||95.0|-8.23|-0.89||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.89|-8.23|0.015
84578552|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578553|NCT01336972|168910451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578554|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578555|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578556|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84609854|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.78
84609855|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||69.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|69.42
84498306|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.283|-0.190|0.9993
84498307|NCT03692078|168747711|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.242|-0.278|1.0000
84609856|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||62.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|62.63
84676614|NCT00594256|169088699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.8
84676615|NCT00594256|169088700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||<0.01
84578557|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding||||>0.05
84578558|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578559|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84609857|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|72.55
84609858|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||36.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|36.28
84609859|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.96|47.44
84754650|NCT05111041|169265209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.823||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.823|0.465|0.5925
84578560|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
84578561|NCT01336972|168910452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
84578562|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
84578563|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
84578564|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
84578565|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
84609860|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|22.99
84578566|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||||>0.05
84676616|NCT02797262|169088758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the IPAM score between two groups.||||0.57
84578567|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|paired t-test|||||||>0.05
84578568|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84578569|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84578570|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84578571|NCT01336972|168910453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84578572|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Final Treatment||||<0.05
84578573|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Post Treatment||||<0.05
84578574|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578575|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
84578576|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578577|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578578|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578579|NCT01336972|168910457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578580|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
84578581|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
84578582|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578583|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
84578584|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare PostTreatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||>0.05
84578585|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578586|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578587|NCT01336972|168910458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||<0.05
84578588|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired te-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
84578589|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578590|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578591|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
84578592|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
84578593|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
84578594|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
84578595|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578596|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578597|NCT01336972|168910459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
84578598|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||12.98|3.20|.004
84578599|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|13.87|||t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test|Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||13.87|-0.40|.060
84578600|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.932||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.766
84578601|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for experimental arm||6.19|-3.41|0.533
84578602|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|4.84|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for control arm||4.84|-12.21|0.296
84578603|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.075||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.14
84578604|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|14.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 16 for experimental arm||14.71|4.24|.002
84754651|NCT01011439|169265211|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||Fisher Exact|||H0:p\</=17% vs. H1:p\>17%, with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 33% or higher; Power=80%; Alpha(1-sided)=5%, 54 evaluable patients are required for a Simon optimal two stage design trial. If at least 4 successes among the first 17 evaluable patients are observed in the 1st stage, patients' enrollment proceed up to the final analysis where at least 14/54 successes (PFS-3 rate ≥ 25.9%) must be required to reject the null hypothesis.||0.59|0.31|<0.001
84754652|NCT03861936|169265228|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
84578605|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|10.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||10.01|-3.91|.291
84578606|NCT05278065|168910460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.834||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.067
84578607|NCT05278065|168910461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.71|-0.07|.068
84578608|NCT05278065|168910461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.32|-2.32|1.00
84578609|NCT05278065|168910461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.44
84578610|NCT05278065|168910462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|1.078|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.078|-0.184|.145
84578611|NCT05278065|168910462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.95|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||3.95|-1.50|0.280
84578612|NCT05278065|168910462|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.802||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.38
84609861|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||85.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|85.95
84578613|NCT05278065|168910463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.250|-0.077|0.268
84578614|NCT05278065|168910463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.198|-0.291|0.624
84754653|NCT03861936|169265228|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|84.0||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.0|55.1|<.0001
84578615|NCT05278065|168910463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
84578616|NCT05278065|168910464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.219|-0.374|0.574
84578617|NCT05278065|168910464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.252|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.252|-0.020|.077
84578618|NCT05278065|168910464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.193||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.149
84578619|NCT05278065|168910465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.163|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.163|-0.396|0.376
84578620|NCT05278065|168910465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.78|-0.036|0.065
84578621|NCT05278065|168910465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.486||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.006
84578622|NCT05278065|168910466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.576|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.576|-0.483|0.849
84578623|NCT05278065|168910466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.102|-0.706|.107
84754654|NCT03861936|169265234|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|63.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|33.1|<.0001
84676617|NCT02797262|169088760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the intervention period (week 0-16) between two groups.||||0.08
84754655|NCT03861936|169265234|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|61.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.8|29.5|<.0001
84578624|NCT05278065|168910466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.19
84578625|NCT05278065|168910467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.760|-0.929|0.828
84578626|NCT05278065|168910467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.762||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.33|-0.81|0.249
84578627|NCT05278065|168910467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.857||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
84578628|NCT05278065|168910468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||8.89|-9.25|0.965
84578629|NCT05278065|168910468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|17.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||17.6|-11.1|0.522
84578630|NCT05278065|168910468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.781
84578631|NCT03446573|168910469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in virologic failure rates between the two treatment arms was smaller than 4%.|Adjusted difference in proportion (ADP)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.7|-1.2|
84578632|NCT03446573|168910470|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded when the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -8%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor: Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INSTI).|||3.9|-3.4|
84578633|NCT03446573|168910496|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.057||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.164|0.960|0.257
84578634|NCT03446573|168910496|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.062||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.205|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.205|0.936|0.350
84578635|NCT03446573|168910496|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.979||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.037|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.037|0.924|0.473
84578636|NCT03446573|168910496|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.956||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.026|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.026|0.891|0.212
84578637|NCT03446573|168910498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.977||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.102|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.102|0.866|0.700
84578638|NCT03446573|168910498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.971||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.129|0.835|0.700
84578639|NCT03446573|168910498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.969||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.036|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.036|0.907|0.356
84578640|NCT03446573|168910498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.991||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.071|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.071|0.916|0.814
84578641|NCT03446573|168910499|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.958||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.106|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.106|0.830|0.560
84578642|NCT03446573|168910499|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.055||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.229|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.229|0.906|0.489
84578643|NCT03446573|168910501|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.165||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.384|0.981|0.081
84578644|NCT03446573|168910501|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.981||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.175|0.819|0.834
84578645|NCT03446573|168910502|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.017||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.130|0.915|0.758
84578646|NCT03446573|168910502|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.999||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.116|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.116|0.894|0.985
84754656|NCT03861936|169265235|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|70.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|39.6|<.0001
84754657|NCT03861936|169265235|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|60.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|76.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.7|45.1|<.0001
84754658|NCT03861936|169265236|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|70.5||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.5|37.9|<.0001
84754659|NCT03861936|169265236|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|65.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|30.1|<.0001
84754660|NCT03861936|169265237|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
84754661|NCT03861936|169265237|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|69.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.6|34.8|<.0001
84754662|NCT03861936|169265238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.54||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.54|-7.10|<.0001
84754663|NCT03861936|169265238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-4.47||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.47|-7.15|<.0001
84754664|NCT03861936|169265239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-6.13||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.12|<.0001
84578647|NCT03446573|168910504|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.015||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.139|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.139|0.904|0.806
84754665|NCT03861936|169265239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-6.69||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.69|-9.83|<.0001
84754666|NCT01312038|169265245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.93|||||||Paired T-test|df=34||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of -200 daPa.||||=0.93
84578648|NCT03446573|168910504|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.019||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.142|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.142|0.909|0.745
84578649|NCT03446573|168910505|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.935||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.052|||Mixed Model Reported Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.052|0.830|0.264
84578650|NCT03446573|168910505|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.996||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.098|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.098|0.903|0.932
84754667|NCT01312038|169265245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39|||||||Paired T-test|df = 31||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of 200 daPa.||||=0.39
84754668|NCT01495858|169265274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3047
84754669|NCT01495858|169265275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1677|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1677
84754670|NCT01495858|169265276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
84578651|NCT03446573|168910507|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.281|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.281|1.032|0.011
84754671|NCT01495858|169265277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
84754672|NCT01495858|169265278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84754673|NCT01495858|169265279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84754674|NCT01495858|169265280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0145
84754675|NCT01495858|169265281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84754676|NCT01495858|169265282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
84754677|NCT01495858|169265283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0305
84754678|NCT01495858|169265284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0176
84754679|NCT01495858|169265285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84754680|NCT01495858|169265286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
84754681|NCT01495858|169265287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84754682|NCT01495858|169265288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84754683|NCT01495858|169265289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84754684|NCT01495858|169265290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
84754685|NCT01495858|169265291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3707|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3707
84754686|NCT01495858|169265292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
84754687|NCT01495858|169265294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3765
84754688|NCT00496730|169265339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84754689|NCT00496730|169265340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84754690|NCT00496730|169265341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84754691|NCT00369785|169265356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in immediate recall memory at 24 weeks||||.62
84754692|NCT00369785|169265357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in discrimination memory between the two groups||||.007
84754693|NCT00800683|169265358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||For patients who received rescue medication during the course of the trial, the Oracle Clinical (OC) technique was utilised for all efficacy endpoints and the values were set to missing after the rescue medication was administered.||-0.31|-0.89|< 0.0001
84578652|NCT03446573|168910507|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.007||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.121|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.121|0.905|0.895
84578653|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 24 has been presented|||0.57|0.00|0.047
84609862|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||60.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|60.20
84609863|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||81.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|81.34
84676618|NCT02797262|169088760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the post-intervention period (week 16-28) between two groups.||||0.23
84578654|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 48 has been presented|||0.68|-0.05|0.094
84578655|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 24 has been presented|||-0.68|-2.01|<0.001
84578656|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 48 has been presented|||-1.09|-2.59|<0.001
84578657|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 24 has been presented|||4.3|-0.1|0.066
84609864|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC UpperDay 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.04
84754694|NCT00800683|169265359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.03|< 0.0001
84754695|NCT00800683|169265360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.90|< 0.0001
84754696|NCT00800683|169265361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.96|< 0.0001
84754697|NCT00800683|169265362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.05|< 0.0001
84754698|NCT00800683|169265363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.06|< 0.0001
84754699|NCT00800683|169265364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.96|< 0.0001
84754700|NCT00800683|169265365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.02|< 0.0001
84754701|NCT00800683|169265366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1199||95.0||||P-value calculated using a Fisher's exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1199
84578658|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 48 has been presented|||5.8|0.0|0.046
84609865|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||69.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|69.67
84609866|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||39.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|39.81
84609867|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||73.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|73.01
84609868|NCT02294734|168970600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|48.97
84609869|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||2.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|1.00|2.89
84672404|NCT00653224|169080337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.036||95.0|-7.95|-0.27||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.27|-7.95|0.036
84676619|NCT02797262|169088760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the plasma HIV RNA levels during week 4-28 between two groups.||||0.03
84578659|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0381||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0646|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 24 has been presented|||0.0646|0.0117|0.005
84578660|NCT03446573|168910515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0292||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0559|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 48 has been presented|||0.0559|0.0025|0.032
84578661|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 96 has been presented|||0.57|-0.22|0.386
84578662|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 144 has been presented|||0.61|-0.34|0.573
84578663|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 96 has been presented|||-1.04|-2.70|< 0.001
84578664|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 144 has been presented|||-1.14|-2.77|< 0.001
84609870|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||8.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.99|8.49
84609871|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||86.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|86.21
84609872|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||75.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.98|75.20
84578665|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 96 has been presented.|||4.4|-0.3|0.082
84609873|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.29
84578666|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 144 has been presented|||3.2|-2.3|0.765
84578667|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0151||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0438|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 96 has been presented|||0.0438|-0.0136|0.301
84578668|NCT03446573|168910517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0126||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0133|0.0384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 144 has been presented|||0.0384|-0.0133|0.340
84578669|NCT03446573|168910518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 24 has been presented|||1.0|-5.3|0.173
84578670|NCT03446573|168910518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 48 has been presented|||1.0|-5.5|0.168
84578671|NCT03446573|168910520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 96 has been presented.|||-4.7|-14.0|<0.001
84609874|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||71.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|71.08
84609875|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|34.93
84754702|NCT00800683|169265367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.103||||0.2225||95.0|0.003|3.978|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||3.978|0.003|0.2225
84578672|NCT03446573|168910520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 144 has been presented.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.005
84578673|NCT03446573|168910521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 24 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.027
84578674|NCT03446573|168910521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 48 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.061
84578675|NCT03446573|168910523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 96 has been presented|||-0.01|-0.06|0.004
84578676|NCT03446573|168910523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 144 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.094
84578677|NCT03446573|168910524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||3.1|0.4|0.012
84578678|NCT03446573|168910524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||3.3|-0.1|0.059
84578679|NCT03446573|168910524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||-3.7|-6.3|<0.001
84578680|NCT03446573|168910524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||-3.4|-6.1|<0.001
84578681|NCT03446573|168910526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||6.7|1.5|0.002
84609876|NCT02294734|168970601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|25.05
84609877|NCT02294734|168970602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|28.51
84578682|NCT03446573|168910526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 148 has been presented|||3.8|-0.1|0.064
84578683|NCT03446573|168910526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||-3.8|-6.7|<0.001
84578684|NCT03446573|168910526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 144 has been presented|||-2.8|-6.2|<0.001
84578685|NCT03446573|168910527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||5.70|3.03|<0.001
84578686|NCT03446573|168910527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|5.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||5.81|3.18|<0.001
84578687|NCT03446573|168910529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||6.43|3.47|<0.001
84578688|NCT03446573|168910529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||5.85|2.32|<0.001
84578689|NCT03446573|168910530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0017||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0085|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0085|-0.0119|0.741
84578690|NCT03446573|168910530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0094|0.0123|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0123|-0.0094|0.792
84578691|NCT03446573|168910531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.0126|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0126|-0.0121|0.965
84578692|NCT03446573|168910531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0109||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.0029|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0029|-0.0247|0.120
84578693|NCT03446573|168910532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||1.2|-1.4|0.879
84578694|NCT03446573|168910532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.8|-1.9|0.414
84609878|NCT02294734|168970602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|32.15
84578695|NCT03446573|168910533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.5|0.102
84578696|NCT03446573|168910533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.8|0.093
84578697|NCT02070991|168910559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between maci. and placebo|10.08||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|33.26|||Fisher Exact|||||33.26|-15.07|0.3372
84578698|NCT02070991|168910560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08||||||||1.08|0.55|
84578699|NCT02070991|168910561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
84578700|NCT02070991|168910562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.3|
84578701|NCT02070991|168910563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.2|
84645276|NCT03036800|169026171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|34.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||34.67|3.80|<0.001
84578702|NCT02070991|168910564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-4.2|
84578703|NCT02070991|168910565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
84578704|NCT02070991|168910566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||||||||3.6|-4.5|
84578705|NCT02448043|168910567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
84578706|NCT02448043|168910568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
84578707|NCT02448043|168910569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline values of both arms to completion values of both arms||||0.912
84578708|NCT02448043|168910570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline nail brittleness values and completion values||||0.062
84578709|NCT02068599|168910586|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|4.26||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|9.66||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||9.66|-1.13|0.1213
84578710|NCT02068599|168910586|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.11||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||7.11|-3.62|0.5231
84578711|NCT02068599|168910587|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|17.86||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|43.98||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||43.98|-8.26|0.1795
84578712|NCT02068599|168910587|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|34.96||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||34.96|-16.95|0.4956
84578713|NCT02068599|168910588|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.61||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|9.08||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.08|-1.87|0.1963
84578714|NCT02068599|168910588|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.06||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.50|-3.39|0.4584
84578715|NCT02068599|168910589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|23.51||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.83|122.84||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||122.84|-75.83|0.6420
84578716|NCT02068599|168910589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-50.4||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.72|47.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||47.92|-148.72|0.3141
84578717|NCT02068599|168910590|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.16||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|15.63||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.63|-9.31|0.6184
84578718|NCT02068599|168910590|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-3.48||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|8.81||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||8.81|-15.78|0.5775
84578719|NCT02068599|168910591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.099||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.099|0.345|0.1011
84672405|NCT00653224|169080338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.102||95.0|-9.95|0.93||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.93|-9.95|0.102
84578720|NCT02068599|168910591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.819||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.819|0.615|0.8400
84578721|NCT02068599|168910591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.494||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.494|0.531|0.6607
84578722|NCT02068599|168910591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.441||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.441|0.520|0.5777
84578723|NCT02068599|168910592|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.94||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.79||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.79|-5.90|0.4316
84578724|NCT02068599|168910592|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.51||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|12.26||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||12.26|-7.24|0.6126
84578725|NCT02068599|168910593|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.01||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.257||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.257|-0.232|0.9208
84578726|NCT02068599|168910593|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.04||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.284||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.284|-0.200|0.7344
84578727|NCT02068599|168910593|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.21||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.486||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.486|-0.056|0.1199
84578728|NCT02068599|168910593|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.06||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.334||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.334|-0.204|0.6357
84578729|NCT02068599|168910594|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.77||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.377|7.916||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||7.916|-2.377|0.2906
84578730|NCT02068599|168910594|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.41||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.707|6.518||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||6.518|-3.707|0.5892
84578731|NCT02068599|168910594|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.82||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.678|6.315||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||6.315|-4.678|0.7699
84578732|NCT02068599|168910594|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.721|7.193||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||7.193|-3.721|0.5320
84578733|NCT02068599|168910595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.433||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||1.433|0.501|0.5358
84578734|NCT02068599|168910595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.423||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||2.423|0.870|0.1532
84578735|NCT06042855|168910611|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.03|0.89|
84578736|NCT06042855|168910612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|6.38||||||No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||6.38|0.32|
84578737|NCT06042855|168910615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.78|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.78|0.82|
84578738|NCT06042855|168910616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.31|0.66|
84578739|NCT06042855|168910617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.41|0.57|
84578740|NCT06042855|168910618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.42|0.78|
84578741|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Day 7||1.32|0.85|
84578742|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||Day 14||1.28|0.85|
84578743|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53||||||Day 28||1.53|0.94|
84578744|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||Day 90||1.48|0.91|
84578745|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.77||||||Day 120||1.77|1.06|
84754703|NCT00800683|169265368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|15.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||15.756|0.042|0.8927
84754704|NCT00800683|169265369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.8802||95.0|-24.36|20.91|||ANCOVA|||||20.91|-24.36|0.8802
84754705|NCT00800683|169265370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.7848||95.0|-18.47|13.98|||ANCOVA|||||13.98|-18.47|0.7848
84578746|NCT06042855|168910619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66||||||Day 180||1.66|1.02|
84578747|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||||||Day 7||1.15|0.86|
84578748|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Day 14||1.21|0.87|
84578749|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Day 28||0.92|0.58|
84578750|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||||||Day 90||1.02|0.70|
84578751|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||||||Day 120||0.99|0.68|
84578752|NCT06042855|168910620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Day 180||1.01|0.70|
84754706|NCT00800683|169265371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1878||95.0|-26.74|5.31|||ANCOVA|||||5.31|-26.74|0.1878
84578753|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Day 7||1.06|0.70|
84578754|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.79|
84578755|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1||||||Day 28||1.10|0.69|
84578756|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Day 90||1.25|0.80|
84578757|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 120||1.08|0.70|
84754707|NCT00800683|169265372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.5781||95.0|-11.28|20.12|||ANCOVA|||||20.12|-11.28|0.5781
84754708|NCT00800683|169265373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2954||95.0|-26.67|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-26.67|0.2954
84754709|NCT00800683|169265374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.5984||95.0|-12.02|20.75|||ANCOVA|||||20.75|-12.02|0.5984
84754710|NCT00800683|169265375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.4085||95.0|-9.82|23.96|||ANCOVA|||||23.96|-9.82|0.4085
84754711|NCT00800683|169265376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.8698||95.0|-14.84|17.52|||ANCOVA|||||17.52|-14.84|0.8698
84578758|NCT06042855|168910621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.66|
84578759|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09||||||Day 7||1.09|0.70|
84578760|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||||||Day 14||0.98|0.65|
84578761|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Day 28||0.85|0.47|
84578762|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 90||1.08|0.70|
84578763|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Day 120||0.96|0.62|
84578764|NCT06042855|168910622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95||||||Day 180||0.95|0.61|
84609879|NCT02294734|168970602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||66.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|66.51
84578765|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||||||Day 7||1.22|0.83|
84578766|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||||||Day 14||1.13|0.76|
84578767|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8||||||Day 28||0.80|0.45|
84578768|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||Day 90||0.90|0.59|
84578769|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Day 120||0.97|0.61|
84578770|NCT06042855|168910623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||Day 180||0.94|0.62|
84578771|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Day 7||1.43|0.95|
84578772|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Day 14||1.25|0.87|
84578773|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.59||||||Day 28||1.59|0.99|
84578774|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.35||||||Day 90||1.35|0.89|
84578775|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.48||||||Day 120||1.48|0.98|
84578776|NCT06042855|168910624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||||||Day 180||1.46|0.96|
84578777|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Day 7||1.26|0.96|
84578778|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.87|
84578779|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Day 28||1.07|0.81|
84578780|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||Day 90||1.07|0.76|
84578781|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Day 120||1.06|0.78|
84578782|NCT06042855|168910625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.75|
84578783|NCT06042855|168910626|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.28|-0.21|
84578784|NCT06042855|168910627|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.34|
84578785|NCT05259033|168910658|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Estimated treatment difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy strategy||-0.33|-0.56|<0.0001
84578786|NCT01405911|168910690|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.36|-9.85|<0.001
84578787|NCT01405911|168910690|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-6.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-6.33|-11.82|<0.001
84578788|NCT01405911|168910690|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.97||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.67|-4.61|0.143
84578789|NCT01405911|168910691|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-13.86|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-13.86|-21.55|<0.001
84578790|NCT01405911|168910691|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.32|-12.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-12.50|-20.32|<0.001
84578791|NCT01405911|168910691|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.82|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.82|-2.22|0.469
84578792|NCT06375655|168910694|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84645277|NCT03036800|169026173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|75.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||75.09|2.47|0.003
84645278|NCT03036800|169026174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of maintenance of weight loss of ≥15% at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
84754712|NCT00953719|169265402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The prospectively planned primary endpoint analysis was a non-inferiority test of covariate adjusted 24 month or later Harris Hip score means with a 5 point non-inferiority margin. A prospective power analysis with an anticipated Harris Hip score standard deviation of 10.08 (for both treatment groups) indicated that sample sizes of 134 and 67 would provide approximately 95% statistical power for this non-inferiority test with a type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||ANCOVA||||||-1.40|<0.001
84754713|NCT00953719|169265408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.952||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|SAS PROC MIXED was used with an ante-dependence covariance structure.||A repeated measurements longitudinal model of Harris Hip scores was carried out to compare Harris Hip results between treatment groups across time.||||0.952
84754714|NCT03492554|169265410|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Specificity = 92% H1: Specificity \> 92 Under the assumption that the true population specificity is 96.5%, 226 subjects who were diagnosed with SR based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject its null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms approximately 300 subjects with no known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
84754715|NCT03492554|169265411|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Sensitivity = 90% H1: Sensitivity \> 90% Under the assumption that the true population sensitivity is 95%, 231 subjects who were diagnosed with AF based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms, a minimum of 260 subjects with a known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
84754716|NCT03492554|169265412|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of visual display= 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of visual display\> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of visual display was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
84754717|NCT03492554|169265413|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude = 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude \> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of R wave amplitude was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
84578793|NCT06375655|168910695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.901509||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.25|||Fisher Exact|||This analysis did not power the study||10.25|0.41|0.5007
84578794|NCT06375655|168910696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3986|232.3218|||Fisher Exact|||||232.3218|0.3986|0.3497
84578795|NCT06375655|168910697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84578796|NCT06375655|168910698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 1 month|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.2302
84578797|NCT06375655|168910698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 3 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
84578798|NCT06375655|168910698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 6 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
84578799|NCT06375655|168910699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.01692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 1 month postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.01692
84754718|NCT01289821|169265415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|43.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.19|55.09|||One-sample exact binomial test|||"Null hypothesis: True probability p of objective tumor response does not exceed p0, p0=0.4. H0: p\<=0.4 One-sided type I error probability of alpha=10%"||55.09|33.19|0.36
84754719|NCT03591354|169265421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84754720|NCT01010633|169265494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.9|||Chi-squared|||||22.9|5.7|<0.001
84754721|NCT01010633|169265496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|21.4|<0.001
84754722|NCT04376827|169265504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.41|||log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||1.41|0.27|0.7807
84578800|NCT06375655|168910699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 2 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.7
84578801|NCT06375655|168910699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 3 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.3
84672406|NCT00653224|169080339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.493||95.0|-5.66|2.78||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||2.78|-5.66|0.493
84578802|NCT06375655|168910699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 6 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.15
84578803|NCT03837938|168910715|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%.|Difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.81|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.17|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.17|
84578804|NCT03837938|168910716|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.43|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.31|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.31|
84754723|NCT04376827|169265505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|3.85|||long-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||3.85|0.62|0.4654
84754724|NCT02615470|169265560|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||A priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.202
84754725|NCT02615470|169265561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84578805|NCT03837938|168910717|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84578806|NCT03837938|168910718|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||=|0.861|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.861
84578807|NCT03837938|168910719|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
84754726|NCT02615470|169265562|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.322||||||a priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.322
84754727|NCT04490395|169265580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.62|-0.26|0.044
84754728|NCT04490395|169265581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-0.15|0.056
84754729|NCT04490395|169265582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|-1.75|0.377
84754730|NCT04490395|169265583|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects change over time|F test (1,15) df|1.381||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Change over time||Only 9 cases had any data available per group, and some had missing values and were not included in each analysis.|Within subjects change over time.|||0.258
84754731|NCT04490395|169265583|SUPERIORITY|Between group analysis|F test (1,15) df|0.246||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||||Between group analysis|||0.627
84754732|NCT04490395|169265583|SUPERIORITY||F test (1,15) df|0.005||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Time x Condition interaction|Time x Condition interaction|||0.947
84754733|NCT04490395|169265584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.85|0.038
84754734|NCT04490395|169265585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-6.05|0.07
84754735|NCT04490395|169265586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-1.19|0.43
84754736|NCT04490395|169265587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-.194|0.72
84754737|NCT04490395|169265588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.35|0.341
84578808|NCT03837938|168910719|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
84578809|NCT03837938|168910719|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nightime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
84609880|NCT02294734|168970602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||45.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|45.28
84609881|NCT02294734|168970610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.5|115.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||115.3|-118.5|0.487
84754738|NCT04490395|169265589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-2.35|0.25
84754739|NCT01180478|169265621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Log Rank|||The expected recurrence rate in the WL-assisted TURBT group was 35%.14 To detect a clinically relevant difference in recurrence detection rates ≥10% at a 5% significance level and a power of 80%, the required sample size per treatment was calculated to be 329 patients (658 patients in total).||||0.585
84754740|NCT01180478|169265622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.742
84578810|NCT03837938|168910719|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nighttime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
84578811|NCT03837938|168910720|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
84578812|NCT03837938|168910720|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
84609882|NCT02294734|168970610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.6||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|194.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||194.3|-73.3|0.816
84609883|NCT02294734|168970613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.144||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.133|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.133|-0.420|0.151
84754741|NCT01180478|169265623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|The analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test, because the criteria for using the Chi square test were not met.||The statistical analyses refers to comparison of the different 8 categories (one variable) mentioned of the Clavien grading of perioperative complications between Narrow Band Imaging and White Light Trans Urethral Resection.||||0.170
84578813|NCT03837938|168910721|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as 20%|||||=|0.336|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||||||=0.336
84754742|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Bleeding' between NBI and WL||||0.311
84754743|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Fever' between NBI and WL||||0.666
84578814|NCT00504309|168910732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey p-values were used for post hoc comparisons.||Fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) were measured on two consecutive days and averaged for analysis at the end of each treatment period. The null hypothesis was that triglycerides did not differ between groups.||||0.002
84578815|NCT00504309|168910732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol values were compared as the average of two fasting values at the end of each treatment. Cholesterol values included LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol, and calculated ratios.||||> 0.05
84578816|NCT03345095|168910745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.5|-8.6|0.0004
84578817|NCT03345095|168910746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.16|-1.27|0.15
84578818|NCT06922760|168910772|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.411|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.411
84578819|NCT06922760|168910772|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.161|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
84578820|NCT06922760|168910773|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
84578821|NCT06922760|168910773|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
84578822|NCT01501513|168910777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84578823|NCT03083379|168910796|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalency is defined as no statistically significant difference in dorsal region redistribution of ventilation following breath cycle 1, 2, and 3 lung expansion therapy sequences.||||||0.9|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||.90
84578824|NCT02400736|168910797|SUPERIORITY|"Proportion of steady workers in each group was analyzed using a logistic regression model to calculate an odds ratio and 95% Confidence Interval. Adhering to the principle of intent-to-treat, participants were retained in the arm to which they were randomized for the 12-month follow-up period despite discontinuing the treatment intervention or exiting the study early. Missing data was counted as not worked."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Using SamplePower 3.0 to estimate the statistical power, the target sample size of 120 (60 per group) provided 84% power to detect a 25% or greater absolute difference between groups in the percent of participants achieving 'steady worker' status (e.g., 40% in IPS vs. 15% in control arm), at the .05 level of significance, assuming a 10% attrition.||5.43|1.14|0.02
84578825|NCT02400736|168910798|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis.||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total mean time worked was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.003
84578826|NCT02400736|168910799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||0.005
84578827|NCT02400736|168910800|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84578828|NCT02400736|168910801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||||||0.853
84578829|NCT02400736|168910802|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84578830|NCT02400736|168910803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||The effect of treatment on each of secondary outcome measures were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects regression model. The group by time interaction tested for the treatment effect.||||0.47
84578831|NCT02400736|168910804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
84578832|NCT02400736|168910805|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</= 0.05 or lower. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||>0.3
84578833|NCT02400736|168910806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84578834|NCT02400736|168910807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84578835|NCT01795937|168910837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|198.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|182.43|216.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir||216.09|182.43|
84578836|NCT01795937|168910838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|180.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|165.68|196.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir.||196.93|165.68|
84578837|NCT01795937|168910839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|946.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|797.61|1123.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1123.07|797.61|
84754744|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'UTI' between NBI and WL||||0.569
84754745|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Bladder cramps' between NBI and WL||||0.111
84754746|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'DVT' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had DVT. Therefore, the p-value is not available|||
84754747|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'CVA/TIA' between NBI and WL||||0.500
84754748|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'Lung embolism' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had a lung embolism. Therefore, no p-value was available|||
84578838|NCT01795937|168910840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3372.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2961.95|3840.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||3840.47|2961.95|
84578839|NCT01795937|168910843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1358.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.32|1508.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1508.29|1224.32|
84578840|NCT01795937|168910844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1466.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1277.62|1682.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1682.95|1277.62|
84578841|NCT01795937|168910845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3288.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2782.04|3887.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||3887.63|2782.04|
84578842|NCT01795937|168910846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1678.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1468.52|1917.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1917.89|1468.52|
84578843|NCT00875667|168910857|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.90|0.43|0.012
84578844|NCT00875667|168910858|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.85||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test||The weights are based on observed events at the time the third DMC meeting was held and based on the difference between observed and expected events at the time of the primary analysis.|||0.85|0.43|0.003
84578845|NCT00875667|168910859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84578846|NCT00875667|168910860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84578847|NCT00875667|168910861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.29|0.421
84578848|NCT00875667|168910862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.52|0.875
84754749|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Sepsis' between NBI and WL||||0.500
84578849|NCT00875667|168910863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
84578850|NCT00875667|168910864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.465
84578851|NCT00875667|168910865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.005
84578852|NCT00875667|168910866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.46|0.003
84578853|NCT00875667|168910867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.54|0.046
84578854|NCT00875667|168910868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.58|0.095
84578855|NCT00875667|168910869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.85|||Log Rank|||||7.85|1.95|<0.001
84754750|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Acute Abdomen' between NBI and WL||||1.000
84754751|NCT01180478|169265624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Other perioperative complication' between NBI and WL||||0.170
84754752|NCT01180478|169265625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.553
84754753|NCT04746833|169265669|EQUIVALENCE|mean of Summit will be equal to mean of control||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
84754754|NCT04746833|169265670|OTHER|||||||||||||||||descriptive statistic of system use|simple descriptive findings for evaluation of feasibility of the Sumit app|||
84754755|NCT04746833|169265671|EQUIVALENCE|standard null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
84754756|NCT01488279|169265724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|480.8||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1147.6|1126.0|||ANOVA|||2X2 crossover design with baseline values. To compare the means between Sitagliptin and Placebo, a sequential three step testing process used. The results of the third step, the direct treatment comparisons are presented.||1126.0|-1147.6|.983
84754757|NCT01488279|169265727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.585|4.568|||ANOVA|||||4.568|-4.585|.997
84754758|NCT01488279|169265728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.9||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.9|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.0|-156.9|.460
84754759|NCT03593850|169265729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84754760|NCT03593850|169265730|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
84754761|NCT03593850|169265731|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.802
84609884|NCT02294734|168970613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.551|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.551|-0.305|0.712
84609885|NCT02294734|168970614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.570|-0.216|0.817
84609886|NCT02294734|168970614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.549|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.549|-0.324|0.697
84754762|NCT03593850|169265732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84578856|NCT00875667|168910870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.42|||Log Rank|||||3.42|1.24|<0.004
84578857|NCT00875667|168910871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.62|0.519
84578858|NCT00875667|168910872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.67|0.558
84578859|NCT00505362|168910904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84578860|NCT00505362|168910905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84578861|NCT02384460|168910906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.549||p-value is for Type 3 chi-square test for comparison between treatments.|Cox Model Analysis|||Cox proportional hazards model compares treatment groups with baseline target wound size, target wound age, and EB type as covariates.||1.549|0.651|0.985
84578862|NCT02384460|168910907|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 010005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.474||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 3 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.474|0.365|0.39
84578863|NCT02384460|168910908|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get the monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation method: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.633||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.517||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 1 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 1 month was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||3.517|0.758|0.212
84578864|NCT02384460|168910908|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.821||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 2 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 2 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.821|0.436|0.802
84609887|NCT02294734|168970617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.988|1.388|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.388|0.988|0.965
84609888|NCT02294734|168970617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.114||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.305|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.305|0.953|0.913
84609889|NCT02250664|168970621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
84645279|NCT03036800|169026175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-5.29|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.29|-7.81|<0.001
84754763|NCT03593850|169265732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.429||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: group, covariates: pain before (VAS2), age in years, age at menarche, duration of menses, usual pain, anxiety before, hours with pain.|||Adjusted means: music 3.131 (99% CI 2.62, 3.999) and silence 4.56 (99% CI 3.581, 5.538), F= 8.44, R-square 54.5%|||0.006
84754764|NCT03593850|169265733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84754765|NCT03593850|169265733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.721||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factor: Groups Covariates: Pain before, pain after, age, age menarche, menses duration, usual pain, anxiety before, anxiety after, hours pain|Adjusted means: music 2.58 (99% CI 1.339, 3.829), and silence 3.305 (1.728, 4.881); F 0.827, R-square 27.2%|||||0.370
84578865|NCT02384460|168910909|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.682||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|4.238||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of least-squares (LS)-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis. The MMRM approach (using restricted maximum likelihood \[REML\] estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||4.238|-2.873|0.706
84578866|NCT02384460|168910910|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.128||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.116|1.861||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of LS-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM Analysis. The MMRM approach (using REML estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||1.861|-2.116|0.9
84754766|NCT03593850|169265734|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377
84578867|NCT02384460|168910911|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.752||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in itching versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline itching score, and EB type as covariates.||2.752|0.759|0.262
84578868|NCT02384460|168910912|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.596||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.1||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in pain versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline pain score and EB type as covariates.||1.1|0.323|0.098
84578869|NCT04270760|168910923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.12|-65.9||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 1 versus (vs) Group 5||-65.90|-75.12|<0.001
84578870|NCT04270760|168910923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-97.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.98|-92.77||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-92.77|-101.98|<0.001
84578871|NCT04270760|168910923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-101.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|-96.47||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-96.47|-105.79|<0.001
84645280|NCT03036800|169026176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-7.88|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-7.88|-11.30|<0.001
84645281|NCT03036800|169026177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-11.51|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-11.51|-15.51|<0.001
84754767|NCT03593850|169265735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84754768|NCT03593850|169265736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
84754769|NCT03593850|169265737|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
84754770|NCT03593850|169265738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84754771|NCT03593850|169265739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84754772|NCT03593850|169265740|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
84754773|NCT03593850|169265741|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
84754774|NCT03593850|169265742|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954
84754775|NCT03593850|169265743|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
84754776|NCT03593850|169265744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
84754777|NCT03593850|169265745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
84754778|NCT03593850|169265746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
84754779|NCT03593850|169265747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84578872|NCT04270760|168910923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.16|-95.82|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-95.82|-105.16|< 0.001
84578873|NCT04270760|168910924|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-62.67|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 1 vs Group 5||-62.67|-74.27|<0.001
84578874|NCT04270760|168910924|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-96.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.92|-90.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-90.33|-101.92|<0.001
84578875|NCT04270760|168910924|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.74|-95.02|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-95.02|-106.74|<0.001
84578876|NCT04270760|168910924|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-85.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.83|-80.06|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-80.06|-91.83|< 0.001
84578877|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-23.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.874|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.176|-12.143|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.143|-35.176|<0.001
84578878|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.036|-11.0|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-11.000|-34.036|<0.001
84578879|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.656|-11.278|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-11.278|-34.656|<0.001
84578880|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.399|-12.993|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.993|-36.399|< 0.001
84578881|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.853|-12.859|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.859|-36.853|<0.001
84578882|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|-9.598|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.598|-33.590|<0.001
84578883|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.565|-15.277|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-15.277|-39.565|<0.001
84578884|NCT04270760|168910925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|-14.801|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-14.801|-39.240|<0.001
84578885|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.779|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.477|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.477|-26.303|<0.001
84578886|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.107|-9.284|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.284|-24.107|<0.001
84754780|NCT01195090|169265776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.||0.08|-0.58|0.165
84754781|NCT01195090|169265792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square test|Chi-Square|0.0034||||0.954||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test for percentages of patient achieving an A1C \<7%||||0.954
84754782|NCT01205230|169265808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square geometric means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|1.99|||||Ratio of least square (LS) geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.99|1.39|
84754783|NCT01205230|169265808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.7|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.70|0.52|
84754784|NCT01205230|169265809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.86|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.86|1.14|
84754785|NCT01205230|169265809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.67|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.67|0.50|
84609890|NCT02250664|168970621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANOVA|||The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.|Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
84754786|NCT01205230|169265810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.06||||||||0.06|-1.06|
84754787|NCT01205230|169265810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.44||||||||2.44|-0.10|
84754788|NCT02319668|169265818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean difference|0.2||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.58|-0.18|0.2965
84754789|NCT01372150|169265822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.48|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Adjusted mean difference = placebo - fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||4.48|-1.06|0.226
84754790|NCT01372150|169265822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||2.30|-3.23|0.739
84754791|NCT01372150|169265823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - Fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||0.46|-0.11|0.224
84754792|NCT01372150|169265823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||0.27|-0.29|0.944
84754793|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.924
84609891|NCT03847909|168970627|SUPERIORITY|P value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect, age category, baseline eGFR category, baseline Uox value as covariates for adjustment.|Difference of Least Mean Square|5171.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1144.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2929.3|7414.2|||ANCOVA|||||7414.2|2929.3|<0.0001
84754794|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.698
84754795|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.214
84754796|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.113
84754797|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.314
84754798|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.659
84754799|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.577
84754800|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.187
84754801|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.051
84754802|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.266
84754803|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.095
84754804|NCT01372150|169265824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.852
84754805|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.335|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||1.335|0.226|0.186
84754806|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.567|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||2.567|0.382|0.984
84754807|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.465|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||1.465|0.431|0.462
84754808|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.324|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||1.324|0.399|0.297
84754809|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||1.210|0.391|0.194
84754810|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.277|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||1.277|0.419|0.272
84754811|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.314|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||1.314|0.426|0.313
84754812|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.171|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||1.171|0.376|0.157
84754813|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.05|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||1.050|0.319|0.072
84754814|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||1.149|0.356|0.135
84754815|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.871|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||0.871|0.249|0.017
84754816|NCT01372150|169265825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.751||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.357|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||1.357|0.415|0.343
84754817|NCT02665052|169265829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||The primary analysis was a two sample t-test (alpha=0.05) of the mean WMFT log-time change at 6 weeks. The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||78 participants were needed to generate a sample size of 22 per group and provide 80% power to detect a between group difference in mean Wolf time change (6 week - baseline) based on an a priori assumption of a mean change of 0 and 7.4 seconds respectively for the delayed entry usual care control and home-based BATRAC group; a SD of 7.6 and discontinuation rate of 15%.||||0.64
84754818|NCT02665052|169265830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The lab-based group had significant within group mean Fugl-Meyer (FM) change at week 6.|ANOVA|Dunnett's adjustments were used to compare the active intervention changes to the delayed-entry usual care control group.||Within group changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance.||||0.01
84754819|NCT02665052|169265830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||FM change was analyzed using analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's adjustment for between group comparisons in the home-based BATRAC group compared to the delayed-entry control.||||0.97
84754820|NCT02665052|169265831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Within group SIS hand changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance followed by comparisons to the delayed-entry usual care control using Dunnett's adjustment.||||0.31
84754821|NCT00823823|169265832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The frequency of loss of reduction during the study period was compared across casting groups using a two-sided chi-square test with alpha = 0.05.||||1.00
84754822|NCT02234284|169265834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.43|-.15|.35
84754823|NCT02234284|169265835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.65|-.13|.20
84754824|NCT02234284|169265836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of exacerbations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.07|-0.49|.13
84754825|NCT02234284|169265837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|25.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.|Value is for mean distance (in meters) of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean distance in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|25.26|-8.18|.32
84754826|NCT02234284|169265838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.83|-.23|.27
84754827|NCT02234284|169265839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.68|.07|.02
84754828|NCT02234284|169265840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.12|-2.78|.40
84754829|NCT02234284|169265841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean percent predicted of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean percent predicted in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||3|-3|.98
84609892|NCT00975143|168970664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \< 4.|LS Mean Difference|0.1382||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2712|0.5475||P values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for Baseline total nodular lesion count, gender and analysis site.|ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the adjusted least square mean difference (CIP-ISOTRETINOIN minus Isotretinoin) was calculated using the ANCOVA model.||Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value||0.5475|-0.2712|0.5077
84754830|NCT02234284|169265842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||10.2|-33.3|.30
84754831|NCT02234284|169265843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for mean number of days for participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|||0.62|-2.07|.29
84578887|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.139|-10.131|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.131|-25.139|<0.001
84754832|NCT02234284|169265844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||59.8|19.6|<.001
84754833|NCT02234284|169265845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.2|-9.5|.38
84754834|NCT02234284|169265846|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||13.4|-9.4|.73
84754835|NCT02234284|169265847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||20.8|-14.0|.70
84754836|NCT02234284|169265848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||5.3|-5.5|.97
84498308|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|1.971|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.971|1.639|<.0001
84578888|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.839|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.241|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-11.241|-26.303|< 0.001
84578889|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.757|-11.323|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.323|-28.757|<0.001
84578890|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.774|-8.345|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-8.345|-25.774|<0.001
84578891|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.336|-10.682|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.682|-28.336|<0.001
84754837|NCT02234284|169265849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of outpatient visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.28|-0.32|.52
84578892|NCT04270760|168910926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-12.979|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.979|-30.700|<0.001
84754838|NCT02234284|169265850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for rate of COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.22|-0.32|.78
84754839|NCT02234284|169265851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.40|-0.56|.80
84754840|NCT02234284|169265852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of COPD-related hospital visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.06|-0.32|.35
84498309|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.788|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.622|1.954|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.954|1.622|<.0001
84609893|NCT00975143|168970665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the two co-primary endpoints were significant, a 95% 2 sided CI on the difference between treatments (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was calculated.|Proportion difference|-3.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4|||Normal approximation|95% CI on difference in proportions (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was estimated using normal approximation.||The analysis of the secondary efficacy endpoint was based on observed cases only, with no imputation for missing values.||1.4|-8.4|>0.05
84754841|NCT02234284|169265853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related hospitalizations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.04|-0.20|.37
84578893|NCT04018001|168910928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0115
84578894|NCT04018001|168910928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.410198||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0492535|1.8953079||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8953079|1.0492535|0.0227
84609894|NCT00975143|168970666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \> -10.|Proportion difference|-2.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|3.74|||Normal approximation|||||3.74|-7.94|>0.05
84578895|NCT04018001|168910929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3564
84609895|NCT00545103|168970687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
84754842|NCT02234284|169265854|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportion|-18.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||-4.8|-33.1|.01
84754843|NCT02234284|169265855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.9|3.3|.01
84754844|NCT00324753|169265882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value based on a test of any treatment difference by site.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was run using the xtlogit command in Stata and was adjusted for all of the reported baseline characteristics.||||||.005
84578896|NCT04018001|168910929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9022||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7534|1.0803||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.0803|0.7534|0.2629
84578897|NCT04018001|168910930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0123
84578898|NCT04018001|168910930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.0300853||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0092322|0.0509385||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0509385|0.0092322|0.0047
84578899|NCT04018001|168910931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84578900|NCT04018001|168910931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7910474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3167136|2.4362554||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.4362554|1.3167136|0.0002
84578901|NCT04018001|168910932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
84578902|NCT04018001|168910932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0104065||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030062|0.0508746||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0508746|-0.030062|0.6143
84578903|NCT04018001|168910933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
84578904|NCT04018001|168910933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5211586||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1594614|1.9956882||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9956882|1.1594614|0.0025
84578905|NCT04018001|168910934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4595
84578906|NCT04018001|168910934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1225||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8873|1.4201||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.4201|0.8873|0.3354
84754845|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|9.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #1: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEU/ARB).||9.7|7.0|<0.001
84754846|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|9.6|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #2: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with beta-blockers.||9.6|7.7|<0.001
84754847|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|79.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|89.0|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #3: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with aldosterone receptor antagonists.||89.0|70.5|<0.001
84578907|NCT04018001|168910935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1130
84578908|NCT04018001|168910935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0151242||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003908|0.0341568||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0341568|-0.003908|0.1194
84578909|NCT04018001|168910936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0200
84578910|NCT04018001|168910936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4143816||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0221455|1.9571335||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9571335|1.0221455|0.0364
84578911|NCT04018001|168910937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9031
84578912|NCT04018001|168910937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.008587||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044317|0.0271416||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0271416|-0.044317|0.6376
84578913|NCT04018001|168910938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3584|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3584
84578914|NCT04018001|168910938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1077385||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8489444|1.4454238||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4454238|0.8489444|0.4510
84578915|NCT04018001|168910939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0624
84578916|NCT04018001|168910940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4914
84578917|NCT00106535|168910990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84754848|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #4: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with anticoagulation for AF.||4.2|-2.2|0.546
84754849|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|91.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #5: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P/CRT-D).||91.7|72.2|<0.001
84578918|NCT00106535|168910990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578919|NCT00106535|168910991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578920|NCT00106535|168910991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578921|NCT00106535|168910992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578922|NCT00106535|168910992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84578923|NCT00106535|168911001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
84578924|NCT00106535|168911001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
84578925|NCT00106535|168911002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.96|-43.56|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-43.56|-96.96|<0.0001
84609896|NCT00545103|168970687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.159
84609897|NCT00545103|168970687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.368
84754850|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|65.1|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #6: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or CRT-D.||65.1|59.1|<0.001
84754851|NCT00303979|169265885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|16.8|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #7: relative change in % of eligible patients with HF education.||16.8|12.6|<0.001
84578926|NCT00106535|168911002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.69|-59.22|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-59.22|-112.69|<0.0001
84578927|NCT00106535|168911004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.22|-90.98|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-90.98|-205.22|<0.0001
84578928|NCT00106535|168911004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-181.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-124.21|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-124.21|-238.60|<0.0001
84578929|NCT00106535|168911029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5212.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3139.4|7285.16|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||7285.16|3139.40|<0.0001
84578930|NCT00106535|168911029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7092.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5066.16|9119.36||Adjusted for region.|ANOVA|||||9119.36|5066.16|<0.0001
84578931|NCT00106535|168911045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0023
84578932|NCT00106535|168911045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|||||||<0.0001
84578933|NCT00106535|168911046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0001
84578934|NCT00106535|168911046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
84578935|NCT00699751|168911095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of overall survival, and also for the secondary endpoints, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.827|0.578|0.00005
84578936|NCT00699751|168911096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.22|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to total ALP progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.22|0.131|<0.00001
84609898|NCT00545103|168970688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.685
84609899|NCT00545103|168970688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.198
84609900|NCT00545103|168970688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.441
84609901|NCT03836677|168970701|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio to baseline|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.13||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.13|1.38|<0.0001
84609902|NCT03836677|168970701|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.83||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||1.83|1.28|<0.0001
84609903|NCT03836677|168970702|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.63||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.39|<0.0001
84609904|NCT03836677|168970702|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
84609905|NCT03836677|168970703|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
84754852|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|39.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: Relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||39.8|-1.1|0.004
84754853|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||10.2|5.1|<0.001
84578937|NCT00699751|168911097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578938|NCT00699751|168911097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578939|NCT00699751|168911097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84609906|NCT03836677|168970703|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.80|1.26|0.0001
84609907|NCT03836677|168970704|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.40|<0.0001
84609908|NCT03836677|168970704|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84609909|NCT03836677|168970705|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.346||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.509|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.509|0.182|0.0003
84498310|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|1.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.462|1.145|<.0001
84578940|NCT00699751|168911097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84609910|NCT03836677|168970705|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.273||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.405|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.405|0.140|0.0004
84609911|NCT03836677|168970706|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.28||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.21|-0.77|0.2515
84609912|NCT03836677|168970706|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||-0.18|-0.81|0.0040
84609913|NCT03249103|168970720|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 20 mg||||0.032
84609914|NCT03249103|168970721|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 200 mg||||0.039
84609915|NCT03249103|168970722|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|comparing Week 2 (Placebo) to Week 6 (NYX-2925 200 mg)||||||0.0072
84609916|NCT00884832|168970738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Proportion of semi-formed and loose stools (Bristol Form 5-7) associated with diarrhea subgroup versus no diarrhea subgroup.||||<0.001
84609917|NCT00884832|168970739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84609918|NCT00884832|168970739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||drug\*group interactions||||0.047
84609919|NCT00884832|168970741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
84609920|NCT00500760|168970764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|||0.09|-0.23|
84609921|NCT00500760|168970765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 6 months||0.12|-0.18|
84609922|NCT00500760|168970765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 12 months||0.12|-1.09|
84609923|NCT00500760|168970766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.328||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|2.299|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||2.299|0.767|0.3106
84609924|NCT00500760|168970767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.961|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||1.961|0.675|0.6069
84609925|NCT00500760|168970768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.628||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.019|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||3.019|0.877|0.1223
84578941|NCT00699751|168911098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578942|NCT00699751|168911098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578943|NCT00699751|168911098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578944|NCT00699751|168911099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Total ALP normalization|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Total ALP normalization, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578945|NCT00699751|168911100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578946|NCT00699751|168911101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578947|NCT00699751|168911102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage change from baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578948|NCT00699751|168911103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578949|NCT00699751|168911104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.768||Time to Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) progression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to PSA progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.768|0.539|<0.00001
84578950|NCT00699751|168911105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578951|NCT00699751|168911105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.106
84578952|NCT00699751|168911105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.032
84609926|NCT00500760|168970769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an overall response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||1.262|0.217|0.1737
84609927|NCT00500760|168970769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|-10.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.56|4.14|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||4.14|-24.56|
84609928|NCT00500760|168970770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|2.712|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having a complete response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||2.712|0.448|1.0000
84754854|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||35.5|24.6|<0.001
84754855|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|1.0||||0.513||95.0|-3.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||5.5|-3.6|0.513
84754856|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|58.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||58.8|37.9|<0.001
84754857|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|70.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|80.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||80.8|61.0|<0.001
84754858|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||74.2|27.1|<0.001
84578953|NCT00699751|168911106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578954|NCT00699751|168911106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.002
84754859|NCT00303979|169265887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: The relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||22.0|16.3|<0.001
84754860|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||25.9|-5.4|0.197
84754861|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||21.7|-0.5|0.061
84754862|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||3.4|-5.7|0.622
84754863|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||12.4|0.0|0.05
84754864|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.8||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||7.7|-11.2|0.711
84754865|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||22.0|6.9|<0.001
84578955|NCT00699751|168911106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.005
84578956|NCT00699751|168911107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.160
84578957|NCT00699751|168911108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.004
84609929|NCT00500760|168970770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|14.71|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||14.71|-13.23|
84609930|NCT01600092|168970771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G1||1.07|0.79|
84609931|NCT01600092|168970771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G2||1.33|0.99|
84754866|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|53.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||53.8|23.2|<0.001
84754867|NCT00303979|169265888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||9.0|4.2|<0.001
84754868|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||26.3|-5.3|0.190
84609932|NCT01600092|168970771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|3.74|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G3||3.74|2.75|
84609933|NCT01600092|168970771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G4||1.20|0.94|
84609934|NCT01600092|168970771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype P1A\[8\]||1.35|1.00|
84754869|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|28.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||28.4|0.1|0.048
84754870|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|5.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||15.4|-3.9|0.240
84609935|NCT02914561|168970778|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||20.7|4.7|0.0017
84754871|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||13.0|0.5|0.033
84609936|NCT02914561|168970778|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.7|-2.4|0.1730
84609937|NCT02914561|168970778|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||19.9|4.1|0.0023
84754872|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|9.3||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||19.8|-1.3|0.085
84754873|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||25.8|9.3|<0.001
84578958|NCT00699751|168911109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.009
84578959|NCT00699751|168911110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
84578960|NCT00699751|168911111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.814||Time to first Skeletal Related Event (SRE)|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to first SRE, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.814|0.529|0.00012
84578961|NCT00699751|168911112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.8||Time to External Beam Radiotherapy|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to EBRT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.8|0.511|0.00008
84578962|NCT00699751|168911113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.344||||0.00191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.695||stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Receiving Radio-isotope, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.695|0.17|0.00191
84578963|NCT00699751|168911114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.53277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.426||Time to Pathological Bone Fracture|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Pathological Bone Fracture, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||1.426|0.504|0.53277
84754874|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|85.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||85.2|33.9|<0.001
84754875|NCT00303979|169265889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||13.6|7.6|<0.001
84609938|NCT02914561|168970778|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.7|-5.2|0.6038
84609939|NCT02914561|168970779|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (0, \>=1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.9|-2.0|0.1365
84609940|NCT02914561|168970779|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||9.5|-4.8|0.5103
84754876|NCT02367066|169265891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.90|0.02
84754877|NCT02367066|169265892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.92|0.06
84754878|NCT02367066|169265893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|1.03||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.96|0.41
84754879|NCT02367066|169265894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.85|0.06
84754880|NCT02367066|169265895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.13||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.99|0.18
84754881|NCT02367066|169265896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.89|0.04
84754882|NCT02367066|169265898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS MEan Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.06||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.91|0.37
84754883|NCT02367066|169265900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.04||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|1.00|0.06
84754884|NCT02367066|169265901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03||2-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.45
84578964|NCT00699751|168911115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.89567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.07||Time to Surgical Intervention|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Surgical Intervention, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||2.07|0.435|0.89567
84578965|NCT00699751|168911116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.14486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.145||Time to Spinal Cord Compression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Spinal Cord Compression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||1.145|0.404|0.14486
84578966|NCT00699751|168911117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.00932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|0.925||Time to Other Cancer Treatment|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Other Cancer Treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.925|0.571|0.00932
84578967|NCT00699751|168911118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.873||Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.873|0.546|0.00187
84578968|NCT06100250|168911152|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 66|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired STI-related knowledge scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||0.01
84578969|NCT06100250|168911154|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 47|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired self-efficacy for specimen self-collection scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||<0.01
84578970|NCT05537571|168911157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.19|-77.39|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.39|-88.19|<0.0001
84578971|NCT05537571|168911157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|-76.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-76.0|-86.68|<0.0001
84578972|NCT05537571|168911157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.88|-80.26|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-80.26|-90.88|<0.0001
84578973|NCT05537571|168911158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|-77.57|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.57|-88.7|<0.0001
84578974|NCT05537571|168911158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.18|-73.17|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.17|-84.18|<0.0001
84578975|NCT05537571|168911158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.43|-77.49|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.49|-88.43|<0.0001
84578976|NCT05537571|168911159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.25|-73.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.1|-85.25|<0.0001
84578977|NCT05537571|168911159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-65.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-65.8|-77.81|<0.0001
84578978|NCT05537571|168911159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.09|-71.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-71.15|-83.09|<0.0001
84578979|NCT05537571|168911160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.55|-8.09|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.09|-18.55|<0.0001
84578980|NCT05537571|168911160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|-4.68|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.68|-15.02|=0.0002
84754885|NCT02247960|169265918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84754886|NCT02463071|169265984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-16.88|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-16.88|-36.55|<0.0001
84609941|NCT02914561|168970779|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|0.1||||0.9797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (\<=1, \>1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||6.6|-6.5|0.9797
84609942|NCT02914561|168970779|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.8|-3.9|0.4264
84754887|NCT02463071|169265984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-22.92|-42.93|<0.0001
84754888|NCT04305275|169266003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.0|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||0.00|-2.14|0.0491
84754889|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.01|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.01|-1.60|0.0468
84754890|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.46|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||0.46|-1.41|0.3124
84498311|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.447|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.447|1.134|<.0001
84498312|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|1.513|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.513|1.194|<.0001
84498313|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.472|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.472|1.153|<.0001
84498314|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|-0.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.756|-1.155|<.0001
84609943|NCT02914561|168970780|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|13.7||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||28.4|-1.0|0.0839
84609944|NCT02914561|168970780|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||15.0|-12.1|0.8288
84609945|NCT02914561|168970781|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||33.1|8.2|0.0038
84754891|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.81|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||0.81|-1.61|0.5148
84754892|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.91|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||0.91|-1.45|0.6452
84578981|NCT05537571|168911160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-9.82|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.82|-20.1|<0.0001
84578982|NCT05537571|168911161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-7.08|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.08|-17.62|<0.0001
84578983|NCT05537571|168911161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.44|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.44|-13.85|=0.0013
84609946|NCT02914561|168970781|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||18.3|-6.6|0.3466
84609947|NCT02914561|168970782|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|6.9||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||15.2|-1.4|0.0963
84754893|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||0.20|-1.73|0.1171
84578984|NCT05537571|168911161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-8.84|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.84|-19.2|<0.0001
84578985|NCT05537571|168911162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-5.73|-16.81|<0.0001
84754894|NCT04305275|169266004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.73|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||1.73|-0.50|0.2724
84609948|NCT02914561|168970782|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.2|-3.9|0.3050
84609949|NCT02914561|168970782|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.2|3.7|0.0039
84754895|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.21|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||1.21|-1.42|0.8784
84578986|NCT05537571|168911162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-1.69|-12.64|=0.0106
84609950|NCT02914561|168970782|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.1||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.5|-6.2|0.7556
84609951|NCT02914561|168970783|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||20.8|3.2|0.0074
84609952|NCT02914561|168970783|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||14.1|-3.2|0.2159
84609953|NCT02914561|168970783|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.6|2.6|0.0110
84609954|NCT02914561|168970783|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|8.2||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||16.7|-0.4|0.0593
84754896|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||2.30|-0.44|0.1795
84754897|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.17|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.17|-2.15|0.5588
84754898|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||0.5036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.13|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.13|-1.06|0.5036
84754899|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.79|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||1.79|-1.15|0.6636
84754900|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.15|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.15|-0.87|0.3999
84754901|NCT04305275|169266005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.776||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.22|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||2.22|-0.88|0.3933
84754902|NCT04305275|169266006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.167||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-0.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.47|-5.14|0.0193
84754903|NCT04305275|169266006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15||-0.40|-5.51|0.0243
84754904|NCT04305275|169266006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||-0.14|-4.98|0.0385
84754905|NCT04305275|169266006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.08|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||1.08|-3.81|0.2682
84754906|NCT04305275|169266006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.59|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||3.59|-1.34|0.3649
84578987|NCT05537571|168911162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|-7.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.15|-18.04|<0.0001
84754907|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.9|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||0.90|-3.41|0.2478
84578988|NCT05537571|168911163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.07|-9.72|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.72|-54.07|=0.0051
84578989|NCT05537571|168911163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||=|0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-7.81|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.81|-51.62|=0.0081
84578990|NCT05537571|168911163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||=|0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.89|-3.33|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.33|-46.89|=0.0241
84578991|NCT05537571|168911164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.8|||=|0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.86|-10.76|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-10.76|-48.86|=0.0023
84578992|NCT05537571|168911164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.4|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.23|-8.58|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.58|-46.23|=0.0046
84578993|NCT05537571|168911164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|-7.24|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.24|-44.67|=0.0068
84578994|NCT05537571|168911165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7|||=|0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|-8.46|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.46|-48.91|=0.0057
84578995|NCT05537571|168911165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-6.16||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-6.16|-46.13|
84578996|NCT05537571|168911165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.93|-4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.2|-43.93|0.0179
84578997|NCT02184156|168911189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84578998|NCT02184156|168911190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84754908|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||1.47|-3.29|0.4486
84754909|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.352||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.19|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.19|-4.22|0.2662
84754910|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.57|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.57|-2.56|0.9965
84754911|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||2.20|-2.68|0.8437
84754912|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.14|-2.78|0.7960
84578999|NCT00002874|168911198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98||One-sided significance level = 0.046 to preserve overall significance level of 0.05 for the study.|Log Rank||Stratifying variables were fixed covariates: prior hormone therapy (yes/no), entry prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (1.6-4.0 vs. 0.2-1.5), PSA nadir after surgery (\< 0.5 vs. \>= 0.5), positive surgical margins (yes/no). Reference level = placebo arm.|||0.98|0.59|0.020
84579000|NCT00002874|168911199|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Gray's test|One-sided test|||Reference level = placebo arm|1.53|0.79|0.289
84579001|NCT00002874|168911200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.58|0.40|<0.001
84579002|NCT00002874|168911201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||1.46|0.85|0.213
84579003|NCT00002874|168911202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579004|NCT00002874|168911203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.87|0.46|0.002
84754913|NCT04305275|169266007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.52|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||4.52|0.05|0.0456
84579005|NCT00002874|168911204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.74|0.32|<0.001
84754914|NCT02243865|169266041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6938|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||||||0.6938
84579006|NCT00002874|168911205|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||Log Rank|One-side test|||Reference level = placebo arm|0.71|0.50|< 0.001
84579007|NCT00002874|168911206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Acute radiotherapy toxicity||||0.060
84579008|NCT00002874|168911206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Chi-squared|||Hormone therapy and late radiotherapy toxicity||||0.029
84579009|NCT02114684|168911215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at week 8||||0.46
84579010|NCT02114684|168911215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at month 6||||0.43
84579011|NCT02114684|168911216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.018
84579012|NCT02114684|168911217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84579013|NCT02114684|168911218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||There are significantly more adverse events in the active arm|Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the number of adverse events in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.01
84579014|NCT02114684|168911218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the 8-week culture conversion rates in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.45
84579015|NCT02114684|168911219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84579016|NCT01214720|168911225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.61|0.0002
84579017|NCT01214720|168911226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|3.62||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.6|||Chi-squared|Approximate 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.||||11.6|-4.3|0.3621
84579018|NCT01214720|168911227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2087||95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.74|0.2087
84754915|NCT02243865|169266042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 1st month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.6557
84754916|NCT02243865|169266042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 2nd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.515
84754917|NCT02243865|169266042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 3rd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.3256
84579019|NCT02564978|168911260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.39
84579020|NCT02564978|168911261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.03|-0.06|0.48
84579021|NCT02564978|168911261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.04|-0.24|0.15
84579022|NCT02564978|168911261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes (Study eye + QFE) together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.01|-0.09|0.15
84754918|NCT02243865|169266042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4086|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the final four weeks of the three month post treatment investigation duration.||||0.4086
84754919|NCT00053703|169266050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84754920|NCT01500525|169266068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
84754921|NCT01660451|169266076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|45.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.49|61.06||0.0001|Exact binomial test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||61.06|30.49|0.0001
84754922|NCT01660451|169266076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.83|39.57||0.0001|Exact binominal test|P-value was based on the original patients in the aggressive arm (for the first 34 patients), not including the additional recruited patients.||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||39.57|16.83|0.0001
84609955|NCT02914561|168970784|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|16.8||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||31.6|2.0|0.0382
84609956|NCT02914561|168970784|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||20.0|-8.5|0.4263
84609957|NCT02914561|168970785|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|10.9||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||26.4|-4.7|0.1827
84609958|NCT02914561|168970785|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.0||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||19.2|-11.1|0.5944
84754923|NCT01660451|169266077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|59.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|67.32||0.001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||67.32|50.60|<0.0001
84754924|NCT01660451|169266078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|46.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.54|62.66||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||62.66|31.54|0.0001
84754925|NCT01660451|169266078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|31.25||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.35|43.97||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||43.97|20.35|0.0001
84754926|NCT01660451|169266079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|51.41||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.88|59.87||0.01|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||59.87|42.88|0.0039
84754927|NCT01660451|169266090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||2.5|0.5|
84754928|NCT01660451|169266091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||3.2|-0.7|
84579023|NCT02564978|168911262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.61
84579024|NCT02564978|168911262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.43
84609959|NCT02914561|168970786|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|15.2||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||29.3|1.0|0.0512
84579025|NCT02564978|168911262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||Study eye + QFE: study \& qualifying fellow eyes analyzed as separate observations. Estimate: difference in rate of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between treatment and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study and qualifying fellow eyes together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.89
84579026|NCT02564978|168911263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
84579027|NCT02564978|168911263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.2|-0.8|0.21
84579028|NCT02564978|168911263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.8|-0.4|0.52
84579029|NCT02564978|168911264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.48
84579030|NCT02564978|168911264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.1|-0.9|0.09
84609960|NCT02914561|168970786|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||13.0|-13.3|0.9801
84609961|NCT02914561|168970787|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|14.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||33.1|-5.1|0.1900
84754929|NCT00074581|169266121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.07) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 93% lower risk of infection among all linked partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.22|0.02|<0.0001
84754930|NCT00074581|169266122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.31) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 69% lower risk of infection among all partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.53|0.19|<0.0001
84754931|NCT00617604|169266130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-2.5|
84754932|NCT00617604|169266131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.1|
84754933|NCT00617604|169266132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.1||||||||10.1|-4.0|
84754934|NCT00617604|169266133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.6|
84609962|NCT02914561|168970787|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-5.5||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||11.6|-22.6|0.4248
84754935|NCT00617604|169266134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|4.7||||||||4.7|-14.9|
84754936|NCT00617604|169266135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.5|0.0||||||||0.0|-18.5|
84754937|NCT00617604|169266136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.8||||||||3.8|-7.6|
84754938|NCT00617604|169266137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.2|
84754939|NCT00617604|169266138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.0||||||||5.0|-1.3|
84754940|NCT00617604|169266139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-1.2|
84754941|NCT00617604|169266141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|7.2||||||||7.2|-3.3|
84754942|NCT00617604|169266146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.6||||||||14.6|-2.7|
84754943|NCT00617604|169266147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|2.2||||||||2.2|-11.2|
84754944|NCT00617604|169266148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|14.7||||||||14.7|-4.4|
84754945|NCT02303704|169266189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|two compare two independent quantitative groups||Null hypothesis was there is no significant difference between the means of two groups||||<0.05
84754946|NCT02303704|169266190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84754947|NCT02303704|169266191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|To compare the means between the two groups, to find out the significant difference between Group I and II.||Null Hypothesis: The dose of nor-adrenaline on weaning from CPB is same for Group I and II.||||<0.05
84754948|NCT02303704|169266192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to chek the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84754949|NCT02303704|169266193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p- value less than 0.05 was considered as significant difference in proportion between the two groups|Chi-squared|two compare the qualitative data between two groups||Null Hypothesis:The proportion of IABP use is same between the two groups||||<0.05
84754950|NCT02303704|169266194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered to be significant i.e. operative mortality is not same between the two groups|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test was used because 1 cell (25%) have expected count less than 5.||Null Hypothesis: Operative mortality ratio is same in both groups||||<0.05
84579031|NCT02564978|168911264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.7|-0.4|0.54
84579032|NCT02564978|168911265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
84579033|NCT02564978|168911265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||3.1|0.4|0.02
84579034|NCT02564978|168911265|SUPERIORITY|Number of eyes contributing to this analysis exceeds the number of eyes contributing to the study eye only analysis since one participant had relevant data for the qualifying fellow eye but not the study eye.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||2.0|0.0|0.06
84579035|NCT00567580|168911298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level = 0.001|Z test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
84754951|NCT01034540|169266195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.959||||||Values were not normally distributed, thus analyses were performed on ranked values and medians (IQL) are presented.|ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||An evaluable sample of 19 subjects provided 80% power (5% alpha-level, 2-tailed) to detect a 2.1 unit difference between control and active in MISI, assuming a 3.0 unit standard deviation (SD). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess responses to treatment. Initial repeated measures models contained terms of treatment period, and sequence as fixed effects, with subject modeled as random effect; models were reduced until only significant terms or treatment remained.||||0.959
84579036|NCT00567580|168911298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||0.003
84609963|NCT02914561|168970788|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|19.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||34.0|5.7|0.0122
84609964|NCT02914561|168970788|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||16.1|-12.0|0.7708
84609965|NCT02914561|168970789|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||32.3|-8.3|0.2631
84754952|NCT01034540|169266196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||||||0.037
84754953|NCT01034540|169266196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||||||All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|||||||0.073
84754954|NCT01353079|169266206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.834|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-1.298|<0.05
84754955|NCT01353079|169266207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.388|-0.326|||ANCOVA|||||-0.326|-1.388|<0.05
84754956|NCT01353079|169266208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.771|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||||-0.329|-1.213|<0.05
84754957|NCT01353079|169266209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.788|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.284|||ANCOVA|||||-0.284|-1.291|<0.05
84754958|NCT03086265|169266213|OTHER|||||||0.7934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7934
84754959|NCT03086265|169266222|OTHER|||||||0.6876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6876
84579037|NCT00567580|168911298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
84579038|NCT00567580|168911299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.72||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
84579039|NCT00567580|168911299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.51|0.89||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.89|0.51|<0.001
84579040|NCT00567580|168911299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|0.51||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.51|0.30|<0.001
84579041|NCT00567580|168911300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.39|1.39||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.39|0.39|0.137
84754960|NCT03086265|169266223|OTHER|||||||0.7549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7549
84754961|NCT03086265|169266224|OTHER|||||||0.6479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6479
84754962|NCT03086265|169266225|OTHER|||||||0.8322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8322
84754963|NCT03086265|169266227|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
84579042|NCT00567580|168911300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.16|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.95|0.16|0.007
84609966|NCT02914561|168970789|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-3.4||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||14.0|-20.9|0.6444
84579043|NCT00567580|168911300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.68||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.68|0.12|<0.001
84754964|NCT03086265|169266228|OTHER|||||||0.3346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3346
84579044|NCT00567580|168911301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|1.01||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.01|0.14|0.010
84579045|NCT00567580|168911301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|2.3||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||2.30|0.14|0.177
84579046|NCT00567580|168911301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.71||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.71|0.06|<0.001
84579047|NCT00567580|168911302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.49|1.22||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.22|0.49|0.105
84579048|NCT00567580|168911302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.36|1.06||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.06|0.36|0.022
84579049|NCT00567580|168911302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.29|0.81||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.81|0.29|<0.001
84579050|NCT00567580|168911303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.35|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.43|0.35|0.137
84579051|NCT00567580|168911303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|1.54||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.54|0.30|0.141
84579052|NCT00567580|168911303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|1.03||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.03|0.21|0.014
84579053|NCT00567580|168911304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.38|0.54|0.235
84579054|NCT00567580|168911304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.6||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.60|0.61|0.481
84609967|NCT01300455|168970798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|5.09|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||5.09|0.22|
84609968|NCT01300455|168970801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.42|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.42|-0.49|
84754965|NCT03086265|169266229|OTHER|||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5513
84754966|NCT03086265|169266230|OTHER|||||||0.1927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1927
84754967|NCT03086265|169266231|OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6483
84754968|NCT03086265|169266232|OTHER|||||||0.5625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5625
84754969|NCT03086265|169266233|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2827
84754970|NCT03086265|169266234|OTHER|||||||0.8426|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8426
84754971|NCT03086265|169266235|OTHER|||||||0.9856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9856
84754972|NCT03086265|169266236|OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8112
84754973|NCT03086265|169266237|OTHER|||||||0.6587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6587
84754974|NCT03086265|169266238|OTHER|||||||0.4143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4143
84754975|NCT03086265|169266239|OTHER|||||||0.4324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4324
84754976|NCT03086265|169266240|OTHER|||||||0.7221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of preoperative scores.||||0.7221
84754977|NCT03086265|169266240|OTHER|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of postoperative scores.||||0.0336
84754978|NCT05293743|169266248|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.82.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.67
84754979|NCT05293743|169266248|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.23||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.70.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.23
84754980|NCT05293743|169266249|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.86||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.68.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.86
84754981|NCT05293743|169266249|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.21||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.94.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.21
84754982|NCT02064920|169266254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in SD from Week 4 to Week 16|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.039|||||SD of average OCL repeated measurements after 12 weeks of treatment for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined is hypothesized to be ≤ 0.1.|Change from Week 4 to Week 16 in Standard Deviation (SD) of OCL for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined||0.039|-0.031|
84754983|NCT00688155|169266276|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Physical activity training versus no physical activity training;|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training vs no physical activity training||||0.66
84505244|NCT04128696|168761160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.77|0.78|0.783
84609969|NCT01300455|168970801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.33|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.33|-0.45|
84754984|NCT00688155|169266276|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for physical activity training is 0.55|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training||||0.55
84754985|NCT00688155|169266276|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.95
84754986|NCT00688155|169266276|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.48
84754987|NCT00688155|169266278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of marginal means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training.||||0.23
84754988|NCT00688155|169266278|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.42
84754989|NCT01499953|169266291|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses for non-inferiority test using ∆=4.5% for the difference between incidence rates were H0: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux ≥ 4.5%, H1: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux \< 4.5% where πfondaparinux and πrivaroxaban were the incidence rates of CIAC confirmed VTE complications up to Day 45 in the treatment groups. Rejection of the null hypothesis would have concluded that rivaroxaban was not inferior to fondaparinux. To calculate the p-value, an asymptotic test for non-inferiority was used.||||||0.0252|||||||asymptotic test for non-inferiority|||||||0.0252
84754990|NCT03697720|169266305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Paired t-tests were used to compare worst menstrual pain rating across diary day (0-10 numeric rating scale) from baseline and at 6-8 maths followup.||||<0.0001
84609970|NCT01300455|168970802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|2.79|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.79|-1.31|
84609971|NCT01300455|168970802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.59|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.59|-0.10|
84609972|NCT01300455|168970802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.01|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||1.01|-0.59|
84754991|NCT03697720|169266306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||.119
84754992|NCT04096274|169266318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
84754993|NCT04096274|169266319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
84754994|NCT04096274|169266320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.188
84754995|NCT04096274|169266321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.782
84754996|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.522|128.376|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.376|100.522|
84754997|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.839|99.452|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.452|77.839|
84579055|NCT00567580|168911304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|1.35||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.35|0.53|0.213
84579056|NCT00567580|168911305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.81|3.37||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||3.37|1.81|<0.001
84579057|NCT00567580|168911305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.77||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||1.77|1.03|0.007
84579058|NCT00567580|168911305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.16|3.6||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 3+ acute adverse events||3.60|1.16|0.002
84579059|NCT00567580|168911305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.27||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 3+ adverse events||2.27|0.975|0.025
84579060|NCT00567580|168911306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.26||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.26|0.88|0.268
84579061|NCT00567580|168911306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.32||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.32|0.93|0.101
84754998|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.636|94.021|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||94.021|84.636|
84505245|NCT04128696|168761161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.50|0.500
84609973|NCT01300455|168970802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.65|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.65|-0.09|
84754999|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.592|97.396|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis of CD 13896||97.396|88.592|
84579062|NCT00567580|168911306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.8||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.80|0.83|0.119
84579063|NCT00567580|168911306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.65||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.65|0.82|0.170
84579064|NCT00666978|168911429|SUPERIORITY|The x2 test was used to determine whether there was a difference between treatment groups (bupropion SR vs placebo) in verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at week 26, imputing the missing participants as smokers.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35||All tests of statistical significance were two-sided, and all P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||Raw proportions were used to estimate the verified cessation rate in each group and corresponding odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval .|Based on our previous studies, sample size was determined a priori assuming a two-sided x2 test with a type I error rate of .05, a power of 80%, and a cotinine-verified abstinence rate of 15% in the placebo group and 25% in the bupropion SR group at week 26, with the assumption that those lost to follow-up would be imputed as smokers.||2.35|0.82|.23
84579065|NCT00666978|168911430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99||This reflects Week 7.|Regression, Logistic||This reflects Week 7.|||0.99|0.95|0.0022
84579066|NCT00666978|168911431|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis relied on examining quit rates using linear regression, where the hydroxybupropion was a significant predictor of smoking cessation. CYP2B6 genotype was not a direct significant predictor of cessation in either the placebo or bupropion arm.|Regression, Linear||Bupropion adherent individuals with higher hydroxybupropion levels were more likely to be abstinent at Weeks 3, 7 and 26 compared to individuals with lower hydroxybupropion levels.|||||<0.05
84579067|NCT00983957|168911433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.195|||||Point estimates and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.195|1.023|
84579068|NCT00983957|168911434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.16|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.160|0.988|
84609974|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.49|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.49|-0.61|
84609975|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.5|||Difference of the Least Sqares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.41|
84609976|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.1|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.10|-1.13|
84579069|NCT00983957|168911435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.07|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.070|0.951|
84579070|NCT00983957|168911436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|1.234|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.234|1.018|
84579071|NCT00983957|168911439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.135|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.135|0.988|
84579072|NCT00983957|168911444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.063|1.171|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.171|1.063|
84579073|NCT03055195|168911446|OTHER||Proportions Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC versus Placebo SC has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
84755000|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.796|103.584|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.584|95.796|
84755001|NCT02248259|169266325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|110.278|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.278|98.783|
84579074|NCT03055195|168911448|OTHER||Proportion Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|12.6|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 4 has been presented.|||12.6|-14.0|
84579075|NCT03055195|168911448|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 8 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
84579076|NCT03055195|168911448|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 12 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
84579077|NCT03055195|168911448|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 16 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
84579078|NCT03055195|168911448|OTHER||Proportion Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|14.4|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 20 has been presented.|||14.4|-3.3|
84579079|NCT01967277|168911546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: µL ≤ µs Versus Ha: µL \> µs||||<0.001
84579080|NCT00412451|168911561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Fisher Exact|||||999.999|0.001|0.131
84755002|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|93.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.377|108.217|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||108.217|80.377|
84579081|NCT00412451|168911561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.400|0.132|0.670
84579082|NCT00412451|168911561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.346||||0.372||95.0|0.07|1.703|||Fisher Exact|||||1.703|0.070|0.372
84579083|NCT03300336|168911586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline timepoints), and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||0.93|0.64|0.01
84579084|NCT03300336|168911587|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a log link and negative binomial distribution.|The rate ratio compares the intervention rate in the numerator vs the usual care rate in the denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline time points), a site-level random effect and random effects for each of the time periods. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||1.15|0.97|0.25
84609977|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.24|
84609978|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.43|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.43|-0.40|
84609979|NCT01300455|168970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.25|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.25|-0.61|
84609980|NCT01300455|168970804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.26|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.26|-3.20|
84579085|NCT03300336|168911588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.33||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||5.33|-2.70|0.52
84579086|NCT03300336|168911589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||6.25|-3.14|0.66
84579087|NCT03300336|168911590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.7||a priori threshold for significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect.. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 14 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.70|-4.74|0.81
84579088|NCT03300336|168911591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.32||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 0 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 5 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||2.32|0.55|0.74
84579089|NCT03300336|168911592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 14 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 33 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.06|-0.03|0.40
84579090|NCT03300336|168911593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 7 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 23 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.07|-0.01|0.18
84609981|NCT00552409|168970848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|251.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean urine ACR on treatment was 17% lower among participants assigned to cholecalciferol, compared to participants assigned to placebo, adjusted for baseline values.|||251|-56|
84609982|NCT04018313|168970849|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|116.31||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||116.31|95.91|
84609983|NCT04018313|168970849|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square means|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|108.58||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.58|89.76|
84609984|NCT04018313|168970849|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|102.68||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||102.68|85.09|
84645282|NCT03036800|169026178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|-6.26|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-6.26|-12.35|<0.001
84755003|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.482|97.141|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||97.141|60.482|
84755004|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|78.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.304|92.052|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||92.052|67.304|
84498315|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|-0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.913|-1.315|<.0001
84609985|NCT04018313|168970850|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.96|113.89||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.89|94.96|
84579091|NCT03300336|168911594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|7.98||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 4 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||7.98|-6.38|0.83
84579092|NCT03300336|168911595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.96||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 6 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.96|-1.05|0.25
84579093|NCT03300336|168911596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.99||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 3 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.99|0.68|0.59
84609986|NCT04018313|168970850|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|108.61||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.61|90.79|
84609987|NCT04018313|168970850|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|95.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|104.37||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||104.37|87.36|
84609988|NCT04018313|168970851|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.15|124.11||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||124.11|103.15|
84609989|NCT04018313|168970851|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.83|113.8||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.80|94.83|
84609990|NCT04018313|168970851|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|100.52||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||100.52|83.87|
84672407|NCT00653224|169080340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.117||95.0|-9.91|1.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||1.15|-9.91|0.117
84579094|NCT03300336|168911597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.69||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 11 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 20 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.69|-1.71|0.47
84579095|NCT03300336|168911598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.62||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 7 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.62|-1.76|0.94
84505246|NCT04128696|168761162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.34|0.62|0.329
84579096|NCT01028560|168911601|OTHER||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above is the slope for immunotherapy group . The (quadratic) slope is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||0.63|-0.24|0.38
84579097|NCT01028560|168911601|OTHER||Slope|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above (quadratic) slope is for control group|The above is the (quadratic) slope is for control group and is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with median score values.||0.99|0.11|0.013
84579098|NCT01028560|168911601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|12.03||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 1 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.03|-11.76|0.978
84579099|NCT01028560|168911601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|12.38||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 2 and the p- value was unadjusted p value|contrast testing post mixed model]||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.38|-15.83|0.77
84579100|NCT01028560|168911601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|15.84||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 3 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||15.84|-19.54|0.80
84579101|NCT01028560|168911602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Chi-square test (proportion of new sensitizations versus unchanged or lost sensitizations in each group, intention-to treat analysis).|Chi-squared|||||||0.677
84579102|NCT01028560|168911603|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.29||Test of parallelism (group x time) hypothesis P-value.|covariance pattern (rep. measure) model|Within group difference p-values ( baseline vs 3-years) in control and intervention arm were 0.56 and 0.20 respectively.|The estimated slope reported is for year 3 from the covariance pattern model with autoregressive covariance structure.|Covariance Pattern Model with autoregressive covariance structure with REML (Restricted Estimation of Maximum Likelihood) with time and role as categorical variable was modeled.||3.29|-2.18|0.5460
84579103|NCT01028560|168911604|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||Poisson regression model for treatment arm adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst and the time period contributed by each child in years were fitted as offset.|Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with robust variance with contributed person years used as offset was modeled.||Null hypothesis = Incidence rate of CSB in each group are same. Poisson regression adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst.||1.96|0.82|0.289
84579104|NCT01960842|168911618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-3.5|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.50|-5.78|<0.001
84579105|NCT01960842|168911619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|6.95|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||6.95|4.21|<0.001
84579106|NCT01960842|168911620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.7|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-7.7|-16.3|<0.001
84579107|NCT01960842|168911621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
84579108|NCT01960842|168911622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
84579109|NCT01960842|168911623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.4|-4.0|=0.101
84579110|NCT01960842|168911624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||1.1|-5.3|=0.182
84579111|NCT01960842|168911625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.09|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.09|-1.90|=0.032
84579112|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Mobility Domain analysis.||-10.6|-27.8|<0.001
84579113|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Emotional Well-Being Domain analysis.||0.3|-13.3|=0.059
84579114|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Stigma Domain analysis.||0.6|-15.6|=0.070
84579115|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Social Support Domain analysis.||4.2|-7.3|=0.591
84579116|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-7.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Cognition Domain analysis.||-7.3|-20.7|<0.001
84579117|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Communication Domain analysis.||6.4|-4.2|=0.670
84579118|NCT01960842|168911626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-10.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Bodily Discomfort Domain analysis.||-10.3|-25.2|<0.001
84579119|NCT01960842|168911627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.1|-9.8|=0.056
84579120|NCT01960842|168911628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.2|-1.6|=0.011
84579121|NCT01960842|168911629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
84579122|NCT01960842|168911630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-3.47|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.47|-5.83|<0.001
84579123|NCT01960842|168911631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-3.44|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.44|-5.73|<0.001
84579124|NCT00397930|168911640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group differences are expressed as differences in mean Post-Pre change for the global sleep quality PSQI score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-intervention PSQI score as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-intervention PSQI score as the covariate.|The negative estimated value indicates that the mean Post-Pre change for the YOCAS group was less than that of the Control group.|"H0: There is no statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||0.009
84579125|NCT02391584|168911641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.025 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84579126|NCT02391584|168911645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84579127|NCT02391584|168911646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84579128|NCT02391584|168911647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84579129|NCT02391584|168911648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84579130|NCT03676725|168911649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.017|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS vs. without PMS.||||0.017
84579131|NCT03676725|168911649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS and with ADHD vs. other women||||0.001
84579132|NCT03676725|168911649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ADHD vs. no ADHD||||0.8
84579133|NCT01579305|168911690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is pre-defined as 15% i.e., if the difference in responder rates is significantly greater than -15% (i.e., the lower confidence limit is greater than -15%), statistical non-inferiority of VOLBELLA® to Restylane-L® is established.|Difference in responder rates|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.7||||||Difference in responder rates is calculated as the responder rate at Month 3 for VOLBELLA® minus the responder rate at Month 3 for Restylane-L®.|The null hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3, and the alternative hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3 with 15% pre-defined non-inferiority margin. To test the null hypothesis, a difference in responder rates of these products (VOLBELLA® - Restylane-L®) at Month 3 and a 1-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference is calculated.|||-6.7|
84579134|NCT02400580|168911694|OTHER|||||||0.517|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.517
84579135|NCT02400580|168911696|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.508
84672408|NCT00653224|169080341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58||||0.409||95.0|-15.65|6.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.49|-15.65|0.409
84755005|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|95.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.092|111.964|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||111.964|81.092|
84579136|NCT01623752|168911737|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.278
84579137|NCT01623752|168911737|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.222
84755006|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.731|93.309|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||93.309|80.731|
84579138|NCT01623752|168911738|OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.251
84579139|NCT01623752|168911738|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.218
84579140|NCT01623752|168911741|OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.675
84755007|NCT02248259|169266326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.764|125.812|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||125.812|91.764|
84755008|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|128.427|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.427|100.505|
84755009|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.763|99.37|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.370|77.763|
84579141|NCT01623752|168911741|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
84579142|NCT01623752|168911742|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.106
84579143|NCT01623752|168911742|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.181
84579144|NCT01623752|168911743|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.015
84579145|NCT01623752|168911743|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.969
84579146|NCT01623752|168911744|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.489
84579147|NCT01623752|168911744|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.386
84579148|NCT01623752|168911745|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.364
84579149|NCT01623752|168911745|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.849
84579150|NCT02697422|168911778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579151|NCT02697422|168911779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579152|NCT02697422|168911780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579153|NCT02697422|168911781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression. A P value of .90 was found comparing smoking/tobacco use in intervention vs control participants. A difference was not reported between intervention and control because smoking/ tobacco use was a binary variable.||||0.90
84579154|NCT02697422|168911782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579155|NCT02697422|168911783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579156|NCT02697422|168911784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579157|NCT02697422|168911785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579158|NCT02697422|168911786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579159|NCT02697422|168911787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84579160|NCT01659541|168911788|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons was made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
84755010|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.478|93.859|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||93.859|84.478|
84755011|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.278|96.889|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||96.889|88.278|
84579161|NCT01659541|168911789|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons were made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
84579162|NCT01659541|168911790|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant)) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week ##28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
84579163|NCT01659541|168911791|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
84579164|NCT01659541|168911792|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28 ,#40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Paired t test. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
84579165|NCT01659541|168911793|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
84579166|NCT03296345|168911795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.3|-28|0.004
84579167|NCT03296345|168911796|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84579168|NCT03296345|168911797|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84579169|NCT03296345|168911799|OTHER|A Wilcoxon sign-rank, given non parametric data, was used to compare the intervention and historical control groups for statistical significance, while a student's t-test was used to estimate effect size||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84579170|NCT03019588|168911836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||1.36|0.58|0.2900
84579171|NCT03019588|168911837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||2.74|1.14|0.9954
84579172|NCT03019588|168911838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.3|||Z-test|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||9.3|-21.6|0.7884
84579173|NCT00294398|168911841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84755012|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.791|103.583|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.583|95.791|
84579174|NCT00762177|168911859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579175|NCT00762177|168911860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579176|NCT00762177|168911861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579177|NCT00762177|168911862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579178|NCT00762177|168911863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579179|NCT00762177|168911864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579180|NCT00762177|168911865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579181|NCT00762177|168911866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||the tongue will be scrapped 5 times with the edge of a tongue depressor. The depressor is vortex in sterile phosphate buffered saline(PBS) and the sample is then sonicated using a Branson 450A sonicator with a cup horn for 30 seconds. Samples diluted (10 fold) in PBS and plated using a spiral systems autoplate 4000 spiral plater on CFAT Agar||||0.05
84579182|NCT00762177|168911867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579183|NCT00762177|168911868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579184|NCT00762177|168911869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579185|NCT00762177|168911870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579186|NCT00762177|168911871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579187|NCT00762177|168911872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579188|NCT00762177|168911873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579189|NCT00762177|168911874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579190|NCT00762177|168911875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579191|NCT00762177|168911876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579192|NCT00762177|168911877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579193|NCT00762177|168911878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579194|NCT00762177|168911879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579195|NCT00762177|168911880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579196|NCT00762177|168911881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579197|NCT00762177|168911882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84579198|NCT00990769|168911885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation concluded that 20 patients in each group would have 80% power to detect a mean difference of 4 ± 4 with alpha equal to 0.05, as would be determined by a two-sample T test.||||>0.05
84579199|NCT03158311|168911893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|Least Square mean (LS Mean)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.139|||P-Value is one-sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||||-0.139|<0.001
84579200|NCT03158311|168911893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.027|||P-Value is one-sided|MMRM||||||-0.027|<0.001
84579201|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.052||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.052|-0.046|0.892
84579202|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.115|0.018|0.007
84579203|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.047||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.047|-0.050|0.945
84579204|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.114||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.114|0.018|0.007
84579205|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.041|0.713
84579206|NCT03158311|168911894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.146||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.146|0.046|<0.001
84579207|NCT03158311|168911895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.067||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.067|-0.113|0.308
84579208|NCT03158311|168911895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.012||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.012|-0.169|0.044
84579209|NCT03158311|168911895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.06||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.125|0.245
84579210|NCT03158311|168911895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|-0.032||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||-0.032|-0.216|0.004
84579211|NCT03158311|168911896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.115|-0.079|0.719
84579212|NCT03158311|168911896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.179||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.179|-0.015|0.097
84579213|NCT03158311|168911897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.61||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||||1.61|0.94|0.061
84579214|NCT03158311|168911897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46||P-value is one-sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via GEE||||1.46|0.85|0.227
84579215|NCT03158311|168911898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.49|0.91|0.108
84579216|NCT03158311|168911898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.7||P-Value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.70|1.03|0.013
84579217|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.049||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.049|-0.055|0.908
84579218|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.104|0.001|0.046
84579219|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.056||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.056|-0.047|0.870
84579220|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.109||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.109|0.006|0.028
84579221|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.083||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.083|-0.026|0.303
84579222|NCT03158311|168911899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.148||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.148|0.041|<0.001
84579223|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.087||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.087|-0.048|0.563
84579224|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.129||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.129|-0.005|0.068
84579225|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.062||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.062|-0.076|0.844
84579226|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.125||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.125|-0.010|0.097
84579227|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.074||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.074|-0.067|0.927
84579228|NCT03158311|168911900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.159||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.159|0.019|0.013
84579229|NCT01258855|168911925|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84672409|NCT00653224|169080342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54||||0.432||95.0|-16.1|7.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||7.01|-16.10|0.432
84672410|NCT00653224|169080343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.45||95.0|-15.46|6.99||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.99|-15.46|0.450
84672411|NCT00653224|169080344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.251||95.0|-17.4|4.67||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||4.67|-17.40|0.251
84672412|NCT00653224|169080345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.258||95.0|-19.48|5.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.36|-19.48|0.258
84755013|NCT02248259|169266327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.861|110.336|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.336|98.861|
84579230|NCT01258855|168911926|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
84579231|NCT01258855|168911929|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84579232|NCT01258855|168911930|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
84579233|NCT01734928|168911937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.77|0.49|0.001
84579234|NCT01734928|168911938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test with stratification factors as above Cox model.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups, stratified by age, prior number of anti-myeloma regimens, and beta-2 macroglobulin at Screening.|||1.15|0.77|0.571
84579235|NCT01734928|168911940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.02|||Unstratified log-rank test|The p-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.02|0.56|0.064
84579236|NCT01778985|168911950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84579237|NCT01778985|168911951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84579238|NCT01778985|168911952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84579239|NCT01778985|168911953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(18)=1.78, p=0.088||||||0.088
84579240|NCT01778985|168911954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84579241|NCT01778985|168911955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||t(28)=0.11, p=0.91|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84579242|NCT01778985|168911956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||t(18)=1.69, p=.10|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84579243|NCT01778985|168911957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||t(10)=2.76, p=0.020|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84579244|NCT01778985|168911958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||t(23)=0.28, p=0.78|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84579245|NCT01778985|168911959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||t(28)=0.67, p=0.51|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84579246|NCT01778985|168911960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||t(23)=1.23, p=0.24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84579247|NCT01778985|168911961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84579248|NCT01778985|168911962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84579249|NCT01778985|168911963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84579250|NCT01778985|168911964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84579251|NCT01778985|168911965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84579252|NCT01778985|168911966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84579253|NCT01778985|168911967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84579254|NCT01778985|168911968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84755014|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER|Correlation between conflict approach behavior and GAD-7 scores at baseline|Pearson correlation|0.23||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.088
84579255|NCT01778985|168911969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84579256|NCT02370394|168911987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|5.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||CAS Victimization Total Score at Follow Up||5.75|-14.02|0.4016
84579257|NCT02370394|168911987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.46||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|24.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in CAS Victimization Total score from Baseline to Follow Up||24.82|4.11|0.0072
84579258|NCT02370394|168911988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Safety Behavior Change Score at Follow Up||0.12|-0.21|0.6011
84579259|NCT02370394|168911988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change is Safety Behavior Change Score from Baseline to Follow Up||0.15|-0.16|0.9116
84609991|NCT04566692|168970897|NON_INFERIORITY|The bi-weekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.003|1.0685||||||Geometric least-squares means (GLSMs), GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.0685|1.0030|
84609992|NCT04566692|168970900|NON_INFERIORITY|The biweekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9447|0.9957||||||GLSMs, GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participants as a random effect.||0.9957|0.9447|
84609993|NCT02102399|168970957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84755015|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline response time during conflict with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.134
84755016|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline striatum response to points (reward) with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.032
84755017|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.12||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right amygdala activity during negative images with baseline GAD7 scores||||0.375
84755018|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.06||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.651
84579260|NCT02370394|168911989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||EOR Number of issues Effective at Accomplishing at Follow Up||1.36|-1.62|0.8646
84579261|NCT02370394|168911989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Number of Issues Effective at Accomplishing from Baseline to Follow Up||0.82|-2.54|0.3045
84579262|NCT02370394|168911990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation Scale at Follow Up||||0.9085
84579263|NCT02370394|168911990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Motivation Scale from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.3256
84579264|NCT02370394|168911991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Readiness at Follow Up||||0.4085
84579265|NCT02370394|168911991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Readiness from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.2467
84579266|NCT00758043|168912026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.1||||||Primary efficacy analysis was based on CI estimates (using the normal approximation, confidence limits were constructed for the difference in proportions) to rule out the inferiority of the T12/PR24/eRVR+ treatment regimen relative to the T12/PR48/eRVR+ treatment regimen. SVR24 was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at end of treatment through 24 weeks after the last planned dose.||11.1|-2.1|
84609994|NCT02102399|168970958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.345
84609995|NCT02102399|168970959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84609996|NCT02102399|168970960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.171
84609997|NCT02102399|168970961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.022
84609998|NCT02102399|168970962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.451
84609999|NCT02102399|168970963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.477
84610000|NCT02102399|168970964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.007
84610001|NCT02102399|168970965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.049
84610002|NCT02102399|168970966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.323
84610003|NCT02102399|168970967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.296
84610004|NCT02102399|168970968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.776
84610005|NCT02102399|168970969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.959
84610006|NCT02102399|168970970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84755019|NCT02807480|169266330|OTHER|Correlation of baseline striatum response to negative pictures with baseline GAD-7 scores.|Pearson correlation|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.008
84755020|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear||Those with lower levels of baseline left amygdala response to positive picture outcomes had favorable GAD symptom improvements in BA and limited GAD symptom improvements in EXP.|Assess left amygdala response to positive picture decision outcomes as a predictor of GAD-7 symptom improvement: time x L. Amyg x treatment-arm interaction||-0.41|-2.62|.007
84755021|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||Baseline approach behavior during conflict trials predicting trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effect||0.97|-0.24|0.238
84610007|NCT02102399|168970971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84610008|NCT02102399|168970972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84610009|NCT02102399|168970973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84610010|NCT02102399|168970974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84610011|NCT02102399|168970975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84610012|NCT02102399|168970976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
84755022|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline approach behavior on conflict trials and the trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||0.37|-1.36|.262
84755023|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|2.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.19|||Regression, Linear|||relationship between baseline response time on conflict trials and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effects||6.19|-1.44|.222
84755024|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.02|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||6.02|-6.48|.942
84755025|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|-0.05||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.1|-1.2|.932
84610013|NCT02102399|168970977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
84610014|NCT02102399|168970978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
84610015|NCT00086411|168970993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2734|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|Model included hx of heavy smoking, elevated depression, cigarettes per day, gender, and race|The above was for the main effect of BUP versus NTX on cessation.|Rates of abstinence were addressed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model. Counseling type and medication type were entered as the main explanatory variables along with time and the interaction of these factors, together with some covariates (described below). The sample size provided 80% power to detect a difference of about 14% between groups across three time points (i.e., 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-treatment initiation.||2.25|0.77|<0.017
84610016|NCT04836247|168971005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84610017|NCT04836247|168971006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84610018|NCT04836247|168971007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84610019|NCT04836247|168971008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84610020|NCT04836247|168971009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84610021|NCT04836247|168971010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84610022|NCT01078168|168971046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3769||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03025|0.7235||threshold: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7235|0.03025|0.0347
84610023|NCT00649428|168971068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.00001
84610024|NCT00649428|168971071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
84610025|NCT02008227|168971076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.87|0.62|0.0003
84610026|NCT02008227|168971076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.86|0.62|0.0002
84610027|NCT02008227|168971077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.58|0.0102
84610028|NCT02008227|168971077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.91|0.58|0.0052
84610029|NCT02008227|168971080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.10|0.82|0.4928
84610030|NCT02008227|168971080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.08|0.81|0.3596
84610031|NCT02008227|168971081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.12|0.74|0.3806
84610032|NCT02008227|168971081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.10|0.74|0.3249
84755026|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effects||1.53|-1.7|.922
84755027|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||.99|-.99|.998
84579267|NCT00758043|168912026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.2||||||SVR24 was defined as below the limit of quantitation at 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment. For subjects who had missing data at week 24 after the planned end of treatment, the week 12 data or the last follow-up time point after week 12 was carried forward for determining SVR24.||8.2|-4.3|
84579268|NCT00758043|168912027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Difference in Proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8||||||||6.8|-7.7|
84610033|NCT02008227|168971084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.55|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.55|0.18|<0.0001
84610034|NCT02008227|168971084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.55|0.21|<0.0001
84610035|NCT02008227|168971085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.62|0.15|0.0006
84579269|NCT00758043|168912027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.82||||||||1.82|0.49|
84579270|NCT05788328|168912051|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|113.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||113.29|66.05|
84579271|NCT05788328|168912051|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.1|108.24|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||108.24|63.10|
84579272|NCT05788328|168912052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.96|112.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||112.94|64.96|
84610036|NCT02008227|168971085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.65|0.22|0.0003
84579273|NCT05788328|168912052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.28|106.55|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||106.55|61.28|
84610037|NCT02008227|168971089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest: Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.55|0.0111
84610038|NCT02008227|168971089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Cough: Unstratified Analysis||1.33|0.84|0.6305
84610039|NCT02008227|168971089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea: Unstratified Analysis||1.16|0.81|0.7406
84610040|NCT02008227|168971089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||Arm/Shoulder Pain||1.17|0.73|0.5221
84610041|NCT02008227|168971104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.70|0.0012
84610042|NCT02008227|168971105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.64|0.0045
84610043|NCT02008227|168971106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.84|0.49|0.0012
84610044|NCT02008227|168971107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.68|0.30|<0.0001
84610045|NCT02008227|168971108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.96||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.85|0.4981
84610046|NCT02008227|168971110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||||||||0.48|0.21|
84610047|NCT02702180|168971111|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-4.6||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|Primary endpoint was evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, whole lung lavage within 2 months before baseline, and geographic region as factors, and baseline values as covariates. To control type I error, key secondary endpoints were analyzed using a testing hierarchy wherein once daily molgramostim and placebo was compared and if statistical significance was reached, evaluation of intermittent molgramostim and placebo would proceed.||2.0|-11.1|0.1688
84579274|NCT05788328|168912053|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|229.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.23|283.37|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||283.37|185.23|
84579275|NCT05788328|168912053|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|214.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|173.38|265.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||265.94|173.38|
84579276|NCT05788328|168912054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|213.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.46|266.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||266.29|170.46|
84579277|NCT05788328|168912054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|232.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.88|290.38|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||290.38|185.88|
84579278|NCT05788328|168912062|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.97|60.27|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||60.27|33.97|
84579279|NCT05788328|168912062|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|47.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.62|63.19|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||63.19|35.62|
84579280|NCT05788328|168912067|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|176.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.51|229.6|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||229.60|135.51|
84579281|NCT05788328|168912067|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|221.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.26|288.48|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||288.48|170.26|
84579282|NCT03197935|168912079|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in pCR rate|16.5||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|27.1||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3) and clinical stage at presentation (Stage II vs. III).||27.10|5.91|0.0044
84579283|NCT03197935|168912080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR|19.5||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|34.83||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||34.83|4.17|0.0206
84579284|NCT03197935|168912081|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.21|0.47|
84579285|NCT03197935|168912082|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.18|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.18|0.26|
84579286|NCT03197935|168912083|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.3|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.30|0.44|
84579287|NCT03197935|168912084|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.43|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.43|0.23|
84579288|NCT03197935|168912085|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.04|0.30|
84579289|NCT03197935|168912086|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of EFS, DFS and OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.91|0.26|
84579290|NCT00908388|168912109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||(1-Posterior probability of meeting performance goal given the data)|Bayesian adaptive|||||||.006
84579291|NCT03593629|168912127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.37|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.05||||||||||-5.05|
84579292|NCT03593629|168912128|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.88||||||||||-8.88|
84579293|NCT03593629|168912129|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.15|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.89||||||||||-6.89|
84498316|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.195|-0.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.803|-1.195|<.0001
84610048|NCT02702180|168971111|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-2.8||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.7|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||3.7|-9.3|0.3968
84579294|NCT00669331|168912198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio Mannitol:Control|0.92||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline PE rate as predictors and log of follow-up time as an offset variable|For rate ratio, Mannitol rate is the numerator, Control rate is the denominator|||1.08|0.78|0.3115
84579295|NCT00669331|168912199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference across the 52 weeks|-2.4||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|Model included treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline SGRQ Total score.|difference calculated Mannitol-control. Negative difference is in favour of mannitol since lower scores indicate improved quality of life.|||-0.05|-4.76|0.0457
84579296|NCT00669331|168912200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.91||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, log follow-up as offset|Rate ratio is for mannitol vs control.|||1.08|0.77|0.2754
84579297|NCT00669331|168912201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model was stratified by region and baseline PE rate||||0.96|0.63|0.0218
84579298|NCT00669331|168912202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||Negative binomial model|treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||Analysed using a negative binomial model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||1.16|0.67|0.3602
84610049|NCT02702180|168971112|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|20.6||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|61.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||61.0|-19.8|0.3159
84755028|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.57|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction||.57|-2.34|.234
84755029|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|-0.03||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decisions with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.47|-1.53|.967
84755030|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.91|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effect||2.91|-1.43|0.504
84610050|NCT02702180|168971112|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|5.6||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|45.2|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||45.2|-34.1|0.7809
84610051|NCT02702180|168971113|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||-1.8|-13.4|0.0103
84610052|NCT02702180|168971113|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.0||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24..|||-1.3|-12.7|0.0173
84755031|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.84|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_Change interaction||4.84|-8.21|0.612
84755032|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.08||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|13.92|||Regression, Linear|||change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over 10 sessions: RT\_Change x Time x Treatment interaction||13.92|-3.76|.259
84755033|NCT02807480|169266331|OTHER||Slope|-0.53||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.30|-1.35|.209
84755034|NCT02807480|169266331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change x Treatment interaction||2.73|0.33|0.013
84755035|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of the linear trajectory of symptom change over time: time x EC interaction||-0.84|-5.06|0.006
84755036|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.36|||Regression, Linear|||Assess avoidance behavior on conflict trials as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x avoidance interaction||-0.36|-1.68|0.003
84755037|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear|||Assess left dlPFC response to baseline negative picture decision outcomes as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x L. dlPFC interaction||-0.87|-2.89|.007
84755038|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms||1.68|0.36|.003
84498317|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.964|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.964|-1.364|<.0001
84579299|NCT00669331|168912203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ls mean difference across 52 weeks|2.76||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline sputum weight (g).|Difference mannitol-control|||5.33|0.19|0.0355
84579300|NCT00669331|168912204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff across post-baseline visits|-0.44||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline ESS score|Negative change indicates an improvement in ESS score. Difference calculated Mannitol - Control.|||0.11|-0.99|0.1159
84579301|NCT00669331|168912205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.56||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|42.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model of absolute change from baseline in FEV1. Model includes terms for treatment, visit, trt\*visit, region and baseline value|ls mean difference Mannitol-Control|||42.13|-27.01|0.6677
84579302|NCT00669331|168912212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.09|0.34|0.0928
84579303|NCT01454063|168912217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001||95.0|0.475|0.678||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS - Placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||0.678|0.475|<0.0001
84579304|NCT01454063|168912218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001||95.0|-7.307|-3.091||p-value based on the generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302-placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||-3.091|-7.307|<0.0001
84579305|NCT01454063|168912219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0514||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0514
84579306|NCT01454063|168912220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0034
84579307|NCT01454063|168912221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score will be imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0963
84579308|NCT01454063|168912222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0532
84579309|NCT01454063|168912223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84579310|NCT01286324|168912335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84755039|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.4|-1.48|.258
84579311|NCT01286324|168912336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84579312|NCT01286324|168912337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for State Subscale||||0.47
84579313|NCT01286324|168912337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for Trait Subscale||||0.45
84579314|NCT01286324|168912338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P value is adjusted based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84755040|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|5.69|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||5.69|-3.08|.56
84755041|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|5.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT (response time) during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||5.41|-8.95|.629
84755042|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS ANXIETY trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.09|-1.51|0.75
84755043|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.27||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.09|-0.54|.169
84755044|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||1.31|-1.00|0.792
84755045|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||0.96|-2.41|.396
84755046|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-1.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.4|-2.7|.009
84755047|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||1.84|-1.28|0.724
84610053|NCT02702180|168971114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.284||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|1.881|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.881|0.043|0.1918
84610054|NCT02702180|168971114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.367||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|1.968|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.968|0.068|0.2421
84610055|NCT03446456|168971175|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in changes of BOLD signal in the brain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00264||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of BOLD signal change was calculated as the BOLD signal in the right supplementary motor area (SMA, a typical brain area responding to pain stimulation), divided by the BOLD signal of the whole-brain average during the 24 trials of 20-second painful stimulations. The percentage of BOLD signal changes in SMA during the 20-second painful stimulations were compared between the Saline group and the Vasopressin group using an equivalence test.||||0.982
84610056|NCT03446456|168971176|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in heating temperature that was used for the testing phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|ANCOVA|The drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as a between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||||||0.269
84610057|NCT03446456|168971177|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in implicit racial biases.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||"Response latencies were recorded to calculate the IAT difference score (D). A difference score (D) was calculated based on the following steps: 1) Compute the standard deviation (SD) of response latencies from overall trials; 2) M1 is the mean of the response latencies in the condition where White people and good share the same response key. M2 is the mean of the latencies in the condition where African-American/Asian people and good share the same response key; 3) D = (M2-M1)/SD."||||0.378
84610058|NCT03446456|168971178|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in self-reported pain intensity ratings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and heating temperature used during the testing phase were treated as covariates.||||||0.014
84755048|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-4.99||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||2.80|-12.79|.209
84579315|NCT00421733|168912381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.071
84579316|NCT00421733|168912381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.229
84579317|NCT00421733|168912381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.053
84579318|NCT00421733|168912382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
84579319|NCT00421733|168912382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
84579320|NCT00421733|168912383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||0.22|-0.26|0.855
84610059|NCT01178099|168971230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.33|0.829|
84610060|NCT01178099|168971230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||1.12|0.718|
84610061|NCT01178099|168971230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD.|||1.25|0.656|
84610062|NCT01178099|168971231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.664|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.37|0.664|
84610063|NCT01178099|168971231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.436|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||0.860|0.436|
84610064|NCT01178099|168971231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.625|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD.|||1.68|0.625|
84610065|NCT01178099|168971232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
84610066|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.10|1.10|
84610067|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.94|1.06|
84610068|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.21|0.918|
84579321|NCT00421733|168912383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.08|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||-0.08|-0.57|0.009
84610069|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.27|0.742|
84579322|NCT00421733|168912384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
84579323|NCT00421733|168912384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
84610070|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.05|0.633|
84672413|NCT00653224|169080346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.96||||0.288||95.0|-17.13|5.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.22|-17.13|0.288
84505247|NCT04128696|168761163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.60|0.608
84579324|NCT02993302|168912433|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84579325|NCT02993302|168912434|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84579326|NCT02993302|168912435|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84579327|NCT05987540|168912437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank|||||||.8125
84579328|NCT05987540|168912440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilconxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||>0.9999
84579329|NCT03338023|168912447|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of LY2963016 to Lantus® was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin and over 80 percent power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
84579330|NCT03338023|168912448|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of Lantus® to LY2963016 was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
84579331|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||3.4|-17.0|0.191
84579332|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||5.5|-21.2|0.250
84579333|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||-1.5|-24.7|0.028
84579334|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||9.7|-16.8|0.599
84579335|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||2.5|-24.4|0.109
84579336|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||8.6|-19.4|0.452
84610071|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.38|0.658|
84610072|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.65|0.833|
84610073|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.779|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.48|0.779|
84579337|NCT03338023|168912449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||0300 Am Glucose||3.5|-18.3|0.180
84579338|NCT03338023|168912450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.787
84579339|NCT03338023|168912451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
84579340|NCT03338023|168912452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-0.4|0.885
84579341|NCT03338023|168912453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||3.6|-10.6|0.328
84610074|NCT01178099|168971233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.30|0.510|
84610075|NCT01178099|168971234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84610076|NCT01178099|168971235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
84755049|NCT02807480|169266332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|23.13|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||23.13|2.23|0.017
84755050|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.43|-1.59|.259
84755051|NCT02807480|169266332|OTHER||Slope|1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.54|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.54|-0.39|.150
84579342|NCT03338023|168912453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.0|-6.5|0.467
84579343|NCT03338023|168912454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.090
84579344|NCT03338023|168912455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.6|0.089
84579345|NCT03338023|168912456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.770
84579346|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||3.3|-3.9|0.879
84579347|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||4.5|-5.9|0.788
84579348|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||3.3|-4.5|0.775
84579349|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.6|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Glycemic Control Transformed Score||5.6|-3.6|0.681
84579350|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||3.9|-3.1|0.819
84579351|NCT03338023|168912457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Total Transformed Score||2.3|-3.9|0.605
84579352|NCT02734147|168912476|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Other|||||||0.631
84579353|NCT02734147|168912477|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Other|||||||0.640
84579354|NCT02734147|168912478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84579355|NCT02734147|168912479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
84579356|NCT02734147|168912480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
84579357|NCT02734147|168912481|OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Other|||||||0.566
84579358|NCT02734147|168912482|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84579359|NCT04180696|168912504|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
84579360|NCT04180696|168912505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.455|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds logistic regression model. Baseline NYHA class and time included as fixed covariates.||Due to limited number of subjects with NYHA class III or IV during follow-up, class III, IV, and death were grouped as a single category for analysis.||2.455|0.579|0.63
84579361|NCT04180696|168912506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.175|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for NYHA class and sex.||||3.175|0.492|0.64
84610077|NCT01178099|168971236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.219
84610078|NCT01178099|168971237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
84610079|NCT01178099|168971238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.168
84610080|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.22|1.01|
84610081|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.58|0.751|
84610082|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||3.20|1.09|
84610083|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.15|0.660|
84610084|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||0.886|0.524|
84610085|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.32|0.612|
84579362|NCT04180696|168912507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
84579363|NCT04180696|168912508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|5.056|||Regression, Cox|||||5.056|0.206|0.98
84579364|NCT01740427|168912509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.718||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||0.718|0.463|<0.000001
84579365|NCT01740427|168912510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|2.03||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.030|1.008|0.0224
84610086|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.773|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.46|0.773|
84498318|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.582|-0.969|<.0001
84579366|NCT01740427|168912511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.347||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.347|1.080|0.0090
84579367|NCT01740427|168912513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|3.722||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral, non-visceral) per randomization.||3.722|1.619|<0.0001
84579368|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.737|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER positive||0.737|0.443|<0.0001
84579369|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.405||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.751|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER Negative||0.751|0.218|0.0030
84579370|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.68|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Positive||0.680|0.416|<0.0001
84579371|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.481|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Negative||1.481|0.308|0.3237
84579372|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.705|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Positive||0.705|0.437|<0.0001
84579373|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|3.461|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Negative||3.461|0.287|0.9964
84610087|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.06|0.582|
84610088|NCT01178099|168971239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.648|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.55|0.648|
84610089|NCT01178099|168971240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
84610090|NCT01178099|168971241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by flow cytometry. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
84610091|NCT01178099|168971241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by ELISA. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.679
84610092|NCT01178099|168971242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 6.5 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.396
84755052|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-3.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Assess emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of PROMIS Depression scores. Time x EC interaction.||-1.47|-5.57|0.001
84579374|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Positive||0.670|0.400|<0.0001
84579375|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.364|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Negative||1.364|0.392|0.3221
84579376|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\<175||0.742|0.455|<0.0001
84579377|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\>=175||0.650|0.100|0.0022
84579378|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \<=20%||0.742|0.379|0.0002
84579379|NCT01740427|168912514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.791|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \>20%||0.791|0.409|0.0007
84579380|NCT01740427|168912518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||0.051|-0.004|0.0925
84610093|NCT01178099|168971242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 20 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
84610094|NCT01178099|168971242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to Collagen. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
84610095|NCT01178099|168971242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to TRAP-6. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
84610096|NCT01178099|168971243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
84610097|NCT01178099|168971244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
84755053|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline left dlPFC response to negative pictures as a predictor of PROMIS depression symptom improvement: time x L. dlFPC interaction.||-0.95|-2.91|<.001
84610098|NCT02473367|168971248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. least-squares mean ratio (GLSMR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.24|
84610099|NCT02473367|168971248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.73|
84610100|NCT02473367|168971248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.80|
84610101|NCT02473367|168971249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.21|
84610102|NCT02473367|168971249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.15|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.15|0.65|
84610103|NCT02473367|168971249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.17|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.17|0.81|
84610104|NCT02473367|168971250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.61|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.61|0.45|
84610105|NCT02473367|168971250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.52|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||0.52|0.34|
84610106|NCT02473367|168971250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.51|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.51|0.36|
84610107|NCT04816721|168971253|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.28|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.28|-2.21|0.1249
84610108|NCT04816721|168971253|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|0.05|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.05|-2.88|0.0580
84610109|NCT04816721|168971253|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|1.16|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.16|-2.02|0.5877
84610110|NCT04816721|168971253|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.43|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.43|-0.76|0.2932
84579381|NCT01740427|168912519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||1.98|-2.63|0.7822
84579382|NCT01740427|168912521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.33775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.177||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.177|0.777|0.337750
84579383|NCT01740427|168912522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.208706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.124||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.124|0.755|0.208706
84579384|NCT00963508|168912528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84579385|NCT00963508|168912529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
84579386|NCT04739709|168912549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579387|NCT04739709|168912550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579388|NCT04739709|168912552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579389|NCT04739709|168912553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579390|NCT04739709|168912554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579391|NCT04739709|168912555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84755054|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-2.02||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.13||Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline striatum response to monetary outcomes as a predictor of improvement in depressive symptoms: time x treatment x striatum interaction.||-0.13|-3.9|.036
84579392|NCT04739709|168912556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579393|NCT04739709|168912557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579394|NCT04739709|168912558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579395|NCT04739709|168912559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579396|NCT04739709|168912560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.3|-1.8|<0.001
84579397|NCT04739709|168912561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
84579398|NCT04739709|168912562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
84579399|NCT04739709|168912563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.01|-0.06|0.017
84579400|NCT04739709|168912564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.04|-0.10|<0.001
84579401|NCT04739709|168912565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.06|-0.11|<0.001
84579402|NCT04739709|168912566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84579403|NCT01033071|168912571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.6|-3.1||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.001
84579404|NCT01033071|168912571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.6|-9.2|<0.001
84579405|NCT01033071|168912574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.7|-9.4|<0.001
84579406|NCT01033071|168912574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.6||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.6|-11.5|<0.001
84579407|NCT01033071|168912576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.3||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.3|-8.5|<0.001
84579408|NCT01033071|168912576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.7|-11.0|<0.001
84579409|NCT00727064|168912589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
84579410|NCT00727064|168912590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
84579411|NCT00727064|168912591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.004
84579412|NCT00727064|168912592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.018
84579413|NCT00727064|168912593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.081
84498319|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.600|-0.990|<.0001
84498320|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|-0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.193|-0.836|0.0002
84579414|NCT00727064|168912594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.427
84579415|NCT05890586|168912601|SUPERIORITY|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||Hazard ratios greater than one favored the active intervention for a faster time to recovery.|||1.07|0.86|
84579416|NCT05890586|168912602|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.88|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.88|0.03|
84579417|NCT05890586|168912605|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||||Hazard ratios less than one favor the active intervention of inhaled fluticasone furoate. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.||1.7|0.6|
84579418|NCT05890586|168912606|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||1.98|0.74|
84579419|NCT05890586|168912607|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.06|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.06|0.53|
84579420|NCT05890586|168912608|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.22|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.22|0.74|
84579421|NCT05890586|168912609|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.83|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.83|0.51|
84579422|NCT05890586|168912609|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.21|0.70|
84579423|NCT05890586|168912609|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.03|0.55|
84579424|NCT05890586|168912609|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.68|
84579425|NCT05890586|168912610|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.04|
84579426|NCT05890586|168912610|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.98|
84579427|NCT05890586|168912610|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.84|
84755055|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.58||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||-0.58|-1.85|<.001
84579428|NCT05890586|168912610|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.92|
84579429|NCT05890586|168912611|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.29|0.80|
84579430|NCT05890586|168912611|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.47|0.84|
84579431|NCT05890586|168912611|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.46|0.80|
84579432|NCT05890586|168912611|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.44|0.77|
84579433|NCT05890586|168912612|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.16|0.70|
84579434|NCT05890586|168912612|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.63|
84579435|NCT05890586|168912612|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.99|0.54|
84579436|NCT05890586|168912612|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.66|
84579437|NCT05890586|168912613|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.37|0.85|
84610111|NCT04816721|168971254|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
84610112|NCT04816721|168971254|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.58|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.58|-1.23|0.4728
84610113|NCT04816721|168971254|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.39|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.39|-1.79|0.2058
84610114|NCT04816721|168971254|OTHER|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.41|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.41|-0.74|0.5391
84610115|NCT04816721|168971256|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
84610116|NCT04816721|168971256|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.47|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.47|-2.81|0.5359
84610117|NCT04816721|168971256|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.5|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.50|-7.95|0.3029
84755056|NCT02807480|169266333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.00|-1.81|.049
84755057|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.81|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x RT interaction||4.81|-3.6|.778
84755058|NCT02807480|169266333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||8.31|-5.56|.696
84579438|NCT05890586|168912613|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.85|
84579439|NCT05890586|168912613|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.70|
84579440|NCT05890586|168912613|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.37|0.78|
84579441|NCT05890586|168912614|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.05|0.68|
84610118|NCT04816721|168971256|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64||||0.3871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|4.69|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||4.69|-11.98|0.3871
84610119|NCT01641822|168971308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.743||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.238|||Negative binomial regression|||Ratio between rates||1.238|0.446|0.25
84610120|NCT01641822|168971309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.2||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in FEV1 % predicted||3.2|-0.55|0.16
84610121|NCT01641822|168971310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.67
84610122|NCT01641822|168971311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to exacerbation||1.59|0.50|0.71
84610123|NCT01641822|168971312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.642||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.164|||Negative binomial regression|||Comparison of hospitalization rate||1.164|0.355|0.14
84610124|NCT01641822|168971313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.82||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in CFQ-R RSS||7.82|-1.71|0.21
84498321|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.160|-0.808|0.0005
84579442|NCT05890586|168912614|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.70|
84579443|NCT05890586|168912614|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.72|
84579444|NCT05890586|168912614|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
84579445|NCT05890586|168912615|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio, log|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.05|
84579446|NCT05890586|168912615|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.52|1.00|
84579447|NCT05890586|168912615|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.27|0.84|
84579448|NCT05890586|168912615|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
84579449|NCT05890586|168912616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.31|-0.43|
84579450|NCT05890586|168912617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.52|-0.37|
84579451|NCT01524705|168912635|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon||||<|0.024||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used due to nonnormality distribution|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-tailed t test with type I error = 0.05, a sample of 110 participants (55 per group) would give 90% power to detect a difference of a mean change from baseline of 5 CV units (SD = 8) between control and treatment groups. An ANCOVA model, adjusting for baseline value and clinical site, was to be performed. If residual values from the ANCOVA indicated nonnormality in distribution by Shapiro-Wilk testing, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used instead.||||<0.024
84579452|NCT01524705|168912637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84579453|NCT01524705|168912638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84579454|NCT00976391|168912646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - preprandial lispro insulin) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.00|-0.32|<0.0001
84579455|NCT04676646|168912681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.86|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||6.86|2.89|<0.001
84579456|NCT04676646|168912682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|7.55|||GEE model||An odds ratio \>1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.55|2.78|<0.001
84579457|NCT04676646|168912683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.52|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.52|2.50|<0.001
84579458|NCT04676646|168912684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors SZC to be associated with a longer time to first hyperkalaemia episode than placebo.|||0.71|0.37|<0.001
84579459|NCT04676646|168912685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favored SZC to be associated with a longer time to first instance of a decrease of spironolactone dose due to hyperkalaemia than placebo.|||0.73|0.17|0.006
84755059|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.71|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.71|-0.84|.503
84579460|NCT04676646|168912686|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.63|||t-test, 2 sided||A least-squares mean difference greater than 0 favors SZC compared to placebo.|||4.63|-6.64|0.724
84579461|NCT05156125|168912688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|29.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||29.05|2.58|0.0184
84579462|NCT05156125|168912688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|25.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||25.58|-0.03|0.0410
84579463|NCT05156125|168912689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||34.42|5.73|0.0070
84579464|NCT05156125|168912689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|30.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.67|2.75|0.0162
84579465|NCT05156125|168912690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|31.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.37|0.65|0.0448
84579466|NCT05156125|168912690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|30.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.58|0.23|0.0417
84579467|NCT05156125|168912691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.38|-0.99|0.0499
84579468|NCT05156125|168912691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|33.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||33.53|7.94|0.0011
84610125|NCT00082381|168971322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and insulin glargine is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4602||95.0|-0.09|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.09|0.4602
84610126|NCT00082381|168971323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7839
84672414|NCT00653224|169080347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.34|-2.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.47|-9.34|<0.001
84579469|NCT05156125|168912692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||0.0072
84579470|NCT05156125|168912692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||<0.0001
84579471|NCT01755637|168912701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean Ratio of treatments|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.49|130.16|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.16|100.49|
84579472|NCT01755637|168912702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|107.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.03|167.13|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||167.13|69.03|
84579473|NCT01755637|168912703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|111.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|130.68|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.68|94.76|
84579474|NCT01755637|168912704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0167||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The values were not adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as = (Experimental-Reference)|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.0011
84579475|NCT01755637|168912705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|112.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.65|121.12|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||121.12|103.65|
84610127|NCT00082381|168971324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610128|NCT00082381|168971325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610129|NCT00082381|168971327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3002
84610130|NCT00082381|168971328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3385
84610131|NCT00454181|168971356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response.||||0.30
84610132|NCT00454181|168971357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response||||0.26
84610133|NCT00454181|168971358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in oral warts from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.50
84610134|NCT00454181|168971359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in global oral health from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.29
84610135|NCT00454181|168971360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with respect to changes in oral warts from baseline to week 24 by the attending investigator."||||0.74
84610136|NCT00454181|168971361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with resepect to changes from baseline to week 24 in global oral health by the attending investigator."||||.71
84755060|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||.22|-2.02|.114
84498322|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.775|-0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.128|-0.775|0.0014
84579476|NCT01755637|168912706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|113.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.4|123.71|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||123.71|103.40|
84579477|NCT01755637|168912707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|114.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.99|126.93|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||126.93|102.99|
84579478|NCT02933476|168912709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We compared off therapy UPDRS III scores at baseline to one and four weeks after stimulation.||||>0.05
84579479|NCT02933476|168912710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
84755061|NCT02807480|169266333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.11|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||2.11|-1.15|.561
84755062|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-1.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.42|-2.66|.007
84755063|NCT02807480|169266333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.65||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.17|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||2.17|-0.87|0.403
84755064|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|5.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.73|-8.76|0.681
84579480|NCT02933476|168912711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84579481|NCT01421134|168912732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-10.2|<0.0001
84579482|NCT01421134|168912733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.96|<0.0001
84579483|NCT01421134|168912734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
84579484|NCT01421134|168912735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
84579485|NCT01421134|168912736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.1|<0.0001
84579486|NCT01421134|168912737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.251|13.459|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was based on a logistic regression of response, with treatment group, baseline MADRS total score, and pooled center as fixed effects.|||13.459|3.251|<0.0001
84610137|NCT03322423|168971365|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.035|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.035|-0.080|
84610138|NCT03322423|168971365|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.054|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.054|-0.099|
84610139|NCT03322423|168971366|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
84610140|NCT03322423|168971366|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
84610141|NCT03322423|168971367|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|49.9|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||49.9|41.2|
84579487|NCT01421134|168912738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|8.663|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.663|2.105|<0.0001
84579488|NCT02030418|168912784|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety hypothesis is:~H0: CFR ≤ 86% vs. H1: CFR \> 86% Where CFR is the Complication Free Rate. The CFR is estimated as a binomial proportion and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of CFR is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of this CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 86%."|binomial proportion|93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|95.9|||1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||95.9|89.9|<0.001
84579489|NCT02030418|168912785|SUPERIORITY|"The primary effectiveness hypothesis is:~H0: Rate ≤ 85.0% vs. H1: Rate \> 85.0%~where Rate is the proportion of subjects experiencing success, and success is defined as: pacing threshold voltage ≤ 2.0 V at 0.4 ms at 6-month visit and sensed R-wave amplitude either ≥ 5.0 mV at the 6-month visit or ≥ value at implant."|binomial proportion|93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|96.0||The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of the CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 85%.|1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||96.0|89.9|<0.001
84579490|NCT02030418|168912786|OTHER|"The hypothesis is intended to test whether the mean slope is within 35% of 1. The hypothesis is stated as follows:~H0: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) ≥ equivalence margin, equal to 35%~H1: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) \< equivalence margin, equal to 35%~The calculation of slope for individual subjects in the CAEP exercise protocol is done by setting the y-intercept to zero."|Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||two 1-sided test (TOST)|||||0.93|0.73|0.001
84579491|NCT01810952|168912839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||This is the p-value for Day 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84579492|NCT01810952|168912840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84579493|NCT01810952|168912841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Comparison of the 5 day averages resulted in a p-value of 0.06.|t-test, 2 sided|||Daily values for each protocol were compared using t-tests.||||0.06
84579494|NCT01810952|168912842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in binomial proportions|||||0.795||||||Comparison of the number of participants in each group with glucose value \<70 mg/dL resulted in p-value 0.795.|Chi-squared|||||||0.795
84579495|NCT01810952|168912843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Comparison between groups of percent of glucose values \>180 mg/dL.|Chi-squared|||Values in each group were compared by Chi squared.||||0.055
84579496|NCT01179516|168912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.14||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure for each dose was applied to compare 10 mg and 15 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.14|-3.71|0.597
84579497|NCT01179516|168912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.46|-3.44|0.745
84579498|NCT01179516|168912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.232||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.995|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.995|0.761|0.396
84579499|NCT01179516|168912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.963|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.963|0.748|0.435
84579500|NCT01179516|168912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.21|-0.38|0.554
84579501|NCT01179516|168912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.25|-0.35|0.739
84579502|NCT01179516|168912877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.50|-5.43|0.670
84579503|NCT01179516|168912877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.295||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.26|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||6.26|-2.80|0.451
84610142|NCT03322423|168971367|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|50.8|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||50.8|42.1|
84645283|NCT03036800|169026179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-5.28|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.28|-7.03|<0.001
84755065|NCT02807480|169266333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.61||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|15.46|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.46|-4.24|.264
84755066|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|-0.43||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.51|-1.38|.367
84755067|NCT02807480|169266333|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.25|-0.50|.211
84579504|NCT01179516|168912878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.291||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|2.211|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||2.211|0.754|0.352
84579505|NCT01179516|168912878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.928|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||1.928|0.646|0.694
84579506|NCT01179516|168912879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.55|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.55|-3.38|0.464
84579507|NCT01179516|168912879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.30|-1.91|0.600
84579508|NCT00888849|168912885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.9||Adjusted for multiplicity via the Bonferroni-Holm method|ANOVA|||||10.9|-19.4|0.7774
84579509|NCT00888849|168912886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.5||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||4.5|1.4|0.0008
84579510|NCT00888849|168912887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.7774
84579511|NCT05064800|168912888|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|233.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|315.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||315.54|172.14|
84755068|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS score: time x approach behavior interaction||1.41|0.08|0.028
84755069|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.39|-1.49|0.251
84579512|NCT05064800|168912889|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
84579513|NCT05064800|168912890|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
84579514|NCT05064800|168912891|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.51|231.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||231.77|127.51|
84579515|NCT05064800|168912892|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
84579516|NCT05064800|168912893|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
84755070|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-0.26||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x RT interaction||3.96|-4.49|0.902
84755071|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.23||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.01|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||9.01|-4.55|.519
84579517|NCT00395512|168912936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.33||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was defined as change from Baseline in HbA1c level at Week 26. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A25 + P30 group would be equal to the average changes for the P30 alone and A25 alone groups; further, under the null hypothesis, the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A12.5 + P30 group was equal to the average change for the P30 alone group.||-0.33|-0.78|<0.001
84579518|NCT00395512|168912936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
84579519|NCT00395512|168912936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.63|<0.001
84579520|NCT00395512|168912937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.12|-0.55|0.003
84579521|NCT00395512|168912937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
84579522|NCT00395512|168912937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
84579523|NCT00395512|168912938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-2.0|-20.3|0.017
84579524|NCT00395512|168912938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-3.8|-22.0|0.006
84579525|NCT00395512|168912938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-15.4|-33.5|<0.001
84579526|NCT04625972|168912990|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|33.31||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.92|64.68|||Poisson regression||Primary Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||64.68|-25.92|0.212
84579527|NCT04625972|168912990|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|43.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|67.37|||Poisson regression||Final Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||67.37|1.40|0.044
84579528|NCT04625972|168912992|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|100.0||||0.664|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1836.98||||Poisson regression||||||-1836.98|0.664
84579529|NCT04625972|168912993|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|13.9||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|30.21|||Poisson regression|||||30.21|-6.23|0.163
84579530|NCT04625972|168912995|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|25.75||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-343.53|87.57|||Poisson regression|||||87.57|-343.53|0.744
84645284|NCT03036800|169026180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.89|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.89|-5.56|<0.001
84755072|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-0.64||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||0.64|-1.92|.326
84755073|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.26||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.05|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.05|-0.53|.168
84579531|NCT00433290|168912998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
84579532|NCT00433290|168912998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 7 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
84579533|NCT00433290|168912998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
84579534|NCT00433290|168912999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: PGI-Improvement=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, baseline severity and NSAID used for main effect p-values.||||||0.164
84579535|NCT00433290|168913000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (change = endpoint - baseline)|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.016
84579536|NCT00433290|168913001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.068
84579537|NCT00433290|168913002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.064
84579538|NCT00433290|168913003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Average Pain. Change = endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.008
84579539|NCT00433290|168913003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Worst Pain. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.047
84579540|NCT00433290|168913004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.009
84579541|NCT00433290|168913005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84579542|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.897
84579543|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||<0.001
84579544|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.004
84579545|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.051
84579546|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.508
84579547|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.019
84579548|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.415
84579549|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.006
84579550|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.342
84579551|NCT00433290|168913006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.135
84579552|NCT00433290|168913007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-value for EQ-5D Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treament, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effect p-value.||||||0.209
84755074|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||0.35|-1.34|.248
84755075|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||1.44|-0.84|0.603
84498323|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.799|0.0007
84498324|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|-2.394|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.394|-3.127|<.0001
84579553|NCT00433290|168913008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.871
84579554|NCT00433290|168913009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.138
84579555|NCT00433290|168913010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84579556|NCT00433290|168913011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84755076|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||0.18|-1.89|.107
84755077|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x dlPFC interaction||1.80|-1.47|0.846
84498325|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.271|-2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.533|-3.271|<.0001
84498326|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|-2.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.443|-3.165|<.0001
84579557|NCT00433290|168913012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84579558|NCT00433290|168913012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for direct analgesic effect. The null hypothesis was tested by testing a1=0 versus a1≠0.|Regression, Linear|||Path analysis was used to test null hypothesis that change in BPI average pain severity depends on improvement of BDI or HADS-A, versus improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of treatment and not dependent on improvement in depression or anxiety symptoms. Model:Change in BPI average pain score=a0+a1\*treatment group+a2\*change in BDI total+a3\*change in HADS-A+a4\*BL of BPI average pain+a5\*BL of BDI total+a6\*BL of HADS-A.||||0.002
84579559|NCT00433290|168913013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84579560|NCT00433290|168913014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
84579561|NCT00433290|168913015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.913
84579562|NCT00433290|168913016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
84579563|NCT00433290|168913017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84579564|NCT00433290|168913018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.260
84579565|NCT00433290|168913019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.489
84755078|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-2.26||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|5.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.37|-9.89|.561
84755079|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.45||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.7|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.70|-4.80|.297
84672415|NCT00653224|169080348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.88|-3.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-3.35|-9.88|<0.001
84672416|NCT00653224|169080349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69||||0.001||95.0|-9.16|-2.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.21|-9.16|0.001
84579566|NCT00433290|168913020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.131
84579567|NCT00433290|168913021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
84579568|NCT00433290|168913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Alkaline Phosphatase Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84579569|NCT00433290|168913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for AST Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
84579570|NCT00433290|168913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for GGT Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
84579571|NCT00433290|168913024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
84579572|NCT00433290|168913025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
84579573|NCT00433290|168913026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value for SBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.285
84755080|NCT02807480|169266334|OTHER||Slope|-0.18||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS cores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.79|-1.15|.712
84755081|NCT02807480|169266334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||1.97|-0.84|0.431
84579574|NCT00433290|168913026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for DBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.668
84579575|NCT00433290|168913027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84579576|NCT00433290|168913028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84579577|NCT00724503|168913039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is rate of progression (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is PFS rate for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||1.12|0.77|0.551
84579578|NCT00724503|168913040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 450 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 12.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 530. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||< 0.05
84579579|NCT01186419|168913043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
84579580|NCT01928771|168913053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.71|0.42|<0.001
84579581|NCT01928771|168913053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.64|0.37|<0.001
84579582|NCT01928771|168913054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.0|0.5|0.047
84579583|NCT01928771|168913054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.16|0.59|0.268
84579584|NCT01928771|168913055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||1.01|0.37|0.053
84579585|NCT01928771|168913055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.67|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||0.67|0.2|<0.001
84579586|NCT01928771|168913056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.37|<0.001
84579587|NCT01928771|168913056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations from the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.90|0.43|0.01
84579588|NCT01928771|168913057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations in the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.82|0.49|<0.001
84755082|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|-6.42||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.3|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: approach behavior main effect||5.30|-18.15|.276
84610143|NCT02096263|168971368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.31|0.92|
84755083|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.69||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|23.5|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||23.50|-12.12|.520
84755084|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|-50.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.65|27.65|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: RT main effect||27.65|-127.65|.199
84755085|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|93.87||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|236.88|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: treatment x RT interaction||236.88|-4.14|.191
84755086|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|27.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|50.26|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ trajectory: striatum main effect||50.26|4.45|0.021
84755087|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.47||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.94|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||27.00|-37.94|.734
84755088|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|-9.79||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|6.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: amygdala main effect||6.53|-26.11|.231
84755089|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.55||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|41.58|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment amygdala interaction||41.58|-24.48|.602
84755090|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|-19.29||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.07|23.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||23.68|-62.07|.369
84755091|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.12||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|54.29|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||54.29|-36.05|.684
84755092|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|9.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|37.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||37.59|-18.39|.487
84579589|NCT01928771|168913057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations from the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.78|0.46|<0.001
84579590|NCT01928771|168913058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.196|0.016|0.022
84755093|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-46.34||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-4.18|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||-4.18|-88.5|.033
84755094|NCT02807480|169266335|OTHER||Slope|39.53||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|173.85|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||173.85|-94.2|.546
84579591|NCT01928771|168913058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.249|0.068|0.001
84579592|NCT01928771|168913059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.083|-0.134|0.644
84579593|NCT01928771|168913059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.208|-0.003|0.057
84579594|NCT01928771|168913060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.12|-0.27|0.442
84579595|NCT01928771|168913060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.06|-0.45|0.012
84579596|NCT01928771|168913061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.08|-0.48|0.169
84755095|NCT02807480|169266335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-89.96||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.39|147.67|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||147.67|-327.39|.443
84755096|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|-1.01||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: approach behavior main effect||1.19|-3.22|.357
84579597|NCT01928771|168913061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.57|0.043
84579598|NCT01928771|168913062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.10|-1.16|0.1
84579599|NCT01928771|168913062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.07|-1.21|0.081
84610144|NCT02096263|168971368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.35|0.97|
84610145|NCT02096263|168971368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Tdap vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor.).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertactin (PRN), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||0.99|0.63|
84610146|NCT03178669|168971418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|5.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.47|0.75|0.1806
84610147|NCT03178669|168971418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.24||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.24|0.20|0.6649
84755097|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||3.47|-2.74|.812
84755098|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|2.01||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|20.45|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: RT main effect||20.45|-16.42|.826
84755099|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.89||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|25.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x RT interaction||25.64|-31.42|.838
84755100|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|-0.68||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: striatum main effect||4.14|-5.51|.776
84579600|NCT01928771|168913063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|37.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||37.43|9.20|0.001
84579601|NCT01928771|168913063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|30.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||30.83|2.08|0.025
84579602|NCT01928771|168913064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|35.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||35.65|7.86|0.002
84579603|NCT01928771|168913064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|33.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||33.28|5.09|0.008
84579604|NCT01928771|168913065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.05|0.964
84610148|NCT03178669|168971418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|9.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.47|1.53|0.0247
84610149|NCT03178669|168971418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|3.88||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.88|0.52|0.3279
84610150|NCT03178669|168971419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|4.99||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.99|0.69|0.2115
84610151|NCT03178669|168971419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|1.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.06|0.8498
84610152|NCT03178669|168971419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.01|6.62||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.62|1.01|0.0977
84755101|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|6.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||6.40|-7.79|.844
84755102|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.79|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: amygdala main effect||5.79|-4.03|.719
84755103|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.07|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x amygdala interaction||4.07|-8.74|.464
84579605|NCT01928771|168913065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.11|0.012
84579606|NCT01928771|168913066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.34|0.111
84579607|NCT01928771|168913066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.10|-0.48|0.003
84579608|NCT01928771|168913067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.27|-0.27|0.99
84579609|NCT01928771|168913067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.05|-0.48|0.107
84579610|NCT01928771|168913071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.37|-0.02|0.081
84579611|NCT01928771|168913071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.5|0.1|0.004
84579612|NCT01407367|168913084|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.94||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||0.94|0.16|.04
84579613|NCT01407367|168913085|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||1.99|0.53|0.86
84610153|NCT03178669|168971419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|2.84||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.32|0.5220
84755104|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|5.91||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|13.75|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||13.75|-1.93|.135
84755105|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.09||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|2.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||2.47|-14.65|.158
84579614|NCT01245062|168913087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.64||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Investigator-Assessed PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.64|0.31|<0.0001
84579615|NCT01245062|168913087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Independent Review PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.60|0.29|<0.0001
84579616|NCT06025695|168913104|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-0.55|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of seroconversion rates 1 month post-Dose 2.||-0.55|-6.93|
84579617|NCT06025695|168913105|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA Ab GMC between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||The comparison is done using the group GMC ratio (HRV PCV-free/HRV) (ANOVA model applied to the log10-transformed titers). The ANOVA model included the group as a fixed effect.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of serum anti-RV IgA Ab concentrations 1 month post-Dose 2.||0.84|0.60|
84579618|NCT06025695|168913106|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in the percentage between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in percentage|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-1.92|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in in the percentage between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of percentage of participants with anti-RV IgA antibody concentrations \>=90 U/mL 1 month post-Dose 2.||-1.92|-10.81|
84610154|NCT03178669|168971420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|2.94||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|0.74|0.2335
84610155|NCT03178669|168971420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|2.69||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.69|0.73|0.2511
84610156|NCT03178669|168971420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|3.52||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|0.96|0.1162
84610157|NCT03178669|168971420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|2.4||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.40|0.63|0.3467
84755106|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|1.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.11|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||7.11|-4.78|.690
84579619|NCT01452347|168913110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|74.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|68.08|80.91|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||80.91|68.08|
84579620|NCT01452347|168913111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|84.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|70.32|101.44|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||101.44|70.32|
84579621|NCT01452347|168913112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|88.69|102.84|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||102.84|88.69|
84579622|NCT01452347|168913113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|86.4|123.4|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||123.40|86.40|
84579623|NCT01452347|168913114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||<0.001
84579624|NCT01452347|168913115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.05
84579625|NCT01452347|168913116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.46
84579626|NCT01452347|168913117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.65
84579627|NCT05762744|168913118|OTHER|Unpaired two-tailed t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.37||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGTs (saline or exenatide-stimulated) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.37
84579628|NCT05762744|168913119|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGT (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT.||||0.66
84579629|NCT05762744|168913120|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of testing (exenatide-stimulated or saline FSIGT) does not affect data obtained in the FSIGTs.||||0.55
84579630|NCT05762744|168913121|OTHER|Unpaired, two-tailed t-test to test the null hypothesis||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.45
84579631|NCT05762744|168913122|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.86||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGT (exenatide or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.86
84579632|NCT05762744|168913123|OTHER|Two-tailed p-test for unpaired data||||||0.44||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT||||0.44
84610158|NCT03178669|168971421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.5||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.50|0.50|0.6326
84610159|NCT03178669|168971421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.37||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.37|0.45|0.7127
84610160|NCT03178669|168971421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|2.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.34|0.75|0.2658
84755107|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.37||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||6.25|-8.99|.715
84579633|NCT05762744|168913124|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: no differences between the two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first-phase insulin secretion.~t-test conducted on logarithms of the values"||||0.41
84579634|NCT05762744|168913124|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first phase insulin secretion||||0.38
84579635|NCT05762744|168913125|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance||||0.80
84579636|NCT05762744|168913125|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance during an FSIGT||||0.98
84579637|NCT01560416|168913152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
84579638|NCT01560416|168913154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
84579639|NCT02507284|168913158|NON_INFERIORITY|Results for the secondary safety endpoint, adverse events (AEs) in study subjects, was performed using a test for non-inferiority with a threshold of 0.50. The null hypothesis is that the treatment minus placebo proportion difference is greater than (or equal to) the margin of 0.50 and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference is less than 0.50.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.025||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
84579640|NCT00004859|168913191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
84579641|NCT02618187|168913258|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.766
84579642|NCT02618187|168913258|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.037
84579643|NCT02618187|168913258|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.313
84579644|NCT02618187|168913258|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.384
84579645|NCT02618187|168913258|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.237
84579646|NCT02618187|168913259|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, after Placebo Pre-Treat. tested against Daily placebo, after Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.257
84579647|NCT02618187|168913259|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
84579648|NCT02618187|168913259|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
84579649|NCT02618187|168913259|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Weekly SER-287, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.009
84579650|NCT02618187|168913259|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., tested against Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.168
84579651|NCT02618187|168913260|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|13.3||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|30.54|||Fisher Exact|||||30.54|-3.87|0.4923
84579652|NCT02618187|168913260|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|40.0||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|64.79|||Fisher Exact|||||64.79|15.21|0.0237
84579653|NCT02618187|168913260|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|17.6||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|35.77|||Fisher Exact|||||35.77|-0.47|0.2579
84579654|NCT02618187|168913261|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|24.2||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|53.53|||Fisher Exact|||||53.53|-5.04|0.1973
84579655|NCT02618187|168913261|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|30.9||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|60.96|||Fisher Exact|||||60.96|0.86|0.1783
84579656|NCT02618187|168913261|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|14.4||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|40.81|||Fisher Exact|||||40.81|-11.93|0.6195
84579657|NCT03767894|168913314|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.24
84579658|NCT03767894|168913314|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (ARAT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||0.207
84579659|NCT03767894|168913315|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05|Paired sample T-test|2-tailed||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (UEMF performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.026
84579660|NCT03767894|168913317|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) of the impaired (hemiparetic) hand.||||0.442
84579661|NCT03767894|168913317|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (BBT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||1.0
84610161|NCT03178669|168971421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8301|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|1.16||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|0.36|0.8301
84755108|NCT02807480|169266336|OTHER||Slope|5.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|36.65|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||36.65|-26.38|.740
84579662|NCT03501277|168913320|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative bioavailability (BA) determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|1.0706||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.1204|||ANOVA|||||1.1204|1.0230|0.014
84579663|NCT03501277|168913320|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0276||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9817|1.0757|||ANOVA|||||1.0757|0.9817|0.326
84579664|NCT03501277|168913320|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM diiference|0.9594||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8837|1.0415|||ANOVA|||||1.0415|0.8837|0.405
84579665|NCT03501277|168913320|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|0.9257||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8523|1.0053|||ANOVA|||||1.0053|0.8523|0.124
84579666|NCT03501277|168913321|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0157||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.0308|||ANOVA|||||1.0308|1.0009|0.081
84579667|NCT03501277|168913321|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0009||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9862|1.0158|||ANOVA|||||1.0158|0.9862|0.922
84579668|NCT03501277|168913321|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0486||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0051|1.0939|||ANOVA|||||1.0939|1.0051|0.066
84579669|NCT03501277|168913321|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0267||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9839|1.0714|||ANOVA|||||1.0714|0.9839|0.308
84579670|NCT01222351|168913341|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the rate of cognitive decline between participants with and without amyloid.|Slope|-0.034||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||latent growth curve model|Latent growth curve models tested cognitive decline rate by amyloid status.|B weights were the estimates for the association between Aβ and cognitive change.|||||0.02
84579671|NCT03055507|168913362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.4|0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.5|-2.4|<0.05
84579672|NCT04560309|168913369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.993
84579673|NCT04560309|168913370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.883
84579674|NCT04560309|168913371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.034
84579675|NCT04560309|168913372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84579676|NCT04560309|168913373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
84579677|NCT04560309|168913374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.216
84579678|NCT04560309|168913375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.001
84755109|NCT02807480|169266336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.98||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|46.14|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||46.14|-48.10|.966
84755110|NCT02114164|169266351|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755111|NCT02114164|169266352|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84755112|NCT02114164|169266353|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84755113|NCT02114164|169266353|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84755114|NCT02114164|169266353|OTHER|||||||0.712||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
84755115|NCT02114164|169266354|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84610162|NCT03178669|168971422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.27||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.27|0.32|0.7994
84610163|NCT03178669|168971422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.72||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.16|0.9665
84610164|NCT03178669|168971422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.82||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.82|0.80|0.2049
84579679|NCT04560309|168913376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.043
84579680|NCT04560309|168913377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.011
84579681|NCT04560309|168913378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.975
84579682|NCT04560309|168913379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84579683|NCT04560309|168913380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
84579684|NCT04560309|168913381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.645
84579685|NCT04560309|168913382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||After induction to anesthesia||||0.330
84579686|NCT04560309|168913382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||5 minutes after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.352
84579687|NCT04560309|168913382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||2 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.544
84579688|NCT04560309|168913382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||6 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.022
84579689|NCT04560309|168913382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||24 hour after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.038
84579690|NCT04560309|168913383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.200
84610165|NCT03178669|168971422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.6||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.60|0.42|0.6504
84610166|NCT03178669|168971423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|0.93||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.18|0.9207
84610167|NCT03178669|168971423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.92||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.19|0.9228
84610168|NCT03178669|168971423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|1.61||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.39|0.6636
84610169|NCT03178669|168971423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|1.41||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.34|0.7449
84610170|NCT00079677|168971448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003||95.0|1.67|5.46||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05||5.46|1.67|0.0003
84755116|NCT02114164|169266354|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84579691|NCT04560309|168913384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.720
84579692|NCT04560309|168913385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84579693|NCT04560309|168913386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.044
84579694|NCT04560309|168913387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.349
84579695|NCT04560309|168913388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.950
84579696|NCT04560309|168913389|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.862
84579697|NCT04560309|168913390|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.075
84579698|NCT01860404|168913401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.871
84579699|NCT01860404|168913402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.140
84579700|NCT01860404|168913403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.267
84579701|NCT01860404|168913404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.476
84579702|NCT01860404|168913405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.581
84579703|NCT01860404|168913406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
84579704|NCT01860404|168913407|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84579705|NCT01860404|168913408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.482
84579706|NCT01860404|168913409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
84579707|NCT01860404|168913410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.629
84579708|NCT01860404|168913411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.624
84579709|NCT01860404|168913412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2554|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2554
84579710|NCT01860404|168913413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7964
84579711|NCT01860404|168913414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7749|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7749
84579712|NCT01860404|168913415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0036
84579713|NCT01860404|168913416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0053
84755117|NCT02114164|169266354|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84610171|NCT00079677|168971449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0069
84610172|NCT03927404|168971473|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).|||||<|0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||<0.05
84610173|NCT03927404|168971475|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).||||||0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||0.05
84610174|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610175|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610176|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84610177|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84672417|NCT00653224|169080350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.027||95.0|-1.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-1.29|0.027
84672418|NCT00653224|169080351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.535||95.0|-0.7|0.37||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.37|-0.70|0.535
84579714|NCT01860404|168913417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8234|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8234
84579715|NCT00676689|168913420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|0.993||||||||0.993|0.889|
84610178|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.72
84610179|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610180|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84610181|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84610182|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610183|NCT01229449|168971476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610184|NCT04033068|168971497|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2003|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.2003
84610185|NCT04033068|168971498|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1448|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.1448
84610186|NCT04033068|168971499|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9111|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.9111
84610187|NCT04033068|168971500|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 1.0000
84579716|NCT00676689|168913421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.978||||||Freedom from Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE) at 6 months in the valve implant population.||0.978|0.851|
84579717|NCT00676689|168913422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Overall functional improvement at 6 months for patients in the valve implant population with baseline and 6 month data.||||
84610188|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.9|||=|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.2|= 0.9990
84610189|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.2|0.1|= 0.9798
84610190|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.1|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.1|0.1|= 0.9958
84610191|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.1|= 0.9935
84610192|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.7|0.2|= 0.9852
84672419|NCT00653224|169080352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.042||95.0|-1.26|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-1.26|0.042
84579718|NCT00567112|168913445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.05|0.92|>0.200
84579719|NCT00567112|168913446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.19|0.80|>0.200
84579720|NCT00567112|168913447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.98|0.86|0.026
84610193|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.6|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||14.4|0.2|= 0.9440
84610194|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.5|0.2|= 0.9943
84610195|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.0|||=|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.1|0.2|= 0.9999
84610196|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||14.3|0.4|= 0.6476
84610197|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.2|= 0.9911
84672420|NCT00653224|169080353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the change from baseline is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Repeated measure analysis (CATMOD)|||The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The change from baseline to endpoint visit in score category (ESS score \< 8 or \>= 8) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||||0.171
84755118|NCT02114164|169266355|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84579721|NCT00567112|168913448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.72|0.49|<0.001
84579722|NCT00567112|168913449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
84579723|NCT00567112|168913450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
84579724|NCT00567112|168913451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||<0.001
84579725|NCT00567112|168913452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||>0.200
84579726|NCT04906421|168913463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population analysis||||0.0018
84579727|NCT04906421|168913463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0035
84579728|NCT04906421|168913463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0001
84610198|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.9|||=|0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||12.0|0.3|= 0.7647
84610199|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.3|||=|0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||15.8|0.3|= 0.6447
84610200|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.3|0.3|= 0.9638
84610201|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.7|0.4|= 0.7837
84610202|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.9|||=|0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||15.3|0.5|= 0.3427
84610203|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.8|0.3|= 0.9578
84610204|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.7|0.4|= 0.5637
84610205|NCT04033068|168971502|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.8471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.6|0.3|= 0.8471
84610206|NCT02540265|168971517|OTHER||Effect Size|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84610207|NCT02540265|168971517|OTHER||Effect Size|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84610208|NCT02540265|168971518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
84610209|NCT02540265|168971518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
84610210|NCT02540265|168971519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84579729|NCT04906421|168913463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0003
84610211|NCT02540265|168971519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84610212|NCT00324233|168971537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||equivalence testing|||||||0.56
84610213|NCT01972789|168971540|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a non-inferiority study design, with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 5 letters between intensive and relaxed groups. That is, if the change from Baseline in BCVA at Month 24 in the intensive group is not more than 5 letters higher than the relaxed group, then the relaxed group is regarded not inferior to the intensive group|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.32|-2.51|0.787
84610214|NCT01972789|168971541|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.31||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-3.20|0.833
84610215|NCT01972789|168971542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-21.39||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-43.17|0.054
84755119|NCT02114164|169266355|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84579730|NCT04906421|168913464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0087
84579731|NCT04906421|168913464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0173
84579732|NCT04906421|168913464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0022
84579733|NCT04906421|168913464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0044
84579734|NCT04906421|168913465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0102
84579735|NCT04906421|168913465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F2 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.59
84610216|NCT01972789|168971543|OTHER||Negative Binomial Regression|1.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.18|||Mixed Model|||||1.18|1.04|0.001
84610217|NCT01972789|168971544|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-0.28|0.338
84610218|NCT01972789|168971545|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.80|0.74|0.284
84755120|NCT02114164|169266355|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84755121|NCT02114164|169266356|OTHER|Number of interventions required by the anesthesiologists were compared between the AirSeal and standard Endopath groups using zero-inflated Poisson regression||||||0.41|||||||Zero-inflated Poisson regression|||||||0.41
84755122|NCT02114164|169266357|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84579736|NCT04906421|168913465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-Sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F3 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0032
84579737|NCT04906421|168913465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0764
84579738|NCT04906421|168913466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0043
84579739|NCT04906421|168913467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0018
84579740|NCT04906421|168913468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||<0.0001
84579741|NCT00165698|168913492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.26
84579742|NCT00165698|168913493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.19
84579743|NCT00165698|168913494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.31
84610219|NCT01972789|168971545|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||2.33|0.71|0.407
84610220|NCT01972789|168971546|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.12|0.217
84610221|NCT01972789|168971547|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.42|0.615
84755123|NCT02114164|169266358|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84755124|NCT00257725|169266369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
84755125|NCT00257725|169266370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
84755126|NCT00257725|169266371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
84755127|NCT02573870|169266372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p-values were not presented as non-inferiority was assessed by confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|1.663|||||Treatment difference is calculated as active minus placebo and the non-inferiority bound was 10 bpm for Day 42|||1.663|-6.153|
84755128|NCT01858532|169266373|OTHER||||||=|0.029|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.029
84755129|NCT01858532|169266373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.878|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.878|0.488|=0.005
84579744|NCT00165698|168913495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.869
84579745|NCT00165698|168913496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.174
84579746|NCT00165698|168913497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
84579747|NCT00165698|168913498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
84579748|NCT00165698|168913499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
84610222|NCT01972789|168971548|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.54|0.819
84610223|NCT01972789|168971550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|630.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||630.5|0.03|0.565
84610224|NCT01972789|168971551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|1.03|0.034
84610225|NCT01707381|168971552|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.166|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-1.166|-2.380|<0.001
84579749|NCT02641353|168913502|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|93.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||93.2|77.3|
84579750|NCT02641353|168913502|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|86.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||86.0|71.2|
84610226|NCT01707381|168971553|OTHER||Bonferroni t-test used for paired compar|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||the bonferroni result applies to nocturnal supine OPP data comparing BOL group to timolol group|Statistical analysis of nocturnal (supine) OPP was performed among baseline, the BOL-303259-X treatment and timolol treatment using ANOVA. the criteria for statistical significance was P\<0.05. Post hoc Bonferroni T-tests were then utilized to compare BOL and timolol groups.||||<0.05
84610227|NCT01707381|168971554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.915|-0.625|||ANOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-0.625|-2.915|0.004
84672421|NCT02365636|169080356|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.726||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.726|-0.094|0.130
84755130|NCT01858532|169266374|OTHER||||||=|0.289|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.289
84755131|NCT01858532|169266374|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.060|0.573|0.112
84755132|NCT01858532|169266375|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.089
84755133|NCT01858532|169266375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.801||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.999|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.999|0.642|0.049
84755134|NCT01858532|169266376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.89|0.58|0.002
84755135|NCT01858532|169266377|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.446
84579751|NCT02641353|168913503|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.0|92.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||92.5|83.0|
84610228|NCT04016077|168971563|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|118.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|159.64|||ANOVA|||||159.64|87.96|
84610229|NCT04016077|168971564|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|145.23|||ANOVA|||||145.23|74.48|
84755136|NCT01858532|169266377|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.215|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.215|0.643|0.447
84755137|NCT00514514|169266378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|2.82|< 0.0001
84755138|NCT01206062|169266416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.64|<0.001
84755139|NCT01206062|169266417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.60|0.003
84755140|NCT01206062|169266418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.34|0.58
84755141|NCT01206062|169266420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.67|.10
84755142|NCT02081534|169266431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84755143|NCT01825057|169266492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0009
84755144|NCT01825057|169266492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - See One|||||<0.0001
84755145|NCT01825057|169266492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.178||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.4983
84755146|NCT01825057|169266493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method.|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0217
84610230|NCT02126839|168971608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|33.94|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||33.94|16.10|<0.0001
84610231|NCT02126839|168971609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.76|104.91|||mixed model repeated measures|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||104.91|47.76|<0.0001
84610232|NCT00422383|168971611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|-0.01||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, rheumatoid factor (RF) status, and treatment.|||0.10|-0.13|0.8156
84579752|NCT02641353|168913503|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||121.7|109.2|
84579753|NCT02641353|168913504|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|92.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||92.6|83.2|
84579754|NCT02641353|168913504|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||121.7|109.0|
84579755|NCT02641353|168913505|OTHER||Median Difference|0.25||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment B - Treatment A) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.50|0.00|0.1508
84579756|NCT02641353|168913505|OTHER||Median Difference|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|3.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment C - Treatment B) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.25|1.27|<0.0001
84610233|NCT00422383|168971611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|0.07||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|||0.19|-0.05|0.2419
84610234|NCT00422383|168971614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.7127
84755147|NCT01825057|169266493|SUPERIORITY|mean difference is Order One - See One|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0126
84755148|NCT01825057|169266493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference is Do One - See One|||||0.4231
84755149|NCT01825057|169266494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0091
84755150|NCT01825057|169266494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0196
84755151|NCT01825057|169266494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.2832
84755152|NCT01825057|169266495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.1566
84755153|NCT01825057|169266495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0982
84755154|NCT01825057|169266495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.6631
84755155|NCT01825057|169266496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||.1327
84755156|NCT01825057|169266496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||||mean difference = Order One - See One|||0.4097
84755157|NCT01825057|169266496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.8779
84755158|NCT01480284|169266498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was judged based on the one-sided test of the model, y(Δ) = Baseline + Group ( Δ= -1.0). The adjusted mean values of the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated, and the adjusted mean value and two-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated. Non-inferiority was also to be confirmed when the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority limit value of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||p-value was compared with the significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.28|<0.0001
84755159|NCT01480284|169266499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||||CI and estimate difference is provided for change from Baseline in serum HBV DNA level at Week 48.|||0.39|-0.40|
84755160|NCT05368961|169266516|OTHER|Null hypothesis; there is no difference in anxiety scores between usual care and distraction||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84579757|NCT02547935|168913512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
84579758|NCT02547935|168913513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-25.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-25.8|-48.2|<0.001
84579759|NCT02547935|168913513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-5.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-5.2|-34.1|0.011
84579760|NCT02547935|168913514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.26||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||1.26|-1.32|0.953
84579761|NCT02547935|168913514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||0.44|-2.17|0.193
84579762|NCT02547935|168913515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.4||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||5.4|-17.5|0.298
84579763|NCT02547935|168913515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||9.8|-13.6|0.746
84579764|NCT02547935|168913516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||4.8|1.8|<0.001
84579765|NCT02547935|168913516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||3.0|1.1|0.013
84579766|NCT02547935|168913517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||11.2|2.6|<0.001
84579767|NCT02547935|168913517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||3.8|0.8|0.167
84610235|NCT00422383|168971614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.1018
84755161|NCT00549939|169266522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84755162|NCT00549939|169266522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
84755163|NCT00549939|169266524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|1.29||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||1.29|-13.72|0.1040
84755164|NCT00549939|169266524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|0.39||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-14.51|0.1040
84498327|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.952|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.317|-2.587|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.587|-3.317|<.0001
84498328|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.413|1.719|<.0001
84498329|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.449|1.748|<.0001
84579768|NCT02547935|168913518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
84610236|NCT00422383|168971615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5029
84610237|NCT00422383|168971615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
84755165|NCT00549939|169266525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|3.53||P-values was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||3.53|-26.27|0.1338
84755166|NCT00549939|169266525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|0.47||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-29.10|0.1152
84755167|NCT00549939|169266527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor compliance was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor compliance as covariate."||||0.7889
84755168|NCT00549939|169266527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7889
84755169|NCT00003895|169266530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Post versus Pre-treatment % g209-2M-specific t-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84755170|NCT00003895|169266530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Post versus Pre-Treatment %g209-2M-specific T-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84755171|NCT00003895|169266530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Arm A Versus Arm B|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84755172|NCT01735279|169266536|OTHER|Test t Student|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84755173|NCT01735279|169266536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84755174|NCT01735279|169266536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84755175|NCT01735279|169266536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84755176|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.48|-60.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.72|-71.48|<0.001
84755177|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-54.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.88|-65.61|<0.001
84579769|NCT02547935|168913518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||0.8|-6.4|0.122
84579770|NCT02547935|168913519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||0.05|-0.38|0.142
84579771|NCT01398475|168913520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.951|
84579772|NCT01398475|168913520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.09|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.09|0.947|
84579773|NCT01398475|168913520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|0.953|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.953|0.827|
84579774|NCT01398475|168913521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.868|
84579775|NCT01398475|168913521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.08|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.08|0.852|
84579776|NCT01398475|168913521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|0.925|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.925|0.727|
84579777|NCT01398475|168913522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF1 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.500|-0.250|0.719
84579778|NCT01398475|168913522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.750|-0.250|0.960
84579779|NCT01398475|168913522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fed minus TF2 fasted.|||2.00|0|0.006
84579780|NCT00086307|168913523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||This is the omnibus effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used to examine depressive symptoms over time. Fixed factors for drug, time, and a time by drug interaction were included in the model along with the intercept. No random factors were included because the subject factor did not contribute significantly to the model. Baseline symptoms were used as a covariate.||12.541|1.111|.018
84579781|NCT00086307|168913523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||12.541|1.111|.014
84579782|NCT00086307|168913523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|9.066||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The escitalopram group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the escitalopram group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||9.066|-2.360|.454
84579783|NCT00086307|168913523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.942|8.888||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the escitalopram group.||8.888|-1.942|.349
84579784|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.40|1.30|
84579785|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.59||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.59|1.42|
84579786|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.49||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.49|1.37|
84579787|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.92|1.05|
84755178|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.18|-36.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.45|-47.18|<0.001
84579788|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.46|0.80|
84579789|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.41|0.77|
84579790|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.08|0.59|
84579791|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.30|0.72|
84610238|NCT05399290|168971650|OTHER|Chi square analysis was conducted to detect any significant between group differences (100 mg vs 20 mg) in perceived acne severity.||||||0.677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.677
84610239|NCT05399290|168971650|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 100 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's test|||||||0.002
84755179|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-44.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.62|-56.04|<0.001
84755180|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|-44.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.31|-55.69|<0.001
84755181|NCT01380730|169266537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-36.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.13|-47.55|<0.001
84610240|NCT05399290|168971650|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 20 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.018|||||||Fried|||||||0.018
84610241|NCT00757822|168971696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6|||>|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|18.6|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of PON per arm will be determined and expressed as a percentage of the total patients per arm. Treatment efficacy will be measured as the percentage-point decrease in PON in the treatment arm (Marinol) compared to the standard therapy arm (ondansetron). Null hypothesis: Marinol treatment is not superior to ondansetron treatment. We will test the statistical significance with Fisher's Exact test at a significance level of 0.05||18.6|-9.5|>0.76
84610242|NCT00757822|168971697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact test was performed comparing the percentage of subjects with at least one VAS score \> 0. (Marinol\>Ondansetron).||||||>0.92
84610243|NCT00757822|168971698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.7|||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-12.1|>0.55
84610244|NCT00757822|168971699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||=0.981
84610245|NCT00757822|168971700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.90
84610246|NCT00757822|168971701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.37
84610247|NCT00757822|168971702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons at 24-48 hr post-surgery. Null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction.||||>0.75
84755182|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.5|-87.0|<0.001
84755183|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-69.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-69.6|-85.2|<0.001
84579792|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.00|0.55|
84579793|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.04|0.57|
84610248|NCT00757822|168971702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks; null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction||||>0.10
84610249|NCT00757822|168971703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparison of both group responses at 24-48 hours.||||>0.29
84610250|NCT00757822|168971703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks.||||>0.55
84579794|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.02||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.02|1.09|
84579795|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.28||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.28|1.25|
84755184|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-43.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.0|-58.5|<0.001
84579796|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.48||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.48|1.36|
84579797|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.56|0.85|
84579798|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.54|0.83|
84579799|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.68|0.91|
84579800|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.05|0.57|
84579801|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.47|0.81|
84579802|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.93|0.51|
84579803|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.85|0.47|
84579804|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.03|1.10|
84579805|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.65||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.65|1.45|
84579806|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.74|1.50|
84579807|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.69|0.93|
84579808|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.78||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.78|0.97|
84579809|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.84|1.01|
84579810|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.14|0.62|
84579811|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.40|0.77|
84579812|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.86|0.47|
84579813|NCT05067270|168913552|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.83|0.46|
84579814|NCT03461861|168913553|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0056||0.007567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0886|-0.0774|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this superiority trials asserts that there is no true difference in functional connectivity between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||-0.0774|-0.0886|0.007567
84579815|NCT03461861|168913554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.900593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this trial asserts that there is no true difference in AVLT between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||4.52|1.72|0.900593
84579816|NCT01271855|168913574|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|0.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different pain scores. Other values would fail to reject the null hypothesis.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the visual analogue pain score scale (VAS) between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||||.35
84579817|NCT01271855|168913575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of taking additional pain medications between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||6.21|0.57|.30
84579818|NCT01271855|168913576|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different satisfaction scores. Other values fail to reject the null hypothesis|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain satisfaction score between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group at discharge||||.02
84579819|NCT02186171|168913577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|12.2||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||12.2|9.6|< 0.0001
84610251|NCT03464019|168971751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.623|||Peto-Peto test|||In Part 1, participants who converted following medical assistance were censored at the time of conversion after medical assistance. Participants who presented missing data from time t to the end were censored at the time of last available data. Participants who did not convert or were not censored before 5 hours were censored at 5 hours.||1.623|0.726|0.1212
84610252|NCT03464019|168971751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.857|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.868|4.371||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon|||In Parts 2 and 3, participants converting after additional medication interventions were censored after the end of the observation period.||4.371|1.868|<0.001
84610253|NCT01754493|168971752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-18.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-12.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total MADRS symptom scores for MDD. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-12.63|-23.44|<.05
84610254|NCT01754493|168971753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-20.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total GSRS symptom scores for IBS. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-13.97|-27.44|<0.05
84610255|NCT01754493|168971754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-MDD score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.03|-2.16|<0.05
84610256|NCT01754493|168971754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-IBS score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.11|-1.99|<0.05
84610257|NCT01754493|168971755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of overall pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-1.16|<0.05
84610258|NCT01754493|168971755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessed the rate of change in VAS score of pain interfering with daily activities. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a 1st-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis||2.01|-1.07|<0.05
84610259|NCT01754493|168971755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of headaches. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-2.28|<0.05
84610260|NCT01754493|168971755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of back pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||.87|-1.56|<0.05
84610261|NCT01754493|168971755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of shoulder pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.03|-2.00|<0.05
84610262|NCT01754493|168971756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-4.38|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in PHQ-15 scores of somatization symptoms. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.36|-7.39|<0.05
84610263|NCT00858208|168971760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0072
84610264|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 6||||0.0433
84610265|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 12||||0.0133
84610266|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 18||||0.0278
84610267|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||0.0160
84610268|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 30||||0.0264
84610269|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 36||||0.0278
84755185|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.6|<0.001
84755186|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.5|<0.001
84755187|NCT01380730|169266538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-43.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.1|-58.0|<0.001
84755188|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.37|-56.43||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.43|-66.37|<0.001
84755189|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.37|-50.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.47|-60.37|<0.001
84755190|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-33.48||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.48|-43.39|<0.001
84755191|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|-42.44||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.44|-52.72|<0.001
84755192|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.92|-40.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.67|-50.92|<0.001
84755193|NCT01380730|169266539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-32.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-32.65|-42.94|<0.001
84755194|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-51.61||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.61|-61.28|<0.001
84579820|NCT02186171|168913578|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|2.3|< 0.0001
84579821|NCT02186171|168913579|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.5|< 0.0001
84579822|NCT02186171|168913580|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|9.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||9.7|7.6|< 0.0001
84610270|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 42||||0.1854
84755195|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-45.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.33|-54.97|<0.001
84755196|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.56|-29.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.92|-39.56|<0.001
84755197|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.16|-36.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.90|-47.16|<0.001
84755198|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.88|-35.66||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.66|-45.88|<0.001
84755199|NCT01380730|169266540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.51|-29.25||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.25|-39.51|<0.001
84755200|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.18|-43.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.29|-52.18|<0.001
84755201|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-38.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.94|-47.81|<0.001
84610271|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||0.1684
84755202|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-26.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.97|-35.83|<0.001
84579823|NCT02186171|168913581|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.8|< 0.0001
84579824|NCT02186171|168913582|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.1|0.4|= 0.0033
84579825|NCT01301092|168913590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.497|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||0.497|0.395|
84579826|NCT01301092|168913591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|2.41|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||2.41|1.84|
84579827|NCT01301092|168913592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.08|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.08|0.858|
84579828|NCT01301092|168913593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.19|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.19|0.924|
84579829|NCT01350973|168913602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2491|4.983||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.9830|-4.2491|0.8760
84579830|NCT01350973|168913602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9442|-6.7637||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||-6.7637|-15.9442|< 0.0001
84579831|NCT03738215|168913612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.89||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.89|-4.17|0.0050
84755203|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-31.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.32|-39.99|<0.001
84755204|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.29|-31.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.65|-40.29|<0.001
84755205|NCT01380730|169266541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-23.39||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-23.39|-32.06|<0.001
84579832|NCT03738215|168913612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.12||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||0.12|-3.16|0.0727
84579833|NCT03738215|168913613|SUPERIORITY||Lease Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.07||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.07|-0.49|0.0727
84579834|NCT03738215|168913613|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.03|-0.39|0.0944
84579835|NCT00126737|168913622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.395||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Co-variates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function subscale.||||-1.38|-11.41|0.0129
84755206|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.23|-48.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.65|-58.23|<0.001
84755207|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.08|-42.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.52|-52.08|<0.001
84579836|NCT00126737|168913622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.174||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.079|||ANCOVA|Covariates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function||||0.079|-10.43|0.0535
84579837|NCT00126737|168913623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.545||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|8.659|||ANCOVA|||||8.659|0.432|0.0307
84610272|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 54||||0.4718
84610273|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 60||||0.4340
84610274|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7765|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 66||||0.7765
84610275|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||0.7544
84610276|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 84||||0.7201
84755208|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.53|-29.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.97|-39.53|<0.001
84755209|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-37.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.50|-48.36|<0.001
84755210|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-36.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.98|-47.81|<0.001
84755211|NCT01380730|169266542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-28.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.33|-39.20|<0.001
84579838|NCT00126737|168913625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.94||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.655|72.215|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||72.215|7.655|0.0158
84579839|NCT00126737|168913625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.97|94.54|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||94.54|29.97|0.0002
84579840|NCT00126737|168913625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.95||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.54|75.36|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||75.36|12.54|0.0056
84579841|NCT00126737|168913626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.129||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.767|45.492|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||45.492|10.767|0.0018
84579842|NCT00126737|168913626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.675|43.746|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence scale was entered into the model||||43.746|9.675|0.0024
84610277|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5692|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 90||||0.5692
84610278|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||0.2749
84610279|NCT00858208|168971761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 102||||0.2749
84610280|NCT00858208|168971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 6||||0.2970
84610281|NCT00858208|168971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 12||||0.1392
84610282|NCT00858208|168971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 18||||0.0573
84610283|NCT00858208|168971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 24||||0.7625
84610284|NCT00858208|168971764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2759
84579843|NCT00126737|168913626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.747||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|36.325|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||36.325|1.169|0.0368
84579844|NCT04193176|168913639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-3.67|||ANCOVA|||||-3.67|-19.67|0.004
84579845|NCT00944645|168913642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis I: The Cmax of nicotinuric acid (NUA) following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of NUA Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.03|0.93|
84610285|NCT01272635|168971774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.98|||Discrete time survival analysis||Hazard ratio: Numerator is Azithromycin and Denominator is Placebo|||0.98|0.41|0.04
84610286|NCT01543776|168971782|NON_INFERIORITY|The above criteria for non-inferiority corresponds to a response rate in the low dose arm that is no more than 15% lower than the response rate in the high dose arm (i.e., non-inferiority margin of 15%), under the assumption that the log ratios are approximately normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3976|||<|0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1111|||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1111|<0.10
84610287|NCT01543776|168971783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
84610288|NCT01543776|168971784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84610289|NCT01543776|168971785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
84610290|NCT01543776|168971786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84610291|NCT02397057|168971788|OTHER|Observed cases, logistic regression analysis. Subjects with missing data on Day 42 were excluded from the statistical testing.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.63||p-value was estimated by logistic regression with treatment, region (US, EUR), and baseline RLS medication-related augmentation as fixed factors, and baseline IRLS as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.63|0.70|0.3690
84610292|NCT02397057|168971792|OTHER||Least square(LS) mean difference|-4.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.083|0.941|||ANCOVA|||LOCF, ANCOVA Analysis||0.941|-9.083|0.1108
84610293|NCT02397057|168971793|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was estimated using continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0002
84610294|NCT02893917|168971794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||||0.969|0.392|0.0359
84610295|NCT02893917|168971795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.399||no p value provided|Regression, Cox|||||2.399|0.705|
84610296|NCT02893917|168971798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.272|1.504|||Regression, Cox|||HRD positive ONLY||1.504|0.272|
84610297|NCT02893917|168971798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.348|||Regression, Cox|||HRD negative ONLY||1.348|0.448|
84645285|NCT03036800|169026181|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-5.64|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.64|-11.96|<0.001
84755212|NCT00922480|169266555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
84579846|NCT00944645|168913643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis II: The total urinary excretion of niacin and niacin metabolites following the administration of MK0524 (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of total urinary excretion of niacin and its metabolites is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.89|0.98||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||0.98|0.89|
84579847|NCT00944645|168913644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis III: The AUC0-infinity of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 AUC0-∞ is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.95|1.05||||||"Group B: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~Group A: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.05|0.95|
84579848|NCT00944645|168913645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis IV: The Cmax of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||||95.0|0.96|1.09||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.09|0.96|
84579849|NCT03928704|168913648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.16|2.00|<0.001
84579850|NCT03928704|168913649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|1.71|<0.001
84579851|NCT03928704|168913650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.04|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.04|<0.001
84579852|NCT03928704|168913650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.42|0.220
84579853|NCT03928704|168913651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|2.17|<0.001
84579854|NCT03928704|168913652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|9.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.93|2.06|<0.001
84579855|NCT03928704|168913653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.23|2.41|<0.001
84579856|NCT03928704|168913654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.87|<0.001
84579857|NCT03928704|168913655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.99|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-1.99|<0.001
84579858|NCT03928704|168913655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.26|0.019
84579859|NCT03928704|168913656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.42|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.42|<0.001
84755213|NCT00922480|169266556|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
84579860|NCT03928704|168913656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.09||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.83|0.199
84579861|NCT03928704|168913657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.63|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.66|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-3.66|<0.001
84579862|NCT03928704|168913657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.84||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-4.56|0.170
84579863|NCT03928704|168913658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|2.08|<0.001
84579864|NCT03928704|168913658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.27||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.95|||ANCOVA|||||13.95|0.60|0.035
84579865|NCT03928704|168913659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
84579866|NCT03928704|168913659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.07|0.086
84579867|NCT03928704|168913660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.06|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.88|=0.013
84579868|NCT03928704|168913661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.62|1.84|<0.001
84579869|NCT01245751|168913665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 6 GMT value for Group 1 is statistically non-inferior to Group 2 for the prespecified clinically relevant 1.5-fold ratio if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||Week 6 analysis||1.15|0.97|<0.001
84579870|NCT01245751|168913666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.66||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMFR, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age||A booster dose induces a statistically acceptable VZV antibody response if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>1.0.||1.66|1.44|<0.001
84579871|NCT01428713|168913702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|536.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.12||0.01||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant in this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.01
84579872|NCT01428713|168913702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|157.35||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.03
84579873|NCT01428713|168913702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.03
84579874|NCT01428713|168913702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.01
84755214|NCT04784897|169266557|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9289||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6585|1.3102|||Log Rank|||Main comparison is between Brilacidin 5-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.3102|0.6585|0.7273
84755215|NCT04784897|169266557|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8968||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5464|1.472|||Log Rank|||Secondary comparison between Brilacidin 3-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.4720|0.5464|0.5975
84755216|NCT02446314|169266581|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||= .04
84755217|NCT02446314|169266582|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
84755218|NCT02446314|169266583|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
84579875|NCT01243424|168913715|NON_INFERIORITY|This was the first step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach. The upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the Hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin vs. glimepiride was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority. All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority were calculated.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride||||1.14|0.84|<0.0001
84579876|NCT01243424|168913715|SUPERIORITY|This was the second step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.84|0.3813
84579877|NCT01243424|168913716|SUPERIORITY|This was the third step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.86|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.86|0.4334
84579878|NCT01243424|168913717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.43|1.96||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|||1.96|1.43|<0.0001
84579879|NCT01243424|168913718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.11|1.48||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.48|1.11|0.0004
84579880|NCT01243424|168913722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||p-value derived from Wald´s chi-square test.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio and confidence interval derived from Cox regression with factor treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.09|0.85|0.5249
84579881|NCT01243424|168913723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HbA1c.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-0.03|-0.15|0.0023
84579882|NCT01243424|168913724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-4.8|-9.7|<0.0001
84579883|NCT01243424|168913725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.47|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline LDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|LDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.1|-1.3|0.6400
84579884|NCT01243424|168913725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|HDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.0|0.0|0.0497
84579885|NCT01243424|168913725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline total cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|Total cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.6|-2.4|0.6823
84579886|NCT01243424|168913726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.7|-9.6|0.2678
84579887|NCT01243424|168913727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline creatinine.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||0.01|-0.03|0.5165
84579888|NCT01243424|168913728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline eGFR.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.8|0.2|0.5165
84579889|NCT01243424|168913729|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|0.97||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline UACR.|gMean ration= Linagliptin mean/ Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.03|0.91|0.2921
84579890|NCT01243424|168913731|EQUIVALENCE|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.13||||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|44.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline ISR.|Mean difference= Linagliptin mean- Glimepiride mean|||44.71|-36.46|0.8402
84755219|NCT02446314|169266584|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
84755220|NCT02446314|169266585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
84755221|NCT04754802|169266593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-3.2|.5063
84610298|NCT00434642|168971817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.605||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups, ie, that the hazard ratio is equal to 1. The alternative hypothesis was that progression free survival was longer in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group, ie, that the hazard ratio is not equal to 1.||0.605|0.388|<0.0001
84755222|NCT04754802|169266594|SUPERIORITY||Other|-0.015||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.107|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|Wald Normal Approximation (Z) for difference between two proportions||||0.107|-0.137|.8077
84755223|NCT00701090|169266595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%, i.e., Sitagliptin was declared non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between group difference (sitagliptin minus glimepiride) was less than 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||||ANCOVA model with terms: treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c.|||0.16|-0.03|
84755224|NCT00701090|169266596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.7|||||ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||6.7|-0.9|
84579891|NCT01243424|168913732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms for treatment as a fixed effect with Wald confidence Interval was used.|Linagliptin vs. Glimepiride odds is presented.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.18|0.86|0.9112
84579892|NCT01160744|168913744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.1318
84579893|NCT01160744|168913744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.64|0.5215
84579894|NCT01160744|168913745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.78|||Chi-squared|||||2.78|0.90|0.1797
84579895|NCT01160744|168913745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|4.86|||Chi-squared|||||4.86|1.45|0.0070
84579896|NCT01160744|168913746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.74|0.8916
84579897|NCT01160744|168913746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6847
84579898|NCT01160744|168913749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|1.22|0.0316
84579899|NCT01160744|168913749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.74|0.3962
84579900|NCT01160744|168913750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1571
84579901|NCT01160744|168913750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1597
84579902|NCT02421510|168913761|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.48|< 0.001
84579903|NCT02421510|168913761|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C- by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.47|< 0.001
84579904|NCT02421510|168913762|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|23.43||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% Confidence Limits (CL) were calculated using asymptotic Wald method. Only positively adjudicated severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were included in the analysis.||23.43|9.17|< 0.001
84579905|NCT02421510|168913762|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.06|24.35||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a CMH test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% CL were calculated using asymptotic Wald method.||24.35|10.06|< 0.001
84755225|NCT00701090|169266597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||Miettinen &Nurminen method||Miettinen \&Nurminen method was used for the 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
84755226|NCT00701090|169266598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||-1.6|-2.3|<0.001
84755227|NCT00701090|169266599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.9|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.90|0.47|
84755228|NCT00701090|169266600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.95|0.47|
84610299|NCT00434642|168971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.2||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The difference in response rates and the 95% confidence intervals for response rates were computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with an objective response between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that a larger percentage of patients had an objective response in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group.||29.2|13.0|<0.0001
84610300|NCT00434642|168971820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.176||Summaries of duration of overall survival (median, percentiles) were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. The 95% confidence interval for the median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (≤12, \>12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (Yes, No).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|||1.176|0.771|0.6479
84610301|NCT03392649|168971839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84610302|NCT03392649|168971840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84610303|NCT03392649|168971841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84610304|NCT03392649|168971842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
84610305|NCT03392649|168971843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84610306|NCT03392649|168971844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84755229|NCT01970488|169266617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of PASI percent improvement from baseline to Week 16 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of ± 15.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|3.02||||||||3.02|-7.39|
84610307|NCT03392649|168971845|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84755230|NCT01299376|169266648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-squares Means|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.2|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-4.2|-7.5|<0.001
84610308|NCT03392649|168971846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84610309|NCT03927144|168971857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (no. of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2) after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||9.82|4.28|<0.0001
84610310|NCT03927144|168971858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|16.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||16.87|7.53|<0.0001
84610311|NCT03927144|168971859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.52|||Linear mixed effects model||AMG334 70 mg/140 mg vs Oral Prophylactic|Comparison of mean change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Week 52||-1.52|-2.74|<0.001
84610312|NCT03927144|168971860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|20.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||20.83|9.08|<0.001
84610313|NCT01463072|168971869|OTHER||Percent|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|52.0|||||35% of participants were responders (CR+PR).|||52|21|
84610314|NCT01463072|168971871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.1|||Fisher Exact||Ratio is intermediate/high toxicity risk over low toxicity risk|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of chemotherapy toxicity (grade 3)||33.1|1.3|0.01
84610315|NCT01463072|168971871|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of group means|1.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio is dose reduction over no dose reduction.|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of dose reduction due to chemotherapy toxicity||1.80|1.04|0.02
84755231|NCT01299376|169266659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-7.7||Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-7.7|-12.8|<0.001
84610316|NCT02227394|168971890|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.098|0.724|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.724|-1.098|0.727
84610317|NCT02227394|168971891|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002|0.007|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.007|-0.002|0.366
84610318|NCT02227394|168971893|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.035|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.084|-0.035|0.486
84610319|NCT02227394|168971894|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.049||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.150|-0.052|0.413
84610320|NCT02227394|168971895|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.289|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.090|-0.289|0.375
84755232|NCT03962738|169266662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|2.17|<0.001
84610321|NCT02227394|168971896|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.110|-0.092|0.879
84755233|NCT03962738|169266663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||<.001
84755234|NCT03962738|169266664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|1.03|0.037
84755235|NCT03962738|169266664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.17|2.16|<0.001
84755236|NCT03962738|169266664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.62|1.89|<0.001
84498330|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.779|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.779|<.0001
84498331|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.756|2.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.459|1.756|<.0001
84610322|NCT02227394|168971897|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.195|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.195|-0.149|0.819
84672422|NCT02365636|169080356|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.24||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.652||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.652|-0.167|0.245
84610323|NCT02227394|168971898|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.070|-1.870|0.643
84755237|NCT03962738|169266665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.81|0.197
84755238|NCT03962738|169266665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|1.01|0.044
84755239|NCT03962738|169266665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|1.08|0.023
84755240|NCT03962738|169266666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.73|0.268
84755241|NCT03962738|169266666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.82|1.26|0.006
84755242|NCT03962738|169266666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.50|<0.001
84755243|NCT03962738|169266667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.61|0.535
84755244|NCT03962738|169266667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|1.04|0.036
84755245|NCT03962738|169266667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.12|0.018
84755246|NCT03962738|169266668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|0.76|0.199
84755247|NCT03962738|169266668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.32|0.77|0.305
84755248|NCT03962738|169266668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.71|0.426
84755249|NCT03962738|169266669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.87|0.135
84755250|NCT03962738|169266669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.95|0.080
84755251|NCT03962738|169266669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.98|0.061
84755252|NCT03962738|169266670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.71|0.342
84755253|NCT03962738|169266670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.76|0.377
84610324|NCT02227394|168971899|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.122|-0.100|0.866
84610325|NCT02227394|168971900|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.043|0.346
84610326|NCT02227394|168971901|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.058|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.058|0.001|0.093
84610327|NCT02227394|168971902|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|0.238|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.238|-0.386|0.686
84610328|NCT02227394|168971904|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.368||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.659|6.922|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.922|-27.659|0.312
84610329|NCT02227394|168971905|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.361|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.361|0.920
84610330|NCT02227394|168971906|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.513|0.673|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.673|-0.513|0.818
84610331|NCT02227394|168971907|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.789|20.011|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.011|2.789|0.034
84610332|NCT02227394|168971908|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.323|17.523|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.523|-6.323|0.427
84610333|NCT04071158|168971933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||||||Difference in percentage||2.8|-1.4|
84610334|NCT04071158|168971934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.7||||||Difference in percentage||1.7|-4.6|
84610335|NCT04071158|168971935|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||1.00|0.64|
84610336|NCT04071158|168971935|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.70|0.50|
84610337|NCT04071158|168971935|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.76|0.48|
84755254|NCT03962738|169266670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.63|0.862
84610338|NCT04071158|168971936|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups greater than (\>) 0.5.||1.13|0.84|
84610339|NCT04071158|168971937|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.5.||1.14|0.81|
84610340|NCT04071158|168971942|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.13|0.84|
84610341|NCT04071158|168971943|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.14|0.81|
84610342|NCT03445559|168971948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.30|0.006
84610343|NCT03445559|168971949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.70|0.42
84755255|NCT03962738|169266672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|0.75|0.112
84610344|NCT03445559|168971950|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84610345|NCT02678923|168971953|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.52||Baseline parameter value as a covariate and treatment group as factor, adjusting for country and prior statin use.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.07|0.0738
84610346|NCT00300365|168972062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84610347|NCT04856904|168972106|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||||-2|-4.4|< 0.0001
84610348|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 1: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9476
84610349|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 2: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0248
84610350|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 4: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.2|-1.4|= 0.0072
84610351|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 8: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.7|-2.1|< 0.0001
84610352|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 12: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.3|-2.9|< 0.0001
84610353|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 16: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.6|-3.8|< 0.0001
84672423|NCT02365636|169080357|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.735||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.735|-0.093|0.128
84755256|NCT03962738|169266672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.55|2.68|<0.001
84498332|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.209|-0.569|0.7678
84610354|NCT04856904|168972107|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 20: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.5|-3.5|< 0.0001
84610355|NCT00454584|168972126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
84610356|NCT00454584|168972126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||To control the overall type I error rate at 0.05 level in the primary endpoint analysis, a step-down test procedure was applied. First, ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept were compared. Then ustekinumab 45 mg and etanercept would be compared.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: Assuming the PASI 75 response rates of ustekinumab 90 mg, 45 mg, etanercept are 65%, 64%, and 50% , respectively, with 325 participants each in the ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept groups, the power to detect a treatment difference is 97%. With 200 participants in the ustekinumab 45 mg group, the complete power to further detect a treatment difference was 87%.||||0.012
84610357|NCT00454584|168972127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
84610358|NCT00454584|168972127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84610359|NCT00454584|168972128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
84610360|NCT00454584|168972128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84610361|NCT01716104|168972135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84610362|NCT01716104|168972136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
84755257|NCT03962738|169266672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|34.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.55|3.01|<0.001
84755258|NCT03962738|169266673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.46|0.343
84755259|NCT03962738|169266673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|1.37|<0.001
84755260|NCT03962738|169266673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|1.42|<0.001
84755261|NCT03962738|169266674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.62|0.605
84755262|NCT03962738|169266674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.12|0.015
84755263|NCT03962738|169266674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.74|0.432
84610363|NCT01716104|168972137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
84610364|NCT01716104|168972138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
84610365|NCT01716104|168972139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0054
84610366|NCT01716104|168972140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0437
84610367|NCT01716104|168972141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0862
84610368|NCT01716104|168972142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0621
84610369|NCT01716104|168972143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0142
84610370|NCT00117793|168972145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb volume was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.05
84610371|NCT00117793|168972146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0056||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on activity level was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0056
84610372|NCT00117793|168972147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0021||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb pistoning was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0021
84610373|NCT03429543|168972193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.30|-0.99|0.2935
84610374|NCT03429543|168972193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.19|-1.50|0.0116
84610375|NCT03429543|168972193|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.27|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 2 (TG2) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 25mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.27|-1.31|0.1943
84672424|NCT02365636|169080357|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.27||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.688||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.688|-0.140|0.194
84610376|NCT03429543|168972193|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 3 (TG3) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 10mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.45|-1.90|0.0015
84610377|NCT03429543|168972194|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
84610378|NCT03429543|168972194|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
84755264|NCT03962738|169266675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.79|0.166
84755265|NCT03962738|169266675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.68|0.396
84755266|NCT03962738|169266675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.81|0.181
84755267|NCT03962738|169266676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.79|0.233
84755268|NCT03962738|169266676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.94|0.092
84755269|NCT03962738|169266676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|1.11|0.017
84755270|NCT03962738|169266677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
84755271|NCT03962738|169266677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.240
84755272|NCT03962738|169266677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.548
84755273|NCT03962738|169266678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.719
84579906|NCT02421510|168913763|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.44||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-1.44|-2.53|< 0.001
84579907|NCT02421510|168913763|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-2.04|||MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-2.04|-3.12|< 0.001
84579908|NCT02421510|168913764|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.53||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.53|-4.86|< 0.001
84579909|NCT02421510|168913764|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.93||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.93|-5.25|< 0.001
84579910|NCT02421510|168913765|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-11.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-11|-32.2|< 0.001
84579911|NCT02421510|168913765|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-15.1|-36.2|< 0.001
84579912|NCT02421510|168913766|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.7|1.3|< 0.001
84645286|NCT03036800|169026182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|-4.27|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.27|-14.91|0.001
84645287|NCT06372782|169026217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-Subject Difference in VAS Score at the End of Injection (FAS)||||<0.0001
84755274|NCT03962738|169266678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.823
84755275|NCT03962738|169266678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.612
84755276|NCT03962738|169266679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.04|0.037
84755277|NCT03962738|169266679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.06|1.75|<.001
84755278|NCT03962738|169266679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.06|2.11|<.001
84755279|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.162
84755280|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.356
84755281|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.696
84610379|NCT03429543|168972195|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.49|-2.86|0.4828
84610380|NCT03429543|168972195|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.88|-2.64|0.7047
84610381|NCT03429543|168972196|OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.8626
84610382|NCT03429543|168972196|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.2827
84610383|NCT03429543|168972197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41||||0.6438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.49|17.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||17.67|-28.49|0.6438
84610384|NCT03429543|168972197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.18||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.61|-11.74|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||-11.74|-58.61|0.0035
84610385|NCT03429543|168972197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.62||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|72.7|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||72.70|4.54|0.0310
84610386|NCT03429543|168972197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.01|53.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||53.11|-13.01|0.1994
84672425|NCT02365636|169080358|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.28||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.691||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.691|-0.128|0.177
84498333|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.319||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.073|-0.711|0.1691
84755282|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.914
84755283|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.226
84755284|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.310
84498334|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.158|-0.606|0.5178
84755285|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.684
84755286|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.864
84755287|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.412
84755288|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.025
84755289|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.619
84755290|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.824
84755291|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.476
84755292|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.352
84755293|NCT03962738|169266680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.044
84672426|NCT02365636|169080358|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.614||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.614|-0.204|0.325
84579913|NCT02421510|168913766|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.4|1|< 0.001
84579914|NCT02421510|168913767|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0|-0.6|0.025
84579915|NCT02421510|168913767|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
84579916|NCT05075772|168913774|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.3|55.9|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=28.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||55.9|38.3|
84579917|NCT05075772|168913775|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.2|31.1|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)). Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=22.5"|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||31.1|23.2|
84579918|NCT05075772|168913776|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|56.6|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=27.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this secondary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||56.6|39.0|
84579919|NCT03203512|168913778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment effect: p\<0.001; period effect : p=0.552; treatment x period interaction: p=0.622|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total EV numbers detected by NTA between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total EV numbers.||||<0.001
84579920|NCT03203512|168913779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment: p=0.001; period: p=0.646; treatment x period interaction: p=0.267|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total PS+EV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total PS+EV numbers.||||=0.001
84579921|NCT03203512|168913780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.350; treatment x period interaction: p=0.572|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on PDEV numbers.||||=0.002
84579922|NCT03203512|168913780|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EDEV numbers.|||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.362; treatment x period interaction: p=0.225|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84579923|NCT03203512|168913781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.010; treatment x period: p=0.608|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting lag time for TF-dependent thrombin generation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
84610387|NCT03429543|168972198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.41|-0.48|0.1394
84579924|NCT03203512|168913782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.073; treatment x period: p=0.667|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent thrombin peak concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
84579925|NCT03203512|168913783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.138; treatment x period: p=0.872|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting the time to reach peak TF-dependent thrombin concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
84579926|NCT03203512|168913784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||Treatment: p=0.015; period: p=0.059; treatment x period: p=0.220|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent velocity index between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||=0.015
84579927|NCT03203512|168913785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.118; treatment x period: p=0.802|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
84579928|NCT03203512|168913786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to ADP between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
84579929|NCT03203512|168913786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to epinephrine between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
84579930|NCT03203512|168913786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to TRAP-6 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
84579931|NCT03203512|168913786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to U46619 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
84579932|NCT03203512|168913787|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to CRP-XL between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
84672427|NCT02365636|169080359|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.741||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.741|-0.158|0.202
84579933|NCT03203512|168913788|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting endpoint for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
84579934|NCT03203512|168913788|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affectingamximum for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
84579935|NCT03203512|168913789|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting area under curve for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
84579936|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: \<0.001; period: p=0.978; treatment x period interaction: p=0.140|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
84755294|NCT01898689|169266689|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori equivalence region for the difference in means between the two concentrations was specified as +10 mA. This value was considered the minimal clinically relevant current since it approximates the tolerated electrical current range at baseline of the general population-in other words, natural variability and therefore a relatively small amount of current to detect.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|8.5||"P-values from the TOST procedure were 0.02 and 0.03 for the mean being inside the lower and upper boundaries, respectively.~(estimated mean difference of 0.2 mA; 90% CI 28.2 to 8.5)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses were thus:~H0: m0.1%-m0.4% ≤ -10 or m0.1%-m0.4% ≥ 10 and Ha: -10 , m0.1%-m0.4% , 10 where m0.1% and m0.1% are the population means for tolerance to current under 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine, respectively.~With 24 evaluable subjects, we had 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect equivalence of 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine concentration on the mean tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation"||8.5|-8.2|0.02
84579937|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.699; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
84755295|NCT00529451|169266712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.25||||||||-1.25|-3.63|
84755296|NCT00529451|169266713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.34||||||||0.34|-2.06|
84579938|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Treatment: p=0.011; period: p=0.381; treatment x period interaction: p=0.762|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.011
84579939|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.512; treatment x period interaction: p=0.812|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
84579940|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.160; treatment x period interaction: p=0.132|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
84579941|NCT03203512|168913790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Treatment: p=0.013; period: p=0.500; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.013
84579942|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.169; treatment x period interaction: p=0.629|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579943|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.262; treatment x period interaction: p=0.150|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579944|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.302; treatment x period interaction: p=0.385|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579945|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.793; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579946|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.956; treatment x period interaction: p=0.238|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of dihomo-γ-linolenic acid (DGLA) in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DGLA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579947|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.457; treatment x period interaction: p=0.613|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84755297|NCT00529451|169266714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.67|
84610388|NCT03429543|168972198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.19|-2.68|0.4476
84610389|NCT03429543|168972198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.90|-3.80|0.9789
84610390|NCT03429543|168972198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.99|-5.68|0.5092
84610391|NCT03429543|168972199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.22|-2.40|0.5870
84755298|NCT00097773|169266726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66||There was no significant interaction with ciprofloxacin in this analysis.|Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|The primary analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation requiring IV antibiotics or hospitalization. Assuming a total sample size of 300 (150 per group), the study provided 80% power to detect at least a 40% reduction in the risk of exacerbation in the cycled group as compared to the culture-based group at the two-sided alpha level of 5%.||1.66|0.54|0.86
84498335|NCT03692078|168747713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.369||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.757|0.0699
84755299|NCT00097773|169266726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.54|||Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing oral cipro to oral placebo|A secondary comparison was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.54|0.82|0.20
84755300|NCT00097773|169266727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.28||95.0|0.49|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|odds of a positive culture comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cycled and culture-based treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.23|0.49|0.28
84755301|NCT00097773|169266727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||odds of a positive culture comparing the cipro group to the placebo group|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cipro and placebo treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.71|0.71|0.67
84755302|NCT00097773|169266728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Regression, Cox|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|Hazard ratio comparing cycled to culture based therapy|The analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation.||1.11|0.58|0.18
84755303|NCT00097773|169266728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio comparing cipro to placebo.|This analysis was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||1.78|0.94|0.12
84755304|NCT03654976|169266749|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31|||Negative binomial regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The number of clinically relevant asthma exacerbations was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time in years in the efficacy period as offset. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||1.31|0.60|0.5412
84755305|NCT03654976|169266750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7713||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.44|0.41|0.4156
84755306|NCT03654976|169266751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8477||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit is included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.26|0.57|0.4146
84579948|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.134; treatment x period interaction: p=0.260|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579949|NCT03203512|168913791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.917; treatment x period interaction: p=0.603|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
84579950|NCT03203512|168913792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||Treatment: p=0.016; period: p=0.566; treatment x period interaction: p=0.659|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TAG between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TAG.||||=0.016
84579951|NCT03203512|168913792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||Treatment: p=0.014; period: p=0.842; treatment x period interaction: p=0.943|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma LDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma LDL-C.||||=0.014
84579952|NCT03203512|168913792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.077||||||Treatment: p=0.077; period: p=0.921; treatment x period interaction: p=0.793|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC.||||=0.077
84579953|NCT03203512|168913792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.379||||||Treatment: p=0.379; period: p=0.938; treatment x period interaction: p=0.341|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma HDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma HDL-C.||||=0.379
84579954|NCT03203512|168913793|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.285||||||Treatment: p=0.285; period: p=0.954; treatment x period interaction: p=0.528|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC/HDL-C ratio between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC/HDL-C ratio.||||=0.285
84579955|NCT03203512|168913794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period effect: p=0.011; treatment x period interaction: p=0.033|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on SBP.||||<0.001
84579956|NCT03203512|168913794|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.952; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DBP.||||=0.002
84579957|NCT04053452|168913803|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7262|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
84579958|NCT04053452|168913804|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
84672428|NCT02365636|169080359|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.457||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.621||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.621|-0.280|0.457
84579959|NCT04053452|168913805|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
84579960|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5005|0.4791||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4791|-0.5005|
84579961|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.4222||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4222|-0.6503|
84579962|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.1829||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1829|-0.5490|
84579963|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|0.5017||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5017|-0.3411|
84579964|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4335|0.5592||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5592|-0.4335|
84579965|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5092|0.304||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3040|-0.5092|
84672429|NCT02365636|169080360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.856||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.856|0.456|0.815
84498336|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.062|6.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.292|6.062|<.0001
84498337|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.082|6.312|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.312|6.082|<.0001
84498338|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|5.906|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.906|5.690|<.0001
84579966|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3057|0.4137||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4137|-0.3057|
84579967|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4028|0.57||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5700|-0.4028|
84579968|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.2838||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.2838|-0.6503|
84579969|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5714|0.195||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1950|-0.5714|
84579970|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4667|0.3336||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3336|-0.4667|
84579971|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7018|0.3193||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3193|-0.7018|
84579972|NCT04053452|168913806|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4596|-0.3506|
84579973|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7686494||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.360
84755307|NCT03654976|169266752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.7|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||12 SQ-HDM - placebo|A 'mixed-effect model repeated measurement' model was analysed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.70|-1.47|0.8829
84755308|NCT03654976|169266753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.96|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||3.96|1.29|0.0044
84755309|NCT03654976|169266754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.62||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.74|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||2.74|0.96|0.0698
84755310|NCT04688775|169266765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the Number of Weekly Attacks: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo||2.6|-1.3|0.5048
84755311|NCT04688775|169266770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.96|0.0772
84755312|NCT01721876|169266799|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided test of the hypothesis was performed at a 0.05 level of significance. An odds ratio (OR) = 1 would indicate that the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine is equal to the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine , whereas an OR ≠ 1 would indicate the opposite. H0, CR+CRi: OR = 1 vs. Ha, CR+CRi: OR ≠ 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8751||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2432|2.8281|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common odds ratio is calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate adjusting for the two stratification factors (baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and type of AML). If odds ratio is above 1 then it favours Volasertib+Low-dose Cytarabine.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||2.8281|1.2432|0.0024
84755313|NCT01721876|169266800|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.7571
84579974|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9315228||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.521
84579975|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7949528||||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.245
84579976|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8603349||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.541
84579977|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8767973||||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.415
84755314|NCT01721876|169266801|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.6718
84755315|NCT01721876|169266802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|||2.7|0.7|
84755316|NCT05714982|169266849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755317|NCT05714982|169266849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||General linear model|||||||.78
84755318|NCT05714982|169266850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755319|NCT05714982|169266850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||General linear model|||||||.66
84755320|NCT05714982|169266851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755321|NCT05714982|169266851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84579978|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio, log|0.7613965||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.504
84579979|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8061505||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.393
84579980|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8336885||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.222
84755322|NCT05714982|169266852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
84755323|NCT05714982|169266852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||General linear model|||||||.95
84755324|NCT05714982|169266853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755325|NCT05714982|169266853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755326|NCT05714982|169266854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.0001
84755327|NCT05714982|169266854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755328|NCT05714982|169266855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755329|NCT05714982|169266855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
84755330|NCT05714982|169266856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||General linear model|||||||.03
84755331|NCT05714982|169266856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
84755332|NCT05714982|169266857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear model|||||||.61
84755333|NCT05714982|169266857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||General linear model|||||||.68
84755334|NCT05714982|169266858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
84755335|NCT05714982|169266858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
84755336|NCT05714982|169266859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
84755337|NCT05714982|169266859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||General linear model|||||||.9
84755338|NCT05714982|169266860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||||1.2|.73|
84755339|NCT05714982|169266860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||||1.2|.69|
84498339|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.930|5.710|<.0001
84498340|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|5.974|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.974|5.753|<.0001
84498341|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.706|5.927|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.927|5.706|<.0001
84498342|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.809|5.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.084|4.809|<.0001
84498343|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.774|5.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.052|4.774|<.0001
84498344|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.727|4.998|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.998|4.727|<.0001
84498345|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.938|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.799|5.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.076|4.799|<.0001
84579981|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1214848||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.615
84579982|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9898411||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.926
84579983|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9402829||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.519
84579984|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9347906||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.379
84579985|NCT04053452|168913807|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8968658||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.511
84579986|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.057735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4273|0.3293||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3293|-0.4273|
84755340|NCT05714982|169266861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||||||||.9|.3|
84755341|NCT05714982|169266861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|.6|
84755342|NCT05714982|169266862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||General linear model|||||||.02
84755343|NCT05714982|169266862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
84755344|NCT05714982|169266863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
84755345|NCT05714982|169266863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||General linear model|||||||.004
84579987|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0359442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.5248||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5248|-0.5480|
84579988|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1429483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1938|0.4763||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.4763|-0.1938|
84579989|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3955939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6811|-0.0874||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.0874|-0.6811|
84579990|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3681051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7032|0.1185||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.1185|-0.7032|
84579991|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4938292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7112|-0.1978||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.1978|-0.7112|
84579992|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1304373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2201|0.5014||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5014|-0.2201|
84579993|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3273268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0679|0.6612||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.6612|-0.0679|
84579994|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0552157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4213|0.361||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3610|-0.4213|
84579995|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1666667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5389|0.2057||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2057|-0.5389|
84579996|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3194892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6539|0.2288||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2288|-0.6539|
84579997|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4959498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.2065||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.2065|-0.6860|
84579998|NCT04053452|168913808|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3228883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6487|0.0||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.0000|-0.6487|
84579999|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1415346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|0.4247||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4247|-0.7350|
84580000|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1987845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4377|0.8004||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.8004|-0.4377|
84580001|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0789747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.3778||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.3778|-0.5256|
84580002|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1621509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3591|0.5606||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5606|-0.3591|
84580003|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1499412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3901|0.6374||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6374|-0.3901|
84580004|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0140441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5773|0.5407||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5407|-0.5773|
84580005|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01383297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.5485||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5485|-0.5288|
84580006|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2935683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6968|0.2414||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.2414|-0.6968|
84580007|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1067521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5204|0.6392||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6392|-0.5204|
84580008|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0549235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4633|0.5594||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5594|-0.4633|
84755346|NCT05714982|169266864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||General linear model|||||||0.3
84755347|NCT05714982|169266864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||0.5
84755348|NCT05714982|169266865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1||||||||2.1|.99|
84755349|NCT05714982|169266865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
84580009|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2597622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6816|0.1857||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.1857|-0.6816|
84580010|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0129034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4476|0.4025||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4025|-0.4476|
84580011|NCT04053452|168913809|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02457737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4596|-0.3506|
84580012|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
84580013|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
84580014|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.09040847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3821|0.5979||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5979|-0.3821|
84580015|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02501955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4158|0.479||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4790|-0.4158|
84580016|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0349215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5033|0.443||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4430|-0.5033|
84580017|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5458|0.4037||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4037|-0.5458|
84580018|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2239171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6514|0.2935||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2935|-0.6514|
84580019|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0805076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5371|0.2974||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2974|-0.5371|
84580020|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2910126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2791|0.7651||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.7651|-0.2791|
84580021|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02342428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4531|0.5267||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5267|-0.4531|
84580022|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.06536087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2786|0.4454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4454|-0.2786|
84580023|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2207792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|0.6708||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6708|-0.2459|
84580024|NCT04053452|168913810|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.14415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|0.4899||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4899|-0.2333|
84580025|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
84580026|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
84580027|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23944918||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.250
84580028|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9613236||||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.874
84580029|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9442314||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.698
84755350|NCT00806195|169266885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for this difference in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days after any vaccination (PMenACWY+Routine Vaccines-PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥ 6%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered noninferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to severe systemic reactions if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY-CRM197 vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days (days 1-7) after any vaccination was \<6%.||6.4|-0.8|
84580030|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.193941||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.665
84580031|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0524489||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.820
84580032|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21669122||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.193
84580033|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2994068||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.314
84580034|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1015629||||0.405|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.405
84580035|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9140133||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.389
84580036|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7982946||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.139
84580037|NCT04053452|168913811|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9330042||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.622
84580038|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2641183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2344|0.7511||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.7511|-0.2344|
84580039|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02596308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4859|0.5555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.5555|-0.4859|
84580040|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.05162687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3342|0.417||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4170|-0.3342|
84580041|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1714461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6473|0.2723||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.2723|-0.6473|
84580042|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0531775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.4451||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4451|-0.5830|
84580043|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1371924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3592|0.6944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6944|-0.3592|
84580044|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0134595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5145|0.4627||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4627|-0.5145|
84580045|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01313517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5056|0.4833||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4833|-0.5056|
84580046|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1196495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5876|0.3467||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3467|-0.5876|
84580047|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3682|0.3885||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3885|-0.3682|
84580048|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|C6, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1194695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.6686||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6686|-0.4220|
84580049|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|C7, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0593456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4540|-0.5651|
84580050|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Vagus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1920694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.238||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.238|-0.5490|
84610392|NCT03429543|168972199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.88|-4.72|0.3967
84610393|NCT03429543|168972199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||11.47|-6.42|0.5414
84580051|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3150905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
84580052|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1203751|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
84580053|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2526605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1865|0.643||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6430|-0.1865|
84580054|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.073601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5806|0.4223||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.4223|-0.5806|
84580055|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Median at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01369735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5619|0.5236||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5236|-0.5619|
84580056|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2685663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2488|0.7683||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7683|-0.2488|
84580057|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1802776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2573|0.6027||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6027|-0.2573|
84580058|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2571327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2595|0.6227||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6227|-0.2595|
84580059|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0684867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5757|0.3944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3944|-0.5757|
84580060|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1929429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1828|0.555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5550|-0.1828|
84580061|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|C6, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1975146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3557|0.7344||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7344|-0.3557|
84580062|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|C7, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0754722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.5083||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5083|-0.6150|
84580063|NCT04053452|168913812|OTHER|Vagus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0706753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5042|0.3963||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3963|-0.5042|
84580064|NCT04098302|168913849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84580065|NCT04098302|168913850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
84610394|NCT03429543|168972199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||10.13|-10.13|0.9995
84610395|NCT03429543|168972200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.02|-1.03|0.2433
84610396|NCT03429543|168972200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.56|-2.52|0.9878
84610397|NCT03429543|168972200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||15.65|-9.00|0.5670
84580066|NCT04098302|168913851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84610398|NCT03429543|168972200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.95|-18.19|0.2348
84610399|NCT03429543|168972201|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|6.0||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.9|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.9|-7.7|0.3536
84610400|NCT03429543|168972201|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|11.7||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|26.3|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||26.3|-2.4|0.0914
84580067|NCT04098302|168913852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84580068|NCT05061706|168913881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|-3.02|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.02|-6.03|<0.0001
84580069|NCT05061706|168913882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.33|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.33|-0.72|<0.0001
84580070|NCT01668537|168913931|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that the FD formulation is non-inferior to the LF formulation in terms of ELISA GMTs at the peak visit (Week 6) was predefined as '1.5' for the GMT ratio (LF/FD). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper 95% CI of the GMT ratio (LF/FD) is entirely below 1.5|GMT ratio (LF/FD)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.896||||||||0.896|0.707|
84580071|NCT00191152|168913953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
84610401|NCT03429543|168972201|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
84610402|NCT03429543|168972201|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
84580072|NCT00191152|168913954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.361
84580073|NCT00191152|168913955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
84580074|NCT00191152|168913956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.385
84580075|NCT00191152|168913957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.377
84580076|NCT00191152|168913958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.446
84580077|NCT00191152|168913959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.785
84580078|NCT00191152|168913960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
84580079|NCT00191152|168913961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
84580080|NCT00191152|168913962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
84580081|NCT00191152|168913963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.117
84580082|NCT00191152|168913964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.801
84580083|NCT00191152|168913965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
84498346|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.826|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.693|4.959|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.959|4.693|<.0001
84498347|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.767|5.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.037|4.767|<.0001
84498348|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.156|-0.602|<.0001
84580084|NCT00114777|168913966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.2|9.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||9.4|-7.2|
84580085|NCT00114777|168913966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|11.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||11.4|-5.0|
84610403|NCT03429543|168972202|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|2.4||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|19.5|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.5|-15.2|0.7789
84610404|NCT03429543|168972202|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|10.1||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.1|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||28.1|-7.7|0.2548
84580086|NCT00114777|168913967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-24.0|-4.7|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||-4.7|-24|0.0018
84580087|NCT00114777|168913967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-8.5||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-18.0|0.9|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||0.9|-18|0.0616
84580088|NCT01181128|168914003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between the individualized (tailored) prophylaxis regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance to detect a 60% reduction in annualized bleeding episodes, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.13|0.05|<0.001
84580089|NCT01181128|168914009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||negative binomial model|||||0.46|0.12|<0.001
84610405|NCT03429543|168972202|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
84610406|NCT03429543|168972202|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|26.7||||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||70.8|-30.8|0.5671
84610407|NCT01818492|168972203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0134|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0134
84610408|NCT01818492|168972204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0031
84610409|NCT01818492|168972205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0205
84610410|NCT01818492|168972206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0053
84610411|NCT02025439|168972214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84610412|NCT00651625|168972232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non-applicable|||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||group comparisons using t-test and confidence intervals.||||0.05
84610413|NCT02641067|168972244|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.04||||||||2.04|1.00|
84610414|NCT02641067|168972245|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.92||||||||1.92|0.99|
84610415|NCT02641067|168972246|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.15||||||||1.15|0.61|
84580090|NCT04477486|168914042|SUPERIORITY|Comparing against a historical reference of 12.5% CRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||<0.001
84580091|NCT01543503|168914052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.851|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|-0.589|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline in DAS28-ESR at 24 weeks as dependent variable; therapy, site country, and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.589|-1.112|<0.001
84580092|NCT01543503|168914053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|-0.617|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in DAS28-ESR as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.617|-1.204|<0.001
84580093|NCT01543503|168914054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.513|-10.947|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in ESR as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-10.947|-15.513|<0.001
84580094|NCT01543503|168914054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.648|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.419|-9.876|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in ESR, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-9.876|-15.419|<0.001
84580095|NCT01543503|168914055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|-3.074|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CRP as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||-3.074|-10.271|<0.001
84580096|NCT01543503|168914055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.116||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|3.842|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CRP as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||3.842|-6.074|0.659
84580097|NCT01543503|168914056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.075|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.075|-1.078|0.024
84610416|NCT01593592|168972368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||A total of 70 patients were included; 35 in each arm. The sample size was calculated assuming eradication of H. pylori in at least 70% of treated patients, aiming to detect a difference of 30% based on a 0.80 power to detect significant difference (p =0.05, two-sided).||||
84755351|NCT00806195|169266886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.5|-0.9|
84580098|NCT01543503|168914056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.752||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|-0.267|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SJC, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC, at baseline as the covariate.||-0.267|-1.238|0.002
84580099|NCT01543503|168914057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|0.169|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||0.169|-1.408|0.123
84610417|NCT02814175|168972370|OTHER|Between group difference|point estimate difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor which is the duration of prior MTX 15 mg ew use of ≤ 3 months or \> 3 months.||||38.9|17.8|< 0.001
84610418|NCT00244101|168972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX or NCPAP.||1.03|0.59|
84610419|NCT00244101|168972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.27||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.27|0.25|
84610420|NCT00244101|168972390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.94||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX.||1.94|0.49|
84610421|NCT00244101|168972390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.09|0.64|
84610422|NCT02870101|168972398|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.7|97.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.0|90.7|
84610423|NCT02870101|168972398|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
84580100|NCT01543503|168914057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.216||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.039|-0.393|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.393|-2.039|0.004
84580101|NCT01543503|168914058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.481|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CDAI the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-1.469|-5.481|<0.001
84580102|NCT01543503|168914058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708|-2.492|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-2.492|-6.708|<0.001
84580103|NCT01543503|168914058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.229||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.652|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.652|-5.806|0.014
84580104|NCT01543503|168914058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.245||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.121|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.370|-6.121|0.027
84580105|NCT01543503|168914059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.655|-5.404|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-5.404|-12.655|<0.001
84580106|NCT01543503|168914059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|-6.345|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-6.345|-14.130|<0.001
84580107|NCT01543503|168914063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84580108|NCT01543503|168914067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.024|-0.269|0.020
84580109|NCT01543503|168914067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.026|-0.301|0.020
84580110|NCT01543503|168914068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.893||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.457|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||-0.329|-7.457|0.032
84580111|NCT01543503|168914068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.787||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.763|1.189|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||1.189|-6.763|0.168
84580112|NCT01543503|168914069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.661||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.912|-1.411|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-1.411|-9.912|0.009
84610424|NCT02870101|168972399|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|94.4|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.4|86.5|
84580113|NCT01543503|168914069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.245|-5.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-5.360|-14.245|<0.001
84580114|NCT01543503|168914071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.108||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.017|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-1.200|-9.017|0.010
84610425|NCT02870101|168972399|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.3|
84580115|NCT01543503|168914071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.161|-3.372|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-3.372|-12.161|<0.001
84580116|NCT04576949|168914085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|16.25||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6||16.25|3.94|< 0.0001
84580117|NCT04576949|168914085|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
84580118|NCT04576949|168914086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|11.57||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||11.57|3.69|< 0.0001
84580119|NCT04576949|168914086|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.30|0.20|<0.0001
84755352|NCT00806195|169266886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was \<5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.3|-0.8|
84610426|NCT02870101|168972400|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|97.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.3|91.3|
84610427|NCT02870101|168972400|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|99.2|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.2|98.3|
84755353|NCT02752035|169266889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.329|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.329|0.570|0.523
84580120|NCT04576949|168914087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.24||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24|Stratified by site|10.24|1.50|0.0016
84580121|NCT04576949|168914087|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.06||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|0.03|0.0015
84580122|NCT04576949|168914088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|11.09||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 12 to Week 24||11.09|2.81|< 0.0001
84580123|NCT04576949|168914088|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|0.11|<.0001
84672430|NCT02365636|169080360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.117||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.117|0.520|0.893
84755354|NCT02752035|169266890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.393|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.393|0.635|0.787
84580124|NCT04576949|168914089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.33||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Relapse free from Week 6 to Week 24||2.33|0.75|0.3484
84580125|NCT00986583|168914097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of medians|1.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.72||This is for the primary comparison at 20 minute|ANCOVA||Ratio of medians of myoglobin measured at 20 minute for statin users vs. non-statin users|||1.72|1.05|0.018
84580126|NCT05001165|168914139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-0.1|
84580127|NCT05001165|168914140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.84|
84580128|NCT05001165|168914141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.64|<0.05
84580129|NCT05001165|168914142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.73|
84580130|NCT05001165|168914143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.68|
84580131|NCT05001165|168914144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.51|0.88|
84580132|NCT05001165|168914145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.99|
84580133|NCT05001165|168914146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.34|
84580134|NCT01487161|168914174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.2|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.2|-1.2|0.1249
84580135|NCT01487161|168914175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.3|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.3|-1.1|0.2002
84672431|NCT02365636|169080360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.55||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.550|0.357|0.430
84610428|NCT02870101|168972401|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|98.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.3|92.9|
84610429|NCT02870101|168972401|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.8|99.5|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.5|98.8|
84580136|NCT01487161|168914176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.8|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.8|-0.7|0.5541
84580137|NCT02362412|168914209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.3||p-value was not adjusted|||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||2.3|-3.4|
84580138|NCT02362412|168914210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||1.9|-1.7|
84580139|NCT02362412|168914211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
84580140|NCT02362412|168914212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
84580141|NCT02362412|168914214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
84580142|NCT02362412|168914215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
84580143|NCT02021318|168914233|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus darbepoetin alfa, margin = -15% (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was \>-15%).|Difference in percentage|11.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|17.36||||||A generalized linear model as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusted for stratification factors (actual) was used to estimate the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.||17.36|5.66|
84580144|NCT02021318|168914234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -0.75 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least square mean difference (LSM) is \> -0.75 g/dL).|LSM Difference|0.015||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.162|-0.131|0.839
84580145|NCT02021318|168914235|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.403|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline LDL, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.296|-0.510|<0.001
84610430|NCT02870101|168972402|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|89.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.0|79.4|
84610431|NCT02870101|168972402|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.7|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.7|99.2|
84755355|NCT02752035|169266892|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|23.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.0|-6.5|0.249
84755356|NCT02752035|169266893|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|50.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.0|16.6|<0.001
84755357|NCT02752035|169266894|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.1||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.1|-0.1|0.049
84755358|NCT02752035|169266895|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|32.4||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|1.1|0.032
84580146|NCT02021318|168914236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.78|0.26|0.004
84580147|NCT02021318|168914237|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-1.284||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28) visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.145|-2.423|0.027
84610432|NCT02870101|168972403|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|92.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.0|83.2|
84580148|NCT02021318|168914238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-0.457||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|0.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.742|-1.656|0.454
84580149|NCT02021318|168914239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = 1 mmHg (non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \< 1).|LSM Difference|-0.372||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.842|-1.587|0.547
84580150|NCT02021318|168914240|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3). Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.22|0.56|0.336
84580151|NCT02021318|168914241|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.299|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.026|-1.299|0.818
84580152|NCT02021318|168914242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.26|0.60|0.452
84580153|NCT02021318|168914243|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.038||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.081|0.529
84580154|NCT02021318|168914244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.96|1.38|<0.001
84580155|NCT02021318|168914245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.98|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.98|1.39|<0.001
84580156|NCT02021318|168914246|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.051||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.194|-0.091|0.478
84755359|NCT02752035|169266896|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|-29.8|0.340
84580157|NCT02021318|168914246|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.003||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.143|-0.149|0.969
84580158|NCT02021318|168914246|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.009||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.140|0.910
84610433|NCT02870101|168972403|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.2|
84610434|NCT02870101|168972404|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.9|86.3|
84580159|NCT02021318|168914246|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.024||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.188|-0.140|0.775
84580160|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.087||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.012|0.086
84580161|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.165|<0.001
84580162|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.586|0.284|<0.001
84755360|NCT02752035|169266897|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|50.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|100.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|-61.0|0.221
84755361|NCT02752035|169266898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.58|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|||1.580|0.451|0.592
84672432|NCT02365636|169080360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|2.088||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.088|0.494|0.967
84755362|NCT02752035|169266899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|1.658|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR/CRh.||1.658|0.198|0.300
84580163|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.422|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.590|0.254|<0.001
84580164|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.556|0.205|<0.001
84580165|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.505|0.155|<0.001
84580166|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.482|0.119|0.001
84580167|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.159||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|-0.018|0.079
84580168|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.183||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.361|0.005|0.044
84580169|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.173||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|0.010|0.037
84580170|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.085||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.253|-0.083|0.319
84580171|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.129|-0.190|0.709
84580172|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.061||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.097|-0.219|0.450
84580173|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.065||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.101|-0.231|0.440
84580174|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.014||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.157|0.874
84580175|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.131||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.302|-0.039|0.132
84580176|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.024|0.024
84580177|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.022||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.197|-0.153|0.807
84580178|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.012||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.160|0.890
84580179|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.029||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.144|-0.201|0.746
84580180|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.139|-0.202|0.715
84580181|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.066||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.110|0.463
84610435|NCT02870101|168972404|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
84580182|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.002||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.187|0.987
84580183|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.281|-0.074|0.251
84580184|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.067||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.117|0.473
84580185|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.022||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.160|-0.204|0.813
84580186|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.045||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.134|-0.223|0.622
84580187|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.227|-0.138|0.632
84610436|NCT02870101|168972405|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|89.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.9|80.9|
84610437|NCT02870101|168972405|OTHER|Estimated Negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|99.6|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.6|98.9|
84610438|NCT02870101|168972406|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|94.5|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.5|76.6|
84610439|NCT02870101|168972406|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
84610440|NCT02870101|168972407|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|92.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.3|83.9|
84610441|NCT02870101|168972407|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
84672433|NCT02365636|169080361|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference with placebo|2.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|5.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.92|-1.55|0.251
84580188|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.133|0.568
84580189|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.034||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.226|-0.158|0.729
84580190|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.218|-0.168|0.797
84610442|NCT02870101|168972408|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|91.7|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||91.7|71.5|
84610443|NCT02870101|168972408|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.5|99.9|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.9|99.5|
84755363|NCT02752035|169266899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.504|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR.||1.504|0.113|0.171
84498349|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.601|<.0001
84580191|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.090|-0.310|0.280
84580192|NCT02021318|168914247|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.037||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.177|0.733
84580193|NCT02021318|168914248|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.026||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.170|-0.119|0.727
84580194|NCT02021318|168914248|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.148|-0.151|0.985
84580195|NCT02021318|168914248|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.154|-0.148|0.965
84580196|NCT02021318|168914248|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.016||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.188|0.856
84580197|NCT02021318|168914250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.22|1.36|<0.001
84580198|NCT02021318|168914253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.50|0.98|0.079
84610444|NCT02870101|168972409|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.6|87.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||87.3|77.6|
84610445|NCT02870101|168972409|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|99.4|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.4|98.6|
84610446|NCT02522442|168972463|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||0.377
84610447|NCT02522442|168972464|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.624
84580199|NCT02021318|168914254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.11|0.79|0.300
84580200|NCT02021318|168914258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.54|0.99|0.055
84610448|NCT00599638|168972491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-0.31|0.3910
84610449|NCT00599638|168972491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.78|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.78|0.0002
84610450|NCT00599638|168972492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0055||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||1.71|0.30|0.4959
84755364|NCT02752035|169266899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.62|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRc||1.620|0.295|0.383
84580201|NCT02021318|168914261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.00|0.51|0.052
84610451|NCT00599638|168972492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0763||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.69|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||8.46|1.69|0.0011
84610452|NCT00599638|168972494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.819||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.47|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.47|0.3380
84580202|NCT02021318|168914271|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.068||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.124|-2.012|0.027
84580203|NCT02021318|168914271|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.603||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.401|-1.606|0.239
84580204|NCT02021318|168914272|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.528||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.072|-2.127|0.517
84580205|NCT02021318|168914272|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.947||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.771|0.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.877|-2.771|0.308
84580206|NCT02021318|168914273|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.032|2.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||2.224|-4.032|0.570
84580207|NCT02021318|168914273|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.767||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 -The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.820|-5.354|0.334
84580208|NCT02021318|168914275|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.784||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.481|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline EQ-5D 5L VAS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||3.049|-1.481|0.497
84580209|NCT02021318|168914286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.93|0.902
84580210|NCT02021318|168914288|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.29|0.79|0.960
84580211|NCT02021318|168914290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.25|0.79|0.939
84580212|NCT02021318|168914291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.27|0.77|0.948
84580213|NCT02021318|168914292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.17|0.75|0.568
84580214|NCT02405962|168914307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.08|<0.05
84580215|NCT05894564|168914333|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.10|0.88|
84580216|NCT05894564|168914334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.65|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||5.65|0.05|
84580217|NCT05894564|168914337|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.28|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.28|0.31|
84580218|NCT05894564|168914338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.87|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.87|0.56|
84580219|NCT05894564|168914339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.16|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.16|0.25|
84610453|NCT00599638|168972494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.89|-5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.42|-13.89|0.0022
84755365|NCT02752035|169266899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001||Upper limit of 95% confidence interval was not estimable due to insufficient number of participants.||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRh.|||0.001|0.998
84755366|NCT02752035|169266899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.229|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of response.||1.229|0.321|0.174
84610454|NCT00462748|168972529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
84498350|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.090|-0.537|0.0014
84498351|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|-0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.157|-0.604|<.0001
84498352|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.484|-0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.977|-1.484|<.0001
84498353|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.029|-1.539|<.0001
84755367|NCT02752035|169266900|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Using analysis of covariance including treatment, age group per IRT and baseline score as covariate.|Least square mean difference and P-value were calculated using AZA as reference.|||2.0|-1.1|0.560
84498354|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.065|-1.564|<.0001
84580220|NCT05894564|168914340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.74|0.33|
84580221|NCT05894564|168914341|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.21|0.71|
84580222|NCT05894564|168914341|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.19|0.67|
84580223|NCT05894564|168914341|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.19|0.61|
84580224|NCT05894564|168914341|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.61|
84498355|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-1.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.006|-1.512|<.0001
84580225|NCT05894564|168914341|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.49|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.49|0.70|
84580226|NCT05894564|168914342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.80|
84580227|NCT05894564|168914342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.26|0.77|
84580228|NCT05894564|168914342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.67|
84580229|NCT05894564|168914342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.77|
84580230|NCT05894564|168914342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.33|0.76|
84580231|NCT05894564|168914343|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.65|
84580232|NCT05894564|168914343|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
84580233|NCT05894564|168914343|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.64|
84610455|NCT00462748|168972529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
84610456|NCT02428413|168972543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84610457|NCT02428413|168972544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84610458|NCT03688100|168972564|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 3 MONTHS||0.86|0.45|0.005
84580234|NCT05894564|168914343|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.73|0.87|
84672434|NCT02365636|169080361|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.07||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.07|-2.46|0.495
84580235|NCT05894564|168914343|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.64|0.85|
84580236|NCT05894564|168914344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.74|
84580237|NCT05894564|168914344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.59|
84580238|NCT05894564|168914344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.59|
84580239|NCT05894564|168914344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.62|0.83|
84580240|NCT05894564|168914344|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.34|0.70|
84580241|NCT05894564|168914345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.34|0.79|
84580242|NCT05894564|168914345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
84580243|NCT05894564|168914345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.64|
84580244|NCT05894564|168914345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.34|0.70|
84580245|NCT05894564|168914345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.25|0.64|
84580246|NCT05894564|168914346|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.01|0.61|
84580247|NCT05894564|168914346|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.64|
84580248|NCT05894564|168914346|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.63|
84580249|NCT05894564|168914346|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.60|
84580250|NCT05894564|168914346|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.24|0.67|
84580251|NCT05894564|168914347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.81|
84580252|NCT05894564|168914347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.76|
84580253|NCT05894564|168914347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.72|
84580254|NCT05894564|168914347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.79|
84580255|NCT05894564|168914347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.01|0.64|
84580256|NCT05894564|168914348|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.26|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.56|
84580257|NCT05894564|168914349|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.68|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.68|-0.29|
84580258|NCT03882801|168914350|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Means Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.17|||||Back transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from linear mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.17|0.73|
84580259|NCT01567085|168914353|OTHER|Exact binomial test|||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was calculated from an exact binomial test, where the null hypothesis was that the true failure rate = 40%.|Exact binomial test|Exact 95% confidence interval (3.6, 17.2)||Analysis of post-transplantation treatment failure rate||||< 0.001
84580260|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.91||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.91|0.18|<.01
84580261|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.35|.96
84580262|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.18|-0.89|<.01
84580263|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.38|-0.09|.23
84580264|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.22|-0.25|.90
84580265|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.07|-0.38|.17
84580266|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.28|-0.16|.58
84498356|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.211|0.732|<.0001
84580267|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.06|.15
84580268|NCT03537729|168914365|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.29|-0.11|.37
84580269|NCT03537729|168914366|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.01|-0.07|.04
84580270|NCT03537729|168914366|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.01|-0.07|.10
84580271|NCT03537729|168914366|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.04|-0.03|.69
84580272|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means for two arms was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.99|0.44|0.04
84580273|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.90|0.39|.01
84610459|NCT03688100|168972564|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 6 MONTHS||0.86|0.60|0.008
84610460|NCT03688100|168972564|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits , BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 12 MONTHS||0.85|0.62|0.0001
84610461|NCT03688100|168972565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model|||Differences in the number of hospital readmissions between BA and MEDS at 3, 6, and 12 months||||>0.05
84610462|NCT03688100|168972566|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 3 months||0.92|0.75|0.002
84610463|NCT03688100|168972566|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.81||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 6 MONTHS||0.87|0.75|0.005
84610464|NCT03688100|168972566|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital AT 12 MONTHS||0.68|0.60|<0.0001
84610465|NCT03688100|168972567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Kaplan Meier survival plots|||||||>0.05
84610466|NCT04783077|168972572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.5|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of return donation attempt represents WhatsApp compared to control.|The primary analysis applies only to the RCT participants (N=130). Docudrama participants were not assessed for return blood donation. Analysis used fitted logistic regression with outcome donation attempted (Y/N) on the modiﬁed intention-to-treat (mITT) population, adjusted for type of donor (FRD, VNRBD).|Missing data on the primary outcome from the mITT analysis was handled using multiple imputation via chained equations with 50 imputations, and included stratum, group assignment (WhatsApp, Control) and ethnicity. Ethnicity was the only baseline variable with a minimum Kendall's tau of 0.2 with donation attempt.|8.50|0.61|0.23
84610467|NCT02453555|168972575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 10 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.91|-1.36|<0.0001
84610468|NCT02453555|168972577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Empagliflozin group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.99|-1.45|<0.0001
84610469|NCT02453555|168972578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 25 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.0001
84610470|NCT02453555|168972579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.84|-1.34|<0.0001
84755368|NCT01131676|169266909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|Primary objective was to establish the non-inferiority of All empagliflozin relative to placebo for time to first 3-point MACE. A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||0.99|0.74|<0.0001
84755369|NCT01131676|169266909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.99|0.74|0.0382
84610471|NCT03045341|168972580|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
84610472|NCT03045341|168972580|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.58
84610473|NCT03045341|168972581|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
84610474|NCT03045341|168972581|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.63
84610475|NCT03045341|168972582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Analyses used all available data.||||.004
84610476|NCT01727336|168972603|OTHER||recommended dose for Part 2|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The recommended dose level for Part 2 was determined to be 0.9 mg/kg|||||
84610477|NCT00849862|168972617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.0|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|85.0|
84610478|NCT00849862|168972618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0||||||90.0|96.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.3|
84498357|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.918|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.161|0.676|<.0001
84610479|NCT00849862|168972619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.6||||||90.0|96.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|96.2|
84610480|NCT02772978|168972637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale, non-planning subscale.||||0.04
84610481|NCT02772978|168972638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|||||||< 0.05
84610482|NCT02533726|168972663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.75|||Fisher Exact|||Per-protocol (PP) analysis, consistent with regulatory guidance (FDA).||.75|.1|.012
84610483|NCT02533726|168972663|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Per protocol analysis adjusted for admitting team, unit of admission, and risk for pressure injury.||0.74|0.06|0.015
84610484|NCT03596450|168972676|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Estimate and p-value are based on logistic regression model with logit link function, treatment as categorical effect, and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|1.03|0.033
84610485|NCT04583956|168972745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.61|0.59|0.927
84610486|NCT04583956|168972746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).||2.25|0.36|0.829
84580274|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.35|0.60|.61
84580275|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|1.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.88|0.84|.26
84580276|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.19|0.53|.25
84580277|NCT03537729|168914367|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.94|0.42|.03
84580278|NCT03537729|168914368|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|1.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.60|-5.03|.31
84580279|NCT03537729|168914368|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||2.66|-4.23|.66
84580280|NCT03537729|168914368|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.17||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||4.17|-2.30|.57
84580281|NCT03403517|168914404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.859||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.082|||Fisher Exact|||||1.082|0.682|0.213
84580282|NCT03403517|168914408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.977|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.715|||Fisher Exact|||||1.715|0.557|>0.999
84580283|NCT03403517|168914409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.160
84580284|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.367
84580285|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.104
84498358|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.278|0.797|<.0001
84580286|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.864
84580287|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.002
84580288|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||1.000
84580289|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.029
84580290|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.807
84580291|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.002
84580292|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
84580293|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.119
84580294|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
84580295|NCT00504556|168914429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.023
84580296|NCT00676052|168914440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.117||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.017|0.009
84580297|NCT00676052|168914440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.047|<0.001
84580298|NCT00676052|168914440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.118||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|0.019|0.007
84580299|NCT00676052|168914440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.132||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.032|0.001
84580300|NCT00676052|168914440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.187||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.187|0.086|<0.001
84580301|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.146||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.146|0.065|<0.001
84580302|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.147||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.147|0.067|<0.001
84580303|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.163||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.163|0.083|<0.001
84580304|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.193|0.112|<0.001
84580305|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.216||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.216|0.135|<0.001
84580306|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.157||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.157|0.056|<0.001
84580307|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.192||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV, Day 28||0.192|0.092|<0.001
84580308|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.174|0.074|<0.001
84580309|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.193|0.092|<0.001
84580310|NCT00676052|168914441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.220|0.120|<0.001
84580311|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.237||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.237|0.094|<0.001
84580312|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.258|0.115|<0.001
84498359|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.156|0.672|<.0001
84498360|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.121||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.388|-0.147|0.7939
84580313|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.268||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.268|0.127|<0.001
84580314|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.315||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.315|0.172|<0.001
84580315|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.372||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.372|0.229|<0.001
84580316|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.258|0.098|<0.001
84755370|NCT01131676|169266910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|<0.0001
84755371|NCT01131676|169266910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|0.0795
84580317|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.298||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.298|0.139|<0.001
84580318|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.27||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.270|0.111|<0.001
84580319|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.312||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.312|0.152|<0.001
84580320|NCT00676052|168914442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.373||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.373|0.214|<0.001
84580321|NCT00676052|168914443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.182||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.182|0.015|0.021
84580322|NCT00676052|168914443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.233||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.233|0.067|<0.001
84580323|NCT00676052|168914443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.177||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.177|0.011|0.026
84580324|NCT00676052|168914443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.247||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.247|0.080|<0.001
84580325|NCT00676052|168914443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.319||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.319|0.152|<0.001
84580326|NCT00299221|168914467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing ISHLT biopsy score between groups at 1 year||||0.44
84580327|NCT00710554|168914473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. Due to the low power of the test for interaction, the test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.11|-0.79|0.139
84580328|NCT00710554|168914474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.86||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Neuropathic Pain Scale score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||1.50|-7.22|0.198
84580329|NCT00710554|168914475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.83||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.43|0.007
84580330|NCT00710554|168914476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.68|||ANCOVA|||The change in the dynamic allodynia pain score from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.68|-0.52|0.795
84580331|NCT00710554|168914477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in the punctate allodynia pain threshold force from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.09|-0.37|0.233
84580332|NCT00710554|168914478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.762||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The initial model incorporated treatment and centre group as factors. The odds ratio together with its 95% CI and associated p-value are presented.||2.88|1.08|0.023
84498361|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.281|-0.260|1.0000
84498362|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.228|1.0000
84580333|NCT00710554|168914479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.25||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Brief Pain Inventory (short form) score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.21|-0.72|0.288
84580334|NCT00710554|168914480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.04|-0.06|0.617
84580335|NCT00710554|168914481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.459||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.09|-5.60|0.76
84580336|NCT00710554|168914482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.38||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.09|-0.85|0.112
84580337|NCT01301001|168914486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.7|0.07
84580338|NCT01301001|168914487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.9|0.76
84580339|NCT01301001|168914488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.5|0.36
84580340|NCT03737032|168914499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS dmPFC activation will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.80
84580341|NCT03737032|168914500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with time (pre or post), condition (cTBS, iTBS, sham TBS), and time\*condition effects.||Null hypothesis: pre-post change in positive affect will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the interaction of time\*condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.23
84580342|NCT03737032|168914501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS functional connectivity between the dmPFC and ventral striatum (VS) will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.84
84580343|NCT01368185|168914504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SUA from baseline|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SUA minus baseline SUA.|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
84580344|NCT01368185|168914505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
84580345|NCT01368185|168914506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change DBP from Baseline|-7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 DBP minus baseline DBP (n=1239).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
84580346|NCT01368185|168914507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SBP from Baseline|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SBP minus baseline SBP (n=1245).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
84580347|NCT04250363|168914533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.00284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|1.85|0.00284
84580348|NCT04250363|168914533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.00367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.8|2.00|0.00367
84580349|NCT04250363|168914533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.7|1.90|0.0137
84580350|NCT04250363|168914533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.00349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.47|0.00349
84580351|NCT04250363|168914533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6||||0.00594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|129.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||129|3.19|0.00594
84580352|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.65||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.65|-0.72|0.794
84580353|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.2||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.43||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.43|-0.82|0.794
84580354|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.16||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.82||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.82|-0.49|0.794
84580355|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.02||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.57|-0.52|0.654
84580356|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.19||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.31|-0.69|0.654
84580357|NCT01507103|168914534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.74||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.74|-0.31|0.654
84580358|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.03||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.67|-0.73|0.921
84580359|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.44|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.44|-0.83|0.921
84580360|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.83|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.83|-0.50|0.921
84580361|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.58|-0.54|0.890
84610487|NCT04583956|168972747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.56|0.84|0.399
84755372|NCT01131676|169266911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.33||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||2.33|0.70|0.4172
84755373|NCT01131676|169266912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.85|0.50|0.0017
84755374|NCT01131676|169266913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||1.04|0.87|0.2547
84755375|NCT01131676|169266914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.72|0.54|<0.0001
84755376|NCT01131676|169266915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
84580362|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.31|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.31|-0.70|0.890
84580363|NCT01507103|168914535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.74|-0.32|0.890
84580364|NCT04535362|168914540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.93
84580365|NCT04535362|168914541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.68
84580366|NCT04535362|168914543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.37
84580367|NCT04535362|168914544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.20
84580368|NCT01145222|168914553|SUPERIORITY|Overall comparison between remimazolam and midazolam||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84580369|NCT00927186|168914556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The pre-specified significance level 0.05 was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580370|NCT00927186|168914557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580371|NCT00927186|168914558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580372|NCT00927186|168914558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580373|NCT00927186|168914559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580374|NCT00927186|168914559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580375|NCT00927186|168914560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580376|NCT00927186|168914560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580377|NCT00927186|168914561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580378|NCT00927186|168914561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580379|NCT00927186|168914561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580380|NCT00927186|168914561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580381|NCT00927186|168914562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580382|NCT00927186|168914562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580383|NCT00927186|168914563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580384|NCT00927186|168914563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84498363|NCT03692078|168747715|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.305|-0.233|1.0000
84498364|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.250|<.0001
84498365|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.368|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.251|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.251|<.0001
84498366|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.773|6.994|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.994|6.773|<.0001
84498367|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|7.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.004|6.780|<.0001
84498368|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.829|7.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.054|6.829|<.0001
84498369|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.784|7.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.008|6.784|<.0001
84498370|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.739|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.019|5.739|<.0001
84580385|NCT00927186|168914564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580386|NCT00927186|168914564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580387|NCT00927186|168914564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84580388|NCT00927186|168914564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580389|NCT00927186|168914565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580390|NCT00927186|168914565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580391|NCT00927186|168914566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84580392|NCT00927186|168914566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84580393|NCT00927186|168914567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580394|NCT00927186|168914567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580395|NCT00927186|168914567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84580396|NCT00927186|168914567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84580397|NCT00927186|168914568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580398|NCT00927186|168914568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580399|NCT00927186|168914569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84580400|NCT00927186|168914569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84580401|NCT00927186|168914570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580402|NCT00927186|168914570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580403|NCT00927186|168914570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84580404|NCT00927186|168914570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84580405|NCT00927186|168914571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580406|NCT00927186|168914571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580407|NCT00927186|168914572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
84580408|NCT00927186|168914572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
84580409|NCT00927186|168914573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84580410|NCT00927186|168914573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580411|NCT00927186|168914573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
84580412|NCT00927186|168914573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
84580413|NCT00927186|168914574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
84580414|NCT00927186|168914574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.597
84580415|NCT00927186|168914575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
84580416|NCT00927186|168914575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.358
84580417|NCT00927186|168914576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.647
84580418|NCT00927186|168914576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.120
84580419|NCT00927186|168914576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
84580420|NCT00927186|168914576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84580421|NCT00927186|168914577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580422|NCT00927186|168914577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580423|NCT00927186|168914578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84580424|NCT00927186|168914578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.198
84580425|NCT00927186|168914579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84580426|NCT00927186|168914579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580427|NCT00927186|168914579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
84580428|NCT00927186|168914579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
84580429|NCT00927186|168914580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
84580430|NCT00927186|168914580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.052
84580431|NCT00927186|168914581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
84580432|NCT00927186|168914581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
84580433|NCT00927186|168914582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.979
84580434|NCT00927186|168914582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580435|NCT00927186|168914582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
84580436|NCT00927186|168914582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.853
84580437|NCT00927186|168914583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580438|NCT00927186|168914583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580439|NCT00927186|168914584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84580440|NCT00927186|168914584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84580441|NCT00927186|168914585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580442|NCT00927186|168914585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580443|NCT00927186|168914585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84580444|NCT00927186|168914585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84580445|NCT00927186|168914586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84580446|NCT00927186|168914587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84580447|NCT00927186|168914588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 6 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84580448|NCT00927186|168914588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 24 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
84580449|NCT00927186|168914589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580450|NCT00927186|168914590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
84580451|NCT00927186|168914591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
84580452|NCT00927186|168914591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
84580453|NCT00927186|168914592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580454|NCT00927186|168914593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84580455|NCT00927186|168914594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580456|NCT00927186|168914595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84580457|NCT00927186|168914596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580458|NCT00927186|168914596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84580459|NCT00927186|168914597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580460|NCT00927186|168914598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
84580461|NCT00927186|168914599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580462|NCT00927186|168914599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84580463|NCT00927186|168914600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84580464|NCT00927186|168914601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
84580465|NCT00927186|168914602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
84580466|NCT00927186|168914602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.268
84580467|NCT00927186|168914603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84580468|NCT00927186|168914604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84580469|NCT00927186|168914605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84580470|NCT00927186|168914605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
84755377|NCT00509067|169266923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||alpha set at P \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 4, 8, 12, 16 wks) x Treatment (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 33)=0.01.||||||0.93
84580471|NCT00927186|168914606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580472|NCT00927186|168914606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580473|NCT00927186|168914606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580474|NCT00927186|168914607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580475|NCT00927186|168914608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580476|NCT00927186|168914608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580477|NCT00927186|168914608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580478|NCT00927186|168914609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755378|NCT00509067|169266924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16 weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48..||||||0.23
84580479|NCT00927186|168914610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580480|NCT00927186|168914610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580481|NCT00927186|168914610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580482|NCT00927186|168914611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84580483|NCT00604383|168914612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
84580484|NCT02187055|168914709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-7.73||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-16.29|0.83|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||0.83|-16.29|0.2101
84580485|NCT02187055|168914709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-5.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-13.98|2.98|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||2.98|-13.98|0.0512
84580486|NCT02187055|168914709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-6.4|10.86|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity adjusted||||10.86|-6.40|<0.0001
84580487|NCT02187055|168914710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.41||||||||4.41|1.23|
84580488|NCT02187055|168914710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.49||||||||3.49|0.33|
84580489|NCT02187055|168914710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.68||||||||0.68|-2.51|
84580490|NCT02187055|168914711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.18||||||||4.18|1.08|
84580491|NCT02187055|168914711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.48||||||||3.48|0.40|
84580492|NCT02187055|168914711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-2.24|
84580493|NCT02187055|168914712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.5||||||||0.50|0.16|
84580494|NCT02187055|168914712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39||||||||0.39|0.05|
84580495|NCT02187055|168914712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.28|
84580496|NCT02187055|168914713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.51||||||||0.51|0.15|
84580497|NCT02187055|168914713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.46||||||||0.46|0.10|
84580498|NCT02187055|168914713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.23|
84580499|NCT02187055|168914714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|2.56||||||||2.56|-4.99|
84580500|NCT02187055|168914714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.04||||||||2.04|-5.59|
84580501|NCT02187055|168914714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|3.4||||||||3.40|-4.53|
84580502|NCT02187055|168914715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|1.15||||||||1.15|-7.95|
84580503|NCT02187055|168914715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|1.43||||||||1.43|-7.55|
84580504|NCT02187055|168914715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.14||||||||5.14|-4.45|
84580505|NCT02187055|168914716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.94||||||||0.94|-8.29|
84580506|NCT02187055|168914716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.48||||||||1.48|-7.59|
84580507|NCT02187055|168914716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.47||||||||5.47|-4.24|
84580508|NCT02187055|168914717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|2.93||||||||2.93|-6.03|
84580509|NCT02187055|168914717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.47||||||||2.47|-6.51|
84580510|NCT02187055|168914717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.18||||||||4.18|-5.11|
84580511|NCT02187055|168914718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-9.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|-3.3||||||||-3.30|-15.68|
84580512|NCT02187055|168914718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-12.94|
84580513|NCT02187055|168914718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|9.07||||||||9.07|-3.86|
84580514|NCT02187055|168914719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|0.84||||||||0.84|-13.32|
84755379|NCT00509067|169266924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16, weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48.||||||0.23
84755380|NCT02901574|169266925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|10.3||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-2.55|0.24
84580515|NCT02187055|168914719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|3.37||||||||3.37|-10.69|
84580516|NCT02187055|168914719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.68||||||||9.68|-4.51|
84580517|NCT02187055|168914720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|0.85||||||||0.85|-13.29|
84580518|NCT02187055|168914720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-10.94|
84580519|NCT02187055|168914720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.39||||||||9.39|-4.79|
84580520|NCT02187055|168914721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.0||||||||0.00|-12.05|
84580521|NCT02187055|168914721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.87||||||||-0.87|-12.90|
84580522|NCT02187055|168914721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.17|
84580523|NCT02187055|168914722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.18||||||||2.18|-11.92|
84580524|NCT02187055|168914722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|1.52||||||||1.52|-12.49|
84755381|NCT02887404|169266937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-6|0.92
84580525|NCT02187055|168914722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rresponse rate|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.47||||||||6.47|-7.70|
84580526|NCT02187055|168914723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|-1.75||||||||-1.75|-14.84|
84580527|NCT02187055|168914723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|0.44||||||||0.44|-12.72|
84580528|NCT02187055|168914723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|8.52||||||||8.52|-4.22|
84580529|NCT02187055|168914724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.93||||||||-0.93|-12.61|
84755382|NCT02887404|169266938|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 15. The significance level for non-inferiority was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||3|-21|<0.001
84755383|NCT02887404|169266938|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.0|5.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice.|Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||5|-23|0.175
84755384|NCT02887404|169266939|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 The significance level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||This is a joint hypothesis testing. We tested non-inferiority on both secondary outcomes. If both showed significant non-inferiority, we tested superiority on both outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||1|-0.8|<0.001
84755385|NCT02887404|169266939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.8|0.094
84755386|NCT02887404|169266957|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 9; significance level was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84755387|NCT02887404|169266957|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Wilcoxon sum rank test|||||0.1|-0.3|0.171
84755388|NCT02887404|169266958|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 significance level: 0.025|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||||The superiority test (this is a joint-hypothesis testing) showed a mean difference of -0.5 between treatment and control group with 97.5% CI of (-1.0, 0.0) and p-value of 0.025. The significance level was 0.025.|-0.1|-1.0|<0.001
84755389|NCT02887404|169266958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|0.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.0|-1.0|0.025
84755390|NCT01022242|169266969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8861
84580530|NCT02187055|168914724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.1||||||||3.10|-8.09|
84580531|NCT02187055|168914724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|10.23||||||||10.23|-1.68|
84580532|NCT02187055|168914725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.148||||||||0.148|-0.011|
84580533|NCT02187055|168914725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.105||||||||0.105|-0.054|
84580534|NCT02187055|168914725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.037||||||||0.037|-0.122|
84580535|NCT02187055|168914726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|2.55||||||||2.55|-10.68|
84580536|NCT02187055|168914726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.87|
84580537|NCT02187055|168914726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|9.43||||||||9.43|-3.72|
84580538|NCT02187055|168914727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-2.28|
84580539|NCT02187055|168914727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.01||||||||0.01|-2.16|
84755391|NCT00117598|169266970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.63|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|Two null hypotheses (Ho) tested: 1. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/75 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. 2. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/25 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that PFS distributions differed.||0.63|0.25|<0.0001
84755392|NCT00117598|169266970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
84755393|NCT00117598|169266971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
84755394|NCT00117598|169266971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6179
84580540|NCT02187055|168914727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||||||||1.20|-0.97|
84580541|NCT02187055|168914728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.74|
84580542|NCT02187055|168914728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||||||||2.11|-0.48|
84580543|NCT02187055|168914728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.56||||||||2.56|-0.04|
84580544|NCT02187055|168914729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.22|
84580545|NCT02187055|168914729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.42||||||||0.42|-2.19|
84580546|NCT02187055|168914729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||||||||1.34|-1.27|
84672435|NCT02365636|169080361|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.1||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.06||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||7.06|-0.84|0.123
84580547|NCT02187055|168914730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.87||||||||0.87|-1.52|
84580548|NCT02187055|168914730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.80|
84580549|NCT02187055|168914730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.91||||||||1.91|-0.47|
84580550|NCT02187055|168914731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.8||||||||-0.80|-3.25|
84580551|NCT02187055|168914731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-2.91|
84580552|NCT02187055|168914731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.55||||||||1.55|-0.89|
84580553|NCT02187055|168914732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-2.27|
84580554|NCT02187055|168914732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.40|
84580555|NCT02187055|168914732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.98||||||||1.98|-0.25|
84580556|NCT02187055|168914733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.68||||||||0.68|-1.71|
84580557|NCT02187055|168914733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.33|
84580558|NCT02187055|168914733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.57||||||||1.57|-0.83|
84580559|NCT02187055|168914734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.45||||||||0.45|-2.20|
84580560|NCT02187055|168914734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.51||||||||1.51|-1.13|
84580561|NCT02187055|168914734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.39||||||||2.39|-0.26|
84580562|NCT02187055|168914735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.54|
84580563|NCT02187055|168914735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.16||||||||2.16|-0.76|
84580564|NCT02187055|168914735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.24||||||||3.24|0.30|
84580565|NCT02187055|168914736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.55|
84580566|NCT02187055|168914736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.01|
84580567|NCT02187055|168914736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.86||||||||1.86|-0.78|
84580568|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.279|1.427||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.427|-2.279|
84580569|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.783|1.044||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.044|-2.783|
84580570|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|1.462||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.462|-2.349|
84580571|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.928|2.346||||||Work hours missed other reason||2.346|-2.928|
84580572|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|3.64||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.640|-1.832|
84580573|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.911||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.911|-1.520|
84580574|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.37||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||9.370|0.520|
84672436|NCT02365636|169080361|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.77||5% level of significance.|miex model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||6.77|-1.12|0.160
84498371|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.662|5.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.946|5.662|<.0001
84498372|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.778|6.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.054|5.778|<.0001
84580575|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.736|7.43||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||7.430|-1.736|
84580576|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|2.454||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||2.454|-6.650|
84580577|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.786||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.786|-0.373|
84580578|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.607||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.607|-0.578|
84580579|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.784|0.4||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.400|-0.784|
84580580|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.587||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.587|-0.112|
84580581|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.357||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.357|-0.341|
84580582|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.122||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.122|-0.582|
84580583|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.748|3.553||||||% work time missed due to health||3.553|-5.748|
84672437|NCT02365636|169080362|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|6.48||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||6.48|-3.81|0.609
84755395|NCT00117598|169266972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.28|0.46|0.3053
84580584|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.339|2.067||||||% work time missed due to health||2.067|-7.339|
84580585|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.283|3.207||||||% work time missed due to health||3.207|-6.283|
84580586|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.726|7.858||||||% impairment while working due to health||7.858|-3.726|
84580587|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.777|6.068||||||% impairment while working due to health||6.068|-5.777|
84580588|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.839|3.998||||||% impairment while working due to health||3.998|-7.839|
84580589|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.664|8.877||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.877|-4.664|
84580590|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.164|8.58||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.580|-5.164|
84580591|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|6.51||||||% overall work impairment due to health||6.510|-7.307|
84580592|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|5.873||||||% activity impairment due to health||5.873|-1.118|
84580593|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.411|3.573||||||% activity impairment due to health||3.573|-3.411|
84580594|NCT02187055|168914737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|1.225||||||% activity impairment due to health||1.225|-5.818|
84580595|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.011||||||Utility score||0.011|-0.057|
84580596|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.013||||||Utility score||0.013|-0.054|
84580597|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.036||||||Utility score||0.036|-0.031|
84580598|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.042||||||Mobility score||0.042|-0.098|
84580599|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.06||||||Mobility score||0.060|-0.079|
84580600|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.089||||||Mobility score||0.089|-0.051|
84580601|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.127||||||Self-care score||0.127|-0.014|
84580602|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.114||||||Self-care score||0.114|-0.027|
84580603|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.058||||||Self-care score||0.058|-0.083|
84580604|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.084||||||Usual activities score||0.084|-0.062|
84580605|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.129||||||Usual activities score||0.129|-0.018|
84580606|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.118||||||Usual activities score||0.118|-0.029|
84580607|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
84755396|NCT00117598|169266972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.9515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.62|0.60|0.9515
84580608|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.116||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.116|-0.015|
84580609|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
84580610|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.103||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.103|-0.046|
84755397|NCT00117598|169266973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.01|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||9.01|0.14|
84755398|NCT00117598|169266973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.3|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||13.3|0.10|
84755399|NCT00117598|169266975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.56|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.56|0.23|<0.0001
84755400|NCT00117598|169266975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
84755401|NCT00117598|169266976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.67|0.23|0.0004
84755402|NCT00117598|169266976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.04|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.04|0.40|0.0712
84755403|NCT00545064|169266977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.001||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 score = 7"||7.0|-0.6|0.001
84755404|NCT00545064|169266977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.097||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 = 0"||7.0|-0.6|0.097
84755405|NCT00545064|169266980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = -4"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
84755406|NCT00545064|169266980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = 0"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
84755407|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|2.12|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP 1 h postdose analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.12|-1.65|
84755408|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.079|3.69|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1.5 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.69|-0.0790|
84755409|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.446|3.32|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.32|-0.446|
84755410|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|2.35|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 3 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.35|-1.42|
84755411|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|2.59|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.59|-1.18|
84755412|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|1.1|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 6 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||1.10|-2.68|
84755413|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.182|3.6|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 12 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.60|-0.182|
84755414|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.921|2.85|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 24 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.85|-0.921|
84755415|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|14.5|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||14.5|10.0|
84755416|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|13.3|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.3|8.74|
84755417|NCT01536951|169267012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.87|13.4|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.4|8.87|
84755418|NCT01843972|169267017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|97.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.963|119.809|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||119.809|79.963|
84580611|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.083|-0.066|
84580612|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.055|-0.094|
84498373|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|6.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.058|5.775|<.0001
84498374|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|6.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.153|5.881|<.0001
84580613|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.934|2.648||||||VAS score||2.648|-2.934|
84580614|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.016||||||VAS score||4.016|-1.556|
84580615|NCT02187055|168914738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|4.171||||||VAS score||4.171|-1.425|
84580616|NCT02187055|168914739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.808||||||||0.808|-1.706|
84580617|NCT02187055|168914739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|2.325||||||||2.325|-0.178|
84755419|NCT01843972|169267017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|111.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.596|139.576|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||139.576|88.596|
84580618|NCT02187055|168914739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.779||||||||2.779|0.266|
84580619|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84645288|NCT01730937|169026218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|Original design: Hypothesized 28% reduction (HR=0.72) with SBRT (corresponds to median OS = 14.5 months). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 292 patients were required to reach 238 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.05. Revised design (see limitations/caveats): For same above hypotheses, at least 155 OS events from 193 randomized patients provided 65% statistical power, with a 1-sided α of 0.05.||1.01|0.59|0.0554
84755420|NCT01843972|169267018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.593|127.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||127.351|80.593|
84755421|NCT01843972|169267018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|92.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.662|125.119|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||125.119|68.662|
84755422|NCT01843972|169267019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8265|1.2201|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2201|0.8265|
84755423|NCT01843972|169267020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|0.9686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8107|1.1266|||Regression, Linear|||Dose proportionality of BI 691751 was explored using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||1.1266|0.8107|
84755424|NCT01843972|169267021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|95.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.414|122.511|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||122.511|74.414|
84755425|NCT01843972|169267021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.376|142.894|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||142.894|84.376|
84498375|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.874|6.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.149|5.874|<.0001
84580620|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580621|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580622|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580623|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580624|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580625|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84645289|NCT01730937|169026219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.99|0.48|0.034
84672438|NCT02365636|169080362|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference with placebo|2.1||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|7.19||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||7.19|-3.05|0.427
84645290|NCT01730937|169026220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.75||Two-sided significance level=0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.75|0.40|0.0001
84755426|NCT01843972|169267021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.179|||Regression, Linear|||||1.1790|0.833|
84580626|NCT03336866|168914740|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580627|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580628|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580629|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580630|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580631|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84645291|NCT03875235|169026225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99||The analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.03 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for OS at the second interim analysis was 3%.|95% CI 0.66 to 0.97|0.99|0.64|0.021
84755427|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84755428|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84755429|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84755430|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84755431|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84755432|NCT01854645|169267030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84580632|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580633|NCT03336866|168914741|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84580634|NCT01666314|168914752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1078
84580635|NCT01666314|168914753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.145||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9895|18.7606|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 favors orteronel.|||18.7606|0.9895|0.0355
84580636|NCT01125748|168914832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|33.6||||||||33.6|5.0|
84580637|NCT01028391|168914841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-0.76|-0.26|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) HbA1c.|||-0.26|-0.76|
84580638|NCT01028391|168914842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-16.3|-0.7|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) FPG.|||-0.7|-16.3|
84580639|NCT01107457|168914843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.079
84580640|NCT01107457|168914843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84580641|NCT01107457|168914843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84580642|NCT01107457|168914843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84580643|NCT01107457|168914844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84580644|NCT01107457|168914844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84755433|NCT02774616|169267032|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0004|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Ilivia ICD family until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0004
84755434|NCT02774616|169267033|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0019|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Plexa ICD lead until the 6-month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0019
84755435|NCT02774616|169267035|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular sensing of all patients in which a sensing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined: Ho: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%|||||<|0.0001||||||A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate sensing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|exact binomial|||||||<0.0001
84755436|NCT02774616|169267036|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate pacing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|||"This secondary hypothesis evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular pacing of all patients in which a pacing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%"||||<0.0001
84755437|NCT04261504|169267037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold p\<0.05.|threshold-free cluster enhancement|||||||0.03
84755438|NCT00545402|169267041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2611
84755439|NCT00545402|169267043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7091
84755440|NCT00397033|169267055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.001
84755441|NCT00397033|169267055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.008
84755442|NCT00397033|169267056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-5.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.7|-5.1|<0.001
84580645|NCT01107457|168914844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84755443|NCT00397033|169267056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.217||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.217
84755444|NCT00397033|169267057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.108||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-2.3|0.108
84755445|NCT00397033|169267057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.43||95.0|-1.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.7|-1.7|0.430
84755446|NCT00397033|169267058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.008||95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-6.7|0.008
84580646|NCT01107457|168914844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84580647|NCT00694122|168914911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|631.6|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. T-test type: Paired samples t-test (df=14) was performed using 15 within subject differences.|The comparative measures was defined as (mean AUC of glargine (Lantus)) minus (mean AUC of NPH).|||631.6|-75.9|<0.05
84580648|NCT00694122|168914912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84580649|NCT00694122|168914916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84580650|NCT01348490|168914942|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.025||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0250
84755447|NCT00397033|169267058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.175||95.0|-4.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.9|-4.8|0.175
84580651|NCT01348490|168914942|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.0163||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0163
84580652|NCT01348490|168914942|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84580653|NCT01348490|168914942|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.2019||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2019
84580654|NCT01348490|168914943|OTHER|||||||0.6887||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6887
84580655|NCT01348490|168914943|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84755448|NCT00397033|169267059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.001||95.0|-4.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.1|-4.6|0.001
84580656|NCT01348490|168914943|OTHER|||||||0.8701||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8701
84580657|NCT01348490|168914947|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84580658|NCT01348490|168914948|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0028
84580659|NCT03834883|168914960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84580660|NCT03834883|168914961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84580661|NCT03834883|168914962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84580662|NCT03834883|168914963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84580663|NCT03834883|168914964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84580664|NCT03834883|168914965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84580665|NCT03834883|168914967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84580666|NCT03834883|168914968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84580667|NCT03834883|168914969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
84580668|NCT03834883|168914970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84580669|NCT03834883|168914971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84580670|NCT00441896|168914977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7391
84580671|NCT00441896|168914977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5370
84580672|NCT00441896|168914977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9080
84580673|NCT00441896|168914977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2539|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2539
84580674|NCT00441896|168914977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6657
84580675|NCT00441896|168914978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4249
84580676|NCT00441896|168914978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4177|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4177
84580677|NCT00441896|168914978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3033|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3033
84580678|NCT00441896|168914978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3014
84580679|NCT00441896|168914978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1839
84580680|NCT03572218|168914986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84580681|NCT03572218|168914987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
84580682|NCT03572218|168914988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.03
84580683|NCT03572218|168914988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.02
84580684|NCT03572218|168914988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.19
84580685|NCT03572218|168914989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.11
84580686|NCT03572218|168914989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.03
84580687|NCT03572218|168914989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.53
84580688|NCT03572218|168914990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84580689|NCT03572218|168914991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84580690|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.84
84580691|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.82
84580692|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.39
84580693|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.42
84672439|NCT02365636|169080363|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.43|-0.07|0.166
84672440|NCT02365636|169080363|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.51||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.51|0.00|0.046
84672441|NCT02365636|169080363|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.53|-0.08|0.152
84672442|NCT02365636|169080363|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.46|-0.16|0.342
84672443|NCT02365636|169080364|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.7||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.70|-0.22|0.311
84755449|NCT00397033|169267059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.209||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.209
84755450|NCT00397033|169267061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.032||95.0|-6.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-6.5|0.032
84580694|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.64
84580695|NCT03572218|168914992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.59
84580696|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.58
84580697|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.89
84580698|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.90
84580699|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.16
84672444|NCT02365636|169080364|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.73||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.73|-0.20|0.262
84580700|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.68
84580701|NCT03572218|168914993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.72
84580702|NCT03572218|168914994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84580703|NCT03572218|168914995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84580704|NCT03572218|168914996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84580705|NCT03572218|168914997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84580706|NCT03572218|168914998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84580707|NCT03572218|168914999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84580708|NCT03572218|168915000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84580709|NCT03572218|168915001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84580710|NCT03572218|168915002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
84580711|NCT03572218|168915003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84580712|NCT03572218|168915004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
84580713|NCT03572218|168915004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.64
84580714|NCT03572218|168915005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.58
84580715|NCT03572218|168915005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.49
84580716|NCT03572218|168915005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.96
84580717|NCT03572218|168915005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.71
84580718|NCT03572218|168915005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.41
84580719|NCT03572218|168915006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.61
84580720|NCT03572218|168915006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.73
84580721|NCT03572218|168915006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.94
84580722|NCT03572218|168915006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.47
84580723|NCT03572218|168915006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.99
84580724|NCT03572218|168915007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84580725|NCT03572218|168915008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84580726|NCT03572218|168915009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84580727|NCT03572218|168915010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84580728|NCT03572218|168915011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.83
84580729|NCT03572218|168915011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
84580730|NCT03572218|168915011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.30
84580731|NCT03572218|168915011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.99
84580732|NCT03572218|168915011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.36
84580733|NCT03572218|168915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.30
84580734|NCT03572218|168915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
84580735|NCT03572218|168915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.70
84580736|NCT03572218|168915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.26
84755451|NCT00397033|169267061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.013||95.0|-6.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.8|-6.8|0.013
84580737|NCT03572218|168915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.18
84580738|NCT03572218|168915013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.69
84580739|NCT03572218|168915013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.28
84580740|NCT03572218|168915013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.02
84580741|NCT03572218|168915014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.29
84498376|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.257|-0.711|<.0001
84580742|NCT03572218|168915014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.34
84580743|NCT03572218|168915014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.001
84580744|NCT03572218|168915015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84580745|NCT03572218|168915016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84580746|NCT03572218|168915017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84580747|NCT03572218|168915018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
84580748|NCT03572218|168915019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.46
84580749|NCT03572218|168915019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.12
84580750|NCT03572218|168915019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.42
84580751|NCT03572218|168915019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.03
84580752|NCT03572218|168915020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
84755452|NCT00397033|169267062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.232||95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-2.0|0.232
84580753|NCT03572218|168915020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.90
84580754|NCT03572218|168915020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.36
84672445|NCT02365636|169080364|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.97||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.97|-0.03|0.065
84755453|NCT00397033|169267062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.31||95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-1.8|0.310
84580755|NCT03572218|168915020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.29
84580756|NCT03572218|168915021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84580757|NCT03572218|168915022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.27
84580758|NCT03572218|168915022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.13
84580759|NCT03572218|168915022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.65
84580760|NCT03572218|168915023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84580761|NCT03572218|168915024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
84580762|NCT03572218|168915025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
84580763|NCT03572218|168915026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84580764|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total||||0.81
84580765|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.86
84580766|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self Esteem||||0.87
84580767|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sexual Life||||0.73
84580768|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work||||0.95
84498377|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.476|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|-0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.248|-0.705|<.0001
84498378|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.426|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.654|<.0001
84498379|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.244|-0.701|<.0001
84498380|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.489|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.747|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.747|<.0001
84498381|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.825|-1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.304|-1.825|<.0001
84498382|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|-1.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.197|-1.706|<.0001
84498383|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.193|-1.710|<.0001
84498384|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.866|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.110|0.622|<.0001
84580769|NCT03572218|168915027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Public Distress||||0.19
84580770|NCT03572218|168915028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84580771|NCT03572218|168915029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84580772|NCT03572218|168915030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84580773|NCT03572218|168915031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.71
84580774|NCT03572218|168915031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.72
84580775|NCT03572218|168915032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84755454|NCT00397033|169267063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004||95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.6|-3.1|0.004
84755455|NCT00397033|169267063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.269||95.0|-1.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.9|0.269
84755456|NCT00397033|169267064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-3.2|<0.001
84755457|NCT00397033|169267064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.314||95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.7|0.314
84580776|NCT03572218|168915033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.52
84580777|NCT03572218|168915033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.02
84580778|NCT03572218|168915033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.63
84580779|NCT03572218|168915033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.74
84580780|NCT03572218|168915033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.49
84580781|NCT03572218|168915034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84580782|NCT03572218|168915035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84580783|NCT03572218|168915036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.35
84580784|NCT03572218|168915036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.46
84580785|NCT03572218|168915036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.33
84580786|NCT03572218|168915036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.18
84580787|NCT03572218|168915036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.16
84580788|NCT03572218|168915037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.82
84580789|NCT03572218|168915037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.45
84580790|NCT03572218|168915037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.007
84580791|NCT03572218|168915038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
84580792|NCT03572218|168915038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.48
84580793|NCT03572218|168915038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.89
84580794|NCT03572218|168915038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.30
84580795|NCT03572218|168915039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||BWL component||||0.32
84580796|NCT03572218|168915040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84580797|NCT03277274|168915041|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.579
84755458|NCT00397033|169267065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.071||95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.8|0.071
84755459|NCT00397033|169267065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.099||95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.7|0.099
84755460|NCT00397033|169267067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84755461|NCT00397033|169267067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.6|0.083
84580798|NCT03277274|168915041|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84580799|NCT03277274|168915041|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
84580800|NCT03277274|168915041|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.031
84580801|NCT03277274|168915042|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
84580802|NCT03277274|168915042|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.017
84580803|NCT03277274|168915042|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
84580804|NCT03277274|168915042|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84580805|NCT03277274|168915043|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.138
84580806|NCT03277274|168915043|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
84580807|NCT03277274|168915043|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.201|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.201
84580808|NCT03277274|168915043|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84580809|NCT06765889|168915049|OTHER||Bayes Factor (BF₁₀)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84580810|NCT06765889|168915052|OTHER||Mean (of both conditions)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84580811|NCT01793129|168915055|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that id does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.0|||||The relative risk estimate was calculated by dividing risk under hypothermia by risk under normothermia.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|To get estimates of RR from the Bayesian logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of the outcome were generated for all infants assuming the infants were treated with and without hypothermia and with/without severe encephalopathy. Next subject level RR values were estimated for all infants and 2.5, 50, and 97.5 percentiles were calculated.|2.00|0.74|
84580812|NCT00324857|168915065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Please note that although the outcome is measured using a Likert scale, for the analysis we dichotomized the results.~P-value not adjusted for multiple comparison. Lastly, \<0.05 is the actual computed P-value."|Regression, Logistic|||Comparisons of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (TKR) across the 4 intervention groups were performed using chi-square tests for categorical data and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Willingness were compared across the groups over time using mixed-effect logistic regressions for dichotomous outcomes.||||<0.05
84580813|NCT03992482|168915139|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
84580814|NCT03992482|168915140|OTHER|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0044
84580815|NCT03992482|168915141|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84580816|NCT00793611|168915191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|19 degrees of freedom||ITT between group differences in change scores compared for behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy groups. Power analysis: This is a pilot study underpowered find between group differences based on our power analysis(a 20% difference between groups would require 88 women, assuming 80% power and α=0.05 based on Freeman's study cited later). The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the larger study and determine the appropriate control intervention and outcomes||||.07
84580817|NCT00793611|168915192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat.||||.17
84580818|NCT00793611|168915193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat||||.009
84580819|NCT00601107|168915290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.22|0.17|1.000
84580820|NCT00601107|168915290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.992||95.0|0.13|4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.14|0.13|0.992
84580821|NCT00601107|168915290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.59||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.59|0.15|1.000
84580822|NCT03892915|168915293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93||||||||1.93|0.73|
84580823|NCT03892915|168915294|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84580824|NCT03892915|168915296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.5||||||||6.50|0.53|
84580825|NCT03892915|168915297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.64||||||||16.64|0.45|
84580826|NCT03892915|168915298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||||||||0.83|0.05|
84580827|NCT03566550|168915308|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
84580828|NCT03566550|168915309|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84580829|NCT03566550|168915310|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84580830|NCT03566550|168915311|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84580831|NCT03566550|168915312|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84580832|NCT00514917|168915352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Log Rank|P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity of tests.|The hazard ratio Leuprolide+Bicalutamide vs. Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide was estimated using an un-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \>1 indicates a lower risk of Docetaxel+Leuprolide, compared to Leuprolide.|"Null hypothesis: No difference between new treatment combination (Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide) and conventional treatment (Leuprolide+Bicalutamide).~The study was sized to have 90% power to detect a difference between treatment arms at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level with 186 events and anticipating 10% non-evaluable participants."||1.65|1.00|0.0501
84580833|NCT00137280|168915385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.58|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||3.58|1.47|<0.01
84672446|NCT02365636|169080364|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.76|-0.23|0.296
84580834|NCT00137280|168915386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
84580835|NCT00137280|168915387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.34|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||4.34|1.22|<0.01
84580836|NCT00137280|168915388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.11
84580837|NCT00309244|168915389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 25% drop-out rate, 677 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|
84580838|NCT00309244|168915390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-0.7|-2.4|0.0002
84580839|NCT00309244|168915391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate||-6.1|-29.3|0.0029
84580840|NCT00309244|168915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.231|0.486|0.2793
84580841|NCT00309244|168915393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.581|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.581|0.307|<0.001
84580842|NCT00309244|168915394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.409||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.78|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.780|0.215|0.0066
84580843|NCT00309244|168915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|Based on Poisson distribution||||||0.0027
84580844|NCT00309244|168915396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Based on Poission distribution||||||0.0591
84580845|NCT03467945|168915404|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.4421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2805|88.1079||||||||88.1079|75.2805|
84580846|NCT03467945|168915404|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
84580847|NCT03467945|168915404|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
84580848|NCT03467945|168915405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
84580849|NCT03467945|168915405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.7255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1665|110.49||||||||110.4900|101.1665|
84580850|NCT03467945|168915405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.7533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5812|101.1135||||||||101.1135|92.5812|
84580851|NCT03467945|168915406|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|77.6923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.383|85.7606||||||||85.7606|70.3830|
84580852|NCT03467945|168915406|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
84580853|NCT03467945|168915406|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|79.4367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9633|87.6861||||||||87.6861|71.9633|
84580854|NCT03467945|168915407|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
84580855|NCT03467945|168915407|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.6828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6166|99.0386||||||||99.0386|88.6166|
84580856|NCT03467945|168915407|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|115.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.131|121.9658||||||||121.9658|109.1310|
84580857|NCT03467945|168915408|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|82.6022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5513|89.1314||||||||89.1314|76.5513|
84580858|NCT03467945|168915408|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
84580859|NCT03467945|168915408|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
84580860|NCT03467945|168915409|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5947|106.2906||||||||106.2906|97.5947|
84580861|NCT03467945|168915409|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.49|110.533||||||||110.5330|101.4900|
84580862|NCT03467945|168915409|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.1619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.1443|100.3546||||||||100.3546|92.1443|
84580863|NCT00541775|168915430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<=|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-0.32|-0.70|<=0.001
84580864|NCT00541775|168915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<=|0.001||95.0|-27.6|-8.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-8.1|-27.6|<=0.001
84580865|NCT00541775|168915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-46.0|-15.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-15.0|-46.0|<=0.001
84580866|NCT00032487|168915433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis tested was for equivalence. We assumed 86% power with 21% of effect size and the sample size 1700 with 5% drop out rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Log Rank|||It was hypothesized 21% reduction in intensive glycemic control group compared to standard control group on primary cardiovascular composite outcomes.||.99|.79|<0.05
84580867|NCT04913675|168915436|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM dose versus 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A post-hoc weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.26|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.26|-1.15|
84580868|NCT04913675|168915436|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM vs 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A pre-specified daily imputation algorithm imputed the missing outcome iteratively for each study day starting with Day 2 and ending at Day 29.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|3.56|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.56|-1.23|
84580869|NCT04913675|168915454|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of IM dose versus IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5% on the risk difference scale. Weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.28|||||Post-hoc analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identify link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500 mg IM, 500 mg IV), age (\<65, \>-65 years old), and sex (male, female) as covariates.|||3.28|-1.56|
84580870|NCT04913675|168915457|EQUIVALENCE|IM dose was assessed for equivalence to IV based on the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment ratio falling within equivalence bounds of 0.5 to 2.0.|Ratio of least square(LS) geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||||LS geometric mean was calculated for 500mg IV versus IM by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment group (sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old), gender (male, female) and Baseline viral load as covariates.|||1.07|1.00|
84580871|NCT01227395|168915505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.696
84580872|NCT01227395|168915506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.334
84580873|NCT01227395|168915507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drugs  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84755462|NCT00397033|169267068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.003||95.0|-13.8|-2.9||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER high dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.9|-13.8|0.003
84580874|NCT01227395|168915508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84755463|NCT00397033|169267068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.187||95.0|-9.0|1.8||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER low dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-9.0|0.187
84755464|NCT00397033|169267069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher Scores indicate worsening.|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84755465|NCT00397033|169267069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029||95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.7|0.029
84580875|NCT01227395|168915509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.015
84755466|NCT00397033|169267071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-3.7|-9.9|<0.001
84755467|NCT00397033|169267071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.066||95.0|-5.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-5.8|0.066
84755468|NCT00382018|169267074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ration of overall survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1.||1.47|0.69|0.98
84580876|NCT01227395|168915510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84580877|NCT01227395|168915511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.290
84580878|NCT01227395|168915512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.003
84580879|NCT01227395|168915513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.707
84580880|NCT03259308|168915517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.027
84580881|NCT03259308|168915517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.014
84755469|NCT00382018|169267075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio of progression free survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1||1.32|0.64|0.64
84755470|NCT01721057|169267083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84755471|NCT01020591|169267104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power and sample size calculations, based on the ability to detect treatment and evaluation group differences, were performed on Minitab™ V.15. 40 participants were estimated to be required for group allocation (20 in each group: evaluation;evaluation and treatment)for 80% power in at least 3 out of the 4 outcome measures. After 30 subjects, analysis determined that there would be no further statistically significant changes in results therefore, data collection was stopped at 30 subjects.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A two factor mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Group (Evaluation vs. Treatment) with repeated measures (pre vs. post test) was employed to test for main effects and all interactions for the Resistive Index||||<0.05
84755472|NCT01202279|169267106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
84755473|NCT01202279|169267107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84755474|NCT03805750|169267113|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.52
84580882|NCT03259308|168915518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.001
84580883|NCT03259308|168915518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.003
84580884|NCT03259308|168915519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
84580885|NCT03259308|168915519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
84580886|NCT03259308|168915520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
84580887|NCT03259308|168915520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
84580888|NCT03259308|168915521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
84580889|NCT03259308|168915521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.017
84580890|NCT00809146|168915541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assay sensitivity established by extensive review of lorazepam efficacy data. Noninferiority margin of 10% established by both clinical and statistical reasoning.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||one-sided z statistic|||The null hypothesis of inferiority was tested with a one-sided z statistic. Sample size was estimated assuming independent proportions, 2 interim analyses, 70% control event rate; 90% power; a noninferiority margin of 10%; and a 1-sided test with type I error probability of 0.025. A sample size of 890 (445 per treatment group) was inflated by 15% (1024 subjects) to account for inadvertent repeated enrollment of the same subjects. Repeated enrollments of the same subject were not analyzed.||0.16|0.04|<0.001
84580891|NCT00809146|168915542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34||||||||1.34|0.70|
84580892|NCT00809146|168915543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
84580893|NCT00809146|168915544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||||0.95|0.65|
84580894|NCT00809146|168915545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.56||||||All participants were included in this analysis of rate of recurrence because this is the most clinically relevant denominator, although, by definition, only participants who stopped could have recurrent seizures.||1.56|0.74|
84580895|NCT00809146|168915546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.98||||||||1.98|0.42|
84580896|NCT00809146|168915547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||||||||10.70|0.30|
84580897|NCT00809146|168915549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84580898|NCT00809146|168915550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84580899|NCT03632720|168915552|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was greater (\>) -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.54||||||Serogroup A||3.54|-1.78|
84580900|NCT03632720|168915552|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.28||||||Serogroup C||2.28|-2.24|
84580901|NCT03632720|168915552|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.36||||||Serogroup Y||2.36|-2.33|
84580902|NCT03632720|168915552|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.81||||||Serogroup W||1.81|-3.22|
84580903|NCT01117350|168915596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|8.93||"If superiority not demonstrated, switching from superiority to non-inferiority considered.~Conclusion of non-inferiority reached if lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (insulin glargine - liraglutide) \> or = to - 3.5%"|Chi-squared|||"Superiority testing~H0: Rate measured with insulin glargine = rate measured with liraglutide~H1: Rate measured with insulin glargine ≠ rate measured with liraglutide~Sample size calculation (465 randomized patients per arm) was based on the assumption of an expected success rate of 46% with insulin glargine and 35% with liraglutide, an alpha risk of 5% (2-sided) and a power of 90%, taking into account an estimated non evaluability rate of 10%."||8.93|-3.88|0.439
84580904|NCT03389750|168915613|EQUIVALENCE|An F-test was used to assess for significant differences among the 13 dose conditions.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F = 7.06 (DF=12)||||||.0001
84580905|NCT01049828|168915617|OTHER|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.|||||<|0.01||||||all correlations were transformed into z scores using Fisher's transformation and a t test evaluated group differences.|Fisher Exact|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.||Null hypothesis: Fisher's transform z scores for a seed region were comparable between the control and non-bothered tinnitus groups.||||<0.01
84580906|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 18 to 34||0.01|0.01|
84672447|NCT02365636|169080365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.245
84580907|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 35 to 44||0.01|0.01|
84580908|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 45 to 54||0.04|0.03|
84580909|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 55 to 64||0.09|0.07|
84580910|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 65 to 74||0.14|0.11|
84580911|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.21|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age ≥75||0.21|0.15|
84580912|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 18 to 34||0.13|0.06|
84580913|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 35 to 44||0.16|0.08|
84580914|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 45 to 54||0.45|0.30|
84580915|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|5.47|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 65 to 74||5.47|2.68|
84580916|NCT01260324|168915624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age ≥75||8.22|4.00|
84580917|NCT01260324|168915625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Female||0.05|0.04|
84580918|NCT01260324|168915625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Male||0.06|0.05|
84580919|NCT01260324|168915625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Male||2.22|1.50|
84580920|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2003||0.05|0.04|
84580921|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2004||0.05|0.04|
84580922|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2005||0.05|0.04|
84672448|NCT02365636|169080365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.304
84580923|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2006||0.05|0.04|
84580924|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2007||0.05|0.04|
84580925|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2004||0.96|0.61|
84580926|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2005||0.91|0.58|
84580927|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2006||1.12|0.68|
84580928|NCT01260324|168915626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2007||1.19|0.72|
84580929|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Northeast||0.06|0.04|
84580930|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Midwest||0.05|0.04|
84672449|NCT02365636|169080366|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.33||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.33|-0.61|0.556
84580931|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate South||0.06|0.05|
84580932|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate West||0.05|0.04|
84580933|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Northeast||0.56|0.31|
84580934|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Midwest||0.84|0.56|
84580935|NCT01260324|168915627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio West||0.93|0.57|
84580936|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diabetes||0.10|0.08|
84580937|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Smoking||0.14|0.08|
84580938|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Obesity||0.06|0.03|
84755475|NCT01984164|169267115|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect size|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.7|||||effect size p-value = 0.008|All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. Results are provided as adjusted least-square means with SE and effect size (ES) estimates (calculated from mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) as the adjusted difference in cognitive change between the 2 groups over the study period).||-3.7|-23.6|
84580939|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Nitrates||0.09|0.06|
84580940|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Anti-platelet agents||0.18|0.12|
84580941|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diuretics||0.17|0.09|
84580942|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||0.04|0.01|
84580943|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.25|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diabetes||2.25|1.47|
84580944|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.85|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Smoking||2.85|0.63|
84580945|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Obesity||0.81|0.23|
84580946|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Nitrates||0.94|0.42|
84580947|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Anti-platelet agents||2.94|1.53|
84580948|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.43|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diuretics||3.43|1.46|
84580949|NCT01260324|168915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.04|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||1.04|0.31|
84580950|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other retinal disorders||0.39|0.28|
84580951|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.16|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Glaucoma||0.16|0.11|
84580952|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.41|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Cataract||0.41|0.08|
84755476|NCT05082376|169267144|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||8.8|6.6|<0.0001
84755477|NCT05082376|169267144|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|7.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment.||7.9|5.8|<0.0001
84580953|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Visual disturbances||1.17|0.83|
84580954|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.46|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Blindness and low vision||2.46|1.60|
84580955|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of eye||0.23|0.16|
84580956|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.27|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||0.27|0.18|
84580957|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Acute sinusitis||0.08|0.05|
84580958|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other dermatoses||0.08|0.05|
84580959|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of bone and cartilage||0.10|0.06|
84580960|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Symptoms involving head and neck||0.14|0.10|
84580961|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||0.18|0.10|
84580962|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|9.38|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other retinal disorders||9.38|4.72|
84580963|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Glaucoma||3.81|1.77|
84580964|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.68|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Cataract||1.68|1.02|
84580965|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.3|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Visual disturbances||19.30|10.40|
84580966|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|34.5|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Blindness and low vision||34.50|6.60|
84580967|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.82|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of eye||2.82|1.44|
84580968|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.31|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||2.31|0.64|
84580969|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Acute sinusitis||1.74|0.96|
84580970|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other dermatoses||1.77|1.02|
84580971|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of bone and cartilage||1.77|0.98|
84580972|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Symptoms involving head and neck||1.84|1.02|
84580973|NCT01260324|168915629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.49|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||2.49|1.08|
84580974|NCT01260324|168915630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent use||0.07|0.03|
84580975|NCT01260324|168915630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Any use (includes chronic and non-chronic use)||0.08|0.04|
84580976|NCT01260324|168915630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Chronic use||0.08|0.03|
84580977|NCT01260324|168915630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Non-chronic use||0.11|0.03|
84580978|NCT01260324|168915630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Never use||0.10|0.08|
84580979|NCT03636269|168915687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.41|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.41|1.08|0.020
84580980|NCT03636269|168915688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.74|1.14|0.010
84580981|NCT03636269|168915689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.3|0.171
84580982|NCT03636269|168915690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
84580983|NCT03156621|168915693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM||p-value vs Placebo|||-19.9|-51.2|<0.0001
84580984|NCT03156621|168915694|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-17.3||p-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-17.3|-42.3|< 0.0001
84580985|NCT03156621|168915695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-18.2|-47.6|< 0.0001
84755478|NCT05082376|169267144|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment.||6.2|4.0|<0.0001
84498385|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.128|0.633|<.0001
84610488|NCT04583956|168972748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.71|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.71|0.62|0.910
84610489|NCT04583956|168972749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.93|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.93|0.68|0.617
84610490|NCT04583956|168972782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.46|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.46|0.82|0.550
84610491|NCT04583956|168972783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.48|0.82|0.523
84498386|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.169|0.680|<.0001
84610492|NCT00915551|168972798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84610493|NCT00915551|168972799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84610494|NCT04407234|168972844|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|0.967|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.967|0.803|
84610495|NCT04407234|168972844|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.28|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.28|1.05|
84610496|NCT04407234|168972845|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.509|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.509|0.390|
84610497|NCT04407234|168972845|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.589|0.783|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.783|0.589|
84610498|NCT04407234|168972847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.01||||||||1.01|0.778|
84610499|NCT04407234|168972847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.42||||||||1.42|1.07|
84610500|NCT04407234|168972848|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.999||||||||0.999|0.766|
84610501|NCT04407234|168972848|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.25||||||||1.25|0.938|
84610502|NCT04407234|168972849|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.545||||||||0.545|0.376|
84610503|NCT04407234|168972849|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.979||||||||0.979|0.660|
84610504|NCT04407234|168972850|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.364|0.527||||||||0.527|0.364|
84610505|NCT04407234|168972850|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.471|0.698||||||||0.698|0.471|
84610506|NCT00727558|168972856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943||||97.47|0.1721|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.554|0.1721|
84755479|NCT05082376|169267144|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment.||5.8|3.6|<0.0001
84498387|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.131|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.131|0.638|<.0001
84580986|NCT03156621|168915696|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-14.0||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||-14.0|-38.9|< 0.0001
84580987|NCT03156621|168915697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.8|3.1|= 0.0004
84580988|NCT03156621|168915698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|36.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||308.9|4.3|= 0.0010
84580989|NCT03156621|168915699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2|||Regression model|||||-15.2|-41.5|< 0.0001
84580990|NCT03156621|168915700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist||Exact Conditional Logistic Regression||||||3.3|= 0.0017
84580991|NCT03156621|168915701|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|=|0.3541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||11.3|-4.1|= 0.3541
84580992|NCT03156621|168915702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
84580993|NCT03156621|168915703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
84580994|NCT03156621|168915704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||||||||-19.9|-51.2|
84580995|NCT03156621|168915705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-43.3|
84580996|NCT03156621|168915706|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||||||||-18.2|-47.6|
84580997|NCT03156621|168915707|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-14.0||||||||-14.0|-28.9|
84580998|NCT03156621|168915708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2||||||||-15.2|-41.5|
84580999|NCT03156621|168915709|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-4.1|
84581000|NCT03156621|168915710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
84581001|NCT03156621|168915711|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
84755480|NCT00493220|169267146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|111.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.57|115.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||115.12|108.57|
84581002|NCT03156621|168915712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8||||||≥15% reduction||48.8|3.1|
84581003|NCT03156621|168915712|SUPERIORITY|≥ 30% reduction|Odds Ratio (OR)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9||||||||308.9|4.3|
84672450|NCT02365636|169080366|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.31||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.31|-0.65|0.482
84672451|NCT02365636|169080366|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.28|-0.81|0.333
84755481|NCT00493220|169267146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.06|62.62|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||62.62|59.06|
84755482|NCT00493220|169267146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|54.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.82|56.01|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||56.01|52.82|
84581004|NCT03156621|168915712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist|||||≥ 50% reduction|||3.3|
84581005|NCT03156621|168915713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-0.6|
84581006|NCT06083493|168915737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84581007|NCT06083493|168915738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84581008|NCT00185900|168915765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84581009|NCT02864914|168915800|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.19|0.50|
84755483|NCT00493220|169267147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.75|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||HYLENEX SC minus Placebo SC|||-0.75|-1.25|<0.01
84581010|NCT02864914|168915800|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.32|0.23|
84581011|NCT02864914|168915800|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.41|0.52|
84581012|NCT02864914|168915801|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.73|0.41|
84581013|NCT02864914|168915801|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.55|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.55|0.30|
84581014|NCT02864914|168915801|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.05|0.45|
84581015|NCT02864914|168915801|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.86|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.86|0.20|
84581016|NCT02864914|168915801|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.76|0.56|
84581017|NCT02864914|168915802|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.76|1.74|
84581018|NCT02864914|168915802|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.36|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.36|1.77|
84610507|NCT00727558|168972857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03555||||97.47|-0.1734|-0.1037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||-0.1037|-0.1734|
84755484|NCT00493220|169267147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.71|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||1.71|1.27|<0.01
84755485|NCT00493220|169267147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.26|2.76|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||2.76|2.26|<0.01
84755486|NCT00493220|169267148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|105.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||105.12|98.95|
84498388|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.134|-0.411|0.6800
84581019|NCT02864914|168915802|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.12|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.12|1.11|
84581020|NCT02864914|168915802|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.66|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.66|1.48|
84581021|NCT02864914|168915803|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.72|0.37|
84581022|NCT02864914|168915804|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.71|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.71|3.46|
84581023|NCT02864914|168915805|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|3.74|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.74|2.81|
84581024|NCT02864914|168915806|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.88|0.56|
84581025|NCT02864914|168915806|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.85|0.29|
84610508|NCT00727558|168972858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1548||||98.7|0.04983|0.3968|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.3968|0.04983|
84610509|NCT00727558|168972859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||||98.7|0.03714|0.3875|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||0.3875|0.03714|
84610510|NCT00727558|168972860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1563||||98.7|0.213|0.6735|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.6735|0.213|
84610511|NCT00727558|168972861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648||||98.7|-0.2375|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.132|-0.2375|
84581026|NCT02864914|168915806|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.29|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.29|0.34|
84581027|NCT02864914|168915806|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.97|0.61|
84581028|NCT02864914|168915807|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.65|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.65|0.43|
84581029|NCT02864914|168915808|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|4.75|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.75|3.44|
84581030|NCT02864914|168915809|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|3.95|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.95|2.83|
84581031|NCT00098293|168915858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-9.5|
84581032|NCT00098293|168915858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.9|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.9|
84581033|NCT00098293|168915859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.5|
84581034|NCT00098293|168915859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-11.2|
84581035|NCT00098293|168915860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.22|0.64|0.4485
84610512|NCT00727558|168972862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04448||||97.47|-0.2469|-0.1599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A by having a lower level of inferior region corneal staining||-0.1599|-0.2469|
84610513|NCT04943432|168972877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2 - T1||||0.06
84610514|NCT04943432|168972877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3 - T1||||0.68
84610515|NCT04943432|168972879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
84610516|NCT04943432|168972879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.32
84610517|NCT04943432|168972880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.44
84610518|NCT04943432|168972880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.007
84610519|NCT04943432|168972884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
84610520|NCT04943432|168972884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.11
84610521|NCT04943432|168972885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.82
84610522|NCT04943432|168972885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.36
84581036|NCT00098293|168915860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.15|0.61|0.2724
84581037|NCT00098293|168915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.19|0.65|0.3943
84581038|NCT00098293|168915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.07|0.59|0.1289
84581039|NCT00098293|168915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 48: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment least squares means (LS means) adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.329|-0.094|0.2741
84581040|NCT00098293|168915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.3899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.328|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.328|-0.128|0.3899
84581041|NCT00098293|168915863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.307|-0.086|0.2693
84610523|NCT04943432|168972886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.34
84610524|NCT04943432|168972886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.02
84610525|NCT04943432|168972888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.14
84610526|NCT04943432|168972888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.29
84610527|NCT04943432|168972890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||<.001
84610528|NCT04943432|168972890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.23
84610529|NCT03281304|168972912|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|25.0||||||Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.0|0.5|
84610530|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
84672452|NCT02365636|169080366|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.62|0.833
84610531|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
84610532|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.2||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|2.9|
84610533|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
84610534|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
84610535|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
84610536|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|28.5||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.5|-0.7|
84610537|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
84610538|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|20.4||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.4|-9.3|
84610539|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.6||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.6|-7.0|
84610540|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.3|-12.8|
84610541|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
84581042|NCT00098293|168915863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.309|||ANCOVA|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.309|-0.131|0.4270
84755487|NCT00493220|169267148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|110.07|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.07|103.61|
84581043|NCT00098293|168915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.827||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|45.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||45.63|7.04|0.0075
84581044|NCT00098293|168915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.419||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|57.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||57.86|13.02|0.0020
84581045|NCT00098293|168915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.13|215.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||215.46|117.13|<0.0001
84581046|NCT00098293|168915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|172.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.21|222.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||222.23|122.21|<0.0001
84581047|NCT00098293|168915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Log Rank|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.45|0.83|0.5874
84581048|NCT00098293|168915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Log Rank|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.40|0.86|0.4811
84581049|NCT00098293|168915873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.2|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.2|
84581050|NCT00098293|168915873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-5.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.8|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-12.8|
84610542|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
84581051|NCT00098293|168915874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.4|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-6.4|
84581052|NCT00098293|168915874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.4|
84610543|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|11.9||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||11.9|-20.2|
84610544|NCT03281304|168972914|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.9|-11.7|
84610545|NCT03281304|168972915|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||24.1|-1.5|
84610546|NCT03281304|168972915|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|35.0||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||35.0|3.6|
84755488|NCT00493220|169267148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|107.92|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||107.92|101.59|
84581053|NCT00098293|168915875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.9|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.9|
84581054|NCT00098293|168915875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.5|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-11.5|
84581055|NCT03193307|168915876|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|153.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.34|174.7|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =21.4."|||174.70|134.34|
84581056|NCT03193307|168915877|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|115.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.559|128.502|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 16.7."|||128.502|104.559|
84581057|NCT03193307|168915878|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|104.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.092|107.613|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.3."|||107.613|102.092|
84581058|NCT03193307|168915879|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|104.92|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 3.3."|||104.92|100.66|
84581059|NCT03193307|168915880|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|114.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.266|119.183|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=7.0."|||119.183|109.266|
84581060|NCT03193307|168915881|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.8|115.83|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 7.3."|||115.83|105.80|
84581061|NCT03193307|168915882|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|154.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.81|177.58|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 22.4."|||177.58|133.81|
84610547|NCT03281304|168972915|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
84610548|NCT03281304|168972915|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.0||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.0|-12.5|
84581062|NCT03518203|168915883|EQUIVALENCE|A binomial test was used to test 6 month survival in study cohort against an 18% historical rate.|Proportion|0.714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84581063|NCT00754559|168915889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching LDAS (≤ 3.2) at Week 24 equals (=) expected proportion of 42%.||||<0.001
84581064|NCT00345592|168915910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.503||||||||1.503|0.684|
84581065|NCT04000724|168915940|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.54||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.18|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.18|-1.26|0.141
84581066|NCT04000724|168915940|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.51||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.14|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.14|-1.16|0.123
84581067|NCT04000724|168915941|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.24||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.07|-.56|.127
84581068|NCT04000724|168915941|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.02||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.30|-.34|.899
84581069|NCT02945046|168915973|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.42|-2.72|0.9093
84581070|NCT02945046|168915973|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-4.49|0.1345
84581071|NCT03907579|168915993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|z= -3.861||||||0.0001
84581072|NCT04595370|168916021|OTHER||F test statistics|1.07||||0.3645|||||||F-Test|||||||0.3645
84581073|NCT04595370|168916022|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-33.606||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.53|17.644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.644|-62.530|0.1588
84581074|NCT04595370|168916022|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-11.826||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.195|62.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.634|-52.195|0.6846
84581075|NCT04595370|168916022|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-36.127||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.85|16.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.066|-64.850|0.1398
84610549|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
84610550|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
84610551|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|25.6||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.6|2.4|
84610552|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
84610553|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
84610554|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
84610555|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||29.9|0.7|
84498389|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.068|-0.483|0.2371
84581076|NCT04826731|168916083|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.374
84581077|NCT04826731|168916084|OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.635
84581078|NCT03548415|168916124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306||||||The p-value was analyzed using the nonparametric test, Van Elteren test with IGF-1 level as stratification factor.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.306
84581079|NCT02504775|168916134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|94.704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.329|101.54|||ANOVA|||||101.540|88.329|
84581080|NCT02504775|168916135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|95.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.826|102.574|||ANOVA|||||102.574|89.826|
84581081|NCT02504775|168916136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|106.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.151|132.283|||ANOVA|||||132.283|85.151|
84581082|NCT02123511|168916173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1232|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1232
84581083|NCT02123511|168916174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0422
84581084|NCT02123511|168916175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5634
84581085|NCT02123511|168916176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84581086|NCT02123511|168916177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.22
84581087|NCT02123511|168916178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84581088|NCT02123511|168916179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
84581089|NCT02123511|168916180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
84610556|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.6||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.6|-9.5|
84581090|NCT02123511|168916181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.48
84581091|NCT02123511|168916182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3824|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3824
84581092|NCT00378560|168916187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6|||||Binomial probability conditional on the fixed number of events.|||97.6|59.2|
84581093|NCT00378560|168916188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581094|NCT00378560|168916189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581095|NCT00378560|168916190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581096|NCT00378560|168916191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581097|NCT00337194|168916196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84610557|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
84610558|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.1||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.1|-5.7|
84610559|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|19.7||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.7|-11.4|
84610560|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
84581098|NCT00337194|168916197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84581099|NCT03074643|168916200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.16
84581100|NCT03074643|168916200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
84581101|NCT03074643|168916201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.81
84581102|NCT03074643|168916201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.80
84581103|NCT03074643|168916202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.56
84581104|NCT03074643|168916202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.96
84581105|NCT03074643|168916203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.76
84581106|NCT03074643|168916203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
84581107|NCT03074643|168916204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.75
84581108|NCT03074643|168916204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.95
84581109|NCT03074643|168916205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.06
84581110|NCT03074643|168916205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
84581111|NCT03074643|168916206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.48
84581112|NCT03074643|168916206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
84581113|NCT03757715|168916242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.16
84581114|NCT03757715|168916243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
84581115|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.036|0.19||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.190|0.036|0.0043
84581116|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1484||95.0|-0.021|0.135||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.135|-0.021|0.1484
84581117|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0664||95.0|-0.005|0.138||This test is considered as descriptive.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.138|-0.005|0.0664
84581118|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||||95.0|-0.031|0.124|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.124|-0.031|
84581119|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||||95.0|-0.014|0.126|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.126|-0.014|
84581120|NCT01122680|168916247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.088|0.069|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.069|-0.088|
84581121|NCT03760640|168916283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-2.35|0.339
84581122|NCT03760640|168916284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|1.10|0.011
84581123|NCT03760640|168916285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.14|-1.02|0.557
84581124|NCT03760640|168916286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.15|0.548
84581125|NCT03760640|168916288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.97|0.577
84581126|NCT03016403|168916289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.98||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.98|0.52|0.0057
84581127|NCT03016403|168916290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.73||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.73|0.19|0.0243
84610561|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
84581128|NCT03016403|168916291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.23|-4.39||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of an interaction between time and intervention arm.|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-4.39|-26.23|0.0061
84755489|NCT00493220|169267149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 95% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.64|104.98|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||104.98|98.64|
84581129|NCT03016403|168916292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|4.27||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.27|-19.73|0.21
84581130|NCT03016403|168916293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.05||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.05|-0.01|0.052
84581131|NCT03016403|168916294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.36||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.36|-0.52|0.214
84581132|NCT03016403|168916295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-0.87||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-0.87|-7.45|0.0134
84610562|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|13.3||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.3|-18.8|
84610563|NCT03281304|168972916|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
84610564|NCT03281304|168972917|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|30.8||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||30.8|-0.4|
84610565|NCT03281304|168972917|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
84610566|NCT03281304|168972917|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.7||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.7|-14.0|
84610567|NCT03281304|168972918|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.8|
84755490|NCT00493220|169267149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.67|110.33|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.33|103.67|
84610568|NCT03281304|168972920|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.1|
84610569|NCT03281304|168972920|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.2|
84755491|NCT00493220|169267149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|108.42|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||108.42|101.87|
84610570|NCT03281304|168972920|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.2|
84610571|NCT03281304|168972922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-1.2|
84610572|NCT03281304|168972924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.3|
84610573|NCT03281304|168972924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.3|
84610574|NCT03281304|168972924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.3|
84498390|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.169|-0.371|0.9133
84610575|NCT03281304|168972926|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|23.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.1|-0.3|
84610576|NCT03281304|168972926|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.6||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||32.6|3.5|
84610577|NCT03281304|168972926|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|28.1||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.1|-3.3|
84610578|NCT03281304|168972926|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.1||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.1|-16.1|
84755492|NCT02109562|169267150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7261||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.982|-2.314||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.314|-9.982|0.0004
84610579|NCT03281304|168972927|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.0||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.0|1.3|
84610580|NCT03281304|168972927|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.4||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||26.4|-4.2|
84610581|NCT03281304|168972927|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.2||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|-5.8|
84610582|NCT03281304|168972927|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
84610583|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.030
84610584|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.025
84610585|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.037
84610586|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.011
84610587|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.050
84610588|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.055
84610589|NCT02684188|168972943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.137
84755493|NCT02109562|169267150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.045|-3.429||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.429|-11.045|<0.0001
84755494|NCT02109562|169267151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.143||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.143|-0.557|0.0002
84755495|NCT02109562|169267151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.19||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.190|-0.602|<0.0001
84755496|NCT00445224|169267158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.041
84755497|NCT00445224|169267159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for group and time||||.049
84581133|NCT03016403|168916296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.12||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.12|-0.9|0.42
84581134|NCT03016403|168916297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.34||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.34|0.2|0.0269
84581135|NCT03016403|168916298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.32||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.32|0.8|0.0044
84610590|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.279
84755498|NCT04136184|169267164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.7593||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9552|-18.5635|||MMRM|||||-18.5635|-30.9552|0.00000001
84755499|NCT04136184|169267165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-19.7352||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6301|-13.8403|||MMRM|||||-13.8403|-25.6301|0.00000001
84755500|NCT04136184|169267166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-70.42||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.17|-65.66|||MMRM|||||-65.66|-75.17|0.00000001
84755501|NCT04136184|169267167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-66.65||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-61.71|||MMRM|||||-61.71|-71.59|0.00000001
84755502|NCT04136184|169267168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3542||||0.00012203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8691|-4.8394|||MMRM|||||-4.8394|-13.8691|0.00012203
84755503|NCT04136184|169267169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.8202||||1.873e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8927|-6.7477|||MMRM|||||-6.7477|-16.8927|0.00001873
84755504|NCT04136184|169267170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.00052447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.8|||MMRM|||Week 35||-1.80|-6.08|0.00052447
84755505|NCT04136184|169267170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.21||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-5.76|||MMRM|||Week 66||-5.76|-10.65|0.00000001
84755506|NCT04136184|169267171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.305||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.195|7.416|||MMRM|||||7.416|3.195|0.00000558
84755507|NCT04136184|169267172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.02407897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.02407897
84755508|NCT04136184|169267173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|82.6991||||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6431|110.7551|||MMRM|||||110.7551|54.6431|0.00000020
84755509|NCT04456764|169267235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Test for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.55
84755510|NCT04456764|169267236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|random agency and a random participant effect||||||0.12
84755511|NCT04456764|169267237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.0986
84755512|NCT04456764|169267238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.51
84755513|NCT04456764|169267239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.04
84755514|NCT04456764|169267240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.02
84755515|NCT04360551|169267243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
84755516|NCT04360551|169267244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.5
84755517|NCT03496012|169267255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|2.9|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|15.0|||Fisher's Exact|||||15|-3.1|=0.354
84755518|NCT03496012|169267255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|4.6|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Fisher's Exact|||||12.8|-1.4|=0.245
84755519|NCT03496012|169267257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|32.2||||||||32.2|5.3|
84755520|NCT03496012|169267257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.0||||||||23|3.5|
84755521|NCT03496012|169267258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|21.0||||||||21|-17.2|
84755522|NCT03496012|169267258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|30.1||||||||30.1|0.3|
84581136|NCT05463705|168916299|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||||||||1.96|0.88|
84581137|NCT05463705|168916299|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system),72,73 an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||||1.52|0.66|
84581138|NCT05463705|168916300|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.61||||||||1.61|0.83|
84581139|NCT05463705|168916300|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3||||||||1.30|0.64|
84581140|NCT05463705|168916301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.07|
84581141|NCT05463705|168916301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.22|
84581142|NCT04641975|168916331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with change from baseline at week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.||4.59|-0.15|0.121
84581143|NCT04641975|168916332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
84610591|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.211
84581144|NCT04641975|168916332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
84581145|NCT04641975|168916333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
84581146|NCT04641975|168916333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
84581147|NCT04641975|168916334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.10|-1.99|0.073
84581148|NCT04641975|168916334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.20|-1.80|0.044
84581149|NCT04641975|168916335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
84581150|NCT04641975|168916335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
84610592|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.424
84755523|NCT01798589|169267333|OTHER|Bioequivalence is assessed based on concordance between the 2 allergen using Kappa statistic|Concordance|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|90.2||||||||90.2|41.6|
84755524|NCT02232802|169267341|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.28|102.65|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison for Anti-FXa||102.65|96.28|
84755525|NCT02232802|169267341|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax was subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|91.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.65|96.73|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison on Anti-FIIa||96.73|86.65|
84755526|NCT02232802|169267342|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|102.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.67|105.15|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa statistical comparison||105.15|100.67|
84755527|NCT02232802|169267342|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.72|97.25|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||97.25|87.72|
84755528|NCT02232802|169267343|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.68|106.9|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXA comparison||106.9|101.68|
84755529|NCT02232802|169267343|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|90.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.38|95.8|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||95.8|85.38|
84755530|NCT02232802|169267344|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.7642
84755531|NCT02232802|169267344|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.9464
84755532|NCT02232802|169267350|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|103.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.22|106.73||||||||106.73|101.22|
84581151|NCT04641975|168916336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.99|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.99|0.97|0.012
84755533|NCT02232802|169267351|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.93|113.46||||||||113.46|103.93|
84755534|NCT02232802|169267352|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.51|108.28||||||||108.28|97.51|
84755535|NCT02232802|169267353|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|114.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.29|129.08||||||||129.08|102.29|
84755536|NCT02232802|169267354|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.8554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|= 0.8554
84755537|NCT02232802|169267355|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|geometric least square mean ratio|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.27|102.47||||||||102.47|99.27|
84755538|NCT02232802|169267356|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|105.6||||||||105.6|85.7|
84755539|NCT02232802|169267357|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.5|-0.25|= 0.6857
84581152|NCT04641975|168916336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.82|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.82|1.10|0.007
84581153|NCT04641975|168916337|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.02|||Binomial regression|||Without LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.02|0.04|0.105
84581154|NCT04641975|168916337|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.05|||Binomial regression|||With LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.05|0.05|0.111
84581155|NCT04299425|168916348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84755540|NCT02232802|169267363|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|111.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.89|117.17||||||||117.17|105.89|
84581156|NCT04299425|168916349|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84581157|NCT04299425|168916351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84581158|NCT04299425|168916352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84581159|NCT01657500|168916359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|See above|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Main outcome measure was endothelial cell loss at 6 months after EK. Sample size and statistical power calculations for testing equivalence of means within 10% range were performed at 80% power/0.025 level of significance. 20% variability was assumed. 6-month endothelial cell loss) should not differ significantly for surgeon-prepared versus eye bank-prepared tissue. Assuming pairs of corneas matched by pt. diagnosis and other characteristics, the required sample size was 34 donor pairs.||||< 0.05
84755541|NCT02232802|169267364|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|113.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.47|120.53||||||||120.53|107.47|
84581160|NCT00564070|168916362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.37|42.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent adherence to glucose monitoring for the CBT-AD Arm minus the adherence to glucose monitoring for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of glucose monitoring (i.e., 4 month)||42.9|17.37|<.0001
84581161|NCT00564070|168916363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.15|||ANCOVA|General linear model; Controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent of HbA1c for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus percent of HbA1c for the CBT-AD Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; results are reported for HbA1c at the acute outcome (i.e., 4 months)||1.15|.29|=.001
84581162|NCT00564070|168916364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|31.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Mean Difference was calculated as percent pill adherence via MEMs for the CBT-AD Arm minus the percent pill adherence for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of MEMs monitoring (4 month). Higher percentages represent better adherence.||31.14|10.22|<0.0001
84581163|NCT00564070|168916365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values.|The Mean Difference was calculated as MADRS unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm minus the MADRS unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of depression as assessed on the MADRS at acute outcome.||10.56|2.33|=.002
84581164|NCT00564070|168916366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.32|||ANCOVA|using GLM|The Mean Difference was calculated as CGI unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus the CGI unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm.|||1.32|.16|=.01
84581165|NCT00564070|168916367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that differences in glucose monitoring adherence would continue to be superior in the CBT-AD condition compared to ETAU||36.1|8.6|=.002
84610593|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.191
84672453|NCT02365636|169080367|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.41||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.41|-0.75|0.563
84755542|NCT02232802|169267369|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.13|-0.13|= 0.9217
84755543|NCT00885703|169267382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Testing discontinuation of any dose Fluconazole (pooled by treatment and dose) versus discontinuation of Ampho B (pooled). The null hypothesis is the two treatments have the same proportion of discontinuation.||||0.0012
84755544|NCT00885703|169267383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among 4 treatment arms, comparison of three categorical groups: (CM negative, CM negative after switching treatment, and CM Positive/Died/Lost to Follow-up) at week 10. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have no differences at week 10.||||0.012
84755545|NCT00885703|169267384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in quantitative CSF culture among 4 treatment arms. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have the same change in CSF culture from entry to week 2.||||0.019
84755546|NCT00885703|169267385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1200mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.0894
84755547|NCT00885703|169267385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1600mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.4828
84755548|NCT00885703|169267385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1766||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 2000mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.1766
84755549|NCT00938717|169267411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.84||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||8.84|2.44|<0.0001
84755550|NCT00938717|169267412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.03||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||7.03|2.50|<0.0001
84581166|NCT00564070|168916368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the CBT-AD condition would maintain higher medication adherence over follow up compared to ETAU||26.1|6.5|=.001
84581167|NCT00564070|168916369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the lower depression scores would remain in the CBT arm compared to ETAU over follow up.||7.2|-1.2|.16
84581168|NCT00564070|168916370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that depression scores would remain lower in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm||1.1|-.1|.10
84581169|NCT00564070|168916371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that glucose control (HbA1C) would remain superior in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm over follow up.||1.2|.6|.03
84581170|NCT03142334|168916383|OTHER|HR and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, US participant within M0 group by investigator.|Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, and US participant within M0 group by investigator was used to calculate HR and 95% CIs.|||0.87|0.53|0.0010
84581171|NCT02046200|168916469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0563
84581172|NCT02046200|168916470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0342
84581173|NCT02046200|168916471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1597|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1597
84610594|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.478
84581174|NCT02046200|168916472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7617
84581175|NCT02046200|168916473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
84581176|NCT02046200|168916474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
84581177|NCT02046200|168916475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84581178|NCT02046200|168916476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84581179|NCT02046200|168916477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
84581180|NCT02046200|168916478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
84581181|NCT02046200|168916479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
84610595|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.452
84610596|NCT02684188|168972944|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.||||||0.381||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic||||For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.381
84581182|NCT01691482|168916492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
84581183|NCT01691482|168916492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
84581184|NCT01691482|168916492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
84581185|NCT01691482|168916492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
84581186|NCT01691482|168916496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
84581187|NCT01691482|168916496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
84581188|NCT01691482|168916496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
84581189|NCT01691482|168916496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.062||||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
84581190|NCT01691482|168916497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.058|0.076|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.076|0.058|
84581191|NCT01691482|168916497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.061|0.079|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.079|0.061|
84581192|NCT01691482|168916497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.06|0.078|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.078|0.060|
84581193|NCT01691482|168916497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.055|0.073|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.073|0.055|
84581194|NCT01691482|168916498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.2|0.255|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.255|0.200|
84581195|NCT01691482|168916498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.203|0.258|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.258|0.203|
84581196|NCT01691482|168916498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.204|0.259|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.259|0.204|
84581197|NCT01691482|168916498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.19|0.245|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.245|0.190|
84581198|NCT00682838|168916504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
84581199|NCT00407030|168916520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.9||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-5.9|-12.0|<0.001
84581200|NCT00407030|168916526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-4.6|-10.4|<0.001
84581201|NCT00407030|168916527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||4.6|-2.1|0.447
84581202|NCT04223687|168916554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84581203|NCT04223687|168916555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84581204|NCT04223687|168916556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84581205|NCT04223687|168916557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84581206|NCT04223687|168916558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84610597|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.502
84610598|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.286
84581207|NCT04223687|168916559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581208|NCT04223687|168916560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581209|NCT04223687|168916561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84581210|NCT04223687|168916562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84581211|NCT04223687|168916563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84581212|NCT04223687|168916564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581213|NCT04223687|168916565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84581214|NCT04223687|168916566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84581215|NCT04223687|168916567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84581216|NCT03520387|168916580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-10.2|
84581217|NCT03520387|168916580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||-1.6|-11.0|
84581218|NCT03520387|168916581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6059.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2832.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12467.0|349.1|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts. Positive values show increased steps with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||349.1|-12467.0|
84581219|NCT03520387|168916581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2081.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2983.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4666.6|8830.4|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts.Positive values show increased steps with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||8830.4|-4666.6|
84581220|NCT03520387|168916582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.1|-5.2|
84581221|NCT03520387|168916582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||3.6|-4.2|
84581222|NCT03520387|168916583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS physical health scores||10.1|-8.1|
84581223|NCT03520387|168916583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS physical health scores||12.9|-0.4|
84581224|NCT03520387|168916583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS mental health scores||12.7|-5.4|
84581225|NCT03520387|168916583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS mental health scores||10.6|-7.0|
84581226|NCT03520387|168916584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.9|-7.7|
84581227|NCT03520387|168916584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.0|-7.5|
84581228|NCT03520387|168916585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.7|-1.4|
84581229|NCT03520387|168916585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.5|-1.3|
84581230|NCT03520387|168916586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-5.5|
84755551|NCT00938717|169267413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.6||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||3.60|1.91|<0.0001
84755552|NCT00938717|169267414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|4.49||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.49|2.22|<0.0001
84755553|NCT01462435|169267431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|446.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.2935|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|206.567|687.324|||ANCOVA|||||687.324|206.567|<0.001
84755554|NCT01462435|169267431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|316.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.5971||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.136|555.155|||ANCOVA|||||555.155|77.136|0.010
84755555|NCT01462435|169267431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|313.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.5676||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.202|554.037|||ANCOVA|||||554.037|72.202|0.011
84755556|NCT01462435|169267432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
84755557|NCT01462435|169267432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
84755558|NCT01462435|169267432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
84581231|NCT03520387|168916586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|||2.6|-5.4|
84581232|NCT03520387|168916587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.0|-0.5|
84581233|NCT03520387|168916587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||2.8|-0.4|
84581234|NCT03520387|168916588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-637.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|433.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1636.2|362.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate greater activity with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||362.1|-1636.2|
84581235|NCT03520387|168916588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|572.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|334.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.3|1343.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1343.6|-199.3|
84581236|NCT03163264|168916595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.45||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.050"|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.45|0|0.050
84581237|NCT03163264|168916595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||||0.05
84581238|NCT03163264|168916596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.39||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.39|-0.13|0.069
84581239|NCT03163264|168916596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.76||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||3.76|0.21|0.028
84581240|NCT03163264|168916597|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.18||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|21.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.45|0.92|0.033
84581241|NCT03163264|168916598|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.08||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|23.2||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted|||23.2|-1.05|0.073
84581242|NCT03163264|168916600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.48||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-0.05|0.065
84755559|NCT01462435|169267433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84755560|NCT01462435|169267433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84755561|NCT01462435|169267433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
84755562|NCT01462435|169267434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755563|NCT01462435|169267434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84755564|NCT01462435|169267434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84755565|NCT01462435|169267435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84581243|NCT03163264|168916601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-0.52|0.378
84581244|NCT03163264|168916603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.25|154.95||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||154.95|-138.25|0.911
84581245|NCT03163264|168916604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.83||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.15|173.81||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.81|-108.15|0.648
84581246|NCT03163264|168916605|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.32||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|70.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||70.37|-49.73|0.736
84581247|NCT03163264|168916606|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|79.8||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||79.8|-41.09|0.53
84581248|NCT00286455|168916607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.31|-0.76|<0.001
84581249|NCT00286455|168916607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.35|-0.80|<0.001
84581250|NCT00286455|168916608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.14|-0.39|<0.001
84581251|NCT00286455|168916608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.46|<0.001
84755566|NCT01462435|169267435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
84755567|NCT01462435|169267435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84755568|NCT01462435|169267436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84755569|NCT01462435|169267436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
84581252|NCT00286455|168916609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
84581253|NCT00286455|168916609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
84581254|NCT00286455|168916610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
84755570|NCT01462435|169267436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84755571|NCT01462435|169267437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755572|NCT01462435|169267437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84755573|NCT01462435|169267437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84755574|NCT01462435|169267438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755575|NCT01462435|169267438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755576|NCT01462435|169267438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84755577|NCT03600142|169267439|NON_INFERIORITY|For WLHIV (n=55), chi-square tests were used to assess differences between conditions in the proportion of participants who were retained in HIV care at 3 months post enrollment.||||||0.963|||||||Chi-squared|||We were aware that our resources of time and funding would not be sufficient to detect a significant difference in the HIV care outcome, and that we would only be able to detect observational signals of impact. We aimed for a minimum of 50 WLHIV, which is considered an adequate sample to assess feasibility and acceptability in a pilot intervention study. Given an estimated 5% HIV prevalence among women presenting for ANC, this required us to enroll 1000 female participants.||||0.963
84755578|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Attention correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 attention score."||||0.021
84755579|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Initiation/Perseveration correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 initiation/perseveration score."||||0.077
84755580|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Construction correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 construction score."||||0.364
84755581|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Conceptualization correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 conceptualization score."||||0.266
84581255|NCT00286455|168916610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.35|-0.73|<0.001
84755582|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Memory correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 memory score."||||0.152
84755583|NCT00857532|169267483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for DRS-2 Total correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 total score."||||0.041
84755584|NCT00857532|169267484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0411||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Amyloid beta correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and amyloid beta."||||0.0411
84755585|NCT00857532|169267484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and tau."||||0.5800
84755586|NCT00857532|169267484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8164||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Phospho-Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and phospho-tau."||||0.8164
84755587|NCT02687542|169267485|OTHER|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Bayesian Dose Reponse Estimate|-0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.713|0.304||Bayesian Predictive Test for Emax (the additive increase over Placebo in the response of PF-06649751 at a theoretically infinite dose) Monotonicity|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Estimate and 90% credible interval of Bayesian dose response difference from placebo||||0.304|-1.713|0.5776
84755588|NCT01101438|169267541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.93
84755589|NCT01101438|169267542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.87|0.94
84755590|NCT01101438|169267543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.83|0.88
84755591|NCT03634397|169267569|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.14||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear||The delta values of the outcome from baseline 2 to post-treatment 1 were directly modeled using linear regression with adjustment for age, female sex, and the hemisphere affected by the stroke.|||9.14|2.31|<.05
84581256|NCT00286455|168916611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.68|<0.001
84755592|NCT03634397|169267571|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.24||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.||||4.24|-2.58|<.05
84755593|NCT03634397|169267572|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.53||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|||4.53|-2.29|<.05
84581257|NCT00286455|168916611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.74|<0.001
84581258|NCT00286455|168916612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
84581259|NCT00286455|168916612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
84581260|NCT00286455|168916613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-21.5|0.002
84581261|NCT00286455|168916613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-10.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.4|-27.0|<0.001
84581262|NCT00286455|168916614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.1|-26.7|<0.001
84581263|NCT00286455|168916614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-13.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.0|-29.7|<0.001
84581264|NCT00286455|168916615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-27.1|<0.001
84581265|NCT00286455|168916615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.7|-33.2|<0.001
84581266|NCT00286455|168916616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-26.8|0.001
84581267|NCT00286455|168916616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-32.4|<0.001
84581268|NCT00286455|168916617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.2|-26.8|0.002
84581269|NCT00286455|168916617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-31.6|<0.001
84755594|NCT04223843|169267576|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.425|||ANCOVA|Model included fixed categorical effects of treatment and the fixed continous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.425|0.246|<0.0001
84498391|NCT03692078|168747717|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.180|-0.370|0.9432
84581270|NCT00286455|168916618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-30.9|<0.001
84755595|NCT04223843|169267576|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.409|||ANCOVA|Model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the fixed continuous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3h.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3h change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.409|0.233|<0.0001
84755596|NCT04223843|169267577|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.286|0.117|<0.0001
84755597|NCT04223843|169267577|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.299|0.135|<0.0001
84755598|NCT03901105|169267578|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.785||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline CDR-SB score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.785|1.028|0.0313
84755599|NCT03901105|169267579|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.886||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for MMSE CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.886|0.962|.0833
84755600|NCT03901105|169267579|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.796||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for ADAS-Cog11 CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.796|1.122|.0141
84755601|NCT03901105|169267579|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.776||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for FAQ CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.776|0.984|.0639
84755602|NCT03901105|169267579|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|2.02||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for CDR Global CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.020|0.815|.2814
84755603|NCT03901105|169267580|OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between CDR-SB least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||.0305
84755604|NCT03901105|169267580|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between MMSE least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||<0.0001
84610599|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.347
84610600|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.250
84581271|NCT00286455|168916618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-34.6|<0.001
84581272|NCT00286455|168916619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-30.6|<0.001
84581273|NCT00286455|168916619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-12.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.9|-35.7|<0.001
84581274|NCT00286455|168916620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.0|-34.1|<0.001
84581275|NCT00286455|168916620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-15.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.1|-40.4|<0.001
84581276|NCT00286455|168916621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|1.262|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.262|0.257|0.165
84581277|NCT00286455|168916621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.739|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.739|0.138|0.008
84581278|NCT00286455|168916622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.194||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.516|0.073|0.001
84581279|NCT00286455|168916622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.405|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.405|0.052|<0.001
84581280|NCT00286455|168916623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.2|-15.3|0.056
84581281|NCT00286455|168916623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-21.1|<0.001
84581282|NCT00286455|168916624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.4|-7.8|0.850
84672454|NCT02365636|169080367|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.64|0.804
84581283|NCT00286455|168916624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||11.2|-6.2|0.571
84672455|NCT02365636|169080367|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.71||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.71|-0.49|0.714
84581284|NCT00286455|168916625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-7.8|0.917
84581285|NCT00286455|168916625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.7|-13.2|0.133
84581286|NCT00286455|168916626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-12.1|0.348
84581287|NCT00286455|168916626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.2|-14.3|0.152
84581288|NCT00286455|168916627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-11.7|0.120
84581289|NCT00286455|168916627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.1|-12.1|0.104
84581290|NCT00286455|168916628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.8|-10.9|0.247
84581291|NCT00286455|168916628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-12.3|0.129
84581292|NCT00286455|168916629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.67|-4.14|0.671
84581293|NCT00286455|168916629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.27|-5.57|0.218
84581294|NCT00286455|168916630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.14|-2.07|0.403
84581295|NCT00286455|168916630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|4.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.93|-2.35|0.487
84581296|NCT00286455|168916631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|6.08||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.08|-0.88|0.143
84672456|NCT02365636|169080367|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.55||5% level of siignificance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.55|-0.64|0.871
84672457|NCT01633944|169080379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.07|0.0012
84581297|NCT00286455|168916631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.57|-3.46|0.974
84581298|NCT00286455|168916632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.71||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.71|-2.78|0.612
84581299|NCT00286455|168916632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|2.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.74|-4.82|0.587
84581300|NCT00286455|168916633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.99|-2.00|0.514
84581301|NCT00286455|168916633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.22|-2.83|0.899
84581302|NCT00286455|168916634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.58|-3.09|0.885
84610601|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.220
84581303|NCT00286455|168916634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.46|-3.28|0.958
84581304|NCT00286455|168916635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.018||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.018|-0.084|0.003
84581305|NCT00286455|168916635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.105|<0.001
84581306|NCT00286455|168916636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.099|<0.001
84581307|NCT00286455|168916636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.083|0.001
84610602|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.116
84755605|NCT03901105|169267580|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between ADAS-Cog11 least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0006
84581308|NCT00286455|168916637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.103|<0.001
84498392|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.383|4.643|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.643|4.383|<.0001
84498393|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.371|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.610|4.371|<.0001
84498394|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|4.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.272|4.027|<.0001
84498395|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.014|4.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.242|4.014|<.0001
84498396|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.051|4.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.301|4.051|<.0001
84498397|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.024|4.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.254|4.024|<.0001
84498398|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.842|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.153|2.842|<.0001
84581309|NCT00286455|168916637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.037||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.037|-0.109|<0.001
84581310|NCT00286455|168916638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.007||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.007|-0.084|0.021
84672458|NCT01633944|169080380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||0.0012
84755606|NCT03901105|169267580|OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between FAQ least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0097
84581311|NCT00286455|168916638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.079|0.043
84581312|NCT00286455|168916639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.069||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.069|-0.255|<0.001
84581313|NCT00286455|168916639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.065||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.065|-0.254|0.001
84581314|NCT00286455|168916640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.034||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.034|-0.138|0.001
84581315|NCT00286455|168916640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.137|0.002
84581316|NCT00286455|168916641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.137||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.137|-0.568|0.230
84581317|NCT00286455|168916641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.200|-0.508|0.393
84581318|NCT00286455|168916642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.515||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.515|-0.348|0.703
84581319|NCT00286455|168916642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.717|-0.153|0.203
84581320|NCT00286455|168916643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.569||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.569|-0.232|0.408
84581321|NCT00286455|168916643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.417||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.417|-0.391|0.949
84581322|NCT00286455|168916644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.440|0.886
84581323|NCT00286455|168916644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.317||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.317|-0.510|0.645
84581324|NCT00286455|168916645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.239||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.239|-0.378|0.656
84581325|NCT00286455|168916645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.275||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.275|-0.347|0.819
84672459|NCT01633944|169080380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||0.0754
84581326|NCT00286455|168916646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.253||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.253|-0.411|0.642
84581327|NCT00286455|168916646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.338||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.338|-0.332|0.986
84581328|NCT00286455|168916647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|4.571|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.571|0.622|0.305
84581329|NCT00286455|168916647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.349||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|6.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.321|0.873|0.091
84581330|NCT00286455|168916648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.704||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.694|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.100|1.694|0.001
84581331|NCT00286455|168916648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.305||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.505|7.255|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.255|1.505|0.003
84581332|NCT00286455|168916649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.905||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.210|1.359|0.006
84581333|NCT00286455|168916649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|10.017|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.017|2.068|<0.001
84581334|NCT00286455|168916650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|5.188|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.188|1.367|0.004
84581335|NCT00286455|168916650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.429|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.429|1.671|<0.001
84581336|NCT00286455|168916651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.331||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|10.947|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.947|1.714|0.002
84581337|NCT00286455|168916651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.732||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.862|12.025|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||12.025|1.862|0.001
84581338|NCT00286455|168916652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.766||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|11.16|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.160|0.685|0.153
84755607|NCT00365456|169267603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0045||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.021||No multiplicity correction of the significance level was performed as only one primary endpoint was planned.|ANCOVA|Estimation allowing for unequal variance in the two treatment groups and robust estimates for the standard errors were obtained.||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment group, stratum and pooled centre as fixed effects and log (BMD at Baseline III (month 24)) as a covariate (log-normally distributed data assumed). Least square mean change from baseline III (month 24), 95% confidence interval and p-value for the treatment effect (PTH (1-84) vs. Risedronate) was calculated. Superiority was claimed if lower limit of the interval was above 1. Results were back-transformed from the log scale.||1.021|1.003|0.010
84755608|NCT01846728|169267606|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84755609|NCT01846728|169267607|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
84755610|NCT01846728|169267608|OTHER|Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84755611|NCT01846728|169267609|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.98
84755612|NCT01846728|169267610|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
84581339|NCT00286455|168916652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.632||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|18.354|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||18.354|1.169|0.029
84581340|NCT00286455|168916653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.102
84581341|NCT00286455|168916653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.063
84581342|NCT00286455|168916654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.18|0.186
84581343|NCT00286455|168916654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.89|-0.22|0.237
84581344|NCT00286455|168916655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.50|-0.74|0.702
84581345|NCT00286455|168916655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.32|0.338
84672460|NCT02624284|169080415|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on latency to smoke. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
84581346|NCT00286455|168916656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.72|-0.74|0.978
84581347|NCT00286455|168916656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.74|-0.73|0.991
84672461|NCT02624284|169080416|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on number of cigarettes smoked. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
84755613|NCT02161575|169267611|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-20.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Confidence Interval for the Median Change form Baseline||The null hypothesis was that the change in CSRT from baseline to Day 90 was zero||-20.50|-59.50|<0.0001
84755614|NCT01286454|169267657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.69|120.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||120.47|102.69|
84755615|NCT01286454|169267657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.16|111.64||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||111.64|95.16|
84755616|NCT01286454|169267657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|70.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.52|76.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||76.74|64.52|
84755617|NCT01286454|169267657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|113.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.91|121.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||121.74|105.91|
84581348|NCT00286455|168916657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.61|-1.16|0.539
84581349|NCT00286455|168916657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.49|-1.29|0.379
84581350|NCT00286455|168916658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-4.4|0.616
84581351|NCT00286455|168916658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.4|0.930
84581352|NCT00286455|168916659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.0|-5.3|0.915
84581353|NCT00286455|168916659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-4.8|0.745
84581354|NCT00286455|168916660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-3.4|0.466
84581355|NCT00286455|168916660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.6|-1.5|0.154
84581356|NCT00286455|168916661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.9|-5.1|0.774
84581357|NCT00286455|168916661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.1|-5.2|0.761
84581358|NCT00286455|168916662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.7|-4.2|0.559
84581359|NCT00286455|168916662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.0|-4.1|0.523
84755618|NCT01286454|169267658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|112.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.85|122.52||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||122.52|103.85|
84672462|NCT02624284|169080418|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on days of abstinence. Age, sex, race and nicotine dependence were included as covariates.||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
84672463|NCT03064126|169080419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166||||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0553||||Chi-squared||||||0.0553|0.0017
84672464|NCT03064126|169080420|NON_INFERIORITY|A Chi-Square Test was used to assess the hypothesis for the difference in 12-month MAE-free rate with non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0248||||Chi-squared||||||0.0248|<0.0001
84672465|NCT06034496|169080453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.012
84498399|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.849|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.138|2.849|<.0001
84498400|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.470|3.164|<.0001
84498401|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.199|3.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.486|3.199|<.0001
84498402|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.886|3.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.187|2.886|<.0001
84498403|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.019|3.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.299|3.019|<.0001
84498404|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.363||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.113|-0.613|0.0008
84498405|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.362||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.129|-0.595|0.0003
84498406|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.085|-0.588|0.0026
84581360|NCT00286455|168916663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.2|-7.4|0.739
84581361|NCT00286455|168916663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.6|-9.3|0.388
84755619|NCT01286454|169267658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|112.65||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||112.65|95.48|
84755620|NCT01286454|169267658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|66.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.56|72.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||72.63|61.56|
84755621|NCT01286454|169267658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|28.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.09|30.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||30.78|26.09|
84755622|NCT01286454|169267658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|114.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|122.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||122.97|106.99|
84755623|NCT01286454|169267659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|259.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.48|290.7||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||290.70|231.48|
84755624|NCT01286454|169267659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|134.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.31|151.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||151.09|120.31|
84755625|NCT01286454|169267659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|48.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.35|54.44||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||54.44|43.35|
84755626|NCT01286454|169267659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|14.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.83|16.11||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||16.11|12.83|
84755627|NCT01286454|169267659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|171.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.82|187.78||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||187.78|115.82|
84581362|NCT03681093|168916687|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.70|-0.59|0.979
84581363|NCT03681093|168916687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.39||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|MMRM|||||0.39|-0.88|0.656
84581364|NCT03681093|168916688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||1.14|0.15|0.012
84581365|NCT03681093|168916688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||0.94|-0.04|0.074
84581366|NCT03681093|168916689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|14.93||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||14.93|-4.49|0.288
84581367|NCT03681093|168916689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|7.65||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||7.65|-11.99|0.661
84755628|NCT04556136|169267691|NON_INFERIORITY|This non-inferiority study was designed to demonstrate the ability of the phototherapy kiosk to safely administer UVB radiation to participants with varying levels of 25(OH)D and achieve comparable levels of serum 25(OH)D in a similar population of adults randomized to receive RDA of 600 IU vitamin D oral supplementation daily. It is important to evaluate device equivalence to standard of care in the maintenance of sufficient levels of vitamin D in adults 18 - 70 years old.||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect sizes for significant differences were included as eta squared (ŋ2) values.||The intent-to-treat analysis plan was carried out with all available subject data points. No interim analysis was performed. Exploratory data analyses were conducted on serum vitamin D levels of participants assigned to either the oral supplementation or kiosk group. Analysis was restricted to participants with valid baseline serum vitamin D data and at least one follow-up blood draw. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.01
84581368|NCT03681093|168916690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|4.21||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||4.21|-2.98|0.735
84581369|NCT03681093|168916690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.13||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||8.13|0.89|0.015
84581370|NCT01557244|168916707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.0001
84581371|NCT01557244|168916707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
84581372|NCT01557244|168916707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
84581373|NCT01557244|168916707|OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|-29.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.42|13.31||||||||13.31|-71.42|
84581374|NCT01557244|168916707|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|38.23||||||||38.23|-45.87|
84581375|NCT01557244|168916708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2334|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.2334
84581376|NCT01557244|168916708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5087|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.5087
84581377|NCT01557244|168916708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3333|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.3333
84755629|NCT02101515|169267723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.93||||||||0.93|0.22|
84581378|NCT01557244|168916708|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|6.33||||||||6.33|-7.28|
84581379|NCT01557244|168916708|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|7.6||||||||7.60|-5.96|
84672466|NCT06034496|169080453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.33
84581380|NCT01557244|168916710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0336
84581381|NCT01557244|168916710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0327
84581382|NCT01557244|168916710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0017
84581383|NCT01557244|168916710|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|27.19||||||||27.19|-48.75|
84581384|NCT01557244|168916710|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.15|19.64||||||||19.64|-50.15|
84581385|NCT01557244|168916711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0679
84581386|NCT01557244|168916711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.1233
84581387|NCT01557244|168916711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0019
84581388|NCT01557244|168916711|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|4.89||||||||4.89|-14.81|
84581389|NCT01557244|168916711|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|3.95||||||||3.95|-15.85|
84581390|NCT01557244|168916712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0116
84581391|NCT01557244|168916712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0765
84581392|NCT01557244|168916712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0061
84581393|NCT01557244|168916712|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.16|
84672467|NCT06034496|169080453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Session (baseline, follow-up) x CES|ANOVA|||||||.85
84672468|NCT06034496|169080454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.6
84672469|NCT06034496|169080454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.9
84581394|NCT01557244|168916712|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|-0.74|
84581395|NCT01557244|168916713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0787
84581396|NCT01557244|168916713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0727|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0727
84581397|NCT01557244|168916713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0666|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0666
84581398|NCT01557244|168916713|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||||||||0.54|-0.45|
84581399|NCT01557244|168916713|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.52||||||||0.52|-0.49|
84581400|NCT01557244|168916714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0111
84581401|NCT01557244|168916714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0171|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0171
84581402|NCT01557244|168916714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0028
84581403|NCT01557244|168916714|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.53|
84581404|NCT01557244|168916714|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.84||||||||0.84|-0.54|
84581405|NCT01557244|168916715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0496
84581406|NCT01557244|168916715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0002
84581407|NCT01557244|168916715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||<.0001
84755630|NCT02101515|169267725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.4||||||||8.40|0.67|
84755631|NCT02101515|169267726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
84581408|NCT01557244|168916715|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.09|
84581409|NCT01557244|168916715|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.77||||||||0.77|-0.52|
84581410|NCT01557244|168916716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0298
84581411|NCT01557244|168916716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.1417
84581412|NCT01557244|168916716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6219|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.6219
84581413|NCT01557244|168916716|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.32||||||||0.32|-1.28|
84581414|NCT01557244|168916716|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.52||||||||0.52|-1.24|
84581415|NCT01557244|168916717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7986|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7986
84581416|NCT01557244|168916717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.2313
84581417|NCT01557244|168916717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7571|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7571
84581418|NCT01557244|168916717|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.11|42.0||||||||42.00|-42.11|
84581419|NCT01557244|168916717|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|56.63||||||||56.63|-26.50|
84581420|NCT01557244|168916718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0610
84581421|NCT01557244|168916718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0048
84581422|NCT01557244|168916718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0100
84581423|NCT01557244|168916718|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-16.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.14|30.29||||||||30.29|-63.14|
84755632|NCT02101515|169267727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.62||||||||5.62|1.30|
84755633|NCT02101515|169267728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.92||||||||13.92|0.06|
84755634|NCT02101515|169267730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|42.9||||||||42.90|0.68|
84755635|NCT02101515|169267732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54||||||||1.54|0.46|
84755636|NCT02101515|169267733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.49||||||||1.49|0.39|
84755637|NCT02101515|169267735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84755638|NCT02101515|169267739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.77||||||||2.77|0.03|
84755639|NCT00073528|169267742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio wase based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
84755640|NCT00073528|169267743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
84755641|NCT02790138|169267784|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.5||The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||The Placebo IV and Vedolizumab IV 300 mg groups were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test at Week 14.||37.5|4.9|0.013
84755642|NCT02790138|169267785|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|17.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|35.1||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||||35.1|0.3|=0.043
84755643|NCT02790138|169267786|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|25.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|41.4||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||Week 14||41.4|8.0|=0.004
84755644|NCT02790138|169267786|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.6|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.0||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34.||37.0|1.9|=0.027
84755645|NCT02790138|169267787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.4|||||Hazard ratio for achieving PDAI remission.|||9.4|1.7|
84755646|NCT02790138|169267788|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|29.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|47.6||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 14||47.6|8.0|=0.003
84755647|NCT02790138|169267788|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|39.8||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34||39.8|1.9|=0.026
84755648|NCT02790138|169267789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|2.02|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.93||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.93|1.11|=0.002
84755649|NCT02790138|169267789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.49||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.49|0.92|=0.020
84581424|NCT01557244|168916718|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|48.57||||||||48.57|-46.00|
84755650|NCT02790138|169267790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.34|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.94||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.94|0.74|=0.191
84581425|NCT01557244|168916719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.2246
84672470|NCT06034496|169080454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.05
84672471|NCT06034496|169080455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
84755651|NCT02790138|169267790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.07|||=|0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.54||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.54|0.60|=0.766
84755652|NCT02790138|169267791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.57|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.31||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.31|0.83|=0.055
84755653|NCT02790138|169267791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.48|||=|0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.16|0.79|=0.095
84581426|NCT01557244|168916719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0003
84581427|NCT01557244|168916719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0161
84581428|NCT01557244|168916719|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|24.53||||||||24.53|-61.00|
84581429|NCT01557244|168916719|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|60.65||||||||60.65|-22.93|
84581430|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.042|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.042|0.739|0.137
84581431|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.1|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||26.1|-4.2|
84581432|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.081|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.081|0.767|0.284
84581433|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.1|
84581434|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.139|0.813|0.655
84581435|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.7|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||18.7|-13.9|
84610603|NCT02684188|168972945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.126
84755654|NCT02790138|169267792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.14|||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.67||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.67|0.61|=0.575
84755655|NCT02790138|169267792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.21|||=|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.78|0.65|=0.403
84755656|NCT02790138|169267792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.6|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.34||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.34|0.85|=0.047
84581436|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.149|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.149|0.808|0.681
84581437|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|19.2|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.2|-14.9|
84581438|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.085|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.085|0.767|0.299
84581439|NCT01313676|168916755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.5|
84581440|NCT01313676|168916756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15|1|0.019
84581441|NCT01313676|168916756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14|1|0.026
84581442|NCT01313676|168916756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|-8|0.654
84581443|NCT01313676|168916756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7|-6|0.913
84581444|NCT01313676|168916756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|3|0.004
84581445|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.143|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.143|0.750|0.475
84581446|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|25.0|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||25.0|-14.3|
84581447|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.111|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.111|0.723|0.317
84672472|NCT06034496|169080455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.17
84672473|NCT06034496|169080455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||CES x Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.73
84581448|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|27.7|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||27.7|-11.1|
84581449|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.217|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.217|0.802|0.908
84581450|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.8|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.8|-21.7|
84581451|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.281|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.281|0.834|0.763
84581452|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|16.6|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||16.6|-28.1|
84581453|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.155|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.155|0.761|0.545
84581454|NCT01313676|168916757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.9|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.9|-15.5|
84581455|NCT02935036|168916775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5947
84581456|NCT02935036|168916776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
84581457|NCT02935036|168916777|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|2.4||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6920
84581458|NCT02933151|168916780|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Reference group is usual care|||1.14|0.92|
84581459|NCT02802865|168916792|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.75|1.18|0.007
84581460|NCT02802865|168916793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84581461|NCT02802865|168916794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84581462|NCT02802865|168916795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84581463|NCT02802865|168916796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for this conception.||||0.709
84581464|NCT02802865|168916797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for clinical pregnancy.||||0.356
84581465|NCT02802865|168916799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for live birth.||||0.356
84581466|NCT02802865|168916800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for pregnancy loss.||||0.486
84581467|NCT01230814|168916803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for VVC was p\<0.020 (two-sided).|Clustered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of positive test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which VVC was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||1.37|0.62|0.690
84581468|NCT01230814|168916804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for BV was p\<0.030 (two-sided).|clutstered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which BV was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||0.87|0.48|0.005
84581469|NCT00292370|168916834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84581470|NCT03615534|168916909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TG level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline HDL-C, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
84672474|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.18
84672475|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
84672476|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.53
84672477|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.07
84755657|NCT02790138|169267793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.44|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.12||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.12|0.77|=0.119
84581471|NCT03615534|168916910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline Non HDL-C and d-LDL-C.||||0.060
84672478|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||CES x Session|ANOVA|||||||.46
84755658|NCT02790138|169267793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.15|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.69||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.69|0.62|=0.542
84755659|NCT02790138|169267793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.22|||=|0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.78|0.65|=0.404
84755660|NCT01226459|169267799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Intent to Treat (ITT) population defined as all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group who received dispensed investigational product. Four participants in vehicle group and 3 participants in foam group had no hair information at Baseline. Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 24 data.||13.1|5.0|<0.0001
84755661|NCT01226459|169267800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 12 data.||14.7|7.0|<0.0001
84755662|NCT01226459|169267801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04|||ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
84755663|NCT03770091|169267804|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA performed||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
84755664|NCT03770091|169267805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
84755665|NCT03770091|169267806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84755666|NCT03770091|169267807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
84755667|NCT03770091|169267808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84755668|NCT00698997|169267816|OTHER|Non- equivalence.|slope difference|1.01||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Change-over-Time was modeled as a linear within-subject effect of time across all observed data for each participant. We fit splines to manage the differing lengths of time in parent-training versus direct treatment. In all analyses, site was included as a categorical covariate to account for potential differences. Effect sizes were reported following Cohen's recommendations as f2.||||.03
84755669|NCT03227471|169267845|OTHER|||||||0.9943||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9943
84755670|NCT03227471|169267845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755671|NCT03227471|169267845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||< 0.0001
84755672|NCT03227471|169267845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755673|NCT03227471|169267846|OTHER|||||||0.8869||||||P value within treatment.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8869
84755674|NCT03227471|169267846|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755675|NCT03227471|169267847|OTHER|||||||0.6407||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.6407
84755676|NCT03227471|169267847|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755677|NCT03227471|169267862|OTHER|||||||0.5802||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.5802
84755678|NCT03227471|169267862|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755679|NCT03227471|169267862|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755680|NCT03227471|169267862|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755681|NCT03227471|169267863|OTHER|||||||0.8712||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8712
84755682|NCT03227471|169267863|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755683|NCT03227471|169267864|OTHER|||||||0.8359||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8359
84755684|NCT03227471|169267864|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755685|NCT03227471|169267865|OTHER|||||||0.9453||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9453
84755686|NCT03227471|169267865|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755687|NCT03227471|169267865|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755688|NCT03227471|169267865|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755689|NCT03227471|169267866|OTHER|||||||0.7849||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7849
84755690|NCT03227471|169267866|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84581472|NCT03615534|168916910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dL,TG= 240.4 mg/dL, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dL.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTG, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
84672479|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.01
84581473|NCT03615534|168916910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line d-LDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline d-LDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and Non HDL-C .||||0.334
84672480|NCT06034496|169080456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.29
84672481|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.10
84672482|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
84755691|NCT03227471|169267867|OTHER|||||||0.7356||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7356
84755692|NCT03227471|169267867|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755693|NCT03227471|169267868|OTHER|||||||0.394||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.3940
84755694|NCT03227471|169267868|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0003
84755695|NCT03227471|169267868|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755696|NCT03227471|169267868|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755697|NCT03227471|169267869|OTHER|||||||0.4757||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.4757
84755698|NCT03227471|169267869|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755699|NCT03227471|169267870|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0070
84755700|NCT03227471|169267870|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
84755701|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.66|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 2).||1.01|0.66|
84755702|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 3).||1.06|0.69|
84755703|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 4).||1.05|0.68|
84755704|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 3).||1.3|0.85|
84755705|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 4).||1.29|0.84|
84755706|NCT00449670|169267872|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 3 and Lot 4).||1.23|0.8|
84755707|NCT01251653|169267935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|81.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.3||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.863|147.205|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.205|44.863|0.4815
84755708|NCT01251653|169267935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|95.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.139|108.077|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.077|84.139|0.0149
84755709|NCT01251653|169267935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|88.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.778|94.964|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.964|81.778|0.0208
84755710|NCT01251653|169267936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|141.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.848|172.495|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||172.495|115.848|0.8715
84672483|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.81
84672484|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
84672485|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.35
84755711|NCT01251653|169267936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|77.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.516|87.473|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||87.473|68.516|0.6805
84581474|NCT03615534|168916910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line Non HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,TC=199.9 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline Non HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and d-LDL-C.||||0.012
84581475|NCT03615534|168916910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line RC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1, ApoB=133.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline RC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, d-LDL-C, and ApoB.||||0.001
84581476|NCT03615534|168916911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoA1 levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl, TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoA1 level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TG and HDL-C levels.||||0.058
84581477|NCT03615534|168916911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoB levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:ApoB=133.1, RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoB level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, dLDL-C, and RC .||||0.067
84581478|NCT03615534|168916912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line FSG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: FSG= 95.7 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline FSG level as a covariate.||||0.001
84581479|NCT03615534|168916913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line eGFR levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: eGFR= 88.0 ml/min per 1.73 m\^2.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline eGFR level as a covariate.||||0.786
84581480|NCT03615534|168916914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line serum uric acid levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: serum uric acid= 5.0 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline serum uric acid level as a covariate.||||0.0001
84610604|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.597
84755712|NCT01251653|169267936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|83.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.794|94.217|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.217|74.794|0.2327
84581481|NCT03615534|168916915|OTHER|||||||0.201||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line AST levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|"Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: AST= 18.1 IU/L.~."||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline AST level as a covariate.||||0.201
84610605|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.504
84610606|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.558
84610607|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.472
84610608|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.462
84755713|NCT01251653|169267937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|136.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|165.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||165.29|112.09|0.7759
84755714|NCT01251653|169267938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|118.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.3359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.81|147.88|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.88|94.81|0.3359
84755715|NCT01251653|169267941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|93.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.5||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.352|107.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||107.890|81.352|0.0349
84755716|NCT01251653|169267941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.053|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||118.760|81.053|0.0405
84755717|NCT01251653|169267942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|90.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.566|104.901|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.901|78.566|0.0728
84672486|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
84581482|NCT03615534|168916915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ALT levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ALT= 16.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ALT level as a covariate.||||0.033
84581483|NCT03615534|168916915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line CK levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: CK= 28.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline CK level as a covariate.||||0.511
84581484|NCT03615534|168916916|OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line diastolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: diastolic blood pressure= 80.0 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline diastolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.434
84581485|NCT03615534|168916916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line systolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: systolic blood pressure= 121.5 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline systolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.966
84581486|NCT01429623|168916919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.25|||Log Rank|||||3.25|0.74|<0.16
84581487|NCT01429623|168916920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.61
84581488|NCT01429623|168916921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.32
84581489|NCT01429623|168916922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.97
84581490|NCT01750281|168916929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.61|0.80|0.584
84610609|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.394
84755718|NCT01251653|169267942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|85.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.9||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.561|112.138|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||112.138|65.561|0.3294
84581491|NCT01750281|168916929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.31|0.65|0.690
84581492|NCT01750281|168916930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|2.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.13|0.97|0.126
84581493|NCT01750281|168916930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.78|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.78|0.80|0.485
84581494|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.71|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.71|-1.19|
84581495|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-1.34|
84581496|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-1.53|
84581497|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.16|-1.63|
84672487|NCT06034496|169080457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
84581498|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.32|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.32|-1.76|
84581499|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.31|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.31|-1.81|
84581500|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.67|-2.19|
84581501|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.23|-1.62|
84581502|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.68|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.68|-2.09|
84581503|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.7|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.70|-2.09|
84581504|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-2.27|
84581505|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.10|-2.50|
84581506|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.85|-2.29|
84581507|NCT01655069|168916967|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.17|-2.83|
84581508|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.73|0.97|
84610610|NCT02684188|168972946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.368
84755719|NCT00139776|169267988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||"Null hypothesis for primary outcome is that there is no difference in the number of flares observed between the 2 treatment arms of celecoxib 200mg continuous use and celecoxib 200mg intermittent use.~Sample size calculation: Sufficient number of participants were randomized to provide at least 80% power to detect an estimated effect size of 0.2 using a 2-sided t-test at a 0.05 significant level."||||<0.0001
84672488|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||STAI-T CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.23
84755720|NCT00139776|169267989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis||||<0.0001
84755721|NCT00139776|169267990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
84672489|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||STAI-T Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.45
84755722|NCT00139776|169267991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
84755723|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
84755724|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||<0.001
84755725|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||<0.001
84581509|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.83|1.02|
84581510|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.16|1.27|
84581511|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.24|1.36|
84581512|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.67|1.74|
84581513|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.77|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.77|1.79|
84581514|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.49|2.19|
84581515|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.89|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.89|0.17|
84581516|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.27|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.27|0.52|
84581517|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.10|0.39|
84581518|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.05|1.34|
84672490|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-T CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
84672491|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||STAI-S CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.40
84672492|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
84755726|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.003
84755727|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.022
84755728|NCT00139776|169267992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.047
84755729|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
84755730|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||0.001
84581519|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.43|1.70|
84581520|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.85|1.05|
84581521|NCT01655069|168916968|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.53|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||5.53|2.34|
84581522|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.69|-1.27|
84581523|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.86|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.86|-1.44|
84610611|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.946
84755731|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||0.096
84755732|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.338
84755733|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.832||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.832
84755734|NCT00139776|169267993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.972
84755735|NCT00139776|169267994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046||95.0||||Overall p-value Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.0046
84755736|NCT00139776|169267995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0102
84755737|NCT00139776|169267996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0012
84610612|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.613
84755738|NCT00139776|169267997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
84755739|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Total WOMAC score||||<0.001
84755740|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|0.21|2.99|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Continuous use||2.99|0.21|
84755741|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|3.6|6.38|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Intermittent use||6.38|3.60|
84755742|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
84755743|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.06|0.67|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Continuous use||0.67|0.06|
84755744|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.88|1.49|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Intermittent use||1.49|0.88|
84581524|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.02|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.02|-1.60|
84581525|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.93|-1.51|
84581526|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.21|-1.80|
84581527|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.22|-1.83|
84581528|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.43|-2.22|
84581529|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.13|-1.73|
84581530|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.4|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.40|-1.48|
84581531|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.17|-1.46|
84581532|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.28|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.28|-1.53|
84581533|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-1.80|
84581534|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.44|-1.92|
84672493|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
84672494|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||STAI-S CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.20
84755745|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||0.004
84755746|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.02|0.25|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Continuous use||0.25|-0.02|
84755747|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|0.26|0.53|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Intermittent use||0.53|0.26|
84755748|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||0.002
84755749|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|0.13|2.14|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Continuous use||2.14|0.13|
84755750|NCT00139776|169267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|2.42|4.43|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Intermittent use||4.43|2.42|
84581535|NCT01655069|168916969|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.59|
84581536|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||0.17|-1.65|
84581537|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.36|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.36|-2.23|
84581538|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.22|-2.06|
84581539|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-2.18|
84581540|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.12|-1.95|
84581541|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.93|
84581542|NCT01655069|168916970|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.93|-3.48|
84581543|NCT06399471|168916972|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.126||||||One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.126
84581544|NCT06399471|168916972|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.015
84581545|NCT06399471|168916972|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.852
84581546|NCT06399471|168916973|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.003
84581547|NCT06399471|168916973|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.027
84672495|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||STAI-S CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.39
84672496|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
84672497|NCT06034496|169080458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-S CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
84755751|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2712||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep disturbance||||0.2712
84755752|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Snoring||||0.8737
84755753|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7703||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Awaken short of breath||||0.7703
84755754|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Quantity of sleep||||0.3769
84755755|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4075||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep adequacy||||0.4075
84755756|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5854||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Somnolence||||0.5854
84755757|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8358||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index I||||0.8358
84581548|NCT06399471|168916973|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.425
84755758|NCT00139776|169267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5878||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index II||||0.5878
84755759|NCT00139776|169268000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC total score||||<0.001
84581549|NCT06399471|168916974|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.006|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.006
84581550|NCT06399471|168916974|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.236|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.236
84581551|NCT06399471|168916974|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.118|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.118
84581552|NCT06399471|168916975|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.687|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used during Stance Time Asymmetry Index test.||||0.687
84581553|NCT06399471|168916976|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and Rheo when used during the Narrowing beam walking test.||||0.082
84581554|NCT06399471|168916977|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.943|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the reported falls when for when the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.943
84581555|NCT06399471|168916978|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.535|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Physiological cost index for when the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.535
84755760|NCT00139776|169268000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
84581556|NCT06399471|168916979|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.229|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Ascent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.229
84581557|NCT06399471|168916980|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.528|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.528
84755761|NCT00139776|169268000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||<0.001
84755762|NCT00139776|169268000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||<0.001
84581558|NCT06399471|168916981|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.144
84581559|NCT06399471|168916981|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.024
84581560|NCT06399471|168916981|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.949|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.949
84581561|NCT06399471|168916982|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.051
84581562|NCT06399471|168916983|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.367|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Steps per Day for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.367
84581563|NCT05529173|168916984|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84581564|NCT01927861|168917027|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline (week 0) in the height SDS after 104 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline height SDS as a covariate.||0.88|0.38|< 0.0001
84581565|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FF E0 (Response of Placebo participants)|||19.39|9.39|
84755763|NCT00139776|169268001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1437||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|by general association||Analysis across all 3 sleep scores for Period III||||0.1437
84755764|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical function||||<0.0001
84755765|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role physical||||<0.0001
84755766|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Bodily pain||||<0.0001
84755767|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||General health||||0.3097
84755768|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Vitality||||0.0139
84755769|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1303||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Social functioning||||0.1303
84755770|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role emotional||||0.1404
84755771|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4015||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental health||||0.4015
84581566|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
84581567|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|48.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|129.32|||||ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||129.32|18.21|
84581568|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
84581569|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||FP Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
84581570|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1081.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|448.0|2609.66|||||FP ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2609.66|448.00|
84581571|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||BUD E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
84581572|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||BUD Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
84581573|NCT02991859|168917096|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1467.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.51|3939.84|||||BUD ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||3939.84|546.51|
84581574|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||Exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FF E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
84581575|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||exponential power-law model|899.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|698.36|1101.62|||||FF ED50 Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached|||1101.62|698.36|
84581576|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
84581577|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1986.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1574.7|2397.39|||||FP ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2397.39|1574.70|
84581578|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||BUD E0 - Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
84581579|NCT02991859|168917097|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1927.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1698.47|2156.37|||||BUD ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2156.37|1698.47|
84581580|NCT02991859|168917098|OTHER||Emax Model|289.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.82|354.64|||||ED20 Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||354.64|224.82|
84581581|NCT02991859|168917098|OTHER||Emax Model|194.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.82|517.28|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||517.28|72.82|
84581582|NCT02991859|168917099|OTHER||Emax Model|639.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|506.94|771.79|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||771.79|506.94|
84581583|NCT02991859|168917099|OTHER||Emax Model|4325.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1792.02|10438.64|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||10438.64|1792.02|
84581584|NCT02991859|168917100|OTHER||Emax Model|620.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.79|694.2|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||694.20|546.79|
84581585|NCT02991859|168917100|OTHER||Emax Model|5869.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2186.03|15759.35|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||15759.35|2186.03|
84581586|NCT02057666|168917176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.903|||Log Rank|Stratified as per randomisation.|Stratified as per randomisation.|||0.903|0.182|0.027
84581587|NCT02057666|168917177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|3.355|||Log Rank|||||3.355|0.065|0.448
84581588|NCT03339453|168917197|NON_INFERIORITY|95% Confidence Interval of the treatment differences in treatment success rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.52||||||||1.52|-1.52|
84581589|NCT05033561|168917215|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
84581590|NCT05033561|168917215|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
84581591|NCT05033561|168917216|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
84581592|NCT05033561|168917216|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
84581593|NCT03931785|168917246|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.58|-0.42|0.7467
84755772|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical component summary||||<0.0001
84755773|NCT00139776|169268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0301||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental component summary||||0.0301
84581594|NCT03931785|168917246|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.43||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.93|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.93|-0.07|0.0941
84581595|NCT03931785|168917246|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.56|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.56|-0.44|0.8098
84581596|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|15.0|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||15.0|-12.9|
84581597|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|2.6|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.6|-25.3|
84755774|NCT00674583|169268006|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Menjugate Group) in the percentages of subjects with vaccine response to rSBA-MenC is greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.75||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix group compared to the Menjugate group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix group minus Menjugate group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||5.75|-5.25|
84581598|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.8|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.8|-21.2|
84581599|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.839|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.839|0.591|0.8852
84581600|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.634||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.117|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.117|0.360|0.1152
84581601|NCT03931785|168917247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.317|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.317|0.425|0.3157
84581602|NCT03211858|168917248|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR341402 over NovoLog/NovoRapid was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \<0.3%. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, using a hierarchical step down testing procedure, the inverse non-inferiority of NovoLog/NovoRapid over SAR341402 was tested and was demonstrated if lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \> -0.3%.|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.039|||||SAR341402 vs NovoLog/NovoRapid|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group (SAR341402, NovoLog/NovoRapid), the randomization strata of geographical region, type of diabetes and prior use of NovoLog/NovoRapid as fixed categorical effects, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c value.||0.039|-0.192|
84581603|NCT01423084|168917279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain||1.23|0.82|
84581604|NCT01423084|168917279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain||1.1|0.77|
84498407|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.351||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.118|-0.584|0.0004
84581605|NCT01423084|168917279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ 98/254 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ98/254 strain||1.09|0.6|
84581606|NCT01423084|168917287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of ELISA GMCs against vaccine antigen 287-953 if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs||1.02|0.67|
84581607|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.139||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.357|0.956|0.145
84581608|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.912|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.35|0.912|0.298
84581609|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.178||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.452|0.955|0.127
84581610|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.37|0.911|0.286
84581611|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.504|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.504|0.925|0.183
84581612|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.595|0.903|0.209
84581613|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.144||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.638|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.638|0.799|0.463
84581614|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.331||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.822|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.822|0.972|0.074
84581615|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.169||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.577|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.577|0.867|0.306
84581616|NCT03850431|168917293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.565|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.565|0.845|0.373
84581617|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.923||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.03|0.826|0.153
84581618|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.068|0.777|0.252
84581619|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.088|0.815|0.413
84610613|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.541
84581620|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.079|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.079|0.83|0.41
84581621|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.766|0.11
84581622|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.062|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.062|0.654|0.14
84581623|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.882||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.184|0.657|0.404
84581624|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.538|0.072
84581625|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.008|0.6|0.057
84581626|NCT03850431|168917294|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.247|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.247|0.697|0.637
84581627|NCT01133977|168917297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||||||The current study was not powered or designed to determine superiority of the '20 mg Lenvatinib + Dacarbazine (Phase 2)' arm compared with 'Dacarbazine (Phase 2) ' arm.||0.75|0.23|
84581628|NCT02462057|168917301|EQUIVALENCE|The anticipated sample size of 3500 provided 80% power to detect a 3% pairwise difference between the proportions of participants who enrolled in HF with significance testing conducted at the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.005 (0.05/10) to account for the 10 pairwise between-arm comparisons and pessimistically allowing for up to 10% further exclusions. The baseline monthly enrolment rate was estimated at ∼1%/month.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84581629|NCT03606213|168917303|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||P-value week 14 versus baseline (Cohort A, arm 1; placebo)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84672498|NCT06034496|169080459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.85
84498408|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.800|<.0001
84581630|NCT00215553|168917327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.794
84581631|NCT00215553|168917327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.236
84581632|NCT00215553|168917327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.396
84581633|NCT00215553|168917328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.346
84581634|NCT00215553|168917328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.286
84581635|NCT00215553|168917328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.964
84581636|NCT00215553|168917329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.028
84581637|NCT00215553|168917329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.147
84581638|NCT00215553|168917329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.293
84581639|NCT03071965|168917438|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0881||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.120|-0.226|0.5455
84581640|NCT00449007|168917481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between 6 months and baseline for Bupropion treated group.~Due to the low number of participants, the results are unreliable."||||1.0
84581641|NCT01452789|168917484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
84581642|NCT01452789|168917485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
84581643|NCT01452789|168917486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
84581644|NCT00147537|168917490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A one-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.28 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.027
84581645|NCT00147537|168917491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A One-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.30 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.121
84581646|NCT00472641|168917545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
84581647|NCT00472641|168917546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
84581648|NCT02006654|168917547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for idalopirdine at significance level 5%.||0.36|-1.45|0.2365
84581649|NCT02006654|168917548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||0.23|-0.09|0.4064
84581650|NCT02006654|168917549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||1.92|-0.57|0.4064
84581651|NCT01933425|168917558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.07|<0.05
84581652|NCT01933425|168917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|0.06|<0.05
84581653|NCT03319654|168917570|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE)-model with an exchangeable correlation structure and a logit link function was used to analyze the probability of live birth and clinical pregnancy respectively. All IUI cycles are used in this model with correction for the fact that cycles of the same couple are not independent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.9985|||GEE-model|||The null hypothesis is: there is no association between % total Sperm DNA Fragmentation and live birth.||0.9985|0.90|0.04
84581654|NCT03319654|168917570|OTHER||Area under the ROC curve|0.576|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Receiver Operating Characteristics curve|||||||>0.05
84672499|NCT06034496|169080459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.69
84672500|NCT06034496|169080459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.4
84755775|NCT00111800|169268016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.58|0.061
84755776|NCT00111800|169268016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.24|-0.82|<0.001
84581655|NCT04128228|168917578|OTHER|"Single group: All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.~Brain responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT)."|F value for the 2 X 2 Group Interaction|5.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2 × 2 × 3 Linear Mixed Model was conducted with Early Trauma Group (ET, NT) and Drinking Group (AUD, MD) as between-subjects factors, and Condition (stress, alcohol, neutral) as the within-subjects factor.|Linear Mixed Model|||A regions of interest (ROI) analysis was conducted to evaluate brain activity in the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VmPFC, BA10), a region identified a priori. The VmPFC ROI was defined using the Yale-Brodmann atlas in the BioImage Suite application, from which the beta value for the VmPFC ROI was obtained for a Linear Mixed Model analysis.||||<0.05
84581656|NCT04128228|168917579|OTHER|Single group (all individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment). Hormone responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT).|F value|4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84581657|NCT04128228|168917580|OTHER|Single Group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||.95|.53|<0.05
84581658|NCT04128228|168917581|OTHER|Single Group. All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.|t value|-3.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84581659|NCT04128228|168917582|OTHER|Single Group (All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.)|t value|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84581660|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.07|0.61|
84581661|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
84581662|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.96|1.03|
84581663|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.46|
84581664|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.66|
84581665|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.04||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.04|1.02|
84581666|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.32|0.82|
84581667|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.86|
84581668|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.79|
84581669|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.34|0.77|
84581670|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
84581671|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.74|
84581672|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.97|0.57|
84755777|NCT00111800|169268016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.16|-0.74|0.002
84755778|NCT00111800|169268016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.50|-1.09|<0.001
84498409|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.231|-1.762|<.0001
84498410|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.915|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.915|-1.477|<.0001
84498411|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.886|-1.410|<.0001
84581673|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.11|0.65|
84581674|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMCratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.84|
84581675|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.94||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.97|
84581676|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.55||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.55|0.78|
84581677|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.19|0.54|
84581678|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.61|
84581679|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.73|
84581680|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.87|
84581681|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.74|2.76|
84581682|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
84581683|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.10|
84581684|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.80|
84672501|NCT06034496|169080460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.13
84581685|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.62|
84581686|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.52|
84581687|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.54||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.54|2.68|
84581688|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
84581689|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.11|
84581690|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.23||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.23|1.15|
84498412|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.844|<.0001
84581691|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.72||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.72|0.89|
84581692|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.53|
84610614|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.765
84610615|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.919
84610616|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.999
84610617|NCT02684188|168972947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.995
84610618|NCT02684188|168972948|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF12 Physical Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, and the number of people in a household. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.371||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.371, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF12 Physical Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF12 Physical Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.371
84581693|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.08||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|1.28|
84672502|NCT06034496|169080460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
84672503|NCT06034496|169080460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.44
84581694|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.81|
84581695|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.83|0.47|
84581696|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.63||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.63|1.51|
84672504|NCT06034496|169080461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.36
84755779|NCT00111800|169268016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.55|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.55|-1.13|<0.001
84755780|NCT00111800|169268018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.37|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.37|-1.18|0.306
84755781|NCT00111800|169268018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.04|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.04|-1.56|0.039
84581697|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
84581698|NCT01026038|168917601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.72|0.38|
84755782|NCT00111800|169268018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.17|-1.34|0.130
84581699|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581700|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.429
84581701|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.314
84581702|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581703|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.552
84672505|NCT06034496|169080461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
84672506|NCT06034496|169080461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.96
84498413|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.221|0.717|<.0001
84498414|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.410|0.869|<.0001
84498415|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.231|0.728|<.0001
84498416|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.340|1.0000
84581704|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.499
84581705|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.376
84581706|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.633
84755783|NCT00111800|169268018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
84755784|NCT00111800|169268018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.46|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.46|-1.99|0.002
84581707|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.658
84581708|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.544
84581709|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581710|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581711|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
84581712|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.197
84581713|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.198
84581714|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.443
84581715|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.261
84581716|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.687
84498417|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.115|-0.447|0.5184
84498418|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.578|-0.017|0.0743
84498419|NCT03692078|168747719|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|-0.095|0.3889
84581717|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.671
84581718|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.253
84581719|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.074
84581720|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
84581721|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
84581722|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.607
84581723|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.549
84755785|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.95|0.21|0.909
84755786|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.92|0.27|0.852
84581724|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.864
84755787|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.83|0.30|0.795
84755788|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.77|0.74|0.135
84581725|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
84581726|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.836
84581727|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581728|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.297
84581729|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.145
84755789|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|12.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||12.37|0.85|0.085
84755790|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.36|0.36|0.866
84581730|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.517
84581731|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
84581732|NCT01026038|168917602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
84581733|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC||||0.075
84581734|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.345
84581735|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.628
84581736|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.592
84581737|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.608
84581738|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581739|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581740|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.333
84581741|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
84581742|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
84581743|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
84581744|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
84581745|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
84581746|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
84581747|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
84581748|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
84755791|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.76|0.69|0.202
84755792|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.13|0.35|0.941
84672507|NCT03762083|169080481|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|81.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|63.1|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||63.1|
84672508|NCT03762083|169080482|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 1.|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|97.0||||||||97.0|63.7|
84672509|NCT03762083|169080483|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 2.|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|98.8||||||||98.8|68.3|
84672510|NCT03762083|169080484|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 3.|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
84672511|NCT03762083|169080486|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|27.3||||||||27.3|0.1|
84755793|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.13|0.76|0.152
84581749|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581750|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
84755794|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.52|1.11|0.032
84581751|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
84581752|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581753|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581754|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581755|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.237
84672512|NCT03762083|169080486|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0|
84672513|NCT02402452|169080501|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio %|172.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|305.33||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||305.33|97.93|
84672514|NCT02402452|169080502|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|171.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|300.38||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||300.38|97.65|
84672515|NCT02402452|169080503|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|145.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|252.48||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||252.48|83.77|
84672516|NCT05179421|169080505|OTHER|NONMEM applies nonlinear mixed effects modeling to evaluate the relationship between predicted drug concentration after administration from known pharmacokinetics and a pharmacodynamic effect, in this case being a reduction in pain from sustained heat application.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores over time will first be modeled using NONMEM with derived parameters of maximum effect (Emax) and doses to produce a 50% and 90% maximum drug effect (C50 and C90, respectively), the steepness of the dose response curve (γ), and the time to peak effect. Inter-subject variability (e.g., biological variability) will evaluate additive, proportional, and exponential models. Residual intrasubject variability (e.g., noise) will typically require an additive and multiplicative error model.||||<0.05
84672517|NCT03746522|169080506|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||P-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0006
84672518|NCT03746522|169080507|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0005
84672519|NCT03746522|169080508|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha=0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
84672520|NCT03746522|169080509|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
84672521|NCT05422053|169080527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Control-IQ Use (13 Weeks) compared to Control-IQ Start||||<0.001
84581756|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.045
84498420|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.155|5.373|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.373|5.155|<.0001
84581757|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.285
84581758|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581759|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.174
84581760|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.125
84581761|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.058
84581762|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.092
84581763|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581764|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581765|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581766|NCT01026038|168917603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
84581767|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.56|
84581768|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.73|
84581769|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.92|
84581770|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.49|
84581771|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.62|
84581772|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.94||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.84|
84581773|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.58|
84581774|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.33|0.76|
84581775|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.80|0.93|
84581776|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.58||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.58|0.69|
84644272|NCT00308581|169024278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.696||95.0|0.7|1.7||Logistic regression model including terms for treatment arm and geographical region (North America versus Europe).|Regression, Logistic||Direction of comparison is Q4W regimen (active 1) versus Q2W regimen (active 2).|With a sample size of 165 patients per treatment arm, assuming a percentage of responders of 45% with the Q4W regimen, the study had 80% power to show a statistically significant difference in percentage of responders at Week 26 between the two treatment groups, when there is a true difference of 16% in percentage of responders in favor of the Q2W regimen, and using a 2-sided chi-square at the 5% significance level.||1.7|0.7|0.696
84581777|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.97||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.86|
84581778|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.77|
84581779|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.42|
84581780|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
84581781|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.25||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.25|1.11|
84581782|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.66|
84581783|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.97|
84581784|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.51||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.51|0.85|
84581785|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.56|
84581786|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.74|
84644273|NCT03400956|169024368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 63 (Vilaprisan) / 33 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.93|0.72|<.0001
84755795|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||1.50|0.14|0.198
84755796|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.85|0.53|0.481
84581787|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.01||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.01|0.87|
84581788|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.73|1.80|
84581789|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.79||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.88|
84581790|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.32|
84581791|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.87|0.61|
84581792|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.09||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.09|0.68|
84581793|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.15|0.59|
84581794|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
84644274|NCT00534313|169024385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|22.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.8||The p-value (two-sided) was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method (CMH) with stratification of baseline body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||41.8|4.0|0.022
84581795|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.69|
84581796|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.57|
84581797|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.02||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.02|1.52|
84581798|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.3||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|1.16|
84581799|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.14|0.51|
84581800|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.33||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.33|2.23|
84581801|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.61|
84581802|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.40|0.19|
84610619|NCT02684188|168972949|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF-12 Mental Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and county. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.232||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.232, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF-12 Mental Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF-12 Mental Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.232
84644275|NCT00534313|169024385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|48.0||p-value (two-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||48.0|9.4|0.006
84644276|NCT00534313|169024385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|32.6||p-value (2-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||32.6|-3.5|0.121
84755797|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||2.78|0.36|0.991
84755798|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.48|1.41|0.008
84581803|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratrio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.66|1.25|
84755799|NCT00111800|169268020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used,P an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.24|0.76|0.161
84581804|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.91|
84581805|NCT01026038|168917604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.47|
84581806|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.76|0.23|
84581807|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.99||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.30|
84581808|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.86|0.38|
84581809|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.99||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.43|
84581810|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.54|
84581811|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.79|0.50|
84581812|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.19||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.19|0.56|
84581813|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.06||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.06|0.58|
84581814|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.46|
84581815|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.55||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.55|0.38|
84581816|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.50|
84581817|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.72||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.42|
84581818|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.29|
84644277|NCT00534313|169024392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||11.0|-23.0|
84581819|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.10|0.40|
84581820|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.64||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.64|0.49|
84581821|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.12|0.70|
84581822|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.14||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.14|0.60|
84581823|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.21|0.30|
84581824|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.89|0.43|
84581825|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.67|0.42|
84581826|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.16||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.16|0.40|
84581827|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|19.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||19.78|2.86|
84581828|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.31||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.22|
84644278|NCT00534313|169024392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||17.1|-18.0|
84644279|NCT00534313|169024392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||28.5|-7.6|
84644280|NCT00534313|169024393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|44.56|||ANCOVA|||||44.56|-7.02|
84644281|NCT00534313|169024393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|48.6|||ANCOVA|||||48.60|-3.93|
84498421|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.106|5.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.302|5.106|<.0001
84581829|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.21|0.02|
84581830|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|0.53|
84581831|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.50|
84581832|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.07|0.39|
84581833|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|8.09||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||8.09|2.18|
84581834|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.13||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.33|
84581835|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.31|0.07|
84581836|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.40|1.51|
84581837|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.69||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.69|0.96|
84644282|NCT00534313|169024393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|56.15|||ANCOVA|||||56.15|4.82|
84644283|NCT00534313|169024395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||||95.0|-4.79|8.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.96|-4.79|
84581838|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.27|
84581839|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.98||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.98|1.39|
84581840|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.28|0.58|
84581841|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.92|0.17|
84581842|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.39||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.39|1.50|
84581843|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.75|
84581844|NCT01026038|168917605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.89||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.89|0.26|
84672522|NCT05320029|169080561|NON_INFERIORITY|If the two-side 95%CI limit of the difference between the two groups is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, the non-inferiority hypothesis of this study is valid|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0458|0.0458|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.0458|-0.0458|<0.05
84581845|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.73|0.04|
84581846|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.64|0.04|
84581847|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.46||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.46|0.19|
84581848|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.85||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.85|0.17|
84581849|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.72||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.15|
84581850|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.37||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.37|0.10|
84581851|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.25||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.25|0.23|
84581852|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.92|0.17|
84581853|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.43||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.43|0.11|
84581854|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.35||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||12.35|0.48|
84581855|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|9.05||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.05|0.45|
84498422|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.902|5.108|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.108|4.902|<.0001
84755800|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.30|0.50|0.380
84755801|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.11|0.72|0.145
84498423|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|5.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.051|4.864|<.0001
84498424|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.009|5.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.219|5.009|<.0001
84498425|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.958|5.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.146|4.958|<.0001
84498426|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.407|4.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.671|4.407|<.0001
84498427|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.295|4.534|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.534|4.295|<.0001
84755802|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.26|0.906
84755803|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.91|0.41|0.509
84755804|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|11.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||11.14|0.89|0.077
84498428|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.302|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.560|4.302|<.0001
84581856|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.14||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.14|0.13|
84581857|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.80|0.04|
84581858|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.03||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.12|
84581859|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.92||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||14.92|0.48|
84581860|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.36||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.36|0.23|
84581861|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.84||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.84|0.31|
84581862|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.65||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||6.65|0.23|
84755805|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.72|0.63|0.254
84755806|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.55|0.396
84755807|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.00|0.45|0.590
84581863|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.17||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.17|0.17|
84755808|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.13|1.15|0.026
84581864|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.24|0.07|
84581865|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.08||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|0.06|
84581866|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.79|
84581867|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.88|0.38|
84581868|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.77|0.27|
84581869|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.9||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.90|0.85|
84581870|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.48||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.48|0.49|
84581871|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.45||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.45|0.20|
84581872|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.87|
84498429|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.361|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.480|4.243|<.0001
84581873|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.79|
84581874|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.76|
84581875|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|76.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||76.14|3.56|
84581876|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|9.06||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.06|0.56|
84581877|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.78||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.02|
84581878|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.07||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||7.07|0.22|
84581879|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.03|
84672523|NCT04697628|169080573|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio (HR) was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.89|0.54|0.0038
84581880|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.02|
84581881|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|16.98||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||16.98|1.35|
84581882|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.23||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.23|0.28|
84581883|NCT01026038|168917606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.85||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.05|
84581884|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.80|
84581885|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.76|
84581886|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.69|
84581887|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.90|0.49|
84581888|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.01|0.55|
84581889|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.59||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.79|
84581890|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.98|
84581891|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.76|
84581892|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.58|
84581893|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.21|0.67|
84581894|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.70|
84581895|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.46|0.73|
84581896|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.83|
84581897|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.70|
84755809|NCT00111800|169268021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||8.30|1.08|0.034
84755810|NCT00111800|169268022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.057||95.0|-30.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.5|-30.2|0.057
84755811|NCT00111800|169268022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.4||||0.003||95.0|-37.1|-7.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-7.6|-37.1|0.003
84581898|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
84581899|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.51|
84581900|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.03||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.46|
84581901|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.56|
84581902|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.74|
84581903|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
84581904|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.29|0.63|
84581905|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.06||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.06|2.40|
84581906|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.66|0.39|
84581907|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.22|0.12|
84581908|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.78|1.11|
84581909|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.66|
84498430|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.359|4.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.612|4.359|<.0001
84498431|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.473|4.703|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.703|4.473|<.0001
84498432|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.259||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.049|-0.469|0.0073
84498433|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.246||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.055|-0.438|0.0041
84498434|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.061|-0.361|0.3080
84581910|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.45|
84581911|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.84|
84581912|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.87|0.45|
84581913|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.79|0.36|
84581914|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.71|
84581915|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.66|
84581916|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.63|
84755812|NCT00111800|169268022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-43.9|-14.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-14.5|-43.9|<0.001
84581917|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.70|0.41|
84644284|NCT00534313|169024395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.95|-4.94|
84672524|NCT04697628|169080574|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.82|0.54|<0.0001
84672525|NCT04697628|169080575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method controlling for stratification factors at randomization.|||7.6|2.1|<0.0001
84672526|NCT00393939|169080583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9222||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7156|1.1885||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Independent radiology assessment||1.1885|0.7156|0.2651
84498435|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.152||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.039|-0.343|0.1982
84498436|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.486|-0.965|<.0001
84498437|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|-0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.571|-1.008|<.0001
84498438|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|-0.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.597|-1.069|<.0001
84498439|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|-0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.627|-1.059|<.0001
84581918|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.38||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.82|
84672527|NCT00393939|169080583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6921|1.0589||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Investigator's assessment||1.0589|0.6921|0.0753
84672528|NCT00393939|169080584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||2.33|1.17|0.0018
84672529|NCT00393939|169080584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.02|1.03|0.0172
84672530|NCT00393939|169080586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1539||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9209|1.4458||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||||1.4458|0.9209|0.8933
84672531|NCT02388997|169080625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variences|||||||0.59
84755813|NCT00111800|169268022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-24.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-24.6|-54.6|<0.001
84498440|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.745|0.294|<.0001
84498441|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.577|0.163|<.0001
84498442|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.855|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.855|0.402|<.0001
84581919|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.69|1.46|
84581920|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.74|
84581921|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.02|0.59|
84581922|NCT01026038|168917607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.58|
84755814|NCT00111800|169268022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-23.9|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-23.9|-53.8|<0.001
84755815|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.66|15.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||15.65|-32.66|0.489
84755816|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.18||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|37.72|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||37.72|-9.37|0.237
84755817|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.31||||0.534||95.0|-15.79|30.42|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||30.42|-15.79|0.534
84581923|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
84581924|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
84581925|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
84644285|NCT00534313|169024395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|7.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||7.58|-6.08|
84610620|NCT02684188|168972950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean CTM3 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean CTM3 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|An analysis of covariance was used to model the CTM3 discharge planning score as a function of treatment group. An ANOVA F-test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of patient age and income. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, County, Number in Household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score did not differ in their mean CTM3 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.806
84610621|NCT02684188|168972951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean RTM14 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean RTM14 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|A repeated measures ANOVA model (over the 6 time measurement periods) was used to model the RTM14 score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and whether or not a patient had visited a hospital or ED prior to that day. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, Number in household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score were not significant in explaining SF-12 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.742
84610622|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.717
84610623|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.479
84610624|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.329
84610625|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|||0.780
84610626|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.779
84610627|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.848
84644286|NCT00534313|169024399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|12.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||12.33|1.97|
84644287|NCT00534313|169024399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|14.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis||||14.41|3.83|
84644288|NCT00534313|169024399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|11.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||11.32|1.01|
84755818|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|29.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||29.17|-18.64|0.665
84644289|NCT00534313|169024400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.5|-2.5|
84672532|NCT02388997|169080626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.58
84755819|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.74||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|36.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||36.65|-11.18|0.295
84755820|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|9.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.94|-3.32|0.327
84581926|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
84581927|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
84610628|NCT02684188|168972952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.857
84610629|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1097.0||||||90.0|793.6|1461.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||1461|793.6|
84610630|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.6||||||90.0|35.36|85.49||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||85.49|35.36|
84610631|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|79.81|142.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||142.0|79.81|
84610632|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|134.3||||||90.0|80.83|197.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||197.1|80.83|
84610633|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.3||||||90.0|151.9|302.4||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||302.4|151.9|
84672533|NCT02388997|169080627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.87
84672534|NCT02388997|169080628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.55
84672535|NCT02388997|169080629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.6
84672536|NCT02388997|169080631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The p value is based on the fold change (ratio) of the geometric means of the time (days) to peak symptoms among asthmatics in the omalizumab/placebo treatment groups.|2-sample t-test on the log scale|||||||0.037
84581928|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.4|
84581929|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
84581930|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
84610634|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|181.3||||||90.0|119.8|253.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||253.1|119.8|
84610635|NCT00488826|168972953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.02||||||90.0|57.93|150.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||150.5|57.93|
84672537|NCT00087633|169080637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|-20.8|0.725
84498443|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.670|0.257|<.0001
84498444|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.306|-0.200|0.9984
84498445|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.058|-0.405|0.2491
84498446|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.195|-0.304|0.9977
84498447|NCT03692078|168747721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.003|-0.456|0.0554
84498448|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.208|3.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.379|3.208|<.0001
84498449|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.176|3.348|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.348|3.176|<.0001
84498450|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.039|3.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.202|3.039|<.0001
84498451|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.017|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.181|3.017|<.0001
84610636|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|665.1||||||90.0|473.3|851.2||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||851.2|473.3|
84755821|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.06||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|9.44|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.44|-3.31|0.345
84672538|NCT01110915|169080641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \>=10%.||2.5||<0.0001
84755822|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.00|-6.70|0.914
84581931|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
84755823|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|4.29|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.29|-8.71|0.504
84755824|NCT00111800|169268024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|9.22|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.22|-3.71|0.403
84755825|NCT00111800|169268027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.08|-0.02|0.286
84755826|NCT00111800|169268027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.03|-0.07|0.457
84755827|NCT00111800|169268027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.136
84755828|NCT00111800|169268027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.01|-0.11|0.021
84755829|NCT00111800|169268027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.094
84755830|NCT02577406|169268055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory|||1.10|0.67|0.2288
84755831|NCT02577406|169268056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.14||p-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing the response rates between the AG-221 group and the combined CCR group with stratification factors of prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio from logistic regression|||11.14|3.32|<0.0001
84581932|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.7|
84755832|NCT02577406|169268057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status.|||0.95|0.55|0.0200
84755833|NCT02577406|169268063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84755834|NCT02577406|169268064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84755835|NCT02577406|169268065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84755836|NCT02577406|169268067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|||0.67|0.41|<0.0001
84581933|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.7|
84581934|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
84581935|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
84581936|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
84581937|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-6.6|
84581938|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-6.2|
84581939|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||7.5|-4.8|
84581940|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-4.8|
84672539|NCT01110915|169080642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||||||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
84755837|NCT01111851|169268083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.01|0.99|
84755838|NCT01111851|169268084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.02|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.02|0.98|
84581941|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
84581942|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
84581943|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
84581944|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.4||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.5|
84581945|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.6|
84581946|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-6.5|
84581947|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.6||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.6|-1.7|
84581948|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.2|-3.7|
84581949|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-9.6|
84672540|NCT01110915|169080643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||5.9|-5.0|<0.0001
84755839|NCT01111851|169268085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.03|0.97|
84755840|NCT01111851|169268086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.66|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.66|0.50|
84498452|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.264|3.100|<.0001
84498453|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.066|3.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.231|3.066|<.0001
84498454|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.777|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|2.881|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.881|2.673|<.0001
84498455|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.756|2.546|<.0001
84498456|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.618|2.823|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.823|2.618|<.0001
84581950|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.3||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||11.3|-2.0|
84581951|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||5.6|-4.9|
84581952|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||3.2|-12.5|
84581953|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
84581954|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
84581955|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.6|
84755841|NCT01961349|169268093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84755842|NCT01961349|169268093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84755843|NCT01961349|169268094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84755844|NCT01961349|169268094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84498457|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|2.753|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.753|2.544|<.0001
84498458|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.651|2.851|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.851|2.651|<.0001
84498459|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.718|2.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.919|2.718|<.0001
84498460|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.006|-0.340|0.0377
84498461|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.006|-0.331|0.0643
84498462|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.279|0.3875
84498463|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.054|-0.280|0.3725
84581956|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
84581957|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.5|
84581958|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.7||||||Serotype 7F:Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-6.5|
84581959|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.6|
84755845|NCT01671111|169268102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.0560
84755846|NCT01671111|169268103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1232
84755847|NCT01671111|169268104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1319
84755848|NCT01671111|169268105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.8061
84755849|NCT01671111|169268106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.2297
84755850|NCT01671111|169268107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1248
84498464|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.327|-0.706|<.0001
84498465|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.420|-0.802|<.0001
84581960|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
84581961|NCT01026038|168917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
84755851|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.65||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|6.323||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.323|-0.157|0.0311
84755852|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.589|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|6.732||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, trea||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.732|0.447|0.0126
84644290|NCT00534313|169024400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.1||||||95.0|6.8|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||45.5|6.8|
84755853|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.977|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|7.197||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||7.197|0.756|0.0078
84755854|NCT01092143|169268128|OTHER||Adjusted mean treatment differences|8.619|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.684|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.312|11.927||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with fluticasone propionate 110 mcg 2 puffs b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||11.927|5.312|<.0001
84755855|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.536|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.653||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.783|-2.29||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-2.290|-8.783|0.9996
84755856|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.185|-1.875||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.875|-8.185|0.9991
84755857|NCT01092143|169268128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-4.643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.647||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|-1.408||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.408|-7.877|0.9975
84610637|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|22.2||||||90.0|13.99|31.77||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||31.77|13.99|
84610638|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.7||||||90.0|56.41|103.6||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||103.6|56.41|
84610639|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|61.09|147.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||147.5|61.09|
84610640|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|164.0||||||90.0|114.9|232.9||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||232.9|114.9|
84610641|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.45||||||90.0|57.98|119.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||119.1|57.98|
84610642|NCT00488826|168972954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|44.7||||||90.0|29.48|68.71||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||68.71|29.48|
84755858|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.295||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.295|-0.149|0.7413
84755859|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.136||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.136|-0.296|0.2335
84755860|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.061|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.16||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.160|-0.282|0.2933
84755861|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.116||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.561|-0.105||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.105|-0.561|0.0021
84755862|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.406|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.114||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.63||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.630|0.183|0.9998
84755863|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.253|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.47||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.470|0.037|0.9890
84755864|NCT01092143|169268129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.272|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.494||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.494|0.050|0.9918
84755865|NCT00427349|169268180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||one sample binomial test|The study result was compared to a null hypothesis of 20% 4-month progression free survival rate using one sample binomial test||The null hypothesis is that the 4-month progression free survival rate is 20%. Alternatively, AMG 706 will be considered worthy of further study if its true progression-free survival rate is 40% or better at 4 months (alternative hypothesis).||||<0.001
84755866|NCT02568475|169268227|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous scale: score compares results before and after intervention without a cut parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.12|0.059|0.046
84755867|NCT02568475|169268228|OTHER|This is a continuous scale with no clinical cut score/value. We tested mean differences between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.6|2.9|0.001
84755868|NCT02426476|169268234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
84755869|NCT02426476|169268235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84755870|NCT02426476|169268236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time Interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
84498466|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.386|-0.760|<.0001
84498467|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.803|-0.423|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.423|-0.803|<.0001
84581962|NCT05181657|168917617|OTHER|The intervention effect was determined via a two sided, 0.05 level of significance, multivariable Poisson regression model, with Intervention group as the primary predictor.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78||"Alpha significance levels used:~For the primary predictor (i.e., intervention group): alpha=0.05; For covariates: alpha=0.10; For interactions: alpha=0.15"|Poisson Regression||The estimate refers to the relative risk of getting a COVID-19 test onsite (Intervention/Control). Also, the above estimate is from the unadjusted Poisson regression model (i.e., model not adjusted for covariates and interactions).|To assess whether the active intervention was more successful than the control condition at increasing COVID-19 testing, we used univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, with whether one received onsite testing right after the intervention as the outcome and intervention group as the main predictor. Potential clustering due to the randomization by week was accounted for by specifying an exchangeable correlation structure for participants who were recruited during the same week.||1.78|1.18|<0.05
84581963|NCT03782103|168917619|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6033|0.0334||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.0334|-0.6033|
84581964|NCT03782103|168917619|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5415|3.1655||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.1655|2.5415|
84581965|NCT03782103|168917620|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1457|0.2611||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.2611|-0.1457|
84581966|NCT03782103|168917620|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6153|2.0264||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.0264|1.6153|
84581967|NCT00066937|168917622|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline to each timepoint||||||<.05
84581968|NCT00066937|168917623|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
84644291|NCT00534313|169024400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.6||||||95.0|-1.8|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.9|-1.8|
84581969|NCT00066937|168917624|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
84581970|NCT00066937|168917625|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
84581971|NCT00063232|168917626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||paired t-test|||"self-controlled comparison of NASH activity index at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis is no change."||||<0.001
84581972|NCT00063232|168917627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||self-controlled comparison of serum aminotransferase levels at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis: No change||||0.04
84581973|NCT00063232|168917628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.04
84644292|NCT03044574|169024401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84644293|NCT03044574|169024402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84644294|NCT03044574|169024403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84644295|NCT03044574|169024404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84581974|NCT06868667|168917642|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||1.52|0.11|
84581975|NCT05330429|168917668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|2.691|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|2-Sided P-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||2.691|0.339|0.9323
84581976|NCT05330429|168917671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.6|||||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.600|0.056|
84581977|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.086|1.229||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.229|1.086|
84581978|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>1.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.094|1.22||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.220|1.094|
84581979|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.999|1.13||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.130|0.999|
84610643|NCT00006400|168972960|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis was done using an intention-to-treat principle.||||||0.21||||||The spleen endpoint was to be tested at an overall alpha = 0.04. Originally there was a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but this outcome was dropped.|Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or decreased to absent) and not worsening (from decreased to decreased, normal to normal, or decreased to normal) as measured by splenic uptake on a technetium-99m (99mTc) sulfur colloid liver-spleen scan. Children with missing data or absent spleen function at baseline were excluded from the analysis (26 subjects from hydroxyurea and 23 subjects from placebo group were excluded).||||0.21
84610644|NCT00006400|168972961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This was originally a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but was later dropped from the protocol. We analyzed the available data.|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by DTPA GFR were compared between treatment groups.||||0.93
84644296|NCT03044574|169024405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84581980|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.122||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.122|1.007|
84581981|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.322|1.513||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.513|1.322|
84581982|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.5||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.500|1.333|
84581983|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.465||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.465|1.300|
84581984|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.454||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.454|1.310|
84581985|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.063|1.175||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.175|1.063|
84581986|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.167||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.167|1.070|
84581987|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.969|1.047||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.047|0.969|
84581988|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.042||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.042|0.973|
84755871|NCT02504554|169268237|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing since this was an exploratory study.~the p-value listed is the actual result from analysis of the study data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank analysis of symptoms at 10 weeks (end of treatment) vs. baseline||||<0.001
84498468|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.369|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.548|0.190|<.0001
84581989|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.156|1.278||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.278|1.156|
84581990|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.27||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.270|1.163|
84581991|NCT06097273|168917688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.109|1.201||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.201|1.109|
84581992|NCT06097273|168917688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.195||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.195|1.115|
84581993|NCT06097273|168917689|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|1.765||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.765|1.526|
84581994|NCT06097273|168917689|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|1.783||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.783|1.510|
84581995|NCT06097273|168917689|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.404||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.404|1.219|
84672541|NCT01110915|169080644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-6.1|0.0010
84755872|NCT02504554|169268238|OTHER|paired 2-sided t-test comparing baseline and 10 weeks (end of treatment)|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||||||<0.001
84755873|NCT02504554|169268240|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~The p-value listed is the result for the actual analysis of the data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing the baseline score vs. the score at 10 weeks (end of treatment).||||<0.001
84581996|NCT06097273|168917689|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.207|1.418||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.418|1.207|
84581997|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroconversion rate (SCR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.4|2.4|
84581998|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.8||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.8|1.9|
84581999|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.1||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.1|1.0|
84582000|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|7.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.6|0.5|
84582001|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.2|1.9|
84582002|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.5|1.5|
84672542|NCT01110915|169080645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.1||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.6|0.0001
84672543|NCT01110915|169080646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
84498469|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|0.099|0.0003
84498470|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.611|0.251|<.0001
84498471|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.511|0.149|<.0001
84498472|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.228|-0.176|1.0000
84498473|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.036|-0.371|0.1589
84498474|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.230|0.9999
84498475|NCT03692078|168747723|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.032|-0.372|0.1453
84498476|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.788|<.0001
84582003|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.4|-3.3|
84582004|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|0.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.7|-3.6|
84755874|NCT02504554|169268241|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the study results."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing scores at baseline vs. 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||<0.001
84498477|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.104|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.400|0.807|<.0001
84498478|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.886|0.326|<.0001
84755875|NCT02504554|169268243|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the analysis of the study data"|t-test, 2 sided|||2-sided t-test comparing the group at baseline vs. 18 weeks (8 weeks after end of treatment)||||<0.001
84498479|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.476||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.760|0.192|0.0011
84498480|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.505||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.790|0.219|0.0006
84498481|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.060|0.490|<.0001
84498482|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.472|-1.761|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.761|-2.472|<.0001
84498483|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.376|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.656|-2.376|<.0001
84582005|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|21.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.0|14.8|
84644297|NCT03044574|169024406|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84644298|NCT03044574|169024407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84755876|NCT02504554|169268244|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare scores at baseline vs. at 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||0.002
84755877|NCT03023930|169268245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||<0.001
84755878|NCT03023930|169268246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||0.011
84644299|NCT03044574|169024409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84644300|NCT01816451|169024412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre-post training variables data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Heart Rate and Blood Lactate, were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables absolute and relative VO2, tVO2, Body Fat, Body Mass, RPE, were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used.||||< 0.05
84582006|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.3|21.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.4|14.3|
84498484|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.605|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.958|-1.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.253|-1.958|<.0001
84582007|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|17.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||17.6|11.6|
84582008|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.1|18.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||18.0|11.1|
84582009|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.2|6.0|
84582010|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|11.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.6|5.6|
84582011|NCT06097273|168917690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||4.7|0.6|
84610645|NCT00006400|168972962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||All secondary outcomes were tested at alpha=0.01|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by GFR (calculated using Shwartz formula) were compared between treatment groups.||||0.43
84755879|NCT00290186|169268272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.539||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.3|-1.5|0.539
84755880|NCT00290186|169268273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.8|-1.6|0.921
84755881|NCT00290186|169268274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.945
84755882|NCT00290186|169268275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-5.1|0.342
84755883|NCT00290186|169268276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||8.6|-1.6|0.149
84582012|NCT06097273|168917690|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|5.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||5.0|0.3|
84582013|NCT06097273|168917691|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroresponse rate (SRR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|15.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.5|10.0|
84582014|NCT06097273|168917691|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|15.9||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.9|9.6|
84582015|NCT06097273|168917691|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||10.6|5.5|
84582016|NCT06097273|168917691|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|11.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||11.0|5.2|
84582017|NCT04359680|168917721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.2546|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2546|0.4696|0.9434
84582018|NCT04359680|168917722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1162||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6623|1.8813|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8813|0.6623|0.6805
84582019|NCT04359680|168917724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3459
84582020|NCT02596893|168917737|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.9||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||3.9|-9.7|0.2523
84582021|NCT02596893|168917737|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||11.8|-3.0|0.1626
84610646|NCT00006400|168972963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||All secondary outcomes were to be tested at alpha = 0.01|ANOVA|||The change in GFR from baseline to exit were compared between treatment groups. GFR was calculated using new Schwartz formula.||||0.48
84755884|NCT00290186|169268277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.685
84755885|NCT00290186|169268278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.0|-2.4|0.584
84582022|NCT02596893|168917737|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.3|-9.1|0.4420
84582023|NCT02596893|168917738|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.6||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.0|-9.5|0.1799
84672544|NCT01110915|169080647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Complication rate at 4 months|7.7|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||Null hypothesis: the system-related complication rate between the implant procedure and the 4-months visit \>= 20%.||10.9||<0.05
84755886|NCT00290186|169268279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.7|-1.5|0.498
84755887|NCT00290186|169268280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-2.3|0.945
84582024|NCT02596893|168917738|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.4||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.9|-9.4|0.2309
84582025|NCT02596893|168917738|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.6|-9.1|0.3264
84582026|NCT02596893|168917739|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-11.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.1|-22.0|0.0299
84582027|NCT02596893|168917739|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.9||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||0.7|-20.3|0.0582
84582028|NCT02596893|168917739|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.7||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||1.0|-20.1|0.0741
84672545|NCT03985813|169080648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
84498485|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.642|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.003|-1.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.282|-2.003|<.0001
84498486|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.578|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-1.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.234|-1.922|<.0001
84498487|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.726|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|-1.378|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.378|-2.074|<.0001
84498488|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.097|-1.054|0.1579
84498489|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.628||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.048|-1.207|0.0260
84498490|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.003|-1.158|0.0483
84498491|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.329||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.906|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.249|-0.906|0.5842
84498492|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.856|-2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.546|-3.856|<.0001
84498493|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.779|-2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.460|-3.779|<.0001
84582029|NCT02596893|168917740|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.0|-15.5|0.2493
84498494|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.338|-2.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.043|-3.338|<.0001
84498495|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.746|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.402|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.090|-3.402|<.0001
84498496|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.565|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.803|1.565|<.0001
84498497|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.576|2.828|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.828|1.576|<.0001
84498498|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.704|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.704|1.461|<.0001
84498499|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.876|3.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.126|1.876|<.0001
84498500|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.538||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.154|-1.231|0.2085
84498501|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.289||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.410|-0.988|0.8557
84582030|NCT02596893|168917740|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||8.2|-11.8|0.7160
84582031|NCT02596893|168917740|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.1|-15.5|0.2452
84755888|NCT00290186|169268281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.4|-2.1|0.932
84755889|NCT00290186|169268282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||4.7|-0.2|0.051
84582032|NCT02596893|168917741|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.3||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||7.1|-9.8|0.7541
84582033|NCT02596893|168917741|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.7||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.6|-12.0|0.3784
84582034|NCT02596893|168917741|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.4||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||3.8|-12.6|0.2865
84582035|NCT02596893|168917742|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified CMH|-2.2||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values were based on the unstratified CMH test when 1 and only 1 of the 2 treatment groups being compared had no subjects in a stratum.|The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|2-sided 95% CI were based on the unstratified Newcombe method.||7.0|-11.3|0.3572
84672546|NCT03985813|169080649|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84755890|NCT00290186|169268283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.8|-4.0|0.648
84755891|NCT00290186|169268284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.4|-4.7|0.473
84755892|NCT00290186|169268285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|114.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||114|-22|0.157
84755893|NCT00290186|169268286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||13|-15|0.876
84755894|NCT00290186|169268287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.0|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||41|-198|0.167
84755895|NCT00290186|169268288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.0|77.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||77|-153|0.468
84755896|NCT04391036|169268290|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||This was a paired analysis comparing successful insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test statistic is based on the discordant pairs (number of participants with high successful, low unsuccessful versus low successful, high unsuccessful).||||>.99
84755897|NCT04391036|169268291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||This was a paired analysis comparing difficulty of insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test is based on discordant pairs (high was not difficult, low was difficult versus low was not difficult, high was difficult).|McNemar|||||||.45
84582036|NCT02596893|168917742|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|4.7||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||18.9|-8.8|0.2823
84755898|NCT04391036|169268292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|This was an overall Fisher's exact test so the analysis applies to all categories.||||||.26
84755899|NCT03184077|169268293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84755900|NCT03184077|169268294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84755901|NCT03184077|169268295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||This is a calculated p value|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84755902|NCT00262522|169268303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by dosing regimen was used to assess the null hypothesis of no difference between the tablet and soft gel capsule (SGC). Sample size was 600 subjects (150 each in the 4 groups). Based on a projected 48% reporting treatment-emergent diarrhea in the QD arm and 32% in the BID arm within the SGC group, with a 12% reduction in the corresponding tablet groups, this sample size provided 80% power to determine a difference between the tablet and SGC.||||>0.100
84582037|NCT02596893|168917742|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||13.7|-12.8|> 0.9999
84582038|NCT02596893|168917743|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-0.5||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.9|-6.7|0.8031
84582039|NCT02596893|168917743|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|1.4||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||7.3|-5.1|0.5583
84582040|NCT02596893|168917743|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|6.8|-7.2|0.6123
84582041|NCT02596893|168917744|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-10.6||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.4|-19.6|0.0239
84582042|NCT02596893|168917744|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||8.7|-10.8|0.8334
84582043|NCT02596893|168917744|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.9||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||5.8|-13.5|0.4383
84582044|NCT02596893|168917745|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.6||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with CMH weights.|||5.9|-8.3|0.3573
84582045|NCT02596893|168917745|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.1|-8.7|0.2221
84582046|NCT02596893|168917745|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-8.7|0.2578
84582047|NCT02596893|168917748|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|0.5||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||10.0|-8.9|0.9141
84582048|NCT02596893|168917748|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-3.6||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-12.8|0.4286
84610647|NCT03208088|168972969|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 1 - Control.|||11.6|0.1|
84610648|NCT03208088|168972969|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 2 - Control.|||8.1|-4.0|
84610649|NCT03208088|168972970|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 3 - Control.|||4.6|-7.5|
84610650|NCT03208088|168972970|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 4 - Control.|||2.3|-9.0|
84755903|NCT00262522|169268304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|1.3||||0.715||95.0|-5.1|7.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||7.8|-5.1|0.715
84610651|NCT00605345|168972971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the response rate of the CERA group was greater than the observed response rate of the darbepoetin group minus 15%. The calculated lower limit of an acceptable difference in response rates thus, was based on the actual percentage of responders in the darbepoetin group and this percentage minus 15% had to be excluded."||||||0.5947|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5947
84610652|NCT03831100|168973045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|0.9||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.9|-5.0|0.25
84582049|NCT02596893|168917748|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.7||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||6.6|-12.0|0.5591
84582050|NCT03280615|168917749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was performed||||0.257
84610653|NCT03831100|168973046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|-2.5||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||-2.5|-9.1|.006
84672547|NCT00409292|169080661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||binomial hypothesis test|||||||0.10
84672548|NCT02350309|169080665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0262|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-2.12|0.0262
84582051|NCT03280615|168917750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.231
84582052|NCT03280615|168917751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.043
84582053|NCT03052257|168917752|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|0.15|<0.0001
84498502|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.658|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.658|-0.713|1.0000
84582054|NCT00004228|168917760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing regimens A1+A2 (A: CCG BFM) to regimens B1+B2 (B: NHL/BFM-95) while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.97
84582055|NCT00004228|168917760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing A1+B1 (1: no intensification) to A2 +B2 (2: intensification), while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.63
84582056|NCT01755156|168917767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
84582057|NCT01755156|168917768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||9.8|-8.8|
84582058|NCT01755156|168917769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||1.1|-6.6|
84610654|NCT03831100|168973047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|0.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.0|-15.9|.10
84610655|NCT03831100|168973048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-8.6||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-8.6|-25.6|.002
84582059|NCT01755156|168917770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-3.3|
84582060|NCT01755156|168917771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-14.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-3.4|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-3.4|-25.6|0.011
84672549|NCT02350309|169080665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-4.46|<0.0001
84582061|NCT01755156|168917772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-9.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.3|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-2.3|-16.7|0.010
84582062|NCT01755156|168917775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||28.0|10.1|<0.001
84582063|NCT01755156|168917776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|4.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.5|-1.8|0.164
84582064|NCT01755156|168917779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-10.8|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-10.8|-44.8|0.001
84582065|NCT01755156|168917780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|3.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.9|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||6.9|0.5|0.025
84582066|NCT01755156|168917782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier difference %|-1.2||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.7|||Log Rank|||||4.7|-7.0|0.654
84582067|NCT00382863|168917792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Null hypothesis = proportion of subjects in treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min at 6 months is less than or equal to the Control group. Subjects who withdrew for cardiac-related reasons were classified as non-responders.||||0.502
84582068|NCT00382863|168917793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of subjects in the treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 45 m at 6 months from baseline is less than or equal to that of the Control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.044
84582069|NCT00382863|168917794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of treatment subjects who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 7 points at 6 months is equal to or less than that of the control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.184
84582070|NCT00382863|168917795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated survival for the treatment group was 93%. Estimated survival for the control group was 91.5%. A non-inferiority margin of 7.5%. Final test alpha level of 0.04825.||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|One-sided||The null hypothesis = survival in the treatment group at 12 months is not equivalent to that of the Control group.||||0.012
84610656|NCT03831100|168973049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|2.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores|||2.0|-8.8|0.30
84610657|NCT03831100|168973050|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-4.2||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-4.2|-15.2|0.005
84610658|NCT03831100|168973051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.4||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.4|-6.4|0.064
84610659|NCT03831100|168973052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.8||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.8|-7.8|0.046
84610660|NCT03831100|168973053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||2.1|-5.2|0.49
84610661|NCT03831100|168973054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|0.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.3|-6.5|0.14
84610662|NCT03831100|168973055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|6.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||6.3|0.2|0.082
84672550|NCT02350309|169080666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||0.0215
84582071|NCT00382863|168917796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Class change from baseline.||||0.052
84582072|NCT00382863|168917797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84582073|NCT00382863|168917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
84582074|NCT00382863|168917799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min from baseline.||||0.540
84582075|NCT00382863|168917800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 45 m from baseline.||||0.067
84582076|NCT00382863|168917801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 7 points from baseline.||||0.031
84582077|NCT00382863|168917802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier actuarial time-to-first-event analysis||||0.109
84582078|NCT00382863|168917803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.031
84582079|NCT00382863|168917804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.179
84582080|NCT00382863|168917805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.070
84582081|NCT00382863|168917806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.015
84582082|NCT00382863|168917807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
84582083|NCT00382863|168917809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.627
84582084|NCT00382863|168917810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.386
84582085|NCT00382863|168917811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.154
84582086|NCT00382863|168917812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||1.000
84582087|NCT00382863|168917813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.939
84582088|NCT00382863|168917814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.012
84582089|NCT00382863|168917815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84582090|NCT00382863|168917816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.772
84582091|NCT01292473|168917817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.16||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.16|-2.54|0.4637
84582092|NCT01292473|168917817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.24||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.24|-4.85|0.0011
84582093|NCT01292473|168917817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.13||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.13|-6.49|<0.0001
84582094|NCT01292473|168917818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.07||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.07|-6.53|0.1575
84582095|NCT01292473|168917818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.69||||0.0001||95.0|-11.49|-3.88||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-3.88|-11.49|0.0001
84582096|NCT01292473|168917818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-8.66||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-8.66|-16.13|<0.0001
84582097|NCT01292473|168917819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.09||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.09|-4.11|0.0603
84582098|NCT01292473|168917819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.36||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.36|-6.65|<0.0001
84582099|NCT01292473|168917819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-4.93||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.93|-9.26|<0.0001
84582100|NCT01292473|168917820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.05||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Placebo and Omalizumab 75 mg.||2.05|1.00|0.0478
84582101|NCT01292473|168917820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.26||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.26|1.12|0.0101
84582102|NCT01292473|168917820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.03||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.03|1.48|<0.0001
84582103|NCT01292473|168917821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.3419
84582104|NCT01292473|168917821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0010
84582105|NCT01292473|168917821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84672551|NCT02350309|169080666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
84498503|NCT03692078|168747725|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.780|-0.612|1.0000
84582106|NCT01292473|168917822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4366||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.4366
84582107|NCT01292473|168917822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0045
84582108|NCT01292473|168917822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84755904|NCT00262522|169268305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|-4.3||||0.249||95.0|-11.5|2.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||2.8|-11.5|0.249
84582109|NCT01292473|168917823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.65||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.65|-4.32|0.0082
84582110|NCT01292473|168917823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-1.9||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.90|-5.61|<0.0001
84755905|NCT00262522|169268306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
84755906|NCT04272892|169268307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||<|0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||p values are calculated for original data (complete case) and each of the 5 imputed datasets. The p value range was 0.002 - 0.020. This is not multiple statistical analyses- it is just one with multiple imputations.|ANCOVA|Degrees of freedom for original data (complete case): 1,64. Degrees of freedom for imputed datasets: 1,80||||||<0.021
84755907|NCT04272892|169268308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|5.822|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of score at 8 week follow up with baseline score as covariate, effect of group||||5.822|-.106|0.059
84755908|NCT04272892|169268309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||6.0|-3.5|0.596
84755909|NCT04272892|169268310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|8.612|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||8.612|.431|0.031
84755910|NCT04272892|169268311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||9.1|-7.8|0.885
84755911|NCT04272892|169268312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||17|-1|0.077
84672552|NCT02350309|169080666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
84755912|NCT04272892|169268313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep onset latency (median of 7 nights) at end of intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||18|2|0.014
84755913|NCT04272892|169268314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.5|.18|0.03
84755914|NCT04272892|169268315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|4.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.44|.149|0.036
84755915|NCT04272892|169268316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.25|-0.03|0.054
84755916|NCT04272892|169268317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.87|-.70|0.229
84755917|NCT04272892|169268318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.73|-5.51|0.502
84755918|NCT04272892|169268319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.0|-3.63|0.924
84755919|NCT00736255|169268345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null Hypothesis:LDX and NRT will not facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~Alternate Hypothesis: LDX and NRT will facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~This is a one tailed, proof of concept study so there is no formal power analysis, however if we see a signal for treatment effect, we would like to do further investigation by conducting a separate trial."||||0.54
84755920|NCT01439282|169268362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108||||||1-side P value was obtained|1-sample binomial test|||||||0.1080
84755921|NCT00457015|169268406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS Score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.010
84755922|NCT00457015|169268407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.003
84498504|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.081|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.484|0.679|<.0001
84498505|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.716|0.902|<.0001
84498506|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.996|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.377|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.377|0.615|<.0001
84498507|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.728||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.116|0.339|0.0003
84498508|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.381|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.381|0.593|<.0001
84498509|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.865|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.254|0.475|<.0001
84498510|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.436||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.920|-0.047|0.0768
84498511|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.091||||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.583|-0.400|0.7155
84582111|NCT01292473|168917823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-5.27||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-5.27|-9.03|<0.0001
84610663|NCT03831100|168973056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|5.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||5.7|-0.4|0.15
84582112|NCT01292473|168917824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.45||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.45|-3.82|0.1207
84582113|NCT01292473|168917824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.38||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-0.38|-4.64|0.0215
84582114|NCT01292473|168917824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.79||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-1.73||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-1.73|-5.85|0.0004
84582115|NCT01292473|168917825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.1361
84582116|NCT01292473|168917825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0905
84755923|NCT00457015|169268408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis using the Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.102
84755924|NCT03670953|169268411|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.97||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Good on time as outcome, baseline Good on time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||0.97|0.09|0.0194
84755925|NCT03670953|169268412|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Off time as outcome, baseline Off time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||-0.06|-0.90|0.0252
84755926|NCT03670953|169268413|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Percent difference|10.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|18.3||"P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled center comparing the percentage of Much or Very Much Improved participants between the treatment groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.5|0.0015
84755927|NCT03670953|169268414|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||1.7|-1.8|0.9587
84755928|NCT03670953|169268415|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||LSM, SE, CI \& p-value from MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part II \& III Scores as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II and III Scores as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect \& a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||2.1|-2.2|0.9668
84755929|NCT00937937|169268423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||1-year overall survival estimate|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49||||||one-year overall survival estimate.||0.49|0.27|
84755930|NCT00937937|169268424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6-month PFS estimate|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||||||6-month PFS estimate.||0.15|0.03|
84755931|NCT02187471|169268474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||Difference of means|||||0.23|-0.52|0.4601
84582117|NCT01292473|168917825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg.||||<0.0001
84672553|NCT01205165|169080676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare difference between baseline and week12|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline and Week 12||||0.00000
84755932|NCT02187471|169268474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.03|||Difference of means|||||-0.03|-0.77|0.0350
84755933|NCT02187471|169268474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.37|||Difference of means|||||-0.37|-1.12|0.0001
84755934|NCT02187471|169268474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98|||Difference of means|||||0.98|0.22|0.0019
84755935|NCT02187471|169268474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.72|||Difference of means|||||0.72|-0.04|0.0761
84755936|NCT02187471|169268476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.68|||Difference of means|||||1.68|-4.86|0.3407
84755937|NCT02187471|169268476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.15|||Difference of means|||||-2.15|-8.69|0.0012
84755938|NCT02187471|169268476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-1.13|||Difference of means|||||-1.13|-7.66|0.0083
84755939|NCT02187471|169268476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.09|||Difference of means|||||6.09|-0.48|0.0946
84755940|NCT02187471|169268476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.24|||Difference of means|||||2.24|-4.30|0.5384
84755941|NCT02187471|169268478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.0030
84755942|NCT02187471|169268478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
84582118|NCT03777176|168917860|SUPERIORITY|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate and number of hypoglycemic events during Weeks 2-4 as dependent variable.|Event rate ratio|0.85||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||The primary analysis was performed as a negative binominal regression analysis on the difference of the SMPG-detected hypoglycemia episode rate between treatment groups over the Weeks 2-4.||1.36|0.54|0.5028
84755943|NCT02187471|169268478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|0.0001
84755944|NCT02187471|169268478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3562
84755945|NCT02187471|169268478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0862
84755946|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.5183
84755947|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.9|0.2669
84755948|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.4630
84582119|NCT03777176|168917861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.39||The P value should be interpreted with caution given the procedural issues (hypoglycemia at the beginning of the test, test meals not being the same, and some children only having 1 test) which affected the preplanned statistical evaluation.|ANCOVA|||||4.39|-2.71|0.6433
84672554|NCT01495585|169080704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||0.03
84755949|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9280
84755950|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.7|0.7089
84755951|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0|-1.1|0.0669
84755952|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0081
84755953|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-1.0|0.0867
84755954|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.6|0.9066
84755955|NCT02187471|169268479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3509
84755956|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6203||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.404|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.404|0.970|0.0004
84755957|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.265|3.701|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||3.701|1.265|<0.0001
84755958|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||3.840|1.401|<0.0001
84755959|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6245||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.659|0.792|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.792|-1.659|0.4877
84755960|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|1.089|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.089|-1.364|0.8263
84755961|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7345||0.7567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|1.669|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.669|-1.213|0.7567
84755962|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7349||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|2.735|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.735|-0.149|0.0787
84755963|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7358||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|2.129|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.129|-0.758|0.3516
84582120|NCT03777176|168917862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.78||There was 1 missing value at Baseline for the dasiglucagon + standard of care group.|ANCOVA|||||6.78|-6.48|0.9653
84582121|NCT03777176|168917863|SUPERIORITY||Event rate ratio|0.93||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.74|||Negative binominal regression|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate.||||1.74|0.49|0.8114
84498512|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.237||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.713|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.713|-0.239|0.3282
84582122|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|60.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||60.7|34.5|<0.0001
84610664|NCT03831100|168973057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-0.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.7|-5.2|0.22
84610665|NCT03831100|168973058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.1|-5.8|0.093
84755964|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7372||0.5344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.905|0.988|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.988|-1.905|0.5344
84755965|NCT02187471|169268480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7379||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.055|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.055|-0.840|0.4107
84755966|NCT02187471|169268481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0066|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||||0.0471|-0.0066|0.1394
84755967|NCT02187471|169268481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.048|||ANCOVA|||||0.0480|-0.0058|0.1237
84755968|NCT02187471|169268481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01371||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0655|||ANCOVA|||||0.0655|0.0117|0.0049
84755969|NCT02187471|169268481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454|0.0086|||ANCOVA|||||0.0086|-0.0454|0.1824
84755970|NCT02187471|169268481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0446|0.0095|||ANCOVA|||||0.0095|-0.0446|0.2036
84755971|NCT02187471|169268482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.87|0.0006
84755972|NCT02187471|169268482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.20|<0.0001
84755973|NCT02187471|169268482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.27|<0.0001
84755974|NCT02187471|169268482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.0158
84755975|NCT02187471|169268482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.25|0.6819
84755976|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
84755977|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.2005
84755978|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.0|0.0010
84755979|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.0|0.2|0.0030
84755980|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3351
84755981|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
84755982|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0782
84755983|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0068
84582123|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|7.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|16.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||16.5|-2.0|0.1295
84755984|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0169
84755985|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1481
84582124|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|79.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|91.0||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment"||91.0|67.1|<0.0001
84582125|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||10.7|-15.0|0.7503
84582126|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|66.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|79.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment"||79.5|52.8|<0.0001
84582127|NCT02070380|168917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.6||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||9.6|-13.8|0.7297
84582128|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582129|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8238||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||0.8238
84582130|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582131|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.4597
84582132|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84755986|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
84755987|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.8|0.0088
84672555|NCT01495585|169080704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||<0.0001
84672556|NCT01495585|169080705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84755988|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
84755989|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
84755990|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3064
84755991|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
84755992|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0868
84755993|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0004
84755994|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0271
84755995|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6838
84755996|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.454|-1.129|<0.0001
84755997|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.007|-0.667|0.0552
84755998|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.275|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.275|-0.950|0.0004
84755999|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1729||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.801|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.801|0.122|0.0077
84756000|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.518|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.518|-0.161|0.3014
84756001|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||14.3|4.9|<0.0001
84756002|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||13.2|3.8|0.0004
84756003|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||15.1|5.7|<0.0001
84756004|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.6|-5.8|0.6449
84756005|NCT02187471|169268484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.5|-3.9|0.7340
84756006|NCT02187471|169268485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.4816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.060|0.4816
84756007|NCT02187471|169268485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.020|-.109|0.0044
84756008|NCT02187471|169268485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.030|-0.119|0.0010
84756009|NCT02187471|169268485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|0.014|0.0094
84756010|NCT02187471|169268485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.034|0.6527
84756011|NCT01785160|169268487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability (No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|272.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|67.9||0.9999||95.0|199.69|370.66||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||370.66|199.69|0.9999
84582133|NCT02070380|168917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8145||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.8145
84582134|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0020
84582135|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84582136|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0001
84582137|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84582138|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582139|NCT02070380|168917877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5811
84582140|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582141|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84582142|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582143|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84644301|NCT01816451|169024412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre; during (retest I 0-6weeks; retest II 0-10 weeks) and post training data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. HR and \[La\], were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables RPE, Velocity were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used. Control didn't do submaximal test for training intensities.||||<0.05
84582144|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0023
84582145|NCT02070380|168917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84582146|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582147|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
84582148|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582149|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.7503
84582150|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
84582151|NCT02070380|168917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.05 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5983
84582152|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||<0.0001
84644302|NCT03445156|169024467|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16, p = .044, partial c\^2 = .023||||||0.04
84644303|NCT03445156|169024467|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||||||.0001
84644304|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|ANCOVA|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to have more hits to targets with heads or faces than were participants who played a nonviolent shooting game.||||<.001
84756012|NCT01785160|169268488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability(No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|245.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.1||0.9973||95.0|168.46|358.404||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||358.404|168.460|0.9973
84756013|NCT02318667|169268490|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0074
84582153|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.6898
84582154|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84582155|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.1156
84582156|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84582157|NCT02070380|168917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7726
84582158|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0002
84582159|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84582160|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84582161|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84582162|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84582163|NCT02070380|168917881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0003
84582164|NCT01791205|168917909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.538||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|19.33||The relation between retention rate and duration of disease for phase II was estimated with the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The relation between retention rate and DAS28 (\<2.6 vs \<3.2) was assayed with the Cox regression.||19.33|0.65|0.1194
84582165|NCT01791205|168917910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.3895
84582166|NCT01791205|168917911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.211||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.086|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.086|0.703|0.4900
84582167|NCT01791205|168917912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Delta|-0.042||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.167|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.167|-0.251|0.6908
84582168|NCT01791205|168917913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0210
84582169|NCT01697501|168917945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||univariate logistic analysis|||||2.57|0.29|0.7831
84582170|NCT01697501|168917946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.67|||univariate logistic analysis|||||7.67|0.66|0.1951
84582171|NCT01697501|168917947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.2642
84582172|NCT01697501|168917948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.0672
84582173|NCT02197065|168917956|OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||This was a pilot feasibility study and we were only powered to determine the frequency of troponin elevation in the entire study population, not to compare the frequency of a rise in troponin in the two study arms. Thus Aim 1 applies to the entire study cohort.||||
84582174|NCT02197065|168917957|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84582175|NCT02197065|168917958|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84582176|NCT00066170|168918002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
84582177|NCT00066170|168918002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
84582178|NCT01370642|168918003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by Interleukin 28B (IL28B) and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.5|17.2|<0.001
84672557|NCT01495585|169080705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84756014|NCT02318667|169268491|OTHER|||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1506
84756015|NCT01263483|169268568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.166|-0.838||||||||-0.838|-1.166|
84756016|NCT01263483|169268568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.796||||||||-0.796|-1.097|
84756017|NCT01263483|169268569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.123||||||||-0.123|-0.229|
84582179|NCT01370642|168918003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.0|17.4|<0.001
84498513|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.722|0.3578
84582180|NCT01370642|168918004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|41.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.5|18.1|<0.001
84582181|NCT01370642|168918004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|41.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.0|18.3|<0.001
84582182|NCT01370642|168918005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|85.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||85.3|68.2|<0.001
84582183|NCT01370642|168918005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.7|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||84.1|66.7|<0.001
84582184|NCT01370642|168918006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|58.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||58.9|37.2|<0.001
84582185|NCT01370642|168918006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||60.0|38.5|<0.001
84582186|NCT01370642|168918007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.3|8.1|<0.001
84582187|NCT01370642|168918007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.8|9.3|<0.001
84582188|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||13.7|-5.4|0.385
84582189|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||8.1|-12.6|0.670
84582190|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||9.5|-17.5|0.557
84582191|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-12.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||1.2|-26.2|0.072
84582192|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|7.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||7.9|-7.9|>0.999
84582193|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.2|-3.3|0.220
84672558|NCT00739752|169080722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||Regression, Poisson|||The two gain-framed groups were compared to the two loss-framed groups using poisson regression.||1.12|.88|=.885
84756018|NCT01263483|169268569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.133||||||||-0.133|-0.247|
84756019|NCT01263483|169268570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.334||||||||-0.334|-0.507|
84756020|NCT01263483|169268570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.324||||||||-0.324|-0.504|
84582194|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||28.7|1.3|0.032
84582195|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||19.4|-8.4|0.432
84582196|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.2||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||21.8|-5.8|0.252
84582197|NCT01370642|168918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.4|-13.4|0.942
84582198|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.0|-3.5|
84610666|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.69||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||2.69|-1.31|0.4994
84672559|NCT00739752|169080722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.31|||Regression, Poisson|||Groups receiving any framed interventions (gain-framed or loss-framed) were compared to those in the two non-framed control groups.||1.31|1.06|<.01
84756021|NCT01263483|169268571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|-0.605||||||||-0.605|-0.871|
84756022|NCT01263483|169268571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.875|-0.623||||||||-0.623|-0.875|
84756023|NCT01263483|169268572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-5.52||||||||-5.52|-18.50|
84756024|NCT01263483|169268572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-8.73||||||||-8.73|-21.93|
84756025|NCT01263483|169268573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|-8.27||||||||-8.27|-23.02|
84582199|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-3.2|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.2|-3.7|
84582200|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.7|-3.3|
84582201|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.8|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.8|-3.4|
84756026|NCT01263483|169268573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|-14.38||||||||-14.38|-29.68|
84756027|NCT01263483|169268574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-10.5||||||||-10.50|-26.09|
84756028|NCT01263483|169268574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-11.34||||||||-11.34|-27.34|
84756029|NCT01263483|169268575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-5.6||||||||-5.60|-21.46|
84756030|NCT01263483|169268575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-4.41||||||||-4.41|-21.53|
84756031|NCT01263483|169268576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.104||||||||0.104|-0.304|
84756032|NCT01263483|169268576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.167||||||||0.167|-0.239|
84756033|NCT01263483|169268577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.292||||||||0.292|-0.267|
84756034|NCT01263483|169268577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.264|
84756035|NCT01263483|169268578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.191||||||||0.191|-0.268|
84756036|NCT01263483|169268578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.115||||||||0.115|-0.261|
84756037|NCT01263483|169268579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.252||||||||0.252|-0.183|
84756038|NCT01263483|169268579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.288||||||||0.288|-0.124|
84756039|NCT01263483|169268580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.28|-21.8||||||||-21.80|-41.28|
84756040|NCT01263483|169268580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-22.57||||||||-22.57|-44.88|
84756041|NCT01263483|169268581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.67|-50.09||||||||-50.09|-90.67|
84756042|NCT01263483|169268581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.1|-51.88||||||||-51.88|-93.10|
84756043|NCT01263483|169268582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.229|11.958||||||||11.958|2.229|
84756044|NCT01263483|169268582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|8.455||||||||8.455|-0.521|
84582202|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.6|-2.2|
84582203|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.7|-2.3|
84610667|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.51|-2.60|0.6014
84610668|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.72||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.72|-2.17|0.8166
84610669|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.24|-1.96|0.6588
84644305|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to hit the mannequin's head more often than were participants who played either the nonviolent shooting game or the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.044
84756045|NCT01263483|169268583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|1.144||||||||1.144|-0.045|
84756046|NCT01263483|169268583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|1.09||||||||1.090|-0.233|
84582204|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
84582205|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
84756047|NCT01263483|169268584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-36.65|
84756048|NCT01263483|169268584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-2.27||||||||-2.27|-37.82|
84756049|NCT03596866|169268608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.424||P-value from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|2-sided Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.424|0.658|=0.8672
84756050|NCT03596866|169268609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.592|||=|0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|2.652||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||2.652|0.956|=0.0713
84756051|NCT03596866|169268610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||=|0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.761||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.761|0.862|=0.2501
84582206|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.5|-1.1|
84756052|NCT03596866|169268611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||=|0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.15||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|BIRC Assessed||1.15|0.42|=0.1555
84756053|NCT03596866|169268611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.9||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Investigator Assessed||0.90|0.33|=0.0169
84756054|NCT03596866|169268614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||=|0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.84||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|||3.84|0.44|=0.6246
84756055|NCT03596866|169268616|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0778||||||P-value from a 2-sided stratified Gray's test using the stratification factors (at randomization per IxRS): presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Gray's Test|P-value is for the event type: Intracranial Disease Progression without Prior Systemic Progression or Death.||||||=0.0778
84756056|NCT00829179|169268619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||0.005||95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.005
84756057|NCT04085523|169268637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6004|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.6004
84756058|NCT04085523|169268637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7022|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.7022
84756059|NCT04085523|169268637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0849
84756060|NCT04085523|169268637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0218|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0218
84756061|NCT05318937|169268638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.9934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|4.09||The p-value was obtained using a MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||4.09|-4.13|0.9934
84582207|NCT01370642|168918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.6|-1.2|
84672560|NCT00739752|169080722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Poisson|||The 3 vaccine-recommended groups were compared with the 3 vaccine-offered groups using poisson regression.||1.28|1.05|<.01
84756062|NCT04722042|169268642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of word recognition over time (activation, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between groups (default versus place-based)||||0.557
84756063|NCT04722042|169268643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking over time (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between the groups (default versus place-based)||||0.208
84756064|NCT04722042|169268644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking between the groups over time||||0.126
84756065|NCT04722042|169268645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of perceived benefit between the groups over time||||0.369
84756066|NCT04722042|169268646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84756067|NCT04722042|169268647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84756068|NCT04722042|169268648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84756069|NCT01877915|169268656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.05|0.84|0.270
84756070|NCT01877915|169268662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.59|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 (Fatal Bleeding)||2.59|0.41|0.951
84756071|NCT01877915|169268662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 2 (Bleeding in Critical Space with Potential for Permanent Disability)||1.34|0.33|0.253
84582208|NCT00987935|168918017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|2.296|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.296|0.802|
84582209|NCT00987935|168918018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.014|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.014|0.730|
84756072|NCT05314517|169268684|OTHER||Stratified Common Risk Difference|14.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|-1.0|0.1244
84756073|NCT04714073|169268690|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|218.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.06|246.72|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||246.72|194.06|
84582210|NCT00987935|168918022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.932|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.932|0.728|
84610670|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.3914|||||||MCP-Mod sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 75 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.3914
84610671|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4104|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4104
84644306|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = 2.40||"Hypothesis: Because the nonviolent shooting game rewards other shots, participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||0.17
84756074|NCT04714073|169268691|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|156.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.04|180.89|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||180.89|135.04|
84756075|NCT04714073|169268692|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|223.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.61|250.66|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||250.66|198.61|
84756076|NCT01401842|169268714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on lumbar extension muscular strength (Nm) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.001
84756077|NCT01401842|169268715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.871
84582211|NCT00987935|168918023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.489|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.489|0.593|
84582212|NCT00452530|168918031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.0003||||||1-sided P-value|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||||0.0003
84582213|NCT00452530|168918031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.04||||||95.0|-2.03|-0.05|||Inverse variance method|||Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-0.05|-2.03|
84582214|NCT00452530|168918032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.33||||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major bleeding||0.29|-0.95|0.3014
84610672|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.456|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No parameter assumptions required.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4560
84756078|NCT01401842|169268716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.021
84610673|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4908|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4908
84610674|NCT04566601|168973059|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4974|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4974
84610675|NCT04566601|168973060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.14|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 5mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||1.140|0.207|
84672561|NCT02281552|169080723|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the treatment groups (MR 11 mg QD - IR 5 mg BID) at Week 12 was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||||||Analysis was conducted using a linear mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM), which included treatment (tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID), visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||0.69|0.17|
84756079|NCT00282295|169268732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.17||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||4.17|0.79|
84756080|NCT00282295|169268732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.48||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared toBoostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||1.48|-1.4|
84582215|NCT00452530|168918032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.91||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|CRNM||0.38|-2.20|0.1668
84582216|NCT00452530|168918032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.24||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major or CRNM||0.18|-2.66|0.0881
84582217|NCT00452530|168918032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.39||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Any bleeding||0.51|-3.29|0.1412
84582218|NCT00452530|168918033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||P-value was statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||0.74|0.51|<0.0001
84582219|NCT00452530|168918033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.74|-5.79||P-value is statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-5.79|-12.74|<0.0001
84582220|NCT02222181|168918038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
84582221|NCT02222181|168918039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84582222|NCT02222181|168918040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
84582223|NCT02222181|168918041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84582224|NCT02222181|168918042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
84582225|NCT02222181|168918043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84756081|NCT00282295|169268733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) geometric mean antibody concentrations (GMCs) one month after vaccination.||1.03|0.84|
84756082|NCT00282295|169268733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (anti-FHA) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.84|0.69|
84582226|NCT02222181|168918044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84582227|NCT03888482|168918045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Clariti|||0.01||
84756083|NCT00282295|169268733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.72|0.54|
84582228|NCT03721107|168918046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.9||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||21.9|-6.0|0.152
84582229|NCT03721107|168918046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.0||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||18.0|-6.8|0.216
84582230|NCT01064622|168918142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||Reported p-value is one-sided. p\<0.10 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.22|0.55|0.15
84582231|NCT01064622|168918143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.46|0.64|0.37
84582232|NCT01064622|168918144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Karnofsky performance status and disease status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.42
84582233|NCT01245049|168918173|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.14|||Standardized asymptotic|||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to D||3.14|-3.55|
84582234|NCT01245049|168918173|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.9||||||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to T||4.9|-2.43|
84582235|NCT01245049|168918175|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) was lower than or equal to (≤) 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 1 antigen||1.28|0.65|
84498514|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.814|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.814|-0.138|0.1638
84498515|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.433|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.433|-0.533|0.8384
84498516|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.869|1.0000
84582236|NCT01245049|168918175|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 2 antigen||1.12|0.54|
84582237|NCT01245049|168918175|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 3 antigen||1.84|0.93|
84582238|NCT02151604|168918207|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|-0.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|||Correlation with field of irradiation||||0.041
84582239|NCT02151604|168918209|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.60|Pearson's Correlation Analysis|0.60||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of alveolar volume (VA)||||0.037
84582240|NCT02151604|168918209|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.70||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide(TLCO)||||0.012
84582241|NCT02151604|168918209|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.85||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of residual volume (RV)||||0.032
84582242|NCT02151604|168918209|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.95||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of functional residual capacity (FRC)||||0.004
84756084|NCT00282295|169268734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PT one month after vaccination.||1.15|-9.91|
84582243|NCT02151604|168918209|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient = -0.88||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of inspiratory capacity(IC)||||0.012
84756085|NCT00282295|169268734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to FHA one month after vaccination.||0.15|-7.03|
84582244|NCT02931539|168918222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|42.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.74|22.80|<0.001
84756086|NCT00282295|169268734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.25||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PRN one month after vaccination.||-1.25|-5.25|
84582245|NCT02931539|168918223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|9.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.88|2.02|0.013
84582246|NCT02931539|168918238|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.357|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value comparing treatment groups was calculated from the log rank test by Kaplan-Meier Method.|Stratified Cox regression model was used as transplant type and baseline plasma CMV DNA level as stratification factors.|||2.357|0.549|0.647
84582247|NCT02059642|168918248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: Model of Repeated Measures||||0.66|-4.87|0.1358
84610676|NCT04566601|168973060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|7.48|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 25mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||7.480|0.829|
84582248|NCT03061214|168918250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
84582249|NCT03061214|168918250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
84582250|NCT03061214|168918250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
84582251|NCT03061214|168918250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
84756087|NCT00282295|169268735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.43||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccinecompared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup A one month after vaccination.||4.43|-4.85|
84756088|NCT00282295|169268735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|5.16||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup C one month after vaccination.||5.16|-1.69|
84582252|NCT02722330|168918325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84582253|NCT02722330|168918326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Ease of communication||||<0.0001
84582254|NCT02722330|168918326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Reverberation||||<0.0001
84582255|NCT02722330|168918326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Background noise||||<0.0001
84582256|NCT02722330|168918326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Aversiveness||||0.0004
84756089|NCT00282295|169268735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.82||||||95.0|-2.58|6.25||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup Y one month after vaccination.||6.25|-2.58|
84582257|NCT02722330|168918326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Global score||||<0.0001
84582258|NCT02722330|168918327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech scale||||<0.0001
84582259|NCT02722330|168918327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Spatial scale||||<0.0001
84582260|NCT02722330|168918327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Qualities scale||||<0.0001
84582261|NCT02722330|168918328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84582262|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
84756090|NCT00282295|169268735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup W-135 one month after vaccination||6.45|0.96|
84498517|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.581||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.377|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.214|-1.377|0.2808
84582263|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
84582264|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
84582265|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582266|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
84582267|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582268|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582269|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582270|NCT02722330|168918329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582271|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
84582272|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
84582273|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
84582274|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582275|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
84582276|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582277|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582278|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582279|NCT02722330|168918330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
84582280|NCT02722330|168918331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.002
84582281|NCT02722330|168918332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0024
84582282|NCT02722330|168918333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
84582283|NCT02722330|168918333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
84582284|NCT02722330|168918333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
84582285|NCT02722330|168918334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All variable had the same p value (\<0.0001).|Wolcoxon Signed rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
84582286|NCT02722330|168918334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
84582287|NCT02722330|168918334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
84582288|NCT02722330|168918335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.036
84582289|NCT02722330|168918336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.065
84582290|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.47
84756091|NCT05470465|169268752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.1||<0.001
84756092|NCT05470465|169268752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with escitalopram compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.001
84756093|NCT05470465|169268753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.002
84756094|NCT05470465|169268753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.5||To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.5||0.003
84756095|NCT05470465|169268754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.1||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-4.1||<0.001
84582291|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.16
84582292|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.59
84582293|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.034
84582294|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.25
84582295|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.023
84582296|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.028
84582297|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.0075
84582298|NCT02722330|168918337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.0035
84582299|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.12
84582300|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.072
84582301|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.56
84582302|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.16
84582303|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.39
84582304|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.11
84582305|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.38
84582306|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.014
84582307|NCT02722330|168918338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.71
84582308|NCT02722330|168918339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.48
84582309|NCT02722330|168918340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
84582310|NCT02722330|168918341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.017
84582311|NCT02722330|168918341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||0.095
84582312|NCT02722330|168918341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.57
84582313|NCT02722330|168918342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.096
84582314|NCT02722330|168918342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||1.00
84582315|NCT02722330|168918342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.41
84582316|NCT04392362|168918348|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin or delta was calculated as -0.12(-12%)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.8982|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was the level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the AHA method is inferior to the SIM method but not lower than a pre calculated noninferiority delta of -0.12 (-12 %) and a 95% one sided confidence interval. Only 33 (instead of 151 for a power of 95%) patients could be enrolled with 25 in the SIM and 8 in the AHA arms, which resulted in an estimated power test of 59.08%.||||0.8982
84582317|NCT01934231|168918349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Cure|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.85|97.55|||||"The estimated parameter represents the rate of cure, calculated as (number of participants with an outcome of Cure/number of participants analyzed) \* 100."|||97.55|69.85|
84582318|NCT02457546|168918355|NON_INFERIORITY|"The statistical hypothesis for testing the treatment difference was presented as follows:~H0: Δ ≤ -0.10 tested against the alternative hypothesis Ha: Δ \> -0.10. where:~* Δ is the difference between the success rates of Experimental (Evicel®) and Control (DuraSeal™) (Experimental minus Control)~* -0.10 is the non-inferiority difference PC is the proportion of success in DuraSeal™ Control subjects and PE is the proportion of success in EVICEL® subjects."|Difference in Success Rates|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.4||||||||14.4|-1.8|
84582319|NCT03160573|168918410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Flavored Rinse, Placebo Flavored Rinse||||<0.00001
84582320|NCT03160573|168918410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Unflavored Rinse, Placebo Unflavored Rinse||||<0.00001
84582321|NCT03142451|168918431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.749||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||3.68|0.75|0.0031
84582322|NCT03142451|168918432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.434||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.434|1.022|0.0273
84582323|NCT03142451|168918433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.425||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.425|1.028|0.0171
84582324|NCT03142451|168918434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||12.77|2.46|0.0039
84582325|NCT03142451|168918435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||4.09|1.16|0.0004
84582326|NCT03142451|168918435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||4.56|1.62|<0.0001
84582327|NCT03142451|168918436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.685||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.616||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||2.616|1.085|0.0201
84582328|NCT03142451|168918436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.191||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.492||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||1.492|0.951|0.1278
84582329|NCT00090402|168918438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and body mass index||||||0.83
84582330|NCT00871000|168918460|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 1 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against poliovirus type 1, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
84756096|NCT05470465|169268754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.6||<0.001
84756097|NCT05470465|169268755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-5.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-5.9||<0.001
84756098|NCT05470465|169268755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.7||0.003
84582331|NCT00871000|168918460|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 2 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 2, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
84582332|NCT00871000|168918460|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 3 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.72||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 3, one month after vaccination.||2.72|-2.61|
84582333|NCT00871000|168918461|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: Upper limit (UL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was lower than or equal to (≤) 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against diphtheria, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
84582334|NCT00871000|168918461|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against tetanus, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
84582335|NCT01052428|168918477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4568||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.4568
84582336|NCT01052428|168918478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.1967
84582337|NCT01052428|168918479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.55
84582338|NCT01052428|168918480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.21
84582339|NCT01052428|168918481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.006
84582340|NCT01052428|168918482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.16
84582341|NCT01052428|168918483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.001
84582342|NCT03400787|168918490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||p\<0.025 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the responder rate for the Latera implant treatment was not superior to the sham treatment. A maximum sample size of 124 evaluable subjects is required for 90% power and preserving a 2.5% (one-sided) type I error rate.||||0.0001
84582343|NCT02327143|168918523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.508|||||Absolute bioavailability of LY2835219 following the administration of 200 mg LY2835219 (oral) with 0.4 mg \[13C8\]-LY2835219 (IV).|||0.508|0.395|
84582344|NCT00159874|168918642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.09|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -7.02 was calculated as ' Sildenafil Medium Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||5.09|-19.13|0.253
84582345|NCT00159874|168918642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.93|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -9.84 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||1.93|-21.60|0.100
84582346|NCT00159874|168918642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|9.11|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -2.82 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Medium Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||9.11|-14.75|0.640
84582347|NCT01550965|168918667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the first ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
84582348|NCT01550965|168918668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1383.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1586.36|-1181.26|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the second ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||-1181.26|-1586.36|<0.001
84582349|NCT01550965|168918669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1297.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1562.17|-1033.36|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-1033.36|-1562.17|<0.001
84582350|NCT01550965|168918670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4308.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4985.13|-3631.51|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-3631.51|-4985.13|<0.001
84582351|NCT01550965|168918671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.78|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.78|-9.83|<0.001
84582352|NCT01550965|168918672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|27.25|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Effectiveness.||27.25|21.50|<0.001
84582353|NCT01550965|168918672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.42|22.48|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Side Effects.||22.48|15.42|<0.001
84582354|NCT01550965|168918672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|8.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided)|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Convenience.||8.50|3.89|<0.001
84582355|NCT01550965|168918672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|25.64|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Global Satisfaction.||25.64|19.55|<0.001
84756099|NCT05470465|169268756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.5||<0.001
84582356|NCT01550965|168918673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-4.27|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization.||-4.27|-5.42|<0.001
84582357|NCT01550965|168918673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during emergency department visits.||0.09|-0.11|0.830
84582358|NCT01550965|168918673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during primary care doctor visits.||-0.66|-1.18|<0.001
84582359|NCT01550965|168918674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants with absence of blood in stool from week 0 to week 26.||||<0.001
84582360|NCT01550965|168918675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|12.02|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 2.||12.02|10.21|<0.001
84582361|NCT01550965|168918675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|16.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 8.||16.56|14.20|<0.001
84582362|NCT01550965|168918675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|15.96|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||15.96|13.57|<0.001
84582363|NCT01550965|168918675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 26.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
84582364|NCT01550965|168918676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 2.||-0.57|-0.69|<0.001
84582365|NCT01550965|168918676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-1.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 8.||-1.00|-1.16|<0.001
84582366|NCT01550965|168918676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.77|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-0.77|-0.95|<0.001
84582367|NCT01550965|168918676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-1.06|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 26.||-1.06|-1.23|<0.001
84582368|NCT01550965|168918677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-2.99|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 2.||-2.99|-3.46|<0.001
84582369|NCT01550965|168918677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.76|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 8.||-3.76|-4.37|<0.001
84582370|NCT01550965|168918677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-2.66|-3.36|<0.001
84582371|NCT01550965|168918677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-3.72|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 26.||-3.72|-4.43|<0.001
84582372|NCT01550965|168918678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.11|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 2.||0.11|0.08|<0.001
84582373|NCT01550965|168918678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.15|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 8.||0.15|0.11|<0.001
84582374|NCT01550965|168918678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||0.14|0.10|<0.001
84582375|NCT01550965|168918678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.17|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 26.||0.17|0.12|<0.001
84756100|NCT05470465|169268756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-9.0||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-9.0||<0.001
84582376|NCT01550965|168918679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-5.18|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 2.||-5.18|-12.07|<0.001
84582377|NCT01550965|168918679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-8.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 8.||-8.16|-16.27|<0.001
84582378|NCT01550965|168918679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-7.4|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-7.40|-15.82|<0.001
84582379|NCT01550965|168918679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-7.35|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 26.||-7.35|-15.50|<0.001
84582380|NCT01550965|168918680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.12|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 2.||-13.12|-20.00|<0.001
84582381|NCT01550965|168918680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-18.97|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 8.||-18.97|-26.93|<0.001
84582382|NCT01550965|168918680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-17.67|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-17.67|-25.69|<0.001
84582383|NCT01550965|168918680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.33|-20.58|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 26.||-20.58|-28.33|<0.001
84582384|NCT01550965|168918681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 2.||-14.57|-22.10|<0.001
84582385|NCT01550965|168918681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-22.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 8.||-22.00|-31.08|<0.001
84582386|NCT01550965|168918681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|-20.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-20.70|-29.97|<0.001
84582387|NCT01550965|168918681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-24.93|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 26.||-24.93|-33.50|<0.001
84582388|NCT01550965|168918682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-15.85|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 2.||-15.85|-20.47|<0.001
84582389|NCT01550965|168918682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-22.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 8.||-22.56|-28.30|<0.001
84582390|NCT01550965|168918682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|-21.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-21.50|-27.33|<0.001
84582391|NCT01550965|168918682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.28|-24.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 26.||-24.16|-30.28|<0.001
84582392|NCT03093246|168918683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
84582393|NCT03093246|168918684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
84582394|NCT03093246|168918685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
84582395|NCT00276380|168918707|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.48|0.46|0.52
84582396|NCT00276380|168918708|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.57|0.47|0.623
84582397|NCT00276380|168918708|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.3|0.42|0.3
84582398|NCT00276380|168918710|OTHER|||||||0.207||||||Treatment effect was derived using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.207
84582399|NCT00276380|168918710|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.590
84582400|NCT00276380|168918710|OTHER|Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.||||||0.814|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.814
84582401|NCT00276380|168918711|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.240
84582402|NCT00276380|168918711|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.441
84582403|NCT00276380|168918711|OTHER|||||||0.645||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.645
84582404|NCT00276380|168918712|OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.623
84582405|NCT00276380|168918712|OTHER|||||||0.338||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.338
84582406|NCT00276380|168918712|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.828
84582407|NCT01651208|168918714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that in the MINT group, at least 70% of subjects will reach an MPR of 0.80 while in the DVD group, the proportion will remain at or below 55%. Our sample size estimates showed that, using a conservative 2-sided test at the 5% Alpha level and a 90% power, we will be able to detect a significant 15% difference (70% - 55%) with a sample of 217 in each study group.||||<0.01
84582408|NCT01651208|168918715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean MMAS-4 score is similar in both intervention arms||||<0.01
84582409|NCT04829214|168918740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The percentage of responders will be compared between the two groups using the Mantel Haenszel test controlling for category of duration of tinnitus and category of baseline TFI overall score. The primary efficacy analysis will be conducted for the comparison of OTO-313 and placebo, using a 2-sided test and an alpha level of 5%. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the common risk difference will also be provided.||5|-26|=0.385
84582410|NCT05287685|168918745|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary pre-post outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.29
84582411|NCT05287685|168918745|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.34
84582412|NCT05287685|168918745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.02
84582413|NCT05287685|168918745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.04
84582414|NCT05287685|168918746|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.88
84582415|NCT05287685|168918746|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.87
84582416|NCT05287685|168918746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.10
84582417|NCT05287685|168918746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.90
84582418|NCT05287685|168918747|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis to test whether groups had equivalent levels of satisfaction with treatment (defined as the groups not being significantly different at the level of p\<.05).||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups.||||.80
84582419|NCT05287685|168918748|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.35
84582420|NCT05287685|168918748|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.049
84582421|NCT05287685|168918748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.45
84582422|NCT05287685|168918748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.20
84582423|NCT05287685|168918749|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.006
84582424|NCT05287685|168918749|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.011
84582425|NCT05287685|168918749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.22
84582426|NCT05287685|168918749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.25
84582427|NCT02571244|168918750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||||||||1.85|0.99|
84582428|NCT02571244|168918751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84582429|NCT02571244|168918752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
84756101|NCT05470465|169268757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-8.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-8.5||<0.001
84756102|NCT05470465|169268757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.8||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.8||<0.001
84756103|NCT00847145|169268804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off levels for the vaccine antigen measles is ≥255 mIU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the measles antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Measles antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
84756104|NCT00847145|169268804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen mumps is ≥10 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay(ELISA) Antibody (Ab) units to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B(2a), if for the mumps antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Mumps antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-5|
84756105|NCT00847145|169268804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen rubella is ≥10 IU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the rubella antigen(two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for rubella antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-4|
84756106|NCT00847145|169268804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off value for the vaccine antigen varicella is ≥1.25 gpELISA units/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
84756107|NCT00847145|169268804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the varicella vaccine antigen is ≥5 gp ELISA units/ml (seroprotection) to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of the subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off value for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||7|-11|
84498518|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.887|1.0000
84498519|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.444||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.349|-1.237|0.6018
84582430|NCT02571244|168918753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.95||||||||1.95|1.08|
84582431|NCT02571244|168918754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.92||||||||1.92|1.07|
84582432|NCT02965976|168918794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
84582433|NCT02965976|168918795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
84582434|NCT02965976|168918796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
84582435|NCT02965976|168918797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
84582436|NCT02965976|168918798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
84582437|NCT02965976|168918799|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84582438|NCT00806026|168918802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region \[United states (US) or European union (EU)\], treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-3.20|-5.90|<0.0001
84582439|NCT00806026|168918802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.7|-2.0|0.3603
84582440|NCT00806026|168918802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
84582441|NCT00806026|168918803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||<0.0001
84582442|NCT00806026|168918803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.4393
84582443|NCT00806026|168918803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.0022
84582444|NCT00806026|168918804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0826
84582445|NCT00806026|168918804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0012
84582446|NCT00806026|168918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|-8.74||This analysis was step 7 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-8.74|-25.76|<0.0001
84582447|NCT00806026|168918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.58||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||7.58|-9.73|0.8075
84610677|NCT04566601|168973060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|4.861|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 75mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||4.861|0.698|
84756108|NCT00307151|169268818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|33.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months)and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||33.6|3.7|0.015
84756109|NCT00307151|169268818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.8||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months) and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||31.8|11.2|<0.001
84756110|NCT00346073|169268827|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.84||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.84|-1.47|
84756111|NCT00346073|169268827|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.11|-0.9|
84582448|NCT00806026|168918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|3.91||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||3.91|-13.05|0.2906
84582449|NCT00806026|168918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.3||This analysis was step 8 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||6.30|-9.30|0.7073
84644307|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = -0.76||Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's head less often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.449
84756112|NCT00346073|169268828|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.0||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 1.0 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0|-1.97|
84756113|NCT00346073|169268830|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.9|79.3||||||"Demonstration that anti-PT booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||79.3|74.9|
84756114|NCT00346073|169268830|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|97.7||||||"Demonstration that anti-FHA booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||97.7|95.8|
84756115|NCT00346073|169268830|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|94.4||||||"Demonstration that anti-PRN booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||94.4|91.8|
84756116|NCT00980200|169268845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.140|0.049|<0.001
84756117|NCT00980200|169268845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.095|<0.001
84756118|NCT00980200|169268845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.057|<0.001
84756119|NCT00980200|169268845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.170|0.080|<0.001
84610678|NCT04566601|168973060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|2.913|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 125mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||2.913|0.642|
84582450|NCT00806026|168918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||9.9|-5.1|0.5299
84582451|NCT00806026|168918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.5||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.5|-15.2|0.0354
84582452|NCT00806026|168918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.45||This analysis was step 9 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.45|-1.55|0.0004
84582453|NCT00806026|168918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.99|0.1242
84582454|NCT00806026|168918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.01|-1.12|0.0553
84582455|NCT02777190|168918824|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of 4 hours|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.09|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided two-sample t-test with alpha=0.025|Difference calculated as oral minus vaginal|||6.7||0.09
84582456|NCT02777190|168918825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84582457|NCT02777190|168918826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84756120|NCT00054704|169268850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|0.934||A linear mixed model included drug, visit and their interaction as fixed factors. Subject was a random factor. The test here is for the main effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline score was a covariate. Restricted maximum likelihood estimates were used with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy of riluzole to placebo in the treatment of overall depressive symptomatology of bipolar disorder subjects who were acutely depressed. Data from 8 riluzole and 11 placebo participants were analyzed due to missing data for one riluzole patient.||0.934|-12.590|.086
84582458|NCT02777190|168918827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84582459|NCT02777190|168918828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84582460|NCT02777190|168918829|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84582461|NCT02777190|168918830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
84582462|NCT02777190|168918832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
84582463|NCT02777190|168918833|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84582464|NCT02777190|168918834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84582465|NCT02777190|168918835|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84582466|NCT02777190|168918836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84610679|NCT04566601|168973061|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.90|-5.11|0.9675
84644308|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(273) = -0.46||"Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||.645
84582467|NCT00563316|168918855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.074|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||1.074|0.894|
84582468|NCT00563316|168918856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.985|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.985|0.819|
84582469|NCT00563316|168918857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.983|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.983|0.818|
84582470|NCT00425854|168918862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Likelihood|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.238|||||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort B. The CI is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.238|0.001|
84582471|NCT00425854|168918867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical benefit rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Maxium Likelihood||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort A. The confidence interval (CI) is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.27|0.02|
84582472|NCT01378273|168918872|SUPERIORITY|We assumed no effect of treatment on death, but that Epo will lead to a decrease in the rate of NDI. If we assume a multiplicative reduction in the NDI rate of 0.45 then we expect a treated NDI rate of 12 percent and an overall rate of death+NDI of 30.4% as compared to the control rate of 40.4% corresponding to an overall treatment rate ratio of 0.75. This leads to a sample size of 376 evaluated subjects per arm or a total evaluated sample size of 752 subjects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.81|1.32||A two-sided type I error of 0.05 with no formal adjustment for multiple comparisons unless otherwise specified (such as with safety outcomes).|GEE Wald test based on logistic regressi|adjustments were made for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect.|The numerator is the Epo group, denominator is the control group|We evaluated the primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment using generalized estimating equations to account for potential correlation within siblings from the same pregnancy, with adjustment for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect. The primary analysis included infants with complete data and excluded data from infants known to be alive but in whom neurodevelopmental outcomes were not assessed.||1.32|0.81|0.05
84582473|NCT01378273|168918873|OTHER|SAEs were defined prospectively. The rate of total SAEs observed through hospital discharge were compared after accounting for potential within-sibship correlation (with multiple gestations) using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. We used a GEE Wald test based on Poisson or logistic regression for total SAE count and individual events respectively. All other non-categorical data were assessed with GEE regression models appropriate for continuous outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||Statistical significance was set at 0.05 for the efficacy analysis and for the final safety analysis comparing the rate of total SAEs between treatment groups, and 0.031 for death and 0.004 for the ten individual SAEs due to sequential monitoring.|Poisson regression|Adjusted for multiple gestation and gestational age|Epo is numerator and Control is denominator|We hypothesized that Epo would be safe, with no excess of SAEs compared to control infants. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death.||1.22|0.83|0.05
84582474|NCT01378273|168918874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For all statistical comparisons between groups, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors and a working independence correlation structure for infants included from a multiple gestation were used. A GEE-based Wald test was used to examine differences in the global brain injury severity score between treatment groups, with adjustment for gestational age (GA) at birth used to stratify treatment randomization (24+0 to 25+6 vs. 26+0 to 27+6 in weeks+days of GA).||||0.36
84756121|NCT02603120|169268865|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48, between B/F/TAF group and ABC/DTG/3TC group. Sample size was based on assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48 and that the non-inferiority margin is 4%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|2.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.8|-1.0|
84756122|NCT02603120|169268865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84756123|NCT02603120|169268866|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to ABC/DTG/3TC if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -ABC/DTG/3TC group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-5.5|2.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.6|-5.5|
84756124|NCT02603120|169268866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.59
84756125|NCT02603120|169268867|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3|-67|0.031
84756126|NCT02603120|169268869|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.276||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.827|||ANOVA|||||0.827|-0.275|0.33
84756127|NCT02603120|169268871|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.143||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.248|||ANOVA|||||0.248|-0.534|0.47
84756128|NCT01469182|169268875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|9.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||16.7|3.1|0.005
84582475|NCT01378273|168918875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.007.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For statistical inference, we utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors to appropriately account for potential correlation of biomarkers for same-birth siblings. Each respective GEE model adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment as fixed factors associated with the original study design. Biomarker levels at each follow-up time point were analysed using separate GEE models. Epo levels were log-transformed in all statistical analyses.||||<0.001
84582476|NCT01027754|168918942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84582477|NCT01027754|168918943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84582478|NCT01027754|168918952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84582479|NCT00530257|168918957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||We used a Bonferroni correct to adjust for up to 5 measures across domains and use a p-value of \<=0.01. With a sample of 30 subjects the analytic model was able to detect a difference of large effect size (Cohen's d= \>0.655)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.01
84582480|NCT00530257|168918958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84582481|NCT00530257|168918959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.05
84582482|NCT00530257|168918961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||We did not correct for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|We used a paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to compare the medication versus placebo.||||<0.05
84582483|NCT00530257|168918963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84582484|NCT00530257|168918964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The p value adjusts for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84582485|NCT00530257|168918965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84610680|NCT04566601|168973061|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.10|-5.08|0.9969
84756129|NCT01469182|169268876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.2|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||8.2|2.9|<0.001
84582486|NCT00530257|168918966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84582487|NCT00530257|168918967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84582488|NCT00530257|168918968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
84644309|NCT03445156|169024468|OTHER|Zero-order correlation||||||0.032|||||||Zero-order correlation|||Hypothesis: A positive correlation was expected between the number of violent shooting games participants listed among their three favorite video games and hits to the mannequin's head.||||.032
84756130|NCT01469182|169268877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.5|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||10.5|5.5|<0.001
84756131|NCT01469182|169268878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||13.6|6.6|<0.001
84756132|NCT01469182|169268879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||7.4|3.3|<0.001
84756133|NCT01469182|169268880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.17||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||1.9|-2.1|0.861
84756134|NCT01469182|169268881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15||||0.344||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.3|-1.5|0.344
84756135|NCT01469182|169268882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.99||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.0|-1.5|0.382
84756136|NCT01469182|169268883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||4.4|0.3|0.029
84756137|NCT01761292|169268914|OTHER||mean|13.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5657|16.2466||The paired t-test or non-parametric signed rank test for 2 means (paired observations) (as is appropriate) was applied for testing the statistical significance of the Change From Baseline to End of Study. MFA% P \< 0.05 was set as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.2466|11.5657|<0.0001
84756138|NCT01761292|169268915|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84756139|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0034
84756140|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.2600
84582489|NCT00368849|168918987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.63
84756141|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0001
84756142|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0039
84756143|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9300
84582490|NCT00368849|168918988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.09
84582491|NCT00368849|168918989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.46
84582492|NCT00368849|168918990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.84
84582493|NCT00368849|168918991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.76
84582494|NCT02006836|168918996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people = 0 H1: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people \> 0 α=5%||||0.005
84582495|NCT02006836|168918997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast = 0 H1：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast \> 0 α=5%~* g of breasfast without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast.~* g of breasfast with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast."||||>0.05
84582496|NCT02006836|168918998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch = 0 H1：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch \> 0 α=5%~* g of lunch without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch.~* g of lunch with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch."||||>0.05
84582497|NCT02006836|168918999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner = 0 H1：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner \> 0 α=5%~* g of dinner without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner.~* g of dinner with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner."||||>0.05
84582498|NCT02006836|168919000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: AUC||||>0.05
84582499|NCT01902303|168919001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.5000
84582500|NCT01902303|168919002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3835
84756144|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0031
84756145|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0190
84756146|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9200
84756147|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0150
84582501|NCT05058456|168919009|OTHER|The primary safety hypothesis is: H0: ΠS \> PGS vs. HA: ΠS ≤ PGS where ΠS is the proportion of patients who experience a MAE within 30 days of procedure and PGS is the Safety Performance Goal. All subjects in whom a Mini S IVL catheter was introduced into the vasculature will be included in the analysis (i.e., it is an intent-to-treat analysis). The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test at α=0.025.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
84582502|NCT05058456|168919010|OTHER|The primary effectiveness hypothesis is: H0: ΠE ≤ PGE vs. HA: ΠE \> PGE, where ΠE is the proportion of target lesions with technical success and PG is the effectiveness Performance Goal. One-sided statistical significance level of 0.025 = α. The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
84582503|NCT01654250|168919018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square(LS) Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point, and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.1|-10.9|<0.001
84582504|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.7|-12.7|<0.001
84582505|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
84582506|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-8.3|-17.3|<0.001
84582507|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
84582508|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-7.8|-16.8|<0.001
84582509|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
84756148|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0950
84756149|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.6000
84582510|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effect and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.3|-12.3|<0.001
84582511|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
84582512|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Nominal p-value -treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.1|-7.9|0.133
84582513|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
84644310|NCT03758755|169024469|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in IKDC score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.0219
84756150|NCT00916357|169268925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0310
84756151|NCT00916357|169268926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756152|NCT00916357|169268926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1800
84756153|NCT00916357|169268926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84582514|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.6|-7.4|0.206
84644311|NCT03758755|169024470|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in VAS score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.008
84582515|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Adjusted p-values are generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
84582516|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||2.9|-6.0|0.496
84582517|NCT01654250|168919019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
84582518|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.4|-2.6|0.007
84582519|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.001
84610681|NCT04566601|168973061|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|4.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.15|-5.73|0.7542
84610682|NCT04566601|168973061|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|5.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.19|-2.86|0.5683
84610683|NCT04566601|168973062|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.35|-6.49|0.3568
84672562|NCT01434290|169080740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.19
84672563|NCT01434290|169080740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||One sample z-test|one-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.08
84756154|NCT00916357|169268927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0045
84582520|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.2|-3.4|<0.001
84582521|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.6|-2.8|0.003
84582522|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.2|-2.0|0.097
84756155|NCT00916357|169268927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.4800
84756156|NCT00916357|169268927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0006
84756157|NCT00916357|169268928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756158|NCT00916357|169268928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0016
84756159|NCT00916357|169268928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1000
84756160|NCT00916357|169268929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone + Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756161|NCT00916357|169268929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.3000
84756162|NCT00916357|169268929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756163|NCT00916357|169268930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756164|NCT00916357|169268930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.7700
84756165|NCT00916357|169268930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
84756166|NCT00916357|169268931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0100
84756167|NCT00916357|169268931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8200
84756168|NCT00916357|169268931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0056
84756169|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.064
84756170|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.47
84756171|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.012
84756172|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.099
84756173|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
84756174|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.020
84756175|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.13
84756176|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.41
84756177|NCT00916357|169268932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
84756178|NCT00916357|169268933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.016
84756179|NCT00916357|169268933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8800
84756180|NCT00916357|169268933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.011
84756181|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
84756182|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.1800
84756183|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
84756184|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
84756185|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.7200
84756186|NCT00916357|169268935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
84756187|NCT03577730|169268936|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|55.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|118.0|||Generalized estimating equations||The median difference (+55) is an estimated difference between groups - rather than the actual difference - based on the pre-specified generalized estimated equations modeling.|||118|-9|0.092
84582523|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.7|-1.5|0.490
84582524|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.3|-1.9|0.164
84582525|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.9|-4.6|0.004
84582526|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
84582527|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
84582528|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.8|0.042
84582529|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.4|-3.3|0.118
84582530|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-2.7|0.342
84582531|NCT01654250|168919020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-1.8|0.962
84582532|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|47.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||47.1|3.4|0.024
84610684|NCT04566601|168973062|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|5.75||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.75|-3.33|0.6009
84672564|NCT01434290|169080741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.18
84756188|NCT03577730|169268937|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for visual analog scale scores at rest presented.||||0.802
84756189|NCT03577730|169268938|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.320
84756190|NCT03577730|169268939|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
84756191|NCT03577730|169268940|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.595
84756192|NCT03577730|169268941|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.985
84756193|NCT03577730|169268942|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.417
84756194|NCT03577730|169268943|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.432
84610685|NCT04566601|168973062|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.98|-4.70|0.8705
84610686|NCT04566601|168973062|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|4.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.71|-2.41|0.5262
84610687|NCT04566601|168973063|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.21||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-3.87|0.0782
84610688|NCT04566601|168973063|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.32||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.32|-1.86|0.8266
84610689|NCT04566601|168973063|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.74||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.74|-2.28|0.7910
84610690|NCT04566601|168973063|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-1.77|0.8743
84610691|NCT04566601|168973064|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.37||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.47|0.8016
84672565|NCT01434290|169080741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.38
84672566|NCT01434290|169080746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
84672567|NCT01434290|169080746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
84672568|NCT01434290|169080746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.09
84672569|NCT01434290|169080746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-side significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.43
84756195|NCT03577730|169268944|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
84756196|NCT03577730|169268945|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.058
84498520|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.536|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.246|-1.536|0.2935
84582533|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|57.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||57.9|14.2|0.001
84582534|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|56.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.6|12.8|0.002
84582535|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||51.1|7.4|0.009
84582536|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||34.4|-9.3|0.261
84582537|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|37.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||37.0|-6.7|0.175
84582538|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||40.5|-3.2|0.094
84582539|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||45.1|0.1|0.049
84582540|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.9|11.9|0.003
84582541|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||55.4|10.5|0.004
84610692|NCT04566601|168973064|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.67|0.2929
84610693|NCT04566601|168973064|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.42|0.9666
84672570|NCT01434290|169080747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||One-sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.39
84582542|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||49.5|4.5|0.019
84756197|NCT01360554|169268959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.093||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG).|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS, baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.093|0.797|0.195
84582543|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||31.1|-13.9|0.451
84582544|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||32.2|-12.7|0.394
84582545|NCT01654250|168919021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||30.8|-14.1|0.466
84582546|NCT01866150|168919025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.2||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||12.0|-9.5|0.8222
84582547|NCT01866150|168919026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.7||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.6|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.6|-6.2|0.4727
84582548|NCT01866150|168919026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.1|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.1|-8.0|0.6349
84582549|NCT01866150|168919027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|10.4|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||10.4|-12.1|0.8769
84582550|NCT01866150|168919027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.4||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 6. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||15.0|-8.2|0.5649
84582551|NCT01866150|168919027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.9||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.2|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at the last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||20.2|-0.3|0.0556
84582552|NCT01866150|168919028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 3. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.20|-0.40|0.5195
84582553|NCT01866150|168919028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 6. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.12|-0.47|0.2420
84582554|NCT01866150|168919028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at the last visit. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.15|-0.45|0.3264
84582555|NCT01866150|168919030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.18|||General Linear Model|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with cohort as a factor.||-1.18|-16.44|0.0237
84582556|NCT00600704|168919035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.379|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.096|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.569|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on a two-sided alpha error of .05 and 80% power. After applying the protocol in two equal groups of 10 patients, the analysis showed that the study requires 60 patients per group. However, we decided to enroll up to 100 patients per group to allow for patient attrition or missing data, and also in order to look for differences with regards to transfusion between patient subgroups.||0.569|0.189|<0.05
84756198|NCT01360554|169268960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.268||One-sided P-value|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.268|0.848|0.643
84756199|NCT01360554|169268961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.035||Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|One-sided P-value|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.035|0.780|0.069
84582557|NCT00600704|168919035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.129|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference between groups B and A is adjusted for age, gender, BMI and preoperative HCT, while BSA, weight, height, postoperative HCT were not included in the final model to avoid collinearity.|Null hypothesis :restrictive fluid protocol does not have any effect concerning the mean number of PRC units transfused.||1.129|0.465|<0.05
84582558|NCT02683954|168919040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality of numerical data distribution was examined by the Shapiro-Wilk. Normally distributed numerical variables were presented as mean±SD and inter-group differences were compared using unpaired t test. Skewed numerical variables were presented as median and interquartile range and between-group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend. Correlations among numerical variables were tested by Spearman rank correlation.||||0.05
84672571|NCT01434290|169080747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||One sample z-test|One-side significance level of 0.025||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.21
84756200|NCT01360554|169268962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.267||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.267|0.881|0.728
84756201|NCT01360554|169268963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.188||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.188|0.887|0.638
84756202|NCT01360554|169268964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.312||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.312|0.886|0.775
84756203|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.9357||||||95.0|-4.278|0.407|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.407|-4.278|
84756204|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.8067||||||95.0|-1.312|2.926|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.926|-1.312|
84756205|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|0.73||||||95.0|-1.575|3.035|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.035|-1.575|
84756206|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.5289||||||95.0|-0.756|3.814|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.814|-0.756|
84582559|NCT02255279|168919047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.51|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H1N1 strain of all the tree strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||5.51|3.00|
84582560|NCT02255279|168919047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.25|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H3N2 strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||3.25|2.05|
84582561|NCT02255279|168919047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.2|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in B strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||6.20|3.52|
84582562|NCT02255279|168919048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.3|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H1N1 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non-naive subjects.||26.3|8.1|
84582563|NCT02255279|168919048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|21.0|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H3N2 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naive and non-naive subjects.||21|-1.8|
84582564|NCT02255279|168919048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|68.5|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in B strains after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non naive subjects.||68.5|47.5|
84582565|NCT01644331|168919100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
84582566|NCT01644331|168919101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.34|0.03|0.021
84582567|NCT01644331|168919102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This a repeated measure analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||3.44|-1.47|0.430
84582568|NCT01644331|168919103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-493.21||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1176.96|190.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||190.55|-1176.96|0.157
84582569|NCT01644331|168919104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||||0.206
84582570|NCT01644331|168919105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.98||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.96|0.334
84582571|NCT01644331|168919106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
84582572|NCT01644331|168919107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.334
84582573|NCT01644331|168919108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.67||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.45|-1.79|0.241
84582574|NCT01644331|168919109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.28||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.82|-0.26|0.303
84582575|NCT01644331|168919110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||24 hours|Chi-squared|||||||0.471
84582576|NCT01644331|168919110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||48 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
84582577|NCT01644331|168919110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||72 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.120
84582578|NCT01644331|168919111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.037
84582579|NCT01644331|168919112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
84582580|NCT01644331|168919113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.26||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.32|||Log Rank|||||0.32|0.21|0.709
84582581|NCT02837952|168919118|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|72.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.075|95.707|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||95.707|50.075|<0.001
84582582|NCT02837952|168919119|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.895|33.005|||ANCOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on least square (LS) mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||33.005|19.895|< 0.001
84582583|NCT02837952|168919119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.196|10.632|||ANCOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.632|5.196|< 0.001
84582584|NCT02837952|168919119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|51.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.075|66.258|||ANCOVA|||0 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||66.258|37.075|< 0.001
84582585|NCT02837952|168919119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.139|36.508|||ANCOVA|||8 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.508|18.139|< 0.001
84582586|NCT02837952|168919119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|138.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.045|186.261|||ANCOVA|||0 to 48 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||186.261|91.045|< 0.001
84582587|NCT02837952|168919120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84582588|NCT02837952|168919121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84582589|NCT01362530|168919122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
84582590|NCT01362530|168919123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.05
84582591|NCT01362530|168919124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
84582592|NCT01362530|168919125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
84582593|NCT01959919|168919127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.907||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between ease of using clotting factor treatment score at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||||0.000
84582594|NCT01959919|168919128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.411|5.733|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between time for reconstructing the drug at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||5.733|3.411|0.000
84582595|NCT01959919|168919129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.789||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between burden of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
84582596|NCT01959919|168919130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.98||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between impact of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
84582597|NCT01959919|168919131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.445||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between risk associated with clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.001
84582598|NCT02003898|168919146|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.098||||||||0.098|-0.03|
84582599|NCT01537432|168919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.565|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.768|||Fisher Exact|||||0.768|0.363|<0.001
84582600|NCT01104870|168919155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.95
84582601|NCT01104870|168919155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.27
84582602|NCT01714063|168919191|OTHER|We used a paired T-test for statistical analysis to compare the filter dose. Using the 1% significance level and assuming a between-subject standard deviation of 60 lg (27%) for the difference between coordinated and doses, 32 subjects are sufficient to detect a 45 lg (20%) difference with 95% confidence.uncoordinated filter|||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84582603|NCT03733483|168919202|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on P1NP levels. Change in P1NP in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84756207|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2219||||||95.0|-1.975|4.419|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.419|-1.975|
84582604|NCT03733483|168919203|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on CTX levels. Change in CTX in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84582605|NCT02191397|168919204|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference (bupropion XL-escitalopram) was compared with the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 2.2. If the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was below 2.2, then it indicated that bupropion was not inferior in efficacy to escitalopram.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.94||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Observed Cases (OC) dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.94|-0.27|0.139
84756208|NCT01360554|169268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.497||||||95.0|-4.575|1.581|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.581|-4.575|
84756209|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|4.986|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Appetite loss. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.986|-2.416|
84756210|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-5.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.432|-3.414|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.414|-8.432|
84756211|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|20.2564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.874|23.639|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||23.639|16.874|
84756212|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.719|-1.381|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Dysponea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.381|-7.719|
84756213|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.6584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.442|1.125|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.125|-4.442|
84756214|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.1469||||||95.0|-3.056|2.762|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.762|-3.056|
84540581|NCT02972892|168832387|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.25|57.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||57.95|46.25|<.001
84582606|NCT02191397|168919205|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables.|GEE model|||||1.33|0.55|0.479
84582607|NCT02191397|168919206|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.10|0.48|0.129
84582608|NCT02191397|168919207|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.24|0.55|0.354
84582609|NCT02191397|168919208|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.34||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.34|0.54|0.489
84582610|NCT02191397|168919209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.16||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.16|-0.70|0.627
84582611|NCT02191397|168919209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.66||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.66|0.08|0.037
84582612|NCT02191397|168919209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.78||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.78|-0.40|0.143
84582613|NCT02191397|168919209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.81|0.330
84610694|NCT04566601|168973064|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.52|0.2833
84582614|NCT02191397|168919209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.69|0.278
84582615|NCT02191397|168919210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.16|-0.09|0.579
84582616|NCT02191397|168919210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.04|0.163
84672572|NCT01434290|169080748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||one sampe z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.44
84582617|NCT02191397|168919210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.34|0.00|0.050
84582618|NCT02191397|168919210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.09|0.337
84672573|NCT01434290|169080748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.53
84582619|NCT02191397|168919210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.20|-0.14|0.714
84582620|NCT02191397|168919211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.18|-0.50|0.358
84582621|NCT02191397|168919211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.75||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.75|-0.04|0.081
84582622|NCT02191397|168919211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.99||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.99|-0.02|0.062
84582623|NCT02191397|168919211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.85||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.85|-0.10|0.118
84582624|NCT02191397|168919211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.71|-0.19|0.252
84582625|NCT02191397|168919212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.20|0.573
84582626|NCT02191397|168919212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.13|0.209
84582627|NCT02191397|168919212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.25|0.427
84582628|NCT02191397|168919212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.48|-0.40|0.851
84756215|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.8711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|-1.745|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.745|-7.998|
84582629|NCT02191397|168919212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|-0.25|0.370
84582630|NCT02191397|168919213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.37|-0.16|0.438
84582631|NCT02191397|168919213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|0.07|0.014
84498521|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.315|-2.120|0.0023
84498522|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.844||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.035|-1.723|0.0669
84498523|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.438|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.640|-2.438|<.0001
84498524|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.658||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.192|0.2120
84498525|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.778||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|1.642|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.642|-0.087|0.0993
84498526|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.649||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.211|0.2347
84498527|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.915||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.778|0.052|0.0320
84498528|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.047|-0.849|1.0000
84498529|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.141||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.103|-0.820|0.9999
84756216|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.4924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|1.5|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.500|-2.485|
84582632|NCT02191397|168919213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.50|-0.11|0.207
84582633|NCT02191397|168919213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.54||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.54|-0.07|0.137
84582634|NCT02191397|168919213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.46|-0.14|0.299
84582635|NCT02191397|168919214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.13|-0.10|0.804
84582636|NCT02191397|168919214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.28|-0.02|0.079
84582637|NCT02191397|168919214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.38|0.01|0.036
84582638|NCT02191397|168919214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.31|-0.08|0.248
84582639|NCT02191397|168919214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.04|0.110
84644312|NCT03758755|169024471|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in quadriceps tendon strength between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in quadriceps tendon strength over time.||||0.011
84756217|NCT01360554|169268973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.3096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.646|3.265|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Pain. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.265|-2.646|
84582640|NCT02191397|168919215|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.75||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.75|0.35|0.545
84582641|NCT02191397|168919215|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.54||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.54|0.58|0.822
84610695|NCT04566601|168973065|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.45|0.4552
84610696|NCT04566601|168973065|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.22|-0.47|0.4734
84610697|NCT04566601|168973065|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.29||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-0.36|0.8388
84610698|NCT04566601|168973065|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.19|-0.35|0.5540
84610699|NCT00666224|168973082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77||Type of unifocal presentation at baseline, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization, and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||0.77|0.40|0.0005
84610700|NCT00666224|168973083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61|||Quasi-Likelihood NB* Regression|"\*NB = Negative Binomial~Center and baseline number of enhancing lesions as covariates."||||0.61|0.29|<0.0001
84610701|NCT00666224|168973084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means ratio|0.87||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|Used log-transformed measurements comparing the adjusted geometric means of T2 volume. Center and baseline T2 volume used as covariates.||||0.95|0.79|0.0013
84610702|NCT00666224|168973087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.61||Type of unifocal presentation, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.61|0.27|<0.0001
84610703|NCT01128192|168973091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.240
84610704|NCT01128192|168973091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.339
84610705|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
84672574|NCT01434290|169080749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.16
84610706|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610707|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610708|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
84672575|NCT01434290|169080749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.03
84582642|NCT02191397|168919215|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.86|0.38|0.007
84756218|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|2.6381||||||95.0|0.172|5.104|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Trouble Swallowing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||5.104|0.172|
84582643|NCT02191397|168919215|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.29|0.54|0.417
84756219|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.2504||||||95.0|-7.178|-1.322|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Coughing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.322|-7.178|
84582644|NCT02191397|168919215|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.40|0.49|0.485
84756220|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|-1.0764||||||95.0|-3.997|1.845|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Haemoptysis as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.845|-3.997|
84756221|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|9.3545||||||95.0|6.211|12.497|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Sore Mouth as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||12.497|6.211|
84756222|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1762||||||95.0|-3.56|1.208|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Shortness of Breath as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.208|-3.560|
84756223|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.6378||||||95.0|-3.684|2.408|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Peripheral Neuropathy as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.408|-3.684|
84756224|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.3637||||||95.0|-4.546|1.819|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Alopecia as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.819|-4.546|
84756225|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.2163||||||95.0|-3.885|1.452|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Chest as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.452|-3.885|
84756226|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1475||||||95.0|-3.902|1.607|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Arm or Shoulder as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.607|-3.902|
84582645|NCT00318136|168919231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of patients|3.2||||||90.0|0.3|13.5|||Blyth-Still-Casella|||||13.5|0.3|
84610709|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
84756227|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.0687||||||95.0|-4.488|2.351|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain Other Parts as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.351|-4.488|
84498530|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.837|-1.038|1.0000
84756228|NCT01360554|169268974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.0322||||||95.0|-4.847|4.911|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Any Med for Pain as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.911|-4.847|
84756229|NCT01360554|169268975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.3886||||||95.0|-2.413|1.636|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for EQ-5D VAS. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.636|-2.413|
84756230|NCT01911442|169268976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference and the associated 95% Cl and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||3.0|-5.6|0.5463
84756231|NCT01911442|169268976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures.||2.2|-6.1|0.3592
84756232|NCT01911442|169268977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1755|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is due to rounding. the LSM for Lurasidone 20 mg/d at week 6 was -1.069 vs -0.734 for placebo group. So the LSM of the treatment difference between Lurasidone 20 mg/d and placebo was 0.335 if 3 decimals are reported.|||||0.1755
84582646|NCT02205359|168919271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.013|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.013|0.779|0.077
84756233|NCT01911442|169268977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2402
84756234|NCT00309465|169268983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value for three dosing strategies in insulin glargine only group in fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl range.|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Blood Glucose Achievement of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.332
84756235|NCT00309465|169268983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group for fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Achievement of blood glucose values of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.294
84756236|NCT00309465|169268983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine only group for achievement of 80-249 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl||||0.162
84756237|NCT00309465|169268983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group in achievement of fasting blood glucose value of 80-249 mg/dl.|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl.||||0.031
84756238|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.591
84756239|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.032
84610710|NCT01128192|168973092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84756240|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||One of the primary TF-CBT adoption outcomes (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student at the end of the sustainment phase, or they did not. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.054
84756241|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student at the beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.98
84756242|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.068
84756243|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.165
84756244|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.191
84756245|NCT04451161|169268988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student at the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.86
84756246|NCT04451161|169268989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|8.915||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||8.915|-2.064|0.22
84756247|NCT04451161|169268989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|10.443||Mixed model analysis was used (the students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||10.443|-.502|0.075
84756248|NCT04451161|169268990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.855|2.904||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||2.904|-.855|0.284
84756249|NCT04451161|169268990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.786||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||3.786|.03|.046
84610711|NCT01128192|168973093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||0.019
84610712|NCT01128192|168973093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||<0.001
84610713|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
84582647|NCT02205359|168919272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.032|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.032|0.752|0.12
84582648|NCT02205359|168919273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.082|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.082|0.759|0.28
84582649|NCT02205359|168919274|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.026|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Standard Error is on log-odds ratio scale|||1.026|0.768|0.11
84582650|NCT02205359|168919275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||1.16|0.85|0.89
84582651|NCT02205359|168919276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.89|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.89|-1.03|0.88
84582652|NCT02205359|168919277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.0013||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0068|0.0094|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.0094|-0.0068|0.75
84582653|NCT02205359|168919278|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||negative binomial regression|Stratified by NYHA class||||1.75|0.75|0.52
84582654|NCT00480025|168919283|SUPERIORITY|RMF included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \>100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|1.024||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.177||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|Overall population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo Group (PYAR2), and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account stratification by previous CT vs. No-CT treatment and weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.177|0.891|0.7379
84582655|NCT00480025|168919284|SUPERIORITY|RMF taken into account included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \> 100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|0.97||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|No-CT population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for the period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 No-CT Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo No-CT Group (PYAR2) and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.179|0.797|0.7572
84582656|NCT02792257|168919317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.328|-0.152|||Regression, Linear||standard error NOT standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||-0.152|-1.328|.015
84582657|NCT02792257|168919318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.21|||Regression, Linear||standard error not standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||0.21|-2.73|.094
84582658|NCT02792257|168919319|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|The original analytic plan called for a logistic regression of ever/never SAE as a function of treatment assignment.|not standard error of the mean just standard error.|||1.79|0.73|.57
84582659|NCT03726879|168919322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.37|0.1846
84582660|NCT03726879|168919323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.002|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.46|0.67|0.9551
84582661|NCT03726879|168919326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.59|0.50|
84582662|NCT03726879|168919326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.32|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||4.32|0.65|
84582663|NCT03726879|168919326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.22|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0 Participants||1.22|0.27|
84582664|NCT03726879|168919326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.82|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Negative Participants||2.82|0.58|
84582665|NCT03726879|168919326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.36|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Positive Participants||1.36|0.24|
84582666|NCT03726879|168919327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.32|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.32|0.38|
84582667|NCT03726879|168919327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.69|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||3.69|0.51|
84582668|NCT03726879|168919327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.02|0.19|
84498531|NCT03692078|168747727|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.779|-1.139|0.9995
84498532|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.964|3.276|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.276|2.964|<.0001
84498533|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.953|3.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.328|2.953|<.0001
84498534|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|2.806|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.806|2.511|<.0001
84498535|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.638|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.458|2.817|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.817|2.458|<.0001
84498536|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|2.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.903|2.604|<.0001
84498537|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.471|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.832|2.471|<.0001
84582669|NCT03726879|168919328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||All Participants||2.00|0.40|
84582670|NCT03726879|168919328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.33|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||7.33|0.42|
84582671|NCT03726879|168919328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.59|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.59|0.21|
84582672|NCT03726879|168919342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.42|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||26.42|0.22|
84582673|NCT03726879|168919342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.90|0.23|
84582674|NCT03726879|168919342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.87|0.45|
84582675|NCT03726879|168919343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.91|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||18.91|0.07|
84582676|NCT03726879|168919343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.92||||||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.92|0.19|
84582677|NCT03726879|168919343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.55|0.33|
84582678|NCT03726879|168919344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of the CI was not evaluable due to low number of events||Regression, Cox||The estimated value is \>999.99|PIK3CA-Missing|||0.00|
84582679|NCT03726879|168919344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||3.53|0.10|
84582680|NCT03726879|168919344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||2.09|0.33|
84610714|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
84582681|NCT00553475|168919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0075||95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.09|0.0075
84582682|NCT00553475|168919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0254||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.09|-1.39|0.0254
84582683|NCT00553475|168919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8731||95.0|-3.67|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.12|-3.67|0.8731
84610715|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610716|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
84610717|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610718|NCT01128192|168973094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610719|NCT01128192|168973095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
84610720|NCT01128192|168973095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
84610721|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
84610722|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610723|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84672576|NCT01434290|169080749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.83
84582684|NCT00553475|168919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.6337||95.0|-3.62|5.94|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.94|-3.62|0.6337
84582685|NCT00553475|168919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4398||95.0|-7.44|3.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.24|-7.44|0.4398
84582686|NCT00553475|168919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.9153||95.0|-7.96|7.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.14|-7.96|0.9153
84610724|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
84610725|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610726|NCT01128192|168973096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
84610727|NCT01128192|168973097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.608
84610728|NCT01128192|168973097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.132
84610729|NCT01128192|168973098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.178
84610730|NCT01128192|168973098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.111
84610731|NCT01128192|168973099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in high-dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.573
84610732|NCT01128192|168973100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
84610733|NCT01128192|168973100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.125
84610734|NCT01128192|168973101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.993
84610735|NCT01128192|168973101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
84610736|NCT03335774|168973103|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8918
84610737|NCT03335774|168973104|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8323
84582687|NCT00553475|168919361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.4873||95.0|-2.75|5.76|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.76|-2.75|0.4873
84672577|NCT01434290|169080749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.86
84672578|NCT03925727|169080770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6|-3.2|0.5533
84672579|NCT03925727|169080771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.0192
84672580|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= 0.05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Esteem (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0011
84672581|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER|||||||0.0719||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Purpose in Life (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0719
84672582|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER|||||||0.7991||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Locus of Control (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.7991
84672583|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER|||||||0.2208||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Efficacy (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.2208
84672584|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Esteem). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
84756250|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.100|<0.0001
84756251|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.094|<0.0001
84582688|NCT00553475|168919361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.4008||95.0|-3.42|8.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.53|-3.42|0.4008
84582689|NCT00553475|168919362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.5372||95.0|-2.13|4.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.09|-2.13|0.5372
84582690|NCT00553475|168919362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.348||95.0|-2.29|6.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.47|-2.29|0.3480
84582691|NCT00553475|168919363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06||||0.0544||95.0|-0.1|10.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.21|-0.10|0.0544
84582692|NCT00553475|168919363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.15||||0.0278||95.0|0.89|15.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.42|0.89|0.0278
84672585|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Purpose in Life). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
84672586|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Locus of Control). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
84672587|NCT06425458|169080800|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Efficacy). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
84672588|NCT03750903|169080825|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84582693|NCT00553475|168919364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.7394||95.0|-4.52|6.37|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.37|-4.52|0.7394
84756252|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.132|0.086|<0.0001
84756253|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.116||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.116|0.070|<0.0001
84756254|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.080|<0.0001
84756255|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.037|-0.008|0.2169
84756256|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.13||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.130|0.085|<0.0001
84756257|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.017|0.5849
84756258|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.007|0.1863
84756259|NCT01431274|169269051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.014|-0.032|0.4352
84756260|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.106||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.106|0.059|<.0001
84756261|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.047|<0.0001
84756262|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.081|0.034|<0.0001
84582694|NCT00553475|168919364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.5712||95.0|-5.49|9.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.93|-5.49|0.5712
84582695|NCT00553475|168919365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0058||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0058
84582696|NCT00553475|168919365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0333||95.0|-1.23|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.23|0.0333
84756263|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|0.005|0.0174
84756264|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
84756265|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|0.001|0.0407
84582697|NCT00553475|168919366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.153
84582698|NCT00553475|168919366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.059
84582699|NCT00553475|168919367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0287||95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0287
84582700|NCT00553475|168919367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0073||95.0|-1.29|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.20|-1.29|0.0073
84582701|NCT00553475|168919368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0021||95.0|-1.0|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.00|0.0021
84582702|NCT00553475|168919368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.78|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.69|-1.78|<0.0001
84582703|NCT00553475|168919369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0026||95.0|-0.99|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.21|-0.99|0.0026
84582704|NCT00553475|168919369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.69|-0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.58|-1.69|<0.0001
84756266|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.077||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.077|0.030|<0.0001
84582705|NCT00553475|168919370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0012||95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
84582706|NCT00553475|168919370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.67|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.67|<0.0001
84582707|NCT00553475|168919371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0011||95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.04|0.0011
84582708|NCT00553475|168919371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.72|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.60|-1.72|<0.0001
84582709|NCT00553475|168919372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.40|-1.18|<0.0001
84498538|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|1.889|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.889|1.517|<.0001
84498539|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.865|1.410|<.0001
84498540|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.472|1.839|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.839|1.472|<.0001
84498541|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|1.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.711|1.259|<.0001
84498542|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.713|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.532|1.895|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.895|1.532|<.0001
84582710|NCT00553475|168919372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.68|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.68|<0.0001
84582711|NCT00553475|168919373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
84582712|NCT00553475|168919373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0002||95.0|-1.66|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.66|0.0002
84582713|NCT00553475|168919374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0008||95.0|-1.07|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.07|0.0008
84582714|NCT00553475|168919374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0014||95.0|-1.51|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.36|-1.51|0.0014
84610738|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.37|0.95|
84756267|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.012|0.3326
84582715|NCT00553475|168919375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
84582716|NCT00553475|168919375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0036||95.0|-1.44|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.44|0.0036
84582717|NCT00553475|168919376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0005||95.0|-1.1|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.31|-1.10|0.0005
84582718|NCT00553475|168919376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0034||95.0|-1.46|-0.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.29|-1.46|0.0034
84582719|NCT00553475|168919377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0023||95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.02|0.0023
84582720|NCT00553475|168919377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0105||95.0|-1.36|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.36|0.0105
84610739|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.88|
84756268|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.006|0.0151
84498543|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|1.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.837|1.397|<.0001
84610740|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
84756269|NCT01431274|169269052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.006|-0.041|0.1421
84582721|NCT00553475|168919378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0016||95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0016
84610741|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.77|
84582722|NCT00553475|168919378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0111||95.0|-1.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.37|0.0111
84582723|NCT00553475|168919379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.6118||95.0|-5.23|3.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.08|-5.23|0.6118
84610742|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.50|1.03|
84610743|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.85|
84498544|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|-0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.158|-0.766|0.0003
84582724|NCT00553475|168919379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0109||95.0|1.76|13.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.42|1.76|0.0109
84582725|NCT00553475|168919380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.4602||95.0|-2.47|5.45|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.45|-2.47|0.4602
84582726|NCT00553475|168919380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.97||||0.1625||95.0|-1.61|9.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.54|-1.61|0.1625
84582727|NCT00553475|168919381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.0001
84582728|NCT00553475|168919381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0273||95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0273
84582729|NCT00553475|168919382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0013||95.0|-2.87|-0.71|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.71|-2.87|0.0013
84582730|NCT00553475|168919382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0062||95.0|-3.65|-0.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.61|-3.65|0.0062
84582731|NCT00553475|168919383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0068||95.0|-1.03|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.03|0.0068
84582732|NCT00553475|168919383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0707||95.0|-1.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.05|-1.17|0.0707
84582733|NCT00553475|168919384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.0013||95.0|-3.76|-0.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.93|-3.76|0.0013
84582734|NCT00553475|168919384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.0087||95.0|-4.67|-0.68|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.68|-4.67|0.0087
84672589|NCT04477304|169080828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.07|-0.12|<0.001
84582735|NCT00553475|168919385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27||||0.0056||95.0|-12.4|-2.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.14|-12.40|0.0056
84582736|NCT00553475|168919385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0427||95.0|-14.74|-0.25|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-14.74|0.0427
84582737|NCT00553475|168919386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0365||95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-0.40|0.0365
84582738|NCT00553475|168919386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0073||95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-0.65|0.0073
84582739|NCT00553475|168919387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.0019||95.0|-10.38|-2.36|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.36|-10.38|0.0019
84582740|NCT00553475|168919387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1907||95.0|-9.45|1.89|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.89|-9.45|0.1907
84582741|NCT00553475|168919388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9905||95.0|-5.37|5.43|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.43|-5.37|0.9905
84610744|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.82|
84610745|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
84610746|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.90|
84610747|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.07|0.72|
84672590|NCT04477304|169080829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.16|-0.23|<0.001
84582742|NCT00553475|168919388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44||||0.2532||95.0|-3.19|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-3.19|0.2532
84582743|NCT00553475|168919389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.4538||95.0|-5.05|2.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.26|-5.05|0.4538
84582744|NCT00553475|168919389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.2782||95.0|-7.97|2.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.30|-7.97|0.2782
84582745|NCT00553475|168919390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0177||95.0|0.06|0.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.59|0.06|0.0177
84582746|NCT00553475|168919390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.3661||95.0|-0.2|0.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.55|-0.20|0.3661
84582747|NCT00553475|168919391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.0511||95.0|-0.03|11.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.26|-0.03|0.0511
84582748|NCT00553475|168919391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.0173||95.0|1.72|17.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.59|1.72|0.0173
84582749|NCT00553475|168919392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.1123||95.0|-0.89|8.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.47|-0.89|0.1123
84582750|NCT00553475|168919392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0206||95.0|1.2|14.38|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||14.38|1.20|0.0206
84610748|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.81|
84610749|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.81|
84610750|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.72|
84582751|NCT00553475|168919393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.0269||95.0|-6.67|-0.41|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.41|-6.67|0.0269
84582752|NCT00553475|168919393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.4183||95.0|-6.24|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.60|-6.24|0.4183
84582753|NCT00553475|168919394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0148
84582754|NCT00553475|168919394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0063
84582755|NCT00553475|168919395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0818
84582756|NCT00553475|168919395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0075
84582757|NCT00553475|168919396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0013||95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.07|0.0013
84582758|NCT00553475|168919396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0152||95.0|-1.34|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.34|0.0152
84582759|NCT02496156|168919397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.39||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Missing data treatment was done using multiple imputation methods when data were determined to be Missing Completely at Random or Missing at Random. Assumptions underlying each statistical test were evaluated before proceeding with specific analyses.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||<0.39
84582760|NCT02496156|168919398|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value exceeded the .05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
84582761|NCT02496156|168919399|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See description of analysis below.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
84582762|NCT02496156|168919400|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANCOVA|Difference in post-test scores with baseline Knowledge test score as the covariate.||||||>0.05
84582763|NCT02496156|168919402|SUPERIORITY|See analysis description below.|||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANOVA||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
84610751|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.40|1.00|
84610752|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.91|
84498545|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.503||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.139|-0.867|0.0018
84582764|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
84582765|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.17|-0.25|
84582766|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
84582767|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.18|-0.24|
84582768|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Passing-Bablock|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||1.000|0.990|
84610753|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.6||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.60|1.03|
84610754|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.88|
84610755|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.46||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|0.91|
84610756|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.43|0.87|
84610757|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.83|
84672591|NCT04477304|169080830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
84582769|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||Passing-Bablok|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.||0.01|-0.30|
84582770|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Described previously|Relative Sensitivity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Comparison of UHR Values obtained by UBit-IR300 and POCone were used to identify participants' H.pylori infection status. Participants with UHR value ≥ 10.0μg/min were considered positive for H.Pylori.||100|85.8|
84610758|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|1.01|
84610759|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.96|
84756270|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
84756271|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
84756272|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
84756273|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
84756274|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
84756275|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
84756276|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
84582771|NCT01623154|168919445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously|Relative Specificity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||100|94.9|
84756277|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
84582772|NCT04349098|168919448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.39|0.6750
84582773|NCT01703221|168919461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.63|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), time, time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.63|-0.96|<0.001
84582774|NCT01703221|168919461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.61|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.61|-0.94|<0.001
84582775|NCT01703221|168919461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Omarigliptin will be considered non-inferior to sitagliptin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in least squares means for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 (omarigliptin minus sitagliptin) is not more than 0.3% (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in the least squares means|-0.02||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||0.12|-0.15|0.792
84582776|NCT01703221|168919466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-36.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-25.33|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-25.33|-48.46|<0.001
84582777|NCT01703221|168919466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-39.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.28|-28.23|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-28.23|-51.28|<0.001
84582778|NCT01703221|168919466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.86||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|12.39|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||12.39|-6.67|0.555
84582779|NCT01703221|168919467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-12.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|-6.78|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-6.78|-17.78|<0.001
84582780|NCT01703221|168919467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|-8.98|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-8.98|-20.04|<0.001
84582781|NCT01703221|168919467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.73|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||6.73|-2.27|0.330
84582782|NCT00835549|168919496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|94.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|94.8|
84582783|NCT00835549|168919497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.5|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.5|
84582784|NCT00835549|168919498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.7|
84582785|NCT00835042|168919499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.8|85.8|
84582786|NCT00835042|168919500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|92.2|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.2|
84610760|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.22|0.82|
84610761|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.89|
84756278|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
84610762|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.69|1.16|
84582787|NCT00835042|168919501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.3|
84582788|NCT00835042|168919502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|99.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|99.3|
84582789|NCT00835042|168919503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.4|
84582790|NCT00835042|168919504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|96.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.7|
84582791|NCT00835042|168919505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.0||||||90.0|81.8|101.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101|81.8|
84610763|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.35|0.94|
84610764|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.81|
84672592|NCT04477304|169080831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.03|-0.08|<0.001
84756279|NCT01431274|169269053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
84756280|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
84756281|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
84582792|NCT00835042|168919506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|94.6|103.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103|94.6|
84582793|NCT00835042|168919507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.6|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|97.6|
84756282|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
84582794|NCT04543786|168919531|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|One-way||||||0.0048
84582795|NCT04543786|168919532|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84610765|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.87|
84498546|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.366||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.062|-0.670|0.0089
84582796|NCT04543786|168919533|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84582797|NCT04543786|168919534|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84582798|NCT04543786|168919536|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.001
84582799|NCT04543786|168919537|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
84582800|NCT04543786|168919538|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
84582801|NCT04543786|168919539|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
84582802|NCT04543786|168919540|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
84582803|NCT01953354|168919554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84582804|NCT01953354|168919555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84582805|NCT01953354|168919556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.242
84582806|NCT01953354|168919557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
84582807|NCT01953354|168919560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
84610766|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.94|
84582808|NCT01953354|168919561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.633
84582809|NCT04191733|168919578|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority analysis was demonstrated when the 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval (CI) limit was less than 1.25.|||||<|0.0001||||||one-sided p-value|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84582810|NCT04191733|168919579|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test with 5% alpha was used to demonstrate non-inferiority with greater than 99% power. The non-inferiority margin was 3.75 minutes.||||||0.1004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A gatekeeping strategy was used to control family-wise type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant with a 1-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1004
84582811|NCT02633527|168919609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-13.4|0.0899
84582812|NCT02633527|168919609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-0.7|||ANOVA|||||-0.7|-15.1|0.0310
84582813|NCT02633527|168919609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-15.3|0.0268
84610767|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.13|0.75|
84582814|NCT02633527|168919609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-15.8|0.0209
84582815|NCT02633527|168919610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1305
84610768|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.20|0.86|
84582816|NCT02633527|168919610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1376
84582817|NCT02633527|168919610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.0090
84582818|NCT02633527|168919610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|0.0546
84582819|NCT02633527|168919611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.0708
84582820|NCT02633527|168919611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.4|0.0309
84582821|NCT02633527|168919611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.5|0.0148
84582822|NCT02633527|168919611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.0136
84582823|NCT04135443|168919617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.063|0.511|0.94
84582824|NCT04135443|168919619|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.064||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.455
84582825|NCT04135443|168919620|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.026||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.702
84582826|NCT04135443|168919621|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.049||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.375
84582827|NCT04135443|168919622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.076||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.313
84582828|NCT04135443|168919623|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.890
84582829|NCT00728182|168919624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regression.||Comparison of the summed volume of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||||0.445
84582830|NCT00728182|168919625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.53||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative bnomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new ischemic lesions on DWI for NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.74|0.38|0.018
84610769|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
84610770|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.78|
84610771|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.83|
84672593|NCT04477304|169080832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.01|-0.03|0.392
84582831|NCT00728182|168919626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative binomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.83|0.42|0.048
84582832|NCT00728182|168919627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regresion.||Comparison of the summed volume of new ischemic lesions on DWI.||||0.306
84582833|NCT00728182|168919628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Number of patients obtaining a score on the NIHSS of 0-1 at Day 30.||1.1|0.9|0.43
84756283|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
84756284|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
84756285|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
84582834|NCT00728182|168919629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the number of patients with mRS scores of 0-2 at Day 30 for NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||1.1|0.9|1.00
84582835|NCT00728182|168919630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84582836|NCT00728182|168919631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|||||0.73|0.17|0.027
84582837|NCT00728182|168919632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Generalized linear model|||||0.75|0.17|0.046
84582838|NCT00728182|168919633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84582839|NCT00728182|168919634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.0|1.1|0.02
84610772|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.87|
84498547|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.126|-0.851|0.0025
84582840|NCT00728182|168919635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.95|0.18
84582841|NCT03856177|168919637|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.071
84582842|NCT01898091|168919638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||Simulations determined power to detect significant difference defined as a mean difference of 1 unit (MTS scale). Feasibility study provided proportion of patients in control and neem group with change scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 as (5%, 10%, 10%, 45% and 30%) and (15%, 20%, 30%, 25% and 10%), respectively. Simulated 10,000 trials using multinomial distributions by the percentages above, with 20 patients per group, provided 80% power to detect 0.9 unit difference using a one-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.84
84582843|NCT01725308|168919678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total MADRS score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/ II) are fixed effects.||-0.2|-4.7|0.034
84582844|NCT01725308|168919685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||At End of Treatment Period I/Week 8: An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total HAM-D17 score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/II) are fixed effects.||-0.1|-3.3|0.033
84582845|NCT02844075|168919725|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||For sample size calculation, Minimax design to evaluate the null hypothesis that the true pCR rate will be 10% and the alternative hypothesis that the pCR rate≥ 30%, with type I error (α) level of 10% and type II error (β) of 0.10. If 1 or more successes are observed in the first 16 patients, accrual for that stratum will be continued until a total of 25 patients. If, of these 25 patients, 5 or more pCR, an additional investigation is warranted. Allowing for a follow-up loss rate of 10 %, the total sample size is expected as 28. For biomarker evaluation, the categorical groups were investigated to evaluated possible association with response and/or survival. Associations were analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival outcomes (EFS, OS, and DFS). To compare PD-L1 expression between paired pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment with associated of pCR, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||
84582846|NCT02592655|168919731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.002
84582847|NCT02592655|168919731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.008
84582848|NCT02592655|168919731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.5
84582849|NCT02592655|168919731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that using the pneumatic tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 17 to accommodate for missing ultrasound data."||||0.5
84582850|NCT04565756|168919764|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables. All statistical analyses were descriptive in nature and any statistical inferences were carried out according to the analysis plan and interpreted in view of the exploratory nature of the study.|Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables.|||
84582851|NCT05226884|168919782|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
84582852|NCT05226884|168919783|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
84582853|NCT05226884|168919784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
84582854|NCT05226884|168919785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||||||||||||||The defocus curve is generated based on measurements over a dioptric range.|||
84582855|NCT05226884|168919786|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
84582856|NCT03688139|168919789|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
84582857|NCT03688139|168919789|OTHER|This analysis tested whether the course of LPP was associated with the course of BADS over the 9-week treatment period in the Engage group.|Slope|0.03||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.14
84582858|NCT03688139|168919790|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
84582859|NCT03688139|168919791|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.03||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
84582860|NCT03688139|168919792|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.39
84582861|NCT03688139|168919793|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in LPP for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|-0.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
84582862|NCT03688139|168919793|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in SHAPS for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
84582863|NCT00420056|168919794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4854
84582864|NCT00420056|168919795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7090
84582865|NCT00420056|168919798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.0638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0449|0.1726||||||FLT-PET response versus Objective response||0.1726|-0.0449|
84582866|NCT00420056|168919798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.1864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2316|0.6045||||||FDG-PET response versus Objective response||0.6045|-0.2316|
84582867|NCT00420056|168919812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Ki-67||||0.5954
84582868|NCT00420056|168919812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Cyclin D1||||0.1286
84582869|NCT00420056|168919812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus phospho-Rb||||0.0956
84610773|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.80|
84610774|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.42|0.94|
84582870|NCT00420056|168919812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FLT-PET SUVmax||||0.2800
84582871|NCT00420056|168919812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FDG-PET SUVmax||||0.4921
84582872|NCT00498485|168919846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis = drug-treated would have a higher global impression of change than placebo treated.||||<0.04
84582873|NCT03072875|168919865|OTHER|Descriptive statistic.|||||||||||||||||Quantitative data (descriptive statistic) from the USAQ were used to determine feasibility. Specifically, we established an a priori mean score of 3.5 or greater on the USAQ to determine feasibility.|||
84582874|NCT00907088|168919897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84582875|NCT04679818|168919900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.43|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.43|0.895
84582876|NCT04679818|168919901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.66|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-2.66|0.228
84582877|NCT04679818|168919902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.65|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||||1.65|0.40|0.565
84582878|NCT04679818|168919903|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.54|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||3.54|0.62|0.379
84582879|NCT04679818|168919904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.97|0.30|0.039
84582880|NCT04679818|168919905|NON_INFERIORITY|We tested noninferiority of NOL to routine care on the Ramsey score using an a priori-defined noninferiority delta of 1.2 for the proportional odds ratio; NOL would be deemed noninferior if the upper confidence limit for the odds ratio was \<1.2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82|||proportional odds model|||||1.82|0.35|0.169
84582881|NCT04679818|168919906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.63|0.63|0.967
84582882|NCT00452400|168919908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0233||95.0|0.008|0.113|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.113|0.008|0.0233
84582883|NCT00452400|168919908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0003||95.0|0.044|0.149|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.149|0.044|0.0003
84582884|NCT00452400|168919908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.072|<0.0001
84582885|NCT00452400|168919908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.185|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.080|<0.0001
84610775|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.82|
84610776|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.77|
84582886|NCT00452400|168919909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004||95.0|0.039|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.039|0.0004
84582887|NCT00452400|168919909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.186|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.088|<0.0001
84582888|NCT00452400|168919909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
84582889|NCT00452400|168919909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
84582890|NCT00452400|168919910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011||95.0|0.034|0.136|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|0.034|0.0011
84582891|NCT00452400|168919910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.173|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.070|<0.0001
84582892|NCT00452400|168919910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.075|<0.0001
84582893|NCT00452400|168919910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.179|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.077|<0.0001
84610777|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.82|
84582894|NCT00452400|168919911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0127||95.0|0.024|0.197|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.024|0.0127
84582895|NCT00452400|168919911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.261|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.087|<0.0001
84582896|NCT00452400|168919911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.255|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.084|0.0001
84672594|NCT04477304|169080833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.05|-0.13|<0.001
84672595|NCT01101841|169080839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84672596|NCT01101841|169080839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84756286|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
84582897|NCT00452400|168919911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.084|0.0001
84582898|NCT00452400|168919912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0836||95.0|-0.012|0.192|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|-0.012|0.0836
84582899|NCT00452400|168919912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0011||95.0|0.068|0.274|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.274|0.068|0.0011
84582900|NCT00452400|168919912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0037||95.0|0.049|0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.049|0.0037
84610778|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.28|0.89|
84672597|NCT01101841|169080840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||Week 24 persistence of effect|Logit model|||||||0.0066
84582901|NCT00452400|168919912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0047||95.0|0.046|0.251|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.046|0.0047
84582902|NCT00452400|168919913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0695||95.0|-0.008|0.195|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.008|0.0695
84582903|NCT00452400|168919913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0018||95.0|0.061|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.061|0.0018
84582904|NCT00452400|168919913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0008||95.0|0.072|0.272|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.072|0.0008
84582905|NCT00452400|168919913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0006||95.0|0.077|0.281|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.077|0.0006
84582906|NCT00452400|168919914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.204|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.078|<0.0001
84582907|NCT00452400|168919914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.099|<0.0001
84582908|NCT00452400|168919914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.275|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.151|<0.0001
84582909|NCT00452400|168919914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.277|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.151|<0.0001
84582910|NCT00452400|168919915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.231|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.097|<0.0001
84582911|NCT00452400|168919915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.237|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.102|<0.0001
84582912|NCT00452400|168919915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.152|<0.0001
84582913|NCT00452400|168919915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.157|<0.0001
84582914|NCT00452400|168919916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.373|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.150|<0.0001
84672598|NCT01101841|169080855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
84672599|NCT01101841|169080855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
84582915|NCT00452400|168919916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.395|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.171|<0.0001
84582916|NCT00452400|168919916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.421|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.421|0.201|<0.0001
84582917|NCT00452400|168919916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.192|<0.0001
84582918|NCT00452400|168919917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.409|0.167|<0.0001
84582919|NCT00452400|168919917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.401|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.159|<0.0001
84582920|NCT00452400|168919917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.178|<0.0001
84582921|NCT00452400|168919917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.407|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.407|0.164|<0.0001
84672600|NCT02453113|169080874|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The statistical end point of the study will be the changes in density of CD11c+ dermal dendritic cells between two biopsies from a study subject where one sample is subjected to laser irradiation and the other is the control. For assessment of statistical significance, we will apply a paired sample t-test.|||
84672601|NCT02896400|169080875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including BNI (BNI only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to the 8 arms that do not include BNI (Control, NRT only, QL only, Text only, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text)||2.8|1.1|.01
84756287|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
84756288|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
84756289|NCT01431274|169269054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
84756290|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0067
84756291|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
84756292|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.002|0.0746
84756293|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.101|0.054|<0.0001
84582922|NCT00452400|168919918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.090|<0.0001
84582923|NCT00452400|168919918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.215|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.215|0.128|<0.0001
84582924|NCT00452400|168919918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.247|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.162|<0.0001
84582925|NCT00452400|168919918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.246|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.159|<0.0001
84582926|NCT00452400|168919919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.243|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.131|<0.0001
84582927|NCT00452400|168919919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.271|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.159|<0.0001
84582928|NCT00452400|168919919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.273|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.163|<0.0001
84582929|NCT00452400|168919919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.304|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.304|0.191|<0.0001
84582930|NCT00452400|168919920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.219|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.100|<0.0001
84756294|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.046|<0.0001
84756295|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.013|0.3549
84756296|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.113|0.065|<0.0001
84756297|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.072|<0.0001
84756298|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-0.080|<0.0001
84582931|NCT00452400|168919920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.134|<0.0001
84582932|NCT00452400|168919920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
84756299|NCT01431274|169269055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.016|0.5018
84756300|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.104|<0.0001
84582933|NCT00452400|168919920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.145|<0.0001
84582934|NCT00452400|168919921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.209|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.101|<0.0001
84756301|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.15||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.150|0.102|<0.0001
84756302|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
84756303|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.072|<0.0001
84756304|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.133||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.133|0.085|<0.0001
84540582|NCT02972892|168832388|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||8.04|2.64|<.001
84756305|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1569
84756306|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.137||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.137|0.089|<0.0001
84756307|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.026|-0.022|0.8834
84756308|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.009|0.2129
84756309|NCT01431274|169269056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.01||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.010|-0.037|0.2702
84756310|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.166|0.117|<0.0001
84756311|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.090|<0.0001
84756312|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.143||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.143|0.094|<0.0001
84756313|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.074|<0.0001
84756314|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.117||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.117|0.067|<0.0001
84582935|NCT00452400|168919921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.239|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.131|<0.0001
84756315|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.002|0.0717
84582936|NCT00452400|168919921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.178|<0.0001
84582937|NCT00452400|168919921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.286|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.177|<0.0001
84672602|NCT02896400|169080875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms that include NRT (NRT only, BNI+NRT, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include NRT (Control, BNI only, QL only, Text only, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, QL+Text, BNI+QL+Text)||3.2|1.3|.001
84582938|NCT00452400|168919922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.140|<0.0001
84582939|NCT00452400|168919922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.294|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.169|<0.0001
84582940|NCT00452400|168919922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.295|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.172|<0.0001
84582941|NCT00452400|168919922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.197|0.322|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.197|<0.0001
84582942|NCT00452400|168919923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.101|<0.0001
84582943|NCT00452400|168919923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.125|<0.0001
84582944|NCT00452400|168919923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.266|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.266|0.140|<0.0001
84582945|NCT00452400|168919923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.137|<0.0001
84582946|NCT00452400|168919924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2392||95.0|-0.03|0.121|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|-0.030|0.2392
84582947|NCT00452400|168919924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.222|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.072|0.0001
84610779|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.95|
84582948|NCT00452400|168919924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.099|<0.0001
84582949|NCT00452400|168919924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.076|0.0001
84582950|NCT00452400|168919925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0309||95.0|0.008|0.162|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.008|0.0309
84582951|NCT00452400|168919925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.25|||ANCOVA||Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.098|<0.0001
84582952|NCT00452400|168919925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.072|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.072|0.0002
84756316|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.097|<0.0001
84582953|NCT00452400|168919925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0006||95.0|0.059|0.214|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.059|0.0006
84582954|NCT00452400|168919926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.215||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2150
84582955|NCT00452400|168919926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
84582956|NCT00452400|168919926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.023||95.0|0.014|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.014|0.0230
84610780|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.85|
84672603|NCT02896400|169080875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including QL intervention (QL only, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to all 8 arms that did not include QL (Control, BNI only, NRT only, Text only, BNI+NRT, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+Text)||2.2|0.9|0.14
84672604|NCT02896400|169080875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including Text (Text only, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include Text (Control, BNI only, NRT only, QL only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+QL)||1.7|0.7|0.64
84672605|NCT02984020|169080886|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total treatment duration of Xeljanz as factor||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
84756317|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.051|0.002|0.0344
84582957|NCT00452400|168919926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0333||95.0|0.007|0.177|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.007|0.0333
84672606|NCT02984020|169080886|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.64|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including other past/present disease as factor||||3.59|1.64|<0.0001
84672607|NCT02984020|169080897|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Xeljanz as factor||||1.82|1.11|0.0053
84672608|NCT01896895|169080899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. First step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 50 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.6|-1.9|=0.0004
84672609|NCT01896895|169080899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. Second step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 25 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||0.2|-1.1|=0.1452
84672610|NCT00773175|169080922|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.2|86.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.2|-221.2|0.5064
84672611|NCT00773175|169080922|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|102.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||102.7|-54.6|0.0325
84672612|NCT00773175|169080923|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.7||||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.3|-9.1||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||-9.1|-340.3|0.8915
84672613|NCT00773175|169080923|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.5|20.3||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||20.3|-137.5|0.5469
84672614|NCT00773175|169080925|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.6|86.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.7|-220.6|0.5035
84672615|NCT00773175|169080925|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|103.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||103.2|-54.0|0.0314
84672616|NCT00773175|169080929|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
84582958|NCT00452400|168919927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2158||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2158
84756318|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.005|0.1126
84756319|NCT01431274|169269057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.031||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.031|-0.018|0.6009
84756320|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.049|<0.0001
84756321|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.087|0.039|<0.0001
84756322|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
84582959|NCT00452400|168919927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
84582960|NCT00452400|168919927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0013||95.0|0.055|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.055|0.0013
84610781|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.41|0.96|
84582961|NCT00452400|168919927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0376||95.0|0.005|0.174|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.005|0.0376
84610782|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.93|
84610783|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
84672617|NCT00773175|169080929|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
84672618|NCT00773175|169080930|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
84672619|NCT00773175|169080930|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
84756323|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.054|0.007|0.0122
84756324|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.061|0.014|0.0021
84582962|NCT00452400|168919928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.916||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|25.34|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||25.340|2.070|0.0211
84498548|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.072|-1.762|<.0001
84582963|NCT00452400|168919928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.951||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.581|32.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||32.990|9.581|0.0004
84582964|NCT00452400|168919928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.607|49.546|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||49.546|26.607|<.0001
84582965|NCT00452400|168919928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.282|34.845|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.845|11.282|0.0001
84610784|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.19|0.83|
84672620|NCT00773175|169080932|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||5.5|0.3|
84582966|NCT00452400|168919929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.283||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|22.803|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.803|-1.911|0.0973
84610785|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.78|
84582967|NCT00452400|168919929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.824|34.842|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.842|9.824|0.0005
84582968|NCT00452400|168919929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.054|50.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||50.409|26.054|<.0001
84610786|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.88|
84610787|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.86|
84610788|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.91|
84610789|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.79|
84610790|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.37|0.85|
84610791|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.98|0.70|
84610792|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
84756325|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.049|0.002|0.0347
84756326|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.08||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.080|0.032|<0.0001
84756327|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.033|-0.014|0.4407
84756328|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.040|-0.007|0.1777
84756329|NCT01431274|169269058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5641
84756330|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
84582969|NCT00452400|168919929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.814|38.002|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.002|12.814|<.0001
84582970|NCT00452400|168919930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.196|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|-1.237|0.1541
84672621|NCT00773175|169080932|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||4.7|-0.2|
84756331|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.051|<0.0001
84756332|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|0.014|0.0018
84610793|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.96|0.62|
84756333|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.000|0.0517
84756334|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0072
84756335|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.066|0.019|0.0005
84610794|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.87|
84756336|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|0.042|<0.0001
84756337|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.018|0.6619
84756338|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.038|-0.010|0.2401
84756339|NCT01431274|169269059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.015||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.015|-0.033|0.4601
84756340|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.064|<0.0001
84756341|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.052|<0.0001
84756342|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.046|<0.0001
84756343|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|0.027|<0.0001
84756344|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
84582971|NCT00452400|168919930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.859|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.859|-0.583|0.7065
84756345|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1405
84672622|NCT00773175|169080933|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.9|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||1.9|-2.8|
84756346|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.045|<0.0001
84756347|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.036|-0.012|0.3118
84756348|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.043|-0.005|0.1171
84756349|NCT01431274|169269060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5759
84756350|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.055|<0.0001
84756351|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|0.038|<0.0001
84756352|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|0.037|<0.0001
84582972|NCT00452400|168919930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|-0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.258|-1.671|0.0076
84756353|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.071|0.022|0.0002
84756354|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.068|0.019|0.0004
84756355|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1360
84756356|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|0.041|<0.0001
84756357|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1617
84582973|NCT00452400|168919930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|0.311|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|-1.138|0.2626
84610795|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.15|0.71|
84672623|NCT00773175|169080933|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||0.8|-3.4|
84756358|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.010|0.2476
84756359|NCT01431274|169269061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.027|-0.021|0.8083
84756360|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.124||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.124|0.075|<0.0001
84756361|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.088|0.039|<0.0001
84756362|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.051|<0.0001
84756363|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.072||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.072|0.023|0.0001
84756364|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
84756365|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|-0.001|0.0554
84756366|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.047|<0.0001
84498549|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.916|-1.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.091|-1.916|<.0001
84756367|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.060|0.011|0.0041
84756368|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.004|0.0248
84756369|NCT01431274|169269062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.017|0.5338
84756370|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0017
84756371|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
84756372|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|0.002|0.0426
84756373|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.074|<0.0001
84756374|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.159|0.063|<0.0001
84756375|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.021|0.2661
84756376|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.198||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.198|0.102|<0.0001
84610796|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.69|
84672624|NCT00773175|169080944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||||Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||0.3|0.1|
84672625|NCT00773175|169080945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANOVA|From Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with center and treatment as factors.|Treatment difference = SC minus IV.|||0.0|-0.9|0.0658
84582974|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.038|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the linear effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.038|-0.118|<0.001
84610797|NCT03828617|168973122|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.79|
84756377|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.014|-0.109|0.0119
84756378|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.121|0.0029
84756379|NCT01431274|169269063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.059|-0.036|0.6408
84756380|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.27||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.270|0.173|<0.0001
84756381|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.145|<0.0001
84756382|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.233|0.136|<0.0001
84756383|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.162|0.065|<0.0001
84756384|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.205||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.205|0.108|<0.0001
84756385|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|-0.012|0.1355
84756386|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.102|<0.0001
84610798|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
84610799|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0182|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Specificity||||0.0182
84672626|NCT00773175|169080946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with center and treatment as factors|Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||2.9|-4.8|0.6208
84582975|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.011|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the quadratic effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.011|-0.0004|0.066
84582976|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|-0.004||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.004|-0.151|0.038
84756387|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.076|-0.020|0.2562
84756388|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.119|0.022|0.0041
84610800|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
84610801|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0002|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Specificity||||0.0002
84610802|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
84610803|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.997|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Specificity||||0.9970
84610804|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
84610805|NCT03354273|168973130|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0781|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Specificity||||0.0781
84610806|NCT03354273|168973131|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.4|||McNemar|The hypothesis tests were 1-sided McNemar's tests with a significance level of 0.025 for sensitivity.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||22.4|6.5|<0.0001
84610807|NCT03354273|168973131|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||9.7|-4.9|0.0004
84672627|NCT00773175|169080948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0685||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.0685
84672628|NCT00773175|169080948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||0.0004
84672629|NCT00773175|169080948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6861||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 3||||||0.6861
84672630|NCT00773175|169080948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2323||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.2323
84582977|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.023||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.023|-0.157|0.008
84582978|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.022||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.022|0.001|0.031
84756389|NCT01431274|169269064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.005||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.005|-0.091|0.0815
84582979|NCT01539525|168919941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.021||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.021|0.002|0.010
84582980|NCT01539525|168919942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.551|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.551|0.559|0.810
84582981|NCT01539525|168919942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.617|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.617|0.579|0.990
84610808|NCT03354273|168973131|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|21.0|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||21.0|4.7|0.0002
84672631|NCT00773175|169080949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Effectiveness||||||0.0033
84582982|NCT01539525|168919943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.258||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.871|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary drug and pregnancy status|odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||3.871|0.409|0.465
84582983|NCT01539525|168919943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|2.732|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||2.732|0.205|0.490
84610809|NCT03354273|168973131|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||11.8|-2.1|<0.0001
84610810|NCT03354273|168973131|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||19.9|6.6|<0.0001
84672632|NCT00773175|169080949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Degree of difficulty||||||< 0.0001
84672633|NCT00773175|169080950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||CMH test controlling for Center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.2012
84756390|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.149|<0.0001
84756391|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.107|<0.0001
84582984|NCT01712074|168919945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8697||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.424|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.814|-0.424|0.4256
84582985|NCT01712074|168919946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7149||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.013|4.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.401|-0.013|0.2027
84610811|NCT03354273|168973131|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|1.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.4|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||8.4|-6.0|0.0011
84756392|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.221||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.221|0.128|<0.0001
84756393|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.061|<0.0001
84756394|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.178||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.178|0.086|<0.0001
84756395|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.067|-0.025|0.3727
84756396|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.175||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.175|0.082|<0.0001
84756397|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.004|0.0744
84756398|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.021|0.0047
84756399|NCT01431274|169269065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.022||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.022|-0.071|0.2945
84756400|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.255||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.255|0.155|<0.0001
84582986|NCT03378635|168919974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test. Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% CI, p-value based on treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo using a two-sided log-rank test stratified by injection site. Treatment groups without censoring utilized a distribution free method to compute the confidence interval for median time.||||<0.001
84610812|NCT03354273|168973131|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.2|4.1|0.0003
84672634|NCT00773175|169080950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||< 0.0001
84610813|NCT03354273|168973131|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||9.3|-5.0|0.0004
84672635|NCT00773175|169080950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.1302
84582987|NCT03378635|168919975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|Fisher Exact|||Pairwise test of independent binomial proportions with Fisher's Exact test comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.001
84582988|NCT03378635|168919976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANCOVA|||Plasma glucose (PG) change from baseline at rescue was carried forward in patients who required rescue intravenous (IV) glucose before reaching PG recovery. Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline PG as covariate. Group difference was evaluated inferentially following an a priori defined hierarchical test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.||||<0.001
84610814|NCT03354273|168973132|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|24.4||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|43.4|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||43.4|5.4|0.0127
84672636|NCT00773175|169080950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 5||||||0.0852
84610815|NCT03354273|168973132|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||20.2|-1.2|0.0001
84672637|NCT00773175|169080950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 6||||||0.0275
84582989|NCT03378635|168919977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% confidence interval, p-value based on a pairwise two-sided log-rank test versus placebo.||||<0.001
84756401|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.206|0.107|<0.0001
84756402|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.142|<0.0001
84582990|NCT03378635|168919978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171|||ANCOVA|||The log-transformed AUC endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline plasma glucose modeled as a covariate. The least squares means treatment group differences were back-transformed (anti-logged) for presentation as a ratio of the treatment group geometric means, with their corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.171|0.1|<0.001
84582991|NCT03378635|168919979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.033|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||1.033|0.801|0.144
84582992|NCT03378635|168919980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.844||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|0.951|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||0.951|0.749|0.006
84610816|NCT03354273|168973132|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|22.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|41.7|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||41.7|2.2|0.0195
84610817|NCT03354273|168973132|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|16.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||16.8|-3.2|0.0004
84610818|NCT03354273|168973132|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|32.4|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||32.4|1.7|0.0174
84610819|NCT03354273|168973132|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|0.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|11.3|||Nam's RMLE|||||11.3|-9.9|0.0240
84610820|NCT03354273|168973132|SUPERIORITY||Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.6|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||35.6|-1.5|0.0448
84610821|NCT03354273|168973132|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|17.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||17.0|-3.4|0.0004
84610822|NCT03354273|168973133|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|23.9|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||23.9|0.0|0.0116
84672638|NCT00773175|169080956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0247
84610823|NCT03354273|168973133|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.2|-2.9|0.0003
84610824|NCT03354273|168973133|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||18.9|-5.2|0.1085
84610825|NCT03354273|168973133|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||21.1|2.1|<0.0001
84672639|NCT00773175|169080957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
84672640|NCT00640510|169080964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of at least 15 patients per group was necessary to verify that the decrease in PANSS-EC total score was significantly greater in the IM olanzapine group than the placebo group using Student's t-test with a power of 90% at a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.940
84672641|NCT00640510|169080965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 15 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84498550|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-1.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.125|-1.804|<.0001
84498551|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.247|-2.065|<.0001
84498552|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.273|0.617|<.0001
84582993|NCT02301793|168919999|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
84582994|NCT02301793|168920003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
84582995|NCT00954538|168920032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84672642|NCT00640510|169080965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 30 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
84672643|NCT00640510|169080965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 60 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
84672644|NCT00640510|169080965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 90 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
84672645|NCT00640510|169080966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84672646|NCT00640510|169080967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 30 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84672647|NCT00640510|169080967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 60 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84672648|NCT00640510|169080967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 90 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84672649|NCT00640510|169080967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84672650|NCT01454934|169080977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.41|0.95|0.1343
84672651|NCT01454934|169080978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option, and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.32|0.90|0.3946
84672652|NCT01454934|169080979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3034||||||The P-value was stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||||0.3034
84582996|NCT00954538|168920033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.27|||Linear Fixed Effects Model||Difference = AD group value - HE group value|A 90% confidence interval was calculated for the group difference (AD - HE) using the model results. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval is above 0, then the hypothesis that \[18F\]MK-3328 can discriminate between AD patients and cognitively normal elderly controls as measured by regional tracer uptake following single IV doses of \[18F\]MK-3328 is supported.||0.27|-0.04|
84582997|NCT01879826|168920057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
84582998|NCT01879826|168920058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84582999|NCT03992872|168920093|SUPERIORITY|The significance of the difference between groups in seroconversion rates was assessed using a Fisher's exact test. The percentage who seroconverted in each group was presented along with its 95% CI calculated using the Wilson method. The Newcombe method was use to estimate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects who seroconverted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|||||11.4|-11.4|1
84583000|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P- value = NE (Not estimable due to lack of response; all baseline values in this group were \<LOD and imputed as LOD/2, or 7.5)||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
84583001|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|3.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.23|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 8: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||6.23|1.55|0.0019
84610826|NCT03354273|168973133|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.5|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||23.5|3.8|0.0017
84756403|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.174|0.074|<0.0001
84583002|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.46|0.54|0.6223
84583003|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.55||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.55|0.50|0.6444
84583004|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 57: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.41|0.57|0.6198
84583005|NCT03992872|168920094|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 182: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.45|0.55|0.6451
84583006|NCT03992872|168920095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 8~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.0211
84672653|NCT00958776|169081034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.55|0.69|0.973
84583007|NCT03992872|168920095|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
84498553|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.413|0.628|<.0001
84498554|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.369|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.369|0.712|<.0001
84498555|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.426|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.426|0.644|<.0001
84583008|NCT03992872|168920095|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 57.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
84583009|NCT03992872|168920095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 182.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.1124
84756404|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
84756405|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|-0.037|0.6103
84756406|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.087|<0.0001
84756407|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.001|0.0559
84583010|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||>0.9999
84583011|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||>0.9999
84583012|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||1.0000
84583013|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||0.0257
84583014|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||0.0370
84583015|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.1806
84756408|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.118|0.018|0.0073
84756409|NCT01431274|169269066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.030|-0.070|0.4368
84756410|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
84756411|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.027|0.0023
84756412|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
84756413|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.097|-0.001|0.0545
84756414|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.001|0.0456
84756415|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.023|0.2949
84756416|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.025|0.0029
84583016|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
84583017|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
84583018|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0797|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.0797
84583019|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
84610827|NCT03354273|168973133|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||12.1|-6.6|0.0034
84756417|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.022|0.0045
84756418|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.122|0.024|0.0035
84756419|NCT01431274|169269067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.051|0.9369
84756420|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.217||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.217|0.119|<0.0001
84756421|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.056|<0.0001
84756422|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.054|<0.0001
84756423|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|-0.002|0.0585
84756424|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|-0.008|0.1042
84583020|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
84583021|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1284|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.1284
84583022|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||1.0000
84672654|NCT00958776|169081036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.72|0.75|0.558
84583023|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6411|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=160"||||0.6411
84583024|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5382|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=640"||||0.5382
84610828|NCT03354273|168973133|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.7||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.0|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.0|-3.6|0.0641
84756425|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.016|0.0097
84756426|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.161||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.161|0.063|<0.0001
84756427|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.014|0.0120
84756428|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.105|0.007|0.0250
84756429|NCT01431274|169269068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|-0.042|0.7889
84756430|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.237||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.237|0.138|<0.0001
84756431|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
84756432|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.202||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.202|0.103|<0.0001
84756433|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.111|0.013|0.0134
84756434|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.136|0.037|0.0006
84756435|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.084|-0.015|0.1670
84756436|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.048|0.0001
84583025|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||0.4915
84583026|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||>0.9999
84756437|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.115|0.017|0.0085
84756438|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.041|0.0003
84756439|NCT01431274|169269069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.025|-0.074|0.3332
84756440|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.201||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.201|0.105|<0.0001
84756441|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0016
84756442|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.18||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.180|0.084|<0.0001
84756443|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.007|0.0926
84756444|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.008|0.0231
84756445|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.069|-0.026|0.3802
84756446|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.110|0.015|0.0105
84583027|NCT03992872|168920096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.5520
84583028|NCT03992872|168920097|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.19|1.05|0.0277
84610829|NCT03354273|168973133|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.6|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||14.6|-4.6|0.0010
84610830|NCT03354273|168973134|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.0||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|24.6|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||24.6|-2.6|0.0294
84610831|NCT03354273|168973134|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|3.9||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.1|-8.3|0.0117
84610832|NCT03354273|168973134|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|20.3|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||20.3|-7.1|0.1444
84610833|NCT03354273|168973134|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|23.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||23.7|-0.4|0.0001
84610834|NCT03354273|168973134|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|8.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||18.9|-1.3|0.0440
84610835|NCT03354273|168973134|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|20.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||20.3|-4.8|0.0022
84610836|NCT03354273|168973134|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.4||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||17.2|-8.4|0.2164
84610837|NCT03354273|168973134|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||22.0|-2.6|0.0006
84610838|NCT00746863|168973139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A 2.0 cm difference on a 10.0 cm VAS scale was clinically significant. Assuming a power of 80% to detect a 2.0 difference on scores between groups, standard deviation of 2.2, an α of 0.05, then, 21 patients would be needed in each group for a total of 42 subjects. A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0251
84610839|NCT00746863|168973140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0923||95.0||||Adjusted for multiple comparisions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0923
84610840|NCT00746863|168973141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi square was performed to compared the two groups and the patient's ability to pass their voiding trial prior to discharge||||0.4756
84610841|NCT00746863|168973142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.258
84610842|NCT00746863|168973143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.435
84610843|NCT04207749|168973153|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures||Least squares mean difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity).|||0.02|-0.00|
84610844|NCT04207749|168973154|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects is presented. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning||Lens difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity)|||0.04|-0.06|
84610845|NCT00655629|168973155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.45|-5.38|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.38|-8.45|<0.0001
84610846|NCT00655629|168973156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.972|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.688|-19.256|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.256|-32.688|<0.0001
84610847|NCT00655629|168973157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.432|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.439|-26.425|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.425|-40.439|<0.0001
84583029|NCT03992872|168920097|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.83||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.86||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.86|1.17|0.0088
84583030|NCT03992872|168920097|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.68||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.82||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.82|1.01|0.0475
84583031|NCT03992872|168920098|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
84583032|NCT03992872|168920098|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
84583033|NCT03992872|168920099|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|45.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
84583034|NCT03992872|168920099|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|47.34|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
84583035|NCT03992872|168920099|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|55.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
84583036|NCT03992872|168920101|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
84610848|NCT00655629|168973158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|53.8693|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
84610849|NCT00655629|168973159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.078|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.41|-9.746|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-9.746|-22.41|<0.0001
84610850|NCT00655629|168973160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.281|-25.987|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-25.987|-40.281|<0.0001
84610851|NCT00655629|168973161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.934|||<|0.0001||95.0|-41.119|-26.749|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.749|-41.119|<0.0001
84756447|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.028|0.0018
84756448|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.043|0.0002
84583037|NCT03992872|168920101|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
84583038|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
84610852|NCT00655629|168973162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.902|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.724|-14.081|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.081|-27.724|<0.0001
84610853|NCT00655629|168973164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.866|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.599|-11.133|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-11.133|-22.599|<0.0001
84610854|NCT00655629|168973165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.547|-20.533|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-20.533|-31.547|<0.0001
84610855|NCT00655629|168973166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.676|-14.315|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.315|-24.676|<0.0001
84610856|NCT00655629|168973167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.418|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.439|-12.396|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-12.396|-24.439|<0.0001
84610857|NCT00655629|168973168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.379|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.006|-16.753|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-16.753|-28.006|<0.0001
84583039|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
84756449|NCT01431274|169269070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.034|-0.062|0.5554
84498556|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.355|-0.376|1.0000
84498557|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.457|-0.417|1.0000
84756450|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.228||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.228|0.127|<0.0001
84756451|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.134|0.033|0.0011
84756452|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.192||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
84756453|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.091|-0.009|0.1112
84756454|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.003|0.0632
84583040|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||<0.0001
84583041|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
84610858|NCT00655629|168973169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.758|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.736|-24.779|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.779|-36.736|<0.0001
84756455|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|-0.014|0.1615
84756456|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.127|0.027|0.0027
84610859|NCT00655629|168973170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|60.2391|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
84610860|NCT03416127|168973173|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.031
84498558|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.303|-0.418|0.9999
84498559|NCT03692078|168747729|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.9669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.566|0.9669
84498560|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|-1.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.279|-1.604|<.0001
84498561|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|-1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.251|-1.576|<.0001
84498562|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.600|-1.907|<.0001
84498563|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.972|-1.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.659|-1.972|<.0001
84498564|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.654|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.498|-1.810|<.0001
84583042|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
84583043|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
84610861|NCT03416127|168973174|OTHER|||||||0.963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.963
84583044|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
84583045|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subjects with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
84610862|NCT03416127|168973175|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.236
84610863|NCT03416127|168973176|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84610864|NCT03416127|168973177|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84610865|NCT03416127|168973178|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
84756457|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.144|0.044|0.0003
84756458|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.151||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.151|0.050|<0.0001
84756459|NCT01431274|169269071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.044|-0.057|0.7925
84756460|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
84756461|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
84756462|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.114|0.028|0.0012
84756463|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
84756464|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.121|0.031|0.0010
84756465|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.092|0.003|0.0384
84756466|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
84756467|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
84583046|NCT03992872|168920102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29 : Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
84583047|NCT03992872|168920103|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|23.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|46.35||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||46.35|11.54|<0.0001
84583048|NCT03992872|168920103|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|172.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|279.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||279.19|106.60|<0.0001
84583049|NCT03992872|168920103|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|118.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.76|227.16||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naive alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||227.16|61.76|<0.0001
84756468|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
84756469|NCT01431274|169269072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
84756470|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
84756471|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
84756472|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.091|0.010|0.0136
84756473|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.116|0.035|0.0003
84756474|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.101|0.016|0.0065
84756475|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.089|0.005|0.0277
84756476|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
84756477|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
84756478|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
84583050|NCT03992872|168920104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
84583051|NCT03992872|168920104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
84583052|NCT00889005|168920107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
84583053|NCT03704922|168920139|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
84583054|NCT03654326|168920238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03||Based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.01|0.066
84583055|NCT03654326|168920239|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced one or more adverse events|Difference in % vs Placebo|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|31.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||31.3|3.4|
84583056|NCT03654326|168920240|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event|Difference in % vs Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.0|-0.9|
84583057|NCT03654326|168920241|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.18|
84583058|NCT03654326|168920242|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.04|
84583059|NCT02662582|168920312|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|47.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means (LSMeans), LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||47.2|-71.2|0.734
84583060|NCT02662582|168920313|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0219||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0694|0.0256||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0256|-0.0694|0.438
84610866|NCT03416127|168973179|OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.686
84756479|NCT01431274|169269073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
84756480|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.244|0.077|0.0002
84756481|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.228|0.053|0.0017
84756482|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.210|0.046|0.0022
84756483|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
84756484|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.194|0.022|0.0141
84756485|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
84583061|NCT02662582|168920313|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0325||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0014||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0014|-0.0663|0.114
84583062|NCT02662582|168920314|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.75||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|3.24||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.24|-1.75|0.612
84583063|NCT02662582|168920314|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|2.14||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||2.14|-1.55|0.789
84583064|NCT02662582|168920315|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|1.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.70|-0.26|0.225
84583065|NCT02662582|168920315|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.92||||0.064||90.0|0.11|1.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.174|0.11|0.064
84583066|NCT02662582|168920316|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.052||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.167||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.167|-0.063|0.447
84610867|NCT03416127|168973180|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84610868|NCT03416127|168973181|OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.945
84610869|NCT03416127|168973182|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.332
84610870|NCT03416127|168973183|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.075
84756486|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
84756487|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
84756488|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
84756489|NCT01431274|169269074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
84756490|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.217|0.057|0.0008
84756491|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.209|0.042|0.0032
84756492|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.183|0.027|0.0085
84756493|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.235|0.077|0.0001
84756494|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.176|0.011|0.0255
84756495|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
84756496|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
84756497|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
84756498|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
84756499|NCT01431274|169269075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
84610871|NCT03416127|168973184|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.903
84610872|NCT03416127|168973185|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.697
84610873|NCT03416127|168973186|OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
84610874|NCT03416127|168973187|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
84610875|NCT03416127|168973188|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.318
84610876|NCT03416127|168973189|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
84610877|NCT03416127|168973190|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.376
84610878|NCT03416127|168973191|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
84610879|NCT03416127|168973192|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
84610880|NCT03416127|168973193|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.059
84610881|NCT03416127|168973194|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
84610882|NCT03416127|168973195|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.122
84610883|NCT03416127|168973196|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.551
84610884|NCT02277925|168973197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.14|||Chi-squared|||||5.14|0.59|0.30
84610885|NCT02277925|168973198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.96|0.43
84610886|NCT02277925|168973199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-14.7|0.39
84610887|NCT01959139|168973215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.28|<0.01
84610888|NCT01959139|168973216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|1.14|0.01
84583067|NCT02662582|168920317|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0|-1.7|0.099
84583068|NCT02662582|168920317|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.2|-1.3|0.255
84583069|NCT02662582|168920317|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.6|-1.1|0.651
84583070|NCT02662582|168920317|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.5|-1.0|0.591
84583071|NCT02662582|168920318|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0286||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0061|0.0511||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0511|0.0061|0.040
84583072|NCT02662582|168920318|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0185||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0031|0.0401||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0401|-0.0031|0.155
84583073|NCT02662582|168920319|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0459|0.0479||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0479|-0.0459|0.972
84583074|NCT02662582|168920319|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.0118||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0471|0.0236||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0236|-0.0471|0.578
84583075|NCT02662582|168920320|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.65||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.26||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.26|-1.55|0.235
84610889|NCT00741013|168973237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only a single statistical analysis was performed upon completion of the study.|ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether lovastatin or rhAPC effectively reduced endotoxin-induced lung inflammation.||||<0.05
84583076|NCT02662582|168920320|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.19||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.19|-1.33|0.215
84583077|NCT02662582|168920321|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.77||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.77|-0.38|0.280
84583078|NCT02662582|168920321|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.46||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.40|-0.49|0.424
84583079|NCT02662582|168920322|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0099|0.0879||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0879|-0.0099|0.187
84610890|NCT00082407|168973240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2534||95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.28|0.2534
84610891|NCT00082407|168973241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0779
84610892|NCT00082407|168973242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84610893|NCT00082407|168973243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6456
84610894|NCT00082407|168973245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7888||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7888
84672655|NCT00958776|169081037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.31|0.59|0.633
84672656|NCT00958776|169081038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.32|0.92|0.747
84672657|NCT00958776|169081040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.98|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio is calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.98|0.41|0.303
84672658|NCT00958776|169081042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.768
84672659|NCT00958776|169081043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.758
84583080|NCT02662582|168920322|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0488||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0163|0.114||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.1140|-0.0163|0.213
84583081|NCT02662582|168920323|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4||||0.64||90.0|-2.1|1.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.2|-2.1|0.640
84672660|NCT02583256|169081052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
84672661|NCT02583256|169081052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
84756500|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
84756501|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
84583082|NCT02662582|168920323|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.1||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.1|-2.5|0.487
84583083|NCT02662582|168920324|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.095||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.189||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.189|0.000|0.100
84672662|NCT02583256|169081052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
84672663|NCT02583256|169081052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
84672664|NCT02583256|169081053|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion for the GMT ratio: Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
84672665|NCT02583256|169081053|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
84672666|NCT02583256|169081053|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
84672667|NCT02583256|169081053|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
84672668|NCT02583256|169081054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.51|1.28|
84672669|NCT02583256|169081054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.14||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.99|
84672670|NCT02583256|169081054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.58||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.58|1.27|
84672671|NCT02583256|169081054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.51|1.22|
84672672|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.32|1.07|
84672673|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.09|0.90|
84672674|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.25|1.01|
84672675|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.27||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.27|0.98|
84672676|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.5|1.3|
84672677|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.1|0.9|
84672678|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.4|1.2|
84672679|NCT02583256|169081055|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.5|1.2|
84583084|NCT02662582|168920324|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.133||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.213||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.213|0.053|0.008
84672680|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.6||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||8.6|-4.9|
84672681|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||7.3|-5.6|
84672682|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||10.4|-1.8|
84672683|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||8.5|-3.3|
84672684|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|9.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.17||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||16.17|3.11|
84672685|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|2.15||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||2.15|-10.02|
84672686|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|12.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|19.12||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||19.12|6.73|
84672687|NCT02583256|169081056|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.54||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||14.54|2.17|
84672688|NCT04027218|169081074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|2.79|||McNemar|||||2.79|2.34|0.001
84672689|NCT04027218|169081074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.13|||McNemar|||||2.13|1.70|0.002
84672690|NCT04027218|169081074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|1.92|||McNemar|||||1.92|1.87|0.004
84672691|NCT04027218|169081075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.179||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84672692|NCT04027218|169081075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.619||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84672693|NCT04027218|169081075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.099||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84672694|NCT04027218|169081076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.073||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.863
84672695|NCT04027218|169081076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.267||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.205
84672696|NCT04027218|169081076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.858||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.391
84672697|NCT04027218|169081078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.672||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.502
84672698|NCT04027218|169081078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.327||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.744
84583085|NCT02662582|168920325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.154||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.154|-0.052|0.408
84583086|NCT02662582|168920325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.013|0.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.174|0.013|0.058
84583087|NCT02662582|168920326|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.44||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|6.73||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||6.73|-3.85|0.648
84583088|NCT02662582|168920326|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.85||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|5.82||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.82|-4.12|0.775
84583089|NCT02662582|168920327|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-1.9|0.544
84583090|NCT02662582|168920327|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.0|-0.7|0.216
84583091|NCT02662582|168920328|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.6|-16.5|0.171
84583092|NCT02662582|168920328|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||10.7|-10.3|0.976
84583093|NCT02662582|168920329|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|4.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.9|-6.1|0.844
84583094|NCT02662582|168920329|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-5.8|0.751
84583095|NCT02662582|168920330|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.5|0.590
84583096|NCT02662582|168920330|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.3|0.399
84583097|NCT02662582|168920331|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.09||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.01||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.01|-0.20|0.151
84583098|NCT02662582|168920332|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.007||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.056||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.056|-0.070|0.857
84583099|NCT02662582|168920333|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|3.17||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.17|-0.05|0.110
84610895|NCT00082407|168973246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3722
84610896|NCT03626545|168973278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model stratified by line of therapy and histology|||1.48|0.76|0.633
84610897|NCT00793325|168973307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<15 years and \>=15 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.575
84583100|NCT02662582|168920334|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.57|13.71||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.71|-9.57|0.766
84583101|NCT02662582|168920334|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|13.54||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.54|-7.66|0.642
84583102|NCT01725282|168920338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||3.6|-3.1|
84583103|NCT01725282|168920338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||2.8|-4.0|
84583104|NCT01725282|168920338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||4.6|-2.1|
84583105|NCT02739828|168920368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0001
84583106|NCT02739828|168920369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||< 0.0001
84583107|NCT02739828|168920370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
84498565|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-1.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.673|-1.986|<.0001
84583108|NCT02739828|168920371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0005
84583109|NCT02739828|168920371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0006
84583110|NCT02739828|168920372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
84583111|NCT02739828|168920372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0016
84583112|NCT02739828|168920373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0003
84583113|NCT02739828|168920373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0094
84756502|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
84583114|NCT02739828|168920377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0278
84583115|NCT02739828|168920378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0215
84583116|NCT02739828|168920379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1652|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1652
84583117|NCT02739828|168920383|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
84583118|NCT02739828|168920384|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
84583119|NCT02739828|168920385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.5000
84583120|NCT02739828|168920386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1797
84583121|NCT02739828|168920387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
84583122|NCT02739828|168920388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0313
84583123|NCT02739828|168920389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
84583124|NCT02739828|168920390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
84583125|NCT02739828|168920391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0156
84583126|NCT02739828|168920392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0386
84583127|NCT02739828|168920393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
84498566|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|-1.989|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.989|-2.379|<.0001
84498567|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|-2.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.071|-2.468|<.0001
84498568|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.607|-2.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.219|-2.607|<.0001
84498569|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.549|-2.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.149|-2.549|<.0001
84498570|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-2.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.038|-2.416|<.0001
84498571|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.154|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.345|-1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.962|-2.345|<.0001
84583128|NCT02739828|168920394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
84583129|NCT02739828|168920395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
84583130|NCT02739828|168920396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
84610898|NCT00793325|168973308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.206
84583131|NCT02739828|168920397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
84583132|NCT02349477|168920415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for no heavy drinking days.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no heavy drinking days throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.028
84610899|NCT00793325|168973309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between mild, moderate and severe in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.033
84610900|NCT00793325|168973309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of severity."||||=0.207
84610901|NCT00793325|168973310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Past history of any disease. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history of any disease and Without past history any disease in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
84583133|NCT02349477|168920416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for abstinence.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no drinking days (abstinence) throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.053
84672699|NCT04027218|169081078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.885||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.059
84756503|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
84756504|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
84756505|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
84756506|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
84756507|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
84756508|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
84756509|NCT01431274|169269076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
84756510|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
84756511|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
84756512|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
84756513|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
84756514|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
84583134|NCT02349477|168920417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For the High AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.001
84583135|NCT02349477|168920417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||For the Low AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.67
84610902|NCT00793325|168973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With complication(s) and Without complication(s)in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.009
84756515|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
84756516|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
84756517|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
84756518|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
84756519|NCT01431274|169269077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
84756520|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
84756521|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
84756522|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
84756523|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
84756524|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
84756525|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
84498572|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.004|-0.628|0.0552
84583136|NCT02202577|168920418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.35||This is the calculated p-value for the intention to treat analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||"We estimated a cesarean related surgical site infection rate of 7.5% with povidone-iodine and hypothesized chlorhexidine-alcohol treatment to be superior based on existing literature. We considered a 50% reduction to be significant. We performed our power analysis assuming~1-directional effects in favor of chlorhexidine, which best fit our hypothesis. Using a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and an 80% power to detect a difference, we estimated that 466 subjects would be required in each group."||1.35||0.38
84756526|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
84756527|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
84756528|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
84756529|NCT01431274|169269078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
84756530|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
84756531|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
84756532|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
84756533|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
84583137|NCT02202577|168920418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.25||This is the calculated p-value for the per protocol analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Per Protocol Analysis||1.25||0.26
84583138|NCT03511209|168920437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Compared CBTI plus Taper method A to CBTI plus Taper method B||4.64|0.98|0.056
84583139|NCT03511209|168920438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (CBTI plus Taper method A vs. CBTI plus Taper method B) by Time (6 Months vs. Baseline)||||1.44|-3.57|0.405
84583140|NCT02628145|168920442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84583141|NCT02628145|168920443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
84583142|NCT02628145|168920444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.068
84583143|NCT02628145|168920445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
84583144|NCT02628145|168920446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
84756534|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
84756535|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
84756536|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
84756537|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
84756538|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
84756539|NCT01431274|169269079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
84756540|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
84756541|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
84756542|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
84583145|NCT02628145|168920447|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84583146|NCT02628145|168920448|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84583147|NCT02628145|168920449|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84583148|NCT02628145|168920450|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84583149|NCT02628145|168920452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84583150|NCT03000166|168920455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84583151|NCT03000166|168920456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84583152|NCT03000166|168920457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84583153|NCT03000166|168920458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84583154|NCT02757963|168920462|OTHER||Proportion|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|0.912|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.912|0.849|
84583155|NCT02757963|168920463|OTHER||Proportion|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.904|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.904|0.846|
84583156|NCT02757963|168920463|OTHER||Proportion|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.917|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.917|0.854|
84756543|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
84756544|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
84756545|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
84756546|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
84756547|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
84756548|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
84756549|NCT01431274|169269080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
84756550|NCT01806857|169269102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0003
84756551|NCT01806857|169269106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0001
84756552|NCT00789880|169269127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
84756553|NCT00789880|169269127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.12
84583157|NCT02757963|168920463|OTHER||Proportion|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|0.9|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.900|0.843|
84583158|NCT02757963|168920464|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.926|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.926|0.870|
84583159|NCT02757963|168920464|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.934|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.934|0.873|
84756554|NCT00789880|169269128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
84756555|NCT00789880|169269129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
84756556|NCT00789880|169269129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
84756557|NCT00789880|169269130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.8
84756558|NCT00789880|169269130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
84583160|NCT02757963|168920464|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.935|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.935|0.873|
84583161|NCT02757963|168920464|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.925|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm PSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.925|0.870|
84756559|NCT00789880|169269131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
84756560|NCT00789880|169269132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
84756561|NCT00789880|169269132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||1.0
84756562|NCT00789880|169269133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
84756563|NCT00789880|169269133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.5
84756564|NCT00789880|169269134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
84756565|NCT00789880|169269135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
84583162|NCT02757963|168920465|OTHER||Proportion|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.386|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.386|0.337|
84583163|NCT02757963|168920465|OTHER||Proportion|0.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.395|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.395|0.341|
84583164|NCT02757963|168920465|OTHER||Proportion|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|0.406|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.406|0.349|
84583165|NCT02757963|168920465|OTHER||Proportion|0.355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.379|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.379|0.332|
84583166|NCT02757963|168920466|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.58||||||||0.58|0.51|
84583167|NCT05259722|168920486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-8.86|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-8.86|-23.28|<0.001
84583168|NCT05259722|168920487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||20.78|4.34|=0.003
84583169|NCT05259722|168920488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|17.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||17.87|3.31|=0.004
84756566|NCT00789880|169269135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
84756567|NCT03159091|169269145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.0422
84756568|NCT03159091|169269146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between initial and 4 weeks total scores row.||||0.1101
84756569|NCT03159091|169269147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1373|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.1373
84756570|NCT03159091|169269148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0870
84756571|NCT03159091|169269149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84756572|NCT02044133|169269152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84756573|NCT02046096|169269157|OTHER||12-month rate (%)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|99.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed Exact binomial test||The 95% confidence interval was computed using Exact method.|Null Hypothesis: The rate of technical placement success and 12-month freedom from new symptomatic PE while a filter is indwelling, π, does not meet the performance goal (90%).||99.1|95.6|<0.0001
84756574|NCT02046096|169269158|OTHER||Cumulative probability|81.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|90.4||the threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Z-statistic|The hypothesis is assessed using a Z-statistic. The Z-statistic is given by Z = (Ŝ(t) - 0.8) / SE where SE is the Standard Error|The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|"the null hypotheses is: H0: S(t) ≤ 80%(Performance Goal) where,~* t is time through 12 months~* S(t) is the true rate of freedom from major adverse events at time t."||90.4|72.6|0.369
84583170|NCT05259722|168920489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.20|-1.12|=0.005
84583171|NCT05259722|168920490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.10|-1.08|=0.018
84583172|NCT05259722|168920491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|22.86|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||22.86|5.81|<0.001
84756575|NCT02046096|169269159|OTHER||12-month freedom from MAE rate (%)|86.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|90.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month freedom from MAE, π, does not meet the performance goal (80%).||90.2|82.5|0.001
84756576|NCT00487396|169269172|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* combination of CE+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as CE+IC new finding ;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures were marked as SBFT+IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures and by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
84756577|NCT00487396|169269173|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"For each category, the numbers of found and missed pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by SBFT procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by SBFT procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as SBFT new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and SBFT) were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
84583173|NCT05259722|168920492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|334.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|195.69|472.26|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||472.26|195.69|<0.001
84756578|NCT00487396|169269174|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by IC procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by IC procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and IC) were marked as same findings event."||||0.085
84756579|NCT00943579|169269198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. there were no transformations.||||>.05
84756580|NCT00418665|169269207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.07|5.136|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.136|0.070|
84756581|NCT00418665|169269207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
84756582|NCT00418665|169269208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
84756583|NCT00418665|169269208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.514||||||95.0|0.102|2.589|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||2.589|0.102|
84756584|NCT00418665|169269209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||||95.0|0.227|39.608|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||39.608|0.227|
84756585|NCT00418665|169269209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714||||||95.0|0.144|20.473|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||20.473|0.144|
84756586|NCT00418665|169269210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||||95.0|0.097|8.529|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||8.529|0.097|
84756587|NCT00418665|169269210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||||95.0|0.175|4.278|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||4.278|0.175|
84756588|NCT02634151|169269226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.05||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-3.29|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||-3.29|-18.81|0.0057
84756589|NCT02634151|169269227|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|0.75|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||High-Intensity.||0.75|-24.35|0.0648
84498573|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.402||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.083|-0.722|0.0055
84583174|NCT05259722|168920493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.55|-16.36|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-16.36|-32.55|<0.001
84583175|NCT01887600|168920497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.48|58.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Please note Odds Ratio and CI are shown in percentages.|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was adjusted by region, history of of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or thromboembolic (CV) disease, baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was to be declared if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the CMH odds ratio was higher than 1.||58.93|20.48|<0.001
84583176|NCT01887600|168920498|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.692|||<|0.001||95.0|1.52|1.86|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with Multiple Imputations (MI) model, adjusting for covariates was used for the analysis. The model included treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) was higher than 0.||1.86|1.52|<0.001
84756590|NCT02634151|169269227|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Moderate Intensity.||-0.51|-20.77|0.0398
84756591|NCT02634151|169269228|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.09||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-1.14|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.14|-19.04|0.0275
84756592|NCT02634151|169269228|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.4||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4.||0.10|-18.90|0.0524
84583177|NCT01887600|168920499|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit interaction as continuous covariates.||1.78|1.41|<0.001
84672700|NCT02506816|169081080|OTHER|The P-valor Wilcoxon method is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used to evaluate changes from baseline H-score values of the three biomarkers.||||||0.033||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of 3 biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.033
84756593|NCT02634151|169269228|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|10.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||10.90|-9.12|0.8602
84756594|NCT02634151|169269228|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.63||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.37|-2.89|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-2.89|-22.37|0.0115
84756595|NCT02634151|169269228|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.87||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|3.05|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Average of week 8 and 12||3.05|-14.79|0.1945
84756596|NCT02634151|169269229|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.88||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.13|-12.89|0.0991
84756597|NCT02634151|169269230|OTHER|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.58||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.84|-13.32|0.0101
84756598|NCT02634151|169269230|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.94|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.18|-15.94|0.0037
84756599|NCT02634151|169269230|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.84|-7.72|0.7839
84756600|NCT02634151|169269230|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-3.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.84|-17.53|0.0025
84756601|NCT02634151|169269231|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.66||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-2.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.88|-22.45|0.0117
84756602|NCT02634151|169269231|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.55||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|-5.21|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.21|-25.88|0.0036
84756603|NCT02634151|169269231|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|10.31||Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.31|-11.48|0.9147
84756604|NCT02634151|169269231|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.59||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-5.93|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.93|-27.24|0.0026
84756605|NCT02634151|169269232|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.50|-10.77|0.0101
84756606|NCT02634151|169269232|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.73||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-2.58|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-2.58|-12.89|0.0036
84756607|NCT02634151|169269232|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|5.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.51|-5.27|0.9653
84756608|NCT02634151|169269232|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.68|-12.10|0.0101
84756609|NCT02634151|169269233|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.74||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.30|-23.19|0.0173
84583178|NCT01887600|168920500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 0.|Least squares mean difference|-0.701|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.83|-0.57||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects during the period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline LDL as continuous variables.||-0.57|-0.83|<0.001
84610903|NCT00793325|168973312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Function Disorder. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between with Hepatic Function Disorder and without Hepatic Function Disorder in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
84610904|NCT00793325|168973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Impairment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Renal Impairment and Without Renal Impairment in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
84756610|NCT02634151|169269233|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.40|-27.17|0.0038
84756611|NCT02634151|169269233|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|13.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||13.01|-9.85|0.7846
84756612|NCT02634151|169269233|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.98||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-3.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.13|-24.83|0.0121
84756613|NCT02634151|169269234|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.32||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-3.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-3.12|-23.32|0.0108
84756614|NCT02634151|169269234|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|-12.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.42|-34.78|<0.0001
84756615|NCT02634151|169269234|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|2.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.18|-15.60|0.1376
84756616|NCT02634151|169269234|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.64||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||-3.18|-28.10|0.0144
84756617|NCT02634151|169269235|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-19.53||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-4.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-4.51|-34.55|0.0113
84756618|NCT02634151|169269235|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-33.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.58|-16.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.69|-50.58|0.0002
84756619|NCT02634151|169269235|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-8.33||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|4.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.12|-20.77|0.1873
84756620|NCT02634151|169269235|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-29.58||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-5.37|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.37|-53.80|0.0172
84756621|NCT02634151|169269236|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.52||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.77|-21.27|0.0210
84756622|NCT02634151|169269236|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|-12.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.01|-34.02|<0.0001
84756623|NCT02634151|169269236|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|2.33|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.33|-15.19|0.1483
84756624|NCT02634151|169269236|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.63||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-1.76|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.76|-21.50|0.0214
84498574|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.105|-0.530|0.3834
84498575|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.416||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.099|-0.734|0.0033
84498576|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.743|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|-0.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.382|-1.103|<.0001
84583179|NCT01887600|168920501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.33||Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||0.33|0.17|<0.001
84583180|NCT01887600|168920502|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.127|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.44||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.44|-0.19|=0.093
84583181|NCT01887600|168920503|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.713|||=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.98||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.98|-0.56|=0.27
84583182|NCT01887600|168920504|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 2 mmHg.|Least squares mean difference|0.842|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.08||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms with overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 20 to 28). The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||2.08|-0.40|=0.182
84583183|NCT01887600|168920505|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3 (hazard ratio).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.16|0.77|=0.334
84583184|NCT01887600|168920506|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Annualized eGFR slope over time was estimated by a random slopes and intercepts model using all available eGFR values adjusted on baseline Hb, region, CV history at Baseline and the interaction terms.||1.75|-0.57|=0.316
84583185|NCT01887600|168920507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 28 to 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 28 to 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.84|1.44|<0.001
84610905|NCT00793325|168973314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drug(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Concomitant Drug(s) and Without Concomitant Drug(s) in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.003
84610906|NCT00793325|168973315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84610907|NCT00793325|168973315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84583186|NCT01887600|168920508|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.82||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 44 to 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 44 to 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.39|<0.001
84583187|NCT01887600|168920509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 96 to 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 96 to 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.85|1.14|<0.001
84583188|NCT01887600|168920510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|19.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.98|30.15|||Regression, Cox|||Time to Achieve the First Hb Response. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||30.15|11.98|<0.001
84610908|NCT00793325|168973315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84756625|NCT02634151|169269237|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-0.28|-5.62|0.0308
84756626|NCT02634151|169269237|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-3.04|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||Week 4||-3.04|-9.56|0.0002
84756627|NCT02634151|169269237|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.88|-4.03|0.2056
84756628|NCT02634151|169269237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.96|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.96|-7.04|0.0103
84756629|NCT02634151|169269238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||2.09|-6.36|0.3193
84610909|NCT00793325|168973316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84756630|NCT02634151|169269238|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.11|-6.91|0.2932
84756631|NCT02634151|169269238|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.98||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.02|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.02|-3.06|0.4383
84756632|NCT02634151|169269238|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|2.78||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.86|-2.31|0.2814
84756633|NCT02634151|169269239|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.38|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||1.38|-3.23|0.4278
84756634|NCT02634151|169269239|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.27|-3.53|0.3529
84756635|NCT02634151|169269239|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.86|-1.39|0.3522
84756636|NCT02634151|169269239|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.42|-1.22|0.2635
84498577|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.493|-1.220|<.0001
84583189|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.5||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 1. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||0.50|0.29|<0.001
84583190|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 2. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.07|0.81|<0.001
84583191|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.64||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 4. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.64|1.30|<0.001
84610910|NCT00793325|168973316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84610911|NCT00793325|168973316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
84610912|NCT01452919|168973333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.17||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.170
84610913|NCT01452919|168973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.109||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 0.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.109
84756637|NCT02634151|169269240|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.93|1.01|0.0464
84610914|NCT01452919|168973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.372||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.372
84610915|NCT01452919|168973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.555||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.555
84610916|NCT01452919|168973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.806||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 2.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.806
84610917|NCT01452919|168973335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.762||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.762
84610918|NCT01452919|168973336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.506||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.506
84610919|NCT01452919|168973337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.515||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.515
84610920|NCT01452919|168973340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.966||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.966
84610921|NCT01452919|168973341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.895||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.895
84610922|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.309|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.309|0.854|0.6294
84610923|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||30.7|18.4|
84610924|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|34.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||34.4|20.9|
84610925|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.5032
84610926|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.3|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||13.3|4.7|
84610927|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.5|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.5|3.3|
84610928|NCT02421588|168973342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6742|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.6742
84610929|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.209|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.209|0.805|0.7673
84610930|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|35.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||35.4|22.8|
84756638|NCT02634151|169269240|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.92|0.58|0.5278
84583192|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.827|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.02||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 6. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.02|1.64|<0.001
84583193|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.25||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 8. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.25|1.87|<0.001
84583194|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.14||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 10. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.14|1.75|<0.001
84583195|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.28||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 12. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.28|1.90|<0.001
84583196|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.24||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 14. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.24|1.86|<0.001
84583197|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.19||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 16. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.19|1.79|<0.001
84498578|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|-0.616|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.616|-1.327|<.0001
84498579|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.574|-1.298|<.0001
84583198|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.05||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 18. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.05|1.64|<0.001
84583199|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.04||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 20. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.04|1.61|<0.001
84583200|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.651|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.87||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 22. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.87|1.43|<0.001
84672701|NCT02506816|169081081|OTHER|The differences in the change from baseline of different biomarkers were evaluated by the P-valor Wilcoxon method, a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test.||||||0.03||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of several biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.03
84498580|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.473||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.813|0.133|0.0016
84498581|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.683|-0.007|0.0582
84498582|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.914|0.232|<.0001
84498583|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.324||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.668|-0.020|0.0745
84498584|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.422|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.422|-0.337|1.0000
84583201|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.67||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 24. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.67|1.23|<0.001
84610931|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|33.9|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||33.9|21.3|
84610932|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7385|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.7385
84610933|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.7|4.8|
84610934|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.2|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.2|4.2|
84610935|NCT02421588|168973343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8245|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.8245
84672702|NCT03019627|169081089|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.83|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||5.68|-13.34|=0.428
84610936|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.183|||Log Rank|||OS between treatments||1.183|0.772|0.8021
84610937|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY||OS at 12 months|48.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|54.8|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||54.8|41.3|
84610938|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 12 months|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.0|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||52.0|38.4|
84610939|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5515|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.5515
84610940|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.2|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.2|16.8|
84610941|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|28.7|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.7|17.1|
84610942|NCT02421588|168973344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9253|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 24 months between treatments||||0.9253
84610943|NCT02421588|168973345|SUPERIORITY||ORR|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|19.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||19.8|10.1|
84610944|NCT02421588|168973345|SUPERIORITY||ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|17.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||17.8|8.6|
84610945|NCT02421588|168973345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6772|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate between treatments||||0.6772
84610946|NCT02421588|168973346|SUPERIORITY||ORR|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||21.3|11.3|
84672703|NCT03019627|169081089|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.16|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|9.76|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis||9.76|-9.45|=0.974
84583202|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 28. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.34|<0.001
84583203|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.587|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 32. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.37|<0.001
84583204|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.92||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb Change from BL to week 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.92|1.46|<0.001
84583205|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.88||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 40. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.88|1.41|<0.001
84583206|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 44. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.45|<0.001
84583207|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.446|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.69||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 48. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.69|1.20|<0.001
84583208|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.89||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.89|1.39|<0.001
84583209|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.91||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 56. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.91|1.37|<0.001
84583210|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.634|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 60. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.33|<0.001
84583211|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 64. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.73|1.08|<0.001
84583212|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.82||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 68. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.18|<0.001
84583213|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 72. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.10|<0.001
84610947|NCT02421588|168973346|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate (ORR)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||22.3|12.1|
84756639|NCT02634151|169269240|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.27|1.06|0.0359
84610948|NCT02421588|168973346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8976|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate (ORR) between treatments||||0.8976
84756640|NCT02634151|169269241|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.61|1.11|0.0268
84756641|NCT02634151|169269241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.41|0.70|0.2755
84756642|NCT02634151|169269241|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||10.94|2.05|0.0003
84583214|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 76. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.54|0.83|<0.001
84583215|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 80. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.11|<0.001
84583216|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.374|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 84. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.75|0.99|<0.001
84583217|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.55||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 88. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.55|0.79|<0.001
84583218|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 92. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|0.98|<0.001
84583219|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.563|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.97||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 96. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.97|1.15|<0.001
84583220|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.83||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 100. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.83|1.06|<0.001
84583221|NCT01887600|168920511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.347|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.79|0.90|<0.001
84583222|NCT01887600|168920512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.614|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.81||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 28-36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 28 to 36 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.42|<0.001
84610949|NCT02421588|168973347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.569|||Log Rank|||Duration of response between treatments||2.569|0.769|0.2631
84610950|NCT02421588|168973348|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response between treatments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.743|||Log Rank|||||1.743|0.64|0.8276
84610951|NCT02421588|168973349|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|33.8|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||33.8|20.2|
84610952|NCT02421588|168973349|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.3|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||26.3|13.7|
84610953|NCT02421588|168973349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Fisher Exact|||ORR (%) by CA-125 between treatments||||0.1231
84610954|NCT02516592|168973363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.084|0.005|0.028
84610955|NCT02516592|168973364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-0.03|0.063
84610956|NCT02516592|168973365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|0.037|0.002
84610957|NCT02516592|168973366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.3|0.319
84610958|NCT02516592|168973367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.20|0.662
84583223|NCT01887600|168920513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.594|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 44-52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 44 to 52 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.38|<0.001
84583224|NCT01887600|168920514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.452|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from BL to average Hb weeks 96-104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 96 to 104 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.80|1.10|<0.001
84583225|NCT01887600|168920518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945|||=|0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.20|0.74|=0.643
84583226|NCT01887600|168920520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Regression, Cox|||Time to start rescue therapy within first 24 weeks. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.23|0.08|<0.001
84583227|NCT01887600|168920521|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.55|0.21|<0.001
84583228|NCT01887600|168920522|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.045|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied including treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.01|-0.10|=0.128
84583229|NCT01887600|168920523|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.429|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|4.95|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied included treatment arm, region, CV history as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||4.95|-25.81|=0.183
84583230|NCT01887600|168920524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.17|0.06|<0.001
84583231|NCT01887600|168920525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.99|0.29|=0.045
84583232|NCT01887600|168920534|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.374|||=|0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures included treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.40|-0.65|=0.475
84583233|NCT01887600|168920535|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.704|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.38||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The model includes treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Baseline FACT-An Ans is defined as the FACT-An Ans value on day 1.||3.38|0.02|=0.047
84583234|NCT01887600|168920536|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.086|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 12 to 28 period based on this MMRM model.The model includes treatment, visit (week8, week12 and week28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Total Score, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||5.46|-1.29|=0.225
84583235|NCT01887600|168920547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Time to doubling of serum Creatinine. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.32|0.75|=0.973
84583236|NCT01887600|168920548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||Time to CKD progression. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.30|0.76|=0.972
84672704|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.12|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|6.91|||ANCOVA|||frequency statistical analysis - week 4||6.91|-9.14|=0.783
84583237|NCT01887600|168920549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.16|0.70|=0.439
84583238|NCT02539394|168920579|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.394
84583239|NCT02539394|168920579|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.017
84672705|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.82|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.41|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 8||6.41|-14.1|=0.461
84672706|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-15.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.97|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 12||-4.97|-25.6|=0.004
84583240|NCT02539394|168920579|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.015
84583241|NCT02539394|168920579|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.125
84583242|NCT02539394|168920580|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.043
84583243|NCT02539394|168920580|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.606
84583244|NCT02539394|168920580|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.155
84583245|NCT02539394|168920580|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
84583246|NCT02539394|168920581|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.250
84583247|NCT02539394|168920581|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.478
84583248|NCT02539394|168920581|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
84583249|NCT02539394|168920581|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
84583250|NCT02539394|168920582|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.376
84583251|NCT02539394|168920582|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.013
84583252|NCT02539394|168920582|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
84583253|NCT02539394|168920582|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.300
84583254|NCT02539394|168920583|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.037
84583255|NCT02539394|168920583|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.858
84756643|NCT02634151|169269242|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.8|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||7.80|1.36|0.0079
84583256|NCT02539394|168920583|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
84583257|NCT02539394|168920583|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.031
84583258|NCT02539394|168920584|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.343
84583259|NCT02539394|168920584|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.022
84583260|NCT02539394|168920584|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.018
84583261|NCT02539394|168920584|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.008
84583262|NCT02539394|168920585|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.280
84583263|NCT02539394|168920585|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.483
84756644|NCT02634151|169269242|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.35|0.62|0.4002
84583264|NCT02539394|168920585|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.070
84583265|NCT02539394|168920585|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.200
84583266|NCT02539394|168920586|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.148
84583267|NCT02539394|168920586|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.040
84583268|NCT02539394|168920586|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
84583269|NCT02539394|168920586|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.319
84583270|NCT02539394|168920587|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.161
84583271|NCT02539394|168920587|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.763|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.763
84583272|NCT02539394|168920587|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.178
84583273|NCT02539394|168920587|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.091
84583274|NCT02539394|168920588|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.602
84583275|NCT02539394|168920588|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.302
84583276|NCT02539394|168920588|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.114
84583277|NCT02539394|168920588|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.005
84672707|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.55|||=|0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|10.82|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 4||10.82|-5.72|=0.544
84672708|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.06|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|11.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 8||11.24|-9.12|=0.837
84583278|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.933
84583279|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.950
84583280|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.059
84583281|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
84583282|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.032
84583283|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.014
84583284|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.030
84583285|NCT02539394|168920589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.039
84583286|NCT02539394|168920590|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.121
84583287|NCT02539394|168920590|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.006
84583288|NCT02539394|168920590|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.329
84583289|NCT02539394|168920590|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.687|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.687
84583290|NCT02539394|168920591|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.066|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.066
84583291|NCT02539394|168920591|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.252
84583292|NCT02539394|168920591|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.100
84672709|NCT03019627|169081090|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-13.8|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 12||3.88|-23.7|=0.007
84672710|NCT03019627|169081091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.7|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||week 4||-0.01|-1.38|=0.046
84583293|NCT02539394|168920591|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.279|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.279
84583294|NCT02539394|168920592|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means Pre-operative NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.145
84583295|NCT02539394|168920592|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means 4-6 weeks NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.234
84583296|NCT02539394|168920597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84583297|NCT01044693|168920607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||0.036
84583298|NCT01044693|168920607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||<0.001
84610959|NCT00510744|168973368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired changes in fat absorption assessed by parametric (t test) or non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney)||||<0.05
84672711|NCT03019627|169081091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.3|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.44|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.44|-1.05|=0.425
84583299|NCT01044693|168920607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||>0.05
84583300|NCT01044693|168920608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.607
84583301|NCT01044693|168920609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.597
84583302|NCT01044693|168920610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The main comparisons were between the negative chronotropic effect of nebivolol and metoprolol at the time when BP-lowering effects were maximal.||||0.996
84583303|NCT01316900|168920616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.142|0.039|<0.001
84583304|NCT01316900|168920616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.141||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Tio 18 µg.|||0.141|0.039|<0.001
84583305|NCT01316900|168920616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
84583306|NCT01316900|168920616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
84583307|NCT00562861|168920619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F value|1.88||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84583308|NCT00761137|168920620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Primary outcome was analyzed by a mixed-effects ANOVA model employing subject as a random factor as well as visit and treatment as fixed factors. Intention-to-treat (ITT) sample was analyzed. Unweighted means and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are reported, which represent treatment group means adjusted for the effect of visit and removing the intra-subject variability. For all analyses, significance level was set at 5%."||||0.6
84583309|NCT02656173|168920630|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis, including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.82|<0.001
84583310|NCT02656173|168920631|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.17|||mixed model repeated measure|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was used for analysis, which included the baseline as a covariate, treatment group, analysis visits and region as a fixed effect, subject as random effect and including interaction of \[treatment group x visit\] for FAS.||-0.17|-0.78|<0.001
84583311|NCT02656173|168920632|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.07|-0.63|0.112
84583312|NCT02656173|168920633|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|1.75||||0.186|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.186
84583313|NCT02656173|168920634|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|0.09||||0.76|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.760
84610960|NCT00098306|168973377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1571|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.141|-0.435||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.435|-1.141|
84672712|NCT03019627|169081091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.09|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.58|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.58|-0.76|=0.788
84610961|NCT00098306|168973377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1568|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.275|-0.57||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.570|-1.275|
84610962|NCT00098306|168973378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.78|<0.0001
84672713|NCT03019627|169081092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.71|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.54|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.54|-1.95|=0.265
84672714|NCT03019627|169081092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.38|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||week 8||-0.17|-2.59|=0.026
84498585|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.268|-0.501|0.9759
84498586|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.186||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.565|0.7128
84498587|NCT03692078|168747731|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.582|0.6816
84498588|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.146|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.750|-1.146|<.0001
84583314|NCT02656173|168920635|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.11|-0.18|0.646
84583315|NCT02656173|168920636|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|17.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||17.84|6.33|<0.001
84583316|NCT02656173|168920637|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
84672715|NCT03019627|169081092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.6|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.70|-1.90|=0.361
84672716|NCT03019627|169081093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.25|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.25|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.25|-0.76|=0.323
84672717|NCT03019627|169081093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.03|||=|0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.62|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.62|-0.55|=0.908
84672718|NCT03019627|169081093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.12|||=|0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.52|-0.76|=0.702
84672719|NCT03019627|169081094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|5.75|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.48|||ANCOVA|||||9.48|2.02|=0.003
84672720|NCT01802775|169081123|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.5||||||Treatment difference was edoxaban - clopidogrel. For the treatment difference, 95% Confidence interval was calculated using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||9.5|-17.3|
84583317|NCT02656173|168920638|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Daytime Frequency. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.19|0.006
84583318|NCT02656173|168920638|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Nighttime Frequency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.03|-0.19|0.174
84610963|NCT00098306|168973378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.95|2.26|<0.0001
84583319|NCT02656173|168920638|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.50|0.037
84583320|NCT02656173|168920638|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency Incontinence. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.32|0.014
84583321|NCT02656173|168920639|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.44|-1.94|0.002
84583322|NCT02656173|168920640|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Storage Subscale. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
84583323|NCT02656173|168920640|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-1. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.13|-0.72|0.167
84583324|NCT02656173|168920640|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.42||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-2. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.09|-0.93|0.103
84610964|NCT00098306|168973378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.64|2.36|<0.0001
84756645|NCT02634151|169269242|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.59|1.25|0.0142
84583325|NCT02656173|168920640|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Quality of Life (QoL) Item. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
84583326|NCT02656173|168920641|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|-2.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-2.13|-6.91|<0.001
84583327|NCT02656173|168920642|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.44|1.13|<0.001
84583328|NCT03449147|168920646|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-1.14||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|14.02||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||14.02|-14.27|0.875
84583329|NCT03449147|168920646|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-14.64||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-1.43||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-1.43|-26.07|0.031
84583330|NCT03449147|168920649|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-3.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|12.12||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||12.12|-16.14|0.677
84583331|NCT03449147|168920649|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-15.79||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-2.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-2.50|-27.27|0.022
84583332|NCT03449147|168920650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.85||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|0.97|0.077
84756646|NCT02634151|169269243|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||10.20|1.34|0.0115
84583333|NCT03449147|168920650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|1.02|0.040
84583334|NCT03449147|168920651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.75|0.872
84583335|NCT03449147|168920651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.96|0.082
84583336|NCT03449147|168920652|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.83|0.96|
84583337|NCT03449147|168920652|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.09|1.08|
84583338|NCT03449147|168920653|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.69|0.93|
84583339|NCT03449147|168920653|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.39||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.39|1.31|
84610965|NCT00098306|168973378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|8.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.59|3.04|<0.0001
84610966|NCT00098306|168973379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.13|1.63|<0.0001
84672721|NCT02103478|169081145|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|2.876|||||Course 1|||2.876|-3.165|
84672722|NCT02103478|169081145|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.463|3.288|||||Course 2|||3.288|-3.463|
84756647|NCT02634151|169269243|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.75|0.48|0.7566
84583340|NCT03449147|168920654|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.05|1.14|
84583341|NCT03449147|168920654|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.23|2.22||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.22|1.23|
84583342|NCT00561821|168920675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583343|NCT00561821|168920675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583344|NCT00561821|168920675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583345|NCT00561821|168920676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0146
84583346|NCT00561821|168920676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0234
84583347|NCT00561821|168920676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0102
84583348|NCT00561821|168920677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84672723|NCT02103478|169081145|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|0.899|||||Course 1|||0.899|-6.074|
84583349|NCT00561821|168920677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583350|NCT00561821|168920677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583351|NCT00561821|168920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84583352|NCT00561821|168920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0213
84610967|NCT00098306|168973379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
84583353|NCT00561821|168920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0135
84583354|NCT00561821|168920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84583355|NCT00561821|168920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84583356|NCT00561821|168920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583357|NCT00561821|168920680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84610968|NCT00098306|168973379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.83|<0.0001
84610969|NCT00098306|168973379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.32|2.08|<0.0001
84610970|NCT00098306|168973380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.88|1.92|<0.0001
84583358|NCT00561821|168920680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583359|NCT00561821|168920680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583360|NCT00561821|168920681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583361|NCT00561821|168920681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583362|NCT00561821|168920681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583363|NCT00561821|168920682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583364|NCT00561821|168920682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583365|NCT00561821|168920682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583366|NCT00561821|168920683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583367|NCT00561821|168920683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583368|NCT00561821|168920683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583369|NCT00561821|168920684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583370|NCT00561821|168920684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583371|NCT00561821|168920684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583372|NCT00561821|168920685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6317||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
84583373|NCT00561821|168920685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6355||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6355
84583374|NCT00561821|168920685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7865
84583375|NCT00561821|168920686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4033||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4033
84583376|NCT00561821|168920686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4153||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4153
84583377|NCT00561821|168920686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6271
84610971|NCT00098306|168973380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.68|2.22|<0.0001
84583378|NCT00561821|168920687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583379|NCT00561821|168920687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583380|NCT00561821|168920687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84583381|NCT00561821|168920688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0243
84583382|NCT00561821|168920688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0242
84583383|NCT00561821|168920688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0007
84583384|NCT00561821|168920689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0199
84672724|NCT02103478|169081145|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.888|||||Course 2|||4.888|-5.080|
84756648|NCT02634151|169269243|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.88|1.11|0.0298
84583385|NCT00561821|168920689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0316
84583386|NCT00561821|168920689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
84583387|NCT01197300|168920709|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|3.7||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.242|44.642||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 18||44.642|-37.242|0.8505
84583388|NCT01197300|168920709|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|21.752||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.126|57.63||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 24||57.630|-14.126|0.2180
84583389|NCT01197300|168920710|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.36||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|7.606||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 18||7.606|-2.886|0.3544
84583390|NCT01197300|168920710|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|7.639||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 24||7.639|-5.281|0.7050
84672725|NCT01096784|169081167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||CMH Row Mean Score Test|||||||0.0642
84583391|NCT01197300|168920711|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|121.129||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.0|533.258||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 18||533.258|-291.000|0.5310
84583392|NCT01197300|168920711|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|65.674||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-344.067|475.415||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 24||475.415|-344.067|0.7347
84583393|NCT01197300|168920712|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-147.68||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-394.41|99.049||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 18||99.049|-394.410|0.4143
84583394|NCT01197300|168920712|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-132.437||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.452|21.579||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 24||21.579|-286.452|0.1266
84672726|NCT03761628|169081181|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|40.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|23.3|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||23.3|
84583395|NCT01197300|168920713|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-17.691||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.925|6.543||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 18||6.543|-41.925|0.2123
84583396|NCT01197300|168920713|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-3.662||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.479|14.155||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 24||14.155|-21.479|0.4852
84583397|NCT01197300|168920714|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-4.661||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.647|7.325||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 18||7.325|-16.647|0.9009
84583398|NCT01197300|168920714|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-2.558||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.864|3.747||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 24||3.747|-8.864|0.9472
84583399|NCT01197300|168920715|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.482||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|0.841||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 18||0.841|-3.805|0.4600
84583400|NCT01197300|168920715|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.41||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|1.603||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 24||1.603|-2.423|0.9236
84583401|NCT01197300|168920716|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures during the 12 month Extension period was presented by Core treatment group. Between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
84583402|NCT01197300|168920717|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new morphometric vertebral fractures during the 12 month extension period was presented by core treatment group. Between-treatment differences will be evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New morphometric vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
84672727|NCT03761628|169081182|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Proportion with reduction|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|89.3||||||||89.3|49.8|
84583403|NCT01197300|168920718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|173.07||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 15||173.07|0.13|0.3971
84583404|NCT01197300|168920718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 18||999.99|0.01|0.6046
84583405|NCT01197300|168920718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 21||999.99|0.01|0.6046
84672728|NCT03761628|169081184|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|52.7||||||||52.7|0.3|
84583406|NCT01197300|168920718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|38.04||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 24||38.04|0.05|0.8750
84583407|NCT01197300|168920719|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL1 at Month 24||0.17|-0.18|0.9231
84610972|NCT00098306|168973380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.31|2.05|<0.0001
84610973|NCT00098306|168973380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.51|2.50|<0.0001
84610974|NCT00098306|168973381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.04|1.46|0.0006
84610975|NCT00098306|168973381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.90|<0.0001
84610976|NCT00098306|168973381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.25|2.32|<0.0001
84610977|NCT00098306|168973381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.77|2.82|<0.0001
84610978|NCT00098306|168973383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|78.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||78.92|30.07|
84672729|NCT03761628|169081184|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.9||||||||45.9|0|
84756649|NCT02634151|169269244|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.7|-17.2|0.0029
84756650|NCT02634151|169269244|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.8|-10.4|0.1666
84756651|NCT02634151|169269244|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.8|-18.2|0.0010
84610979|NCT00098306|168973383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.63|83.26||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.26|34.63|
84610980|NCT00098306|168973383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.66|83.46||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.46|33.66|
84610981|NCT00098306|168973383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|93.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||93.25|43.69|
84610982|NCT00098306|168973384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|284.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.779|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|182.51|385.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||385.92|182.51|
84610983|NCT00098306|168973384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|303.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|201.9|404.23||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||404.23|201.90|
84672730|NCT00357370|169081190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.32|-1.08|
84756652|NCT02634151|169269245|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-4.1|-17.3|0.0018
84583408|NCT01197300|168920719|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.11||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Extension baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL2 at Month 24||0.10|-0.32|0.2694
84583409|NCT05170061|168920743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|paired analysis||Sequential analysis: if the first analysis (paired t-test to determine superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over valsartan ) reached p\< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol over valsartan was tested (paired-t test); if the second comparison reached p \< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over nebivolol was tested (paired-t test)||||0.05
84583410|NCT05170061|168920744|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84583411|NCT05170061|168920745|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583412|NCT05170061|168920746|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583413|NCT05170061|168920747|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84610984|NCT00098306|168973384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|213.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.77|310.92||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||310.92|115.77|
84756653|NCT02634151|169269245|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.6|-10.1|0.2437
84756654|NCT02634151|169269245|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.7|-18.5|0.0012
84583414|NCT05170061|168920748|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583415|NCT05170061|168920749|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583416|NCT05170061|168920750|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583417|NCT05170061|168920751|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84756655|NCT02634151|169269246|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.8|-4.2|0.6832
84583418|NCT05170061|168920752|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583419|NCT05170061|168920753|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583420|NCT05170061|168920754|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583421|NCT05170061|168920755|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583422|NCT05170061|168920756|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583423|NCT05170061|168920757|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583424|NCT05170061|168920758|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583425|NCT05170061|168920759|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583426|NCT05170061|168920760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583427|NCT05170061|168920761|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583428|NCT05170061|168920762|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583429|NCT05170061|168920763|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583430|NCT05170061|168920764|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
84583431|NCT03443401|168920772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance at \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.004
84583432|NCT03443401|168920773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.027
84583433|NCT06844812|168920796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
84583434|NCT06844812|168920797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.021
84583435|NCT06844812|168920798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.003
84583436|NCT06844812|168920799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84583437|NCT06844812|168920800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84583438|NCT02410200|168920811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0090
84583439|NCT01500135|168920848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.88||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|0.68|0.276
84610985|NCT00098306|168973384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|235.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.68|332.8||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||332.80|138.68|
84583440|NCT01500135|168920849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.40|0.684
84583441|NCT01500135|168920850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value was adjusted using Hochberg's adjustment for multiplicity.|Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.8|0.7|0.684
84583442|NCT02336555|168920902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.452||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|0.172||Linear mixed model with a posterior probability evaluation for the treatment effect|Linear mixed model|One-sided p-value and a posterior probability greater than 90% that the treatment effect is less than 0.||||0.172|-1.076|0.075
84583443|NCT02336555|168920903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|2.58|||||Logistic regression model with factors for treatment \& baseline pain intensity|||2.580|0.446|
84583444|NCT01633112|168920909|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.0138|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.0138
84583445|NCT01633112|168920909|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.4153|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.4153
84583446|NCT01633112|168920910|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
84583447|NCT01633112|168920910|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
84583448|NCT01633112|168920912|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||<0.0001
84672731|NCT00357370|169081190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.4|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.40|-1.16|
84610986|NCT00098306|168973385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.60|0.34|<0.0001
84610987|NCT00098306|168973385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.5|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.50|0.28|<0.0001
84756656|NCT02634151|169269246|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.5|-2.9|0.6740
84583449|NCT01633112|168920912|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||0.0060
84583450|NCT01633112|168920913|OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses .||||||0.0167
84583451|NCT01633112|168920913|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||0.0011
84583452|NCT01633112|168920914|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0052
84583453|NCT01633112|168920914|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0636
84583454|NCT01633112|168920915|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0011
84610988|NCT00098306|168973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.961|-0.432||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.432|-0.961|
84610989|NCT00098306|168973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.065|-0.538||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.538|-1.065|
84672732|NCT00357370|169081191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|7.48|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||7.48|-38.37|
84583455|NCT01633112|168920915|OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0146
84583456|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583457|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583458|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583459|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583460|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583461|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583462|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583463|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583464|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583465|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583466|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583467|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583468|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583469|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583470|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0005
84583471|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0051
84583472|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583473|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0051
84583474|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583475|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583476|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0068
84583477|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583478|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
84583479|NCT01633112|168920916|OTHER|||||||0.4595|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.4595
84583480|NCT01633112|168920917|OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1045
84583481|NCT01633112|168920917|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1358
84583482|NCT04019704|168920957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84583483|NCT04526158|168920961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|0.0|0.031
84583484|NCT04526158|168920961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
84583485|NCT04526158|168920961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
84583486|NCT04526158|168920962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.2|0.736
84583487|NCT04526158|168920962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
84583488|NCT04526158|168920962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
84672733|NCT00357370|169081191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.33|-4.55|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-4.55|-50.33|
84498589|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.242|-0.796|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.796|-1.242|<.0001
84583489|NCT04526158|168920963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.4|0.829
84583490|NCT04526158|168920963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.9|0.2|0.005
84583491|NCT04526158|168920963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.0|0.2|0.004
84583492|NCT04526158|168920964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.8|0.0|0.079
84583493|NCT04526158|168920964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.2|-0.6|0.296
84583494|NCT04526158|168920964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
84583495|NCT04526158|168920965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.7|-0.3|0.464
84583496|NCT04526158|168920965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.1|-1.1|0.019
84583497|NCT04526158|168920965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.3|0.002
84756657|NCT02634151|169269246|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.7|-2.0|0.3379
84583498|NCT04526158|168920966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.5|0.889
84583499|NCT04526158|168920966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
84583500|NCT04526158|168920966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.006
84583501|NCT04526158|168920967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.5|-0.4|0.76
84583502|NCT04526158|168920967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.4|0.6|<0.001
84583503|NCT04526158|168920967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.3|0.5|<0.001
84583504|NCT04526158|168920968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|-0.7|0.89
84583505|NCT04526158|168920968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
84583506|NCT04526158|168920968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.5|0.007
84583507|NCT04526158|168920969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.9|-1.6|0.886
84583508|NCT04526158|168920969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-3.7|0.017
84756658|NCT02634151|169269247|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.7753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.4|-5.9|0.7753
84610990|NCT00098306|168973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1497|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|-0.474||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.474|-1.061|
84610991|NCT00098306|168973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.638||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.638|-1.225|
84610992|NCT00098306|168973387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1621|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.217|-0.489||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.489|-1.217|
84610993|NCT00098306|168973387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.385|-0.658||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.658|-1.385|
84610994|NCT00360568|168973407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84610995|NCT00360568|168973408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
84610996|NCT00360568|168973409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84610997|NCT00360568|168973410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84756659|NCT02634151|169269247|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.4|-3.9|0.5472
84756660|NCT02634151|169269247|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.6|-2.4|0.2406
84583509|NCT04526158|168920969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-3.9|0.013
84610998|NCT00360568|168973411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
84610999|NCT00360568|168973412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.766
84611000|NCT00360568|168973413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
84611001|NCT00360568|168973414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.583
84611002|NCT00360568|168973415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84611003|NCT00360568|168973416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
84611004|NCT00360568|168973417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
84611005|NCT00360568|168973418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.220
84611006|NCT00360568|168973419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.174
84611007|NCT00360568|168973420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
84611008|NCT00360568|168973421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
84611009|NCT00360568|168973422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
84611010|NCT00360568|168973423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
84611011|NCT00360568|168973424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
84611012|NCT00360568|168973425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
84611013|NCT00360568|168973426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
84611014|NCT00360568|168973427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
84611015|NCT01990612|168973454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Chi-squared|Group sequential method to control type I error w/ Lan-DeMets characterization of O'Brien-Fleming boundary. 2-tailed p-value \<0.46 considered stat sig|One interim analysis was performed; in final analysis of the primary outcome, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.046 considered to indicate statistical significance. Since adjustment is minimal, we report 95% confidence interval for relative risk.|||1.00|0.64|0.049
84611016|NCT01990612|168973455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.33|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.33|0.12|
84611017|NCT01990612|168973456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||||||||0.93|0.55|
84611018|NCT01990612|168973457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.32|
84611019|NCT01990612|168973458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.35|
84611020|NCT01990612|168973459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.12|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||8.12|0.91|
84583510|NCT04526158|168920970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.1|0.437
84583511|NCT04526158|168920970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
84583512|NCT04526158|168920970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
84583513|NCT04526158|168920971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-1.2|-13.9|
84583514|NCT04526158|168920971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.6||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||17.6|6.4|
84583515|NCT04526158|168920971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|25.4||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||25.4|13.6|
84583516|NCT00677040|168920972|EQUIVALENCE|t-test to determine if tissue oxygen measurements are equivalent between treated and nontreated breast|t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84583517|NCT00677040|168920972|OTHER||t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
84583518|NCT04576481|168920978|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Variance statistical testing.||||0.32
84583519|NCT04576481|168920979|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.78
84583520|NCT04576481|168920980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
84583521|NCT04576481|168920981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
84583522|NCT04576481|168920982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84756661|NCT02634151|169269248|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||3.8|-3.3|0.9028
84583523|NCT03464461|168920988|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.9844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9844
84583524|NCT03464461|168920989|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1580
84583525|NCT03464461|168920990|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.873|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8730
84583526|NCT03464461|168920991|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0740
84583527|NCT03464461|168920992|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.0984|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0984
84583528|NCT05524948|168920993|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.90|-1.71|<0.0001
84583529|NCT05524948|168920994|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-569.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-763.11|-376.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-376.17|-763.11|<0.0001
84756662|NCT02634151|169269248|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||9.6|0.8|0.0199
84583530|NCT05524948|168920995|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-418.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-547.56|-290.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-290.15|-547.56|<0.0001
84583531|NCT05524948|168920995|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-108.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.626||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.66|-44.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-44.15|-173.66|0.0012
84583532|NCT05524948|168920995|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.909||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.64|19.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||19.29|-71.64|0.2561
84583533|NCT05524948|168920996|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-721.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|94.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-909.31|-533.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-533.86|-909.31|<0.0001
84583534|NCT05524948|168920997|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-567.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.03|-432.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-432.75|-703.03|<0.0001
84583535|NCT05524948|168920997|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-105.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.15|-56.62|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-56.62|-154.15|<0.0001
84583536|NCT05524948|168920997|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.201||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.04|13.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||13.97|-90.04|0.1498
84583537|NCT05524948|168920998|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-1.77|-2.58|<0.0001
84498590|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.358|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.358|<.0001
84498591|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.983|-1.409|<.0001
84583538|NCT05524948|168920999|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-396.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-586.51|-207.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-207.41|-586.51|<0.0001
84583539|NCT05524948|168921000|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.446|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.1|-197.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-197.64|-485.10|<0.0001
84583540|NCT05524948|168921000|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-74.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.905||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.62|-32.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-32.68|-115.62|0.0006
84583541|NCT05524948|168921000|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.942||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.49|79.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||79.45|-23.49|0.2834
84583542|NCT05524948|168921001|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as the experimental dentifrice minus the reference dentifrice.|||-1.28|-1.83|<0.0001
84583543|NCT05524948|168921002|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-322.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.778|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.27|-188.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-188.23|-457.27|<0.0001
84583544|NCT05524948|168921003|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-250.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.838|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.35|-165.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-165.30|-335.35|<0.0001
84583545|NCT05524948|168921003|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.439||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.05|0.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||0.99|-92.05|0.0550
84583546|NCT05524948|168921003|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.036||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.36|18.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||18.99|-84.36|0.2124
84583547|NCT05524948|168921004|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.87|-1.52|<0.0001
84583548|NCT05155085|168921005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.8|-9.8|0.4662
84583549|NCT05155085|168921006|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-32.2|0.3968
84583550|NCT05155085|168921007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-15.2|0.7625
84583551|NCT01837550|168921031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To ensure a between-group effect of 80% at the 5% significance level it was estimated that 60 participants need to be included in the study. An effect size of Cohen's d=0.80 was expected. The expected standardized mean difference on the HHIE formed the basis for the obtained power.||||||0.685|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
84583552|NCT02470377|168921042|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0439||||||Only p-values \<0.05 were considered significant|ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate DHI changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0439
84583553|NCT02470377|168921043|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0316|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate MBRS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0316
84583554|NCT02470377|168921044|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.1754|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate HADS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.1754
84583555|NCT03478787|168921045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower bound of the 96.25% confidence interval (CI) of adjusted treatment difference is above -12%.|Adjusted percentage difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|-2.2|18.6|||||Across the strata, 96.25% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||18.6|-2.2|
84583556|NCT03478787|168921046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.8|< 0.001
84583557|NCT03478787|168921047|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.5||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||36.5|15.9|< 0.001
84583558|NCT03478787|168921048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.9|< 0.001
84583559|NCT03478787|168921049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.3||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||28.3|11.7|< 0.001
84583560|NCT02474901|168921052|EQUIVALENCE|Looked for statistically-significant difference in numbers of adverse events between the two groups, used a p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff value for significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Groups were compared with Yates-corrected chi-square test or Fisher exact test for binary or categorical variables.||||||<0.05
84583561|NCT00655356|168921055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
84583562|NCT00655356|168921056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.0075
84583563|NCT04105725|168921061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||negative binomial regression|||||||<0.05
84583564|NCT00289900|168921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.6|-16.8|<0.001
84611021|NCT01990612|168973460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.76|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.76|0.31|
84756663|NCT02634151|169269248|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||8.9|0.3|0.0369
84756664|NCT02634151|169269249|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.4|-1.2|0.9110
84583565|NCT00289900|168921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-7.8|-13.8|<0.001
84583566|NCT00289900|168921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.1|-8.1|<0.001
84583567|NCT00289900|168921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-7.2|0.007
84583568|NCT00289900|168921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|22.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||22.6|17.2|<0.001
84611022|NCT01990612|168973461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.19|0.35|
84611023|NCT01990612|168973462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.55|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.55|0.38|
84583569|NCT00289900|168921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|23.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||23.6|19.0|<0.001
84583570|NCT00289900|168921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|24.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||24.4|19.8|<0.001
84583571|NCT00289900|168921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|25.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||25.3|20.7|<0.001
84583572|NCT00289900|168921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-13.3|-21.2|<0.001
84583573|NCT00289900|168921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-11.9|-19.1|<0.001
84583574|NCT00289900|168921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
84583575|NCT00289900|168921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-3.4|-10.2|<0.001
84583576|NCT00289900|168921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.0|-12.1|<0.001
84583577|NCT00289900|168921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.9|-8.0|<0.001
84583578|NCT00289900|168921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.9|-2.2|0.771
84583579|NCT00289900|168921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.0|-0.2|0.065
84583580|NCT00289900|168921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least Squares Mean|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.5|-10.2|<0.001
84583581|NCT00289900|168921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-0.2|-5.8|0.037
84583582|NCT00289900|168921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.6|0.0|0.047
84583583|NCT00289900|168921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Sqaures Mean|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||7.5|2.0|<0.001
84583584|NCT00289900|168921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.3|-12.1|<0.001
84583585|NCT00289900|168921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.8|-7.7|<0.001
84583586|NCT00289900|168921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-3.3|0.476
84583587|NCT00289900|168921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.7|-2.2|0.845
84583588|NCT00289900|168921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|11.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||11.4|6.6|<0.001
84583589|NCT00289900|168921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||9.7|5.8|<0.001
84583590|NCT00289900|168921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||10.9|7.0|<0.001
84583591|NCT00289900|168921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||12.7|8.7|<0.001
84583592|NCT00289900|168921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-6.0|0.003
84611024|NCT01990612|168973463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.42|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.42|0.48|
84611025|NCT01990612|168973464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.79|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.79|0.06|
84611026|NCT01990612|168973465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.76|<0.001
84611027|NCT01990612|168973466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.36|0.02
84611028|NCT01990612|168973467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.72|0.07
84611029|NCT01990612|168973468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.83|0.35
84756665|NCT02634151|169269249|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.5|0.3|0.0243
84756666|NCT02634151|169269249|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||3.2|0.1|0.0388
84583593|NCT00289900|168921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-2.5|0.595
84583594|NCT00289900|168921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||6.2|2.2|<0.001
84583595|NCT00289900|168921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||8.1|4.1|<0.001
84583596|NCT00289900|168921085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-14.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-14.2|-24.2|<0.001
84611030|NCT01990612|168973469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.87|0.33
84611031|NCT01990612|168973471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.55|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||1.55|0.13|0.26
84611032|NCT01990612|168973472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.74||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.74|0.56|<0.001
84611033|NCT01990612|168973473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.82|0.81
84611034|NCT01990612|168973474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6-96 hours after delivery||||<0.001
84611035|NCT01990612|168973474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 4-8 weeks after delivery||||0.01
84611036|NCT01990612|168973475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Worst labor pain score||||<0.001
84611037|NCT01990612|168973475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Overall labor pain score||||<0.001
84611038|NCT01990612|168973476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.53|0.15
84611039|NCT01990612|168973477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|26.8|||Chi-squared|The P-values has not been adjusted for multiplicity of comparisons of secondary outcomes.|Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||26.8|0.26|1.00
84611040|NCT01990612|168973479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
84611041|NCT01990612|168973480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.68|0.56
84611042|NCT01990612|168973481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Chi-squared|||||1.28|0.64|0.56
84611043|NCT01990612|168973482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.74|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||2.74|0.20|0.75
84611044|NCT01990612|168973483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.81|0.91
84611045|NCT01990612|168973484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|0.66|0.84
84583597|NCT00289900|168921085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-16.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-16.6|-25.0|<0.001
84583598|NCT00289900|168921085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-19.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-19.4|-27.8|<0.001
84583599|NCT00289900|168921085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-20.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-20.0|-28.6|<0.001
84583600|NCT00289900|168921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.5|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||7.5|-9.6|0.500
84583601|NCT00289900|168921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||13.8|0.0|0.083
84583602|NCT00289900|168921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||18.8|5.2|0.005
84583603|NCT00289900|168921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||22.8|9.8|<0.001
84583604|NCT00289900|168921087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.9|-15.6|<0.001
84583605|NCT00289900|168921087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-8.4|-13.2|<0.001
84583606|NCT00289900|168921087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-4.0|-8.8|0.001
84583607|NCT00289900|168921087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.2|-8.0|<0.001
84583608|NCT00289900|168921088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.5|-2.3|0.008
84583609|NCT00289900|168921089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.042
84583610|NCT00289900|168921090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.4|-0.5|0.346
84583611|NCT00289900|168921091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.7|-0.2|0.556
84583612|NCT00289900|168921092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
84583613|NCT00289900|168921093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
84583614|NCT00289900|168921094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.3|0.5625
84583615|NCT00289900|168921095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.7|0.1|0.0233
84583616|NCT00289900|168921096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.6|-0.4|0.7858
84583617|NCT00289900|168921097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.0|9.4|
84583618|NCT00289900|168921098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.4|-2.6|
84583619|NCT00289900|168921099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||14.7|8.9|
84583620|NCT00289900|168921100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.8|
84583621|NCT00289900|168921101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.5|-0.4|0.4997
84583622|NCT00834587|168921145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.4|106.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.2|92.4|
84583623|NCT00834587|168921146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.7||||||90.0|98.8|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.6|98.8|
84611046|NCT01990612|168973485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.79|0.13
84498592|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|-0.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.859|-1.239|<.0001
84756667|NCT02634151|169269250|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-5.7|0.2799
84498593|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.414|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.414|<.0001
84498594|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|-1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.099|-1.574|<.0001
84498595|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.345|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.616|-1.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.075|-1.616|<.0001
84498596|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|-1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.219|-1.685|<.0001
84583624|NCT00834587|168921147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.6||||||90.0|98.8|102.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.5|98.8|
84583625|NCT00834587|168921148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.7||||||90.0|97.3|106.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.3|97.3|
84583626|NCT00834587|168921149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.2||||||90.0|96.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.0|96.5|
84583627|NCT00834587|168921150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.5|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.8|96.5|
84498597|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.071|-1.608|<.0001
84583628|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
84583629|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.02||||||||3.02|1.64|
84583630|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||||1.84|1.01|
84583631|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||||||||1.05|0.48|
84583632|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13||||||||1.13|0.32|
84583633|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.73||||||||0.73|0.16|
84583634|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.02||||||||1.02|0.51|
84583635|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||||1.08|0.51|
84583636|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||||0.90|0.39|
84583637|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31||||||||1.31|0.64|
84583638|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||||||||1.27|0.61|
84583639|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78||||||||1.78|0.83|
84583640|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.45||||||||1.45|0.57|
84583641|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.58|99.97||||||||99.97|45.58|
84583642|NCT02037984|168921194|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|43.24||||||||43.24|13.21|
84672734|NCT00357370|169081195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|4.6|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||4.60|-10.69|
84672735|NCT00357370|169081195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.12|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||5.12|-10.17|
84756668|NCT02634151|169269250|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|26.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|43.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||43.3|10.2|0.0018
84583643|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||||||||0.70|0.39|
84583644|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||||||||2.41|1.33|
84583645|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||||||||1.16|0.65|
84583646|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74||||||||0.74|0.35|
84583647|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58||||||||0.58|0.17|
84583648|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34||||||||0.34|0.08|
84583649|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|0.34|
84583650|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82||||||||0.82|0.39|
84583651|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||||0.97|0.42|
84583652|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
84583653|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
84583654|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||||||||1.60|0.77|
84583655|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07||||||||1.07|0.43|
84583656|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|44.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.42|65.43||||||||65.43|30.42|
84583657|NCT02037984|168921195|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|27.26||||||||27.26|8.58|
84583658|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07||||||||1.07|0.57|
84583659|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.68||||||||3.68|1.95|
84583660|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07||||||||2.07|1.11|
84583661|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||||||||1.02|0.46|
84583662|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.64||||||||0.64|0.17|
84583663|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.23||||||||0.23|0.05|
84583664|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04||||||||1.04|0.51|
84583665|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||||1.30|0.59|
84583666|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.6||||||||1.60|0.66|
84583667|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||||||||1.39|0.66|
84583668|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39||||||||1.39|0.64|
84583669|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.84||||||||1.84|0.84|
84583670|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
84583671|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|77.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|116.6||||||||116.60|51.60|
84583672|NCT02037984|168921196|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|28.98||||||||28.98|8.46|
84672736|NCT01103934|169081209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84672737|NCT01103934|169081210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84672738|NCT02644967|169081213|OTHER|Estimation||||||0.0158||||||P-value of the overall response tested against the null rate of 11% based on 1-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) test.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson test|||Testing the best overall confirmed response rate against the historical control rate of 0.11 (extracted from the literature review).||||0.0158
84498598|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.577|-1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.118|-1.577|<.0001
84498599|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|-0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.966|-1.488|<.0001
84498600|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.160|-0.607|0.5646
84498601|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.609|0.8765
84498602|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.488|0.9954
84498603|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.181||||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.252|-0.613|0.8665
84498604|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.389||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.052|-0.829|0.1165
84583673|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||||||||0.93|0.50|
84583674|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.02||||||||3.02|1.62|
84583675|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||||1.31|0.71|
84583676|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||||0.79|0.36|
84583677|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||||||||0.94|0.26|
84583678|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77||||||||0.77|0.17|
84583679|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.85||||||||0.85|0.42|
84583680|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||||||||1.16|0.54|
84583681|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14||||||||1.14|0.48|
84583682|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
84583683|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||||||||1.02|0.48|
84756669|NCT02634151|169269250|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|36.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||36.9|3.3|0.0197
84498605|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.821|0.3896
84498606|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.934|0.0122
84498607|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.807|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.167|-0.807|0.3938
84498608|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.176||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.589|-0.237|0.8501
84498609|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.496|-0.435|1.0000
84498610|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.299||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.715|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.715|-0.117|0.2928
84583684|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.29||||||||1.29|0.60|
84583685|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12||||||||1.12|0.43|
84583686|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|56.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.66|83.52||||||||83.52|37.66|
84583687|NCT02037984|168921197|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|25.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|46.78||||||||46.78|14.18|
84583688|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09||||||||1.09|0.58|
84583689|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.49||||||||3.49|1.86|
84583690|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
84583691|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76||||||||0.76|0.34|
84583692|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||||||||0.65|0.17|
84583693|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.38||||||||0.38|0.08|
84583694|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.84||||||||0.84|0.41|
84583695|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01||||||||1.01|0.46|
84611047|NCT01990612|168973486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||<0.001
84756670|NCT02634151|169269251|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.0|0.1|0.0179
84756671|NCT02634151|169269251|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.7|0.5|0.0003
84756672|NCT02634151|169269251|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||1.5|0.2|0.0095
84756673|NCT02634151|169269252|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.6|-20.8|0.0057
84756674|NCT02634151|169269252|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||8.6|-8.3|0.9665
84756675|NCT02634151|169269252|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.1|-16.4|0.2358
84498611|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.493|-0.439|1.0000
84583696|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22||||||||1.22|0.51|
84583697|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.05||||||||1.05|0.50|
84583698|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.8||||||||0.80|0.37|
84583699|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.44||||||||1.44|0.66|
84583700|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||||||||1.28|0.49|
84583701|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|68.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.81|102.84||||||||102.84|45.81|
84583702|NCT02037984|168921198|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|20.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.88|36.88||||||||36.88|10.88|
84583703|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|6.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.5|-16.3|
84583704|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|32.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.5|-4.1|
84583705|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.7|-22.8|
84583706|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583707|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84756676|NCT02634151|169269253|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-2.3|0.0048
84756677|NCT02634151|169269253|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.8|-0.9|0.9064
84756678|NCT02634151|169269253|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||0.4|-1.7|0.2505
84756679|NCT02634151|169269254|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-9.0|-22.6|<0.0001
84583708|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583709|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583710|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583711|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84611048|NCT01990612|168973487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
84756680|NCT02634151|169269254|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.3|-14.0|0.0406
84498612|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.475|-0.453|1.0000
84498613|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.403|-0.640|0.9966
84498614|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.352|-0.560|0.9976
84498615|NCT03692078|168747733|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.404|-0.628|0.9976
84498616|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.9|195.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||195.2|164.9|<.0001
84498617|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|181.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.9|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||196.2|165.9|<.0001
84498618|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|132.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.2|147.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||147.5|117.2|<.0001
84611049|NCT01990612|168973488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.002
84611050|NCT01990612|168973490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Odds ratios from multinomial logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are breastfeeding and formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.15|0.89|0.88
84756681|NCT02634151|169269254|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-7.8|-22.8|<0.0001
84756682|NCT02634151|169269255|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
84756683|NCT02634151|169269255|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0771
84498619|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|137.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.1|152.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||152.5|122.1|<.0001
84498620|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.0|151.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||151.7|122.0|<.0001
84498621|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|150.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|136.0|165.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||165.7|136.0|<.0001
84498622|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||61.4|25.1|<.0001
84583712|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583713|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583714|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583715|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
84583716|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
84756684|NCT02634151|169269255|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.3|-1.0|0.0006
84756685|NCT02634151|169269256|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-2.3|0.1210
84583717|NCT02037984|168921202|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.1|
84756686|NCT02634151|169269256|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.0||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|17.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||17.3|-1.4|0.0948
84583718|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.6|-20.4|
84583719|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||30.6|-10.0|
84583720|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|10.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||10.3|-18.8|
84756687|NCT02634151|169269256|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||16.4|-8.2|0.5113
84583721|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583722|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
84583723|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
84583724|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583725|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583726|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583727|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
84583728|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583729|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583730|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
84583731|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|93.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||93.6|65.8|
84583732|NCT02037984|168921203|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.1|98.1|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.1|75.1|
84583733|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
84583734|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|40.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||40.2|12.6|
84756688|NCT02634151|169269257|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||11.1|-7.8|0.7276
84583735|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.0|-8.0|
84583736|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583737|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583738|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
84583739|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84756689|NCT02634151|169269257|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||12.2|-2.9|0.2218
84583740|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583741|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583742|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583743|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583744|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
84583745|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
84583746|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
84583747|NCT02037984|168921204|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.7|
84583748|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583749|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|35.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||35.5|1.7|
84583750|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||-1.2|-31.4|
84583751|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583752|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84672739|NCT02644967|169081214|OTHER|Estimation|Kaplan-Meier|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of median PFS in months.|||7.00|3.65|
84583753|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583754|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583755|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583756|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583757|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583758|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583759|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
84583760|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|3.9|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.9|-19.2|
84583761|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
84583762|NCT02037984|168921205|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.9|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.9|
84583763|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
84583764|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.0|-5.5|
84583765|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|5.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.2|-24.2|
84583766|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
84583767|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
84583768|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
84583769|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
84583770|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
84583771|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
84583772|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
84583773|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|3.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.0|-22.1|
84672740|NCT02644967|169081215|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at six (6) months.|Kaplan-Meier|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.3|94.2|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at six (6) months.|||94.2|74.3|
84498623|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||80.1|43.2|<.0001
84498624|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|55.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||55.1|18.6|<.0001
84498625|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|54.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||54.3|16.7|0.0002
84498626|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||57.6|19.9|<.0001
84498627|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|63.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||63.8|26.0|<.0001
84498628|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-17.4|-78.0|0.0002
84498629|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-13.4|-74.1|0.0009
84498630|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-13.3|-73.2|0.0009
84583774|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
84756690|NCT02634151|169269257|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.8|-9.2|0.9420
84756691|NCT02634151|169269258|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|32.57||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.98|188.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||188.12|-122.98|0.6786
84498631|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.3|-60.2|0.0466
84498632|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.4|-103.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-103.3|-170.4|<.0001
84498633|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-119.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3|-85.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-85.5|-153.3|<.0001
84498634|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.6|-109.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-109.7|-176.6|<.0001
84498635|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-145.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.7|-111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-111.4|-179.7|<.0001
84498636|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|127.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||127.2|60.0|<.0001
84498637|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|92.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|126.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||126.1|58.8|<.0001
84583775|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
84583776|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
84583777|NCT02037984|168921206|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.5|98.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.3|78.5|
84583778|NCT03829514|168921262|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Signal intensity data were loess normalized and normalized data were used to perform a limma t-test with empirical Bayes smoothing to standard errors|||Proteins were identified and quantified using EncyclopeDIA and visualized with Scaffold DIA using 1% false discovery thresholds at both the protein and peptide level. Protein exclusive intensity values were assessed for quality using an in-house ProteiNorm app, a tool for systematic evaluation of normalization methods, imputation of missing values and comparisons of multiple differential abundance methods . Cyclic loess normalization. The normalized data were used to perform statistical analysis using linear models for microarray data (limma) with empirical Bayes (eBayes) smoothing to the standard errors. Proteins with p-value \< 0.05 were considered significant.|||0.05
84583779|NCT01339091|168921263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||7.9|-4.6|
84583780|NCT01557569|168921270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.413|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Due to skewed data, Kruskal Wallis Test was used.||||<0.05
84583781|NCT02254460|168921271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Treatment difference]|1.74||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.34|||ANOVA||Treatment difference from ANOVA of log transformed data. Back transformed data are presented. This therefore represents the iron absorption ratio of the Micronutrient Fortified Drink (Test) to the Non-Fortified Drink (Control).|||3.34|0.90|0.0944
84583782|NCT00993473|168921272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the rate of all hypoglycemia in the Lantus group to the rate in the NPH group was \<1.15. Superiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was \<1. The margin for noninferiority corresponded to one-half of the 30% difference in hypoglycemia event rate considered as a clinically significant difference by American Diabetes Association 2005 Working Group on Hypoglycemia."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44|||Generalized Linear Model|"A stepwise closed testing approach was used for the primary all hypoglycemia outcome analysis to assess noninferiority and superiority sequentially."|Risk ratio between treatment groups (Lantus/NPH) estimated by Generalized Linear Model with fixed effect terms for randomization strata and treatment.|"The sample size was calculated to ensure sufficient power so that the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the Lantus /NPH ratio would not exceed 1.15 based on an expected overall rate of all hypoglycemia of 80 events per patient-year of exposure to NPH insulin and to Lantus. It was planned to randomize at least 45 and up to approximately 60 patients in each of the 2 treatment groups so that at least 70 patients would complete the 24 weeks of treatment."||1.44|0.97|
84583783|NCT05122143|168921290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Treatment D (A+B) versus Treatment C|ANCOVA|||"Treatment A + B were pooled to Treatment D for the Primary endpoint. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the AM-301 nasal spray (treatment D= A+B) and no treatment (C) in reducing nasal symptoms induced from HDM allergen exposure.~The TNSS value from the baseline exposure (at screening exposure visit 2) was subtracted from the TNSS value of the treatment exposure to obtain change from baseline. A lower value resembles less symptoms."||||0.0085
84583784|NCT03766906|168921340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||.003
84583785|NCT03766906|168921341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than zero at P\<0.05.|||||.022
84583786|NCT03766906|168921342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.016
84583787|NCT03766906|168921343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.002
84583788|NCT03766906|168921344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.626
84583789|NCT03766906|168921344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.||The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.909
84583790|NCT03766906|168921344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.905
84583791|NCT03766906|168921345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.054
84583792|NCT03766906|168921346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
84583793|NCT03766906|168921347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
84583794|NCT04250207|168921385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0065
84583795|NCT04250207|168921385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0344
84583796|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.3587
84583797|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5724|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.5724
84583798|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3703
84583799|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||> 0.9999
84583800|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3703
84583801|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
84583802|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0257
84583803|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7263
84583804|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0607
84583805|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0460
84583806|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0111
84583807|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0011
84583808|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0200
84583809|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0476
84583810|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0065
84583811|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0344
84583812|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0250
84583813|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0733
84583814|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0072
84611051|NCT01990612|168973490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are only formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.12|0.86|0.78
84583815|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1124
84583816|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0199
84583817|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2331|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.2331
84583818|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0024
84583819|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1672
84583820|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0047
84583821|NCT04250207|168921386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0625
84583822|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2434|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2434
84583823|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2126
84583824|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.0790
84583825|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3043
84583826|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0357
84583827|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0803|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0803
84583828|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0150
84583829|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0012
84583830|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0314
84583831|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0019
84583832|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0170
84583833|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0021
84583834|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0127
84583835|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0014
84583836|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0677
84583837|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0243
84583838|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1867|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1867
84583839|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0250
84583840|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.3213
84583841|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0298
84583842|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1449
84583843|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0947|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0947
84583844|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5181
84583845|NCT04250207|168921387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1898|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.1898
84583846|NCT04250207|168921388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
84583847|NCT04250207|168921388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1696
84583848|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4872|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4872
84583849|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4634|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4634
84583850|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.605|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.6050
84611052|NCT02577016|168973527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.62|-1.05|<0.001
84611053|NCT02577016|168973530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-31.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-31.2|-53.7|<0.001
84583851|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4762|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.4762
84583852|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
84583853|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
84583854|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4227|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.4227
84583855|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6796|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.6796
84583856|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4642|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4642
84583857|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4645|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4645
84583858|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2744|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.2744
84583859|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7026|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.7026
84583860|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7817|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.7817
84583861|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.9285|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.9285
84583862|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0135
84583863|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6992|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.6992
84756692|NCT02634151|169269259|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.35|-2.03|0.1648
84756693|NCT02634151|169269260|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|41.5||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|155.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||155.1|-72.1|0.4701
84583864|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.0135
84583865|NCT04250207|168921389|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5154|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.5154
84583866|NCT04250207|168921390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1209|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1209
84583867|NCT04250207|168921390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7116|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7116
84583868|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0915|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0915
84583869|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3282|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.3282
84498638|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|98.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.6|131.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||131.5|64.6|<.0001
84498639|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|106.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|139.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||139.4|72.5|<.0001
84498640|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||40.9|-32.0|1.0000
84498641|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.8||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|53.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||53.5|-20.0|0.7714
84498642|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||34.5|-38.3|1.0000
84583870|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0648|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0648
84756694|NCT02634151|169269261|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-32.4||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.2|-65.1|0.0517
84756695|NCT02634151|169269262|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.8|158.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||158.8|-177.8|0.9111
84756696|NCT02634151|169269263|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||3.9|-10.0|0.3864
84756697|NCT02634151|169269264|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||22.0|2.5|0.0145
84756698|NCT02634151|169269265|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.5|-0.0|0.0510
84756699|NCT02347098|169269267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2533
84756700|NCT02347098|169269268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7790
84756701|NCT02347098|169269269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4549||||||The p-value reported compares the trends of outcome across time (baseline pre-PCI, baseline post-PCI, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up) between treatment groups using the repeated measurement analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4549
84756702|NCT02347098|169269270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2663
84756703|NCT02187172|169269273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873|-0.104|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.1040|-0.3873|0.0012
84756704|NCT02187172|169269273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0353||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0867|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.0565|-0.0867|0.6718
84498643|NCT03692078|168747735|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||27.6|-46.4|0.9926
84498644|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.872|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|1.935|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.935|1.810|<.0001
84498645|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|1.976|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.976|1.851|<.0001
84498646|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.525|1.408|<.0001
84498647|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|1.551|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.551|1.434|<.0001
84498648|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.609|1.490|<.0001
84583871|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.031|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0310
84583872|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0187|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0187
84583873|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0036
84583874|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0687|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0687
84611054|NCT02577016|168973531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-50.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-50.0|-84.0|<0.001
84611055|NCT02577016|168973532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-5.2|-17.2|<0.001
84611056|NCT01793883|168973557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.251
84611057|NCT01793883|168973557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.818
84672741|NCT02644967|169081216|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at twelve (12) months.|Kaplan-Meier|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|72.4|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at twelve (12) months.|||72.4|44.7|
84756705|NCT02187172|169269274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.88||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.83|25.89|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.89|-115.83|0.1159
84498649|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.533|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.654|1.533|<.0001
84498650|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.631|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.631|0.482|<.0001
84498651|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.665|0.514|<.0001
84498652|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.605|0.461|<.0001
84498653|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.662|0.514|<.0001
84498654|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.652|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.652|0.508|<.0001
84498655|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.653|0.507|<.0001
84583875|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0016
84583876|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0218
84583877|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0013
84583878|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0348|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0348
84756706|NCT02187172|169269274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.41|51.72|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||51.72|-38.41|0.7666
84756707|NCT02187172|169269275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.46||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|-19.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-19.23|-142.55|0.0115
84756708|NCT02187172|169269275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.11||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|26.59|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||26.59|-30.58|0.8883
84498656|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.285|-0.526|<.0001
84611058|NCT00659230|168973576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|The analysis was conducted using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model consisted of two factors - treatment at two levels and time (5 time points including baseline) and group by time interaction.||0.27|-0.64|0.723
84611059|NCT00659230|168973577|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.39|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.39|-.52|0.540
84611060|NCT00659230|168973578|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.18||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.27|-0.64|0.951
84611061|NCT00659230|168973579|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.11||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.56|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.56|-0.35|0.396
84611062|NCT02467582|168973586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84611063|NCT02467582|168973586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.22|||||Unstratified|||1.22|0.27|
84611064|NCT02467582|168973586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.46|||||Stratified|||1.46|0.22|
84756709|NCT02187172|169269276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3027.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3180.58||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9465.95|3411.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3411.54|-9465.95|0.3472
84756710|NCT02187172|169269276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1974.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1659.11||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5336.3|1387.04|||Regression, Linear|||Combined ustekinumab and placebo groups for active treatment period analysis.||1387.04|-5336.30|0.2416
84756711|NCT02187172|169269277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.75||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.03|119.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||119.34|-78.03|0.6742
84756712|NCT02187172|169269277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.84||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.63|11963.0|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||11963|-25.63|0.1979
84611065|NCT02467582|168973587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
84756713|NCT02187172|169269278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7884.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7780.29||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23634.67|7566.1|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7566.10|-23634.67|0.3173
84611066|NCT02467582|168973587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.19|||||Unstratified|||1.19|0.21|
84611067|NCT02467582|168973587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.55|||||Stratified|||1.55|0.20|
84611068|NCT02467582|168973588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
84611069|NCT02467582|168973588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.13|||||Unstratified|||2.13|0.23|
84611070|NCT02467582|168973588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.43|||||Stratified|||2.43|0.15|
84611071|NCT01370265|168973591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for hyperemic global MBF between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05.||||0.14
84611072|NCT01370265|168973593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Cardiac Flow Rate (CFR) between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05||||0.21
84611073|NCT01370265|168973594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), for Hyperemic MBF Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.57
84611074|NCT01370265|168973594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Septum, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
84611075|NCT01370265|168973594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention)for Hyperemic MBF Inferior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.44
84611076|NCT01370265|168973594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.74
84611077|NCT01370265|168973595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.78
84611078|NCT01370265|168973595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Septum, alpha level of 0.05||||0.42
84611079|NCT01370265|168973595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Inferior, alpha level of 0.05||||0.96
84611080|NCT01370265|168973595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
84611081|NCT01370265|168973596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for resting heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.28
84583879|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.1028
84583880|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.8677|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.8677
84583881|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4401|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.4401
84583882|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.5926
84583883|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0732
84583884|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2497|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2497
84583885|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2453|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2453
84583886|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
84583887|NCT04250207|168921391|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
84583888|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0093|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0093
84583889|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||> 0.9999
84583890|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0006
84611082|NCT01370265|168973596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for hyperemic heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.51
84611083|NCT01370265|168973597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for systolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.31
84583891|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.3449
84583892|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
84583893|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
84583894|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0001
84611084|NCT01370265|168973597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for diastolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.08
84611085|NCT01031979|168973619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.59|||mixed effects/hierarchical linear model|||||-0.59|-2.29|<0.001
84611086|NCT01031979|168973620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.39
84611087|NCT01031979|168973621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.55||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.58
84611088|NCT01031979|168973622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.49|||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||-0.49|-2.71|.03
84611089|NCT03592368|168973623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84583895|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0028
84583896|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
84583897|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0028
84583898|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
84583899|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0011
84583900|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0094|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.0094
84583901|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1281|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.1281
84583902|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0051
84583903|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1313|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.1313
84611090|NCT03592368|168973625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84611091|NCT03592368|168973626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
84611092|NCT01107665|168973637|OTHER||Log Rank HR|0.784||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|.41|0.49
84756714|NCT02187172|169269278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3782.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4073.25||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12035.72|4470.64|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4470.64|-12035.72|0.3591
84756715|NCT02187172|169269279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.07|-5.22|0.9767
84583904|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0268|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0268
84583905|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3652|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.3652
84583906|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1854|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.1854
84611093|NCT01732770|168973661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.46% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
84611094|NCT01732770|168973662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.51% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
84756716|NCT02187172|169269279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.11|-3.29|0.3205
84756717|NCT02187172|169269280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.96||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.19|25.61|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.61|-55.19|0.4632
84756718|NCT02187172|169269280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.47|15.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||15.99|-30.47|0.5316
84756719|NCT02187172|169269281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.47|-2.27|0.1928
84756720|NCT02187172|169269281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.02|-1.36|0.0580
84756721|NCT02187172|169269282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||18.96|-27.24|0.7185
84756722|NCT02187172|169269282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.69|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||8.69|-25.40|0.3271
84583907|NCT04250207|168921392|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
84583908|NCT04250207|168921393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0259
84583909|NCT04250207|168921393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0068
84583910|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.4435
84583911|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3402
84583912|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
84756723|NCT02187172|169269283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.51|-1.56|0.3124
84756724|NCT02187172|169269283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0106
84583913|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0655
84583914|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0903
84583915|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0216
84583916|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0020
84756725|NCT02187172|169269284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.42||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.42|-3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.11|-138.42|0.0408
84756726|NCT02187172|169269284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.87||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.5|340.93|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||340.93|-197.50|0.5926
84756727|NCT02187172|169269285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|284.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||284.81|98.18|0.0002
84756728|NCT02187172|169269285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.08|212.34|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||212.34|130.08|<0.0001
84756729|NCT02187172|169269286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.64|-4.62|0.0110
84756730|NCT02187172|169269286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.51|-1.79|0.0008
84756731|NCT02187172|169269287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|688.28||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1548.66|1238.04|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1238.04|-1548.66|0.8227
84583917|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0676|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0676
84583918|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0029
84583919|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0335
84583920|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0053
84756732|NCT02187172|169269287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-407.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|180.7||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-773.57|-41.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-41.29|-773.57|0.0302
84756733|NCT02187172|169269288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.47||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.32|-1.25|0.2333
84756734|NCT02187172|169269288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.03|-0.80|0.0713
84498657|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.300|-0.541|<.0001
84583921|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0608
84756735|NCT02187172|169269289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|14.75|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.75|-48.48|0.2869
84756736|NCT02187172|169269289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.22|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.22|-5.69|0.1988
84498658|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.201|-0.444|<.0001
84498659|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.442|<.0001
84498660|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|-1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.178|-1.453|<.0001
84583922|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0071
84583923|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4406|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.4406
84583924|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1716|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.1716
84583925|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.9856
84583926|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.2229
84583927|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.8817
84583928|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2081|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.2081
84756737|NCT02187172|169269290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|28.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||28.20|-24.09|0.8744
84583929|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.7335
84583930|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5367|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.5367
84583931|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5550
84583932|NCT04250207|168921394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8718|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.8718
84583933|NCT04204902|168921408|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.21|99.84||||||||99.84|83.21|
84583934|NCT04204902|168921409|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|90.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.99|99.61||||||||99.61|82.99|
84583935|NCT04204902|168921410|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.17|115.0||||||||115.00|95.17|
84583936|NCT06091956|168921442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
84583937|NCT06091956|168921443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.629
84583938|NCT06091956|168921446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
84583939|NCT06091956|168921447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84756738|NCT02187172|169269290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|27.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||27.29|-6.18|0.2093
84756739|NCT02187172|169269291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|34.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.20|4.21|0.0135
84756740|NCT02187172|169269291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|7.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||7.61|-9.19|0.8499
84756741|NCT02187172|169269292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.62|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7.62|-0.30|0.0693
84756742|NCT02187172|169269292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4.80|-0.96|0.1841
84498661|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|-1.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.186|-1.463|<.0001
84498662|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|-1.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.205|-1.473|<.0001
84498663|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.461|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.190|-1.461|<.0001
84498664|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.887|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.016|0.757|<.0001
84498665|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.043|0.782|<.0001
84498666|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.100|0.839|<.0001
84498667|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.145|0.882|<.0001
84498668|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.122|-0.168|0.9999
84583940|NCT01618708|168921558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.07|||=|0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs Synvisc-One|Synvisc-One group was compared to placebo group using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach assuming missing data at random (MAR).||0.52|-0.38|= 0.7462
84756743|NCT02187172|169269293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3.34|-0.83|0.2305
84756744|NCT02187172|169269293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.37|-0.53|0.2189
84583941|NCT02554474|168921562|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|19.3||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||19.3|-0.5|
84583942|NCT02554474|168921563|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|32.6||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing sedentary time at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline sedentary time, diagnosis, and blocking.||32.6|-53.4|
84583943|NCT02554474|168921564|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in the Fatigue Severity Scale at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline fatigue score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.01|-0.63|
84583944|NCT02554474|168921565|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.13||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing pain at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for pain score, diagnosis, and blocking.||-0.13|-4.78|
84583945|NCT02554474|168921566|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.35||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the PHQ-9 scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||1.35|-1.78|
84583946|NCT02554474|168921567|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.18||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Partners In Health Scale scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||4.18|-1.02|
84583947|NCT02554474|168921568|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Work index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.16|-0.05|
84583948|NCT02554474|168921569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Leisure index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.37|-0.37|
84611095|NCT01732770|168973663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
84611096|NCT01732770|168973664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
84611097|NCT01959841|168973666|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(400mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||2.41e-06|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The non-inferiority of each ASP2151 dose level versus valaciclovir was assessed stepwise using a closed testing procedure.First step analysis was performed in the ASP2151(400mg) once daily.||||0.00000241
84611098|NCT01959841|168973666|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(200mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||0.0688|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The analysis was performed in the ASP2151(200 mg) once daily only when non-inferiority of the ASP2151(400 mg) 0nce daily to valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily was assumed.||||0.0688
84756745|NCT02187172|169269294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.11|-0.34|0.3212
84583949|NCT02554474|168921570|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.99||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Walking index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.99|0.08|
84583950|NCT02770365|168921571|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|12.53|||Wald's method|||||12.53|-2.92|
84583951|NCT02770365|168921572|EQUIVALENCE|the proportion of subjects with treatment success based on the improvement of the Most Bothersome Symptom (MBS) of vulvo-vaginal atrophy at Day 8.|equivalence ratio|0.94||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|4.31|||Wald's method|||||4.31|-12.35|0.05
84583952|NCT00489476|168921573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0212
84583953|NCT00489476|168921573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
84583954|NCT00489476|168921574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0123
84611099|NCT02170870|168973673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs diabetics adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.06
84611100|NCT02170870|168973673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs functional dyspepsia adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.0001
84611101|NCT00125957|168973681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean change MADRS score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||.04
84611102|NCT00125957|168973682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the median HAM-D score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||0.09
84756746|NCT02187172|169269294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.31|0.04|0.0137
84756747|NCT02187172|169269295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.33|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.33|-1.09|0.8383
84756748|NCT02187172|169269295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.24|-0.22|0.1651
84583955|NCT00489476|168921574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0228
84583956|NCT00489476|168921575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0409
84583957|NCT03769116|168921586|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann treatment diff|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.58|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis conducted on changes from baseline.||12.58|2.08|< 0.0001
84583958|NCT03769116|168921587|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||||2.7|-1.0|= 0.3730
84583959|NCT03769116|168921595|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 4-5 years old||4.4|0.5|= 0.0172
84583960|NCT03769116|168921595|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 6-7 years old||1.6|-3.0|= 0.5384
84583961|NCT02181413|168921605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.89|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, International Staging System (ISS) stage and response after transplantation.|HR was based on Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS stage and response after transplantation. \<1 HR indicates better prevention of progression in Ixazomib arm compared to Placebo.|||0.890|0.582|0.002
84583962|NCT02181413|168921606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.332||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.332|0.789|0.850
84583963|NCT02181413|168921607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.466||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction international staging system (ISS), and response after transplantation at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and CI are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group as a categorical predictor variable and pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation at screening as covariates.|CR||1.466|0.365|0.370
84583964|NCT02181413|168921608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.886||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||0.886|0.579|0.002
84583965|NCT02181413|168921609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.298||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.298|0.795|0.902
84583966|NCT02181413|168921610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.005|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.005|0.690|0.056
84583967|NCT02181413|168921611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.129||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage, and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.129|0.753|0.431
84583968|NCT02181413|168921612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.45|||||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.450|0.959|
84583969|NCT02181413|168921614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-value was based on Fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
84583970|NCT02181413|168921615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||P-value was based on fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
84583971|NCT02181413|168921616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.969||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||0.969|0.386|0.034
84583972|NCT02181413|168921616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.92||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||0.920|0.539|0.010
84583973|NCT02181413|168921617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.184||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||1.184|0.414|0.182
84583974|NCT02181413|168921617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.368||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||1.368|0.682|0.847
84583975|NCT02181413|168921618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.613||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.613|0.583|0.905
84583976|NCT02181413|168921623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was from the significance test for the coefficient of the interaction between treatment and visit.||||0.2|-4.9|0.074
84583977|NCT04003142|168921627|SUPERIORITY|Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)|Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.91|-2.73|<0.001
84583978|NCT04003142|168921627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.45|-1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.64|-3.45|<0.001
84611103|NCT01496469|168973691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A total of 120 enrolled participants (60 participants per treatment group) was sufficient to achieve 80 percent (%) power to detect a difference of 6.0 mmHg between the placebo and febuxostat 80 mg treatment groups by a 2 sample t-test of the mean change from Baseline at Week 6 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||3.4|-3.9|0.882
84611104|NCT01496469|168973692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||3.2|-1.9|0.613
84611105|NCT01496469|168973693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||-2.9|-3.9|<0.001
84672742|NCT01494610|169081224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.665|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.665|1.366|
84756749|NCT02187172|169269296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.93|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.93|-0.94|0.1502
84756750|NCT02187172|169269296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.91|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.91|-1.49|0.8054
84498669|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.155|-0.138|1.0000
84583979|NCT04003142|168921627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
84583980|NCT04003142|168921627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
84611106|NCT01532869|168973704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) mean|-2.7||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.45|-5.85|0.0915
84611107|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.43||||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.91|-10.78|0.9336
84756751|NCT02187172|169269297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.05|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.05|-4.79|0.4235
84756752|NCT02187172|169269297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.13|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.13|-1.80|0.8653
84756753|NCT02187172|169269298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.71|-4.95|0.5580
84756754|NCT02187172|169269298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.80|-1.25|0.4454
84756755|NCT02187172|169269299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|34.87|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.87|7.86|0.0027
84583981|NCT04003142|168921628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001||95.0|-2.94|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.78|-2.94|<0.001
84756756|NCT02187172|169269299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|5.33|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||5.33|-11.17|0.4775
84756757|NCT02187172|169269300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.8||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.47|372.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||372.08|89.47|0.0021
84583982|NCT04003142|168921628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.46|-3.60|<0.001
84583983|NCT04003142|168921628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
84583984|NCT04003142|168921628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
84583985|NCT04003142|168921629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.021||95.0|-0.27|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.02|-0.27|0.021
84756758|NCT02187172|169269300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.71||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.4|52.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||52.61|-116.40|0.4493
84756759|NCT02187172|169269301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.38|-0.30|0.8008
84756760|NCT02187172|169269301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.24|-0.19|0.8068
84756761|NCT02187172|169269302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.12||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.65|160.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison during RCT period||160.57|-66.65|0.4079
84756762|NCT02187172|169269302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.85||0.8907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|73.28|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||73.28|-63.91|0.8907
84756763|NCT02187172|169269303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.81||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|105.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||105.81|-91.80|0.8866
84756764|NCT02187172|169269303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.59||0.4527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.78|41.3|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||41.30|-90.78|0.4527
84756765|NCT02187172|169269304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.23||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.61|328.77|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||328.77|60.61|0.0056
84583986|NCT04003142|168921629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001||95.0|-0.41|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.16|-0.41|<0.001
84583987|NCT04003142|168921629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
84583988|NCT04003142|168921629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
84583989|NCT04003142|168921630|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.049||95.0|-0.33|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.00|-0.33|0.049
84583990|NCT04003142|168921630|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
84583991|NCT04003142|168921630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
84583992|NCT04003142|168921630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
84583993|NCT04003142|168921631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.8|-2.1|0.381
84583994|NCT04003142|168921631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.6|-3.5|0.007
84583995|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.51|-2.09|0.001
84583996|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001||95.0|-2.51|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.91|-2.51|<0.001
84583997|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.65|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.87|-2.65|<0.001
84756766|NCT02187172|169269304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.17|47.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||47.85|-106.17|0.4478
84756767|NCT02187172|169269305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.83|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||8.83|-2.55|0.2704
84583998|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.86|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.08|-2.86|<0.001
84756768|NCT02187172|169269305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|4.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.36|-1.36|0.2950
84583999|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-2.63|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.84|-2.63|<0.001
84584000|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.29|-1.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.50|-3.29|<0.001
84584001|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001||95.0|-2.79|-0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.90|-2.79|<0.001
84584002|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.72|-3.61|<0.001
84584003|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.85|-2.71|<0.001
84584004|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-3.59|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.73|-3.59|<0.001
84756769|NCT02187172|169269306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|-3.45|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.45|-30.03|0.0149
84584005|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-2.77|-0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.83|-2.77|<0.001
84584006|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.37|-3.30|<0.001
84584007|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.74|-2.79|<0.001
84584008|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.35|-3.40|<0.001
84584009|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.002||95.0|-2.71|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.59|-2.71|0.002
84584010|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-3.57|-1.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.45|-3.57|<0.001
84756770|NCT02187172|169269306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|6.71|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.71|-6.93|0.9734
84756771|NCT02187172|169269307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.76||0.4384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|14.6|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.60|-33.03|0.4384
84584011|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-2.96|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-2.96|<0.001
84584012|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.60|-3.69|<0.001
84611108|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.12||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.96|-15.21|0.4609
84611109|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.28||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.13|-14.70|0.8493
84756772|NCT02187172|169269307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|25.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||25.99|-3.72|0.1373
84756773|NCT02187172|169269308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-4.03|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-4.03|-27.39|0.0097
84756774|NCT02187172|169269308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.70|-4.69|0.8119
84584013|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-2.91|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-2.91|<0.001
84584014|NCT04003142|168921632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.52|-3.61|<0.001
84611110|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|4.89||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|18.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||18.37|-8.59|0.4717
84756775|NCT02187172|169269309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||9.59|-8.91|0.9415
84756776|NCT02187172|169269309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|3.06|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.06|-6.77|0.4485
84756777|NCT02187172|169269310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|10.53|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10.53|-10.37|0.9880
84756778|NCT02187172|169269310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.63|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||5.63|-4.86|0.8836
84584015|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001||95.0|-0.21|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.21|0.001
84584016|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
84584017|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001||95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
84584018|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
84584019|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067||95.0|-0.23|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.01|-0.23|0.067
84584020|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.11|-0.35|<0.001
84584021|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.03|-0.30|0.020
84584022|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
84756779|NCT02187172|169269311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.36|-2.91|0.8321
84584023|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.04|-0.32|0.012
84756780|NCT02187172|169269311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.48|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.48|0.12|0.0394
84756781|NCT02187172|169269312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.07|241.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||241.23|64.07|0.0012
84756782|NCT02187172|169269312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|49.09|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||49.09|-55.04|0.9085
84584024|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.42|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
84584025|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.02|-0.31|0.030
84584026|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.14|-0.43|<0.001
84584027|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.28|0.095
84584028|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
84584029|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-0.28|0.109
84584030|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
84584031|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02||95.0|-0.35|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
84584032|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
84584033|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean diferrence|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012||95.0|-0.37|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
84584034|NCT04003142|168921633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
84584035|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001||95.0|-18.9|-5.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.43|-18.90|<0.001
84611111|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.08||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.78|-9.93|0.9876
84756783|NCT02187172|169269313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.14|-0.03|0.1792
84756784|NCT02187172|169269313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.10|-0.03|0.2559
84584036|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001||95.0|-22.44|-8.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-8.91|-22.44|<0.001
84584037|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-7.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-7.13|-22.09|<0.001
84584038|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|-8.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-8.45|-23.45|<0.001
84756785|NCT02187172|169269314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||0.41|-0.11|0.2453
84584039|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-23.16|-7.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-7.86|-23.16|<0.001
84584040|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001||95.0|-27.91|-12.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-12.59|-27.91|<0.001
84584041|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-24.04|-8.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-8.63|-24.04|<0.001
84584042|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-29.36|-13.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.94|-29.36|<0.001
84584043|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-7.98|-23.27|<0.001
84611112|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.8||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||4.71|-18.30|0.2407
84611113|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.54||||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|12.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.26|-9.18|0.7742
84611114|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.48||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.31|-18.28|0.5182
84611115|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.8||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.59|-17.20|0.3106
84672743|NCT01494610|169081224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.369|1.864|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.864|1.369|
84672744|NCT01494610|169081224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.584|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.584|1.274|
84756786|NCT02187172|169269314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.23|-0.02|0.1087
84756787|NCT02187172|169269315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.62||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.31|173.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||173.16|-76.31|0.4368
84584044|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-30.52|-15.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-15.24|-30.52|<0.001
84611116|NCT01532869|168973706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.82||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.48|-19.11|0.1717
84611117|NCT01532869|168973707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.02||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction||0.225|-0.186|0.8503
84584045|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-22.38|-7.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-7.19|-22.38|<0.001
84584046|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|-15.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-15.07|-30.25|<0.001
84584047|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-7.09|-22.86|<0.001
84584048|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001||95.0|-29.34|-13.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.60|-29.34|<0.001
84584049|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.33|-6.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-6.43|-22.33|<0.001
84584050|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001||95.0|-28.5|-12.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.65|-28.50|<0.001
84584051|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.003||95.0|-20.14|-4.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-4.14|-20.14|0.003
84584052|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-11.755||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-11.755|-27.71|<0.001
84584053|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-6.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-6.54|-22.25|<0.001
84584054|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001||95.0|-27.93|-12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-12.27|-27.93|<0.001
84584055|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-22.96|-6.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-6.96|-22.96|<0.001
84584056|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.18|-28.13|<0.001
84584057|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-21.62|-5.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.65|-21.62|<0.001
84584058|NCT04003142|168921634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-18.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001||95.0|-26.89|-10.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-10.98|-26.89|<0.001
84756788|NCT02187172|169269315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.84||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.97|6.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.85|-105.97|0.0833
84584059|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.881||||0.02||95.0|1.11|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.233|1.110|0.020
84584060|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|4.498||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.498|1.585|<0.001
84584061|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001||95.0|1.535|4.001||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.001|1.535|<0.001
84756789|NCT02187172|169269316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.97|-2.52|0.8036
84498670|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.095|-0.189|0.9577
84498671|NCT03692078|168747737|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.152|-0.136|1.0000
84498672|NCT02446496|168747795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|95.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|107.37||||||||107.37|85.67|
84498673|NCT02446496|168747796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|102.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|115.7|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||115.70|90.46|
84498674|NCT02446496|168747796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|116.62|||||Comparison of AUC(0-infinity) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||116.62|91.19|
84498675|NCT02446496|168747797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|Comparison of T-max between Treatment A and Treatment B.||||||0.2670
84498676|NCT04854707|168747799|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498677|NCT04854707|168747799|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84498678|NCT04854707|168747800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0501|||Chi-squared|z-value = 1||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0501|-0.0161|0.314
84498679|NCT04854707|168747800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0207||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0782|||Chi-squared|||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0782|-0.0369|0.482
84498680|NCT04854707|168747801|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498681|NCT04854707|168747801|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498682|NCT04854707|168747802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498683|NCT04854707|168747803|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498684|NCT04854707|168747803|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84498685|NCT00956709|168747808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Two patients in each group had incomplete block before sugery.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84611118|NCT01532869|168973707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.207||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.056|-0.471|0.1212
84498686|NCT00956709|168747810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3354
84498687|NCT00956709|168747811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0445
84498688|NCT04101721|168747817|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5%|Adjusted difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-15.71|19.33||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||19.33|-15.71|
84498689|NCT04101721|168747818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-19.86|12.54||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||12.54|-19.86|
84498690|NCT04101721|168747819|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-9.83|30.02||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status||30.02|-9.83|
84498691|NCT03706209|168747835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.97|0.47|0.161
84498692|NCT03706209|168747835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|55.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.43|0.55|0.111
84498693|NCT03706209|168747836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.71|0.222
84498694|NCT03706209|168747836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.75|0.182
84498695|NCT03706209|168747837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|0.33|0.294
84498696|NCT03706209|168747837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|53.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.14|0.31|0.291
84498697|NCT03706209|168747838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.77|0.45|0.617
84498698|NCT03706209|168747838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5|0.6|0.319
84498699|NCT03706209|168747839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.52|0.5|0.47
84498700|NCT03706209|168747839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.82|0.76|0.136
84498701|NCT03706209|168747840|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3|-2.6|0.894
84756790|NCT02187172|169269316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.40|-0.65|0.4608
84584062|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.534|4.004||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.004|1.534|<0.001
84584063|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.367|||<|0.001||95.0|1.502|3.762||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.762|1.502|<0.001
84584064|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.894|||<|0.001||95.0|1.835|4.609||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.609|1.835|<0.001
84584065|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.829|4.657||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.657|1.829|<0.001
84584066|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.218|||<|0.001||95.0|2.025|5.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.172|2.025|<0.001
84584067|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.153|||<|0.001||95.0|1.375|3.394||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.394|1.375|<0.001
84584068|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.074|||<|0.001||95.0|1.957|4.878||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.878|1.957|<0.001
84584069|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.002||95.0|1.31|3.228||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.228|1.310|0.002
84584070|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908|||<|0.001||95.0|1.856|4.599||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.599|1.856|<0.001
84584071|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.113||||0.001||95.0|1.349|3.332||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.332|1.349|0.001
84584072|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594|||<|0.001||95.0|1.653|4.104||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.104|1.653|<0.001
84584073|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.973||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.973|1.210|0.005
84584074|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.314|||<|0.001||95.0|2.108|5.265||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.265|2.108|<0.001
84584075|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.027||95.0|1.06|2.566||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.566|1.060|0.027
84611119|NCT01532869|168973708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.99||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 24.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.23|-9.20|0.8118
84756791|NCT02187172|169269317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3320.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3414.9||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3592.52|10233.67|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10233.67|-3592.52|0.3370
84584076|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.347|||<|0.001||95.0|1.507|3.683||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.683|1.507|<0.001
84584077|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|2.799||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.799|1.153|0.010
84584078|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001||95.0|1.805|4.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.441|1.805|<0.001
84584079|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.357|||<|0.001||95.0|1.513|3.699||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.699|1.513|<0.001
84584080|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.131|||<|0.001||95.0|1.999|4.95||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.950|1.999|<0.001
84611120|NCT01532869|168973708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-9.02||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 48.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||1.00|-19.04|0.0768
84584081|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373||||0.152||95.0|0.891|2.122||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.122|0.891|0.152
84584082|NCT04003142|168921635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.001||95.0|1.351|3.252||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.252|1.351|<0.001
84584083|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.915||||0.951||95.0|0.036|23.464||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.464|0.036|0.951
84584084|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|58.864||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||58.864|0.364|0.362
84584085|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.775||||0.138||95.0|0.785|12.87||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.870|0.785|0.138
84584086|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.704||95.0|0.291|6.914||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.914|0.291|0.704
84584087|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.741||95.0|0.194|3.079||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.079|0.194|0.741
84498702|NCT03706209|168747840|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.7|-3.8|0.456
84584088|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.134||95.0|0.809|7.443||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.443|0.809|0.134
84584089|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.474||||0.062||95.0|1.039|15.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.712|1.039|0.062
84584090|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.184||||0.004||95.0|2.025|26.875||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||26.875|2.025|0.004
84611121|NCT01532869|168973709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.85||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.34|-13.04|0.4063
84611122|NCT01532869|168973709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-8.3||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.71|-19.31|0.1371
84611123|NCT01532869|168973710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.43||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.82|-2.97|0.5197
84584091|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|18.806||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.806|1.305|0.028
84756792|NCT02187172|169269317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6926.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2257.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2351.43|11501.07|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||11501.07|2351.43|0.0040
84498703|NCT03706209|168747842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.572
84584092|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.802||||0.044||95.0|1.157|17.075||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.075|1.157|0.044
84611124|NCT01532869|168973710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.75||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.88|-1.38|0.1886
84756793|NCT02187172|169269318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.9||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.97|198.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||198.08|-335.97|0.6042
84756794|NCT02187172|169269318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|85.98||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.18|166.26|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||166.26|-182.18|0.9267
84756795|NCT02187172|169269319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|14.68|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.68|-6.28|0.4226
84584093|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.519||95.0|0.551|3.382||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.382|0.551|0.519
84584094|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.961||||0.117||95.0|0.863|4.741||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.741|0.863|0.117
84584095|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.471||||0.393||95.0|0.612|3.687||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.687|0.612|0.393
84584096|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.087||||0.086||95.0|0.923|5.043||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.043|0.923|0.086
84584097|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.774||||0.168||95.0|0.798|4.143||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.143|0.798|0.168
84756796|NCT02187172|169269319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|10.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||10.36|-3.54|0.3270
84498704|NCT03706209|168747842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4494|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.4494
84498705|NCT03706209|168747843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.7922
84498706|NCT03706209|168747843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.1425
84498707|NCT03706209|168747844|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.992
84498708|NCT03706209|168747844|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.143
84498709|NCT03706209|168747847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.178
84584098|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.374||||0.03||95.0|1.112|5.41||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.410|1.112|0.030
84672745|NCT01494610|169081225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|0.971|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.971|0.886|
84756797|NCT02187172|169269320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.59|-3.56|0.7507
84498710|NCT03706209|168747847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.48|0.05|0.718
84498711|NCT03706209|168747848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|28.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.05|0.21|0.474
84498712|NCT03706209|168747848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.05|0.08|0.867
84498713|NCT03706209|168747849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.84|0.38|0.375
84498714|NCT03706209|168747849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|27.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.08|0.66|0.116
84498715|NCT03706209|168747850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.27|0.08|0.287
84498716|NCT03706209|168747850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.4|0.53|0.332
84498717|NCT03706209|168747851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.719
84498718|NCT03706209|168747851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.32|0.55|0.357
84498719|NCT03706209|168747852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.72|0.53|0.355
84498720|NCT03706209|168747852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.37|0.67|0.198
84498721|NCT03706209|168747853|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||2.3|-1.7|0.757
84498722|NCT03706209|168747853|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||0.9|-3.1|0.267
84498723|NCT03706209|168747854|SUPERIORITY||least square means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.4|-1.4|0.412
84498724|NCT03706209|168747854|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.4|-3.5|0.401
84584099|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|3.971||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.971|0.681|0.287
84584100|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.108||||0.08||95.0|0.936|5.076||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.076|0.936|0.080
84584101|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.599||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.636||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.636|0.730|0.247
84584102|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481||||0.017||95.0|1.201|5.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.441|1.201|0.017
84584103|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.728||||0.212||95.0|0.744|4.236||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.236|0.744|0.212
84611125|NCT01532869|168973711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.79||||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.51|-0.94|0.3651
84611126|NCT01532869|168973711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.11||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.16|0.2841
84672746|NCT01494610|169081225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.939|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.939|0.848|
84672747|NCT01494610|169081225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.049|0.889|
84672748|NCT02161718|169081256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.53|0.746
84756798|NCT02187172|169269320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.73|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.73|-1.88|0.9348
84756799|NCT02187172|169269321|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Chi-squared|||||0.89|0.45|0.0005
84756800|NCT02187172|169269321|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI75 at end of study|Proportion|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
84756801|NCT02187172|169269322|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|0.20|0.0016
84756802|NCT02187172|169269322|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI90 at end of study|Proportion|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.65||||||||0.65|0.32|
84756803|NCT02187172|169269323|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Comparison during RCT period for binary Physician Global Assessment||0.78|0.29|0.0005
84756804|NCT02187172|169269323|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PGA clear/almost clear at end of study|Proportion|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63||||||||0.63|0.30|
84584104|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.536||||0.002||95.0|1.666|8.207||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.207|1.666|0.002
84584105|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.701||||0.225||95.0|0.733|4.169||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.169|0.733|0.225
84611127|NCT01532869|168973712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.55||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.12|-7.23|0.0579
84756805|NCT02187172|169269324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.06|||Regression, Linear|||||21.06|-4.42|0.1944
84756806|NCT02187172|169269324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-5.25|||Regression, Linear|||||-5.25|-19.40|0.0011
84611128|NCT01532869|168973713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit. The continuous covariate of baseline mRSS score was also included in the model.||9.50|0.60|0.2159
84611129|NCT01192828|168973748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.235
84611130|NCT01192828|168973749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.701|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.701
84611131|NCT01192828|168973750|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.190
84611132|NCT01192828|168973751|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.052
84611133|NCT01192828|168973752|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.014
84611134|NCT01192828|168973754|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.541|||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||Null hypothesis assumed|Spearman's rank correlation rho is 0.179, with p value 0.541, N is 14|||.541
84756807|NCT02187172|169269325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-779.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1049.99||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.19|1352.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1352.01|-2911.19|0.4628
84611135|NCT01192828|168973756|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.014
84611136|NCT01192828|168973757|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.012
84756808|NCT02187172|169269325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-910.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|729.96||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2395.95|574.27|||Regression, Linear|||||574.27|-2395.95|0.2209
84756809|NCT00253643|169269369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|||||Utilized a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on FAS summary scores||||0.1521
84611137|NCT01192828|168973758|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.160
84611138|NCT01192828|168973759|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84611139|NCT00820222|168973760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.63|||Odds Ratio||The Odds Ratio is based on a logistic regression model. The P-value for the test of Odds Ratio is 1.|||1.63|0.26|0.360
84611140|NCT00820222|168973761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.64|1.04|0.021
84611141|NCT00820222|168973763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.9|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.90|0.95|0.095
84611142|NCT00820222|168973764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7984||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5407|1.1771|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Overall Response (CR+PR)||1.1771|0.5407|0.2731
84611143|NCT00820222|168973765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9016||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|1.2866|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Clinical Benefit||1.2866|0.6315|0.6106
84611144|NCT00590577|168973771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-13.71|-5.85||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-5.85|-13.71|<0.001
84611145|NCT00590577|168973771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.62|-4.78||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-4.78|-12.62|<0.001
84611146|NCT00590577|168973771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.034||95.0|-9.01|-1.1||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-1.10|-9.01|0.034
84644313|NCT03758755|169024472|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in thigh circumference between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in thigh circumference over time.||||0.223
84756810|NCT00253643|169269370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect of time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on Ki-67||||0.1573
84756811|NCT01035099|169269379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.31
84584106|NCT04003142|168921636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.049||||0.006||95.0|1.42|7.125||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.125|1.420|0.006
84584107|NCT03657407|168921649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||2.0|-0.71|0.17
84584108|NCT03657407|168921650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||9.5|-5.4|0.29
84584109|NCT03657407|168921651|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|4.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||4.5|-43.1|0.05
84584110|NCT03657407|168921652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||1.7|0.42|0.42
84584111|NCT00581100|168921682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
84584112|NCT00581100|168921682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84611147|NCT00590577|168973772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.26|9.12||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||9.12|3.26|<0.001
84756812|NCT01035099|169269380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.19
84584113|NCT00581100|168921683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
84611148|NCT00590577|168973772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007||95.0|1.43|7.31||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||7.31|1.43|0.007
84756813|NCT01035099|169269383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.12
84756814|NCT01035099|169269384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.77
84498725|NCT03706209|168747855|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.9|-3|0.801
84498726|NCT03706209|168747855|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.3|-3.4|0.957
84498727|NCT03706209|168747859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.55|0.45
84584114|NCT00581100|168921683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584115|NCT00581100|168921684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584116|NCT00581100|168921684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584117|NCT00581100|168921684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584118|NCT00581100|168921684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584119|NCT00581100|168921685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.007
84584120|NCT00581100|168921685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
84672749|NCT02161718|169081257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Andersen-Gill Recurrent-Event Cox Model|||||1.37|0.43|0.372
84756815|NCT01035099|169269385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.63
84756816|NCT01035099|169269387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.14
84756817|NCT01035099|169269388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||<0.0001
84584121|NCT00581100|168921685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584122|NCT00581100|168921685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584123|NCT00581100|168921686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584124|NCT00581100|168921686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584125|NCT00581100|168921686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584126|NCT00581100|168921686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584127|NCT00581100|168921687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.069
84584128|NCT00581100|168921687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
84584129|NCT00581100|168921687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584130|NCT00581100|168921687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84756818|NCT01035099|169269389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.58
84584131|NCT00581100|168921688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84756819|NCT01035099|169269391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.42
84498728|NCT03706209|168747859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.26|0.74|0.186
84498729|NCT03706209|168747860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.41|0.884
84498730|NCT03706209|168747860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.61|0.384
84584132|NCT00581100|168921688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584133|NCT00581100|168921689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584134|NCT00581100|168921689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84498731|NCT03706209|168747861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.26|0.63|0.311
84498732|NCT03706209|168747861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.47|0.699
84584135|NCT00581100|168921689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584136|NCT00581100|168921689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584137|NCT00581100|168921690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584138|NCT00581100|168921690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
84584139|NCT00581100|168921690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84672750|NCT02161718|169081258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.56|0.963
84756820|NCT02113436|169269399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-0.97||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-2.47|0.206
84756821|NCT02113436|169269400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least sqaure means|-0.49||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.29|0.235
84756822|NCT02113436|169269401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Sqaure means|-0.48||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.27|0.236
84584140|NCT00581100|168921690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
84584141|NCT00581100|168921691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584142|NCT00581100|168921691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584143|NCT00581100|168921692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
84584144|NCT00581100|168921692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
84584145|NCT00581100|168921693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
84584146|NCT00581100|168921693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
84584147|NCT00581100|168921694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584148|NCT00581100|168921694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584149|NCT00581100|168921695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584150|NCT00581100|168921695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584151|NCT00581100|168921696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84756823|NCT02113436|169269402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.6||||||||1.60|0.14|
84756824|NCT02113436|169269403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.0|0.041
84498733|NCT03706209|168747862|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.671
84584152|NCT00581100|168921696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<Table 8-14\> Change from baseline in Physician and Patient Assessment of Nail Psoriasis Activity Visual Analog Scale (VAS)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584153|NCT00581100|168921697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84584154|NCT00581100|168921697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84498734|NCT03706209|168747862|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.183
84584155|NCT02579759|168921717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.06|-0.68|0.008
84584156|NCT02579759|168921717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.287|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.14|-0.39|0.287
84584157|NCT02579759|168921717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||-0.03|-0.59|0.013
84584158|NCT02579759|168921717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||0.03|-0.42|0.05
84756825|NCT02113436|169269404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.06||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.20|0.335
84756826|NCT02113436|169269405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|||||8.6|-3.3|0.389
84756827|NCT01648790|169269407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18|||||Least Squares (LS) means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.18|0.819|
84584159|NCT02579759|168921717|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.31|0.013
84756828|NCT01648790|169269408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.06|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.06|0.918|
84756829|NCT01648790|169269409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.335|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.335|0.233|
84756830|NCT01648790|169269410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|0.837|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.837|0.724|
84756831|NCT01486927|169269413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.1|||Poisson, regression|||A test of the null hypothesis of no difference on AsBR between the 2 comparison groups was based on the Poisson Regression method. The corresponding prophylaxis/on-demand ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.||0.10|0.07|< 0.0001
84756832|NCT02636582|169269459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84756833|NCT02636582|169269460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.964
84756834|NCT02636582|169269461|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84756835|NCT02636582|169269462|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||HER2 expression - biopsy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
84756836|NCT02636582|169269462|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||HER2 expression - resection|Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
84756837|NCT01278745|169269474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PAV||||||0.0019
84756838|NCT01148537|169269487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||||8.4|3.4|< .001
84756839|NCT01148537|169269488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||For the comparison of BTDS to placebo, the subjects randomized to moxifloxacin were excluded.|||2.6|-1.8|.770
84756840|NCT01148537|169269489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||Day 13 analysis||8.4|3.3|< .001
84756841|NCT01148537|169269490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|9.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with average baseline as a covariate, and with gender and treatment as main effects||||9.9|5.4|< .001
84756842|NCT01148537|169269491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||2.6|-2.9|.936
84756843|NCT01148537|169269491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.1|4.2|< .001
84756844|NCT01148537|169269492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|10.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||10.9|5.5|< .001
84756845|NCT01148537|169269492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.5|4.3|< .001
84756846|NCT01148537|169269493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||4.0|-1.4|.427
84756847|NCT01148537|169269493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||8.8|3.2|.001
84756848|NCT01148537|169269494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||9.6|4.2|< .001
84756849|NCT01148537|169269494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||7.4|1.9|.006
84756850|NCT00896779|169269495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84756851|NCT00896779|169269495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84756852|NCT01843842|169269496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Global Test Statistic|See O'Brien 1984, Pocock 1997.||||||0.016
84756853|NCT01843842|169269497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84756854|NCT01843842|169269498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84756855|NCT01843842|169269499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.0283
84756856|NCT01843842|169269499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.3264
84756857|NCT01843842|169269499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.7060
84756858|NCT01843842|169269499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.25
84756859|NCT01843842|169269499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||Severity of clinical manifestations of acute respiratory infection (ARI) by Total Symptom Score on Days 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Observation (Based on Patient Diary Data)||||0.244
84756860|NCT01843842|169269500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of fever based on Patient Diary Data||||0.1158
84756861|NCT01843842|169269500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of non-specific symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.5755
84756862|NCT01843842|169269500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4331|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.4331
84756863|NCT01843842|169269500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of all acute respiratory infection symptoms (fever, non-specific symptoms and nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms) based on Patient Diary Data||||0.3560
84756864|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0166
84584160|NCT02579759|168921718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.91|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.03|-0.91|0.016
84584161|NCT02579759|168921718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.08|-0.65|0.084
84584162|NCT02579759|168921718|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.41|0.015
84584163|NCT02579759|168921719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-1.01|0.162
84584164|NCT02579759|168921719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.39|-0.66|0.556
84584165|NCT02579759|168921719|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.43|0.204
84584166|NCT02579759|168921720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.232|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.25|0.38|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.38|-1.25|0.232
84584167|NCT02579759|168921720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.64|-0.74|0.868
84584168|NCT02579759|168921720|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.17|-0.53|0.322
84611149|NCT00590577|168973772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.509||95.0|-1.96|3.95||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||3.95|-1.96|0.509
84611150|NCT00590577|168973773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
84611151|NCT00590577|168973773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.005
84611152|NCT00590577|168973773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.140
84611153|NCT01300260|168973790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.64||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.64|2.41|<0.001
84584169|NCT02579759|168921721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.377|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.62|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.62|-1.43|0.377
84584170|NCT02579759|168921721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.334|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.21|0.48|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.48|-1.21|0.334
84611154|NCT01300260|168973790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) means ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|7.13||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||7.13|4.09|<0.001
84611155|NCT01300260|168973791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.59||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.59|2.66|<0.001
84611156|NCT01300260|168973791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|13.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||13.0|4.82|<0.001
84611157|NCT01300260|168973792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||5.00|3.45|<0.001
84611158|NCT01300260|168973792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.78||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||4.78|2.99|<0.001
84611159|NCT01300260|168973793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.31||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.31|1.26|0.011
84611160|NCT01300260|168973793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.47||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.47|1.71|<0.001
84611161|NCT01300260|168973794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.43|1.04|0.021
84584171|NCT02579759|168921721|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-0.62|0.373
84498735|NCT03706209|168747863|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.542
84611162|NCT01300260|168973794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.53||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.53|1.27|<0.001
84611163|NCT01300260|168973795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.80|1.14|0.009
84611164|NCT01300260|168973795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|1.94||P-value is 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.94|1.59|<0.001
84611165|NCT00439374|168973797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35||||||All deliveries less than 37 weeks||1.35|0.79|
84611166|NCT00439374|168973797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||Spontaneous deliveries||1.40|0.70|
84611167|NCT00439374|168973797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.84||||||Medically-indicated deliveries||1.84|0.65|
84611168|NCT00439374|168973798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84611169|NCT00439374|168973799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.8||||||||1.80|0.61|
84611170|NCT00439374|168973800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.21||||||||1.21|0.58|
84611171|NCT00439374|168973801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||||||||1.43|0.54|
84611172|NCT00439374|168973802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3||||||||1.30|0.36|
84611173|NCT00439374|168973803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||||||||1.15|0.82|
84611174|NCT00439374|168973804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29||||||||1.29|0.55|
84611175|NCT00439374|168973805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55||||||||1.55|0.77|
84611176|NCT00439374|168973806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.33||||||||5.33|0.43|
84611177|NCT00439374|168973807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||||||||1.72|0.78|
84584172|NCT02579759|168921725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0|-0.58|0.023
84584173|NCT02579759|168921725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.4|0.162
84584174|NCT02579759|168921729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|5.68|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||5.68|0.77|0.097
84611178|NCT00439374|168973808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.41||||||||2.41|0.56|
84611179|NCT00439374|168973810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
84756865|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0820
84756866|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.7227
84756867|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2645|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.2645
84498736|NCT03706209|168747863|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.328
84611180|NCT00439374|168973811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.52||||||||2.52|0.84|
84611181|NCT00439374|168973812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
84756868|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0142
84756869|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0145
84756870|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.2963
84756871|NCT01843842|169269501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0364
84498737|NCT03706209|168747864|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.921
84498738|NCT03706209|168747864|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.488
84611182|NCT00439374|168973813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||Any side effect||1.13|0.92|
84611183|NCT00439374|168973813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17||||||Injection site||1.17|0.93|
84611184|NCT00439374|168973813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|22.78||||||Urticaria||22.78|1.11|
84611185|NCT00439374|168973813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||||||Nausea||1.83|0.27|
84611186|NCT00439374|168973814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3||||||Analysis is for the total composite||1.30|0.46|
84611187|NCT00439374|168973815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84611188|NCT00439374|168973823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84611189|NCT01147848|168973825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.015|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, region, sex, age, and treatment.|||0.015|-0.088|0.162
84611190|NCT00418574|168973841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.315|||Regression, Cox|||||1.315|0.919|0.301
84611191|NCT03624127|168973902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.51|36.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.81|9.51|<0.0001
84611192|NCT03624127|168973903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|18.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.95|6.49|<0.0001
84756872|NCT01843842|169269502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
84756873|NCT02953340|169269504|NON_INFERIORITY|The study used non inferiority margin of 0.62 days for the above comparison. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean difference|-0.074|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.129|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||0.129|-0.292|< 0.0001
84756874|NCT01376778|169269514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Chi-squared|||||1.72|0.80|0.42
84756875|NCT01376778|169269519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.03||||||||3.03|0.86|
84756876|NCT01376778|169269520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|72.42||||||||72.42|0.29|
84756877|NCT01376778|169269521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84756878|NCT01376778|169269522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67||||||||2.67|0.81|
84756879|NCT01376778|169269523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01||||||||4.01|0.65|
84756880|NCT01376778|169269525|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.41||||||||5.41|0.66|
84756881|NCT01376778|169269526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.66|
84756882|NCT01376778|169269527|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|87.0||||||||87|-157|
84756883|NCT01376778|169269528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.99||||||||3.99|0.92|
84756884|NCT01376778|169269532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.5||||||||31.5|0.03|
84756885|NCT01376778|169269533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.38||||||||1.38|0.17|
84584175|NCT02579759|168921729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|2.7|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||2.7|0.42|0.865
84756886|NCT01376778|169269536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||||||||1.23|0.32|
84756887|NCT01376778|169269537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.68||||||||1.68|0.42|
84756888|NCT01376778|169269538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.23||||||||5.23|0.17|
84756889|NCT01376778|169269546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.7|0.37
84756890|NCT01376778|169269547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84756891|NCT01376778|169269548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
84756892|NCT01197521|169269549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
84756893|NCT01197521|169269549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.03|0.006
84756894|NCT01197521|169269550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.252
84756895|NCT01197521|169269550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.170
84756896|NCT01197521|169269551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.10|<0.001
84756897|NCT01197521|169269552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.11|<0.001
84756898|NCT01197521|169269552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.14|0.03|0.002
84584176|NCT02579759|168921730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.99|11.62|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||11.62|0.99|0.026
84584177|NCT02579759|168921730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|3.16|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||3.16|0.5|0.569
84584178|NCT00830336|168921801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.08||||||90.0|95.41|111.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.37|95.41|
84756899|NCT01197521|169269553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.05|<0.001
84756900|NCT01197521|169269553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.01|0.015
84584179|NCT00830336|168921802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.84||||||90.0|99.33|112.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.77|99.33|
84584180|NCT00830336|168921803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.04||||||90.0|99.96|114.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114.62|99.96|
84584181|NCT01220687|168921806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
84584182|NCT01220687|168921807|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.18|||Poisson|||||2.18|1.68|<0.0001
84584183|NCT05263791|168921823|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -3, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.001
84584184|NCT05263791|168921824|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis tested is demonstrated airRR non-inferior to acoRR when the capnostream is less sensitive.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||"In this study, a non-inferiority test was conducted during periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography to compare respiratory rate measurements using the Airmod device (airRR) versus manually scored auscultation sounds (referred to as acoRR, implying manARR in the statistical analysis plan). The research physician identified periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography."||||<0.001
84584185|NCT05263791|168921826|SUPERIORITY|This analysis were examined to assess the responsiveness of Airmod and Capnography.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||The hypothesis tested whether the response times obtained with the Airmod device were equal to those recorded with Capnography.||||<0.001
84584186|NCT05263791|168921827|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR by subjects.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -2, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.05
84584187|NCT02732145|168921867|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
84584188|NCT02732145|168921867|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
84584189|NCT02732145|168921867|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
84584190|NCT02732145|168921867|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
84756901|NCT01197521|169269554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
84584191|NCT02732145|168921867|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
84584192|NCT02732145|168921867|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the Vulvoscopy Index and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
84498739|NCT03706209|168747875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1193
84584193|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584194|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9628|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9628
84584195|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9152|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9152
84584196|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584197|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed with vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8862
84584198|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584199|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3319
84584200|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8662|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8662
84584201|NCT02732145|168921868|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584202|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5399|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5399
84584203|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
84611193|NCT03624127|168973904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|37.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.72|6.91|<0.0001
84584204|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
84584205|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7537|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7537
84584206|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2054|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2054
84584207|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6409|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6409
84584208|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
84611194|NCT03624127|168973904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.60|1.51|0.0002
84611195|NCT03624127|168973905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|239.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||239.36|4.09|<0.0001
84611196|NCT03624127|168973906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.84|2.07|<0.0001
84584209|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8986|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8986
84584210|NCT02732145|168921869|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0017|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0017
84584211|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584212|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) among patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9899
84584213|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9686
84584214|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7055
84584215|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8852
84584216|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584217|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3351|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3351
84584218|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
84584219|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
84584220|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84756902|NCT01197521|169269554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.002
84498740|NCT03706209|168747875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0054
84584221|NCT02732145|168921870|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8472
84584222|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584223|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9629
84584224|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9155
84498741|NCT03706209|168747876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2439
84584225|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.4913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.4913
84756903|NCT01197521|169269555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|14.64||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.64|2.44|<0.001
84498742|NCT03706209|168747876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2461
84498743|NCT03706209|168747877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4395
84498744|NCT03706209|168747877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0593
84498745|NCT03706209|168747879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0507
84498746|NCT03706209|168747879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
84498747|NCT03706209|168747880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
84498748|NCT03706209|168747880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
84498749|NCT03706209|168747881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
84498750|NCT03706209|168747881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
84498751|NCT01215955|168747892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.22|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.22|-0.15|
84498752|NCT01215955|168747892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.24|-0.12|
84498753|NCT01215955|168747893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.520|0.128
84498754|NCT01215955|168747893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.39||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.580|0.625
84498755|NCT01215955|168747893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.53|0.162
84498756|NCT01215955|168747893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Linear|||||1.40|0.61|0.723
84498757|NCT01215955|168747894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.67||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.520|0.701
84498758|NCT01215955|168747894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.7||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.710|0.249
84498759|NCT01215955|168747894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.8||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: Baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use.||||0.80|0.13|0.015
84498760|NCT01215955|168747894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.17|0.078
84498761|NCT01215955|168747895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.46||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.17|0.014
84498762|NCT01215955|168747895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.11||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.12|0.108
84498763|NCT01215955|168747896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.11|0.57|0.182
84584226|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8866
84584227|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584228|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3335
84584229|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
84584230|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
84584231|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
84584232|NCT02732145|168921872|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8144
84498764|NCT01215955|168747896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.22|0.65|0.460
84584233|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5403
84611197|NCT03624127|168973906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|295.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||295.75|5.29|<0.0001
84611198|NCT03624127|168973907|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-12.8|<0.0001
84584234|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
84584235|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
84584236|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5124
84584237|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2058
84611199|NCT03624127|168973908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.67||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|105.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||105.50|1.77|0.0013
84611200|NCT03624127|168973908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.42|0.76|0.1702
84611201|NCT03624127|168973909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.53|3.46|<0.0001
84611202|NCT03624127|168973910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.96|0.73|0.1049
84611203|NCT03624127|168973911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.78|<0.0001
84611204|NCT03624127|168973912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.70|<0.0001
84611205|NCT03624127|168973913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|21.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.25|6.69|<0.0001
84584238|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6412
84584239|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
84584240|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3621
84584241|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8987
84584242|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0018
84584243|NCT02732145|168921873|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.4409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.4409
84584244|NCT02732145|168921874|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
84584245|NCT02732145|168921874|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
84584246|NCT02732145|168921874|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the diagnostic value of the Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in relation to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
84584247|NCT02732145|168921874|OTHER|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
84584248|NCT02732145|168921874|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
84756904|NCT01197521|169269555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|11.02||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||11.02|1.76|0.002
84584249|NCT02732145|168921874|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the N-S-P Scheme and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
84584250|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9286|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9286
84611206|NCT03624127|168973913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.04|2.21|<0.0001
84611207|NCT03624127|168973914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.83|2.16|<0.0001
84584251|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8618|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8618
84584252|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9786|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9786
84584253|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
84584254|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8634|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8634
84584255|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7992|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7992
84584256|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.3912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.3912
84584257|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6152|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6152
84584258|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6108
84611208|NCT03624127|168973915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.60|2.53|<0.0001
84611209|NCT03624127|168973916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.05|1.71|<0.0001
84498765|NCT01215955|168747897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||0.77|-0.19|
84498766|NCT01215955|168747897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.31|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||1.31|0.30|
84584259|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
84498767|NCT01215955|168747898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.59||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.58||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||1.58|-0.40|0.242
84584260|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7912
84611210|NCT03624127|168973917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|1.96|<0.0001
84611211|NCT03624127|168973918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|2.06|<0.0001
84611212|NCT03624127|168973919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|1.55|0.0002
84611213|NCT03036189|168973920|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84611214|NCT03036189|168973921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84611215|NCT03036189|168973922|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84611216|NCT03036189|168973923|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84611217|NCT03036189|168973924|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84611218|NCT03036189|168973925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84611219|NCT03036189|168973926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84584261|NCT02732145|168921875|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
84584262|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.253|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.2530
84584263|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8338|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8338
84584264|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0019|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0019
84584265|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6541|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6541
84584266|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8224|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8224
84584267|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0064|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0064
84584268|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9723|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9723
84584269|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8161|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8161
84584270|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.1165|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.1165
84584271|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6339|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6339
84611220|NCT03036189|168973927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84584272|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9724|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9724
84584273|NCT02732145|168921876|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0016|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0016
84584274|NCT02732145|168921877|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the age of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the age of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611221|NCT03036189|168973928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84611222|NCT03036189|168973929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84611223|NCT03036189|168973930|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84611224|NCT03036189|168973931|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84584275|NCT02732145|168921878|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the weight of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the weight of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584276|NCT02732145|168921879|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||||0.0557|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||0.0557
84584277|NCT02732145|168921880|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584278|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years in different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years between different groups.||||0.0000
84584279|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups.||||0.0000
84611225|NCT03036189|168973932|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84611226|NCT03036189|168973933|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-23.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84611227|NCT03262441|168973941|OTHER||Slope|-0.00033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0014||||||||0.0014|-0.0020|
84611228|NCT03262441|168973942|OTHER||Slope|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0036|
84756905|NCT01197521|169269556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|5.67||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.67|1.63|<0.001
84756906|NCT01197521|169269556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.50|0.93|0.083
84756907|NCT01197521|169269557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.3||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.30|1.79|<0.001
84584280|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||||0.3708|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||0.3708
84584281|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups?||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups.||||0.0180
84584282|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in marital status among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of marital status among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584283|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611229|NCT03262441|168973943|OTHER||Slope|0.0024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.0078||||||||0.0078|-0.003|
84611230|NCT00559988|168973968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.75|0.732
84611231|NCT01455194|168973980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.109|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.109|-0.353|0.2988
84611232|NCT01455194|168973980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.266|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.266|-0.198|0.7741
84611233|NCT01455194|168973980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1172||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.074|-0.387|0.1835
84611234|NCT01455194|168973982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|0.0||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||4.000|-3.000|0.8465
84611235|NCT01455194|168973982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|1.0||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||5.000|-2.000|0.4175
84611236|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4186|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.4186
84611237|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.1460
84611238|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.6017
84611239|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3305|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.3305
84611240|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.4860
84584284|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584285|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584286|NCT02732145|168921881|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups?||||||0.1323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups.||||0.1323
84584287|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.3158|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.3158
84584288|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain in the vulva (stabbing, sticking, knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0007
84584289|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584290|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
84584291|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0147|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0147
84584292|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.8456|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.8456
84584293|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0076|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0076
84756908|NCT01197521|169269557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.14||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.14|1.16|0.004
84584294|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0423|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0423
84584295|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0457
84584296|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0430
84584297|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0134
84584298|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0581|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0581
84584299|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0002
84584300|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?|t-test proportion|0.0||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0852
84584301|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0001
84584302|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the association of different symptoms of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of association of different vulvar symptoms among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0000
84584303|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584304|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0008
84756909|NCT01197521|169269558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.26|1.68|<0.001
84584305|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584306|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584307|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||There was a statistically significant difference at p\<0.001. Patients with vulvar dermatosis had significantly more often itching than the feeling of inflammation of the vulva.|t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584308|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584309|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584310|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584311|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84611241|NCT01455194|168973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8922|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.8922
84611242|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.221|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.221|0.890|0.6062
84584312|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584313|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584314|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8591|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8591
84584315|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.009|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0090
84584316|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0212|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0212
84584317|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0057|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0057
84584318|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0977|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0977
84611243|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.197|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.197|0.921|0.4674
84611244|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1597||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.642|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.642|0.878|0.2523
84611245|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1354||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.191|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.191|0.700|0.5026
84611246|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.219|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.219|0.661|0.4893
84584319|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0143|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0143
84584320|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
84584321|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.682|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.6820
84584322|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
84584323|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
84584324|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0344|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0344
84584325|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0023|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0023
84584326|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5675|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5675
84584327|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0037
84584328|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0005
84584329|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
84584330|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1201|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1201
84584331|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0123|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0123
84584332|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0188|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0188
84584333|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0030
84584334|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2155|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.2155
84611247|NCT01455194|168973984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1351||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.538|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.538|0.906|0.2193
84584335|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1508|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1508
84584336|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6364|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6364
84584337|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5277|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5277
84584338|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.2041|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2041
84611248|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0917||0.5397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.266|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.266|0.884|0.5397
84611249|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0738||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.161|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.161|0.870|0.9458
84611250|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0708||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.178|0.893|0.7213
84584339|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.0412|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0412
84584340|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.7978|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.7978
84584341|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.3094|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.3094
84584342|NCT02732145|168921882|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.073|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0730
84611251|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.202|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.202|0.917|0.4807
84611252|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.884|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.884|0.934|0.1150
84756910|NCT01197521|169269558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.68|1.38|<0.001
84756911|NCT01197521|169269559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.24|||<|0.001||95.0|1.16|3.31||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.31|1.16|<0.001
84756912|NCT01197521|169269559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.27||||0.02||95.0|0.2|2.35||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.35|0.20|0.020
84756913|NCT01197521|169269560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8||||0.005||95.0|0.54|3.07||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.07|0.54|0.005
84584343|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.4038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.4038
84584344|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7299|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7299
84584345|NCT02732145|168921882|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7241|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7241
84584346|NCT02732145|168921883|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611253|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.431|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.431|0.805|0.6281
84611254|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.397|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.397|0.803|0.6853
84611255|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1388||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.385|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.385|0.804|0.6995
84611256|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.178|0.595|0.3080
84611257|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1461||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.25|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.250|0.705|0.6645
84584347|NCT02732145|168921883|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups?||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups.||||0.0006
84756914|NCT01197521|169269560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.56||||0.017||95.0|0.28|2.83||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.28|0.017
84756915|NCT03437564|169269599|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between the formulations (dosing of one Vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two Vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.026|||ANOVA|||||1.026|0.967|
84498768|NCT01215955|168747898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.13||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.41||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without 24-week values were handled by the statistical model.|||2.41|-0.15|0.082
84584348|NCT02732145|168921883|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584349|NCT02732145|168921884|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584350|NCT02732145|168921884|EQUIVALENCE|Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||||0.2999|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||0.2999
84584351|NCT02732145|168921885|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584352|NCT02732145|168921885|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0347
84611258|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1408||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.308|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.308|0.753|0.9564
84756916|NCT03437564|169269600|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between the formulations (dosing of one vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.008|||ANOVA|||||1.008|0.937|
84756917|NCT00243386|169269611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to compare the means of the transformed data. The null-hypothesis tested was H0: X'A(PK-driven prophylaxis) - X'B (standard prophylaxis) = 0 (i.e., no difference for treatment under the 2 prophylactic regimens. X' = (ABR+0.5)\^(1/2)||||0.6016
84584353|NCT02732145|168921885|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7068|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7068
84584354|NCT02732145|168921885|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0025
84584355|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84611259|NCT01455194|168973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1375||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.371|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.371|0.800|0.7367
84611260|NCT01455194|168973986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2583||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.267|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.267|0.824|0.2264
84498769|NCT01215955|168747899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.15||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.66||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.66|-0.95|0.723
84498770|NCT01215955|168747899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.28||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.52|-1.08|0.495
84498771|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|8.93||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-2.28|0.245
84498772|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|6.29||P-value is for Morning 2-HR PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-7.71|0.842
84498773|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42||||0.626||95.0|-4.32|7.16||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.16|-4.32|0.626
84498774|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.48||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|3.95||P-value is for Midday 2-Hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.95|-10.91|0.358
84498775|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.38||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.07||P-value is for Evening Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|-3.32|0.322
84498776|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|6.58||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-11.08|0.617
84498777|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|9.6||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-4.86|0.519
84584356|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons?||||||0.6552|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons.||||0.6552
84584357|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
84584358|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle?||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle.||||0.2877
84584359|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0001
84756918|NCT00243386|169269612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-Test|||||||<0.0001
84584360|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes?||||||0.4754|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes.||||0.4754
84584361|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.1082|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.1082
84584362|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.0179|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.0179
84498778|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|7.15||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.15|-2.96|0.415
84498779|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.38||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.06||P-value is for Morning 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|-2.30|0.198
84498780|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.22||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.29||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.29|0.14|0.045
84498781|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.64||P-value is for Midday 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.64|-4.50|0.426
84498782|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|13.17||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.17|-1.86|0.140
84756919|NCT00243386|169269613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84584363|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5722|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5722
84584364|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.6148
84584365|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5307|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5307
84584366|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination?||||||0.1546|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination.||||0.1546
84584367|NCT02732145|168921886|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active?||||||0.1019|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active.||||0.1019
84584368|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584369|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584370|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611261|NCT01455194|168973986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5001||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|5.602|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||5.602|0.789|0.1373
84611262|NCT01455194|168973986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4365||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.074|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.074|0.375|0.7732
84584371|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
84584372|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0010
84584373|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.1859
84756920|NCT00243386|169269614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84756921|NCT00243386|169269615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4924||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
84756922|NCT00243386|169269636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1467||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1467
84756923|NCT00243386|169269637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0007
84584374|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
84584375|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0015
84584376|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0013
84611263|NCT01455194|168973987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2880
84611264|NCT01455194|168973987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2864
84611265|NCT03916484|168974002|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
84611266|NCT03916484|168974003|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84611267|NCT03916484|168974003|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84611268|NCT03916484|168974003|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84611269|NCT03916484|168974003|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84611270|NCT03916484|168974003|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84756924|NCT00243386|169269638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
84756925|NCT00243386|169269639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84584377|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.5673|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.5673
84584378|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0065
84584379|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.083|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0830
84584380|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0001
84584381|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584382|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.2315
84584383|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584384|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups?||||||0.0539|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups.||||0.0539
84611271|NCT03916484|168974004|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84756926|NCT04037748|169269640|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|95.6||||||||95.6|86.3|
84584385|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.0379|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.0379
84584386|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.1485|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.1485
84584387|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.4155|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.4155
84584388|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0092|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0092
84584389|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0192|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0192
84584390|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.5253
84584391|NCT02732145|168921887|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups?||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups.||||0.0060
84584392|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84756927|NCT04037748|169269641|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.2|99.5||||||||99.5|88.2|
84584393|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups?||||||0.3957|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups.||||0.3957
84584394|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584395|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0001
84584396|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584397|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611272|NCT03916484|168974005|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84611273|NCT03916484|168974005|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||||||0.07
84611274|NCT03916484|168974005|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
84611275|NCT03916484|168974006|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||||||0.25
84611276|NCT03916484|168974006|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
84611277|NCT03916484|168974006|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||||||0.453
84611278|NCT03916484|168974006|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.500
84584398|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584399|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584400|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups?||||||0.1764|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups.||||0.1764
84584401|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups?||||||0.3127|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups.||||0.3127
84584402|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad among patients from different groups?"||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad (Dysmenorrhoea-Dyspareunia-Dysuria) among patients from different groups."||||0.0028
84584403|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584404|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups?||||||0.9323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups.||||0.9323
84584405|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups?||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0011
84584406|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups?||||||0.2756|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups.||||0.2756
84584407|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups.||||0.0105
84584408|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV?||||||0.2128|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV.||||0.2128
84756928|NCT04037748|169269643|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|100.0||||||||100.0|94.7|
84584409|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups?||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups.||||0.0018
84756929|NCT04037748|169269644|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|97.8||||||||97.8|92.0|
84584410|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups?||||||0.2524|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups.||||0.2524
84584411|NCT02732145|168921888|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups?||||||0.2452|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups.||||0.2452
84584412|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.1583
84584413|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0380
84584414|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.6468
84584415|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.4670
84584416|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.2131|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.2131
84584417|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticosteroids between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticoids among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0000
84611279|NCT03916484|168974006|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
84611280|NCT00788710|168974028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84756930|NCT04995055|169269646|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-9.5|-21.2|
84498783|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.63||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.63|1.74|0.020
84498784|NCT01215955|168747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.01||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|17.49||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.49|0.53|0.037
84498785|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.84||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.55|0.543
84498786|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|14.6||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.60|-1.17|0.095
84498787|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|18.06||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.06|-0.35|0.059
84498788|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.23||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-2.05|0.497
84498789|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|12.79||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.79|-2.06|0.156
84498790|NCT01215955|168747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|15.76||P-value of for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|-3.67|0.222
84498791|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.02|0.442
84498792|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|0.00|0.037
84498793|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.16||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|0.05|<0.001
84611281|NCT00788710|168974028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84611282|NCT00788710|168974029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84756931|NCT04995055|169269647|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
84498794|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.01|0.275
84498795|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.02|0.194
84498796|NCT01215955|168747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.04|0.245
84498797|NCT01215955|168747903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.435
84498798|NCT01215955|168747903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
84498799|NCT01215955|168747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.802
84498800|NCT01215955|168747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.205
84498801|NCT01215955|168747905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio of Negative Binomial|1.06||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.30|0.86|0.586
84498802|NCT01215955|168747905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio Negative Binomial|1.05||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial|||||1.30|0.84|0.689
84498803|NCT01215955|168747906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.258
84498804|NCT01215955|168747906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.856
84498805|NCT00038467|168747907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|0.00003
84498806|NCT00038467|168747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.15737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.036|||Log Rank|||||1.036|0.806|0.15737
84611283|NCT00788710|168974029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84756932|NCT04995055|169269648|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-2.1|-4.9|
84611284|NCT00788710|168974030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84584418|NCT02732145|168921889|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0962
84584419|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584420|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584421|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584422|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584423|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584424|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584425|NCT02732145|168921890|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584426|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0009
84756933|NCT04995055|169269649|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
84584427|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0289|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0289
84584428|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0134
84584429|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0037
84584430|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva?||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0080
84584431|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0579|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0579
84584432|NCT02732145|168921890|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0720
84584433|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611285|NCT00788710|168974030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84611286|NCT01220180|168974047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611287|NCT01220180|168974048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611288|NCT01220180|168974049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611289|NCT01220180|168974050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611290|NCT01220180|168974051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611291|NCT01220180|168974052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84756934|NCT04995055|169269651|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-1.9|-4.4|
84584434|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584435|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584436|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584437|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584438|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584439|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584440|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611292|NCT01220180|168974053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84611293|NCT01220180|168974054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84756935|NCT01412554|169269670|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics|||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient||Only an observational follow-up study|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient|||<0.05
84584441|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611294|NCT02262754|168974071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.6||||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used for missing data.||0.60|-0.28|
84611295|NCT02262754|168974071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.87||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.87|-0.02|
84611296|NCT02262754|168974071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.18||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.18|-0.70|
84756936|NCT00807742|169269680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.606
84756937|NCT00807742|169269681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.290
84756938|NCT00807742|169269682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.23|||Chi-squared|||||8.23|0.49|.32
84756939|NCT00807742|169269683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.45|||Chi-squared|||||8.45|0.51|.298
84756940|NCT00807742|169269684|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.71|<.001
84584442|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584443|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584444|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0.0632|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0632
84584445|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584446|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0.0043|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0043
84584447|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Typ), evaluated with Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584448|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584449|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0697|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0697
84584450|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0319
84584451|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7273|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7273
84611297|NCT02262754|168974077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.3||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.76|
84611298|NCT02262754|168974077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.65||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.41|
84611299|NCT02262754|168974077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.17||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.87|
84726105|NCT05361304|169204543|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology.||1.010|-0.460|
84611300|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.36||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.20|
84611301|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.07||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.48|
84611302|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.56||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.56|0.01|
84611303|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.34||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.34|-0.43|
84611304|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.15|-0.62|
84611305|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.58||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.58|-0.19|
84756941|NCT00807742|169269685|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.38|.199
84756942|NCT00807742|169269686|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.12||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.57|.148
84584452|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611306|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.45||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.45|-0.39|
84611307|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.16|-0.69|
84611308|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||||90.0|-0.12|0.71||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.71|-0.12|
84672751|NCT01455012|169081407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-160.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.23|-107.45||The analysis of this primary efficacy variable was performed using a two-sided alpha level of 5 %.|ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated on the basis of the Least Square Mean (LSM) of the difference as well as on the 95 % Confidence Interval and the p-value for that difference. Difference to Placebo was calculated as Rotigotine-Placebo.|The 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) and the p-value for the mean difference between Rotigotine and Placebo was obtained from a linear Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline antihypertensive use and a covariate for the Baseline number of nocturnal elevations of Systolic Blood Pressure that are associated with Periodic Limb Movements (PLMs).||-107.45|-213.23|<0.0001
84756943|NCT00807742|169269687|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.40|.249
84756944|NCT00807742|169269688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|0.59|0.402
84756945|NCT00807742|169269689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.49|.772
84756946|NCT00807742|169269690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.60|.910
84756947|NCT00807742|169269691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62|||Chi-squared|||||1.62|0.54|.812
84756948|NCT00807742|169269692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Chi-squared|||||1.65|0.36|.490
84756949|NCT00807742|169269693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Chi-squared|||||2.06|0.67|.511
84756950|NCT00807742|169269694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.72|.499
84756951|NCT00807742|169269695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.58|.876
84756952|NCT00807742|169269696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.59|.001
84756953|NCT00807742|169269697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.25||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.46|.069
84584453|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584454|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2203|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.2203
84584455|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584456|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584457|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1456|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1456
84584458|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1133|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1133
84584459|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584460|NCT02732145|168921891|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0058|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0058
84584461|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584462|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584463|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584464|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584465|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584466|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84672752|NCT01153581|169081492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84584467|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584468|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584469|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584470|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0016
84584471|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584472|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584473|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0014|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0014
84584474|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84672753|NCT00245765|169081493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|150.3|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||150.3|13.7|<0.001
84672754|NCT00245765|169081493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|292.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||292.6|23.5|<0.001
84756954|NCT00807742|169269698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.16||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.40|.202
84584475|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0414|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0414
84584476|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0898|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0898
84584477|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0008
84672755|NCT00245765|169081494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|64.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|1169.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors. Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.||||1169.1|12.7|<0.001
84672756|NCT00245765|169081494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|2999.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||2999.2|31.4|<0.001
84672757|NCT04976530|169081504|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.07||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.58|0.72|0.748
84672758|NCT04976530|169081505|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.33||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.04|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.04|0.86|0.202
84672759|NCT04976530|169081506|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.73|0.79|0.451
84584478|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0587|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0587
84584479|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||1.0000
84584480|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
84584481|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
84584482|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
84584483|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84611309|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.55||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.55|-0.40|
84584484|NCT02732145|168921892|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0854|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0854
84584485|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611310|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.11||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.11|-0.84|
84611311|NCT02262754|168974078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.03|
84611312|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.08|-0.03|
84584486|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611313|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.02|-0.09|
84611314|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|0.01|
84756955|NCT00807742|169269699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.17||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.42|.199
84584487|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584488|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84498807|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.23|1.63|<0.0001
84498808|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.79|0.57|0.0002
84584489|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0199|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0199
84584490|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84672760|NCT04976530|169081507|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.46|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.46|1.02|0.041
84756956|NCT03834519|169269700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in survival assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.14|0.77|0.2616
84756957|NCT03834519|169269701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in rPFS assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.25|0.82|0.5544
84756958|NCT03834519|169269702|OTHER|Treatment difference in TFST|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.03|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.03|0.71|
84756959|NCT03834519|169269703|OTHER|Treatment difference in ORR|Difference in percentage|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.1||||||||17.1|4.0|
84756960|NCT03834519|169269705|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to PSA progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.38|0.89|
84756961|NCT03834519|169269706|OTHER|Treatment difference in SSRE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||0.78|0.38|
84756962|NCT03834519|169269707|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to radiographic soft tissue progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.00|0.62|
84756963|NCT03834519|169269708|OTHER|Treatment difference in TTPE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.26|0.72|0.3643
84498809|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.81|1.77|<0.0001
84498810|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.46|1.12|<0.0001
84584491|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584492|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584493|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584494|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584495|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584496|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584497|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0024
84584498|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0205|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0205
84584499|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0158|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0158
84584500|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0001
84611315|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.1||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.10|-0.09|
84584501|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.028|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0280
84584502|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611316|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.05||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.15|
84498811|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||4.35|2.10|<0.0001
84498812|NCT00038467|168747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.69|1.10|<0.0001
84498813|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.86|-1.76|0.500
84498814|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.52|-3.67|0.009
84498815|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.16|-2.86|0.079
84498816|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.77|-1.24|0.729
84498817|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.75|-2.43|0.302
84498818|NCT00038467|168747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.54|-2.76|0.187
84498819|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.49|-1.80|0.260
84584503|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611317|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.15|-0.04|
84756964|NCT01484977|169269715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Retention Rate|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|81.25||||||"Analyses of the primary efficacy variable will be descriptive only. No hypothesis tests are planned.~The number and percentage of subjects remaining in the study through the 21-Week Treatment Period will be calculated. Subjects with retention will be counted in the numerator. All subjects in the relevant population will be used as the denominator.~This percentage will be known as the retention rate, along with the 95 % confidence interval based on the normal approximation."||81.25|65.42|
84498820|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.44|-2.02|0.209
84756965|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||14.2|-5.0|
84756966|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.5|-7.3|
84756967|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.5|-7.3|
84498821|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.92|-1.38|0.698
84498822|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.09|-0.42|0.192
84498823|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.15|-1.46|0.813
84498824|NCT00038467|168747920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.75|-0.91|0.537
84498825|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.42|-3.46|0.727
84498826|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.05|-6.12|0.047
84498827|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.08|-3.88|0.553
84498828|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.99|-2.17|0.563
84498829|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.36|-3.83|0.643
84498830|NCT00038467|168747921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.82|-6.63|0.126
84498831|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.23|-0.83|0.265
84498832|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.57|-1.84|0.0002
84498833|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.13|-1.00|0.132
84584504|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584505|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584506|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584507|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584508|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
84584509|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584510|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0003
84584511|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584512|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3053|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3053
84498834|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.43|-0.70|0.635
84584513|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7758|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7758
84584514|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.6676|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.6676
84611318|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|-0.12|
84611319|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.07||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.07|-0.16|
84611320|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.16|-0.07|
84498835|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.75|0.449
84584515|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4577|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4577
84584516|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1681|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1681
84584517|NCT02732145|168921893|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8848|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8848
84584518|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611321|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.14||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.14|-0.16|
84611322|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.24|
84584519|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584520|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584521|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611323|NCT02262754|168974079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.23||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.23|-0.05|
84611324|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.73|0.54|
84756968|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.5|-7.8|
84756969|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||14.2|-5.0|
84611325|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.51||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.51|0.81|
84611326|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|0.39|
84611327|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.81||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|0.37|
84756970|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||9.5|-7.3|
84756971|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||9.5|-7.3|
84756972|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
84672761|NCT04976530|169081508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84498836|NCT00038467|168747922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.81|0.454
84498837|NCT00038467|168747923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.335|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.335|-0.53|0.712
84498838|NCT00038467|168747923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.356|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.356|-0.65|0.899
84498839|NCT00038467|168747923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.359|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.359|-0.76|0.882
84498840|NCT00038467|168747923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.37|-0.54|0.604
84498841|NCT00038467|168747923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.454|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.454|-1.16|0.562
84498842|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.18|-0.20|0.892
84498843|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.24|-0.21|0.881
84498844|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-0.18|0.883
84498845|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.27|-0.16|0.604
84672762|NCT04976530|169081509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
84498846|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.05|0.118
84498847|NCT00038467|168747924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.34|-0.11|0.307
84498848|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.56|-0.42|0.792
84756973|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||9.5|-7.3|
84498849|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.31|-0.76|0.405
84498850|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.75|0.484
84498851|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.80|-0.19|0.229
84498852|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-0.84|0.381
84498853|NCT00038467|168747925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.82|0.405
84498854|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.48|-0.77|0.648
84498855|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.40|-1.08|0.366
84498856|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.03|-1.33|0.062
84498857|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.00|-0.53|0.545
84498858|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.70|-0.77|0.932
84498859|NCT00038467|168747926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-1.24|0.244
84498860|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.73|-0.62|0.876
84498861|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.26|-1.25|0.195
84498862|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.55|-0.92|0.630
84498863|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.98|-0.50|0.530
84498864|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-1.43|0.147
84498865|NCT00038467|168747927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.46|-1.18|0.389
84498866|NCT00038467|168747929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||6 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0174
84498867|NCT00038467|168747929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0059
84672763|NCT04976530|169081510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
84498868|NCT00038467|168747929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0037
84498869|NCT00038467|168747929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.8084
84498870|NCT00038467|168747929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.6449
84498871|NCT03972709|168747935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1206||95.0|-0.08|0.66|||MMRM|||||0.66|-0.08|0.1206
84498872|NCT03972709|168747935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6127||95.0|-0.34|0.57|||MMRM|||||0.57|-0.34|0.6127
84498873|NCT03972709|168747942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.36|||MMRM|||||3.36|-4.14|0.8388
84498874|NCT03972709|168747942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|4.23|||MMRM|||||4.23|-5.18|0.8412
84584522|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584523|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening among the patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584524|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584525|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584526|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84611328|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|2.35||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.35|0.53|
84672764|NCT04976530|169081511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84756974|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||9.5|-7.3|
84498875|NCT03972709|168747943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.88|||MMRM|||||4.88|-3.22|0.6865
84498876|NCT03972709|168747943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.9355||95.0|-4.73|5.13|||MMRM|||||5.13|-4.73|0.9355
84498877|NCT01393626|168747949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|21.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||21.36|-7.64|0.3249
84498878|NCT01393626|168747949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||20.80|-8.09|0.3916
84498879|NCT04193033|168747987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|||||||0.001
84498880|NCT04193033|168747988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84498881|NCT04193033|168747989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84498882|NCT04193033|168747991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|Time was included as a fixed effect and both time and intercept were included as random effects.||||||.49
84498883|NCT04193033|168747993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired t-test, alpha = .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84498884|NCT02180659|168748013|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy variable, a test of non-inferiority of Probuphine (active) versus SL BPN (control) responders was conducted. A non-inferiority margin of 20% was employed to define noninferiority.~A Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions was calculated, and non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference of proportions (Probuphine - SL BPN) was greater than -0.20."|Difference in Response Rate|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.167|||Chi-squared|||||0.167|0.009|<.001
84498885|NCT02180659|168748014|SUPERIORITY|At month 6 comparing those subject with no illicit drug use.||||||0.306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.306
84498886|NCT02180659|168748015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||.037
84498887|NCT02180659|168748017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.832
84498888|NCT02180659|168748018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.922
84498889|NCT02180659|168748019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.425
84756975|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
84584527|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584528|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584529|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0001
84584530|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584531|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584532|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0023
84584533|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584534|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0235
84584535|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0021
84584536|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584537|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0038|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0038
84756976|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||9.5|-7.3|
84756977|NCT00853749|169269716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
84672765|NCT00667342|169081531|OTHER|The association between response and Ktrans at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
84756978|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||12.7|-8.6|
84756979|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.7|-7.5|
84756980|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.7|-7.5|
84756981|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.7|-7.5|
84756982|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||10.0|-7.4|
84756983|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||10.0|-7.5|
84584538|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0019
84584539|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
84584540|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0198|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0198
84584541|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0004
84584542|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0053
84611329|NCT02262754|168974080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.6||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|0.33|
84611330|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.7||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.70|-1.06|
84611331|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.03||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.80|
84611332|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.61||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.61|-0.15|
84672766|NCT00667342|169081532|OTHER|The association between response and Vp at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0573|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0573
84672767|NCT00667342|169081533|OTHER|The association between response and Ve at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
84756984|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.1||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||8.1|-10.8|
84756985|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
84756986|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.9||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||7.9|-11.1|
84584543|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
84584544|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
84584545|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84756987|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||12.2|-8.5|
84756988|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
84756989|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.7||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||7.7|-11.3|
84584546|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
84584547|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
84584548|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
84584549|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
84584550|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.004|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0040
84611333|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.29||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.29|-1.69|
84611334|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.11|-2.11|
84611335|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.39||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.39|-0.57|
84611336|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.6||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.60|-1.42|
84611337|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.27||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.27|-2.28|
84611338|NCT02262754|168974086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.85||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.85|-0.12|
84672768|NCT00326612|169081593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
84672769|NCT00326612|169081594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.2|3.9||||||||3.9|0.2|
84756990|NCT00853749|169269717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
84756991|NCT00853749|169269718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.42|0.22|
84584551|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0012|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0012
84584552|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584553|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
84584554|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
84584555|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
84584556|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
84584557|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0131|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0131
84611339|NCT02262754|168974087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.35||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||0.35|-1.63|
84756992|NCT00853749|169269718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures ((PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.44|0.23|
84498890|NCT02180659|168748020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.505
84584558|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0423|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0423
84584559|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0021|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0021
84584560|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584561|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584562|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0091|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0091
84584563|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0002
84611340|NCT02262754|168974087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|-0.45||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||-0.45|-2.40|
84611341|NCT02262754|168974087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.8||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||1.80|-0.22|
84498891|NCT03000075|168748021|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|85.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||85.0|62.2|< 0.001
84498892|NCT03000075|168748021|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|84.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.1|60.6|< 0.001
84498893|NCT03000075|168748023|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|86.2||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||86.2|63.8|< 0.001
84584564|NCT02732145|168921894|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84584565|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0013|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0013
84584566|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0001
84584567|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
84756993|NCT00853749|169269718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.67|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.67|0.29|
84756994|NCT00853749|169269718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.61|
84756995|NCT00853749|169269718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.65|0.34|
84756996|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.35|
84756997|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.38|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.38|0.68|
84756998|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.81|0.51|
84756999|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.48|0.67|
84757000|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.98|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures(PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.33|
84757001|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.56|0.72|
84584568|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0008
84584569|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0251|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0251
84584570|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
84584571|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0211|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0211
84584572|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3067|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3067
84584573|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
84584574|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0149|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0149
84584575|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
84611342|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.78||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.78|-1.52|
84611343|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.20|-2.10|
84611344|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.71||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.71|-0.56|
84757002|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.99|0.39|
84611345|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.02||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-2.06|
84584576|NCT02732145|168921894|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
84757003|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.32|0.12|
84584577|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584578|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0071|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0071
84584579|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of slow AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of slow AWR occurrence between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0010
84611346|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|-0.17||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.17|-2.25|
84498894|NCT03000075|168748023|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|92.6||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||92.6|72.2|< 0.001
84498895|NCT03000075|168748025|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|90.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.4|70.1|< 0.001
84498896|NCT03000075|168748025|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|86.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|95.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||95.1|76.8|< 0.001
84498897|NCT03000075|168748027|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|33.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||33.4|11.8|< 0.001
84498898|NCT03000075|168748027|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||45.0|20.0|< 0.001
84498899|NCT03000075|168748029|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|90.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.1|-11.6|0.131
84498900|NCT03000075|168748029|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|31.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|86.7||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.7|-24.2|0.269
84611347|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|1.19||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.19|-0.82|
84584580|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0036
84672770|NCT00326612|169081595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
84672771|NCT00326612|169081596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.2|8.2||||||||8.2|0.2|
84672772|NCT00326612|169081597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|67.3||||||||67.3|0.0|
84584581|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0032
84584582|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584583|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584584|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584585|NCT02732145|168921895|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of Ring sign between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?"||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of Ring sign, aceto-whitening of all structures of the Inner Vulvar Ring, between the patients from different groups and positive AWR."||||0.0000
84584586|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0856|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0856
84584587|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4290
84611348|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.15||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.15|-1.39|
84611349|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.45||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.45|-0.80|
84611350|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.02||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-1.21|
84611351|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.28||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.28|-1.42|
84584588|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0124|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0124
84584589|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584590|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584591|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
84584592|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584593|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584594|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.5822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.5822
84584595|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584596|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584597|NCT02732145|168921895|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.4975|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.4975
84584598|NCT02732145|168921896|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive?||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence (positive AWR) among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive.||||0.0003
84584599|NCT02732145|168921897|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups.||||0.0004
84584600|NCT02732145|168921897|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0231
84584601|NCT02732145|168921897|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR?||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR.||||0.0006
84611352|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.46||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.46|-0.67|
84611353|NCT02262754|168974088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.2||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.20|-1.29|
84757004|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.18|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.56|
84757005|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.63|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.63|0.21|
84757006|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||2.25|0.88|
84672773|NCT00326612|169081598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|0.2|140.7||||||||140.7|0.2|
84757007|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.48|
84584602|NCT02732145|168921897|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584603|NCT02732145|168921898|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584604|NCT02732145|168921898|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84757008|NCT00853749|169269719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.20|0.54|
84584605|NCT02732145|168921898|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84757009|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.55|0.25|
84498901|NCT00111007|168748031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.31|||log rank test|||||1.310|0.627|0.492
84498902|NCT00111007|168748032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.333|||log rank test|||||1.333|0.744|0.979
84498903|NCT00111007|168748033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.162|||log rank test|||||1.162|0.641|0.331
84498904|NCT00111007|168748034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.437|||log rank test|||||1.437|0.110|0.146
84498905|NCT00111007|168748035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.389
84584606|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0128|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0128
84584607|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584608|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0635|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0635
84584609|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0429
84584610|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0011|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0011
84498906|NCT01154673|168748087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.4||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|Regression, Linear||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|||0.4|-.006|0.056
84498907|NCT03083639|168748093|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUC∞ using analysis of variance (ANOVA) models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07||||||||1.070|0.969|
84584611|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0936|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0936
84584612|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||1.0000
84498908|NCT03083639|168748094|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUCt using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.05||||||||1.050|0.939|
84498909|NCT03083639|168748095|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of Cmax using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of Cmax central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.009||||||||1.009|0.880|
84584613|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
84584614|NCT02732145|168921898|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
84584615|NCT02732145|168921899|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584616|NCT02732145|168921899|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84611354|NCT02262754|168974089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.58||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||1.58|0.61|
84584617|NCT02732145|168921899|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584618|NCT02732145|168921899|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584619|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
84584620|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
84584621|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584622|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||1.0000
84584623|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
84584624|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
84584625|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1e-05|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.00001
84757010|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.15|0.44|
84584626|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584627|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584628|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0008
84584629|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584630|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584631|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0005
84584632|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584633|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84757011|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.75|0.45|
84757012|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.24|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.48|
84584634|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.4505|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.4505
84584635|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584636|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584637|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
84584638|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
84584639|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584640|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
84584641|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584642|NCT02732145|168921899|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0005
84584643|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584644|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584645|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584646|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584647|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584648|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84584649|NCT02732145|168921900|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
84611355|NCT02262754|168974089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.14||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||3.14|1.33|
84584650|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8545|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8545
84584651|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8569|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8569
84584652|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
84584653|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
84584654|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
84584655|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.5943|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.5943
84584656|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.7161|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.7161
84757013|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
84540583|NCT02972892|168832389|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.56|53.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||53.41|35.56|<.001
84584657|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
84584658|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
84584659|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
84584660|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.4742|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4742
84584661|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
84584662|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
84584663|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0927|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0927
84611356|NCT02262754|168974089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.74||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||0.74|0.31|
84611357|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.20|-0.19|
84584664|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.036|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0360
84584665|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
84584666|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||1.0000
84584667|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
84584668|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
84584669|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.5987|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.5987
84584670|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4164|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4164
84611358|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.34|
84611359|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.35|-0.05|
84611360|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.18|-0.26|
84672774|NCT01276314|169081602|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The p-value was analyzed for SJS/TEN participants with \>10% body surface area detachment.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.01
84672775|NCT01276314|169081602|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value was analyzed for DRESS participants.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.06
84757014|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.56|
84584671|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
84584672|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0148|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0148
84584673|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0085|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0085
84672776|NCT02530294|169081605|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84584674|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
84584675|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3037
84611361|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.07||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.37|
84611362|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.33||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.33|-0.10|
84611363|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.38||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.09|
84672777|NCT02530294|169081606|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||<0.001
84498910|NCT00929864|168748101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested for non-inferiority. Abatacept will be considered non-inferior to adalimumab if the upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI of difference in ACR20 response rates between the adalimumab arm and the abatacept arm is smaller than or equal to 12%. Estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference based on minimum risk weights method with randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).|Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||minimum risk weights method|adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: T - C\<= δ vs. Ha:T - C \> δ, where T is the treatment effect of abatacept, C is the effect of active control (adalimumab),and δ is non-inferiority margin. Abatacept is defined as δ non-inferior to adalimumab when H0 is rejected. More specifically, if the lower bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for C-T is greater than δ,, then that Abatacept is δ non-inferior to adalimumab can be claimed.||9.2|-5.6|
84498911|NCT00929864|168748102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-1.62|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is p-value of difference in proportions. n=number of participants with event, N=number of participants at risk. Proportion = n/N. In order to maintain the overall type I error rate of 0.05 for testing both the primary non-inferiority hypothesis and the key secondary local injection site reaction (LISR) hypothesis, the LISR hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level only after the primary non-inferiority hypothesis is established at the 5% level.||-1.62|-9.13|0.006
84498912|NCT00929864|168748103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.72||||||Analysis of incidence rate at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||-1.72|-6.55|
84498913|NCT00929864|168748104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.9|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 365.||3.9|-6.5|
84498914|NCT00929864|168748104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 729|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.3|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 729.||7.3|-5.5|
84498915|NCT00929864|168748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|6.11||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||6.11|-4.51|
84498916|NCT00929864|168748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.94||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious Infections and Infestations at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.94|-3.27|
84498917|NCT00929864|168748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.91||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Opportunistic Infections at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.91|-0.92|
84498918|NCT00929864|168748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.41||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuation for any cause at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.41|-12.06|
84611364|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.25|-0.21|
84672778|NCT02530294|169081607|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||< 0.001
84757015|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.95|0.44|
84672779|NCT02530294|169081608|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84672780|NCT02530294|169081609|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84672781|NCT01236196|169081610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84672782|NCT01236196|169081611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84672783|NCT01236196|169081612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84672784|NCT01236196|169081613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84672785|NCT02566759|169081621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.6662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5969|0.7355||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) is equal to (=) a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.7355|0.5969|
84611365|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.36||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.10|
84757016|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.4|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.40|0.18|
84757017|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.72|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.72|0.76|
84757018|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.51|0.25|
84757019|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.55|
84757020|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.28|0.61|
84611366|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.38||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.13|
84611367|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.46|
84672786|NCT02566759|169081621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.7795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6597|0.8993|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.8993|0.6597|
84757021|NCT00853749|169269720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.23|0.60|
84757022|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness||||0.253
84757023|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness||||0.380
84757024|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness||||0.135
84757025|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness||||0.520
84757026|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness||||0.283
84757027|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe redness||||0.225
84757028|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling||||0.202
84757029|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling||||0.294
84757030|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling||||0.175
84757031|NCT00853749|169269721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling||||0.314
84757032|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥ 38 degrees C but ≤ 39 degrees C||||> .99
84757033|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite||||> .99
84757034|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability||||0.543
84757035|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep||||0.233
84757036|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep||||0.198
84757037|NCT00853749|169269722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.628|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for rash||||0.628
84757038|NCT00841204|169269732|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0056
84757039|NCT00841204|169269733|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
84757040|NCT00841204|169269734|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84757041|NCT00841204|169269735|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
84757042|NCT00841204|169269736|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
84584676|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
84611368|NCT02262754|168974090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.58||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.58|0.08|
84498919|NCT00929864|168748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.61||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.61|-5.43|
84498920|NCT00929864|168748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.63||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious infections and infestations Adverse Events at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.63|-3.12|
84498921|NCT00929864|168748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||minimum risk weights method|||Analysis for incidence rate of opportunistic infections at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.36|-1.39|
84498922|NCT00929864|168748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.92||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuations (all cause) at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.92|-7.13|
84498923|NCT00929864|168748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.2||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-2.2|-13.9|
84498924|NCT00929864|168748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.5||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference||-1.5|-15.3|
84498925|NCT00929864|168748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-5.7||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-5.7|-13.4|
84584677|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
84584678|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0877|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0877
84611369|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.08|-0.42|
84611370|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.62|
84498926|NCT00929864|168748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-7.6|-16.9|
84498927|NCT03940742|168748110|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.32||||||||1.32|0.879|
84498928|NCT03940742|168748110|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.17||||||||1.17|0.790|
84498929|NCT03940742|168748110|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.04||||||||1.04|0.699|
84498930|NCT03940742|168748111|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|1.16||||||||1.16|0.726|
84498931|NCT03940742|168748111|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.25||||||||1.25|0.802|
84498932|NCT03940742|168748111|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.21||||||||1.21|0.784|
84498933|NCT03353415|168748235|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84498934|NCT03353415|168748236|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84498935|NCT03353415|168748237|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84498936|NCT03353415|168748238|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84498937|NCT03353415|168748239|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84498938|NCT03353415|168748240|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84498939|NCT03353415|168748241|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84498940|NCT03353415|168748242|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84498941|NCT03353415|168748243|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84498942|NCT03353415|168748244|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84498943|NCT03353415|168748245|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84498944|NCT03353415|168748246|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84498945|NCT03353415|168748247|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84498946|NCT03353415|168748248|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84498947|NCT03353415|168748249|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84498948|NCT03353415|168748250|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84498949|NCT03353415|168748251|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84498950|NCT03353415|168748252|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84498951|NCT03353415|168748253|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84584679|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.7726|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.7726
84584680|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0191|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0191
84584681|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
84584682|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.6374|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.6374
84584683|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.7512|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.7512
84584684|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2734|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2734
84584685|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
84584686|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
84584687|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0602|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0602
84584688|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0079|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0079
84584689|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2081|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2081
84611371|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.45||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.45|-0.05|
84584690|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
84611372|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.21||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.38|
84757043|NCT01392677|169269743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.49||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Mixed Models Analysis|Longitudinal repeated measures model using mixed model with treatment group, baseline value, week and week\*treatment and week\*baseline||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-0.89|<0.0001
84584691|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0852|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0852
84611373|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.01||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.01|-0.58|
84611374|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.49||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.49|-0.09|
84584692|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
84584693|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
84584694|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2714|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2714
84584695|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
84584696|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0772|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0772
84584697|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
84584698|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
84584699|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
84584700|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
84584701|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.6862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.6862
84584702|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
84584703|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
84584704|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
84611375|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.21||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.36|
84611376|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.1||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.10|-0.67|
84672787|NCT02566759|169081621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3043|0.4301||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed lease square (LS) Means.||0.4301|0.3043|
84757044|NCT01392677|169269744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-23.82||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.82|-43.08|<0.0001
84584705|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1822
84584706|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
84584707|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
84584708|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
84584709|NCT02732145|168921900|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
84584710|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584711|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584712|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584713|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584714|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584715|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584716|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes (infiltrates) in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0105
84584717|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0064|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0064
84584718|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611377|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.59||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.59|0.03|
84584719|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84611378|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.21||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.42|
84611379|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|-0.12||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.75|
84611380|NCT02262754|168974091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.63||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.63|0.02|
84584720|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0342
84611381|NCT02262754|168974092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.56||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||1.56|0.46|
84757045|NCT01392677|169269745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3651|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.35||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.35|-2.79|<0.0001
84498952|NCT03353415|168748254|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84757046|NCT01392677|169269746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion (placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion (treat) minus proportion (placebo) =/= 0||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
84757047|NCT01392677|169269747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6677||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.48||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.48|-7.05|0.025
84757048|NCT02726971|169269756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84757049|NCT01380379|169269759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group comparison pre-post change score, compared to a value of 0 (no change)||||||<.01
84757050|NCT01380379|169269760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
84498953|NCT03353415|168748255|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84498954|NCT00975000|168748256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square test statistic|66.437|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corrected total serum calcium level (≤ 11.2 mg/dL and \> 11.2 mg/dL)||The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84498955|NCT00975000|168748256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|445.41|||||Odds ratio of Cinacalcet/Placebo|||445.41|18.76|
84584721|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0148
84498956|NCT00975000|168748256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|75.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.83|87.05|||||Difference = Cinacalcet-Placebo|||87.05|63.83|
84498957|NCT00975000|168748257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.41||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the percent change in BMD between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.93|-1.10|0.266
84757051|NCT01538628|169269775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|testing the null hypothesis that the proportion for SpaceOAR is less than or equal to 0.70.||||||.0001
84757052|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-Value show above is for post-assessment time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.48
84757053|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value shown above is for the 6-month time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.12
84757054|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value shown above refers to the treatment main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
84757055|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.072||||||The p-value shown above refers to the timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.072
84757056|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the interaction.||||||.0050
84757057|NCT01357577|169269782|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the site main effect.||||||.12
84757058|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for study site and the baseline value of the dependent variable.||||||0.12||||||Post-treatment P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.12
84757059|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.84
84757060|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||treatment main effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.26
84757061|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Timepoint main effect P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.14
84757062|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.29
84757063|NCT01357577|169269783|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.16
84757064|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Post-treatment p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (drug score).||||||.66
84498958|NCT00975000|168748258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean serum phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||0.64|0.26|<0.001
84498959|NCT00975000|168748259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean eGFR between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.57|-4.37|0.842
84584722|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84757065|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.53
84498960|NCT00975000|168748260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-1.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in corrected total calcium between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-1.16|-1.62|<0.001
84498961|NCT00975000|168748261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-117.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.88|-44.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in iPTH between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-44.55|-189.88|0.002
84498962|NCT00975000|168748262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.42||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|13.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in urine phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||13.06|-15.91|0.846
84498963|NCT01371006|168748268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.81|122.82|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||122.82|90.81|
84498964|NCT01371006|168748269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|116.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|132.35|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||132.35|101.87|
84498965|NCT01371006|168748270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|71.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.46|83.95|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||83.95|61.46|
84498966|NCT01371006|168748271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|64.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.32|79.16|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||79.16|53.32|
84498967|NCT01371006|168748272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.47|72.88|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||72.88|40.47|
84498968|NCT03515837|168748296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||0.97|0.65|0.0122
84611382|NCT02262754|168974092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.81||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||0.81|0.23|
84498969|NCT03515837|168748297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.02|0.69|0.0362
84498970|NCT03515837|168748298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||9.9|-6.0|
84498971|NCT03515837|168748300|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.1|||||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors PD-L1 expression, treatment history, and geographic region of the enrolling site as covariates.|||5.10|-1.93|
84498972|NCT03515837|168748301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||||95.0|0.68|1.27|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.27|0.68|
84498973|NCT02957682|168748314|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper confidence interval (CI) limit was compared to the noninferiority margin, which was 0.2%, and noninferiority was declared if the upper CI limit was below the noninferiority margin.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||P-value was taken from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures||Model: fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point, strata-by-time point, continuous fixed covariates of baseline SWMS raw score value, baseline value by time-point interaction.|Change at Week 96||0.055|-0.094|0.6055
84498974|NCT00149669|168748328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|17.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||17.73|4.24|<0.01
84498975|NCT00149669|168748329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.95|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.95|.43|0.82
84498976|NCT00149669|168748330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.26|0.29|=0.19
84498977|NCT02458365|168748335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.75|.51|<.0001
84611383|NCT02262754|168974092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|3.65||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||3.65|1.06|
84611384|NCT01727414|168974103|SUPERIORITY|General linear mixed models were used to evaluate the subtype\*dose interaction to determine if the subtypes have unique MPH dose-response curves, with the outcome being Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder total symptom scores (minimum=0, maximum=54, higher=worse)|Slope|0.29|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84611385|NCT00241904|168974154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||Intention to treat analysis was used||||<0.001
84611386|NCT00241904|168974155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.003
84584723|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584724|NCT02732145|168921901|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
84584725|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
84584726|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||1.0000
84584727|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3533|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3533
84584728|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.5641|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.5641
84584729|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9684|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9684
84584730|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8599|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8599
84584731|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
84611387|NCT00241904|168974156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.034
84611388|NCT00241904|168974157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||<0.001
84584732|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8389|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8389
84584733|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7617|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7617
84584734|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the sharp pain of the vulva depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the sharp (fast) pain of the vulva (knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain, stabbing, sticking) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4613
84584735|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0331
84584736|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
84611389|NCT01345669|168974163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.569|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs. Placebo) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|DFS was analysed using a stratified log-rank test with nodal status (N0- N2a vs. N2b-N3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1) being the stratification factors.||1.569|0.809|0.4806
84611390|NCT01345669|168974164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|-6.27||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|2.5|||Log Rank||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of Afatinib vs. Placebo is provided.|Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated for each treatment group, separately, and the estimates of DFS probabilities from the curves and 95% Confidence interval (CI) (using the Greenwood standard error estimate) were tabulated||2.50|-15.04|0.1610
84611391|NCT01345669|168974165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.444||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|2.332||p-value (two-sided) from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.332|0.895|0.1301
84611392|NCT01345669|168974166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.068|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Swallowing (Q5-Q8 from QLQ-HN35).||2.068|0.991|0.0561
84611393|NCT01345669|168974166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|2.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Pain HN35 (Q1-Q4 from QLQ-HN35).||2.098|0.996|0.0523
84498978|NCT02458365|168748335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.68|.45|<.0001
84498979|NCT02458365|168748336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.84|.57|<.001
84611394|NCT01345669|168974166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Global health status/QoL(Q29-Q30 from QLQ-C30).||1.158|0.577|0.2570
84584737|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9139|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9139
84584738|NCT02732145|168921902|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8925|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8925
84584739|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
84584740|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6921
84584741|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1848|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1848
84584742|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.9048|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.9048
84584743|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3953|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3953
84584744|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0921
84757066|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.86
84584745|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6734|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6734
84584746|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3458|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3458
84584747|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5304|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5304
84611395|NCT01345669|168974167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.7||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For swallowing scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.700|0.986|0.0591
84611396|NCT01345669|168974167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.456||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.905||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For pain HN35 scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.905|1.113|0.0049
84611397|NCT01345669|168974167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.604||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.238|2.079||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For global health status/QoL scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.079|1.238|0.0002
84611398|NCT01345669|168974168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (swallowing scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||3.45|-0.81|0.2232
84757067|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.16
84757068|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.47
84757069|NCT01357577|169269784|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.19
84672788|NCT02566759|169081621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|1.799|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4625|2.2116||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.2116|1.4625|
84584748|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp (fast) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0012
84498980|NCT02458365|168748336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.75|.50|<.0001
84584749|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0002
84584750|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0218
84584751|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0297|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0297
84584752|NCT02732145|168921903|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6468
84584753|NCT02732145|168921904|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.2045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.2045
84584754|NCT02732145|168921904|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.7469|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.7469
84584755|NCT02732145|168921904|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.4271|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.4271
84584756|NCT02732145|168921904|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.3607|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.3607
84584757|NCT02732145|168921904|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
84584758|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0045
84672789|NCT02566759|169081624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8145|0.9296||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9296|0.8145|
84672790|NCT02566759|169081624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.9135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8062|1.0209|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||1.0209|0.8062|
84672791|NCT02566759|169081624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4324|0.5777||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.5777|0.4324|
84757070|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.18
84498981|NCT02458365|168748337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.67|.43|<.0001
84672792|NCT02566759|169081624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|3.1275||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||3.1275|2.1000|
84757071|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value at 6 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.45
84584759|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0032
84584760|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.1067|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.1067
84584761|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory cells in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
84584762|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0219
84757072|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.73
84584763|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8213
84584764|NCT02732145|168921905|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0613
84584765|NCT00456365|168921913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84584766|NCT00456365|168921914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84584767|NCT00456365|168921915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
84584768|NCT00456365|168921916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
84584769|NCT05273437|168921917|OTHER|We conducted a Bayesian Regression for all available participants, then visualized the results. (N x 16 table, N: number of participants).|Credibility interval|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bayesian Regression|We explicitly sought 80% credibility of at least 100 steps more within the 3-hour increment in comparison to the intervention.|We decided that 100 steps/3 hours is the minimum value of the MAP intervention effect estimate and that an INUS condition is valid only if there is at least an 80% chance of achieving an effect beyond 100 steps/3 hours.|We hypothesized that some individuals have their own time and decision-policy-specific response pattern regardless of day elapsed since the beginning of the intervention. We did not hypothesize the direction of the effect variation.|The decision point was the unit of analysis. For the Bayesian Regression, we used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Four sampling chains were used when performing Bayesian modeling. The number of estimation samples and target acceptance rate were gradually increased until numerical stability was achieved. The number of estimation samples was increased by multiplied by 2, as advised by previous literature, depending on the ratio of convergence diagnostics R̂ \> 1.1. We used 100 steps increase during 3 hours as the effect threshold value. We assumed that there is an effect only if the estimated effect is more than 80% probable (i.e., the credibility interval is over 100 steps/3 hours) and the Maximum A Posteriori Point (MAP) of the effect is more than 100 steps/3 hours. Otherwise, there is no effect. Among the models with effects, we clipped to 1000 steps/3hours as a maximum if the MAP was greater than 1000 steps/3 hours.|||
84584770|NCT00967486|168921952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84584771|NCT03460704|168921991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean rate ratio|1.004||||0.97889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.349|||negative binomial model|||The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, country, and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-exposure time on treatment as an offset.||1.349|0.747|0.97889
84584772|NCT01767857|168921992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.613
84757073|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.63
84757074|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.024
84757075|NCT01357577|169269785|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.15
84757076|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.48
84757077|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||6-Month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.20
84757078|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.26
84757079|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.71
84584773|NCT01767857|168921993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84584774|NCT01767857|168921994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Global Health Status/Qol||||0.541
84584775|NCT01767857|168921994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Pain||||0.560
84584776|NCT01767857|168921994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Fatigue||||0.603
84584777|NCT01767857|168921994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Appetite Loss||||0.485
84498982|NCT02458365|168748337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.56|.36|<.0001
84584778|NCT01767857|168921995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.210
84757080|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Interaction main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.56
84584779|NCT01767857|168921996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.768
84584780|NCT01421459|168921999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week endpoint HbA1c for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.070|0.403
84584781|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.382
84584782|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.910
84584783|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.869
84584784|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for 16 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.345
84584785|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for 20 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
84584786|NCT01421459|168922001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
84584787|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is at Morning Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.837
84584788|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
84584789|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.107
84584790|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.258
84584791|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
84757081|NCT01357577|169269786|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.51
84757082|NCT02375724|169269795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.02||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||-0.10|-1.94|0.0306
84584792|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.725
84584793|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.543
84584794|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||P-value is for Morning Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 wk.|ANCOVA|||||||0.265
84584795|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
84584796|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
84584797|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.366
84584798|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
84584799|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.537
84584800|NCT01421459|168922002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.878
84584801|NCT01421459|168922003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.779
84584802|NCT01421459|168922003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.788
84584803|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.687
84584804|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value is for change at 4 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
84584805|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||P-value is for change at 8 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.323
84584806|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value is for change at 12 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
84584807|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for change at 16 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.089
84584808|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value is for change at 20 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
84584809|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||P-value is for change at 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.330
84584810|NCT01421459|168922004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
84584811|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.726
84584812|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.502
84584813|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.437
84584814|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.237
84584815|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
84584816|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.966
84584817|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.313
84584818|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.683
84584819|NCT01421459|168922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.765
84584820|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.983
84584821|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.371
84584822|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.757
84584823|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.890
84584824|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.326
84584825|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
84584826|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
84584827|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.690
84584828|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
84584829|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.902
84672793|NCT02566759|169081625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8505|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7925|0.9084|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9084|0.7925|<0.001
84498983|NCT02458365|168748338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.62|.41|<.0001
84584830|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.109
84584831|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
84584832|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Deliver Device at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
84584833|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
84584834|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
84584835|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
84584836|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.296
84584837|NCT01421459|168922006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.662
84584838|NCT01421459|168922007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
84584839|NCT01421459|168922008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Dose at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANOVA|||||||0.185
84584840|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.661
84584841|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.394
84584842|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.688
84584843|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84584844|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.409
84584845|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.090
84584846|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.319
84584847|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.463
84584848|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.128
84584849|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.261
84584850|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.218
84584851|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.092
84584852|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7%% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.186
84584853|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.174
84584854|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.340
84584855|NCT01421459|168922009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.293
84584856|NCT01421459|168922010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.594
84584857|NCT01421459|168922010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.462
84584858|NCT01421459|168922011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
84584859|NCT01421459|168922011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.686
84584860|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.285
84584861|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.047
84584862|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.882
84584863|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.179
84584864|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.314
84584865|NCT01421459|168922012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline to 24 weeks (Overall).|Chi-squared|||||||0.100
84584866|NCT01421459|168922013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.176
84584867|NCT01421459|168922013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.999
84584868|NCT01421459|168922013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.618
84584869|NCT01421459|168922013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint (LOCF).|Chi-squared|||||||0.874
84584870|NCT01421459|168922013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.233||95.0||||P-value is for Overall (Baseline to 24 weeks).|Chi-squared|||||||>0.233
84584871|NCT03109769|168922048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0444
84584872|NCT03109769|168922048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1373||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0002
84584873|NCT03109769|168922048|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0932||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0283
84584874|NCT03109769|168922049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0283
84584875|NCT03109769|168922049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1177||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.0002
84611399|NCT01345669|168974168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (pain scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||5.36|1.12|0.0028
84584876|NCT03109769|168922049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1014||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.4809
84584877|NCT00507507|168922050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference. The sample size provided at least 85% power to detect a difference of 30% between the groups, assuming response rates of 30% and 60% in the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups, respectively.||||0.016
84584878|NCT00507507|168922051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.050
84584879|NCT00507507|168922051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.009
84584880|NCT00507507|168922051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.030
84584881|NCT00507507|168922052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.703
84584882|NCT00507507|168922052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.034
84584883|NCT00507507|168922052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.011
84584884|NCT00507507|168922052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.007
84584885|NCT00507507|168922053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.010
84584886|NCT00507507|168922054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.019
84584887|NCT00507507|168922055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.186
84584888|NCT00507507|168922056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.070
84584889|NCT00507507|168922057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.467
84584890|NCT00507507|168922057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||1.000
84584891|NCT00507507|168922057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.529
84584892|NCT00507507|168922057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.451
84584893|NCT00507507|168922058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
84584894|NCT00507507|168922058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
84584895|NCT00507507|168922058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.365
84584896|NCT00507507|168922059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
84584897|NCT00507507|168922059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
84584898|NCT00507507|168922059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.244
84584899|NCT01694771|168922063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.144|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.144|0.090|<0.0001
84584900|NCT01694771|168922064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
84672794|NCT02566759|169081625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8415|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7618|0.9212|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.9212|0.7618|<0.001
84584901|NCT01694771|168922065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.147|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.147|0.090|<0.0001
84584902|NCT01694771|168922066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.192|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.192|0.100|<0.0001
84757083|NCT02375724|169269796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.03|-0.46|0.0793
84584903|NCT01694771|168922067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.106|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.106|0.019|0.0047
84584904|NCT01694771|168922068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.201|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.201|0.106|<0.0001
84584905|NCT01694771|168922069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|8.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.192||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|12.759|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||12.759|4.159|0.0001
84584906|NCT01694771|168922070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.250|-0.706|<.0001
84584907|NCT01694771|168922071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.002|-0.164|0.0442
84584908|NCT01694771|168922072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.200|-0.586|<.0001
84757084|NCT02375724|169269797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.06||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.52|-0.64|0.844
84584909|NCT00839930|168922085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.39||||||90.0|87.33|99.86|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.86|87.33|
84584910|NCT00839930|168922086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.14||||||90.0|91.04|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.52|91.04|
84584911|NCT00839930|168922087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.64||||||90.0|92.13|101.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.37|92.13|
84584912|NCT00137449|168922088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|31.3|68.7|||F distribution|||||68.7|31.3|
84584913|NCT00137449|168922088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||F distribution|||||74.5|37.4|
84672795|NCT02566759|169081625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4797|0.6149||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.6149|0.4797|
84757085|NCT00271596|169269837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.028|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.028|-0.361|0.092
84757086|NCT00271596|169269838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|-0.003|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||-0.003|-0.672|0.048
84584914|NCT00137449|168922088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.3|||F distribution|||Null hypothesis that the true CBR \<=20% vs the alternative hypothesis that the true clinical benefit rate is at least 35%. The sample size is determined using a single-stage design with an alpha level of 10% \& 90% power. If \>=17 CR, PR or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can be rejected with a 20% target false positive error rate. If \<= 16 CR, PR,or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can not be rejected with a target false negative error rate of 10%.||66.3|40.0|
84584915|NCT00137449|168922090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|10.0||||||95.0|2.1|26.5|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||26.5|2.1|
84584916|NCT00137449|168922090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|16.7||||||95.0|5.6|34.7|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||34.7|5.6|
84584917|NCT00137449|168922090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|5.9|24.6|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||24.6|5.9|
84584918|NCT00137449|168922092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|27.0||||||95.0|22.0|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||73.1|22.0|
84584919|NCT00137449|168922092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|35.1||||||95.0|24.4|51.6|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||51.6|24.4|
84584920|NCT00137449|168922092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|33.6||||||95.0|24.1|49.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||49.0|24.1|
84757087|NCT00271596|169269839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.254|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic)||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.254|-0.810|0.302
84757088|NCT00271596|169269840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.246|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.246|-0.361|0.708
84498984|NCT02458365|168748338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.54|.35|<.0001
84757089|NCT00271596|169269841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.367|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.367|-0.229|0.646
84498985|NCT02458365|168748339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.38|.001
84584921|NCT00137449|168922093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|57.0||||||95.0|24.1|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||73.1|24.1|
84584922|NCT00137449|168922093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
84584923|NCT00137449|168922093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
84584924|NCT00137449|168922095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|60.0||||||95.0|40.5|75.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||75.0|40.5|
84584925|NCT00137449|168922095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|79.7||||||95.0|60.3|90.3|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||90.3|60.3|
84584926|NCT00137449|168922095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|69.7||||||95.0|56.3|79.7|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||79.7|56.3|
84584927|NCT02296099|168922099|EQUIVALENCE|The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized.||||||0.014||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the two groups.||||0.014
84584928|NCT01356940|168922109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.586||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|||||0.586
84584929|NCT00666263|168922128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|35.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|61.46|||ANOVA|Fixed effects ANOVA with factors for sequence (1 or 2), nested within sequence, period (Cross-Over Period 1 or 2), \& treatment (IGIV, 10% or placebo)||||61.46|8.81|0.005
84757090|NCT00271596|169269842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.23||95.0|-0.554|0.135|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.135|-0.554|0.230
84584930|NCT00666263|168922129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84584931|NCT00666263|168922131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|32.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.01|51.06|||ANOVA|||||51.06|14.01|<0.001
84584932|NCT00666263|168922132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84584933|NCT00666263|168922136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|6.03||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.92|||ANOVA|||||9.92|2.14|0.002
84584934|NCT00666263|168922138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-15.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-6.77|||ANOVA|||||-6.77|-24.37|<0.001
84584935|NCT00666263|168922140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-26.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.96|-13.26|||ANOVA|||||-13.26|-38.96|<0.001
84584936|NCT00666263|168922142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-216.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.41|57.22|||ANOVA|||||57.22|-490.41|0.059
84584937|NCT00666263|168922144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84584938|NCT00666263|168922145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.021
84584939|NCT00586157|168922156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||<.001
84584940|NCT00586157|168922157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.001
84584941|NCT00586157|168922158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.003
84584942|NCT02069847|168922159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
84584943|NCT02069847|168922160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total number of budesonide subjects with 50% or greater esophageal stricture (N=4) vs total number of control subjects with 50% or greater esophageal structure (N=15)||||0.531
84644314|NCT03758755|169024473|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee flexion between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee flexion over time.||||0.242
84498986|NCT02458365|168748339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.90|.40|.013
84498987|NCT02458365|168748340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.76|.37|<.001
84584944|NCT00831389|168922161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median change in PG concentration due to exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.791
84584945|NCT00831389|168922162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.5
84584946|NCT00831389|168922163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of nocturnal hypoglycemic events following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.25
84584947|NCT00831389|168922164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median peak post-prandial PG for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.0669
84584948|NCT00831389|168922165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2256||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median nadir PG immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.2256
84584949|NCT00831389|168922166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median overnight nadir PG for the OL and CL arms do not differ.||||0.791
84584950|NCT00831389|168922167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is within euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.2036
84584951|NCT00831389|168922168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6221||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is above euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.6221
84584952|NCT00831389|168922169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is below euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.021
84584953|NCT00831389|168922170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events over 48 hour in-patient period for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.0176
84584954|NCT00266032|168922200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.0|-20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean of Yaz flexible regimen minus mean of Yaz standard was tested|Primary variable was tested for the hypothesis, whether the means are equal against the alternative (means are different) at a level of significance of alpha = 0.05 (t-test). For power calculation, a normal distribution, a absolute difference of 10 days, a Standard Deviation of 28 days and a drop-out rate of 40% was assumed.||-20|-29|<0.0001
84584955|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=8)||1.00|0.48|
84584956|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=12)||0.57|0.09|
84584957|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.602||||||1-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.602|0.198|
84584958|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.285||||||2-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.285|0.015|
84584959|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||1-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
84584960|NCT00124657|168922218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||2-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
84584961|NCT00928720|168922232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
84584962|NCT03715829|168922252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.96||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 200mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.96|-32.53|<0.0001
84584963|NCT03715829|168922252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 100mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.93|-32.53|<0.0001
84584964|NCT03715829|168922252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.23|-10.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 50 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-10.93|-30.23|0.0003
84584965|NCT03715829|168922252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.77|-5.61||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 30 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-5.61|-27.77|0.0068
84584966|NCT03715829|168922252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.02|4.91||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 10 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-15.02|0.2015
84611400|NCT01345669|168974168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (global health/QoL) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||-1.49|-5.33|0.0005
84611401|NCT00516165|168974169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.05
84611402|NCT00516165|168974170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
84611403|NCT00516165|168974171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
84584967|NCT03253627|168922299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.460
84584968|NCT03253627|168922299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.896
84498988|NCT02458365|168748340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.82|.35|.004
84611404|NCT00516165|168974172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
84498989|NCT02458365|168748341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.35|.002
84584969|NCT03253627|168922300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.374
84584970|NCT03253627|168922300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.236
84584971|NCT03253627|168922301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.180
84584972|NCT03253627|168922301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.822
84584973|NCT03253627|168922302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.715
84584974|NCT03253627|168922302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.861
84498990|NCT02458365|168748341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.81|.31|.005
84584975|NCT03253627|168922302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||.790
84584976|NCT03253627|168922303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.452
84584977|NCT03253627|168922303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.253
84584978|NCT03253627|168922303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.469
84584979|NCT03253627|168922304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.628
84584980|NCT03253627|168922304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.345
84584981|NCT03253627|168922304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.384
84584982|NCT03253627|168922305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.398
84584983|NCT03253627|168922305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.811
84584984|NCT03253627|168922305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.027
84611405|NCT00516165|168974173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
84611406|NCT00516165|168974174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
84611407|NCT01115673|168974240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|469.37|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
84611408|NCT01115673|168974240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.09||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||0.001
84672796|NCT02566759|169081625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9592|2.7854||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.7854|1.9592|
84584985|NCT03163667|168922322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.2||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CB-839+Everolimus (CBE), and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors Placebo+Everolimus (PboE).|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Prognostic Risk (favorable versus intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; 1 versus \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.20|0.34|0.07905
84584986|NCT03163667|168922322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.28|0.37|0.1184
84584987|NCT03163667|168922323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors are MSKCC Prognostic Risk (favorable vs intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a TKI (1 vs \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.50|0.42|0.4801
84498991|NCT02458365|168748342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.64|.29|<.0001
84498992|NCT02458365|168748342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.77|.29|.003
84498993|NCT02953262|168748343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.057
84498994|NCT02953262|168748343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
84498995|NCT02953262|168748343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.613
84611409|NCT01115673|168974240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|367.28|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
84611410|NCT01115673|168974241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.7|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611411|NCT01115673|168974241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.14||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
84611412|NCT01115673|168974241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|178.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84498996|NCT02953262|168748344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.308
84498997|NCT02953262|168748344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.154
84498998|NCT02953262|168748344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84498999|NCT02953262|168748345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.102
84499000|NCT02953262|168748345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84499001|NCT02953262|168748345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.439
84499002|NCT02953262|168748346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
84499003|NCT02953262|168748346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.559
84499004|NCT02953262|168748346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.032
84499005|NCT00759174|168748362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.34|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.34|1.06|0.033
84499006|NCT00759174|168748363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.19|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.19|1.33|0.003
84499007|NCT00759174|168748364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.69|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||7.69|1.70|<0.001
84499008|NCT01890109|168748365|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.83|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes was used as a covariate.||1.83|0.66|0.723
84611413|NCT01115673|168974242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|242.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84540911|NCT01349192|168832925|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Difference was calculated as proportion with a PE treated with MRSA active antibiotics in the treatment group minus the analogous proportion in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.03|-0.42|0.1205
84540912|NCT03749330|168832938|EQUIVALENCE|test of difference between pre and post|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84540913|NCT00114140|168832994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Assuming exponential distribution of survival times, the null hypothesis was a 43% increase in median survival time (40.5 mo. to 57.9 mo.) and a 21% increase in 3-year survival rate (54% to 65%). Assuming 5% ineligibility, 72 patients were required to be accrued over 3 years with 3-years of follow-up resulting in 80% power and 1-sided 0.10 significance level. (N later increased to 135 to accommodate an additional separate analysis of O-6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) status.)||||<0.001
84540914|NCT00114140|168832996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|7.56||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Overall survival: The sample size was increased to 135 to ensure adequate power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.5 for MGMT status, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 with an MGMT prevalence rate of at least 30%||7.56|1.64|0.0006
84540915|NCT00114140|168832996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.04||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Progression-free survival||6.04|1.55|0.0007
84540916|NCT02414958|168833006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit , and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
84540917|NCT02414958|168833006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|Model MMRM included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit, and treatment-by- visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
84540918|NCT02414958|168833007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.4|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
84540919|NCT02414958|168833007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.64|-0.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
84540920|NCT02414958|168833008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.744||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.518|1.069|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.069|0.518|0.0623
84540921|NCT02414958|168833008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.726||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.502|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset||1.501|0.502|0.0480
84540922|NCT02414958|168833008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.774||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.048||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.048|0.572|0.0972
84540923|NCT02414958|168833008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.782||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.575|1.064||Negative binomial model|MMRM||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.064|0.575|0.1180
84540924|NCT02414958|168833009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.57|-1.8|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.80|-3.57|<0.0001
84584988|NCT03163667|168922323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.56||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.56|0.44|0.5603
84757091|NCT00271596|169269843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.642|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.642|-1.276|0.512
84757092|NCT00271596|169269844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.50|-4.30|0.12
84757093|NCT00271596|169269845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.91|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.91|-1.87|0.49
84757094|NCT00271596|169269846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.04||Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.04|-5.04|0.05
84757095|NCT00941668|169269863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84757096|NCT00941668|169269864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84584989|NCT05430919|168922352|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.229|-1.385|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.385|-3.229|<0.0001
84584990|NCT05430919|168922353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-1.658|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.658|-3.634|<0.0001
84584991|NCT05430919|168922353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.478|-0.539|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-0.539|-2.478|0.0023
84611414|NCT01115673|168974242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.95||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84611415|NCT01115673|168974242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757097|NCT04206605|169269878|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.71|=0.899
84757098|NCT04206605|169269879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.114||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.114|-0.153|=1.000
84757099|NCT04206605|169269880|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96|||=|0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.62|=0.852
84757100|NCT04206605|169269881|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.72|=0.660
84757101|NCT04206605|169269882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.063||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from CMH test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.063|-0.280|=0.250
84757102|NCT04206605|169269884|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|||=|0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.61||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.61|0.58|=0.896
84757103|NCT04206605|169269886|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.498
84757104|NCT04206605|169269887|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.184
84757105|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 1||1.81|1.22|
84584992|NCT05430919|168922369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.411|-52.95|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-52.950|-73.411|<0.0001
84584993|NCT05430919|168922369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.806|-45.204|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-45.204|-66.806|<0.0001
84584994|NCT05430919|168922369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.304|-24.343|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-24.343|-45.304|<0.0001
84584995|NCT01469156|168922401|OTHER|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs were predominantly mild or moderate. No significant safety signals were observed in either group.High- and standard-dose ranibizumab were generally well tolerated without evidence of ocular or systemic severe adverse events, including arterial thromboembolic events.|data survey|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0||28 ocular and non-ocular adverse events collected, in mild to moderate nature|t-test, 2 sided|||Purpose was to determine safety and efficacy of intravitreal high-dose ranibizumab in the treatment of active PCV.|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs that were either reported by subjects or identified by imaging and/or ocular exam|28|0|0.05
84584996|NCT00855166|168922414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.31|-2.84|<0.0001
84584997|NCT00855166|168922415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.31|-2.74|0.0143
84584998|NCT00855166|168922416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3731||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.74||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.74|-2.22|0.0001
84584999|NCT00855166|168922417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender).||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||36.7|15.9|<0.0001
84585000|NCT00855166|168922418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5652||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.34||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||1.34|-0.89|0.7013
84585001|NCT00855166|168922419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6473||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.35||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.35|-2.21|0.1521
84585002|NCT00855166|168922420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4428||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.43||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.43|-1.32|0.3105
84611416|NCT01115673|168974243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.037||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.037
84611417|NCT01115673|168974243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.294||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.294
84585003|NCT00803049|168922422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.128|0.602|0.2079
84611418|NCT01115673|168974243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
84611419|NCT01115673|168974244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.85|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611420|NCT01115673|168974244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.946||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.946
84499009|NCT01890109|168748366|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.74|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the daily hot flash severity score. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline daily hot flash severity score was used as a covariate.||1.74|0.74|0.551
84499010|NCT03395197|168748457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.777||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, if hazard ratio \< 1, it indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H01: HRrPFS ≥1 vs H11: HRrPFS \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the all-comers population for Part 2 Cohort 1.||0.777|0.506|<0.0001
84499011|NCT03395197|168748458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.61||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H02: HRrPFS+ ≥1 vs H12: HRrPFS+ \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the DDR deficient population for Part 2 Cohort 2.||0.610|0.328|<0.0001
84499012|NCT00602641|168748459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Presuming the control over the experimental arm (MPT-T/mPR-R), the inferiority of mPR-R was defined as a PFS treatment hazard ratio (HR) of less than or equal to 0.82 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 20.5 months (mos) vs. 25 mos on the MPT-T arm. With 304 patients and 221 PFS events, there was 86% power to detect non-inferiority of mPR-R at a 1-sided 0.05 significance level assuming a superiority alternative of HR=1.2 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 30 mos.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.045|||||Analysis based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y). The fact that the lower-bound was less than 0.82 and the upper bound was above 1.0 indicates that results were inconclusive for the primary objective.|Since mPR-R was expected to be considerably less toxic and to confer slightly longer PFS, a non-inferiority design with superiority alternative was used.||1.045|0.67|
84585004|NCT00803049|168922422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.152||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs.Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.152|0.591|0.3039
84585005|NCT00803049|168922422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.260|0.736|0.8271
84585006|NCT00803049|168922423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.362||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.362|0.678|0.8017
84585007|NCT00803049|168922423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.117||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.117|0.559|0.1866
84585008|NCT00803049|168922423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.357|0.767|0.8763
84585009|NCT01272219|168922431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.95|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, baseline BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss, if the estimated treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg - liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly smaller than zero.||-4.95|-5.82|<0.0001
84611421|NCT01115673|168974244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611422|NCT01115673|168974245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757106|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 3||1.54|1.12|
84499013|NCT00602641|168748460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Analysis was based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y).||||||0.476
84499014|NCT00602641|168748461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
84499015|NCT00602641|168748462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84499016|NCT01785472|168748476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test was made at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|least Square Means net difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.00|<0.001
84499017|NCT01294709|168748491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.66|3.86|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||3.86|-17.66|
84499018|NCT01294709|168748492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares meand|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.076|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||0.076|-0.19|
84499019|NCT01294709|168748493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.03|7.74|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||7.74|-22.03|
84499020|NCT00110084|168748498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|64.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||64|36|
84499021|NCT03611751|168748598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.00|6.54|<0.0001
84499022|NCT03611751|168748599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|16.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.55|6.65|<0.0001
84499023|NCT03611751|168748600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|23.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.93|5.45|<0.0001
84499024|NCT03611751|168748600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|1.18|0.0046
84499025|NCT03611751|168748601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.40|2.89|<0.001
84499026|NCT03611751|168748601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.00|1.30|0.0051
84499027|NCT03611751|168748602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|45.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.11|4.62|<0.0001
84499028|NCT03611751|168748602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.03|1.61|0.0002
84585010|NCT01272219|168922432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.6|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing ≥5% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.60|4.12|<0.0001
84499029|NCT03611751|168748603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA|||||-20.3|-26.9|<0.0001
84499030|NCT03611751|168748603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.9|-10.5|<0.0001
84499031|NCT03611751|168748604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|21.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.15|1.94|0.0005
84499032|NCT03611751|168748604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.71|0.89|0.0928
84499033|NCT03611751|168748605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|10.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.81|4.34|<0.0001
84499034|NCT03611751|168748605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.77|<0.0001
84499035|NCT03611751|168748606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|8.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|3.42|<0.0001
84499036|NCT03611751|168748607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.79|0.88|0.0621
84499037|NCT03611751|168748608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.46|0.06|0.6692
84499038|NCT03611751|168748608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.56|0.02|0.3793
84499039|NCT03611751|168748609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|1.29|0.0004
84499040|NCT03611751|168748610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|1.45|<0.0001
84499041|NCT03611751|168748611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84499042|NCT03611751|168748612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.43|1.78|<0.0001
84499043|NCT03611751|168748613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.36|1.78|<0.0001
84499044|NCT03611751|168748614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.01|1.43|0.0001
84499045|NCT05004181|168748629|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.14|15.45|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were based on the analysis of logarithmically transformed neutralizing titers using a linear regression model with terms of age, sex, and group.|||15.45|11.14|
84499046|NCT05004181|168748630|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the difference of percentages was greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|0.83|||||Adjusted difference in percentages were estimated using minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||0.83|-10.04|
84499047|NCT05004181|168748632|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|36.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|51.17|||||Adjusted difference was estimated using the minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||51.17|19.21|
84499048|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|7.344|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 1~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||7.344|-0.032|
84499049|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.243|10.612|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|Week 1 Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05.||10.612|3.243|
84499050|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|3.149|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||3.149|-1.977|
84499051|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|2.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|5.465|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||5.465|0.333|
84499052|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.053|4.778|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||4.778|-3.053|
84499053|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.956|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|8.837|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.837|1.016|
84499054|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|8.025|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.025|-1.425|
84499055|NCT02044094|168748821|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|11.418|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||11.418|1.936|
84499056|NCT03205163|168748845|OTHER||GMR|1.35||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.77|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and geometric mean ratio (GMR) were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.77|1.04|0.032
84499057|NCT03205163|168748846|OTHER||GMR|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.25|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.25|1.09|<0.001
84499058|NCT03205163|168748847|OTHER||GMR|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.79|2.94|<0.001
84499059|NCT03205163|168748848|OTHER||GMR|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||3.79|2.76|<0.001
84611423|NCT01115673|168974245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.661||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.661
84499060|NCT03205163|168748849|OTHER||GMR|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.172|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.172|0.118|<0.001
84499061|NCT03205163|168748850|OTHER||GMR|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.17|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.170|0.138|<0.001
84585011|NCT01272219|168922433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.32|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing \>10% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.32|3.54|<0.0001
84499062|NCT03205163|168748851|OTHER||GMR|0.622||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.786|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.786|0.492|0.003
84499063|NCT03205163|168748852|OTHER||GMR|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.684|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.684|0.525|<0.001
84585012|NCT01272219|168922434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment estimate|2.681|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.856|3.872|||Weibull analysis||The treatment estimate was the factor that the time to event is multiplied with for liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo.|If the estimated time-to-event ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/ placebo), as assessed by the survival endpoint describing the time until onset of T2DM ('diabetes-free time'), is statistically significantly \>1, then liraglutide 3.0 mg was to be considered superior to placebo in delaying the onset of T2DM in subjects with pre-diabetes at baseline. Weibull model was used; included treatment, sex and BMI stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline FPG as a covariate.||3.872|1.856|<.0001
84672797|NCT05107128|169081631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||The p-value was obtained from Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.5|-2.7|0.1675
84672798|NCT05107128|169081632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and UHDRS - Independence Scale at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||1.1|-2.4|0.4872
84672799|NCT05107128|169081633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.9||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||6.9|-17.0|0.4089
84672800|NCT05107128|169081634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.19||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and a baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.19|-1.78|0.5766
84672801|NCT05107128|169081635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.39||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.39|-2.13|0.1777
84672802|NCT05107128|169081636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and Hi-DEF at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||7.3|0.4|0.0291
84672803|NCT05107128|169081637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and CGI at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.1|-0.3|0.2923
84672804|NCT05459129|169081643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR Rates|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.23|99.9||||||||99.90|-33.23|
84672805|NCT05459129|169081644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|87.72||||||||87.72|-21.05|
84672806|NCT05459129|169081645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.91|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of median EFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||3.91|0.11|
84757107|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 4||1.58|1.13|
84757108|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 5||1.71|1.08|
84757109|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.69|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6A||1.69|1.12|
84585013|NCT04003389|168922461|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment \& smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight \& baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||LSMeans (LSM), standard errors (SE), confidence intervals (CI)||0.21|-0.36|0.0604
84585014|NCT04003389|168922461|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.45|0.239
84585015|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.014||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.014|0.001|0.029
84585016|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.007||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.007|-0.006|0.867
84585017|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.012||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.012|0.001|0.027
84585018|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.008||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.008|-0.003|0.410
84585019|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.087||95.0|-0.001|0.011||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.011|-0.001|0.087
84585020|NCT04003389|168922463|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.259||95.0|-0.002|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.009|-0.002|0.259
84585021|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.102|-0.006|0.079
84585022|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.053||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.053|-0.052|0.980
84585023|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.042||95.0|0.002|0.094||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.094|0.002|0.042
84585024|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.386||95.0|-0.025|0.065||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.065|-0.025|0.386
84585025|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.156||95.0|-0.016|0.099||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.099|-0.016|0.156
84585026|NCT04003389|168922464|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.084||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.084|-0.028|0.328
84585027|NCT04003389|168922465|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.497||95.0|-0.005|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.009|-0.005|0.497
84611424|NCT01115673|168974245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.62|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585028|NCT04003389|168922465|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.878||95.0|-0.007|0.006||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.007|0.878
84585029|NCT04003389|168922466|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.082||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.082|-0.042|0.527
84585030|NCT04003389|168922466|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.872||95.0|-0.066|0.056||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.066|0.872
84585031|NCT04439903|168922529|OTHER||Intercept|1.9726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8238||0.61532|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61532
84585032|NCT04439903|168922529|OTHER||Slope|-0.68016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0084||0.5128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.5128
84585033|NCT04439903|168922529|OTHER||Slope|0.15238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3629||0.68197|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.68197
84585034|NCT04439903|168922530|OTHER||Intercept|-0.49527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44535||0.28789|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28789
84585035|NCT04439903|168922530|OTHER||Slope|0.16785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11745||0.17848|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.17848
84611425|NCT01115673|168974246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611426|NCT01115673|168974246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.13||95.0||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.13
84585036|NCT04439903|168922530|OTHER||Slope|-0.06091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042266||0.17514|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.17514
84585037|NCT04439903|168922531|OTHER||Intercept|-0.28825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59949||0.63929|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63929
84585038|NCT04439903|168922531|OTHER||Slope|-0.14422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1581||0.37964|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.37964
84585039|NCT04439903|168922531|OTHER||Slope|0.06718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056895||0.26057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.26057
84585040|NCT02899754|168922532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome assessed at 1 month post-intervention||||0.18
84585041|NCT02899754|168922534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84585042|NCT02899754|168922535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84585043|NCT02899754|168922536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84585044|NCT02899754|168922537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84585045|NCT02899754|168922538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84585046|NCT02899754|168922539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square test||||0.01
84611427|NCT01115673|168974246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611428|NCT01115673|168974247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611429|NCT01115673|168974247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.041||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.041
84611430|NCT01115673|168974247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757110|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.7|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6B||1.70|1.17|
84585047|NCT02899754|168922540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84585048|NCT01854762|168922549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.4|||Fisher Exact||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proportion of patients without virological failure by weeks 2, 4 and 6, and at delivery, using treatment-related discontinuation equal failure analysis|7.4|1.3|<0.01
84585049|NCT02514746|168922598|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.5||||||Difference at Year 3||4.5|-7.5|
84585050|NCT02514746|168922598|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.5||||||Difference at Year 4||6.5|-7.4|
84585051|NCT02514746|168922599|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 3||1.1|0.9|
84585052|NCT02514746|168922599|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 4||1.1|0.9|
84585053|NCT02514746|168922600|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.8||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||2.8|-8.1|
84585054|NCT02514746|168922600|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-3.3|
84585055|NCT02514746|168922601|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 7 days after booster dose||1.0|0.5|
84585056|NCT02514746|168922601|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 28 days after booster dose||0.9|0.6|
84585057|NCT02514746|168922602|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.5||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||4.5|-8.0|
84499064|NCT03205163|168748853|OTHER||GMR|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|8.48|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||8.48|5.78|<0.001
84585058|NCT02514746|168922602|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-4.4|
84585059|NCT03382873|168922626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84757111|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 7F||1.55|1.16|
84585060|NCT03382873|168922627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex were used as independent predictors in the model.||Compares the change for the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.0001
84585061|NCT03382873|168922628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9476|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9476
84585062|NCT03382873|168922629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANOVA|Treatment group, time and their interaction were fixed effects and participants were random effects||||||0.0112
84585063|NCT03382873|168922630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of GLB/GLB intervention sequence to GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9085
84757112|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 8||1.64|1.17|
84757113|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.47|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 9V||1.47|1.05|
84757114|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 10A||1.44|1.03|
84757115|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 11A||1.42|0.98|
84757116|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 12F||1.46|0.99|
84757117|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.67|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 14||1.67|1.21|
84757118|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.76|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 15B||1.76|1.22|
84757119|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 18C||1.55|1.07|
84757120|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19A||1.61|1.20|
84757121|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.57|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19F||1.57|1.12|
84585064|NCT03382873|168922631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison between the GLB/GLB intervention sequence and the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.2063
84585065|NCT03996395|168922636|OTHER||Descriptive statistic|71.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84585066|NCT00392288|168922680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2696||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. In this pairwise comparison Ciclesonide was compared with Placebo by testing the average effect of Ciclesonide 40 and Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of both treatment groups.||||0.2696
84585067|NCT00392288|168922680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. A t-test was used to compare the least-square means of Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo.||||0.0703
84585068|NCT00392288|168922680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of Ciclesonide 40 versus Placebo.||||0.9146
84585069|NCT02691494|168922699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.248|67.387||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||67.387|12.248|< 0.001
84585070|NCT02691494|168922699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.042|61.431||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.431|13.042|< 0.001
84585071|NCT02691494|168922700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84585072|NCT02691494|168922700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-164.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84585073|NCT02691494|168922701|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.99|92.37||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||92.37|75.99|< 0.001
84585074|NCT02691494|168922701|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|56.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.77|64.91||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||64.91|47.77|< 0.001
84611431|NCT01115673|168974248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611432|NCT01115673|168974248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34||||0.02||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.02
84672807|NCT05459129|169081646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.43|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of media RFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||6.43|0.13|
84672808|NCT05459129|169081648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.99|88.32||||||||88.32|-54.99|
84585075|NCT02691494|168922702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-252.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84585076|NCT02691494|168922702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-226.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84585077|NCT02691494|168922703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-196.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84585078|NCT02691494|168922703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-186.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84672809|NCT05459129|169081649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|64.75|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|3 Months Analysis||64.75|-31.42|
84585079|NCT02691494|168922704|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|19.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|44.32||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||44.32|-5.99|0.146
84585080|NCT02691494|168922704|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|29.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|50.71||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||50.71|7.62|0.017
84585081|NCT02691494|168922705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84585082|NCT02691494|168922705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-125.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
84585083|NCT02657356|168922713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.012||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: screening 6MWT, day 1 hemoglobin, treatment grp, # of PAH medications, time, interactions btwn treatment \& time, and screening 6MWT \& time|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||0.98|-26.69|0.0683
84585084|NCT02657356|168922714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.984||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.895|||Chi-squared||Estimated from Cox Regression adjusted by baseline PAH medication status (0-1 vs 2) as the covariate. Hazard ratio \>1 indicates a beneficial effect that favors bardoxolone methyl.|||2.895|1.360|0.0004
84585085|NCT03379870|168922715|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) Word scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis to control for potential floor or ceiling effects (e.g., scores \<20%).||||||0.768||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.768
84585086|NCT03379870|168922716|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed BKB-SIN scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Scores range from -6 to +21 and lower scores are better.||||||0.529||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.529
84585087|NCT03379870|168922717|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed SSQ scores obtained pre-operatively and at 12-months post-activation to evaluate benefit of cochlear implantation.||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.010
84585088|NCT03379870|168922718|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed receptive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.|||||>|0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.069
84585089|NCT03379870|168922719|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed articulation scores pre-operative and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post-activation)||||||.02
84585090|NCT03379870|168922720|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed expressive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post activation)||||||.007
84585091|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.2|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.20|0.39|
84585092|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.34|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.34|0.38|
84585093|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.11|-0.20|
84585094|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.9|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||4.90|0.54|
84585095|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.26|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||5.26|0.55|
84585096|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.39|-0.10|
84585097|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.67|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.67|1.05|
84757122|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 22F||1.60|1.12|
84585098|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.99|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.99|1.02|
84585099|NCT05796245|168922775|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.32|-0.06|
84585100|NCT05796245|168922776|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the Comparative analysis set (IPTW weighted) and for the Comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated. Also, crude hazard ratio and crude risk ratio could not be calculated.||0.00|-0.01|
84585101|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||12.49|0.12|
84585102|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|17.14|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.14|0.12|
84585103|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.01|-0.05|
84585104|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|45.94|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated.||45.94|0.81|
84585105|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|53.51|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||53.51|0.93|
84585106|NCT05796245|168922777|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.04|
84585107|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.61|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.61|0.16|
84611433|NCT01115673|168974248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.63|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499065|NCT03205163|168748854|OTHER||GMR|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|7.27|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||7.27|5.89|<0.001
84585108|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|19.79|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||19.79|0.17|
84585109|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.03|-0.12|
84585110|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|45.68|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||45.68|0.15|
84585111|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|34.94|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||34.94|0.12|
84585112|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.26|-0.10|
84585113|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.93|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.93|0.37|
84585114|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.31|||||Crude Risk Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.31|0.37|
84585115|NCT05796245|168922778|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.05|
84611434|NCT01115673|168974249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.46|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585116|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.85|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.85|0.02|
84585117|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.99|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.99|0.02|
84585118|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.00|-0.17|
84585119|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|6.0|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.00|0.07|
84585120|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.61|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.61|0.08|
84585121|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.21|-0.10|
84585122|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.22|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.22|0.28|
84585123|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|15.08|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.08|0.29|
84585124|NCT05796245|168922779|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.09|-0.05|
84585125|NCT02943499|168922790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To examine between-group differences in pre- vs. post-treatment cue reactivity, the post-treatment PCC BOLD response for the smoking vs neutral contrast was subtracted from the baseline response. The groups were then compared directly on this measure using a t-test.||||0.92
84585126|NCT02500836|168922799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
84585127|NCT02500836|168922800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
84585128|NCT03257657|168922809|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84585129|NCT03257657|168922811|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84585130|NCT03257657|168922813|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84585131|NCT02272985|168922825|OTHER||||||=|0.03||||||the p value was calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.03
84585132|NCT02272985|168922826|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Left frontal gray matter:||||0.001
84585133|NCT02272985|168922826|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Right frontal gray matter:||||0.08
84585134|NCT02489279|168922829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a General Linear Model (GLM) with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.026
84585135|NCT02489279|168922829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0075
84585136|NCT02489279|168922829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.25
84585137|NCT02489279|168922830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.014
84585138|NCT02489279|168922830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0005
84585139|NCT02489279|168922830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.21
84585140|NCT02489279|168922831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-06|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.000001
84611435|NCT01115673|168974249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
84585141|NCT02489279|168922832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00018|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.00018
84585142|NCT03707821|168922841|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at he 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||8.5|-2.0|
84585143|NCT03707821|168922842|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 2 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference if the proportion of subjects that report a higher rating/experience.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15|||Bayesian random -effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior proportion mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 10% difference in proportion of subjects that reported at higher rating (Strongly Agree and Agree) with the Test compared to the Control lens at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulation-based methods (alpha=0.05).||0.15|0.02|
84585144|NCT03707821|168922843|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 points was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Bayesian Normal Random effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.04|
84585145|NCT03707821|168922844|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Percentage of Acceptable Fitting|99.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0|||Bayesian Beta-Binomial Model|model for correlated data||It was calculated that 100 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100|98.5|
84611436|NCT01115673|168974249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.38|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585146|NCT03707821|168922845|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|model for correlated data|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.008|-0.007|
84585147|NCT03707821|168922846|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||6.3|-1.3|
84585148|NCT03707821|168922847|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|12.54|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||12.54|3.48|
84585149|NCT00836901|168922848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.7||||||90.0|93.19|102.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.43|93.19|
84585150|NCT00836901|168922849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.28||||||90.0|97.09|101.53|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.53|97.09|
84585151|NCT00836901|168922850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.64||||||90.0|96.12|99.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.19|96.12|
84585152|NCT00836901|168922851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.59||||||90.0|85.64|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|85.64|
84585153|NCT00836901|168922852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.44||||||90.0|87.83|101.54|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.54|87.83|
84585154|NCT00836901|168922853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.08||||||90.0|87.19|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.52|87.19|
84611437|NCT01115673|168974250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611438|NCT01115673|168974250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.83||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84585155|NCT03533491|168922897|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants from pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change in the proportion of users is different from zero.|||||.044
84585156|NCT03533491|168922898|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether the proportion who use from pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.532
84585157|NCT03533491|168922899|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.370
84585158|NCT03533491|168922900|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants that use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether proportion who use from pretest to posttest is different from zero.||||||.020
84585159|NCT03533491|168922901|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.773
84585160|NCT03533491|168922902|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.978
84585161|NCT03533491|168922903|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.745
84585162|NCT03533491|168922904|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.132
84585163|NCT03533491|168922905|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.551
84585164|NCT03533491|168922906|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.255
84585165|NCT03533491|168922907|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|||||||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||
84585166|NCT03533491|168922908|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.198
84585167|NCT03533491|168922909|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.770
84585168|NCT03533491|168922910|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.834
84585169|NCT03533491|168922911|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.175
84585170|NCT03647137|168922960|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|-2.256||||0.00468|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is derived from model comparison between the FEOVB model and the FEOVB\*PIB interaction model.|ChiSq Goodness of Fit Test|||L-DOPA sensitivity outcome measure was modeled with 3-level hierarchical ordinal logistic regression. The null model contained only striatal DTBZ as predictor of group, the FEOVB model additionally had FEOVB tracer, and interaction model had in addition an interaction term between FEOVB and PIB tracer. Model comparisons were performed using Chi-Square goodness of fit test.||||0.00468
84585171|NCT00829868|168922968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|109.0||||||90.0|99.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|99.3|
84585172|NCT00829868|168922969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|97.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|97.5|
84585173|NCT00829868|168922970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|100.0||||||90.0|96.2|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.2|
84585174|NCT03773562|168922978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.04
84611439|NCT01115673|168974250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.59|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611440|NCT01115673|168974251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585175|NCT03773562|168922980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.002
84585176|NCT03773562|168922981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.01
84585177|NCT03773562|168922983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
84585178|NCT03773562|168922984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
84585179|NCT03773562|168922985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
84585180|NCT03773562|168922986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0033
84585181|NCT03773562|168922987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0041
84585182|NCT03773562|168922988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0046
84585183|NCT03131479|168922989|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-9.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.88|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used. Baseline is defined to be the measurement collected on Day -1.||||1.45|-19.88|0.154
84585184|NCT03131479|168922989|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-6.05||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.65|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-16.65|0.343
84585185|NCT03131479|168922989|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.79|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-31.79|0.001
84585186|NCT03131479|168922989|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-35.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.0|-25.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||-25.11|-46.00|0.000
84585187|NCT04806373|168923001|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.863
84585188|NCT04806373|168923002|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in pleural drainage volume day 1 post-TSP||||0.005
84585189|NCT04806373|168923003|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Borg dyspnea scale day 3 post-TSP||||0.891
84585190|NCT04806373|168923004|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain score at day 3 post-TSP||||0.899
84585191|NCT04806373|168923005|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
84585192|NCT04806373|168923006|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
84585193|NCT04806373|168923007|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.808
84585194|NCT04806373|168923008|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
84585195|NCT04806373|168923009|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
84611441|NCT01115673|168974251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611442|NCT01115673|168974251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611443|NCT01115673|168974252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611444|NCT01115673|168974252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611445|NCT01115673|168974252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585196|NCT04806373|168923010|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84585197|NCT02214212|168923011|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects.|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in sleep efficiency improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||5.37|-5.69|.955
84585198|NCT02214212|168923012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-4.90|.807
84585199|NCT02214212|168923013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.||||4.43|-5.38|.847
84585200|NCT02214212|168923014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance by mixed-effects regression adjusts for time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive, FIM admit motor as fixed effects.||||8.56|-2.29|.252
84585201|NCT02214212|168923015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-3.08|.722
84585202|NCT02214212|168923016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-6.13|.253
84585203|NCT02214212|168923017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.|A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the bright white light (BWL) intervention arm.|||0.44|-1.21|.351
84585204|NCT02214212|168923018|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in the Makley scale score improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||0.03|-0.03|.910
84585205|NCT02214212|168923019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.857||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment time (pre/post)||||2.32|-1.93|0.19
84585206|NCT02214212|168923020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), FIM admit cognitive, site, FIM admit motor as mixed effects.||||5.24|-14.83|.345
84585207|NCT00834574|168923033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.2|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|97.2|
84585208|NCT00834574|168923034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
84585209|NCT00834574|168923035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
84585210|NCT00107575|168923044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84585211|NCT00107575|168923045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected count ratio|0.81||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||a priori p-value was p \< .05|generalized estimating equations|Negative binomial model controlling for sex, motivation to change drinking, and baseline drinking||||0.98|0.67|.027
84585212|NCT00107575|168923046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
84585213|NCT00107575|168923047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.95
84585214|NCT00107575|168923048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.76
84585215|NCT04101331|168923060|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
84585216|NCT04101331|168923061|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
84585217|NCT04101331|168923062|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.112
84585218|NCT04101331|168923064|OTHER|||||||0.537||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.537
84611446|NCT01115673|168974253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611447|NCT01115673|168974253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84611448|NCT01115673|168974253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611449|NCT01115673|168974254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35||||0.028||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.028
84585219|NCT04378153|168923077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
84585220|NCT00500331|168923078|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response: Change= Baseline+Treatment|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change= Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg, GSK189075 1000 mg||||<0.001
84585221|NCT00500331|168923078|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg||||<0.001
84585222|NCT00500331|168923078|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg||||<0.001
84585223|NCT00500331|168923078|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg||||<0.001
84585224|NCT00500331|168923078|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg||||<0.001
84585225|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 50 mg||-0.44|-1.02|<0.001
84585226|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 100 mg||-0.35|-0.94|<0.001
84585227|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 250 mg||-0.44|-1.03|<0.001
84585228|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.61||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 500 mg||-0.61|-1.19|<0.001
84585229|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.77||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 1000 mg||-0.77|-1.36|<0.001
84585230|NCT00500331|168923078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.47||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. Pioglitazone 30 mg||-0.47|-1.05|<0.001
84585231|NCT03345550|168923096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline||||.24
84585232|NCT03345550|168923096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||1 month analysis||||.43
84585233|NCT03345550|168923096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||3 month||||.54
84585234|NCT03345550|168923099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
84585235|NCT01149460|168923138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|111.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|123.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.29|100.54|
84585236|NCT01149460|168923139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.34|103.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.82|96.34|
84585237|NCT01149460|168923140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.38|103.78|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.78|96.38|
84585238|NCT01149460|168923141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|103.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|109.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.41|97.87|
84585239|NCT01149460|168923142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|101.31|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.31|97.14|
84585240|NCT01149460|168923143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|101.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.19|97.04|
84585241|NCT01432444|168923144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was derived from Exact McNemar test.|McNemar|||Inpatient hospitalization for retrospective period (Months 4-6) and prospective period (Months 4-6) for closed or open unit.||||<.0001
84585242|NCT01432444|168923145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
84611450|NCT01115673|168974254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.462||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.462
84611451|NCT01115673|168974254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.008||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.008
84611452|NCT01115673|168974255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.81|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611453|NCT01115673|168974255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.907||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.907
84611454|NCT01115673|168974255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757123|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 23F||1.71|1.09|
84499066|NCT03205163|168748855|OTHER||GMR|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.66|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.66|3.64|<0.001
84611455|NCT01115673|168974256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.19|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611456|NCT01115673|168974256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.655||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.655
84585243|NCT01432444|168923146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, Week 12 and Week 24.||||<.0001
84585244|NCT01432444|168923147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analysis for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
84585245|NCT01432444|168923148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from t-test of mean=0.|t-test|||Statistical analysEs for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
84585246|NCT00062764|168923154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.004
84585247|NCT02014467|168923181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.18|||ANCOVA|||||5.18|3.67|<0.0001
84585248|NCT02014467|168923181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.7495
84585249|NCT02014467|168923182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|2.45|<0.0001
84585250|NCT02014467|168923182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9029||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.9029
84585251|NCT02014467|168923183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.80|1.72|<0.0001
84585252|NCT02014467|168923183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.1070
84585253|NCT02014467|168923184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|0.98|<0.0001
84611457|NCT01115673|168974256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499067|NCT03205163|168748856|OTHER||GMR|4.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|4.72|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.72|3.96|<0.001
84499068|NCT03205163|168748857|OTHER||GMR|1.36||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.89|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.89|0.978|0.063
84585254|NCT02014467|168923184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.4369
84585255|NCT02014467|168923185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.39|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.39|<0.0001
84585256|NCT02014467|168923185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6082||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.6082
84585257|NCT02014467|168923186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|2.74|<0.0001
84585258|NCT02014467|168923186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3513
84585259|NCT02014467|168923187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|1.96|<0.0001
84585260|NCT02014467|168923187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.5410
84585261|NCT02014467|168923188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|5.72|||ANCOVA|||||5.72|3.71|<0.0001
84585262|NCT02014467|168923188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3957||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3957
84585263|NCT02014467|168923189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.38|-52.65||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 6|||-52.65|-61.38|<0.0001
84585264|NCT02014467|168923189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-52.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|-59.38|-46.17||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 12|||-46.17|-59.38|<0.0001
84585265|NCT02014467|168923190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-52.7||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 6|||-52.70|-61.60|<0.0001
84585266|NCT02014467|168923190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-51.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.26|-45.91||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 12|||-45.91|-56.26|<0.0001
84611458|NCT01115673|168974257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.15|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585267|NCT03802916|168923212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0074
84611459|NCT01115673|168974257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.155||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.155
84611460|NCT01115673|168974257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611461|NCT01115673|168974258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.69|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611462|NCT01115673|168974258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.04||||0.05||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.05
84611463|NCT01115673|168974258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611464|NCT01115673|168974259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.83|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611465|NCT01115673|168974259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.032||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.032
84611466|NCT01115673|168974259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585268|NCT03802916|168923212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0002
84611467|NCT01115673|168974260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.36|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84672810|NCT05459129|169081649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|53.34|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|6 Months Analysis||53.34|-53.34|
84585269|NCT01592747|168923229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. memantine full dose.||1.8|0.7|0.6590
84585270|NCT01592747|168923229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. Memantine reduced dose||1.7|0.7|0.7839
84585271|NCT01592747|168923231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.8136
84611468|NCT01115673|168974260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52||||0.003||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.003
84611469|NCT01115673|168974260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611470|NCT01115673|168974261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585272|NCT01592747|168923231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.9244
84611471|NCT01115673|168974261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84611472|NCT01115673|168974261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.75|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611473|NCT01115673|168974262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84672811|NCT05459129|169081650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.83|38.16|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|3 Months Analysis||38.16|-64.83|
84585273|NCT01592747|168923232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.7611
84585274|NCT01592747|168923232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3176
84585275|NCT01592747|168923233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.9020
84585276|NCT01592747|168923233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.1|0.1279
84585277|NCT01592747|168923234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.4|0.4144
84585278|NCT01592747|168923234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4212
84585279|NCT01592747|168923235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.6238
84585280|NCT01592747|168923235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.5957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.5|0.5957
84585281|NCT01592747|168923236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.6|0.8640
84585282|NCT01592747|168923236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.4362
84585283|NCT01592747|168923237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7182
84585284|NCT01592747|168923237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.8390
84585285|NCT01592747|168923238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.1|0.0813
84585286|NCT01592747|168923238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4365
84585287|NCT01592747|168923239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4213
84585288|NCT01592747|168923239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4267
84585289|NCT01592747|168923240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3713||95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.3713
84585290|NCT01592747|168923240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.2855
84585291|NCT01603368|168923294|OTHER|Student's t-test|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
84585292|NCT01554904|168923298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.4||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.32|297.16|||paired t test|||The null hypothesis is that the snore index would not be different after 6 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. The comparison group is the subjects completing the 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study.||297.16|27.32|0.02
84585293|NCT01554904|168923299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.584||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||Participants completing 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study. The null hypothesis was that the AHI would not be different after 6 weeks of training compared to baseline.||0.584|-2.28|0.22
84585294|NCT02951481|168923300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84585295|NCT02951481|168923301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84585296|NCT02951481|168923302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84585297|NCT02951481|168923303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84585298|NCT02951481|168923304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84585299|NCT02951481|168923305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84585300|NCT02951481|168923306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84585301|NCT02951481|168923307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84585302|NCT01051661|168923308|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority objective was met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI for the Vaccine Efficacy Improvement (VEI) was \> -33%. Furthermore, the superiority objective was met if the LL of the 95% CI for the VEI was \>0.|Vaccine efficacy increase|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.53|93.39||||||Evaluation of the relative protective efficacy of 2 doses of Arepanrix™ vaccine (Arepanrix 2D Group) compared to two doses of GSK2340273A vaccine (GSK2340273A Group) beginning 14 days after Dose 1 vaccination (for each subject enrolled) and continuing until study conclusion on Day 385.||93.39|18.53|
84585303|NCT01051661|168923336|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|6.41||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 2D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 2D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||6.41|4.92|
84585304|NCT01051661|168923336|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 1D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 1D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||1.19|0.93|
84585305|NCT01916226|168923350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.3||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||Estimating the standard deviation of CFB in rTNSS over 2 weeks to be approximately 2.6, a two-sample t-test with α=0.05 suggests that a sample size of 144 participants per arm would provide 90% power to show a difference of 1.0 between treatments.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.278
84585306|NCT01441492|168923398|OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||the study is powered to be able to detect a 15% difference in the ≥ Grade II complication rate between the drain and no drain groups. A total of 342 evaluable patients will be needed for the two study groups (n=171 per group) in order to achieve 80% power to detect a 15% increase or decrease in the complication rate with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.804
84585307|NCT00967499|168923411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4010
84585308|NCT00967499|168923412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5672
84585309|NCT00967499|168923413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0570
84585310|NCT00967499|168923414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5150
84585311|NCT00967499|168923415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||P-values are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test with gender adjustment for the ranks of the change from baseline values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3601
84499069|NCT03205163|168748858|OTHER||GMR|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.26|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.26|1.10|<0.001
84585312|NCT00967499|168923416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3453|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||24 hours postdose||||0.3453
84585313|NCT00967499|168923416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||48 hours postdose||||0.7874
84585314|NCT00967499|168923416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8485|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||72 Hours Postdose||||0.8485
84585315|NCT02544763|168923434|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|55.8||||||||55.8|40.4|
84585316|NCT02544763|168923434|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.8||||||||54.8|39.0|
84585317|NCT02544763|168923434|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.5||||||||36.5|14.9|
84585318|NCT02544763|168923434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.699|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.861|0.567|=0.0009
84585319|NCT02544763|168923434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.715|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.881|0.580|=0.0018
84585320|NCT02544763|168923435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.00|0.95|=0.0692
84585321|NCT02544763|168923435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.67|1.12|=0.0245
84585322|NCT02544763|168923436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.07|||nominal|The global impression of change was analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||4.07|1.24|=0.0074
84585323|NCT02544763|168923436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||=|0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||nominal|The global impression of change is analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.20|0.98|=0.0580
84585324|NCT02544763|168923437|SUPERIORITY|Model includes the total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (Baseline and treatment period), treatment and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The log transformed number of days seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.|Percentage reduction|0.519|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.602||||||||0.602|0.447|
84585325|NCT02544763|168923437|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.607||||||||0.607|0.452|
84585326|NCT02544763|168923437|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.846||||||||0.846|0.632|
84585327|NCT02544763|168923437|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.709|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.873|0.576|=0.0013
84585328|NCT02544763|168923437|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.716|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.882|0.582|=0.0018
84585329|NCT05135754|168923439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.35|0.046
84585330|NCT05135754|168923440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.78|3.45|<0.001
84585331|NCT05135754|168923441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.00|15.02|<0.001
84585332|NCT05135754|168923442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|2.71|<0.001
84585333|NCT05135754|168923443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.35|8.26|<0.001
84585334|NCT05135754|168923444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
84585335|NCT05135754|168923445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|1.55|0.004
84585336|NCT00787800|168923456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
84585337|NCT00787800|168923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
84585338|NCT00787800|168923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84585339|NCT00373360|168923462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
84585340|NCT00373360|168923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.008
84585341|NCT00373360|168923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
84585342|NCT00373360|168923465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.531
84585343|NCT00373360|168923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
84585344|NCT00373360|168923467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.500
84585345|NCT00373360|168923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
84585346|NCT00373360|168923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||1.000
84585347|NCT00373360|168923470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0
84585348|NCT00373360|168923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
84585349|NCT00373360|168923472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
84585350|NCT00373360|168923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
84585351|NCT00373360|168923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
84585352|NCT00373360|168923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.063
84585353|NCT00373360|168923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change Between Baseline and Week 8||||0.203
84585354|NCT00373360|168923480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||0.250
84585355|NCT00373360|168923481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.207
84585356|NCT00373360|168923482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.297
84585357|NCT00373360|168923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
84585358|NCT00773461|168923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84585359|NCT00773461|168923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population (Sensitivity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84585360|NCT00773461|168923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Comparison of ACR 50 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84611474|NCT01115673|168974262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611475|NCT01115673|168974262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.02|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611476|NCT01115673|168974263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.4|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611477|NCT01115673|168974263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611478|NCT01115673|168974263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585361|NCT00773461|168923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0345||||||Comparison of ACR 70 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0345
84585362|NCT00773461|168923510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.8||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Swollen Joint Count||-2.8|-6.6|<0.0001
84585363|NCT00773461|168923510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.1||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Tender Joint Count||-6.1|-11.3|<0.0001
84585364|NCT00773461|168923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-25.3|<0.0001
84585365|NCT00773461|168923512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-24.5|<0.0001
84585366|NCT00773461|168923513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA|||||-12.7|-25.2|<0.0001
84585367|NCT00773461|168923514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7384|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1464|-1.3303|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3303|-2.1464|<0.0001
84585368|NCT00773461|168923515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-44.7|<.0001
84585369|NCT00773461|168923517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|1.8|0.0003
84611479|NCT01115673|168974264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585370|NCT00773461|168923518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.3||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-139.5|0.0599
84585371|NCT00773461|168923519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.125|16.786|||ANCOVA|||||16.786|9.125|<0.0001
84585372|NCT00773461|168923520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
84585373|NCT00913835|168923524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.478|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.478|0.751|0.8049
84585374|NCT00913835|168923525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.618|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.618|0.768|0.6346
84585375|NCT00913835|168923526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6190
84585376|NCT00637156|168923541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.201||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.201|0.022|1.000
84585377|NCT00637156|168923541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of overall success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.993
84585378|NCT00637156|168923542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.088||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.167||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the NDI success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.167|0.012|1.000
84585379|NCT00637156|168923542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of NDI success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.990
84585380|NCT00637156|168923543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.119||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neurological success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.119|-0.014|1.000
84585381|NCT00637156|168923543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neurological success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.931
84585382|NCT00637156|168923544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.062||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neck pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.062|-0.019|1.000
84611480|NCT01115673|168974264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
84611481|NCT01115673|168974264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611482|NCT01115673|168974265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.027||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.027
84611483|NCT01115673|168974265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.365||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.365
84611484|NCT01115673|168974265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14||||0.005||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.005
84611485|NCT01115673|168974266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611486|NCT01115673|168974266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.923||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.923
84611487|NCT01115673|168974266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611488|NCT01115673|168974267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84672812|NCT05459129|169081650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|63.82|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|6 Months Analysis||63.82|-50.49|
84585383|NCT00637156|168923544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neck pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.852
84585384|NCT00637156|168923545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.056||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the arm pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.056|-0.073|0.997
84585385|NCT00637156|168923545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of arm pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.395
84585386|NCT00637156|168923546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.088||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 PCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.088|-0.042|1.000
84585387|NCT00637156|168923546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of SF-36 PCS success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.767
84585388|NCT00637156|168923547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.067||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 MCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.067|-0.120|0.945
84585389|NCT00637156|168923548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the FSU success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.072|0.997
84585390|NCT00637156|168923548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of FSU success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.271
84585391|NCT00637156|168923549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the gait success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.013|1.000
84585392|NCT00637156|168923549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of gait success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.859
84611489|NCT01115673|168974267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.653||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.653
84499070|NCT03205163|168748859|OTHER||GMR|4.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.23|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.23|4.00|<0.001
84499071|NCT03205163|168748860|OTHER||GMR|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.79|4.16|<0.001
84499072|NCT01238172|168748863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.75|0.76
84585393|NCT00637156|168923550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.548||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed. The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.548|0.252|0.0
84585394|NCT00637156|168923551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|11.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.44|||Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||22.440|0.560|0.02
84585395|NCT00637156|168923552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.058||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.058|-0.258|0.892
84585396|NCT02471144|168923559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|114.66|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||114.66|7.08|<.0001
84585397|NCT02471144|168923559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|98.93|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||98.93|6.31|<.0001
84585398|NCT02471144|168923560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|538.64|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||538.64|10.02|<.0001
84585399|NCT02471144|168923560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.48|329.52|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||329.52|6.48|<.0001
84611490|NCT01115673|168974267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585400|NCT02471144|168923561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|84.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||84.9|55.9|<.0001
84585401|NCT02471144|168923561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|80.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||80.9|50.8|<.0001
84611491|NCT01115673|168974268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.71|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585402|NCT00734032|168923581|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.514|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.59|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 40 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.590|0.449|<.001
84585403|NCT00734032|168923581|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.421|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.483|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 80 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.483|0.367|<.001
84585404|NCT00734032|168923581|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.375|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 160 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.375|0.284|<.001
84585405|NCT01946880|168923622|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.214||||||||0.214|-0.068|
84585406|NCT01946880|168923624|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||||||||0.279|-0.116|
84585407|NCT01946880|168923625|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.36||||||||0.360|-0.091|
84585408|NCT01946880|168923626|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.333||||||||0.333|-0.475|
84611492|NCT01115673|168974268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21||||0.138||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.138
84585409|NCT01946880|168923627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.249||||||The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.||0.249|-0.286|
84585410|NCT01946880|168923628|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.497||||||||0.497|-0.090|
84585411|NCT01946880|168923629|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.211||||||||0.211|-0.056|
84585412|NCT01946880|168923630|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.284||||||||0.284|-0.041|
84585413|NCT01946880|168923631|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.206||||||||0.206|-0.285|
84585414|NCT01946880|168923632|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.118|
84585415|NCT01946880|168923633|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.212||||||||0.212|-0.103|
84585416|NCT01946880|168923636|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.149||||||||0.149|-0.028|
84585417|NCT01946880|168923637|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.134||||||||0.134|-0.020|
84585418|NCT01946880|168923638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||0.1|-0.1|
84585419|NCT01946880|168923638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||0.1|-0.1|
84585420|NCT01946880|168923638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||0.1|-0.2|
84585421|NCT01946880|168923639|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||||||||0.059|-0.019|
84585422|NCT01946880|168923641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.45|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||5.45|-2.24|
84585423|NCT01946880|168923641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|6.21|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||6.21|-1.13|
84585424|NCT01946880|168923641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|7.28|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||7.28|-0.17|
84585425|NCT01946880|168923642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.92|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||2.92|-1.82|
84585426|NCT01946880|168923642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.03|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||4.03|-1.14|
84585427|NCT01946880|168923642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.67|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||4.67|-0.71|
84585428|NCT01946880|168923643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.32|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||4.32|-1.03|
84585429|NCT01946880|168923643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.02|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||5.02|-0.69|
84585430|NCT01946880|168923643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.82|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||5.82|0.22|
84585431|NCT02034565|168923658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.261||||||||1.261|0.756|
84585432|NCT02034565|168923659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.176||||||||1.176|0.938|
84585433|NCT02034565|168923660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.167||||||||1.167|0.933|
84585434|NCT02655601|168923667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0||Study was originally designed with 1 IA after approximately 42 deaths. An unplanned, 2nd IA was conducted to support a BTDR. The study was not terminated early as a result of either IAs. No further IA were conducted until the primary analysis.|Log Rank|89 study participants had passed away at the time of this analysis (41 in the RT/TMZ + BMX-001 arm and 48 in the Radiation Therapy/TMZ arm).||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level. This test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 after 84 deaths were observed among the 160 randomized patients.||95||0.135
84611493|NCT01115673|168974268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611494|NCT01115673|168974269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.66|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585435|NCT02655601|168923679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.465|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 78 and 71 patients in Arms A and B, respectively, there was 80% power with a one-tailed chi-square test (α=0.05) to detect a reduction in grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia from 15% in Arm B (without BMX-001) to 3.7% in Arm A (with BMX-001). Given the small number of patients that experienced low platelet counts or thrombocytopenia, a one-tailed Fisher's exact test was performed instead.||||0.465
84585436|NCT02655601|168923680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.911|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level.||||0.911
84585437|NCT02655601|168923681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity adjusted Chi-Squared test was performed.||||||0.401
84585438|NCT02412982|168923686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
84585439|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.055|<0.001
84585440|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.117|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|0.064|<0.001
84585441|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.107|<0.001
84585442|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|0.069|<0.001
84585443|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.039|-0.021|0.556
84585444|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.053||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|0.021|0.001
84585445|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.014||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.016|0.365
84585446|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.044||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.013|0.006
84585447|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.036|-0.026|0.756
84585448|NCT02796651|168923699|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.008|-0.071|0.014
84611495|NCT01115673|168974269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.043||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.043
84499073|NCT01238172|168748864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.41|||Log Rank|||||8.41|0.23|0.71
84585449|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.169|0.091|<0.001
84585450|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.206|0.128|<0.001
84585451|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.224|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.263|0.184|<0.001
84585452|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.176|<0.001
84585453|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.304|0.226|<0.001
84585454|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.062|0.012|0.004
84585455|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|0.068|<0.001
84585456|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.110|0.059|<0.001
84585457|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.109|<0.001
84585458|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.082|0.031|<0.001
84585459|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|0.023|<0.001
84585460|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|0.073|<0.001
84585461|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.009||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.016|-0.035|0.469
84585462|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.068|0.015|0.002
84585463|NCT02796651|168923700|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.025|<0.001
84585464|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.213|0.105|<0.001
84585465|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.224|0.116|<0.001
84585466|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.274|0.163|<0.001
84611496|NCT01115673|168974269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.2|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585467|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.233|0.125|<0.001
84585468|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.011||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.042|-0.020|0.488
84585469|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.092|0.027|<0.001
84585470|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.051|-0.011|0.206
84585471|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.049||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.081|0.016|0.004
84585472|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.041|-0.022|0.567
84585473|NCT02796651|168923701|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.007|-0.072|0.017
84585474|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.075||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.008|0.027
84585475|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.065||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|-0.001|0.054
84585476|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.032|0.004
84585477|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.059||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|-0.006|0.075
84585478|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.01||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.048|0.615
84585479|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.025||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.065|-0.014|0.209
84611497|NCT01115673|168974270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611498|NCT01115673|168974270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.08||||0.024||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.024
84611499|NCT01115673|168974270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499074|NCT01238172|168748865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
84585480|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.016||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.053|0.403
84611500|NCT01115673|168974271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611501|NCT01115673|168974271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84499075|NCT01238172|168748866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided||||||<0.001
84585481|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.035||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.003|0.074
84585482|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.006||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.032|-0.045|0.750
84585483|NCT02796651|168923702|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.041||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.003|-0.080|0.035
84585484|NCT04197583|168923764|OTHER||Proportion by group|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|0.995|||||For Tria subjects with stone management indication only|||0.995|0.948|
84585485|NCT05078112|168923792|OTHER|||||||0.000393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000393
84585486|NCT04903093|168923834|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.43|110.03||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||110.03|85.43|
84585487|NCT04903093|168923834|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.85|72.07||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commecial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||72.07|54.85|
84585488|NCT04903093|168923835|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.28|124.74||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||124.74|80.28|
84585489|NCT04903093|168923835|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.46|19.36||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||19.36|12.46|
84585490|NCT03555994|168923855|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-105.7||||0.023||90.0|-178.8|-32.6|||ANCOVA|||||-32.6|-178.8|0.023
84585491|NCT03555994|168923856|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-25.87||||0.008||90.0|-40.88|-10.86|||ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-40.88|0.008
84585492|NCT03555994|168923857|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-21.99||||0.008||90.0|-34.55|-9.43|||ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-34.55|0.008
84585493|NCT03555994|168923858|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-35.06||||0.07||90.0|-66.54|-3.58|||ANCOVA|||||-3.58|-66.54|0.070
84585494|NCT03555994|168923858|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-11.72||||0.03||90.0|-20.13|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.30|-20.13|0.030
84585495|NCT03926247|168923893|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|LSM Final Difference|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' depression/anxiety symptoms would decrease overtime.||-0.008|-0.087|=0.019
84585496|NCT03926247|168923894|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643|=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' PTSD symptoms would decrease overtime.||0.372|-2.161|=0.168
84585497|NCT03926247|168923895|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' stress would decrease overtime.||-0.000|-0.140|=0.051
84585498|NCT03926247|168923896|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|=|0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' social support would increase overtime.||0.023|-0.106|=0.211
84585499|NCT03926247|168923897|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' access to resources would increase overtime.||0.201|-0.008|=0.074
84585500|NCT03926247|168923898|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)=|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' difficulty accessing resources would decrease overtime.||0.017|-0.257|=0.089
84585501|NCT03926247|168923899|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' quality of life would increase overtime.||0.030|-0.461|=0.086
84585502|NCT00057577|168923900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||=.038
84585503|NCT00057577|168923901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||<0.01
84585504|NCT02528305|168923911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.474
84585505|NCT02528305|168923912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.174
84585506|NCT02528305|168923913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
84585507|NCT02528305|168923914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84585508|NCT02528305|168923915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Total body fat||||||0.092
84585509|NCT02528305|168923915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Trunk fat||||||0.101
84611502|NCT01115673|168974271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.23|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611503|NCT01115673|168974272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585510|NCT02528305|168923916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of systolic blood pressure||||||0.771
84585511|NCT02528305|168923916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of diastolic blood pressure||||||0.028
84585512|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Function||||||0.099
84585513|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Social Function||||||0.566
84585514|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Health||||||0.246
84585515|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Pain||||||0.145
84585516|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Change in Health||||||0.085
84585517|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Role Limitation||||||0.114
84585518|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Role Limitation||||||0.841
84585519|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Energy/Vitality||||||0.366
84585520|NCT02528305|168923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Health Perception||||||0.745
84611504|NCT01115673|168974272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84585521|NCT02528305|168923918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.310
84585522|NCT02528305|168923919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84585523|NCT02528305|168923920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84585524|NCT02528305|168923921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
84585525|NCT02528305|168923922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.513
84585526|NCT02528305|168923923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84585527|NCT01852214|168923924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84585528|NCT01852214|168923925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
84585529|NCT01308788|168923967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4414
84585530|NCT01308788|168923968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7820
84585531|NCT01308788|168923969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5496||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5496
84585532|NCT01308788|168923970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2930
84585533|NCT01308788|168923971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5058
84585534|NCT01308788|168923972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6156||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6156
84585535|NCT01308788|168923973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5443
84611505|NCT01115673|168974272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611506|NCT01115673|168974273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757124|NCT05879107|169269909|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 33F||1.64|1.20|
84585536|NCT01308788|168923974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7847
84585537|NCT01308788|168923975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1331||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1331
84585538|NCT01308788|168923976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5431
84585539|NCT01308788|168923977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0684
84585540|NCT01308788|168923978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2500
84585541|NCT01308788|168923979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6896
84585542|NCT01308788|168923980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7965
84585543|NCT00322218|168923982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8578|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.8578
84585544|NCT04548219|168923984|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.06||||||||1.06|0.775|
84585545|NCT04548219|168923985|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.1||||||||1.10|0.761|
84585546|NCT04548219|168923986|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.1||||||||1.10|0.760|
84585547|NCT04603560|168923999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66|||||The odds ratio represents Social Norming vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||1.66|0.54|
84585548|NCT04603560|168923999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.29|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist E-Detailing vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||2.29|0.72|
84585549|NCT04603560|168923999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.56|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist e-detailing vs Social Norming.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size.||2.56|0.74|
84585550|NCT05472870|168924000|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS. A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust P values in post hoc analyses.|ANOVA|||All clinical behavioral data analysis was performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software (version 25.0). A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS.||||<0.001
84585551|NCT01385995|168924014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.24|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Controlled for period and baseline 2 hour OGTT glucose level.||Based on an intent to treat approach a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to estimate the effect of therapy (CPAP or Sham) on the odds of normalization of Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT). This model provides an estimate of the odds ratio of normalizing the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with CPAP compared with Sham-CPAP.||3.24|0.52|0.57
84585552|NCT01385995|168924015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.0|-1.2|0.38
84585553|NCT01385995|168924015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between measures of glucose indices, in this case, 2 hour OGTT, and therapeutic CPAP vs. Sham.||1.7|-16.3|0.11
84585554|NCT01385995|168924015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=25.||2.7|-3.3|0.86
84585555|NCT01385995|168924015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N= 25.||1.3|-24.6|0.08
84585556|NCT01385995|168924016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||0.5|-3.4|0.14
84585557|NCT01385995|168924016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||2.8|-23.3|0.12
84585558|NCT01385995|168924016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||0.5|-5.2|0.10
84585559|NCT01385995|168924016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-10.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||-10.9|-46.5|0.002
84585560|NCT01385995|168924017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.8|-17.6|0.18
84585561|NCT01385995|168924017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|1.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin resistance, in this case Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||1.8|-27.5|0.08
84585562|NCT01385995|168924018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensivity Index, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||9.8|-2.0|0.20
84585563|NCT01385995|168924018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI(0,120)), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||22.1|5.2|0.002
84585564|NCT02414841|168924019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.39|||Log Rank|Weighted|Performed as sensitivity analysis|||1.39|0.67|0.932
84585565|NCT02414841|168924020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
84611507|NCT01115673|168974273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611508|NCT01115673|168974273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585566|NCT02301897|168924113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0008
84585567|NCT02301897|168924113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||<0.001
84585568|NCT02301897|168924114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0719
84585569|NCT02301897|168924114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0004
84585570|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0167
84585571|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1257
84585572|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.9754
84585573|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.7672
84585574|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2232|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2232
84585575|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4512
84585576|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3545|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3545
84499076|NCT04502862|168748883|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, body mass index (BMI), region (Eastern Europe, rest of world \[ROW\]), inhaled corticosteroids \[ICS\] dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), baseline sleep disturbance score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.14|-0.28|0.512
84499077|NCT04502862|168748884|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline number of nocturnal awakenings and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.22|-0.21|0.967
84499078|NCT04502862|168748885|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline PROMIS total score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||1.01|-2.40|0.422
84499079|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499080|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hyposthesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499081|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499082|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84585577|NCT02301897|168924115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.2482
84585578|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0016
84611509|NCT01115673|168974274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611510|NCT01115673|168974274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611511|NCT01115673|168974274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499083|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499084|NCT00584831|168748895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499085|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499086|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499087|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499088|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84611512|NCT01115673|168974275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499089|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84585579|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0003
84585580|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.6666
84585581|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.3612
84585582|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0309
84585583|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0007
84585584|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.0641
84585585|NCT02301897|168924116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3743|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3743
84585586|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0049
84585587|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0064
84757125|NCT05879107|169269910|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-A||1.20|0.94|
84585588|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5637
84585589|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0505
84585590|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4262
84585591|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1419|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1419
84585592|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4497
84585593|NCT02301897|168924117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5371|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5371
84585594|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0069
84757126|NCT05879107|169269911|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-B||1.13|0.89|
84757127|NCT01748942|169269920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84757128|NCT01748942|169269923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84757129|NCT01748942|169269924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84585595|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0059
84585596|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2117
84585597|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0006
84585598|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0788
84585599|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0080
84585600|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1516|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1516
84585601|NCT02301897|168924118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0565|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.0565
84585602|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0110
84585603|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0601|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0601
84585604|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2168|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2168
84585605|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0101
84585606|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2430
84585607|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0843
84585608|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
84585609|NCT02301897|168924119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5302
84585610|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0504
84585611|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0151|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0151
84585612|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5932|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5932
84585613|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0831|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0831
84585614|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1416
84585615|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0392
84585616|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8275
84585617|NCT02301897|168924120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8733
84585618|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0651
84585619|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0298
84585620|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4005
84585621|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.1114
84585622|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1318
84585623|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
84585624|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4506|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4506
84585625|NCT02301897|168924121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4614|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4614
84585626|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0653
84757130|NCT01748942|169269925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84757131|NCT01748942|169269926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84585627|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0480
84585628|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4010
84585629|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0772
84585630|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.3206
84585631|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1605|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1605
84585632|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
84585633|NCT02301897|168924122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3437|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.3437
84585634|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2624|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2624
84585635|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0688
84585636|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2790
84611513|NCT01115673|168974275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.98||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84611514|NCT01115673|168974275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.41|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611515|NCT01115673|168974276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757132|NCT01748942|169269927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84757133|NCT02662036|169269937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for intraoperative opioid use||||0.76
84585637|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6541
84757134|NCT02662036|169269937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for postoperative acute care unit opioid use||||0.38
84757135|NCT02662036|169269937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for postoperative floor opioid use||||0.69
84757136|NCT02662036|169269937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #4 is for total opioid use||||0.98
84585638|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.8559
84585639|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4326
84585640|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1052
84585641|NCT02301897|168924123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.9206
84585642|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1439
84585643|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0670
84585644|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6761
84585645|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0639|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0639
84585646|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2218|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2218
84585647|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4468|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4468
84585648|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7678
84585649|NCT02301897|168924124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8922
84585650|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1262
84585651|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2075|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2075
84585652|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5904|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5904
84585653|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2430
84585654|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.7067
84585655|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2725
84585656|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7016
84585657|NCT02301897|168924125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8751|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8751
84585658|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0338
84585659|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0004
84585660|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0807
84585661|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0142
84585662|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
84585663|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0142
84585664|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.1859
84585665|NCT02301897|168924126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.0896
84585666|NCT02378480|168924131|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||4.9|-6.3|
84585667|NCT02378480|168924132|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.2|-3.2|
84585668|NCT02378480|168924133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||6.9|-1.0|
84585669|NCT01217892|168924150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.05|-0.38|0.0106
84585670|NCT01217892|168924150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
84585671|NCT01217892|168924151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.10|-2.53|<0.0001
84585672|NCT01217892|168924151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.46||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.46|-2.89|<0.0001
84585673|NCT01217892|168924152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-9.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.7|-21.7|<0.0001
84585674|NCT01217892|168924152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-10.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-10.7|-22.7|<0.0001
84611516|NCT01115673|168974276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.26
84611517|NCT01115673|168974276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611518|NCT01115673|168974277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611519|NCT01115673|168974277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.934
84757137|NCT02662036|169269938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for postoperative acute care unit antiemetic use||||0.28
84757138|NCT02662036|169269938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for floor antiemetic use||||0.62
84499090|NCT00584831|168748896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84757139|NCT02662036|169269938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for total antiemetic use||||0.50
84499091|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499092|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499093|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499094|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499095|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499096|NCT00584831|168748897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499097|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499098|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499099|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499100|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499101|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84585675|NCT01217892|168924153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-4.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-4.2|-16.5|0.0010
84611520|NCT01115673|168974277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611521|NCT01115673|168974278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
84499102|NCT00584831|168748898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
84499103|NCT00391092|168748906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank (unstratified)|||||1.02|0.65|0.0775
84499104|NCT00391092|168748907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.74|0.9543
84499105|NCT00391092|168748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|4.43||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.0|||Chi-squared||95% CI for the difference in response rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||14.0|-5.2|0.3492
84499106|NCT00391092|168748909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98||||||||0.98|0.56|
84757140|NCT02662036|169269939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.20
84499107|NCT00391092|168748910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.76|0.5392
84499108|NCT00858234|168748915|OTHER|Accumulation Ratio (Day 11 AUC0-24hr/Day 1 AUC0-24hr)|Accumulation ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.45|||||Back-transformed least squares mean difference and 90% confidence interval from mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.45|0.80|
84499109|NCT01052038|168748962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84499110|NCT01052038|168748962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
84499111|NCT01052038|168748962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
84499112|NCT01052038|168748963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's post hoc-test corrected for 12 comparisons.||||||<0.001
84499113|NCT01052038|168748963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||29|14|0.005
84499114|NCT01052038|168748963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|22.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22|7|0.004
84499115|NCT01052038|168748964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.004
84499116|NCT01052038|168748965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Post hoc test using Dunn's test corrected for 12 comparisons||||||0.01
84499117|NCT01052038|168748965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003||95.0|0.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|0|0.003
84499118|NCT01052038|168748966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.04
84611522|NCT01115673|168974278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
84611523|NCT01115673|168974278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
84611524|NCT01115673|168974279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84499119|NCT03901352|168748967|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSM vs placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34|||ANCOVA||"The multiple imputation (MI) was based on a nonfuture dependence model using the pattern mixture model (PMM) approach with shifting parameters under the missing not at random (MNAR0 mechanism for the missing weekly ADPS."|||-0.34|-1.08|0.0001
84585676|NCT01217892|168924153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.1|-21.4|<0.0001
84585677|NCT01217892|168924154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.097||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||24.1|0.2|0.0455
84585678|NCT01217892|168924154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.153||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|28.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||28.9|4.8|0.0062
84585679|NCT01052779|168924156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|With LOCF Imputation: The p-value and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.21|0.515
84585680|NCT01052779|168924156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|Without Imputation (Sensitivity Analysis): The p-value and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an ANOVA model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.23|0.587
84672813|NCT04304001|169081657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For each arm, the proportion of participants who receive colorectal cancer screening by 12 months was computed. The chi-square test was used to compare the two treatment arms for screening receipt. If the proportion of participants receiving colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm is at least 15% higher than that in the control arm, the intervention was determined to be effective.||||<0.05
84672814|NCT04304001|169081658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the knowledge scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since knowledge was a continuous variable,the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
84585681|NCT00557440|168924199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0492||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.263||Statistical significance (two-sided) at 5% level. p-values were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Treatment, period, sequence and center as fixed effects, period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.263|0.066|0.001
84585682|NCT03524157|168924204|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferior if there are no differences greater than 20%.||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.273
84611525|NCT01115673|168974279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
84672815|NCT04304001|169081659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the self-efficacy scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since self-efficacy was a continuous variable, the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
84757141|NCT02662036|169269940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.64
84757142|NCT02662036|169269941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.38
84585683|NCT03524157|168924205|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.788|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.788
84757143|NCT00942175|169269948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6106|0.8026|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8026|0.6106|
84585684|NCT03524157|168924207|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84585685|NCT03524157|168924208|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
84585686|NCT03524157|168924209|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84585687|NCT03524157|168924211|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84585688|NCT03524157|168924212|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84611526|NCT01115673|168974279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757144|NCT00942175|169269948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6516|0.8269|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8269|0.6516|
84757145|NCT00942175|169269948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5564|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4877|0.6347|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.6347|0.4877|
84757146|NCT00942175|169269948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5063|0.9087|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9087|0.5063|
84611527|NCT01115673|168974280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611528|NCT01115673|168974280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611529|NCT01115673|168974280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757147|NCT00942175|169269949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8573|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.9165|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9165|0.8020|
84757148|NCT00942175|169269949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8567|0.9672|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9672|0.8567|
84757149|NCT00942175|169269949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6438|0.7487|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.7487|0.6438|
84757150|NCT00942175|169269949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|1.0928|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||1.0928|0.6440|
84585689|NCT03524157|168924213|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84585690|NCT04507763|168924214|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
84585691|NCT04507763|168924215|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
84585692|NCT03322566|168924216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-18.5||||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-4.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method||Stratified by PD-L1 TPS ( \<50% vs. \>=50% ) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous);because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50 percent Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one stratum.|||-4.3|-32.0|0.9948
84585693|NCT03322566|168924217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.94305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50% Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one.|Regression, Cox|Efron's method of tie handling||||2.36|0.91|0.94305
84585694|NCT03322566|168924218|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.96272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata (\<50% vs \>=50%) were combined into one stratum.|Regression, Cox|||||3.90|0.93|0.96272
84585695|NCT02853136|168924285|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2332.9|4140.1|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4140.10|2332.90|
84585696|NCT02853136|168924286|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|659.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|489.791|886.676|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\]=44.8.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||886.676|489.791|
84585697|NCT02853136|168924287|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3103.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2330.5|4132.65|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4132.65|2330.50|
84585698|NCT00841815|168924288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.43||||||90.0|91.4|101.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.74|91.40|
84585699|NCT00841815|168924289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.94||||||90.0|95.6|106.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.58|95.60|
84585700|NCT00841815|168924290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.11||||||90.0|95.08|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.40|95.08|
84585701|NCT04805593|168924291|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 50%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
84585702|NCT04805593|168924292|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 75%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
84585703|NCT06045273|168924310|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0006
84585704|NCT06045273|168924311|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0504|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0504
84585705|NCT06045273|168924312|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.00134|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.00134
84585706|NCT02947048|168924329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.61
84611530|NCT01115673|168974281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611531|NCT01115673|168974281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
84585707|NCT02947048|168924329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.33
84585708|NCT02947048|168924329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.61
84585709|NCT02947048|168924329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.91
84585710|NCT04910165|168924375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84585711|NCT04910165|168924376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84585712|NCT04910165|168924377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84585713|NCT04910165|168924378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84585714|NCT04910165|168924379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84585715|NCT04910165|168924380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84585716|NCT04910165|168924381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84585717|NCT00323622|168924443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|16.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|32.4||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - GSK RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.40|-2.50|0.08
84611532|NCT01115673|168974281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84611533|NCT01115673|168974282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84585718|NCT00323622|168924443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|11.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|35.18||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||35.18|-20.11|0.43
84585719|NCT00323622|168924444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|14.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|30.28||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||30.28|-3.88|0.11
84585720|NCT00323622|168924444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|12.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|34.59||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||34.59|-16.27|0.35
84585721|NCT00323622|168924445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|19.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|31.93||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||31.93|4.62|0.01
84585722|NCT00323622|168924445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|7.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.44||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||26.44|-17.37|0.54
84585723|NCT00323622|168924446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|16.79||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|33.25||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||33.25|-3.75|0.10
84585724|NCT00323622|168924446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|6.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|32.99||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.99|-31.00|0.70
84585725|NCT00835354|168924450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|89.2||||||90.0|86.2|92.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.2|86.2|
84585726|NCT00835354|168924451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.5||||||90.0|88.9|92.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.1|88.9|
84611534|NCT01115673|168974282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
84611535|NCT01115673|168974282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
84757151|NCT00942175|169269950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0348|8.1684|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||8.1684|0.0348|
84757152|NCT00942175|169269950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0474|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8555|4.9503|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||4.9503|-0.8555|
84585727|NCT00835354|168924452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.7||||||90.0|89.1|92.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.3|89.1|
84611536|NCT03121365|168974310|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Cognitive Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.7635
84611537|NCT03121365|168974310|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.0996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.0996
84585728|NCT01111552|168924456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.3|||=|0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-5.9|=0.595
84585729|NCT01111552|168924456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-4.4|=0.869
84585730|NCT01111552|168924457|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.6|-0.7|=0.856
84585731|NCT01111552|168924457|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.7|-0.6|=0.838
84585732|NCT01111552|168924458|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|||=|0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|=0.765
84672816|NCT04649151|169081669|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on geometric least squares means \[GLSM\]) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.237|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||1.237|0.940|
84757153|NCT00942175|169269950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5219|15.5595|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.5595|6.5219|
84585733|NCT01111552|168924458|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-1.2|=0.760
84611538|NCT03121365|168974310|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Gross Motor Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.2291
84611539|NCT03121365|168974311|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 9 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.0180
84757154|NCT00942175|169269950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1791|15.7083|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.7083|7.1791|
84585734|NCT05293314|168924473|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.964|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.996|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.996|0.932|<0.05
84585735|NCT05293314|168924473|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.932|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|0.982|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.982|0.879|<0.05
84585736|NCT05293314|168924474|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
84611540|NCT03121365|168974311|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 9 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4144
84611541|NCT03121365|168974311|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4251
84611542|NCT03121365|168974312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Difference in Board Book Reading|Chi-squared|||||||0.235
84611543|NCT03121365|168974313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84611544|NCT03121365|168974314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.601
84611545|NCT03121365|168974315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.219
84611546|NCT03121365|168974316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84611547|NCT03121365|168974317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.574
84611548|NCT03121365|168974318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.430
84611549|NCT03121365|168974319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84611550|NCT03121365|168974320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.861
84757155|NCT00942175|169269951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.035
84757156|NCT00942175|169269951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.445
84585737|NCT05293314|168924474|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
84585738|NCT05293314|168924475|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|98.8||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||98.8|86.2|
84585739|NCT05293314|168924475|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|91.9||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||91.9|56|
84585740|NCT00934180|168924476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0||||||90.0|95.1|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|95.1|
84585741|NCT00934180|168924477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.3|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|95.3|
84585742|NCT00934180|168924478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.2|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108|95.2|
84585743|NCT00835172|168924479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|92.1|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|92.1|
84585744|NCT00835172|168924480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|96.8|
84585745|NCT00835172|168924481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|99.3|
84585746|NCT02613507|168924496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0231|Stratified weighted Log-Rank|Stratified weighted using G \[rho=0, gamma=1\] Fleming and Harrington.||||||0.0006
84585747|NCT02613507|168924496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.7|0.52|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||0.90|0.52|
84672817|NCT04649151|169081670|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%. and a point estimator \>-5% (minimum threshold)|percentage difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||||SRR difference of P203 vs P301|||1.9|-2.1|
84585748|NCT02613507|168924496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|regular stratified log-rank test p-value||||||0.0017
84585749|NCT03941093|168924506|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||1.41|0.83|0.5487
84585750|NCT05339659|168924531|OTHER|The point null hypothesis of the significance test was a difference in expected number of log ins of 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.44|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|A priori power calculations estimated detectable differences with 80% power with type 1 error rate=0.05, assuming a two-sided unequal variance t-test (standard deviations of 2.0 and 7.0 in the control and experimental arms, respectively) and a total sample of n=50 equally split between arms. Given a final sample size of 19 (7 control, 12 experimental), we re-calculated the detectable mean difference with these sample sizes (maintaining all other original assumptions), which is 6.51 sessions.||9.44|-2.33|0.219
84585751|NCT05339659|168924533|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average number of days of use between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.12||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.19|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||9.19|-53.44|0.153
84585752|NCT05339659|168924534|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a relative difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.558|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.558|-0.352|0.727
84672818|NCT04649151|169081671|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI of noninferiority margin of 1.5. GMR point estimate \>=0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|5.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.477|5.745|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.745|4.477|
84757157|NCT00942175|169269951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84757158|NCT00942175|169269951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84757159|NCT00942175|169269952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84585753|NCT05339659|168924535|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.61|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.61|-0.60|0.325
84585754|NCT05339659|168924536|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.72|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.72|-1.28|0.745
84585755|NCT05339659|168924537|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is a risk difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.85|0.16|0.009
84585756|NCT05339659|168924540|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|5.44|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||5.44|-2.66|0.469
84585757|NCT05339659|168924541|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|2.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||2.16|-3.48|0.614
84585758|NCT05339659|168924542|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.38|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||2.38|-2.67|0.90
84585759|NCT05339659|168924543|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.93|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.93|-3.03|0.632
84585760|NCT05339659|168924544|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.94|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||-0.94|-3.55|0.227
84585761|NCT05339659|168924545|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.15|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.15|-3.58|0.274
84585762|NCT05339659|168924549|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
84585763|NCT05339659|168924550|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.43|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.43|-0.49|0.845
84585764|NCT05339659|168924551|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Barnard's exact test||||risk difference=experimental-control|0.28|-0.47|0.560
84611551|NCT00303485|168974322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median|-64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.28|-46.21|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-46.21|-80.28|< 0.0001
84757160|NCT00942175|169269952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.148
84585765|NCT05339659|168924552|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
84585766|NCT05339659|168924553|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.34|-0.49|0.632
84585767|NCT05339659|168924554|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.45|-0.48|>0.999
84585768|NCT03514134|168924583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||<0.001
84585769|NCT03514134|168924584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.358
84585770|NCT03514134|168924585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.029
84585771|NCT03514134|168924586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84611552|NCT01963845|168974339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
84611553|NCT01963845|168974340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in AST values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7583
84585772|NCT03514134|168924586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84585773|NCT03514134|168924587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Group by time interaction|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.70
84585774|NCT02947984|168924588|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the overall cohort.||||0.234
84585775|NCT02947984|168924588|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the subgroup receiving treatment due to a sub-total resection||||.820
84585776|NCT02947984|168924588|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the sub-group receiving treatment due to recurrent disease||||.061
84611554|NCT01963845|168974341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in ALT values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.8569
84611555|NCT01963845|168974342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7984|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in LDL values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7984
84611556|NCT01963845|168974343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in HOMA-IR values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.5560
84611557|NCT02381015|168974353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84611558|NCT02381015|168974354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84611559|NCT02381015|168974355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84757161|NCT00942175|169269952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84585777|NCT03360344|168924654|OTHER|non-parametric tests were used as data was not normally distributed.||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxan signed Rank|||statistical analysis for wrist||||0.48
84585778|NCT03360344|168924654|OTHER|nonparametric test were used as the distribution was not normal.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.99
84585779|NCT03360344|168924655|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.001
84585780|NCT03360344|168924655|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for wrist||||.001
84585781|NCT03360344|168924656|OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84585782|NCT03360344|168924657|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
84585783|NCT03360344|168924658|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.001
84585784|NCT01765400|168924666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84585785|NCT01342666|168924670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2925|6.9383||We did only one comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||We compare de mean difference of the delta (final-basal levels) between groups. The values posted are the difference found in the tomato group in comparison of the control group. The mean represent the increment of HDL-c in the tomato group.|We test the effect of two daily roma tomatoes during one month in HDL-c levels. We estimate the sample size to have a 80% study power.||6.9383|3.2925|<0.0001
84585786|NCT01342666|168924670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|7.232||A priori p value of \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for adherence, smoking, age, gender, waist to hip ratio, triglycerides, body mass index, exercise, omega 3, alcohol, fish, simple sugars.|Parameters of the model: F= 4.06; r = 0.798; r2 = 0.638; p=0.001|||7.232|4.027|<0.0001
84585787|NCT04033640|168924678|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
84585788|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20458||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6506|0.1809|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, period, regimen and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1809|-0.6506|0.259
84585789|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22075||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4853|0.4119|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4119|-0.4853|0.869
84585790|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20968||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6441|0.2081|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2081|-0.6441|0.306
84611560|NCT02381015|168974356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
84585791|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17956||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6174|0.1124|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1124|-0.6174|0.169
84585792|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19375||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|0.3521|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3521|-0.4354|0.831
84585793|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18403||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6161|0.1319|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1319|-0.6161|0.197
84585794|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4443|0.2133|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2133|-0.4443|0.480
84585795|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17458||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1875|0.5221|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5221|-0.1875|0.345
84611561|NCT02381015|168974357|OTHER||Beta|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The statistical analysis shows the relation between risk given and risk recall at the immediate post results assessment for the total number of participants.||||0.42
84611562|NCT02381015|168974358|OTHER||Beta|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
84611563|NCT00118742|168974359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0012||95.0|14.8|35.0|||ANCOVA|||||35.0|14.8|0.0012
84611564|NCT00118742|168974360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.7|35.6|||ANCOVA|||||35.6|15.7|<0.0001
84611565|NCT00118742|168974361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.0053||95.0|13.7|43.7|||ANCOVA|||||43.7|13.7|0.0053
84757162|NCT00942175|169269952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84585796|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16583||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4874|0.1866|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1866|-0.4874|0.371
84585797|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18808||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5553|0.2092|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2092|-0.5553|0.364
84585798|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20294||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2762|0.5486|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5486|-0.2762|0.507
84585799|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19276||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6381|0.1453|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1453|-0.6381|0.210
84585800|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14253||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5955|-0.0162|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0162|-0.5955|0.039
84585801|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1538||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2991|0.326|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3260|-0.2991|0.931
84585802|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14608||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4133|0.1804|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1804|-0.4133|0.431
84585803|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13362||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5985|-0.0554|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0554|-0.5985|0.020
84585804|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14418||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3775|0.2085|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2085|-0.3775|0.562
84585805|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13695||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.1056|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1056|-0.4510|0.216
84585806|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17609||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3663|0.3495|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3495|-0.3663|0.962
84611566|NCT00118742|168974362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|12.5|29.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 6 months posttransplant||29.6|12.5|<0.0001
84611567|NCT00118742|168974362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.9|26.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 12 months posttransplant||26.6|9.9|<0.0001
84611568|NCT00118742|168974362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.6||||0.0006||95.0|10.2|37.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 24 months posttransplant||37.0|10.2|0.0006
84672819|NCT04649151|169081672|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%.|SRR Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||SRR difference of P203 BD-Day 29 vs P301 Day 57|||2.4|-0.8|
84672820|NCT04649151|169081673|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of GMC (based on GLSM\] was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1|GMR|48.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.765|53.065|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||53.065|43.765|
84585807|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19001||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4218|0.3505|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3505|-0.4218|0.852
84585808|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18048||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5822|0.1514|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1514|-0.5822|0.241
84585809|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17766||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4991|0.223|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2230|-0.4991|0.443
84611569|NCT00930553|168974388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|22.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|27.06|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||27.06|18.33|
84611570|NCT00930553|168974388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|29.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.42|34.49|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||34.49|25.42|
84611571|NCT00930553|168974389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|15.56|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||15.56|5.54|
84611572|NCT00930553|168974389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|13.9|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||13.90|4.48|
84611573|NCT00930553|168974389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|28.03|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.03|14.67|
84611574|NCT00930553|168974389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|18.58|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||18.58|7.63|
84611575|NCT00930553|168974390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|32.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|39.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||39.28|26.96|
84611576|NCT00930553|168974390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.08|48.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||48.28|37.08|
84585810|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1917||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5933|0.1859|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1859|-0.5933|0.295
84611577|NCT00930553|168974391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|28.47|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.47|9.75|
84611578|NCT00930553|168974391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|22.33|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||22.33|8.47|
84611579|NCT00921843|168974427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84611580|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.0|15.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||15|5|
84611581|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|18.0|31.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||31|18|
84611582|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|25.0|39.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||39|25|
84611583|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|29.0|43.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||43|29|
84611584|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.0|22.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||22|6|
84611585|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.0|42.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||42|27|
84611586|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-32.0|-17.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-17|-32|
84585811|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18209||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4303|0.3098|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3098|-0.4303|0.743
84585812|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16068||0.277||95.0|-0.504|0.1491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1491|-0.5040|0.277
84585813|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17338||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4062|0.2985|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2985|-0.4062|0.758
84585814|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16468||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7724|-0.1031|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.1031|-0.7724|0.012
84611587|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.0|-4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-4|-16|
84611588|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.0|4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||4|-9|
84611589|NCT01393639|168974428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.0|8.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||8|-5|
84672821|NCT04649151|169081676|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|4.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.972|5.083|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.083|3.972|
84585815|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14849||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4055|0.1981|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1981|-0.4055|0.490
84585816|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16023||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4263|0.2249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2249|-0.4263|0.534
84585817|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15219||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5233|0.0953|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0953|-0.5233|0.169
84585818|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14118||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.0228|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0228|-0.5510|0.070
84585819|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15234||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.2242|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2242|-0.3950|0.579
84611590|NCT01393639|168974429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|17.03|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||17.03|-13.75|
84611591|NCT01393639|168974429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.16|8.75|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||8.75|-22.16|
84611592|NCT01393639|168974429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.45|10.3|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||10.30|-20.45|
84499120|NCT03901339|168749032|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.653||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.812||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.526|0.0001
84499121|NCT03901339|168749033|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.952||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.952|0.652|0.0133
84499122|NCT03901339|168749034|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.662||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|2.609|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by BICR Assessment||2.609|1.058|0.0268
84499123|NCT03901339|168749034|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.989||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.174|3.369|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by LIR Assessment||3.369|1.174|0.0098
84499124|NCT03901339|168749036|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.796||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.628|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by BICR Assessment||2.628|1.227|0.0025
84585820|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1447||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5387|0.0494|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0494|-0.5387|0.100
84585821|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13533||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.055|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0550|-0.4950|0.113
84611593|NCT01393639|168974429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.19|3.72|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||3.72|-27.19|
84611594|NCT01393639|168974430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|19.61|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||19.61|-12.92|
84611595|NCT01393639|168974430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.86|9.81|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||9.81|-22.86|
84611596|NCT01393639|168974430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|20.55|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||20.55|-12.11|
84611597|NCT01393639|168974430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|29.15|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||29.15|-3.49|
84499125|NCT03901339|168749036|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.834||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.237|2.717|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by LIR Assessment||2.717|1.237|0.0024
84499126|NCT03901339|168749037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.881||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.881|0.602|0.0010
84499127|NCT03901339|168749038|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.922||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.922|0.612|0.0059
84585822|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14603||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3495|0.244|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2440|-0.3495|0.720
84585823|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1387||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4649|0.0989|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0989|-0.4649|0.196
84611598|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|29.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.56|-6.84|
84611599|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|30.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.19|-5.88|
84611600|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|38.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.17|0.91|
84499128|NCT03901339|168749039|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.126||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||1.126|0.748|0.4151
84585824|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20032||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6122|0.202|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2020|-0.6122|0.313
84585825|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21616||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.4646|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4646|-0.4140|0.908
84585826|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20531||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7214|0.1131|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1131|-0.7214|0.148
84585827|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17997||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7066|0.0249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0249|-0.7066|0.067
84585828|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19419||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4599|0.3294|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3294|-0.4599|0.739
84585829|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18445||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7912|-0.0415|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0415|-0.7912|0.031
84585830|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14369||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4952|0.0888|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0888|-0.4952|0.166
84585831|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15504||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2219|0.4083|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4083|-0.2219|0.552
84585832|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14727||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4641|0.1345|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1345|-0.4641|0.271
84585833|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16169||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5802|0.077|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0770|-0.5802|0.129
84585834|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17447||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2266|0.4825|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4825|-0.2266|0.468
84585835|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16572||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5401|0.1334|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1334|-0.5401|0.228
84585836|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13268||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4696|0.0696|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0696|-0.4696|0.141
84585837|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14317||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2975|0.2844|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2844|-0.2975|0.964
84611601|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|40.58|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||40.58|3.60|
84757163|NCT01940471|169269954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 288 and 576 participants in the TDF and TAF groups, respectively, were planned to give 84% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF - TDF) in the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 69%. Missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||2.6|-9.8|
84757164|NCT03710486|169270029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.13202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by propensity scores inverse probability treatment weighting (PS-IPTW).|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.16|0.32|=0.13202
84757165|NCT03710486|169270030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||=|0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.13|0.65|=0.5861
84757166|NCT03710486|169270033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.19|0.35|=0.1648
84585838|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13599||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4699|0.0828|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0828|-0.4699|0.164
84585839|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13315||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4152|0.126|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1260|-0.4152|0.285
84585840|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14368||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3096|0.2744|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2744|-0.3096|0.903
84585841|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13647||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4388|0.1159|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1159|-0.4388|0.245
84585842|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45708||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.2948|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.2948|-0.5630|0.429
84585843|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49321||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9628|1.0419|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.0419|-0.9628|0.937
84585844|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46847||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1618|1.7423|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.7423|-0.1618|0.101
84585845|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43756||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.4488|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4488|-1.3296|0.321
84585846|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47214||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|0.491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4910|-1.4280|0.328
84585847|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44846||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4914|1.3314|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.3314|-0.4914|0.356
84611602|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|26.25|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.25|-9.38|
84757167|NCT03710486|169270034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.20|0.36|=0.1732
84585848|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.1158|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32. Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1158|-0.5666|0.188
84585849|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18117||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3914|0.3449|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3449|-0.3914|0.899
84585850|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17208||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6032|0.0963|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0963|-0.6032|0.150
84585851|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19038||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.1048|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA3: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1048|-0.6690|0.148
84585852|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20543||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4655|0.3695|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3695|-0.4655|0.817
84585853|NCT01892189|168924681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19513||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7361|0.057|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0570|-0.7361|0.091
84757168|NCT03710486|169270037|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2011|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||CD: Vedolizumab Versus Other Biological||||=0.2011
84585854|NCT00688740|168924703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.795||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.932||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.932|0.679|0.0043
84585855|NCT00688740|168924704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.742||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.898||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.898|0.613|0.0020
84585856|NCT00856557|168924715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is equal distribution of proportion of successful encounters among groups||||0.33
84585857|NCT00856557|168924715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Considering all encounters (n=179) of all physicians for who outcomes were measured (n=111) together, are encounters in which physicians contextualized the plan of care more likely to be associated with target health outcome achievement than encounters in which physicians did not, controlling for clustering of encounters within physicians. (Generalized logistic mixed model, with random intercept for physician)||||.036
84585858|NCT00856557|168924716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
84585859|NCT00856557|168924717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84585860|NCT02743221|168924743|OTHER|This was a non-comparative study.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model with adjustment for the stratification factors (RAS status, performance status ECOG)||||1.06|0.48|0.09
84585861|NCT02743221|168924744|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
84585862|NCT02743221|168924745|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.74||||||||2.74|0.49|
84585863|NCT02743221|168924746|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84585864|NCT02743221|168924747|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.32|0.04
84585865|NCT04620668|168924757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
84585866|NCT04620668|168924757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
84585867|NCT04620668|168924757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.044
84757169|NCT03710486|169270038|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6939|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||||||=0.6939
84585868|NCT04620668|168924757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.001
84585869|NCT04620668|168924757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.731
84585870|NCT04620668|168924758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
84757170|NCT03710486|169270039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.71|0.12|=0.0071
84757171|NCT03710486|169270040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.55|0.64|=0.4809
84499129|NCT03901339|168749040|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.894||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.894|0.598|0.0021
84499130|NCT02742818|168749045|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE)|Model assuming Gaussian distribution and AR-1 correlation structure, considering repeated measures in time.|||Through inference, changes in body temperature and proportional occurrence of hypothermia during surgery were evaluated using general models of estimating equations (GEE, Liang e Zeger, 1986). Binominal and normal distributions were taken into account, respectively, and assumptions for errors normalities were verified using residual plot graphs and fitted values. The significance of other associated factors and probable outcomes were verified, including gender, age, surgery type and total surgery duration, in minutes. Since analyses were longitudinal, AR-1 working correlation matrix was created.|||0.190
84499131|NCT02742818|168749046|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
84499132|NCT02742818|168749047|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.529
84499133|NCT02742818|168749048|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.999
84499134|NCT02742818|168749049|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
84585871|NCT04620668|168924758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
84585872|NCT04620668|168924758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.05
84585873|NCT04620668|168924758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.024
84585874|NCT04620668|168924758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.674
84585875|NCT04620668|168924759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.159
84499135|NCT02643394|168749050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
84499136|NCT02643394|168749051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.402
84499137|NCT04971226|168749067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.59|28.17|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|28.17|9.59|<0.001
84499138|NCT04971226|168749099|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.91|42.18|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|42.18|16.91|<0.001
84499139|NCT02032823|168749133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||7.3e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.409|0.816||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.816|0.409|0.0000073
84585876|NCT04620668|168924760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.326
84585877|NCT03685149|168924761|SUPERIORITY||percent reduction|72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||82|56|<0.0001
84585878|NCT03685149|168924762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84585879|NCT03685149|168924763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84585880|NCT03685149|168924764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
84585881|NCT03900650|168924796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
84585882|NCT03900650|168924797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value tests the effect of the study arms on number of sex events.|ANOVA|||||||.770
84585883|NCT02014376|168924802|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.3699
84585884|NCT00721110|168924823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.0|54.0||Significant if P \< 0.003 for efficacy and P \> 0.5311 for futility; 97.5% confidence intervals adjusted for group sequential design to maintain the overall alpha of 0.025 for each primary intervention.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of lidocaine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||54|-52|0.96
84585885|NCT00721110|168924823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|44.0||97.5% confidence interval adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain theoverall α of 0.025 for each primary intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of ketamine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||44|-65|0.54
84585886|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.3|1.3||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Groups compared on VRS scores at PACU admit using a t test.||1.3|-3.3|0.20
84585887|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.9||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine compared to placebo at PACU admit using a t test||1.9|-2.8|0.54
84611603|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|34.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||34.84|-1.84|
84611604|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|10.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.80|-28.58|
84611605|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|35.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.49|-4.85|
84611606|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|46.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.53|6.80|
84611607|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|33.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.40|-7.01|
84611608|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|29.33|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.33|-11.56|
84611609|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|45.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 comparisons presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||45.07|5.35|
84611610|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|21.85|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||21.85|-17.40|
84611611|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|35.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.45|-4.24|
84672822|NCT04649151|169081679|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|78.6|||VE|Vaccine efficacy (VE, percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||78.6|26.6|
84611612|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|42.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.23|2.20|
84611613|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|24.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.53|-14.60|
84672823|NCT04649151|169081680|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|72.2|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||72.2|-16.5|
84611614|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|35.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.63|-4.51|
84611615|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|23.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|43.06|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||43.06|3.31|
84611616|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|14.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.45|-24.73|
84611617|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|15.09|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.09|-23.79|
84611618|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
84611619|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
84611620|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-14.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-14.80|-53.40|
84611621|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|9.88|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.88|-29.68|
84611622|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|20.92|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||20.92|-18.02|
84611623|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.84|7.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.79|-31.84|
84611624|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-20.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.98|-0.94|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.94|-40.98|
84611625|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.82|12.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.65|-27.82|
84611626|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|19.43|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||19.43|-21.36|
84672824|NCT04649151|169081681|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2||NA = not estimable (not reached).||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.||||61.2|
84611627|NCT01393639|168974431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-18.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|1.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||1.73|-38.18|
84611628|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|7.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.38|-11.93|
84611629|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|12.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.91|-9.15|
84611630|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.23|-9.09|
84611631|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|33.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.23|4.19|
84611632|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|4.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||4.00|-13.19|
84611633|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|26.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.41|-0.92|
84611634|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
84611635|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.48|-2.90|
84611636|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|41.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||41.17|7.71|
84611637|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|32.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||32.29|0.80|
84611638|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|12.98|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.98|-12.98|
84757172|NCT03710486|169270041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.36|0.46|=0.9150
84611639|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|35.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.48|3.16|
84611640|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|9.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||9.57|-18.46|
84611641|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|28.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||28.70|-4.49|
84540925|NCT02414958|168833009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.15|-2.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.39|-4.15|<0.0001
84611642|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|42.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.24|6.63|
84611643|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.33|44.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||44.65|9.33|
84611644|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|25.31|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.31|-7.53|
84611645|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|38.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.91|3.88|
84611646|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.57|-6.80|
84611647|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|35.2|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.20|1.96|
84611648|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|35.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|53.21|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||53.21|17.89|
84611649|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|29.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|46.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.49|11.94|
84611650|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|29.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.63|-2.96|
84757173|NCT03710486|169270042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.28|0.56|=0.7254
84585888|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on pain severity at postoperative care unit discharge was assessed using a t test.||0.8|-2.5|0.11
84585889|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|2.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit discharge pain severity was assessed using a t test.||2.0|-1.4|0.56
84585890|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 pain severity assessed using a t test.||2.2|-0.9|0.20
84585891|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.4|0.79
84585892|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.1|0.55
84585893|NCT00721110|168924824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.8|-1.1|0.47
84585894|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|7.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||7|-7|0.63
84585895|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-10|0.27
84585896|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-15|0.28
84585897|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|4.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||4|-15|0.22
84585898|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|21.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||21|-13|0.76
84585899|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|14.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||14|-19|0.66
84585900|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|10.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||10|-5|0.30
84585901|NCT00721110|168924825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|8.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||8|-5|0.79
84585902|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||numerator: lidocaine; denominator: control|Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.28|0.58
84585903|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||Numinator: ketamine; denominator: nonketamine|Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.32|0.87
84499140|NCT02032823|168749134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||2.57e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.392|0.831||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.831|0.392|0.0000257
84499141|NCT02032823|168749135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.468|0.973||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.973|0.468|0.0091
84499142|NCT05919823|168749141|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.835||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measure|MMRM includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||-3.6|-14.8|0.0014
84499143|NCT05919823|168749142|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||0|-3.8|0.0474
84499144|NCT05919823|168749143|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.7|-4.2|0.0062
84499145|NCT05919823|168749144|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0056
84499146|NCT05919823|168749145|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|ncludes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.1|-0.7|0.0208
84499147|NCT05919823|168749146|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|15.8||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9|||Chi-squared|||||29.9|0.7|0.0402
84499148|NCT04803214|168749192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84499149|NCT04803214|168749193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84499150|NCT04803214|168749194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84499151|NCT00644228|168749195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.56|0.906||The p-value is from a one-sided, stratified log-rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|With four years of patient accrual and two and a half years of follow-up, 220 patients per arm yields 87% power to detect an increase of PFS of 50%, from a median of 3 years to 4.5 years, which corresponds to a hazard ratio of 1.5. These calculations are based on a one-sided stratified log-rank test at level 0.025 with two interim analyses. The final analysis will be carried out at the 0.02 significance level to allow for two interim analyses at the 0.0025 significance level.||0.906|0.560|0.0018
84499152|NCT00644228|168749196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.959||The p-value is based on a two-sided, stratified log rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|Overall survival will be compared between the two treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test.||0.959|0.524|0.0250
84585904|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.44||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on POD 1 (first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.44|-0.31|0.61
84585905|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on POD 1(first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.34|0.79
84585906|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.38|0.12||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.12|-0.38|0.26
84585907|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.19||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.19|-0.31|0.71
84585908|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.23|0.52
84585909|NCT00721110|168924826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.38|||Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.38|-0.22|0.44
84585910|NCT00721110|168924827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.14|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine was compared to nonlidocaine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.2|-2.14|0.96
84585911|NCT00721110|168924827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|2.57||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine was compared to nonketamine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.57|-1.80|0.59
84585912|NCT04011241|168924879|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|173.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.58|195.21|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 17.6.|||195.21|154.58|
84585913|NCT04011241|168924880|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|137.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.84|156.24|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 19.4.|||156.24|120.84|
84585914|NCT04011241|168924881|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|168.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.59|195.34|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.1.|||195.34|145.59|
84585915|NCT00086515|168924887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline A1C||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
84585916|NCT00086515|168924888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-19.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline FPG||||-19.8|-31.0|<0.001
84585917|NCT00086515|168924889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|-40.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline 2-hour PMG||||-40.8|-60.5|<0.001
84585918|NCT04918771|168924906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean time to resolution of ARVI symptoms||1.67|0.51|0.0003
84585919|NCT04918771|168924907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|7.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (Clinically Diagnosed and/or PCR-confirmed).||7.06|-2.36|0.3274
84585920|NCT04918771|168924907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|11.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (PCR-confirmed).||11.93|-1.34|0.1171
84585921|NCT04918771|168924908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84585922|NCT04918771|168924909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean time to Resolution of ARVI Symptoms was analysed.||1.00|0.16|0.0073
84585923|NCT04918771|168924910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84585924|NCT04918771|168924911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3627|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 1.||||0.3627
84585925|NCT04918771|168924911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 2.||||0.5578
84585926|NCT04918771|168924911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 3.||||0.7688
84585927|NCT04918771|168924912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4926|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4926
84585928|NCT04918771|168924913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severity distributions.||||0.021
84585929|NCT04918771|168924913|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for outcome distribution.||||1.00
84585930|NCT04918771|168924914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.7848
84585931|NCT04918771|168924914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.9596
84585932|NCT04918771|168924914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6902|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.6902
84585933|NCT04918771|168924915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3266|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.3266
84585934|NCT04918771|168924915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.0930
84585935|NCT04918771|168924915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2308|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.2308
84585936|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.6610
84585937|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.4884
84585938|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.3494
84585939|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9531|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.9531
84585940|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5506|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.5506
84585941|NCT04918771|168924916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8259|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.8259
84585942|NCT04918771|168924917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84585943|NCT02702999|168924919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
84585944|NCT02702999|168924920|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
84611651|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|32.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.83|49.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||49.80|14.83|
84611652|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|15.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.79|-15.79|
84611653|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|19.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.67|-12.67|
84499153|NCT00644228|168749197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||The p-value is based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
84499154|NCT00285012|168749225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.99|14.14||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Primary endpoint was based on a CO confirmed 4-week CQR (weeks 4 through 12 inclusive). Intent was to evaluate the alternative hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment in subjects with mild to moderate COPD.||14.14|4.99|<0.0001
84585945|NCT02702999|168924921|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||10.5|0.4|
84585946|NCT02702999|168924922|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.7|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||23.7|1.2|
84585947|NCT02702999|168924923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.1|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.1|0.03|
84585948|NCT02702999|168924924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.3|0.4|
84585949|NCT01287208|168924933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84611654|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|23.47|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||23.47|-10.13|
84611655|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|14.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||14.74|-16.25|
84585950|NCT01287208|168924936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84585951|NCT01299961|168924938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most involved side: Synovitis (S), tenosynovitis (T), and power Doppler (PD) of wrist (dorsal (D), palmar (P), and ulnar (U)); S and T of MCP 2,3 (P, plus D for T); PD of the MCP joints (P and D); S and PD of PIP 2, 3 (P, plus D for PD); S and PD for MTP 2, 4 (D). S and PD graded from 0 to 3, and max individual scores are 27 and 39, respectively. T graded on 0-1 scale; max T score is 5. High score is worse. The 7-joint US score is sum of T, S, and PD scores. Change calculated baseline- month 12.||||<0.01
84585952|NCT01299961|168924939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by power doppler ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. PDUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total PDUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline PDUS minus 12 month PDUS.||||<0.01
84585953|NCT01299961|168924940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by grey-scale ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. GSUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total GSUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline GSUS minus 12 month GSUS.||||0.19
84585954|NCT01813357|168924941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.684|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.684
84585955|NCT03863574|168924943|OTHER|Proof of Concept||||||0.7689|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7689
84585956|NCT03863574|168924943|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6007
84585957|NCT03863574|168924944|OTHER|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5238
84611656|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|25.96|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.96|-8.19|
84611657|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|22.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||22.77|-10.50|
84611658|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-2.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.00|-28.03|
84611659|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|3.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.19|-24.93|
84611660|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.48|-24.83|
84585958|NCT03863574|168924944|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84585959|NCT03863574|168924945|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0476|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0476
84585960|NCT03863574|168924945|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
84585961|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.6845
84585962|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.4625
84585963|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.1705
84585964|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.3122
84585965|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.1705
84585966|NCT03863574|168924946|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.3877
84585967|NCT03863574|168924947|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1705
84585968|NCT03863574|168924947|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1740
84585969|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.8019
84585970|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.5396
84585971|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.7740
84585972|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.9221
84585973|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0030
84585974|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0177
84585975|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.1399
84585976|NCT03863574|168924948|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.2384
84585977|NCT03863574|168924949|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.2218
84585978|NCT03863574|168924949|OTHER|Proof-of-Concept||||||0.1483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.1483
84585979|NCT03863574|168924949|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.0839
84585980|NCT03863574|168924949|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.2895
84585981|NCT03863574|168924950|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.6808
84585982|NCT03863574|168924950|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.5351
84585983|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.2329
84585984|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.7211
84585985|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variables: Total Cholesterol||||0.6520
84585986|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.4302
84585987|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.9432
84585988|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.2133
84585989|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.2446
84585990|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.7075
84585991|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.2195
84585992|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.7435
84585993|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.5702
84585994|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.6441
84585995|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.8415
84585996|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.0786
84585997|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.8878
84585998|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.3219
84585999|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.6557
84586000|NCT03863574|168924951|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.0763
84586001|NCT03863574|168924953|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6988
84586002|NCT03863574|168924953|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7413
84586003|NCT03863574|168924954|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2200
84586004|NCT03863574|168924954|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5798
84586005|NCT03863574|168924955|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4981
84586006|NCT03863574|168924955|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8939
84586007|NCT03863574|168924956|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3605
84586008|NCT03863574|168924956|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8394
84586009|NCT03863574|168924957|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2665
84586010|NCT03863574|168924957|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9133
84586011|NCT03863574|168924958|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7267
84586012|NCT03863574|168924958|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9211
84586013|NCT03863574|168924959|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8683
84586014|NCT03863574|168924959|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7436
84586015|NCT00488293|168924992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84586016|NCT00488293|168924993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
84586017|NCT00488293|168924994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84586018|NCT00488293|168924995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84586019|NCT00488293|168924996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84586020|NCT00488293|168924997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84586021|NCT00488293|168924998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84586022|NCT00488293|168924999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84586023|NCT00488293|168925000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84586024|NCT00488293|168925001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84586025|NCT00836706|168925015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|85.2|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|85.2|
84611661|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|22.9|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||22.90|-10.96|
84611662|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-21.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|-5.86|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-5.86|-37.22|
84586026|NCT00836706|168925016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.7|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.7|
84586027|NCT00836706|168925017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.4|
84586028|NCT02989857|168925018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.54||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.54|0.25|<0.0001
84586029|NCT02989857|168925025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the comparator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||1.12|0.56|0.093
84586030|NCT02989857|168925026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.466
84586031|NCT02989857|168925027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
84586032|NCT02989857|168925032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68||P-value was calculated from one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
84586033|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|17.73||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Physical Functioning||17.73|4.23|
84586034|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-0.52||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||-0.52|-20.18|
84586035|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|13.91||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||13.91|-6.65|
84586036|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|20.78||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Physical Functioning||20.78|3.85|
84586037|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|17.04||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||17.04|-8.74|
84586038|NCT02989857|168925033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|10.11||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||10.11|-17.46|
84586039|NCT02989857|168925034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.8||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||2.80|-12.93|
84586040|NCT02989857|168925034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.88||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||7.88|-6.56|
84586041|NCT02989857|168925034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|14.55||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||14.55|-5.82|
84586042|NCT02989857|168925034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|3.12||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||3.12|-15.34|
84586043|NCT01425814|168925062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.298|||ANCOVA|||||0.298|0.219|<0.0001
84586044|NCT01425814|168925062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||ANCOVA|||||0.273|0.194|<0.0001
84586045|NCT01425814|168925062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.242|||ANCOVA|||||0.242|0.164|<0.0001
84586046|NCT01425814|168925062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.141|||ANCOVA|||||0.141|0.062|<0.0001
84586047|NCT00863304|168925076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.62||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.65|<0.001
84586048|NCT00863304|168925076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.32|0.002
84499155|NCT00285012|168749226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.75|8.65||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline versus (vs) placebo at Week 24||8.65|2.75|<0.0001
84499156|NCT00285012|168749226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.13|7.67||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.67|2.13|<0.0001
84499157|NCT00285012|168749227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.96|9.02||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||9.02|2.96|<0.0001
84499158|NCT00285012|168749227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.18|7.07||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.07|2.18|<0.0001
84499159|NCT00285012|168749228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.39|11.11||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12||11.11|4.39|<0.0001
84499160|NCT00285012|168749228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
84611663|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|10.95|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.95|-25.01|
84499161|NCT00285012|168749228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0008||95.0|1.37|3.48||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.48|1.37|0.0008
84499162|NCT00285012|168749229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0002||95.0|1.52|3.95||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.95|1.52|0.0002
84499163|NCT00285012|168749230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.140
84499164|NCT00285012|168749230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.007
84499165|NCT00285012|168749230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.684
84499166|NCT00285012|168749230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.901
84499167|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Mental State||||0.078
84499168|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Mental State||||0.109
84499169|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Mental State||||0.281
84499170|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Functional State||||0.581
84499171|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Functional State||||0.290
84499172|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Functional State||||0.063
84499173|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.002
84499174|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.081
84499175|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.016
84499176|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Total Score||||0.033
84586049|NCT00863304|168925076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.96|0.090
84586050|NCT00863304|168925076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-1.21|0.009
84586051|NCT00863304|168925076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.87|0.175
84586052|NCT00863304|168925077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.71|<0.001
84586053|NCT00863304|168925077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<0.001
84586054|NCT00863304|168925077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.067
84586055|NCT00863304|168925077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.26|0.002
84586056|NCT00863304|168925077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.03|0.031
84586057|NCT00863304|168925078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.50|<0.001
84586058|NCT00863304|168925078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
84611664|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|24.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||24.41|-14.17|
84611665|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|15.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.67|-21.22|
84499177|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Total Score||||0.078
84586059|NCT00863304|168925078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.30|0.078
84586060|NCT00863304|168925078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.019
84586061|NCT00863304|168925078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.029
84586062|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
84586063|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
84586064|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
84586065|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
84586066|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
84499178|NCT00285012|168749231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Total Score||||0.023
84499179|NCT05631093|168749297|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|-3.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-0.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.77|-7.81|<0.001
84499180|NCT05631093|168749298|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|2.8|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.8|-10.7|
84499181|NCT05631093|168749299|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.9|0.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-4.9|
84499182|NCT05631093|168749300|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-0.08||||||95.0|-3.49|4.21|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.21|-3.49|
84499183|NCT05631093|168749301|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|3.75||||||95.0|-0.31|8.89|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.89|-0.31|
84499184|NCT05631093|168749308|OTHER|Difference in mean change from baseline versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART)|Estimated difference|-15.43||||||95.0|-46.32|15.47|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on a cDLA model.|||15.47|-46.32|
84499185|NCT05631093|168749314|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-2.21||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|20.49|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||20.49|-24.91|0.8340
84586067|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
84611666|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-25.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.54|-9.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-9.14|-42.54|
84611667|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.22|9.62|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.62|-28.22|
84611668|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
84499186|NCT05631093|168749314|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.44||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|11.97|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||11.97|-5.08|0.4250
84499187|NCT05631093|168749314|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.72||||0.1618||95.0|-1.5|8.95|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.95|-1.50|0.1618
84499188|NCT05631093|168749315|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|15.77|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||15.77|-29.80|
84499189|NCT05631093|168749315|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.99||||||95.0|-5.22|13.21|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||13.21|-5.22|
84499190|NCT05631093|168749315|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|8.87|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.87|-6.83|
84499191|NCT00417859|168749324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FB group was designated the control group. We determined a sample size based in clinical criteria. Using an α of 0.05 and β of 0.8, the required sample size was calculated to be 24 patients in each group to achieve a power of 80%. Descriptive analysis was completed on demographic information and clinical and radiological outcomes. Nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon's signed ranks or rank sum tests) were used for comparison of scores. The chi-squared test was used for dichotomous variables.||||0.05
84586068|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
84611669|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
84611670|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-23.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-4.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.59|-42.26|
84611671|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|5.87|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.87|-33.35|
84611672|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|23.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.74|-17.26|
84611673|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|17.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||17.07|-23.27|
84611674|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.50|-22.77|
84611675|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|14.35|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.35|-19.63|
84611676|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|18.12|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.12|-17.06|
84611677|NCT01393639|168974432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|9.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.46|-23.24|
84611678|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
84611679|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|10.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.24|-1.54|
84611680|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
84672825|NCT04649151|169081682|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|98.9|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||98.9|51.0|
84611681|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.37|-0.60|
84611682|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
84611683|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.83|0.55|
84611684|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
84611685|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|16.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.48|0.53|
84611686|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|26.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.14|4.96|
84611687|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|27.76|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.76|6.27|
84611688|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.46|-1.57|
84611689|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|25.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.59|4.83|
84611690|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|5.18|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||5.18|-9.62|
84611691|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|19.6|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.60|-2.96|
84611692|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|20.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.50|-2.72|
84611693|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|24.89|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.89|0.26|
84611694|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|11.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||11.67|-7.23|
84611695|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|30.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.64|3.94|
84611696|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
84672826|NCT02975934|169081693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.36|<0.001
84672827|NCT02975934|169081694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.47|<0.001
84499192|NCT04223193|168749328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
84499193|NCT04223193|168749329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
84499194|NCT04223193|168749330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|7.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.037|2.209|<0.0001
84499195|NCT04223193|168749331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
84499196|NCT04223193|168749332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-5.3|-11.3|<0.0001
84499197|NCT04223193|168749333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||1.6|-0.1|0.0766
84499198|NCT04223193|168749333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
84586069|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
84499199|NCT04223193|168749333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-5.6|-9.7|<0.0001
84499200|NCT04223193|168749334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Wek 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
84499201|NCT04223193|168749335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
84499202|NCT04223193|168749336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
84499203|NCT04223193|168749337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.6|-0.6|0.9795
84499204|NCT04223193|168749338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.8|-0.9|0.8916
84499205|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|18.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|61.71||||||||61.71|-25.60|
84499206|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.85|39.85||||||||39.85|-18.85|
84499207|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|22.03||||||||22.03|-43.70|
84499208|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|18.99||||||||18.99|-30.58|
84586070|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.99|0.029
84586071|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.78|0.193
84611697|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|20.04|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.04|-8.22|
84499209|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|19.19||||||||19.19|-34.19|
84499210|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
84499211|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
84499212|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|13.17||||||||13.17|-18.44|
84499213|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|8.33||||||||8.33|-25.72|
84499214|NCT03193190|168749342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|21.93||||||||21.93|-25.04|
84499215|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.64||||||||2.64|0.48|
84586072|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.68|<0.001
84586073|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.28|0.001
84586074|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.10|0.011
84586075|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.06|0.017
84586076|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.66|0.464
84611698|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|31.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||31.40|-0.29|
84499216|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08||||||||2.08|0.66|
84499217|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||||||||1.23|0.29|
84611699|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.03|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.03|-4.70|
84499218|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.89||||||||1.89|0.67|
84499219|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||||1.87|0.61|
84499220|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.75||||||||4.75|0.96|
84499221|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|8.57||||||||8.57|1.54|
84499222|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.92||||||||1.92|0.68|
84499223|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.05||||||||3.05|0.72|
84499224|NCT03193190|168749344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06||||||||3.06|0.84|
84499225|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.0||||||||3.00|0.59|
84499226|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.29||||||||2.29|0.71|
84499227|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.74||||||||1.74|0.45|
84499228|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68||||||||1.68|0.58|
84499229|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.84||||||||1.84|0.59|
84499230|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.77||||||||4.77|0.87|
84499231|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.94||||||||2.94|0.60|
84499232|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.6||||||||1.60|0.48|
84499233|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.36||||||||3.36|0.68|
84499234|NCT03193190|168749345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02||||||||2.02|0.44|
84499235|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-31.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|3.04||||||||3.04|-66.07|
84586077|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.72|<0.001
84586078|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.55|<0.001
84586079|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.14|0.014
84611700|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|7.27|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.27|-16.16|
84611701|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|30.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.63|-0.68|
84672828|NCT02975934|169081695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.68|0.5044
84586080|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.09|0.023
84586081|NCT00863304|168925079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.92|0.114
84586082|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
84586083|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
84586084|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
84586085|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
84586086|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
84611702|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
84586087|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.59|<0.001
84586088|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.45||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.37|<0.001
84611703|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||18.10|-5.90|
84586089|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.05|0.012
84586090|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
84586091|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.175
84586092|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.55|<0.001
84586093|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.41||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.34|<0.001
84586094|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.03|0.017
84586095|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.99|0.027
84611704|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
84611705|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|12.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.64|-8.96|
84499236|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|15.37||||||||15.37|-22.55|
84499237|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|16.38||||||||16.38|-30.52|
84499238|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|3.68||||||||3.68|-32.72|
84499239|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|16.57||||||||16.57|-17.38|
84499240|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-50.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.51|-18.46||||||||-18.46|-83.51|
84499241|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.43|-3.18||||||||-3.18|-70.43|
84499242|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-26.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-4.2||||||||-4.20|-49.39|
84586096|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.78|0.190
84586097|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
84757174|NCT03710486|169270043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.72|0.16|=0.0051
84499243|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-35.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|-3.42||||||||-3.42|-67.44|
84499244|NCT03193190|168749346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.94|3.42||||||||3.42|-60.94|
84499245|NCT03193190|168749347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.51||||||||3.51|0.24|
84499246|NCT03193190|168749347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6||||||||1.60|0.23|
84499247|NCT03193190|168749347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.47||||||||5.47|0.44|
84499248|NCT03193190|168749347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.44||||||||2.44|0.35|
84499249|NCT03193190|168749347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||||1.93|0.24|
84499250|NCT03732677|168749364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.084|||Regression, Logistic|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method adjusting for stratification factors: renal function , tumor stage and PDL1 status .||||2.084|1.227|0.0005
84499251|NCT03732677|168749365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.877|0.554|824.0||Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)||95% CI for hazard ratio: 0.558 - 0.817|0824|0.554|<0.0001
84499252|NCT03732677|168749366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on a chi-squared test with one degree of freedom.|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.90|0.62|0.0021
84499253|NCT03732677|168749367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method. Stratified by adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative).|||2.095|1.047|0.0265
84499254|NCT03732677|168749368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|98.457|0.563|0.985|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function (adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|||95% CI: 0.594 to 0.934|0.985|0.563|0.0106
84499255|NCT03732677|168749369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.826|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.826|0.541|0.0002
84499256|NCT03732677|168749370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.907|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.907|0.516|0.0081
84499257|NCT05734014|168749379|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Qualitative Analysis of arts-based reflections. Thematic analysis and count of whether the participant drew or mentioned Crow stories related to relationality.|||
84499258|NCT03229941|168749398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. restrictive arm comparison.|||1.27|0.62|0.515
84499259|NCT03229941|168749399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.61|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.61|0.73|0.587
84499260|NCT03229941|168749400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.98|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||0.98|0.33|0.007
84499261|NCT03229941|168749401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.63|1.38|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.38|0.63|0.634
84499262|NCT03229941|168749402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.41|1.37|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.37|0.41|0.212
84499263|NCT03229941|168749403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.786
84586098|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.6||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.55|<0.001
84611706|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|16.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.16|-7.27|
84499264|NCT05257109|168749404|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and irritation as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
84499265|NCT05257109|168749405|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and LHS as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84499266|NCT05257109|168749406|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and DEQ as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84499267|NCT02038959|168749408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84499268|NCT02038959|168749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84499269|NCT00819091|168749440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.24|-0.70|< 0.0001
84499270|NCT00819091|168749441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.2406||95.0|-17.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||4.3|-17.2|0.2406
84499271|NCT00819091|168749442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.466||||0.0065||95.0|1.684|24.825|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||24.825|1.684|0.0065
84499272|NCT00819091|168749443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.2431||95.0|0.515|13.652|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||13.652|0.515|0.2431
84499273|NCT00819091|168749444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.125||||0.0001||95.0|2.747|9.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||9.562|2.747|0.0001
84499274|NCT00819091|168749445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.585|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.230|-0.585|<0.0001
84499275|NCT00819091|168749446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.276|-0.720|<0.0001
84499276|NCT00819091|168749447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0002||95.0|-0.716|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.226|-0.716|0.0002
84499277|NCT00819091|168749448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.197||95.0|-14.9|3.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||3.1|-14.9|0.197
84499278|NCT00819091|168749449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0105||95.0|-25.5|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-3.4|-25.5|0.0105
84499279|NCT03610646|168749470|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of \[-3, 3\] letters was used to demonstrate equivalence for the difference of mean change in BCVA, from baseline to Week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.24||||||||1.24|-1.16|
84499280|NCT00080288|168749481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.67|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||3.69|1.67|<0.0001
84499281|NCT00080288|168749482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group. Adjusted for country.||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0010
84499282|NCT02576054|168749489|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 6||1.57|1.00|<0.001
84499283|NCT02576054|168749489|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.78|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio = GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 11||2.78|1.89|<0.001
84611707|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|15.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.77|-7.37|
84757175|NCT03710486|169270044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.04|0.27|=0.0653
84586099|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.99|0.034
84586100|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|9.0|-1.12|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.12|0.009
84586101|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.04|0.023
84586102|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.64||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.60|<0.001
84586103|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
84586104|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.90|0.092
84586105|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.19|0.004
84586106|NCT00863304|168925080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.064
84586107|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
84611708|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-0.55|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.55|-16.83|
84611709|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.70|-14.39|
84611710|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|2.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||2.73|-15.68|
84757176|NCT03710486|169270045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.74|0.47|=0.7629
84586108|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
84586109|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
84586110|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
84586111|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
84586112|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.74|<0.001
84586113|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.66||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.58|<0.001
84611711|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|8.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||8.41|-13.04|
84611712|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-4.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.83|-25.59|
84611713|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|6.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.38|-19.79|
84672829|NCT02975934|169081696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.78|0.9368
84586114|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.19|0.002
84586115|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-1.01|0.019
84499284|NCT02576054|168749489|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.11|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 16||2.11|1.35|<0.001
84586116|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
84586117|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.78||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.70|<0.001
84586118|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.47|<0.001
84611714|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|15.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.16|-14.49|
84611715|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|16.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||16.74|-13.13|
84586119|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
84586120|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.008
84586121|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
84611716|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.19|-6.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-6.84|-32.19|
84499285|NCT02576054|168749489|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.99|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 18||3.99|2.33|<0.001
84586122|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.79|<0.001
84586123|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.63|<0.001
84586124|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.21|0.003
84586125|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.08|0.016
84586126|NCT00863304|168925081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.91|0.082
84586127|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
84611717|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|6.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.29|-24.24|
84611718|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|7.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.10|-23.92|
84611719|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|11.32|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||11.32|-20.76|
84611720|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-17.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.36|-2.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.02|-32.36|
84611721|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|7.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.56|-25.69|
84611722|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|18.68|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.68|-17.53|
84611723|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|12.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.45|-22.07|
84611724|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
84611725|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|15.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.00|-11.21|
84611726|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
84499286|NCT01787188|168749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|-4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.75|-16.93|0.0005
84611727|NCT01393639|168974433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|9.66|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.66|-14.38|
84611728|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.07|-4.19|
84611729|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.57|-5.63|
84611730|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.97||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.97|-5.06|
84757177|NCT03710486|169270046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.50|0.43|=0.4895
84499287|NCT01787188|168749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.53|-14.94|0.0059
84499288|NCT01787188|168749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.42|-14.80|0.0003
84499289|NCT01787188|168749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-9.20|0.1486
84611731|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-5.73|
84611732|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|0.12||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.12|-3.97|
84611733|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.39|-5.46|
84611734|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-4.03|
84611735|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-0.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-5.04|
84611736|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.64||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.64|-5.07|
84757178|NCT03710486|169270047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||=|0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.54|0.38|=0.4458
84672830|NCT05429203|169081732|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8
84499290|NCT01787188|168749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.70|-15.97|0.0004
84586128|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
84586129|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
84586130|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
84586131|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
84586132|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.82||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.82|-1.73|<0.001
84611737|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.56|-4.98|
84611738|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.59|-3.85|
84611739|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-1.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.06|-5.48|
84611740|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-4.66|
84611741|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-1.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.77|-6.62|
84499291|NCT01787188|168749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.10|-15.58|0.0008
84499292|NCT01787188|168749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-15.40|<0.0001
84499293|NCT01787188|168749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.561||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.85|0.0024
84499294|NCT01787188|168749515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.18|-15.49|<0.0001
84499295|NCT01787188|168749515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.84|-9.63|0.0997
84586133|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.61|<0.001
84586134|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.16|0.003
84586135|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.03|0.015
84586136|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.91|0.053
84611742|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-1.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.31|-6.15|
84672831|NCT05429203|169081733|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84672832|NCT05429203|169081734|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
84672833|NCT05429203|169081735|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
84586137|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.66|<0.001
84586138|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.65||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.56|<0.001
84611743|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.26|-6.09|
84499296|NCT01787188|168749516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.11|-15.54|0.0008
84611744|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-4.69|
84611745|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-1.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.70|-6.52|
84611746|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-5.34|
84611747|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.83|-6.93|
84499297|NCT01787188|168749516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-15.22|0.0015
84499298|NCT01787188|168749517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.32|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-16.32|0.0014
84499299|NCT01787188|168749517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.198||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.69|-16.27|0.0019
84611748|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.66||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.66|-7.74|
84611749|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-2.36||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.36|-7.43|
84672834|NCT05429203|169081736|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84586139|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.07|0.009
84586140|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.05|0.011
84586141|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.95|0.035
84586142|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.85||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.79|<0.001
84586143|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.76||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.71|<0.001
84586144|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
84586145|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.16|0.005
84586146|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-1.07|0.013
84586147|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.81||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.76|<0.001
84672835|NCT05429203|169081737|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84757179|NCT03710486|169270048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
84757180|NCT03710486|169270049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.81|0.21|=0.0104
84499300|NCT01787188|168749518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|-5.37|||ANCOVA|||||-5.37|-15.57|<0.0001
84586148|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.58|<0.001
84586149|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.95|0.050
84586150|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.34||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.29|<0.001
84586151|NCT00863304|168925082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.009
84586152|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
84586153|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
84672836|NCT05429203|169081738|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
84672837|NCT05429203|169081739|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
84672838|NCT05429203|169081740|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84672839|NCT05429203|169081741|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84672840|NCT05429203|169081742|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84672841|NCT05429203|169081743|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84499301|NCT01787188|168749518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|-2.99|||ANCOVA|||||-2.99|-13.33|0.0020
84586154|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
84586155|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
84586156|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
84611750|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-0.2||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-5.28|
84611751|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.05||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.05|-7.10|
84757181|NCT03710486|169270050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
84757182|NCT03710486|169270051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|CD Participants||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
84757183|NCT03710486|169270052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.75|0.12|=0.0104
84757184|NCT03710486|169270053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
84757185|NCT03710486|169270054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.78|0.59|=0.5400
84757186|NCT03710486|169270055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||5.66|0.26|=0.8123
84757187|NCT03710486|169270056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.85|0.06|=0.0282
84757188|NCT03710486|169270057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||4.36|0.29|=0.8584
84757189|NCT03710486|169270058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||=|0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||3.78|0.24|=0.9474
84757190|NCT03710486|169270059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||=|0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.34|0.40|=0.3103
84499302|NCT01787188|168749519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.686||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-15.73|0.0001
84499303|NCT01787188|168749519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-9.77|0.1065
84586157|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
84672842|NCT00433654|169081745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: rate \> 10%||1.7||<0.001
84757191|NCT03710486|169270059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||0.76|0.22|=0.0045
84757192|NCT03710486|169270059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||=|0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.42|0.59|=0.6287
84757193|NCT03710486|169270059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||1.36|0.31|=0.2495
84586158|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.58|<0.001
84672843|NCT00433654|169081746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0||||P-value and confidence interval could not be calculated because both groups were 100% successful.|Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||
84672844|NCT00433654|169081747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
84611752|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.33|-0.73|
84611753|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.84||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.18|
84611754|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.44|-1.61|
84611755|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-2.27|
84611756|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.68|-0.74|
84611757|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.65||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-1.76|
84611758|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.79|
84611759|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.70|-1.69|
84611760|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|4.29||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-0.53|
84611761|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.33||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.33|-2.50|
84611762|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.79||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.79|-2.03|
84611763|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.84||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.84|-1.97|
84672845|NCT00433654|169081748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.9|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
84672846|NCT00433654|169081749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
84672847|NCT00433654|169081750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|8.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with complication \> 20%||10.7||<0.001
84672848|NCT03523117|169081774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3108
84672849|NCT03523117|169081775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84672850|NCT03523117|169081776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84672851|NCT03523117|169081777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84586159|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
84586160|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.102
84499304|NCT01787188|168749520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.85|-15.50|0.0012
84499305|NCT01787188|168749520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.74|-15.56|0.0014
84499306|NCT01787188|168749521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.194||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.97|-16.54|0.0014
84499307|NCT01787188|168749521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.08|-16.82|0.0014
84499308|NCT01787188|168749522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-5.31|||ANCOVA|||||-5.31|-15.72|<0.0001
84499309|NCT01787188|168749522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-13.71|0.0018
84499310|NCT01787188|168749523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|-5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.41|-16.55|0.0001
84586161|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.31|0.066
84586162|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.28||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.60|<0.001
84586163|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.53|<0.001
84586164|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.027
84586165|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.42|0.001
84757194|NCT03710486|169270060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||=|0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.22|0.66|=0.4784
84757195|NCT03710486|169270060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||=|0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.15|0.60|=0.2616
84757196|NCT03710486|169270060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||=|0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.34|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||3.34|1.20|=0.0077
84757197|NCT03710486|169270060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||=|0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.14|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.14|0.79|=0.3046
84757198|NCT03710486|169270061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.30|0.22|=0.1681
84757199|NCT03710486|169270061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||=|0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.09|0.05|=0.0645
84757200|NCT03710486|169270061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||=|0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.51|0.06|=0.3145
84757201|NCT03710486|169270061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|47.11|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||47.11|0.05|=0.8197
84757202|NCT03710486|169270062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||=|0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.89|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.89|0.20|=0.0239
84757203|NCT03710486|169270062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||=|0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.91|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.91|0.05|=0.0373
84499311|NCT01787188|168749523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-11.71|0.0379
84586166|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
84757204|NCT03710486|169270062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.49|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.49|0.12|=0.4260
84757205|NCT03710486|169270062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression||The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
84757206|NCT03710486|169270063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.58|0.05|=0.0044
84499312|NCT01787188|168749524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.02|-18.42|0.0001
84672852|NCT03277261|169081786|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.615||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.615|0.268|<0.0001
84757207|NCT03710486|169270063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||=|0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.84|0.12|=0.0215
84757208|NCT03710486|169270064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.27|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.78|0.10|=0.0152
84757209|NCT03710486|169270064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
84757210|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.06|0.326
84757211|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.104||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.22|-0.01|0.066
84757212|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.224
84757213|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.062||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.05|0.271
84757214|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.189|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.3||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.30|0.08|<0.001
84757215|NCT01147744|169270089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.220
84757216|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.48|-9.25|0.932
84757217|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.367||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.23|-7.50|0.762
84757218|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.798||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|7.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.03|-10.62|0.689
84757219|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.321||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|11.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.13|-6.49|0.605
84757220|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|11.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.28|-6.36|0.584
84757221|NCT01147744|169270090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.529||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|9.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.45|-8.40|0.907
84757222|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.463||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|10.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.58|-7.65|0.753
84757223|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|12.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.87|-5.36|0.419
84757224|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.046||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|6.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.03|-12.12|0.510
84586167|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.49|<0.001
84586168|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|0.001
84611764|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.75|
84611765|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-2.34|
84757225|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.585||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|13.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.64|-4.47|0.320
84757226|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.484||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|12.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.58|-5.61|0.452
84757227|NCT01147744|169270091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.615||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|14.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.78|-3.55|0.229
84757228|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.169||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.07|-6.73|0.771
84757229|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.45|-3.33|0.257
84757230|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.326||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|9.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.19|-6.54|0.741
84757231|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|7.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.93|-7.76|0.983
84757232|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.204||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|16.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||16.07|0.34|0.041
84757233|NCT01147744|169270092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.891||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|10.83|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.83|-5.05|0.475
84757234|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.837||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|8.89|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.89|-7.22|0.838
84757235|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.715||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|10.76|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.76|-5.33|0.508
84757236|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.124||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.14|-5.90|0.603
84757237|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.781||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|6.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.22|-9.78|0.662
84757238|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.949||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|13.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.98|-2.08|0.146
84757239|NCT01147744|169270093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.394||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|13.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.48|-2.69|0.191
84757240|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.106||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.71|-2.50|0.164
84757241|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.106||||0.349||95.0|-4.49|12.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.70|-4.49|0.349
84757242|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.148||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|10.72|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.72|-6.42|0.623
84757243|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.713||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|10.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.26|-6.84|0.694
84757244|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.592||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|18.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||18.15|1.03|0.028
84757245|NCT01147744|169270094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.75||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.38|-1.89|0.125
84757246|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.346||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.78|-6.09|0.585
84757247|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.86|-8.00|0.920
84499313|NCT01787188|168749524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-15.41|0.0049
84586169|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.328
84586170|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
84757248|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.702||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.11|-5.70|0.528
84586171|NCT00863304|168925083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
84586172|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
84586173|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
84611766|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.89|-3.14|
84757249|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.17|-9.60|0.776
84757250|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.49||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|15.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.90|-0.92|0.081
84757251|NCT01147744|169270095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.611||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|12.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.09|-4.87|0.403
84757252|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.17|0.951
84499314|NCT01787188|168749525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|-4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.33|-17.55|0.0012
84586174|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
84586175|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
84586176|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
84611767|NCT01393639|168974434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.19||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.19|-2.84|
84611768|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.91|
84586177|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.57|<0.001
84586178|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
84611769|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-4.17|
84611770|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.29||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-3.76|
84611771|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.4||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.40|-4.82|
84757253|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.01|-0.33|0.043
84757254|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.19|0.734
84757255|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.16|0.972
84757256|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.097||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.26|0.238
84757257|NCT01147744|169270096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.24|0.360
84757258|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.17|-0.11|0.692
84586179|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
84611772|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-3.13|
84757259|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.04|-0.24|0.176
84757260|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.12|-0.16|0.768
84757261|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.15|-0.13|0.887
84757262|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.19|0.471
84757263|NCT01147744|169270097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.22|0.248
84757264|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.07|-0.33|0.209
84757265|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.06|-0.47|0.011
84757266|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.28|0.464
84757267|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.25|0.662
84757268|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
84586180|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.120
84586181|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.29|0.126
84499315|NCT01787188|168749525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.422||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-16.09|0.0066
84499316|NCT01787188|168749526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-6.26|||ANCOVA|||||-6.26|-17.08|<0.0001
84499317|NCT01787188|168749526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.795||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-13.74|0.0034
84586182|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.62|<0.001
84586183|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
84499318|NCT03829462|168749546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||To show an increase of median overall survival from 7 to 15 months (30% to 57% rates, respectively), with a HR=0.47 and a power of 80% and alpha=5%, 55 events are required for the 78 patients to be randomized considering 15% additional patients for lost to follow-up.||1.98|0.7|0.5334
84499319|NCT03829462|168749546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|0.59|0.8894
84499320|NCT03829462|168749547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Log Rank|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||1.11|0.4|0.1104
84499321|NCT03829462|168749547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.4|0.1165
84499322|NCT03829462|168749548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||||1.42|0.26|0.2425
84499323|NCT03829462|168749548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.26|0.2519
84499324|NCT03829462|168749549|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|46.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84499325|NCT03829462|168749550|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|7.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84499326|NCT03131817|168749577|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84499327|NCT03131817|168749578|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84499328|NCT03131817|168749579|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the first outcome row, Reward magnitude effect (higher reward, higher acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of reward magnitude on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
84586184|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
84586185|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.38|0.009
84611773|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.07|-4.52|
84611774|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-3.63|
84611775|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-3.94|
84611776|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.11||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-4.03|
84611777|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.09|
84757269|NCT01147744|169270098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.207||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.00|-0.41|0.047
84757270|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.28|0.300
84757271|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.05|-0.32|0.145
84757272|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.123||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.31|0.190
84757273|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.18|-0.19|0.980
84757274|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.01|-0.36|0.070
84611778|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.85|
84611779|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.88||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.88|-4.79|
84757275|NCT01147744|169270099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.158||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.03|-0.34|0.095
84757276|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84757277|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
84757278|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84757279|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
84757280|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
84757281|NCT01147744|169270100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
84757282|NCT03803059|169270152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||<0.01
84757283|NCT03803059|169270153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||<0.01
84757284|NCT03803059|169270154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4.||||<0.01
84757285|NCT03803059|169270155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated using paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.051
84757286|NCT03803059|169270156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||<0.01
84757287|NCT03803059|169270157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.331
84757288|NCT03803059|169270158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.863
84757289|NCT03803059|169270159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.048
84757290|NCT03803059|169270160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||P-value reported is for viscoelastic deformation.|t-test, 2 sided|at significance level alpha+0.05||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.355
84757291|NCT03803059|169270161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||Calculated with a paired T test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.859
84586186|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.32|0.052
84586187|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
84586188|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.48|<0.001
84586189|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.33|0.051
84586190|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
84757292|NCT03803059|169270162|EQUIVALENCE|.A binomial (sign) test was performed to test if the the proportion of the combined designated favorable evaluations/responses is equal to the combined designated negative evaluations/responses for each question|||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||Patient satisfaction questionnaires were tabulated, and the frequency and percentage of all response options were reported for each question and time point calculated from the binomial (sign) test. The testing hypothesis is that the proportion of favorable responses is equal to the unfavorable||||<0.01
84757293|NCT03803059|169270163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||All statistical tests were 2-sided at significance level alpha=0.05. No multiple testing corrections were considered in the study.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline is zero was tested using a paired t-test||||0.031
84757294|NCT02904915|169270164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84586191|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.069
84611780|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-3.25|
84757295|NCT02904915|169270165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
84757296|NCT02904915|169270166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84757297|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||11.2|-6.4|
84757298|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||8.3|-10.8|
84757299|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||13.2|-9.3|
84757300|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||11.4|-11.4|
84586192|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.57|<0.001
84586193|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
84586194|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
84586195|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.36|0.020
84586196|NCT00863304|168925084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.064
84586197|NCT04330859|168925127|SUPERIORITY||Agresti-Caffo|95.0||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|||||58.8 ± 7.2 (intervention) and 57.2 ± 11.2 (control; p = 0.0543)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0543
84757301|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-0.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||-0.3|-29.2|
84757302|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||6.9|-20.9|
84586198|NCT00023595|168925155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.04|0.72|0.12
84586199|NCT00023595|168925156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.02
84586200|NCT00023595|168925157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.17|0.84|0.90
84586201|NCT00023595|168925158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.66|0.006
84586202|NCT00023595|168925159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.00|0.66|0.05
84611781|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-3.90|
84757303|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-2.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-2.4|-32.8|
84757304|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-3.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-3.9|-34.1|
84757305|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
84757306|NCT02090413|169270174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
84757307|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.4|-2.6|
84757308|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.5|-2.5|
84757309|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.1|-11.2|
84757310|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.3|-10.8|
84757311|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.8|
84757312|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.7|
84757313|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||17.3|-5.4|
84757314|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|16.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||16.4|-6.4|
84586203|NCT00023595|168925160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.85|0.64|<0.001
84586204|NCT00023595|168925161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.82|0.64|<0.001
84586205|NCT00023595|168925162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.26|0.79|0.98
84586206|NCT00023595|168925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||7.52|1.35|0.008
84586207|NCT00023595|168925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||2.41|0.78|0.275
84586208|NCT00023595|168925165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.98|0.71|0.030
84586209|NCT00023595|168925166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.31|0.89|0.401
84586210|NCT00023595|168925167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.71|0.002
84586211|NCT00023595|168925183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.71|0.51|<0.001
84586212|NCT00023595|168925184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.13|0.73|0.414
84586213|NCT00023595|168925185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.73|0.55|<0.001
84586214|NCT00023595|168925186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.03|0.72|0.108
84586215|NCT00023595|168925187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.32|0.83|0.717
84586216|NCT00023595|168925188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.018
84611782|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.5||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.50|-4.35|
84611783|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.83||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.83|-4.66|
84611784|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-3.88|
84611785|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.00|
84611786|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-4.20|
84586217|NCT00023595|168925204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.015
84586218|NCT00023595|168925204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84611787|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-5.17|
84611788|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.23|-5.65|
84611789|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.12|-5.52|
84611790|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-4.60|
84672853|NCT03277261|169081787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.058||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.058|0.019|<0.0001
84757315|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|3.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||3.5|-19.5|
84757316|NCT02090413|169270175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||0.6|-23.1|
84757317|NCT02090413|169270178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|13.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||13.0|-15.8|
84757318|NCT02090413|169270178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||19.1|-8.4|
84586219|NCT00023595|168925204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84586220|NCT00023595|168925204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.44
84586221|NCT00023595|168925205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84586222|NCT00023595|168925205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84586223|NCT00023595|168925205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84586224|NCT00023595|168925205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84586225|NCT00023595|168925205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84586226|NCT00023595|168925206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.31
84586227|NCT00023595|168925206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84586228|NCT00023595|168925206|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
84499329|NCT03131817|168749579|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the second outcome row, Effort cost effect (higher effort, lower acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of effort cost on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
84499330|NCT05838755|168749600|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.18|-1.47|
84499331|NCT05838755|168749600|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.61|-1.04|
84499332|NCT04647253|168749630|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference between treatment groups|-10.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-3.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|z-test with unpooled variance|||||-3.3|-18.4|0.0025
84586229|NCT00023595|168925206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.079
84757319|NCT02090413|169270178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|23.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||23.0|-9.9|
84757320|NCT02090413|169270178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|31.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||31.3|0.2|
84757321|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
84757322|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|16.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||16.6|-8.6|
84757323|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.9|-12.8|
84757324|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|27.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||27.3|-2.8|
84757325|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.2|-15.7|
84757326|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||17.3|-9.4|
84757327|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||7.0|-25.1|
84757328|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.5|-12.0|
84757329|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.9|-13.5|
84757330|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
84757331|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|15.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||15.7|-15.3|
84757332|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||19.9|-10.3|
84757333|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|14.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||14.3|-18.4|
84757334|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|29.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||29.3|-1.9|
84499333|NCT01209234|168749631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Cox||This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.96|0.52|0.026
84499334|NCT01209234|168749632|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||CDC-defined all-cause infection secondary outcome This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||1.01|0.70|0.061
84499335|NCT01209234|168749632|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||Clinical criteria for all-cause infection This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.99|0.70|0.035
84586230|NCT00023595|168925207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84586231|NCT00023595|168925207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84586232|NCT00023595|168925207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84586233|NCT00023595|168925207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84586234|NCT00023595|168925207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84611791|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-6.07|
84611792|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.34|-0.10|
84611793|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.05||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.36|
84611794|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.48|-0.94|
84611795|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.38|-2.01|
84611796|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.12|-0.79|
84611797|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.10|
84611798|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.72||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.72|-1.19|
84757335|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||11.8|-22.1|
84611799|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.66||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.66|-2.24|
84611800|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.67||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.67|-0.16|
84611801|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.04|-0.81|
84611802|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.57|-1.26|
84611803|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.25||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.25|-1.57|
84611804|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.07|-0.31|
84611805|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.13|-1.28|
84611806|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-1.76|
84611807|NCT01393639|168974436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.74||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-1.63|
84757336|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||23.9|-9.6|
84611808|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|3.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.55|-12.52|
84611809|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-2.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.20|-18.10|
84611810|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|-2.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.92|-18.94|
84611811|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-8.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.24|-24.01|
84611812|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|2.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.56|-13.45|
84611813|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-6.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.11|-22.09|
84611814|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|4.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-11.13|
84611815|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.26|-15.70|
84611816|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.59|-12.93|
84611817|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.54|-17.90|
84611818|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|10.19||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.19|-5.32|
84611819|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.83|-3.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.45|-18.83|
84611820|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|1.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.59|-12.44|
84611821|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-5.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.20|-19.27|
84611822|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-2.14||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.14|-16.11|
84611823|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.88|-16.89|
84611824|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|4.4||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.40|-9.63|
84499336|NCT04071366|168749658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRS rate|-0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6463|-0.1363|||One-sided Z-test|||||-0.1363|-0.6463|0.0030
84499337|NCT04071366|168749658|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6073|-0.1231||||||||-0.1231|-0.6073|
84586235|NCT00023595|168925208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.063
84586236|NCT00023595|168925208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.187
84586237|NCT00023595|168925208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.168
84586238|NCT00023595|168925208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.050
84586239|NCT00023595|168925209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84586240|NCT00023595|168925209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84757337|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8 combined||25.5|-6.8|
84757338|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8||25.5|-6.8|
84757339|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||20.8|-13.2|
84757340|NCT02090413|169270179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||25.3|-8.5|
84586241|NCT00023595|168925209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84757341|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.125|||||Analysis of variance model (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.125|-0.414|
84499338|NCT04071366|168749658|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1778|0.2299||||||||0.2299|-0.1778|
84499339|NCT02239692|168749672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.87||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-2.87|-4.99|<0.0001
84586242|NCT00023595|168925209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84586243|NCT00023595|168925209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84586244|NCT00023595|168925210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.039
84586245|NCT00023595|168925210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84586246|NCT00023595|168925210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84586247|NCT00023595|168925210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84586248|NCT00023595|168925211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84586249|NCT00023595|168925211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84586250|NCT00023595|168925211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84586251|NCT00023595|168925211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84586252|NCT00023595|168925211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84586253|NCT00023595|168925212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586254|NCT00023595|168925212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586255|NCT00023595|168925212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586256|NCT00023595|168925212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.024
84586257|NCT00023595|168925213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84586258|NCT00023595|168925213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84586259|NCT00023595|168925213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84586260|NCT00023595|168925213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84586261|NCT00023595|168925213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84586262|NCT00023595|168925214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.051
84586263|NCT00023595|168925214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84586264|NCT00023595|168925214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.065
84586265|NCT00023595|168925214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84586266|NCT00023595|168925215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84586267|NCT00023595|168925215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84586268|NCT00023595|168925215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84586269|NCT00023595|168925215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84757342|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|-0.128|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||-0.128|-0.656|
84757343|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.012|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.012|-0.507|
84757344|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.945|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.945|-0.193|
84586270|NCT00023595|168925215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84586271|NCT00023595|168925216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.004
84586272|NCT00023595|168925216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84586273|NCT00023595|168925216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84586274|NCT00023595|168925216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.044
84586275|NCT00023595|168925217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84586276|NCT00023595|168925217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84586277|NCT00023595|168925217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84586278|NCT00023595|168925217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84611825|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-5.98||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.98|-19.88|
84757345|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.635|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.635|-0.498|
84757346|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|0.251|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.251|-0.867|
84757347|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.355|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.355|-0.308|
84586279|NCT00023595|168925217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84586280|NCT00023595|168925218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
84586281|NCT00023595|168925218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84586282|NCT00023595|168925218|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
84586283|NCT00023595|168925218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
84586284|NCT00023595|168925219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84586285|NCT00023595|168925219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84586286|NCT00023595|168925219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84586287|NCT00023595|168925219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84586288|NCT00023595|168925219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84586289|NCT00023595|168925220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84586290|NCT00023595|168925220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84586291|NCT00023595|168925220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84586292|NCT00023595|168925220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84586293|NCT00023595|168925221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84586294|NCT00023595|168925221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84586295|NCT00023595|168925221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84586296|NCT00023595|168925221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84586297|NCT00023595|168925221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84586298|NCT00023595|168925222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.205
84586299|NCT00023595|168925222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84586300|NCT00023595|168925222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.028
84586301|NCT00023595|168925222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.123
84586302|NCT00023595|168925223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84586303|NCT00023595|168925223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84586304|NCT00023595|168925223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84586305|NCT00023595|168925223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84586306|NCT00023595|168925223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84586307|NCT00023595|168925224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
84586308|NCT00023595|168925224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84586309|NCT00023595|168925224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
84586310|NCT00023595|168925224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.074
84586311|NCT00023595|168925225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84586312|NCT00023595|168925225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84586313|NCT00023595|168925225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84586314|NCT00023595|168925225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84586315|NCT00023595|168925225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84586316|NCT00023595|168925226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.085
84757348|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.254|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.254|-0.374|
84757349|NCT02090413|169270183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.232|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.232|-0.4|
84611826|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|3.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.83|-10.03|
84611827|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.13|-17.06|
84611828|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-3.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.77|-17.57|
84611829|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-0.86||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.86|-14.72|
84757350|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of the variables. Below, the results are reported for the effect of production condition (Unison vs. Solo) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for production condition for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|People with aphasia (PWA) were not directly compared to controls since the finding of a lower % syllables correct in any condition in PWA would be trivial. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variables affected syllable accuracy within each group.||||0.077
84586317|NCT00023595|168925226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84586318|NCT00023595|168925226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.026
84586319|NCT00023595|168925226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.085
84586320|NCT00023595|168925227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84586321|NCT00023595|168925227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84586322|NCT00023595|168925227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84586323|NCT00023595|168925227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84586324|NCT00023595|168925227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84586325|NCT00023595|168925228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
84586326|NCT00023595|168925228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 month|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586327|NCT00023595|168925228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586328|NCT00023595|168925228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
84586329|NCT00023595|168925229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84586330|NCT00023595|168925229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84586331|NCT00023595|168925229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84586332|NCT00023595|168925229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84586333|NCT00023595|168925229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84586334|NCT00023595|168925230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.023
84586335|NCT00023595|168925230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84586336|NCT00023595|168925230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.077
84586337|NCT00023595|168925230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
84586338|NCT00023595|168925231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84586339|NCT00023595|168925231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84586340|NCT00023595|168925231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84586341|NCT00023595|168925231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84586342|NCT00023595|168925231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84586343|NCT00023595|168925232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.033
84586344|NCT00023595|168925232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84586345|NCT00023595|168925232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
84586346|NCT00023595|168925232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.051
84586347|NCT00023595|168925233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84586348|NCT00023595|168925233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84586349|NCT00023595|168925233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84586350|NCT00023595|168925233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84611830|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|3.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-9.98|
84611831|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-6.54||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.54|-20.27|
84586351|NCT00023595|168925233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84586352|NCT00023595|168925234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
84586353|NCT00023595|168925234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84611832|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|17.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.61|1.62|
84672854|NCT03277261|169081788|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.104||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.104|0.056|<0.0001
84586354|NCT00023595|168925234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84586355|NCT00023595|168925234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
84586356|NCT00023595|168925235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84586357|NCT00023595|168925235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84586358|NCT00023595|168925235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84586359|NCT00023595|168925235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84586360|NCT00023595|168925235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84586361|NCT00023595|168925236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
84586362|NCT00023595|168925236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586363|NCT00023595|168925236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586364|NCT00023595|168925236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84586365|NCT00023595|168925237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84586366|NCT00023595|168925237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84586367|NCT00023595|168925237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84586368|NCT00023595|168925237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84586369|NCT00023595|168925237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84586370|NCT00023595|168925238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.029
84586371|NCT00023595|168925238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.042
84586372|NCT00023595|168925238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84586373|NCT00023595|168925238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84586374|NCT00023595|168925239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84586375|NCT00023595|168925239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84586376|NCT00023595|168925239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84611833|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.85|-3.96|
84586377|NCT00023595|168925239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84586378|NCT00023595|168925239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84586379|NCT00023595|168925240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
84586380|NCT00023595|168925240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586381|NCT00023595|168925240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586382|NCT00023595|168925240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84586383|NCT00023595|168925241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84586384|NCT00023595|168925241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84586385|NCT00023595|168925241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84586386|NCT00023595|168925241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84586387|NCT00023595|168925241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84586388|NCT00023595|168925242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
84586389|NCT00023595|168925242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84586390|NCT00023595|168925242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84586391|NCT00023595|168925242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84586392|NCT00023595|168925243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84586393|NCT00023595|168925243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84586394|NCT00023595|168925243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84586395|NCT00023595|168925243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84586396|NCT00023595|168925243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84586397|NCT00023595|168925244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.007
84586398|NCT00023595|168925244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84586399|NCT00023595|168925244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84586400|NCT00023595|168925244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.060
84586401|NCT00023595|168925245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84586402|NCT00023595|168925245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84586403|NCT00023595|168925245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84586404|NCT00023595|168925245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84586405|NCT00023595|168925245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84586406|NCT00023595|168925246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.86
84586407|NCT00023595|168925246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.78
84586408|NCT00023595|168925246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.55
84586409|NCT00023595|168925246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.027
84586410|NCT00023595|168925246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.031
84586411|NCT00023595|168925247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.40
84586412|NCT00023595|168925247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.42
84586413|NCT00023595|168925247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.41
84586414|NCT00023595|168925247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
84611834|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.13||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.13|-4.80|
84611835|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|5.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-9.86|
84757351|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|||||>|0.1||||||Results are reported for Timing Condition for the People with aphasia.|Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
84757352|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed as ((Unison Metrical)/(Unison Conversational)) / ((Solo Metrical)/(Solo Conversational))|||||<0.001
84757353|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for Production Condition for the Control group.|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|Separate regression models were used within each group. Here, the results are reported for the Control group.||||0.036
84586415|NCT00023595|168925247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
84586416|NCT00023595|168925248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.002
84586417|NCT00023595|168925248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84586418|NCT00023595|168925248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.049
84586419|NCT00023595|168925248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
84586420|NCT00023595|168925249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84586421|NCT00023595|168925249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84586422|NCT00023595|168925249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84586423|NCT00023595|168925249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84586424|NCT00023595|168925249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84586425|NCT00023595|168925250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.036
84586426|NCT00023595|168925250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.043
84586427|NCT00023595|168925250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
84586428|NCT00023595|168925250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
84586429|NCT00023595|168925251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84586430|NCT00023595|168925251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84586431|NCT00023595|168925251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84586432|NCT00023595|168925251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84586433|NCT00023595|168925251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84586434|NCT00023595|168925252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.0002
84586435|NCT00023595|168925252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84586436|NCT00023595|168925252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84586437|NCT00023595|168925252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84586438|NCT00023595|168925253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84586439|NCT00023595|168925253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84586440|NCT00023595|168925253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84586441|NCT00023595|168925253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84586442|NCT00023595|168925253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84586443|NCT00023595|168925254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84586444|NCT00023595|168925254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84586445|NCT00023595|168925254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84586446|NCT00023595|168925255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84586447|NCT00023595|168925255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84586448|NCT00023595|168925255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84586449|NCT05889468|168925256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test, a non-parametric test, was used since the empirical distribution of data did not follow the normality assumption.||This was an intention-to-treat analysis.||||0.49
84586450|NCT05889468|168925257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.32
84586451|NCT05889468|168925259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
84586452|NCT05889468|168925260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
84586453|NCT05468918|168925267|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84586454|NCT05468918|168925268|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84757354|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the control group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Metrical as the numerator and Conversational as the denominator|||||<0.001
84757355|NCT05248295|169270202|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the control group.|||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
84586455|NCT00427700|168925269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|33.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between two drugs for ovulation induction.A sample size of 40 women per arm was calculated for this superiority trial, considering an alpha and beta error of 0.05 and 0.2, respectively, to find an absolute difference of 30% in the ovulation rate between groups, based on a previous study published by Mitwally and Casper (18) where the ovulation rate with CC was approximately 45%.||33|-9|0.3
84586456|NCT00427700|168925270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|34.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the mean values of progesterone between both groups.||34|-6|0.2
84586457|NCT00209131|168925299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Other|||No analysis was conducted.||||<0.05
84586458|NCT05081843|168925320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.522|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.522|-0.056|0.05
84586459|NCT05081843|168925321|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.534||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.990|0.078|0.05
84586460|NCT05081843|168925322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.829|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.829|-0.177|0.05
84586461|NCT05081843|168925323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.756||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.208|0.05
84586462|NCT03211416|168925346|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.483||||||||0.483|0.151|
84586463|NCT03211416|168925349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided, one-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis is that the mean ratio of T effect cells (post / pre) is equal to 1 (no change).||||0.40
84611836|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|15.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.42|0.03|
84586464|NCT01969058|168925372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 14/16.||||0.030
84586465|NCT02085720|168925401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data were given as means and standard deviations, unless otherwise stated. AHI was categorized as ≥ 5, ≥ 10, ≥ 15 and ≥ 20. The frequency distribution of responses on the SHQ and their relationship to AHI was assessed with the chi-squared analysis. The association of variables such as age, BMI, neck circumference, ESS and sleep health questionnaire responses versus AHI was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance and Pearson Correlation Analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84586466|NCT01373281|168925453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|66.4||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||66.4|43.8|
84586467|NCT01373281|168925456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|55.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|62.3||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||62.3|47.3|
84586468|NCT01373281|168925457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|65.2||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||65.2|49.0|
84586469|NCT01373281|168925458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|61.7||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||61.7|46.8|
84586470|NCT00775658|168925469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Before the study, we determined that a sample size of 18 would be adequate to detect a 20% difference in wheal and flare areas with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.57
84586471|NCT00775658|168925470|SUPERIORITY|Sample size determined that 18 participants would provide 80% power to detect a 20% difference with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84586472|NCT01905540|168925494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.081|1.43||||||||1.430|1.081|
84611837|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|10.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.87|-4.54|
84611838|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|13.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.71|-1.77|
84611839|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-6.75|
84611840|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|14.43||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.43|0.57|
84611841|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|7.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.64|-6.26|
84586473|NCT01905540|168925495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Geometric LS Means|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.422||||||||1.422|1.070|
84611842|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|10.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.70|-3.09|
84611843|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|9.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.96|-3.87|
84611844|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|17.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.18|3.43|
84611845|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|10.22||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.22|-3.59|
84611846|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.57|-4.10|
84611847|NCT01393639|168974438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|12.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.48|-1.25|
84611848|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|8.31||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.31|-7.56|
84757356|NCT05248295|169270203|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of Timing Condition. Production Condition is not included in the analysis since all timing data are from the unison production condition, by definition.|Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group rather than a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variable affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
84586474|NCT01905540|168925496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.592||||||||1.592|1.135|
84611849|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|-0.3||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.30|-16.01|
84611850|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.01|-6.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.20|-22.01|
84540926|NCT02414958|168833010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|8.78|14.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline time in the target range, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||14.93|8.78|<0.0001
84586475|NCT02743962|168925504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The control group reported a mean reduction in O'Leary-Sant Insterstitial Cystitis Symptom Score from baseline to 6 weeks that met the MCID (4 points), whereas the TW group reported a reduction of 1.5 times the MCID (ISCI score change: control group 4.25, + 0.95, TW group 6.2, + 0.83). From 6 to 12 weeks the control group reported no change in ISCI score (0 + 0.95) whereas the Therapeutic Wand group ISCI socre reduced by 1.8 +1.73.||||
84586476|NCT02743962|168925504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||There was a small mean baseline ICPI score difference of 1.2 points between the groups (control group 10.5, +, TW group 11.2, + 2.68). Both groups reported a reduction in their ICPI scores from baseline to twelve weeks; the control group nearly met the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points and the TW group reported nearly twice the control group's score change (mean change control group 3.75, + 2.44, TW group 7, + 1.87).||||
84586477|NCT04023045|168925512|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586478|NCT04023045|168925513|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586479|NCT04023045|168925514|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586480|NCT04023045|168925515|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586481|NCT04023045|168925516|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84757357|NCT05248295|169270203|OTHER||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for the Control group.|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group and not a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how experimental variables affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
84757358|NCT04490018|169270213|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|10.36||||||Serogroup A||10.36|0.06|
84757359|NCT04490018|169270213|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.5||||||Serogroup C||9.50|1.58|
84757360|NCT04490018|169270213|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.42||||||Serogroup W||4.42|-1.28|
84757361|NCT04490018|169270213|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.77||||||Serogroup Y||4.77|-1.88|
84540927|NCT02414958|168833010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|9.81|15.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|||15.93|9.81|<0.0001
84586482|NCT04023045|168925517|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586483|NCT04023045|168925518|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586484|NCT04023045|168925519|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
84586485|NCT00725985|168925520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.584||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.584|0.248|<0.0001
84586486|NCT00725985|168925520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.509||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.509|0.210|< 0.0001
84586487|NCT00725985|168925521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.547||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.547|0.331|< 0.0001
84586488|NCT00725985|168925521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.633||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.633|0.390|< 0.0001
84586489|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.500|-0.971|<0.0001
84586490|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.429|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.429|-0.857|<0.0001
84586491|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.333|<0.0001
84586492|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.375|<0.0001
84586493|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.167|-0.500|<0.0001
84757362|NCT02321930|169270243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
84757363|NCT02321930|169270244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
84757364|NCT02321930|169270245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
84757365|NCT02321930|169270246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
84757366|NCT02321930|169270247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
84757367|NCT01133379|169270250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.24||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|-10.5|0.811
84757368|NCT01133379|169270250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.63||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.63|-17.1|0.105
84757369|NCT01133379|169270251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|8.95||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.95|-6.72|0.779
84586494|NCT00725985|168925522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.143|-0.429|<0.0001
84586495|NCT00725985|168925541|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-37.200|<0.0001
84611851|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-4.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.06|-19.70|
84757370|NCT01133379|169270251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|2.92||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.92|-12.8|0.217
84757371|NCT01133379|169270252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.47||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.47|-4.84|0.904
84757372|NCT01133379|169270252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.17||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.17|-9.15|0.129
84586496|NCT00725985|168925541|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-117.300|<0.0001
84586497|NCT02546323|168925569|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00445||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0191|-0.0016||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0016|-0.0191|0.020
84586498|NCT02546323|168925570|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00442||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0197|-0.0024||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0024|-0.0197|0.013
84586499|NCT02546323|168925571|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00903||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0339|0.0015||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0015|-0.0339|0.073
84586500|NCT02546323|168925572|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00716||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0183|0.0097||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0097|-0.0183|0.547
84586501|NCT02546323|168925573|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00272||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|-0.0032||Statistical significance of the MeanMean CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMean CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo||-0.0032|-0.0139|0.002
84586502|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-30.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-30.70|-40.23|<0.001
84586503|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-19.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-19.02|-24.68|<0.001
84586504|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.64|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||7.64|2.35|<0.001
84586505|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-19.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-12.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.44|-26.86|<0.001
84586506|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.25|-25.72|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-25.72|-33.25|<0.001
84586507|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-27.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-27.16|-36.33|<0.001
84586508|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|-22.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB||-22.50|-29.73|<0.001
84586509|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.36|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoA-I||4.36|0.02|0.047
84611852|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|8.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.48|-7.33|
84757373|NCT01133379|169270253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.69||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.69|-3.59|0.477
84586510|NCT02546323|168925574|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|-22.76|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB/ApoA-I ratio||-22.76|-30.78|<0.001
84586511|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-35.94|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-35.94|-43.08|<0.001
84586512|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-23.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-23.23|-27.70|<0.001
84586513|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||5.73|1.60|<0.001
84586514|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|-12.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.55|-24.26|<0.001
84586515|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-30.78|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-30.78|-36.78|<0.001
84586516|NCT02546323|168925575|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.836|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-30.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-30.32|-37.54|<0.001
84586517|NCT04770285|168925592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.78||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.05|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.05|-3.60|0.0568
84586518|NCT04770285|168925593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.77||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.07|-1.61|0.0705
84586519|NCT04770285|168925594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.62||||0.3687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.74||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.74|-1.99|0.3687
84586520|NCT04770285|168925594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.45||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.19||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.19|-3.10|0.0828
84757374|NCT01133379|169270253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.67||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-3.60|0.472
84586521|NCT04770285|168925595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-1.06|0.3549
84586522|NCT04770285|168925595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.28||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.53||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.53|-1.09|0.4948
84586523|NCT04770285|168925596|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.34||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.34|0.84|0.1420
84586524|NCT04770285|168925596|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.16|0.79|0.2939
84586525|NCT04770285|168925596|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.99||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.99|0.96|0.0884
84586526|NCT04770285|168925597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.32|0.0039
84586527|NCT04770285|168925597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.32||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.15|-0.50|0.0003
84586528|NCT04770285|168925597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.26||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0098
84586529|NCT04770285|168925598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.61||p-value was calculated by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|-3.66|0.4463
84586530|NCT04770285|168925599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.29||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.31||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.31|-2.28|0.0102
84586531|NCT04770285|168925599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.58||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.54||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.54|-2.62|0.0029
84586532|NCT04770285|168925600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.18||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||2.16|0.65|0.5757
84586533|NCT04770285|168925600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.78|0.75|0.5102
84586534|NCT04770285|168925600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.79|0.74|0.5342
84586535|NCT04770285|168925601|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Week 8||1.22|0.82|
84586536|NCT04770285|168925601|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||Week 10||1.25|0.88|
84586537|NCT03895372|168925605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.87||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|26.26||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||26.26|-4.50|0.2621
84757375|NCT01133379|169270254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|4.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.90|-5.86|0.860
84757376|NCT01133379|169270254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.723||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.55|-6.20|0.763
84757377|NCT01133379|169270255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.856||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.66|-7.62|0.488
84757378|NCT01133379|169270255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||2.73|-8.54|0.311
84757379|NCT01133379|169270256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.06|-8.68|0.604
84757380|NCT01133379|169270256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|8.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.78|-4.95|0.583
84757381|NCT01133379|169270257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|6.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.43|-7.83|0.847
84757382|NCT01133379|169270257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.48|-5.77|0.708
84757383|NCT01133379|169270258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.678||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|2.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.83|-7.75|0.360
84757384|NCT01133379|169270258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.679||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|1.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.41|-9.17|0.149
84757385|NCT01133379|169270259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.78|-9.00|0.421
84757386|NCT01133379|169270259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.73|-10.0|0.260
84757387|NCT01133379|169270260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|7.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||7.06|-7.16|0.989
84757388|NCT01133379|169270260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|5.82||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.82|-8.39|0.721
84611853|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-4.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.98|-20.80|
84757389|NCT01133379|169270261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.07|-8.50|0.743
84586538|NCT03895372|168925605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|21.48||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||21.48|-7.07|0.2621
84586539|NCT03895372|168925605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.01|47.11||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.11|18.01|0.0004
84586540|NCT03895372|168925605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|60.56||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||60.56|30.62|<0.0001
84611854|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|8.58||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.58|-9.31|
84757390|NCT01133379|169270261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.95|-7.61|0.928
84586541|NCT03895372|168925613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|23.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||23.42|-11.82|
84586542|NCT03895372|168925613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.61|13.29||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||13.29|-18.61|
84586543|NCT03895372|168925613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.32|47.52||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.52|14.32|
84586544|NCT03895372|168925613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.01|72.41||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||72.41|41.01|
84611855|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|-0.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.53|-18.43|
84586545|NCT03895372|168925614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
84586546|NCT03895372|168925614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
84586547|NCT03895372|168925614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
84586548|NCT03895372|168925614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
84586549|NCT03895372|168925615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
84586550|NCT03895372|168925615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
84586551|NCT03895372|168925615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
84586552|NCT03895372|168925615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
84586553|NCT03895372|168925618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.51||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||2.51|-5.42|
84586554|NCT03895372|168925618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|0.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.42|-7.50|
84586555|NCT03895372|168925618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.05|-6.56||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-6.56|-13.05|
84586556|NCT03895372|168925618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.61|-9.04||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-9.04|-15.61|
84586557|NCT03895372|168925619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.61|6.35||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||6.35|-23.61|
84586558|NCT03895372|168925619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|1.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||1.94|-27.98|
84586559|NCT03895372|168925619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.02|-28.46||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-28.46|-53.02|
84586560|NCT03895372|168925619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.44|-40.63||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-40.63|-65.44|
84586561|NCT03895372|168925620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.09||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.09|-2.52|
84611856|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|-4.44||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-22.39|
84757391|NCT01133379|169270262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.65|-3.71|0.683
84586562|NCT03895372|168925620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.05||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.05|-2.46|
84586563|NCT03895372|168925620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|-2.43||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.43|-4.51|
84586564|NCT03895372|168925620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-2.61||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.61|-4.71|
84586565|NCT03895372|168925621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.52|32.87||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||32.87|-4.52|
84586566|NCT03895372|168925621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|44.64||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||44.64|2.62|
84586567|NCT03895372|168925621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.47|56.18||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||56.18|23.47|
84586568|NCT03895372|168925621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|63.69||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||63.69|30.62|
84586569|NCT03895372|168925622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|-0.59||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-0.59|-7.82|
84586570|NCT03895372|168925622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.89|-2.99||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.99|-9.89|
84586571|NCT03895372|168925622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|-7.62||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.62|-13.40|
84586572|NCT03895372|168925622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.68|-7.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.94|-13.68|
84586573|NCT04047355|168925630|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.12
84586574|NCT04047355|168925630|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84586575|NCT04047355|168925630|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
84586576|NCT04047355|168925631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.07
84586577|NCT04047355|168925631|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84586578|NCT04047355|168925631|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
84586579|NCT01251757|168925640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.034|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.034|0.011|<.001
84586580|NCT01251757|168925640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.042|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.042|0.019|<.001
84586581|NCT01251757|168925641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.029|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.029|0.002|0.022
84586582|NCT01251757|168925641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.05|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.050|0.023|<.001
84611857|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.33||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-17.48|
84672855|NCT03277261|169081790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|5.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.536|8.375||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.375|3.536|<0.0001
84672856|NCT03277261|169081791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.872|||=|0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.261||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, and log-transformed baseline MRI counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Logistic Regression|||||1.261|0.603|=0.4669
84672857|NCT03277261|169081792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.036||The model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.036|-0.107|<0.0001
84672858|NCT00207142|169081819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Efficacy at Week 48 on the Switch Arm was considered to be non-inferior to the Continuation Arm if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval was greater than -15%.|Difference in proportions|2.9||||||95.0|-9.8|15.5|||Normal approximation|||The planned sample size of 178 randomized subjects (89 on each regimen) provides at least 80% power to demonstrate that the response rate on ATV is within a 15% margin of the response rate on ATV/RTV assuming: a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rate between treatment regimens (switch-continuation); a response rate of 85% in both the Continuation and Switch regimens; a margin of -15% for the difference in response rates between treatment regimens.||15.5|-9.8|
84586583|NCT01251757|168925642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.24||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.24|1.05|0.002
84586584|NCT01251757|168925642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.26||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.26|1.06|<0.001
84611858|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.38|-11.57|
84611859|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-4.78||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.78|-22.73|
84611860|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|8.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.88|-9.32|
84611861|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-3.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.17|-21.39|
84611862|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.53|-7.36||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.36|-25.53|
84611863|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-0.34||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-18.42|
84611864|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|4.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.57|-13.61|
84611865|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-4.69||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.69|-22.87|
84611866|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.6||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.60|-7.90|
84757392|NCT01133379|169270262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.42|-4.94|0.914
84757393|NCT01133379|169270263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.994||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.27|-12.1|0.040
84757394|NCT01133379|169270263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.18|-12.0|0.043
84757395|NCT01133379|169270264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|4.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.64|-9.27|0.511
84757396|NCT01133379|169270264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.89|-11.0|0.250
84540928|NCT02414958|168833011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-22.04|-11.81|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-11.81|-22.04|<0.0001
84611867|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.51|-0.93||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.93|-20.51|
84611868|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|-8.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.77|-28.28|
84611869|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-3.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.25|-22.67|
84611870|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|2.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.30|-17.21|
84611871|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-26.00|
84611872|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|21.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||21.20|5.34|
84611873|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|12.59||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.59|-3.12|
84611874|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.68|-9.10|
84611875|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|8.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.81|-6.79|
84672859|NCT00207142|169081820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.0||||||95.0|-6.0|16.1|||Normal Approximation|||||16.1|-6.0|
84586585|NCT01251757|168925643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23||adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.23|1.02|0.014
84586586|NCT01251757|168925643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.32|1.10|<0.001
84586587|NCT01251757|168925644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||0.0|-1.0|.041
84586588|NCT01251757|168925644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||.5|-.5|.93
84586589|NCT01251757|168925645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.19|0.93|.404
84586590|NCT01251757|168925645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.09|.85|.54
84586591|NCT01251757|168925646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL subgroups.||0.7|-1.8|.38
84611876|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|22.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.38|4.39|
84611877|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|13.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.27|-4.73|
84611878|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|9.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.35|-8.68|
84611879|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|14.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.12|-3.77|
84672860|NCT00207142|169081821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||||95.0|0.5|1.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen.||1.88|0.50|
84757397|NCT01133379|169270265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.684||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.86|-11.7|0.233
84757398|NCT01133379|169270265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.44|-13.1|0.115
84757399|NCT00255970|169270266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The null hypothesis had been that there would be no significant difference in probing depth between groups at the time points measured.||||>.05
84586592|NCT01251757|168925646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|MeanLDL levels were sig lower for IVR+ participants than for UC participants. In subgroup analyses this difference was most pronounced in those individuals with baseline LDL levels above 100 mg/dL (adj diff=-3.6 mg/dL, 95%CI= (-5.9, -1.3), p=.002).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||-0.2|-2.7|.019
84586593|NCT01251757|168925647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.13|0.93|.59
84586594|NCT01251757|168925647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.22||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|Though higher for the IVR+ group, LDL control did not differ significantly between the IVR+ and UC arms. Among those with poor initial control, however, control was sig better for the IVR+ arm (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = (1.04, 1.42), p=.015).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.22|1.00|.058
84586595|NCT00635050|168925650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84586596|NCT00437073|168925654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|68.4|||||The estimated value indicates the percentage of participants with CNS OR in the Lapatinib plus Capecitabine treatment arm.|||68.4|13.9|
84586597|NCT02904096|168925709|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates for PA, PB, and PA-PB were reported together with one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for PA-PB constructed via the Farrington-Manning likelihood method. Here PA and PB are the percentage of subjects in Group A and B (Non-inferiority margin = 12%).|Difference in percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
84586598|NCT02904096|168925710|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
84586599|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586600|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586601|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.054
84586602|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586603|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.049
84757400|NCT00255970|169270266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The power analysis had been computed for a threshold of 0.05 with a power of 0.8.|ANOVA|||A power analysis, prior to data collection, determined that a minimum of 18 in each arm would be needed for this study.||||>0.05
84757401|NCT00255970|169270267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>.05
84586604|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.003
84586605|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.781
84586606|NCT02904096|168925711|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.573
84586607|NCT02904096|168925712|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586608|NCT02904096|168925712|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586609|NCT02904096|168925712|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586610|NCT02904096|168925712|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586611|NCT02904096|168925713|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586612|NCT02904096|168925713|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586613|NCT02904096|168925713|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586614|NCT02904096|168925713|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586615|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586616|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
84586617|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586618|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.002
84586619|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84611880|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.68|4.44|
84611881|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|10.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.64|-7.64|
84586620|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586621|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586622|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586623|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
84586624|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586625|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586626|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
84586627|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.010
84586628|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.060
84586629|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
84586630|NCT02904096|168925714|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
84586631|NCT00663260|168925721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.37|0.561
84586632|NCT00663260|168925721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1457||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.40|0.435
84586633|NCT00663260|168925722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|2.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-29.7|
84672861|NCT00207142|169081822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||||95.0|0.37|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen||1.90|0.37|
84586634|NCT00663260|168925722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|-25.0|
84586635|NCT00663260|168925723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.94||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.68|
84586636|NCT00663260|168925723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.29||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.03|
84586637|NCT01979185|168925731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.744|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.744|0.538|
84586638|NCT01979185|168925732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.73|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.730|0.543|
84611882|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.44|-11.76|
84611883|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|13.46||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.46|-4.65|
84611884|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|27.84||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||27.84|8.34|
84611885|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.32||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.32|-4.27|
84611886|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|7.46||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.46|-12.03|
84611887|NCT01393639|168974440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|12.98||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.98|-6.42|
84611888|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-0.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-14.07|
84611889|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-5.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.56|-19.34|
84611890|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-5.91||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.91|-19.79|
84611891|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.79|-9.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.06|-22.79|
84672862|NCT00207142|169081823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means at Week 48|7.0||||||95.0|-38.0|53.0|||Normal approximation|||||53|-38|
84499340|NCT02239692|168749673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.41||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-3.41|-5.34|<0.0001
84499341|NCT02239692|168749674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted estimated odds ratio|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|19.32||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with the failure/success status as dependent variable, and treatment, country and timing of colonoscopy as factors.|The estimated odds ratio compares the odds of being a responder in the PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule vs. the PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||19.32|4.36|<0.0001
84499342|NCT02253654|168749788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.46|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.58||||t-test, 1 sided|||The difference between treatment groups for the percent of hemoglobin measurements within 10.0 to 11.0 g/dL during the evaluation period was tested using a 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|||-6.58|0.46
84499343|NCT00069160|168749798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84499344|NCT01818414|168749902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84499345|NCT01818414|168749903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84499346|NCT00450177|168749921|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84499347|NCT01227954|168749960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To detect a minimum relative 50% improvement leading to an absolute 15% mean relative decline (MRD) in HVLT-R DR, 51 analyzable patients were required to ensure 80% statistical power with 0.05 alpha. Assuming a death rate of 40% before 4 months (based on trial NCT00003563) and a 10% nonevaluable rate, the target sample size was 102. The target MRD was determined from NCT00003563 which demonstrated 30% MRD in HVLT-R DR score from baseline to 4 months, with a standard deviation of 41%.||||<0.001
84611892|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|2.99||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-10.89|
84611893|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.57|-20.44|
84611894|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|0.16||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-14.65|
84499348|NCT01227954|168749963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and recursive partitioning analysis class (RPA) (I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
84499349|NCT01227954|168749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1961
84611895|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-4.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.68|-19.38|
84499350|NCT01227954|168749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Primary site (lung) is reported here.||||0.0715
84726106|NCT05361304|169204544|NON_INFERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||12.0|-4.1|
84611896|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-8.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.35|-23.10|
84586639|NCT01979185|168925733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|0.672|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.672|0.526|
84611897|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-6.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.63|-21.27|
84611898|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|1.43||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.43|-13.31|
84611899|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-8.79||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.79|-23.54|
84611900|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-13.50|
84611901|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-5.65||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.65|-20.46|
84611902|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.93|-22.69|
84611903|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.96|-20.66|
84611904|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-16.44|
84611905|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|-7.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.06|-21.82|
84611906|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|3.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.09|-12.53|
84611907|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-4.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.59|-20.21|
84611908|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|-8.71||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.71|-24.25|
84611909|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-4.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-19.94|
84611910|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|0.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-15.50|
84611911|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-6.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.21|-21.75|
84611912|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|13.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.42|-0.53|
84757402|NCT00255970|169270268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The change in recession, measured in mm, had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
84757403|NCT00255970|169270269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each gingival unit (buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual) of the individual tooth will be given a score from 0-3, called the gingival index for the area. The scores from the 6 areas of the tooth are added and divided by 6 to give the gingival index for the tooth.||||>0.05
84586640|NCT00980798|168925734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2365||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5357|0.0627||No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary, as only 1 primary hypothesis was tested. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed-model regression analysis|The difference above is presented as the difference OROS hydromorphone HCl minus placebo, so negative scores favour OROS hydromorphone HCl.|The analysis was adjusted for baseline BPI item 5 score, time on study, and whether the primary affected joint was the hip or knee.|The F test for treatment tested the null hypothesis of no treatment difference. Assuming that 3 baseline measures and 7 post baseline measures were collected 81 patients were required per group to detect a difference of 1 point in the BPI measure with 90% power at a significance level of 5%. To allow for a drop-out rate of approximately 40%, the study planned to recruit 135 patients per group (i.e. 270 in total).||0.0627|-0.5357|0.1212
84586641|NCT04562090|168925757|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-3.16||Repeated Measures Analysis (RMA): CFB as response, treatment group (TG), visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-4.30|<0.001
84586642|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.99||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.99|-3.25|<0.001
84586643|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-2.02||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.02|-2.93|<0.001
84611913|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.92|-5.81|
84611914|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|7.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.57|-6.25|
84611915|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|4.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.42|-9.26|
84611916|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|16.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.35|1.48|
84611917|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|11.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.51|-3.24|
84757404|NCT00255970|169270270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
84757405|NCT00121108|169270273|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Fisher Exact|||||0.21|0.08|<0.001
84757406|NCT03080883|169270284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37|||Gray Test P-value|||||1.37|0.38|0.3117
84757407|NCT03080883|169270285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Gray Test P-value|||||2.53|0.40|0.9970
84757408|NCT04342871|169270346|OTHER|Pre-post comparison from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84757409|NCT00666458|169270350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.01|
84757410|NCT00666458|169270351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.0|
84757411|NCT00666458|169270352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.47||||||||9.47|1.37|
84757412|NCT00666458|169270353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53||||||||0.53|0.08|
84757413|NCT01999465|169270459|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We applied Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test with the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between 2 arms.||||||0.40
84757414|NCT01999465|169270460|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84757415|NCT02605187|169270505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.882
84586644|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.3||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.30|-3.96|<0.001
84586645|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-2.47||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.47|-3.39|<0.001
84586646|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-2.56||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-4.37|<0.001
84586647|NCT04562090|168925760|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.12||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.12|-4.06|<0.001
84586648|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.44||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.44|-0.88|<0.001
84586649|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.65|-0.97|<0.001
84586650|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.58||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.58|-1.17|<0.001
84611918|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|7.84||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.84|-6.96|
84611919|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|9.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.56|-5.14|
84611920|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|15.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.77|0.92|
84611921|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|8.8||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.80|-6.03|
84611922|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|6.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.52|-8.26|
84757416|NCT02605187|169270505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.565
84611923|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|8.49||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.49|-6.23|
84586651|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.78||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.78|-1.10|<0.001
84586652|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.71||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.71|-1.35|<0.001
84586653|NCT04562090|168925761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.81|-1.14|<0.001
84757417|NCT02605187|169270505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.022
84586654|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.37|-0.58|<0.001
84586655|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-0.53|<0.001
84586656|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-0.67|<0.001
84586657|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.37|-0.52|<0.001
84586658|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.38|-0.68|<0.001
84586659|NCT04562090|168925762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.45||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.45|-0.60|<0.001
84586660|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.9||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.90|-1.31|<0.001
84586661|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.96|-1.25|<0.001
84586662|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.99||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.99|-1.53|<0.001
84586663|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.05||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.05|-1.34|<0.001
84586664|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.96|-1.54|<0.001
84586665|NCT04562090|168925763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.12||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.12|-1.42|<0.001
84586666|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.43||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.43|-3.50|<0.001
84757418|NCT02605187|169270505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.140
84757419|NCT02605187|169270506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.311
84757420|NCT02605187|169270506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.008
84586667|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.65|-3.44|<0.001
84757421|NCT02605187|169270507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.092
84757422|NCT02605187|169270507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.269
84757423|NCT02605187|169270508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.006
84499351|NCT01227954|168749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic status (no symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0554
84499352|NCT01227954|168749964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
84586668|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.39|-5.80|<0.001
84586669|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.9||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.90|-4.70|<0.001
84586670|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-5.24||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.24|-6.78|<0.001
84586671|NCT04562090|168925764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.98||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.98|-5.82|<0.001
84586672|NCT04562090|168925765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.21||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.21|-2.73|<0.001
84586673|NCT04562090|168925765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.81|-2.90|<0.001
84586674|NCT04562090|168925765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.2||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.20|-4.20|<0.001
84586675|NCT04562090|168925765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.37|-3.47|<0.001
84586676|NCT04938427|168925768|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-1.17|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|9.99||The p-value was calculated using Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||9.99|-13.02|=0.785
84586677|NCT04938427|168925769|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|2.43|||=|0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|15.14||The p-value was calculated using the Rank ANCOVA model using the treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||15.14|-10.86|=0.778
84586678|NCT04938427|168925770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.87||||||||3.87|0.94|
84586679|NCT04938427|168925771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.05||||||||4.05|0.92|
84757424|NCT02605187|169270508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.296
84586680|NCT04938427|168925773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13||||||||2.13|0.86|
84586681|NCT04938427|168925774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.21||||||||2.21|0.89|
84586682|NCT04938427|168925775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.3||||||Alertness Domain||2.30|0.85|
84586683|NCT04938427|168925775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||||||Communication Domain||2.48|0.91|
84757425|NCT02605187|169270509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.759
84757426|NCT02605187|169270509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.761
84757427|NCT02605187|169270510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.281
84757428|NCT02605187|169270511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.786
84586684|NCT04938427|168925775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.43||||||Disruptive Behaviors Domain||3.43|1.06|
84586685|NCT04938427|168925776|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.24||||||||3.24|-2.20|
84586686|NCT04938427|168925777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.65||||||||2.65|1.06|
84586687|NCT04938427|168925778|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|4.16|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||4.16|-16.83|
84586688|NCT04938427|168925779|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|3.12|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||3.12|-16.67|
84586689|NCT04938427|168925780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.67|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||6.67|-1.74|
84586690|NCT04938427|168925781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.9||||||||8.9|1.9|
84586691|NCT04938427|168925782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-3.7|
84586692|NCT00391716|168925802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.|Mantel Haenszel|Extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear-by-linear association.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= non-abstinent, 1=abstinent), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.04
84586693|NCT00391716|168925802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||linear dose effects for rates of abstinence were assessed using the extended Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for linear association.|Mantel Haenszel|The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= heavy drinking, 1=no heavy drinking), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.02
84586694|NCT00391716|168925803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84611924|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.06|1.46|
84611925|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|9.38||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.38|-6.23|
84611926|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|5.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.27|-10.27|
84611927|NCT01393639|168974442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|9.53||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.53|-5.95|
84611928|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|5.14||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.14|-10.89|
84672863|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|61.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|71.2|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||71.2|52.1|
84586695|NCT00391716|168925804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586696|NCT00391716|168925805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
84586697|NCT02757768|168925840|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.039
84611929|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-14.80|
84611930|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-6.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.38|-22.34|
84672864|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||66.0|46.4|
84586698|NCT02757768|168925841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.46|0.558
84611931|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-4.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.41|-20.22|
84611932|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|5.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.85|-10.12|
84611933|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-6.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.04|-22.05|
84611934|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|7.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.30|-9.83|
84611935|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-1.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.53|-18.67|
84611936|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-6.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.82|-24.01|
84611937|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-3.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.26|-20.33|
84611938|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|2.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-14.57|
84611939|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-6.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.76|-23.98|
84611940|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|9.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.03|-9.49|
84672865|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.312|127.576||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||127.576|11.312|<0.0001
84757429|NCT02605187|169270511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score at 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.985
84611941|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-1.08||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.08|-19.64|
84611942|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-6.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.32|-24.83|
84611943|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-2.13||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.13|-20.56|
84611944|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|3.89||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-14.61|
84611945|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-6.61||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.61|-25.15|
84757430|NCT02605187|169270512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.057
84757431|NCT02605187|169270512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.246
84611946|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|8.94||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.94|-10.32|
84611947|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-0.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-19.95|
84611948|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|-10.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-10.06|-29.34|
84611949|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.04|-22.25|
84611950|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|2.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.04|-17.24|
84611951|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.99|-9.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.68|-28.99|
84757432|NCT02605187|169270513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of average number of vomiting episodes 0-24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.226
84757433|NCT02605187|169270514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
84757434|NCT02605187|169270515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 24 hours after delivery.||||0.019
84611952|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.16|3.18|
84611953|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|15.15||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.15|-0.78|
84611954|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.65||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.65|-8.28|
84611955|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|9.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.61|-6.14|
84611956|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|22.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.71|5.51|
84611957|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|13.92||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.92|-3.38|
84611958|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-8.68|
84757435|NCT02605187|169270515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 48 hours after delivery.||||0.873
84757436|NCT01438489|169270531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||4.26|1.33|0.014
84757437|NCT01438489|169270531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||3.49|1.08|0.063
84757438|NCT01438489|169270532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.72|7.32|||Regression, Logistic|||High||7.32|1.72|0.004
84757439|NCT01438489|169270532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||High||5.53|1.27|0.029
84611959|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|12.15||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.15|-4.99|
84611960|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.38|24.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||24.93|6.38|
84586699|NCT02757768|168925841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.89|0.007
84586700|NCT02757768|168925841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.041
84586701|NCT02757768|168925842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||9.37|-1.63|0.167
84586702|NCT02757768|168925842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|12.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||12.73|-0.15|0.056
84611961|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|14.86||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.86|-3.81|
84611962|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|9.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.59|-8.97|
84611963|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|13.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.77|-4.69|
84757440|NCT01761084|169270548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.94||||||||1.94|.58|
84757441|NCT01761084|169270549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74||||||||1.74|.99|
84586703|NCT02757768|168925842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|16.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||16.01|1.97|0.012
84586704|NCT02757768|168925842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|15.98|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||15.98|2.53|0.007
84586705|NCT02757768|168925843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.63|0.747
84586706|NCT02757768|168925843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.54|-0.72|0.393
84586707|NCT02757768|168925843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.87|0.672
84586708|NCT02757768|168925843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-0.90|0.640
84586709|NCT02757768|168925844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.16|-0.68|0.222
84586710|NCT02757768|168925844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-1.18|0.003
84611964|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|28.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||28.27|9.03|
84757442|NCT01761084|169270550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Intention-to-treat analysis|Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||1.07|-0.84|0.811
84757443|NCT01761084|169270550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||1.09|-0.80|0.765
84757444|NCT01761084|169270551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.61|-0.80|0.796
84586711|NCT02757768|168925844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.008
84586712|NCT02757768|168925844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-1.13|0.004
84586713|NCT02757768|168925845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.6|0.723
84586714|NCT02757768|168925845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.700
84586715|NCT02757768|168925845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-1.3|0.400
84586716|NCT02757768|168925845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.812
84586717|NCT02757768|168925846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.121
84586718|NCT02757768|168925846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-0.2|0.241
84586719|NCT02757768|168925846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.843
84586720|NCT02757768|168925846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.679
84586721|NCT02757768|168925847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.7|0.175
84586722|NCT02757768|168925847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.6|0.430
84586723|NCT02757768|168925847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.8|0.141
84757445|NCT01761084|169270551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.65|-0.75|0.888
84586724|NCT02757768|168925847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.7|0.288
84586725|NCT02757768|168925848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.3|0.128
84757446|NCT01761084|169270552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.78|-0.54|0.719
84757447|NCT01761084|169270552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.79|-0.56|0.745
84757448|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|6.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D - VAS||6.83|-5.66|0.854
84757449|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D-VAS||8.22|-4.66|0.585
84757450|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.47|-0.16|0.335
84757451|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.50|-0.15|0.285
84586726|NCT02757768|168925848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.054
84586727|NCT02757768|168925848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.079
84586728|NCT02757768|168925848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.4|0.148
84586729|NCT02757768|168925849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.61|0.660
84586730|NCT02757768|168925849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.53|-0.72|0.767
84586731|NCT02757768|168925849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.89|0.372
84586732|NCT02757768|168925849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.92|0.272
84586733|NCT02757768|168925850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-4.29|0.179
84586734|NCT02757768|168925850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.08|-6.60|0.006
84586735|NCT02757768|168925850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-5.86|0.055
84757452|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.32|-1.36|0.225
84586736|NCT02757768|168925850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-5.02|0.154
84586737|NCT02757768|168925851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.87|-3.57|0.233
84757453|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.56|-1.16|0.488
84757454|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||0.88|-0.68|0.808
84757455|NCT01761084|169270553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||1.04|-0.57|0.566
84757456|NCT01761084|169270556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|1.501|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||1.501|-1.412|.951
84757457|NCT01761084|169270556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|-0.071|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||-0.071|-2.721|0.039
84586738|NCT02757768|168925851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.82|-1.89|0.698
84586739|NCT02757768|168925851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.40|-1.62|0.486
84586740|NCT02757768|168925851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.42|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.42|-2.52|0.968
84586741|NCT02757768|168925852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-4.56|0.165
84586742|NCT02757768|168925852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.54|-2.02|0.592
84586743|NCT02757768|168925852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.92|-2.12|0.559
84586744|NCT02757768|168925852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.0|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.00|-2.94|0.985
84586745|NCT02757768|168925853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-4.35|0.161
84757458|NCT01761084|169270557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-40.0||Month 6 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-40.0|-91.8|<0.05
84757459|NCT01761084|169270557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|-28.8||Month 12 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-28.8|-69.8|<0.05
84586746|NCT02757768|168925853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.07|-2.36|0.798
84586747|NCT02757768|168925853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.95|-1.61|0.408
84586748|NCT02757768|168925853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.88|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.88|-2.60|0.919
84586749|NCT02757768|168925854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.91|-2.94|0.990
84586750|NCT02757768|168925854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.96|-2.12|0.554
84586751|NCT02757768|168925854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-1.67|0.348
84757460|NCT01761084|169270562|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.63||||||Negative Binomial Regression.||1.63|.58|
84757461|NCT01761084|169270565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in height||0.53|-0.28|0.536
84757462|NCT01761084|169270566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.807|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12 scores.||0.807|-0.917|.900
84757463|NCT01761084|169270567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|23.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||23.2|-33.6|.712
84586752|NCT02757768|168925854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.38|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.38|-2.89|0.876
84586753|NCT02757768|168925855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.95|-3.16|0.293
84586754|NCT02757768|168925855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.87|-2.52|0.773
84586755|NCT02757768|168925855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.11|-2.28|0.940
84586756|NCT02757768|168925855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.44|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.44|-2.86|0.516
84586757|NCT02757768|168925856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4591
84586758|NCT02757768|168925856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4073
84586759|NCT02757768|168925856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.7740
84611965|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|18.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||18.78|-0.64|
84586760|NCT02757768|168925856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.5121
84586761|NCT02757768|168925857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.223
84586762|NCT02757768|168925857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.598
84586763|NCT02757768|168925857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.3|0.312
84586764|NCT02757768|168925857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.525
84586765|NCT02757768|168925859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.08|0.226
84586766|NCT02757768|168925859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.14|0.501
84586767|NCT02757768|168925859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.22|0.984
84586768|NCT02757768|168925859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.18|0.780
84586769|NCT02757768|168925860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.8|-0.7|0.107
84757464|NCT01761084|169270567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|39.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Month 12||39.5|-23.3|.60
84586770|NCT02757768|168925860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.3|0.190
84586771|NCT02757768|168925860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.9|0.297
84586772|NCT02757768|168925860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||ANCOVA|||EoT Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.5|-2.7|0.493
84586773|NCT00835367|168925865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.84||||||90.0|98.22|105.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.59|98.22|
84586774|NCT00835367|168925866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|102.53||||||90.0|99.71|105.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.44|99.71|
84586775|NCT00835367|168925867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.49||||||90.0|99.75|105.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.30|99.75|
84586776|NCT00835367|168925868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|91.79||||||90.0|84.83|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.32|84.83|
84586777|NCT00835367|168925869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.85||||||90.0|92.54|99.27|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||99.27|92.54|
84586778|NCT00835367|168925870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.3|102.3|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only|||102.30|98.30|
84586779|NCT00835367|168925871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.74||||||90.0|100.35|105.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.19|100.35|
84586780|NCT00835367|168925872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.72||||||90.0|100.3|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.20|100.30|
84586781|NCT00835367|168925873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.25|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|98.25|
84586782|NCT04632030|168925937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.6|.69|
84586783|NCT04632030|168925937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.55|1.28|
84586784|NCT04632030|168925938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.47|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.47|1.28|
84586785|NCT04632030|168925938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.5|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.50|1.26|
84586786|NCT04632030|168925939|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.86|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.86|.59|
84586787|NCT04632030|168925939|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.67|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.67|.73|
84586788|NCT04632030|168925940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.99|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||2.99|.53|
84586789|NCT04632030|168925940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.13|.94|
84586790|NCT00791648|168925949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Pearson x2|||||||.75
84586791|NCT00791648|168925950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
84586792|NCT00791648|168925951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
84586793|NCT00791648|168925952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
84586794|NCT00791648|168925953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84586795|NCT00791648|168925954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84586796|NCT03977155|168925967|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.38|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.38|-1.00|0.3776
84586797|NCT03977155|168925967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.82||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.82|-0.73|
84586798|NCT03977155|168925967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.19|-1.41|
84586799|NCT03977155|168925967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.44||||||Statistical Analysis 4||1.44|-0.13|
84586800|NCT03977155|168925969|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.39|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.39|-0.45|0.8840
84586801|NCT03977155|168925969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.39|-0.60|
84586802|NCT03977155|168925969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.49|-0.43|
84586803|NCT03977155|168925969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.36||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.36|-0.63|
84586804|NCT03977155|168925970|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.29|-0.62|0.4725
84586805|NCT03977155|168925970|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.31|-0.71|
84586806|NCT03977155|168925970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.37|-0.62|
84586807|NCT03977155|168925970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.45|-0.60|
84586808|NCT03977155|168925971|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.51|-0.28|0.5693
84586809|NCT03977155|168925971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.63|-0.35|
84586810|NCT03977155|168925971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.51|-0.33|
84586811|NCT03977155|168925971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.51|-0.41|
84586812|NCT03977155|168925972|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.208||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.76|42.33|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||42.33|-57.76|0.7603
84586813|NCT03977155|168925972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|82.22||||||Statistical Analysis 2||82.22|-34.22|
84586814|NCT03977155|168925972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.91|21.07||||||Statistical Analysis 3||21.07|-87.91|
84672866|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.971|100.481||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||100.481|8.971|<0.0001
84586815|NCT03977155|168925972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|113.69||||||Statistical Analysis 4||113.69|1.16|
84586816|NCT03977155|168925973|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.10|-0.44|0.2149
84586817|NCT03977155|168925973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.29|-0.27|
84586818|NCT03977155|168925973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||||||Statistical Analysis 3||-0.01|-0.64|
84586819|NCT03977155|168925973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.65||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.65|0.02|
84586820|NCT03440385|168926019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.39|0.66|0.8125
84757465|NCT01761084|169270569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in weight||0.55|-0.25|0.461
84757466|NCT00940589|169270571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.045
84757467|NCT00940589|169270572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.044
84586821|NCT03440385|168926020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.66|0.77|0.5400
84586822|NCT03440385|168926021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.95|0.85|0.2411
84586823|NCT03440385|168926022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.34|0.67|0.7469
84586824|NCT03440385|168926023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.97|0.75|0.4255
84586825|NCT03440385|168926024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.76|0.60|0.9313
84757468|NCT01471015|169270591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84586826|NCT03440385|168926025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.31|0.70|0.4339
84586827|NCT03440385|168926026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.20|0.77|0.3330
84586828|NCT03440385|168926027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.47|0.74|0.8200
84586829|NCT03440385|168926028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.59|0.71|0.7776
84586830|NCT03440385|168926029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.11|0.92|0.1187
84586831|NCT03440385|168926030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.26|0.72|0.4030
84586832|NCT03440385|168926031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Mantel Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.78|0.35|0.5630
84586833|NCT02541591|168926082|SUPERIORITY||Median ratio of final values|1.37||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|due to non normality of the residuals the data were log-transformed prior to the anova|the estimated mean difference obtained using the anova on the log-transformed data was back transformed thus yielding a ratio of median values|missing data were accounted for by multiple imputation||1.98|0.95|0.0881
84586834|NCT04734210|168926170|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.2933||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.2933
84611966|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.28|-10.00|
84611967|NCT01393639|168974444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|16.29||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.29|-2.91|
84757469|NCT01471015|169270592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84757470|NCT00632099|169270616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84586835|NCT04734210|168926171|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.1966||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.1966
84586836|NCT04734210|168926172|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.0213||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.0213
84586837|NCT05870345|168926215|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
84586838|NCT05870345|168926216|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
84586839|NCT03312543|168926245|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|0.09|<0.001
84611968|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.37|
84757471|NCT01118273|169270622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
84757472|NCT01118273|169270623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84757473|NCT01118273|169270624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.45
84757474|NCT01118273|169270625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84757475|NCT01118273|169270626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84757476|NCT01118273|169270627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84757477|NCT01118273|169270628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84757478|NCT01118273|169270629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
84586840|NCT03312543|168926245|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|0.21|<0.001
84586841|NCT03312543|168926245|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.25|0.02|0.025
84611969|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-0.46|
84611970|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.10|-0.45|
84672867|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.1|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||24.1|2.7|
84586842|NCT03312543|168926246|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|0.11|<0.001
84586843|NCT03312543|168926246|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|0.13|<0.001
84672868|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.9|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||18.9|-2.9|
84586844|NCT03312543|168926246|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.09|0.540
84611971|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.52|
84611972|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.00|-0.35|
84586845|NCT03312543|168926247|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.17|0.627
84586846|NCT03312543|168926247|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.08|0.002
84586847|NCT03312543|168926247|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.42|0.06|0.009
84586848|NCT03312543|168926248|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|0.23|<0.001
84757479|NCT01118273|169270630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
84757480|NCT01118273|169270631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84757481|NCT01118273|169270632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
84586849|NCT03312543|168926248|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|0.32|<0.001
84586850|NCT03312543|168926248|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.30|-0.07|0.224
84611973|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.53|
84757482|NCT01118273|169270633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
84586851|NCT05852340|168926295|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|109.35||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||109.35|95.81|
84586852|NCT05852340|168926295|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|103.79||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||103.79|90.94|
84586853|NCT05852340|168926295|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.28|106.46||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||106.46|93.28|
84586854|NCT05852340|168926295|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|112.96||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||112.96|97.30|
84586855|NCT05852340|168926296|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|111.62||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||111.62|83.66|
84586856|NCT05852340|168926296|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.23|97.7||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||97.70|73.23|
84586857|NCT05852340|168926296|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|108.48||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||108.48|81.30|
84586858|NCT05852340|168926296|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|43.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.5|51.23||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||51.23|37.50|
84757483|NCT01118273|169270634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
84757484|NCT01118273|169270636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
84586859|NCT00375713|168926299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-set threshold for non inferiority is -10%.|Difference in proportion of responders|0.00069213||||||95.0|-0.0875|0.0888||||||The lower bound of the 95% two sided confidence interval for the difference (Levocetirizine - Cetirizine) in percentage of responders is compared to the pre-set threshold for non inferiority (-10% which is equal to -0.1 for the proportion of responders). Standard method for estimation of the difference in proportions incl. confidence interval using normal approximation is used.||0.0888|-0.0875|
84586860|NCT00375713|168926300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Pruritus score is adjusted on pruritus Baseline score.||The mean daily pruritus score at Day 14 visit or at study completion was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor||||0.4369
84586861|NCT00375713|168926301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|pruritus severity score at baseline has been used as a covariate.||The categorized duration of Pruritus at endpoint during the 14 day treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor.||||0.3549
84586862|NCT00375713|168926302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified on the prurity severity score at the previous day of randomization.||||||0.7518
84586863|NCT02496000|168926310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|ANOVA model on the ranks||This outcome measure requires that the the mean differences of ORMD-0801 in each of the two arms be pooled.||||0.0117
84586864|NCT01877278|168926341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84586865|NCT01877278|168926341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84586866|NCT01877278|168926342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0001
84586867|NCT01877278|168926342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84586868|NCT04262479|168926365|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events.|||
84586869|NCT04262479|168926366|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events|||
84586870|NCT04262479|168926367|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84757485|NCT01118273|169270637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84757486|NCT01118273|169270638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84757487|NCT01118273|169270639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
84586871|NCT04262479|168926368|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
84586872|NCT04262479|168926369|OTHER||||||<|0.61||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.61
84586873|NCT04262479|168926370|OTHER||||||<|0.3||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.30
84586874|NCT04262479|168926371|OTHER||||||<|0.002||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.002
84757488|NCT01118273|169270640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84757489|NCT01118273|169270642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.35
84757490|NCT01118273|169270644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
84757491|NCT01118273|169270645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84757492|NCT01118273|169270646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
84586875|NCT04262479|168926372|OTHER||||||<|0.72||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.72
84586876|NCT04262479|168926373|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.03
84586877|NCT04262479|168926374|OTHER||||||<|0.044||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.044
84586878|NCT05318287|168926376|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
84586879|NCT05318287|168926377|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
84586880|NCT05318287|168926378|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
84586881|NCT05318287|168926379|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.167
84586882|NCT05318287|168926380|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
84586883|NCT05318287|168926381|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.347
84757493|NCT01118273|169270647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
84757494|NCT02684604|169270648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84757495|NCT04707157|169270658|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.38|-2.76|
84586884|NCT05318287|168926382|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
84757496|NCT04707157|169270659|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-2.14|
84586885|NCT05318287|168926383|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84586886|NCT05318287|168926384|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.403|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.403
84586887|NCT05318287|168926385|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.194
84586888|NCT04983979|168926390|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|0.552||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.552|-0.752|
84586889|NCT04983979|168926391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.65|||||Only the mean difference for the study end (week 12) is presented here|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.65|-1.97|
84586890|NCT04983979|168926392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.83|99.13|||||Difference in change in systolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||99.13|-48.83|
84586891|NCT04983979|168926392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|40.47|||||Difference in change in diastolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||40.47|-22.92|
84586892|NCT04983979|168926393|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
84586893|NCT04983979|168926394|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.00|0.00|
84586894|NCT04983979|168926395|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
84586895|NCT04983979|168926396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.4||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||11.4|-19.5|
84757497|NCT04707157|169270660|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.25|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.25|-1.56|
84757498|NCT04707157|169270661|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.77|-3.22|
84757499|NCT04707157|169270662|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-6.97|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-6.97|-31.22|
84757500|NCT04707157|169270663|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.86|
84757501|NCT04707157|169270664|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-269.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-624.98|86.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||86.24|-624.98|
84757502|NCT04707157|169270665|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.29|-0.22|
84586896|NCT00895921|168926427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1139||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00943|0.47605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||.47605|.00943|0.042
84586897|NCT00895921|168926428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.714||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.714|-0.208|0.269
84586898|NCT00895921|168926429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.705|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of akathisia rates between the two arms.||.705|.095|0.012
84586899|NCT01358734|168926430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.789||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.718|||Log Rank|||||3.718|0.861|0.119
84586900|NCT01358734|168926430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.659||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|5.822|||Log Rank|||||5.822|1.214|0.014
84586901|NCT01358734|168926430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.653|||Log Rank|||||2.653|0.704|0.356
84586902|NCT03243084|168926461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|ANOVA|||A 2x2 ANOVA was used to measure change in HF-HRV by condition (10 Hz vs sham) and session (first vs second) as within subjects variables||||.319
84586903|NCT03243084|168926463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Investigators hypothesized that active stimulation would have a greater normalized pain change using a modulation index \[(Pre-Post)/(Pre+Post)\]||||.0488
84586904|NCT00600340|168926471|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.1983|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.689||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.689||0.1983
84586905|NCT00600340|168926471|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.018||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.261||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.261||0.0070
84586906|NCT00600340|168926471|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.2024|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.674||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.674||0.2024
84586907|NCT00600340|168926471|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.0612|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.386||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.386||0.0612
84586908|NCT00600340|168926472|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.1534|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.606||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.606||0.1534
84586909|NCT00600340|168926472|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.0085|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.273||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.273||0.0085
84586910|NCT00600340|168926472|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.1778|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.623||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.623||0.1778
84611974|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.31|
84586911|NCT00600340|168926472|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.049|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.37||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.37||0.049
84611975|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.17|-0.54|
84611976|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.47|
84586912|NCT00600340|168926478|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR) of objective response and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified)||0.67|0.33|< 0.0001
84586913|NCT00600340|168926478|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-9|-24|
84586914|NCT00600340|168926478|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
84586915|NCT00600340|168926478|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
84611977|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.56|
84586916|NCT00600340|168926479|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.31|< 0.0001
84611978|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.39|
84611979|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-0.63|
84611980|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.34|
84586917|NCT00600340|168926479|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-10.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-10|-26|
84611981|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-0.59|
84611982|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-0.51|
84586918|NCT00600340|168926479|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
84586919|NCT00600340|168926479|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
84586920|NCT00600340|168926480|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
84611983|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.55|
84611984|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.38|
84611985|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.27|-0.67|
84611986|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.30|
84611987|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.63|
84611988|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.64|
84586921|NCT00600340|168926480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-11|-28|
84611989|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.14|-0.59|
84611990|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.54|
84611991|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.35||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.35|-0.81|
84611992|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.01|
84611993|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.24|-0.10|
84611994|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.25||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.10|
84611995|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.17|
84611996|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.51|0.13|
84586922|NCT00600340|168926480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
84586923|NCT00600340|168926480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
84586924|NCT00600340|168926481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.60|0.29|< 0.0001
84586925|NCT00600340|168926481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-13.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-13|-30|
84586926|NCT00600340|168926481|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
84586927|NCT00600340|168926481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
84586928|NCT00600340|168926482|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.08|0.0066
84611997|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.11|
84757503|NCT01342484|169270687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, pharmacokinetic (PK) / pharmacodynamics (PD) subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.51|-1.47|0.3295
84586929|NCT00600340|168926483|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.07|0.0094
84586930|NCT00600340|168926484|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.35|0.94|0.1957
84611998|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.04|
84586931|NCT00600340|168926485|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.34|0.92|0.2583
84586932|NCT00600340|168926486|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.77|0.43|0.0001
84757504|NCT01342484|169270687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.23|-1.50|0.1447
84757505|NCT01342484|169270689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||2.46|-3.08|0.8216
84586933|NCT00600340|168926487|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.75|0.41|0.0001
84586934|NCT00600340|168926488|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.02||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.02|0.99|0.0582
84586935|NCT00600340|168926489|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.1||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|"HR of Arm B vs. Arm A for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.10|1.01|0.0429
84586936|NCT00127439|168926490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power analysis indicated that when the mean difference equals to 1.2 times of standard deviation, a two-sided t-test at 0.05 level will have 80% power; and for a mean difference of 1.4 times of standard deviation the power increases to 91%. To test the null hypothesis that correlation will be 0 at 0.5 level, a two-sided test based on Fisher's Z transformation will yield a power of 89% in detecting correlations of 0.6 or above with n=24 or above.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586937|NCT00127439|168926490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Pearson correlation of gait speed changes with directional difference of standardized kinematic scores (i.e. foot trajectory toe-off - degrees, foot trajectory toe-off - % cycle, foot trajectory initial contact - degrees, foot trajectory range - degrees, propulsive impulse N-s, minimum thigh angle - flexion degrees, minimum hip angle - extension degrees, trunk angle mid-stance)||||0.05
84586938|NCT00127439|168926491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586939|NCT00127439|168926492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586940|NCT00127439|168926493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586941|NCT00127439|168926494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84611999|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.13|
84586942|NCT00127439|168926495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586943|NCT00127439|168926496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586944|NCT00127439|168926497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586945|NCT00127439|168926498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84586946|NCT00376558|168926499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84586947|NCT00376558|168926500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||delta bpnd|-12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The limbic striatum was our primary region of interest using an unpaired t test to compare BPND and deltaBPND between the treatment responders and non-responders.||||0.001
84586948|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.951|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.951
84586949|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
84586950|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.071
84586951|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586952|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
84586953|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.325
84586954|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84586955|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586956|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.427
84586957|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.065
84586958|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586959|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
84586960|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
84586961|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84586962|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586963|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.286
84586964|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586965|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
84586966|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.757
84586967|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.022
84586968|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84586969|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586970|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
84586971|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.508
84586972|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
84586973|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
84586974|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
84586975|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.961
84586976|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
84586977|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586978|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.068
84586979|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84586980|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586981|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.370
84586982|NCT02314923|168926536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84586983|NCT03898180|168926577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CPS, and ECOG performance status (PS).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.14|0.72|0.4107
84586984|NCT03898180|168926578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.48|0.87|0.3505
84586985|NCT03898180|168926579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||12.2|-4.0|
84586986|NCT03898180|168926582|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.07||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.44||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|cLDA model||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.44|-7.57|0.182
84586987|NCT03898180|168926583|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||2.16|1.24|0.0005
84586988|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|14.72||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Left eye||14.72|2.41|0.0129
84586989|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.45||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Right eye||13.45|1.70|0.0077
84612000|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.52|0.13|
84612001|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.12|
84612002|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.35|-0.05|
84612003|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-0.08|
84612004|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.73|0.28|
84612005|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.05|
84540929|NCT02414958|168833011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-24.13|-13.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-13.95|-24.13|<0.0001
84612006|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.06|
84612007|NCT01393639|168974446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.01|
84612008|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.78|
84612009|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.12|
84612010|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.18|
84612011|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.74||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.74|-1.48|
84612012|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.72|
84612013|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.46||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.46|-1.19|
84612014|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.85|
84612015|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.31||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.31|-1.15|
84612016|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.52||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.52|-1.37|
84612017|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.39|
84612018|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.67|
84612019|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.49|-1.33|
84612020|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.02||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.90|
84612021|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.41||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.41|-1.32|
84612022|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.62||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-1.53|
84612023|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.60|-1.51|
84612024|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.89|
84612025|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.50|
84757506|NCT01342484|169270689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.52|-4.31|0.1189
84499353|NCT01227954|168749964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1579
84612026|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.00|
84612027|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.43||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.43|-1.40|
84612028|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.8||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.80|-1.77|
84612029|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-1.69|
84612030|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.98|
84672869|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.114|2.768||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. ETN.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.768|1.114|=0.0152
84612031|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-1.69|
84612032|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|0.04|
84586990|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|9.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Left eye||9.62|-1.64|0.1589
84612033|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.29|
84586991|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|8.35||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Right eye||8.35|-2.78|0.3167
84586992|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.96||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Left eye||3.96|-7.64|0.5243
84586993|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.82||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Right eye||6.82|-4.45|0.6714
84586994|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.53||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Left eye||0.53|-8.31|0.0828
84586995|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|3.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Right eye||3.62|-4.77|0.7823
84586996|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.7||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Left eye||9.70|0.16|0.0432
84586997|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.0||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Right eye||11.00|1.70|0.0088
84586998|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.66||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Left eye||14.66|3.90|0.0013
84612034|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.35|
84612035|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.65|
84612036|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|0.06|
84612037|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-0.24|
84612038|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.46|
84757507|NCT03302975|169270734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84672870|NCT02346240|169081837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388|||=|0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.175||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. ETN|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.175|0.886|=0.1523
84672871|NCT02346240|169081838|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.33|57.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||57.63|39.33|
84672872|NCT02346240|169081838|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.88|46.96|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.96|28.88|
84672873|NCT02346240|169081838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.787|404.555||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||404.555|7.787|<0.0001
84672874|NCT02346240|169081838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.566|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.061|264.196||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||264.196|5.061|=0.0004
84672875|NCT02346240|169081839|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|46.98|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.98|20.68|
84757508|NCT03996876|169270744|SUPERIORITY|Given the relatively small sample size, results of our inferential statistical tests should be interpreted with caution.|F Statistic|1.032||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|We conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with intervention as the between-subjects and time as the within-subjects variable.|The F Statistic reported is for the interaction between Intervention and Time.|||||0.322
84757509|NCT02971631|169270747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.008
84757510|NCT02971631|169270748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.03
84757511|NCT02971631|169270749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||For meal consumption rate||||0.79
84757512|NCT02971631|169270751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.20
84757513|NCT02971631|169270751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-OGTT||||0.58
84586999|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31||||0.00629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.92||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Right eye||10.92|-0.30|0.00629
84587000|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|15.95||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Left eye||15.95|3.89|0.0020
84672876|NCT02346240|169081839|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|43.8|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||43.80|18.18|
84757514|NCT02971631|169270751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.39
84757515|NCT02971631|169270751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.20
84757516|NCT02971631|169270752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.26
84757517|NCT02971631|169270752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-OGTT||||0.06
84757518|NCT02971631|169270752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.95
84757519|NCT02971631|169270752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.88
84757520|NCT02971631|169270753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Other|0 events over whole study, no statistical test appropriate||||||1
84757521|NCT02971631|169270754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84587001|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|13.97||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Right eye||13.97|1.93|0.0111
84587002|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.67||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|62.56||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Left eye||62.56|0.78|0.0448
84587003|NCT02507934|168926586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.36||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|56.37||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Right eye||56.37|-3.66|0.0834
84587004|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.57|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 7 ±1||0.57|-0.14|0.2317
84612039|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.48|
84612040|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.06|0.15|
84612041|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.63||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.63|-0.28|
84612042|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.42||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.49|
84587005|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 7 ±1||0.41|-0.70|0.6017
84587006|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.36|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 14 ±1||1.36|0.11|0.0232
84587007|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 14 ±1||1.17|0.03|0.0398
84587008|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 21 ±1||1.74|0.36|0.0038
84587009|NCT02507934|168926588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.33|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - right eye||1.33|0.17|0.0135
84587010|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 7±1||1.83|-0.66|0.3442
84587011|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.49|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.49|-1.99|0.7720
84587012|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.44|-1.49|0.9725
84612043|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.47|
84672877|NCT02346240|169081839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.949|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.407|189.828||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||189.828|8.407|<0.0001
84612044|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|0.22|
84612045|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|-0.18|
84612046|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.55|
84612047|NCT01393639|168974448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.49|-0.47|
84612048|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.76|
84587013|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.81|-3.54|0.2111
84587014|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.86|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.86|-3.06|0.2629
84587015|NCT02507934|168926589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - 21±1||1.10|-3.60|0.2862
84587016|NCT02507934|168926590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|29.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 7±1||29.14|-6.66|0.2075
84587017|NCT02507934|168926590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.16||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|35.76|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 14±1||35.76|0.57|0.0435
84587018|NCT02507934|168926590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|41.93|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 21±1||41.93|5.24|0.0133
84587019|NCT02507934|168926591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|21.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 7±1||21.69|-12.98|0.6130
84587020|NCT02507934|168926591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|28.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 14±1||28.18|-2.78|0.1047
84612049|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.17|
84612050|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.54||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.32|
84612051|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.78|-1.56|
84587021|NCT02507934|168926591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|30.04|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 21±1||30.04|-3.24|0.1108
84587022|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.81|-0.40|0.4980
84587023|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.83|-0.18|0.1986
84587024|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 14±1||0.37|-0.90|0.4067
84587025|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.42|-0.81|0.5256
84612052|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-0.70|
84757522|NCT00597753|169270763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin alfa group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||-0.01|-0.30|
84757523|NCT00597753|169270764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.92|0.76|
84587026|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.17|-1.12|0.1471
84757524|NCT00597753|169270765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.97|0.79|
84757525|NCT01308008|169270781|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.13|-0.02|0.16
84757526|NCT01308008|169270782|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|34.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|-15|0.17
84757527|NCT01308008|169270783|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|-8.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|-35|0.5
84587027|NCT02507934|168926592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.25|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.25|-0.96|0.2455
84587028|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.85|-1.98|0.4233
84587029|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.69|-1.04|0.6335
84587030|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.51|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 14±1||-0.51|-3.56|0.0103
84587031|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.27|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.27|-2.95|0.1006
84587032|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.85|-4.15|0.0041
84757528|NCT02325219|169270790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84757529|NCT02325219|169270790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84757530|NCT02325219|169270791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84757531|NCT02325219|169270791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84757532|NCT04036708|169270837|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|5.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||5.32|-3.93|.77
84587033|NCT02507934|168926593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.06|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 21±1||-0.06|-3.67|0.0429
84587034|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.75|0.2338
84587035|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.58|0.3081
84587036|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|5.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 14±1||5.74|-2.57|0.4287
84587037|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 14±1||5.44|-3.14|0.5765
84587038|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.15|-2.18|0.0259
84587039|NCT02507934|168926594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.37|-2.23|0.1496
84587040|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 7±1||||0.2342
84587041|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 7±1||||0.8874
84587042|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.0504
84587043|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.0814
84587044|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587045|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.3855
84587046|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587047|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587048|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.4754
84587049|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.2914
84612053|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.55|-1.34|
84672878|NCT02346240|169081839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.363|167.179||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||167.179|7.363|<0.0001
84587050|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587051|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84612054|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.84|
84757533|NCT04036708|169270837|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.54||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||4.54|-5.14|.90
84587052|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587053|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587054|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587055|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587056|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587057|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587058|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587059|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587060|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587061|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
84587062|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2429
84587063|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 14±1||||0.5707
84587064|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0092
84587065|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0039
84587066|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2882
84587067|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.4017
84587068|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587069|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84612055|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.32||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.32|-1.23|
84612056|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.61||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.61|-1.52|
84612057|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.45|
84612058|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-0.71|
84587070|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0731
84587071|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0020
84587072|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84612059|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.57|-1.48|
84612060|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.11|-0.89|
84587073|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587074|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587075|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587076|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587077|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587078|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587079|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587080|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587081|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587082|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587083|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
84587084|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1376
84587085|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3252
84587086|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0111
84587087|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0049
84587088|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1178
84587089|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.9042
84587090|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587091|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587092|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0253
84612061|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.45||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.45|-1.44|
84612062|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.71||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.71|-1.71|
84587093|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.0016
84587094|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587095|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587096|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 21±1||||0.3165
84587097|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3165
84587098|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587099|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587100|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587101|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587102|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587103|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587104|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587105|NCT02507934|168926595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
84587106|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 7±1||2.29|-0.05|0.0599
84587107|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.66|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.66|-0.68|0.3969
84587108|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.84|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.84|-1.29|0.7225
84757534|NCT04036708|169270838|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|112.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||112.8|15.26|.01
84499354|NCT01227954|168749964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic function status (some symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0559
84499355|NCT01227954|168749964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Age (\>= 60) is reported here.||||0.0749
84587109|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.62|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.62|-2.14|0.2690
84587110|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 21±1||2.10|-0.53|0.2344
84587111|NCT02507934|168926596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.24|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye||2.24|-1.30|0.5953
84612063|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.59|
84612064|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.95|
84499356|NCT04840901|168750009|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|1.03|
84587112|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 7||2.11|-0.54|0.2193
84587113|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 8||2.18|0.51|0.0024
84587114|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 9||1.14|-0.49|0.4250
84587115|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 10||1.29|-0.17|0.1275
84587116|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 11||1.42|-0.09|0.0844
84587117|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.6|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 12||1.60|0.12|0.0238
84587118|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.61|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 13||1.61|0.05|0.0369
84587119|NCT02507934|168926597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.64|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 14||1.64|-0.61|0.3496
84757535|NCT04036708|169270838|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.86||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.92|11.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, and child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||11.85|-86.92|.13
84587120|NCT03766399|168926631|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.44||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||12.0|-12.9|0.9511
84587121|NCT03766399|168926631|OTHER||LS means difference|-7.87||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|4.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.59|-20.3|0.2849
84587122|NCT03766399|168926631|OTHER||LS means difference|-8.31||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|4.14|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.14|-20.8|0.2595
84587123|NCT03766399|168926631|OTHER||LS means difference|-3.04||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|2.51|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||2.51|-8.60|0.3604
84587124|NCT03766399|168926632|OTHER||LS means difference|-25.4||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.0|115.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||115|-166|0.7544
84587125|NCT03766399|168926632|OTHER||LS means difference|-73.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-214.0|67.6|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||67.6|-214|0.3750
84587126|NCT03766399|168926632|OTHER||LS means difference|-98.7||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-240.0|42.3|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||42.3|-240|0.2377
84587127|NCT03766399|168926632|OTHER||LS means difference|-50.4||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|1.61|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||1.61|-102|0.1105
84587128|NCT01472185|168926670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.36||P-value is from a mixed effects model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.36|-0.76|< 0.0001
84587129|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-0.89|-3.17|0.0017
84587130|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|-2.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.74|-5.01|< 0.0001
84587131|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|-3.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-3.46|-5.76|< 0.0001
84587132|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|-0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there is no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm is declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect is below zero.||-0.67|-2.92|0.0045
84587133|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|-1.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-1.14|-3.41|0.0005
84587134|NCT02958865|168926681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-2.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.08|-4.34|< 0.0001
84587135|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||19.5|-1.0|0.0626
84587136|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|41.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||41.0|13.9|0.0027
84587137|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|46.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||46.5|20.2|0.0010
84587138|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.1|-4.0|0.0774
84587139|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
84587140|NCT02958865|168926698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
84587141|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.2|5.6|0.0111
84587142|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|47.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.4|20.2|0.0006
84587143|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.5|54.6|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||54.6|29.5|0.0001
84587144|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.0|5.6|0.0101
84587145|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||44.8|17.0|0.0014
84587146|NCT02958865|168926699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||42.6|17.0|0.0015
84587147|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|34.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||34.4|-3.4|0.0788
84587148|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|62.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||62.1|23.6|0.0002
84587149|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.5|60.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||60.5|23.5|0.0003
84587150|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|35.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.1|-4.0|0.0773
84587151|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|47.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.0|5.6|0.0136
84612065|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.66||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.66|-1.65|
84587152|NCT02958865|168926700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|54.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||54.7|13.9|0.0015
84587153|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
84587154|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
84587155|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
84612066|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.08||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.96|
84612067|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.48|
84587156|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|9.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||9.7|-8.6|0.3777
84587157|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.9|28.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||28.6|2.9|0.0212
84587158|NCT02958865|168926701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|18.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.4|-4.2|0.0742
84587159|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|17.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.1|-3.4|0.0872
84587160|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||27.5|3.0|0.0254
84587161|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||38.1|11.0|0.0034
84587162|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.4|-4.5|0.1565
84587163|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
84587164|NCT02958865|168926702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
84587165|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
84587166|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
84587167|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
84587168|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||6.1|-11.3|1.0000
84587169|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
84587170|NCT02958865|168926703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.7|-4.4|0.1593
84587171|NCT03232567|168926735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2451|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2451
84587172|NCT03232567|168926735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
84587173|NCT03232567|168926735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
84587174|NCT03232567|168926736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4828
84587175|NCT03232567|168926736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
84587176|NCT03232567|168926736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
84587177|NCT03232567|168926738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX low dose vs placebo||||0.0169
84587178|NCT03232567|168926738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX medium dose vs placebo||||0.0063
84587179|NCT03232567|168926738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX high dose vs placebo||||<0.0001
84587180|NCT02284893|168926796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
84587181|NCT02284893|168926797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.175||0.0034|||||||Regression, Logistic|the analysis was by Zhang et.al. method with adjustment for baseline A1c.The measure of interest is NOT odds ratio but Risk Difference.||||||0.0034
84587182|NCT02284893|168926798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84587183|NCT02284893|168926799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84587184|NCT01983111|168926808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the PP set, for a non-inferiority test of the reduction in the pain intensity score from Visit 1 (Baseline) to Week 6 of treatment, the lower limit of the 97.5% onesided confidence interval was compared to a clinical non-inferiority margin, -1.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In the Per protocol set||3|-6|0.2658
84587185|NCT04380142|168926857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.05||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||3.05|0.46|0.0083
84587186|NCT04380142|168926858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.54||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.54|-3.03|0.0054
84587187|NCT04380142|168926859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.48||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-3.65|0.1318
84612068|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.91|-1.94|
84612069|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.76|-1.80|
84612070|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.06|
84587188|NCT04380142|168926860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||The generalized linear mixed model: status = treatment country visit baseline treatment\*visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|generalized linear mixed model|||||0.31|0.04|<=0.001
84587189|NCT04380142|168926861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.16|||generalized linear mixed model|||||3.16|0.46|0.0091
84587190|NCT04380142|168926862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-2.78||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.03|<=0.001
84587191|NCT04380142|168926863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.05||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-8.14|0.0470
84587192|NCT04380142|168926864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.1||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.100|-0.001|0.0566
84587193|NCT04380142|168926865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||3.15|0.30|0.0184
84587194|NCT04380142|168926866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.55||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.55|-1.20|0.7989
84587195|NCT04380142|168926867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.15|-6.61|0.1656
84587196|NCT04380142|168926868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|1.73||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.73|-12.71|0.1347
84587197|NCT02908178|168926878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.18|1.63||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any complication in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.63|1.18|<.001
84587198|NCT02908178|168926878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.27|8.75||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||8.75|2.27|<.001
84587199|NCT02908178|168926878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.54||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and wound infection in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.54|1.00|<.001
84587200|NCT02908178|168926878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.03|1.91||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.91|1.03|<.001
84587201|NCT02908178|168926878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.04|1.65||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.65|1.04|.003
84587202|NCT02908178|168926879|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of mastectomy within 6 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||<.001
84587203|NCT02908178|168926880|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of radiation therapy within 9 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||.48
84587204|NCT02908178|168926881|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.05||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and overall mortality in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.05|0.73|<.001
84587205|NCT02908178|168926882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.2||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any side effects in the matched Aim 2 cohort.||1.20|1.00|0.207
84587206|NCT02908178|168926882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.12|2.11||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema related complications in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||2.11|1.12|<.001
84587207|NCT02908178|168926882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.1||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any infection in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.10|0.87|0.113
84587208|NCT02908178|168926882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.93|1.58||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.58|0.93|0.010
84587209|NCT02908178|168926882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.98|1.25||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.25|0.98|0.029
84587210|NCT02908178|168926883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.54|2.35||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and breast cancer specific mortality.||2.35|0.54|0.861
84587211|NCT02908178|168926884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.51||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and ipsilateral invasive breast cancer occurrence for the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.51|0.71|0.603
84499357|NCT04840901|168750010|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.02|
84499358|NCT04840901|168750011|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.03|
84587212|NCT02908178|168926885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.81|1.69||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and treated recurrence in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.69|0.81|0.620
84587213|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 1: the ratio of GMT (GMR) (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.92|0.66|
84587214|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||Serotype 3: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.79|
84587215|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||Serotype 4: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.67|
84587216|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||Serotype 5: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.65|
84612071|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.81||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.81|-1.85|
84757536|NCT04036708|169270839|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||4.13|-7.65|.55
84499359|NCT04256759|168750034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.018
84612072|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.19|
84612073|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.22|
84499360|NCT04256759|168750034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 18||||0.021
84499361|NCT04256759|168750035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84499362|NCT04256759|168750036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84499363|NCT04075292|168750047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the unstratified log-rank test.|HR was calculated using an unstratified Cox model with treatment as the only covariate. The CI for HR was calculated using the profile likelihood method.|||0.18|0.03|<0.0001
84499364|NCT03332212|168750106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.087|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.087|-0.582|0.1418
84587217|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.73|
84587218|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.08|0.77|
84587219|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.75|
84587220|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.02|0.76|
84499365|NCT03332212|168750106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.286|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.286|-0.604|0.4650
84757537|NCT04036708|169270839|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|2.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.63|-9.48|.26
84587221|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29||||||Serotype 14: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.29|0.92|
84587222|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.85|0.62|
84587223|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.86|0.63|
84587224|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.76|0.53|
84587225|NCT04875533|168926892|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.65|
84612074|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.41|-0.38|
84612075|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-0.62|
84612076|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.09|0.18|
84672879|NCT02346240|169081840|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|70.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.15|79.59|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||79.59|62.15|
84499366|NCT00609115|168750107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84499367|NCT00609115|168750107|SUPERIORITY||Effect|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84499368|NCT00609115|168750108|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value was calculated.|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
84499369|NCT00609115|168750108|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
84499370|NCT00609115|168750109|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.33||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84587226|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.67||||||Serotype 8: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.67|0.50|
84587227|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.53||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.53|1.80|
84587228|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.06|1.44|
84587229|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.04||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.04|1.39|
84587230|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.64||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.64|1.72|
84757538|NCT04036708|169270840|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.16|-0.48|.32
84757539|NCT04036708|169270840|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.06|-0.72|.02
84757540|NCT04036708|169270841|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.01|-0.78|.06
84757541|NCT04036708|169270841|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.28|-1.11|.001
84499371|NCT00609115|168750109|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84587231|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.98||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.98|1.33|
84587232|NCT04875533|168926893|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.34||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.34|0.97|
84587233|NCT01506726|168926924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two sample test||||0.20|-2.08|0.230
84612077|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.21|
84612078|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.50|
84499372|NCT00609115|168750110|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
84499373|NCT00609115|168750110|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.27||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
84499374|NCT00609115|168750111|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
84499375|NCT00609115|168750111|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
84587234|NCT01506726|168926925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.347
84587235|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857
84587236|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.706
84587237|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84587238|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
84587239|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
84499376|NCT00609115|168750112|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
84499377|NCT00609115|168750112|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.10
84499378|NCT00609115|168750113|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
84499379|NCT00609115|168750113|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84499380|NCT00609115|168750114|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
84499381|NCT00609115|168750114|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.77||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84499382|NCT00609115|168750115|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84612079|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-0.43|
84499383|NCT00609115|168750115|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84499384|NCT00609115|168750116|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
84499385|NCT00609115|168750116|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.45||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
84499386|NCT03985293|168750120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.76|0.0071
84499387|NCT03985293|168750120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.62|-1.18|<.0001
84499388|NCT03985293|168750120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.73|-1.30|<.0001
84499389|NCT03985293|168750120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.65|-1.24|<.0001
84499390|NCT03985293|168750120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.86|-1.47|<.0001
84499391|NCT03985293|168750121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|14.18|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||14.18|1.84|
84499392|NCT03985293|168750121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.18|45.93|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||45.93|6.18|
84499393|NCT03985293|168750121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.03|50.21|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||50.21|7.03|
84499394|NCT03985293|168750121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66|66.39|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||66.39|8.66|
84499395|NCT03985293|168750121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.72|68.57|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||68.57|8.72|
84499396|NCT03985293|168750122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.01|-0.19|0.1578
84499397|NCT03985293|168750122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.12|-0.32|0.0003
84499398|NCT03985293|168750122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.10|-0.30|0.0013
84499399|NCT03985293|168750122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.14|-0.34|0.0001
84499400|NCT03985293|168750122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.16|-0.36|<.0001
84499401|NCT03985293|168750123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.46|0.0013
84499402|NCT03985293|168750123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.28|-0.58|<.0001
84499403|NCT03985293|168750123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.40|-0.70|<.0001
84499404|NCT03985293|168750123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.35|-0.66|<.0001
84499405|NCT03985293|168750123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.41|-0.71|<.0001
84499406|NCT03985293|168750124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.22|-0.59|0.0004
84499407|NCT03985293|168750124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.46|-0.81|<.0001
84499408|NCT03985293|168750124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
84757542|NCT04036708|169270842|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.03||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.03|0.07|.04
84587240|NCT01506726|168926926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
84612080|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.26|0.26|
84612081|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.29|
84757543|NCT04036708|169270842|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||1.96|-0.08|.07
84757544|NCT04036708|169270843|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||3.06|1.02|<.01
84757545|NCT04036708|169270843|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.79||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.79|0.67|<.01
84757546|NCT02918864|169270844|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.22||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.037
84757547|NCT02918864|169270846|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.016
84757548|NCT02918864|169270848|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.061
84757549|NCT02918864|169270850|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.03||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.674
84757550|NCT02918864|169270852|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.09||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.191
84587241|NCT01506726|168926927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing change in IL6 between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
84587242|NCT01506726|168926927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing the change in TNF between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257
84587243|NCT01506726|168926928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value comparing the change in EPO between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
84612082|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.55|
84612083|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.56||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.43|
84757551|NCT02918864|169270854|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.04||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.599
84587244|NCT01506726|168926929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
84587245|NCT01506726|168926930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.076
84587246|NCT01506726|168926931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84587247|NCT01506726|168926932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
84587248|NCT01506726|168926933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
84612084|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.41|0.37|
84612085|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.89|-0.15|
84612086|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.42||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.61|
84757552|NCT02918864|169270856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 12"||||0.462
84757553|NCT02918864|169270857|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 16"||||1.000
84757554|NCT02918864|169270858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 24"||||0.607
84587249|NCT01506726|168926934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.619
84587250|NCT01506726|168926935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.642
84587251|NCT01506726|168926936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84587252|NCT01506726|168926937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84587253|NCT01506726|168926938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.375
84587254|NCT01506726|168926940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
84587255|NCT01506726|168926941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
84587256|NCT02231580|168926946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.104|||=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.482|||MMRM|||Left hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.482|0.823|=0.5743
84587257|NCT02231580|168926946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.141|||=|0.4349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.51|||MMRM|||Right hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.510|0.862|=0.4349
84587258|NCT02231580|168926947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.035|||=|0.8937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.587|||MMRM|||Left hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.587|0.675|=0.8937
84587259|NCT02231580|168926947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.093|||=|0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.493|||MMRM|||Right hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.493|0.800|=0.6360
84587260|NCT02231580|168926948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.247|||=|0.2865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.756|||MMRM|||Left hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.756|0.886|=0.2865
84499409|NCT03985293|168750124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.53|-0.91|<.0001
84499410|NCT03985293|168750124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
84499411|NCT03985293|168750125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.59|0.0054
84499412|NCT03985293|168750125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.44|-0.86|<.0001
84499413|NCT03985293|168750125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.63|-1.06|<.0001
84499414|NCT03985293|168750125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.57|-1.02|<.0001
84499415|NCT03985293|168750125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.67|-1.11|<.0001
84499416|NCT03985293|168750126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.71|0.0061
84499417|NCT03985293|168750126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.54|-1.05|<.0001
84587261|NCT02231580|168926948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.16|||=|0.5338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.724|||MMRM|||Right hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.724|0.781|=0.5338
84499418|NCT03985293|168750126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.72|-1.24|<.0001
84499419|NCT03985293|168750126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.56|-1.10|<.0001
84499420|NCT03985293|168750126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.75|-1.30|<.0001
84499421|NCT03985293|168750127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.13||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.94|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-8.33|-25.94|0.0014
84499422|NCT03985293|168750127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.38||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.08|-7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|||-7.67|-25.08|0.0021
84499423|NCT03985293|168750127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.88|-13.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-13.53|-30.88|<.0001
84499424|NCT03985293|168750127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.43|-9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.76|-27.43|0.0006
84499425|NCT03985293|168750127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-16.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-16.67|-34.00|<.0001
84499426|NCT03985293|168750128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.79||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.55|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.04|-21.55|0.0468
84499427|NCT03985293|168750128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.68||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.12|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.25|-28.12|0.0012
84499428|NCT03985293|168750128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.03|-17.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.85|-37.03|<.0001
84499429|NCT03985293|168750128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.22|-17.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.51|-37.22|<.0001
84499430|NCT03985293|168750128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.72|-18.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-18.45|-37.72|<.0001
84499431|NCT03985293|168750129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-5.90|-25.90|0.0091
84499432|NCT03985293|168750129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.18|-15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.89|-35.18|<.0001
84499433|NCT03985293|168750129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-30.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.8|-20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.21|-39.80|<.0001
84499434|NCT03985293|168750129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.63|-17.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.33|-37.63|<.0001
84499435|NCT03985293|168750129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.77|-21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.78|-41.77|<.0001
84612087|NCT01393639|168974450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.57|-0.46|
84612088|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.17|-4.94|
84757555|NCT02918864|169270859|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.310
84587262|NCT02231580|168926949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.693|||=|0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|0.985|||MMRM|||Left hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.985|0.487|=0.0864
84587263|NCT02231580|168926949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.686|||=|0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.508|0.925|||MMRM|||Right hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.925|0.508|=0.0399
84587264|NCT02231580|168926950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.509|||=|0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.15|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.150|1.060|=0.0574
84587265|NCT02231580|168926950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.953|||=|0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.372|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.372|0.662|=0.8277
84587266|NCT02231580|168926950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.238|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.074|1.426|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.426|1.074|=0.0162
84757556|NCT02918864|169270861|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.115
84499436|NCT03985293|168750130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.63||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.51|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||6.25|-13.51|0.5449
84612089|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.08||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.08|-3.98|
84757557|NCT02918864|169270863|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.08||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.455
84757558|NCT02918864|169270865|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.379
84499437|NCT03985293|168750130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.12||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.62|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-7.63|-26.62|0.0031
84499438|NCT03985293|168750130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.31|-10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-10.96|-30.31|0.0005
84587267|NCT02231580|168926950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.038|||=|0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.182|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.182|0.912|=0.6320
84587268|NCT02231580|168926951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.308|||=|0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.014|||MMRM|||Left finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.014|0.85|=0.3005
84587269|NCT02231580|168926951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.177|||=|0.4793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.722|||MMRM|||Right finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.722|0.804|=0.4793
84757559|NCT02918864|169270867|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.275
84757560|NCT02918864|169270869|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
84757561|NCT02257372|169270878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.174|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.174|0.071|<0.001
84757562|NCT02257372|169270879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.197|0.099|<0.001
84757563|NCT02104583|169270893|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.52||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.71|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or rest of world (ROW)\].||2.71|0.86|0.152
84757564|NCT02104583|169270893|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW\].||1.97|0.34|0.662
84757565|NCT02104583|169270893|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.86|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW.||2.86|0.54|0.618
84587270|NCT02231580|168926951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.15|||=|0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.416|||MMRM|||Left finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.416|0.934|=0.2653
84587271|NCT02231580|168926951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.045|||=|0.6777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.248|||MMRM|||Right finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.248|0.875|=0.6777
84587272|NCT02231580|168926952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.618|||=|0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.124|2.331|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.331|1.124|=0.0326
84587273|NCT02231580|168926952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.886|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.299|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.299|0.605|=0.6016
84587274|NCT02231580|168926952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.242|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.077|1.433|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.433|1.077|=0.0152
84612090|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.82|-3.34|
84757566|NCT04673292|169270906|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing community-based testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.27|0.86|0.67
84757567|NCT04673292|169270906|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing self-collected testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.08||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.31|0.89|0.43
84587275|NCT02231580|168926952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.042|||=|0.6033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.186|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.186|0.915|=0.6033
84757568|NCT04673292|169270907|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing. Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.05|0.73|0.14
84757569|NCT04673292|169270907|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.86||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.03|0.71|0.09
84757570|NCT04673292|169270908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||aprior threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.10|0.83|0.56
84757571|NCT04673292|169270908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.07|0.81|0.32
84757572|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 1||0.70|-1.65|0.4295
84757573|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 1||0.04|-2.34|0.0586
84587276|NCT02231580|168926953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.657|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.086|2.529|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.529|1.086|=0.0520
84587277|NCT02231580|168926953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.916|||=|0.6978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.333|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.333|0.630|=0.6978
84612091|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.28||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.28|-2.75|
84757574|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 2||-0.43|-3.34|0.0111
84757575|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 2||-0.37|-3.30|0.0141
84757576|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 4||-0.43|-4.00|0.0152
84757577|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 4||-1.25|-4.86|0.0010
84757578|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.50|0.0245
84612092|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.27|-4.88|
84757579|NCT00880399|169270909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 6||-0.75|-4.97|0.0082
84757580|NCT00880399|169270911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.19|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.19|0.80|0.51
84757581|NCT00880399|169270911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.3|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.30|0.84|0.37
84757582|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.55|-0.72|0.7859
84757583|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.49|-0.79|0.6429
84757584|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.26|-1.82|0.0092
84612093|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.82|-1.32|
84612094|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|1.87||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-5.89|
84612095|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.40|-2.41|
84612096|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.34||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.34|-2.44|
84612097|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.76|-1.98|
84612098|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.61||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.61|-3.16|
84612099|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|8.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.06|0.29|
84499439|NCT03985293|168750130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.2|-14.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.04|-34.20|<.0001
84499440|NCT03985293|168750130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|-14.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.97|-35.44|<.0001
84499441|NCT03985293|168750131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.7||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.78|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||4.38|-19.78|0.2940
84499442|NCT03985293|168750131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-23.77||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.37|-12.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-12.17|-35.37|0.0008
84587278|NCT02231580|168926953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.298|||=|0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.614|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.614|1.043|=0.0522
84612100|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-0.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-7.21|
84499443|NCT03985293|168750131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.05|-21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.40|-45.05|<.0001
84499444|NCT03985293|168750131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.14|-19.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-19.19|-44.14|<.0001
84612101|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.85||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.85|-6.25|
84612102|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.60|-5.63|
84757585|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.13|-1.69|0.0230
84757586|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.31|-2.27|0.0104
84499445|NCT03985293|168750131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.67|-20.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.51|-46.67|<.0001
84499446|NCT03985293|168750132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.12||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.77|-2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.47|-25.77|0.0464
84499447|NCT03985293|168750132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.05|-14.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.62|-37.05|0.0002
84499448|NCT03985293|168750132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.2|-20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.35|-43.20|<.0001
84757587|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.69|-2.67|0.0010
84587279|NCT02231580|168926953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.014|||=|0.9012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.229|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.837|=0.9012
84587280|NCT02231580|168926954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.198|||=|0.1779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.494|||MMRM|||Left finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.494|0.96|=0.1779
84587281|NCT02231580|168926954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.966|||=|0.8036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.22|||MMRM|||Right finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.220|0.765|=0.8036
84587282|NCT02231580|168926955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.812|||=|0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|0.935|||MMRM|||Left finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.935|0.706|=0.0177
84587283|NCT02231580|168926955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.967|||=|0.6491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.093|||MMRM|||Right finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.093|0.856|=0.6491
84587284|NCT02231580|168926956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.168|||=|0.6176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.955|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.955|0.697|=0.6176
84587285|NCT02231580|168926956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.759|||=|0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|1.399|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.399|0.411|=0.4541
84587286|NCT02231580|168926956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.119|||=|0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.294|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.294|0.967|=0.2018
84587287|NCT02231580|168926956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.046|||=|0.6527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.234|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.234|0.886|=0.6527
84587288|NCT02231580|168926957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.929|||=|0.8279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.529|1.63|||MMRM|||Left hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.630|0.529|=0.8279
84587289|NCT02231580|168926957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.612|||=|0.2738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|1.283|||MMRM|||Right hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.283|0.292|=0.2738
84587290|NCT02231580|168926957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.018|||=|0.9218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|1.378|||MMRM|||Left hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.378|0.752|=0.9218
84587291|NCT02231580|168926957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.847|||=|0.5032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.561|1.277|||MMRM|||Right hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.277|0.561|=0.5032
84757588|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.08|-2.37|0.0361
84757589|NCT00880399|169270912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.0092||95.0|-2.69|-0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.38|-2.69|0.0092
84757590|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.30|-1.74|0.1662
84587292|NCT02231580|168926958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.14|||=|0.6759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.917|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.917|0.677|=0.6759
84587293|NCT02231580|168926958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.815|||=|0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.444|1.496|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.496|0.444|=0.5764
84587294|NCT02231580|168926958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.115|||=|0.2127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.289|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.289|0.965|=0.2127
84587295|NCT02231580|168926958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.059|||=|0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.25|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.25|0.897|=0.5661
84587296|NCT02231580|168926959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.571|||=|0.0874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|2.424|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.424|1.018|=0.0874
84587297|NCT02231580|168926959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.18|||=|0.6431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|2.162|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.162|0.644|=0.6431
84587298|NCT02231580|168926959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.193|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.371|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.371|1.038|=0.0389
84587299|NCT02231580|168926959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.138|||=|0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.327|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.327|0.976|=0.1641
84587300|NCT02231580|168926960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.93|||=|0.5668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.755|1.147|||MMRM|||Left hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.147|0.755|=0.5668
84612103|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-5.02|
84612104|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-2.31||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.31|-10.07|
84612105|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.23|-6.60|
84612106|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|-6.64|
84612107|NCT01393639|168974452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.58||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.58|-6.16|
84757591|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.38|-1.69|0.2116
84757592|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.13|-2.17|0.0820
84757593|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.61|-1.71|0.3498
84757594|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.40|-2.99|0.0107
84587301|NCT02231580|168926960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.978|||=|0.8686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.229|||MMRM|||Right hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.778|=0.8686
84587302|NCT02231580|168926961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.879|||=|0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.009|||MMRM|||Left hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.009|0.765|=0.1244
84587303|NCT02231580|168926961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.919|||=|0.3535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|1.069|||MMRM|||Right hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.069|0.789|=0.3535
84587304|NCT02231580|168926962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.163|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.295|3.614|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.614|1.295|=0.015
84587305|NCT02231580|168926962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.274|||=|0.5136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|2.361|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.361|0.688|=0.5136
84587306|NCT02231580|168926962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.56|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.137|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.137|1.139|=0.0218
84587307|NCT02231580|168926962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.251|||=|0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.899|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.899|0.825|=0.3720
84587308|NCT02231580|168926963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.911|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|3.592|||MMRM|||Left foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.592|1.017|=0.915
84587309|NCT02231580|168926963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.687|||=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|3.737|||MMRM|||Right foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|0.762|=0.2745
84587310|NCT02231580|168926963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.598|||=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.608|||MMRM|||Left foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.608|0.980|=0.1148
84587311|NCT02231580|168926963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.454|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|2.679|||MMRM|||Right foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.679|0.789|=0.3080
84587312|NCT02231580|168926964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.272|||=|0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.381|3.737|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|1.381|=0.0079
84587313|NCT02231580|168926964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.21|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.133|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.133|0.686|=0.0204
84612108|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.83|
84757595|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.79|-3.40|0.0017
84757596|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.19|-2.78|0.0880
84587314|NCT02231580|168926964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.564|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|2.138|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.138|1.144|=0.0204
84587315|NCT02231580|168926964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.269|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.884|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.884|0.856|=0.3144
84587316|NCT02231580|168926965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.914|||=|0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.167|3.141|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.141|1.167|=0.0324
84587317|NCT02231580|168926965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.462|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.515|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.515|0.85|=0.246
84587318|NCT02231580|168926965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.387|||=|0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.935|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.935|0.994|=0.1057
84587319|NCT02231580|168926965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.074|||=|0.7342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.523|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.523|0.758|=0.7342
84587320|NCT02231580|168926966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.392|||=|0.1027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.943|||MMRM|||Left foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.943|0.997|=0.1027
84587321|NCT02231580|168926966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.158|||=|0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.595|||MMRM|||Right foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.595|0.840|=0.4494
84587322|NCT02231580|168926967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.699|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.922|||MMRM|||Left foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.922|0.530|=0.0350
84587323|NCT02231580|168926967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.853|||=|0.3556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.136|||MMRM|||Right foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.136|0.640|=0.3556
84612109|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.45|0.35|
84612110|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.70|3.54|
84757597|NCT00880399|169270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.18|-3.17|0.0282
84757598|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.44|-0.45|0.9854
84757599|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.23|-0.66|0.3476
84757600|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.94|0.0898
84587324|NCT03781570|168926968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|-0.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's method was used to estimate degrees of freedom for the mixed effects model.||Comparing placebo vs. control for thermal pain ratings with mixed effects models controlling for the stimulus intensity and the familial structure of the data.||-0.0441|-0.0648|<0.001
84587325|NCT01107496|168926970|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||12.00|1.00|0.0414
84587326|NCT01107496|168926971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 1 data.||7.00|0.00|0.0803
84587327|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 data.||1.00|-1.00|0.5308
84587328|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.2032
84587329|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0677
84587330|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0743
84587331|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0437
84587332|NCT01107496|168926972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.1209
84587333|NCT01107496|168926973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 2 data.||6.00|-4.00|0.6022
84587334|NCT01107496|168926973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 3 data.||1.00|-10.0|0.0794
84587335|NCT01107496|168926973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 4 data.||0.00|-10.0|0.0747
84757601|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.95|0.0928
84587336|NCT01107496|168926973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 5 data.||0.00|-12.0|0.0545
84587337|NCT01107496|168926974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||13.00|1.00|0.0349
84587338|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 1 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4038
84757602|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.28|-0.93|0.2937
84587339|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 2 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4460
84587340|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 3 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0549
84587341|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 4 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0759
84587342|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 5 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0342
84587343|NCT01107496|168926975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 6 data||||0.0474
84587344|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.06|2.9||||||||2.9|2.06|
84587345|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.69|2.1||||||||2.1|1.69|
84587346|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.66|3.54||||||||3.54|2.66|
84587347|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
84587348|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.14|2.65||||||||2.65|2.14|
84587349|NCT01346592|168926976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.72|3.62||||||||3.62|2.72|
84587350|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|5.48|12.69||||||||12.69|5.48|
84587351|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.58|6.55||||||||6.55|1.58|
84587352|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.72|14.92||||||||14.92|8.72|
84757603|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.02|-1.20|0.0587
84587353|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|10.3|18.13||||||||18.13|10.3|
84587354|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|4.47|10.14||||||||10.14|4.47|
84612111|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|7.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.26|2.19|
84612112|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.76|-0.39|
84612113|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|7.99||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.99|2.83|
84612114|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.65||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.65|-1.08|
84612115|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.28|1.52|
84612116|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|9.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.07|3.33|
84612117|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.55||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.55|0.85|
84612118|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.47||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.47|0.74|
84612119|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.04|3.29|
84612120|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.09|-6.27|
84612121|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|0.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-5.07|
84612122|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.30|-1.88|
84612123|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-3.23|
84672880|NCT02346240|169081840|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.12|73.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||73.63|55.12|
84757604|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.23|-1.14|0.1950
84587355|NCT01346592|168926977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.11|14.1||||||||14.1|8.11|
84587356|NCT01346592|168926978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|Group ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.62|0.93||||||||0.93|0.62|
84587357|NCT01346592|168926978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.68|0.86||||||||0.86|0.68|
84587358|NCT01346592|168926978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.8|1.11||||||||1.11|0.8|
84587359|NCT01346592|168926979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-10.13|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-10.13|
84587360|NCT01346592|168926979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-6.16|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.16|
84587361|NCT01346592|168926979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-7.01|2.0||||||||2|-7.01|
84587362|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|4.6||||||Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||4.6|2.86|
84587363|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|2.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.59|1.96|
84587364|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
84587365|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||6.7|4.16|
84587366|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|3.56||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.56|2.69|
84587367|NCT01346592|168926980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
84587368|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|14.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||14.7|6.1|
84612124|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-1.5||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.50|-7.26|
84612125|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.12|-4.65|
84499449|NCT03985293|168750132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.03|-15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.01|-39.03|0.0002
84499450|NCT03985293|168750132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.63|-20.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.84|-45.63|<.0001
84587369|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.1|-0.12|
84587370|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|16.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||16.7|8.9|
84587371|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|22.6||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||22.6|12.9|
84587372|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||8.7|2.5|
84587373|NCT01346592|168926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|23.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||23.1|14.4|
84587374|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.75||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.75|2.07|
84587375|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.06||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.06|1.72|
84587376|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.3|2.6|
84587377|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|3.71||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.71|2.79|
84587378|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.62||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.62|2.19|
84587379|NCT01346592|168926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.47||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.47|2.73|
84757605|NCT00880399|169270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.00|-1.40|0.0498
84757606|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||6.40|0.72|0.1731
84612126|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.91|-2.84|
84612127|NCT01393639|168974454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.39||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.39|-5.33|
84612128|NCT00183625|168974469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
84612129|NCT00183625|168974470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-value listed is for the medication by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression of body mass index on medication group (risp or olanz), time (in days over first 18 months of study) and a group by time interaction with site and baseline timepoint indicators as covariates. The model included a random slope and intercept for time.||||.0176
84612130|NCT01009086|168974533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612131|NCT01009086|168974533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612132|NCT01009086|168974533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612133|NCT01009086|168974534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612134|NCT01009086|168974534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612135|NCT01009086|168974534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612136|NCT01009086|168974535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612137|NCT01009086|168974535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612138|NCT01009086|168974535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84587380|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||12.4|6.3|
84612139|NCT01009086|168974536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612140|NCT01009086|168974536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84672881|NCT02346240|169081840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.952|324.094||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.094|17.952|<0.0001
84612141|NCT01009086|168974536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612142|NCT01009086|168974537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612143|NCT01009086|168974537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612144|NCT01009086|168974537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612145|NCT01009086|168974538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
84612146|NCT01009086|168974538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612147|NCT01009086|168974538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84612148|NCT01424228|168974539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
84612149|NCT03037983|168974563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.849
84612150|NCT03037983|168974565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 0.287|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
84612151|NCT01399866|168974572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.574
84612152|NCT01399866|168974572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
84612153|NCT01399866|168974573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.94
84612154|NCT01399866|168974574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.818
84612155|NCT01399866|168974575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.123
84612156|NCT01399866|168974576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.473
84612157|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.39||p-value adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||5.39|0.92|0.03
84757607|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.77||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||2.97|0.20|0.7084
84757608|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||5.98|1.13|0.0247
84757609|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||4.30|0.75|0.1862
84499451|NCT03985293|168750133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.06||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.44|-0.33|0.8011
84499452|NCT03985293|168750133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.35|0.9149
84499453|NCT03985293|168750133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.30|-0.46|0.7216
84499454|NCT03985293|168750133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-0.80|0.0758
84499455|NCT03985293|168750133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-0.77|0.0860
84499456|NCT03985293|168750134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.42|-0.59|0.7898
84499457|NCT03985293|168750134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.16||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.66|-0.33|0.5829
84587381|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.9|1.8|
84587382|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.3|8.1|
84499458|NCT03985293|168750134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-1.02|0.0827
84499459|NCT03985293|168750134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.29|-1.31|0.0101
84587383|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|17.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||17.7|11.1|
84587384|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower bound of 95% CI of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||9.1|4.5|
84499460|NCT03985293|168750134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-1.59|0.0004
84499461|NCT03985293|168750135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.55|-0.75|0.7985
84499462|NCT03985293|168750135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.86|0.5484
84499463|NCT03985293|168750135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.11|-1.38|0.0541
84499464|NCT03985293|168750135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.95|-2.26|<.0001
84499465|NCT03985293|168750135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.60|-2.90|<.0001
84499466|NCT03985293|168750136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.31||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.03|-0.40|0.4692
84499467|NCT03985293|168750136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.09||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.78|-0.60|0.8274
84499468|NCT03985293|168750136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-1.42|0.0887
84499469|NCT03985293|168750136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.88|-2.33|0.0003
84499470|NCT03985293|168750136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.22|-3.67|<.0001
84499471|NCT03985293|168750137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.99|-0.70|0.7758
84499472|NCT03985293|168750137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.23||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.05|-0.58|0.6367
84499473|NCT03985293|168750137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.81||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.02|-1.63|0.1082
84499474|NCT03985293|168750137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.42|-3.14|<.0001
84499475|NCT03985293|168750137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.70|-4.44|<.0001
84499476|NCT03985293|168750138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.45||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.41|-0.50|0.4325
84499477|NCT03985293|168750138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.30|-0.54|0.4978
84757610|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||3.61|0.97|0.0630
84757611|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.23|0.85|0.1413
84587385|NCT01346592|168926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|13.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.4|8.3|
84587386|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.12||||||No risk subjects.||3.12|2.3|
84587387|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.05||||||No risk subjects.||2.05|1.7|
84587388|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.44||||||No risk subjects.||3.44|2.68|
84587389|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.42||||||At risk subjects.||4.42|1.11|
84587390|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.72||||||At risk subjects.||3.72|1.61|
84587391|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|6.34||||||At risk subjects||6.34|1.88|
84587392|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratios (H1N1 strain)|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.1||||||No risk subjects.||4.1|3.03|
84587393|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.59||||||No risk subjects.||2.59|2.15|
84587394|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|3.56||||||No risk subjects.||3.56|2.78|
84587395|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.68||||||At risk subjects.||5.68|1.28|
84587396|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.06||||||At risk subjects.||5.06|2.09|
84587397|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.3||||||At risk subjects.||5.3|1.44|
84587398|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.34|
84587399|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.28||||||No risk subjects.||2.28|1.83|
84587400|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.34||||||No risk subjects||4.34|3.22|
84757612|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.37|0.93|0.0806
84757613|NCT00880399|169270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.53||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||2.92|0.80|0.2007
84757614|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2523
84757615|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2639
84757616|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.17|-0.58|0.0004
84757617|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.02|-0.43|0.0348
84757618|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.06|-0.62|0.0166
84757619|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.18|-0.75|0.0014
84587401|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.0||||||At risk subjects.||6|0.92|
84587402|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.45||||||At risk subjects.||5.45|1.57|
84587403|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|12.0||||||At risk subjects||12|2.52|
84587404|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.39||||||No risk subjects.||4.39|3.05|
84587405|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.99||||||No risk subjects||2.99|2.4|
84587406|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.61||||||No risk subjects.||4.61|3.42|
84587407|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.31||||||At risk subjects.||7.31|1.02|
84587408|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.62||||||At risk subjects.||6.62|1.85|
84587409|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|12.0||||||At risk subjects.||12|2.32|
84587410|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.97||||||No risk subjects.||1.97|1.21|
84612158|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.2||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.20|-0.24|0.40
84587411|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.82||||||No risk subjects||1.82|1.26|
84587412|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.38||||||No risk subjects||2.38|1.52|
84587413|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.4||||||At risk subjects||5.4|0.57|
84644315|NCT03758755|169024474|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee extension between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee extension over time.||||0.049
84587414|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.89||||||At risk subjects||2.89|1.09|
84587415|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.54||||||At risk subjects||4.54|0.73|
84587416|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.05||||||No risk subjects||3.05|1.89|
84587417|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.85||||||No risk subjects.||1.85|1.29|
84757620|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.11|-0.79|0.0099
84757621|NCT00880399|169270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.14|-0.83|0.0059
84587418|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.11||||||No risk subjects||2.11|1.36|
84587419|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.71||||||At risk subjects.||7.71|0.58|
84587420|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.89||||||At risk subjects||4.89|1.61|
84587421|NCT01346592|168926988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.67||||||At risk subjects||3.67|0.37|
84587422|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||No risk subjects.||12|5.4|
84587423|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.6||||||No risk subjects.||6.6|1.8|
84587424|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|14.8||||||No risk subjects.||14.8|9.2|
84587425|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|18.7||||||At risk subjects.||18.7|-24|
84587426|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.9||||||At risk subjects.||18.9|-21.2|
84587427|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|29.5||||||At risk subjects.||29.5|-1.6|
84587428|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|17.7||||||No risk subjects.||17.7|10.7|
84587429|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects.||9.8|4.6|
84612159|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.0||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.00|-0.48|0.49
84612160|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.85||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.85|-3.63|0.60
84587430|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|16.4||||||No risk subjects||16.4|10.7|
84644316|NCT00604214|169024573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.283||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The study was planned to have 80% power to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in drotrecogin alpha (activated) compared to placebo. The final power was 75% because of the lower than anticipated placebo mortality.||1.283|0.923|0.313
84644317|NCT00604214|169024574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.173|0.737|0.540
84587431|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|19.2||||||At risk subjects.||19.2|-26.1|
84587432|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3||||||At risk subjects.||27.3|-17.5|
84587433|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.2||||||At risk subjects.||29.2|-4.4|
84587434|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|14.5||||||No risk subjects.||14.5|7.2|
84587435|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.5||||||No risk subjects.||7.5|2.6|
84587436|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|15.8||||||No risk subjects.||15.8|9.5|
84757622|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.08|-2.04|0.5473
84757623|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.60|-1.56|0.9814
84757624|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.01|-3.03|0.0515
84757625|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.96|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.96|-2.09|0.4680
84757626|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.55|-2.98|0.1757
84757627|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.63|-2.93|0.2048
84757628|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.20|-4.12|0.0312
84587437|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|26.3||||||At risk subjects.||26.3|-24.7|
84757629|NCT00880399|169270917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.37|-4.31|0.0202
84757630|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|29.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 1||29.28|-20.38|0.7246
84757631|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.36||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|52.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 1||52.52|2.20|0.0332
84757632|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.12||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|34.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 2||34.41|-18.18|0.5439
84757633|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.52||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|39.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 2||39.85|-12.80|0.3127
84587438|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|30.3||||||At risk subjects.||30.3|-26.9|
84587439|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|27.1||||||At risk subjects.||27.1|-16.9|
84587440|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|20.2||||||No risk subjects.||20.2|12.4|
84587441|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.5||||||No risk subjects||10.5|5.1|
84757634|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.51||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|11.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 4||11.89|-46.90|0.2419
84757635|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|21.11||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|50.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 4||50.64|-8.43|0.1606
84757636|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48||||0.7412||95.0|-22.21|31.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 6||31.16|-22.21|0.7412
84757637|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|38.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 6||38.14|-15.19|0.3974
84757638|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.52||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.83|3.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 1||3.79|-26.83|0.1397
84757639|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-8.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 1||-8.41|-39.40|0.0026
84757640|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|7.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 2||7.50|-22.85|0.3206
84757641|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-9.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 2||-9.49|-39.86|0.0015
84757642|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.71||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 4||6.28|-27.70|0.2157
84757643|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.31||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|1.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 4||1.75|-32.37|0.0784
84757644|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.84||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 6||20.78|-7.09|0.3345
84757645|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|10.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 6||10.70|-17.19|0.6471
84757646|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|21.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 1||21.75|-16.95|0.8071
84757647|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|10.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 1||10.52|-29.11|0.3564
84757648|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|4.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 2||4.28|-36.00|0.1220
84612161|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.01||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||2.01|-2.44|0.85
84757649|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.25||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|-2.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 2||-2.01|-42.49|0.0313
84612162|NCT00235716|168974596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.39||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.39|-1.04|0.60
84612163|NCT00235716|168974597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||p- value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons because its a 3 degrees of freedom test for any treatment group differences|Log Rank|3 degrees of freedom test||||||0.69
84612164|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.92||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.92|-0.54|0.84
84612165|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.84||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.84|-0.61|0.84
84612166|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.1||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.10|-0.36|0.84
84612167|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.84||95.0|-0.56|0.9||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.90|-0.56|0.84
84612168|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.98|-0.47|0.84
84612169|NCT00235716|168974598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.8||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.80|-0.65|0.84
84612170|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.33||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.33|-3.28|0.10
84757650|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|31.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 4||31.76|-27.45|0.8861
84757651|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|28.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 4||28.53|-31.87|0.9132
84757652|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.55|25.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||25.37|-33.55|0.7844
84757653|NCT00880399|169270918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|33.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||33.14|-27.33|0.8497
84757654|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.39|-0.83|0.4814
84757655|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.79|-0.47|0.6179
84757656|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.21|-0.44|0.5022
84587442|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.6||||||No risk subjects||18.6|12|
84587443|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|25.5||||||At risk subjects||25.5|-27.1|
84587444|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|37.2||||||At risk subjects||37.2|-23.5|
84587445|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|38.0||||||At risk subjects.||38|-10.7|
84587446|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.4||||||No risk subjects.||10.4|-4.2|
84587447|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 subjects)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.9||||||No risk subjects.||11.9|-1.2|
84587448|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1||||||No risk subjects.||15.1|2.9|
84587449|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.0||||||At risk subjects.||32|-42.4|
84587450|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|16.6||||||At risk subjects.||16.6|-41.2|
84587451|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|53.9||||||At risk subjects.||53.9|-7.1|
84587452|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.4||||||No risk subjects.||16.4|1|
84587453|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|2|
84587454|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|0|
84587455|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|43.0||||||At risk subjects.||43|-42.1|
84587456|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|28.7||||||At risk subjects||28.7|-41.5|
84587457|NCT01346592|168926989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|36.8||||||At risk subjects.||36.8|-29|
84587458|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|12.8||||||No risk subjects.||12.8|6.4|
84587459|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.4||||||No risk subjects.||6.4|1.8|
84587460|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|13.9||||||No risk subjects.||13.9|8.6|
84587461|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|14.9||||||At risk subjects.||14.9|-24.7|
84587462|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.7||||||At risk subjects.||20.7|-14.4|
84587463|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-6.8|
84587464|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.1||||||No risk subjects.||18.1|11.3|
84587465|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1||||||No risk subjects.||9.1|4.2|
84587466|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|10.5|
84757657|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.08|-0.57|0.1389
84587467|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|15.4||||||At risk subjects||15.4|-25.3|
84587468|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.2||||||At risk subjects.||24.2|-12.7|
84587469|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group differences (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|23.2||||||At risk subjects.||23.2|-7.8|
84587470|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|8.2|
84587471|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.4||||||No risk subjects.||7.4|2.5|
84587472|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|9.2|
84587473|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
84587474|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
84587475|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|19.7||||||At risk subjects.||19.7|-20.7|
84587476|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|20.1||||||No risk subjects.||20.1|12.6|
84587477|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects||9.8|4.6|
84612171|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.07|-2.85|0.25
84587478|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.3||||||No risk subjects.||18.3|11.9|
84587479|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
84587480|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
84587481|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|29.3||||||At risk subjects.||29.3|-14|
84587482|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.5||||||No risk subjects.||9.5|-3.8|
84587483|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|-1.8|
84644318|NCT00604214|169024575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
84757658|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.38|-0.36|0.9663
84587484|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||||||No risk subjects.||12.5|1.5|
84587485|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.9||||||At risk subjects.||27.9|-40.7|
84644319|NCT00604214|169024576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.733
84757659|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.09|-0.67|0.1311
84757660|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.10|-0.73|0.1362
84757661|NCT00880399|169270919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.05|-0.91|0.0275
84612172|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.17||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.17|-3.12|0.14
84612173|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-1.32|0.84
84612174|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.21|-1.72|0.84
84612175|NCT00235716|168974599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.06||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.06|-1.88|0.84
84612176|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.63|-3.55|0.94
84612177|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.7||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.70|-2.47|0.94
84612178|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-2.57|0.94
84612179|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.07|-1.09|0.94
84612180|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.99|-2.16|0.94
84612181|NCT00235716|168974600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.99|-3.14|0.94
84644320|NCT00604214|169024577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.122
84644321|NCT00604214|169024578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.042||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.193||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.193|0.909|0.556
84757662|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.06|-0.02|0.0606
84757663|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.24|0.15|0.0132
84757664|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.50|0.38|0.0010
84757665|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.40|0.28|0.0034
84757666|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.72|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 4||0.72|-0.47|0.6692
84587486|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|14.3||||||At risk subjects.||14.3|-38.4|
84587487|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|48.1||||||At risk subjects.||48.1|-7.9|
84587488|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|18.5||||||No risk subjects.||18.5|3|
84587489|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.6||||||No risk subjects.||15.6|2.2|
84587490|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.6||||||No risk subjects.||9.6|0|
84587491|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|35.0||||||At risk subjects.||35|-41.7|
84587492|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-38.6|
84587493|NCT01346592|168926990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|31.0||||||At risk subjects.||31|-26.9|
84587494|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.76||||||No risk subjects.||2.76|1.91|
84587495|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.89||||||No risk subjects.||1.89|1.35|
84587496|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.31||||||No risk subjects.||3.31|2.57|
84587497|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.93||||||At risk subjects.||3.93|0.6|
84587498|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.61||||||At risk subjects.||4.61|0.89|
84587499|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.67||||||At risk subjects.||4.67|1.34|
84587500|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.01||||||No risk subjects.||4.01|2.77|
84587501|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||||||No risk subjects||2.45|1.75|
84587502|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|3.49||||||No risk subjects||3.49|2.72|
84587503|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.5||||||At risk subjects.||4.5|0.65|
84587504|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|7.51||||||At risk subjects.||7.51|1.38|
84587505|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.98||||||At risk subjects.||3.98|1.1|
84587506|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.21||||||No risk subjects.||3.21|2.1|
84587507|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.52||||||No risk subjects.||2.52|1.71|
84587508|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.33||||||No risk subjects.||4.33|3.22|
84757667|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.42|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 4||1.42|0.22|0.0078
84757668|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.30|0.02|0.0440
84499478|NCT03985293|168750138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.73||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.20|-1.66|0.1970
84499479|NCT03985293|168750138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.04||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.07|-3.01|0.0006
84499480|NCT03985293|168750138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-3.18|-5.15|<.0001
84587509|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
84587510|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.66||||||At risk subjects.||8.66|0.94|
84587511|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
84587512|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.54||||||No risk subjects.||4.54|2.97|
84587513|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.29|
84587514|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.65||||||No risk subjects.||4.65|3.46|
84587515|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
84587516|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|13.0||||||At risk subjects.||13|1.43|
84612182|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.79||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.23||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.23|-3.35|0.12
84644322|NCT00604214|169024579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.16||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.898|0.758
84499481|NCT01211613|168750176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Oswestry change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (primary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Oswestry score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.009
84499482|NCT01211613|168750177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Numeric pain change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (secondary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Numeric pain score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.002
84499483|NCT01020773|168750178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84499484|NCT03853213|168750179|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|2.54||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|16.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is adjusted using the Satterthwaite correction due to unequal variances between the two groups.|A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater reduction in the measure for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||16.71|-11.62|0.698
84587517|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.15||||||At risk subjects.||8.15|1.67|
84587518|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.04||||||No risk subjects.||2.04|0.89|
84587519|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.22||||||No risk subjects.||2.22|1.14|
84587520|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||No risk subjects.||2.15|1.3|
84644323|NCT00604214|169024581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.788
84644324|NCT00604214|169024581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
84757669|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.41|0.13|0.0181
84757670|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 1||0.92|-0.14|0.1484
84757671|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 1||1.24|0.16|0.0108
84757672|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.0361||95.0|0.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.16|0.04|0.0361
84587521|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|10.0||||||At risk subjects.||10|0.29|
84587522|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.01||||||At risk subjects.||4.01|0.33|
84587523|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.94||||||At risk subjects.||3.94|0.53|
84587524|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.39||||||No risk subjects||3.39|1.48|
84587525|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.46||||||No risk subjects.||2.46|1.26|
84587526|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.04||||||No risk subjects||2.04|1.24|
84587527|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|18.0||||||At risk subjects.||18|0.34|
84587528|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.92||||||At risk subjects.||7.92|0.49|
84587529|NCT01346592|168926991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.16||||||At risk subjects.||2.16|0.23|
84587530|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|4.95||||||GMTs were considered to be statistically significantly higher if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.95|3.34|
84757673|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.15|0.02|0.0418
84757674|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 4||0.58|-0.64|0.9305
84587531|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.18||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio is \>1.0||2.18|1.74|
84587532|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.39||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.39|1.73|
84587533|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.82||||||95.0|3.14|4.64||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.64|3.14|
84587534|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.68||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.68|2.15|
84587535|NCT01346592|168926994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.29||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.29|1.65|
84757675|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 4||1.39|0.16|0.0141
84757676|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.31|-0.02|0.0562
84757677|NCT00880399|169270920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.40|0.07|0.0296
84757678|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||4.61|-0.21|0.0735
84757679|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.86|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||3.86|-1.17|0.2905
84757680|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||3.70|-1.60|0.4327
84757681|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||3.75|-1.73|0.4642
84672882|NCT02346240|169081840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.135|233.782||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||233.782|13.135|<0.0001
84672883|NCT02346240|169081841|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.59|64.35|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.35|45.59|
84757682|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||4.23|-1.26|0.2850
84757683|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.59|-2.08|0.5984
84757684|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||4.19|-1.76|0.4192
84757685|NCT00880399|169270924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.71|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.71|-2.42|0.6766
84757686|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.25|-1.26|0.9951
84757687|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.34|-1.17|0.8940
84757688|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||1.28|-1.61|0.8195
84587536|NCT04569084|168927006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.777
84587537|NCT04569084|168927007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.169
84587538|NCT00964678|168927012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
84587539|NCT00964678|168927013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
84587540|NCT00964678|168927014|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84587541|NCT00964678|168927015|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84587542|NCT02964377|168927072|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
84587543|NCT02964377|168927072|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0075
84587544|NCT02964377|168927072|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0083
84587545|NCT02964377|168927073|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0127
84587546|NCT02964377|168927073|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0202
84587547|NCT02964377|168927073|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84587548|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
84587549|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
84587550|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
84587551|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
84587552|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
84587553|NCT02964377|168927074|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
84587554|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.002
84587555|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.001
84587556|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587557|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587558|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587559|NCT02964377|168927077|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587560|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587561|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587562|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587563|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587564|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84757689|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||2.05|-0.84|0.4106
84757690|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||1.85|-1.71|0.9403
84499485|NCT03853213|168750180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||A lower value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates lower extent of medication nonadherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|Note that the measure of extent of medication nonadherence used the older 5-item version of the scale rather than the newer 3-item version of the scale because the IRB modification to change the measure took effect after the majority of participants who provided data for Visit 2 had completed the measure.||1.24|-9.00|0.123
84587565|NCT02964377|168927078|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84757691|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||1.20|-2.36|0.5206
84587566|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587567|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587568|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587569|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84757692|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||1.58|-2.30|0.7140
84499486|NCT03853213|168750181|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|66.29||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3081.7|3214.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3214.3|-3081.7|0.965
84587570|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84757693|NCT00880399|169270925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.22|0.0234
84757694|NCT03045861|169270947|OTHER||Emax|-1.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.333|1.31||||||||1.310|-2.333|
84587571|NCT02964377|168927079|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587572|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.012
84587573|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587574|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
84587575|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.01
84757695|NCT03045861|169270947|OTHER||ED50|1020.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.786|1940.724||||||||1940.724|100.786|
84757696|NCT03045861|169270947|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.306||||||||0.306|0.095|
84757697|NCT03045861|169270948|OTHER||Emax|-1.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|-1.283||||||||-1.283|-2.319|
84757698|NCT03045861|169270948|OTHER||ED50|55.572|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.565|107.579||||||||107.579|3.565|
84757699|NCT03045861|169270948|OTHER||s2e|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.314||||||||0.314|0.097|
84757700|NCT03045861|169270949|OTHER||Emax|-1.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|-1.34||||||||-1.340|-2.352|
84612183|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.94||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.94|-1.18|0.86
84644325|NCT00604214|169024581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.662
84644326|NCT00604214|169024581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.846
84757701|NCT03045861|169270949|OTHER||ED50|32.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.687|60.143||||||||60.143|4.687|
84757702|NCT03045861|169270949|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.305||||||||0.305|0.094|
84587576|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587577|NCT02964377|168927080|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
84587578|NCT02964377|168927082|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.01
84587579|NCT02964377|168927082|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.019
84587580|NCT02964377|168927082|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.001
84587581|NCT02964377|168927082|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.05
84587582|NCT02964377|168927083|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.054||||||p-value for difference at Week 4|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.054
84587583|NCT02964377|168927083|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.009
84587584|NCT02964377|168927084|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.025
84587585|NCT02964377|168927084|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.026
84757703|NCT02933034|169270959|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of infarct size using MEMRI versus DEMRI scan||||0.001
84757704|NCT01549275|169270983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cells between two groups.||||< 0.005
84587586|NCT02964377|168927085|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.006
84587587|NCT02964377|168927085|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.002
84587588|NCT01168596|168927094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.73|||Regression, Linear|||||11.73|-9.13|0.81
84587589|NCT01168596|168927095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|11.51|||Regression, Linear|||||11.51|-2.75|0.23
84587590|NCT01168596|168927096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|11.59|||Regression, Linear|||||11.59|-8.37|0.75
84587591|NCT01168596|168927097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|7.94|||Regression, Linear|||||7.94|-4.18|0.54
84587592|NCT01168596|168927098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|7.43|||Regression, Linear|||||7.43|-17.76|0.42
84587593|NCT01168596|168927099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||Regression, Linear|||||1.29|-0.56|0.44
84587594|NCT01168596|168927100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|22.13|||Regression, Linear|||||22.13|-17.59|0.82
84587595|NCT01168596|168927101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|9.85|||Regression, Linear|||||9.85|-19.31|0.52
84587596|NCT01168596|168927102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||||2.36|-2.15|0.93
84587597|NCT01168596|168927103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.83|||Regression, Linear|||||0.83|-1.05|0.82
84757705|NCT01549275|169270983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured HCC cells with or without concomitant cancer-associated fibroblasts between two groups.||||< 0.005
84757706|NCT01549275|169270983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cancer-associated fibroblasts alone between two groups.||||> 0.1
84587598|NCT01168596|168927104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.69|||Regression, Linear|||||10.69|-19.74|0.56
84587599|NCT01168596|168927105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|3.59|||Regression, Linear|||||3.59|-8.02|0.45
84644327|NCT00604214|169024582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.697
84644328|NCT00604214|169024582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.306
84644329|NCT00604214|169024582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.645
84644330|NCT00604214|169024582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.690
84757707|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||1
84612184|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.42||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.42|-1.70|0.86
84757708|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.032
84757709|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.048
84612185|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.19|0.11|0.14
84757710|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.176
84757711|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative HCC cultured cells.||||0.021
84757712|NCT01549275|169270984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.129
84644331|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.482
84757713|NCT03448068|169270985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84757714|NCT03448068|169270986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2252
84757715|NCT03448068|169270987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0610
84757716|NCT03448068|169270988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2720
84644332|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.584
84757717|NCT03448068|169270989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7298|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 1st 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.7298
84757718|NCT03448068|169270989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1058|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.1058
84757719|NCT03448068|169270989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 24 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||1.000
84757720|NCT03448068|169270990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84757721|NCT02819635|169271014|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|8.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||16.8|0.0|0.049
84757722|NCT02819635|169271014|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||23.8|3.3|0.010
84757723|NCT02819635|169271014|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||23.9|3.8|0.007
84757724|NCT02819635|169271014|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|33.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||33.6|8.6|<0.001
84612186|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.02||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.02|-2.07|0.86
84612187|NCT00235716|168974601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.63|-3.71|0.03
84612188|NCT00235716|168974602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for vitamin E group relative to the placebo group.|||1.13|0.67|0.31
84612189|NCT00235716|168974602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.24|0.91|0.47
84612190|NCT00235716|168974602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the vitamin E + memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.54|0.57|0.80
84499487|NCT03853213|168750182|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-6.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in context sensitivity for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||5.81|-18.15|0.290
84499488|NCT03853213|168750183|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-5.07||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|8.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in future time perspective for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||8.38|-18.51|0.434
84587600|NCT01168596|168927106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|12.55|||Regression, Linear|||||12.55|-7.02|0.58
84757725|NCT02819635|169271015|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||27.4|15.8|<0.001
84499489|NCT03853213|168750184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.05||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|53.17|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates a lower extent of objectively measured medication adherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|||53.17|-19.07|0.293
84587601|NCT01168596|168927107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-1.04|0.95
84612191|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.61|122.13||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||122.13|90.61|
84612192|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|65.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.62|76.37||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||76.37|56.62|
84499490|NCT03302299|168750187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.71||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR for participants with moderate alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||2.71|0.94|<0.01
84644333|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.164
84757726|NCT02819635|169271016|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|39.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||39.8|21.7|<0.001
84587602|NCT01168596|168927108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.45|0.48
84587603|NCT01168596|168927109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||||0.58|-0.71|0.84
84587604|NCT01168596|168927110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.76|||Regression, Linear|||||1.76|-0.77|0.44
84644334|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.666
84644335|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.786
84587605|NCT01168596|168927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|-2.06|0.71
84757727|NCT02819635|169271016|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|48.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||48.2|29.7|<0.001
84587606|NCT01168596|168927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||||1.90|-0.62|0.31
84587607|NCT01168596|168927113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.56|||Regression, Linear|||||1.56|-1.68|0.94
84587608|NCT00123630|168927129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84587609|NCT00710593|168927138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|97.5||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|86.8|0.1613
84587610|NCT00710593|168927139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.8||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|89.0|0.0534
84587611|NCT00710593|168927140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|99.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.5|86.5|0.0427
84587612|NCT00710593|168927141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|92.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||97.5|83.4|0.0006
84587613|NCT00710593|168927142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|49.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group A during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
84587614|NCT00710593|168927142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|46.7||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group B during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
84587615|NCT00710593|168927150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|7.9||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.||||||1.000
84587616|NCT00710593|168927151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587617|NCT00710593|168927152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|2.0||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587618|NCT00710593|168927153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|4.5||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587619|NCT00710593|168927154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587620|NCT00710593|168927155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquistion rate|3.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84644336|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.160
84587621|NCT00710593|168927156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|6.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587622|NCT00710593|168927157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.1||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84587623|NCT00710593|168927158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.02|0.0004
84587624|NCT00710593|168927159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.0|0.0012
84587625|NCT00710593|168927160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84587626|NCT00189423|168927180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Fisher Exact|||||2.36|1.07|0.019
84587627|NCT00189423|168927181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 5%||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value is for non-inferiority with a margin of 5% (exact binomial test)|Fisher Exact test, for non-inferiority|||||||0.0001
84587628|NCT00189423|168927181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
84587629|NCT00189423|168927187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84587630|NCT05093621|168927205|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mortality at 1 year||||1.000
84587631|NCT05093621|168927206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
84587632|NCT05093621|168927207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
84644337|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.696
84757728|NCT02819635|169271017|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||25.0|1.2|0.030
84757729|NCT02819635|169271017|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|42.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||42.1|13.1|<0.001
84757730|NCT02819635|169271017|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|40.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||40.8|12.3|<0.001
84757731|NCT02819635|169271017|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|51.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||51.7|19.2|<0.001
84757732|NCT02819635|169271018|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|20.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||20.4|1.7|0.021
84757733|NCT02819635|169271018|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||18.0|1.3|0.024
84757734|NCT02819635|169271018|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||22.0|2.3|0.015
84757735|NCT02819635|169271018|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|20.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|8.0|0.001
84757736|NCT02819635|169271019|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|16.7||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||32.5|0.9|0.038
84757737|NCT02819635|169271019|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|52.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.8|17.5|<0.001
84587633|NCT05093621|168927208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.873
84587634|NCT04752566|168927296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.97||Log Rank Test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization strata, with treatment group as the fixed effect. Firth's adjustment was applied if no event was observed in a treatment group.|||1.97|0.45|0.8938
84587635|NCT04752566|168927297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.17|0.27|0.8987
84587636|NCT04752566|168927297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.02|0.18|0.4083
84587637|NCT04752566|168927298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.24|0.6739
84757738|NCT02819635|169271019|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|50.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.8|16.3|<0.001
84757739|NCT02819635|169271019|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|63.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||63.9|26.2|<0.001
84757740|NCT02819635|169271020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|22.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||22.9|-11.1|0.495
84587638|NCT03331354|168927306|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.87|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.016
84587639|NCT03331354|168927307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Initial interview scores were used as control in the ANCOVA||||||.008
84587640|NCT03331354|168927308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Change in confidence was evaluated using time one as a covariate.||||||.99
84587641|NCT03331354|168927308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Interview scores at enrollment were used as a covariate||||||.99
84587642|NCT03331354|168927309|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Pearson Correlation|||This post-hoc analysis was performed on only the COMPASS group to determine the association between percent of the online system completed and change in interview scores||||<.001
84587643|NCT00928668|168927329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.657|0.657|<0.0001
84612193|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|107.27||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||107.27|82.51|
84612194|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|127.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|170.45||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||170.45|94.89|
84757741|NCT02819635|169271020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|15.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|33.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||33.4|-1.6|0.074
84587644|NCT00928668|168927329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.217|1.205|<0.0001
84587645|NCT00928668|168927329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.952|2.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.935|1.952|<0.0001
84587646|NCT00928668|168927329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.483|2.486|<0.0001
84587647|NCT00928668|168927330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.645|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.633|1.645|<0.0001
84587648|NCT00928668|168927330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|3.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.136|2.135|<0.0001
84587649|NCT00928668|168927330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.074|4.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.046|3.074|<0.0001
84587650|NCT00928668|168927330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|4.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.717|3.731|<0.0001
84587651|NCT00928668|168927331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|2.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.613|1.437|<0.0001
84587652|NCT00928668|168927331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.975|1.785|<0.0001
84587653|NCT00928668|168927331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.971|4.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.127|2.971|<0.0001
84587654|NCT00928668|168927331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|4.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.794|3.622|<0.0001
84612195|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|82.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.34|110.3||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||110.30|61.34|
84612196|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|120.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.18|155.73||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||155.73|93.18|
84612197|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|159.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.89|185.37||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||185.37|137.89|
84612198|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.79|151.32||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||151.32|110.79|
84612199|NCT02249182|168974612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|187.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.41|245.82||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||245.82|143.41|
84612200|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.08|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.080|0.871|
84587655|NCT00928668|168927332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.492|1.322|<0.0001
84587656|NCT00928668|168927332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|3.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.066|1.822|<0.0001
84587657|NCT00928668|168927332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.752|3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||3.902|2.752|<0.0001
84644338|NCT00604214|169024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.966
84644339|NCT00604214|169024584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||P-value is for participants with ≥1 event. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84644340|NCT00604214|169024585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
84644341|NCT01931670|169024628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84644342|NCT01931670|169024628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84587658|NCT00928668|168927332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|4.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.803|3.637|<0.0001
84587659|NCT00928668|168927333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.766|0.692|<0.0001
84612201|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.070|0.863|
84612202|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.103|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.103|0.890|
84612203|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.097|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.097|0.866|
84612204|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.988|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.988|0.780|
84612205|NCT00148941|168974632|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.014|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.014|0.800|
84612206|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.063|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.063|0.828|
84672884|NCT02346240|169081841|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.39|54.49|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.49|35.39|
84672885|NCT02346240|169081841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.717|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.741|170.198||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.198|9.741|<0.0001
84672886|NCT02346240|169081841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.504|113.453||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||113.453|6.504|<0.0001
84587660|NCT00928668|168927333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.281|2.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.369|1.281|<0.0001
84672887|NCT02346240|169081842|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.22|63.41|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||63.41|34.22|
84587661|NCT00928668|168927333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.578|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.650|1.578|<0.0001
84587662|NCT00928668|168927333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.181|2.110|<0.0001
84587663|NCT02038647|168927339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.067||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.067|0.557|0.113
84587664|NCT02038647|168927341|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.341||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.341|0.652|0.714
84587665|NCT02038647|168927342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.55||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using ORR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.55|0.35|0.406
84587666|NCT02038647|168927343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9999.99||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using CRR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||9999.99|0.01|0.283
84587667|NCT02038647|168927344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using DCR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.08|0.32|0.077
84587668|NCT02106832|168927380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7062||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.3928|1.2698|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 99.9% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2698|0.3928|0.0511
84587669|NCT02106832|168927388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8662||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.6206|1.209|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2090|0.6206|0.3965
84612207|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.091|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.091|0.850|
84757742|NCT02819635|169271020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||36.9|1.6|0.033
84587670|NCT00265122|168927398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||The P-Value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.337
84587671|NCT00265122|168927400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0||||The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
84587672|NCT04716894|168927401|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|197.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.9|208.15|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 7.0.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||208.15|187.90|
84612208|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.162|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.162|0.906|
84587673|NCT04716894|168927402|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|143.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.92|168.6|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||168.60|121.92|
84587674|NCT04716894|168927403|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|201.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.23|211.52|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 6.5.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||211.52|192.23|
84587675|NCT00608062|168927405|OTHER|Repeated measurements of FMD were modeled using a general linear mixed model with maximum likelihood estimation. An unstructured covariance structure allowing for heterogeneity in the parameter estimate for each level of menopause stage was chosen for the model based on using AIC to compare various covariance structures.||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84587676|NCT00608062|168927407|OTHER|Similar analyses as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84587677|NCT00608062|168927408|OTHER|same analysis as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84612209|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|0.976|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.976|0.783|
84612210|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.057|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.057|0.849|
84612211|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.209|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.209|0.971|
84612212|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.148|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.148|0.867|
84612213|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.2|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.200|0.907|
84612214|NCT00148941|168974633|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.202|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.202|0.909|
84612215|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.181|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.181|0.836|
84612216|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.172|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.172|0.831|
84612217|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.180|0.836|
84612218|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.951|
84612219|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.183|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.183|0.856|
84612220|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\] for Anti-poliovirus type 2.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.060|0.765|
84612221|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.941|
84612222|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.22|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.220|0.876|
84757743|NCT02819635|169271020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|59.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||59.7|20.5|<0.001
84612223|NCT00148941|168974634|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.099|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.099|0.787|
84644343|NCT01931670|169024629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84644344|NCT01931670|169024629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84644345|NCT01931670|169024630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||<0.001
84644346|NCT01931670|169024630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
84612224|NCT00148941|168974634|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ration|0.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.922|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 1 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.922|0.680|
84612225|NCT00148941|168974634|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.925|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 2 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.925|0.696|
84612226|NCT00148941|168974634|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.085|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 3 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.085|0.811|
84612227|NCT00148941|168974635|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) booster responses (i.e measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.21|-0.98|
84612228|NCT00148941|168974635|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.09||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|-0.09|-6.55|
84757744|NCT02819635|169271021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2323|-1.052||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||-1.0520|-3.2323|<0.001
84757745|NCT02819635|169271021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0284|-1.8478||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.8478|-4.0284|<0.001
84757746|NCT02819635|169271021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.736|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8247|-2.647||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||-2.6470|-4.8247|<0.001
84587678|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-31.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.02|-20.87|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-20.87|-43.02|<.0001
84587679|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-33.79|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-33.79|-56.04|<.0001
84587680|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.94|-50.72|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-50.72|-72.94|<.0001
84587681|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.16|44.47||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||44.47|22.16|
84587682|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|31.48||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||31.48|9.21|
84612229|NCT00148941|168974636|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|3.71||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.71|-3.83|
84612230|NCT00148941|168974636|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.21|-2.50|
84612231|NCT00148941|168974636|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.14||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.14|-3.79|
84612232|NCT00148941|168974637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority objective was considered demonstrated, when the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups (SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups minus Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group) in percentage of subjects reporting increased circumferential swelling was equal or less than 2%.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of the incidence of increased circumferential swelling at the SB213503 and Infanrix injection site, defined as an injection site swelling diameter that involves \> 50% of the length of the upper arm that also is associated with a \> 30 mm increase of the mid-upper arm circumference compared to the baseline measurement.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.16|-1.26|
84612233|NCT01092663|168974660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612234|NCT01092663|168974661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612235|NCT01092663|168974662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effects between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84587683|NCT04992065|168927412|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|14.68||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||14.68|-7.81|
84612236|NCT01092663|168974663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612237|NCT01092663|168974664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612238|NCT01092663|168974665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
84612239|NCT01092663|168974666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Treament difference in fasting EGP between the 2 groups were compared.||||>0.05
84587684|NCT01467466|168927428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.24|0.73|0.70
84587685|NCT01467466|168927429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.34|0.78|0.86
84587686|NCT00330733|168927435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (follow-up vs baseline) and unpaired group comparisons were performed by Student's t tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||<0.05
84587687|NCT04724837|168927444|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo (PBO)||-23.5|-42.5|<0.001
84587688|NCT04724837|168927445|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|0.002
84587689|NCT04724837|168927446|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean CFB|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline (CFB) \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.5|-6.8|
84757747|NCT02819635|169271021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1252|-2.9974||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||-2.9974|-5.1252|<0.001
84757748|NCT02819635|169271022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|6.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||13.9|-0.7|0.075
84757749|NCT02819635|169271022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|3.8||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||9.6|-2.0|0.199
84757750|NCT02819635|169271022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.0|2.2|0.015
84587690|NCT04724837|168927446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-4.9|-10.3|
84612240|NCT01092663|168974667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
84612241|NCT01092663|168974668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired ttest||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
84612242|NCT01092663|168974669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84757751|NCT02819635|169271022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|29.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||29.9|5.8|0.004
84587691|NCT04724837|168927447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-1.0|-5.0|
84587692|NCT04724837|168927447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-3.7|-7.1|
84587693|NCT04724837|168927448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|
84587694|NCT04724837|168927448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-23.5|-42.5|
84612243|NCT01092663|168974670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||=0.01
84612244|NCT01092663|168974671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||differerences in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612245|NCT01092663|168974672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612246|NCT01092663|168974673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612247|NCT01092663|168974674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612248|NCT01092663|168974675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612249|NCT01092663|168974676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
84612250|NCT01092663|168974677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
84612251|NCT01092663|168974678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
84587695|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||2.6|-0.5|
84587696|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.1|
84587697|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.8|
84587698|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.3|-2.5|
84587699|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.8|-1.6|
84587700|NCT04724837|168927449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.7|-3.5|
84587701|NCT04724837|168927451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.4|-4.0|
84612252|NCT01092663|168974679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
84612253|NCT01092663|168974680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
84612254|NCT00223704|168974681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||This P-value is for the main comparison of receiving any transfusion.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84612255|NCT00223704|168974682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
84612256|NCT00223704|168974683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
84612257|NCT00223704|168974684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in Interleukin-6 concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, post-bypass, postoperative day 1 and 2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for Interleukin-6 concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||0.92
84612258|NCT00223704|168974685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in D-dimer concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, 30min, 60min, post-bypass, and postoperative day 1)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for D-dimer concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||<0.001
84612259|NCT00360724|168974691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|9.43||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|df 1,55|time X Drug group, f=9.43,df 1,55, p=.003|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||.003
84612260|NCT00360724|168974693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|8.72||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55|Time x Treatment: F=8.72, d.f=1,55, p=0.05|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.05
84612261|NCT00360724|168974694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|5.33||||0.025|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.025
84587702|NCT04724837|168927451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.3|-1.8|
84587703|NCT00071032|168927459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.22|0.84|
84587704|NCT00071032|168927460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.3|1.6|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.6|-3.3|
84587705|NCT05852470|168927478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Difference in Means|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.067||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||0.067|0.001|
84587706|NCT05852470|168927479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.061|||t-test, 1 sided||||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|-0.061|-0.120|<.001
84587707|NCT05852470|168927480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|-0.089|||t-test, 1 sided||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||-0.089|-0.169|<.001
84612262|NCT00360724|168974695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|0.26||||0.6|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f.=1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.6
84612263|NCT00360724|168974700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84612264|NCT00360724|168974701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84587708|NCT05852470|168927481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66||Upper limit is not applicable for testing.|The lower boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|Miettinen-Nurminen||Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL||||8.66|
84587709|NCT01903863|168927487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84587710|NCT01903863|168927488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Intracranial hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
84587711|NCT01903863|168927488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Surgical bleed|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
84587712|NCT01903863|168927488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Gastrointestinal hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84587713|NCT01903863|168927489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84587714|NCT01903863|168927490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84587715|NCT01903863|168927491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84587716|NCT01903863|168927492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84612265|NCT00061633|168974705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 39% power to test televancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.5289|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.1349 to 0.0485 No est. value. Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5289
84612266|NCT02964767|168974710|OTHER||||||<|0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.049
84612267|NCT02611817|168974711|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|13.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by electronic data capture (EDC) stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||23.7|3.8|0.008
84612268|NCT02611817|168974712|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|7.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||17.5|-3.0|0.167
84587717|NCT01903863|168927493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84587718|NCT01903863|168927494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84587719|NCT04116489|168927535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5272|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.5272
84587720|NCT04116489|168927536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.1657
84587721|NCT04116489|168927537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2437
84587722|NCT04116489|168927538|OTHER|||||||0.0373|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0373
84587723|NCT00937105|168927573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Probability of no-CIE|92.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.6|96.9|||Kaplan-Meier|Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of remaining CIE-free presented for entire cohort (both solution groups) to remain consistent with the primary aim||Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of Remaining Infiltrate Free in entire Cohort||96.9|88.6|
84587724|NCT00937105|168927574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.737||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.156|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial lens bioburden|To determine if microbial contamination of lenses is a risk factor for CIE||6.156|0.49|0.3923
84587725|NCT00937105|168927575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|10.393|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no corneal staining|||10.393|0.167|0.7943
84587726|NCT00937105|168927576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.822|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial case bioburden|||2.822|0.161|0.5894
84587727|NCT00937105|168927577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.406||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|8.537||Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|Regression, Cox||referent is no substantial overall lid bioburden|||8.537|0.678|0.1742
84612269|NCT02611817|168974713|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|27.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||42.3|11.9|0.002
84612270|NCT02611817|168974714|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|4.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||20.3|-11.6|0.591
84587728|NCT00937105|168927578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.7|||Regression, Cox|Multivariate model adjusted for solution, gender and age|referent is no substantial CNS lid bioburden|||24.70|1.10|0.04
84587729|NCT01098747|168927594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|24.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.32|29.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI):based on LS means from analysis of variance(ANOVA). Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: Ibuprofen sodium (IBU Na) versus(vs.) Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then time to meaningful relief(TMR), IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||29.09|19.32|<0.001
84587730|NCT01098747|168927595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|24.15||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.15|6.78|<0.001
84757752|NCT02819635|169271023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|25.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||42.3|8.9|0.003
84757753|NCT02819635|169271023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|61.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||61.8|25.4|<0.001
84587731|NCT01098747|168927595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||2.06|1.22|<0.001
84587732|NCT01098747|168927596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.46||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||23.46|6.51|<0.001
84587733|NCT01098747|168927596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.34|1.38|<0.001
84587734|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.10|0.007
84587735|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.06|0.010
84587736|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95 % CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|1.10|<0.001
84587737|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.80|0.27|<0.001
84587738|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.84|<0.001
84587739|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.66|0.12|0.006
84587740|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.77|2.00|<0.001
84612271|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-3.17|<0.0001
84612272|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-3.36|<0.0001
84612273|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.86|<0.0001
84612274|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.44|||ANCOVA|||||-3.44|-5.39|<0.0001
84612275|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-2.53|<0.0001
84612276|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.11|<0.0001
84612277|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-2.68|||ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-5.54|<0.0001
84499491|NCT03302299|168750187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.76||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR is for participants with unhealthy alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||4.76|1.62|<0.01
84587741|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.05|0.022
84757754|NCT02819635|169271023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|57.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||57.5|21.3|<0.001
84587742|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.79|2.00|<0.001
84587743|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.15|0.369
84587744|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.78|<0.001
84612278|NCT03100058|168974785|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-5.54|<0.0001
84612279|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.67|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||6.67|0.85|0.099
84612280|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|1.18||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.84|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.84|0.36|0.779
84612281|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.11|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||10.11|1.35|0.011
84612282|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.88|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||12.88|2.41|<.001
84612283|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.74|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.74|0.36|0.812
84612284|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.69|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||5.69|0.66|0.229
84587745|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.17|-0.42|0.420
84587746|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.45|1.58|<0.001
84612285|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||11.46|1.61|0.004
84612286|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||14.93|2.72|<.001
84612287|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.41|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.41|0.10|0.943
84612288|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.77|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||15.77|0.28|0.465
84612289|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|17.15|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||17.15|0.15|0.696
84612290|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.10|0.38|0.389
84612291|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.87|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.87|0.09|0.976
84612292|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.70|0.09|0.986
84612293|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.18|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||22.18|0.56|0.181
84612294|NCT03100058|168974786|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|20.54|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||20.54|0.77|0.100
84612295|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|38.76|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||38.76|1.02|0.048
84612296|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|3.94||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|28.03|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dsyglycemic)||28.03|0.55|0.171
84612297|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|47.27|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||47.27|1.09|0.041
84499492|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|81.1237||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84499493|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.973||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
84612298|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|60.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.93|2.32|0.003
84612299|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|11.72|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||11.72|0.08|0.976
84612300|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|56.44|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||56.44|1.37|0.022
84612301|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|46.99|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||46.99|1.20|0.032
84612302|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|60.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.46|2.11|0.005
84612303|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|21.28|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||21.28|0.48|0.227
84587747|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.08|-0.54|0.151
84587748|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.33|1.43|<0.001
84612304|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.85|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.85|0.06|0.763
84612305|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||28.70|0.76|0.095
84612306|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|24.83|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||24.83|1.14|0.033
84612307|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||8.10|0.06|0.788
84612308|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.62|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.62|0.06|0.751
84612309|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|51.09|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||51.09|1.27|0.027
84612310|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|34.0|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||34.00|1.30|0.023
84612311|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.78|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||4.78|0.05|0.528
84612312|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||6.68|0.17|0.958
84587749|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.09|-0.56|0.160
84587750|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.10|1.16|<0.001
84612313|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.49|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.49|0.30|0.546
84612314|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.75|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||11.75|0.81|0.098
84612315|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||8.70|0.31|0.563
84612316|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.38|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||5.38|0.06|0.610
84612317|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.16|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.16|0.32|0.528
84612318|NCT03100058|168974787|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|16.9|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||16.90|1.23|0.023
84612319|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.37|||ANCOVA|||||1.37|-2.96|0.470
84499494|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|7.1526||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0075
84499495|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.409||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0075
84499496|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|51.8456||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84612320|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|0.199
84612321|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|<0.001
84612322|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-3.56|0.206
84612323|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.18|0.006
84757755|NCT02819635|169271023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|61.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||61.9|24.4|<0.001
84757756|NCT02819635|169271024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|35.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.9|22.6|<0.001
84757757|NCT02819635|169271025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|17.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||17.0|8.4|<0.001
84757758|NCT02819635|169271026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|54.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||54.2|38.4|<0.001
84757759|NCT02819635|169271027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)||Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|41.8|24.8|<0.001
84757760|NCT02819635|169271028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||30.0|17.5|<0.001
84757761|NCT02819635|169271029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.6|19.2|<0.001
84757762|NCT02819635|169271030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|15.1|<0.001
84587751|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.67|0.055
84587752|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.88|0.91|<0.001
84587753|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.71|0.040
84587754|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.69|0.71|<0.001
84587755|NCT01098747|168927597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-0.79|0.015
84587756|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.13|<0.001
84587757|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|0.11|<0.001
84587758|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.70|<0.001
84587759|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|0.20|<0.001
84587760|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.75|1.18|<0.001
84587761|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|0.04|0.017
84587762|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.96|1.39|<0.001
84587763|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.05|0.015
84587764|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.98|1.41|<0.001
84587765|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.11|0.362
84587766|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
84587767|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.29|0.472
84612324|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.70|0.002
84612325|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-5.10|<0.001
84612326|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.82|0.391
84612327|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-3.10|0.259
84612328|NCT03100058|168974788|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-4.91|0.048
84612329|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.61|||ANCOVA|||||2.61|-0.62|0.225
84612330|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-2.62|0.247
84612331|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-3.75|0.019
84612332|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-2.96|0.015
84757763|NCT02819635|169271031|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.7|23.8|<0.001
84757764|NCT02819635|169271032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|40.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.36|27.02|<0.001
84757765|NCT02819635|169271033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||13.7|5.7|<0.001
84757766|NCT02819635|169271034|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|8.59||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||8.59|4.79|<0.001
84757767|NCT02819635|169271035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|43.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||43.7|25.1|<0.001
84499497|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.515||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
84587768|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.70|1.07|<0.001
84587769|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.134
84587770|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|1.00|<0.001
84587771|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.135
84587772|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.84|<0.001
84587773|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.49|0.036
84612333|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-2.97|0.106
84612334|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-3.54|0.020
84612335|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-3.44|0.035
84612336|NCT03100058|168974789|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-3.22|0.004
84612337|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.05|0.082
84612338|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|0.319
84612339|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.05|0.008
84612340|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
84612341|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.50|0.707
84587774|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.61|<0.001
84587775|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.46|0.064
84587776|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.18|0.52|<0.001
84587777|NCT01098747|168927598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.02|-0.46|0.074
84612342|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.65|0.280
84612343|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.80|0.086
84612344|NCT03100058|168974790|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.72|0.030
84612345|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.07|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.07|-6.64|0.156
84612346|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.89|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.89|-7.11|0.127
84612347|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-2.42|-10.52|0.002
84612348|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.42|-5.86|0.089
84612349|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.57|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.57|-6.12|0.245
84612350|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.02|||ANCOVA|||SBP||3.02|-4.65|0.678
84499498|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|98.1065||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84587778|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.04|0.26|0.001
84587779|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.75|0.18|0.001
84612351|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-8.07|0.040
84612352|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-6.61|0.038
84612353|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.96|||ANCOVA|||DBP||1.96|-3.38|0.601
84612354|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.34|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.34|-3.20|0.760
84612355|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.01|-5.60|0.051
84612356|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.38|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.38|-3.98|0.105
84612357|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.98|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.98|-2.36|0.820
84612358|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|0.74|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.74|-4.58|0.157
84612359|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.49|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.49|-2.99|0.859
84612360|NCT03100058|168974791|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.04|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.04|-4.41|0.054
84612361|NCT03100058|168974793|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.84|0.355
84587780|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.01|1.82|<0.001
84587781|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.34|0.48|<0.001
84587782|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.33|3.03|<0.001
84587783|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.17|0.008
84587784|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.72|3.40|<0.001
84612362|NCT03100058|168974793|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.83|0.373
84612363|NCT03100058|168974793|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.36|<0.001
84612364|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|0.81|0.632
84612365|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||||1.55|0.86|0.352
84612366|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|1.04|0.027
84612367|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.85|0.587
84587785|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.06|0.10|0.017
84587786|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.75|3.42|<0.001
84587787|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.70|-0.26|0.359
84587788|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.45|3.06|<0.001
84587789|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.70|0.436
84612368|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|0.82|0.508
84612369|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.76|0.945
84612370|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|0.81|0.602
84612371|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.84|0.612
84612372|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.68|0.382
84612373|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.67|0.310
84612374|NCT03100058|168974799|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.65|0.525
84612375|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|5.65|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||5.65|-21.37|0.254
84499499|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.929||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
84499500|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|2.8589||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0909
84499501|NCT01788163|168750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0909
84499502|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|11.106||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0009
84587790|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.66|<0.001
84587791|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.93|0.139
84587792|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.95|2.44|<0.001
84587793|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.95|0.144
84612376|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|11.99|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.99|-17.44|0.716
84612377|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.86|-30.30|0.038
84612378|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||4.06|-18.15|0.213
84612379|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|11.96|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.96|-15.38|0.806
84612380|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|11.21|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.21|-15.80|0.739
84612381|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|15.26|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||15.26|-12.36|0.837
84499503|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.561||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0009
84499504|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|34.1075||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84587794|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.58|2.01|<0.001
84612382|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.07|-22.71|0.049
84612383|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|9.82|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.82|-7.22|0.764
84499505|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
84612384|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|11.63|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.63|-6.43|0.571
84499506|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|14.0806||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0002
84499507|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0002
84499508|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|33.8574||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84499509|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.077||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
84499510|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|21.2537||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
84499511|NCT01788163|168750224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.084||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
84499512|NCT00545441|168750229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.8, a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84499513|NCT04318535|168750243|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of Cmax falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.103|1.213|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.213|1.103|
84499514|NCT04318535|168750244|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-t) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.094|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.094|0.974|
84587795|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.15|0.043
84587796|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|1.53|<0.001
84587797|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.16|0.044
84587798|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.85|1.25|<0.001
84587799|NCT01098747|168927599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-1.23|0.027
84587800|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.18|2.27|<0.001
84587801|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.12|0.007
84587802|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.98|3.60|<0.001
84587803|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.13|0.144
84587804|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|9.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.66|6.66|<0.001
84612385|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.46|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.46|-9.30|0.987
84612386|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|16.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||16.87|2.85|0.006
84612387|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||5.48|-12.03|0.463
84612388|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.01|||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.01|-8.18|0.925
84587805|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|-1.31|0.679
84612389|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|10.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||10.53|-7.19|0.711
84612390|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.26|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.26|-3.10|0.265
84612391|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|7.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||7.36|-7.31|0.995
84612392|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|11.81|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||11.81|-3.52|0.288
84612393|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.5|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||12.50|-3.50|0.269
84612394|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.27|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.27|1.23|0.018
84587806|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|11.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.96|7.92|<0.001
84587807|NCT01098747|168927600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.79|-2.12|0.367
84587808|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|3.32|< 0.001
84587809|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.07|0.16|0.009
84587810|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|7.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.12|5.18|<0.001
84587811|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.20|-0.21|0.166
84587812|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|13.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.81|9.54|<0.001
84587813|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|-1.84|0.703
84612395|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|9.73|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.73|-5.32|0.565
84587814|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|17.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||17.18|11.36|<0.001
84587815|NCT01098747|168927601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.00|-3.20|0.303
84587816|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.60|<0.001
84587817|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|0.29|0.007
84587818|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||12.08|8.79|<0.001
84587819|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.05|-0.32|0.152
84612396|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.09|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.09|-5.67|0.649
84612397|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|8.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||8.36|-6.87|0.847
84612398|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|13.43|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.43|1.14|0.020
84612399|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|9.57|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.57|-17.09|0.579
84612400|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|19.02|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||19.02|-9.08|0.487
84587820|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|23.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||23.43|16.23|<0.001
84587821|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.07|-3.12|0.690
84587822|NCT01098747|168927602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.77||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-8 Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.75|-5.29|0.323
84587823|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours-Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.00|-0.97|0.490
84587824|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.54||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.95|-1.88|0.623
84587825|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|24.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.51|35.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||35.22|13.51|<0.001
84587826|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.82||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|22.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.48|1.15|0.023
84612401|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|10.3|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.30|-18.96|0.561
84612402|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|20.25|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||20.25|-1.68|0.097
84672888|NCT02346240|169081842|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.58|53.38|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||53.38|25.58|
84587827|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.99|73.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.70|48.99|<0.001
84587828|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.92|9.58|<0.001
84587829|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.59|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|61.59|<0.001
84612403|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.26|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||5.26|-22.10|0.227
84612404|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.64|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.64|-17.22|0.580
84612405|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.03|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.03|-18.67|0.494
84612406|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|9.65|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.65|-12.81|0.782
84612407|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|17.54|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||17.54|-13.82|0.816
84612408|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.02||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|23.42|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||23.42|-8.13|0.341
84612409|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|9.99||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|13.91|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||13.91|-25.39|0.566
84757768|NCT02819635|169271035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|55.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||55.8|36.7|<0.001
84757769|NCT02819635|169271036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|54.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.6|20.3|<0.001
84587830|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|17.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|27.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.06|7.83|0.001
84587831|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.14|84.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.11|61.14|<0.001
84587832|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|19.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.93|3.47|0.013
84587833|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
84587834|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.75|1.27|0.041
84587835|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
84587836|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
84587837|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
84587838|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
84587839|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
84587840|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
84587841|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|74.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.14|86.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.27|63.14|<0.001
84612410|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.36|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||8.36|-3.38|0.405
84612411|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|7.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||7.87|-3.92|0.511
84612412|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.79|-4.83|0.506
84612413|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.7|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.70|-4.20|0.392
84612414|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|10.53|||ANOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.53|-4.45|0.426
84612415|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|17.8|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||17.80|-0.72|0.071
84612416|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.42|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||11.42|-5.56|0.498
84587842|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.10|1.57|0.035
84587843|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587844|NCT01098747|168927603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84587845|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|31.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.24|8.79|0.004
84587846|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|14.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|24.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.43|4.26|0.003
84587847|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|69.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.67|81.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.40|57.67|<0.001
84587848|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|33.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.75|13.16|<0.001
84587849|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.77|84.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.67|62.77|<0.001
84587850|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.14||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|17.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.08|3.21|0.014
84587851|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587852|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.35||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|14.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.68|2.02|0.028
84587853|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84499515|NCT04318535|168750245|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-inf) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.093|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.093|0.971|
84499516|NCT01901146|168750270|EQUIVALENCE|The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk difference of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|13.4|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the Risk Difference (RD; ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%), estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.4|1.2|0.0508
84499517|NCT01901146|168750270|EQUIVALENCE|If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the risk ratio of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors, with the margin of (0.7586, 1/0.7586). If the test of equivalence on the RD was not successful, the RR of pCR and 90% CI were considered to be descriptive.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1877||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0327|1.366|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the Risk Ratio (RR; ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab, estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors: tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3660|1.0327|0.0430
84499518|NCT01901146|168750271|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|12.2|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||12.2|-0.2|0.1086
84499519|NCT01901146|168750271|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1463||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.3035|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3035|1.0080|0.0807
84587854|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.81||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.08|1.54|0.036
84587855|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587856|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84612417|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|10.9|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.90|-6.17|0.586
84612418|NCT03100058|168974800|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|12.67|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||12.67|-8.47|0.696
84612419|NCT03194646|168974805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.26||||||||-1.26|-2.44|
84757770|NCT02819635|169271036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|63.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||63.3|30.7|<0.001
84587857|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84612420|NCT03194646|168974805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.8||||||||-1.80|-2.87|
84612421|NCT03194646|168974805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.1||||||||-1.10|-2.51|
84644347|NCT01931670|169024631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
84612422|NCT04302545|168974811|OTHER|Other Primary outcomes were the extent of injury, operative time, blood loss and proportion of subjects receiving a blood transfusion. Postoperatively, subjects were assessed for secondary outcomes of UTI, micturition problems, and fistula formation during the hospital stay and for the next 3 months. Postoperative micturition problems were feeling of incomplete evacuation, frequency, urgency, urethral and extra-urethral incontinence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.094||The threshold for statistical significance was \<.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: During the cesarean section of women with adhesions of the previous cesarean section that obscure the bladder, the bladder injury rate is not significantly decreased in cystoinflation group compared to the control.~In this study, the bladder injury rate was seven times lesser in cystoinflation group compared to the control, thereby strongly supporting our hypothesis. The power of the study for bladder injury was 0.988, calculated with statistical software G'Power version 3.1."||-.094|-.261|<.0001
84757771|NCT02819635|169271037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|52.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.7|18.2|<0.001
84612423|NCT04302545|168974812|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-211.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.7|-132.84|||Regression, Linear|||||-132.84|-290.70|<0.0001
84612424|NCT04302545|168974813|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|3.634|||Regression, Linear|||Null Hypothsis:Cystoinflation is ineffective to prevent bladder injury in adhesions of previous C-section.The cystoinflation was to be cosidered ineffective if proportion of bladder injury in study group was less than %0% of the control.The power of the study for bladder injury prevention was.988,calculated with statistical software G'Power version3.1.||3.634|-3.634|1
84612425|NCT04302545|168974814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.093||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.479|||Regression, Linear|||||-.479|-1.708|.001
84612426|NCT04302545|168974815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.073|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.073|-0.226|<0.0001
84612427|NCT04302545|168974816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.103||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|-0.035|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.035|-0.171|0.003
84612428|NCT04302545|168974817|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|1.991|||Regression, Linear|||||1.991|-0.682|.336
84612429|NCT04302545|168974818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.393||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.06|-0.725|.021
84612430|NCT04302545|168974819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.813|-0.963|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.963|-2.813|<0.0001
84612431|NCT04302545|168974820|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.318|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.021|-0.614|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.614|-2.021|<.0001
84612432|NCT04302545|168974822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.065||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|-0.023|||Regression, Linear|||||-.023|-.108|.003
84612433|NCT01336023|168974835|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed when 95% confidence interval for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.3%.~IDegLira minus IDeg"|Treatment Contrast|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IDeg|||-0.36|-0.58|
84612434|NCT01336023|168974835|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority of IDegLira over liraglutide was confirmed when the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0%.~IDegLira minus Liraglutide"|Treatment contrast|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.53|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus Liraglutide|||-0.53|-0.75|
84612435|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.12||||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.28|-0.52|0.5456
84612436|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.07|-0.75|0.1029
84612437|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.62|-0.19|0.2879
84612438|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.56|-0.45|0.8213
84612439|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.3457||95.0|-0.74|0.27||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.27|-0.74|0.3457
84612440|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.79|-0.20|0.2364
84612441|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.57||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.57|-0.21|0.3553
84612442|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.20|-0.58|0.3369
84612443|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.76||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.76|-0.01|0.0591
84587858|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84587859|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587860|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84587861|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587862|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84587863|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587864|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84587865|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
84587866|NCT01098747|168927604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
84612444|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.31|-0.42|0.7686
84612445|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||-0.09|-0.83|0.0151
84587867|NCT01098747|168927605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
84587868|NCT01098747|168927605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.22|0.79|0.281
84587869|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.67|-11.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.20|-36.67|<0.001
84587870|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.70|-4.12|0.483
84612446|NCT01122849|168974846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.77||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.77|0.05|0.0256
84612447|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1at Day 14||0.30|-0.52|0.5958
84612448|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.11|-0.73|0.1429
84612449|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.62|-0.21|0.3348
84612450|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4425||95.0|-0.32|0.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.72|-0.32|0.4425
84612451|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.34|-0.71|0.4795
84612452|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.90|-0.13|0.1375
84612453|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.31|-0.56|0.5750
84612454|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||-0.04|-0.92|0.0337
84612455|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.79||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.79|-0.08|0.1061
84757772|NCT02819635|169271037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|61.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.6|28.7|<0.001
84612456|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.7092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 14||0.34|-0.50|0.7092
84612457|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day14||-0.06|-0.91|0.0250
84612458|NCT01122849|168974847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q18 at Day 14||0.82|0.00|0.0503
84612459|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|3.59||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||3.59|-1.92|0.5462
84612460|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|0.42||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||0.42|-5.16|0.0942
84612461|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep problems at Day 7||5.93|0.48|0.0221
84612462|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.72||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.68||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Sleep Time problems at Day 7||2.68|-4.11|0.6731
84612463|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|0.83||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 7||0.83|-5.98|0.1354
84612464|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.86||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.21||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep time problems at Day 7||5.21|-1.50|0.2722
84612465|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on walking in the morning at Day 7||2.14|-3.55|0.6195
84612466|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.83||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.96||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at day 7 for symptoms for walking in the morning||-0.96|-6.70|0.0099
84612467|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 7||5.93|0.32|0.0298
84612468|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.4||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||1.40|-2.01|0.7211
84757773|NCT02819635|169271038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|56.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||56.2|27.8|<0.001
84612469|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||0.90|-2.51|0.3500
84612470|NCT01122849|168974848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.18||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||2.18|-1.19|0.5564
84612471|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep Problems at Day 14||3.35|-2.20|0.6804
84612472|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.49||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||1.49|-4.12|0.3524
84612473|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.89||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|4.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||4.63|-0.86|0.1739
84612474|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.98||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.36||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 14||5.36|-1.41|0.2463
84499520|NCT01901146|168750272|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|13.9|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.9|2.1|0.0253
84587871|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-51.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-38.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.22|-65.63|<0.001
84587872|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.61||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.75|-7.97|0.174
84587873|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-53.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.35|-79.80|<0.001
84587874|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|1.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.89|-9.38|0.240
84587875|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-47.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.50|-75.21|<0.001
84587876|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.52||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|8.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.52|-5.47|0.668
84587877|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-60.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-74.28|<0.001
84587878|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|7.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.63|-7.44|0.980
84587879|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-59.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.05|-45.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.50|-73.05|<0.001
84587880|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.56||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.81|-6.68|0.711
84587881|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-42.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.85|-70.84|<0.001
84587882|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.72||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|13.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.38|-5.94|0.445
84612475|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||3.68|-3.11|0.8677
84612476|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||5.04|-1.65|0.3136
84587883|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.77|-38.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.81|-66.77|<0.001
84587884|NCT01098747|168927606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.05||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|16.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.84|-4.75|0.256
84587885|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.34||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.34|1.34|0.078
84587886|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.74||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|8.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.49|-3.01|0.303
84587887|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.14|36.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.34|18.14|<0.001
84587888|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.66||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|17.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.63|-4.31|0.217
84587889|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|51.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.12|31.20|<0.001
84587890|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.33|0.149
84587891|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.49|58.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||58.73|38.49|<0.001
84672889|NCT02346240|169081842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|356.602||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||356.602|14.650|<0.0001
84587892|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.55||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|17.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.13|-8.03|0.477
84587893|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|62.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.99|42.63|<0.001
84587894|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.14||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-14.77|0.739
84587895|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
84587896|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|5.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.65|-19.24|0.280
84587897|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
84587898|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.01||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|4.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.41|-20.44|0.202
84587899|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
84612477|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.65||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||2.65|-2.93|0.9183
84612478|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.68||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||0.13|-5.50|0.0614
84612479|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|5.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||5.29|-0.21|0.0695
84612480|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.1||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day14||2.10|-1.03|0.4947
84612481|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.72|-1.42|0.8454
84612482|NCT01122849|168974849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.93|-1.17|0.6223
84612483|NCT01122849|168974850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.34||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|LS Mean Difference|||Comparison at Day 7||2.01|-4.68|0.4258
84587900|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.02|3.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.80|-21.02|0.170
84612484|NCT01122849|168974850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|0.33||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||0.33|-6.43|0.0764
84612485|NCT01122849|168974850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.97||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||4.97|-1.56|0.2986
84612486|NCT01122849|168974851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||4.29|-2.05|0.4820
84612487|NCT01122849|168974851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.81||||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||1.39|-5.02|0.2607
84612488|NCT01122849|168974851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.93||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||6.02|-0.16|0.0623
84612489|NCT01122849|168974852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|9.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||9.39|-18.1|0.5278
84612490|NCT01122849|168974852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.14||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|23.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||23.93|-3.64|0.1458
84612491|NCT01122849|168974852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.91||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-28.1|0.0370
84612492|NCT01122849|168974853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|8.29|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||8.29|-18.5|0.4483
84612493|NCT01122849|168974853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.28||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|27.77|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||27.77|0.79|0.0385
84612494|NCT01122849|168974853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-19.37||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-6.23|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||-6.23|-32.5|0.0046
84612495|NCT01122849|168974854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.24||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|25.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||25.02|5.45|0.0029
84612496|NCT01122849|168974854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|14.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||14.01|-6.53|0.4683
84612497|NCT01122849|168974854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.55||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||21.55|1.44|0.0259
84612498|NCT01122849|168974855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.79||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|19.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.19|-3.62|0.1764
84587901|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
84587902|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
84587903|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
84587904|NCT01098747|168927607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
84587905|NCT01098747|168927608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.98|0.83|<0.001
84587906|NCT01098747|168927608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.24|-0.15|0.667
84587907|NCT01383005|168927625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.494|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from detectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'detectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||0.494|0.052|0.001
84587908|NCT01383005|168927625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.279||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.118|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from undetectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 2 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'undetectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||1.118|0.070|0.072
84612499|NCT01122849|168974855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|12.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||12.94|-11.7|0.9183
84612500|NCT01122849|168974855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.2313||95.0|-4.7|19.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.01|-4.70|0.2313
84612501|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.63|-0.09|0.1345
84672890|NCT02346240|169081842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.002|245.256||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||245.256|10.002|<0.0001
84587909|NCT01383005|168927626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.992|0.999|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'time on LPV/r.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with time on treatment with LPV/r QD in the last model of the Wald test.||0.999|0.992|0.025
84587910|NCT01137890|168927675|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|24.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on VAQ score|||||<0.01
84587911|NCT01137890|168927675|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on VAQ score|||||0.72
84587912|NCT01137890|168927675|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.66||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine x Zonisamide interaction on VAQ scores|||||0.63
84612502|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.04|-0.68|0.0815
84612503|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.94|0.24|0.0015
84757774|NCT02819635|169271038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|61.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.7|35.5|<0.001
84587913|NCT01137890|168927676|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|9.91|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||<0.01
84587914|NCT01137890|168927676|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.93
84587915|NCT01137890|168927676|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose x Zonisamide dose interaction on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.92
84587916|NCT01137890|168927677|SUPERIORITY||t-value for main effect of Group|1.51||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Group (Zonisamide vs Placebo)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84612504|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean differnence|-1.03||||0.0292||95.0|-1.96|-0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.11|-1.96|0.0292
84612505|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.47||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.47|-0.39|0.2497
84612506|NCT01122849|168974856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.66||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.66|-2.48|0.0011
84612507|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.51|-0.40|0.8063
84612508|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differnence|-0.35||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.11|-0.82|0.1356
84612509|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.41||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.87|-0.05|0.0786
84612510|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparisons for Q4 at Day 14||0.32|-1.75|0.1693
84757775|NCT02819635|169271039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||26.4|11.0|<0.001
84587917|NCT01137890|168927677|SUPERIORITY|Day (Day 1-39)|t-value for main effect of Day|-3.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0015
84587918|NCT01137890|168927677|SUPERIORITY|Group\*Day interaction|t value for Group x Day interaction|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84587919|NCT01137890|168927678|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|21.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose|||||<0.01
84612511|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.13|0.03|0.0438
84612512|NCT01122849|168974857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.78||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||-0.78|-2.82|0.0009
84587920|NCT01137890|168927678|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose|||||0.48
84612513|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.13|-0.62|0.1991
84612514|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.21||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.19|-0.60|0.2964
84612515|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.35|-0.42|0.8495
84587921|NCT01137890|168927678|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Zon x Coc|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide x Cocaine interaction on drug value (i.e., street value) measurement|||||0.46
84587922|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.8|-3.1|0.253
84587923|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.9|-2.1|0.919
84612516|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||2.62|0.08|0.0381
84612517|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.82|-0.74|0.4005
84612518|NCT01122849|168974858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.81||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||2.07|-0.45|0.2020
84587924|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.2||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.8|-2.2|0.829
84587925|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.2|-4.5|0.074
84587926|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.3|-1.3|0.393
84587927|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.4|-0.3|0.088
84587928|NCT00806585|168927683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.3|-0.4|0.108
84587929|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.1|-4.0|0.543
84587930|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.3|-4.9|0.246
84587931|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-3.5|0.821
84587932|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-3.3|-10.7|<0.001
84612519|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.23|-0.41|0.5741
84587933|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||9.8|2.4|0.001
84587934|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||8.9|1.5|0.006
84587935|NCT00806585|168927684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.4|3.0|<0.001
84587936|NCT00806585|168927685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.5|-8.3|0.684
84587937|NCT00806585|168927685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.8||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||8.7|-5.0|0.597
84587938|NCT00806585|168927685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.8|-7.6|0.793
84612520|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.39|-0.26|0.6935
84612521|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.16||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 14||0.16|-0.47|0.3330
84612522|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.39||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.73|0.04|0.0434
84587939|NCT00806585|168927685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||9.2|-7.6|0.854
84587940|NCT00806585|168927686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.5|-3.2|0.006
84587941|NCT00806585|168927686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.3|0.004
84612523|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.67||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||1.67|-1.02|0.6333
84612524|NCT01122849|168974859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.37||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.37|-0.25|0.1091
84612525|NCT02726022|168974885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.647
84612526|NCT02726022|168974885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.373
84612527|NCT02726022|168974886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.049
84612528|NCT02726022|168974886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.860
84612529|NCT02726022|168974887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.921
84612530|NCT02726022|168974887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.962
84757776|NCT02819635|169271039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||27.2|11.7|<0.001
84587942|NCT00806585|168927686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.1|-2.6|0.066
84587943|NCT00806585|168927686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
84587944|NCT00806585|168927687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.07|-0.44|0.152
84587945|NCT00806585|168927687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least sqaures means|-0.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.02|-0.54|0.035
84587946|NCT00806585|168927687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.04|-0.48|0.095
84612531|NCT02726022|168974888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.052
84612532|NCT02726022|168974888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.677
84612533|NCT02726022|168974889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.720
84612534|NCT02726022|168974889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.237
84612535|NCT02726022|168974890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.184
84612536|NCT02726022|168974890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.889
84612537|NCT01124955|168974892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0,05
84612538|NCT03274518|168974896|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.4534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4534
84612539|NCT03274518|168974897|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.1179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1179
84612540|NCT03274518|168974898|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.3054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3054
84612541|NCT03274518|168974899|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower the ECW/TBW ratio, the lower pre-dialysis excess fluid. A non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 10% from reference method (olHDF)||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
84587947|NCT00806585|168927687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.01|-0.63|0.045
84587948|NCT02621892|168927688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.31|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.02
84587949|NCT02621892|168927690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.86|||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.008
84499521|NCT01901146|168750272|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2746||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0673|1.5222|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.5222|1.0673|0.0245
84587950|NCT02621892|168927691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84587951|NCT02621892|168927692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84587952|NCT02621892|168927693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.003
84587953|NCT01968980|168927694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-49.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference,associated 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-49.5|-59.5|<0.001
84587954|NCT01968980|168927695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-34.1|-41.1|<0.001
84587955|NCT01968980|168927696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-46.4|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.4|-55.7|<0.001
84612542|NCT00781859|168974902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.24||comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||5.24|1.32|0.003
84612543|NCT05546229|168974906|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||patient plasma versus isf value for methadone||||.0049
84499522|NCT02007369|168750273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.05|0.033
84499523|NCT02007369|168750273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|0.36|0.934
84587956|NCT01968980|168927697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-43.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-43.2|-52.8|<0.001
84587957|NCT01968980|168927698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-23.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-23.2|-33.9|<0.001
84587958|NCT01968980|168927699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.9|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||9.9|4.1|<0.001
84587959|NCT01968980|168927700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-46.0||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.0|-58.2|
84612544|NCT05546229|168974907|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||||||.0025
84612545|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.7|0.049
84612546|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.808
84499524|NCT02007369|168750274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84499525|NCT02007369|168750274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
84587960|NCT01968980|168927700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-42.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.3|-53.6|
84587961|NCT01968980|168927701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-31.6|-40.0|
84612547|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.9|0.035
84612548|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.0|0.999
84612549|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
84587962|NCT01968980|168927701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-27.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-27.8|-35.8|
84587963|NCT01968980|168927702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-42.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.8|-54.1|
84587964|NCT01968980|168927702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-36.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-36.9|-47.5|
84587965|NCT01968980|168927703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-41.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-41.6|-52.1|
84612550|NCT00348309|168974945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.2|0.661
84612551|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|=0.056
84612552|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|=0.587
84612553|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.004
84612554|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|=0.402
84612555|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.002
84612556|NCT00348309|168974946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.2|=0.478
84612557|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|=0.340
84612558|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-2.5|=0.079
84612559|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.7|=0.910
84612560|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.1|0.521
84612561|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-0.5|=0.154
84612562|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.6|=0.836
84612563|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.2||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-0.1|0.061
84612564|NCT00348309|168974947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.9|=0.566
84587966|NCT01968980|168927703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-35.5||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-35.5|-45.5|
84587967|NCT01968980|168927704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-10.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-10.3|-59.8|
84612565|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.3|=0.414
84612566|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.0|0.931
84612567|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.4|0.485
84612568|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.8|0.550
84612569|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|0.264
84612570|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|0.732
84612571|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
84612572|NCT00348309|168974948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-1.4|0.814
84587968|NCT01968980|168927704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-4.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-4.4|-26.3|
84587969|NCT01968980|168927705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||8.7|3.1|
84587970|NCT01968980|168927705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.9|-0.1|
84587971|NCT01968980|168927706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
84587972|NCT01968980|168927706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
84587973|NCT01968980|168927706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
84587974|NCT01968980|168927707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||7.8|2.9|
84587975|NCT01968980|168927707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||6.8|2.5|
84612573|NCT00348309|168974949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.870
84612574|NCT00348309|168974949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.617
84612575|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Q1||6.9|-5.2|0.789
84587976|NCT01968980|168927707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.4|0.5|
84587977|NCT01968980|168927708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-2.3|
84587978|NCT01968980|168927708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.2|-1.9|
84587979|NCT01968980|168927708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-1.9|
84612576|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.6||Week 12Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-9.0|0.643
84612577|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|0.1||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-14.7|0.052
84612578|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-14.0|0.481
84612579|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.2||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-15.6|0.195
84612580|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-12.9|0.857
84612581|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|6.7||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-15.9|0.422
84612582|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|8.6||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-15.7|0.562
84612583|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.2||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.2|-2.6|0.129
84612584|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|19.9||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-4.0|0.194
84587980|NCT01968980|168927709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
84587981|NCT01968980|168927709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
84612585|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|13.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.1|-10.5|0.832
84612586|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|19.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1|-6.8|0.351
84612587|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.5||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|-13.3|0.949
84612588|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.6||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.6|-6.0|0.253
84612589|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.4||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|-16.2|0.735
84612590|NCT00348309|168974950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.0||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.0|0.3|0.046
84612591|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.3|0.914
84612592|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.3|0.415
84612593|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.063
84757777|NCT02819635|169271040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|54.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.7|34.5|<0.001
84587982|NCT01968980|168927709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
84612594|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.3||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-5.6|0.030
84612595|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.8||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-1.5|0.392
84612596|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-3.7|0.557
84612597|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.320
84612598|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.04|0.180
84612599|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.02|0.498
84612600|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.06|0.081
84612601|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.00|0.077
84612602|NCT00348309|168974951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.640
84612603|NCT00348309|168974952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.6|0.105
84612604|NCT00348309|168974952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.483
84612605|NCT00348309|168974953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.004
84612606|NCT00348309|168974953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.3|0.554
84612607|NCT00348309|168974954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.292
84612608|NCT00348309|168974954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.297
84612609|NCT00348309|168974955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.598
84612610|NCT00348309|168974955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.073
84612611|NCT00348309|168974956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.02|0.006
84612612|NCT00348309|168974956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.140
84612613|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.027
84587983|NCT01968980|168927710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-71.4||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-71.4|-86.2|
84587984|NCT01968980|168927711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.3|-75.0||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-75.0|-91.3|
84612614|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.091
84612615|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.268
84612616|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.1|0.318
84612617|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.030
84612618|NCT00348309|168974966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.797
84612619|NCT00622388|168974967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated, expressed as a percentage.|||20|5|
84612620|NCT01743040|168974993|NON_INFERIORITY|15% equivalency margin against performance of SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both sensitivity and specificity were measured and the equivalency margin was set the same for both parameters.The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|||The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||0.012
84612621|NCT02713659|168974994|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.85
84612622|NCT02713659|168974994|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expressive standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.53
84612623|NCT02713659|168974994|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.49
84587985|NCT01968980|168927712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-78.7||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-78.7|-95.4|
84612624|NCT02713659|168974995|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total read scale score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.57
84612625|NCT02713659|168974996|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child well visits between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.23
84612626|NCT02713659|168974996|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child vaccinations between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.71
84612627|NCT02980133|168975027|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||5.3|-1.6|0.285
84612628|NCT02980133|168975028|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (inhaled corticosteroid \[ICS\] or noncorticosteroid \[NCS\]), and investigational medicinal product (IMP) treatment group.||8.8|3.2|<0.001
84612629|NCT02980133|168975028|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||9.8|4.1|<0.001
84612630|NCT01854281|168975035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||0.02
84612631|NCT01854281|168975035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||<0.01
84612632|NCT00238238|168975057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84612633|NCT00238238|168975058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84612634|NCT01007838|168975059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Omnibus ANCOVA. An interaction would suggests patients responded to exercise differently than controls||||0.30
84612635|NCT01007838|168975059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in chronic kideny disease patients only. An interaction would suggest patients allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.0017
84612636|NCT01007838|168975059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Statistical sigficance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in healthy controls only. An interaction would suggest healthy controls allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.024
84499526|NCT02007369|168750275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.25|0.285
84499527|NCT02007369|168750275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.31|0.597
84499528|NCT02007369|168750276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
84499529|NCT02007369|168750276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
84587986|NCT01968980|168927713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-48.5||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-48.5|-59.2|
84587987|NCT01968980|168927714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.9|-14.7|
84587988|NCT01968980|168927715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||4.9|2.0|
84587989|NCT01968980|168927716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.8|-2.2|
84612637|NCT04978818|168975062|NON_INFERIORITY|The anti-PRP IgG GMC for children receiving dose 1 of Vaxelis® was defined a priori as non-inferior if it was within a 1.5-fold margin of the GMC for children receiving dose 1 of PedvaxHIB®, corresponding to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the IgG GMC ratio (Vaxelis® to PedvaxHIB®) being greater than 0.67.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Concentration|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis||The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.67. Thus, Vaxelis® post-dose 1 anti-PRP IgG immunogenicity met the non-inferiority criterion compared to PedvaxHIB®.|||1.41|0.75|0.85
84612638|NCT04978818|168975063|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84612639|NCT04978818|168975064|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84499530|NCT00297492|168750277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p value less than 0.05.|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||"Null hypothesis: prolonged abstinence from smoking is the same for the three groups at 6 month follow-up~Sample size was based on an assumption of 6 month abstinence of 25% in the gradual group, 15% in the abrupt group, and 10% in the minimal group. Sample sizes of 300, 300, and 150 for gradual, abrupt, and minimal provides 97% to detect a difference between the groups, with 2-sided alpha = 0.05."||||0.30
84499531|NCT00297492|168750277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.22|||||The reported odds ratio represents the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the gradual reduction group divided by the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the abrupt cessation group.|||1.22|0.28|
84499532|NCT02675426|168750278|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|37.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.0|19.1|<0.001
84587990|NCT01968980|168927716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.6|-2.1|
84587991|NCT01968980|168927716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.3|-1.8|
84587992|NCT01968980|168927717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.5|
84612640|NCT04978818|168975065|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84612641|NCT04978818|168975066|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
84612642|NCT04978818|168975067|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84499533|NCT02675426|168750278|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|21.6|<0.001
84612643|NCT04978818|168975068|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84612644|NCT02478255|168975088|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84612645|NCT01431963|168975098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.85|55.96|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for all seizures.|||55.96|30.85|
84612646|NCT01431963|168975098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|54.09|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B+C seizures.|||54.09|27.02|
84499534|NCT02675426|168750279|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|39.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|23.0|<0.001
84587993|NCT01968980|168927717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.4||||||Week 24:LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.4|
84587994|NCT01968980|168927717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.3|-0.4|
84587995|NCT01968980|168927718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.24|106.1||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||106.10|25.24|
84587996|NCT01968980|168927718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.32|147.43||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||147.43|30.32|
84587997|NCT01968980|168927718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|44.01||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||44.01|11.85|
84587998|NCT01968980|168927719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|200.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.16|854.6||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||854.60|47.16|
84587999|NCT01968980|168927719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|1000.39||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1000.39|51.95|
84612647|NCT01431963|168975098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.63|56.72|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B seizures.|||56.72|25.63|
84588000|NCT01968980|168927719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|259.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.87|1937.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1937.06|34.87|
84588001|NCT04537650|168927723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|243.24|||Chi-squared|||||243.24|1.8|<0.001
84588002|NCT04537650|168927724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|487.5|||Chi-squared|||||487.5|4.15|<0.001
84588003|NCT03773484|168927746|OTHER||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre post comparison for Opioid Naïve patients||0.01|-0.03|0.43
84588004|NCT03773484|168927746|OTHER||Slope|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-post comparison for at-risk for long term use patients||0.013|-0.051|0.24
84588005|NCT03620981|168927747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-4.3|-10.0|< 0.0001
84588006|NCT03620981|168927747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.7|-6.8|0.0175
84588007|NCT03620981|168927748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
84588008|NCT03620981|168927748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0083
84588009|NCT03620981|168927749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH), Last observation carried forward (LOCF)||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.6|-1.2|< 0.0001
84612648|NCT01431963|168975098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.29|84.41|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for C seizures.|||84.41|51.29|
84612649|NCT01431963|168975098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.39|97.48|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for D5 seizures.|||97.48|44.39|
84612650|NCT03738618|168975120|OTHER||Treatment difference|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|47.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||47.6|36.5|<0.001
84612651|NCT03738618|168975121|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|25.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||25.7|14.9|<0.001
84612652|NCT03738618|168975125|OTHER||Treatment difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|30.8|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||30.8|19.8|<0.001
84612653|NCT03738618|168975125|OTHER||Treatment difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|56.3|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||56.3|44.9|<0.001
84588010|NCT03620981|168927749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH, LOCF||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.8|0.0052
84588011|NCT01380080|168927760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative probability difference|-0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.94|||z-test|||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B- arm A) in the Kaplan-Meier estimate for 24 week cumulative probability of death or unknown vital status with 95% confidence interval||2.94|-3.05|0.97
84588012|NCT04251533|168927776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.41|||Regression, Cox|||||2.41|0.92|
84588013|NCT06378008|168927795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.62|-1.98|<0.0001
84588014|NCT06378008|168927796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|52.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.08|57.65|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||57.65|48.08|<0.0001
84588015|NCT06378008|168927797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.08|-0.29|0.0005
84588016|NCT06378008|168927797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.49|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.49|-0.73|<0.0001
84588017|NCT06378008|168927797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-1.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.04|-1.41|<0.0001
84612654|NCT03738618|168975126|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||27.2|16.7|<0.001
84612655|NCT03738618|168975126|OTHER||Treatment difference|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|49.9|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||49.9|38.5|<0.001
84612656|NCT03738618|168975128|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|36.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||36.2|24.9|<0.001
84588018|NCT06378008|168927797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.74|<0.0001
84588019|NCT06378008|168927798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|8.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||8.53|5.75|<0.0001
84612657|NCT03738618|168975128|OTHER||Treatment difference|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|63.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||63.0|51.9|<0.001
84588020|NCT06378008|168927798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|16.59|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||16.59|12.20|<0.0001
84588021|NCT06378008|168927798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|28.93|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||28.93|22.67|<0.0001
84588022|NCT06378008|168927798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|45.43|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||45.43|36.55|<0.0001
84588023|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.23|-0.64|0.3489
84588024|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.07|-0.98|0.0876
84588025|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.52|-0.47|0.9108
84588026|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.36|-0.75|0.4854
84612658|NCT03738618|168975140|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84612659|NCT03738618|168975141|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84612660|NCT03738618|168975142|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
84612661|NCT03738618|168975143|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
84612662|NCT00826618|168975189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare final visual acuity to baseline visual acuity||||0.0015
84612663|NCT01618695|168975206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.112|4.519|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.519|-14.112|0.2330
84612664|NCT01618695|168975206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.683|-7.251|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-7.251|-25.683|0.0003
84612665|NCT01618695|168975206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.878|-16.235|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-16.235|-33.878|<0.0001
84757778|NCT02819635|169271040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|66.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||66.0|47.2|<0.001
84757779|NCT02819635|169271041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||32.8|14.8|<0.001
84588027|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.57|-0.46|0.8309
84588028|NCT06378008|168927799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.00|-1.17|0.0500
84588029|NCT06378008|168927800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.859||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|5.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.33|-9.88|0.5565
84588030|NCT06378008|168927800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.715||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|3.34|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.34|-15.25|0.2078
84588031|NCT06378008|168927801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.82|-1.50|0.5597
84588032|NCT06378008|168927801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.87|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.87|-1.91|0.4627
84588033|NCT06378008|168927802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.583||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.48|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.48|-4.77|0.3000
84588034|NCT06378008|168927802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.33|-6.39|0.1974
84612666|NCT01618695|168975207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3954
84588035|NCT06378008|168927803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.27|0.9203
84588036|NCT06378008|168927803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.717||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.58|-2.24|0.2489
84588037|NCT06378008|168927804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.94|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.94|-2.36|0.8496
84588038|NCT06378008|168927804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.226||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.69|-4.15|0.1596
84588039|NCT06378008|168927805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.34|0.9577
84588040|NCT06378008|168927805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.31|-1.64|0.8261
84588041|NCT06378008|168927806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.16|-0.19|0.8895
84612667|NCT01618695|168975207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
84612668|NCT01618695|168975207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84612669|NCT01618695|168975208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.27||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.067|1.671|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.671|-18.067|0.0552
84612670|NCT01618695|168975208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.941|-11.368|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.368|-30.941|<0.0001
84588042|NCT06378008|168927806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.22|-0.17|0.8083
84588043|NCT06378008|168927807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.81|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.81|-0.57|0.7362
84588044|NCT06378008|168927807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.54|-1.00|0.5568
84588045|NCT00210132|168927808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportions.||||0.99
84588046|NCT00210132|168927809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84588047|NCT00432965|168927815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||Time Frame: Days 0-114||3.02|1.19|0.007
84588048|NCT03909971|168927822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84588049|NCT05177354|168927850|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.8|||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of low-back and leg pain subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during Closed Loop On compared to Closed Loop Off period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test||||||71.8|<0.001
84499535|NCT02675426|168750279|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|39.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|22.5|<0.001
84588050|NCT06028464|168927864|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.96|41.64|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.64|31.96|
84588051|NCT06028464|168927865|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|56.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|70.6|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 37.9.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||70.60|45.11|
84588052|NCT06028464|168927866|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.91|41.74|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.3.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.74|31.91|
84588053|NCT04604431|168927891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for low-risk infants.||29.1|6.9|<0.001
84588054|NCT04604431|168927891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for high-risk infants.||8.8|1.1|0.034
84588055|NCT03537508|168927906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|8.64||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||8.64|-4.38|
84588056|NCT03537508|168927906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||13.60|4.80|
84588057|NCT03537508|168927906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.44||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||8.44|0.68|
84612671|NCT01618695|168975208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.698|-19.794|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-19.794|-37.698|<0.0001
84612672|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612673|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612674|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.524
84612675|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612676|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
84612677|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
84588058|NCT03537508|168927906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|4.45||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.45|-1.18|
84588059|NCT03537508|168927907|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|15.59||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||15.59|4.98|
84588060|NCT03537508|168927907|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|10.96||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||10.96|5.31|
84588061|NCT03537508|168927907|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.62||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||9.62|4.01|
84588062|NCT03537508|168927907|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.57||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||8.57|3.44|
84588063|NCT03176173|168927993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0007
84612678|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
84588064|NCT05715827|168928001|OTHER|The study used descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals to summarize data. The sample size of 40 patients (20 per surgery type) was based on prior studies with 3% device malfunction and 0.9% failure-related conversion rates. The primary endpoint was the completion rate, defined as ≥95% without conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours. The Full Analysis Set included all subjects who started the procedure. No interim analyses were planned.|Completion rate|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9||The study used descriptive statistics and confidence intervals, not hypothesis testing with p-values. The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% and present a 95% confidence interval||The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% with a 95% confidence interval.|Estimated Value of 97.5% is an overall completion rate|The study aimed to confirm the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System's performance for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy, targeting a 95% completion rate (no conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours). The Full Analysis Set (FAS) included all subjects starting the procedure. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess primary and secondary endpoints, confirming safety and effectiveness.|Descriptive Analysis was used|99.9|86.8|
84672891|NCT02942017|169081844|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.48|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.48|-4.52|0.0160
84672892|NCT02942017|169081845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.07|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.07|-1.98|0.6710
84672893|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.87|-2.06|0.4216
84588065|NCT05715827|168928002|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Overall Complication Rate|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|35.6||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||35.6|9.1|
84612679|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.236
84612680|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
84612681|NCT00931606|168975214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
84612682|NCT00931606|168975217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84757780|NCT02819635|169271041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||46.8|27.8|<0.001
84588066|NCT05715827|168928003|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Major complication rate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||16.9|0.6|
84588067|NCT05715827|168928004|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Readmission rate|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.7||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||23.7|2.8|
84588068|NCT05715827|168928005|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Reoperation rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||||
84588069|NCT05715827|168928006|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Device deficiency rate|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|49.1||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||49.1|18.6|
84588070|NCT03274466|168928007|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.0013
84588071|NCT03274466|168928008|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.70|0.07|0.1680
84588072|NCT03274466|168928009|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.39||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.04|0.3386
84588073|NCT03274466|168928010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sensitivity analysis of the Primary Endpoint using the Intent-To-Treat population.||0.59|0.08|0.0013
84588074|NCT05847686|168928017|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.0001
84588075|NCT03021486|168928028|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.71
84588076|NCT03021486|168928030|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.86
84588077|NCT03021486|168928031|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.12
84588078|NCT03021486|168928032|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.007
84588079|NCT03021486|168928033|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by caregiver||||0.83
84588080|NCT03021486|168928033|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by caregiver||||0.82
84588081|NCT03021486|168928034|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by nurse||||0.82
84588082|NCT03021486|168928034|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by nurse||||0.91
84588083|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - frequency||||0.12
84588084|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - frequency||||0.07
84588085|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - frequency||||0.051
84588086|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - frequency||||0.048
84588087|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - frequency||||0.15
84588088|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - frequency||||0.10
84588089|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation- frequency||||0.15
84588090|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - distress||||0.98
84588091|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - distress||||0.93
84588092|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - distress||||0.08
84588093|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - distress||||0.28
84588094|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - distress||||0.83
84672894|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.02|-2.57|0.3947
84588095|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - distress||||0.22
84612683|NCT00931606|168975217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612684|NCT00931606|168975217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84672895|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.96|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.96|-2.86|0.3280
84588096|NCT03021486|168928035|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation - distress||||0.75
84588097|NCT03021486|168928036|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.09
84588098|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in pain.||||0.02
84588099|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Fatigue.||||0.10
84588100|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Nausea.||||0.02
84588101|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Depression.||||0.97
84588102|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Anxiety.||||0.03
84588103|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Drowsiness.||||0.68
84588104|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Appetite.||||0.80
84588105|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Feeling of well being.||||0.45
84588106|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Shortness of breath.||||0.16
84588107|NCT03021486|168928037|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Sleep.||||0.12
84588108|NCT04795531|168928039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and sulfonylureas (SU)/glinides use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.34|<0.0001
84588109|NCT04887831|168928050|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1052||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.105||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.308|0.340
84588110|NCT04887831|168928051|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1078||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.203||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.203|-0.220|0.938
84588111|NCT01323192|168928063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||-2.4|-6.7|<0.0001
84588112|NCT01323192|168928064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0002
84588113|NCT01323192|168928065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84588114|NCT01323192|168928066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84588115|NCT01323192|168928067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0003
84588116|NCT01323192|168928068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4041
84612685|NCT00931606|168975217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612686|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612687|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612688|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
84612689|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84588117|NCT03396445|168928077|OTHER||Difference in Percent|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.8|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\])||32.8|-21.2|
84588118|NCT03396445|168928077|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|17.2|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg \[Endometrial\])||17.2|-32.1|
84588119|NCT03396445|168928077|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|38.4|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\])||38.4|-11.7|
84588120|NCT01664624|168928155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.7||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and alogliptin alone.||6.7|-16.9|0.388
84588121|NCT01664624|168928155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||34.3|11.1|<0.001
84588122|NCT01664624|168928155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|40.5||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||40.5|17.1|<0.001
84588123|NCT02369536|168928161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
84588124|NCT02369536|168928164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
84588125|NCT02300233|168928198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-70.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-55.3|||ANCOVA|||||-55.3|-85.4|<0.0001
84588126|NCT02300233|168928199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-943.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.0|-689.0|||ANCOVA|||||-689|-1197|<0.0001
84757781|NCT02819635|169271042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.98|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||40.70|21.98|<0.001
84588127|NCT02300233|168928200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|467.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||467.79|19.71|<0.0001
84588128|NCT02300233|168928201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|45.1|<0.0001
84588129|NCT02300233|168928202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.93||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|215.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||215.88|1.03|0.0474
84588130|NCT00049543|168928351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.64|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival distribution for overall survival by treatment arm are reported, and the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (exclude center) was used to compare the difference in the overall survival between two treatment arms. Hazard ratio of comparison of study treatment arm to placebo and it 95% C.I. were reported.||1.64|0.94|0.14
84588131|NCT00049543|168928352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)||||1.61|0.93|0.15
84588132|NCT02421094|168928408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1621
84588133|NCT02421094|168928409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9835|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9835
84588134|NCT02421094|168928410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2660
84588135|NCT00619866|168928420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.2|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.81|0.2311
84588136|NCT00619866|168928420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.14|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.1521
84588137|NCT00619866|168928421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.77|0.2041
84588138|NCT00619866|168928421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.69|0.3375
84588139|NCT00619866|168928421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.04|-1.01|0.0354
84588140|NCT00619866|168928421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.71|0.3618
84588141|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-1.01|0.7990
84588142|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.59|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.59|-1.21|0.5042
84612690|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
84612691|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612692|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612693|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
84672896|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.994||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-3.12|0.2522
84588143|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-1.63|0.1459
84612694|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612695|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
84612696|NCT00931606|168975218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
84612697|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612698|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612699|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
84612700|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
84612701|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
84612702|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612703|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612704|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
84612705|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
84612706|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
84612707|NCT00931606|168975219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
84588144|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-2.10|0.0163
84588145|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.18|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-2.13|0.0207
84588146|NCT00619866|168928422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.47|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.42|0.0038
84588147|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.18|0.5744
84588148|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.17|0.7280
84588149|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.32|0.0195
84588150|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.19|0.5589
84588151|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.20|0.5558
84612708|NCT02510001|168975313|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with PD-0325901 at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or PD-0325901.~The MTD for the PD 0325901/PF-02341066 combination was 8mg BD(days1-21) and 200mg BD continuously in a 28 day cycle (Dose Level 4)."|||
84757782|NCT02819635|169271042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.39|50.55||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.55|31.39|<0.001
84757783|NCT02819635|169271043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||20.0|6.0|<0.001
84588152|NCT00619866|168928423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.18|0.7121
84612709|NCT02510001|168975315|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with Binimetinib at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or Binimetinib.|"Binimetinib 30mg BD on days 1 - 21 every 28 days with Crizotinib 250 mg OD continuously is the MTD, the recommended dose and schedule for further evaluation in our and other trials.~This was as only one DLT was experienced in 6 evaluable patients at this final dose escalation level."|||
84612710|NCT04120402|168975350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84588153|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.54|0.0286
84588154|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-0.45|0.1210
84588155|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.68|0.0024
84588156|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
84588157|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.72|0.0021
84588158|NCT00619866|168928424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
84588159|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.34|0.0603
84588160|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-0.29|0.1855
84612711|NCT04120402|168975351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
84757784|NCT02819635|169271043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.6|6.6|<0.001
84757785|NCT02819635|169271044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|48.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||48.5|28.9|<0.001
84588161|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.48|0.0012
84588162|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.33|0.1002
84612712|NCT04120402|168975352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84612713|NCT04120402|168975353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.518
84612714|NCT04120402|168975354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
84644348|NCT01931670|169024631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
84757786|NCT02819635|169271044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||54.8|35.5|<0.001
84499536|NCT02675426|168750280|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.94||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.94|-1.42|<0.001
84499537|NCT02675426|168750280|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.08||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-1.56|<0.001
84499538|NCT02675426|168750281|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.24||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.24|-0.43|<0.001
84588163|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.36|0.0568
84588164|NCT00619866|168928425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.33|0.1190
84588165|NCT06203717|168928448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.06||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|15.23||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Paired-sample t-test|||||15.23|3.08|0.007
84612715|NCT01357551|168975371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.13||A priori threshold was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Parameters included common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, dummy-coded time, and indicators for the maintenance X each follow-up time point||The sample size estimate was based on the primary hypothesis that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less mean weight regain at week 56 than those randomized to usual care. The week 0 standard deviation was estimated as 24.6kg, the correlation between week 0 and week 56 as 0.95, and the week 56 dropout rate as 10%. To detect a difference of 3.5 kg with 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%, 230 total (115 in each group) randomized patients were needed.||3.13|.07|.04
84612716|NCT01357551|168975372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.71|29.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less caloric intake at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||29.72|-280.71|.11
84672897|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.55|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-3.78|0.1431
84499539|NCT02675426|168750281|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
84588166|NCT06203717|168928449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|11.61|||Paired-sample t-test|||||11.61|3.93|0.0009
84588167|NCT01138514|168928452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|98.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|102.5|||Fieller's method|||||102.5|95.2|0.05
84588168|NCT01138514|168928453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|100.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|95.6|0.05
84588169|NCT01138514|168928454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Clinical success was defined as a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) on Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) at Visit 4/Week 10"|equivalence difference|1.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.4|||Wald's method Yates' continuity correct|||||7.4|-4.2|0.05
84499540|NCT02675426|168750282|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.98||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.98|3.13|<0.001
84499541|NCT02675426|168750282|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|6.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.42|3.54|<0.001
84499542|NCT02675426|168750283|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.1|13.6|<0.001
84499543|NCT02675426|168750283|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|25.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.5|11.2|<0.001
84499544|NCT02675426|168750284|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.5|13.0|<0.001
84588170|NCT01474109|168928460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.103||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.834|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 3 mg and in Placebo|||1.834|0.663|0.706
84588171|NCT01474109|168928460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.268||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.106|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 10 mg and in Placebo|||2.106|0.763|0.360
84588172|NCT01474109|168928461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.606|||Chi-squared|||||1.606|0.477|0.6670
84588173|NCT01474109|168928461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.524|||Chi-squared|||||1.524|0.454|0.5518
84588174|NCT01474109|168928462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.696||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.518|||Chi-squared|||||1.518|0.319|0.3625
84588175|NCT01474109|168928462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|2.133|||Chi-squared|||||2.133|0.498|0.9362
84588176|NCT01474109|168928463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.863
84588177|NCT01474109|168928463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.649
84588178|NCT01474109|168928464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.456
84588179|NCT01474109|168928464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.440
84588180|NCT01474109|168928465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.464
84588181|NCT01474109|168928465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.342
84588182|NCT01276106|168928466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
84588183|NCT01276106|168928466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.05|-0.64|0.0979
84588184|NCT01276106|168928466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.15|-0.54|0.2643
84612717|NCT01357551|168975373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of walking per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||1.68|0.63|.91
84612718|NCT01357551|168975374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of moderate physical activity per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||2.03|0.57|.83
84612719|NCT02219334|168975378|EQUIVALENCE|Historical data at the institution for similar patients had a mean length of stay(LOS) of 25.7 hours (standard deviation-\[SD\] =10.3) from 9/2012- 9/13 was observed for 134 patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit and treated with the standard of care (NeoSucker). Given a LOS-SD of 10.3 hours, 75 subjects per treatment group would provide 80% statistical power at the 5% significance level to demonstrate equivalence in the two treatments' length of stay within ±5 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|15.72|||two one-sided t-test (TOST)||Due to slower than anticipated patient recruitment, the target size of 75 participants per treatment group was not reached.|The primary hypothesis of length of stay equivalence within a margin of ± 5 hours was tested using the two one-sided t-test (TOST) procedure, with a 5% significance level.||15.72|-10.74|<0.05
84612720|NCT05362058|168975381|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|
84612721|NCT05362058|168975382|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.26|
84672898|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.36|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-4.06|0.0991
84672899|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-4.71|0.0389
84757787|NCT02819635|169271045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|34.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||34.5|14.2|<0.001
84499545|NCT02675426|168750284|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.3|14.7|<0.001
84588185|NCT00862940|168928475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model relating direct change in brain volume (BBSI) to time and its interaction with treatment group. This model additionally includes a time-by-AChEI group interaction as a fixed effect.||2.52|-2.60|0.9754
84588186|NCT00862940|168928476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.52||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|31.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) with unstructured covariance including time, time-by-treatment, visit, pre-treatment HCV, and AChEI group.||31.04|-38.04|0.842
84588187|NCT00862940|168928477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.23||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for COWAT at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||3.23|0.13|0.034
84612722|NCT05362058|168975383|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.28|
84588188|NCT00862940|168928478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.15||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for MMSE at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||1.15|-0.67|0.602
84588189|NCT00879398|168928495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84612723|NCT05362058|168975384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|0.188
84612724|NCT05362058|168975385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|6.08|||ANCOVA|||||6.08|0.09|0.043
84612725|NCT05362058|168975386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.17|0.260
84612726|NCT05362058|168975387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-2.48|0.848
84499546|NCT02675426|168750285|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-51.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.14|-23.87||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.87|-78.14|<0.001
84499547|NCT02675426|168750285|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-50.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.19|-23.53||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.53|-78.19|<0.001
84588190|NCT00879398|168928496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84588191|NCT00879398|168928497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84588192|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatric Status: \<65 years versus (vs) Geriatric Status: ≥65 years||||0.1319
84588193|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age Categories: \<50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years.||||0.6010
84588194|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Male vs Female||||0.0289
84588195|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Weight Categories: \<50 kg, 50 to 60 kg, 60 to 70 kg, and ≥70 kg.||||0.3078
84588196|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9614||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Height Categories: \<160 cm, 160 to 170 cm, and ≥170 cm.||||0.9614
84588197|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Allergic History: Yes vs Allergic History: No||||0.0788
84588198|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Duration of Disease: \<1 week, 1 to 8 weeks, 8 to 16 weeks, and ≥16 weeks.||||<0.0001
84588199|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past OAB Treatment History: Yes vs Past OAB Treatment History: No||||<0.0001
84588200|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Past Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Past Disease: No||||0.1147
84588201|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Present Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Present Disease: No||||<0.0001
84588202|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Kidney Disorder: Yes vs Kidney Disorder: No||||1.0000
84588203|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Liver Disorder: Yes vs Liver Disorder: No||||1.0000
84612727|NCT05362058|168975388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||9.30|1.06|0.014
84588204|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Total Administration Period of Toviaz Subgroups: \<2 months, 2 to 4 months, and ≥4 months.||||<0.0001
84672900|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.28|-5.67|0.0022
84588205|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0239||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among Daily Dose of Toviaz: 3 mg, 4 mg, \>4 mg to \<8 mg, and 8 mg.||||0.0239
84588206|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Completion vs Discontinuation||||<0.0001
84588207|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5889||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Total Administration Period \<274 days vs Total Administration Period ≥ 274 days||||0.5889
84588208|NCT00879398|168928499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concurrent Medication: Yes vs Concurrent Medication: No||||0.0010
84588209|NCT02303821|168928555|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the rate of CRi or better status against an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The rate of CRi or better status in the external control arm was 26.3% (95% CI: 15.1, 37.5) for B-Cell participants with treatment difference odds ratio of 2.082 (95% CI: 0.968, 4.477). For T-Cell participants the rate of CRi or better status was 18.6% (95% CI: 7.1, 30.0) with treatment difference odds ratio of 1.646 (95% CI: 0.639. 4.245).|||
84588210|NCT02303821|168928556|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare EFS in study 20140106 with EFS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median duration in months in the external control arm was 3.62 (95% CI: 1.55, 5.36) for B-cell participants, with a treatment difference hazard ration of 1.435 (95% CI: 0.976, 2.111). For T-Cell participants the median in months was 2.93 (95% CI: 0.95, 5.10) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.404 (95% CI: 0.869, 2.270).|||
84612728|NCT05362058|168975388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||4.06|-3.65|0.918
84499548|NCT02675426|168750286|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.60|3.31|<0.001
84499549|NCT02675426|168750286|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|6.44||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.44|3.12|<0.001
84588211|NCT02303821|168928557|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the OS in study 20140106 with OS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median OS in months for the B-Cell participants in the external control arm was 8.59 (95% CI: 5.26, 10.59) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.245 (95% CI: 0.805, 1.927). For the T-Cell participants the median OS in months was 7.04 (95% CI: 7.04, NE) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.040 (95% CI: 0.641, 1.688).|||
84588212|NCT02303821|168928558|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The DOR in study 20140106 was estimated relative to the DOR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median DOR in months in the external control arm was 8.72 (95% CI: 5.07, 32.24) in B-Cell participants. For T-Cell participants the median DOR in months was 5.82 (95% CI: 1.22, 19.80).|||
84588213|NCT02303821|168928570|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary objective of this endpoint was to compare the percentage of participants achieving CR after the end of induction therapy in study 20140106 with the percentage of participants achieving CR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). In the external control arm, 7.8% of B-Cell participants (95% confidence interval \[CI\]: 1.0%, 14.7%) achieved CR, with a treatment difference odds ratio of 2.04 (95% CI: 0.54, 7.66). For T-Cell participants, 9.1% (95% CI: 0.7%, 17.5%) achieved CR, with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.47, 5.31).|||
84588214|NCT02302222|168928571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.243|||Fisher Exact|||||0.243|-0.016|0.1981
84588215|NCT00643279|168928603|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|91.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|88.7||||||||||88.7|
84588216|NCT00643279|168928604|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.9||||||||||98.9|
84588217|NCT04846868|168928612|SUPERIORITY|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on on-treatment periods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4355||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.918||"Null hypothesis: The adjusted mean change from baseline to Week 26 in MCCB overall composite T-score in iclepertin 10mg is worse than or equal to that in placebo.~one-sided p\< 0.025 required for testing subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM, including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient measurements.||0.918|-0.793|0.8854
84612729|NCT05362058|168975389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.34|-1.06|0.310
84588218|NCT04846868|168928613|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies and partner change in SCoR assessment for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5867||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.918|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.386|-0.918|0.6902
84588219|NCT04846868|168928614|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1388||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.694|-2.780|0.6334
84588220|NCT04846868|168928615|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0448||0.2902||95.0|-0.041|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.135|-0.041|0.2902
84612730|NCT05362058|168975389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.17|-1.19|0.138
84612731|NCT05362058|168975390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||4.1|-30.5|0.136
84612732|NCT05362058|168975390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-2.4|-37.0|0.026
84612733|NCT05362058|168975391|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Negative binomial model|||||1.78|0.94|0.111
84499550|NCT02675426|168750287|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.0||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.0|15.1|<0.001
84499551|NCT02675426|168750287|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|36.5||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.5|20.4|<0.001
84499552|NCT02675426|168750288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|21.1||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|8.7|<0.001
84499553|NCT02675426|168750288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.2|14.0|<0.001
84499554|NCT02675426|168750289|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||20.2|7.0|<0.001
84499555|NCT02675426|168750289|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.7||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|12.7|<0.001
84499556|NCT01190098|168750327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: there is a non-inferiority region of 4 points.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.027
84499557|NCT01190098|168750328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84499558|NCT01190098|168750329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84499559|NCT01190098|168750330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84499560|NCT01190098|168750331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84499561|NCT01190098|168750332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84499562|NCT01190098|168750333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84499563|NCT01190098|168750334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84499564|NCT00545181|168750371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
84499565|NCT04604496|168750387|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.97|216.37||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||216.37|81.97|
84499566|NCT04604496|168750387|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|219.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.39|357.41||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||357.41|135.39|
84499567|NCT04604496|168750387|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|334.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.7|543.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||543.00|205.70|
84499568|NCT04604496|168750388|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.33|245.49||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.49|61.33|
84499569|NCT04604496|168750388|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|282.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.32|565.66||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||565.66|141.32|
84499570|NCT04604496|168750388|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|640.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|320.27|1282.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1282.00|320.27|
84612734|NCT05362058|168975392|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.53|0.983
84612735|NCT05362058|168975393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.94|0.064|0.025
84612736|NCT05362058|168975393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.056||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.50|-0.38|0.801
84612737|NCT05362058|168975394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.41|-0.15|0.374
84612738|NCT05362058|168975394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.67|-0.09|0.130
84612739|NCT05362058|168975394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.72|-0.12|0.162
84612740|NCT05362058|168975395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.08|-0.15|0.594
84612741|NCT05362058|168975395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.16|-0.04|0.266
84612742|NCT05362058|168975395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.14|-0.10|0.791
84612743|NCT05362058|168975396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||2.18|-3.00|0.757
84757788|NCT02819635|169271045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||43.9|23.6|<0.001
84499571|NCT04604496|168750389|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.51|245.51||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.51|61.51|
84757789|NCT02819635|169271046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|7.52||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||7.52|2.67|<0.001
84757790|NCT02819635|169271046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.27||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||8.27|3.44|<0.001
84757791|NCT01372384|169271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 4 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed.||||0.045
84757792|NCT01372384|169271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 6 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed||||1.000
84757793|NCT01372384|169271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
84757794|NCT01372384|169271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
84757795|NCT01372384|169271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 10 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||0.274
84757796|NCT03129321|169271082|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.05|13.54||||||||13.54|-5.05|
84757797|NCT03129321|169271083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84757798|NCT03129321|169271083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84757799|NCT03129321|169271084|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|11.98||||||||11.98|-6.29|
84588221|NCT04846868|168928616|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|2.437|||ANCOVA||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. Placebo|ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline number of correct responses on Tower of London T-score.||2.437|-1.181|0.4956
84757800|NCT03129321|169271085|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.29|8.26||||||||8.26|-8.29|
84757801|NCT03129321|169271086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0020
84757802|NCT03129321|169271086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0076
84757803|NCT03129321|169271087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84588222|NCT05395936|168928647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84588223|NCT02180828|168928651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.925|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.925
84588224|NCT02180828|168928652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.298|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
84588225|NCT02180828|168928653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
84757804|NCT03129321|169271087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84757805|NCT03503877|169271092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.07
84757806|NCT03503877|169271093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.89
84757807|NCT03503877|169271094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||High mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.54
84757808|NCT03503877|169271094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Low mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||.20
84757809|NCT03503877|169271095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time to Expanded Blastocyst|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.01
84588226|NCT02180828|168928654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
84588227|NCT02180828|168928655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84588228|NCT02180828|168928656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84588229|NCT02180828|168928657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.658
84588230|NCT02180828|168928658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
84588231|NCT02180828|168928659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.274
84588232|NCT03674281|168928677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84588233|NCT03674281|168928677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84612744|NCT05362058|168975396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||1.85|-3.72|0.511
84612745|NCT05362058|168975396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-0.39|-6.39|0.027
84612746|NCT05362058|168975397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||3.07|0.26|0.021
84612747|NCT05362058|168975397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||3.44|0.57|0.006
84757810|NCT04962022|169271099|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|118.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.5|124.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||124.97|112.50|0.05
84757811|NCT04962022|169271100|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|138.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.25|149.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||149.11|129.25|0.05
84588234|NCT00582907|168928680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Signed rank|||Based upon FMF colchicine controlled studies showing an \~80% decrease in attacks, we estimated, based on baseline attacks every 4 weeks, there would be a difference of 0.5 attacks per month between rilonacept and placebo. With a two-sided 5% significance level and power of 80% we aimed for 14 evaluable participants who completed at least 2 treatment courses. The null hypothesis is that there would be no significant differences in the number of attacks between use of rilonacept and placebo.||-0.1|-3.4|0.027
84588235|NCT00582907|168928680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Bayesian modeling||Attacks while receiving rilonacept is the numerator and attacks while receiving placebo is the denominator. In Bayesian statistics credible interval equals confidence interval.|This analysis was done by Bayesian Statistics using a non-informative (neutral) prior (log normal distribution mean 9 \[SD 10\]). The null hypothesis was that the rilonacept/placebo FMF odds ratio of attacks was 1.||0.85|0.39|
84612748|NCT05362058|168975398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.63|-1.03|0.638
84612749|NCT05362058|168975398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-1.24|0.499
84612750|NCT05362058|168975398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.01|-0.68|0.695
84612751|NCT05362058|168975398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.71|-1.17|0.626
84757812|NCT04416555|169271115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
84757813|NCT04416555|169271116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.608
84588236|NCT00582907|168928681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of injection site reactions. No power calculations for this outcome.||0|-4|0.047
84588237|NCT00582907|168928681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of infections. No power calculations for this outcome.||0.17|-0.56|0.13
84588238|NCT00582907|168928682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.32||95.0|-2.4|0.5|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences in the length of attacks during rilonacept vs. placebo treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome there were no power calculations performed.||0.5|-2.4|0.32
84588239|NCT00582907|168928683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percent of courses|29.0||||0.004||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses without attacks between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.004
84588240|NCT00582907|168928684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent of courses|40.0||||0.006||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses attaining at least a 50% decrease in attacks when compared to baseline between rilonacept and placebo courses.Since this was a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.006
84757814|NCT04416555|169271117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
84588241|NCT00582907|168928685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.009||||0.009||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the number of days from the start of the treatment course until the development of the a second attack.||||0.009
84588242|NCT00582907|168928686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||12.5|-0.5|0.156
84588243|NCT00582907|168928687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.29|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences in the C-reactive protein levels between the treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome measure no power calculations were performed.||0.29|-0.03|0.22
84588244|NCT00582907|168928688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|78.1|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no differences between the platelet count between the rilonacept and placebo courses. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||78.1|0.4|0.078
84588245|NCT00582907|168928689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|139.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the fibrinogen level. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||139.5|6.5|0.063
84588246|NCT00582907|168928690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the serum amyloid A levels. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||0|-4|0.50
84588247|NCT00582907|168928691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.3|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the physical health-related quality of life between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-2.3|-11.1|0.021
84588248|NCT00582907|168928691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.9|||Signed Rank|||||3.9|-6.8|0.42
84588249|NCT00582907|168928692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.8|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the FMF Armenian Evaluation (severity) Score between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||9.8|-2.3|0.136
84588250|NCT00582907|168928693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the proportion of time participants were treated with rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-1|-15|0.089
84612752|NCT05362058|168975399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.004|-0.034|0.128
84612753|NCT05362058|168975399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.58|-2.80|0.196
84588251|NCT03309202|168928710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.57|167.6|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.60|101.57|
84588252|NCT03309202|168928710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|117.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|150.93|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||150.93|91.46|
84588253|NCT03309202|168928710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.63|167.7|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.70|101.63|
84588254|NCT03309202|168928711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|196.53|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||196.53|94.63|
84757815|NCT04416555|169271118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
84588255|NCT03309202|168928711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.2|179.03|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||179.03|86.20|
84588256|NCT03309202|168928711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|170.99|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||170.99|82.33|
84588257|NCT03309202|168928712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.7309|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.5275|188.5165|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||188.5165|82.5275|
84588258|NCT03309202|168928712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.0778|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3132|222.2911|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||222.2911|97.3132|
84757816|NCT04416555|169271119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
84757817|NCT03972969|169271120|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32|||negative binomial regression|||||0.32|0.05|<0.05
84757818|NCT03972969|169271120|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.61|||negative binomial regression|||||0.61|0.10|<0.05
84499572|NCT04604496|168750389|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|283.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.1|567.13||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||567.13|142.10|
84588259|NCT03309202|168928712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.7373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.6962|339.6647|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||339.6647|148.6962|
84588260|NCT03309202|168928713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.12|256.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||256.32|103.12|
84588261|NCT03309202|168928713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.56|272.35|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||272.35|109.56|
84672901|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.429||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.4|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.40|-6.08|0.0255
84757819|NCT03972969|169271120|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.19|<0.05
84757820|NCT03972969|169271121|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||negative binomial regression|||||0.33|0.07|<0.05
84757821|NCT03972969|169271121|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.58|||negative binomial regression|||||0.58|0.11|<0.05
84757822|NCT03972969|169271121|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.25|<0.05
84757823|NCT04251910|169271126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0813|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0813
84757824|NCT04251910|169271126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0011
84757825|NCT04251910|169271126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0002
84757826|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.9616
84757827|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.5460
84757828|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0961
84757829|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1359|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.1359
84588262|NCT03309202|168928713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|293.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.04|462.44|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||462.44|186.04|
84757830|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1688|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1688
84757831|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.6670
84757832|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8695|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.8695
84757833|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5002
84757834|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.5631
84757835|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0089
84757836|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||<.0001
84757837|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0011
84757838|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.0008
84757839|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2847|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.2847
84757840|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.2616
84757841|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.1989
84757842|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4585|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.4585
84757843|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0005
84757844|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0004
84757845|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0025
84757846|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1027
84757847|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.7953
84612754|NCT05362058|168975399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.008|-0.029|0.285
84612755|NCT05362058|168975399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.44|-2.15|0.701
84612756|NCT06292130|168975400|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84612757|NCT06292130|168975401|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84612758|NCT00711971|168975402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for the BDI test at 26-28 weeks||||.29
84588263|NCT03309202|168928714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.02|277.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||277.32|104.02|
84588264|NCT03309202|168928714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.78|298.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||298.02|111.78|
84588265|NCT03309202|168928714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|266.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.08|434.8|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||434.80|163.08|
84588266|NCT01263119|168928733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|1.00|
84588267|NCT01263119|168928734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|1.07|
84588268|NCT01263119|168928735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.9551
84588269|NCT01263119|168928736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.10|
84588270|NCT01263119|168928737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|1.09|
84588271|NCT01263119|168928738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.02|-0.50|0.6094
84588272|NCT01263119|168928739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic AUCINR of warfarin.||1.05|1.02|
84612759|NCT00711971|168975402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for BDI at 34-36 weeks gestation||||.51
84612760|NCT00711971|168975402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||BDI score at 6-8 weeks postpartum||||.56
84612761|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Gestational diabetes mellitus||||.06
84612762|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypertension or preeclampsia||||.12
84612763|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Induced labor||||.20
84612764|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cesarean section||||.08
84588273|NCT01263119|168928740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic INRmax of warfarin.||1.08|1.01|
84588274|NCT02138825|168928741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|21.48||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|51.71|||ANCOVA|||The evaluation of primary efficacy endpoint will be based on change from baseline in 6MWD using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline 6MWD, treatment arm and region as factors.||51.71|-8.75|0.2074
84588275|NCT02138825|168928742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The difference in incidences in clinical worsening and mortality will be analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel weights, stratified by region.||||0.3437
84588276|NCT02090764|168928749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) was provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.||||0.001
84588277|NCT04562116|168928822|OTHER||Ratio|94.59||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|112.45||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||112.45|79.57|0.5789
84588278|NCT04562116|168928822|OTHER||Ratio|99.34||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|117.96||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.96|83.66|0.9468
84588279|NCT04562116|168928822|OTHER||Ratio|107.81||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.14|117.24||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.24|99.14|0.1364
84612765|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||Spontaneous vaginal delivery||||.88
84612766|NCT00711971|168975403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative vaginal delivery||||.32
84612767|NCT00711971|168975404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84612768|NCT00711971|168975405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||||||.81
84612769|NCT00711971|168975406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis test was used for outliers; Tukey multiple comparisons test was also used.||||||<.001
84612770|NCT00711971|168975407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||.39
84612771|NCT00711971|168975408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
84612772|NCT00711971|168975409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84757848|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1416
84588280|NCT04562116|168928822|OTHER||Ratio|92.13||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|102.44||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||102.44|82.85|0.1915
84588281|NCT04562116|168928822|OTHER||Ratio|101.67||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|106.12||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||106.12|97.41|0.5059
84588282|NCT04562116|168928823|OTHER||Ratio|95.82||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.72|113.75||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||113.75|80.72|0.6665
84588283|NCT04562116|168928823|OTHER||Ratio|99.15||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.43|117.83||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.83|83.43|0.9316
84588284|NCT04562116|168928823|OTHER||Ratio|107.75||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|117.13||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.13|99.12|0.1371
84588285|NCT04562116|168928823|OTHER||Ratio|88.66||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.72|99.85||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||99.85|78.72|0.0962
84588286|NCT04562116|168928823|OTHER||Ratio|100.81||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.45|104.29||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.29|97.45|0.6807
84588287|NCT04562116|168928824|OTHER||Ratio|91.22||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|107.63||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||107.63|77.30|0.3431
84588288|NCT04562116|168928824|OTHER||Ratio|91.05||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.33|111.53||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||111.53|74.33|0.4277
84588289|NCT04562116|168928824|OTHER||Ratio|94.79||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.8|108.52||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||108.52|82.80|0.4963
84588290|NCT04562116|168928824|OTHER||Ratio|88.24||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.08|103.7||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||103.70|75.08|0.1931
84588291|NCT04562116|168928824|OTHER||Ratio|92.94||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|104.69||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.69|82.51|0.2960
84588292|NCT01838226|168928826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.3|0.50
84588293|NCT01838226|168928827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-1.3|
84588294|NCT01838226|168928828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-4.9|
84588295|NCT02329587|168928830|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588296|NCT02329587|168928831|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.214|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588297|NCT02329587|168928832|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588298|NCT02329587|168928833|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588299|NCT02329587|168928834|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588300|NCT02329587|168928835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84588301|NCT03097289|168928882|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the recovery (%) of platelets is the demonstration of non-inferiority by the rejection of the Null Hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses: Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd=μT-0.66\*μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \>~Let Xi = (XTi-0.66\*XCi) be a difference if recovery for patient i. The sample mean and standard deviations of these observed differences will be used to construct the lower limit of a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.18|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.03||||||||||4.03|
84588302|NCT03097289|168928883|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the survival (days) of platelets is the demonstration of non inferiority by the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses:~Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd = μT-0.58 × μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \> 0"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.39||||||||||0.39|
84757849|NCT04251910|169271128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0658
84757850|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A -30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.8760
84757851|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9077|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.9077
84757852|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7208|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 vs Part A-Placebo (Day1; 4 hours)||||0.7208
84588303|NCT02297412|168928896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0186
84588304|NCT02297412|168928897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1146
84588305|NCT02297412|168928898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
84588306|NCT05047627|168928899|OTHER||Differences in slopes|0.76||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.66|||Robust linear mixed models|||||5.66|-4.14|.755
84588307|NCT05047627|168928900|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.38||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|8.91|||Robust linear mixed models|||||8.91|-6.15|0.713
84588308|NCT05047627|168928901|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.03||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.09|||Robust linear mixed models|||||3.09|-1.02|0.323
84588309|NCT05047627|168928902|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-0.33||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.3|||Robust linear mixed models|||||1.30|-1.95|.692
84588310|NCT05047627|168928903|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-2.92||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|0.58|||Robust linear mixed models|||||0.58|-6.41|0.1
84588311|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.66|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.66|0.63|0.9403
84612773|NCT00711971|168975410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
84588312|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.88|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.88|0.52|0.9282
84588313|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.03|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.03|0.28|0.1274
84588314|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.26|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.26|0.23|0.2956
84588315|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.14|0.50|0.2959
84588316|NCT03330847|168928929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.8|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||0.80|0.28|0.0193
84588317|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.39|0.53|0.6147
84588318|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.68|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.68|0.48|0.7879
84588319|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.31|0.38|0.3695
84588320|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.58|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.58|0.29|0.4586
84612774|NCT00787189|168975464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0005
84612775|NCT02524158|168975470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
84612776|NCT02524158|168975471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84612777|NCT02524158|168975472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84612778|NCT02524158|168975473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84612779|NCT02524158|168975474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.044
84588321|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.31|0.61|0.7452
84588322|NCT03330847|168928930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.0|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.00|0.37|0.1185
84588323|NCT05211596|168928949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84588324|NCT05211596|168928950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
84588325|NCT05211596|168928951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|849.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84588326|NCT05211596|168928952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|777.42||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
84588327|NCT05211596|168928953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84612780|NCT02524158|168975475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84612781|NCT02524158|168975476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84757853|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 30 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo(Day 1;8 hours)||||0.3666
84499573|NCT04604496|168750389|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|636.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.51|1271.24||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1271.24|318.51|
84588328|NCT05211596|168928954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84588329|NCT02769481|168928955|NON_INFERIORITY|A 95% CI was to be calculated to estimate the range of values in which the treatment difference was likely to lie. If the 95% CI fell below the specified non inferiority margin of 0.35%, the non inferiority of bexagliflozin treatment to glimepiride treatment would be demonstrated and the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11|||||A lower value represents a better treatment effect.|The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 60 in the bexagliflozin arm would be greater than change in the glimepiride arm by greater than 0.35%.||0.11|-0.21|
84588330|NCT02769481|168928956|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.52||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-3.52|-5.10|< 0.0001
84588331|NCT02769481|168928957|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-6.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-2.51||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-2.51|-10.56|0.0008
84588332|NCT02769481|168928958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline HbA1c, background treatment, eGFR at baseline, treatment as a fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over glimepiride.|||0.28|0.05|< 0.0001
84588333|NCT02769481|168928959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of bexagliflozin over glimepiride in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 60 will be declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval is less than 0|Difference of LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.21|
84588334|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|1.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||1.1|-41.9|
84588335|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|3.9|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||3.9|-39.5|
84612782|NCT02524158|168975477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
84612783|NCT02524158|168975478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.10
84757854|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Placebo-Part A (Day1; 1 hour)||||0.0191
84612784|NCT02524158|168975479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.202
84612785|NCT02524158|168975480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.369
84612786|NCT02524158|168975481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
84612787|NCT02524158|168975482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.067
84612788|NCT02524158|168975484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
84612789|NCT02524158|168975485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
84612790|NCT02524158|168975486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
84612791|NCT02524158|168975487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
84612792|NCT00596830|168975491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.404||The p-value stated is the 2-sided p-value from the log rank test stratified by gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and histology.|Log Rank|||||1.404|0.990|0.064
84612793|NCT00596830|168975492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.315||2-sided p-value is from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||HR was based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.315|0.925|0.270
84588336|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|17.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||17.5|-26.0|
84588337|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER|||||||0.697||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.697
84588338|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.844
84588339|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER|||||||0.256||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.256
84588340|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.571
84588341|NCT05819398|168928993|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.232
84612794|NCT00596830|168975493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-1.472||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6|||Chi-squared||Risk difference confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||5.6|-8.6|0.685
84612795|NCT01868334|168975572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period||||||0.05
84612796|NCT01868334|168975572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for percentage point difference between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
84612797|NCT01868334|168975573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between pre and post intervention for Pre-post study period||||||0.05
84757855|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0006
84757856|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||<.0001
84588342|NCT05819398|168928994|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|20.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||20.1|-39.2|
84588343|NCT05819398|168928994|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|7.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||7.6|-52.0|
84612798|NCT01868334|168975573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for difference between pre and post changes in vaccination rates for Pre-Post study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
84612799|NCT02951429|168975577|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|3.06||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-11.30|0.6527
84612800|NCT02951429|168975578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.34|0.67|0.7568
84612801|NCT02951429|168975579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.15|0.68|0.3760
84612802|NCT02951429|168975580|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|2.85||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|17.84|||Chi-squared|||||17.84|-12.13|0.7046
84612803|NCT02951429|168975581|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|0.94||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.62|0.7550
84612804|NCT02951429|168975582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.9174
84612805|NCT02951429|168975583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||||1.62|0.70|0.7748
84612806|NCT02951429|168975584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.38|0.4258
84612807|NCT02951429|168975586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.31|0.3161
84612808|NCT02951429|168975596|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-206.59||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.03|506.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||506.85|-920.03|0.5646
84612809|NCT02951429|168975597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|2.36|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -4.22||||2.36|-9.98|0.5255
84588344|NCT05819398|168928994|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|21.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||21.6|-39.1|
84588345|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER||Difference of least square means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.4|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||9.4|-4.5|
84588346|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||6.3|-7.5|
84588347|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||10.0|-3.9|
84588348|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.887
84588349|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.902
84588350|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER|||||||0.866||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.866
84588351|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.825
84588352|NCT05819398|168928995|OTHER|||||||0.634||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.634
84588353|NCT05819398|168928996|OTHER||Difference of least square means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||15.3|-6.1|
84612810|NCT02951429|168975598|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -5.07||||6.00|-18.00|0.4263
84612811|NCT04569357|168975605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 25%.||||0.0199
84612812|NCT04569357|168975606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0096
84612813|NCT04569357|168975607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (attention deficit subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0063
84612814|NCT04569357|168975608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0525
84612815|NCT04569357|168975609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect analysis.||||0.0024
84612816|NCT04569357|168975609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.1722
84612817|NCT04569357|168975609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.0012
84612818|NCT04569357|168975610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
84757857|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1;8 hours)||||0.0003
84757858|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0006
84588354|NCT05819398|168928996|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||5.5|-15.9|
84588355|NCT05819398|168928996|OTHER||Difference of least square means|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|18.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||18.5|-3.3|
84588356|NCT01649869|168929029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome based on generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
84588357|NCT01649869|168929030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
84588358|NCT01649869|168929031|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84588359|NCT01649869|168929032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
84612819|NCT04569357|168975611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Systolic pressure data.||||0.81
84612820|NCT04569357|168975611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Diastolic pressure data.||||0.22
84588360|NCT01649869|168929033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0752
84588361|NCT01649869|168929035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4823|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.4823
84588362|NCT01649869|168929036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
84588363|NCT01649869|168929037|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8212|||||||Generalized linear model|For binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.8212
84588364|NCT01649869|168929038|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8356|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.8356
84612821|NCT04569357|168975612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
84672902|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.66|-4.73|0.1375
84588365|NCT01649869|168929039|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.7961|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.7961
84588366|NCT01649869|168929040|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8675|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.8675
84588367|NCT01649869|168929041|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.9682|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.9682
84588368|NCT01649869|168929042|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.6063|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.6063
84588369|NCT01649869|168929043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84612822|NCT04569357|168975613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84612823|NCT04569357|168975614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84612824|NCT04569357|168975615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84612825|NCT04569357|168975616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0254
84612826|NCT01457846|168975617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|2.21||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||2.21|1.12|0.9581
84757859|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
84757860|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0029
84588370|NCT01649869|168929044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6043
84588371|NCT01649869|168929045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6513
84588372|NCT01649869|168929046|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84588373|NCT01649869|168929047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0659
84588374|NCT01649869|168929048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84612827|NCT01457846|168975618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|1.95||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.89|0.8156
84612828|NCT01457846|168975619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.35||1-sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|0.02|0.9970
84612829|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.008
84612830|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||0.040
84757861|NCT04251910|169271129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2446|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.2446
84757862|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.0926
84757863|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3976|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.3976
84757864|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1169|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1169
84757865|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.3786
84757866|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24hours)||||0.5640
84757867|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.6020
84757868|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5875
84757869|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1055|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.1055
84757870|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0024
84757871|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0016
84757872|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0002
84499574|NCT04604496|168750390|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|114.1||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||114.10|63.60|
84757873|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2039|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.2039
84757874|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1948
84757875|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5615
84499575|NCT04604496|168750390|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.95|129.07||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||129.07|71.95|
84757876|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8266|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.8266
84757877|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
84757878|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0004
84757879|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.1037
84757880|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3267|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3267
84757881|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.0339
84757882|NCT04251910|169271130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1892|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day7)||||0.1892
84757883|NCT04251910|169271131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.3359
84757884|NCT04251910|169271131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0004
84757885|NCT04251910|169271131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0351
84757886|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0952
84757887|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8977|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.8977
84757888|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
84757889|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3147
84757890|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
84757891|NCT04251910|169271132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1241|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.1241
84757892|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.4080
84757893|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4198|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.4198
84757894|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 2 hours)||||0.0370
84757895|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1324|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1324
84757896|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0624
84757897|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6334|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.6334
84757898|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0275
84757899|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
84757900|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0001
84757901|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 8 hours)||||<.0001
84588375|NCT01139515|168929088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|105.7||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.70|92.17|
84588376|NCT01139515|168929088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.23|117.24||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.24|102.23|
84588377|NCT01139515|168929088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.65|117.72||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.72|102.65|
84588378|NCT01139515|168929089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|99.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.97|106.31||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||106.31|92.97|
84588379|NCT01139515|168929089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.36|118.18||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.18|103.36|
84588380|NCT01139515|168929089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.28|118.09||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.09|103.28|
84588381|NCT01139515|168929090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|101.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.97|120.58||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||120.58|85.97|
84588382|NCT01139515|168929090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.23|116.73||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||116.73|83.23|
84588383|NCT01139515|168929090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|127.25||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||127.25|90.72|
84588384|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84757902|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2806|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.2806
84757903|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
84757904|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hour)||||<.0001
84757905|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0009
84588385|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588386|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84588387|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9913
84757906|NCT04251910|169271133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0081
84757907|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0591|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0591
84757908|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0966
84588388|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0427
84588389|NCT01690273|168929095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1856
84588390|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84588391|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84588392|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84588393|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588394|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
84588395|NCT01690273|168929096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.876
84612831|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 months||||0.033
84588396|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84588397|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84588398|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84588399|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
84588400|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84588401|NCT01690273|168929097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
84588402|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84588403|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588404|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
84588405|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
84588406|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84757909|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
84757910|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0290
84757911|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0937
84588407|NCT01690273|168929098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
84588408|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84588409|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588410|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84588411|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
84588412|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
84588413|NCT01690273|168929099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.526
84588414|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
84588415|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84588416|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
84588417|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
84588418|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.098
84588419|NCT01690273|168929100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.645
84588420|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84588421|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84588422|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84588423|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588424|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
84588425|NCT01690273|168929101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.476
84588426|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84588427|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588428|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588429|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588430|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
84588431|NCT01690273|168929102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.985
84588432|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
84588433|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
84588434|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588435|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84588436|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
84588437|NCT01690273|168929103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
84588438|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588439|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588440|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84588441|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.618
84588442|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84588443|NCT01690273|168929104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
84588444|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
84588445|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
84588446|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84588447|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84588448|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
84588449|NCT01690273|168929105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
84588450|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
84612832|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.500
84757912|NCT04251910|169271134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2747|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.2747
84588451|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
84588452|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
84588453|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
84588454|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.970
84612833|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.750
84612834|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.156
84612835|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.938
84612836|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.250
84612837|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.999
84612838|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.057
84588455|NCT01690273|168929106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84588456|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
84672903|NCT02942017|169081846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.46|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.46|-3.11|0.8170
84588457|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
84612839|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.031
84612840|NCT01846741|168975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.625
84612841|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0008
84757913|NCT04251910|169271137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0002
84757914|NCT00804570|169271140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-9.72|0.120
84757915|NCT00804570|169271141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.27|0.013
84757916|NCT00804570|169271142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.37||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|10.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.77|-0.02|0.051
84588458|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.503
84588459|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
84588460|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
84588461|NCT01690273|168929107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84588462|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
84588463|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
84588464|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.157
84588465|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
84588466|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
84588467|NCT01690273|168929108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
84588468|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
84588469|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
84588470|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84588471|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
84588472|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
84588473|NCT01690273|168929109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
84612842|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure Score||||0.0544
84612843|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0207
84612844|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0163
84612845|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0156
84612846|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0742
84612847|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0884
84612848|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0007
84612849|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.1173
84612850|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0214
84612851|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0114
84612852|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0078
84612853|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0875
84612854|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.1526
84612855|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0031
84757917|NCT00804570|169271143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-1.07|0.249
84757918|NCT00804570|169271144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.12|0.199
84499576|NCT04604496|168750390|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.94|181.1||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||181.10|100.94|
84612856|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.0828
84612857|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0092
84612858|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0096
84612859|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0234
84612860|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0284
84612861|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.0679
84612862|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0003
84612863|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0728
84612864|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0005
84612865|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0005
84612866|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0078
84612867|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0078
84757919|NCT00804570|169271145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-2.03|0.318
84757920|NCT00804570|169271146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-5.80|0.034
84757921|NCT00804570|169271147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.96|0.85|0.001
84588474|NCT02410772|168929198|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||4.5|-2.6|0.05
84588475|NCT02410772|168929198|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||6.6|-0.6|0.05
84588476|NCT02410772|168929199|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||5.1|-1.1|0.05
84588477|NCT02410772|168929199|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.7||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||7.7|1.2|0.05
84588478|NCT02410772|168929200|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.2||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||3.2|-4.3|0.05
84588479|NCT02410772|168929200|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||-1.5|-8.7|0.05
84588480|NCT02410772|168929205|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.45|
84588481|NCT02410772|168929205|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.79||||||||7.79|0.45|
84588482|NCT02410772|168929206|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.11||||||||4.11|-2.01|
84588483|NCT02410772|168929206|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066)|Risk Difference (RD)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.9||||||||6.90|0.42|
84588484|NCT02410772|168929208|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-0.6|
84588485|NCT02410772|168929208|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|5.7||||||||5.70|-1.12|
84588486|NCT02410772|168929209|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.9||||||||8.9|2.8|
84612868|NCT01846741|168975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0273
84612869|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0192
84612870|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.8069
84672904|NCT02942017|169081847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.7|1.2|0.0168
84672905|NCT02942017|169081847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.6|1.0|0.0482
84499577|NCT00883740|168750418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-11.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.61|-26.69|<0.0001
84588487|NCT02410772|168929209|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3||||||||6.3|0.5|
84588488|NCT05067335|168929225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|10.39|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||10.39|8.34|<0.001
84588489|NCT05067335|168929228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.54|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||3.54|2.18|<0.001
84757922|NCT00804570|169271148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.96||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.91|0.103
84612871|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.2416
84612872|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1111
84588490|NCT05067335|168929229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.38|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||4.38|2.58|<0.001
84588491|NCT00949533|168929243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||||||0.825
84612873|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0014
84588492|NCT00949533|168929244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
84588493|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cough: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||1.000
84588494|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Chi-squared|||Rhinorrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||0.284
84588495|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sore throat: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
84588496|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Shortness of breath: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
84588497|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.487
84588498|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.593
84612874|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3247
84588499|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Conjunctivitis: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
84588500|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
84612875|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0826
84612876|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1040
84612877|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0094
84612878|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.5874
84612879|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1508
84612880|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.0136
84612881|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0015
84612882|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3522
84612883|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0240
84672906|NCT02942017|169081847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||2.0|0.3|0.5857
84588501|NCT00949533|168929245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.106
84612884|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0353
84612885|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0361
84612886|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.1921
84612887|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1639
84612888|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1738
84588502|NCT01493089|168929247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.563||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.563
84612889|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0401
84612890|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.2753
84757923|NCT00804570|169271149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.89|0.012
84757924|NCT00804570|169271150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.05|0.392
84588503|NCT01493089|168929248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903||||0.712||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.712
84588504|NCT01493089|168929249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.457
84612891|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0056
84612892|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1173
84612893|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0268
84612894|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final||||0.4406
84612895|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional Well Being Final||||0.7926
84757925|NCT00804570|169271151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-1.10|0.185
84499578|NCT00883740|168750419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-11.8||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.80|-23.29|<0.0001
84499579|NCT00883740|168750420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.3||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||2.30|-5.92|0.3841
84499580|NCT00883740|168750421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|33.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||33.61|17.48|<0.0001
84499581|NCT00883740|168750422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|7.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||7.11|3.74|<0.0001
84499582|NCT00883740|168750423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.51|-4.31|0.0135
84588505|NCT01493089|168929250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.625||95.0|-9.7|15.3|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||15.3|-9.7|0.625
84588506|NCT01493089|168929250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||10.6|-15.0|0.755
84612896|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final||||0.0987
84612897|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final||||0.0361
84757926|NCT00804570|169271152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.92|||ANCOVA|||||2.92|-0.42|0.142
84757927|NCT00804570|169271153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.04||P-value is for desire to stop drinking at this time.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.01|0.69
84757928|NCT00804570|169271153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45||P-value is for expectation of success in quitting alcohol.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.85|0.545
84612898|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final||||0.0615
84612899|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0024
84757929|NCT00804570|169271153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.24||P-value is for difficulty to quit and remain abstinent.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.20|0.190
84757930|NCT00804570|169271153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4||P-value is for goal related to alcohol use.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.49|0.856
84757931|NCT00804570|169271154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.68|0.297
84499583|NCT00883740|168750424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.66||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.66|-2.41|0.0008
84499584|NCT00883740|168750425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|-0.17||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.17|-14.18|0.0447
84588507|NCT01493089|168929250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||17.2|-3.6|0.194
84757932|NCT00804570|169271155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.36|-1.44|0.633
84499585|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.39||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 1||0.39|-1.07|0.3613
84499586|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.09||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 2||0.09|-2.29|0.0686
84588508|NCT01493089|168929251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||7.0|-15.0|0.501
84588509|NCT01493089|168929251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||8.2|-17.6|0.518
84612900|NCT01846741|168975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0155
84612901|NCT01846741|168975631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||3 months||||0.0625
84588510|NCT01493089|168929251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||13.1|-11.2|0.794
84588511|NCT01493089|168929252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||11.2|-6.3|0.494
84588512|NCT01493089|168929252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||9.1|-14.7|0.751
84588513|NCT01493089|168929252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|9.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||9.6|-16.4|0.690
84588514|NCT02164864|168929258|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the first step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 110mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority.||0.63|0.42|<0.0001
84588515|NCT02164864|168929258|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||P-values for non-inferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the second step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 150mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority||0.88|0.58|<.0001
84499587|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-1.03||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 3||-1.03|-3.85|0.0009
84499588|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.71||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 4||-1.71|-5.33|0.0002
84499589|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 5||-0.86|-5.16|0.0065
84588516|NCT02164864|168929258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fourth step in hierarchy.||0.63|0.42|<0.001
84588517|NCT02164864|168929258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Regression, Cox|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model||A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the sixth step in hierarchy.|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|0.88|0.58|0.0020
84588518|NCT02164864|168929259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.95||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||3.95|0.25|0.9862
84588519|NCT02164864|168929259|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.64|||Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||6.64|0.38|0.5277
84588520|NCT02164864|168929260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.25|0.50|0.8853
84588521|NCT02164864|168929260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.61|0.15|0.2380
84588522|NCT02164864|168929261|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.88||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.88|0.72|0.5252
84757933|NCT00804570|169271158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.07||P-value is for supine systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|-2.62|0.409
84499590|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.41||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 6||-1.41|-6.36|0.0024
84757934|NCT00804570|169271158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.73||P-value is for supine diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-1.63|0.452
84588523|NCT02164864|168929261|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.47|0.5670
84588524|NCT02164864|168929262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.65||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.65|0.76|0.5579
84588525|NCT02164864|168929262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.34|0.51|0.4414
84588526|NCT02164864|168929263|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.41|0.94|0.0861
84588527|NCT02164864|168929263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.04||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.04|0.66|0.6144
84588528|NCT02164864|168929264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.67||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.67|0.63|0.4803
84588529|NCT02164864|168929264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.83||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.83|0.42|0.8537
84588530|NCT02164864|168929265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.66||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.66|0.19|0.9388
84588531|NCT02164864|168929265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.93||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.93|0.03|0.3030
84612902|NCT01846741|168975631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||6 months||||0.1094
84588532|NCT02164864|168929266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.4||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.40|0.79|0.1546
84588533|NCT02164864|168929266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.81||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.81|0.35|0.9789
84588534|NCT02164864|168929267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.79||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.79|1.00|0.0484
84757935|NCT00804570|169271159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.93|0.456
84588535|NCT02164864|168929267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.47|0.71|0.8903
84588536|NCT02164864|168929268|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fifth step in hierarchy.||1.53|0.90|0.1128
84612903|NCT01846741|168975631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||12 months||||0.0342
84757936|NCT00804570|169271160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-4.41|0.081
84612904|NCT01846741|168975631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||18 Months||||0.5417
84757937|NCT00804570|169271161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
84499591|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.16||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 7||-0.16|-5.01|0.0366
84499592|NCT00883740|168750426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|0.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 8||0.11|-5.82|0.0593
84499593|NCT00883740|168750427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.29||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 1||0.29|-2.79|0.1106
84499594|NCT00883740|168750427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 2||-3.51|-8.49|<0.0001
84499595|NCT00883740|168750427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-3.13||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 3||-3.13|-10.53|0.0004
84499596|NCT00883740|168750427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.88||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 4||-0.88|-10.00|0.0199
84499597|NCT00883740|168750428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.5||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||3.50|0.78|0.0024
84499598|NCT00883740|168750429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.13||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|0.32||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||0.32|-16.59|0.0591
84588537|NCT02164864|168929268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.73||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.73|0.98|0.0720
84588538|NCT02164864|168929268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.39|0.68|0.8750
84588539|NCT02164864|168929269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.79|0.6080
84499599|NCT00883740|168750429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-10.2||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-10.20|-27.43|<0.0001
84499600|NCT00883740|168750430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.47||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||1.26|-12.20|0.1101
84499601|NCT00883740|168750430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.39||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|-6.42||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-6.42|-20.36|0.0002
84644349|NCT01931670|169024632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.009
84757938|NCT00804570|169271162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84499602|NCT00883740|168750431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||1.24|0.58|<0.0001
84499603|NCT00883740|168750431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||1.53|0.76|<0.0001
84499604|NCT00883740|168750431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||1.28|0.46|<0.0001
84499605|NCT00883740|168750431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||1.26|0.51|<0.0001
84588540|NCT02164864|168929269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.41|0.65|0.8348
84588541|NCT02164864|168929270|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the third step in hierarchy.||1.29|0.84|0.0047
84588542|NCT02164864|168929270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.43|0.90|0.3002
84499606|NCT00883740|168750432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-3.89||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-3.89|-11.44|0.0001
84499607|NCT00883740|168750432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-2.07||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-2.07|-13.27|0.0077
84588543|NCT02164864|168929270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.19|0.67|0.4432
84588544|NCT00557193|168929277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.107||||0.672|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.403||A priori significance level threshold of alpha=0.15|Log Rank||Arm C is the numerator and Arm B is the denominator of the estimated hazard ratio|A one-sided log rank test will be used for testing whether the EFS in Arm C (chemo+lest) at DL2 is greater than the EFS in Arm B (chemo). This is equivalent to testing the null hypothesis of hazard ratio (HR)=1 versus the alternative of HR\<1.||1.403||0.672
84588545|NCT00652834|168929290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is only for GSRS score comparison only.|t-test, 2 sided||The GSRS range is 1-7|"The results of the initial SBCE exams were evaluated by a visually challenged GI specialist who gave us a descriptive report. By the end of the study, we submitted the final reports to the same specialist and asked his impression on the significant changes observed in patients' exams for each GI segment (stomach and small bowel).~There were no comparison groups. Each patient is their own control. Given that this is a pilot study there is no power calculation."||||0.05
84588546|NCT00402987|168929296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0003||95.0|5.5|17.9|||generalized linear model|p-value was calculated using Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||Null hypothesis: No difference in SPID2 (PI-VAS) at two hours between celecoxib 100 mg and placebo. Sample size was based on an expected effect size of 0.42 (from earlier studies), 80% power and an alpha of 0.05.||17.9|5.5|0.0003
84612905|NCT01853878|168975640|EQUIVALENCE|P-value of the Wald test from a Cox regression model to test H0 = { HR=1} (Y = Time to Event)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.592||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|35.167|||Regression, Cox|||Estimates of Hazard Ratio (HR) and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained by Cox regression modelling.The Likelihood ratio test was used to compare the groups. The Cox proportional hazard regression was stratified by previous treatment \[Chemotherapy (CT) vs. no-CT\] and disease stage.||35.167|0.600|0.1422
84588547|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.212
84588548|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.056
84588549|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84588550|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
84612906|NCT00383162|168975650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.17|9.36|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||9.36|2.17|<0.001
84757939|NCT00804570|169271163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||P-value is for orthostatic systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.82|0.235
84499608|NCT00883740|168750432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68||||0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|3.44||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||3.44|-14.81|0.2196
84499609|NCT00883740|168750432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|-1.64||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-1.64|-10.73|0.0081
84588551|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499610|NCT00883740|168750433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
84499611|NCT00883740|168750433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.36||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-0.36|-1.06|0.0001
84612907|NCT03916081|168975686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.983|0.619||MMRM = mixed effects model for repeated measures vIGA-AD = validated Investigator Global Assessment scale for Atopic Dermatitis|MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.619|-2.983|0.356
84757940|NCT00804570|169271163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.42||P-value is for orthostatic diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.05|0.400
84757941|NCT00804570|169271164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-0.08|0.077
84757942|NCT00804570|169271166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|0.24|<0.001
84757943|NCT00290342|169271167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to diphteria||1.79|-1.85|
84757944|NCT00290342|169271167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to tetanus||1.79|-1.85|
84757945|NCT00290342|169271168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 1, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.82||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 1||1.82|-1.85|
84757946|NCT00290342|169271168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 2, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 2||2.71|-1.36|
84757947|NCT00290342|169271168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 3, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.24||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 3||2.24|-2.28|
84757948|NCT00290342|169271169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertussis toxoid, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.13||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PT||4.13|-0.46|
84757949|NCT00290342|169271169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to filamentous haemagglutinin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-FHA||2.95|-1.88|
84757950|NCT00290342|169271169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertactin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.64||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PRN||2.64|-1.4|
84757951|NCT00916149|169271179|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For each group (levetiracetam and no treatment), the change in IEDs/hour from pre to post-intervention: p \>0.05. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Change in frequency of IEDs/per hour was assessed for each group (levetiracetam and no treatment)||||>0.05
84757952|NCT00916149|169271180|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.005
84757953|NCT00916149|169271180|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam group.||||>0.05
84757954|NCT00916149|169271181|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.016
84757955|NCT00916149|169271181|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
84588552|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588553|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588554|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499612|NCT00883740|168750433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-0.24|-0.95|0.0014
84499613|NCT00883740|168750433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.14||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-0.14|-0.90|0.0084
84499614|NCT00883740|168750434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-9.52||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-9.52|-27.02|<0.0001
84588555|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588556|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588557|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588558|NCT00402987|168929297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588559|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84757956|NCT00916149|169271182|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
84757957|NCT00916149|169271182|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
84588560|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588561|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
84757958|NCT00916149|169271183|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
84757959|NCT00916149|169271183|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||0.045
84499615|NCT00883740|168750434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-7.87||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-7.87|-24.24|0.0002
84499616|NCT00883740|168750434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.23||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-3.46||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-3.46|-23.01|0.0085
84499617|NCT00883740|168750434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-2.48||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-2.48|-18.01|0.0102
84588562|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
84588563|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.014
84588564|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
84588565|NCT00402987|168929298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.365
84588566|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
84588567|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
84588568|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
84588569|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
84588570|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588571|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588572|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588573|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588574|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588575|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588576|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612908|NCT03916081|168975686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.382|0.178|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.178|-3.382|0.097
84588577|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588578|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.096
84588579|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.034
84757960|NCT00916149|169271184|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
84588580|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
84588581|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
84588582|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84644350|NCT01931670|169024632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
84757961|NCT00916149|169271184|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
84588583|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
84588584|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588585|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588586|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588587|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499618|NCT00883740|168750435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|36.4||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||36.40|13.25|<0.0001
84499619|NCT00883740|168750435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.59|40.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||40.21|18.59|<0.0001
84499620|NCT00883740|168750435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.37|38.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||38.21|15.37|<0.0001
84499621|NCT00883740|168750435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.03|35.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||35.86|15.03|<0.0001
84499622|NCT01875991|168750468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Van Elteren test|P-value for 'All subjects' from Van Elteren test adjusting for strata (RA or PsO)||||||0.501
84499623|NCT02125734|168750476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.031|0.0017
84588588|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588589|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588590|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
84588591|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.759||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.759
84588592|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
84499624|NCT02617446|168750481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.32||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.32|-5.68|0.029
84499625|NCT02617446|168750481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.55||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.55|-3.61|0.009
84499626|NCT02617446|168750482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7632||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2751|3.8014||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.8014|-0.2751|0.089
84499627|NCT02617446|168750482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9848||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4668|3.4365||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.4365|-1.4668|0.423
84499628|NCT02617446|168750483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.684||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|7.083||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in SVI between istaroxime and placebo participants.||7.083|0.285|0.034
84499629|NCT02617446|168750483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|4.992||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.992|-0.373|0.090
84499630|NCT02617446|168750484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.522|-0.032||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.032|-1.522|0.042
84499631|NCT02617446|168750484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|-0.091||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.091|-1.568|0.029
84499632|NCT02617446|168750485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.368||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.999|1.262||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVESV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||1.262|-11.999|0.110
84499633|NCT02617446|168750485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.439||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.735|10.614||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEDV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||10.614|-9.735|0.931
84588593|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
84588594|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.419||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.419
84588595|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.237
84588596|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.146
84612909|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.37||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.789|4.044|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||4.044|-26.789|0.248
84612910|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.28||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.666|5.114|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||5.114|-25.666|0.349
84499634|NCT02617446|168750486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.657||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.777|4.461||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.461|-7.777|0.589
84499635|NCT02617446|168750486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.944||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.886|13.774||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||13.774|-5.886|0.424
84499636|NCT02617446|168750487|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.216|5.133||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||5.133|-5.216|0.987
84499637|NCT02617446|168750487|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.015||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|8.198||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups.||8.198|-2.168|0.251
84499638|NCT01556490|168750513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.89|0.4552
84588597|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.113
84612911|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.82||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|-22.52|-22.52|10.88|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||10.880|-22.520|0.912
84588598|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analyaia at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
84757962|NCT00916149|169271185|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757963|NCT00916149|169271185|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84499639|NCT01556490|168750514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.61|0.0626
84757964|NCT00916149|169271186|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84499640|NCT01556490|168750515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||.96|.59|0.0227
84499641|NCT01556490|168750516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.89|||Log Rank|||||.89|.52|0.0043
84499642|NCT01556490|168750517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.3|||2 sided calculated using continuity|2 sided calculated using continuity adjusted Wald Approach||||22.3|8.6|0.0001
84499643|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.65||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 3.|||1.65|-0.06|0.069
84499644|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.29||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 6.|||1.29|-0.55|0.43
84588599|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
84588600|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.183
84588601|NCT00402987|168929299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
84757965|NCT00916149|169271186|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757966|NCT00916149|169271187|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the QOLIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757967|NCT00916149|169271188|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757968|NCT00916149|169271188|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757969|NCT00916149|169271189|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757970|NCT00916149|169271189|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757971|NCT00916149|169271190|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757972|NCT00916149|169271190|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84499645|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.77||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 9.|||0.77|-1.05|0.76
84612912|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.17||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.686|7.341|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||7.341|-25.686|0.548
84757973|NCT00916149|169271191|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757974|NCT00916149|169271191|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757975|NCT00916149|169271192|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588602|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588603|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84644351|NCT01931670|169024633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.26
84757976|NCT00916149|169271192|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757977|NCT00916149|169271193|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757978|NCT00916149|169271193|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757979|NCT00916149|169271194|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757980|NCT00916149|169271194|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757981|NCT00916149|169271195|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757982|NCT00916149|169271195|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757983|NCT00916149|169271196|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.014
84757984|NCT00916149|169271196|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757985|NCT00916149|169271197|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84757986|NCT00916149|169271197|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84499646|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.53||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 12.|||0.53|-1.27|0.41
84499647|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.05||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 15.|||-0.05|-1.85|0.039
84499648|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.26||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 18.|||0.26|-1.65|0.15
84499649|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.25||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 21.|||0.25|-1.68|0.15
84499650|NCT02058368|168750519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 24.|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
84499651|NCT02058368|168750520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-20.1||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 12.|||-20.1|-25.9|<.001
84499652|NCT02058368|168750520|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-25.2|||General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 24|||-25.2|-31.7|<.001
84499653|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.91
84499654|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.31
84499655|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
84499656|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.92
84588604|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499657|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.89
84499658|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.81
84499659|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.080
84499660|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
84499661|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.060
84499662|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.14
84499663|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
84499664|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.048
84499665|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.17
84499666|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.11
84499667|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.022
84499668|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.18
84499669|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.19
84499670|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
84588605|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499671|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.39
84499672|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
84499673|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.084
84499674|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.016
84499675|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.047
84499676|NCT02058368|168750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.007
84499677|NCT02058368|168750522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.56|0.26|0.006
84499678|NCT02058368|168750522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.69|0.30|0.005
84499679|NCT02058368|168750522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.29|0.63|<.001
84499680|NCT02058368|168750522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.15||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.15|0.54|0.001
84499681|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.13
84499682|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.15
84499683|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
84499684|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.003
84499685|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
84499686|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.009
84499687|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
84499688|NCT02058368|168750523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
84757987|NCT00916149|169271198|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84499689|NCT02058368|168750524|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.81||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.81|0.09|0.012
84499690|NCT02058368|168750525|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.68|0.03|0.005
84499691|NCT02058368|168750526|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.11||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||4.11|0.11|0.68
84499692|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 3|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.21|-0.17|0.83
84499693|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.36|-0.04|0.11
84499694|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.34||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 9|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.34|-0.07|0.21
84499695|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.18|-0.23|0.80
84499696|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 15|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.11|-0.30|0.37
84757988|NCT00916149|169271198|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84588606|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84757989|NCT00916149|169271199|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588607|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588608|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588609|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588610|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588611|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612913|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.53||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.157|3.097|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||3.097|-30.157|0.164
84672907|NCT02942017|169081848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.9||Hour 60:|GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.9|1.5|0.0033
84757990|NCT00916149|169271200|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Reaction Time score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.05
84588612|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588613|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84672908|NCT02942017|169081848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||9.3|1.5|0.0046
84672909|NCT02942017|169081848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||1.5|0.3|0.3085
84757991|NCT00916149|169271201|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588614|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.017
84588615|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.011
84588616|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
84588617|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
84588618|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
84588619|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
84757992|NCT00916149|169271201|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||0.039
84757993|NCT00916149|169271202|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588620|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
84588621|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
84588622|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.904||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.904
84588623|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.891||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.891
84588624|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.929
84588625|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.994
84588626|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.933
84588627|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.876
84588628|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.622
84588629|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
84588630|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.117
84588631|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.152||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.152
84588632|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
84588633|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
84612914|NCT03916081|168975687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.48||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.921|-0.048|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||-0.048|-32.921|0.049
84588634|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
84588635|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.708
84588636|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.106
84588637|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.140
84588638|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.188
84588639|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.239
84588640|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.297
84612915|NCT03916081|168975688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|0.568|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.568|-2.412|0.440
84588641|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.383
84499697|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.13|-0.30|0.44
84499698|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 21|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.28|-0.16|0.60
84499699|NCT02058368|168750527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.06|-0.37|0.16
84499700|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.62||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 3|||0.62|-0.11|0.17
84499701|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.59||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 6|||0.59|-0.20|0.33
84588642|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.919
84588643|NCT00402987|168929300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588644|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
84588645|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.697||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.697
84588646|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.203||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.203
84588647|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
84588648|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588649|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588650|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84499702|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.68||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 9|||0.68|-0.10|0.15
84588651|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588652|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588653|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588654|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588655|NCT00402987|168929301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588656|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588657|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84588658|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
84588659|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
84588660|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
84588661|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.226
84588662|NCT00402987|168929302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
84588663|NCT00402987|168929303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.01||95.0|1.3|5.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.5|1.3|0.010
84499703|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 12|||0.55|-0.25|0.46
84588664|NCT00402987|168929303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.003||95.0|1.5|6.4||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||6.4|1.5|0.003
84588665|NCT00402987|168929303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.634||95.0|0.6|2.2||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.6|0.634
84588666|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.202||95.0|0.8|3.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.8|0.202
84588667|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.077||95.0|0.9|5.1||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|0.9|0.077
84588668|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.134||95.0|0.8|4.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.8|0.134
84588669|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.671||95.0|0.4|1.9||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.4|0.671
84588670|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.484||95.0|0.3|1.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.3|0.484
84588671|NCT00402987|168929304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|0.4|0.814
84588672|NCT00402987|168929305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84588673|NCT00402987|168929305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84612916|NCT03916081|168975688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.061|0.914|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.914|-2.061|0.875
84588674|NCT00402987|168929305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84588675|NCT00402987|168929306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours.||||<0.05
84588676|NCT00402987|168929306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84588677|NCT00402987|168929307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84588678|NCT00402987|168929307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
84588679|NCT00402987|168929308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
84588680|NCT00402987|168929308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
84588681|NCT00402987|168929308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.889
84588682|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
84499704|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 15|||0.29|-0.51|0.59
84499705|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 18|||0.28|-0.52|0.56
84499706|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 21|||0.28|-0.56|0.51
84499707|NCT02058368|168750528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 24|||-0.03|-0.88|0.034
84499708|NCT02058368|168750529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value.P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.50|-1.54|<.001
84499709|NCT02058368|168750529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.18|-1.23|0.009
84499710|NCT02058368|168750534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.6|-2.1|<.001
84499711|NCT02058368|168750534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.9||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.9|-2.3|<.001
84499712|NCT02058368|168750534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.2||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-2.2|-3.1|<.001
84499713|NCT02058368|168750536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 6|Van Elteren test|||||||0.77
84499714|NCT02058368|168750536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 12|Van Elteren test|||||||0.84
84612917|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.352
84499715|NCT02058368|168750536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 18|Van Elteren test|||||||0.98
84499716|NCT02058368|168750536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 24|Van Elteren test|||||||0.28
84499717|NCT01652872|168750542|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|5.85|||||Difference is fixed dose - titration.|||5.85|-6.39|
84499718|NCT01652872|168750542|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.285|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|A risk ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the fixed dose group relative to Hb-based titration group.|||1.285|0.776|
84499719|NCT01652872|168750543|OTHER|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology) and accounting for participant exposure time.|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.05|||Negative binomial regression model||Least Squares Mean (LSM) ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||2.05|0.81|
84499720|NCT01652872|168750544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|Hazard ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||1.35|0.76|
84499721|NCT01652872|168750545|OTHER||Median of the difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-0.22|-0.46|
84499722|NCT01652872|168750546|OTHER||Median of the difference|-22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-18.1|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-18.1|-26.1|
84499723|NCT02913261|168750560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.22|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.22|1.65|<.0001
84499724|NCT02913261|168750561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.94|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|1.43|0.0005
84588683|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
84588684|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
84757994|NCT00916149|169271202|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757995|NCT00916149|169271203|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84499725|NCT02913261|168750562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.17|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|1.24|0.0029
84588685|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.411
84588686|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.930
84588687|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.438
84588688|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
84588689|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.013
84588690|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
84588691|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.748
84499726|NCT02913261|168750574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.25|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.25|1.80|<.0001
84588692|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.958
84588693|NCT00402987|168929309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.747
84588694|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.999
84588695|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
84588696|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.076
84588697|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
84588698|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588699|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588700|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84757996|NCT00916149|169271203|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84757997|NCT00916149|169271204|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588701|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588702|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588703|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588704|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588705|NCT00402987|168929310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588706|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
84588707|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
84588708|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.043
84588709|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.032
84588710|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
84588711|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.066
84588712|NCT00402987|168929311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.482
84588713|NCT00402987|168929312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.9||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.8|<0.001
84588714|NCT00402987|168929312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.002||95.0|0.4|1.5||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.4|0.002
84612918|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.803
84588715|NCT00402987|168929312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.186||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.186
84588716|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.961
84588717|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.985||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.985
84588718|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.975||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.975
84588719|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.532
84588720|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.690
84588721|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.820
84588722|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
84588723|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
84612919|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.250
84612920|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.756
84612921|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.097
84499727|NCT03078192|168750612|OTHER|Detecting pre-capillary PH was tested with a cohort of 32 patients. True PH status was based on RHC. A diagnosis of PH was established from mPAP \>20mmHg, while pre-capillary PH required PCWP ≤ 15mmHg and PVR ≥ 3 Woods Units, and post capillary PH required PCWP \> 15mmH and PVR \< 3 Woods Units \[21\]. Patients with both high PVR and PCWP \> 15mmHg were classified as combined pre- and post-capillary PH (CpcPH). Subjects with CpcPH were treated as positive for both pre- and post-capillary PH.|positive predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Positive predictive value for Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension: 86%|calculation of PPV|||||||
84499728|NCT03703297|168750613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.95|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model,adjusting for tumor,node and metastasis(TNM) stage, receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation(PCI),with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.950|0.606|0.01608
84499729|NCT03703297|168750614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.928|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for receipt of PCI, with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.928|0.569|0.01042
84499730|NCT01336608|168750638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.74|-0.71|0.969
84499731|NCT01336608|168750638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.96|-0.53|0.568
84499732|NCT01336608|168750638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.89|-0.49|0.566
84499733|NCT01336608|168750639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.141||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.141|0.023|0.007
84499734|NCT01336608|168750639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.155|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.215||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.215|0.095|<0.001
84499735|NCT01336608|168750639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.131||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.131|0.016|0.012
84499736|NCT01336608|168750640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
84499737|NCT01336608|168750640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.76|<0.001
84499738|NCT01336608|168750640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.29|0.803
84757998|NCT00916149|169271204|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84499739|NCT02437890|168750646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.526||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: linear model"||||= 0.526
84499740|NCT02437890|168750646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: Emax model"||||= 0.504
84499741|NCT02437890|168750646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.548||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: logistic model"||||= 0.548
84499742|NCT02437890|168750646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.985||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 1st Beta model"||||= 0.985
84499743|NCT02437890|168750646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.524||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 2nd Beta model"||||= 0.524
84499744|NCT03583931|168750696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
84499745|NCT03583931|168750697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
84499746|NCT03583931|168750702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.48
84499747|NCT03583931|168750703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84499748|NCT03583931|168750704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
84499749|NCT03583931|168750705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84499750|NCT05016765|168750722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
84757999|NCT00916149|169271205|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84499751|NCT05016765|168750722|OTHER|Pearson correlation test|Pearson's R|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic frequency with stimulation during this study) with the change in tic frequency (measured as the number of 10-second tic-free intervals) during active, rhythmic stimulation in the randomized, controlled trial of MNS that all participants had previously completed.||0.56|-0.22|0.33
84499752|NCT05016765|168750723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Paired Samples Wilcoxon Test||||||<0.001
84588724|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.693
84588725|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.039
84588726|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.154
84588727|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.521
84588728|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
84588729|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
84588730|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
84499753|NCT05016765|168750723|OTHER|Pearson's R|Pearson's R|0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic intensity during this study) with change in tic intensity during active, rhythmic stimulation during the randomized, controlled trial that all participants had previously completed.||0.66|-0.05|0.08
84499754|NCT05016765|168750728|OTHER|Traditional comparative||||||0.84|||||||Paired Sample t-Test, 2-Sided|||||||0.84
84588731|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588732|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
84588733|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.249
84499755|NCT01988493|168750732|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.28|0.0087
84588734|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612922|NCT03916081|168975689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.054
84499756|NCT01988493|168750733|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0229||90.0|0.33|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.33|0.0229
84499757|NCT01988493|168750734|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2333||90.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.45|0.2333
84499758|NCT01988493|168750735|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0059||90.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.28|0.0059
84499759|NCT01988493|168750748|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8915||90.0|0.62|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.62|0.8915
84588735|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
84588736|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.205
84588737|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612923|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.178
84499760|NCT01988493|168750749|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0438
84499761|NCT01988493|168750751|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.38|0.0496
84499762|NCT01988493|168750752|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0527|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0527
84499763|NCT00535301|168750754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Sample size was calculated based on previously-published anatomic success rates of standard anterior colporrhaphy (50%) and polypropylene mesh-reinforced anterior vaginal repair (85%) (1-10). Assuming a 2-sided hypothesis test with 5% type I error and 80% power, 33 patients in each group would be required to detect an absolute difference of 35% or more in recurrent stage II prolapse. Assuming a 15% drop-out rate, we sought to enroll 76 patients into the clinical trial.||0.6|0.1|0.005
84499764|NCT00535301|168750755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84499765|NCT00535301|168750756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84499766|NCT01447628|168750757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6039
84499767|NCT01447628|168750758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0747
84499768|NCT01447628|168750758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7990
84499769|NCT01447628|168750758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2111|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a combination of the p-values from the separate analyses of each data set.||||0.2111
84499770|NCT01447628|168750759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6583|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6583
84499771|NCT01447628|168750759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9166|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9166
84499772|NCT01447628|168750759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6631|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6631
84499773|NCT01447628|168750760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4039
84499774|NCT01447628|168750760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9144
84499775|NCT01447628|168750760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9959
84499776|NCT01447628|168750761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1788
84499777|NCT01447628|168750761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7795|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7795
84499778|NCT01447628|168750761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
84499779|NCT01447628|168750762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8688
84499780|NCT01447628|168750762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9999
84499781|NCT01447628|168750762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
84499782|NCT01447628|168750763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5465
84499783|NCT01447628|168750763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4298
84499784|NCT01447628|168750763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5451
84499785|NCT01447628|168750764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note that Endurance CPET was not done in China, hence only European data provided.||||0.6241
84499786|NCT01447628|168750765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4758
84499787|NCT01447628|168750766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
84499788|NCT01447628|168750766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
84499789|NCT01447628|168750766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
84499790|NCT01447628|168750767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0610
84499791|NCT01447628|168750767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0641
84499792|NCT01447628|168750768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84499793|NCT01447628|168750768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84499794|NCT01447628|168750768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84499795|NCT01447628|168750769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84499796|NCT01447628|168750770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8093
84499797|NCT01447628|168750770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6300
84499798|NCT01447628|168750770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8533|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8533
84499799|NCT01447628|168750771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0725|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0725
84499800|NCT01447628|168750771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8572
84499801|NCT01447628|168750771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2348
84499802|NCT01447628|168750772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1115
84499803|NCT01447628|168750773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9790
84499804|NCT01447628|168750774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7702
84499805|NCT01447628|168750775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2219
84499806|NCT01447628|168750776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1777
84499807|NCT01447628|168750776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7889
84499808|NCT01447628|168750776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4156
84499809|NCT01447628|168750777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7625
84499810|NCT01447628|168750777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2262
84499811|NCT01447628|168750777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4756|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4756
84499812|NCT01447628|168750778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7711
84499813|NCT01447628|168750778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7806
84499814|NCT01447628|168750778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9074
84499815|NCT01447628|168750779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9504
84499816|NCT01447628|168750779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8666
84499817|NCT01447628|168750779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8104
84499818|NCT01447628|168750780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4478
84499819|NCT01447628|168750781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4590
84499820|NCT01447628|168750782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8086
84499821|NCT01447628|168750783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6944
84588738|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
84588739|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.186||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.186
84588740|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588741|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588742|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.179||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.179
84588743|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588744|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588745|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
84588746|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588747|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588748|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.393||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.393
84499822|NCT01447628|168750784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
84588749|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588750|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588751|NCT00402987|168929313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.512
84499823|NCT01447628|168750785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4619
84499824|NCT01447628|168750786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7721
84499825|NCT01447628|168750787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8332
84499826|NCT01447628|168750788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2651
84588752|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588753|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588754|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.026
84588755|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.463
84588756|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.131
84588757|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.053
84588758|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588759|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588760|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
84588761|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.484
84588762|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
84499827|NCT00396981|168750798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study used a non-inferiority design to demonstrate that the Matrix Coil is non-inferior to the GDC Coil, with a clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin set at 10%. Non-inferiority was used to establish the baseline estimate, which future superiority studies could be conducted. Non-inferiority was shown with a one-sided 95% CI of the difference less than the pre-specified 10% margin||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||Intent-to-Treat, All Subjects (N=626) GDC (N=315) Matrix (N=311) All Subjects (N=626) Subjects Who Met Primary Endpoint 35 (11.1%) 34 (10.9%) 69 (11.0%)||||0.76
84588763|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
84588764|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588765|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588766|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
84588767|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
84588768|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.252
84588769|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.136
84588770|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588771|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588772|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
84588773|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.653
84588774|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.287
84758000|NCT00916149|169271205|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84588775|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.191
84588776|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588777|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588778|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
84588779|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
84588780|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.326
84758001|NCT00916149|169271206|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84758002|NCT00916149|169271206|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84758003|NCT00916149|169271207|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84588781|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.256
84588782|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612924|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.046
84612925|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.469
84612926|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.446
84612927|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.009
84612928|NCT03916081|168975690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.045
84612929|NCT03916081|168975691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.317
84612930|NCT03916081|168975691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.182
84612931|NCT03916081|168975691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.485
84612932|NCT03916081|168975691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.913
84612933|NCT03916081|168975691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.288
84612934|NCT03916081|168975692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.340
84612935|NCT03916081|168975692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.146
84612936|NCT03916081|168975692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.967
84612937|NCT03916081|168975692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.088
84612938|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|1.852|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.852|-1.098|0.989
84588783|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588784|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.016
84588785|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.808
84612939|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.367|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.367|-1.566|>0.999
84612940|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.702|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.702|-1.510|0.966
84612941|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.415|1.744|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.744|-2.415|0.999
84758004|NCT00916149|169271207|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84758005|NCT00916149|169271208|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84758006|NCT00916149|169271208|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84758007|NCT00916149|169271209|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84499828|NCT02494583|168750805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.02|0.70|0.03918
84499829|NCT02494583|168750806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.04611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.04611
84499830|NCT02494583|168750807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the third primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.17|0.62|0.15804
84499831|NCT02494583|168750808|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin: if the upper bound of the confidence interval (based on the alpha level allocated to the analysis) for the hazard ratio (\[HR\], pembro mono arm vs SOC) is \< 1.2, the pembro mono arm could be considered as non-inferior to the SOC arm in terms of OS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.69|1.18|||||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis (non-inferiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.18|0.69|
84499832|NCT02494583|168750808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.16205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.10|0.74|0.16205
84499833|NCT02494583|168750809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||0.97|0.49|0.01491
84499834|NCT02494583|168750810|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|11.5||||0.00447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||20.0|2.9|0.00447
84499835|NCT02494583|168750812|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-22.3|||>|0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-14.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||-14.9|-29.6|>0.99999
84499836|NCT02494583|168750814|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.98||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.98|1.36|1.00000
84758008|NCT00916149|169271209|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84758009|NCT00916149|169271210|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
84758010|NCT00916149|169271210|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
84588786|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.394
84588787|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.343
84588788|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84588789|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
84588790|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.023
84588791|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.892
84588792|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.952
84612942|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|2.119|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.119|-2.624|>0.999
84612943|NCT03916081|168975693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.285|1.398|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.398|-3.285|0.798
84672910|NCT02942017|169081849|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-2.42|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.42|-14.29|0.0063
84588793|NCT00402987|168929314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.948
84588794|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
84588795|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.094
84588796|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.114||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.114
84588797|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84588798|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588799|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588800|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588801|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588802|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588803|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588804|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588805|NCT00402987|168929315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588806|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588807|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
84588808|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
84588809|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
84588810|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.033
84588811|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.036
84612944|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|0.506|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.506|-2.075|0.466
84588812|NCT00402987|168929316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.500
84588813|NCT00402987|168929317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|23.8||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.8|8.5|<0.001
84588814|NCT00402987|168929317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||17.9|2.6|0.009
84612945|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.322|0.255|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.255|-2.322|0.180
84588815|NCT00402987|168929317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.127||95.0|-13.5|1.7||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.7|-13.5|0.127
84588816|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.480
84588817|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.780
84588818|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.667
84588819|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.153
84588820|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.479
84758011|NCT02997735|169271214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|27.9|||Chi-squared||ORs from multivariable logistic regression model of characteristics associated with successful quitline enrollment.|||27.90|2.81|<0.001
84758012|NCT02997735|169271215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72|||Chi-squared||1-5 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||1.72|0.13|0.15
84588821|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.469
84588822|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.062
84588823|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.284
84588824|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.421
84588825|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
84588826|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
84588827|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.354
84588828|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
84588829|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
84588830|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.262
84588831|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84499837|NCT02494583|168750815|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|4.69||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events; strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||4.69|-5.01|0.948
84499838|NCT02494583|168750816|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|6.31||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.31|-2.34|0.368
84499839|NCT02494583|168750817|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.35||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|6.89||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.89|-2.18|0.308
84588832|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.044
84540930|NCT02414958|168833012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.121|-0.063|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.063|-0.121|<0.0001
84588833|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.194
84612946|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|1.069|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.069|-1.921|0.967
84758013|NCT02997735|169271215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.12|||||6-12 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||2.12|0.18|
84540931|NCT02414958|168833012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.119|-0.062|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.062|-0.119|<0.0001
84540932|NCT02414958|168833013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-5.2|1.0|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model MMRM includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.0|-5.2|0.0397
84540933|NCT02414958|168833013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.6|-6.8|0.0003
84758014|NCT02997735|169271215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.94|||||13 or Older Row (\<1 Ref)|||6.94|0.49|
84758015|NCT02997735|169271216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.5|||Chi-squared||35-49 years Row (18-34 Ref)|||6.50|0.92|0.028
84758016|NCT02997735|169271216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.32|||||50 or older Row (18-34 Ref)|||17.32|1.46|
84588834|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588835|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
84588836|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.148
84588837|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588838|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
84588839|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.127||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.127
84588840|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612947|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.762|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.762|-2.205|0.684
84612948|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.221|1.003|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.003|-2.221|0.856
84612949|NCT03916081|168975694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.105|1.089|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.089|-2.105|0.932
84612950|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.637
84612951|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.124
84758017|NCT02997735|169271217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Chi-squared||Asthma Row (No asthma Ref)|||2.80|0.40|0.85
84758018|NCT02997735|169271218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||Chi-squared||10 or more cigarettes Row (\<10 cigarettes Ref)|||6.50|0.90|0.086
84588841|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588842|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.122
84612952|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.196
84612953|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.985
84758019|NCT02997735|169271219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.27|||Chi-squared||Less than 6 months Row (30 days Ref)|||1.27|0.15|0.35
84758020|NCT02997735|169271219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21|||||||6 or more months Row (30 days Ref)|2.21|0.15|
84758021|NCT03002155|169271228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to the pilot nature of the study, alpha level was 0.10.|ANOVA|||||||.26
84758022|NCT03002155|169271229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
84758023|NCT03002155|169271230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Physical||||0.24
84758024|NCT03002155|169271230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Mental||||0.80
84758025|NCT03002155|169271231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.81
84758026|NCT03002155|169271232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.03
84758027|NCT00978029|169271238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.9||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|23.97|||Fisher Exact|||||23.97|-10.17|0.486
84758028|NCT00978029|169271238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|16.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|33.83|||Fisher Exact|||||33.83|0.01|0.078
84758029|NCT03418129|169271270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2176||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.2852
84758030|NCT03418129|169271270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2132||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.8861
84758031|NCT03418129|169271271|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09424||0.6842|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.6842
84758032|NCT03418129|169271271|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09427||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.132
84758033|NCT03418129|169271272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.4542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4542
84758034|NCT03418129|169271272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2454||0.1261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1261
84588843|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588844|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84758035|NCT00884273|169271281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.52||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.52|-2.78|0.36
84758036|NCT00884273|169271290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.58||PP.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.58|-3.10|0.41
84588845|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.164
84758037|NCT00258674|169271291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.307||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.307
84588846|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 5 hours Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84758038|NCT00258674|169271292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.551||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.551
84758039|NCT00258674|169271293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.927
84758040|NCT00258674|169271294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.308||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.308
84588847|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588848|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
84588849|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588850|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588851|NCT00402987|168929318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.336
84588852|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588853|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588854|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
84588855|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.518||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.518
84758041|NCT00258674|169271295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.867||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.867
84588856|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.038
84588857|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.019
84588858|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612954|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.401
84758042|NCT00258674|169271296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.807||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.807
84588859|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588860|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
84588861|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.552
84588862|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.050
84588863|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.027
84588864|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588865|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84612955|NCT03916081|168975695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.996
84612956|NCT04038567|168975698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.2||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.20|-1.14|
84758043|NCT00258674|169271297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.702||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.702
84758044|NCT00258674|169271298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.413||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.413
84758045|NCT00258674|169271299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.996||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.996
84758046|NCT00258674|169271300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.451||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.451
84499840|NCT02494583|168750818|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|-2.58||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||-2.58|-10.55|0.001
84499841|NCT05144477|168750821|OTHER|Proportion of referrals who provided consent and enrolled into the study was calculated.|Proportion|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.82||||||||0.820|0.425|
84758047|NCT00258674|169271301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.447||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.447
84499842|NCT05144477|168750822|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who remained in the study at 30 days after the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
84499843|NCT05144477|168750823|OTHER|Proportion of participants randomized to the FAID Fear Diary Intervention who wrote in the diary at least twice per week up until the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.891||||||||0.891|0.308|
84499844|NCT05144477|168750824|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who provided complete data for at least 90% of all study assessments was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
84499845|NCT05144477|168750825|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was acceptable for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.975||||||||0.975|0.444|
84499846|NCT05144477|168750826|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was feasible for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.998||||||||0.998|0.555|
84588866|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.071
84588867|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
84588868|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.065
84612957|NCT04038567|168975698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.04||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for his vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.04|-2.39|
84612958|NCT04038567|168975698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.23||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.23|-1.12|
84612959|NCT04038567|168975699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.16||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.16|-2.12|
84612960|NCT04038567|168975699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-1.80|
84499847|NCT05144477|168750827|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was appropriate for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.933||||||||0.933|0.348|
84499848|NCT05144477|168750828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis at the end of hospital care.||1.32|-0.83|.63
84499849|NCT05144477|168750828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.08|-0.92|.86
84499850|NCT05144477|168750829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for the end of hospital care.||1.21|-1.43|.86
84499851|NCT05144477|168750829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.58|-1.10|.75
84612961|NCT04038567|168975699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-0.48|
84499852|NCT05144477|168750830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.86|-23.26|.22
84499853|NCT05144477|168750830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||χ2(1) = 1.29|||.26
84499854|NCT05144477|168750830|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact Test was conducted to compare the number of participants with a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \>=33) to those who did not have a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \< 33).||||1.00
84499855|NCT00639158|168750831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
84588869|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.042
84588870|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84758048|NCT00258674|169271302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.936||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.936
84758049|NCT00258674|169271303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.332||95.0||||A comparison of the claims vs. claims+MR arms was also conducted, giving a p-value of 0.537.|Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.332
84758050|NCT00258674|169271304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.860
84758051|NCT00258674|169271305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.382||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.382
84758052|NCT00258674|169271306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.988||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.988
84758053|NCT00258674|169271307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.685
84758054|NCT03715153|169271308|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline.|Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.04|0.617
84758055|NCT03715153|169271309|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|6.88|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||6.88|-5.91|
84758056|NCT03715153|169271310|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||||Rank-based analysis (Wilcoxon scores) including terms for fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and gender. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||0.16|-0.24|
84758057|NCT03715153|169271311|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.75|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.42|
84588871|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84758058|NCT03715153|169271315|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|4.59||||||||4.59|-5.12|
84758059|NCT00432042|169271326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Measles difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.82|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||4.82|-1.62|
84588872|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
84588873|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.689
84758060|NCT00432042|169271326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mumps difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.1|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.10|-4.21|
84758061|NCT00432042|169271326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rubella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.35|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.35|-3.19|
84758062|NCT00432042|169271326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Varicella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|6.58|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||6.58|-0.41|
84588874|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.075
84588875|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.059
84588876|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588877|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588878|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
84588879|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.762||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.762
84588880|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.089
84588881|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.083
84588882|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588883|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
84588884|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.064
84588885|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.841
84588886|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.110
84588887|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.119
84588888|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
84588889|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
84588890|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.087
84588891|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.826
84588892|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.345||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.345
84758063|NCT00432042|169271327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hepatitis B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.24|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||4.24|-0.29|
84758064|NCT00432042|169271327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Haemophilus Influenza type B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|6.89|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||6.89|-0.17|
84758065|NCT00432042|169271328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PT difference|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.08|0.88|
84588893|NCT00402987|168929319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.530
84588894|NCT00402987|168929320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.149||95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.7|0.8|0.149
84612962|NCT04038567|168975700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.01||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.01|-1.66|
84499856|NCT00639158|168750832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||0.004
84499857|NCT00639158|168750833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
84499858|NCT00639158|168750834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
84499859|NCT00639158|168750835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
84499860|NCT00639158|168750836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
84499861|NCT00639158|168750837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
84588895|NCT00402987|168929320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.076||95.0|0.9|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.1|0.9|0.076
84612963|NCT04038567|168975700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.14||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.14|-2.81|
84612964|NCT04038567|168975700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.15||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response to symptoms. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.15|-0.52|
84588896|NCT00402987|168929320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.733||95.0|0.6|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.6|0.733
84588897|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.03||95.0|1.1|5.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.0|1.1|0.030
84758066|NCT00432042|169271328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-FHA difference|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.23|0.98|
84588898|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.064||95.0|1.0|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.064
84588899|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201||95.0|0.7|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.7|0.201
84612965|NCT04038567|168975701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.23|
84612966|NCT04038567|168975701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-2.29|
84588900|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.575||95.0|0.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.5|0.575
84588901|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1||95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.4|1.000
84588902|NCT00402987|168929321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
84758067|NCT00432042|169271328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PRN difference|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.36|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.36|1.03|
84758068|NCT00492752|169271329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6783||||0.014144||95.0|0.4962|0.9272|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||0.9272|0.4962|0.014144
84499862|NCT00639158|168750838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank-sum test||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
84612967|NCT04038567|168975701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.37||||||||0.37|-1.77|
84758069|NCT00492752|169271329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6208||||0.003464||95.0|0.4498|0.8568|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.8568|0.4498|0.003464
84758070|NCT00492752|169271330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9032||||0.497537||95.0|0.6705|1.2165|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||1.2165|0.6705|0.497537
84612968|NCT04038567|168975702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.25||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.25|-4.41|
84612969|NCT04038567|168975702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for hig vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.42|-3.26|
84612970|NCT04038567|168975702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.33||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||4.33|-1.35|
84612971|NCT04038567|168975707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.78||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.78|-0.62|
84612972|NCT04038567|168975707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.92||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.92|-0.47|
84612973|NCT04038567|168975707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.39||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.39|-1.00|
84758071|NCT00492752|169271330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8831||||0.437926||95.0|0.6449|1.2093|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||1.2093|0.6449|0.437926
84499863|NCT00854607|168750885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.77||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.77|-0.20|0.166
84499864|NCT00854607|168750886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.3||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.30|-0.65|0.269
84499865|NCT00854607|168750887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.44||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.44|-0.06|0.101
84612974|NCT04038567|168975708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.27|-0.45|
84612975|NCT04038567|168975708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.38||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.38|-1.33|
84612976|NCT04038567|168975708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.99||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.99|-1.72|
84612977|NCT04038567|168975709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.30|-1.30|
84612978|NCT04038567|168975709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.27|-1.33|
84758072|NCT00492752|169271331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5744||||0.000537||95.0|0.4154|0.7942|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7942|0.4154|0.000537
84758073|NCT00492752|169271331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5375||||0.00054||95.0|0.3763|0.7677|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7677|0.3763|0.000540
84758074|NCT00492752|169271332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.3533||||||95.0|0.2771|0.4355||||||||0.4355|0.2771|
84758075|NCT00492752|169271332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.1579||||||95.0|0.0843|0.2596||||||||0.2596|0.0843|
84758076|NCT00492752|169271335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|based on tumor response rate (CR+PR)||||||0.67
84758077|NCT03357731|169271372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9242||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0432|-0.257|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.2570|-4.0432|0.027
84499866|NCT00854607|168750888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.47||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference Between Non-Responders and Responders||0.47|-0.42|0.457
84499867|NCT00854607|168750889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.23||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.23|-0.87|0.168
84499868|NCT00854607|168750890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.46||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.46|-0.09|0.127
84499869|NCT00854607|168750891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.96||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.96|-0.01|0.054
84499870|NCT00854607|168750892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.83||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.83|-0.41|0.285
84499871|NCT00854607|168750893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.08||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.08|-0.27|0.159
84499872|NCT00854607|168750894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.32||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.02|0.071
84499873|NCT00854607|168750895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.38|-0.03|0.078
84499874|NCT00854607|168750896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.91||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.91|-0.13|0.109
84499875|NCT00854607|168750897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.22||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.22|0.09|0.030
84499876|NCT00854607|168750898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.32||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.63|0.293
84499877|NCT00854607|168750899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.29||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.29|-0.83|0.213
84499878|NCT02756078|168750913|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.796|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.3|8.73|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 98% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||8.73|1.30|
84499879|NCT02756078|168750914|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.701|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.34|17.05|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||17.05|10.34|
84499880|NCT02756078|168750915|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.25|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|0.25|-1.00|
84758078|NCT03357731|169271373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9832||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8176|2.2042|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||2.2042|-1.8176|0.846
84758079|NCT03357731|169271374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.19|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||3.19|-0.62|0.177
84499881|NCT02756078|168750916|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.16|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.16|-0.27|
84499882|NCT02756078|168750917|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.57|-0.47|
84499883|NCT02756078|168750918|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|||0.26|-0.36|
84499884|NCT02756078|168750919|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used.|Posterior odds ratio|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.79|||Bayesian multinomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior odds ratio was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Odds ratio was calculated as senofilcon A over samfilcon A.|||1.79|0.99|
84588903|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.7|<0.001
84499885|NCT02268045|168750920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|Percentage difference|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the ITT population||||-13|
84499886|NCT02268045|168750920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|percentage difference|3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the PP population||||-13|
84499887|NCT02268045|168750921|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.6|
84499888|NCT02268045|168750922|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|107.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||107|98.5|
84499889|NCT02268045|168750923|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.9|
84588904|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.003||95.0|0.3|1.5||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.3|0.003
84588905|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.177||95.0|-1.0|0.2||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.177
84758080|NCT03357731|169271374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.88|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.88|-1.08|0.839
84499890|NCT02268045|168750924|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||109|99.5|
84499891|NCT02268045|168750928|OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4570
84499892|NCT02328404|168750960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher Exact test was used||The participants in the treatment and placebo groups will be classified into two categories of prognosis (improved and not improved) and will be analyzed using Chi-square test, if Chi-square is higher than 3.84 (df=1) it will be statistically significant (p-value\</= 0.05)||||0.001
84612979|NCT04038567|168975709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.05|-.55|
84758081|NCT03357731|169271375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03308||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16634|-0.02915|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.02915|-0.16634|0.007
84499893|NCT02328404|168750961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||||||A P-value \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Both arms where evaluated at which paired t-test for the mean difference in the two arm was calculated . where the serum 25-OH Vit D3 was measured at 0 day time and after the end of the study. after that a paired t-test where applied for the difference for the 25-OH VitD3 levels between the two time points||||<0.000
84499894|NCT02328404|168750962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84499895|NCT02328404|168750963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84499896|NCT02328404|168750964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84588906|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001||95.0|3.0|7.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||7.5|3.0|<0.001
84499897|NCT02328404|168750965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84499898|NCT02328404|168750966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84499899|NCT02328404|168750967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84612980|NCT04038567|168975710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.41|
84588907|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|2.3|6.8||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||6.8|2.3|<0.001
84612981|NCT04038567|168975710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.55||||||||0.55|-1.27|
84758082|NCT03357731|169271375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02194||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08243|0.00814|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.00814|-0.08243|0.103
84588908|NCT00402987|168929322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.531||95.0|-3.0|1.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|-3.0|0.531
84588909|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|13.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||13.7|4.4|<0.001
84588910|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|||<|0.001||95.0|4.7|16.2||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.2|4.7|<0.001
84588911|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.041||95.0|0.2|11.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.7|0.2|0.041
84588912|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.633||95.0|-7.1|4.3||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||4.3|-7.1|0.633
84588913|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.284||95.0|-2.6|8.8||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||8.8|-2.6|0.284
84588914|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.18||95.0|-2.1|11.1||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.1|-2.1|0.180
84588915|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.009||95.0|3.4|23.7||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.7|3.4|0.009
84588916|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15||||0.026||95.0|1.7|26.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||26.6|1.7|0.026
84588917|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.39||||0.138||95.0|-3.0|21.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||21.8|-3.0|0.138
84672911|NCT02942017|169081849|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-2.68|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.68|-16.83|0.0074
84672912|NCT02942017|169081849|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.149||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|7.63|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||7.63|-4.88|0.6637
84672913|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.41|0.5132
84672914|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.61|0.1672
84672915|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.65|0.0963
84588918|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.926||95.0|-13.0|11.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.8|-13.0|0.926
84588919|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18||||0.507||95.0|-8.2|16.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.6|-8.2|0.507
84499900|NCT02328404|168750968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84499901|NCT02328404|168750969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84499902|NCT02328404|168750970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84499903|NCT02328404|168750971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84499904|NCT02328404|168750972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84499905|NCT02328404|168750973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84499906|NCT02328404|168750974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84499907|NCT01236053|168751018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)"|||1.24|1.07|0.0002
84612982|NCT04038567|168975710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.42|-0.40|
84612983|NCT04038567|168975711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|7.91||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.91|-3.25|
84672916|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.49|0.4803
84499908|NCT01236053|168751018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.99|0.0976
84499909|NCT01236053|168751018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||1.36|1.23|<0.0001
84499910|NCT01236053|168751018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|1.13|<0.0001
84499911|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.97|0.1468
84499912|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.8545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.90|0.8545
84758083|NCT03357731|169271376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|-0.051|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||-0.051|-0.205|0.003
84499913|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|1.27|<0.0001
84499914|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.37|1.18|<0.0001
84499915|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.07|0.0033
84499916|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.33|1.00|0.0474
84499917|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.16|<0.0001
84499918|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.32|1.08|0.0008
84499919|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0190
84499920|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.21|0.94|0.3366
84499921|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.31|1.09|0.0001
84499922|NCT01236053|168751019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.20|1.00|0.0464
84499923|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.97|0.1194
84588920|NCT00402987|168929323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.513||95.0|-9.6|19.1||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||19.1|-9.6|0.513
84588921|NCT00402987|168929324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.023||95.0|1.2|7.4|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.4|1.2|0.023
84588922|NCT00402987|168929324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.015||95.0|1.2|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.9|1.2|0.015
84588923|NCT00402987|168929324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.854||95.0|0.5|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.5|0.854
84588924|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.013||95.0|1.3|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.3|0.013
84588925|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.003||95.0|1.7|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||14.5|1.7|0.003
84612984|NCT04038567|168975711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.4||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||10.40|-0.76|
84758084|NCT03357731|169271376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.057|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||0.057|-0.051|0.904
84499924|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.90|0.7004
84588926|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.057||95.0|1.0|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.0|0.057
84588927|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.758||95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.9|0.5|0.758
84588928|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.381||95.0|0.3|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.6|0.3|0.381
84588929|NCT00402987|168929325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.313||95.0|0.6|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.6|0.313
84612985|NCT04038567|168975711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.56||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||5.56|-5.60|
84612986|NCT04038567|168975712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|9.37||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||9.37|-3.01|
84499925|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.49|1.26|<0.0001
84588930|NCT00402987|168929326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|8.2||||||95.0|4.5|46.4||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||46.4|4.5|
84588931|NCT00402987|168929326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|32.0||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||32.0|4.3|
84588932|NCT00402987|168929327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|28.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||28.7|4.3|
84588933|NCT00402987|168929327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|5.0||||||95.0|3.0|16.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||16.7|3.0|
84588934|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|7.6||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.6|1.9|<0.001
84588935|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.005||95.0|1.3|5.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.5|1.3|0.005
84588936|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.286||95.0|0.4|1.3||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.3|0.4|0.286
84588937|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001||95.0|1.6|7.1||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.1|1.6|0.001
84588938|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.5||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.5|1.4|0.004
84588939|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.752||95.0|0.5|1.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.7|0.5|0.752
84588940|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|10.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||10.7|1.9|<0.001
84588941|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.003||95.0|1.6|8.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.7|1.6|0.003
84588942|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.511||95.0|0.4|1.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.5|0.4|0.511
84499926|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.38|1.16|<0.0001
84499927|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.34|1.03|0.0134
84499928|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.25|0.96|0.1592
84499929|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.47|1.24|<0.0001
84499930|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.36|1.14|<0.0001
84612987|NCT04038567|168975712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|7.47||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.47|-4.92|
84612988|NCT04038567|168975712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|6.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||6.30|-6.09|
84612989|NCT04038567|168975719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.13||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.13|-5.26|
84612990|NCT04038567|168975719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.67||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.67|-4.46|
84612991|NCT04038567|168975719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.83||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.83|-3.31|
84499931|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0131
84612992|NCT03368235|168975781|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4569||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|1.431||Based on MMRM model with the baseline DAS28-CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||MMRM = mixed model repeated measures.||1.431|-0.487|0.315
84612993|NCT03368235|168975782|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.807||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.34||Logistic regression model with the treatment group, country and baseline DAS28-CRP as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment comparison ACR20: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||5.34|0.12|0.807
84499932|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.22|0.95|0.2731
84499933|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.28|1.06|0.0012
84499934|NCT01236053|168751020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.98|0.1477
84499935|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.41|1.01|0.0369
84612994|NCT03368235|168975782|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR50: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.198
84612995|NCT03368235|168975782|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR70: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.183
84612996|NCT03368235|168975783|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.81||The MMRM with the baseline SJC66 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.81|-1.98|0.717
84612997|NCT03368235|168975784|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.115||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|5.46||The MMRM with the baseline TJC68 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||5.46|-7.69|0.724
84612998|NCT03368235|168975785|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|3.32||The MMRM with the baseline TJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||3.32|-3.43|0.973
84499936|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.29|0.92|0.3132
84588943|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.009||95.0|1.3|7.0||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.0|1.3|0.009
84588944|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
84588945|NCT00402987|168929328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.863||95.0|0.5|1.9||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.9|0.5|0.863
84588946|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.1|1.4|0.004
84588947|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.052||95.0|1.0|5.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.052
84588948|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.095||95.0|0.9|5.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.1|0.9|0.095
84588949|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.431||95.0|0.6|3.0||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.6|0.431
84588950|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.602||95.0|0.6|2.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.6|0.602
84758085|NCT03357731|169271376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|-0.549|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||-0.549|-2.763|0.006
84499937|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.99|0.0762
84588951|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.8|0.4|0.814
84588952|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
84588953|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.016||95.0|1.2|8.4||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.4|1.2|0.016
84588954|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.063||95.0|0.9|6.8||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.8|0.9|0.063
84588955|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.775||95.0|0.5|2.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.5|0.775
84588956|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.779||95.0|0.4|2.0||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.0|0.4|0.779
84588957|NCT00402987|168929329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
84588958|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588959|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.012
84588960|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.453
84588961|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84588962|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588963|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.814
84588964|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.024
84588965|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.022
84588966|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.966||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.966
84588967|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588968|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588969|NCT00402987|168929330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.798||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.798
84612999|NCT03368235|168975786|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.03||The MMRM with the baseline SJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.03|-1.50|0.757
84588970|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84588971|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84588972|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
84758086|NCT03357731|169271376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.085|0.55|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||0.550|-1.085|0.503
84499938|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.91|0.7243
84499939|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.65|0.97|0.0775
84499940|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.52|0.89|0.2649
84499941|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.02|0.0257
84499942|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.30|0.93|0.2540
84499943|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.75|0.76|0.5141
84758087|NCT03357731|169271377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.82|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||0.820|-0.827|0.994
84499944|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.60|0.69|0.8208
84499945|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.99|0.0562
84499946|NCT01236053|168751021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.47|0.90|0.2596
84499947|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.28|0.99|0.0709
84499948|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.4996
84499949|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.45|1.23|<0.0001
84588973|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.709
84613000|NCT03368235|168975787|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|30.1||The MMRM with the baseline GH score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||30.1|-10.5|0.325
84613001|NCT03368235|168975788|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4725||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|12.025||The MMRM with the baseline CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||12.025|-2.514|0.187
84499950|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.35|1.14|<0.0001
84499951|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.36|1.05|0.0062
84499952|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|0.98|0.1144
84499953|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.55|1.30|<0.0001
84588974|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.331
84588975|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.246
84588976|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588977|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84588978|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.219
84613002|NCT03368235|168975789|OTHER||LS mean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.1||The MMRM with the baseline participant's assessment of pain score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||38.1|-6.0|0.144
84499954|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.43|1.20|<0.0001
84499955|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.29|1.00|0.0469
84499956|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.5169
84499957|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.24|1.03|0.0103
84758088|NCT03357731|169271377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|1.013|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||1.013|-0.049|0.073
84758089|NCT03357731|169271378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.976|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.976|-0.670|0.705
84758090|NCT03357731|169271378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.151|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.151|-1.504|0.105
84758091|NCT01417195|169271379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in fertilization rate was below -12%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5|||||"Mean difference = Menopur/Bravelle - Menopur.~95% CI is based on Student's t-distribution, assuming equal variances."|||11.5|-4.3|
84758092|NCT03118232|169271386|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.8|11.0|<0.001
84758093|NCT03118232|169271387|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.2|9.7|<0.001
84758094|NCT02535715|169271417|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA Bonferroni adjustment|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758095|NCT04353284|169271418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the change from baseline between treatment arms.||1.51|-0.03|0.06
84758096|NCT04353284|169271419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-0.70|0.87
84758097|NCT04353284|169271420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.94|0.69
84758098|NCT04353284|169271421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.09|||GEE|||Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples analyzed.||5.09|0.33|0.71
84499958|NCT01236053|168751022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.95|0.4182
84499959|NCT01236053|168751023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.65||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.26|0.3597
84588979|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.095
84758099|NCT04353284|169271421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.47|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||1.47|0.11|0.17
84758100|NCT04353284|169271422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.26|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||8.26|1.12|0.03
84758101|NCT04353284|169271422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.47|0.68
84758102|NCT04353284|169271423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|56.6|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||56.60|0.70|0.10
84758103|NCT04353284|169271423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.25|0.87
84758104|NCT04353284|169271424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.1|0.02
84758105|NCT04353284|169271425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.9|0.48
84758106|NCT04353284|169271426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.4|0.16
84758107|NCT04353284|169271427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.7|0.34
84758108|NCT01040351|169271430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|. The aggregate result of 6 studies reporting the pregnancy rate of patients with ultrasound visible hydrosalpinx revealed that clinical pregnancy rate among the patients with ultrasound-visible hydrosalpinges was 12.6%. We assumed that the aspiration of hydrosalpinx could restore clinical pregnancy rate to that expected for patients with tubal factor of infertility but without hydrosalpinges (about 36.5% in our hospital)|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.0|||Chi-squared|||||8.0|1.13|0.023
84499960|NCT01236053|168751023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.34|0.21|0.1845
84499961|NCT01236053|168751023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.84|0.58|0.9142
84499962|NCT01236053|168751023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.57|0.49|0.6524
84499963|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.17|0.2875
84499964|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.51|0.15|0.2042
84499965|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||8.06|0.38|0.4733
84758109|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|98.3||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.3|79.9|
84758110|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.9|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||99.6|82.9|
84758111|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|98.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.7|39.7|
84758112|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|96.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||96.9|78.1|
84758113|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.2||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.2|79.3|
84758114|NCT00122681|169271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|98.8||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.8|44.1|
84758115|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.4||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||98.4|87.7|
84758116|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||99.7|91.0|
84758117|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||97.5|57.2|
84499966|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||5.85|0.26|0.7867
84499967|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|8.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||8.50|1.47|0.0049
84499968|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||7.08|1.17|0.0218
84499969|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.27|0.8490
84499970|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.46|0.22|0.6263
84499971|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.19|0.4122
84499972|NCT01236053|168751024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.66|0.16|0.2642
84499973|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.43|0.31|0.7891
84499974|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.17|0.27|0.6216
84499975|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.96|0.31|0.6893
84499976|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.84|0.24|0.9273
84499977|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.78|0.47|0.5980
84499978|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.18|0.38|0.8572
84499979|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.77|0.26|0.7807
84499980|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.32|0.21|0.5579
84499981|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.53|0.40|0.9932
84499982|NCT01236053|168751025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.11|0.32|0.6901
84499983|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|0.19|0.4310
84499984|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.79|0.17|0.3226
84499985|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.59|0.40|0.6206
84499986|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.84|0.33|0.8557
84499987|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.62|||Unadjusted Odds Ratio||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.62|0.79|0.1498
84588980|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.463
84499988|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.07|0.68|0.2645
84499989|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.79|0.16|0.5728
84499990|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.21|0.12|0.3727
84758118|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.5|86.3|
84758119|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|98.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.9|88.5|
84758120|NCT00122681|169271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.6|59.2|
84758121|NCT00122681|169271471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.337|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection||1.337|0.476|0.3910
84758122|NCT00122681|169271473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.362|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.362|0.444|0.3796
84758123|NCT00122681|169271475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1035||95.0|0.337|1.106|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection.||1.106|0.337|0.1035
84758124|NCT00122681|169271477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.293|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.293|0.312|0.2111
84758125|NCT05433571|169271484|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (Low DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|0.955|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.955|0.878|
84758126|NCT05433571|169271484|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (High DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|0.93|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.930|0.845|
84758127|NCT01476475|169271520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC versus insulin glargine was tested first, at alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided) and a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided). The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) at ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037|||ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. A step-down testing procedure described by Hochberg and Tamhane was used to control type-1 error.||-0.037|-0.312|
84499991|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.40|0.31|0.7743
84499992|NCT01236053|168751027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.94|0.24|0.4775
84499993|NCT01236053|168751028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|27.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||27.56|1.95|0.0032
84499994|NCT01236053|168751028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|16.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||16.17|0.71|0.1251
84499995|NCT01236053|168751028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.01|1.15|0.0261
84499996|NCT01236053|168751028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.17|0.65|0.2090
84499997|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
84499998|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
84499999|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
84500000|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|22.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||22.51|1.21|0.0269
84500001|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
84500002|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
84500003|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
84500004|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
84500005|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
84500006|NCT01236053|168751029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.82|0.10|0.9253
84500007|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
84500008|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
84500009|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|25.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||25.11|1.43|0.0141
84500010|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.02|1.83|0.0063
84500011|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
84500012|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
84500013|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
84500014|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
84500015|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
84588981|NCT00402987|168929331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.038
84588982|NCT00402987|168929332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588983|NCT00402987|168929332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
84588984|NCT00402987|168929332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.557
84672917|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.71|0.0844
84672918|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1325
84672919|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.79|0.0332
84758128|NCT01476475|169271520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.037|-0.312|0.0130
84758129|NCT01476475|169271521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.832|-2.504||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment groups,randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0, ≥8.0%)\& screening BMI(\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as covariates.A step-down testing procedure used to control type-1 error.If non-inferiority demonstrated for primary endpoint,superiority testing on secondary endpoints was performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported(continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.504|-3.832|<0.0001
84758130|NCT01476475|169271522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.895|-2.592||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as covariates.||-2.592|-3.895|<0.0001
84758131|NCT01476475|169271523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.058||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline average 7-point SMPG value as covariates.||-0.058|-0.550|0.0154
84758132|NCT01476475|169271524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.773||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariates.||-0.773|-2.110|<0.0001
84758133|NCT01476475|169271525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.592|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects.||0.114|-6.592|0.0583
84758134|NCT00676676|169271544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2-week||||0.002
84758135|NCT00676676|169271544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 8-week||||0.004
84758136|NCT01918007|169271546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|0.5|0.54
84672920|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.67|0.1273
84672921|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.66|0.1059
84758137|NCT01918007|169271547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|68.4|||Chi-squared|||||68.4|2.9|<0.001
84672922|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.82|0.0683
84672923|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4458
84758138|NCT01918007|169271548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.35|<0.001
84758139|NCT01918007|169271549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84758140|NCT01918007|169271550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.90|-3.63|<0.001
84758141|NCT01918007|169271551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Chi-squared|||||1.89|0.71|0.553
84758142|NCT01918007|169271552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.27|||Chi-squared|||||3.27|0.98|0.057
84758143|NCT01918007|169271553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.29||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.25|||Chi-squared|||||6.25|0.84|0.084
84758144|NCT01918007|169271554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.547
84758145|NCT01918007|169271555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
84758146|NCT01918007|169271556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
84500016|NCT01236053|168751030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9381||95.0|0.11|7.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.97|0.11|0.9381
84500017|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
84588985|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84758147|NCT01918007|169271557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
84758148|NCT01918007|169271558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
84758149|NCT01261507|169271563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in areas under the LROC curve|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.031|||mixed model:Dorfman, Berbaum, Metz|||Measure is the difference between the radiologists working without the software less the value for the radiologists working with the software. Thus a negative value would indicate that the the radiologists showed better results when using the software.||-0.031|-0.086|<0.05
84758150|NCT01977599|169271573|OTHER|Chi Square|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84758151|NCT02700412|169271580|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
84758152|NCT02700412|169271581|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
84758153|NCT00530270|169271583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.127
84588986|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
84588987|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.036
84588988|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.339
84758154|NCT00530270|169271584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.801
84758155|NCT00530270|169271585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.02
84758156|NCT00530270|169271586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.876
84758157|NCT00530270|169271587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.770
84758158|NCT01923285|169271591|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.~If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025."||||<0.0001
84588989|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||1.000
84588990|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.401
84588991|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.003
84588992|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
84588993|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.223
84588994|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.198
84588995|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.604
84588996|NCT00402987|168929333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.117
84588997|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
84588998|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
84588999|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.025
84589000|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.539
84589001|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.329
84589002|NCT00402987|168929336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.171
84589003|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.007
84589004|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.244
84589005|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.096
84589006|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.579
84589007|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.277
84589008|NCT00402987|168929337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.649
84589009|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001||95.0|7.5|23.2||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||23.2|7.5|<0.001
84589010|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4||||0.003||95.0|4.9|24.0||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||24.0|4.9|0.003
84589011|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.096||95.0|-1.5|17.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.8|-1.5|0.096
84589012|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.141||95.0|-2.4|16.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-2.4|0.141
84589013|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.849||95.0|-8.6|10.5||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.5|-8.6|0.849
84589014|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.266||95.0|-4.8|17.4||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-4.8|0.266
84758159|NCT01923285|169271591|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025|||||=|0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||=0.0004
84500018|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|260.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||260.2|1.78|0.0157
84589015|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.141||95.0|-5.4|0.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||0.8|-5.4|0.141
84589016|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.312||95.0|-5.7|1.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||1.8|-5.7|0.312
84589017|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.724||95.0|-4.5|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-4.5|0.724
84589018|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.398||95.0|-5.4|2.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||2.1|-5.4|0.398
84589019|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.846||95.0|-4.1|3.4||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.4|-4.1|0.846
84589020|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.572||95.0|-5.6|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-5.6|0.572
84589021|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.014||95.0|1.2|10.4||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.4|1.2|0.014
84589022|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.573||95.0|-4.0|7.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||7.2|-4.0|0.573
84589023|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.482||95.0|-7.7|3.6||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.6|-7.7|0.482
84589024|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007||95.0|2.2|13.5||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||13.5|2.2|0.007
84589025|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.143||95.0|-1.4|9.8||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||9.8|-1.4|0.143
84589026|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.273||95.0|-2.9|10.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.2|-2.9|0.273
84589027|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.003||95.0|4.4|21.6||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||21.6|4.4|0.003
84589028|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.029||95.0|1.2|22.2||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||22.2|1.2|0.029
84589029|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.251||95.0|-4.4|16.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-4.4|0.251
84589030|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.204||95.0|-3.7|17.4||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-3.7|0.204
84589031|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.808||95.0|-9.2|11.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||11.8|-9.2|0.808
84589032|NCT00402987|168929338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.371||95.0|-6.6|17.7||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.7|-6.6|0.371
84589033|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84589034|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
84589035|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.235
84589036|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.012
84758160|NCT01923285|169271592|OTHER|Comparison of the mean difference. Difference in intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia intensity minus the upright paresthesia intensity.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in paresthesia intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia score minus the upright paresthesia score for each subject.|"Secondary endpoint compared the mean differences in upright and supine paresthesia scores between the Axium and Control groups at three months post INS implant. This endpoint was evaluated at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: μ0- μ1≤0 vs. H1: μ0- μ1\>0 where μ0 is the mean difference in paresthesia intensities in the Control group and μ1 is the mean difference in the Axium group."||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
84758161|NCT01923285|169271593|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||<0.0001
84758162|NCT01923285|169271593|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||=|0.0047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.0047
84758163|NCT01923285|169271594|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0003|||||||Non-inferiority|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||0.0003
84758164|NCT00330382|169271612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.11|||>|0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in buccal-cell Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||>0.45
84500019|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
84500020|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|20.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||20.31|1.13|0.0333
84758165|NCT00330382|169271612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||>|0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in protease activity with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.88
84758166|NCT00330382|169271612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.07|||>|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in serum Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.66
84758167|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
84758168|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601
84758169|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the intermediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
84500021|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|32.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||32.06|0.35|0.2966
84500022|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||12.31|0.03|0.7510
84589037|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.438
84589038|NCT00402987|168929339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.067||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.067
84589039|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.128
84589040|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
84500023|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|113.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||113.4|0.40|0.1868
84500024|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|40.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.61|0.07|0.7558
84500025|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
84589041|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.266||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.266
84589042|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.849||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.849
84758170|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
84758171|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
84758172|NCT01309659|169271625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
84758173|NCT01309659|169271634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
84500026|NCT01236053|168751032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.81|0.10|0.9244
84500027|NCT01236053|168751033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.96|0.0963
84589043|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.828||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.828
84589044|NCT00402987|168929340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.741
84589045|NCT01668004|168929341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Treatment comparison of uveitis occurrence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=93.||||1.0000
84500028|NCT01236053|168751033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.27|0.69|0.6710
84589046|NCT01668004|168929342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||Treatment difference (expressed as ratio) in uveitis incidence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=92.||5.25|3.86|<0.0001
84589047|NCT05528770|168929359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-3.8|0.4291
84589048|NCT02448381|168929379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
84589049|NCT02448381|168929380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84589050|NCT02448381|168929381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||McNemar|||||||0.046
84589051|NCT02448381|168929382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0009
84758174|NCT01309659|169271634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the wait list group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84758175|NCT01309659|169271635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
84758176|NCT01309659|169271635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the wait list control group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
84758177|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
84589052|NCT02448381|168929383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84589053|NCT02008617|168929384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84589054|NCT02008617|168929385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Rest||||0.86
84589055|NCT02008617|168929385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plantar Flexion||||0.89
84589056|NCT02008617|168929386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84589057|NCT02008617|168929387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
84500029|NCT01236053|168751033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.20|1.54|<0.0001
84758178|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.798
84758179|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
84758180|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
84758181|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.286
84758182|NCT01309659|169271636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
84758183|NCT01309659|169271637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
84500030|NCT01236053|168751033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.81|1.24|<0.0001
84758184|NCT01309659|169271637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
84758185|NCT01309659|169271638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the intermediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
84758186|NCT01309659|169271638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
84758187|NCT02018822|169271639|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2552|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2552
84758188|NCT02018822|169271640|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2235|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2235
84758189|NCT02018822|169271641|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3891
84500031|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.18|0.92|0.1184
84758190|NCT02018822|169271642|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
84758191|NCT02018822|169271643|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
84758192|NCT02018822|169271644|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2707|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2707
84758193|NCT02285777|169271645|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|71.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|73.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||73|69|0.0001
84500032|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.50|0.59|0.8016
84500033|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
84500034|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.58|1.51|<0.0001
84758194|NCT02285777|169271646|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|55.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||55|48|0.0001
84500035|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.08|0.65|0.6105
84613003|NCT03368235|168975790|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.0||The MMRM with the baseline disease activity score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||16.0|-8.3|0.512
84758195|NCT02285777|169271647|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|54.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||54|48|0.0001
84758196|NCT02285777|169271647|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|24.0||||0.0001||95.0|20.0|28.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||28|20|0.0001
84758197|NCT03201458|169271669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.93||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||0.93|0.35|0.027
84758198|NCT03201458|169271670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84758199|NCT03201458|169271672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.410
84758200|NCT00552175|169271680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|The primary objective and primary efficacy analysis for the study was the analysis between the combined duloxetine arms and placebo.||-0.56|-1.17|<0.0001
84758201|NCT00552175|169271682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.64||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.64|-1.27|<0.0001
84758202|NCT00552175|169271682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51||P-value for Night Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.51|-1.15|<0.0001
84758203|NCT00552175|169271683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.49|-1.26|
84758204|NCT00552175|169271683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.66|-1.43|
84758205|NCT00552175|169271683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.39|-1.17|
84613004|NCT03368235|168975791|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2381||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.631||The MMRM with the baseline physical function score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||0.631|-0.370|0.589
84758206|NCT00552175|169271683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.5|-1.28|
84758207|NCT00552175|169271684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.44|-0.85|<0.0001
84758208|NCT00552175|169271685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-0.9|
84500036|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.09|0.62|0.6797
84758209|NCT00552175|169271685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.4|-0.91|
84758210|NCT00552175|169271686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.61||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.61|-1.34|<0.0001
84758211|NCT00552175|169271686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.48||P-value for Least Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.48|-1.21|<0.0001
84758212|NCT00552175|169271686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.67||P-value for Average Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.67|-1.33|<0.0001
84758213|NCT00552175|169271686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||P-value for Pain Right Now.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
84758214|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.44|-1.34|
84758215|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.62|-1.51|
84758216|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.33|-1.23|
84758217|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Mean Squares Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.46|-1.36|
84758218|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.58|-1.39|
84758219|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.61|-1.41|
84758220|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.41|-1.35|
84758221|NCT00552175|169271687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.48|-1.41|
84500037|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|1.12|0.0103
84758222|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03||P-value for General Activity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.03|-0.85|0.0676
84613005|NCT02828020|168975797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.66|1.25|0.0023
84758223|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||P-value for Mood.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.06|-0.8|0.0933
84758224|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07||P-value for Walking Ability.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.07|-0.91|0.0228
84500038|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.00|0.89|0.1629
84500039|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.73|0.4713
84500040|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.49|0.4505
84500041|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|1.04|0.0284
84500042|NCT01236053|168751034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.54|0.77|0.6262
84500043|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.95|0.0798
84500044|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.73|0.64|0.8357
84500045|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.01|1.75|<0.0001
84500046|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.76|1.53|<0.0001
84589058|NCT00976456|168929393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.682|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.682|0.989|0.0583
84500047|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.85|0.63|0.7794
84500048|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.66|0.52|0.8075
84500049|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.52|1.35|0.0001
84500050|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.12|1.08|0.0161
84500051|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.00|0.76|0.3972
84500052|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.39|0.50|0.4950
84500053|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.99|0.0601
84500054|NCT01236053|168751035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.45|0.71|0.9286
84500055|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.63|0.5394
84500056|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.58|0.39|0.5070
84500057|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.83|0.73|0.5426
84500058|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.52|0.5150
84613006|NCT02828020|168975797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.95|1.41|0.0003
84613007|NCT02828020|168975798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.28|1.27|0.0023
84758225|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||P-value for Normal Work.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.04|-0.8|0.0783
84758226|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||P-value for Relation to People.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.96|0.0076
84758227|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03||P-value for Sleep.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.03|-0.9|0.0378
84758228|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.14||P-value for Enjoyment of Life.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.14|-0.98|0.0089
84758229|NCT00552175|169271688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12||P-value for Average of Interference Scores|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.12|-0.85|0.0095
84758230|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||-0.06|-1.14|
84758231|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||0.32|-0.77|
84758232|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.27|-0.8|
84758233|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.05|-1.01|
84758234|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.02|-1.02|
84758235|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.03|-1.01|
84758236|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.16|-0.86|
84758237|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.11|-0.92|
84500059|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.42|0.53|0.4350
84500060|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||3.43|0.37|0.8276
84500061|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.50|0.69|0.4022
84758238|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||0.11|-0.89|
84758239|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||-0.22|-1.21|
84758240|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||-0.03|-1.11|
84758241|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||0.18|-0.9|
84500062|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.86|0.48|0.8681
84500063|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||13.86|0.20|0.6326
84500064|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|16.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||16.86|0.21|0.5770
84500065|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.40|0.8087
84500066|NCT01236053|168751036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.64|0.31|0.8497
84500067|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.24|0.88|0.1528
84500068|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.65|0.62|0.9625
84500069|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.59|1.48|<0.0001
84500070|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.29|1.25|0.0006
84500071|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.76|0.3515
84758242|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||0.15|-0.88|
84758243|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||-0.24|-1.27|
84500072|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.82|0.59|0.9069
84500073|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|1.78|<0.0001
84500074|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.81|1.48|<0.0001
84500075|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.88|0.70|0.5948
84500076|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.35|0.47|0.3984
84500077|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.79|0.89|0.1872
84500078|NCT01236053|168751037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.34|0.64|0.6772
84500079|NCT01236053|168751038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.72|0.07|0.4933
84500080|NCT01236053|168751038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||3.27|0.06|0.4147
84500081|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.8257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||10.38|0.15|0.8257
84758244|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||0|-0.9|
84758245|NCT00552175|169271689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||-0.07|-0.97|
84758246|NCT00552175|169271690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.01|-1.22|0.8517
84500082|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|9.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||9.02|0.13|0.9467
84758247|NCT00552175|169271691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.71|-1.03|
84758248|NCT00552175|169271691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.81|-1.92|
84758249|NCT05112536|169271694|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.101
84758250|NCT01389752|169271697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.68||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.61|
84758251|NCT01389752|169271698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.83|
84758252|NCT01389752|169271699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.5||The outcome was measured using the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment groups: LY2216684 administered alone (reference) versus LY2216684 co-administered with charcoal (test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.50|-1.04|0.0010
84758253|NCT03259074|169271700|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.51||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|9.64||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.64|-6.63|0.7164
84758254|NCT03259074|169271700|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.67||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.||||9.95|-6.61|0.6925
84758255|NCT03259074|169271701|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.293|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.293|-0.646|
84758256|NCT03259074|169271701|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.315|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.315|-0.639|
84758257|NCT03259074|169271702|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|14.27|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||14.27|-5.62|
84758258|NCT03259074|169271702|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.31|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||11.31|-9.13|
84500083|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9859
84500084|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9857
84500085|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9860
84500086|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9858
84500087|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9798
84500088|NCT01236053|168751039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9796
84758259|NCT03259074|169271703|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.48|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||0.48|-0.12|
84758260|NCT03259074|169271703|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||0.64|0.03|
84758261|NCT03259074|169271704|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||1.53|0.22|
84500089|NCT01236053|168751040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||14.84|0.20|0.6252
84613008|NCT02828020|168975798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.17|1.22|0.0023
84500090|NCT01236053|168751040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|13.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||13.28|0.17|0.7208
84758262|NCT03259074|169271704|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3357|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.08|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||1.08|-0.24|
84758263|NCT03259074|169271705|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.18|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||8.18|-5.10|
84758264|NCT03259074|169271706|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.51|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method.|||5.51|-10.18|
84758265|NCT03259074|169271707|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|Marginal difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|9.69|||Marginal difference||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||9.69|-5.34|
84758266|NCT03259074|169271708|OTHER||Marginal difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.74||Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||7.74|-7.08|
84500091|NCT01236053|168751042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.03|0.14|0.9141
84500092|NCT01236053|168751042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|7.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||7.78|0.12|0.9613
84500093|NCT01236053|168751043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.57|1.02|0.0323
84500094|NCT01236053|168751043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.99|0.0682
84500095|NCT01236053|168751043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|1.01|0.0326
84500096|NCT01236053|168751043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.36|0.99|0.0699
84500097|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.86|0.2893
84500098|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.61|0.82|0.4301
84500099|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.58|0.97|0.0806
84500100|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.55|0.95|0.1226
84500101|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.89|0.80|0.3502
84758267|NCT02184195|169271709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.815|||Log-rank test|||||0.815|0.346|0.0038
84758268|NCT02184195|169271710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.224|||Log-rank test|||||1.224|0.564|0.3487
84758269|NCT02184195|169271711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.02|||Log-rank test|||||1.020|0.426|0.0613
84500102|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.81|0.76|0.4654
84500103|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.59|0.3987
84500104|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.20|0.58|0.3349
84500105|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.96|0.0827
84500106|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.96|0.95|0.0932
84500107|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.80|1.07|0.0130
84500108|NCT01236053|168751044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.75|1.04|0.0241
84758270|NCT02184195|169271712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.894|||Log-rank test|||||0.894|0.418|0.0111
84758271|NCT02184195|169271713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.658|||Log-rank test|||||0.658|0.297|<0.0001
84758272|NCT02184195|169271714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.627|||Log-rank test|||||0.627|0.289|<0.0001
84758273|NCT02184195|169271715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.610|0.668|0.3273
84758274|NCT02184195|169271717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.917|2.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.496|-6.917|0.355
84758275|NCT01056510|169271720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The first-line subpopulation became the focus of the primary statistical analysis following the protocol amendment dated 21-May-2012.||||0.002
84758276|NCT01056510|169271721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
84758277|NCT01056510|169271722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
84758278|NCT01056510|169271723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 3 cycles||||0.900
84758279|NCT01056510|169271723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 6 cycles||||0.563
84500109|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.77|0.5043
84500110|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.59|0.73|0.7129
84500111|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.57|0.91|0.2055
84613009|NCT02828020|168975799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.23||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.23|1.28|0.0023
84758280|NCT01056510|169271723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||At the EOT visit||||0.304
84758281|NCT01056510|169271726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.525||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.809|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis||0.809|0.341|0.003
84758282|NCT01056510|169271726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.806|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||0.806|0.339|0.003
84758283|NCT01056510|169271728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
84758284|NCT01056510|169271730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
84758285|NCT01056510|169271732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
84758286|NCT01056510|169271734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
84758287|NCT01056510|169271736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.911||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.911|0.517|0.986
84758288|NCT01056510|169271736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||1.880|0.505|0.939
84758289|NCT01056510|169271737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
84758290|NCT02285998|169271740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size required to achieve 80% power was calculated based on a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 and an attack rate of 2% in the IIV4 and 1.53% for the Flublok groups respectively.|Relative Vaccine Efficacy (rVE)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|47.0||||||The primary efficacy analysis was based on the numbers of protocol-defined influenza-like illnesses with rtPCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs detecting influenza virus of any strain. The Relative Vaccine Efficacy was 30% (10, 47). Non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for rVE was \> -20%. Superiority of RIV4 in a pre-specified exploratory analysis required that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of rVE be \> +9%.||47|10|
84500112|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.88|0.3005
84500113|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.77|0.84|0.2849
84500114|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.72|0.82|0.3650
84500115|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|0.78|0.7559
84672924|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.70|-0.21|0.2905
84758291|NCT03029143|169271765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Chi-squared||||Chi-squared test was used to estimate P-value from the logistic regression model where Endoscopic Mucosal Healing was the response variable and Treatment and TNF stratification were factors. Baseline complete Mayo Score and natural logarithm of trough concentration at week 6 were covariates.|1.8|0.2|=0.401
84758292|NCT03029143|169271766|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-0.4|||=|0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|10.6|-11.4|=0.943
84758293|NCT03029143|169271767|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-1.2|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|16.3|-18.7|=0.893
84758294|NCT03029143|169271768|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|6.0|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.3|-12.4|=0.525
84758295|NCT03029143|169271769|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-6.6|||=|0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|20.8|-34.0|=0.623
84758296|NCT03029143|169271770|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.1|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|24.7|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.7|-8.5|=0.344
84758297|NCT04744207|169271787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean estimate|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.48|<0.05
84758298|NCT00777101|169271825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of neratinib vs lapatinib + capecitabine was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio was 1.15 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.6|||Log Rank|The log-rank test comparing treatment groups is stratified by region.|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by region.|||1.60|0.89|0.231
84758299|NCT05376215|169271845|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of -12.5 was used per the findings from Chisolm, et al (2005), see attached article. In that study, the smallest critical difference for the short term retest difference was 12.5 for the APHAB global score at the 90th percentile. For this study, non-inferiority is confirmed if Fitting Method B is no more than 12.5 percentage points below the mean global benefit score of Fitting Method A.||||||0.806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
84758300|NCT05376215|169271846|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -1.8 dB. This is based off of work by Killion (2004) in which the critical difference for 4 lists is 1.9 dB at the 95% confidence interval. Killion also found that if all 12 lists are presented, the mean SNR scores will differ by 1.8 dB 5% of the time.||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
84758301|NCT01947816|169271852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
84758302|NCT01947816|169271852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
84758303|NCT01947816|169271852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5512|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline When Discontinued||||0.5512
84758304|NCT01947816|169271852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
84758305|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||< 0.0001
84758306|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||< 0.0001
84758307|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||< 0.0001
84758308|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
84758309|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
84758310|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline when discontinued||||< 0.0001
84758311|NCT01947816|169271854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
84758312|NCT01301950|169271858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no difference in skin-to-skin time. The alternative hypothesis was that the TruMatch group time was less than the conventional group. Statistical power was anticipated to be 86% with 40 enrolled subjects based upon a Cohen's D effect size of 1. The Sponsor had difficulty identifying and recruiting sites suitable for participation. The statistically required sample size (N=40) was therefore not obtained, causing the group comparison to be statistically underpowered.||||0.54
84758313|NCT04041284|169271863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-3.16|<0.0001
84758314|NCT04041284|169271864|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.61|0.0205
84500116|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.37|0.77|0.8520
84500117|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.01|0.0459
84589059|NCT00976456|168929394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time Point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.499|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.499|0.794|0.3869
84589060|NCT00583219|168929406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline at one month||||0.004
84758315|NCT04041284|169271865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|1.89|<0.0001
84500118|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.04|0.99|0.0542
84500119|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.74|1.03|0.0312
84589061|NCT00583219|168929406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.81
84589062|NCT00583219|168929407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.21
84589063|NCT00583219|168929407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.43
84758316|NCT04041284|169271866|OTHER||LS mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|15.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restrictive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||15.59|6.91|<0.0001
84589064|NCT00583219|168929409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.005
84589065|NCT00583219|168929410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.22
84758317|NCT04041284|169271866|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Preventive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||14.08|5.73|<0.0001
84758318|NCT04041284|169271867|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 4: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||0.03|-0.39|0.0915
84758319|NCT04041284|169271867|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 8: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.16|-0.59|0.0006
84758320|NCT04041284|169271867|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 12: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.12|-0.58|0.0030
84500120|NCT01236053|168751045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.70|1.00|0.0508
84500121|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.94|0.0892
84758321|NCT04041284|169271868|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.96|-5.15|<0.0001
84758322|NCT03455491|169271886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3541
84500122|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.39|0.92|0.1043
84500123|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.10|0.0101
84758323|NCT03455491|169271887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3597|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3597
84758324|NCT03455491|169271889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||0.4551
84758325|NCT03070470|169271958|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.0||The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||12.0|-9.5|
84758326|NCT03070470|169271958|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||6.1|-11.4|
84758327|NCT03070470|169271958|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||8.8|-14.6|
84500124|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.00|1.07|0.0186
84500125|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.43|0.83|0.1458
84500126|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.29|0.79|0.1859
84589066|NCT00583219|168929411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
84589067|NCT00583219|168929411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.14
84589068|NCT00583219|168929412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
84589069|NCT00583219|168929412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.033
84589070|NCT00583219|168929413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||>0.99
84589071|NCT00583219|168929413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.25
84589072|NCT00583219|168929415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||<0.001
84613010|NCT02828020|168975799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.21|1.28|0.0023
84613011|NCT02828020|168975800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.07||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.07|1.65|0.0023
84589073|NCT00583219|168929416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.004
84589074|NCT00583219|168929417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.003
84589075|NCT00583219|168929417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.001
84589076|NCT00583219|168929418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||0.001
84589077|NCT00583219|168929418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||<0.001
84613012|NCT02828020|168975800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.24||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.24|1.77|0.0023
84589078|NCT00583219|168929419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.007
84613013|NCT02828020|168975801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.44||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.44|1.01|0.0577
84589079|NCT00583219|168929419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.002
84589080|NCT02037529|168929422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5623|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5623
84589081|NCT02037529|168929427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9840
84589082|NCT02037529|168929428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5968
84589083|NCT00718315|168929460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.481
84589084|NCT00718315|168929460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.933
84589085|NCT00718315|168929460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.986
84589086|NCT00718315|168929462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.095
84589087|NCT00718315|168929463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.199
84589088|NCT00718315|168929464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.108
84589089|NCT00718315|168929465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
84589090|NCT00718315|168929466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
84589091|NCT00718315|168929467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.087
84589092|NCT00718315|168929468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
84589093|NCT02384421|168929469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84589094|NCT02384421|168929470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
84589095|NCT02384421|168929471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84589096|NCT02384421|168929472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.25
84589097|NCT02384421|168929473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84589098|NCT02384421|168929474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84589099|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.71|0.14
84589100|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank = 97||0.9|-2.6|
84589101|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.5|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 96||0.5|-3.5|
84589102|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 95||0.1|-4.4|
84500127|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.72|1.13|0.0122
84500128|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.67|1.10|0.0162
84500129|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.19|0.7573
84500130|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.21|0.18|0.7088
84500131|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.64|0.93|0.0787
84500132|NCT01236053|168751046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.58|0.92|0.0873
84500133|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.80|0.4233
84500134|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.76|0.5908
84500135|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.67|1.00|0.0540
84500136|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.96|0.0939
84500137|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.87|0.87|0.2140
84500138|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.80|0.84|0.2940
84758328|NCT03070470|169271959|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.6|38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CI to be ≥10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline QTc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 1 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model.||38.9|22.6|
84500139|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.32|0.71|0.8352
84500140|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.31|0.70|0.7809
84500141|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.95|0.0921
84500142|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.92|0.94|0.1091
84500143|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.99|0.0564
84500144|NCT01236053|168751047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.63|0.96|0.0939
84500145|NCT01236053|168751048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|41.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||41.71|0.31|0.3082
84589103|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.7|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 94||2.7|-4.3|
84589104|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.2|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 93||0.2|-7.8|
84589105|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 92||0.9|-7.8|
84589106|NCT03229538|168929489|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.3|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 91||1.3|-7.5|
84589107|NCT03229538|168929490|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.74||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.34|0.428
84589108|NCT03229538|168929491|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.61|0.228
84589109|NCT03229538|168929492|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.0|
84589110|NCT03229538|168929493|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.50|0.309
84589111|NCT03229538|168929494|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.52|0.723
84758329|NCT01399788|169272016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.2|108.64||||||Rifampicin; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 14.5% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||108.64|99.20|
84758330|NCT01399788|169272016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|107.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.95|112.9||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.0% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||112.90|101.95|
84758331|NCT01399788|169272016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.9% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
84758332|NCT01399788|169272017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|110.71||||||Rifampicin: 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||110.71|95.36|
84758333|NCT01399788|169272017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|117.07||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||117.07|92.13|
84758334|NCT01399788|169272017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 16.0% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
84758335|NCT01399788|169272018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|104.4||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 5.2% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.40|99.12|
84758336|NCT01399788|169272019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.22||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 6.7% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.22|88.60|
84758337|NCT01399788|169272020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|109.1||||||Rifampicin; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||109.10|99.70|
84758338|NCT01399788|169272020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|111.46||||||Isoniazid; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||111.46|100.32|
84758339|NCT01399788|169272020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|100.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|105.88||||||Ethambutol; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||105.88|96.28|
84758340|NCT01399788|169272021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.24|104.43||||||Pyrazinamide; Natural log transformed AUC (0 -∞)(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.43|99.24|
84500146|NCT01236053|168751048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|34.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||34.69|0.24|0.3999
84500147|NCT01236053|168751048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|12.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||12.52|0.16|0.7509
84500148|NCT01236053|168751048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|17.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||17.07|0.18|0.6303
84500149|NCT01236053|168751049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84500150|NCT01236053|168751049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
84500151|NCT01236053|168751049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84500152|NCT01236053|168751049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
84589112|NCT03229538|168929496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.67|0.256
84589113|NCT00934921|168929510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.1||||||90.0|91.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.2|
84500153|NCT01236053|168751050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84500154|NCT01236053|168751050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
84589114|NCT00934921|168929511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.2||||||90.0|88.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|88.8|
84500155|NCT01236053|168751050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84500156|NCT01236053|168751050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
84500157|NCT01236053|168751052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84589115|NCT00934921|168929512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.9||||||90.0|89.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|89.5|
84589116|NCT01728246|168929513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84589117|NCT01728246|168929514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84589118|NCT01728246|168929516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84589119|NCT01959932|168929536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|10.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||10.20|6.89|<0.001
84613014|NCT02828020|168975801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.97||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.97|1.28|0.0037
84613015|NCT02828020|168975802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.19||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.19|1.22|0.0577
84613016|NCT02828020|168975802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.42||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.42|1.36|0.0037
84500158|NCT01236053|168751052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
84613017|NCT02828020|168975803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.09||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.09|1.16|0.0577
84613018|NCT02828020|168975803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.95|1.10|0.0577
84613019|NCT02828020|168975804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.79||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.79|0.96|0.0962
84613020|NCT02828020|168975804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.00|0.0962
84758341|NCT02919436|169272025|SUPERIORITY|We found observed rate of postoperative urinary retention in male spine surgery patients to historically be 17%. We hypothesize that the use of tamsulosin can reduce this rate by 50%. A two group continuity corrected chi-square test with a .05 two-sided significance level will have 80% power to detect the difference between a control group proportion of .17 and a treatment group proportion of .085 (odds ratio of .454) when the sample size in each group is 264 and a total sample size of 528.||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.96
84758342|NCT02459795|169272030|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|12.92|||Yates correction|||||12.92|-7.00|
84613021|NCT04254666|168976006|OTHER||||||||||||||||||pre and post scores for this measure are presented as the percent of foods correctly classified.|||
84613022|NCT02391363|168976073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.08 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate of .05."||||0.77
84613023|NCT02391363|168976074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.50 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.07
84613024|NCT02391363|168976075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.92. (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.34
84613025|NCT02391363|168976076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.08
84758343|NCT03699007|169272031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84758344|NCT03699007|169272032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84758345|NCT01594515|169272042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0005|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for Cmax was analysed.(N=50)||1.0005|0.9400|
84758346|NCT01594515|169272043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0145|1.074|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale."|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for AUC0-inf was analysed. (N=48)||1.0740|1.0145|
84644352|NCT01931670|169024633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
84758347|NCT02409290|169272048|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.2||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.61|||Log Rank|||||0.61|0.07|0.0016
84758348|NCT02409290|169272049|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.5|||Log Rank|||Control regimen (arm B) uses concurrent controls only||0.50|0.03|0.0005
84758349|NCT00705783|169272051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.317|||Log Rank||Aripiprazole depot/placebo depot|Based on 6-month IR rates of 55% for placebo and 35% for aripiprazole, sample sizes were estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.54 and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided), allowing for 2 interim looks at 50% and 75% of events. Assuming that each subject was followed for 12 months after randomization and allowing for a 25% loss to follow-up, the projected total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to treatment in the trial was 225.||0.317|0.125|<0.0001
84758350|NCT00705783|169272052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The alpha levels for this key secondary Outcome Measure were the same as used for the primary Outcome Measure.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84758351|NCT00705783|169272053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84758352|NCT00705783|169272054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1756
84758353|NCT00705783|169272055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-7.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-7.54|-12.68|<0.0001
84758354|NCT00705783|169272056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
84613026|NCT02391363|168976077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.59 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.45
84613027|NCT02391363|168976078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.37 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.13
84672925|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.18|0.3096
84758355|NCT00705783|169272057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||Positive Subscale Score||-2.91|-4.72|<0.0001
84758356|NCT00705783|169272058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.67|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-2.04|0.0001
84500159|NCT01236053|168751052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
84758357|NCT00705783|169272059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84758358|NCT00705783|169272060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84758359|NCT02121262|169272064|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.5||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by baseline BCVA categories.||||8.9|-5.9|0.7431
84758360|NCT02121262|169272065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the treatment group as the main effect and baseline BCVA score as the covariate.|Null hypothesis-there was no difference in treatment groups of average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test-based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level,confidence interval(CI) was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||4.66|1.17|0.0011
84758361|NCT02121262|169272066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.53|-56.01|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline retinal thickness as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-56.01|-122.53|<0.0001
84758362|NCT02121262|169272067|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0443|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|-5.6733|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline total leakage area as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-5.6733|-9.7855|<0.0001
84758363|NCT01553188|169272071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.44
84758364|NCT01553188|169272073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.26
84758365|NCT02651584|169272120|NON_INFERIORITY|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 10% point.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84758366|NCT02651584|169272121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||including subject self-reported opioid use||||0.004
84758367|NCT02651584|169272121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||not including self-reported opioid use||||0.008
84644353|NCT01931670|169024634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.088
84758368|NCT02651584|169272123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 15%.||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84758369|NCT00841789|169272136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.10
84758370|NCT00841789|169272137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Cox|||We applied a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model to determine z score change values (see Protocol page 36 in Supplement).||||0.86
84758371|NCT00841789|169272138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation||||.83
84758372|NCT00841789|169272138|OTHER|Generallzed Estimating Equation was used for z-score change within groups compared to baseline|General Estimating Equation|||||0.1279|||||||GEE|||We analyzed change from baseline for both etanercept and placebo. LS mean change J(standard error) reported||||0.1279
84758373|NCT00841789|169272139|OTHER|General Estimating Equation for 3 coronary arteries.||||||0.03|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation|Generalize estimating equation for 3 coronary arteries evaluated in each patient by echocardiography|||0.03
84758374|NCT00841789|169272139|OTHER|see above||||||0.619|||||||GEE|||GEE performed to compare with change in coronary z score from baseline||||0.619
84758375|NCT03317795|169272145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84758376|NCT03317795|169272147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84758377|NCT03317795|169272148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical composite score||||0.32
84758378|NCT03317795|169272148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental composite score||||0.26
84758379|NCT03317795|169272149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84758380|NCT03317795|169272150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84758381|NCT01664559|169272158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84758382|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) Anticipated pain||||0.31
84758383|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||0.33
84758384|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.72
84758385|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.36
84758386|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.64
84758387|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) 5 min after placement||||<0.001
84758388|NCT01664559|169272159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 15 min after placement||||<0.001
84758389|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) anticipated pain||||0.6
84758390|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||1.0
84758391|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.34
84758392|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.32
84758393|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.04
84758394|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) IUD placement||||0.02
84758395|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 5 min after placement||||0.32
84758396|NCT01664559|169272160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8\) 15 min after placement||||0.02
84758397|NCT01664559|169272161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Reported side effects (nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, injection site itchiness, swelling or pain)||||> 0.05
84758398|NCT01664559|169272161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Injection site pain (just as bad or worse than IUD procedure)||||0.76
84758399|NCT01664559|169272161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfied or very satisfied with IUD placement procedure||||0.76
84758400|NCT01664559|169272161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Would recommend IUD placement to a friend||||0.35
84758401|NCT01664559|169272161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Desires additional pain medication||||0.02
84758402|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Level of training, PGY 1, 2, 3, 4 and Attending||||0.2
84758403|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||IUD type (levonorgestrel or copper)||||0.09
84758404|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Purpose of IUD (contraception or heavy menstrual bleeding)||||1.0
84758405|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Position of uterus (anteverted, retroverted, midpositioned)||||0.92
84758406|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Need for cervical dilation||||1.0
84758407|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Able to complete the IUD insertion||||1.0
84758408|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Significant bleeding||||0.24
84758409|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Major complications||||1.0
84758410|NCT01664559|169272162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Took acetaminophen prior to leaving the office||||0.02
84589120|NCT01959932|168929537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|45.91||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||45.91|37.75|<0.001
84589121|NCT01959932|168929538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|6.87||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||6.87|5.21|<0.001
84589122|NCT01959932|168929539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|24.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||24.99|22.00|<0.001
84589123|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Adequacy of baseline image"||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
84589124|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Squamous columnar junction visibility"||||||0.351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
84589125|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Visible abnormal areas"||||||0.774|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.774
84613028|NCT02391363|168976079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
84758411|NCT03631732|169272166|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL is less than 6% (i.e., a margin of 6% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \>= 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||0.9|-4.8|
84589126|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Location of the lesion"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84589127|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Mosaic of the worst lesion"||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
84589128|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Acetowhite changes"||||||0.881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.881
84589129|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Border of the worst lesion"||||||0.829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.829
84589130|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Possible diagnosis"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84589131|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Baseline histology"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84589132|NCT03510273|168929583|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Size of the worst lesion (% coverage)"||||||0.493|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.493
84589133|NCT02589938|168929586|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models were constructed to assess differences in each outcome adjusting for baseline outcome value, group, time, and group by time interaction assuming an unstructured covariance. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 4 weeks||||||0.0167|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was to determine whether true acupuncture (TA) was more effective than sham acupuncture (SA) or standard oral hygiene (SOH) at treating xerostomia as assessed by the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) at Week 4. The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points with an assumed standard deviation (SD)=16 between each pair of groups on XQ.This assumed a t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0·0133 and 84% power with 20% dropout.||||0.0167
84758412|NCT03631732|169272166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3399
84758413|NCT03631732|169272168|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||6.8|-2.0|
84758414|NCT03631732|169272168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3532|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3532
84613029|NCT02391363|168976080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.14 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.29
84613030|NCT02391363|168976081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.19 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.14
84613031|NCT02391363|168976082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.30 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
84613032|NCT02391363|168976083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.22 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
84613033|NCT02391363|168976084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.88 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.35
84758415|NCT03631732|169272169|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||5.3|-1.0|
84500160|NCT01236053|168751052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.5|0.1118
84613034|NCT02391363|168976085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
84613035|NCT02391363|168976086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = .01(Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.92
84613036|NCT02391363|168976087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.29 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
84758416|NCT03631732|169272169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3356
84500161|NCT01236053|168751053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.58|0.9614
84500162|NCT01236053|168751053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.44|0.49|0.5179
84758417|NCT03631732|169272171|OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|49.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM (Least square mean) and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||49|-27|0.5618
84672926|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.55|0.1925
84672927|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0101
84672928|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.56|0.1546
84672929|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.62|0.0901
84672930|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.62|0.0717
84758418|NCT03631732|169272172|OTHER||Difference in LSM|9.0||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||48|-31|0.6632
84758419|NCT00135668|169272183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-13.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test used.||Paired t-test used to test the null hypothesis of no change in MAP from baseline.||-13.97|-18.44|<0.001
84758420|NCT00135668|169272183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-6.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-6.55|-15.45|<0.001
84758421|NCT00135668|169272183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-13.30|-20.70|<0.001
84758422|NCT00135668|169272183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.38|-15.58|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-15.58|-24.38|<0.001
84758423|NCT00135668|169272183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.87|-11.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-11.39|-21.87|<0.001
84613037|NCT02391363|168976088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.89
84613038|NCT02391363|168976089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.23 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
84758424|NCT02424253|169272188|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-0.35|||=|0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.51||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline value and treatment.||Change from baseline||0.51|-1.21|= 0.249
84613039|NCT02391363|168976090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.94
84613040|NCT02391363|168976091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.98
84613041|NCT02391363|168976092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.88
84613042|NCT02391363|168976093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.31
84613043|NCT02391363|168976094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.96
84613044|NCT02391363|168976095|SUPERIORITY|"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||||0.52||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.40 (SE = 0.63). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||||||0.52
84613045|NCT02391363|168976096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.79 (SE = 0.85). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
84613046|NCT02391363|168976097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.56 (SE = 0.74). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
84613047|NCT02391363|168976098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 2.96 (SE = 0.91). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.001
84672931|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.68|0.0468
84758425|NCT02424253|169272189|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-5.06|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.66|-1.46||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline EASI, stratification variable (worst daily pruritus NRS ≤ 7.5 or \> 7.5) and treatment.||Change from baseline analysis||-1.46|-8.66|= 0.01
84758426|NCT03998046|169272190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.85
84758427|NCT03998046|169272192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.20
84758428|NCT03998046|169272193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
84758429|NCT03998046|169272194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
84758430|NCT03998046|169272195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
84758431|NCT03998046|169272196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
84758432|NCT03998046|169272197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
84500163|NCT01236053|168751053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|0.71|0.8856
84589134|NCT00485173|168929589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84589135|NCT00485173|168929589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
84589136|NCT00485173|168929590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84589137|NCT00485173|168929590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.002
84613048|NCT02391363|168976099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.42 (SE = 0.51). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.42
84613049|NCT02391363|168976100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.09 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.85
84644354|NCT01931670|169024634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
84589138|NCT00485173|168929591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84589139|NCT00485173|168929592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random sampling, based on covariance matrix produced by logistic regression using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84644355|NCT01931670|169024635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.172
84644356|NCT01931670|169024635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||< 0.001
84589140|NCT00485173|168929592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.011
84589141|NCT00485173|168929593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84589142|NCT00485173|168929594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84644357|NCT01931670|169024636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.968
84644358|NCT01931670|169024636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.007
84644359|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.361|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.507|3.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||3.697|1.507|< 0.001
84644360|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.707|6.469|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||6.469|2.707|< 0.001
84644361|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.811|4.312|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||4.312|1.811|< 0.001
84644362|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.615|16.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||16.282|6.615|< 0.001
84758433|NCT03998046|169272198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
84500164|NCT01236053|168751053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.28|0.61|0.5078
84500165|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.36|0.6888
84500166|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.75|0.32|0.5024
84500167|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.53|0.49|0.6164
84589143|NCT00485173|168929594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
84589144|NCT00485173|168929595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.031
84613050|NCT02391363|168976101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.28 (SE = 0.46). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.55
84758434|NCT02370615|169272199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.632|2.481||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||2.481|1.632|
84500168|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.39|0.44|0.4002
84500169|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.66|0.25|0.7329
84500170|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.33|0.22|0.5731
84500171|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.69|0.3762
84613051|NCT02391363|168976102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.29 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.54
84758435|NCT02370615|169272199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.123||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.123|0.064|
84500172|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.36|0.62|0.5820
84500173|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4782
84644363|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.084|4.845|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.845|2.084|< 0.001
84758436|NCT02370615|169272200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.137|5.777||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.777|4.137|
84758437|NCT02370615|169272201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.969|5.569||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.569|3.969|
84500174|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8998
84500175|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.99|0.53|0.9308
84500176|NCT01236053|168751054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.41|0.5125
84589145|NCT00485173|168929596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84589146|NCT00485173|168929596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.414
84589147|NCT00485173|168929597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84758438|NCT02370615|169272201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.045||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.045|0.012|
84500177|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.33|0.37|0.8655
84589148|NCT00485173|168929598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84589149|NCT00485173|168929598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.017
84589150|NCT00485173|168929599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.189
84589151|NCT00485173|168929600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84589152|NCT00485173|168929600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.466
84589153|NCT00485173|168929601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84589154|NCT00485173|168929601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.133
84589155|NCT00485173|168929602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84589156|NCT00485173|168929603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84589157|NCT00485173|168929604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.341
84589158|NCT00485173|168929605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, obtained from Cox regression and adjusted with propensity scores.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.479
84589159|NCT00485173|168929606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was from logistic regression model by using propensity score and any ossification 'Yes/No' at preop as the covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at 24 months postoperation.||||<0.001
84589160|NCT02445911|168929613|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|10.18|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||10.18|-23.75|
84589161|NCT02445911|168929613|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|13.72|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||13.72|-19.65|
84589162|NCT02445911|168929613|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|11.88|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||11.88|-21.97|
84589163|NCT02581930|168929631|OTHER|Exact binomial test|Probability of response|0.0||||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Significant if p-value is less than 0.1|Exact binomial test, 1-sided||Estimated as proportion of subjects with response|The primary comparison was between the response rate of an ineffective drug, such as investigators' choice chemotherapy (5%), and the response rate of ibrutinib.||||1.00
84589164|NCT01400412|168929637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value without adjustment for multiple testing, interpreted at the 5% nominal level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age (\<30 and \>=30 years)||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms in the percent of total hip BMD change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
84589165|NCT05395338|168929657|OTHER|cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Regression, Cox||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.05|0.78|0.183
84589166|NCT05395338|168929658|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|1.12|<0.001
84589167|NCT05395338|168929659|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.36|1.11|<0.001
84589168|NCT05395338|168929660|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.83|0.64|<0.001
84589169|NCT05395338|168929661|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.93|0.77|<0.001
84589170|NCT04043286|168929681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed data normality, and paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests were applied based on normality results.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.||0.85|0.10|0.009
84758439|NCT02370615|169272203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.117|1.628||||||||1.628|1.117|
84758440|NCT02370615|169272204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.919|1.131||||||||1.131|0.919|
84758441|NCT02370615|169272205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|1.289||||||||1.289|1.035|
84758442|NCT02370615|169272207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.387||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.387|1.100|
84758443|NCT02370615|169272207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.008||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.008|0.781|
84589171|NCT04043286|168929682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000168|1.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||1.25|-0.0000168|0.049
84613052|NCT00265317|168976108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.575|1.404||Primary analysis was based on an unstratified 1-sided log rank test with alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||Sample size for randomized portion of study determined based on these assumptions: median PFS (erlotinib)=10 weeks, accrual time=12 months. With 6 months follow-up, study was powered to detect a difference in PFS of 5 weeks. 1-sided log rank test comparing the 2 treatment groups with 115 events of PD or death among a target sample size of 126 participants (63 per group) achieved 80% power at a 10% significance level to detect a 50% improvement in PFS from 10 to 15 weeks.||1.404|0.575|0.3206
84613053|NCT00265317|168976109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.546||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|8.954|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||95% confidence interval (CI) calculated based on f-distribution||8.954|0.267|0.6251
84613054|NCT00265317|168976110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.485||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.485|0.572|0.3732
84613055|NCT00265317|168976112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.612||p-value from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.612|0.705|0.6171
84589172|NCT04043286|168929683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000522|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||0.75|-0.0000522|0.053
84589173|NCT01198587|168929706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.88
84589174|NCT01198587|168929706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
84589175|NCT01959529|168929723|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was below 1.3 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of null hypothesis (H0): HR≥1.3 against the alternative hypothesis (Ha): HR\<1.3 was less than 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.055||p value : Refers to one-sided test of HR \>= 1.3 (against Ha: HR\<1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) (IDeg vs IGlar) was based on Cox regression with investigational medicinal product as only factor for primary analysis.||1.055|0.781|<0.001
84589176|NCT01959529|168929724|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.759||p-value : Refers to one-sided test of RR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: RR\<1.0)|Negative binomial regression|The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS.||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (RR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: RR ≥1.0 against Ha: RR \<1.0, was less than 2.5%||0.759|0.476|<0.001
84589177|NCT01959529|168929725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.866||p-value: Refers to one-sided test of OR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: OR\<1.0)|Regression, Logistic|The model was logistic regression with log-link function.The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS||Superiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio (OR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: OR ≥1.0 against Ha: OR\<1.0, was less than 2.5%.||0.866|0.600|<0.001
84613056|NCT00265317|168976113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|44.3||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Sunitinib + Erlotinib Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||44.3|19.7|
84758444|NCT02370615|169272208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|1.568||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.568|1.290|
84758445|NCT02370615|169272208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.16||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.160|1.008|
84758446|NCT02370615|169272209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.291|1.574||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.574|1.291|
84613057|NCT00265317|168976113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|54.2||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Erlotinib + Placebo Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||54.2|30.1|
84613058|NCT00265317|168976141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.748||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.591|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.591|0.351|0.2247
84613059|NCT00265317|168976141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|2.414|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.414|0.581|0.6797
84613060|NCT00265317|168976141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
84758447|NCT02370615|169272209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.143||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.143|0.986|
84613061|NCT00265317|168976143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.628|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.628|0.458|0.3223
84613062|NCT00265317|168976143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.474|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.474|0.362|0.4608
84613063|NCT00265317|168976143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
84758448|NCT01445951|169272239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 0.4 margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36||||||MMRM (mixed model repeated measures) model with auto-regression (1): HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + region + basal insulin stratum + visit + treatment + (visit\*treatment)||0.36|0.02|
84758449|NCT01445951|169272240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM): FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Baseline Height + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||0.04|-0.02|
84758450|NCT01445951|169272241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.25|-14.59|||||MMRM: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||-14.59|-56.25|
84589178|NCT01440764|168929727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. This p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the furosemide test result to the saline test result.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84589179|NCT01440764|168929727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. Thes p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the response to furosemide to the mean response to saline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84589180|NCT01440764|168929729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0006
84589181|NCT01440764|168929729|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1e-05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.00001
84589182|NCT01440764|168929729|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000002
84589183|NCT00560417|168929730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was prespecified at 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38|||ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group.||||0.38|0.06|
84589184|NCT00560417|168929731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
84589185|NCT00560417|168929731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF)|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.38|0.06|0.008
84589186|NCT00560417|168929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 Weeks change.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
84589187|NCT00560417|168929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF) Change.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|0.06|0.008
84589188|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.561
84589189|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
84589190|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84589191|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.269
84589192|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.161
84613064|NCT00265317|168976145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.031|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||2.031|0.542|0.5526
84589193|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
84589194|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
84589195|NCT00560417|168929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
84589196|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|10.53||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||10.53|-1.97|0.179
84589197|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|22.19||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.19|5.72|<0.001
84613065|NCT00265317|168976145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||1.344|0.380|0.1529
84589198|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|11.39||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||11.39|-3.79|0.325
84589199|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.73||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.5||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||17.50|-0.04|0.051
84589200|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.19||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.19|3.66|0.003
84589201|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|22.94||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.94|5.44|0.002
84589202|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.28||p-value is for Endpoint 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||4.28|-10.35|0.415
84589203|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|13.32||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean 7-Point Blood Glucose.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.32|1.46|0.015
84589204|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.14||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.14|1.10|0.021
84613066|NCT00265317|168976147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|2.085|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Amplification||2.085|0.557|0.5839
84613067|NCT00265317|168976147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Amplification||1.344|0.380|0.1529
84613068|NCT00265317|168976149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.608|||Log Rank|||Wild Type EGFR Gene Mutation||2.608|0.516|0.6324
84589205|NCT00560417|168929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|18.93||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.93|5.01|<0.001
84589206|NCT00560417|168929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|5.22||p-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||5.22|-0.68|0.131
84589207|NCT00560417|168929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.16||p-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||9.16|2.82|<0.001
84589208|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.826
84589209|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
84589210|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
84589211|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
84589212|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84613069|NCT00265317|168976149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.424|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate EGFR Gene Mutation||1.424|0.464|0.2413
84613070|NCT00265317|168976151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|2.91|||Log Rank|||Mutated KRAS Gene Mutation||2.910|0.079|0.2077
84758451|NCT01445951|169272244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|||-0.31|-2.33|0.0102
84613071|NCT00265317|168976151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|2.531|||Log Rank|||Wild Type KRAS Gene Mutation||2.531|0.534|0.6439
84589213|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.061
84589214|NCT00560417|168929736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||p-value is for severe hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
84589215|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.628
84589216|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.570
84589217|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.116
84589218|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.044
84589219|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.006
84589220|NCT00560417|168929737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.004
84589221|NCT00560417|168929738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||p-value is for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group (Type III sums of squares)||||||0.343
84589222|NCT00560417|168929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the ILPS treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
84589223|NCT00560417|168929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the glargine treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84589224|NCT00560417|168929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.4||p-value is for change in body weight at endpoint between ILPS and glargine treatment groups.|ANOVA|||||0.40|-1.15|0.343
84589225|NCT00560417|168929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group+ Baseline SU Group||||||<0.001
84589226|NCT00261833|168929743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.618||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.261||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) was a linear mixed model with country, inspiration state, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.261|-0.024|0.029
84613072|NCT00265317|168976151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.489|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate KRAS Gene Mutation||1.489|0.457|0.2664
84613073|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.36||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.360|0.541|0.7423
84613074|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.236||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.236|0.290|0.1570
84589227|NCT00261833|168929743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.74||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.42||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.420|0.059|0.017
84589228|NCT00261833|168929743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.478||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|1.18||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (FRC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.180|-0.223|0.090
84589229|NCT00261833|168929747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.26|0.058
84589230|NCT00261833|168929747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.67||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (i.e., the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.67|-0.03|0.028
84613075|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|4.819||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||4.819|0.131|0.7954
84758452|NCT01445951|169272244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.4955
84758453|NCT01445951|169272244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.6807
84758454|NCT01445951|169272244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.0079
84758455|NCT01445951|169272246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5328||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3198|0.8877|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with affects for Region, Basal insulin stratum, and Treatment||||0.8877|0.3198|0.0156
84758456|NCT01445951|169272247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
84758457|NCT01445951|169272248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||0.1022
84758458|NCT01445951|169272249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Basal insulin stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c|Gen2 in the numerator, Aspart in the denominator|||0.86|0.23|0.0158
84758459|NCT00578136|169272256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used because the study did not have a normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p\<0.01).||Assuming the opioid requirement in the local infiltration group to be 0.2mg kg-1 and in the rectus sheath block group to be 0.1mg kg-1, a sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) will have a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 0.1mg kg-1 with a 0.005 two-sided significance level.||||0.008
84613076|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.732||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/G||1.732|0.401|0.6210
84758460|NCT02012621|169272295|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|210.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||210.5|25.7|<0.0001
84613077|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.64||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||1.640|0.385|0.5268
84613078|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|2.027||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.027|0.504|0.9753
84758461|NCT02012621|169272296|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|30.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.9|2.3|0.0012
84758462|NCT02012621|169272297|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.7|2.6|<0.0001
84589231|NCT00261833|168929747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.89||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (FRC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.57|0.115
84589232|NCT04358406|168929760|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84589233|NCT04358406|168929760|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.1
84589234|NCT00854360|168929775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.80|0.255
84589235|NCT00854360|168929775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.78|0.257
84589236|NCT00854360|168929775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.13|-1.13|0.013
84589237|NCT00854360|168929776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.22|-0.77|0.278
84613079|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.85||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||0.850|0.168|0.0141
84613080|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
84589238|NCT00854360|168929776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.385
84589239|NCT00854360|168929776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.11|-1.09|0.016
84589240|NCT00854360|168929777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.06||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.06|-0.95|0.082
84589241|NCT00854360|168929777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.10|-0.90|0.114
84613081|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.288||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.288|0.422|0.2788
84613082|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.286||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||3.286|0.352|0.8971
84589242|NCT00854360|168929777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
84589243|NCT00854360|168929778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.37||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.37|-0.52|0.747
84589244|NCT00854360|168929778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.31|-0.53|0.605
84589245|NCT00854360|168929778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.05||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.05|-0.84|0.083
84589246|NCT00854360|168929779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.46||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.46|-0.45|0.989
84589247|NCT00854360|168929779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.50|-0.39|0.808
84589248|NCT00854360|168929779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.15||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.15|-0.74|0.195
84589249|NCT00854360|168929780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.57|-0.64|0.903
84589250|NCT00854360|168929780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.62||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.62|-0.58|0.952
84613083|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.388||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||2.388|0.251|0.6559
84589251|NCT00854360|168929780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.19||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.19|-0.99|0.187
84589252|NCT00474903|168929795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0955
84589253|NCT00474903|168929795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
84589254|NCT02735200|168929800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||the p value correspond to the pretreatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84589255|NCT02735200|168929800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value corresponds to the post treatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84589256|NCT00744861|168929802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|site stratified||||||0.9905
84613084|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.889||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||1.889|0.466|0.8563
84613085|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.12||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||1.120|0.130|0.668
84613086|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs35636987 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
84613087|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.237||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||2.237|0.331|0.7520
84613088|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.098||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.098|0.276|0.0833
84613089|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.506||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||5.506|0.444|0.4772
84613090|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|2.048||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.048|0.522|0.9235
84613091|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|1.126||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.126|0.223|0.0845
84613092|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|10.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||10.47|0.284|0.5493
84613093|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.987||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.987|0.492|0.5210
84613094|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.108||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.108|0.261|0.0854
84613095|NCT00265317|168976153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.489||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||2.489|0.365|0.9198
84613096|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.014|0.473|0.9486
84613097|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.897||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.897|0.487|0.9084
84613098|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.876||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|15.48||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||15.48|0.534|0.2009
84613099|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.175||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305845 Genotype: G/G||2.175|0.554|0.7863
84613100|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.442||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||2.442|0.633|0.5267
84613101|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|6.208||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: T/T||6.208|0.049|0.6240
84613102|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.254||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.384||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.384|0.660|0.4882
84613103|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.189||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||1.189|0.290|0.1307
84613104|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
84613105|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.833||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.833|0.628|0.7966
84613106|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.484||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||2.484|0.366|0.9224
84613107|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|3.025||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||3.025|0.363|0.9317
84613108|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.8696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|2.044||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||2.044|0.546|0.8696
84613109|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.554||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||2.554|0.453|0.8694
84613110|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs3563987 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
84613111|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|3.026||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||3.026|0.442|0.7667
84613112|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.422||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.422|0.401|0.3822
84644364|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.429|24.554|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||24.554|9.429|< 0.001
84644365|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.683|3.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.859|1.683|< 0.001
84644366|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.716|22.664|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||22.664|8.716|< 0.001
84644367|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.685|3.816|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.816|1.685|< 0.001
84613113|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.419||||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|4.04||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||4.040|0.498|0.5089
84613114|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.544||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.544|0.691|0.3944
84613115|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.416||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.416|0.339|0.3103
84613116|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|8.294||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||8.294|0.089|0.8942
84613117|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|3.304||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.304|0.466|0.6650
84613118|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.475||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.475|0.412|0.4415
84613119|NCT00265317|168976154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.458||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|4.06||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||4.060|0.523|0.4682
84613120|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|5.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||5.470|0.304|0.7301
84613121|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.592||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||PDGFRB/rs2304060 C/A||1.592|0.390|0.5013
84672932|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.56|0.2222
84613122|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|1.578||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: A/A||1.578|0.298|0.3680
84613123|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.467||2-sided, unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.467|0.371|0.3804
84613124|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.247||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||1.247|0.261|0.1507
84613125|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||||0.0772
84613126|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.284||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.284|0.339|0.2149
84613127|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.26||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/RS2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.260|0.466|0.9491
84613128|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.881||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.881|0.447|0.8114
84613129|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.221||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.221|0.273|0.1379
84613130|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.859||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|13.51||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.51|0.256|0.5341
84613131|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||2.014|0.431|0.8564
84613132|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.788||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||1.788|0.355|0.5766
84613133|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.557||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||1.557|0.140|0.2043
84613134|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.317||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||1.317|0.214|0.1626
84613135|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.006||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.006|0.484|0.9680
84613136|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.92||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||1.920|0.171|0.3587
84613137|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|1.662||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||1.662|0.331|0.4635
84613138|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.069||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.069|0.476|0.9834
84613139|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||1.725|0.072|0.1764
84500178|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.05|0.32|0.6482
84500179|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.76|0.53|0.9003
84500180|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.46|0.6000
84500181|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|0.27|0.5670
84758463|NCT05885737|169272381|EQUIVALENCE|Testing of primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% significance level. The efficacy of difelikefalin was to be declared for this study if null hypothesis of no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative that participants randomized to difelikefalin experience significantly different itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the 2-sided p value was less than (\<) 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.37|||MMRM|||The null hypothesis in this study was that there was no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint. The alternative hypothesis was that in participants randomized to difelikefalin there was a significant treatment difference in change in itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The assessment was based on the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour WI-NRS score at Week 4 of the DB period.||-0.37|-1.25|0.0003
84758464|NCT00609791|169272393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0057||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on age in years||||0.055
84758465|NCT00609791|169272393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.013
84500182|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.24|0.4353
84500183|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.56|0.8922
84500184|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.77|0.50|0.8591
84589257|NCT02493764|168929808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \< 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.2|-11.9|<0.001
84758466|NCT00609791|169272394|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0063||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL on age in years||||0.25
84758467|NCT00609791|169272394|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL versus chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.04
84500185|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4779
84500186|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8994
84500187|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.12|0.57|0.7800
84500188|NCT01236053|168751055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.67|0.44|0.6577
84500189|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.59|0.48|0.8111
84589258|NCT02493764|168929809|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in FCR (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \> 12.5 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in FCR|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in FCR||13.2|-3.2|<0.001
84589259|NCT02493764|168929810|OTHER|Difference in % with AE vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % with AE|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3||||||||4.3|-7.7|
84589260|NCT02493764|168929811|OTHER|Difference in % discontinuing vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % discontinuing|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-7.1|
84758468|NCT00609791|169272395|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
84758469|NCT00609791|169272398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose reduction.||6.7|-16.5|.38
84758470|NCT00609791|169272398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on the need of a dose reduction.||0.44|-0.33|0.76
84613140|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.209||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||1.209|0.422|0.2018
84613141|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.354|9.673||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||9.673|0.354|0.4592
84758471|NCT00609791|169272398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for dose reduction.||0.36|-0.49|0.75
84758472|NCT00609791|169272399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||13.9|-2.3|0.15
84758473|NCT00609791|169272399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||0.23|-0.39|0.61
84758474|NCT00609791|169272399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for a dose omission.||0.42|-0.22|0.51
84758475|NCT00609791|169272400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||12.7|-9.3|0.75
84758476|NCT00609791|169272400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.81|-0.12|0.13
84758477|NCT00609791|169272400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.25|-0.67|0.34
84758478|NCT01265615|169272439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84500190|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|0.45|0.9104
84613142|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.184||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.184|0.373|0.1593
84758479|NCT01265615|169272440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84500191|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.07|0.68|0.5592
84758480|NCT01265615|169272441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84500192|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.60|0.8521
84613143|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.327||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|3.755||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||3.755|0.469|0.5897
84613144|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
84613145|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.336||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.336|0.423|0.3235
84613146|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.7463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|2.355||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.355|0.303|0.7463
84613147|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.593||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: rs740751 Genotype: C/C||1.593|0.330|0.4179
84758481|NCT01265615|169272442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758482|NCT01265615|169272443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758483|NCT01265615|169272444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758484|NCT01265615|169272445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758485|NCT01265615|169272446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758486|NCT01265615|169272447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758487|NCT01265615|169272448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84758488|NCT01757678|169272452|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.19||||||||.19|.09|
84758489|NCT01757678|169272453|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14||||||||.14|.04|
84758490|NCT03548935|169272457|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-11.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-11.51|-13.37|<.0001
84758491|NCT03548935|169272457|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|-13.55|||ANCOVA|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.55|-15.29|<0.0001
84758492|NCT03548935|169272458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.88|14.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||14.19|8.88|<0.0001
84758493|NCT03548935|169272458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|48.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand||48.95|28.02|<0.0001
84758494|NCT04677959|169272499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||The 95% credible intervals of the odds ratio from the posterior distributions were calculated and presented.||||
84758495|NCT00619255|169272518|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.71
84758496|NCT00619255|169272519|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.80
84758497|NCT00619255|169272520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|"DF = 1~Chi-Square Value = 0.18"||||||0.67
84758498|NCT00619255|169272521|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.03
84758499|NCT00619255|169272522|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.72
84589261|NCT02493764|168929812|OTHER||Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.6|-10.9|
84589262|NCT02493764|168929813|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was ≥ 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.7|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.7|-11.0|
84589263|NCT02493764|168929814|OTHER|Adjusted difference in ACM|Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.8|-10.2|
84589264|NCT02493764|168929815|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.8|-11.3|
84589265|NCT02493764|168929816|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||5.5|-9.8|
84589266|NCT02493764|168929817|OTHER|Difference in favorable clinical response|Adjusted difference in FCR|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||18.4|-4.6|
84613148|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.05||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.050|0.462|0.9423
84613149|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs7407451 Genotype: T/T||1.725|0.072|0.1764
84589267|NCT02493764|168929818|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-8.1|
84589268|NCT02493764|168929819|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.5|-14.3|
84589269|NCT02493764|168929820|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||6.4|-13.6|
84589270|NCT02493764|168929821|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||11.6|-4.6|
84589271|NCT02493764|168929822|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-6.3|
84589272|NCT02493764|168929823|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|14.2|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||14.2|-7.1|
84589273|NCT02493764|168929824|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||12.0|-3.1|
84589274|NCT02493764|168929825|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||9.4|-7.2|
84589275|NCT02493764|168929826|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.9|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||17.9|1.6|
84589276|NCT02493764|168929827|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||15.0|-2.7|
84589277|NCT02493764|168929828|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||11.0|-5.5|
84589278|NCT02493764|168929829|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.1|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||14.1|-4.0|
84589279|NCT01561976|168929830|OTHER||Ratio|108.94||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.01|117.5|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.50|101.01|0.1413
84613150|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.501||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.501|0.201|0.2352
84613151|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.003||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.003|0.485|0.9674
84613152|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.686||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||1.686|0.235|0.3524
84644368|NCT01931670|169024637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.434|15.874|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||15.874|6.434|< 0.001
84644369|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.765|1.855|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.855|0.765|0.376
84644370|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.376||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|2.127|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||2.127|0.890|0.101
84644371|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|2.029|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.029|0.909|0.088
84589280|NCT01561976|168929830|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.37|115.73|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||115.73|99.37|0.1413
84589281|NCT01561976|168929831|OTHER||Ratio|116.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.91|126.95|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||126.95|106.91|0.0171
84589282|NCT01561976|168929831|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.35|116.94|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||116.94|98.35|0.0171
84613153|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.124||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||2.124|0.308|0.6652
84500193|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.04|0.26|0.5529
84500194|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.68|0.21|0.3275
84500195|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.72|0.46|0.7300
84500196|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.53|0.41|0.4831
84500197|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.45|0.7693
84613154|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.618||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||1.618|0.436|0.5931
84589283|NCT01561976|168929832|OTHER||Ratio|116.87||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.07|127.57|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||127.57|107.07|0.0169
84758500|NCT01923129|169272557|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of interest was the rate of AUR, defined as the number of patients with AUR within each study group. A 15% non-inferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. The expected difference between the two groups was 0%. Non-inferiority analysis was performed by calculation of risk difference and its 95% confidence interval according to Newcombe \& Altman.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84500198|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.30|0.35|0.8189
84500199|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.50|0.9800
84500200|NCT01236053|168751057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.58|0.39|0.4944
84500201|NCT01236053|168751058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
84500202|NCT01236053|168751058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|147.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||147.0|0.79|0.0743
84500203|NCT01236053|168751059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
84500204|NCT01236053|168751059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
84589284|NCT01561976|168929832|OTHER||Ratio|107.38||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|117.29|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.29|98.30|0.0169
84589285|NCT01463527|168929854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57||||||Odds of intervention in capnography open group as compared to capnography blind group after adjusting of age and length of sedation.||0.57|0.17|
84589286|NCT01463527|168929855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation)|||||||0.30
84589287|NCT01977222|168929875|OTHER|||||||0.1673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1673
84589288|NCT01977222|168929876|OTHER|||||||0.5745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5745
84589289|NCT01977222|168929877|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.511
84589290|NCT01977222|168929878|OTHER|||||||0.776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.776
84589291|NCT01977222|168929879|OTHER|||||||0.5374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5374
84589292|NCT01977222|168929880|OTHER|||||||0.3385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3385
84589293|NCT01977222|168929881|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
84589294|NCT01977222|168929882|OTHER|||||||0.1183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1183
84589295|NCT01605669|168929894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|85.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
84589296|NCT01605669|168929894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|72.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
84613155|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475||||0.2625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.813||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.813|0.125|0.2625
84613156|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.239||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.239|0.400|0.2168
84613157|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.759||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||2.759|0.353|0.9802
84613158|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||1.122|0.378|0.1145
84500205|NCT01236053|168751060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
84500206|NCT01236053|168751060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
84500207|NCT01236053|168751062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
84500208|NCT01236053|168751062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
84589297|NCT01605669|168929894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Error Rate|25.0||||||95.0|||||||Error rate of 9/36 is equal to total of false positives plus false negatives over the total of participants analyzed.|||||
84589298|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.13|41.32|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05. This belongs to the primary endpoint.||41.32|29.13|<0.001
84589299|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.28|40.58|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||40.58|28.28|<0.001
84589300|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|44.34|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||44.34|32.20|<0.001
84589301|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.02|48.95|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||48.95|37.02|<0.001
84589302|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.61|42.54|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||42.54|30.61|<0.001
84589303|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|39.55|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||39.55|27.42|<0.001
84589304|NCT04846231|168929895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.16|37.47|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||37.47|25.16|<0.001
84589305|NCT04846231|168929897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84589306|NCT03648385|168929903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.83
84589307|NCT03648385|168929903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.56
84589308|NCT03648385|168929904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
84589309|NCT03648385|168929904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|with sandwich estimation to correct for model misspecification.||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.03
84589310|NCT03648385|168929905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.047
84589311|NCT03648385|168929905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.052
84589312|NCT03648385|168929906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.044
84589313|NCT03648385|168929906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.96
84589314|NCT03648385|168929907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.91
84589315|NCT03648385|168929907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.61
84589316|NCT03648385|168929908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.14
84589317|NCT03648385|168929908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.84
84589318|NCT03648385|168929909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.36
84589319|NCT03648385|168929909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.71
84644372|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.488|3.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||3.278|1.488|< 0.001
84613159|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.946||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||3.946|0.360|0.7725
84672933|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.60|0.0682
84500209|NCT01236053|168751063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.21|0.0066
84500210|NCT01236053|168751063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.82|1.00|0.0494
84500211|NCT01236053|168751063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.82|1.33|0.0006
84500212|NCT01236053|168751063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.41|1.11|0.0138
84500213|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|6.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.53|1.66|0.0006
84500214|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.05|1.50|0.0020
84589320|NCT03648385|168929910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
84589321|NCT03648385|168929910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.44
84589322|NCT03648385|168929911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.79
84589323|NCT03648385|168929911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.34
84589324|NCT03648385|168929912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
84589325|NCT03648385|168929912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.99
84589326|NCT03648385|168929913|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.13|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.13
84589327|NCT03648385|168929913|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.044
84589328|NCT03648385|168929913|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.77|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 MCS||||0.77
84589329|NCT03648385|168929913|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.98|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-MCS||||0.98
84589330|NCT03648385|168929914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.70
84589331|NCT03648385|168929914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.037
84589332|NCT03648385|168929915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.005
84589333|NCT03648385|168929915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.9
84589334|NCT03648385|168929916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||<0.0001
84613160|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.473||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||1.473|0.321|0.3286
84613161|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||2.028|0.470|0.9480
84613162|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|2.282||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||2.282|0.125|0.3844
84613163|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.153||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.153|0.381|0.1373
84758501|NCT02255409|169272601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||9.7|-6.7|
84500215|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.34|1.43|0.0013
84500216|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.80|1.22|0.0080
84500217|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.61|0.20|0.8165
84500218|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.12|0.17|0.6624
84500219|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.68|0.45|0.6316
84500220|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.22|0.35|0.9060
84500221|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.74|0.61|0.3731
84500222|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.87|0.43|0.8266
84500223|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.13|0.95|0.0712
84500224|NCT01236053|168751064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.60|0.77|0.2674
84500225|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|7.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.46|1.75|0.0005
84500226|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.83|1.55|0.0019
84500227|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.55|1.39|0.0024
84500228|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.00|1.19|0.0115
84500229|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.96|0.17|0.6281
84500230|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.62|0.14|0.5103
84613164|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.114||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|3.667||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||3.667|0.339|0.8586
84613165|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.861||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||1.861|0.470|0.8478
84758502|NCT02255409|169272601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||2.3|-14.2|
84500231|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.90|0.45|0.7733
84500232|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.81|0.43|0.8370
84613166|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.401||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.401|0.287|0.2445
84613167|NCT00265317|168976156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|18.59||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||18.59|0.072|0.9191
84613168|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|3.847||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||3.847|0.326|0.8563
84758503|NCT02255409|169272601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||24.1|8.4|
84758504|NCT02255409|169272601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||22.0|6.3|
84613169|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.064||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/A||2.064|0.599|0.7375
84613170|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.8066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.147||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs234060 Genotype: A/A||2.147|0.375|0.8066
84613171|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.708||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.708|0.449|0.6945
84613172|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||2.122|0.536|0.8536
84613173|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.732||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|26.42||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||26.42|0.283|0.3657
84613174|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.483||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.483|0.424|0.4657
84613175|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.364||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.900|0.641|0.4168
84613176|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.809||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.809|0.456|0.7836
84500233|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.1|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.10|0.75|0.1980
84500234|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.21|0.54|0.5391
84589335|NCT03648385|168929916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.034
84589336|NCT03648385|168929917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, at 18 Weeks||||0.36
84589337|NCT03648385|168929917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
84613177|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.8531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.863||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.863|0.472|0.8531
84613178|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|13.07||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.07|0.412|0.3272
84613179|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.972||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||1.972|0.491|0.9630
84613180|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.227||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|2.656||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||2.656|0.567|0.6003
84613181|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|2.58||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||2.580|0.229|0.6703
84613182|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.106||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.525||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||2.525|0.485|0.8100
84613183|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.141|0.541|0.8335
84613184|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||2.141|0.268|0.5980
84613185|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|2.199||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||2.199|0.487|0.9287
84613186|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.106||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.106|0.526|0.8842
84613187|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||4.028|0.316|0.8501
84613188|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.017||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||2.017|0.749|0.4118
84613189|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.286||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|1.596||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||1.596|0.051|0.1299
84613190|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.2||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.200|0.399|0.1859
84613191|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.672||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|10.44||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||10.44|1.291|0.0091
84644373|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.678||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.136|2.477|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||2.477|1.136|0.003
84644374|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.832|4.044|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.044|1.832|< 0.001
84644375|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.537||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.042|2.267|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.267|1.042|0.013
84644376|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.598|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|3.857|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.857|1.750|< 0.001
84644377|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.062|2.306|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.306|1.062|0.01
84589338|NCT03648385|168929918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.002
84758505|NCT02255409|169272602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||2.2|-0.9|
84589339|NCT03648385|168929918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.0001
84589340|NCT03648385|168929919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.42
84589341|NCT03648385|168929919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.28
84589342|NCT03648385|168929920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
84589343|NCT03648385|168929920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.65
84613192|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
84613193|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.681||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.681|0.590|0.9888
84758506|NCT02255409|169272602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||1.2|-1.9|
84758507|NCT02255409|169272602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|20.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||20.0|9.3|
84589344|NCT03648385|168929921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.07
84589345|NCT03648385|168929921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.01
84589346|NCT03648385|168929922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.27
84589347|NCT03648385|168929922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.26
84589348|NCT03648385|168929923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.81
84589349|NCT03648385|168929923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
84613194|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.891||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.891|0.360|0.9702
84758508|NCT02255409|169272602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||32.0|20.6|
84589350|NCT03648385|168929924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.93
84589351|NCT03648385|168929924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.83
84589352|NCT03648385|168929925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.85
84589353|NCT03648385|168929925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.74
84589354|NCT03648385|168929926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.004
84589355|NCT03648385|168929926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.05
84613195|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.032||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/C||2.032|0.466|0.9419
84613196|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.252||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.252|0.549|0.7677
84613197|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: T/T||4.028|0.316|0.8501
84613198|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.782||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.782|0.322|0.5233
84613199|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.297||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.297|0.549|0.7500
84758509|NCT02255409|169272606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||13.0|-1.6|
84758510|NCT02255409|169272606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.8|-5.5|
84758511|NCT02255409|169272606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||18.3|5.3|
84589356|NCT03648385|168929927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
84589357|NCT03648385|168929927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
84589358|NCT03648385|168929928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.19
84589359|NCT03648385|168929928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
84589360|NCT03648385|168929929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.62
84589361|NCT03648385|168929929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.39
84589362|NCT03648385|168929930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
84589363|NCT03648385|168929930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.88
84589364|NCT03648385|168929931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
84589365|NCT03648385|168929931|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||1.00
84589366|NCT03781479|168929939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.792||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects liner model was fit with the HFMSE change from baseline (CFB) scores at Day 28 as a response and treatment, sequence, and treatment by sequence as fixed effect terms and patient as a random effect.||1.37|0.22|0.0083
84589367|NCT00829244|168929941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes \[CONSORT calculator dosing - Standard dosing\] was less than or equal to \[=\<\] (-3). The alternate hypothesis was that the difference was greater than \[\>\] (-3).||-0.1|-3.3|0.037
84589368|NCT00829244|168929942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-511.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-638.78|-383.96|||ANOVA|||||-383.96|-638.78|<0.001
84589369|NCT00829244|168929943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-37.46|||ANOVA|||||-37.46|-53.75|<0.001
84589370|NCT00829244|168929944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.933
84589371|NCT00829244|168929946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|18.2||||||||18.2|-11.0|
84589372|NCT00829244|168929948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||ANOVA|||||13.6|-12.3|0.926
84589373|NCT00829244|168929950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.47|||ANOVA|||||2.47|-0.61|0.235
84589374|NCT00829244|168929951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.6||||||||14.6|-13.5|
84589375|NCT04222673|168929954|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
84589376|NCT04222673|168929955|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
84589377|NCT04222673|168929956|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
84589378|NCT04222673|168929957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
84613200|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|3.142||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||3.142|0.483|0.6614
84613201|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.779||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|4.855||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||4.855|0.652|0.2552
84644378|NCT01931670|169024638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.570|1.630|< 0.001
84589379|NCT04222673|168929958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
84589380|NCT04222673|168929959|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
84589381|NCT04222673|168929960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
84589382|NCT04222673|168929961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
84589383|NCT03110562|168930020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5279|0.9335||One Sided P-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior of anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||0.9335|0.5279|0.0075
84589384|NCT03110562|168930021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9626||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2641|3.0471||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||3.0471|1.2641|0.0012
84589385|NCT03110562|168930022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6594||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0993|2.5049||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||2.5049|1.0993|0.0082
84613202|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|2.052||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||2.052|0.577|0.7931
84613203|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|1.331||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.331|0.152|0.1365
84589386|NCT03110562|168930023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5042||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3216|0.7906||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by Prior PI therapies (Yes or No), Number of prior anti-MM regimens (1 or \>1), and R-ISS stage at study entry (R-ISS Stage III versus R-ISS Stage I or II).|||0.7906|0.3216|0.0013
84589387|NCT03110562|168930024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8764||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.2168||One Sided P-value|Stratified log-rank test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||1.2168|0.6313|0.2152
84589388|NCT01561469|168930032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
84589389|NCT01561469|168930033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for superinfections category reported.||||1.00
84589390|NCT01561469|168930033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for colonization category reported.||||0.759
84589391|NCT01561469|168930034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
84589392|NCT01561469|168930035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.823
84589393|NCT01561469|168930036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.276
84589394|NCT01561469|168930037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
84589395|NCT03189719|168930042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.75|0.43|<0.0001
84589396|NCT03189719|168930043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.88|0.60|0.0006
84589397|NCT03189719|168930044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.78|0.49|<0.0001
84613204|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.447||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.447|0.504|0.5544
84613205|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.021||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||5.021|0.590|0.3132
84613206|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.113||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||2.113|0.755|0.3698
84589398|NCT03189719|168930045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.86|0.62|<0.0001
84589399|NCT03189719|168930046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.78|0.54|<0.0001
84589400|NCT03189719|168930047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.65|0.41|<0.0001
84589401|NCT03189719|168930048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.76|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.76|0.55|<0.0001
84589402|NCT03189719|168930049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|22.5|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||22.5|9.0|<0.0001
84589403|NCT03189719|168930050|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.4|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||33.4|11.6|<0.0001
84589404|NCT03189719|168930051|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||20.7|4.7|0.0009
84613207|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.423||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||1.423|0.119|0.1495
84589405|NCT03189719|168930052|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|33.2|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||33.2|14.3|<0.0001
84589406|NCT03189719|168930059|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.2|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.20|-3.40|0.9530
84589407|NCT03189719|168930060|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.95||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|3.82|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.82|-7.72|0.5053
84589408|NCT03189719|168930061|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.81|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.81|-3.93|0.9742
84613208|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|3.332||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||3.332|0.781|0.1911
84613209|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.636||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||1.636|0.384|0.5259
84613210|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.339||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||1.339|0.082|0.0996
84613211|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.259||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.259|0.450|0.2755
84613212|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|18.78||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||18.78|1.253|0.0120
84644379|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.624|1.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.693|0.624|0.901
84644380|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.68|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.789|0.680|0.65
84644381|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.351||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.841|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.170|0.841|0.154
84589409|NCT03189719|168930062|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.77||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|3.17|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||3.17|-6.71|0.4810
84589410|NCT03189719|168930063|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.54||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-0.16|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.16|-10.93|0.0436
84589411|NCT03189719|168930063|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.94||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-0.02|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.02|-5.86|0.0487
84589412|NCT03189719|168930063|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.49|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.49|-4.36|0.5932
84589413|NCT03189719|168930064|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.68||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|0.24|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.24|-17.59|0.0564
84589414|NCT03189719|168930064|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.13||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|2.66|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.66|-6.93|0.3813
84613213|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.274||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.457||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||2.457|0.661|0.4663
84613214|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|1.848||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.848|0.406|0.7097
84672934|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.72|0.0147
84589415|NCT03189719|168930064|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.11||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.65|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.65|-10.86|0.0816
84589416|NCT03189719|168930065|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.49||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|1.83|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.83|-10.81|0.1632
84589417|NCT03189719|168930065|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.71||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.71|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.71|-5.12|0.3259
84613215|NCT00265317|168976157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.158||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||3.158|0.117|0.5340
84613216|NCT00265317|168976160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.2702
84613217|NCT00265317|168976160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.7354
84613218|NCT00265317|168976162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
84613219|NCT00265317|168976162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
84613220|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.921||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High CSF-1R expression||1.921|0.159|0.1667
84589418|NCT03189719|168930065|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|2.48|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.48|-5.47|0.4598
84589419|NCT03189719|168930066|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.2||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|-0.73|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||-0.73|-15.67|0.0317
84589420|NCT03189719|168930066|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|0.62|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.62|-7.77|0.0945
84589421|NCT03189719|168930066|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.76||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|0.11|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.11|-9.64|0.0555
84589422|NCT01355627|168930075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.485|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment and pooled centre as covariates.|\< 1 implies a smaller likelihood of a TachoSil treated patient to experience a CSF leak.|||||0.485
84589423|NCT04532749|168930077|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|=|0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.64|-4.00|=0.411
84589424|NCT04532749|168930078|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|1.59|||MMRM model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint (MADRS-WOSI) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||1.59|-3.41|=0.473
84672935|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 7:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.68|0.0837
84589425|NCT04532749|168930079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.85|||MMRM Model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the second secondary endpoint (PROMIS-SD; Short Form 8a) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||0.85|-4.87|=0.167
84589426|NCT04756531|168930089|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.21|95.28||||||||95.28|69.21|
84589427|NCT04756531|168930090|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.14|96.2||||||||96.20|60.14|
84589428|NCT04756531|168930091|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.42|73.19||||||||73.19|43.42|
84589429|NCT04756531|168930124|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.92|174.72||||||||174.72|126.92|
84589430|NCT04756531|168930125|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|146.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.8|181.41||||||||181.41|118.80|
84613221|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.451||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|3.944||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low CSF-1R expression||3.944|0.534|0.7688
84613222|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.574||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate CSF-1R expression||1.574|0.503|0.3498
84613223|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.687||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|9.143||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRalpha expression||9.143|0.790|0.9497
84758512|NCT02255409|169272606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||5.7|-8.4|
84758513|NCT02255409|169272607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||8.4|2.4|
84758514|NCT02255409|169272607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.3|3.1|
84758515|NCT02255409|169272607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|40.9||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||40.9|25.0|
84589431|NCT04756531|168930126|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|244.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|188.58|317.87||||||||317.87|188.58|
84589432|NCT00285779|168930171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0978
84589433|NCT00285779|168930172|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84589434|NCT00285779|168930173|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
84589435|NCT00285779|168930173|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.34
84589436|NCT00285779|168930173|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
84589437|NCT00285779|168930173|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.22
84589438|NCT00285779|168930174|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
84589439|NCT00285779|168930174|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
84589440|NCT00285779|168930175|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
84589441|NCT00285779|168930175|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
84589442|NCT00285779|168930175|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.063
84589443|NCT00285779|168930175|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
84589444|NCT00285779|168930176|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.063
84589445|NCT00285779|168930176|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
84589446|NCT00285779|168930176|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.031
84589447|NCT00285779|168930176|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.32
84589448|NCT00285779|168930177|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
84589449|NCT00285779|168930177|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
84589450|NCT00285779|168930177|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
84589451|NCT00285779|168930177|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
84589452|NCT00285779|168930178|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.63
84589453|NCT00285779|168930178|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.38
84589454|NCT00285779|168930178|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.38
84758516|NCT02255409|169272607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||44.7|29.6|
84589455|NCT00285779|168930178|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.50
84589456|NCT00285779|168930179|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
84589457|NCT00285779|168930179|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
84589458|NCT00285779|168930179|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.039
84589459|NCT00285779|168930179|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.19
84589460|NCT00285779|168930180|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.26
84589461|NCT00285779|168930180|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.55
84589462|NCT00285779|168930180|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.18
84589463|NCT00285779|168930180|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
84589464|NCT00285779|168930181|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.51
84589465|NCT00285779|168930181|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.47
84589466|NCT00285779|168930181|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.087
84589467|NCT00285779|168930181|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.86
84589468|NCT00285779|168930182|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.033
84589469|NCT00285779|168930182|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.069
84589470|NCT00285779|168930182|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.015
84589471|NCT00285779|168930182|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.026
84589472|NCT01334918|168930200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Predefined noninferiority criterion: If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within 0.15 of 0.78, MDCT would be determined to be noninferior to SPECT.|Agreement rate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||Analysis of agreement rate based on participants with 0 -1 and ≥ 2 reversible defects according to SPECT. Agreement is defined as the proportion of participants who had the same status from SPECT and MDCT, averaged across those with 2 or more reversible defects and those without, where SPECT is the reference standard.||0.97|0.77|
84589473|NCT01334918|168930205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||||||Analysis of specificity based on participants with no fixed defects according to SPECT. Specificity is defined as a proportion of true negatives that are correctly identified, using SPECT as the reference standard.||0.99|0.90|
84589474|NCT01334918|168930205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||||||Analysis of sensitivity based on participants with ≥ 1 fixed defect according to SPECT. Sensitivity is the proportion of true positives that are correctly identified using SPECT as the reference standard.||1.00|0.54|
84758517|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4||||||The ratio of GMT (GMTr) values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 1.||2.4|1.6|
84758518|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 22.||1.7|1.3|
84758519|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 181.||1.7|1.3|
84613224|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|1.173||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRalpha expression||1.173|0.127|0.0401
84613225|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.524||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRalpha expression||1.524|0.487|0.3128
84613226|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.823||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.488||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRbeta expression||2.488|0.273|0.3650
84613227|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.48||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRbeta expression||3.480|0.408|0.6105
84613228|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.502||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRbeta expression||1.502|0.488|0.3027
84613229|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|3.184||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF expression||3.184|0.262|0.4436
84613230|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|3.062||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF expression||3.062|0.296|0.4582
84613231|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.548||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF expression||1.548|0.536|0.3720
84613232|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.397||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF-C expression||3.397|0.350|0.5586
84613233|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.266||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF-C expression||2.266|0.313|0.3652
84758520|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||2.7|1.7|
84758521|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||1.5|1.2|
84613234|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.554||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF-C expression||1.554|0.493|0.3301
84613235|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|3.636||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR1 expression||3.636|0.331|0.5605
84613236|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.236||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR1 expression||2.236|0.160|0.2132
84613237|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.537||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR1 expression||1.537|0.530|0.3605
84613238|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|2.784||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR2 expression||2.784|0.304|0.4438
84613239|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.125||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR2 expression||3.125|0.403|0.5699
84613240|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.528||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR2 expression||1.528|0.489|0.3147
84613241|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.581||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR3 expression||3.581|0.281|0.5015
84613242|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|3.025||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR3 expression||3.025|0.334|0.4887
84613243|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.414||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR3 expression||1.414|0.473|0.2432
84613244|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|4.101||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FGF expression||4.101|0.048|0.2321
84613245|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.292||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FGF expression||3.292|0.526|0.7143
84613246|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.465||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FGF expression||1.465|0.486|0.2812
84613247|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|7.96||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FLT3 expression||7.960|0.248|0.6504
84613248|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.876||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FLT3 expression||1.876|0.375|0.3266
84613249|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FLT3 expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
84613250|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.342||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.297||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected KIT expression||4.297|0.419|0.6907
84644382|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.871||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.175|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.979|1.175|0.003
84644383|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.776|2.013|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.013|0.776|0.294
84644384|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.163|2.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.989|1.163|0.003
84644385|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.713|1.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||1.839|0.713|0.521
84644386|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.544|3.963|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||3.963|1.544|< 0.001
84644387|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.787|2.023|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.023|0.787|0.27
84644388|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.5|3.891|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.891|1.500|< 0.001
84613251|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.731||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Participants with no detected KIT expression||1.731|0.265|0.1990
84589475|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Linoleic acid (18:2n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.9|-3.4|<0.001
84589476|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||2.8|1.7|<0.001
84589477|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-6 mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.7|-1.0|0.61
84589478|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|-0.1|0.40
84589479|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|0.0|0.12
84589480|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosapentaenoic acid (22:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.0|-0.1|<0.001
84613252|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate KIT expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
84613253|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|6.765||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected RET expression||6.765|0.071|0.3757
84589481|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.5|1.0|<0.001
84589482|NCT01576783|168930211|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-3 between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.4|0.9|<0.001
84589483|NCT01576783|168930212|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in n-6:n-3 ratio between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||-3.7|-5.5|<0.001
84613254|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|2.13||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected RET expression||2.130|0.358|0.3723
84613255|NCT00265317|168976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.523||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate RET expression||1.523|0.501|0.3263
84613256|NCT00265317|168976164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
84613257|NCT00265317|168976164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
84613258|NCT00265317|168976166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
84758522|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||1.6|1.2|
84758523|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.2|1.5|
84758524|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 22.||2.0|1.5|
84613259|NCT00265317|168976166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
84613260|NCT00265317|168976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3681
84613261|NCT00265317|168976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5982||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5982
84589484|NCT01576783|168930215|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Effortful Control Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.13
84589485|NCT01576783|168930215|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Activity Level Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.76||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.76
84589486|NCT01576783|168930216|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Cognitive Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.66
84589487|NCT01576783|168930216|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Language Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.55
84589488|NCT01576783|168930216|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Motor Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.88
84613262|NCT00265317|168976173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9807||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.9807
84613263|NCT00265317|168976174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3945||||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3945
84613264|NCT01504841|168976237|OTHER||%|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|69.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||69.2|10.9|
84613265|NCT01504841|168976237|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|100.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||100|39.8|
84758525|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 181.||2.2|1.6|
84589489|NCT01576783|168930217|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.11
84589490|NCT01576783|168930217|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in daytime sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.47||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.47
84589491|NCT01576783|168930217|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in total sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.32
84613266|NCT01504841|168976240|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medications.|||51.8|2.5|
84613267|NCT01504841|168976240|OTHER||%|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medication.|||60.2|0|
84613268|NCT01504841|168976241|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||51.8|2.3|
84613269|NCT01504841|168976241|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
84613270|NCT01504841|168976241|OTHER||%|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|61.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||61|6|
84758526|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 1.||4.0|2.7|
84613271|NCT01504841|168976241|OTHER||%|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|99.4|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||99.4|19.4|
84613272|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||41.3|0.2|
84758527|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 22.||1.8|1.2|
84758528|NCT02255409|169272608|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 181.||1.5|1.1|
84613273|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||93.2|6.8|
84613274|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||41.3|0.2|
84613275|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
84613276|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||51.8|2.3|
84613277|NCT01504841|168976245|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||93.2|6.8|
84613278|NCT04756804|168976246|OTHER|This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||||||||||||||||This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||
84613279|NCT02255461|168976265|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome neutropenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
84613280|NCT02255461|168976266|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome lymphopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
84613281|NCT02255461|168976267|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome leukopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.2||||||||1.20|1.01|
84758529|NCT02255409|169272610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||16.3|-5.2|
84758530|NCT02255409|169272610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.6||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||23.6|5.3|
84500235|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.53|1.10|0.0224
84613282|NCT02967510|168976293|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.304
84613283|NCT02967510|168976293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.109
84613284|NCT02967510|168976293|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.119
84613285|NCT02967510|168976294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.031|-0.444|||ANCOVA|||||-0.444|-1.031|<0.001
84613286|NCT02967510|168976294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.458|||ANCOVA|||||-0.458|-1.051|<0.001
84613287|NCT02967510|168976294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-0.951|<0.001
84613288|NCT02967510|168976295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.278|||ANCOVA|||||0.278|0.147|<0.001
84613289|NCT02967510|168976295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.078|<0.001
84613290|NCT02967510|168976295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.226|||ANCOVA|||||0.226|0.097|<0.001
84613291|NCT02967510|168976296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.603|<0.001
84613292|NCT02967510|168976296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.365|||ANCOVA|||||-0.365|-0.572|<0.001
84613293|NCT02967510|168976296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.331|||ANCOVA|||||-0.331|-0.531|<0.001
84644389|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.631|1.624|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||1.624|0.631|0.953
84644390|NCT01931670|169024639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.253|3.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.183|1.253|< 0.001
84644391|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.37|-0.69|< 0.001
84644392|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|-0.62|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.62|-0.94|< 0.001
84644393|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.29|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.29|-0.6|< 0.001
84644394|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|-1.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-1.12|-1.43|< 0.001
84644395|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.37|-0.68|< 0.001
84644396|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|-1.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-1.09|-1.4|< 0.001
84644397|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.42|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.42|-0.73|< 0.001
84500236|NCT01236053|168751065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.77|0.82|0.1815
84589492|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in weight-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.99
84589493|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in length-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.27||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.27
84589494|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in head circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.39
84613294|NCT02967510|168976297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.47
84613295|NCT02967510|168976297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|0|-1|=0.448
84758531|NCT02255409|169272611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||24.1|9.5|
84758532|NCT02255409|169272611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|55.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||55.8|35.9|
84758533|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||3.8|1.8|
84758534|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.9|1.3|
84758535|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||2.2|1.3|
84758536|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.6|1.5|
84500237|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.09|1.12|0.0248
84589495|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in mid upper arm circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.25||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.25
84589496|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in triceps skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.85
84589497|NCT01576783|168930218|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in subscapular skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.82||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.82
84758537|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.7|1.8|
84758538|NCT02255409|169272612|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||3.2|2.1|
84758539|NCT02290873|169272632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.8961|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8505|0.9416||P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test accounting for fentanyl strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.9416|0.8505|<0.0001
84758540|NCT02290873|169272633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.416|8.517|||Log Rank|||||8.517|4.416|<0.0001
84758541|NCT00078325|169272653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0001
84758542|NCT00078325|169272653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0008
84758543|NCT00078325|169272654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
84758544|NCT00078325|169272654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
84758545|NCT01519765|169272655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611|||||||Fisher Exact|||A consecutive sample will be used as women are recruited. Based on an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, a sample size of 103 subjects in each arm is required to detect a 20% difference between deliveries within 24hrs between the two treatment arms. An effect size of 20% was selected as this is thought to be a clinically significant difference. This is based on the Wing study showing 50% delivery within 24 hrs with vaginal misoprostol.||||0.1611
84758546|NCT01519765|169272656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84758547|NCT01519765|169272657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0623|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0623
84758548|NCT01519765|169272658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1141
84758549|NCT01519765|169272659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
84758550|NCT01519765|169272660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
84500238|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.70|0.99|0.0520
84500239|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.20|1.30|0.0046
84500240|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.72|1.12|0.0193
84500241|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.88|1.10|0.0309
84500242|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||5.51|0.81|0.1285
84500243|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.83|0.85|0.1257
84500244|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.31|0.70|0.2944
84500245|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.45|0.7032
84500246|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.69|0.37|0.9922
84500247|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.87|0.1227
84500248|NCT01236053|168751067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.61|0.69|0.3809
84500249|NCT01236053|168751068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.34|0.80|0.1757
84500250|NCT01236053|168751068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.75|0.64|0.4405
84500251|NCT01236053|168751068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.71|0.4420
84500252|NCT01236053|168751068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.82|0.59|0.9034
84500253|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.60|0.65|0.2395
84500254|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.93|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.93|0.55|0.3764
84500255|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.71|0.48|0.7599
84500256|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.43|0.9502
84500257|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.75|0.30|0.7164
84500258|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.73|0.24|0.9345
84500259|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.02|0.28|0.8833
84500260|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.22|0.6178
84500261|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.53|0.46|0.4556
84500262|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.29|0.35|0.7478
84613296|NCT02967510|168976297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.451
84613297|NCT02967510|168976298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.329
84613298|NCT02967510|168976298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.348
84613299|NCT02967510|168976298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
84613300|NCT02967510|168976299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.122
84613301|NCT02967510|168976299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.188
84613302|NCT02967510|168976299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.222
84613303|NCT02967510|168976300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.393
84613304|NCT02967510|168976300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.221
84613305|NCT02967510|168976300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.432
84613306|NCT02967510|168976301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.487|||ANCOVA|||||1.487|-1|=0.65
84500263|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.13|0.71|0.2350
84613307|NCT02967510|168976301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|-1.568|=0.361
84613308|NCT02967510|168976301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|1.257|||ANCOVA|||||1.257|-1.188|=0.522
84613309|NCT02967510|168976302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.079|||ANCOVA|||||0.079|-1.204|=0.043
84613310|NCT02967510|168976302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-1.158|=0.061
84613311|NCT02967510|168976302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.111|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.111|=0.071
84613312|NCT02967510|168976303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.012
84644398|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-1.11|-1.42|< 0.001
84644399|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.33|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.33|-0.65|< 0.001
84644400|NCT01931670|169024640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.10|-1.42|< 0.001
84644401|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.55|-17.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-17.07|-33.55|< 0.001
84644402|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-39.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.53|-31.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-31.11|-47.53|< 0.001
84500264|NCT01236053|168751069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.24|0.54|0.5428
84500265|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.59|0.55|0.3123
84500266|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||6.15|0.49|0.3951
84500267|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.75|0.56|0.4388
84500268|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.47|0.51|0.5535
84500269|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.48|0.40|0.6332
84500270|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.75|0.32|0.8743
84500271|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.15|0.27|0.6132
84500272|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.78|0.22|0.3821
84500273|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.28|0.51|0.3591
84500274|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.58|0.37|0.6899
84500275|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.30|0.73|0.2031
84644403|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.355|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.44|-14.36|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-14.36|-29.44|< 0.001
84500276|NCT01236053|168751070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.37|0.56|0.4932
84500277|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.96|0.88|0.0843
84500278|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||8.28|0.88|0.0810
84500279|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.70|0.55|0.4583
84500280|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.73|0.55|0.4622
84500281|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.95|0.43|0.5512
84500282|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.67|0.31|0.9277
84500283|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.95|0.51|0.6402
84500284|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.32|0.40|0.9256
84500285|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.50|0.24|0.9514
84500286|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.44|0.18|0.7543
84644404|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.365|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.87|-55.76|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-55.76|-70.87|< 0.001
84758551|NCT01519765|169272661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.093
84613313|NCT02967510|168976303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.007
84758552|NCT01519765|169272662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2417
84500287|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.07|0.38|0.8781
84500288|NCT01236053|168751072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.40|0.29|0.7429
84500289|NCT02304302|168751073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.98|0.61
84500290|NCT02304302|168751074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.43|0.57
84500291|NCT02304302|168751075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.74|0.91
84500292|NCT02304302|168751076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.91|0.48
84500293|NCT02304302|168751077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.53|-5.14|0.50
84500294|NCT02304302|168751078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.52|0.62
84500295|NCT02304302|168751079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.32|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.20|-25.32|0.84
84500296|NCT02304302|168751080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||QTc interval duration was the independent variable, treatment and time were the categorical factors.||||0.24
84500297|NCT02304302|168751081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|-1.57|0.28
84500298|NCT02304302|168751082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-0.80|0.51
84500299|NCT02304302|168751083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.94|-3.6|0.63
84500300|NCT02304302|168751084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-8.91|0.17
84500301|NCT01892020|168751103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.58||The 2-h PPG increment was analyzed using a normal linear mixed model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Let D be the treatment difference (BIAsp 50 BID + metformin minus BHI 50 BID + metformin) of 2-h PPG increment after a 4-week treatment. The null hypothesis was D = 0 mmol/L. The alternative hypothesis was D ≠ 0 mmol/L. Sample size was determined using a two-sided one sample t-test at a = 0.05 under the assumption of 0.8 mmol/L mean treatment different and 80% power.||-0.58|-1.66|< 0.001
84500302|NCT03594175|168751280|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|29.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.76|48.26|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||CUSA-081 vs Placebo Dwell Time Up To 90 Min -- FAS||48.26|10.76|0.003
84500303|NCT03594175|168751281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed based on the constructed 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the rate of treatment success between CUSA-081 vs alteplase, with non-inferiority considered as demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in rate of success is greater than -10%.|Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-1.24|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-1.24|-19.38|0.030
84500304|NCT03594175|168751282|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|24.13||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|42.41|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||42.41|5.84|0.017
84500305|NCT03594175|168751283|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.94|60.21|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||60.21|21.94|<0.001
84500306|NCT03594175|168751284|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-2.04|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-2.04|-19.89|0.019
84500307|NCT03594175|168751285|SUPERIORITY||Probability Re-Occlusion Free at Day 30|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|7.121||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||7.121|0.126|
84500308|NCT03594175|168751285|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.27||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||1.270|0.337|
84613314|NCT02967510|168976303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84613315|NCT02967510|168976304|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.438
84758553|NCT01519765|169272663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84758554|NCT01519765|169272664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1054
84758555|NCT01519765|169272665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8043
84758556|NCT01519765|169272666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
84758557|NCT01519765|169272667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.751
84758558|NCT01519765|169272668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6244
84589498|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.42
84758559|NCT01519765|169272669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7906
84500309|NCT03594175|168751285|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|10.848||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||10.848|0.193|
84500310|NCT01500434|168751376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 85% statistical power to demonstrate that the 12-month rate for TLF (accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 9.0%.|Target Lesion Failure Rate|3.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.96|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 19.4%.||7.96||<0.0001
84589499|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.68||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.68
84589500|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.78||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.78
84589501|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.32
84589502|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.97||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.97
84613316|NCT02967510|168976304|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.388
84613317|NCT02967510|168976304|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
84500311|NCT01143272|168751410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.90|0.55|0.94
84500312|NCT01143272|168751410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
84500313|NCT01143272|168751410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
84500314|NCT01143272|168751412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.49|0.80
84589503|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.62||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.62
84589504|NCT01576783|168930219|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.69||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.69
84589505|NCT01576783|168930220|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.22
84589506|NCT01576783|168930221|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84758560|NCT01519765|169272670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5118
84758561|NCT01519765|169272671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84500315|NCT01143272|168751412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03||adjusting for age, sex, CRP, leukocyte count, duration of antibiotic treatment, and administration of antibiotics|Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.53|0.93
84500316|NCT01143272|168751413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.08||Association between initial leukocyte count and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.96|0.6
84589507|NCT01576783|168930221|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Daytime Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84589508|NCT01576783|168930221|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84589509|NCT01576783|168930222|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.51||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.51
84644405|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.43|-17.88|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-17.88|-32.43|< 0.001
84644406|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.2|-54.68|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-54.68|-69.20|< 0.001
84644407|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.48|-19.46|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-19.46|-34.48|< 0.001
84758562|NCT01519765|169272672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.741
84758563|NCT01519765|169272673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.579
84758564|NCT01519765|169272674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Score for Nausea and vomiting||||.8062
84758565|NCT01519765|169272674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1505|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Effectiveness||||0.1505
84758566|NCT01519765|169272674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Patient concern||||0.1223
84589510|NCT01576783|168930223|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.09||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.09
84589511|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.29
84589512|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.11
84589513|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.23
84589514|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.29
84589515|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.06
84589516|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.14
84613318|NCT02967510|168976305|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
84613319|NCT02967510|168976305|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.02
84613320|NCT02967510|168976305|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.003
84613321|NCT02967510|168976306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.002
84758567|NCT01519765|169272674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||Patient satisfaction|Kruskal-Wallis|||Labor satisfaction||||0.5380
84758568|NCT01519765|169272675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2868||||||This is the overall p value of all rows.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2868
84758569|NCT02354222|169272696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.16|<0.001
84758570|NCT02354222|169272697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||||-7.9|-23.3|<0.001
84758571|NCT02354222|169272698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|0.63|<0.001
84758572|NCT02354222|169272699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-37.6|||ANCOVA|||||-37.6|-74.1|<0.001
84758573|NCT02354222|169272700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-25.2|||ANCOVA|||||-25.2|-49.9|<0.001
84758574|NCT02822885|169272737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84613322|NCT02967510|168976306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.331
84758575|NCT02822885|169272738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84589517|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.13
84589518|NCT01576783|168930224|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.16
84589519|NCT01576783|168930225|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.98
84589520|NCT01576783|168930225|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.67
84589521|NCT01576783|168930226|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.047||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.047
84613323|NCT02967510|168976306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.043
84613324|NCT02967510|168976307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
84758576|NCT02822885|169272739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84500317|NCT01143272|168751413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||Association between the initial C-reactive protein and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.01|1.00|0.653
84589522|NCT01576783|168930227|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.20
84589523|NCT01576783|168930228|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a developmental condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32||||||||3.32|0.80|
84589524|NCT01576783|168930229|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a behavioral condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|39.15||||||||39.15|0.52|
84589525|NCT02777086|168930278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||3-month outcome measures were compared between the StaySafe and Comparison groups controlling for the baseline measure using generalized linear models.||||<.001
84589526|NCT01819272|168930320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-9.0||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.0|-21.0|0.0670
84758577|NCT02822885|169272740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84758578|NCT02822885|169272741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84644408|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.89|-54.86|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-54.86|-69.89|< 0.001
84644409|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.06|-15.66|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-15.66|-31.06|< 0.001
84644410|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.58|-55.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-55.22|-70.58|< 0.001
84613325|NCT02967510|168976307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.032
84613326|NCT02967510|168976307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
84613327|NCT02967510|168976308|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.176
84613328|NCT02967510|168976308|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.358
84613329|NCT02967510|168976308|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.21
84613330|NCT02967510|168976309|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.106
84613331|NCT02967510|168976309|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.229
84500318|NCT02625207|168751447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.73||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.55|138.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.26|98.55|0.1318
84500319|NCT02625207|168751447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.85||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.48|0.1369
84500320|NCT02625207|168751447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.51|75.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.07|53.51|< 0.0001
84613332|NCT02967510|168976309|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.345
84613333|NCT02967510|168976310|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.026
84500321|NCT02625207|168751447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.83||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|87.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.13|62.57|0.0036
84613334|NCT02967510|168976310|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.424
84500322|NCT02625207|168751447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.7|87.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.31|62.70|0.0038
84500323|NCT02625207|168751448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.59||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|96.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.98|70.33|0.0531
84500324|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|137.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.4|167.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||167.15|112.40|0.0106
84613335|NCT02967510|168976310|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.414
84500325|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|164.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.54|200.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||200.06|134.54|0.0001
84644411|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.81|-17.97|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-17.97|-33.81|< 0.001
84644412|NCT01931670|169024641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.53|-48.7|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-48.70|-64.53|< 0.001
84644413|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.549|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.07|-0.11|0.549
84500326|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|198.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.77|242.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||242.05|162.77|< 0.0001
84500327|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|120.99||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.65|146.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||146.90|99.65|0.1061
84500328|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|272.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|224.08|330.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||330.33|224.08|<0.0001
84500329|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|110.22||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|129.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||129.18|94.05|0.3081
84500330|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.71||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|119.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||119.20|86.79|0.8583
84500331|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|108.52||||0.3913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|127.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||127.17|92.60|0.3913
84500332|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|106.69||||0.4866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|124.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||124.60|91.36|0.4866
84500333|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|119.61||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|139.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||139.69|102.42|0.0590
84589527|NCT01819272|168930320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-14.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.0|-22.0|0.0057
84589528|NCT01819272|168930320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||3.0|-25.0|0.1095
84500334|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.7||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.47|123.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||123.53|80.47|0.9816
84500335|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.12||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|130.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||130.24|84.84|0.6974
84500336|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.03||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.54|125.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||125.18|81.54|0.9363
84500337|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|96.11||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.94|118.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||118.52|77.94|0.7520
84500338|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|100.73||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.69|124.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||124.22|81.69|0.9536
84500339|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.6||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|117.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||117.18|81.28|0.8241
84500340|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.5||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|142.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||142.28|98.69|0.1261
84500341|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.6||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.95|119.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||119.59|82.95|0.9708
84500342|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|84.05||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.29|100.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||100.52|70.29|0.1099
84589529|NCT01819272|168930320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-3.0|-23.0|0.0097
84589530|NCT01819272|168930320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-17.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.0|-42.0|<0.0001
84500343|NCT02625207|168751449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.21||||0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.29|116.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||116.25|81.29|0.7913
84500344|NCT02625207|168751450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.65||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|138.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.18|98.47|0.1338
84500345|NCT02625207|168751450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.46|0.1370
84500346|NCT02625207|168751450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.47|75.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.04|53.47|< 0.0001
84500347|NCT02625207|168751450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.53|87.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.09|62.53|0.0036
84500348|NCT02625207|168751450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.61|87.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.20|62.61|0.0037
84500349|NCT02625207|168751451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.42||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|96.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.77|70.20|0.0507
84589531|NCT01819272|168930321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-16.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-16.00|-208.0|0.0226
84589532|NCT01819272|168930321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.0|-32.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-32.00|-180.0|0.0068
84589533|NCT01819272|168930321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-152.0||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.0|-42.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-42.00|-252.0|0.0071
84500350|NCT02625207|168751452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.19||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.26|146.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.63|95.26|0.1997
84500351|NCT02625207|168751452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|87.28||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.34|108.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||108.28|70.34|0.2947
84500352|NCT02625207|168751452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|61.23||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.35|75.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.97|49.35|0.0004
84500353|NCT02625207|168751452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|70.16||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|86.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.63|56.81|0.0071
84500354|NCT02625207|168751452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|72.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.6|89.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.36|58.60|0.0135
84500355|NCT02625207|168751453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.32||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.81|93.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.71|49.81|0.0505
84589534|NCT01819272|168930321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-101.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.00|-208.0|0.0405
84589535|NCT01819272|168930321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-224.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.0|-118.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-118.0|-334.0|<.0001
84589536|NCT01819272|168930322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.12|-0.85|0.0100
84589537|NCT01819272|168930322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.09|-0.81|0.0153
84500356|NCT02625207|168751454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|94.83||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.7|117.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.24|76.70|0.6761
84500357|NCT02625207|168751454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.43||||0.6771||90.0|85.28|130.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||130.35|85.28|0.6771
84500358|NCT02625207|168751454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|75.74||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.26|93.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.64|61.26|0.0331
84500359|NCT02625207|168751454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.84||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.38|88.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.40|58.38|0.0104
84500360|NCT02625207|168751454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.82||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.37|88.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.39|58.37|0.0104
84500361|NCT02625207|168751455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.62||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.07|119.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.45|83.07|0.9713
84500362|NCT01160198|168751475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily||||<0.0001
84500363|NCT01160198|168751475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||<0.0001
84500364|NCT01160198|168751477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||0.788
84500365|NCT01160198|168751477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.911
84500366|NCT01160198|168751477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.700
84500367|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 2||0.17|-0.29|1
84500368|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1||95.0|-0.57|0.31|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 4||0.31|-0.57|1
84500369|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.46|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 6||0.46|-0.75|1
84500370|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 8||0.53|-1.05|1
84500371|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.09|-0.35|0.490
84500372|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.29|-0.58|1
84500373|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.51|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.51|-0.68|1
84589538|NCT01819272|168930322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.35||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.02|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||0.02|-0.71|0.0611
84589539|NCT01819272|168930322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as acovariate||||-0.08|-0.83|0.0188
84589540|NCT01819272|168930322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.29|-1.04|0.0006
84589541|NCT01732536|168930323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||ANCOVA|Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.1365
84644414|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.02
84758579|NCT03924752|169272755|OTHER|A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different walking conditions (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed across different locomotion modes by setting the significant value to 0.05. Two independent variables were assistance type (Exo vs No Exo) and different locomotion modes.||||||0.9547||||||This presents the effect of exoskeleton assistance on the user's preferred overground walking speed across different locomotion modes.|ANOVA|||||||0.9547
84758580|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Kidney (logrank test).||||0.01
84758581|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Pancreas (logrank test).||||0.01
84758582|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Kidney Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.16
84758583|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Pancreas Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.12
84589542|NCT01732536|168930323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505||||||Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Day 90 in Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score in the subset of participants with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher polyps on each side; N=67).||||0.0505
84500374|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.72|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.72|-0.84|1
84589543|NCT01732536|168930324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0985
84589544|NCT01732536|168930324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||Bilateral polyp grade change in a subset of 67 patients with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher on each side confirmed by the independent panel)||||0.0490
84589545|NCT01732536|168930325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
84589546|NCT01732536|168930326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value for change from baseline to 90 days not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0162
84613336|NCT02967510|168976311|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.36
84758584|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Uncensored (Kidney \& Pancreas) Graft Survival (logrank test).||||0.96
84758585|NCT00533442|169272756|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Patient Death (logrank test).|Log Rank|||||||>0.99
84500375|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.15|-0.29|1
84500376|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.42|-0.45|1
84589547|NCT01732536|168930326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||P-value for change from baseline to 6 months not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0175
84589548|NCT01732536|168930327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Based on between arm comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0209
84589549|NCT01409096|168930377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as covariate.||||0.9084
84644415|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.03|-0.17|0.11
84758586|NCT00533442|169272757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.21
84758587|NCT00533442|169272757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.71
84758588|NCT00533442|169272757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.33
84758589|NCT00533442|169272758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||.47
84758590|NCT00533442|169272758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.97
84758591|NCT00533442|169272758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.75
84758592|NCT02258451|169272759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.102||1-sided SSE-FS hypotheses were tested using a log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2, stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) for SSE-FS was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model, stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|The 1-sided null hypothesis that treatment with radium-223 dichloride does not result in superior SSE-FS to treatment with placebo in participant population was tested against the 1-sided alternative hypothesis that the treatment with radium-223 dichloride results in superior SSE-FS time to treatment the placebo. H0: SSE-FS Radium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \<= SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus, versus HA: SSE-FSRadium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \> SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus||1.102|0.720|0.4843
84758593|NCT02258451|169272760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.343||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.343|0.697|0.8438
84589550|NCT01409096|168930378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.5187
84500377|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.65|-0.53|1
84500378|NCT01160198|168751478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.98|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.98|-0.58|1
84589551|NCT01409096|168930379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.6060
84589552|NCT01409096|168930380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSA used as a covariate.||||0.5110
84589553|NCT01276704|168930400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||83% power to detect an absolute 2.5% reduction in Ki-67 for the treatment group compared with no reduction in the control group.||||0.72
84589554|NCT01276704|168930401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84589555|NCT01276704|168930402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84589556|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589557|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589558|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.030
84589559|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.166
84500379|NCT00802529|168751495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 2 degrees of freedom (Baseline vs 18-24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.271
84500380|NCT00802529|168751496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 6 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.964
84500381|NCT00802529|168751497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 5 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.128
84589560|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589561|NCT00370292|168930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589562|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589563|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589564|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.333
84589565|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.849
84589566|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589567|NCT00370292|168930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
84589568|NCT01444911|168930416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84589569|NCT00069641|168930427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|31.93|||ANCOVA|||p-value for treatment difference based on Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing treatment, region, baseline participant age, and baseline disease score.||31.93|5.99|0.0049
84500382|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall (LOCF)||||0.331
84500383|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity (LOCF)||||0.362
84500384|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional (LOCF)||||0.159
84500385|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.468
84589570|NCT03186638|168930430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7917|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline values||||||0.7917
84589571|NCT03801525|168930436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.755|||Log Rank|||||2.755|0.219|0.6960
84589572|NCT03801525|168930443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.201||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.721|||Log Rank|||||1.721|0.023|0.1038
84589573|NCT01766102|168930444|OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Procedure time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.716
84589574|NCT01766102|168930444|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Operating room time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.676
84589575|NCT03545672|168930446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84589576|NCT03545672|168930447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84589577|NCT01170663|168930637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.962|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.962|0.678|0.0169
84589578|NCT01170663|168930638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.752|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.752|0.536|<0.0001
84589579|NCT01170663|168930639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.72|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.720|0.494|<0.0001
84589580|NCT01170663|168930641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from the start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||3.16|1.45|0.0001
84589581|NCT01170663|168930649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group, randomization stratification factors and baseline value of Global Health Status scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3973
84589582|NCT01164007|168930677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||One-sample exact binomial test|||The observed percentage of participants with CR or PR was compared with the expected proportion under the null hypothesis (0.10) and analyzed for statistical significance using a one-sample exact binomial test.||||0.071
84589583|NCT02519842|168930696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|27.9|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who experienced at least 1 tier 2 AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||27.9|-7.6|
84589584|NCT02519842|168930697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.8|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who discontinued due to an AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||17.8|-5.1|
84589585|NCT01230411|168930708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.0|0.88|0.078
84589586|NCT00253422|168930716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.76
84613337|NCT02967510|168976311|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.12
84613338|NCT02967510|168976311|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
84672936|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.46|0.5828
84613339|NCT02967510|168976312|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.47
84500386|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social (LOCF)||||0.197
84589587|NCT00253422|168930716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.83|1.00
84589588|NCT00253422|168930717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84589589|NCT00253422|168930717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84589590|NCT00253422|168930719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84589591|NCT00253422|168930719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
84589592|NCT00253422|168930721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favour Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.21|0.84|0.95
84589593|NCT00253422|168930721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + placebo|||1.25|0.87|0.66
84589594|NCT00253422|168930722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.19|0.82|0.91
84589595|NCT00253422|168930722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Placebo|||1.32|0.91|0.31
84589596|NCT02319486|168930732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Event-Free Survival ，pEFS|0.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||stage 2 vs stage 3|pEFS||over all pEFS|||||0.034
84589597|NCT00859833|168930761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for equivalence: SD for adenosine = 0.59, SD for regadenoson = 0.92, true difference between groups = 0.19. With n=28, DOF = 46. Power for equivalence (with alpha = 0.05) = 0.98585.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6041|0.2241|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) is not different when measured with adenosine or regadenoson in patients across a broad range of body sizes.||0.2241|-0.6041|0.3617
84589598|NCT00427193|168930762|OTHER||difference in mean change|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||All analysis under intention-to-treat. All observations were included The primary analytic was a repeated measures analysis. The dependent variable was the change from baseline 12 \& 14mos., with treatment, time, and the treatment × time interaction as independent variables. Site, sex, BMI stratum, and the baseline value of the outcome were included as covariates. The predicted mean changes ± standard errors are the adjusted values from the contrasts of the multiple timepoints.||0.059|-0.019|0.70
84500387|NCT02016755|168751517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.448
84500388|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.939
84500389|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.508
84500390|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.474
84500391|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.361
84500392|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.258
84589599|NCT00427193|168930763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.069|-0.0092|0.84
84589600|NCT00427193|168930764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-60.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.2|-103.8|<0.001
84758594|NCT02258451|169272761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.604||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.604|0.577|0.8811
84500393|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18||||0.059
84500394|NCT02016755|168751518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.023
84500395|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.655
84500396|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.310
84500397|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.348
84500398|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.501
84500399|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.536
84589601|NCT00427193|168930765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.5|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-90.5|<0.0001
84500400|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.140
84500401|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.018
84500402|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (Posterior tibial)||||0.716
84500403|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (Posterior tibial)||||0.641
84500404|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (Posterior tibial)||||0.514
84500405|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (Posterior tibial)||||0.808
84500406|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (Posterior tibial)||||0.396
84500407|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18 (Posterior tibial)||||0.162
84500408|NCT02016755|168751519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Posterior tibial)||||0.259
84500409|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.671
84500410|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.925
84500411|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.514
84500412|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.302
84500413|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.373
84500414|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.505
84500415|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.135
84500416|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 3 (Left)||||0.175
84500417|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 6 (Left)||||0.393
84500418|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 9 (Left)||||0.928
84500419|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 12 (Left)||||0.429
84500420|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 15 (Left)||||0.907
84500421|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 18 (Left)||||0.300
84500422|NCT02016755|168751520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Left)||||0.214
84500423|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.655
84500424|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.226
84500425|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.380
84500426|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.187
84500427|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.203
84500428|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.074
84500429|NCT02016755|168751521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.038
84589602|NCT00427193|168930766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.16|0.82
84613340|NCT02967510|168976312|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.137
84613341|NCT02967510|168976312|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.133
84613342|NCT02967510|168976313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|2.153|||ANCOVA|||||2.153|-0.669|=0.85
84613343|NCT02967510|168976313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87|||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|2.361|||ANCOVA|||||2.361|-0.611|=0.877
84613344|NCT02967510|168976313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.009|0.728|||ANCOVA|||||0.728|-2.009|=0.178
84613345|NCT02967510|168976314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.531|||ANCOVA|||||0.531|-0.854|=0.323
84613346|NCT02967510|168976314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.484|||ANCOVA|||||0.484|-0.917|=0.272
84613347|NCT02967510|168976314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-1.29|=0.043
84758595|NCT02258451|169272762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.289||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|Participants with baseline WPS \> 8 were included in the analysis population but censored at Day 1.||1.289|0.667|0.6537
84613348|NCT02967510|168976315|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.009
84613349|NCT02967510|168976315|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.025
84758596|NCT02258451|169272763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.219||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.219|0.641|0.4496
84500430|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.246
84613350|NCT02967510|168976315|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84613351|NCT02967510|168976316|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.04
84613352|NCT02967510|168976316|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
84613353|NCT02967510|168976316|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.104
84613354|NCT02967510|168976317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84500431|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.474
84500432|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.395
84500433|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.220
84613355|NCT02967510|168976317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84613356|NCT02967510|168976317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84613357|NCT02967510|168976318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
84500434|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.454
84613358|NCT02967510|168976318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.054
84613359|NCT02967510|168976318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|<0.001
84613360|NCT02967510|168976319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.008
84613361|NCT02967510|168976319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.01
84613362|NCT02967510|168976319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
84613363|NCT02967510|168976320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.548|||ANCOVA|||||-0.548|-1.071|<0.001
84613364|NCT02967510|168976320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.484|||ANCOVA|||||-0.484|-1.013|<0.001
84613365|NCT02967510|168976320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.916|-0.397|||ANCOVA|||||-0.397|-0.916|<0.001
84613366|NCT02967510|168976321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.535|||ANCOVA|||||0.535|0.337|<0.001
84500435|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.167
84613367|NCT02967510|168976321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.494|||ANCOVA|||||0.494|0.291|<0.001
84613368|NCT02967510|168976321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.439|||ANCOVA|||||0.439|0.245|<0.001
84613369|NCT02967510|168976322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.371|||ANCOVA|||||-0.371|-0.575|<0.001
84613370|NCT02967510|168976322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.383|||ANCOVA|||||-0.383|-0.592|<0.001
84500436|NCT02016755|168751522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.015
84613371|NCT02967510|168976322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
84613372|NCT03668613|168976353|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Log-OR|4.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.782|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.782|3.422|
84613373|NCT03668613|168976353|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.772|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.772|3.422|
84613374|NCT03668613|168976354|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log -OR|4.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|6.513|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.513|2.638|
84613375|NCT03668613|168976354|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.919|6.78|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.780|2.919|
84613376|NCT03668613|168976355|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.916|6.202|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.202|2.916|
84613377|NCT03668613|168976355|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.201|6.58|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.580|3.201|
84613378|NCT02920749|168976381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
84644416|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.11|-0.30|< 0.001
84644417|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.01|-0.22|0.041
84644418|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
84613379|NCT02920749|168976382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
84613380|NCT00286494|168976383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.001
84613381|NCT00286494|168976383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.41||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.41|-0.80|<0.001
84613382|NCT00286494|168976384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.36|<0.001
84613383|NCT00286494|168976384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
84613384|NCT00286494|168976385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.56|<0.001
84613385|NCT00286494|168976385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
84613386|NCT00286494|168976386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
84613387|NCT00286494|168976386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.43|-0.75|<0.001
84758597|NCT02258451|169272764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.157||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.157|0.660|0.3467
84613388|NCT00286494|168976387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
84644419|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.03|-0.21|0.081
84644420|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
84758598|NCT02258451|169272765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.4||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-10.2|0.556
84613389|NCT00286494|168976387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.76|<0.001
84589603|NCT00427193|168930767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in Fat Mass between prescribed 25% Caloric Restriction (CR) and Ad Libitum (AL) at 12 and 24 months as measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using the Hologic 4500A, Delphi W or Discovery A, by a standardized protocol according to a standardized protocol. Fat Mass (FM) and Fat Free Mass (FFM) were determined for the whole body.||-5.3|-6.5|<0.001
84589604|NCT00427193|168930768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of change in FM in 2 groups over at 24 mos, controlling for site, sex, BMI group, and baseline FM. A repeated measures Mixed Model was employed for the analysis. For any outcome, Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy testing, first, the GroupXTime interaction, and, if non-significant, the main effects of these two factors. Bonferroni corrections were employed for non-significant effects. All tests were at p\<0.05||-5.3|-6.4|<0.0001
84589605|NCT02013609|168930778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 12 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
84589606|NCT02013609|168930779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84589607|NCT02013609|168930784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84589608|NCT02013609|168930785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84589609|NCT02013609|168930786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is the same for each of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12 of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities||||<0.0001
84589610|NCT02013609|168930787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84613390|NCT00286494|168976388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
84613391|NCT00286494|168976388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.74|<0.001
84589611|NCT02013609|168930788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
84613392|NCT00286494|168976389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.9|-18.9|0.003
84589612|NCT02013609|168930789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
84589613|NCT02013609|168930790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (Go cues)||||0.3439
84589614|NCT02013609|168930790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (No-Go cues)||||0.3385
84589615|NCT02013609|168930791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (Go cues)||||0.2052
84589616|NCT02013609|168930791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (No-Go cues)||||0.3224
84589617|NCT02013609|168930792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3169
84589618|NCT02013609|168930793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3352
84589619|NCT02013609|168930794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task k value||||0.3517
84589620|NCT02013609|168930794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task h value||||0.3799
84589621|NCT02013609|168930795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for food)||||0.2610
84589622|NCT02013609|168930795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
84589623|NCT02013609|168930796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
84589624|NCT02013609|168930797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84589625|NCT01816295|168930798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84589626|NCT01816295|168930799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|1.05|9.07|||ANCOVA|||||9.07|1.05|<0.001
84589627|NCT01816295|168930800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.019|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-0.59|6.45|||ANCOVA|||||6.45|-0.59|0.019
84589628|NCT01816295|168930801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.41|-0.94|0.442
84589629|NCT01816295|168930801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 36||0.72|-0.82|0.905
84613393|NCT00286494|168976389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-23.0|<0.001
84613394|NCT00286494|168976390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.9|-26.4|<0.001
84589630|NCT01076010|168930810|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.9||||||||12.9|4.4|
84613395|NCT00286494|168976390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-12.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.3|-26.6|<0.001
84589631|NCT01076010|168930810|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||11.1|
84589632|NCT01076010|168930810|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||5.6|
84589633|NCT01076010|168930811|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.2||||||||5.2|1.9|
84589634|NCT01076010|168930811|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.7||||||||12.7|7.3|
84589635|NCT01076010|168930811|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5||For the subjects in each treatment arm, PFS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||16.5|
84589636|NCT01076010|168930811|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2||||||||9.2|3.5|
84589637|NCT01076010|168930812|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.1||||||||12.1|6.0|
84589638|NCT01076010|168930812|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|27.6||||||||27.6|17.0|
84589639|NCT01076010|168930812|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8||For the subjects in each treatment arm, OS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||28.8|
84589640|NCT00565409|168930848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.0||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and Odds Ratio (OR) stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Loss of efficacy (LOE) imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders/all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||Sample size estimated based on moderate/severe rheumatoid arthritis(RA) trial. Study design included only moderate RA participants, thus a low disease activity estimate of 85% (ETN+MTX) vs 70% (MTX only) assumed, required 175 randomized participants in 3 treatments for a 90% power and Type I error of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of no ETN+MTX vs MTX only differences. More participants qualified for Period 2 than expected, Period 2 sample size roughly 15% larger than protocol-specified.||9.0|3.2|<0.0001
84589641|NCT00565409|168930848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||2.0|0.7|0.3805
84589642|NCT00565409|168930848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
84589643|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||21.4|0.5|0.0853
84589644|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||4.8|0.2|0.8491
84589645|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||42.5|0.4|0.1278
84589646|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
84613396|NCT00286494|168976391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-13.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.6|-27.5|<0.001
84613397|NCT00286494|168976391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-16.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-16.0|-29.9|<0.001
84613398|NCT00286494|168976392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-24.4|<0.001
84613399|NCT00286494|168976392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-13.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.3|-28.9|<0.001
84613400|NCT00286494|168976393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.4|-18.5|0.011
84613401|NCT00286494|168976393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-24.3|<0.001
84613402|NCT00286494|168976394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-18.9|0.029
84613403|NCT00286494|168976394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-23.3|0.002
84672937|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.43|0.5674
84672938|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.18|0.4613
84589647|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||2.7|0.8|0.3027
84613404|NCT00286494|168976395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-24.2|<0.001
84758599|NCT03021499|169272812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region.||The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects showing renal response at Week 52 as adjudicated by the Clinical Endpoints Committee.||4.27|1.64|<0.001
84758600|NCT03021499|169272813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.7|1.51|<0.001
84758601|NCT03021499|169272815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.72|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratios are from a Cox's proportional hazards model with terms for treatment arm, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region|||3.72|1.34|0.002
84589648|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||4.2|1.5|<0.0001
84589649|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.7|<0.0001
84589650|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.5871
84589651|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||6.1|2.3|<0.0001
84589652|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||11.0|3.9|<0.0001
84589653|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||2.0|0.6|0.6716
84589654|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||8.6|3.4|<0.0001
84589655|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.8|<0.0001
84589656|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||1.5|0.5|0.9399
84589657|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.7|3.0|<0.0001
84758602|NCT03021499|169272816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.79||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||3.79|1.56|<0.001
84589658|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||10.5|3.7|<0.0001
84589659|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||1.9|0.6|0.6692
84589660|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||8.7|3.4|<0.0001
84589661|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||9.8|3.4|<0.0001
84589662|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.4326
84589663|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||8.2|3.2|<0.0001
84613405|NCT00286494|168976395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-23.8|<0.001
84758603|NCT03021499|169272816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||3.51|1.45|<0.001
84589664|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.8|2.8|<0.0001
84589665|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||1.8|0.6|0.6064
84644421|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.062|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.02|-0.22|0.062
84758604|NCT03021499|169272817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.53|0.349
84758605|NCT03021499|169272817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.646
84758606|NCT03021499|169272820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.6|||Log Rank|||||2.6|1.62|<0.001
84758607|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
84613406|NCT00286494|168976396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-4.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-4.8|-23.1|0.003
84613407|NCT00286494|168976396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-23.3|0.003
84613408|NCT00286494|168976397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.499||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.499|0.147|<0.001
84613409|NCT00286494|168976397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.438||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.438|0.126|<0.001
84613410|NCT00286494|168976398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|1.425||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.425|0.277|0.266
84613411|NCT00286494|168976398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.658||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.487|0.292|0.315
84613412|NCT00286494|168976399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.1|-10.6|0.003
84613413|NCT00286494|168976399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.7|-9.1|0.023
84613414|NCT00286494|168976400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-8.3|0.043
84758608|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.7|-6.1|0.014
84613415|NCT00286494|168976400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.6|-5.5|0.489
84758609|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
84613416|NCT00286494|168976401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.3|-8.8|0.068
84613417|NCT00286494|168976401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.1|-8.9|0.056
84644422|NCT01931670|169024642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.22|-0.46|< 0.001
84644423|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.64|3.56|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||3.56|-9.64|0.301
84644424|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.99|0.13|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.13|-12.99|0.028
84758610|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.6|-6|0.017
84758611|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.3|-5.1|0.085
84758612|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.2|-5.7|0.035
84758613|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.6|-5|0.121
84589666|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.4|3.0|<0.0001
84589667|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.5|0.4626
84589668|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.6|0.2886
84589669|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||1.9|0.4|0.7779
84589670|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||4.7|1.8|<0.0001
84589671|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||2.0|0.8|0.2091
84589672|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||3.6|1.5|<0.0001
84589673|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2||p-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
84589674|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5351
84758614|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||0.6|-5|0.12
84758615|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||0.5|-5.1|0.102
84758616|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||0.5|-6.1|0.022
84758617|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-1.3|-7|0.004
84589675|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||4.8|2.0|<0.0001
84589676|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||6.5|2.6|<0.0001
84589677|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||1.3|0.5|0.4574
84589678|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||8.0|3.2|<0.0001
84589679|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
84589680|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.5229
84589681|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
84589682|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||8.6|3.3|<0.0001
84589683|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.6464
84589684|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
84644425|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.964||0.082|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|1.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||1.49|-11.82|0.082
84644426|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.83|-6.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-6.55|-19.83|< 0.001
84644427|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.43|0.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.75|-14.43|0.043
84589685|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||7.9|3.1|<0.0001
84589686|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5499
84589687|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||6.4|2.6|<0.0001
84589688|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
84589689|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||1.9|0.8|0.1109
84589690|NCT00565409|168930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
84589691|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
84589692|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||0.2|-0.2|0.9344
84589693|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
84589694|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
84644428|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-26.61|-11.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-11.49|-26.61|< 0.001
84589695|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||0.2|-0.1|0.6173
84589696|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84589697|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84589698|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||0.3|-0.1|0.5136
84589699|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84589700|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84589701|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||0.3|-0.1|0.4868
84589702|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84589703|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
84589704|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||0.2|-0.2|0.7847
84589705|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84589706|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84589707|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||0.2|-0.2|0.9810
84589708|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84589709|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
84589710|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||0.1|-0.3|0.3562
84589711|NCT00565409|168930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84644429|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473||0.072|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.05|1.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||1.55|-14.05|0.072
84500437|NCT02533505|168751526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.114||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.943|17.286||All p-values ≤ 0.05 after rounding will be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.286|2.943|0.007
84589712|NCT00565409|168930853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
84589713|NCT00565409|168930853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
84589714|NCT00565409|168930853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||0.8622
84589715|NCT00565409|168930854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84589716|NCT00565409|168930854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||0.9841
84589717|NCT00565409|168930854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84589718|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84589719|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.3|0.8015
84589720|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84613418|NCT00286494|168976402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.2|-4.9|0.884
84613419|NCT00286494|168976402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-4.5|0.993
84613420|NCT00286494|168976403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.3|-9.4|0.009
84758618|NCT03021499|169272821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.1|-5.7|0.055
84644430|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.35|-13.81|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-13.81|-29.35|< 0.001
84500438|NCT02533505|168751527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|-0.021|0.111
84589721|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
84589722|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.4|0.8534
84589723|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
84589724|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
84589725|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.4|0.9074
84589726|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
84758619|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-0.13|-1|0.011
84758620|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.4|-1.13|<0.001
84589727|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
84589728|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.4|0.9229
84589729|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
84589730|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
84589731|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.5|0.9279
84589732|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
84589733|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.1|-2.1|<0.0001
84589734|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.4|-0.6|0.7695
84589735|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-2.0|<0.0001
84613421|NCT00286494|168976403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.0|-7.0|0.143
84613422|NCT00286494|168976404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.5|-8.6|0.080
84613423|NCT00286494|168976404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.9|-5.2|0.782
84589736|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-2.3|<0.0001
84589737|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.8|0.2182
84589738|NCT00565409|168930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.9|<0.0001
84644431|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.15|1.73|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||1.73|-14.15|0.08
84644432|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.56|-13.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-13.75|-29.56|< 0.001
84589739|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
84589740|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.6|-0.3|0.6088
84589741|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
84589742|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
84589743|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANOVA|||Week 48||0.6|-0.5|0.9048
84589744|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
84589745|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
84589746|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.6|0.8437
84589747|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
84589748|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
84589749|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.7|-0.6|0.8587
84589750|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
84589751|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
84589752|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.5|-0.8|0.6323
84589753|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
84500439|NCT02533505|168751528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|1.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔHR||1.719|-1.018|0.609
84589754|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
84589755|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.5|-0.8|0.6558
84613424|NCT00286494|168976405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.70|-2.68|0.249
84613425|NCT00286494|168976405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.80|-2.56|0.303
84500440|NCT02533505|168751529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1||0.233|0.150|<0.001
84500441|NCT02533505|168751529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFVC||0.388|0.236|<0.001
84589756|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.5|-2.8|<0.0001
84589757|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
84500442|NCT02533505|168751529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔIC||0.342|0.218|<0.001
84500443|NCT02533505|168751530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.315||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|42.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVT/Ti||42.907|3.723|0.021
84500444|NCT02533505|168751531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.045|-0.454|0.106
84500445|NCT02533505|168751532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.245||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|18.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVCO2||18.021|2.469|0.011
84500446|NCT02533505|168751533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔSaO2||0.738|-0.255|0.333
84500447|NCT02533505|168751534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔRR||0.913|-0.439|0.484
84500448|NCT02533505|168751535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔTi/Ttot||0.036|-0.004|0.113
84500449|NCT02533505|168751536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.701|85.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVt||85.546|29.701|<0.001
84500450|NCT02533505|168751537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|862.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|439.817|1284.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVe||1284.496|439.817|<0.001
84758621|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
84500451|NCT02533505|168751538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1/FVC||0.033|0.005|0.007
84500452|NCT03870737|168751545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 24.81, df = 1/40.||Outcomes fitted via a mixed effects model with time as predictor.||||<.0001
84500453|NCT03870737|168751547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.78, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.02
84500454|NCT03870737|168751548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 14.28, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.0005
84500455|NCT03870737|168751549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .19, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.67
84500456|NCT03870737|168751550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .08, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.76
84500457|NCT03870737|168751551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .06, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.80
84758622|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.55|-1.33|<0.001
84758623|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.76|-1.6|<0.001
84500458|NCT00390949|168751563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
84500459|NCT00390949|168751564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
84500460|NCT00390949|168751565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84500461|NCT00390949|168751566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
84500462|NCT00390949|168751567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair and age-group||||||<0.05
84500463|NCT00390949|168751568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
84500464|NCT02320838|168751576|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84500465|NCT02320838|168751577|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.04
84500466|NCT02320838|168751578|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
84500467|NCT02320838|168751579|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84500468|NCT02320838|168751580|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84500469|NCT02320838|168751581|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
84500470|NCT02320838|168751582|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0,05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84500471|NCT02320838|168751583|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.8
84500472|NCT02320838|168751584|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84758624|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
84758625|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||-0.72|-1.59|<0.001
84758626|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||-0.46|-1.58|<0.001
84758627|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||-0.69|-1.73|<0.001
84500473|NCT02320838|168751585|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
84589758|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.6|-0.7|0.8688
84589759|NCT00565409|168930861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
84589760|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
84589761|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.2|0.9636
84589762|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
84589763|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
84589764|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.2|0.4605
84589765|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
84758628|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||-0.86|-1.87|<0.001
84589766|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
84589767|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.3|-0.3|0.8404
84589768|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84589769|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
84589770|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.1|0.3118
84589771|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84758629|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-0.55|-1.56|<0.001
84758630|NCT03021499|169272822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
84500474|NCT02320838|168751586|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84500475|NCT02320838|168751587|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
84500476|NCT02320838|168751588|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
84500477|NCT02320838|168751589|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
84589772|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84589773|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.2|0.6100
84644433|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.24|-2.43|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-2.43|-19.24|0.004
84613426|NCT00286494|168976406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.15||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.15|-2.46|0.478
84613427|NCT00286494|168976406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.17|-1.41|0.674
84613428|NCT00286494|168976407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.06|-2.18|0.743
84613429|NCT00286494|168976407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.02|-3.18|0.662
84613430|NCT00286494|168976408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.45|-0.96|0.390
84613431|NCT00286494|168976408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.38|-1.00|0.423
84500478|NCT02320838|168751590|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
84613432|NCT00286494|168976409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|-1.87|0.807
84613433|NCT00286494|168976409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.51|-1.79|0.867
84613434|NCT00286494|168976410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.33|-1.10|0.483
84613435|NCT00286494|168976410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.51|-0.89|0.352
84758631|NCT03021499|169272823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.71||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||4.71|1.26|0.008
84758632|NCT03021499|169272823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.0||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||4.00|1.48|<0.001
84613436|NCT00286494|168976411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.022||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.022|-0.092|0.001
84758633|NCT03021499|169272824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 24|Week 24||0.6|-1.6|0.373
84758634|NCT03021499|169272824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Week 52|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 52|Week 52||0.4|-1.4|0.277
84758635|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.389||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline Week 24||2.26|-3.21|0.733
84758636|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.54|-3.29|0.801
84758637|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||4.54|-1.14|0.239
84500479|NCT02320838|168751591|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
84500480|NCT02320838|168751592|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5
84500481|NCT02320838|168751593|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.6
84500482|NCT02320838|168751594|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
84758638|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.42|-3.62|0.695
84500483|NCT02320838|168751595|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.2
84500484|NCT02320838|168751596|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
84500485|NCT03964220|168751597|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The time to first exacerbation was analysis using Cox Proportional Hazards model with group status as the only independent variable assessing the risk of exacerbation across Tio and NonTio groups.||0.990|0.427|0.044
84500486|NCT03964220|168751598|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 6 months of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
84500487|NCT03964220|168751598|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 1 year of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
84500488|NCT02216214|168751614|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
84589774|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84589775|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84589776|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.2|-0.4|0.6552
84589777|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84589778|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.1|-1.8|<0.0001
84500489|NCT02216214|168751615|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.27||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.82|<0.001
84500490|NCT02216214|168751616|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|22.42||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the stratified rank ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.42|4.95|0.002
84500491|NCT02216214|168751617|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-2.46||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.46|-7.84|<0.001
84589779|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.4|0.4753
84589780|NCT00565409|168930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84589781|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
84589782|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.4|0.7427
84758639|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.94|-4.72|0.19
84589783|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84758640|NCT03021499|169272825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||3.35|-2.67|0.826
84758641|NCT00495820|169272838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84589784|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
84589785|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.2|-0.5|0.3129
84589786|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84589787|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84589788|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.2|-0.5|0.4645
84589789|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
84589790|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
84500492|NCT02216214|168751618|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.83||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.83|0.62|0.011
84589791|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.2|-0.5|0.3793
84589792|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
84758642|NCT00495820|169272839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.01
84500493|NCT02216214|168751619|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.16||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.46|<0.001
84589793|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
84589794|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.0|-0.7|0.0816
84589795|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84644434|NCT01931670|169024643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.54|-12.79|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-12.79|-29.54|< 0.001
84589796|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
84589797|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.1|-0.8|0.0256
84644435|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.16|-0.11|0.688
84758643|NCT01146873|169272907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
84758644|NCT01146873|169272908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
84758645|NCT01146873|169272909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84758646|NCT01146873|169272911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84672939|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 2:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3240
84500494|NCT02216214|168751620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84500495|NCT02216214|168751621|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of urgency incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||<0.001
84500496|NCT02216214|168751622|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.432||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of nocturia episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||0.432
84500497|NCT02216214|168751623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
84500498|NCT02216214|168751624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.165
84500499|NCT02216214|168751625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84500500|NCT02216214|168751626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale Score||||0.019
84589798|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
84589799|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
84758647|NCT05074251|169272979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|1.14|<0.05
84758648|NCT00930761|169272983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.06||95.0|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the infant hospital discharge and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.51|0.99|0.06
84500501|NCT02216214|168751626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale Score||||0.010
84500502|NCT02216214|168751626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale Score||||0.006
84500503|NCT02216214|168751626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Social Subscale Score||||0.614
84500504|NCT02216214|168751627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84500505|NCT02216214|168751628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.755
84500506|NCT02216214|168751629|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 4: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.67|0.014
84500507|NCT02216214|168751629|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 8: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.66|0.043
84500508|NCT02216214|168751629|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||EOT: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.87|0.54|0.002
84500509|NCT02216214|168751631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.005||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.005
84500510|NCT02216214|168751632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.775|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.001
84500511|NCT02216214|168751633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
84758649|NCT00930761|169272984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.13||95.0|0.73|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|0.73|0.13
84758650|NCT00930761|169272985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.03||95.0|1.01|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the first follow-up visit and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.57|1.01|0.03
84758651|NCT00930761|169272986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.09||95.0|0.95|1.71|||Chi-squared|||||1.71|0.95|0.09
84758652|NCT01074190|169272996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.34
84500512|NCT02216214|168751634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Coping. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.034
84500513|NCT02216214|168751634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.07||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Concern. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.070
84500514|NCT02216214|168751634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.452||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Sleep. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
84500515|NCT02216214|168751634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.602||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Social. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.602
84500516|NCT02216214|168751635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634||||0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.001
84500517|NCT02216214|168751636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.597||||0.003||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.003
84500518|NCT02216214|168751638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.471
84500519|NCT05354206|168751641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.285|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||Difference of RST from 1 for hip range of motion task without stimulation.|"Reticulospinal tract (RST) contribution computed as RST = (visual - startle)/(visual - auditory) reaction times, where a RST value greater than 1 would indicate a significant contribution of the reticulospinal tract for a given task.~A one sample t-test (or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed data) was used to test the hypothesis that the RST contribution for a given movement was significantly greater than 1."||||<0.05
84500520|NCT04936334|168751651|SUPERIORITY||McNemar|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
84589800|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.1|-0.7|0.1158
84500521|NCT02209272|168751654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84500522|NCT02209272|168751655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84500523|NCT02209272|168751656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84500524|NCT00663039|168751657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect Scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.758
84500525|NCT00663039|168751657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.779
84500526|NCT00663039|168751658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 1 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.578
84500527|NCT00663039|168751658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 2 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.28
84500528|NCT00663039|168751658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 3 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.707
84500529|NCT00663039|168751659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total amount of money offered during the trust game between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.391
84500530|NCT00663039|168751660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.559
84500531|NCT00663039|168751660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.858
84644436|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.431|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.08|-0.18|0.431
84644437|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.277|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.07|-0.20|0.277
84644438|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.37|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.10|-0.37|< 0.001
84644439|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.494|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.11|-0.21|0.494
84644440|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.11|-0.43|< 0.001
84644441|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.765|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.14|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.14|-0.18|0.765
84589801|NCT00565409|168930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84589802|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|-6.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-6.2|-77.1|0.0214
84589803|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.57||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|24.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||24.5|-45.6|0.5544
84589804|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|4.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||4.0|-66.2|0.0826
84589805|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-39.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-39.8|-120.3|0.0001
84589806|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.18||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-3.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-3.2|-83.2|0.0344
84589807|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.87||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|3.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.3|-77.1|0.0721
84589808|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.7|-49.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-49.7|-128.7|<0.0001
84613437|NCT00286494|168976411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.093|0.001
84589809|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.14||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|13.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||13.1|-65.4|0.1910
84589810|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.5|-23.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-23.6|-102.5|0.0018
84589811|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.1|-39.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-39.6|-129.1|0.0002
84644442|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.15|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.15|-0.47|< 0.001
84589812|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|42.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||42.6|-46.3|0.9350
84644443|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.076||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||0.12|-0.23|0.468
84644444|NCT01931670|169024644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.16|-0.50|< 0.001
84644445|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.029
84644446|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.03|-0.20|0.004
84644447|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.076|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.02|-0.17|0.076
84644448|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.09|-0.28|< 0.001
84644449|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.02|-0.19|0.058
84644450|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.12|-0.32|< 0.001
84644451|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.284|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.06|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.06|-0.16|0.284
84644452|NCT01931670|169024645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.11|-0.33|< 0.001
84644453|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.56|< 0.001
84644454|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.46|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.46|-0.84|< 0.001
84758653|NCT01074190|169272997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1
84758654|NCT01074190|169272998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 315 achieves 80% power to detect a difference among groups using a 2 degrees of freedom Chi-Square Test with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||||.1
84500532|NCT00663039|168751660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.514
84500533|NCT00663039|168751660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.088
84589813|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.2|-37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-37.8|-127.2|0.0003
84589814|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|-60.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-60.4|-157.0|<0.0001
84589815|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||37.8|-58.2|0.6764
84589816|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.7|-50.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-50.3|-146.7|<0.0001
84589817|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.7|-73.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-73.3|-157.7|<0.0001
84589818|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|28.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||28.3|-55.6|0.5219
84589819|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-59.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-59.6|-144.0|<0.0001
84589820|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.9|-26.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-26.3|-116.9|0.0020
84589821|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|57.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||57.3|-32.7|0.5917
84589822|NCT00565409|168930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.91||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.2|-38.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-38.7|-129.2|0.0003
84589823|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.7|-11.9|<0.0001
84589824|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-5.6|0.1033
84589825|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-3.1|-9.3|<0.0001
84589826|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.8|-15.4|<0.0001
84589827|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.6|-4.0|0.6802
84589828|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.1|-14.7|<0.0001
84613438|NCT00286494|168976412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.014||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.014|-0.084|0.006
84758655|NCT01500278|169273002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||The odds ratio, CI, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and age as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.67|=0.467
84758656|NCT01500278|169273003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45||The odds ratio, CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and Baseline DAS28(ESR) and age as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.82|=0.532
84589829|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.6|-15.6|<0.0001
84589830|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.1|-4.8|0.4404
84589831|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.2|-14.2|<0.0001
84589832|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-9.4|-16.2|<0.0001
84589833|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||2.1|-4.7|0.4437
84589834|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.1|-14.9|<0.0001
84589835|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.1|-18.5|<0.0001
84589836|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.6|-6.8|0.0960
84589837|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-8.0|-15.4|<0.0001
84589838|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-11.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.0|-18.1|<0.0001
84589839|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.6|-5.4|0.2948
84589840|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-9.1|-16.2|<0.0001
84589841|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-9.5|-16.9|<0.0001
84589842|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.3|-6.0|0.2130
84589843|NCT00565409|168930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-7.1|-14.5|<0.0001
84613439|NCT00286494|168976412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.016||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.016|-0.086|0.004
84644455|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.42|-0.82|< 0.001
84500534|NCT00663039|168751661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.296
84589844|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.3|-11.8|<0.0001
84589845|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.8|-3.6|0.8033
84589846|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-4.9|-11.3|<0.0001
84589847|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-10.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-10.0|-17.2|<0.0001
84589848|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.1|-4.1|0.7830
84589849|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-9.5|-16.7|<0.0001
84589850|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.9|-16.1|<0.0001
84589851|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.5|-4.6|0.5732
84589852|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.9|-15.1|<0.0001
84589853|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-10.2|-17.6|<0.0001
84613440|NCT00286494|168976413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.000|-0.092|0.050
84613441|NCT00286494|168976413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.102|0.014
84613442|NCT00286494|168976414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.064|0.144
84589854|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||1.7|-5.6|0.2972
84672940|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3023
84672941|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.4127
84589855|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.3|-15.6|<0.0001
84758657|NCT01765920|169273050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
84589856|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-11.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.8|-19.4|<0.0001
84613443|NCT00286494|168976414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.067|0.105
84589857|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||1.0|-6.6|0.1477
84589858|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-9.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-9.0|-16.6|<0.0001
84613444|NCT00286494|168976415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.100|0.004
84613445|NCT00286494|168976415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.011|-0.092|0.012
84613446|NCT00286494|168976416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.005|-0.095|0.028
84613447|NCT00286494|168976416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.082|0.093
84613448|NCT00286494|168976417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.255||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.255|-0.280|0.928
84613449|NCT00286494|168976417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.324||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.324|-0.212|0.683
84613450|NCT00286494|168976418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.265||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.265|-0.277|0.967
84613451|NCT00286494|168976418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.405||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.405|-0.135|0.327
84613452|NCT00286494|168976419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.226|-0.363|0.649
84758658|NCT01765920|169273051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0719
84613453|NCT00286494|168976419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.243||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.243|-0.344|0.735
84758659|NCT01765920|169273052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Total score analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84758660|NCT01765920|169273052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099||||||"Symptoms domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0099
84613454|NCT00286494|168976420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.492||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.492|-0.053|0.114
84644456|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.89|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.89|-1.29|< 0.001
84644457|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.42|-0.84|< 0.001
84644458|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.93|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.93|-1.35|< 0.001
84644459|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.41|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-0.41|-0.84|< 0.001
84758661|NCT01765920|169273052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||"Ability domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
84758662|NCT01765920|169273053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Day 1 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84758663|NCT01765920|169273053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Day 2 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
84758664|NCT01765920|169273053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Day 3 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84758665|NCT01765920|169273053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Day 4 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
84758666|NCT01765920|169273053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Day 5 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
84589859|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.1|-18.6|<0.0001
84589860|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.2|-6.3|0.1808
84589861|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
84589862|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-10.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-10.9|-18.5|<0.0001
84589863|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.4|-6.2|0.2077
84589864|NCT00565409|168930876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
84589865|NCT00565409|168930877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84589866|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.5|0.5|0.8974
84589867|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.7|0.8|0.1105
84589868|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.3|0.1900
84589869|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.3|<0.0001
84613455|NCT00286494|168976420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.510|-0.033|0.086
84589870|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.4|0.6|0.4032
84589871|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.4|<0.0001
84758667|NCT01765920|169273054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
84589872|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.1|<0.0001
84613456|NCT00286494|168976421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.273||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.273|-0.221|0.835
84589873|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||3.6|1.0|0.0272
84589874|NCT00565409|168930878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.0|1.4|0.0004
84589875|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84589876|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84589877|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84589878|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84589879|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
84589880|NCT00565409|168930879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
84589881|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.7|0.5|0.1718
84758668|NCT02017327|169273064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84758669|NCT02017327|169273064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
84589882|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||7.3|0.2|0.8303
84589883|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.1|0.5|0.2130
84589884|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||8.2|2.1|<0.0001
84589885|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.0|0.3|0.4337
84589886|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||10.8|2.5|<0.0001
84589887|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.5|3.0|<0.0001
84589888|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.9|0.4|0.8973
84500535|NCT00663039|168751661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.136
84500536|NCT00663039|168751661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.47
84589889|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.1|2.8|<0.0001
84589890|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||8.1|2.4|<0.0001
84589891|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.4|0.5708
84589892|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||10.3|3.0|<0.0001
84589893|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||12.0|3.3|<0.0001
84613457|NCT00286494|168976421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.378||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.378|-0.115|0.296
84613458|NCT00286494|168976422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.134|0.349
84589894|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.4|0.8842
84589895|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.8|3.2|<0.0001
84589896|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||14.4|3.8|<0.0001
84589897|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||3.1|0.6|0.1608
84589898|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.4|2.9|<0.0001
84589899|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||12.4|3.4|<0.0001
84589900|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||2.7|0.6|0.2825
84589901|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|2.7|<0.0001
84500537|NCT00663039|168751661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.702
84589902|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.7|2.7|<0.0001
84589903|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.1|0.5|0.4471
84589904|NCT00565409|168930880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.0|2.5|<0.0001
84589905|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84613459|NCT00286494|168976422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.479||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.479|-0.034|0.089
84613460|NCT00286494|168976423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.815||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|13.358|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||13.358|1.736|0.003
84613461|NCT00286494|168976423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.017|15.176|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||15.176|2.017|<0.001
84500538|NCT00663039|168751662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Brief Assessments of Cognition for Schizophrenia scores between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.451
84500539|NCT00663039|168751663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
84500540|NCT00663039|168751664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Reading the Mind in the Eyes total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.946
84589906|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84589907|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84644460|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-1.00|-1.43|< 0.001
84644461|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-0.57|-1.01|< 0.001
84500541|NCT00663039|168751665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.016
84500542|NCT00663039|168751665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.185
84500543|NCT00663039|168751665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.404
84500544|NCT03747939|168751666|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) data, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||28.1|8.9|0.0008
84589908|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84589909|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
84589910|NCT00565409|168930881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
84589911|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.4|0.6006
84589912|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.1|0.6|0.4967
84589913|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.5|0.4|0.3648
84589914|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.2|1.2|0.0024
84589915|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8308||95.0|0.6|||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.|0.6|0.8308
84589916|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.4|1.3|0.0008
84589917|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.2|2.0|<0.0001
84589918|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.8|0.7|0.7374
84589919|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
84589920|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
84589921|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.6|0.9599
84589922|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
84589923|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.7|2.3|<0.0001
84613462|NCT00286494|168976424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.393|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.393|1.067|0.029
84589924|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.8|0.4509
84589925|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
84589926|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.0|2.6|<0.0001
84589927|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.0|0.7|0.3037
84613463|NCT00286494|168976424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.301||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regiment \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.100|1.291|0.005
84589928|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.1|2.1|<0.0001
84589929|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.2|2.7|<0.0001
84589930|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.7|0.6076
84589931|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
84589932|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
84589933|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.6|0.6|0.7837
84589934|NCT00565409|168930882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
84589935|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84589936|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84589937|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84589938|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84589939|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
84589940|NCT00565409|168930883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
84589941|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.0|0.7|0.5263
84589942|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|0.9|0.1055
84589943|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.5|0.4348
84589944|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.3|1.4|0.0003
84589945|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.7|0.7|0.5511
84589946|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.9|1.3|0.0013
84589947|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.3|1.8|<0.0001
84613464|NCT00286494|168976425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|5.005|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.005|1.547|<0.001
84613465|NCT00286494|168976425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.147|<0.001
84613466|NCT00286494|168976426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.392|<0.001
84589948|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.5|0.6|0.9225
84589949|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.5|1.9|<0.0001
84589950|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
84613467|NCT00286494|168976426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.247|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.027|9.094|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.094|3.027|<0.001
84644462|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-1.02|-1.47|< 0.001
84589951|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.9|0.2454
84589952|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
84589953|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
84589954|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.9|0.8|0.4919
84589955|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
84589956|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
84589957|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.3|1.0|0.0658
84589958|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
84589959|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.8|2.7|<0.0001
84589960|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.4014
84589961|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||5.5|2.3|<0.0001
84613468|NCT00286494|168976427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.789|7.532|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.532|1.789|<0.001
84613469|NCT00286494|168976427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.303|9.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.560|2.303|<0.001
84613470|NCT00286494|168976428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.107|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.107|1.300|0.015
84613471|NCT00286494|168976428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.806|14.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||14.950|1.806|0.002
84613472|NCT00286494|168976429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.959||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|8.362|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.362|0.459|0.364
84613473|NCT00286494|168976429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.849||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|11.672|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.672|0.696|0.146
84613474|NCT00286494|168976430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose,baseline value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.65|-0.45|0.718
84613475|NCT00286494|168976430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.58|-0.52|0.906
84589962|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.9|<0.0001
84613476|NCT00286494|168976431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.78|-0.50|0.672
84613477|NCT00286494|168976431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.67|-0.61|0.922
84589963|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.2824
84644463|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-0.49|-0.95|< 0.001
84644464|NCT01931670|169024646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.04|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-1.04|-1.50|< 0.001
84644465|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.01|-0.55|0.02
84644466|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.72|< 0.001
84644467|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.85|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.23|-0.85|< 0.001
84644468|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.65|-1.27|< 0.001
84644469|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|-0.21|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.21|-0.95|< 0.001
84500545|NCT03747939|168751667|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||30.2|7.0|0.0017
84500546|NCT03747939|168751668|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|5.1||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||16.0|-5.8|0.3539
84500547|NCT03747939|168751669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|22.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||33.7|10.4|0.0003
84500548|NCT03747939|168751670|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|11.8||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||22.0|1.7|0.0286
84500549|NCT03747939|168751671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|16.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||25.8|6.9|0.0022
84500550|NCT03747939|168751672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||MMRM||Apremilast - Placebo|Difference in LS means is based MMRM of the change from baseline.||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
84500551|NCT03747939|168751673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|17.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||29.7|5.7|0.0043
84500552|NCT04529096|168751676|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.14|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.14|-0.10|
84500553|NCT04529096|168751677|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.56|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||2.56|-0.46|
84500554|NCT04529096|168751678|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.58|-0.25|
84500555|NCT04529096|168751679|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.17|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.17|-0.19|
84500556|NCT04529096|168751680|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|12.59|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.59|-3.51|
84500557|NCT04529096|168751681|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.51|-0.40|
84500558|NCT04529096|168751682|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.43|175.8|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||175.80|-206.43|
84500559|NCT04529096|168751683|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.01|-0.11|
84500560|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.64||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.64|-0.94|<0.0001
84500561|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
84500562|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.52||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.52|-0.82|<0.0001
84500563|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||0.03|-0.27|0.1245
84644470|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.72|-0.99|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.99|-1.72|< 0.001
84644471|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.23|-0.99|< 0.001
84644472|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.75|-1.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.00|-1.75|< 0.001
84500564|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.09|-0.39|0.0022
84589964|NCT00565409|168930884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.9|2.5|<0.0001
84589965|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84589966|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84589967|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84589968|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84589969|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
84589970|NCT00565409|168930885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||week 36||||<0.0001
84589971|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0575
84589972|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0630
84589973|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.7|0.9160
84589974|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.0|0.0147
84589975|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.6|0.6|0.8675
84589976|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.1|0.0174
84589977|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.7|1.9|<0.0001
84589978|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.3|0.5|0.4941
84589979|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.0|2.3|<0.0001
84589980|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||5.9|2.0|<0.0001
84589981|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.5|0.6|0.8185
84589982|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
84589983|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.6|2.2|<0.0001
84589984|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.8|0.7|0.4254
84589985|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.9|1.9|<0.0001
84644473|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.08|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.30|-1.08|< 0.001
84644474|NCT01931670|169024647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.67|-0.89|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.89|-1.67|< 0.001
84644475|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.16|-7.25|0.007
84644476|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-4.50|-10.6|< 0.001
84644477|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-3.91|-10.75|< 0.001
84589986|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.8|1.8|<0.0001
84589987|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.7|0.8766
84589988|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
84589989|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.4|2.0|<0.0001
84589990|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.3535
84589991|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.1|1.9|<0.0001
84589992|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
84589993|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.3231
84500565|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
84500566|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.49||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-0.87|<0.0001
84589994|NCT00565409|168930886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.6|1.9|<0.0001
84589995|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84589996|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84613478|NCT00286494|168976432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.96|-0.56|0.607
84613479|NCT00286494|168976432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.76||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.76|-0.77|0.985
84589997|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84589998|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84589999|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
84590000|NCT00565409|168930887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
84590001|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||5.2|0.9|0.0089
84590002|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.7|0.5|0.6932
84590003|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||6.1|1.2|0.0019
84590004|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.6|0.6|0.0797
84590005|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.9|0.4|0.8103
84590006|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||4.5|0.8|0.0903
84590007|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.8|1.2|0.0035
84613480|NCT00286494|168976433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.22|-0.37|0.294
84613481|NCT00286494|168976433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.84||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.84|-0.74|0.900
84613482|NCT05438576|168976577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.27|1.05|0.032
84613483|NCT05438576|168976582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.74|0.621
84590008|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.0|0.5|0.9770
84613484|NCT01835158|168976595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||Log Rank|||||.95|.46|0.012
84613485|NCT01835158|168976596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.26||||||||1.26|0.50|
84590009|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||8.3|1.3|0.0036
84613486|NCT00475904|168976602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2709||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||In the initial analysis, the efficacy of the test treatment NP-1 cream was compared with placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis was conducted using the ITT population to compare the mean changes in pain scores from baseline to endpoint for the 2 treatments; the LOCF approach was employed for patients who did not complete the trial.||1.08|0.01|0.0441
84613487|NCT00475904|168976603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2311||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.43||To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|ANCOVA|||the primary hypothesis of this study was that NP-1 topical cream (amitriptyline 4%/ketamine 2%) administered twice daily in doses of 4 gm for 4 weeks is not inferior to the standard treatment (oral gabapentin 600 mg 3 times daily) for relieving the pain of adult patients with PHN.||0.43|-0.33|0.8409
84613488|NCT00880191|168976604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete Responders by Arm - Days 2-6, the primary analysis utilizes Fisher's exact test to compare the percentage of complete responders in each group (dex/gabapentin vs. dex/placebo), with complete response being defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue therapy for days 2 through 6. If a patient does not complete the study or does not provide complete data, they will be assumed to be a non-responder.||||0.2344
84500567|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.48||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.75|<0.0001
84590010|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||7.7|1.0|0.0038
84613489|NCT00880191|168976605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis described above was repeated using a slightly different alternate definition of complete response: no emetic episodes, no more than a mean of 2.5 on the nausea numeric analogue scale, and no rescue agents.||||0.3694
84613490|NCT00939562|168976613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|102.95||||||90.0|94.74|111.86|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||111.86|94.74|
84613491|NCT00939562|168976614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|104.67||||||90.0|98.95|110.73|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||110.73|98.95|
84613492|NCT00774800|168976615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.54||||0.0011||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0011
84644478|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-11.99|-18.87|< 0.001
84590011|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.5|0.9055
84500568|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.83|<0.0001
84500569|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.59||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-0.89|<0.0001
84500570|NCT01289990|168751684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
84500571|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
84500572|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.69||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.11|<0.0001
84500573|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.41|0.0322
84500574|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.48|0.0038
84500575|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.83|<0.0001
84500576|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.0001
84500577|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.44||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.00|<0.0001
84500578|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.47||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.87|<0.0001
84500579|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.04|<0.0001
84500580|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.57||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.04|<0.0001
84500581|NCT01289990|168751685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.56||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-1.04|<0.0001
84500582|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.8|<0.0001
84500583|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.4|0.0001
84500584|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.5|0.2107
84500585|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-5.4|0.0033
84644479|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-4.60|-12.81|< 0.001
84644480|NCT01931670|169024648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-12.86|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-12.86|-20.98|< 0.001
84644481|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.26|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||3.26|-4.40|0.77
84644482|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.61|-8.19|0.023
84644483|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||2.01|-7.50|0.257
84613493|NCT00774800|168976615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|3.06|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
84613494|NCT00774800|168976616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.35||||0.0057||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0057
84613495|NCT00774800|168976616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
84613496|NCT00774800|168976617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-18.33|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
84613497|NCT00774800|168976617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-62.46||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0018
84613498|NCT01919801|168976619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||||||Test was performed using a weighted log-rank test called the Peto-Prentice test with a global 2-sided significance level of 5% after adjusting for stratification factors (race, and severity) in the ITT population.|Adjusted Peto-Prentice|||A total of 121 participants were analysed, however 3 participants did not receive the study medication and were censored at time 0.||||0.633
84613499|NCT01843062|168976629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||The primary endpoint was to be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided p-value was less than 0.05. P-value and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
84613500|NCT01843062|168976630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
84613501|NCT01843062|168976631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
84613502|NCT01843062|168976632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
84613503|NCT01059994|168976633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84613504|NCT01059994|168976634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84613505|NCT01677858|168976635|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg/m²)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84613506|NCT00066963|168976658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.6|||Mantel Haenszel|2 d.f.|Counseling Only vs FV 2x/yr+Counseling|Planned sample size of 384 participants (128/study arm) (alpha = 0.05, power = 90%, 50% attrition, χ2 test) to detect caries incidence differences, based on caries incidence in the literature (20% to 50% over two years). 50% attrition in the sample size calculation was selected based on the literature (e.g. Weinstein et al., 1994 reported 53% attrition in six months.)||7.6|1.9|<0.001
84613507|NCT00988091|168976659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.33||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because there was a single treatment comparison for the primary endpoint. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||A treatment difference of \>=7.0 mm and a pooled SD of 27.6 mm, requires a sample size of 244 subjects/treatment to complete the trial at 80% power at a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for 18% dropout rate, the sample size was increased to 298/arm (total of 596). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||10.24|0.41|0.034
84613508|NCT00988091|168976660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.89||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.08||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||7.08|-1.29|0.175
84613509|NCT00988091|168976661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.777||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.136||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||1.136|0.532|0.193
84644484|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-6.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-6.01|-15.37|< 0.001
84590012|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||9.8|1.2|0.0020
84590013|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||8.8|1.3|0.0020
84590014|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.7|0.4|0.5763
84590015|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.0|1.5|0.0002
84590016|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.8|1.2|0.0004
84590017|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.4|0.4828
84590018|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||9.0|1.4|<0.0001
84613510|NCT00988091|168976662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||||0.887
84613511|NCT00988091|168976664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.98||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||8.98|-0.99|0.116
84590019|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|1.4|0.0002
84590020|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.6|0.8553
84590021|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||8.7|1.5|0.0003
84613512|NCT00988091|168976665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.044||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.\[||1.044|0.483|0.081
84590022|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.6|1.6|<0.0001
84590023|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.0|0.6|0.5025
84590024|NCT00565409|168930888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.1|1.6|0.0001
84590025|NCT01734902|168930901|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|86.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.046|102.151|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.151|74.046|
84590026|NCT01734902|168930902|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.26|102.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.62|77.26|
84500586|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.7||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-5.0|0.0105
84500587|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.9|0.0543
84500588|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-6.4|0.0019
84500589|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.9||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-5.0|0.0045
84500590|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.6|<0.0001
84500591|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-4.8|0.0031
84500592|NCT01289990|168751686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.4|0.0096
84500593|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.94|<0.0001
84500594|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.73||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-1.04|<0.0001
84500595|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.51||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-0.82|<0.0001
84500596|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.28|0.1310
84500597|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.38|0.0050
84500598|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-0.79|<0.0001
84500599|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.88|<0.0001
84590027|NCT01734902|168930903|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R [%]|90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.78|102.88|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.88|78.78|
84500600|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.46||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-0.75|<0.0001
84590028|NCT00758563|168930904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84500601|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.58||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-0.88|<0.0001
84500602|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.87|<0.0001
84500603|NCT01289990|168751687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.53||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
84500604|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.5|0.0025
84644485|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.80|-8.66|0.315
84590029|NCT03961308|168930905|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9963|1.1565||||||||1.1565|0.9963|
84590030|NCT03961308|168930906|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0169|1.1521||||||||1.1521|1.0169|
84590031|NCT03961308|168930907|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0465|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9935|1.1023||||||||1.1023|0.9935|
84590032|NCT03358030|168930933|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 12 through Day 260||||<0.05
84590033|NCT03358030|168930933|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 15 through Day 232||||<0.05
84590034|NCT03358030|168930934|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 15 through Day 176||||< 0.05
84590035|NCT03358030|168930934|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 12 through Day 176||||< 0.05
84590036|NCT02293551|168930955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Squares Mean|1.04||||0.2071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.1|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.10|0.988|0.2071
84613513|NCT00773747|168976666|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.774|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.941|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||0.941|0.636|= 0.0100
84590037|NCT02293551|168930955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.17|1.06|0.0005
84590038|NCT02293551|168930955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric of Ratio Least Square Means|1.08||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.03|0.0123
84590039|NCT02293551|168930955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.07||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.02|0.0331
84590040|NCT02293551|168930955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||Dose proportionality and the degree of dose proportionality was assessed by fitting the power model versus dose. Estimated ratio of dose-normalized geometric means of PK parameters between the highest and lowest doses assessed dose proportionality.|||1.16|1.06|
84590041|NCT00404248|168931004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.9|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84613514|NCT00773747|168976668|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.858||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.184|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||1.184|0.622|0.3496
84613515|NCT03549104|168976684|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
84590042|NCT00404248|168931005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84590043|NCT00404248|168931006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84590044|NCT03802396|168931033|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84590045|NCT03802396|168931034|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.116
84590046|NCT03802396|168931034|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.388
84590047|NCT03802396|168931035|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.569
84590048|NCT03802396|168931035|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.047
84590049|NCT03802396|168931036|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.498
84590050|NCT03802396|168931036|OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.745
84590051|NCT03802396|168931037|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.177
84590052|NCT03802396|168931037|OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.478
84590053|NCT03802396|168931038|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
84590054|NCT03802396|168931040|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.41|0.286
84590055|NCT03802396|168931041|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
84590056|NCT03376516|168931115|OTHER|||||||0.9593||||||P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9593
84590057|NCT03376516|168931115|OTHER|||||||0.3752||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.3752
84590058|NCT03376516|168931115|OTHER|||||||0.8273||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.8273
84590059|NCT03376516|168931116|OTHER|P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)||||||0.8536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8536
84590060|NCT03376516|168931116|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
84590061|NCT03376516|168931116|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
84590062|NCT03376516|168931118|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.85||||||||30.85|0|
84590063|NCT02415556|168931143|OTHER|"A spatial power variance-covariance structure was used to model within-subject correlated measurements where the number of days from the baseline visit was used as the power of the autoregressive correlation coefficient. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.~The independent variables included: 4 treatment groups, TIMEG (baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period), TIMEG \* treatment group.; an average number of treatment days; subjects as random effects."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|12.23||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||12.23|0.81|0.025
84590064|NCT02415556|168931143|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|10.6||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||10.60|-0.03|0.051
84590065|NCT02415556|168931144|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|14.29||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||14.29|2.33|0.007
84590066|NCT02415556|168931144|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.32||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||8.32|-2.90|0.342
84590067|NCT02415556|168931145|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.13||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.13|-0.87|0.144
84590068|NCT02415556|168931145|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
84613516|NCT03549104|168976685|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
84613517|NCT03549104|168976686|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
84644486|NCT01931670|169024649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-8.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-8.55|-19.64|< 0.001
84590069|NCT02415556|168931146|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.83||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.83|-0.13|0.149
84590070|NCT02415556|168931146|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.80|-0.11|0.134
84500605|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.6|0.0021
84590071|NCT02415556|168931147|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.58|1.00|0.030
84590072|NCT02415556|168931147|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.63||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||10.63|-6.22|0.607
84590073|NCT02415556|168931148|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.29||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.29|-9.50|0.576
84590074|NCT02415556|168931148|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.87||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.87|-7.58|0.802
84590075|NCT02415556|168931149|EQUIVALENCE|CBF and vasoreactivity maps were analyzed on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical non-Parametric Mapping (SnPM, http://www.sph.umich.edu/ni-stat/SnPM/), voxel-level threshold p \< 0.005.||||||0.03|||||||Voxel-Based Morphometry|||||||0.03
84590076|NCT00524121|168931153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.011
84590077|NCT00524121|168931154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.115
84590078|NCT00524121|168931155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84590079|NCT00524121|168931156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84590080|NCT00524121|168931157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5467
84590081|NCT00320606|168931159|OTHER||95% confidence interval using an exact b|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||||Proportion Success|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method||0.8|0.4|
84590082|NCT00320606|168931160|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1684|||||95% Confidence Interval Exact Binomial|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression and experience death or graft loss are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method.||0.1684|0.0|
84590083|NCT01908140|168931299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin=-0,055 L|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||MMRM|If non-inferiority on the PP was achieved then switch to superiority was tested on the ITT.||This sample size of 900 had 90% power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol Fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in Peak FEV1 at 24 weeks is above -0,055 L||0.123|0.063|<0.001
84590084|NCT01908140|168931300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority limit -0.5 units|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||The total sample size provided 81% nominal power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95 confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) at 24 weeks is above -0,5||0.46|-0.46|>0.05
84590085|NCT00945659|168931325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.36|-0.43|0.86
84644487|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.17|-1.86|0.019
84590086|NCT00945659|168931325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.04|-0.78|0.03
84590087|NCT00945659|168931326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-0.81|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.81|-19.30|0.03
84590088|NCT00945659|168931326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.47||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|9.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||9.9|-11.54|0.88
84590089|NCT00945659|168931327|SUPERIORITY||Generalized Estimating Equation|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.98||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|6.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.32|-13.21|0.49
84590090|NCT00945659|168931327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.66
84590091|NCT00945659|168931328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.08|-1.29|0.64
84590092|NCT00945659|168931328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.39|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.39|-2.22|0.65
84590093|NCT00945659|168931329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.4||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.56|124.97|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||124.97|-123.56|0.99
84590094|NCT00945659|168931329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.81||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|25.83|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||25.83|-28.26|0.93
84590095|NCT00945659|168931330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.04|-1.70|0.43
84590096|NCT00945659|168931330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.32|-5.50|0.08
84590097|NCT00945659|168931331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.56|-1.94|0.43
84590098|NCT00945659|168931331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-1.04|-6.38|.007
84590099|NCT00945659|168931332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.79|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.79|-2.02|0.75
84590100|NCT00945659|168931332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.32|-3.09|0.78
84590101|NCT00945659|168931333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.29|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.29|-1.86|0.58
84590102|NCT00945659|168931333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.3|-3.17|0.41
84590103|NCT00945659|168931334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|7.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||7.15|-3.26|0.46
84590104|NCT00945659|168931334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|-7.99|0.24
84590105|NCT00945659|168931335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.37||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.91|-6.33|0.93
84590106|NCT00945659|168931335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|3.57|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.57|-8.01|0.45
84590107|NCT00945659|168931336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.62|||Generalized Estimating Equestion|||||5.62|-7.15|0.81
84590108|NCT00945659|168931336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.72
84590109|NCT00945659|168931337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.71
84590110|NCT00945659|168931337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|4.43|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.43|-6.74|0.68
84644488|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.10|-1.80|0.028
84644489|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.76|0.014
84590111|NCT04067011|168931338|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8895|1.0718||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0718|0.8895|
84590112|NCT04067011|168931338|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.9706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8693|1.0838||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0838|0.8693|
84590113|NCT04067011|168931339|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8187|1.0278||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of Area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0278|0.8187|
84590114|NCT04067011|168931339|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.8974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|1.0271||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0271|0.7841|
84590115|NCT04067011|168931340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 1/Group 3)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
84590116|NCT04067011|168931340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 2/Group 3)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||||||||1.6|0.81|
84590117|NCT03767881|168931341|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 97.8% confidence limit of the mean days to resolution of acute cholecystitis is compared to a Performance Goal of 3.5 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.8||10.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.78||
84590118|NCT03767881|168931342|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 99.7% confidence limit of the proportion of patients with reintervention, including migration and occlusion, is compared to a Performance Goal of 46.2%.|Performance Goal|16.7|||||ONE_SIDED|99.7||42.0|||1-sided Clopper-Pearson 99.7% CI|||||42.0||
84590119|NCT01448616|168931387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||ITT|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.01|0.71|0.086
84590120|NCT01448616|168931387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.16|0.75|0.54
84590121|NCT01448616|168931387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.22|0.67|0.47
84590122|NCT01448616|168931388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.07|-0.40|0.18
84590123|NCT01448616|168931388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||-0.13|-0.86|0.008
84590124|NCT01448616|168931388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|0.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.60|-0.27|0.45
84590125|NCT01448616|168931389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to treat analysis||1.37|0.70|0.90
84590126|NCT01448616|168931389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat||1.18|0.54|0.25
84613518|NCT01973998|168976687|EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome is time from randomization to a composite outcome of all cause re-hospitalization and all-cause mortality, whichever comes first. The primary analysis will be a log-ranked test and associated Kaplan-Meier plot, unadjusted for any covariates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133||Because this is a pilot study the intent is to see if there is a signal that would justify a larger clinical trial. Therefore the significance level has been set to 0.1 and the power has been set at 0.7.|Log Rank|||||2.133|1.175|<0.1
84613519|NCT01973998|168976687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789||0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133|||Log Rank|||A total of 100 patients is required in a 2 treatment parallel-design study. There is a 70% probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a 2-sided 10% significance level, if the true hazard ratio is 1.654. This is based on the assumption that the accrual period will be 36 months and the follow up period will be 6 months and the median time to event is 8 months. The total number of events will be 73.||2.133|1.175|0.1
84613520|NCT04929249|168976876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.0|-46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.0|-60.0|<0.001
84590127|NCT01448616|168931389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.57|||Poisson GLM|||||1.57|0.57|0.82
84590128|NCT01448616|168931390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to Treat||0.92|0.59|0.010
84590129|NCT01448616|168931390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76|||Poisson GLM|||||1.76|0.9|0.09
84590130|NCT01448616|168931390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat analysis||1.22|0.67|0.47
84590131|NCT04211363|168931403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|56.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data..|IGA Success Odds Ratio||56.48|7.58|<0.0001
84590132|NCT04211363|168931404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.795|5.351|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to PASI-50||5.351|2.795|<0.0001
84590133|NCT04211363|168931405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|27.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||27.93|5.15|<0.0001
84590134|NCT04211363|168931406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|73.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||73.09|4.38|<0.0001
84590135|NCT04211363|168931407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|138.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||138.20|2.33|<0.0001
84590136|NCT04211363|168931408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|288.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||288.36|2.99|0.003
84590137|NCT04211363|168931409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||3.19|0.98|0.1197
84500606|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-1.8|0.7241
84500607|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-5.9|0.0008
84500608|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-6.0|0.0007
84500609|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0987
84500610|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-6.1|0.0028
84500611|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.0001
84500612|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.9|0.0008
84500613|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.0213
84500614|NCT01289990|168751688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.1|0.0288
84500615|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.4|0.1058
84500616|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-3.1|0.0109
84500617|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.5|0.8259
84500618|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1660
84613521|NCT04929249|168976877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the one-sided 98.75% confidence interval did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|-3.0|||Normal approx. to binomial distribution||||Upper limit of one-sided 98.75% CI (-3.0%)|-3.0|-18.3|
84613522|NCT04929249|168976878|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-42.3|-52.8|<0.001
84500619|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0212
84500620|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0076
84500621|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.1|0.0003
84500622|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.0170
84500623|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-3.1|0.0236
84500624|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.2523
84500625|NCT01289990|168751689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.9|0.3494
84613523|NCT04929249|168976879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-49.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-49.8|-59.0|<0.001
84613524|NCT04929249|168976880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-44.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.9|-52.9|<0.001
84613525|NCT04929249|168976881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|81.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||81.16|22.07|<0.001
84590138|NCT04211363|168931409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||8.26|2.31|<0.0001
84590139|NCT04211363|168931409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|15.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS at Week 8 Odds Ratio||15.94|3.85|<0.0001
84590140|NCT04211363|168931410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 4||-20.0|-31.7|<0.0001
84613526|NCT04929249|168976882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|44.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.66|6.72|<0.001
84613527|NCT04929249|168976883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|42.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.19|14.18|<0.001
84672942|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2819
84613528|NCT04929249|168976884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.51|63.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.24|19.51|<0.001
84672943|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3884
84500626|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1568
84590141|NCT04211363|168931410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-24.6|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 8||-24.6|-37.2|<0.0001
84613529|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-26.3|-33.8|<0.001
84613530|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||9.5|3.6|<0.001
84613531|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-39.3|-49.1|<0.001
84613532|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-10.0|-23.8|<0.001
84613533|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-10.9|-24.7|<0.001
84613534|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-37.8|-47.5|<0.001
84613535|NCT04929249|168976885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-18.0|-25.8|<0.001
84613536|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-43.9|-56.0|<0.001
84613537|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||4.4|1.8|<0.001
84613538|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-46.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-46.7|-58.1|<0.001
84590142|NCT02972996|168931476|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Values are least-squares means ± SEs (adjusted for the baseline values) from ANCOVA linear mixed model that included covariates of age, baseline (pretreatment values), BMI and weight.||||0.56
84590143|NCT02972996|168931477|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84590144|NCT01240863|168931484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82||statistical significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification (opioid naïve/opioid experienced) factors as the fixed effects; screening and baseline APIs as covariates.|placebo - hydrocodone|||0.82|-0.11|0.134
84613539|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-2.8|-6.5|<0.001
84500627|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.4|0.1323
84590145|NCT02031302|168931560|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound|||||<|0.0001||||||The proportion of patients who experience an event through 30 days post-procedure out of the patients who have either had an event within 30 days post-procedure or who were event-free with last follow-up at least 23 days post-procedure.|Chi-squared|||Note: the 95% CI is from Clopper-Pearson Exact Method. The analysis was only done for the Lotus valve arm as the Lotus with Depth Guard arm has not sufficient power for this statistical analysis.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound: 4.11% Performance goal is 14%|||<.0001
84590146|NCT00833521|168931590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.1||||||90.0|86.3|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.1|86.3|
84590147|NCT00833521|168931591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.0||||||90.0|91.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.0|
84590148|NCT00833521|168931592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.8||||||90.0|90.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|90.7|
84590149|NCT01405196|168931605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.62||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the Odds ratio (ORs) as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.62|0.89|0.076
84590150|NCT01405196|168931605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.41||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.41|0.38|0.528
84590151|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|12.4||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||12.40|0.62|
84590152|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|7.71||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.71|0.31|
84590153|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.67||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.67|0.40|
84590154|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.05||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.05|0.29|
84590155|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.24||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.24|0.35|
84590156|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.16||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.16|0.16|
84590157|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|4.09||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.09|0.64|
84590158|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.77||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.77|0.27|
84590159|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.84||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.84|0.78|
84590160|NCT01405196|168931606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.32||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.32|0.38|
84590161|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.88||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.88|0.28|
84613540|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-15.8|-34.8|<0.001
84613541|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-32.9|-39.7|<0.001
84613542|NCT04929249|168976886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-6.8|-10.7|<0.001
84613543|NCT04929249|168976887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.61|||proportional odds model|||||2.61|0.43|0.899
84613544|NCT04929249|168976888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.039|||Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.055|0.727
84644490|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.65|-2.22|< 0.001
84500628|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.8|0.4327
84590162|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.01||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.01|0.19|
84590163|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.85||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.85|0.28|
84590164|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.02||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.02|0.32|
84590165|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.83||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.83|0.30|
84590166|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.13||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.13|0.18|
84590167|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.6||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.60|0.58|
84613545|NCT02540993|168976891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.928||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.03282695.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.928|0.732|= 0.0014
84613546|NCT02540993|168976892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.989||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.989|0.747|= 0.0339
84672944|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2750
84758670|NCT02411539|169273075|SUPERIORITY|Assuming that a common standard deviation of change (measured as difference of log10 transformed HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratios) in both arms was 0.30, with a sample size of 36 evaluable participants (18 in each arm), the study had 88% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 log10 (2-fold) in change of cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA from baseline to week 6 using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% type I error rate assuming a normal distribution||||||0.16||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio (log-transformed) from baseline to week 6 between the two randomized arms, testing the null hypothesis of no difference in changes in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio between the two arms using a Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level.||||0.16
84590168|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.84||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.84|0.30|
84613547|NCT02540993|168976893|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895|||=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.075||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.075|0.746|= 0.2348
84672945|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.27|0.1811
84590169|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.37||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.37|0.72|
84590170|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.92||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.92|0.50|
84590171|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.55||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.55|0.89|
84590172|NCT01405196|168931607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.46||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.46|0.40|
84590173|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.35||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.35|0.53|
84590174|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.65||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.65|0.41|
84590175|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.96||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.96|0.33|
84590176|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.23||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.23|0.39|
84590177|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|2.45||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.45|0.42|
84590178|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|3.1||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.10|0.55|
84590179|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.88||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.88|0.95|
84590180|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|4.46||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.46|0.74|
84590181|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|7.12||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.12|1.10|
84590182|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.21||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.21|0.66|
84590183|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.41||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.41|1.18|
84590184|NCT01405196|168931608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|5.06||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.06|0.82|
84590185|NCT01405196|168931609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|4.02||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.02|0.63|0.205
84613548|NCT02540993|168976894|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946|||=|0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.022||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.022|0.876|= 0.1623
84613549|NCT02540993|168976895|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|0.715||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||0.715|0.662|< 0.0001
84613550|NCT02540993|168976896|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.9||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.900|0.648|= 0.0012
84590186|NCT01405196|168931609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.08||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.08|0.34|0.625
84590187|NCT01405196|168931609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|20.65||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||20.65|0.38|0.198
84613551|NCT01620528|168976897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84590188|NCT01405196|168931609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|21.3||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||21.30|0.39|0.192
84590189|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|1.49||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||1.49|-12.30|
84590190|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.21|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||5.42|-8.21|
84590191|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|8.32||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.32|-5.71|
84590192|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|11.57||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||11.57|-2.22|
84590193|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|3.07||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||3.07|-11.04|
84613552|NCT01620528|168976897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613553|NCT01620528|168976898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84590194|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|4.1||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.10|-9.87|
84590195|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.37|0.94||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||0.94|-13.37|
84590196|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.17|9.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.13|-5.17|
84613554|NCT01620528|168976898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613555|NCT01620528|168976899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613556|NCT01620528|168976899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613557|NCT01620528|168976900|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613558|NCT01620528|168976900|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613559|NCT01620528|168976901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.004
84613560|NCT01620528|168976901|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613561|NCT01620528|168976902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.910
84590197|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.84||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.84|-4.70|
84590198|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.62|4.0||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.00|-9.62|
84590199|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|10.9||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||10.90|-2.95|
84613562|NCT01620528|168976902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613563|NCT01620528|168976903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.185
84613564|NCT01620528|168976903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
84613565|NCT01620528|168976904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.144
84613566|NCT01620528|168976904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.003
84613567|NCT01620528|168976905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.424
84590200|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|9.4||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.40|-4.29|
84590201|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|9.94||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.94|-3.67|
84590202|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.91|2.03||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||2.03|-11.91|
84590203|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|4.32||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.32|-9.61|
84590204|NCT01405196|168931621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|9.8||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.80|-4.48|
84590205|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.63||||||90.0|-2.56|9.83||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||9.83|-2.56|
84590206|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02||||||90.0|-8.21|4.18||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||4.18|-8.21|
84590207|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|8.82||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.82|-3.57|
84613568|NCT01620528|168976905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.002
84590208|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|7.88||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.88|-4.51|
84590209|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|10.79||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.79|-1.61|
84590210|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.95||||||90.0|-2.24|10.15||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.15|-2.24|
84590211|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92||||||90.0|-4.17|8.01||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.01|-4.17|
84590212|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2||||||90.0|-10.25|1.85||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||1.85|-10.25|
84613569|NCT01620528|168976906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613570|NCT01620528|168976906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613571|NCT01620528|168976907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613572|NCT01620528|168976907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613573|NCT01620528|168976908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84590213|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|7.55||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.55|-4.56|
84590214|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|6.15||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||6.15|-5.96|
84590215|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|5.71||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||5.71|-6.39|
84590216|NCT01405196|168931622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.39|3.71||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||3.71|-8.39|
84590217|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
84613574|NCT01620528|168976908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613575|NCT01620528|168976909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613576|NCT01620528|168976909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613577|NCT01620528|168976910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613578|NCT01620528|168976910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84500629|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.8|0.0289
84590218|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
84590219|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
84590220|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
84590221|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
84590222|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
84590223|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
84590224|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
84590225|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
84500630|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0231
84590226|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
84590227|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
84590228|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
84590229|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
84590230|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
84590231|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
84613579|NCT01620528|168976911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
84500631|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.0|0.0513
84500632|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0038
84590232|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
84590233|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
84590234|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
84590235|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
84590236|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
84590237|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
84590238|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
84590239|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
84590240|NCT01405196|168931624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
84590241|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.47||||||90.0|-6.33|7.27||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.27|-6.33|
84590242|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.92||||||90.0|-2.88|10.72||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.72|-2.88|
84613580|NCT01620528|168976911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
84590243|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|10.36||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.36|-3.25|
84590244|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|14.66||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||14.66|1.05|
84590245|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|13.92||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||13.92|0.32|
84590246|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|11.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||11.13|-2.47|
84590247|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.05||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.05|-5.40|
84590248|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|10.62||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.62|-2.75|
84590249|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|5.91||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.91|-7.47|
84590250|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.67||||||90.0|-3.02|10.35||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.35|-3.02|
84590251|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|9.68||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||9.68|-3.70|
84590252|NCT01405196|168931625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|8.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.13|-5.24|
84613581|NCT01620528|168976912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
84590253|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
84590254|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
84590255|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
84590256|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
84613582|NCT01620528|168976912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613583|NCT01620528|168976913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84590257|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
84590258|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
84590259|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
84590260|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
84590261|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
84590262|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
84590263|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
84590264|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
84590265|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
84590266|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
84590267|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
84590268|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
84590269|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
84613584|NCT01620528|168976913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613585|NCT01620528|168976914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
84613586|NCT01620528|168976914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613587|NCT01620528|168976915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
84613588|NCT01620528|168976915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613589|NCT01620528|168976916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.306
84613590|NCT01620528|168976916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.239
84613591|NCT01620528|168976917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.855
84613592|NCT01620528|168976917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
84613593|NCT01620528|168976918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
84613594|NCT01620528|168976918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84500633|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0084
84590270|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
84590271|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
84590272|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
84590273|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
84590274|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
84613595|NCT01620528|168976919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.061
84613596|NCT01620528|168976919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613597|NCT01620528|168976920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.126
84613598|NCT01620528|168976920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
84613599|NCT01620528|168976921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.34|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.34|-0.65|< 0.001
84613600|NCT01620528|168976921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
84613601|NCT01620528|168976922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.79|< 0.001
84613602|NCT01620528|168976922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.51|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-1.51|< 0.001
84613603|NCT01620528|168976923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.53|-0.83|< 0.001
84613604|NCT01620528|168976923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.54|< 0.001
84613605|NCT01620528|168976924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
84613606|NCT01620528|168976924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|-1.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.16|-1.49|< 0.001
84613607|NCT01620528|168976925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|-0.43|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.43|-0.75|< 0.001
84613608|NCT01620528|168976925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.58|-1.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.25|-1.58|< 0.001
84613609|NCT01620528|168976926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-24.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.288|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.45|-16.69|||mixed-effects model|||||-16.69|-31.45|< 0.001
84613610|NCT01620528|168976926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-31.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.41|-23.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.60|-38.41|< 0.001
84613611|NCT01620528|168976927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||-30.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.77|-23.82|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.82|-37.77|-30.79
84613612|NCT01620528|168976927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.85|-56.71|||mixed-effects model|||||-56.71|-70.85|< 0.001
84500634|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.8|0.0677
84590275|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
84590276|NCT01405196|168931626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
84590277|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the Least Square (LS) mean difference from that model.||5.42|-1.26|
84613613|NCT01620528|168976928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-32.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.35|-25.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-25.08|-39.35|< 0.001
84613614|NCT01620528|168976928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-64.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.19|-57.68|||mixed-effects model|||||-57.68|-72.19|< 0.001
84613615|NCT01620528|168976929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.28|-22.59|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.59|-37.28|< 0.001
84590278|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|5.29||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.38|
84613616|NCT01620528|168976929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.44|-54.36|||mixed-effects model|||||-54.36|-69.44|< 0.001
84613617|NCT01620528|168976930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.96|-21.31|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.31|-35.96|< 0.001
84500635|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.4|0.0814
84590279|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|6.15||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.15|-0.53|
84590280|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|7.22||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.22|0.54|
84590281|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|5.29||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.39|
84590282|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|5.03||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.03|-1.65|
84590283|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.99||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.99|-1.61|
84590284|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|4.26||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-2.31|
84590285|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|4.61||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.61|-1.96|
84613618|NCT01620528|168976930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.95|-59.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-59.04|-73.95|< 0.001
84590286|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|6.89||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.89|0.32|
84590287|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|4.19||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.19|-2.38|
84758671|NCT02189213|169273110|OTHER|The parameters were the CGI-Improvement scale which comprises a one-item measures evaluating the following change from the initiation of treatment on a seven-point scale. The hypothesis is that \~50% of subjects receiving treatment will not respond.|||||=|0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least 50% of subjects will respond to Sertraline treatment (CGI greater than or equal to 2).||||=0.0002
84590288|NCT01405196|168931628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|3.88||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.88|-2.68|
84590289|NCT01542788|168931629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence or absence of cirrhosis for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 180 subjects in the active group and 60 in the placebo group would provide 99% power to detect a difference between group SVR12 rates of 40% using a 2-sided continuity-corrected chi-square test at significance level of 0.05.||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
84590290|NCT01542788|168931631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|88.5|||||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||88.5|76.8|
84590291|NCT01542788|168931632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization stratification factor for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
84613619|NCT01620528|168976931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.2|-13.57|||mixed-effects model|||||-13.57|-29.20|< 0.001
84613620|NCT01620528|168976931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-60.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.557|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-68.77|-52.79|||mixed-effects model|||||-52.79|-68.77|< 0.001
84613621|NCT01620528|168976932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.111|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.14|0.111
84500636|NCT01289990|168751690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.2|0.1785
84613622|NCT01620528|168976932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.18|0.008
84613623|NCT01620528|168976933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.18|0.092
84590292|NCT01729039|168931638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.356
84590293|NCT01729039|168931638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.840
84590294|NCT01729039|168931639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) Alpha=.05|ANOVA|||||||.170
84590295|NCT01729039|168931639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.297
84590296|NCT01729039|168931640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05||||||<.001
84590297|NCT01729039|168931640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.817
84590298|NCT01729039|168931641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.005
84590299|NCT01729039|168931641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.172
84590300|NCT01729039|168931642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.009
84590301|NCT01729039|168931642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Interaction of Time by Grou (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.146
84613624|NCT01620528|168976933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.08|-0.28|< 0.001
84590302|NCT03449576|168931643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.3846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5525||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the CAPS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4154
84590303|NCT03449576|168931644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.267397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362521||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the SAS-SR score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and Treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4636
84590304|NCT03449576|168931645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8791||0.735129|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the PCL score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.735129
84590305|NCT03449576|168931646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.64908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76601||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the AQ score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.580
84590306|NCT03449576|168931647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7193||0.808|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the ITS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.808
84590307|NCT05788991|168931650|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference of proportions between groups (with 95% CI) and a non inferiority margin of 15 percentage points, assuming a 1-sided α = .025 and 80% power|Farrington-Manning test|-0.5|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|||1 sided alpha|Farrington-Manning test|||The outcome measure of the primary objective was a noninferiority margin of 15 percentage points in the absolute difference in clinical cure rates between dequalinium chloride and metronidazole 7 to 11 days after start of treatment.|||-10.8|<.025
84590308|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5736|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.5736
84590309|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.304
84590310|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0545|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0545
84758672|NCT01699542|169273193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.159
84590311|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.1134
84590312|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.4326
84590313|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2546|||||||ANOVA|The interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.2546
84590314|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0645
84613625|NCT01620528|168976934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.23|0.017
84758673|NCT02943564|169273203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.73|-1.50|0.8862
84613626|NCT01620528|168976934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
84758674|NCT02943564|169273203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.16|-2.07|0.5772
84500637|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.69||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-2.75|<0.0001
84758675|NCT02943564|169273204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.29|-1.48|0.8967
84590315|NCT04464473|168931657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2033|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.2033
84590316|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8152|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) on overall BOLD actviation.||||||0.8152
84590317|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.0085
84590318|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1551
84590319|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6431|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6431
84590320|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2447|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.2447
84613627|NCT01620528|168976935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|-0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.07|-0.31|< 0.001
84613628|NCT01620528|168976935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.51|< 0.001
84613629|NCT01620528|168976936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.004
84590321|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.0002
84590322|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1339|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1339
84590323|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1315
84590324|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6836|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention arm (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.6836
84590325|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.2146
84590326|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1541|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1541
84590327|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6657
84590328|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.5619
84590329|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5148|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5148
84590330|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5428
84590331|NCT04464473|168931658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1249|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1249
84590332|NCT04464473|168931659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.9504
84590333|NCT04464473|168931659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7318|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7318
84590334|NCT04464473|168931659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.8424
84590335|NCT04464473|168931659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7652
84590336|NCT04464473|168931660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.0266
84590337|NCT04464473|168931660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.2386
84613630|NCT01620528|168976936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.52|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.52|< 0.001
84590338|NCT04464473|168931660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.4211
84590339|NCT04464473|168931660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.7503
84590340|NCT04464473|168931661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0091
84590341|NCT04464473|168931661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0045
84590342|NCT04464473|168931661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1082|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.1082
84590343|NCT04464473|168931661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0659
84590344|NCT04464473|168931662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.0211
84590345|NCT04464473|168931662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4964|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.4964
84590346|NCT04464473|168931662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.3129
84590347|NCT04464473|168931662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5439|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.5439
84590348|NCT04464473|168931663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0344
84590349|NCT04464473|168931663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5113|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.5113
84590350|NCT04464473|168931663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0301|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0301
84590351|NCT04464473|168931663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6931|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.6931
84590352|NCT04464473|168931664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0189
84590353|NCT04464473|168931664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0763
84590354|NCT04464473|168931664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.9701
84590355|NCT04464473|168931664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention(MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.3826
84613631|NCT01620528|168976937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.748||0.024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.4|-0.06|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.06|-12.40|0.024
84590356|NCT04066829|168931665|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-11.8||||||Pre and post difference in the treatment group as compared to the control group. A log transformation was used.||-11.8|-42.2|
84590357|NCT01585025|168931751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.007
84590358|NCT01585025|168931751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.11
84590359|NCT01585025|168931751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.12
84590360|NCT01585025|168931752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.72
84590361|NCT01585025|168931752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.51
84590362|NCT01585025|168931752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.13
84500638|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.61||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-2.66|<0.0001
84590363|NCT01585025|168931753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.03
84590364|NCT01585025|168931753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.11
84590365|NCT01585025|168931753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.02
84590366|NCT01585025|168931754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
84613632|NCT01620528|168976937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.756||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.9|-1.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.53|-13.90|0.005
84613633|NCT01620528|168976938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.078|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.93|1.56|||mixed-effects model|||||1.56|-12.93|0.078
84613634|NCT01620528|168976938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.249|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.01|-6.42|||mixed-effects model|||||-6.42|-21.01|< 0.001
84613635|NCT01620528|168976939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.475||0.015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.27|-0.66|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.66|-16.27|0.015
84613636|NCT01620528|168976939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.38|-14.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-14.60|-30.38|< 0.001
84613637|NCT01620528|168976940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.36|-5.87|||mixed-effects model|||||-5.87|-22.36|< 0.001
84500639|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.14||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.09|0.0223
84590367|NCT01585025|168931754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.04
84590368|NCT01585025|168931754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
84590369|NCT01585025|168931755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.03
84590370|NCT01585025|168931755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.17
84590371|NCT01585025|168931755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.31
84590372|NCT01585025|168931756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.05
84590373|NCT01585025|168931756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.04
84590374|NCT01585025|168931756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.74
84590375|NCT01585025|168931757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.005
84590376|NCT01585025|168931757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.03
84590377|NCT01585025|168931757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.61
84590378|NCT01246960|168931766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.37|0.69|0.886
84590379|NCT01246960|168931767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.58|0.73|0.712
84590380|NCT01246960|168931770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.30|0.59|0.516
84590381|NCT02122380|168931799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of mean growth hormone (GH) levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided). A sample size of 16 participants was needed to provide 93% power to detect a difference in GH means of 0.5 mcg/L.||||0.918
84590382|NCT02122380|168931800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of early insulin secretion between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.054
84590383|NCT02122380|168931801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in blood glucose levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.009
84590384|NCT02122380|168931802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the mass of visceral adipose tissue after sitagliptin vs. placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.022
84590385|NCT02122380|168931803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in vascular function between sitagliptin and placebo treatments. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.943
84613638|NCT01620528|168976940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.78|-22.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.04|-38.78|< 0.001
84590386|NCT00952705|168931804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.87|
84613639|NCT01620528|168976941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.736||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.94|-3.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.16|-19.94|0.002
84613640|NCT01620528|168976941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.19|-21.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.18|-38.19|< 0.001
84500640|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-2.31||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.31|-3.37|<0.0001
84613641|NCT01620528|168976942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.805||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.92|-3.83|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.83|-20.92|0.001
84613642|NCT01620528|168976942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.868|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.66|-21.28|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.28|-38.66|< 0.001
84613643|NCT01620528|168976943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.038|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.22|0.038
84500641|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-3.28|<0.0001
84613644|NCT01620528|168976943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.488|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||0.08|-0.16|0.488
84613645|NCT01620528|168976944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.252|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.20|0.252
84613646|NCT01620528|168976944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.25|0.058
84613647|NCT01620528|168976945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.34|0.009
84613648|NCT01620528|168976945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.50|< 0.001
84613649|NCT01620528|168976946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.06|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||0.03|-0.30|0.060
84613650|NCT01620528|168976946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.10|-0.44|< 0.001
84613651|NCT01620528|168976947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.28|0.118
84613652|NCT01620528|168976947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.48|-0.13|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.13|-0.48|< 0.001
84613653|NCT01620528|168976948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.313|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.14|0.313
84613654|NCT01620528|168976948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-0.22|0.006
84613655|NCT01620528|168976949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.519|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.13|0.519
84613656|NCT01620528|168976949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.11|-0.32|< 0.001
84613657|NCT01620528|168976950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.23|0.037
84613658|NCT01620528|168976950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.17|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.17|-0.41|< 0.001
84613659|NCT01620528|168976951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.19|0.200
84613660|NCT01620528|168976951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.42|< 0.001
84613661|NCT01620528|168976952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34|||ANOVA|||||-0.34|-0.72|< 0.001
84613662|NCT01620528|168976952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-0.93|< 0.001
84613663|NCT01620528|168976953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.19|||ANOVA|||||-0.19|-0.58|< 0.001
84590387|NCT00952705|168931804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.00|0.85|
84590388|NCT00952705|168931804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Yamagata divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Yamagata.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.02|0.79|
84590389|NCT00952705|168931804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Victoria divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Victoria.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.10|0.87|
84590390|NCT04102007|168931843|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 16|57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|63.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||63.4|51.1|
84590391|NCT04102007|168931844|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 16|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|26.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.0|15.4|
84500642|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.41||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-2.76|<0.0001
84613664|NCT01620528|168976953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.82|||ANOVA|||||-0.82|-1.21|< 0.001
84613665|NCT01620528|168976954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANOVA|||||-0.41|-0.81|< 0.001
84613666|NCT01620528|168976954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.92|||ANOVA|||||-0.92|-1.32|< 0.001
84613667|NCT01620528|168976955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.42|||ANOVA|||||-0.42|-0.83|< 0.001
84613668|NCT01620528|168976955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.05|||ANOVA|||||-1.05|-1.47|< 0.001
84613669|NCT01620528|168976956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.91|< 0.001
84613670|NCT01620528|168976956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.1|||ANOVA|||||-1.10|-1.54|< 0.001
84613671|NCT01620528|168976957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.001
84613672|NCT01620528|168976957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-1.11|||ANOVA|||||-1.11|-1.59|< 0.001
84613673|NCT01620528|168976958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.011
84613674|NCT01620528|168976958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.65|< 0.001
84613675|NCT01620528|168976959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.77|<0.001
84613676|NCT01620528|168976959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||-0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.65|-1.27|-0.96
84613677|NCT01620528|168976960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.17|-0.44|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.44|-1.17|< 0.001
84613678|NCT01620528|168976960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.98|-1.24|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.24|-1.98|< 0.001
84613679|NCT01620528|168976961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
84500643|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.32||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-2.66|<0.0001
84590392|NCT04102007|168931845|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 16|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||46.4|34.2|
84590393|NCT04102007|168931846|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 16|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.4|16.3|
84590394|NCT04102007|168931847|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 52|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|68.1|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||68.1|56.0|
84590395|NCT04102007|168931848|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 52|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.0|21.9|
84590396|NCT04102007|168931849|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 52|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||53.4|41.0|
84590397|NCT04102007|168931850|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 52|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|33.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.4|22.3|
84613680|NCT01620528|168976961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.99|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.99|< 0.001
84613681|NCT01620528|168976962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|-0.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.25|-1.04|< 0.001
84613682|NCT01620528|168976962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-2.00|< 0.001
84590398|NCT05173974|168931853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|||0.29|0.01|0.037
84590399|NCT05173974|168931853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.28||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participant included as a random effect.|||0.28|0.00|0.044
84613683|NCT01620528|168976963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-3.21|||ANCOVA|||||-3.21|-9.37|< 0.001
84613684|NCT01620528|168976963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-6.61|||ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-12.91|< 0.001
84613685|NCT01620528|168976964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-5.91|||ANCOVA|||||-5.91|-12.66|< 0.001
84613686|NCT01620528|168976964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|-15.27|||ANCOVA|||||-15.27|-22.22|< 0.001
84613687|NCT01620528|168976965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.48|-8.66|||ANCOVA|||||-8.66|-16.48|< 0.001
84613688|NCT01620528|168976965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||||-21.09|-29.12|< 0.001
84500644|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.19||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-2.27|<0.0001
84613689|NCT01620528|168976966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-4.59|0.685
84613690|NCT01620528|168976966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||||-1.05|-9.04|0.013
84613691|NCT01620528|168976967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-9.43|0.047
84613692|NCT01620528|168976967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-8.84|||ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.89|< 0.001
84590400|NCT05173974|168931853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3||unadjusted P-value was presented.|ANCOVA||||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|0.30|0.06|0.005
84590401|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.17|-0.04|0.218
84590402|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.21|0.01|0.034
84590403|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.25|0.05|0.004
84590404|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.24|-0.00|0.058
84590405|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.27|0.03|0.017
84590406|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.33|0.09|0.001
84590407|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-3|||0.30|0.06|0.004
84590408|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.27|0.04|0.010
84590409|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.31|0.07|0.002
84590410|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.29|0.02|0.022
84590411|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.30|0.04|0.011
84590412|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.33|0.06|0.005
84590413|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.27|0.01|0.037
84590414|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.30|0.04|0.013
84590415|NCT05173974|168931854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.32|0.06|0.005
84590416|NCT03289143|168931855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6147||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6147
84613693|NCT01620528|168976968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|-10.43|0.107
84613694|NCT01620528|168976968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-11.5|||ANCOVA|||||-11.50|-23.52|< 0.001
84613695|NCT01620528|168976969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.61|0.741
84613696|NCT01620528|168976969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.90|0.002
84613697|NCT01620528|168976970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.16|0.172
84613698|NCT01620528|168976970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.97|< 0.001
84590417|NCT03289143|168931855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5778||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5778
84590418|NCT03289143|168931855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5136
84590419|NCT03289143|168931857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8198||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.8198
84590420|NCT03289143|168931857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
84590421|NCT03289143|168931857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6043
84590422|NCT03289143|168931858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0783
84590423|NCT03289143|168931858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6010
84590424|NCT03289143|168931858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
84590425|NCT03289143|168931859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.9749
84590426|NCT03289143|168931859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7718||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7718
84590427|NCT03289143|168931859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5789
84590428|NCT03289143|168931860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5235
84590429|NCT03289143|168931860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5612||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5612
84590430|NCT03289143|168931860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7130
84590431|NCT00730756|168931872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.845||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Center, baseline eosinophils, baseline symptom score, age, and gender were included as covariates in all efficacy analyses.||||||0.845
84590432|NCT01152307|168931881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||6.09|0.76|0.01
84590433|NCT01977898|168931911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Fisher Exact|||A sample size of 65 patients in each group would be required to achieve 80% power to detect this difference between intrathecal morphine and saline administration . Sample size of 64 per group achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.25. The proportion in the treatment group is assumed to be 0.5 under the null hypothesis and 0.25 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in the control group is .05.The significance level of the test was targeted at .05.||||.877
84590434|NCT01977898|168931912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
84590435|NCT01977898|168931913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.463
84590436|NCT01977898|168931914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0463
84613699|NCT01620528|168976971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.90|0.016
84613700|NCT01620528|168976971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-2.65|< 0.001
84613701|NCT01620528|168976972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-1.63|0.080
84590437|NCT01977898|168931915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.525
84590438|NCT01977898|168931916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
84590439|NCT01977898|168931917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.610
84590440|NCT01977898|168931918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
84590441|NCT01977898|168931919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84590442|NCT01977898|168931920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.31
84590443|NCT01453166|168931932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.05||95.0|100.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||140|100|<0.05
84590444|NCT01453166|168931933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.05||95.0|66.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95|66|0.05
84613702|NCT01620528|168976972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-2.25|0.003
84590445|NCT01453166|168931934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|170.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.05||95.0|140.0|220.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||220|140|0.05
84590446|NCT01453166|168931935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.05||95.0|88.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||112|88|0.05
84613703|NCT01620528|168976973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.44|0.106
84613704|NCT01620528|168976973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.67|< 0.001
84613705|NCT01620528|168976974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.97|0.232
84613706|NCT01620528|168976974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-3.48|< 0.001
84613707|NCT01620528|168976975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.65|0.013
84613708|NCT01620528|168976975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.90|-2.35|< 0.001
84613709|NCT01620528|168976976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-2.24|0.005
84613710|NCT01620528|168976976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.56|< 0.001
84613711|NCT01620528|168976977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-2.53|< 0.001
84590447|NCT01453166|168931936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.05||95.0|77.0|137.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||137|77|0.05
84590448|NCT01049373|168931939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0426
84590449|NCT01049373|168931940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0757
84590450|NCT01049373|168931941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
84590451|NCT01049373|168931942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04443
84590452|NCT01155050|168931962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.296
84590453|NCT01155050|168931963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.787
84590454|NCT01155050|168931964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.340
84590455|NCT01155050|168931965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.502
84590456|NCT01155050|168931966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.860
84590457|NCT01155050|168931967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.634
84590458|NCT01155050|168931968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the outcome across the four treatment groups.||||.879
84590459|NCT02136914|168931970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||46 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-3.3|-12.5|0.0009
84590460|NCT02136914|168931971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-4.0|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-4.0|-14.7|0.0008
84613712|NCT01620528|168976977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-3.02|< 0.001
84500645|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.76||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-2.85|<0.0001
84500646|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.47||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-2.48|<0.0001
84590461|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.96||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.96|1.53|<0.0001
84590462|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.47||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.47|0.96|0.0007
84590463|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.16||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.16|-1.64|0.0171
84590464|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.04||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.04|-1.58|0.0406
84590465|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.53||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.53|-2.55|0.0031
84590466|NCT02136914|168931972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.4||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.40|-2.49|0.0072
84590467|NCT02136914|168931973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||4.3|-6.6|0.6833
84613713|NCT01620528|168976978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||||-0.38|-2.05|0.004
84590468|NCT02136914|168931973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.2||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||9.2|-5.0|0.5557
84613714|NCT01620528|168976978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.06|< 0.001
84613715|NCT01620528|168976979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.74|0.013
84500647|NCT01289990|168751691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.5||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-2.52|<0.0001
84500648|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.26||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.26|-2.35|<0.0001
84613716|NCT01620528|168976979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.58|< 0.001
84613717|NCT01620528|168976980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-2.22|0.007
84613718|NCT01620528|168976980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-3.44|< 0.001
84613719|NCT01620528|168976981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.57|0.326
84590469|NCT02136914|168931974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84590470|NCT02136914|168931974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1071||||||Baseline to Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1071
84590471|NCT03218917|168932014|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.014
84590472|NCT03218917|168932014|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.022
84590473|NCT05209386|168932019|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 17 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
84590474|NCT05209386|168932020|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(20.45) = -5.8||||||<0.0001
84590475|NCT05209386|168932021|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(1016) = -2.7|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||<0.0001
84590476|NCT05209386|168932022|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|t(48) = -4.50||The null hypothesis is that there is no effect of change in listening context on behavioral responses of participants.||||<0.0001
84613720|NCT01620528|168976981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-3.67|0.031
84613721|NCT01620528|168976982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-3.13|0.107
84758676|NCT02943564|169273204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.39|-1.38|0.9963
84758677|NCT04013529|169273253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.90
84500649|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.48||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-2.56|<0.0001
84500650|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.08||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-0.01|0.0546
84500651|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.8||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-2.89|<0.0001
84500652|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.01||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-3.10|<0.0001
84758678|NCT04013529|169273254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.88
84500653|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-1.24||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-2.69|<0.0001
84500654|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.0001
84500655|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.34||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.52|<0.0001
84500656|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.6||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.79|<0.0001
84500657|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.27||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.34|<0.0001
84590477|NCT05209386|168932023|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels in non-regions of interest that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 4 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
84590478|NCT05209386|168932024|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(216) = -0.707|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||0.480
84590479|NCT02347605|168932084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84590480|NCT02347605|168932085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84613722|NCT01620528|168976982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-5.28|< 0.001
84613723|NCT01620528|168976983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-2.63|0.219
84758679|NCT04013529|169273255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.17
84758680|NCT04013529|169273256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
84590481|NCT01918189|168932092|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain interference (i.e., WHYMPI-Interference Scale) at 10 weeks post-baseline.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
84758681|NCT04013529|169273257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.81
84758682|NCT02958007|169273260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
84758683|NCT02116777|169273278|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is Dose Level 4 (600 mcg/m²/dose +30 mg/m2/dose (BMN 673) BID + 30 mg/m²/dose (TEM), Max 1000 mcg/day). MTD determined by using the Rolling-6 Design.|||||
84758684|NCT04649255|169273339|OTHER||Exact binomial|96.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|100.0|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: Ps ≤ PGS, versus HA: PS \> PGS, where where Ps is the population primary safety success rate in the Test group and PGS is the safety performance goal of 82%.||100|96.4|<0.025
84758685|NCT04649255|169273340|OTHER||Exact binomial|89.1|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|97.5|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: PE ≤ PGE, versus HA: PE \> PGE, where PE is the proportion of target lesions with clinical success and PGE is the effectiveness performance goal of 72%.||97.5|89.1|<0.025
84758686|NCT02484911|169273341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
84758687|NCT02484911|169273342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84758688|NCT02484911|169273344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
84613724|NCT01620528|168976983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.59|< 0.001
84613725|NCT01620528|168976984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-3.01|0.026
84613726|NCT01620528|168976984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-2.43|||ANCOVA|||||-2.43|-5.34|< 0.001
84613727|NCT01620528|168976985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-2.00|0.502
84613728|NCT01620528|168976985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||||-1.56|-4.70|< 0.001
84613729|NCT01620528|168976986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-3.02|0.108
84590482|NCT01918189|168932093|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain intensity at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.27
84613730|NCT01620528|168976986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-6.19|< 0.001
84613731|NCT01620528|168976987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.90|0.001
84613732|NCT01620528|168976987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-1.76|0.004
84613733|NCT01620528|168976988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-1.49|0.045
84613734|NCT01620528|168976988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.81|0.006
84613735|NCT01620528|168976989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.19|0.103
84613736|NCT01620528|168976989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.64|0.003
84613737|NCT01620528|168976990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.01|0.390
84613738|NCT01620528|168976990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.75|0.003
84758689|NCT02484911|169273345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84758690|NCT02484911|169273346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84613739|NCT01620528|168976991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-0.72|0.460
84613740|NCT01620528|168976991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.57|< 0.001
84613741|NCT01620528|168976992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.28|0.095
84613742|NCT01620528|168976992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-2.01|< 0.001
84613743|NCT01620528|168976993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|-2.61|0.462
84613744|NCT01620528|168976993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.16|0.001
84613745|NCT01620528|168976994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-3.93|0.039
84613746|NCT01620528|168976994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-6.82|< 0.001
84613747|NCT01620528|168976995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-4.21|0.032
84613748|NCT01620528|168976995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-6.95|< 0.001
84613749|NCT01620528|168976996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-4.26|0.010
84613750|NCT01620528|168976996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-7.14|< 0.001
84613751|NCT01620528|168976997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-3.02|0.215
84613752|NCT01620528|168976997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.20|-7.06|< 0.001
84613753|NCT01620528|168976998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-4.53|0.053
84758691|NCT02484911|169273347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84613754|NCT01620528|168976998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||||-4.41|-9.17|< 0.001
84613755|NCT01620528|168976999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-3.24|< 0.001
84613756|NCT01620528|168976999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-1.49|||ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-3.71|< 0.001
84758692|NCT02484911|169273349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84758693|NCT02484911|169273350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
84758694|NCT02484911|169273351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84758695|NCT02484911|169273352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.246
84758696|NCT04129528|169273355|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|1.173||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.47||one-sided P-value|Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||1.47|0.94|0.1817
84590483|NCT01918189|168932094|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
84590484|NCT01918189|168932095|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
84590485|NCT01918189|168932096|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of sleep at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.18
84590486|NCT01918189|168932097|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of depression symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
84590487|NCT01259011|168932134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|1.1|<.05
84590488|NCT01259011|168932135|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||HADS-anxiety|Regression, Linear|||||0.3|-2.8|0.12
84613757|NCT01620528|168977000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-3.40|0.002
84613758|NCT01620528|168977000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-3.98|< 0.001
84613759|NCT01620528|168977001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.39|< 0.001
84613760|NCT01620528|168977001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-1.76|||ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-4.23|< 0.001
84590489|NCT01259011|168932135|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3||HADS-depression|Regression, Linear|||||-0.3|-4.2|<0.05
84590490|NCT01259011|168932136|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.2|-10.2|0.21
84590491|NCT01911260|168932137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Growth Deficit who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
84590492|NCT01911260|168932137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Normal Height who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
84590493|NCT00060944|168932141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.974|||Log Rank|||||0.974|0.554|0.0302
84590494|NCT00060944|168932144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.992|||Log Rank|||||0.992|0.574|0.0418
84590495|NCT00060944|168932145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.090|0.653|0.1920
84613761|NCT01620528|168977002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-2.80|0.017
84613762|NCT01620528|168977002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.50|< 0.001
84613763|NCT01620528|168977003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-2.22|0.038
84613764|NCT01620528|168977003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.91|< 0.001
84613765|NCT01620528|168977004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.13|0.006
84613766|NCT01620528|168977004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||||-2.44|-5.06|< 0.001
84590496|NCT05270863|168932148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.001
84590497|NCT04712669|168932149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.773||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.716|105.824||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||105.824|8.716|0.0208
84613767|NCT03997825|168977016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84613768|NCT03997825|168977017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84613769|NCT00767819|168977022|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the confidence interval was used to support the decision in favor of p0 or p1: if the lower limit of the confidence interval overlapped p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be rejected; on the other side, if the lower limit of the confidence interval excluded p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be accepted.|percentage of participants|40.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.5|52.4|||Clopper-Person confidence interval|||||52.4|29.5|0.1
84590498|NCT04712669|168932149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.558||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.272|106.54||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||106.54|10.272|0.0174
84590499|NCT04712669|168932150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.573
84590500|NCT04712669|168932150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9911||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.9911
84590501|NCT04712669|168932151|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.121||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|1.91||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||1.91|-69.13|0.0636
84590502|NCT04712669|168932151|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.469||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.45|7.35||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||7.35|-45.45|0.1573
84590503|NCT04712669|168932152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1125.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|351.28||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|437.39|1814.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1814.39|437.39|0.0014
84590504|NCT04712669|168932152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|866.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|306.56||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|265.41|1467.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1467.16|265.41|0.0047
84613770|NCT02332291|168977040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.8642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analyses utilized a logistic regression model with remission status (defined as final MADRS \<= 7) as the dependent variable. The independent variable of interest was treatment arm assignment, and the model included age, sex, and baseline depression severity by MADRS as covariates.||||0.0689
84613771|NCT02332291|168977041|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effect|-1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|344 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed model. MADRS score was the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest for this analysis was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment. A statistically significant interaction term would indicate that one treatment arm experienced a greater change in MADRS score over time than the other treatment arm.||||0.0001
84613772|NCT02332291|168977042|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effects|-0.3117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1566||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|150 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment.||||0.0483
84613773|NCT02332291|168977043|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effect|-1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|128 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with MADRS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||<0.0001
84613774|NCT02332291|168977044|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effects|-0.2342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0908||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|61 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||0.0123
84613775|NCT02332291|168977045|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear model. Final AES score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline AES score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.742
84613776|NCT02332291|168977046|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.4705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.352||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear regression model. Final RRS score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline RRS score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.0232
84613777|NCT04118595|168977065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84613778|NCT04118595|168977066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
84613779|NCT04118595|168977067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
84613780|NCT04118595|168977068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.64
84613781|NCT04118595|168977069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
84613782|NCT04118595|168977070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
84590505|NCT03235050|168932174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.06|<0.001
84590506|NCT03235050|168932174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||||-0.85|-1.23|<0.001
84590507|NCT03235050|168932174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.11|<0.001
84590508|NCT03235050|168932175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.08|<0.001
84590509|NCT03235050|168932175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-3.65|<0.001
84590510|NCT03235050|168932175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-2.73|||ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-4.51|<0.001
84590511|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.40|-0.92|<0.001
84613783|NCT04118595|168977071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
84590512|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
84590513|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
84590514|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
84590515|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.39|-0.86|<0.001
84590516|NCT03235050|168932176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.34|-0.80|<0.001
84590517|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|92.0|3.34|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|3.34|<0.001
84590518|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.36|5.39|<0.001
84590519|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|15.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.61|4.65|<0.001
84590520|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||7.03|1.98|<0.001
84613784|NCT04118595|168977072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
84613785|NCT04118595|168977073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84613786|NCT04118595|168977074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
84613787|NCT04146935|168977075|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.4147||||||Visit 1 (baseline) to visit 4 (peak)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4147
84590521|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||9.34|3.13|<0.001
84590522|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||8.97|3.02|<0.001
84590523|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||9.36|2.61|<0.001
84590524|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.89|2.62|<0.001
84590525|NCT03235050|168932177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.51|2.51|<0.001
84590526|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.85|-3.32|<0.001
84590527|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.79|-3.82|<0.001
84590528|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.44|-4.48|<0.001
84590529|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.00|-3.86|<0.001
84590530|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.06|-3.41|<0.001
84590531|NCT03235050|168932178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.14|-4.49|<0.001
84590532|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.87|-3.03|<0.001
84590533|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.86|-3.63|<0.001
84590534|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.82|-4.60|<0.001
84590535|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.74|-3.27|0.002
84590536|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.71|-3.78|<0.001
84590537|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.52|-4.59|<0.001
84590538|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.79|-3.74|0.003
84590539|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.95|-3.37|<0.001
84590540|NCT03235050|168932179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.20|-4.63|<0.001
84590541|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||1.79|-0.39|0.211
84590542|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||0.83|-0.96|0.881
84590543|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||-0.04|-1.82|0.042
84613788|NCT04146935|168977076|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84613789|NCT04146935|168977077|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.6957|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6957
84613790|NCT04146935|168977078|OTHER|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0092
84613791|NCT04146935|168977079|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.1383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1383
84590544|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||2.14|-0.35|0.158
84590545|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||1.20|-0.85|0.734
84613792|NCT04146935|168977080|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures||||||0.0572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0572
84590546|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||0.54|-1.51|0.357
84613793|NCT03533244|168977094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||To reserve the family-wise error rate, the main treatment effect will be first assessed at the global level at alpha = 0.05. If this is significant, then pairwise comparisons will be conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An empirical sample size estimation was used as this was an exploratory study. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between AG-86893 and AG-86893 Vehicle. It is expected that the active group is at least 50% better than the vehicle.||||0.218
84613794|NCT03533244|168977094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
84613795|NCT03533244|168977095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
84613796|NCT03533244|168977095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.399
84613797|NCT03533244|168977096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
84613798|NCT03533244|168977096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84613799|NCT01817959|168977103|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.001||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.205|0.207||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.207|-0.205|0.9863
84613800|NCT01817959|168977104|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.024||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.184|0.232||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.232|-0.184|0.7115
84590547|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.37|-1.51|0.921
84613801|NCT01817959|168977105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.63||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||Analytical statistics are reported for Day 75 after transplant 2||1.63|0.03|0.1346
84590548|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.30|-1.07|0.847
84590549|NCT03235050|168932180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||0.22|-2.15|0.112
84613802|NCT01817959|168977106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.93||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|0.17|0.9130
84613803|NCT01817959|168977107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.66||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.16|0.5467
84613804|NCT01817959|168977108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1383
84613805|NCT01817959|168977110|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.021||||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.088||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.088|-0.130|0.6952
84613806|NCT01817959|168977110|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.028||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.124||This is a treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.124|-0.068|0.5560
84613807|NCT01817959|168977110|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.056||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.154||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.154|-0.042|0.2537
84613808|NCT01817959|168977111|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-7.4||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|20.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||20.3|-35.2|0.5910
84590550|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||1.68|-0.49|0.284
84590551|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||0.69|-1.09|0.658
84613809|NCT01817959|168977111|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.2||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|20.2||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||20.2|-11.8|0.5966
84613810|NCT01817959|168977111|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|6.1||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|24.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||24.4|-12.1|0.5005
84613811|NCT01817959|168977112|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.21||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.63||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.63|-0.21|0.3253
84613812|NCT01817959|168977112|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.16||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78||Treatment p value|least square mean difference|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.78|-0.46|0.6069
84613813|NCT01817959|168977112|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.93||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.93|-0.56|0.6437
84613814|NCT01817959|168977113|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.0||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.9||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||6.9|-3.0|0.4290
84613815|NCT01817959|168977113|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.0||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||8.3|-6.3|0.7853
84613816|NCT01817959|168977113|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.9||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||10.4|-6.6|0.6583
84613817|NCT01817959|168977117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.28||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||1.28|-1.28|0.9949
84613818|NCT01817959|168977117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.8753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.38||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||1.38|-1.18|0.8753
84590552|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||-0.27|-2.06|0.010
84590553|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.97|-0.57|0.279
84590554|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.00|-1.08|0.940
84500658|NCT01289990|168751692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.11||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.18|<0.0001
84500659|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
84500660|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.8|0.0015
84500661|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|0.5052
84500662|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-3.5|<0.0001
84500663|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
84500664|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.0064
84500665|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.1|0.0642
84500666|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.8|0.0053
84500667|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
84500668|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0010
84500669|NCT01289990|168751693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.1|0.0015
84500670|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0028
84500671|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.8|0.0019
84500672|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.5044
84500673|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.1|0.0003
84500674|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.2|0.0002
84500675|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.5|0.0109
84500676|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.9|0.1238
84500677|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.0001
84500678|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.0076
84500679|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.1|0.0049
84500680|NCT01289990|168751694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.0178
84590555|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||0.19|-1.89|0.110
84672946|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3854
84672947|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3822
84672948|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.9255
84672949|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.14|0.6714
84590556|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.22|-1.74|0.730
84590557|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.07|-1.38|0.804
84590558|NCT03235050|168932181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||-0.19|-2.63|0.023
84590559|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|29.43|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||29.43|2.38|<0.001
84590560|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|40.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||40.64|3.82|<0.001
84590561|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|21.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|68.97|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||68.97|6.55|<0.001
84590562|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.89|1.72|<0.001
84590563|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.78|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.78|2.00|<0.001
84590564|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|14.24|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||14.24|3.72|<0.001
84590565|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||7.45|1.84|<0.001
84590566|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||5.09|1.46|0.002
84590567|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|8.3|||ANCOVA|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||8.30|2.42|<0.001
84590568|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|70.17|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||70.17|1.02|0.048
84590569|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|102.91|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||102.91|1.85|0.010
84590570|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|97.68|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||97.68|1.75|0.012
84590571|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.07|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||32.07|1.49|0.013
84590572|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||21.60|1.15|0.032
84590573|NCT03235050|168932182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|33.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||33.64|1.86|0.005
84590574|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.73|0.01|0.024
84590575|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.40|0.03|<0.001
84590576|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.33|0.02|<0.001
84590577|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.48|0.04|0.002
84590578|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.34|0.06|<0.001
84590579|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.28|0.04|<0.001
84613819|NCT01817959|168977117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.59||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.8||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.80|-1.97|0.3955
84758697|NCT01157078|169273396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.11||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-3.14|0.349
84758698|NCT01157078|169273397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.92|0.75|0.444
84500681|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-26.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-26.7|-37.8|<0.0001
84590580|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.53|0.11|<0.001
84590581|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.44|0.13|<0.001
84590582|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.41|0.12|<0.001
84590583|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 14 wks||2.43|0.02|0.216
84590584|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.28||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||2.52|0.03|0.253
84590585|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||1.19|0.04|0.079
84590586|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||2.50|0.03|0.252
84590587|NCT03235050|168932183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.32||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||1.47|0.07|0.143
84590588|NCT00508521|168932187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47871||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27348|-19.22652|||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a feasibility study. Pre and post treatment analysis was performed for the study participants.||-19.22652|-22.27348|.0001
84590589|NCT01622296|168932188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior Alveolar nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.23
84590590|NCT01622296|168932188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Long buccal nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.57
84590591|NCT02465931|168932201|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.89
84590592|NCT00492557|168932202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval (CI), computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.5||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H1N1. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||6.5|-3.1|
84590593|NCT00492557|168932202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H3N2. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||1.3|-10.4|
84590594|NCT00492557|168932202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.1||||||Influenza virus subtype: B. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||4.1|-7.8|
84590595|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.04|0.60|
84613820|NCT01817959|168977118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.105||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.075||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.075|-0.286|0.2444
84613821|NCT01817959|168977118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.218||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.019||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||-0.019|-0.417|0.0328
84613822|NCT01817959|168977118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.177||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.039||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.039|-0.393|0.1059
84613823|NCT02019875|168977123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.3|-21.2|0.884
84613824|NCT02019875|168977123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.7|-19.5|0.955
84613825|NCT02019875|168977123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-26.5|0.53
84613826|NCT02019875|168977123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.9|-27.6|0.434
84500682|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-31.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-31.7|-42.8|<0.0001
84613827|NCT02019875|168977123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.6|-24.2|0.796
84758699|NCT01157078|169273398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.61|0.88|0.130
84613828|NCT02019875|168977124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-6.0|0.62
84613829|NCT02019875|168977124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-3.1|0.482
84613830|NCT02019875|168977124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-3.4|0.559
84613831|NCT02019875|168977124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.5|-1.2|0.138
84613832|NCT02019875|168977124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-7.1|0.477
84672950|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.18|0.9838
84758700|NCT01157078|169273399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||5.14|0.60|0.307
84613833|NCT02019875|168977125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.3|-11.0|0.98
84613834|NCT02019875|168977125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.7|-10.0|0.81
84613835|NCT02019875|168977125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-10.8|0.91
84613836|NCT02019875|168977125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.8|-8.9|0.68
84613837|NCT02019875|168977125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.6|-11.9|0.96
84613838|NCT02019875|168977126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.7|0.17
84613839|NCT02019875|168977126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.0|0.44
84613840|NCT02019875|168977126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-1.7|0.94
84613841|NCT02019875|168977126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
84613842|NCT02019875|168977126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|2.2|<0.0001
84613843|NCT02019875|168977127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.012|-0.027|0.43
84613844|NCT02019875|168977127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.003|-0.037|0.09
84613845|NCT02019875|168977127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.009|-0.031|0.29
84613846|NCT02019875|168977127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.015|-0.025|0.61
84613847|NCT02019875|168977127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.03|0.46
84613848|NCT02019875|168977128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|26.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.7|-52.0|0.53
84613849|NCT02019875|168977128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-84.5|0.03
84613850|NCT02019875|168977128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.8|-47.3|0.72
84613851|NCT02019875|168977128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.2|-36.6|0.89
84758701|NCT01157078|169273400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.94|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.94|0.71|0.313
84590596|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.13|0.78|
84590597|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.51|
84590598|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.86|0.55|
84590599|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.94|0.61|
84590600|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.25|0.75|
84590601|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.07|0.67|
84590602|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.02|0.63|
84590603|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.97|0.53|
84590604|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.01|0.64|
84590605|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.56|
84590606|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.85|0.49|
84613852|NCT02019875|168977128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|80.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.6|-4.7|0.08
84590607|NCT00492557|168932203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.71|
84590608|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.68|
84590609|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.20|0.69|
84613853|NCT02019875|168977129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|110.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.2|-104.5|0.96
84613854|NCT02019875|168977129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|124.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.2|-94.2|0.79
84613855|NCT02019875|168977129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|180.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||180.5|-37.9|0.20
84613856|NCT02019875|168977129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.1|104.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.7|-110.1|0.96
84672951|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.8884
84613857|NCT02019875|168977129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|168.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.2|-64.7|0.38
84613858|NCT02160145|168977147|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.684||A 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Weighted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with effects of treatment and randomization stratification factors and covariate baseline.||Tolvaptan versus placebo. Treatment difference in the change of eGFR assessed the efficacy of tolvaptan treatment as compared with placebo in subjects with late-stage CKD due to ADPKD who tolerated tolvaptan during an initial run-in period.||1.684|0.859|<0.0001
84613859|NCT02160145|168977148|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.403||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied when the primary endpoint reached a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in treatment effect was derived from a linear mixed model with effects of treatment, time, treatment ime interaction, acute haemodynamic effect, pretreatment baseline, and randomization stratification factors. An unstructured variance matrix was assumed for the random intercept and time.||1.403|0.618|<0.0001
84758702|NCT01157078|169273401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||4.24|0.74|0.201
84613860|NCT02881762|168977168|OTHER|Comparison of mean change analyzed with unpaired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in HCV viral load between Maraviroc and No Maraviroc||||0.13
84613861|NCT02881762|168977169|OTHER|Comparison of difference in mean analyzed with paired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|||||>|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in HCV viral load between baseline and 7 days of maraviroc.||||>0.5
84613862|NCT00465088|168977170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An n = 81 for niacin extended-release with simvastatin and n = 54 for atorvastatin would provide \> 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C with niacin extended-release with simvastatin relative to atorvastatin, assuming an SD of 16%||||<0.001
84613863|NCT02932748|168977201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A global one-way ANOVA was followed by two pairwise t-tests on the comparisons of interest, i.e., IP vs. EUC, and GP vs IP for weight change across 6 months, evaluated at p ≤ 0.025, using both intent-to-treat and completer only data.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84613864|NCT04260347|168977209|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.064||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.784|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.784|0.345|1.000
84613865|NCT04260347|168977210|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.08|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.08|0.699|0.254
84613866|NCT04260347|168977211|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.089||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.237|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.237|0.942|0.280
84613867|NCT04260347|168977212|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.016||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in the mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.128|-0.096|0.916
84500683|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-11.7|-22.9|<0.0001
84500684|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-9.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.4|-20.6|<0.0001
84500685|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-14.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-14.4|-25.5|<0.0001
84590610|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.95|0.47|
84590611|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.60|0.77|
84590612|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.08|0.54|
84590613|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.09|0.55|
84590614|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.47|
84500686|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-19.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.2|-35.0|<0.0001
84590615|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.03|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.03|0.42|
84500687|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-23.2|-38.9|<0.0001
84500688|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-18.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-29.7|<0.0001
84500689|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-21.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-21.9|-32.7|<0.0001
84500690|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-22.0||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-33.6|<0.0001
84500691|NCT01289990|168751695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-22.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-34.5|<0.0001
84500692|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-37.4|<0.0001
84500693|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.1||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-29.1|-40.7|<0.0001
84613868|NCT04260347|168977213|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.066||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.261|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.261|0.872|0.561
84613869|NCT04260347|168977214|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.231||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.756|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.756|0.707|0.522
84613870|NCT04260347|168977215|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.021||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.091|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.091|-0.133|0.810
84613871|NCT04260347|168977216|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.085||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.03|-0.199|0.179
84613872|NCT04260347|168977217|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.042||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.156|-0.072|0.275
84500694|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-10.5||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-10.5|-22.1|<0.0001
84500695|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.6|-21.2|<0.0001
84500696|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-12.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-24.5|<0.0001
84500697|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-15.3||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-31.4|<0.0001
84500698|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.4|-35.4|<0.0001
84500699|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-19.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.6|-30.5|<0.0001
84500700|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-36.9|<0.0001
84613873|NCT03078855|168977226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.98|||Regression, Cox||The EFS hazard ratio was adjusted for enrolling site, continuous age at randomization, and (via stratification) 3 randomization strata: non-follicular histology, follicular (FL) with low/intermediate FLIPI score and FL with high FLIPI score.|||1.98|0.83|0.26
84613874|NCT03422536|168977248|EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified significance criteria were met by exclusion of the historical control PFS of 2.0 months. As confirmation, the one-sample log rank test was computed with expected survival estimated using an exponential distribution of 2.0 months.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Log Rank|||||||.04
84500701|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-24.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-37.0|<0.0001
84500702|NCT01289990|168751696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-25.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.7|-37.9|<0.0001
84613875|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Cox|||c-Met positivity was compared across groups: HPV+ vs HPV-||||.005
84613876|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in cMet positive vs. c-Met negative patients.||0.8|0.1|.02
84644491|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.18|-1.52|0.121
84644492|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.56|-2.25|0.001
84644493|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.15|-2.35|0.026
84500703|NCT01488071|168751705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), using all available data, with a freely varying mean and covariance structures and with treatment, week, and site group as fixed factors and the baseline score as a covariate. The model also included interaction between week and baseline score, as well as interaction between week and treatment.~Non-inferiority, upper limit of Confidence Interval should not exceed 2."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.81||Under established non-inferiority the p-value is not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM||||-0.81|-3.51|0.0018
84590616|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.65|
84758703|NCT01157078|169273402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-2.10|0.552
84590617|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.14|0.59|
84590618|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.61|
84590619|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.16|0.57|
84590620|NCT00492557|168932206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.54|
84590621|NCT00372957|168932219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.93|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.93|-2.28|
84590622|NCT00372957|168932219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.98|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.98|-2.33|
84590623|NCT00372957|168932219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.82|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.82|-2.15|
84590624|NCT00372957|168932219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.95|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.95|-2.28|
84590625|NCT00372957|168932220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.41|||Double-delta analysis||he point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.41|2.33|
84590626|NCT00372957|168932220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.73|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||6.73|3.70|
84590627|NCT00372957|168932220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.54|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||4.54|1.90|
84590628|NCT00372957|168932220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.68|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.68|3.10|
84590629|NCT00372957|168932221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.89|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||2.89|-6.00|
84590630|NCT00372957|168932221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.72|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.72|-3.30|
84590631|NCT00372957|168932221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.5|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||2.50|-5.20|
84590632|NCT00372957|168932221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.43|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.43|-2.47|
84590633|NCT00372957|168932222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|4.2|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||4.2|-20.4|
84613877|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||0.8|0.03|0.03
84613878|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.5|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||17.5|0.6|.20
84613879|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in HGF positive vs. HGF negative patients.||2.0|0.9|.10
84613880|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||4.7|0.4|.60
84613881|NCT03422536|168977253|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.1|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P \< .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||13.1|0.9|.07
84613882|NCT00479856|168977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.3||||||95.0|7.5|70.1||||||||70.1|7.5|
84613883|NCT04164732|168977283|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|1.94|||longitudinal mixed effects (MMRM) model|||||1.94|-0.71|0.5506
84613884|NCT04765202|168977291|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|40.21|||Fisher Exact||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 1.||40.21|-11.64|1.0000
84613885|NCT04765202|168977291|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 2.||0|0|
84613886|NCT05758402|168977293|OTHER||Rate difference|1.21||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.13|||Chi-squared||Rate difference = detection rate of PsA in EARP group - detection rate of PsA in routine practice group|||5.13|-2.71|0.544
84613887|NCT05758402|168977294|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Chi-squared|||Sensitivity||||0.256
84613888|NCT05758402|168977294|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificity||||<0.001
84613889|NCT05758402|168977294|OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.336
84613890|NCT05758402|168977294|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||||0.490
84613891|NCT05758402|168977295|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Age characteristics||||0.101
84613892|NCT05758402|168977296|OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Chi-squared|||Gender characteristics||||0.836
84613893|NCT05758402|168977297|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Mass Index (BMI) characteristics||||0.520
84613894|NCT05758402|168977298|OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared|||Drinking history characteristics||||0.216
84613895|NCT05758402|168977298|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking history characteristics||||0.719
84613896|NCT05758402|168977299|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of Psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.831
84613897|NCT05758402|168977300|OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.274
84613898|NCT05758402|168977300|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) characteristics||||0.272
84613899|NCT05758402|168977301|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score characteristics||||0.622
84613900|NCT05758402|168977302|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of hard-to-treat area involvement characteristics||||<0.001
84613901|NCT05758402|168977302|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of musculoskeletal symptoms characteristics||||<0.001
84613902|NCT05758402|168977303|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left hand characteristics||||<0.001
84613903|NCT05758402|168977303|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right hand characteristics||||0.010
84613904|NCT05758402|168977303|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left foot characteristics||||0.001
84613905|NCT05758402|168977303|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right foot characteristics||||<0.001
84613906|NCT05758402|168977303|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total NAPSI score characteristics||||0.001
84613907|NCT05758402|168977304|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
84613908|NCT05758402|168977304|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
84613909|NCT05758402|168977304|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66/TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
84613910|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart diseases||||0.043
84613911|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke||||1.000
84613912|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diabetes||||1.000
84613913|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperlipidemia||||0.019
84613914|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypertension||||0.073
84613915|NCT05758402|168977305|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatty liver||||0.377
84613916|NCT00395850|168977315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.02|||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Logistic Regression|Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Models on a Binomial distribution, thus a Repeated Measures Logistic Regression||Used placebo group as contrast to determine whether slopes of disulfiram groups differed from slope of placebo group data||||<0.05
84613917|NCT00395850|168977316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84500704|NCT01488071|168751706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.60|-3.45|0.0054
84590634|NCT00372957|168932222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-3.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-3.9|-28.4|
84590635|NCT00372957|168932222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-23.1|
84590636|NCT00372957|168932222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-3.3|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-3.3|-27.9|
84590637|NCT00372957|168932223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.16|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.16|-0.64|
84590638|NCT00372957|168932223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.32|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.32|-0.47|
84590639|NCT00372957|168932223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.07|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.07|-0.37|
84590640|NCT00372957|168932223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.21|-0.24|
84590641|NCT00372957|168932224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|0.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||0.9|-40.7|
84590642|NCT00372957|168932224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.7|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||11.7|-29.8|
84590643|NCT00372957|168932224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-33.2|
84590644|NCT00372957|168932224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|11.1|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||11.1|-23.4|
84613918|NCT00095173|168977336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.59|||Log Rank||Abatacept over placebo|||0.59|0.16|0.0002
84590645|NCT02727322|168932248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04|||Chi-squared|||||2.04|0.50|0.97
84613919|NCT00095173|168977337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84613920|NCT02161757|168977356|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.93||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.72|0.5859
84590646|NCT02727322|168932249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.43|||Chi-squared|||||1.43|0.885|0.665
84590647|NCT02727322|168932250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.68|||Fisher Exact|||||5.68|0.31|1.0
84590648|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6384|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 23) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6384
84590649|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6419|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID + placebo (n = 22) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6419
84590650|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 400 mg QD + placebo (n = 21) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
84590651|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg (n = 26) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3859
84613921|NCT02161757|168977356|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.9||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.17|0.70|0.4406
84500705|NCT01488071|168751707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.80|-2.98|0.0008
84590652|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil (n = 92) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75||||0.4435
84613922|NCT02161757|168977356|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|7.01||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|28.39|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||28.39|-20.76|0.5859
84500706|NCT01488071|168751708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.04|0.0007
84500707|NCT01488071|168751709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.11|-0.48|0.0023
84590653|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 14) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.2721
84590654|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID+ Placebo (n = 15) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3577
84590655|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 500 mg QD + Placebo (n = 17) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
84590656|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg/day (n = 16) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3402
84590657|NCT02852967|168932251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + Placebo (n = 62) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3542
84590658|NCT02852967|168932255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5728
84613923|NCT02161757|168977356|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|9.76||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|30.5|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||30.50|-17.16|0.4406
84500708|NCT01488071|168751710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0075
84500709|NCT01488071|168751711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.08|-0.42|0.0048
84590659|NCT02852967|168932255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1962|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.1962
84590660|NCT02852967|168932255|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear|||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.9999
84590661|NCT02852967|168932255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5583
84590662|NCT02852967|168932255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2538|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.2538
84590663|NCT02286895|168932266|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.2||||||Based on results from a prior study, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.2|-4.0|
84590664|NCT02286895|168932267|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.0||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.0|-12.2|
84644494|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.39|-2.57|0.008
84644495|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.08|-1.37|0.027
84644496|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.47|-1.75|< 0.001
84644497|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.20|-1.34|0.143
84590665|NCT02286895|168932268|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.7||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||2.7|-7.5|
84590666|NCT02286895|168932269|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
84590667|NCT02286895|168932270|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean concentration (GMC) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine/ GMC of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1|geometric mean titer ratio|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.8||||||||3.8|-5.2|
84590668|NCT02286895|168932271|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||||||||1.3|0.7|
84590669|NCT02286895|168932272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|25.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||25.3|9.7|
84590670|NCT02286895|168932273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.4|8.1|
84613924|NCT02161757|168977357|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|9.73|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||9.73|2.34|
84613925|NCT02161757|168977357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|5.77|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||5.77|-1.58|
84500710|NCT01488071|168751712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.42|0.0055
84613926|NCT02161757|168977358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.04|-0.23|
84590671|NCT02286895|168932274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|36.2||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||36.2|14.6|
84613927|NCT02161757|168977358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.12|-0.15|
84590672|NCT02286895|168932275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.0||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||39.0|23.1|
84590673|NCT02286895|168932276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|23.5||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.5|12.0|
84590674|NCT02286895|168932277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|66.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||66.3|37.7|
84590675|NCT02286895|168932278|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||2.4|1.2|
84613928|NCT02161757|168977359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.31|-0.01|
84500711|NCT01488071|168751713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.6||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.60|1.26|0.0012
84590676|NCT02286895|168932279|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1||||||Null hypothesis: 28 days post-vaccination, geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.1|1.7|
84590677|NCT02286895|168932280|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.3|1.2|
84590678|NCT02286895|168932281|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.9||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||8.9|2.4|
84590679|NCT02949011|168932344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-14.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was a comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and placebo groups.||-14.6|-42.8|<0.0001
84590680|NCT02949011|168932344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|7.9||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and the oseltamivir groups was conducted as a secondary analysis only if a statistically significant difference was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain control of overall type I error.||7.9|-22.7|0.8347
84590681|NCT02949011|168932344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.0008
84590682|NCT02949011|168932344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8449||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.8449
84590683|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84500712|NCT01488071|168751714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.65||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.65|1.26|0.0014
84590684|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84590685|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
84590686|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
84590687|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||<0.0001
84590688|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0044
84500713|NCT01488071|168751715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.17|0.0054
84590689|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||<0.0001
84590690|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1146||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.1146
84590691|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0046
84590692|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.441
84590693|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0929||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0929
84590694|NCT02949011|168932345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0907
84644498|NCT01931670|169024650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.15|-1.67|0.019
84644499|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.19|-1.44|0.131
84644500|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.05|-1.65|0.037
84500714|NCT01488071|168751716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.9||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.39|0.0002
84500715|NCT01488071|168751717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.63|0.0021
84590695|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7383||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.7383
84590696|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.9619
84590697|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0576||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0576
84590698|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.1237
84590699|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.3071
84590700|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9603||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9603
84590701|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0784
84590702|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5547
84590703|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.3087
84590704|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9106||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9106
84590705|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0017
84590706|NCT02949011|168932346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.3068
84590707|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84590708|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84590709|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
84500716|NCT01488071|168751718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.27|-3.23|0.0209
84590710|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0024
84590711|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ven Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9127
84590712|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.5361
84590713|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5739
84590714|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5466
84644501|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.29|-1.96|0.008
84590715|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0543
84590716|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.4677
84590717|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0266
84590718|NCT02949011|168932347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.1281
84613929|NCT02161757|168977359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.28|-0.03|
84613930|NCT02161757|168977360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||-0.02|-0.29|
84613931|NCT02161757|168977360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.01|-0.26|
84500717|NCT02139306|168751719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.5336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2881|2.4813|||Mixed-model, repeated-measures|||||2.4813|-1.2881|0.5336
84500718|NCT02139306|168751720|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1577||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5973|1.2288|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.2288|0.5973|0.4008
84590719|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84613932|NCT02161757|168977361|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||0.96|0.30|0.0369
84613933|NCT02161757|168977361|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.33|0.46|0.3603
84613934|NCT02161757|168977363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.51|
84613935|NCT02161757|168977363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.24|-0.56|
84613936|NCT02161757|168977364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|16.03|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.03|-3.53|
84758704|NCT01157078|169273403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.803||95.0|-0.31|0.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.803
84500719|NCT02139306|168751721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5292|4.0731|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||4.0731|-3.5292|0.8881
84500720|NCT02139306|168751722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1312||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3233|0.1934|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||0.1934|-0.3233|0.6208
84500721|NCT02873195|168751780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.491|0.051
84590720|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
84590721|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
84613937|NCT02161757|168977364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|11.53|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||11.53|-7.99|
84613938|NCT02161757|168977364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.87|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.87|-2.60|
84613939|NCT02161757|168977364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|10.35|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||10.35|-9.13|
84613940|NCT02161757|168977365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.69|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.69|-5.29|
84613941|NCT02161757|168977365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.12|-5.84|
84613942|NCT02161757|168977366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.28|0.71|0.732
84613943|NCT02161757|168977366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.19|0.65|0.421
84613944|NCT01496846|168977381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.901
84613945|NCT01496846|168977381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.004
84613946|NCT01496846|168977382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.437
84613947|NCT02578186|168977413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0312|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0312
84613948|NCT00847197|168977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||4.3|-3.9|0.926
84613949|NCT00847197|168977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.1||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||8.1|1.0|0.013
84613950|NCT00847197|168977427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.9|||Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.||Triglycerides was analyzed by non-parametric methods with terms for treatment, gender and region. Specifically, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was applied to the Tukey's normal scores of the percent change from baseline. The estimate of the difference in medians between MK1903 and the placebo groups utilizing the Hodges-Lehmann estimate and a distribution-free 95% CI for the difference based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test was provided.||-1.9|-18.9|0.02
84613951|NCT00825812|168977475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|5.7||||||95.0|4.9|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|The primary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Chinese subjects.||6.6|4.9|
84613952|NCT00825812|168977475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|4.8||||||97.5|3.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Caucasian subjects.||6.0|3.7|
84644502|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.60|-2.27|< 0.001
84644503|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.036
84613953|NCT00825812|168977475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was considered if the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for median difference in recovery time (T4/T1 ratio to 0.9) was within the pre-specified range of -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|7.0||||||97.5|-5.0|21.0|||||Estimated median difference (Chinese - Caucasian) in seconds for the time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 (after sugammadex).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison for equivalence between Chinese subjects and Caucasian subjects.||21|-5|
84613954|NCT03824587|168977482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.13|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.13|0.0004
84613955|NCT03824587|168977483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0097
84613956|NCT03824587|168977484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0027
84613957|NCT03824587|168977485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
84613958|NCT00986362|168977496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.613||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|4.509|||Fisher Exact|||||4.509|0.070|0.679
84590722|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0015
84590723|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0028
84613959|NCT06037408|168977497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-50.27||Sidak's test was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 42.19||||-50.27|-63.99|0.0001
84613960|NCT06037408|168977498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.459|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.26|36.99|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 28.16.||||36.99|13.26|<0.0001
84758705|NCT01157078|169273404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.91|0.75|0.440
84613961|NCT01211340|168977509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.18
84613962|NCT01211340|168977509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|No significant difference found between groups||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.18
84613963|NCT01211340|168977509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Spearmans rank|No differences found||To test the effects of the dose of meetings on association with overall Caregiver Perceptions of Pain Medicine Questionaire (CPMQ) change we used Spearman rank correlation coefficient||||.18
84613964|NCT01211340|168977510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcxon Rank Sum Test|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.15
84613965|NCT01211340|168977510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.15
84613966|NCT01211340|168977511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.89
84613967|NCT01211340|168977511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.89
84613968|NCT03755661|168977512|OTHER|pilot data to estimate effect size f-squared as the parameter as primary outcome||||||0.048||||||provide inferential statistics for data completion. Study is not designed to detect significant differences between groups|Regression, Linear|R-square change = .12; F-change (1, 20) = 4.44||pilot study to calculate effect size, study is not powered to detect significant group differences|"Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of heavy drinking episodes entered in step 1 and condition in step 2~f- squared = .22"|||.048
84500722|NCT02873195|168751781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.56|0.40
84500723|NCT02873195|168751782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4876
84590724|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0265
84590725|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0247
84590726|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5298
84590727|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9554||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9554
84590728|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9075
84590729|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7624||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.7624
84590730|NCT02949011|168932348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.6156
84590731|NCT02949011|168932349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0340
84590732|NCT02949011|168932349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.2766
84590733|NCT02949011|168932350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0072
84590734|NCT02949011|168932350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.7330
84590735|NCT02949011|168932351|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-48.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-48.0|-48.0|<0.0001
84590736|NCT02949011|168932351|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-24.0|-48.0|<0.0001
84590737|NCT02949011|168932352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|0.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||0.0|-96.0|0.0006
84590738|NCT02949011|168932352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.0||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||24.0|-48.0|0.2370
84613969|NCT03755661|168977513|SUPERIORITY|"The main outcome variable is f-squared as an estimate of differences between conditions controlling for baseline value.~A statistical test is provided only for completeness as this study is not powered to detect significant effects"||||||0.34||||||F-change (1, 20) = 0.97|Regression, Linear|||pilot trial to compute effect size estimate|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.34
84590739|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.7698
84590740|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5777||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.5777
84644504|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.035
84590741|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.1112
84590742|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.6483
84590743|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.0004
84590744|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5625||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.5625
84590745|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.0072
84590746|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6234||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.6234
84590747|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0002
84590748|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.9547
84590749|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0012
84590750|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.1860
84590751|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.0274
84590752|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9635||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.9635
84590753|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.0081
84590754|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7425||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.7425
84590755|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.0209
84590756|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7448||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7448
84590757|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0644||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.0644
84590758|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4931||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4931
84590759|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.0708
84590760|NCT02949011|168932353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.4024
84590761|NCT02949011|168932354|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||<0.0001
84590762|NCT02949011|168932354|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-8.6||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9127
84613970|NCT03755661|168977514|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot trial to estimate effect sizes and not powered to detect significant differences||||||0.2||||||data provided for completeness, not powered to test differences|Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.80|||Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .058|||.20
84590763|NCT02949011|168932355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-15.1||||0.0013||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0013
84590764|NCT02949011|168932355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.3||||0.8498||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.8498
84758706|NCT01157078|169273405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.23||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.23|-0.91|0.768
84758707|NCT01157078|169273406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.84|0.373
84758708|NCT01157078|169273407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.07|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.07|-2.47|0.435
84590765|NCT02949011|168932356|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.1||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0001
84758709|NCT01157078|169273408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-2.56|0.501
84758710|NCT01157078|169273409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.771||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.134|0.901||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.901|-2.134|0.424
84500724|NCT02508649|168751784|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.43|||van Elteren test|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis included a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.43|-1.34|0.3015
84500725|NCT02508649|168751785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.445|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 in proportion of subjects dying indicates lower mortality in the selepressin group.|Mortality was analyzed using a logistic regression model with the individual sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and age as covariates and treatment arm as factor.||1.445|0.762|0.7694
84590766|NCT02949011|168932356|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.9237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9237
84590767|NCT02949011|168932357|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-12.5||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||-12.5|-28.8|<0.0001
84590768|NCT02949011|168932357|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.7||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||2.7|-9.1|0.2425
84590769|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.1713
84590770|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.2249
84590771|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.0387
84590772|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3915||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.3915
84590773|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||<0.0001
84590774|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.2617
84613971|NCT03755661|168977515|SUPERIORITY|Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences. Data from analyses presented for completeness. Primary outcome is effect size estimates||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.83||Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .048|||.19
84644505|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.55|-1.23|0.452
84590775|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||<0.0001
84590776|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8808||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.8808
84590777|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0001
84590778|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.5923
84590779|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0064
84590780|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6746||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.6746
84590781|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8167||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.8167
84590782|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3773||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.3773
84613972|NCT03755661|168977516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||F-change (1, 19) = 1.34|Regression, Linear|||Not powered to test significant differences. provide data on effect size estimate below|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.26
84613973|NCT01736618|168977518|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|92.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|91.4|||||||"Ho: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 85.0% Ha: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ha: p1 \> 85.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 85.0%."|||91.4|
84590783|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.1041
84590784|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.3328
84590785|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7867||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7867
84590786|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.8640
84500726|NCT02508649|168751786|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.65|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.65|-2.07|0.8458
84590787|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.6465
84590788|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4265
84590789|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6568||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6568
84644506|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-2.18|0.002
84644507|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
84644508|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.78|-2.5|< 0.001
84644509|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.21|-1.67|0.13
84644510|NCT01931670|169024651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.56|-2.34|0.001
84644511|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.65|-3.32|0.186
84644512|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.10|-5.08|0.002
84644513|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.67|-3.28|0.195
84590790|NCT02949011|168932358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6102||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6102
84590791|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||-0.01|-0.28|0.0408
84590792|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.09|-0.18|0.5324
84590793|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.06|-0.30|0.0025
84590794|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.08|0.4874
84590795|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
84590796|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.08|-0.15|0.5414
84590797|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.22|-0.44|<0.0001
84590798|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.05|-0.17|0.3185
84590799|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.06|-0.26|0.0025
84590800|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.11|-0.09|0.8299
84590801|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.01|-0.19|0.0878
84590802|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.12|-0.09|0.7498
84500727|NCT02508649|168751787|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.19|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.19|-1.22|0.4124
84590803|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.09|-0.11|0.8030
84590804|NCT02949011|168932359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.15|-0.05|0.3577
84590805|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.1||||0.0009||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.0009
84500728|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.51||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.27|-1.30|0.2009
84590806|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.2||||0.4074||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.4074
84590807|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-6.3||||0.2496||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2496
84590808|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.9||||0.2963||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2963
84590809|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-10.6||||0.039||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.0390
84590810|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.0||||0.7877||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.7877
84590811|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-12.1||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.0017
84590812|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.8119||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.8119
84590813|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.6||||0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.0070
84590814|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.7||||0.9191||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.9191
84590815|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.0232||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.0232
84590816|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|4.0||||0.5436||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.5436
84758711|NCT01157078|169273410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.22|-0.96|0.214
84590817|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.5||||0.0207||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.0207
84590818|NCT02949011|168932360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-1.9||||0.371||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.3710
84590819|NCT02949011|168932361|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.4||||0.4634||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.4634
84590820|NCT02949011|168932361|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.6||||0.6386||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.6386
84758712|NCT01157078|169273411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.59|0.931
84758713|NCT01157078|169273412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.44|-0.60|0.755
84758714|NCT01157078|169273413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|4.346|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.346|-2.699|0.646
84613974|NCT01736618|168977519|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|98.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.4|||||||"Ho: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 94.0% Ha: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ha: p1 \>94.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 94.0%."|||97.4|
84590821|NCT02949011|168932362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
84590822|NCT02949011|168932362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8478||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8478
84590823|NCT02949011|168932363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||<0.0001
84590824|NCT02949011|168932363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2558
84590825|NCT02441218|168932373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.90|0.75|<0.0001
84590826|NCT02441218|168932374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.03|0.80|0.128
84590827|NCT02441218|168932375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.83|0.66|< 0.0001
84590828|NCT02441218|168932376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.02|0.80|0.092
84590829|NCT02441218|168932377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.94|0.58|0.0140
84590830|NCT02441218|168932378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.96|0.82|0.0027
84590831|NCT02441218|168932379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.78|0.0002
84590832|NCT02441218|168932380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.95|0.81|0.0013
84590833|NCT02441218|168932381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.77|0.0002
84590834|NCT02441218|168932382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate. P-value: Wald test|||0.89|0.74|< 0.0001
84613975|NCT01736618|168977520|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||"Ho: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 92.5% Ha: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ha: p1 \> 92.5% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 92.5%."|||98.8|
84644514|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-1.67|-5.63|< 0.001
84590835|NCT00163189|168932391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||<0.001
84590836|NCT00163189|168932392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||0.008
84590837|NCT03435380|168932410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.07|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||5.07|1.11|0.019
84590838|NCT03435380|168932410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||4.38|0.87|0.092
84590839|NCT02431325|168932426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84590840|NCT02431325|168932427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84590841|NCT02431325|168932428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84590842|NCT02431325|168932429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84590843|NCT02431325|168932430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84644515|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.02|-4.03|0.047
84644516|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-1.19|-5.21|0.002
84590844|NCT02431325|168932431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84590845|NCT02431325|168932432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84590846|NCT02431325|168932433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84590847|NCT02431325|168932434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84590848|NCT02431325|168932435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84590849|NCT02431325|168932436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84590850|NCT02431325|168932437|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84590851|NCT02431325|168932438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84613976|NCT01736618|168977521|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|94.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.5|||||||"Ho: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 84.0% Ha: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ha: p1 \>84.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 84.0%."|||93.5|
84758715|NCT01157078|169273414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.14|-0.31|0.446
84758716|NCT01157078|169273415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.33|-0.06|0.178
84758717|NCT01157078|169273416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.12|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.12|-4.22|0.515
84590852|NCT02431325|168932439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84590853|NCT02431325|168932440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84590854|NCT02431325|168932441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84590855|NCT02431325|168932442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84590856|NCT02431325|168932443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 24||||0.09
84590857|NCT02431325|168932443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 12||||0.25
84590858|NCT02431325|168932444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84590859|NCT02431325|168932445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84590860|NCT01008618|168932446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0846
84590861|NCT01128569|168932459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.237||||||||0.237|0.087|
84590862|NCT01128569|168932459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.222||||||||0.222|0.069|
84590863|NCT01128569|168932459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.057||||||||0.057|-0.091|
84590864|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for FACT-B 3 month Total Score||4.05|-4.48|0.92
84590865|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|1.37||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for FACT-B 6 month Total Score||6.15|-3.41|0.57
84590866|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Total Score||5.89|-3.54|0.62
84590867|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.23|-0.99|0.83
84590868|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.45|-1.15|0.82
84590869|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.15|-1.41|0.84
84613977|NCT04167137|168977522|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|||
84613978|NCT02714283|168977562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|Due to the small sample size in the macrolide monotherapy group, for this outcome, the results are considered exploratory/descriptive only.||1.14|0.51|0.19
84613979|NCT02714283|168977563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.57|1.23|<0.0001
84590870|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.96|-1.31|0.77
84590871|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.79|-1.91|0.42
84590872|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||1.24|-1.41|0.90
84590873|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||0.87|-0.76|0.90
84613980|NCT02714283|168977564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.09|0.67|0.21
84613981|NCT02714283|168977565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||0.82|0.64|<0.0001
84613982|NCT02714283|168977566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.32|0.80|0.87
84613983|NCT02714283|168977567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.07|0.76|0.23
84613984|NCT02714283|168977568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|0.96|0.20
84613985|NCT02714283|168977569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.21|1.08|<0.0001
84613986|NCT02714283|168977570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.51|0.66|0.99
84613987|NCT02714283|168977571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|1.07|0.0005
84613988|NCT00997594|168977621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Just a comparison of the percentage of hypertension between the 2 patient groups.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
84613989|NCT01865448|168977631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2780
84613990|NCT01865448|168977631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8689
84613991|NCT01865448|168977631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4533
84613992|NCT01865448|168977632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71833|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71833
84613993|NCT01865448|168977632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84590874|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.58||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact B 6 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.56|-0.40|0.25
84613994|NCT01865448|168977632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84613995|NCT01865448|168977633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.51900
84590875|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.57|-0.36|0.22
84590876|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 3 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.34|-1.05|0.81
84590877|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.54||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 6 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.94|-0.85|0.45
84590878|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.11||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.26|-1.48|0.87
84590879|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.16||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Breast Cancer Subscale||1.45|-1.13|0.80
84590880|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.24|-0.79|0.35
84590881|NCT02941614|168932470|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.09|-0.88|0.42
84590882|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09||We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data below is for the BCPT survey 3 month Total Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.59
84613996|NCT01865448|168977633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84613997|NCT01865448|168977633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84613998|NCT01865448|168977634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24567|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24567
84613999|NCT01865448|168977634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84614000|NCT01865448|168977634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84590883|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Total Score||0.19|-0.09|0.47
84590884|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Total Score||0.07|-0.20|0.37
84614001|NCT01865448|168977635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9573
84614002|NCT01865448|168977635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5257
84614003|NCT01865448|168977635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0657
84614004|NCT01865448|168977636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7474
84614005|NCT01865448|168977636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3745
84614006|NCT01865448|168977636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0476
84614007|NCT01865448|168977637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.27444
84590885|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.17|-0.26|0.65
84590886|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.17|0.54
84590887|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.22|-0.27|0.87
84590888|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.17|0.32
84590889|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.14|-0.15|0.96
84590890|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.21|0.32
84590891|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.11|-0.24|0.44
84590892|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.30|-0.11|0.38
84614008|NCT01865448|168977637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614009|NCT01865448|168977637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614010|NCT01865448|168977638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28489
84614011|NCT01865448|168977638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84614012|NCT01865448|168977638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84672952|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.23|0.6996
84614013|NCT01865448|168977639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04491|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.04491
84614014|NCT01865448|168977639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614015|NCT01865448|168977639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614016|NCT01865448|168977640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24396|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24396
84614017|NCT01865448|168977640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
84614018|NCT01865448|168977640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
84614019|NCT01865448|168977641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.82322
84614020|NCT01865448|168977641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
84614021|NCT01865448|168977641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
84614022|NCT01865448|168977642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.76435
84590893|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the BCPT survey 12 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.28|0.47
84590894|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.05|-0.39|0.13
84590895|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||-0.02|-0.55|0.03
84590896|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.45|0.14
84590897|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.28|-0.14|0.53
84590898|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.35|-0.16|0.47
84590899|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.18|0.57
84590900|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.21|-0.18|0.85
84590901|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.32|-0.12|0.38
84590902|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.09|-0.35|0.23
84614023|NCT01865448|168977642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
84614024|NCT01865448|168977642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
84614025|NCT01865448|168977643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.40485|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.40485
84590903|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.35|0.18
84614026|NCT01865448|168977643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614027|NCT01865448|168977643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614028|NCT01865448|168977644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13911|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.13911
84614029|NCT01865448|168977644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
84614030|NCT01865448|168977644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
84614031|NCT01865448|168977645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.60214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.60214
84590904|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.36|0.35
84590905|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.12|-0.36|0.34
84590906|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.25|-0.06|0.22
84590907|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.29|-0.08|0.26
84590908|NCT02941614|168932471|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.27|-0.09|0.34
84590909|NCT02941614|168932472|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.96|0.77|0.006
84590910|NCT02941614|168932473|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.07|0.93|0.356
84500729|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.11||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.90|-0.68|0.7894
84500730|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||1.37|-0.27|0.1888
84590911|NCT02941614|168932474|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression/Poisson|||||1.41|0.73|0.919
84590912|NCT02941614|168932475|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Emergency Department visits||1.62|0.84|0.367
84590913|NCT02941614|168932475|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.38|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Urgent Care visits||1.38|0.51|0.497
84590914|NCT02581891|168932508|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is set to 5 letters.|LS mean difference|-2.0199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3833||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.747|0.7073|||ANCOVA|||||0.7073|-4.7470|0.0162
84590915|NCT03498716|168932593|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors used in the analysis are axillary nodal status, surgery (breast conserving vs. mastectomy),and tumor PD-L1 status.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.87|0.3846
84590916|NCT00265850|168932607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.77|0.08
84590917|NCT00265850|168932608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.84|0.45
84590918|NCT01991860|168932615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||2-sided|Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.033
84590919|NCT01991860|168932616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.16
84590920|NCT01991860|168932617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.68
84590921|NCT01991860|168932618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.026
84590922|NCT01991860|168932619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.086
84500731|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.08||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.07|-0.24|0.2997
84590923|NCT01991860|168932620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.074
84590924|NCT01991860|168932621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.15
84590925|NCT01812057|168932625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
84590926|NCT01812057|168932626|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 2 hours||||||0.171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.171
84590927|NCT01812057|168932626|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 2 hours||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84590928|NCT01812057|168932627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1965
84590929|NCT01812057|168932628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.709
84590930|NCT01812057|168932629|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 24 hours||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
84590931|NCT01812057|168932629|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 24 hours||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
84590932|NCT01812057|168932630|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 48 hours||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
84590933|NCT01812057|168932630|SUPERIORITY|Pain Scores with movement at 48 hours||||||0.525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.525
84614032|NCT01865448|168977645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614033|NCT01865448|168977645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614034|NCT01865448|168977646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.66053
84614035|NCT01865448|168977646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84614036|NCT01865448|168977646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.05
84614037|NCT01865448|168977647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28743
84614038|NCT01865448|168977647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614039|NCT01865448|168977647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
84614040|NCT01865448|168977648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.58561
84614041|NCT01865448|168977648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
84590934|NCT01812057|168932631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Total opioid consumption at 24 hours|||We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with 24h opioid consumption accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factor with the largest p-value over 0.05.In the final model MTS was not associated with 24h opioid consumption parameter estimate (standard error) = 9.15 (5.27), p=0.09.|||0.355
84590935|NCT01812057|168932632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|Chronic pain at 8 weeks||||||0.420
84614042|NCT01865448|168977648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84614043|NCT01865448|168977649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1953
84614044|NCT01865448|168977649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0351
84614045|NCT01865448|168977649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0795
84758718|NCT01157078|169273417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0209|0.068||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0680|-0.0209|0.298
84590936|NCT01812057|168932633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.322
84614046|NCT01865448|168977650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6664
84614047|NCT01865448|168977650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4310
84614048|NCT01865448|168977650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
84614049|NCT01865448|168977651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2470
84614050|NCT01865448|168977651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2755
84614051|NCT01865448|168977651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.8226
84614052|NCT01865448|168977652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6779|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6779
84614053|NCT01865448|168977652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3761
84614054|NCT01865448|168977652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0281
84614055|NCT01865448|168977653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8591
84614056|NCT01865448|168977653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0404
84614057|NCT01865448|168977653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0474
84614058|NCT01865448|168977654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3187
84614059|NCT01865448|168977654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0482
84614060|NCT01865448|168977654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0394
84614061|NCT01865448|168977655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2813
84614062|NCT01865448|168977655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4421
84614063|NCT01865448|168977655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3198
84614064|NCT01865448|168977656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2792
84614065|NCT01865448|168977656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1034
84614066|NCT01865448|168977656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.9898
84614067|NCT01865448|168977657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7047
84614068|NCT01865448|168977657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4749
84614069|NCT01865448|168977657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.6014
84614070|NCT01865448|168977658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5932
84614071|NCT01865448|168977658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.7140
84614072|NCT01865448|168977658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5827
84590937|NCT01812057|168932634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour pain scores at rest between MTS groups|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores at rest.|||0.805
84590938|NCT01812057|168932634|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain scores on movement at 24h|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminated the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores on movement.|||1.000
84590939|NCT01812057|168932635|SUPERIORITY|Intraoperative nausea and vomiting||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84590940|NCT01812057|168932635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Chi-squared|Need for intraoperative antiemetics||||||0.676
84590941|NCT01812057|168932635|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84590942|NCT01812057|168932637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of postoperative pruritus||||||0.924
84590943|NCT01812057|168932638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.700
84590944|NCT01812057|168932639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of PONV at 24 h||||||0.302
84590945|NCT01812057|168932639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Postoperative need for rescue antiemetic||||||0.028
84590946|NCT01812057|168932639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84590947|NCT01812057|168932639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.188
84590948|NCT03060902|168932653|SUPERIORITY||F|10.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
84590949|NCT02289469|168932654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|31.6|||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was used to test for differences in proportions between intervention and control groups.||31.6|16.0|<0.0001
84614073|NCT01865448|168977659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2894
84590950|NCT02289469|168932655|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Other|||Descriptive statistics (counts, frequencies) were used to summarize responses.||||<0.01
84614074|NCT01865448|168977659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2128
84590951|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.987||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1a. Genetic testing is a blood test that looks for mutations in genes that can increase cancer risk"||.987|.888|
84590952|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1b. Genetic test results may help guide my treatment options"||.974|.856|
84590953|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.981||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1c. Genetic test results may help me understand the future risks of other cancers"||.981|.872|
84614075|NCT01865448|168977659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0823
84500732|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.6796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.12|-0.19|0.6796
84590954|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|0.918||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1d. Genetic test results may increase stress to me and my family members"||.918|.758|
84590955|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1e. There are 3 gene panel options that include either a small, medium, or large number of genes"||.974|.856|
84590956|NCT04704193|168932662|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.967||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1f. Gene test results may come back as positive, negative or uncertain"||.967|.839|
84590957|NCT04704193|168932663|OTHER|Summary statistics only|Mean|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84614076|NCT01865448|168977660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3450
84614077|NCT01865448|168977660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1365
84614078|NCT01865448|168977660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0073
84614079|NCT01865448|168977661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2333
84614080|NCT01865448|168977661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4292
84590958|NCT00542178|168932664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 88% to detect a 15% relative reduction with intensive glycemic control as compared with standard glycemic control||0.87|0.51|0.003
84590959|NCT00542178|168932664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 80% to detect a 20% relative reduction with intensive blood pressure control as compared with standard blood pressure control||1.79|0.84|0.29
84614081|NCT01865448|168977661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3356|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3356
84672953|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4426
84758719|NCT01157078|169273417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.26||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.26|-2.98|0.484
84500733|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.19|-0.14|0.7467
84500734|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
84500735|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
84590960|NCT00542178|168932664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 91% to detect a 20% relative reduction with lipid control with a statin and fenofibrate as compared with lipid control with a statin alone||0.87|0.42|0.006
84590961|NCT00542178|168932665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.104|||Regression, Cox|||||1.104|0.901|0.96
84590962|NCT00542178|168932665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.099|||Regression, Cox|||||1.099|0.825|0.50
84590963|NCT00542178|168932665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.016|||Regression, Cox|||||1.016|0.762|0.08
84590964|NCT00542178|168932666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.788|0.0355
84590965|NCT00542178|168932666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.051|||Regression, Cox|||||1.051|0.755|0.17
84590966|NCT00542178|168932666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.190|0.865|0.86
84590967|NCT00542178|168932667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.71|0.069
84590968|NCT00542178|168932667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.44|0.63
84590969|NCT00542178|168932667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.60|0.78
84590970|NCT00829998|168932673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.4||||||90.0|89.4|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|89.4|
84590971|NCT00829998|168932674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
84500736|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.11|-0.39|0.2787
84500737|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.16|-0.26|0.6476
84590972|NCT00829998|168932675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
84590973|NCT00834197|168932676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|95.76|105.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.65|95.76|
84590974|NCT00834197|168932677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.17||||||90.0|94.82|101.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.65|94.82|
84590975|NCT00834197|168932678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.25||||||90.0|95.22|101.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.39|95.22|
84590976|NCT00163293|168932679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6625
84590977|NCT00163293|168932679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7303||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7303
84590978|NCT00163293|168932680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.1291
84590979|NCT00163293|168932680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.0145
84614082|NCT01865448|168977662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6830
84758720|NCT00129766|169273426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval and relative risk adjusted for the stratification factor of presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.083|||t-test, 2 sided||Relative risk was calculated as (Pn/Ps) where Pn is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the motavizumab group and Ps is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the palivizumab group.|ITT population||1.083|0.503|
84758721|NCT00129766|169273435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.11||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
84590980|NCT00163293|168932682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4754
84590981|NCT00163293|168932682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6844
84590982|NCT01492426|168932718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of noninferiority was based on noninferiority margin of -12% and 2-sided alpha level of 5%. That is, if the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -12%, the Daclatasvir arm would be considered nonnferior to the telaprevir arm.|Percentage difference|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.9||Test of noninferiority carried out by taking a confidence interval (CI) for the difference in rates (daclatasvir arm minus telapravir arm). If lower bound of 95% CI difference exceeded -12%, noninferiority was demonstrated. No p-value was computed.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between SVR12 rate in the experimental and control arms was computed using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval (95% level) for the difference in rates. The stratification factors were IL28B rs1297860 single nucleotide polymorphism (CC or non-CC) and baseline cirrhosis status (absent or present), unless otherwise indicated.||11.9|-3.3|
84590983|NCT01714323|168932732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Data from all three sites were combined after determining that outcomes did not vary by hospital using Breslow-Day tests. The proportion abstinent by treatment arm was assessed using chi-square test.||1.37|0.84|>0.05
84590984|NCT01714323|168932733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84590985|NCT01714323|168932734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This compares at Month 1||||<0.001
84614083|NCT01865448|168977662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8625
84758722|NCT00129766|169273436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.005||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF||||||0.005
84758723|NCT00129766|169273437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.476||95.0|||||Van Eleteren test|Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF||P-value is for overall incidence||||0.476
84758724|NCT00129766|169273438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.493||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.493
84500738|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.29|-0.13|0.4313
84590986|NCT01714323|168932734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||This is analysis for Month 3||||<0.01
84590987|NCT01714323|168932734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||This is for Month 6||||<0.09
84614084|NCT01865448|168977662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0068
84614085|NCT01865448|168977663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3694
84614086|NCT01865448|168977663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0291
84758725|NCT00129766|169273439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.652||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.652
84590988|NCT01714323|168932736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This is the p value for the comparison at each follow up point: 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84590989|NCT01714323|168932737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84590990|NCT01714323|168932738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84590991|NCT00939107|168932739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||>|0.05||95.0|0.2|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.2|>0.05
84590992|NCT01621178|168932753|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.15|-0.26|<0.001
84590993|NCT01621178|168932753|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.22|-0.18|<0.001
84590994|NCT04778592|168932782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-0.36|0.4549
84614087|NCT01865448|168977663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0402
84614088|NCT01865448|168977664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1226
84614089|NCT01865448|168977664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0472
84614090|NCT01865448|168977664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0197
84614091|NCT01865448|168977665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8969|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8969
84614092|NCT01865448|168977665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7218|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7218
84590995|NCT04790786|168932796|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||||||||||||Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound based on Bayesian probability.|Bayesian cumulative logistic model|Bayesian cumulative logistic model, Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||The primary analysis model was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model that adjusted for treatment location (infusion center or ED), age (\<30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years), sex, and time (2-week epochs). Comparisons between individual mAb were based on the relative odds ratio between a given two arms for the primary outcome. An odds ratio for an arm to a comparator \>1 implies improved outcomes. A sliding scale with different levels of equivalence bounds was pre-defined|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.|||
84590996|NCT01126190|168932809|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper endpoint of the CI for the difference in mean DSN was less than or equal to 0.62 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.37||||||For the primary non-inferiority endpoint of cycle 1 DSN, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in DSN was calculated by stratified bootstrap resampling.||0.37|-0.13|
84590997|NCT01114737|168932813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS total score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||0.6|-8.9|0.085
84590998|NCT01114737|168932814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HAMA Anxiety Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.3|-1.5|0.669
84590999|NCT01114737|168932815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline HAM-D Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.9|-1.1|0.588
84591000|NCT01114737|168932816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline CGI-Severity Response, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.2|-0.4|0.531
84591001|NCT01114737|168932817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||3.6|-5.5|0.661
84591002|NCT01114737|168932818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||-0.3|-7.9|0.034
84591003|NCT01114737|168932819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 ADHD RS/ASRS Total Score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||7.8|-2.6|0.312
84614093|NCT01865448|168977665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4536
84614094|NCT01865448|168977666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8765
84591004|NCT01114737|168932820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMA Anxiety Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.4|-2.4|0.590
84591005|NCT01114737|168932821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMD Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD||||1.9|-1.2|0.636
84591006|NCT01114737|168932822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 Global Impression-Severity Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.5|-0.2|0.510
84591007|NCT01114737|168932823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.2|-2.1|0.395
84758726|NCT01324232|169273456|SUPERIORITY||Pearson correlation|0.0019|||=|0.9827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between the change from Baseline PRS scores and the DM plasma concentration was equal to zero and was tested using a 2-sided test at the 5% level of significance within active treatment groups. The regression line was fitted using change from baseline in average PRS during Day 57-84 as the dependent variable and the average of log-transformed DM Plasma Concentration at Day 22 and Day 50 as the independent variable.||||= 0.9827
84758727|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8869|||||||ANCOVA|||Test of dose trend (overall P value)||||=0.8869
84758728|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.87|-0.94|=0.9381
84591008|NCT01114737|168932824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||4.7|-2.1|0.443
84591009|NCT01114737|168932825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS Total Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.8|-5.5|0.953
84591010|NCT01114737|168932826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.7|-2.4|0.733
84591011|NCT01114737|168932827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Rating Scale For Depression (HAM-D) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.2|-1.1|0.522
84614095|NCT01865448|168977666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5114
84614096|NCT01865448|168977666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0237
84614097|NCT01865448|168977667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2914
84614098|NCT01865448|168977667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5594
84614099|NCT01865448|168977667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2532|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2532
84614100|NCT01865448|168977668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0528
84614101|NCT01865448|168977668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1920
84500739|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.39|-0.05|0.1334
84500740|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.30|-0.07|0.2126
84591012|NCT01114737|168932828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.4|-0.2|0.564
84591013|NCT01114737|168932829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication||||1.64|0.46|0.67
84614102|NCT01865448|168977668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0011
84614103|NCT01865448|168977669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2999
84614104|NCT01865448|168977669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5184
84758729|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.53|-1.28|=0.4128
84591014|NCT01114737|168932830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.0|-6.2|0.833
84591015|NCT01114737|168932831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.8|-6.3|0.279
84614105|NCT01865448|168977669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0564
84614106|NCT01865448|168977670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0783
84614107|NCT01865448|168977670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1263
84614108|NCT01865448|168977670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.6484
84614109|NCT01865448|168977671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6896
84614110|NCT01865448|168977671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0980
84758730|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|=|0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.94|-0.88|=0.9427
84758731|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.58|-1.0|=0.6075
84500741|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.23||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.41|0.04|0.0174
84758732|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|=|0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.96|=0.6690
84500742|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.23||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.43|0.04|0.0194
84500743|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.04|-0.35|0.1284
84591016|NCT00256126|168932849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84591017|NCT02261961|168932889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24275|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591018|NCT02261961|168932890|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3707|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591019|NCT02261961|168932893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35579|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591020|NCT02261961|168932894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004493|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591021|NCT02261961|168932895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.870653|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84614111|NCT01865448|168977671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3526
84614112|NCT01865448|168977672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9662
84614113|NCT01865448|168977672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1450
84614114|NCT01865448|168977672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3811
84614115|NCT01865448|168977673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2643
84614116|NCT01865448|168977673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0761
84614117|NCT01865448|168977673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.1342
84614118|NCT01865448|168977674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1410
84614119|NCT01865448|168977674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3774
84614120|NCT01865448|168977674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1811
84614121|NCT01865448|168977675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
84500744|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.15|-0.25|0.6542
84500745|NCT02508649|168751794|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.38|-0.04|0.1079
84500746|NCT02508649|168751795|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 7||2.00|0.98|0.0630
84500747|NCT02508649|168751795|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 30||1.86|0.89|0.1875
84500748|NCT02508649|168751795|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 7||1.58|0.82|0.4382
84500749|NCT02508649|168751795|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 30||1.39|0.73|0.9529
84500750|NCT02149199|168751808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression, with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours Symbicort 'as needed'|||1.30|1.00|0.046
84500751|NCT02149199|168751808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI \>=0.8 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.||||0.73|0.57|
84500752|NCT02149199|168751809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.577|||Regression, Cox|Cox-regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0, \>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||0.577|0.328|<0.001
84500753|NCT02149199|168751809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.242|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.242|0.653|0.524
84591022|NCT02261961|168932896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38664|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591023|NCT02261961|168932897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.335124|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Outcomes were compared as percent change from the baseline measure using multiple methods by a blinded statistician. Differences between groups were assessed using ANCOVA, Welch's t-test, and Wilcoxon. No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome regardless of method used.||||>0.05
84500754|NCT02149199|168751810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.528|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||0.528|0.348|<0.001
84500755|NCT02149199|168751810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.153|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||1.153|0.718|0.436
84500756|NCT02149199|168751811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|78.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||78.5|29.1|<0.001
84500757|NCT02149199|168751811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||-29.8|-78.8|<0.001
84500758|NCT02149199|168751812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|16.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||16.00|7.89|<0.001
84500759|NCT02149199|168751812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-5.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-5.93|-14.03|<0.001
84591024|NCT02261961|168932899|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03145|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591025|NCT02261961|168932900|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43902|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84614122|NCT01865448|168977675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
84614123|NCT01865448|168977675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
84758733|NCT01324232|169273458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|=|0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.88|=0.7394
84591026|NCT02261961|168932910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07603|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591027|NCT02261961|168932929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4745|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84591028|NCT05525910|168932985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|116.68||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||116.68|94.54|
84614124|NCT01865448|168977676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5893
84614125|NCT01865448|168977676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0431
84500760|NCT02149199|168751813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|14.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||14.90|6.99|<0.001
84500761|NCT02149199|168751813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-2.29|-10.18|0.002
84500762|NCT02149199|168751815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
84500763|NCT02149199|168751815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.15|0.03|0.004
84500764|NCT02149199|168751822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.497|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||0.497|0.343|<0.001
84500765|NCT02149199|168751822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.067|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||1.067|0.701|0.175
84500766|NCT02149199|168751823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.105|-0.203|<0.001
84500767|NCT02149199|168751823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.198|0.101|<0.001
84500768|NCT02149199|168751824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.181|0.074|<0.001
84500769|NCT02149199|168751824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.049|-0.155|<0.001
84500770|NCT02149199|168751826|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.27|<0.001
84500771|NCT02149199|168751826|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16|0.59|0.279
84500772|NCT02149199|168751827|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.32|<0.001
84500773|NCT02149199|168751827|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.21|0.74|0.663
84500774|NCT00752895|168751830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.295
84500775|NCT00752895|168751831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.820
84500776|NCT00633217|168751832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in 2-hour post-dose FEV1 change from baseline fell above -75 mL, then HFA MDI could be deemed non-inferior to DISKUS treatment response.||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
84500777|NCT01966107|168751840|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Negative Binomial Regression model||||A rate ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|0.89|0.48|0.006
84500778|NCT01966107|168751842|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimate of the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for comparing aclidinium bromide 400 μg versus placebo were derived using the Cox proportional hazard model. A hazard ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23||||||Composite MACE||1.23|0.64|
84500779|NCT00532779|168751843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-2.85|||ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-4.50|<0.001
84500780|NCT00532779|168751843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.99|||ANCOVA|||||-3.99|-5.63|<0.001
84500781|NCT00532779|168751844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|2.52|<0.001
84500782|NCT00532779|168751844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86|||<|0.001||95.0|3.6|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.57|3.60|<0.001
84500783|NCT00532779|168751845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|2.14|<0.001
84500784|NCT00532779|168751845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.82|<0.001
84591029|NCT05525910|168932985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|121.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||121.47|98.08|
84591030|NCT05525910|168932985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|111.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.74|90.79|
84591031|NCT05525910|168932985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|122.52||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.52|99.58|
84591032|NCT05525910|168932986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.78|117.24||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||117.24|93.78|
84591033|NCT05525910|168932986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|122.89||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||122.89|97.93|
84614126|NCT01865448|168977676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0066
84614127|NCT01865448|168977677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
84614128|NCT01865448|168977677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
84614129|NCT01865448|168977677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
84614130|NCT01865448|168977678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9850
84614131|NCT01865448|168977678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
84591034|NCT05525910|168932986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|111.8||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.80|89.69|
84591035|NCT05525910|168932986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|122.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.57|98.36|
84591036|NCT05525910|168932987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.97|127.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||127.06|94.97|
84591037|NCT05525910|168932987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.92|132.98||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||132.98|98.92|
84591038|NCT05525910|168932987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.64|126.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||126.14|94.64|
84591039|NCT05525910|168932987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.48|133.87||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||133.87|100.48|
84614132|NCT01865448|168977678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0062
84614133|NCT01865448|168977679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1946
84614134|NCT01865448|168977679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2337
84614135|NCT01865448|168977679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.9188
84614136|NCT01865448|168977680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7964
84614137|NCT01865448|168977680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7680
84614138|NCT01865448|168977680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5669
84614139|NCT01865448|168977681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0320
84614140|NCT01865448|168977681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0220
84614141|NCT01865448|168977681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4563
84500785|NCT00532779|168751846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.43|||ANCOVA|||||-1.43|-3.74|<0.001
84500786|NCT00532779|168751846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-2.64|||ANCOVA|||||-2.64|-4.93|<0.001
84500787|NCT00532779|168751847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|2.17|<0.001
84500788|NCT00532779|168751847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.70|2.26|<0.001
84500789|NCT00532779|168751848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.88|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.046
84500790|NCT00532779|168751848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84500791|NCT00532779|168751849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.54|||ANCOVA|||||4.54|1.72|<0.001
84500792|NCT00532779|168751849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|2.73|<0.001
84500793|NCT00532779|168751850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.36|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.016
84500794|NCT00532779|168751850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.008
84500795|NCT00532779|168751851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.27|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
84500796|NCT00532779|168751851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84500797|NCT00532779|168751852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.42|-2.60|
84500798|NCT00532779|168751852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-3.42|=0.010
84500799|NCT00532779|168751853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84500800|NCT00532779|168751853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84500801|NCT00532779|168751854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.94||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.94|-6.68|
84591040|NCT05525910|168932988|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.24|103.53||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.53|76.24|
84500802|NCT00532779|168751854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||||-2.98|-8.71|<0.001
84758734|NCT01324232|169273459|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9731|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9731
84500803|NCT00532779|168751855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.84||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.84|-3.62|
84500804|NCT00532779|168751855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-4.29|0.484
84500805|NCT00532779|168751856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.30|1.16|
84500806|NCT00532779|168751856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.9||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.90|0.76|
84500807|NCT00532779|168751857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.73||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.73|0.19|
84500808|NCT00532779|168751857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.67|0.13|
84500809|NCT00532779|168751858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.28|0.19|
84500810|NCT00532779|168751858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.00|-0.09|
84500811|NCT00532779|168751859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.23||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.23|0.14|
84500812|NCT00532779|168751859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.69|-0.40|
84500813|NCT00532779|168751860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.53||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.53|-0.53|
84500814|NCT00532779|168751860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.27|-0.80|
84672954|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.20|0.8743
84758735|NCT01324232|169273459|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|6.09||||||||6.09|-3.46|
84758736|NCT01324232|169273459|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|1.72||||||||1.72|-7.72|
84500815|NCT00828516|168751925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.001||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 6 acupuncture treatments.||||<0.001
84591041|NCT05525910|168932988|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.41|111.11||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||111.11|81.41|
84591042|NCT05525910|168932988|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.73|99.7||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.70|73.73|
84591043|NCT05525910|168932988|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|108.26||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||108.26|80.09|
84591044|NCT05525910|168932989|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.64|104.78||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||104.78|74.64|
84591045|NCT05525910|168932989|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|114.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||114.06|80.80|
84591046|NCT05525910|168932989|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.15|99.43||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.43|71.15|
84591047|NCT05525910|168932989|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|107.54||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||107.54|76.99|
84591048|NCT05525910|168932990|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.85|103.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.74|65.85|
84591049|NCT05525910|168932990|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.28|119.49||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||119.49|75.28|
84591050|NCT05525910|168932990|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.18|102.07||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||102.07|65.18|
84591051|NCT05525910|168932990|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|110.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||110.57|70.65|
84591052|NCT01180127|168933032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for the interaction of time (baseline vs 12 week) and flavanol group.||||.0001
84591053|NCT01180127|168933033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA model included a main effect for both flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the effect of flavanol on Modbent controlling for baseline Modbent and exercise|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of flavanol||||0.038
84591054|NCT01180127|168933033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA included both a main effect for flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the test of exercise controlling for baseline Modbent and flavanol|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of exercise||||0.815
84758737|NCT01324232|169273459|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.95||||||||5.95|-3.54|
84758738|NCT01324232|169273461|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4778||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.4778
84758739|NCT01324232|169273461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.676|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|7.74||||||||7.74|-6.76|
84758740|NCT01324232|169273461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.663|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.56||||||||5.56|-8.89|
84591055|NCT01180127|168933034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of flavanol||||0.853
84591056|NCT01180127|168933034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of exercise||||0.581
84591057|NCT01180127|168933035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to test for an exercise effect.||||0.237
84591058|NCT01419119|168933036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84591059|NCT01419119|168933037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84591060|NCT01538199|168933038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|We used a modified intent-to-treat approach with LOCF and unpaired Student's t-test (one-way), comparing the change in total severity score.||||||0.04
84591061|NCT01538199|168933038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Modified intent-to-treat approach with lost observation carried forward (LOCF) and a two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score.||||||0.08
84591062|NCT01538199|168933038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.01
84591063|NCT01538199|168933038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.02
84591064|NCT01538199|168933038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||By means of a paired t-test we tested the significance of the change in the mean HAM-D17 total score (from baseline) to week 8. Although the primary comparison was with the last assessment (week 8). A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was also performed to account for one missing value at week 8.||||0.004
84591065|NCT01538199|168933041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|Last observation carried forward (LOCF), one tailed t-test to compare change in QIDS score.||||||0.18
84591066|NCT01538199|168933041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to measure the change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.01
84591067|NCT01538199|168933041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test measuring change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.02
84591068|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|8.89||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|42.42||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of C4d score||42.42|-24.65|0.6498
84591069|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|18.56||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|35.68||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of margination score||35.68|1.43|0.0768
84591070|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.0||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|13.36||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulitis score||13.36|-21.36|0.6928
84591071|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|7.11||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|12.99||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of vasculitis score||12.99|1.23|0.0508
84591072|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.89||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.56||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulosclerosis score||1.56|-11.34|0.2042
84591073|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.22||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.17||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic glomerulopathy score||0.17|-0.61|0.3322
84591074|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|5.67||||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|9.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of interstitial fibrosis score||9.11|-7.77|0.4723
84591075|NCT01147302|168933180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.56||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|16.37||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic vasculitis score||16.37|-7.25|0.5103
84591076|NCT01147302|168933181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.51||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||0.51|-0.35|0.7591
84591077|NCT01147302|168933181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.41||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||0.41|-0.44|0.9533
84591078|NCT01147302|168933182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.45||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|22.24||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||22.24|-19.34|0.9046
84500816|NCT00828516|168751926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001||95.0||||There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 12 treatments|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|||||<0.001
84591079|NCT01147302|168933182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.68||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|19.55||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||19.55|-10.19|0.5895
84591080|NCT01147302|168933183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.56||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|5.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 20||5.11|-2.00|0.4558
84591081|NCT01147302|168933183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.24||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|6.52||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 90||6.52|-6.05|0.9470
84591082|NCT02121509|168933192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.938|106.789|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||106.789|98.938|<0.0001
84591083|NCT02121509|168933192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|106.121|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||106.121|96.990|<0.0001
84591084|NCT02121509|168933193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.449|114.614|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||114.614|98.449|0.0004
84591085|NCT02121509|168933193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.614|116.658|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||116.658|97.614|0.0040
84591086|NCT02121509|168933194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.72|94.03|0.0001
84591087|NCT02121509|168933194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|96.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|103.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.22|89.96|0.0002
84591088|NCT02121509|168933195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.829|115.269|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||115.269|95.829|0.0013
84591089|NCT02121509|168933195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|113.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.749|119.318|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||119.318|108.749|0.0018
84614142|NCT01865448|168977682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72828|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.72828
84614143|NCT04255862|168977683|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.4|123.8||||||||123.8|86.4|
84614144|NCT04255862|168977683|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|135.0||||||||135.0|97.9|
84758741|NCT01324232|169273461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|10.68||||||||10.68|-3.83|
84614145|NCT04255862|168977684|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|121.5||||||||121.5|87.0|
84614146|NCT04255862|168977684|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|131.9||||||||131.9|97.4|
84644517|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.33|-3.59|0.103
84758742|NCT01324232|169273462|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0685|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.0685
84500817|NCT00689273|168751927|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.39|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect. One-sided alpha of 0.1 was used for the analysis.||0.24|-1.23|0.39
84591090|NCT02121509|168933196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.748|107.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||107.487|95.748|<0.0001
84591091|NCT02121509|168933196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|106.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.268|112.763|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||112.763|100.268|0.0002
84500818|NCT00689273|168751928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.42|-0.92|0.63
84591092|NCT02121509|168933197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|110.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.59|94.20|<0.0001
84591093|NCT02121509|168933197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.33|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.70|90.33|0.0001
84591094|NCT00636181|168933199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||PSG outcomes employed analysis of variance for approximately normally distributed outcomes (or outcomes that could be transformed to an approximately normal distribution), and the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normal outcomes.|Kruskal-Wallis|Pairwise differences were determined using Tukey-Kramer test- ANOVA applied or by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon summed rank tests and Bonferroni adjustment.||||||0.3
84591095|NCT04549454|168933214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.985
84591096|NCT04549454|168933215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.694
84591097|NCT04549454|168933216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
84500819|NCT00689273|168751929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.18|-0.51|0.54
84614147|NCT04255862|168977685|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.3|119.7||||||||119.7|90.3|
84614148|NCT04255862|168977685|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|131.4||||||||131.4|99.5|
84614149|NCT03004911|168977722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
84614150|NCT03004911|168977723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
84758743|NCT01324232|169273462|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.85|
84758744|NCT01324232|169273462|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.19|
84614151|NCT03004911|168977724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.747
84614152|NCT03004911|168977725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84614153|NCT03004911|168977726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
84758745|NCT01324232|169273462|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.15||||||||0.15|-2.54|
84758746|NCT01324232|169273463|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4201|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.4201
84758747|NCT01324232|169273463|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.41||||||||2.41|-3.40|
84758748|NCT01324232|169273463|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.97||||||||1.97|-3.76|
84591098|NCT04549454|168933217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
84591099|NCT04549454|168933218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.523
84591100|NCT04549454|168933219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.981
84591101|NCT04549454|168933220|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
84591102|NCT04549454|168933221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
84591103|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rosenberg scores compared baseline to 1 hour by Mann-Whitney U test.||||<0.001
84591104|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mann whitney u to compare rosenberg score baseline to 1 hour||||<.001
84591105|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.001
84591106|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.001
84591107|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.001
84591108|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.01
84591109|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.01
84591110|NCT00867035|168933222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.05
84591111|NCT00867035|168933223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups.||||>0.05
84591112|NCT00867035|168933224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
84591113|NCT00867035|168933225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups||||>0.05
84591114|NCT00867035|168933226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
84758749|NCT01324232|169273463|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|4.34||||||||4.34|-1.42|
84758750|NCT01324232|169273464|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8068||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.8068
84591115|NCT00867035|168933227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups||||>0.05
84591116|NCT00867035|168933228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
84591117|NCT00867035|168933229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
84591118|NCT00867035|168933230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrtations of MM in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
84591119|NCT00867035|168933231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Counts of colony forming units from swab of 1square centimeter area on tongue at 1 week cultured on anaerobe plates for 1 week analyzed between groups||||>0.05
84591120|NCT00867035|168933232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of black colonies out of Total Viable Count cultured on anaerobe agar with lead acetate. Black colonies are those producing sulfides (H2S, MM)and creating black lead sulfide. Analyzed between groups. Groups compared at baseline and 1 week.||||>0.05
84644518|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-2.83|-6.72|< 0.001
84758751|NCT01324232|169273464|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.28||||||||1.28|-3.47|
84758752|NCT01324232|169273464|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.99|
84758753|NCT01324232|169273464|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.69||||||||2.69|-2.07|
84758754|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6315||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Oral responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.6315
84591121|NCT05076045|168933258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Results of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in percentage of correct answers between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.03
84591122|NCT05076045|168933259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in reaction time between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.28
84591123|NCT05076045|168933260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Quick Speech In Noise score between PSAPs and Control. The performance of the QuickSIN for the two sessions (PSAPs, Control) was compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test on paired samples.||||0.005
84591124|NCT05076045|168933261|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
84614154|NCT00799266|168977728|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.414||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.806|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 12||0.806|0.022|0.0392
84614155|NCT00799266|168977729|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.29||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 6||0.673|-0.094|0.1322
84591125|NCT05076045|168933262|SUPERIORITY|This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
84614156|NCT00799266|168977730|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.979||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.869|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 6||3.869|0.089|0.0409
84614157|NCT00799266|168977730|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.155||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|5.798|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 12||5.798|-1.488|0.2340
84614158|NCT00799266|168977731|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|34.058||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.385|113.502|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 6||113.502|-45.385|0.3827
84614159|NCT00799266|168977731|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|80.741||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.602|227.084|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 12||227.084|-65.602|0.2634
84614160|NCT00799266|168977732|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-211.782||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.765|-59.8|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 6||-59.800|-363.765|0.0631
84614161|NCT00799266|168977732|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-381.132||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-565.416|-196.848|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 12||-196.848|-565.416|0.0049
84614162|NCT00799266|168977733|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-11.223||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.595|0.149|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 6||0.149|-22.595|0.2129
84614163|NCT00799266|168977733|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.435||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.96|-6.909|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 12||-6.909|-33.960|0.0215
84614164|NCT00799266|168977734|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.938||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.766|-8.11|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 6||-8.110|-33.766|0.0254
84614165|NCT00799266|168977734|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-27.574||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.037|-16.111|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 12||-16.111|-39.037|0.0002
84614166|NCT00799266|168977735|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.874||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.931|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 6||0.182|-3.931|0.2178
84614167|NCT00799266|168977735|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.837||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.103|0.429|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 12||0.429|-4.103|0.1840
84614168|NCT00799266|168977736|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures at Month 12 were presented by treatment group and between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||0.2258|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12||||0.2258
84614169|NCT00799266|168977737|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.018||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.019|||ANCOVA|||Vertebral morphometry at Month 12||0.019|-0.055|0.3180
84614170|NCT00799266|168977738|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 3||5.20|0.04|0.5226
84591126|NCT05076045|168933263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.36
84591127|NCT05076045|168933264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Cumulative link mixed model|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in listening effort between PSAPs and Control. The listening effort score was analyzed using a cumulative link mixed model. A logit link function with flexible thresholds was used. The model included Session (PSAPs, Control) and Block (1, 2, 3) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||<0.001
84591128|NCT01347060|168933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The P-value relates to differences in combined inpatient/emergency department.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline differences||||0.93|0.68|0.0051
84591129|NCT01347060|168933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|883.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|731.66|1041.69||The P-value is on the adjusted difference in total asthma costs.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Model with a log-link and a gamma distribution adjusting for differences at baseline||||1041.69|731.66|0.001
84591130|NCT01347060|168933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84591131|NCT02735421|168933298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84591132|NCT02921789|168933311|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
84591133|NCT02921789|168933312|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
84591134|NCT02921789|168933312|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|11.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||11.0|-35.8|0.3890
84591135|NCT02921789|168933313|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
84614171|NCT00799266|168977738|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||\>999.99 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 6||999.99|0.01|0.5220
84591136|NCT02921789|168933313|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752||95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
84591137|NCT02921789|168933313|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|29.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||29.0|-18.9|0.7597
84591138|NCT02921789|168933314|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||1||95.0|-24.9|24.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-24.9|1.0
84591139|NCT02921789|168933315|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.9||||1||95.0|-30.2|22.4||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||22.4|-30.2|1.0
84614172|NCT00799266|168977738|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 9||6.22|0.04|0.6019
84614173|NCT00799266|168977738|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|0.9652|0.01|999.99||0.45 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 12||999.99|0.01|0.9652
84614174|NCT00799266|168977739|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.04||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width at Month 12||0.09|-0.17|0.5165
84614175|NCT02610777|168977758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.286||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.286|0.577|0.464
84644519|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.38|-4.20|0.019
84591140|NCT02921789|168933315|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.772||95.0|-31.7|19.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||19.3|-31.7|0.7720
84591141|NCT02921789|168933315|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.772||95.0|-32.6|17.6||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||17.6|-32.6|0.7720
84591142|NCT02896257|168933316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.38|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||5.38|2.50|<0.001
84591143|NCT02896257|168933317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.47|0.44|0.47
84591144|NCT02896257|168933318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.96|0.20|0.42
84591145|NCT03423602|168933327|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a Meta-Analysis of a focused systematic literature review from a comparable patient population, the estimated major vascular access site complication rate or PGsafety for the conservative Random Effect Model is 0.125 with a 95% Confidence Interval of 0.09 to 0.17. Given that the upper bound was 0.17 this justified the use of 0.13 as a valid PGsafety plus a non-inferiority margin of 0.04 yielding an overall non-inferiority limit (NLs) of 0.17 for Safety. Study power is greater than 90%|Wilson's exact test|0.0487|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0487|||Wilson's exact test|All 75 enrolled subjects, regardless of their enrolment status at 1-month post implantation, including all reported safety data where included.||"The test for non-inferiority for safety was based on a one-sided test (at the 0.025 significance level) for a binomial proportion with hypotheses:~H0s: Psafety ≥ NLs versus H1s: Psafety \< NLs Where: Psafety is the actual proportion of device related major vascular access site complications within the study population; and NLs is the non-inferiority limit for proportion of expected major vascular access site complications associated with cut-down and suture closure."||0.0487||<.0001
84591146|NCT03257358|168933343|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-413.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-422.7||||ANCOVA|||||-404.|-422.7|
84591147|NCT03257358|168933343|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|||||3.6|-3.9|
84591148|NCT03257358|168933344|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-368.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-382.8|354.7|||ANCOVA|||||354.7|-382.8|
84591149|NCT03257358|168933344|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-7.1|
84591150|NCT03257358|168933345|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-57.2|
84591151|NCT03257358|168933345|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-7.6|
84591152|NCT03257358|168933346|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||||-40.3|-46.9|
84591153|NCT03257358|168933346|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||||1.7|-3.0|
84591154|NCT03257358|168933347|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-35.3|||ANCOVA|||||-35.3|-37.2|
84591155|NCT03257358|168933347|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|
84591156|NCT03257358|168933348|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-51.3|||ANCOVA|||||-51.3|-55.1|
84591157|NCT03257358|168933348|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|
84614176|NCT02610777|168977759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.061||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival (EFS)||1.061|0.469|=0.092
84614177|NCT02610777|168977762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.579||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.579|0.200|=0.267
84591158|NCT03257358|168933349|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-140.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.8|-135.0|||ANCOVA|||||-135.0|-145.8|
84591159|NCT03257358|168933349|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-1.9|
84591160|NCT03257358|168933350|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-85.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|-81.4|||ANCOVA|||||-81.4|-89.0|
84591161|NCT03257358|168933350|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|
84591162|NCT03257358|168933351|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-51.1|
84591163|NCT03257358|168933351|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-16.3|
84591164|NCT03257358|168933352|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-181.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.3|-179.0|||ANCOVA|||||-179.0|-183.3|
84591165|NCT03257358|168933352|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.1|
84591166|NCT03257358|168933353|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-53.9|||ANCOVA|||||-53.9|-56.5|
84591167|NCT03257358|168933353|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|
84591168|NCT03257358|168933354|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-8.0|
84591169|NCT03257358|168933354|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.3|
84591170|NCT03257358|168933355|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|96.7|||ANCOVA|||||96.7|42.1|
84591171|NCT03257358|168933355|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|117.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|136.9|||ANCOVA|||||136.9|97.1|
84591172|NCT03257358|168933356|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-782.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1058.2|-507.1|||ANCOVA|||||-507.1|-1058.2|
84591173|NCT03257358|168933356|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-485.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|91.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-667.3|-304.4|||ANCOVA|||||-304.4|-667.3|
84591174|NCT03257358|168933357|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-48.2|
84591175|NCT03257358|168933357|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.9|||ANCOVA|||||-14.9|-36.7|
84591176|NCT03257358|168933358|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-888.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-914.6|-862.7|||ANCOVA|||||-862.7|-914.6|
84591177|NCT03257358|168933358|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|-17.6|
84591178|NCT03257358|168933359|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-37.42|||ANCOVA|||||-37.42|-41.59|
84591179|NCT03257358|168933359|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|-0.87|
84591180|NCT03257358|168933360|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-248.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.7|-219.2|||ANCOVA|||||-219.2|-278.7|
84591181|NCT03257358|168933360|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.4|-25.1|
84591182|NCT03257358|168933361|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|3.13|
84500820|NCT00689273|168751929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.21|-0.51|0.60
84591183|NCT03257358|168933361|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-0.68|
84591184|NCT03257358|168933362|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-231.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.5|-227.6|||ANCOVA|||||-227.6|-234.5|
84591185|NCT03257358|168933362|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-5.2|
84591186|NCT03257358|168933363|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-9.21|
84591187|NCT03257358|168933363|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.17|
84591188|NCT00339040|168933406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84591189|NCT00688467|168933434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|26.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.377||0.411|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.411
84591190|NCT00688467|168933435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|23.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306||0.292|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.292
84758755|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|7.93||||||||7.93|-3.19|
84500821|NCT00689273|168751930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.94|-3.69|0.44
84591191|NCT00688467|168933437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.261||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
84591192|NCT00688467|168933438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.398||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.645
84591193|NCT03012334|168933452|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|9.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.33||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.33|7.39|<.001
84591194|NCT03012334|168933452|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|15.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|17.82||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.82|12.87|<0.001
84591195|NCT03012334|168933452|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|21.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|23.52||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.52|18.60|<0.001
84591196|NCT03012334|168933452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|25.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.18|20.23|<0.001
84591197|NCT03012334|168933452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-10.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.38|-15.32|<0.001
84591198|NCT03012334|168933452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-9.84|<0.001
84591199|NCT03012334|168933452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.65||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-4.11|0.19
84591200|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1744|2.0335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0335|1.1744|<0.0001
84591201|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8306|2.6926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6926|1.8306|<.0001
84591202|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4239|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2800|2.4239|<0.0001
84591203|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9568|3.8193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8193|2.9568|<0.0001
84591204|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2137|-1.3546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3546|-2.2137|<0.0001
84591205|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5574|-0.6956|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6956|-1.5574|<0.0001
84591206|NCT03012334|168933453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9642|-0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1081|-0.9642|0.0142
84591207|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6895|-6.5006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.5006|-18.6895|<.0001
84591208|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3631|-18.1357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1357|-30.3631|<.0001
84591209|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.442|-22.2897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.2897|-34.4420|<.0001
84591210|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5068|-24.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.2770|-36.5068|<0.0001
84758756|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.45||||||||6.45|-3.83|
84758757|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.94||||||||6.94|-4.01|
84758758|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Written responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.1485
84591211|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7029|23.8908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.8908|11.7029|<.0001
84591212|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.1||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|12.2554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2554|0.0297|0.0489
84591213|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.0||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|8.1021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1021|-4.0500|0.5123
84591214|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4956|-20.3628|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.3628|-32.4956|<.0001
84591215|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.927|-31.7537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7537|-43.9270|<.0001
84591216|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-46.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8147|-40.7268|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.7268|-52.8147|<.0001
84591217|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.649|-46.4682|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.4682|-58.6490|<0.0001
84591218|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0635|32.1953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.1953|20.0635|<.0001
84591219|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6325|20.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8040|8.6325|<.0001
84591220|NCT03012334|168933455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|11.8317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8317|-0.2560|0.0605
84591221|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.14|<0.001
84591222|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.28|-8.58|<0.001
84591223|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.23|-10.52|<0.001
84591224|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.51|-12.81|<0.001
84591225|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.31|5.02|<0.001
84591226|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.88|2.58|<0.001
84591227|NCT03012334|168933456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|0.64|<0.007
84591228|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2198|1.6583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6583|1.2198|<0.0001
84591229|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7981|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2380|1.7981|<0.0001
84591230|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3536|2.7909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7909|2.3536|<0.0001
84591231|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3331|2.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7730|2.3331|<0.0001
84591232|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3333|-0.8948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8948|-1.3333|<0.0001
84591233|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7549|-0.3151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3151|-0.7549|<0.0001
84591234|NCT03012334|168933457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.019||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1995|0.2379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2379|-0.1995|0.8629
84591235|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0849|0.2746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2746|0.0849|0.0002
84591236|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|0.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3985|0.2082|<.0001
84591237|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.4662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4662|0.2770|<.0001
84591238|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.6983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6983|0.5080|<.0001
84591239|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5183|-0.3286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3286|-0.5183|<.0001
84591240|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3949|-0.2047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2047|-0.3949|<0.0001
84591241|NCT03012334|168933459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3261|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1370|-0.3261|<0.0001
84591242|NCT01343888|168933466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.0||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.0|17.9|<0.0001
84591243|NCT01343888|168933466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's methond|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|38.2||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||38.2|19.0|<0.0001
84591244|NCT01343888|168933466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.8|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||5.8|-7.9|
84591245|NCT01343888|168933467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|36.7||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||36.7|17.5|<0.0001
84591246|NCT01343888|168933467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.4||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.4|18.2|<0.0001
84591247|NCT01343888|168933467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.3|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||6.3|-7.6|
84591248|NCT01103414|168933497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-22.4|0.1819
84758759|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.85||||||||4.85|-1.31|
84758760|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.49||||||||1.49|-4.86|
84758761|NCT01324232|169273465|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||||||||1.41|-4.71|
84591249|NCT01103414|168933497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-31.4|0.0057
84758762|NCT01324232|169273466|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1404|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 158 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 22.||||=0.1404
84500822|NCT00689273|168751930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-5.00|0.23
84591250|NCT01103414|168933497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-42.3|<0.0001
84591251|NCT01103414|168933497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-18.2|||ANCOVA|||||-18.2|-43.8|<0.0001
84591252|NCT01103414|168933498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0273
84591253|NCT01103414|168933498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-1.13|<0.0001
84591254|NCT01103414|168933498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.21|<0.0001
84591255|NCT01103414|168933498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
84591256|NCT01365793|168933527|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests two null hypotheses. The first of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the Rapid Rehydration and Slower Rehydration groups - is reported here. The analysis of the second hypothesis is reported below.||||0.34
84644520|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.22|-7.06|< 0.001
84758763|NCT01324232|169273466|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 152 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 50.||||=0.0805
84591257|NCT01365793|168933527|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests the two null hypotheses. The second of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the 0.45% Saline group and the 0.90% Saline group - is reported here. The analysis of the first hypothesis is reported above.||||0.43
84591258|NCT04436744|168933568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0433
84591259|NCT04436744|168933569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-0.93||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||12.81|-14.66|0.8272
84591260|NCT04436744|168933570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rate|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|17.97||||||||17.97|-4.25|
84591261|NCT01120405|168933580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of xenon over sevoflurane is accepted if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI around the estimated difference is below the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference of proportion|0.19||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.07|||Difference of proportion|||"The percentage of patients with MN during the 3 postoperative days in the sevoflurane group and in the xenon group was expected to be 20%. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%. Thus the sample size to prove non-inferiority was 252 patients per group with α = 0.025, a power of 0.80 and the following hypotheses: H0: Px-Pc ≥ 10%; H1: Px-Pc \< 10%.~As it was expected that approximately 15% of patients would be non-evaluable, a total of 600 patients were included."||7.07|-6.70|0.0052
84591262|NCT01120405|168933581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.25|||Difference of proportion|||||5.25|-3.90|0.7715
84591263|NCT01120405|168933582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.54|||Difference of proportion|||||2.54|-1.19|0.4763
84591264|NCT01120405|168933583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|-0.34||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.14|||Difference of proportion|||||1.14|-1.82|0.6533
84591265|NCT01120405|168933584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Difference of proportion|||||1.61|-0.26|0.1559
84591266|NCT01120405|168933586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.69||||0.6056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|8.13|||Difference of proportion|||||8.13|-4.74|0.6056
84591267|NCT01854528|168933592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|47.42|||Stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value for the difference in sustained virologic response rates 12 weeks after the last dose between treatment groups with HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a) from stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel with previous type of response to pegIFN/RBV treatment (relapser, partial or null responder) as strata.||47.42|21.09|<0.001
84591268|NCT01854528|168933593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|11.85|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||11.85|5.43|<0.001
84591269|NCT01854528|168933594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|9.98|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||9.98|5.11|<0.001
84758764|NCT01324232|169273466|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 185 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 85.||||=0.0551
84500823|NCT00689273|168751931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||1.41|-4.94|0.48
84591270|NCT01854528|168933595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|435.1|||Regression, Logistic|||P-value from logistic regression model including treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype, and previous response to pegIFN/RBV treatment as predictors.||435.1|6.9|<0.001
84591271|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
84591272|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
84591273|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
84591274|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||5|-4|
84591275|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||10|1|
84591276|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|-6|
84591277|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||-10|-21|
84591278|NCT00518180|168933616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
84591279|NCT00518180|168933617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to diphteria antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|1|
84614178|NCT02610777|168977763|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|9.61|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|28.04||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.04|-8.83|=0.312
84591280|NCT00518180|168933617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to tetanus antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-1|
84591281|NCT00518180|168933626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PT antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.9|0.72|
84500824|NCT00689273|168751931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.61|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.57|-6.61|0.28
84500825|NCT00689273|168751932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.52|-1.81|0.48
84500826|NCT00689273|168751932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.20|-2.45|0.28
84500827|NCT00689273|168751933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.04|-0.46|0.28
84500828|NCT00689273|168751933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.14|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.78|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.06|-0.78|0.14
84500829|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.19|-0.52|0.55
84500830|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.81|0.11
84500831|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.00|-0.71|0.20
84500832|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.02|-0.69|0.23
84591282|NCT00518180|168933626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PRN antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.81|0.58|
84591283|NCT00518180|168933626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alon, for FHA antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.76|0.58|
84591284|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups over 4 weeks of treatment||||0.238
84591285|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.004
84591286|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.277
84591287|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.001
84500833|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.13|-0.58|0.41
84500834|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.22|-0.49|0.62
84591288|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.055
84591289|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.001
84591290|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.330
84591291|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||<0.001
84591292|NCT00508482|168933646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.018
84591293|NCT00508482|168933647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
84591294|NCT00508482|168933648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.271
84591295|NCT00508482|168933649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84591296|NCT00508482|168933649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.580
84591297|NCT00508482|168933649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
84591298|NCT00508482|168933649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
84591299|NCT00508482|168933650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.167
84591300|NCT00508482|168933651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
84591301|NCT00508482|168933652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84591302|NCT00508482|168933652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.024
84591303|NCT00508482|168933652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
84591304|NCT00508482|168933652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
84591305|NCT00508482|168933653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84591306|NCT00508482|168933653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.627
84591307|NCT00508482|168933653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84591308|NCT00508482|168933653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84591309|NCT00508482|168933654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84591310|NCT00508482|168933654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
84591311|NCT00508482|168933654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84591312|NCT00508482|168933654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84591313|NCT00508482|168933655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84591314|NCT00508482|168933655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.507
84591315|NCT00508482|168933655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84591316|NCT00508482|168933655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84614179|NCT02610777|168977764|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|5.63||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|24.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||24.44|-13.19|0.560
84614180|NCT02610777|168977765|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|8.64|||=|0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|26.38||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||26.38|-9.09|=0.343
84644521|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.22|-3.16|0.383
84644522|NCT01931670|169024652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.87|-5.17|0.006
84644523|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.84|-0.81|0.975
84644524|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.80|-0.83|0.969
84644525|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.54|-0.99|0.569
84758765|NCT01324232|169273467|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9207
84591317|NCT01227057|168933656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.029||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.029
84614181|NCT02610777|168977766|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-18.82|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|15.26||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||15.26|-52.91|=0.296
84758766|NCT00393887|169273472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Two-sided Fisher's exact test||||0.11
84758767|NCT01732796|169273473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|86.2|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||86.2|76.6|<0.0001
84758768|NCT01732796|169273473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|71.7||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|77.4|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||77.4|66.1|0.3989
84758769|NCT01732796|169273474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|10.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.8|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||||18.8|2.8|0.0040
84758770|NCT01732796|169273475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.5|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||13.5|-1.5|0.0575
84758771|NCT01732796|169273476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|9.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.1|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||18.1|1.7|0.0089
84500835|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-0.55|0.49
84758772|NCT02324920|169273479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.46|||Regression, Cox||||Additional models were implemented to control for country and investigational sites effect on primary endpoint.|0.46|0.11|<0.001
84758773|NCT02324920|169273480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.27|0.002
84758774|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.74|0.113
84758775|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.19|<0.001
84758776|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.31|<0.001
84758777|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.31|0.688
84758778|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.76|0.035
84758779|NCT00876187|169273481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.006
84591318|NCT01227057|168933657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.04||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.04
84591319|NCT01227057|168933658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.|||||>|0.1||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|ANOVA|||||||>.1
84591320|NCT03710889|168933675|OTHER|Within treatment paired t-tests were used to compare the differences in dynamic indices between Baseline and Month 3 using the Bone-Biopsy Population. If the normality assumption is not satisfied at the 0.01 significance level and visual inspection of the data deems it necessary, Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. A 2-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84591321|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-7.34|<0.001
84591322|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.70|-12.21|<0.001
84591323|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.08|-14.42|<0.001
84591324|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.30|-16.90|<0.001
84591325|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-14.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.58|-18.86|<0.001
84591326|NCT04881760|168933682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.13|-17.57|<0.001
84591327|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.20|-8.94|<0.001
84591328|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.78|-17.64|<0.001
84591329|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.40|-19.05|<0.001
84591330|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-16.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.51|-22.73|<0.001
84591331|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|-18.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.51|-25.05|<0.001
84591332|NCT04881760|168933683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-19.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.31|-24.92|<0.001
84591333|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||49|17|<0.001
84591334|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|77.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||77|45|<0.001
84591335|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|54|<0.001
84591336|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
84614182|NCT02610777|168977767|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|30.81||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.81|-4.49|=0.152
84758780|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.57|0.221
84591337|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
84591338|NCT04881760|168933684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||82|59|<0.001
84591339|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|54.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||54|20|<0.001
84591340|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||76|44|<0.001
84591341|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|57|<0.001
84591342|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
84591343|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
84591344|NCT04881760|168933685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|67|<0.001
84591345|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||33|11|<0.001
84591346|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|73.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||73|38|<0.001
84614183|NCT02610777|168977768|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|10.53|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|30.18||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.18|-9.13|=0.301
84500836|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.10
84591347|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|53|<0.001
84591348|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|80.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|93.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||93|66|<0.001
84591349|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|91.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||100|83|<0.001
84591350|NCT04881760|168933686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|87.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|96.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||96|78|<0.001
84591351|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||31|5|0.008
84591352|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|48|<0.001
84591353|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|51|<0.001
84591354|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|69|<0.001
84591355|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|71|<0.001
84591356|NCT04881760|168933687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|84.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|74|<0.001
84500837|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.69|0.24
84500838|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.28|-1.01|0.02
84591357|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|1|0.029
84591358|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||43|11|<0.001
84591359|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|60.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||60|26|<0.001
84591360|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||66|33|<0.001
84591361|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|51|<0.001
84591362|NCT04881760|168933688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||80|56|<0.001
84591363|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24|6|0.002
84591364|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||70|36|<0.001
84614184|NCT02610777|168977769|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|35.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||35.44|-9.12|=0.254
84591365|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|79.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||79|47|<0.001
84591366|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87|55|<0.001
84591367|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||89|62|<0.001
84591368|NCT04881760|168933689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|92.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||92|71|<0.001
84591369|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-8.36|<0.001
84591370|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.30|-13.34|<0.001
84591371|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.05|-15.99|<0.001
84591372|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.45|-18.41|<0.001
84591373|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.04|-20.93|<0.001
84591374|NCT04881760|168933690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.40|-19.11|<0.001
84591375|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-10.18|<0.001
84591376|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.60|-19.35|<0.001
84591377|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-13.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.39|-21.19|<0.001
84591378|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-18.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.12|-25.25|<0.001
84591379|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|-20.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.36|-27.72|<0.001
84591380|NCT04881760|168933691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-21.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.27|-27.40|<0.001
84591381|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.80|<0.001
84591382|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.29|-4.66|<0.001
84591383|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.82|-5.46|<0.001
84591384|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-6.34|<0.001
84591385|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-7.17|<0.001
84591386|NCT04881760|168933692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-6.59|<0.001
84591387|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-3.42|<0.001
84591388|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-6.81|<0.001
84591389|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-7.23|<0.001
84500839|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.21|-0.93|0.04
84591390|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.18|-8.62|<0.001
84591391|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.05|-9.55|<0.001
84591392|NCT04881760|168933693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.35|-9.49|<0.001
84644526|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.37|-1.17|0.311
84591393|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-5.23|0.022
84591394|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-5.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.13|-10.32|<0.001
84591395|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-12.47|<0.001
84591396|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.56|-13.72|<0.001
84591397|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.90|-14.87|<0.001
84591398|NCT04881760|168933694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-9.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.43|-14.04|<0.001
84591399|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.77|0.010
84591400|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-15.54|<0.001
84591401|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-16.11|<0.001
84591402|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.43|-19.33|<0.001
84591403|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|-12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.31|-19.39|<0.001
84591404|NCT04881760|168933695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|-13.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.78|-20.13|<0.001
84591405|NCT00902330|168933707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Spearman correlation coefficients were computed for the biomarkers. P-Values shown are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P less than 0.05. This information applies to all rows listed in the table.||||<0.05
84591406|NCT04290624|168933736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.40|<0.0001
84591407|NCT04290624|168933737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-19.1|-38.1|<0.0001
84591408|NCT04290624|168933737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.7|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-17.7|-38.2|<0.0001
84591409|NCT04290624|168933738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.27|-0.52|<0.0001
84591410|NCT04290624|168933738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.25|-0.47|<0.0001
84591411|NCT04290624|168933739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.56|-1.14|<0.0001
84591412|NCT04290624|168933739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.67|-1.23|<0.0001
84500840|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.23|-0.95|0.04
84500841|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.70|0.24
84500842|NCT00689273|168751934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.11
84500843|NCT00689273|168751935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Reduction||||0.22
84500844|NCT00689273|168751935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Reduction||||0.38
84500845|NCT00689273|168751936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.07|-0.27|0.45
84500846|NCT00689273|168751936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.05|-0.29|0.37
84591413|NCT04290624|168933740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.61|-1.22|<0.0001
84500847|NCT04876482|168751960|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"We hypothesized that the improvements in the AHI would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).~."||||<0.05
84591414|NCT04290624|168933740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.74|-1.36|<0.0001
84591415|NCT04290624|168933741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.41|<0.0001
84591416|NCT04290624|168933742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.2|-0.9|0.0039
84591417|NCT04290624|168933742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84591418|NCT04290624|168933743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.01|-0.21|0.0367
84591419|NCT04290624|168933743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||Van-Elteren test|||At Week 12||-0.01|-0.14|0.0725
84591420|NCT04290624|168933744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.13|-0.43|0.0006
84591421|NCT04290624|168933744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.11|-0.41|0.0009
84591422|NCT04290624|168933745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.15|-0.62|0.0020
84591423|NCT04290624|168933745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.16|-0.52|0.0005
84591424|NCT01847443|168933746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.147|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.147|1.070|
84591425|NCT01847443|168933751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.061|1.137|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.137|1.061|
84614185|NCT02610777|168977770|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.71|||=|0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|28.92||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.92|-38.33|=0.787
84591426|NCT01847443|168933752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.002|1.089|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.089|1.002|
84591427|NCT01847443|168933753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.028|1.116|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.116|1.028|
84644527|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.42|-0.56|0.398
84500848|NCT04876482|168751961|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the upper airway volume would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500849|NCT04876482|168751962|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the minimal area on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls)||||<0.05
84500850|NCT04876482|168751963|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the anteror to posterior distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500851|NCT04876482|168751964|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the lateral distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84591428|NCT03571971|168933754|SUPERIORITY|Based on published data, we conservatively estimated that the standard exercise (SE) group and load modification (LM) group would have a 20% and 50% treatment success rate, respectively. We defined treatment success as either: 1) at least 'moderately better' on the Global Rating of Change scale or 2) ≥2 point decrease on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. With one-side type I error=0.1, power=80%, and allocation ratio is 1:1, we estimated the need for 22 participants in each group (total N=44).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||3.35|0.36|0.879
84500852|NCT04876482|168751965|OTHER|Baseline characteristics among the study groups were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables. McNemar chi-square test used for within-group analysis.|Number and percentage|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that TORS followed by OPR would improve upper airway obstruction more compared with TORS alone and conservative treatment (control).||||<0.05
84500853|NCT04876482|168751966|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the jaw opening muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500854|NCT04876482|168751967|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue protrusion muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500855|NCT04876482|168751968|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue elevation muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500856|NCT04876482|168751969|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue depression muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500857|NCT04876482|168751970|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue lateralization muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
84500858|NCT02413879|168752023|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84500859|NCT02413879|168752025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
84500860|NCT00337129|168752032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response probability|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||two-stage binomial|||Null hypothesis: response probability \< 5%; alternative hypothesis: response probability \> 20%. A two-stage design was used. If no responses among the first 20 patients, the study would be terminated with the conclusion that E7389 is inactive. However, if at least one response was seen then an additional 20 patients would be accrued. Five or more responses out of 40 would be considered evidence that E7389 warranted further study. This design had a significance level of 5% and a power of 92%.||0.17|0.01|
84500861|NCT00563524|168752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5237|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.5237
84500862|NCT00563524|168752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8463|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.8463
84614186|NCT02610777|168977771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789|||=|0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.02||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||2.020|0.308|=0.620
84644528|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.84|-1.15|0.761
84500863|NCT00563524|168752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4596|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4596
84500864|NCT00563524|168752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6345|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6345
84500865|NCT00563524|168752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6235|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6235
84500866|NCT00563524|168752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3833|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.3833
84500867|NCT00563524|168752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4909|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4909
84500868|NCT00563524|168752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.2200
84500869|NCT00563524|168752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4183|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4183
84500870|NCT00563524|168752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4650
84500871|NCT00563524|168752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7051|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.7051
84500872|NCT00563524|168752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.1072
84500873|NCT00563524|168752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0020
84500874|NCT00563524|168752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0079
84500875|NCT00563524|168752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0308
84500876|NCT03712137|168752072|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|30.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|46.54|||Multiple Imputation|The procedure used to perform Multiple Imputation is PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation||||46.54|15.33|0.0001
84500877|NCT03712137|168752075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.45|51.28|||Paired T-test|||||51.28|40.45|<0.0001
84614187|NCT02610777|168977772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.653||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.653|0.313|=0.436
84614188|NCT02610777|168977773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.662||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.662|0.395|=0.565
84500878|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (poor effort)|t-test, 2 sided|||this p value is calculated for poor effort||||<0.0001
84500879|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (hyperventilation - immediate)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (immediate)||||<0.0001
84500880|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 5 minutes)||||<0.0001
84500881|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (10 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 10 minutes)||||<0.0001
84500882|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (immediately after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (immediate)||||<0.0001
84500883|NCT02580318|168752088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (5 minutes)||||<0.0001
84500884|NCT00948025|168752197|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test was used to derive p-values.||||||0.0433||||||"1. a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.~2. the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"1. P-value comparing static 2-point discrimination per visit derived from mixed linear modeling of longitudinal data.~2. P-Value is based on Mann-Whitney U test."||||0.0433
84500885|NCT02613416|168752220|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||The p value was calculated.|Blyth-Still Casella Confidence Interval|||The primary hypothesis for this early phase study was that at least 30% of women would experience a \>5% relative decrease in their breast density after 6 months of treatment with denosumab 120 mg subcutaneous dose once a month.||||0.026
84500886|NCT01398982|168752244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on our published prospective, nonrandomized study using TAP block in abdominally-based autologous tissue breast reconstruction, 40 patients per group would achieve 85% power to detect a 65% reduction in mean total opioid consumption between the control and study groups (significance level alpha = 0.05; using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test).||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84500887|NCT01791127|168752259|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||||||<0.0001
84614189|NCT02610777|168977774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||=|0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|3.109||P-value comparing duration of CR in low blast AML between treatment groups is based on unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||3.109|0.057|=0.383
84591429|NCT04067492|168933761|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.63||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|53.05||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||53.05|4.21|0.1331
84591430|NCT04067492|168933761|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|26.5||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||26.50|-30.60|0.1331
84591431|NCT04067492|168933761|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|46.08||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||46.08|-12.67|0.1331
84591432|NCT04067492|168933761|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|31.33||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\]|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||31.33|-25.10|0.1331
84591433|NCT04067492|168933761|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|36.14||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||36.14|-24.22|0.1331
84591434|NCT04067492|168933768|OTHER|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
84591435|NCT04067492|168933768|OTHER|||||||0.9012|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9012
84591436|NCT04067492|168933770|OTHER||difference in proportions|63.5||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|88.6|||Fisher Exact|||||88.6|19.9|0.0066
84591437|NCT04067492|168933770|OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.6|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|45.5|||Fisher Exact|||||45.5|-50.1|>0.9999
84591438|NCT04067492|168933770|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
84591439|NCT04067492|168933770|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
84591440|NCT04067492|168933770|OTHER||difference in proportions|17.8||||0.5804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|67.8|||Fisher Exact|||||67.8|-33.7|0.5804
84758781|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|<0.001
84614190|NCT02610777|168977775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.206|||=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.081||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\>1 for the treatment indicates a shorter time to first CR, CRi or PR in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||2.081|0.699|=0.498
84500888|NCT01791127|168752260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 2 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
84644529|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.04|-0.89|0.874
84614191|NCT02610777|168977776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.62||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to Subsequent Therapy in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||3.620|0.226|=0.888
84614192|NCT02610777|168977777|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|19.231|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.925|45.386||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBCs-transfusion Independence||45.386|-6.925|=0.162
84614193|NCT02610777|168977777|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|20.0|||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.381|66.381||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||66.381|-26.381|=0.454
84614194|NCT02610777|168977779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.198||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to PD, Relapse, or Death in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||1.198|0.521|=0.266
84614195|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.35||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter : Eosinophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.05, 0.41)|0.35|0.06|<0.001
84614196|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.36||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.86||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Neutrophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.94, 1.97)|1.86|0.99|0.106
84614197|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.12||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD3+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.86, 1.46)|1.40|0.90|0.389
84614198|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.18||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.48||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD4+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.90, 1.55)|1.48|0.94|0.216
84614199|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.09||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Tryptase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.61, 1.15)|1.09|0.64|0.260
84614200|NCT03688074|168977792|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.19||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.92||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Chymase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.67, 2.10)|1.92|0.74|0.546
84614201|NCT03928717|168977795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84614202|NCT03928717|168977796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84614203|NCT00660179|168977797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.516|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.516|0.0108
84614204|NCT00660179|168977797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.392|0.762|||Log Rank|||||0.762|0.392|<0.0001
84614205|NCT00660179|168977798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.462|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.970|0.462|0.0146
84500889|NCT01791127|168752261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 3 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (successful sensing and pacing rate at 12 months) to 97.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
84614206|NCT00660179|168977798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.335|0.747|||Log Rank|||||0.747|0.335|<0.0001
84614207|NCT00660179|168977799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.477|1.976|||Log Rank|||||1.976|0.477|0.9249
84614208|NCT00660179|168977799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.287|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.287|0.2037
84614209|NCT00660179|168977800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.653|1.673|||Log Rank|||||1.673|0.653|0.8312
84614210|NCT00660179|168977800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.464|1.282|||Log Rank|||||1.282|0.464|0.2509
84614211|NCT05224453|168977810|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-3.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.78|-6.21|<0.05
84614212|NCT05224453|168977811|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.86|-6.53|<0.05
84614213|NCT05224453|168977811|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-3.84|<0.05
84614214|NCT02974257|168977822|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model with an independent variance-covariance matrix to account for the correlation of within-patient repeated measures was used and linear contrasts were used to estimate the mean difference between treatment arms at 48 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.1||Global p-value from the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|If patients died before 48 hours lactate levels were imputed by carrying forward the last known value before the event with a 20% increase||||6.1|-3.1|0.9
84644530|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.01|-1.85|0.048
84644531|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.35|-2.14|0.16
84644532|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.33|-2.14|0.152
84591441|NCT00956384|168933794|SUPERIORITY|A minimally clinically important difference of 4 as statistically significant at the 0.05 level (two-sided), with a power equal to 0.85.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|5.19||Threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||For the comparison of mean BREAST-Q subdomain score at each timepoint, Mann-Whitney U test was used for skewed data, while independent t-test was used for not skewed data. We investigated the possibly variable effects of the treatment group differences across multiple time-points, namely 2 weeks after mastectomy, at 6 months and at 12 months following the reconstruction procedure. A linear regression model was used to account for the correlation between the three time-points within each patient||5.19|-10.57|0.05
84591442|NCT00956384|168933795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We assessed the effect of the surgical method on the occurrences of any complications versus none via logistic regression, and results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs.||||<0.05
84591443|NCT03950856|168933800|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.8|-3.3|0.538
84591444|NCT03950856|168933800|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|21.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||21.4|7.9|<0.001
84591445|NCT03950856|168933800|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.0||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.3|-4.3|0.686
84591446|NCT03950856|168933802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Arthralgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.7|-1.9|0.272
84591447|NCT03950856|168933802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Fatigue: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.5|-6.7|0.812
84591448|NCT03950856|168933802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Headache: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.0|-5.6|0.947
84591449|NCT03950856|168933802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Myalgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||10.4|-0.9|0.091
84591450|NCT03950856|168933804|OTHER||Miettinen & Nurminen|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||0.2|-1.6|
84591451|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.83|<0.001
84591452|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
84591453|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|<0.001
84591454|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.75|<0.001
84591455|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
84591456|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.95|<0.001
84591457|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.70|<0.001
84644533|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.15|-1.81|0.095
84644534|NCT01931670|169024653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.07|-1.79|0.071
84644535|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.34|-4.01|0.098
84591458|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.85|<0.001
84591459|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.03|<0.001
84591460|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.70|<0.001
84591461|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.83|<0.001
84591462|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.42|0.98|<0.001
84500890|NCT01791127|168752262|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint 4 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|On April 15, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing SIELLO Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
84500891|NCT02229487|168752298|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.209
84500892|NCT00589693|168752309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority will be established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in clinical cure rate (doripenem minus imipenem-cilastatin) is greater than 15%|Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|3.8|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||Null Hypothesis: The clinical cure rate of doripenem assessed at the EOT visit is more than 15% inferior to that of imipenem-cilastatin||3.8|-26.3|
84500893|NCT00589693|168752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|19.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||19.5|-57.2|
84500894|NCT00589693|168752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.7|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||11.7|-23.0|
84500895|NCT00589693|168752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
84500896|NCT00589693|168752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|18.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||18.5|-5.0|
84500897|NCT03231709|168752314|OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||Mainland-Gart Test|||||||0.0141
84500898|NCT02609178|168752318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.003||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
84500899|NCT02609178|168752318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|stated above in statistical analysis 1||||||0.366||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.366
84591463|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
84591464|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
84614215|NCT02974257|168977823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||AUC-VO2 normally distributed, used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2 between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.56|-1.29|0.42
84500900|NCT02609178|168752318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.002
84500901|NCT02609178|168752318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.054||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.054
84500902|NCT02609178|168752319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.006||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84500903|NCT02609178|168752319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistic analysis 1.||||||0.739||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
84591465|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|<0.001
84591466|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
84500904|NCT02609178|168752319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.03||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84500905|NCT02609178|168752319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.009||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84500906|NCT02609178|168752320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.001||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84500907|NCT02609178|168752320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.579||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
84500908|NCT02609178|168752320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.001||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84500909|NCT02609178|168752320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84500910|NCT02609178|168752321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.007||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.007
84500911|NCT02609178|168752321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.308||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.308
84500912|NCT02609178|168752321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.005||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.005
84500913|NCT02609178|168752321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.141||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.141
84591467|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.86|<0.001
84591468|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.90|<0.001
84591469|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.72|<0.001
84591470|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.01|0.79|<0.001
84591471|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.96|<0.001
84614216|NCT02974257|168977824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between thiamine and placebo groups at 48 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||0.3|-0.9|0.07
84614217|NCT01363908|168977839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0781
84500914|NCT01128153|168752322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.47|-0.86|<0.0001
84500915|NCT01128153|168752323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.667||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.85|-1.62|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-1.62|-31.85|0.0301
84500916|NCT01128153|168752324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.09|-1.77|0.0301
84500917|NCT01128153|168752325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|1.15|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||1.15|-16.96|0.0868
84591472|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|<0.001
84591473|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.85|<0.001
84591474|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|<0.001
84591475|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.81|<0.001
84591476|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|<0.001
84591477|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.05|<0.001
84614218|NCT01363908|168977839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5000
84614219|NCT01363908|168977839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.2609
84614220|NCT01363908|168977839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.9219
84614221|NCT01363908|168977841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.6875
84614222|NCT01363908|168977841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||1.0000
84614223|NCT01363908|168977841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.8181
84758782|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
84614224|NCT01363908|168977841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5566
84500918|NCT01128153|168752326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||0.06|-0.94|0.0868
84591478|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.96|<0.001
84591479|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|1.00|<0.001
84591480|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|<0.001
84614225|NCT01363908|168977843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0475
84591481|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.79|<0.001
84591482|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|<0.001
84591483|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.95|<0.001
84591484|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
84591485|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|<0.001
84591486|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|<0.001
84591487|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.77|<0.001
84614226|NCT01363908|168977843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.4410
84614227|NCT01363908|168977843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0417
84614228|NCT01363908|168977843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0409
84758783|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.62|-0.04|0.082
84758784|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.37|0.703
84591488|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
84591489|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|0.95|<0.001
84591490|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.81|<0.001
84591491|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|<0.001
84758785|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.45|-0.17|0.379
84758786|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.87|0.012
84591492|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.88|<0.001
84591493|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.86|<0.001
84591494|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.91|<0.001
84591495|NCT03950856|168933805|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|<0.001
84591496|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
84591497|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.89|
84591498|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
84591499|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.77|
84591500|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.91|
84591501|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.32|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|1.06|
84591502|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.72|
84591503|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.94|
84591504|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||||P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.50|1.14|
84591505|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.72|
84591506|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|
84591507|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.02|
84591508|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.78|
84591509|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|
84591510|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.93|
84591511|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
84591512|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
84591513|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.28|0.94|
84591514|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.92|0.70|
84591515|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
84758787|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.39|<0.001
84758788|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
84500919|NCT01128153|168752327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|21.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated Odds Ratio from the logistic regression model (Saxa/Placebo)|||21.05|3.852|<0.0001
84591516|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.37|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.37|1.04|
84591517|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08|||l||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.83|
84591518|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
84591519|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|
84591520|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.75|
84591521|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|0.98|
84591522|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.14|
84591523|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.36|1.04|
84591524|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.51|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.15|
84591525|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.97|
84591526|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.78|
84591527|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.86|
84591528|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.96|
84591529|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.76|
84591530|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
84591531|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
84591532|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.80|
84591533|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
84591534|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.93|
84591535|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.81|
84591536|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.93|
84591537|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.00|
84591538|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.06|0.79|
84591539|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
84591540|NCT03950856|168933806|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|
84591541|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.62|
84591542|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.61|1.20|
84591543|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.66|
84500920|NCT01682512|168752329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence for the change in DAS28 (ESR) was evaluated based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference with respect to the mean change in the DAS28(ESR) score compared to baseline. Null hypothesis of non-equivalence was to be rejected if the 90% CI is fully contained within the interval of \[-0.5, 0.5\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.03||Model analyzed was: DAS28(ESR) change from Baseline at Week 24 = overall mean + treatment + DAS28(ESR) Baseline score + visit + visit by treatment interaction + baseline-by-visit interaction + random error.|Mixed Models Analysis|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) approach was used.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as: BI 695500 - Rituxan®|||-0.03|-0.83|
84500921|NCT01682512|168752330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|115.76|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||115.76|90.50|
84500922|NCT01682512|168752330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|88.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.24|99.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.46|78.24|
84500923|NCT01682512|168752330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|97.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||97.09|76.50|
84500924|NCT01682512|168752331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|116.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||116.30|90.26|
84500925|NCT01682512|168752331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.38|96.82|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||96.82|76.38|
84500926|NCT01682512|168752331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|83.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.386|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.57|94.47|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||94.47|74.57|
84500927|NCT01682512|168752332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.608|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.21|106.62|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||106.62|86.21|
84500928|NCT01682512|168752332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.775|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|99.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.74|80.23|
84500929|NCT01682512|168752332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.11|102.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||102.29|85.11|
84500930|NCT01682512|168752333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.995|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.32|103.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||103.50|85.32|
84591544|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.74|
84500931|NCT01682512|168752333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.657|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.51|97.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||97.83|81.51|
84500932|NCT01682512|168752333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.744|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.62|104.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||104.25|86.62|
84500933|NCT01682512|168752335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|104.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|118.78|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||118.78|91.92|
84591545|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|0.95|
84644536|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.54|-5.91|< 0.001
84500934|NCT01682512|168752335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|91.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.253|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.38|102.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||102.64|81.38|
84591546|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.86|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.86|1.21|
84591547|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.73|
84591548|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.72|
84591549|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.82|
84591550|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.05|
84591551|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.82|
84591552|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.86|
84591553|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.54|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.54|1.03|
84591554|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|14.74|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|14.74|10.11|
84614229|NCT01363908|168977844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.9901
84591555|NCT03950856|168933807|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.13|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|11.13|7.96|
84591556|NCT00656370|168933814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.93
84591557|NCT00656370|168933815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.67
84591558|NCT03366454|168933818|OTHER||AUC|0.6692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05322||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5649|0.7735|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7735|0.5649|0.0048
84591559|NCT03366454|168933818|OTHER||AUC|0.6892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05213||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.7914|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7914|0.5870|0.0029
84591560|NCT03366454|168933819|OTHER||AUC|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05635||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|0.7544|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for NLR was determined as 1.335 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7544|0.5335|0.0233
84591561|NCT03366454|168933820|OTHER||AUC|0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04709||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|0.7807|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cut-off value for CRP was determined as 5.70 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7807|0.5962|0.0018
84614230|NCT01363908|168977844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.3039
84591562|NCT03366454|168933821|OTHER||AUC|0.7063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04857||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6111|0.8015|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for PCT was determined as 0.141 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.8015|0.6111|0.0007
84591563|NCT03384875|168933833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.517
84591564|NCT00269113|168933841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.4|||Fisher Exact|||||28.4|6.4|0.0009
84591565|NCT00269113|168933842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84591566|NCT00269113|168933843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0127
84591567|NCT00269113|168933844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84591568|NCT00269113|168933845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
84591569|NCT00269113|168933846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
84591570|NCT00269113|168933847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0017
84591571|NCT01978145|168933848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by CB DPI versus FSC administered BID by MD DPI is greater than -45 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.047|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.047|0.002|
84591572|NCT01978145|168933849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.027|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 28|||0.027|-0.019|
84758789|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.33|0.862
84500935|NCT01682512|168752335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|87.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.896|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.12|99.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||99.21|77.12|
84591573|NCT01978145|168933849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.044|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 56|||0.044|-0.005|
84591574|NCT01978145|168933850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||||95.0|-0.06|0.393||||||||0.393|-0.060|
84591575|NCT01978145|168933851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.272|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 28.|||0.272|-0.278|
84591576|NCT01978145|168933851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.069||||||95.0|-0.349|0.212|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 56.|||0.212|-0.349|
84591577|NCT01978145|168933851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.148|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 85.|||0.148|-0.413|
84591578|NCT01978145|168933852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.70|
84591579|NCT01978145|168933853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-1.10|
84591580|NCT02026011|168933858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Medication effect: b = -0.15, SE = 0.17, t = -0.86, p = 0.39|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
84591581|NCT02026011|168933858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.20, SE = 0.21, t = 0.96, p = 0.34|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84591582|NCT02026011|168933858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, t = 2.10, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84591583|NCT02026011|168933858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.15, SE = 0.21, t = 0.73, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84758790|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.003
84591584|NCT02026011|168933858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.20, SE = 0.13, t = -1.52, p = 0.13|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84591585|NCT02026011|168933859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Medication effect: b = 0.16, SE = 0.13, t = 1.20, p = 0.23|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84591586|NCT02026011|168933859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.37, SE = 0.22, t = 1.69, p = 0.09|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84591587|NCT02026011|168933859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.04, SE = 0.21, t = 0.20, p = 0.84|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84591588|NCT02026011|168933859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.32, SE = 0.16, t = -1.93, p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84591589|NCT02026011|168933860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Medication effect: b = 0.14, SE = 0.23, t = 0.61, p = 0.55|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
84591590|NCT02026011|168933860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Genotype effect: b = -0.11, SE = 0.37, t = -0.30, p = 0.77|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84591591|NCT02026011|168933860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.30, SE = 0.15, t = 2.02, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84591592|NCT02026011|168933860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = -0.21, SE = 0.29, t = -0.72, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84591593|NCT02026011|168933860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = 0.28, SE = 0.21, t = 1.30, p = 0.19|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84591594|NCT02026011|168933862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Medication effect: F(1,71) = 2.24, p = 0.14|Poisson Regression|||||||0.14
84591595|NCT02026011|168933862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Genotype effect: F(1, 71) = 5.79, p = 0.02|Poisson|||||||0.02
84591596|NCT02026011|168933862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Medication by genotype interaction: F(1, 70) = 0.68, p = 0.41.|Poisson|||||||0.41
84591597|NCT00755807|168933867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM):Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week,participant random effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between duloxetine and placebo on pain severity reduction as measured by weekly mean of the daily 24-hour average pain scores in participants assessed at 6 weeks. Sample size is determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and 5% of randomized participants without post-baseline data due to very early discontinuation. With 119 participants per arm, study has approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.375 on treatment group difference.||||0.001
84591598|NCT00755807|168933868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
84591599|NCT00755807|168933868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
84591600|NCT00755807|168933868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84591601|NCT00755807|168933868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.165
84591602|NCT00755807|168933869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Model: PGI improvement at Endpoint = Treatment + Investigator.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.49|-0.06|0.121
84758791|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
84500936|NCT00713830|168752336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.621||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 570 patients in lixisenatide arm and 285 in placebo arm would provide a power of 99% (or 98%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.621|-0.867|<0.0001
84500937|NCT02787785|168752372|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||||2.20|0.11|0.354
84500938|NCT02787785|168752374|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.88|||Regression, Cox|||||5.88|0.02|0.479
84500939|NCT03111407|168752382|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.2342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Hip Knee Angle value 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 179.9 +/-2.9 (44) (171, 185.3)~Conventional group: 178.9 +/-3.9 (26) (167, 185)"||||0.2342
84500940|NCT03111407|168752383|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Knee Society Score Assessment 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 74.7 +/- 12.5 \[44\] (30.2, 78.0, 89.5), 95% C.I. (70.9, 78.5)~Conventional group: 72.4 +/- 11.6 \[26\] (45.0, 75.2, 90.1), 95% C.I. (67.7, 77.1)"||||0.4427
84500941|NCT03111407|168752384|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.6154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Knee Soceity Score Function 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 80.5 +/- 13.8 \[44\] (55.0, 80.0, 100.0), 95% C.I. (76.2, 84.7) Conventional group: 78.5 +/- 19.1 \[26\] (40.0, 80.0, 100.0),95% C.I. (70.8, 86.2)||||0.6154
84500942|NCT03111407|168752385|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EQ-5D score 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 0.8 +/- 0.2 \[29\] (0.0, 1.0, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9) Conventional group: 0.8 +/- 0.3 \[20\] (0.1, 0.8, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9)||||0.4549
84500943|NCT01766310|168752388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|-0.09|0.05
84672955|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.12|0.3498
84500944|NCT02618772|168752415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
84500945|NCT02618772|168752416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84500946|NCT02618772|168752417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
84758792|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.86|0.019
84758793|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.25|<0.001
84500947|NCT02618772|168752417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84500948|NCT02618772|168752417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
84500949|NCT02618772|168752417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84500950|NCT02618772|168752418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.185
84500951|NCT02618772|168752418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84500952|NCT02618772|168752418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
84591603|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2||P-value is for BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.20|0.12|0.016
84591604|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95||P-value is for BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.95|0.02|0.043
84591605|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.99||P-value is for BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.99|0.05|0.030
84591606|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.43||P-value is for BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.43|0.36|0.001
84591607|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.11||P-value is for BPI Interference for General Activity score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.11|-0.07|0.083
84591608|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.27||P-value is for BPI Interference for Mood score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.27|0.05|0.034
84591609|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19||P-value is for BPI Interference for Walking Ability score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.19|-0.08|0.089
84500953|NCT02618772|168752418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84500954|NCT02618772|168752419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This p value is a t-test of the Post STAI minus Pre STAI variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84591610|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||P-value is for BPI Interference for Normal Work score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.93|-0.28|0.291
84591611|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.05||P-value is for BPI Interference for Relations With Others score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.05|-0.06|0.077
84591612|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.97||P-value is for BPI Interference for Sleep score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.97|-0.15|0.148
84591613|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79||P-value is for BPI Interference for Enjoyment Of Life score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-0.45|0.582
84591614|NCT00755807|168933870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94||P-value is for BPI Mean Interference score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.94|-0.03|0.067
84591615|NCT00755807|168933871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.45|0.01|0.041
84591616|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.91||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.91|-3.90|0.500
84614231|NCT01363908|168977844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0044
84614232|NCT01363908|168977844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0395
84614233|NCT04273893|168977857|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Changes from baseline ALC were conducted using repeated measures models with an unstructured covariance matrix and model terms for tumor location, follow-up time. Adjustments for stratification factors were made using least squares means.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84614234|NCT00856544|168977868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|36.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||36.13|17.94|<0.0001
84614235|NCT00856544|168977868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|30.65||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||30.65|12.39|<0.0001
84614236|NCT00856544|168977869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.26||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.44|<0.0001
84614237|NCT00856544|168977869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.35|<0.0001
84500955|NCT02618772|168752420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||This p value is in reference to the t-test performed for STAI Post Minus STAI Pre.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84614238|NCT00856544|168977870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|15.45||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.45|5.80|<0.0001
84614239|NCT00856544|168977870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.42||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.77||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.77|2.07|0.0038
84614240|NCT05274269|168977926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|11.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||11.3|7.2|< 0.0001
84614241|NCT05274269|168977927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-24.5|-32.1|< 0.0001
84614242|NCT05274269|168977928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|23.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||23.5|15.5|< 0.0001
84614243|NCT05274269|168977929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.69|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||0.69|0.24|< 0.0001
84614244|NCT05274269|168977930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||1.9|0.6|< 0.0001
84614245|NCT02206035|168977934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.95
84614246|NCT02206035|168977934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.26
84614247|NCT02206035|168977934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
84614248|NCT02206035|168977934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.76
84614249|NCT02206035|168977935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.99
84614250|NCT02206035|168977935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.48
84614251|NCT02206035|168977935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84614252|NCT02206035|168977935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.96
84614253|NCT02206035|168977936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||<0.001
84614254|NCT02206035|168977936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.75
84614255|NCT02206035|168977936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.28
84614256|NCT02206035|168977936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.82
84614257|NCT02206035|168977937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.54
84758794|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
84500956|NCT02618772|168752421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
84500957|NCT02618772|168752422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
84500958|NCT02618772|168752423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84500959|NCT02618772|168752424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84614258|NCT02206035|168977937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.61
84614259|NCT02206035|168977937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.42
84614260|NCT02206035|168977937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.38
84614261|NCT02206035|168977938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.10
84500960|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Other|12.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|29.15|||Fisher Exact|||||29.15|-3.65|0.167
84591617|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.44||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.44|-4.87|0.512
84591618|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|3.12||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.12|-4.51|0.720
84591619|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.46||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.46|-3.58|0.973
84591620|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.02||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Energy Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.02|-4.07|0.991
84591621|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-11.14|0.441
84591622|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|0.79||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Pain Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-7.94|0.108
84591623|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|5.39||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.39|-5.77|0.948
84614262|NCT02206035|168977938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.32
84614263|NCT02206035|168977938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
84500961|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|22.19|||Fisher Exact|||||22.19|-10.76|0.611
84591624|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|6.28||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||6.28|-2.37|0.374
84591625|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-4.10|0.867
84591626|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.17||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.17|-1.63|0.306
84591627|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.88||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.88|-4.08|0.733
84614264|NCT02206035|168977938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.30
84614265|NCT02936843|168977941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided||TTEST, two sided||||0.41
84614266|NCT04124705|168977975|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-4.23|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for the primary efficacy endpoint, sustained TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance (equivalent to a two-sided 5% level of significance).||-4.23|-26.10|
84500962|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|19.63|||Fisher Exact|||||19.63|-13.67|0.736
84500963|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|7.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|23.35|||Fisher Exact|||||23.35|-9.28|0.485
84500964|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|9.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|26.26|||Fisher Exact|||||26.26|-6.72|0.295
84500965|NCT00446134|168752429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-13.84|0.864
84500966|NCT00446134|168752430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|30.57|||Chi-squared|||||30.57|2.31|0.0304
84500967|NCT00446134|168752430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|31.06|||Chi-squared|||||31.06|3.22|0.0293
84500968|NCT00446134|168752430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|20.24|||Chi-squared|||||20.24|-10.41|0.5816
84500969|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
84591628|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|4.08||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.08|-13.88|0.283
84591629|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.86||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.86|-4.49|0.664
84591630|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.85||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.85|-7.81|0.504
84758795|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.45|0.668
84758796|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
84500970|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|14.73|||Fisher Exact|||||14.73|-14.73|0.9999
84500971|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|15.71|||Fisher Exact|||||15.71|-14.11|0.9999
84500972|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
84500973|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|15.59|||Fisher Exact|||||15.59|-14.76|0.9999
84500974|NCT00446134|168752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|14.11|||Fisher Exact|||||14.11|-15.71|0.9999
84500975|NCT01311505|168752433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.98|105.2||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUC(0-t) of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 13.48% for AUC(0-t) was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUC(0-t) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||105.20|92.98|
84591631|NCT00755807|168933872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|3.14||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.14|-11.18|0.270
84500976|NCT01311505|168752434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|109.97||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 94% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant CV estimate of approximately 16.43% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||109.97|87.77|
84500977|NCT01311505|168752436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|106.41||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||106.41|94.44|
84644537|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.13|-4.16|0.065
84758797|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.88|0.002
84758798|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.89|0.032
84591632|NCT00755807|168933873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Ideation during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
84591633|NCT00755807|168933873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Behavior during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
84591634|NCT00755807|168933873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Acts during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
84591635|NCT00755807|168933874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures model:Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; participant=random effect.||||||0.002
84591636|NCT00755807|168933875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on BDI-II Question #9 score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.04|-0.06|0.662
84591637|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||This is the P-value for Discontinuation Due to Any Reason.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.244
84591638|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||This is the P-value for Adverse Event (AE).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84591639|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||This is the P-value for Protocol Violation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
84591640|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Subject Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84591641|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Lack of Efficacy.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84591642|NCT00755807|168933876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Physician Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84591643|NCT00755807|168933879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on Bicarbonate, HCO3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.047
84591644|NCT00755807|168933880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on creatinine. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.033
84591645|NCT00755807|168933881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on platelet count. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.034
84591646|NCT00755807|168933882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on inorganic phosphorus. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.007
84591647|NCT00755807|168933883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on uric acid. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.025
84591648|NCT00755807|168933884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.84||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on diastolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.84|-2.55|0.322
84591649|NCT00755807|168933884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.52||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on systolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.52|-3.32|0.787
84591650|NCT00755807|168933885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.61||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on pulse rate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.61|-3.70|0.160
84644538|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.089|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-2.96|-7.24|< 0.001
84644539|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.41|-4.89|0.02
84644540|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-2.41|-6.87|< 0.001
84591651|NCT00755807|168933886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on weight. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.26|0.27|0.003
84591652|NCT00755807|168933887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean PGI-I score at 18 weeks for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
84591653|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Worst Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Worst Pain.||||||<0.001
84591654|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Least Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Least Pain score.||||||<0.001
84591655|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Average Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Average Pain score.||||||<0.001
84591656|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Pain Right Now score.||||||<0.001
84591657|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-I for General Activity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for General Activity score.||||||<0.001
84591658|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Mood. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Mood score.||||||<0.001
84591659|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Walking Ability. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Walking Ability score.||||||<0.001
84591660|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Normal Work. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Normal Work score.||||||<0.001
84500978|NCT02524665|168752459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.97||0.0769||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.0769
84591661|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Relations With Others. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Relations With Others score.||||||<0.001
84591662|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Sleep. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Sleep score.||||||<0.001
84591663|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Enjoyment Of Life score.||||||<0.001
84591664|NCT00755807|168933888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI for Mean Interference Score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI for Mean Interference score.||||||<0.001
84591665|NCT00755807|168933889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on CGI-S score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
84591666|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score.||||||0.002
84591667|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score.||||||0.054
84591668|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score.||||||0.002
84591669|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score.||||||0.025
84758799|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.21|<0.001
84758800|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.28|<0.001
84758801|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.46|0.773
84500979|NCT02524665|168752459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.73||0.6698||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6698
84758802|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.78|0.035
84500980|NCT02524665|168752459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.6854||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6854
84758803|NCT00876187|169273484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.85|0.014
84591670|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Energy Subsection score.||||||0.008
84591671|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score.||||||0.858
84500981|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.55||0.5031||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5031
84591672|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Pain Subsection score.||||||<0.001
84591673|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.637
84591674|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score.||||||0.051
84591675|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score.||||||0.270
84591676|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score.||||||0.061
84591677|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score.||||||0.007
84591678|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score.||||||0.253
84591679|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score.||||||0.942
84591680|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score.||||||0.016
84591681|NCT00755807|168933890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.381
84500982|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.76||0.2464||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.2464
84500983|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.22||0.8894||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.8894
84500984|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.04||0.6722||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.6722
84500985|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.59||0.3352||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.3352
84500986|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46||0.9323||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9323
84500987|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05||0.3513||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.3513
84500988|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.97||0.8199||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.8199
84500989|NCT02524665|168752460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.83||0.9616||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9616
84500990|NCT02524665|168752461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1|||||1.0000
84591682|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 7). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model: Change from Baseline=Baseline+Investigator+Week+Baseline\*Week; participant was treated as random effect.||||||0.524
84644541|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-4.95|0.017
84500991|NCT02524665|168752461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
84500992|NCT02524665|168752461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.7539||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7539
84500993|NCT02524665|168752461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.3071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8|||||0.3071
84500994|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
84500995|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||1.0000
84500996|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
84500997|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0
84500998|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
84500999|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
84501000|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
84501001|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
84644542|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-4.06|-8.48|< 0.001
84758804|NCT01970995|169273517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.6||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarker of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.60|10.96|<.001
84501002|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
84501003|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
84501004|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
84501005|NCT02524665|168752462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
84501006|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
84591683|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 8). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591684|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 9). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591685|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 10). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591686|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 11). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591687|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 12). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84758805|NCT01970995|169273518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|50.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|57.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||57.20|44.88|<.001
84758806|NCT01970995|169273519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|10.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|12.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||12.99|9.26|<.001
84758807|NCT01970995|169273520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|44.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.11|47.97||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||47.97|42.11|<.001
84501007|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5000
84501008|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
84501009|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
84501010|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.8125||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.8125
84501011|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.5742||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5742
84501012|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
84501013|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
84501014|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
84501015|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
84501016|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7500
84501017|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
84501018|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.2500
84501019|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
84644543|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.34|-4.64|0.023
84644544|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.68|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.68|-7.98|< 0.001
84501020|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.2500
84501021|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
84501022|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
84501023|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
84501024|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
84501025|NCT02524665|168752463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
84501026|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
84501027|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated. Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||0
84501028|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||0.5637
84501029|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
84501030|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||0.4795
84501031|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
84501032|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.3173
84501033|NCT02524665|168752464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.1573
84644545|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.20|-3.77|0.311
84591688|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 13). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591689|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 14). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591690|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 15). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591691|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 16). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591692|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 17). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591693|NCT00755807|168933892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 18). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84591694|NCT00755807|168933893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BDI-II Question #9 score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||0.706
84614267|NCT04124705|168977976|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-10.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-2.38|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for titration TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance.||-2.38|-18.65|
84644546|NCT01931670|169024654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.53|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-1.53|-6.42|0.001
84591695|NCT00755807|168933897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on monocytes.||||||0.035
84591696|NCT00755807|168933898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on sodium.||||||0.042
84591697|NCT00755807|168933899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on total protein.||||||0.036
84591698|NCT00755807|168933900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on diastolic blood pressure.||||||0.320
84591699|NCT00755807|168933900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on systolic blood pressure.||||||0.182
84591700|NCT00755807|168933901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on pulse rate.||||||0.032
84591701|NCT00755807|168933902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on weight.||||||0.151
84591702|NCT03531814|168933909|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 1-4.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
84644547|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.62|-1.81|0.335
84644548|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.48|-1.91|0.242
84644549|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.05|-2.61|0.042
84644550|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.48|-3.06|0.007
84644551|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.92|-1.87|0.503
84501034|NCT04179474|168752465|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|115.79|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.79|96.21|
84501035|NCT04179474|168752466|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|123.19|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||123.19|89.55|
84501036|NCT04179474|168752467|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|115.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.45|96.19|
84501037|NCT04179474|168752468|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|104.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.68|122.38|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||122.38|89.68|
84501038|NCT04179474|168752469|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|103.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|115.98|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means||115.98|93.01|
84501039|NCT04179474|168752470|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|99.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.27|120.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||120.45|82.27|
84501040|NCT01083901|168752519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|Changes from baseline to 16 weeks were regressed on the baseline measurement.||The null hypothesis was that the changes in total body fat-free mass in response to resistance exercise training would not be different among the groups. The expected difference in fat-free mass between the Acetaminophen and Placebo groups was 1.8 +/- 1.0% with a 3.6 +/1 1.0% increase in fat-free mass in the Placebo group. The study was designed to achieve 96% power at the 0.05 level with 10 men in the acetaminophen and placebo groups.||||0.38
84501041|NCT01083901|168752520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|The change in fat mass was regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.23
84591703|NCT03531814|168933909|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 5-8.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
84591704|NCT03531814|168933909|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 9-12.|ANOVA|||||||.034
84501042|NCT01083901|168752521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Change in strength was regressed on baseline measures.||||||0.30
84501043|NCT01083901|168752522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in strength were regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.37
84501044|NCT00883129|168752586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the FVC %-predicted. Covariates were %-predicted FVC, HRCT-defined extent of lung fibrosis in the lobe of maximum involvement, and terms for time-trend, treatment and treatment-time trend interactions.||||0.24
84501045|NCT00883129|168752586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the FVC %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
84591705|NCT03531814|168933909|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 13-18.|ANOVA|||||||.040
84591706|NCT03531814|168933910|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.21||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.463||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.463|-0.729|0.536
84644552|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.41|-2.36|0.169
84591707|NCT03531814|168933910|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.134||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|0.715||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.715|-0.557|.713
84591708|NCT03531814|168933910|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.095||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.761||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.761|-0.668|.823
84591709|NCT03531814|168933910|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.333||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.848||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.848|-0.505|.420
84591710|NCT03531814|168933911|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.333||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|0.352||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.352|-0.785|0.317
84591711|NCT03531814|168933911|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.309||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|0.416||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.416|-0.794|.385
84591712|NCT03531814|168933911|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.259||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.563||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.563|-0.824|.535
84591713|NCT03531814|168933911|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.222||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.589||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.589|-0.811|.597
84591714|NCT03531814|168933912|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.215||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.459||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.459|-0.731|0.526
84591715|NCT03531814|168933912|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.049||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.67||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.670|-0.613|.894
84591716|NCT03531814|168933912|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.048||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.694||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.694|-0.740|.911
84591717|NCT03531814|168933912|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.167||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.626||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.626|-0.790|.693
84591718|NCT03531814|168933913|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.607||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|0.009||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.009|-0.889|0.048
84591719|NCT03531814|168933913|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.658||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.027||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.027|-0.914|0.038
84591720|NCT03531814|168933913|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.708||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.02||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.020|-0.945|0.50
84644553|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.14|-1.76|0.675
84591721|NCT03531814|168933913|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.878||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.435||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.435|-0.979|0.004
84591722|NCT03531814|168933914|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.293||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.768||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.768|-0.390|0.382
84591723|NCT03531814|168933914|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.278||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.781||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.781|-0.444|0.436
84591724|NCT03531814|168933914|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.229||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.813||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.813|-0.585|0.586
84591725|NCT03531814|168933914|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.53||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.904||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.904|-0.302|0.177
84591726|NCT03531814|168933916|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.576||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|0.056||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.056|-0.879|0.063
84591727|NCT03531814|168933916|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.68||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.066||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.066|-0.920|0.031
84591728|NCT03531814|168933916|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.835||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.292||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.292|-0.971|0.010
84591729|NCT03531814|168933916|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.652||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.652|-0.989|<0.001
84591730|NCT03531814|168933917|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.035||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.591||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||0.591|-0.634|0.919
84591731|NCT03531814|168933917|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.227||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.759||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.759|-0.487|0.528
84591732|NCT03531814|168933917|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.179||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.794||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.794|-0.618|0.672
84591733|NCT03531814|168933917|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.041||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.737||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.737|-0.697|0.923
84591734|NCT03531814|168933918|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.638||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|-0.041||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||-0.041|-0.899|0.035
84591735|NCT03531814|168933918|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.361||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.367||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.367|-0.815|0.306
84591736|NCT03531814|168933918|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.407||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.438||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.438|-0.870|0.317
84591737|NCT03531814|168933918|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.0617||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.0617|-0.795|0.670
84591738|NCT01788943|168933938|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
84591739|NCT01788943|168933939|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84591740|NCT00811954|168933940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|7.4||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||7.4|-0.7|
84591741|NCT00811954|168933940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|9.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm C - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||9.9|1.3|
84591742|NCT00811954|168933940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|2.3||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm C) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||2.3|-6.7|
84591743|NCT00811954|168933941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.4|16.1||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||16.1|9.4|
84591744|NCT00811954|168933941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|5.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm C and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm C - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||5.8|1.4|
84591745|NCT00811954|168933941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|12.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm C) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm C) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||12.9|5.5|
84591746|NCT00186628|168933964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||.07
84591747|NCT01247064|168933967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84591748|NCT01247064|168933968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
84591749|NCT01247064|168933969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84591750|NCT01247064|168933970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84591751|NCT01247064|168933971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84591752|NCT04828707|168933972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Intent-To-Treat (ITT) dataset was used for primary outcome. To overcome impact of missing data, statistical analysis was conducted using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as an imputation method.~The data of each variable collected from the daily diary was normalized to 28 days for every period (weeks 1-4, weeks 5-8, and weeks 9-12).~Participants' data who entered the treatment phase but dropped out during weeks 5-8 were carried forward and analyzed as their data at weeks 9-12."||||<0.05
84644554|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.79|-3.55|0.002
84644555|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.36|-3.72|0.017
84591753|NCT00523978|168934000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the success rate in experimental group is less than and equal to the one in control group. This comparison of the rates was performed using a 2-sided Fisher's Exact. A sample size of 240(160 experimental and 80 control) is required to provide 80% power to detect the treatment difference using a 2-sided (alpha = 0.05)Fisher's Exact Test of binomial proportions assuming the success rate was 40% for control and 60% for treatment.||||<0.0001
84591754|NCT00523978|168934001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin was selected based on literature review.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is the proportion of subjects free from MAFE in the experimental group is inferior to that in the control group using 10% non-inferiority margin.A sample size of 160 evaluable cryoablation and 80 control subjects (one-sided α = 0.05, 2:1 randomization) was required to provide 80% power assuming the rate of free from MAFE at 12 months 80.5 and 77% in experimental and control groups respectively .||||<0.001
84501046|NCT00883129|168752586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of FVC %-predicted at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the FVC %-predicted.||||0.55
84501047|NCT00883129|168752587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the TLC %-predicted.||||>0.05
84501048|NCT00883129|168752588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the DLCO %-predicted.||||<0.001
84501049|NCT00883129|168752588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the DLCO %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||>0.05
84501050|NCT00883129|168752589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the Quantitative Lung Fibrosis Score for the whole lung (QLF-WL).||||>0.05
84591755|NCT00523978|168934002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The test hypothesis is UCBExperimental\_CPE ≥ 14.8% vs UCBExperimental\_CPE \< 14.8%.The performance goal 14.8% was chosen based on a review of SSEDs for similar types of ablation trials.The expected rate for CPEs in a well-monitored trial of left atrial RF ablation for AF was estimated to be 10% (corresponding to a CPE-free rate of 90%).In a trial with 160 subject, the resulting one-sided 95% upper confidence bound would be 14.8%.||||<0.001
84501051|NCT00883129|168752590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in dyspnea as measured by the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score.||||>0.05
84501052|NCT00883129|168752590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for dyspnea using the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
84591756|NCT00461708|168934011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84591757|NCT00461708|168934012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84591758|NCT02394561|168934013|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in percentage of patients achieving PASI 90 response between the Cw6-positive cohort and the Cw6-negative cohort was H0 = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative ≥0.12 and HA = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative was \< 0.12. The percentage of PASI 90 response by cohort as well as the difference between cohort together with 97.5% upper CI was provided using Clopper Pearson CI method.|difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||||6.2|-8.8|
84591759|NCT02394561|168934016|OTHER|difference between cohorts for PASI 90 using Kaplan-Meier estimate||||||0.1295|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1295
84591760|NCT02394561|168934016|OTHER|||||||0.447||||||difference between cohorts for PASI 75 using Kaplan-Meier estimate|Log Rank|||||||0.4470
84591761|NCT02394561|168934017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|At all time points||||||<.0001
84591762|NCT02394561|168934018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All time points|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
84591763|NCT02553629|168934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84591764|NCT02553629|168934025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84591765|NCT02553629|168934026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84591766|NCT02553629|168934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84591767|NCT02553629|168934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84644556|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.87|-4.21|0.003
84614268|NCT02106403|168977994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.46||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|11.29|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||11.29|-0.37|0.0659
84614269|NCT02106403|168977994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|10.81|||ANCOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.81|-0.84|0.0928
84614270|NCT02106403|168977994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|6.31|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||6.31|-5.35|0.8711
84614271|NCT02106403|168977995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|18.42|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.42|4.43|0.0016
84614272|NCT02106403|168977995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.69|-5.31|0.6323
84614273|NCT02106403|168977995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.73||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|16.73|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||16.73|2.74|0.0069
84614274|NCT02106403|168977996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|18.04|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.04|6.23|<0.0001
84501053|NCT00883129|168752592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS).||||>0.05
84501054|NCT00883129|168752592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the modified Rodnan Skin Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
84614275|NCT02106403|168977996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.72|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||3.72|-8.09|0.4645
84644557|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.06|-3.12|0.042
84644558|NCT01931670|169024655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.83|-3.73|0.002
84644559|NCT01992159|169024661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.5|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||6.5|< 0.0001
84644560|NCT01992159|169024661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|11.1|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||11.1|< 0.0001
84591768|NCT02797821|168934032|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.544|-1.216||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the previous comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-1.216|-2.544|<0.0001
84672956|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.56|0.0839
84591769|NCT02797821|168934032|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.193||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|-0.581||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the first comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-0.581|-1.805|0.0008
84591770|NCT02797821|168934033|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-34.047||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.171|-7.922||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-7.922|-60.171|0.0128
84591771|NCT02797821|168934033|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-29.492||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.723|-4.261||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-4.261|-54.723|0.0239
84591772|NCT04577781|168934034|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.55||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects (with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix).|MMRM|||||0.55|-0.66|0.885
84591773|NCT01657305|168934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments.~Negative values for the intra-individual time difference indicate faster healing of the Oleogel-S10-treated wound half.~For right-censored observations (no wound closure observed in blinded photo evaluation), wound closure was conservatively calculated as +1 day after the last photo."||||<0.0001
84591774|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.2|6.0|<0.0001
84591775|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||13.4|6.9|<0.0001
84591776|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.1||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.1|4.6|<0.0001
84591777|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.9||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||10.9|3.9|<0.0001
84591778|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.1||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||9.1|3.7|<0.0001
84591779|NCT01657305|168934047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||6.4|1.5|=0.0021
84591780|NCT00696878|168934069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 1|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.4||
84672957|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.13|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.49|0.2595
84501055|NCT00883129|168752592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of the mRSS at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the mRSS.||||>0.05
84591781|NCT00696878|168934069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 2|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.8||
84591782|NCT00696878|168934069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 3|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||1.5||
84591783|NCT03937479|168934161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03691||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0517|0.1968||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1968|0.0517|0.0008
84591784|NCT03937479|168934161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03703||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0344|0.18||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1800|0.0344|0.0040
84591785|NCT03937479|168934161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03723||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.1643||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1643|0.0180|0.0148
84591786|NCT03937479|168934161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03697||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.1501||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1501|0.0048|0.0368
84591787|NCT00940602|168934182|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96||Exploratory p-value is one tailed and is based on the stratified log-rank test.|Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model|||0.96|0.42|0.015
84591788|NCT00940602|168934183|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|25.7||||||||25.7|-1.8|
84591789|NCT00940602|168934184|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.28|0.54|0.200
84591790|NCT00940602|168934185|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.3|
84591791|NCT00940602|168934186|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.4||||||||11.4|-12.0|
84591792|NCT00940602|168934187|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.36|0.184
84591793|NCT00940602|168934188|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.36|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||0.36|0.11|<.001
84591794|NCT00940602|168934189|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.52|0.303
84591795|NCT00940602|168934190|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.75|0.66|0.389
84591796|NCT00940602|168934192|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.2|
84591797|NCT00940602|168934193|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||||||||3.0|-1.6|
84591798|NCT00940602|168934194|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.6||||||||14.6|-11.9|
84591799|NCT00940602|168934195|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|1.6||||||||1.6|-20.8|
84591800|NCT00940602|168934196|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.43|0.232
84591801|NCT01074125|168934210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||To assess dose ranging, the primary efficacy variable will be analyzed via a model with dose effect. Positive dose ranging confirmed if the null hypothesis of slope =0 was rejected at a significance level of 0.05||||<0.0001
84591802|NCT01374425|168934217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC)-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.01|0.61|0.0555
84591803|NCT01374425|168934218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.56|0.3944
84591804|NCT01374425|168934219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.55|0.0786
84501056|NCT00883129|168752593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance was met only for the frequency of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, but not for total SAE or death.||Fisher's Exact Test was utilized to compare the number of participants with a protocol-defined adverse event of interest, SAE or death between the MMF and CYC treatment arms.||||<0.05
84591805|NCT01374425|168934220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.77|0.9576
84591806|NCT01374425|168934221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.53|0.93|0.1658
84591807|NCT01374425|168934222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.32||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.32|0.41|0.3019
84591808|NCT01374425|168934223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.53||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.53|0.48|0.6035
84591809|NCT01374425|168934224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.54|0.4032
84591810|NCT01374425|168934225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.41|0.0647
84591811|NCT01374425|168934226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.04|0.56|0.0861
84591812|NCT01374425|168934227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.51|0.3295
84591813|NCT01374425|168934228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.12|0.49|0.1519
84591814|NCT01374425|168934229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.62|0.87|0.2774
84591815|NCT01374425|168934230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.0|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.0|-5.5|
84501057|NCT00883129|168752594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Log Rank|||A log-rank test was utilized to assess differences between the MMF and CYC treatment arms with respect to the time to withdrawal from study drug or meeting protocol-defined criteria for treatment failure.||||0.019
84591816|NCT01374425|168934231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|26.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.1|7.2|
84591817|NCT01374425|168934232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.1|-9.9|
84591818|NCT01374425|168934233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.6|-14.0|
84591819|NCT01374425|168934234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-7.6|
84591820|NCT01374425|168934235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|1.7|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.7|-19.1|
84591821|NCT01374425|168934236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||8.3|-3.7|
84591822|NCT01374425|168934237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.5|-10.6|
84591823|NCT01374425|168934238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|7.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||7.8|-15.9|
84591824|NCT01374425|168934239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-16.3|
84591825|NCT01374425|168934240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
84591826|NCT01374425|168934241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
84591827|NCT01374425|168934242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.2|-10.1|
84591828|NCT01374425|168934243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.4|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.4|-11.5|
84591829|NCT01374425|168934244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.6|-9.5|
84591830|NCT01374425|168934245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.1|-6.2|
84591831|NCT01374425|168934246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.69||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.69|0.99|0.0593
84591832|NCT01374425|168934247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.24||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||2.24|1.20|0.0020
84591833|NCT01374425|168934248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.88||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.88|0.95|0.0955
84591834|NCT01374425|168934249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.8|-15.7|
84591835|NCT01374425|168934250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|5.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the KRAS Mutant subgroup minus the KRAS Wild-Type subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.2|-16.0|
84591836|NCT01374425|168934251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.3|-6.5|
84591837|NCT01374425|168934252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.1|-8.6|
84591838|NCT01374425|168934253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.2|-9.6|
84591839|NCT00587041|168934262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||80% power for 0.66 DG difference from placebo. The reported value is the overall p-value for CaOx supersaturation by Kruskal-Wallis test of equal change across all three groups, no pair-wise comparison.||||0.3
84591840|NCT00587041|168934262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for placebo group CaOx SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.045
84591841|NCT00587041|168934262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for AKSB group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.67
84591842|NCT00587041|168934262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked-sum T-Test for Oxadrop group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.30
84591843|NCT01044030|168934328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84614276|NCT02106403|168977996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|20.22|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||20.22|8.41|<0.0001
84591844|NCT01205503|168934335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This is for the interaction between baseline tnf-alpha levels and treatment received (mesna vs saline).|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for baseline biochemical measures, time of measurement, treatment (mesna or saline), chemo type, and first-order interactions.||||||0.014
84591845|NCT02742129|168934340|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.56|0.2650
84591846|NCT02742129|168934341|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.65|234.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data||234.29|-263.65|0.9069
84591847|NCT02742129|168934342|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||1.27|-1.16|0.9338
84591848|NCT02742129|168934343|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||2.20|-2.79|0.8151
84591849|NCT02742129|168934344|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.05|-1.41|0.4658
84591850|NCT02742129|168934345|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.49|-1.37|0.3902
84591851|NCT02742129|168934346|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.21|74.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||74.6|-53.21|0.7404
84591852|NCT02742129|168934347|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.18|-0.08|0.4282
84591853|NCT02742129|168934349|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.11|-1.08|0.1067
84591854|NCT02742129|168934350|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.37|0.4411
84591855|NCT00114127|168934355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.132||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.132
84591856|NCT00114127|168934356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.292||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.292
84591857|NCT02765399|168934360|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84591858|NCT02765399|168934360|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84591859|NCT02765399|168934361|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84614277|NCT02106403|168977997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|12.38|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||12.38|0.44|0.0357
84614278|NCT02106403|168977997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|8.0|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.00|-3.95|0.5030
84591860|NCT02765399|168934361|OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
84591861|NCT02765399|168934362|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84591862|NCT02765399|168934362|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84591863|NCT02765399|168934363|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84591864|NCT02765399|168934363|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
84591865|NCT02765399|168934364|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84591866|NCT02765399|168934364|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
84591867|NCT02765399|168934365|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
84591868|NCT02765399|168934365|OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
84591869|NCT02765399|168934366|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
84591870|NCT02765399|168934366|OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
84591871|NCT02765399|168934367|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84591872|NCT02765399|168934367|OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.499
84591873|NCT02765399|168934368|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84591874|NCT02765399|168934368|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84591875|NCT02765399|168934369|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84591876|NCT02765399|168934369|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
84591877|NCT02765399|168934370|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
84591878|NCT02765399|168934370|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
84591879|NCT02765399|168934371|OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.173
84591880|NCT02765399|168934371|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84591881|NCT02765399|168934372|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84591882|NCT02765399|168934372|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84591883|NCT02765399|168934373|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84591884|NCT02765399|168934373|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84591885|NCT02765399|168934374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84591886|NCT02765399|168934374|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84591887|NCT02765399|168934375|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84591888|NCT02765399|168934375|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84591889|NCT02765399|168934376|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84591890|NCT02765399|168934376|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84591891|NCT02765399|168934377|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84591892|NCT02765399|168934377|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84591893|NCT02765399|168934378|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
84591894|NCT02765399|168934378|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84591895|NCT02765399|168934379|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
84591896|NCT02765399|168934379|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84591897|NCT02765399|168934380|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
84591898|NCT02765399|168934380|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84591899|NCT00768261|168934382|OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df= 3,92||||||0.095
84591900|NCT00768261|168934383|OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.066
84501058|NCT03273257|168752595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups in percent change from baseline in PVR immediately before PEA.||||0.139
84591901|NCT00768261|168934383|OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.009
84591902|NCT00768261|168934383|OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.30
84591903|NCT00768261|168934383|OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA on hippocampal volume slope||||0.0288
84591904|NCT00120627|168934398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F (1,144) = 4.12, p \< .05||2 group (treatment vs. control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) one-way ANOVA||||<0.05
84591905|NCT00120627|168934398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84591906|NCT00120627|168934399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Intent to treat analysis using Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS, a maximum-likelihood method based on group assignment, demographic variables and clinical variables.||||<0.05
84591907|NCT00120627|168934400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time points (pre-intervention and post-intervention)||||<0.0001
84591908|NCT00120627|168934401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84591909|NCT00120627|168934401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mediation using Sobel Test|||||||<0.001
84591910|NCT00120627|168934402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84591911|NCT00120627|168934403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) ANOVA||||< 0.05
84614279|NCT02106403|168977997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.36|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.36|-1.59|0.1482
84591912|NCT00120627|168934404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Depression Subscale||||<0.001
84591913|NCT00120627|168934404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Anxiety Subscale||||=0.31
84591914|NCT00120627|168934404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Somatization Subscale||||=0.44
84591915|NCT00120627|168934405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Post-hoc analysis||||=0.66
84591916|NCT00120627|168934406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.18
84591917|NCT00120627|168934407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
84591918|NCT04016714|168934409|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-5.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||0.0|-11.0|= 0.050
84591919|NCT04016714|168934409|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-2.1|||=|0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||3.5|-7.7|= 0.460
84591920|NCT04016714|168934409|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|3.4|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||8.9|-2.1|= 0.225
84591921|NCT04016714|168934409|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.3|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||7.9|-3.4|= 0.430
84591922|NCT04016714|168934410|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-3.5|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||2.2|-9.1|= 0.229
84591923|NCT04016714|168934410|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.2|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||4.7|-0.2|= 0.077
84591924|NCT04016714|168934410|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-0.6|||=|0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||4.1|-5.4|= 0.793
84591925|NCT04016714|168934410|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-4.6|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||-0.1|-9.1|= 0.045
84591926|NCT04016714|168934411|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.9|-0.9|
84591927|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 1||-0.6|-4.3|< 0.001
84591928|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|14.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 3||14.6|6.6|< 0.001
84591929|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 4||0.0|-4.0|< 0.001
84591930|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 5||0.8|-1.4|< 0.001
84591931|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6A||1.0|-1.5|< 0.001
84591932|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6B||1.5|-1.2|< 0.001
84591933|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 7F||1.4|-0.4|< 0.001
84591934|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 9V||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
84591935|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 14||0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
84591936|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 18C||1.5|-0.6|< 0.001
84591937|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19A||0.7|-1.3|< 0.001
84591938|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19F||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
84591939|NCT04016714|168934412|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 23F||3.0|-1.2|< 0.001
84591940|NCT04016714|168934412|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|94.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|95.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 22F||95.8|91.6|< 0.001
84591941|NCT04016714|168934412|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|98.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 33F||98.4|95.4|< 0.001
84591942|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 1||0.63|0.54|< 0.001
84591943|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3||1.43|1.20|< 0.001
84591944|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 4||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
84591945|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 5||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
84614280|NCT02038075|168978003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the effectiveness of brief CBT compared with treatment as usual, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze time to the first suicide attempt. Time to suicide attempt was measured by calculating the total number of days from enrollment to the first suicide attempt. For participants without a suicide attempt, the total number of days from enrollment to the last assessment was calculated.||.87|.16|.02
84614281|NCT04000581|168978013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change is equal between the groups, while the alternative is that an increased difference is observed in arm 2. The hypotheses are evaluated using a one-sided, two-sample t-test.||||0.329
84614282|NCT02519595|168978028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
84614283|NCT02519595|168978029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
84614284|NCT02519595|168978030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
84614285|NCT02519595|168978032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events in ED||||0.8
84614286|NCT02519595|168978032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Post discharge Emesis||||0.5
84614287|NCT02519595|168978033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84501059|NCT02200614|168752626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.5|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.500|0.341|<0.000001
84614288|NCT00387036|168978034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.59|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-1.59|
84614289|NCT00387036|168978035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||||90.0|-0.28|6.61||||||||6.61|-0.28|
84614290|NCT03139344|168978037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84614291|NCT03139344|168978037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84614292|NCT03139344|168978038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84501060|NCT02200614|168752627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706||||0.04521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.994|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.994|0.501|0.045210
84501061|NCT02200614|168752628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
84614293|NCT03139344|168978038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84614294|NCT03139344|168978039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84614295|NCT03139344|168978039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84614296|NCT03139344|168978040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
84614297|NCT03139344|168978040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84614298|NCT03139344|168978041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.069
84614299|NCT03139344|168978041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84614300|NCT03139344|168978042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.118
84614301|NCT03139344|168978042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
84614302|NCT03139344|168978043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.059
84614303|NCT03139344|168978043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
84614304|NCT03139344|168978044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
84614305|NCT03139344|168978044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84614306|NCT03139344|168978045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84614307|NCT03139344|168978046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
84614308|NCT03139344|168978047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
84614309|NCT03139344|168978048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
84614310|NCT03139344|168978049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84614311|NCT03139344|168978050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
84614312|NCT03139344|168978051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
84614313|NCT03139344|168978052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.573
84614314|NCT03139344|168978053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.858
84614315|NCT03188510|168978054|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.17||||||||1.17|0.805|
84614316|NCT03188510|168978054|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.22||||||||1.22|0.841|
84614317|NCT03188510|168978054|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18||||||||1.18|0.819|
84614318|NCT03188510|168978055|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.18||||||||1.18|0.811|
84614319|NCT03188510|168978055|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.21||||||||1.21|0.833|
84614320|NCT03188510|168978055|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.18||||||||1.18|0.817|
84614321|NCT03637517|168978080|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.926||||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.771|1.113|||ANOVA|||||1.113|0.771|0.4847
84591946|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6A||0.67|0.54|< 0.001
84591947|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B||1.00|0.79|< 0.001
84591948|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 7F||0.81|0.69|< 0.001
84591949|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 9V||0.76|0.64|< 0.001
84591950|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14||0.87|0.70|< 0.001
84591951|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.77|< 0.001
84591952|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19A||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
84591953|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19F||0.87|0.72|< 0.001
84591954|NCT04016714|168934413|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F||1.00|0.81|< 0.001
84591955|NCT04016714|168934413|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2- sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|68.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.73|75.65|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 22F||75.65|61.73|< 0.001
84591956|NCT04016714|168934413|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|48.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.45|54.01|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 33F||54.01|44.45|< 0.001
84591957|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Diphtheria toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
84591958|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Tetanus toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
84591959|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PT||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
84591960|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FHA||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
84591961|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FIM 2/3||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
84591962|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PRN||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
84614322|NCT03637517|168978080|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.79||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.95|||ANOVA|||||0.950|0.658|0.0370
84591963|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Hib-PRP||0.9|-3.3|< 0.001
84501062|NCT02200614|168752629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.595|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.595|0.314|<0.000001
84501063|NCT02200614|168752630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428||||0.011262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.842|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.842|0.218|0.011262
84591964|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||HBsAg||0.5|-2.0|< 0.001
84591965|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 1||0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
84591966|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 2||1.1|-0.6|< 0.001
84591967|NCT04016714|168934414|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 3||0.7|-0.8|< 0.001
84591968|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.75|
84591969|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.98||||||Serotype 3||1.98|1.66|
84591970|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Serotype 4||1.21|0.99|
84591971|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||||||Serotype 5||1.01|0.81|
84591972|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.5||||||Serotype 6A||0.50|0.38|
84591973|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.05||||||Serotype 6B||2.05|1.46|
84591974|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||||||Serotype 7F||0.84|0.71|
84591975|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||||||Serotype 9V||1.12|0.90|
84591976|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||Serotype 14||1.18|0.89|
84591977|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||||||Serotype 18C||0.82|0.68|
84591978|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||||||Serotype 19A||0.81|0.64|
84591979|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Serotype 19F||0.77|0.62|
84591980|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.51||||||Serotype 23F||1.51|1.16|
84591981|NCT04016714|168934416|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|81.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.12|89.75||||||Serotype 22F||89.75|73.12|
84591982|NCT04016714|168934416|OTHER||GMC ratio|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|8.94||||||Serotype 33F||8.94|6.82|
84591983|NCT00271544|168934427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.955||||||95.0|0.92|0.955|||||1-side 95% confidence limit lower bound|||0.955|0.92|
84591984|NCT00271544|168934428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.96||||||95.0|0.932|0.989||||||||0.989|0.932|
84591985|NCT00271544|168934429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||95.0|1.1|1.2|||||1-side 95% confidence limit upper bound|||1.2|1.1|
84591986|NCT00271544|168934430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||97.5|1.9|2.2|||||1-sided 97.5% confidence limit upper bound|||2.2|1.9|
84591987|NCT00271544|168934431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.989||||||95.0|0.974|1.0||||||||1|0.974|
84591988|NCT00271544|168934432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
84591989|NCT00271544|168934433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
84591990|NCT01822665|168934446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.59||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.59|-1.63|<0.0001
84591991|NCT01822665|168934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.18|-1.23|0.0095
84591992|NCT01822665|168934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.72|-0.34|0.4794
84591993|NCT01822665|168934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.95||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.95|-0.14|0.1429
84591994|NCT01822665|168934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.84|0.75|<0.0001
84591995|NCT01822665|168934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.45|0.34|0.0020
84591996|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.31|-0.49|0.6497
84614323|NCT03637517|168978081|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.899||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.004|||ANOVA|||||1.004|0.805|0.1135
84672958|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.66|0.0560
84501064|NCT02200614|168752631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685||||0.003048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.881|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.881|0.533|0.003048
84591997|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.34|-0.46|0.7591
84591998|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.57|-0.24|0.4126
84591999|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.45|-0.39|0.8903
84501065|NCT02200614|168752632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
84592000|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.67|-0.16|0.2227
84592001|NCT01822665|168934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.65|-0.20|0.2855
84592002|NCT01822665|168934449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.19||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|23.97||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||23.97|1.60|0.0084
84592003|NCT01822665|168934449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.74||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||12.74|0.80|0.0999
84614324|NCT03637517|168978081|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.175||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.312|||ANOVA|||||1.312|1.051|0.0192
84614325|NCT03637517|168978082|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.898||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|1.024|||ANOVA||Regimen B to A|||1.024|0.787|0.1759
84614326|NCT03637517|168978082|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.172||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.338|||ANOVA||Regimen C to B|||1.338|1.027|0.0496
84614327|NCT03637517|168978083|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|-0.2857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4313|2.8599||||||||2.8599|-3.4313|
84614328|NCT03637517|168978083|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|9.3571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2115|12.5028|||||Regimen C to B|||12.5028|6.2115|
84614329|NCT03637517|168978085|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.866||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.032|||ANOVA|||(ANOVA) will be performed for Tmax, the terminal phase elimination rate constant β, and the natural logarithms of Cmax, AUCt, AUC168, AUCinf, and C168. The model will include the effects for regimen. For the tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares will be the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen will be compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.032|0.727|0.1745
84614330|NCT03637517|168978085|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.185||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.411||For tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares is the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen is compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|||||1.411|0.995|0.1105
84592004|NCT01822665|168934449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.5|||Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||6.50|0.58|0.2845
84592005|NCT01685684|168934451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Marginal Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.0001
84592006|NCT00038948|168934464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|-2.68||||0.575||95.0|-12.27|6.91||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of 20.0 to 40.0 mL/min||6.91|-12.27|0.575
84592007|NCT00038948|168934464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|1.31||||0.278||95.0|-1.06|3.69||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of \>40.0 mL/min||3.69|-1.06|0.278
84614331|NCT03637517|168978086|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|0.901||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|1.069|||ANOVA|||||1.069|0.759|0.3100
84614332|NCT03637517|168978086|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|1.156||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.371|||ANOVA|||||1.371|0.974|0.1619
84592008|NCT00038948|168934465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 52 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||52 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.135
84614333|NCT02921087|168978091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the primary outcome (change in overall VAS at day 7) mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.07
84614334|NCT02921087|168978093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for accommodative response mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.01
84614335|NCT02921087|168978094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the change in CISS, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.77
84614336|NCT02921087|168978095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the CLDEQ-8, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.69
84614337|NCT02921087|168978096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for phoria, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.87
84614338|NCT00928694|168978116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true geometric mean ratios (GMRs) \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
84614339|NCT00928694|168978117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true GMRs \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and Cmax of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
84592009|NCT00038948|168934465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 104 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||104 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.559
84592010|NCT00896012|168934467|OTHER|||||||0.222||||||Significance was considered to be P \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance and Student t test for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months. Chi-square analysis was used for demographics data.||||0.222
84614340|NCT00118430|168978118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614341|NCT00118430|168978119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84614342|NCT00118430|168978120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84592011|NCT03247829|168934469|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparative p-values were calculated by two-sided t-tests (paired analysis).||||||0.001
84592012|NCT03247829|168934470|OTHER|||||||0.0931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0931
84592013|NCT01783444|168934478|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.97||||||||0.97|0.57|
84614343|NCT00118430|168978121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
84614344|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS) Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1063|3.6057|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6057|1.1063|
84614345|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1267|2.4079|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4079|1.1267|
84614346|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0744|2.5048|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5048|1.0744|
84614347|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4931|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0876|2.0498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0498|1.0876|
84614348|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6222|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1594|2.2696|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2696|1.1594|
84614349|NCT03223337|168978126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9896|1.7462|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7462|0.9896|
84614350|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|2.0523|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0523|1.0350|
84614351|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3919|2.6968|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.6968|1.3919|
84614352|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3342|2.5133|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5133|1.3342|
84592014|NCT01783444|168934479|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.66||||||||1.66|0.96|
84592015|NCT01783444|168934480|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.7||||||||1.70|0.95|
84592016|NCT01783444|168934480|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.79||||||||1.79|0.99|
84592017|NCT01783444|168934483|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.66||||||||1.66|0.72|
84592018|NCT01783444|168934483|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.77||||||||1.77|0.78|
84592019|NCT01783444|168934484|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.88||||||||0.88|0.46|
84672959|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.45|0.6187
84758808|NCT01970995|169273521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|31.11||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||31.11|17.38|<.001
84592020|NCT01783444|168934484|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.91||||||||1.91|0.93|
84592021|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.9||||||Side-effects||11.9|-3.3|
84592022|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|5.5||||||Side-effects||5.5|-9.9|
84592023|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|3.8||||||Effectiveness||3.8|-10.4|
84592024|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|3.0||||||Effectiveness||3.0|-9.7|
84592025|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|2.5||||||Convenience||2.5|-5.8|
84592026|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Convenience||3.3|-5.5|
84592027|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|2.9||||||Global Satisfaction||2.9|-8.3|
84592028|NCT01783444|168934485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|1.9||||||Global Satisfaction||1.9|-8.4|
84592029|NCT02722408|168934487|OTHER|||||||0.0041||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
84592030|NCT02722408|168934488|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
84592031|NCT02722408|168934489|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0012
84592032|NCT02722408|168934490|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0560
84592033|NCT02722408|168934490|OTHER|||||||0.0219||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0219
84592034|NCT02722408|168934490|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0286
84592035|NCT02722408|168934491|OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0058
84592036|NCT02722408|168934491|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0019
84592037|NCT02722408|168934491|OTHER|||||||0.0024||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0024
84592038|NCT02722408|168934492|OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0592
84592039|NCT02722408|168934492|OTHER|||||||0.0266||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0266
84592040|NCT02722408|168934492|OTHER|||||||0.0336||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0336
84592041|NCT02722408|168934493|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
84592042|NCT02722408|168934493|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0017
84592043|NCT02722408|168934493|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0017
84592044|NCT02722408|168934494|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
84592045|NCT02722408|168934494|OTHER|||||||0.0255||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0255
84614353|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4654|2.7378|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7378|1.4654|
84614354|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2818|2.2847|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2847|1.2818|
84614355|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5365|2.536|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5360|1.5365|
84592046|NCT02722408|168934494|OTHER|||||||0.0312||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 86||||0.0312
84592047|NCT02722408|168934495|OTHER|||||||0.4489||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4489
84592048|NCT02722408|168934495|OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.5964
84592049|NCT02722408|168934495|OTHER|||||||0.6785||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6785
84592050|NCT02722408|168934496|OTHER|||||||0.2177||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2177
84592051|NCT02722408|168934496|OTHER|||||||0.3209||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3209
84592052|NCT02722408|168934496|OTHER|||||||0.3101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3101
84592053|NCT02722408|168934497|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
84592054|NCT02722408|168934497|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0022
84592055|NCT02722408|168934497|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0029
84592056|NCT02722408|168934498|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0008
84592057|NCT02722408|168934498|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.0005
84614356|NCT03223337|168978127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9081|2.3484|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3484|0.9081|
84614357|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1061|3.6066|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6066|1.1061|
84758809|NCT00595556|169273531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.012
84592058|NCT02722408|168934498|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.0002
84501066|NCT02200614|168752633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.579||||4.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.755|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.755|0.444|0.000044
84501067|NCT02200614|168752634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.005294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.815|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.815|0.287|0.005294
84501068|NCT01556165|168752681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-4.53|-1.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||This study was designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary efficacy analysis, at a two-sided significance level of 0.25. Assuming a difference between rasagiline and placebo of a 3-point change in the UPDRS total score and a standard deviation on the change from baseline of 7 points, a sample size of 60 patients per treatment group gave an 88% probability of showing a trend. LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-1.47|-4.53|0.0254
84501069|NCT01556165|168752682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-0.21|-1.03|0.0032
84501070|NCT01556165|168752683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.35|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.35|-1.70|0.1963
84501071|NCT01556165|168752684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.1|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.10|-3.52|0.0641
84501072|NCT02395536|168752740|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was chosen since the inability to rule out a 5% increase in untoward event rate associated with moving the Reveal LINQ procedure in-office may suggest that in-office procedures would too high of a complication rate compared procedures performed in the traditional office setting.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.029||P-value for non-inferiority versus a 5% non-inferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning test||The estimated value and its associated confidence interval are for the in-office minus traditional hospital setting difference in the untoward event rates. The point estimate is negative since the in-office rate was lower than the hospital rate.|The null hypothesis was that Reveal LINQ insertions performed in-office would have a higher untoward event rate than insertions performed in the traditional hospital setting. A sample size of 476 subjects was estimated to provide at least 90% power at a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5% and 5% non-inferiority margin. For the sample size calculation, an event rate of 2.0% was assumed in both arms. The Farrington-Manning test of two indepent proportions was used to compare study arms.||0.029|-0.030|<0.001
84501073|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.988||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|||Age (\>75y vs ≤75y）||2.095|0.466|0.9744
84592059|NCT02722408|168934499|OTHER|||||||0.4103||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4103
84614358|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1285|2.415|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4150|1.1285|
84501074|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|40.354|||Regression, Logistic|||APOE ɛ4 (carrier vs non-carrier)||40.354|0.290|0.3288
84501075|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.107||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|28.171|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Gastrointestinal drugs||28.171|0.158|0.5732
84501076|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hypoglycemic drugs||3.387|0.281|0.9694
84501077|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.221||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|4.748|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular drugs||4.748|1.039|0.0396
84501078|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|28.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hepatology drugs||28.074|0.151|0.5889
84501079|NCT02787746|168752757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Duration of previous donepezil 5mg/d therapy (day)||1.008|0.999|0.1181
84614359|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|2.5125|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5125|1.0732|
84501080|NCT01142466|168752784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1384|||||||Log Rank|||Two-sided log rank test with alpha equal to 0.05 was used as the appropriate nonparametric method to compare the two groups.||||0.1384
84501081|NCT01142466|168752785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2635
84501082|NCT04084028|168752791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84501083|NCT04084028|168752792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84501084|NCT04084028|168752793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84501085|NCT04084028|168752794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.19
84501086|NCT04084028|168752795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.77
84501087|NCT04084028|168752796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
84758810|NCT00595556|169273532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.94
84758811|NCT00595556|169273533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
84758812|NCT00595556|169273534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
84758813|NCT00595556|169273535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3
84592060|NCT02722408|168934499|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6164
84592061|NCT02722408|168934499|OTHER|||||||0.6732||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6732
84592062|NCT02722408|168934500|OTHER|||||||0.2003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2003
84592063|NCT02722408|168934500|OTHER|||||||0.3323||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3323
84592064|NCT02722408|168934500|OTHER|||||||0.3047||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3047
84592065|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.3601||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3601
84614360|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.5169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0994|2.093|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0930|1.0994|
84614361|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.624|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1599|2.2736|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2736|1.1599|
84614362|NCT03223337|168978130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.747|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7470|0.9887|
84758814|NCT00794677|169273542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical significance was determined for a standard two-period crossover design using JMP software (Version 5.0, SAS Institute. Cary, NC).||||0.03
84758815|NCT00794677|169273543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84592066|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1920
84592067|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.2912||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2912
84592068|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
84592069|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
84592070|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
84592071|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0444
84592072|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0159||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0159
84592073|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0235||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0235
84592074|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0005
84614363|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0344|2.0513|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0513|1.0344|
84614364|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3935|2.7224|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7224|1.3935|
84614365|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|2.534|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5340|1.3350|
84758816|NCT00794677|169273544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
84758817|NCT00794677|169273545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84592075|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
84614366|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.0161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4711|2.763|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7630|1.4711|
84614367|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2932|2.3151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3151|1.2932|
84501088|NCT00606801|168752799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.006
84501089|NCT00606801|168752800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
84501090|NCT00606801|168752801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.02
84501091|NCT00606801|168752802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
84501092|NCT00606801|168752803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
84592076|NCT02722408|168934501|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
84501093|NCT00606801|168752804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.7
84592077|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.3646||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3646
84592078|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.1994||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1994
84614368|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5426|2.5594|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5594|1.5426|
84614369|NCT03223337|168978131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|2.3609|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3609|0.9086|
84614370|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0557|3.7084|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.7084|1.0557|
84614371|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2791|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.7705|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7705|0.9241|
84592079|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.2858||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2858
84592080|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0829||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0829
84592081|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0492
84592082|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0442
84592083|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7360
84592084|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.6917||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6917
84592085|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.7131||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7131
84614372|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8675|1.7974|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7974|0.8675|
84614373|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9165|1.5197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5197|0.9165|
84592086|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0014
84592087|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0009
84592088|NCT02722408|168934502|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0007
84592089|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3880
84592090|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.2057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2057
84592091|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.2892||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2892
84592092|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0052
84592093|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0028
84592094|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0026
84614374|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2726|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.7012|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7012|0.9520|
84614375|NCT03223337|168978132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7927|1.3668|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3668|0.7927|
84758818|NCT00794677|169273546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84592095|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0493
84592096|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0253
84592097|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0394||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0394
84592098|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
84592099|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
84614376|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7122|1.4316|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4316|0.7122|
84592100|NCT02722408|168934503|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
84614377|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2498|2.5498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5498|1.2498|
84614378|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2343|2.4353|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4353|1.2343|
84614379|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2898|2.4092|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4092|1.2898|
84758819|NCT00794677|169273547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84758820|NCT00794677|169273548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
84592101|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.3833||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3833
84592102|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.2172||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2172
84614380|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2055|2.2347|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2347|1.2055|
84592103|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.293||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2930
84592104|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1217
84592105|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0901||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0901
84614381|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3992|2.3904|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3904|1.3992|
84614382|NCT03223337|168978133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8288|2.1557|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.1557|0.8288|
84614383|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1869|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.1869|0.6900|
84614384|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5617|0.9787|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.9787|0.5617|
84614385|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4387|1.2145|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2145|0.4387|
84758821|NCT00794677|169273549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.893||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84758822|NCT00794677|169273550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
84592106|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0850
84501094|NCT00606801|168752805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
84501095|NCT00606801|168752806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
84501096|NCT00606801|168752807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
84501097|NCT00606801|168752808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.9
84501098|NCT00606801|168752809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.8
84501099|NCT00606801|168752810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
84501100|NCT00606801|168752811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.01
84592107|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0747||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0747
84592108|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0279||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0279
84501101|NCT00606801|168752812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.60
84501102|NCT00606801|168752813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.50
84501103|NCT02499406|168752822|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||>0.016
84592109|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0492
84501104|NCT02499406|168752823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||p value was calculated and found to be below the a priori threshold for significance, which was adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
84592110|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
84592111|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
84592112|NCT02722408|168934504|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
84592113|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.8972||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8972
84592114|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.7867||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7867
84592115|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.4974||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4974
84592116|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.5464||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5464
84614386|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.5219|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5219|0.9000|
84614387|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.9585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6664|1.3786|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3786|0.6664|
84758823|NCT05284760|169273551|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|97.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.66|107.96||||||||107.96|87.66|
84758824|NCT05284760|169273551|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|81.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.06|89.89||||||||89.89|73.06|
84501105|NCT02499406|168752824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
84592117|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.7668||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7668
84592118|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9276
84592119|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.5821||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.5821
84592120|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.8881||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8881
84614388|NCT03223337|168978134|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.2778|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2778|0.7833|
84758825|NCT05284760|169273551|OTHER||GMR|37.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.1|45.17||||||||45.17|31.10|
84758826|NCT05284760|169273551|OTHER||GMR|89.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.24|107.79||||||||107.79|74.24|
84501106|NCT02499406|168752825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in paired samples between baseline and 3-month assessment||||<0.016
84592121|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.8525||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8525
84592122|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.0112||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0112
84614389|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7876|1.4197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4197|0.7876|
84614390|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7332|1.4032|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4032|0.7332|
84758827|NCT05284760|169273552|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|97.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|103.17||||||||103.17|92.17|
84592123|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0018
84592124|NCT02722408|168934505|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0028
84592125|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.8985||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8985
84592126|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.7664||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7664
84614391|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7695|1.4002|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4002|0.7695|
84614392|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7635|2.3615|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3615|0.7635|
84614393|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6996|1.5151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5151|0.6996|
84614394|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2721|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8409|1.9245|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.9245|0.8409|
84758828|NCT05284760|169273552|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.14|91.89||||||||91.89|82.14|
84758829|NCT05284760|169273552|OTHER||GMR|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.92|101.15||||||||101.15|75.92|
84614395|NCT03223337|168978135|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9398|1.5508|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5508|0.9398|
84614396|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6822
84758830|NCT05284760|169273552|OTHER||GMR|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.73|110.22||||||||110.22|82.73|
84758831|NCT05284760|169273553|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|106.1||||||||106.10|92.84|
84758832|NCT05284760|169273553|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|93.03||||||||93.03|81.33|
84758833|NCT05284760|169273553|OTHER||GMR|89.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.92|100.99||||||||100.99|78.92|
84758834|NCT05284760|169273553|OTHER||GMR|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|105.25||||||||105.25|81.77|
84758835|NCT04341441|169273563|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined with one planned interim analysis when 50% of participants had completed their 8 weeks of treatment using an O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending method to ensure an overall type 1 error of 0.05. With a sample size of 900 per group and alpha = 0.0492, the power to detect a 32% reduction in COVID-19 disease rate (10% vs 6.8%) between the placebo and HCQ treated groups, determined at 87%. Study required 1000 per group with a total of 3000 patients to complete the trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the comparison between groups, including the non-randomized active comparator, was 0.75.|Mantel Haenszel||Low number of primary events precluded estimated value of risk ratio.|||||0.75
84758836|NCT03817775|169273583|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84758837|NCT03817775|169273584|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84592127|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.4755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4755
84592128|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.2286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2286
84592129|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.3975||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3975
84614397|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5767
84614398|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.50|-1.00|0.5880
84614399|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.7716
84758838|NCT03817775|169273585|OTHER|||||||0.7215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7215
84758839|NCT03817775|169273586|OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5675
84758840|NCT03817775|169273587|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84501107|NCT02499406|168752826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=10||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
84592130|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.446||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4460
84592131|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.9414||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9414
84592132|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.9735||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9735
84592133|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.9825||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9825
84592134|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4420
84592135|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
84592136|NCT02722408|168934506|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
84758841|NCT02572752|169273633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.545|100.502|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.502|94.545|<0.0001
84758842|NCT02572752|169273634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.948|103.463|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed.||103.463|90.948|<0.0001
84758843|NCT02572752|169273635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.223|100.166|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.166|94.223|<0.0001
84592137|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.2305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2305
84592138|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.1836||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1836
84592139|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.6501||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6501
84501108|NCT02499406|168752827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=11||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
84592140|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0139
84592141|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0077
84592142|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
84672960|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 72 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.72|0.0187
84592143|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0507
84592144|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0118
84592145|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0122
84592146|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0077
84592147|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0317
84592148|NCT02722408|168934507|OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0473
84592149|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.2143||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2143
84592150|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1874
84592151|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.6731||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6731
84592152|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0027
84592153|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0020
84592154|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
84592155|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0258
84592156|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0044
84592157|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0011
84592158|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0083||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0083
84592159|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0314
84592160|NCT02722408|168934508|OTHER|||||||0.0533||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0533
84592161|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.3657||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3657
84592162|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.1983||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1983
84592163|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.297||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2970
84592164|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0092
84592165|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0049
84592166|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0033
84592167|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0618||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0618
84592168|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0298
84592169|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0352||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0352
84592170|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
84614400|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.00|-1.00|0.4093
84614401|NCT03223337|168978136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.9837
84614402|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6224
84614403|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.00|-1.00|0.8042
84672961|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.62|0.1531
84592171|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
84592172|NCT02722408|168934509|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
84592173|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.3672||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr||||0.3672
84592174|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2101
84614404|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
84614405|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5207
84592175|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.3009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3009
84592176|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.1567||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1567
84592177|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.1207||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1207
84592178|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.1045||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1045
84614406|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
84614407|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|1.0000
84592179|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.0631||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0631
84592180|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0217
84592181|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0359
84592182|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
84592183|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
84592184|NCT02722408|168934510|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
84592185|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.9417||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9417
84592186|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.7722||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7722
84614408|NCT03223337|168978137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|0.00|0.8042
84614409|NCT01362608|168978156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-28.2|<0.0001
84592187|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.5283||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5283
84592188|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.5905||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5905
84592189|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.7682||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7682
84614410|NCT01362608|168978157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.10|0.0043
84614411|NCT01504412|168978173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.15||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.99|0.1995
84614412|NCT01504412|168978173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.37||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.2||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.93|0.2886
84614413|NCT01504412|168978173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.3||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.27||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.87|0.4704
84614414|NCT01504412|168978174|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.2||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 10 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.4|-10.8|0.0691
84614415|NCT01504412|168978174|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.4||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.2|-10.9|0.0577
84592190|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.9245||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9245
84592191|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.6325||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6325
84592192|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.9221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9221
84592193|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.8387||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8387
84592194|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.0089||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0089
84592195|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0013
84592196|NCT02722408|168934511|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0019
84592197|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.9195||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9195
84592198|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7497
84592199|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.5056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5056
84592200|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.2468||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2468
84592201|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.392||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3920
84592202|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.4456||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4456
84592203|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.9203||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9203
84592204|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9704
84592205|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.9755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9755
84592206|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.4213||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4213
84592207|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
84592208|NCT02722408|168934512|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
84592209|NCT02722408|168934518|OTHER|||||||0.0294||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0294
84592210|NCT02722408|168934518|OTHER|||||||0.3228||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3228
84592211|NCT02722408|168934518|OTHER|||||||0.5268||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5268
84501109|NCT02499406|168752828|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||> 0.016
84501110|NCT02499406|168752829|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=10||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||=.016
84501111|NCT02499406|168752830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
84501112|NCT01467570|168752852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between study groups were considered significant when the p value was \<0.05 or when the 95% CI for RD or MD did not include 0 (equivalent to p \< 0.05).||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
84501113|NCT02239601|168752881|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.17|0.053
84501114|NCT01954082|168752893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.83||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality and/or severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the development of severe ROP and mortality.||1.83|1.08|0.0095
84501115|NCT01954082|168752894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of BPD is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD.||1.16|0.91|0.6599
84501116|NCT01954082|168752895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD or on mortality due to BDP.||1.17|0.94|0.3883
84501117|NCT01954082|168752896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.25||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality prior to ROP endpoint is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on survival to ROP endpoint.||2.25|1.03|0.0306
84758844|NCT03099187|169273644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-134.6||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-772.4|503.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Analysis in 2019. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||503.3|-772.4|0.6777
84501118|NCT01954082|168752897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.7464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of ROP||1.14|0.91|0.7464
84501119|NCT01954082|168752898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP.||1.14|0.83|0.7598
84501120|NCT01954082|168752899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of severe IVH is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence severe IVH.||1.48|0.74|0.8133
84501121|NCT03137082|168752939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.03
84501122|NCT03137082|168752940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
84501123|NCT03137082|168752942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84501124|NCT03137082|168752943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84501125|NCT03137082|168752944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
84501126|NCT03137082|168752945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.03
84501127|NCT03137082|168752946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
84501128|NCT03137082|168752947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.3
84501129|NCT03137082|168752948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84501130|NCT03137082|168752949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
84501131|NCT03137082|168752950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84501132|NCT03137082|168752951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
84501133|NCT00417027|168752952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84501134|NCT00417027|168752952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84501135|NCT00417027|168752952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84501136|NCT00417027|168752953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
84501137|NCT00417027|168752954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
84501138|NCT00417027|168752955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.69
84592212|NCT02722408|168934519|OTHER|||||||0.1099||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1099
84592213|NCT02722408|168934519|OTHER|||||||0.5478||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5478
84592214|NCT02722408|168934519|OTHER|||||||0.8837||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8837
84592215|NCT02722408|168934520|OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0587
84592216|NCT02722408|168934520|OTHER|||||||0.1491||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.1491
84592217|NCT02722408|168934520|OTHER|||||||0.2224||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2224
84592218|NCT02722408|168934521|OTHER|||||||0.0959||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0959
84592219|NCT02722408|168934521|OTHER|||||||0.0923||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0923
84592220|NCT02722408|168934521|OTHER|||||||0.1592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.1592
84592221|NCT02722408|168934522|OTHER|||||||0.5856||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.5856
84592222|NCT02722408|168934522|OTHER|||||||0.644||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6440
84592223|NCT02722408|168934522|OTHER|||||||0.2269||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2269
84592224|NCT02722408|168934523|OTHER|||||||0.4814||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4814
84592225|NCT02722408|168934523|OTHER|||||||0.5011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5011
84592226|NCT02722408|168934523|OTHER|||||||0.4356||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.4356
84592227|NCT02722408|168934524|OTHER|||||||0.0669||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0669
84592228|NCT02722408|168934524|OTHER|||||||0.0189||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0189
84592229|NCT02722408|168934524|OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0316
84592230|NCT02722408|168934525|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0685
84614416|NCT01504412|168978174|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||-1.8|-13.0|0.0093
84614417|NCT00536471|168978176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group A change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||0.051
84614418|NCT00536471|168978176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group B change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||<0.001
84501139|NCT00417027|168752956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Analysis applies to all rows.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Analysis apply to all rows. Only 1 comparison was made between the groups in distribution of number of bolus doses.||||0.72
84501140|NCT00417027|168752957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
84501141|NCT00417027|168752958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.85
84501142|NCT01676311|168753001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group, CVLT-II-total learning score at baseline and week 12, and covariates (Beck Depression Index \[BDI\], time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory \[BC-PSI\]). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome. The BDI and BC-PSI are covariates in the regression model and not pre-specified Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures.||||0.38
84501143|NCT01676311|168753001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-short delay free recall (SDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-SDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.38
84501144|NCT01676311|168753001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-long delay free recall (LDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-LDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.42
84501145|NCT01676311|168753004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A chi-square test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of seizure (yes, no) was performed. A permutation test was the used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the prevalence of seizures.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||||||0.48
84592231|NCT02722408|168934525|OTHER|||||||0.0114||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0114
84758845|NCT03099187|169273644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-216.0||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.6|371.7||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||371.7|-803.6|0.4682
84501146|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of behavioral side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of behavioral side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Behavioral side effects statistical analysis||||0.44
84501147|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of cardiac-respiratory side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Cardiac-respiratory side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
84501148|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of dermatological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of dermatological side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Dermatological side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
84501149|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of gastrointestinal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Gastrointestinal side effects statistical analysis||||0.73
84501150|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of genitourinary/neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Genitourinary/neurological side effects statistical analysis||||0.54
84501151|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of hematological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Hematological side effects statistical analysis||||0.27
84501152|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of musculoskeletal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Musculoskeletal side effects statistical analysis||||0.41
84501153|NCT01676311|168753005|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Neurological side effects statistical analysis||||1.00
84592232|NCT02722408|168934525|OTHER|||||||0.0263||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0263
84758846|NCT03099187|169273645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0383
84758847|NCT03099187|169273645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0239
84592233|NCT02722408|168934526|OTHER|||||||0.1466||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1466
84592234|NCT02722408|168934526|OTHER|||||||0.3598||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3598
84592235|NCT02722408|168934526|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0685
84592236|NCT02722408|168934527|OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1660
84592237|NCT02722408|168934527|OTHER|||||||0.3423||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3423
84592238|NCT02722408|168934527|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0313
84592239|NCT02722408|168934528|OTHER|||||||0.7196||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7196
84592240|NCT02722408|168934528|OTHER|||||||0.4343||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4343
84592241|NCT02722408|168934528|OTHER|||||||0.7241||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.7241
84592242|NCT02722408|168934529|OTHER|||||||0.7952||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7952
84592243|NCT02722408|168934529|OTHER|||||||0.4931||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4931
84592244|NCT02722408|168934529|OTHER|||||||0.8622||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8622
84614419|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84758848|NCT03099187|169273646|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|95.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|154.6||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Primary Analysis in 2019||154.6|35.9|0.0018
84592245|NCT02722408|168934530|OTHER|||||||0.9823||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.9823
84758849|NCT03099187|169273646|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|84.3||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|147.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020||147.8|20.7|0.0096
84758850|NCT03099187|169273647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.69|0.25|0.0006
84758851|NCT03099187|169273647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.71|0.26|0.0009
84592246|NCT02722408|168934530|OTHER|||||||0.9129||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.9129
84592247|NCT02722408|168934530|OTHER|||||||0.7762||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.7762
84592248|NCT02722408|168934531|OTHER|||||||0.2683||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2683
84614420|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614421|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
84758852|NCT03099187|169273648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.84|0.23|0.0114
84614422|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84592249|NCT02722408|168934531|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0880
84758853|NCT03099187|169273648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.88|0.24|0.0168
84758854|NCT03099187|169273649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0874||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0874
84758855|NCT03099187|169273649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191||||||p-values are not adjusted for multiplicity and are provided for descriptive purpose only.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.1191
84758856|NCT03099187|169273650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0395||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0395
84758857|NCT03099187|169273650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0299||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0299
84758858|NCT03099187|169273651|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||5.00|-5.00|0.7788
84592250|NCT02722408|168934531|OTHER|||||||0.0165||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0165
84592251|NCT02722408|168934532|OTHER|||||||0.4585||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4585
84592252|NCT02722408|168934532|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3721
84592253|NCT02722408|168934532|OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5305
84592254|NCT02722408|168934533|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2937
84592255|NCT02722408|168934533|OTHER|||||||0.2182||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.2182
84592256|NCT02722408|168934533|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2937
84592257|NCT02722408|168934534|OTHER|||||||0.0411||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0411
84592258|NCT02722408|168934534|OTHER|||||||0.0192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0192
84592259|NCT02722408|168934534|OTHER|||||||0.0445||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0445
84592260|NCT02722408|168934535|OTHER|||||||0.0465||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0465
84592261|NCT02722408|168934535|OTHER|||||||0.0221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0221
84592262|NCT02722408|168934535|OTHER|||||||0.0402||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0402
84592263|NCT00272792|168934536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||<0.001
84592264|NCT00272792|168934536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||0.027
84592265|NCT00272792|168934537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Longitudinal Model|Longitudinal model with blood Phe measurements as the response variable and treatment group, visit, and baseline blood Phe level as covariates.||||||0.009
84614423|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
84614424|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84539985|NCT02359994|168830665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The primary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 7 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 7 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||4.8|-7.5|0.005
84592266|NCT00288015|168934545|OTHER|This is a two-stage optimal simon design. If bevacizumab is not effective, there is a 0.050 probability of concluding that it is. If bevacizumab is effective, there is a 0.2000 probability of concluding that it is not.||||||||||||In first stage 12 patients will be entered, if \</=3 patients have PFS time\>3 months p\</=0.22 is likely true. In second stage a total of up to 31 patients data will be analysed. If \>/=10 patients show PFS\</=3 months, it will suggest p\>0.50 is true.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|||This is a two stage optimal simon design testing the Null hypothesis: bevacizumab is not effective with P\<=0.220 and the alternative hypothesis: bevacizumab is effective with P \>=0.450 and has a sample size of 16.96 and a probability of early termination of 0.739. p=probability (progression free survival - PFS time\>/=3 months).|P\<=0.220 is the threshold value of significance that the null hypothesis is true or the alternative hypothesis is true. P Value was not calculated from the data. Median survival time was calculated using a 20% censored Kaplan-Meier table and graph.|||
84592267|NCT04552041|168934577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||<0.0001
84592268|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||0.0028
84592269|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Delusional ideas ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1739
84592270|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Hallucinations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0559
84592271|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Agitation ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0174
84592272|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aggression ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3330
84592273|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Dysphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1037
84592274|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Anxiety ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0329
84592275|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Euphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.2700
84592276|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Apathy ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0557
84592277|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Disinhibition ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.9820
84592278|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Irritability ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.4626
84592279|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant motor behaviour ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0006
84758859|NCT03099187|169273651|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||5.00|-5.00|0.8289
84592280|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Sleep disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3725
84592281|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Appetite disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1013
84592282|NCT04552041|168934578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant vocalizations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0432
84592283|NCT04552041|168934579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.0316
84592284|NCT04552041|168934580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.1483
84592285|NCT04552041|168934581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0018
84592286|NCT04552041|168934581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4733|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.4733
84592287|NCT04552041|168934581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0035
84592288|NCT02098304|168934590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage agreement|72.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.8|82.7|||Exact binomial test|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 95% Confidence Interval using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated.||The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance.||82.7|59.8|<0.001
84592289|NCT02098304|168934590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66|||Cohen's Kappa||Cohen's kappa is a chance-adjusted measure of agreement. A value of 0 indicates agreement by chance and 1 perfect agreement.|The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance. The study was powered such that 58 teeth (29 subjects), there would be 95% power to reject the null hypothesis of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) at the 5% level of significance, given that it was expected to be at least 0.4.||0.66|0.24|0.001
84592290|NCT01669902|168934615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 3||||<0.0001
84592291|NCT01669902|168934615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 6||||0.0357
84614425|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
84614426|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614427|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
84614428|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614429|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
84614430|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
84614431|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
84592292|NCT00457392|168934628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.079||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||1.079|0.822|0.1933
84592293|NCT00457392|168934629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.937||No p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons for PFS.|Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.025 was used.||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||0.937|0.695|0.0023
84614432|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.194
84614433|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.525
84614434|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.595
84614435|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.736
84614436|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
84758860|NCT03099187|169273652|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median difference|0.29||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.04||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.04|-0.45|0.1872
84758861|NCT03099187|169273652|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.27||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.02||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.02|-0.48|0.2019
84614437|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.660
84614438|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.334
84614439|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.568
84614440|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
84614441|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
84614442|NCT00536471|168978177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.275
84614443|NCT00536471|168978178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84614444|NCT00536471|168978178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614445|NCT00536471|168978178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
84501154|NCT01029769|168753019|OTHER|"a logistic regression model with remission as the dependent variable and switch of treatment (yes/no) and PANSS-total score at visit 3 as independent variables was used. Multiple imputation (based upon 20 imputations, primary analysis), last observation carried forward and completers only analyses were performed."|||||=|0.01||||||Multiple imputation was performed separately for the switch and non-switch arms and the imputation model included the PANSS total score from all visits from phase II baseline (visit 2) onwards, remission at visit 7 and phase I arm allocation|Regression, Logistic|||Irrespective of the initially assigned antipsychotic treatment in period 1 of the trial (2-week-phase), the patients showing little improvement over the two weeks of treatment in period 1 now switched from the initial treatment in period 2 of the trial (6-week-phase) were grouped together as well as the patients non-switched from their initial treatment.||||=0.01
84501155|NCT04333199|168753024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9903891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2805876|3.9211066||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9211066|2.2805876|<0.001
84501156|NCT04333199|168753025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1781659||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9404654|1.4759445||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4759445|0.9404654|0.154
84501157|NCT04333199|168753026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9575636||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8242111|1.1124918||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1124918|0.8242111|0.571
84501158|NCT04333199|168753027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8562672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5692523|2.1957769||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.1957769|1.5692523|<0.001
84501159|NCT04333199|168753029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8542767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5220654|2.2589975||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2589975|1.5220654|<0.001
84501160|NCT00666718|168753158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a drop-out rate after randomization of approximately 15%, the remaining 160 patients in each treatment group should allow confirmation of noninferiority with no true treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (insulin lispro protamine suspension + insulin lispro minus insulin glargine+insulin lispro) at a significance level of 0.025 with 90% power."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.11|
84501161|NCT00666718|168753159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.4580
84501162|NCT00666718|168753159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.1070
84592294|NCT00457392|168934630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.514||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.289|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown) was used to compare ORR between the 2 treatment arms. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on response rates. A point estimate of relative risk ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated.||2.289|1.002|0.0471
84501163|NCT00666718|168753160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1333||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1333
84501164|NCT00666718|168753160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1213
84501165|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.17|-0.43|
84501166|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Postprandial measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.19|-0.66|
84501167|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country + week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.57|-1.15|
84501168|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.40|-0.46|
84501169|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.83|-0.93|
84501170|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.34|-0.41|
84501171|NCT00666718|168753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|0300 Hours measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.96|-0.67|
84501172|NCT00666718|168753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5568||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.5568
84501173|NCT00666718|168753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523||95.0||||p-value is for Post-breakfast.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.7523
84501174|NCT00666718|168753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6448||95.0||||p-value is for Post-lunch.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.6448
84501175|NCT00666718|168753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9122||95.0||||p-value is for Post-dinner.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+ treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.9122
84501176|NCT00666718|168753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-1.19|
84672962|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.58|0.3341
84758862|NCT03099187|169273653|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||4.00|-10.00|0.2995
84501177|NCT00666718|168753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.11|-0.20|
84592295|NCT00980148|168934634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The treatment failure rate was assumed to be 3% for both treatments. To test this hypothesis at the one-sided 0.10 significance level with power of 0.90 required 153 study subjects per arm in the per-protocol population.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.9|||||The risk difference is the percentage in the azithromycin arm with treatment failure minus the percentage in the doxycycline arm with treatment failure. Noninferiority of azithromycin would be supported if the upper 90% confidence limit is below 5%.|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The one-sided 90% exact confidence interval was used to estimate the difference between the two failures rates.||5.9||
84592296|NCT01747915|168934641|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.19|-0.15|0.8121
84592297|NCT01747915|168934641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.16|-0.19|0.8889
84592298|NCT01747915|168934642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.095||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|2.186||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.186|0.548|0.7973
84592299|NCT01747915|168934642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.934||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.877||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.877|0.465|0.8474
84592300|NCT00988156|168934643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2490
84592301|NCT00988156|168934644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9017
84592302|NCT00887159|168934646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm B to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.47|0.65|0.45
84592303|NCT00887159|168934646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm C to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.48|0.66|0.48
84592304|NCT00887159|168934649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.52|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing the high CTCs group to the low CTCs group.|||2.52|1.13|0.01
84592305|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592306|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592307|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04||||||Difference in change to Week 40||-0.04|-0.63|
84592308|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592309|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592310|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.13|-0.45|
84592311|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592312|NCT02163577|168934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592313|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84614446|NCT00536471|168978178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.167
84614447|NCT00536471|168978179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84758863|NCT03099187|169273653|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||4.00|-10.00|0.3372
84758864|NCT03099187|169273654|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.86||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.38|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.38|-5.06|0.1630
84592314|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592315|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592316|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592317|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592318|NCT02163577|168934725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592319|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592320|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84758865|NCT03099187|169273654|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.74||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.55||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.55|-5.00|0.1851
84592321|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592322|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||0.0024
84592323|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0018
84592324|NCT02163577|168934726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0002
84592325|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592326|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592327|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592328|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592329|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592330|NCT02163577|168934727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592331|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592332|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592333|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592334|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592335|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592336|NCT02163577|168934728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592337|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592338|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0015
84592339|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592340|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592341|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84614448|NCT00536471|168978179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84614449|NCT00536471|168978179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
84758866|NCT03099187|169273655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.49|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.49|0.59|0.5922
84592342|NCT02163577|168934729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592343|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592344|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592345|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||||||Difference in change to Week 40||0.54|-0.12|
84592346|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592347|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592348|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.29|-0.34|
84592349|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592350|NCT02163577|168934730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84758867|NCT03099187|169273655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.83|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||2.83|0.26|0.8057
84758868|NCT03099187|169273655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.73|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models|Final Analysis in 2020. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.73|0.63|0.4613
84758869|NCT03099187|169273655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.59|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Final Analysis in 2020. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||3.59|0.30|0.9523
84758870|NCT03099187|169273657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.78|||Log Rank|||||2.78|0.26|0.7871
84758871|NCT03099187|169273658|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.24|0.56|0.3660
84758872|NCT03099187|169273658|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.26|0.57|0.4173
84758873|NCT03099187|169273659|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.20|0.52|0.2726
84501178|NCT00666718|168753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.16|-1.06|
84592351|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592352|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592353|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592354|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592355|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592356|NCT02163577|168934731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592357|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592358|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592359|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592360|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84501179|NCT00666718|168753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.06|-0.86|
84501180|NCT00666718|168753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days=Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-0.14|
84501181|NCT00666718|168753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1701
84592361|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592362|NCT02163577|168934732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592363|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.0088
84592364|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.4650
84592365|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.0160
84592366|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.4114
84592367|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5335|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.5335
84592368|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.8606
84592369|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1627|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.1627
84592370|NCT02163577|168934733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.4096
84501182|NCT00666718|168753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1727||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1727
84501183|NCT00666718|168753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 non-nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2094
84501184|NCT00666718|168753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 severe hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6230
84501185|NCT00666718|168753166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.55|||ANCOVA|weight change from baseline = Treatment + country + baseline Hb1Ac + baseline weight + treatment\*HbA1c baseline value||||0.55|-0.86|
84592371|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592372|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0569
84592373|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
84592374|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0456
84592375|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592376|NCT02163577|168934734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0343
84592377|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0771||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0771
84592378|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9098||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.9098
84592379|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0007
84592380|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0327
84592381|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1865||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.1865
84592382|NCT02163577|168934739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2654||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2654
84592383|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84501186|NCT00666718|168753167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|12.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Total daily insulin dose=Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+ treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||12.68|-8.33|
84592384|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0144||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0144
84592385|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0384
84592386|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0004
84592387|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.9795
84592388|NCT02163577|168934740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2082
84592389|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592390|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0251
84592391|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9124||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.9124
84592392|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0016
84592393|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5677||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.5677
84592394|NCT02163577|168934741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84758874|NCT03099187|169273659|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.24|0.54|0.3386
84758875|NCT03099187|169273660|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||16.08|0.06|0.9969
84501187|NCT01032330|168753184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.02||||One-sided Barnard's Test||||||0.020|0.004
84501188|NCT01032330|168753185|OTHER||cumulative probability|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.22|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative probability of deterioration by 3 years|||.22|.10|
84501189|NCT01032330|168753186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.094|||One-sided Barnard's Test|||||0.094|-0.038|0.27
84501190|NCT01032330|168753188|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
84592395|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592396|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592397|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0033
84592398|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0001
84592399|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592400|NCT02163577|168934742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592401|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0014
84592402|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0028
84758876|NCT03099187|169273661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3231|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||||0.3231
84758877|NCT04869345|169273685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Boschloo Test||Maximum likelihood estimate of the Odds Ratio comparing retention rate in LARKSPUR group to Attention Control group|||3.05|0.13|.684
84758878|NCT04869345|169273688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) degrees of freedom method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.27|-2.80|0.835
84592403|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0536
84592404|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
84592405|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592406|NCT02163577|168934743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592407|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.2230
84592408|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1132||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.1132
84592409|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.2558
84592410|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0814
84592411|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0093
84592412|NCT02163577|168934744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592413|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
84592414|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0006
84592415|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0260
84592416|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592417|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592418|NCT02163577|168934745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592419|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0003
84592420|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0021
84592421|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592422|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
84592423|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592424|NCT02163577|168934749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
84592425|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.05|0.86|<0.001
84592426|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
84592427|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.04|0.85|<0.001
84592428|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.07|0.84|<0.001
84592429|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.06|0.84|<0.001
84592430|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.00|0.81|<0.001
84592431|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.11|0.86|<0.001
84592432|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.06|0.85|<0.001
84592433|NCT01073293|168934753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||0.99|0.80|<0.001
84592434|NCT01073293|168934758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.4|-0.7|<0.001
84614450|NCT00536471|168978179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
84758879|NCT04869345|169273688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.00|-2.12|0.732
84501191|NCT01032330|168753189|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome; P values for comparisons of binary outcomes are from logistic regression models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.38
84592435|NCT01073293|168934758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.2|-1.1|<0.001
84592436|NCT01073293|168934759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||1.06|0.85|<0.001
84592437|NCT01073293|168934759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.08|0.90|<0.001
84592438|NCT01073293|168934759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.09|0.80|<0.001
84592439|NCT01073293|168934759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.89||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.11|0.72|0.005
84592440|NCT01073293|168934760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 1||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
84592441|NCT01073293|168934760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 2||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
84614451|NCT00536471|168978180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.204
84614452|NCT00536471|168978180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84614453|NCT00536471|168978180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
84614454|NCT00536471|168978180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
84614455|NCT00536471|168978181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
84614456|NCT00536471|168978181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
84592442|NCT01073293|168934760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 3||0.8|-0.8|<0.001
84592443|NCT00328172|168934772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3271||95.0|-0.41|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||0.14|-0.41|0.3271
84592444|NCT00328172|168934772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0032||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-0.14|-0.69|0.0032
84592445|NCT00328172|168934772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0012||95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.18|-0.74|0.0012
84501192|NCT01032330|168753190|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
84614457|NCT00536471|168978181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
84614458|NCT00536471|168978181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
84501193|NCT01032330|168753191|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
84592446|NCT00328172|168934772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Metformin versus placebo||-0.59|-1.1|<0.0001
84592447|NCT00328172|168934773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.7027||95.0|-10.0|15.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||15.1|-10|0.7027
84592448|NCT00328172|168934773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.003||95.0|-32.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-6.6|-32|0.003
84592449|NCT00328172|168934773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.0418||95.0|-26.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.5|-26|0.0418
84592450|NCT00328172|168934773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||||-22|-47|< 0.0001
84501194|NCT01032330|168753191|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
84592451|NCT00328172|168934774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.735||||0.413||95.0|0.464|6.492|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||6.492|0.464|0.413
84592452|NCT00328172|168934774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.842||95.0|0.275|4.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||4.861|0.275|0.842
84614459|NCT00536471|168978182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.332
84614460|NCT00536471|168978182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
84614461|NCT00536471|168978182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
84614462|NCT00536471|168978182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
84614463|NCT00536471|168978183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.624
84501195|NCT01032330|168753192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
84501196|NCT01032330|168753192|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.33
84501197|NCT01032330|168753193|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.013
84501198|NCT01032330|168753193|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.26
84501199|NCT01032330|168753194|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.42
84501200|NCT01032330|168753194|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.61
84592453|NCT00328172|168934774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.364||95.0|0.492|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||6.910|0.492|0.364
84501201|NCT01032330|168753195|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.012
84501202|NCT01032330|168753195|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
84501203|NCT01032330|168753196|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||.002
84501204|NCT01032330|168753196|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.01
84592454|NCT00328172|168934774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.005||95.0|1.648|16.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Metformin versus placebo||16.562|1.648|0.005
84592455|NCT00077974|168934775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|42.8|||||Using exact method based on binomial distribution. Percent equals n divided by N times 100.|||42.8|24.2|
84592456|NCT01990742|168934787|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||MOnte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
84592457|NCT01990742|168934788|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
84592458|NCT01990742|168934789|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
84592459|NCT01469039|168934821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84592460|NCT01469039|168934821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84592461|NCT01469039|168934822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
84592462|NCT01469039|168934822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
84592463|NCT00856609|168934831|OTHER||Slope|-624.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.8|-347.8|||ANCOVA|||||-347.8|-901.8|0.01
84592464|NCT00856609|168934832|OTHER||Slope|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.7|41.4|||ANCOVA|||||41.4|-89.7|0.01
84592465|NCT00856609|168934833|OTHER||Slope|-1.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-3.02|0.05
84672963|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.46|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.40|0.8969
84501205|NCT01032330|168753197|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.11
84501206|NCT01032330|168753197|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.10
84501207|NCT01032330|168753198|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.60
84501208|NCT01032330|168753198|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
84501209|NCT00190684|168753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for systolic BP|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84592466|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||This is the Baseline P-Value|ANOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.368
84592467|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||95.0||||This P-Value if for Month 1|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.327
84592468|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 3|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.991
84592469|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 6|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.168
84592470|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 9|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.319
84592471|NCT00783432|168934836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||This P-Value is for Month 12/ET|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.725
84592472|NCT01436110|168934837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.128|||ANCOVA|||||0.128|-0.055|0.430
84592473|NCT01436110|168934837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.010|0.030
84592474|NCT03273907|168934843|SUPERIORITY|The primary null hypothesis tested was that the observed rate of clinically relevant complications associated with CyPass Micro-Stent placement and stability is greater than or equal to the performance target rate of 7.00 percent.||||||0.187|||||||Exact one-sided binomial test|P-value is provided from exact one-sided binomial test with type I error 0.05 comparing CyPass System with performance criterion of 7.00 percent.||||||0.1870
84592475|NCT00110214|168934850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority and futility analyses were conducted for the OS end point. The Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain the overall significance level of alpha=0.05 while conducting interim analyses on OS. The final analysis was performed when 748 deaths had been observed. An intention-to-treat approach was used in the analysis for all the clinical end points with the exception of toxicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.7|0.181
84614464|NCT00536471|168978183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
84614465|NCT00536471|168978183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
84614466|NCT00536471|168978183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
84592476|NCT00110214|168934851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84592477|NCT00110214|168934852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|<0.001
84592478|NCT01088503|168934854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.88|0.7108
84592479|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with DES vs BMS.|||||
84614467|NCT00536471|168978184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.099
84614468|NCT00536471|168978184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.223
84501210|NCT00190684|168753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for diastolic BP|Wilcoxon sign-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501211|NCT00190684|168753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for pulse|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501212|NCT00190684|168753202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501213|NCT00190684|168753203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501214|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501215|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501216|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||p-value is for weight 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.644
84501217|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501218|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501219|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.001
84501220|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for height 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.044
84501221|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501222|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501223|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.032
84501224|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.351
84501225|NCT00190684|168753204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501226|NCT00190684|168753205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for RR interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501227|NCT00190684|168753205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501228|NCT00190684|168753205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QT Bazett Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501229|NCT00190684|168753205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for QT Data Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.310
84501230|NCT00190684|168753205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||p-value is for QT Fridericia Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.632
84501231|NCT00190684|168753206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for HR.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501232|NCT00190684|168753208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Total Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
84501233|NCT00190684|168753208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Inattentive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84501234|NCT00190684|168753208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Hyperactive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
84501235|NCT00190684|168753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CGI ADHD Severity within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||||||<0.001
84501236|NCT00190684|168753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS ADHD Index Subscale within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84592480|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with STEMI vs not STEMI|||||
84592481|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were Other Race vs Caucasian.|||||
84758880|NCT04869345|169273688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.47||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.47|-2.05|0.609
84758881|NCT04869345|169273689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.31|-2.97|0.445
84758882|NCT04869345|169273689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.54|-0.78|0.209
84758883|NCT04869345|169273689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|4.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||4.54|-0.12|0.063
84501237|NCT00190684|168753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Cognitive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
84758884|NCT04869345|169273690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.13|-1.63|0.792
84592482|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.684|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had cardiogenic shock within 24 hours vs no cardiogenic shock within 24 hours.|||||
84592483|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were male vs not male.|||||
84592484|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with EQ-5D US index = 1 vs. \<1.|||||
84592485|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were married vs not married.|||||
84592486|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had diabetes vs no diabetes.|||||
84592487|NCT01088503|168934855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with no BMS or DES placement vs BMS.|||||
84614469|NCT00536471|168978184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
84592488|NCT01088503|168934856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.93||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is for the analysis at 12 months.|||1.93|0.88|0.1882
84592489|NCT01088503|168934857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|||1.103|0.849|
84592490|NCT01088503|168934861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had pre-procedure hemoglobin evaluation vs no hemoglobin evaluation.|||||
84592491|NCT01088503|168934862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with Duke CAD Index vs no Duke CAD Index.|||||
84592492|NCT01847092|168934863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.279
84592493|NCT01847092|168934864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84592494|NCT03623698|168934865|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.500|-4.000|<0.001
84592495|NCT03623698|168934865|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.29||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, non-ambulant.||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.29|-4.46|0.001
84592496|NCT03623698|168934866|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.50|-1.50|0.001
84592497|NCT03623698|168934866|OTHER||Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, prolonged mechanical ventilation (nasal or tracheostomy), and antibiotic prophylaxis||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.52|-1.53|<0.001
84614470|NCT00536471|168978184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
84592498|NCT03623698|168934869|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.00|-5.50|0.003
84614471|NCT00536471|168978185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.577
84592499|NCT03623698|168934870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.0|-2.5|<0.001
84592500|NCT03623698|168934873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.76|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.76|-0.69|0.97
84592501|NCT03623698|168934874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.34|-3.26|0.09
84592502|NCT03623698|168934875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.38|-0.38|0.65
84592503|NCT01331681|168934892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|12.0||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Least square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||12.0|6.5|<0.0001
84592504|NCT01331681|168934892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|11.8||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||11.8|6.3|<0.0001
84614472|NCT00536471|168978185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
84614473|NCT00536471|168978186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.670
84614474|NCT00536471|168978186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
84501238|NCT00190684|168753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Hyperactive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.026
84501239|NCT00190684|168753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Oppositional Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
84592505|NCT01331681|168934893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|41.6||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||41.6|15.8|<0.0001
84592506|NCT01331681|168934893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|40.5||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||40.5|14.6|<0.0001
84592507|NCT01331681|168934894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|33.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||33.9|12.6|<0.0001
84592508|NCT01331681|168934894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|34.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||34.9|13.5|<0.0001
84592509|NCT01331681|168934895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.2|39.4||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||39.4|12.2|<0.0001
84592510|NCT01331681|168934895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|19.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|32.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||32.1|6.6|0.0006
84592511|NCT01331681|168934896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-157.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-190.9|-123.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-123.1|-190.9|<0.0001
84592512|NCT01331681|168934896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-179.3|-106.3||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A negative value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-106.3|-179.3|<0.0001
84614475|NCT00536471|168978186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.930
84614476|NCT00536471|168978186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
84501240|NCT03496207|168753215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-151.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.53||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.59|-52.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-52.63|-249.59|0.0030
84501241|NCT03496207|168753215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-269.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.81|-173.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-173.03|-365.81|<.0001
84592513|NCT01331681|168934897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.01|6.82||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||6.82|-2.01|0.2208
84592514|NCT01331681|168934897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.79|3.37||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||3.37|-5.79|0.5537
84592515|NCT01331681|168934898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.29|2.91|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||2.91|-5.29|0.5138
84592516|NCT01331681|168934898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.79|4.05|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||4.05|-4.79|0.8498
84592517|NCT02271529|168935027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption that the mean percent change in stent length upon deployment being 0.2% with a standard deviation of 4%, type I error of 0.05, and two one-sided t-tests, a sample size of at least 30 stents provides power \> 0.90 to determine that the mean length change of stents deployed with the thumbwheel delivery system is within +/-10%.|Mean percent change|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||two one-sided t-tests|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.01
84592518|NCT01957865|168935038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear and Poisson regressions|||In an intention-to-treat analysis, percentage doses taken each month were compared by linear generalized estimating equations (GEEs); more than 48-h and more than 96-h lapses in dosingwere compared by Poisson GEE regression.||||<0.05
84592519|NCT01957865|168935039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher's exact test|||HIV RNA suppression (\<100 copies/ml) was compared among study arms by Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
84592520|NCT00811720|168935044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.85|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.85|-3.81|0.002
84592521|NCT00811720|168935045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.11|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-5.11|-16.81|<0.001
84592522|NCT00811720|168935046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values imputed as non-response.||0.98|0.50|0.039
84592523|NCT00811720|168935047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
84592524|NCT00811720|168935048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
84614477|NCT00536471|168978187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.896
84501242|NCT03496207|168753216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.95||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.85|86.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||86.06|-113.85|0.7851
84501243|NCT03496207|168753217|SUPERIORITY||Multiple Imputation Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.83|-110.49||Comparison of baseline and final value|ANCOVA||Standard multiple imputations are done with imputed values that are within the range of the minimum and maximum observed values using linear regression including baseline measurements.|||-110.49|-335.83|<.0001
84592525|NCT00811720|168935049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 211 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.97|0.80|0.009
84758885|NCT04869345|169273690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.09|-0.69|0.209
84758886|NCT04869345|169273690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.26||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.26|-0.35|0.151
84592526|NCT00811720|168935050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 209 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.84|0.011
84592527|NCT00552071|168935069|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84592528|NCT00552071|168935070|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84592529|NCT03768427|168935119|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.3|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (88 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10 mg - ezetimibe 10 mg/Ator 10 mg and 89 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg)."|Difference in least squares mean is Atorvastatin 10 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 10 mg minus Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg.|-12.3|-26.7|<0.001
84592530|NCT03768427|168935119|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.7|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (137 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg and 140 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg)."|Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg minus Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg.|-10.7|-21.0|<0.001
84592531|NCT00527618|168935181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA.|Acyclovir was coded as 0 and valacyclovir as 1. The beta-coefficient (slope) indicates the average difference in HIV-1 RNA on valacyclovir and acyclovir; a negative number indicates that plasma HIV-1 RNA was lower on valacyclovir than acyclovir.|We estimated that a sample size of 29 participants, with 4 weeks of weekly plasma HIV-1 RNA levels per treatment arm, would be required to detect a 0.25 log10 copies/ml difference in plasma HIV-1 RNA between the study arms with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
84592532|NCT00527618|168935182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.37|||Random effects poission regression|Adjusted for age.||We estimated that 26 participants would be required to detect a 50% reduction in genital HSV shedding with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.37|0.66|0.78
84592533|NCT00527618|168935183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84592534|NCT00527618|168935184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84592535|NCT02099084|168935186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.74
84592536|NCT02099084|168935187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 2-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.20
84592537|NCT02099084|168935187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 8-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.17
84614478|NCT00536471|168978187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
84614479|NCT00536471|168978187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
84614480|NCT00536471|168978187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
84614481|NCT00536471|168978188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84672964|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.25|0.5862
84592538|NCT02099084|168935188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.075
84592539|NCT02099084|168935191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.42
84672965|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.13|0.3776
84592540|NCT02099084|168935192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.34
84672966|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.9029
84758887|NCT04869345|169273691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.69||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.69|-2.14|0.601
84592541|NCT01490918|168935193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baselin HbA1c as covariate||primary outcome efficacy will be evaluated between group 1(placebo + metfromin + sitagliptin) and 2 (sitagliptine + metformin + acarbose)||||0.0036
84592542|NCT01490918|168935194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||||<0.0001
84592543|NCT01490918|168935195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline PPG2hr as covariate||||||0.0185
84592544|NCT01490918|168935196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.0356
84592545|NCT01490918|168935197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.8258
84592546|NCT01490918|168935198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.9217
84592547|NCT01490918|168935199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.16
84592548|NCT01490918|168935200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.004
84592549|NCT01490918|168935201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.292
84592550|NCT01490918|168935202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.314
84592551|NCT01490918|168935203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.7563
84614482|NCT00536471|168978188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84614483|NCT00536471|168978188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
84614484|NCT00536471|168978188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.253
84614485|NCT00536471|168978189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
84501244|NCT00810615|168753246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|A repeated measures model was designed so as to incorporate the adjust for the repeated (dependent) measures within individuals over time.||ANCOVA, baseline measurement was considered as a covariate and group (sham or 2.4 ATA), treatment (15 treatments, 30 treatments, and 6 weeks) as well as the interaction between group and treatment were considered as the independent variables.||||0.05
84501245|NCT00810615|168753258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5455||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with one significant event (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
84501246|NCT00810615|168753259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with two significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
84501247|NCT00810615|168753260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1111||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with three significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
84501248|NCT00810615|168753261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with four or more significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
84501249|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post-Treatment||.20|-.58|.338
84501250|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||Threshold: p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post Treatment||0.57|-0.24|0.425
84501251|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.06||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post||0.06|-0.77|0.09
84501252|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.09||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.09|-0.72|0.126
84501253|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.19|-0.65|0.28
84501254|NCT02567266|168753264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.34||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.34|-0.51|0.697
84501255|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.45|-0.6|0.779
84501256|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.67||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.67|-0.42|0.66
84501257|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.31|-0.51|0.629
84592552|NCT00776789|168935205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84501258|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.38||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.38|-0.41|0.938
84501259|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.49|-0.32|0.68
84501260|NCT02567266|168753265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.35|-0.75|0.479
84501261|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.45|-2.85|0.852
84501262|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.07||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.07|-3.41|0.917
84592553|NCT00776789|168935206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0||95.0|1.4|4.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exclusive breast feeding at 48 hours was 95% (19 out of 20 partcipants were exclusively breast feeding)in the skin-to-skin contact group vs. 38.1% in the control group||4.3|1.4|0.00
84592554|NCT00776789|168935207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001||95.0|1.6|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|1.6|0.001
84501263|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.74||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.74|-2.81|0.778
84592555|NCT02967679|168935213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.45||0.7615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7615
84592556|NCT02967679|168935214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.5995|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5995
84592557|NCT02967679|168935215|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1641
84592558|NCT02967679|168935216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
84592559|NCT02967679|168935217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2642
84592560|NCT02967679|168935218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.1777|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1777
84592561|NCT02967679|168935219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0371
84592562|NCT02967679|168935220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
84592563|NCT02967679|168935222|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.1055|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1055
84592564|NCT02967679|168935223|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.16||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2130
84592565|NCT02967679|168935224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.112||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0393
84592566|NCT02967679|168935225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.905|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.283||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84592567|NCT02967679|168935226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.21||0.3303|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3303
84592568|NCT02967679|168935227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.092||0.9229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9229
84592569|NCT01953211|168935239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84592570|NCT01953211|168935239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84592571|NCT01953211|168935239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84592572|NCT03188263|168935240|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.046||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.046
84592573|NCT03188263|168935241|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.35||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.35
84592574|NCT00881894|168935254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9864||||||90.0|0.9103|1.0688|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0688|0.9103|
84592575|NCT00881894|168935255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9584||||||90.0|0.8861|1.0367|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0367|0.8861|
84592576|NCT00881894|168935256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9896||||||90.0|0.9179|1.0671|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0671|0.9179|
84592577|NCT04005586|168935267|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group had a mean MRCYL of -0.14 (+/- 0.21D) compared to -0.33 (+/- 0.29D) and -0.40 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066 respectively.|||
84592578|NCT04005586|168935268|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group MRCYL change from baseline was 0.36 (+/- 0.21D) compared to 0.17 (+/- 0.29D) and 0.10 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066, respectively.|||
84592579|NCT00539240|168935294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
84592580|NCT00539240|168935294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
84592581|NCT00539240|168935295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons (no post-hoc contrasts performed)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score and personality traits (SCL-90)||||||0.19
84592582|NCT00539240|168935296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.04
84592583|NCT00539240|168935296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
84758888|NCT04869345|169273691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.29|-4.60|0.269
84758889|NCT04869345|169273691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.61|-5.47|0.116
84758890|NCT04869345|169273692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.22|-0.10|0.479
84758891|NCT04869345|169273692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.29|-0.04|0.126
84758892|NCT04869345|169273692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.25|-0.12|0.457
84592584|NCT00539240|168935297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
84592585|NCT00539240|168935297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.20
84592586|NCT01628523|168935299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84592587|NCT00363311|168935309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.56||||0.009||95.0|0.36|0.87||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.87|0.36|0.009
84592588|NCT00363311|168935309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.61||||0.007||95.0|0.43|0.88||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||0.88|0.43|0.007
84592589|NCT00363311|168935310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.46||||0.13||95.0|0.16|1.31||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.16|0.13
84592590|NCT00363311|168935310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.48||||0.053||95.0|0.22|1.03||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.22|0.053
84592591|NCT00363311|168935311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59||||0.031||95.0|0.36|0.96||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.36|0.031
84592592|NCT00363311|168935311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.7||||0.079||95.0|0.46|1.05||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.46|0.079
84592593|NCT00363311|168935312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
84592594|NCT00363311|168935313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84592595|NCT00363311|168935320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84592596|NCT00363311|168935321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84758893|NCT04869345|169273693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.38|-0.15|0.389
84758894|NCT04869345|169273693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.46|-0.07|0.157
84758895|NCT04869345|169273693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.36|-0.21|0.593
84758896|NCT04869345|169273694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.24|-0.26|0.933
84758897|NCT04869345|169273694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|-0.19|0.642
84758898|NCT04869345|169273694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.32|-0.18|0.577
84758899|NCT04869345|169273695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.13|-0.32|0.403
84758900|NCT04869345|169273695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.01|-0.44|0.062
84672967|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.18|0.6173
84672968|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.10|0.2433
84758901|NCT04869345|169273695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.09|-0.33|0.269
84592597|NCT00363311|168935323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
84592598|NCT00363311|168935324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84592599|NCT02629861|168935351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84592600|NCT02629861|168935351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84592601|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
84592602|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
84592603|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0032
84592604|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0010
84592605|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0048
84592606|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0003
84592607|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
84592608|NCT02629861|168935353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
84592609|NCT02629861|168935354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
84592610|NCT02629861|168935354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
84592611|NCT02629861|168935355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
84592612|NCT02629861|168935355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
84592613|NCT02629861|168935356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
84592614|NCT02629861|168935356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
84592615|NCT02629861|168935357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0023
84592616|NCT02629861|168935357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0021
84758902|NCT04869345|169273696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.33|0.07|0.003
84592617|NCT02525679|168935366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.5968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3784|1.8151|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.8151|1.3784|
84592618|NCT02525679|168935366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9668|1.0747|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0747|0.9668|
84592619|NCT02525679|168935368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.7123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2525|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1856|3.2389|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||3.2389|2.1856|
84592620|NCT02525679|168935368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9482|1.0525|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0525|0.9482|
84592621|NCT00959907|168935369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
84592622|NCT00959907|168935370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.658
84592623|NCT00959907|168935370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
84592624|NCT00959907|168935371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
84592625|NCT03958331|168935372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.25|||ANCOVA|Model controlled for baseline adherence, resistance to peer influence, dose, active seizures, COVID timing, COVID Impact (3 items), and sex|||We also conducted a longitudinal mixed effects model for adherence over time, estimating a groupXtime interaction with the same covariates listed above and allowing for a non-linear effect.|17.25|4|0.002
84592626|NCT02030821|168935416|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84592627|NCT02030821|168935417|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84592628|NCT02030821|168935418|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84592629|NCT02030821|168935419|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84592630|NCT01722929|168935423|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is for the main effect for the Treatment, Time, and Treatment\*Time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed ANOVA was performed with the arms as a between factor and the three times as the within factor.||||<0.0001
84592631|NCT04021290|168935541|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the CMH adjusted difference in the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL between each treatment group (DTG/3TC - CAR) is less than 5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent (ADP)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.8|-2.4|
84592632|NCT04021290|168935542|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (DTG/3TC-CAR) is greater than -12%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INI).|||5.9|-2.8|
84592633|NCT04021290|168935563|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
84592634|NCT04021290|168935564|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
84592635|NCT04021290|168935565|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||-0.2|-2.9|0.021
84592636|NCT04021290|168935566|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.5||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.8|0.398
84592637|NCT00553410|168935568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|.93|.31
84592638|NCT00553410|168935569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|.68|.16
84592639|NCT00553410|168935570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|.71|.25
84592640|NCT00553410|168935571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|.81|.84
84614486|NCT00536471|168978189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
84614487|NCT00536471|168978189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
84614488|NCT00536471|168978189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.913
84758903|NCT04869345|169273696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|0.05|0.006
84592641|NCT03391882|168935572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.722||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-3.16|0.8944
84592642|NCT03391882|168935573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.129||||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.637|||generalized linear random effects model|||||2.637|0.484|0.7777
84592643|NCT03391882|168935574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from a 1-sample, 2-sided test of the null hypothesis that the true proportion preferring APL is 50% to evaluate if a significantly higher proportion of the subjects prefer APL-130277 or not.|binomial distribution with normal approx|||||||0.0002
84592644|NCT03391882|168935575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.835||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|4.438|||generalized linear random effects model|||||4.438|0.759|0.1769
84592645|NCT03391882|168935576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.53|||generalized linear random effects model|||||3.53|0.61|0.3922
84592646|NCT04683913|168935584|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|alpha=0.05||||||<0.001
84592647|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 3\&4|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.027
84592648|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 3\&4 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
84592649|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Week 5\&6 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.078
84592650|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Follow up vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.015
84592651|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.567
84614489|NCT00536471|168978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
84614490|NCT00536471|168978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
84614491|NCT00536471|168978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
84614492|NCT00536471|168978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.908
84614493|NCT00536471|168978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
84614494|NCT00536471|168978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84614495|NCT00536471|168978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
84614496|NCT00536471|168978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
84614497|NCT00536471|168978192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.780
84614498|NCT00536471|168978192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
84614499|NCT00536471|168978192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
84501264|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.19|-3.3|0.66
84614500|NCT00536471|168978192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
84614501|NCT00536471|168978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.517
84614502|NCT00536471|168978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
84614503|NCT00536471|168978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
84614504|NCT00536471|168978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
84614505|NCT00536471|168978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.741
84614506|NCT00536471|168978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.722
84614507|NCT00536471|168978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
84614508|NCT00536471|168978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
84614509|NCT00536471|168978195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
84614510|NCT00536471|168978195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
84614511|NCT00536471|168978195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
84614512|NCT00536471|168978195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
84614513|NCT00536471|168978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
84614514|NCT00536471|168978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84614515|NCT00536471|168978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
84614516|NCT00536471|168978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.813
84592652|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Week 1\&2 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.001
84592653|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 1\&2 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
84592654|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Week 3\&4 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.205
84592655|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Week 3\&4 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.162
84592656|NCT04683913|168935585|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Week 5\&6 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.421
84592657|NCT04683913|168935590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - pain subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.750
84614517|NCT00536471|168978197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.438
84614518|NCT00536471|168978197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84614519|NCT00536471|168978197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
84614520|NCT00536471|168978197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
84592658|NCT04683913|168935590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - stiffness subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.201
84592659|NCT04683913|168935590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - physical function subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.997
84592660|NCT04683913|168935590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - quality of life subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.423
84592661|NCT04683913|168935591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment 1 (early stance) was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.342
84592662|NCT04683913|168935591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Adduction Moment 2 (late stance was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.844
84592663|NCT04683913|168935591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Flexion Moments were analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate||||0.774
84592664|NCT04683913|168935592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.186
84592665|NCT04683913|168935592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee flexion moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.601
84592666|NCT04422431|168935593|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1002
84592667|NCT01174563|168935623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.41|0.005
84614521|NCT00536471|168978198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
84614522|NCT00536471|168978198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.758
84614523|NCT00536471|168978198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
84592668|NCT00444106|168935626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sided exact test for a single propn.|One-sided exact test for a single proportion.||"One-sided null hypothesis that the incidence rate of ABR Wave III latency changes is greater than or equal to 15%.~Increase in ABR Wave III latency between baseline and Day 7 of greater than 0.3 ms."||||<.0001
84592669|NCT02317627|168935635|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
84592670|NCT02317627|168935635|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0035||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
84592671|NCT02317627|168935635|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0261||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0261
84592672|NCT02317627|168935635|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change for all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84592673|NCT02317627|168935636|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
84592674|NCT02317627|168935636|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0029
84592675|NCT02317627|168935636|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0703||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0703
84614524|NCT00536471|168978198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
84501265|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|4.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||4.19|-4.55|0.935
84592676|NCT02317627|168935636|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84592677|NCT02317627|168935641|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
84592678|NCT02317627|168935641|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0479||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0479
84592679|NCT02317627|168935641|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.1513||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1513
84592680|NCT02317627|168935641|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84592681|NCT02317627|168935642|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
84592682|NCT02317627|168935642|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0017||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
84592683|NCT02317627|168935642|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
84592684|NCT02317627|168935642|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 8.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84614525|NCT00536471|168978199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.507
84592685|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0140
84592686|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0620
84592687|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in 400 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.262||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2620
84592688|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
84592689|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
84592690|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
84592691|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
84614526|NCT00536471|168978199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
84758904|NCT04869345|169273696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.12|-0.15|0.796
84592692|NCT02317627|168935643|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 8 weeks.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84592693|NCT02317627|168935648|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84592694|NCT02317627|168935648|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84592695|NCT02317627|168935648|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
84592696|NCT02317627|168935648|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to 12 weeks.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84592697|NCT02317627|168935649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84592698|NCT02317627|168935649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84592699|NCT02317627|168935649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
84592700|NCT02317627|168935649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
84592701|NCT00279214|168935654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||24-Hour p-value||||0.238
84614527|NCT00536471|168978199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
84614528|NCT00536471|168978199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
84592702|NCT00279214|168935654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.281
84592703|NCT00279214|168935655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||P-value for 96 Hour Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model: Outcome=Therapy + Sedative Indicator + Time + Therapy\*Time + Propensity Score||||||0.478
84592704|NCT00279214|168935656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.442
84592705|NCT00279214|168935656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.871
84592706|NCT00279214|168935657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.704
84592707|NCT00279214|168935657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.702
84592708|NCT00279214|168935658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||6-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.061
84592709|NCT00279214|168935658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||6-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.027
84592710|NCT00279214|168935659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.242
84592711|NCT00279214|168935659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.083
84592712|NCT00279214|168935659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.810
84592713|NCT00279214|168935659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.623
84592714|NCT00279214|168935660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.686
84592715|NCT00279214|168935660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.575
84592716|NCT00279214|168935661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.165
84592717|NCT00279214|168935663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.552
84592718|NCT00279214|168935663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.129
84592719|NCT00279214|168935663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.030
84592720|NCT00279214|168935663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.002
84592721|NCT00279214|168935665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.128
84592722|NCT00279214|168935665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.234
84592723|NCT04050384|168935670|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|These analyses apply to the Frontal, Central, and Central-Parietal regions.||||||<0.001
84592724|NCT04050384|168935671|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84592725|NCT00954447|168935685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.74|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.55|-0.74|<0.0001
84592726|NCT00954447|168935686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.935|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.949|4.419|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 7.0 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0 percent (NCF); there are 593 available values for Placebo and 595 for Linagliptin 5mg||4.419|1.949|<0.0001
84592727|NCT00954447|168935688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.39|-0.51|<0.0001
84592728|NCT00954447|168935689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.52|-0.69|<0.0001
84592729|NCT00954447|168935690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
84592730|NCT00954447|168935691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.47|-0.67|<0.0001
84592731|NCT00954447|168935692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.65|<0.0001
84592732|NCT00954447|168935693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.43|-0.64|<0.0001
84592733|NCT00954447|168935694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001||95.0|-16.49|-6.71|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-6.71|-16.49|<0.0001
84592734|NCT00954447|168935697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0029||95.0|-2.61|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.54|-2.61|0.0029
84592735|NCT00954447|168935700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.327|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.221|8.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 6.5 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5 percent (NCF); there are 615 available values for Placebo and 616 for Linagliptin 5mg||8.430|2.221|<0.0001
84592736|NCT01047189|168935720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84592737|NCT03181971|168935731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.9|0.2|0.68
84592738|NCT03181971|168935731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months||0.7|0.03|0.017
84592739|NCT03181971|168935732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.0|0.07|.24
84592740|NCT03181971|168935732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||7.0|0.1|.98
84592741|NCT03181971|168935733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||1.0|-0.6|0.57
84592742|NCT03181971|168935733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.6|-1.5|.40
84592743|NCT03181971|168935734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.1|-0.06|.46
84592744|NCT03181971|168935734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.1|-0.2|.80
84592745|NCT03181971|168935735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.03|-0.03|.93
84592746|NCT03181971|168935735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.02|-0.06|.36
84672969|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 24 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0234
84592747|NCT03181971|168935736|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.5||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in total kcal intake from baseline to 7 months.||8.5|-5.3|0.70
84592748|NCT03181971|168935736|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|3.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.0||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of food kcal from baseline to 7 months.||12.0|-3.9|.35
84592749|NCT03181971|168935736|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-10.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of beverage kcal from baseline to 7 months.||8.8|-29.2|.35
84592750|NCT03181971|168935736|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-17.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB kcal from baseline to 7 months.||9.6|-37.8|.18
84592751|NCT03181971|168935737|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|49.9||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||49.9|-20.6|.59
84592752|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 7 months.||34.2|13.1|<.001
84592753|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|14.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 15 months.||25.9|4.5|.004
84592754|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-8.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.4|-15.7|0.063
84592755|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 15 months.||6.9|-11.7|.56
84592756|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 7 months.||7|-4.3|.68
84592757|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-1.4||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 15 months.||5|-7.4|.66
84592758|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-4.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.5|-8.3|0.079
84592759|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-3.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||2.3|-8.0|.26
84592760|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||11.5|-2.2|.20
84592761|NCT03181971|168935738|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|2.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||9.6|-4.4|.51
84592762|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at lunch from baseline to 7 months.||42.2|21.2|<.001
84592763|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source during lunch from baseline to 15 months.||13.5|-3.0|.22
84614529|NCT00536471|168978200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
84614530|NCT00536471|168978200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
84614531|NCT00536471|168978200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
84614532|NCT00536471|168978200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
84501266|NCT02567266|168753266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|5.55||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.55|-3.29|0.615
84501267|NCT02020785|168753270|SUPERIORITY|Main analyses were intention-to-treat using mixed effects models allowing intercepts to vary for each individual. Carryover effects were examined by using treatment by assignment-order interaction terms. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding patients who were non-compliant, prior to data analysis: 1st, noncompliance based on missing product pickups and follow-up visits; 2nd, suspected poor compliance (\< 250 mg difference between the higher and lower period).\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.34||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (14.3%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 34.0%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed 24-hour urine albumin excretion|Sample size for this study was calculated using the xsampsi module in STATA, based on a previous study with repeat 24-hour urine collections (standard deviation, 1.04). At an α level of 0.05, we anticipated that a sample size of 30 participants with mean albuminuria of 100 mg/d would result in \>80% power to detect a 13% difference in log- transformed albuminuria between the higher and lower phosphorus additive periods.||0.34|-0.025|0.05
84501268|NCT02020785|168753271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.136||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (3.4%, 95% CI: -5.9%, 13.6%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed fibroblast growth factor 23|||0.136|-0.059|0.05
84614533|NCT00536471|168978201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
84672970|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.0|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.55|0.0540
84672971|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.58|0.0406
84501269|NCT02020785|168753272|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.1|0.05
84501270|NCT02020785|168753273|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.7|0.05
84501271|NCT04529499|168753277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
84501272|NCT04529499|168753277|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.28|||||Favipiravir + supportive care in numerator and Placebo+ Supportive care in denominator for CPH ratio analysis|||1.280|0.767|
84501273|NCT04529499|168753278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84501274|NCT02441179|168753304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84614534|NCT00536471|168978201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
84614535|NCT00536471|168978201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
84614536|NCT00536471|168978201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
84614537|NCT00536471|168978202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
84501275|NCT02441179|168753305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.012
84501276|NCT02441179|168753306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
84501277|NCT02441179|168753307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84501278|NCT02441179|168753308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84501279|NCT02441179|168753309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84501280|NCT02441179|168753310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84501281|NCT01494649|168753311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a fixed factor and basline Schiff score as a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favoured stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.26|0.2294
84501282|NCT01494649|168753312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12||||0.1792||95.0|-0.3|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.30|0.1792
84501283|NCT01494649|168753313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.0001
84501284|NCT01494649|168753314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|-0.08||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Tactile Threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2.32|-2.49|0.9445
84501285|NCT01494649|168753315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||1.25|-5.38|0.220
84501286|NCT01494649|168753316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|8.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|13.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||13.43|3.96|0.0004
84501287|NCT02340078|168753391|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
84501288|NCT03958071|168753393|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1027||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.2810
84501289|NCT03958071|168753393|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.078||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1421
84501290|NCT03958071|168753393|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0159||||0.0048|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0048
84501291|NCT03958071|168753395|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0214||||0.7681|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7681
84501292|NCT03958071|168753395|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.371|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
84501293|NCT03958071|168753395|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.349|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
84501294|NCT03958071|168753396|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1257||||0.1659|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1659
84501295|NCT03958071|168753396|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1566||||0.0112|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0112
84501296|NCT03958071|168753396|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.3019|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
84501297|NCT03958071|168753397|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.0209||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.3260
84501298|NCT03958071|168753397|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2694|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
84501299|NCT03958071|168753397|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2352|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
84501300|NCT03958071|168753398|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.09||||0.2042|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.2042
84501301|NCT03958071|168753398|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.21|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
84501302|NCT03958071|168753398|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.11||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.02
84501303|NCT03958071|168753399|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0241||||0.7395|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7395
84501304|NCT03958071|168753399|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1644||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0017
84501305|NCT03958071|168753399|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1403||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0034
84501306|NCT02414854|168753400|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 level. The procedure included the 2 primary outcome measures and the first 13 secondary outcome measures reported and considered 2 pair-wise comparisons: Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w and Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w. Testing order is specified in analysis description.|Relative risk|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Hierarchical testing sequence performed continued only when previous outcome measures was statistically significant at 0.05. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 1 of testing order.||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
84501307|NCT02414854|168753400|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.662||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 3 of testing order.||0.662|0.413|<0.0001
84501308|NCT02414854|168753401|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 2 of testing order.||0.18|0.08|<0.0001
84501309|NCT02414854|168753401|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 4 of testing order.||0.19|0.08|<0.0001
84501310|NCT02414854|168753402|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.74|13.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis performed using MMRM model(n=954 for 300 vs placebo)with percent change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; \& treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value \& baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Hierarchical testing procedure used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Here, it is test no. 5 of testing order.||13.07|5.74|<0.0001
84501311|NCT02414854|168753403|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.526||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 6 of testing order.||0.526|0.307|<0.0001
84501312|NCT02414854|168753404|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 7 of testing order.||0.21|0.09|<0.0001
84501313|NCT02414854|168753405|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.326|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.454||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 8 of testing order.||0.454|0.234|<0.0001
84501314|NCT02414854|168753406|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 9 of testing order.||0.32|0.16|<0.0001
84592764|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|17.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 7 months.||33.3|2.6|.02
84592765|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 15 months.||19.2|-8.0|.48
84592766|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|34.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|99.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 7 months.||99.8|-9.4|.14
84592767|NCT03181971|168935739|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|32.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|96.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 15 months.||96.2|-11.0|.16
84592768|NCT01815424|168935743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|32.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||32.77|6.03|<0.0001
84592769|NCT01815424|168935743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|11.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||11.86|2.46|<0.0001
84758905|NCT04869345|169273697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.05|-0.03|0.758
84592770|NCT01815424|168935744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|151.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||151.11|14.84|<0.0001
84592771|NCT01815424|168935744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|25.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||25.17|4.06|<0.0001
84592772|NCT01815424|168935745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-54.87||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-54.87|-88.20|<0.0001
84592773|NCT01815424|168935745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-52.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-35.55||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-35.55|-68.70|<0.0001
84592774|NCT01815424|168935746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|267.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||267.15|13.38|<0.0001
84592775|NCT01815424|168935746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|79.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||79.62|4.31|<0.0001
84592776|NCT01815424|168935747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|5.72||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||5.72|-9.32|<0.0001
84592777|NCT01815424|168935747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.67||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.67|-7.24|<0.0001
84614538|NCT00536471|168978202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84614539|NCT00536471|168978202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
84614540|NCT00536471|168978202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
84614541|NCT00536471|168978203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
84614542|NCT00536471|168978203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.139
84592778|NCT01815424|168935748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|2657.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant,only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||2657.62|8.95|<0.0001
84614543|NCT00536471|168978203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
84614544|NCT00536471|168978203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
84614545|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84758906|NCT04869345|169273697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.04|-0.04|0.880
84758907|NCT04869345|169273697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.03|-0.05|0.652
84758908|NCT01500759|169273717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84501315|NCT02414854|168753407|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.834||||0.2599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.144||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 10 of testing order.||1.144|0.608|0.2599
84501316|NCT01355523|168753439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84501317|NCT01355523|168753439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number need to treat|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|11.024||||||||11.024|1.703|
84501318|NCT01355523|168753439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.797||||||||0.797|0.076|
84501319|NCT01355523|168753440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
84501320|NCT01355523|168753441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
84501321|NCT01355523|168753442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84501322|NCT01355523|168753443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
84614546|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84614547|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
84614548|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.324
84758909|NCT01500759|169273718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84758910|NCT01500759|169273719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84758911|NCT01500759|169273720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84758912|NCT03787472|169273785|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator of degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||6.6|-5.5|
84758913|NCT03787472|169273786|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.041|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Distance Standard High Contrast Bright||0.041|-0.025|
84614549|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84614550|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84614551|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84592779|NCT01815424|168935748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|1084.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||1084.02|3.47|<0.0001
84614552|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
84614553|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
84614554|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
84614555|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
84614556|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.435
84501323|NCT01355523|168753444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.351
84614557|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
84614558|NCT00536471|168978204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.313
84614559|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
84614560|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.584
84672972|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.56|0.0295
84501324|NCT01355523|168753445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.446
84501325|NCT01355523|168753446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
84614561|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.251
84614562|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.265
84614563|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
84614564|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.257
84614565|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
84614566|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
84614567|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.765
84614568|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.522
84614569|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.986
84592780|NCT01815424|168935749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||<0.0001
84592781|NCT01815424|168935749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||0.0386
84592782|NCT01815424|168935750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.7||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.70|-6.49|<0.0001
84592783|NCT01815424|168935750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-2.81||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-2.81|-5.59|<0.0001
84592784|NCT01815424|168935751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-41.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.977||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.91|-9.54||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-9.54|-72.91|0.0113
84614570|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
84614571|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.110
84614572|NCT00536471|168978205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
84758914|NCT03787472|169273786|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.019|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Intermediate Standard High Contrast Bright||0.019|-0.043|
84758915|NCT03787472|169273786|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.037|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Near Standard High Contrast Bright||0.037|-0.030|
84758916|NCT01977781|169273790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only the statistical analysis results for burning sensation at 10 weeks are reported below as they where the only tolerability results found to be significantly different between the two arms. All other tolerability measures were found to be the same between the two groups.||||0.0019
84501326|NCT01355523|168753447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.907
84614573|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
84614574|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
84592785|NCT01815424|168935751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.01||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|8.86||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||8.86|-54.64|0.1558
84501327|NCT01355523|168753448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.555
84592786|NCT04723355|168935796|NON_INFERIORITY|In the sample size calculations, we assumed that the innovative 3-lead wireless water resistant Holter System would have a concordance in the diagnosis of arrhythmia compared to the conventional Holter device similar to a previous study that compared a patch to the conventional Holter device. With this assumption, a total sample of 182 participants would have 80% power to demonstrate an accuracy of at least 85% with a significance level of 2.5% (the 95% CI lower limit should be above 85%).|Accuracy|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.92||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.92|0.81|
84592787|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.83|
84592788|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Specificity|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.72|
84592789|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
84614575|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
84614576|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
84614577|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.092
84614578|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84614579|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.142
84614580|NCT00536471|168978206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84501328|NCT01355523|168753449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
84501329|NCT01355523|168753450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
84501330|NCT01355523|168753451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
84501331|NCT01355523|168753452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
84592790|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.76|
84592791|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592792|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|8.58||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||8.58|3.17|
84592793|NCT04723355|168935796|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.21|0.06|
84592794|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Accuracy|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.97|
84592795|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Sensitivity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.85|
84614581|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.921
84614582|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
84614583|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
84592796|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
84501332|NCT01355523|168753453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
84592797|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.78|
84592798|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Negative predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
84592799|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592800|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.25|1107.61||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1107.61|22.25|
84592801|NCT04723355|168935797|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0|0|
84614584|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.761
84614585|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.519
84614586|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.755
84501333|NCT01355523|168753454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84501334|NCT01222715|168753469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event free survival distributions of patients in Regimen A and Regimen B were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0124
84592802|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Accuracy|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.9||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.90|0.79|
84592803|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
84592804|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Specificity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
84592805|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
84592806|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
84592807|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592808|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.43||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||11.43|4.03|
84592809|NCT04723355|168935798|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.34|0.13|
84592810|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.88|
84592811|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.56|
84592812|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Specificity|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.90|
84592813|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.86|0.48|
84614587|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
84614588|NCT00536471|168978207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
84614589|NCT00536471|168978208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.753
84501335|NCT04440163|168753478|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was greater than (\>) minus (-)10 percent (%), the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.0|||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||MenA||6.0|-0.2|
84501336|NCT04440163|168753478|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|47.5||||||MenC||47.5|34.4|
84592814|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
84592815|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592816|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|15.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|30.99||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||30.99|7.51|
84592817|NCT04723355|168935799|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.50|0.11|
84592818|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.89|
84592819|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.85||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.85|0.28|
84592820|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Specificity|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.92|
84614590|NCT00536471|168978208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
84501337|NCT04440163|168753478|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.4||||||MenW||30.4|18.8|
84592821|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.77||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.77|0.23|
84592822|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
84592823|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592824|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|33.17||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||33.17|5.84|
84592825|NCT04723355|168935800|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.85||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.85|0.22|
84592826|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.95|
84592827|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.19|
84592828|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.96|
84592829|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.15|
84592830|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
84592831|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592832|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|65.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|291.07||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||291.07|14.80|
84592833|NCT04723355|168935801|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.38||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1.38|0.05|
84592834|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.99|0.94|
84614591|NCT00536471|168978210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
84614592|NCT00536471|168978210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.111
84592835|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.89|0.31|
84592836|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Specificity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
84592837|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Positive predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.59|
84592838|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.94|
84592839|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
84592840|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.|The positive likelihood ratio could not be calculated due to the value of zero in the denominator|||
84592841|NCT04723355|168935802|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.79|0.17|
84592842|NCT04723355|168935804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.31||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||4.31|-6.20|
84501338|NCT04440163|168753478|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.1||||||MenY||30.1|18.0|
84592843|NCT04723355|168935804|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.98||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.98|0.96|
84592844|NCT04723355|168935805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|11.67||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||11.67|-17.09|
84592845|NCT04723355|168935805|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
84592846|NCT04723355|168935806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|6.22||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||6.22|-5.43|
84592847|NCT04723355|168935806|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
84592848|NCT04723355|168935807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1391.46|1378.72||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1378.72|-1391.46|
84592849|NCT04723355|168935807|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.94|
84592850|NCT04723355|168935808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2089.58|2111.65||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||2111.65|-2089.58|
84592851|NCT04723355|168935808|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.89|
84592852|NCT04723355|168935809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|5.2||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||5.20|-5.45|
84592853|NCT04723355|168935809|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.91|
84592854|NCT04723355|168935810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|12.07||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||12.07|-13.38|
84592855|NCT04723355|168935810|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.99||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.99|0.98|
84592856|NCT04723355|168935811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.56||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1.56|-1.75|
84592857|NCT04723355|168935811|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.9976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|0.998||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.998|0.997|
84592858|NCT04723355|168935812|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared test statistic|23.529|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84614593|NCT00536471|168978212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
84758917|NCT00105443|169273801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6931||||0.00583||95.0|0.5549|0.8658||According to the pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function, the alpha value for this second interim analysis was 0.0073 (corresponding to a nominal value of 0.0077 after taking into account the first interim analysis).|Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.02 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. In addition to the final analysis at the end of the study, 2 formal interim analyses of overall survival were planned. An alpha spending function was used to ensure that the false positive rate is less than or equal to 0.02 (1-sided). The study was stopped at the second interim analysis, the results of which are reported here."||0.8658|0.5549|0.00583
84501339|NCT04440163|168753479|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.5||||||MenA||0.5|-6.5|
84592859|NCT01127633|168935822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin for this hypothesis was specified as 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder study. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was greater than 0, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating that at least 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder studies was maintained at specified time points in the delayed-start period.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.14|0.974
84592860|NCT04512001|168935858|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -0.6 to 0.5.|Least squares means difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.16|
84592861|NCT04512001|168935860|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -15%, 15%.|Difference in % Response Rate|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|2.11||||||||2.11|-9.97|
84592862|NCT03856359|168935874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84614594|NCT00536471|168978212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
84614595|NCT00536471|168978212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.325
84614596|NCT00536471|168978212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.423
84672973|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.50|0.0925
84758918|NCT00105443|169273802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0764||||0.7676||95.0|0.8837|1.311|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.005 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. This was a co-primary endpoint with overall survival. No alpha-spending adjustments were necessary as it was only to be analyzed at the end of study."||1.3110|0.8837|0.7676
84501340|NCT04440163|168753479|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||MenC||3.3|-4.6|
84592863|NCT03856359|168935876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84592864|NCT03856359|168935878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84592865|NCT03856359|168935880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84592866|NCT03856359|168935881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84592867|NCT03856359|168935882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84592868|NCT03856359|168935883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84592869|NCT03856359|168935884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84592870|NCT03856359|168935885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84592871|NCT03856359|168935886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84592872|NCT03856359|168935887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84592873|NCT03856359|168935888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84592874|NCT03856359|168935889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84592875|NCT03856359|168935890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84592876|NCT03856359|168935891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84592877|NCT03856359|168935892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84592878|NCT01664247|168935901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.01|||ANOVA||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The pre-breakfast measures of SMPG values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed an ANOVA method with treatment, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response as covariates.||-2.01|-2.67|<.0001
84614597|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.731
84614598|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84614599|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
84592879|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast.||-2.34|-3.04|<.0001
84592880|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after breakfast.||-1.48|-2.71|<.0001
84592881|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before lunch.||-1.56|-2.47|<.0001
84592882|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after start of lunch.||-1.40|-2.46|<.0001
84592883|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point main evening meal.||-1.23|-2.25|<.0001
84614600|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84614601|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
84614602|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
84614603|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.218
84614604|NCT00536471|168978213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
84614605|NCT00536471|168978214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
84758919|NCT00105443|169273803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5764||||7e-06||95.0|0.4484|0.741|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"In the analysis of TTP, based on independent radiological review performed to review data up to 12 May 2006, the 2 treatment groups were compared using a 1-sided log rank test with an alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||0.7410|0.4484|0.000007
84592884|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after main evening meal.||-1.18|-2.26|<.0001
84614606|NCT00536471|168978214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84614607|NCT00536471|168978214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
84614608|NCT00536471|168978214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
84614609|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
84614610|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
84758920|NCT00105443|169273804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.95||||0.001641||95.0|-19.56|-4.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sorafenib minus placebo difference|"Disease control rates were compared between treatment groups using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with a 1-sided alpha of 0.025, adjusting for region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||-4.35|-19.56|0.001641
84592885|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before bedtime.||-1.23|-2.27|<.0001
84592886|NCT01664247|168935902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast the following day.||-2.09|-2.91|<.0001
84592887|NCT01881009|168935921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84592888|NCT01881009|168935922|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84592889|NCT01000506|168935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.69||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.69|0.39|<0.001
84592890|NCT01000506|168935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 250 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.81|0.46|<0.001
84614611|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
84614612|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
84592891|NCT01000506|168935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 750 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
84592892|NCT05018689|168935939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to identify someone showing depression?||0.22|-0.13|0.642
84672974|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.52|0.1631
84592893|NCT05018689|168935939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to help a friend?||0.25|-0.21|0.864
84592894|NCT05018689|168935940|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.78||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.47|0.336
84592895|NCT05018689|168935941|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression runs in families. Answer: true||1.59|0.70|0.806
84592896|NCT05018689|168935941|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.96||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression can be controlled through willpower. Answer: false||1.30|0.71|0.781
84592897|NCT05018689|168935941|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is treatable. Answer: true||1.39|0.62|0.720
84592898|NCT05018689|168935941|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.11||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Abuse of alcohol and drugs can be a sign of depression. Answer: true||2.38|0.52|0.784
84592899|NCT05018689|168935941|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is a sign of personal weakness. Answer: false||1.55|0.76|0.662
84592900|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Difficulty concentrating or making decisions||1.26|0.51|0.340
84592901|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.81||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling angry||1.17|0.56|0.265
84592902|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Changes in sleep patterns||1.30|0.38|0.259
84592903|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.12||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Frequent unexplained aches and pains||1.49|0.84|0.450
84592904|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|2.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling tired or less energetic||4.69|1.11|0.025
84592905|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Eating more than usual||1.44|0.71|0.937
84592906|NCT05018689|168935942|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling irritable or restless||1.34|0.52|0.447
84592907|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Friend||0.14|-0.11|0.800
84592908|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Parent/guardian||0.08|-0.18|0.451
84592909|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||School counselor||0.2|-0.07|0.335
84592910|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Teacher||0.09|-0.17|0.554
84592911|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Mental health professional||0.10|-0.19|0.541
84592912|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Regression, Linear|||Doctor||0.19|-0.09|0.454
84592913|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Internet/website||0.12|-0.16|0.749
84592914|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Clergy, priest, rabbi, or other religious person||-0.01|-0.24|0.030
84592915|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Phone helpline||0.18|-0.06|0.334
84614613|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.158
84614614|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.759
84614615|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
84672975|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.60|0.2213
84758921|NCT03187769|169273825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-.41|-3.33|.012
84758922|NCT01623271|169273831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84592916|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Crisis textline||0.20|-0.05|0.243
84592917|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Other relative (i.e., sister, brother, aunt, uncle)||0.09|-0.19|0.492
84592918|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Boyfriend or girlfriend||0.10|-0.17|0.610
84592919|NCT05018689|168935943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Coach||0.01|-0.25|0.061
84592920|NCT05018689|168935944|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.27||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you had depression symptoms for more than 2 weeks, would you ask for help?||1.66|0.97|0.086
84592921|NCT05018689|168935944|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.13||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you thought you had mental health issues, is there a trusted adult you would go to?||1.66|0.77|0.526
84592922|NCT05018689|168935945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||Do you know how to get help in your school?||0.16|-0.03|0.199
84592923|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|||The new student is more dangerous than other students||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
84592924|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||The student is to blame for his or her condition||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
84592925|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||I would have sympathy for the new student||0.18|-0.06|0.310
84592926|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel scared||0.02|-0.21|0.114
84592927|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel uncomfortable||0.15|-0.10|0.738
84592928|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||I would help the new student even if I did not know him or her well||0.24|0.01|0.040
84592929|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||I would try to stay away from the new student||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
84592930|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be made fun of at my school||0.11|-0.15|0.798
84592931|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be ignored at my school||0.05|-0.22|0.197
84592932|NCT05018689|168935946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||I think other students in my school would try to help the new student||0.16|-0.10|0.623
84614616|NCT00536471|168978215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.852
84614617|NCT00536471|168978216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
84758923|NCT01097746|169273843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants for optimal ≤ 1 cm||4.98|0.58|0.33
84758924|NCT01097746|169273843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|13.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||suboptimal \> 1 cm||13.34|1.05|0.04
84758925|NCT02495844|169273851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||=|0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.06|0.90|=0.0679
84501341|NCT04440163|168753479|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||MenW||4.3|-2.2|
84592933|NCT05018689|168935947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||On a scale from 1 to 7, if you were seen going into the office of your school social worker or school psychologist, how would you feel?||0.30|-0.21|0.718
84592934|NCT05018689|168935948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.46|||Regression, Linear|||How comfortable are you talking about mental health issues with other students at your school?||0.46|-0.03|0.090
84592935|NCT05018689|168935949|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression||1.44|0.67|0.944
84592936|NCT05018689|168935949|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.18||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety||1.68|0.82|0.369
84592937|NCT05018689|168935949|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Thoughts of suicide||1.50|0.77|0.676
84614618|NCT00536471|168978216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84758926|NCT00517595|169273891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.02
84592938|NCT05018689|168935949|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.79||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||I do not think there are any mental health issues that are concerning for students||1.42|0.44|0.432
84614619|NCT00536471|168978216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.705
84614620|NCT00536471|168978216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.388
84501342|NCT04440163|168753479|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||||||MenY||3.8|-4.6|
84592939|NCT05018689|168935949|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.87||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.35|0.56|0.533
84592940|NCT05018689|168935950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your teachers know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.08|-0.11|0.769
84592941|NCT05018689|168935950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your school counselors know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.16|-0.05|0.315
84592942|NCT05018689|168935951|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.86||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information sheets at school||1.18|0.63|0.345
84592943|NCT05018689|168935951|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.98||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Class activities about mental health||1.33|0.73|0.899
84592944|NCT05018689|168935951|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information on school website||1.48|0.80|0.612
84592945|NCT05018689|168935951|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.14||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.65|0.79|0.476
84592946|NCT05018689|168935952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||On average, how often do your teachers speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.03|-0.22|0.141
84592947|NCT05018689|168935953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Would you like your teachers to speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.13|-0.05|0.392
84592948|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4521||||0.010
84592949|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR107||||0.010
84592950|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR-891a||||0.018
84592951|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR363||||0.021
84592952|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1248||||0.028
84592953|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR944||||0.033
84592954|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.034
84592955|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR103a||||0.036
84592956|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR454||||0.037
84592957|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320e||||0.041
84592958|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.043
84614621|NCT00536471|168978217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
84758927|NCT00517595|169273892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.0041
84758928|NCT04091087|169273926|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.87|-1.86||1-sided|ANOVA|||||-1.86|-26.87|0.0299
84758929|NCT04091087|169273927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.33||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|8.72||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||8.72|-2.06|0.1546
84501343|NCT04440163|168753480|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.2||||||||15.2|4.2|
84501344|NCT04440163|168753481|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.9||||||A22||8.9|-0.7|
84501345|NCT04440163|168753481|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3||||||A56||4.3|-1.0|
84501346|NCT04440163|168753481|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|16.6||||||B24||16.6|5.2|
84501347|NCT04440163|168753481|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|11.9||||||B44||11.9|2.9|
84501348|NCT04440163|168753513|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3||||||MenA||5.3|-1.0|
84501349|NCT04440163|168753513|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.9||||||MenC||17.9|3.0|
84501350|NCT04440163|168753513|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||||||MenW||13.1|-0.1|
84614622|NCT00536471|168978217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
84501351|NCT04440163|168753513|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|18.2||||||MenY||18.2|5.0|
84592959|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR130b||||0.044
84758930|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|19.62||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||19.62|-1.63|0.0819
84501352|NCT04440163|168753514|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4||||||MenA||1.4|-5.2|
84501353|NCT04440163|168753514|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9||||||MenC||2.9|-4.9|
84501354|NCT04440163|168753514|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.6||||||MenW||4.6|-1.6|
84501355|NCT04440163|168753514|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||MenY||5.0|-3.0|
84501356|NCT01347879|168753534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-7.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-2.2|-12.5|0.006
84501357|NCT01347879|168753535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.5|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||5.5|-6.6|0.8527
84501358|NCT01347879|168753536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-20.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-6.8|-33.2|0.0032
84501359|NCT01347879|168753537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0125
84592960|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR365a||||0.044
84592961|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR135b||||0.047
84592962|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1273h||||0.048
84592963|NCT02230189|168936020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3177||||0.048
84592964|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6510||||0.0
84592965|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3605||||0
84758931|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.47||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|14.25||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.25|-15.20|0.4789
84758932|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
84592966|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3912||||0
84592967|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR15b||||0
84592968|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR127||||0
84592969|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146a||||0
84592970|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449b||||0
84592971|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21-5p||||0.01
84592972|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6842||||0.01
84592973|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-5p||||0.01
84592974|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21||||0.01
84592975|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR493||||0.01
84592976|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR193a||||0.01
84592977|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR149||||0.01
84592978|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449a||||0.01
84592979|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6511a||||0.01
84592980|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6843||||0.01
84592981|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR671||||0.01
84592982|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6503||||0.02
84592983|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR450b||||0.02
84592984|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR485||||0.02
84592985|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.02
84592986|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3182||||0.02
84592987|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-3p||||0.02
84592988|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320d||||0.02
84592989|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3928||||0.02
84592990|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR744||||0.02
84592991|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR206||||0.02
84592992|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR30e||||0.03
84592993|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4500||||0.03
84592994|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR125a||||0.03
84592995|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR99b||||0.03
84592996|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1||||0.03
84592997|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.03
84592998|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1255a||||0.03
84592999|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR223||||0.03
84593000|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR642a||||0.03
84593001|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR548ae||||0.4
84593002|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.04
84593003|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR877||||0.04
84593004|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.04
84593005|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4467||||0.04
84593006|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1249||||0.04
84593007|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR766||||0.04
84593008|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR29c||||0.048
84593009|NCT02230189|168936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||-1.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR370||||-1.75
84593010|NCT00532844|168936022|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH4 concentrations when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.8|1.2|<0.001
84614623|NCT00536471|168978217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
84614624|NCT00536471|168978217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
84758933|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
84758934|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.9||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.55|21.35||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||21.35|-3.55|0.1197
84501360|NCT01347879|168753542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.56||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.3|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariate||||11.3|-16.5|0.7161
84593011|NCT00532844|168936023|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH2 when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.0|0.7|0.139
84593012|NCT00532844|168936023|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||The model will constitute independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable Total B concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in Total B (biopterin) when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the Total B (biopterin) concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.11|0.83|0.570
84593013|NCT00532844|168936026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||ANCOVA|The model will have the treatments and the baseline measurement as independent variables and measurement at Day 13 as the dependent variable.||The raw value of PAT obtained from the first period (baseline to Day 13) will be used to compare the two treatments.||||0.593
84593014|NCT04389866|168936053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.018
84593015|NCT04389866|168936053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 2 (jawline and lateral zygomatic cheek area injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.082
84593016|NCT04389866|168936054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||3.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.00000031
84614625|NCT00536471|168978218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84614626|NCT00536471|168978218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84614627|NCT00536471|168978218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
84758935|NCT04091087|169273928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|29.23||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||29.23|7.14|0.0034
84758936|NCT04091087|169273929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|5.13||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.09|20.34||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||20.34|-10.09|0.2896
84758937|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.77||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.55|28.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||28.08|-12.55|0.2648
84758938|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|17.05||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|37.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||37.08|-2.99|0.0809
84758939|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
84758940|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
84758941|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|20.45||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|39.48||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||39.48|1.43|0.0385
84758942|NCT04091087|169273930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|29.64||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.95|48.33||1 sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||48.33|10.95|0.0045
84758943|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.3874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.67|26.43||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||26.43|-18.67|0.3874
84501361|NCT00068770|168753548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5||not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||two independent group comparisons||5.5|1.5|0.82
84593017|NCT04389866|168936054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||7.28e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0000728
84593018|NCT04389866|168936055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.611||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.014
84593019|NCT04389866|168936055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.726||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by the subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0065
84593020|NCT01824290|168936075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.114|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.25|62.0||||||||62.00|-14.25|
84593021|NCT05501639|168936100|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.758
84593022|NCT05501639|168936101|OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.474
84593023|NCT05501639|168936102|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
84593024|NCT05501639|168936103|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.604|||||Incidence rate ratio at 6 months|||1.604|0.261|
84593025|NCT05501639|168936103|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.969|||||Incidence rate ratio at 12 months|||1.969|0.513|
84593026|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalisations||||0.222
84593027|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER|||||||0.553|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.553
84593028|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||ED visits||||0.192
84593029|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.383
84593030|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Chi-squared|||OP visits||||0.338
84593031|NCT05501639|168936104|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related OP visits||||<0.0001
84593032|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalisations||||0.538
84593033|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.913
84593034|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ED visits||||0.688
84593035|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.892
84593036|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OP visits||||<0.0001
84593037|NCT05501639|168936105|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related OP visits||||0.002
84593038|NCT05501639|168936106|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
84593039|NCT00251693|168936107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.33||||0.004||95.0|2.17|10.48||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.48|2.17|0.004
84593040|NCT00251693|168936107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.84||||0.001||95.0|2.7|10.98||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.98|2.70|0.001
84593041|NCT00251693|168936107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.727
84593042|NCT00251693|168936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84593043|NCT00251693|168936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
84593044|NCT00251693|168936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
84593045|NCT00251693|168936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.011
84593046|NCT00251693|168936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.017
84593047|NCT00251693|168936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.927
84593048|NCT00251693|168936110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.2||||0.06||95.0|2.3|10.11||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.11|2.30|0.060
84758944|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.59||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.85|14.91||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.91|-23.85|0.3506
84593049|NCT00251693|168936110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.08||||0.029||95.0|2.16|10.0||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.00|2.16|0.029
84593050|NCT00251693|168936110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.707
84614628|NCT00536471|168978218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
84614629|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.914
84614630|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84614631|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
84614632|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
84593051|NCT00251693|168936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.705
84593052|NCT00251693|168936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
84593053|NCT00251693|168936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.283
84593054|NCT00251693|168936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.896
84593055|NCT00251693|168936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.241
84593056|NCT00251693|168936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.211
84593057|NCT01595529|168936138|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035569|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.054844||||||||0.054844||
84614633|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
84614634|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
84614635|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
84758945|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|9.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|33.6||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||33.60|-13.97|0.2466
84501362|NCT00068770|168753549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||||6.3|1.1|0.11
84501363|NCT02981602|168753597|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
84758946|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.74||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|61.05||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||61.05|8.43|0.0157
84614636|NCT00536471|168978219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
84614637|NCT00536471|168978220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84614638|NCT00536471|168978220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
84614639|NCT00536471|168978220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.701
84758947|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.55||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.99|22.68||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||22.68|-25.99|0.4548
84593058|NCT01595529|168936139|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.022169|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03939||||||||0.03939||
84614640|NCT00536471|168978220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
84614641|NCT00536471|168978221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84614642|NCT00536471|168978221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.672
84614643|NCT00536471|168978221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
84614644|NCT00536471|168978221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
84614645|NCT00536471|168978226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
84614646|NCT00536471|168978226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value for Creatinine - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.031
84614647|NCT00536471|168978226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
84614648|NCT00536471|168978226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
84593059|NCT01595529|168936140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03323|0.026102||||||||0.026102|-0.03323|
84593060|NCT01595529|168936141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04012|0.020236||||||||0.020236|-0.04012|
84593061|NCT01595529|168936142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2282|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.2282
84593062|NCT01595529|168936142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.4876
84614649|NCT00536471|168978226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
84614650|NCT00536471|168978227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
84614651|NCT00536471|168978227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.029
84614652|NCT00536471|168978228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
84614653|NCT00536471|168978228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.014
84614654|NCT00536471|168978229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.022
84614655|NCT00536471|168978229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for Urea Nitrogen - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
84614656|NCT00536471|168978229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84614657|NCT00536471|168978229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for Cholesterol - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.045
84614658|NCT00536471|168978229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Sodium - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.043
84614659|NCT00536471|168978230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
84614660|NCT00536471|168978230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
84614661|NCT00536471|168978231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
84614662|NCT00536471|168978232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
84614663|NCT00536471|168978233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
84614664|NCT00536471|168978233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84614665|NCT00536471|168978234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84614666|NCT00536471|168978234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
84614667|NCT00536471|168978235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84614668|NCT00536471|168978235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Hemoglobin - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
84758948|NCT04091087|169273931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-42.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.24|-22.15||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-22.15|-62.24|0.0004
84593063|NCT01595529|168936143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.4184
84593064|NCT01595529|168936143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9782|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.9782
84593065|NCT01595529|168936144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08857|-0.01698||||||||-0.01698|-0.08857|
84593066|NCT01595529|168936145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09479|-0.0185||||||||-0.01850|-0.09479|
84593067|NCT01595529|168936146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07744|0.016323||||||||0.016323|-0.07744|
84593068|NCT01595529|168936147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036117||||||||0.036117|-0.0580|
84593069|NCT01595529|168936148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.10373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14161|-0.06585||||||||-0.06585|-0.14161|
84593070|NCT01595529|168936149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13006|-0.05391||||||||-0.05391|-0.13006|
84593071|NCT01333436|168936184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.8||0.0078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
84593072|NCT01333436|168936185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.0675||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0675
84593073|NCT01333436|168936186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.1798||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1798
84593074|NCT00543985|168936187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.266|||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Pearson Product correlation was used to determine relationships between resting E/E' and Exercise VO2 max and Stress E/E' and Exercise VO2max.||||=0.14
84593075|NCT01634152|168936191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.099|-0.028|0.2724
84672976|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.36|0.9175
84593076|NCT01634152|168936191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.203|0.075|<0.0001
84593077|NCT01634152|168936192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.085|-0.048|0.5898
84593078|NCT01634152|168936192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.154|0.019|0.0117
84593079|NCT01634152|168936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.113|0.2277
84593080|NCT01634152|168936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.101|-0.040|0.3998
84593081|NCT01634152|168936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.026|-0.121|0.2030
84593082|NCT01634152|168936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.066|0.8194
84593083|NCT01634152|168936195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.026|0.2907
84593084|NCT01634152|168936195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.184|0.068|<0.0001
84593085|NCT01634152|168936196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.022|-0.103|0.2008
84593086|NCT01634152|168936196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.100|-0.026|0.2545
84758949|NCT04091087|169273932|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.23|23.06||1 sided|ANOVA|||||23.06|-9.23|0.2383
84758950|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-29.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.01||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|5.18||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||5.18|-65.09|0.0797
84593087|NCT01634152|168936199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.173|-0.133|0.7980
84593088|NCT01634152|168936199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.076|-0.233|0.3166
84593089|NCT01634152|168936201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.261|-0.227|0.8916
84593090|NCT01634152|168936201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.158|-0.336|0.4789
84593091|NCT01634152|168936202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.129|-0.160|0.8361
84614669|NCT01934010|168978287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 2 treatment cycles.||||0.128
84758951|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-14.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.81|17.04||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||17.04|-45.81|0.2236
84501364|NCT02981602|168753597|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84593092|NCT01634152|168936202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.060|-0.233|0.2461
84593093|NCT01634152|168936203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.165|-0.096|0.6029
84593094|NCT01634152|168936203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.107|-0.158|0.7034
84593095|NCT01634152|168936204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||13.970|-4.419|0.3083
84593096|NCT01634152|168936204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.747||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.571|14.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||14.057|-4.571|0.3179
84593097|NCT01634152|168936205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.866|10.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||10.001|-8.866|0.9061
84593098|NCT01634152|168936205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.867||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.658|5.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||5.444|-13.658|0.3990
84593099|NCT01634152|168936206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||1.060|-2.959|0.3542
84593100|NCT01634152|168936206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||1.541|-2.545|0.6298
84593101|NCT01634152|168936207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.043|-0.107|0.4066
84593102|NCT01634152|168936207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.125|0.2032
84593103|NCT01634152|168936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.028|-0.131|0.2064
84614670|NCT01934010|168978287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||0.075
84758952|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.05||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.12|15.24||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||15.24|-35.12|0.2559
84758953|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.44||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.54|21.52||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.52|-53.54|0.2392
84758954|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-13.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.65||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.87|19.85||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||19.85|-45.87|0.2553
84593104|NCT01634152|168936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.020|-0.142|0.1410
84593105|NCT01634152|168936209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.082|-0.083|0.9869
84593106|NCT01634152|168936209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.077|0.8730
84593107|NCT01634152|168936210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.091|-0.103|0.9043
84593108|NCT01634152|168936210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.112|0.7708
84593109|NCT01634152|168936211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.066|-0.139|0.4864
84593110|NCT01634152|168936211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.117|0.7991
84593111|NCT01634152|168936212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.106|-0.092|0.8884
84593112|NCT01634152|168936212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.112|0.8115
84593113|NCT01634152|168936213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.117|-0.084|0.7498
84593114|NCT01634152|168936213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.019|-0.185|0.1108
84593115|NCT01634152|168936214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.102|-0.131|0.8055
84593116|NCT01634152|168936214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.047|-0.189|0.2360
84614671|NCT01934010|168978287|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 2 treatment cycles with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||1
84593117|NCT01634152|168936215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.063|-0.097|0.6748
84593118|NCT01634152|168936215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.105|-0.056|0.5497
84593119|NCT01152437|168936216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.122||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.018|0.844||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Regression, Logistic|Wald Chi-square test and Confidence Interval from logistic regression stratified by number of lines of palliative chemotherapy.||Null hypothesis is that the objective response rate (ORR) in KRAS wild-type patients treated with afatinib is less than or equal to the ORR in KRAS wild-type patients treated with cetuximab. Sample size is based on a 'pick the winner' approach assuming ORR for cetuximab of 12%, undesirable ORR for afatinib of 11% and desirable ORR for afatinib of 16%. As per 'pick the winner' approach, afatinib would be considered 'the winner' if the ORR for afatinib was greater than the ORR for cetuximab.||0.844|0.018|0.0735
84593120|NCT01152437|168936217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|12.0||||0.6394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|23.9||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the disease control rate is 10% in patients with KRAS mutation. Sample size calculation based on a 2-sided exact binomial test at 10% significance level to distinguish between the historical disease control rate of 10% and a desirable disease control rate for afatinib of 25%.||23.9|4.9|0.6394
84593121|NCT01900665|168936221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.14|-1.73|0.095
84593122|NCT04046939|168936248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.2283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.431||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.2283 represents the ratio of the 150 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.2051), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.2283 is equivalent to a -77.17% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.431|0.121|<.0001
84614672|NCT01934010|168978288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4403|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4403
84614673|NCT01934010|168978290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2401
84614674|NCT01934010|168978290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0022
84614675|NCT01934010|168978290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1001
84614676|NCT01934010|168978291|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84614677|NCT01393821|168978293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6311|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6311
84614678|NCT00377858|168978300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.3% based on prior studies indicating an HbA1c difference of 0.6% in patients treated with lispro and sulfonylurea compared with those treated with sulfonylurea and metformin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.097||95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for (Insulin Lispro Mid Mixture minus Insulin Glargine).|Assuming 15% drop-out rate after randomization, remaining 213 patients in each treatment group would allow confirmation of noninferiority with no treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.3% using upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval at significance level of 0.05 with 80% power.||0.37|-0.03|0.097
84614679|NCT00377858|168978301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.047||95.0|0.0|0.33||P-value for 12 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.33|0.00|0.047
84593123|NCT04046939|168936248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.3403||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.653||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.3403 represents the ratio of the 75 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.3056), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.3403 is equivalent to a -65.97% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.653|0.177|0.0014
84614680|NCT00377858|168978301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.043||95.0|0.01|0.35||P-value for 24 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|0.01|0.043
84614681|NCT00377858|168978301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.343||95.0|-0.1|0.29||P-value for 36 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.10|0.343
84614682|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||95.0||||P-value for Week 12: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.432
84614683|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.602
84614684|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.370
84614685|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.198
84614686|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.636
84614687|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.185
84614688|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.393
84501365|NCT02981602|168753597|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.573
84614689|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.739
84614690|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.396
84614691|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.227
84614692|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.482
84614693|NCT00377858|168978302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.108
84614694|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.014||95.0|0.12|1.04||P-value for Baseline: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.04|0.12|0.014
84614695|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.735||95.0|-0.51|0.72||P-value for Baseline: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.72|-0.51|0.735
84758955|NCT04091087|169273933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-103.26|-2.75||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-2.75|-103.26|0.0416
84758956|NCT03703102|169273935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84758957|NCT03703102|169273935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84593124|NCT04046939|168936248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.4489||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.874||A closed hierarchical statistical testing was used. The previous endpoint in the hierarchy was not statistically significant. Therefore, this endpoint was not formally tested and is not considered statistically significant, despite a p-value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.4489 represents the ratio of the 37.5 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.4031) compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.4489 is equivalent to a -55.11% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.874|0.231|0.0190
84593125|NCT04046939|168936249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0814||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group from placebo in change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The combined 75 mg and 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.279|-0.116|0.4154
84593126|NCT04046939|168936249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0456|0.4||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.400|-0.0456|0.1174
84593127|NCT04046939|168936249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0143||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.211||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.211|-0.240|0.8998
84593128|NCT04046939|168936249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.37||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.370|-0.0950|0.2425
84593129|NCT04046939|168936250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.245||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.245|-0.772|0.3059
84593130|NCT04046939|168936250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0457||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.484||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.484|-0.575|0.8642
84593131|NCT04046939|168936250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0276||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.505||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.505|-0.560|0.9182
84593132|NCT04046939|168936251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0163|0.378||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 150 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.378|-0.0163|0.0716
84614696|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.051||95.0|0.0|1.08||P-value for Baseline: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.08|-0.00|0.051
84614697|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.536||95.0|-0.39|0.75||P-value for Baseline: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.75|-0.39|0.536
84614698|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.793||95.0|-0.48|0.62||P-value for Baseline: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.48|0.793
84758958|NCT03703102|169273935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84758959|NCT03703102|169273935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84758960|NCT02797808|169273972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0083||||||Independent-sample t tests were used to compare the RSFC metrics between groups at baseline and 12 weeks. Bonferroni correction was applied to the alpha level (2-tailed, p\<.05/6= .0083) for multiple testing.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0083
84758961|NCT00708500|169273983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|37.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|25.7|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||49.1|25.7|<0.0001
84501366|NCT02981602|168753598|OTHER|||||||0.609||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.609
84501367|NCT02981602|168753598|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
84501368|NCT02981602|168753599|OTHER|Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.245
84501369|NCT02981602|168753599|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84501370|NCT02981602|168753599|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
84501371|NCT02981602|168753600|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
84501372|NCT02981602|168753600|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.081
84501373|NCT02981602|168753600|OTHER|||||||0.616||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.616
84593133|NCT04046939|168936251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00474||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.202||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 75 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.202|-0.192|0.9619
84593134|NCT04046939|168936251|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0987||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.302||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 37.5 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.302|-0.105|0.3368
84593135|NCT04046939|168936252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.755||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.755|-0.338|0.4512
84593136|NCT04046939|168936252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0642||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.499||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.499|-0.627|0.8214
84593137|NCT04046939|168936252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.72||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.720|-0.411|0.5894
84593138|NCT04046939|168936258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0196
84593139|NCT04046939|168936258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0207
84593140|NCT04046939|168936258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5399
84593141|NCT04046939|168936259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0233||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0405|-0.00613||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00613|-0.0405|0.0084
84758962|NCT00708500|169273983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.7|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.7|<0.0001
84758963|NCT00708500|169273984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|39.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.2|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||51.0|27.2|<0.0001
84593142|NCT04046939|168936259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0206||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0384|-0.00281||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00281|-0.0384|0.0237
84593143|NCT04046939|168936259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00215||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0203|0.016||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||0.0160|-0.0203|0.8140
84593144|NCT04046939|168936260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|4.13||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||4.13|-20.6|0.1886
84593145|NCT04046939|168936260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.53||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.08||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||6.08|-19.1|0.3061
84593146|NCT04046939|168936260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|3.04||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||3.04|-23.4|0.1294
84593147|NCT03682965|168936284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84593148|NCT03682965|168936285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was used because the two outcomes are based on correlated data.|Clopper-Pearson binomial exact test|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of days during peak pollen season for which the average total combined score was lower in the immunotherapy group than in the placebo group.||||<0.05
84593149|NCT03682965|168936287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84614699|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.693||95.0|-0.43|0.64||P-value for Baseline: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.64|-0.43|0.693
84614700|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.499||95.0|-0.38|0.77||P-value for Baseline: 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.77|-0.38|0.499
84614701|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.92||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.92|0.26|<0.001
84672977|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.40|0.6763
84758964|NCT00708500|169273984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.4|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.4|<0.0001
84758965|NCT00768521|169274055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.18||||0.008||90.0|7.58|41.06||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.|Primary Hypothesis: Tolterodine LA 4 mg is superior to placebo with respect to change from baseline in maximum cystometric capacity at 4 hours post Dose 7 (i.e., steady state). The expected treatment effect is targeted at 40 mL.|||41.06|7.58|0.008
84593150|NCT00953706|168936292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect, with adjustment for age and continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||4.1|-0.6|0.1509
84593151|NCT00953706|168936293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for for age and baseline value for CFQ-R score, using unstructured covariance matrix||5.6|-2.9|0.5408
84593152|NCT00953706|168936294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous age and baseline value for age, sweat chloride, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-5.6|0.0384
84593153|NCT00953706|168936295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used the linear mixed model with treatment as fixed effects, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group (\< 18 years and ≥ 18 years) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume (FEV1) severity (\< 70%, ≥ 70% to ≤ 90%, \> 90%) at screening, with random intercept and random slope. Rate of change in the study period is the slope of weight versus time (days) multiplied by the number of days in the study period (112 days).||0.7|-1.1|0.7265
84593154|NCT01214837|168936330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup A at 13 months of age.||-1|-14|
84593155|NCT01214837|168936330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup C at 13 months of age.||0|-8|
84593156|NCT01214837|168936330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup W at 13 months of age.||3|-3|
84593157|NCT01214837|168936330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup Y at 13 months of age.||4|-2|
84593158|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||5|-6.1|
84593159|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||10.5|3|
84614702|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.278||95.0|-0.22|0.78||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.78|-0.22|0.278
84758966|NCT00768521|169274056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.422||90.0|-11.5|16.71||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.||||16.71|-11.5|0.422
84614703|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.009||95.0|0.14|0.93||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.93|0.14|0.009
84593160|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||6|-11.9|
84614704|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.049||95.0|0.0|0.97||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.97|0.00|0.049
84614705|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.18||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.18|0.35|<0.001
84614706|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
84614707|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.506||95.0|-0.59|0.29||P-value for 12 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.59|0.506
84614708|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.99||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.99|0.31|<0.001
84614709|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.094||95.0|-0.07|0.91||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.91|-0.07|0.094
84614710|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.408||95.0|-0.24|0.59||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.59|-0.24|0.408
84501374|NCT02981602|168753603|OTHER|||||||0.763||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.763
84614711|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.351||95.0|-0.25|0.71||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.71|-0.25|0.351
84614712|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01||95.0|0.13|0.98||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.98|0.13|0.010
84758967|NCT01505634|169274073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Difference (Diff) in Favorable MR||3.2|-11.2|0.005
84614713|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029||95.0|-0.92|-0.05||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
84614714|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.816||95.0|-0.45|0.35||P-value for 24 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|-0.45|0.816
84614715|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.008||95.0|0.13|0.85||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.85|0.13|0.008
84758968|NCT01505634|169274073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Favorable MR||5.9|-6.4|< 0.001
84501375|NCT02981602|168753603|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.804
84501376|NCT02981602|168753604|OTHER|||||||0.372||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.372
84593161|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||13.7|-3.3|
84593162|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||2.3|-7.5|
84593163|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||4.7|-4.4|
84593164|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||3.4|-12.1|
84593165|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||11.8|-1.9|
84593166|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||3.8|-3.7|
84593167|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||4.8|-2.2|
84593168|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||7.7|-8.4|
84593169|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||17.2|3.4|
84614716|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.438||95.0|-0.71|0.31||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.31|-0.71|0.438
84614717|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.548||95.0|-0.54|0.29||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.54|0.548
84614718|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.964||95.0|-0.5|0.52||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.52|-0.50|0.964
84593170|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-1.7|
84593171|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-2.1|
84593172|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||3.4|-9.7|
84593173|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||9.7|-1.5|
84593174|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||5.7|-1.2|
84593175|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||6.3|-0.2|
84593176|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||-0.2|-6.3|
84593177|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.2|-6.2|
84614719|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.453||95.0|-0.27|0.6||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.60|-0.27|0.453
84614720|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.096||95.0|-0.84|0.07||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.84|0.096
84614721|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.77||95.0|-0.51|0.37||P-value for 36 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.37|-0.51|0.770
84758969|NCT01505634|169274074|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
84593178|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.6|-7.1|
84593179|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||-0.9|-11.3|
84593180|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-1.7|
84593181|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-2.1|
84593182|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||8.2|-4.2|
84593183|NCT01214837|168936337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||10.5|-1.4|
84593184|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.13|0.77|
84593185|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.25|0.83|
84593186|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.4|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.4|0.93|
84593187|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.55|1.01|
84758970|NCT01505634|169274074|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
84758971|NCT01505634|169274075|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
84593188|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||0.96|0.62|
84593189|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||1.18|0.75|
84593190|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.21|0.86|
84593191|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.29|0.89|
84593192|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.04|0.69|
84593193|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.37|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.37|0.88|
84593194|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.05|0.69|
84593195|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.3|0.83|
84593196|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||0.95|0.67|
84593197|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||1.25|0.87|
84593198|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||0.96|0.66|
84593199|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||1.31|0.87|
84593200|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.27|0.84|
84593201|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.3|0.83|
84593202|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.87|0.59|
84593203|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||1.36|0.89|
84593204|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.27|0.83|
84614722|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.11|0.8||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.80|0.11|0.010
84614723|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.201||95.0|-0.8|0.17||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.80|0.201
84614724|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.43||95.0|-0.57|0.24||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.24|-0.57|0.430
84614725|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.814||95.0|-0.52|0.41||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.41|-0.52|0.814
84614726|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.427||95.0|-0.24|0.57||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.57|-0.24|0.427
84614727|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.009||95.0|-1.0|-0.14||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.14|-1.00|0.009
84614728|NCT00377858|168978303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.569||95.0|-0.51|0.28||P-value for Endpoint: 0300 Hours. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.28|-0.51|0.569
84593205|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.21|0.77|
84593206|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.22|0.82|
84593207|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.32|0.86|
84614729|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.776||95.0|-0.14|0.19||P-value for Baseline MODD.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.19|-0.14|0.776
84593208|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||0.97|0.62|
84614730|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.737||95.0|-6.14|8.68||P-value for Baseline M-Value.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.68|-6.14|0.737
84614731|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.701||95.0|-0.19|0.13||P-value for 12 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.13|-0.19|0.701
84614732|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.4||95.0|-2.11|5.27||P-value for 12 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||5.27|-2.11|0.400
84614733|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.321||95.0|-0.26|0.09||P-value for 24 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.26|0.321
84614734|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.179||95.0|-1.16|6.21||P-value for 24 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||6.21|-1.16|0.179
84614735|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.573||95.0|-0.22|0.12||P-value for 36 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|-0.22|0.573
84593209|NCT01214837|168936338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||1.13|0.7|
84593210|NCT04472650|168936386|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.273|98.111||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.111|78.273|
84593211|NCT04472650|168936387|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.12|98.01||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.01|78.12|
84593212|NCT04472650|168936388|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|101.87||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||101.87|77.41|
84614736|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.629||95.0|-4.79|2.9||P-value for 36 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||2.90|-4.79|0.629
84593213|NCT01861665|168936394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8379||||||Pre Incision vs. Post Incision on Post op day 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8379
84614737|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.25||95.0|-0.26|0.07||P-value for Endpoint MODD. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.26|0.250
84614738|NCT00377858|168978304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.362||95.0|-5.44|1.99||P-value for Endpoint M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.99|-5.44|0.362
84614739|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
84614740|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84501377|NCT02981602|168753604|OTHER|||||||0.954||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.954
84501378|NCT00068445|168753650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84501379|NCT00068445|168753651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84501380|NCT00068445|168753652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84501381|NCT00068445|168753653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84593214|NCT01861665|168936394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision post op day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7263
84593215|NCT01861665|168936394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision day 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84614741|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.430
84614742|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84501382|NCT00068445|168753654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84501383|NCT00068445|168753655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84501384|NCT00068445|168753656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84501385|NCT00068445|168753657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84501386|NCT00068445|168753658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84593216|NCT00298389|168936408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84593217|NCT00298389|168936409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84593218|NCT02628444|168936410|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was greater than (\>) 1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.39||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.39|0.862|
84501387|NCT00068445|168753659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84501388|NCT01155284|168753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value between treatment groups of C-peptide log (AUC+1) with covariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline C-peptide concentration and duration of diabetes.|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
84501389|NCT01155284|168753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.869
84501390|NCT00123487|168753670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for difference (QD - BD) was ≥ -12%.|Percent Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.1||||||Primary endpoint was to be assessed at 6-Months: Assuming a 45% MaHR rate in the 70 mg BID participants, the primary efficacy analysis required a total of 540 participants, approximately 270 in each dosing schedule, giving at least 80% power to deduce non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in MaHR rates (MaHRRQD - MaHRRBID) is greater than -12%.||8.1|-7.8|
84501391|NCT00423488|168753688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least-squares means|-11.5||||0.005||95.0|-19.4|-3.5|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included term of treatment effect. If more than one basal value was available, the latest was used.||||-3.5|-19.4|0.005
84593219|NCT02628444|168936410|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.20|0.820|
84593220|NCT02628444|168936410|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.18||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.18|0.816|
84593221|NCT02628444|168936410|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.14|0.809|
84593222|NCT02628444|168936411|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.4||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.40|0.757|
84614743|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84614744|NCT00377858|168978305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.756
84614745|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.022
84614746|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.218
84614747|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.311
84501392|NCT01255722|168753706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinical non-inferiority margin was set to -10% maximum difference with the best comparator (i.e. iopromide).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.021|||Chi-squared|||Iobitridol was compared to the best of the two comparators. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between both proportions (Iobitridol - Comparator) was computed and the lower limit of the CI compared to the clinical non-inferiority limit in the study. The non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was equal to or higher than the clinical non-inferiority limit.||0.021|-0.088|0.05
84593223|NCT02628444|168936411|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.14|0.705|
84593224|NCT02628444|168936411|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.16|0.724|
84593225|NCT02628444|168936411|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.09|0.720|
84593226|NCT02628444|168936412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.399|0.805||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.805|0.399|
84614748|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.615
84614749|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.018
84614750|NCT00377858|168978306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.255
84593227|NCT02628444|168936412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.55|1.01||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.01|0.550|
84593228|NCT02628444|168936412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.686|1.57||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.57|0.686|
84593229|NCT02628444|168936412|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.434|0.963||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.963|0.434|
84593230|NCT02628444|168936413|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.342|1.15||||||Group 2a Booster dose/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.15|0.342|
84593231|NCT02628444|168936413|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.505|1.3||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.30|0.505|
84593232|NCT02628444|168936413|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.732|1.94||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.94|0.732|
84593233|NCT02628444|168936413|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.331|0.754||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.754|0.331|
84593234|NCT02628444|168936414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.479|0.989||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.989|0.479|
84614751|NCT00377858|168978307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.416
84614752|NCT00377858|168978308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.12|-0.05||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.12|<0.001
84614753|NCT00377858|168978308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.04|0.11||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.11|0.04|<0.001
84501393|NCT01255722|168753707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.750
84501394|NCT01255722|168753709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84593235|NCT02628444|168936414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.673|1.13||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.13|0.673|
84614754|NCT00377858|168978308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.017||95.0|0.01|0.12||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|0.01|0.017
84614755|NCT00377858|168978309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.65|-4.26||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-4.26|-9.65|<0.001
84593236|NCT02628444|168936414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.887|1.49||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.49|0.887|
84593237|NCT02628444|168936414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.471|0.911||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.911|0.471|
84593238|NCT02628444|168936415|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.462|1.71||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.71|0.462|
84614756|NCT00377858|168978309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|3.39|8.71||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.71|3.39|<0.001
84758972|NCT01505634|169274075|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
84614757|NCT00377858|168978309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.017||95.0|0.93|9.46||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||9.46|0.93|0.017
84614758|NCT00377858|168978310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.42|0.24|<0.001
84758973|NCT01505634|169274076|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-14.3|10.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||10.9|-14.3|
84501395|NCT01255722|168753710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
84593239|NCT02628444|168936415|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.402|1.14||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.14|0.402|
84593240|NCT02628444|168936415|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.573|1.45||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.45|0.573|
84593241|NCT02628444|168936415|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.447|1.1||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||1.10|0.447|
84593242|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.33||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.33|0.833|
84593243|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.19||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.19|0.821|
84614759|NCT00377858|168978310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.36||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.36|0.07|0.003
84614760|NCT00377858|168978310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.002||95.0|0.09|0.4||P-value for Week 30.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.40|0.09|0.002
84501396|NCT01255722|168753711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
84593244|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.17|0.810|
84758974|NCT01505634|169274076|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||12.0|-13.4|
84593245|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.14||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.14|0.814|
84593246|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.39||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.39|0.762|
84593247|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.16|0.724|
84758975|NCT01505634|169274077|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||5.9|-5.8|
84758976|NCT01505634|169274077|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||2.8|-7.6|
84758977|NCT01505634|169274078|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||9.8|-7.5|
84614761|NCT00377858|168978310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.005||95.0|0.07|0.38||P-value for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.38|0.07|0.005
84758978|NCT01505634|169274078|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||8.6|-8.4|
84593248|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.17|0.742|
84593249|NCT02628444|168936416|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.12|0.750|
84593250|NCT02079909|168936434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3919
84593251|NCT02079909|168936435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7588
84593252|NCT02079909|168936436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3212
84593253|NCT04776161|168936450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.12|-0.16|0.78
84593254|NCT04776161|168936450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.13|-0.10|0.79
84593255|NCT04776161|168936451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.22|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level.||||1.22|-0.28|0.22
84614762|NCT00377858|168978310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.011||95.0|0.04|0.34||P-value for Endpoint. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.34|0.04|0.011
84758979|NCT01505634|169274079|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||4.6|-4.5|
84593256|NCT04776161|168936451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.26|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level||||1.26|-0.33|0.24
84593257|NCT01475721|168936461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison is statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.662|||Regression, Cox|||||1.662|0.638|0.003
84593258|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.103|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy.|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.103|0.630|0.203
84758980|NCT01505634|169274079|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||2.8|-5.5|
84758981|NCT01505634|169274080|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||6.8|-4.4|
84501397|NCT02643966|168753712|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||2.1|0.3|0.005
84501398|NCT02643966|168753712|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||1.5|0.4|<0.001
84501399|NCT02643966|168753713|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|17.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|31.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||31.1|4.4|0.005
84501400|NCT02643966|168753713|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 and 3.|simple proportions|13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added CDR from US of 1.1/1,000.Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||22.3|4.9|< 0.001
84501401|NCT02643966|168753715|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|Slope|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||5.1|3.8|< 0.001
84501402|NCT02643966|168753715|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|4.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||4.1|3.3|< 0.001
84501403|NCT03070431|168753732|SUPERIORITY|It was assumed that radiotherapy with 5x4 Gy results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and an increase by 20% is clinically relevant when using 5x5 Gy. For comparison of 5x5 Gy and a historical control (5x4 Gy), it was assumed that it can be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test (2-sided significance level of 5%, power of 79%) if 40 patients treated with 5x5 Gy and 400 patients of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison, assuming 6-month LPFS rates of 87% and 67%.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||historical control group treated with 5 x 4 Gy|"In a prospective study, 6-month LPFS rates were 86% after longer-course (mainly 3Gyx10) and 67% after short-course radiotherapy (mainly 4Gyx5) \[Rades D, et al., Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:228-34.\]. For sample size calculations, it was assumed that conventional radiotherapy with 4Gyx5 results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and that an increase by 20% is clinically relevant and realistic with 5Gyx5. A sample size of 40 eligible patients was required for the phase 2 trial assuming that that 6-month LPFS would be 87% and estimated with a precision of +/-20% expressed as the half length of the associated two-sided confidence interval (95%), and power of \>=80%.~For comparison of phase 2 cohort and historical control group, it was assumed that this could be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test using a two-sided significance level of 5% (10%) and a power of 79% (86%) if 40 patients received 5Gyx5 and N=400 of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison."|||<0.05
84614763|NCT00377858|168978311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.803||95.0|-0.8|0.62||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.80|0.803
84501404|NCT00701935|168753742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.432||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|7.95||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline abdominal visceral fat.||"The power calculation is based on a two-sided t-test and significance level of 0.05.~Hypotheses for sample size:~Power: 80% Drop-out rate: 20% Difference in the percentage change in abdominal visceral fat from baseline to 6 months between exenatide and placebo: 10% Common standard deviation: 15%~94 patients are needed to attain the 37 patients randomized and analyzed in each group."||7.95|-9.92|0.8252
84501405|NCT00701935|168753743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|4.39||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total abdominal fat.||||4.39|-8.53|0.5207
84501406|NCT00701935|168753744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.73||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline subcutaneous abdominal fat.||||1.73|-9.15|0.1755
84501407|NCT00701935|168753745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.57||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis included the following factors: treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HbA1c||||-0.57|-1.19|<0.0001
84501408|NCT00701935|168753747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.4||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-0.40|-2.38|0.0073
84501409|NCT00701935|168753748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-0.76||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline body weight.||||-0.76|-3.66|0.0035
84501410|NCT00701935|168753751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total cholesterol||||0.30|-0.71|0.4145
84501411|NCT00701935|168753752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.33||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline triglycerides||||0.33|-0.80|0.4007
84501412|NCT00701935|168753753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HDL cholesterol||||0.11|-0.08|0.7915
84501413|NCT00701935|168753754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|15.77||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model was used with the assumption of an underlying Poisson distribution and the logarithm of exposure (years) as offset variable.||Event rate per subject year was calculated for each subject : (number of events observed from a subject/exposure from a subject)\*365.25 where exposure = last post-baseline visit date - baseline visit date.||15.77|0.68|0.1388
84501414|NCT01783483|168753760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean CT scan scores.||||<0.0001
84501415|NCT01783483|168753761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84501416|NCT01783483|168753762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0539
84614764|NCT00709618|168978326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.4|||||The estimated value respresents the percentage of participants with a complete response or a partial response.|||55.4|26.4|
84758982|NCT01505634|169274080|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||3.7|-6.1|
84501417|NCT01783483|168753762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0015
84501418|NCT01783483|168753763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.2125
84501419|NCT01783483|168753763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0014
84501420|NCT01783483|168753764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0049
84501421|NCT01783483|168753764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0183
84593259|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.090|0.645|0.188
84593260|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.905|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.905|0.645|0.002
84758983|NCT01505634|169274081|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||6.2|-3.6|
84758984|NCT01505634|169274081|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||4.6|-4.5|
84758985|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||7.8|-5.5|
84758986|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||3.6|-8.1|
84758987|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||6.5|-6.4|
84501422|NCT01783483|168753765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.6653
84501423|NCT01783483|168753765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.2295
84758988|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||9.2|-4.6|
84758989|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||1.9|-9.0|
84501424|NCT01783483|168753767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Index (Day 0 to Hospital Discharge)||||0.370
84501425|NCT01783483|168753768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From Hospital Discharge to 3-week||||0.778
84501426|NCT01783483|168753769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3-week to 6-week post-op||||0.055
84501427|NCT01783483|168753771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3 month to 6-month post op||||0.113
84501428|NCT00947518|168753772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
84501429|NCT00947518|168753773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
84501430|NCT00947518|168753774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84593261|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.034|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.034|0.451|0.071
84593262|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.170|0.659|0.373
84593263|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.122|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.122|0.665|0.271
84758990|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||3.6|-8.1|
84758991|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
84593264|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.895|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.895|0.637|0.001
84758992|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
84758993|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||10.4|-3.7|
84501431|NCT00947518|168753775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||For comparison of categorical variables among the three groups, Chi2 test followed by Bonferroni's correction was used.|||<0.05
84501432|NCT00370396|168753777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix-Synflorix minus Prevenar-Prevenar\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C was computed.|Difference in percentage|-4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-0.21||||||Analysis aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of Synflorix™ vs Prevenar™ vaccine, both co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ vaccine, in terms of post-immunization febrile reactions with rectal fever \> 39.0°C.||-0.21|-11.85|
84501433|NCT02065791|168753793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.82|0.59|< 0.0001
84501434|NCT02065791|168753794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.83|0.57|=0.0001
84501435|NCT02065791|168753795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.95|0.67|=0.0121
84501436|NCT02065791|168753796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.80|0.47|=0.0003
84501437|NCT02065791|168753797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
84501438|NCT02065791|168753798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.61|=0.0502
84501439|NCT02065791|168753799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.02|0.68|= 0.0727
84501440|NCT02065791|168753800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.86|0.63|0.0001
84501441|NCT03467971|168753808|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|175.6652|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.779|200.6664||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||200.6664|153.7790|
84501442|NCT03467971|168753808|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|104.457|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.766|111.606||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||111.6060|97.7660|
84501443|NCT03467971|168753809|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|180.7734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0135|208.1287||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||208.1287|157.0135|
84501444|NCT03467971|168753809|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.0818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0047|112.6699||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||112.6699|98.0047|
84501445|NCT03467971|168753810|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|127.7779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2732|148.0612||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||148.0612|110.2732|
84501446|NCT03467971|168753810|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.4183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5723|117.5081||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||117.5081|94.5723|
84501447|NCT00363129|168753826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
84501448|NCT00363129|168753827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84501449|NCT00363129|168753828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84501450|NCT02278952|168753883|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.33|||||||GEE-adjusted models|||||||0.33
84501451|NCT02278952|168753884|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear model|||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE-adjusted linear model|||||||< 0.0001
84501452|NCT02278952|168753885|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.049|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.049
84501453|NCT02278952|168753886|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.114|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.114
84501454|NCT02278952|168753887|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.47|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of tacrolimus dose||||0.470
84501455|NCT02278952|168753887|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.037|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of Prednisone dose||||0.037
84501456|NCT02278952|168753887|OTHER|Generalized-estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.456|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of mycophenolate mofetil dose||||0.456
84614765|NCT04042909|168978337|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|1.013||This is the p-value of the CAA vs AO factor in the model.|Regression, Linear|We used linear regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol consumption (drinks per week) from baseline to 6-months.||1.013|-1.632|.646
84614766|NCT04042909|168978338|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|We used regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol problems from baseline to 6-months.||-0.39|-3.41|.014
84614767|NCT03781414|168978378|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.0759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0729|0.2165||||||||0.2165|-0.0729|
84614768|NCT03781414|168978378|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.1696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0072|0.3276||||||||0.3276|0.0072|
84501457|NCT00725725|168753897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5299||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0781|5.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1380|-2.0781|0.3934
84501458|NCT00725725|168753897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4665|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0000|-1.4665|0.3515
84501459|NCT00725725|168753898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8246||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8307|2.1815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1815|-5.8307|0.3597
84593265|NCT01475721|168936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.040|0.454|0.075
84614769|NCT00555672|168978418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|45.5|||Fisher Exact|Exact Method based on the F Distribution.||||45.5|13.3|
84614770|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.053||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.104||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.104|0.003|0.040
84614771|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.153|0.052|<0.001
84614772|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.243||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.243|0.141|<0.001
84614773|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.224|0.123|<0.001
84758994|NCT01505634|169274082|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||5.1|-7.2|
84758995|NCT01733628|169274139|OTHER|Type of statistical Test: Inequality|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|0.56|0.8166
84501460|NCT00725725|168753898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4414||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5952|2.7124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7124|-3.5952|0.7770
84501461|NCT00725725|168753899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3356||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8933|6.5644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5644|-1.8933|0.2683
84501462|NCT00725725|168753899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1317||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4518|6.7152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7152|-0.4518|0.0844
84501463|NCT00725725|168753903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3456||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6211|5.3124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3124|-4.6211|0.8894
84501464|NCT00725725|168753903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0417||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5526|6.636|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6360|-2.5526|0.3765
84593266|NCT01475721|168936464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.071|||Regression, Cox|||||1.071|0.562|0.123
84614774|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.170|0.070|<0.001
84614775|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.14||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.140|0.039|<0.001
84614776|NCT01053988|168978421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.071||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.121||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.021|0.006
84614777|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.033||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.088|-0.022|0.241
84614778|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.067||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.012|0.017
84614779|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.184||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.184|0.074|<0.001
84614780|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.169|0.060|<0.001
84758996|NCT02813551|169274154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||||1.10|0.53|
84758997|NCT02813551|169274155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3||||||||3.3|0.4|
84758998|NCT02813551|169274156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.0||||||||28|0.3|
84501465|NCT00725725|168753904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2502||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4963|8.9958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9958|-11.4963|0.8073
84501466|NCT00725725|168753904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0291||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2132|11.2714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.2714|-7.2132|0.6610
84501467|NCT00725725|168753905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7296||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7291|6.1883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1883|-4.7291|0.7895
84501468|NCT00725725|168753905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.526||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5495|6.6015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6015|-3.5495|0.5488
84501469|NCT00725725|168753906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2766||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9269|4.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3738|-6.9269|0.6516
84501470|NCT00725725|168753906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1867||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5864|-0.7869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7869|-11.5864|0.0256
84593267|NCT01475721|168936465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.141|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|||-0.141|-0.385|<0.001
84501471|NCT02392559|168753925|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.54|-31.06|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-31.06|-45.54|< 0.0001
84501472|NCT02392559|168753925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501473|NCT02392559|168753926|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-42.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|-35.83|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-35.83|-48.34|< 0.0001
84501474|NCT02392559|168753926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501475|NCT02392559|168753927|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-68.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|-54.0||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|repeated measures model|||||-54.0|-83.1|< 0.0001
84501476|NCT02392559|168753927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501477|NCT02392559|168753928|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-35.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.79|-28.3|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-28.30|-41.79|< 0.0001
84501478|NCT02392559|168753928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501479|NCT02392559|168753929|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-32.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.82|-26.13|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-26.13|-38.82|< 0.0001
84501480|NCT02392559|168753929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501481|NCT02392559|168753930|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-24.21|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-24.21|-36.40|< 0.0001
84501482|NCT02392559|168753930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501483|NCT02392559|168753931|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-36.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-29.8|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-29.80|-42.97|< 0.0001
84501484|NCT02392559|168753931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
84501485|NCT01345058|168753939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.65|||Chi-squared||Hazard ratio for seizure occurrence for polytherapy relative to monotherapy.|||1.65|0.35|0.49
84501486|NCT03162354|168753950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|We powered this hypothesis to detect a 17% increase (from 73% to 90%) in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse at intervention sites, compared to baseline in prior PediBIRN studies. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were adopted to analyze 1,000 Monte Carlo datasets from simulation. For the target sample size of 304 higher risk patients (152 in each arm), the proportion of simulated datasets that yielded a statistically significant result for the primary hypothesis was 95.7%.||1.11|0.37|0.11
84501487|NCT03162354|168753951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.98|0.24|0.49
84501488|NCT03162354|168753952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||5.13|0.69|0.22
84501489|NCT03162354|168753953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.85|0.27|0.01
84501490|NCT03162354|168753954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.60|0.46|0.84
84501491|NCT03162354|168753955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.38|1.00|0.05
84501492|NCT03162354|168753956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.49||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.49|0.43|0.71
84501493|NCT03162354|168753957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.53|0.70|0.86
84501494|NCT03162354|168753958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline prior studies to the cluster randomized trial|||3.52|1.16|0.01
84758999|NCT02813551|169274157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
84593268|NCT01475721|168936465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|-0.076|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.076|-0.369|0.003
84501495|NCT03162354|168753959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior studies to the cluster randomized trial.|||0.67|0.26|<.001
84501496|NCT03162354|168753960|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior PediBIRN studies to the clinical trial.|||1.31|0.16|0.14
84501497|NCT03162354|168753962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.05|0.27|0.57
84501498|NCT03162354|168753963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.99|0.40|0.04
84501499|NCT02989610|168753968|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
84501500|NCT02989610|168753969|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 40%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
84614781|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.136|0.028|0.003
84672978|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3805
84672979|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.32|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.19|0.6073
84501501|NCT02989610|168753970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||"Comparison of UPDRS part III on medication from 3 months using omnidirectional stimulation to 6 months using directional stimulation.~The p-value presented is calculated and does not represent the threshold. The statistical test used for this endpoint is single sided, and the observed difference was in the opposite direction of the tested difference, leading to a p-value that is equivalent to 1 within the significance of the statistical software used."||||1.0000
84501502|NCT04508621|168753971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.115
84501503|NCT04508621|168753972|SUPERIORITY|Patients with missing data considered non-responders.|Difference in Proportions|8.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.5|||Pearson Chi-Squared|||||15.5|0.5|0.038
84501504|NCT04508621|168753973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.3|-6.4|0.030
84501505|NCT04508621|168753974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||2.5|-3.2|0.797
84501506|NCT04508621|168753975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.7|-3.8|0.004
84501507|NCT04508621|168753976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.2|-2.7|0.101
84593269|NCT01475721|168936465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|-0.106|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.106|-0.238|<0.001
84614782|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.117||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.117|0.008|0.025
84614783|NCT01053988|168978422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.102|-0.006|0.082
84614784|NCT00719355|168978433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori level of significance was set at p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA using intent-to-treat procedures, was used for the primary outcome variable. Analyses were adjusted for age.||Observed power for our primary analysis was 0.64.||||0.033
84501508|NCT04508621|168753977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.0|-0.6|0.094
84501509|NCT02464059|168753995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|207.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.4|41.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||41.3|-172.4|0.21
84593270|NCT01475721|168936465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.056|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|||0.056|-0.216|0.251
84501510|NCT02464059|168753996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|5.91||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|-7.02|0.86
84501511|NCT03101293|168754103|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|LS Mean Ratio|1.343||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.146|1.574|||ANOVA|||||1.574|1.146|0.0058
84501512|NCT03101293|168754104|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.121||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.298|||ANOVA|||||1.298|0.969|0.1763
84501513|NCT03101293|168754105|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.154||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.433|||ANOVA|||||1.433|0.929|0.2745
84593271|NCT00559104|168936471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.79|||Regression, Cox||"Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the Parameter Estimate, not of the mean.~Standard Error = 1.02475"|There is no power calculation as this is a phase II study. This is an Event-free Survival, in which an event can be Relapse/Progression, or Death. Censoring can be at the End of follow-up date, or at the End of study date.||3.79|0.07|0.51
84593272|NCT00559104|168936472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.99|||Regression, Cox||"Numerator: Carmustine in the conditioning. Denominator: Irradiation in the conditioning.~Parameter: Hazard ratio. Dispersion: Standard Error of the Hazard Ratio."|Phase II analysis: There was no power calculation.||4.99|0.09|0.69
84759000|NCT02813551|169274160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.2|1.0|
84759001|NCT02813551|169274161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||||||||1.9|0.5|
84501514|NCT03555890|168754137|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.003||||||||1.003|0.948|
84501515|NCT03555890|168754138|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|0.998||||||||0.998|0.958|
84501516|NCT03555890|168754139|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|0.998||||||||0.998|0.875|
84501517|NCT03555890|168754140|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|0.902||||||||0.902|0.815|
84593273|NCT00387088|168936474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with pooled centre, LABA use, and treatment fitted as main effects and the baseline trough FEV1 as a covariate.||||0.118|0.085|<0.0001
84593274|NCT01639469|168936499|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.68|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing to see if there is a significant difference in fall rates over 12months between the two groups.||0.68|0.22|<0.001
84593275|NCT01119443|168936500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|110.3|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.3|98.3|
84593276|NCT01119443|168936501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.8||||||90.0|100.1|109.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.8|100.1|
84593277|NCT01119443|168936502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|108.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.634|122.676|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.676|95.634|
84501518|NCT03372369|168754201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
84501519|NCT03372369|168754201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
84759002|NCT02813551|169274162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||||||||2.9|0.1|
84759003|NCT00102960|169274167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 40 weeks (ART-40W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.93|0.38|0.02
84759004|NCT00102960|169274167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 96 weeks (ART-96W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.76|0.27|0.002
84501520|NCT03372369|168754201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the contraceptive knowledge score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||<0.0001
84501521|NCT03372369|168754202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.001
84593278|NCT01119443|168936503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|106.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.189|122.251|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.251|93.189|
84501522|NCT03372369|168754202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.01
84501523|NCT03372369|168754202|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the effective contraception preference score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
84501524|NCT03372369|168754203|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
84501525|NCT03372369|168754203|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
84501526|NCT03372369|168754203|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
84614785|NCT00719355|168978434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.65||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA was used with intent to treat analysis. The co-variant was age.||||||0.109
84501527|NCT03372369|168754204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
84501528|NCT03372369|168754204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
84501529|NCT03372369|168754204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
84501530|NCT04682639|168754205|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.54||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-4.49|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||-4.49|-32.60|0.0103
84501531|NCT04682639|168754205|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.42|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||6.42|-21.48|0.2861
84501532|NCT04682639|168754206|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|9.19|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.19|-4.43|0.4894
84501533|NCT04682639|168754206|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.41|||Linear mixed effects model|||||11.41|-2.00|0.1671
84501534|NCT04682639|168754207|OTHER||LS mean difference|-54.53||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.59|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|-110.59|0.0565
84501535|NCT04682639|168754207|OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.61|41.71|||ANCOVA|||||41.71|-69.61|0.6193
84501536|NCT04682639|168754208|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|21.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|34.57|||Mantel Haenszel|||||34.57|9.23|0.0007
84593279|NCT01119443|168936504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|98.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.276|112.58|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|84.276|
84614786|NCT02211456|168978490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The data derived from this study was complex multi-level data with errors due to patient-level and intra-patient repeat factors. Accordingly, we used generalized multi-level modelling (GLMM) with random effects.||6.3|1|<0.05
84501537|NCT04682639|168754208|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|13.85||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.66|||Mantel Haenszel|||||24.66|3.03|0.0121
84614787|NCT02910102|168978505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|2.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||2.23|-6.04|0.3565
84614788|NCT02910102|168978506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||3.38|-3.73|0.9220
84614789|NCT02024724|168978512|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|10.0|||Chi-squared|||||10.00|-45.00|.196
84759005|NCT00102960|169274172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-40W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.25|0.01|0.03
84501538|NCT04682639|168754209|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|12.15||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|22.16|||Mantel Haenszel|||||22.16|2.15|0.0173
84593280|NCT01119443|168936505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.461|109.698|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.698|82.461|
84759006|NCT00102960|169274172|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-96W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.31|0.09|0.0006
84759007|NCT00102960|169274173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares event rates per 100 person-years across the three arms|Poisson Regression|||The CHER study compared Grade 3 or 4 clinical event rates per 100 person-years between the three arms using Poisson regression modeling over the study duration of 4.8 years.|The rates per 100 person-years were 33.8 (Arm 1), 21.6 (Arm 2) and 16 (Arm 3)|||<0.0001
84759008|NCT00102960|169274174|SUPERIORITY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Poisson regression|||The event rates per 100 person years were compared across the three arms|The laboratory events per 100 person years across the three arms were: 7 (Deferred arm), 8.1 (early therapy for 40 weeks) and 6 (early therapy for 96 weeks).|||0.46
84759009|NCT00102960|169274177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard rate reported above compares early therapy 40 weeks relative to the deferred therapy arm.|The analysis compares ART-40W relative to the ART-Def arm.||0.84|0.27|0.011
84759010|NCT00102960|169274177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio compares ART-96W relative to the ART-Def arm.|The analysis compares ART-96 Weeks relative to ART-Deferred||0.64|0.18|0.0009
84759011|NCT00102960|169274179|SUPERIORITY||Count of days|0.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value here compares the days spent in hospital across the three arms|Poisson regression||||The total number of days/count of days: 1018 (Arm 1), 533 (Arm 2) and 414 (Arm 3) were compared across the three groups by Poisson regression analysis.|||0.004
84759012|NCT00102960|169274180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.811|||Regression, Cox|||||0.811|0.389|0.0021
84759013|NCT00102960|169274180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.840|0.405|0.0038
84759014|NCT02909985|169274191|SUPERIORITY||F|23.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(9, 129)||||||<0.0001
84759015|NCT02909985|169274191|SUPERIORITY||F|9.4394|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(11, 52)||||||<0.0001
84759016|NCT02831673|169274206|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.5|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=versus \[vs.\]\>100,000 c/mL) and cluster of differentiation 4+ (CD4+) cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||1.5|-6.7|
84759017|NCT02831673|169274207|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.4|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=vs.\>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||3.4|-4.2|
84759018|NCT02831673|169274208|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||0.0|-9.8|
84759019|NCT02831673|169274209|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.1|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.1|-9.4|
84501539|NCT04682639|168754209|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|8.37||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|17.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||17.07|-0.32|0.0590
84501540|NCT00763269|168754214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84759020|NCT02831673|169274210|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||The generalized Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalized Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.16|0.86|0.658
84759021|NCT02831673|169274214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|43.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||43.6|-9.4|0.206
84759022|NCT02831673|169274214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|33.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||33.0|-23.9|0.754
84759023|NCT02831673|169274215|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|42.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||42.4|-20.7|0.500
84759024|NCT02831673|169274216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|31.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||31.5|-34.2|0.934
84501541|NCT00763269|168754215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84501542|NCT00763269|168754216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84501543|NCT00763269|168754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84501544|NCT03471182|168754244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Primary hypothesis of a group difference (i.e., CUD vs HHC-PET participants) in mGluR5 availability was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 9 regions of interest (i.e., all 9 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of region. Group (i.e., CUD, HHC-PET) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the region-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.035
84501545|NCT03471182|168754245|SUPERIORITY|Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 4 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 4 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||||0.024||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in functional brain network engagement was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
84501546|NCT03471182|168754246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in fALFF was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 5 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 5 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.870
84501547|NCT00289731|168754254|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.48||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.48|-5.34|
84501548|NCT00289731|168754254|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|1.6||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.60|-5.31|
84501549|NCT00289731|168754255|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|19.35||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||19.35|4.97|
84501550|NCT00289731|168754255|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 15%.|Difference in seroprotection rates|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|28.62||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||28.62|12.92|
84593281|NCT01119443|168936507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.585|118.263|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||118.263|91.585|
84593282|NCT01119443|168936508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|93.6||||||90.0|86.9|100.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.8|86.9|
84593283|NCT01119443|168936509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|106.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.7|94.0|
84593284|NCT01119443|168936510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
84593285|NCT01119443|168936511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
84501551|NCT01017029|168754283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.482||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|2.383|||Regression, Cox|||||2.383|0.922|0.1043
84501552|NCT01017029|168754285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.847||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|3.315|||Regression, Cox|||||3.315|1.029|0.0398
84501553|NCT01017029|168754287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Fisher Exact|||CMV infections||||0.0234
84501554|NCT01017029|168754288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.403||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.347|||Regression, Cox|||||2.347|0.839|0.1966
84501555|NCT02660385|168754349|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0002
84501556|NCT02660385|168754350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723||||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0723
84614790|NCT01128946|168978519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|26.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.48|19.63|<0.0001
84614791|NCT01128946|168978520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|14.17||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.17|7.33|<0.0001
84614792|NCT01128946|168978520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|15.67||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.67|8.74|<0.0001
84672980|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.27|0.7848
84759025|NCT02831673|169274227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 24|||0.00|-0.04|0.025
84501557|NCT02660385|168754351|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||GLMM|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0110
84501558|NCT02660385|168754352|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||<0.0001
84501559|NCT02660385|168754353|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.12||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4356
84501560|NCT02660385|168754354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0148
84501561|NCT02660385|168754355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84501562|NCT02660385|168754356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84501563|NCT02660385|168754357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84501564|NCT02660385|168754358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6358||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6358
84501565|NCT02660385|168754359|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.35||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0318
84501566|NCT02660385|168754360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2722||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2722
84501567|NCT02660385|168754361|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.27||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0954
84501568|NCT02660385|168754362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4222
84501569|NCT02660385|168754363|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.5781
84501570|NCT02660385|168754364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1238
84501571|NCT02660385|168754365|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.3||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0558
84501572|NCT02660385|168754366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0230
84593286|NCT01119443|168936512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.688|117.45|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||117.45|80.688|
84593287|NCT01119443|168936513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.571|133.811|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||133.811|89.571|
84593288|NCT01119443|168936515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.871|110.185|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.185|77.871|
84593289|NCT00512278|168936585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated||||||0.718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.718
84593290|NCT00512278|168936587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated.||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.|t-test, 2 sided|||SVR was the primary outcome to calculate sample size. Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the the two groups, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated. This analysis included patients randomized and received at least one dose of study drugs. A 2-sided probability value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.||||0.718
84614793|NCT01128946|168978520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|15.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.72|8.90|<0.0001
84614794|NCT01128946|168978520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.91||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.91|-2.00|0.4070
84759026|NCT02831673|169274227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 48|||-0.01|-0.05|0.001
84759027|NCT02831673|169274227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 24|||1.0|-1.6|0.683
84593291|NCT00775268|168936616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84501573|NCT02660385|168754367|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4597
84593292|NCT00775268|168936617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.0313
84593293|NCT01244035|168936641|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|2.74|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.74|-0.54|0.1325
84593294|NCT01244035|168936641|OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|5.79|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||5.79|2.53|<0.001
84593295|NCT01244035|168936641|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.06||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-1.42|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-1.42|-4.70|0.0016
84593296|NCT01244035|168936642|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|-0.57|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.57|-5.30|0.0212
84593297|NCT01244035|168936642|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.76||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|-0.36|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0299
84593298|NCT01244035|168936642|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|2.19|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.19|-2.54|0.4506
84593299|NCT03723980|168936686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"the calculated p value is for time interval of 4 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|For multiple comparisons between groups, post hoc (LSD) was applied||||||0.329
84593300|NCT03723980|168936686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of 12 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.764
84593301|NCT03723980|168936686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 2~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
84593302|NCT03723980|168936686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 3~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.786
84759028|NCT02831673|169274227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 48|||1.2|-1.4|0.930
84593303|NCT03723980|168936686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 4~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.813
84593304|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.334
84593305|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.448
84593306|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.056
84593307|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.760
84593308|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.828
84672981|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.25|0.9038
84759029|NCT02831673|169274228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.009
84759030|NCT02831673|169274229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.00|-0.03|0.108
84759031|NCT02831673|169274232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 24|||4.0|0.5|0.011
84759032|NCT02831673|169274232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 48|||4.5|1.2|<0.001
84759033|NCT02831673|169274232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-creatinine adjusted, Week 24|||4.8|1.6|<0.001
84759034|NCT02831673|169274232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR- creatinine adjusted, Week 48|||5.1|2.0|<0.001
84593309|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.000
84593310|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
84593311|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.80
84593312|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.574
84593313|NCT03723980|168936688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.796
84593314|NCT03723980|168936689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
84593315|NCT03723980|168936689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84759035|NCT02831673|169274235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-1.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-1.75|-4.62|<0.001
84593316|NCT03723980|168936689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
84593317|NCT03723980|168936689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84593318|NCT03723980|168936689|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 4.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84759036|NCT02831673|169274235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-1.91|-4.54|<0.001
84593319|NCT03723980|168936690|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
84759037|NCT02831673|169274236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.72|-4.96|<0.001
84759038|NCT02831673|169274237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.40|-4.57|<0.001
84759039|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.915|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.943|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum B2M|||0.943|0.887|<0.001
84759040|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.929|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum B2M|||0.929|0.880|<0.001
84759041|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.656||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.877|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M|||0.877|0.491|0.005
84759042|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.821|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M|||0.821|0.551|<0.001
84759043|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.965||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.092|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.092|0.853|0.575
84593320|NCT03723980|168936690|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
84759044|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.891||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.001|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.001|0.793|0.051
84759045|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.831|0.493|<0.001
84759046|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.695|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.839|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.839|0.576|<0.001
84759047|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.102||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.237|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Phosphate|||1.237|0.982|0.099
84759048|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Phosphate|||1.100|0.886|0.816
84759049|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.904|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.904|0.774|<0.001
84759050|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.829|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.888|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.888|0.773|<0.001
84759051|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.871||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||1.020|0.743|0.087
84759052|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||0.870|0.644|<0.001
84759053|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.828||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.944|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.944|0.727|0.005
84759054|NCT02831673|169274238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.864|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.864|0.677|<0.001
84759055|NCT02831673|169274239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.839||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.950|0.742|0.006
84759056|NCT02831673|169274239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.551|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.682|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.682|0.445|<0.001
84759057|NCT02831673|169274239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.045||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.175|0.928|0.467
84759058|NCT02831673|169274239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|0.889|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.889|0.764|<0.001
84759059|NCT02831673|169274239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|0.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.840|0.651|<0.001
84759060|NCT02831673|169274240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.916||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.050|0.799|0.205
84759061|NCT02831673|169274240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.603|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.603|0.406|<0.001
84759062|NCT02831673|169274240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.089||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.226|0.967|0.160
84759063|NCT02831673|169274240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.885|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.885|0.753|<0.001
84759064|NCT02831673|169274240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.76|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.760|0.607|<0.001
84759065|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Bone ALP|||-1.70|-2.75|<0.001
84593321|NCT03723980|168936690|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84593322|NCT03723980|168936690|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.55
84593323|NCT03723980|168936690|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84759066|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Bone ALP|||-1.98|-3.19|<0.001
84759067|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-3.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 28. Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.23|-5.15|<0.001
84759068|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-4.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.23|-6.22|<0.001
84759069|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-11.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum PINP|||-11.1|-16.5|<0.001
84759070|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum PINP|||-10.3|-15.0|<0.001
84759071|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1628|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|-0.1241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. CTX-1|||-0.1241|-0.2015|<0.001
84759072|NCT02831673|169274241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.1569|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. CTX-1|||-0.1569|-0.2460|<0.001
84759073|NCT02831673|169274242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.50|-2.63|<0.001
84759074|NCT02831673|169274242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.14|-5.20|<0.001
84614795|NCT01128946|168978520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-7.4||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-7.40|-14.30|<0.0001
84759075|NCT02831673|169274242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.9|-17.6|<0.001
84759076|NCT02831673|169274242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1592|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.1104|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.1104|-0.2080|<0.001
84759077|NCT02831673|169274243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.14|-2.23|<0.001
84759078|NCT02831673|169274243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-1.83|-4.00|<0.001
84759079|NCT02831673|169274243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.3|<0.001
84759080|NCT02831673|169274243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1771|-0.1056|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.1056|-0.1771|<0.001
84759081|NCT02831673|169274244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-3.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-3.0|-9.9|<0.001
84759082|NCT02831673|169274244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
84759083|NCT02831673|169274245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96|||0.0|-5.8|0.048
84759084|NCT02831673|169274246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144|||-1.6|-8.3|0.004
84759085|NCT02831673|169274253|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.6||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 24|||4.6|-0.6|0.157
84759086|NCT02831673|169274253|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 48|||4.2|-1.7|0.414
84759087|NCT02831673|169274254|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 96|||4.1|-2.1|0.562
84501574|NCT02660385|168754368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1943||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1943
84759088|NCT02831673|169274255|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.9||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 144|||4.3|-2.4|0.587
84759089|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|49.83|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.83|-10.23|
84759090|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.07|58.4|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||58.40|-57.07|
84759091|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.94|129.63|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||129.63|-55.94|
84759092|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|42.12|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||42.12|-13.38|
84759093|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|59.85|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||59.85|-9.56|
84759094|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.98|40.34|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||40.34|-55.98|
84759095|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|114.38|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||114.38|-55.47|
84759096|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|85.23|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||85.23|-49.89|
84759097|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|44.21|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||44.21|-13.90|
84759098|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|54.54|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||54.54|-9.52|
84759099|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.64|57.3|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||57.30|-110.64|
84759100|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||||95.0|-76.18|85.06|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||85.06|-76.18|
84759101|NCT02831673|169274260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.68|110.59|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||110.59|-60.68|
84672982|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6869
84759102|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|39.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||39.8|-24.6|
84759103|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|65.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.9|-59.8|
84759104|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.3|123.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||123.5|-78.3|
84759105|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-24.7|
84759106|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|45.9|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||45.9|-29.1|
84759107|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|48.9|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||48.9|-53.9|
84759108|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|110.1|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||110.1|-74.6|
84759109|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|83.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||83.1|-62.3|
84759110|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|36.9|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||36.9|-25.6|
84672983|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.26|0.9272
84759111|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|40.9|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||40.9|-28.2|
84759112|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.7|62.4|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||62.4|-122.7|
84759113|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|134.7|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||134.7|-36.3|
84759114|NCT02831673|169274261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|89.7|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||89.7|-94.7|
84759115|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|38.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.2|-34.5|
84759116|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|111.5|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||111.5|-31.2|
84759117|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.3|114.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||114.5|-122.3|
84759118|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|44.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||44.5|-22.9|
84759119|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.6|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.6|-35.0|
84759120|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|55.7|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||55.7|-60.7|
84759121|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|144.5|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||144.5|-61.2|
84759122|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|101.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||101.8|-64.2|
84614796|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|14.96||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.96|11.46|<0.0001
84593324|NCT04232943|168936699|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.464|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 1||2.464|0.560|
84593325|NCT04232943|168936699|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.51|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 3||1.510|0.606|
84614797|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|10.55||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.55|7.04|<0.0001
84614798|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|9.8||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|6.25|<0.0001
84672984|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.31|0.6931
84672985|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.29|0.8262
84501575|NCT02660385|168754369|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.23||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0027
84501576|NCT02660385|168754370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0792
84593326|NCT01718522|168936723|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84593327|NCT01718522|168936724|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.12
84593328|NCT01718522|168936725|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.30
84593329|NCT01718522|168936726|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84593330|NCT01718522|168936727|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.04
84593331|NCT01718522|168936728|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.35
84593332|NCT01718522|168936729|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.001
84593333|NCT01718522|168936730|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.61
84593334|NCT01718522|168936731|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1
84593335|NCT01718522|168936732|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.22
84614799|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|6.16||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||6.16|2.66|<0.0001
84614800|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.0||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1.00|-2.54|0.3942
84614801|NCT01128946|168978521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-3.41||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-3.41|-6.95|<0.0001
84614802|NCT00145574|168978522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypotheses were tested sequentially in the following order: 1) no difference between the high-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and 2) no difference between the low-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with LOCF. The hypotheses were tested at a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.1122
84614803|NCT00145574|168978522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84614804|NCT00145574|168978523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5260
84614805|NCT00145574|168978523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
84614806|NCT00145574|168978524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84614807|NCT00145574|168978524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84759123|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|43.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||43.1|-27.4|
84759124|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|54.0|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||54.0|-23.6|
84759125|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.3|103.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||103.0|-106.3|
84501577|NCT02660385|168754371|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0656
84614808|NCT00145574|168978525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0155
84614809|NCT00145574|168978525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84614810|NCT00145574|168978526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3482||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3482
84614811|NCT00145574|168978526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84614812|NCT00145574|168978527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84614813|NCT00145574|168978527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84614814|NCT00145574|168978528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7433
84614815|NCT00145574|168978528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84614816|NCT00621140|168978536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
84614817|NCT00621140|168978537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.34|-0.58|<0.0001
84614818|NCT00621140|168978538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.47|-0.76|<0.0001
84614819|NCT00621140|168978539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.49|-0.82|<0.0001
84614820|NCT00621140|168978540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.37|-16.26|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-16.26|-30.37|<0.0001
84614821|NCT00621140|168978541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001||95.0|-23.11|-12.08|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-12.08|-23.11|<0.0001
84614822|NCT00621140|168978542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.21|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.75|-27.21|<0.0001
84614823|NCT00621140|168978543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.05|-13.68|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.68|-27.05|<0.0001
84614824|NCT00621140|168978544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.869||||0.0006||95.0|1.575|5.225|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.225|1.575|0.0006
84614825|NCT00621140|168978546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.436||||0.0323||95.0|1.078|5.507|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.507|1.078|0.0323
84614826|NCT00621140|168978548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.665|6.755|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||6.755|2.665|<0.0001
84614827|NCT00621140|168978549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-82.33|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-34.43|-82.33|<0.0001
84759126|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.2|66.9|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||66.9|-132.2|
84593336|NCT01194245|168936746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be supported if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Analog-PH20 and the comparator (insulin lispro) did not exceed 0.40.|LS Means Difference|0.05||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were to be enrolled, allowing approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods (44 for each investigational drug). Assuming a dropout rate of no more than 20%, intra-participant correlation of 0.80, standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have a greater than 90% power to show that Analog-PH20 was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.15|-0.05|0.2878
84672986|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.54|0.0749
84759127|NCT02831673|169274262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|129.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.5|-77.3|
84759128|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|38.3|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.3|-39.2|
84759129|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|78.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||78.8|-69.4|
84759130|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.1|145.8|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||145.8|-111.1|
84759131|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|34.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||34.1|-37.2|
84759132|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|27.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||27.1|-63.2|
84759133|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|64.0|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||64.0|-57.0|
84759134|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|205.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||205.2|-14.8|
84593337|NCT01118780|168936749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||5.88|2.47|<0.001
84672987|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.45|0.1923
84759135|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|112.3|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||112.3|-62.5|
84759136|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|33.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||33.1|-41.5|
84759137|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|41.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||41.1|-40.6|
84759138|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.6|60.9|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||60.9|-163.6|
84759139|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|85.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction|||85.0|-125.3|
84759140|NCT02831673|169274263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|176.2|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||176.2|-43.7|
84759141|NCT02831673|169274264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0052||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.0152|||MMRM||Week 4. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0152|-0.0047|0.302
84759142|NCT02831673|169274264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0038||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.006|||MMRM||Week24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0060|-0.0136|0.450
84501578|NCT02660385|168754372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2174
84501579|NCT02660385|168754373|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.07||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7028
84593338|NCT01118780|168936750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||4.85|1.61|<0.001
84614828|NCT02669121|168978554|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|99.99|-13.181|0.997|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. The 99.99% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 99.99% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.997|-13.181|
84614829|NCT02669121|168978555|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.01|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95.01% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95.01% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
84759143|NCT02831673|169274264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0004||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0098|0.0106|||MMRM||Week48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0106|-0.0098|0.934
84759144|NCT02831673|169274265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0107|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0107|-0.0132|0.842
84759145|NCT02831673|169274266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0008||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0097|0.0113|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0113|-0.0097|0.879
84759146|NCT02831673|169274267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.4|-0.3|0.137
84593339|NCT01118780|168936751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.37||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Psychic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.37|1.43|<0.001
84759147|NCT02831673|169274267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||MMRM||Week24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.0|-0.9|0.458
84593340|NCT01118780|168936751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.65||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Somatic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.65|0.87|<0.001
84593341|NCT01118780|168936751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.74||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Anxious Mood Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.74|0.30|<0.001
84614830|NCT02669121|168978556|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
84759148|NCT02831673|169274267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||MMRM||Week48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.8|0.1|0.031
84759149|NCT02831673|169274268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.2|0.2|0.027
84759150|NCT02831673|169274269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.6|0.9|0.001
84501580|NCT02660385|168754374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
84501581|NCT02660385|168754375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|275.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1525.0||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3288.0|2739.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2739|-3288|0.955
84501582|NCT02660385|168754376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
84501583|NCT02660385|168754377|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.05||||0.7496|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7496
84593342|NCT01118780|168936751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Tension Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.53|0.09|0.007
84593343|NCT01118780|168936752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Anxiety Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.18|1.20|<0.001
84593344|NCT01118780|168936752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.49||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Depression Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.49|0.89|<0.001
84614831|NCT02669121|168978557|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.977|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.977|-0.711|
84645292|NCT03875235|169026228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.19|0.63|0.89||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.0481 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for PFS at the second interim analysis was 4.81%.|95% CI 0.63 to 0.89|0.89|0.63|0.001
84501584|NCT02660385|168754378|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.3821
84501585|NCT02660385|168754379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7204
84593345|NCT01118780|168936753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.79|0.26|<0.001
84593346|NCT01118780|168936754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|0.33|<0.001
84759151|NCT00150592|169274270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.844
84593347|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.11||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Worst Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.11|-0.02|0.059
84593348|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.89||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Least Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.89|-0.05|0.079
84593349|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Average Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|-0.06|0.089
84593350|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Pain Right Now Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.73|-0.27|0.371
84593351|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.09||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF General Activity Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.09|-0.04|0.066
84593352|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Mood Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.95|-0.13|0.140
84593353|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Walking Ability Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|0.03|0.040
84645293|NCT03875235|169026231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR and CI were estimated from a stratified CMH test adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|||2.31|1.11|0.011
84759152|NCT00150592|169274271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Mean reaction time (adjusted) for each randomized treatment group at endpoint.||||||0.274
84759153|NCT00150592|169274273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Between errors||||0.307
84759154|NCT00150592|169274273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Within errors||||0.552
84759155|NCT00150592|169274273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Double errors||||0.917
84759156|NCT00150592|169274273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Strategy||||0.068
84759157|NCT00150592|169274274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84759158|NCT00150592|169274275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
84759159|NCT00150592|169274276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84759160|NCT00150592|169274277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
84501586|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.68|-4.29|0.390
84759161|NCT00874120|169274278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||residual error term from the ANOVA|-0.5||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||P-value is based on an ANOVA model including sequence, subject within sequence, period and treatment as factors.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.0|0.5480
84759162|NCT00477165|169274279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.196||p\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||Repeated-measures logistic regression model, assuming the citalopram effect builds linearly over time starting at week 3.|Null hypothesis: number of patients achieving adequate relief is the same in both Citalopram and Placebo groups||1.196|0.687|0.59
84759163|NCT03615183|169274288|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.36|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.72%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
84501587|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.97|-1.37|0.264
84501588|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.72|-4.74|0.357
84759164|NCT03615183|169274288|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.63|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.86%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
84593354|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Normal Work Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.94|-0.19|0.187
84593355|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.68||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Relations With Other People Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.68|-0.34|0.515
84593356|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Sleep Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|-0.17|0.141
84593357|NCT01118780|168936755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.07||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Enjoyment of Life Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.07|-0.07|0.088
84593358|NCT01118780|168936756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Negative values indicated improvement over placebo.|||-2.1|-9.4|0.002
84759165|NCT03615183|169274288|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 9.42%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
84759166|NCT01870401|169274306|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol identified a non-inferiority bound equal to 0.12 (12%).|||||<|0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||The primary safety hypothesis is as follows: H0: pControl - pDCB ≥ and H1: pControl (alpha) pDCB \< where p is the success rate in each arm and (alpha) is the non-inferiority bound.||||<0.025
84759167|NCT01870401|169274307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0222|||||||Wald Test|One-sided Wald test based on model estimate of DCB treatment effect and subject as a random effect.||||||0.0222
84759168|NCT01192022|169274353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.29||Logistic regression model with treatment and pooled center as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|2.55|<0.001
84501589|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.42|-3.50|0.981
84759169|NCT00623480|169274383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (On-Demand vs. Prophylaxis)|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.5|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for time of follow-up||||26.5|8.1|<0.0001
84759170|NCT00623480|169274384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.17||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.59|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||0.59|-0.92|0.6614
84501590|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.47|-4.37|0.584
84501591|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.20|-2.05|0.392
84759171|NCT00623480|169274385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.94||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.26|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||-0.26|-1.61|0.0072
84759172|NCT00623480|169274386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.08||no p-values computed|Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||21.08|5.23|
84759173|NCT01515787|169274437|NON_INFERIORITY|Disease recurrence or death in order to have 85% power to reject the null hypothesis. Noninferiority of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed the 1.29 noninferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.2|0.74|1.14|||kaplan meier|||||1.14|0.74|0.005
84759174|NCT01515787|169274439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44||||||||1.44|0.74|
84759175|NCT01515787|169274441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||||3.16|0.44|
84759176|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.97|-31.65|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in least square (LS) mean between groups||-31.65|-54.97|0.0000
84501592|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.24|-6.34|0.345
84759177|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|-20.68|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference LS mean between groups.||-20.68|-47.40|0.0007
84759178|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-44.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.8|-32.19|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-32.19|-54.80|0.0000
84759179|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.66|18.08|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||18.08|-15.66|0.9836
84759180|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|1.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||1.06|-27.32|0.1233
84759181|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-6.82|6.87|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||6.87|-6.82|
84501593|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.28|-4.73|0.922
84501594|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.10|-7.97|0.384
84501595|NCT00996918|168754432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.78|-6.08|0.961
84501596|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-1.91|0.837
84501597|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.41|-0.13|0.064
84501598|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-2.32|0.990
84501599|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.82|-2.22|0.817
84501600|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-2.04|0.697
84501601|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.63|-0.76|0.158
84501602|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.26|-4.06|0.829
84501603|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|-3.69|0.950
84501604|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.23|-5.35|0.816
84593359|NCT01118780|168936758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Work/School Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.98|0.27|0.010
84593360|NCT01118780|168936758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Social Life/Leisure Activities Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.48|0.32|0.002
84759182|NCT03776175|169274451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-19.86|-8.35|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-8.35|-19.86|
84501605|NCT00996918|168754433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.96|-4.32|0.751
84501606|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.53|-7.22|0.967
84501607|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.98|-5.72|0.593
84501608|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.62|-7.32|0.968
84593361|NCT01118780|168936758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Family/Home Management Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.81|0.61|<0.001
84593362|NCT01118780|168936759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having HAMA response at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84593363|NCT01118780|168936759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤7) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84593364|NCT01118780|168936759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84614832|NCT00620113|168978575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.64||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by Least-Squares means (LS mean) and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.64|4.16|<0.001
84593365|NCT01118780|168936760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤5) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84759183|NCT00960661|169274457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment contrast (BET minus BBT) at week 30 was less than the non inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||The primary mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline HbA1c as covariate, treatment, country, prior use of SUs, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that BET is non inferior to BBT with respect to change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30.||0.11|-0.18|0.6273
84759184|NCT00847912|169274486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.93
84759185|NCT00847912|169274487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.93
84759186|NCT00783094|169274488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.4|-1.8|0.201
84759187|NCT00783094|169274488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-2.2|0.062
84759188|NCT00783094|169274489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-0.7|0.356
84759189|NCT00783094|169274489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.6|0.487
84501609|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.08|-10.92|0.473
84501610|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.02|-9.91|0.630
84501611|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-13.02|0.293
84501612|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.33|-7.28|0.733
84501613|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.45|-12.06|0.550
84501614|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||12.50|-11.04|0.902
84501615|NCT00996918|168754434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.61|-17.75|0.430
84501616|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-6.01|0.683
84501617|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.06|-1.68|0.177
84501618|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.25|-6.03|0.734
84759190|NCT00783094|169274490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.3|-1.3|0.228
84759191|NCT00783094|169274490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.1|-1.7|0.033
84759192|NCT00783094|169274491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-0.4|0.249
84759193|NCT00783094|169274491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.0|-0.6|0.022
84501619|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.05|-7.06|0.595
84501620|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-7.95|0.409
84501621|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-8.73|0.368
84501622|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||8.89|-4.01|0.458
84501623|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.68|-7.77|0.760
84501624|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.86|-5.67|0.597
84501625|NCT00996918|168754435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.50|-11.24|0.501
84593366|NCT01118780|168936760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤6) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84593367|NCT01118780|168936761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement overall and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84593368|NCT01118780|168936761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement from Week 2 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
84593369|NCT01118780|168936765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
84614833|NCT00620113|168978575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.35||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.35|3.90|<0.001
84759194|NCT00783094|169274492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|with effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.4|0.904
84759195|NCT00783094|169274492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity(moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.||||0.3|-0.4|0.800
84759196|NCT00783094|169274493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-1.5|0.147
84759197|NCT00783094|169274493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-1.6|0.094
84759198|NCT00783094|169274496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.342
84759199|NCT00783094|169274496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank sum test|||||||0.127
84759200|NCT00783094|169274496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.705
84593370|NCT01118780|168936766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84593371|NCT01118780|168936767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
84593372|NCT01118780|168936768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤5) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.006
84593373|NCT01118780|168936768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The p-value is for time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤6) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
84759201|NCT00783094|169274496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.173
84759202|NCT00783094|169274497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.606
84759203|NCT00783094|169274497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.149
84759204|NCT00783094|169274498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.428
84759205|NCT00783094|169274498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.426
84759206|NCT00783094|169274499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.060
84759207|NCT00783094|169274499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.212
84759208|NCT01560780|169274536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
84759209|NCT01560780|169274537|EQUIVALENCE|safety end-point with p-value of \<0.05|||||>|0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.99
84759210|NCT01560780|169274538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
84759211|NCT01560780|169274539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84593374|NCT01118780|168936769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84593375|NCT01646814|168936780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84759212|NCT01560780|169274540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84759213|NCT01560780|169274542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84759214|NCT01780831|169274575|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
84759215|NCT01780831|169274575|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.7|46.6||||||||46.6|18.7|
84759216|NCT01780831|169274582|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
84759217|NCT01780831|169274582|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.6|58.1||||||||58.1|28.6|
84759218|NCT01780831|169274583|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
84759219|NCT01780831|169274583|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
84759220|NCT01780831|169274584|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
84759221|NCT01780831|169274584|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
84759222|NCT01780831|169274585|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
84759223|NCT01780831|169274586|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84501626|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.71|-8.91|0.183
84501627|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.35|-5.92|0.920
84501628|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.53|-11.52|0.133
84501629|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.22|-4.55|0.505
84501630|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||-4.25|-21.46|0.003
84593376|NCT01911351|168936785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa statistic|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\< or = 0.05|Chi-squared|||A kappa statistic was performed for 75% of the group to assess inter-rater agreement of the perception of the success of the procedure.||||<0.001
84759224|NCT01780831|169274587|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84759225|NCT03882970|169274618|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-1.00|<0.001
84759226|NCT03882970|169274618|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.17|<0.001
84759227|NCT03882970|169274619|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.73|<0.001
84759228|NCT03882970|169274620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-10.8|<0.001
84759229|NCT03882970|169274620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-14.0|<0.001
84759230|NCT03882970|169274620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.2|-16.2|<0.001
84759231|NCT03882970|169274621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|2.4|0.004
84759232|NCT03882970|169274621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|-4.3|0.751
84759233|NCT03882970|169274621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-8.7|0.168
84759234|NCT03882970|169274622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.01|2.38|<0.001
84759235|NCT03882970|169274622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|10.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.84|4.55|<0.001
84759236|NCT03882970|169274622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|17.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.48|6.65|<0.001
84759237|NCT03882970|169274624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|48.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.35|18.35|<0.001
84759238|NCT03882970|169274624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.56|134.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||134.17|47.56|<0.001
84759239|NCT03882970|169274624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.73|189.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.55|64.73|<0.001
84759240|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.05|-0.57|0.096
84759241|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.06|-0.57|0.113
84759242|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.16|-0.78|0.003
84759243|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||-0.08|-0.74|0.014
84759244|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.51|0.280
84759245|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.07|-0.59|0.129
84759246|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.75|2.26|<0.001
84759247|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.65|2.15|<0.001
84759248|NCT03882970|169274625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.74|2.24|<0.001
84501631|NCT00996918|168754436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.88|-7.95|0.760
84614834|NCT00620113|168978575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.75|2.33|<0.001
84614835|NCT00620113|168978576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.98||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.98|2.14|<0.001
84614836|NCT00620113|168978576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.12||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.12|1.29|<0.001
84759249|NCT01265797|169274662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus blinded month||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and a power of 0.80 (80%) was used to compute the number of subjects needed to find a meaningful difference between the verum and sham groups. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group.||||0.30
84759250|NCT01265797|169274663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare secondary outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus open label month||||||0.89
84759251|NCT01265797|169274664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84759252|NCT01265797|169274665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the primary and secondary outcome measures between the two treatment groups.||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and beta 0.2. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group. The null hypothesis: No difference in the depression score/14 day recall between the two groups.||||0.98
84759253|NCT01265797|169274666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84759254|NCT01265797|169274667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84759255|NCT01265797|169274668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in mean anxiety score/ 14 day recall from the blinded period to open label period|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84759256|NCT01265797|169274669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84759257|NCT01265797|169274670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84759258|NCT01265797|169274671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84759259|NCT01265797|169274672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84759260|NCT01265797|169274673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84759261|NCT00577642|169274706|OTHER|single group|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-tests were used to compare differences of NTX cytokine levels at study entry versus end-of-study.||||<0.05
84759262|NCT04770389|169274707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
84593377|NCT03848455|168936798|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP2CA gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
84593378|NCT03848455|168936798|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of SYNJ1 gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
84614837|NCT00620113|168978576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||2.57|0.77|<0.001
84759263|NCT04770389|169274708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
84759264|NCT04770389|169274709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
84593379|NCT03848455|168936798|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP3CB gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||0.149
84614838|NCT00620113|168978579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.31||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.31|1.85|<0.001
84759265|NCT04770389|169274710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
84759266|NCT04770389|169274711|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
84593380|NCT03848455|168936798|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of NSF gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
84672988|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.73|0.0326
84759267|NCT04770389|169274712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
84759268|NCT04770389|169274713|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
84759269|NCT04770389|169274714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
84759270|NCT04770389|169274715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
84759271|NCT04770389|169274716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
84759272|NCT04770389|169274717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
84759273|NCT04770389|169274718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
84759274|NCT04770389|169274719|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
84501632|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.52|-6.68|0.373
84759275|NCT04770389|169274720|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
84759276|NCT04770389|169274721|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
84759277|NCT04770389|169274722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
84759278|NCT04770389|169274723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
84759279|NCT04770389|169274724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
84759280|NCT04770389|169274725|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
84759281|NCT04770389|169274726|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
84759282|NCT04770389|169274727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
84759283|NCT04770389|169274728|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
84759284|NCT04770389|169274729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
84759285|NCT04770389|169274730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
84759286|NCT04770389|169274731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
84759287|NCT04770389|169274732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
84759288|NCT04770389|169274733|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
84759289|NCT04770389|169274734|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
84759290|NCT04770389|169274735|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
84759291|NCT04770389|169274736|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
84759292|NCT04770389|169274737|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
84759293|NCT04770389|169274738|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
84759294|NCT04770389|169274739|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
84759295|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.7|-1.4|
84759296|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.2|
84759297|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.1|-1.3|
84759298|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||0.2|-1.0|
84759299|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.6|-1.8|
84501633|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.86|-5.92|0.677
84501634|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.80|-9.61|0.280
84501635|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.76|-6.34|0.950
84501636|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.16|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-23.16|0.130
84593381|NCT01897532|168936810|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 (FDA Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for Hazard ratio (HR) ≥1.3 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.0002
84614839|NCT00620113|168978579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.08||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.08|0.64|0.003
84501637|NCT00996918|168754437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||16.94|-11.97|0.732
84501638|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.21|-1.12|0.938
84645294|NCT03123185|169026272|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|158.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.679|188.195|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||188.195|133.679|
84759300|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.5||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.8|
84501639|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.04|-1.43|0.753
84501640|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.33|-1.04|0.809
84759301|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.8|-1.9|
84759302|NCT01692275|169274745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.7|
84759303|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.2|-3.1|
84759304|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||||||All sites combined (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.0|-3.0|
84759305|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.4|
84759306|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||0.2|-3.2|
84759307|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.4||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.4|-3.8|
84759308|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.7|
84614840|NCT00620113|168978579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.43||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.43|1.03|<0.001
84759309|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.3|
84759310|NCT01692275|169274746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.4|
84759311|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
84759312|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
84759313|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
84759314|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
84759315|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
84759316|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
84759317|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||||||San Diego site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.7|
84759318|NCT01692275|169274747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.1|-0.7|
84759319|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||||||All sites combined (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-1.6|
84759320|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-1.6|
84759321|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.02||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.02|-1.3|
84759322|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.1|-1.5|
84759323|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-2.0|
84759324|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-2.3|
84759325|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||||||San Diego site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-1.0|-2.3|
84593382|NCT01897532|168936810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided).|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.6301
84614841|NCT00620113|168978580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|6.14||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.14|3.18|<0.001
84614842|NCT00620113|168978580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.3||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||5.30|2.37|<0.001
84614843|NCT00620113|168978580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.88||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.88|0.99|0.002
84614844|NCT00620113|168978581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-50.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-34.84||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-34.84|-66.43|<0.001
84614845|NCT00620113|168978581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-44.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.42|-28.21||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-28.21|-60.42|<0.001
84614846|NCT00620113|168978581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-35.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-19.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-19.16|-52.33|<0.001
84614847|NCT00620113|168978582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.7|-35.13||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.13|-85.70|<0.001
84614848|NCT00620113|168978582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.91|-35.49||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.49|-85.91|<0.001
84759326|NCT01692275|169274748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||San Diego site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.5|-1.9|
84759327|NCT01692275|169274749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||||||Week 6: All 3 sites combined||0.97|0.54|
84759328|NCT01692275|169274749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0||||||Week 12: All 3 sites combined||1.0|0.58|
84759329|NCT01692275|169274750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.25||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||0.25|0.13|
84501641|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.75|-1.80|0.421
84501642|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.63|-0.85|0.535
84759330|NCT01692275|169274750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||0.42|0.16|
84759331|NCT01692275|169274750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.33||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||0.33|0.10|
84759332|NCT01692275|169274750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||0.21|0.08|
84759333|NCT01692275|169274751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||2.8|2.1|
84759334|NCT01692275|169274751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.6||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||2.6|1.4|
84759335|NCT01692275|169274751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||3.0|1.6|
84759336|NCT01692275|169274751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||3.7|2.5|
84759337|NCT00401375|169274759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4259||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.4259
84759338|NCT00401375|169274759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.3575||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.3575
84759339|NCT00677014|169274776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|As LVESV values were non normal by Q-Q analysis and Shapiro-Wilk test (p\<.05), a square root transform was used. model adjusted for baseline LVESV.||Gate keeping strategy utilized for Type 1 error control described in design paper - negative results observed for initial comparisons - (each at alpha = .05) between fixed and algorithm optimized AV delay and fixed and Echo optimzied AV. Results from both of these comparisons were non-significant.||||.66
84593383|NCT01897532|168936811|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.22|0.89|0.6918
84759340|NCT02374099|169274804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard models.|1.42|0.54|= 0.599
84593384|NCT01088906|168936812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
84593385|NCT01415583|168936829|NON_INFERIORITY|Consistent with the noninferiority design, the null hypothesis states that the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone differed from the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative placebo; the alternative hypothesis states that the bleeding rate with dexamethasone is not greater than placebo by more than the noninferiority margin.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84593386|NCT01415583|168936829|NON_INFERIORITY|This noninferiority margin was set at 5%, meaning a difference in bleeding rates that did not exceed 5% would be taken as evidence that the bleeding with dexamethasone is not greater than that with placebo by more than 5%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84593387|NCT02277249|168936853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No power calculation performed given that this was a pilot study. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in pain score with injection between the two study arms. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was selected because of the study's small sample size and the non-normal distribution of pain scores. Intention to treat analyses were used.||||0.36
84614849|NCT00620113|168978582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-11.52||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-11.52|-65.94|<0.001
84759341|NCT02374099|169274805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||=|0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|15.06|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ORR was estimated by the Wilson method.|15.06|-2.47|= 0.1479
84593388|NCT01869634|168936871|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Paired samples.||||||0.0025|||||||Sign test|||Comparison between HIV positive naïve to ART before and after ART has been done.||||0.0025
84593389|NCT01869634|168936872|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84593390|NCT01869634|168936872|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.826|||||||Sign test|||Comparison of coronary artery wall thickness before and after ART in the HIV infected participants.||||0.826
84593391|NCT01869634|168936873|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between groups (HIV+ vs HIV-)||||<0.001
84593392|NCT01869634|168936873|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Sign test|||Changes in systemic immune activation through IL6||||0.807
84759342|NCT02374099|169274806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|0.7|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|19.04|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in clinical benefit rate was estimated by the Wilson method.|19.04|-17.76|= 0.1732
84759343|NCT02374099|169274807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.53|||Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and associated two-sided 95% CI were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model.|1.53|0.23|= 0.2725
84593393|NCT03427814|168936887|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1428|||||||Log Rank|The one-sided p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test.||||||= 0.1428
84593394|NCT03846427|168936894|SUPERIORITY|P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis of ORR = 30% with alternative of ORR \> 30%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
84593395|NCT01334554|168936920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient (linear regression)|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58||p- value was unadjusted. Primary outcome underwent logarithmic transformation|Regression, Linear|||H0= 4-week treatment with sildenafil citrate does not improve insulin sensitivity in obese African American women.||0.58|-0.33|0.55
84593396|NCT01334554|168936921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|0.46||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.49||Adjusted for baseline values only|Regression, Linear|||||2.49|-1.58|0.649
84593397|NCT02393859|168936936|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.54|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
84593398|NCT02393859|168936936|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.16||||0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
84593399|NCT02393859|168936936|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.19|
84593400|NCT02393859|168936936|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.7|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.70|0.22|
84593401|NCT02393859|168936936|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.64|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.64|0.20|
84614850|NCT00620113|168978583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-42.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-20.27||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-20.27|-65.55|<0.001
84593402|NCT02393859|168936937|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.9|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
84593403|NCT02393859|168936937|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.61|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for Blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event free survival time.|||||< 0.001
84593404|NCT02393859|168936937|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.61|0.20|
84593405|NCT02393859|168936937|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.22|
84501643|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.86|-0.82|0.445
84501644|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.12|-0.67|0.309
84501645|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-1.34|0.872
84501646|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.26|0.79|0.004
84501647|NCT00996918|168754438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|0.25|0.026
84593406|NCT02393859|168936937|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.59|0.20|
84501648|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-0.77|0.504
84593407|NCT02393859|168936938|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.14||||0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
84614851|NCT00620113|168978583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-37.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.32|-14.59||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-14.59|-60.32|0.001
84593408|NCT02393859|168936938|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.32|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
84593409|NCT02393859|168936938|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.16|
84593410|NCT02393859|168936938|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.16|
84593411|NCT02393859|168936939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by PCR||||< 0.001
84593412|NCT02393859|168936939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by flow cytometry||||< 0.001
84593413|NCT02393859|168936940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.52|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.52|0.16|
84501649|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.90|-1.58|0.592
84759344|NCT01033825|169274838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|13.0|||ANCOVA||Null Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\>=38 Alternative Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\<38|Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||13.0|-13.9|>0.05
84759345|NCT01033825|169274838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||10.2|-15.1|0.025
84759346|NCT01033825|169274838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide nasal spray 200 μg to placebo nasal spray 46 evaluable (per protocol) subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.5|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||25.5|-4.7|>0.05
84759347|NCT02701387|169274885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"A 2-factor (implant type x time interval) nonparametric analysis for longitudinal data (Brunner et al. 2002) was used to compare test and control implants across time (baseline + four intervals). The R package nparLD was used (Noguchi et al. 2012)."|nonparametric for longitudinal|||Comparison of ISQ over time. Due to the high number of intervals (T0-T8) relative to the number of observations, data were combined for analysis purposes into 5 comparable intervals as follows: Baseline (T0, unchanged); Tr1=Average of follow-up weeks T1 and T2, Tr2=Average of follow-up weeks T3 and T4; Tr3=Average of follow-up weeks T5 and T6; Tr4=Average of follow-up weeks T7 and T8||||<0.01
84759348|NCT01290874|169274886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
84759349|NCT04294901|169274946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Binary mixed effect model with patients nested in providers nested in facilities||It is pre-specified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan to assess all medication groups combined within the Intervention and Control Arms/Groups.||1.38|1.05|0.008
84759350|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.369|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.369|0.293|<0.0001
84759351|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.148|0.075|<0.0001
84759352|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.337|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.337|0.262|<0.0001
84759353|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.116|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.116|0.044|<0.0001
84759354|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
84759355|NCT01964352|169274960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.067|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.067|-0.005|0.0872
84759356|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0124|0.2|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.200|0.0124|<0.0001
84759357|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.066|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.066|-0.009|0.1381
84759358|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.188|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.188|0.113|<0.0001
84759359|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.054|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.054|-0.021|0.3872
84759360|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.172|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.172|0.096|<0.0001
84759361|NCT01964352|169274961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.049|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.049|-0.025|0.5333
84759362|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|-2.884|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.884|-6.904|<0.0001
84759363|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-0.513|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.513|-4.473|0.0136
84759364|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.129|-2.114|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.114|-6.129|<0.0001
84593414|NCT02393859|168936940|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.) Stratification factors are age and marrow/MRD status.|||0.48|0.15|
84593415|NCT01979614|168936951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error|-0.1116||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||ANCOVA|||SAP for Global Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Index (MPRI)||0.176|-0.399|0.438
84593416|NCT00661830|168936960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.023|||Regression, Cox|||||2.023|0.811|
84593417|NCT00661830|168936961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.927|||Regression, Cox|||||1.927|0.747|
84614852|NCT00620113|168978583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.37|-3.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-3.16|-50.37|0.017
84614853|NCT00620113|168978584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|-5.93||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-5.93|-25.11|<0.001
84614854|NCT00620113|168978584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-12.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-2.94||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-2.94|-22.16|0.009
84614855|NCT00620113|168978584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.48||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|12.74||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.74|-7.79|0.598
84614856|NCT00620113|168978585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-10.42||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-10.42|-43.30|<0.001
84759365|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.698|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|-3.698|0.0880
84759366|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|-0.382|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.382|-4.419|0.0198
84593418|NCT00756275|168937009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|20.56|||Chi-squared|||||20.56|.91|<0.05
84593419|NCT00756275|168937010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-6.29|.50
84593420|NCT00756275|168937011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||||14.50|.58|.30
84593421|NCT00756275|168937012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|8.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.68|-24.64|.34
84593422|NCT00756275|168937013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|23.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.52|-8.73|.36
84593423|NCT00756275|168937014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
84759367|NCT01964352|169274962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.196|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.196|-2.741|0.4415
84759368|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.282|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.282|0.157|<0.0001
84759369|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.084|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.084|-0.041|0.5052
84759370|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.271|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.271|0.146|<0.0001
84759371|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.072|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.072|-0.052|0.7566
84759372|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.261|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.261|0.136|<0.0001
84593424|NCT00756275|168937015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
84593425|NCT00756275|168937016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.72
84593426|NCT00756275|168937017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
84593427|NCT00756275|168937018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-3.98|.75
84593428|NCT04971967|168937025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
84593429|NCT04971967|168937026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.30
84593430|NCT04971967|168937028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.28
84593431|NCT04971967|168937030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
84593432|NCT04971967|168937031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.11
84593433|NCT00052910|168937032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.24|0.79|
84593434|NCT00052910|168937033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.28|0.83|
84593435|NCT00803738|168937099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary clinical equivalence analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the therapeutic cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|15.02|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||15.02|-4.30|
84614857|NCT00620113|168978585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-28.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.97|-12.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-12.75|-44.97|<0.001
84645295|NCT03123185|169026273|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|gMean ratio (%)|194.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.912|237.267|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||237.267|158.912|
84759373|NCT01964352|169274963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.073|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.073|-0.051|0.7199
84759374|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.516|2.588|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.588|1.516|<0.0001
84759375|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.137|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.137|0.078|0.0246
84593436|NCT00803738|168937100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the mycological cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|11.49|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||11.49|-4.66|
84593437|NCT00803738|168937101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the clinical cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|16.88|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||16.88|-1.35|
84593438|NCT01772550|168937103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% upper confidence bound for the observed difference in percentages of images with acceptable quality between the control catheter and evaluation catheter was calculated using the Score method. The 20 G BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ can be considered non-inferior for acceptable image quality if this 95% upper confidence bound is smaller than 15% (i.e. C - D \< 15% with 95% confidence). The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6|||||The difference in percent of acceptable image quality is used as an estimate. The Score method was used to estimate the upper 95% confidence limit.|Only the percent of acceptable image quality from the randomized test and reference catheter groups were considered for this statistical analysis. If C is the percentage of acceptable quality images with the control catheter, and D is the percentage of images of acceptable quality with the evaluation catheter, and the non-inferiority criteria is 15%, the hypotheses to be tested are as follows: H0: C - D \> or = 15%; H1: C - D \< 15%.||2.6||
84759376|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.417|2.487|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.487|1.417|<0.0001
84759377|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|1.035|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.035|-0.021|0.0599
84759378|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.983|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.983|0.907|<0.0001
84759379|NCT01964352|169274964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.626|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.626|-0.425|0.7081
84759380|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.524|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.524|0.390|<0.0001
84759381|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.225|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.225|0.095|<0.0001
84593439|NCT01109108|168937122|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84593440|NCT03420742|168937160|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.915|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||0.915|0.600|
84593441|NCT03420742|168937161|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.06|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||1.06|0.662|
84593442|NCT02383862|168937169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-0.45|0.165
84593443|NCT02383862|168937170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.91|-1.23|0.425
84593444|NCT02383862|168937171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.70|-1.41|0.539
84593445|NCT02383862|168937172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-1.44|0.471
84593446|NCT02383862|168937173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.65|-0.66|0.174
84614858|NCT00620113|168978585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.61||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|12.56||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.56|-23.79|0.458
84614859|NCT04412707|168978586|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.849|
84593447|NCT02383862|168937174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.35|-1.00|0.222
84593448|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.71||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.00|0.50|0.202
84593449|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.32|0.14|<0.001
84593450|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.46|0.19|<0.001
84593451|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.04|0.60|0.275
84593452|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.78||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.02|0.59|0.234
84593453|NCT03198767|168937189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.98||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.30|0.73|0.921
84593454|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.54|0.040
84593455|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.28|<0.001
84593456|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|0.41|0.008
84593457|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|0.65|0.141
84593458|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.74|0.510
84593459|NCT03198767|168937190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|1.14||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|0.93|0.401
84593460|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.426
84593461|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.46|0.001
84593462|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.25|0.009
84593463|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.68|0.135
84593464|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.50|0.436
84593465|NCT03198767|168937191|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.13|0.452
84593466|NCT01891396|168937194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0099
84593467|NCT01891396|168937195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0367
84593468|NCT01891396|168937196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0289
84593469|NCT01891396|168937197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0141
84593470|NCT01891396|168937198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84593471|NCT01891396|168937199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0533
84593472|NCT01891396|168937200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0323
84593473|NCT01891396|168937201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
84593474|NCT01891396|168937202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0030
84501650|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.65|-0.72|0.441
84501651|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.59|-1.97|0.288
84501652|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.90|-0.59|0.303
84501653|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.60|-1.09|0.713
84501654|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.34|-0.49|0.198
84501655|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.24|-1.70|0.756
84501656|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.22|0.69|0.006
84501657|NCT00996918|168754439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.62|-0.12|0.066
84501658|NCT03118765|168754450|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.14|41.0|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||41.00|21.14|
84759382|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.465|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.465|0.331|<0.0001
84501659|NCT03118765|168754450|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.37|78.46|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||78.46|41.37|
84501660|NCT03118765|168754450|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|155.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.88|216.99|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||216.99|111.88|
84501661|NCT03118765|168754451|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.79|52.87|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||52.87|29.79|
84759383|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.036|0.0023
84759384|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.365|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.365|0.229|<0.0001
84501662|NCT03118765|168754451|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.43|112.64|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||112.64|64.43|
84593475|NCT01891396|168937203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0440
84593476|NCT01891396|168937204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0579
84593477|NCT01891396|168937205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84593478|NCT01891396|168937206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0046
84593479|NCT01891396|168937207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0029
84759385|NCT01964352|169274965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.123|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.123|-0.005|0.0701
84501663|NCT03118765|168754451|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|211.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.8|281.8|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||281.80|158.80|
84501664|NCT03118765|168754452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.04|0.228
84501665|NCT03118765|168754452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.13|-0.08|0.655
84501666|NCT03118765|168754452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.11|-0.10|0.894
84593480|NCT01891396|168937208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0087
84593481|NCT01891396|168937209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0154
84593482|NCT01891396|168937210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0227
84593483|NCT01891396|168937211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84593484|NCT01891396|168937212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0148
84759386|NCT01908101|169274966|OTHER|comparison analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.6||comparison analysis; no P value|||The estimated value is 3.5 months, not years.|Progression free survival (PFS). We hypothesize that metronomic dosing of eribulin will result in a PFS of 4-6 months.||4.6|2.6|
84593485|NCT01891396|168937213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0113
84593486|NCT01891396|168937214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0016
84593487|NCT01891396|168937215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0056
84593488|NCT01891396|168937216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0095
84593489|NCT01891396|168937217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0136
84593490|NCT01891396|168937218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84593491|NCT01891396|168937219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
84759387|NCT00166205|169274968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of ITT subjects|69.6||||||95.0|63.8|74.9||||||A sample size of 215, the adverse event (AE) rate at three years could be estimated with precision as determined by the interval half-width of approximately ± 7%.||74.9|63.8|
84759388|NCT00166205|169274969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|75.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8||||95.0|70.5|80.8||||||||80.8|70.5|
84759389|NCT00166205|169274970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||||95.0|34.9|36.5||||||||36.5|34.9|
84501667|NCT03118765|168754452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||MMRM|||SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.16|-0.04|0.260
84501668|NCT03118765|168754453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 108200 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
84501669|NCT03118765|168754453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 263100 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
84501670|NCT03118765|168754453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 438300 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
84501671|NCT03118765|168754454|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 293700 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
84593492|NCT02820844|168937220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.18||Analysis was performed using mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||-1.18|-3.14|<0.001
84593493|NCT02820844|168937221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.47|40.91||Analysis performed using MMRM, with treatment, site, visit, Baseline urinary urgency incontinence (UUI) episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 or \>=10), treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.91|18.47|<0.001
84593494|NCT02820844|168937276|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
84593495|NCT02820844|168937277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.66|0.38|<0.001
84593496|NCT02266147|168937357|OTHER|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.||||||||||||||||MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|||
84593497|NCT01896687|168937394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"The worst pain and interference scores as dependent variables, and time (baseline, 1-, and 3 week follow up visit), group (Calmare or Sham), and group by time interaction terms as the independent variable."|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84593498|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.44||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||3.44|2.47|
84501672|NCT03118765|168754454|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 436500 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
84501673|NCT03118765|168754454|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 1249000 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
84759390|NCT00166205|169274971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|51.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.8||||95.0|47.6|54.9||||||||54.9|47.6|
84501674|NCT03118765|168754455|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.082% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
84501675|NCT03118765|168754455|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.316% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
84644561|NCT01992159|169024661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.6|||One-sided p-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||14.6|< 0.0001
84759391|NCT00166205|169274972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3||||95.0|9.2|11.7|||||Value at 36 months minus value at baseline. Positive values indicate improved Quality of Life (QOL)|||11.7|9.2|
84759392|NCT00166205|169274973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||||95.0|5.6|5.8||||||||5.8|5.6|
84759393|NCT00166205|169274975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test would have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative (i.e., that the SAGB system is not inferior to the clinically meaningful result of 36.2 for 224 subjects) assuming: a standard deviation (SD) of (21.6), an equivalent limit difference of (3.6), and a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84759394|NCT00166205|169274976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|56.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||||95.0|54.5|58.4||||||||58.4|54.5|
84501676|NCT03118765|168754455|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.096% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
84501677|NCT03118765|168754456|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.937% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
84759395|NCT00166205|169274977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|114.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.3||||95.0|110.1|118.8||||||||118.8|110.1|
84759396|NCT00166205|169274978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|193.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||||95.0|188.6|198.4||||||||198.4|188.6|
84759397|NCT02227693|169274979|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|19.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|57.0|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||57.0|-18.1|0.146
84759398|NCT02227693|169274979|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|54.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|87.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||87.7|21.4|0.004
84759399|NCT02227693|169274979|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|30.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|65.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||65.7|-3.9|0.024
84759400|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|14.3||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|40.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||40.2|-11.6|0.388
84759401|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||53.6|1.0|0.214
84501678|NCT03118765|168754456|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.183% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
84501679|NCT03118765|168754456|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 3.123% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
84501680|NCT03118765|168754457|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 2.191 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
84501681|NCT03118765|168754457|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 4.796 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
84501682|NCT03118765|168754457|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 10.2 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
84501683|NCT03118765|168754458|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 8.597 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
84501684|NCT03118765|168754458|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 18.00 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
84501685|NCT03118765|168754458|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 42.69 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
84644562|NCT01992159|169024662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.4||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||4.4|< 0.0001
84759402|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|62.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|99.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||99.9|24.8|0.012
84759403|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|72.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|100.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||100.0|44.3|0.001
84759404|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|40.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|76.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||76.2|5.6|0.063
84759405|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-27.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-1.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||-1.0|-53.6|0.245
84759406|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|66.8||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||66.8|-12.2|0.386
84759407|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-7.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|28.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.9|-43.4|1.000
84759408|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.496
84759409|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-9.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|19.3||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||19.3|-37.5|1.000
84759410|NCT02227693|169274980|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.476
84759411|NCT02227693|169274981|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|63.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|92.1||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||92.1|35.2|0.003
84759412|NCT02227693|169274981|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|30.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|58.4||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||58.4|1.6|0.090
84759413|NCT02227693|169274981|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|10.0||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.6|-8.6|0.476
84759414|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.296
84759415|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.070
84759416|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.138
84759417|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.012
84759418|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
84501686|NCT03118765|168754461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 0.9536 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
84501687|NCT03118765|168754461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 1.998 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
84759419|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
84759420|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.624||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.624
84759421|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.009
84759422|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.010
84759423|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.154
84759424|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.216||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.216
84759425|NCT02227693|169274984|OTHER|||||||0.901||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.901
84759426|NCT03657368|169274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-0.4|0.042
84759427|NCT03657368|169274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.9|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||3.7|-3.9|0.966
84501688|NCT03118765|168754461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 5.083 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
84501689|NCT03118765|168754462|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.617 for GSP304 10 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84501690|NCT03118765|168754462|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.522 for GSP304 20 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84759428|NCT03657368|169274993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.68|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.68|0.519
84759429|NCT03657368|169274993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.63|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.63|0.232
84759430|NCT03657368|169274994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-6.5|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||2.4|-6.5|0.217
84759431|NCT03657368|169274994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.7|5.2|||Regression, Linear|||||5.2|-3.7|0.660
84501691|NCT03118765|168754462|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.926 for GSP304 40 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84501692|NCT03118765|168754463|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.944 for GSP304 10 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84759432|NCT03657368|169274995|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|1.03||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.97|0.143
84759433|NCT03657368|169274995|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.99||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.93|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.93|0.649
84759434|NCT00631371|169274998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center \[MSKCC\] risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.8
84759435|NCT00631371|169274999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.4|1.0|0.9
84759436|NCT00631371|169275000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value (2-sided), risk ratio and associated 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior nephrectomy and MSKCC risk group as randomized.||1.3|0.8|1.0
84759437|NCT00631371|169275001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.6
84759438|NCT00590590|169275004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759439|NCT00590590|169275004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84501693|NCT03118765|168754463|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.808 for GSP304 20 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84759440|NCT00590590|169275004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759441|NCT00590590|169275005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759442|NCT00590590|169275005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84759443|NCT00590590|169275005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759444|NCT00590590|169275006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759445|NCT00590590|169275006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84644563|NCT01992159|169024662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|8.0||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||8.0|< 0.0001
84759446|NCT00590590|169275006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759447|NCT00590590|169275007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759448|NCT00590590|169275007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84759449|NCT00590590|169275007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759450|NCT00590590|169275008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759451|NCT00590590|169275008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84759452|NCT00590590|169275008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759453|NCT00590590|169275009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
84759454|NCT00590590|169275009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
84759455|NCT00590590|169275009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
84759456|NCT00781456|169275043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, weekly baseline migraine frequency, and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|||0.87|-0.82|0.954
84759457|NCT00781456|169275044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the first month of treatment.||1.17|-0.55|0.479
84759458|NCT00781456|169275044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the second month of treatment||1.37|-0.36|0.256
84759459|NCT00781456|169275044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the third month of treatment.||0.88|-1.16|0.788
84501694|NCT03118765|168754463|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 2.125 for GSP304 40 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
84759460|NCT00781456|169275045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.19||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the 91-day treatment period.||0.09|-0.47|0.182
84759461|NCT00781456|169275045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the first month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.853
84759462|NCT00781456|169275045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.26||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the second month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.249
84759463|NCT00781456|169275045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the third month of treatment||0.10|-0.90|0.119
84759464|NCT00781456|169275046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the first month of treatment.||||0.457
84759465|NCT00781456|169275046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the second month of treatment.||||0.361
84759466|NCT00781456|169275046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the third month of treatment.||||0.018
84759467|NCT00781456|169275046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the 91-day treatment period.||||0.709
84501695|NCT03118765|168754464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.04|0.004
84501696|NCT03118765|168754464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
84593499|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.69||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.69|1.23|
84593500|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.25||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.25|1.66|
84614860|NCT04412707|168978587|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.861|
84614861|NCT04412707|168978588|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.058|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.058|0.863|
84614862|NCT04412707|168978590|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.222|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.222|0.736|
84759468|NCT01877187|169275058|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= .05. Result is for Day 30 timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.06
84759469|NCT01877187|169275058|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.09
84759470|NCT01877187|169275058|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.034
84759471|NCT01877187|169275060|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.19
84501697|NCT03118765|168754464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.03|0.007
84501698|NCT03118765|168754464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
84501699|NCT03118765|168754465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|0.08|0.001
84593501|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.88|0.65|
84593502|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|16.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|20.03||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||20.03|12.84|
84593503|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.06|0.72|
84593504|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|2.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.95|2.14|
84593505|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.95|0.68|
84593506|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.44||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.44|1.83|
84593507|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.91|
84593508|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.65||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.65|1.21|
84593509|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.05|0.76|
84614863|NCT04412707|168978590|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|[adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)]|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|0.957|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For desmethyl-melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.957|0.748|
84614864|NCT04412707|168978591|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.126|||||Data above refer to meflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.126|0.684|
84644564|NCT01992159|169024662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|10.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||10.6|< 0.0001
84593510|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.10|1.29|
84593511|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.12|0.73|
84593512|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|4.67||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||4.67|2.91|
84593513|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.87|0.60|
84593514|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.79|0.52|
84593515|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.89|0.62|
84593516|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.76||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.76|1.89|
84593517|NCT03896477|168937395|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.82|
84593518|NCT01106157|168937413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.552|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.552|0.001|0.017
84501700|NCT03118765|168754465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|0.05|0.005
84593519|NCT01106157|168937414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.30|0.43
84593520|NCT01106157|168937415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-1.64|0.37
84593521|NCT01106157|168937416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-0.40|0.69
84593522|NCT01106157|168937417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.3||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.8|180.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||180.3|-156.8|0.89
84593523|NCT01106157|168937418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.15|0.2
84759472|NCT01877187|169275060|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.011
84593524|NCT01106157|168937419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-64.8|0.23
84759473|NCT01877187|169275060|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
84759474|NCT01877187|169275062|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
84759475|NCT01877187|169275062|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.017
84759476|NCT01877187|169275062|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.08
84759477|NCT01877187|169275064|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.020
84759478|NCT01877187|169275064|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.029
84759479|NCT01877187|169275064|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
84759480|NCT01877187|169275066|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
84644565|NCT01992159|169024663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.6||||0.125|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.3|0.1250
84593525|NCT01106157|168937420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.18|0.79
84593526|NCT01106157|168937421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.35|-18.7|0.163
84759481|NCT01877187|169275066|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.013
84759482|NCT01877187|169275066|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.67
84759483|NCT04152161|169275078|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
84759484|NCT04152161|169275078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
84759485|NCT04152161|169275079|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.27|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.270|-0.395|
84759486|NCT04152161|169275079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.395|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.395|0.730|0.5224
84501701|NCT03118765|168754465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.01|0.032
84593527|NCT03141255|168937428|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84593528|NCT03141255|168937429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84593529|NCT03141255|168937430|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84593530|NCT03141255|168937431|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84593531|NCT03141255|168937432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
84593532|NCT03141255|168937433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
84593533|NCT03141255|168937434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
84593534|NCT03141255|168937435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84593535|NCT03141255|168937436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.516
84593536|NCT03141255|168937437|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.75
84614865|NCT04412707|168978591|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.982|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.982|0.819|
84759487|NCT04152161|169275080|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
84501702|NCT03118765|168754465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|0.07|0.001
84593537|NCT03141255|168937438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84593538|NCT03141255|168937439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84593539|NCT02706925|168937443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2951|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2242|1.366|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.3660|1.2242|
84593540|NCT02706925|168937443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.088|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9128|1.2633|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2633|0.9128|
84593541|NCT02706925|168937443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1846|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4791|1.89|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.8900|0.4791|
84593542|NCT02706925|168937444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2114|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1409|1.2818|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2818|1.1409|
84593543|NCT02706925|168937444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0771|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9696|1.1845|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.1845|0.9696|
84593544|NCT02706925|168937444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3969|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5563|2.2375|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||2.2375|0.5563|
84593545|NCT00600067|168937445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.69|0.0381
84593546|NCT00600067|168937446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.21|||ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-9.18|<0.0001
84593547|NCT04571060|168937470|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|4.5|<0.0001
84759488|NCT04152161|169275080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
84501703|NCT03118765|168754466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.166
84593548|NCT04571060|168937471|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.4|0.0012
84593549|NCT04571060|168937472|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|14.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.6|0.0012
84593550|NCT04571060|168937473|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|5.0|0.0001
84593551|NCT04571060|168937474|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.6||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|2.3|0.0048
84593552|NCT04571060|168937475|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.7|1.4|0.0130
84593553|NCT04571060|168937476|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.9||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5|1.3|0.0076
84759489|NCT05525533|169275114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.24|||Regression, Linear|||||2.24|-1.87|
84759490|NCT05525533|169275114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.82|||Regression, Linear|||||3.82|-0.73|
84501704|NCT03118765|168754466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.182
84593554|NCT04571060|168937477|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|3.7||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|0.3|0.0308
84759491|NCT05525533|169275116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||||18|-2.92|
84501705|NCT03118765|168754466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.07|0.401
84593555|NCT04571060|168937478|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|1.8|0.0123
84593556|NCT04571060|168937479|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|14.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|3.2|0.0018
84593557|NCT04571060|168937480|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|0.6|0.0293
84593558|NCT04571060|168937481|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.7||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.1|0.3|0.0362
84593559|NCT04571060|168937482|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|5.5|<0.0001
84593560|NCT04571060|168937483|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|1.3|0.0059
84593561|NCT04571060|168937484|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.3|4.2|<0.0001
84759492|NCT05525533|169275116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||31|0.64|
84759493|NCT05525533|169275118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|113.0|||Regression, Linear|||||113|-18|
84593562|NCT02358993|168937497|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the primary outcome was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was greater than the specified non-inferiority margin of 15%(a clinically relevant margin within the range of those commonly used in non-inferiority and equivalence trials for studies examining antibiotic use for UTI)|Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84593563|NCT03192137|168937511|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.||||||0.0005||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with anterior chamber cells Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||0.0005
84593564|NCT03192137|168937512|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.675||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||5.675|1.823|<0.0001
84614866|NCT04412707|168978592|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.124|||||Data above refer to melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.124|0.684|
84614867|NCT04412707|168978592|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.989|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.989|0.833|
84759494|NCT05525533|169275118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|189.0|||Regression, Linear|||||189|38|
84759495|NCT05525533|169275119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|8.63|||Regression, Linear|||||8.63|-1.37|
84759496|NCT05525533|169275119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.50|-1.50|
84759497|NCT05525533|169275120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.36|
84759498|NCT05525533|169275120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.54|
84759499|NCT05525533|169275121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.72|||Regression, Linear|||||3.72|-3.38|
84759500|NCT05525533|169275121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|15.0|||Regression, Linear|||||15|0.42|
84759501|NCT05525533|169275122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|5.02|||Regression, Linear|||||5.02|-0.11|
84759502|NCT05525533|169275122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||||6.25|0.33|
84759503|NCT00382993|169275141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|11.49|||ANOVA|||||11.49|2.76|<0.001
84759504|NCT03341962|169275175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0188||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided exact test adjusted for stratification factors (prior use of any biologics and concurrent use of corticosteroids), α=0.097||||||0.5836
84759505|NCT04474795|169275220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Compared pre and post training scores||||<0.0001
84759506|NCT04474795|169275221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Comparison of scores pre and post training in individuals who completed training modules||||<0.0001
84759507|NCT04474795|169275222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Patient autonomy||||0.606
84759508|NCT04474795|169275222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Value of tight control||||0.003
84759509|NCT04474795|169275222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Need for Special Training||||0.475
84759510|NCT04474795|169275223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||||||0.009
84759511|NCT00814775|169275226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.37|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||2.37|0.55|0.72
84759512|NCT00814775|169275227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||1.54|0.38|0.45
84759513|NCT00563186|169275236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This statistical analysis applies to the overall VRE, CDI and MRSA infection and colonization events expressed as incidence density (per 1000 patient-days at risk).|Incidence Rate ratio|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.22|||Poisson||Numerator is novel ward and denominator is traditional ward.|"It was calculated that this study will require 9750 patient days of observation in the traditional design wards and 19,500 patient days of observation in the novel design ward to ensure 80% statistical power to detect a 60% difference in the rates of incident cases of selected HAIs and ARO colonizations (the primary outcome measure) with an α level of 0.05 assuming that incident cases in each unit follow Poisson distribution based on well established historic trends on these units"||3.22|0.80|0.18
84759514|NCT00563186|169275238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.9|||Large test for person-time analysis|||||4.9|0.76|0.175
84759515|NCT00513500|169275255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.32||||||95.0|2.19|8.94||||||||8.94|2.19|
84759516|NCT00513500|169275256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||||95.0|0.14|0.38||||||||0.38|0.14|
84759517|NCT00513500|169275257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||||95.0|0.21|0.93||||||||0.93|0.21|
84759518|NCT00749996|169275258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis: Ho: Δ VAS DIAM = Δ VAS Control will be tested against the alternative hypothesis:HA: Δ VAS DIAM ≠ Δ VAS Control.Where Δ is the average decrease in VAS score (baseline - 6 months). A minimal sample size of 240 analyzable patients is required to demonstrate with 80% power a difference in back pain reduction that is significant at the 95% level, comparing DIAM and Control groups. 268 patients will be enroll to allow of up to 10% attrition.||0.38|-1.59|0.228
84759519|NCT00749996|169275259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis(Ho: Δ ODI DIAM = Δ ODI Control) will be tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA: Δ ODI DIAM ≠ Δ ODI Control). Δ ODI DIAM = average change in the ODI (12 months - baseline) in the DIAM treated patient group and Δ VAS Control =average change in the ODI in the Control group.||6.08|-8.80|0.719
84759520|NCT00345176|169275260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.76|1.07||Adjusted for 3 treatment versus placebo comparisons and interim analyses|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline AMD status|The reference group is placebo.|Each of the 3 active arms was compared to the placebo/control arm.||1.07|0.76|<0.013
84759521|NCT00345176|169275260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.82|1.16||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.82|<0.013
84759522|NCT00345176|169275260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.75|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for multiple comparisons||||1.06|0.75|<0.013
84759523|NCT00345176|169275261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.84|<0.05
84759524|NCT00345176|169275261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.84|<0.05
84759525|NCT00345176|169275261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|<0.05
84759526|NCT00345176|169275262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxantin versus Control for mortality||1.40|0.77|<0.05
84759527|NCT00345176|169275262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of DHA/EPA versus Placebo for mortality||1.52|0.84|<0.05
84759528|NCT00345176|169275262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxanthin + DHA/EPA versus Placebo for Mortality||1.65|0.92|<0.05
84759529|NCT00345176|169275263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.84|<0.05
84759530|NCT01225731|169275275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|28.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.41|44.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||44.36|13.41|0.001
84759531|NCT01225731|169275275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.42|71.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||71.58|48.42|<0.001
84593565|NCT03192137|168937512|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|8.161||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||8.161|2.305|<0.0001
84593566|NCT03192137|168937512|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.113|8.033||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||8.033|2.113|<0.0001
84593567|NCT03192137|168937512|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.822||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||4.822|1.380|0.0043
84593568|NCT03192137|168937512|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.695|6.335||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||6.335|1.695|0.0005
84593569|NCT00405288|168937520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|450.0||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|200.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Birth weight in pregnancies exposed to Proctofoam-HC will be the same as control pregnancies.~To detect a clinically significant decrease of 200 g in birth weight at a power of 80% and alpha of 5%, 200 women per group were required. Post hoc power analysis of our cohort revealed that, in fact, we had a 91.5% power to detect a 200 g difference in birth weight between the two groups."||200|0|0.17
84593570|NCT00405288|168937521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|0|0.16
84593571|NCT00405288|168937522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|30.0||||0.003||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of vaginal deliveries in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same (ie. there will not be a greater proportion of complicated deliveries in either group).||||0.003
84593572|NCT00405288|168937523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|5.0||||0.55||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of pre-term births in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.55
84593573|NCT00405288|168937524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.97||95.0|||||McNemar|||Fetal Distress The null hypothesis is that the proportion of fetal distress in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.97
84593574|NCT00405288|168937525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binary|3.0||||0.31||95.0|||||McNemar|||Low birth weight \<2,500g; The null hypothesis is that the proportion of low birth weight babies in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.31
84593575|NCT00405288|168937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.87||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of healthy babies (not requiring NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) or additional medical monitoring) will be the same between the Proctofoam and Control groups.||||0.87
84593576|NCT00405288|168937527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|4.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84593577|NCT00405288|168937528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|3.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84593578|NCT00405288|168937529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|2.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84593579|NCT00405288|168937530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.0||||0.35||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
84593580|NCT01342094|168937532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.2|< 0.001
84593581|NCT01328743|168937548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84593582|NCT01328743|168937549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
84593583|NCT01328743|168937550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
84593584|NCT01328743|168937551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
84593585|NCT01328743|168937552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84593586|NCT01328743|168937553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84593587|NCT02878382|168937568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Chi-squared|also, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whtiney were used for comparing the other variables in the study||||||<0.001
84593588|NCT02878382|168937570|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||=0.001
84593589|NCT02878382|168937571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney test was used according to the assumption of normality of data for PpIX fluorescence intensity||||=0.048
84759532|NCT01225731|169275275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|61.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.33|73.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||73.37|50.33|<0.001
84759533|NCT01225731|169275275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|69.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.96|80.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||80.99|58.96|<0.001
84759534|NCT01225731|169275276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|19.37||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|33.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||33.58|5.15|0.009
84759535|NCT01225731|169275276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|66.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.26|42.63|<0.001
84759536|NCT01225731|169275276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|56.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.43|68.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||68.03|44.43|<0.001
84501706|NCT03118765|168754466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.09|0.574
84614868|NCT00571974|168978607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||One-sided exact binomial test to compare the observed response rate to the 20% rate envisioned under the original null hypothesis.|One-sided exact binomial test|Because all but one subject responded to treatment, the Fisher's exact test was addedd.||The Simon two-stage minimax design with 9 subjects in the first stage and 8 subjects in the second stage, yielding 17 subjects overall. This design's early termination rule was ≤3/9 responses in the first stage, and its success criterion was ≥7/17 responses overall. This design had 80% power at 5% alpha to distinguish an efficacious 50% response rate from a null-hypothesis 20% response rate.||||0.0001
84614869|NCT02813889|168978608|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|-0.0031||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0031|-0.0261|0.0054
84614870|NCT02813889|168978609|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0331|-0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0070|-0.0331|0.0005
84614871|NCT02813889|168978610|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|-0.0026||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0026|-0.0267|0.0088
84614872|NCT02813889|168978611|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0059||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||0.0062|-0.0180|0.7624
84614873|NCT02813889|168978612|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0129||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0007|0.0251||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0251|0.0007|0.0326
84614874|NCT02813889|168978613|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0138|0.048||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0480|0.0138|<0.0001
84614875|NCT02813889|168978614|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0045|0.0295||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0295|0.0045|0.0025
84614876|NCT02813889|168978615|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0066||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.0191||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0191|-0.0059|0.6782
84614877|NCT02813889|168978616|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.064||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|2.122||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.122|0.006|0.0479
84614878|NCT02813889|168978617|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.278||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.477||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.477|-0.921|0.9947
84614879|NCT02813889|168978618|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.835||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|1.945||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.945|-0.274|0.2614
84614880|NCT02813889|168978619|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|2.286||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.286|0.066|0.0314
84501707|NCT03118765|168754467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.10|0.493
84614881|NCT02813889|168978620|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.255|0.1059||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1059|-2.255|0.0958
84614882|NCT02813889|168978621|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5248||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1243|2.1739||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||2.1739|-1.1243|0.9660
84759537|NCT01225731|169275276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|67.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.42|78.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||78.88|56.42|<0.001
84501708|NCT03118765|168754467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.17|0.864
84501709|NCT03118765|168754467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.978
84501710|NCT03118765|168754467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.10|0.500
84501711|NCT03118765|168754468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|0.04|0.003
84501712|NCT03118765|168754468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.06|0.001
84614883|NCT02813889|168978622|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4198||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6278|0.7882||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.7882|-1.6278|0.9462
84614884|NCT02813889|168978623|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0705||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2785|0.1375||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1375|-2.2785|0.1129
84614885|NCT00555880|168978637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign Statistic|3.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.1460
84614886|NCT00555880|168978638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign statistic|2.5||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.2266
84614887|NCT00555880|168978639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|97.9||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0418
84614888|NCT00555880|168978640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|91.1||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a one-way ANOVA model|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|||||0.1928
84614889|NCT00555880|168978641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from a 2-sample t-test for difference in mean|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9479
84614890|NCT00555880|168978642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-5.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment||||0.0590
84614891|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Dizziness, Lightheadedness, and Feeling Faint-Analysis of treatment||||0.0633
84501713|NCT03118765|168754468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.06|0.001
84614892|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Problems with Vision-Analysis of treatment||||0.0191
84759538|NCT01225731|169275277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|31.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.22|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||46.0|16.22|<0.001
84759539|NCT01225731|169275277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|55.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.48|66.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.63|44.48|<0.001
84501714|NCT03118765|168754468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|0.08|<0.001
84501715|NCT03118765|168754469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
84614893|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Weakness-Analysis of treatment||||0.0727
84614894|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Fatigue-Analysis of treatment||||0.2820
84614895|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Trouble Concentrating-Analysis of treatment||||0.0880
84614896|NCT00555880|168978643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Head/Neck Discomfort-Analysis of treatment||||0.6439
84614897|NCT00555880|168978646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Final systolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0378
84614898|NCT00555880|168978646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Final diastolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0108
84614899|NCT00555880|168978648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|92.4||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0296
84614900|NCT00555880|168978653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||Analysis of treatment||||0.0342
84614901|NCT01336140|168978695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"We calculated that a minimum of 248 subjects are needed to attain 80% power to detect 70% reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint (diarrhea), assuming an event rate of 15% in the control group (2-tailed α = 0.05). We targeted enrolling 300 patients to allow some room for error in our assumptions.~null hypothesis: incidence of diarrhea is no different between the aminophylline arm and the placebo arm."||||0.002
84614902|NCT01336140|168978696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84614903|NCT01336140|168978697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84614904|NCT01336140|168978698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84614905|NCT01013194|168978735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4340
84614906|NCT01013194|168978736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0076
84614907|NCT01013194|168978737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0437
84614908|NCT04808141|168978763|EQUIVALENCE|For a power of 80% and a two-sided 0.05 significance level, we calculated that 102 individuals would be necessary to detect a 10-point difference between the two groups. To guarantee that the study was adequately powered to detect equivalence, a posteriori analysis was conducted using the Two One-Sided Test (TOST) methodology (simulation-based power analysis).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|5.81||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||5.81|-2.42|0.412
84614909|NCT04808141|168978763|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.05||The threshold for statistical analysis was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.42|0.849
84614910|NCT04808141|168978764|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||1.10|-0.71|0.666
84614911|NCT04808141|168978765|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.62||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|4.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust test on the medians||||4.80|-14.87|0.122
84614912|NCT04808141|168978766|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|5.9||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||5.90|-3.11|0.788
84614913|NCT04808141|168978767|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming analgesics at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.23|0.00|0.081
84614914|NCT04808141|168978767|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.71||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming opioids at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.71|0.00|0.985
84759540|NCT01225731|169275277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|59.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|70.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||70.55|48.60|<0.001
84759541|NCT01225731|169275277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.02|82.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||82.37|62.02|<0.001
84759542|NCT01556425|169275289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||21.6|0.2|0.48
84759543|NCT01556425|169275289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.6|0.1|0.61
84759544|NCT01556425|169275289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|54.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||54.9|0.7|0.11
84614915|NCT04808141|168978768|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.78||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.78|-2.10|0.871
84614916|NCT04808141|168978769|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.59|-0.59|0.360
84614917|NCT04808141|168978770|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
84614918|NCT04808141|168978771|EQUIVALENCE||Z-score|-1.28||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Ordinal Regression|||||||0.886
84614919|NCT04808141|168978772|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.46||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||2.46|-2.20|0.095
84614920|NCT04808141|168978774|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.8||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
84614921|NCT04808141|168978775|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.33|||Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||3.33|-12.69|0.246
84614922|NCT04808141|168978776|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.69||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians.||||2.69|-6.50|0.408
84614923|NCT04808141|168978777|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|9.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||9.87|-6.22|0.650
84614924|NCT04808141|168978778|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|18.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84614925|NCT00394706|168978796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a linear mixed effect model with an identity link and random effects to account for the cluster randomization.||0.7|-1.1|0.59
84614926|NCT00394706|168978796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||To adjust for group sequential monitoring, the point estimate was bias-adjusted (Whitehead 1986) and confidence intervals and P values calculated from the maximum likelihood based ordering of the outcome(Emerson and Fleming, 1990)|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in the active ITD arm minus the rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms, adjusted for sequential monitoring.||0.8|-1.1|0.71
84614927|NCT00394706|168978797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|GEE||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a generalized estimating equations model with an identity link, grouping on cluster.||1.1|-1.2|0.92
84672989|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.47|0.4440
84672990|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7057
84672991|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.42|0.2865
84759545|NCT01556425|169275289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|24.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||24.9|0.3|0.39
84759546|NCT01556425|169275289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|85.5|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||85.5|1.3|0.03
84759547|NCT01556425|169275290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.4|0.1|0.30
84759548|NCT01556425|169275290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.2|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.2|0.03|0.08
84501716|NCT03118765|168754469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.00|0.061
84501717|NCT03118765|168754469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.140
84759549|NCT01556425|169275290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.8|0.1|0.91
84672992|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9475
84759550|NCT01556425|169275290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||15.8|0.4|0.34
84759551|NCT01556425|169275290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|26.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||26.1|0.8|0.09
84759552|NCT01783080|169275291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84501718|NCT03118765|168754469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
84759553|NCT01783080|169275293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
84759554|NCT02076997|169275295|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84759555|NCT02076997|169275301|OTHER|||||||||||||||||There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|||
84759556|NCT02076997|169275302|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84501719|NCT03398928|168754495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84501720|NCT03398928|168754496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84501721|NCT03398928|168754499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The statistical analysis applies to all the rows|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84501722|NCT03398928|168754500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
84759557|NCT02533063|169275303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.217
84759558|NCT02533063|169275304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
84759559|NCT02533063|169275305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
84759560|NCT02533063|169275306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.450
84759561|NCT02533063|169275307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
84759562|NCT02533063|169275308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.060
84759563|NCT02533063|169275311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.483
84759564|NCT01970501|169275323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|.72|0.905
84759565|NCT01970501|169275324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.71|0.961
84759566|NCT00950664|169275361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|81 participants required to detect 5 difference in Tsui score, with 80% power. 20% drop out rate assumed, 102 participants needed. Alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Paired-t test|||||||0.05
84759567|NCT03152019|169275376|SUPERIORITY||percentages|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84759568|NCT00350142|169275394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84759569|NCT01464307|169275421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||The number of subjects included in the MMRM analysis was only 286 because a covariate was missing for 3 subjects.||0.2|-0.1|0.777
84759570|NCT01464307|169275422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||||||worst-case analysis.|Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum Test|||The statistical analysis provided was for all categories of this outcome measure.||||0.804
84759571|NCT01464307|169275423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=283 for week 4.||1.74|0.63|0.845
84501723|NCT00759759|168754521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|90.46||||||90.0|82.9|98.7|||ANOVA|||ANOVA of ln-transformed plasma morphine Cmax||98.7|82.9|
84593590|NCT01482715|168937579|OTHER||RP2D|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||A MTD was not established based on observation of DLTs in Cycle 1 of treatment. The 600 mg BID dose was considered to be the maximum dose with an acceptable toxicity profile that could be continuously administered to patients and was selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).|||
84593591|NCT01516632|168937624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.21||||||||3.21|.82|
84593592|NCT01516632|168937625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.3||||||||5.30|1.22|
84759572|NCT01464307|169275423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.04||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=279 for week 8.||2.04|0.73|0.437
84759573|NCT01464307|169275423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.21||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=273 for week 12.||2.21|0.59|0.698
84759574|NCT03449095|169275432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84759575|NCT03449095|169275433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||.001
84759576|NCT00159861|169275445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.132||||||1 Year: Proportion of participants who died.||0.132|0.059|
84759577|NCT00159861|169275445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.243||||||2 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.243|0.144|
84759578|NCT00159861|169275445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.315||||||3 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.315|0.205|
84759579|NCT00159861|169275445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.348||||||4 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.348|0.234|
84759580|NCT00159861|169275445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.437||||||5 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.437|0.302|
84759581|NCT04311502|169275453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).|Arm 1 vs Arm 2|This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.79|0.82|0.21
84593593|NCT01516632|168937626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.45||||||||7.45|1.48|
84593594|NCT00570323|168937630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
84759582|NCT04311502|169275454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.45|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~This outcome measure is limited to data obtained up to September 25, 2023."||0.45|0.14|<0.01
84759583|NCT04311502|169275454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.44|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~All data through week 65."||0.44|0.11|<0.01
84759584|NCT04311502|169275455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.06|-0.47|0.01
84759585|NCT04311502|169275456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Wald chi-square||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.04|-0.46|0.02
84759586|NCT04311502|169275457|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.05|-0.22|0.35
84759587|NCT04311502|169275459|SUPERIORITY||GEE|24.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|32.94|||Regression, Linear|||||32.94|15.13|<0.01
84593595|NCT04263766|168937633|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to DLPFC had a difference effect on confidence compared to delivered to Vertex.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in confidence across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||<.001
84593596|NCT04263766|168937633|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS to DLPFC leads to equivalent increase in confidence for four delay conditions.||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
84593597|NCT04263766|168937633|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to Vertex leads to a same effect on confidence regardless of the delay conditions.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84593598|NCT04263766|168937634|EQUIVALENCE|We used a two-way ANOVA to test whether TMS affected Mratio differently for DLPFC and Vertex and across different delay conditions.|||||>|0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in Mratio across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||>0.19
84593599|NCT02141672|168937658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||4.05|1.01|0.045
84593600|NCT02141672|168937658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.27|0.78|0.204
84593601|NCT02141672|168937659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||6.13|1.68|<0.001
84759588|NCT04311502|169275461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compares the odds of participants having maximum occurrence of QTcF change from baseline of ≥30 ms and \<60 ms, or ≥60 ms between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the safety set using the proportional odds model.||21.30|2.40|<0.01
84759589|NCT04311502|169275461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58|||exact unconditional||Arm 1 - Arm 2|Proportion of Participants with Worst Changes in QTcF from Screening \>= 30 ms over visits at Weeks 2, 8, 13||0.58|0.17|<0.01
84759590|NCT04311502|169275462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.8||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV status (positive/negative) and TB disease according to chest X-ray (advanced/not advanced)|Arm 1 vs. Arm 2|||1.80|0.84|0.18
84759591|NCT04311502|169275463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.71||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.71|0.80|0.25
84759592|NCT04311502|169275464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Fisher Exact|||||0.35|-0.07|0.23
84759593|NCT04311502|169275465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.11|0.56
84759594|NCT04311502|169275466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.18|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing an SAE through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||0.18|-0.04|0.27
84759595|NCT04311502|169275467|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.13|-0.10|1
84759596|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Screening||1.39|0.57|0.597
84759597|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Entry||1.44|0.58|0.70
84759598|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 2||1.03|0.40|0.07
84759599|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 4||0.98|0.34|0.04
84759600|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 6||1.67|0.41|0.60
84759601|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 8||1.88|0.33|0.595
84759602|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 10||2.44|0.25|0.66
84501724|NCT00759759|168754523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA performed on the ratio of geometric means|mean ratio|101.1||||||90.0|96.9|105.4|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of ln-transformed plasma morphine AUClast||105.4|96.9|
84759603|NCT04311502|169275468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 12||6.39|0.21|0.86
84759604|NCT04311502|169275469|SUPERIORITY||Slope|20.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|35.16|||Regression, Linear|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||35.16|5.71|<0.01
84759605|NCT03962439|169275488|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.61||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in episodic memory from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.211
84759606|NCT03962439|169275490|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in speed of processing from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.203
84759607|NCT03962439|169275492|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|0.28||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in reasoning from baseline to week 16 interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.760
84593602|NCT02141672|168937659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.02|1.09|0.026
84759608|NCT01661140|169275501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority if the difference between treatments is statistically significant and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0.9.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.803||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|3.133|||Analysis by logistic regression|||Comparison was Tapering MTX : MTX maintenance. Last post-baseline EULAR response recorded used for participants with a missing result at Week 60.||3.133|1.037|0.036
84759609|NCT00812214|169275579|SUPERIORITY|For the purpose of the power calculation, it was assumed that the difference in total sleep time between the treatment groups is 40 minutes, with a standard deviation of 60. The pilot nature of the study allowed the use of alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2, with two-sided comparison, generating a required sample size of 37 subjects per arm.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed student's t-test for independent samples||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the 6 week average total sleep time||||0.33
84759610|NCT00812214|169275580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the eszopiclone and placebo groups in the number of awakenings/night at 6 weeks.||||0.03
84759611|NCT00812214|169275582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in sleep quality averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.1
84759612|NCT00812214|169275582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime alertness averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.29
84672993|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.61|0.1880
84672994|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.51|0.5950
84672995|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 24 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-0.39|0.9636
84672996|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.50|0.5836
84672997|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.1|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.63|0.1568
84759613|NCT00812214|169275582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime fatigue averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.05
84759614|NCT00812214|169275582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime functioning averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.76
84501725|NCT00759759|168754524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.3||||||90.0|96.2|106.7|||ANOVA|||||106.7|96.2|
84501726|NCT02450760|168754547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84501727|NCT02450760|168754548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84672998|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.79|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Work and Activities, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.79|0.0155
84759615|NCT00812214|169275584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in average days/week between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.89
84501728|NCT02450760|168754552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84501729|NCT02450760|168754553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84759616|NCT00812214|169275585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache duration between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.98
84501730|NCT02450760|168754554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84501731|NCT00681824|168754555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0|||||likelihood ratio of chi squared test|||||||0.7159
84501732|NCT00467818|168754644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84501733|NCT00467818|168754645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84501734|NCT00467818|168754647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.5
84501735|NCT00467818|168754648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
84501736|NCT02117479|168754678|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.256||||||||1.256|0.747|
84501737|NCT02117479|168754679|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.348||||||||1.348|0.827|
84501738|NCT00323271|168754690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.106|1.888|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.888|-2.106|.911
84501739|NCT00323271|168754691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|2.345||Multiple imputation used to account for missing variables; pre-treatment rating and years of MS pain were covariates|ANCOVA|||||2.345|-1.058|0.320
84501740|NCT02572427|168754692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84501741|NCT02572427|168754693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84759617|NCT00812214|169275586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache intensity between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.82
84614928|NCT00394706|168978797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in the active ITD arm minus rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms.||1.1|-1.2|0.99
84759618|NCT00132132|169275593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is the per protocol unadjusted value||||||0.03
84759619|NCT00132132|169275593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Age adjusted per protocol||||||0.14
84759620|NCT00132132|169275593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Per protocol adjusted for age and paternal education. Given the small number of participants with complete data, this model may be overfit.||||||0.006
84759621|NCT00132132|169275594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84759622|NCT03605680|169275599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-3.15|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|-0.51|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.51|-5.79|=0.0193
84759623|NCT03605680|169275599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-0.14|||MMRM|||||-0.14|-5.35|=0.0392
84759624|NCT03605680|169275600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.04|-0.50|=0.0232
84759625|NCT03605680|169275600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.05|-0.51|=0.0162
84759626|NCT04852848|169275625|EQUIVALENCE|In our original power calculation, we expected to randomly assign 200 individuals to the Connect2Test (n = 100) and control conditions (n = 100). Power calculations were conducted using G\*Power assuming a two-tailed test with alpha = .05, power = .80, and an estimated COVID-19 testing rate in the Connect2Test condition of 20%. With these assumptions, the minimum detectable effect size (odds ratio) is 2.46, which corresponds to a moderate Cohen's d (0.49).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.27|||Chi-squared||The control condition was the reference category (Connect2Test intervention = 1, Control = 0).|||2.27|0.61|.6298
84759627|NCT02915523|169275626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.393|||||Stratified HR estimated from a stratified univeriate Cox proportional hazards model. Avelumab + placebo was the reference treatment group.|||1.393|0.581|
84501742|NCT02354976|168754764|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.92||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.76|0.407
84759628|NCT00535132|169275662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001||||||p-value based on a paired t-test for a within-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size for this study was based on changes in the MSQ scores within subjects from baseline to endpoint using a one-sample paired t-test. A sample size of 97 subjects was shown to have 90% power at endpoint to detect a mean change from baseline of 0.5 units on the MSQ score, with a standard deviation of 1.5. Allowing for extra variability from subjects with prior generic risperidone (instead of branded risperidone) use, this number was increased to 150 subjects.||||<0.001
84759629|NCT00535132|169275663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84759630|NCT00535132|169275664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84759631|NCT00535132|169275665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84759632|NCT00535132|169275666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.002
84759633|NCT00535132|169275667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.033
84501743|NCT02354976|168754765|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.84||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.70|0.077
84501744|NCT02164539|168754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
84614929|NCT00394706|168978798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.34|||||Mean MRS for Analyze Later minus mean MRS for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.34|-0.20|
84759634|NCT00535132|169275668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84759635|NCT00535132|169275669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84759636|NCT00535132|169275670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
84759637|NCT00535132|169275671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.125
84759638|NCT00535132|169275672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1|<|0.001||||||p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84759639|NCT00535132|169275673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||0.009
84759640|NCT00535132|169275674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84614930|NCT00394706|168978798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||||Mean MRS for Active ITD minus mean MRS for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.44|-0.17|
84614931|NCT00394706|168978799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.83|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Later minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.83|-0.71|
84614932|NCT00394706|168978799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Active ITD minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.28|-1.61|
84614933|NCT00394706|168978800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Analyze Later minus mean HUI for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.06|
84614934|NCT00394706|168978800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Active ITD minus mean HUI for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.08|
84614935|NCT03369249|168978805|SUPERIORITY||log ratio of rate ratios|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.75||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equations||Standard error of the Beta regression coefficient.|||0.75|-0.46|0.635
84614936|NCT00887549|168978819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.021|||Regression, Cox|The Cox model, based upon participant level data, included PFS as dependent variable and TS score in the nucleus as independent variable.||||1.021|1.008|<0.0001
84614937|NCT04112303|168978823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified efficacy threshold of 78% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84614938|NCT05173012|168978828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.5325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.62|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 15 mg - placebo.|||1.62|-0.84|0.5325
84672999|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.76|0.0504
84759641|NCT00535132|169275675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84759642|NCT00535132|169275676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
84501745|NCT02164539|168754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
84614939|NCT05173012|168978828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.97|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 30 mg - placebo.|||0.97|-1.54|0.6549
84614940|NCT05173012|168978828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.41|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 60 mg - placebo.|||2.41|-0.36|0.1462
84614941|NCT05173012|168978829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||4.67|0.59|0.1271
84614942|NCT05173012|168978829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.89|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||1.89|-3.45|0.5642
84614943|NCT05173012|168978829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.85|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||3.85|-1.84|0.4860
84673000|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.14|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.70|0.1865
84759643|NCT02706873|169275704|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|31.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||31.1|16.3|<0.001
84593603|NCT02141672|168937660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.96|0.066
84593604|NCT02141672|168937660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.82|0.162
84593605|NCT02141672|168937661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.51|1.45|<0.001
84593606|NCT02141672|168937661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.47|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.47|1.46|<0.001
84593607|NCT02141672|168937662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.29|||Regression, Cox|||||5.29|1.58|<0.001
84593608|NCT02141672|168937662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||<|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.86|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.86|0.77|<0.248
84593609|NCT02141672|168937664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|1.16|0.005
84593610|NCT02141672|168937664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.43|1.25|0.002
84614944|NCT01318408|168978839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing effects on cognition over time.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intent-to-treat group included all individuals who initiated levetiracetam. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine changes in participants' scores for cognition, function, and behavior between baseline and 12 weeks.Change in MMSE test scores was the primary outcome measure.||||.01
84593611|NCT02141672|168937666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||2.15|0.45|0.980
84593612|NCT02141672|168937666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.16|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.16|0.95|0.118
84593613|NCT02141672|168937668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||4.33|1.26|0.007
84593614|NCT02141672|168937668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||3.76|1.1|0.024
84593615|NCT02141672|168937668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||4.33|1.27|0.007
84593616|NCT02141672|168937668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||5.02|1.43|0.002
84593617|NCT02141672|168937669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.03|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.03|1.36|<0.001
84593618|NCT02141672|168937669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.69|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.69|1.22|0.004
84593619|NCT02141672|168937671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.36|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.36|1.45|<0.001
84593620|NCT02141672|168937671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.84|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.84|1.23|0.004
84593621|NCT02948582|168937722|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.033||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.075|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.075|-0.009|0.1257
84614945|NCT01318408|168978840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing cognitive effects over time.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Lower scores (negative change) indicate improvements on the ADAS-cog.||||||.02
84614946|NCT01979952|168978900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.227|15.579|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.579|-9.227|
84614947|NCT01979952|168978901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.258|15.296|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.296|-10.258|
84501746|NCT02164539|168754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
84501747|NCT02164539|168754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
84614948|NCT01979952|168978902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|69.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|146.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||146.75|-8.74|
84673001|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.87|0.0518
84673002|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.53|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.42|0.8330
84673003|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.42|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.34|0.8440
84673004|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4602
84673005|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.03|0.0891
84673006|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.11|0.3088
84673007|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.24|0.8560
84673008|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.24|0.9702
84501748|NCT02164539|168754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172|||Final dose response model|||||0.172|-0.027|0.152
84501749|NCT02164539|168754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.7|0.010
84501750|NCT02164539|168754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.4|-1.9|0.004
84501751|NCT02164539|168754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||0.1|-1.4|0.083
84501752|NCT02164539|168754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.2|-1.5|0.014
84501753|NCT02164539|168754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.1|-1.4|0.031
84501754|NCT02164539|168754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.6|<0.001
84501755|NCT02164539|168754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<0.001
84593622|NCT02948582|168937722|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.072||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.113|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.113|0.030|0.0008
84593623|NCT02948582|168937722|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.144|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.144|0.061|<0.0001
84593624|NCT02948582|168937722|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.15|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.150|0.066|<0.0001
84593625|NCT02948582|168937722|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.14|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.140|0.056|<0.0001
84593626|NCT02948582|168937723|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.123|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.123|0.050|<0.0001
84593627|NCT02948582|168937723|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.151|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.187|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.187|0.114|<0.0001
84614949|NCT01979952|168978903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||5.00|-0.29|
84593628|NCT02948582|168937723|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.193|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.193|0.120|<0.0001
84593629|NCT02948582|168937723|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.239|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.239|0.165|<0.0001
84593630|NCT02948582|168937723|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.235|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
84593631|NCT02948582|168937724|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.058||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.095|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.095|0.021|0.0028
84593632|NCT02948582|168937724|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.137|||least squares mena|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.137|0.063|<0.0001
84593633|NCT02948582|168937724|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.142|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.142|0.068|<0.0001
84614950|NCT01979952|168978905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||4.79|-4.89|
84501756|NCT02164539|168754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.4|0.007
84501757|NCT02164539|168754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.2|0.002
84759644|NCT02706873|169275704|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|35.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||35.4|20.6|<0.001
84501758|NCT02164539|168754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.9|0.009
84501759|NCT02164539|168754771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.004||95.0|5.9|30.3|||ANCOVA|||||30.3|5.9|0.004
84501760|NCT02164539|168754771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|34.1|||ANCOVA|||||34.1|9.4|<0.001
84501761|NCT02164539|168754771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|7.7|0.001
84501762|NCT02164539|168754771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.4|||ANCOVA|||||35.4|14.1|<0.001
84501763|NCT02164539|168754771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|29.1|||ANCOVA|||||29.1|8.0|<0.001
84501764|NCT02164539|168754772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.034|0.264
84759645|NCT02706873|169275705|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||36.8|22.8|<0.001
84501765|NCT02164539|168754772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|-0.041|0.328
84501766|NCT02164539|168754772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.054|0.534
84501767|NCT02164539|168754772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.065|0.895
84501768|NCT02164539|168754772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.146|||ANCOVA|||||0.146|0.007|0.031
84501769|NCT02164539|168754773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||||-0.014|-0.162|0.019
84501770|NCT02164539|168754773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.091||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.165|0.017
84593634|NCT02948582|168937724|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.135|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.173|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.173|0.098|<0.0001
84593635|NCT02948582|168937724|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.166|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.166|0.091|<0.0001
84593636|NCT04419467|168937748|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.8|16.3||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean (GM), then expressed as percent treatment difference.|||16.3|-14.8|0.485
84759646|NCT02706873|169275705|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||38.5|24.5|<0.001
84501771|NCT02164539|168754773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.162|0.017
84501772|NCT02164539|168754773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.124|0.066
84501773|NCT02164539|168754773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|-0.099|||ANCOVA|||||-0.099|-0.227|<0.001
84501774|NCT01493531|168754774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
84501775|NCT01493531|168754774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.52|0.34|<0.0001
84501776|NCT01493531|168754775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.37|0.57|0.5716
84501777|NCT01493531|168754775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.45|0.60|0.7454
84501778|NCT01493531|168754776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.24|0.8466
84673009|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.25|0.8001
84673010|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.32|-0.11|0.3223
84759647|NCT02706873|169275706|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||28.8|14.3|<0.001
84614951|NCT01979952|168978906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|50.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||50.09|-14.21|
84614952|NCT01979952|168978907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||11.25|-1.47|
84673011|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.09|-0.26|0.3385
84673012|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.24|-0.16|0.7003
84759648|NCT02706873|169275706|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|30.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||30.1|15.7|<0.001
84501779|NCT01493531|168754776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.29|0.6301
84501780|NCT01946282|168754777|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84614953|NCT04759157|168978925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed model|||||||.30
84614954|NCT04759157|168978926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||This estimate is comparing intervention to control from baseline to 3 month for both patients and partners|We conducted multilevel models evaluating sleep disturbance score by assessment, group and patient versus partner status.||1.43|-6.63|.206
84614955|NCT01702246|168978983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84614956|NCT01702246|168978984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84614957|NCT01702246|168978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84673013|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||-0.02|-0.41|0.0311
84673014|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.06|-0.26|0.1976
84673015|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.24|0.5489
84673016|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.17|0.7992
84673017|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.40|0.0573
84673018|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0431
84673019|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.09|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.52|0.0060
84759649|NCT02706873|169275707|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.20|-0.85|0.001
84759650|NCT02706873|169275707|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.27|-0.91|<0.001
84673020|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.55|0.0215
84501781|NCT01946282|168754777|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
84501782|NCT01946282|168754777|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
84593637|NCT04419467|168937748|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|8.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.2|27.2||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean, then expressed as percent treatment difference|||27.2|-7.2|0.750
84759651|NCT02706873|169275708|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.67||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.||||-0.67|-1.09|<0.001
84593638|NCT01361217|168937808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84593639|NCT01361217|168937808|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84593640|NCT01361217|168937809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84614958|NCT02218008|168979013|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.3|-2.7|0.018
84644566|NCT01992159|169024663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.9|0.0002
84759652|NCT02706873|169275708|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.8||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.80|-1.21|<0.001
84593641|NCT03542266|168937826|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|90.3|||||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for complete response rate.|||90.3|46.5|
84593642|NCT01072136|168937836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption of a clinical cure proportion of 75% for the Azithromycin/Cefixime group, a 10% non-inferiority margin (i.e., no more than a 10% lower cure rate in the placebo group) at the one-sided 0.05 significance level with 85% power required 270 study participants in each arm (540 total) using an unpooled Z-test (normal approximation). Anticipating that approximately 30% of enrolled participants would not be in the per protocol group, 772 participants were targeted for enrollment.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||||Asymptotic one-sided 95% confidence limit for the difference in clinical cure proportions(placebo minus treatment) were computed so that the lower limit could be examined relative to the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|The primary efficacy outcome was MPC clinical cure at 2 months. This was a non-inferiority trial designed to reject the null hypothesis that placebo control is inferior to empiric therapy for MPC.|||-12.2|
84593643|NCT02737501|168937867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with randomization stratification factors (current) as covariates.|||0.66|0.35|<0.0001
84593644|NCT02737501|168937868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||2.91|1.04|0.0330
84593645|NCT02737501|168937869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of prior chemotherapy for Locally advanced or metastatic disease at study entry (current strata).|||39.11|4.70|<0.0001
84593646|NCT02737501|168937870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of iCNS metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata) as covariate.|||0.51|0.17|<0.0001
84593647|NCT02737501|168937874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||1.82|0.47|0.8220
84593648|NCT02737501|168937876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.79||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||p-values were obtained using mixed effects models stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at study entry, prior chemotherapy at Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model is used with an unstructured covariance matrix.||||11.00|0.58|0.0295
84593649|NCT00833027|168937884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Student's T-test|Student's T-test for paired samples||||||<0.001
84759653|NCT02706873|169275709|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.25|-0.44|<0.001
84501783|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.070
84501784|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
84501785|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84501786|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84501787|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
84501788|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84501789|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated needing 545 observations per incentive group to achieve power necessary to detect at least a 10% absolute difference in FIT return rate between patients who received the $5 incentive versus patients who received the $10 incentive, with assumed rates of 45% in the $5 incentive group and 53% in the $10 incentive group, a=0.05, and power=90%.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84501790|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84501791|NCT01946282|168754778|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.184
84501792|NCT01039584|168754870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with therapeutic cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure. Therapeutic cure was defined as having both a mycological cure and a clinical cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|12.3|||Wald's method|||||12.3|-9.1|
84501793|NCT01039584|168754871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with clinicl cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|12.8|||Wald's method|||||12.8|-7.3|
84501794|NCT01039584|168754872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with mycological cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure|Yates continuity correction|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|9.4|||Wald's method|||||9.4|-11.7|0.05
84501795|NCT03672396|168754879|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.378
84501796|NCT03672396|168754880|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.0|0.586
84501797|NCT03672396|168754881|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.252
84501798|NCT03672396|168754882|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|4.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Mean difference calculated as Post - Pre.||||4.3|-36.9|0.111
84501799|NCT03672396|168754883|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.2|-4.3|0.579
84501800|NCT03672396|168754884|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.948
84501801|NCT03672396|168754885|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-1.1|0.594
84501802|NCT03672396|168754886|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.3|0.274
84501803|NCT03672396|168754887|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|0.48|0.013
84593650|NCT02481258|168937899|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test. A priori calculations to detect an effect size of 0.57 units indicated that that 50 patients per arm were needed to have 80% power. The actual effect size observed in the present study was 0.86.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||0.05
84593651|NCT02481258|168937901|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-tests assuming initial recruitment of 50 subjects.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84593652|NCT02481258|168937902|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||>0.05
84593653|NCT00806260|168937908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.21||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.10%|||0.21|
84593654|NCT00806260|168937908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.12||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.07%|||0.12|
84759654|NCT02706873|169275709|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.28||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.28|-0.47|<0.001
84759655|NCT02706873|169275710|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|32.4||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||32.4|17.6|<0.001
84759656|NCT02706873|169275710|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|33.9|19.0|<0.001
84593655|NCT00806260|168937908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step-down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.03||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.04%|||-0.03|
84593656|NCT00806260|168937909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.07|-0.17|
84593657|NCT00806260|168937909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.04|-0.18|
84593658|NCT00806260|168937909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.06|-0.08|
84593659|NCT00806260|168937909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.05|-0.13|
84593660|NCT00237042|168937910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare group means at follow up, adjusted for baseline values of the outcome variable.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 6-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.19
84593661|NCT00237042|168937911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.27
84593662|NCT00237042|168937912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Group means compared with linear regression adjusted for baseline values. Adjusted difference: -1.0 between SMT and COCT, -1.0 between TSMT and COCT.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 12-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.003
84593663|NCT00237042|168937913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.016
84593664|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.029
84593665|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.027
84593666|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.602
84593667|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.631
84593668|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.339|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.339
84593669|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.440
84593670|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=1.000
84593671|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.465
84593672|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.431
84593673|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.650
84593674|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.980
84593675|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.906
84593676|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.381
84593677|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.886
84593678|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.264
84614959|NCT02218008|168979014|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2||ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
84644567|NCT01992159|169024663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.7|< 0.0001
84759657|NCT02706873|169275711|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.5||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.50|3.00|<0.001
84593679|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.424
84593680|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=1.000
84593681|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.312
84593682|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.664
84593683|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.170
84593684|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.318
84593685|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in Nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.536
84593686|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.900
84593687|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.188
84593688|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.370
84593689|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.813
84593690|NCT00532129|168937947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=1.000
84593691|NCT04551898|168937948|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.25||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.84|0.4829
84593692|NCT04551898|168937948|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.51||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.13|0.1739
84593693|NCT04551898|168937948|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|0.19||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.40|0.6006
84593694|NCT04551898|168937948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4996||||||H0: there is a flat dose response curve comparing change from baseline to Day 8 in viral load in the Placebo and other BGB-DXP593 dose groups|t-test, 1 sided|MCP Mod was used to test the primary hypothesis and provide 1-sided p-value accordingly.||||||0.4996
84593695|NCT01187095|168937972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimation parameter|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84593696|NCT01187095|168937972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84593697|NCT04343092|168937996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Historical control population included: Hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) 400mg BID at admission day then 200mg BID for 5 days plus Azithromycin (AZT) 500mg at admission day then 250mg for 5 days.|||0.05
84593698|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||Based on prior studies using a variety of products in this model, the within-product standard deviation of %SMH recovery is estimated to be 13% and the correlation between products is expected to be approximately 0.5. With a sample size of 28 subjects in a 5-way crossover study, the study will have 80% power to detect a %SMH recovery difference of 8.6%, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||||0.0490
84593699|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
84644568|NCT01992159|169024664|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.5||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.7|0.0012
84759658|NCT02706873|169275711|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.59||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.59|3.09|<0.001
84759659|NCT02706873|169275712|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.71||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.71|-1.12|<0.001
84759660|NCT02706873|169275712|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.99||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.99|-1.40|<0.001
84759661|NCT02706873|169275713|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
84759662|NCT02706873|169275713|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
84593700|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
84593701|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
84593702|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.45
84593703|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
84593704|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.47
84593705|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0423
84593706|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.15
84593707|NCT01665911|168938019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.54
84593708|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
84593709|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.17
84593710|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
84593711|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84593712|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
84593713|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.26
84593714|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
84593715|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0269
84593716|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0142
84593717|NCT01665911|168938020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.81
84593718|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
84593719|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
84593720|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
84593721|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
84593722|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.14
84593723|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0012
84593724|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
84614960|NCT02218008|168979015|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses were evaluated using a 6-step, fixed sequence approach to adjust for multiple comparisons. Using this method, hypothesis testing (using alpha=0.05) continued through the sequence until statistical significance was not achieved. Steps 1-3 included testing the ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg dose vs placebo for the 3 primary endpoints.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages, and resulting treatment effects from each stage are combined for a single hypothesis test using equal weights of 0.5 for both stages.|Mixed Models Analysis|||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages (i.e., ALKS 5461 2/2 S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2/2 S2 vs Placebo S2). Efficacy was estimated as a weighted average across 2 stages using equal weights.||0.2|-3.6|0.076
84593725|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
84593726|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0075
84593727|NCT01665911|168938021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0444
84593728|NCT05069649|168938044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
84593729|NCT05069649|168938045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2488
84593730|NCT05069649|168938046|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84759663|NCT02706873|169275714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.3|19.3|<0.001
84593731|NCT05069649|168938047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
84593732|NCT05069649|168938048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84593733|NCT05069649|168938049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84593734|NCT00533429|168938050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||||||P-value (one-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.469
84593735|NCT00533429|168938051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.462||||||95% confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. P-value (2-tailed) calculation based on unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.462
84593736|NCT00533429|168938052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||||||P-value (two-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.492
84593737|NCT01299389|168938109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-5.4|-14.0|<0.0001
84593738|NCT01299389|168938112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Positive symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.4|-4.1|<0.0001
84593739|NCT01299389|168938112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Negative symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
84593740|NCT01299389|168938112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Disorganized thoughts (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.0001
84593741|NCT01299389|168938112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.5|-2.3|0.0023
84593742|NCT01299389|168938112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety/depression (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0025
84593743|NCT01299389|168938113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.0|-3.3|0.0003
84593744|NCT01299389|168938114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.5|-4.1|<0.0001
84593745|NCT01299389|168938115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-2.3|-6.9|<0.0001
84593746|NCT02020590|168938145|OTHER||||||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||"The success of ALLOB® treatment was based on the percentage of responders. A treated patient was considered as responding if, at the end of the study (6 months):~* He/she had not required rescue surgery and~* The GDE score as perceived by the patient had improved by at least 25% or the TUS (tomographic union score) as assessed by CT scan had increased by at least 2 points."|The response rate at Month 6 for the 21 patients in the PP population was 100 % (CI: 86.71 - 100.0%). None of the treated patients required rescue surgery. An improvement of GDE score of at least 25% was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients. An increase in TUS of at least 2 points was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients; all patients met at least one of these two criteria.|||
84593747|NCT00889707|168938151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Test of superiority computed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume. Tested for 2-sided 0.05 level of statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume.||||||0.040
84593748|NCT00889707|168938152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.|ANCOVA|Model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.||||||0.047
84593749|NCT02185534|168938153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|118.19|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||118.19|92.27|
84614961|NCT01278797|168979019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.51||||0.005||90.0|91.6|97.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC72 and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.51|91.60|0.005
84614962|NCT01278797|168979020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.1||||0.0093||90.0|90.7|97.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed CMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.63|90.70|0.0093
84614963|NCT01278797|168979021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.153|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to TMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg||||0.153
84614964|NCT03058692|168979032|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
84759664|NCT02706873|169275714|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|39.6||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.6|24.8|<0.001
84501804|NCT03672396|168754888|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|13.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.85|-5.54|0.369
84614965|NCT03058692|168979032|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
84644569|NCT01992159|169024664|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.8||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.8|< 0.0001
84759665|NCT02706873|169275715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|35.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.2|20.3|<0.001
84593750|NCT02185534|168938153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|Geometric mean ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.12|116.45|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25||116.45|81.12|
84593751|NCT02185534|168938154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|108.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.46|122.33|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||122.33|95.46|
84593752|NCT02185534|168938154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|117.53|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||117.53|95.22|
84759666|NCT02706873|169275715|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|40.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||40.2|25.4|<0.001
84759667|NCT02706873|169275716|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.03||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.03|2.42|<0.001
84614966|NCT03058692|168979033|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
84614967|NCT03058692|168979033|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.73
84614968|NCT03058692|168979034|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
84614969|NCT03058692|168979034|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
84614970|NCT03058692|168979035|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
84759668|NCT02706873|169275716|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.72||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.72|3.12|<0.001
84759669|NCT02706873|169275717|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||16.2|3.5|0.002
84614971|NCT03058692|168979035|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
84644570|NCT01992159|169024664|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|3.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||3.3|< 0.0001
84501805|NCT03672396|168754889|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-13.5|0.945
84593753|NCT02185534|168938155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|101.29|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||101.29|87.12|
84593754|NCT02185534|168938155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|92.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|99.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||99.75|84.91|
84593755|NCT01151020|168938161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Free from major adverse event rate (%)|96.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.6%.||99|91|< 0.001
84593756|NCT01151020|168938162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Device success rate (%)|92.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|96.8|||Exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.7%.||96.8|86.2|< 0.001
84614972|NCT03058692|168979036|OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0078
84614973|NCT03058692|168979036|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
84614974|NCT03058692|168979037|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84501806|NCT03672396|168754890|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-2.0|0.420
84593757|NCT02041299|168938163|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 96.01% confidence interval (CI) is less than or equal to 2 mg/g dw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.97|0.0399
84593758|NCT02041299|168938164|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.000295||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.054247|0.053657|||ANCOVA|||Data for this measure were log-transformed.||0.053657|-0.054247|0.0399
84593759|NCT02041299|168938165|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority of deferiprone to deferoxamine in serum ferritin is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|375.07||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-260.63|1010.76|||ANCOVA|||||1010.76|-260.63|0.0399
84593760|NCT02041299|168938166|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Physical Summary||||||0.9214|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9214
84593761|NCT02041299|168938166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Mental Summary||||0.1174
84593762|NCT02041299|168938166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6488|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Physical Summary||||0.6488
84593763|NCT02041299|168938166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5915|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Psychosocial Summary||||0.5915
84593764|NCT02389465|168938167|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.44
84593765|NCT02389465|168938167|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.11
84593766|NCT02389465|168938167|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.42
84593767|NCT02389465|168938167|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL-6 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-tes||||.49
84593768|NCT02389465|168938167|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.23
84593769|NCT02389465|168938168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram + celecoxib groups||||.003
84593770|NCT02389465|168938168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram groups||||<.001
84759670|NCT02706873|169275717|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.8||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||17.8|5.4|<0.001
84759671|NCT02706873|169275718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|24.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||24.9|12.1|<0.001
84759672|NCT02706873|169275718|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||29.5|16.4|<0.001
84759673|NCT02706873|169275719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|27.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||27.3|13.2|<0.001
84593771|NCT02389465|168938168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and placebo groups||||.034
84593772|NCT02389465|168938168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the placebo groups and all groups receiving escitalopram (both with and without celecoxib)||||.03
84614975|NCT03058692|168979037|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
84759674|NCT02706873|169275719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|26.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.5|12.3|<0.001
84759675|NCT02706873|169275720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|33.0||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.0|19.1|<0.001
84759676|NCT02706873|169275720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|38.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.2|24.2|<0.001
84759677|NCT02706873|169275721|SUPERIORITY|For the Japan sub-study, no multiplicity adjustments were applied and only nominal p-values were provided for all efficacy analyses.|Response Rate Difference|28.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|48.9|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||48.9|7.7|0.004
84593773|NCT02389465|168938169|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.29
84593774|NCT02389465|168938169|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.19
84593775|NCT02389465|168938169|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.5
84593776|NCT02389465|168938169|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.55
84593777|NCT02389465|168938169|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.06
84593778|NCT01925768|168938170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||29.3|6.2|0.0040
84593779|NCT01925768|168938171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||0.044|-0.251|0.1677
84593780|NCT01925768|168938172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|30.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Those who withdrew early or who did not have sufficient data at Week 16 were counted as non-responders.|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||30.6|6.3|0.0040
84614976|NCT03058692|168979038|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84759678|NCT02706873|169275721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|50.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||50.7|5.3|0.022
84501807|NCT03672396|168754891|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.8|-16.9|0.941
84501808|NCT03672396|168754892|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.203
84593781|NCT01925768|168938173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.15|-0.85|0.0051
84593782|NCT01925768|168938174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.68||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||4.88|0.49|0.0167
84593783|NCT01925768|168938175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7||Based on an MMRM model for the change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids use as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||2-sided 95% CI for the difference in LS mean.||5.70|1.10|0.0039
84614977|NCT03058692|168979038|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84593784|NCT01925768|168938176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.2|||Sign test|p-value based on distribution free signed rank test||||10.2|-21.5|0.012
84593785|NCT01925768|168938177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline oral corticosteroids (prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||31.3|8.0|0.0016
84593786|NCT01925768|168938178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.021|-0.279|0.0229
84593787|NCT01925768|168938179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.35|-1.00|<0.0001
84593788|NCT01925768|168938180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.46||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||5.80|1.13|0.0039
84593789|NCT01925768|168938181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann|10.0||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0|||Stratified Van Elteren test|p-value based on stratified Van Elteren test, using 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids|Location shift and 95% CI based on Hodges-Lehmann for between treatment median estimates.|||20.0|0.0|0.0168
84614978|NCT03058692|168979039|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84759679|NCT02706873|169275721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.2|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.2|-2.4|0.086
84501809|NCT03672396|168754893|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-0.04|0.057
84501810|NCT03672396|168754894|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.0|0.809
84501811|NCT03672396|168754895|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.3|0.191
84501812|NCT03672396|168754896|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-0.3|0.237
84759680|NCT02706873|169275722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|58.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.5|18.6|<0.001
84759681|NCT02706873|169275722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|68.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.6|21.8|<0.001
84501813|NCT03001011|168754920|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (Renvela - Placebo)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Renvela Vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order outcome measures (OM) are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
84673021|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0422
84759682|NCT02706873|169275722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|72.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||72.6|27.4|<0.001
84759683|NCT02706873|169275723|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|47.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||47.1|22.0|<0.001
84759684|NCT02706873|169275723|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|70.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.7|33.0|<0.001
84759685|NCT02706873|169275723|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|82.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||82.0|46.5|<0.001
84540934|NCT02414958|168833013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-2.7|0.0||Nominal p-value|MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline eGFR baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.0|-2.7|0.0457
84540935|NCT02414958|168833013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-0.3|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.3|-4.3|0.0006
84540936|NCT03885661|168833022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||mixed effects regression|testing for the outcome employed mixed effects regression. The key fixed effects were group assignment, period, and the group X period interaction.||||||0.65
84540937|NCT04194645|168833090|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.45|104.4|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||104.40|91.45|
84540938|NCT04194645|168833090|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|128.94|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||128.94|98.82|
84540939|NCT04194645|168833091|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|48.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.86|55.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 18.5|No formal hypothesis was tested.||55.09|41.86|
84540940|NCT04194645|168833091|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|122.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.04|143.56|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 19.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||143.56|105.04|
84540941|NCT04194645|168833094|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|98.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.98|105.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.09|91.98|
84540942|NCT04194645|168833094|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|129.18|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||129.18|98.75|
84593790|NCT01925768|168938182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|20.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|32.8||2 sided-p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||32.8|8.5|0.0015
84593791|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.7||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 2; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||17.7|1.6|0.0252
84593792|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.6||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|18.9||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 4; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||18.9|-1.7|0.1121
84593793|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.8||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 6; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||29.3|6.2|0.0036
84614979|NCT03058692|168979040|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84614980|NCT03058692|168979040|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
84614981|NCT03058692|168979041|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
84759686|NCT02706873|169275724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.95|-1.92|<0.001
84759687|NCT02706873|169275724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.30|-2.42|<0.001
84593794|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 8; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||24.6|0.8|0.0392
84593795|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|23.2||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 12; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||23.2|-1.3|0.0884
84593796|NCT01925768|168938183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|30.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 20; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||30.7|6.5|0.0040
84593797|NCT03502915|168938208|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.508||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|1.507|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.507|-1.402|0.943
84593798|NCT03502915|168938209|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.867||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.114|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.114|-1.229|0.597
84593799|NCT03502915|168938210|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|0.869|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.869|-0.629|0.748
84593800|NCT03502915|168938211|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.634|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.816||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.927|-0.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.341|-4.927|0.025
84614982|NCT03058692|168979041|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
84614983|NCT03058692|168979042|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
84614984|NCT03058692|168979042|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.90
84614985|NCT03058692|168979043|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.87
84614986|NCT03058692|168979043|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.57
84614987|NCT03058692|168979044|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.82
84614988|NCT03058692|168979044|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.076
84614989|NCT03058692|168979045|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
84614990|NCT03058692|168979045|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.75
84673022|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.51|0.0433
84759688|NCT02706873|169275724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.36|-2.48|<0.001
84759689|NCT02706873|169275725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
84759690|NCT02706873|169275725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
84759691|NCT02706873|169275725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
84759692|NCT02706873|169275726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||8.80|3.15|<0.001
84759693|NCT02706873|169275726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|11.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||11.19|4.66|<0.001
84759694|NCT02706873|169275726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|10.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||10.20|3.33|<0.001
84759695|NCT02706873|169275727|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|70.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.0|32.5|<0.001
84759696|NCT02706873|169275727|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|81.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.1|38.8|<0.001
84759697|NCT02706873|169275727|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|81.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.5|39.9|<0.001
84759698|NCT02706873|169275728|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|68.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.3|30.6|<0.001
84759699|NCT02706873|169275728|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|74.8|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||74.8|30.2|<0.001
84759700|NCT02706873|169275728|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|84.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||84.3|44.2|<0.001
84501814|NCT04355767|168754934|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event. The trial required a sample size of 900 patients to detect an absolute between-group difference of 10 percentage points (the minimum difference that we considered to be clinically important) with a power of 85%.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 1.9 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -6.0 to 9.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.68. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
84614991|NCT03058692|168979046|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
84759701|NCT02706873|169275729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||0.09|-3.47|0.063
84759702|NCT02706873|169275729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.45|0.022
84759703|NCT02706873|169275729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.54|0.022
84759704|NCT02706873|169275730|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|58.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.0|14.4|0.001
84759705|NCT02706873|169275730|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|59.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||59.0|10.2|0.010
84759706|NCT02706873|169275730|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|33.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|58.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.1|7.9|0.016
84759707|NCT05098041|169275731|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) of Cmax for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the natural-log (ln)-transformed Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.73|17.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||17.79|9.73|
84759708|NCT05098041|169275732|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|16.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.53|21.5|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||21.50|12.53|
84759709|NCT05098041|169275733|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.94|18.64|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||18.64|11.94|
84759710|NCT05098041|169275734|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||=|0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.202|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Rifampin) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.000|-0.202|=0.07910
84501815|NCT04355767|168754934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.4|||||Risk difference after adjustment for age, sex, symptom duration.|Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.||10.4|-5.9|
84759711|NCT05051904|169275736|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.622|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.622|0.402|<0.0001
84759712|NCT05051904|169275736|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.784||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.896|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Rivaroxaban.|||0.896|0.686|0.0004
84759713|NCT05051904|169275736|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.791|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.791|0.514|<0.0001
84759714|NCT05051904|169275737|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.851|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.851|0.714|<0.0001
84759715|NCT05051904|169275737|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio\<1 favors Rivaroxaban|||0.88|0.777|<0.0001
84759716|NCT01297270|169275755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
84759717|NCT01297270|169275755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||27.4|7.3|0.0007
84759718|NCT01297270|169275756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
84501816|NCT04355767|168754935|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 3.0 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -4.9 to 10.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.76. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
84593801|NCT03502915|168938212|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.742||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.543|1.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.655|-1.543|0.944
84593802|NCT00362882|168938223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
84593803|NCT04970069|168938307|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Linear||The numerator and denominator for the ratio of geometric means are analgesic education and general preoperative education respectively.|Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) was used for imputing missing outcomes and covariates.||1.18|0.86|0.890
84673023|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.57|0.0051
84759719|NCT01297270|169275756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||26.7|6.5|0.0014
84759720|NCT03015259|169275766|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance model was fit on the participants from the test budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.13|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Only Treatments 1 and 2 were compared for equivalence. Treatment 3 (placebo) was subtracted from both Treatments 1 and 2, as this primary endpoint was baseline adjusted.||1.130|0.958|
84759721|NCT03015259|169275767|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.14|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Treatments 1 and 2 were baseline adjusted by subtracting Treatment 3 (placebo) from each.||1.140|0.889|
84759722|NCT03015259|169275768|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison of means, no formal statistical comparison|no statistical significance applied|||
84759723|NCT00440947|169275805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 c/mL at Week 84 was -12% or greater.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (\<100000/\>=100000)||||12.5|-1.8|0.140
84759724|NCT01827670|169275831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.06|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-1.06|-1.53|<0.0001
84501817|NCT04355767|168754937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
84593804|NCT04970069|168938308|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.617
84593805|NCT04970069|168938309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.611
84593806|NCT00361972|168938342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84593807|NCT00361972|168938343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84614992|NCT03058692|168979046|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
84614993|NCT03058692|168979047|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
84614994|NCT03058692|168979047|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
84614995|NCT03058692|168979048|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.81
84614996|NCT03058692|168979048|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.47
84614997|NCT03058692|168979049|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0061
84614998|NCT03058692|168979049|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.28
84614999|NCT03058692|168979050|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.36
84759725|NCT01827670|169275832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
84501818|NCT04355767|168754938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.4|
84615000|NCT03058692|168979050|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
84501819|NCT00301873|168754957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855||0.2212||95.0||||The p-value is a test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline baseline steroid use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression.||||.2212
84593808|NCT00149799|168938356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.73||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|8.59|||Regression, Cox|p-value is based on the likelihood ratio Chi-Square statistic.||Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare relapse rates (accounting for censoring and time from randomization to relapse) in Phase II.||8.59|1.01|0.048
84593809|NCT00149799|168938358|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.07006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04163||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=556||"We compared change in depression over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depression symptom severity in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.0930
84593810|NCT00149799|168938359|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.001176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03991||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=43||"We compared change in functional impairment over time during trial phase 2 by treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in functional impairment in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.9766
84593811|NCT00149799|168938360|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.05723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1963||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=36||"We compared change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.7724
84615001|NCT03058692|168979051|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.42
84615002|NCT03058692|168979051|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
84593812|NCT00142792|168938366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Time by group interaction effect, F(2,372) = 1.8, p =0.18)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||The study was powered to detect differences in FMA scores of a minimum effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.01, the smallest effect size difference anticipated between Cyclic NMES and Cyclic Sensory Stimulation based on prior studies. A significance level of 0.01 in the power-analysis was taken since for each measurement occasion, three post-hoc tests are needed. To account for drop out of 20 % , the minimum number of participants required per group is 63.||||0.18
84759726|NCT01827670|169275833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|35.1|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||35.1|19.4|<0.0001
84593813|NCT00142792|168938366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=87.7, p\<0.001)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
84593814|NCT00142792|168938367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||time by group interaction effect, F(2,373) = 1.3, p =0.27|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||0.27
84593815|NCT00142792|168938367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=91.1, p\<0.001|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
84593816|NCT00437268|168938399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.431||||||The type 1 error rate was set at 0.20|Log Rank|||||||0.431
84593817|NCT00437268|168938400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
84593818|NCT00437268|168938401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
84593819|NCT00437268|168938402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for statistical analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.539
84593820|NCT00437268|168938403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.695
84759727|NCT01827670|169275834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7.5||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.4|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||13.4|1.6|0.0138
84593821|NCT00444925|168938420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84593822|NCT00444925|168938420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0107
84593823|NCT00444925|168938420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0172
84593824|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84759728|NCT01827670|169275835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-12.14||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-5.77|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-5.77|-18.51|0.0003
84644571|NCT01992159|169024665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.2846|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.6|0.2846
84759729|NCT01827670|169275836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.55|-14.09|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments."||-14.09|-29.55|<0.0001
84759730|NCT00689572|169275843|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|5.25|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine-free days (PCFD)||5.25|-5.43|0.972
84501820|NCT00301873|168754957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1091||0.0413||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anticonvulsant use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression||||.0413
84593825|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84593826|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.8460
84593827|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84593828|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84593829|NCT00444925|168938421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1937
84501821|NCT00301873|168754957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1029||0.0418||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline steroid use and BMD change at 12 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.0418
84615003|NCT03058692|168979052|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
84615004|NCT03058692|168979052|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
84615005|NCT03058692|168979053|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.97
84615006|NCT03058692|168979053|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
84615007|NCT03058692|168979054|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.15
84615008|NCT03058692|168979054|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.18
84615009|NCT03058692|168979055|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
84759731|NCT00689572|169275844|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.95|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine free urines (PCFU)||7.95|-7.08|0.909
84759732|NCT02813694|169275849|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Treatment difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||4.5|-4.4|
84759733|NCT02813694|169275850|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.1|-6.3|
84615010|NCT03058692|168979055|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
84759734|NCT02813694|169275850|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. Confidence interval computed using a continuity-corrected Z-test.|||3.3|-6.5|
84759735|NCT02813694|169275851|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.5|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\]; PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||0.5|-8.2|
84759736|NCT02813694|169275851|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||0.7|-8.4|
84759737|NCT02595723|169275871|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Overall group difference adjusted for prior group, time, and baseline values.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes prior group, time, and baseline values to control for possible effects.||||||0.003
84593830|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593831|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593832|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84615011|NCT03058692|168979056|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.14
84615012|NCT03058692|168979056|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
84615013|NCT03058692|168979057|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.72
84615014|NCT03058692|168979057|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
84615015|NCT03058692|168979058|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
84615016|NCT03058692|168979058|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.22
84615017|NCT03058692|168979059|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.16
84759738|NCT01902290|169275919|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.05||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.103|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.103|-0.203|0.5219
84759739|NCT01902290|169275920|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.12|0.93|0.102
84593833|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593834|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84759740|NCT01902290|169275921|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.038||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.134|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification factors, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.134|-0.210|0.6632
84593835|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84615018|NCT03058692|168979059|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
84615019|NCT03058692|168979060|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.67
84615020|NCT03058692|168979060|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
84615021|NCT03058692|168979061|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
84759741|NCT01902290|169275922|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.24|0.94|0.096
84759742|NCT01902290|169275923|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.046||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.046|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.046|-0.137|0.3290
84759743|NCT01902290|169275924|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.03||||0.4549||95.0|-0.049|0.109|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and FEV1.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.109|-0.049|0.4549
84759744|NCT01902290|169275925|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.128||||0.6317||95.0|-0.396|0.653|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline value.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.653|-0.396|0.6317
84593836|NCT00444925|168938422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0220
84593837|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0214|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference Least Squares Mean (LSMean) Difference Standard Error (SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0214
84593838|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0149|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0149
84593839|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8659|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.8659
84615022|NCT03058692|168979061|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
84615023|NCT03058692|168979062|OTHER|||||||0.0093||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0093
84593840|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593841|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0036
84593842|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1484
84615024|NCT03058692|168979062|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.51
84615025|NCT03058692|168979063|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.54
84615026|NCT03058692|168979063|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.43
84759745|NCT01902290|169275926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.277||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.936|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline stratification factors.||||1.936|0.843|0.238
84593843|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593844|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.1029|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.1029
84593845|NCT00444925|168938423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0048
84593846|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0002
84593847|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0006
84759746|NCT01902290|169275927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.351||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for stratification factors.||||2.01|0.78|0.351
84501822|NCT00301873|168754957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.1026||95.0||||the p-value is a test of whether the slope ofl the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 12 months.||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anti-convulsant use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.1026
84501823|NCT04583592|168754962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.787
84501824|NCT04523831|168754978|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||||0.96|0.30|<0.03
84501825|NCT04523831|168754979|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.32|<0.004
84501826|NCT04523831|168754980|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.23|<0.013
84501827|NCT04523831|168754981|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.81|0.44|<0.001
84759747|NCT01902290|169275928|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.001||||0.987||95.0|-0.174|0.171|||Mixed-effects model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline AQLQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.171|-0.174|0.9870
84759748|NCT01902290|169275929|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.635||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|11.089|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and AM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of morning peak flow||11.089|-9.820|0.9053
84501828|NCT02517099|168754999|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|8.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.80|1.591|0.05
84759749|NCT01902290|169275929|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.92||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|16.354|||Mixed-effects model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and PM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of evening peak flow||16.354|-4.515|0.2661
84759750|NCT01902290|169275930|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.021||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.627|0.586|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, race group, height and PEFR variation.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.586|-8.627|0.0871
84593848|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7395|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7395
84593849|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84501829|NCT05788237|168755016|OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.062||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.062|0.662|
84501830|NCT05788237|168755016|OTHER||GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.013||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.013|0.614|
84501831|NCT05788237|168755017|OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.044||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Wisconsin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.044|0.632|
84501832|NCT05788237|168755017|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.957||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||0.957|0.567|
84501833|NCT05788237|168755017|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.181||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.181|0.741|
84501834|NCT05788237|168755017|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.174||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.174|0.707|
84501835|NCT05788237|168755018|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.339||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) combination to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.339|0.820|
84501836|NCT05788237|168755018|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.352||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.352|0.833|
84501837|NCT05788237|168755019|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.614||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Sydney: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.614|0.875|
84501838|NCT05788237|168755019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.473||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.473|0.867|
84501839|NCT05788237|168755019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.383||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.383|0.849|
84501840|NCT05788237|168755019|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.392||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.392|0.866|
84501841|NCT01246973|168755026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|||||||0.6555
84501842|NCT01246973|168755027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3504
84501843|NCT03053622|168755030|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.23||||||||1.23|0.807|
84501844|NCT03053622|168755030|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.898||||||||0.898|0.591|
84501845|NCT03053622|168755030|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.343|0.518||||||||0.518|0.343|
84501846|NCT03053622|168755030|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.249|0.379||||||||0.379|0.249|
84501847|NCT03053622|168755031|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.810|
84501848|NCT03053622|168755031|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.916||||||||0.916|0.619|
84593850|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0007
84593851|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4185|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.4185
84759751|NCT00385255|169275937|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentages of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.56||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-D antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.56|-1.36|
84615027|NCT03058692|168979064|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
84615028|NCT03058692|168979064|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.014
84615029|NCT03058692|168979065|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
84615030|NCT03058692|168979065|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.96
84615031|NCT03058692|168979066|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.65
84615032|NCT03058692|168979066|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
84501849|NCT03053622|168755032|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|48.4||||||||48.40|-0.10|
84501850|NCT03053622|168755032|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|23.97|||||"In this outcome, the median difference is not calculated by subtracting two observations, it is derived by Hodges-Lehmann approach to estimating location shift. This method will give the value of 0.25."|||23.97|-0.25|
84593852|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593853|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0005
84593854|NCT00444925|168938424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3798|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.3798
84593855|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
84593856|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0002
84593857|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593858|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84615033|NCT03058692|168979067|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.35
84673024|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.48|0.0973
84759752|NCT00385255|169275937|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+ Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.74||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||-0.74|-2.96|
84501851|NCT00581386|168755036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125||||0.013||95.0|1.27|7.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression Number of obs = 217, LR chi2(2)=10.89, Prob\>chi2=0.0043,Log likelihood = -112.87788, Pseudo R2=0.0460|this is a simple odds ratio|||7.67|1.27|0.013
84593859|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593860|NCT00444925|168938425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0003
84593861|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.2730
84501852|NCT00581386|168755036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.003||95.0|1.57|9.29|||Odds ratio|||||9.29|1.57|0.003
84501853|NCT00581386|168755037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.006||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84615034|NCT03058692|168979067|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
84759753|NCT00385255|169275938|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.68||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.68|-0.77|
84615035|NCT03058692|168979068|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.86
84615036|NCT03058692|168979068|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
84615037|NCT02451917|168979090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint(A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.00045||||||The intention-to-treat population consisted of all randomized participants.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint (A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.||||0.00045
84615038|NCT02451917|168979091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.|number of total events per patient|0.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks||||0.35
84615039|NCT02451917|168979091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.|number of nocturnal events per patient|0.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - number of nocturnal hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.047
84673025|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.63|0.0036
84501854|NCT00581386|168755038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088||||0.003||95.0|1.728|14.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.99|1.728|0.003
84501855|NCT00581386|168755038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0004||95.0|2.419|21.527|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.527|2.419|0.0004
84501856|NCT02292433|168755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.841||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.93|-10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-10.98|-28.93|0.0032
84501857|NCT02292433|168755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.77|-35.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-35.35|-46.77|<0.0001
84593862|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0652|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0652
84593863|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3503|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3503
84593864|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2667|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.2667
84615040|NCT02451917|168979092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test was applied to compare percentages of the time spent in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and euglycemia on CGM readings.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||<0.05
84615041|NCT02451917|168979093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.668|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.668
84615042|NCT02451917|168979094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
84615043|NCT02451917|168979095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
84593865|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1643|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1643
84615044|NCT02451917|168979096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.994
84615045|NCT01724866|168979097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.27|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||1.27|0.19|0.296
84615046|NCT01724866|168979097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.64|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.64|-0.28|0.002
84593866|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7264|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.7264
84593867|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3269|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.3269
84593868|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.5059
84593869|NCT00444925|168938426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.699|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.6990
84593870|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
84593871|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84593872|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.382|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3820
84615047|NCT01724866|168979097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-values was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||-0.06|-0.56|<0.001
84615048|NCT01724866|168979098|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.74|0.06|0.001
84615049|NCT01724866|168979098|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.24|-0.16|<0.001
84615050|NCT01724866|168979098|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.06|-0.19|<0.001
84615051|NCT01724866|168979099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.72|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.72|-0.07|0.002
84615052|NCT01724866|168979099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.30|-0.27|<0.001
84615053|NCT01724866|168979099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.28|-0.27|<0.001
84615054|NCT01724866|168979100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.47|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||2.47|-0.01|0.781
84673026|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.52|0.0498
84759754|NCT00385255|169275939|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis toxoid (PT) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratios for anti-PT antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PT antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.82|0.67|
84501858|NCT02292433|168755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.16|-7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-7.21|-17.16|0.0006
84593873|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84615055|NCT01724866|168979100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.38|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.38|-0.17|<0.001
84593874|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84501859|NCT02292433|168755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|-20.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-20.88|-30.73|<0.0001
84501860|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7237||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.752|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.290|-2.752|0.0447
84759755|NCT00385255|169275939|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-FHA antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.79|0.64|
84759756|NCT00385255|169275939|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PRN antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.81|0.60|
84759757|NCT00385255|169275940|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.23||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.23|-3.58|
84759758|NCT00385255|169275940|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.96||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||0.96|-2.22|
84501861|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7249||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.183|-0.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.716|-3.183|0.0119
84501862|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3324||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.195|3.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||3.261|-5.195|0.6873
84501863|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9533||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.502|-0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.377|-4.502|0.0659
84615056|NCT01724866|168979100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.22|-0.23|<0.001
84501864|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5994||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.079|1.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||1.363|-4.079|0.4031
84615057|NCT01724866|168979101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|1.1|0.002
84501865|NCT02292433|168755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5951||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.479|-1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-1.052|-6.479|0.0254
84501866|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.33|0.0067
84501867|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0282
84615058|NCT01724866|168979101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.6|0.711
84501868|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.18|0.7877
84501869|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.39|-0.17|0.5064
84501870|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.75|0.4072
84501871|NCT02292433|168755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.95|0.1422
84501872|NCT02314520|168755144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||0.05 is the threshold for significance for this primary outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.271
84501873|NCT01430182|168755148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|unpaired||||||0.37
84615059|NCT01724866|168979101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||0.9|0.1|0.028
84615060|NCT01724866|168979102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.672
84615061|NCT01724866|168979102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.3|0.5|0.348
84615062|NCT01724866|168979102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.9|0.4|0.973
84615063|NCT01724866|168979103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.618
84615064|NCT01724866|168979103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.6|0.5|0.661
84615065|NCT01724866|168979103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.8|0.3|0.754
84501874|NCT00830063|168755149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.72||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean was estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.72|-1.76|<0.001
84501875|NCT00830063|168755149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.52|<0.001
84501876|NCT00830063|168755149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.20|-1.23|0.007
84501877|NCT00830063|168755149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.99|0.068
84501878|NCT00830063|168755150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.77||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.77|-1.73|<0.001
84501879|NCT00830063|168755150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.55|-1.51|<0.001
84615066|NCT01724866|168979104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.7|1.1|0.009
84615067|NCT01724866|168979104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|0.7|0.527
84615068|NCT01724866|168979104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||3.9|0.4|0.815
84593875|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3498|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3498
84593876|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84615069|NCT01724866|168979105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.008
84615070|NCT01724866|168979105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.911
84615071|NCT01724866|168979105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.002
84615072|NCT01724866|168979106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
84615073|NCT01724866|168979106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.633
84615074|NCT01724866|168979106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.027
84615075|NCT01724866|168979107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.015
84615076|NCT01724866|168979107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.571
84615077|NCT01724866|168979107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.066
84593877|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593878|NCT00444925|168938428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0542|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0542
84593879|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0004
84615078|NCT01724866|168979108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.106
84615079|NCT01724866|168979108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.156
84615080|NCT01724866|168979108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
84615081|NCT01724866|168979109|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.8||||||||0.80|0.25|
84615082|NCT01724866|168979109|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.04||||||||2.04|0.53|
84615083|NCT01724866|168979109|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.54||||||||4.54|1.40|
84615084|NCT01724866|168979110|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8||||||||0.80|0.30|
84615085|NCT01724866|168979110|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.79||||||||1.79|0.70|
84615086|NCT01724866|168979110|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.79||||||||2.79|1.07|
84615087|NCT01724866|168979111|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89||||||||0.89|0.34|
84615088|NCT01724866|168979111|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85||||||||1.85|0.71|
84615089|NCT01724866|168979111|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||||2.49|0.97|
84615090|NCT01724866|168979112|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.10|0.40|
84615091|NCT01724866|168979112|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.38||||||||2.38|0.87|
84615092|NCT01724866|168979112|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.96||||||||2.96|1.23|
84615093|NCT01724866|168979117|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|24.9|||Fisher Exact|||||24.9|-20.2|1.000
84615094|NCT01724866|168979117|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
84615095|NCT01724866|168979117|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
84615096|NCT01724866|168979119|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-6.2||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-28.5|0.469
84615097|NCT01724866|168979119|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-5.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|18.7|||Fisher Exact|||||18.7|-29.3|0.710
84615098|NCT01724866|168979119|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-11.1||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-34.6|0.199
84615099|NCT01340586|168979125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|1.006||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.006|0.616|
84501880|NCT00830063|168755150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.28|-1.24|0.002
84501881|NCT00830063|168755150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-1.01|0.030
84501882|NCT00830063|168755151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.16|-0.50|<0.001
84501883|NCT00830063|168755151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.04|-0.39|0.014
84501884|NCT00830063|168755151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.36|0.026
84501885|NCT00830063|168755151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.09|-0.25|0.349
84593880|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
84593881|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84615100|NCT01340586|168979125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.173||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.173|0.697|
84593882|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593883|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84615101|NCT01340586|168979125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.049||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.049|0.723|
84615102|NCT01340586|168979127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.553||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.553|0.907|
84615103|NCT01340586|168979127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.097|1.758||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.758|1.097|
84501886|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
84501887|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
84501888|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
84759759|NCT00385255|169275940|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.42||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.42|-2.52|
84759760|NCT00385255|169275941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H1N1 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.58||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.58|-2.84|
84501889|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
84593884|NCT00444925|168938429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
84593885|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84593886|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84593887|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5581|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5581
84593888|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593889|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593890|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.151|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1510
84593891|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593892|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
84615104|NCT01340586|168979127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.033||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.033|0.707|
84615105|NCT01340586|168979129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.543||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.543|0.880|
84615106|NCT01340586|168979129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.066|1.728||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.728|1.066|
84501890|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
84501891|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
84501892|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
84501893|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
84501894|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
84501895|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
84501896|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
84501897|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
84501898|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
84501899|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
84501900|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
84501901|NCT00830063|168755152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
84501902|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
84501903|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
84593893|NCT00444925|168938430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1391|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1391
84593894|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84615107|NCT01340586|168979129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.042||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.042|0.707|
84501904|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
84615108|NCT01980095|168979180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||One-sample Z-test, RHB-105 subjects only|||||||0.001
84615109|NCT04737278|168979182|OTHER|test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different from the baseline score in the Placebo group|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84615110|NCT04737278|168979182|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different than the baseline score||||0.01
84615111|NCT04737278|168979183|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28. Between group comparison was made using ANCOVA accounting for baseline values, no significance at p\<0.05. Within group comparisons were made using the paired Student's t test.||||0.15
84615112|NCT04737278|168979184|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84615113|NCT04737278|168979184|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made between placebo and Cunermuspir at baseline||||0.03
84615114|NCT04737278|168979184|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made at day 28||||0.01
84615115|NCT04737278|168979184|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28||||0.07
84615116|NCT04737278|168979185|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||base line between group comparisons||||0.54
84615117|NCT04737278|168979185|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
84501905|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
84501906|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.52|-1.45|<0.001
84615118|NCT04737278|168979186|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
84501907|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.10|-2.02|<0.001
84501908|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.68|0.361
84615119|NCT04737278|168979187|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||The original report from KGK Synergize/Science did not specify if the results are ANCOVA or a between group comparison at 2ay 28||||<0.01
84615120|NCT04737278|168979188|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84615121|NCT04737278|168979189|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
84615122|NCT04737278|168979190|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
84615123|NCT04737278|168979191|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84615124|NCT04737278|168979192|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84615125|NCT04737278|168979193|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84615126|NCT04737278|168979194|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84615127|NCT04737278|168979195|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
84615128|NCT04737278|168979196|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
84615129|NCT04737278|168979197|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84615130|NCT04737278|168979198|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84615131|NCT04737278|168979198|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of neutrophils from baseline to day 28||||0.05
84615132|NCT04737278|168979199|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84615133|NCT04737278|168979200|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of baseline values||||0.47
84615134|NCT04737278|168979200|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison performed on data from day 28||||0.24
84615135|NCT04737278|168979201|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of eosinophil counts at day 28||||0.11
84615136|NCT04737278|168979202|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The day 28 basophil counts on day 28 were compared between the two arms of this study.||||0.98
84615137|NCT04737278|168979203|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This p value is for the treatment source. Visits (p=0.422) and visits x treatments (p=0.153) did not meet the threshold of significance.|ANOVA|||"All other statistical analyses were performed by KGK Synergize. This site was used to determine that the NLR were normally distributed https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/normality-test-calculator.php~Because these data fulfilled the assumptions of ANOVA, the data were analyzed using this site:~http://vassarstats.net/anova2u.html"||||0.025
84615138|NCT04737278|168979204|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of blood glucose in the Cunermuspir arm between enrollment baseline and day 28.||||0.06
84615139|NCT04737278|168979204|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of enrollment baseline blood glucose and day 28 in the placebo arm||||0.04
84615140|NCT04737278|168979204|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
84615141|NCT04737278|168979205|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
84615142|NCT04737278|168979206|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
84615143|NCT04737278|168979207|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84615144|NCT04737278|168979208|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84615145|NCT04737278|168979208|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84615146|NCT04737278|168979208|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood sodium concentration between baseline and day 28 in the Placebo group.||||0.01
84615147|NCT04737278|168979209|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
84615148|NCT04737278|168979209|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentration upon enrollment and day 28 in the Cunermuspir participants||||<0.001
84593895|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593896|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593897|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593898|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84593899|NCT00444925|168938431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
84615149|NCT04737278|168979209|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentrations from enrollment to day 28 in participants in the Placebo arm.||||<0.001
84593900|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84615150|NCT04737278|168979210|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
84615151|NCT04737278|168979210|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 chloride concentrations in the Cunermuspir group||||0.003
84615152|NCT04737278|168979210|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood chloride concentrations between baseline and day 28 in Placebo Arm participants||||0.003
84593901|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84593902|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5972|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5972
84593903|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84615153|NCT04737278|168979211|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bilirubin concentrations between Placebo and Cunermuspir compared at day 28||||0.36
84615154|NCT04737278|168979211|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||comparison of bilirubin concentrations between baseline and day 28 in the Cunermuspir Arm||||0.72
84615155|NCT04737278|168979211|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bilirubin concentrations compared between baseline and Day 28 in the Placebo Arm||||0.35
84615156|NCT04737278|168979212|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84615157|NCT04737278|168979212|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values in Cunermuspir group||||0.4
84615158|NCT04737278|168979212|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values for the Placebo Arm||||0.8
84615159|NCT04737278|168979213|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of AST enzyme activity in blood on day 28 between Cunermuspir and Placebo||||0.62
84615160|NCT04737278|168979213|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison||||0.24
84615161|NCT04737278|168979213|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison of AST activity in Placebo group||||0.11
84615162|NCT04737278|168979214|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Comparison of GGT activities in blood of two arms: Cunermuspir and Placebo on Day 28|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between placebo and Cunermuspir at day 28||||0.11
84759761|NCT00385255|169275941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H3N2 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.07||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||10.07|1.10|
84759762|NCT00385255|169275941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase anti-B antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.2||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.20|-2.90|
84759763|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.142|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.142|0.087|<0.0001
84759764|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.133|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.133|0.078|<0.0001
84759765|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.085|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.085|0.030|0.0001
84759766|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.018|-0.036|0.5223
84759767|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.029|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.029|-0.084|0.0001
84759768|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.02|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.020|-0.075|0.0007
84759769|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|-0.086|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.086|-0.142|<0.0001
84615163|NCT04737278|168979214|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparison of GGT activities in participants' blood at baseline and on day 28||||0.01
84759770|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.028|-0.084|0.0001
84759771|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.019|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.019|-0.036|0.5394
84501909|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.33|-1.25|<0.001
84615164|NCT04737278|168979214|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||Comparison of GGT activity in blood between Placebo Arm participants at baseline and on day 28||||0.97
84615165|NCT04737278|168979215|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons were made using ANCOVA||||0.03
84615166|NCT04737278|168979215|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline with day 28||||0.10
84615167|NCT04737278|168979215|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 serum copper concentrations in the Placebo Arm||||0.89
84615168|NCT03671213|168979216|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
84615169|NCT01128244|168979226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.20
84501910|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.59|-1.54|<0.001
84501911|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.09|-2.04|<0.001
84501912|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.93|0.063
84501913|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.48||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.48|-1.43|<0.001
84501914|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.71||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.71|-1.70|<0.001
84501915|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.86||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.86|-1.85|<0.001
84501916|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-1.19|0.006
84501917|NCT00830063|168755153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.34|<0.001
84501918|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
84501919|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
84615170|NCT01128244|168979227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.62
84501920|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
84501921|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
84501922|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
84501923|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
84501924|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
84759772|NCT01136655|169275961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.028|-0.027|0.9863
84615171|NCT01128244|168979228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.001
84615172|NCT01128244|168979229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.45
84593904|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593905|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1267
84593906|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84615173|NCT01128244|168979230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of treatment effect.|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.||||<0.05
84615174|NCT01449006|168979244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This pilot study was conducted to generate effect sizes for a potential larger investigation. The study design and small sample size had limited power to detect a statistically significant effect at p\<0.05, so no p-value threshold was strictly set.|Mixed Models Analysis|41 data points included (control n=14; maraviroc: n=27); n=1 control did not attend 12-month visit.||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.05
84615175|NCT01449006|168979244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.71|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 6-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate.||1.71|-0.19|
84615176|NCT01449006|168979244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.55|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 12-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90%CI around the estimate.||1.55|-0.47|
84615177|NCT01449006|168979245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Change in CSF neopterin levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.82
84615178|NCT01449006|168979246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.49
84615179|NCT01449006|168979246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.94
84615180|NCT01449006|168979246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.80
84615181|NCT01449006|168979246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.72
84615182|NCT01449006|168979247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
84759773|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.155|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.155|0.056|<0.0001
84593907|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593908|NCT00444925|168938432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0289
84593909|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84615183|NCT01449006|168979247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.66
84615184|NCT01449006|168979247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.56
84615185|NCT01449006|168979247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.29
84615186|NCT01449006|168979247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
84615187|NCT03350815|168979248|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.25||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASDAS inactive disease response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||2.25|0.28|
84593910|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
84593911|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7288
84593912|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84615188|NCT03350815|168979249|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.66||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of reduction in ASDAS \>= 1.1 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||8.66|0.50|
84615189|NCT03350815|168979250|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Least Square Mean of Treatment Differenc|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.75||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of total BASDAI change from Week 16 using MMRM - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||0.75|-0.29|
84615190|NCT03350815|168979251|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.24||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI50 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.24|0.50|
84615191|NCT03350815|168979252|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.73||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI20 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||1.73|0.43|
84615192|NCT03350815|168979253|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.46||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS40 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.46|0.49|
84615193|NCT03350815|168979254|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status(naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS partial remission response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||2.41|0.44|
84615194|NCT03350815|168979255|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.01||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of change from Week 16 in ASAS-Health Index using MMRM by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||1.01|-0.74|
84615195|NCT03350815|168979256|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.61||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|-3.62|
84615196|NCT03526146|168979257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
84615197|NCT03526146|168979258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.047
84615198|NCT03526146|168979259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
84593913|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593914|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2473|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.2473
84593915|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84615199|NCT03526146|168979260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
84615200|NCT03526146|168979261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.009
84615201|NCT02123823|168979365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.97||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.65|0.57|0.9057
84593916|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593917|NCT00444925|168938433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1047|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1047
84593918|NCT00444925|168938434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0143
84593919|NCT00444925|168938434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||<0.0001
84615202|NCT02123823|168979368|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement at screening.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.32|0.20|0.5598
84615203|NCT02123823|168979369|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.03||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.8|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.80|0.59|0.9146
84615204|NCT02123823|168979370|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||1.59|0.31|0.4008
84615205|NCT03202134|168979414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84615206|NCT03202134|168979415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84615207|NCT03202134|168979416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84615208|NCT03202134|168979417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84615209|NCT03202134|168979418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84593920|NCT00444925|168938434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
84593921|NCT00444925|168938435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0773
84593922|NCT00444925|168938435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||0.0017
84593923|NCT00444925|168938435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||0.0008
84593924|NCT00444925|168938436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
84593925|NCT00444925|168938437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||||<0.0001
84593926|NCT00444925|168938437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||||<0.0001
84593927|NCT00444925|168938437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||||0.0008
84615210|NCT02467842|168979431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.10|0.94|
84615211|NCT02467842|168979431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||||||GMR of A/H3N2 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.01|0.87|
84615212|NCT02467842|168979431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.95|0.82|
84615213|NCT02467842|168979431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.97||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.97|0.83|
84615214|NCT02467842|168979432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|4.06||||||Diff. SCR of A/H1N1 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||4.06|-6.07|
84615215|NCT02467842|168979432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|0.04||||||Diff. SCR of A/H3N2 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||0.04|-10.08|
84593928|NCT00444925|168938437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||||<0.0001
84593929|NCT00444925|168938437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||||<0.0001
84593930|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
84593931|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0116
84615216|NCT02467842|168979432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.0||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-1.00|-13.12|
84615217|NCT02467842|168979432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|3.09||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||3.09|-9.26|
84615218|NCT02467842|168979436|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.70|
84615219|NCT02467842|168979436|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||GMR of B/Victoria (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.69|
84593932|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7828||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7828
84593933|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593934|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84593935|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3104||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3104
84593936|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84593937|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0004
84593938|NCT00444925|168938438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0153
84593939|NCT04566731|168938489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84593940|NCT04267926|168938490|OTHER|||||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In our work there are several hypotheses for the group comparison for the change. Therefore multiple estimate values that are not suitable for the questions above.|||0.9489
84593941|NCT02848092|168938682|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
84593942|NCT02848092|168938683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.29|<.0001
84593943|NCT02848092|168938684|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
84615220|NCT02467842|168979437|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-18.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-13.36||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-13.36|-24.61|
84615221|NCT02467842|168979437|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-12.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.45||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-6.45|-18.79|
84615222|NCT03216746|168979441|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84615223|NCT00635882|168979442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
84615224|NCT00635882|168979442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.003
84615225|NCT00635882|168979442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.018
84615226|NCT00635882|168979443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
84501925|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
84615227|NCT00635882|168979443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
84615228|NCT00635882|168979443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
84615229|NCT00635882|168979444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.024
84615230|NCT00635882|168979444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.051
84615231|NCT00635882|168979444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.336
84615232|NCT00635882|168979445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.120
84615233|NCT00635882|168979445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.103
84501926|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
84501927|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
84501928|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
84615234|NCT00635882|168979445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.048
84615235|NCT00635882|168979446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.018
84615236|NCT00635882|168979446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.261
84615237|NCT00635882|168979446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.334
84615238|NCT00635882|168979447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.037
84615239|NCT00635882|168979447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.643
84615240|NCT00635882|168979447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.963
84615241|NCT00635882|168979448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
84615242|NCT00635882|168979448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.002
84615243|NCT00635882|168979448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
84615244|NCT00635882|168979449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
84593944|NCT02848092|168938685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.31|<.0001
84593945|NCT02848092|168938686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.89||||||||.89|.41|
84593946|NCT02848092|168938687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||||||||.92|.61|
84593947|NCT00913510|168938688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||1||||||The p-value is calculated to the fourth decimal place.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0 : µt = µc versus H1 : µt ≠ µc µt = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in test group µc = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in control group.~Plan was to have 44 evaluable subjects (90% power) but power of the study was reduced by early termination. It cannot be concluded that there is no difference between the treatment groups due to insufficient power."||||1.0000
84593948|NCT02621476|168938720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84615245|NCT00635882|168979449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.057
84615246|NCT00635882|168979449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.005
84615247|NCT01320202|168979451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84615248|NCT04090242|168979466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The p value is for the comparison between interventional and control group on change of DES score between baseline and end of study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||With assumptions made in statistical analysis plan, a sample size of 43 subjects per arm had \>80% power to detect a significant difference between the two arms (based on a 2-sided t-test, 95% CI for DES difference between groups). Adding a 10% buffer, planned enrollment was 96 subjects. However, enrollment ended early with about 25 subjects in each arm (56 subjects total). Thus, power decreased to 56%. The study was not sufficiently powered under these conditions.||0.21|-0.53|0.392
84593949|NCT01484496|168938721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.25|0.0006
84593950|NCT01484496|168938722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.74|0.35|0.0004
84593951|NCT01484496|168938723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.95|0.0732
84593952|NCT04105868|168938728|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-training SSVEP competition index scores||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in SSVEP competition index from baseline to post-training.||||.004
84593953|NCT04105868|168938729|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS sadness scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Sadness scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.25
84593954|NCT04105868|168938730|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS anxiety scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Anxiety scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.471
84593955|NCT00589797|168938750|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a margin (delta) of 15%. Additional analyses using a delta of 10% as requested by FDA were also conducted.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84593956|NCT05197049|168938762|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||44.6|25.1|< 0.001
84593957|NCT05197049|168938763|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||29.6|10.2|< 0.001
84593958|NCT05197049|168938764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|48.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||48.4|25.6|< 0.001
84593959|NCT05197049|168938764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|28.0|< 0.001
84593960|NCT05197049|168938765|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|41.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||41.2|22.9|< 0.001
84593961|NCT05197049|168938766|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|29.9|< 0.001
84593962|NCT02831855|168938787|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) of Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo to Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate was concluded if the upper bound of 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for difference between the 2 arms (Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo reporting arm - Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate arm) was lower than 0.6.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48||The p-value is one-sided for the test against the NI margin of 0.6.|MMRM|||Linear mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD), and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.48|0.12|0.0005
84593963|NCT02831855|168938788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||||||Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.41|0.03|
84615249|NCT02305238|168979480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0||||||||3.0|-3.8|
84759774|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.116|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.116|0.017|0.0092
84593964|NCT02831855|168938789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.43|0.08|
84593965|NCT02831855|168938789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.45|0.11|
84593966|NCT02831855|168938790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.07||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.07|0.40|
84593967|NCT02831855|168938790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.43|0.83|
84593968|NCT02831855|168938791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.37||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.37|0.53|
84615250|NCT02305238|168979481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) adjusted difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0||||||||4.0|-5.7|
84615251|NCT02305238|168979482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.8||||||||9.8|-12.7|
84759775|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.065|-0.035|0.5509
84593969|NCT02831855|168938791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.59||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.59|0.86|
84593970|NCT02831855|168938792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|2.76||||||Week 36||2.76|-14.15|
84593971|NCT02831855|168938792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|3.94||||||Week 48||3.94|-13.04|
84593972|NCT02831855|168938793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|2.77||||||Week 36||2.77|-13.07|
84593973|NCT02831855|168938793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|-0.76||||||Week 48||-0.76|-16.28|
84593974|NCT02831855|168938794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|0.38||||||Week 36||0.38|-15.17|
84593975|NCT02831855|168938794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-4.26||||||Week 48||-4.26|-19.56|
84593976|NCT02831855|168938795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|0.77||||||Week 36||0.77|-14.81|
84593977|NCT02831855|168938795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.68|-2.37||||||Week 48||-2.37|-17.68|
84593978|NCT02831855|168938796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.27|-1.78||||||Week 36||-1.78|-15.27|
84593979|NCT02831855|168938796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.83|||Two Sided|||Week 48||5.83|-8.50|
84593980|NCT02831855|168938797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.82||||||Week 36||-0.82|-15.40|
84593981|NCT02831855|168938797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|1.32||||||Week 48||1.32|-13.74|
84593982|NCT02831855|168938798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.84||||||Week 36||2.84|-14.12|
84593983|NCT02831855|168938798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|4.36||||||Week 48||4.36|-12.62|
84593984|NCT02831855|168938799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.24||||||Week 36||-1.24|-16.44|
84593985|NCT02831855|168938799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.35||||||Week 48||5.35|-10.18|
84593986|NCT02831855|168938800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.38|-1.31||||||Week 36||-1.31|-16.38|
84593987|NCT02831855|168938800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.99|4.65||||||Week 48||4.65|-10.99|
84593988|NCT02831855|168938801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|0.14||||||Week 36||0.14|-14.06|
84593989|NCT02831855|168938801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.61||||||Week 48||0.61|-13.80|
84593990|NCT02831855|168938802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.01|-4.48||||||Week 36||-4.48|-21.01|
84593991|NCT02831855|168938802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-3.75||||||Week 48||-3.75|-20.22|
84593992|NCT02831855|168938803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|2.89||||||Week 36||2.89|-13.63|
84593993|NCT02831855|168938803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|3.36||||||Week 48||3.36|-13.32|
84593994|NCT02831855|168938804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.16|0.02|
84615252|NCT02305238|168979483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|12.7||||||||12.7|-24.3|
84615253|NCT02305238|168979484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.7||||||||12.7|-10.6|
84615254|NCT02815644|168979551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.22|64.33|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean.|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin after food intake compared to while in the fasting state was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||64.33|48.22|
84615255|NCT02815644|168979552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|74.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.27|84.64|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||84.64|66.27|
84759776|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.01|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.010|-0.088|0.1163
84501929|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
84593995|NCT02831855|168938804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.09|-0.06|
84593996|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.92||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||0.92|-1.79|
84593997|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.85||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||1.85|-0.82|
84593998|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||-0.37|-2.97|
84615256|NCT02815644|168979553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
84593999|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.66||||||Change at Week 48: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||0.66|-2.13|
84594000|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.21||||||Change at Week 36: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||1.21|-1.50|
84594001|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.93||||||Change at Week 48: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||0.93|-1.95|
84594002|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||-0.01|-2.90|
84594003|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.73||||||Change at Week 48: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||0.73|-2.23|
84594004|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.29|
84594005|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.02||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||1.02|-1.94|
84594006|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||0.43|-2.64|
84594007|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.01||||||Change at Week 48: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||1.01|-1.95|
84615257|NCT02815644|168979554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|85.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.38|88.68|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||88.68|83.38|
84615258|NCT02815644|168979555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|88.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.89|96.03|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||96.03|80.89|
84615259|NCT02815644|168979556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|86.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.61|89.13|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||89.13|83.61|
84501930|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||-1.59|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
84594008|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.22||||||Change at Week 36: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.22|-2.52|
84594009|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.91||||||Change at Week 48: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.91|-1.94|
84615260|NCT02815644|168979557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R Ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
84673027|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.39|0.5111
84673028|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.39|0.5839
84615261|NCT00588354|168979565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||3.60|-0.52|0.159
84615262|NCT00588354|168979566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.01|-1.79|0.910
84615263|NCT00588354|168979567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.96|-1.04|0.162
84501931|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
84594010|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||||||Change at Week 36: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.08|-1.30|
84594011|NCT02831855|168938805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83||||||Change at Week 48: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.83|-0.60|
84594012|NCT02831855|168938806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||0.37|-2.01|
84615264|NCT00588354|168979568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.12|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||10.12|1.22|0.022
84615265|NCT00588354|168979569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|12.29|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||12.29|-0.57|0.089
84615266|NCT00588354|168979570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|13.25|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||13.25|0.83|0.038
84759777|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.041|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.041|-0.140|0.0004
84594013|NCT02831855|168938806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.29||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD), and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||1.29|-1.11|
84594014|NCT02831855|168938806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.13|
84615267|NCT00588354|168979571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.09|-11.75|0.186
84673029|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.33|0.1905
84594015|NCT02831855|168938806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.7||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.70|-2.06|
84615268|NCT00588354|168979572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.26|-6.96|0.918
84615269|NCT04230213|168979636|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|117.17|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||117.17|89.78|
84615270|NCT04230213|168979637|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (Percentage)|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.16|124.39|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA model.|||124.39|89.16|
84759778|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0247||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.002|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.002|-0.100|0.0400
84759779|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.034|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.034|-0.133|0.0011
84594016|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.37||||||Change at Week 36: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||6.37|-3.14|
84594017|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.99||||||Change at Week 48: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||3.99|-5.01|
84594018|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|6.89||||||Change at Week 36: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||6.89|-0.51|
84594019|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.61||||||Change at Week 48: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||5.61|-2.41|
84615271|NCT00524472|168979667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||"P-values for combined sites: significant if P \< 0.0085 for efficacy. Adjusted for interim analysis.~Confidence intervals adjusted for interim analysis."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp|||0.97|0.39|0.0043
84615272|NCT00524472|168979668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||1.13|0.75|0.29
84615273|NCT00524472|168979669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.91|0.99
84615274|NCT00524472|168979670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||Regression, Cox||HN vs. Standard|||1.31|0.98|0.025
84673030|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.54|0.1767
84594020|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|8.87||||||Change at Week 36: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||8.87|-2.84|
84673031|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.47|0.5182
84673032|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3930
84759780|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.018|-0.118|0.0077
84759781|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.033|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.033|-0.067|0.4957
84759782|NCT01136655|169275962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.071|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.071|-0.027|0.3800
84759783|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.140|0.073|<0.0001
84615275|NCT00524472|168979671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||3.11|0.74|0.12
84615276|NCT00524472|168979672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. Standard|||1.07|0.72|0.085
84615277|NCT01979133|168979673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.012
84615278|NCT01979133|168979674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
84615279|NCT01979133|168979675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.017
84673033|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.50|0.5212
84759784|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.146|0.078|<0.0001
84759785|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.090|0.023|0.0011
84594021|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|6.54||||||Change at Week 48: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||6.54|-8.34|
84615280|NCT01979133|168979676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.038
84615281|NCT01979133|168979677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.034
84615282|NCT01979133|168979678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.231
84615283|NCT01979133|168979679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.066
84615284|NCT00486824|168979680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84615285|NCT02748070|168979687|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.819
84615286|NCT02748070|168979687|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.665
84615287|NCT02748070|168979687|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.071
84615288|NCT02748070|168979687|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.097
84615289|NCT02748070|168979688|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.376
84615290|NCT02748070|168979688|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.685
84615291|NCT02748070|168979688|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.388
84615292|NCT02748070|168979688|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.233
84759786|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.039|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.039|-0.028|0.7589
84501932|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
84501933|NCT00830063|168755154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
84759787|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.017|-0.084|0.0035
84501934|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.96|0.026
84501935|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
84501936|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.23|0.333
84501937|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.30|-0.59|0.527
84501938|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.57|-1.48|<0.001
84501939|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.25|-2.16|<0.001
84501940|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|-0.58|0.574
84501941|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.26|<0.001
84501942|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.67|-1.60|<0.001
84501943|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.17||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.17|-2.10|<0.001
84501944|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.01|-0.92|0.055
84594022|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.65||||||Change at Week 36: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||9.65|-3.97|
84594023|NCT02831855|168938807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|5.8||||||Change at Week 48: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||5.80|-10.72|
84594024|NCT02831855|168938808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.07|
84594025|NCT02831855|168938808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||0.01|-0.06|
84594026|NCT02831855|168938809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.0||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.00|-1.37|
84594027|NCT02831855|168938809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.44||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.44|-1.07|
84615293|NCT00534976|168979700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.65||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.020
84615294|NCT00534976|168979701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.33||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.005
84759788|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.022|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.022|-0.089|0.0011
84759789|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.081|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.081|-0.149|<0.0001
84759790|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.024|-0.092|0.0008
84501945|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
84594028|NCT02831855|168938810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|-2.42||||||Week 36||-2.42|-17.61|
84615295|NCT00534976|168979702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-120.86||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.022
84615296|NCT00534976|168979703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-122.82||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.013
84615297|NCT00534976|168979704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-8.27||||0.064||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.064
84594029|NCT02831855|168938810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|1.0||||||Week 48||1.00|-14.26|
84594030|NCT02688192|168938823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the General Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||0.39
84594031|NCT02688192|168938823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the Sleep/Rest Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.49
84615298|NCT00534976|168979705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-7.06||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus Placebo|||||0.054
84615299|NCT00534976|168979706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value provided is for comparison between the two proportions: Montelukast versus placebo.|McNemar||Montelukast minus placebo|||||1.000
84615300|NCT00534976|168979707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-3.2||||||95.0|||||||Montelukast minus placebo|||||
84615301|NCT00264537|168979717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between golimumab+MTX and placebo+MTX and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at a 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Group 1 vs combined Groups 3 and 4. The sample size of 150 patients per treatment group will provide \>98% power to detect a difference in ACR 50 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of patients with screening C-reactive protein (CRP)\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ACR 50 response of 15-20% in patients with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 20-25% in subjects with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups 1 vs 3 or 4||||0.053
84615302|NCT00264537|168979717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.042
84759791|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.031|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.031|-0.037|0.8582
84759792|NCT01136655|169275963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.025|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.025|-0.042|0.6276
84594032|NCT02688192|168938823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effect of the intervention on changes in the Cognitive Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.83
84594033|NCT02688192|168938824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Physical Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.98
84594034|NCT02688192|168938824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Psychosocial Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.85
84673034|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.50|0.4741
84673035|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.51|0.4482
84501946|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.79||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.79|-1.75|<0.001
84501947|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
84501948|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-1.15|0.006
84501949|NCT00830063|168755155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.39||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.39|-1.34|<0.001
84501950|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
84594035|NCT02688192|168938825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||||||.29
84594036|NCT02688192|168938826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in lower body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data||||.019
84594037|NCT02688192|168938826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in upper body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.34
84594038|NCT00075764|168938828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.94|0.68|0.007
84615303|NCT00264537|168979717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.177
84615304|NCT00264537|168979717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This sample size (150 patients per treatment group) will provide approximately 85% power to claim non-inferiority of golimumab alone (Group 2) compared with MTX alone (Group 1) at alpha= 0.05 using a one-sided equivalence test assuming the proportion of golimumab alone (Group 2) treated patients with ACR 50 response is not less than 10% compared with proportion of patients with ACR 50 response in MTX alone (Group 1) treated group.|Difference in ACR 50 Response Rate(%)|3.3||||0.521||95.0|-6.8||The upper bound of 95% CI was not produced because it was not relevant to the pre-specified analysis||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)|The positive difference indicates in favor of golimumab+placebo compared to placebo+MTX; The upper bound of CI is not applicable.|"Null hypothesis: Group 2 is inferior to Group 1. Noninferiority of golimumab will be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is above -10%. The 10% non-inferiority margin was chosen because this difference is not clinically admissible. Under the above noted assumed response rates, this corresponds to preservation of at least 70% \[(33% - 10%)/33%\*100\] of the expected MTX benefit."|||-6.8|0.521
84615305|NCT00264537|168979718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.011
84615306|NCT00264537|168979718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
84615307|NCT00264537|168979718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
84615308|NCT00264537|168979718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.677
84615309|NCT00264537|168979719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.178
84615310|NCT00264537|168979719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.250
84615311|NCT00264537|168979719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.240
84615312|NCT00264537|168979719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.339
84594039|NCT00075764|168938830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||Log Rank|A log-rank test, stratified according to prior or no prior tamoxifen therapy.||||1.00|0.65|0.049
84594040|NCT01773967|168938841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
84594041|NCT01773967|168938843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Van Elteren's modification Mann-Whitney|||||||0.26
84594042|NCT01135459|168938844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7649||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as main factors.||1.4|0.4|0.3989
84594043|NCT01057693|168938864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for baseline mean pain score, center and treatment in the model.||0.09|-0.74|0.1221
84594044|NCT02413996|168938894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|16.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Does VRRS rehabilitation is superior to the traditional one?||16.51|-4.62|0.05
84615313|NCT00264537|168979720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||If this test is significant, a pairwise comparison between Group 3 and Group 1, and between Group 4 and Group 1 will be performed|ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; ≥ 1.5 mg/dL)||Null Hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs Groups 3 and 4 combined. The sample size of 150 subjects in each treatment group (Group 1, Group 3, Group 4) will provide \> 95% power to detect a difference in the vdH-S score between treatment groups using a 2-sided t-test on van der Waerden normal scores of change from baseline in vdH-S score at α = 0.05, assuming a mean change from baseline in vdH-S score of 3.5 for the placebo group and 1 for Groups 3 and 4.||||0.006
84615314|NCT00264537|168979720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.015
84594045|NCT02651116|168938912|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6273|0.9947||P-Value less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05 less than (\<) p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per 24 hours for DXM HBr to placebo), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9947|0.6273|0.0449
84594046|NCT02651116|168938912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6293||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|Negative Binomial Regression|||P-value was obtained from the negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour (based on Baseline Run-in Period) as factors, with interaction term of treatment by age group, and logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||||0.6293
84594047|NCT02651116|168938913|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0912||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6446|1.0049||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.0049|0.6446|0.0552
84594048|NCT02651116|168938914|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1491||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7032|1.2971||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.2971|0.7032|0.7684
84594049|NCT02651116|168938915|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5178|0.95||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9500|0.5178|0.0220
84594050|NCT02651116|168938916|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0848||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5964|0.9316||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9316|0.5964|0.0098
84594051|NCT02651116|168938917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1324||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4831|0.0411||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), log-transformed baseline cough time and age group terms as factors.||0.0411|-0.4831|0.0977
84615315|NCT00264537|168979720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.025
84615316|NCT00264537|168979721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.003
84615317|NCT00264537|168979721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.010
84615318|NCT00264537|168979721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.014
84615319|NCT00264537|168979721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.545
84615320|NCT00806988|168979770|OTHER|An intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level was used. This analysis accommodated missing LVESVI outcomes owing to death by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order according to the time of death. In the case of data that were missing for reasons other than death, we used multiple imputation to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no significant between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.61
84615321|NCT00806988|168979771|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84615322|NCT04775953|168979778|SUPERIORITY|For participants with the same DOOR, quality-of-life (QoL) was used as a tiebreaker and was calculated as change from baseline QoL to Day 70 QoL score, as assessed by questions from the PROMIS physical function item bank (PROMIS Item Bank v2.0, short form 6b) on the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Bloodstream Infection QoL Measure. Superiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the DOOR probability is greater than 50%.|Pr(Better DOOR in dalbavancin arm)|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|55.68|||||The DOOR probability is calculated using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistic corrected for ties.|Null Hypothesis: Probability that a participant in the dalbavancin arm has a better DOOR than a participant in the standard of care arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOOR is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||55.68|39.84|
84673036|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.69|0.0963
84759793|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.7|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.700|0.393|<0.0001
84501951|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
84501952|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
84615323|NCT04775953|168979779|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -20%. Non-inferiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical efficacy is greater than -20%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0|||||Difference in proportions of clinical efficacy for dalbavancin compared to standard of care and 95% confidence interval obtained from a linear regression model.|Null Hypothesis: The proportion of clinical efficacy in the dalbavancin arm minus the proportion of clinical efficacy in the standard of care arm is -20%.||14|-12|
84615324|NCT03777059|168979788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.64||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.64|-1.78|<.0001
84615325|NCT03777059|168979788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.94|<.0001
84615326|NCT03777059|168979788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.15||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.15|-2.28|<.0001
84615327|NCT03777059|168979789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.81||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.81|-2.03|<.0001
84615328|NCT03777059|168979789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.92|-2.13|<.0001
84759794|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.347|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.347|0.194|<0.0001
84759795|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.396|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.396|0.214|<0.0001
84759796|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.659|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.659|0.371|<0.0001
84594052|NCT02651116|168938918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1224||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5287|-0.0475||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0475|-0.5287|0.0191
84594053|NCT02651116|168938918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8355||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8355
84594054|NCT02651116|168938919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1104||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5299|-0.0956||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0956|-0.5299|0.0049
84594055|NCT02651116|168938919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8413||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8413
84615329|NCT03777059|168979789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.1||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.10|-2.32|<.0001
84615330|NCT03777059|168979790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.81|<.0001
84615331|NCT03777059|168979790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.83||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.83|-1.82|<.0001
84594056|NCT02651116|168938920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1337||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4112|0.1146||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline impact on sleep by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||0.1146|-0.4112|0.2679
84615332|NCT03777059|168979790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.01|-2.00|<.0001
84615333|NCT03777059|168979791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.56||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.05|<.0001
84759797|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.755|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.755|0.409|0.0002
84594057|NCT02651116|168938920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2882
84594058|NCT02651116|168938921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1242||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5255|-0.0369||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0369|-0.5255|0.0242
84594059|NCT02651116|168938921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2892||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2892
84594060|NCT02651116|168938922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1096||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|-0.0858||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0858|-0.5170|0.0063
84615334|NCT03777059|168979791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.26||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.37|<.0001
84594061|NCT02651116|168938922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3268||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.3268
84594062|NCT02651116|168938923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1124||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4745|-0.0325||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), the baseline assessment in child global question cold assessment by participant and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0325|-0.4745|0.0247
84594063|NCT02651116|168938923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4093||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4093
84594064|NCT02651116|168938924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3081|0.5614||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.5614|-0.3081|0.5652
84594065|NCT02651116|168938924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1982||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5292|0.2556||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.2556|-0.5292|0.4914
84594066|NCT02651116|168938924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.1029
84615335|NCT03777059|168979791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.71||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|2.56|<.0001
84615336|NCT03777059|168979792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|14.36||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.36|5.45|<.0001
84759798|NCT01136655|169275964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.528|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||1.528|0.827|0.4512
84594067|NCT02651116|168938924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4736||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4736
84594068|NCT01061385|168938933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|21.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.7|-6.8|0.2922
84594069|NCT01061385|168938934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|38.0|||||The 95% CI range above is calculated for the current estimated value.|||38.0|-37.7|
84594070|NCT03800030|168938956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.305||||||0.031
84594071|NCT03800030|168938957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 0.083||||||0.935
84594072|NCT03800030|168938958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 1.833||||||0.040
84594073|NCT03800030|168938959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.174||||||0.020
84594074|NCT03800030|168938960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = -0.623||||||0.540
84594075|NCT03800030|168938961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.989||||||0.007
84594076|NCT02379052|168938962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.16|-3.22|0.0304
84594077|NCT02379052|168938963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.45||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.523|-2.387|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-2.387|-50.523|0.0312
84594078|NCT02379052|168938964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.96|-2.48|0.3830
84594079|NCT02379052|168938965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|15.467|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||15.467|-37.460|0.4147
84759799|NCT02079987|169275965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.49
84594080|NCT02379052|168938966|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
84594081|NCT02379052|168938967|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
84615337|NCT03777059|168979792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|14.46||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.46|5.71|<.0001
84615338|NCT03777059|168979792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|15.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.18|6.42|<.0001
84615339|NCT03777059|168979793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.17||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.17|-2.56|0.0856
84615340|NCT03777059|168979793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.18|-3.91|0.0003
84615341|NCT03777059|168979793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.96||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.96|-4.68|<.0001
84615342|NCT03777059|168979794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.11||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.11|-2.27|0.0743
84615343|NCT03777059|168979794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.8||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.80|-3.18|0.0011
84615344|NCT03777059|168979794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.28||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.28|-3.65|<.0001
84615345|NCT02214290|168979814|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
84615346|NCT02214290|168979815|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
84615347|NCT02214290|168979816|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
84615348|NCT00699608|168979818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.267||95.0|-2.74|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used (fixed effects: adjusted period baseline, participant baseline, age, gender, period and treatment group; random effect: participant).||||0.76|-2.74|0.267
84759800|NCT02079987|169275966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.23
84594082|NCT02379052|168938968|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.23||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.677|3.212|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||3.212|-49.677|0.0850
84615349|NCT03078556|168979857|OTHER||Ratio|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1894|1.3582|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3582|1.1894|
84615350|NCT03078556|168979857|OTHER||Ratio|1.0341|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0097|1.0591|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0591|1.0097|
84615351|NCT03078556|168979858|OTHER||Ratio|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0699|1.2468|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2468|1.0699|
84615352|NCT03078556|168979858|OTHER||Ratio|1.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0413|1.0861|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0861|1.0413|
84594083|NCT02379052|168938969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.54|0.78|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.78|-28.54|0.0635
84594084|NCT02379052|168938970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.65||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.828|1.536|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.536|-68.828|0.0608
84615353|NCT03078556|168979859|OTHER||Ratio|1.2756|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1919|1.3651|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3651|1.1919|
84759801|NCT02079987|169275967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.|difference-in-difference analysis|||||||0.25
84759802|NCT02079987|169275968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84594085|NCT02379052|168938971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-1.86|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-1.86|-40.42|0.0318
84594086|NCT02379052|168938972|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|17.8||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|43.55||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||43.55|-11.54|0.1365
84594087|NCT02379052|168938973|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|35.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|58.34||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||58.34|5.69|0.0044
84594088|NCT02379052|168938974|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-107.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.215|-73.046|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-73.046|-141.215|<0.0001
84594089|NCT02379052|168938975|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.68|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.68|-2.50|0.0006
84615354|NCT03078556|168979859|OTHER||Ratio|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0116|1.0634|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0634|1.0116|
84615355|NCT03078556|168979860|OTHER||Ratio|1.1578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0718|1.2507|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2507|1.0718|
84615356|NCT03078556|168979860|OTHER||Ratio|1.0702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0464|1.0946|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0946|1.0464|
84615357|NCT03078556|168979861|OTHER||Ratio|1.2805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.189|1.379|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3790|1.1890|
84759803|NCT02079987|169275969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84594090|NCT02379052|168938976|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.72|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.720|-0.053|0.0910
84594091|NCT04522167|168938991|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for difference in LSMeans is completely contained in the interval \]-3.5 letters; 3.5 letters\[, FBY203 and Eylea are considered equivalent.|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.4|-0.3|2.2||||||||2.2|-0.3|
84594092|NCT02489318|168939000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.600|0.391|<0.0001
84594093|NCT02489318|168939001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.793|||Log Rank|||||0.793|0.534|<0.0001
84594094|NCT02489318|168939002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.630|0.350|<.0001
84594095|NCT02489318|168939003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.076|||Log Rank|||||1.076|0.700|0.1966
84594096|NCT02489318|168939004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.094|||Log Rank|||||1.094|0.576|0.1563
84594097|NCT02489318|168939005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.194|||Log Rank|||||1.194|0.615|0.3608
84594098|NCT00090779|168939024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84594099|NCT00090779|168939025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84615358|NCT03078556|168979861|OTHER||Ratio|1.1956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1437|1.2498|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.2498|1.1437|
84615359|NCT03078556|168979862|OTHER||Ratio|1.141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0533|1.2361|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2361|1.0533|
84615360|NCT03078556|168979862|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2616|1.376|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.3760|1.2616|
84594100|NCT02655887|168939093|NON_INFERIORITY|PG of 74%, which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the weighted mean of primary patency (PP2) rate at 12 month at a combination of 55% (PTS) subjects at primary patency rate of 77.1% and 45% (NIVL) subjects at primary patency rate of 93.4%. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Weighted Z-statistics|88.3||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|82.4||||Weighted Z-statistics|||"Hypothesis: H0 :Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is at most as good as that of the PG.~Ha: Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is better than that of PG."|||82.4|0.0001
84615361|NCT03078556|168979863|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
84615362|NCT03078556|168979863|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
84615363|NCT03078556|168979864|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|-0.004|
84759804|NCT02079987|169275970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84759805|NCT02873936|169275971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||46.3|23.5|<0.001
84615364|NCT03078556|168979864|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
84759806|NCT02873936|169275971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|37.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||37.9|15.0|<0.001
84759807|NCT02873936|169275972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. Least squares (LS)-Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.45|<0.001
84615365|NCT03078556|168979865|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.248|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.248|-0.500|
84615366|NCT03078556|168979865|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.253|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.253|
84615367|NCT03078556|168979866|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.497|0.132|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.132|-0.497|
84615368|NCT03078556|168979866|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.376|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.376|
84615369|NCT03078556|168979875|OTHER||Ratio|1.2774|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1931|1.3676|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3676|1.1931|
84615370|NCT03078556|168979875|OTHER||Ratio|1.0475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0185|1.0773|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0773|1.0185|
84615371|NCT03078556|168979876|OTHER||Ratio|1.1599|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0711|1.256|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2560|1.0711|
84615372|NCT03078556|168979876|OTHER||Ratio|1.0807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0539|1.1081|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.1081|1.0539|
84615373|NCT03078556|168979877|OTHER||Ratio|0.7868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7363|0.8408|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8408|0.7363|
84615374|NCT03078556|168979877|OTHER||Ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9442|0.9904|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9904|0.9442|
84615375|NCT03078556|168979878|OTHER||Ratio|0.8658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8021|0.9347|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9347|0.8021|
84615376|NCT03078556|168979878|OTHER||Ratio|0.9403|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9207|0.9604|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9604|0.9207|
84615377|NCT03078556|168979879|OTHER||Ratio|0.7859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7318|0.844|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8440|0.7318|
84615378|NCT03078556|168979879|OTHER||Ratio|0.9704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9157|1.0284|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0284|0.9157|
84615379|NCT03078556|168979880|OTHER||Ratio|0.8571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7914|0.9282|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9282|0.7914|
84615380|NCT03078556|168979880|OTHER||Ratio|0.9153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8613|0.9728|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9728|0.8613|
84615381|NCT03078556|168979881|OTHER||Ratio|1.2632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1811|1.3511|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3511|1.1811|
84615382|NCT03078556|168979881|OTHER||Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9268|0.9941|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9941|0.9268|
84615383|NCT03078556|168979882|OTHER||Ratio|1.1425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0597|1.2317|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2317|1.0597|
84615384|NCT03078556|168979882|OTHER||Ratio|0.9548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|0.9804|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9804|0.9299|
84615385|NCT03078556|168979883|OTHER||Ratio|1.1839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0921|1.2834|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2834|1.0921|
84615386|NCT03078556|168979883|OTHER||Ratio|0.8874|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.9443|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9443|0.8340|
84615387|NCT03078556|168979884|OTHER||Ratio|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9958|1.167|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.1670|0.9958|
84615388|NCT03078556|168979884|OTHER||Ratio|0.9049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8474|0.9663|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9663|0.8474|
84615389|NCT03078556|168979885|OTHER||Ratio|1.1545|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0208|1.3058|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3058|1.0208|
84615390|NCT03078556|168979885|OTHER||Ratio|0.9577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9126|1.0049|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0049|0.9126|
84615391|NCT03078556|168979886|OTHER||Ratio|1.3256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1837|1.4845|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4845|1.1837|
84615392|NCT03078556|168979886|OTHER||Ratio|0.9114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8658|0.9593|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9593|0.8658|
84615393|NCT03078556|168979887|OTHER||Ratio|1.1481|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0154|1.2982|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2982|1.0154|
84615394|NCT03078556|168979887|OTHER||Ratio|0.9524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|0.9983|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9983|0.9086|
84615395|NCT03078556|168979888|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.175|1.4775|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4775|1.1750|
84615396|NCT03078556|168979888|OTHER||Ratio|0.9048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8592|0.9528|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9528|0.8592|
84615397|NCT03078556|168979889|OTHER||Ratio|1.0808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.2261|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2261|0.9527|
84615398|NCT03078556|168979889|OTHER||Ratio|0.7097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6474|0.7779|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7779|0.6474|
84615399|NCT03078556|168979890|OTHER||Ratio|1.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0521|1.3908|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3908|1.0521|
84615400|NCT03078556|168979890|OTHER||Ratio|0.6826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5861|0.795|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7950|0.5861|
84615401|NCT03078556|168979891|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.378|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.378|0.250|
84615402|NCT03078556|168979891|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.127|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.127|0.000|
84594101|NCT02655887|168939094|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint was evaluated against the PG of 89% which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the literature-derived average freedom from MAE rate at 30 day of 99%. A one-side p-value is derived based on an exact binomial test. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Exact binomial test|93.5||||0.0322|ONE_SIDED|90.0|89.5||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypothesis: H0: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day at most as large as that of the PG.~Ha: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day is better than that of the PG."|||89.5|0.0322
84594102|NCT02655887|168939095|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||this p value is \< 0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|||"H0: The distribution at the 12-month follow-up remains unimproved compared to baseline.~Ha: The distribution shifts toward lower (less pain) classes."||||0.001
84594103|NCT02655887|168939096|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p value is \< 0.001|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84594104|NCT02148263|168939117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84615403|NCT03078556|168979892|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.250|0.000|
84615404|NCT03078556|168979892|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.125|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.125|0.000|
84615405|NCT03078556|168979893|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.872|4.496|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||4.496|1.872|
84615406|NCT03078556|168979893|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.751|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.751|1.500|
84615407|NCT03078556|168979894|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.748|3.751|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||3.751|1.748|
84501953|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
84594105|NCT02148263|168939118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84594106|NCT02148263|168939119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.94
84594107|NCT02148263|168939120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
84594108|NCT02148263|168939121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
84594109|NCT02148263|168939122|SUPERIORITY|This is for the upper eyelid evaluation.||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.27
84615408|NCT03078556|168979894|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.252|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.252|0.998|
84615409|NCT03078556|168979903|OTHER||Ratio|1.0849|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9613|1.2245|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2245|0.9613|
84615410|NCT03078556|168979903|OTHER||Ratio|0.9363|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8913|0.9836|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9836|0.8913|
84594110|NCT02148263|168939122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is for the lower eyelid evaluation.||||.58
84594111|NCT02148263|168939123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extent||||.50
84594112|NCT02148263|168939123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||Type||||.76
84615411|NCT03078556|168979904|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1013|1.4136|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4136|1.1013|
84594113|NCT02148263|168939123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Depth||||.50
84594114|NCT02148263|168939124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84594115|NCT02148263|168939125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84594116|NCT00003869|168939127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
84594117|NCT00003869|168939128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84594118|NCT00003869|168939129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
84594119|NCT00003869|168939130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84594120|NCT00003869|168939131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84594121|NCT01964378|168939133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming equal mean values in both the cebranopadol and morphine groups, it was calculated that for the final analysis of the primary endpoint 170 subjects would have been required per treatment arm in the Per Protocol Set using a 2 sample-t-test for 90% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-2.918|||MMRM|||The MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement) model includes fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, history of opioid intake, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable being the weekly average rescue medication intake.||-2.918|-12.05|< 0.0001
84615412|NCT03078556|168979904|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|0.935|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9350|0.8351|
84615413|NCT03078556|168979905|OTHER||Ratio|0.8661|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7658|0.9796|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9796|0.7658|
84615414|NCT03078556|168979905|OTHER||Ratio|1.0442|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9951|1.0957|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0957|0.9951|
84615415|NCT03078556|168979906|OTHER||Ratio|0.7544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6736|0.8448|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8448|0.6736|
84615416|NCT03078556|168979906|OTHER||Ratio|1.0972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0424|1.155|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.1550|1.0424|
84615417|NCT03078556|168979909|OTHER||Ratio|0.8654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7629|0.9816|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9816|0.7629|
84615418|NCT03078556|168979909|OTHER||Ratio|1.0841|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9139|1.286|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2860|0.9139|
84615419|NCT03078556|168979910|OTHER||Ratio|0.7657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6702|0.8749|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8749|0.6702|
84615420|NCT03078556|168979910|OTHER||Ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0869|1.3182|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3182|1.0869|
84615421|NCT03078556|168979911|OTHER||Ratio|1.2929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1281|1.4819|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4819|1.1281|
84615422|NCT03078556|168979911|OTHER||Ratio|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1074|1.3036|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3036|1.1074|
84673037|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.18|-0.86|0.0030
84501954|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.001
84501955|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.41||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.41|-0.72|<0.001
84501956|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.01|-0.32|0.041
84501957|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.38|0.006
84501958|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
84501959|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.29||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.29|-0.62|<0.001
84501960|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.011
84501961|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
84501962|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.26||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.26|-0.60|<0.001
84501963|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.14|-0.48|<0.001
84501964|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.09|-0.42|0.003
84501965|NCT00830063|168755156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.30|0.105
84501966|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
84501967|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
84501968|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
84615423|NCT03078556|168979912|OTHER||Ratio|1.469|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3009|1.6588|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.6588|1.3009|
84759808|NCT02873936|169275972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
84759809|NCT02873936|169275973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|35.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||35.8|14.7|<0.001
84759810|NCT02873936|169275973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|32.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.0|11.4|<0.001
84594122|NCT01964378|168939134|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming that 65% of the participants are available for the Per Protocol Set, a total of 524 participant would have to be allocated (randomized) to IMP. With 262 participants per group in the Full Analysis Set, the non-inferiority of cebranopadol as compared to morphine sulfate prolonged release could have been demonstrated with at least 98% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.245|-0.099||MMRM model: fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, opioid intake history, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable: weekly average rescue medication intake.|MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|For participants with no data in the Maintenance Phase, the average amount of rescue medication over the last 3 days of titration was imputed.|Non-inferiority of cebranopadol compared with morphine will be established if the upper bound of the resulting 95% confidence interval for the average treatment difference is below the non-inferiority margin of 8mg.|The primary endpoint will be analyzed by means of a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), based on observed case weekly averages. Under the assumption of a missing-at-random missing data mechanism, an MMRM does not require an imputation of missing data and can obtain an improved estimate of variance.||-0.099|-9.245|< 0.0001
84594123|NCT02012218|168939173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were calculated according to testing a null hypothesis of zero mean change.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was conducted using a mixed model repeated measures analysis on observed case data.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested for each treatment group at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||<0.0001
84594124|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.43|||||6 months visit|||0.43|-0.57|
84594125|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.71|||||12 months visit|||0.71|-0.31|
84594126|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.68|||||18 months visit|||0.68|-0.33|
84594127|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.26|||||6 months visit|||0.26|-0.71|
84594128|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.72|||||12 months visit|||0.72|-0.26|
84594129|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.21|
84615424|NCT03078556|168979912|OTHER||Ratio|1.1935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1142|1.2785|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2785|1.1142|
84615425|NCT03329092|168979986|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.4|||||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.4|-6.6|
84615426|NCT03329092|168979987|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.2|||||The CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||13.2|-7.0|
84615427|NCT03329092|168979988|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|12.1|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.1|-10.2|
84594130|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.29|||||6 months visit|||0.29|-0.66|
84594131|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.75|||||12 months visit|||0.75|-0.19|
84594132|NCT01342926|168939189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.86|||||18 months visit|||0.86|-0.08|
84594133|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.61|||||6 months visit|||0.61|-0.34|
84594134|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.89|||||12 months visit|||0.89|-0.07|
84594135|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.89|||||18 months visit|||0.89|-0.06|
84594136|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.37|||||6 months visit|||0.37|-0.55|
84594137|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8|||||12 months visit|||0.80|-0.13|
84615428|NCT03329092|168979989|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.7|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.7|-8.4|
84615429|NCT03329092|168979990|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|13.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.0|-7.4|
84615430|NCT03329092|168979990|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.1|||Difference||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.1|-15.5|
84594138|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.63|||||18 months visit|||0.63|-0.30|
84759811|NCT02873936|169275974|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.1|2.5|<0.001
84594139|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.57|||||6 months visit|||0.57|-0.31|
84594140|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.99|||||12 months visit|||0.99|0.10|
84594141|NCT01342926|168939197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.36|||||18 months visit|||1.36|0.47|
84594142|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.55|||||6 months visit|||0.55|-0.34|
84615431|NCT03329092|168979991|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.6|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||16.6|-4.0|
84594143|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.9|||||12 months visit|||0.90|0.00|
84594144|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.12|
84594145|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.51|
84594146|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.66|||||12 months visit|||0.66|-0.21|
84594147|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.55|||||18 months visit|||0.55|-0.32|
84594148|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.48|
84594149|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.62|||||12 months visit|||0.62|-0.22|
84594150|NCT01342926|168939198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92|||||18 months visit|||0.92|0.08|
84594151|NCT03390504|168939211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.48|=0.0031
84615432|NCT03329092|168979991|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|17.3|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||17.3|-31.9|
84594152|NCT03390504|168939211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.48|0.92|=0.2121
84594153|NCT04570384|168939233|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.45|0.782
84594154|NCT04570384|168939233|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.46|0.668
84594155|NCT04570384|168939234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22|||Log Rank|||||4.22|0.59|0.360
84594156|NCT04570384|168939235|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.13|0.285
84594157|NCT04570384|168939235|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.15|0.471
84594158|NCT04570384|168939241|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.20|0.30|0.668
84594159|NCT04570384|168939241|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||1.90|0.23|0.437
84594160|NCT04570384|168939242|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.06|0.232
84594161|NCT04570384|168939243|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.31|0.729
84594162|NCT04570384|168939244|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.22||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.44|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||3.44|0.43|0.706
84594163|NCT04570384|168939244|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.56|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.56|0.49|0.788
84594164|NCT04570384|168939245|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.25|||Negative binomial analysis|||||2.25|0.52|0.834
84594165|NCT00707993|168939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||ANCOVA|Treatment, randomization schedule, and geographic region as class effects; baseline value for the endpoint as a continuous covariate.||Primary null hypothesis: the average Week 52 HbA1c change from Baseline for alogliptin is inferior to that for glipizide (1-sided 97.5% CI \[alpha=0.025\] compared to non-inferiority margin of 0.4%). If the primary null hypothesis was rejected (non-inferiority demonstrated), an additional comparison for statistical superiority of alogliptin was performed. The CI was re-evaluated; statistical superiority declared if the upper limit was \< 0%.||0.13||
84594166|NCT01102491|168939316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84594167|NCT00326001|168939345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84594168|NCT00326001|168939346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.042
84594169|NCT00326001|168939347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
84594170|NCT00326001|168939348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84594171|NCT03265145|168939349|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||1.72|0.87|
84594172|NCT03265145|168939350|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.04|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.04|0.97|
84594173|NCT03265145|168939351|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.0|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||2.00|0.62|
84594174|NCT03265145|168939352|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.01|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.01|0.58|
84594175|NCT03265145|168939353|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Ratio (RR) (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||1.64|0.89|
84615433|NCT03329092|168980018|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.5|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.5|-6.2|
84615434|NCT03329092|168980019|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.4|-10.7|
84759812|NCT02873936|169275974|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.6|<0.001
84759813|NCT02873936|169275975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|28.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||28.3|8.6|<0.001
84759814|NCT02873936|169275975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||23.4|4.6|0.003
84759815|NCT02873936|169275976|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.3|2.6|<0.001
84594176|NCT03265145|168939353|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.094|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Difference (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||0.094|-0.022|
84615435|NCT03329092|168980020|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.9|-8.3|
84615436|NCT03329092|168980021|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.0|-8.5|
84615437|NCT03329092|168980022|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||11.9|-6.9|
84615438|NCT03329092|168980022|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|23.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.4|-15.2|
84594177|NCT04409834|168939361|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.95||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.55|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.55|1.08|0.028
84594178|NCT04409834|168939362|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.79||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.47|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.47|0.92|0.087
84594179|NCT04409834|168939363|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||2.01|0.54|0.90
84594180|NCT04409834|168939364|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|0.79||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.65|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||1.65|0.38|0.53
84615439|NCT03329092|168980023|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|13.2|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.2|-5.2|
84615440|NCT03329092|168980023|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|14.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||14.9|-32.6|
84615441|NCT02588261|168980071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.611||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.391|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.391|1.086|0.992
84501969|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
84594181|NCT02137070|168939365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Voxel-size (p-FWE \< 0.01) and voxel-peak (p-unc \< 0.001) were corrected for multiple comparisons.|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN - Group (Bariatric surgery vs. control) \& time (pre-surgery baseline vs. 18-month follow-up)||Analysis of variance comparing change scores from 18 months post-surgery relative to pre-surgical baseline were performed. Change in the surgical group was compared to change for the non-surgical controls. The dependent measures were connectivity strengths seeding from the hippocampus and left dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex to other cortical areas.||||<0.01
84594182|NCT03941483|168939380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.927|||Chi-squared|||||1.927|0.715|0.595
84594183|NCT03941483|168939381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.297||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|2.026|||Chi-squared|||||2.026|0.831|0.335
84594184|NCT03941483|168939382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.025||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.179|||Chi-squared|||||1.179|0.891|0.773
84594185|NCT03941483|168939383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.038||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.152|||Chi-squared|||||1.152|0.935|0.563
84594186|NCT03941483|168939384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.567|2.429|||Chi-squared|||||2.429|0.567|0.717
84594187|NCT03941483|168939385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.614||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.300|0.789|0.266
84594188|NCT02292537|168939430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and age at Screening and baseline HFMSE score as covariates.||||6.7|3.1|0.0000001
84594189|NCT02292537|168939431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|14.91||Based on multiple imputation and logistic regression with treatment effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and HFMSE score at baseline.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.91|2.09|0.0006
84594190|NCT02292537|168939431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|48.31|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure are from multiple imputation procedure and are based on binomial proportions.|||48.31|12.74|
84594191|NCT02292537|168939432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|13.8||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|34.17|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||34.17|-6.64|0.0811
84594192|NCT02292537|168939433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and number of milestones at baseline.|||0.7|0.2|
84594193|NCT02292537|168939434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Differenec|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.0|||||From multiple imputation procedure, based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and derived total score at baseline.|||5.0|2.3|
84594194|NCT02292537|168939435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|19.34|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||19.34|-21.84|
84594195|NCT02292537|168939436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|22.1|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||22.10|-19.10|
84594196|NCT01444430|168939472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio will be used to assess statistical non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin=2).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||||1.650|0.698|
84594197|NCT01444430|168939473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.937|||Regression, Cox|||||0.937|0.745|0.002
84594198|NCT01444430|168939474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.4|3.3|<0.001
84594199|NCT01444430|168939475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.5|0.272
84594200|NCT01444430|168939476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.2|<0.001
84594201|NCT01444430|168939477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
84594202|NCT01444430|168939478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
84594203|NCT01444430|168939479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.055|||Regression, Cox|||||1.055|0.518|0.095
84594204|NCT03137771|168939514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = systemic therapy. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by histology (non-squamous vs squamous) and systemic therapy (immunotherapy-based regimens vs chemotherapy- only regimens).|Based on expected 6- and 12-month PFS rates of approximately 60% and 39% for the standard arm, assuming approximately exponential distributions, at least 138 PFS events are needed to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 (a hazard reduction of 40%) with 95% power and a one-sided significance level of 0.15. The Cox proportional hazards model is stratified by histology and systemic therapy type. The hazard ratio estimate must be ≤ 0.83 for the study to proceed to the phase III component.||1.40|0.68|0.66
84594205|NCT04988295|168939545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.35|<0.0001
84594206|NCT04988295|168939545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.36|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.36|<0.0001
84594207|NCT01139411|168939564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis was that the amount of weight lost by adolescents in Enhanced Parent Involvement and Minimal Parent involvement would not be significantly different. The study was powered at .8 to achieve a medium effect size (f = .26; partial eta sq. = 0.06).~The end-of-treatment BMI value was the dependent variable, with the baseline BMI value entered as a covariate."||||0.06
84594208|NCT01139411|168939565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||The end-of-treatment value was the dependent variable, with the baseline value entered as a covariate.||||0.58
84594209|NCT01139411|168939566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
84594210|NCT01139411|168939567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
84594211|NCT01139411|168939568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
84594212|NCT01139411|168939569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84594213|NCT01139411|168939570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.61
84615442|NCT02588261|168980073|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||1.000
84615443|NCT02588261|168980074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.674||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.406|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.406|1.165|0.998
84759816|NCT02873936|169275976|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.5|0.9|0.007
84759817|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||23.7|6.4|<0.001
84594214|NCT00348946|168939653|SUPERIORITY|BOT Visual-motor control||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84594215|NCT00348946|168939653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT upper limb speed||||0.17
84594216|NCT00348946|168939653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT strength||||0.17
84594217|NCT00348946|168939653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Hand dynamometer||||0.06
84594218|NCT00348946|168939653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||PANESS||||0.87
84594219|NCT00348946|168939654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: General concept ability||||0.44
84594220|NCT00348946|168939654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Verbal Cluster||||0.57
84594221|NCT00348946|168939654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Nonverbal Cluster||||0.55
84594222|NCT00348946|168939654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Spatial Cluster||||0.65
84594223|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Digit Span backward||||0.23
84594224|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Phonetic fluency||||0.36
84594225|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Semantic fluency||||0.37
84594226|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: omissions||||0.41
84594227|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: commissions||||0.73
84594228|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: hit reaction time||||0.40
84615444|NCT02588261|168980075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.839
84644572|NCT01992159|169024665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3||||0.0151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.3|0.0151
84594229|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: variability||||0.95
84594230|NCT00348946|168939655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: preservations||||0.78
84594231|NCT00348946|168939656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Behavior total||||0.16
84594232|NCT00348946|168939656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Internalizing total||||0.10
84594233|NCT00348946|168939656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: externalizing total||||0.24
84594234|NCT00348946|168939656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||CDI: Total||||0.50
84594235|NCT00348946|168939657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
84594236|NCT02763059|168939660|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.027||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups.||||0.027
84594237|NCT02763059|168939660|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis|||||<|0.0001||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups on the pain/discomfort outcome.||||<0.0001
84594238|NCT03901963|168939680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|8.57||Tested at 2-sided 0.05 significance level through stratified CMH method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator'|stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)||Odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator's assessment (high risk versus standard/unknown risk) as used for randomization of the study.|||8.57|2.37|<0.0001
84594239|NCT02933879|168939691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4615
84594240|NCT02933879|168939693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0404
84594241|NCT02933879|168939693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2106|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2106
84594242|NCT02933879|168939695|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
84594243|NCT02933879|168939697|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
84594244|NCT02933879|168939700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2467
84594245|NCT01816776|168939703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.0||1-sided. p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||54|25|<0.0001
84594246|NCT01816776|168939705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.6||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.6|-29.0|<0.0001
84594247|NCT01816776|168939706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-18.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-18.7|-31.2|<0.0001
84759818|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||22.6|5.7|<0.001
84594248|NCT01816776|168939707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-8.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-8.7|-21.6|<0.0001
84594249|NCT01816776|168939708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.1||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||5.1|-0.4|0.0244
84594250|NCT01816776|168939709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|68.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||68|40|<0.0001
84594251|NCT01816776|168939710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.5||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.5|-28.9|<0.0001
84594252|NCT01816776|168939711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-2.0|-5.5|<0.0001
84501970|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.32|-0.64|<0.001
84594253|NCT05226598|168939712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.50|0.87|0.8335
84594254|NCT05226598|168939713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.23|0.82|0.5104
84594255|NCT01672879|168939734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.5|-1.2|
84759819|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|38.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||38.5|17.5|<0.001
84594256|NCT01672879|168939734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.4|-1.2|
84594257|NCT01672879|168939735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.41
84594258|NCT01672879|168939735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.065
84594259|NCT03748641|168939741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.956|||Log Rank|||||0.956|0.556|0.0217
84594260|NCT03748641|168939742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.789|||Log Rank|||||0.789|0.361|0.0014
84594261|NCT03810014|168939754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.2|4.8|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||4.80|0.20|0.01
84594262|NCT03810014|168939754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.002|1.049|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||1.049|1.002|0.012
84594263|NCT03810014|168939754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.2|0.9|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||0.90|-2.20|0.33
84594264|NCT03810014|168939754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.994||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.979|1.009|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||1.009|0.979|0.332
84594265|NCT01107964|168939778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84594266|NCT01107964|168939779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84594267|NCT01107964|168939780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84594268|NCT01107964|168939781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84594269|NCT00503425|168939785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84594270|NCT00503425|168939785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84594271|NCT00503425|168939785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84594272|NCT00503425|168939785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84594273|NCT03328832|168939789|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||0.276|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
84594274|NCT03328832|168939790|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84594275|NCT03328832|168939791|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84594276|NCT00873821|168939794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.33|55.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference (placebo minus MK-0941) in change from baseline to Day 13||55.32|26.33|<0.001
84594277|NCT02881775|168939824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||The threshold for significance was P \<.05|ANOVA|"Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors.~Degrees of freedom (DF) = 34.1"||Comparison of CAR BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9994
84594278|NCT02881775|168939825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9768||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of MVIC BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9768
84594279|NCT02881775|168939826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 43.1||Comparison of NPRS BL Change (treatment by time)||||0.4440
84594280|NCT02881775|168939827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6608||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||PPT BL Change (treatment by time)||||.6608
84594281|NCT02881775|168939828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of TUG BL Change (treatment by time)||||.7706
84594282|NCT02881775|168939829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3665||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of AMT-MEP BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3665
84759820|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|27.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||27.2|7.1|<0.001
84594283|NCT02881775|168939830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of SICI BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3889
84594284|NCT02881775|168939831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of ICF BL Change (treatment by time)||||.2192
84594285|NCT03382912|168939914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)), smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||5.9|0.3|
84594286|NCT03382912|168939915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.951|||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)) and smoking status (IWRS).|||1.951|0.519|
84594287|NCT03382912|168939916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.532|||||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS).|4.532|0.772|
84594288|NCT03382912|168939917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||4.1|0.4|
84594289|NCT03533660|168939921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES subscales recognition, ambivalence, taking steps at 6 weeks|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84594290|NCT03533660|168939921|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES total scores and subscales (recognition, ambivalence, and taking steps) at intake and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84594291|NCT03533660|168939922|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to alcohol self-efficacy scale total score and subscales scores at intake, 6 weeks and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84594292|NCT02975804|168939930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84594293|NCT02975804|168939931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84594294|NCT02975804|168939932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
84594295|NCT02975804|168939933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84594296|NCT02975804|168939934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84594297|NCT02975804|168939935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84594298|NCT02975804|168939939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84594299|NCT02975804|168939940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84594300|NCT03783962|168939953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
84594301|NCT03783962|168939954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.97
84594302|NCT03783962|168939955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
84594303|NCT03783962|168939955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594304|NCT03783962|168939955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594305|NCT03783962|168939956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.18
84594306|NCT03783962|168939956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
84594307|NCT03783962|168939956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
84594308|NCT03783962|168939957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
84594309|NCT03783962|168939957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594310|NCT03783962|168939957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594311|NCT03783962|168939958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
84594312|NCT03783962|168939958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594313|NCT03783962|168939958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594314|NCT03783962|168939959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
84594315|NCT03783962|168939959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
84594316|NCT03783962|168939959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
84615445|NCT02588261|168980076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.298||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.548|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.548|0.661|0.780
84615446|NCT01915173|168980083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Standard Interview groups to the Expanded Interview groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.01
84594317|NCT03783962|168939960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.03
84594318|NCT03783962|168939960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
84594319|NCT03783962|168939960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84594320|NCT03783962|168939961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
84594321|NCT03783962|168939961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84594322|NCT03783962|168939961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
84594323|NCT03783962|168939962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
84594324|NCT03783962|168939963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84594325|NCT01169337|168940026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|stratified 1-sided log-rank test||||||0.0005
84594326|NCT02661997|168940074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Between group differences|ANOVA|||||||0.58
84594327|NCT02661997|168940075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
84594328|NCT02661997|168940076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
84594329|NCT02661997|168940077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This is an analysis of pre to post-treatment changes on the Physical Health subscale of the PROMIS Global Health Scale||||0.88
84594330|NCT02661997|168940078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.032
84594331|NCT02661997|168940079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.44
84594332|NCT02661997|168940080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.73
84594333|NCT02661997|168940081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
84594334|NCT02661997|168940082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
84594335|NCT02661997|168940083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
84594336|NCT02661997|168940084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.55
84594337|NCT02661997|168940085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
84594338|NCT02661997|168940086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84594339|NCT02661997|168940087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84594340|NCT02661997|168940088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84594341|NCT02661997|168940089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84594342|NCT02661997|168940092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84594343|NCT02661997|168940093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84594344|NCT02661997|168940094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
84594345|NCT02661997|168940095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84594346|NCT02661997|168940096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
84594347|NCT02661997|168940097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
84594348|NCT02661997|168940098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
84594349|NCT02661997|168940099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||An adjusted p value was used based on Levene's test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84594350|NCT02661997|168940100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
84594351|NCT02661997|168940101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
84594352|NCT02661997|168940102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84594353|NCT02661997|168940103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84594354|NCT02661997|168940104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84594355|NCT02661997|168940105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
84594356|NCT02661997|168940106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84594357|NCT02661997|168940107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84594358|NCT02661997|168940108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
84594359|NCT02661997|168940109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
84594360|NCT05507567|168940116|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared|||A priori primary analysis group||||0.0331
84594361|NCT05507567|168940117|OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1427
84594362|NCT05507567|168940118|OTHER|||||||0.1307||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1307
84501971|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
84594363|NCT05507567|168940119|OTHER|||||||0.0382||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0382
84594364|NCT05507567|168940120|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0110
84594365|NCT01803880|168940137|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority Margin = 10 points. Non-inferiority of study device was concluded if lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference \<10.~Superiority of study device was established if LS means of treatment difference and lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference ≤0."|One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137|>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-19.29|||All unscheduled visits were to be included and nominal visits were to be applied using analysis visit windows. Both the assigned analysis visits and the site reported nominal visits were provided in the subject data listings.|ANCOVA|Due to early termination, all inferential analysis was interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in the devices for change from Baseline in the KOOS at Week 52. KOOS was derived as the average of five subscale scores. LOCF imputation was considered for missing value. One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (Study-Control) was to be used for determining non-inferiority/superiority of the study device.|||-19.29|>0.05
84594366|NCT03703232|168940151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.092
84594367|NCT03703232|168940152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.760
84594368|NCT03703232|168940153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.007
84594369|NCT03703232|168940154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
84594370|NCT03703232|168940155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.861
84594371|NCT03703232|168940157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.405
84594372|NCT03703232|168940158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.798
84615447|NCT01915173|168980083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Placebo groups to the Supplement groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.33
84615448|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.86||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs Arm B shift test on Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 2. Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value.||||0.86
84615449|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.76||||||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.76
84615450|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.14||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie--2 Prior to cycle 2||||0.14
84594373|NCT03703232|168940159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.382
84594374|NCT03703232|168940160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.179
84594375|NCT03703232|168940161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.984
84594376|NCT03579693|168940225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.31|-0.43|0.33
84594377|NCT03579693|168940225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.82|-0.90|0.93
84594378|NCT03579693|168940226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.00|-3.47|0.050
84594379|NCT03579693|168940226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.05|-2.28|0.47
84594380|NCT01144416|168940246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in percentage vital pregnancy|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in percentage vital pregnancy was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.4|-7.4|
84594381|NCT01144416|168940247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -3 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANOVA|The estimated difference in number of oocytes retrieved was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs) and center.||||1.2|-0.2|
84594382|NCT01144416|168940248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in Live Birth Rates|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.9|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in live birth rate was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.9|-6.5|
84594383|NCT01144416|168940249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
84594384|NCT01144416|168940250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84594385|NCT00778336|168940274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
84594386|NCT00778336|168940274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
84594387|NCT00778336|168940274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
84594388|NCT00778336|168940274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
84594389|NCT04417257|168940277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.0||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants with health status data missing on Day 29 were treated as non-responders, where a non-responder was defined as not reaching a health status of 1-4.||9|-15|0.7377
84594390|NCT04417257|168940277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.8||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants from Per-Protocol population and with available Day 29 health status data||2.8|-10.0|1.000
84594391|NCT04417257|168940277|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.359|0.907||À priori threshold for statistical significance is set at 0.1|Regression, Logistic|"This P-value is for the baseline factor Health Status at baseline. Other baseline factors not significant."||Multivariable logistic regression was constructed for the proportion of participants alive and free of respiratory failure on Day 29 as the outcome variable by screening baseline covariates using stepwise technique with an alpha of 0.1 as the entry and stay criterion, and treatment group was forced to remain in the model. Health status at baseline was used as a continuous variable||0.907|0.359|0.0177
84594392|NCT04417257|168940277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.2||One-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 grouped together with imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||18.2|-10.2|0.3537
84594393|NCT04417257|168940277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|5.4||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 5 and imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||5.4|-36.6|0.9590
84594394|NCT04417257|168940277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.1||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 and available Day 29 health status data (no imputation)||17.1|0.4|0.0553
84594395|NCT04417257|168940278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.9||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|ITT population with Day 60 health status/survival data||13.9|-6.9|0.6600
84594396|NCT04417257|168940278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.6||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|Per-Protocol population with Day 60 health status/survival data||12.6|-10.6|1.000
84594397|NCT04417257|168940281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5459||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 14. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value of Score test = 0.0180) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.5459
84594398|NCT04417257|168940281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 29. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value \<.0001) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.6229
84594399|NCT04417257|168940282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8222||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.8222
84594400|NCT04417257|168940282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.0536
84615451|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
84615452|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.19||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF -- A prior to cycle 2||||0.19
84615453|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--A prior to cycle 3||||0.046
84615454|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.029||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF Prior to Cycle 2||||0.029
84594401|NCT04417257|168940282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.1131
84594402|NCT04417257|168940284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6689||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.6689
84594403|NCT04417257|168940284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0536
84594404|NCT04417257|168940284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0786||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0786
84594405|NCT04417257|168940286|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84594406|NCT04417257|168940287|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||1.000
84594407|NCT04417257|168940287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0680
84594408|NCT04417257|168940287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0534
84594409|NCT04417257|168940288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923||||||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||0.7923
84594410|NCT04417257|168940289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8886||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.8886
84594411|NCT04417257|168940289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2735
84594412|NCT04417257|168940289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3604||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.3604
84594413|NCT04417257|168940290|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||1.000
84594414|NCT04417257|168940290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0253
84594415|NCT04417257|168940290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2729||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2729
84594416|NCT04417257|168940291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6460
84594417|NCT04417257|168940292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.8722
84594418|NCT04417257|168940292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.5390
84615455|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF prior to cycle 3||||0.20
84615456|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
84501972|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.30|0.094
84501973|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.08||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.08|-0.40|0.003
84615457|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.068||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 3||||0.068
84615458|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 2||||0.61
84594419|NCT04417257|168940292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2319|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.2319
84594420|NCT04417257|168940293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9358
84594421|NCT04417257|168940293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.6300
84594422|NCT04417257|168940293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.6550
84594423|NCT04417257|168940294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9101||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9101
84594424|NCT04417257|168940297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2706||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.2706
84594425|NCT04417257|168940297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0974||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.0974
84594426|NCT04417257|168940297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5549||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.5549
84594427|NCT04417257|168940298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4787||||||Two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value||||0.4787
84594428|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.02||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.03|-0.07|0.4746
84594429|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Leat Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29.||0.05|-0.06|0.7445
84594430|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45.||0.05|-0.07|0.7105
84594431|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60.||0.04|-0.07|0.6424
84615459|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.27||||||Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 3||||0.27
84615460|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 2||||0.61
84615461|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.49||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 3||||0.49
84615462|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.82||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.82
84759821|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|37.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||37.6|15.8|<0.001
84759822|NCT02873936|169275977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|5.9|0.002
84594432|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.14|-0.04|0.2789
84615463|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
84615464|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.34||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.34
84615465|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.046
84615466|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
84615467|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.23||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 3||||0.23
84759823|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||8.8|-1.9|0.16
84759824|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||11.6|-0.0|0.039
84759825|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|23.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||23.5|6.5|<0.001
84759826|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||15.2|0.1|0.036
84594433|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29||0.14|-0.04|0.2884
84594434|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.06||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45||0.15|-0.03|0.2058
84594435|NCT04417257|168940300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.03||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60||0.12|-0.06|0.5160
84594436|NCT04951622|168940301|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.52|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.38|=0.002
84594437|NCT02101788|168940356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among patients with a mutation.|||1.07|0.28|
84594438|NCT02101788|168940356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.03|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among wild-type patients.|||1.03|0.39|
84594439|NCT02101788|168940356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||Chi-squared||Estimation of mutation effect; mutant vs. wild-type in the SOC group.|Prognostic effect of the mutation status among patients in the SOC arm.||1.08|0.34|0.0929
84594440|NCT02101788|168940356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Chi-squared|||Predictive effect biomarker p-value||||0.7195
84594441|NCT04587869|168940358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||2.07|.73|.44
84594442|NCT04587869|168940359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.47
84615468|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.37||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 2||||0.37
84501974|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
84594443|NCT04587869|168940360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm (so mean of outcome across follow-ups was 0.19 higher for intervention vs. control)|Unlike the two primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant. In addition, nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.02
84594444|NCT04538664|168940366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.528|||Log Rank|||||0.528|0.296|<0.0001
84594445|NCT01445847|168940390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.1|||Comparison of proportions|||We used incidence reported to AIMS study to calculate the sample size of this study. We set the null hypothesis as (percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in placebo group (µ1) - percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in Lidocaine group (µ2) = 0), with alternative hypothesis is (µ1 \> µ2) by 5% was analyzed by comparison of two proportions. A sample size of 380 patients (190 per group) was adequate to detect a 5-percentage point difference in the incidence with 80% power and p = 0.05.||9.1|1.7|<0.05
84594446|NCT03008070|168940428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 800 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.12|0.98|=0.061
84615469|NCT01664182|168980109|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.35||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 3||||0.35
84615470|NCT05292131|168980119|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio (percentage [%])|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|105.4||||||||105.40|90.20|
84615471|NCT05292131|168980120|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|104.55||||||||104.55|90.10|
84615472|NCT05292131|168980121|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|104.47||||||||104.47|88.60|
84594447|NCT03008070|168940428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 1200 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.4|1.24|=0.004
84594448|NCT00996658|168940475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.0001
84594449|NCT00996658|168940476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.21|-0.61|< 0.0001
84615473|NCT05292131|168980124|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for t½.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.18|108.59||||||||108.59|94.18|
84759827|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|14.5|<0.001
84759828|NCT02873936|169275978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.6|3.7|0.004
84501975|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
84594450|NCT00996658|168940477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.28|-0.79|< 0.0001
84594451|NCT00996658|168940478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.29|-0.80|< 0.0001
84594452|NCT00996658|168940479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.939||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.432|6.032|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||6.032|1.432|0.0033
84594453|NCT00996658|168940480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.902||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||10.572|1.440|0.0074
84594454|NCT00996658|168940481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.059||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|3.485|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||3.485|1.216|0.0071
84594455|NCT00996658|168940482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.028||95.0|-19.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.1|-19.6|0.0280
84594456|NCT00996658|168940483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.0006||95.0|-24.5|-6.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-6.8|-24.5|0.0006
84594457|NCT00996658|168940484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.021||95.0|-20.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.7|-20.2|0.0210
84615474|NCT05292131|168980125|EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate and the 90% CI for the median treatment differences for tmax was computed according to the Hodges-Lehmann's method.|Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.4897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0073|0.9567||||||||0.9567|-0.0073|
84501976|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.35|0.032
84594458|NCT00996658|168940485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2137||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||3.6|-16.0|0.2137
84594459|NCT04446312|168940486|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|4.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.27|-3.97|<0.001
84594460|NCT00932035|168940487|SUPERIORITY|To achieve a power of 0.84, a sample size of 72 patients, evenly distributed is required. With 36 patients per group, a Fisher's exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 will have a 84% power to detect the difference between the experimental group (axillary reverse mapping) of 5% or less and a control group (standard dissection) of 30% or more. Response estimates were chosen based on reported lymphedema rates.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84594461|NCT00932035|168940488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84615475|NCT01345188|168980135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.058
84594462|NCT00932035|168940489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84594463|NCT04487080|168940491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank||HR and its 95% CI was estimated based on a stratified Cox's regression model with treatment as the sole explanatory variable.|||0.85|0.58|0.0002
84594464|NCT03451851|168940507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|69.4|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||69.4|25.9|<0.001
84594465|NCT03451851|168940508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|74.0|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||74.0|32.1|<0.001
84594466|NCT03451851|168940509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.1|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|61.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||61.3|15.6|=0.003
84594467|NCT03451851|168940510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|56.8|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.8|10.5|=0.004
84615476|NCT01345188|168980136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.048
84615477|NCT01345188|168980137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||||||>0.05
84615478|NCT00684775|168980138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|25.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||25.0|1.44|=0.002
84615479|NCT00684775|168980139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0081
84759829|NCT02873936|169275979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|37.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||37.4|14.6|<0.001
84594468|NCT03451851|168940511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|25.0|9.7|56.1|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.1|9.7|=0.002
84594469|NCT03451851|168940512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-3.06|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-3.06|-7.33|<0.001
84594470|NCT03451851|168940518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|77.6||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||77.6|36.9|<0.001
84615480|NCT00684775|168980140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.6|.5|0.56
84615481|NCT00684775|168980141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.53|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.53|.6|=0.41
84615482|NCT00684775|168980142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.36|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.36|.42|0.75
84615483|NCT00684775|168980143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1543
84615484|NCT00684775|168980144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.1|.81|0.15
84615485|NCT00577824|168980158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni's method was used to adjustment for multiplicity, and significant level was set to 2.5%(two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as the covariate.||||||<0.001
84615486|NCT00577824|168980159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
84615487|NCT00577824|168980160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
84615488|NCT00577824|168980161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.002
84615489|NCT00577824|168980162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84615490|NCT00577824|168980163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
84594471|NCT03451851|168940526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|67.3||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||||67.3|21.9|=0.002
84594472|NCT03451851|168940528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.1|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|47.0||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||47.0|-3.4|=0.139
84594473|NCT03451851|168940530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.87||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-2.87|-8.00|<0.001
84594474|NCT03451851|168940532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|-9.28||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-9.28|-20.28|<0.001
84594475|NCT01142388|168940546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on: 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.85
84594476|NCT01142388|168940547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.50
84594477|NCT03052608|168940556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.413||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ethnicity and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.0081 level at the cutoff date of this report.|one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ ≥1 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Lorlatinib/Crizotinib). Evaluation of 177 PFS events was required to have at least 90% power to detect a HR of 0.611 using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided), and a 2-look group-sequential design with a Lan-DeMets (O'Brien-Fleming) α-spending function to determine the efficacy boundaries.||0.413|0.191|<0.0001
84594478|NCT03052608|168940557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.249|||||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.249|0.414|
84594479|NCT03052608|168940558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.307|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.307|0.144|<0.0001
84594480|NCT03052608|168940559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.254||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|3.891|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||3.891|1.353|0.0005
84594481|NCT03052608|168940560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.499||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.484|4.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||4.594|1.484|0.0002
84594482|NCT03052608|168940561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.586|27.233|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||27.233|2.586|<0.0001
84594483|NCT03052608|168940562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.17|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.170|0.026|<0.0001
84594484|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Global QOL. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||8.16|1.14|0.0096
84594485|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.05|-1.01|0.1897
84594486|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Role Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||6.04|-1.87|0.2999
84594487|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.22|-0.06|0.0553
84594488|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.12|-6.47|0.0588
84615491|NCT00577824|168980164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.580
84759830|NCT02873936|169275979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||30.0|7.5|<0.001
84759831|NCT02873936|169275979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||46.3|23.6|<0.001
84594489|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27||||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Social Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.85|-1.30|0.2118
84594490|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.92|-9.42|0.0032
84594491|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-5.86|-9.86|<0.0001
84594492|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Pain. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.82|-2.49|0.5310
84594493|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.43|-1.98|0.3602
84615492|NCT00577824|168980165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84594494|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-4.64|-11.25|<0.0001
84594495|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Appetite Loss. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-6.62|-11.80|<0.0001
84615493|NCT00577824|168980166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.490
84615494|NCT00577824|168980167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84615495|NCT00577824|168980168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
84615496|NCT00577824|168980170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
84615497|NCT00577824|168980171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
84615498|NCT00577824|168980173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
84759832|NCT02873936|169275979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||32.1|8.8|<0.001
84759833|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.003
84759834|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.027
84594496|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-0.79|-9.07|0.0198
84594497|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-8.58|-15.49|<0.0001
84594498|NCT03052608|168940577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||2.82|-4.90|0.5947
84594499|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.60|-2.51|0.7254
84594500|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Coughing. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.03|-8.06|0.0115
84594501|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.99|-0.75|0.7824
84594502|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.36|-1.04|0.2988
84594503|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.76|-3.79|0.1916
84594504|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.37||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||10.15|0.59|0.0279
84615499|NCT00577824|168980174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84615500|NCT04531241|168980175|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.1|-6.8|
84644573|NCT01992159|169024665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.5|0.0001
84594505|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.49|-3.89|0.9162
84759835|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
84594506|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||1.90|-2.96|0.6698
84594507|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.04|-3.13|0.8035
84594508|NCT03052608|168940578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|7.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7.55|-0.82|0.1143
84594509|NCT03052608|168940581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.444|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.444|0.822|0.7293
84615501|NCT04531241|168980176|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0199|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.0|-0.0199|
84615502|NCT04531241|168980176|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0173|0.0087|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.0087|-0.0173|
84759836|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
84759837|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
84594510|NCT01834287|168940584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|52.4|||Regression, Linear|||||52.4|9.6|.001
84594511|NCT02522429|168940585|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84594512|NCT02522429|168940586|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7). All significant voxels have an associated p-value smaller-or-equal to 0.05 (corrected for multiplicity).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84594513|NCT02522429|168940588|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximum CRS-R prior to LIFUP compared to Maximum CRS-R after LIFUP||||<0.05
84594514|NCT00600106|168940590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.36|||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.36
84594515|NCT00600106|168940591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.93
84594516|NCT00600106|168940592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.77
84594517|NCT00600106|168940594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.38
84759838|NCT02873936|169275980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.006
84615503|NCT04531241|168980177|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 1 hour difference in average daily wear time at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 1 hour was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1968|0.0933|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.0933|-0.1968|
84759839|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-5.0|0.008
84759840|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-2.0|0.65
84759841|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84759842|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|0.008
84759843|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84759844|NCT02873936|169275981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-4.0|0.039
84759845|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
84759846|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-16.0|<0.001
84501977|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.13|-0.46|<0.001
84615504|NCT04531241|168980178|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.3|-5.5|
84615505|NCT01635855|168980185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One-sided binomial|8.5|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.6||Ho (null): Ps \>= 22% versus Ha (alternate): Ps \< 22% where Ps is the proportion of subjects with common severe adverse events in the post-approval study. Ho is rejected if upper limit of the 95% CI of Ps \< 22% and the one-sided p-value \<= 0.025.|One sided binomial distribution|The upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI for a proportion is equivalent to the 97.5% one-sided CI for that proportion for normal approximations.||The analysis was performed by comparing the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the post-market study to that occurred in the pre-market studies. It was pre-specified in the protocol that the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the pre-market studies was 22%.||13.6|3.5|< 0.025
84615506|NCT00966550|168980213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84615507|NCT01371734|168980214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.94|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||3.94|-2.23|0.587
84615508|NCT01371734|168980214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.61|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||4.61|-1.56|0.333
84615509|NCT01371734|168980215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||0.32|-0.29|0.923
84615510|NCT01371734|168980215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.47|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||0.47|-0.14|0.302
84615511|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.729
84759847|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-24.0|<0.001
84759848|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
84615512|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.756
84615513|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.765
84615514|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.475
84615515|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||||0.310
84615516|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 3||||0.105
84615517|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.254
84615518|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.887
84615519|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.475
84615520|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.407
84615521|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.696
84615522|NCT01371734|168980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.462
84615523|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.806||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.951|0.333|0.633
84615524|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.285|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.285|0.245|0.172
84615525|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.644|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.644|0.536|0.826
84615526|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.511|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.511|0.489|0.599
84615527|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.713||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.265|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.265|0.402|0.248
84615528|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.995|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||0.995|0.320|0.048
84615529|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.216|0.412|0.210
84615530|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.646|0.564|0.893
84615531|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.235|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.235|0.413|0.228
84615532|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.579|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.579|0.531|0.751
84615533|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.974||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.689|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.689|0.561|0.925
84615534|NCT01371734|168980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.764||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|1.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.331|0.438|0.342
84615535|NCT00766051|168980242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||The P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons or for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The expected outcome was that infants in the intervention group would exhibit significantly less number of days to attain oral feeding.||11|5|<0.005
84615536|NCT00766051|168980243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.275|||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|This correlation is between the intervention groups' initial level of relaxation and final level of relaxation during the oral feeding period.||Pearson Correlation, 2-tailed||||< 0.01
84759849|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-25.0|<0.001
84759850|NCT02873936|169275982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-19.0|<0.001
84594518|NCT00600106|168940598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated. All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05."||||0.17
84594519|NCT00600106|168940599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.49
84594520|NCT00600106|168940600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.77
84615537|NCT00766051|168980244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means more parent confidence.|"Parent pre-post one sided t test of parents' global confidence, measured parental confidence in feeding, handling, and interacting with their infant."||6.7||< .02
84501978|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-0.54|<0.001
84594521|NCT00600106|168940601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.40
84594522|NCT00600106|168940602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.99
84594523|NCT00600106|168940603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.21
84594524|NCT00252512|168940604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Above is calculated p value, a priori threshold for significance set at \<.05|GEE full factorial modeling|||||||<.001
84594525|NCT00252512|168940605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||8 week analysis||||.015
84594526|NCT00252512|168940605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month analysis||||0.45
84594527|NCT00252512|168940605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497||||||a prior threshold of .05|t-test, 2 sided|||12 month analysis||||.0497
84594528|NCT00252512|168940606|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Estimation Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow-up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
84594529|NCT00252512|168940606|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Estimating Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
84594530|NCT00252512|168940607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow up||||.28
84594531|NCT00252512|168940607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up||||.013
84594532|NCT00252512|168940607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up||||.76
84594533|NCT00252512|168940608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.66
84594534|NCT00252512|168940608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up.||||.37
84594535|NCT00252512|168940608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up.||||.19
84594536|NCT00252512|168940609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.05
84615538|NCT00766051|168980245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.54|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means an increase in the parents' perception of their infants' easiness during caregiving.|Parent pre-post one sided t test on the Easiness Scale of the Mother and Baby Scales in how parents percieve their interactions (alert-responsiveness, mood) with their infant and infant sleep patterns .||4.54||< .03
84615539|NCT02708355|168980247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.055|||Regression, Logistic|||Association between percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 and relief of 24 -hour heartburn was assessed using logistic regression model with relief of 24- hour heartburn at Day 14 as dependent variable and change in percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 as the independent variable, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).||1.055|1.001|0.0442
84759851|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
84759852|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-15.0|<0.001
84501979|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-0.52|<0.001
84501980|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.012
84594537|NCT00252512|168940609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow-up.||||.80
84594538|NCT00252512|168940609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow-up.||||.12
84594539|NCT05554146|168940610|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.6185||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.25||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||-0.25|-4.98|0.0303
84594540|NCT05554146|168940610|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.8424||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.4851
84594541|NCT05554146|168940610|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.6038||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.6165
84594542|NCT05554146|168940611|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.63||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.6
84594543|NCT05554146|168940612|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.83||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.49
84594544|NCT05554146|168940613|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.53||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.66
84594545|NCT05554146|168940614|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.88
84594546|NCT05554146|168940615|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in adherence score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have poorer Antiretroviral (ARV) medication adherence than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.39
84759853|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-22.0|<0.001
84594547|NCT05554146|168940616|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in HIV viral load was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have less suppressed HIV viral load than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD or placebo.||||0.31
84594548|NCT05554146|168940617|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in depression score was completed.|F value (F-test)|2.04||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater depression than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.13
84594549|NCT05554146|168940618|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in anxiety score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.58||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater anxiety than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.22
84594550|NCT05887908|168940636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.0||If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group difference \> -15.0%, non-inferiority is concluded. If non-inferiority is declared, a test for superiority will be performed. If the lower bound of the 95% CI \> 0.0%, superiority will be declared.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||32.0|10.9|
84594551|NCT05887908|168940636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|23.7||If non-inferiority of the cefepime/nacubactam group is declared, a non-inferiority hypothesis test for the aztreonam/nacubactam group will be performed. For this analysis, the same approach as that used for the cefepime/nacubactam group will be used.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||23.7|-1.2|
84594552|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||9.9|-3.2|
84594553|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||14.0|1.1|
84594554|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||11.3|-2.7|
84594555|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||10.0|-6.6|
84615540|NCT01173601|168980258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
84594556|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|18.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||18.1|-4.1|
84594557|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||16.0|-9.5|
84594558|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||36.6|12.0|
84594559|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|24.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.9|-4.2|
84594560|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|54.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||54.1|1.8|
84594561|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|61.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||61.6|1.1|
84594562|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.3|-1.3|
84615541|NCT01173601|168980258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
84594563|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.7|-5.6|
84594564|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
84594565|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||5.2|-45.4|
84594566|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|24.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.4|-1.7|
84594567|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||20.9|-8.7|
84594568|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|23.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||23.1|-31.9|
84594569|NCT05887908|168940637|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|37.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.9|-28.8|
84594570|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||6.3|-2.8|
84594571|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||7.2|-3.5|
84594572|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.4|-4.6|
84615542|NCT05258149|168980279|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.46|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.46|1.10|
84673038|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.63|0.1116
84594573|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.0|-7.1|
84594574|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||11.8|-3.3|
84594575|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||13.0|-3.9|
84594576|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.1|-4.5|
84594577|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.3|-6.6|
84594578|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||6.0|-4.2|
84594579|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||8.3|-4.1|
84594580|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|20.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||20.3|-13.9|
84594581|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|36.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||36.0|-12.6|
84594582|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
84594583|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||9.6|-6.9|
84594584|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||16.8|-15.9|
84594585|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
84594586|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||13.1|-4.5|
84594587|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.2|-5.3|
84615543|NCT05258149|168980280|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.79|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.79|1.27|
84759854|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-18.0|<0.001
84594588|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
84594589|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|37.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.3|-20.5|
84594590|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-2.6|
84501981|NCT00830063|168755157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.03|-0.36|0.021
84501982|NCT00661674|168755201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||p-value represents comparison between OOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in OOWS scores when comparing treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.0001
84501983|NCT00661674|168755202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2244||||||p-value represents comparison between SOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in SOWS scores when comparing the 2 treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.2244
84501984|NCT00660790|168755205|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The paired student's t-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the measurements before and after multifactorial treatment, as appropriate, depending on the distribution of the data.||||0.021
84501985|NCT02629133|168755279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
84501986|NCT02629133|168755279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences between conditions in the change in % heavy drinking/using days from baseline to 6 months||||0.760
84501987|NCT02629133|168755280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84501988|NCT02629133|168755280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Distributions were badly skewed, and the sample was too small for ZINB or other analyses. Therefore, we analyzed differences between conditions in changes in services/day over time (i.e., from baseline to 6 month post-shelter follow-up) using the Mann-Whitney U.||||0.029
84594591|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-5.0|
84501989|NCT02629133|168755281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.5||We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to predict 3-mo and 6-mo post-shelter scores from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.5|-4.5|0.325
84501990|NCT02629133|168755282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98||We used HLM to predict Cyber-Stalking Scores across 3 and 6 month post shelter follow-up points from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher scores represent more cyber-stalking over follow-up.|||2.98|-0.61|0.192
84501991|NCT02629133|168755283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.38||We conducted HLM predicting SBC Total scores at 3 and 6 months post-shelter release from treatment condition, using baseline SBC score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher is better (reflecting more safety behaviors used).|||0.38|-3.24|0.119
84501992|NCT05180630|168755284|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3). Comparisons were total mean scores for Open dome condition, Vented dome condition, and Custom earmolds with dynamic venting|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for streamed music, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.012
84501993|NCT05180630|168755285|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3).|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for own voice, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.154
84501994|NCT00709735|168755287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|4.0|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||4.0|-30.0|
84501995|NCT00709735|168755288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.9|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||1.9|-27.4|
84594592|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|17.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||17.6|-23.6|
84594593|NCT05887908|168940638|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|22.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.3|-30.9|
84594594|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||10.5|-1.7|
84594595|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||14.3|3.9|
84594596|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.9|-1.3|
84594597|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|11.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.2|-4.2|
84594598|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|32.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||32.7|12.2|
84594599|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||22.5|-2.0|
84594600|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||19.7|-2.0|
84594601|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|14.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||14.8|-10.4|
84594602|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
84594603|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.5|2.3|
84594604|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
84594605|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|43.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||43.5|-8.3|
84594606|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|16.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.5|-0.1|
84594607|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||15.1|-3.9|
84594608|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
84594609|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
84759855|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-18.0|<0.001
84594610|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|37.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||37.5|13.5|
84594611|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|23.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||23.3|-5.5|
84594612|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|48.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||48.5|-3.4|
84594613|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|56.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||56.0|-4.4|
84594614|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||25.9|0.3|
84594615|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||19.3|-10.1|
84594616|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|22.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.6|-30.4|
84594617|NCT05887908|168940639|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|31.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||31.5|-34.0|
84594618|NCT05887908|168940640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
84594619|NCT05887908|168940640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
84594620|NCT05887908|168940641|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
84594621|NCT05887908|168940641|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
84594622|NCT05887908|168940642|OTHER|Desriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|78.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||78.1|12.8|
84594623|NCT05887908|168940642|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|60.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||60.5|-18.4|
84594624|NCT05887908|168940643|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
84594625|NCT05887908|168940643|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
84594626|NCT01537315|168940644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|||||A paired comparison between baseline CRP values with values obtained after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment was conducted, with a p-value of 0.05 used as the a priori threshold of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.4521
84594627|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Change from Baseline at 0.25 Hours Postdose||2.2||
84594628|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.0||||||Change from Baseline at 0.5 Hours Postdose||-4.0||
84594629|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6||||||Change from Baseline at 1 Hour Postdose||2.6||
84594630|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7||||||Change from Baseline at 1.5 Hours Postdose||1.7||
84594631|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-5.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6||||||Change from Baseline at 2 Hours Postdose||-0.6||
84594632|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.2||||||Change from Baseline at 2.5 Hours Postdose||-3.2||
84594633|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 3 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
84594634|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.9||||||Change from Baseline at 4 Hours Postdose||-2.9||
84594635|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 6 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
84594636|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.4||||||Change from Baseline at 8 Hours Postdose||2.4||
84594637|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.5||||||Change from Baseline at 10 Hours Postdose||-0.5||
84594638|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4||||||Change from Baseline at 24 Hours Postdose||11.4||
84594639|NCT02197572|168940646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||||||Change from Baseline at 48 Hours Postdose||8.1||
84594640|NCT03458325|168940666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||-11,802.70|-22,187.90|<0.0001
84594641|NCT03458325|168940667|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-6.4||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.6765
84594642|NCT03458325|168940668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.5856
84594643|NCT03458325|168940669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||1.000
84594644|NCT03458325|168940670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||<0.0001
84594645|NCT03458325|168940671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|25.3|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was obtained from the paired t-test statistic.||Analysis for Summary Score||25.3|0.4|0.0443
84594646|NCT03458325|168940672|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis for the mean change in NT-proBNP over 30 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-122.6||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525.8|280.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||280.5|-525.8|0.5133
84594647|NCT03458325|168940672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-719.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1406.5|-33.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for mean change in BNP over 30 days||-33.2|-1406.5|0.0420
84594648|NCT02630693|168940676|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the primary objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for progression free survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.3|||||Hazard ratio of Palbociclib100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.30|0.66|
84594649|NCT02630693|168940679|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for overall survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.69|||||Hazard ratio for Palbociclib 100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.69|0.67|
84594650|NCT04503551|168940686|SUPERIORITY||CMH Weighted Percentage Difference|71.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|61.0|81.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was done by baseline ETDRS-DRSS level (47 vs.53) \& baseline intraretinal/subretinal fluid status on SD-OCT (present vs. absent).||||81.2|61.0|<0.0001
84594651|NCT04503551|168940687|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the Hazard ratio (HR).|0.3|0.1|< 0.0001
84594652|NCT04503551|168940688|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.1|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.1|0.1|< 0.0001
84594653|NCT04503551|168940689|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.3|0.1|<0.0001
84594654|NCT04503551|168940690|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
84594655|NCT04503551|168940691|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|8.3|21.9|||Fisher Exact|||||21.9|8.3|0.0003
84501996|NCT00386100|168755289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.305||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline value with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.305|-0.669|<0.0001
84594656|NCT04503551|168940692|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
84594657|NCT03951766|168940753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.1|-1.9|<.0001
84594658|NCT03951766|168940754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-17.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-17.1|-32.7|<.0001
84594659|NCT03951766|168940755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS positive affect||0.4|-0.0|0.06
84594660|NCT03951766|168940755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS negative affect||0.1|-0.4|0.36
84594661|NCT03951766|168940756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1627
84594662|NCT03951766|168940757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - past week||6.3|-3.8|0.62
84594663|NCT03951766|168940757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - right now||4.4|-5.4|0.83
84594664|NCT03951766|168940758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|18.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - Internal||18.7|7.6|<.0001
84594665|NCT03951766|168940758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|16.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - External||16.1|6.1|<.0001
84594666|NCT03951766|168940759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.8|1.2|0.0126
84594667|NCT03951766|168940760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.0||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.0|-11.1|0.0053
84594668|NCT03951766|168940761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Adverse Effects||0.2|-0.1|0.76
84594669|NCT03951766|168940761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Psychoactive Benefits||-0.5|-1.0|<.0001
84594670|NCT03951766|168940761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Pleasure||-0.3|-0.8|<.0001
84594671|NCT03951766|168940762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.3|0.25
84594672|NCT03951766|168940763|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Positive Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-14.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-14.3|-27.2|<.0001
84594673|NCT03951766|168940763|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Negative Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.3||"We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6."|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|-8.1|0.27
84594674|NCT03951766|168940764|SUPERIORITY|Pros of Being Smoke-Free|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-2.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.3|-15.9|0.009
84594675|NCT03951766|168940764|SUPERIORITY|Cons of Quitting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-13.7|0.25
84594676|NCT03951766|168940765|SUPERIORITY|PSS total scores|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-4.1|0.0069
84615544|NCT05258149|168980281|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.42|1.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|1.30|0.42|
84501997|NCT00386100|168755290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.30|-0.69|<0.0001
84501998|NCT00386100|168755291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.46||Hb1AC \<= 6.5%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin.|||2.46|1.18|0.0046
84501999|NCT00386100|168755291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.81||Hb1AC \< 7%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32|Odds of having an HbA1c \<7% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||3.81|1.75|<0.0001
84502000|NCT00386100|168755292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.54|-0.77|||Repeated measures analysis|Terms for baseline, region, treatment, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.77|-1.54|<0.0001
84594677|NCT03951766|168940765|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Helplessness|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0043
84594678|NCT03951766|168940765|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Self-Efficacy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1953
84615545|NCT05258149|168980282|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.91|2.75|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|2.75|0.91|
84502001|NCT00386100|168755293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|-0.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.710|-1.425|<0.001
84502002|NCT00386100|168755294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.81||FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||6.81|2.94|<0.0001
84594679|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE Self-distraction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.1|0.087
84594680|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE active coping|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.209||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.6|0.2866
84594681|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE denial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9296
84594682|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE substance use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.6599
84594683|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of emotional support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2315
84594684|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of instrumental support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.3|0.6183
84594685|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE behavioral disengagement|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.1|0.2037
84594686|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE venting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.0060
84594687|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE positive reframing|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.3045
84594688|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE planning|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0029
84594689|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE humor|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8274
84502003|NCT00386100|168755294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.92||FPG \<=7 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=7 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||4.92|2.25|<0.0001
84594690|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE acceptance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|0.0|0.0349
84594691|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE religion|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3451
84594692|NCT03951766|168940766|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE self-blame|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
84594693|NCT02623972|168940769|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 10% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 30% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.10, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.30. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=10%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
84594694|NCT02623972|168940769|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 2% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 23% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.02, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.23. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=5%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
84594695|NCT05710640|168940774|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84594696|NCT05710640|168940775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||0.294
84594697|NCT05710640|168940775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.637
84502004|NCT00386100|168755295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard regression with terms for treatment, region, baseline Hb1Ac strata, and gender||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
84594698|NCT05710640|168940775|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.00
84594699|NCT05710640|168940776|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
84615546|NCT05258149|168980283|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.24|3.5|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|3.50|1.24|
84594700|NCT05710640|168940776|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.000
84594701|NCT05710640|168940776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.620
84594702|NCT05710640|168940776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.576
84594703|NCT05710640|168940777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
84594704|NCT05710640|168940777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.00
84594705|NCT05710640|168940777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
84594706|NCT05710640|168940777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.637
84594707|NCT05710640|168940778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.331
84594708|NCT05710640|168940778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.500
84594709|NCT05710640|168940778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.285
84502005|NCT00386100|168755296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.522|9.526||Total cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||9.526|2.522|0.0006
84594710|NCT05710640|168940778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.148
84594711|NCT05710640|168940779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.294
84594712|NCT05710640|168940779|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
84594713|NCT05710640|168940780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.335
84594714|NCT05710640|168940780|SUPERIORITY|P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
84615547|NCT01466127|168980288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84644574|NCT01992159|169024666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.6||||0.0067|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.5|0.0067
84594715|NCT05710640|168940781|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
84594716|NCT05710640|168940781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.471
84594717|NCT05710640|168940782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.592
84594718|NCT05710640|168940782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.337
84594719|NCT04847843|168940795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84594720|NCT04847843|168940796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
84594721|NCT04847843|168940797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.62
84594722|NCT04847843|168940799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
84594723|NCT04847843|168940800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
84594724|NCT04229888|168940825|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in DEQ-5 score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84594725|NCT04229888|168940826|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in MG score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M= 1 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84759856|NCT02873936|169275983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-11.0|0.052
84594726|NCT04229888|168940827|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in TBUT, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84594727|NCT01282866|168940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84594728|NCT03674970|168940872|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
84594729|NCT03674970|168940873|OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|||||||.2146
84594730|NCT03674970|168940874|OTHER|||||||0.5642|||||||ANOVA|||||||.5642
84594731|NCT03674970|168940875|OTHER|||||||0.4353|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4353
84594732|NCT03674970|168940876|OTHER|||||||0.0348|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0348
84594733|NCT03674970|168940877|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4040
84594734|NCT03462719|168940878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.357|||Log Rank|||||0.357|0.131|<0.0001
84594735|NCT04108208|168940899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.233|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.705|||Log Rank|||||0.705|0.077|=0.0052
84594736|NCT04271540|168940919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||0.35
84594737|NCT05111613|168941154|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.97||||||||6.97|3.68|
84644575|NCT01992159|169024666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.6|< 0.0001
84502006|NCT00386100|168755296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.71||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|15.304||LDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||15.304|2.486|0.056
84594738|NCT05111613|168941155|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||||||||2.35|0.78|
84594739|NCT01402869|168941189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons. P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in peak methemoglobin blood levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
84594740|NCT01402869|168941189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84594741|NCT01402869|168941189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84594742|NCT01402869|168941189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.89||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.89
84594743|NCT01402869|168941190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in the time frame to peak methemoglobin levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
84594744|NCT01402869|168941190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.43||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.43
84594745|NCT01402869|168941190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84673039|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-0.86|0.0040
84594746|NCT01402869|168941190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84594747|NCT01402869|168941191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in delta methemoglobin blood levels following the administration prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
84594748|NCT01402869|168941191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84594749|NCT01402869|168941191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
84594750|NCT01402869|168941191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.92||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.92
84594751|NCT02891226|168941193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.07|0.079
84594752|NCT02891226|168941193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|12.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.07|2.01|0.003
84594753|NCT02891226|168941193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|13.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.42|2.81|<0.001
84594754|NCT02891226|168941194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|0.55|0.241
84594755|NCT02891226|168941194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|70.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||70.64|1.76|0.032
84594756|NCT02891226|168941194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|91.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||91.32|2.82|0.009
84594757|NCT02891226|168941195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.45|0.62|0.330
84594758|NCT02891226|168941195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.21|2.02|0.006
84594759|NCT02891226|168941195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.07|1.37|0.029
84594760|NCT02891226|168941196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.03|0.007
84594761|NCT02891226|168941196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
84594762|NCT02891226|168941196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.84|0.005
84594763|NCT02891226|168941198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.53|34.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.56|13.53|<0.001
84594764|NCT02891226|168941198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.84|40.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.08|18.84|<0.001
84594765|NCT02891226|168941198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.185|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.67|33.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.82|16.67|<0.001
84594766|NCT02891226|168941199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|11.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|4.48|<0.001
84594767|NCT02891226|168941199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.67|2.72|0.004
84594768|NCT02891226|168941199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.51|3.94|<0.001
84645296|NCT03123185|169026274|OTHER||Slope|0.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3767|0.599|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.5990|0.3767|
84594769|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|8.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||8.32|1.95|0.008
84594770|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|7.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||7.41|0.96|0.033
84594771|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||6.34|1.08|0.021
84594772|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||3.77|-0.59|0.229
84594773|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|7.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||7.14|2.67|<0.001
84594774|NCT02891226|168941200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||5.38|1.81|0.001
84594775|NCT00841412|168941203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above results are for just one of multiple feeding assistance care process measures: proportion of meals during which residents received assistance to eat baseline to post intervention.|||0.96|0.59|<0.05
84594776|NCT00325130|168941204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594777|NCT00325130|168941206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594778|NCT00325130|168941207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594779|NCT00325130|168941208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594780|NCT00325130|168941209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594781|NCT00325130|168941210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594782|NCT00325130|168941211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594783|NCT00325130|168941212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84594784|NCT00325130|168941213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84615548|NCT00108862|168980289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-2.0|8.0||The analysis was stratified by screening CD4 (\<50 cells/mm3 vs =\>50). Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided|A 2-sided Z-test was used to compare the two percents. The test was weighted by the inverse of the Greenwood's variance in each CD4 stratum.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|Assuming that immediate ART was better than deferred ART and that the combined rate in the deferred ART arm was 25% compared to 15% in the immediate ART arm (a 40% reduction), and assuming 10% loss to follow-up in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level asymptotically-normal test with 400 participants in each arm, there was 90% power. The percents tested were Kaplan-Meier estimators at week 48 with the associated Greenwood's variance.||8|-2|0.45
84615549|NCT00108862|168980290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.08|2.0|21.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an\> O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||21|2|0.02
84615550|NCT00108862|168980291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-7.0|4.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||4|-7|0.67
84615551|NCT00566852|168980304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Significance level was 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: patients on memantine will experience less decline than patients receiving placebo. Based on a one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with alpha=0.025, 221 patients per arm would be required to have 80% statistical power to detect a mean difference of 0.87 in the HVLT-R change scores between the two treatment arms. Assuming that 20% of patients may be ineligible, or die prior to the 24 week assessment, the target sample size for randomization was set to 536.||||0.059
84615552|NCT00566852|168980305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0692||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks||||0.0692
84502007|NCT00386100|168755296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.58||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|5.47||HDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparison. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||5.470|-0.232|0.072
84594785|NCT00325130|168941214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84615553|NCT00566852|168980305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||16 weeks||||0.4541
84615554|NCT00566852|168980305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||52 weeks||||0.3970
84673040|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 14 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.54|0.8253
84502008|NCT00386100|168755296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.743||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.056|8.035||Triglycerides. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||8.035|-6.056|0.835
84594786|NCT00325130|168941215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594787|NCT00325130|168941216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84615555|NCT00566852|168980306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Gray's test|||A one-sided log-rank test with alpha 0.025 accruing 221 patients/arm with 12 months of follow-up would ensure 98% statistical power to detect a 33% relative reduction in the monthly hazard rate with the use of memantine. Gray's test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times and Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||0.99|0.62|0.01
84594788|NCT00325130|168941217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594789|NCT00325130|168941218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594790|NCT00325130|168941219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594791|NCT00325130|168941220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594792|NCT00325130|168941221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84615556|NCT00566852|168980307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming normally distributions, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances would be used to compare the arms at the 0.025 significance level. If normality assumptions were not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum would be used.||||0.77
84615557|NCT00566852|168980308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.3|0.87|0.27
84615558|NCT00566852|168980309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.31|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.31|0.86|0.025
84594793|NCT00325130|168941222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84594794|NCT01848977|168941237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Unpaired t-test was used to compare the difference between SrO2 and StO2.||||<0.05
84615559|NCT01147055|168980310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.14|20.54||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.54|16.14|
84615560|NCT01147055|168980311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|31.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.43|37.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||37.51|26.43|
84673041|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 21 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.30|0.5795
84594795|NCT01032954|168941240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM= GENERAL LINEAR MODELS WITH REPEATED|||||||<0.05
84594796|NCT01032954|168941241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM|||||||<0.05
84594797|NCT01530178|168941255|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-11.2|||ANOVA|||||-11.2|-44.7|0.003
84594798|NCT01530178|168941255|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|8.652|||ANOVA|||||8.652|-12.91|0.68
84594799|NCT01530178|168941255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.39|-13.17|||ANOVA|||||-13.17|-38.39|0.0005
84594800|NCT01693250|168941259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a feasibility and pilot study. We acknowledge that our sample size will not have adequate power to detect any statistically significant outcomes. We chose a sample size that would be large enough to assess feasibility and effect size and to accommodate recruitment within the study time and budget of this application. We hope to be able to estimate the effect size of the intervention.||||<.001
84615561|NCT01147055|168980312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.48|20.02||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.02|15.48|
84594801|NCT01693250|168941260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized the intervention group will have significant reduction of systematic blood pressure compared to the control group at 6 month follow up.||||.001
84594802|NCT02709512|168941261|SUPERIORITY|Relative Risk Ratio (ADIPemPlatinum/PlaceboPemPlatinum) is the common relative risk of having a response (CR or PR) based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator controlling for tumor histology. A relative risk ratio greater than one is favorable to ADIPemPlatinum.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.50|0.9489
84594803|NCT02709512|168941262|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.47|0.0078
84594804|NCT02709512|168941263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.55|0.0234
84594805|NCT02709512|168941264|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.46|0.0193
84594806|NCT02297815|168941274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score difference|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.36|||Weighted linear regression|Propensity-score based full matching performed. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.|Narrow antibiotics is the reference group. A score difference less than zero indicates that broad spectrum antibiotics are associated with a lower (poorer) health related quality of life score.|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.||-0.36|-2.44|0.008
84594807|NCT02297815|168941275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||7.9|-3.1|0.39
84594808|NCT02297815|168941276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||6.8|-3.9|0.59
84594809|NCT02297815|168941277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||17.2|7.3|<0.001
84615562|NCT01147055|168980317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|6.49||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.49|4.64|
84615563|NCT01147055|168980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|6.81||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.81|4.86|
84615564|NCT01147055|168980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.02|13.45||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||13.45|9.02|
84615565|NCT03828019|168980331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline).|Estimated parameter is the Odds Ratios (ADA/CID). Result greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior in achieving successful corticosteroid sparing|The sample size estimation: Adalimumab was estimated to be successful in 75% of patients. The overall success rate with conventional immunosuppression was estimated to be 51%. A sample size of 222 (111 per treatment group) provided 90% power to detect a difference in cumulative percent of 75% versus 51%||3.25|1.06|0.029
84594810|NCT02297815|168941278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||10.6|-0.8|0.09
84594811|NCT02297815|168941279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||9.6|-0.3|0.07
84594812|NCT00620373|168941284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
84594813|NCT00620373|168941284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
84615566|NCT03828019|168980332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.86|0.94|0.072
84615567|NCT03828019|168980333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.46|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is ADA/CID where value greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior for corticosteroid (prednisone) discontinuation|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.46|0.67|0.30
84615568|NCT03828019|168980334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.19|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID where value greater than 1 indicate greater corticosteroid sparing success in the ADA group|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid discontinuation between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.19|1.06|0.028
84673042|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.51|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|-0.21|0.4032
84759857|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-21.0|<0.001
84502009|NCT00386100|168755297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|102.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.23|128.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||128.19|79.23|<0.0001
84594814|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
84594815|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
84594816|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
84615569|NCT03828019|168980335|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rate of steroid (mg/day ADA/CID|0.86||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01|||negative binomial model||Number greater than 1 would indicate rate of steroid use is higher in participants assigned to ADA|||1.01|0.73|0.061
84615570|NCT03828019|168980336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|0.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used with a linear link. The fixed effects included initial steroid dose and immunosuppression use at baseline. Additional visit indicators (months 1-12) and corresponding treatment by visit interaction terms. An unstructured correlation was used to model repeated measurements by eye . A person-level random intercept was added to account for between-eye correlations.||3.1|-2.3|0.77
84673043|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.33|0.6117
84594817|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
84594818|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.5
84594819|NCT00620373|168941285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||>.99
84594820|NCT00620373|168941287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
84594821|NCT00620373|168941287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.069
84594822|NCT00620373|168941288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
84594823|NCT00620373|168941288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.218
84594824|NCT01061723|168941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sarilumab group was compared to placebo group. Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived.||2.5|0.4|0.966
84594825|NCT01061723|168941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|0.6|0.467
84594826|NCT01061723|168941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|0.3|0.559
84594827|NCT01061723|168941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.6|0.496
84594828|NCT01061723|168941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|0.8|0.143
84594829|NCT00293813|168941302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||||95.0|2.6|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|2.6|
84594830|NCT00293813|168941302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||||95.0|-0.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-.6|
84594831|NCT02956746|168941304|OTHER|||||||0.4187||||||threshold for significance p-values \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4187
84594832|NCT00460655|168941313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.428||||0.006||95.0|-5.841|-1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.016|-5.841|0.006
84594833|NCT00910910|168941327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.66|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.66|0.88|0.323
84594834|NCT00910910|168941328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.29|0.76|0.967
84594835|NCT00910910|168941331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Fisher Exact|||||0.96|0.44|0.032
84594836|NCT00910910|168941332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Fisher Exact|||||0.98|0.45|0.047
84594837|NCT00910910|168941333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.52|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.52|0.58|0.826
84594838|NCT00910910|168941334|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.05|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.05|0.48|0.149
84594839|NCT00910910|168941337|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.46|0.73|0.883
84594840|NCT00910910|168941338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.34|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.34|0.83|0.709
84594841|NCT01194219|168941357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.5|||Chi-squared|||||32.5|23.1|<0.0001
84594842|NCT01194219|168941358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|13.7|<0.0001
84594843|NCT01194219|168941359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.34|-35.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-35.21|-46.34|<0.0001
84594844|NCT01194219|168941360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-30.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-30.6|-39.9|<0.0001
84594845|NCT01194219|168941361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|47.7|||Chi-squared|||||47.7|35.7|<0.0001
84594846|NCT01194219|168941362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-19.8|||ANOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor (an ANOVA model).||||-19.8|-28.7|<0.0001
84594847|NCT01194219|168941363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.6|||ANOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor, the baseline value, and the treatment by baseline interaction term as covariates.|||-3.6|-5.4|<0.0001
84594848|NCT01194219|168941364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.35|1.81|<0.0001
84594849|NCT01194219|168941365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|20.7|||Chi-squared|||||20.7|12.8|<0.0001
84594850|NCT01194219|168941366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|3.969|||Log Rank|||||3.969|1.768|<0.0001
84502010|NCT00386100|168755298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-8.2||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|2.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||2.82|-18.04|0.1380
84594851|NCT01081951|168941381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||The use of a one-sided 10% significance level test will be used to assess the statistical significance of the analyses of PFS.|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio of \< 1 favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||0.77|0.34|0.0012
84594852|NCT01081951|168941382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73||Two sided|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||1.73|0.79|0.4379
84594853|NCT01393899|168941435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||||14.99|-12.11|
84594854|NCT01393899|168941435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.07|31.37||||||||31.37|4.07|
84594855|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|12.79||||||Week 4||12.79|-11.57|
84594856|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|13.84||||||Week 8||13.84|-12.29|
84615571|NCT03828019|168980337|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of odds ratios|0.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||estimate is the ratio of odds ratios - OR ADA / OR CID. Value less than 1 indicates ADA is better at reducing macular edema.|Mixed effects models with a log link were used to assess treatment differences . The outcome measure was the odds ratio of having macular edema (OCT central subfield thickness \> 300 um) at 12 months compared to baseline (BL). The treatment effect was the ratio of Odds ratios (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values less than one indicate improvement in macular edema for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group. Decrease in subfield thickness is good||0.94|0.31|0.028
84615572|NCT03828019|168980338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||negative binomial model|||||1.98|0.61|0.76
84615573|NCT03828019|168980339|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||. Kaplan Meier techniques and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate time to event outcomes||0.70|0.04|0.014
84673044|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.35|0.4716
84594857|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
84594858|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.56|12.68||||||Week 20||12.68|-14.56|
84594859|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.04||||||Week 4||17.04|-6.52|
84594860|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
84594861|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.4|17.37||||||Week 12||17.37|-10.40|
84594862|NCT01393899|168941436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|24.46||||||Week 20||24.46|-3.08|
84594863|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|10.63||||||Week 4||10.63|-14.06|
84594864|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.15|9.4||||||Week 8||9.40|-17.15|
84594865|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
84594866|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||Week 20||14.99|-12.11|
84594867|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.88|14.87||||||Week 26||14.87|-11.88|
84594868|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.06|14.92||||||Week 4||14.92|-9.06|
84594869|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
84594870|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.74|15.06||||||Week 12||15.06|-12.74|
84594871|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|26.77||||||Week 20||26.77|-0.63|
84594872|NCT01393899|168941437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.54|33.66||||||Week 26||33.66|6.54|
84594873|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.41|17.28||||||Week 4||17.28|-10.41|
84594874|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.67|15.11||||||Week 8||15.11|-12.67|
84594875|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|26.67||||||Week 12||26.67|-0.31|
84594876|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.33|14.55||||||Week 20||14.55|-11.33|
84594877|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.36|21.64||||||Week 26||21.64|-4.36|
84594878|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.56||||||Week 4||19.56|-8.04|
84594879|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|5.66||||||Week 8||5.66|-21.83|
84594880|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|14.73||||||Week 12||14.73|-11.63|
84594881|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|21.81||||||Week 20||21.81|-4.64|
84594882|NCT01393899|168941438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|26.43||||||Week 26||26.43|0.15|
84594883|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|21.78||||||Week 4||21.78|-8.63|
84615574|NCT03828019|168980340|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.43|0.74
84615575|NCT03828019|168980341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Ratio of odds ratios||Treatment comparison is the ratio of the odds ratios for each treatment group (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values greater than one indicate greater improvement in health for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group.|||1.34|0.43|0.35
84615576|NCT03828019|168980342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.73|-0.95|0.24
84673045|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.6041
84594884|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.63|17.2||||||Week 8||17.20|-16.63|
84594885|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.19|41.38||||||Week 12||41.38|7.19|
84594886|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.32|24.03||||||Week 20||24.03|-10.32|
84594887|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.22|27.79||||||Week 26||27.79|-5.22|
84594888|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|23.95||||||Week 4||23.95|-6.41|
84594889|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.59|3.59||||||Week 8||3.59|-31.59|
84594890|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|19.97||||||Week 12||19.97|-15.35|
84594891|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|27.71||||||Week 20||27.71|-7.41|
84594892|NCT01393899|168941439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.96|39.04||||||Week 26||39.04|4.96|
84594893|NCT01393899|168941440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.75|13.4||||||||13.40|-9.75|
84594894|NCT01393899|168941440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|18.11|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.57|30.64||||||||30.64|5.57|
84594895|NCT01393899|168941441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.39|4.88||||||||4.88|-20.39|
84594896|NCT01393899|168941441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.33|31.33||||||||31.33|4.33|
84594897|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.26|||=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.1|-9.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-9.42|-51.10|=0.0637
84615577|NCT03828019|168980343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-2.43|0.70
84615578|NCT03828019|168980344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-1.4|0.28
84615579|NCT03828019|168980345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.07|0.009
84615580|NCT02343406|168980357|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.02|0.5|= 0.062
84594898|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.06|||=|0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.43|5.31|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||5.31|-47.43|=0.3054
84594899|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.52|||=|0.1316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.57|-6.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-6.48|-78.57|=0.1316
84594900|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Dofference|-18.01|||=|0.5704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.01|22.99|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||22.99|-59.01|=0.5704
84594901|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.0|||=|0.8389|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.22|32.21|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||32.21|-44.22|=0.8389
84594902|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.56|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.27|-2.85|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-2.85|-44.27|=0.1452
84594903|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.61|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|16.81|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||16.81|-36.03|=0.6399
84594904|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.0|||=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.57|-0.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.42|-73.57|=0.1949
84594905|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.74|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.62|-6.87|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-6.87|-88.62|=0.1358
84673046|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.53|0.0424
84673047|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.32|0.7622
84673048|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.40|0.2689
84502011|NCT00386100|168755299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-11.308||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.617|-0.899||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||-0.899|-20.617|0.0342
84502012|NCT00386100|168755300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.666|-0.99||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline.|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.99|-56.666|0.0042
84594906|NCT01393899|168941443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.38|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.03|-12.72|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-12.72|-88.03|=0.0890
84594907|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|1.26||||||Week 4||1.26|-16.14|
84594908|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.27|3.41||||||Week 8||3.41|-18.27|
84594909|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.68|0.72||||||Week 12||0.72|-25.68|
84615581|NCT02343406|168980357|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.48|0.73|= 0.835
84594910|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.81|1.34||||||Week 20||1.34|-26.81|
84594911|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.52|1.72||||||Week 26||1.72|-39.52|
84594912|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.39|6.48||||||Week 4||6.48|-12.39|
84594913|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.14|13.36||||||Week 8||13.36|-10.14|
84615582|NCT02343406|168980358|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.55|= 0.123
84594914|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.54|5.36||||||Week 12||5.36|-21.54|
84594915|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.99|1.19||||||Week 20||1.19|-26.99|
84594916|NCT01393899|168941444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-26.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.54|-6.02||||||Week 26||-6.02|-46.54|
84594917|NCT01393899|168941445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.44|32.66||||||||32.66|-11.44|
84594918|NCT01393899|168941445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.15|37.49||||||||37.49|-4.15|
84594919|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.53|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.53|-1.34|<0.0001
84594920|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.76|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.28|-1.24|=0.0024
84594921|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.24|-1.26|=0.0044
84594922|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||0.02|-1.13|=0.0582
84594923|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|||=|0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||0.09|-1.31|=0.0865
84615583|NCT02343406|168980358|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.84|0.93|= 0.117
84615584|NCT02343406|168980366|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.16||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||16.16|0.6|= 0.06
84502013|NCT00386100|168755301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.229||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|-0.099||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.099|-0.359|0.0006
84615585|NCT02343406|168980366|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||12.49|0.12|= 0.767
84615586|NCT02343406|168980367|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.13||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.4|= 0.127
84615587|NCT02343406|168980367|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.49||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.52|= 0.64
84615588|NCT00195663|168980378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment, the second primary analysis of the modified Total Sharp Score was to be performed.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The study was powered to demonstrate the superiority of adalimumab + MTX combination therapy vs. MTX monotherapy in the proportion of subjects who achieved an ACR50 response at 52 weeks. Power calculations were based on 250 subjects in each group using a chi-squared test with a continuity correction and an alpha = 0.05 significance level. With 250 subjects in each group, a difference of 0.13 in response rates could be detected with 80% power.||||<0.001
84502014|NCT00386100|168755302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.4||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|16.34||HOMA-B. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||16.34|-9.87|0.7148
84594924|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.52|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.52|-1.32|<0.0001
84594925|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.45|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.45|-1.40|=0.0002
84594926|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.71|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.71|-1.75|<0.0001
84594927|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.74|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-0.74|-1.87|<0.0001
84594928|NCT01393899|168941447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.95|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.95|-2.30|<0.0001
84615589|NCT00195663|168980379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment on the ACR50 response, the second primary analysis of modified TSS would be performed.||||<0.001
84615590|NCT00195663|168980380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84615591|NCT00195663|168980381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84615592|NCT00195663|168980382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84615593|NCT00195663|168980383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84615594|NCT00195663|168980384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84594929|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.39|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.01|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||0.01|-0.79|=0.0566
84615595|NCT00195663|168980385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84615596|NCT00195663|168980386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5402||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5402
84594930|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||0.20|-0.61|=0.3144
84594931|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.02|-1.10|=0.0434
84594932|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.57|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.18|-0.96|=0.0050
84615597|NCT03182907|168980457|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 1 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 1 geometric mean (GM) AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||1.18|0.95|
84615598|NCT03182907|168980457|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 2 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 2 GM AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||0.89|0.75|
84615599|NCT03182907|168980458|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-14.5|
84615600|NCT03182907|168980459|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.7|
84615601|NCT03182907|168980460|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|-3.7|||=|0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||8.0|-20.0|= 0.5701
84594933|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.66|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.25|-1.06|=0.0017
84594934|NCT01393899|168941449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.67|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.67|-1.72|<0.0001
84594935|NCT02622295|168941451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84594936|NCT02622295|168941452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84615602|NCT03182907|168980461|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||=|0.9165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||17.6|-11.8|= 0.9165
84759858|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-19.0|<0.001
84502015|NCT00386100|168755302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from metformin|31.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|49.78||HOMA-S. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||49.78|14.82|<0.001
84502016|NCT00386100|168755303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.85||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.035|240.744|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, pre-screening Hb1AC, time, and treatment by time interaction||||240.744|-79.035|0.319
84594937|NCT02622295|168941453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84594938|NCT02622295|168941454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.467
84594939|NCT02622295|168941455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84594940|NCT02622295|168941456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.932
84594941|NCT02622295|168941457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.326
84594942|NCT02622295|168941458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.673
84594943|NCT02622295|168941459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.539
84594944|NCT02622295|168941460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.155
84594945|NCT02622295|168941461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
84594946|NCT02622295|168941462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.493
84594947|NCT02622295|168941463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
84594948|NCT00132301|168941464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11||Log rank test stratified by site.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.40
84594949|NCT00480740|168941465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of dexmedetomindine plus sevoflurane compared with the baseline (sevoflurane alone) for any given variable was reached when the difference (steady-state \[dexmedetomidine + sevoflurane\]-baseline \[sevoflurane0\]/baseline \[sevoflurane\]0 and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI) fell completely withing the range of +/-20% indicated by the gray column.||||||0.05||95.0||||The original study design was powered to achieve at least 80% power to detect noninferiority with the two-tailed alpha level set at 0.05 for data with two measurements.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84594950|NCT04585269|168941466|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-4.93|<0.001
84615603|NCT03182907|168980462|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted Difference|-3.1|||=|0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.0|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.0|-19.9|= 0.6542
84594951|NCT04585269|168941467|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-4.05|0.003
84594952|NCT04585269|168941468|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.45|0.34|0.029
84594953|NCT04209387|168941478|OTHER|p \< .01||||||0.01||||||p adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from baseline (before therapy) to the end of therapy.~Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from end of therapy to 3-month follow-up"|ANOVA test of means|||0.01
84594954|NCT00125788|168941479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.076
84594955|NCT00125788|168941480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.072
84594956|NCT00125788|168941481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.129
84594957|NCT02842086|168941502|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.191|1.149||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% confidence interval (CI) constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.149|0.191|
84594958|NCT02842086|168941503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.655|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included baseline TVD for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as fixed effects.||1.655|0.628|<0.0001
84594959|NCT02842086|168941504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.22|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.220|0.913|<0.0001
84615604|NCT03182907|168980463|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.4|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-13.0|= 0.9873
84615605|NCT00429169|168980467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.023||The p-value applies to the interaction term of Treatment X Baseline Suicidal Ideation severity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized least squares model of Scale for Suicidal Ideation score during 8-week acute treatment of major depressive disorder.||-0.023|-0.57|0.03
84615606|NCT02058563|168980497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 1790.2 (LL=1669.6;UL=1919.5) and 1781.5 (LL=1661.8;UL=1909.7) respectively|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.91|
84615607|NCT02058563|168980498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 113.5 (LL=106.0;UL=121.6) and 107.8 (LL=100.7;UL=115.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed.||1.16|0.96|
84615608|NCT02058563|168980499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 76.1 (LL=71.5;UL=81.0) and 74.6 (LL=70.2;UL=79.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.93|
84615609|NCT00483938|168980518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group A versus Group B||||0.510
84615610|NCT00483938|168980519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group C versus Group D||||1.000
84615611|NCT00483938|168980519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
84615612|NCT00483938|168980520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group A versus Group B||||0.792
84615613|NCT00483938|168980520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group C versus Group D||||0.612
84673049|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.44|0.2110
84615614|NCT00483938|168980520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group E versus Group F||||0.490
84615615|NCT00483938|168980520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group C versus Group D||||0.363
84615616|NCT00483938|168980520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
84615617|NCT03364309|168980573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.57|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|33.57|<0.0001
84615618|NCT03364309|168980573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.49|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|52.49|<0.001
84673050|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.5873
84615619|NCT03364309|168980574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|32.76|<0.001
84615620|NCT03364309|168980574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|64.87|<0.001
84615621|NCT03364309|168980576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.88|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|31.88|<0.001
84615622|NCT03364309|168980576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.96|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|46.96|<0.001
84615623|NCT03364309|168980578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.68|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|13.68|<0.001
84615624|NCT03364309|168980578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|15.09|<0.001
84615625|NCT03364309|168980579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-10.71|<0.001
84759859|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-23.0|<0.001
84594960|NCT02842086|168941505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
84594961|NCT02842086|168941506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
84594962|NCT02842086|168941507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.0048
84594963|NCT02842086|168941508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
84594964|NCT02842086|168941509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.227|1.264||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% CI constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.264|0.227|
84594965|NCT02842086|168941510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|2.237|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.237|0.896|<0.0001
84594966|NCT02842086|168941511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|3.069|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||3.069|1.437|<0.0001
84594967|NCT02842086|168941512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
84615626|NCT03364309|168980579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.59|-10.96|<0.001
84594968|NCT02842086|168941513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
84594969|NCT02842086|168941514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.2163
84615627|NCT03364309|168980580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.79|-13.38|<0.001
84615628|NCT03364309|168980580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-12.11|<0.001
84594970|NCT02842086|168941515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the ANCOVA model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
84594971|NCT00928187|168941518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL Viral Load (VL) threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|differences in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.4||||||||16.4|-5.1|
84594972|NCT00928187|168941518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL VL threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.7||||||||16.7|-4.5|
84594973|NCT00928187|168941523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84594974|NCT00928187|168941524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84594975|NCT00928187|168941525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84594976|NCT00802997|168941564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84594977|NCT05112679|168941617|OTHER|See SAP|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All participants were randomized to both groups in a cross over design, if a participant started with proprio after 4 weeks of use they will cross over to Empower ankle or vice versa. the data reflect comparison of the groups.||||0.009
84594978|NCT05265728|168941640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LS mean)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||||LS mean (95% Confidence Interval \[CI\]) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||0.76|0.18|
84594979|NCT05265728|168941641|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|13.74|||||LS mean (95% CI) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||13.74|0.69|
84594980|NCT03046927|168941671|EQUIVALENCE|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model with dependent||Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.001
84594981|NCT03046927|168941672|OTHER||trend analysis|0.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.01
84594982|NCT03046927|168941673|OTHER|p values were derived from trend analysis using generalized linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.947||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|General linear models|||||0.947|0.066|0.0241
84594983|NCT03046927|168941674|OTHER|p values were obtained from a generalized linear model with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|10.37||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.13||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|Regression, Linear|||||27.13|-6.40|0.23
84594984|NCT03046927|168941675|OTHER||trend analysis|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||Trend analysis was obtained using generalized linear model GEE.|||<0.001
84594985|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84594986|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Desire to void: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84594987|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84594988|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84615629|NCT03364309|168980581|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-34.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.94|-30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-30.98|-38.94|<0.001
84502017|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.9|-3.5|0.0012
84594989|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84594990|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
84594991|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
84594992|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
84594993|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
84594994|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supplementary motor area||||<0.05
84594995|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
84594996|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
84594997|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L angular gyrus||||<0.05
84594998|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
84594999|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
84595000|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
84595001|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595002|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595003|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R posterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595004|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L thalamus||||<0.05
84615630|NCT03364309|168980581|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-32.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.37|-40.30|<0.001
84615631|NCT03364309|168980582|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.86|-18.62|<0.001
84595005|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R thalamus||||<0.05
84595006|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precuneus||||<0.05
84595007|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precuneus||||<0.05
84595008|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L caudate nucleus||||<0.05
84595009|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
84595010|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
84595011|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L putamen||||<0.05
84595012|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
84595013|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
84595014|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L insula lobe||||<0.05
84595015|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595016|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595017|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R cerebellum||||<0.05
84595018|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
84595019|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
84595020|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
84595021|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
84615632|NCT03364309|168980582|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.954|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.05|-19.80|<0.001
84595022|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
84595023|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84595024|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84595025|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84595026|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84595027|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
84615633|NCT03364309|168980583|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.915|7.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.541|4.915|<0.001
84615634|NCT03364309|168980583|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.225|7.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.847|5.225|<0.001
84615635|NCT03364309|168980584|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.328|7.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.058|3.328|<0.001
84615636|NCT03364309|168980584|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.503|7.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.222|3.503|<0.001
84615637|NCT03364309|168980585|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-2.9|<0.001
84615638|NCT03364309|168980585|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
84615639|NCT03364309|168980586|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.15|-5.56|0.003
84615640|NCT03364309|168980586|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.67|-6.90|<0.001
84615641|NCT03364309|168980587|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-50.5|0.022
84615642|NCT03364309|168980587|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.87||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-47.8|0.031
84595028|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
84615643|NCT04072887|168980632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.027|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.027|0.628
84615644|NCT04072887|168980632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.012|0.425
84615645|NCT04072887|168980632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.016|0.463
84615646|NCT04072887|168980632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.008|0.244
84595029|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
84595030|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
84595031|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
84615647|NCT04072887|168980632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.024|0.793
84615648|NCT03334812|168980676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB||0.51|-0.15|0.1219
84615649|NCT03334812|168980676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||DTBT/HWB||0.25|-0.28|0.5438
84615650|NCT03334812|168980677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||0.31|-0.19|0.3067
84615651|NCT03334812|168980679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.23||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|56.32|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 4||56.32|-3.86|0.0404
84595032|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: R middle occipital gyrus||||<0.05
84595033|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
84595034|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
84595035|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Opercularis)||||<0.05
84595036|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
84595037|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
84595038|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L cerebellum||||<0.05
84595039|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rectal gyrus||||<0.05
84615652|NCT03334812|168980679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.82||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|82.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 12||82.10|-26.5|0.1381
84615653|NCT03334812|168980679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.3|66.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 (EOS)||66.89|-19.3|0.1168
84615654|NCT03334812|168980680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 12||0.25|-0.26|0.5175
84615655|NCT03334812|168980680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 28||0.60|-0.22|0.1476
84615656|NCT01153724|168980685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|113.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.893|121.197||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||121.197|105.893|0.0101
84615657|NCT01153724|168980686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|108.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|116.487||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||116.487|101.590|0.0009
84615658|NCT01153724|168980686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean|85.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.277|93.253||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||93.253|79.277|0.0711
84615659|NCT01153724|168980689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|114.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.5||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.94|131.932||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||131.932|99.940|0.1539
84615660|NCT01153724|168980689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.068||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.619|83.266||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||83.266|66.619|0.8574
84615661|NCT01153724|168980690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.105|79.418||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||79.418|69.105|0.9646
84673051|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.46|0.0450
84673052|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.57|0.0847
84759860|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
84595040|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rectal gyrus||||<0.05
84595041|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
84595042|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
84615662|NCT02697435|168980693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84759861|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-23.0|<0.001
84595043|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595044|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595045|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595046|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
84595047|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supplementary motor area (SMA)||||<0.05
84595048|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R SMA||||<0.05
84595049|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L paracentral lobule||||<0.05
84615663|NCT00870545|168980695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.003
84615664|NCT00870545|168980696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.20
84615665|NCT00870545|168980697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||<.001
84502018|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0031
84595050|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
84595051|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
84595052|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
84595053|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior orbital gyrus||||<0.05
84759862|NCT02873936|169275984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-19.0|<0.001
84759863|NCT02873936|169275985|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
84759864|NCT02873936|169275985|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
84759865|NCT02873936|169275985|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.21|-0.51|<0.001
84759866|NCT02873936|169275985|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
84502019|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0308
84502020|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.3|-3.7|0.0954
84595054|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
84615666|NCT00870545|168980698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, 12 months)||||.26
84759867|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-7.41||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.41|-13.61|<0.001
84595055|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
84615667|NCT00870545|168980699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in scores over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.04
84595056|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
84595057|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
84595058|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L anterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595059|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595060|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
84595061|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R angular gyrus||||<0.05
84595062|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L thalamus||||<0.05
84595063|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R thalamus||||<0.05
84595064|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precuneus||||<0.05
84595065|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precuneus||||<0.05
84595066|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R caudate nucleus||||<0.05
84595067|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L putamen||||<0.05
84595068|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L amygdala||||<0.05
84595069|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R insula lobe||||<0.05
84595070|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rolandic operculum||||<0.05
84615668|NCT00870545|168980700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.10
84595071|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L hippocampus||||<0.05
84595072|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R hippocampus||||<0.05
84595073|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
84595074|NCT03574610|168941686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rolandic operculum||||<0.05
84502021|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.2|-4.7|0.0015
84595075|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Voided volume - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.45
84595076|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Voided volume - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.39
84595077|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||PVR - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.014
84595078|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||PVR - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.66
84595079|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Bladder capacity - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.31
84595080|NCT03574610|168941687|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Bladder capacity - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.001
84595081|NCT03574610|168941688|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||% PVR/BC - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.004
84595082|NCT03574610|168941688|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||%PVR/BC - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.038
84595083|NCT03574610|168941689|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Qmax - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.19
84595084|NCT03574610|168941689|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Max - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.91
84595085|NCT03574610|168941690|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.13
84502022|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-3.9|0.0045
84595086|NCT03574610|168941690|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.26
84595087|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.40
84595088|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.086
84595089|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
84595090|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.19
84595091|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.04
84595092|NCT03574610|168941691|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.026
84759868|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.82||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.82|-12.02|<0.001
84759869|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|-7.69||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.69|-14.19|<0.001
84595093|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.044
84595094|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.017
84595095|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
84595096|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.503||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.503
84595097|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.023
84595098|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.049
84595099|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.089
84595100|NCT03574610|168941692|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.161
84595101|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.010
84595102|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.41
84595103|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.32
84595104|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.02
84759870|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-5.73||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.73|-12.22|<0.001
84595105|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.34
84595106|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.61
84595107|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.02
84595108|NCT03574610|168941693|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.07
84595109|NCT03726658|168941789|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.98
84615669|NCT02178696|168980701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.23||A p\<0.001 was established for regions a priori hypothesized (e.g. nucleus accumbens).|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|0.016|<0.001
84615670|NCT02508428|168980708|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in survivorship among the Marathon and Enduron liners were evaluated with a Log Rank test.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Log Rank|||Survivorship was evaluated using liner revision for wear/osteolysis as an endpoint using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||<0.001
84615671|NCT02508428|168980709|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the wear rates were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.17|<0.001
84615672|NCT02508428|168980710|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the incidences of clinically important osteolysis were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||0.30|0.006|<0.001
84615673|NCT02508428|168980711|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the rate of satisfaction among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.48||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Since there were no patients with Marathon liners who were unsatisfied with the outcome of their hip replacement, a relative risk and the associated confidence interval could not be calculated.||||0.48
84615674|NCT02508428|168980712|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the Harris Hip Scores among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.4||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
84615675|NCT04371666|168980735|OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5494||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.176||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Random coefficient model|||||1.176|-1.010|0.8802
84615676|NCT03228212|168980740|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.09|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 60 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||9.09|1.16|
84615677|NCT03228212|168980741|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logmar was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||0.03|0.01|
84615678|NCT03228212|168980742|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|proportion|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Bayesian Methods|Bayesian Methods-Jefferys prior for binomial proportion was used to calculate 95% credible interval.||It was calculated that 70 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures. Analysis was only performed on eyes wearing the Tesl lens.||1|0.96|
84502023|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0||Female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-3.3|0.0005
84502024|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.2|-4.6|0.2363
84615679|NCT03228212|168980743|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0043|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0237|0.0129|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data|Mean difference calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.0129|-0.0237|
84615680|NCT03228212|168980744|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.74|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||10.74|3.69|
84615681|NCT03228212|168980745|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.29|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||6.29|0.36|
84615682|NCT00999544|168980746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Area-under-the-curve (AUC) scores were derived from time course data and analyzed using two-factor ANOVA \[aprepitant dose (3 levels)x oxycodone dose (3 levels)\].~All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.1 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and were considered significant when P 0.05."||||<.05
84615683|NCT02936635|168980754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.035|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-11.035|0.2821
84502025|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-5.9|0.0161
84502026|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||Postmenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.9|0.0338
84595110|NCT03726658|168941789|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.25
84595111|NCT03726658|168941789|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||||0.93
84595112|NCT03726658|168941790|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Chane from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
84595113|NCT03726658|168941790|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in baseline in placebo group|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.84
84615684|NCT02936635|168980755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.711|3.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.067|-13.711|0.2118
84615685|NCT02936635|168980756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.801|-2.946|0.6354
84615686|NCT02936635|168980757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.186|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.763|-3.186|0.8887
84615687|NCT02309944|168980766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.27
84615688|NCT02309944|168980766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multivariate Model (adjusted for ascites and previous laparotomy)||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.24
84759871|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.964|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.00|-13.73|<0.001
84502027|NCT00386100|168755305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-4.1|0.0020
84615689|NCT02871635|168980785|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.028|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.028|0.870|
84615690|NCT02871635|168980785|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.044|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.044|0.856|
84615691|NCT02871635|168980786|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.148|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.148|0.871|
84615692|NCT02871635|168980786|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.178|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.178|0.848|
84615693|NCT02871635|168980787|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.078|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.078|0.751|
84615694|NCT02871635|168980787|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.116|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.116|0.725|
84615695|NCT01510158|168980818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.17|<0.0001
84673053|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.6|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.60|-0.16|0.2522
84595114|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.69
84615696|NCT01510158|168980818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
84615697|NCT01510158|168980819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.61|0.61|0.9796
84615698|NCT01510158|168980819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.43|0.54|0.6125
84673054|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.43|0.5026
84673055|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.38|0.5911
84673056|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.18|0.5800
84759872|NCT02873936|169275986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.98||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.98|-10.80|<0.001
84595115|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
84615699|NCT01510158|168980820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.08|-0.51|0.0183
84615700|NCT01510158|168980820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.37|0.5974
84615701|NCT02114606|168980830|OTHER|Overall agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa, with endoscopic biopsy as the gold standard.||||||0.0001||||||A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cohen's Kappa|||All participants enrolled (EoE Patients) provided both a Cytosponge specimen and endoscopic biopsy. The results of these specimens were compared to examine overall agreement.||||0.0001
84615702|NCT02287467|168980875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is hIVIG vs. placebo. A value greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio of being in a better category, as assessed using a proportional odds model. Multiple imputation techniques were used to impute an outcome for 4 patients for whom the outcome was unknown.||1.97|0.79|.33
84615703|NCT02287467|168980876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better category, from a proportional odds model||1.48|0.61|.84
84615704|NCT02287467|168980877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs. placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better group, from a proportional odds model.||1.33|0.57|.52
84615705|NCT02287467|168980878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio \> 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||2.74|0.81|.20
84615706|NCT02287467|168980879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|hazard ratio is hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|Deaths during hospitalization are censored after day 7.||1.45|.85|.44
84615707|NCT02287467|168980880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.15|||Regression, Cox|stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|hazard ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||6.15|.48|.40
84615708|NCT02287467|168980881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; an odds ratio \> 1.0 favors hIVIG|||1.98|.38|.74
84615709|NCT02287467|168980882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline RNA, geographic region, and influenza subtype|Change is calculated as day 3 - baseline. Difference in changes is hIVIG - placebo.|||.54|-.26|.49
84615710|NCT02287467|168980883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo.|||1.97|0.5|.93
84615711|NCT02287467|168980884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG group vs placebo|||1.82|0.5|.81
84615712|NCT02287467|168980885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) of being in a better category. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Proportional odds for being in a better category||1.95|0.70|.55
84595116|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
84615713|NCT02287467|168980886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo|||2.31|.5|.77
84615714|NCT02287467|168980887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is expressed as hIVIG vs placebo|||2.34|0.7|.34
84759873|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||32.1|8.1|<0.001
84502028|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-2.3|0.0005
84615715|NCT02287467|168980888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category. An odds ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|||1.62|.50|.73
84615716|NCT02287467|168980889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for 3 participants for whom the outcome was partially unknown.||1.59|0.55|.82
84615717|NCT02287467|168980890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) for a better outcome. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for one participant.||8.42|1.21|.02
84615718|NCT02287467|168980891|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal regression with adjustment for baseline titer|Ratio of hIVIG group to placebo group. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers for the hIVIG group.|HAI measurements were log-transformed to compute treatment differences and the model was adjusted for baseline titer.||2.7|0.84|.18
84615719|NCT02287467|168980892|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal analysis of log-transformed titers adjust for baseline titer.|Ratio of geometric means of hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \>1.0 indicates higher titers in the hIVIG group on day 7.|||1.8|0.93|.13
84615720|NCT02287467|168980893|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|log-transformed titers adjusted for baseline titer|ratio of geometric mean for hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers at day 7 for the hIVIG group.|||1.5|0.58|.78
84615721|NCT02152761|168980911|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Group Ratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.057|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.076|1.037|<.0001
84615722|NCT02152761|168980911|SUPERIORITY||Treatment group rratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.064|1.024|<.0001
84615723|NCT02152761|168980912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.071||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.034||Treatment Difference (BYM-Placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.034|-0.175|0.1829
84615724|NCT02152761|168980912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|0.011||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.119|-0.096|0.8365
84615725|NCT02152761|168980913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.371||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.311|1.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.053|-1.311|0.5802
84595117|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculaton was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.55
84595118|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
84595119|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.56
84595120|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.80
84595121|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.45
84595122|NCT03726658|168941791|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.67
84595123|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
84595124|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.59
84595125|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14, Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.35
84595126|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.82
84615726|NCT02152761|168980913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of the Treatment Difference|0.833||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.801|-0.135|0.0913
84615727|NCT02152761|168980914|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||Negative binomial regression|||||2.21|0.53|0.8353
84759874|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||26.5|2.4|0.013
84615728|NCT02152761|168980914|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.58||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.18|||Negative binomial regression|||||3.18|0.78|0.2015
84615729|NCT02152761|168980914|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.0|||Negative binomial regression|||week 24||3.00|0.52|0.3999
84615730|NCT01290757|168980935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.082|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
84759875|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||34.1|10.3|<0.001
84595127|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.61
84595128|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.47
84595129|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.76
84595130|NCT03726658|168941792|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.99
84595131|NCT00412958|168941793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square tests from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||6.36|0.24|0.796
84595132|NCT00412958|168941793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||8.36|0.39|0.447
84595133|NCT00412958|168941793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||13.95|0.77|0.107
84595134|NCT01152788|168941829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Log Rank|||||2.01|0.6|0.76
84595135|NCT01152788|168941830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.8||||||||16.8|-18.7|
84595136|NCT01152788|168941831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.38|0.55
84595137|NCT01152788|168941832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84615731|NCT01290757|168980935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.33||||||90.0|119.45|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.60|119.45|
84595138|NCT00363142|168941851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of FPV/r100 to FPV/r200 would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in percentage of participants not meeting the virologic failure definition \[FPV/r100 minus FPV/r200\] was -12% or greater.|Difference in the percentages|-2.12||||||95.0|-9.36|5.12|||||Difference in percentages = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||5.12|-9.36|
84595139|NCT03994211|168941871|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||||1.06|0.83|
84595140|NCT03994211|168941872|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.15||||||||1.15|0.95|
84595141|NCT03994211|168941873|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.7||||||||0.70|0.54|
84595142|NCT03994211|168941874|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
84595143|NCT03994211|168941875|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.69||||||||0.69|0.48|
84595144|NCT03994211|168941876|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09||||||||1.09|0.90|
84595145|NCT01926444|168941899|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||AUC- censorsed (standardized); FAS||||0.506
84595146|NCT01926444|168941899|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (standardized); FAS||||0.299
84595147|NCT01926444|168941899|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANOVA|||AUC Censored (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.234
84595148|NCT01926444|168941899|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.219
84595149|NCT01926444|168941900|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||Time to Caecum||||0.047
84595150|NCT01926444|168941901|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
84595151|NCT01272037|168941916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*recurrence score interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with the recurrence score in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on the recurrence score. If the interaction was statistically significant, the interaction term was planned to be included in the Cox model to evaluate the invasive disease-free survival outcome.||1.05|0.98|0.35
84615732|NCT01290757|168980936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.085|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
84595152|NCT01272037|168941916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.54|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*menopausal status interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with menopausal status (one of the study stratification factors) in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on menopausal status. If the interaction was statistically significant, separate analyses of IDFS were planned to be conducted by menopausal status.||2.54|1.15|0.008
84595153|NCT01272037|168941916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.||0.83|0.43|0.002
84595154|NCT01272037|168941916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.26|0.82|0.89
84595155|NCT01272037|168941923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.|To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|0.87|0.39|0.009
84595156|NCT01272037|168941923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37|||Regression, Cox||To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.37|0.81|0.70
84595157|NCT03035864|168941929|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.11|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||6.63|-6.85|=0.974
84595158|NCT03035864|168941929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|2.88|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|9.61|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis related to severity||9.61|-3.85|=0.399
84595159|NCT03035864|168941930|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.04|||=|0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.02|=0.214
84595160|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.43|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|5.27|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 4||5.27|-6.13|=0.881
84595161|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.31|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 8||6.33|-6.96|=0.926
84595162|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-2.29|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - Week 12||3.38|-7.97|=0.426
84595163|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.62|||=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 4||6.29|-5.04|=0.828
84595164|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.86|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 8||9.47|-3.75|=0.394
84595165|NCT03035864|168941934|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-1.49|||=|0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Severeity - Week 12||3.44|-6.41|=0.552
84759876|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|33.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||33.6|10.0|<0.001
84595166|NCT03163134|168941935|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84595167|NCT03163134|168941936|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.577
84595168|NCT02720523|168941937|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|14.3|<0.001
84595169|NCT02720523|168941937|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.1|23.5|<0.001
84595170|NCT02720523|168941937|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|19.4|<0.001
84595171|NCT02720523|168941937|OTHER|Cochran-Armitage test was conducted for demonstrating a dose response relationship.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||<0.001
84595172|NCT02720523|168941938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.693|-0.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.880|-1.693|<0.001
84759877|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|44.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||44.9|21.8|<0.001
84595173|NCT02720523|168941938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.190|-2.005|<0.001
84595174|NCT02720523|168941938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.216|-2.027|<0.001
84595175|NCT02720523|168941939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.144|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.144|-0.465|<0.001
84595176|NCT02720523|168941939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.184|-0.505|<0.001
84759878|NCT02873936|169275987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||30.5|6.8|0.001
84759879|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.001
84759880|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
84759881|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.001
84502029|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-1.7|0.0110
84595177|NCT02720523|168941939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.229|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.229|-0.550|<0.001
84595178|NCT02720523|168941940|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|7.3|0.007
84595179|NCT02720523|168941940|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.9|32.1|<0.001
84595180|NCT02720523|168941940|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|58.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.8|24.5|<0.001
84595181|NCT02720523|168941941|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.3|6.4|0.004
84595182|NCT02720523|168941941|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|18.7|<0.001
84759882|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.3|<0.001
84595183|NCT02720523|168941941|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|12.9|<0.001
84595184|NCT02720523|168941942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.57|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.57|2.10|<0.001
84595185|NCT02720523|168941942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.75|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.75|1.25|0.002
84595186|NCT02720523|168941942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|8.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||8.22|3.64|<0.001
84595187|NCT02720523|168941943|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.4|17.0|<0.001
84595188|NCT02720523|168941943|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.9|34.2|<0.001
84759883|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.5|<0.001
84595189|NCT02720523|168941943|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|70.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.1|37.1|<0.001
84595190|NCT02720523|168941944|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|15.5|<0.001
84595191|NCT02720523|168941944|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|66.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.4|35.6|<0.001
84595192|NCT02720523|168941944|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.3|28.5|<0.001
84595193|NCT02720523|168941945|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|7.4|0.006
84595194|NCT02720523|168941945|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|2.1|0.026
84595195|NCT02720523|168941945|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|10.6|0.002
84595196|NCT02720523|168941946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.2|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.20|0.12|0.040
84615733|NCT01290757|168980936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.49||||||90.0|118.69|132.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.67|118.69|
84673057|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.31|0.6754
84759884|NCT02873936|169275988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84759885|NCT02873936|169275989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.2|3.5|0.004
84595197|NCT02720523|168941946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.79||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|4.35|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.35|-0.77|0.169
84595198|NCT02720523|168941946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.43|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||3.43|-1.73|0.516
84595199|NCT02720523|168941947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-4.68|0.021
84595200|NCT02720523|168941947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.25|-4.36|0.080
84615734|NCT01290757|168980937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.74||||||90.0|118.32|131.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.51|118.32|
84615735|NCT01290757|168980938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.22||||||90.0|119.36|133.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.47|119.36|
84759886|NCT02873936|169275989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|21.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.5|4.0|0.003
84759887|NCT02873936|169275989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|38.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.4|16.3|<0.001
84759888|NCT02873936|169275989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||27.7|6.2|0.001
84759889|NCT02873936|169275990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||13.7|1.3|0.012
84759890|NCT02873936|169275990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||15.5|2.7|0.006
84759891|NCT02873936|169275990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||23.1|5.6|<0.001
84759892|NCT02873936|169275990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||26.2|8.5|<0.001
84595201|NCT02720523|168941947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.94|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.94|-4.06|0.220
84595202|NCT02720523|168941948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.04|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.04|-2.57|<0.001
84595203|NCT02720523|168941948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.05|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.05|-2.59|<0.001
84595204|NCT02720523|168941948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.18|-2.73|<0.001
84595205|NCT02340169|168941949|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Adrenal suppression rates in the evaluable population were 35% (21 out of 60), 43.3% (13 out of 30) and 20% (2 out of 10) in Cohorts 1, 2 a nd 3, respectively.|||
84595206|NCT01890265|168941952|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||=|0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.3||The analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) was based on the random coefficient regression model based on observed cases.|Random coefficient regression|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) is presented.||8.3|0.35|= 0.0331
84595207|NCT01890265|168941953|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF score is presented.||-0.2|-3.3|= 0.0236
84595208|NCT01890265|168941953|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|||=|0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.3|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in QLF score is presented.||0.3|-6.6|= 0.0729
84595209|NCT01890265|168941954|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference|-21.4|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The absolute treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for percentage of participants with IPF progression at Week 48 is presented.||-6.2|-36.6|= 0.0133
84595210|NCT01158820|168941959|OTHER|No data available for power analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84595211|NCT01158820|168941960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.75|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are µg|See reference power analysis||||<0.01
84595212|NCT01158820|168941961|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are mg|See reference for power analysis||||0.01
84595213|NCT03079531|168941984|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in papule/pustule count at baseline and after 16 weeks of secukinumab; the alternative hypothesis is that there would be a difference. Using an alpha=0.05 and power=0.80 (two sided test), the sample size needed would be 20. Assuming a dropout rate of 20%, 24 patients would be needed to achieve sufficient sample size.||||0.01
84595214|NCT03079531|168941985|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84595215|NCT03079531|168941986|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
84595216|NCT03079531|168941987|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
84595217|NCT03079531|168941988|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84595218|NCT03079531|168941990|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
84595219|NCT06875284|168942018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-6.96|-11.06|<0.0001
84595220|NCT06875284|168942018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.09|-4.22|0.041
84615736|NCT01290757|168980939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.3||||||90.0|118.42|132.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.59|118.42|
84615737|NCT01290757|168980940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.49||||||90.0|118.11|131.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.21|118.11|
84615738|NCT00900666|168980955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a priori power calculation suggested N=26 for each group.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 threshold|ANOVA|Correlations with walking speed and time since injury were initially performed to determine whether ANCOVA would be be more appropriate.||ANOVA||||0.761
84615739|NCT00900666|168980956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.896
84615740|NCT05280717|168980957|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8825|1.093|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with AUC(D1- 29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0930|0.8825|
84615741|NCT05280717|168980958|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0108|1.2539|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.2539|1.0108|
84615742|NCT05280717|168980961|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6391|2.1472|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.1472|1.6391|
84615743|NCT05280717|168980961|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4086|1.8153|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.8153|1.4086|
84615744|NCT05280717|168980962|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.0798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8223|2.3737|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.3737|1.8223|
84615745|NCT05280717|168980962|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.6955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4913|1.9276|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.9276|1.4913|
84615746|NCT05280717|168980967|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8578|1.0469|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0469|0.8578|
84673058|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.04|0.1006
84615747|NCT05280717|168980967|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.377|1.7407|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.7407|1.3770|
84615748|NCT05280717|168980967|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.4167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2627|1.5894|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.5894|1.2627|
84615749|NCT04607837|168981017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.35||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|19.94|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the risk difference being 0.||19.94|-5.24|0.2524
84615750|NCT04607837|168981018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.61||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|26.91|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.91|4.31|0.0068
84615751|NCT04607837|168981019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.24||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|21.71|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.71|-5.22|0.2302
84615752|NCT04607837|168981020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.12||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|21.55|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.55|-7.32|0.3339
84615753|NCT04607837|168981021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|13.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||13.13|-11.76|0.9141
84615754|NCT04607837|168981022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.56||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|21.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.25|-2.13|0.1089
84615755|NCT04607837|168981023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.19||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|19.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.75|2.63|0.0104
84615756|NCT04607837|168981024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|19.92|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.92|-22.06|0.9203
84615757|NCT04607837|168981025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
84615758|NCT04607837|168981026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.71||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.31|34.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||34.90|-38.31|0.9272
84615759|NCT04607837|168981027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
84615760|NCT04607837|168981028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.64||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|33.67|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||33.67|3.61|0.0151
84615761|NCT04607837|168981029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.96||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|21.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.13|-9.22|0.4419
84615762|NCT04607837|168981030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.33||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.78|36.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.89|9.78|0.0007
84615763|NCT04607837|168981031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.99||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|26.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.79|3.19|0.0128
84615764|NCT04607837|168981032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.24||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|24.14|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.14|-3.67|0.1492
84673059|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3588
84673060|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.28|0.5807
84615765|NCT04607837|168981033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|12.53|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||12.53|-12.18|0.9774
84615766|NCT04607837|168981034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|36.49|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.49|9.17|0.0011
84615767|NCT04607837|168981035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|25.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||25.56|-3.95|0.1513
84615768|NCT04607837|168981036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.07||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|24.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.87|-4.73|0.1823
84615769|NCT03453489|168981046|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
84615770|NCT03375489|168981049|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported quality of life if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in means was within the margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|3.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment and controlling for baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire scores.||3.9|0.1|0.04
84615771|NCT03375489|168981050|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported communication with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportions was within the margin of ±8%.|Estimated Difference in Proportions|3.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|8.1||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The difference between groups in the proportions of patients reporting that they communicated with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences was estimated using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||8.1|-1.8|0.26
84595221|NCT06875284|168942018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Covariates included cohort and history of peer victimization.||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|-6.25|-10.76|<0.0001
84595222|NCT06875284|168942019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.08|-2.27|0.035
84595223|NCT06875284|168942019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.76|-1.44|0.54
84595224|NCT06875284|168942019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.60|0.023
84595225|NCT06875284|168942020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.34|-3.98|<0.0001
84595226|NCT06875284|168942020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.39|-3.09|0.012
84595227|NCT06875284|168942020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.03|-3.88|0.0008
84595228|NCT06875284|168942021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||1.02|-0.02|0.058
84595229|NCT06875284|168942021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.01|-1.07|0.046
84595230|NCT06875284|168942021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.09|-1.06|0.097
84595231|NCT06875284|168942022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.26|-0.16|0.64
84615772|NCT03375489|168981051|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient length of stay in hospice if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in mean days was within the margin of ±6 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|7.4||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean length of stay in hospice between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||7.4|-7.0|0.46
84595232|NCT06875284|168942022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.33|-0.09|0.25
84595233|NCT06875284|168942022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.02|-0.47|0.033
84595234|NCT06631274|168942025|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.184|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for personal adjustment|Hedges' g=-0.14. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is personal adjustment||0.184|-0.296|0.646
84595235|NCT06631274|168942025|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.473|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for internalizing problems|Hedges' g=0.40. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is internalizing problems||0.473|-0.096|0.196
84595236|NCT06631274|168942026|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.539|||ANOVA|one-way repeated ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.92. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.539|0.112|<0.01
84595237|NCT06631274|168942027|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.681||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|1.549|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.|Hedges' g=0.51. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.549|-0.187|0.11
84615773|NCT03375489|168981052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimated proportions|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The proportion of palliative care visits with caregiver participation was compared using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||-8.6|-17.6|<0.001
84615774|NCT03375489|168981053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||1.7|-1.0|>0.99
84615775|NCT03375489|168981054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||2.3|-1.5|>0.99
84615776|NCT04209205|168981067|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|25.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|32.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.43|17.61|<.0001
84615777|NCT04209205|168981068|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|30.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|40.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.05|21.14|<.0001
84615778|NCT04209205|168981069|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|23.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.85|10.48|<.0001
84615779|NCT04209205|168981070|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|41.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.64|52.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.13|30.64|<.0001
84673061|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.13|0.4241
84759893|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.2|-10.0|<0.001
84759894|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-7.9|<0.001
84759895|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.5|-12.6|<0.001
84615780|NCT04209205|168981071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.38|<.0001
84615781|NCT04209205|168981072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.32|<.0001
84615782|NCT04209205|168981073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|2.80|<.0001
84615783|NCT04209205|168981074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.68|1.01|0.0024
84615784|NCT04209205|168981075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.26|-8.96|<.0001
84615785|NCT04209205|168981076|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|27.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.43|42.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.55|12.43|0.0003
84615786|NCT04209205|168981077|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|16.35||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|28.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.82|3.88|0.0102
84615787|NCT03071393|168981092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84615788|NCT03071393|168981093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84615789|NCT03071393|168981094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84615790|NCT03071393|168981095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Uncorrected p values are reported.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84615791|NCT00874848|168981101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2895
84615792|NCT03089541|168981107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Eating/Drinking using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||0.52|0.06|0.002
84615793|NCT03089541|168981107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Traveling using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||7.65|0.92|0.07
84615794|NCT03089541|168981107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Working/Reading/Studying using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.64|0.59|0.40
84615795|NCT03089541|168981107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Socializing using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.53|0.51|0.60
84615796|NCT03089541|168981107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Model on Public Space adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||3.38|0.96|0.06
84615797|NCT02324816|168981109|OTHER||success proportion|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|90.9||||||||90.9|48.8|
84615798|NCT05169424|168981110|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of exacerbation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.133||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.293|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.293|0.993|0.064
84615799|NCT05169424|168981110|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
84615800|NCT05169424|168981110|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
84595238|NCT06631274|168942028|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.367|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for avoidance coping|Hedges' g=0.16. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is avoidance coping||0.367|-0.212|0.599
84595239|NCT06631274|168942028|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.617|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for approach coping|Hedges' g=0.63. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is approach coping||0.617|0.152|0.044
84595240|NCT06631274|168942029|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.764|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.85. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.764|0.284|<.01
84595241|NCT06631274|168942030|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.589||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|-0.0005|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.61. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||-0.0005|-1.178|0.0498
84615801|NCT05169424|168981111|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.372|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.372|0.996|0.057
84615802|NCT05169424|168981112|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.279|0.974|0.114
84615803|NCT05169424|168981113|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.424|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||2.424|0.779|0.273
84615804|NCT05169424|168981114|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.792|||Regression, Cox|||||1.792|0.780|0.429
84615805|NCT05169424|168981114|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
84615806|NCT05169424|168981114|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.932
84615807|NCT05169424|168981115|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.645|||Regression, Cox|||||1.645|0.582|0.935
84615808|NCT05169424|168981116|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.790|0.750|0.507
84615809|NCT05169424|168981117|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|5.405|||Regression, Cox|||||5.405|0.309|0.726
84615810|NCT05169424|168981118|OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.874
84615811|NCT05169424|168981118|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.895||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.974|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.974|0.823|0.01
84615812|NCT05169424|168981119|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
84615813|NCT05169424|168981119|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.897||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|0.976|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.976|0.824|0.012
84615814|NCT05169424|168981120|OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
84615815|NCT05169424|168981120|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.135||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.812|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.812|0.711|0.595
84615816|NCT05169424|168981121|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.622
84615817|NCT05169424|168981121|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.008||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.094|0.928|0.855
84615818|NCT05169424|168981122|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
84595242|NCT06631274|168942031|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.65|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.41. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.650|-0.127|0.182
84595243|NCT06631274|168942032|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.551|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.04. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.551|-0.612|0.927
84595244|NCT03896750|168942033|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%.||1.26|0.54|
84595245|NCT03896750|168942033|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.14|0.67|
84595246|NCT03896750|168942034|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.39|0.54|
84595247|NCT03896750|168942034|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.28|0.71|
84595248|NCT00276406|168942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||<0.01
84595249|NCT00276406|168942082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||0.096
84595250|NCT00276406|168942083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84595251|NCT00276406|168942084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||0.005
84673062|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.26|0.7984
84615819|NCT01898013|168981139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84759896|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-10.6|<0.001
84595252|NCT00276406|168942085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||<0.04
84595253|NCT02482298|168942112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1510|-0.0610|
84595254|NCT02482298|168942112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.1832|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1832|-0.0230|
84595255|NCT02482298|168942114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.035|0.2035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2035|0.0350|
84595256|NCT02482298|168942114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04923|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0155|0.1795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1795|0.0155|
84595257|NCT01434654|168942178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for arm\*time interaction fixed effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|49 datapoints included from baseline, 6 months, and 12 months visits (low CNS penetrance n=14; high CNS penetrance n=35)||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.99
84595258|NCT01434654|168942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
84595259|NCT01434654|168942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.44
84595260|NCT01434654|168942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.86
84595261|NCT01434654|168942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.98
84595262|NCT01434654|168942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.16
84595263|NCT01434654|168942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.09
84595264|NCT01434654|168942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.06
84595265|NCT01434654|168942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.68
84595266|NCT01434654|168942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
84595267|NCT00703963|168942182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.20
84595268|NCT00703963|168942183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.05
84595269|NCT00703963|168942184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||<0.001
84595270|NCT00763256|168942191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84615820|NCT01898013|168981140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
84595271|NCT00763256|168942192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84595272|NCT00763256|168942193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84595273|NCT00763256|168942194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84595274|NCT00763256|168942195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84595275|NCT00906178|168942212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.94||||||||1.94|.57|
84595276|NCT00906178|168942213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||||||||1.65|.62|
84595277|NCT00906178|168942214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.62||||||||2.62|.93|
84595278|NCT00906178|168942215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.3||||||||1.30|.37|
84615821|NCT01898013|168981141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84615822|NCT01898013|168981142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84615823|NCT01898013|168981143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
84615824|NCT01898013|168981144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84502030|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-1.1|0.0618
84615825|NCT01100775|168981145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.898
84615826|NCT01100775|168981145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
84615827|NCT01100775|168981145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.16
84615828|NCT01100775|168981145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
84615829|NCT01100775|168981146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.161
84615830|NCT01100775|168981146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarm Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.028
84502031|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.3|0.0110
84502032|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||Male population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.9|0.0272
84502033|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Male population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0337
84615831|NCT01100775|168981146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.899
84615832|NCT01100775|168981146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.521
84615833|NCT01100775|168981147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean total amount offered during the trust game between the galantamine and placebo groups||||0.67
84615834|NCT01100775|168981148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.32
84615835|NCT01100775|168981149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 1 between galantamine and placebo||||0.659
84615836|NCT01100775|168981149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 2 between galantamine and placebo||||0.541
84615837|NCT01100775|168981149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 3 between galantamine and placebo||||0.838
84615838|NCT01100775|168981150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.548
84615839|NCT01100775|168981151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
84615840|NCT01100775|168981152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect between galantamine and placebo||||0.626
84615841|NCT01100775|168981152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill between galantamine and placebo||||0.234
84615842|NCT01100775|168981153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.797
84615843|NCT01100775|168981153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Hits between galantamine and placebo||||0.669
84615844|NCT01100775|168981153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total False Alarms between galantamine and placebo||||0.668
84615845|NCT04677504|168981154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.14|0.51|
84615846|NCT04677504|168981155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.47|||Log Rank|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.47|0.64|0.8857
84615847|NCT04677504|168981159|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Quality of Life||2.63|0.93|
84615848|NCT04677504|168981159|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Physical Function Scale||1.36|0.48|
84615849|NCT04677504|168981159|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||Role Function Scale||1.85|0.68|
84615850|NCT00112125|168981164|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis was a test of the non-inferiority of CCM therapy compared to OMT with respect to the proportion of subjects experiencing death or hospitalization within 50 weeks using the Blackwelder non-inferiority test12 with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.125.||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
84595279|NCT02969915|168942216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.26||||||||2.26|0.64|
84595280|NCT02969915|168942217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.9||||||||1.90|0.91|
84595281|NCT02969915|168942218|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95||||||||1.95|0.70|
84595282|NCT02969915|168942219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95||||||||1.95|0.85|
84502034|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-3.1|0.0152
84595283|NCT02969915|168942220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75||||||||1.75|0.79|
84595284|NCT02969915|168942221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76||||||||5.76|0.38|
84595285|NCT02969915|168942222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36||||||||1.36|0.68|
84595286|NCT02969915|168942223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.46||||||||2.46|0.77|
84595287|NCT02969915|168942224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.8||||||||1.80|0.09|
84615851|NCT00112125|168981165|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was selected to be 12.5% and α was set at .05, which resulted in a sample size of 198 subjects per group. A percentage of subjects (∼7%) were expected to be lost to followup, so that a total sample size of 428 subjects (214 per group) was selected.||||||0.125|||||||Blackwelder|||||||0.125
84759897|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.9|<0.001
84595288|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.36|||||Maxillary right molar|||0.36|-1.53|
84595289|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.04|||||Maxillary left molar|||-0.04|-1.89|
84595290|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.55|||||Maxillary right molar|||1.55|-0.32|
84595291|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.83|||||Maxillary left molar|||0.83|-1|
84595292|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.05||||||Maxillary right molar. F(2, 67) = 3.10. Overall effect of treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84502035|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-2.4|0.0570
84595293|NCT00995436|168942236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.08||||||Overall effect of treatment F(2,67) = 2.58.|ANCOVA|||Maxillary left molar.||||0.08
84595294|NCT00418093|168942241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.87||Exact 95% CI for the partial response rate (13/19 = 0.684): 43.4% \~ 87.4%|Estimation of PR based on Binomial Model|We did not perform a test. Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model is provided. Thus there is no p-value to report.|Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model|||0.87|0.43|
84595295|NCT00418093|168942241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.874||We did not perform hypothesis test. We made an estimation for a single proportion (partial response) with its two-sided 95% exact Binomial confidence interval.|Fisher Exact||Estimation of a single proportion (partial response rate) with exact 95% Binomial confidence interval|||0.874|0.434|
84595296|NCT00289289|168942249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.629|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5||P-value is from a paired t-test since each subject had the intervention pacing features turned ON and OFF in this crossover study|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided paired t-test with 221 degrees of freedom|A mean difference greater than zero indicates an average increase in atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia symptomatic episodes while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|Null Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods when intervention pacing features ON is greater to or equal to the rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods where intervention pacing features were programmed OFF Alternative Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic AT/AF during periods of ON programming is less than the rate of symptomatic AT/AF during OFF programming||0.5||0.629
84615852|NCT04522141|168981172|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.038
84615853|NCT04522141|168981172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.941
84615854|NCT04522141|168981173|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.003
84502036|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.3|0.0296
84595297|NCT00289289|168942250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Koch's adaptation to the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test comparing the within subject ON minus OFF differences to 0|A negative change means an improvement in AF symptom frequency with intervention pacing therapy programmed ON. Total possible improvement while intervention features are programmed ON is -64. Total possible worsening during ON programming is 64.|"The null hypothesis is that the symptom frequency score does not differ between while intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.~This secondary objective was not powered."||||0.165
84595298|NCT00289289|168942251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.73||P-value is based on a repeated measures Cox proportional hazards model to the rate of AF cardioversion attempts between periods of ON and OFF programming|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio compares rate of first attempted cardioversion for AF while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|"Null Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is the same during periods of ON and OFF programming~Alternative Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is different during periods of ON and OFF programming"||1.73|0.39|0.603
84595299|NCT00289289|168942252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.394||95.0||||Within each randomized subject, the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was computed. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to determine if the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was different from zero.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A negative median difference represents an improvement (lessening) of AT/AF burden during periods of ON versus OFF programming. A positive median difference represents an increase in AT/AF burden during ON compared to OFF programming.|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in AT/AF burden during periods on ON and OFF programming Alternative Hypothesis: AT/AF burden is lower during periods of ON programming compared to periods of OFF programming||||0.394
84595300|NCT03299244|168942256|NON_INFERIORITY|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) was smaller than 12%, or if the lower bound of (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) greater than -12%. If this criterion was met, the 2 key secondary endpoints were tested sequentially. If both key secondary endpoints were statistically significant, the other secondary endpoints were to be formally tested at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|12.09|||||Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|"The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (637 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide), stratified by screening PTH level (\< 900 pg/mL, ≥ 900 pg/mL), screening serum cCa (\< 9.0 mg/dL, ≥ 9.0 mg/dL) measured by the central laboratory, and country (China versus non-China)."||12.09|-3.05|
84595301|NCT03299244|168942257|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||2.77|1.47|<0.001
84595302|NCT03299244|168942258|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, and superiority was demonstrated for the previous key secondary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.96|1.03|0.033
84595303|NCT03299244|168942259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.5|||Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures|Model includes treatment group, randomization stratification factors, study week, and study week by treatment as covariates.|Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region. Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the least squares means difference.|||-1.50|-4.14|<0.001
84595304|NCT03299244|168942260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.65|0.82|0.41
84595305|NCT00145626|168942308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Incidence|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The cumulative incidence estimate and its standard error for occurrence of regimen-related mortality by the end of the first 100 days post-transplant was calculated.|||||
84595306|NCT01392573|168942323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous antidiabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate||||-0.84|-1.25|<0.0001
84615855|NCT04522141|168981173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.027
84615856|NCT04522141|168981174|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||< .001
84615857|NCT04522141|168981174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.411
84615858|NCT04522141|168981175|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect weekly self-control||||< .001
84595307|NCT01682356|168942332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0153
84595308|NCT01682356|168942333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0131
84595309|NCT01682356|168942334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.83
84595310|NCT01682356|168942335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 6.06 x 10\^-18.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
84595311|NCT01682356|168942336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 1.87 x 10\^-20.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
84595312|NCT01682356|168942337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 8.23 x 10\^-21.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
84595313|NCT01682356|168942338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
84759898|NCT02873936|169275993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-8.2|0.003
84759899|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-11.1|<0.001
84595314|NCT01682356|168942339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
84595315|NCT01682356|168942340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
84595316|NCT01682356|168942341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
84595317|NCT01682356|168942342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3042
84759900|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-8.9|<0.001
84595318|NCT01682356|168942343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 3.469 x 10\^-7.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
84759901|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.5|-13.8|<0.001
84595319|NCT01682356|168942344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 7.202 x 10\^-8|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
84595320|NCT01682356|168942345|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.13e-06||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 2.129 x 10\^-6.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.00000213
84595321|NCT01682356|168942346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
84595322|NCT01682356|168942347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.05980
84595323|NCT01682356|168942348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
84595324|NCT01682356|168942349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.09870
84595325|NCT01682356|168942350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
84595326|NCT01682356|168942351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
84595327|NCT01682356|168942352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8819||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8819
84595328|NCT01682356|168942353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8987
84595329|NCT03419897|168942423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Tislelizumab compared with historical ORR rate of 7%||||0.0001
84595330|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.03|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.03|0.24|0.5050
84595331|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.54|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.54|0.22|0.6284
84615859|NCT04522141|168981175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction weekly self-control||||0.176
84615860|NCT04522141|168981176|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
84615861|NCT04522141|168981176|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
84615862|NCT04522141|168981177|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.031
84615863|NCT04522141|168981177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.||Time by condition interaction||||0.260
84595332|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.22|0.40|0.1988
84595333|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.28|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.28|0.42|0.2722
84615864|NCT04522141|168981178|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.016
84615865|NCT04522141|168981178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.363
84615866|NCT04522141|168981179|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
84615867|NCT04522141|168981179|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
84615868|NCT04522141|168981180|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.389
84615869|NCT04522141|168981180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.516
84595334|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.04|0.17|0.0544
84595335|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.16|||Unstratified log-rank|||||4.16|1.00|0.0442
84595336|NCT02574078|168942529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.45|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.45|0.50|0.5489
84595337|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.91|0.35|0.9951
84595338|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.1|||Unstratified log-rank|||||3.10|0.25|0.8321
84595339|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.31|0.41|0.2938
84595340|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.45|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.45|0.46|0.4819
84595341|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||0.91|0.11|0.0241
84595342|NCT02574078|168942530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.1401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.95|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.95|0.85|0.1401
84595343|NCT02574078|168942534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.31|0.40|0.2862
84595344|NCT03980743|168942568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24)||||0.97
84595345|NCT03980743|168942569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) for Healthy Eating||||0.273
84595346|NCT03980743|168942570|SUPERIORITY|Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) with sum score||||||0.691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.691
84615870|NCT04522141|168981181|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.005
84615871|NCT04522141|168981181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.555
84615872|NCT04522141|168981182|OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.206
84615873|NCT04522141|168981182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.026
84615874|NCT03052049|168981183|OTHER|t-test|p value|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.05
84595347|NCT00294671|168942576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 2 years.||||<0.001
84595348|NCT00294671|168942576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 1years.||||0.02
84595349|NCT00294671|168942577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.002
84595350|NCT00294671|168942577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.10
84595351|NCT00294671|168942578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.21
84595352|NCT00294671|168942578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.43
84595353|NCT00294671|168942579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.001
84595354|NCT00294671|168942579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.06
84595355|NCT00294671|168942580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.06
84595356|NCT00294671|168942580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.37
84595357|NCT02476032|168942588|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
84595358|NCT02476032|168942589|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
84595359|NCT03332173|168942606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis H0: MRR = 0.30 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided)|Exact binomial test|||Zanubrutinib versus historical control estimate of 30%||||<0.0001
84595360|NCT02553928|168942616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69||Based on full analysis set|ANCOVA||The comparison is to BID memantine.|The ADCS-CGIC was analyzed based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of ADCS-CGIC score at Week 12, with treatment and site as fixed factors, and baseline score as a covariate using observed cases.||0.69|-0.06|0.097
84595361|NCT04830215|168942632|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84595362|NCT04830215|168942633|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84595363|NCT02440139|168942634|SUPERIORITY||difference in sensitivity|-0.124|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.062|-0.186|<0.05
84595364|NCT02440139|168942635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LROC curves|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.071|||ANOVA|||For each study arm, the difference in the least-squares means of the two arms was estimated. A two-sided 95% confidence interval on this difference in study arms (i.e. unaided minus aided by the software) was used to test the hypothesis that the difference in the area under the LROC curve (AUC). The superiority of ClearRead CT will be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference is less than zero.||-0.071|-0.209|<0.05
84595365|NCT00770562|168942687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84595366|NCT00770562|168942688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84595367|NCT00770562|168942689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
84595368|NCT04474197|168942701|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.5|<0.0001
84595369|NCT04474197|168942701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.6|<0.0001
84595370|NCT04474197|168942701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.9|1.5|<0.0001
84595371|NCT04474197|168942703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.6|2.4|<0.0001
84595372|NCT04474197|168942703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.0|1.9|<0.0001
84595373|NCT04474197|168942703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
84595374|NCT00237666|168942712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84595375|NCT00635349|168942731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower confidence limit interval was less than -1.0 (1-sided , 97.5% confidence interval)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.4258|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.31|0.4258
84595376|NCT00635349|168942732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0628|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.41||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.41|0.0628
84595377|NCT00635349|168942733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Day 29: p-value was calculated by fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0131
84595378|NCT00635349|168942733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9834||||||Day 57; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9834
84595379|NCT00635349|168942733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1131||||||Day 85; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.1131
84595380|NCT01340664|168942740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.251|||ANCOVA|||||-0.251|-0.637|<0.001
84595381|NCT01340664|168942740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||||-0.407|-0.792|<0.001
84595382|NCT01340664|168942741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-14.38|||ANCOVA|||||-14.38|-32.78|<0.001
84595383|NCT01340664|168942741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661|<|0.001||95.0|-33.18|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||||-14.83|-33.18|<0.001
84595384|NCT01340664|168942742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.1|<0.001
84595385|NCT01340664|168942742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
84595386|NCT01340664|168942743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.90|1.21|0.013
84595387|NCT01340664|168942743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|1.68|<0.001
84595388|NCT03012828|168942760|OTHER|The model was used for predicting population average and 90% 2-sided bootstrapped CI of the baseline-adjusted difference between active and placebo at each time point bound at clinically relevant concentrations.|Slope|-0.0077||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0255|0.0101|||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary mixed effects model analysis revealed a nearly flat dQTcF - plasma concentration gradient|The primary analysis used a mixed-effects model to explore the relationship between the time-matched, baseline-adjusted QTcF (delta (d)QTcF) and moxidectin concentrations. dQTcF was a dependent variable and treatment, time point, and treatment by time point interaction as the independent variables with baseline QTcF as a covariate and time-matched concentrations of moxidectin as a covariate with random effects of intercept and slope for each subject.Concentrations of zero were used for placebo.||0.0101|-0.0255|0.4727
84595389|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> Non-Rapid Eye Movement (NREM): Mean K-cluster voxels (Ke)=15,586: x,y,z= -36, -74, 0. Left Brodmann's Area (BA) 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20,21,23, 38||||<0.001
84595390|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< NREM: Ke=7,013: x,y,z= 26, 22, -40. Right BA 4, 10-14, 21, 25, 32, 38, 45;||||0.039
84595391|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> (Rapid Eye Movement (REM): No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||0.701
84595392|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< REM: No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||1.00
84595393|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state decrease in rCMRglc: Ke=6,150: x,y,z= -30, -30, 2. Left BA 40, insula, hippocampus, caudate, and putamen;||||0.03
84595394|NCT01637584|168942775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state increase in rCMRglc: Ke=7,049: x,y,z= 66, -18, 26. Right BA 1, 3, 15, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42||||0.01
84595395|NCT02520388|168942807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
84595396|NCT02520388|168942808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
84595397|NCT00200967|168942817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.99||95.0|-14.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for AM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design. A sample size of 40 participants per genotype was required to detect a difference of 25 L/min in AM PEF (and relevant effect sizes for secondary outcomes) with a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test with 90% statistical power and a 15% drop-out rate.||14|-14|0.99
84595398|NCT00200967|168942818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.82||95.0|-15.0|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||12|-15|0.82
84595399|NCT00200967|168942819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.31||95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PEF variability.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.5|-1.6|0.31
84615875|NCT03052049|168981184|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84615876|NCT03052049|168981185|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84595400|NCT00200967|168942820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.09||95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for asthma symptoms.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few symptoms were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.07|-0.02|0.09
84595401|NCT00200967|168942821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.25||95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for rescue medication use.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few usages of rescue medications were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.2|-0.1|0.25
84595402|NCT00200967|168942822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.34||95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FEV1, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.03|-0.10|0.34
84502037|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.5||Premenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.5|-4.4|0.0155
84595403|NCT00200967|168942823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.91||95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FVC, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.07|-0.08|0.91
84595404|NCT00200967|168942824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.93||95.0|-15.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry PEF rate, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||14|-15|0.93
84595405|NCT00200967|168942825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.13||95.0|-0.04|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for eNO.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the natural logarithm of eNO to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.31|-0.04|0.13
84595406|NCT00200967|168942826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.79||95.0|-0.56|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for EBC.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.43|-0.56|0.79
84595407|NCT00200967|168942827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.004||95.0|0.43|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for methacholine PC20.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the base-2 logarithm of the methacholine PC20 to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||2.21|0.43|0.004
84595408|NCT00200967|168942828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89||95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for ACQ.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.26|-0.23|0.89
84595409|NCT05696444|168942834|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.85.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
84595410|NCT05696444|168942835|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||||0.0006||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||||||0.0006
84595411|NCT05696444|168942835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.45||||0.0025
84595412|NCT05696444|168942835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||0.0001
84595413|NCT01734785|168942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.93|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.46|-0.93|<0.0001
84615877|NCT03052049|168981186|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84615878|NCT03052049|168981187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84615879|NCT03304873|168981188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0004
84615880|NCT03304873|168981189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
84615881|NCT01868477|168981193|OTHER|difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|48.16||||||||48.16|-24.0|
84615882|NCT00042991|168981209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84615883|NCT00042991|168981210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0546||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||19 patients had Enhancing tumor at both Baseline and Post-RT time points. Thus, the following test was based on these 19 patients.||||0.0546
84595414|NCT01734785|168942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.55|-1.02|<0.0001
84595415|NCT01734785|168942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.61|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.57|-2.61|<0.0001
84595416|NCT01734785|168942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.31|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.28|-2.31|<0.0001
84615884|NCT00042991|168981211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84615885|NCT00042991|168981212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84615886|NCT00367835|168981224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84615887|NCT00367835|168981225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84615888|NCT00367835|168981226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84615889|NCT00367835|168981227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84615890|NCT00367835|168981228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84615891|NCT00367835|168981229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84759902|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.8|<0.001
84615892|NCT00367835|168981230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84615893|NCT00445770|168981269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline+treatment +pooled study center+prior methotrexate use. If overall treatment effect statistically significant, 3 pairwise comparisons conducted, otherwise no further testing was made.|ANCOVA|||It was estimated that with 180 participants per group, there would be 81% power for the overall test. With this sample size and 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, there was 88% power to detect a 1.33 difference for the change of mTSS from baseline to 52 weeks between the etanercept 25 mg twice weekly group and Methotrexate group, assuming that the common standard deviation of the change of mTSS from baseline was 4.||||<0.0001
84615894|NCT00445770|168981269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84615895|NCT00445770|168981269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An outcome showing that etanercept 10 mg was superior to methotrexate and the presence of numerical difference ≤0.5 mTSS units between etanercept 25 mg and etanercept 10 mg would support non-inferiority for the 2 etanercept treatments.||||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2634
84615896|NCT00445770|168981270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84615897|NCT00445770|168981270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84615898|NCT00445770|168981270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2248
84615899|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84615900|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84615901|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7260
84615902|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84615903|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84595417|NCT01734785|168942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.92|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.52|-2.92|<0.0001
84595418|NCT01734785|168942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo:change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-2.07|-3.47|<0.0001
84595419|NCT02397915|168942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for country and symptomatology. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595420|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute scent/odor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
84595421|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute immediate taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
84595422|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute after taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.138
84595423|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LDTT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595424|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LRON.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
84615904|NCT00445770|168981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.5717
84615905|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84673063|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.22|0.8732
84595425|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute more soothing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
84595426|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute less irritating.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595427|NCT02397915|168942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute UTS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
84595428|NCT02397915|168942872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84595429|NCT02397915|168942873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
84595430|NCT02397915|168942874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
84615906|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0013
84615907|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0186
84759903|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
84502038|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||Premenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.7|0.5870
84502039|NCT00386100|168755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-3.6|0.1854
84502040|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-3.2|0.0038
84595431|NCT02397915|168942875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.179||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.179
84595432|NCT02397915|168942876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
84595433|NCT02397915|168942877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595434|NCT02397915|168942878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595435|NCT02397915|168942879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84595436|NCT02397915|168942880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.188||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.188
84595437|NCT02397915|168942881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
84595438|NCT02397915|168942882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
84595439|NCT02397915|168942883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
84615908|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84615909|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0006
84615910|NCT00445770|168981272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1123
84595440|NCT02397915|168942884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.004||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
84759904|NCT02873936|169275994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
84595441|NCT02397915|168942885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.223||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.223
84595442|NCT02397915|168942886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595443|NCT02397915|168942887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.008||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
84595444|NCT02397915|168942888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.831||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.831
84595445|NCT02397915|168942889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595446|NCT02397915|168942890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.007||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
84595447|NCT02397915|168942891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.568||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.568
84595448|NCT02397915|168942892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
84595449|NCT03292874|168942894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||"Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were compared between models with standard and high-resolution MRI variables using the nonparametric method described by DeLong.~DeLong. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-45."|nonparametric method|||||||0.014
84595450|NCT00368745|168942895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2838||95.0||||significance determined using 2-tailed significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with country as a covariate||Primary objective: evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin in maintaining the benzodiazepine free state in subjects with prior stable alprazolam use.||||0.2838
84595451|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0709||95.0|-3.1|0.13||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.13|-3.10|0.0709
84595452|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0006||95.0|-6.04|-1.74||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.74|-6.04|0.0006
84595453|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0718||95.0|-4.98|0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.22|-4.98|0.0718
84595454|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.092||95.0|-7.37|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.60|-7.37|0.0920
84595455|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.1371||95.0|-12.67|2.23||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT week 5||2.23|-12.67|0.1371
84595456|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0882||95.0|-7.96|0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.61|-7.96|0.0882
84595457|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0135||95.0|-5.05|-0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.61|-5.05|0.0135
84595458|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.3924||95.0|-3.38|1.35||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||1.35|-3.38|0.3924
84595459|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.3868||95.0|-3.29|1.3||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||1.30|-3.29|0.3868
84595460|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.9966||95.0|-2.31|2.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||2.32|-2.31|0.9966
84615911|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||<0.0001
84502041|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
84615912|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.0002
84615913|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.3022
84615914|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0001
84615915|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0002
84615916|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.3120
84615917|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0010
84615918|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0285
84615919|NCT00445770|168981273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0433
84502042|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.1|-1.5|0.0967
84502043|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.0|0.0512
84595461|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6873||95.0|-3.07|2.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||2.05|-3.07|0.6873
84615920|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0032
84615921|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84615922|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1224
84615923|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84615924|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84615925|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.8037
84615926|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615927|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615928|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5495
84615929|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84615930|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84615931|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4948
84615932|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595462|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5337||95.0|-3.62|1.91||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||1.91|-3.62|0.5337
84595463|NCT00368745|168942896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0008||95.0|-7.51|-2.07||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-2.07|-7.51|0.0008
84595464|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.122||95.0|-4.97|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.60|-4.97|0.1220
84615933|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84615934|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4663
84615935|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84615936|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84615937|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9357
84615938|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84615939|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84502044|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.6|0.0330
84502045|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.7|0.0547
84595465|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0053||95.0|-6.15|-1.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.11|-6.15|0.0053
84615940|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7439
84615941|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84615942|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84615943|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8611
84502046|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-6.3|0.0613
84595466|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1048||95.0|-6.32|0.62||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.62|-6.32|0.1048
84595467|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0357||95.0|-6.57|-0.25||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||-0.25|-6.57|0.0357
84615944|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84615945|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84615946|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.6731
84615947|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84615948|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84595468|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.4263||95.0|-8.82|4.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||4.26|-8.82|0.4263
84595469|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0104||95.0|-9.96|-1.51||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||-1.51|-9.96|0.0104
84595470|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0069||95.0|-6.73|-1.12||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-1.12|-6.73|0.0069
84595471|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.2185||95.0|-4.47|1.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||1.05|-4.47|0.2185
84595472|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.7832||95.0|-2.41|1.83||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||1.83|-2.41|0.7832
84595473|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.7062||95.0|-1.9|2.79||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||2.79|-1.90|0.7062
84595474|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7161||95.0|-2.49|1.73||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||1.73|-2.49|0.7161
84615949|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.2616
84615950|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84615951|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
84615952|NCT00445770|168981274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1158
84615953|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84615954|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84615955|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4237
84673064|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.8621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.19|0.8621
84595475|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0376||95.0|-6.03|-0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.19|-6.03|0.0376
84615956|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84615957|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0002
84615958|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5738|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5738
84615959|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615960|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615961|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1606
84615962|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84595476|NCT00368745|168942899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0122||95.0|-6.74|-0.85||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.85|-6.74|0.0122
84595477|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052||95.0|-0.76|-0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.14|-0.76|0.0052
84615963|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0016
84615964|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2412
84502047|NCT00386100|168755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.7|-3.9|0.1369
84595478|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001||95.0|-1.11|-0.38||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.38|-1.11|0.0001
84595479|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0528||95.0|-1.0|0.01||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.01|-1.00|0.0528
84595480|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3085||95.0|-1.11|0.37||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.37|-1.11|0.3085
84595481|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1807||95.0|-1.92|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 5||0.47|-1.92|0.1807
84595482|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1074||95.0|-1.58|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.17|-1.58|0.1074
84595483|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013||95.0|-1.1|-0.28||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.28|-1.10|0.0013
84595484|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0503||95.0|-0.99|0.0||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||0.00|-0.99|0.0503
84595485|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0364||95.0|-1.09|-0.04||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.04|-1.09|0.0364
84595486|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.914||95.0|-0.51|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||0.46|-0.51|0.9140
84595487|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7789||95.0|-0.62|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-0.62|0.7789
84615965|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84615966|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595488|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3189||95.0|-0.95|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||0.32|-0.95|0.3189
84595489|NCT00368745|168942901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0031||95.0|-1.26|-0.27||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.27|-1.26|0.0031
84595490|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.126||95.0|-0.86|0.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.11|-0.86|0.1260
84615967|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5882
84595491|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0074||95.0|-1.4|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.40|0.0074
84615968|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84595492|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.125||95.0|-1.35|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.17|-1.35|0.1250
84595493|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8991||95.0|-1.17|1.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.32|-1.17|0.8991
84595494|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1747||95.0|-2.07|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.46|-2.07|0.1747
84595495|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0744||95.0|-1.79|0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.09|-1.79|0.0744
84615969|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0001
84615970|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2257
84615971|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84615972|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0003
84615973|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2075
84615974|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84615975|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0050
84615976|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0461
84595496|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0063||95.0|-1.67|-0.29||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.29|-1.67|0.0063
84615977|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0002
84615978|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0101
84615979|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.2351
84615980|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
84615981|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1179
84615982|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0214
84595497|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.014||95.0|-1.56|-0.18||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||-0.18|-1.56|0.0140
84595498|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0267||95.0|-1.46|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.09|-1.46|0.0267
84595499|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5104||95.0|-1.03|0.52||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.52|-1.03|0.5104
84615983|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84615984|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0790
84615985|NCT00445770|168981275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0168
84615986|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84615987|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84615988|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6337
84615989|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84615990|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84615991|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.7407
84615992|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615993|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84615994|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.3473
84615995|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84595500|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2702||95.0|-1.35|0.39||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.39|-1.35|0.2702
84595501|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1241||95.0|-1.52|0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||0.19|-1.52|0.1241
84595502|NCT00368745|168942902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0109||95.0|-1.67|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.22|-1.67|0.0109
84595503|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0226||95.0|-1.22|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.09|-1.22|0.0226
84595504|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0099||95.0|-1.58|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.58|0.0099
84595505|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2827||95.0|-1.07|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.32|-1.07|0.2827
84595506|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8232||95.0|-1.07|1.34||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.34|-1.07|0.8232
84595507|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2409||95.0|-2.41|0.72||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.72|-2.41|0.2409
84595508|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.476||95.0|-1.73|0.84||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.84|-1.73|0.4760
84595509|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1252||95.0|-1.14|0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||0.14|-1.14|0.1252
84595510|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0717||95.0|-1.26|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||0.06|-1.26|0.0717
84595511|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0707||95.0|-1.33|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||0.06|-1.33|0.0707
84595512|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4341||95.0|-1.08|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.47|-1.08|0.4341
84595513|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.37||95.0|-1.23|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-1.23|0.3700
84595514|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0328||95.0|-1.83|-0.08||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.08|-1.83|0.0328
84595515|NCT00368745|168942903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0096||95.0|-1.8|-0.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.26|-1.80|0.0096
84595516|NCT00368745|168942904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8897||95.0|-5.74|4.99||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as the covariate||||4.99|-5.74|0.8897
84595517|NCT00368745|168942905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0626||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0626
84595518|NCT00368745|168942906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0148
84595519|NCT00368745|168942907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1159||95.0||||p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel option|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1159
84595520|NCT03053440|168942937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors per interactive response technology (IRT). p value is 2-sided||||22.0|-1.5|0.0921
84615996|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84615997|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7529
84502048|NCT00386100|168755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-1.7|0.1260
84502049|NCT00386100|168755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-2.2|0.3117
84502050|NCT00386100|168755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.4|-2.2|0.1776
84502051|NCT00386100|168755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-3.2|0.2259
84615998|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84615999|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616000|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5216
84502052|NCT00386100|168755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-2.8|0.3840
84595521|NCT03782259|168942989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
84595522|NCT03782259|168942990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
84595523|NCT00131352|168943053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, site, time and time-by-treatment interaction; the baseline score was a covariate.||||||0.047
84595524|NCT00131352|168943054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.064
84595525|NCT00131352|168943055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using WOMAC A1 data at Week 26.||0.92|0.35|0.022
84595526|NCT00131352|168943056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.679
84595527|NCT00131352|168943057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.266
84595528|NCT00131352|168943058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using PTGA data at Week 26.||0.82|0.31|0.005
84595529|NCT00131352|168943059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.93|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using COGA data at Week 26.||0.93|0.34|0.025
84595530|NCT00131352|168943060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using Responder classification data at Week 26.||1.16|0.41|0.156
84595531|NCT03024112|168943061|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.680
84595532|NCT01771991|168943066|SUPERIORITY||sum of scores|453.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum||Standard Deviation under the Null hypothesis for each group.|||||0.57
84595533|NCT01771991|168943067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in pain change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||0.95|-0.60|0.65
84595534|NCT01771991|168943068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|11.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in range of motion change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||11.91|-6.65|0.57
84595535|NCT01399229|168943082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Agreement between SureCALL® and Tocodynamometer Contraction Peak Times~Null hypothesis: The mean peak difference between RMS and TOCO is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: The mean peak difference is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4086||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.74|30.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|-28.74|0.4901
84595536|NCT02526212|168943084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the small sample size, planned analyses that assessed for clustering by group assignment or primary care physician could not be conducted. Chi square using fisher's exact test was conducted to investigate differences in abstinence between study arms.||||0.44
84595537|NCT02526212|168943087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each of the 17 items were rated on a scale from 1 to 5. For each participant, the scores from these items were summed and divided by 17 for an average satisfaction score. The average satisfaction score was compared between study arms.||||0.20
84502053|NCT00386100|168755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-1.9|0.6102
84595538|NCT00040742|168943097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||.017
84595539|NCT00040742|168943097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.036
84595540|NCT00040742|168943097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.431|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.431
84595541|NCT00040742|168943097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Parameter estimated using a contrast.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs. Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.003
84595542|NCT00040742|168943098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.046
84595543|NCT00040742|168943098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.076
84616001|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616002|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616003|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1078
84616004|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616005|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616006|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1280
84673065|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.45|0.1087
84616007|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616008|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84502054|NCT00386100|168755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-2.9|0.3445
84595544|NCT00040742|168943098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.738
84595545|NCT00040742|168943098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts used for estimation.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.013
84595546|NCT01313910|168943108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxin-rank test used to determine decrease in bowel movements/day after 8 weeks of intervention||||0.008
84595547|NCT01313910|168943109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84595548|NCT01313910|168943110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84616009|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0291
84616010|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84673066|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.41|0.2153
84595549|NCT01313910|168943112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84595550|NCT00402324|168943140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||<0.001
84595551|NCT00402324|168943141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||0.022
84595552|NCT00402324|168943142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
84595553|NCT00402324|168943143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84595554|NCT00402324|168943144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= TRT + Pooled Investigator + Baseline.||||||0.056
84595555|NCT00402324|168943146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value for Total Cholesterol Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.657
84616011|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616012|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0729
84595556|NCT00402324|168943146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||95.0||||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.924
84595557|NCT00402324|168943146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.122
84595558|NCT00402324|168943147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.293
84595559|NCT00402324|168943148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Blood Glucose Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.007
84616013|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616014|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84673067|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.51|0.1422
84595560|NCT00402324|168943149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin Total Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.046
84595561|NCT00402324|168943150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
84595562|NCT00402324|168943151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
84595563|NCT00402324|168943152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84595564|NCT01277822|168943153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin was 3 mmHg as Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) guidance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||0.4|-3.0|0.1339
84595565|NCT01277822|168943154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4478||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4478
84595566|NCT01277822|168943155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||||0.0717
84595567|NCT01277822|168943156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No imputation for missing data was performed||||||0.8736
84595568|NCT01277822|168943157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
84595569|NCT01277822|168943158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
84595570|NCT01277822|168943159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6646
84595571|NCT01277822|168943160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7911||||||Left ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7911
84595572|NCT01277822|168943160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5933||||||Right ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
84595573|NCT00997984|168943172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84595574|NCT00997984|168943172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84595575|NCT00997984|168943172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84595576|NCT00997984|168943173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595577|NCT00997984|168943173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595578|NCT00997984|168943173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595579|NCT00997984|168943174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595580|NCT00997984|168943174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595581|NCT00997984|168943174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595582|NCT00997984|168943175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.099
84595583|NCT00997984|168943175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.596||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.596
84595584|NCT00997984|168943175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84595585|NCT00997984|168943177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84595586|NCT00997984|168943177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84595587|NCT00997984|168943177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84595588|NCT00997984|168943178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.712
84595589|NCT00997984|168943178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.531||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
84595590|NCT00997984|168943178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
84595591|NCT00997984|168943179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.859
84595592|NCT00997984|168943179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.527
84595593|NCT00997984|168943179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
84595594|NCT00997984|168943180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84616015|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0271
84616016|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616017|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616018|NCT00445770|168981276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0453
84616019|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84673068|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.19|0.7211
84595595|NCT00997984|168943180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84595596|NCT00997984|168943180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84595597|NCT00894699|168943189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84595598|NCT00894699|168943189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84595599|NCT02626156|168943190|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Chi-squared||Asymptotic standard error was used|||0.3|-0.02|0.091
84616020|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616021|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7488
84616022|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616023|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84595600|NCT00295646|168943200|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.53||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter disease-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||1.53|0.78|0.59
84595601|NCT00295646|168943201|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||0.91|0.46|0.01
84616024|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5680
84616025|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616026|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616027|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9241
84616028|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616029|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616030|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7146
84616031|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616032|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
84616033|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.6574
84616034|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616035|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0004
84616036|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2936|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2936
84616037|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616038|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0005
84673069|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.18|0.8224
84673070|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6362
84502055|NCT00386100|168755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.3|-2.4|0.9735
84502056|NCT00386100|168755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.9||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.9|-5.8|0.4861
84616039|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2179
84616040|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616041|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616042|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.3704
84616043|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616044|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616045|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.8047
84616046|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616047|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616048|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5277
84616049|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616050|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616051|NCT00445770|168981277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9371
84616052|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0027
84616053|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0015
84616054|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8875
84616055|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0015
84616056|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0011
84616057|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.9694
84616058|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0020
84616059|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0005
84616060|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.7271
84616061|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0235
84616062|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0061
84616063|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6427
84616064|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0036
84759905|NCT02873936|169275996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
84616065|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0029
84616066|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.9713
84616067|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
84616068|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
84616069|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9762
84616070|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0554
84616071|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0181
84616072|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6642
84616073|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0073
84616074|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0290
84616075|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.5919
84616076|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0371
84616077|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0346
84616078|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9955|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.9955
84616079|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0187
84616080|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0645
84616081|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5920
84616082|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0095
84616083|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.2112
84595602|NCT00295646|168943202|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter recurrence-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.||1.56|0.80|0.53
84595603|NCT00295646|168943203|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Log Rank|||To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.|From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer recurrence-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|0.92|0.46|0.01
84595604|NCT00295646|168943204|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter survival time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of anastrozole (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||3.38|0.96|0.07
84595605|NCT00295646|168943205|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||1.11|0.32|0.10
84595606|NCT01763333|168943252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6942|1.0513|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0513|0.6942|
84595607|NCT01763333|168943252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8277|1.0405|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0405|0.8277|
84595608|NCT01763333|168943252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|112.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.579|132.993|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||132.993|95.579|
84595609|NCT01763333|168943252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|52.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.488|68.499|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||68.499|40.488|
84759906|NCT02873936|169275996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|0.6|0.005
84616084|NCT00445770|168981278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1649
84616085|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616086|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616087|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8972
84595610|NCT01763333|168943252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|239.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.445|290.83|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||290.830|197.445|
84595611|NCT01763333|168943252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.427|130.208|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||130.208|85.427|
84595612|NCT01763333|168943254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6485|1.0198|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-inf was analysed.The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0198|0.6485|
84595613|NCT01763333|168943254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8059|1.0239|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-inf was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0239|0.8059|
84595614|NCT01763333|168943254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean Ratio|86.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.529|98.029|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.029|76.529|
84595615|NCT01763333|168943254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|74.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.322|83.562|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.562|66.322|
84616088|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616089|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616090|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.3736
84616091|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84673071|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.31|0.6094
84759907|NCT02873936|169275996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.9|1.9|<0.001
84616092|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616093|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9324
84616094|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84595616|NCT01763333|168943254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.708|157.353|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.353|119.708|
84595617|NCT01763333|168943254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.462|121.724|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||121.724|111.462|
84502057|NCT00386100|168755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||4.0|-3.5|0.8770
84616095|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616096|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8982
84616097|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616098|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0007
84616099|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.3180
84616100|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84673072|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.49|0.0457
84502058|NCT00386100|168755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.5|0.7015
84616101|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0011
84616102|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.3302
84616103|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616104|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0002
84616105|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6563|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6563
84616106|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616107|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616108|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8894
84616109|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616110|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616111|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7826
84616112|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84502059|NCT00386100|168755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-0.7|0.6767
84502060|NCT00386100|168755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.5|-3.4|0.4199
84502061|NCT00386100|168755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.4||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||5.4|-16.4|0.2526
84502062|NCT00386100|168755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-1.8|0.4153
84595618|NCT01763333|168943255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.0275|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC 0- tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0275|0.6580|
84616113|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0003
84616114|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5343
84595619|NCT01763333|168943255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8187|1.0426|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0426|0.8187|
84595620|NCT01763333|168943255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean Ratio|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.735|98.027|||||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1) : Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.027|75.735|
84595621|NCT01763333|168943255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean ratio|74.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.979|83.941|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.941|65.979|
84595622|NCT01763333|168943255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.611|157.374|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1(PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.374|119.611|
84616115|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84759908|NCT02873936|169275996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.1|0.002
84759909|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|0.4|0.019
84759910|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.6|-0.2|0.073
84759911|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|0.0|0.045
84502063|NCT00386100|168755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.168||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|1.417||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.417|-1.066|0.7895
84616116|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84502064|NCT00386100|168755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.745||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|2.587||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.587|-1.064|0.4155
84502065|NCT00386100|168755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.452||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.253|1.382||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.382|-2.253|0.6223
84595623|NCT01763333|168943255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.814|122.079|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||122.079|111.814|
84595624|NCT01166347|168943274|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Difference in Percentages|3.7||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|95.0||12.56|||Wald test||Difference = Control - HeartWare|Primary endpoint is 2 year survival free from disabling stroke (Modified Rankin Scale \>=4), death, exchange, explant due to device malfunction or urgent transplantation. Subjects who are electively transplanted or explanted due to recovery (no disabling stroke) must survive to 2 years post original implant to be considered a success.||12.56||0.0110
84595625|NCT01166347|168943275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.8||If p\<0.05, then the test is statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as the only independent variable.|Difference = HeartWare - Control|If non-inferiority is established for the primary endpoint, statistical testing for superiority and p-value estimation for the 3 secondary endpoints (incidence of bleeding, incidence of major infection, overall survival) will be performed in a pre-specified sequence and testing will continue at the nominal alpha level until the first non-significant result. This fixed sequence procedure strongly controls the family-wise error rate for the collection of the 3 secondary endpoints.||10.8|-8.5|0.5922
84595626|NCT03541499|168943305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.807
84595627|NCT03541499|168943305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.043
84595628|NCT03541499|168943306|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
84595629|NCT03541499|168943306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.301
84595630|NCT03541499|168943307|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
84595631|NCT03541499|168943307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.009
84595632|NCT03541499|168943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.526
84616117|NCT00445770|168981279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9313
84502066|NCT00386100|168755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.638||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|1.826||Premenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.826|-3.043|0.5908
84502067|NCT00386100|168755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.155||||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.037|2.814||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.814|-3.037|0.9154
84595633|NCT03541499|168943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.100
84595634|NCT03541499|168943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.055
84595635|NCT03541499|168943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
84595636|NCT03541499|168943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.174
84595637|NCT03541499|168943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.006
84595638|NCT03541499|168943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.745
84595639|NCT03541499|168943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
84595640|NCT03541499|168943316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.023
84595641|NCT03541499|168943316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.142
84595642|NCT03541499|168943316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
84595643|NCT03541499|168943316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.142
84595644|NCT03541499|168943317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.836
84595645|NCT03541499|168943317|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||1.000
84595646|NCT03541499|168943317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
84595647|NCT03541499|168943317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.119
84595648|NCT03541499|168943318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.271
84595649|NCT03541499|168943318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.226
84595650|NCT03541499|168943319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.783
84595651|NCT03541499|168943319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.001
84595652|NCT03541499|168943320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.745
84595653|NCT03541499|168943320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.068
84595654|NCT03541499|168943321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.585
84616118|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616119|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616120|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8044
84616121|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84502068|NCT00386100|168755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.467||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.785|20.818||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.818|-14.785|0.8682
84502069|NCT00386100|168755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.328||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.308|23.214||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||23.214|-18.308|0.9740
84502070|NCT00386100|168755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.986||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.997|37.735||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||37.735|-22.997|0.8378
84502071|NCT00386100|168755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.19||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.839|108.422||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||108.422|-43.839|0.7889
84595655|NCT03541499|168943321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
84616122|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0003
84616123|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4652
84502072|NCT00386100|168755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.344||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.853|63.935||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||63.935|-34.853|0.8800
84502073|NCT00386100|168755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.2168||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6057|24.3392||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||24.3392|-17.6057|0.9069
84502074|NCT00386100|168755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-10.1648||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6298|25.3742||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.3742|-35.6298|0.5118
84502075|NCT00386100|168755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.8777||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2636|48.6692||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||48.6692|-20.2636|0.5816
84502076|NCT00386100|168755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-1.0031||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.928|52.959||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||52.9590|-35.9280|0.9587
84502077|NCT00386100|168755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.7614||||0.8337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4741|67.4901||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||67.4901|-34.4741|0.8337
84502078|NCT00386100|168755314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|7.527||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.773|57.892||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||57.892|-26.773|0.7041
84595656|NCT02131662|168943323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|58.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.55|70.94||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||70.94|44.55|
84595657|NCT02131662|168943323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|52.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|65.42||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||65.42|38.8|
84616124|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616125|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616126|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5612
84616127|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
84616128|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
84616129|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9749
84595658|NCT02131662|168943323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|54.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.41|66.95||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||66.95|40.41|
84595659|NCT02131662|168943323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.92|41.5||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||41.5|15.92|
84595660|NCT01198574|168943363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GLM for repeated measures|The Hb concentration at Week 0, Week 6 and Week 12 are analyzed using GLM repeated measures.||"Null Hypothesis~1. Haemoglobin level was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the haemoglobin level of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
84759912|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-1.0|0.32
84759913|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|-0.5|0.12
84595661|NCT01198574|168943364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis~1. Iron status indicator (serum ferritin) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the iron status indicator (serum ferritin) concentration of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
84759914|NCT02873936|169275998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.4|-2.3|0.96
84502079|NCT00386100|168755314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|30.211||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.586|341.371||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||341.371|-61.586|0.6403
84595662|NCT01198574|168943365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis~1. iron status indicator (sTfR) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve iron status indicator (sTfR) of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
84595663|NCT00556439|168943366|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.049||||||The p value of 0.049 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in giant cell arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.049
84595664|NCT00556439|168943366|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.853||||||The p value of 0.853 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in Takayasu arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.853
84595665|NCT03759639|168943373|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.75|0.25|0.029
84595666|NCT03759639|168943375|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.50|-0.25|0.318
84595667|NCT03759639|168943378|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0854||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0123|0.1777|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1777|-0.0123|0.084
84595668|NCT03759639|168943378|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0399||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.1031|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.1031|-0.1269|0.315
84595669|NCT03759639|168943379|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.50|-1.75|0.001
84595670|NCT03759639|168943379|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.002
84595671|NCT03759639|168943381|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.021|0.121
84616130|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
84673073|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5691
84616131|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0004
84616132|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.7290
84616133|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616134|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0003
84616135|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.5004
84616136|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616137|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84673074|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2942
84673075|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.35|0.5389
84595672|NCT03759639|168943381|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.021||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.042|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.042|0.000|0.056
84595673|NCT03759639|168943382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||<0.001
84595674|NCT03759639|168943382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.006
84595675|NCT03759639|168943383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.005
84616138|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.5727
84616139|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616140|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616141|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.6713
84616142|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616143|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0001
84616144|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7663
84616145|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616146|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
84616147|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.7073
84616148|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616149|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
84616150|NCT00445770|168981280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.7973
84616151|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84502080|NCT00386100|168755314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.929||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.015|25.198||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.198|-17.015|0.8474
84502081|NCT00386100|168755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.7||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.6||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.6|-9.6|0.4860
84502082|NCT00386100|168755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|12.3||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|46.1||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||46.1|-13.7|0.3791
84502083|NCT00386100|168755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.0||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|27.6||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||27.6|-15.3|0.7065
84502084|NCT00386100|168755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|32.1||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||92.7|-9.5|0.1381
84502085|NCT00386100|168755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-4.3||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|22.7||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||22.7|-25.4|0.7195
84502086|NCT00386100|168755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-3.0||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.4||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.4|-12.3|0.5595
84502087|NCT00386100|168755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.0||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|20.4||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.4|-15.3|0.9125
84502088|NCT00386100|168755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.8||||0.9122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|14.5||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.5|-14.0|0.9122
84502089|NCT00386100|168755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.6||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|38.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||38.7|-21.2|0.7435
84502090|NCT00386100|168755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-7.5||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||11.0|-23.0|0.3897
84502091|NCT00386100|168755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-2.83||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.06||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||6.06|-10.97|0.5176
84502092|NCT00386100|168755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-6.26||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|7.97||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.97|-18.62|0.3620
84502093|NCT00386100|168755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.72||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|14.48||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.48|-11.39|0.9115
84502094|NCT00386100|168755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-13.51||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|8.31||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||8.31|-30.35|0.1956
84502095|NCT00386100|168755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.75||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|23.85||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.85|-13.09|0.6749
84502096|NCT02328807|168755335|OTHER||Negative biopsy rate at 6 months after R|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.957|||||Two-sided exact confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.|This trail is a single cohort study and no statistical hypothesis test for the primary outcome was planned.||0.957|0.223|
84595676|NCT03759639|168943383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.038
84595677|NCT03759639|168943384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment with IB1001||||0.003
84595678|NCT03759639|168943384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.034
84595679|NCT00958360|168943385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84595680|NCT00958360|168943386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84595681|NCT00958360|168943387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84616152|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616153|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.1053
84616154|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616155|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84502097|NCT00919802|168755342|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Response Assessment (GRA) scores were obtained 6 and 24 hours post oxytocin or saline administration.||||0.688
84595682|NCT00958360|168943388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84595683|NCT00958360|168943389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84616156|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0144
84616157|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616158|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616159|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.1851
84616160|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84595684|NCT00861757|168943431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.0|0.003
84595685|NCT00861757|168943431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.9|0.004
84595686|NCT00861757|168943431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.7|<0.001
84595687|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
84595688|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.005
84595689|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
84595690|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.072
84595691|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.021
84595692|NCT00861757|168943432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
84595693|NCT00861757|168943433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.031
84595694|NCT00861757|168943433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.013
84595695|NCT00861757|168943433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
84595696|NCT00861757|168943434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.201
84595697|NCT00861757|168943434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.393
84595698|NCT00861757|168943434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.4|0.007
84595699|NCT00861757|168943435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.6|0.331
84595700|NCT00861757|168943435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.8|0.140
84595701|NCT00861757|168943435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.1|0.940
84616161|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0001
84616162|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.2883
84595702|NCT00861757|168943436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595703|NCT00861757|168943436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595704|NCT00861757|168943436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84595705|NCT00861757|168943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
84502098|NCT00919802|168755343|OTHER|paired t-test comparison of change in VAR from baseline 6 hours after drug; a change in VAR score was calculated for each subject for each arm and compared using a paired t-test||||||0.7252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7252
84502099|NCT00204932|168755401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was based on test-retest variance of body fat mass measure by DEXA|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to test CLA not equal to placebo||||<0.05
84502100|NCT00204932|168755401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pre- post treatment comparison o fat oxidation found that fat oxidation increased in CLA (4 +/- 8 g) and decreased in placebo (-7 +/- 11 g) groups during sleep. after 6 mo of supplementation.||||<0.05
84502101|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.04819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02482||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total POQ Score as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0535
84595706|NCT00861757|168943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84595707|NCT00861757|168943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84595708|NCT00861757|168943438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
84502102|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001826||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Rating as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3729
84595709|NCT00861757|168943438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
84616163|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616164|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0007
84616165|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.2221
84595710|NCT00861757|168943438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.456
84595711|NCT00861757|168943439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
84595712|NCT00861757|168943439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
84595713|NCT00861757|168943439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
84595714|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84595715|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.274
84595716|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
84595717|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84595718|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.216
84595719|NCT00861757|168943440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.524
84595720|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
84595721|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.723
84595722|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.273
84595723|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.005
84595724|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.054
84595725|NCT00861757|168943441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.278
84595726|NCT00861757|168943442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.330
84595727|NCT00861757|168943442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.838
84595728|NCT00861757|168943442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.409
84595729|NCT01521923|168943451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.719|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|3.354|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order beginning with the CZP standard maintenance dosing (200 mg Q2W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing (PBO) + MTX group. If this analysis was statistically significant at the alpha =0.05 level, then an additional comparison of the CZP reduced frequency dosing (200 mg Q4W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing + MTX group was performed with testing at the alpha =0.05 level||3.354|0.881|=0.112
84595730|NCT01521923|168943451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.889|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order. A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the Overall significance level for the multiplicity of endpoints. Hypothesis testing was performed in the following predefined order, each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level||3.480|1.026|=0.041
84595731|NCT03037476|168943489|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.235||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 6 Month Follow-up Outcomes reported in this section.||-.023|-.446|0.03
84595732|NCT03037476|168943489|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.149||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 12 Month Follow-up reported in this section.||.061|-.360|0.164
84595733|NCT03037476|168943490|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.650|-1.120|.603
84616166|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
84595734|NCT03037476|168943490|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.336||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.566|-1.238|.465
84595735|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.108|-.227|.486
84616167|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0147
84616168|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0201
84616169|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84595736|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.006||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.172|-.160|.942
84595737|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.042||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.097|-.180|.552
84595738|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.037||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.177|-.104|.608
84595739|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.015||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.160|-.130|.840
84595740|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.007||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.155|-.142|.927
84595741|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.223|-.244|.932
84595742|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.057||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.187|-.300|.648
84595743|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.245|-.363|.702
84595744|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.208|-.408|.524
84595745|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.008||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.153|-.137|.913
84616170|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0036
84616171|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0789
84616172|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616173|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0008
84502103|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007228||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mobility as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4124
84502104|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009334||0.6442|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities of Daily Living as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test if the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6442
84502105|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006436||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Vitality as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1641
84595746|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regresision||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.181|-.117|.676
84595747|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.035||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.152|-.223|.712
84595748|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.005||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.197|-.186|.956
84595749|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.149||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.531|-.234|.446
84595750|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.055||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.462|-.353|.793
84595751|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|2.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||2.003|-2.005|.999
84595752|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.999||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||3.310|-1.312|.397
84595753|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.465||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||1.349|-.419|.303
84595754|NCT03037476|168943491|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.939|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||1.751|.128|<.05
84595755|NCT03037476|168943492|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1816||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4295|0.0663|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial regression||Change in ASSIST Score over time: 6 month follow up||0.0663|-0.4295|0.151
84595756|NCT03037476|168943492|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0601||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3133|0.1931|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes in ASSIST scores at 12 month follow up||0.1931|-0.3133|0.642
84595757|NCT03037476|168943493|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.2177||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4566|0.0213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 6 month follow up||0.0213|-0.4566|0.074
84595758|NCT03037476|168943493|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1165||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3612|0.1282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 12 month follow up||0.1282|-0.3612|0.351
84595759|NCT03037476|168943494|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.044||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.1197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity at 6 months (reported by number of standard drinks)||0.1197|-0.032|0.255
84595760|NCT03037476|168943494|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0315||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0463|0.1092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity (reported in standard drinks) at 12 month follow-up||0.1092|-0.0463|0.428
84595761|NCT03037476|168943495|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0021||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0936|0.0978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 6 months||0.0978|-0.0936|0.966
84595762|NCT03037476|168943495|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0559||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1542|0.0424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 12 month follow-up||0.0424|-0.1542|0.265
84595763|NCT03037476|168943496|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0128||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1633|0.1378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.1378|-0.1633|0.868
84616174|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1903
84616175|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
84540943|NCT03541317|168833125|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases during Stages 1 and 2|Difference in sum of means*|9.7||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|49.4|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne, \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase.|||49.40|-30.03|0.63
84540944|NCT03541317|168833126|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\<15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|3.78||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|24.44|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||24.44|-16.88|0.72
84540945|NCT03541317|168833127|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\>15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|7.85||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|28.91|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||28.91|-13.20|0.46
84540946|NCT03541317|168833128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in sum of means*|-0.66||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|7.16|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of group CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phase occurring during Stages 1 and 2.||7.16|-8.49|0.87
84540947|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.8|-17.6|0.9449
84540948|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.4||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.4|-17.6|0.9646
84540949|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|18.3||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.3|-10.9|0.6219
84540950|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.8||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|24.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||24.1|-6.4|0.2554
84540951|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.8||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|26.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.1|-4.5|0.1658
84540952|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|19.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||19.4|-12.9|0.6963
84540953|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|26.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.8|-6.8|0.2441
84540954|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.0||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||21.0|-10.7|0.5229
84759915|NCT02873936|169276000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.7|1.6|<0.001
84502106|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009846||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Neg. Affect as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0487
84502107|NCT03593772|168755403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004644||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Fear as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1554
84502108|NCT03593772|168755404|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000863||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1924
84502109|NCT03593772|168755404|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001152||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stress as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1002
84502110|NCT03593772|168755404|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000996||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Tension as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7311
84595764|NCT03037476|168943496|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0445||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1993|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1102|-0.1993|0.573
84595765|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0899||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0685|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 12 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0685|-0.2484|0.266
84759916|NCT02873936|169276000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.4|1.2|0.002
84595766|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0197||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1859|0.1465|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Past 12 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1465|-0.1859|0.816
84595767|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1031||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2639|0.0577|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0577|-0.2639|0.209
84595768|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.006||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1729|0.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1608|-0.1729|0.944
84595769|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0391||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2102|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.1320|-0.2102|0.654
84595770|NCT03037476|168943497|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0646||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.1152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1152|-0.2444|0.481
84595771|NCT03037476|168943498|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0411||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1569|0.0747|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.0747|-0.1569|0.487
84595772|NCT03037476|168943498|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0177||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1375|-0.1021|0.772
84595773|NCT03037476|168943499|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.1285||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0131|0.2702|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 6 month follow up||0.2702|-0.0131|0.075
84595774|NCT03037476|168943499|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0936||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.2388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 12 month follow up||0.2388|-0.0517|0.207
84595775|NCT03037476|168943500|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0683|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (in perceived days of use in past year) at 6 month follow up||-0.0683|-0.2525|<0.001
84595776|NCT03037476|168943500|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1441|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2404|-0.0478|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (perceived number of days of use in past year) at 12 month follow up||-0.0478|-0.2404|<.003
84616176|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0048
84616177|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1059
84616178|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616179|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0018
84616180|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.2589
84595777|NCT03037476|168943501|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0157||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1096|0.0782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 6 month follow-up||0.0782|-0.1096|0.743
84616181|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616182|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0040
84759917|NCT02873936|169276000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.1|2.1|<0.001
84595778|NCT03037476|168943501|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0133||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0816|0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 12 month follow up||0.1081|-0.0816|0.784
84595779|NCT03037476|168943502|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0061||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1161|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in cumulative grade point average at 6 month follow up||0.104|-0.1161|0.914
84616183|NCT00445770|168981281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.2326
84616184|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
84595780|NCT03037476|168943502|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0092||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1202|0.1018|||Mixed Models Analysis|General Linear Model||Change in cumulative grade point average at 12 month follow up||0.1018|-0.1202|0.871
84595781|NCT03037476|168943502|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1063|0.1124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 6 month follow-up||0.1124|-0.1063|0.957
84595782|NCT03037476|168943502|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0006||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1098|0.1109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 12 month follow-up||0.1109|-0.1098|0.992
84595783|NCT03037476|168943503|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.039||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 6 month follow-up||0.1395|-.0615|0.447
84595784|NCT03037476|168943503|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0398||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0619|0.1414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 12 month follow-up||0.1414|-0.0619|0.443
84616185|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616186|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4751
84616187|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616188|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616189|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.4653
84616190|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616191|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616192|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7953
84616193|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616194|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616195|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0848
84616196|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595785|NCT03037476|168943504|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1066|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol typical quantity at 6 months||0.1070|-0.1066|0.997
84595786|NCT03037476|168943504|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0136||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1236|0.0963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month typical alcohol quantity at 12 month follow-up||0.0963|-0.1236|0.808
84595787|NCT02403817|168943509|OTHER|This is a small pilot study with no power calculations required (and no data upon which to base a priori power estimates).||||||5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary attention outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.00005
84595788|NCT02403817|168943510|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary eye movement outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.018
84616197|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595789|NCT01498692|168943530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Target Lesion Failure|2.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.3|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 21.1%.||7.3||<0.0001
84616198|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.6112
84616199|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616200|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0002
84616201|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.3671
84616202|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616203|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
84595790|NCT01701362|168943566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1823||95.0|-0.54|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures = MMRM|MMRM analysis includes fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, trauma type, visit week, treatment-by-visit interaction, and fixed continuous effect of baseline value. Missing mean pain scores imputed by multiple imputation method|||0.10|-0.54|0.1823
84502111|NCT03593772|168755405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001716||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1622
84502112|NCT03593772|168755405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002052||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Activity as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2540
84595791|NCT01701362|168943567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value is derived from CMH test, stratified for pooled center and trauma type and excludes missing values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84595792|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0119||95.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 1||-0.08|-0.62|0.0119
84595793|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0135||95.0|-0.62|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 2||-0.07|-0.62|0.0135
84595794|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0028||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 3||-0.14|-0.69|0.0028
84595795|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0016||95.0|-0.72|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 4||-0.17|-0.72|0.0016
84616204|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7618
84616205|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
84595796|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 5||-0.20|-0.75|0.0007
84595797|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006||95.0|-0.76|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 6||-0.21|-0.76|0.0006
84595798|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 7||-0.20|-0.75|0.0008
84595799|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003||95.0|-0.79|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 8||-0.24|-0.79|0.0003
84673076|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4061
84595800|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 9||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
84595801|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.77|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 10||-0.22|-0.77|0.0005
84616206|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616207|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4358
84595802|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 11||-0.20|-0.76|0.0007
84595803|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 12||-0.27|-0.82|0.0001
84595804|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 13||-0.28|-0.84|<0.0001
84616208|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0008
84616209|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616210|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.6267
84616211|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616212|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0004
84759918|NCT02873936|169276000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.7|-0.5|0.11
84595805|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.78|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 14||-0.22|-0.78|0.0005
84595806|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0031||95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 15||-0.14|-0.71|0.0031
84595807|NCT01701362|168943568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Overall||-0.23|-0.71|0.0001
84595808|NCT01701362|168943569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005||95.0|-0.77|-0.14|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.14|-0.77|0.0050
84616213|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.3564
84616214|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0007
84616215|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0035
84616216|NCT00445770|168981282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.4749
84616217|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616218|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0001
84616219|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4376
84616220|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616221|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616222|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.3947
84616223|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616224|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616225|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7378
84759919|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||11.0|2.0|0.009
84595809|NCT01701362|168943570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0168||95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.07|-0.70|0.0168
84595810|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.6841||95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for mobility||0.06|-0.09|0.6841
84595811|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6564||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for self-care||0.04|-0.07|0.6564
84595812|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.859||95.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for usual activities||0.09|-0.08|0.8590
84595813|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1628||95.0|-0.14|0.02|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for pain/discomfort||0.02|-0.14|0.1628
84616226|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0001
84616227|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
84540955|NCT03449446|168833181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.4||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|26.9||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.9|-6.0|0.2149
84616228|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.5680
84616229|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0003
84616230|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616231|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.3978
84616232|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616233|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0001
84616234|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.7229
84540956|NCT04779879|168833209|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.09|0.98|
84540957|NCT04779879|168833210|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, and Baseline logarithm (base10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.11|0.94|
84540958|NCT04779879|168833239|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.11|1.00|
84540959|NCT04779879|168833240|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.07|0.97|
84540960|NCT04779879|168833241|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.09|0.93|
84540961|NCT04779879|168833242|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.10|0.94|
84540962|NCT04779879|168833303|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.89|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.89|0.48|
84540963|NCT04779879|168833303|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.79|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.79|0.43|
84540964|NCT04779879|168833304|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.95|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.95|0.67|
84540965|NCT04779879|168833305|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.62|0.69|
84540966|NCT04779879|168833306|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.82|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.82|0.68|
84540967|NCT04779879|168833307|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.12|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||2.12|0.77|
84502113|NCT03593772|168755405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002297||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Sleep as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0082
84502114|NCT03593772|168755405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002378||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Mood as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0079
84502115|NCT03593772|168755405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002367||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Stress as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1588
84502116|NCT03593772|168755406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01379||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PCL-5 Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4808
84502117|NCT03593772|168755407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00856||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Physical Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9692
84502118|NCT03593772|168755407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007848||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mental Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0277
84502119|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003253||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total PSQI Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5642
84502120|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00079||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Subjective Sleep Quality Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2438
84595814|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4654||95.0|-0.05|0.1|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for anxiety/depression||0.10|-0.05|0.4654
84616235|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
84595815|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.5||95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 1997 Index score||0.04|-0.02|0.5000
84616236|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616237|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7236
84616238|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
84502121|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000885||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep latency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7317
84502122|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001327||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep duration Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6393
84502123|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000873||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep efficiency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1995
84502124|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000675||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep disturbance Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2886
84502125|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001356||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Use of sleep medication Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1323
84502126|NCT03593772|168755408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000793||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Daytime dysfunction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7923
84502127|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001074||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6679
84502128|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000769||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1607
84616239|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616240|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.9719
84616241|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616242|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616243|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.9349
84616244|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
84595816|NCT01701362|168943571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5493||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 2001 Index Score||0.04|-0.07|0.5493
84595817|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0545||95.0|-0.07|7.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Disturbance Score||7.00|-0.07|0.0545
84595818|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3913||95.0|-6.47|2.54|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Adequancy Score||2.54|-6.47|0.3913
84616245|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0002
84616246|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.7226
84616247|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616248|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616249|NCT00445770|168981283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.5512
84595819|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.6059||95.0|-5.06|2.96|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Snoring Score||2.96|-5.06|0.6059
84595820|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.7317||95.0|-2.76|3.93|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath Score||3.93|-2.76|0.7317
84616250|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0162
84616251|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0035
84616252|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.8928
84616253|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0009
84616254|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0007
84616255|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.6348
84616256|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.0026
84616257|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616258|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.4629
84616259|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0841
84595821|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2663||95.0|-0.45|0.12|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Quantity of Sleep Score (hours)||0.12|-0.45|0.2663
84595822|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1562||95.0|-5.08|0.82|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Somnolence Score||0.82|-5.08|0.1562
84616260|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0007
84616261|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.1957
84595823|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.249||95.0|-1.18|4.53|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Problem Index (9) Score||4.53|-1.18|0.2490
84616262|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0093
84616263|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0326
84616264|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.7426
84616265|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0013
84616266|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0015
84616267|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.6552
84616268|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0005
84595824|NCT01701362|168943573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaet squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0609||95.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Optimal Sleep Score||0.00|-0.15|0.0609
84595825|NCT01701362|168943574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7165||||||p-values based on CMH test stratified by pooled center and trauma type, patients with unknown status at baseline or endpoint will not be included in the calculation of p-values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7165
84595826|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0028||95.0|1.5|6.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.86|1.50|0.0028
84595827|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036||95.0|1.03|2.68|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||2.68|1.03|0.0360
84595828|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0235||95.0|1.07|2.45|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||2.45|1.07|0.0235
84595829|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0619||95.0|0.98|2.24|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.24|0.98|0.0619
84616269|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0004
84616270|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.6294
84595830|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0677||95.0|0.97|2.2|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||2.20|0.97|0.0677
84595831|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0707||95.0|0.97|2.16|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.16|0.97|0.0707
84595832|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1313||95.0|0.91|2.06|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.06|0.91|0.1313
84616271|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616272|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.0001
84616273|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4652
84616274|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616275|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0002
84595833|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.3072||95.0|0.82|1.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||1.86|0.82|0.3072
84595834|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3947||95.0|0.79|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||1.80|0.79|0.3947
84595835|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1462||95.0|0.9|2.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.05|0.90|0.1462
84595836|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6854||95.0|0.72|1.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||1.64|0.72|0.6854
84595837|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5025||95.0|0.76|1.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||1.74|0.76|0.5025
84595838|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4908||95.0|0.76|1.76|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||1.76|0.76|0.4908
84595839|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4245||95.0|0.78|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||1.80|0.78|0.4245
84616276|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.2233
84616277|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616278|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0003
84502129|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00064||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1260
84502130|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3311
84502131|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000887||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2416
84502132|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001016||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3903
84595840|NCT01701362|168943575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8464||95.0|0.61|1.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||1.49|0.61|0.8464
84595841|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1633||95.0|0.74|6.0|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.00|0.74|0.1633
84595842|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0652||95.0|0.96|3.85|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||3.85|0.96|0.0652
84595843|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0039||95.0|1.29|3.77|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||3.77|1.29|0.0039
84595844|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0382||95.0|1.03|2.83|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.83|1.03|0.0382
84616279|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.6772
84616280|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616281|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
84595845|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0137||95.0|1.14|3.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||3.05|1.14|0.0137
84616282|NCT00445770|168981284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.6160
84595846|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0693||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.49|0.97|0.0693
84595847|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0349||95.0|1.04|2.73|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.73|1.04|0.0349
84616283|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616284|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84595848|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1227||95.0|0.91|2.29|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||2.29|0.91|0.1227
84595849|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0364||95.0|1.03|2.63|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||2.63|1.03|0.0364
84595850|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0667||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.49|0.97|0.0667
84595851|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0176||95.0|1.1|2.84|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||2.84|1.10|0.0176
84595852|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.003||95.0|1.27|3.23|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||3.23|1.27|0.0030
84595853|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0256||95.0|1.07|2.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||2.74|1.07|0.0256
84595854|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0314||95.0|1.05|2.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||2.64|1.05|0.0314
84595855|NCT01701362|168943576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1889||95.0|0.85|2.21|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||2.21|0.85|0.1889
84595856|NCT00443872|168943601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of mean group scores at baseline and 12 weeks||||<0.01
84595857|NCT00443872|168943602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84616285|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.4929
84595858|NCT00443872|168943603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of baseline vs. 3 month circumference of the Left and Right lower leg/ankle (change identical for both legs).|Change in pedal edema as measured by change in lower leg/ankle circumference in the left and right legs||||<0.01
84595859|NCT00443872|168943604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84595860|NCT00443872|168943605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is for the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) section of the scale||||<0.01
84595861|NCT00443872|168943605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis is for the motor section of the UPDRS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84595862|NCT00443872|168943606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84595863|NCT00443872|168943607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84595864|NCT00443872|168943608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84595865|NCT00443872|168943609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84595866|NCT01709110|168943610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4071||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.647|0.256|0.000094
84595867|NCT01709110|168943610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4431||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.677|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.677|0.290|0.000094
84595868|NCT01709110|168943611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4187||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.652|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.652|0.269|0.000075
84595869|NCT01709110|168943611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4561||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.682|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.682|0.305|0.000075
84595870|NCT01709110|168943612|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4831||||0.000869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.739|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||0.739|0.316|0.000869
84595871|NCT01709110|168943613|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6553||||0.099023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.101|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.101|0.390|0.099023
84616286|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616287|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84595872|NCT01709110|168943614|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5786||||0.062432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.052|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.052|0.318|0.062432
84595873|NCT01709110|168943615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.614|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.614|0.237|<0.001
84595874|NCT01709110|168943615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.646|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.646|0.270|<0.001
84595875|NCT01709110|168943616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1593||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.728|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.728|0.035|0.007
84595876|NCT01709110|168943616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1643||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.744|0.036|0.007
84616288|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.9693
84616289|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616290|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616291|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.4139
84595877|NCT01709110|168943617|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimates and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.050|0.461|0.078
84616292|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616293|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84595878|NCT01709110|168943618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline body height(cm).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.28|0.093
84595879|NCT01709110|168943619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline back pain (no pain - worst pain \[0-10\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.24|-0.42|0.585
84616294|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.8905
84616295|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595880|NCT01709110|168943620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (UK).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.03|0.757
84595881|NCT01709110|168943621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (US).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.01|-0.02|0.694
84595882|NCT01129765|168943622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point likert scale, with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
84616296|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616297|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.6877
84616298|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616299|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616300|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.4511
84595883|NCT01129765|168943623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
84595884|NCT01129765|168943624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||One-sample proportion|||"Null hypothesis: Pr ≤ 0.7 versus HA: Pr \> 0.7; Pr is proportion using device appropriately. Observed rate calculated with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution. 2-sided p-value from binomial distribution.~With the proposed sample size of 30 subjects, we will reject the primary null hypothesis if at least 27 are observed to use the device properly. We will have 80% power for this to occur provided that the true rate in the population is at least 92%."||1.0|0.83|0.0005
84595885|NCT01129765|168943625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.88|
84595886|NCT01129765|168943626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion observed to have a safety issue, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
84595887|NCT01129765|168943627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion found to have injury, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
84759920|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|3.0|0.003
84595888|NCT00485758|168943636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-21.4|-14.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||-14.4|-21.4|<0.001
84595889|NCT00485758|168943637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|20.7|25.7|||Repeated Measures Analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||25.7|20.7|<0.001
84595890|NCT00485758|168943638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-18.9|||ANCOVA|Nonparametric Analysis of Covariance model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender and Tukey's normal score of baseline.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval based on Wilcoxon's rank|||-18.9|-27.2|<0.001
84616301|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616302|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84595891|NCT00135330|168943642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ratio of the ASI-iAUC at Week 20 to that at baseline was compared between the treatment groups.||||0.282
84595892|NCT00135330|168943643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84595893|NCT00135330|168943644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.308
84595894|NCT00135330|168943645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
84595895|NCT00135330|168943646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.252
84616303|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.2786
84616304|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
84595896|NCT00135330|168943647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.465
84595897|NCT00135330|168943648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.348
84595898|NCT00135330|168943652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.039
84595899|NCT00135330|168943653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.555
84595900|NCT00135330|168943655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.106
84595901|NCT00135330|168943656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.341
84595902|NCT00135330|168943657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||<0.001
84595903|NCT00135330|168943658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.276
84595904|NCT00135330|168943659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.840
84595905|NCT00135330|168943660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.096
84595906|NCT00135330|168943661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.875
84595907|NCT00135330|168943662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.581
84595908|NCT00135330|168943663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
84595909|NCT00135330|168943664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
84595910|NCT00135330|168943665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.117
84595911|NCT00135330|168943666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.251
84595912|NCT00135330|168943667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.710
84595913|NCT00135330|168943668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.575
84595914|NCT00135330|168943669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
84616305|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
84673077|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.56|0.0990
84502133|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00095||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2131
84502134|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1130
84502135|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000939||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0358
84502136|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000495||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7027
84502137|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00073||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2979
84502138|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000798||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4278
84502139|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0000074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000877||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9933
84595915|NCT00135330|168943670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.168
84595916|NCT03645096|168943671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0554||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0703|0.1689||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1689|-0.0703|.195
84595917|NCT03645096|168943671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0565||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.1467||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1467|-0.0943|.325
84595918|NCT03645096|168943672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0878||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.1827||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1827|-0.1969|.468
84759921|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||13.0|3.0|0.003
84595919|NCT03645096|168943672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1803|0.1996||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1996|-0.1803|.458
84673078|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.63|0.0108
84673079|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.59|0.0889
84673080|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.18|0.3721
84673081|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5513
84673082|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.01|0.0748
84673083|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.09|0.3545
84673084|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.14|0.6531
84673085|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.26|0.7520
84759922|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|2.0|0.006
84595920|NCT03645096|168943673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0078||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0209||Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0209|-0.0132|.316
84595921|NCT03645096|168943673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0312||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0312|-0.0050|.071
84595922|NCT03645096|168943674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11322.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3750.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19577.27|-3067.62||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-3067.62|-19577.27|.006
84595923|NCT03645096|168943674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11828.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3620.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19650.24|-4007.33||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-4007.33|-19650.24|.003
84595924|NCT03645096|168943675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2523.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|545.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3724.93|-1322.22||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1322.22|-3724.93|.001
84616306|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1230
84616307|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616308|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
84595925|NCT03645096|168943675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2480.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|582.63||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3739.32|-1221.93||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1221.93|-3739.32|.001
84616309|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.5061
84595926|NCT03645096|168943676|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6377||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7659|4.1777||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.1777|-2.7659|.336
84616310|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616311|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616312|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1354
84616313|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616314|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616315|NCT00445770|168981285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1734
84616316|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616317|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616318|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6417
84616319|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84502140|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000816||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1589
84502141|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000767||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8875
84502142|NCT03593772|168755409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00078||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6859
84502143|NCT03593772|168755410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01085||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on BDI total score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1959
84502144|NCT03593772|168755411|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005845||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Perceived Stress Scale Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1792
84502145|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01039||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8991
84595927|NCT03645096|168943676|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4662||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8131|4.8131||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.8131|-9.8131|.240
84595928|NCT04677543|168943772|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.4||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|29.5|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||29.5|-8.6|0.2819
84616320|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616321|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4698
84595929|NCT04677543|168943773|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|24.1|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||24.1|-11.9|0.5080
84595930|NCT04677543|168943774|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.7||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|34.9|||Standardized Logistic Regression|||||34.9|-1.4|0.0712
84595931|NCT04677543|168943775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.48||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|9.93|||ANCOVA|||||9.93|-0.97|0.1073
84595932|NCT04677543|168943776|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.2|0.6130
84616322|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616323|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84502146|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002349||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3711
84502147|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002348||0.428|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4280
84502148|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003205||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Affection Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9831
84502149|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006364||0.632|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6320
84502150|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002259||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9755
84595933|NCT04677543|168943777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.92|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||1.92|0.79|0.3542
84616324|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1214
84616325|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616326|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616327|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4654
84616328|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616329|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616330|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4006
84595934|NCT04677543|168943778|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.06|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||2.06|0.89|0.1583
84616331|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616332|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616333|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1636
84616334|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616335|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616336|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2635
84616337|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84595935|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.8|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in the average vegetable consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.8|1.8|<0.05
84595936|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|10.3|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fruit consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.3|-13.6|<0.05
84616338|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
84502151|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001818||0.7584|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7584
84502152|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003444||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9313
84502153|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002097||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5401
84502154|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002471||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9421
84502155|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003983||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7042
84595937|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average water consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||6.5|-5.4|<0.05
84616339|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0965
84616340|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616341|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616342|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.4437
84616343|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84595938|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sweet snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-8.9|<0.05
84595939|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fast food consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-0.5|<0.05
84595940|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average savory snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.0|-0.5|<0.05
84595941|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||3.4|-4.9|<0.05
84595942|NCT01539070|168943783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average added sugar in beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||4.1|-8.4|<0.05
84595943|NCT01539070|168943784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.5|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in mean physical activity between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI) are reported.||5.5|-29.1|<0.05
84616344|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616345|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1663
84616346|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84759923|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||15.0|3.0|0.002
84595944|NCT01539070|168943784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean sleep time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.5|-0.2|<0.05
84616347|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616348|NCT00445770|168981286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1049
84616349|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616350|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
84502156|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.02128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008331||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0114
84502157|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001727||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1358
84502158|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001796||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4354
84502159|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.005759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002113||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on AffectionSubdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0070
84502160|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004485||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0217
84502161|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001461||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7881
84502162|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00141||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0010
84502163|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002415||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0693
84595945|NCT01539070|168943784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean screen time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-4.4|<0.05
84616351|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||0.0442
84616352|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84502164|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001887||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1184
84502165|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002262||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1301
84502166|NCT03593772|168755412|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.006022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003697||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1049
84502167|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with a intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-leve latent growth curve||For 1-Month Follow-Up, substance use module (SUM) among those who did not view CT Video|||-0.46|-6.78|.03
84502168|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.76||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did view the CT video.|||0.76|-4.10|.18
84502169|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.80|-2.50|0.75
84502170|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.77||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-Month follow up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.77|-5.37|0.14
84595946|NCT01539070|168943786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.35|-0.04|<0.05
84616353|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616354|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0681
84502171|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.58||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.58|-5.00|0.013
84502172|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video|||0.38|-4.56|0.10
84595947|NCT03162796|168943789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.1|18.6|< 0.001
84595948|NCT03162796|168943789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|26.1|< 0.001
84595949|NCT03162796|168943790|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.1325|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1325|-0.3640|< 0.001
84595950|NCT03162796|168943790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.3226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4385|-0.2066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2066|-0.4385|< 0.001
84595951|NCT03162796|168943791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|12.1|< 0.001
84616355|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616356|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616357|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0966
84502173|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.16||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT Video among those who completed the SUM|A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.||3.16|-2.35|0.78
84502174|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.53||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||1.53|-2.12|0.75
84502175|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.93||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-0.81||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.81|-7.06|0.014
84502176|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.57||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.03||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video.|||2.03|-3.16|0.67
84502177|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.24||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.91||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.91|-2.39|0.83
84502178|NCT03125915|168755415|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|6.25||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||6.25|-0.004|0.05
84595952|NCT03162796|168943791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|17.6|< 0.001
84595953|NCT03162796|168943792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|28.9|< 0.001
84616358|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616359|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0006
84502179|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.41||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view CT videos|||2.41|-2.30|0.90
84502180|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.26||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT video on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view SUM.|||2.75|-2.23|0.78
84502181|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.18||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.51||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT video on the latent intercept.|||2.51|-4.86|0.53
84595954|NCT03162796|168943792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||71.8|48.3|< 0.001
84595955|NCT03162796|168943793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|38.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|15.3|< 0.001
84595956|NCT03162796|168943793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.0|23.5|< 0.001
84595957|NCT03162796|168943794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.98|-0.48||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.98|< 0.001
84595958|NCT03162796|168943794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.16|< 0.001
84595959|NCT03162796|168943795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-0.3|0.069
84595960|NCT03162796|168943795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.9|< 0.001
84595961|NCT03162796|168943796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.3||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|1.0|0.036
84595962|NCT03162796|168943796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|23.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|4.4|0.006
84595963|NCT03162796|168943797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.85|||ANCOVA|||||5.85|2.42|< 0.001
84595964|NCT03162796|168943797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.63|||ANCOVA|||||6.63|3.19|< 0.001
84616360|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.1242
84616361|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84595965|NCT03162796|168943798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.5||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-1.6|0.094
84595966|NCT03162796|168943798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.6||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|4.9|0.013
84595967|NCT03162796|168943799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.83|0.185
84595968|NCT03162796|168943799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.74||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.24||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.24|0.004
84595969|NCT03162796|168943800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.77||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||2.77|-1.10|0.398
84595970|NCT03162796|168943800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.23||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||3.16|-0.71|0.214
84595971|NCT03162796|168943801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|34.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.8|-1.5|0.088
84595972|NCT03162796|168943801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|33.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.7|-6.9|0.212
84595973|NCT03162796|168943802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.82||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.49||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-4.12|0.121
84595974|NCT03162796|168943802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.95||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.95|-4.00|0.225
84595975|NCT01181804|168943919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.07|
84595976|NCT01181804|168943920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.54|||ANOVA|||||1.54|1.32|
84595977|NCT01181804|168943921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANOVA|||||1.14|1.06|
84595978|NCT01181804|168943922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|1.09|
84595979|NCT03711370|168943949|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by bottle type interactions on infant intake during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.76||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.76
84595980|NCT03711370|168943950|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by-bottle type interactions on maternal sensitivity during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.64
84595981|NCT03711370|168943951|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test weight-for-length z-scores (WLZ).||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|These models controlled for baseline values (i.e., baseline WLZ), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.02
84595982|NCT03711370|168943952|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test waist circumference for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e., waist circumference), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.07
84595983|NCT03711370|168943953|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test triceps skinfold z-scores for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e.,triceps skinfolds z-scores), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.70
84595984|NCT01740687|168943970|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.23|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.1% at 1 year||||
84595985|NCT01740687|168943971|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.33|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.8% at 3 years||||
84595986|NCT03744910|168943981|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|0.35||||||||0.35|-5.84|
84595987|NCT00336284|168944014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84595988|NCT00336284|168944015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of the study is based on the safety endpoint and based on a Blackwelder type test of non inferiority with the standard design criteria: Type I error (one-sided), statistical power of 80%, and 2:1 randomization. The evaluation of the primary safety endpoint was based on an exact binomial non-inferiority test comparing the proportions of patient deaths, strokes or surgical interventions.||||||0.005||95.0|||||Exact binomial test for non-inferiority|1-sided||||||0.005
84616362|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.001
84616363|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.1521
84502182|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.83||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.29||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent slope factor among those who did not view CT Videos.|||4.29|-0.62|0.14
84502183|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.35||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.72||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT Video on latent slope factor among those who did not complete the SUM.|||2.72|-2.02|0.76
84502184|NCT03125915|168755416|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.28||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|2.06||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT videos in the prediction of the latent slope factor.|||2.06|-4.62|0.45
84502185|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.11|-1.39|0.02
84502186|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT videos.|||0.09|-1.07|0.10
84502187|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.47|-0.77|0.63
84502188|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.2||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.20|-1.01|0.19
84616364|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616365|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0070
84616366|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0140
84502189|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.15||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who completed the CT video.|||-0.15|-1.13|0.01
84502190|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.12||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who did not complete CT video.|||0.12|-1.11|0.12
84502191|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.34||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.21|-0.89|0.23
84502192|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.38|-0.76|0.51
84616367|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616368|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84502193|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.79||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.27||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.27|-1.32|0.003
84616369|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0815
84616370|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
84616371|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0002
84502194|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.25||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view the CT video.|||0.46|-0.96|0.49
84502195|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.11|-1.16|0.10
84595989|NCT00336284|168944016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84595990|NCT03308968|168944018|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.42|-3.84|<0.0001
84595991|NCT03308968|168944018|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.78|-4.19|<0.0001
84595992|NCT00473889|168944043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Log Rank|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified log rank test.||||||0.992
84595993|NCT00473889|168944044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method Model.||||||0.862
84616372|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0886
84502196|NCT03125915|168755417|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.64|-0.60|0.96
84502197|NCT02731833|168755418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|Statistical analyses was conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.300|-0.505|<0.0001
84595994|NCT00473889|168944045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified Miettinen and Nurmimen method.||||||0.899
84595995|NCT02978157|168944050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84595996|NCT00700622|168944060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 92 subjects in each group was required to complete the trial. Approximately 230 subjects were to be randomized to achieve 184 completers (assuming a 20% dropout rate). This would have provided 80% power for a noninferiority design to test the difference of a 4-month change in HbA1c levels between treatment groups, assuming the upper noninferiority margins Δ of 0.5% with a standard deviation of 1.2 and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.31|
84595997|NCT00383331|168944061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The response rates are separately evaluated for these two treatment arms. For each arm, a sample size of 48 achieves 91% power to detect a difference of 20% between the null hypothesis of 15% response rate and the alternative hypothesis of 35% using a one-sided, binomial hypothesis test with a target significance level of 2.5% (the actual significance level is 2.2%).||||0.48
84595998|NCT00383331|168944066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
84595999|NCT02253433|168944067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-.87|0.575
84596000|NCT02253433|168944068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|-.18|0.141
84596001|NCT02253433|168944069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|ED visits over the previous 12 months were positively skewed (skewness 2.95; kurtosis 14.1); the responses were dichotomized (0 vs. 1 or more).||||1.57|.47|0.043
84596002|NCT02229825|168944075|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p-value for treatment effect|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline score and treatment as the main factor.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS total score between week 4 and baseline was the same for the 2 duloxetine treatment groups.||||0.88
84596003|NCT02229825|168944076|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment effect.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratification factors and HAMD6 baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||Comparison between treatment regimes at Week 4.||||0.86
84596004|NCT02229825|168944077|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparisons, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596005|NCT02229825|168944077|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596006|NCT02229825|168944077|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84616373|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
84502198|NCT04542330|168755422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||Acute infection was analysed as recurrent events using an Andersen-Gill Cox proportional hazards regression model with time since inclusion as underlying time scale. The analysis was done for the composite outcome and for all subcomponents separately, presenting Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each. For all recurrent outcomes, a wash-out period of 14 days was used to define new events.||||< 0.05
84502199|NCT04542330|168755423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for primary outcome.||||< 0.05
84502200|NCT04542330|168755424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||The secondary outcome, self-reported respiratory symptoms, was analysed the same way as the primary outcome (recurrent events).||||< 0.05
84596007|NCT02229825|168944077|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596008|NCT02229825|168944079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596009|NCT02229825|168944079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596010|NCT02229825|168944079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84616374|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0003
84502201|NCT04542330|168755425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for the primary outcome.||||< 0.05
84502202|NCT02176642|168755426|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that women in the placebo group would have mean reduction of 3 UUI episodes per day. Assuming 50% improvement in UUI episodes per day is a clinically significant improvement, we estimated the experimental group would have a mean reduction of 4.5 UUI episodes per day with a SD of 1.5 UUI episodes per day. To detect such a difference with 80% power and alpha 0.05, we would need 88 participants for our analysis. To allow for a 12% dropout rate, our goal was to enroll 100 women.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84502203|NCT02176642|168755427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84502204|NCT02176642|168755428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84502205|NCT02176642|168755429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84502206|NCT02176642|168755430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84596011|NCT02229825|168944079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596012|NCT02229825|168944080|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.32
84596013|NCT02229825|168944082|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.57
84596014|NCT02229825|168944085|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.68
84596015|NCT02229825|168944086|OTHER||Statistic|-528.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
84616375|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1488
84502207|NCT02176642|168755431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84502208|NCT02176642|168755432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84596016|NCT02229825|168944086|OTHER||Statistic|-540.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
84596017|NCT02229825|168944086|OTHER||Statistic|-1024.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
84596018|NCT02229825|168944086|OTHER||Statistic|-279.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
84596019|NCT02229825|168944087|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.||||||0.07||||||Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.07
84616376|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84616377|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0006
84616378|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0979
84616379|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616380|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0001
84616381|NCT00445770|168981287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1740
84596020|NCT02229825|168944089|OTHER||CMH statistic|0.0||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Before testing, PGI-I items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2= improved, 3-5=Stable, 6-7=Worsened. At week 4 treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||1.00
84596021|NCT02229825|168944091|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||Comparison between HAMA scores between treatment regimens.||||0.92
84596022|NCT02229825|168944092|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596023|NCT02229825|168944092|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596024|NCT02229825|168944092|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596025|NCT02229825|168944092|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84616382|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior Methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616383|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
84616384|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0274
84616385|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616386|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
84616387|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0344
84502209|NCT02176642|168755433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84596026|NCT02229825|168944094|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, Week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596027|NCT02229825|168944094|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.001
84596028|NCT02229825|168944094|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84596029|NCT02229825|168944094|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.28
84596030|NCT00066222|168944104|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year overall survival rate from 47% to 60%. Using a one-group chi-square test with a one-sided significance level of 0.10, a sample of 67 patients was deemed sufficient to detect the difference between the null hypothesis (H0: P .47) and the alternative hypothesis (HA: P .60) with 80% power.|If the point estimate for two-year survival is less than or equal to 0.54815, the upper bound of the one-sided 90% confidence interval on 47%, then H0 would not be rejected and the conclusion would be that the two-year survival rate did not statistically improve from 47% under the new treatment. If the point estimate is greater than 0.54815, then H0 would be rejected and the conclusion is that the two-year survival rate did improve from 47% to 60% under the new treatment.|||
84596031|NCT00066222|168944107|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of severe esophagitis was 30% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 27 or more cases of severe esophagitis among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
84596032|NCT00066222|168944108|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of treatment-related fatalities was less than or equal to 5% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 6 or more instances of treatment-related fatalities among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
84596033|NCT00405392|168944110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84596034|NCT00405392|168944111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84596035|NCT00405392|168944112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9456
84596036|NCT02689206|168944121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.45|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 10 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.45|-0.31|
84596037|NCT02689206|168944121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 15 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.42|-0.40|
84596038|NCT02689206|168944121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 25 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.35|0.59|
84596039|NCT02689206|168944121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 30 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.57|0.77|
84596040|NCT02998671|168944161|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.81|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.81|0.79|
84616388|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616389|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
84616390|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0293
84502210|NCT02176642|168755434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84502211|NCT00295620|168755438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a DFS event||1.11|0.79|0.425
84502212|NCT00295620|168755439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a death event||1.25|0.83|0.867
84502213|NCT00295620|168755440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.84|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a fracture||1.84|1.00|0.052
84502214|NCT00295620|168755441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of secondary carcinoma||1.38|0.81|0.678
84502215|NCT00295620|168755442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 years Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of contralateral mammacarcinoma||1.77|0.75|0.531
84502216|NCT02556632|168755448|OTHER|||||||0.9306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9306
84502217|NCT02556632|168755449|OTHER|||||||0.8048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8048
84596041|NCT02998671|168944161|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.8|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.80|0.66|
84616391|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84616392|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
84502218|NCT02556632|168755450|OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8591
84502219|NCT01625286|168755497|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.06||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.06|0.60|0.308
84502220|NCT01625286|168755498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.1|-0.8||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-17.1|0.081
84502221|NCT01625286|168755504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|2.54||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||2.54|0.93|0.139
84502222|NCT01625286|168755505|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.24||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.24|0.48|0.482
84616393|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0452
84616394|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84502223|NCT01735877|168755530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.77
84502224|NCT01735877|168755530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|17.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from baseline to 1 month||17.25|11.02|<0.0001
84502225|NCT01735877|168755530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|26.48|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 3 month||26.48|18.65|<0.0001
84502226|NCT01735877|168755530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|27.62|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 6 month||27.62|18.94|<0.0001
84502227|NCT01735877|168755531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
84502228|NCT01735877|168755531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At 1 month||||0.99
84502229|NCT01735877|168755531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months||||0.03
84502230|NCT01735877|168755531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months||||0.004
84502231|NCT01735877|168755532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.64
84502232|NCT01735877|168755532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||9.60|2.24|0.002
84502233|NCT01735877|168755532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.63|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||14.63|2.80|0.005
84502234|NCT01735877|168755532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|14.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||14.60|2.67|0.006
84502235|NCT01735877|168755533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.99
84502236|NCT01735877|168755533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||4.42|2.93|<0.0001
84502237|NCT01735877|168755533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||4.21|2.61|<0.0001
84502238|NCT01735877|168755533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||4.02|2.40|<0.0001
84502239|NCT01735877|168755534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
84616395|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
84616396|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0313
84596042|NCT00595881|168944183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in sensitivity|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.0||"We calculated the differences between the sensitivities and specificities. The difference in sensitivity between the clinical exam alone vs clinical exam + ultrasound was -1.7% (-3.4%, 0%).~The difference in specificity was -2.8% (-9.7%, 4.1%)."|Mixed effects logistic regression|We used the bootstrap method to obtain valid confidence intervals and compare sensitivity and specificity for the 2 tests.|The clinical exam alone was compared to the clinical exam + ultrasound.|See sample size calculations already entered. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the sensitivity or specificity of clinical exam alone compared with clinical exam+ultrasound.||0|-3.4|
84596043|NCT00595881|168944183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in specificity|-2.8||||||95.0|-9.7|4.1||Statistical significance was defined as a CI surrounding the difference between groups not including 0.||as previously described for sensitivity||as previously described for sensitivity||4.1|-9.7|
84596044|NCT01479764|168944191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.059|||Pearson's Chi-square test|||Sugammadex is the numerator and Neostigmine/Glycopyrrolate is the denominator.||0.059|0.000|<0.0001
84596045|NCT01479764|168944192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Ratio of Geometric Means|0.83||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, Body Mass Index, comorbidity index \& length of surgical procedure||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate is the denominator. Used log-transformed time intervals.||0.97|0.71|0.021
84596046|NCT02473471|168944193|OTHER|The sample size was calculated based on a type I error frequency of 5%. According to the power analysis and assuming a large effect size difference between groups (effect size= 0.8), the power analysis yielded 28 subjects per group at a conventional alpha level (p = 0.05) and desired power (1 - β) of 0.90||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84502240|NCT01735877|168755534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 1||||0.99
84502241|NCT01735877|168755534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 3||||0.04
84616397|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
84616398|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0019
84616399|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0781
84596047|NCT02473471|168944194|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84596048|NCT02473471|168944195|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84596049|NCT02473471|168944196|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84596050|NCT02473471|168944197|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84596051|NCT02473471|168944198|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||There was no significant difference in tooth movement between control and MOP sides from baseline to 1st, 2nd and 3rd months. P Value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84596052|NCT02473471|168944199|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at baseline.||||0.59
84616400|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84616401|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0001
84502242|NCT01735877|168755534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 6||||0.01
84502243|NCT03182920|168755535|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.52||||||||1.52|0.962|
84502244|NCT03182920|168755536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.55||||||||1.55|1.03|
84502245|NCT02082912|168755548|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.216||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.651
84502246|NCT02082912|168755549|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.633||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.447
84502247|NCT02082912|168755550|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.557||||0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.471
84502248|NCT03154333|168755592|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||1.62|0.63|0.9666
84596053|NCT02473471|168944199|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at 3 months||||0.48
84596054|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediate after intervention||||0.388
84596055|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour after intervention||||0.092
84596056|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||12 hour after intervention||||0.100
84596057|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 after intervention||||0.302
84596058|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 after intervention||||0.582
84596059|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5 after intervention||||0.743
84596060|NCT02473471|168944200|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7 after intervention||||0.809
84596061|NCT02473471|168944201|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.09
84596062|NCT02473471|168944201|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.29
84596063|NCT02473471|168944201|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.57
84596064|NCT02473471|168944201|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.82
84596065|NCT02473471|168944202|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.27
84596066|NCT02473471|168944202|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.37
84596067|NCT02473471|168944202|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.33
84596068|NCT02473471|168944202|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||> 0.05
84596069|NCT02473471|168944203|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.05
84596070|NCT02473471|168944203|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.47
84596071|NCT02473471|168944203|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.09
84596072|NCT02473471|168944203|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84596073|NCT02473471|168944204|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.18
84596074|NCT02473471|168944204|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.57
84596075|NCT02473471|168944204|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.30
84596076|NCT02473471|168944204|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.56
84616402|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.1279
84616403|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
84502249|NCT03154333|168755593|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||3.28|0.41|0.2861
84616404|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0004
84502250|NCT00361257|168755594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline NPZ-8 score.|The total number used for the statistical analysis was 107 (52 in the minocycline arm and 55 in the placebo arm).|The null hypothesis was that the 24-week change of NPZ-8 in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.386|-0.258|0.651
84616405|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0807
84616406|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
84616407|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0002
84502251|NCT00361257|168755595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.323||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline GDS score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes in Global Deficit Score (GDS) between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.||0.323|-0.140|0.434
84616408|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.4180
84616409|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84502252|NCT00361257|168755596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.569|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.469||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|3.936||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cumulative Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week changes of participants' clinical status in the minocycline group were the same as the ones in the placebo group based on ICGIS.||3.936|0.625|0.337
84596077|NCT02473471|168944205|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Descriptive statistics|||||||< 0.05
84596078|NCT00191945|168944208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at week 12 (Atomoxetine minus Placebo)|||-4.8|-11.0|<0.001
84596079|NCT00191945|168944209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.5|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at Week 9 (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
84596080|NCT00191945|168944210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0009||95.0|-8.2|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 6 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-2.2|-8.2|0.0009
84616410|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0061
84616411|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1615
84616412|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
84616413|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0130
84616414|NCT00445770|168981288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0948
84616415|NCT01807299|168981352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|5.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
84616416|NCT01938040|168981368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84596081|NCT00191945|168944211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0033||95.0|-6.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 4 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-1.3|-6.4|0.0033
84596082|NCT00191945|168944212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.013||95.0|-4.9|-0.6||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus 6 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-0.6|-4.9|0.013
84596083|NCT00191945|168944215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-15.1|-6.2||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures analyis: treatment, visit, patient, and CPRS-R: S Total score at baseline as covariate, with treatment\*visit interaction|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from baseline to 12 weeks.|||-6.2|-15.1|<0.001
84596084|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.81||95.0|-3.39|4.33||P-value for Parent: Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.33|-3.39|0.810
84596085|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96||||0.243||95.0|-1.35|5.29||P-value for Parent: Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.29|-1.35|0.243
84596086|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.419||95.0|-2.26|5.39||P-value for Parent: Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.39|-2.26|0.419
84596087|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.27|12.55||P-value for Parent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||12.55|4.27|<0.001
84596088|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.39||||0.042||95.0|0.13|6.65||P-value for Parent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.65|0.13|0.042
84616417|NCT00412893|168981379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound was smaller than 10%, isavuconazole was declared as non-inferior to voriconazole with respect to the primary outcome measure.|Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|5.683|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Approximately 255 patients per group were to be enrolled to ensure at least 80% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for a treatment difference in favor of the comparator was no larger than 10%.||5.683|-7.759|
84616418|NCT00412893|168981380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.336|12.572|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||12.572|-9.336|
84616419|NCT00412893|168981380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.277|10.329|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.329|-11.277|
84616420|NCT00412893|168981380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|18.379|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||18.379|-1.993|
84616421|NCT00412893|168981381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|6.34|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|||6.340|-9.150|
84502253|NCT00361257|168755597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|1.354||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline cognitive gross motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week change in the cognitive gross motor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||1.354|-0.349|0.243
84502254|NCT00361257|168755598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.596||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in fine motor function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.596|-0.011|0.059
84502255|NCT00361257|168755599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.209||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratified variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline psychomotor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of psychomotor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as in the placebo group.||0.209|-0.375|0.572
84502256|NCT00361257|168755600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.276||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor/nonverbal function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of fine motor/nonverbal function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group.||0.276|-0.449|0.637
84502257|NCT00361257|168755601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|0.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline information processing function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of information processing function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.396|-0.544|0.754
84502258|NCT00361257|168755602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline verbal memory domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of verbal memory domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
84596089|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.323||95.0|-4.06|1.35||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||1.35|-4.06|0.323
84596090|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.452||95.0|-1.49|3.34||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||3.34|-1.49|0.452
84616422|NCT00412893|168981383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|11.531|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment Comparison||11.531|-10.640|
84616423|NCT00412893|168981383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.368|5.802|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||5.802|-17.368|
84616424|NCT00412893|168981383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.116|11.758|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||11.758|-11.116|
84616425|NCT00412893|168981384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.429|15.087|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||15.087|-7.429|
84502259|NCT00361257|168755603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.216||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline frontal systems function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of frontal systems function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.216|-0.467|0.467
84502260|NCT00361257|168755604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.476|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.048||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|10.668||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the CNS penetration score. The stratification variables could not be included in the model since the model fit was poor.||"The null hypothesis was that the proportion of being better at 24 weeks in minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group."||10.668|0.575|0.234
84616426|NCT00412893|168981384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.917|10.586|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 Comparison||10.586|-11.917|
84616427|NCT00412893|168981384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|19.83|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 Comparison||19.830|-1.624|
84502261|NCT00361257|168755605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.75||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|86.44||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the baseline CNS score, and the baseline CD4 cell count.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||86.44|-48.26|0.574
84502262|NCT00361257|168755606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.91||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.12|159.97||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline CD8 cell counts.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD8 cell count in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||159.97|-79.12|0.502
84596091|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.91||95.0|-2.59|2.9||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||2.90|-2.59|0.910
84596092|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.006||95.0|1.04|6.08||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.08|1.04|0.006
84596093|NCT00191945|168944216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.541||95.0|-2.21|4.19||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.19|-2.21|0.541
84596094|NCT02063984|168944230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.56|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||1.56|.11|
84596095|NCT02063984|168944231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.07|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||3.07|.79|
84596096|NCT02063984|168944232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.82||||||CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||4.82|.18|
84596097|NCT02063984|168944233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.54|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||2.54|.33|
84596098|NCT02063984|168944234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.45||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.45|.45|
84596099|NCT02063984|168944234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.2||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||6.20|.84|
84502263|NCT00361257|168755607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was that the time to Grade 2 or higher toxicity and/or signs and symptoms in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.967
84502264|NCT00361257|168755609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|2.837||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the baseline CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants who got better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||2.837|0.405|0.890
84596100|NCT02063984|168944234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.13|.23|
84596101|NCT02063984|168944235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.92|.76|
84596102|NCT02063984|168944235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.18||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.18|.49|
84596103|NCT02063984|168944235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.15||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.15|.83|
84616428|NCT00412893|168981385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.936|16.268|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.268|-4.936|
84596104|NCT02227810|168944387|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
84596105|NCT02227810|168944387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
84596106|NCT02227810|168944388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
84596107|NCT02227810|168944388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84596108|NCT02227810|168944389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
84596109|NCT02227810|168944390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
84596110|NCT02311881|168944412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.51||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.037|1.016|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo."||1.016|-6.037|0.1626
84596111|NCT02311881|168944412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Paracetamol 2000mg BID is non-inferior to Paracetamol 1330mg TID if the upper bound of the 95% confidence Interval is less than 5.3.|LS mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.894|1.166|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is ≤ - 5.3 (inferiority).~H1: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is \> - 5.3 (noninferiority)."||1.166|-5.894|
84596112|NCT02311881|168944412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.9352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.687|3.394|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo."||3.394|-3.687|0.9352
84596113|NCT03063606|168944428|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.0002
84596114|NCT03063606|168944429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.83
84596115|NCT01433042|168944434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0||||||||||since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|percentage|percentage of SB3 images graded as superior in image quality to SB2|since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|"Primary Endpoint~o Physician's subjective assessment questionnaire was evaluated in a quality manner.~The physicians were required to assess the performance of SB3 system as compare to SB2 by answering a short questionnaire.~The physicians were requested to indicate whether capsule SB3 was better as compared to SB2."||||
84596116|NCT02195700|168944441|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|unstructured covariance|||The linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, each scheduled time point (5 levels: weeks 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12), the treatment-by-time point interaction, and the DRA status. Baseline AIMS score was a covariate. The unstructured covariance model was used, and the primary analysis compared the SD-809 and placebo groups at week 12. This was based on the F-test using the Satterhwaite method to compute the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0188
84596117|NCT02195700|168944442|SUPERIORITY||Differences in %|7.9||||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|25.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Pearson's chi-square test|||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a hierarchical testing procedure. If the primary analysis was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the first key secondary endpoint was to be analyzed. If the first key secondary endpoint was statistically significant, then the second key secondary endpoint was to be similarly analyzed. For any analysis that was not statistically significant, all subsequent analyses of key secondary endpoints were exploratory rather than confirmatory.||25.2|-10.2|0.4001
84596118|NCT01963767|168944450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Ancovas were conducted with group as the between subjects factor and performance at baseline as the covariate.||||.03
84616429|NCT00412893|168981385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.338|16.032|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||16.032|-5.338|
84616430|NCT00412893|168981385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|19.186|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||19.186|-1.231|
84502265|NCT00361257|168755610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.373||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline medication management score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of medication management test score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.373|-1.182|0.304
84596119|NCT01082081|168944458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 500 mg caplet.||7.39|2.15|0.0004
84596120|NCT01082081|168944458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.45|4.04|<0.0001
84596121|NCT01082081|168944458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.48||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 500 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||5.69|-0.74|0.1307
84596122|NCT01575808|168944483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|86.3||||z-test|One-sided z-test||A literature-based Surgical Bypass Efficacy Goal of 65% was compared to the percentage of subjects maintaining primary assisted patency at 12 months. A one-sided z-test using a Type I error of 5% was performed to test the hypotheses that the 12-month primary assisted patency probability of GP1101 is superior to the SBEG of 65%.|||86.3|<0.0001
84596123|NCT01575808|168944484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis is that the post-procedure hospital stay duration for GP1101 is superior to the post-procedure hospital stay for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||||<0.0001
84616431|NCT00412893|168981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.043|16.026|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.026|-6.043|
84502266|NCT00361257|168755615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.193||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate psychomotor function score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in alternate psychomotor function score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.193|-0.388|0.506
84596124|NCT01575808|168944485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated with binomial exact method.|The hypothesis is that the rate of avoidance of general anesthesia for GP1101 is superior to the rate of avoidance of general anesthesis for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||100|96.5|<0.0001
84596125|NCT01575808|168944486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence intervals calculated using the binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
84596126|NCT01575808|168944516|OTHER||Percentage|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.4||||||||99.4|91.7|
84596127|NCT01575808|168944536|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence Interval calculated with binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
84596128|NCT03430843|168944614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.85|||1-sided, Log Rank Test|||||0.85|0.57|0.0001
84616432|NCT00412893|168981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.873|11.22|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||11.220|-10.873|
84616433|NCT00412893|168981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.533|15.939|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||15.939|-6.533|
84616434|NCT00412893|168981387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.429|17.218|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.218|-8.429|
84759924|NCT02873936|169276003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||14.0|2.0|0.007
84759925|NCT00708123|169276027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.97||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.48||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.48|0.47|0.0265
84759926|NCT00708123|169276027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.66||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.18||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors as treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.18|2.15|0.0017
84759927|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|-1.69||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.8||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.80|-5.19|0.3413
84596129|NCT05360966|168944631|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|46.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|46.8|30.8|<0.0001
84596130|NCT05360966|168944632|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||0.9|-7.2|0.1321
84616435|NCT00412893|168981387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.071|10.073|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.073|-15.071|
84596131|NCT05360966|168944633|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.8|6.9|<0.0001
84596132|NCT05360966|168944634|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|47.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|47.9|32.3|<0.0001
84596133|NCT05360966|168944635|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||8.9|6.3|<0.0001
84596134|NCT05360966|168944636|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|45.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|45.9|28.7|<0.0001
84596135|NCT05360966|168944637|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|9.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.6|6.5|<0.0001
84616436|NCT00412893|168981387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.633|14.499|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||14.499|-8.633|
84616437|NCT00412893|168981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.145|17.696|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.696|-5.145|
84616438|NCT00412893|168981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|19.356|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||19.356|-3.335|
84616439|NCT00412893|168981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.187|16.332|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||16.332|-6.187|
84616440|NCT00853151|168981390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||90.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 3 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.623
84616441|NCT00853151|168981390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 2 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.809
84616442|NCT01751984|168981430|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-22.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-22.1|-35.4|<0.0001
84759928|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|13.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||13.76|6.76|<0.0001
84759929|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.69|16.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.68|9.69|<0.0001
84759930|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|12.05||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.05|5.09|<0.0001
84596136|NCT05360966|168944638|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.3|-6.1|0.5626
84596137|NCT05360966|168944639|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.6|-6.3|0.5981
84596138|NCT05360966|168944640|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.2|-6.4|0.5161
84616443|NCT01751984|168981431|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-11.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 2. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-11.8|-24.3|<0.0001
84616444|NCT01751984|168981431|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-24.7|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 4. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-24.7|-35.2|<0.0001
84502267|NCT00361257|168755616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate verbal memory score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in the alternate verbal memory score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
84596139|NCT05360966|168944641|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||5.4|-4.5|0.8574
84596140|NCT05360966|168944642|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||4.2|-6.3|0.6980
84596141|NCT01477710|168944683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANOVA F-value|266.39|||<|0.0001||||||This p-value is for the omnibus F-test of between-treatment differences in tidal volume|ANOVA|The p-value for the omnibus F-test was \<0.0001||Using ANOVA, pairwise comparisons of treatment means were made using a Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84596142|NCT01477710|168944683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|314.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|264.7|364.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||364.1|264.7|<0.0001
84596143|NCT01477710|168944683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|576.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|526.9|626.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||626.3|526.9|<0.0001
84596144|NCT01477710|168944683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|262.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.5|312.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||312.0|212.5|<0.0001
84596145|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56|||||Confidence Intervals (CI) for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 minus \[-\] Vax 1).|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.56|0.28|
84596146|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.67|
84596147|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.72|0.44|
84596148|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.53|0.32|
84616445|NCT01751984|168981431|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-20.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 6. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-20.8|-36.9|<0.0001
84616446|NCT01751984|168981431|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-19.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 8. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-19.8|-37.2|<0.0001
84596149|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.91|0.45|
84616447|NCT01751984|168981432|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8||||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.9|-14.5|0.1892
84616448|NCT01751984|168981433|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
84616449|NCT01751984|168981434|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.7|-24.2|<0.0001
84616450|NCT01751984|168981435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|||=|0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|40.8|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||40.8|-3.5|=0.0962
84596150|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.56|
84596151|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.25|
84596152|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.4|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.40|0.16|
84596153|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.40|
84759931|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|14.98||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||14.98|8.01|<0.0001
84596154|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.40|
84596155|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.48|0.30|
84596156|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.35|
84596157|NCT00500357|168944745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.86|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.86|0.86|
84596158|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.57|0.34|
84596159|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.95|0.66|
84596160|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.22|0.76|
84596161|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.80|0.57|
84596162|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.84|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||2.84|1.39|
84596163|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.63|1.11|
84596164|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.41|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.41|0.18|
84596165|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.27|
84596166|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.83|0.57|
84596167|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.66|
84596168|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.58|
84596169|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.73|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.73|0.47|
84596170|NCT00500357|168944748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.94|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.94|1.18|
84596171|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.82|0.52|
84596172|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
84616451|NCT01751984|168981436|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.3|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-6.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-6.0|-24.6|=0.0019
84502268|NCT00361257|168755617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.327||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate frontal systems score.||The null hypothesis was the 24 week change of alternate frontal systems score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.327|-0.217|0.690
84502269|NCT00782275|168755624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||exact binomial test|||The regimen was evaluated against an historical control with null and alternative 4-month PFS rates of 50% and 70%, respectively. With the final sample size of 40 eligible patients and using the same operating characteristics (alpha and beta 10%), the decision rule changes such that if 25 or more patients of 40 are alive and progression-free at 4 months then this regimen is considered promising.||||0.081
84759932|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-1.09|-8.10|0.0104
84759933|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|11.01||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.01|4.04|<0.0001
84596173|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.53|
84596174|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.39|0.27|
84616452|NCT01751984|168981437|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.2|||=|0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.2|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.2|-11.7|=0.2555
84616453|NCT01751984|168981438|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.7||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|32.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.1|-8.8|0.2563
84616454|NCT01751984|168981439|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.7||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|18.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||18.0|-65.4|0.2565
84616455|NCT01751984|168981440|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.0||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.0|-24.1|0.7760
84616456|NCT01751984|168981441|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson methodology|61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|78.1||Based on Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study) in the ETC-1002 and placebo groups.|Fisher Exact||ETC-1002 minus placebo for the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study). The confidence interval was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||78.1|45.4|<0.0001
84616457|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.616|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.616|-2.895|<0.0001
84596175|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.10|0.74|
84616458|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|-1.925|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.925|-3.208|<0.0001
84616459|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.531||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.342|-0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.719|-2.342|0.0003
84616460|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.654|-1.029|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.029|-2.654|<0.0001
84616461|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.857|-3.337|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-3.337|-4.857|<0.0001
84616462|NCT01957202|168981459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.372|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.994|0.3699
84616463|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.364|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.853|-0.874|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.874|-1.853|<0.0001
84616464|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.809|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.809|-0.169|0.1975
84616465|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.252|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.635|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.635|-1.870|<0.0001
84616466|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|1.042|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||1.042|-0.179|0.1648
84616467|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.506|-0.358|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.358|-1.506|0.0016
84616468|NCT01957202|168981460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.208|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||2.208|1.160|<0.0001
84616469|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.16|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.160|-0.508|0.3052
84616470|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.523|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.523|-0.149|0.2725
84616471|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.536||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.952|-0.12|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.120|-0.952|0.0118
84616472|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.239|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.239|-0.588|0.4049
84502270|NCT00331773|168755627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This trial was designed to establish with 90% power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 that Arm 2 (Hypofractionated 3D-CRT) results in a 5-year DFS that is not lower than Arm 1 by more than 7.65% (hazard ratio \[HR\] , 1.52). Patients analyzed according to assignment, with time-to event duration originating at random assignment. DFS distributions calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment efficacy for DFS was tested by comparing cause-specific hazards with the log-rank statistic.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.14|0.64|<0.001
84596176|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.99|0.63|
84596177|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.60|
84596178|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.6|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.60|0.42|
84596179|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.98|0.59|
84596180|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.46|0.31|
84596181|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
84596182|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.52|
84616473|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.349||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.041|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.041|-0.739|0.0793
84596183|NCT00500357|168944749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.93|0.62|
84596184|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.60|
84596185|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.64|0.48|
84596186|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.65|
84596187|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.61|
84596188|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.75|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.75|1.27|
84616474|NCT01957202|168981461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.361||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.719|0.004|0.0478
84616475|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.079|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.079|-0.509|0.1502
84596189|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.21|0.94|
84616476|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.221|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.221|-0.370|0.6177
84616477|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.701||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.322|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.322|-1.080|0.0004
84616478|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.187|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.187|-0.934|0.0035
84616479|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|-0.428|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.428|-1.123|<0.0001
84596190|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.58|
84596191|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.53|
84616480|NCT01957202|168981462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.456|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.456|-0.175|0.3807
84616481|NCT01456169|168981463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate.||The type I error was controlled using a 2-step hierarchical testing procedure. In the first step, the high dose (40/25 mg) of Azilsartan medoxomil + chlorthalidone was compared to Azilsartan medoxomil alone. If the comparison in step 1 was statistically significant at a significance level of 5%, then step 2 was performed by comparing the low dose (40/12.5 mg) and monotherapy at the 5% significance level.||-11.8|-17.6|<0.001
84616482|NCT01456169|168981463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate||||-6.5|-12.4|<0.001
84616483|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was greater than (\>) -0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||2.1|-2.2|
84616484|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||1.1|-5.2|
84616485|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
84616486|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
84616487|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
84616488|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.3||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-1.1|
84616489|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.9|-4.2|
84616490|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
84596192|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.51|
84616491|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
84616492|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
84616493|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||5.8|-1.9|
84596193|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.60|
84596194|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.88|0.69|
84596195|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.47|
84596196|NCT00500357|168944750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.25|0.90|
84596197|NCT02263326|168944751|NON_INFERIORITY|We considered DTG/3TC was noninferior to cART if the 90% confidence interval for the difference in proportions, calculated with Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits, excluded the 12% noninferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.102||||||A sample size of 41 participants per arm provided 80% power to show noninferiority of DTG/3TC to cART based on a 12% noninferiority margin, assuming an estimated treatment failure rate of 5% per arm by week 24 and 5% 1-sided type I error rate.||0.102|-0.098|
84596198|NCT02263326|168944752|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in virologic outcomes based on the FDA snapshot algorithm at week 48 (HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) was compared between arms, with 95% confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.165||||||||0.165|-0.126|
84596199|NCT02263326|168944753|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
84596200|NCT02263326|168944754|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.613
84596201|NCT02263326|168944755|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
84596202|NCT02263326|168944756|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
84596203|NCT02263326|168944758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.1|||Regression, Linear|||||4.1|-3.0|0.76
84596204|NCT01893411|168944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.14|-0.23|= 0.65
84596205|NCT01893411|168944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.18|-0.26|= 0.741
84596206|NCT01893411|168944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.16|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.34|-0.02|= 0.075
84596207|NCT01893411|168944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.06|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.27|-0.16|= 0.603
84596208|NCT00161616|168944786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 13.||||0.0541
84596209|NCT00161616|168944786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7983|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 20.||||0.7983
84596210|NCT00161616|168944787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8961
84596211|NCT01309997|168944828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84596212|NCT01309997|168944828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84596213|NCT00282087|168944829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Two year PFS|78.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|91.0|||Bayesian Posterior Probability|||The primary endpoint is progression-free survival time, with progression defined as a patient having evidence of recurrent LMS on follow-up evaluation and CT scan. Futility monitoring will be based on the accumulating right-censored PFS time data. The monitoring rules will be based on a Bayesian model.||91|67|0.15
84596214|NCT00282087|168944831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00269|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Age correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596215|NCT00282087|168944832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Menopausal status at diagnosis correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596216|NCT00282087|168944833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Uterine serosal involvement correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596217|NCT00282087|168944834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00676|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Mitotic rate correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596218|NCT00282087|168944835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596219|NCT00282087|168944836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.906|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Progesterone receptor (PR) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596220|NCT00282087|168944837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.207|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||1988 FIGO Stage correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596221|NCT00282087|168944838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
84596222|NCT02767869|168944872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84596223|NCT02767869|168944873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.530
84596224|NCT02767869|168944874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
84596225|NCT02767869|168944875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84596226|NCT02767869|168944876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
84596227|NCT02767869|168944877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84596228|NCT02767869|168944878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
84596229|NCT02767869|168944879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
84596230|NCT02767869|168944880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
84596231|NCT02767869|168944881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.347|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
84596232|NCT02767869|168944882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
84596233|NCT02767869|168944883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.410
84596234|NCT02767869|168944884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84596235|NCT04301934|168944885|NON_INFERIORITY|The prevalence of UTI for the LASER group and vaginal estrogen group was calculated. Non-inferiority test using Farrington-Manning method was applied to test the risk difference against the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (20%).||||||0.034|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.034
84596236|NCT02550288|168944899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-32.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-32.2|-40.5|<0.001
84596237|NCT02550288|168944899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-8.2|-14.9|<0.001
84596238|NCT02550288|168944899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-35.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-35.8|-44.1|<0.001
84616494|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
84616495|NCT01200368|168981517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|1.0|
84616496|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.94|0.71|
84616497|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.97|0.64|
84596239|NCT02550288|168944899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
84596240|NCT00803361|168944983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.48||p-value is for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.48|-2.76|0.006
84596241|NCT00803361|168944984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.34||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.34|-4.78|0.024
84596242|NCT00803361|168944985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
84596243|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.93|0.125
84596244|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.09|-0.75|0.014
84596245|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.11|-0.93|0.012
84596246|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
84616498|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.86|0.64|
84596247|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.08||p-value is for Interference of Pain, General Activity, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-0.87|0.101
84596248|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.22||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Mood, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.22|-0.83|0.252
84596249|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11||p-value is for Interference of Pain,Walking Ability, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.72|0.149
84596250|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Normal Work, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.26|-0.71|0.367
84596251|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Relations with Others, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.24|-0.59|0.395
84596252|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.44||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Sleep, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.44|-0.63|0.731
84616499|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.70|
84502271|NCT00331773|168755630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Patients who died without biochemical failure were considered as competing risk at the time of death. Patients alive without biochemical failure at last follow-up were censored at that date. Estimates were calculated using cumulative risk and non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.67. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.17|0.51|< 0.001
84596253|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Enjoyment of Life, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-0.85|0.186
84596254|NCT00803361|168944986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16||p-value is for Mean Interference Score, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.16|-0.67|0.220
84596255|NCT00803361|168944987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.06||p-value is for symptoms have disrupted your work/schoolwork - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.29|0.076
84596256|NCT00803361|168944987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.17||p-value is for symptoms disrupted social/leisure - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-1.16|0.140
84596257|NCT00803361|168944987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.08||p-value is for symptoms disrupted family life - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-1.14|0.087
84596258|NCT00803361|168944987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.21||p-value is for Global Functional Impairment Total Score - change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.21|-3.46|0.083
84616500|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.85|0.63|
84616501|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.08|0.72|
84616502|NCT01200368|168981518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.66|
84596259|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.3||p-value is for Severity of Overall Pain, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.30|-10.93|0.063
84616503|NCT01200368|168981519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
84616504|NCT01200368|168981519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.2|-2.1|
84616505|NCT01200368|168981519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
84596260|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.22||p-value is for Severity of Headaches, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||4.22|-6.64|0.660
84596261|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.76||p-value is for Severity of Back Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.76|-11.30|0.025
84596262|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|2.19||p-value is for Severity of Shoulder Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||2.19|-8.06|0.260
84596263|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|1.28||p-value is for Pain Interference, Daily Activities, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||1.28|-8.61|0.145
84596264|NCT00803361|168944988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.66||p-value is for Pain During Waking Hours, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-1.66|-12.64|0.011
84596265|NCT00803361|168944989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.06||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.72|0.068
84596266|NCT04660552|168944990|EQUIVALENCE|The post treatment cars scores of active and sham group will be statistically different as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|12.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.107|2.357|0.01
84596267|NCT04855240|168944993|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|4.4|||ANOVA|||||4.4|-25.4|0.1683
84596268|NCT04855240|168944993|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|16.6|||ANOVA|||||16.6|-13.4|0.8356
84616506|NCT01200368|168981519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
84596269|NCT04855240|168944994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.155|||Log Rank|||||1.155|0.598|0.2280
84596270|NCT04855240|168944994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.527|||Log Rank|||||1.527|0.793|0.5604
84596271|NCT04855240|168944995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.05|0.2457
84596272|NCT04855240|168944995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|-0.22|0.3997
84596273|NCT04855240|168944996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4771
84596274|NCT04855240|168944996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.2925
84596275|NCT04855240|168944997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4628
84596276|NCT04855240|168944997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.3090
84596277|NCT04855240|168944998|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.36||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|-47.8|0.2494
84596278|NCT04855240|168944998|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.42||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|35.4|||ANOVA|||||35.4|-25.1|0.7385
84596279|NCT04855240|168944999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|22.3|||ANOVA|||||22.3|-67.5|0.3238
84596280|NCT04855240|168944999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.99||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|52.9|||ANOVA|||||52.9|-37.3|0.7344
84616507|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.15|1.50|
84616508|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.28|0.92|
84596281|NCT04855240|168945000|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-3.7|0.8489
84596282|NCT04855240|168945000|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||||5.3|-1.5|0.2768
84596283|NCT04855240|168945001|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.8|||ANOVA|||||3.8|-6.2|0.6291
84596284|NCT04855240|168945001|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||||7.5|-2.5|0.3182
84596285|NCT04855240|168945002|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-12.8|0.3299
84596286|NCT04855240|168945002|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.2|||ANOVA|||||9.2|-7.9|0.8822
84596287|NCT04855240|168945003|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|9.8|||ANOVA|||||9.8|-24.0|0.4094
84596288|NCT04855240|168945003|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|20.4|||ANOVA|||||20.4|-13.5|0.6901
84596289|NCT04855240|168945004|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.7|||ANOVA|||||11.7|-21.9|0.5536
84596290|NCT04855240|168945004|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.64||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|19.3|||ANOVA|||||19.3|-14.5|0.7811
84596291|NCT04855240|168945005|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.5267
84596292|NCT04855240|168945005|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3228
84596293|NCT04855240|168945006|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.7617
84596294|NCT04855240|168945006|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.6241
84596295|NCT04855240|168945007|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.3442
84596296|NCT04855240|168945007|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.7896
84596297|NCT04855240|168945008|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.2|0.6003
84596298|NCT04855240|168945008|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-0.6|0.4086
84596299|NCT04855240|168945009|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.6|0.4958
84596300|NCT04855240|168945009|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.8|0.4595
84596301|NCT04855240|168945010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.04|0.1686
84596302|NCT04855240|168945010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.11|-0.10|0.8333
84596303|NCT04855240|168945011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1939
84596304|NCT04855240|168945011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
84596305|NCT04855240|168945012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1894
84596306|NCT04855240|168945012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
84596307|NCT04855240|168945013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.24|-0.06|0.7117
84596308|NCT04855240|168945013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.7599
84596309|NCT04855240|168945014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.16|0.7070
84596310|NCT04855240|168945014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.20|0.6877
84596311|NCT04855240|168945015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.22|0.8690
84596312|NCT04855240|168945015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.3790
84596313|NCT04855240|168945016|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|-0.9|0.0897
84596314|NCT04855240|168945016|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-7.1|0.9434
84596315|NCT04855240|168945017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.04|0.8355
84596316|NCT04855240|168945017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.12|0.3561
84673086|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.8861
84596317|NCT04855240|168945018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.06|0.9413
84596318|NCT04855240|168945018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.15|0.7819
84596319|NCT04855240|168945019|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8461
84596320|NCT04855240|168945019|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
84596321|NCT04855240|168945020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.9022
84596322|NCT04855240|168945020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2450
84596323|NCT04855240|168945021|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4205||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4205
84596324|NCT04855240|168945021|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4336
84596325|NCT04855240|168945022|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2718
84596326|NCT04855240|168945022|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
84596327|NCT00177294|168945091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted Cox regreassion analyses of time to remission and logistic modeling for rates of remission. We tested group difference in Hamilton depession ratings over time via mixed-effects modeling.||||0.14
84596328|NCT00809926|168945141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-4.61|0.295
84596329|NCT00809926|168945142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|-1.93|0.790
84596330|NCT00809926|168945143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|-1.56|0.101
84596331|NCT00809926|168945144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|21.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.33|2.00|0.018
84596332|NCT00809926|168945147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-6.34|0.028
84596333|NCT00809926|168945148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-0.14|||GENMOD|Based on a generalized estimating equations using SAS procedure GENMOD.||||-0.14|-6.02|0.040
84596334|NCT00809926|168945149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||||-2.93|-14.38|0.004
84596335|NCT00809926|168945150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||||-1.42|-8.37|0.006
84596336|NCT04776720|168945177|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
84596337|NCT04776720|168945178|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
84596338|NCT04776720|168945179|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
84596339|NCT04776720|168945180|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
84596340|NCT04776720|168945181|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
84596341|NCT04776720|168945182|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
84596342|NCT04776720|168945183|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
84596343|NCT04776720|168945184|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
84759934|NCT00708123|169276028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|2.93||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|6.41||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.41|-0.55|0.0986
84759935|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|196.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.89|354.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||354.60|38.89|0.0148
84596344|NCT04776720|168945185|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
84596345|NCT04776720|168945186|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
84596346|NCT00803595|168945200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours (h) was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.9||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||6.9|-9.9|0.748
84596347|NCT00803595|168945200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-0.4||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time to illness alleviation||-0.4|-18.2|0.038
84596348|NCT00803595|168945200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.2|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||17.2|-1.5|0.104
84759936|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|246.7||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|405.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||405.10|88.30|0.0024
84596349|NCT00803595|168945201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||9.1|-2.8|0.318
84596350|NCT00803595|168945201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||5.7|-5.8|0.981
84596351|NCT00803595|168945201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||3.1|-9.1|0.344
84596352|NCT03159468|168945214|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||This p-value is for the main effect of beverage condition.|ANOVA|||||||.041
84596353|NCT03159468|168945214|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value is for the main effect of intervention condition.|ANOVA|||||||.160
84596354|NCT03159468|168945214|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||This p-value is for the beverage condition by intervention condition interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.462
84616509|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.22|0.86|
84616510|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.25|0.87|
84502272|NCT00331773|168755631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.54, translated from a 5% difference in overall survival with 90% overall survival in the Conventional 3D-CRT arm. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.41|0.64|0.008
84596355|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.22||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.22|-3.62|
84596356|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.98||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.30|
84596357|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.68||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.68|-3.20|
84596358|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.15||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO|LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.15|-4.38|
84596359|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.88||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.88|-5.06|
84596360|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-2.14||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.14|-4.57|
84596361|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-1.89||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.89|-3.66|
84596362|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|-2.05||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.05|-3.79|
84596363|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.31||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.31|-4.28|
84596364|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.67||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.67|-4.03|
84596365|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.52||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.52|-4.04|
84596366|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.85||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.85|-5.16|
84596367|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-3.09||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-3.09|-6.13|
84596368|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.52||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.52|-4.68|
84596369|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.02||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.02|-4.43|
84596370|NCT02712983|168945217|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.78||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.78|-4.19|
84596371|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.36||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.36|-3.82|
84616511|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.16|1.54|
84616512|NCT01200368|168981520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.25||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.25|1.59|
84616513|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84616514|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84616515|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84502273|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.||1.46|0.73|0.85
84502274|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.81||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||5.81|0.29|0.72
84502275|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference Arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.21|0.82|0.95
84596372|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.29|-2.21|
84596373|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.08||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.08|-3.87|
84596374|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.16||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.16|-3.34|
84759937|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.96||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.62|107.71||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||107.71|-207.62|0.5328
84596375|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.22||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.22|-5.50|
84596376|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.41||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.41|-3.26|
84616516|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84502276|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.74||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.74|0.67|0.39
84596377|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.25||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.25|-3.98|
84596378|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.19||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.19|-2.50|
84502277|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.06|1.22|0.005
84596379|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.38||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.38|-4.00|
84596380|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.13||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.13|-3.81|
84596381|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.96|
84596382|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.73||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.73|-5.44|
84596383|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.07||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.07|-4.90|
84596384|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.66|
84596385|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.17||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.17|-4.11|
84596386|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.23||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.23|-4.12|
84596387|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.08||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.08|-4.55|
84596388|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.71||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|-1.61|
84596389|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.29||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.29|-4.93|
84596390|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.25||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.25|-3.62|
84596391|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.3||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.30|-4.94|
84616517|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84673087|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.38|0.3280
84596392|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.43||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.43|-4.37|
84596393|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.45||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.45|-4.24|
84596394|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.13||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.13|-2.73|
84596395|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.73||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.73|-3.64|
84596396|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.43||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.43|-1.61|
84596397|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.25||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.25|-2.81|
84596398|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.14|
84596399|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.98||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.89|
84596400|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.12|
84596401|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.85||||||EoT: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.85|-3.08|
84596402|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.04||||||EoT: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.04|-2.25|
84616518|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.4||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-3.9|
84596403|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.99||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.99|-2.63|
84596404|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.98||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.98|-1.83|
84596405|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.41||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.41|-2.03|
84596406|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.01||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.01|-3.68|
84596407|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.07||||||Day 141 Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||1.07|-2.78|
84596408|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.89||||||Day 141 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.89|-3.36|
84596409|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.98||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.98|-1.97|
84596410|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.45||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.45|-2.45|
84596411|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.61||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.61|-3.24|
84596412|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.91||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.91|-3.05|
84596413|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.62||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.62|-2.73|
84502278|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.99||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.99|0.80|0.19
84596414|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.08||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.08|-4.22|
84596415|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.1||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.10|-2.48|
84596416|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.13||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.13|-2.33|
84596417|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.86|-2.24|
84596418|NCT02712983|168945218|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.4||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.40|-2.61|
84616519|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
84596419|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.18|0.14|
84596420|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.85|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.85|0.18|
84596421|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.77|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.77|0.42|
84596422|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.20|
84759938|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-406.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-564.0|-248.37||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-248.37|-564.00|<0.0001
84759939|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|602.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|445.97|759.9||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||759.90|445.97|<0.0001
84759940|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|652.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.05|810.72||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||810.72|495.05|<0.0001
84759941|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|847.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|690.54|1004.55||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1004.55|690.54|<0.0001
84759942|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|897.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|739.92|1055.08||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors treatment, period and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1055.08|739.92|<0.0001
84759943|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|650.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|493.61|808.0||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||808.00|493.61|<0.0001
84596423|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.17|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.17|0.21|
84596424|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.62|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.62|0.44|
84596425|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.23|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||2.23|0.44|
84616520|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
84616521|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
84616522|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
84616523|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
84616524|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
84596426|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|0.34|
84596427|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.08|
84596428|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.89|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.89|0.25|
84596429|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.93|0.25|
84596430|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.36|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.36|0.19|
84616525|NCT01200368|168981521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
84616526|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.15|0.77|
84616527|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.53|0.98|
84616528|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.67|
84616529|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.12|0.81|
84596431|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.57|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.57|0.02|
84596432|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.41|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.41|0.16|
84596433|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.31|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.31|0.13|
84596434|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.8|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.80|0.28|
84596435|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|104.19|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||104.19|1.10|
84596436|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|52.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||52.29|0.41|
84596437|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|37.06|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||37.06|0.28|
84596438|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|25.94|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||25.94|0.10|
84596439|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|117.34|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||117.34|1.09|
84596440|NCT02712983|168945219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|37.32|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||37.32|0.50|
84596441|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|46.81|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||46.81|-27.15|
84596442|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|62.14|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||62.14|-22.63|
84596443|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.32|47.26|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||47.26|-31.32|
84596444|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|51.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||51.89|-26.49|
84596445|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|89.61|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||89.61|3.37|
84596446|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.21|40.64|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||40.64|-34.21|
84596447|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|50.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||50.89|-8.03|
84596448|NCT02712983|168945220|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.52|41.29|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||41.29|-17.52|
84596449|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.13|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.13|0.51|
84596450|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.46|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.46|0.15|
84596451|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.21|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.21|0.44|
84616530|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.01|0.67|
84596452|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.18|0.32|
84596453|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.10|
84596454|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.99|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.99|0.43|
84596455|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.76|0.37|
84596456|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.61|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.61|0.36|
84596457|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.30|
84596458|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.03|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.03|0.20|
84596459|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.60|0.40|
84596460|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.31|
84596461|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.06|
84596462|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.73|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.73|0.45|
84596463|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.60|0.27|
84596464|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.02|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.02|0.40|
84596465|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|16.52|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||16.52|0.84|
84596466|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.16|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||8.16|0.22|
84596467|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.05|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||10.05|0.46|
84596468|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.87|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||4.87|0.05|
84759944|NCT00708123|169276029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|244.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.62|401.61||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||401.61|87.62|0.0024
84759945|NCT02970292|169276030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0940
84759946|NCT01187953|169276054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
84759947|NCT01187953|169276054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.821
84596469|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|12.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||12.49|0.53|
84596470|NCT02712983|168945225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.68|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Paremteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||5.68|0.33|
84596471|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|38.18|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||38.18|0.83|
84596472|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|19.16|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||19.16|0.21|
84616531|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||2.21|1.39|
84616532|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.07|0.70|
84616533|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.99||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.99|1.31|
84616534|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.35||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||0.35|0.24|
84596473|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|21.8|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||21.80|0.43|
84596474|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|17.42|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||17.42|0.19|
84596475|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|25.03|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||25.03|0.47|
84596476|NCT02712983|168945230|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.07|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|||16.07|0.47|
84596477|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|26.42|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||26.42|0.77|
84596478|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|14.47|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||14.47|0.28|
84502279|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.61|1.07|0.009
84502280|NCT00331773|168755632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||3.18|0.76|0.22
84596479|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||11.60|0.20|
84596480|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||7.49|0.06|
84596481|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|23.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||23.29|0.62|
84596482|NCT02712983|168945231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.45|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||9.45|0.35|
84616535|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.54||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.54|1.07|
84616536|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.12||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.12|1.46|
84596483|NCT00501592|168945253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 25 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.040
84596484|NCT00501592|168945253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 50 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.28
84616537|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.52|1.04|
84596485|NCT00501592|168945254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0031
84596486|NCT00501592|168945254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84596487|NCT00501592|168945254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84596488|NCT00501592|168945254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
84596489|NCT03462641|168945286|SUPERIORITY||t-value|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was set to 0.05.|Paired-Sample Two-Tailed T-Test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in PIGD score within participants before and after flumazenil infusion.||||0.0407
84502281|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 6 months||||0.72
84502282|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 6 months||||0.056
84502283|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 6 months||||0.99
84502284|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 6 months||||0.49
84759948|NCT01187953|169276054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.900
84759949|NCT01187953|169276054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
84759950|NCT01187953|169276055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.835
84759951|NCT01187953|169276055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.548
84596490|NCT03462641|168945286|OTHER||F-value|2.861||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||"P value is given for the Drug\*Time term, which represents interaction between time relative to administration (before infusion vs after infusion) and treatment administered (placebo vs flumazenil).~Alpha was set to 0.05."|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no significant interaction between drug and time of administration (pre vs. post infusion).||||0.103
84596491|NCT03462641|168945287|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|0.6||||2.9e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07||P value presented is for model comparison between interaction model and random intercept model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of maximum likelihood mixed linear models were estimated. The first was a random intercept model that merely accounted for individual differences in PIGD score before infusion. The second was an interaction model, that added an interaction term between baseline FMZ PET binding and PIGD score change from pre to post infusion. The interaction model was compared against the random intercept model to determine significance of the interaction using likelihood ratio goodness of fit test.||1.07|0.13|0.00000029
84596492|NCT01804049|168945288|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.45||||||For lean total body mass, t(118)=0.744, p=0.45.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation for total lean mass: 0.74.||||||0.45
84596493|NCT01804049|168945288|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total appendicular lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.79||||||For lean appendicular body mass, t(118) = 0.264, p=0.79.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation appendicular lean mass: 0.26.||||||0.79
84596494|NCT01804049|168945289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(118)=0.703, p=0.48||||||0.48
84596495|NCT03938103|168945291|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.101
84596496|NCT03938103|168945292|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.383
84502285|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 12 months||||0.0037
84596497|NCT01262638|168945329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-21.8|<0.0001
84596498|NCT01262638|168945329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-28.9|<0.0001
84596499|NCT01262638|168945329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-30.5|<0.0001
84596500|NCT00244725|168945386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.012
84596501|NCT00244725|168945386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.017
84596502|NCT00244725|168945386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8|1.0|0.080
84616538|NCT01200368|168981522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.24|1.54|
84616539|NCT01200368|168981523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
84616540|NCT01200368|168981523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
84616541|NCT01200368|168981523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
84616542|NCT01200368|168981523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
84759952|NCT01187953|169276055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.822
84759953|NCT01187953|169276055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.383
84502286|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 12 months||||0.062
84502287|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 12 months||||0.94
84616543|NCT01200368|168981524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.24|0.97|
84616544|NCT01200368|168981524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.06|0.77|
84616545|NCT01200368|168981525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.10|0.87|
84616546|NCT01200368|168981525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.05|0.81|
84616547|NCT01200368|168981526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.15|0.88|
84616548|NCT01200368|168981526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.19|0.85|
84616549|NCT01200368|168981527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.11|0.84|
84759954|NCT03040999|169276081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.15|0.71|0.1997
84759955|NCT03040999|169276084|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-4.24||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.63|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||-1.63|-6.85|0.0015
84502288|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 12 months||||0.93
84502289|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 24 months||||0.12
84502290|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 24 months||||0.81
84502291|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 24 months||||0.69
84502292|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 24 months||||0.68
84502293|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 60 months||||0.071
84502294|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 60 months||||0.047
84616550|NCT01200368|168981527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||0.91|0.70|
84616551|NCT00570310|168981536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.003||90.0|-2.25|-0.6||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA||Primary Hypothesis: In 'primary responder population', pregabalin is superior to placebo in maintaining pain control measured by change (3-day average: end of the randomization period versus end of maintenance period) in evening pain intensity.|||-0.60|-2.25|0.003
84616552|NCT00570310|168981537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|10.08||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||10.08|5.26|<0.001
84616553|NCT00759161|168981538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||< 0.001
84596503|NCT04004221|168945398|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|1-sided p-value was based on binomial exact test of Tislelizumab versus historical rate of 0.1||||||< 0.0001
84759956|NCT03040999|169276085|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.51||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.96|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.96|-3.98|0.7719
84596504|NCT02110485|168945457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84596505|NCT02110485|168945458|OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
84596506|NCT02110485|168945459|OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
84596507|NCT02110485|168945460|OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
84596508|NCT02110485|168945461|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.84
84616554|NCT00479336|168981544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model using change in body weight from baseline at the final timepoint as the criterion variable and dose as the explanatory variable was fitted to the dataset. The null hypothesis of whether the regression coefficient is zero (analysis using t-statistics) was tested at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05, and estimated values for the slope and 95% confidence interval were calculated.||0.020|-0.061|0.3167
84616555|NCT02631551|168981554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||<0.0001
84616556|NCT02631551|168981554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Olopatadine HCl NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0029
84616557|NCT02631551|168981554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0587|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Mometasone furoate NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0587
84596509|NCT02110485|168945462|OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
84616558|NCT02631551|168981554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Olopatadine HCl NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0755
84616559|NCT02631551|168981554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mometasone furoate NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0043
84616560|NCT02859246|168981555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.04
84616561|NCT02859246|168981556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.2||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.2
84616562|NCT00080301|168981557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0003||95.17|0.64|0.88||Test was stratified by 1) presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung, 2) minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting, and 3) prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. (yes/no)|Log Rank|95.17% confidence interval is adjusted for the interim analysis.||Study required 615 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log-rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.0483 log-rank test (adjusted for an interim analysis using the O'Brien Fleming spending function) to reject the null hypothesis of equality of progression free survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 events (310 in combination:329 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||0.88|0.64|.0003
84616563|NCT00080301|168981558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.2|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study had 95 percent power to detect a significant difference in ORR if the true response rate was 32 percent in the combination arm and 20 percent in the capecitabine arm.||4.50|2.20|<.0001
84759957|NCT03040999|169276086|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-1.29||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.06|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.06|-4.64|0.4500
84596510|NCT01625416|168945589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square (2) =5.9, p=0.05|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.05
84596511|NCT01625416|168945590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square(2) = 0.74, p = 0.69|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.69
84596512|NCT01625416|168945593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Chi square (2) = 0.06, p = 0.97|Chi-squared||||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.97
84596513|NCT01625416|168945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square (2) =0.68, p=0.71|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.71
84596514|NCT00005947|168945612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.052||95.0|0.99|2.11|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|||2.11|0.99|0.052
84596515|NCT00005947|168945612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.01|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|||1.01|0.47|0.052
84759958|NCT03040999|169276087|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|1.29||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.02|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||4.02|-1.43|0.3524
84759959|NCT03040999|169276088|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-2.05||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.37|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||0.37|-4.47|0.0963
84596516|NCT00005947|168945613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.01||95.0|1.13|2.58|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|ITT Population - all randomized participants||2.58|1.13|0.010
84596517|NCT00005947|168945613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.884|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|ITT Population - all randomized participants.||0.884|0.388|0.010
84596518|NCT03335150|168945637|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4856||||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = Standard Error (SE) of the interaction term.|||||0.6662
84596519|NCT03335150|168945637|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2415||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean Matrix Reasoning Total (MRT) difference between two visits while controlling for intervention.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1617
84596520|NCT03335150|168945637|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5087||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean MRT difference between two interventions while controlling for visit.|estimated value = SE|||||0.6236
84596521|NCT03335150|168945638|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.0496
84596522|NCT03335150|168945639|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.047
84596523|NCT03335150|168945640|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.001
84616564|NCT00080301|168981561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1936||95.17|0.77|1.05||Test was stratified by presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung (y/n), minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting (y/n), and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease (y/n).|Log Rank|Test was conducted at the α=0.05 level and no adjustments were performed.|Confidence Interval adjusted for interim analysis.|Study required 631 deaths to achieve 80% power to detect a Hazard ratio of 0.8 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.05 log-rank test to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 deaths (318 in combination:321 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||1.05|0.77|0.1936
84616565|NCT00080301|168981563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||.0002
84616566|NCT04034004|168981595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain ratings were collected while lying in the supine and after each straight leg rasise test (SLR 1; SLR 2). A 2 (group) X 2 (SLR 1-rest vs. SLR 2-meditation) X 2 (supine vs. SLR) X 3 (session) repeated measure mixed model ANOVA was conducted to determine if mindfulness and non-mindfulness meditation attenuate SLR induced pain through endogenous opioids. Simple effects tests tested significant main effects and interactions to test primary study hypotheses and between-group differences.||||.05
84759960|NCT03040999|169276089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||P-value crossing boundary of 0.0242 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.03|0.68|0.0429
84759961|NCT01979523|169276156|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
84596524|NCT03335150|168945641|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.020
84502295|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 60 months||||0.4
84596525|NCT03335150|168945642|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.444
84596526|NCT03335150|168945642|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.145||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between intervention groups controlling for visit and other significant covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0233
84596527|NCT03335150|168945642|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6281|||<|0|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention group and other significant covariates|estimated value = SE|||||<0.000
84596528|NCT03335150|168945643|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.205||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.073
84596529|NCT03335150|168945644|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84596530|NCT03335150|168945644|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1172||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean PDQ-39 difference between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0257
84596531|NCT03335150|168945644|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8649||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in PDQ-39 between two interventions controlling for visit and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1101
84596532|NCT03335150|168945645|OTHER|Equality|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.784||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of the interaction term.|||||0.0263
84596533|NCT02218697|168945660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.46|0.88|
84596534|NCT02218697|168945660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.21|0.78|
84616567|NCT04317040|168981602|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.398||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.918|||Log Rank||Cox-Regression Model|||1.918|1.020|0.0367
84616568|NCT04317040|168981604|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0555||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1665|0.0555|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method|||0.0555|-0.1665|0.3281
84616569|NCT04317040|168981605|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.954|||Log Rank||Cox Regression Model|||0.954|0.327|0.0306
84616570|NCT04317040|168981606|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.097|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 15|Day 15||0.0970|-0.0430|0.4491
84616571|NCT04317040|168981606|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0146||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1049|0.0756|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 29|Day 29||0.0756|-0.1049|0.7512
84616572|NCT04317040|168981609|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.416||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.945|||Log Rank||Cox Regression model|||1.945|1.031|0.0311
84616573|NCT00799903|168981626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.85|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.85|0.199
84616574|NCT00799903|168981627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.82|0.045
84616575|NCT00799903|168981628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.84|0.019
84616576|NCT00799903|168981629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.83|0.594
84616577|NCT00799903|168981630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.77|0.108
84616578|NCT00799903|168981631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.81|0.920
84616579|NCT00799903|168981632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.88|0.397
84616580|NCT00799903|168981633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.90|0.870
84616581|NCT02518971|168981634|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.345
84616582|NCT02518971|168981635|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Student T-Test|||||||.378
84616583|NCT02518971|168981636|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84616584|NCT02518971|168981637|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.497
84616585|NCT02518971|168981638|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||Student T-test|||||||.207
84644576|NCT01992159|169024666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|2.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||2.3|< 0.0001
84644577|NCT01992159|169024671|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-15.3||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|30.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||30.2|-60.8|0.5084
84644578|NCT01992159|169024671|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|84.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|128.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||128.0|40.1|0.0002
84502296|NCT00331773|168755633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 60 months||||0.91
84759962|NCT03354663|169276197|OTHER|Single arm trial|Proportion|0.047|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0864|||Binomial Exact Test|||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P ≥ 16.2% Ha: P \< 16.2%, where P is the percentage of subjects with a primary safety endpoint event. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level."||0.0864||<0.0001
84759963|NCT03354663|169276198|OTHER|"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P \< 90% Ha: P ≥ 90%, where P is the percentage of subjects with acute success. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level. Rejection of the null hypothesis will indicate study success."|Proportion|0.98||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9495||||Binomial Exact Test||||||0.9495|0.0001
84759964|NCT03354663|169276203|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.7|87.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence at 1-year|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from recurrence.||87.6|74.7|
84759965|NCT03354663|169276204|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence or need for anti-arrhythmic medication||75.1|59.9|
84759966|NCT01137773|169276218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84759967|NCT01137773|169276219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
84759968|NCT03548051|169276225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
84759969|NCT03548051|169276228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
84759970|NCT03548051|169276229|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||A Log-Rank permutation test for small samples was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to first CDAD recurrence between treatment arms.||||>0.999
84759971|NCT03325673|169276238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Independent t-test|||||||0.116
84759972|NCT03325673|169276239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Insertion||||0.468
84759973|NCT03325673|169276239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After 2 hours||||0.235
84759974|NCT03325673|169276239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Day||||0.152
84759975|NCT03325673|169276240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
84759976|NCT03325673|169276241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
84759977|NCT01485627|169276244|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference in difference|0.34||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Models included fixed-effects terms for phase (pre- vs postrandomization), study arm, and the Phase\*Arm interaction. Estimated effect is the between-arm difference in adjusted mean difference from prerandomization to postrandomization samples.|The primary outcome was a composite of 4 prespecified communication measures matched to the goals of communication training, as follows: Active Patient Participation Coding \[APPC\], Verona VR-CoDES, Prognostic and Treatment Choices \[PTCC\] Informing subscale, and PTCC Balanced Framing subscale. The 4 measures were z-score transformed and averaged to produce the composite measure.||0.62|0.06|0.05
84759978|NCT01485627|169276245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
84759979|NCT01485627|169276246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.56|0.05
84759980|NCT01485627|169276248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
84759981|NCT01485627|169276249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84759982|NCT01087905|169276304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) versus Six Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., 6 wks NRT)."||1.61|0.98|.076
84759983|NCT01087905|169276304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus NRT Combination Therapy (Nicotine Patch plus Nicotine Gum). We hypothesized that Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Combination NRT)."||1.75|1.06|.017
84759984|NCT01087905|169276304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Standard Cessation Counseling (No CMAC) versus Standard Cessation Counseling plus CMAC. We hypothesized that Standard Counseling plus CMAC would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Standard Counseling Only.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Standard Counseling plus CMAC)."||1.14|0.69|.343
84759985|NCT01087905|169276305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Two Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Two Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.14|1.04|.029
84616586|NCT00757237|168981645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-3.86||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, non-inferiority at Day 28 for relative change in FEV1 percent predicted was assessed at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in the mean relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28. With 120 subjects per treatment group there was at least 85% power to declare noninferiority based on relative change from baseline at Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted using the upper bound of a 2-tailed 95% CI for the difference in means with a noninferiority margin of 4, assuming a common standard deviation of 18% and true difference in means \[TIS-AZLI\] of -3.2%.||-3.86|-11.73|0.0001
84759986|NCT01087905|169276305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.97|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus SIx Weeks of NRT Monotherapy. We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT Monotherapy would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||1.97|0.96|.079
84502297|NCT00331773|168755635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 6 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.55
84596535|NCT02218697|168945660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.40|0.98|
84596536|NCT02218697|168945660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.16|0.84|
84596537|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.5|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 01 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.50|0.86|
84596538|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 03 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.45|0.96|
84596539|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 04 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.62|0.98|
84596540|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 7F serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.63|0.95|
84616587|NCT00757237|168981646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0023||||||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, superiority at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 of actual change in FEV1 percent predicted was tested at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, previous inhaled tobramycin use, treatment, visit, and treatment/visit interaction.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|"Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses among all participants.~With 120 subjects per treatment group, there was at least 90% power at a 5% significance level to detect differences based upon actual change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted (3.61%, 2.98%, 2.32%) between AZLI and TIS at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 with a common standard deviation of 9%."||||0.0023
84616588|NCT00757237|168981647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-5.14||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially by the closed testing procedure initiated by the significance of the primary endpoints. Given the coprimary endpoints were met at the 0.05 level, this non-inferiority endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment and Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in terms of the participant means in relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28 among all participants having \>= 84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||-5.14|-13.86|<0.0001
84616589|NCT00757237|168981648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, visit, treatment, and treatment/visit interaction for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses in the stratum of subjects having \>=84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||||0.0002
84759987|NCT01087905|169276305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.45|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Six Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.45|1.20|.003
84759988|NCT01087905|169276306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|357.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 2 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (213-178)/(.482-.384) = $357.||||
84616590|NCT00757237|168981649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0025
84616591|NCT00757237|168981650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to first respiratory hospitalization.||||0.1114
84616592|NCT00757237|168981651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61||||0.0048||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores at Day 28.||||0.0048
84616593|NCT00757237|168981652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13||||0.0189||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the average actual change in respiratory symptoms at the end of each treatment course (Weeks 4, 12, and 20).||||0.0189
84616594|NCT00757237|168981653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.12||||0.0097||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the global satisfaction results of the TSQM at Week 20 (Day 140).||||0.0097
84596541|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 14 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.57|0.91|
84596542|NCT02218697|168945661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.7|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 19A serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.70|1.05|
84596543|NCT03306433|168945713|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there are no significant paired differences between the groups. The power calculation is based on the observed variation and number of participants|Paired difference t-test|-12.139|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.101||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired difference p value comparing UDMA-K18 vs Adhesive Control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 12 participants (pairs) for this comparison|Paired difference test within each participant.||||0.0003
84596544|NCT03306433|168945713|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that there were no differences between the groups|Paired difference t-test|-7.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.049||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired differrnce between UDMA-K18 and UDMA control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 9 participant pairs for this comparison|Paired comparison||||0.0063
84596545|NCT03306433|168945714|EQUIVALENCE|The Null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|15.77||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||WSL Index is non-parametric||||0.0033
84596546|NCT03306433|168945714|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there would not be any differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|6.8321||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1450
84596547|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|61.0||||||95.0|41.0|78.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||78|41|
84596548|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|64.0|95.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|64|
84596549|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|81.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|81|
84596550|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
84596551|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
84596552|NCT00819156|168945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|74.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|74|
84596553|NCT00819156|168945716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|80.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|80|
84596554|NCT00819156|168945716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|86.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|86|
84596555|NCT00819156|168945716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|93.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|93|
84596556|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|70.0||||||95.0|51.0|85.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||85|51|
84596557|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|75.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|75|
84596558|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|84|
84596559|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|83.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|83|
84502298|NCT00331773|168755635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 12 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.29
84596560|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|80.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|80|
84596561|NCT00819156|168945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|77.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|77|
84596562|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|83.0||||||95.0|65.0|94.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|65|
84596563|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|79.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|79|
84596564|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.0||||||95.0|70.0|96.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|70|
84596565|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
84596566|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|76.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|76|
84596567|NCT00819156|168945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
84596568|NCT00819156|168945719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0933
84616595|NCT00757237|168981654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory hospitalizations from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.044
84616596|NCT00757237|168981655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory events requiring IV and/or inhaled antipseudomonal antibiotics (other than randomized treatment) from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.004
84596569|NCT00819156|168945720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
84596570|NCT00819156|168945721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.429
84596571|NCT01597908|168945749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.83|0.58|
84596572|NCT01597908|168945750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.73|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.73|0.52|
84596573|NCT01597908|168945752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||||||||0.81|0.51|
84596574|NCT02931838|168945759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.4873
84596575|NCT02931838|168945759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.0003
84596576|NCT02931838|168945759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
84596577|NCT02931838|168945759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||< 0.0001
84596578|NCT02931838|168945759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
84596579|NCT01519791|168945850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.283|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.503|3.468|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||3.468|1.503|<0.001
84596580|NCT01519791|168945851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|2.767|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||2.767|1.384|<0.001
84616597|NCT00757237|168981656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for inhaled and/or IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0004
84644579|NCT01992159|169024671|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|153.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|198.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at months 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||198.4|109.2|< 0.0001
84596581|NCT01519791|168945852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|-0.978|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.5|||ANCOVA on ranks||"ANCOVA model on the ranks with the terms for treatment, region, and time since RA diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and rank Baseline value as a covariate.~Confidence Interval is an asymptotic Moses CI."|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.500|-1.005|<0.001
84596582|NCT01519791|168945857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.989|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||1.989|1.052|=0.023
84596583|NCT01519791|168945869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.082|||ANCOVA||The CfB in HAQ-DI at Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region, and time since Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.082|-0.273|<0.001
84596584|NCT04551963|168945883|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.56||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.56|0.42|
84596585|NCT04551963|168945883|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.51||||||Arm a: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.34|
84596586|NCT04551963|168945884|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||0.99|0.66|
84596587|NCT04551963|168945884|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.41|
84596588|NCT04551963|168945885|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||1.08|0.82|
84759989|NCT01087905|169276306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|712.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch only = (233-178)/(.462-.384) = $712.||||
84596589|NCT04551963|168945885|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.99|0.66|
84596590|NCT04551963|168945886|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.06||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.06|0.65|
84596591|NCT04551963|168945886|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.40|
84596592|NCT04551963|168945887|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.58||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.58|0.35|
84596593|NCT04551963|168945887|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.51||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.32|
84596594|NCT04551963|168945888|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.0||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.00|0.68|
84596595|NCT04551963|168945888|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.64||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.64|0.39|
84596596|NCT01204905|168945914|OTHER|This was a pilot study with a small sample population. There were no power calculations performed.|||||||||||||||||The percentage of patients with HIV-1 viral loads less than 50 c/ml at 48 weeks.|||
84596597|NCT01204905|168945915|OTHER|There were no power calculations performed due to the size of the pilot study.|||||||||||||||||Number of weeks to virologic suppression|||
84596598|NCT03588806|168945918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.218
84759990|NCT01087905|169276306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|1290.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (348-178)/(.516-.384) = $1290.||||
84596599|NCT03588806|168945919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures||||||0.268
84596600|NCT03588806|168945920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
84616598|NCT01397461|168981692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) and corresponding 95% asymptotic (Wald) CI for the difference in success rates for the ozenoxacin versus placebo were provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.~Text extracted from the statistical analysis plan. No additional data was pre-specified for the statistical comparison"||||0.003
84616599|NCT05729568|168981698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squares means|-56.0||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Difference in least-squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model of change from baseline CD4 cell count with treatment as fixed effect and baseline CD4 cell count as a covariate.|||20|-132|0.1436
84759991|NCT01179009|169276334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The p-value above represents the interaction between the treatment group and time.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
84596601|NCT03588806|168945921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.228
84596602|NCT03588806|168945922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.043
84596603|NCT03588806|168945923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Social Roles score||||0.486
84596604|NCT03588806|168945923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Scores||||0.078
84596605|NCT03588806|168945923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Depression T-Scores||||0.874
84596606|NCT03588806|168945923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Anxiety T-Score||||0.389
84596607|NCT03588806|168945924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.676
84596608|NCT03985943|168945926|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.7|18.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.3|4.7|0.0003
84596609|NCT03985943|168945927|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.1|22.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.5|6.1|0.0002
84596610|NCT03985943|168945928|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.8|22.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
84596611|NCT03985943|168945929|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|26.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.6|9.6|<0.0001
84759992|NCT01179009|169276335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The p-value above comes from a model where the treatment group is used to predict the CGI improvement score.|Ordinal regression|||||||0.06
84759993|NCT01618214|169276336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||||95.0|-0.19|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||FAS||0.14|-0.19|
84596612|NCT03985943|168945930|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|31.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||31.5|18.4|<0.0001
84596613|NCT03985943|168945930|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.0|34.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.3|22.0|<0.0001
84596614|NCT03985943|168945931|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.4|35.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||35.7|19.4|<0.0001
84596615|NCT03985943|168945931|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.4|39.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||39.8|24.4|<0.0001
84596616|NCT03985943|168945932|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|25.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.2|13.7|<0.0001
84596617|NCT03985943|168945933|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.8|26.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.8|13.8|<0.0001
84596618|NCT03985943|168945934|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.3|24.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.5|11.3|<0.0001
84616600|NCT04181762|168981711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference from placebo and 95% CI are from a logistic regression model with treatment group, stratification factor (SoC) and race as factors and baseline UPCR as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Complete Renal Response (CRR) at Week 52||0.9|-26.3|0.0662
84759994|NCT01627860|169276409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Seizure free rate|23.57||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|49.0|||ANOVA||Difference in Seizure free rate (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||49.00|-4.21|0.0759
84759995|NCT01627860|169276410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean percent change|18.3||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|117.7|||ANCOVA||Difference in mean percent change of seizure frequency (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||117.7|-81.0|0.7102
84596619|NCT03985943|168945935|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.2|28.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||28.2|11.2|<0.0001
84616601|NCT04181762|168981713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|8.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are constructed using the exact binomial test.|Partial Renal Response (PRR) at Week 52||8.4|-23.7|
84616602|NCT00632619|168981725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.106
84759996|NCT01119248|169276413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-0.48|<.001
84759997|NCT01119248|169276414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||pre- MRI body temperature was associated with change in body temperature after MRI by bivariate analysis. The values presented are adjusted for body surface area, type of MRI, room temperature and duration of MRI||-0.43|-0.95|0.0001
84759998|NCT01119248|169276415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84759999|NCT01883635|169276416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.14
84760000|NCT01883635|169276417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.65
84596620|NCT03985943|168945936|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26|15.8|<0.0001
84596621|NCT03985943|168945937|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.8|27.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||27.6|14.8|<0.0001
84596622|NCT03985943|168945938|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.2|16.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||16.3|8.2|<0.0001
84596623|NCT03985943|168945939|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|14.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.2|5.2|<0.0001
84596624|NCT03985943|168945940|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.6|18.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.7|10.6|<0.0001
84596625|NCT03985943|168945941|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.5|22.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.3|11.5|<0.0001
84596626|NCT03985943|168945942|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|3.4||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|5.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||5.8|1.1|0.0064
84616603|NCT00632619|168981726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline which was week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.015
84616604|NCT00632619|168981727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was conducted to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.38
84760001|NCT01883635|169276418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.51
84760002|NCT00894556|169276437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
84760003|NCT00894556|169276438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
84644580|NCT00713310|169024694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|-1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||20.5|-22.7|0.9240
84760004|NCT02404103|169276472|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction with two doses.||||||0.148|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.148
84760005|NCT02404103|169276472|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.740
84760006|NCT02404103|169276472|EQUIVALENCE|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.921|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.921
84596627|NCT03985943|168945943|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|7.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||7.7|0.9|0.0177
84596628|NCT04904744|168945960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message (reference group)|||2.06|0.88|0.165
84596629|NCT04904744|168945960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.03|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.03|0.87|0.193
84596630|NCT04904744|168945960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||1.52|0.68|0.930
84596631|NCT04904744|168945961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||3.52|1.21|0.008
84596632|NCT04904744|168945961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.23|0.70|0.457
84596633|NCT04904744|168945961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||2.74|1.00|0.049
84596634|NCT04904744|168945962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||4.82|0.86|0.104
84596635|NCT04904744|168945962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||3.22|0.49|0.631
84596636|NCT04904744|168945962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||3.61|0.73|0.238
84616605|NCT00632619|168981728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.016
84616606|NCT00632619|168981729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.095
84644581|NCT00713310|169024695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|1.4||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||23.0|-20.2|0.8193
84760007|NCT02404103|169276473|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.872
84596637|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity of lesion shape|0.694|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests.||||<0.001
84596638|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, conservative|0.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
84596639|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, agressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
84596640|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity,conservative|0.657||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kiloPascals (kPa) (7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.001
84596641|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity, aggressive|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
84596642|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value specificity|0.626||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.18
84596643|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter ratio specificity|0.512||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
84616607|NCT01514201|168981750|OTHER|This was descriptive in nature. Two of the first 5 patients who were escalated to 175 mg/m2 of temozolomide during the maintenance intra-patient dose escalation had dose-modifying toxicities (DMTs). Since the ad hoc stopping rule was met, intra-patient dose escalation was halted and all subsequent patients were to receive 135 mg/m2 of temozolomide during maintenance.|Percentage of patients with DMTs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Intra-patient dose escalation of temozolomide during maintenance was assessed based on similar rules employed in traditional 3+3 designs. For example intra-patient dose escalation would be halted if at any time 2 out of first 2-6 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level or if 4 out of first 12 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level.||||
84760008|NCT02404103|169276473|EQUIVALENCE|secondary goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.820
84760009|NCT02404103|169276473|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.582
84616608|NCT02534909|168981792|OTHER|Bayesian analysis of response rate in serum LDH (period 1 completers only)|Median response rate|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|100.0|||||95% Credibility Interval for Response Rate|Up to Week 4||100.0|81.9|
84760010|NCT02404103|169276474|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.782
84760011|NCT02404103|169276474|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.906
84760012|NCT02404103|169276474|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.102|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.102
84760013|NCT02404103|169276475|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.620
84760014|NCT02404103|169276475|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.543
84760015|NCT02404103|169276475|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.6
84760016|NCT01982292|169276483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.5|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.38|10.38|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percentage of patients with positive antibody status||10.38|-9.38|>0.9999
84760017|NCT01982292|169276483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|9.38||||||Difference in percentage of patients with negative antibody status||9.38|-10.38|
84616609|NCT02534909|168981793|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 1 Day 29 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
84760018|NCT00879229|169276492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.0||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|17.0||This is an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test p-value for testing equality of ambrisentan and placebo distributions.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17|-54|0.696
84596644|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median elasticity ratio specificity|0.649||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
84596645|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale specificity,conservative|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
84596646|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale specificity, aggressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall specificity = 78.5%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
84596647|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion shape sensitivity|0.979||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image lesion shape.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.48
84596648|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity sens, conservative|0.969||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.74
84616610|NCT02534909|168981793|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 2 Day 365 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
84616611|NCT02534909|168981793|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 3 Day 1429 serum LDH levels||0.20|0.14|<0.001
84616612|NCT02534909|168981793|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 4 Day 141 serum LDH levels||0.24|0.15|<0.001
84616613|NCT00362648|168981827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|39.3|||<|0.001||95.0|19.1|54.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||54.7|19.1|<0.001
84616614|NCT00362648|168981827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|48.3|||<|0.001||95.0|22.3|66.1||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||66.1|22.3|<0.001
84616615|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|78.3||||||95.0|71.7|84.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||84.0|71.7|
84616616|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.5||||||95.0|13.3|24.8||||||Serotype G1||24.8|13.3|
84616617|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.0||||||95.0|5.3|14.0||||||Serotype G2||14.0|5.3|
84616618|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|6.3||||||95.0|3.3|10.8||||||Serotype G3||10.8|3.3|
84616619|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|26.5||||||95.0|20.3|33.3||||||Serotype G4||33.3|20.3|
84596649|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homogeneity,aggressive,sensit|0.962||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.37
84596650|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homegeneity,conservative,sens|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall sensitivity = 99.0%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
84596651|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||max. elasticity sensitivity,aggressive|0.972|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||>0.99
84596652|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value sensitivity|0.986||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.046
84596653|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||diameter ratio sensitivity|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
84596654|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median elasticity ratio sensitivity|0.983||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.083
84596655|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale sensitivity,conservative|0.997||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.008
84596656|NCT00716482|168945964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale sensitivity, aggressive|0.986||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.21
84596657|NCT00716482|168945965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis was performed once to get p-values for all of the 9 categories at once.||Null hypothesis: no variance of similarity exists between the three groups||||<0.001
84596658|NCT03248531|168945968|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|50.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 95% credible intervals were presented for the bimekizumab (BKZ) vs placebo (PBO) comparison.||50.4|11.0|
84616620|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.4||||||95.0|9.7|20.2||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||20.2|9.7|
84596659|NCT03248531|168945968|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.2|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 60% credible intervals were presented for the BKZ vs adalimumab (ADA) comparison.||6.6|-11.2|
84616621|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|20.1||||||95.0|14.4|27.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||27.0|14.4|
84596660|NCT03248531|168945968|OTHER||Pr [Diff>0%] (%)|99.8|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
84616622|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.2||||||Serotype G1||2.2|0.0|
84616623|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|6.8||||||Serotype G2||6.8|1.0|
84616624|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G3||5.9|0.6|
84596661|NCT03248531|168945968|OTHER||Pr[Diff > 0%](%)|42.1|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
84596662|NCT04075513|168946028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since higher time in range means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \> 0.|Least square mean difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.44||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean.|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||5.44|0.88|0.0067
84596663|NCT04075513|168946029|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since lower CV means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \< 0.|Least square mean difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-4.38||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean.|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially only when the primary endpoint demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||-4.38|-6.50|<0.0001
84596664|NCT04075513|168946030|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted difference estimate of Toujeo and Tresiba at Week 12 was \>0.|Least square mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.05||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially when the primary endpoint and the secondary endpoint of total CV demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||0.05|-4.75|0.0548
84596665|NCT03517371|168946052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.35||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-943.34|1088.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1088.04|-943.34|.89
84596666|NCT03517371|168946053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.10|-3.80|.42
84596667|NCT03517371|168946054|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|24.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test significant, equal variances not assumed values reported.||||24.97|-20.64|.85
84596668|NCT03517371|168946055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.065|-.081|.824
84596669|NCT04283656|168946060|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
84596670|NCT04283656|168946061|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.32|0.66|
84596671|NCT04283656|168946062|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
84616625|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G4||5.9|0.6|
84616626|NCT00362648|168981828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.1||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||9.1|2.1|
84616627|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|87.8||||||95.0|80.9|92.9||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||92.9|80.9|
84616628|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.1||||||95.0|24.2|40.8||||||Serotype G1||40.8|24.2|
84760019|NCT00763815|169276526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.386||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 patients in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.386|-0.731|<0.0001
84760020|NCT04749459|169276540|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Classic: CIs +/- 13.7% P2 Control Standard (vs. CSM Classic) CIs +/- 16.4%|||
84760021|NCT04749459|169276540|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Strawberry Flavor: CIs +/- 16.6% P2 Control Standard (vs CSM Strawberry Flavour): CIs +/- 16.0%|||
84760022|NCT02429414|169276558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84760023|NCT02429414|169276559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0209
84760024|NCT02429414|169276560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
84760025|NCT00267748|169276562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.089||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|2.803|||Log Rank|||For High risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.803|0.423|0.860
84760026|NCT00267748|169276562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.306|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.306|0.623|0.583
84760027|NCT00267748|169276562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.074|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.074|0.288|0.075
84760028|NCT00267748|169276562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.124|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.124|0.609|0.220
84616629|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.9||||||95.0|5.4|16.4||||||Serotype G2||16.4|5.4|
84760029|NCT00267748|169276562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.044|||Log Rank|||For overall unstratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model. Two-sided unstratified Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.044|0.572|0.090
84760030|NCT00267748|169276563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.6|||Chi-squared|||Response rate was estimated for each treatment group, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference in response rate between the 2 treatments was computed. P-value was calculated from a Pearson chi-square test.||14.6|-6.4|0.444
84760031|NCT00267748|169276565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|2.387|||Log Rank|||For high risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.387|0.481|0.866
84760032|NCT00267748|169276565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.741|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor,the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.741|0.785|0.439
84760033|NCT00267748|169276565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.851|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.851|0.538|0.614
84760034|NCT00267748|169276565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.612|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.612|0.838|0.365
84760035|NCT00267748|169276566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.6737
84760036|NCT00267748|169276567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.1967
84760037|NCT04442230|169276571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6602|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-values from significance tests were obtained at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.6602
84616630|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|28.2||||||95.0|20.7|36.8||||||Serotype G3||36.8|20.7|
84616631|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.3||||||95.0|12.1|26.0||||||Serotype G4||26.0|12.1|
84616632|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.5||||||95.0|20.0|36.0||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||36.0|20.0|
84616633|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.2||||||95.0|12.0|25.8||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||25.8|12.0|
84616634|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.3||||||95.0|0.5|6.5||||||Serotype G1||6.5|0.5|
84616635|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|4.1||||||Serotype G2||4.1|0.0|
84596672|NCT04283656|168946063|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.5||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.50|0.91|
84596673|NCT04283656|168946064|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.6||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||2.60|0.73|
84596674|NCT04283656|168946065|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.4||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.40|0.93|
84596675|NCT04283656|168946066|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for estradiol AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.70|
84616636|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|7.6||||||Serotype G3||7.6|0.8|
84616637|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.8||||||Serotype G4||2.8|0.0|
84616638|NCT00362648|168981829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.3||||||95.0|2.2|10.6||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||10.6|2.2|
84616639|NCT02204072|168981833|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.7|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs Enzalutamide|||1.70|0.57|0.9549
84616640|NCT02204072|168981836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.06|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzaludamide.|||2.06|0.68|0.5425
84616641|NCT02204072|168981837|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.9|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.90|0.71|0.5534
84616642|NCT02204072|168981838|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.18|0.35|0.1514
84673088|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.46|0.1123
84760038|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|14.53||||||||14.53|0.83|
84760039|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.02|
84616643|NCT02204072|168981842|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.579||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|12.515|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.||||12.515|0.269|0.6186
84616644|NCT02204072|168981844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|5.059|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.|||5.059|0.727|0.1920
84616645|NCT04346654|168981890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
84616646|NCT04346654|168981891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
84616647|NCT05870865|168981903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5483
84616648|NCT05870865|168981903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4123
84616649|NCT05870865|168981903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.8177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8177
84616650|NCT05870865|168981904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4601
84596676|NCT04283656|168946067|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.36||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.36|0.92|
84596677|NCT04283656|168946068|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol C12 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.88|
84596678|NCT04445519|168946069|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95.1% CIs around the difference (NCX 470 minus latanoprost 0.005%) in mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline in the study eye was greater than or equal to -1.5 mmHg at all time points and was greater than or equal to -1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.1||||The primary efficacy assessment was the non-inferiority analysis of the difference in the treatment effect between NCX 470 and latanoprost 0.005% for mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline at the 8AM and 4PM time-points.|||The analysis assumed a true difference of 1.0 mmHg at the Week 2 time points and 1.25 mmHg at the Week 6 and Month 3 time points; a common standard deviation (SD) at each time-point of 3.25 mmHg; and a two-sided significance level of 4.9%.|||||
84596679|NCT03629223|168946076|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%. In the below, LS-means = least squares mean.|Percentage of Ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.55|122.58||||||||122.58|108.55|
84596680|NCT03629223|168946076|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.61|212.28||||||||212.28|163.61|
84616651|NCT05870865|168981904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0804|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0804
84616652|NCT05870865|168981904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84616653|NCT05870865|168981905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2146
84616654|NCT05870865|168981905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8851|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8851
84616655|NCT05870865|168981905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1835
84616656|NCT05870865|168981906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7982
84616657|NCT05870865|168981906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5640
84616658|NCT05870865|168981906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2939
84616659|NCT05870865|168981907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3579
84616660|NCT05870865|168981907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3466
84616661|NCT05870865|168981907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9527
84616662|NCT02848222|168981971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for significance was p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84760040|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
84616663|NCT03937713|168981982|OTHER|Calculations were approximated by those of a simple two-sample t-test for mean differences in PSQI in response to BBTI||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size selected for this preliminary trial was based on the analysis of the PSQI as the primary outcome. Assuming a correlation coefficient of 0.7 between pre-and post-treatment, 21 patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power at a significance level of 5% in order to detect a clinically significant difference of 3 units in PSQI. To compensate for an anticipated attrition rate of 25%, the recruitment target was set at 52 participants.||||0.05
84616664|NCT01101035|168981990|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.359 (75% interim) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0||1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23||
84760041|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
84596681|NCT03629223|168946076|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.17|182.1||||||||182.10|146.17|
84596682|NCT03629223|168946077|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.51|122.6||||||||122.60|108.51|
84596683|NCT03629223|168946077|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.78|212.77||||||||212.77|163.78|
84596684|NCT03629223|168946077|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.09|182.46||||||||182.46|146.09|
84596685|NCT03629223|168946078|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|113.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.62|119.85||||||||119.85|107.62|
84616665|NCT01101035|168981991|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any APTC event was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function status as a stratification factor.|||1.28|0.92|
84596686|NCT03629223|168946078|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|236.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|215.69|259.34||||||||259.34|215.69|
84596687|NCT03629223|168946078|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|199.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|176.44|225.82||||||||225.82|176.44|
84616666|NCT01101035|168981992|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.73|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.73|1.03|
84616667|NCT01101035|168981993|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal MI was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.21|0.72|
84760042|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
84616668|NCT01101035|168981994|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal stroke was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.41|0.73|
84760043|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
84760044|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
84596688|NCT02674464|168946087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Assuming an exchangeable correlation structure|CC/SC arm compared to the SCP arm.|||1.30|0.62|0.68
84596689|NCT02674464|168946088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm was compared to the SCP arm.|||2.30|-1.32|0.60
84596690|NCT02674464|168946089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.71||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression|||||2.71|-1.04|0.38
84616669|NCT01101035|168981995|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of unstable angina with urgent coronary revascularization was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.26|0.59|
84644582|NCT00329901|169024696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM as compared to Tdap given with placebo saline||14|5|
84760045|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
84596691|NCT02674464|168946090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm compared to SCP arm.|||0.01|-2.43|0.05
84596692|NCT01576939|168946172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.022|||Regression, Cox|This was a Cox proportional hazards model with dose as the single predictor.||||1.022|0.979|0.9906
84596693|NCT01576939|168946173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2795||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.634|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||0.634|-0.077|0.1209
84596694|NCT01576939|168946174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.285||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|26.71|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||26.71|-27.28|0.9832
84596695|NCT01576939|168946175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03795||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00483|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor. QoL values were measured for each patient every week.||||0.071|0.00483|0.0263
84596696|NCT01576939|168946176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0567||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0199|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor and QoL values measured each week for each patient.||||0.0935|0.0199|0.0039
84596697|NCT03583359|168946195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|75.2|||Fisher's exact test|The Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the superiority of treatment (Radiesse \[+\]) over control group.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for difference in responder rate.|||75.2|53.7|<0.0001
84596698|NCT01831466|168946204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|-4.3|0.5425
84760046|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
84596699|NCT01831466|168946204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.5|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|-11.5|0.4976
84596700|NCT01831466|168946204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.5|-4.9|0.6039
84596701|NCT01831466|168946204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.1|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-4.1|0.5279
84596702|NCT01831466|168946205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|3.1|0.0710
84596703|NCT01831466|168946205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.9|0.8175
84596704|NCT01831466|168946205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.8|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|3.8|0.0513
84596705|NCT01831466|168946205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-0.0|0.2021
84596706|NCT00434993|168946243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||The trial had a statistical power of 90.7% to detect a 2.25-day increase in VFDs,assuming a SD of 10.5 days. A group sequential design was used.||0.3|-4.7|0.087
84596707|NCT00434993|168946244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||14.7|-4.0|0.302
84596708|NCT00434993|168946245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||15.4|-3.7|0.261
84596709|NCT00434993|168946246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||-0.4|-4.9|0.023
84596710|NCT00434993|168946247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.9|-4.3|0.226
84596711|NCT00434993|168946248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.6|-5.3|0.130
84596712|NCT00434993|168946249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||19.6|-3.1|0.176
84596713|NCT00434993|168946250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-7.8|0.048
84596714|NCT00434993|168946251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.9|-6.9|0.265
84596715|NCT03522246|168946294|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.72|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification and timing of surgery.|||0.72|0.31|0.0004
84596716|NCT03522246|168946295|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84596717|NCT03522246|168946296|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib + Nivolumab vs Rucaparib + Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.53|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||1.53|1.08|0.0038
84596718|NCT00814580|168946312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis test for non-inferiority of tapentadol IR over oxycodone IR required that upper limit of 95% CI for LS mean difference (oxycodone IR minus tapentadol IR) was less than the inferiority margin (\< 72). If the upper limit was less than 0 then tapentadol IR was superior to oxycodone IR for SPID over 3 days at a 5% level of significance.|Least square mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|36.9||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||Tapentadol IR versus Oxycodone IR||36.9|-18.9|0.5265
84596719|NCT00814580|168946313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7306||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7306
84596720|NCT00814580|168946314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8524
84596721|NCT00814580|168946315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9078||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9078
84596722|NCT00814580|168946316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2633||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2633
84596723|NCT00814580|168946317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4498||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4498
84596724|NCT00814580|168946318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
84596725|NCT00814580|168946319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|25.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||25.0|-11.8|0.4811
84596726|NCT00814580|168946320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.13||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|46.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||46.0|-64.7|0.7405
84596727|NCT00814580|168946321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.3||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-16.5|0.3097
84760047|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
84760048|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
84760049|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
84760050|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.59||||||||3.59|1.04|
84760051|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31||||||||0.31|0.01|
84502299|NCT00331773|168755635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 24 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.23
84596728|NCT00814580|168946322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|6.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-26.7|0.2179
84616670|NCT01101035|168981996|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.014 (final analysis) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.87|1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23|0.87|
84616671|NCT01717872|168982011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MAC blade lifting the tongue versus Miller blade lifting the epiglottis||||>0.05
84596729|NCT00814580|168946323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.16||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|5.5||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-58.1|0.1051
84596730|NCT00814580|168946324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|24.8||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||24.8|-22.8|0.9367
84596731|NCT00814580|168946325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.53||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|35.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||35.2|-37.8|0.9441
84596732|NCT00814580|168946326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.45||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.3|38.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||38.1|-109.3|0.3427
84596733|NCT00814580|168946327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1618||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1618
84596734|NCT00814580|168946328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0481||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
84596735|NCT00814580|168946329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0109
84596736|NCT02482428|168946346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Posterior mean|||||0.20|-0.03|0.862
84596737|NCT02482428|168946346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.19|||posterior mean|||||0.19|-0.07|0.541
84596738|NCT01340625|168946353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.91|115.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.24|100.91|
84596739|NCT01340625|168946354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|111.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.88|96.74|
84596740|NCT01340625|168946355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|108.62|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.62|95.73|
84616672|NCT01717872|168982012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84760052|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
84502300|NCT00331773|168755635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 60 months (5 years) was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.028
84502301|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||Baseline VAS score||||0.037
84502302|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline index score||||0.12
84502303|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month VAS score||||0.70
84502304|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month index score||||0.20
84502305|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month VAS score||||0.31
84502306|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month index score||||0.19
84596741|NCT01340625|168946356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.04|102.86|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.86|90.04|
84596742|NCT01340625|168946357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.89|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.97|93.89|
84616673|NCT01717872|168982013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0004
84502307|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month VAS score||||0.86
84616674|NCT02178995|168982019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||HRTSD p-value = 0.037; p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, n=31, df=1||||||0.037
84760053|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
84760054|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
84760055|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
84502308|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month index score||||0.45
84502309|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month VAS score||||0.39
84502310|NCT00331773|168755636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month index score||||0.56
84502311|NCT00747747|168755640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference among groups.||||<0.05
84502312|NCT00747747|168755645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypotheis: no difference among the groups.||||<0.05
84502313|NCT01872689|168755654|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31064||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||3.57|-1.61|0.4555
84502314|NCT01872689|168755654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84946||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.17|-1.17|0.5566
84502315|NCT01872689|168755655|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.93023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.62248||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|64.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||64.83|-20.97|0.3129
84502316|NCT01872689|168755655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8016||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||11.67|-54.50|0.2036
84502317|NCT01872689|168755657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.41|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.41|0.44|0.4299
84502318|NCT01872689|168755657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.24|0.56|0.3751
84502319|NCT01872689|168755658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05201||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.62|-1.54|0.6075
84502320|NCT01872689|168755658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65206||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||1.47|-1.10|0.7803
84596743|NCT01340625|168946358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|104.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.50|94.91|
84596744|NCT00301262|168946359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|<|0.0001||95.0|11.4|24.86||Since there was only one primary endpoint no multiple comparison adjustments were made for primary analysis. Final stat. model included centre, treatment, smoking status and history of ED as factors, and age, duration of ED (baseline) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|The primary analysis population was the FAS. The sample size was estimated based on an expected difference of 16.5 with a standard deviation of 28.4, based on previously observed data.||24.86|11.40|<0.0001
84596745|NCT00301262|168946360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.761||0.0028||95.0|1.8|8.37|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||8.370|1.800|0.0028
84760056|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
84596746|NCT00301262|168946360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.294|<|0.0001||95.0|20.58|31.455|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||31.455|20.580|<0.0001
84596747|NCT00301262|168946361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.008||95.0|0.47|3.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||3.06|0.47|0.0080
84596748|NCT00301262|168946362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.909||0.0051||95.0|0.29|1.585|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.585|0.290|0.0051
84616675|NCT02178995|168982019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||D' p = 0.055. p \< 0.05 considered significant.|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, placebo v 10mg v 20mg.||||||0.055
84616676|NCT02178995|168982019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRTSD 10mg vs 20mg||||0.758
84616677|NCT02178995|168982019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||d' 10mg vs 20mg||||0.499
84616678|NCT02178995|168982020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
84616679|NCT02178995|168982020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SDMT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.071
84760057|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
84760058|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
84760059|NCT03016325|169276616|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
84616680|NCT02178995|168982021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.154
84616681|NCT02178995|168982021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCG 10mg vs 20mg||||0.779
84616682|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||HRTSD P\<0.0001|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD||||<0.0001
84616683|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||HRTSD p \<0.001 for healthy controls|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD, healthy controls||||0.001
84502321|NCT01872689|168755660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.09|0.39|0.0972
84502322|NCT01872689|168755660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.42|0.72|0.9344
84616684|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons by 2-way ANOVA, HRTSD||||0.322
84616685|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, epilepsy, D'||||<0.0001
84616686|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group analysis, healthy controls, d'||||0.037
84616687|NCT02178995|168982022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Intra-group analysis by 2-way ANOVA, d'||||0.08
84616688|NCT02178995|168982023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84616689|NCT02178995|168982023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84616690|NCT02178995|168982023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||Group x time interaction by 2-way ANOVA||||0.443
84616691|NCT02178995|168982024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84616692|NCT02178995|168982024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84616693|NCT02178995|168982024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups analysis by 2-way ANOVA||||0.906
84616694|NCT02178995|168982025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
84760060|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
84760061|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
84760062|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
84760063|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
84502323|NCT01872689|168755661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.12302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.47253||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|126.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||126.04|-69.80|0.5707
84502324|NCT01872689|168755661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.72972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.68767||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.65|84.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||84.11|-40.65|0.4934
84502325|NCT01872689|168755662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.10204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41325||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.68|-6.88|0.3854
84596749|NCT00301262|168946362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.013|<|0.0001||95.0|1.812|3.77|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.770|1.812|<0.0001
84596750|NCT00301262|168946363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0054||95.0|0.78|4.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.43|0.78|0.0054
84596751|NCT00301262|168946364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.4232||95.0|-0.43|1.02|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.02|-0.43|0.4232
84616695|NCT02178995|168982026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84616696|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Hits p = 0.04|ANOVA|||||||0.04
84616697|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Omissions p = 0.038|ANOVA|||||||0.038
84616698|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||Commissions p = 0.329|ANOVA|||||||0.329
84760064|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
84596752|NCT00301262|168946365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0156||95.0|0.13|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.22|0.13|0.0156
84596753|NCT00301262|168946366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0096||95.0|0.3|2.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||2.11|0.30|0.0096
84616699|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits 10mg vs 20mg||||0.876
84616700|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.932
84616701|NCT02178995|168982027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.898
84616702|NCT02178995|168982028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline rate of seizures (expressed as seizures per 28 days) pre-trial against the rate experienced during the double-blind portion of our trial.||||0.7116
84502326|NCT01872689|168755662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37698||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.55|-2.87|0.9057
84502327|NCT01872689|168755664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.54|0.4433
84616703|NCT02178995|168982029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention/Concentration subscale||||<0.0001
84616704|NCT02178995|168982029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Memory subscale||||<0.0001
84616705|NCT02178995|168982029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language subscale||||0.002
84616706|NCT02178995|168982029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/fatigue subscale||||0.001
84616707|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.003
84616708|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.033
84616709|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA epilepsy vs healthy hits||||0.079
84616710|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.001
84616711|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.029
84616712|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Epilepsy v healthy ANOVA Omissions||||0.048
84616713|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
84616714|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.42
84616715|NCT02178995|168982030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Healthy vs epilepsy ANOVA (2-way) commissions||||0.019
84760065|NCT03016325|169276619|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
84760066|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
84502328|NCT01872689|168755666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||5.30|0.21|0.9366
84596754|NCT00301262|168946367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0135||95.0|0.19|1.61|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.61|0.19|0.0135
84596755|NCT00301262|168946368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.392||0.0033||95.0|0.051|2.465|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.465|0.0510|0.0033
84596756|NCT00301262|168946368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.346|<|0.0001||95.0|3.676|6.772|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||6.772|3.676|<0.0001
84596757|NCT00301262|168946369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||0.2581||95.0|-0.149|0.549|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.549|-0.149|0.2581
84596758|NCT00301262|168946369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.582|<|0.0001||95.0|0.758|2.018|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.018|0.758|<0.0001
84596759|NCT00301262|168946370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.456||0.2857||95.0|-0.149|0.499|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.499|-0.149|0.2857
84596760|NCT00301262|168946370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.706||0.0005||95.0|0.345|1.177|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.177|0.345|0.0005
84596761|NCT00301262|168946371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.548||0.0102||95.0|0.183|1.317|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.317|0.183|0.0102
84596762|NCT00301262|168946371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.979|<|0.0001||95.0|1.557|3.01|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.010|1.557|<0.0001
84596763|NCT00301262|168946372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.847||0.0016||95.0|0.264|1.086|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.086|0.264|0.0016
84596764|NCT00301262|168946372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.297|<|0.0001||95.0|1.335|2.456|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.456|1.335|<0.0001
84596765|NCT00301262|168946373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0083||95.0|0.73|4.83|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.83|0.73|0.0083
84760067|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
84596766|NCT00301262|168946374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.193||0.9146||95.0|-1.218|1.093|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.093|-1.218|0.9146
84596767|NCT00301262|168946374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.463|<|0.0001||95.0|3.961|7.114|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||7.114|3.961|<0.0001
84596768|NCT00301262|168946375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.826||0.0002||95.0|8.88|27.96|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||27.96|8.88|0.0002
84596769|NCT00301262|168946376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.444||0.0064||95.0|1.857|10.956|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||10.956|1.857|0.0064
84760068|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
84502329|NCT01872689|168755666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.16|0.1346
84502330|NCT01872689|168755668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.54|0.52|0.6815
84502331|NCT01872689|168755670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||2.26|0.23|0.5685
84596770|NCT00301262|168946376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.636|33.971|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||33.971|19.636|<0.0001
84596771|NCT00301262|168946377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.491||||0.0001||95.0|3.042|13.851|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.851|3.042|0.0001
84596772|NCT00301262|168946378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.915|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.396|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.080|2.396|<0.0001
84596773|NCT00301262|168946379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.676||||0.0187||95.0|1.242|10.875|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.875|1.242|0.0187
84616716|NCT02178995|168982031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84760069|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
84760070|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
84596774|NCT00301262|168946380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716||0.0037||95.0|4.59|23.22|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.22|4.59|0.0037
84596775|NCT00301262|168946381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496||0.0321||95.0|0.84|18.6|||independent-samples t-test||Mean Difference = Week 8 - Baseline|||18.60|0.84|0.0321
84596776|NCT00301262|168946382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.901||0.0427||95.0|-15.68|-0.27|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-0.27|-15.68|0.0427
84596777|NCT00301262|168946383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903||0.0533||95.0|-15.32|0.11|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.11|-15.32|0.0533
84596778|NCT00301262|168946384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3041||0.0002||95.0|0.566|1.768|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.768|0.566|0.0002
84596779|NCT00301262|168946385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3638||0.0001||95.0|0.727|2.164|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||2.164|0.727|0.0001
84596780|NCT00301262|168946386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.0032||95.0|0.403|1.961|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.961|0.403|0.0032
84596781|NCT00301262|168946387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3549||0.0008||95.0|0.511|1.913|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.913|0.511|0.0008
84596782|NCT00301262|168946388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.454||0.0195||95.0|0.064|0.711|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.711|0.064|0.0195
84616717|NCT02178995|168982032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Note: Stimulant side-effect score \*decreased\* with addition of open-label stimulant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84596783|NCT00301262|168946388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.207|<|0.0001||95.0|1.551|2.628|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.628|1.551|<0.0001
84596784|NCT00301262|168946389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.489||0.0186||95.0|0.069|0.731|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.731|0.069|0.0186
84596785|NCT00301262|168946389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.573|<|0.0001||95.0|2.044|3.299|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.299|2.044|<0.0001
84596786|NCT00301262|168946390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.917||0.0033||95.0|0.223|1.077|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.077|0.223|0.0033
84596787|NCT00301262|168946390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.335|<|0.0001||95.0|2.042|3.182|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.182|2.042|<0.0001
84596788|NCT00301262|168946391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.0143||95.0|0.093|0.807|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.807|0.093|0.0143
84596789|NCT00301262|168946391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.178|<|0.0001||95.0|1.454|2.516|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.516|1.454|<0.0001
84596790|NCT00301262|168946392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0325
84596791|NCT00301262|168946392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
84596792|NCT00301262|168946393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0196
84616718|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BDI epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.014
84502332|NCT01872689|168755670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.23|0.37|0.1976
84596793|NCT00301262|168946393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
84596794|NCT00301262|168946394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.3173
84596795|NCT00301262|168946394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0016
84596796|NCT00301262|168946395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.958||0.0624||95.0|-11.39|0.29|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.29|-11.39|0.0624
84616719|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Healthy controls BDI v1 vs v5||||0.04
84616720|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison 2-way ANOVA BDI||||0.191
84616721|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.42
84596797|NCT00301262|168946395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835||0.4523||95.0|-2.24|5.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.01|-2.24|0.4523
84760071|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
84760072|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
84760073|NCT03016325|169276620|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
84760074|NCT00004259|169276668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32|||Log Rank|||The hypothesized median survival time was 36 months for the RT+BCNU/CCNU arm and 54 months for the RT+TMZ arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. A sample size of 216 evaluable patients per arm would provide 90% power with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. The final analysis was planned after 155 deaths were observed. Interim efficacy analyses were planned after 52 and 104 deaths, with an interim futility analysis planned at 128 deaths.||1.32|0.67|0.36
84760075|NCT00004259|169276670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||2-sided|Gray's test||Reference level = RT + BCNU/CCNU|||1.16|0.55|0.46
84760076|NCT00004259|169276671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Overall toxicity||||<0.001
84760077|NCT00004259|169276671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Non-hematologic toxicity||||0.76
84502333|NCT02143947|168755675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
84596798|NCT00301262|168946396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.962||0.2081||95.0|-6.35|1.4|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.40|-6.35|0.2081
84596799|NCT00301262|168946396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.4131||95.0|-2.26|5.48|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.48|-2.26|0.4131
84596800|NCT00301262|168946397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126||0.4069||95.0|-5.97|2.43|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||2.43|-5.97|0.4069
84760078|NCT00004259|169276672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.4|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Methylated MGMT|||3.40|0.93|0.08
84596801|NCT00301262|168946397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.1137||95.0|-0.57|5.31|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.31|-0.57|0.1137
84596802|NCT00301262|168946398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.829||0.0123||95.0|-21.77|-2.7|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-2.70|-21.77|0.0123
84760079|NCT00004259|169276673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-sided confidence interval = 0.5|Reference level = Methylated|||2.35|0.70|0.41
84760080|NCT00790907|169276674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.54|0.267
84760081|NCT01888640|169276682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||To account for multiple tests involving pairwise treatment group comparisons, p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni's method|Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2-Visit 3||-0.2|-1.8|0.008
84760082|NCT01888640|169276682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.6|<0.0001
84502334|NCT02143947|168755676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= .036
84502335|NCT02143947|168755677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
84502336|NCT02143947|168755678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .05
84616722|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.477
84760083|NCT01888640|169276683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.2|0.002
84760084|NCT01888640|169276683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.8|<0.0001
84760085|NCT01888640|169276684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.1|0.0006
84760086|NCT01888640|169276684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.2|<0.0001
84760087|NCT01888640|169276685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.4|0.001
84760088|NCT01888640|169276685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.9|-2.9|<0.0001
84760089|NCT01888640|169276686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.2|-2.2|0.011
84760090|NCT01888640|169276686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-3.0|<0.0001
84760091|NCT01888640|169276687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-2.2|0.016
84760092|NCT01888640|169276687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.6|0.0002
84596803|NCT00301262|168946398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.883||0.8993||95.0|-10.27|9.03|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.03|-10.27|0.8993
84596804|NCT00301262|168946399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.458|<|0.0001||95.0|11.25|32.81|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||32.81|11.25|<0.0001
84596805|NCT00301262|168946399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.4165||95.0|-16.24|6.76|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||6.76|-16.24|0.4165
84596806|NCT00301262|168946400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.351||0.0257||95.0|1.21|18.39|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||18.39|1.21|0.0257
84596807|NCT00301262|168946400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209||0.0971||95.0|-11.7|0.98|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.98|-11.70|0.0971
84596808|NCT00301262|168946401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0726||95.0|-6.66|0.3|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.30|-6.66|0.0726
84596809|NCT00301262|168946401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.2581||95.0|-5.61|1.52|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.52|-5.61|0.2581
84596810|NCT00301262|168946402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8158||95.0|-9.86|7.78|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.78|-9.86|0.8158
84596811|NCT00301262|168946402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.8464||95.0|-3.68|3.02|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||3.02|-3.68|0.8464
84596812|NCT00301262|168946403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.789||0.9529||95.0|-11.82|11.13|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||11.13|-11.82|0.9529
84596813|NCT00301262|168946403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994||0.8899||95.0|-10.59|9.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.20|-10.59|0.8899
84616723|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA BAI||||0.792
84616724|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.045
84616725|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.646
84673089|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.36|0.2541
84596814|NCT00301262|168946404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||0.2001||95.0|-25.83|5.47|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.47|-25.83|0.2001
84596815|NCT00301262|168946404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.724||0.1527||95.0|-3.64|23.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.01|-3.64|0.1527
84596816|NCT00301262|168946405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.774||0.0606||95.0|-0.67|30.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||30.15|-0.67|0.0606
84596817|NCT00301262|168946405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.318||0.3678||95.0|-21.12|7.88|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.88|-21.12|0.3678
84596818|NCT00301262|168946406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.474||0.5429||95.0|-10.25|19.37|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||19.37|-10.25|0.5429
84596819|NCT00301262|168946406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.595||0.5849||95.0|-8.02|14.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||14.15|-8.02|0.5849
84616726|NCT02178995|168982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA AES||||0.222
84616727|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Perceptions||||0.011
84616728|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall QOL (subjectively rated by participants on the scale)||||0.01
84616729|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function||||0.164
84760093|NCT01888640|169276688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.3|-10.4|0.074
84760094|NCT01888640|169276688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-1.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.8|-12.4|0.005
84760095|NCT01888640|169276689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-1.7|0.018
84596820|NCT00301262|168946407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.0002||95.0|9.08|28.64|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||28.64|9.08|0.0002
84596821|NCT00301262|168946407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212||0.429||95.0|-7.35|17.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||17.20|-7.35|0.4290
84596822|NCT01525862|168946539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \<0.05 are considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84596823|NCT00241176|168946543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||YGTSS Global Severity score (M=61.8 SD=13.49) declined significantly to end point (M=33.7 SD=15.18; p=0.003).|Group 1 Baseline vs. Endpoint||||<.05
84596824|NCT00241176|168946544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean (SD) CGI-Tic severity scores reduced significantly from (M=4.45 SD=0.52) (moderate-marked) at baseline to (M=3.18 SD =0.60) (mild) at end point ( p=0.004).|Mean scores baseline to endpoint||||<.05
84596825|NCT03206970|168946545|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<.0001
84616730|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Emotional)||||0.065
84616731|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Physical)||||0.014
84760096|NCT01888640|169276689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.9|0.0006
84596826|NCT03206970|168946549|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<0.0001
84596827|NCT03645421|168946554|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-42.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.47|-33.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-33.75|-50.47|<0.0001
84596828|NCT03645421|168946554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.04|-24.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-24.18|-43.04|<0.0001
84616732|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain||||0.128
84760097|NCT01888640|169276690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.01|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.01|-1.3|0.043
84760098|NCT01888640|169276690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.3|0.048
84596829|NCT03645421|168946554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.49|-31.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-31.12|-49.49|<0.0001
84596830|NCT03645421|168946555|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||0.47|-3.08|0.1476
84596831|NCT03645421|168946555|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.69|-4.37|0.0080
84596832|NCT03645421|168946555|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.74|-4.30|0.0063
84616733|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work/Driving/Social||||0.026
84616734|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Wellbeing||||0.077
84616735|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Discouragement||||0.007
84616736|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizure Worry||||0.063
84616737|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication Effects||||0.609
84616738|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Support||||0.626
84616739|NCT02178995|168982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Isolation||||0.103
84760099|NCT01888640|169276691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.0|0.036
84760100|NCT01888640|169276691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.4|<0.0001
84760101|NCT01888640|169276692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.5|-2.3|>0.99
84760102|NCT01888640|169276692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.3|-2.4|>0.99
84760103|NCT01888640|169276693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||4.1|-1.9|>0.99
84596833|NCT03645421|168946558|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.70|-1.48|<0.0001
84596834|NCT03645421|168946558|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.71|-1.49|<0.0001
84596835|NCT03645421|168946558|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
84760104|NCT01888640|169276693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||||5.3|-0.6|0.17
84760105|NCT01888640|169276694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||3.1|-0.7|0.36
84760106|NCT01888640|169276694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||2.8|-0.8|0.58
84760107|NCT01888640|169276695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|96.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||96|-58|>0.99
84502337|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.8|-5.6|0.008
84502338|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.9||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
84596836|NCT03645421|168946559|OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-39.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-39.09|-74.30|<0.0001
84616740|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
84616741|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.096
84760108|NCT01888640|169276695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|117.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||117|-34|>0.99
84760109|NCT01888640|169276696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.7|-0.2|0.96
84596837|NCT03645421|168946559|OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.53|-40.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-40.63|-80.53|<0.0001
84760110|NCT01888640|169276696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.0|0.1|0.008
84760111|NCT01888640|169276697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
84760112|NCT01888640|169276697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
84760113|NCT03389854|169276702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
84760114|NCT03389854|169276702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.90
84616742|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Variability 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.136
84616743|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.17
84616744|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.104
84616745|NCT02178995|168982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.661
84616746|NCT02178995|168982036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||ANOVA|||Variability ANOVA||||0.397
84760115|NCT03389854|169276703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
84760116|NCT03389854|169276703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.40
84760117|NCT03389854|169276704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.01
84760118|NCT03389854|169276704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.64
84760119|NCT03389854|169276705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.06
84760120|NCT03389854|169276705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.66
84760121|NCT03389854|169276706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84760122|NCT03389854|169276707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84760123|NCT03389854|169276708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84760124|NCT00606086|169276754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||||1.000
84760125|NCT02692495|169276763|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84760126|NCT00391222|169276766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||As defined in the protocol, the olanzapine arm was not included in the primary outcome comparison. Data on the olanzapine arm are presented in outcome measure 7.|Log Rank|||Comparison between risperidone LAI and placebo was performed using a log-rank test controlling for patient type at screening (acute or non-acute) and for geographic region. As recurrence rates at 9 months were assumed to be 45% for risperidone LAI and 68% for placebo, the study would have approximately 90% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 23% in recurrence rates of a mood episode if in Period III 100 patients were randomized to each of the 2 relevant treatment arms.||||0.057
84760127|NCT00391222|169276767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.005
84596838|NCT03645421|168946559|OTHER||LS mean difference|-55.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-35.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-35.86|-74.28|<0.0001
84596839|NCT03645421|168946560|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.047|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.047|-0.094|<0.0001
84596840|NCT03645421|168946560|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.030|-0.077|<0.0001
84596841|NCT03645421|168946560|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|-0.024|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.024|-0.074|0.0002
84596842|NCT00104416|168946572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.8|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.1|15.8|<0.0001
84760128|NCT00391222|169276767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
84596843|NCT01345929|168946650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.57||||||||14.57|2.31|
84596844|NCT01345929|168946651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.97||||||||13.97|1.95|
84596845|NCT00394329|168946652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96||Hochberg adjustment was applied to the p-value to account for each of three active group comparisons to the placebo group. The unadjusted p-value is 0.033.|Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.32|0.066
84596846|NCT02819297|168946662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84596847|NCT01407952|168946696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A intent to treat analysis was performed, using multiple imputation methods.||3.97|1.36|0.002
84596848|NCT01407952|168946696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.92||Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=17.37|Chi-squared|||||7.92|1.99|<0.01
84596849|NCT01407952|168946697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84596850|NCT01407952|168946698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
84596851|NCT01407952|168946699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom = 0.865||||||0.352
84596852|NCT01407952|168946700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.769
84596853|NCT01407952|168946701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=0.217||||||0.641
84596854|NCT01407952|168946702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=8.82||||||0.003
84596855|NCT01407952|168946703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=1.955||||||0.162
84596856|NCT01407952|168946704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84596857|NCT01407952|168946705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=14.743||||||<0.01
84596858|NCT01407952|168946706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84596859|NCT02027311|168946723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used to identify the factors related to the presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).||If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 4, total 26 experimental subjects and 26 control subjects was required to reject the null hypothesis that the means of the primary outcome values of experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.05
84596860|NCT02027311|168946724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|50.94||Logistic regression model were used in univariate and corrected multivariate analyses to identify the factors related to the primary outcome variables, such as, presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).|Regression, Logistic|||All the continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and dichotomous categorical variables was used and the Pearson chi-square with Fisher exact test. We used the linear mixed model to compare the differences of paired data, such as mean values of RR, SpO2, MAP, HR, and RSS at different time points of the two different sedation groups. For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||50.94|2.41|0.002
84596861|NCT03928418|168946725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.9||p-value comparing live call booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||4.9|2.1|<0.001
84502339|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-3.8|-8.6|<0.001
84502340|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.92|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 1 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 1. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84502341|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.87|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 2 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 2. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84596862|NCT03928418|168946725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.1||p-value comparing technology booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||5.1|2.2|<0.001
84596863|NCT03928418|168946726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|190.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.643|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||190.3|-117.5|0.643
84596864|NCT03928418|168946726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|132.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.711|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||132.9|-194.8|0.711
84596865|NCT03928418|168946727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.515|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||4.7|-9.3|0.515
84596866|NCT03928418|168946727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.801|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||6.4|-8.3|0.801
84596867|NCT03928418|168946728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|40.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||40.7|17.0|<0.001
84596868|NCT03928418|168946728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.8||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||36.8|13.0|<0.001
84596869|NCT03928418|168946729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.002|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm presented here.|||7.3|1.6|0.002
84596870|NCT03928418|168946729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.003|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm presented here.|||7.2|1.5|0.003
84596871|NCT03928418|168946731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.610.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||2.2|-3.8|0.610
84596872|NCT03928418|168946731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.474.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||1.9|-4.1|0.474
84596873|NCT00260832|168946764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary treatment comparison was based on two sided long-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk, ECOG performance status||||0.1079
84596874|NCT00260832|168946765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.78|||Fisher Exact|||||4.78|1.40|0.0011
84596875|NCT02993822|168946766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.49|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.49|0.88|0.324
84616747|NCT02178995|168982036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations ANOVA||||0.745
84616748|NCT02178995|168982036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg variability||||0.362
84760129|NCT00391222|169276768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.655
84502342|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-3.4||||0.0021||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 3 (Placebo=2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 3. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||0.0021
84502343|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.28|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 4 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 4. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84502344|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.64|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 5 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 5. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84502345|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.07|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 6 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 6. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84502346|NCT01244815|168755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.49|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 7 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 7. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
84596876|NCT02993822|168946766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.48|0.88|0.332
84596877|NCT02993822|168946766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.20|0.71|0.531
84616749|NCT02178995|168982036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg perseverations||||0.745
84616750|NCT02178995|168982037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||HRT ANOVA||||0.48
84616751|NCT02178995|168982037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.793
84760130|NCT00391222|169276768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.011
84596878|NCT02993822|168946767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.15|0.75|0.482
84596879|NCT02993822|168946767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.75|0.460
84596880|NCT02993822|168946767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.06|0.69|0.144
84596881|NCT02993822|168946768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.27|0.78|0.992
84596882|NCT02993822|168946768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.71|0.387
84596883|NCT02993822|168946768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.19|0.74|0.600
84596884|NCT02993822|168946769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.0|0.042
84596885|NCT02993822|168946769|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.1|0.026
84596886|NCT02993822|168946769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.5|0.003
84596887|NCT02993822|168946770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.7|-0.4|0.250
84596888|NCT02993822|168946770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.5|-0.5|0.325
84596889|NCT02993822|168946770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.2|0.1|0.029
84616752|NCT02178995|168982038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.5
84760131|NCT00391222|169276769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.2882
84760132|NCT00391222|169276769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
84596890|NCT02993822|168946771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.3|0.1|0.038
84596891|NCT02993822|168946771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|-0.2|0.118
84596892|NCT02993822|168946771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.2|0.025
84596893|NCT02993822|168946772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.9|-0.5|0.258
84596894|NCT02993822|168946772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.8|-0.5|0.243
84616753|NCT02178995|168982038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.075
84616754|NCT02178995|168982038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||HRT epilepsy vs healthy ANOVA||||0.2
84596895|NCT02993822|168946772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.8|0.4|0.009
84596896|NCT02993822|168946773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.5|-16.6|0.008
84596897|NCT02993822|168946773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-11.4|0.198
84616755|NCT00587158|168982039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
84616756|NCT00587158|168982040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4571
84616757|NCT00587158|168982041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2290
84616758|NCT00587158|168982042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.17
84616759|NCT00587158|168982042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.005
84616760|NCT00587158|168982042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||<0.0001
84616761|NCT00587158|168982042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.0004
84760133|NCT00391222|169276770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
84760134|NCT00391222|169276770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
84502347|NCT01244815|168755683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84502348|NCT01244815|168755683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
84616762|NCT00587158|168982043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.833
84616763|NCT00587158|168982043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.553
84502349|NCT01244815|168755683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
84502350|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||7.6|1.2|0.018
84502351|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||8.6|1.4|0.008
84502352|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||5.6|0.8|0.129
84502353|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.9|1.4|0.003
84502354|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.6|1.4|0.005
84502355|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||7.3|1.8|<0.001
84502356|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.1||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||4.1|1.1|0.018
84502357|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
84616764|NCT00587158|168982043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.035
84616765|NCT00587158|168982043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.171
84616766|NCT00587158|168982044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84616767|NCT00587158|168982045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84616768|NCT00587158|168982048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84616769|NCT00587158|168982049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84760135|NCT00391222|169276771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.480
84760136|NCT00391222|169276771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.001
84760137|NCT00531752|169276789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.7947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8848||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.649|3.2383||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2383|-1.649|0.6749
84760138|NCT00531752|169276789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0343||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.218|4.0533||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0533|-1.218|0.4886
84760139|NCT00531752|169276790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7713||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.262|3.3121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3121|-1.262|0.5643
84760140|NCT00531752|169276790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8777||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|4.3392|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.3392|-0.5100|0.3107
84502358|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6|||Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
84502359|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||3.4|1.0|0.042
84596898|NCT02993822|168946773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.1|-13.7|0.055
84596899|NCT02993822|168946774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.1|-16.3|0.026
84760141|NCT00531752|169276790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4638||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41601|4.2148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2148|0.41601|0.1196
84760142|NCT00531752|169276790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.649|3.3065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3065|-0.6490|0.3872
84760143|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.162|1.4971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4971|-1.162|0.8708
84760144|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0912||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44874|3.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2726|0.44874|0.0927
84760145|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9037||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3008|2.0329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.0329|-0.3008|0.3405
84502360|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.8|1.7|<0.001
84760146|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9622||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|1.4047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4047|-1.080|0.8665
84596900|NCT02993822|168946774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.3|-9.6|0.571
84596901|NCT02993822|168946774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.3|-15.2|0.043
84596902|NCT02993822|168946775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-19.7|0.006
84596903|NCT02993822|168946775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.8|-11.1|0.435
84596904|NCT02993822|168946775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.4|-17.4|0.022
84760147|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9694||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8694|1.6466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6466|-0.8694|0.6901
84616770|NCT00587158|168982050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84616771|NCT00587158|168982051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score \> 0 and \< 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||1.0
84616772|NCT00587158|168982051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with moderate to mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score greater than or equal to 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||0.04
84760148|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0114||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06498|2.6908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.6908|0.06498|0.1790
84760149|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7508||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.90156|2.8502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.8502|0.90156|0.0156
84502361|NCT01244815|168755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|5.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.3|1.6|<0.001
84596905|NCT02993822|168946776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.4|-15.3|0.103
84616773|NCT00571038|168982057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2417
84616774|NCT00571038|168982058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8586
84616775|NCT00571038|168982059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
84616776|NCT00571038|168982060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
84616777|NCT00571038|168982061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0438
84616778|NCT00571038|168982062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1418
84616779|NCT00571038|168982063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Pr \<= P||||||0.0070
84616780|NCT00571038|168982064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8395|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8395
84616781|NCT00571038|168982065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2194
84616782|NCT00571038|168982066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9191
84616783|NCT00571038|168982067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9633
84616784|NCT00571038|168982068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5901
84616785|NCT00571038|168982069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9820
84616786|NCT00571038|168982070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3979
84616787|NCT00571038|168982071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1471
84616788|NCT00571038|168982072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6123
84616789|NCT00571038|168982073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5861
84502362|NCT01244815|168755685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.05|-0.45|0.014
84502363|NCT01244815|168755685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.04|-0.37|0.107
84502364|NCT01244815|168755685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.01|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.01|-0.42|0.039
84502365|NCT01244815|168755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.10|-0.56|0.006
84502366|NCT01244815|168755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
84502367|NCT01244815|168755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.21|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.21|-0.67|<0.001
84502368|NCT01244815|168755687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.61|0.011
84502369|NCT01244815|168755687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
84502370|NCT01244815|168755687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
84502371|NCT01244815|168755688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
84502372|NCT01244815|168755688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
84502373|NCT01244815|168755688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.45|-1.03|<0.001
84502374|NCT01244815|168755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.15|-0.28|0.536
84502375|NCT01244815|168755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.19|-0.24|0.811
84760150|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7842||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.97559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.97559|-1.060|0.9573
84616790|NCT00571038|168982074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4489
84616791|NCT00571038|168982075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2527
84760151|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2517||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.462|1.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.7820|-1.462|0.8986
84596906|NCT02993822|168946776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.6|-10.6|0.546
84596907|NCT02993822|168946776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.7|-17.2|0.034
84596908|NCT02993822|168946777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-18.8|0.004
84596909|NCT02993822|168946777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.4|-11.5|0.282
84596910|NCT02993822|168946777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|4.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.3|-10.7|0.398
84596911|NCT02993822|168946778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.7|-18.3|0.019
84596912|NCT02993822|168946778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-13.7|0.170
84596913|NCT02993822|168946778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|4.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.5|-11.7|0.384
84616792|NCT00571038|168982076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7314
84616793|NCT00571038|168982077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9839
84596914|NCT02993822|168946779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-20.0|0.006
84596915|NCT02993822|168946779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.0|-13.0|0.222
84616794|NCT01284517|168982103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.176|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis (H0) assumes equal values between analysis groups in mean change from baseline in MADRS score, alternative hypothesis (HA) assumes unequal values between groups. Sample size determined by two-sample t-test. A mean difference of 3.25 units in change in MADRS score for the Lurasdone 20-120 mg arm over placebo with common standard deviation of 9 units was used. N=162 subjects per arm (total N=324) yields power of 90%. A 5% adjustment for drop-outs gives N=340, or N=170 per arm.||||0.176
84616795|NCT01284517|168982104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
84616796|NCT01284517|168982105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.992
84644583|NCT00329901|169024696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||2|-1|
84644584|NCT00329901|169024696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PT antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||1|-12|
84616797|NCT03838978|168982126|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis.|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Noninferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \>0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
84616798|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.00|-3.61|0.0505
84616799|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.77|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.77|-2.89|0.2493
84616800|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||-0.94|-4.95|0.0052
84616801|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||0.29|-3.62|0.0926
84616802|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||0.26|-3.06|0.0951
84616803|NCT02915978|168982133|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.63|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||1.63|-1.60|0.9866
84616804|NCT03559933|168982149|SUPERIORITY||Logistic regression model|95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.15|96.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject was accounted for.||The proportion of successful capture was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model accounting for subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject. The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the 98.75% two-sided confidence interval for the estimated percent diaphragm capture rate to the performance goal of 80%. If the lower bound was greater than 80%, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the endpoint was considered met.||96.66|93.15|0.0125
84616805|NCT00286429|168982188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.72|<0.001
84760152|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3437||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.071|2.4086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4086|-1.071|0.6204
84760153|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8742||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6421|1.6261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6261|-0.6421|0.5759
84760154|NCT00531752|169276795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9488||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3552|2.1051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1051|-0.3552|0.3603
84616806|NCT00286429|168982188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
84616807|NCT00286429|168982189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
84673090|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.66|0.0110
84502376|NCT01244815|168755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.28|-0.15|0.556
84502377|NCT01244815|168755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.00|-0.42|0.053
84502378|NCT01244815|168755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.40|0.094
84502379|NCT01244815|168755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.07|-0.36|0.178
84596916|NCT02993822|168946779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.3|-16.0|0.058
84596917|NCT02993822|168946780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.2|-18.9|0.027
84596918|NCT02993822|168946780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.2|-14.9|0.147
84596919|NCT02993822|168946780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-17.6|0.046
84596920|NCT02993822|168946781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-5.5|-19.5|<0.001
84596921|NCT02993822|168946781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.3|-12.4|0.114
84644585|NCT00329901|169024696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||3|-9|
84760155|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6664||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3659|5.6952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.6952|1.3659|0.0392
84502380|NCT01244815|168755691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.16|-0.33|0.506
84502381|NCT01244815|168755691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.43|0.131
84502382|NCT01244815|168755691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.09|-0.40|0.211
84596922|NCT02993822|168946781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.2|-13.7|0.056
84760156|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7848||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.6177|9.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.2512|4.6177|0.0003
84760157|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1861||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4544|7.1232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1232|1.4544|0.0547
84596923|NCT02993822|168946782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.0|-16.8|0.027
84596924|NCT02993822|168946782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.1|-11.3|0.357
84596925|NCT02993822|168946782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.8|-16.2|0.031
84596926|NCT02993822|168946783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.9|-19.2|0.008
84616808|NCT00286429|168982189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.20|-0.45|<0.001
84616809|NCT00286429|168982190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.31||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.31|-0.65|<0.001
84616810|NCT00286429|168982190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
84616811|NCT00286429|168982191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
84760158|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3261||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6655|8.6943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6943|2.6655|0.0176
84760159|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5085||0.775|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|3.9704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9704|-2.530|0.7750
84596927|NCT02993822|168946783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.9|-11.8|0.321
84502383|NCT01244815|168755692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.49|0.079
84760160|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6874||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.521|3.4357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.4357|-3.521|0.9874
84596928|NCT02993822|168946783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-16.0|0.047
84760161|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2268||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.513|2.2629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.2629|-3.513|0.7799
84502384|NCT01244815|168755692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.60|0.010
84596929|NCT02993822|168946784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.8|-18.4|0.018
84596930|NCT02993822|168946784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||6.4|-9.8|0.682
84596931|NCT02993822|168946784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-20.0|0.005
84616812|NCT00286429|168982191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
84616813|NCT00286429|168982192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.79|<0.001
84616814|NCT00286429|168982192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.33|-0.75|<0.001
84673091|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.36|0.7720
84760162|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3365||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08338|6.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1438|0.08338|0.1881
84596932|NCT02993822|168946785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
84760163|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9677||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8944|4.2094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2094|-0.8944|0.4032
84760164|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2314|8.6193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6193|3.2314|0.0059
84760165|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1098||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.643|3.8273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8273|-1.643|0.6067
84760166|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2424||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3709|7.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1860|1.3709|0.0614
84502385|NCT01244815|168755692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.46|0.139
84760167|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2086||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.584|2.1546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1546|-3.584|0.7476
84760168|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4396||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.499|1.8284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.8284|-4.499|0.5863
84760169|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.771|2.5593|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.5593|-2.771|0.9591
84760170|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2048||0.8442|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.294|2.4238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4238|-3.294|0.8442
84760171|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0533||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01391|5.3613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.3613|0.01391|0.1977
84760172|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2467||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.108|4.7375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.7375|-1.108|0.4235
84760173|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9753||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07015|5.2147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2147|0.07015|0.1882
84760174|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0376||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|3.8615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8615|-1.440|0.5555
84760175|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1934||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33169|6.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0292|0.33169|0.1533
84760176|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2662||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8912|4.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.9934|-0.8912|0.3697
84760177|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3939||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.352|4.8801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.8801|-1.352|0.4652
84760178|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5148||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.83|3.7058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.7058|-2.830|0.8626
84760179|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6168||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.6105|5.8122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.8122|1.6105|0.0261
84760180|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7026||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0533|4.4756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.4756|0.05330|0.1895
84760181|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0732||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.961|6.1913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1913|-1.961|0.4994
84673092|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.52|0.6311
84673093|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.50|0.6877
84760182|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3113||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8226|7.9458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.9458|-0.8226|0.2945
84760183|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9257||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.622|3.1613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1613|-4.622|0.8056
84502386|NCT01244815|168755693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.83|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.83|-4.38|0.004
84596933|NCT02993822|168946785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.134
84596934|NCT02993822|168946785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
84596935|NCT02993822|168946786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.401
84596936|NCT02993822|168946786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.175
84596937|NCT02993822|168946786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.126
84596938|NCT02993822|168946787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.002
84596939|NCT02993822|168946787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.144
84596940|NCT02993822|168946787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
84596941|NCT02993822|168946788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.158
84596942|NCT02993822|168946788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.597
84760184|NCT00531752|169276796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8657||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.725|8.4592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.4592|-1.725|0.3922
84760185|NCT00531752|169276797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.643|-0.3705|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3705|-2.643|0.0913
84760186|NCT00531752|169276797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9165||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.399|0.98326|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.98326|-1.399|0.8216
84760187|NCT00531752|169276798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6887||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.313|0.47668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.47668|-1.313|0.5466
84760188|NCT00531752|169276798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6772||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9035|0.85312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.85312|-0.9035|0.9705
84760189|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3001||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4892|0.29012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29012|-0.4892|0.7415
84760190|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3227||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3703|0.4664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46640|-0.3703|0.8822
84596943|NCT02993822|168946788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.124
84760191|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1302||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0439|0.29385|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29385|-0.0439|0.3414
84760192|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1418||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0793|0.28814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.28814|-0.0793|0.4642
84760193|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09093||0.5049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0571|0.17926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.17926|-0.0571|0.5049
84760194|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.051|0.2093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.20930|-0.0510|0.4332
84760195|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1753||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.473|-0.0177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0177|-0.4730|0.1678
84760196|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1925||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1726|0.32695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.32695|-0.1726|0.6901
84760197|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.587|1.9274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.9274|-1.587|0.9005
84760198|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4667||0.333|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|0.46937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46937|-3.333|0.3330
84760199|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0857||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.051|3.3584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3584|-2.051|0.7551
84760200|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2354||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.759|-1.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.968|-7.759|0.0334
84760201|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6119||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|6.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3281|-3.050|0.6519
84760202|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9647||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.941|6.3423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3423|-3.941|0.7631
84760203|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8206||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7227|6.5648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5648|-0.7227|0.3034
84760204|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0022||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.975|-1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.218|-8.975|0.0933
84760205|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9778||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.934|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.201|-8.934|0.0949
84760206|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2552||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-3.106|-11.55|0.0283
84760207|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5974||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.229|-0.0719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0719|-4.229|0.1852
84760208|NCT00531752|169276799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7732||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.823|-0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2127|-4.823|0.1623
84502387|NCT01244815|168755693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.39|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.39|-3.95|0.017
84596944|NCT02993822|168946789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.01
84596945|NCT02993822|168946789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.049
84596946|NCT02993822|168946789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.001
84596947|NCT02993822|168946790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.309
84596948|NCT02993822|168946790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.387
84596949|NCT02993822|168946790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
84596950|NCT02993822|168946791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
84596951|NCT02993822|168946791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.152
84644586|NCT00329901|169024696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||-2|-13|
84760209|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.5791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0449||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|11.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||11.860|-35.02|0.5241
84760210|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.3367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6995||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.89|5.2183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2183|-45.89|0.3065
84760211|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4438||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.15|5.5793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5793|-29.15|0.3831
84596952|NCT02993822|168946791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
84596953|NCT02993822|168946792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.100
84760212|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4478||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.8|5.5241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5241|-31.80|0.3657
84502388|NCT01244815|168755693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.38|-3.93|0.017
84596954|NCT02993822|168946792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.557
84596955|NCT02993822|168946792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.054
84502389|NCT01244815|168755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.79||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||1.04|-2.62|0.395
84596956|NCT01659996|168946864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup A and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.93||||||Meningococcal serogroup A: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||2.93|-3.11|
84596957|NCT01659996|168946864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup C and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.64||||||Meningococcal serogroup C: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.64|-0.84|
84596958|NCT01659996|168946864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup Y and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14||||||Meningococcal serogroup Y: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||5.14|0.14|
84596959|NCT01659996|168946864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup W-135 and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.67||||||Meningococcal serogroup W-135: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.67|-0.84|
84596960|NCT01659996|168946869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.06||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.06|0.852|
84596961|NCT01659996|168946869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.08||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.08|0.866|
84596962|NCT01659996|168946869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.31||||||Pertactin (PRN): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.31|0.937|
84760213|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5818||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.36|17.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||17.690|-12.36|0.8188
84760214|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.1011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.405||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0305|40.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||40.172|8.0305|0.0566
84596963|NCT01659996|168946870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.19||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT), with δ = 0.10.||3.19|-5.44|
84596964|NCT01659996|168946870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA), with δ = 0.10.||4.53|-2.54|
84596965|NCT01659996|168946870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.66||||||Pertactin (PRN) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN), with δ = 0.10.||3.66|-3.62|
84596966|NCT03206918|168946873|SUPERIORITY||2-side Clopper-Pearson|87.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.81|||Exact Binomial Test|The null hypothesis is ORR = 32%||||93.81|79.40|<0.0001
84596967|NCT03823287|168946887|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||2.5|-1.1|
84596968|NCT03823287|168946888|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||2.7|-1.2|
84596969|NCT03823287|168946890|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.1|-1.6|
84673094|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.58|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.15|0.2465
84760215|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7164||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.55|12.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.057|-10.55|0.9312
84760216|NCT00531752|169276800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4361||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.108|18.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||18.336|-6.108|0.5194
84596970|NCT03823287|168946890|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||12.7|-2.0|
84596971|NCT03823287|168946890|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.9|-6.6|
84596972|NCT03823287|168946890|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||5.4|-7.9|
84596973|NCT03823287|168946891|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||8.5|-3.2|
84596974|NCT03823287|168946896|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.8|-2.2|
84596975|NCT03823287|168946896|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||3.9|-4.6|
84616815|NCT00286429|168982193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
84616816|NCT00286429|168982193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.35|-0.79|<0.001
84616817|NCT00286429|168982194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||3.3|-25.9|0.128
84616818|NCT00286429|168982194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-1.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.2|-31.1|0.034
84616819|NCT00286429|168982195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||9.7|-17.9|0.563
84616820|NCT00286429|168982195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.7|-26.4|0.084
84616821|NCT00286429|168982196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-24.7|0.160
84616822|NCT00286429|168982196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-2.8|-32.1|0.020
84760217|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7573|0.10622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.10622|-0.7573|0.3320
84760218|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3871||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0769|0.92804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.92804|-0.0769|0.2767
84760219|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8887|0.1566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.15660|-0.8887|0.3675
84502390|NCT01244815|168755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.63|-4.26|0.009
84502391|NCT01244815|168755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.38|-3.27|0.121
84502392|NCT01244815|168755695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.45|-3.33|0.135
84596976|NCT03823287|168946896|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||6.4|-4.0|
84760220|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4372||0.8141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.46345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46345|-0.6700|0.8141
84596977|NCT03823287|168946897|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.6|-3.9|
84596978|NCT03823287|168946901|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||9.5|-3.6|
84596979|NCT03823287|168946903|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||6.6|-7.7|
84596980|NCT03823287|168946905|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||3.3|-4.2|
84596981|NCT03823287|168946913|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||0.8|-15.7|
84596982|NCT03823287|168946914|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.4|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.4|-7.4|
84596983|NCT00475085|168946942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.2||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 2 (palonosetron vs. granisetron)||0.200|-0.225|0.718
84596984|NCT00475085|168946942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.407||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 4 (adding dexamethasone)||0.407|-0.017|0.010
84596985|NCT00475085|168946942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.186||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 3 - Group 4 (aprepitant vs. prochlorperazine)||0.186|-0.236|0.557
84596986|NCT06899737|168946943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.55|-7.64|0.32
84596987|NCT06899737|168946944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|10.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.30|-1.94|0.18
84645297|NCT03123185|169026274|OTHER||Slope|0.7553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5736|0.937|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9370|0.5736|
84502393|NCT01244815|168755695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.19||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.30|-4.08|0.023
84596988|NCT06899737|168946945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.81|0.71
84502394|NCT01244815|168755695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.63|-3.20|0.189
84502395|NCT01244815|168755696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.02|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.02|1.56|0.002
84673095|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.36|0.1279
84673096|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.26|0.3946
84673097|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.23|0.6694
84673098|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.36|0.1113
84673099|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.13|0.5811
84502396|NCT01244815|168755696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|9.68|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||9.68|4.22|<0.001
84502397|NCT01244815|168755696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.91|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.91|2.31|<0.001
84502398|NCT01244815|168755697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.48|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.48|-0.00|0.050
84502399|NCT01244815|168755697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.35||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.59|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||3.59|-0.90|0.239
84502400|NCT01244815|168755697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.78||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.08|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||5.08|0.48|0.018
84760221|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3702||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6657|0.29495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29495|-0.6657|0.6186
84502401|NCT01244815|168755698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.62|0.15|0.001
84502402|NCT01244815|168755698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.18||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.41|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.41|-0.06|0.135
84502403|NCT01244815|168755698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.25||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.49|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.49|0.01|0.044
84596989|NCT06899737|168946946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.24|-0.03|0.32
84596990|NCT06899737|168946947|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|-0.82|0.91
84596991|NCT06899737|168946948|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.03|0.059
84596992|NCT06899737|168946949|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.71|-0.92|0.79
84596993|NCT06899737|168946950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.16|0.14
84596994|NCT06899737|168946951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.19|0.42
84596995|NCT06899737|168946952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.07|-0.40|0.37
84596996|NCT06899737|168946954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.51|-0.06|0.05
84596997|NCT06899737|168946955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.26|0.23
84596998|NCT06899737|168946956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-0.09|0.08
84596999|NCT06899737|168946957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.15|0.11
84597000|NCT06899737|168946958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.01|0.05
84597001|NCT03304054|168946980|OTHER|||||||0.2196||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.2196
84597002|NCT03304054|168946981|OTHER|||||||0.3736||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.3736
84616823|NCT00286429|168982197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.0|-33.7|0.013
84597003|NCT02150057|168947009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84616824|NCT00286429|168982197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.5|-34.5|0.011
84616825|NCT00286429|168982198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.3|-18.9|0.624
84645298|NCT03123185|169026275|OTHER||Slope|0.4651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1935|0.7368|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.7368|0.1935|
84597004|NCT01696994|168947051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.04|0.95|
84597005|NCT01696994|168947053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||Poisson regression|||||1.48|0.99|
84597006|NCT01696994|168947063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.54|.91|
84597007|NCT00335283|168947066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||7.59|1.28|.01
84597008|NCT00335283|168947066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.67|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment affect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||8.67|1.41|.006
84597009|NCT00335283|168947067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||2.70|0.38|.97
84597010|NCT00335283|168947067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||3.06|0.40|.84
84616826|NCT00286429|168982198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||13.8|-16.7|0.853
84597011|NCT00335283|168947068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.44||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||6.31|.95|.06
84597012|NCT00335283|168947068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|4.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.6|1.5|.007
84597013|NCT00335283|168947069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|13.2|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.2|2.02|.006
84597014|NCT00335283|168947069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|14.3|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||14.3|1.97|.001
84597015|NCT02516982|168947115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.994
84597016|NCT02516982|168947116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
84597017|NCT02516982|168947117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.008
84597018|NCT02516982|168947118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
84616827|NCT00286429|168982199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.9|-24.7|0.190
84673100|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.25|0.6794
84760222|NCT00531752|169276801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1597|0.88432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.88432|-0.1597|0.3720
84760223|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|18.565|31.591|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.591|18.565|<0.0001
84502404|NCT01427920|168755738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.25||||||95.0|0.04|0.46|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||FAS||0.46|0.04|
84597019|NCT02516982|168947119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001467|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0001467
84597020|NCT02516982|168947120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84597021|NCT02516982|168947121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.869
84597022|NCT01951586|168947135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.53|0.81|0.5157
84597023|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3759|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3759
84597024|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3666|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3666
84760224|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.6481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3551||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.711|22.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||22.585|8.7110|0.0049
84597025|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1917
84502405|NCT01427920|168755739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||PP||0.48|0.05|
84502406|NCT01427920|168755740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.13||||0.659||95.0|-0.44|0.69|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline FPG as covariate.||H0: D = 0.0% against HA: D ≠ 0.0%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.69|-0.44|0.659
84502407|NCT00054275|168755757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of pts with partial response|0.39||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||confidence interval for partial response|Confidence interval for partial response rate using Wilson's Method||||0.58|0.23|0.95
84597026|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3353|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3353
84597027|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3179|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3179
84597028|NCT01951586|168947136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1583|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1583
84597029|NCT01951586|168947137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3946|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3946
84597030|NCT01951586|168947137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3735|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3735
84597031|NCT01951586|168947138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.35|0.43|0.3491
84597032|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4760
84597033|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2582|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2582
84597034|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2230
84597035|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4329
84597036|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2620
84760225|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5248||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.196|0.94237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.94237|-8.196|0.3078
84760226|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8022||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2344|12.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.084|2.2344|0.0644
84760227|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1318||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49198|8.6281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6281|0.49198|0.1517
84597037|NCT01951586|168947139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2081
84597038|NCT01951586|168947140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4671|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4671
84597039|NCT01951586|168947140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4236
84597040|NCT01951586|168947141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.43|0.46|0.4654
84597041|NCT01951586|168947142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomized stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.43|0.78|0.7363
84597042|NCT00654745|168947248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-18.4|-21.5|<0.0001
84597043|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-10.3||24-hour mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.3|-12.2|<0.0001
84597044|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.5||daytime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.5|-12.9|<0.0001
84597045|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.0||nighttime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.0|-11.7|<0.0001
84597046|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-9.7||last 6 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.7|-12.2|<0.0001
84597047|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8||last 4 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
84597048|NCT00654745|168947249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-10.0||last 2 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.0|-13.1|<0.0001
84597049|NCT00654745|168947250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-18.9||daytime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-18.9|-22.6|<0.0001
84597050|NCT00654745|168947250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-16.6||nighttime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.6|-20.4|<0.0001
84597051|NCT00654745|168947250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-17.0||last 6 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.0|-20.7|<0.0001
84502408|NCT02444182|168755761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in Gingival index between probiotics and control groups||||0.015
84597052|NCT00654745|168947250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-17.1||last 4 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.1|-21.1|<0.0001
84597053|NCT00654745|168947250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4||last 2 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
84597054|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-8.6||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.6|-12.0|<0.0001
84597055|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.1||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.1|-19.8|<0.0001
84616828|NCT00286429|168982199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-25.8|0.154
84616829|NCT00286429|168982200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|2.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||2.3|-27.8|0.097
84616830|NCT00286429|168982200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-4.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.7|-35.1|0.010
84645299|NCT03123185|169026275|OTHER||Slope|0.6651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1385|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3679|0.9622|||Power model||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9622|0.3679|
84645300|NCT01545843|169026277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.202
84502409|NCT02444182|168755762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in plaque index between probiotics and control groups||||0.909
84502410|NCT01453374|168755768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84502411|NCT01453374|168755769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84597056|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-17.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.8|-22.2|<0.0001
84597057|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-21.7||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-21.7|-25.7|<0.0001
84597058|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-26.2||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-26.2|-30.8|<0.0001
84597059|NCT00654745|168947251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-28.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-28.8|-33.3|<0.0001
84597060|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-3.1|-5.1|<0.0001
84597061|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-7.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-7.1|-9.4|<0.0001
84597062|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-8.4||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.4|-10.9|<0.0001
84616831|NCT00286429|168982201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.2|-19.2|0.662
84616832|NCT00286429|168982201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.7|-33.4|0.030
84616833|NCT00286429|168982202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.551||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.063||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.063|0.286|0.075
84673101|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.14|0.6031
84502412|NCT01453374|168755770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84597063|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.9||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.9|-12.5|<0.0001
84597064|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-13.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.1|-15.7|<0.0001
84597065|NCT00654745|168947252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-13.6||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.6|-16.5|<0.0001
84502413|NCT01453374|168755776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.10
84616834|NCT00286429|168982202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.695||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.695|0.191|0.002
84502414|NCT01223196|168755778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in M/I. Statistical Analysis applies to (M/I) between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20), Chicago, IL, USA).||||0.04
84502415|NCT01223196|168755778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups.||||||0.05
84616835|NCT00286429|168982203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.619||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo arm. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.619|0.198|<0.001
84597066|NCT00924612|168947349|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|130.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0844||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.59|150.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model|ANOVA of a multicenter, 4 sequence, 5 treatment crossover model using ln-transformed data. Normal fat diet compared to fasting, very low fat, low fat, and high fat diets as part of the overall analysis. No adjustments for multiplicity made.|150.70|113.59|0.0025
84673102|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.24|0.6673
84616836|NCT00286429|168982203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.608||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.608|0.189|<0.001
84616837|NCT00286429|168982204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.443||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.443|-0.131|0.286
84616838|NCT00286429|168982204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.765||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.765|0.188|0.001
84616839|NCT00286429|168982205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.536||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.536|-0.132|0.236
84616840|NCT00286429|168982205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.712||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.712|0.032|0.032
84616841|NCT00286429|168982206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.554||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.554|-0.302|0.562
84760228|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3281||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.056|3.5789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.5789|-5.056|0.8252
84760229|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2203||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9082|-0.3375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3375|-0.9082|0.0063
84760230|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2303||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5283|0.06822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.06822|-0.5283|0.3217
84597067|NCT00924612|168947349|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|119.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||119.47|86.80|0.8494
84597068|NCT00924612|168947349|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|73.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.23|85.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||85.55|63.23|0.0013
84597069|NCT00924612|168947349|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|62.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|76.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||76.46|53.38|<0.0001
84597070|NCT03086408|168947350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-9.00|0.09
84597071|NCT03086408|168947351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-2.89|0.61
84673103|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.25|0.6472
84673104|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.26|0.8654
84760231|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0091|0.26716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.26716|-0.0091|0.2307
84597072|NCT03086408|168947352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-0.61|0.78
84597073|NCT03086408|168947353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.30|0.30
84597074|NCT03086408|168947354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.82|-8.62|0.98
84597075|NCT03086408|168947355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.84|-1.64|0.61
84597076|NCT03086408|168947356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|26.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.77|0.63|0.04
84597077|NCT03086408|168947357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-2.80|1
84597078|NCT03086408|168947358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.98|-2.38|0.82
84597079|NCT03086408|168947359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-5.29|0.37
84597080|NCT03636893|168947390|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing disease-free survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.884||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Disease-free survival analysis in intention-to-treat population. DFS defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastases, or death from any cause.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate DFS curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios.|1.884|0.597|0.842
84597081|NCT03636893|168947391|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing overall survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|2.036||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as overall survival was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Primary survival analysis comparing overall survival between neoadjuvant FLOT and SOX regimens in intention-to-treat population.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate survival curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios. Multivariable analysis performed to identify independent predictors.|2.036|0.595|0.759
84597082|NCT00758069|168947398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-34.2|-17.5||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-17.5|-34.2|<0.001
84597083|NCT00758069|168947398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-28.0|-11.1||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.1|-28.0|<0.001
84597084|NCT00758069|168947399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.6|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.9|-26.6|<0.001
84673105|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.48|0.2101
84597085|NCT00758069|168947399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-12.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-20.4|-5.4||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-5.4|-20.4|<0.001
84597086|NCT02277691|168947419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84597087|NCT02277691|168947419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84597088|NCT02277691|168947419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84597089|NCT02277691|168947419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
84673106|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.30|0.7128
84673107|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.27|0.3297
84673108|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.08|0.4493
84597090|NCT02277691|168947420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
84597091|NCT02277691|168947420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
84597092|NCT02277691|168947420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
84597093|NCT02277691|168947420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
84597094|NCT04343534|168947421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||"SDM Process score distributions were compared to determine of the scores spanned the range of possible values, were normally distributed, had low rates of missing data, and whether there was indications of floor or ceiling effects.~we conducted independent t-tests to determine if there were differences in SDM Process scores between the two versions."||0.33|-0.02|0.092
84597095|NCT01147250|168947433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||1.168|0.886|
84597096|NCT01147250|168947433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||Log Rank||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% CI. Superiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.0.||1.168|0.886|0.8542
84597097|NCT00842153|168947444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269||95.0||||P-value for Week 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1269
84597098|NCT00842153|168947444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 2|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84597099|NCT00842153|168947444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
84597100|NCT02091362|168947467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|1.11|<.001
84597101|NCT02091362|168947468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.66|<0.01
84597102|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.6|||Regression, Linear|||expected level of pain during procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||12.6|-13.7|0.94
84597103|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|13.2|||Regression, Linear|||after speculum insertion greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||13.2|-15.1|0.9
84597104|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|9.0|||Regression, Linear|||during paracervical block administration greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||9|-18.6|0.49
84597105|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|||after cervical dilation greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||-1.7|-28.3|0.03
84616842|NCT00286429|168982206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.616||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.616|-0.251|0.407
84616843|NCT00286429|168982207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.500|-0.344|0.716
84616844|NCT00286429|168982207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.583||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.583|-0.272|0.474
84616845|NCT00286429|168982208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.482||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.482|-0.324|0.700
84616846|NCT00286429|168982208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.450|-0.366|0.839
84616847|NCT00286429|168982209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.610|-0.045|0.091
84616848|NCT00286429|168982209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.457||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.457|-0.207|0.459
84673109|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.01|0.0717
84616849|NCT00286429|168982211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|100.682||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||100.682|1.589|0.016
84673110|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.02|0.1054
84502416|NCT01223196|168755779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
84616850|NCT00286429|168982211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.255||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|90.379||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level||90.379|1.401|0.023
84616851|NCT00286429|168982212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.047|16.305||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||16.305|2.047|<0.001
84616852|NCT00286429|168982212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|27.039||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||27.039|3.540|<0.001
84616853|NCT00286429|168982213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.579|4.53||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.530|1.579|<0.001
84616854|NCT00286429|168982213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|4.808||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.808|1.653|<0.001
84616855|NCT00286429|168982214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|6.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||6.060|1.651|<0.001
84616856|NCT00286429|168982214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.989|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|7.64||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||7.640|2.083|<0.001
84760232|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
84502417|NCT01223196|168755779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical Analysis applies toTNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor) alpha converting enzyme (TACE) activity between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Statistical analysis 2 also used 2-sided t-test similar to Statistical analysis -1||||<0.05
84616857|NCT00286429|168982215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|11.953||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.953|1.732|0.002
84760233|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8642||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.681|1.3549|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.3549|-8.681|0.3477
84502418|NCT01223196|168755780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in Heamoglobin A1c between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences Haemoglobin A1C between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
84502419|NCT01965535|168755793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in SVR12 rates between the 2 treatment groups was constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|A sample size of 75 subjects in each treatment group would provide 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in SVR12 rates (80% vs 95%) between the 2 treatment groups.||8.6|-5.9|
84502420|NCT02059187|168755825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MK-1293 was to be considered non-inferior to Lantus in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-treatment difference (MK-1293 minus Lantus) in least-squares (LS) means was below 0.4% based on a cLDA model.|Difference in least squares means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.12|
84502421|NCT02059187|168755826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.7||||||||13.7|-2.3|
84502422|NCT02059187|168755828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.5|
84502423|NCT02059187|168755829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.2||||||||14.2|-0.6|
84616858|NCT00286429|168982215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|12.052||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.052|1.740|0.002
84616859|NCT00286429|168982217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.24|-0.81|0.291
84502424|NCT02059187|168755830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.2|
84502425|NCT02059187|168755831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dofference in LS means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.02|
84502426|NCT02059187|168755832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.7|
84597106|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||immediately after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||18|-12.2|0.7
84502427|NCT02059187|168755833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.4||||||||4.4|-11.3|
84502428|NCT02059187|168755834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||11.6|-6.1|
84502429|NCT02059187|168755835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.5|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.3|
84502430|NCT03751020|168755836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-1.64|-11.03|<0.01
84597107|NCT00617097|168947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||30 min after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||8.8|-17|.52
84616860|NCT00286429|168982217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.32|-0.74|0.439
84502431|NCT03751020|168755837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-0.03|-0.62|0.03
84502432|NCT03751020|168755838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.47|-8.55|0.07
84597108|NCT00617097|168947486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||greater number is better (i.e., more satisfaction) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less satisfaction); maximum: 100 mm (greater satisfaction) Measured at end of study (i.e., upon clinic discharge)||||0.93
84502433|NCT03751020|168755839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||8.77|-6.48|0.73
84502434|NCT03751020|168755840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.24|-2.80|0.10
84502435|NCT03751020|168755841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||1.57|-1.19|0.76
84616861|NCT00286429|168982218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.55|-0.67|0.841
84616862|NCT00286429|168982218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
84616863|NCT00286429|168982219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.46|-0.81|0.586
84616864|NCT00286429|168982219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.37|-0.91|0.404
84616865|NCT00286429|168982220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.72|-0.62|0.874
84616866|NCT00286429|168982220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.65|-0.70|0.948
84616867|NCT01973413|168982221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level of 0.05, 90% power, required 48 nights of OCL and 48 control nights to detect a 20% improvement.|||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.037
84616868|NCT01973413|168982222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.340
84616869|NCT01746225|168982224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||0.12
84616870|NCT01746225|168982224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.03
84616871|NCT01746225|168982224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.20
84616872|NCT00999518|168982237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.35|-0.40|
84616873|NCT00999518|168982237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.68||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.68|-0.80|
84616874|NCT00999518|168982237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.83||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.83|-1.15|
84616875|NCT00999518|168982237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.47||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.47|-0.93|
84597109|NCT00617097|168947487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||greater number is worse (i.e., more symptoms)||||0.07
84597110|NCT00617097|168947488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||minor complications greater number is worse (i.e., more complications)||||1
84597111|NCT00617097|168947488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||serious complications||||0.15
84597112|NCT02565147|168947497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7505
84597113|NCT00286091|168947508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|Primary and secondary endpoint analyses were conducted hierarchically. To preserve an overall type I error rate of 0.05, a 0.0488 2-sided test of bone metastasis-free survival was performed. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was established, time to first bone metastasis was tested with a 2-sided significance level of 0.050. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was also established, overall survival time was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.050.||0.98|0.73|0.0284
84597114|NCT00286091|168947509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||0.98|0.71|0.0317
84597115|NCT00286091|168947510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.20|0.85|0.9125
84597116|NCT03423238|168947539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.388
84597117|NCT03423238|168947540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.017
84597118|NCT03423238|168947540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.002
84597119|NCT03423238|168947541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.653
84597120|NCT03423238|168947542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.684
84597121|NCT03423238|168947542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.458
84597122|NCT03423238|168947543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.550
84597123|NCT03423238|168947544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.973
84616876|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.683||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.683|0.259|
84616877|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|2.457||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.457|0.387|
84597124|NCT03423238|168947544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.432
84597125|NCT03423238|168947545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.23063
84597126|NCT03423238|168947546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
84597127|NCT03423238|168947546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.874
84597128|NCT03423238|168947547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.563
84597129|NCT03423238|168947548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.008
84597130|NCT03423238|168947548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.922
84597131|NCT03423238|168947549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.667
84597132|NCT03423238|168947550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.692
84597133|NCT03423238|168947550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.590
84597134|NCT03423238|168947551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.844
84597135|NCT03423238|168947552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.721
84597136|NCT03423238|168947552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.851
84597137|NCT03423238|168947553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.815
84597138|NCT03423238|168947554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.488
84597139|NCT03423238|168947554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.237
84597140|NCT03423238|168947555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
84597141|NCT03423238|168947556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.549
84597142|NCT03423238|168947556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.303
84597143|NCT03423238|168947557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.934
84597144|NCT03423238|168947558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.792
84597145|NCT03423238|168947558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.417
84597146|NCT03423238|168947559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.685
84597147|NCT03423238|168947560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
84597148|NCT03423238|168947560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.903
84597149|NCT03423238|168947561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.569
84597150|NCT03423238|168947562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.824
84597151|NCT03423238|168947562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.401
84597152|NCT03423238|168947563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.188
84597153|NCT03423238|168947564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.338
84597154|NCT03423238|168947564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.484
84597155|NCT03423238|168947565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.533
84597156|NCT03423238|168947566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.992
84597157|NCT03423238|168947566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.639
84616878|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
84616879|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
84760234|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0842||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.17|-0.5693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5693|-11.17|0.1565
84502436|NCT01889862|168755866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-973.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1204.19|-741.85||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 20mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-741.85|-1204.19|<0.0001
84502437|NCT01889862|168755866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-588.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.07|-346.94||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 40mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-346.94|-830.07|<0.0001
84502438|NCT00528879|168755872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014||0.0002||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84502439|NCT00528879|168755872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1016|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502440|NCT00528879|168755872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502441|NCT00528879|168755873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.774|<|0.0019||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0019
84502442|NCT00528879|168755873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.781|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502443|NCT00528879|168755873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84597158|NCT03745638|168947585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.556|11.923||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||11.923|3.556|< 0.0001
84597159|NCT03745638|168947585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.178|14.04||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||14.040|4.178|< 0.0001
84616880|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|1.96||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.960|0.202|
84760235|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9541||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-1.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.311|-11.55|0.1088
84502444|NCT00528879|168755874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502445|NCT00528879|168755874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502446|NCT00528879|168755874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3365|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502447|NCT00528879|168755875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1775||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.1775
84502448|NCT00528879|168755875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0275||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0275
84502449|NCT00528879|168755875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0062||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0062
84502450|NCT00528879|168755876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3515||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
84502451|NCT00528879|168755876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3022||0.0068||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
84597160|NCT03745638|168947586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.441|6.808||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.808|2.441|< 0.0001
84597161|NCT03745638|168947586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.145|8.831||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.831|3.145|< 0.0001
84616881|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|3.376||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.376|0.411|
84616882|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|3.414||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.414|0.438|
84597162|NCT03745638|168947587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.773|8.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.083|1.773|0.0002
84597163|NCT03745638|168947587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.931|13.22||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.220|2.931|< 0.0001
84597164|NCT03745638|168947588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|5.723||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||5.723|1.242|0.0081
84597165|NCT03745638|168947588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|6.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.083|1.334|0.0039
84597166|NCT03745638|168947589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|3.391||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.391|0.862|0.1421
84597167|NCT03745638|168947589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|3.665||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.665|0.949|0.0746
84597168|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|-27.32|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-27.32|-43.64|< 0.0001
84597169|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Method of Mean Difference]|-40.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.44|-32.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-32.13|-48.44|< 0.0001
84597170|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|-35.74|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.74|-54.28|< 0.0001
84597171|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-38.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-38.79|-57.30|< 0.0001
84673111|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|0.01|0.0408
84597172|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.95|-24.3||The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-24.30|-41.95|< 0.0001
84597173|NCT03745638|168947599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-30.72|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-30.72|-48.32|< 0.0001
84597174|NCT03745638|168947600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.62|-17.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-17.95|-32.62|< 0.0001
84597175|NCT03745638|168947600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.68|-23.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-23.06|-37.68|< 0.0001
84597176|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-0.91|-1.87|<0.0001
84597177|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.16|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.16|-2.11|<0.0001
84597178|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.15|-2.25|<0.0001
84597179|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.53|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.53|-2.63|<0.0001
84616883|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|2.335||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.335|0.259|
84616884|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.327||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.327|0.370|
84616885|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.749||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.749|0.427|
84616886|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
84616887|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
84616888|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.682||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.682|0.285|
84616889|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|4.006||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||4.006|0.466|
84616890|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|2.394||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.394|0.235|
84616891|NCT00999518|168982239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|3.168||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.168|0.356|
84616892|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.848|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.848|0.560|0.5731
84616893|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.656||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.980|0.689|0.2592
84616894|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9181||||1.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.417|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.417|0.452|1.045
84616895|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|2.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.997|0.569|0.5289
84616896|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.074|0.385|0.7930
84616897|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|2.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.892|0.471|0.7386
84616898|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.460|0.437|0.9354
84616899|NCT00999518|168982242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.899|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||1.899|0.341|0.6207
84616900|NCT00122369|168982274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||The impact of knowing or not knowing the diagnosis became so overwhelming and group composition with regard of whether and which result had been communicated changed daily in the post-biopsy follow-up, so that the originally planned analysis of the impact of Self-Hynotic Relaxation or Empathic Attention on cortisol measures became underpowered. Therefore we focused on the analysis of the impact of diagnosis.||||0.014
84616901|NCT00122369|168982274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
84616902|NCT00122369|168982274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
84616903|NCT00122369|168982275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||The null-hypothesis was that there would be no difference among groups.||||0.56
84616904|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
84616905|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||0.45
84616906|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
84616907|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
84616908|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.001
84616909|NCT00122369|168982287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
84616910|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
84502452|NCT00528879|168755876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3535||0.029||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
84502453|NCT00528879|168755877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
84597180|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.01|-2.20|<0.0001
84597181|NCT03745638|168947601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.40|-2.58|<0.0001
84597182|NCT03745638|168947603|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.74|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.74|-1.74|<0.0001
84597183|NCT03745638|168947603|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-1.13|-2.11|<0.0001
84597184|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.47|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.47|-2.60|0.0049
84597185|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-1.25|-3.37|<0.0001
84597186|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.15|-3.52|0.0001
84597187|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.67|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.67|-4.03|<0.0001
84597188|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.14|-3.93|0.0004
84597189|NCT03745638|168947606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.79|-4.57|<0.0001
84597190|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.35|0.0487
84597191|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.51|-2.84|0.0049
84597192|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.94|0.0128
84616911|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
84502454|NCT00528879|168755877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3745|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502455|NCT00528879|168755877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502456|NCT00528879|168755884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1109||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
84502457|NCT00528879|168755884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.0004||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
84502458|NCT00528879|168755884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84597193|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.62|-3.20|0.0037
84597194|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.65|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.65|-3.58|0.0048
84597195|NCT03745638|168947607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.84|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.84|-3.75|0.0020
84597196|NCT03745638|168947610|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.18|-4.07|<0.0001
84597197|NCT03745638|168947610|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-2.79|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.79|-4.67|<0.0001
84597198|NCT03745638|168947612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-3.80|-6.43|<0.0001
84597199|NCT03745638|168947612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-5.0|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-5.00|-7.62|<0.0001
84597200|NCT03745638|168947614|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.68|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.68|-4.85|<0.0001
84597201|NCT03745638|168947614|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.42|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-3.42|-5.56|<0.0001
84597202|NCT03745638|168947616|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-1.26|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.26|-5.29|0.0018
84597203|NCT03745638|168947616|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-0.13|-4.43|0.0378
84597204|NCT03745638|168947620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.632|11.018||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||11.018|3.632|<0.0001
84616912|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
84616913|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.024
84616914|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.018
84616915|NCT00122369|168982300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.73
84597205|NCT03745638|168947620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.755|15.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||15.083|4.755|<0.0001
84597206|NCT03745638|168947621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.15|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.15|1.59|0.0037
84616916|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between lots was within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the logarithm (log)10 transformation of the concentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.34|0.81|
84616917|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.49|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of theconcentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.49|0.95|
84597207|NCT03745638|168947621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|8.96|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.96|2.45|0.0006
84597208|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|1.65|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.65|-11.49|0.1417
84597209|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|4.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||4.77|-8.19|0.6037
84597210|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-5.12|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.12|-16.89|0.0003
84597211|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|-6.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.47|-17.98|<0.0001
84597212|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-7.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.81|-22.95|<0.0001
84616918|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.63|0.98|
84616919|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.85|1.18|
84760236|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1517||0.8627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.654|6.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0952|-4.654|0.8627
84597213|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|-5.01|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.01|-19.85|0.0011
84597214|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-6.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.29|-14.64|<0.0001
84597215|NCT03745638|168947622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-8.29|-16.60|<0.0001
84597216|NCT01104545|168947653|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/Fasted|||||
84597217|NCT01104545|168947654|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/fasted|||||
84597218|NCT02168062|168947675|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
84597219|NCT02168062|168947677|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Systolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.85
84597220|NCT02168062|168947677|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diastolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.10
84597221|NCT02168062|168947678|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weight measurement comparison||||0.70
84597222|NCT02168062|168947679|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage body fat measurement comparison||||0.11
84597223|NCT02168062|168947680|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Waist measurement comparison||||0.32
84597224|NCT02168062|168947681|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hemoglobin A1C measurement comparison||||0.70
84597225|NCT02168062|168947682|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insulin resistance score comparison||||0.46
84597226|NCT02168062|168947683|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cholesterol measurement comparison||||0.44
84597227|NCT02168062|168947683|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total low density lipid measurement comparison||||0.52
84597228|NCT02168062|168947683|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total high density lipid measurement comparison||||0.40
84597229|NCT02168062|168947683|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total triglyceride measurement comparison||||0.53
84597230|NCT02168062|168947684|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.38
84502459|NCT00528879|168755885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
84502460|NCT00528879|168755885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.762|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84502461|NCT00528879|168755885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.808|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84597231|NCT02168062|168947684|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate physical activity comparison||||0.979
84597232|NCT02168062|168947684|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate-Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.884
84597233|NCT02168062|168947684|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.678
84597234|NCT02168062|168947684|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total physical activity comparison||||0.464
84597235|NCT02168062|168947685|OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average MVPA Minutes per Day Comparison||||0.838
84597236|NCT02168062|168947686|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the lumbar spine comparison||||0.677
84597237|NCT02168062|168947686|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the femoral neck comparison||||0.493
84597238|NCT02168062|168947686|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density of the total hip comparison||||0.807
84597239|NCT02168062|168947687|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Serum 25-(OH) vitamin D level comparison||||0.403
84616920|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|0.94|
84597240|NCT02168062|168947688|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.385
84597241|NCT02168062|168947689|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Attention Function Index (AFI) Score Comparison||||.148
84597242|NCT02168062|168947690|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental Composite Score Comparison||||.077
84597243|NCT02168062|168947690|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Composite Score Comparison||||0.401
84760237|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8056||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.532|79.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||79.730|33.532|0.0024
84502462|NCT00528879|168755886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|Modified logistic regression|||||||
84502463|NCT00528879|168755886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8627|||||||Modified logistic regression|||||||0.8627
84502464|NCT00528879|168755886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0149||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0149
84597244|NCT02168062|168947691|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
84597245|NCT02168062|168947692|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.676
84597246|NCT02168062|168947693|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
84597247|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Total Score Comparison||||0.66
84597248|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Incontinence Score Comparison||||0.844
84597249|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Irriation Score Comparison||||0.175
84597250|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Bowel Function Score Comparison||||0.472
84597251|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Sexual Function Score Comparison||||0.405
84597252|NCT02168062|168947694|OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Hormonal Function Score Comparison||||0.749
84597253|NCT02168062|168947695|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue Scale Score Comparison||||0.907
84597254|NCT02168062|168947695|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy Scale Score Comparison||||0.792
84597255|NCT00182078|168947696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.017
84597256|NCT00182078|168947697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84597257|NCT00182078|168947698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.65
84597258|NCT01939977|168947747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Chi-squared|||"Taking per protocol population, the percentage of patients with iPTH\> 110 pg / ml at 6 months post-transplant treated with Paricalcitol was statistically lower than in patients treated with Calcifediol"||||0.0083
84597259|NCT01352221|168947775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
84597260|NCT01352221|168947779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
84597261|NCT01352221|168947780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|ANCOVA||||||1.43|< 0.0001
84597262|NCT01352221|168947791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
84760238|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.1543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.7622||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|24.831|73.478|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||73.478|24.831|0.0112
84760239|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0912||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.9105|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.929|6.9105|0.0008
84760240|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3037||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.1876|12.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.751|4.1876|0.0129
84760241|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4492|19.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||19.766|8.4492|0.0020
84760242|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5692||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4275|20.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||20.270|8.4275|0.0026
84760243|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4103||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.729|4.1309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.1309|-4.729|0.9305
84760244|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5839||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.36|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.050|-10.36|0.1178
84760245|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5231||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8124|5.7295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.7295|-0.8124|0.3339
84760246|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4493|8.2686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.2686|1.4493|0.0698
84760247|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1859||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5777|-0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0950|-0.5777|0.0762
84760248|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1913||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4075|0.08935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.08935|-0.4075|0.4096
84760249|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07751|0.3455|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.34550|0.07751|0.0455
84760250|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
84760251|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6662||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.513|6.5995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5995|-5.513|0.9078
84760252|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7892||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.403|4.0338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0338|-8.403|0.6502
84760253|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7234||0.809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.716|3.9101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9101|-5.716|0.8090
84760254|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8429||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.532|7.4025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.4025|-2.532|0.5282
84760255|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8604||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86393|49.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||49.782|0.86393|0.1848
84597263|NCT01352221|168947792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
84760256|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.4054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.481||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.134|75.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||75.677|25.134|0.0124
84502465|NCT00078819|168755887|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
84502466|NCT00078819|168755888|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
84502467|NCT00078819|168755889|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
84502468|NCT00078819|168755890|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|Two-sided van Elteren's test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
84502469|NCT00078819|168755891|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
84502470|NCT04133519|168755894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender||1.84|0.73|0.5352
84597264|NCT00281099|168947801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.21. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.21 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.21 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.139||||||96.3|1.139|1.59||There were 167 events by 90 subjects in the VVI 40 arm, compared to 188 events among 104 subjects in the MVP arm.|Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was used to account for multiple primary endpoints per subject.|4 interim analyses were performed \& the O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending function required a 96.3% confidence interval.|"This is a multiple events survival analysis, with time to first primary endpoint, time between successive endpoints, and time from last endpoint to last follow-up visit determined for each subject. The null hypothesis is that the mortality/ heart failure (HF) urgent care/HF hospitalization hazard rate for patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40."||1.590|1.139|
84645301|NCT01249118|169026291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.08|10.08|||||The 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) of test group (oral dose) means relative to reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking antilog of corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|Least squares (LS) mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||10.08|7.08|
84502471|NCT04133519|168755894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of the number of GDH responders being greater than the number of MR responders for abdominal pain intensity.|The final 4 weeks of the on-treatment period (weeks 9-12) was a pre-specified period for analysis of the primary endpoint measure of abdominal pain due to IBS. An abdominal pain intensity responder was defined as a participant whose daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the last 4 weeks of phase s (weeks 9 through 12) was at least 30% reduced compared with the daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks of phase 1.||2.87|1.08|0.0232
84502472|NCT04133519|168755894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.89||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of GDH being superior to MR.|"Abdominal pain scores were averaged each week on treatment (1-12) and compared with the average baseline abdominal pain score. Participants that recorded a \> 30% decrease in abdominal pain in at least half the weeks on treatment were considered responders.~This analysis was specified in FDA Guidance for Industry, Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment, May 2012. Both the analysis period and the responder threshold (30%) are specified by the FDA Guidance."|Among all subjects, 64.0% reported Adequate Relief and 67.7% reported overall satisfaction with Regulora.|2.89|1.07|0.0254
84502473|NCT04133519|168755895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.554|||ANOVA|||The least square (LS) mean difference between the GDH and MR groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||0.554|-0.434|0.8115
84502474|NCT04133519|168755896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.325|||ANOVA|||Average abdominal pain frequency at Week 13-16 will be statistically compared between GDH and comparator using an ANOVA model adjusted for gender and IBS subtype. The daily pain frequency measurement was derived from the daily pain intensity measurement. Days where severity was \>0 were considered a day with pain and were recorded as positive. Days with a score of 0 were days without pain. Mean represents the mean number of days in each time period with abdominal pain.||0.325|-0.236|0.7564
84502475|NCT04133519|168755897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||GDH:MR Relative Risk|A Stool Consistency Responder is defined as a \>=30% improvement in the proportion of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores that fall within Group 2 (normal stools)||1.81|0.76|0.4753
84502476|NCT04133519|168755898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-C participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||0.460|-0.301|0.6793
84502477|NCT04133519|168755898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.904|5.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-D participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||5.249|-4.904|0.9468
84502478|NCT04133519|168755899|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.602||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.282|3.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random The unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-participant correlation. The model-based least square (LS) means and LS mean differences (GDH minus comparator) and associated 95% CIs for each week and overall were estimated."||3.077|-6.282|0.5015
84502479|NCT04133519|168755900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.586||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|11.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to IBS defined as the percent time missed by not showing up for work, plus the percent time missed while working, and calculated as: Q2/(Q2+Q4)+\[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)\]."||11.790|-2.619|0.2117
84597265|NCT00281099|168947802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.241. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.241 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.241 was derived by using a non-inferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month HF event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||||95.0|1.029|1.381|||Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple HF events per subject.||This is a multiple events survival analysis, and so the time from randomization to first HF event, time between successive HF events, and time from last HF event to last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. Since non-inferiority analysis is intended to prove that one therapy is equivalent or superior to another therapy, the null hypothesis being tested is that the worsening HF hazard rate for patients with MVP programming is greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||1.381|1.029|
84597266|NCT00281099|168947803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interactions between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logits Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||A model with covariates for time and randomization arm was fit to test the null hypothesis that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. This analysis combined NYHA IV and Death into one category. The model included interaction terms for time and randomization arm.||||> 0.05
84616921|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|1.00|
84616922|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-16 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.02|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, one month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.02|-3.63|
84616923|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.94|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.94|-3.18|
84616924|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates for anti-HPV-16 was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.08|0.70|
84616925|NCT00250276|168982301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.97|0.66|
84616926|NCT03543137|168982325|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.02|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.02|0.88|
84616927|NCT03543137|168982326|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-inf fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.01|0.88|
84502480|NCT04133519|168755901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.372||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.793|7.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model: parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random||7.537|-2.793|0.3676
84502481|NCT00845026|168755912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiplicity. All treatment comparisons were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.184
84502482|NCT01749033|168755947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.76
84597267|NCT00281099|168947803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interaction terms between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logit Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||The null hypothesis for this analysis was the same as for the prior analysis: that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. In this analysis, however, death was considered a 5th category in addition to NYHA I-IV. An interaction term for time and randomization arm was also included.||||> 0.05
84597268|NCT00281099|168947804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates, the interaction between them included. Interaction shown to not be significant and model refit without it.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the followoing: LVEDD, LVESD, Septal Wall Thickness, and Posterior Wall Thickness; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
84597269|NCT00281099|168947805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: LV Ejection Fraction and LV Fractional Shortening; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
84597270|NCT00281099|168947806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was fit with time and arm as covariates.||"A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values for left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.0424
84597271|NCT00281099|168947806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||"Similar models were fit for left ventricle (LV) End Systolic Volume and Left Atrial Volume."||||>0.10
84616928|NCT03543137|168982331|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.04|0.90|
84616929|NCT01052077|168982333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as convariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
84616930|NCT01052077|168982334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.26|-0.69|0.3778
84616931|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.24||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||-0.24|-2.38|0.0162
84502483|NCT01749033|168755949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The reported p value was calculated.|We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.05
84597272|NCT00281099|168947807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0418||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values of Left Ventricular Sphericity Index over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.0418
84597273|NCT00281099|168947808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: TR Velocity, Mitral Inflow-peak E and Mitral Inflow-peak A; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
84616932|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.65||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||-0.65|-3.15|0.0031
84616933|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.58||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.58|-3.44|0.0061
84616934|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.72||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.72|-3.69|0.0038
84616935|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.32||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||-0.32|-3.32|0.0174
84616936|NCT01052077|168982335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
84616937|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||0.03|-0.21|0.1481
84616938|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||0.01|-0.28|0.0691
84616939|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.00|-0.35|0.0457
84616940|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.08|-0.45|0.0061
84616941|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||0.01|-0.38|0.0572
84502484|NCT03550794|168755981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.04||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing creatinine imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.04|-1.18|0.07
84502485|NCT03550794|168755982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.74||P-value from odds ratio from logistic regression model controlling for site, with outcome of receiving renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.18|0.34
84616942|NCT01052077|168982336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.1||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.10|-0.29|0.3318
84616943|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.69||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||1.69|-1.02|0.6272
84616944|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.54||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo||Week 10||1.54|-1.48|0.9697
84616945|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.44||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||1.44|-2.00|0.7490
84502486|NCT03550794|168755983|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|36.6||P-value from quantile regression model controlling for site.|Quantile regression|||||36.6|7.4|0.002
84616946|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.81||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||1.81|-1.94|0.9459
84616947|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||1.88|-1.91|0.9893
84616948|NCT01052077|168982337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.17||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.17|-1.89|0.8918
84616949|NCT01052077|168982338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.57||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.57|-1.71|0.3247
84502487|NCT03550794|168755984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.18||P-value from Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for site.|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.32|0.14
84502488|NCT03550794|168755985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.06||P-value from logistic regression model controlling for site|Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.17|0.07
84502489|NCT03550794|168755986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||1.30|0.71|0.79
84502490|NCT03550794|168755988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.58||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing SOFA imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.58|-3.63|0.16
84502491|NCT01864525|168755990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0216
84502492|NCT01864525|168755990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0499
84502493|NCT01864525|168755990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0339
84597274|NCT00281099|168947809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for Mitral Inflow - Deceleration time; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.9490
84597275|NCT00281099|168947810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: Left Atrial Area and Mitral Regurgitation Area; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
84597276|NCT00281099|168947811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8403||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Cumulative Logits Model|Because Composite Mitral Regurgitation Score was measured on the ordinal scale, a GEE cumulative logits model was fit.||"A General Estimating Equation (GEE) Cumulative Logits model was fit with Arm, Time, and their interaction as covariates in the model to test the hypothesis that patients with no pacing indication and MVP programming have different Mitral Regurgation over time than similar patients with VVI 40 programming. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.8403
84616950|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5616||||||Cohran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||||0.5616
84616951|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||||0.1900
84616952|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0501||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||||0.0501
84616953|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||||0.0137
84616954|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||||0.0711
84616955|NCT01052077|168982339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3438||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||||0.3438
84616956|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response rate|2.79||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||8.81|0.88|0.0679
84616957|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.78||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||3.14|1.01|0.0360
84616958|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.53||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.35|0.99|0.0521
84616959|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.93||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||2.86|1.31|0.0008
84616960|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.64||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.38|1.14|0.0074
84616961|NCT01052077|168982340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 14||2.08|1.03|0.0339
84616962|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.27||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||9.30|0.55|0.2404
84616963|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.04||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||4.98|0.83|0.0983
84616964|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.82|0.99|0.0496
84616965|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.12||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||3.46|1.31|0.0019
84616966|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.77||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.67|1.17|0.0068
84616967|NCT01052077|168982341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.71||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57||The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.57|1.14|0.0089
84616968|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 9||2.18|0.70|0.4605
84616969|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.2||||0.3267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 10||1.72|0.83|0.3267
84616970|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 11||1.80|1.05|0.0230
84616971|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.36||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 12||1.71|1.08|0.0105
84616972|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 13||1.58|1.01|0.0417
84673112|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|0.03|0.0233
84616973|NCT01052077|168982342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44||CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||1.44|0.91|0.2345
84616974|NCT03857542|168982365|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||22.7|7.7|<.0001
84616975|NCT03857542|168982366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||13.1|-0.1|0.0548
84616976|NCT03857542|168982367|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.9||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.2||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||12.2|-0.5|0.0693
84616977|NCT03857542|168982368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.2||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value; Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||5.2|2.9|<.0001
84760257|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0205||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9504|10.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.781|2.9504|0.0267
84616978|NCT03857542|168982369|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||16.3|3.5|0.0141
84616979|NCT03857542|168982370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
84616980|NCT03857542|168982371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.4||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.4|2.4|<.0001
84616981|NCT03857542|168982372|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||10.0|-2.3|0.2200
84616982|NCT03857542|168982373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.7|1.5|<.0001
84616983|NCT03857542|168982374|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||19.5|5.2|0.0141
84616984|NCT03857542|168982375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
84616985|NCT03857542|168982376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
84616986|NCT03857542|168982377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.4|0.0002
84616987|NCT01525615|168982378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.269||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time), log10 (baseline endurance time) by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.269|1.020|0.0209
84616988|NCT01525615|168982378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.213||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.213|0.973|0.1419
84616989|NCT01525615|168982378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.166||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.166|0.941|0.3970
84645302|NCT01249118|169026295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.43|56.94|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS means was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - t) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||56.94|41.43|
84645303|NCT01249118|169026297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.74|53.06|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - ∞) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||53.06|39.74|
84645304|NCT01063712|169026327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|||It is not a analysis of two groups. Only one group of patients was analyzed.||||<0.01
84645305|NCT01063712|169026328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|The analysis was made on the basis of the percentage of patients with completely regressed dilation.||It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.||||<0.01
84597277|NCT00281099|168947812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||||95.0|0.949|1.209|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which true VT/VF occurred) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within subject of days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of true VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (values less than one favor MVP) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.209|0.949|
84597278|NCT00281099|168947812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|-0.015||||||95.0|-0.015|0.033|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of true VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.033|-0.015|
84597279|NCT00281099|168947812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||||95.0|1.31|1.858|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which non-VT/VF detected by device as VT/VF) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within a subject for days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (MVP in numerator) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.858|1.310|
84597280|NCT00281099|168947812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|0.017||||||95.0|0.017|0.036|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.036|0.017|
84597281|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.7166||95.0|1.22|3.0||The threshold for significance was the one-sided upper confidence bound being less than 1.|Andersen-Gill model|||This analysis compared the hazard rates for clinically important AF (defined as a calendar day with \>20 hour of AT/AF as measured by the device). The null hypothesis was that this hazard rate for patients with MVP was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40. The pre-specified model had Arm as a covariate, and accounted for time to first event and time between successive events per subject.||3.0|1.22|0.7166
84597282|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.8||The threshold for significance was defined as the upper one-sided confidence bound being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis compared the percentage of days with \>20 hours of AT/AF as measured by the device(definition of clinically important AF) between arms. The null hypothesis was that this percentage of days for patients with MVP was equal or greater to that of patients with VVI 40.||0.8|-100|
84597283|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|A one-sided test was used.||This analysis tested the null hypothesis that the hazard rate for development of persistent AF(defined as 2 consecutive visits presenting with AT/AF, 7 consecutive days of 22 or more hours per day of AT/AF, or \< 7 such days due to a cardioversion) in patients with MVP and no pacing indication was equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40.||||0.325
84597284|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.145||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF through 6 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) through 6 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.145|0|
84597285|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.227||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 6 to 12 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 6 to 12 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.227|0|
84597286|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.261||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 12 to 24 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 12 to 24 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.261|0|
84597287|NCT00281099|168947813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.1|0.11||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 24 to 36 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 24 to 36 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.110|-0.1|
84645306|NCT04972630|169026335|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline control vs. intervention||||
84616990|NCT01525615|168982379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tretament ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.467||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Since the hierarchical testing chain has been broken, even though this treatment comparison is included as the 3rd one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain, this hypothesis test is descriptive only.||1.467|0.996|0.0552
84616991|NCT01525615|168982379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.475||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean, 95% confidence limits transformed from log10 to original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method. This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.475|0.995|0.0562
84616992|NCT01525615|168982379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.205||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.205|0.826|0.9822
84616993|NCT01525615|168982380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.336||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.|LSMean=Least square mean.|||0.336|0.133|<0.0001
84616994|NCT01525615|168982380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.309||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.309|0.105|<0.0001
84502494|NCT01864525|168755990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0450
84502495|NCT01864525|168755991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172||||||A priori significance was set at P\<0.05 for this hypothesis-driven auditory-perceptual variable. Main effect for drug is given above. For the main task effect, P=0.9602. For the interaction effect of drug\*task, P=0.1699.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical modeling tested for main effects of auditory-perceptual ratings for drug and task (sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings), and interaction effects of these variables. The summed scores, averaged across all participants, are provided separately for the sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings. Values range from 0 (no difference between baseline and post-test) to 3 (all three raters indicated that post-test sample was better (less tremor severity).||||0.7172
84502496|NCT01890785|168755992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.766||||||||0.766|0.655|
84502497|NCT01890785|168755992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|0.992||||||||0.992|0.849|
84502498|NCT01890785|168755993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.641|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|0.707||||||||0.707|0.582|
84616995|NCT01525615|168982380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.126|-0.072|0.5892
84616996|NCT01525615|168982381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.248||ANCOVA model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with categorical effects of treatment and (log10-transformed) baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo||1.248|1.015|0.0245
84616997|NCT01525615|168982381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.223|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.223|0.994|0.0655
84502499|NCT01890785|168755993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|0.912||||||||0.912|0.752|
84502500|NCT01890785|168755994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.004||||||||1.004|0.937|
84616998|NCT01525615|168982381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.132|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0||1.132|0.921|0.6912
84616999|NCT01525615|168982382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|1.37||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive||1.370|1.103|0.0002
84617000|NCT01525615|168982382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.362||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.362|1.095|0.0004
84617001|NCT01525615|168982382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.12|0.905|0.9062
84502501|NCT01890785|168755994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.977||||||||0.977|0.912|
84502502|NCT01890785|168755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|0.998||||||||0.998|0.945|
84502503|NCT01890785|168755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|0.997||||||||0.997|0.944|
84597288|NCT00281099|168947814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis rejected.|Log Rank|||Physicians recorded at each scheduled and unscheduled follow-up whether the subject had developed a Class I indication since their last visit. The time from randomization to Class I indication development or last visit if censored was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the hazard rate for time to development of a Class I pacing indication among patients with MVP programming was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.0053
84597289|NCT00281099|168947816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9791||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 6 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.9791
84597290|NCT00281099|168947816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8984||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 12 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 12 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.8984
84597291|NCT00281099|168947816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7144||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 24 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 24 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.7144
84597292|NCT00281099|168947816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5165||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 36 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 36 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.5165
84597293|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Physical Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0073
84597294|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2493||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Stability Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.2493
84597295|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7728||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Frequency Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.7728
84597296|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3082||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Burden Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.3082
84597297|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5422||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Total Symptom Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.5422
84645307|NCT04972630|169026335|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4 control vs. intervention||||
84617002|NCT01525615|168982383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.279||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.279|0.051|0.0049
84617003|NCT01525615|168982383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.316||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.316|0.088|0.0006
84617004|NCT01525615|168982383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.076||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.076|-0.151|0.5162
84617005|NCT01525615|168982384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.326||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.326|0.124|<0.0001
84617006|NCT01525615|168982384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.288||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.288|0.086|0.0003
84617007|NCT01525615|168982384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.137||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.137|-0.061|0.4541
84502504|NCT00065065|168755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.005||95.0|1.5|10.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.5|1.5|.005
84502505|NCT03033069|168756023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-5.99|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||MMRM analysis with an unstructured (UN) variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-2.19|-9.79|=0.0021
84502506|NCT03033069|168756023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||=|0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.22|-5.70|=0.3868
84617008|NCT01525615|168982385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.004|0.0468
84617009|NCT01525615|168982385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0180
84617010|NCT01525615|168982385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.6856
84617011|NCT01525615|168982386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0081
84617012|NCT01525615|168982386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0099
84617013|NCT01525615|168982386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.9626
84617014|NCT01525615|168982387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.000|-0.004|0.0598
84617015|NCT01525615|168982387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0218
84617016|NCT01525615|168982387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.003||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.003|-0.002|0.6549
84617017|NCT01525615|168982388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.224|0.116|<0.0001
84617018|NCT01525615|168982388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.239||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.239|0.129|<0.0001
84502507|NCT03033069|168756023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.92|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.92|-4.74|=0.6399
84597298|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0851||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Self-Efficacy Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0851
84597299|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Quality of Life Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0502
84597300|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Social Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0463
84597301|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0227
84597302|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0582||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Clinical Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0582
84597303|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all ten KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 24 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 24 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 24 month score.||||> 0.15
84597304|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all 10 KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in these analyses.||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 36 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 36 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 36 month score.||||> 0.15
84597305|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1399||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 12 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 12 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.1399
84597306|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3573||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 24 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 24 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 24 month score.||||0.3573
84597307|NCT00281099|168947817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5183||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in this analysis.||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 36 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 36 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 36 month score.||||0.5183
84597308|NCT00281099|168947818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.44. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.44 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.44 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month survival rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|1.26|1.75|||||This was a non-inferiority analysis, and so a one-sided 95% confidence interval was performed comparing the MVP arm to the VVI 40 arm.|The time from randomization to all cause mortality or last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the mortality hazard rate for patients with MVP programming was greater than that of patients with VVI40 programming.||1.75|1.26|
84597309|NCT01456195|168947820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.24|-0.72|<0.001
84597310|NCT01456195|168947820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.52||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.52|-1.00|<0.001
84597311|NCT01456195|168947821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.79||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|1.20|0.010
84597312|NCT01456195|168947821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.82||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.82|2.48|<0.001
84597313|NCT01456195|168947822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-4.6||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.6|-22.7|0.003
84597314|NCT01456195|168947822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-13.2|-31.4|<0.001
84597315|NCT01456195|168947823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|5.7||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.7|-63.2|0.100
84597316|NCT01456195|168947823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.5|5.5||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-65.5|0.096
84597317|NCT02908685|168947826|SUPERIORITY|This is the first end point and first family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.55||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.81|0.30|0.0156
84597318|NCT02908685|168947827|SUPERIORITY|This is the second end point and second family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model.The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.44||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald test|||||5.44|1.01|0.0469
84617019|NCT01525615|168982388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.04||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.040|-0.067|0.6105
84617020|NCT01525615|168982389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.300|0.192|<0.0001
84617021|NCT01525615|168982389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.328||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.328|0.218|<0.0001
84502508|NCT03033069|168756023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-1.2|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-1.20|-8.96|=0.0106
84597319|NCT02908685|168947828|SUPERIORITY|This is the third end point and third family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.62||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|0.55|0.0469
84597320|NCT02908685|168947829|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.58||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.69||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.69|-0.53|0.3902
84597321|NCT02908685|168947830|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|2.56||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|-6.67|0.3902
84597322|NCT02908685|168947831|SUPERIORITY|This is the sixth endpoint and the fifth family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.55||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.17||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.17|0.93|0.3902
84617022|NCT01525615|168982389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.027||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.027|-0.080|0.3236
84645308|NCT04972630|169026335|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
84597323|NCT02908685|168947832|SUPERIORITY|This is the seventh endpoint and the sixth family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald-test|||CGI Improved||2.74|0.70|0.3902
84597324|NCT02908685|168947833|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.93|||Wald test|||||3.93|1.02|0.0430
84597325|NCT02908685|168947835|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.64||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.47|-0.20|0.1328
84597326|NCT02908685|168947836|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.97||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.34|-0.40|0.1030
84597327|NCT02908685|168947837|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.62|0.05|0.0451
84597328|NCT02908685|168947838|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|0.01|0.0489
84597329|NCT02908685|168947839|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.16||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.14|0.18|0.0326
84597330|NCT02908685|168947840|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|2.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|-8.36|0.3029
84597331|NCT02908685|168947841|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.99|-2.42|0.4937
84597332|NCT02908685|168947842|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.35||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|7.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||7.80|-3.11|0.3967
84597333|NCT02908685|168947843|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.96||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|16.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||16.70|-10.78|0.6704
84597334|NCT02908685|168947844|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||5.45|-6.30|0.8856
84597335|NCT02908685|168947845|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.45||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||3.57|-0.68|0.1778
84597336|NCT02908685|168947846|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.83|||Wald-test|||CGI No Change or Improved||2.83|0.52|0.6636
84597337|NCT01691014|168947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.990
84597338|NCT01691014|168947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.586
84597339|NCT01691014|168947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.980
84597340|NCT01691014|168947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Baseline: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.945
84597341|NCT01691014|168947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.458
84597342|NCT01691014|168947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.896
84597343|NCT01691014|168947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.390
84597344|NCT05926544|168947879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.16|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.16|0.18|
84597345|NCT04683029|168947880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.8|-11.4|||MMRM model|||||-11.4|-13.8|< 0.001
84597346|NCT04683029|168947881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.3|-10.7||||||||-10.7|-13.3|
84597347|NCT04683029|168947882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.3||||||Week 24||0.3|0.0|
84597348|NCT04683029|168947882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.2||||||Week 52||0.2|0.0|
84597349|NCT04683029|168947883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|203.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.1|980.6||||||Week 24||980.6|42.1|
84597350|NCT04683029|168947883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|28.2|601.9||||||Week 52||601.9|28.2|
84597351|NCT04683029|168947884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.8|2.4||||||Week 24||2.4|-96.8|
84673113|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.09|0.3610
84673114|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.08|0.2358
84617023|NCT01525615|168982390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.305||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.305|0.196|<0.0001
84673115|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.16|0.9492
84617024|NCT01525615|168982390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.312||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.312|0.202|<0.0001
84597352|NCT04683029|168947884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|28.8||||||Week 52||28.8|-57.2|
84597353|NCT04683029|168947885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|1.6||||||Week 24||1.6|-1.7|
84597354|NCT04683029|168947885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.4|1.7||||||Week 52||1.7|-1.4|
84617025|NCT01525615|168982390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.047||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.047|-0.060|0.8156
84597355|NCT04683029|168947886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.27||||||Week 24||0.27|-0.44|
84597356|NCT04683029|168947886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.71||||||Week 52||0.71|-0.29|
84597357|NCT04683029|168947887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|-0.34||||||Week 24||-0.34|-3.81|
84617026|NCT02451943|168982453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.303|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.303|0.841|0.6945
84597358|NCT04683029|168947887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|2.42||||||Week 52||2.42|-2.13|
84597359|NCT04683029|168947888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-4.0||||||Week 24||-4.0|-5.7|
84597360|NCT04683029|168947888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-3.5||||||Week 52||-3.5|-5.1|
84597361|NCT04683029|168947889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4006|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5344|-0.2668||||||Week 24||-0.2668|-0.5344|
84597362|NCT04683029|168947889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2355|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.373|-0.098||||||Week 52||-0.0980|-0.3730|
84597363|NCT00066703|168947915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.855|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.855|0.602|.0002
84597364|NCT00066703|168947916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.804|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group for the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||.804|.548|<.0001
84597365|NCT00066703|168947917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|0.967|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.967|0.624|0.02
84617027|NCT02451943|168982454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.312|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.312|0.690|0.7618
84597366|NCT00066703|168947918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||1.22|0.79|0.84
84597367|NCT01696968|168947919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
84617028|NCT02451943|168982455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.502|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.502|1.009|0.0422
84617029|NCT02451943|168982461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.616||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.093|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.093|0.347|0.0934
84617030|NCT02451943|168982462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.413|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.413|0.892|0.3347
84617031|NCT03652181|168982466|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean QSM||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84617032|NCT03652181|168982467|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean DCEQP||||||0.3459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3459
84617033|NCT03652181|168982468|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 numbers||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84673116|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.28|0.4352
84617034|NCT00786799|168982496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist Hyperactivity subscale (ABC-H) score is the same for both groups.||||0.40
84617035|NCT03187119|168982501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|linear mixed model|||The reference group for this model is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan Group.||||0.42
84617036|NCT03187119|168982501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-14.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
84617037|NCT03187119|168982501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.89
84617038|NCT03187119|168982502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.31
84617039|NCT03187119|168982502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.73
84617040|NCT03187119|168982502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.92
84617041|NCT03187119|168982503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.06
84597368|NCT01696968|168947921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
84597369|NCT01696968|168947923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.98|
84597370|NCT01696968|168947927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
84597371|NCT01716039|168947991|OTHER|Comparing the change in the modified Baron score from baseline to week 18 between the treatment groups||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.758
84597372|NCT01716039|168947991|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84597373|NCT01716039|168947992|OTHER|||||||0.908||||||p-value for the overall treatment difference is based on an analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline UCEIS|ANCOVA|||||||0.908
84597374|NCT01668628|168947999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t-test: Comparison of baseline physical health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
84597375|NCT01668628|168947999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline mental health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
84597376|NCT01668628|168947999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline kidney disease component score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group||||0.008
84597377|NCT01668628|168947999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline BDI score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.157
84617042|NCT03187119|168982503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
84617043|NCT03187119|168982503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effects of group and time.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.33
84617044|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2-3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.002
84617045|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
84617046|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of prescription. Please see Analyses 1-2 for the main effects of time and group and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.69
84617047|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 5-7 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.37
84645309|NCT04972630|169026335|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
84597378|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108)=.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.92
84597379|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = .01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.92
84597380|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|F(1,108) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.61
84597381|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 6.75||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.01
84597382|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 3.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.05
84597383|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 9.53||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.003
84502509|NCT03033069|168756023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.24|||=|0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|-0.23|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-0.23|-8.26|=0.0384
84597384|NCT04925076|168948046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 2.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.12
84597385|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.78||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.38
84597386|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
84597387|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.70
84597388|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 3.87||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.05
84597389|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 5.18||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.03
84597390|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.14
84617048|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the prescription x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4 and 6 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.12
84617049|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x PAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference groups for this analysis is the 2x per day group.||||0.006
84597391|NCT04925076|168948047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 17.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||<.001
84597392|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.83
84597393|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.43||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.12
84597394|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 1.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.25
84597395|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.31||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.58
84502510|NCT02623426|168756037|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of baseline|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.56||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Methotrexate/Ozurdex). Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Methotrexate treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for Methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.56|1.19|<0.001
84597396|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.90
84597397|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = .004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
84597398|NCT04925076|168948048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.68
84597399|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.36
84597400|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 1.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.24
84597401|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
84597402|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
84597403|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 139.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||<.001
84597404|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.84
84597405|NCT04925076|168948049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.30||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.59
84597406|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.19||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.66
84597407|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.41
84597408|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.74||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
84597409|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.54||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.22
84597410|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.06
84597411|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.99
84597412|NCT04925076|168948050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.88||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.09
84645310|NCT04972630|169026336|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84617050|NCT03187119|168982504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x WAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||These analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is 2x per day group.||||0.006
84617051|NCT03187119|168982505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.18
84617052|NCT03187119|168982505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.71
84617053|NCT03187119|168982505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.96
84617054|NCT03187119|168982507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.74
84617055|NCT03187119|168982507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.83
84502511|NCT02623426|168756037|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|1.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Lucentis/Ozurdex) at 12 weeks. Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Lucentis treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.43|1.04|0.012
84597413|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.55
84597414|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.36
84597415|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.36
84597416|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.93||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.17
84617056|NCT03187119|168982507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
84617057|NCT03187119|168982508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.08
84617058|NCT03187119|168982508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.25
84617059|NCT03187119|168982508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
84617060|NCT01426958|168982517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|119.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.239|126.811||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||126.811|112.239|0.1009
84645311|NCT04972630|169026337|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645312|NCT04972630|169026338|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645313|NCT04972630|169026339|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645314|NCT04972630|169026340|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645315|NCT04972630|169026341|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645316|NCT04972630|169026342|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645317|NCT04972630|169026343|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645318|NCT04972630|169026344|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84645319|NCT04972630|169026345|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84597417|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.55
84597418|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.43
84597419|NCT04925076|168948051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.96||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.33
84645320|NCT04972630|169026346|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84597420|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.34
84597421|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.88
84597422|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.56
84597423|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.90
84597424|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.59||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.45
84597425|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.85
84597426|NCT04925076|168948052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.22||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.64
84597427|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.07||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.30
84597428|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.11
84597429|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
84597430|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.89
84597431|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.72||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.01
84597432|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.08
84597433|NCT04925076|168948053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.71||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.06
84597434|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.29
84502512|NCT02094937|168756038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.49||||||||2.49|0.31|
84597435|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.10
84645321|NCT04972630|169026347|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84502513|NCT02094937|168756038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.19||||||||2.19|0.28|
84502514|NCT02094937|168756039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.12||||||||4.12|0.90|
84502515|NCT02094937|168756039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.2||||||||3.20|0.66|
84502516|NCT00207714|168756093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Week 16 between combined golimumab groups and Placebo +MTX group. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25 % response in Placebo +MTX.||||0.010
84502517|NCT00207714|168756093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.056
84502518|NCT00207714|168756093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.281
84502519|NCT00207714|168756093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.119
84502520|NCT00207714|168756093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||<0.001
84502521|NCT00207714|168756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and combined golimumab groups.||||0.001
84502522|NCT00207714|168756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks||||0.006
84502523|NCT00207714|168756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||0.095
84502524|NCT00207714|168756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golibumab 100 mg every 4 weeks||||0.010
84502525|NCT00207714|168756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||<0.001
84502526|NCT02290028|168756100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 1 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 6 months) to the performance goal of 90.0%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 90.0%.||||<0.0001
84502527|NCT02290028|168756101|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 2 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing an observed proportion (rate of acceptable LV pacing thresholds at the permanently programmed pacing vector at 3 months) to 88%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the percentage of subjects with an acceptable LV pacing threshold in the permanently programmed pacing vector must be greater than 88.0%.||||=0.002
84502528|NCT02290028|168756102|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Primary endpoint 3 will be evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 5 years) to the performance goal of 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 92.5%|On September 24, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing Sentus Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
84502529|NCT01681771|168756137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis comparing PHQ-9 mean values at 9 weeks follow-up between the I-CBT and discussion group and adjusting for PHQ-9 values baseline||||||0.21
84502530|NCT00265083|168756138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. The sample size of 75 patients (pts) in placebo and 135 pts per active group will provide \>=99% power to detect a difference in ASAS 20 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ASAS 20 response of 10-27.5% in pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 32.5-45% in pts with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups I vs II or III.||||<0.001
84502531|NCT00265083|168756138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
84502532|NCT00265083|168756138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
84597436|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.47||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.49
84597437|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
84597438|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.13
84597439|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.82
84597440|NCT04925076|168948054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||0.02
84597441|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.32
84597442|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.99
84597443|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.83
84597444|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.75
84597445|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.62
84617061|NCT01426958|168982517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.837|117.006||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||117.006|103.837|0.0009
84597446|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.92
84597447|NCT04925076|168948055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.39
84597448|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.45||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.50
84597449|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.28
84597450|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
84597451|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.48||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.04
84597452|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.37||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.25
84597453|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.89
84597454|NCT04925076|168948056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.26
84597455|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.76
84617062|NCT01426958|168982517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|91.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.519|97.614||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||97.614|86.519|0.0004
84597456|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.09
84617063|NCT01426958|168982518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|104.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.681|112.002||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||112.002|96.681|0.0002
84617064|NCT01426958|168982518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|105.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.425|114.53||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||114.530|96.425|0.0012
84617065|NCT01426958|168982518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.328|106.61||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||106.610|93.328|0.0000
84502533|NCT00265083|168756139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
84502534|NCT00265083|168756139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
84502535|NCT00265083|168756139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
84502536|NCT00265083|168756140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASFI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
84502537|NCT00265083|168756140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
84502538|NCT00265083|168756140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
84502539|NCT00265083|168756141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASMI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||0.288
84502540|NCT00265083|168756141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group II and Group I.||||0.444
84502541|NCT00265083|168756141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group III and Group I.||||0.247
84502542|NCT04378010|168756184|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.479|7.239|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||7.239|-3.479|0.454
84502543|NCT04378010|168756184|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.458|4.579|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||4.579|-5.458|0.848
84502544|NCT04378010|168756195|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.342|2.906|||ANCOVA|||||2.906|-26.342|0.114
84502545|NCT04378010|168756195|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.879||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.723|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.200|-24.723|0.099
84502546|NCT04378010|168756196|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.736|||ANCOVA|||||1.736|0.365|0.003
84502547|NCT04378010|168756196|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.216|||ANCOVA|||||1.216|-0.035|0.064
84502548|NCT04378010|168756200|OTHER||LS mean difference|12.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.472||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|25.363|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.363|0.608|0.040
84502549|NCT04378010|168756200|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.724||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.997|19.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||19.418|-4.997|0.242
84502550|NCT01928446|168756236|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55|||Log Rank|||Model1 - Treatment only: unadjusted for other covariates||1.55|0.77|0.61
84502551|NCT01928446|168756236|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Log Rank|||Model2 - Treatment only: unadjusted with Site as random Effect||1.53|0.76|0.67
84502552|NCT01928446|168756237|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Log Rank|||||3.64|0.61|0.37
84502553|NCT01928446|168756238|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.69|||Log Rank|||Model 5: Non-fatal self-directed violence subgroup||2.69|0.48|0.77
84502554|NCT01928446|168756238|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||Log Rank|||Model 6: Interrupted self-directed violence subgroup||3.43|0.75|0.22
84502555|NCT01928446|168756238|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||Log Rank|||Model 7: Hospitalization to prevent suicide||1.45|0.58|0.71
84645322|NCT04972630|169026348|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
84597457|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.76
84502556|NCT00325403|168756294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|23.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.0||P-Value|ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 2:1 between oral treprostinil and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 195 subjects with access to 0.25 mg tablets at randomization would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.01 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline to Week 12 in distance traversed during the 6-minute walk, assuming a true underlying treatment difference of 45 meters with a SD of 75 meters in both treatment groups.||41|4|0.0125
84597458|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.77
84597459|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.52
84617066|NCT01426958|168982519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|118.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.712|125.822||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||125.822|111.712|0.0702
84617067|NCT01426958|168982519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.936|116.913||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||116.913|104.936|0.0005
84617068|NCT01426958|168982519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.928|98.341||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||98.341|86.928|0.0003
84617069|NCT02968368|168982520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.93|||ANCOVA|||||0.930|0.102|0.0149
84617070|NCT02968368|168982525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|60.992|||ANCOVA|||||60.992|17.070|0.0006
84617071|NCT02968368|168982528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.928|7.001|||ANCOVA|||||7.001|1.928|0.0007
84617072|NCT02968368|168982529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|3.261|||ANCOVA|||||3.261|0.457|0.0098
84617073|NCT00040443|168982532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84617074|NCT03393494|168982535|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|112.2|||Fieller's method|||||112.2|97.8|
84617075|NCT03393494|168982536|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|104.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|108.5|||Fieller's method|||||108.5|94.1|0.05
84617076|NCT01526213|168982539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean AUC Ratio (GFJ/mGFJ)|0.96||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For juice comparisons, fexofenadine + furanocoumarin-free grapefruit juice will be the test agent (numerator) and fexofenadine + grapefruit juice will be the reference standard (denominator).||1.5|0.4|0.78
84617077|NCT01521507|168982546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|z-statistic|p-value was based on z-statistic of the sum of weighted average of difference in scores between groups at each site divided by the sum of the weights.||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total meibomian gland scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Primary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 24 subjects per group with a power of 90% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||<0.0001
84617078|NCT01521507|168982546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0020
84502557|NCT00325403|168756295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|-2|0.0653
84502558|NCT00325403|168756296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|1|0.0307
84617079|NCT01521507|168982547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stage 2 Primary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Primary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total meibomian gland score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.9098
84645323|NCT04972630|169026348|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
84645324|NCT04972630|169026348|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
84645325|NCT04972630|169026348|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
84502559|NCT00325403|168756297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|12.0||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|0|0.0518
84502560|NCT00325403|168756298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84597460|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.007||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.93
84597461|NCT04925076|168948057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.42
84597462|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.44
84597463|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
84597464|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.06
84597465|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.13||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.73
84597466|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.047
84617080|NCT01521507|168982548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total OSDI scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Secondary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 84 per group with a power of 80% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||0.0068
84597467|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.97
84597468|NCT04925076|168948058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.82
84597469|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.57||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||0.45
84617081|NCT01521507|168982548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0419
84597470|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.59
84597471|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.07
84597472|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.26||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.61
84597473|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.82
84502561|NCT00325403|168756299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||"In cases where the value corresponding to overall poorest relative change was imputed for walk distance, a value of IV was used for the WHO functional classification for PAH."|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The values for the estimated parameter and 95% confidence interval were calculated.|||0|0|0.7380
84502562|NCT00325403|168756300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0|-1|0.4887
84502563|NCT00325403|168756301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||||1|0|0.6116
84502564|NCT00325403|168756303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|26.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|49.0|||ANCOVA|||||49|1|0.0326
84502565|NCT00325403|168756304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|16.0||||0.2275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|47.0|||ANCOVA|||||47|-15|0.2275
84502566|NCT00325403|168756305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|32.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55|10|0.0024
84502567|NCT00325403|168756306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|25.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||||41|10|0.0001
84502568|NCT00325403|168756307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|3|0.0025
84502569|NCT00325403|168756308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0|||ANCOVA|||||34|7|0.0008
84502570|NCT00325403|168756309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|14.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.0|||ANCOVA|||||25|3.9|0.0025
84502571|NCT01663714|168756335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with unconfirmed response.|||100|100|
84502572|NCT01663714|168756336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||100|100|
84502573|NCT00597584|168756357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study has been determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.05|
84502574|NCT00597584|168756358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.24|0.50|
84502575|NCT00597584|168756359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|0.87|
84502576|NCT01677910|168756372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.337|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.337|-1.283|< 0.001
84502577|NCT01677910|168756372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|-0.374|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.374|-1.292|< 0.001
84502578|NCT04991311|168756415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|398.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|581.6|=|0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|814.4|||Paired t-test (2-sided, alpha=0.05)|||The participants in both comparison groups are the same.||814.4|-17.6|= 0.0585
84502579|NCT00755937|168756443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|66.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502580|NCT00755937|168756444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage (no inferential test)|72.5||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502581|NCT00755937|168756445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502582|NCT00755937|168756446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|60.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502583|NCT00755937|168756447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|64.8||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502584|NCT00755937|168756448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
84502585|NCT03547531|168756477|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test||Null hypothesis: the mean of plaque index between groups are not different|the statistical analysis used in this study is independent t-test|||>0.05
84502586|NCT03547531|168756478|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||>0.05
84502587|NCT03547531|168756479|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of plaque index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
84502588|NCT03547531|168756480|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
84502589|NCT03944707|168756481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0698||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.119||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.119|-0.060|0.6643
84502590|NCT03944707|168756485|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.18|-0.35|0.6609
84502591|NCT03944707|168756486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.0|9.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean morning PEF||9.1|-9.0|0.5107
84502592|NCT03944707|168756486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.2|8.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean evening PEF||8.1|-15.2|0.3611
84645326|NCT04972630|169026349|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
84597474|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.63
84597475|NCT04925076|168948059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.55
84597476|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.57
84597477|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.14
84502593|NCT03944707|168756487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1588||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|0.071||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.071|-0.336|0.8022
84502594|NCT03944707|168756488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1573||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.251|0.149||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in daytime asthma symptom score||0.149|-0.251|0.6312
84502595|NCT03944707|168756488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0819||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.028|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in nighttime asthma symptom score||0.180|-0.028|0.1752
84597478|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.69
84617082|NCT01521507|168982549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total OSDI score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.0237
84502596|NCT04126733|168756522|EQUIVALENCE|H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \>5% The hypothesis was tested by a one-sided exact binomial test, assuming a background response rate for the combination to be at most 5%.|Rate|7.1||||0.2721||95.0|2.4|15.9||The target response rate for the combination treatment was 17%. Using a one-sided exact binomial test at a type-I error of at most 2.5% at least 8 responders out of the 70 patients were needed to achieve significance.|Exact Binomial Test|||||15.9|2.4|0.2721
84502597|NCT02555618|168756534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.983|11.415|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||11.415|-7.983|
84597479|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.92||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.34
84597480|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.16||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||0.29
84502598|NCT02555618|168756534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.974|4.403|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||4.403|-13.974|
84502599|NCT02555618|168756534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.082|11.32|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||11.320|-6.082|
84502600|NCT02555618|168756535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7984|1.2253|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2253|0.7984|
84502601|NCT02555618|168756535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5544|1.05|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0500|0.5544|
84502602|NCT02555618|168756535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8134|1.3931|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3931|0.8134|
84502603|NCT02555618|168756538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|16.348||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||16.348|-3.020|
84502604|NCT02555618|168756538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.282|0.901||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||0.901|-18.282|
84597481|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
84597482|NCT04925076|168948060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.65||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.11
84597483|NCT01460875|168948085|NON_INFERIORITY|The method to be developed will allow us to declare that a response at a lower dose is not inferior to that at the standard dose for a particular patient, using a patient specific inferiority test.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.22
84597484|NCT05791565|168948108|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0221|1.3185|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.3185|1.0221|
84597485|NCT05791565|168948109|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.4081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2998|1.5255|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5255|1.2998|
84597486|NCT05791565|168948110|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2793|1.507|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5070|1.2793|
84597487|NCT05791565|168948111|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1816|1.4614|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.4614|1.1816|
84645327|NCT04972630|169026349|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
84502605|NCT02555618|168756538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.461|6.835||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||6.835|-11.461|
84502606|NCT02555618|168756539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9559|1.1473|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.1473|0.9559|
84597488|NCT01814878|168948165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study drug treatment group was considered non-inferior to comparator treatment group, if lower limit of the confidence interval was larger than -2.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.68||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.93||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||Non-inferiority comparison for Tramadol Hydrochloride/Acetaminophen ER to Tramadol HCl/Acetaminophen IR was performed.||1.93|-11.29|0.1648
84597489|NCT01814878|168948166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.45||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.45|-1.10|0.4082
84597490|NCT01814878|168948166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.48||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.48|-2.68|0.1720
84502607|NCT02555618|168756539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7862|1.0241|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0241|0.7862|
84502608|NCT02555618|168756539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9273|1.0364|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.0364|0.9273|
84502609|NCT02555618|168756542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.489|23.577||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||23.577|5.489|
84597491|NCT01814878|168948166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|0.11||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.11|-6.09|0.0589
84597492|NCT01814878|168948167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1542
84597493|NCT01814878|168948167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0714||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0714
84597494|NCT01814878|168948167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1147
84645328|NCT04972630|169026349|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
84597495|NCT01814878|168948167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2209||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2209
84597496|NCT01814878|168948168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1498||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1498
84617083|NCT00413218|168982563|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified noninferiority margin (NIM) value of -15%. If the lower bound were greater than -15%, isavuconazole would be declared as noninferior to caspofungin.|Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.8|-19.9|
84597497|NCT01814878|168948168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0485||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0485
84597498|NCT01814878|168948168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0404
84597499|NCT01814878|168948168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1210
84597500|NCT01814878|168948169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4216
84597501|NCT01814878|168948170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1000
84597502|NCT01814878|168948171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3255||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3255
84597503|NCT01814878|168948172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848||||||Day 3: P-value was calculated using student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2848
84597504|NCT03818607|168948186|NON_INFERIORITY|The clinical similarity of the Week 27 LDH between treatments was assessed by comparing the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence interval (CI) limit for the geometric mean ratio of LDH at Week 27 between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a non-inferiority margin of 2.873.|Geometric LS mean ratio (GMR)|1.0628|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1576||||||||1.1576||
84617084|NCT00413218|168982564|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||6.8|-12.2|
84597505|NCT03818607|168948187|OTHER|The clinical similarity of the AUEC between treatments was assessed by comparing 2-sided 90% CI for the GMR of the time-adjusted AUEC of LDH (Week 13 to Week 27, Week 39 to Week 53, and Week 65 to Week 79) between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a similarity margin of (0.77, 1.30).|GMR|0.9812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9403|1.0239||||||||1.0239|0.9403|
84597506|NCT03818607|168948195|OTHER||GMR|1.0314|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1201||||||||1.1201||
84597507|NCT03818607|168948198|OTHER||GMR|0.9122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7586|1.0968||||||Total PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.0968|0.7586|
84597508|NCT03818607|168948198|OTHER||GMR|0.9508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7454|1.213||||||Unbound PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.2130|0.7454|
84597509|NCT03249909|168948222|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the change in exudate status (Decrease, Equal/Unchanged, Increase) from baseline to 4 weeks in the treatment groups with the two-sided Sign test on the Intent To Treat (ITT) population at 95% confidence interval.||||||0.0019|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0019
84597510|NCT00935493|168948238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84597511|NCT00935493|168948238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
84597512|NCT00935493|168948239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
84597513|NCT00935493|168948239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
84597514|NCT00935493|168948240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
84597515|NCT00935493|168948240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
84597516|NCT00923351|168948262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
84597517|NCT00940290|168948265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||After reading the clinical practice guideline, the median response from the four groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic||||0.007
84597518|NCT02443116|168948272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-12.09|-5.59||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-5.59|-12.09|<0.001
84597519|NCT02443116|168948272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-14.39|-7.74||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-7.74|-14.39|<0.001
84597520|NCT02443116|168948272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.112|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.11|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||0.67|-5.11|0.112
84617085|NCT00413218|168982565|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-19.9|
84645329|NCT04972630|169026349|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
84617086|NCT00413218|168982565|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.2|-15.00|
84617087|NCT00413218|168982566|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.9|-15.4|
84617088|NCT00413218|168982566|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.5|-15.8|
84617089|NCT00413218|168982566|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|8.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||8.3|-9.1|
84617090|NCT00413218|168982566|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|3.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||3.6|-15.3|
84617091|NCT00413218|168982567|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.0|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-7.0|-22.7|
84617092|NCT00413218|168982567|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-8.4|-23.5|
84617093|NCT00413218|168982567|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||9.6|-8.1|
84617094|NCT00413218|168982567|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.3|-14.7|
84617095|NCT00413218|168982568|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-2.5|-20.4|
84617096|NCT00413218|168982568|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.4|-16.5|
84760258|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.0855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1677||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9787|12.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.192|3.9787|0.0134
84617097|NCT00413218|168982569|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-20.3|
84617098|NCT00413218|168982569|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.1|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||0.1|-16.3|
84617099|NCT00413218|168982570|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 14. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||8.9|-3.8|
84760259|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7993||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.5949|14.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.453|4.5949|0.0152
84617100|NCT00413218|168982570|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.0||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 56. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||10.0|-7.1|
84617101|NCT01843023|168982582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.558|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84617102|NCT01843023|168982584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84617103|NCT00587678|168982591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.32
84617104|NCT00587678|168982591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.01
84617105|NCT00587678|168982592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.31
84597521|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-2.99|-8.48|<0.0001
84597522|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|-3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.79|-9.41|<0.0001
84617106|NCT00587678|168982592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
84617107|NCT00587678|168982593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.71
84617108|NCT00587678|168982594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.67
84617109|NCT00587678|168982595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.37
84617110|NCT00587678|168982595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
84617111|NCT00587678|168982596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.78
84617112|NCT00587678|168982597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.68
84617113|NCT00587678|168982598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
84617114|NCT00587678|168982599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67||95.0|||||linear repeated measures model|||||||=0.67
84617115|NCT00587678|168982600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.77
84617116|NCT00587678|168982601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.85
84617117|NCT05282927|168982602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.98|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans)||0.98|-1.07|0.92
84617118|NCT05282927|168982603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans).||1.90|-0.03|0.056
84617119|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617120|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617121|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .99
84617122|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617123|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .20
84617124|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
84617125|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
84617126|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617127|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .03
84617128|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617129|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617130|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617131|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84502610|NCT02555618|168756542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|6.928||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||6.928|-10.614|
84597523|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||1.98|-3.71|0.5467
84597524|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.25|-8.55|<0.0001
84597525|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||2.55|-2.89|0.9037
84597526|NCT02443116|168948273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||3.45|-2.05|0.6134
84597527|NCT02443116|168948274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-1.91|-8.03|0.0018
84597528|NCT01696981|168948282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
84597529|NCT01696981|168948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||Poisson regression|||||0.85|0.72|
84597530|NCT01696981|168948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Poisson regression|||||0.87|0.63|
84597531|NCT00851890|168948291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
84597532|NCT00851890|168948291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.071
84597533|NCT00851890|168948291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.140
84597534|NCT00851890|168948292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.008
84597535|NCT00851890|168948292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.003
84597536|NCT00851890|168948292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
84597537|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.018
84597538|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.020
84502611|NCT02555618|168756542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.346|5.579||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B-Strain.||5.579|-10.346|
84597539|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.054
84597540|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.010
84597541|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.005
84502612|NCT02555618|168756543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1221|1.9623|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.9623|1.1221|
84502613|NCT02555618|168756543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7806|1.4564|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.4564|0.7806|
84597542|NCT00851890|168948299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.014
84597543|NCT00851890|168948300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84597544|NCT00851890|168948300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84597545|NCT00851890|168948300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
84597546|NCT00851890|168948301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
84597547|NCT00851890|168948301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.473
84597548|NCT00851890|168948301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84597549|NCT00851890|168948302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
84597550|NCT00851890|168948302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84502614|NCT02555618|168756543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8166|1.3934|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3934|0.8166|
84597551|NCT03135431|168948305|NON_INFERIORITY|\<=.5g/dl difference in the decrease in hemoglobin was considered equivalent as 1 unit of blood typically raises the hemoglobin by 1g/dl and would be a clinical significant difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04121||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0712|||t-test, 1 sided|||Assuming that a difference of 0.5 g/dl in the drop in hemoglobin between study arms would be considered as equivalent, and assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1 based on previous studies of cesarean deliveries deliveries , the study would have 80% power to test for non-inferiority with 60 participants in each arm (120 total).|Based on new data from a retrospective study preformed at Mayo Clinic sites an additional power calculation was preformed. Based on the new information, our study was well powered (84%) to assess our primary aim with 38 participants (18 salpingectomy, 20 BTL); therefore, we discontinued recruitment and completed the study with the accrued subjects.|.0712||0.08
84502615|NCT02555618|168756546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.195|9.423|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||9.423|-7.195|
84597552|NCT03135431|168948306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.3|||||Evidence to suggest salpingecotomy procedure had a longer operation time than a tubal ligation.|||-8.3|-14.1|
84597553|NCT03135431|168948307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.5|54.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis preformed as categorical and categorical variable. Both analyzes had the same conclusion.||54.17|-72.5|0.77
84617132|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617133|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84502616|NCT02555618|168756546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.369|8.803|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||8.803|-10.369|
84502617|NCT02555618|168756546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.406|12.757|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||12.757|-6.406|
84617134|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84502618|NCT02555618|168756547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9106|1.2484|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2484|0.9106|
84617135|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617136|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84617137|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617138|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617139|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617140|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617141|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617142|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84502619|NCT02555618|168756547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0969|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2-Day 22.||1.0969|0.8686|
84502620|NCT02555618|168756547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9622|1.1427|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.1427|0.9622|
84617143|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617144|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617145|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617146|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617147|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617148|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
84617149|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617150|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617151|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
84617152|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617153|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617154|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617155|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617156|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
84617157|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
84617158|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617159|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84502621|NCT03567239|168756604|OTHER|"The PIADS is broken into 3 subgroups - Competence, Adaptability, and Self-Esteem. The minimum possible score is -3 and the maximum possible score is 3 for each subgroup - with positive 3 being the best. The 7-Point Likert scale was used in response to the question The device provided increased my ability to … in relation to the custom need they had. A response of 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree."|||||||||||||||||Median values: Overall = 2.42, Competence = 2.58, Adaptability = 2.33, Self-Esteem = 2.00, Likert = 7|||
84502622|NCT03567239|168756605|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The NASA Task Load Index ranges from 1 to 21 with the lower the score the better.|Median vales: Overall = 4.83, Mental demand = 11, Physical demand = 4, Temporal demand = 6, Performance = 3, Effort = 3, Frustration = 5.|||
84502623|NCT03567239|168756606|OTHER|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.||||||||||||||||The QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) evaluates a patient's satisfaction with various assistive technologies. It has two subgroups, Device and Service on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best score.|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.|||
84502624|NCT04288115|168756619|NON_INFERIORITY|An one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|-5.3||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|5.4||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Hypothyroid Symptoms score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||5.4|-16.1|0.0913
84502625|NCT04288115|168756619|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical difference.|Difference in Group Means|0.8||||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates the real discontinuation mean and the sham discontinuation mean are different. Adjusted for gender and baseline HSSs.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||10.9|-9.4|0.8793
84502626|NCT04288115|168756619|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-2.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.3||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline HSS.|Differences are reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||9.3|-14.0|0.6860
84502627|NCT04288115|168756620|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|5.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|16.6||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Tiredness score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||16.6|-6.2|0.0036
84502628|NCT04288115|168756620|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|2.3||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|14.7||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These mean differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness score.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||14.7|-10.1|0.7104
84502629|NCT04288115|168756620|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|5.4||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||16.7|-5.9|0.3381
84502630|NCT04288115|168756621|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-0.02||||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.036||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.036|-0.076|0.4684
84597554|NCT00943098|168948329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.20|-6.62|0.813
84617160|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
84617161|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617162|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617163|NCT01128426|168982664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617164|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617165|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617166|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617167|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617168|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617169|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617170|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
84502631|NCT04288115|168756621|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|0.003||||0.9585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.107||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.107|-0.102|0.9585
84617171|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
84502632|NCT04288115|168756621|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|7.0||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.4||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||14.4|-0.4|0.0643
84617172|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617173|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617174|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
84502633|NCT04288115|168756621|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.2||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|2.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline scores.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||2.9|-15.3|0.1742
84617175|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
84617176|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
84617177|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617178|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617179|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617180|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84617181|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617182|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617183|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617184|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84502634|NCT04288115|168756622|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-12.0||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|5.3||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline total cholesterol value.|Analysis of 6-month total cholesterol outcome.||5.3|-29.3|0.1695
84502635|NCT04288115|168756622|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.8||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|8.6||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline LDL values.|Analysis of 6-month LDL outcome.||8.6|-22.2|0.3805
84597555|NCT00943098|168948342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.22|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.22|-6.23|0.862
84597556|NCT03122145|168948345|SUPERIORITY|Mann whitney U between groups comparison for voluntary cough parameters between healthy controls and individuals with ALS outcomes: peak expiratory cough flow and cough volume acceleration||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis that voluntary cough \> reflex cough strength and effectiveness in healthy volunteers||||0.0005
84597557|NCT00375674|168948401|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.761||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.975|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||Superiority analysis||0.975|0.594|0.030
84597558|NCT00375674|168948402|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.811||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.023|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group||Superiority analysis||1.023|0.643|0.077
84597559|NCT00375674|168948403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.929||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.289|||Log-rank test|||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||1.289|0.670|0.661
84597560|NCT03224403|168948415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84597561|NCT03224403|168948415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84617185|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617186|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
84597562|NCT03224403|168948415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84597563|NCT03224403|168948415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.035
84597564|NCT03224403|168948415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||<0.001
84597565|NCT03224403|168948416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84597566|NCT03224403|168948416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84597567|NCT03224403|168948416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
84597568|NCT03224403|168948416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.671
84617187|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617188|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617189|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617190|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617191|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617192|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84502636|NCT04288115|168756622|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|1.7||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline HDL values.|Analysis of 6-month HDL outcome.||7.9|-4.44|0.5724
84617193|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
84617194|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84617195|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
84617196|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
84617197|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617198|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617199|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617200|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84502637|NCT04288115|168756622|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-17.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|23.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline triglyceride values.|Analysis of 6-month triglyceride outcome.||23.9|-59.4|0.3939
84502638|NCT02766400|168756651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d effect size at 12 months|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19||a priori threshold was set at p\<0.05|Linear mixed models|F(4,150)=5.11|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 12) and standard error of change (baseline to month 12) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||1.19|-0.12|<0.001
84502639|NCT01133392|168756652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.034||||||||1.034|0.948|
84502640|NCT01133392|168756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.972||||||||0.972|0.897|
84502641|NCT01133392|168756654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.054||||||||1.054|0.958|
84617201|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617202|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
84617203|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617204|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617205|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617206|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84617207|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
84617208|NCT01128426|168982665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84617209|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84617210|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617211|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617212|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617213|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
84502642|NCT01133392|168756655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5||||||||0.500|-0.400|
84502643|NCT01133392|168756656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.07||||||||1.070|0.961|
84502644|NCT00500656|168756677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.901|6.355|||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to onset was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test of SAS was used||||6.355|1.901|< 0.001
84502645|NCT00500656|168756678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test SAS was used||||||< 0.001
84597569|NCT03224403|168948416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.487
84597570|NCT03224403|168948417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84617214|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617215|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
84617216|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
84617217|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617218|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617219|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
84502646|NCT03751124|168756679|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|63.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|73.86||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix plus E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||73.86|52.85|<0.0001
84597571|NCT03224403|168948418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597572|NCT03224403|168948419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597573|NCT03224403|168948420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597574|NCT03224403|168948421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597575|NCT03224403|168948422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597576|NCT03224403|168948423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597577|NCT03224403|168948424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597578|NCT03224403|168948425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597579|NCT03224403|168948426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84617220|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617221|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617222|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
84617223|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617224|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617225|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617226|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617227|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617228|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617229|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84597580|NCT03224403|168948427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597581|NCT03224403|168948428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597582|NCT03224403|168948429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597583|NCT03224403|168948430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597584|NCT03224403|168948431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597585|NCT03224403|168948432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84597586|NCT03224403|168948433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84617230|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617231|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617232|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84502647|NCT03751124|168756680|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||P-value for comparison of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (95% CI) of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on a proportional hazard model stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
84597587|NCT03224403|168948434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.007
84617233|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617234|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84597588|NCT03224403|168948435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
84597589|NCT03224403|168948436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.080
84617235|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84597590|NCT01631747|168948465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and tested at an a priori type I error rate of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was based on an independent 2-sample t-test using a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.05, and 80% power. Assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 15lbs (6.8kg), a clinically meaningful difference of 5lbs (2.4kg) between groups, and 10% attrition, a sample size of 150/group was required.||||0.01
84597591|NCT01631747|168948465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for actual gestational age of 36 week weight, gestational age, bmi, and maternal age at randomization, maternal race and paternal race.||||||0.02
84597592|NCT01631747|168948466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.54
84597593|NCT01631747|168948467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change in glucose (log scale), but presented as Median and inter-quartile range for interpretability||||||0.89
84597594|NCT01631747|168948468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes in HDL, but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.30
84597595|NCT01631747|168948469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on changes between groups. Data presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.69
84597596|NCT01631747|168948470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.19
84597597|NCT01631747|168948471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test used to compare changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation.||||||0.27
84597598|NCT01631747|168948472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.003
84597599|NCT01631747|168948473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.24
84597600|NCT01631747|168948474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.32
84597601|NCT01631747|168948475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.26
84597602|NCT01631747|168948476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84597603|NCT01631747|168948477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84597604|NCT01631747|168948478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84597605|NCT01631747|168948479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84617236|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617237|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84617238|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617239|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617240|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617241|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84597606|NCT01631747|168948480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84617242|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
84617243|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84597607|NCT01631747|168948481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84617244|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617245|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617246|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617247|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617248|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617249|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
84617250|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617251|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
84617252|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617253|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84597608|NCT02388165|168948545|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
84617254|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617255|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
84597609|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Redness: Any||9.8|6.9|<0.001
84597610|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.6||||||Redness: Mild||5.6|3.3|
84597611|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0||||||Redness: Moderate||4.0|2.3|
84617256|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617257|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617258|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617259|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
84617260|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617261|NCT01128426|168982666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84617262|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617263|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617264|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617265|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
84617266|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
84617267|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617268|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84673117|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.05|0.1176
84502648|NCT03751124|168756681|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|58.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.97|69.11||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% CI of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|||69.11|46.97|<0.0001
84502649|NCT03751124|168756682|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|44.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.13|55.11||P-value for difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||55.11|33.13|<0.0001
84502650|NCT01406873|168756741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84502651|NCT02919475|168756756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
84502652|NCT02919475|168756756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.841
84502653|NCT02919475|168756756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
84597612|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Redness: Severe||1.4|0.5|
84597613|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Swelling: Any||8.4|5.7|<0.001
84597614|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.0||||||Swelling: Mild||5.0|2.8|
84597615|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.3||||||Swelling: Moderate||3.3|1.7|
84597616|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||||||Swelling: Severe||1.2|0.4|
84597617|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pain at the injection site: Any||18.1|13.3|<0.001
84597618|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|14.5||||||Pain at the injection site: Mild||14.5|10.0|
84597619|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.2||||||Pain at the injection site: Moderate||4.2|1.9|
84597620|NCT02388165|168948546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||||||Pain at the injection site: Severe||1.0|0.1|
84597621|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.6||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fever: Any||1.6|-0.2|0.146
84597622|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||Fever: 38.0 degree C to 38.4 degree C||1.2|-0.3|
84597623|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Fever: 38.5 degree C to 38.9 degree C||0.6|-0.4|
84597624|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||||||Fever: 39.0 degree C to 40.0 degree C||0.5|-0.2|
84597625|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Fever: \>40.0 degree C||0.3|-0.2|
84597626|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.9||||0.093||95.0|-0.5|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fatigue: Any||6.2|-0.5|0.093
84597627|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.7||||||Fatigue: Mild||3.7|-0.9|
84597628|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||||||Fatigue: Moderate||4.2|-1.6|
84597629|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6||||||Fatigue: Severe||1.6|-1.2|
84597630|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Headache: Any||4.4|-1.9|0.443
84597631|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||Headache: Mild||2.3|-2.9|
84597632|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Headache: Moderate||3.8|-0.7|
84597633|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Headache: Severe||0.8|-0.8|
84597634|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diarrhea: Any||3.4|-1.6|0.462
84617269|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
84617270|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617271|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617272|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617273|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617274|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
84617275|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84673118|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.30|0.7812
84673119|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.5085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.48|0.5085
84673120|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.28|0.8274
84617276|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
84617277|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
84502654|NCT02919475|168756756|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84502655|NCT02919475|168756757|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84502656|NCT02919475|168756757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.832
84617278|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617279|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617280|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617281|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617282|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
84617283|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84760260|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.602|25.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||25.359|14.602|<.0001
84502657|NCT02919475|168756757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
84617284|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617285|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617286|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617287|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617288|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617289|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
84617290|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617291|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617292|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
84597635|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||||||Diarrhea: Mild||3.0|-1.5|
84597636|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.7||||||Diarrhea: Moderate||1.7|-0.7|
84597637|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Diarrhea: Severe||0.2|-1.0|
84597638|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.6||||0.3||95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Vomiting: Any||0.5|-1.8|0.300
84597639|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||||||Vomiting: Mild||0.8|-1.3|
84597640|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Vomiting: Moderate||0.1|-0.9|
84597641|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.276||95.0|-1.3|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Muscle pain: Any||4.7|-1.3|0.276
84502658|NCT02919475|168756757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.665
84597642|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||||||Muscle pain: Mild||2.8|-1.2|
84597643|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||||||Muscle pain: Moderate||3.5|-1.4|
84597644|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2||||||95.0|-1.2|0.8||||||Muscle pain: Severe||0.8|-1.2|
84597645|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Joint pain: Any||4.6|-1.3|0.273
84597646|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||Joint pain: Mild||3.6|-0.2|
84597647|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||||||Joint pain: Moderate||2.4|-2.6|
84597648|NCT02388165|168948547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1||||||95.0|-0.9|1.0||||||Joint pain: Severe||1.0|-0.9|
84597649|NCT02388165|168948555|SUPERIORITY||VE|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
84597650|NCT02388165|168948556|SUPERIORITY||VE|-9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.06|41.41|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||41.41|-104.06|
84617293|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84502659|NCT02919475|168756758|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84502660|NCT02919475|168756758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.627
84597651|NCT02388165|168948557|SUPERIORITY||VE|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.42|40.8|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||40.80|-100.42|
84597652|NCT01474772|168948596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints had p-values that were less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was applied.||0.01|-0.46|0.0659
84597653|NCT01474772|168948597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|-0.038||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. Unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate the within-participant errors.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||This longitudinal analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. P-value was based on a repeated measure mixed effects model including pooled center, time point, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6 as well as interaction terms as fixed effect factors. For analysis purpose, it is assumed that participants were on placebo at Baseline, took the same treatment as in Period 1 during Week 1 of washout, and were on placebo in Week 2 of washout.||-0.038|-0.543|0.0242
84597654|NCT01474772|168948598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints have p-values that are less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, time, treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The model term 'time' may take 2 values corresponding to Week 3 and Week 6 in each period.||0.18|-0.44|0.4120
84617294|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
84617295|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84502661|NCT02919475|168756758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.794
84502662|NCT02919475|168756758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
84502663|NCT02919475|168756759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.113
84617296|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617297|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617298|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
84617299|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
84617300|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617301|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
84617302|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
84617303|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
84502664|NCT02919475|168756759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84617304|NCT01128426|168982667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617305|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
84617306|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
84617307|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617308|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617309|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617310|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617311|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
84617312|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84502665|NCT02919475|168756759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.056
84617313|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617314|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617315|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84502666|NCT02919475|168756759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
84617316|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
84617317|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617318|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617319|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617320|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
84617321|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617322|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
84617323|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617324|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617325|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
84502667|NCT00775983|168756780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: We assumed a standard deviation of five minutes based on historical clinic data for surgical abortions during this gestational duration range, a non-inferiority margin of five minutes, and a 10% potential attrition rate to power the study for a non-inferiority hypothesis. Thirty participants in each arm gave us 95% power to conclude non-inferiority of same day Dilapan-S compared to overnight laminaria with respect to procedure time of surgical abortions between 14-18 weeks gestation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: A surgical abortion performed between 14-18 weeks gestation performed after the cervix has been prepared with same-day Dilapan-S is inferior with respect to procedure time, which is specifically outside a five minute margin of non-inferiority, when compared to procedures during the same gestational duration range performed after the cervix has been prepared overnight with laminaria.||4.5|-0.3|
84617326|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617327|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617328|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84760261|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9402||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|1.0562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.0562|-6.590|0.3516
84617329|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
84617330|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617331|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617332|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617333|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84617334|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
84617335|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
84617336|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617337|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617338|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617339|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617340|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617341|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617342|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
84617343|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617344|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617345|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617346|NCT01128426|168982668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617347|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
84617348|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617349|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617350|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84617351|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
84617352|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617353|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617354|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
84617355|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617356|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84673121|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3675
84617357|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
84617358|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84617359|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617360|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
84617361|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617362|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
84617363|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
84617364|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
84617365|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||1.00
84617366|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617367|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
84617368|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
84617369|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617370|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
84617371|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617372|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617373|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617374|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617375|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617376|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617377|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617378|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617379|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617380|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617381|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617382|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617383|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617384|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617385|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617386|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617387|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84673122|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1818
84617388|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617389|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
84617390|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617391|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
84617392|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617393|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617394|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617395|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
84617396|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617397|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617398|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617399|NCT01128426|168982669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617400|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617401|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617402|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617403|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617404|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617405|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617406|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617407|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
84617408|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617409|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617410|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84617411|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84597655|NCT01474772|168948599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.55||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.55|0.94|0.0847
84597656|NCT01474772|168948600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.39||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.39|0.80|0.2459
84597657|NCT01474772|168948601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.12||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.12|-1.71|0.0889
84597658|NCT01474772|168948602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.53||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.53|-2.86|0.1781
84597659|NCT01474772|168948603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.15|-0.53|0.2719
84597660|NCT01474772|168948604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|563.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4098.74||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7549.82|8676.6||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||8676.60|-7549.82|0.8909
84597661|NCT01474772|168948605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|206.37||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.26|406.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||406.01|-411.26|0.9899
84597662|NCT01474772|168948606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||1.15|-3.88|0.2854
84597663|NCT01474772|168948607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.68||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.68|-3.60|0.1805
84617412|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617413|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617414|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617415|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
84617416|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617417|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617418|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
84617419|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
84502668|NCT00936884|168756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|1074.7||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after the first injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||1074.7|6.50|<0.0001
84617420|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
84502669|NCT00936884|168756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|40.62|72.66||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group was based on ANOVA model with the proportion of injections resulting in RFBM within 4 hours during the double-blind period as the dependent variable and the treatment group as the fixed effect. .|ANOVA||Estimated value is the difference in least squared means for MNTX vs. placebo (MNTX minus placebo). Based on the ANOVA model, there is 97.5% confidence that the difference between MNTX and placebo falls between the lower and upper limits presented.|||72.66|40.62|<0.0001
84502670|NCT00936884|168756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.91|50.14||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after each injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||50.14|10.91|< 0.0001
84617421|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617422|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617423|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617424|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617425|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617426|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617427|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
84617428|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617429|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617430|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617431|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617432|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617433|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617434|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
84617435|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617436|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617437|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617438|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617439|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597664|NCT01474772|168948608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.31||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.31|-0.99|0.3028
84597665|NCT01474772|168948609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.30|-0.41|0.7542
84597666|NCT01474772|168948610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-2.62|0.0634
84617440|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617441|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
84617442|NCT01128426|168982670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617443|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617444|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617445|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84502671|NCT00837577|168756825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-0.75|-1.09|<.001
84617446|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617447|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617448|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
84617449|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617450|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617451|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
84617452|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
84617453|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
84617454|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617455|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617456|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617457|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617458|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617459|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617460|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617461|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617462|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617463|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
84617464|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617465|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617466|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617467|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617468|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617469|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617470|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617471|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
84617472|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
84617473|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617474|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617475|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617476|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617477|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617478|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617479|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617480|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617481|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617482|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617483|NCT01128426|168982671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617484|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617485|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84617486|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617487|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617488|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84502672|NCT00837577|168756826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-40.2||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-40.2|-62.3|<.001
84502673|NCT00837577|168756827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-15.0||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-15.0|-30.0|<.001
84597667|NCT01474772|168948611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.62||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.62|-0.13|0.1985
84597668|NCT01474772|168948612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.20|-0.21|0.9686
84597669|NCT01474772|168948613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio is based on the binary response for any improvement while p-value is from the comparison of the original scale of 7 possible outcomes. P-value was calculated by using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. PGIC values at the end of Period 1 data was compared between treatment groups.||4.95|1.30|0.0020
84597670|NCT01474772|168948614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0105
84597671|NCT01474772|168948615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-0.63|0.1178
84597672|NCT01474772|168948616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.13|-0.60|0.1990
84597673|NCT01474772|168948617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.71107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.037||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 1997. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.037|-0.025|0.71107
84597674|NCT01474772|168948617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 2001. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.039|-0.021|0.53965
84597675|NCT03367403|168948643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.27|0.12|0.042
84597676|NCT03367403|168948644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.63|0.040
84597677|NCT03367403|168948645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.83|0.139
84597678|NCT03367403|168948646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.40|0.227
84597679|NCT03367403|168948647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|-0.77|0.230
84597680|NCT03367403|168948648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.867|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.68|-77.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.43|-92.68|<0.001
84597681|NCT03367403|168948649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Tau-IQ||0.03|-0.01|0.560
84597682|NCT03367403|168948649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.062|||ANCOVA|||MUBADA-Cerebellum||0.062|0.007|0.012
84597683|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Cortical||-1.43|-3.92|< 0.001
84597684|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Entorhinal Cortex||0.02|-0.02|0.916
84597685|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.03|0.771
84597686|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Inferior Parietal Lobe||0.01|-0.17|0.094
84597687|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Isthmuscingulate||0.00|-0.04|0.052
84617489|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617490|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84502674|NCT00033631|168756828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Two-sided test, significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|The original target sample size was 1520 patients with a requirement of 715 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the 79.2 Gy arm. The trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.30 (standard/high-dose) with 90% statistical power at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.2|0.83|0.98
84597688|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Lateral Parietal Lobe||-0.11|-0.57|0.005
84597689|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Medial Temporal Lobe||0.06|-0.08|0.731
84597690|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Precuneus||-0.07|-0.25|<0.001
84597691|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Prefrontal Lobe||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
84597692|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Superior Temporal Lobe||-0.12|-0.30|<0.001
84597693|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.43|1.14|< 0.001
84597694|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-1.59|-7.58|0.003
84597695|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Temporal Lobe||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
84597696|NCT03367403|168948650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral White Matter||-0.33|-4.23|0.022
84597697|NCT03470194|168948659|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.002
84597698|NCT01822899|168948660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|0.046|<0.001
84617491|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617492|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84597699|NCT01450696|168948697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.78|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 milliliters per minute \[mL/min\] and greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.78|0.86|0.2401
84597700|NCT01450696|168948697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.88|0.92|0.1285
84597701|NCT01450696|168948699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.04|0.49|0.9931
84597702|NCT01450696|168948699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.02|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.52|0.9458
84597703|NCT01450696|168948701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.63|0.6759
84597704|NCT01450696|168948701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.05|0.67|0.5764
84597705|NCT01450696|168948702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.58||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|16.6|||Chi-squared|||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||16.60|-31.75|0.5402
84597706|NCT01450696|168948702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.96||||||||1.96|0.28|
84617493|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
84617494|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617495|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.39
84617496|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617497|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617498|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84502675|NCT00033631|168756829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|Reference arm is 70.2 Gy arm||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
84597707|NCT05059301|168948726|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 2) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 2 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.21|0.94|
84617499|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617500|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617501|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617502|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617503|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
84617504|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
84617505|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
84617506|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
84617507|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
84617508|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
84617509|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617510|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617511|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617512|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617513|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617514|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617515|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617516|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617517|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617518|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617519|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
84617520|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84502676|NCT00033631|168756830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level is 70.2 Gy arm|||1.15|0.38|0.14
84597708|NCT05059301|168948726|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.04|0.81|
84597709|NCT05059301|168948726|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 2 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 2 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||0.99|0.77|
84597710|NCT00853242|168948733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0249
84597711|NCT00853242|168948733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0001
84597712|NCT00853242|168948733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||<0.0001
84617521|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
84617522|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
84617523|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617524|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617525|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617526|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617527|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617528|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617529|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84597713|NCT00853242|168948734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.2647
84617530|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617531|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
84617532|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
84617533|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84597714|NCT00853242|168948734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.7944
84597715|NCT00853242|168948734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.3724
84617534|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617535|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617536|NCT01128426|168982672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617537|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .63
84617538|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617539|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84502677|NCT00033631|168756831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|||0.66|0.25|0.0001
84597716|NCT05319600|168948764|SUPERIORITY|treatment group as predictor baseline-residualized week 12 scores in linear regression|Slope|129.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.52|280.98|||Regression, Linear||Control coded as 0 and treatment as 1|||280.98|-22.52|<0.05
84597717|NCT02466425|168948765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
84597718|NCT05319899|168948767|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|140.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.94|166.26||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||166.26|118.94|
84597719|NCT05319899|168948767|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|77.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.67|91.8||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||91.80|65.67|
84597720|NCT05319899|168948768|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|128.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.99|145.52||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||145.52|112.99|
84597721|NCT05319899|168948768|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.54|108.88||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||108.88|84.54|
84597722|NCT03231917|168948772|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84597723|NCT03587428|168948773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3252||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8101|0.1596|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.1596|-0.8101|0.1787
84597724|NCT03587428|168948773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7037||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1886|-0.2187|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.2187|-1.1886|0.0063
84597725|NCT01032603|168948785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=46%, RR group=37%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||23|-6|0.24
84597726|NCT01032603|168948786|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=34%, RR group=26%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||21|-6|0.25
84597727|NCT01032603|168948787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.23|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=3%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||0.23|-14|0.06
84617540|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.60
84617541|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617542|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84502678|NCT00033631|168756832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level is the 70.2 Gy level|||1.01|0.42|0.051
84597728|NCT01032603|168948788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria by 3 yrs was obtained by KM method. BLR group=14%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||14|-5|0.36
84597729|NCT01032603|168948790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year distance control will adjust for baseline distance control).||||0.44
84597730|NCT01032603|168948793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year near control will adjust for baseline near control).||||0.64
84597731|NCT01032603|168948796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.21
84597732|NCT01032603|168948799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.38
84597733|NCT01032603|168948802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.93
84597734|NCT01032603|168948805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.82
84597735|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Child 5 to 7 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.30
84617543|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617544|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617545|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617546|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
84502679|NCT00033631|168756833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84502680|NCT00033631|168756834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||With an expected percentage of erectile disfunction (ED) at 12 months of 29%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05, and 688 patients per arm provides 90% statistical power to detect a reduction in ED to 19%. This calculation assumes 26% ED at baseline and 80% compliance at 12 months. Only participants with baseline ED are analyzed.||||0.0513
84597736|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Child 8 to 13 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.77
84597737|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Parent Proxy IXTQ|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.51
84597738|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parent Psychosocial|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.42
84597739|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Parent Function|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.68
84597740|NCT01032603|168948807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Parent Surgical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.64
84597741|NCT01032603|168948808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|13.0||||||"The cumulative proportion of participants with re-operation by 3 years was obtained using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method.~A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.~Treatment-group differences were calculated as BLR minus RR."||13|-2|
84597742|NCT01032603|168948809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-0.0003||||||All treatment-group differences were calculated as the BLRc group minus the R\&R group. A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.||-.0003|-30|
84597743|NCT01032603|168948810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|25.0||||||The proportion of participants with suboptimal surgical outcome at 3 years was compared between treatment groups using Barnard's exact test, and an exact 95% CI on the treatment-group difference was calculated using Farrington-Manning scores.||25|-1|
84597744|NCT01813058|168948811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|195.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84597745|NCT01262560|168948834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%).||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in liquid form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.92
84597746|NCT01262560|168948834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%)||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in lozenge form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.93
84597747|NCT01262560|168948835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.87
84597748|NCT01262560|168948835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.46
84617547|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84617548|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617549|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617550|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84597749|NCT01262560|168948835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0023
84597750|NCT01262560|168948835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0025
84617551|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84617552|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617553|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
84617554|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617555|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84502681|NCT00033631|168756835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.59
84617556|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
84597751|NCT01262560|168948835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each explanatory variable is reported separately.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
84617557|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
84617558|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617559|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617560|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617561|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617562|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
84617563|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84617564|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617565|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617566|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84502682|NCT00711867|168756839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as -0.5 C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mu\_VH - Mu\_BH \<= -0.5 C.||-0.14|-0.55|
84617567|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
84617568|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
84617569|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
84617570|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617571|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84673123|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.17|0.0826
84673124|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.11|0.6436
84673125|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1827
84673126|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.09|0.9859
84617572|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617573|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597752|NCT01262560|168948836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.70
84597753|NCT01262560|168948836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.71
84597754|NCT01262560|168948836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0002
84597755|NCT01262560|168948836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0051
84597756|NCT01262560|168948836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
84597757|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.086
84617574|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617575|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617576|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617577|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84597758|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.20
84597759|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.44
84597760|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0066
84597761|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.36
84597762|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.94
84597763|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.58
84597764|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.28
84597765|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each exploratory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||<0.0001
84597766|NCT01262560|168948837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.28
84617578|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84502683|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|20.96|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||20.96|-4.21|0.185
84597767|NCT01262560|168948838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84597768|NCT01262560|168948838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
84597769|NCT01262560|168948839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84597770|NCT01262560|168948839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84597771|NCT01262560|168948840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84597772|NCT01262560|168948840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84617579|NCT01128426|168982673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617580|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597773|NCT01262560|168948843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.39
84597774|NCT01262560|168948843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.69
84597775|NCT00744380|168948844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84597776|NCT00744380|168948845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For open label midazolam||||0.25
84597777|NCT00744380|168948845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For all midazolam||||0.048
84597778|NCT00744380|168948845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For fentanyl||||0.88
84597779|NCT00744380|168948846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For Riker scores||||0.75
84597780|NCT00744380|168948846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||For pain scores||||0.17
84597781|NCT00744380|168948847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For hypotension||||>0.1
84617581|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
84673127|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6672
84597782|NCT00744380|168948847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For bradycardia||||>0.1
84597783|NCT00744380|168948847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For tachycardia||||>0.1
84617582|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597784|NCT00744380|168948847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||For delirium, new onset||||0.07
84597785|NCT00744380|168948848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median number of experiences remembered||||0.015
84597786|NCT00744380|168948849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84617583|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
84597787|NCT00744380|168948850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84597788|NCT00744380|168948851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For anxiety||||>0.1
84597789|NCT00744380|168948851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For depression||||>0.1
84597790|NCT00349349|168948869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.39|0.6||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.60|0.39|<0.0001
84597791|NCT00349349|168948869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.33|0.53||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
84597792|NCT00349349|168948869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.35|0.85||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.85|0.35|<0.001
84597793|NCT02285023|168948892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed. An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5.|||||<|0.01||||||An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5|exploratory factor analysis|An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5||Exploratory factor analysis||||<0.01
84597794|NCT02285023|168948893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's alpha|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Crohbach's alpha|||||||<0.05
84597795|NCT01108731|168948896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
84597796|NCT01108731|168948897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
84617584|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617585|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
84502684|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|11.59|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.59|-11.16|0.970
84597797|NCT01108731|168948898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84597798|NCT01709422|168948927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84597799|NCT01709422|168948928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84597800|NCT01005316|168948929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares Cohort A: Non-Sensitized with Cohort B: Sensitized, Crossmatch Positive.||||0.2580
84597801|NCT01734395|168948960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4262|-0.9467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.9467|-1.4262|<.0001
84597802|NCT01734395|168948961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9188|2.0438|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0438|0.9188|<.0001
84597803|NCT01734395|168948962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.5586|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5586|-0.814|<.0001
84597804|NCT01194089|168948996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for the postoperative opioid use during the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, using a one tailed P value.||||0.828
84597805|NCT01194089|168948996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for the first 24 hours postoperatively, using a one tailed P value.||||0.752
84597806|NCT01194089|168948997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the arms for antiemetic medication use in the PACU.||||0.002
84597807|NCT01194089|168948998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score on admission.||||0.354
84597808|NCT01194089|168948998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 30 minutes.||||0.492
84597809|NCT01194089|168948998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 60 minutes.||||0.809
84597810|NCT01194089|168948998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at discharge.||||0.381
84617586|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617587|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597811|NCT02300558|168949001|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||paired t- test|||Based on a 2-sided, paired t-test ( α = 0.05), and a standard deviation (SD) of 30 msec, a sample size of 40 participants provided greater than 95% power assuming a difference in mean daytime QTcF interval (AUC0-6/6) as measured by standard 12-lead ECG between baseline and Week 24 of 20 msec. The null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the baseline and Week 24 mean daytime QTcF interval was zero.||||0.0087
84597812|NCT01471028|168949005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.53|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.53|0.689|0.904
84597813|NCT01471028|168949006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
84597814|NCT01471028|168949007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.952|||Log Rank|||||1.952|0.886|0.168
84597815|NCT01471028|168949008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.109|0.007
84597816|NCT03115827|168949087|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84597817|NCT01825512|168949120|NON_INFERIORITY|Deferiprone was declared non inferior to Deferasirox if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportion of successful chelation in the two groups is above -12.5%.|Treatment success rate|-12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.5||||||||||-12.5|
84597818|NCT01825512|168949121|OTHER|GLM model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|4.468|||ANCOVA|||||4.468|-0.213|0.074
84597819|NCT01825512|168949122|OTHER|GLM Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|2.819|||ANCOVA|||||2.819|-4.085|0.717
84597820|NCT01825512|168949123|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority of Deferiprone to Deferasirox is tested considering a non-inferiority margin of 400 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.734||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-323.58|324.781|||GLM|||||324.781|-323.580|0.997
84597821|NCT00893152|168949133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84597822|NCT03641716|168949210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84597823|NCT03641716|168949211|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.65||||||Due to limited size of sub-sample, we calculated a Cohen's d effect size for raw total score on the PSI from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, with a 95% confidence interval.||.65|-.66|
84597824|NCT03641716|168949212|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|We ran a paired samples t-test with pre/post intervention data (from baseline and 3-month assessments).||After examining the data to ensure it met the statistical assumptions (e.g. normality, no outliers), we ran a paired-sample pre-post t-test to examine the difference in scores from baseline to 3 months on the NutriSTEP (Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) assessment.||||<.01
84597825|NCT02487654|168949213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84597826|NCT02152371|168949222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.56|-0.97|<.001
84597827|NCT02152371|168949223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.44|-26.02|<.001
84617588|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84673128|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.03|0.2031
84673129|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6664
84597828|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-8.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Morning Meal||-2.25|-13.87|.007
84597829|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-8.40|-25.96|<.001
84597830|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Midday Meal||-7.52|-23.58|<.001
84597831|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-18.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.18|-9.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-9.12|-27.18|<.001
84597832|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|-5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Evening Meal||-5.99|-23.93|.001
84597833|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-21.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.46|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-10.10|-32.46|<.001
84597834|NCT02152371|168949224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|-10.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:00AM (Morning)||-10.18|-28.77|<.001
84597835|NCT02152371|168949225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.64|-3.19|<.001
84597836|NCT02152371|168949226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|-6.84|||MMRM|||||-6.84|-19.55|<.001
84597837|NCT02152371|168949233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.00|3.70|<.001
84597838|NCT02152371|168949233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|5.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|9.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.73|3.35|<.001
84597839|NCT02152371|168949234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|2.32|<.001
84597840|NCT02152371|168949235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.09|<.001
84597841|NCT02152371|168949236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.62|3.26|<.001
84597842|NCT00349921|168949240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups in proportion of patients meeting the success criterion of \>30% reduction in visual analog scale pain 120 min after intrathecal injection||||>0.05
84597843|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.03||||||||7.03|3.34|
84597844|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.96||||||||6.96|3.31|
84597845|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.51||||||||4.51|0.95|
84597846|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.47||||||||6.47|2.24|
84597847|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.09||||||||6.09|2.08|
84597848|NCT01932372|168949242|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|6.25||||||||6.25|2.31|
84597849|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.19||||||||2.19|1.16|
84597850|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.13||||||||2.13|1.12|
84597851|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99||||||||2.99|1.16|
84597852|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||||||||2.43|1.06|
84597853|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.35||||||||2.35|1.00|
84597854|NCT01932372|168949243|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22||||||||2.22|1.03|
84597855|NCT01932372|168949244|OTHER||Mortality rate ratio (unadjusted)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.78||||||||5.78|1.99|
84597856|NCT01932372|168949244|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.61||||||||5.61|1.93|
84597857|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84597858|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.39||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey compared with immediate follow-up survey||||0.39
84597859|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
84597860|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.19
84597861|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey versus immediate follow-up||||0.38
84597862|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.25
84597863|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
84597864|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up between the two arms||||0.03
84597865|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.65||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge comparison between the 2 arms||||0.65
84597866|NCT05352412|168949247|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.97||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-days post discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.97
84597867|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.77||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison between the 2 arms||||0.77
84597868|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.85
84597869|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.38
84597870|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
84597871|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.32
84597872|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.09||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.09
84617589|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
84617590|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84597873|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
84597874|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.26
84597875|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared between the 2 arms||||0.69
84617591|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84617592|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84597876|NCT05352412|168949248|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.32
84617593|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84617594|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597877|NCT05352412|168949252|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84597878|NCT05352412|168949252|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84597879|NCT05352412|168949252|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84597880|NCT05352412|168949252|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.12
84597881|NCT05352412|168949253|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84597882|NCT05352412|168949253|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84597883|NCT05352412|168949253|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84597884|NCT05352412|168949253|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.42
84597885|NCT05352412|168949254|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||1.00
84597886|NCT05352412|168949254|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.11
84597887|NCT05352412|168949254|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.89
84597888|NCT05352412|168949254|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.55
84597889|NCT05352412|168949255|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.66||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.66
84597890|NCT05352412|168949255|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.20
84597891|NCT05352412|168949255|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.85
84597892|NCT05352412|168949255|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.07
84617595|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
84617596|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84617597|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617598|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84617599|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617600|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617601|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84673130|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3417
84673131|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.6622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.12|0.6622
84617602|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84597893|NCT05285644|168949260|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|42.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|42.0|26.9|<0.0001
84597894|NCT05285644|168949261|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||-1.0|-9.1|0.0138
84597895|NCT05285644|168949262|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|8.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|8.6|5.8|<0.0001
84597896|NCT05285644|168949263|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|34.0|19.5|<0.0001
84617603|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617604|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
84617605|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617606|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617607|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84760262|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2323||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.116|7.2838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.2838|-1.116|0.3448
84760263|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3902||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.294|3.1175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1175|-8.294|0.5583
84597897|NCT05285644|168949264|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|7.5||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||7.5|4.9|<0.0001
84597898|NCT05285644|168949265|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|41.4|24.8|<0.0001
84597899|NCT05285644|168949266|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.0|6.0|<0.0001
84597900|NCT05285644|168949267|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.7|-7.3|0.2184
84597901|NCT05285644|168949268|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.266|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-7.5|2.1||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.1|-7.5|0.2660
84597902|NCT05285644|168949269|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.0|-7.2|0.2741
84617608|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
84617609|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617610|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
84617611|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
84673132|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.11|0.9087
84617612|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84597903|NCT05285644|168949270|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-8.2|0.1590
84597904|NCT05285644|168949271|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-9.2|0.1369
84597905|NCT00673231|168949272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.31||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.31|-0.59|<0.0001
84597906|NCT00673231|168949272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.38||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.38|-0.66|<0.0001
84597907|NCT00673231|168949272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.45|-0.74|<0.0001
84597908|NCT00673231|168949273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.49||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-1.50|0.0001
84597909|NCT00673231|168949273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2523|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.50|-1.50|<0.0001
84617613|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
84617614|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617615|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84502685|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.57|-11.66|0.994
84597910|NCT00673231|168949273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.18|-2.19|<0.0001
84597911|NCT00673231|168949274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-4.28||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-4.28|-9.46|<0.0001
84597912|NCT00673231|168949274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-3.13||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.13|-8.25|<0.0001
84617616|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617617|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617618|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
84617619|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
84617620|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
84617621|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617622|NCT01128426|168982674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617623|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617624|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
84617625|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method.The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617626|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617627|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617628|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
84617629|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617630|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617631|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617632|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617633|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
84617634|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617635|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617636|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617637|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84597913|NCT00673231|168949274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-3.63||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.63|-8.84|<0.0001
84597914|NCT00673231|168949275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||14.1|0.2|0.0427
84597915|NCT00673231|168949275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.5|-0.9|0.0903
84597916|NCT00673231|168949275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.634||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||15.8|1.6|0.0166
84597917|NCT00673231|168949276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.684||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-6.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-6.6|-25.0|0.0008
84597918|NCT00673231|168949276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-13.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.1|-31.2|
84597919|NCT00673231|168949276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.8|-34.3|<0.0001
84597920|NCT00810771|168949279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.873
84597921|NCT00810771|168949280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.671
84597922|NCT00810771|168949281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84597923|NCT00810771|168949282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.186
84597924|NCT00810771|168949283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
84597925|NCT00810771|168949284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84597926|NCT03594747|168949285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.74|0.37|0.0001
84597927|NCT03594747|168949285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.67|0.33|<0.0001
84597928|NCT03594747|168949286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.61||||||||0.61|0.32|
84597929|NCT03594747|168949286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59||||||||0.59|0.30|
84597930|NCT04382586|168949297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|7.391|||Unstratified 1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||7.391|0.349|0.4099
84597931|NCT04382586|168949298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.648|||Log Rank|||||1.648|0.511|0.7619
84597932|NCT02470585|168949325|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.683||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.683|0.277|<0.001
84617638|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84617639|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617640|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617641|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
84617642|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84597933|NCT02470585|168949326|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.756||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.756|0.433|<0.001
84597934|NCT02470585|168949327|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.831||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.831|0.562|<0.001
84597935|NCT02470585|168949328|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.799|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.799|0.821|0.335
84597936|NCT02470585|168949329|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.414|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.414|0.855|0.462
84597937|NCT02470585|168949330|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.287|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.287|0.895|0.450
84597938|NCT02470585|168949331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.429||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.429|0.567|0.328
84617643|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
84617644|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617645|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617646|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617647|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84597939|NCT02470585|168949331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.903||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.903|0.780|0.808
84597940|NCT02470585|168949332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.114||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.114|0.640|0.116
84597941|NCT02470585|168949332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.242||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.242|0.726|0.352
84597942|NCT02470585|168949333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.144||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank|||Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.144|0.782|0.283
84597943|NCT02470585|168949333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.244||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.244|0.859|0.638
84597944|NCT02907216|168949356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-D antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.74|-2.66|
84597945|NCT02907216|168949356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-T antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.71|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.71|-4.39|
84597946|NCT02907216|168949357|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.12|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PT antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||9.12|-2.7|
84597947|NCT02907216|168949357|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.72|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-FHA antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||2.72|-2.66|
84597948|NCT02907216|168949358|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 1 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 1 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.74|-2.68|
84597949|NCT02907216|168949358|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 2 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.95|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 2 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.95|-2.92|
84617648|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617649|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84597950|NCT02907216|168949358|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 3 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|4.47|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 3 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||4.47|-2.04|
84597951|NCT02016716|168949409|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI (or the lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI) of the mean difference between the 2 romosozumab groups was \> -2.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, and baseline lumbar spine BMD T-score.|The primary hypothesis was that the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 6 in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 90 mg/mL concentration would not be inferior to that in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 70 mg/mL concentration.||0.7|-1.5|
84597952|NCT04114071|168949427|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t tests was used to examine the difference score for each of the four outcome measures of interest (steps, WC, weight, and HbA1c) between intervention and control groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84597953|NCT03479541|168949460|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.097||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.02||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.020|-0.173|0.013
84597954|NCT03479541|168949461|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.073||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.016||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.016|-0.130|0.013
84597955|NCT03479541|168949462|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.098||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.173||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.173|0.024|0.010
84597956|NCT03479541|168949463|OTHER|||||||0.5158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5158
84617650|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617651|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
84617652|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
84617653|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617654|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617655|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
84617656|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
84617657|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
84617658|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
84617659|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
84617660|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84617661|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
84617662|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84617663|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617664|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84597957|NCT03479541|168949464|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0404||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|0.146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.146|-0.0648|0.450
84597958|NCT03479541|168949465|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the reference. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|0.05353||||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1503|0.2574||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Horizontal DVA Lines Lost||0.2574|-0.1503|0.6039
84502686|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|12.64|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||12.64|-10.62|0.861
84617665|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617666|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
84617667|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617668|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617669|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
84673133|NCT02942017|169081850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.08|0.8263
84617670|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
84617671|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
84617672|NCT01128426|168982675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617673|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617674|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617675|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84617676|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617677|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
84617678|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617679|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
84617680|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
84617681|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617682|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
84617683|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
84617684|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617685|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84597959|NCT03479541|168949465|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the references. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|-0.235||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|-0.0093||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Vertical DVA Lines Lost||-0.0093|-0.461|0.0414
84597960|NCT03479541|168949466|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.028||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.035|-0.090|0.387
84597961|NCT03479541|168949467|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.008||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.019||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.019|-0.003|0.135
84597962|NCT03479541|168949468|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0107||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.0146|-0.0360|0.406
84597963|NCT03479541|168949469|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00391||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00052|0.00835||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.00835|-0.00052|0.083
84597964|NCT03479541|168949470|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFi condition||0.002|-0.007|0.240
84597965|NCT03479541|168949470|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.005||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|-0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFo condition||-0.002|-0.009|0.003
84597966|NCT03479541|168949471|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0112||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0219|-0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Average Lap Time||-0.0004|-0.0219|0.042
84617686|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84597967|NCT03479541|168949471|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0111||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Average Lap Time||-0.0010|-0.0211|0.0311
84617687|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
84617688|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
84617689|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
84502687|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.99|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||15.99|-3.79|0.221
84597968|NCT03479541|168949472|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00029||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.00087||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Gait Speed||0.00087|-0.0003|0.3226
84597969|NCT03479541|168949472|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00035||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0009||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Auditory Stroop Gait Speed|The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.00090|-0.0002|0.2218
84597970|NCT03479541|168949473|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.161||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0159|0.338||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.338|-0.0159|0.0742
84597971|NCT03479541|168949473|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.217||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.385||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.385|0.0480|0.0121
84597972|NCT03479541|168949474|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00063||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0084|0.00961||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00961|-0.0084|0.8906
84597973|NCT03479541|168949474|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0107|0.00874||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00874|-0.0107|0.8447
84617690|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
84673134|NCT02942017|169081851|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.66|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.66|-8.06|0.0033
84502688|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.73|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.73|-8.37|0.880
84597974|NCT03479541|168949475|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0003||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005|-0.0001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Visual Weight (VS/EO)||-0.0001|-0.0005|0.013
84617691|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
84617692|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84597975|NCT03479541|168949475|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Vestibular Weight (SS+VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0003|0.780
84597976|NCT03479541|168949476|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.11||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (VS/EO)||-0.110|-0.361|<0.001
84597977|NCT03479541|168949476|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.142||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|-0.052||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (SS+VS/EO)||-0.052|-0.233|0.002
84597978|NCT03479541|168949477|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0003||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (VS/EO)||0.0007|-0.0002|0.237
84597979|NCT03479541|168949477|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0008||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (SS+VS/EO)||0.001|0.0003|0.002
84597980|NCT03479541|168949478|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0001|0.247
84597981|NCT03479541|168949478|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0004||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (SS+VSEO)||0.0007|0.0001|0.008
84617693|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617694|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
84597982|NCT03479541|168949479|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked Center of Mass (CoM) Sway (VS/EO)||-0.001|-0.006|0.003
84617695|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
84617696|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
84617697|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617698|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617699|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617700|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84597983|NCT03479541|168949479|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.0005||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked CoM Sway (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0005|-0.003|0.004
84617701|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
84617702|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617703|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617704|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617705|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617706|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
84617707|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617708|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method]|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
84617709|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
84617710|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617711|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617712|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84617713|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617714|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617715|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84617716|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617717|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617718|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617719|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617720|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617721|NCT01128426|168982676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.94
84617722|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
84617723|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
84617724|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617725|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617726|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84673135|NCT02942017|169081851|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.72|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.72|-7.84|0.1017
84597984|NCT03479541|168949480|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.007|0.031
84597985|NCT03479541|168949480|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.005|0.003
84597986|NCT03479541|168949481|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age and gender), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0321||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0957|0.0315||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0315|-0.0957|0.3221
84597987|NCT03479541|168949482|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0136||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0413|0.0142||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0142|-0.0413|0.336
84597988|NCT03479541|168949483|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0406||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0779|-0.0032||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.0032|-0.0779|0.033
84597989|NCT00107900|168949484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.238
84597990|NCT02374060|168949488|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.65|0.96||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single pre-planned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||.96|.65|<0.0001
84597991|NCT02374060|168949488|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.56|0.86||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||0.86|0.56|<0.0001
84673136|NCT02942017|169081851|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884||0.9845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.79|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.79|-3.72|0.9845
84597992|NCT02374060|168949488|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.71|1.08|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.08|.71|
84597993|NCT02374060|168949489|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||1.16|0.77|0.35
84597994|NCT02374060|168949489|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.72|1.1||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||1.10|0.72|0.07
84597995|NCT02374060|168949489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.16|0.77|
84597996|NCT02374060|168949490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.53|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.53|0.24|<0.0001
84597997|NCT02374060|168949490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.59|0.29|<0.0001
84597998|NCT02374060|168949490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.19|-0.09|0.45
84617727|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
84617728|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617729|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
84617730|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617731|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
84617732|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84617733|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
84617734|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
84617735|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
84673137|NCT02942017|169081852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.5|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||12.5|2.0|0.0005
84617736|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
84617737|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
84617738|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
84617739|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
84617740|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617741|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617742|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617743|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617744|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617745|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
84617746|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
84617747|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
84617748|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617749|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84617750|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617751|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617752|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617753|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
84617754|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84617755|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
84617756|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84617757|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617758|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
84617759|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617760|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
84617761|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617762|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
84617763|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.72
84617764|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617765|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617766|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617767|NCT01128426|168982677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
84617768|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617769|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617770|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
84617771|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617772|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84617773|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
84617774|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617775|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
84617776|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
84617777|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84617778|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
84617779|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
84617780|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
84617781|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
84617782|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
84617783|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617784|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
84617785|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617786|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
84617787|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
84597999|NCT02374060|168949491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - Periocular|||0.27|-0.03|0.10
84598000|NCT02374060|168949491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Periocular|||0.28|-0.03|0.11
84598001|NCT02374060|168949491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Intravitreal|||0.16|-0.16|0.98
84598002|NCT02374060|168949492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.43|0.11|0.0005
84598003|NCT02374060|168949492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.56|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.56|0.25|<0.0001
84598004|NCT02374060|168949492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.30|-0.04|0.12
84598005|NCT02374060|168949493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.17|-0.16|0.96
84598006|NCT02374060|168949493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.06||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.23|-0.11|0.51
84617788|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
84617789|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
84617790|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
84617791|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
84617792|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84598007|NCT02374060|168949493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.22|-0.12|0.54
84598008|NCT02374060|168949494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|8.82|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||8.82|1.82|0.003
84598009|NCT02374060|168949494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.72|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||8.72|1.60|0.004
84598010|NCT02374060|168949494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.16||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|3.34|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||3.34|-3.67|0.93
84598011|NCT02374060|168949495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.92|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||9.92|1.14|0.013
84598012|NCT02374060|168949495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.14||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.44|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||9.44|0.84|0.019
84598013|NCT02374060|168949495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.37|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone-intravitreal|||3.37|-4.16|0.84
84598014|NCT02374060|168949499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||1.24|0.09|0.10
84598015|NCT02374060|168949499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||1.50|0.14|0.20
84598016|NCT02374060|168949499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.26|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.26|0.34|0.62
84598017|NCT02374060|168949500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.29|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.29|0.86|0.11
84598018|NCT02374060|168949500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.28|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.28|1.30|0.009
84598019|NCT02374060|168949500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.81|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.81|0.72|0.30
84598020|NCT02374060|168949501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/periocular|||3.65|0.91|0.09
84598021|NCT02374060|168949501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.91|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/periocular|||4.91|1.29|0.007
84598022|NCT02374060|168949501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.43|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.43|0.72|0.37
84598023|NCT02374060|168949502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.01|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.01|0.28|0.92
84598024|NCT02374060|168949502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.11|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||3.11|0.16|0.65
84598025|NCT02374060|168949502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.59|||Regression, Cox||Dexamthasone/Intravitreal|||2.59|0.16|0.53
84598026|NCT03088930|168949504|OTHER||Summary statistics|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|||
84598027|NCT00394251|168949527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.641
84598028|NCT00394251|168949533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.323
84598029|NCT04644276|168949536|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|102.0||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.6|140.7|||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test||Unit is percent change.|Percent change in leak 100% x (\[Mask with mask adhesive\] - \[Mask without mask adhesive\])/ \[Mask without mask adhesive\]. The comparison between the two arms is captured in the reported percentage change.||140.7|-112.6|0.8125
84598030|NCT01667224|168949537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
84617793|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
84617794|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
84598031|NCT01667224|168949538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
84598032|NCT01667224|168949539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
84598033|NCT01667224|168949540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
84598034|NCT04115748|168949551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|61.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio) DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||61.6|2.6|0.048
84617795|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617796|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
84617797|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
84617798|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
84760264|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7652||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4717|13.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.838|1.4717|0.1141
84598035|NCT04115748|168949551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|49.2||The stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.2|-12.4|0.23
84598036|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|0.17
84598037|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||36.6|-13.3|0.27
84617799|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617800|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
84617801|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
84617802|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84617803|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617804|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
84617805|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
84617806|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
84760265|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8356|-0.3408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3408|-0.8356|0.0034
84598038|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|41.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.5|-20.4|0.42
84598039|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.6|-16.0|0.26
84598040|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|62.3||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||62.3|-5.0|0.062
84598041|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|64.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||64.6|-1.5|0.047
84598042|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|40.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.2|-24.6|0.58
84598043|NCT04115748|168949553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|49.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.9|-16.2|0.27
84598044|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
84617807|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
84617808|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84598045|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
84598046|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
84617809|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
84617810|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
84617811|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84598047|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||8.5|-29.6|
84598048|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|28.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.9|-17.2|
84598049|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||19.5|-19.5|
84598050|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|21.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.4|-10.3|
84598051|NCT04115748|168949554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||29.5|-8.4|
84598052|NCT04115748|168949560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|
84598053|NCT04115748|168949560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||28.8|-16.5|
84617812|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
84617813|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84502689|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|-9.78|0.900
84598054|NCT04115748|168949560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|56.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||56.6|-8.8|
84598055|NCT04115748|168949560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|59.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||59.4|-5.2|
84598056|NCT04115748|168949561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.1|-5.1|
84598057|NCT04115748|168949561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
84598058|NCT04115748|168949561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||36.6|-13.3|
84598059|NCT04115748|168949561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.4|-16.4|
84598060|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||45.2|-13.6|0.20
84502690|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|3.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||3.50|-14.91|0.218
84502691|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|11.08|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.08|0.17|0.044
84598061|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.8|-27.8|0.60
84598062|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|73.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||73.8|11.5|0.008
84598063|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||47.6|-12.0|0.17
84598064|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|76.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||76.2|8.1|0.011
84598065|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|40.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||40.6|-30.1|0.69
84598066|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|70.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||70.4|0.9|0.033
84598067|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|0.19
84617814|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
84617815|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
84598068|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|0.007
84598069|NCT04115748|168949562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|44.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.1|-28.8|0.63
84598070|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|0.98
84598071|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|0.50
84598072|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||27.4|-16.4|0.54
84598073|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|0.92
84598074|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|51.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.4|-9.3|0.13
84598075|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.2|-13.6|0.22
84502692|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|-3.47|0.557
84598076|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|45.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|77.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.2|12.8|0.007
84598077|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|63.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||63.0|0.2|0.039
84598078|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.0|-18.4|0.34
84598079|NCT04115748|168949563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|64.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||64.9|-0.1|0.040
84598080|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||20.6|-10.0|
84598081|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.4|-5.4|
84598082|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
84598083|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
84673138|NCT02942017|169081852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||8.4|1.0|0.0478
84673139|NCT02942017|169081852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||4.6|0.5|0.4399
84673140|NCT02942017|169081853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.9|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.90|-3.24|0.2636
84673141|NCT02942017|169081853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.4897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.43|-2.96|0.4897
84673142|NCT02942017|169081853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-4.30|0.1341
84673143|NCT02942017|169081853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.85|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.85|-4.76|0.1691
84673144|NCT02942017|169081853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.149||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-2.60|0.7852
84673145|NCT03417141|169081856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.014
84673146|NCT03417141|169081856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.006
84673147|NCT03417141|169081857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
84673148|NCT03417141|169081858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84598084|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|35.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-14.0|
84598085|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|27.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||27.6|-17.1|
84598086|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||53.9|1.7|
84673149|NCT03417141|169081859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84673150|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.999||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.918|0.9813
84673151|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.976|0.1638
84673152|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.933|0.7623
84673153|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.962|0.2952
84673154|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|0.901|0.4052
84598087|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||51.4|1.3|
84598088|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|40.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.8|-16.3|
84598089|NCT04115748|168949564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||51.4|-8.2|
84598090|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|25.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||25.2|-46.3|
84598091|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|27.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||27.7|-45.3|
84598092|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|45.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||45.8|-22.1|
84598093|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|54.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.5|-15.6|
84598094|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
84598095|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
84598096|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|66.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||66.0|-6.3|
84598097|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|67.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||67.0|-3.8|
84598098|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|42.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.0|-32.0|
84598099|NCT04115748|168949572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|71.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.6|6.8|
84598100|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||24.8|-24.8|
84598101|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|26.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.0|-24.9|
84617816|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
84598102|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||21.5|-30.5|
84598103|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.0|-18.4|
84598104|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|56.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||56.3|-14.1|
84598105|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|33.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||33.3|-33.3|
84598106|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|69.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||69.3|-0.3|
84598107|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||55.1|-13.0|
84598108|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|58.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.6|-9.7|
84598109|NCT04115748|168949573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|66.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||66.2|-1.0|
84598110|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|16.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||16.0|-47.6|
84598111|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|10.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.4|-51.3|
84598112|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.9|-26.8|
84598113|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|48.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||48.6|-20.8|
84598114|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|52.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||52.3|-20.7|
84598115|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|41.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.6|-31.0|
84598116|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|60.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.9|-12.4|
84617817|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
84617818|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
84617819|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
84617820|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
84598117|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|
84673155|NCT03465878|169081862|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02||||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.948|0.5314
84673156|NCT02540954|169081880|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5 letters.|Least squares mean difference|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.96|||ANCOVA|||||1.96|-1.51|< 0.0001
84673157|NCT02540954|169081881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 7%.|Treatment difference in %|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.7|
84502693|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.45|1.28|0.016
84598118|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|41.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||41.2|-32.3|
84598119|NCT04115748|168949575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|58.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.8|-12.5|
84598120|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|
84598121|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|
84598122|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|19.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.3|-18.7|
84598123|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|
84598124|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.8|-24.8|
84598125|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
84598126|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||44.0|-10.1|
84598127|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|54.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.8|-2.1|
84598128|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|33.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.6|-20.3|
84598129|NCT04115748|168949576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|38.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.7|-16.6|
84598130|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||34.8|-34.8|
84598131|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|17.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.6|-47.4|
84598132|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|63.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||63.0|-7.2|
84598133|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|44.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.3|-26.6|
84598134|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||55.1|-13.0|
84598135|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.3|-47.4|
84598136|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|60.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.8|-11.1|
84598137|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|57.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.0|-14.9|
84598138|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|
84598139|NCT04115748|168949578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|49.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.1|-23.4|
84598140|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|89.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||89.8|-14.8|
84598141|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||100.0|-25.4|
84673158|NCT02540954|169081886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.152|0.392||||||||0.392|-4.152|
84673159|NCT01393743|169081888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.49|-15.244||The P-value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-15.244|-45.49|0.0001
84617821|NCT01128426|168982678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
84617822|NCT01100320|168982687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|104.52|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.52|95.40|
84617823|NCT01100320|168982688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.11|95.09|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.09|90.11|
84617824|NCT01100320|168982689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|95.13|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.13|90.13|
84617825|NCT00666406|168982694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.262||||||||1.262|1.089|
84617826|NCT00666406|168982695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.243||||||||1.243|1.043|
84617827|NCT00666406|168982696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.297||||||||1.297|0.866|
84598142|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|51.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.2|-100.0|
84598143|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||77.7|-97.7|
84617828|NCT00666406|168982697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.179||||||||1.179|0.972|
84598144|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|88.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||88.0|-73.7|
84598145|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.7|-97.7|
84598146|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
84617829|NCT00666406|168982698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.247||||||||1.247|1.099|
84617830|NCT00666406|168982699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.18||||||||1.180|1.092|
84617831|NCT00666406|168982700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|1.253||||||||1.253|0.857|
84617832|NCT00666406|168982701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.186||||||||1.186|1.007|
84617833|NCT00666406|168982702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|0.913||||||||0.913|0.798|
84617834|NCT00666406|168982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|0.916||||||||0.916|0.847|
84617835|NCT00666406|168982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.164||||||||1.164|0.799|
84617836|NCT00666406|168982705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|0.995||||||||0.995|0.841|
84617837|NCT00666406|168982706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.104|1.256||||||||1.256|1.104|
84617838|NCT00666406|168982707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.277||||||||1.277|1.039|
84617839|NCT00666406|168982708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.359||||||||1.359|1.029|
84617840|NCT00666406|168982709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.27||||||||1.270|1.010|
84617841|NCT00666406|168982710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.05||||||||1.050|0.969|
84617842|NCT00666406|168982711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.102||||||||1.102|0.843|
84617843|NCT00666406|168982712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.163||||||||1.163|0.926|
84617844|NCT00666406|168982713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.144||||||||1.144|0.901|
84617845|NCT00666406|168982714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.106|1.254||||||||1.254|1.106|
84617846|NCT00666406|168982715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.279||||||||1.279|1.038|
84617847|NCT00666406|168982716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.362||||||||1.362|1.027|
84617848|NCT00666406|168982717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.27||||||||1.270|1.012|
84617849|NCT00666406|168982718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.056||||||||1.056|0.964|
84617850|NCT00666406|168982719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.112||||||||1.112|0.849|
84617851|NCT00666406|168982720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.109||||||||1.109|0.938|
84617852|NCT00666406|168982721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.111||||||||1.111|0.894|
84617853|NCT00666406|168982722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||||||||1.000|1.000|
84617854|NCT00666406|168982723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|2.02||||||||2.020|0.841|
84598147|NCT04115748|168949580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|97.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||97.9|-67.9|
84598148|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.2|-29.2|
84598149|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||77.6|-37.6|
84598150|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||73.8|-23.8|
84598151|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||100.0|-25.4|
84598152|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|99.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||99.2|-13.4|
84598153|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||100.0|-25.4|
84598154|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
84617855|NCT00666406|168982724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.304|1.728||||||||1.728|0.304|
84598155|NCT04115748|168949581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.5|72.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||72.5|-82.5|
84598156|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
84598157|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
84598158|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||54.2|-29.2|
84598159|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
84598160|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
84598161|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.6|-37.6|
84598162|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||73.8|-23.8|
84598163|NCT04115748|168949582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
84598164|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
84598165|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
84598166|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.8|-18.8|
84598167|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
84598168|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
84598169|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||22.5|-22.5|
84598170|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||54.2|-29.2|
84598171|NCT04115748|168949583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
84617856|NCT00666406|168982725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.442|2.539||||||||2.539|0.442|
84617857|NCT00666406|168982726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.92||||||||0.920|0.807|
84617858|NCT00666406|168982727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.002||||||||1.002|0.730|
84617859|NCT00666406|168982728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.228||||||||1.228|0.788|
84617860|NCT00666406|168982729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.039||||||||1.039|0.800|
84617861|NCT05919888|168982780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.275
84617862|NCT05919888|168982781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
84617863|NCT05919888|168982782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.286
84617864|NCT05236257|168982783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||0.63|0.07|0.0058
84598172|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-value was calculated from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.20|-0.22|0.94
84598173|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.24|-0.18|0.81
84598174|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.05|-0.39|0.13
84617865|NCT05236257|168982783|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0023
84617866|NCT05236257|168982784|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.13|0.05|0.0703
84617867|NCT05236257|168982784|OTHER|||||||0.0486|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0486
84617868|NCT05236257|168982785|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.12|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.12|0.05|0.696
84617869|NCT05236257|168982785|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0476
84502694|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.07|-4.09|0.695
84502695|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.95|-0.36|0.067
84502696|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|5.55|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||5.55|-3.96|0.737
84598175|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.02|-0.43|0.073
84598176|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.03|-0.46|0.083
84617870|NCT05236257|168982787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.77|0.36|0.5713
84617871|NCT05236257|168982787|OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.5695
84673160|NCT01393743|169081889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
84617872|NCT05236257|168982788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||3.06|0.03|0.3200
84617873|NCT05236257|168982788|OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.2940
84617874|NCT01895946|168982797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference (LSM)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.86|
84617875|NCT01895946|168982797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|0.55|
84617876|NCT01895946|168982798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.77|
84617877|NCT01895946|168982798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.76|
84617878|NCT02863328|168982809|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
84645330|NCT04251156|169026363|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.76|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-6.76|-10.17|<0.0001
84645331|NCT04251156|169026364|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||23.10|7.40|<0.0001
84502697|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.47|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||10.47|0.80|0.023
84502698|NCT00272961|168756847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.50|-3.20|0.495
84598177|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.38|0.28
84598178|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.54|0.038
84598179|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.11|-0.41|0.25
84598180|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.16|-0.39|0.41
84598181|NCT04115748|168949587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.12|-0.43|0.26
84617879|NCT02863328|168982809|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
84617880|NCT02863328|168982809|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
84617881|NCT02863328|168982809|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
84644587|NCT05028361|169024707|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-5.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|4.0||The upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference was 4% with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting was used.||The null hypothesis is the Simultaneous group is inferior (i.e., Simultaneous group will have a higher proportion) to the Sequential group in regards to the proportion of participants with at least one moderate or severe fever, chills, myalgia, or arthralgia event after visits 1 and 2 using 10% non-inferiority margin.||4.0|-15.2|0.0007
84644588|NCT05028361|169024708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3851
84598182|NCT04115748|168949588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.9|-1.1|0.14
84598183|NCT04115748|168949588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.7|-1.5|0.18
84598184|NCT04115748|168949588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.7|-1.4|0.15
84598185|NCT04115748|168949588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|-0.3|0.062
84598186|NCT04115748|168949590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.6|1.9|0.003
84598187|NCT04115748|168949590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.3|1.5|0.006
84598188|NCT04115748|168949590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.0||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.0|-0.4|0.076
84598189|NCT04115748|168949590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||7.7|-0.7|0.10
84598190|NCT01200407|168949601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-34.4|-37.2|0.000
84598191|NCT01200407|168949601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-18.6|-20.3|0.000
84598192|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-23.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-23.4|-26.1|0.000
84598193|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-31.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-31.6|-34.4|0.000
84598194|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-34.7|-37.9|0.000
84598195|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-12.4|-14.0|0.000
84598196|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-16.7|-18.4|0.000
84598197|NCT01200407|168949602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-18.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-18.9|-20.8|0.000
84598198|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
84644589|NCT05028361|169024709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2886|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2886
84598199|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.14|0.02|0.0001
84598200|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
84598201|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.03||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.1|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.10|0.01|0.0005
84598202|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.16|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.16|0.05|<0.0001
84598203|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|0.31|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.31|0.11|<0.0001
84598204|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.22|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.22|0.04|0.0002
84644590|NCT05028361|169024711|OTHER||Comparison of Frequencies|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.64||The comparison in number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using a difference in proportions along with a 95% confidence interval of the difference.||||||1.64|-1.66|
84617882|NCT02863328|168982810|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1|||=|0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.7593
84617883|NCT02863328|168982810|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1358
84617884|NCT02863328|168982838|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.20|0.60|0.3552
84617885|NCT02863328|168982839|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Cox proportional hazards model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.19|0.47|0.2250
84617886|NCT00595478|168982860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0 ETG-positive samples for MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.18|0.29|0.66
84673161|NCT01393743|169081891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.45||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.668|-8.518||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-8.518|-40.668|0.0018
84502699|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|232.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.83||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.5|643.7|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||643.7|-178.5|0.2577
84598205|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.2||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.09|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.47|0.09|0.0154
84598206|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.14|0.01|0.0005
84598207|NCT02974855|168949646|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.2|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
84598208|NCT02752633|168949689|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data are presented as the urinary DHA excretion (mg/24 hr) and as the DHA-to-creatinine ratio (mg/mmol) in first morning void urine samples. Data are presented as a median (range). Differences in the median urinary DHA excretion and the urinary DHA-to-creatinine ratio between periods off pharmacotherapy and on the two study drugs, febuxostat and allopurinol, were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<.05
84598209|NCT01843673|168949690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05 . The p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and CBCT was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
84617887|NCT00595478|168982860|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.93||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for number of ETG-positive samples, if \>0 ETG-positive samples: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||1.22|0.71|0.61
84617888|NCT00595478|168982861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.62|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0% days using alcohol during the 36 week follow-up period: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.62|0.26|0.74
84598210|NCT01843673|168949690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. Those are the p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and ExacTrac was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
84598211|NCT03497975|168949732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.13||Logistic regression model includes WI-NRS baseline score as a covariate, treatment and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|1.07|0.0309
84598212|NCT03497975|168949733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-3.3||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline ItchyQoL value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-3.30|-10.82|0.0002
84598213|NCT03497975|168949734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07||Logistic regression model includes PAS (Item 5a) baseline score as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.11|0.0179
84598214|NCT03497975|168949735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-2.31||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PROMIS value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-2.31|-6.55|<0.0001
84598215|NCT02516098|168949782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference product (for Stage 1) was assessed on the basis of the point estimate of the geometric mean ratio for Cmax in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|87.52|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|77.18|99.24|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||99.24|77.18|
84598216|NCT02516098|168949783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference products for Stage 1 was assessed on the basis of the 92.46% confidence intervals for the geometric mean (test/reference) ratio for the AUC0-t in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%, with a one-sided alpha of 0.0377.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.51|100.78|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||100.78|83.51|
84598217|NCT02516098|168949784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.66|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.59|100.51|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||100.51|83.59|
84598218|NCT02516098|168949785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|92.96|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|81.94|105.47|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||105.47|81.94|
84598219|NCT01092780|168949786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|10.2||||||Difference in least squares (LS) means||10.20|6.11|
84598220|NCT01092780|168949786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|10.15||||||Difference in LS means||10.15|6.07|
84598221|NCT01092780|168949787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.10|
84598222|NCT01092780|168949787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.09|
84598223|NCT01092780|168949789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.76|-0.35||||||Difference in LS means||-0.35|-3.76|
84598224|NCT01092780|168949789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.79|-0.4||||||Difference in LS means||-0.40|-3.79|
84598225|NCT01092780|168949790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.49|11.92||||||||11.92|8.49|
84598226|NCT01092780|168949791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.08|
84598227|NCT01257230|168949792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.234|0.034|0.0085
84598228|NCT01257230|168949792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.272|0.076|0.0005
84598229|NCT01257230|168949793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.194|-0.025|0.1307
84598230|NCT01257230|168949793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.223|0.010|0.0320
84598231|NCT01257230|168949794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.200|-0.024|0.1231
84598232|NCT01257230|168949794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.182|-0.037|0.1950
84598233|NCT01257230|168949795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.181|-0.055|0.2921
84598234|NCT01257230|168949795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.150|-0.080|0.5495
84598235|NCT01257230|168949796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.225|0.034|0.0079
84598236|NCT01257230|168949796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.275|0.088|0.0002
84598237|NCT01257230|168949797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.016|0.0945
84598238|NCT01257230|168949797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.175|-0.032|0.1755
84598239|NCT01257230|168949799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.178|-0.184|0.9760
84598240|NCT01257230|168949799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.186|0.9224
84598241|NCT01257230|168949800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|-0.140|0.7852
84598242|NCT01257230|168949800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.271|-0.046|0.1649
84598243|NCT01257230|168949801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.249|-0.312|0.8253
84598244|NCT01257230|168949801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.319|-0.232|0.7559
84598245|NCT01257230|168949802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.010|-0.330|0.0653
84598246|NCT01257230|168949802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.069|-0.263|0.2516
84598247|NCT01257230|168949804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.038|-0.333|0.1200
84598248|NCT01257230|168949804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.127|-0.235|0.5589
84598249|NCT01257230|168949806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.21|0.4023
84598250|NCT01257230|168949806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.05|0.0620
84598251|NCT01257230|168949807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.65|0.8700
84598252|NCT01257230|168949807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.51|0.4198
84598253|NCT01988662|168949845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: There is no difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept.~HA: There is a difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept."|Mean Difference (Net)|62.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.639||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.96|111.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||H0: μR = μA versus HA: μR ≠ μA||111.17|13.96|0.012
84598254|NCT03831191|168949852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|0.04|0.638
84598255|NCT03831191|168949852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|0.05|0.773
84598256|NCT03831191|168949852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.26|0.05|0.671
84598257|NCT03831191|168949853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|19.9|||Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-27.2|>0.999
84598258|NCT03831191|168949853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|30.8|||Fisher Exact|||||30.8|-20.7|>0.999
84617889|NCT00595478|168982861|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for percentage of days with alcohol use during the 36 week follow-up period, if alcohol was used: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||.92|.59|0.007
84598259|NCT03831191|168949853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.2|-40.0|0.107
84598260|NCT03831191|168949854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-18.1|>0.999
84598261|NCT03831191|168949854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.1|||Fisher Exact|||||14.1|-22.7|>0.999
84598262|NCT03831191|168949854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||||11.2|-22.7|>0.999
84598263|NCT03831191|168949855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
84598264|NCT03831191|168949855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
84598265|NCT03831191|168949855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
84598266|NCT03831191|168949856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|19.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.45|-6.36|0.310
84598267|NCT03831191|168949856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.63|-7.50|0.393
84598268|NCT03831191|168949856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-8.91|0.564
84617890|NCT03401671|168982866|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.0229|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8473|1.2349||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.2349|0.8473|
84617891|NCT03401671|168982868|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8016|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8016|
84617892|NCT03401671|168982869|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9318|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8005|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8005|
84598269|NCT03831191|168949857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.61||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|24.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.05|-8.82|0.356
84598270|NCT03831191|168949857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.30|-14.64|0.783
84598271|NCT03831191|168949857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.52||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.43|-9.40|0.414
84598272|NCT03070171|168949860|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-tz of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.46909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.44605|115.97833|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.97833|101.44605|
84598273|NCT03070171|168949861|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.78627|116.63654|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||116.63654|101.78627|
84598274|NCT03070171|168949862|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.61507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61938|115.09714|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.09714|100.61938|
84617893|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||2.12|1.03|
84617894|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.28|0.67|
84617895|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.96|0.97|
84617896|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||3.09|1.27|
84617897|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||1.37|0.63|
84617898|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.84|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.84|1.20|
84617899|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.85|0.96|
84617900|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.25|0.70|
84617901|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.72|0.91|
84617902|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.53|0.81|
84617903|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.37|0.49|
84617904|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.06|0.67|
84617905|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.78|1.33|
84617906|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.17|0.61|
84598275|NCT03070171|168949863|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|106.69566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.50139|114.4101|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.41010|99.50139|
84598276|NCT03070171|168949864|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.83324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.25584|114.8379|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.83790|101.25584|
84598277|NCT03070171|168949865|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.43158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87254|115.41292|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.41292|101.87254|
84598278|NCT00344318|168949897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 1 was computed.|Difference in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.88||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||4.88|-1.51|
84598279|NCT00344318|168949897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 2 was computed|Difference in percentage|-1.48||||||95.0|-6.05|1.92||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||1.92|-6.05|
84598280|NCT00344318|168949897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 3 was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.19||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||6.19|-1.02|
84598281|NCT00344318|168949897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C across doses was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.01||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||8.01|-2.65|
84598282|NCT00683930|168949984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference in response rate|5.1||||0.6558||97.5|-17.4|27.6|||Fisher Exact|Alpha = 0.025||||27.6|-17.4|0.6558
84598283|NCT01606176|168949988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.39||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.4|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.40|-1.18|0.332
84598284|NCT01606176|168949989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-29.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-11.02|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a factor.||-11.02|-48.08|0.002
84617907|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.32|1.13|
84617908|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||12|4.25|
84617909|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.50|0.59|
84617910|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||11|4.03|
84617911|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||1.23|0.30|
84617912|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||10|2.96|
84617913|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||6.73|1.70|
84617914|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||5.54|1.20|
84617915|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.56|0.66|
84598285|NCT01606176|168949990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.00|-0.68|0.052
84598286|NCT01606176|168949991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|2.56|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||2.56|-8.14|0.300
84598287|NCT01606176|168949992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.66||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.1|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||1.10|-4.42|0.233
84598288|NCT01606176|168949993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.28||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.91|-0.36|0.387
84598289|NCT01606176|168949994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|18.51|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||18.51|-21.56|1.000
84598290|NCT01606176|168949995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.86||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.26|-1.97|0.128
84598291|NCT01606176|168949996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-31.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.07|-8.47|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||-8.47|-55.07|0.009
84598292|NCT01606176|168949997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.16|-0.80|0.184
84617916|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||7.11|1.57|
84617917|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||2.59|0.51|
84617918|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||6.12|1.40|
84617919|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||7.57|1.49|
84502700|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|173.86||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.5|457.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||457.8|-250.5|0.5552
84617920|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.18|0.23|
84617921|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||12|2.84|
84617922|NCT02451514|168982893|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||6.92|1.38|
84617923|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|16.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||16|4.41|
84617924|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.27|0.39|
84598293|NCT01606176|168949998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.18||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||1.68|-12.05|0.134
84598294|NCT01606176|168949999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.77||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||-0.36|-7.17|0.031
84502701|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.26||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-319.8|402.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||402.3|-319.8|0.8174
84502702|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.55||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|528.1|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||528.1|-195.3|0.3557
84502703|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|163.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.15||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|425.7|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||425.7|-99.6|0.2172
84502704|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.8|349.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||349.5|-118.8|0.3258
84502705|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.88||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.2|262.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||262.6|-213.2|0.8352
84502706|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.93||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|288.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||288.6|-187.4|0.6701
84502707|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|225.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.95||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|447.5|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||447.5|3.6|0.0466
84502708|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.2637||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|304.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||304.8|-75.2|0.2274
84502709|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|224.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.9259||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|422.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||422.3|27.5|0.0269
84598295|NCT01606176|168950000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.88|-0.79|0.915
84598296|NCT01606176|168950001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|27.47|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||27.47|-21.85|1.00
84598297|NCT01153711|168950003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|168.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.5|182.4||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||182.4|155.5|1.0000
84673162|NCT01393743|169081892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.25||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.054|26.989||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|Median Difference to Placebo for Absence Seizures||26.989|-53.054|0.3478
84502710|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.7383||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|330.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||330.3|-63.8|0.1780
84502711|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|240.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.32||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|471.4|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||471.4|9.9|0.0413
84502712|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.21||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|364.3|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||364.3|-48.3|0.1297
84502713|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|254.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|464.8|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||464.8|45.0|0.0185
84502714|NCT00272961|168756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.33||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|368.2|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||368.2|-52.9|0.1382
84502715|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|7.03|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.03|-5.31|0.7758
84502716|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.71|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.71|-5.40|0.8880
84598298|NCT01153711|168950004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|166.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.6|179.6||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||179.6|153.6|1.0000
84598299|NCT01153711|168950004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.211|113.463||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||113.463|100.211|0.0001
84598300|NCT01153711|168950007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|144.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.853|155.417||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||155.417|133.853|0.9986
84598301|NCT01153711|168950007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|132.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.9||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.732|143.843||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||143.843|122.732|0.8991
84598302|NCT01153711|168950008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.534|109.692||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||109.692|92.534|0.0001
84598303|NCT00361231|168950011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
84598304|NCT00361231|168950012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
84598305|NCT01732510|168950025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|-2.77|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||The reduction from baseline in EASI at week 12 for participants receiving MK-8226 3 mg/kg was compared to placebo (MK-8226 3 mg - Placebo). The constrained longitudinal data analysis model used variance component covariance matrix to model correlation among repeated visits, without adjustment for interaction of treatment group by visit.||-2.77|-16.87|0.015
84598306|NCT01208961|168950044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|400.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|326.87|490.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA on log-trans baseline-adj PK values using sequence, period, and treatments as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||490.36|326.87|<0.001
84598307|NCT01208961|168950045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mans|649.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|511.75|824.75||ANOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors. LSM estimate performed on log-scale|ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||824.75|511.75|<0.01
84598308|NCT01208961|168950046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|369.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|301.74|452.86|||ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||452.86|301.74|<0.001
84598309|NCT02791516|168950049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||11.5|7.6|<0.001
84598310|NCT02791516|168950050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.7|1.4|<0.001
84598311|NCT02791516|168950051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.6|0.7|0.004
84617925|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||11|3.14|
84598312|NCT00306293|168950170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Placebo|-78.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Percent change in days with Subclinical HSV-2 Viral Shedding after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||<0.001
84598313|NCT00306293|168950171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Baseline|-77.0||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Percent change in 'percentage of days with clinical HSV-2 viral shedding', after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||0.014
84598314|NCT02589665|168950189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.27||||||||12.27|0.70|
84598315|NCT02589665|168950189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.65||||||||27.65|1.88|
84598316|NCT02589665|168950189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|14.17||||||||14.17|0.92|
84598317|NCT02589665|168950190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.98||||||||8.98|1.73|
84598318|NCT02589665|168950190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.63||||||||15.63|2.94|
84598319|NCT02589665|168950190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.29||||||||6.29|1.23|
84598320|NCT02589665|168950191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.986
84598321|NCT02589665|168950191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.553
84598322|NCT02589665|168950191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.560
84598323|NCT02589665|168950192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.55||||||||6.55|0.80|
84598324|NCT02589665|168950193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|34.9||||||||34.9|11.0|
84598325|NCT02589665|168950193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.3||||||||32.3|8.7|
84598326|NCT02589665|168950193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.5||||||||22.5|-1.0|
84617926|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|197.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|452.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||452|86|
84617927|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.07|0.47|
84617928|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|442.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||442|84|
84617929|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||6.27|1.96|
84617930|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.0|0.37|
84617931|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||3.85|1.23|
84617932|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||6.92|1.84|
84617933|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.29|0.40|
84673163|NCT01393743|169081892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.87||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.338|59.938|||ANCOVA|||Median Difference to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizure||59.938|-15.338|0.61
84502717|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-3.21|0.4573
84502718|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.91|-3.56|0.4424
84502719|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|10.01|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.01|-3.65|0.3470
84598327|NCT02589665|168950195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-1.39|
84598328|NCT02589665|168950195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||||||||-0.59|-1.54|
84598329|NCT02589665|168950195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-1.07|
84598330|NCT02589665|168950198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.31|1.57|0.003
84598331|NCT02589665|168950198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.20|2.81|<0.001
84598332|NCT02589665|168950198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.22|0.98|0.054
84598333|NCT02589665|168950199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.19|0.131
84598334|NCT02589665|168950200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.07|0.63|0.215
84598335|NCT02589665|168950200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|25.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.00|2.37|<0.001
84598336|NCT02589665|168950200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.14|1.41|0.012
84598337|NCT02589665|168950201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.31|0.428
84598338|NCT01120236|168950202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|An intention-to-treat approach was used in analysis of the primary endpoint. A 45% undetectable PSA \<= 0.2 ng/mL rate at 28 weeks was assumed for (control) arm II , based on data from SWOG 9346. Using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10, we had 90% statistical power to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the undetectable PSA rate with the addition of cixutumumab using Fisher's exact test.||||0.16
84598339|NCT01120236|168950204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|Proportion of patients in each arm with PSA \> 4 ng/mL after seven cycles of protocol treatment were compared.||||0.11
84598340|NCT02222909|168950234|OTHER|The significance of the difference-in-differences statistic was assessed using randomization inference, a non-parametric permutation test. Confidence intervals were determined by inversion of the test statistic.|Difference in differences|0.0182||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||We calculated the proportion of permuted statistics with values higher in magnitude than that of the observed adjusted difference in differences (the p-value). We inverted the test statistic to determine confidence intervals.|Randomization inference||The estimation parameter is the difference between the average adjusted change in the monthly ED visits and hospital days from the pre- to post- intervention periods for the patients assigned to the iCBOs as compared to the cCBOs.|The difference between the average sum of the number of days spent in the hospital and ED visits in the past month, pre- and post-intervention, adjusted for pre- intervention variables, was calculated for each patients. The average change scores among patients assigned to each CBO defined the CBO-level outcomes. We calculated a weighted average of the CBO outcomes separately for the iCBOs and cCBOs, defining the difference-in-differences statistic as the difference between the two averages.||0.11|-0.12|0.63
84598341|NCT01981863|168950237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84598342|NCT02242435|168950238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
84598343|NCT02242435|168950239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Adjustment for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.30
84598344|NCT00117715|168950247|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(DM/DX) over time||||0.035
84502720|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.94|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.94|-4.25|0.6249
84598345|NCT00117715|168950248|OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(3HM/DX) over time||||0.194
84598346|NCT00117715|168950249|OTHER|||||||0.831||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log ((AAMU+1MX+1MU)/1,7,U) over time||||0.831
84598347|NCT01089413|168950282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.70|0.8579
84598348|NCT01089413|168950283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.30|0.1555
84598349|NCT02383420|168950286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
84598350|NCT02383420|168950287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0000
84598351|NCT01971463|168950295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Change in oCBF from baseline to post-bolus, ipsilesional hemisphere||||<0.05
84617934|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||4.89|1.33|
84598352|NCT01971463|168950295|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects regression, modeling the interaction term for time x normal saline bolus in the ipsilesional hemisphere|Slope|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|0.03|<0.001
84598353|NCT00420004|168950303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
84598354|NCT01942668|168950338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
84598355|NCT01942668|168950338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
84598356|NCT01942668|168950338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
84598357|NCT01942668|168950338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
84598358|NCT01942668|168950339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
84598359|NCT01942668|168950339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
84598360|NCT01942668|168950339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
84598361|NCT01942668|168950339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
84598362|NCT01942668|168950340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
84598363|NCT01942668|168950340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
84617935|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|35.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||35|8.18|
84617936|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.53|0.41|
84617937|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||28|6.59|
84598364|NCT01942668|168950340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
84598365|NCT01942668|168950340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
84673164|NCT01393743|169081893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1826
84598366|NCT01942668|168950341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
84598367|NCT01942668|168950341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
84598368|NCT01942668|168950341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
84617938|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|160.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||160|34|
84502721|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|9.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.54|-1.69|0.1625
84617939|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.53|0.38|
84617940|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|121.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||121|27|
84673165|NCT01393743|169081894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Absence Seizures||||0.4653
84502722|NCT00272961|168756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.31|-5.38|0.7556
84598369|NCT01942668|168950341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
84598370|NCT01942668|168950342|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
84598371|NCT01942668|168950342|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
84598372|NCT01942668|168950342|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
84673166|NCT01393743|169081894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizures||||0.3694
84598373|NCT01942668|168950342|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
84598374|NCT01942668|168950342|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
84598375|NCT01942668|168950343|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
84598376|NCT01942668|168950343|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
84598377|NCT01942668|168950343|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
84598378|NCT01942668|168950343|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
84598379|NCT01942668|168950343|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
84598380|NCT01942668|168950344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|6.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.30|-3.57|0.588
84598381|NCT01942668|168950344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|6.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.15|-3.56|0.601
84598382|NCT01942668|168950344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|8.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.06|-1.71|0.202
84598383|NCT01942668|168950344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.89|-6.76|0.431
84617941|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||4.83|1.46|
84617942|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||12|3.96|
84617943|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||32|10|
84598384|NCT01942668|168950345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|1.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.64|-10.34|0.154
84598385|NCT01942668|168950345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.73||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||5.73|-6.06|0.956
84617944|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.71|0.72|
84617945|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||37|12|
84617946|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|55.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||55|15|
84617947|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||1.38|0.47|
84617948|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|31.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||31|12|
84617949|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|26.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||26|9.27|
84617950|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.28|0.17|
84502723|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-6.25|0.0714
84598386|NCT01942668|168950345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||9.46|-2.37|0.240
84598387|NCT01942668|168950345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.08|-8.62|0.353
84598388|NCT01942668|168950346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.36|-14.75|0.007
84598389|NCT01942668|168950346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|2.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.35|-9.86|0.227
84598390|NCT01942668|168950346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||4.47|-7.77|0.597
84617951|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|48.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||48|8.20|
84617952|NCT02451514|168982897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|22.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||22|3.78|
84598391|NCT01942668|168950346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-1.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.19|-13.28|0.019
84598392|NCT01942668|168950347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
84617953|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.87|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459||0.87|0.28|
84502724|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.24|-2.29|0.7269
84598393|NCT01942668|168950347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
84598394|NCT01942668|168950347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
84617954|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364||2.11|0.40|
84617955|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, NZ98/254||1.38|0.50|
84617956|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, M10713||1.44|0.44|
84617957|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, H44/76||1.07|0.34|
84617958|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, 5/99||1.12|0.52|
84617959|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup A||4.75|1.89|
84617960|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|7.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup C||7.31|3.01|
84617961|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup W||13|5.84|
84617962|NCT02451514|168982910|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup Y||12|3.96|
84644591|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0056
84617963|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.05|0.88|
84617964|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.81|0.69|
84617965|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.26|0.96|
84617966|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.69||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.69|1.18|
84617967|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.99|
84617968|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.18|0.98|
84502725|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.04|-2.58|0.8656
84502726|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.36|-3.41|0.7113
84502727|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.77|-7.32|0.2204
84617969|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.81|
84502728|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.66|-5.04|0.5298
84502729|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.96|-5.86|0.3135
84502730|NCT00272961|168756854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.93|-6.09|0.2962
84617970|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.83|
84644592|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0866
84644593|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0568
84617971|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.92|0.76|
84617972|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.91|
84617973|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.82|
84617974|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||0.80|0.67|
84617975|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||1.20|0.91|
84617976|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.74|
84617977|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.83|0.68|
84617978|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.80|
84502731|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.35|-14.84|0.4933
84617979|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.83|
84617980|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.98|0.79|
84617981|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.97|
84502732|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.57|-13.26|0.4080
84502733|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-11.86|0.5936
84502734|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.57|-11.17|0.7883
84617982|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 24F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.92|
84502735|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|7.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.60|-13.46|0.5719
84617983|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.01|0.85|
84617984|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.90|
84617985|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.82|
84617986|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.74|0.52|
84617987|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.76|0.62|
84617988|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.90|0.74|
84617989|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.17|0.89|
84644594|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0130
84502736|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.70|-13.11|0.3401
84502737|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.82|-11.01|0.6329
84502738|NCT00272961|168756855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.4037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|13.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||13.11|-5.45|0.4037
84598395|NCT01942668|168950347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
84598396|NCT01942668|168950348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-9.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.02|-22.16|<0.001
84598397|NCT01942668|168950348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|-3.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.41|-16.34|0.003
84598398|NCT01942668|168950348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.59|-12.40|0.075
84598399|NCT01942668|168950348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-5.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.64|-18.47|<0.001
84598400|NCT01942668|168950349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-11.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.05|-24.57|<0.001
84598401|NCT01942668|168950349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.70|-18.00|<0.001
84598402|NCT01942668|168950349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.14|-14.50|0.022
84598403|NCT01942668|168950349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-5.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.91|-19.11|<0.001
84598404|NCT01942668|168950350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-11.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.06|-24.45|<0.001
84598405|NCT01942668|168950350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-6.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.70|-19.88|<0.001
84617990|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.06|0.85|
84617991|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.44||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.44|1.16|
84598406|NCT01942668|168950350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-3.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.60|-16.83|0.003
84598407|NCT01942668|168950350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.07|-20.15|<0.001
84598408|NCT01942668|168950351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-9.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.91|-23.35|<0.001
84598409|NCT01942668|168950351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-6.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.36|-19.58|<0.001
84598410|NCT01942668|168950351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-2.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.99|-16.27|0.005
84598411|NCT01942668|168950351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.41|-18.53|<0.001
84598412|NCT01942668|168950352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-10.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.44|-23.79|<0.001
84617992|NCT03197376|168982921|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.13|0.89|
84598413|NCT01942668|168950352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|-9.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.01|-22.15|<0.001
84598414|NCT01942668|168950352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-4.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.44|-17.65|0.001
84598415|NCT01942668|168950352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|-6.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.50|-19.54|<0.001
84598416|NCT01942668|168950353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-10.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.03|-23.58|<0.001
84598417|NCT01942668|168950353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-8.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.99|-22.32|<0.001
84598418|NCT01942668|168950353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.49|-17.90|0.001
84598419|NCT01942668|168950353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-5.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.55|-18.78|<0.001
84598420|NCT01942668|168950354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-11.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.29|-24.92|<0.001
84598421|NCT01942668|168950354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.17|-9.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.74|-23.17|<0.001
84598422|NCT01942668|168950354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-5.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.66|-19.15|<0.001
84598423|NCT01942668|168950354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-6.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.93|-20.26|<0.001
84598424|NCT01942668|168950355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
84598425|NCT01942668|168950355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
84598426|NCT01942668|168950355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
84598427|NCT01942668|168950355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
84598428|NCT01942668|168950356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.06|0.801
84598429|NCT01942668|168950356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.07|0.991
84617993|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10%, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 1|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.0|
84617994|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.2|5.0||||||||5.0|1.2|
84617995|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|9.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||9.5|1.1|
84598430|NCT01942668|168950356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.05|0.642
84617996|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|6.4||||||||6.4|-2.2|
84617997|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|2.7||||||||2.7|-0.1|
84598431|NCT01942668|168950356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.07|0.928
84598432|NCT01942668|168950357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.231
84617998|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.9|
84502739|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.7685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.62|-7.19|0.7685
84502740|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.30|-12.07|0.1739
84598433|NCT01942668|168950357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.173
84598434|NCT01942668|168950357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.07|0.717
84598435|NCT01942668|168950357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.09|0.849
84617999|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 14|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.4|
84618000|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.1|22.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||22.5|15.1|
84618001|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.9|
84618002|NCT03197376|168982922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.6|21.1||||||||21.1|13.6|
84618003|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.0|2.32||||||||2.32|2.00|
84618004|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.28|1.47||||||||1.47|1.28|
84618005|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.01||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.01|0.78|
84618006|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.24||||||||1.24|0.93|
84618007|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.19|1.41||||||||1.41|1.19|
84598436|NCT01942668|168950358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.039
84760266|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4403|0.09599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.09599|-0.4403|0.4083
84598437|NCT01942668|168950358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.030
84598438|NCT01942668|168950358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.10|0.946
84598439|NCT01942668|168950358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.15|0.309
84598440|NCT01942668|168950359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
84598441|NCT01942668|168950359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
84598442|NCT01942668|168950359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
84618008|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.0||||||||1.00|0.85|
84598443|NCT01942668|168950359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
84598444|NCT01942668|168950360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.37|0.001
84598445|NCT01942668|168950360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.28|0.034
84598446|NCT01942668|168950360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.16|0.790
84618009|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.37||||||||1.37|1.10|
84618010|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.63||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.63|1.30|
84618011|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|0.8||||||||0.80|0.67|
84618012|NCT03197376|168982923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|2.01||||||||2.01|1.63|
84760267|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13746|0.41127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.41127|0.13746|0.0120
84760268|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1136||0.375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0457|0.24881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.24881|-0.0457|0.3750
84598447|NCT01942668|168950360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.25|0.086
84598448|NCT01942668|168950361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
84598449|NCT01942668|168950361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.030
84502741|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|10.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.15|-4.74|0.4612
84598450|NCT01942668|168950361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.26|0.247
84598451|NCT01942668|168950361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
84598452|NCT01942668|168950362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
84598453|NCT01942668|168950362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.42|0.002
84598454|NCT01942668|168950362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.031
84598455|NCT01942668|168950362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.36|0.016
84598456|NCT01942668|168950363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
84598457|NCT01942668|168950363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.40|0.008
84598458|NCT01942668|168950363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.32|0.087
84598459|NCT01942668|168950363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.092
84598460|NCT01942668|168950364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
84598461|NCT01942668|168950364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.12|-0.47|0.001
84598462|NCT01942668|168950364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
84598463|NCT01942668|168950364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
84598464|NCT01942668|168950365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
84598465|NCT01942668|168950365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
84618013|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for diphtheria|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84618014|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Tetanus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84502742|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.21|-8.90|0.7172
84598466|NCT01942668|168950365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.41|0.016
84598467|NCT01942668|168950365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.28|0.310
84598468|NCT01942668|168950366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
84598469|NCT01942668|168950366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.19|-0.56|<0.001
84598470|NCT01942668|168950366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.44|0.011
84618015|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hepatitis B|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.4|
84618016|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hib|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
84618017|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 1|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.3|
84618018|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 2|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.3||||||||9.3|-3.2|
84618019|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 3|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-3.0|
84618020|NCT03197376|168982924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Rotavirus|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1||||||||7.1|-7.1|
84673167|NCT01723228|169081906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.05|||repeated measures model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||2.05|-0.48|0.2204
84618021|NCT03197376|168982925|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-pertussis toxoid|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.09||||||||1.09|0.62|
84618022|NCT03197376|168982926|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-fimbriae 2/3|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||||||||1.25|0.77|
84618023|NCT03197376|168982933|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 6A|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|69.8|76.3||||||||76.3|69.8|
84618024|NCT03197376|168982933|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 19A|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.3|58.9||||||||58.9|50.3|
84618025|NCT03197376|168982934|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.68|9.43||||||||9.43|7.68|
84618026|NCT03197376|168982934|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.14|6.18||||||||6.18|5.14|
84618027|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 1|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|23.6||||||||23.6|11.0|
84598471|NCT01942668|168950366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.36|0.076
84618028|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.0|
84618029|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6A|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.6||||||||86.6|76.7|
84673168|NCT01723228|169081907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||0.81|-0.99|0.8428
84618030|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6B|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|14.6||||||||14.6|4.5|
84502743|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|11.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||11.91|-5.01|0.4098
84598472|NCT01942668|168950367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
84598473|NCT01942668|168950367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
84598474|NCT01942668|168950367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
84598475|NCT01942668|168950367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
84598476|NCT01942668|168950368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.14|-5.16|0.865
84598477|NCT01942668|168950368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.10|-5.01|0.847
84618031|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 7F|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.1|
84618032|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84618033|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type14|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.0|
84618034|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19A|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.1||||||||60.1|46.0|
84618035|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19F|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.2||||||||1.2|-4.9|
84618036|NCT03197376|168982935|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84618037|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.98||||||||3.98|2.40|
84618038|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.72||||||||1.72|1.12|
84618039|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.0|241.0||||||||241|144|
84618040|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.69||||||||2.69|1.42|
84598478|NCT01942668|168950368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||7.68|-3.50|0.463
84618041|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39||||||||1.39|0.96|
84618042|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.49||||||||0.49|0.29|
84618043|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||||||||1.27|0.67|
84618044|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.7||||||||17.7|10.2|
84618045|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||||||||0.81|0.54|
84618046|NCT03197376|168982936|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.09||||||||4.09|2.25|
84673169|NCT01723228|169081908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.3|||ANCOVA|The statistical model is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||1.30|-2.74|0.4796
84502744|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.6943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.78|-8.54|0.6943
84598479|NCT01942668|168950368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.97|-9.07|0.207
84598480|NCT01942668|168950369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.67|-11.80|0.140
84598481|NCT01942668|168950369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.55|-6.70|0.982
84598482|NCT01942668|168950369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.98|-4.32|0.492
84598483|NCT01942668|168950369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|2.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.43|-10.72|0.216
84598484|NCT01942668|168950370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-3.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.50|-17.26|0.003
84598485|NCT01942668|168950370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.02|-10.53|0.277
84598486|NCT01942668|168950370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.84|-9.75|0.394
84673170|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.93|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC||2.93|0.89|0.1148
84598487|NCT01942668|168950370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.15|-14.58|0.022
84598488|NCT01942668|168950371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|-7.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.89|-22.75|<0.001
84598489|NCT01942668|168950371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.60|-16.24|0.017
84598490|NCT01942668|168950371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.78|-11.90|0.223
84598491|NCT01942668|168950371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.57|-4.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.07|-18.57|0.002
84598492|NCT01942668|168950372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-10.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.28|-24.65|<0.001
84502745|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||12.31|-2.76|0.2042
84598493|NCT01942668|168950372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-3.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.18|-17.33|0.005
84598494|NCT01942668|168950372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.89|-13.31|0.087
84598495|NCT01942668|168950372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|-5.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.65|-19.68|<0.001
84598496|NCT01942668|168950373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|-12.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.87|-27.77|<0.001
84673171|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC||||0.1052
84598497|NCT01942668|168950373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-5.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.28|-19.95|<0.001
84618047|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.52||||||||1.52|1.31|
84618048|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||||||||0.95|0.81|
84673172|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.75|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Cognition||1.75|0.52|0.8857
84673173|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|||||For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGIC Cognition||||0.9945
84673174|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.43|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Behavior||2.43|0.56|0.6909
84673175|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Behavior||||0.6639
84598498|NCT01942668|168950373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.96|-15.70|0.027
84598499|NCT01942668|168950373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|-6.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.58|-21.13|<0.001
84673176|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.68|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Functional Abilities||2.68|0.72|0.3204
84673177|NCT01723228|169081909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Functional Abilities||||0.3331
84673178|NCT01723228|169081910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-0.49|-4.47|0.0151
84673179|NCT01723228|169081911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-1.08|-3.53|0.0003
84598500|NCT01942668|168950374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.87|-14.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.04|-28.87|<0.001
84598501|NCT01942668|168950374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-8.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.80|-23.39|<0.001
84598502|NCT01942668|168950374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-4.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.68|-19.34|0.001
84618049|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|4.96||||||||4.96|4.01|
84618050|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.26||||||||7.26|5.70|
84618051|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19||||||||2.19|1.89|
84673180|NCT01806896|169081918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Day 28)||2.15|-3.56|0.68
84673181|NCT01806896|169081920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Left VS)||0.52|-0.72|0.79
84673182|NCT01806896|169081920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.51||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Right VS)||0.51|-0.80|0.70
84673183|NCT01806896|169081920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.4||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Left VS)||0.40|-0.89|0.51
84673184|NCT01806896|169081920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.04||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Right VS)||0.04|-1.10|0.13
84673185|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|13.18||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Neutral) Day 28||13.18|1.43|0.04
84598503|NCT01942668|168950374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|-8.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.49|-22.97|<0.001
84598504|NCT01942668|168950375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-12.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.97|-28.06|<0.001
84598505|NCT01942668|168950375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.95|-22.80|<0.001
84598506|NCT01942668|168950375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-4.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.03|-18.95|0.003
84598507|NCT01942668|168950375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-6.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.46|-21.19|<0.001
84598508|NCT01942668|168950376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|-12.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.74|-27.93|<0.001
84598509|NCT01942668|168950376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|-10.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.45|-25.39|<0.001
84598510|NCT01942668|168950376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.46|-20.49|<0.001
84598511|NCT01942668|168950376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.87|-21.70|<0.001
84598512|NCT01942668|168950377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-13.29|-28.72|<0.001
84598513|NCT01942668|168950377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-10.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.78|-25.96|<0.001
84598514|NCT01942668|168950377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.39|-20.66|<0.001
84598515|NCT01942668|168950377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.19|-7.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.12|-22.19|<0.001
84598516|NCT01942668|168950378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|-14.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.08|-29.57|<0.001
84598517|NCT01942668|168950378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-11.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.77|-27.02|<0.001
84673186|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|13.45||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Positive) Day 28||13.45|1.69|0.03
84598518|NCT01942668|168950378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-21.65|<0.001
84598519|NCT01942668|168950378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-8.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.10|-23.23|<0.001
84598520|NCT01942668|168950379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-12.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.89|-28.32|<0.001
84760269|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9301||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.665|5.5387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5387|-4.665|0.9119
84598521|NCT01942668|168950379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|-10.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.65|-25.84|<0.001
84598522|NCT01942668|168950379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-4.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.98|-20.26|0.001
84598523|NCT01942668|168950379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-6.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.43|-21.51|<0.001
84598524|NCT01942668|168950380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.04|0.676
84598525|NCT01942668|168950380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.03|0.436
84598526|NCT01942668|168950380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.01|0.106
84598527|NCT01942668|168950380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.06|0.752
84598528|NCT01942668|168950381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.12|0.193
84598529|NCT01942668|168950381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.11|0.319
84598530|NCT01942668|168950381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.03|0.239
84598531|NCT01942668|168950381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.09|0.720
84598532|NCT01942668|168950382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.20|0.030
84598533|NCT01942668|168950382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.19|0.060
84598534|NCT01942668|168950382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.13|-0.06|0.506
84598535|NCT01942668|168950382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.15|0.232
84598536|NCT01942668|168950383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.24|0.027
84598537|NCT01942668|168950383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.26|0.011
84598538|NCT01942668|168950383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.13|0.710
84598539|NCT01942668|168950383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.21|0.072
84598540|NCT01942668|168950384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.36|<0.001
84760270|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1977||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.8960|-11.79|0.1367
84618052|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.5||||||||1.50|1.29|
84618053|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.51||||||||1.51|1.21|
84618054|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.91||||||||2.91|2.40|
84618055|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.63||||||||1.63|1.36|
84618056|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.72||||||||2.72|2.29|
84618057|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
84598541|NCT01942668|168950384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.062
84598542|NCT01942668|168950384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.14|-0.12|0.886
84598543|NCT01942668|168950384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.067
84618058|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.74||||||||0.74|0.61|
84673187|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|13.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Negative) Day 28||13.15|1.41|0.04
84598544|NCT01942668|168950385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
84598545|NCT01942668|168950385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.32|0.053
84598546|NCT01942668|168950385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.23|0.413
84618059|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.11||||||||4.11|2.97|
84618060|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|4.59||||||||4.59|3.23|
84618061|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82||||||||1.82|1.47|
84618062|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.62||||||||1.62|1.31|
84618063|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.42||||||||1.42|1.03|
84618064|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.33||||||||4.33|2.99|
84618065|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.75||||||||1.75|1.38|
84618066|NCT03197376|168982937|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.65||||||||2.65|1.98|
84673188|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.91|6.87||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.01 Euro) Day 28||6.87|-4.91|0.78
84673189|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|10.67||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.1 Euro) Day 28||10.67|-1.11|0.18
84598547|NCT01942668|168950385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.018
84598548|NCT01942668|168950386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
84598549|NCT01942668|168950386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
84598550|NCT01942668|168950386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.32|0.072
84598551|NCT01942668|168950386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.014
84598552|NCT01942668|168950387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
84598553|NCT01942668|168950387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.016
84598554|NCT01942668|168950387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.29|0.169
84598555|NCT01942668|168950387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.081
84598556|NCT01942668|168950388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
84598557|NCT01942668|168950388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.10|-0.45|0.003
84673190|NCT01806896|169081923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|16.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.46|22.24||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-1 Euro) Day 28||22.24|10.46|<0.01
84598558|NCT01942668|168950388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.39|0.022
84598559|NCT01942668|168950388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.43|0.006
84598560|NCT01942668|168950389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
84598561|NCT01942668|168950389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.44|0.007
84598562|NCT01942668|168950389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.39|0.038
84598563|NCT01942668|168950389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.29|0.283
84598564|NCT01942668|168950390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
84598565|NCT01942668|168950390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.16|-0.54|<0.001
84598566|NCT01942668|168950390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.41|0.027
84598567|NCT01942668|168950390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.36|0.071
84598568|NCT01942668|168950391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
84598569|NCT01942668|168950391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
84598570|NCT01942668|168950391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
84598571|NCT01942668|168950391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.088
84598572|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.850
84598573|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.622
84598574|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
84598575|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.374
84598576|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.706
84598577|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.372
84598578|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.316
84598579|NCT01942668|168950392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.221
84598580|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.283
84598581|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
84598582|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.680
84598583|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.232
84598584|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.677
84598585|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.073
84598586|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.301
84598587|NCT01942668|168950393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.013
84598588|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
84598589|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84618067|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.71||||||||2.71|2.02|
84618068|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.79||||||||1.79|1.38|
84618069|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|14.0||||||||14.0|9.67|
84598590|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.135
84598591|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.231
84598592|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.377
84598593|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.478
84598594|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
84598595|NCT01942668|168950394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.100
84598596|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598597|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598598|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
84598599|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
84598600|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84598601|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
84598602|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84618070|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.15||||||||2.15|1.65|
84598603|NCT01942668|168950395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598604|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598605|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598606|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.066
84598607|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.055
84598608|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.174
84598609|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.319
84598610|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.007
84598611|NCT01942668|168950396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
84598612|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598613|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598614|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.019
84598615|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.061
84598616|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.026
84598617|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.104
84598618|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598619|NCT01942668|168950397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.018
84618071|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.8||||||||1.80|1.37|
84598620|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598621|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598622|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
84598623|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
84598624|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.017
84598625|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
84598626|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598627|NCT01942668|168950398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.037
84598628|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598629|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598630|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598631|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.016
84598632|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.012
84598633|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.053
84598634|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
84598635|NCT01942668|168950399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
84598636|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84618072|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||||0.99|0.76|
84598637|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598638|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598639|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598640|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
84598641|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
84598642|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
84598643|NCT01942668|168950400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
84598644|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
84598645|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598646|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
84598647|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
84598648|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598649|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.009
84598650|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.018
84598651|NCT01942668|168950401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.021
84598652|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598653|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598654|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598655|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598656|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598657|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598658|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598659|NCT01942668|168950402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598660|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598661|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598662|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598663|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598664|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
84598665|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
84598666|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
84598667|NCT01942668|168950403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.005
84598668|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.523
84598669|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
84598670|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.821
84598671|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
84598672|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.828
84598673|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
84598674|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.239
84598675|NCT01942668|168950404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.377
84598676|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.036
84598677|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
84598678|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
84598679|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.546
84598680|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.352
84598681|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.261
84598682|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.058
84598683|NCT01942668|168950405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.011
84598684|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598685|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598686|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.115
84598687|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.110
84598688|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.089
84618073|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.82||||||||1.82|1.21|
84598689|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
84598690|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
84598691|NCT01942668|168950406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
84598692|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598693|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598694|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
84598695|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598696|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
84618074|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.06||||||||5.06|3.52|
84618075|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73||||||||0.73|0.55|
84598697|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.002
84598698|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598699|NCT01942668|168950407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598700|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598701|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598702|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
84598703|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
84598704|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.063
84598705|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.058
84598706|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
84598707|NCT01942668|168950408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
84618076|NCT03197376|168982938|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.24||||||||2.24|1.63|
84618077|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.44||||||||4.44|2.72|
84598708|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598709|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598710|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.050
84598711|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
84598712|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
84598713|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
84598714|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.020
84598715|NCT01942668|168950409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
84598716|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598717|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84618078|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.13||||||||3.13|2.06|
84618079|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.42||||||||3.42|1.83|
84598718|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598719|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598720|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
84598721|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84618080|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|5.69||||||||5.69|2.48|
84598722|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598723|NCT01942668|168950410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598724|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598725|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598726|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.013
84598727|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598728|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598729|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
84598730|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
84598731|NCT01942668|168950411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
84598732|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84618081|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.18||||||||5.18|2.92|
84618082|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.52||||||||10.52|4.45|
84618083|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.65||||||||3.65|1.64|
84598733|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598734|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598735|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598736|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598737|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598738|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
84598739|NCT01942668|168950412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598740|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598741|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598742|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598743|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598744|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598745|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598746|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
84598747|NCT01942668|168950413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598748|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598749|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598750|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598751|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598752|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598753|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
84598754|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598755|NCT01942668|168950414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598756|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598757|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598758|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598759|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
84598760|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598761|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.056
84598762|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
84598763|NCT01942668|168950415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
84598764|NCT01942668|168950416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598765|NCT01942668|168950416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84673191|NCT02434770|169081926|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.08|0.65|
84673192|NCT02434770|169081926|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.34|0.87|
84673193|NCT02434770|169081927|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.15|0.73|
84760271|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1094||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.05|-1.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.964|-10.05|0.0595
84502746|NCT00272961|168756856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.7791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|8.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.83|-6.69|0.7791
84502747|NCT01507831|168756860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-59.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.4|-64.3|<0.0001
84598766|NCT01942668|168950416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84598767|NCT01942668|168950416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84598768|NCT01942668|168950418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598769|NCT01942668|168950418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598770|NCT01942668|168950418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84598771|NCT01942668|168950418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598772|NCT01942668|168950420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598773|NCT01942668|168950420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598774|NCT01942668|168950420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598775|NCT01942668|168950420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598776|NCT01942668|168950422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
84598777|NCT01942668|168950422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
84598778|NCT01942668|168950422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.280
84598779|NCT01942668|168950422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.692
84598780|NCT01942668|168950423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
84598781|NCT01942668|168950423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.069
84598782|NCT01942668|168950423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
84598783|NCT01942668|168950423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
84598784|NCT01942668|168950424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
84598785|NCT01942668|168950424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
84598786|NCT01942668|168950424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
84598787|NCT01942668|168950424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
84598788|NCT01942668|168950425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
84598789|NCT01942668|168950425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
84598790|NCT01942668|168950425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
84598791|NCT01942668|168950425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
84598792|NCT01942668|168950426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
84598793|NCT01942668|168950426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
84598794|NCT01942668|168950426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
84598795|NCT01942668|168950426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
84598796|NCT01942668|168950427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84598797|NCT01942668|168950427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
84598798|NCT01942668|168950427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
84598799|NCT01942668|168950427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84502748|NCT01507831|168756861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|-61.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchial testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchial testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.2|-65.9|<0.0001
84502749|NCT01507831|168756862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-62.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-62.4|-67.2|<0.0001
84598800|NCT01942668|168950428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598801|NCT01942668|168950428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.075
84598802|NCT01942668|168950428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.225
84598803|NCT01942668|168950428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.769
84598804|NCT01942668|168950429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598805|NCT01942668|168950429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
84598806|NCT01942668|168950429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
84598807|NCT01942668|168950429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
84598808|NCT01942668|168950430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84598809|NCT01942668|168950430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
84598810|NCT01942668|168950430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.386
84598811|NCT01942668|168950430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
84598812|NCT01942668|168950431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
84598813|NCT01942668|168950431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
84598814|NCT01942668|168950431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
84598815|NCT01942668|168950431|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598816|NCT01942668|168950432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
84598817|NCT01942668|168950432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
84598818|NCT01942668|168950432|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84618084|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.36||||||||5.36|2.47|
84598819|NCT01942668|168950432|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598820|NCT01942668|168950433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.261
84598821|NCT01942668|168950433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
84598822|NCT01942668|168950433|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598823|NCT01942668|168950433|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598824|NCT01942668|168950434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
84598825|NCT01942668|168950434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
84598826|NCT01942668|168950434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598827|NCT01942668|168950434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598828|NCT01942668|168950435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598829|NCT01942668|168950435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84598830|NCT01942668|168950435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
84598831|NCT01942668|168950435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.328
84598832|NCT01942668|168950436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598833|NCT01942668|168950436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
84598834|NCT01942668|168950436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
84598835|NCT01942668|168950436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
84598836|NCT01942668|168950437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598837|NCT01942668|168950437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
84598838|NCT01942668|168950437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
84598839|NCT01942668|168950437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
84598840|NCT01942668|168950438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598841|NCT01942668|168950438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
84598842|NCT01942668|168950438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84598843|NCT01942668|168950438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.481
84598844|NCT01942668|168950439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598845|NCT01942668|168950439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
84598846|NCT01942668|168950439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
84598847|NCT01942668|168950439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.853
84598848|NCT01942668|168950440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598849|NCT01942668|168950440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84598850|NCT01942668|168950440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.145
84598851|NCT01942668|168950440|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598852|NCT01942668|168950441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598853|NCT01942668|168950441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.163
84598854|NCT01942668|168950441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
84598855|NCT01942668|168950441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.693
84598856|NCT01942668|168950442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598857|NCT01942668|168950442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
84598858|NCT01942668|168950442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.097
84598859|NCT01942668|168950442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.522
84618085|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.14||||||||3.14|1.80|
84673194|NCT02434770|169081927|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.79|||||BBIBP bOPV Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.79|1.21|
84673195|NCT02434770|169081928|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For serotype 1||4.6|-0.5|
84673196|NCT02434770|169081928|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For Serotype 3||5.6|-0.1|
84598860|NCT01942668|168950443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598861|NCT01942668|168950443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.315
84598862|NCT01942668|168950443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
84598863|NCT01942668|168950443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.821
84598864|NCT01942668|168950444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598865|NCT01942668|168950444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.387
84598866|NCT01942668|168950444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.215
84598867|NCT01942668|168950444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
84598868|NCT01942668|168950445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84598869|NCT01942668|168950445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.643
84598870|NCT01942668|168950445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
84598871|NCT01942668|168950445|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598872|NCT01942668|168950446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84598873|NCT01942668|168950446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.616
84598874|NCT01942668|168950446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
84598875|NCT01942668|168950446|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598876|NCT01942668|168950447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
84598877|NCT01942668|168950447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
84598878|NCT01942668|168950447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
84598879|NCT01942668|168950447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
84598880|NCT01942668|168950448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598881|NCT01942668|168950448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84598882|NCT01942668|168950448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
84598883|NCT01942668|168950448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
84598884|NCT01942668|168950449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598885|NCT01942668|168950449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84598886|NCT01942668|168950449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84598887|NCT01942668|168950449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.256
84598888|NCT01942668|168950450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598889|NCT01942668|168950450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84598890|NCT01942668|168950450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
84598891|NCT01942668|168950450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.182
84598892|NCT01942668|168950451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598893|NCT01942668|168950451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.469
84598894|NCT01942668|168950451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
84502750|NCT01507831|168756863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|-63.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-63.2|-67.9|<0.0001
84598895|NCT01942668|168950451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.613
84598896|NCT01942668|168950456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84598897|NCT01942668|168950456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
84598898|NCT01942668|168950456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
84598899|NCT01942668|168950456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.257
84598900|NCT01942668|168950457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84598901|NCT01942668|168950457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.085
84598902|NCT01942668|168950457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
84598903|NCT01942668|168950457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
84598904|NCT01942668|168950458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84598905|NCT01942668|168950458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84598906|NCT01942668|168950458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
84618086|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|7.06||||||||7.06|3.49|
84618087|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|7.96||||||||7.96|4.97|
84598907|NCT01942668|168950458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.685
84598908|NCT01942668|168950459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
84598909|NCT01942668|168950459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
84618088|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.98||||||||3.98|2.56|
84618089|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|10.84||||||||10.84|3.55|
84618090|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.7||||||||4.70|2.25|
84618091|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.69||||||||3.69|2.13|
84618092|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.04||||||||4.04|2.15|
84618093|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.46||||||||2.46|1.06|
84618094|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|9.21||||||||9.21|3.88|
84618095|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||||2.68|1.45|
84618096|NCT03197376|168982939|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.63||||||||8.63|3.80|
84618097|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.72||||||||2.72|1.25|
84618098|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64||||||||1.64|0.79|
84618099|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|68.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.07|125.09||||||||125.09|37.07|
84598910|NCT01942668|168950459|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598911|NCT01942668|168950459|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84598912|NCT01942668|168950464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.17|-2.13|<0.001
84598913|NCT01942668|168950464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.79|<0.001
84598914|NCT01942668|168950464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.64|<0.001
84598915|NCT01942668|168950464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.58|-1.51|<0.001
84598916|NCT01942668|168950465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-1.91|<0.001
84598917|NCT01942668|168950465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.81|<0.001
84598918|NCT01942668|168950465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.63|<0.001
84598919|NCT01942668|168950465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.19|0.007
84598920|NCT01942668|168950466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-1.75|<0.001
84598921|NCT01942668|168950466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.98|<0.001
84598922|NCT01942668|168950466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.76|<0.001
84598923|NCT01942668|168950466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.26|0.008
84598924|NCT01942668|168950467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.49|0.284
84598925|NCT01942668|168950467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.36|0.732
84598926|NCT01942668|168950467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.44|0.437
84598927|NCT01942668|168950467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.43|0.439
84598928|NCT01942668|168950468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.68|0.040
84618100|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.46||||||||2.46|1.25|
84618101|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.34||||||||2.34|1.28|
84618102|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||||1.32|0.65|
84618103|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.51||||||||3.51|1.38|
84618104|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|12.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|21.37||||||||21.37|7.36|
84673197|NCT02434770|169081928|OTHER|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.1|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 1||2.1|-3.0|
84598929|NCT01942668|168950468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.63|0.066
84618105|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||||1.46|0.70|
84598930|NCT01942668|168950468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.45|0.469
84598931|NCT01942668|168950468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.41|0.616
84598932|NCT01942668|168950469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.57|0.250
84598933|NCT01942668|168950469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
84618106|NCT03197376|168982940|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.45||||||||4.45|2.21|
84618107|NCT03197376|168982941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for measles|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.4||||||||7.4|-3.3|
84760272|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3182||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72505|9.3473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.3473|0.72505|0.1356
84598934|NCT01942668|168950469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.40|0.796
84598935|NCT01942668|168950469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.36|0.955
84618108|NCT03197376|168982941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for rubella|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-0.9|
84618109|NCT03197376|168982941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for yellow fever|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.9||||||||5.9|0.2|
84618110|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 1|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|23.7||||||||23.7|8.0|
84618111|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 5|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.8||||||||15.8|-1.4|
84618112|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.1||||||||38.1|21.8|
84760273|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.2884||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|26.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||26.303|-15.99|0.7528
84618113|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.6||||||||23.6|10.1|
84618114|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.5||||||||24.5|8.4|
84618115|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.8|
84618116|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 14|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.3||||||||22.3|7.5|
84598936|NCT01942668|168950470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.38|0.474
84598937|NCT01942668|168950470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.378
84598938|NCT01942668|168950470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.61|0.018
84598939|NCT01942668|168950470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.32|0.730
84598940|NCT01942668|168950471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.49|0.197
84598941|NCT01942668|168950471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.44|0.308
84598942|NCT01942668|168950471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.54|0.117
84598943|NCT01942668|168950471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.34|0.739
84598944|NCT01942668|168950472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.42|0.635
84598945|NCT01942668|168950472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.75|0.010
84598946|NCT01942668|168950472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.62|0.092
84598947|NCT01942668|168950472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.53|0.243
84598948|NCT01942668|168950473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.83|0.049
84598949|NCT01942668|168950473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-0.34|0.773
84598950|NCT01942668|168950473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.77|0.081
84598951|NCT01942668|168950473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.50|0.625
84618117|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|22.5||||||||22.5|7.3|
84502751|NCT01507831|168756864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-58.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.5|-64.0|<0.0001
84598952|NCT01942668|168950474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.70|0.221
84598953|NCT01942668|168950474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.42|0.992
84598954|NCT01942668|168950474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.72|0.181
84598955|NCT01942668|168950474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.47|0.846
84598956|NCT01942668|168950475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.71|0.421
84618118|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||||||||-8.0|-19.0|
84618119|NCT03197376|168982942|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|25.4||||||||25.4|8.2|
84618120|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.89||||||||1.89|1.42|
84618121|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4||||||||1.40|1.03|
84673198|NCT02434770|169081928|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.8|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 3||2.8|-2.6|
84618122|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.78||||||||2.78|2.01|
84618123|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.66||||||||1.66|1.27|
84598957|NCT01942668|168950475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.97|0.044
84598958|NCT01942668|168950475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.92|0.093
84598959|NCT01942668|168950475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.79|0.247
84598960|NCT01942668|168950476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.87|<0.001
84598961|NCT01942668|168950476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.62|0.016
84598962|NCT01942668|168950476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
84598963|NCT01942668|168950476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.60|0.023
84598964|NCT01942668|168950477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.84|<0.001
84598965|NCT01942668|168950477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
84598966|NCT01942668|168950477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.73|0.003
84598967|NCT01942668|168950477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.179
84598968|NCT01942668|168950478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.76|0.012
84598969|NCT01942668|168950478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.05|<0.001
84598970|NCT01942668|168950478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.81|0.004
84598971|NCT01942668|168950478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.63|0.070
84598972|NCT01942668|168950479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-8.44|0.033
84598973|NCT01942668|168950479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.50|0.207
84598974|NCT01942668|168950479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-8.58|0.024
84598975|NCT01942668|168950479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.007||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.47|0.207
84598976|NCT01942668|168950480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-1.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-9.68|0.011
84598977|NCT01942668|168950480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-9.36|0.012
84598978|NCT01942668|168950480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.41|-9.75|0.009
84598979|NCT01942668|168950480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-9.11|0.018
84598980|NCT01942668|168950481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-9.38|0.058
84673199|NCT02434770|169081929|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.63|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.63|0.89|
84673200|NCT02434770|169081930|OTHER||Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|4.48|||Fisher's exact 1-tailed test|Fisher's exact 1-tailed test of a lower rate in Lots 1+2|BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|||4.48|-3.86|0.5586
84673201|NCT02434770|169081931|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.38|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.38|0.71|
84673202|NCT03080961|169081932|OTHER||SADE percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.7||||||SADE rate after minimally 26 days of VIBLOK treatment will be assessed by calculating the upper limit of the 2-sided exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval which needs to be below 10%. With a sample size of 36, an exact two-sided 95.0% confidence interval for a single proportion would show that the SADE incidence is below 10% at an expected incidence of 0.1%.||7.7|0.0|
84673203|NCT03080961|169081933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis will evaluate the difference in detection rate between pre and post-VIBLOK swabs. For each person the number of swabs with shedding only pre-VIBLOK will be assessed, and then the number of swabs with shedding only post-VIBLOK will be subtracted. A number above 0 indicates a decreased detection rate after VIBLOK. With an 8% anticipated asymptomatic shedding rate, 80% power, 50 subjects taking samples for 28 days are needed to show a 50% reduction.||||0.248
84673204|NCT03080961|169081934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84673205|NCT01282424|169081944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is ≤ 20%.|Exact binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
84673206|NCT02741115|169081959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation used.||It was estimated that a sample size of 198 participants per group would provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment group difference in change from baseline to Week 26 in maximal VO2 scores of 10% (ie, an improvement of 2.8 mL/kg/min in the udenafil group compared to 0 in the control group, assuming a Type I error of 0.05 and standard deviation of 7.235). A difference of 2.8, equivalent to a 10% increase from a baseline of 28 mL/kg/min, represents approximately 0.4 standard deviations.||||0.092
84673207|NCT02741115|169081960|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analytical model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2.||||||0.024
84673208|NCT02741115|169081961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.591
84502752|NCT01507831|168756865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-51.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.7|-56.3|<0.0001
84598981|NCT01942668|168950481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.322||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-2.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.92|-12.04|0.001
84673209|NCT02741115|169081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
84673210|NCT02741115|169081963|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment mean difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.012
84673211|NCT02741115|169081964|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference in the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.029
84673212|NCT02741115|169081965|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.011
84598982|NCT01942668|168950481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-3.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.25|-12.67|<0.001
84598983|NCT01942668|168950481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-11.50|0.005
84598984|NCT01942668|168950482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-1.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-11.92|0.020
84598985|NCT01942668|168950482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.715||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|-8.69|0.216
84673213|NCT02741115|169081966|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.696
84673214|NCT02741115|169081967|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.915|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.915
84673215|NCT02741115|169081968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.363||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.||||0.891
84673216|NCT02741115|169081969|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (child reported)||||||0.691
84673217|NCT02741115|169081970|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.544||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (parent reported).||||||0.985
84673218|NCT02741115|169081971|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (child reported).||||||0.273
84673219|NCT02741115|169081972|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.966|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (parent reported).||||||0.966
84673220|NCT02741115|169081973|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (Treatment II).||||||0.706
84673221|NCT02741115|169081974|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (perceived physical appearance)||||||0.382
84673222|NCT02741115|169081975|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (treatment anxiety).||||||0.236
84673223|NCT02741115|169081976|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.543|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (cognitive problems).||||||0.543
84673224|NCT02741115|169081977|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.352|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (communication problems).||||||0.352
84673225|NCT02741115|169081978|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.684||0.533|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, child reported).||||||0.533
84673226|NCT02741115|169081979|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.057||0.654|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, parent reported).||||||0.654
84598986|NCT01942668|168950482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-11.22|0.033
84673227|NCT02741115|169081980|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.963|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, child reported)||||||0.963
84673228|NCT02741115|169081981|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment group were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.246|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, parent reported).||||||0.246
84673229|NCT02782949|169081987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.3990
84673230|NCT02782949|169081990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
84673231|NCT01966926|169081995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|chi square|2.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was unadjusted, with an a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<.05.|Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||||||.15
84673232|NCT01966926|169081996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.61||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold of \<0.05 for statistical significance|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.61
84673233|NCT01966926|169081997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.95||||0.5||||||P-value is unadjusted; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.50
84598987|NCT01942668|168950482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.685||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|-8.27|0.265
84598988|NCT01942668|168950483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.93|-13.14|0.008
84598989|NCT01942668|168950483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|-1.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-12.18|0.016
84598990|NCT01942668|168950483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-14.28|0.002
84598991|NCT01942668|168950483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-0.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.68|0.028
84598992|NCT01942668|168950484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-12.80|0.040
84598993|NCT01942668|168950484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-15.99|0.001
84598994|NCT01942668|168950484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.129||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-3.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.81|-16.11|0.002
84598995|NCT01942668|168950484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-0.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-12.99|0.029
84598996|NCT01942668|168950485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.003||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|9.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.05|-2.75|0.294
84598997|NCT01942668|168950485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|8.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.60|-2.87|0.327
84598998|NCT01942668|168950485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.947||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|4.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.39|-7.18|0.637
84598999|NCT01942668|168950485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.893||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|5.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.86|-5.51|0.952
84599000|NCT01942668|168950486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.219||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|8.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.14|-4.51|0.573
84618124|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49||||||||1.49|1.12|
84760274|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.7022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4066||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|45.114|90.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||90.290|45.114|0.0003
84599001|NCT01942668|168950486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|5.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.01|0.769
84599002|NCT01942668|168950486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-12.56|0.047
84599003|NCT01942668|168950486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.56|-8.74|0.409
84599004|NCT01942668|168950487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|8.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-4.85|0.579
84599005|NCT01942668|168950487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.275||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.44|-10.43|0.223
84618125|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
84760275|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6389||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.567|6.2835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.2835|-0.5670|0.2837
84599006|NCT01942668|168950487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-8.67|0.542
84599007|NCT01942668|168950487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.376||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|4.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-9.04|0.476
84599008|NCT01942668|168950488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.84|-6.34|0.631
84599009|NCT01942668|168950488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-3.84|0.651
84599010|NCT01942668|168950488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.45|-5.67|0.813
84599011|NCT01942668|168950488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.52||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-5.35|0.869
84599012|NCT01942668|168950489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-10.48|0.074
84599013|NCT01942668|168950489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-6.22|0.748
84599014|NCT01942668|168950489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.805||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|5.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-5.46|0.987
84599015|NCT01942668|168950489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|4.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.36|-6.41|0.709
84599016|NCT01942668|168950490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.968||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-8.44|0.379
84599017|NCT01942668|168950490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.832||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.49|-8.64|0.279
84599018|NCT01942668|168950490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.40|-6.19|0.894
84599019|NCT01942668|168950490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.923||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-8.72|0.308
84618126|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72||||||||1.72|1.15|
84618127|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.68||||||||1.68|1.14|
84673234|NCT01966926|169081998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.87||||0.15||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.15
84599020|NCT01942668|168950491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.081||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|7.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.86|-4.24|0.558
84599021|NCT01942668|168950491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.031||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.57|-2.34|0.233
84599022|NCT01942668|168950491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.036||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.13|0.20|0.043
84599023|NCT01942668|168950491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.80|0.488
84599024|NCT01942668|168950492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.206||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|10.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-2.23|0.205
84599025|NCT01942668|168950492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|15.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.74|3.43|0.002
84618128|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||||||||0.74|0.50|
84599026|NCT01942668|168950492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|11.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.23|0.115
84599027|NCT01942668|168950492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|15.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.13|2.75|0.005
84599028|NCT01942668|168950493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|8.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|-6.34|0.796
84599029|NCT01942668|168950493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.568||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|12.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.15|-1.87|0.150
84618129|NCT03197376|168982943|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81||||||||1.81|1.24|
84618130|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06||||||||0.06|0.05|
84618131|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.33||||||||0.33|0.27|
84618132|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.16||||||||0.16|0.13|
84673235|NCT01966926|169081999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.91||||0.3||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,26||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.30
84760276|NCT00531752|169276802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.9251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.1761|16.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||16.674|9.1761|<0.0001
84599030|NCT01942668|168950493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|15.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.77|1.39|0.019
84618133|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.11||||||||0.11|0.10|
84618134|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.11||||||||0.11|0.09|
84618135|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.23||||||||0.23|0.19|
84618136|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.17||||||||0.17|0.13|
84618137|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26||||||||0.26|0.20|
84618138|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.15||||||||0.15|0.12|
84599031|NCT01942668|168950493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.667||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|14.71||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.71|0.30|0.041
84599032|NCT01942668|168950494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-7.00|0.221
84618139|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.12||||||||0.12|0.10|
84618140|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08||||||||0.08|0.06|
84618141|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45||||||||0.45|0.35|
84618142|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||||0.86|0.62|
84760277|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.777|31.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.946|21.777|<0.0001
84599033|NCT01942668|168950494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.65|0.511
84618143|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
84618144|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.13||||||||0.13|0.11|
84618145|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.22||||||||0.22|0.18|
84618146|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19||||||||0.19|0.13|
84618147|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||||0.78|0.52|
84618148|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
84618149|NCT03197376|168982944|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
84618150|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 1|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|42.1||||||||42.1|4.5|
84618151|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 5|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.5||||||||25.5|-5.8|
84618152|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6A|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|78.0||||||||78.0|48.3|
84618153|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6B|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|39.4||||||||39.4|6.4|
84618154|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 7F|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|10.8||||||||10.8|-5.2|
84618155|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84618156|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type14|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|18.3||||||||18.3|-8.5|
84618157|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19A|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|50.8||||||||50.8|16.5|
84618158|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-8.4|
84618159|NCT03197376|168982945|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
84599034|NCT01942668|168950494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.92|-3.60|0.761
84599035|NCT01942668|168950494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|2.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.11|-6.25|0.332
84618160|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
84618161|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4||||||||2.4|0.7|
84618162|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.1||||||||32.1|6.3|
84618163|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.8||||||||6.8|2.1|
84618164|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
84599036|NCT01942668|168950495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.86|-5.86|0.687
84599037|NCT01942668|168950495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-6.88|0.373
84599038|NCT01942668|168950495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.94|-5.75|0.714
84599039|NCT01942668|168950495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|3.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.87|-5.67|0.711
84599040|NCT01942668|168950496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.08|-7.46|0.415
84599041|NCT01942668|168950496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-0.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-11.04|0.019
84599042|NCT01942668|168950496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-9.90|0.074
84599043|NCT01942668|168950496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.637||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-10.94|0.030
84599044|NCT01942668|168950497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-8.13|0.059
84599045|NCT01942668|168950497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.067||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-6.63|0.215
84618165|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|0.3|
84618166|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||||||||2.4|0.5|
84599046|NCT01942668|168950497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-1.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-9.19|0.015
84599047|NCT01942668|168950497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|0.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-7.17|0.122
84618167|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.8||||||||10.8|2.4|
84618168|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||||||||2.3|0.4|
84599048|NCT01942668|168950498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.135||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-1.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-9.52|0.013
84618169|NCT03197376|168982946|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.4||||||||9.4|2.0|
84599049|NCT01942668|168950498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-9.85|0.006
84599050|NCT01942668|168950498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.77|0.009
84599051|NCT01942668|168950498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-1.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-9.79|0.007
84599052|NCT01942668|168950499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|-8.24|0.171
84599053|NCT01942668|168950499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-11.14|0.006
84599054|NCT01942668|168950499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-2.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.61|-12.17|0.003
84618170|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
84618171|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.14||||||||0.14|0.09|
84618172|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|0.03|
84673236|NCT01966926|169082000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.93||||0.17||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,28||Repeated measures analysis from three to six months.||||0.17
84760278|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1817||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|9.7713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.7713|-1.080|0.3034
84599055|NCT01942668|168950499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.46|0.006
84599056|NCT01942668|168950500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-8.21|0.039
84599057|NCT01942668|168950500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.997||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|1.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.53|-6.31|0.232
84599058|NCT01942668|168950500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-8.32|0.030
84599059|NCT01942668|168950500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-6.09|0.262
84599060|NCT01942668|168950501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.119||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-9.57|0.011
84599061|NCT01942668|168950501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-9.60|0.008
84599062|NCT01942668|168950501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-9.90|0.007
84618173|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||||0.07|0.03|
84618174|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.38||||||||0.38|0.18|
84618175|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
84673237|NCT03548584|169082001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
84599063|NCT01942668|168950501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-9.40|0.011
84599064|NCT01942668|168950502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|0.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-8.96|0.083
84599065|NCT01942668|168950502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.317||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.81|-11.91|0.002
84599066|NCT01942668|168950502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.23|-12.60|<0.001
84618176|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
84618177|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||||||||0.30|0.09|
84673238|NCT03548584|169082002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
84760279|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9408||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.132|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.780|3.1320|0.0223
84618178|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.18||||||||0.18|0.05|
84599067|NCT01942668|168950502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-2.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-11.46|0.005
84599068|NCT01942668|168950503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.12|0.938
84599069|NCT01942668|168950503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.10|0.779
84599070|NCT01942668|168950503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.14|0.646
84599071|NCT01942668|168950503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.07|0.421
84599072|NCT01942668|168950504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.01|0.075
84673239|NCT03548584|169082003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.63||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Aggressive Behavior||-0.63|-3.28|0.0040
84618179|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||||||||0.18|0.08|
84599073|NCT01942668|168950504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.01|0.074
84599074|NCT01942668|168950504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.07|0.370
84599075|NCT01942668|168950504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.11|0.851
84599076|NCT01942668|168950505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.452
84599077|NCT01942668|168950505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.05|0.244
84599078|NCT01942668|168950505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.354
84618180|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
84618181|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.1||||||||0.10|0.05|
84618182|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.48||||||||0.48|0.09|
84618183|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03||||||||0.03|0.01|
84618184|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65||||||||0.65|0.30|
84618185|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2||||||||0.20|0.06|
84618186|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22||||||||0.22|0.06|
84618187|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49||||||||0.49|0.14|
84618188|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||||||||0.14|0.06|
84673240|NCT03548584|169082003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.14||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Physically Nonaggressive Behavior||-0.14|-2.68|0.0296
84599079|NCT01942668|168950505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.17|0.527
84599080|NCT01942668|168950506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-2.29|<0.001
84599081|NCT01942668|168950506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
84599082|NCT01942668|168950506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
84599083|NCT01942668|168950506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.88||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-1.62|<0.001
84599084|NCT01942668|168950507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.34|-2.12|<0.001
84599085|NCT01942668|168950507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.68|<0.001
84599086|NCT01942668|168950507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-1.58|<0.001
84599087|NCT01942668|168950507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.34|<0.001
84599088|NCT01942668|168950508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-2.06|<0.001
84618189|NCT03197376|168982947|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||||||||0.12|0.05|
84502753|NCT01507831|168756866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-53.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.2|-57.7|<0.0001
84599089|NCT01942668|168950508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.87|<0.001
84599090|NCT01942668|168950508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.70|<0.001
84599091|NCT01942668|168950508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.48|<0.001
84618190|NCT01773187|168982958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.0003
84599092|NCT01942668|168950509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.46|0.126
84599093|NCT01942668|168950509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.42|0.200
84599094|NCT01942668|168950509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.41|0.222
84599095|NCT01942668|168950509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.37|0.358
84599096|NCT01942668|168950510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.59|0.023
84599097|NCT01942668|168950510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.55|0.045
84599098|NCT01942668|168950510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.39|0.384
84618191|NCT01773187|168982959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.2368
84618192|NCT00186901|168982969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||Baseline where N=134||||0.86
84618193|NCT00186901|168982969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||12 Month BMD Z-Score Calculation where N=109||||0.99
84502754|NCT01507831|168756867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-50.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.2|-54.4|<0.0001
84502755|NCT01507831|168756868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-51.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.6|-55.7|<0.0001
84599099|NCT01942668|168950510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.38|0.424
84599100|NCT01942668|168950511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.52|0.153
84599101|NCT01942668|168950511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.58|0.058
84599102|NCT01942668|168950511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.39|0.550
84599103|NCT01942668|168950511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.854
84599104|NCT01942668|168950512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.38|0.181
84599105|NCT01942668|168950512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.41|0.108
84599106|NCT01942668|168950512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.51|0.014
84599107|NCT01942668|168950512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.323
84599108|NCT01942668|168950513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.48|0.056
84599109|NCT01942668|168950513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.38|0.279
84599110|NCT01942668|168950513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.34|0.435
84599111|NCT01942668|168950513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.31|0.607
84502756|NCT01507831|168756869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-35.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.9|-39.1|<0.0001
84502757|NCT01507831|168756870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-53.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.7|-58.3|<0.0001
84599112|NCT01942668|168950514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
84599113|NCT01942668|168950514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.57|0.026
84502758|NCT01507831|168756871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-52.6|-56.6|<0.0001
84599114|NCT01942668|168950514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.49|0.097
84599115|NCT01942668|168950514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.44|0.230
84599116|NCT01942668|168950515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.61|0.107
84618194|NCT00186901|168982969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||24 Month BMD Z-Score calculation where N=91||||0.54
84599117|NCT01942668|168950515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.51|0.302
84599118|NCT01942668|168950515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.60|0.106
84599119|NCT01942668|168950515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.57|0.156
84599120|NCT01942668|168950516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.65|0.081
84618195|NCT00186901|168982969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||36 Month (End of Study) BMD Z-Score calculation where N=84||||0.31
84618196|NCT00186901|168982970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84618197|NCT00186901|168982971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0023
84673241|NCT03548584|169082003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.28||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Verbally Agitated Behavior||-0.28|-2.21|0.0113
84502759|NCT01507831|168756872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-37.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.5|-40.4|<0.0001
84599121|NCT01942668|168950516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.56|0.212
84618198|NCT00186901|168982972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0092
84673242|NCT03548584|169082003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Hiding and Hoarding||0.18|-0.90|0.1941
84502760|NCT01507831|168756873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|99.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||99.1|51.6|<0.0001
84502761|NCT01507831|168756874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|93.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|132.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||132.0|66.1|<0.0001
84618199|NCT00186901|168982973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Z-test|||275 received a QCT and 121 received a DXA scan. 121 paired scans were evaluated.||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
84599122|NCT01942668|168950516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.51|0.345
84599123|NCT01942668|168950516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.38|0.829
84599124|NCT01942668|168950517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.029
84618200|NCT00186901|168982974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Z-test|||218 patients were assessed at 12 months and received a QCT Scan. 94 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 94 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
84673243|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.93||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||2.93|-1.24|0.4242
84673244|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.34||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.34|-3.63|0.3665
84599125|NCT01942668|168950517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.026
84599126|NCT01942668|168950517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.72|0.093
84599127|NCT01942668|168950517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.64|0.223
84599128|NCT01942668|168950518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.85|<0.001
84599129|NCT01942668|168950518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
84599130|NCT01942668|168950518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
84599131|NCT01942668|168950518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.64|<0.001
84599132|NCT01942668|168950519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
84618201|NCT00186901|168982975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.66|||Z-test|||188 patients were assessed at baseline and received a QCT Scan. 90 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 90 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.66|0.36|<0.0001
84618202|NCT00186901|168982976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Z-test|||180 patients were assessed at 36 months and received a QCT Scan. 89 patients were also assessed using the DXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 89 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
84618203|NCT00186901|168982977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.40
84618204|NCT00186901|168982978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.21
84599133|NCT01942668|168950519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.69|<0.001
84599134|NCT01942668|168950519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
84599135|NCT01942668|168950519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.50|0.030
84599136|NCT01942668|168950520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
84618205|NCT03868254|168982979|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
84618206|NCT03868254|168982979|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
84618207|NCT03868254|168982980|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
84599137|NCT01942668|168950520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.001
84618208|NCT03868254|168982980|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
84618209|NCT03868254|168982981|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0030
84618210|NCT03868254|168982981|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0018
84618211|NCT03868254|168982982|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0053
84618212|NCT03868254|168982982|OTHER|||||||0.0472|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0472
84618213|NCT03951077|168983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.38|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.49|-15.38|0.300
84618214|NCT03951077|168983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.65|3.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.86|-15.65|0.320
84502762|NCT01507831|168756875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||104.4|53.3|<0.0001
84502763|NCT01507831|168756876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|97.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|138.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||138.9|68.2|<0.0001
84599138|NCT01942668|168950520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
84599139|NCT01942668|168950520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
84599140|NCT01942668|168950521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.629||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|-1.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.69|-8.08|0.003
84599141|NCT01942668|168950521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-6.80|0.027
84599142|NCT01942668|168950521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.618||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-6.61|0.034
84599143|NCT01942668|168950521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.71|0.119
84599144|NCT01942668|168950522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|-2.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.05|-8.73|0.002
84599145|NCT01942668|168950522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.696||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-8.72|0.002
84599146|NCT01942668|168950522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-1.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-8.19|0.004
84644595|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0188||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0188
84502764|NCT01507831|168756877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-23.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.1|-28.1|<0.0001
84502765|NCT01507831|168756878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|3.3|<0.0001
84599147|NCT01942668|168950522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-7.75|0.009
84599148|NCT01942668|168950523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.90|-10.18|<0.001
84599149|NCT01942668|168950523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.00|-11.23|<0.001
84599150|NCT01942668|168950523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.04|<0.001
84599151|NCT01942668|168950523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-10.41|<0.001
84599152|NCT01942668|168950524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.146|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-11.55|<0.001
84599153|NCT01942668|168950524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.80|0.009
84618215|NCT03951077|168983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.6||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.59|-14.87|0.315
84618216|NCT03951077|168983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-6.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.63|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.19|-16.63|0.265
84618217|NCT03951077|168983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-0.8||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|11.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||11.48|-13.10|0.914
84618218|NCT03951077|168983027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.429||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.628|-0.231|||MMRM|||P-value is from mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.231|-11.628|0.087
84760280|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0743||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2442|7.7479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.7479|-0.2442|0.2284
84760281|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5848||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9265|13.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.224|3.9265|0.0201
84502766|NCT01507831|168756879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-14.6|-20.1|<0.0001
84599154|NCT01942668|168950524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-0.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.95|-9.31|0.016
84599155|NCT01942668|168950524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-7.22|0.154
84599156|NCT01942668|168950525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-12.72|<0.001
84599157|NCT01942668|168950525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|-3.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.20|-11.83|<0.001
84599158|NCT01942668|168950525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.02|-11.63|<0.001
84599159|NCT01942668|168950525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.207||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-1.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-9.93|0.011
84618219|NCT03951077|168983027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.435||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.533|-3.118|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-3.118|-14.533|0.012
84644596|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6394||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6394
84599160|NCT01942668|168950526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|-4.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-13.76|<0.001
84599161|NCT01942668|168950526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-4.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.85|-14.34|<0.001
84644597|NCT00282464|169024729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7707||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7707
84644598|NCT00282464|169024730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2185||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2185
84502767|NCT01507831|168756880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.2|1.6|<0.0001
84599162|NCT01942668|168950526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-14.03|<0.001
84599163|NCT01942668|168950526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-2.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.93|-12.51|0.002
84599164|NCT01942668|168950527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.07|-3.03|0.434
84599165|NCT01942668|168950527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.00|-3.06|0.442
84599166|NCT01942668|168950527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|6.51||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.51|-3.52|0.558
84618220|NCT03951077|168983027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.673|-10.519|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-10.519|-21.673|<0.001
84618221|NCT03951077|168983027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.593||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.116|-0.176|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.176|-12.116|0.091
84618222|NCT03951077|168983027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.418|-6.016|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-6.016|-17.418|< 0.001
84618223|NCT00086047|168983032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|1.57|0.007
84618224|NCT01395901|168983035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the primary efficacy analysis, the confidence interval (CI) was built on the FAS using the stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with correction of continuity. The non-inferiority margin was -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.7||||||"The null hypothesis (H0) was stated as:~• H0 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \<-10%~The alternative hypothesis (H1) was stated as:~• H1 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \>-10%~A power of 80% was used for sample size computation."||1.7|-10.5|
84618225|NCT00997035|168983101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard of perforation or need for TPK.||The sample size was determined based on the primary end point: perforation or the need for TPK within 3 months. Simulation-based analyses estimated that a sample sizeof 240 study participants (120 per arm) would provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in the 3-month perforation or need for TPK rate between topical antifungal plus oral voriconazole vs topical antifungal alone,with a 2-tailed α value of .05 and approximately 15%loss to follow-up.||1.18|0.57|0.29
84618226|NCT00997035|168983106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|.49|0.65
84618227|NCT00997035|168983108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistically significant after Holms-Šidák correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84618228|NCT03726489|168983111|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||13.5|0.8|<0.001
84502768|NCT01507831|168756881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.7|-27.4|<0.0001
84599167|NCT01942668|168950527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.60|-3.42|0.534
84599168|NCT01942668|168950528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.58|-5.08|0.927
84502769|NCT01507831|168756882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||6.8|4.3|<0.0001
84502770|NCT01507831|168756883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-15.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.3|-20.5|<0.0001
84502771|NCT01507831|168756884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|2.8|<0.0001
84502772|NCT03056001|168756899|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.1722|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported severe or life-threatening adverse event rate with weekly doxorubicin and dacarbazine was 0.55. If it became evident that the rate of severe or life-threatening toxicity convincingly exceeded 0.55, the study would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.55 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.75 or higher.||0.1722|0.0008|
84599169|NCT01942668|168950528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-6.95|0.541
84599170|NCT01942668|168950528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.691||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-8.96|0.171
84599171|NCT01942668|168950528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|4.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.15|-6.48|0.667
84599172|NCT01942668|168950529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-4.36|0.662
84599173|NCT01942668|168950529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.834||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|4.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.21|-6.91|0.635
84599174|NCT01942668|168950529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.11|-5.98|0.877
84502773|NCT03056001|168756900|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in years) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||2.1|0.8|
84502774|NCT03056001|168756901|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.3|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||8.3|4.1|
84502775|NCT03056001|168756902|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.561|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.561|0.199|
84502776|NCT03056001|168756903|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median DoR (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median duration of response.|||34.6|2.8|
84599175|NCT01942668|168950529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|5.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-6.01|0.893
84599176|NCT01942668|168950530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|3.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-4.48|0.830
84599177|NCT01942668|168950530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.38|-4.66|0.755
84599178|NCT01942668|168950530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.53|-3.50|0.802
84599179|NCT01942668|168950530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-4.46|0.823
84599180|NCT01942668|168950531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.166||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|-6.71|0.255
84618229|NCT03726489|168983111|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||13.8|-5.4|<0.001
84618230|NCT03726489|168983111|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|17.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||17.0|-2.2|<0.001
84618231|NCT03726489|168983111|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|36.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||36.6|0.8|<0.001
84618232|NCT03726489|168983111|OTHER|HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.||||||0.347||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.347
84618233|NCT03726489|168983112|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|25.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||25.3|11.8|<0.001
84618234|NCT03726489|168983112|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||31.5|11.0|<0.001
84618235|NCT03726489|168983112|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||26.6|6.4|<0.001
84673245|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.5||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.50|-5.15|0.1065
84618236|NCT03726489|168983112|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|35.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.9|-3.7|0.001
84618237|NCT03726489|168983112|OTHER|||||||0.873||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.873
84618238|NCT03726489|168983113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||10.4|7.1|<0.0001
84673246|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.05||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-2.05|-8.12|0.0011
84618239|NCT03726489|168983113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|11.71||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||11.71|7.05|<0.0001
84618240|NCT03726489|168983113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||11.14|5.82|<0.0001
84618241|NCT03726489|168983113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||12.58|1.06|0.0213
84618242|NCT03726489|168983114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||18.7|10.4|<0.0001
84673247|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-3.4||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-3.40|-9.54|<.0001
84673248|NCT03548584|169082004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
84760282|NCT00531752|169276803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8154||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07753|9.9683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.9683|0.07753|0.1931
84599181|NCT01942668|168950531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|1.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|-6.49|0.293
84599182|NCT01942668|168950531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.148||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|2.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-5.66|0.502
84599183|NCT01942668|168950531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-5.71|0.495
84599184|NCT01942668|168950532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.274||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-6.42|0.389
84599185|NCT01942668|168950532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|1.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-6.85|0.281
84599186|NCT01942668|168950532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.91|-5.92|0.504
84599187|NCT01942668|168950532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.78|-6.15|0.460
84599188|NCT01942668|168950533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.28|-0.58|0.084
84599189|NCT01942668|168950533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.53|-2.30|0.298
84599190|NCT01942668|168950533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-1.17|0.136
84599191|NCT01942668|168950533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.37|-1.41|0.163
84599192|NCT01942668|168950534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|10.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.31|-0.08|0.054
84599193|NCT01942668|168950534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.634||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|12.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.26|1.93|0.007
84599194|NCT01942668|168950534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|11.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.04|0.75|0.025
84599195|NCT01942668|168950534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.638||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|13.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.55|3.20|0.002
84599196|NCT01942668|168950535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.945||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.80|-0.76|0.089
84599197|NCT01942668|168950535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.29|1.83|0.010
84599198|NCT01942668|168950535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|13.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.36|1.94|0.009
84599199|NCT01942668|168950535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.944||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|13.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.67|2.11|0.007
84599200|NCT01942668|168950536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.749||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.07|0.349
84599201|NCT01942668|168950536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.60|0.499
84760283|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1759||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9046|-0.4487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.4487|-0.9046|0.0003
84599202|NCT01942668|168950536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.737||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-3.27|0.936
84599203|NCT01942668|168950536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.736||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.72|-4.08|0.696
84599204|NCT01942668|168950537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.69|-4.86|0.572
84599205|NCT01942668|168950537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.914||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-4.89|0.553
84599206|NCT01942668|168950537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.32|-5.16|0.456
84599207|NCT01942668|168950537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.919||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-3.89|0.949
84599208|NCT01942668|168950538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.026||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-7.34|0.097
84599209|NCT01942668|168950538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.28|0.008
84599210|NCT01942668|168950538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-8.87|0.014
84599211|NCT01942668|168950538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.029||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-7.86|0.056
84673249|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.16|-0.05|0.3048
84599212|NCT01942668|168950539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-8.18|0.003
84599213|NCT01942668|168950539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-7.05|0.023
84599214|NCT01942668|168950539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-6.52|0.047
84599215|NCT01942668|168950539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-6.65|0.039
84599216|NCT01942668|168950540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-2.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.05|<0.001
84599217|NCT01942668|168950540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-8.93|0.001
84599218|NCT01942668|168950540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-8.45|0.003
84599219|NCT01942668|168950540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.708||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-8.46|0.003
84599220|NCT01942668|168950541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-9.71|0.001
84599221|NCT01942668|168950541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|-3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.55|-10.89|<0.001
84673250|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||0.12|-0.17|0.7058
84599222|NCT01942668|168950541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.27|-10.58|<0.001
84599223|NCT01942668|168950541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.886|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.72|-10.12|<0.001
84599224|NCT01942668|168950542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.609||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.44|-7.75|0.004
84599225|NCT01942668|168950542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-6.64|0.030
84599226|NCT01942668|168950542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-6.29|0.049
84599227|NCT01942668|168950542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.61|0.121
84599228|NCT01942668|168950543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-8.74|0.001
84599229|NCT01942668|168950543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-2.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-8.81|<0.001
84599230|NCT01942668|168950543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-8.39|0.002
84599231|NCT01942668|168950543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-7.93|0.006
84618243|NCT03726489|168983114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|16.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.01|6.93|<0.0001
84673251|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.10|-0.23|0.4516
84599232|NCT01942668|168950544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-9.91|<0.001
84599233|NCT01942668|168950544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.98|-11.18|<0.001
84599234|NCT01942668|168950544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.02|<0.001
84599235|NCT01942668|168950544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.91|-10.17|<0.001
84599236|NCT01942668|168950545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.04|0.225
84599237|NCT01942668|168950545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.08|0.741
84599238|NCT01942668|168950545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.06|0.414
84599239|NCT01942668|168950545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.11|0.690
84599240|NCT01942668|168950546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.00|0.045
84618244|NCT03726489|168983114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|19.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||19.98|7.77|<0.0001
84618245|NCT03726489|168983114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.84||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|58.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||58.35|7.32|0.0127
84673252|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-0.08|-0.46|0.0052
84502777|NCT02295280|168756910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Reduction in pain scores by at least 2 units six hours post administration|Mann Whitney U test|Mann Whitney U test used for analysis of this continuous variable as data were not normally distributed. Outcome was comparable at the 6-hour mark.||A sample size calculation of 35 patients in each group was based on an estimated reduction in headache pain score by at least two points, with an a of 0.05 and power of 90%, which is similar to estimates reported in prior studies in non-pregnant patients and felt to be a clinically significant decrease. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, the independent Student's t-test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov for continuous variables.||||0.14
84502778|NCT01241565|168756921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of incidence of PAL|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.3|||||Incidence of Prolonged Air Leak (PAL) is estimated at between 5-10% in literature. PAL of 10%of evaluable cases was used to determine study success.|||21.3|3.9|
84502779|NCT02713243|168756928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.04||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||7.11|0.98|0.01
84502780|NCT02713243|168756928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.38|-1.77|0.401
84502781|NCT02713243|168756928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.89|0.46|0.019
84502782|NCT02713243|168756933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.52|-0.27|0.533
84502783|NCT02713243|168756933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.49|0.640
84502784|NCT02713243|168756933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.27|0.916
84502785|NCT02522949|168756942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7146|||||||ANCOVA|||Oropharyngeal||||0.7146
84502786|NCT02522949|168756942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3543|||||||ANCOVA|||Nasal||||0.3543
84502787|NCT02522949|168756950|OTHER|||||||0.0232|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0232
84502788|NCT02795780|168757039|OTHER|||||||0.0166||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0166
84502789|NCT02795780|168757039|OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0108
84502790|NCT00430638|168757060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff blood pressure stage as factors and study baseline systolic BP value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502791|NCT00430638|168757061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff BP stage as factors and study baseline diastolic BP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502792|NCT00430638|168757062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (male systolic blood pressure (SBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502793|NCT00430638|168757062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Males - diastolic blood pressure (DBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502794|NCT00430638|168757063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502795|NCT00430638|168757063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502796|NCT00430638|168757064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84502797|NCT00430638|168757064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
84618246|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.35|-1.27|0.001
84618247|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.16|-1.51|0.0158
84618248|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||-0.19|-1.58|0.0130
84618249|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||1.11|-1.94|0.5910
84618250|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes at Week 24||0.82|-0.33|0.395
84618251|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II at Week 24||0.93|-0.69|0.774
84618252|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV at Week 24||1.41|-0.36|0.242
84618253|NCT03726489|168983115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.83||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI at Week 24||1.83|-2.72|0.692
84618254|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.59||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation||0.68|-5.86|0.1209
84618255|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.13||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation||1.75|-6.0|0.2581
84618256|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.65||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation||2.65|-8.73|0.2952
84618257|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.61||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|7.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation||7.89|-13.12|0.6324
84618258|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation||2.85|-2.56|0.9163
84618259|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31||||0.8551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation||3.66|-3.03|0.8551
84618260|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.48||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation||5.48|-4.05|0.7678
84618261|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.03||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|2.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation||2.82|-8.88|0.3446
84618262|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.26||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|3.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation at Week 24||3.11|-5.64|0.5716
84618263|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation at Week 24||5.14|-6.03|0.8756
84618264|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.07||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation at Week 24||5.04|-9.18|0.5686
84618265|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.39||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation at Week 24||14.7|-17.5|0.8660
84618266|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.62|-2.24|0.8779
84502798|NCT00430638|168757065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - \> or equal to 65 years old): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0125
84599241|NCT01942668|168950546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.01|0.069
84599242|NCT01942668|168950546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.02|0.126
84599243|NCT01942668|168950546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.10|0.907
84599244|NCT01942668|168950547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.992
84599245|NCT01942668|168950547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.07|0.450
84599246|NCT01942668|168950547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.13|0.663
84599247|NCT01942668|168950547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.16|0.309
84599248|NCT01467037|168950560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.384|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.384|0.020|
84599249|NCT01467037|168950560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.307|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.307|0.018|
84599250|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|317.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.6694||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.297|611.926|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||611.926|23.297|0.034
84502799|NCT00430638|168757065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) \> or equal to 65): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0006
84502800|NCT00430638|168757066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84599251|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|342.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.0397||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.09|637.175|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||637.175|47.090|0.023
84599252|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|61.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.2717||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.527|357.471|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||357.471|-233.527|0.680
84599253|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|503.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.3149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|301.93|704.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||704.086|301.930|<0.001
84599254|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|511.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.5851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.749|712.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||712.965|309.749|<0.001
84599255|NCT01626118|168950563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|341.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.7761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|139.249|543.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||543.215|139.249|<0.001
84599256|NCT01626118|168950564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
84599257|NCT01626118|168950564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
84599258|NCT01626118|168950564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
84599259|NCT01626118|168950565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
84599260|NCT01626118|168950565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84599261|NCT01626118|168950565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
84599262|NCT01626118|168950566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84599263|NCT01626118|168950566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84599264|NCT01626118|168950566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
84599265|NCT01626118|168950567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
84599266|NCT01626118|168950567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84599267|NCT01626118|168950567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.716
84599268|NCT01626118|168950568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84599269|NCT01626118|168950568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84599270|NCT01626118|168950568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
84599271|NCT01626118|168950569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84599272|NCT01626118|168950569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84599273|NCT01626118|168950569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
84599274|NCT01626118|168950570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
84618267|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation at Week 24||3.28|-2.52|0.7985
84599275|NCT01626118|168950570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84599276|NCT01626118|168950570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.577
84599277|NCT00002540|168950572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
84618268|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.69||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation at Week 24||5.09|-3.71|0.7585
84618269|NCT03726489|168983116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.78||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|2.59||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.59|-8.15|0.3422
84599278|NCT00002540|168950574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.00|0.93|
84599279|NCT00002540|168950576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.17|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.17|1.07|
84599280|NCT00002540|168950586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
84599281|NCT01864148|168950589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.07|0.46|0.9584
84599282|NCT01864148|168950589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.31|0.97|0.0636
84599283|NCT01864148|168950589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.84|1.11|0.0220
84599284|NCT01864148|168950589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.21|0.36|0.1771
84599285|NCT01864148|168950589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8931|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.8931
84599286|NCT01864148|168950590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.49|0.28|0.3058
84599287|NCT01864148|168950590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.89|0.81|0.1873
84599288|NCT01864148|168950590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.65|0.76|0.2766
84599289|NCT01864148|168950590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.65|0.45|0.6578
84599290|NCT01864148|168950590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5255|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.5255
84599291|NCT01500252|168950593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84599292|NCT01500252|168950594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84599293|NCT01500252|168950596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84599294|NCT01500252|168950597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84599295|NCT01500252|168950598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84599296|NCT01500252|168950599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84599297|NCT01500252|168950600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84599298|NCT01500252|168950601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84599299|NCT01500252|168950602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84502801|NCT00430638|168757066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84599300|NCT00904670|168950639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-10.17|||ANOVA|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-10.17|-14.75|<0.0001
84599301|NCT00904670|168950640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.11|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-4.11|-8.53|<0.0001
84599302|NCT00904670|168950640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-7.91|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-7.91|-12.04|<0.0001
84599303|NCT00904670|168950640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-6.75|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-6.75|-11.92|<0.0001
84599304|NCT00904670|168950640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-1.54|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.54|-6.04|0.0016
84599305|NCT00904670|168950640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.94|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.94|-7.61|0.0016
84599306|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.36|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.36|-1.88|0.0051
84599307|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.95|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.95|-2.23|<0.0001
84599308|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.2|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.20|-3.37|0.0001
84599309|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.47|-2.52|0.0055
84599310|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.29|-1.38|0.1977
84618270|NCT03726489|168983117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.55||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||0.55|-6.95|0.094
84618271|NCT03726489|168983117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.26|-10.26|0.0393
84599311|NCT00904670|168950641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.00|-1.76|0.0491
84599312|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.02|-2.36|<0.0001
84599313|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.50|<0.0001
84599314|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-2.13|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.13|-3.77|<0.0001
84599315|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.66|-3.33|<0.0001
84599316|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.44|-2.07|0.0035
84599317|NCT00904670|168950642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.35|-2.51|0.0109
84599318|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.26|34.96|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||34.96|16.26|<0.0001
84599319|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.54|47.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||47.66|26.54|<0.0001
84599320|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.89|60.65|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||60.65|30.89|<0.0001
84599321|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|48.78|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||48.78|22.14|<0.0001
84599322|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||26.73|3.00|0.0155
84618272|NCT03726489|168983117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|1.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||1.44|-9.28|0.1505
84618273|NCT03726489|168983117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.42||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|29.84||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||29.84|-9.0|0.2840
84599323|NCT00904670|168950643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|33.22|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||33.22|8.17|0.0019
84599324|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.74|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.74|-2.85|0.0014
84599325|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.76|<0.0001
84599326|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-2.67|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.67|-5.12|<0.0001
84599327|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-1.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.33|-3.97|0.0002
84599328|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.49|-1.34|0.3492
84599329|NCT00904670|168950645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.33|-2.34|0.0105
84599330|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.00|-2.43|<0.0001
84599331|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-2.1|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.10|-3.78|<0.0001
84599332|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.57|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.57|-4.11|<0.0001
84599333|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.76|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.76|-3.64|<0.0001
84599334|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.73|-2.40|0.0006
84599335|NCT00904670|168950646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.30|-1.94|0.0087
84599336|NCT01901289|168950677|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.956|||||The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|||0.956|0.881|
84618274|NCT03726489|168983118|OTHER||Mean|19.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
84618275|NCT03726489|168983118|OTHER||Mean|18.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
84673253|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-0.08|-0.47|0.0060
84502802|NCT00430638|168757067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84502803|NCT00430638|168757067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84502804|NCT00430638|168757068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84599337|NCT03703817|168950709|SUPERIORITY|Effectiveness: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.3648|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.3648
84599338|NCT03703817|168950709|SUPERIORITY|Side effect: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1395|||||||Conditional logistic regression|||||||0.1395
84599339|NCT03703817|168950709|SUPERIORITY|Convenience: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.0349|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.0349
84599340|NCT03703817|168950709|SUPERIORITY|Global satisfaction: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1546|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.1546
84599341|NCT03703817|168950710|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1602|||||||Conditional logistic regression model|||||||0.1602
84599342|NCT03703817|168950711|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.9921|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.9921
84599343|NCT06359028|168950745|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.72|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.72|-2.16|<0.0001
84599344|NCT06359028|168950746|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.23|64.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||64.51|50.23|<0.0001
84599345|NCT06359028|168950747|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.41|-1.89|<0.0001
84599346|NCT06359028|168950748|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|43.86|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||43.86|26.88|<0.0001
84599347|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 28||0.13|-1.04|0.1268
84599348|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 56||-1.13|-2.38|<0.0001
84599349|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 28||-0.09|-1.35|0.0245
84599350|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 56||-1.18|-2.44|<0.0001
84599351|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.37|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 28||0.37|-0.96|0.3851
84599352|NCT06359028|168950749|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 56||-0.73|-2.22|0.0002
84599353|NCT06359028|168950750|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.674||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|3.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||3.08|-15.46|0.1884
84599354|NCT06359028|168950750|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-11.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-11.97|-37.00|0.0002
84599355|NCT06359028|168950751|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.73|-2.34|0.3003
84673254|NCT03548584|169082005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
84599356|NCT06359028|168950751|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.97|-4.56|0.0028
84599357|NCT06359028|168950752|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.44|-8.00|0.0784
84599358|NCT06359028|168950752|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.074||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-2.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-2.07|-14.27|0.0092
84599359|NCT06359028|168950753|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.54|-1.82|0.8686
84599360|NCT06359028|168950753|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-1.31|-5.18|0.0012
84599361|NCT06359028|168950754|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.444||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||2.69|-3.04|0.9047
84618276|NCT03726489|168983118|OTHER||Mean|23.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.71|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
84618277|NCT03726489|168983118|OTHER||Mean|9.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
84618278|NCT03726489|168983119|OTHER||Mean|50.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
84599362|NCT06359028|168950754|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|-3.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-3.38|-9.95|0.0001
84599363|NCT06359028|168950755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.19|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.19|-2.14|0.5733
84599364|NCT06359028|168950755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.84|-4.92|0.0060
84599365|NCT06359028|168950756|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.11|-0.39|0.2768
84599366|NCT06359028|168950756|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.04|-0.48|0.0232
84599367|NCT06359028|168950757|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.85|-0.75|0.8996
84599368|NCT06359028|168950757|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.14|-1.66|0.0204
84599369|NCT01331837|168950791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to reject the null hypothesis and claim non-inferiority of TCZ compared to ETA, a HR point estimate of ≤ 1.278 and upper limit of 95% CI \<1.8 was required.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.43|0.77|
84599370|NCT01331837|168950793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62||||||"The analysis assessed in the OT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.62|0.76|
84599371|NCT01331837|168950795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.40|0.73|
84618279|NCT03726489|168983119|OTHER||Mean|53.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
84618280|NCT03726489|168983119|OTHER||Mean|49.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
84618281|NCT03726489|168983119|OTHER||Mean|39.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
84618282|NCT03726489|168983120|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|17.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||17.42|6.52|<0.0001
84618283|NCT03726489|168983120|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|24.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.75|7.54|<0.0001
84618284|NCT03726489|168983120|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|13.46||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||13.46|-2.35|<0.0001
84644599|NCT00282464|169024730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4124||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.4124
84644600|NCT00282464|169024730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6098
84644601|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0005
84644602|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0099
84760284|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5499|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0650|-0.5499|0.1055
84502805|NCT00430638|168757068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84599372|NCT01331837|168950797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.56|0.70|
84599373|NCT01331837|168950799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.34|0.73|
84599374|NCT01331837|168950801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|'The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.49|0.54|
84599375|NCT01331837|168950803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.63|0.64|
84599376|NCT01331837|168950805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||2.92|0.80|
84599377|NCT01331837|168950807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.41|0.70|
84599378|NCT03724981|168950812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
84599379|NCT03724981|168950813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
84599380|NCT01380535|168950831|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.373
84599381|NCT02791191|168950833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.418
84599382|NCT02791191|168950833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
84599383|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
84599384|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
84599385|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.404
84599386|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cortical Superficial Siderous||||1.000
84599387|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|Lacunar Infarct||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84599388|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lacunar Infarct||||0.457
84599389|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||1.000
84599390|NCT02791191|168950834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||0.457
84599391|NCT02791191|168950835|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||1.000
84599392|NCT02791191|168950835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||0.457
84760285|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7012|-0.2356|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2356|-0.7012|0.0119
84599393|NCT02791191|168950835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||0.703
84599394|NCT02791191|168950835|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||1.000
84599395|NCT02791191|168950836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment Emergent Suicidal Ideation||||0.452
84599396|NCT02791191|168950836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||TE Suicidal Ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.279
84760286|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3687|0.11608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.11608|-0.3687|0.5016
84618285|NCT03726489|168983120|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|35.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.09|7.65|<0.0001
84618286|NCT03726489|168983121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.68||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|20.08||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||20.08|3.27|0.0065
84502806|NCT00430638|168757069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84618287|NCT03726489|168983121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.31||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|24.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.49|0.03|0.0478
84618288|NCT03726489|168983121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.25||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||25.98|0.52|0.0431
84618289|NCT03726489|168983121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|28.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||28.50|-25.50|0.9133
84618290|NCT03726489|168983122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.07|-15.73|0.048
84618291|NCT03726489|168983122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.15|2.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||2.80|-24.15|0.1199
84502807|NCT00430638|168757069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
84502808|NCT02367781|168757070|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.763|||Log Rank|||||0.763|0.536|<.0001
84618292|NCT03726489|168983122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|4.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||4.66|-15.26|0.2953
84502809|NCT02367781|168757071|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.977|||Log Rank|||||0.977|0.636|0.0298
84618293|NCT03726489|168983122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.5124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.77|18.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||18.11|-35.77|0.5124
84618294|NCT03726489|168983123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|19.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||19.87|1.93|0.0173
84618295|NCT03726489|168983123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.06||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|26.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||26.94|-0.81|0.0662
84502810|NCT02367781|168757072|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.768|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.768|0.545|<0.0001
84618296|NCT03726489|168983123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.58||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.57||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||21.57|-4.42|0.1976
84618297|NCT03726489|168983123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.04||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|40.69||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||40.69|-14.60|0.3595
84618298|NCT03726489|168983124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.55||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|16.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||16.14|-1.05|0.0853
84618299|NCT03726489|168983124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.26||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|16.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.06|-11.54|0.7488
84618300|NCT03726489|168983124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.12||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|22.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||22.26|-2.03|0.1051
84618301|NCT03726489|168983124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.39||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|42.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||42.27|-7.48|0.1792
84599397|NCT02791191|168950836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.293
84599398|NCT02791191|168950836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.486
84599399|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta||||<.001
84599400|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY|Amyloid Beta|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84599401|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
84599402|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
84599403|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
84599404|NCT02791191|168950838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
84599405|NCT02791191|168950839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.970
84599406|NCT02791191|168950839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Meausres|||||||0.586
84673255|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||0.26|-0.05|0.1975
84673256|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.44|0.0084
84599407|NCT02791191|168950840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.088
84599408|NCT02791191|168950840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
84599409|NCT02791191|168950841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.153
84599410|NCT02791191|168950841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.176
84599411|NCT02370537|168950843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-square means (LSmeans) for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|Geometric least-squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.1|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.10|0.52|
84599412|NCT02370537|168950843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.72|0.32|
84599413|NCT02370537|168950843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.82|0.44|
84599414|NCT02370537|168950844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.93|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.93|0.84|
84599415|NCT02370537|168950844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.51|
84599416|NCT02370537|168950844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.82|0.92|
84673257|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0101
84673258|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.59|0.0008
84673259|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||-0.12|-0.55|0.0023
84673260|NCT03548584|169082006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||-0.09|-0.57|0.0070
84673261|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/= 20%: Week 2||1.91|0.64|0.7290
84502811|NCT02367781|168757072|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.728|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT ITT Population||0.728|0.432|<0.0001
84599417|NCT02370537|168950845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.28|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.28|0.63|
84599418|NCT02370537|168950845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.85|0.39|
84599419|NCT02370537|168950845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.0|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.00|0.55|
84599420|NCT02370537|168950846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.73|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.73|0.37|
84599421|NCT02370537|168950846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.67|0.32|
84599422|NCT02370537|168950846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.7|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.70|0.40|
84618302|NCT03726489|168983125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||7.50|-1.37|0.175
84618303|NCT03726489|168983125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.51||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||5.51|-6.34|0.8904
84618304|NCT03726489|168983125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|14.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||14.88|0.31|0.0412
84618305|NCT03726489|168983125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|24.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||24.38|-13.38|0.5481
84618306|NCT03726489|168983125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.403|||Regression, Cox|Failure event corresponds to DLQI assessment greater than 5. Model adjusted for skin phototype.|Office phototherapy is the reference group.|Cox proportional hazards model for maintaining treatment response after week 12.||1.403|0.471|0.458
84618307|NCT03726489|168983126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|45.86||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||45.86|30.34|<0.0001
84502812|NCT02367781|168757072|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.708|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.708|0.425|<0.0001
84502813|NCT02367781|168757073|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.017|||Log Rank|||||1.017|0.689|0.0732
84502814|NCT02367781|168757074|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.039|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||1.039|0.545|0.0830
84502815|NCT02367781|168757074|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.038|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 WT ITT Population||1.038|0.536|0.0813
84599423|NCT02370537|168950847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-squares LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.36|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.36|0.77|
84599424|NCT02370537|168950847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.67|
84599425|NCT02370537|168950847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.4|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.40|0.88|
84599426|NCT02370537|168950848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.92|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.92|0.49|
84599427|NCT02370537|168950848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.84|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.84|0.42|
84599428|NCT02370537|168950848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.9|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.90|0.54|
84599429|NCT02578680|168950899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.43|<0.00001
84599430|NCT02578680|168950900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.38|<0.00001
84599431|NCT02578680|168950901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs. Control|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|35.4||H0:Difference in percentages=0 vs H1:Difference in percentages\>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen method with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||35.4|21.1|<0.0001
84502816|NCT02367781|168757075|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|19.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.05|27.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|||27.37|11.05|<.0001
84502817|NCT02367781|168757076|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|16.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|24.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|ITT Population||24.88|8.90|<.0001
84502818|NCT02367781|168757076|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.56||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||3.56|1.38|
84502819|NCT02367781|168757076|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||3.51|1.39|0.0007
84502820|NCT02367781|168757077|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.797|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.797|0.473|0.0002
84599432|NCT02578680|168950905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.59|0.41|<0.00001
84599433|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4261
84599434|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4219
84599435|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1826
84599436|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0090
84599437|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3421|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3421
84599438|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0100
84599439|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2103
84599440|NCT01018134|168950927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1200
84599441|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2631
84599442|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2968|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2968
84599443|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0186
84599444|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0361
84599445|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0070
84673262|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 4||1.52|0.78|0.6196
84599446|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1583
84599447|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2078
84599448|NCT01018134|168950928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2878
84599449|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2713
84599450|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2689
84502821|NCT02367781|168757077|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.785|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT Population||0.785|0.458|0.0002
84599451|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0419
84599452|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0309
84599453|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1126
84599454|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
84599455|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4967
84599456|NCT01018134|168950929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0749
84599457|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2442
84599458|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2664
84599459|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1328
84599460|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0528
84599461|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0297
84599462|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0093
84599463|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2230
84599464|NCT01018134|168950930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
84599465|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2397|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2397
84599466|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3794
84599467|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0383
84599468|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0154
84599469|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1892
84599470|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
84599471|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0363
84599472|NCT01018134|168950931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2162
84599473|NCT01610557|168950936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||2.5|0.07|0.039
84599474|NCT01610557|168950937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-31.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||-31|-65|<0.001
84599475|NCT03215758|168950938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0238||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.006|0.088
84599476|NCT03215758|168950939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.278
84599477|NCT03215758|168950940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.30|0.429
84599478|NCT03215758|168950941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.777
84599479|NCT00473668|168950948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|2.84||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||2.84|-6.39|
84599480|NCT00473668|168950948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.99||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||3.99|-4.16|
84599481|NCT02039219|168950963|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at baseline OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 14.9(2.4), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 16.4 (2.2).|Baseline||||0.1758
84599482|NCT02039219|168950963|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at day 42 OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 11.5 (6.8), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 13.9(4.6).|Day 42||||0.3839
84599483|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
84599484|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
84599485|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
84599486|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
84599487|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
84599488|NCT02039219|168950971|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
84618308|NCT03726489|168983126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.39|50.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||50.33|27.39|<0.0001
84618309|NCT03726489|168983126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.73|53.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||53.68|30.73|<0.0001
84760287|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1738||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5711|-0.1191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1191|-0.5711|0.0531
84502822|NCT02367781|168757077|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.791|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.791|0.379|0.0011
84502823|NCT02367781|168757077|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.798|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||0.798|0.381|0.0014
84599489|NCT02039219|168950975|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8094
84599490|NCT02226562|168950980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.92||The P-value was less than 0.0001|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and baseline as covariate||||-0.92|-1.28|0.0001
84599491|NCT01466660|168951002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.032||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.032|0.655|0.0891
84599492|NCT01466660|168951003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.944||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.944|0.595|0.0136
84599493|NCT01466660|168951004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.101||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.101|0.674|0.2343
84599494|NCT01466660|168951005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|2.223||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.223|0.768|0.3235
84599495|NCT01466660|168951008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|2.896||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.896|0.447|0.7856
84673263|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 6||1.53|0.88|0.2718
84760288|NCT00531752|169276804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6549|-0.1725|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1725|-0.6549|0.0306
84673264|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 8||1.93|1.19|0.0004
84502824|NCT02367781|168757078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.46||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|15.37|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT WT Population||15.37|-0.45|0.0647
84599496|NCT01466660|168951010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline sum of diameters, EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.23|-7.13|0.0657
84599497|NCT01466660|168951011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|"EQ-5D UK utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.01|-0.06|0.1422
84599498|NCT01466660|168951011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-5D Belgium utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.00|-0.06|0.0540
84599499|NCT01466660|168951011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-VAS utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.8|-3.9|0.2032
84599500|NCT00129701|168951012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.064
84599501|NCT03576066|168951015|OTHER|||||||0.6855|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.6855
84599502|NCT03576066|168951015|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||LS mean difference in HBeAg-negative participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.1750
84599503|NCT03576066|168951016|OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.2916
84599504|NCT00365105|168951055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||Assuming an exponential distribution, the weighted yearly SRE hazard rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.7991 which translates to a median time to SRE of 10.4 months. The study was designed to show a 33% relative reduction in the yearly SRE hazard rate, i.e. 15.6 months median time to SRE. Using a two-sided log-rank test assuming a type I error of 0.05, one planned interim analysis with 90% statistical power, 257 SREs are required with a total of 316 patients.||1.54|0.70|0.844
84599505|NCT00365105|168951056|SUPERIORITY|The power of detecting an improvement from 55% in the control arm to 41% in the experimental arm with a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha 0.05 is 66%.||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
84599506|NCT00365105|168951057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52|||Log Rank|||Assuming the disease site distribution is 40%, 40%, and 20% from prostate, breast, and lung cancer populations, respectively, the weighted yearly death rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.4390, translating to a median overall survival time of 18.9 months assuming an exponential distribution. Statistical power to detect a relative difference of 33% in the yearly death rate is 70% using a two-sided log-rank test at a 0.05 significance level and 87% to detect 50% difference.||1.52|0.86|0.37
84599507|NCT00365105|168951058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G Total||||0.96
84599508|NCT00365105|168951058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Well-Being||||0.97
84599509|NCT00365105|168951058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social/Family Well-Being||||0.57
84599510|NCT00365105|168951058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Emotional Well-Being||||0.70
84599511|NCT00365105|168951058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Well-Being||||0.46
84599512|NCT00365105|168951059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84599513|NCT00365105|168951060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Index Score||||0.43
84599514|NCT00365105|168951060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Score||||0.15
84599515|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|20.5||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \<5.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.384
84599516|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.409||95.0|-7.7|20.5||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.409
84599517|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.744
84599518|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.783
84599519|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.234
84599520|NCT00152477|168951092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.228
84618310|NCT03726489|168983126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.74||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|41.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||41.11|-9.63|0.2340
84599521|NCT00425698|168951098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Erythopoietin significantly improves kidney graft function. Power calculation: with a difference of at least 4 mL/min in mean eGFR between groups the number of patients enrolled per group (at least 41) would allowed the detection of a significant difference between groups at a 5% level (p\<0.05)||||<0.05
84599522|NCT01106651|168951132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.436|||ANCOVA|||||-0.436|-0.708|<0.001
84599523|NCT01106651|168951132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.566|||ANCOVA|||||-0.566|-0.841|<0.001
84599524|NCT01106651|168951133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001||95.0|1.93|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.93|<0.001
84599525|NCT01106651|168951133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.95|2.89|<0.001
84599526|NCT01106651|168951134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.32|||ANCOVA|||||-19.32|-31.68|<0.001
84599527|NCT01106651|168951134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.97|-21.49|||ANCOVA|||||-21.49|-33.97|<0.001
84599528|NCT01106651|168951135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
84599529|NCT01106651|168951135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-3.5|<0.001
84599530|NCT01106651|168951136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.339|-0.842|||ANCOVA|||||-0.842|-2.339|<0.001
84599531|NCT01106651|168951136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.833|-1.368|||ANCOVA|||||-1.368|-2.833|<0.001
84599532|NCT01106651|168951137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.633|-0.428|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.428|-1.633|<0.001
84599533|NCT01106651|168951137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|-0.587|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.587|-1.772|<0.001
84599534|NCT01106651|168951138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.677|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.430|-1.677|0.001
84599535|NCT01106651|168951138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.584|||ANCOVA|||||-0.584|-1.812|<0.001
84673265|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 10||1.76|1.15|0.0006
84599536|NCT01106651|168951139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.854|-2.401|||ANCOVA|||||-2.401|-6.854|<0.001
84599537|NCT01106651|168951139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-5.641|||ANCOVA|||||-5.641|-10.14|<0.001
84599538|NCT01106651|168951140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-12.1|0.194
84599539|NCT01106651|168951140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.6|0.846
84599540|NCT01106651|168951141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|2.6|<0.001
84599541|NCT01106651|168951141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||ANCOVA|||||7.4|2.0|<0.001
84599542|NCT01106651|168951142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.4|
84599543|NCT01106651|168951142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.9|
84599544|NCT01106651|168951143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.9|
84599545|NCT01106651|168951143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|
84599546|NCT01106651|168951144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.3|
84599547|NCT01106651|168951144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|
84599548|NCT01106651|168951145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.8|
84599549|NCT01106651|168951145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|
84618311|NCT03726489|168983127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|50.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||50.66|37.25|<0.0001
84618312|NCT03726489|168983127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|49.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||49.70|30.0|<0.0001
84673266|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 12||1.72|1.15|0.0004
84673267|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.22||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 2||3.85|0.39|0.7211
84502825|NCT02367781|168757078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.07||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|16.19|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT WT Population||16.19|-0.06|0.0516
84618313|NCT03726489|168983127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.09|60.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||60.27|40.09|<0.0001
84618314|NCT03726489|168983127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.35|57.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||57.87|14.35|<0.0001
84618315|NCT03726489|168983128|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||9.0|-19.4|0.1773
84618316|NCT03726489|168983128|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.88||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|12.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||12.33|-26.09|0.4073
84618317|NCT03726489|168983128|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.42||||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|10.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||10.41|-35.24|0.8247
84502826|NCT02367781|168757078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.19||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|14.91|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT Population||14.91|-0.54|0.0683
84502827|NCT02367781|168757078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|15.44|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT Population||15.44|-0.39|0.0625
84618318|NCT03726489|168983128|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|37.88||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|79.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||79.77|-4.01|0.0133
84618319|NCT03726489|168983129|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|20.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||20.14|-7.11|0.002
84618320|NCT03726489|168983129|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.77||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|25.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||25.89|-10.35|0.0137
84618321|NCT03726489|168983129|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|23.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||23.61|-21.61|0.1656
84618322|NCT03726489|168983129|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|22.73||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|70.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||70.62|-25.16|0.1225
84618323|NCT03726489|168983130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.192|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 16. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.192|0.018|0.0183
84618324|NCT03726489|168983130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.158|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 20. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.158|-0.029|0.177
84618325|NCT03726489|168983130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.011||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.079|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 24. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.079|-0.101|0.815
84618326|NCT00797277|168983150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was no previous study comparing these 2 treatments. We hypothesized that the mean difference between the 2 treatments would be small.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we hypothesized that there would be no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups in the primary outcome.||||<0.05
84502828|NCT02367781|168757079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.69||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|17.83|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||17.83|-4.44|0.2385
84502829|NCT02367781|168757079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|24.03|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||24.03|-6.75|0.2710
84502830|NCT02367781|168757079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.34||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.67|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||17.67|-5.00|0.2733
84599550|NCT00712725|168951162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with PF at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
84599551|NCT00712725|168951163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response PR at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
84599552|NCT00712725|168951164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Photophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
84599553|NCT00712725|168951165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Phonophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
84599554|NCT00712725|168951166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Nausea at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||0.007
84599555|NCT00712725|168951167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response SPF 2-24 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
84599556|NCT00313144|168951176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
84599557|NCT00313144|168951178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
84599558|NCT00313144|168951179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.005
84599559|NCT00313144|168951181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
84599560|NCT00313144|168951182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
84599561|NCT00313144|168951183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.046
84599562|NCT01178944|168951203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is CR+PR vs stable disease/progression||1.38|0.78|0.585
84599563|NCT01818258|168951212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.40
84599564|NCT01818258|168951213|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event related to study treatment. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
84502831|NCT02367781|168757079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.69||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|24.81|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||24.81|-7.44|0.2909
84502832|NCT02367781|168757080|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.123|||Log Rank|||||1.123|0.711|0.3342
84502833|NCT01529749|168757088|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502834|NCT01529749|168757089|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502835|NCT01529749|168757090|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502836|NCT01529749|168757091|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502837|NCT01529749|168757092|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502838|NCT01529749|168757093|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502839|NCT01529749|168757094|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502840|NCT01529749|168757095|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502841|NCT01529749|168757096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84502842|NCT01529749|168757097|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84599565|NCT01818258|168951214|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.6|0.4|0.49
84599566|NCT01818258|168951214|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
84599567|NCT01818258|168951214|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|0.3|0.63
84502843|NCT01529749|168757098|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84599568|NCT01818258|168951215|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV Clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.5|0.89
84599569|NCT01818258|168951215|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.7|0.37
84599570|NCT01818258|168951215|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.9|0.5|0.63
84599571|NCT01818258|168951216|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.42
84599572|NCT01818258|168951216|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.11
84599573|NCT01818258|168951216|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.44
84599574|NCT01818258|168951217|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.5|0.84
84599575|NCT01818258|168951217|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.54||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.8|0.21
84599576|NCT01818258|168951217|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.5|0.7|0.44
84599577|NCT01818258|168951218|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.2|0.5|0.27
84599578|NCT01818258|168951218|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.0|0.4|0.047
84599579|NCT01818258|168951218|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.9|0.6|0.76
84599580|NCT01818258|168951219|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.5|-0.4|0.89
84618327|NCT04473963|168983183|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between subjects Randomized to Treatment vs subjects Randomized to Control||||||0.277|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.277
84618328|NCT04473963|168983185|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between subjects Randomized to Control and subjects Randomized to Treatment"||||||0.042|||||||Kaplan-Meyer Log Rank|||||||0.042
84502844|NCT01529749|168757099|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84599581|NCT01818258|168951219|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.8|0.18
84599582|NCT01818258|168951219|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.5|0.53
84599583|NCT01818258|168951220|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.7|0.39
84599584|NCT01818258|168951220|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.0|0.6|0.43
84502845|NCT01529749|168757100|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502846|NCT01529749|168757101|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84599585|NCT01818258|168951220|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|1.2|0.003
84618329|NCT04473963|168983190|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between procedure time of subjects Randomized to Treatment and subjects Randomized to Control. The Not-Randomized group was not included in the analysis."|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84618330|NCT04640311|168983191|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9699|1.09|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.090|0.9699|
84618331|NCT04640311|168983191|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9602|1.081|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.081|0.9602|
84673268|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 4||2.14|0.57|0.7606
84618332|NCT04640311|168983192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.083|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.083|0.9770|
84618333|NCT04640311|168983192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9496|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8914|1.012|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.012|0.8914|
84618334|NCT04640311|168983192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9533|1.07|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.070|0.9533|
84618335|NCT04640311|168983192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9115|1.028|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.028|0.9115|
84618336|NCT04640311|168983192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8948|1.011|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.011|0.8948|
84618337|NCT04640311|168983193|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9308|1.166|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.166|0.9308|
84618338|NCT04640311|168983193|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9349|1.175|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.175|0.9349|
84760289|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1731|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5426|0.99157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.99157|0.54260|<0.0001
84618339|NCT04640311|168983194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8936|1.056|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.056|0.8936|
84618340|NCT04640311|168983194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|1.0|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.000|0.8107|
84618341|NCT04640311|168983194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8665|1.087|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.087|0.8665|
84618342|NCT04640311|168983194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8778|1.066|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.066|0.8778|
84618343|NCT04640311|168983194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.9532|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||0.9532|0.7770|
84618344|NCT02123849|168983205|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
84618345|NCT02123849|168983206|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84618346|NCT02123849|168983207|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84618347|NCT02123849|168983208|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84618348|NCT02123849|168983209|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84618349|NCT02123849|168983210|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
84618350|NCT02123849|168983211|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
84618351|NCT02123849|168983212|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
84644603|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0423||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0423
84760290|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1847||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28911|0.76798|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.76798|0.28911|0.0059
84760291|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1431||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0336|0.33878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.33878|-0.0336|0.2921
84502847|NCT01529749|168757102|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
84502848|NCT01529749|168757103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.49
84502849|NCT01529749|168757104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84502850|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0403||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.0403|0.8458|
84502851|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.1066||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1066|0.8980|
84502852|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0627|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9579|1.179||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1790|0.9579|
84502853|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|0.9974||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||0.9974|0.8107|
84502854|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8854|1.0905||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.0905|0.8854|
84502855|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.212||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.2120|0.9853|
84502856|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9029|1.1161||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1161|0.9029|
84502857|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.1503||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1503|0.9288|
84502858|NCT05166421|168757111|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9258|1.1451||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1451|0.9258|
84502859|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9418|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8512|1.0421||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.0421|0.8512|
84502860|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9004|1.1046||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1046|0.9004|
84502861|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0589|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9559|1.173||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1730|0.9559|
84502862|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7933|0.9788||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||0.9788|0.7933|
84502863|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8633|1.0674||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.0674|0.8633|
84502864|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9796|1.2116||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.2116|0.9796|
84599586|NCT01818258|168951221|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.090
84599587|NCT01818258|168951221|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
84599588|NCT01818258|168951221|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.8|0.5|0.0003
84599589|NCT01818258|168951222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratio (SAM/non-SAM) for Lopinavir Ctrough \>= 1 ug/mL through 48 weeks|Odds ratio (SAM/non-SAM) of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL from entry through 48 weeks from repeated measures mixed model, with the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to zero (no difference between cohorts in odds of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL).||1.29|0.22|0.17
84599590|NCT01818258|168951223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition Cohort - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 1 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 1 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-0.9|-3.9|0.003
84599591|NCT01818258|168951223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 12 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 12 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-1.1|-6.6|0.011
84502865|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9061|1.118||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1180|0.9061|
84502866|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9257|1.1446||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1446|0.9257|
84502867|NCT05166421|168757112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9196|1.1373||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1373|0.9196|
84502868|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0308|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.1243||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.1243|0.9451|
84502869|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9112|1.0822||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0822|0.9112|
84502870|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9634|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0507||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0507|0.8833|
84502871|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9701|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8894|1.0582||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0582|0.8894|
84502872|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8835|1.0494||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0494|0.8835|
84502873|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0826||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0826|0.9100|
84502874|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9992|1.2057||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.2057|0.9992|
84502875|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.119||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.1190|0.9290|
84502876|NCT05166421|168757113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8457|1.0203||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.0203|0.8457|
84502877|NCT01335399|168757137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4358|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.4358
84502878|NCT01335399|168757137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.71|0.77|1.12|||||E-Ld/Ld. Calculated using Cox proportional hazards modeling|||1.12|0.77|
84502879|NCT01335399|168757138|SUPERIORITY||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|1.26||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.82|||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|||||1.82|0.87|0.2232
84673269|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.12||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 6||1.68|0.74|0.5902
84599592|NCT01818258|168951223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 24 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 24 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-2.4|0.46
84599593|NCT01818258|168951224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.7|-0.3|0.15
84599594|NCT01818258|168951224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
84599595|NCT01818258|168951224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.2|0.13
84599596|NCT01818258|168951224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.1|0.089
84599597|NCT01818258|168951225|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
84599598|NCT01818258|168951225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.15
84599599|NCT01818258|168951225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
84599600|NCT01818258|168951225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
84618352|NCT00991939|168983226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.708|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the proportion of success in the high dose pulse dexamethasone group minus the proportion of success in the standard prednisone group.|Four subjects were not included in this analysis because not enough data was available to assess the primary outcome at the time the study was terminated.||0.708|-0.975|1.00
84618353|NCT01450761|168983242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.085|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.085|0.807|0.3775
84599601|NCT01818258|168951226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-3.9|0.89
84599602|NCT01818258|168951226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.6|-2.5|0.31
84599603|NCT01818258|168951226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.8|-1.5|0.18
84599604|NCT01818258|168951226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference between cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||11.0|1.1|0.018
84599605|NCT01818258|168951227|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 24 equal to 0||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
84599606|NCT01818258|168951227|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 48 equal to 0||3.37|2.09|<0.0001
84599607|NCT01818258|168951228|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 24 equal to 0||3.28|1.96|<0.0001
84599608|NCT01818258|168951228|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 48 equal to 0||4.24|2.83|<0.0001
84599609|NCT02241733|168951258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was completed.||||0.94
84599610|NCT02241733|168951259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
84599611|NCT02241733|168951260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84599612|NCT02241733|168951261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84599613|NCT01866111|168951262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||A step down procedure was used for the primary efficacy analyses to ensure the type one error rate for multiple comparisons was controlled at the 5% level using the following hierarchy: 200 mg vs placebo, 400 mg vs placebo, 100 mg vs placebo, in which a statistically significant difference had to be detected in this order for each subsequent comparison to occur.||||<0.001
84599614|NCT01866111|168951262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84599615|NCT01866111|168951262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84599616|NCT01866111|168951263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84599617|NCT01866111|168951263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84599618|NCT01866111|168951263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84618354|NCT01450761|168983243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.102|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.102|0.838|0.5678
84618355|NCT01450761|168983244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.971|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.971|0.747|0.0161
84673270|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 8||2.54|1.14|0.0054
84599619|NCT03802630|168951264|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is greater than -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-3.9|0.018
84599620|NCT01252186|168951283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|-11.54||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.1|417.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||417.0|-440.1|0.958
84599621|NCT01252186|168951283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|422.76||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|863.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||863.8|-18.3|0.060
84599622|NCT01252186|168951284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.31||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|72.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||72.2|-100.8|0.745
84599623|NCT01252186|168951284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|71.31||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|160.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||160.1|-17.5|0.115
84599624|NCT01252186|168951285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-17.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||105.1|-139.4|0.782
84599625|NCT01252186|168951285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|97.09||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|223.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||223.4|-29.2|0.131
84599626|NCT01252186|168951286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.04||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.1|0.428
84599627|NCT01252186|168951286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.1|-0.3|0.002
84599628|NCT01252186|168951287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.2|0.868
84599629|NCT01252186|168951287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|0.0|0.012
84599630|NCT01252186|168951288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-0.1|0.317
84599631|NCT01252186|168951288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.0|-0.4|0.081
84599632|NCT01252186|168951289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.004||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.004|-0.013|0.331
84599633|NCT01252186|168951289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.006||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.003|-0.015|0.173
84673271|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.59||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 10||2.26|1.11|0.0066
84599634|NCT01252186|168951290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-1.4|0.194
84502880|NCT01335399|168757139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Stratified log rank test||Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3), age (\<75 years old vs \>= 75 years old) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1 - 2) at randomization.|||1.19|0.82|0.8932
84502881|NCT01335399|168757141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.12|0.78|0.4358
84502882|NCT03990389|168757142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618||||||Three degrees of freedom for the interaction test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0618
84599635|NCT01252186|168951290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.9|-0.9|0.967
84673272|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 12||2.23|1.18|0.0017
84502883|NCT03990389|168757142|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 1|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
84502884|NCT03990389|168757142|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 2|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84502885|NCT03990389|168757142|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 3|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.234|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
84502886|NCT03990389|168757143|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
84502887|NCT02595528|168757155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-2.5543||||0.0029|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Quadratic||||0.0029
84502888|NCT02595528|168757155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|6.6961|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Linear||||<0.0001
84502889|NCT02595528|168757155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-69.89||||0.4126|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Quadratic||||0.4126
84502890|NCT02595528|168757155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|10.5017||||0.3752|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Linear||||0.3752
84502891|NCT03202511|168757156|EQUIVALENCE|0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|1.77||||||||1.77|1.47|
84502892|NCT03202511|168757157|EQUIVALENCE|80 to 125% equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|97.6||||||||97.6|61.4|
84502893|NCT00382291|168757165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2106||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Data were analyzed using two-sided Kruskal-Wallis test with level of significance = .05. Null hypothesis was that there were no group differences. The maximum CGI-SA obtained over course of study was the outcome measure.||||.2106
84502894|NCT00382291|168757166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using ANCOVA modeling with two-sided testing and level of significance = .05. The dependent variable was last measured CY-BOCS score, the independent variable was randomized group assignment and the covariate was the CY-BOCS score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there were no group differences.||||.8831
84502895|NCT00409188|168757203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||||1.044|0.763|0.1566
84502896|NCT00409188|168757204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||||0.977|0.732|0.0226
84502897|NCT00409188|168757205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.002|||Regression, Cox|||||1.002|0.752|0.0528
84502898|NCT03840811|168757234|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Sign test|||To assess whether the fitness of a given mutant is different than that of wild-type, the ratio of colony-forming units of the mutant strain was compared to those of the WT strain at the time of treatment and in the inoculum using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with a significance level of 0.025. CIs of participants in Mixed FA1090 + FA7537 group were compared to mean = 1.||||0.230
84502899|NCT03840811|168757235|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha=0.025|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|-0.58|0.54
84502900|NCT01625845|168757243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.474
84502901|NCT01625845|168757244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.068
84502902|NCT01625845|168757245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.296
84502903|NCT01625845|168757246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.203
84502904|NCT01625845|168757247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.906
84502905|NCT01625845|168757248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.869
84502906|NCT01625845|168757249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.026
84502907|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7||Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
84502908|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.5||Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.5|-2.7|<0.001
84502909|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-0.9|-2.1|<0.001
84502910|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 9|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
84599636|NCT01252186|168951291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.09||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.8|-3.6|0.648
84599637|NCT01252186|168951291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.68||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||6.6|-3.2|0.496
84599638|NCT01252186|168951292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.71||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||29.3|-11.9|0.405
84599639|NCT01252186|168951292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|28.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|50.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||50.2|7.7|0.008
84599640|NCT01252186|168951293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.3||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-4.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.5|-4.9|0.425
84599641|NCT01252186|168951293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.76||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||17.2|0.3|0.041
84599642|NCT01252186|168951294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.4||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.4|-5.2|0.088
84599643|NCT01252186|168951294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.19||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.3|-6.0|0.028
84599644|NCT01252186|168951295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.75||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||8.9|-5.4|0.631
84760292|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1498||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.00319|0.39272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.39272|0.00319|0.1929
84599645|NCT01252186|168951295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.73||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.2|-3.7|0.323
84502911|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 12|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
84599646|NCT01252186|168951296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.86||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|595.0|-7.0|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.3|-7.0|0.783
84599647|NCT01252186|168951296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.83||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.6|-9.2|0.384
84502912|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||Month 15|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.3|<0.001
84502913|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0||Month 18|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
84599648|NCT01252186|168951297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.66||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||7.5|-4.1|0.572
84599649|NCT01252186|168951297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-20.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-15.0|-27.0|<0.001
84599650|NCT01252186|168951298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.7|-4.6|0.841
84599651|NCT01252186|168951298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-6.3|-14.8|<0.001
84599652|NCT01252186|168951299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||1.3|-5.6|0.227
84599653|NCT01252186|168951299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-2.4|-9.6|0.001
84599654|NCT01252186|168951300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.7|-0.0|0.076
84599655|NCT01252186|168951300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.8|0.1|0.021
84599656|NCT01252186|168951301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|44.46||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|111.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.2|-22.3|0.190
84599657|NCT01252186|168951301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.74||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|78.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||78.9|-59.4|0.781
84599658|NCT01252186|168951302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.49||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.4|-136.4|0.843
84673273|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 2||5.97|0.20|0.9074
84673274|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 4||2.64|0.36|0.9625
84673275|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 6||2.53|0.63|0.5120
84502914|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 21|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
84502915|NCT01294592|168757267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 24|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
84599659|NCT01252186|168951302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|58.3||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|187.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||187.9|-71.3|0.376
84599660|NCT01252186|168951303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.01||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||19.0|-27.0|0.731
84599661|NCT01252186|168951303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|130.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.2|154.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||154.1|106.2|<0.001
84599662|NCT04283994|168951317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.114||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.197||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.197|0.030|0.023
84599663|NCT04283994|168951317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.068||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.150|-0.013|0.294
84618356|NCT02073682|168983252|NON_INFERIORITY|Edoxaban Group was considered non-inferior to the Dalteparin Group if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] Edoxaban Group to Dalteparin Group) was less than 1.5.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.359|||Cox proportional hazard|||||1.359|0.696|0.0056
84618357|NCT02073682|168983252|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR), two-sided confidence interval (CI) and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||||||0.8712|||||||Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.8712
84618358|NCT02073682|168983253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.657|||Regression, Cox|||The HR, 2-sided CI and p-value are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||3.657|1.089|0.0254
84618359|NCT02073682|168983254|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.059|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.059|0.476|0.0931
84618360|NCT02073682|168983255|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.972|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||0.972|0.318|0.0394
84618361|NCT02073682|168983256|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.624|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.624|0.502|0.7324
84618362|NCT02073682|168983257|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.56||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.505|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||5.505|0.444|0.4873
84618363|NCT02073682|168983258|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.293|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.293|0.898|0.4199
84618364|NCT03801174|168983259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|.804
84618365|NCT03801174|168983260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|233.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||233|-132|.590
84618366|NCT03801174|168983261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|806.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|443.0||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|1675.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1675|-64|.069
84618367|NCT00855816|168983272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance: p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model based on intent to treat sample.||Null hypothesis: there will be no differences in PTSD hyperarousal symptom changes in individuals who did receive the experimental intervention vs. those who did not .||||.27
84618368|NCT01965704|168983273|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84618369|NCT01965704|168983274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in overall length of stay.||4.3|-8.0|0.56
84618370|NCT01965704|168983274|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in length of stay as calculated with maximum length capped at 15 days.||0.2|-4.0|0.07
84618371|NCT01965704|168983275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|||2.7|-8.8|0.31
84618372|NCT03573323|168983277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618373|NCT03573323|168983278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618374|NCT03573323|168983279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618375|NCT03573323|168983280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618376|NCT03573323|168983281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618377|NCT03573323|168983282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618378|NCT03573323|168983283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84502916|NCT00623623|168757288|OTHER||Relative risk|0.86||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.68|0.195
84618379|NCT03573323|168983284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84618380|NCT03573323|168983285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.414
84618381|NCT01687296|168983289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.76|||ANCOVA|||250 par were to be enrolled to achieve 200 total evaluable par or 100 evaluable par per group. Sample size was based on the primary efficacy endpoint (AM PEF) and had 80% power to reject the null hypothesis: nebulized FP (1 mg BID) was inferior to oral prednisone with regard to AM PEF using one-side t test at significance level 2.5%, and assuming true treatment difference (FP minus predisone) was 3.6 L/min, noninferiority margin was -12L/min, and common standard deviation was 39 L/min.||10.76|-9.85|0.931
84673276|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.98||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 8||3.79|1.03|0.0244
84673277|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.86||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 10||3.18|1.08|0.0161
84618382|NCT01687296|168983290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|10.65|||ANCOVA|||||10.65|-9.64|0.922
84618383|NCT01687296|168983291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|11.34|||ANCOVA|||||11.34|-9.02|0.822
84618384|NCT01687296|168983292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for day-time symptom score||||0.717
84618385|NCT01687296|168983292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for night-time symptom score||||0.683
84618386|NCT01687296|168983293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.996
84618387|NCT01687296|168983294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 5||0.048|-0.135|0.348
84618388|NCT01687296|168983294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.083|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 8||0.083|-0.074|0.914
84618389|NCT01687296|168983294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.054|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 5||0.054|-0.187|0.276
84618390|NCT01687296|168983294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.049|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 8||0.049|-0.126|0.384
84618391|NCT01687296|168983295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 5||||0.507
84618392|NCT01687296|168983295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 8||||0.700
84618393|NCT01687296|168983296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for participant/parent global evaluation||||0.633
84618394|NCT01687296|168983296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for investigator global evaluation||||0.323
84618395|NCT01290614|168983303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84618396|NCT01290614|168983304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84618397|NCT02336230|168983328|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value was calculated from the binomial distribution under the assumption of a 0.45 success rate for the null hypothesis.|Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0003
84618398|NCT02336230|168983330|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline aGVHD grade.|CHM test|||||||0.0032
84673278|NCT03548584|169082007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 12||2.61|1.00|0.0347
84673279|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.64||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.16|0.35|0.1503
84673280|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.07||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.67|0.69|0.7559
84673281|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.72|0.88|0.2246
84673282|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||1.87|1.02|0.0276
84599664|NCT04283994|168951317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.045||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.044||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.044|-0.134|0.952
84599665|NCT04283994|168951324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.7|-1.3|1.650
84599666|NCT04283994|168951324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.5|-1.6|0.985
84599667|NCT04283994|168951324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||2.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.4|-1.0|2.155
84599668|NCT04283994|168951325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||2.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis,|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||4.4|-3.1|2.169
84599669|NCT04283994|168951325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.0|-7.5|0.391
84599670|NCT04283994|168951325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||8.2|-0.3|0.210
84599671|NCT04283994|168951326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.4|-0.8|1.010
84599672|NCT04283994|168951326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||2.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.7|-1.7|2.923
84599673|NCT04283994|168951326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.5|-0.9|1.034
84618399|NCT02524171|168983334|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84673283|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.46||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||1.89|1.12|0.0031
84599674|NCT04283994|168951327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.9||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||7.9|-1.0|0.384
84599675|NCT04283994|168951327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||1.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.7|-6.1|1.923
84502917|NCT00623623|168757289|OTHER||Relative risk|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.55|||modified Poisson regression|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.55|0.68|0.904
84502918|NCT00623623|168757290|OTHER||Relative risk|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.58|0.60|0.905
84502919|NCT00623623|168757291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.49|0.120
84502920|NCT00623623|168757292|OTHER||Relative risk|0.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.11|0.57|0.170
84502921|NCT00623623|168757293|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.61|0.758
84502922|NCT00623623|168757294|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.66|0.73|0.663
84502923|NCT00623623|168757295|OTHER||Relative risk|1.72||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.6|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||3.60|0.82|0.148
84618400|NCT02524171|168983334|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84502924|NCT00623623|168757296|OTHER||Relative risk|0.5||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.52|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.52|0.05|0.572
84502925|NCT00623623|168757297|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.13|0.58|0.207
84502926|NCT00623623|168757298|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.04|0.63|0.100
84502927|NCT00623623|168757299|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.22|0.67|0.511
84502928|NCT00623623|168757300|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.97|0.52|0.369
84502929|NCT00623623|168757301|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.99||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|49.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||49.08|0.51|0.168
84502930|NCT00623623|168757302|OTHER||Relative Risk|8.02||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|63.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||63.97|1.00|0.049
84618401|NCT02524171|168983335|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84502931|NCT00623623|168757303|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.51||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.82|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||20.82|0.98|0.054
84673284|NCT03548584|169082008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.89|1.14|0.0017
84760293|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1565||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13988|0.54663|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.54663|0.13988|0.0332
84599676|NCT04283994|168951327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||9.4|-0.1|0.166
84599677|NCT04283994|168951328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.00|-0.23|0.160
84599678|NCT04283994|168951328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.04|-0.18|0.652
84599679|NCT04283994|168951328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.07|-0.16|1.390
84599680|NCT04283994|168951329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.06|1.192
84599681|NCT04283994|168951329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||2.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.11|2.698
84599682|NCT04283994|168951329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||1.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.08|1.477
84502932|NCT00623623|168757304|OTHER||Relative Risk|2.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.99|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||7.99|0.50|0.324
84599683|NCT04283994|168951330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||2.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||3.16|-4.30|2.293
84599684|NCT04283994|168951330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||2.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.14|-4.11|2.381
84618402|NCT02524171|168983335|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84618403|NCT02524171|168983336|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|10.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84673285|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.03|0.40|0.8549
84760294|NCT00531752|169276805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1681||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.20006|0.63674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.63674|0.20006|0.0162
84599685|NCT04283994|168951330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||2.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|3.69||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.69|-3.86|2.893
84599686|NCT04283994|168951331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||2.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.13|2.829
84599687|NCT04283994|168951331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.24|-0.01|0.188
84599688|NCT04283994|168951331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.01|-0.24|0.190
84599689|NCT04283994|168951332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||1.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.14|-0.09|1.994
84599690|NCT04283994|168951332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.19|-0.05|0.771
84599691|NCT04283994|168951332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.08|-0.17|1.447
84599692|NCT04283994|168951335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.012||||1.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.034||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.034|-0.058|1.836
84599693|NCT04283994|168951335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.073||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.073|-0.030|1.250
84618404|NCT02524171|168983336|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|14.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84760295|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36707|0.65345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.65345|0.36707|<0.0001
84760296|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21189|0.51664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.51664|0.21189|0.0031
84599694|NCT04283994|168951335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.033||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.017||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.017|-0.084|0.581
84673286|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.95||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.32|1.14|0.0093
84599695|NCT04283994|168951336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.025||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.025|-0.102|0.692
84599696|NCT04283994|168951336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.038||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.109||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.109|-0.033|0.887
84599697|NCT04283994|168951336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.077||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.009||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||-0.009|-0.145|0.080
84599698|NCT04283994|168951337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.1|0.9|0.293
84599699|NCT04283994|168951337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Hazard ratio = clinician-facing intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.5|1.1|0.027
84599700|NCT04283994|168951337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||1.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||1.2|0.6|1.009
84760297|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09408||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01366|0.25882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.25882|0.01366|0.1553
84502933|NCT00623623|168757305|OTHER||Relative Risk|3.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.24|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||8.24|1.10|0.032
84502934|NCT00623623|168757306|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.36||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.93|0.111
84502935|NCT00623623|168757307|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.08||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.28|0.91|0.397
84599701|NCT04283994|168951338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.70|-1.55|1.366
84618405|NCT02524171|168983337|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.45|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews||||||>0.05
84673287|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.56||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||2.22|1.10|0.0083
84502936|NCT00623623|168757308|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.31|0.97|0.107
84502937|NCT00623623|168757309|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.84||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.34|0.53|0.471
84502938|NCT00623623|168757310|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.71|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||0.71|0.17|0.003
84502939|NCT00623623|168757311|OTHER||Relative risk|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.73|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.73|0.78|0.451
84599702|NCT04283994|168951338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.58||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.58|-1.73|0.978
84599703|NCT04283994|168951338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||2.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.3||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.30|-0.99|2.390
84599704|NCT04283994|168951339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||1.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.51||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.51|-0.57|1.125
84599705|NCT04283994|168951339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.94||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.94|-0.13|0.258
84599706|NCT04283994|168951339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||1.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.63||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.63|-1.5|1.267
84618406|NCT02524171|168983337|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84618407|NCT02524171|168983338|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84618408|NCT02524171|168983338|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
84618409|NCT02524171|168983339|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84599707|NCT04283994|168951340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||1.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.32|-0.68|1.594
84599708|NCT04283994|168951340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||1.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.36||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.36|-0.79|1.803
84618410|NCT02524171|168983339|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84618411|NCT02524171|168983340|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84644604|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0618||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0618
84502940|NCT00623623|168757312|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.09|0.69|0.220
84502941|NCT02186808|168757313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84618412|NCT02524171|168983340|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||<0.05
84760298|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09797||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0205|0.23458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.23458|-0.0205|0.2809
84599709|NCT04283994|168951340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||2.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.07|-1.01|2.851
84599710|NCT04283994|168951341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||1.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.40|-0.97|1.243
84599711|NCT04283994|168951341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||1.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.35||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.35|-1.00|1.032
84599712|NCT04283994|168951341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.78||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.78|-0.70|2.742
84599713|NCT04283994|168951342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||2.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.22|-0.26|2.658
84599714|NCT04283994|168951342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||1.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.29|-0.14|1.523
84599715|NCT04283994|168951342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||1.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.15|-0.33|1.381
84599716|NCT04283994|168951343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.25|-0.18|2.191
84599717|NCT04283994|168951343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.27|-0.19|2.138
84618413|NCT02524171|168983341|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
84618414|NCT02524171|168983341|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84618415|NCT02524171|168983342|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta|0.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84502942|NCT01042977|168757361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.30|-0.50|<0.0001
84502943|NCT01042977|168757362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.8||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||9.8|4.3|<0.0001
84502944|NCT01042977|168757363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.54||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.54|-2.31|<0.0001
84502945|NCT01042977|168757364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|17.8||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline total body weight and age stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||17.8|9.4|<0.0001
84502946|NCT01042977|168757365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7977||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.15||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.15|-4.28|0.0007
84502947|NCT01042977|168757366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7983||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.46||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.46|-4.59|0.0002
84502948|NCT01042977|168757367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.53|-5.35|0.0004
84502949|NCT02499354|168757368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2742
84502950|NCT02499354|168757369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
84502951|NCT04356573|168757376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84502952|NCT01577537|168757377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84502953|NCT01170364|168757383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||paired sample t-test, two tailed|||||||<0.004
84502954|NCT04132232|168757384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84502955|NCT01717456|168757385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.72||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84502956|NCT00986154|168757417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to accumulate approximately 220 Overall primary efficacy events in the mITT (modified Intent to Treat) Analysis Set. Assuming equal efficacy (Hazard Ratio = 1.00), a total of 220 events gave a power of 85% to demonstrate that (LMW) heparin/edoxaban was non-inferior to the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (two sided α=0.05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.128|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|(LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be non-inferior to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of acute, symptomatic VTE following initial index event. (LMW) Heparin/edoxaban was considered non-inferior to the standard therapy (\[LMW\] heparin/warfarin) if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] heparin/edoxaban to standard therapy) was less than 1.5. Events included in Overall study period if occurred on or after randomization date up to Day 365.||1.128|.703|<0.0001
84502957|NCT00986154|168757418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose.|||1.200|.832|.9933
84644605|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0451||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0451
84644606|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2633||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.2633
84644607|NCT00282464|169024731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2206||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.2206
84502958|NCT00986154|168757419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.936|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|"Safety Analysis set includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug.~Null hypothesis (LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be comparable to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding."||.936|.705|.0040
84502959|NCT03726437|168757420|SUPERIORITY|Analyses were performed to determine whether RealConsent was superior to Stress and Mood Management in reducing incidence of sexual violence victimization.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||.69|.33|.0002
84502960|NCT03726437|168757420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.28|.47|.31
84502961|NCT03726437|168757421|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.22|0.12|.03
84502962|NCT03726437|168757422|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||0.27|-1.27|<.05
84599718|NCT04283994|168951343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||2.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|22.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||022|-0.23|2.879
84599719|NCT01159171|168951347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||0.0||||One-sided p-value|One sample exact binomial test|||||||0.0047
84599720|NCT01751906|168951379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9256|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9256
84599721|NCT01751906|168951380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5040
84599722|NCT01751906|168951381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2126
84599723|NCT01751906|168951408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0665
84502963|NCT03726437|168757423|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||.97|.67|.02
84502964|NCT03726437|168757424|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.20|.92|.43
84599724|NCT00191724|168951442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose in right ventricular function at Day 6|Regression, Linear|||||||0.528
84599725|NCT00191724|168951442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose on right ventricular function at Day 90|Regression, Linear|||||||0.230
84502965|NCT03726437|168757425|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||2.55|1.17|.006
84502966|NCT01364259|168757511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Our odds ratio is equal to 0\*5/9\*2 because we have a zero cell in the two by two table. Hence the OR = 0.|||||0.175
84502967|NCT01164137|168757513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.84|-.98|.87
84502968|NCT01164137|168757514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.88|-.62|.32
84502969|NCT01164137|168757515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.01|-.57|.18
84760299|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07101|0.36803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.36803|0.07101|0.0603
84502970|NCT01164137|168757516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.81|-.39|.11
84502971|NCT01164137|168757517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.27|-.56|.13
84502972|NCT05003167|168757525|SUPERIORITY||F|8.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.001
84599726|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90-Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.018
84599727|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.720
84599728|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.481
84599729|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
84599730|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.068
84599731|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.985
84599732|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.281
84599733|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.273
84599734|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.848
84599735|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.841
84599736|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.797
84599737|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.963
84599738|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.149
84599739|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.141
84502973|NCT05003167|168757527|SUPERIORITY||F|2.29||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df = 2,44||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.113
84502974|NCT05003167|168757528|SUPERIORITY||F|3.17||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.052
84502975|NCT05003167|168757529|SUPERIORITY||F|0.07||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.~Results here are for percent of breaths at major boundaries."||||.931
84502976|NCT05003167|168757529|SUPERIORITY||F|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05. Results reflect percent of breaths at boundaries unrelated to syntax.||||0.164
84502977|NCT01010230|168757537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-5.59|0.69
84502978|NCT01010230|168757538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.35||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.35|0.00|0.18
84599740|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
84599741|NCT00191724|168951443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.394
84599742|NCT00608023|168951445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84599743|NCT00608023|168951446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84599744|NCT00608023|168951447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84599745|NCT00608023|168951448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84599746|NCT00608023|168951449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84599747|NCT03458910|168951463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.782
84599748|NCT03458910|168951464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.480
84599749|NCT03458910|168951465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.410
84502979|NCT01010230|168757539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.25||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||9.25|-6.93|0.85
84599750|NCT03458910|168951466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.480
84599751|NCT03458910|168951467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for younger adults||||0.170
84599752|NCT03458910|168951468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for older adults||||0.478
84599753|NCT03458910|168951469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for younger adults||||0.441
84599754|NCT03458910|168951470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for older adults||||0.621
84599755|NCT03458910|168951471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for younger adults||||0.190
84599756|NCT03458910|168951472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for older adults||||0.864
84599757|NCT03458910|168951473|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of fair offers||||1.000
84599758|NCT03458910|168951473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of unfair offers||||0.716
84599759|NCT03458910|168951474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation.||||0.014
84599760|NCT03458910|168951474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for anterior insula activation.||||0.059
84599761|NCT03458910|168951475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.144
84599762|NCT03458910|168951475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
84599763|NCT03458910|168951476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.288
84599764|NCT03458910|168951476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.191
84599765|NCT03458910|168951477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.894
84599766|NCT03458910|168951477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.425
84599767|NCT03458910|168951478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.916
84618416|NCT02524171|168983342|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|-0.89|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84599768|NCT03458910|168951478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.235
84599769|NCT03458910|168951479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.462
84599770|NCT03458910|168951479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.468
84599771|NCT03458910|168951480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.481
84599772|NCT03458910|168951480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.159
84599773|NCT03458910|168951481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.602
84599774|NCT03458910|168951481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.562
84599775|NCT03458910|168951482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.697
84599776|NCT03458910|168951482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.901
84599777|NCT03458910|168951483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.516
84599778|NCT03458910|168951484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.944
84760300|NCT00531752|169276806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27079|0.58479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.58479|0.27079|0.0008
84599779|NCT03458910|168951485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.285
84760301|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.3264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6944|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.83|-9.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-9.828|-16.83|<0.0001
84599780|NCT03458910|168951486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.807
84599781|NCT03458910|168951487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||<0.001
84599782|NCT03458910|168951488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.740
84599783|NCT03458910|168951489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.083
84599784|NCT03458910|168951490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.176
84599785|NCT03458910|168951491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.325
84599786|NCT03458910|168951492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.751
84599787|NCT03458910|168951493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.011
84599788|NCT03458910|168951494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.885
84599789|NCT03458910|168951495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.259
84599790|NCT03458910|168951496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000146||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.000146
84599791|NCT03458910|168951497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.463
84599792|NCT03458910|168951498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.990
84599793|NCT03458910|168951499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.034
84599794|NCT03458910|168951500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.398
84599795|NCT03458910|168951501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.113
84599796|NCT03458910|168951502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.637
84618417|NCT02524171|168983343|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84644608|NCT00282464|169024732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9863||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.9863
84502980|NCT01010230|168757540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.95||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||5.95|0.43|0.12
84502981|NCT01010230|168757541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|4.05||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage (from general linear model).||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.05|-4.24|0.97
84760302|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8841||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.87|-4.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-4.382|-11.87|0.0068
84502982|NCT01010230|168757542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|4.68||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.68|-4.05|0.91
84502983|NCT01010230|168757543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-0.69|0.40
84502984|NCT01010230|168757544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.33||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.33|-2.02|0.73
84599797|NCT03458910|168951503|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for younger adults||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.133
84599798|NCT03458910|168951504|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for older adults||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.402
84599799|NCT03458910|168951505|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for younger adults||||||0.236||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.236
84599800|NCT03458910|168951506|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for older adults||||||0.6||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.600
84599801|NCT03458910|168951507|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for younger adults||||||0.788||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.788
84599802|NCT03458910|168951508|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for older adults||||||0.917||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.917
84599803|NCT03458910|168951509|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for younger adults||||||0.844||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.844
84599804|NCT03458910|168951510|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for older adults||||||0.75||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.750
84599805|NCT03458910|168951511|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for younger adults||||||0.074||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.074
84599806|NCT03458910|168951512|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for older adults||||||0.0505||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.0505
84599807|NCT03458910|168951527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.022
84599808|NCT03458910|168951528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.455
84599809|NCT03458910|168951529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.022
84760303|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3172||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.551|-0.5175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5175|-6.551|0.1346
84599810|NCT03458910|168951530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.455
84599811|NCT03458910|168951531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.462
84599812|NCT03458910|168951532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.305
84599813|NCT03458910|168951533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.804
84502985|NCT01010230|168757545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.34|0.06|0.08
84599814|NCT03458910|168951534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.141
84599815|NCT03458910|168951535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||time point x group(2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.292
84599816|NCT03458910|168951536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.905
84599817|NCT03458910|168951537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for younger adults||||0.641
84599818|NCT03458910|168951538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for older adults||||0.813
84599819|NCT03458910|168951539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for younger adults||||.695
84599820|NCT03458910|168951540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for older adults||||.270
84599821|NCT03458910|168951541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for younger adults||||.102
84599822|NCT03458910|168951542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for older adults||||.257
84599823|NCT03458910|168951543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for younger adults||||.067
84599824|NCT03458910|168951544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for older adults||||.117
84599825|NCT03458910|168951545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x collection interaction in cortisol levels for younger adults||||0.558
84599826|NCT00123162|168951550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score).||With 26 subjects per treatment group and an assumed within-group standard deviation of 7 units, the study was designed to have 90% statistical power for a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test to detect a difference of 6.5 units in TOPAR4 between a single dose of 100 mg of sildenafil and placebo. However, we anticipated subject drop-out as high as 15%; therefore, we planned to recruit 31 subjects per treatment group.||7.6|2.9|<0.001
84599827|NCT00123162|168951551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of the VAS score at hour 4 (Sildenafil Citrate - Placebo)|||-26.8|-58.3|<.001
84599828|NCT04392141|168951552|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of odds of death between both groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.87||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|83.89|||Fisher Exact|||||83.89|1.16|0.0318
84599829|NCT04392141|168951553|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 (%) between admission and discharge times in standard treatment group||-3.96|-7.03|0.0001
84599830|NCT04392141|168951553|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 % between admission and discharge times in the Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-1.81|-3.28|0.0001
84599831|NCT04392141|168951554|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of means of the length of hospitalization between both groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.80|1.63|0.0001
84673288|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||2.58|1.32|<.0001
84599832|NCT04392141|168951555|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||0.176|-0.136|0.80
84599833|NCT04392141|168951555|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-0.23|-0.63|0.0001
84599834|NCT04392141|168951556|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.06||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.76|72.64|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||72.64|-124.76|0.602
84599835|NCT04392141|168951556|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|137.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.19|236.46|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||236.46|38.19|0.006
84599836|NCT02357472|168951557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample Size to Achieve 0.80 Power to Test Equivalency at the α = 0.05 Significance Level for True Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6216|2.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was caculated that 60 paticipants randomized in a 1:1between 2 arms would would have at least 85% power to detect a difference of 1.32 oocytes between the high dose group and standard dose group after 12 weeks.Sample size was determined using 2 sided 2 sample t-test (α = 0.05).Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 1.72.||2.002|0.6216|0.0003
84599837|NCT00323960|168951574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228||||||For multiple hypothesis testing, we used Bonferroni's correction (with n=3 posterior comparisons).|Chi-squared|To assess proportions we used the χ² test or Fisher's exact test||We calculated that a sample size of 40 patients would be needed in each study group (total 120 patients) to have 80% power for comparison of combination treatments (prednisone plus methotrexate or prednisone plus ciclosporin) with the reference treatment (prednisone alone).||||0.0228
84599838|NCT00323960|168951575|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.0|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3) versus prednisone alone (group 1) and prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 and 2 versus group 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||5.0|1.2|0.012
84673289|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||2.09|1.18|0.0005
84502986|NCT01010230|168757546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.26|0.00|0.17
84502987|NCT01010230|168757547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.2||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.20|-0.04|0.38
84502988|NCT01010230|168757548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.18|-0.22|0.88
84502989|NCT01010230|168757549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.46|0.09|0.06
84502990|NCT01123980|168757560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered to be confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D =\< 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (investigational product minus comparator). Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.25|0.02||The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either non-inferiority or superiority, statistical significance level is 2.5%.|ANCOVA|The estimates are from a normal linear regression model with treatment, country and previous OADs as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||H0: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) \> 0.4%. HA: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) =\< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 90%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.25%||0.02|-0.25|< 0.001
84502991|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.24|0.19||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.19|-0.24|<0.001
84502992|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.45|<0.001
84502993|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.31|<0.001
84599839|NCT00323960|168951576|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.15|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||3.15|1.2|0.009
84599840|NCT00323960|168951577|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone+methotrexate arm or prednisone+ciclosporin versus prednisone alone.|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 2 and 3 versus group 1) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
84502994|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.82|-0.26|<0.001
84502995|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.22|1.06||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||1.06|0.22|<0.001
84502996|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.03|-1.0||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-1.00|-2.03|<0.001
84502997|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.73|-0.78||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Bedtime|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
84502998|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.13||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||02 - 04 a.m.|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.13|-0.81|<0.001
84599841|NCT00323960|168951577|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
84599842|NCT02135029|168951592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-49.0|||MMRM|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|LS-mean differences,associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,treatment group\*visit interaction,baseline value, baseline value\*visit\*group interaction, country.|||-49.0|-60.1|<0.001
84599843|NCT02135029|168951593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-34.2|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-34.2|-42.6|<0.001
84599844|NCT02135029|168951593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-26.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-26.2|-35.9|
84599845|NCT02135029|168951594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-41.1|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-41.1|-51.9|<0.001
84599846|NCT02135029|168951594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-33.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-33.2|-45.4|
84599847|NCT02135029|168951595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-46.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-46.0|-56.3|<0.001
84599848|NCT02135029|168951595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-35.8|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-35.8|-47.7|
84599849|NCT02135029|168951596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.8|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-10.8|-35.7|<0.001
84599850|NCT02135029|168951596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-5.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-5.1|-29.6|
84599851|NCT02135029|168951597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|17.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||17.0|7.8|<0.001
84599852|NCT02135029|168951597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||16.4|6.7|
84599853|NCT02135029|168951598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-38.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-38.2|-51.3|
84599854|NCT02135029|168951599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
84599855|NCT02135029|168951599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
84599856|NCT02135029|168951600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|10.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||10.1|2.2|
84599857|NCT02135029|168951600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||9.7|1.5|
84599858|NCT02135029|168951601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.7|0.8|
84599859|NCT02135029|168951601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||10.5|2.4|
84599860|NCT02135029|168951602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
84599861|NCT02135029|168951602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
84599862|NCT02135029|168951603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.5|-84.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-84.1|-103.5|
84599863|NCT02135029|168951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-98.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.9|-87.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-87.5|-109.9|
84599864|NCT02135029|168951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.0|3.7|
84599865|NCT02135029|168951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-103.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.6|-92.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-92.7|-114.6|
84599866|NCT02135029|168951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-52.4|-66.0|
84599867|NCT02135029|168951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-4.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-4.5|-8.7|
84599868|NCT02135029|168951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-2.1|-2.7|
84599869|NCT02135029|168951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-1.7|-2.4|
84599870|NCT02135029|168951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-0.4|-0.5|
84599871|NCT02135029|168951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-0.3|-0.4|
84599872|NCT00889603|168951630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.2|||||Change from baseline in MMSE at LOCF analyzed using single-sample t-test; a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for mean change at LOCF.|||2.20|1.65|
84599873|NCT00889603|168951631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 8 from repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.08|0.75|
84599874|NCT00889603|168951631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.8|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 16 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.80|1.32|
84599875|NCT00889603|168951631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.25|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 24 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||2.25|1.69|
84599876|NCT03709277|168951640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84599877|NCT03709277|168951641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84599878|NCT03709277|168951643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84599879|NCT03525600|168951644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2296||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|0.0111|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0111|-0.4703|0.0615
84599880|NCT03525600|168951644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2077||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4444|0.029|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0290|-0.4444|0.0854
84599881|NCT03525600|168951645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7451||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1539|-0.3362|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3362|-1.1539|0.0004
84599882|NCT03525600|168951645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6331||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0508|-0.2153|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.2153|-1.0508|0.0030
84618418|NCT02524171|168983343|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
84673290|NCT03548584|169082009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.32||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.69|1.03|0.0160
84599883|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0547||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0806|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0806|-0.1899|0.4282
84599884|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0793||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2131|0.0546|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0546|-0.2131|0.2457
84599885|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1722||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.0174|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0174|-0.3270|0.0292
84599886|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1659||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3202|-0.0115|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0115|-0.3202|0.0352
84599887|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.145||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2909|0.0009|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0009|-0.2909|0.0514
84599888|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3164|-0.0196|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0196|-0.3164|0.0265
84599889|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.3532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5245|-0.1819|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1819|-0.5245|<0.0001
84618419|NCT02524171|168983344|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|6.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84618420|NCT02524171|168983344|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|5.68|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63||||>0.05
84599890|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2848||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4336|-0.1361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1361|-0.4336|0.0002
84599891|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7251||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1373|-0.3129|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3129|-1.1373|0.0006
84599892|NCT03525600|168951646|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.698||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1142|-0.2817|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.2817|-1.1142|0.0010
84599893|NCT05248997|168951697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53||LM included baseline value as covariate,\& fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled time point(TP),TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.53|-0.71|0.7782
84599894|NCT05248997|168951698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.29||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.24||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||1.24|-1.83|0.7079
84599895|NCT05248997|168951699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.23||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.36|-0.81|0.4398
84599896|NCT05248997|168951700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|0.04||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.59|-0.51|0.8890
84599897|NCT05248997|168951701|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|3.8||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|19.7|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||19.7|-12.1|0.6412
84599898|NCT05248997|168951702|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-2.7||||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.2|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||5.2|-10.6|0.5001
84599899|NCT01453205|168951703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5543
84599900|NCT01453205|168951704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8567|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8567
84599901|NCT01453205|168951705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7412|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7412
84599902|NCT01453205|168951706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9996
84599903|NCT01453205|168951707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1686
84599904|NCT02602275|168951724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
84599905|NCT02602275|168951725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
84760304|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4268||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.067|4.2494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2494|-2.067|0.6552
84599906|NCT02602275|168951726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but the preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.001
84599907|NCT02602275|168951727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
84599908|NCT02602275|168951728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the AAL (Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas) coordinates.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but a preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.05
84618421|NCT02524171|168983345|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84673291|NCT00533949|169082010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Log Rank||Reference group = 60 gy|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.76|1.09|0.0042
84673292|NCT00533949|169082010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.35|0.84|0.29
84673293|NCT00533949|169082011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47|||Log Rank||Reference level = 60 Gy|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.47|0.95|0.12
84673294|NCT00533949|169082011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.22|0.80|0.89
84673295|NCT00533949|169082012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Gray's test||Reference level = 60 Gy|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.53|0.89|0.24
84502999|NCT01123980|168757561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.06|0.4||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast the following day|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.40|-0.06|<0.001
84599909|NCT04113018|168951746|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|0.5385||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|A minimax 2-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the CR+ rate less than or equal to 50%. Twenty-three evaluable subjects were enrolled in the first stage, followed by an additional 16 subjects for a total of 39 subjects. This design provided 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. If at least 24 of 39 participants had achieved CR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would have been rejected.||0.6991|0.3718|0.375
84599910|NCT04113018|168951753|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.1732|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1732|0.0063|
84599911|NCT04113018|168951754|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1348|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1348|0.0006|
84673296|NCT00533949|169082012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Gray's test||Reference level = cetuximab|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.10|0.64|0.22
84673297|NCT00533949|169082013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophagitis: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84673298|NCT00533949|169082013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|||||||Chi-squared|||PNEUMONITIS: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2533
84673299|NCT00533949|169082014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of of toxicity at any time was classified by a binary grouping of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test.||||0.52
84599912|NCT06099223|168951775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84599913|NCT06099223|168951776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84599914|NCT06099223|168951778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84599915|NCT06099223|168951779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84599916|NCT06099223|168951780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84673300|NCT00533949|169082016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||FACT-TOI-LCS was assessed and changes from baseline to 3 months calculated and grouped using a 2 point decline as the threshold. Comparisons of decline vs no decline by RT level were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and controlling for cetuximab assignment using a two-side significance level of 0.05.||||0.0233
84673301|NCT00533949|169082017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.92
84673302|NCT00533949|169082018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.19
84673303|NCT00533949|169082019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of overall survival by EGFR group||1.33|0.68|0.78
84673304|NCT00533949|169082019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by EGFR group||1.65|0.74|0.61
84673305|NCT00533949|169082020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84599917|NCT06099223|168951781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84599918|NCT06099223|168951782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84599919|NCT06099223|168951783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84599920|NCT06099223|168951784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84599921|NCT06099223|168951785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84599922|NCT06099223|168951786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
84599923|NCT06099223|168951787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84599924|NCT06099223|168951788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
84599925|NCT06099223|168951789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
84599926|NCT06099223|168951790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
84599927|NCT06099223|168951792|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84618422|NCT02524171|168983345|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.46|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.01
84618423|NCT02524171|168983346|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84618424|NCT02524171|168983346|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|-0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
84618425|NCT02524171|168983347|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84760305|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7614||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.494|-0.9063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.9063|-5.494|0.0765
84599928|NCT06099223|168951793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.919
84599929|NCT01221623|168951794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0059
84599930|NCT01221623|168951795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0496
84599931|NCT01221623|168951796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84599932|NCT01221623|168951797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0340
84599933|NCT01221623|168951798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1168
84599934|NCT01221623|168951799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0144
84599935|NCT01221623|168951800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0248
84599936|NCT01221623|168951801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.6949
84599937|NCT01221623|168951802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0249
84599938|NCT00661726|168951803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
84599939|NCT00661726|168951805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.045
84599940|NCT00661726|168951806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.083
84599941|NCT00661726|168951807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.039
84599942|NCT00661726|168951808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
84599943|NCT00661726|168951809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
84599944|NCT00661726|168951810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.069
84599945|NCT00661726|168951811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
84599946|NCT00661726|168951812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.022
84599947|NCT00661726|168951813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.11
84599948|NCT00661726|168951814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
84618426|NCT02524171|168983347|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
84599949|NCT02644096|168951818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Changes in physical function after 3 months|unpaired t-test|||"Power calculation in this study was based on findings in a previous cross-sectional study.~The physical dimensions in health status was the primary outcome variable. The mean physical score was 49.4, SD was 26.1; alpha in this study was set to 5% and β to 20%. We considered that the intervention could lead to an improvement of 50% in the physical health score and were willing to overlook a difference in score of 12. When the sample size was calculated, 68 patients were needed in both groups."||||<0.05
84599950|NCT01457014|168951823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p values have undergone Bonferroni adjustment for Central Apnea Index (CAI), Obstructive Apnea Index (OAI) and Hypopnea Index (HI)||||||<0.001
84599951|NCT01457014|168951824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|||||p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment. P-Value applies to Av. 02 saturation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment||||||0.627
84599952|NCT01457014|168951825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.161
84599953|NCT00678535|168951926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3158||95.0|0.92|1.292|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%).||1.292|0.920|0.3158
84599954|NCT00678535|168951927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9547||95.0|0.866|1.165|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior (neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%)||1.165|0.866|0.9547
84599955|NCT00678535|168951928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0435||||0.7696||95.0|0.7844|1.3882|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, two-sided with α=5%).||1.3882|0.7844|0.7696
84599956|NCT00664560|168951951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|-4.76|
84599957|NCT00664560|168951952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 mm Non-Inferiority (NI) margin between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.57|
84599958|NCT00664560|168951953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin 10 mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-5.08|
84599959|NCT02019108|168951969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.5|-1.1|0.495
84599960|NCT02019108|168951969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.1|-1.6|0.079
84599961|NCT02019108|168951970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.3|-2.6|0.117
84599962|NCT02019108|168951970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.3|-2.5|0.133
84599963|NCT02019108|168951971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks||0.04|-0.31|0.125
84599964|NCT02019108|168951971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks||0.03|-0.37|0.103
84599965|NCT02019108|168951972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
84599966|NCT02019108|168951972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.01|-0.40|0.056
84599967|NCT02019108|168951973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|0.031
84599968|NCT02019108|168951973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.00|-0.12|0.058
84599969|NCT02019108|168951974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-6.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-6.86|-11.22|<0.001
84599970|NCT02019108|168951974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-4.75||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||-4.75|-8.82|<0.001
84618427|NCT02524171|168983348|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
84503000|NCT01123980|168757562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8583||95.0|0.64|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c less than 7% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.46|0.64|0.8583
84599971|NCT02019108|168951975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.9|-8.3|0.111
84599972|NCT02019108|168951975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||1.8|-7.3|0.232
84599973|NCT02019108|168951976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.78||a priori threshold for significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.78|-0.36|0.462
84599974|NCT02019108|168951976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.54||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.54|-0.76|0.737
84599975|NCT02019108|168951977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.43|-0.50|0.876
84599976|NCT02019108|168951977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.49|-0.43|0.897
84618428|NCT02524171|168983348|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
84503001|NCT01123980|168757563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8013||95.0|0.64|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|0.64|0.8013
84599977|NCT03130439|168952020|OTHER||Objective Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.247||||||||0.247|0.000|
84599978|NCT03130439|168952023|OTHER||Disease Control Rate|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423||||||||0.423|0.086|
84599979|NCT03130439|168952024|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.337||||||||0.337|0.042|
84599980|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.172
84599981|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.027
84599982|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.053
84599983|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
84599984|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.006
84599985|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
84599986|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.967
84599987|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.446
84599988|NCT02731820|168952032|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.869
84599989|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.954
84599990|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.798
84618429|NCT02524171|168983349|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
84618430|NCT02524171|168983349|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
84618431|NCT01379183|168983353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84618432|NCT01379183|168983354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
84618433|NCT01379183|168983355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
84618434|NCT01379183|168983356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
84618435|NCT01379183|168983357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84618436|NCT01379183|168983358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84599991|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.377
84599992|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.886
84618437|NCT01695135|168983359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.740|0.376|0.0002
84599993|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.040
84599994|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.017
84599995|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.343
84599996|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.859
84599997|NCT02731820|168952033|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.172
84618438|NCT00216671|168983378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of early initiation was inferred if the upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference of change in PANSS total score from baseline in favor of the routine approach is less than 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|6.99||An ANCOVA model with treatment as factor was used. The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was performed based on the least-squares means obtained from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference of 3 points in favor of early initiation of treatment with Risperdal Consta, a sample size of 87 subjects per treatment arm has a power of 80% to demonstrate non-inferiority at the 0.025-level (1-sided). It was expected that about 20% of randomized subjects had to be excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis. Therefore, 220 subjects were to be included.||6.99|-9.24|0.784
84599998|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.213
84599999|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.191
84600000|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.234
84600001|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.370
84600002|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.176
84600003|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
84618439|NCT00216671|168983381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.800
84600004|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.551
84600005|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.371
84600006|NCT02731820|168952034|OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.466
84600007|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.094
84600008|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.0004
84600009|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.008
84600010|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
84600011|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||<0.0001
84600012|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.0007
84600013|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.458
84600014|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.434
84600015|NCT02731820|168952035|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.555
84618440|NCT00216671|168983381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
84618441|NCT00216671|168983381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
84673306|NCT00533949|169082021|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.001||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.002||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Univariate model with GTV as a continuous variable||1.002|1.000|0.06
84618442|NCT00216671|168983382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.798
84539986|NCT02359994|168830666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The secondary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 5 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||12.0|-2.4|<0.001
84618443|NCT00216671|168983382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84618444|NCT00216671|168983382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84644609|NCT00282464|169024732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1017||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.1017
84644610|NCT00282464|169024732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4033||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.4033
84644611|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||No multiple comparison adjustment is applicable. Statistical significance level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.002
84644612|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.019
84644613|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.038
84644614|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.069
84644615|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.053
84644616|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0. The null hypotheses is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||||0.154
84644617|NCT00282464|169024733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.007
84644618|NCT00282464|169024734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.112
84644619|NCT00282464|169024734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.352
84644620|NCT00282464|169024734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.873
84644621|NCT00282464|169024735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.305
84644622|NCT00282464|169024735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.510
84644623|NCT00282464|169024735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.710
84618445|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.519
84618446|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84618447|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84618448|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.721
84618449|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84618450|NCT00216671|168983383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
84618451|NCT02714569|168983385|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Square Means Percentage|204.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.9|259.0|||||Analysis was the estimate of the ratio fasted versus fed.|Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 Cmax at 30 mg||259.0|161.9|
84618452|NCT02714569|168983387|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Squares Mean Percentage|193.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.7|258.2||||||Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 AUC(0-inf) at 30 mg||258.2|144.7|
84618453|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|141.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|293.0||||||Part B Placebo||293.0|67.9|
84618454|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|70.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|157.1||||||Part B 5 mg LY||157.1|31.9|
84618455|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|109.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|119.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||119.5|99.8|
84618456|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|170.4||||||Part B 100 mg LY||170.4|68.1|
84618457|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|213.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.3|227.1||||||Part B 300 mg LY||227.1|200.3|
84618458|NCT02714569|168983399|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|115.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|146.2||||||Part B Overall||146.2|91.2|
84618459|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|155.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|274.2||||||Part B Placebo||274.2|87.6|
84618460|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.7|125.3||||||Part B 5 mg LY||125.3|40.7|
84618461|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratios (%)|122.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|165.1||||||Part B 20 mg LY||165.1|90.7|
84618462|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|136.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|207.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||207.7|89.8|
84618463|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|132.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|194.4||||||Part B 300 mg LY||194.4|90.5|
84618464|NCT02714569|168983400|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.2|135.1||||||Part B Overall||135.1|93.2|
84618465|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|117.8||||||Part B Placebo||117.8|80.4|
84539987|NCT02213289|168830765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||One-sided Z-test|This was a test of whether the observed 1-year survival rate was significantly different from historical 50% rate.||||||0.0024
84539988|NCT02687529|168830776|EQUIVALENCE|The number of positive and negative CST001 assay results for each subject, across all sites and operators were compared. In order for a subject to have a concordant result, the same assay call must be observed for all replicates across all sites (6/6).|proportion of concordant calls|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|91.38||||||||91.38|72.13|
84539989|NCT04386616|168830779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.75|0.9266
84539990|NCT04386616|168830779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.54||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.54|0.86|0.3570
84539991|NCT04386616|168830779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.74|0.9812
84600016|NCT04478071|168952036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.009|||||"Risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Primary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a lower probability, at treatment day 14, of death (8) or hospitalization, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO (7) or hospitalization, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (6) on the NIAID-OS. See Statistical Analysis Plan for more details.||0.009|-0.084|
84600017|NCT04478071|168952036|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Probability|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
84600018|NCT04478071|168952037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||"Risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Secondary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a higher probability, at treatment day 14, of recovery on the MSOFA scale (MSOFA = 0).||1.1|0.92|
84600019|NCT04478071|168952037|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probability|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
84600020|NCT00967694|168952049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess change in IOP over time using time-points as the primary independent variable with significance set at p \< 0.05. Power calculations showed that 20 subjects would allow detection of a 2.8-mmHg difference in IOP between any two time-points with 80% power assuming a standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg for IOP and a correlation between two time- points of 0.25||||>0.05
84600021|NCT00729677|168952066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84600022|NCT01074463|168952096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.25|120.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.12|99.25|
84600023|NCT01074463|168952097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|109.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.68|98.73|
84600024|NCT01074463|168952098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|107.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.11|97.78|
84600025|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 antibody concentrations.||1.05|0.72|
84600026|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 antibody concentrations.||1.26|0.84|
84600027|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 antibody concentrations.||1.10|0.74|
84600028|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B antibody concentrations.||1.07|0.66|
84600029|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F antibody concentrations.||1.20|0.84|
84673307|NCT00533949|169082021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.004||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Multivariate model with GTV as a continuous variable, adjusting for planned radiation therapy dose group (60 Gy or 74 Gy) and the interaction of GTV and planned dose.|P-Value for the interaction of GTV and planned dose = 0.77|1.004|0.997|0.78
84618466|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.3|106.0||||||||106.0|31.3|
84618467|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|138.7||||||Part B 20 mg LY||138.7|66.8|
84618468|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.8|142.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||142.7|45.8|
84618469|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|108.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|291.2||||||Part B 300 mg LY||291.2|40.2|
84618470|NCT02714569|168983401|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|114.7||||||Part B Overall||114.7|67.4|
84618471|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|102.1||||||Part B Placebo||102.1|90.2|
84618472|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|137.6||||||Part B 5 mg LY||137.6|59.8|
84618473|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|131.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||131.5|75.9|
84618474|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.5|122.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||122.7|67.5|
84618475|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|180.5||||||Part B 300 mg LY||180.5|42.0|
84618476|NCT02714569|168983402|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|106.9||||||Part B Overall||106.9|81.8|
84618477|NCT01219985|168983403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||We performed a McNemar test to compare the sensitivities obtained for each PET image method||||<0.001
84618478|NCT01219985|168983404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was : lesions' SUVmax are equivalent with our without application of the CT-Based respiratory-gated PET method.||||<0.001
84618479|NCT00596752|168983405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2587||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing. The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.2587
84539992|NCT04386616|168830779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.82|0.5151
84539993|NCT04386616|168830780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.77|0.8373
84618480|NCT00596752|168983405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.3463
84618481|NCT00596752|168983406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.0173
84618482|NCT00596752|168983406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1154||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.1154
84618483|NCT03691571|168983431|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Esophageal thermal injury was detected in 13/44 (30%) patients.||||>.05
84539994|NCT04386616|168830780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.55|0.86|0.3396
84618484|NCT03691571|168983433|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84618485|NCT03691571|168983434|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84618486|NCT03691571|168983435|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84618487|NCT00555217|168983438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.12|0.70|0.30
84618488|NCT00555217|168983439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.05|0.58|0.10
84618489|NCT02709330|168983478|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||Matched historical controls will be identified from the PatientsLikeMe database.||||0.99
84618490|NCT02709330|168983479|OTHER|||||||0.0748|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0748
84618491|NCT02709330|168983480|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
84618492|NCT02709330|168983484|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
84618493|NCT03152591|168983499|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.88||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline in average fasting free testosterone was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which included treatment as a categorical factor, baseline body weight and log transformed baseline average fasting free testosterone as a covariate.|1.11|0.70|0.353
84539995|NCT04386616|168830780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.76|0.8619
84539996|NCT04386616|168830780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.5|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.50|0.82|0.4913
84539997|NCT04386616|168830781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.83|0.4711
84539998|NCT04386616|168830781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.56|0.87|0.3135
84539999|NCT04386616|168830781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.81|0.5735
84540000|NCT04386616|168830781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.46|0.80|0.5973
84540001|NCT04386616|168830782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5304|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5304
84540002|NCT04386616|168830782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.5058|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5058
84540003|NCT04386616|168830783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.72|0.64|0.8451
84540004|NCT04386616|168830783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.67|0.7267
84540005|NCT04386616|168830783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.63|0.8458
84540006|NCT04386616|168830783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.81|0.64|0.7907
84540007|NCT04386616|168830784|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5273|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5273
84540008|NCT04386616|168830784|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6515|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.6515
84540009|NCT04386616|168830784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.91|0.71|0.5475
84540010|NCT04386616|168830784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.89|0.71|0.5652
84540011|NCT04386616|168830785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3401|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.3401
84540012|NCT04386616|168830785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4676|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4676
84540013|NCT04386616|168830785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.75|0.3408
84540014|NCT04386616|168830785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.76|0.3320
84540015|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|15.24|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||15.24|-7.57|
84540016|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|10.7|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.70|-11.46|
84540017|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.10|0.70|0.4804
84600030|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V antibody concentrations.||1.14|0.78|
84503002|NCT04444752|168757572|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gate-keeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared to placebo group in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical signficance at p=0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.794||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg dose Q2W 3. 300 mg dose Q4W vs placebo|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The primary efficacy analysis includes comparison of percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q2W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0007
84600031|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 antibody concentrations.||1.23|0.78|
84600032|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C antibody concentrations.||0.67|0.41|
84600033|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F antibody concentrations.||1.08|0.68|
84600034|NCT00758264|168952099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F antibody concentrations.||1.38|0.83|
84600035|NCT00758264|168952100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|8.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA).||8.15|-1.09|
84600036|NCT00758264|168952100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|6.22||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC).||6.22|-2.11|
84600037|NCT00758264|168952100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.76||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135).||6.76|-0.94|
84600038|NCT00758264|168952100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.6||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY).||4.6|-2.18|
84600039|NCT00803400|168952137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A p-value less than 0.05 (≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct (and the results are random)||||<0.001
84600040|NCT00939029|168952140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.5||1 tailed p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.5|1.0|0.05
84600041|NCT00939029|168952141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|11.6||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||11.6|1.4|0.014
84600042|NCT00939029|168952142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.0||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|0.8|0.087
84600043|NCT00075946|168952204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|The primary analysis is to compare the time to rituximab failure (TTRF) between the retreatment arm and the scheduled arm in follicular patients.||1.88|0.90|0.33
84600044|NCT00075946|168952204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in non-follicular patients.|||6.19|1.22|0.012
84600045|NCT00075946|168952205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|||7.13|1.45|0.002
84600046|NCT00075946|168952205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
84618494|NCT03152591|168983500|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.25||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.68|0.92|0.218
84618495|NCT03152591|168983501|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.27||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.78|0.90|0.249
84600047|NCT00075946|168952206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
84600048|NCT01191736|168952215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Null hypothesis: the medians for all seven arms are equal.||Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons||||.05
84600049|NCT01191736|168952216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Null hypothesis: the proportions within the seven arms are equal.||Comparison of proportions of subjects who assessed responsiveness||||.05
84600050|NCT01179217|168952227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|||||"1. The primary analysis was analyzed using a CMH analysis of the number of SCCs using modified ridit scores.~2. P-value (controlling for region and HU use)~3. The null hypothesis of the final analysis was performed at the 0.045 significance level."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0052
84600051|NCT01179217|168952228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
84600052|NCT01179217|168952229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0888
84600053|NCT04470908|168952254|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.525|0.61||||||||0.610|0.525|
84600054|NCT04470908|168952255|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.589||||||||0.589|0.532|
84600055|NCT04470908|168952256|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.608||||||||0.608|0.441|
84600056|NCT04621240|168952263|SUPERIORITY|Mean level change from pre- to post-testing|Mean Difference (Net)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84600057|NCT04621240|168952263|OTHER|Regression of the change in BrainHealth Index on age|Slope|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84600058|NCT00487942|168952292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.81|
84618496|NCT03152591|168983502|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.15||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.36|0.97|0.173
84618497|NCT03152591|168983503|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.99|0.68|0.089
84644624|NCT00282464|169024736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.026
84644625|NCT00282464|169024736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.223
84600059|NCT00487942|168952292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.68|
84600060|NCT00487942|168952292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.95||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.95|-0.66|
84600061|NCT00487942|168952293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.80|
84600062|NCT00487942|168952293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.14|-0.51|
84600063|NCT00487942|168952293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.66|
84600064|NCT00487942|168952294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
84600065|NCT00487942|168952294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.66||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.66|-0.86|
84618498|NCT03152591|168983504|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.01|0.48|0.109
84760306|NCT00531752|169276807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8976||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.349|-1.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.407|-6.349|0.0473
84600066|NCT00487942|168952294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.28||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.28|-0.31|
84600067|NCT00487942|168952295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.03|
84644626|NCT00282464|169024736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.848||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.848
84644627|NCT00282464|169024737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.381
84644628|NCT00282464|169024737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.676||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.676
84600068|NCT00487942|168952295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.65|
84618499|NCT03152591|168983505|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.89|0.65|0.008
84618500|NCT03152591|168983506|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.07|0.77|0.340
84618501|NCT03152591|168983507|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.79||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.08|0.58|0.204
84618502|NCT00330759|168983524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis approach was used for a non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0007||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy||||0.98|0.71|0.0007
84618503|NCT00330759|168983525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.06||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||0.98|0.71|0.060
84618504|NCT00330759|168983526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.145||95.0|0.77|1.04|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||1.04|0.77|0.145
84618505|NCT06083987|168983550|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|false discovery rate q-value calculated with Yekutieli method in Stata||||||0.86
84760307|NCT01181011|169276821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0107||90.0|99.45|119.95||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||119.95|99.45|0.0107
84600069|NCT00487942|168952295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.6||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.60|-0.97|
84600070|NCT00487942|168952296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.44||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.44|-1.08|
84600071|NCT00487942|168952296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.74||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.77|
84618506|NCT06083987|168983551|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.32||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84618507|NCT06083987|168983552|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84618508|NCT06083987|168983553|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84618509|NCT06083987|168983554|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84618510|NCT00287222|168983613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage progression free at 27 weeks|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||one-sided exact binomial test|||Estimating the percentage of participants that remain free of disease progression at 27 weeks from the onset of treatment, and testing that proportion against a null-hypothesis proportion of 0.04 using the one-sided exact binomial test at 5% alpha, based upon historical data from the literature.||53|10|0.0006
84618511|NCT01910402|168983623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hypothesis was to show that the antiviral effect of the DTG/ABC/3TC FDC administered QD was non-inferior to QD ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -12%|Adjusted difference in proportion|10.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|17.8||If the primary and PP analyses both demonstrated non-inferiority, then as per pre-specified analysis, superiority of DTG/ABC/3TC FDC versus ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC was tested in the ITT-E population at the 2-sided 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|3.1|0.005
84618512|NCT01910402|168983645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.107|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.107|-0.159|0.7053
84760308|NCT01181011|169276822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|120.71||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||120.71|99.96|0.0139
84503003|NCT04444752|168757572|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with the placebo group in order from the highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.537||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 150 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0067
84503004|NCT04444752|168757572|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with placebo in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at the 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.575||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for mulitplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were anlayzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI||"The efficacy analysis includes comparing percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q4W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q4W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0004
84503005|NCT04444752|168757573|SUPERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis includes comparison of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16 for each CBP-201 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.|Difference in vIGA Response Rate|28.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. For IGA response, counts, percentage, and 95% CIs obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method and were presented for pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs. placebo.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16.||||0.0089
84600072|NCT00487942|168952296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.89|
84618513|NCT01910402|168983646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.106||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.101|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.101|-0.313|0.3165
84600073|NCT00487942|168952297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.90|-0.61|
84600074|NCT00487942|168952297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.50|
84600075|NCT00487942|168952297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.25||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.25|-0.34|
84600076|NCT00487942|168952298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.33|
84600077|NCT00487942|168952298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
84618514|NCT01910402|168983661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.779|||ANCOVA||BSAP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.779|0.683|<0.001
84618515|NCT01910402|168983661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.741|||ANCOVA||PTP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.741|0.647|<0.001
84618516|NCT01910402|168983661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.68|||ANCOVA||Osteocalcin ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.680|0.581|<0.001
84618517|NCT01910402|168983661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.706|||ANCOVA||Type 1 Collagen C-Telopeptide ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.706|0.609|<0.0001
84618518|NCT01910402|168983661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.852|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.914|||ANCOVA||Vitamin D ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.914|0.794|<0.0001
84618519|NCT01910402|168983663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||Week 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84618520|NCT01910402|168983663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84618521|NCT01910402|168983663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84618522|NCT01910402|168983663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84600078|NCT00487942|168952298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.68|
84618523|NCT00824473|168983669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.001||95.0|-2.12|-0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.74|-2.12|<0.001
84618524|NCT00824473|168983670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1697|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.27|-0.94|<0.001
84618525|NCT00824473|168983671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3391|<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.73|-2.06|<0.001
84618526|NCT00824473|168983672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2741|<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||reflective TOSS change in baseline||-0.39|-1.47|<0.001
84618527|NCT00824473|168983673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||change from baseline||||0.010
84618528|NCT01359904|168983675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
84618529|NCT01359904|168983676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||post intervention hemoglobin A1c levels||||0.67
84503006|NCT01963676|168757574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from Day 5 to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.48
84540018|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.71|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.71|0.56|0.9418
84540019|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.44|0.68|0.4988
84540020|NCT04386616|168830786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.54|0.9043
84540021|NCT04386616|168830787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8007|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8007
84540022|NCT04386616|168830787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8633|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8633
84540023|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|9.12|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.12|-16.31|
84618530|NCT01359904|168983677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
84618531|NCT01359904|168983678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84618532|NCT02660853|168983679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus during exacerbation.||||0.745
84618533|NCT02660853|168983683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
84618534|NCT03594773|168983689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|df=56, equal variances assumed||||2.63|-3.62|.752
84618535|NCT03594773|168983690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||6.52|-4.01|.633
84618536|NCT03594773|168983691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||4.44|-2.53|.586
84618537|NCT02707146|168983702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||
84618538|NCT00123123|168983738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed effect model was used to compare overall treatment effects between groups for repeated measures data. The group comparison for each time point was performed using ANOVA.||||0.6750
84618539|NCT01618669|168983744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in the proportion of participants with majority reader self-agreement exceeded -0.075, non-inferiority would be demonstrated.|Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||-0.00|-0.06|
84618540|NCT01618669|168983746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.10 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||0.11|-0.14|
84618541|NCT01618669|168983747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.133 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority. Non-inferiority could not be assessed because of insufficient data in the Regadenoson Alone group.|Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.07|
84600079|NCT00487942|168952299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.37|
84618542|NCT01618669|168983748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
84618543|NCT03259087|168983756|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.47|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.47|1.07|
84600080|NCT00487942|168952299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.81|
84600081|NCT00487942|168952299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.77||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.77|-0.80|
84600082|NCT00487942|168952300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.19||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.19|-1.79|
84600083|NCT00487942|168952300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.11|-1.44|
84600084|NCT00487942|168952300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.82|
84600085|NCT00487942|168952301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
84600086|NCT00487942|168952301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.68|
84600087|NCT00487942|168952301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.63|-0.00|
84600088|NCT00487942|168952302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.37||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.37|-1.16|
84618544|NCT03259087|168983756|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|2.02|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.02|1.42|
84618545|NCT03259087|168983756|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|4.04|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.04|2.20|
84600089|NCT00487942|168952302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.31||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.31|-1.21|
84600090|NCT00487942|168952302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-0.99|
84600091|NCT00487942|168952303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
84600092|NCT00487942|168952303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.48|
84600093|NCT00487942|168952303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.64|
84600094|NCT00487942|168952304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-0.99|
84600095|NCT00487942|168952304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
84600096|NCT00487942|168952304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.85||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.85|-0.72|
84600097|NCT00487942|168952305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-0.95|
84600098|NCT00487942|168952305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.41||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.41|-1.11|
84600099|NCT00487942|168952305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.95|
84600100|NCT00487942|168952306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.30|
84600101|NCT00487942|168952306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.35||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.35|-0.25|
84600102|NCT00487942|168952306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
84600103|NCT00487942|168952307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.15|-1.43|
84600104|NCT00487942|168952307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.53|-1.05|
84600105|NCT00487942|168952307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
84600106|NCT00487942|168952308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.92|
84600107|NCT00487942|168952308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.54|
84600108|NCT00487942|168952308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.49|-1.12|
84600109|NCT00487942|168952309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.33|-1.22|
84600110|NCT00487942|168952309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.08||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.08|-1.69|
84600111|NCT00487942|168952309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.7||Inferential statistics not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.95|
84673308|NCT00533949|169082022|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of overall survival time by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.94
84673309|NCT00533949|169082022|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.72
84618546|NCT03259087|168983757|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.46|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.46|1.06|
84618547|NCT03259087|168983757|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|1.99|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.99|1.41|
84618548|NCT03259087|168983757|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.17|3.9|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.90|2.17|
84618549|NCT03259087|168983758|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.40|1.04|
84618550|NCT03259087|168983758|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.86|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.86|1.36|
84540024|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|0.67|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||0.67|-24.67|
84540025|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.41|0.53|0.5560
84540026|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.00|0.38|0.0502
84540027|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.60|0.51|0.7002
84540028|NCT04386616|168830788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||0.99|0.32|0.0448
84540029|NCT04386616|168830789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.4845|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4845
84540030|NCT04386616|168830789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.057|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.0570
84540031|NCT04386616|168830790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.88|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.88|0.76|0.4456
84540032|NCT04386616|168830790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.48|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.57|0.7213
84540033|NCT04386616|168830790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.96|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.77|0.3963
84540034|NCT04386616|168830790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.58|0.60|0.9174
84540035|NCT04386616|168830791|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.49|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.49|-4.51|
84540036|NCT04386616|168830791|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.31|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.31|-4.58|
84540037|NCT04386616|168830791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.74|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.74|0.57|0.4336
84540038|NCT04386616|168830791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.68|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.68|0.56|0.4543
84540039|NCT04386616|168830791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.97|0.54|0.4900
84540040|NCT04386616|168830791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||4.28|0.58|0.3595
84540041|NCT04386616|168830792|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|12.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||12.26|-5.42|
84540042|NCT04386616|168830792|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.26|-6.89|
84540043|NCT04386616|168830792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.80|0.66|0.4067
84540044|NCT04386616|168830792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.46|0.56|0.6728
84540045|NCT04386616|168830792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.87|0.62|0.5495
84540046|NCT04386616|168830792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.71|0.57|0.5551
84540047|NCT04386616|168830793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.4|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.40|0.71|0.3831
84540048|NCT04386616|168830793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.15|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.15|0.65|0.5925
84618551|NCT03259087|168983758|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.97|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.97|1.82|
84618552|NCT03259087|168983759|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.84|
84618553|NCT03259087|168983759|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.18|0.90|
84618554|NCT03259087|168983759|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.29|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.29|0.95|
84618555|NCT03259087|168983761|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.94|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.94|0.68|
84618556|NCT03259087|168983761|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.70|0.49|
84618557|NCT03259087|168983761|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.45|0.25|
84618558|NCT03259087|168983765|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|4.82|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.82|3.26|
84540049|NCT04386616|168830793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.05|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.05|0.60|0.7487
84540050|NCT04386616|168830793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.21|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.21|0.63|0.6092
84540051|NCT01377012|168830804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
84540052|NCT01377012|168830804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
84540053|NCT03048552|168830817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
84540054|NCT03048552|168830818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84540055|NCT03048552|168830819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
84540056|NCT03048552|168830821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.625
84540057|NCT02448368|168830822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|232.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.0|266.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||266|202|
84540058|NCT02448368|168830822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.0|200.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||200|164|
84540059|NCT02448368|168830822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|124.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||124|91.5|
84540060|NCT02448368|168830824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.0|195.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||195|147|
84540061|NCT02448368|168830824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|199.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||199|146|
84540062|NCT02448368|168830824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|129.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|146.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||146|114|
84540063|NCT02448368|168830825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|187.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||187|139|
84540064|NCT02448368|168830825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.0|188.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||188|135|
84540065|NCT02448368|168830825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.0|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||147|116|
84540066|NCT02448368|168830827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||112|88.3|
84600112|NCT00487942|168952355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.0||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.0|-0.76|
84600113|NCT00487942|168952355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.15|
84600114|NCT00487942|168952355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.61|
84600115|NCT00487942|168952356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.24|-0.58|
84600116|NCT00487942|168952356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.91|
84600117|NCT00487942|168952356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.33|
84600118|NCT00487942|168952357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.75|
84600119|NCT00487942|168952357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.98|
84600120|NCT00487942|168952357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.27|-0.54|
84600121|NCT00487942|168952358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.14|
84600122|NCT00487942|168952358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.89|
84618559|NCT03259087|168983765|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.92|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.92|1.30|
84618560|NCT03259087|168983766|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|4.36|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.36|3.03|
84618561|NCT03259087|168983766|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.75|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.75|1.22|
84600123|NCT00487942|168952358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.84|
84618562|NCT03259087|168983767|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|3.06|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.06|2.23|
84618563|NCT03259087|168983767|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.25|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.25|0.95|
84618564|NCT03259087|168983768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.14|0.84|
84618565|NCT03259087|168983768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
84618566|NCT03259087|168983769|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.85|
84618567|NCT03259087|168983769|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
84673310|NCT00533949|169082022|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to distant metastasis by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.79
84673311|NCT00727194|169082024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.05||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||-1.05|-7.45|0.0144
84618568|NCT03259087|168983770|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.31|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.31|0.21|
84600124|NCT00487942|168952359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.4||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.40|-1.21|
84618569|NCT03259087|168983770|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.77|0.52|
84618570|NCT03259087|168983774|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
84618571|NCT03259087|168983774|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
84618572|NCT03259087|168983774|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
84618573|NCT03259087|168983775|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.98|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.98|0.57|
84618574|NCT03259087|168983775|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.53|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.53|0.31|
84618575|NCT03259087|168983775|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.22|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.22|0.08|
84618576|NCT03259087|168983776|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
84618577|NCT03259087|168983776|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
84618578|NCT03259087|168983776|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
84618579|NCT02562716|168983804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.15
84618580|NCT02562716|168983804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.14
84618581|NCT01775371|168983822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test 2-sided||The direction of the comparison is the Patient Controlled Analgesia minus the standard care group|The rate of change of NRS pain scores per hour was calculated using a mixed effects linear model. Time is represented as a linear spline with knot at 30 minutes to support the separate estimation of early and late phase rates of change. Fixed effects in the analysis includes study-group indicator, early and late phase time, and interactions between study-group and time. The principal hypothesis test was a z-test of the coefficient of the study group late phase interaction term.||1.5|0.6|<0.001
84618582|NCT01775371|168983823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84618583|NCT01775371|168983824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84618584|NCT01775371|168983825|OTHER|Responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||These outcomes are based on the nurses who took care of patients in the study||||<0.001
84673312|NCT00727194|169082024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.71||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.37||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-10.80|0.1170
84673313|NCT00727194|169082025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84673314|NCT00727194|169082025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0606
84673315|NCT00727194|169082026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.91||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||0.91|-4.08|0.1873
84600125|NCT00487942|168952359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-1.09|
84600126|NCT00487942|168952359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.14||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.14|-1.51|
84600127|NCT00487942|168952360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-1.06|
84600128|NCT00487942|168952360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.85|
84600129|NCT00487942|168952360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
84600130|NCT00487942|168952363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.71||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.71|-0.80|
84600131|NCT00487942|168952363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.06|
84600132|NCT00487942|168952363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.68|
84600133|NCT00487942|168952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.88|
84600134|NCT00487942|168952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.72|
84618585|NCT01775371|168983826|OTHER|All responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||This outcome is based on the physicians who took care of the patients in the study||||<0.001
84618586|NCT02868554|168983841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84618587|NCT02868554|168983842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84618588|NCT04915729|168983845|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-specified non-inferiority margin for risk ratio = 0.937|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9678|1.0915|||Modified Possion Regression Model|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0915|0.9678|
84618589|NCT04915729|168983846|OTHER|log-binomial regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0671||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9573|1.1895||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.1895|0.9573|0.2412
84618590|NCT04915729|168983847|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0078||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|1.0564||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0564|0.9614|0.7480
84618591|NCT04915729|168983848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline NIHSS, age, time to administration since stroke symptoms onset = linear covariates; treatment = fixed effects|Difference in LSmean tenecteplase vs alteplase|||0.50|-1.40|0.3511
84600135|NCT00487942|168952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.80|
84600136|NCT00487942|168952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.20|-1.44|
84600137|NCT00487942|168952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.98|
84618592|NCT04915729|168983849|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0418||||0.4806|||||||Regression, Logistic|Assumption-free ordinal analysis|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||||0.4806
84618593|NCT04915729|168983850|OTHER|Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0189||||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9635|1.0774|||Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0774|0.9635|0.5116
84618594|NCT04915729|168983851|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.005||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.701|||Suissa-Shuster test||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||2.701|0.370|1.000
84618595|NCT04915729|168983852|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.795||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.232|||Chi-squared||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.232|0.513|0.303
84618596|NCT04915729|168983853|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9215||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6578|1.2908||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.2908|0.6578|0.6345
84618597|NCT03710642|168983979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008096||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9904
84618598|NCT03710642|168983980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54||||0.30328|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30328
84618599|NCT03710642|168983981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31122||||0.21981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21981
84618600|NCT03710642|168983982|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.36277||||0.6366|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.6366
84618601|NCT03710642|168983983|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39602||0.9267|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9267
84618602|NCT03710642|168983984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0694||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2038
84618603|NCT03710642|168983985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.388||||0.54133|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54133
84618604|NCT00226811|168983993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|7.7||||||95.0|2.9|16.0|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed complete response, confirmed partial response or stable disease for at least 24 wks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, relative to total treated patients|||16.0|2.9|
84618605|NCT00226811|168983998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||OR rate (percentage)|2.6||||||95.0|0.3|9.0|||||Percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or confirmed partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), relative to the total number of treated patients.|||9.0|0.3|
84618606|NCT01010971|168983999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.59|<0.0001
84618607|NCT01010971|168983999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.46|0.61|<0.0001
84618608|NCT01010971|168984000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.07|<0.0001
84618609|NCT01010971|168984000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.08|<0.0001
84618610|NCT01010971|168984001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.71|-0.03|0.1444
84600138|NCT00487942|168952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.97|
84618611|NCT01010971|168984001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.89||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.89|0.15|0.0124
84618612|NCT01010971|168984002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.94|0.30|0.0124
84618613|NCT01010971|168984002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.95|0.33|
84618614|NCT00550953|168984040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.63|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus telmisartan 40 mg monotherapy|||9.63|6.41|<0.0001
84618615|NCT01369784|168984087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
84618616|NCT01369784|168984088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.612
84618617|NCT01369784|168984089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.402
84618618|NCT01369784|168984090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.557
84618619|NCT01369784|168984091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.234
84618620|NCT01369784|168984092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
84618621|NCT01369784|168984093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.117
84618622|NCT02905266|168984098|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in incidence rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||0.0|0.0|
84618623|NCT02905266|168984106|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference of ORRs|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|11.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||11.0|-26.1|
84618624|NCT02905266|168984106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58||||||||1.58|0.35|
84618625|NCT02905266|168984107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.37|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||2.37|0.78|
84618626|NCT02905266|168984108|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.49|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||2.49|0.30|
84618627|NCT02905266|168984108|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in incidence rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.2|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||12.2|-16.0|
84618628|NCT04797780|168984109|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CR Rate|5.06||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|-7.1|0.2084
84618629|NCT01099397|168984131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value at baseline|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at baseline; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
84618630|NCT01099397|168984131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value at 9 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 9 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.59
84618631|NCT01099397|168984131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||P-value at 18 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 18 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
84618632|NCT02363959|168984132|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84618633|NCT02363959|168984133|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
84618634|NCT02363959|168984134|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84618635|NCT02363959|168984135|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84618636|NCT02363959|168984136|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84618637|NCT02363959|168984137|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84618638|NCT00650845|168984168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-7.9%; +6.7%\]||6.7|-7.9|
84618639|NCT00650845|168984169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.291
84644629|NCT00282464|169024737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.295
84600139|NCT00487942|168952366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
84600140|NCT00487942|168952366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
84600141|NCT00487942|168952366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.72|
84600142|NCT00487942|168952367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.65|
84600143|NCT00487942|168952367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.63|
84600144|NCT00487942|168952367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.6||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.60|0.78|
84600145|NCT00487942|168952368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.46||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.46|-1.06|
84600146|NCT00487942|168952368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.67|-0.87|
84618640|NCT00650845|168984170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|8.9||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%CI of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-14.1%; +8.9%\]||8.9|-14.1|
84618641|NCT00650845|168984171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.040
84618642|NCT00650845|168984172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.301
84600147|NCT00487942|168952368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.74|0.05|
84618643|NCT00650845|168984173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.051
84618644|NCT02663622|168984194|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the matched sets||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade III-IV AGFS in days was 135.8 with an SD of 64.66.||0.62|0.01|0.0274
84503007|NCT01963676|168757575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from 1 Month to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the AHRS score changes from baseline to 1month between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.86
84600148|NCT00487942|168952369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.55|-1.05|
84600149|NCT00487942|168952369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.09||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.09|-0.52|
84600150|NCT00487942|168952369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.58|-0.08|
84600151|NCT00487942|168952370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
84600152|NCT00487942|168952370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.36||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.36|-0.27|
84618645|NCT02663622|168984195|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade II-IV AGFS in days was 104.7 with an SD of 72.28.||1.08|0.30|0.0988
84618646|NCT02663622|168984201|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.88|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean OS in days was 319.3 with an SD of 93.83.||2.88|0.43|0.9088
84618647|NCT02663622|168984203|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.46|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean RFS in days was 296.0 with an SD of 115.32.||2.46|0.66|0.6131
84618648|NCT03678311|168984236|OTHER|The correlation between the outcome and AHI was tested by Spearman's correlation.|Spearman's correlation|0.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.0|||Spearman's correlation|||Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the outcome and the apnea hypopnea index.||1.00|-0.75|0.73
84618649|NCT01072188|168984270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84618650|NCT01072188|168984271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84503008|NCT02496221|168757576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0021||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5781|2.5739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.5739|-20.5781|0.1229
84600153|NCT00487942|168952370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.55|0.70|
84600154|NCT00487942|168952371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
84600155|NCT00487942|168952371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.64|-0.87|
84600156|NCT00487942|168952371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.54|-0.08|
84600157|NCT00487942|168952372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.27|
84600158|NCT00487942|168952372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.05|
84600159|NCT00487942|168952372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.11|-0.51|
84600160|NCT00487942|168952373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.92|
84600161|NCT00487942|168952373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.73|
84600162|NCT00487942|168952373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.77|
84618651|NCT02501590|168984318|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84618652|NCT00945282|168984341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-1.812|0.042
84618653|NCT00945282|168984342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.413||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|0.347|||ANCOVA|||||0.347|-1.173|0.221
84618654|NCT00945282|168984343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is the value for GSK2248761 30 mg, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||||<0.0001
84618655|NCT00945282|168984343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6922||||||The p-value is the value for placebo, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo, Day 1 to Day 8||||0.6922
84618656|NCT01825187|168984478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.523
84618657|NCT01825187|168984479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasa Mental Demand||||0.371
84618658|NCT01825187|168984479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Physical Demand||||0.122
84618659|NCT01825187|168984479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Temporal Demand||||0.325
84600163|NCT00487942|168952374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.80|-0.80|
84600164|NCT00487942|168952374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.62|
84600165|NCT00487942|168952374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.49|-0.16|
84600166|NCT00487942|168952375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
84600167|NCT00487942|168952375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.73|
84600168|NCT00487942|168952375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-1.01|
84600169|NCT00487942|168952376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
84600170|NCT00487942|168952376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.79|
84600171|NCT00487942|168952376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.11|
84600172|NCT00487942|168952377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.65||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.65|-0.95|
84618660|NCT01825187|168984479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Peformance||||0.0451
84618661|NCT01702558|168984497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact||90% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||20.9|-4.5|0.336
84618662|NCT01623115|168984550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-52.6|-63.3|<0.0001
84673316|NCT00727194|169082026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-0.17||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-6.97|0.0410
84760309|NCT01181011|169276823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.643|112.472||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.472|84.643|0.0126
84503009|NCT02496221|168757577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-545.9585||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1260.0|168.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.0858|-1260.00|0.1291
84600173|NCT00487942|168952377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.87|
84600174|NCT00487942|168952377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.24|
84600175|NCT00487942|168952378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.75|
84600176|NCT00487942|168952378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.99|
84600177|NCT00487942|168952378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.34|-1.28|
84600178|NCT03111550|168952389|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for corneal edema)||||||0.02041|ONE_SIDED||||||Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.02041
84600179|NCT03111550|168952390|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for retinal detachment)||||||0.1969|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 retinal detachment|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.1969
84600180|NCT03111550|168952390|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4655|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZHR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test of binomial distribution|||||||0.4655
84600181|NCT03111550|168952390|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.021|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 secondary surgical intention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.0210
84600182|NCT03111550|168952390|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4698|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZXR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.4698
84600183|NCT04091581|168952391|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84600184|NCT04091581|168952391|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the baseline tear evaporation rate of the non-dry eye and dry eye group.||||0.022
84618663|NCT01623115|168984551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-58.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-52.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-52.7|-63.5|<0.0001
84600185|NCT03319953|168952392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.2079
84618664|NCT01623115|168984552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-44.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.5|-53.9|<0.0001
84618665|NCT01623115|168984553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||-44.8|-54.2|<0.0001
84600186|NCT03319953|168952392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0633||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0633
84600187|NCT03319953|168952393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.1706
84600188|NCT03319953|168952393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0373
84600189|NCT03315793|168952407|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.39||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|6.08|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||6.08|-3.30|0.5587
84600190|NCT03315793|168952408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||21.5|-10.7|0.5111
84618666|NCT01623115|168984554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.8|<0.0001
84503010|NCT02496221|168757579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2992||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0762|-1.5223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||-1.5223|-31.0762|0.0317
84503011|NCT02496221|168757580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|252.6099||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5081|475.7117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||475.7117|29.5081|0.0291
84600191|NCT03315793|168952409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||13.5|-13.5|1.0000
84600192|NCT03315793|168952410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||6.3|-14.4|0.4423
84600193|NCT03315793|168952411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.14||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.46|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.46|-0.18|0.3836
84600194|NCT01579565|168952450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001||95.0|0.494|0.686||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||0.686|0.494|0.0001
84600195|NCT01579565|168952451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0002||95.0|-6.917|-2.244||p-value is based on the generalized CMH test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||-2.244|-6.917|0.0002
84600196|NCT01579565|168952452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84600197|NCT01579565|168952453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84600198|NCT01579565|168952454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0760
84600199|NCT01579565|168952455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0806
84618667|NCT01623115|168984555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.9|<0.0001
84618668|NCT01623115|168984556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-57.2|<0.0001
84618669|NCT01623115|168984557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-57.5|<0.0001
84618670|NCT01623115|168984558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-35.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35|-42.4|<0.0001
84618671|NCT01623115|168984559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-41.2|<0.0001
84673317|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|18.6||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Physical Functioning||18.60|-16.94|0.9190
84503012|NCT02496221|168757581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3748||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4109|2.6614|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.6614|-3.4109|0.7961
84600200|NCT01579565|168952456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
84600201|NCT01579565|168952457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3923||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3923
84600202|NCT01579565|168952458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0060
84600203|NCT01579565|168952459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3286||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3286
84600204|NCT01579565|168952460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2361
84600205|NCT03040011|168952465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
84600206|NCT03040011|168952466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.25
84600207|NCT03040011|168952467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84600208|NCT03040011|168952468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
84600209|NCT03040011|168952469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
84600210|NCT03040011|168952470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
84600211|NCT03040011|168952471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84600212|NCT03040011|168952472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84600213|NCT03040011|168952473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
84600214|NCT03040011|168952475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
84600215|NCT03040011|168952476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84600216|NCT03040011|168952477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84600217|NCT03040011|168952478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
84600218|NCT03040011|168952479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
84600219|NCT03040011|168952480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
84618672|NCT01623115|168984560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-39.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.4|-48|<0.0001
84618673|NCT01623115|168984561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-35.7|<0.0001
84618674|NCT01623115|168984562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-50.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50|-62.4|<0.0001
84503013|NCT02496221|168757583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001526||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045665|0.048717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.048717|-0.045665|0.9424
84600220|NCT03040011|168952481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
84600221|NCT03040011|168952482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
84600222|NCT03040011|168952483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
84600223|NCT03040011|168952484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
84600224|NCT01448824|168952486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
84600225|NCT01448824|168952487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||0.50|-0.50|1.0000
84600226|NCT01448824|168952488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|3.18||||||||3.18|1.77|
84600227|NCT03817463|168952501|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.7|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-(broad+specific)||0.83|0.60|<0.005
84600228|NCT03817463|168952501|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline||HHF-(broad + specific).||0.78|0.57|<0.005
84600229|NCT03817463|168952502|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.75|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.81|0.69|<0.005
84618675|NCT01623115|168984563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|498.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||498.1|48.9|<0.0001
84618676|NCT01623115|168984564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.7|493.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||493.7|49.7|<0.0001
84503014|NCT02496221|168757584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01456||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030666|0.001554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.001554|-0.030666|0.0733
84618677|NCT01623115|168984565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|1744.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1744.4|34.4|<0.0001
84644630|NCT00282464|169024738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.068
84600230|NCT03817463|168952502|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.78|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.88|0.69|<0.005
84600231|NCT03817463|168952503|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.68|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.83|0.56|<0.005
84600232|NCT03817463|168952503|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.64|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.81|0.51|<0.005
84600233|NCT03817463|168952504|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.55|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.63|0.48|<0.005
84600234|NCT03817463|168952504|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.65|0.54|<0.005
84600235|NCT03817463|168952505|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.76|0.56|<0.05
84600236|NCT03817463|168952505|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.72|0.61|<0.005
84600237|NCT03817463|168952506|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.82|0.64|<0.005
84600238|NCT03817463|168952506|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.78|0.66|<0.005
84600239|NCT03817463|168952507|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.18|0.88|0.816
84600240|NCT03817463|168952507|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.87||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.97|0.78|0.013
84600241|NCT03817463|168952508|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.82|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.96|0.71|<0.011
84600242|NCT03817463|168952508|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.01|0.69|0.064
84600243|NCT03817463|168952509|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.84|0.42|<0.005
84600244|NCT03817463|168952509|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.6|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.72|0.49|<0.005
84618678|NCT01623115|168984566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|1700.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1700.7|33.9|<0.0001
84618679|NCT01623115|168984567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.9|-22.6|<0.0001
84618680|NCT01623115|168984568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11|5|<0.0001
84618681|NCT01623115|168984569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-10.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.6|-21.3|<0.0001
84618682|NCT01623115|168984570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|2.3|= 0.0002
84618683|NCT01623115|168984571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-13.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13|-21.5|<0.0001
84618684|NCT01623115|168984572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|1.5|0.0031
84618685|NCT01623115|168984573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.4|-15|0.0003
84618686|NCT01623115|168984574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|0.5|0.0187
84600245|NCT03817463|168952510|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.54|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.64|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.64|0.46|<0.005
84600246|NCT03817463|168952510|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.66|0.47|<0.005
84600247|NCT03817463|168952511|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.11|0.81|0.545
84600248|NCT03817463|168952511|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.91||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.99|0.83|0.036
84600249|NCT03817463|168952512|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.09|0.79|0.353
84503015|NCT01120600|168757594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|6.7|||cLDA|||A constrained full likelihood longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||6.7|4.48|< 0.001
84600250|NCT03817463|168952512|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.9||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.05|0.78|0.197
84600251|NCT03817463|168952513|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.43|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.63|0.30|<0.005
84600252|NCT03817463|168952513|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.27|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.44|0.16|<0.005
84600253|NCT03817463|168952514|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.05||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.25|0.89|0.535
84600254|NCT03817463|168952514|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.98||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.15|0.84|0.850
84600255|NCT03817463|168952515|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.31|0.81|0.828
84600256|NCT03817463|168952515|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.42|0.72|0.944
84600257|NCT03817463|168952516|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.22|0.73|0.642
84600258|NCT03817463|168952516|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.19|0.66|0.417
84600259|NCT03817463|168952517|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.02|0.77|0.091
84600260|NCT03817463|168952518|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.97|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.03|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||3.03|1.28|<0.005
84600261|NCT03817463|168952519|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.20|0.75|0.654
84600262|NCT03817463|168952520|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.17|0.52|0.233
84600263|NCT03817463|168952521|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.82|0.38|<0.005
84600264|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.8|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Finland||0.80|0.69|
84600265|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.38|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Japan||1.38|0.59|
84600266|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - South Korea||1.00|0.82|
84600267|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Spain||0.87|0.59|
84600268|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Sweden||1.01|0.87|
84600269|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Taiwan||0.93|0.80|
84600270|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.85|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Finland||0.85|0.75|
84600271|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Japan||0.84|0.68|
84600272|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - South Korea||0.82|0.69|
84600273|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Norway||0.94|0.78|
84600274|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Spain||0.89|0.66|
84600275|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Sweden||0.93|0.81|
84618687|NCT04950465|168984578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.12|0.2639
84618688|NCT04950465|168984579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.6978
84600276|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Taiwan||0.86|0.74|
84600277|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.71|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions||0.71|0.64|
84600278|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76|||||Poisson regression model was used.|For all-cause hospital admissions - Japan||0.76|0.63|
84600279|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.75|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - South Korea||0.75|0.66|
84600280|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.85|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Norway||0.85|0.77|
84600281|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Spain||0.77|0.60|
84600282|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.89|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Sweden||0.89|0.80|
84600283|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87||||||All-cause hospital admissions - Taiwan||0.87|0.72|
84600284|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.79|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Finland||0.79|0.77|
84600285|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Japan||0.97|0.94|
84600286|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - South Korea||0.97|0.96|
84600287|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97||||||Outpatient healthcare visits - Norway||0.97|0.94|
84600288|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visit - Spain||0.91|0.85|
84600289|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.98|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Sweden||0.98|0.94|
84600290|NCT03817463|168952522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Taiwan||1.00|0.94|
84600291|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Japan||0.94|0.89|
84600292|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - South Korea||0.93|0.81|
84600293|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.11|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Taiwan||1.11|1.08|
84600294|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Finland||1.12|1.10|
84600295|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Japan||0.83|0.81|
84600296|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - South Korea||1.00|0.99|
84600297|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.14|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Norway||1.14|1.11|
84600298|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.27|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Sweden||1.27|1.25|
84600299|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Taiwan||1.02|0.98|
84600300|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Finland||1.02|1.01|
84600301|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.84|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Japan||0.84|0.82|
84600302|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - South Korea||1.01|0.99|
84600303|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Norway||0.93|0.92|
84600304|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Spain||0.87|0.84|
84600305|NCT03817463|168952523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Sweden||1.00|1.00|
84600306|NCT03817463|168952524|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total cost - Finland||0.94|0.83|
84600307|NCT03817463|168952524|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Norway||1.12|0.86|
84600308|NCT03817463|168952524|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Sweden||1.05|0.92|
84600309|NCT03817463|168952525|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88|||||Poisson regression model was used.|||0.88|0.80|
84618689|NCT04950465|168984579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.8130
84618690|NCT04950465|168984580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.26|0.7645
84618691|NCT04950465|168984581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.22|-0.23|0.9728
84600310|NCT03817463|168952526|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.68|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - South Korea||1.68|0.34|
84618692|NCT04950465|168984581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.42|-0.13|0.2968
84600311|NCT03817463|168952527|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Taiwan||1.03|0.92|
84600312|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|26.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|32.22|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) Confidence interval (CI) were based on Least square mean (LSM) from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||32.22|20.33|<0.001
84600313|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|30.29|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.29|18.44|<0.001
84600314|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|33.42|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||33.42|21.53|<0.001
84600315|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.93|30.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.78|18.93|<0.001
84600316|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.42||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|5.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.58|-2.73|0.501
84600317|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.64|-4.61|0.817
84600318|NCT01559259|168952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.62||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|6.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|-1.53|0.216
84600319|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|29.19|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||29.19|5.52|<0.001
84618693|NCT04950465|168984582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.1682
84618694|NCT04950465|168984582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3937|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.3937
84600320|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|23.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||23.02|4.36|<0.001
84618695|NCT04308941|168984583|OTHER|The mean and standard deviation was analyzed.||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84600321|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|26.83|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.83|5.07|<0.001
84600322|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|19.77|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||19.77|3.74|<0.001
84618696|NCT02230566|168984584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.66|-59.98||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||-59.98|-69.66|< 0.0001
84618697|NCT02230566|168984585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0527|||||||t-test|"P value from t-test of no change (0 change) from baseline"||||||0.0527
84618698|NCT02230566|168984586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|20.8||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|53.7||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||53.7|-12.0|0.2137
84618699|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Left||3.0|-16.1|0.1778
84618700|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.5||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Left||8.0|-10.9|0.7632
84618701|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.1|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Right||5.1|-8.8|0.6034
84618702|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.4||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Right||3.4|-10.2|0.3332
84618703|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.4||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-0.4|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Flexion||-0.4|-18.4|0.0415
84618704|NCT02230566|168984589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.7||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.2|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Extension||0.2|-13.6|0.0563
84618705|NCT02230566|168984590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.0||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||GEE|||for the left eye||2.2|-0.2|0.1140
84618706|NCT02230566|168984590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||GEE|||for the right eye||1.8|-0.1|0.0906
84618707|NCT02230566|168984591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||GEE|||Scale-BALANCE||1.7|-0.1|0.0883
84618708|NCT02230566|168984591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.2||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||GEE|||Scale: FINE MOTOR PRECISION||0.2|-0.7|0.3528
84618709|NCT02230566|168984591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||GEE|||Scale-MANUAL DEXTERITY||0.6|-0.2|0.4094
84618710|NCT02230566|168984591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||GEE|||Scale-RUNNING SPEED AND AGILITY||0.4|0.0|0.1020
84618711|NCT02230566|168984592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.6|||GEE|||||8.6|-1.8|0.1953
84618712|NCT02230566|168984594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||GEE|||||0.6|-3.0|0.2022
84618713|NCT00940901|168984596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in the number of participants who experienced at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of priapic episodes between baseline and 8 weeks post intervention, between the sildenafil and placebo groups||||1
84618714|NCT00940901|168984597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84618715|NCT00740207|168984604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare difference between the investigational product's mean change from predose to postdose||0.9|-1.3|0.7142
84618716|NCT00740207|168984605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare the difference in percentage between the portions of patients who had motion artifacts.||-0.8|-79.2|0.1698
84618717|NCT00740207|168984606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|8.6|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare difference in percentage between the number of participants requiring repeat injections||8.6|-28.6|1.000
84618718|NCT01425801|168984646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean DIfference|0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.458|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.458|0.353|<0.0001
84618719|NCT01425801|168984646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.424|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.424|0.318|<0.0001
84618720|NCT01425801|168984646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.375|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.375|0.269|<0.0001
84618721|NCT01425801|168984646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.327|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.327|0.221|<0.0001
84618722|NCT03066596|168984662|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with logit link function was used to compare the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken and GEE method was used to account for within-clinic correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 15 percentage points.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.08||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.08|1.98|<.001
84618723|NCT03066596|168984662|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to analysis 1, however, the model adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom free days (at baseline), nurse screening results, clinic characteristics, visit type, caregiver education, and smoking exposure (at baseline).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.82||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.82|1.97|<.001
84503016|NCT01120600|168757595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.77|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.77|1.27|< 0.001
84600323|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.02|1.08|0.014
84600324|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.86|0.332
84600325|NCT01559259|168952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.85|0.99|0.056
84600326|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|27.91|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||27.91|5.24|<0.001
84600327|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|20.44|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||20.44|3.86|<0.001
84600328|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|26.42|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.42|4.98|<0.001
84600329|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|18.68|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||18.68|3.52|<0.001
84600330|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.04|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.04|1.09|0.012
84600331|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.80|0.570
84600332|NCT01559259|168952552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.93|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.93|1.03|0.030
84600333|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.71|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.71|0.08|0.014
84600334|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.64|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.02|0.038
84600335|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.17|0.003
84644631|NCT00282464|169024738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.043
84600336|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.54|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.09|0.155
84600337|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.135
84600338|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.11|0.350
84600339|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|0.03|0.024
84600340|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.77|0.90|<0.001
84600341|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|0.83|<0.001
84600342|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.91|0.001
84600343|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|0.43|<0.001
84600344|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|0.16|0.003
84600345|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.10|0.010
84600346|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.18|0.002
84618724|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.95|0.174
84618725|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.85|0.741
84618726|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.724
84618727|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.34|0.93|0.229
84618728|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 1, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.94|0.186
84618729|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 2, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.84|0.744
84600347|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.66|<0.001
84618730|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 3, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.765
84618731|NCT03066596|168984663|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 4, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.11||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.33|0.93|0.241
84618732|NCT02538042|168984700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
84618733|NCT02940496|168984706|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2 sided test)|0.081||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84618734|NCT02940496|168984707|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84618735|NCT02940496|168984708|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84644632|NCT00282464|169024738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.404||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.404
84600348|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.42|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.42|1.50|<0.001
84600349|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.6|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.60|1.67|<0.001
84600350|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.2|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.20|1.28|<0.001
84600351|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.05|0.022
84600352|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.10|0.181
84600353|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.07|0.016
84600354|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.88|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.88|1.98|<0.001
84600355|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.62|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.62|1.72|<0.001
84600356|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.91|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|2.01|<0.001
84600357|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.68|<0.001
84600358|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.02|0.065
84618736|NCT00676013|168984821|OTHER|ANOVA and all pairwise comparisons using Tukey test.|Multiple pairwise comparisons|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is a threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||We conducted a multiple four group comparison (all pairwise comparisons were conducted). An Anova was conducted to assess statistical significance.|0.05|||0.05
84618737|NCT00428948|168984822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.708|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-2.147|||Linear mixed model||The variance of the random effect intercept was zero and resulted in a non-positive, definite variance-covariance matrix for the random effects.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage change per year in total kidney volume between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||-2.147|-3.269|<0.0001
84618738|NCT00428948|168984823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.965|||Recurrent event analysis||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ADPKD clinical progression events/100 follow-up years between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.965|0.775|0.0095
84760310|NCT01181011|169276824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|117.07||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||117.07|102.87|0.0011
84600359|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.28|0.817
84618739|NCT00428948|168984824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|0.977|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal function per year between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.357|0.597|<0.0001
84618740|NCT00428948|168984825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|-0.246||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.|Placebo minus tolvaptan.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.566|-1.059|0.5520
84760311|NCT01181011|169276825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|116.0||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||116.0|102.1|0.0006
84600360|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.01|0.043
84600361|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.06|<0.001
84600362|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.82|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.82|1.87|<0.001
84600363|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.11|2.15|<0.001
84600364|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.84|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.84|1.89|<0.001
84600365|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-0.16|0.312
84600366|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.35|0.910
84600367|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.06|0.113
84600368|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.97|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|1.98|<0.001
84600369|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.75|1.76|<0.001
84600370|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.01|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.02|<0.001
84600371|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.85|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.85|1.86|<0.001
84600372|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.22|0.482
84600373|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.573
84600374|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.5|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.19|0.368
84600375|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|1.88|<0.001
84600376|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.68|1.66|<0.001
84600377|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.96|1.93|<0.001
84600378|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.74|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.74|1.72|<0.001
84600379|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.19|0.352
84600380|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.41|0.771
84600381|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.58|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|-0.14|0.235
84600382|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.79|<0.001
84600383|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.58|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.52|<0.001
84600384|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|1.83|<0.001
84600385|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.73|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.73|1.66|<0.001
84600386|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.25|0.510
84600387|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.52|0.442
84600388|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.20|0.372
84600389|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.55|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.55|1.39|<0.001
84600390|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.4|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.40|1.25|<0.001
84600391|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.72|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|1.57|<0.001
84600392|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|1.30|<0.001
84600393|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.31|0.639
84600394|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.45|0.803
84600395|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.67|-0.13|0.184
84618741|NCT00428948|168984826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline renal pain as a covariate.|Derived from ANCOVA with factors of treatment and baseline stratification factor interaction and covariate renal pain baseline.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal pain between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.03|-0.20|0.1604
84618742|NCT00428948|168984827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.233|||Recurrent event analysis||Derived from rate and mean model of time to recurrent event analysis with factor treatment.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hypertensive events per 100 follow-up years in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.233|0.805|0.9704
84618743|NCT00428948|168984828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.017|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of participants with a clinically sustained decrease of blood pressure leading to a sustained reduction in antihypertensive therapy between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||2.017|0.602|0.7532
84618744|NCT03884790|168984837|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistical analysis|||
84600396|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|1.07|<0.001
84600397|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.17|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.17|0.99|<0.001
84600398|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.43|1.25|<0.001
84600399|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.28|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.28|1.10|<0.001
84600400|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.44|0.910
84600401|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.52|0.607
84618745|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.07|-0.54|
84618746|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.02|-0.46|
84618747|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.36|
84618748|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.23|
84618749|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.14|
84600402|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.56|-0.27|0.484
84618750|NCT03201419|168984844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.07|
84600403|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.86|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.64|<0.001
84600404|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|0.75|<0.001
84600405|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.99|0.77|<0.001
84600406|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.10|0.89|<0.001
84600407|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.18|-0.67|0.256
84600408|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.29|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|-0.56|0.526
84600409|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.31|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.54|0.602
84600410|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.34|0.002
84600411|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.98||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.38|0.001
84600412|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.65|<0.001
84600413|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|0.61|<0.001
84600414|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.26||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.16|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.69|0.224
84618751|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.201||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.201|-0.480|0.4214
84600415|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.65|0.283
84600416|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.46|-0.39|0.860
84600417|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.03|0.038
84600418|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.06|0.031
84618752|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.141||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.141|-1.034|0.0101
84618753|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.148||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.304||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.304|-0.599|0.5203
84600419|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.62|0.43|<0.001
84600420|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.54|0.36|0.002
84618754|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.055||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.617||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.617|-0.508|0.8483
84600421|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.09|-0.74|0.129
84618755|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.147||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.464|-0.759|0.6357
84600422|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.11|-0.71|0.154
84600423|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.34|0.714
84600424|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.96|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.96|-0.22|0.217
84600425|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.03|-0.14|0.136
84600426|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.37|0.19|0.010
84600427|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.41|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.24|0.006
84600428|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.87|0.031
84600429|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.03|-0.79|0.070
84600430|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-0.46|0.822
84600431|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.83|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.28|0.327
84600432|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.34||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.89|-0.21|0.224
84600433|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|0.08|0.025
84600434|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|0.15|0.012
84600435|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.81|0.030
84600436|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.02|-0.75|0.064
84600437|NCT01559259|168952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.721
84600438|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.02|0.033
84600439|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.08|0.224
84600440|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|0.03|0.024
84618756|NCT03201419|168984845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.652||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.652|-0.152|0.2222
84618757|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.143||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.143|-0.474|0.2909
84618758|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.011||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.011|-0.824|0.0440
84600441|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.27|-0.13|0.501
84600442|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|0.01|0.036
84600443|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.08|0.435
84600444|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|0.02|0.023
84600445|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|0.52|<0.001
84618759|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.128||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.545||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.545|-0.288|0.5438
84618760|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.441||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.962|-0.079|0.0960
84618761|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.488||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.488|-0.568|0.8826
84618762|NCT03201419|168984846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.394||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.759||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.759|0.029|0.0344
84618763|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.132||||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.231||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.231|-0.496|0.4732
84618764|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.224||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.237||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.237|-0.685|0.3394
84618765|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.463||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.463|-0.488|0.9600
84600446|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|0.37|<0.001
84618766|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.463||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.037|-0.111|0.1131
84673318|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.05|23.33||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning||23.33|-39.05|0.5931
84600447|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|0.45|<0.001
84618767|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.124||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.48||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.480|-0.729|0.6853
84618768|NCT03201419|168984847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.166||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.587||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.587|-0.254|0.4364
84618769|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.667|0.1106
84618770|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.163||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.313|-0.639|0.5005
84618771|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.107||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.586||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.586|-0.372|0.6604
84618772|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.283||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.842||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.842|-0.275|0.3178
84618773|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|0.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.510|-0.701|0.7561
84618774|NCT03201419|168984848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.037||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.452||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.452|-0.378|0.8614
84618775|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.759||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|3.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.560|0.869|0.117
84618776|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.214||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.214|1.010|0.048
84618777|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.602||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.560|0.460
84618778|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.704||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|5.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.427|0.535|0.367
84618779|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|5.825||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.825|0.489|0.407
84618780|NCT03201419|168984849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.473||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.473|0.462|0.876
84618781|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.005||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.005|0.470|0.937
84618782|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.738||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|18.968||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.968|1.183|0.028
84618783|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.513||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.318||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.200|0.166
84673319|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|22.89||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Role Physical||22.89|-16.64|0.7319
84618784|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.433||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.447||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.129|0.174
84618785|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|5.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.512|0.369|0.608
84600448|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.75|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|0.16|0.003
84600449|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|0.16|<0.001
84600450|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.01|0.039
84600451|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|0.08|0.006
84600452|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.65|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.65|1.01|<0.001
84600453|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.85|<0.001
84600454|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.67|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.03|<0.001
84600455|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.36|0.72|<0.001
84600456|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.52|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|0.07|0.011
84600457|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.10|0.267
84600458|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|0.09|0.007
84618786|NCT03201419|168984850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.292|0.237|0.171
84618787|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.003|0.430|0.850
84618788|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.261||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|6.862||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.862|0.745|0.150
84618789|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.566||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.566|0.462|0.632
84618790|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.863||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.863|0.183|0.363
84600459|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.89|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.24|<0.001
84600460|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|1.06|<0.001
84600461|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.25|<0.001
84600462|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.67|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.02|<0.001
84618791|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|2.359||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.359|0.203|0.555
84618792|NCT03201419|168984851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|2.405||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.405|0.408|0.984
84673320|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.14||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.36|31.08||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Physical||31.08|-45.36|0.6910
84600463|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.01|0.056
84673321|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.42||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|3.34||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Bodily Pain||3.34|-22.18|0.1311
84600464|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.26|-0.19|0.759
84600465|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.00|0.051
84600466|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.30|<0.001
84600467|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.18|<0.001
84600468|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.05|1.37|<0.001
84600469|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.19|<0.001
84600470|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.12|0.342
84600471|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.24|0.943
84600472|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.18||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|-0.05|0.126
84600473|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.98|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.27|<0.001
84600474|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.15|<0.001
84600475|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.0|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.00|1.29|<0.001
84600476|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.18|<0.001
84600477|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.15|0.453
84600478|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.28|0.816
84600479|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.36|-0.14|0.384
84600480|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.91|1.19|<0.001
84600481|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
84600482|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|1.25|<0.001
84673322|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.86||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|11.36||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily Pain||11.36|-41.08|0.2406
84600483|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
84600484|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.16|0.483
84600485|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.25|0.991
84600486|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-0.10|0.228
84600487|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.10|<0.001
84600488|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
84600489|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.15|<0.001
84600490|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|1.03|<0.001
84600491|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.19|0.587
84600492|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.35|0.517
84600493|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.14|0.360
84600494|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.60|0.81|<0.001
84600495|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.57|0.78|<0.001
84600496|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.76|0.97|<0.001
84600497|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.77|<0.001
84600498|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.24|0.811
84600499|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.27|0.977
84600500|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.08|0.164
84600501|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.43|0.63|<0.001
84600502|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.40|0.60|<0.001
84600503|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.75|<0.001
84600504|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.46|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.46|0.66|<0.001
84600505|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.31|0.846
84600506|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.33|0.702
84600507|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.18|0.496
84600508|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.41|<0.001
84600509|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.40|<0.001
84600510|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.26|0.46|<0.001
84600511|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.52|<0.001
84600512|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.17|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.39|0.441
84600513|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.40|0.408
84600514|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.06||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.35|0.652
84600515|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|0.21|0.003
84600516|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.15|0.007
84600517|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
84760312|NCT01181011|169276826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|106.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|112.9||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.9|100.9|0.000
84600518|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
84600519|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.36|0.567
84600520|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.315
84600521|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.28|0.997
84600522|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.77|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|-0.01|0.056
84600523|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|0.01|0.047
84600524|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.95|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.17|0.005
84618793|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.462||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|5.961||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.961|1.017|0.046
84760313|NCT00610987|169276841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.12
84673323|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.17||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|14.62||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||General Health||14.62|-0.29|0.0578
84673324|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.43||||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|31.11||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health||31.11|-16.26|0.5073
84673325|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.17||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|11.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Vitality||11.72|-3.39|0.2474
84673326|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|20.88||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||20.88|-26.24|0.8085
84673327|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.46||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|1.21||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Social Functioning||1.21|-24.13|0.0716
84673328|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.07||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|9.54||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Functioning||9.54|-41.68|0.1966
84760314|NCT00254501|169276842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Adjusted for baseline Hemoglobin A-1C.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis is mean change in usual care group equals mean change in Empower group.~Power calculation required 150 per group assuming 25% would withdraw prior to 12 months."||||0.0757
84600525|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.92|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|0.14|0.007
84673329|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|5.99||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Role Emotional||5.99|-29.60|0.1701
84673330|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.58|44.48||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Emotional||44.48|-32.58|0.7422
84673331|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.67||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Health||7.67|-6.83|0.9007
84673332|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.86||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|43.29||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Health||43.29|-7.57|0.1519
84673333|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|6.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Physical Component Score||6.72|-4.57|0.6807
84673334|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.79|4.32||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Component Score||4.32|-16.79|0.2226
84673335|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Component Score||1.26|-7.10|0.1505
84673336|NCT00727194|169082027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.55||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|19.87||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||19.87|-8.77|0.4151
84673337|NCT00727194|169082028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|10.44||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Forced Vital Capacity||10.44|-3.94|0.3377
84673338|NCT00727194|169082028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.57||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|12.56||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Forced Vital Capacity||12.56|-33.71|0.3391
84673339|NCT00727194|169082028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.35||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t test|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.35|-4.35|1.0000
84673340|NCT00727194|169082028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.57||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|4.73||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.73|-17.87|0.2292
84673341|NCT04269161|169082032|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 10 seconds such that the device is no worse than 10 seconds on average than manual mode. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.885||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-3.27||The p-value is significant at 0.01.|t-test, 2 sided||The difference is time to re-establish in automatic mode minus time to re-establish in manual mode. (a negative number favors automatic mode)|A sample requirement of 48 patients was determined based on a pilot study to provide 88% power, and 0.05 significance (two sided) to show the mean difference is less than 10 seconds based on a 2x2 crossover design. Considering patient drop-out, a sample size of n=40 drops power to 82%.||-3.27|-16.51|0.003
84673342|NCT04269161|169082033|OTHER|The difference is defined as the difference of proportion of time in the target range of SpO2 in modes, automatic minus manual. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.034||The threshold for statistical significance is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test with equal variances. Linear mixed model patient random effects, adjusted for site, sex, race, weight, gestational age, bed type.|Treatment difference = automatic - manual. A positive number favors automatic.|The difference in the proportion of time in the target saturation is calculated between the automatic and manual models. For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range.||.034|0.003|.02
84760315|NCT00254501|169276843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in LDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.44
84760316|NCT00254501|169276843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in HDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.16
84760317|NCT00254501|169276843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in total cholesterol from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.14
84760318|NCT00254501|169276843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in triglycerides from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.92
84760319|NCT00254501|169276844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3856|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of total health care from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.3856
84760320|NCT00254501|169276844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of diabetes medications from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.6413
84600526|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.12|-0.42|0.276
84600527|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.41|0.318
84600528|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.25|0.849
84600529|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.09|0.138
84600530|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.68|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.68|-0.07|0.111
84600531|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.04|0.031
84600532|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.87|0.11|0.011
84600533|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.06|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.47|0.135
84600534|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.08|-0.44|0.175
84600535|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.34|0.590
84600536|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.20|0.402
84600537|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.15|0.261
84600538|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.61|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.08|0.134
84600539|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.03|0.031
84600540|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-0.47|0.061
84600541|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.42|0.138
84600542|NCT01559259|168952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.13|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.35|0.353
84600543|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.51|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.51|0.25|0.006
84600544|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|0.07|0.030
84673343|NCT04368429|169082035|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was greater than (\>) -10% for the serogroup A.|Difference in percentage|20.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.38|28.75|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup A||28.75|11.38|
84673344|NCT04368429|169082035|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup C.|Difference in percentage|33.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.5|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup C||41.50|26.20|
84618794|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|3.386||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.386|0.418|0.745
84760321|NCT00254501|169276844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.4303
84618795|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|3.155||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.155|0.417|0.790
84618796|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.537||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|1.71||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.710|0.169|0.293
84618797|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|3.076||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.076|0.252|0.843
84618798|NCT03201419|168984852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.053||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053|0.375|0.763
84618799|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|2.597||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.597|0.868|
84618800|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|2.45||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.450|0.905|
84618801|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.264||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.264|0.927|
84618802|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.896||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.896|0.957|
84673345|NCT04368429|169082035|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|41.64|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup Y||41.64|26.66|
84673346|NCT04368429|169082035|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup W.|Difference in percentage|38.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|46.53|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup W||46.53|28.93|
84673347|NCT03633396|169082060|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.77|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM including fixed effects of treatment, history of plaque psoriasis, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.|Least-squares mean difference = Imsidolimab - Placebo|The change from Baseline in PPPASI at Week 16 was analyzed using a a general linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included fixed effects for treatment, history of plaque psoriasis (Yes/No), visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.||3.77|-4.05|0.944
84618803|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.638||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.638|0.972|
84618804|NCT03201419|168984853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.313||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.313|0.991|
84618805|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.52||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-4.75|0.8463
84618806|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-6.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-6.81|-20.89|0.0001
84618807|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.84||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.32|-9.99|0.4355
84618808|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|8.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.06|-9.79|0.8483
84618809|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|7.69||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.69|-10.91|0.7336
84618810|NCT03201419|168984854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-7.15|0.8347
84618811|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.59||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.07|-3.90|0.5695
84618812|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-3.23||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|3.99||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.99|-10.46|0.3784
84618813|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|7.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.34|-7.67|0.9653
84618814|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.97||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|12.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.29|-6.35|0.5304
84673348|NCT03633396|169082062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.686|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPASI score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||2.686|0.288|
84673349|NCT03633396|169082063|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPIGA score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||13.9|0.5|
84673350|NCT00293384|169082099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.57||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||85% statistical power|Simon optimal design|||Optimal Simon design for phase II study. p0=45% p1=65%.||||0.10
84760322|NCT00254501|169276845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Diabetes Empowerment Scale from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.785
84760323|NCT00254501|169276845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Adherence Starts with Knowledge (ASK-20) from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.302
84503017|NCT01120600|168757596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.69|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.93|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.93|0.45|= 0.008
84600545|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|0.17|0.012
84600546|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.01|-0.25|0.237
84600547|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|0.07|0.024
84600548|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.11|0.150
84600549|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.86|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.01|0.054
84600550|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.85|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.85|1.92|<0.001
84600551|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.56|<0.001
84600552|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.54|<0.001
84600553|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.72|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|0.79|<0.001
84600554|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.79|0.47|<0.001
84600555|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.76||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.11|0.021
84600556|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.09|0.027
84600557|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.84|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.84|3.65|<0.001
84600558|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.29|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.29|3.13|<0.001
84600559|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.56|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.56|3.37|<0.001
84600560|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.02|2.83|<0.001
84600561|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.58|0.08|0.031
84618815|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.02||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.46|-17.51|0.0968
84673351|NCT00293384|169082100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.63||||||||||||||||||
84760324|NCT00254501|169276845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Understanding of Diabetes from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.0024
84600562|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.44|0.442
84600563|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.20|0.152
84600564|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.52|6.72|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.72|4.52|<0.001
84600565|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.13|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.13|3.96|<0.001
84600566|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.5|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.30|<0.001
84618816|NCT03201419|168984855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.91||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|7.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.62|-5.79|0.7885
84618817|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.50|-6.89|0.6792
84618818|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.39||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.93|-15.84|0.0276
84618819|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-7.97|0.9445
84618820|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.79||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|12.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.28|-6.71|0.5637
84618821|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.60|-14.39|0.3870
84600567|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|5.98|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.98|3.78|<0.001
84600568|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.49|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|-0.01|0.055
84618822|NCT03201419|168984856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.72||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|7.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.63|-6.19|0.8373
84618823|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.53||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||6.59|-5.54|0.8646
84618824|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.02|-15.00|0.0870
84618825|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||11.04|-5.50|0.5100
84618826|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|7.32||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|17.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.39|-2.75|0.1535
84618827|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|5.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.38|-15.66|0.3369
84618828|NCT03201419|168984857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.27||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|7.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.59|-7.05|0.9417
84618829|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.47||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||5.47|-1.41|
84618830|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.19||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.19|-0.43|
84618831|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.5||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.50|-0.16|
84618832|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.15|-0.03|
84618833|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.05|-0.01|
84618834|NCT03201419|168984858|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.01|-0.00|
84618835|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|15.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||15.7|-5.3|0.3328
84618836|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.5||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|29.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.2|1.9|0.0255
84618837|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.5||||0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|16.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.7|-11.7|0.7296
84618838|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|11.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||11.1|-24.5|0.4586
84618839|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|11.2||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|29.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.5|-7.2|0.2327
84673352|NCT00293384|169082102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84600569|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.90|-0.57|0.666
84600570|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|-0.24|0.181
84600571|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|7.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||7.01|4.71|<0.001
84600572|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|6.57|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.57|4.29|<0.001
84600573|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|6.94|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.94|4.64|<0.001
84600574|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.5|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.19|<0.001
84600575|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|-0.27|0.200
84600576|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.69|0.831
84600577|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.24|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|-0.34|0.268
84600578|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|6.91|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.91|4.54|<0.001
84600579|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.48|4.13|<0.001
84600580|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|6.78|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|4.41|<0.001
84600581|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.54|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.17|<0.001
84600582|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.19|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|-0.44|0.367
84600583|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.84|0.908
84600584|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.06|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.06|-0.57|0.553
84600585|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|6.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.68|4.22|<0.001
84600586|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.31|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.31|3.88|<0.001
84600587|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.66|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.66|4.19|<0.001
84600588|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|6.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.40|3.94|<0.001
84618840|NCT03201419|168984859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||12.1|-13.3|0.9240
84503018|NCT01120600|168757597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.3|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||3.3|0.93|< 0.001
84600589|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.12|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|-0.57|0.518
84600590|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.75|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.90|0.860
84600591|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.1|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|-0.59|0.556
84600592|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.71|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.71|4.17|<0.001
84600593|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.19|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.19|3.68|<0.001
84618841|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.5|-7.9|0.9499
84618842|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.4|-4.8|0.2842
84618843|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||5.4|-16.8|0.3100
84618844|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-23.9|0.1499
84600594|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.00|<0.001
84600595|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.34|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.34|3.79|<0.001
84600596|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.25|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|-0.49|0.392
84600597|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.72|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|-0.98|0.762
84600598|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.21||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.08|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.66|0.638
84600599|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.9|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.90|3.20|<0.001
84618845|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||6.0|-22.5|0.2571
84618846|NCT03201419|168984860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|8.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.3|-11.4|0.7629
84618847|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.48||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.46|-4.50|0.4846
84618848|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-16.93||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|-7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-7.60|-26.26|0.0004
84618849|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|7.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.37|-11.47|0.6685
84618850|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.69||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|13.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.46|-10.07|0.7772
84618851|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.67||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|23.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||23.00|-1.66|0.0895
84618852|NCT03201419|168984861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.2||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|9.74|||MMRM|||||9.74|-7.34|0.7820
84618853|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-8.25|0.9175
84673353|NCT00749775|169082123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673354|NCT00749775|169082123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673355|NCT00749775|169082123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673356|NCT00749775|169082123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84618854|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.32||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|5.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.98|-14.62|0.4098
84618855|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.41||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|13.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.06|-8.25|0.6566
84618856|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.39||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.63|-9.85|0.6144
84618857|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.8||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.31|-9.71|0.5798
84618858|NCT03201419|168984862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.35||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|9.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.88|-9.17|0.9417
84618859|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.81||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.68|-11.31|0.5148
84600600|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|5.78|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.78|3.11|<0.001
84618860|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-9.65||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|1.44||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.44|-20.75|0.0879
84618861|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.61||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||15.00|-7.79|0.5335
84618862|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.29||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|20.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||20.34|-7.76|0.3787
84618863|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.48||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|16.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.38|-13.41|0.8448
84600601|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|6.26|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.26|3.56|<0.001
84600602|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.74|3.04|<0.001
84600603|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.08|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.77|0.741
84600604|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|-0.85|0.907
84618864|NCT03201419|168984863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|4.62||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|14.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||14.87|-5.63|0.3751
84618865|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|8.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.57|-9.43|0.9245
84618866|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.72||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|5.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.15|-18.59|0.2657
84618867|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|9.2||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|21.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||21.38|-2.99|0.1383
84618868|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.72||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||29.59|-0.15|0.0523
84618869|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.14||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|16.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.75|-14.47|0.8855
84618870|NCT03201419|168984864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.91||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|13.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.72|-7.91|0.5972
84673357|NCT00749775|169082124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673358|NCT00749775|169082124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673359|NCT00749775|169082124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673360|NCT00749775|169082124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
84673361|NCT01948375|169082161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84760325|NCT01223703|169276853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||"null hypothesis is no difference n3 PUFA administration and placebo. To demonstrate an effect size of 0.5 in LVEF, a sample of 65 patients in each group was calculated to have 80% power to detect such 0.5 effect size with alpha=0.05 (2-tailed) at the Student t test.~for unpaired data."||||< 0.05
84760326|NCT01223703|169276854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||||||< 0.05
84760327|NCT04249687|169276857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
84600605|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.44|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|-0.41|0.274
84600606|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.13|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.13|2.40|<0.001
84600607|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.26|2.56|<0.001
84600608|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.48|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.48|2.75|<0.001
84600609|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.38|2.64|<0.001
84600610|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.69|-1.18|0.607
84600611|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.02|0.824
84600612|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.04|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|-0.83|0.827
84600613|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.39|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.39|1.58|<0.001
84600614|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.65|1.88|<0.001
84673362|NCT01948375|169082163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.4||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.007|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.40|1.26|0.007
84673363|NCT01948375|169082164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||"for the comparison of difference of acupuncture pain in two periods between the two groups,t=-2.88, p=0.006.~t=-2.88 refers to the t value of t test."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
84673364|NCT01948375|169082165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||=|0.048||95.0|1.01|2.64||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.048|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.64|1.01|=0.048
84673365|NCT04537806|169082175|SUPERIORITY||Proc Genmod|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|31.8|||Chi-squared||Estimates for treatment, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Proc Genmod method, with treatment as a factor and age groups as a covariate variable.|||31.8|-31.8|1.0000
84673366|NCT00494494|169082181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Our estimate of a clinically relevant increase is 25 microns. With these specifications, the sample size that is required to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided 0.05 significance level is about 10 per group.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|8.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between the 2 groups. Standard methods were used for power calculation to determine the sample size needed to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided significance of 0.05.||8.91|-3.27|0.7029
84673367|NCT00494494|169082182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.56||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|6.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.43|-2.41|0.1937
84673368|NCT00494494|169082183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|16.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.52|-3.12|0.5066
84760328|NCT04249687|169276858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
84673369|NCT00494494|169082184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.227|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.227|-0.13|0.5099
84600615|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.52|1.71|<0.001
84600616|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.98|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|2.16|<0.001
84600617|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.59||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.38|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.55|0.232
84600618|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.31||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.63|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-1.24|0.522
84760329|NCT00853671|169276877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
84600619|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.51|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-1.41|0.356
84600620|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.69|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.69|0.92|0.001
84600621|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.82|1.08|<0.001
84600622|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.08|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.08|1.31|<0.001
84600623|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.23|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.23|1.46|<0.001
84600624|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.41|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-1.49|0.264
84600625|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.32|0.400
84760330|NCT00853671|169276879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||Pearson Correlation||||<0.0001
84760331|NCT00631748|169276892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|We compared TLFB at baseline and at end of study.||We used a repeated-measures ANCOVA to compare cocaine usage between the two groups. This incorporated the multiple administrations of the Timeline Followback measure.||||<0.25
84600626|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-1.10|0.758
84600627|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.97|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|0.27|0.018
84600628|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.21|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.21|0.55|0.006
84600629|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.63|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.63|0.94|<0.001
84618871|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.28|-6.09|
84618872|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.75||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.75|-4.30|
84618873|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.33||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.33|-2.44|
84618874|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.07|-0.92|
84760332|NCT00631748|169276893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||End-of-trial abstinence was defined as a negative urine drug screen (for cocaine) for three consecutive weeks at the end of the study.||||.65
84760333|NCT01332357|169276908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.46||The unadjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|||||2.46|1.56|<0.0001
84600630|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.75|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.75|1.05|<0.001
84600631|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.14|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-1.70|0.097
84600632|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.38|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.42|0.254
84600633|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.81|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.03|0.812
84600634|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.61|0.03|0.045
84600635|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.87|0.31|0.015
84600636|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.73||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.02|0.43|0.009
84600637|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.37|0.78|0.002
84600638|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.76||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.13|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-1.64|0.094
84600639|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.38|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.35|0.269
84600640|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.23|0.437
84600641|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.92|-0.44|0.218
84600642|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.35|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.35|0.02|0.046
84600643|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.49|0.13|0.030
84600644|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.93|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.93|0.57|0.004
84760334|NCT01332357|169276908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.25||The adjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|Covariates included demographics, IP or ED index event, primary asthma diagnosis, Charlson score, and pre-index medication||||2.25|1.42|<0.0001
84600645|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.20|-1.82|0.014
84600646|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-1.35|0.160
84600647|NCT01559259|168952555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.37|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-1.25|0.284
84600648|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.13|0.014
84760335|NCT01332357|169276908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.011||The risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge by time interaction|Regression, Cox|Evaluates the impact of each day treatment with a controller was delayed||||1.011|1.005|<0.0001
84503019|NCT01120600|168757598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-76.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.56|-60.61|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-60.61|-92.56|< 0.001
84503020|NCT01120600|168757599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-68.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-58.06|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-58.06|-78.1|< 0.001
84540067|NCT02448368|168830827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||117|85.5|
84540068|NCT02448368|168830827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|143.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||143|94.8|
84618875|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.02|-0.48|
84618876|NCT03201419|168984865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.00|-0.15|
84618877|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|0.006||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.006|-0.545|0.0550
84618878|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|-0.335||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.335|-1.066|0.0002
84618879|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.330|-0.404|0.8440
84673370|NCT00494494|169082185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.64||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.55|-1.49|0.5005
84760336|NCT01534533|169276913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||>0.05
84760337|NCT01534533|169276914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.992
84760338|NCT01534533|169276915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.672
84618880|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.041||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.498||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.498|-0.417|0.8610
84618881|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.036||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.532||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.532|-0.460|0.8871
84618882|NCT03201419|168984866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.013||||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.338|-0.313|0.9396
84760339|NCT01534533|169276916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.402
84618883|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.475||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|-0.145||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.145|-0.806|0.0050
84618884|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.405||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.028|-0.837|0.0665
84618885|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.310|-0.608|0.5245
84618886|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.7947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|0.492||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.492|-0.642|0.7947
84618887|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.211||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|0.355||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.355|-0.777|0.4625
84618888|NCT03201419|168984867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.014||||0.9465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.385||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.385|-0.412|0.9465
84618889|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.383|-1.078|<0.0001
84618890|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.686||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.137|-0.236||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.236|-1.137|0.0030
84618891|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.427|-0.517|0.8520
84618892|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.287||||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.281||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.281|-0.856|0.3205
84618893|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.190|-1.026|0.1769
84618894|NCT03201419|168984868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.118||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.118|-0.717|0.1584
84618895|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.822|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.424||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.424|-1.220|<0.0001
84618896|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.818||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.331|-0.306||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.306|-1.331|0.0019
84600649|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.94|-0.03|0.066
84600650|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.20|0.22|0.004
84600651|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.78|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.19|0.232
84600652|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.02|0.067
84600653|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.18|0.354
84600654|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.76|0.08|0.017
84600655|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.86|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.45|<0.001
84600656|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.64|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.64|1.23|<0.001
84600657|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.80|1.39|<0.001
84600658|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.02|0.61|<0.001
84600659|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.34|<0.001
84600660|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.11|0.12|0.014
84600661|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|0.28|0.002
84600662|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.22|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.22|2.69|<0.001
84600663|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|3.89|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.89|2.36|<0.001
84600664|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.26|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.72|<0.001
84600665|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.54|2.02|<0.001
84600666|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
84600667|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.88|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.88|-0.19|0.202
84600668|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.24|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.17|0.010
84618897|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.167||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.716||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.716|-0.383|0.5510
84618898|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.038||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.610|-0.685|0.9086
84618899|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.812||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.486|-0.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.138|-1.486|0.0185
84600669|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.76|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.76|3.24|<0.001
84600670|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.31|2.79|<0.001
84600671|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.79|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|3.27|<0.001
84600672|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.24|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.24|2.72|<0.001
84600673|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.05|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.05|-0.01|0.056
84600674|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.46|0.789
84600675|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|0.02|0.042
84600676|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|4.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|3.37|<0.001
84600677|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.66|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.66|3.06|<0.001
84600678|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.14|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.14|3.54|<0.001
84600679|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.69|3.09|<0.001
84600680|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.28|0.317
84600681|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.59|0.922
84600682|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.02|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.11|0.112
84600683|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.94|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.94|3.27|<0.001
84600684|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.59|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.59|2.92|<0.001
84600685|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.99|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.99|3.32|<0.001
84600686|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.72|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.72|3.05|<0.001
84600687|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-0.37|0.464
84600688|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.71|0.667
84600689|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.32|0.368
84618900|NCT03201419|168984869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.357|-0.569|0.6537
84618901|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.096||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.096|-0.388|0.2350
84618902|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.056|-0.699|0.0215
84618903|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.103||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.103|-0.540|0.1818
84618904|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.350|-0.450|0.8063
84618905|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.176||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.627||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.627|-0.274|0.4414
84618906|NCT03201419|168984870|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.180|-0.432|0.4179
84618907|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.061||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.292|-0.170|0.6042
84618908|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.177||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.177|-0.432|0.4114
84618909|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.099||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.418||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.418|-0.219|0.5394
84618910|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.149||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.544||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.544|-0.246|0.4590
84618911|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.242||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.647||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.647|-0.163|0.2397
84618912|NCT03201419|168984871|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.039||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.254||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.254|-0.332|0.7954
84618913|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|-0.089||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.089|-0.576|0.0077
84618914|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.927|-0.293||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.293|-0.927|0.0002
84618915|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.301||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.352|0.8778
84618916|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.157||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.549||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.549|-0.235|0.4309
84618917|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.411||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.411|-0.444|0.9392
84618918|NCT03201419|168984872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.213||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.094||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.094|-0.521|0.1734
84618919|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.069|-0.587|0.0133
84618920|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|-0.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.150|-0.819|0.0048
84618921|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.314||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.314|-0.395|0.8223
84618922|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.215||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.630|-0.200|0.3083
84618923|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.315||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.121||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.121|-0.750|0.1556
84618924|NCT03201419|168984873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.128|-0.504|0.2423
84618925|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.251||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.251|-0.409|0.6381
84618926|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.502||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.073||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.073|-0.931|0.0221
84618927|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.177||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.602|0.4112
84618928|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.112||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.640|-0.416|0.6761
84618929|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.224||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.861||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.861|-0.414|0.4898
84618930|NCT03201419|168984874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.194||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.585||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.585|-0.198|0.3311
84618931|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.09||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.090|-0.551|0.1583
84618932|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.275||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.136||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.136|-0.685|0.1884
84618933|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.369||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.369|-0.463|0.8256
84618934|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.059||||0.8198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.574||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.574|-0.455|0.8198
84618935|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.431||||0.1793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.199||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.199|-1.061|0.1793
84618936|NCT03201419|168984875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.189||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.189|-0.581|0.3155
84618937|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.241||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.114|-0.596|0.1830
84618938|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.313||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.126||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.126|-0.751|0.1618
84600690|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.81|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.81|3.08|<0.001
84600691|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.49|2.77|<0.001
84600692|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|4.92|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.92|3.19|<0.001
84600693|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.54|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.54|2.82|<0.001
84600694|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.34|0.397
84600695|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.55|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.65|0.866
84600696|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|-0.23|0.226
84600697|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.7|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.70|2.90|<0.001
84618939|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.186||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.186|-0.706|0.2519
84618940|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.232||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.781||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.781|-0.316|0.4044
84618941|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.986|0.426||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.426|-0.986|0.4348
84618942|NCT03201419|168984876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.266||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.266|-0.565|0.4786
84618943|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.151||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.151|-0.598|0.2412
84618944|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|0.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.000|-0.959|0.0501
84618945|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.556||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.556|-0.417|0.7788
84600698|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.26|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.47|<0.001
84600699|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.79|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|2.99|<0.001
84600700|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.50|2.70|<0.001
84600701|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.83|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.43|0.536
84600702|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.86|0.467
84600703|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.92|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|-0.34|0.361
84618946|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|0.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.477|-0.698|0.7111
84618947|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.205||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.527|-0.937|0.5816
84618948|NCT03201419|168984877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.290|-0.595|0.4981
84618949|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.313||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|0.582||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.582|-3.207|0.1733
84618950|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.375||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.745|0.994||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.994|-3.745|0.2538
84618951|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.353||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.818|2.113||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.113|-2.818|0.7782
84618952|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.182|2.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.880|-3.182|0.9218
84600704|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.13|2.21|<0.001
84618953|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.767||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|4.457||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.457|-2.923|0.6823
84618954|NCT03201419|168984878|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.095||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|1.179||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.179|-3.369|0.3436
84600705|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.95|2.04|<0.001
84600706|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|4.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.47|2.55|<0.001
84600707|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.0|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.00|2.09|<0.001
84600708|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.8|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-0.54|0.704
84600709|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.62|-0.71|0.890
84600710|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.14|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.14|-0.20|0.170
84600711|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.67|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.67|1.72|<0.001
84600712|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.56|1.61|<0.001
84600713|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.97|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.97|2.01|<0.001
84600714|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.72|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.72|1.77|<0.001
84600715|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.63|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-0.74|0.882
84600716|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.84|0.640
84600717|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|-0.44|0.482
84600718|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.06|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.06|1.07|<0.001
84618955|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.235||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|0.676||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.676|-3.146|0.2042
84600719|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.16|1.17|<0.001
84600720|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.24|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.24|1.25|<0.001
84600721|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.41|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.41|1.43|<0.001
84618956|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.683||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.031|0.665||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.665|-4.031|0.1591
84618957|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|2.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.138|-2.708|0.8168
84618958|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.551||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.517|2.416||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.416|-3.517|0.7148
84618959|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.701||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.066|4.468||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.468|-3.066|0.7141
84503021|NCT01120600|168757600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.94|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.31|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-1.31|-14.58|= 0.019
84503022|NCT01120600|168757601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.74|-6.27|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-6.27|-25.74|= 0.001
84503023|NCT04364165|168757639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.78|1.44|.01
84503024|NCT04364165|168757640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|0.36|.41
84600722|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-1.05|0.314
84503025|NCT00368537|168757649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-8.7|8.6|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||8.6|-8.7|
84503026|NCT00368537|168757650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||||95.0|-9.6|14.0|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||14.0|-9.6|
84503027|NCT00368537|168757651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||||95.0|-9.6|14.4|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||14.4|-9.6|
84503028|NCT00368537|168757653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.444||95.0|-4.4|2.0|||Fisher Exact|2-sided||Intensive care unit||2.0|-4.4|0.444
84503029|NCT01368276|168757666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-42.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||||0.2645
84600723|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|-0.95|0.469
84600724|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.87|0.616
84618960|NCT03201419|168984879|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.759||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.477|-2.995|0.5041
84503030|NCT01368276|168757667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|54.9||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||54.9|-57.3|1.0000
84503031|NCT03341273|168757675|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D5V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D5V is 5.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||2|-15|
84503032|NCT03341273|168757676|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D11V is 11.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||3|-12|
84540069|NCT02448368|168830828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.3|
84600725|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.57|0.002
84600726|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.53|0.55|0.002
84618961|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.129||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|0.967||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.967|-3.226|0.2896
84540070|NCT02448368|168830828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|95.0|
84600727|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.94|0.95|<0.001
84600728|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.9|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|0.92|<0.001
84600729|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.34||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-1.04|0.330
84600730|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-1.06|0.288
84600731|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.73|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.66|0.916
84600732|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.98|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|0.04|0.041
84618962|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.652||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.301|-0.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.003|-5.301|0.0498
84618963|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.323||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409|3.055||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.055|-2.409|0.8159
84618964|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.485||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.809|3.779||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.779|-2.809|0.7719
84600733|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.01|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.01|0.08|0.034
84618965|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.676||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.407|5.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.760|-2.407|0.4193
84618966|NCT03201419|168984880|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.270|-3.730|0.3333
84618967|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|41.8||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-5.9|0.0853
84618968|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|105.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|168.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||168.4|43.4|0.0010
84540071|NCT02448368|168830828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|140.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||140|95.3|
84540072|NCT02448368|168830829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.1|
84618969|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|24.9||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|88.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||88.6|-38.8|0.4418
84618970|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.7||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-68.2|0.7902
84618971|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.8||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|87.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||87.9|-84.2|0.9664
84618972|NCT03201419|168984881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-29.8||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.9|26.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||26.4|-85.9|0.2977
84618973|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.3||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|61.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||61.5|-33.0|0.5523
84618974|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|60.8||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|123.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||123.0|-1.5|0.0556
84618975|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-17.9||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|46.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||46.3|-82.0|0.5837
84618976|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-60.7||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.7|19.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||19.3|-140.7|0.1363
84618977|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-28.2||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.1|52.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.8|-109.1|0.4938
84618978|NCT03201419|168984882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-54.7||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.2|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.8|-110.2|0.0535
84618979|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|60.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||60.9|-62.2|0.9829
84618980|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|64.4||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|142.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||142.1|-13.3|0.1038
84600734|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.56|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.62|0.001
84600735|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.45|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|0.52|0.003
84600736|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.2|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-1.15|0.171
84600737|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-1.11|0.201
84600738|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.57|0.763
84600739|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.66||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.61|-0.30|0.175
84600740|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|-0.20|0.120
84600741|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.15|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.15|0.24|0.014
84600742|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.26|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|0.36|0.007
84600743|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.01|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-1.32|0.054
84600744|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.1|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.10|-1.22|0.096
84618981|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|29.2||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|109.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||109.8|-51.4|0.4764
84618982|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-24.2||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.5|72.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.0|-120.5|0.6204
84618983|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.1|104.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||104.6|-100.1|0.9660
84600745|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.55|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.79|0.724
84600746|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.46|0.345
84600747|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.41|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|-0.34|0.228
84600748|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.78|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.02|0.045
84600749|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.96|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.96|0.21|0.016
84600750|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-1.27|0.036
84618984|NCT03201419|168984883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|73.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||73.9|-67.4|0.9275
84618985|NCT03201419|168984884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.7||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|74.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||74.2|-42.7|0.5964
84618986|NCT03201419|168984884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5|72.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.9|-78.5|0.9418
84618987|NCT03201419|168984884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|18.0||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|94.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||94.7|-58.8|0.6452
84618988|NCT03201419|168984884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-51.3||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|37.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||37.6|-140.2|0.2565
84618989|NCT03201419|168984884|OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.6||||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|75.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||75.4|-118.6|0.6605
84600751|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.07|-1.15|0.081
84600752|NCT01559259|168952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
84600753|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.05|2.01|<0.001
84600754|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.75|1.72|<0.001
84600755|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.08|2.04|<0.001
84600756|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.57|<0.001
84600757|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.08|0.016
84600758|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.14||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.50|-0.21|0.428
84600759|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.84|0.11|0.010
84600760|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|10.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.18|6.59|<0.001
84600761|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|9.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.47|5.89|<0.001
84618990|NCT03201419|168984884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.4||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|69.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||69.4|-62.6|0.9191
84618991|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|17.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|62.09||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||62.09|-6.19|
84618992|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|55.89||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||55.89|-0.73|
84618993|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|47.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||47.28|-0.14|
84618994|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|28.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||28.07|-0.01|
84618995|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.9||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||17.90|-0.00|
84618996|NCT03201419|168984885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.55||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||7.55|-0.00|
84618997|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.173||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.028|-0.318|0.0196
84618998|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.233||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.043||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.043|-0.423|0.0167
84618999|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.208||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.015||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.015|-0.401|0.0352
84619000|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.182||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.182|-0.295|0.6402
84619001|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.139||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.139|-0.381|0.3602
84619002|NCT03201419|168984886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.074||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.099|0.4018
84540073|NCT02448368|168830829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|94.6|
84600762|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|10.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.50|6.91|<0.001
84600763|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.86|<0.001
84600764|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.99|-0.52|0.250
84600765|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.28|-1.21|0.956
84600766|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.31|-0.20|0.099
84600767|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.78|12.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.66|7.78|<0.001
84619003|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.133||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.042||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.042|-0.308|0.1354
84619004|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.091||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.133||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.133|-0.315|0.4238
84619005|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|0.007||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.007|-0.446|0.0574
84619006|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.058||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.315||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.315|-0.199|0.6579
84619007|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.110|-0.450|0.2337
84619008|NCT03201419|168984887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.136||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.328|0.1639
84619009|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-87.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.2|-1.2|||MMRM|||||-1.2|-173.2|0.0470
84619010|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-130.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-17.6|||MMRM|||||-17.6|-242.9|0.0237
84619011|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-110.8||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.9|3.3|||MMRM|||||3.3|-224.9|0.0569
84619012|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-23.9||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.8|117.0|||MMRM|||||117.0|-164.8|0.7383
84619013|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-71.0||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.3|82.3|||MMRM|||||82.3|-224.3|0.3626
84619014|NCT03201419|168984888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|23.4||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|125.7|||MMRM|||||125.7|-78.9|0.6524
84619015|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-49.5||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.9|49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||49.9|-148.9|0.3273
84540074|NCT02448368|168830829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|137.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||137|93.3|
84540075|NCT03086551|168830843|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
84619016|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-74.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.0|52.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.9|-202.0|0.2500
84619017|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-93.5||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.3|35.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||35.2|-222.3|0.1537
84619018|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|33.6||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.1|180.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||180.3|-113.1|0.6515
84600768|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|11.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||11.92|7.06|<0.001
84600769|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|13.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||13.15|8.28|<0.001
84600770|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|12.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.06|7.19|<0.001
84600771|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-1.11|0.492
84600772|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.56|-1.83|0.873
84600773|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.79|-0.62|0.210
84600774|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|15.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.20|8.10|<0.001
84600775|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.48|7.40|<0.001
84600776|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.20|9.10|<0.001
84600777|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|15.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.26|8.18|<0.001
84600778|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.42|-2.55|0.957
84619019|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-75.7||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.3|83.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||83.9|-235.3|0.3506
84619020|NCT03201419|168984889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-85.4||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||24.1|-194.8|0.1255
84619021|NCT02119663|168984915|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.83||||||||2.830|0.886|
84619022|NCT00892775|168984921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.76||||||||1.76|-2.29|
84619023|NCT00892775|168984921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|5.58||||||||5.58|-6.14|
84619024|NCT00892775|168984921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.08||||||||2.08|-1.78|
84760340|NCT01534533|169276917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.636
84503033|NCT03341273|168757677|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D28V is 28.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||0|-13|
84600779|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.69|-3.25|0.534
84600780|NCT01559259|168952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.41|-1.55|0.462
84600781|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|10.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.89|7.23|<0.001
84600782|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|9.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.95|6.33|<0.001
84600783|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|10.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.49|6.83|<0.001
84600784|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.78|<0.001
84600785|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.45||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.70|0.19|0.024
84600786|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.76|-0.69|0.392
84619025|NCT00892775|168984921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|10.34||||||||10.34|0.72|
84619026|NCT00699660|168984931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of CAPS/WHODAS vs Nonstructured Interview study arms: linear and logistic mixed effects regression with clinical examiner stratified by study group as a random effect and study group as a fixed effect.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included experience, use of template,tests,reviewing records,age,education, study site,reviewer, and expert reviewer by group interaction.||Our sample size calculation yielded 466 for a power of 0.80 to detect a 10% absolute difference in sensitivity and adjusted for intraclass correlation. The number of covariates in regression models was limited to ensure the effective sample size remained ten times greater than the degrees of freedom in the model.||||<.001
84619027|NCT00699660|168984932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.01
84619028|NCT00699660|168984933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics on mean and standard deviation.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84619029|NCT00699660|168984934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.86||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 level based on a two tailed test.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included years of experience, use of template, use of tests, age, education, study site.||Estimates of the influence on total time and tests of statistical significance were derived from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression (xtmixed in Stata)||||.012
84619030|NCT01223183|168984956|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DTPA absorption after hypertonic saline inhalation to DTPA absorption after isotonic saline inhalation||||<0.001
84619031|NCT01223183|168984958|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mucociliary clearance after isotonic saline inhalation to mucociliary clearance after hypertonic saline inhalation||||0.003
84619032|NCT04437485|168984976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.64
84600787|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-0.21|0.101
84600788|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|36.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.48|23.97|<0.001
84600789|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.74|34.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||34.11|21.74|<0.001
84600790|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.12|23.60|<0.001
84600791|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|33.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||33.86|21.33|<0.001
84600792|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|6.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.92|-1.65|0.228
84600793|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.51|-3.84|0.875
84600794|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.55|-2.02|0.299
84600795|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|36.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.48|45.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.47|28.48|<0.001
84619033|NCT04437485|168984977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.046
84619034|NCT04437485|168984978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.09
84619035|NCT01454791|168984984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84619036|NCT01454791|168984985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.6059
84760341|NCT04099251|169276921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.30|< 0.0001
84760342|NCT05032157|169276933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|UAS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 1 with UAS7 as primary efficacy endpoint)||-5.46|-9.91|< 0.001
84760343|NCT05032157|169276934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE, biologics, week, baseline score, and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.16|-4.29|<0.001
84760344|NCT05032157|169276935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-3.23|-5.71|< 0.001
84600796|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|43.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.50|26.70|<0.001
84600797|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|37.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.59|28.60|<0.001
84600798|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|43.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.68|26.67|<0.001
84600799|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|7.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.63|-4.02|0.543
84600800|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-5.75|0.979
84600801|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.92||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.74|-3.90|0.517
84600802|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.51|55.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||55.41|30.51|<0.001
84619037|NCT01454791|168984986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.705
84600803|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|54.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||54.51|29.90|<0.001
84600804|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|45.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.67|57.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||57.57|32.67|<0.001
84619038|NCT05104450|168985010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||1.04|0.25|0.001
84644633|NCT00282464|169024739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.899
84644634|NCT00282464|169024739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.739
84644635|NCT00282464|169024739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.797||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.797
84644636|NCT00282464|169024740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.434
84644637|NCT00282464|169024740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.777||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.777
84540076|NCT03086551|168830843|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
84619039|NCT05104450|168985011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.06|-2.05|0.037
84619040|NCT05104450|168985012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.86|-0.12|0.135
84619041|NCT05104450|168985013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.07|-2.01|0.068
84619042|NCT05104450|168985014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.60|-3.83|<0.001
84619043|NCT05104450|168985015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.89|-1.16|0.401
84540077|NCT03086551|168830843|OTHER|Cohen's d effect size was calculated to compare the magnitude of change in time to complete the movement sequence from pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms.|Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|||||
84540078|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
84540079|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
84540080|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
84540081|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
84673371|NCT01126541|169082211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 1 to Week 24 (initial treatment)||||0.465
84600805|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|44.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.79|56.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||56.71|31.79|<0.001
84600806|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.29||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|7.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.25|-9.82|0.767
84600807|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.04||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|6.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.27|-10.36|0.629
84600808|NCT01559259|168952558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.39|-7.66|0.841
84600809|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.73|3.22|<0.001
84600810|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.39|2.88|<0.001
84600811|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.83|3.32|<0.001
84600812|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.64|<0.001
84600813|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.58||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.05|0.031
84600814|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.77|-0.28|0.360
84600815|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.68||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.15|0.011
84600816|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|15.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.73|10.54|<0.001
84600817|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|14.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.52|9.35|<0.001
84600818|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.95|16.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.13|10.95|<0.001
84600819|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|14.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.63|9.45|<0.001
84600820|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.91|-0.72|0.235
84600821|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.70|-1.91|0.910
84600822|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.31|-0.32|0.105
84600823|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|19.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||19.61|12.49|<0.001
84600824|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|14.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.33|18.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.43|11.33|<0.001
84600825|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|20.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||20.32|13.20|<0.001
84600826|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|18.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.78|11.68|<0.001
84600827|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.32|-1.66|0.514
84600828|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.13|-2.82|0.783
84619044|NCT05104450|168985016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.04|-0.98|0.034
84619045|NCT05104450|168985017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.15|-6.37|0.061
84619046|NCT05104450|168985018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.78|-1.69|0.469
84619047|NCT05104450|168985019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction||Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|1.13|0.42|<0.001
84619048|NCT05104450|168985020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.89|0.04|0.031
84619049|NCT05104450|168985021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.02|-0.21|0.118
84619050|NCT05104450|168985022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.95|0.91|0.011
84619051|NCT05104450|168985023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.93|-0.04|0.074
84619052|NCT05104450|168985024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.59|-2.82|0.003
84619053|NCT05104450|168985025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.44|-1.84|0.229
84619054|NCT05104450|168985026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
84619055|NCT05104450|168985027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.25|-2.30|0.116
84600829|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.02|-0.96|0.227
84600830|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|23.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.61|12.95|<0.001
84600831|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|22.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||22.61|11.99|<0.001
84600832|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|20.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|25.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.78|15.13|<0.001
84600833|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|24.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.24|13.61|<0.001
84600834|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.64||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.09|-4.37|0.736
84619056|NCT05104450|168985028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.45|-2.35|0.968
84619057|NCT05104450|168985029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.17|-0.49|0.218
84644638|NCT00282464|169024740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.820
84644639|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.468
84619058|NCT05104450|168985030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.62|-0.58|0.212
84503034|NCT03341273|168757678|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit. It is based on adequate clinical improvement at Day 5 Visit and solicited events from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit.|Pr(Higher DOOR in Placebo at Day 5 Visit|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||Missing DOOR values at Day 5 Visit were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: The sum of the probability that a participant assigned to placebo will have a higher DOOR at Day 5 visit than if assigned to the Azithromycin plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs at Day 5 Visit is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR at Day 5 Visit).||0.68|0.57|<0.001
84503035|NCT01797120|168757728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92|||Log Rank|Log rank test was stratified on ECOG performance status, measurable disease, and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease||||0.92|0.40|0.02
84503036|NCT01797120|168757729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84503037|NCT01797120|168757730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84644640|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.110
84644641|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.738
84644642|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.617
84644643|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.642||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.642
84644644|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.644
84644645|NCT00282464|169024741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.789||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.789
84644646|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.042
84644647|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.088
84644648|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.651||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.651
84644649|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.665
84644650|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.349
84644651|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.685
84644652|NCT00282464|169024742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.257||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.257
84644653|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 1||||0.0099
84644654|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 2||||0.0654
84540082|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
84540083|NCT03086551|168830844|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the non-stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
84540084|NCT03086551|168830845|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 1 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
84540085|NCT03086551|168830845|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 2 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
84540086|NCT03086551|168830845|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 3 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
84540087|NCT03086551|168830845|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 4 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
84540088|NCT03086551|168830846|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
84540089|NCT03086551|168830846|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
84540090|NCT03086551|168830846|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
84540091|NCT03086551|168830846|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
84540092|NCT03086551|168830847|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
84600835|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.08|-5.32|0.390
84600836|NCT01559259|168952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.26|-2.19|0.420
84600837|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.25|<0.001
84600838|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|7.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.11|4.62|<0.001
84600839|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|6.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|7.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.88|5.38|<0.001
84619059|NCT05104450|168985031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.57|-0.44|0.800
84619060|NCT05104450|168985032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.79|-0.26|0.317
84619061|NCT05104450|168985033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.17|-0.44|<0.001
84600840|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|6.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.73|4.23|<0.001
84600841|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.90|0.15|0.022
84600842|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.26|-0.48|0.380
84600843|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.03|0.28|0.010
84619062|NCT05104450|168985034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.03|-0.27|0.107
84600844|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|21.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|25.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.87|17.17|<0.001
84619063|NCT05104450|168985035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||7.27|0.86|0.013
84619064|NCT05104450|168985036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.42|-0.20|0.065
84619065|NCT05104450|168985037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.14|-7.11|0.041
84619066|NCT04057807|168985054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||unpaired t-tests (continuous variables)|||||||0.14
84619067|NCT04057807|168985055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||univariate linear regression analysis|two-tailed P value was obtained from a univariate linear regression analysis||||||0.82
84760345|NCT05032157|169276936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.18|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||6.18|2.39|< 0.001
84600845|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.29|23.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.95|15.29|<0.001
84600846|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|22.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|26.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||26.59|17.89|<0.001
84600847|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.02|15.35|<0.001
84600848|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.83||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.88|-1.21|0.237
84600849|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.95|-3.09|0.965
84600850|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-0.48|0.099
84600851|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|38.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||38.73|21.14|<0.001
84619068|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||6 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84619069|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||6 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
84619070|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|12 hour pain at rest||||||0.139
84619071|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||12 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
84600852|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|28.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.48|37.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||37.00|19.48|<0.001
84600853|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.31|41.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||41.89|24.31|<0.001
84600854|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.87|39.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||39.41|21.87|<0.001
84600855|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|5.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.44|-6.86|0.821
84600856|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|3.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.71|-8.51|0.440
84600857|NCT01559259|168952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||8.61|-3.69|0.432
84600858|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.08||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.20|-1.04|0.571
84600859|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-0.94|0.593
84600860|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.65||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.68|-0.39|0.282
84600861|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.16||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|3.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.42|-1.11|0.552
84540093|NCT03086551|168830847|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
84600862|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.11|-3.13|0.994
84600863|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.23||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.80|-3.26|0.879
84619072|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||18 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84619073|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||18 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
84619074|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour pain at rest||||||0.806
84619075|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||24 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
84619076|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||36 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
84619077|NCT02271698|168985081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||||||36 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
84540094|NCT01579747|168830851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality of distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. For normally-distributed continuous variables, the groups' distributions were described as means and standard deviations (SD). Student's t-test was used to compare groups in these cases with statistically-significant differences summarized using 95% confidence intervals as appropriate. For all comparisons, two-tailed p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
84600864|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|6.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.64|-1.98|0.280
84600865|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|33.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.54|42.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.81|24.54|<0.001
84600866|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.93|31.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.75|14.93|0.003
84600867|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|22.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.55|31.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.00|13.55|0.005
84600868|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.39||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|20.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.50|6.28|0.035
84600869|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|20.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|31.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.62|8.67|0.001
84619078|NCT02271698|168985082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||||||6 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
84619079|NCT02271698|168985082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||||||12 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.364
84619080|NCT02271698|168985082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|18 hours||||||0.605
84619081|NCT02271698|168985082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hours||||||0.733
84619082|NCT02271698|168985082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||36 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
84619083|NCT03369418|168985127|SUPERIORITY|One tailed t-tests for independent groups were performed to test the hypothesis that active device will be superior to sham in decreasing the combined HAD score. This was accomplished by Contrast analysis within the framework of a random effects general linear mixed effects (RE GLMM) model.||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.013
84619084|NCT03369418|168985128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.33
84540095|NCT06473519|168830869|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0): RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided95%CI for GMT ratios (MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV A||1.10|0.84|
84540096|NCT06473519|168830869|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1 month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0):RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1 month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided 95%CI for GMT ratios(MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV B||1.06|0.79|
84619085|NCT01588561|168985148|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Cingulate, Paracingulate, Calcarine cortex, Lingual gyrus, Frontal pole, Fusiform gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal:Thalamus, Temporal gyri, Hippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
84540097|NCT02514447|168830885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Analysis was for Part 2 data: Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and sensitivity to first line treatment (sensitive or resistant) and treatment as fixed effects.||||<0.0001
84619086|NCT01588561|168985149|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Pallidum, Cingulate, Thalamus, Operculum, OBF cortex, Lingual gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal: Hippocampus (left), Parahippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
84619087|NCT01588561|168985150|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula (bilateral), Cingulate, Pretcentralgyrus, Thalamus (bilateral), Putamen (bilateral), Pallidum (bilateral), Amygdala (bilateral), Ventral tegmental area, Accumbens Nuclei. Decreased signal: Insula (left inferior), OBF cortex, Frontal\&Temporal poles, Hippocampus (bilateral), Parahippocampus (bilateral), Accumbens nuclei, Cerebellum|||
84619088|NCT01818596|168985155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|98.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.71|104.46|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 2, 4, or 8 visit and presented as a geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio with 90% confidence interval (CI). Postbaseline value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||104.46|93.71|
84619089|NCT01818596|168985155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|102.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|108.53|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 24 visit and presented as a GLSM ratio with 90% CI. Week 24 value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||108.53|97.11|
84503038|NCT00672620|168757734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and with P-values evaluated at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.46|-2.61|0.577
84619090|NCT01337336|168985176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.002||95.0|1.08|1.56|||Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.56|1.08|0.002
84619091|NCT01337336|168985177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002||95.0|1.02|2.38||COPD-related hospitalization|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.38|1.02|0.002
84600870|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.56||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|20.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.51|-1.39|0.088
84600871|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.36||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|20.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.45|-1.73|0.100
84600872|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|62.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.93|74.15||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.15|50.93|<0.001
84619092|NCT01337336|168985177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002||95.0|1.14|2.39||COPD-related ER visit|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.39|1.14|0.002
84619093|NCT01337336|168985177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.503||95.0|0.93|1.4|||Chi-squared|COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.40|0.93|0.503
84503039|NCT00672620|168757734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||0.50|-3.58|0.138
84503040|NCT00672620|168757734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||-0.91|-5.02|0.005
84600873|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|51.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|63.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.82|39.50|<0.001
84600874|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.92|76.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.43|52.92|<0.001
84600875|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.43|63.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.63|40.43|<0.001
84619094|NCT01337336|168985177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001||95.0|1.26|2.31|||Chi-squared|COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.31|1.26|<0.001
84619095|NCT01337336|168985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.46||||0.0004||95.0|1.01|2.09||COPD-related hospitalization|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.09|1.01|0.0004
84619096|NCT01337336|168985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.27||||0.208||95.0|0.89|1.82||COPD-related ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.82|0.89|0.208
84619097|NCT01337336|168985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.671||95.0|0.9|1.32||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.32|0.90|0.671
84619098|NCT01337336|168985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.009||95.0|1.05|1.72||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.72|1.05|0.009
84619099|NCT01337336|168985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.052||95.0|0.98|1.37||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.37|0.98|0.052
84619100|NCT04435366|168985184|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.096||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol). Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.||0.096|0.016|0.0064
84619101|NCT04435366|168985185|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.657||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||0.657|0.066|0.0165
84619102|NCT04435366|168985185|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.788||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol and sham versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol and sham).||0.788|0.189|0.0015
84673372|NCT01126541|169082211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 1st retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.161
84503041|NCT01205529|168757765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||0 participants with rare SCN5A non-synonymous variants met the primary outcome for ST-segment elevation.||Given the very small number of outcomes (N=4) and the small number of participants with the primary determinant (N=2), a Fisher's Exact Test is the appropriate test and it yields a P-value=1.000.|||1.0
84619103|NCT04435366|168985186|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.12||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||2.12|-3.79|0.58
84619104|NCT04435366|168985187|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|1.81||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||1.81|-4.79|0.38
84619105|NCT04435366|168985189|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.326|1.903|||MMRM|||||1.903|-3.326|0.5929
84619106|NCT04435366|168985191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.57|0.6424
84600876|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.66||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|24.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.35|-3.04|0.138
84600877|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.59||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|13.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.52|-14.71|0.935
84600878|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|27.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.17|-0.57|0.063
84600879|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.82|86.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.53|62.82|<0.001
84600880|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|75.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.95|50.42|<0.001
84600881|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.21|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|59.21|<0.001
84600882|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.89|73.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.11|47.89|<0.001
84600883|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.43||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|26.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.89|1.97|0.027
84600884|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|15.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.61|-10.91|0.729
84600885|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.33||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|24.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.21|-1.55|0.087
84600886|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|88.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.70|62.50|<0.001
84619107|NCT04502290|168985192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the number of blocks after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
84619108|NCT04502290|168985193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the motor evoked potnetial after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.02
84600887|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.65|81.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.24|53.65|<0.001
84619109|NCT04502290|168985194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the force after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
84619110|NCT03507036|168985257|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A paired t-test was performed for skin lab measurement and biopsies.|||
84600888|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|87.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.70|61.21|<0.001
84600889|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|78.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.17|50.30|<0.001
84600890|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.59||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|23.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.06|0.12|0.052
84600891|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|15.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.16|-9.49|0.652
84600892|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|22.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.03|-1.47|0.090
84600893|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|79.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.41|92.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||92.46|67.41|<0.001
84600894|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|85.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.05|58.25|<0.001
84600895|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|78.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.29|91.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.56|66.29|<0.001
84600896|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.04|84.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.07|57.04|<0.001
84600897|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.61||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|19.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.80|-0.59|0.069
84619111|NCT04739436|168985268|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.79||Multiple comparisons were not conducted, so no adjustment of the p-value was necessary.|Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fit with outcome change in APHAB score between 3 months and baseline, predictor hearing aid fitting group (reference=bilateral), and covariate clinical site.||8.79|1.80|0.003
84619112|NCT04739436|168985269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, what proportion of the time do you wear your hearing aid?||||0.584
84619113|NCT04739436|168985269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, how much does your hearing aid help you?||||0.233
84619114|NCT04739436|168985269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, with your hearing aid, how much difficulty do you now have?||||0.010
84619115|NCT04739436|168985269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: For this situation, how satisfied are you with your hearing aid?||||0.129
84619116|NCT04739436|168985270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in the co-located BKB SIN test scores between the groups.||||0.946
84673373|NCT01126541|169082211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.524|||||||Student t-test|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 2nd retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.524
84600898|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.65||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|12.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.03|-10.73|0.911
84600899|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.27||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|-2.23|0.127
84600900|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.37|90.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.72|62.37|<0.001
84600901|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.93|85.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.28|55.93|<0.001
84600902|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
84600903|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.02|83.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.09|53.02|<0.001
84600904|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.57||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|18.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.61|-1.47|0.098
84600905|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|13.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.04|-9.02|0.721
84600906|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.28||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|18.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.41|-1.85|0.115
84619117|NCT04739436|168985271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recognition scores between the groups.||||0.490
84600907|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|77.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.63|91.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.69|63.63|<0.001
84619118|NCT04739436|168985271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recall scores between the groups.||||0.323
84619119|NCT04739436|168985272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 3 months.||||0.933
84619120|NCT04739436|168985272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 6 months.||||0.929
84619121|NCT04739436|168985274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.015
84619122|NCT04739436|168985274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 6 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.886
84619123|NCT04739436|168985275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the right ear.||||0.137
84600908|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.07|86.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.22|57.07|<0.001
84600909|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
84503042|NCT03840135|168757772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The value of δ = -0.52 days was considered as the boundary of superiority. The end of the fever period is considered to have an axillary body temperature of ≤36.9 ° C in two consecutive measurements (morning-evening / evening-morning).||0.16|-0.6|<0.05
84600910|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.14|84.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.06|54.14|<0.001
84600911|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.56||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-1.15|0.086
84600912|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|12.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.77|-8.76|0.714
84600913|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.21||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.22|-2.80|0.164
84600914|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
84600915|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.29|84.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.70|54.29|<0.001
84600916|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
84600917|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|82.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.61|51.40|<0.001
84600918|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|17.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.04|-2.12|0.129
84600919|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.43|-8.50|0.712
84600920|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|16.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.00|-3.76|0.229
84619124|NCT04739436|168985275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the left ear.||||0.612
84619125|NCT04739436|168985277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 3 months.||||0.108
84619126|NCT04739436|168985277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 6 months.||||0.988
84619127|NCT04739436|168985280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change in APHAB score from baseline to 6 months between the groups.||||0.264
84503043|NCT03840135|168757773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
84503044|NCT03840135|168757774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
84503045|NCT03840135|168757775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
84503046|NCT03840135|168757776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84503047|NCT03840135|168757777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
84503048|NCT03840135|168757778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
84503049|NCT03840135|168757781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84503050|NCT03840135|168757782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84600921|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
84619128|NCT04661150|168985301|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|23.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|1.3|0.079
84619129|NCT04661150|168985306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-4.8||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|18.9|||Chi-squared|||||18.9|-27.9|0.739
84619130|NCT04661150|168985307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-10.9|>0.999
84600922|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.45|85.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.64|55.45|<0.001
84619131|NCT02701283|168985309|NON_INFERIORITY|Absolute non-inferiority margin was 0.06|Posterior Median of the Difference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data at the interim analysis using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-4.4%, 0.4%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR system is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months for the Randomized Controlled Trial||||
84619132|NCT02777827|168985326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|0.2221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1324|0.3118|||ANCOVA|||||0.3118|0.1324|<0.0001
84619133|NCT02777827|168985326|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3146|0.4938|||ANCOVA|||||0.4938|0.3146|<0.0001
84600923|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
84600924|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.53|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|52.53|<0.001
84600925|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.38||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|15.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.81|-3.05|0.186
84600926|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|12.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.12|-8.18|0.703
84600927|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.06||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|14.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.79|-4.68|0.312
84600928|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
84600929|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
84600930|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
84619134|NCT02777827|168985326|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0164|0.1949|||ANCOVA|||||0.1949|0.0164|0.0207
84540098|NCT02514447|168830886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using modified Poisson regression to account for the variable duration of the Treatment Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC as a covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), sensitivity to 1st line treatment (sensitive or resistant), and treatment as fixed effects. The logarithm transformation of # of cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0160
84600931|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
84600932|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600933|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84600934|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84600935|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
84600936|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
84619135|NCT02777827|168985326|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.2592|||ANCOVA|||||0.2592|0.0810|0.0002
84619136|NCT02777827|168985326|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.4955|||ANCOVA|||||0.4955|0.3170|<0.0001
84619137|NCT00064792|168985355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome variable will be the serum cholesterol/total sterol ratio.||||0.002
84600937|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
84619138|NCT00064792|168985356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84619139|NCT03160898|168985361|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean treatment difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||"The statistical null hypothesis was as follows: there was no assumed dose-response relationship in percent predicted SVC change from baseline to Week 12 among all three active doses and placebo, expressed as:~H0: -5 x µ placebo - 1 x µ 150 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 300 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 450 mg twice daily = 0 where µ was the mean of the efficacy endpoint for the designated group."||3.58|-0.36|0.1095
84619140|NCT03160898|168985361|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.03|-1.05|0.2501
84619141|NCT03160898|168985361|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.7|0.1549
84619142|NCT03160898|168985361|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.63|0.1417
84619143|NCT03160898|168985361|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-0.33|0.0964
84600938|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
84600939|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600940|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84600941|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84600942|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84600943|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84600944|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84600945|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84619144|NCT03160898|168985362|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||1.22|-0.09|0.0930
84619145|NCT03160898|168985362|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.29|0.0087
84619146|NCT03160898|168985362|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|0.06|0.0351
84600946|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600947|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84619147|NCT03160898|168985362|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.24|0.1642
84619148|NCT03160898|168985362|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.0435
84619149|NCT03160898|168985363|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02734||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|0.0813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||0.0813|-0.0261|0.3134
84619150|NCT03160898|168985363|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0246||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0442|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0935|-0.0442|0.4824
84619151|NCT03160898|168985363|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0146||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.0835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0835|-0.0544|0.6787
84619152|NCT03160898|168985363|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0488||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0194|0.1171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1171|-0.0194|0.1604
84619153|NCT03160898|168985363|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0317||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0279|0.0913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0913|-0.0279|0.2966
84619154|NCT00291486|168985432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of CL between initial infusion and therapy infusion||||0.144
84619155|NCT00291486|168985433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.361
84619156|NCT03421106|168985439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84619157|NCT01657292|168985467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||1-sided, significance level = 0.025|Binomial test|||"All patients received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: s0 ≤0.5 and H1: s0 \>0.5 (with s0=rate of superiority of Oleogel-S10)."||||<0.0001
84619158|NCT02267538|168985493|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.23|0.341
84619159|NCT02267538|168985494|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||MMSE|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.830
84619160|NCT02267538|168985494|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|||||m-TICS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
84619161|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of total non-delirium complications within 30 days after surgery||1.19|0.47|0.214
84619162|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER|stroke|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of stroke within 30 days after surgery||5.08|0.20|0.993
84619163|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER|New onset arrythmia|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.46|0.274
84619164|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER|Pulmonary complications|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.26|0.050
84619165|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.75||Upper gastrointestinal bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.09|0.423
84619166|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08||Surgical bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.20|0.993
84619167|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.34||Wound dehiscence or infection|Regression, Logistic|||||4.34|0.61|0.326
84619168|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33||Acute kidney injur|Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.47|0.378
84540099|NCT05351164|168830908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84540100|NCT05351164|168830909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84619169|NCT02267538|168985495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||IABP assistance|Regression, Logistic|||||1.32|0.18|0.156
84619170|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.596
84619171|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.743
84619172|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.282
84619173|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.368
84619174|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.397
84619175|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the sixth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.486
84619176|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the seventh row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.414
84540101|NCT04856917|168830929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.19|||LRMM|||Least square (LS) Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a linear repeated measures model (LRMM) which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||8.19|-2.47|0.3757
84540102|NCT04856917|168830929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|6.95|||LRMM|||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||6.95|-3.73|0.6183
84540103|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|4.8||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.80|-0.85|0.2490
84540104|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|5.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.99|0.28|0.0708
84540105|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|12.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.34|3.44|0.0040
84600948|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84600949|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84600950|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84600951|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84600952|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84600953|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600954|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84600955|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84600956|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84600957|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84619177|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the eighth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.187
84600958|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84600959|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84619178|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the ninth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.127
84619179|NCT02267538|168985496|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the tenth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.378
84760346|NCT05032157|169276937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|11.78|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||11.78|2.83|< 0.001
84600960|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600961|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84600962|NCT01559259|168952561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84600963|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|34.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.67|13.32|0.003
84600964|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.83||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|25.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.07|4.59|0.048
84600965|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|24.98||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.43|36.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.53|13.43|0.005
84600966|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|16.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|26.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.88|6.25|0.030
84600967|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.86||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|18.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.53|-4.80|0.269
84600968|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.95||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|9.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.43|-13.34|0.735
84600969|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.58||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.88|0.176
84619180|NCT02267538|168985497|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 1 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.777
84600970|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.07|77.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||77.52|49.07|<0.001
84619181|NCT02267538|168985497|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 2 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||1|-1|0.919
84619182|NCT02267538|168985497|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 3 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.835
84619183|NCT02267538|168985497|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 4 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.321
84619184|NCT02267538|168985497|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 5 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.174
84600971|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|56.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.28|71.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||71.34|42.28|<0.001
84619185|NCT02267538|168985498|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.82|0.788
84600972|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.58|81.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.55|53.58|<0.001
84600973|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|53.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|67.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.99|38.62|<0.001
84600974|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|23.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.82|-3.26|0.140
84600975|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.98||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.89|-10.94|0.674
84600976|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.58||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|27.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.93|1.22|0.034
84600977|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|86.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.39|58.25|<0.001
84619186|NCT02267538|168985499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.77|0.826
84619187|NCT03932760|168985500|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|3.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of EPDS between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum controlling for screening EPDS score. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher EPDS scores signify worsened symptoms of depression. Time uses start of study as reference controlling for screen EPDS.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.260, p=0.612~Time (Baseline as reference): F=9.021, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.537, p=0.748~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=0.913 (SE=1.085) \[CI LB=-1.228, UB=3.055\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-2.766 (0.853) \[-4.445, -1.087\]~2 months: estimate=-1.517 (0.862) \[-3.214, 0.180\]~4 months: estimate=-3.186 (0.862) \[-4.883, -1.489\]~6 months: estimate=-2.781 (0.872) \[-4.498, -1.065\]~8 months: estimate=-3.103 (0.872) \[-4.819, -1.386\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|3.055|-1.228|0.612
84600978|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.63|81.78||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.78|52.63|<0.001
84600979|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|86.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.40|58.40|<0.001
84644655|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1807||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 3||||0.1807
84644656|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0957||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 4||||0.0957
84644657|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0752||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 5||||0.0752
84600980|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.32|78.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.91|49.32|<0.001
84600981|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|18.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.85|-2.06|0.119
84600982|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.98|-8.30|0.616
84600983|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.34||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.87|-2.20|0.125
84619188|NCT03932760|168985501|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709|1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of GAD-7 between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher GAD-7 scores signify worsened symptoms of depression.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.347, p=0.558~Time (Baseline as reference): F=4.973, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.417, p=0.837~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=-0.0160 (SE=0.859) \[CI LB=-1.709, UB=1.677\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-1.780 (0.708) \[-3.173, -0.387\]~2 months: estimate=-0.615 (0.715) \[-2.023, 0.792\]~4 months: estimate=-1.416 (0.715) \[-2.824, -0.008\]~6 months: estimate=-1.625 (0.723) \[-3.049, -0.201\]~8 months: estimate=-1.542 (0.723) \[-2.966, -0.118\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|1.677|-1.709|0.558
84619189|NCT00857857|168985523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.449||||||||0.449|0.031|
84619190|NCT00857857|168985523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.477||||||||0.477|0.053|
84619191|NCT00857857|168985523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.657||||||||0.657|0.255|
84619192|NCT00857857|168985523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.733||||||||0.733|0.319|
84673374|NCT01126541|169082212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean plus or minus (±)SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)|Adjusted difference|51.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.22|233.98|||||Covariate analysis with baseline DAS28-CRP value as covariate|||233.98|-131.22|
84619193|NCT00857857|168985524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.407||||||||0.407|0.013|
84600984|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.73|88.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.25|60.73|<0.001
84619194|NCT00857857|168985524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.354||||||||0.354|-0.046|
84619195|NCT00857857|168985524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.492||||||||0.492|0.113|
84619196|NCT00857857|168985524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.599||||||||0.599|0.209|
84619197|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.253|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.302|
84619198|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.387|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.387|-0.176|
84619199|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.506|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.506|-0.028|
84619200|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.809|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.809|0.260|
84619201|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.253|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.145|
84673375|NCT01126541|169082232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 to Week 104||||0.389
84503051|NCT01827371|168757783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.72|1.93||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.93|0.72|
84503052|NCT01827371|168757783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.26|1.47||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.47|0.26|
84540106|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|7.94||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||7.94|-1.05|0.2060
84540107|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|6.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||6.51|-2.33|0.4341
84540108|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|5.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.48|-3.59|0.7307
84673376|NCT01126541|169082232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1st retreatment to Week 104||||0.374
84619202|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.228|-0.176|
84540109|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|7.77||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||7.77|-1.97|0.3261
84540110|NCT04856917|168830930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|4.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.23|-5.56|0.8221
84540111|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|16.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.73|-3.84|0.3008
84540112|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|21.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||21.19|0.40|0.0878
84540113|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.64|40.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||40.57|12.64|0.0020
84540114|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|28.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||28.09|-0.12|0.1029
84619203|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.371|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.371|-0.011|
84619204|NCT00857857|168985525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.548|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.548|0.153|
84619205|NCT00857857|168985526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.9||||||||0.90|0.56|
84619206|NCT00857857|168985526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|0.53|
84673377|NCT01126541|169082232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weel 24 to Week 104||||0.277
84619207|NCT00857857|168985526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74||||||||0.74|0.47|
84600985|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.05|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|55.05|<0.001
84600986|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.65|87.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.38|59.65|<0.001
84600987|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.01|82.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.71|54.01|<0.001
84600988|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.33||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|15.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.65|-2.99|0.187
84600989|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.79||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|10.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.99|-9.42|0.881
84600990|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.05||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.71|-4.60|0.311
84600991|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84600992|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84600993|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84600994|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84600995|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84600996|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84600997|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84619208|NCT00857857|168985526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.55||||||||0.55|0.36|
84619209|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.24|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.240|-0.199|
84619210|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.424|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.424|-0.096|
84619211|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.333|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.333|-0.285|
84619212|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.366|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.366|-0.229|
84619213|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.254|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.254|-0.277|
84600998|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84600999|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601000|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601001|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601002|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84619214|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.302|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.302|-0.269|
84601003|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601004|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84619215|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.301|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.301|-0.210|
84619216|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.268|-0.178|
84619217|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.295|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.295|-0.103|
84619218|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0826|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.212|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.212|-0.121|
84619219|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.196|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.196|-0.141|
84619220|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.221|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.221|-0.138|
84619221|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.162|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.162|-0.215|
84619222|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.354|-0.076|
84619223|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0955|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.342|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.342|-0.044|
84619224|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.288|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.288|-0.119|
84619225|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.438|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.438|-0.015|
84619226|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.374|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.374|-0.051|
84619227|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.461|-0.017|
84619228|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.458|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.458|-0.089|
84619229|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.487|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.487|0.007|
84601005|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601006|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601007|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601008|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601009|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601010|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601011|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84619230|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.509|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.509|-0.021|
84619231|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.394|-0.086|
84619232|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.394|-0.044|
84601012|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84619233|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.292|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.292|-0.122|
84619234|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.3|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.300|-0.155|
84619235|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.314|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.314|-0.213|
84619236|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1572|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.461|-0.176|
84619237|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.396|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.396|-0.208|
84619238|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.327|-0.212|
84619239|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.354|-0.224|
84619240|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.243|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.243|-0.276|
84619241|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.244|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.244|-0.209|
84619242|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.053|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.053|-0.350|
84540115|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-9.25|0.5427
84619243|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.082|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.082|-0.253|
84619244|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.13|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.130|-0.211|
84540116|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-10.05|0.5833
84540117|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|28.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||28.99|-7.46|0.3293
84540118|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|32.74||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||32.74|-3.74|0.1900
84540119|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|27.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||27.23|-3.91|0.2168
84540120|NCT04856917|168830931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|23.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||23.45|-7.82|0.4089
84540121|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|6.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||6.24|-2.16|0.4229
84540122|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|5.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.59|-2.91|0.6027
84540123|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|6.95||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||6.95|-1.35|0.2655
84540124|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|5.44||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||5.44|-2.95|0.6229
84540125|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|9.3||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||9.30|-3.10|0.4091
84540126|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|12.25||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||12.25|-0.47|0.1274
84540127|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||11.01|-1.47|0.2075
84540128|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|10.64||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.64|-1.88|0.2484
84540129|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|9.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.45|-2.53|0.3399
84673378|NCT01126541|169082233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.278
84673379|NCT01126541|169082233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Oral cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.887
84673380|NCT01126541|169082233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IV cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||<0.001
84673381|NCT01857063|169082253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||0.10|-0.11|0.913
84673382|NCT01857063|169082255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline Weighted TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.953
84673383|NCT01857063|169082256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal congestion score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.07|-0.07|0.974
84673384|NCT01857063|169082257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal discharge score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.182
84673385|NCT01857063|169082258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline sneezing score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.161
84619245|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.202|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.202|-0.161|
84619246|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.186|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.186|-0.196|
84619247|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.33|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.330|-0.105|
84673386|NCT04115358|169082284|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673387|NCT04115358|169082285|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673388|NCT04115358|169082286|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84619248|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.326|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.326|-0.065|
84673389|NCT04115358|169082287|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673390|NCT04115358|169082288|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673391|NCT04115358|169082289|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673392|NCT04115358|169082290|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673393|NCT04115358|169082291|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673394|NCT04115358|169082292|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673395|NCT04115358|169082293|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673396|NCT04115358|169082294|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673397|NCT04115358|169082295|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673398|NCT04115358|169082296|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673399|NCT04115358|169082297|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673400|NCT04115358|169082298|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673401|NCT04115358|169082299|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673402|NCT04115358|169082300|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673403|NCT04115358|169082301|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673404|NCT04115358|169082302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673405|NCT04115358|169082303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673406|NCT04115358|169082304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673407|NCT04115358|169082305|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84601013|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84619249|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.199|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.199|-0.213|
84619250|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.407|-0.052|
84601014|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601015|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601016|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601017|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601018|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601019|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601020|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601021|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84619251|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.351|-0.080|
84619252|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.421|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.421|-0.062|
84619253|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.423|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.423|-0.131|
84619254|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.411|-0.075|
84619255|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.490|-0.047|
84619256|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.387|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.387|-0.100|
84619257|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.41|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.410|-0.035|
84619258|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.378|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.378|-0.042|
84601022|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601023|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601024|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601025|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601026|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601027|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601028|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601029|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601030|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601031|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601032|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601033|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601034|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601035|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84673408|NCT04115358|169082306|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673409|NCT04115358|169082307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84760347|NCT05032157|169276938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|16.85|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Early onset of disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 2||16.85|3.72|< 0.001
84619259|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.431|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.431|0.011|
84619260|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.494|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.494|-0.006|
84619261|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.548|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.548|-0.038|
84619262|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1436|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.524|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.524|-0.057|
84619263|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.474|-0.036|
84619264|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.568|0.019|
84619265|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.473|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.473|-0.019|
84619266|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.418|-0.010|
84619267|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.308|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.308|-0.075|
84619268|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0805|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.19|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.190|-0.136|
84619269|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.208|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.208|-0.116|
84619270|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3.5 hour|||0.247|-0.099|
84619271|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.313|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4 hours|||0.313|-0.051|
84619272|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.411|-0.004|
84619273|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.367|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.367|-0.004|
84619274|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.373|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.373|-0.018|
84619275|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.506|0.070|
84619276|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.488|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.488|0.079|
84619277|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.616|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.616|0.157|
84619278|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.636|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.636|0.108|
84619279|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.688|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.688|0.227|
84673410|NCT04115358|169082308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84619280|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.765|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.765|0.254|
84619281|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1144|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.723|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.723|0.261|
84673411|NCT04115358|169082309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673412|NCT04115358|169082310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673413|NCT04115358|169082311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673414|NCT04115358|169082312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84673415|NCT04115358|169082313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84760348|NCT05032157|169276939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.58|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 0-1 at Week 12||4.58|1.65|< 0.001
84760349|NCT05032157|169276940|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.71|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link includes treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates. A rate ratio \>1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) up to Week 12||4.71|2.26|< 0.001
84601036|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601037|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601038|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601039|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601040|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601041|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601042|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601043|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601044|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601045|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601046|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601047|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601048|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84760350|NCT05032157|169276941|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates. A rate ratio \> 1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.49|1.17|< 0.001
84619282|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.625|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.625|0.203|
84619283|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.639|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.639|0.241|
84503053|NCT01827371|168757783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.17|1.0007||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.0007|-0.17|
84503054|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D) H1: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) not = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D)"||||0.4782
84503055|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.1704
84619284|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.562|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 minutes|||0.562|0.135|
84619285|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 minutes|||0.751|0.237|
84619286|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.8|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 15 minutes|||0.800|0.199|
84619287|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.872|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 20 minutes|||0.872|0.274|
84619288|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 30 minutes|||0.751|0.225|
84619289|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.663|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 45 minutes|||0.663|0.098|
84503056|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D)"||||1.000
84619290|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.596|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1 hour|||0.596|0.089|
84619291|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1094|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.439|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1.5 hours|||0.439|-0.003|
84503057|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D)"||||0.6171
84619292|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||||95.0|-0.07|0.323|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2 hours|||0.323|-0.070|
84619293|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0818|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.223|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2.5 hours|||0.223|-0.107|
84619294|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0821|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.139|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3 hours|||0.139|-0.192|
84619295|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3.5 hours|||0.268|-0.085|
84619296|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.269|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4 hour|||0.269|-0.102|
84619297|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4.5 hours|||0.461|0.038|
84619298|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 hours|||0.429|0.047|
84619299|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0995|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.516|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5.5 hours|||0.516|0.114|
84619300|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6 hours|||0.591|0.143|
84619301|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.571|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6.5 hours|||0.571|0.151|
84619302|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.602|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7 hour|||0.602|0.131|
84619303|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.694|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7.5 hours|||0.694|0.155|
84601049|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601050|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601051|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601052|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601053|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601054|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601055|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84601056|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601057|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601058|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601059|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601060|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601061|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
84601062|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
84619304|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.793|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8 hours|||0.793|0.319|
84619305|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1297||||95.0|0.331|0.854|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8.5 hours|||0.854|0.331|
84619306|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|0.797|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9 hours|||0.797|0.322|
84619307|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1076||||95.0|0.304|0.739|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9.5 hours|||0.739|0.304|
84619308|NCT00857857|168985532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1017||||95.0|0.308|0.719|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 hours|||0.719|0.308|
84619309|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||||95.0|0.086|0.503|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 7|||0.503|0.086|
84503058|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||<0.0001
84503059|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.0050
84503060|NCT01827371|168757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D) H1: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) not = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D)"||||0.0012
84503061|NCT01827371|168757785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.37|1.15||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||1.15|0.37|
84540130|NCT04856917|168830932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|13.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||13.05|1.03|0.0545
84619310|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.363|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 13|||0.363|0.007|
84619311|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 14|||0.351|-0.062|
84619312|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.527|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 7|||0.527|0.133|
84619313|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.253|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 13|||0.253|-0.092|
84619314|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 14|||0.327|-0.076|
84540131|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.69||0.9679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.86|18.91||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.91|-19.86|0.9679
84540132|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.83||0.9152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.87|18.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.35|-20.87|0.9152
84540133|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|23.32||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||23.32|-8.67|0.4490
84619315|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.493|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 7|||0.493|0.100|
84619316|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 13|||0.429|0.083|
84619317|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.662|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 14|||0.662|0.262|
84619318|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.52|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 7|||0.520|0.125|
84619319|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 13|||0.402|0.057|
84540134|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.72|19.6||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.60|-12.72|0.7246
84601063|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
84601064|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
84601065|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
84601066|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
84601067|NCT01559259|168952562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
84601068|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.45|0.17|<0.001
84601069|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.39|0.15|<0.001
84601070|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.35||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.35|0.13|<0.001
84619320|NCT00857857|168985534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.572|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 14|||0.572|0.172|
84673416|NCT04115358|169082314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84601071|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.41|0.15|<0.001
84601072|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.63|0.77|0.549
84601073|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.42|0.66|0.863
84601074|NCT01559259|168952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.28|0.57|0.454
84619321|NCT00857857|168985544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.66|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||0.66|-1.30|
84601075|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-22.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.58|-59.56|<0.001
84601076|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.41|-22.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.56|-59.41|<0.001
84601077|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.79|-57.49|<0.001
84601078|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|-19.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.28|-56.94|<0.001
84601079|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.13||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-8.67|0.274
84601080|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.89||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.62|-8.40|0.304
84601081|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.96||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.49|-7.41|0.769
84601082|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-54.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-54.38|-88.00|<0.001
84601083|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.26|-49.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.72|-84.26|<0.001
84601084|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.75|-50.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.19|-84.75|<0.001
84601085|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.45|-45.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.07|-80.45|<0.001
84601086|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|-1.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.50|-15.55|0.021
84601087|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|4.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.07|-12.05|0.337
84619322|NCT00857857|168985544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.28|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||1.28|-0.73|
84619323|NCT00857857|168985544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.19|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.19|0.36|
84601088|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.26||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|2.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.76|-13.28|0.204
84601089|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-77.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.29|-63.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-63.49|-92.29|<0.001
84601090|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.58|-86.71|<0.001
84601091|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-72.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.06|-57.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.68|-88.06|<0.001
84601092|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.87|-51.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-51.52|-82.87|<0.001
84601093|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.21|-18.20|0.007
84601094|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|4.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.88|-12.86|0.385
84601095|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-14.97|0.162
84601096|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-76.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.35|-62.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-62.27|-91.35|<0.001
84601097|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.79|-55.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-55.41|-85.79|<0.001
84601098|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-56.31||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.31|-87.00|<0.001
84601099|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
84601100|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-3.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.55|-19.86|0.007
84619324|NCT00857857|168985544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.75|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.75|0.84|
84619325|NCT01389882|168985569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.015||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.978|||Paired t-test|||||1.978|0.036|0.043
84619326|NCT01389882|168985570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.232|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.841||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.174|||Paired t-test|||||0.174|-0.637|0.245
84619327|NCT01389882|168985571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.095||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.714|||Paired t-test|||||0.714|-0.020|0.257
84619328|NCT01389882|168985572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.541||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.931|||Paired t-test|||||0.931|-0.554|0.601
84619329|NCT01389882|168985573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.023|||Paired t-test|||||0.023|-0.320|0.085
84503062|NCT01827371|168757785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.06|0.67||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.67|-0.06|
84619330|NCT01389882|168985574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.516|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.786||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|11.232|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||11.232|1.799|0.002
84619331|NCT01389882|168985575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.516||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|2.904|||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||2.904|0.478|0.009
84619332|NCT01389882|168985576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.692|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.192||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.749|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.749|-0.364|0.314
84619333|NCT01389882|168985577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.016|||Paired t-test|||||0.016|-0.030|0.515
84619334|NCT01389882|168985578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1105|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.501||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.505|3.726|||Paired t-test|||||3.726|-3.505|0.949
84619335|NCT01389882|168985579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.081||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|6.875|||Paired t-test|||||6.875|-4.770|0.709
84619336|NCT01389882|168985580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.274|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.233||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.802|||Paired t-test|||||0.802|-1.350|0.600
84619337|NCT01584232|168985623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to insulin glargine. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to insulin glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||P-value is from the pairwise comparison of LS means using a mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 360 participants were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to LY2189265 or insulin glargine (IG). Assuming no difference in HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 between LY2189265 and IG, this sample size would provide approximately 90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to IG. This computation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% with a standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, and an 11% dropout rate between randomization and Week 26.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
84619338|NCT01584232|168985624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84619339|NCT01584232|168985624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84619340|NCT01584232|168985625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-1.7|0.183
84619341|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.56||Treatment comparison for pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||9.56|0.76|0.022
84619342|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|-4.52||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||-4.52|-22.28|0.003
84619343|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.22||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-1.06||Treatment comparison for pre-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-15.37|0.025
84619344|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|-14.51||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-14.51|-31.92|<0.001
84619345|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|-6.24||Treatment comparison for pre-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-6.24|-21.03|<0.001
84619346|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.26|-23.0||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-23.00|-39.26|<0.001
84619347|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-15.79||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|ANCOVA|||||-15.79|-31.68|<0.001
84619348|NCT01584232|168985626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|10.5||Treatment comparison for second pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||10.50|1.92|0.005
84619349|NCT01584232|168985627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.89|<0.001
84619350|NCT01584232|168985628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84619351|NCT02107703|168985638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.681||This is two sided P value and it is statistically significant.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by endocrine sensitivity and natural of disease by interactive web response system (IWRS).||The final analysis was planned at 378 PFS events, which would provide approximately 90% power assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 at a one-sided α of 0.025.||0.681|0.449|<0.0000001
84503063|NCT01827371|168757785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.5|0.3||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.30|-0.50|
84503064|NCT00950599|168757788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used for the trend test.|Kruskal-Wallis|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pre treatment.||A test for log-linear trend across saxagliptin doses was performed using a linear contrast among the saxagliptin doses from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model was the same model used for the first secondary endpoint.||||0.9888
84503065|NCT00950599|168757789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||Positive efficacy trend among doses of saxagliptin by assessing the adjusted mean change from baseline in A1C in the 0-40 mg cohort.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pretreatment. Contrast Coefficients: -2, -1, 0, 1 2.||||||0.9888
84503066|NCT03803085|168757872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84503067|NCT03803085|168757873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84503068|NCT03803085|168757874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p\<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84503069|NCT01361607|168757875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.50|-6.19|0.2735
84503070|NCT00373685|168757886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Life Table Extension of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test|Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0003
84503071|NCT00373685|168757887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0035
84601101|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.46|-14.34|0.310
84601102|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-7.36||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|1.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.90|-16.63|0.126
84601103|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-75.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.35|-60.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-60.93|-90.35|<0.001
84601104|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.99|-50.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.88|-81.99|<0.001
84601105|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.96|-53.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.71|-84.96|<0.001
84673417|NCT04115358|169082315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
84601106|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
84673418|NCT04399161|169082316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Children||||0.123
84503072|NCT00373685|168757888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.6140
84673419|NCT04399161|169082316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Elderly||||0.314
84503073|NCT00373685|168757890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84503074|NCT00373685|168757892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84503075|NCT00373685|168757893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
84503076|NCT00373685|168757894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.1008
84503077|NCT00373685|168757894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84503078|NCT00373685|168757894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84503079|NCT00373685|168757894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0005
84503080|NCT00373685|168757894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||<0.0001
84503081|NCT00373685|168757895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.6562
84619352|NCT03906071|168985649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The p-value is based on a unstratified log-rank test. (2-Sided)|Log Rank||Based on the unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.05|0.70|0.144
84619353|NCT04152772|168985667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Significant Group (3 levels) by Stimulus (CS- vs CS+ extinguished) interaction. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups (3) on skin conductance reactivity to the previously extinguished stimulus versus never conditioned stimulus during extinction recall||||0.02
84619354|NCT05963022|168985668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-1.76|<0.001
84619355|NCT05963022|168985668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.34|<0.001
84619356|NCT05963022|168985668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-1.61|<0.001
84619357|NCT05963022|168985669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|51.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.73|5.62|<0.001
84619358|NCT05963022|168985669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.37|2.77|<0.001
84619359|NCT05963022|168985669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|19.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.14|2.74|<0.001
84619360|NCT05963022|168985670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||||-16.3|-33.3|<0.001
84619361|NCT05963022|168985670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||||-15.9|-33.2|<0.001
84619362|NCT05963022|168985670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.7|-33.7|<0.001
84619363|NCT05963022|168985671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|75.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.36|8.70|<0.001
84673420|NCT02800148|169082317|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|115.5||No p-value as calculated for bioequivalence, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|Fieller's method|||||115.5|96.1|
84619364|NCT05963022|168985671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|2.88|<0.001
84619365|NCT05963022|168985671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|28.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.34|4.23|<0.001
84619366|NCT05963022|168985672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.7|<0.001
84619367|NCT05963022|168985672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
84619368|NCT05963022|168985672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-9.3|<0.001
84619369|NCT05963022|168985673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|1333.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1333.29|4.40|0.003
84619370|NCT05963022|168985673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|868.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||868.67|2.80|<0.001
84619371|NCT05963022|168985673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|2055.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2055.04|6.80|<0.001
84619372|NCT05963022|168985674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-57.5|<0.001
84619373|NCT05963022|168985674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.1|-57.6|<0.001
84619374|NCT05963022|168985674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.7|-60.1|<0.001
84619375|NCT05963022|168985675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|62.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.73|5.27|<0.001
84619376|NCT05963022|168985675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.87|108.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||108.05|8.87|<0.001
84619377|NCT05963022|168985675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.36|278.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||278.40|19.36|<0.001
84619378|NCT05963022|168985676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|664.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||664.36|2.29|0.011
84619379|NCT05963022|168985676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.34||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|949.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||949.59|3.34|0.005
84619380|NCT05963022|168985676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|127.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|2145.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2145.42|7.58|<0.001
84619381|NCT05963022|168985677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.86||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|254.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||254.78|0.75|0.077
84619382|NCT05963022|168985677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|281.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||281.74|0.87|0.062
84619383|NCT05963022|168985677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|1140.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1140.13|3.90|0.004
84619384|NCT02109640|168985678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute percentage difference|17.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|40.7||Absolute % difference 17.1 (95% CI -10.0,40.7)|Fisher Exact|||||40.7|-10.0|0.264
84619385|NCT02109640|168985679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
84619386|NCT02109640|168985680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
84619387|NCT00773513|168985724|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The pre-specified upper non-inferiority limit was 95% CI \<1.20.|||1.15|0.93|0.0039
84619388|NCT00773513|168985725|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.94|0.0166
84619389|NCT00773513|168985726|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.76|0.0219
84619390|NCT00773513|168985727|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.70|0.0459
84673421|NCT04552587|169082328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared change from baseline to follow up in our single group of caregivers.||||0.23
84503082|NCT00373685|168757895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84503083|NCT00373685|168757895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84503084|NCT00373685|168757895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0245
84503085|NCT00373685|168757895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0074
84503086|NCT00373685|168757896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.4074
84503087|NCT00373685|168757896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84503088|NCT00373685|168757896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84503089|NCT00373685|168757896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0127
84503090|NCT00373685|168757896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0019
84503091|NCT00373685|168757897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.2699
84503092|NCT00373685|168757897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84503093|NCT00373685|168757897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84503094|NCT00373685|168757897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0027
84601107|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.61||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-2.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-2.19|-19.02|0.016
84601108|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.69||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|9.32||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.32|-10.69|0.895
84601109|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.09||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.62|-14.80|0.308
84619391|NCT00773513|168985728|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.74|0.0048
84503095|NCT00373685|168757897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0001
84503096|NCT02570165|168757901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.07|284.26|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for the mean difference between batefenterol 37.5 µg dose and placebo (batefenterol 37.5 µg minus placebo) was estimated.|||284.26|101.07|
84503097|NCT02570165|168757901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.31|310.02|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 75 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||310.02|149.31|
84503098|NCT02570165|168757901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|189.85|332.25|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 150 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||332.25|189.85|
84503099|NCT02570165|168757901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|281.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.35|351.3|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 300 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||351.30|212.35|
84503100|NCT02570165|168757901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|292.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.02|364.42|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 600 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||364.42|223.02|
84503101|NCT02570165|168757902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.8|264.6|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 37.5 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.60|99.80|
84503102|NCT02570165|168757902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.4|264.8|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 75 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.80|128.40|
84503103|NCT02570165|168757902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.2|272.1|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 150 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||272.10|137.20|
84503104|NCT02570165|168757902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|208.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.7|279.2|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 300 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||279.20|138.70|
84503105|NCT02570165|168757902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|283.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 600 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||283.70|138.60|
84503106|NCT01455545|168757903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences in ASK-20 results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two means. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Statistic power: 90%. Precision: 10. S square: 256. Sample size: 44. Sample size adjusted to losses: 46 patients.||1.037|0.962|0.967
84503107|NCT01455545|168757904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.018|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.018|0.985|0.861
84503108|NCT01455545|168757905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.625||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|3.739|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences in gender results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tab Chi square||3.739|0.706|0.252
84503109|NCT01455545|168757906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Chi - square||||0.217
84619392|NCT01332994|168985782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact one-sided binomial test on single proportions with a significance level of alpha equals (=) 0.025. Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching DAS28 remission (\<2.6) at Week 16 is ≤45 percent (%).|Exact one-sided binomial test|||||||0.1648
84619393|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7559
84619394|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Transitional B-cells||||0.8961
84619395|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7915|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cells||||0.7915
84619396|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Memory B-cells||||0.8081
84619397|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.6574
84619398|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4553
84619399|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2215
84619400|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8860
84619401|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Double-negative B-cells||||0.8693
84619402|NCT01332994|168985818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Plasmablasts||||0.9564
84673422|NCT04847674|169082342|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.027||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2276|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1740|-0.2276|0.7914
84619403|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.9993
84619404|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.3596
84601110|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.58|-56.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.13|-86.58|<0.001
84601111|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.04|-46.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.19|-78.04|<0.001
84619405|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.7435
84619406|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.7671
84619407|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.7912
84619408|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.5595
84619409|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3817
84619410|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3623
84619411|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7108
84619412|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.0639
84503110|NCT01455545|168757907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.829|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi square||1.829|0.376|0.643
84619413|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0186
84619414|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Transitional B-cells||||0.0050
84619415|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cells||||0.0463
84619416|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Memory B-cells||||0.1919
84619417|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.3071
84503111|NCT01455545|168757908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.253|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.253|0.247|0.155
84619418|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.1714
84619419|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1746
84619420|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1626
84503112|NCT01455545|168757909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.763|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.763|0.020|0.107
84503113|NCT01455545|168757910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.849||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.541|2.219|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||2.219|1.541|0.196
84503114|NCT01455545|168757911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|15.91|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||15.91|0.618|0.150
84619421|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Double-negative B-cells||||0.6304
84619422|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Plasmablasts||||0.3449
84619423|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0919
84619424|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Transitional B-cells||||0.2189
84619425|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cells||||0.1386
84760351|NCT02164981|169276969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Given the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), we used a two-stage test (weighted z-test, Tamura approach: CHANGE\_score = BASELINE\_value + GROUP (i.e., SNP vs. placebo)) to combine the data on treatment effects from phases 1 and 2 (weighted equally). Assessments were on Day -1 (phase 1 baseline), Day 13 (phase 1 outcome, phase 2 baseline) and Day 28 (phase 2 outcome). Only participants who at least started the infusion were included in analysis (i.e., modified intent to treat).||||0.57
84760352|NCT02164981|169276969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||The same analysis as in Analysis 1 was conducted, except that CLOZAPINE (i.e., patient used clozapine vs. other antipsychotic) was added as a covariate.||||0.54
84760353|NCT02164981|169276970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84619426|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Memory B-cells||||0.6199
84601112|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-64.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.64|-48.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.50|-80.64|<0.001
84601113|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-59.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.12|-43.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-43.55|-76.12|<0.001
84601114|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.49||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-1.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.35|-21.63|0.028
84601115|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.88||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|9.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.38|-13.15|0.747
84601116|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|5.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.12|-16.88|0.303
84601117|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.64|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-78.64|<0.001
84601118|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.15|-44.02||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-44.02|-76.15|<0.001
84601119|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-63.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.64|-47.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.27|-79.64|<0.001
84601120|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-36.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.72|-70.10|<0.001
84601121|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-9.14||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-21.18|0.137
84601122|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|5.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.71|-18.39|0.311
84601123|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|0.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.52|-22.97|0.067
84619427|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.1019
84619428|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4353
84619429|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3934
84619430|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.4196
84619431|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Double-negative B-cells||||0.5546
84619432|NCT01332994|168985819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Plasmablasts||||0.7695
84619433|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6551
84619434|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.6905
84619435|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.9678
84673423|NCT04847674|169082342|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.011||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2126|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1900|-0.2126|0.9115
84673424|NCT04847674|169082344|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.026||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0733|0.1261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1261|-0.0733|0.6001
84619436|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.2080
84619437|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.4778
84619438|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.8526
84619439|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7266|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7266
84619440|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2011
84619441|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7872
84619442|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.5377
84619443|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6238
84619444|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Transitional B-cells||||0.2848
84619445|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cells||||0.6238
84619446|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.2848
84619447|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.7471
84760354|NCT02164981|169276970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84619448|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7471
84619449|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3910
84619450|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Plasmablasts||||0.8729
84673425|NCT04847674|169082344|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.1276|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1276|-0.0732|0.5922
84619451|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7261
84619452|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Transitional B-cells||||0.9338
84619453|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cells||||0.9074
84619454|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Memory B-cells||||<0.0001
84619455|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.9338
84619456|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.6515
84619457|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8413
84619458|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7244
84619459|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Double-negative B-cells||||<0.0001
84619460|NCT01332994|168985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Plasmablasts||||0.3848
84619461|NCT04170543|168985835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-2.85||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.61|21.94||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||21.94|-22.61|0.8338
84619462|NCT04170543|168985835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-19.52||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.92|1.07||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||1.07|-35.92|0.1169
84619463|NCT04170543|168985835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.47||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|4.32||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||4.32|-34.71|0.1774
84619464|NCT04170543|168985835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.22||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.05|13.35||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.35|-24.05|0.5379
84619465|NCT04170543|168985836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.02||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.08|3.75||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||3.75|-27.08|0.1929
84619466|NCT04170543|168985836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-25.71||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.83|-11.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-11.22|-37.83|0.0062
84619467|NCT04170543|168985836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.2||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-1.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-1.81|-31.86|0.0705
84619468|NCT04170543|168985836|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.56||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.82|-1.21||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||-1.21|-27.82|0.0764
84619469|NCT04170543|168985837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|7.25||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.45|29.88||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||29.88|-11.45|0.5474
84619470|NCT04170543|168985837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|3.11||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.83|24.82||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||24.82|-14.83|0.7920
84619471|NCT04170543|168985837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-3.4||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.59|17.51||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||17.51|-20.59|0.7711
84619472|NCT04170543|168985837|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|5.27||||0.6163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.08|24.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||24.62|-11.08|0.6163
84619473|NCT04170543|168985839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|2.43||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.35|26.95||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||26.95|-17.35|0.8537
84619474|NCT04170543|168985839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.63||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.14|4.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||4.89|-32.14|0.1989
84619475|NCT04170543|168985839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.96||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.01|1.99||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||1.99|-34.01|0.1346
84619476|NCT04170543|168985839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-6.38||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.59|13.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.23|-22.59|0.5683
84619477|NCT04170543|168985840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.93||||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.3|9.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||9.10|-22.30|0.4226
84619478|NCT04170543|168985840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-20.61||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.25|-5.58||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-5.58|-33.25|0.0287
84619479|NCT04170543|168985840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.73||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.7|-3.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-3.30|-31.70|0.0498
84619480|NCT04170543|168985840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.27||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.51|0.98||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.98|-25.51|0.1236
84644658|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3964||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 6||||0.3964
84619481|NCT04378270|168985888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3687|6.2287|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||6.2287|-0.3687|0.0796
84619482|NCT04378270|168985889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5014|0.1014|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||0.1014|-3.5014|0.0634
84619483|NCT04378270|168985890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.492||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4498|29.9502|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||29.9502|7.4498|0.0020
84619484|NCT04378270|168985891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8069|25.5331|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 28||||25.5331|7.8069|0.0006
84619485|NCT04378270|168985894|OTHER||Mean pain scale|17.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5465|19.1935|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 14||This procedure calculates the difference of an observed mean (from the assessment collected at the 4 week visit) with a hypothesized mean value (10, a mid level scale score). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the observed mean is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed mean in the sample if the null hypothesis value were the true value.||19.1935|16.5465|0.0001
84619486|NCT01236521|168985915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
84619487|NCT01236521|168985916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
84619488|NCT01236521|168985917|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0740
84619489|NCT02052752|168985952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA results for the primary endpoint with treatment group as a main effect and average baseline value as a covariate showed no statistically significant differences in the percentage change from baseline in swelling of the target lesions between the 3% BPO group and the vehicle control group at Day 4 for the ITT population||||0.283
84619490|NCT02784171|168985965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0372
84619491|NCT04266795|168985972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.6|||Log Rank|P-value was comparison of EFS between treatment groups and was based on the 1-sided stratified log-rank test statistic.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (randomization strata of age and AML subtype) and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.60|0.61|=0.477
84619492|NCT03043872|168985984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.909||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. The global cohort interim analysis of OS was based on a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with O'Brien Fleming type boundary, using the actual number of events observed as a proportion of the planned total. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0178 for a 4% overall alpha. Hazard Ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.909|0.591|0.0047
84619493|NCT03043872|168985985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.910|0.625|0.0032
84619494|NCT03043872|168985985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.995||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|"D + T + EP vs EP. The alpha level applied at the global cohort final analysis was adjusted (using a generalized Haybittle-Peto method) to account for actual alpha spent at the interim analysis based on the actual final total number of events, and thus maintain control of overall Type I error. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0418 for a 5% overall alpha.~HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP."||0.995|0.682|0.0451
84644659|NCT00282464|169024743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Overall||||0.0287
84644660|NCT00282464|169024744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.965||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.965
84760355|NCT02164981|169276971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84760356|NCT02164981|169276971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
84619495|NCT03043872|168985986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.029||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.029|0.414|0.0664
84619496|NCT03043872|168985987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.106||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.106|0.504|0.1455
84619497|NCT03043872|168985987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.964||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||0.964|0.439|0.0314
84619498|NCT03043872|168985988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.309||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP.||1.309|0.890|0.4352
84619499|NCT03043872|168985989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|0.959||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||0.959|0.665|0.0157
84619500|NCT03043872|168985989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.005||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||1.005|0.696|0.0568
84619501|NCT03043872|168985989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.235||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP.||1.235|0.857|0.7540
84619502|NCT03043872|168985990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.401||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP.||2.401|1.086|0.0177
84503115|NCT01455545|168757912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.096||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|2.441|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two proportions. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Proportion: 90%. Precision: 10%. Sample size: 35. Sample size adjusted to losses: 41 patients.||2.441|0.492|0.822
84619503|NCT03043872|168985990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.746||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP.||1.746|0.817|0.3611
84760357|NCT02164981|169276972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
84760358|NCT02164981|169276972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
84503116|NCT01455545|168757913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84503117|NCT01455545|168757913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.065|1.012|0.005
84760359|NCT02164981|169276978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84503118|NCT01455545|168757914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.799|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups.||0.799|0.153|0.013
84503119|NCT03276962|168757932|SUPERIORITY||Incremental vaccine efficacy|-21.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|The 95% Confidence Interval of the incremental vaccine efficacy estimates was calculated from Cox regression model.||To demonstrate the superiority of a 3-dose schedule of GSK Biologicals' malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E with a fractional third dose at Month 2 (Fx012-14-mFxD Group) compared to a standard schedule of RTS,S/AS01E with 3 full doses (R012-20 + R012-14 Group) in terms of vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria (primary case definition) over 12 months post-Dose 3.||7|-57|0.154
84619504|NCT03043872|168986002|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.277||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.277|0.574|0.4470
84619505|NCT03043872|168986003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.437||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.437|0.661|0.8934
84619506|NCT03043872|168986003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.068||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.068|0.487|0.1035
84619507|NCT03043872|168986003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.116||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.116|0.522|0.1673
84619508|NCT03043872|168986004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.244||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||3.244|0.610|0.4320
84619509|NCT03043872|168986004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|5.118||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||5.118|0.874|0.0986
84619510|NCT04551066|168986025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.26||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.71|0.4224
84619511|NCT04551066|168986026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.53||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.46|0.5728
84619512|NCT04551066|168986028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.9490
84619513|NCT04551066|168986032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.1085
84619514|NCT04551066|168986033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.6127
84619515|NCT00369577|168986034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0880
84619516|NCT00369577|168986034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84619517|NCT00369577|168986035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0583
84619518|NCT00369577|168986035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84619519|NCT00369577|168986036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
84619520|NCT00369577|168986036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
84619521|NCT00369577|168986037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0076
84619522|NCT00369577|168986037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84619523|NCT04186871|168986084|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|21.9||||||||21.9|-77.5|
84619524|NCT04186871|168986084|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.73|0.04|0.3117
84619525|NCT04186871|168986085|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.8|
84619526|NCT04186871|168986085|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-11.5|
84619527|NCT04186871|168986085|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2||||||||-5.2|-9.3|
84619528|NCT04186871|168986086|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|65.2||||||||65.2|-31.8|
84619529|NCT04186871|168986086|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|18.04||||||||18.04|0.22|
84619530|NCT04186871|168986087|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|33.3||||||||33.3|-57.1|
84619531|NCT04186871|168986087|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|10.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.02|0.02|0.5930
84619532|NCT04186871|168986088|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-36.9|
84619533|NCT04186871|168986088|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.15|0.1639
84619534|NCT04186871|168986089|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.11||||||||-1.110|-2.110|
84619535|NCT04186871|168986089|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|-1.28||||||||-1.280|-1.855|
84619536|NCT04186871|168986089|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.62||||||||0.620|-0.534|
84619537|NCT04186871|168986090|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.256|-1.226||||||||-1.226|-2.256|
84619538|NCT04186871|168986090|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|-1.399||||||||-1.399|-1.998|
84619539|NCT04186871|168986090|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.639||||||||0.639|-0.553|
84619540|NCT04186871|168986091|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.861|-14.128||||||||-14.128|-24.861|
84619541|NCT04186871|168986091|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.848|-15.686||||||||-15.686|-21.848|
84619542|NCT04186871|168986091|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.463|6.919||||||||6.919|-5.463|
84619543|NCT04186871|168986092|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-14.1||||||||-14.1|-24.3|
84619544|NCT04186871|168986092|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-15.5||||||||-15.5|-21.4|
84619545|NCT04186871|168986092|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.6||||||||6.6|-5.2|
84619546|NCT04186871|168986093|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|19.9||||||||19.9|-28.1|
84619547|NCT04186871|168986093|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.32||||||||2.32|0.31|
84619548|NCT04186871|168986094|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|9.9||||||||9.9|-22.8|
84619549|NCT04186871|168986094|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.34||||||||2.34|0.11|
84619550|NCT01025830|168986165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.87|1.38||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.38|0.87|
84619551|NCT01025830|168986165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.31||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.31|0.95|
84760360|NCT02164981|169276978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
84619552|NCT01025830|168986165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.99||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||0.99|0.65|
84619553|NCT01025830|168986166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same as for AUC|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||90.0|0.99|1.71||same as for AUC|Non-compartmental model|same as for AUC|same as AUC|Same as for AUC||1.71|0.99|
84619554|NCT01025830|168986166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.23||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||1.23|0.95|
84619555|NCT01025830|168986166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.63|0.98||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||0.98|0.63|
84619556|NCT00549445|168986169|OTHER|Student t test||||||0.045||||||Threshold for significance is P-Value \< 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.045
84619557|NCT02796677|168986183|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.117|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.117|0.051|<0.0001
84619558|NCT02796677|168986184|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.055||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.088|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.088|0.023|0.0009
84619559|NCT02796677|168986185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established by showing that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 at week 24 when compared AB 400 μg versus TIO 18 μg was higher than -50 mL (non-inferiority limit).|LS mean difference|0.007||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.035|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.035|-0.021|0.6377
84619560|NCT02796677|168986186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.107|0.043|<0.0001
84619561|NCT02796677|168986186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.122|0.052|<0.0001
84619562|NCT02796677|168986187|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.96||||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.51|0.61|0.8714
84619563|NCT02796677|168986187|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.97||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.58|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.58|0.59|0.8873
84619564|NCT01045967|168986208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|122.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122|90.7|
84619565|NCT01045967|168986209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.1|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.1|
84619566|NCT01045967|168986210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.3|
84619567|NCT03057496|168986232|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.734||Since the outcome (contacts) represented over-dispersed count data and there were repeated measurements per subject, a generalized mixed effects model with a negative binomial family was used with each subject treated as a random intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors were included in the model to account for factors other than device operating mode that might affect collision rates.|Silent mode is the denominator for the rate ratio.|A within-subject comparison was performed. Each subject included in the analysis used the device in both the active and the silent mode. Comparison was between the two device operating modes. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of contacts between active and silent modes.||0.734|0.536|< 0.001
84619568|NCT01790594|168986238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.067|15.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The p-value compares Investigational arm and control arm.||15.242|-11.067|0.750
84619569|NCT00181363|168986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84619570|NCT00181363|168986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84619571|NCT00181363|168986305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84619572|NCT00181363|168986306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84619573|NCT00181363|168986307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84619574|NCT00896298|168986402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2572
84619575|NCT00896298|168986403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84619576|NCT00896298|168986404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
84619577|NCT00896298|168986405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
84644661|NCT00282464|169024745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.860
84644662|NCT00282464|169024746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Baseline to endpoint||||0.428
84644663|NCT00282464|169024747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.708
84760361|NCT02164981|169276981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
84760362|NCT02164981|169276981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
84619578|NCT01507688|168986412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models adjusted for: VA vs Non Va, admission diagnosis (transient ischemic attack vs stroke), sex (male vs female), white vs nonwhite, and baseline total Stroke Specific Quality of life score.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measurements of change GEE analyses of Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life score change at 6 months from baseline.|The adjusted positive mean (standard error) change at 6 months from baseline was higher in the intervention arm compared to in the control arm. Intervention group had 0.14 (SE 0.17) higher improvement compared to the control group.|"All the sample size calculations were powered at 80% with a 5% Type I error. We estimated based on our pilot study a change difference of 0.25 on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life in the intervention group compared to no change in the control group at 6 months. Our power calculations estimated a sample of 226 (113) per group was needed to detect this effect. We used primary outcome row Mean Change from 0 to 6 months for this analysis."||||0.0500
84619579|NCT01507688|168986412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted least square means (standard errors) adjusted for treatment (Intervention vs control), time of outcome from baseline (3, 6, 12 months), baseline SSQoL, Site (VA vs NonVA), Stroke/TIA diagnosis, sex (m vs f) and race (white vs nonwhite).|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted intervention arm's positive change (regression coefficient with standard error) in Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life was not significantly different at 12 months compared to the control group.|"We evaluated the mean difference on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life compared to baseline between the intervention and control groups at 12 months using repeated measures ANCOVA models. We used primary outcome row Mean change from 0 to 12 months for this analysis."||||0.26
84619580|NCT02163824|168986413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|16.1||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||26.4|5.9|.0024
84619581|NCT02163824|168986413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.6|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||32.6|11.7|<.0001
84619582|NCT02163824|168986414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|19.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|31.5|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||31.5|7.4|.0019
84619583|NCT02163824|168986414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||34.4|10.6|.0003
84619584|NCT02163824|168986415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 8.|||||0.0007
84619585|NCT02163824|168986415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean grade AC at Day 8.|||||0.0440
84619586|NCT02163824|168986416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.0391
84619587|NCT02163824|168986416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.1811
84619588|NCT02163824|168986417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.1953
84619589|NCT02163824|168986417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between group difference of mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.0307
84619590|NCT02163824|168986418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference on mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2589
84619591|NCT02163824|168986418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2132
84619592|NCT00790192|168986424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84619593|NCT00790192|168986425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84503120|NCT04428502|168757965|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.6|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 1: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.6
84619594|NCT03456076|168986427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45|||Log Rank|||||0.45|0.13|.0001
84619595|NCT03456076|168986427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Log Rank|||||0.43|0.13|.0001
84619596|NCT00466440|168986433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.52|12.95|||Chi-squared||The objective response rates and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the qualified participants using unadjusted normal approximation for binomial proportions (z approximation).|||12.95|-12.52|1.0000
84619597|NCT00466440|168986434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.21|4.95|||Chi-squared|||||4.95|-28.21|0.3606
84619598|NCT00466440|168986435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.55|-0.02|0.0720
84619599|NCT00466440|168986436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.37|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.37|-0.07|0.1697
84619600|NCT00466440|168986437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.5|0.5240
84619601|NCT00466440|168986438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.6|0.3|0.4407
84619602|NCT00466440|168986439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.4|0.3449
84619603|NCT03187132|168986449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||.43|-4.15|.111
84619604|NCT03187132|168986450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||3.12|-1.84|.612
84619605|NCT03187132|168986451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||4.66|-5.51|.87
84619606|NCT03187132|168986451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.54|-.54|.787
84619607|NCT03187132|168986451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.48|-.88|.569
84619608|NCT03187132|168986452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.49|-.23|.467
84619609|NCT03187132|168986453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||We used a multilevel logistic regression with random effects at the individual level and fixed effects for week and study-arm.||9.07|.07|.852
84619610|NCT03609177|168986473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.8|||binomial regression with identity link|||||10.8|2.8|<0.05
84619611|NCT03609177|168986474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||binomial regression with identity link|||||0.6|-0.7|<0.05
84619612|NCT03609177|168986475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.90|-0.5|<0.05
84619613|NCT03609177|168986476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.0|-0.4|<0.05
84619614|NCT00113841|168986490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84619615|NCT02366195|168986491|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.387
84619616|NCT02366195|168986492|OTHER|Primary completion data.||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.056
84619617|NCT02366195|168986492|OTHER|Final analysis data.||||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.222
84619618|NCT02366195|168986493|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.335|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.335
84619619|NCT02366195|168986493|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.597|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.597
84619620|NCT02366195|168986494|OTHER|Primary completion||||||0.82|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.82
84619621|NCT02366195|168986494|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.90
84619622|NCT02366195|168986495|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.660
84619623|NCT02366195|168986495|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.881|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.881
84619624|NCT02366195|168986496|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.974|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.974
84619625|NCT02366195|168986496|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.612|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.612
84619626|NCT02366195|168986497|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.626|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.626
84619627|NCT02366195|168986497|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.579|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.579
84619628|NCT02366195|168986498|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.18|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.18
84619629|NCT02366195|168986498|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.14|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.14
84619630|NCT01059318|168986516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|196.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||196|-45|
84619631|NCT01059318|168986517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|279.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||279|93|
84619632|NCT02781610|168986529|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The ERR non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population for 93% power assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 155 PP participants per arm. Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||2.0|-3.3|0.0164
84619633|NCT02781610|168986530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The NERR superiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population for 91% power to detect a 2.5% difference, assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 285 ITT participants per arm. Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||1.1|-1.3|0.568
84619634|NCT02781610|168986531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||4.6|-2.4|0.546
84619635|NCT02781610|168986532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||0.5|-3.7|0.140
84619636|NCT02781610|168986533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||0.77|-0.42|0.563
84619637|NCT02781610|168986534|SUPERIORITY|Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.04|0.083
84619638|NCT02719171|168986573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and concurrent methotrexate use.||38.7|9.3|0.007
84619639|NCT02719171|168986574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||23.0|1.0|0.074
84619640|NCT02719171|168986574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||30.6|7.4|0.007
84619641|NCT02719171|168986575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||16.4|4.1|0.006
84619642|NCT02719171|168986575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||22.9|8.5|<0.001
84619643|NCT02719171|168986576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.5|-4.0|0.690
84619644|NCT02719171|168986576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.0|-5.3|0.260
84619645|NCT02719171|168986577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-2.1|0.791
84760363|NCT01408147|169277003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the primary hypothesis, a generalized linear mixed effect model was used (intervention group as a fixed effect and clinic and subject as random effects). A group x time interaction term (fixed effect) tested if the change in weight over time differed significantly. The model included participant-level covariates (i.e., ethnicity, weeks postpartum at study entry, lactation, and age).||||<0.0001
84760364|NCT00621504|169277040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on each of the CE and the MITTE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for each of the CE and MITTE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE and MITTE Populations in adult subjects with CABP.||12.6|-0.2|
84619646|NCT02719171|168986577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.7|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.7|-2.8|0.320
84619647|NCT02719171|168986578|OTHER||mixed model repeated measures model|-0.082||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.06|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.060|-0.225|0.341
84760365|NCT03257267|169277059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.796||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.796|0.555|<0.00001
84619648|NCT02719171|168986578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.027|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.027|-0.254|0.181
84619649|NCT02719171|168986579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.77|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.77|-0.36|0.174
84619650|NCT02719171|168986579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|3.44|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.44|-0.73|0.284
84619651|NCT02719171|168986580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|3.3|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.30|-2.12|0.718
84619652|NCT02719171|168986580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|4.74|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||4.74|-0.61|0.204
84619653|NCT02719171|168986581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.8|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.8|-0.5|0.243
84619654|NCT02719171|168986581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.1|-1.0|0.906
84619655|NCT02719171|168986582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.5|-1.8|0.325
84619656|NCT02719171|168986582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.2|-2.1|0.160
84619657|NCT02719171|168986583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-4.0|0.453
84619658|NCT02719171|168986583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.1|-5.7|0.111
84619659|NCT02719171|168986584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.9|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||71.1|35.9|<0.001
84619660|NCT02719171|168986584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.1|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||64.5|33.1|<0.001
84619661|NCT05298202|168986601|SUPERIORITY|time x treatment ANOVA||||||0.284||||||difference between treatment and control|ANOVA|||||||0.284
84619662|NCT05298202|168986602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.177
84619663|NCT05298202|168986603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.122
84619664|NCT05298202|168986604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|time x treatment anova||||||.038
84673426|NCT04847674|169082344|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.1277|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1277|-0.0744|0.6017
84619665|NCT05298202|168986605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976|||||||ANOVA|||||||.976
84619666|NCT05298202|168986606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||.747
84619667|NCT01875159|168986607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE gamma regression models|||\>80% probability of detecting at least a 36% reduction in intermittent hypoxia events/hour of recording and in sec/hour \<90% oxygen saturation/hour of recording||||<0.05
84619668|NCT03270943|168986654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
84619669|NCT03270943|168986655|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|3.84|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||3.84|-6.06|
84760366|NCT03257267|169277060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.882|||Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.882|0.623|0.00031
84760367|NCT03257267|169277061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.136||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.798|5.468|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||5.468|1.798|0.00002
84619670|NCT03270943|168986655|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.22|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||-0.22|-8.70|
84619671|NCT03270943|168986656|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.2|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.2|-2.72|
84619672|NCT03270943|168986656|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.16|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.16|-3.60|
84673427|NCT04847674|169082344|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0796|0.1239|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1239|-0.0796|0.6664
84760368|NCT03257267|169277066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.855||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.855|0.570|0.00024
84760369|NCT02229552|169277077|OTHER|Repeated measures analysis of variance with zbmi for each year as the repeated dependent measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.051
84760370|NCT02684981|169277078|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
84760371|NCT02684981|169277078|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
84760372|NCT02684981|169277079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
84760373|NCT02684981|169277079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
84760374|NCT02684981|169277080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
84760375|NCT02684981|169277080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.509|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
84619673|NCT03270943|168986657|OTHER|Within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.61|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.61|-0.15|
84619674|NCT03270943|168986657|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.63|0.07|
84619675|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1097|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1097
84619676|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1087
84619677|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1949|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1949
84619678|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1315
84619679|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1977
84619680|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2149|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.2149
84619681|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2582|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2582
84619682|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.0009
84619683|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3588|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.3588
84619684|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.8791
84619685|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.9457
84619686|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2705|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2705
84619687|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
84619688|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
84619689|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
84619690|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5933
84619691|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7094|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.7094
84619692|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5424|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5424
84619693|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
84619694|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
84619695|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
84619696|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0038
84619697|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0647
84503121|NCT04428502|168757965|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.007|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 6: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.007
84503122|NCT04428502|168757965|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.004|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 12: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.004
84503123|NCT02557672|168758024|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the Geometric Means|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||||1.19|0.81|0.84
84503124|NCT02557672|168758025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.22|0.09
84503125|NCT02557672|168758026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.33|0.51
84503126|NCT02557672|168758027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|0.51|0.53
84503127|NCT02557672|168758028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.12|0.39
84503128|NCT02462382|168758033|EQUIVALENCE|The univariate analyses were conducted using Independent t-Tests for continuous variables and Fisher Exact Tests or Chi-Square Tests of Independence for categorical comparisons.|Fisher Exact Tests|0.041||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||POD 1 1cm incision.|Chi-squared|||Comparisons of pain scores using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) based on Post-Operative Day (POD).||||.006
84503129|NCT00766506|168758037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.91|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-1.91|-2.55|<0.001
84503130|NCT00766506|168758038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 24||||0.219
84503131|NCT00766506|168758038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 48||||0.299
84503132|NCT00766506|168758038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At study discontinuation or withdrawal||||0.136
84503133|NCT00766506|168758039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
84503134|NCT00766506|168758040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.92|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value was calculated from a Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Squared test.||||3.92|0.84|0.131
84503135|NCT00766506|168758041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.342
84503136|NCT00766506|168758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.836
84503137|NCT00766506|168758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|24.03|||Chi-squared|||||24.03|1.04|0.029
84503138|NCT00766506|168758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.53|||Chi-squared|||Paracetamol: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.53|0.74|0.230
84503139|NCT00766506|168758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||NSAID's: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.70|0.80|0.163
84503140|NCT03877237|168758062|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.23||||0.02164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|8.22||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.22|0.96|0.02164
84503141|NCT03877237|168758063|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.17||||0.05842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.33||KCCQ-PLS was tested at the alpha level of 0.04990 because KCCQ-TSS had a statistically significant p-value, in accordance with the pre-specified testing strategy.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.33|0.03|0.05842
84503142|NCT03877237|168758064|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.2||||0.68626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00010:~H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||13.0|-6.5|0.68626
84619698|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0021
84619699|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
84619700|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
84503143|NCT03877237|168758065|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|-0.16||||0.19748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22||Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||0.22|-0.55|0.19748
84503144|NCT02544633|168758095|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion (two-sided a=5%) will be performed to test H0: ORR \<=20% against H1: ORR \>20%.|Objective response rate|10.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|28.23|||exact test|||||28.23|2.27|0.94
84503145|NCT02544633|168758095|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|37.89|||exact test|||||37.89|3.21|0.79
84503146|NCT02544633|168758095|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|25.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|65.09|||Exact Test|||||65.09|3.19|0.47
84503147|NCT02544633|168758095|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.46|||Exact test|||||26.46|0.00|>0.999
84503148|NCT02092961|168758112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.42||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||-0.42|-2.75|0.022
84601124|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-51.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.42|-34.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-34.66|-68.42|<0.001
84601125|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-57.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-40.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.76|-73.27|<0.001
84601126|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.16|-36.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.26|-70.16|<0.001
84601127|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-30.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.83|-64.81|<0.001
84601128|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.52||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|9.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.85|-16.89|0.604
84601129|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.78||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|3.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.94|-21.50|0.184
84601130|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.43||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|6.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.70|-19.56|0.340
84619701|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
84619702|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.0815
84619703|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.7507
84619704|NCT02981368|168986671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.5620
84619705|NCT01307319|168986708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
84619706|NCT01307319|168986708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84644664|NCT00282464|169024748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.898
84619707|NCT01307319|168986709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||The power calculation assumed the standard deviation (SD) for the change from baseline over two weeks in the average of AM and PM reflective TNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 235 subjects per arm provides 90% power to detect a difference of 0.60 in TNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
84619708|NCT01307319|168986709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84619709|NCT02152631|168986719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.219|||Stratified Log-Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|The stratification factors used in the analysis were: number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Score (PS) (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||1.219|0.768|0.771
84619710|NCT02152631|168986720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), ECOG PS (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and KRAS mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||||0.010
84619711|NCT02152631|168986721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.723|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.723|0.470|<0.000001
84619712|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Headache||0.29|-0.44|0.698
84619713|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Diarrhea||1.15|0.03|0.038
84619714|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Rash||-1.86|-2.94|<.001
84619715|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Symptom Severity||0.08|-0.56|0.142
84619716|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of square, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Interference||0.30|-0.59|0.514
84619717|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Lung Cancer||0.23|-0.37|0.646
84619718|NCT02152631|168986722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Plus Lung Cancer||0.10|-0.51|0.188
84619719|NCT02152631|168986724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed By Type 3 sums of squares, Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||||0.05|-0.05|0.951
84601131|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.67|-22.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.88|-57.67|<0.001
84601132|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-30.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.27|-64.21|<0.001
84601133|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-43.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-25.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-25.72|-60.57|<0.001
84601134|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-44.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-27.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-27.34|-61.55|<0.001
84619720|NCT00754377|168986784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84619721|NCT00754377|168986785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84619722|NCT03985761|168986786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||||||.182
84619723|NCT03985761|168986787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||||||.296
84619724|NCT03985761|168986788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||.483
84619725|NCT03985761|168986789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|||||||.995
84619726|NCT03985761|168986790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.220
84619727|NCT03985761|168986791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||.538
84619728|NCT03985761|168986794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||ANOVA|||||||.121
84619729|NCT03001557|168986813|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|3.177||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|7.096||Based on a mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.096|-0.741|0.1099
84619730|NCT03001557|168986813|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.802||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|6.723||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.723|-1.119|0.1576
84619731|NCT03001557|168986813|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.96||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.777|2.857||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.857|-4.777|0.6160
84619732|NCT03001557|168986813|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.713||||0.7135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.585||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||4.585|-3.160|0.7135
84619733|NCT03001557|168986817|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.098||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|2.045||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.045|-12.240|0.1582
84619734|NCT03001557|168986817|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.105||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.332|1.122||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.122|-13.332|0.0961
84619735|NCT03001557|168986817|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.68||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.262|7.623||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.623|-6.262|0.8449
84619736|NCT03001557|168986817|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.14||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.178|3.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.897|-10.178|0.3747
84619737|NCT03001557|168986821|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.932||||0.3966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|6.465||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.465|-2.601|0.3966
84619738|NCT03001557|168986821|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.386||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|7.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.897|-1.125|0.1381
84619739|NCT03001557|168986821|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.337||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|5.778||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||5.778|-3.104|0.5487
84619740|NCT03001557|168986821|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.32||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|8.793||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||8.793|-0.153|0.0581
84619741|NCT03001557|168986825|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.437||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.481|1.608||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.608|-8.481|0.1777
84619742|NCT03001557|168986825|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.458||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.564|6.479||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.479|-3.564|0.5630
84760376|NCT02684981|169277081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
84619743|NCT03001557|168986825|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.994||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-0.041||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.041|-9.946|0.0482
84619744|NCT03001557|168986825|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.593||||0.3036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|2.413||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.413|-7.599|0.3036
84619745|NCT03001557|168986829|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.845||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|12.313||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||12.313|-2.624|0.1991
84619746|NCT03001557|168986829|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.872||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.263|3.518||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.518|-11.263|0.2982
84619747|NCT03001557|168986829|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.776||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|14.025||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||14.025|-0.474|0.0664
84619748|NCT03001557|168986829|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.017||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.344|10.379||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||10.379|-4.344|0.4148
84619749|NCT03001557|168986833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.063||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.452|2.579||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.579|-2.452|0.9599
84619750|NCT03001557|168986833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.238||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.817|2.342||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, Visit and treatment by Visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.342|-2.817|0.8541
84619751|NCT03001557|168986833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.293||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|2.16||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.160|-2.745|0.8117
84619752|NCT03001557|168986833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.557||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|1.0||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.000|-4.113|0.2274
84619753|NCT03001557|168986837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.086||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.232||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.232|-0.060|0.2421
84619754|NCT03001557|168986837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.012||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.131||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.131|-0.155|0.8661
84619755|NCT03001557|168986837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.199||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.199|-0.085|0.4251
84619756|NCT03001557|168986837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.166||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.166|-0.116|0.7248
84619757|NCT03001557|168986841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.029||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.029|-0.094|0.2991
84619758|NCT03001557|168986841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.033||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.095||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.095|-0.028|0.2861
84619759|NCT03001557|168986841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.052||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.009||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.009|-0.113|0.0938
84619760|NCT03001557|168986841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.005||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.066||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.066|-0.055|0.8618
84619761|NCT03001557|168986845|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-389.873||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.177|-40.569||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-40.569|-739.177|0.0294
84619762|NCT03001557|168986845|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-402.994||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.67|-54.319||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-54.319|-751.670|0.0243
84619763|NCT03001557|168986845|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-141.026||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.805|207.752||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||207.752|-489.805|0.4209
84619764|NCT03001557|168986845|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-367.845||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-717.87|-17.82||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-17.820|-717.870|0.0398
84619765|NCT03001557|168986849|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1276.18||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2878.587|326.226||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||326.226|-2878.587|0.1162
84619766|NCT03001557|168986849|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|227.464||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1382.85|1837.777||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1837.777|-1382.850|0.7781
84673428|NCT04847674|169082345|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimator|0.4||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.31|-2.33|0.7261
84619767|NCT03001557|168986849|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-620.581||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2170.342|929.179||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||929.179|-2170.342|0.4255
84619768|NCT03001557|168986849|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-577.82||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2160.337|1004.697||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1004.697|-2160.337|0.4672
84619769|NCT03001557|168986853|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-839.088||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2440.854|762.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||762.678|-2440.854|0.2984
84760377|NCT02684981|169277081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
84760378|NCT02684981|169277089|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Median convenience and satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores at last assessment compared to second assessment||||< 0.001
84619770|NCT03001557|168986853|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|651.922||||0.4218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.835|2266.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2266.678|-962.835|0.4218
84619771|NCT03001557|168986853|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-447.245||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1998.44|1103.95||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1103.950|-1998.440|0.5655
84619772|NCT03001557|168986853|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-130.603||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1706.478|1445.272||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1445.272|-1706.478|0.8686
84619773|NCT03001557|168986857|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.02||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.074||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.074|-0.034|0.4638
84619774|NCT03001557|168986857|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.115||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.115|0.005|0.0322
84619775|NCT03001557|168986857|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.056||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.051|0.9144
84619776|NCT03001557|168986857|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction|MMRM|||||0.110|0.004|0.0364
84619777|NCT01794000|168986863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Andersen-Gill model||The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|The time to a recurrent episode of VOC was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model. A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.||1.05|0.66|.117
84619778|NCT01794000|168986864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.564|4.079||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square (LS) Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.079|-4.564|.912
84619779|NCT01794000|168986865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0968||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1132|0.3068||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||0.3068|-0.1132|.365
84673429|NCT04847674|169082345|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.5||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.32|-3.56|0.7650
84619780|NCT01794000|168986866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The time to a recurrent episode of painful crisis was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill Model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.04|0.65|.109
84619781|NCT01794000|168986867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||The time to a recurrent episode of hospitalization was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.37|0.65|.759
84601135|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.29||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.38|-9.80|0.548
84601136|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.51||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.18|-16.20|0.721
84601137|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.44||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|14.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.35|-13.47|0.951
84601138|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-29.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.66|-11.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.59|-46.66|0.005
84601139|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-16.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-16.97|-51.62|0.001
84601140|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-18.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-18.73|-53.80|<0.001
84601141|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.77|-17.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-17.35|-51.77|<0.001
84601142|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.45||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.79|-8.89|0.455
84601143|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|14.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.65|-13.80|0.953
84601144|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.48||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|11.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.66|-16.63|0.731
84619782|NCT01794000|168986868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93||The time to a recurrent episode of acute chest syndrome was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.93|0.48|.916
84619783|NCT01794000|168986869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91||The time to a recurrent episode of RBC transfusion was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.91|0.71|.544
84644665|NCT00282464|169024749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.559
84619784|NCT01794000|168986870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.513||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.186|7.213||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||7.213|-4.186|.602
84619785|NCT01794000|168986871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.272||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.109|4.652||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.652|-2.109|.459
84619786|NCT01794000|168986873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.94||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.19||The ANCOVA model included the factors of treatment, hydroxyurea use, age group, and length of follow-up.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||5.19|-3.31|.662
84619787|NCT01794000|168986874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.317|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the First VOC||||.317
84619788|NCT01794000|168986874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the Second VOC||||.133
84619789|NCT01794000|168986875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.638|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.638
84619790|NCT00964496|168986885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.677||||1.3e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.807||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.807|0.547|0.00000013
84619791|NCT00964496|168986886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.13||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||-2.13|-4.02|<0.001
84619792|NCT00964496|168986887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.9||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||9.90|6.00|<0.01
84619793|NCT00964496|168986888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0002474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|6.64||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||6.64|2.15|0.00024740
84619794|NCT00964496|168986889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|-0.374||||0.00298881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|-0.185||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||-0.185|-0.563|0.00298881
84619795|NCT00964496|168986890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1557.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1294.53|1819.76||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||1819.76|1294.53|<0.01
84619796|NCT00964496|168986891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.464||||3.962e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.649|||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.649|0.28|0.00003962
84619797|NCT00255190|168986901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
84619798|NCT00255190|168986902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
84673430|NCT04847674|169082345|OTHER||HL estimator|0.2||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.04|-2.44|0.7942
84619799|NCT00255190|168986903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.204
84619800|NCT00255190|168986904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.109
84619801|NCT00255190|168986905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84503149|NCT02092961|168758112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.00|-1.00|0.402
84503150|NCT02092961|168758113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS osteitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.50|-1.00|0.746
84503151|NCT02092961|168758113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||3.50|-1.50|0.413
84503152|NCT02092961|168758114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.491
84601145|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-22.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.97|-5.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-5.29|-39.97|0.024
84601146|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-26.87||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.12|-9.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-9.62|-44.12|0.009
84601147|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-30.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-13.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-13.16|-48.36|0.003
84601148|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-27.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.51|-10.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.00|-44.51|0.007
84619802|NCT00255190|168986906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.494
84619803|NCT00255190|168986907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
84503153|NCT02092961|168758114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.341
84673431|NCT04847674|169082345|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.8||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||2.55|-3.81|0.6147
84619804|NCT00255190|168986908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.220
84619805|NCT00255190|168986909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
84619806|NCT00255190|168986910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.923
84619807|NCT00255190|168986911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84619808|NCT00255190|168986912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.758
84619809|NCT00255190|168986913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.737
84619810|NCT00255190|168986914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.673
84619811|NCT00255190|168986915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.817
84760379|NCT02921971|169277109|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|0.08||Above p-value is one-sided p-value. Threshold for significance is at 0.05 level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint and strata-by-timepoint interactions, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline and baseline-by-timepoint interactions.||0.08|-4.71|0.0291
84760380|NCT00452699|169277113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.07|<0.001
84619812|NCT00255190|168986916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.601
84619813|NCT00255190|168986917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
84619814|NCT00255190|168986918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.319
84619815|NCT00255190|168986919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
84619816|NCT00255190|168986920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.207
84619817|NCT00255190|168986921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.286
84619818|NCT00255190|168986922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.102
84619819|NCT00255190|168986923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.656
84619820|NCT00255190|168986924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.176
84619821|NCT00255190|168986925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.030
84619822|NCT00255190|168986926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.243
84644666|NCT00282464|169024750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple adjustments were made|ANOVA|ANVOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.458
84644667|NCT05072470|169024752|SUPERIORITY|When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at 0 dB SNR||||<0.01
84619823|NCT00255190|168986927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.005
84619824|NCT00255190|168986928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.469
84619825|NCT01217463|168986967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|0.60|0.4109
84619826|NCT01217463|168986968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.78|
84619827|NCT02485561|168986996|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.019||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.362
84619828|NCT02485561|168986997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
84619829|NCT02485561|168986997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
84619830|NCT02485561|168986998|SUPERIORITY||F-value|6.482||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
84619831|NCT02485561|168986998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
84619832|NCT02485561|168986998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84619833|NCT02485561|168986999|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.608||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
84619834|NCT02485561|168987000|SUPERIORITY||F-value|16.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84619835|NCT02485561|168987000|SUPERIORITY||F-value|2.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84619836|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.68||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
84619837|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.021||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.98
84619838|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.312||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
84619839|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.702||||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.496
84619840|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.88||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.154
84619841|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.667||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
84619842|NCT02485561|168987001|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.666||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
84619843|NCT02485561|168987002|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.59||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.56
84619844|NCT02485561|168987003|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.84
84619845|NCT02485561|168987004|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
84619846|NCT02485561|168987005|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
84619847|NCT02485561|168987005|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.056||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.95
84619848|NCT01126723|168987033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84619849|NCT00279916|168987045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84619850|NCT00279916|168987046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84619851|NCT00731679|168987061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.01
84619852|NCT00731679|168987062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.005
84619853|NCT04184297|168987079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||0.96|0.76|
84619854|NCT04184297|168987080|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|This method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of a hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia for overall population.||1.07|0.64|
84619855|NCT04184297|168987081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||1.19|0.91|
84619856|NCT02412098|168987082|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|129.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||129.01|41.92|
84619857|NCT02412098|168987082|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|127.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|222.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||222.01|73.57|
84619858|NCT02412098|168987083|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|80.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|144.79|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.||144.79|45.11|
84760381|NCT01602692|169277117|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||End of PACU Mean Pain Level p-value between arms||||0.24
84760382|NCT01602692|169277117|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Current Pain p-value between arms||||0.76
84760383|NCT01602692|169277117|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Worst Pain p-value between arms||||0.78
84619859|NCT02412098|168987083|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.83|113.02||ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.|||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|||113.02|47.83|
84619860|NCT02412098|168987084|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|83.04|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||83.04|53.33|
84760384|NCT01602692|169277117|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Least Pain p-value between arms||||0.41
84503154|NCT02092961|168758115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|-0.50|0.366
84503155|NCT02092961|168758115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.50|0.50|0.053
84503156|NCT02092961|168758116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|0.89||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.41|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.41|0.36|0.006
84503157|NCT02092961|168758116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.49|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.49|-1.16|0.496
84503158|NCT02270983|168758117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.211|||ANCOVA|||||2.211|0.439|0.0035
84503159|NCT02270983|168758117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|2.796|||ANCOVA|||||2.796|1.021|<0.0001
84503160|NCT02270983|168758118|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.92|0.1429
84503161|NCT02270983|168758118|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.04|0.0287
84619861|NCT02412098|168987084|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|102.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|125.45|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||125.45|83.03|
84619862|NCT02412098|168987085|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|76.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.65|114.77|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||114.77|50.65|
84760385|NCT01602692|169277118|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||PACU IV hydromorphone p-value between arms||||0.10
84503162|NCT02270983|168758119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||2.58|0.73|0.3332
84503163|NCT02270983|168758119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||3.68|1.00|0.0506
84503164|NCT02270983|168758120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.178|||ANCOVA|||||1.178|0.324|0.0007
84503165|NCT02270983|168758120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.416|||ANCOVA|||||1.416|0.558|<0.0001
84503166|NCT02270983|168758121|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.746|0.0017
84503167|NCT02270983|168758121|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.382|||ANCOVA|||||-0.382|-0.957|<0.0001
84503168|NCT02270983|168758122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.437|||ANCOVA|||||0.437|-0.371|0.8720
84503169|NCT02270983|168758122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.203|||ANCOVA|||||-0.203|-1.011|0.0034
84619863|NCT02412098|168987085|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|71.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.59|113.25|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||113.25|44.59|
84503170|NCT03549130|168758153|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.77||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.53||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.53|-2.06|0.2446
84644668|NCT05072470|169024752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||When p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at -5 dB SNR||||.031
84760386|NCT01602692|169277118|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hr Post-op oxycodone p-value between arms||||0.71
84601149|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.66||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|18.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.82|-9.50|0.516
84601150|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.55||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|14.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.72|-13.63|0.939
84601151|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.53||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|9.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.80|-18.86|0.536
84601152|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-15.81||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|1.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.41|-33.02|0.107
84601153|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-23.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.91|-6.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-6.51|-40.91|0.019
84601154|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-28.44||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.99|-10.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.88|-45.99|0.006
84601155|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-25.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.23|-7.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-7.85|-42.23|0.012
84601156|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|23.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.08|-4.75|0.195
84601157|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.48||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|15.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.50|-12.54|0.835
84601158|NCT01559259|168952564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.41||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|9.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.79|-18.61|0.542
84601159|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|<0.001
84601160|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|< 0.001
84601161|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.99|0.73|< 0.001
84601162|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.95|0.65|< 0.001
84619864|NCT03089580|168987088|SUPERIORITY|Paired, Student's t-test was used to contrast the outcome variable of TBUT in the treated eye versus the sham eye from visit 1 to visit 5. The null hypothesis to be tested is one of no change from pre- to post treatment, with a Type I error probability of 0.05 for the primary outcome assessment. The pattern of change over the 4 treatment visits in these continuous variables will be assessed using mixed, linear regression. SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used.||||||0.3|||||||paired t test|||The primary study outcome of pre to post change in TBUT within the treated eye and also the untreated, control eye dictated the use of a paired statistical approach to sample size estimation. Clinically relevant pre to post TBUT increase of 3 seconds with a standard deviation of 4.5 seconds was used. Type I and II error estimates used were standard for a non-pivotal study, 0.05 \& 0.20. The estimated the sample size needed detect this difference in TBUT is 27 subjects.||||0.3
84619865|NCT03089580|168987089|SUPERIORITY|The p-value results from a test of the hypothesis that the change in OSDI from visit 1 does not differ from zero. Change distributions that met normal distribution test criteria (Shapiro-Wilk p-value \>0.05) were tested with the paired Student's t-test; non-normal change distributions (at visits 2 \& 4) were tested with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.2026|||||||paired t test|||||||0.2026
84619866|NCT03087513|168987090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||In all cases of motor evoked potential changes, a P-value of 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|As the amplitude values were non-normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups.||In total, 40 patients were randomised for the study. Data from 2 patients were excluded as the crossover arm could not be completed due to intraoperative MEP change (n=1) and the equipment malfunction (n=1). The data distributions were tested for normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||||<0.01
84619867|NCT03890588|168987107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|.91|.21
84619868|NCT03890588|168987108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|.76|.61
84619869|NCT03890588|168987109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.84|.84
84619870|NCT03890588|168987110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|.8|.99
84619871|NCT03890588|168987111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|.79|.86
84601163|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.37|-0.07|0.174
84619872|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.483
84619873|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.698
84619874|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.782
84619875|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84673432|NCT04847674|169082347|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2971|0.1301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1301|-0.2971|0.4394
84601164|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.26|-0.18|0.722
84601165|NCT01559259|168952565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.11|-0.32|0.365
84601166|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.1|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||1.1|-2.8|
84601167|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-8.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||-8.2|-16.2|
84601168|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||-0.2|-4.4|
84601169|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.3|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||10.3|-6.6|
84601170|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.6|-12.7|
84601171|NCT05425732|168952568|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.9|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||7.9|-9.2|
84601172|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||3.8|-2.7|
84601173|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-4.1|
84601174|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-2.8|
84601175|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||1.0|-1.0|
84601176|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|17.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||17.6|-5.3|
84601177|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|-5.5|15.5|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||15.5|-5.5|
84601178|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||10.6|-6.8|
84601179|NCT05425732|168952569|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||6.2|-2.2|
84601180|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.72||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.40|<0.001
84601181|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.88|0.68|<0.001
84601182|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.18|0.95|<0.001
84601183|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.53|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.53|1.25|<0.001
84601184|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.93|0.75|<0.001
84601185|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.72|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.39|<0.001
84601186|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.21|0.92|<0.001
84601187|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.84|0.69|<0.001
84601188|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.92|0.72|<0.001
84601189|NCT05425732|168952571|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.01|<0.001
84619876|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.729
84619877|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Induration-Severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84601190|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.04|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||5.04|4.12|<0.001
84601191|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.74|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||3.74|2.91|<0.001
84601192|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.34|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||2.34|1.77|<0.001
84601193|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|6.41|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.41|5.16|<0.001
84601194|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|19.09|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||19.09|14.90|<0.001
84601195|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|10.79|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||10.79|8.66|<0.001
84503171|NCT03549130|168758153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.14||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||-0.14|-3.45|0.0333
84601196|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|9.55|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||9.55|6.86|<0.001
84601197|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|10.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.48|12.0|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||12.00|8.48|<0.001
84601198|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|38.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.87|44.25|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||44.25|33.87|<0.001
84601199|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.68|25.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||25.18|18.68|<0.001
84601200|NCT05425732|168952571|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|6.8|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.80|5.59|<0.001
84601201|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|48.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||48.6|40.7|<0.001
84601202|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|35.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||35.8|25.8|<0.001
84601203|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|12.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||12.9|5.6|<0.001
84601204|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.1|54.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||54.9|47.1|<0.001
84601205|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|69.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||69.6|62.8|<0.001
84601206|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.2|61.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||61.1|54.2|<0.001
84601207|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|46.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||46.6|37.6|<0.001
84601208|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|39.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||39.6|32.1|<0.001
84601209|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|74.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|77.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype24F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||77.1|71.1|<0.001
84601210|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|62.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 31: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||62.1|54.8|<0.001
84601211|NCT05425732|168952572|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|56.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype35B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||56.6|49.6|<0.001
84619878|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.819
84619879|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.904
84619880|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619881|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619882|NCT00452790|168987133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration and erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.690
84619883|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.933
84619884|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.776
84619885|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.596
84619886|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.909
84619887|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.683
84673433|NCT04847674|169082347|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.089||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.1231|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1231|-0.3020|0.4051
84673434|NCT04847674|169082350|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.093||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1031|0.2893|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2893|-0.1031|0.3485
84673435|NCT04847674|169082350|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.033||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1644|0.2296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2296|-0.1644|0.7432
84760387|NCT01425203|169277151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|41.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for the primary comparison was based on the step-down approach.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The primary statistical comparison was conducted on the FAS using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors, including IL28B genotype and previous treatment as specified at the time of randomization.||41.5|16.4|<0.0001
84619888|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619889|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.203
84619890|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.399
84619891|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.382
84619892|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84673436|NCT04847674|169082350|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.087||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2920|-0.1180|0.4014
84673437|NCT04847674|169082350|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.2153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2153|-0.1960|0.9259
84601212|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 3: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.33|0.90|<0.001
84601213|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.62||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.62|1.61|<0.001
84601214|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.23|1.84||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 7F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.84|1.23|<0.001
84601215|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.79||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 8: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.79|1.26|<0.001
84601216|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.43||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 9N: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.43|1.59|<0.001
84601217|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.92||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 10A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.92|1.26|<0.001
84601218|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 11A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
84601219|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.17||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 12F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.17|1.37|<0.001
84601220|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.37||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.37|1.55|<0.001
84601221|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.35||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.35|1.36|<0.001
84601222|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 16F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
84601223|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.02||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 17F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.02|1.26|<0.001
84601224|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.4||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 19A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.40|0.97|<0.001
84601225|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 20A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.18|1.39|<0.001
84673438|NCT04847674|169082352|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.42|-0.43|0.9829
84601226|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.49||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 22F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.49|1.58|<0.001
84673439|NCT04847674|169082352|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.52|-0.32|0.6302
84601227|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.44||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.44|1.43|<0.001
84601228|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.04||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.04|1.11|<0.001
84601229|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.67||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 24F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.67|1.10|<0.001
84601230|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 31: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.69|1.63|<0.001
84601231|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.57||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 33F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.57|1.52|<0.001
84601232|NCT05425732|168952573|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.87||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 35B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.87|1.26|<0.001
84601233|NCT05425732|168952574|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."||||||0.667||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 6C||||0.667
84601234|NCT05425732|168952574|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
84601235|NCT05425732|168952575|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.77|||||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.77|1.52|
84601236|NCT05425732|168952575|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT ratio||2.60|1.57|<0.001
84601237|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.6|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.60|1.35|
84601238|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.89|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.89|0.70|
84601239|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
84601240|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.59|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.59|1.29|
84601241|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.92|0.72|
84619893|NCT00452790|168987134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.738
84619894|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.918
84601242|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.36|1.11|
84601243|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.26|0.96|
84601244|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.77|0.63|
84601245|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.90|0.72|
84601246|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
84601247|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.06|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||6.06|4.82|
84601248|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.64|6.03|
84619895|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.906
84619896|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.404
84601249|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|2.79|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||2.79|2.17|
84619897|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.305
84619898|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.771
84601250|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|9.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||9.64|7.95|
84601251|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|16.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.25|18.41|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||18.41|15.25|
84601252|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|11.81|14.13|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||14.13|11.81|
84601253|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|7.24|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.24|5.69|
84601254|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||3.64|2.91|
84601255|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|21.08|||||TWO_SIDED|85.0|18.97|23.43|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||23.43|18.97|
84601256|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|12.34|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||12.34|10.36|
84601257|NCT05425732|168952576|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.97|15.4|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||15.40|12.97|
84673440|NCT04847674|169082352|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.35|-0.54|0.6707
84673441|NCT04847674|169082352|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.43|-0.44|0.9940
84601258|NCT00218634|168952584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||HLM|||We used HLM with weekly visit data for the acute outcome. There were, therefore, 11 time points used.||||<.05
84601259|NCT00218634|168952585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||GLM - CBT-AD would be superior to ETAU at post. HLM - CBT-AD would be superior to CBT-AD at follow ups.|GLM and HLM|||||||<.05
84601260|NCT00218634|168952587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CD4 would be more improved in the treatment condition|HLM|||follow up analysis revealed that CD4, over time, significantly improved over control when covarying out baseline levels.||||<.05
84601261|NCT00734604|168952592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.19||p-value is for difference in LS Means change from baseline between tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.19|0.04|0.001
84601262|NCT00734604|168952593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is for difference in Pairs Sexual Self-Confidence Domain Score LS Mean and Change from Baseline between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Population|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.|LS Mean difference = Tadalafil OaD-Tadalafil PRN|||0.08|-0.06|0.872
84601263|NCT00734604|168952594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.20|0.10|<0.001
84601264|NCT00734604|168952594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.07|-0.03|0.395
84601265|NCT00734604|168952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.25||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.25|-0.36|<0.001
84601266|NCT00734604|168952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.08|-0.20|<0.001
84601267|NCT00734604|168952596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.27||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.27|-1.43|0.004
84619899|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84673442|NCT04847674|169082353|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.26|-2.71|0.4683
84619900|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.867
84619901|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.735
84619902|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619903|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619904|NCT00452790|168987135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local Reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.842
84619905|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.908
84619906|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4(12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.772
84619907|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.681
84619908|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.881
84619909|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.509
84619910|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619911|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.880
84619912|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.739
84619913|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619914|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619915|NCT00452790|168987136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.446
84619916|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.625
84619917|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.375
84619918|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.624
84619919|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619920|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.282
84619921|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.307
84619922|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.939
84601268|NCT00734604|168952596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.22|-1.37|0.007
84601269|NCT00734604|168952597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.09|0.03|<0.001
84601270|NCT00734604|168952597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.12|0.06|<0.001
84601271|NCT00734604|168952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
84601272|NCT00734604|168952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.23||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|||||-0.23|-0.78|<0.001
84601273|NCT00734604|168952599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.055
84601274|NCT00734604|168952599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.046
84601275|NCT00734604|168952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|6.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil PRN and Sildenafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||6.17|1.16|0.004
84601276|NCT00734604|168952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-1.04||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-1.04|-6.05|0.006
84601277|NCT00734604|168952602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||2.17|-1.95|0.915
84601278|NCT00734604|168952602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.74||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.74|-3.35|0.212
84601279|NCT00734604|168952603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.09|0.403
84601280|NCT00734604|168952603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.23|-0.08|0.367
84601281|NCT00734604|168952604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.32|0.07|0.002
84601282|NCT00734604|168952604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.10|-0.15|0.722
84601283|NCT00734604|168952605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
84601284|NCT00734604|168952605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
84619923|NCT00452790|168987137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
84503172|NCT03549130|168758153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.12||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||-0.12|-3.13|0.0345
84619924|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.111
84503173|NCT03549130|168758153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.31||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.31|-1.72|0.1711
84503174|NCT03549130|168758154|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.92||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.92|-1.85|0.5063
84619925|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619926|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.488
84619927|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.736
84619928|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.856
84503175|NCT03549130|168758154|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.69||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.69|-2.64|0.2496
84503176|NCT03549130|168758154|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.74||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||0.74|-2.16|0.3325
84503177|NCT03549130|168758154|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.18|-1.81|0.1088
84503178|NCT03549130|168758155|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.68|0.2513
84619929|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.098
84503179|NCT03549130|168758155|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.04||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.04|-0.78|0.0743
84619930|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.034
84619931|NCT00452790|168987138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619932|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
84619933|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619934|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.489
84619935|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.840
84619936|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.605
84619937|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619938|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.265
84619939|NCT00452790|168987139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.422
84619940|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.815
84619941|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
84619942|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
84619943|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.401
84619944|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.511
84619945|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.487
84619946|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.388
84619947|NCT00452790|168987140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.753
84619948|NCT05736874|168987183|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.91|
84619949|NCT05736874|168987184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||||Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||4.68|0.19|
84644669|NCT05072470|169024752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||When p-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be equal or better with hearing aids plus Roger device than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at +5 dB SNR.||||.046
84644670|NCT02815280|169024771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.35|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||5.35|0.95|0.0051
84644671|NCT02815280|169024772|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0.|Risk ratio|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.46|1.02|0.0424
84619950|NCT05736874|168987187|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||3.5|0.8|
84619951|NCT05736874|168987188|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.63|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.63|0.62|
84619952|NCT05736874|168987189|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.50|0.42|
84619953|NCT05736874|168987190|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||5.94|0.50|
84619954|NCT05736874|168987191|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.11|0.69|
84619955|NCT05736874|168987191|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.34|0.78|
84503180|NCT03549130|168758155|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||-0.10|-0.99|0.0158
84503181|NCT03549130|168758155|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.00|-0.94|0.0489
84503182|NCT03549130|168758156|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.57|0.3034
84503183|NCT03549130|168758156|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.4891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.27||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.27|-0.57|0.4891
84503184|NCT03549130|168758156|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.43|0.9498
84540135|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.88||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|45.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||45.14|-17.49|0.4655
84673443|NCT04847674|169082353|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||0.75|-3.16|0.2239
84760388|NCT01425203|169277152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|42.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for key secondary comparison based on a step-down approach. Key-secondary comparison was tested only if statistical significance of primary comparison was met at alpha level of 0.050.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The key secondary statistical comparison was conducted on the mITT using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors.||42.5|17.3|<0.0001
84673444|NCT04847674|169082353|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.32|-2.51|0.5389
84673445|NCT04847674|169082353|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.00|-2.75|0.3564
84673446|NCT04847674|169082354|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.27|-0.62|0.4436
84619956|NCT05736874|168987191|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.45|0.78|
84619957|NCT05736874|168987191|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.53|0.79|
84619958|NCT05736874|168987192|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.72|
84619959|NCT05736874|168987192|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.27|0.84|
84619960|NCT05736874|168987192|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.76|
84619961|NCT05736874|168987192|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.84|
84619962|NCT05736874|168987193|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.58|
84619963|NCT05736874|168987193|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.76|
84619964|NCT05736874|168987193|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.71|
84619965|NCT05736874|168987193|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.64|0.89|
84760389|NCT01425203|169277153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|45.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|57.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The percentage of participants achieving EVR at TW8 was compared using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors in the FAS population.||57.0|33.2|<0.0001
84673447|NCT04847674|169082354|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.32|-0.56|0.5970
84673448|NCT04847674|169082354|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.26|-0.68|0.3769
84619966|NCT05736874|168987194|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.70|
84619967|NCT05736874|168987194|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.75|
84619968|NCT05736874|168987194|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.26|0.72|
84601285|NCT00734604|168952606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.01|0.070
84619969|NCT05736874|168987194|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.61|0.92|
84619970|NCT05736874|168987195|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.28|0.81|
84619971|NCT05736874|168987195|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.99|0.60|
84673449|NCT04847674|169082354|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.29|-0.64|0.4595
84601286|NCT00734604|168952606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.09|-0.14|0.637
84601287|NCT01461928|168952607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.53||Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address its primary objective.|Stratified Long-rank|||The stratified log rank test p-value was derived using the following randomization stratification strata : Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk category (low, intermediate, high) and indolent NHL subtype (follicular lymphoma, non-follicular lymphoma). Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address it's primary objective.||1.53|0.37|= 0.410
84601288|NCT02526524|168952617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-0.63|0.1449
84601289|NCT02526524|168952617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.02|-0.69|0.0643
84601290|NCT02526524|168952617|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.79|0.0214
84601291|NCT02526524|168952617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.91|0.0022
84601292|NCT02526524|168952617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-1.39|<0.0001
84601293|NCT03002818|168952626|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-108266.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235037.0|18504.0|||one-sample t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||18504|-235037|0.091
84601294|NCT03002818|168952626|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-98373.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235667.0|38921.0|||one-sample t-test|||mITT (n=24): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||38921|-235667|0.152
84601295|NCT03002818|168952626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.091
84601296|NCT03002818|168952626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.152
84601297|NCT03002818|168952627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=34): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.461
84601298|NCT03002818|168952627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.630
84601299|NCT03002818|168952627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=32): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.855
84601300|NCT03002818|168952627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.750
84601301|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.063|3.137||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.137|2.063|
84601302|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.212|3.428||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.428|2.212|
84619972|NCT05736874|168987195|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.23|0.74|
84619973|NCT05736874|168987195|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.50|0.89|
84619974|NCT05736874|168987196|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.06|0.69|
84619975|NCT05736874|168987196|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.82|
84619976|NCT05736874|168987196|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.32|0.80|
84619977|NCT05736874|168987196|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
84619978|NCT05736874|168987197|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.62|
84619979|NCT05736874|168987197|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.78|
84619980|NCT05736874|168987197|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.74|
84619981|NCT05736874|168987197|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.56|1.02|
84619982|NCT05736874|168987198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.26|-0.45|
84673450|NCT03400033|169082366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.21|
84503185|NCT03549130|168758156|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.10|-0.83|0.1235
84619983|NCT05736874|168987199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.58|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.58|-0.28|
84619984|NCT03776747|168987211|OTHER|Analysis of variance between lung inflation levels|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that the anisotropic deformation index (ADC) is dependent upon lung inflation level. (Thus, it is important to standardize lung inflation when using this method)||||<0.001
84619985|NCT00527735|168987212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.174|||1-sided log rank|||||1.174|0.553|0.1302
84619986|NCT00527735|168987212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.059|||1-sided log rank|||||1.059|0.495|0.0473
84619987|NCT00527735|168987213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.271|||One-sided log rank|||||1.271|0.612|0.2502
84673451|NCT03400033|169082367|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.12||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.66|29.41|||ANCOVA|||||29.41|-45.66|0.3354
84503186|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8498||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.8498
84503187|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4652||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.4652
84503188|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4390
84503189|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2997||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2997
84503190|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1116||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1116
84503191|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5101||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5101
84503192|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.4740
84619988|NCT00527735|168987213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.999|||One-sided log rank|||||0.999|0.478|0.0240
84619989|NCT00527735|168987214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.46|||1-sided log rank|||||1.460|0.669|0.4759
84619990|NCT00527735|168987214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.278|||1-sided log rank|||||1.278|0.587|0.2340
84673452|NCT03400033|169082368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.37|
84503193|NCT03549130|168758157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.2787
84503194|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.5958
84503195|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7296||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.7296
84503196|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.7171
84503197|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4030
84503198|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4741||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4741
84503199|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5591||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5591
84503200|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8285||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.8285
84503201|NCT03549130|168758158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3487||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3487
84760390|NCT00983983|169277194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change over time in the ALSFRS-R was analyzed using random-slopes models||||0.07
84503202|NCT01078623|168758159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.268|0.174|<0.0001
84503203|NCT01078623|168758159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.281|0.186|<0.0001
84503204|NCT02144259|168758178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Because the expected amount of postpartum weight loss in non-breastfeeding women is not documented in the literature, we chose a sample size that would enable us to detect a one standard deviation difference in weight loss between the 3 groups at the primary 6 month endpoint. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to test differences among all 3 groups over all the study periods.||||<0.05
84619991|NCT00527735|168987221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.188|||1-sided log rank|||||1.188|0.475|0.1098
84619992|NCT00527735|168987221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.1016|||1-sided log rank|||||1.1016|0.403|0.0282
84619993|NCT00527735|168987230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.481|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.481|0.588|0.3846
84619994|NCT00527735|168987230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.453|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.453|0.591|0.3700
84619995|NCT00527735|168987233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.536|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.536|0.585|0.4132
84619996|NCT00527735|168987233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.232|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.232|0.461|0.1287
84619997|NCT00669214|168987256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.163||||0.1054||95.0|-0.063|0.393|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.393|-0.063|0.1054
84760391|NCT00983983|169277196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84760392|NCT00983983|169277197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
84760393|NCT00983983|169277198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84619998|NCT00669214|168987258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.155||||0.2404||95.0|-0.072|0.388|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.388|-0.072|0.2404
84619999|NCT00669214|168987260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.228||||0.0366||95.0|0.003|0.452|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.452|0.003|0.0366
84620000|NCT00669214|168987262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|3.33||||0.1816||95.0|-2.811|9.471|||Student T-test|||||9.471|-2.811|0.1816
84760394|NCT01604265|169277199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows: Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment||-0.39|-2.11|0.005
84503205|NCT02144259|168758180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84620001|NCT00669214|168987264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|1.19||||0.0435||95.0|-0.161|2.532|||Student T-test|||||2.532|-0.161|0.0435
84620002|NCT00669214|168987266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.0224
84620003|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 95% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the ITT population and of 1.40 or lower in the MITT population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.13|0.76|0.0002
84620004|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.14|0.72|0.0001
84601303|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
84601304|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
84601305|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
84601306|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
84601307|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
84601308|NCT03002818|168952628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
84601309|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.651|1.871||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||1.871|-0.651|
84601310|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.088||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||2.088|-0.608|
84601311|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.381
84601312|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.304
84601313|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.014
84601314|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.278
84601315|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.881
84601316|NCT03002818|168952629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.775
84601317|NCT01328041|168952635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T distribution|-1.432|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.343||The P value was derived by the null hypothesis testing of no change from Baseline in HIV-1 RNA at Day 8 at the two-sided 5% significance level using a single sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.343|-1.520|<0.001
84601318|NCT01328041|168952636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|76.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 24.|||76|62|
84601319|NCT01328041|168952637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|||70|56|
84601320|NCT02456636|168952661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||-0.23|-3.51|.025
84601321|NCT02456636|168952661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.29|-3.00|0.25
84601322|NCT02456636|168952661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group visits) versus DM (phone group visits)||1.13|-2.15|.025
84601323|NCT02456636|168952662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling).||-0.18|-3.50|.025
84601324|NCT02456636|168952662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.99|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.32|-2.99|.025
84601325|NCT02456636|168952662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus DM (phone group counseling)||1.15|-2.15|.025
84601326|NCT00100230|168952680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84601327|NCT00100230|168952681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84601328|NCT00100230|168952681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84503206|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 1.|GMC ratio for anti-1|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|7.58|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory induced for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||7.58|5.03|
84601329|NCT00100230|168952682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000008
84601330|NCT05312632|168952690|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84601331|NCT05312632|168952691|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84601332|NCT05312632|168952692|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84601333|NCT05312632|168952693|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84601334|NCT05312632|168952694|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.013
84601335|NCT05312632|168952695|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.053
84601336|NCT05312632|168952696|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84601337|NCT02688088|168952754|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.06||||||||1.06|0.965|
84601338|NCT02688088|168952755|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.0||||||||1.00|0.871|
84601339|NCT02688088|168952756|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.22||||||||1.22|0.898|
84601340|NCT02688088|168952757|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.94||||||||0.940|0.760|
84601341|NCT02688088|168952758|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.81||||||||1.81|1.35|
84601342|NCT02688088|168952759|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.13||||||||1.13|0.956|
84601343|NCT02688088|168952760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.18||||||||1.18|0.805|
84601344|NCT02688088|168952761|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|0.972||||||||0.972|0.775|
84601345|NCT02642393|168952768|OTHER||Slope|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.106|-0.594|0.183
84601346|NCT02642393|168952769|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.192|||Poisson Regression|||||1.192|0.979|0.124
84601347|NCT02642393|168952770|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.273|||Poisson Regression|||||1.273|1.046|0.004
84601348|NCT02642393|168952771|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84601349|NCT02642393|168952772|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.497
84601350|NCT02642393|168952773|OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.685|-0.825|0.856
84601351|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.521|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.521|-0.368|0.736
84601352|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Function||0.714|-0.124|0.167
84601353|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.474|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Communication||0.474|0.038|0.022
84601354|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol||0.435|-0.245|0.584
84601355|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.541|-0.560|0.973
84601356|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lower Extremity Function||0.437|-0.098|0.214
84601357|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Affect and Well-Being||0.262|-0.931|0.271
84601358|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stigma||0.194|-0.355|0.566
84601359|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper Extremity Function||0.487|-0.063|0.130
84601360|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||0.468|-0.325|0.723
84601361|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities||0.579|-0.592|0.984
84601362|NCT02642393|168952774|OTHER||Slope|-0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participation in Social Roles and Activities||0.371|-0.877|0.426
84601363|NCT02642393|168952775|OTHER||Slope|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|-0.382|0.454
84601364|NCT02642393|168952776|OTHER||Slope|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.858|-0.764|0.910
84601365|NCT02642393|168952777|OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.215|-0.295|0.758
84601366|NCT02642393|168952778|OTHER||Slope|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.783|1.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BL to V01||1.367|-1.783|0.796
84601367|NCT02642393|168952778|OTHER||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|4.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||V10 to SV||4.355|-9.156|0.486
84601368|NCT00489736|168952786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.28|1.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of treatment failure for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.98|1.28|<0.0001
84620005|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.04|0.70|<0.0001
84620006|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.02|0.64|<0.0001
84620007|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.31|0.89|0.0182
84620008|NCT00346216|168987273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.40|0.89|0.0250
84620009|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.12|0.83|0.6427
84620010|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.01|0.75|0.0597
84620011|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.29|0.96|0.1481
84620012|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.13|0.80|0.5758
84620013|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.97|0.69|0.0204
84620014|NCT00346216|168987274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.38|0.98|0.0751
84620015|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.40|0.67|0.8576
84620016|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.08|0.53|0.1202
84620017|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.81|0.90|0.1734
84620018|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.81|0.32|0.0041
84620019|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.68|0.27|0.0003
84620020|NCT00346216|168987275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.69|0.80|0.4243
84620021|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||2.53|1.01|<0.0001
84620022|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.56|0.05|0.0373
84620023|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.72|0.20|0.0129
84620024|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.29|-0.25|0.1830
84620025|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||0.66|-0.88|0.7777
84620026|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.40|-0.14|0.1072
84620027|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.46|-0.12|0.8237
84620028|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||0.70|-0.88|0.8237
84620029|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.55|-0.03|0.0587
84620030|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.23|-0.39|0.3129
84620031|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.00|-0.63|0.6526
84620032|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.05|-0.58|0.5774
84620033|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.62|-0.04|0.0632
84620034|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.15|-0.52|0.4540
84620035|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.30|-0.37|0.2705
84620036|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.14|-0.58|0.5225
84620037|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||0.63|-1.10|0.5996
84503207|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled SynflorixI+II Group over Synflorix Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 4.|GMC ratio for anti-4|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|3.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||3.45|2.38|
84620038|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.38|-0.35|0.2461
84620039|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.00|-0.79|0.8127
84620040|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||0.87|-0.92|0.9641
84620041|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.03|-0.77|0.7784
84620042|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.56|-0.34|0.2105
84620043|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.46|-0.44|0.2909
84620044|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.05|-0.86|0.8459
84673453|NCT03400033|169082369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was above the non-inferiority margin of - 15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.56|||Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||19.56|2.83|0.0034
84620045|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.80|-0.19|0.1116
84620046|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.01|-0.98|0.9751
84620047|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.79|-0.21|0.1202
84620048|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||1.48|-0.56|0.3767
84620049|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||0.19|-1.85|0.1123
84620050|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||2.31|0.26|0.0137
84620051|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||2.47|1.07|<0.0001
84620052|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.54|0.13|0.0197
84620053|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.64|0.23|0.0094
84620054|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.31|-0.16|0.1247
84620055|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||0.65|-0.81|0.8278
84620056|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.39|-0.08|0.0802
84620057|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.46|-0.09|0.0822
84673454|NCT03400033|169082370|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.06|0.0007
84601369|NCT00489736|168952787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.13||95.0|0.6|1.07||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of main safety event occurrence for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.07|0.60|0.13
84601370|NCT00489736|168952788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.002||95.0|0.44|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of MSE occurrence excluding gastrointestinal events, for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||0.84|0.44|0.002
84601371|NCT05275010|168952791|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.08|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.08|0.93|
84601372|NCT05275010|168952792|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.09|0.93|
84601373|NCT05275010|168952793|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.12|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.12|0.96|
84620058|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||0.69|-0.86|0.8314
84620059|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.54|-0.01|0.0516
84620060|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.24|-0.40|0.3202
84620061|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.05|-0.60|0.5893
84620062|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.01|-0.63|0.6510
84620063|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.62|-0.09|0.0796
84620064|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.15|-0.57|0.5061
84620065|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.33|-0.38|0.2796
84620066|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.08|-0.69|0.6725
84620067|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||0.67|-1.10|0.6381
84620068|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.29|-0.49|0.3737
84620069|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.97|-0.87|0.9139
84620070|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.92|-0.92|0.9998
84620071|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.98|-0.88|0.9144
84620072|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.61|-0.38|0.2250
84620073|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.55|-0.44|0.2758
84620074|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.06|-0.94|0.9030
84620075|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.94|-0.14|0.0910
84760395|NCT01604265|169277200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale sleep Score = Baseline Sleep Score + Treatment"||-0.50|-2.27|0.003
84601374|NCT05275010|168952794|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.13|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.13|0.95|
84601375|NCT06053541|168952827|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.24
84601376|NCT06053541|168952828|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.37
84601377|NCT06053541|168952829|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.03
84601378|NCT06053541|168952830|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in the general practice and Pulmonology: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.11
84601379|NCT06053541|168952830|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in Adults ICU: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||<0.01
84601380|NCT06053541|168952831|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.01
84601381|NCT06053541|168952832|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.07
84601382|NCT02447250|168952880|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of mean birth weights between responders and non-responders||||0.14
84601383|NCT02447250|168952881|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84601384|NCT02447250|168952882|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84601385|NCT02447250|168952884|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84601386|NCT02447250|168952885|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84760396|NCT01604265|169277201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.055|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test. Results were presented in terms of difference in percentages, and 95% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial, and p-value."||10.055|1.510|0.005
84601387|NCT02059499|168952920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1877||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1877
84601388|NCT02059499|168952921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1068
84601389|NCT02059499|168952922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8071||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8071
84601390|NCT02059499|168952923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6562
84601391|NCT02059499|168952924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
84601392|NCT02059499|168952925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
84601393|NCT02059499|168952929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1409
84601394|NCT02059499|168952930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0805
84601395|NCT02059499|168952932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5726
84601396|NCT02059499|168952933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6184
84601397|NCT02059499|168952935|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean between count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for interpreting significance : 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of number of hrHPV genotypes in each arm observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||0.3
84601398|NCT02059499|168952935|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold to interpret significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||0.3
84601399|NCT02059499|168952935|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||||0.26||||||A priori cutoff of significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||0.26
84601400|NCT00778258|168952969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.77||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.31|0.58
84601401|NCT00778258|168952970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 12 Months||2.68|0.48|0.78
84601402|NCT00778258|168952970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 24 Months||1.91|0.34|0.62
84601403|NCT00778258|168952971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 12 Months||||0.14
84601404|NCT00778258|168952971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 24 Months||||0.17
84601405|NCT00778258|168952971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 36 Months||||0.33
84673455|NCT03400033|169082371|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||4.22|0.26|0.5308
84601406|NCT00778258|168952972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
84601407|NCT00778258|168952973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
84601408|NCT00778258|168952973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.01
84601409|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin||||<0.01
84601410|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin IgE||||<0.01
84601411|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
84601412|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
84601413|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
84601414|NCT00778258|168952974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
84601415|NCT00778258|168952975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.01
84601416|NCT00778258|168952975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.22
84760397|NCT01604265|169277202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-6.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-0.37|-13.28|0.039
84601417|NCT00778258|168952975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.59
84601418|NCT00778258|168952975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.32
84601419|NCT00778258|168952976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
84601420|NCT00778258|168952977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Correlation = -0.18|Spearman Correlation|||Baseline Comparison||||0.033
84601421|NCT00778258|168952977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Correlation = -0.34|Spearman Correlation|||Month 12 Comparison||||0.002
84601422|NCT00778258|168952977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Correlation = -0.20|Spearman Correlation|||Month 24 Comparison||||0.156
84601423|NCT00778258|168952977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Correlation = -0.27|Spearman Correlation|||Month 36 Comparison||||0.077
84601424|NCT00778258|168952978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||36 Month Comparison||||<0.01
84601425|NCT02438384|168952986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1||||||||2.1|1.2|
84601426|NCT02438384|168952986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
84601427|NCT02743949|168953009|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0584||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.5778||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.5778|0.7100|0.7480
84601428|NCT02743949|168953009|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0975||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7368|1.6349||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.6349|0.7368|0.5985
84601429|NCT02743949|168953010|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.91||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.44|1.91||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||1.91|0.44|0.782
84601430|NCT02743949|168953010|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.96||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.46|2.01||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||2.01|0.46|0.912
84601431|NCT03389555|168953016|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: if confidence interval for mean difference between SOFA scores at 72 hour time-point for two groups overlaps 0 (p-value \> 0.05) scores considered to be equivalent. Note: The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups, for those patient for whom a SOFA score could be calculated at the 72 hour time point (i.e patients that were alive at the 72 hour time point, 90 patients in the treatment and 88 patients in the control).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||A priori threshold for significance, p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model where the correlation of within-patient repeated SOFA score measures was accounted for via the use of an unstructured variance-covariance matrix and linear contrasts. Covariates included age, sex, treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment group and time. Study site was included as a random intercept. The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups.||0.2|-1.7|0.12
84601432|NCT03389555|168953017|EQUIVALENCE|For the key secondary outcome of kidney failure, 200 patients were estimated to provide 94% power, assuming that 30% of participants in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group would develop kidney failure. If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of kidney failure in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||20.0|-10.0|0.58
84673456|NCT03400033|169082372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.73||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|1.56|||MMRM||SBP|||1.56|-9.03|0.083
84673457|NCT03400033|169082372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.23||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.54|||MMRM||DBP|||0.54|-4.99|0.057
84673458|NCT03400033|169082372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.67|||MMRM||MAP|||0.67|-5.86|0.059
84673459|NCT03400033|169082373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|3.72|||ANCOVA||SBP|||3.72|-4.73|0.407
84620076|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.20|-0.88|0.7668
84620077|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.78|-0.31|0.1653
84620078|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||1.52|-0.65|0.4323
84620079|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||0.28|-1.89|0.1439
84620080|NCT00346216|168987276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||2.33|0.16|0.0251
84620081|NCT01276639|168987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.03||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||15.03|4.40|<0.0001
84620082|NCT01276639|168987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|31.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||31.88|9.01|<0.0001
84620083|NCT01276639|168987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|24.47|||Normal approximation|||||24.47|10.11|<0.0001
84620084|NCT01276639|168987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|21.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||21.84|5.25|<0.0001
84620085|NCT01276639|168987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|49.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||49.86|11.90|<0.0001
84620086|NCT01276639|168987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.37|||Normal approximation|||||26.37|12.07|<0.0001
84620087|NCT01276639|168987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-53.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.08|-45.04||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-45.04|-62.08|<0.0001
84760398|NCT01604265|169277203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-1.77|-12.12|0.009
84620088|NCT01276639|168987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.33|-60.31||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-60.31|-77.33|<0.0001
84673460|NCT03400033|169082373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.19|||ANCOVA||DBP|||1.19|-3.29|0.179
84673461|NCT03400033|169082373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.78|||ANCOVA||MAP|||1.78|-3.50|0.261
84673462|NCT03400033|169082374|OTHER||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||||0.94|0.52|0.0093
84620089|NCT01276639|168987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-8.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.48|-22.04|<0.0001
84620090|NCT01276639|168987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|1786.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1786.9|7.46|<0.0001
84620091|NCT01276639|168987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|98.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|5689.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||5689.8|23.49|<0.0001
84620092|NCT01276639|168987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|26.11|||Normal approximation|||||26.11|13.10|<0.0001
84620093|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.05|-4.75|<0.0001
84620094|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.86|-5.56|<0.0001
84620095|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-1.50|0.0212
84620096|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-3.95||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.95|-6.02|<0.0001
84620097|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.94||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.94|-8.00|<0.0001
84673463|NCT03400033|169082376|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8|||0.01|-0.32|0.0323
84673464|NCT03400033|169082376|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||MMRM||Week 12|||0.06|-0.29|0.0921
84673465|NCT03400033|169082376|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||MMRM||Week 28|||0.08|-0.29|0.1291
84673466|NCT03400033|169082376|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||MMRM||Week 52|||0.06|-0.36|0.0859
84760399|NCT01604265|169277204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|6.71|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||6.71|-1.64|0.230
84760400|NCT01604265|169277205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.53||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.15|-5.22|0.064
84620098|NCT01276639|168987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-2.80|<0.0001
84620099|NCT01276639|168987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|35.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.12|3.23|<0.0001
84620100|NCT01276639|168987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|54.42||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||54.42|5.06|<0.0001
84620101|NCT01276639|168987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|11.8|||Normal approximation|||||11.80|0.15|0.0443
84620102|NCT01276639|168987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|35.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.77|2.11|0.0003
84620103|NCT01276639|168987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|59.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||59.98|3.64|<0.0001
84620104|NCT01276639|168987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.98|||Normal approximation|||||9.98|0.19|0.0415
84620105|NCT01276639|168987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.27|-35.13||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-35.13|-104.27|<0.0001
84620106|NCT01276639|168987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-97.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.35|-62.72||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-62.72|-131.35|<0.0001
84760401|NCT01604265|169277206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.18|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||5.18|-4.60|0.905
84620107|NCT01276639|168987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.29|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.37|-53.29|0.0391
84620108|NCT01276639|168987289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620109|NCT01276639|168987289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620110|NCT01276639|168987289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620111|NCT01276639|168987290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620112|NCT01276639|168987290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620113|NCT01276639|168987290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620114|NCT01276639|168987291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620115|NCT01276639|168987291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620116|NCT01276639|168987291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84620117|NCT01544920|168987371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in SVR24 % exceeded -10%.|Difference in SVR24% in Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving SVR24||6.5|-3.2|
84620118|NCT01544920|168987372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The observed lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was 2.5% (which exceeds 0) for BOC added to peg-IFN + RBV in contrast to peg-IFN + RBV alone.|Difference in SVR24%|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||||||||18.1|2.5|
84620119|NCT00411749|168987373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84620120|NCT00411749|168987374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84620121|NCT00411749|168987375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84620122|NCT00411749|168987376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84620123|NCT00411749|168987377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|155.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.2|190.9||||||||190.9|126.2|
84673467|NCT05409235|169082379|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.578|8.449|||Mantel Haenszel|MH test is adjusted for the randomization stratification factor (Screening DRSS score 47 or 53 or 61B).|A single imputation (non-response) when applying composite variable strategy. MI based for missing data at Week 24, assuming MAR when applying hypothetical strategy. Kept in the analysis when applying treatment policy strategy.|The study was powered to provide a 90% probability to detect a 20% difference between each treatment arm and the combined vehicle control.||8.449|-10.578|0.5730
84673468|NCT05409235|169082379|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.152||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.178|8.874|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.874|-11.178|0.5750
84673469|NCT05409235|169082380|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|3.119||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.314|11.592|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.592|-5.314|0.7276
84620124|NCT00411749|168987377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|198.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.9|244.2||||||||244.2|160.9|
84620125|NCT00411749|168987377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|617.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|491.7|774.5||||||||774.5|491.7|
84760402|NCT01604265|169277207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.68||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|7.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||7.37|-2.01|0.257
84620126|NCT00411749|168987377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|117.8||||||||117.8|68.8|
84620127|NCT03170661|168987380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||GEEGLM|Effects of GEEGLM covariates: surgeon, p = 0.24; surgery length, p= 0.73 and body mass index, p= 0.22).||||||0.94
84620128|NCT01272232|168987390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-3.11||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-3.11|-4.84|<0.0001
84620129|NCT01272232|168987390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-1.62||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.62|-3.63|<0.0001
84620130|NCT01272232|168987390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.35||||0.0024||95.0|-2.23|-0.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.48|-2.23|0.0024
84620131|NCT01272232|168987391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.34|10.68||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||10.68|4.34|<0.0001
84620132|NCT01272232|168987391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.24|6.09||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||6.09|2.24|<0.0001
84620133|NCT01272232|168987391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.29|2.64||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.64|1.29|0.0008
84673470|NCT05409235|169082380|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|5.779||||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.424|14.982|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.982|-3.424|0.8492
84673471|NCT05409235|169082381|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.863||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.036|4.309|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.309|-8.036|0.3097
84673472|NCT05409235|169082381|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.596||||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.021|4.829|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.829|-8.021|0.3414
84673473|NCT05409235|169082382|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.899||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4378|1.8467|||Log Rank|||||1.8467|0.4378|0.397
84673474|NCT05409235|169082382|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.113||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5596|2.2117|||Log Rank|||||2.2117|0.5596|0.605
84620134|NCT01272232|168987392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|14.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||14.48|3.48|<0.0001
84620135|NCT01272232|168987392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.75|8.41||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||8.41|1.75|0.0008
84620136|NCT01272232|168987392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0099||95.0|1.16|2.95||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.95|1.16|0.0099
84760403|NCT01604265|169277208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.63|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.63|-3.64|0.164
84620137|NCT01272232|168987393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.08|-0.78||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.78|-1.08|<0.0001
84620138|NCT01272232|168987393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.91|-0.57||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.57|-0.91|<0.0001
84620139|NCT01272232|168987393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.19||||0.0125||95.0|-0.34|-0.04||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.04|-0.34|0.0125
84620140|NCT01272232|168987394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.74|13.4||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||13.4|5.74|<0.0001
84620141|NCT01272232|168987394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.76|12.51||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||12.51|4.76|<0.0001
84673475|NCT05409235|169082383|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-10.622||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.972|0.728|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.728|-21.972|0.0619
84620142|NCT01272232|168987394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5319||95.0|0.76|1.71||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||1.71|0.76|0.5319
84620143|NCT01272232|168987395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.05|15.26||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||15.26|6.05|<0.0001
84620144|NCT01272232|168987395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.59|9.97||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||9.97|3.59|<0.0001
84620145|NCT01272232|168987395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0142||95.0|1.1|2.34||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.34|1.10|0.0142
84620146|NCT01272232|168987396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-2.23||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-2.23|-4.20|<0.0001
84620147|NCT01272232|168987396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.06||||0.0004||95.0|-3.2|-0.92||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.92|-3.20|0.0004
84620148|NCT01272232|168987396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.16||||0.0224||95.0|-2.16|-0.16||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.16|-2.16|0.0224
84673476|NCT05409235|169082383|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-4.942||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.897|7.013|||Mantel Haenszel|||||7.013|-16.897|0.2483
84673477|NCT05409235|169082384|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.807||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4675|1.392|||Log Rank|||||1.3920|0.4675|0.237
84673478|NCT05409235|169082384|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.279||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7795|2.0981|||Log Rank|||||2.0981|0.7795|0.766
84620149|NCT01272232|168987397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.17||||0.0002||95.0|-3.32|-1.02||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.02|-3.32|0.0002
84620150|NCT01272232|168987397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.2||||0.0725||95.0|-2.51|0.11||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.11|-2.51|0.0725
84620151|NCT01272232|168987397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.97||||0.0717||95.0|-2.02|0.09||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.09|-2.02|0.0717
84620152|NCT01272232|168987399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.75|-1.24||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.24|-3.75|<0.0001
84620153|NCT01272232|168987399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.47||||0.0457||95.0|-2.92|-0.03||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.03|-2.92|0.0457
84620154|NCT01272232|168987399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.02||||0.0961||95.0|-2.22|0.18||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.18|-2.22|0.0961
84620155|NCT01147666|168987402|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84620156|NCT01147666|168987402|OTHER|||||||0.0698||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0698
84620157|NCT01147666|168987402|OTHER|||||||0.1534||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1534
84620158|NCT01147666|168987402|OTHER|||||||0.2657||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2657
84620159|NCT01147666|168987403|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84620160|NCT00796666|168987421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8616||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.233|||Log Rank|||||1.233|0.602|0.5416
84620161|NCT00796666|168987422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on the analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO Functional Class (FC) as fixed effects and baseline 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0049
84620162|NCT00796666|168987423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing values at Week 12 and Week 24 were imputed with the last non-missing WHO FC based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test used modified ridit scores and the p-value corresponding to the ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistic was reported.||Baseline to Week 12||||0.8223
84620163|NCT00796666|168987424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|1.2|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.13|
84620164|NCT00796666|168987424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.36|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.36|0.31|
84620165|NCT00796666|168987424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0094
84620166|NCT00796666|168987425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.2|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.92|
84620167|NCT00796666|168987425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.35|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.35|-0.38|
84620168|NCT00796666|168987425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0244
84673479|NCT05409235|169082385|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-6.389||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.994|6.215|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.215|-18.994|0.2022
84620169|NCT00796666|168987426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.04|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.04|-3.78|
84620170|NCT00796666|168987426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.9|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.90|-0.41|
84620171|NCT00796666|168987426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0624
84620172|NCT00796666|168987427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.06|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FCvas fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.06|-2.57|
84620173|NCT00796666|168987427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.82|0.48|
84620174|NCT00796666|168987427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0324
84620175|NCT00796666|168987428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.97|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.97|-2.10|
84620176|NCT00796666|168987428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.45|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.45|1.74|
84620177|NCT00796666|168987428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0136
84620178|NCT00796666|168987429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.23|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.23|-2.33|
84620179|NCT00796666|168987429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.32|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.32|0.14|
84620180|NCT00796666|168987429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.1582
84620181|NCT00796666|168987430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.18|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.18|-3.09|
84620182|NCT00796666|168987430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.16|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.16|-0.62|
84620183|NCT00796666|168987430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2161
84620184|NCT00796666|168987431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.50|-1.61|
84620185|NCT00796666|168987431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.50|0.82|
84620186|NCT00796666|168987431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2087
84620187|NCT00796666|168987432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.58|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.58|-1.21|
84620188|NCT00796666|168987432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.05|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.05|0.37|
84620189|NCT00796666|168987432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2897
84620190|NCT00796666|168987433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.38|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.38|-2.05|
84620191|NCT00796666|168987433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.82|0.46|
84620192|NCT00796666|168987433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0179
84620193|NCT01135134|168987478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84620194|NCT01135134|168987479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84673480|NCT05409235|169082385|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.043||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|11.984|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.984|-14.070|0.4476
84620195|NCT03367858|168987514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||At 12 month follow up.|ANCOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANCOVA of Time (Post-Treatment: 3, 6, 12 months) × Treatment (MI, BAM) with the covariate of pre-treatment problem drinking.||||.0173
84620196|NCT03246789|168987627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||6.39|-2.09|0.31
84620197|NCT03246789|168987628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.28|-4.22|0.28
84620198|NCT03246789|168987628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.74|-3.48|0.50
84620199|NCT03246789|168987628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||-0.28|-2.88|0.02
84620200|NCT03246789|168987628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain 4, Week 12||3.53|-3.63|0.98
84760404|NCT01604265|169277210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.09||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.23|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||1.23|-1.06|0.880
84760405|NCT01604265|169277211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.46|-1.75|0.249
84760406|NCT01604265|169277212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.06||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.24|-0.13|0.535
84620201|NCT03246789|168987629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||0.58|-0.64|0.92
84620202|NCT03246789|168987629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||0.33|-0.69|0.48
84620203|NCT03246789|168987629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.33|0.48
84620204|NCT03101566|168987640|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PFS at 6 months was estimated for this trial using the product-limit method of Kaplan and Meier with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Greenwood's formula. All statistical analyses were completed using the SAS System, v9.4 \[Cary, NC, USA\].|||
84620205|NCT03901144|168987658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.562|-5.489|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.489|-12.562|<0.001
84620206|NCT03901144|168987658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.194||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-0.629|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.629|-7.760|0.021
84620207|NCT03901144|168987658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.602|-5.44|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.440|-12.602|<0.001
84620208|NCT03901144|168987659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.114|-1.962|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-1.962|-5.114|<0.001
84620209|NCT03901144|168987659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.748||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.332|-0.164|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.164|-3.332|0.031
84620210|NCT03901144|168987659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.332|-3.156|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-3.156|-6.332|<0.001
84673481|NCT05409235|169082386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.533|1.334||log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor|Log Rank|||||1.334|0.533|0.268
84673482|NCT05409235|169082386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.775|||Log Rank|||||1.775|0.738|0.304
84760407|NCT01903837|169277215|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 10 points|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Least Square Mean Difference|||||2.6|-2.0|0.3
84673483|NCT05409235|169082387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4573|2.657|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.6570|0.4573|0.428
84620211|NCT03901144|168987660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.077||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.325|-6.829|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness-Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-6.829|-31.325|0.002
84620212|NCT03901144|168987660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.493||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.787|7.801|||ANCOVA|||||7.801|-16.787|0.471
84620213|NCT03901144|168987660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.035|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.372|-14.698|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness - Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-14.698|-39.372|<0.001
84620214|NCT03901144|168987662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.150|-0.558|<0.001
84620215|NCT03901144|168987662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.115|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||0.115|-0.292|0.392
84620216|NCT03901144|168987662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.242|-0.652|<0.001
84620217|NCT04445662|168987673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84620218|NCT04445662|168987674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84620219|NCT01598922|168987684|OTHER|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses following multiple imputation. Generalized Linear Models (GENLIN) predicting post-treatment HRSD scores in the imputed dataset. Covarying for pre-treatment HRSD scores, age and sex.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.814|9.403|||GENLIN|||||9.403|2.814|<0.0001
84620220|NCT01598922|168987685|OTHER||Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to PHQ-9 data, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of PHQ-9 scores.|hierarchical linear modeling|Age and sex were covariates. Cohen's d effect sizes are reported.||||-0.32|-1.25|.024
84620221|NCT01598922|168987686|OTHER|Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to K-10 data, adjusting for baseline K-10 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of K-10 scores.|Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48|||HLM|||The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) is a 10-item scale with total scores that can range from 0 to 50. Higher scores represent worse (more severe) psychological distress.||-0.48|-1.42|.003
84620222|NCT01604291|168987746|OTHER|||||||0.9109||||||The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|Chi-squared|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Gender||||0.9109
84620223|NCT01604291|168987746|OTHER|||||||0.1163||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Age||||0.1163
84620224|NCT01604291|168987746|OTHER|||||||0.9269||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Height||||0.9269
84620225|NCT01604291|168987746|OTHER|||||||0.3376||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Weight||||0.3376
84620226|NCT01604291|168987746|OTHER|||||||0.4618||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Body mass index.||||0.4618
84620227|NCT01604291|168987759|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.0835||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables|Correlation with dose modification for Peginterferon alfa-2a.||||0.0463
84620228|NCT01604291|168987759|OTHER||phi-coefficient|0.0666||||0.2052|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Ribavirin.||||0.2052
84673484|NCT05409235|169082387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.119||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|2.7846|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.7846|0.4500|0.419
84673485|NCT05409235|169082388|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|4.172|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.172|-7.260|0.6716
84620229|NCT01604291|168987759|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.1672||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Telaprevir/boceprevir.||||0.0033
84620230|NCT03956550|168987769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2978
84620231|NCT03956550|168987769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6890
84620232|NCT03956550|168987770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1973|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1973
84620233|NCT03956550|168987770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9420
84620234|NCT03956550|168987771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1597
84620235|NCT03956550|168987771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9719
84620236|NCT03956550|168987772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1365
84620237|NCT03956550|168987772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
84620238|NCT03956550|168987773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0989
84620239|NCT03956550|168987773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5487
84620240|NCT03956550|168987774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3572|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3572
84620241|NCT03956550|168987774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5747|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5747
84620242|NCT01363700|168987808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-1.52|<0.001
84620243|NCT01363700|168987809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-1.71|<0.001
84620244|NCT01363700|168987810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular itching score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.21|
84601433|NCT03389555|168953018|EQUIVALENCE|If confidence interval for hazard ratio crosses 0, hazard of death assumed to be equivalent in the two groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Regression controlling for site used to identify hazard ratio for outcome of death for treatment versus intervention group. Null hypothesis is that hazard ratio is 1.||2.2|0.8|0.05
84673486|NCT05409235|169082388|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.412||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.025|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|-9.025|0.8414
84673487|NCT05409235|169082389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5325||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8478|1.7827|||ANCOVA|||||1.7827|-2.8478|0.647
84673488|NCT05409235|169082389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2849||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6356|0.0658|||ANCOVA|||||0.0658|-4.6356|0.945
84673489|NCT05409235|169082390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.108||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8276|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.8276|0.6722|0.367
84601434|NCT03389555|168953019|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ventilator free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ventilator free days.||1.9|-1.9|>0.99
84601435|NCT03389555|168953020|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in shock free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's shock free days.||1.8|0.2|0.02
84601436|NCT03389555|168953021|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ICU free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ICU free days.||6.0|-3.0|0.69
84601437|NCT03389555|168953022|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of hospital mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site..||20.0|-10.0|0.55
84601438|NCT03389555|168953023|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of ICU mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||10.0|-10.0|0.80
84601439|NCT03389555|168953024|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of occurrence of delirium in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||4|-25|0.16
84601440|NCT03389555|168953025|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating home hospital disposition in survivors to hospital discharge in intervention versus placebo group controlling for treatment site.||14|-18|0.82
84601441|NCT01885208|168953026|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
84601442|NCT01885208|168953026|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified superiority margin (0 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
84673490|NCT05409235|169082390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4295|1.1981|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.1981|0.4295|0.857
84601443|NCT00920218|168953044|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of ceellular immune (CMI) response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|32.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.65|50.54|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group below (\<) 1.||50.54|20.65|<0.0001
84673491|NCT05409235|169082391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1531||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.793|47.0991|||ANCOVA|||||47.0991|-38.7930|0.437
84673492|NCT05409235|169082391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2461||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.2538|26.7616|||ANCOVA|||||26.7616|-59.2538|0.733
84673493|NCT05409235|169082392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0634||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9712|13.098|||ANCOVA|||||13.0980|-4.9712|0.770
84673494|NCT05409235|169082392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0507||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1046|8.0032|||ANCOVA|||||8.0032|-10.1046|0.424
84673495|NCT05409235|169082393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0205||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1043|0.1452|||ANCOVA|||||0.1452|-0.1043|0.606
84673496|NCT05409235|169082393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0083||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1161|0.1326|||ANCOVA|||||0.1326|-0.1161|0.544
84673497|NCT05409235|169082394|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.247|9.158|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.158|-12.247|0.406
84620245|NCT01363700|168987811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular hyperemia score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.81|
84620246|NCT03483896|168987834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84620247|NCT03483896|168987835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84620248|NCT02888106|168987837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of negative HDV RNA response at week 72 in each of the MXB treatment groups were compared with the control group of PEG-IFNα by using Fisher's exact test and by presenting exact unconditional 95%-confidence intervals (CI) based on scores for the proportion differences.||||0.0022
84620249|NCT02888106|168987837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
84620250|NCT02888106|168987837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84620251|NCT02888106|168987837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84673498|NCT05409235|169082394|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|1.763||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.114|12.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.640|-9.114|0.605
84673499|NCT05409235|169082395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5068|1.6556|||Log Rank|||||1.6556|0.5068|0.404
84620252|NCT02888106|168987837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
84620253|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
84620254|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
84620255|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620256|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0017
84620257|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.3295
84620258|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
84620259|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0001
84620260|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620261|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
84620262|NCT02888106|168987838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1086
84620263|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620264|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
84620265|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0002
84620266|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
84620267|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0007
84620268|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620269|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4497
84620270|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
84620271|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620272|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
84620273|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0743|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0743
84620274|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 72||||0.3449
84620275|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.6036
84620276|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
84620277|NCT02888106|168987839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
84620278|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620279|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
84620280|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
84673500|NCT05409235|169082395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6399|1.9868|||Log Rank|||||1.9868|0.6399|0.624
84620281|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
84620282|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
84620283|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
84620284|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1686
84620285|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620286|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
84620287|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620288|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0063
84620289|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
84620290|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620291|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620292|NCT02888106|168987840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
84620293|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0801
84620294|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620295|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84673501|NCT05409235|169082396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2473|3.6295|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.||||3.6295|0.2473|0.478
84673502|NCT05409235|169082396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.296||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3688|4.5512|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor||||4.5512|0.3688|0.631
84673503|NCT05409235|169082397|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-13.7727||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1319|-0.4134|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-0.4134|-27.1319|0.0450
84673504|NCT05409235|169082397|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.8234||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1549|10.5081|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.5081|-18.1549|0.3304
84760408|NCT01903837|169277216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84620296|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620297|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620298|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0063
84620299|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.2241
84503208|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 5.|GMC ratio for anti-5|13.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||16.55|10.96|
84503209|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 6B.|GMC ratio for anti-6B|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.54|36.81|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||36.81|22.54|
84503210|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 7F.|GMC ratio for anti-7F|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||5.78|3.9|
84503211|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 9V.|GMC ratio for anti-9V|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|17.75|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||17.75|11.21|
84503212|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 14.|GMC ratio for anti-14|22.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.51|30.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||30|17.51|
84620300|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620301|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Regression, Cox|||Week 72||||0.0169
84620302|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
84760409|NCT01903837|169277216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620303|NCT02888106|168987841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
84620304|NCT02888106|168987842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4828
84620305|NCT02888106|168987842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620306|NCT02888106|168987842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.2292
84620307|NCT02888106|168987842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620308|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
84620309|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620310|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
84620311|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
84620312|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0253
84620313|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
84620314|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
84620315|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
84620316|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0656|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0656
84620317|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0005
84620318|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1431|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.1431
84620319|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620320|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620321|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
84620322|NCT02888106|168987843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7104|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.7104
84644672|NCT02815280|169024773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|23.23||Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|ANCOVA|||||23.23|2.44|0.0155
84644673|NCT02815280|169024774|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.90|1.88|0.0001
84620323|NCT00430716|168987895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.15||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.37||||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||3.37|0.011
84620324|NCT00430716|168987895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.545|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-21.48||||ANOVA|||ANOVA model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||-21.48|0.545
84620325|NCT00430716|168987896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||2.05|-7.07|0.278
84620326|NCT00430716|168987896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used ANCOVA, with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||4.09|-4.98|0.846
84620327|NCT00430716|168987898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||4.78|0.50|0.448
84620328|NCT00430716|168987898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||3.32|0.35|0.897
84620329|NCT00430716|168987899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.44|-32.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-32.16|-177.44|0.005
84620330|NCT00430716|168987899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|47.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||47.50|-97.50|0.496
84760410|NCT01903837|169277217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84620331|NCT00430716|168987900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-462.12||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-807.53|-116.71|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-116.71|-807.53|0.009
84620332|NCT00430716|168987900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-141.45||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.48|200.58|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||200.58|-483.48|0.414
84620333|NCT00430716|168987901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.15|-0.17|0.890
84620334|NCT00430716|168987901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.04|-0.29|0.124
84620335|NCT00430716|168987902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.00|-1.00|0.382
84620336|NCT00430716|168987902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||1.00|0.00|0.141
84644674|NCT02815280|169024774|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|1.60|0.0007
84644675|NCT02815280|169024775|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.69|1.06|0.0071
84620337|NCT01329978|168987911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|9.4||The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL). Only participants with genotype 1 were included in the comparison due to the fact that participants with genotype 4 and 6 were only enrolled in the SOF+PEG+RBV 24 weeks group.||9.4|-12.2|0.77
84620338|NCT01329978|168987911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.9||The p-value is based on the CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in proportions and its 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted MH proportions.||The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL).||9.9|-10.8|0.93
84620339|NCT00287716|168987936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||0.95|0.44|0.023
84620340|NCT00287716|168987942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403-mg/d treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||1.42|0.50|0.515
84620341|NCT02927392|168987965|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84620342|NCT01708317|168987969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001||||||We used a cutoff of P\<0.05 as statistically significant.|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom to compare 4 time periods.||We compared testing in the 4 time frames described, including the time frame in which we enrolled patients in the ACASI.||||<.001
84620343|NCT03259555|168987981|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.14|||=|0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.03|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure|"An unstructured covariance was used."|"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||2.03|-1.74|=0.8797
84620344|NCT00607087|168987992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.039
84620345|NCT00607087|168987992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025.|McNemar|||||||0.031
84620346|NCT00607087|168987993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620347|NCT00607087|168987993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620348|NCT00607087|168987994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.080
84620349|NCT00607087|168987994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.107
84620350|NCT00607087|168987995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620351|NCT00607087|168987995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||<0.001
84620352|NCT00607087|168987996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.079
84620353|NCT00607087|168987996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.063
84620354|NCT00607087|168987997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
84620355|NCT00607087|168987997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
84620356|NCT00607087|168987998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.017
84644676|NCT02815280|169024775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.58|-3.30|0.5143
84644677|NCT00603642|169024777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84644678|NCT00603642|169024778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84644679|NCT00603642|169024779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84620357|NCT00607087|168987998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.032
84620358|NCT00607087|168987999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84620359|NCT00607087|168987999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
84620360|NCT00607087|168988000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84620361|NCT00607087|168988000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620362|NCT00607087|168988001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.563
84620363|NCT00607087|168988001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
84620364|NCT00607087|168988002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620365|NCT00607087|168988002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84620366|NCT00607087|168988003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||1.000
84620367|NCT00607087|168988003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.701
84644680|NCT00603642|169024780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84644681|NCT00603642|169024781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6015
84644682|NCT02514473|169024795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect with adjustments for baseline, weight (less than \[\<\] 25 kilogram \[kg\] versus greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 25 kg) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity (\<90 versus \>=90) at screening.||-0.75|-1.43|< 0.0001
84644683|NCT01607203|169024816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t -test||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84644684|NCT00548405|169024855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariate was used.||0.87|0.38|0.0084
84644685|NCT00548405|169024856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
84644686|NCT00548405|169024857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
84644687|NCT00548405|169024858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||<0.0001
84644688|NCT00548405|169024859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: the analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||0.0022
84644689|NCT00548405|169024860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and Baseline T2 lesion volume was used.||||0.1371
84644690|NCT00924170|169024863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||Published response duration of 15 patients with leukemic adult T cell leukemia treated with Alemtuzumab.||||<0.0001
84644691|NCT00579436|169024877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84644692|NCT00579436|169024878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84644693|NCT00579436|169024879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84644694|NCT00579436|169024880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84644695|NCT06054269|169024915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.004
84644696|NCT06054269|169024915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.066
84620368|NCT00607087|168988006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c value at the start of the first period||||||0.078
84620369|NCT00607087|168988006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c level at the start of the first period||||||0.938
84620370|NCT04532034|168988011|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.95
84540136|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.33||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|62.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||62.54|-1.59|0.1178
84620371|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
84620372|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||7|1|
84620373|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs up to week 4, Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
84620374|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
84620375|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|5|0|
84620376|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs, after week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
84620377|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
84620378|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
84620379|NCT02717494|168988012|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
84620380|NCT02717494|168988013|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
84620381|NCT02717494|168988013|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
84620382|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|28.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||28|14|
84620383|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|27|14|
84620384|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||27|14|
84620385|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|24.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|24|11|
84620386|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|29.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|29|15|
84540137|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.71||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.22|52.52||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||52.52|-6.22|0.1938
84540138|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.85||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|59.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||59.29|0.08|0.0991
84540139|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.62|40.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||40.59|-10.62|0.3337
84540140|NCT04856917|168830933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|56.87||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||56.87|5.50|0.0465
84540141|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|8.56||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||8.56|-1.21|0.2150
84540142|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|10.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||10.05|0.21|0.0864
84540143|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.97|16.85||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||16.85|3.97|0.0084
84503213|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 18C.|GMC ratio for anti-18C|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|12.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||12.61|7.95|
84503214|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 19F.|GMC ratio for anti-19F|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|11.74|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||11.74|7.29|
84503215|NCT00950833|168758203|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 23F.|GMC ratio for anti-23F|36.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.59|48.34|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||48.34|27.59|
84503216|NCT01578707|168758238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84503217|NCT01578707|168758239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
84503218|NCT01578707|168758240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1653|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1653
84503219|NCT01202994|168758253|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value.|correlation|||The primary analysis is to examine the correlation between the practice effect z-score (presented in the Secondary Outcome section) and the standardized uptake value of flutemetamol (presented in the Outcome module).||||<0.05
84503220|NCT01859325|168758278|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Samples size based on published data on populations of early treated patients undergoing ART interruption. The power based on a 2-sample t-test with a 2-tailed alpha of .05 and a total sample size of 30 is approximately 91% to detect a 1.25 log10 reduction in the rebound plasma viremia between vaccine and placebo groups.||0.67|-1.41|0.406
84503221|NCT01684722|168758279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.25
84503222|NCT01684722|168758279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-0.7|0.27
84503223|NCT01684722|168758280|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.84|0.90
84620387|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|19.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||19|8|
84503224|NCT01684722|168758280|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.96||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.81|0.64
84503225|NCT00219557|168758284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.17||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.170|0.490|0.1026
84503226|NCT00219557|168758295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percent of participants with overall response expressed as response rate, was used for calculation of 95% confidence interval (CI).||12.7|-4.0|0.661
84503227|NCT00219557|168758297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9648||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.73||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are ECOG performance status (less than equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.7300|0.5400|0.4466
84503228|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.19||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.19|-19.06|
84503229|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-15.4|
84503230|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|5.12||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.12|-23.77|
84503231|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|5.79||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.79|-15.25|
84503232|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|5.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.61|-15.83|
84620388|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|3|0|
84620389|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||3|0|
84620390|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||2|0|
84620391|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|9.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||9|2|
84760411|NCT01903837|169277217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84601444|NCT00920218|168953044|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of CMI response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|9.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|6.07|14.9|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group \< 2.||14.9|6.07|<0.0001
84620392|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
84601445|NCT00920218|168953045|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|74.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|33.12|167.17|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||167.17|33.12|<0.0001
84601446|NCT00920218|168953045|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.2|88.13|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||88.13|20.20|<0.0001
84601447|NCT01126437|168953104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.094|0.837|
84601448|NCT01126437|168953104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.136|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.136|0.872|
84601449|NCT01126437|168953105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.032|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.032|0.928|0.4194
84601450|NCT01126437|168953105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.070|0.964|0.5593
84601451|NCT01126437|168953105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.094|0.985|0.1639
84601452|NCT01126437|168953106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.018||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||0.018|-.038|
84601453|NCT01126437|168953106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.009||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||-.009|-.065|
84601454|NCT01126437|168953107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.06|0.95|0.8330
84620393|NCT02717494|168988014|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
84620394|NCT02717494|168988015|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at day 28.||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.44
84644697|NCT06054269|169024915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.694
84644698|NCT06054269|169024915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.408
84503233|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|12.06||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.06|-18.72|
84620395|NCT02717494|168988015|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with values \>=0.35ug/mL at day 28.||||||0.49||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.49
84620396|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
84503234|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|22.44||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.44|-1.62|
84620397|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|94|
84620398|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% with >=2 fold increase|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
84620399|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
84620400|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|97|
84620401|NCT02717494|168988015|OTHER||% with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|97.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||97|88|
84620402|NCT02717494|168988016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84620403|NCT02717494|168988017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84620404|NCT02717494|168988018|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at labor and delivery.||||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84620405|NCT02717494|168988018|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at 24 weeks post partum.||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.21
84620406|NCT02717494|168988019|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
84620407|NCT02717494|168988019|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|89|
84503235|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|7.96||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.96|-16.55|
84503236|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|22.32||||||For change in pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.32|-7.57|
84503237|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|26.3||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.30|-1.28|
84620408|NCT02717494|168988020|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|100|94|
84620409|NCT02717494|168988020|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
84620410|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
84620411|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
84620412|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|99|91|
84620413|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
84620414|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
84620415|NCT02717494|168988021|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
84620416|NCT03775486|168988071|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.57|0.074
84620417|NCT03775486|168988071|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|7.9||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||7.9|5.3|
84620418|NCT03775486|168988071|OTHER||Median|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||5.8|3.7|
84620419|NCT03775486|168988072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.59|0.604
84620420|NCT03775486|168988072|OTHER||Median|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median overall survival (months)|||14.1|
84620421|NCT03775486|168988072|OTHER||Median overall survival (months)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value|Median overall survival (months)|||11.8|
84620422|NCT03775486|168988074|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||6.5|
84644699|NCT06054269|169024916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.164
84644700|NCT06054269|169024916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.113
84601455|NCT01126437|168953107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.05|0.94|0.8047
84620423|NCT03775486|168988074|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||3.8|
84620424|NCT03775486|168988075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0||||||||2.00|0.07|
84620425|NCT03775486|168988075|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median progression-free survival (months)|||1.7|
84620426|NCT03775486|168988075|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|16.6||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||16.6|1.2|
84620427|NCT03775486|168988077|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|3.46||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Dyspnoea Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||3.46|-4.47|
84673505|NCT05409235|169082398|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-14.8877||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6462|-2.1293|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-2.1293|-27.6462|0.0275
84673506|NCT05409235|169082398|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-7.5535||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0688|5.9617|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.9617|-21.0688|0.1790
84673507|NCT00689481|169082403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.016
84601456|NCT01126437|168953107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.07|0.96|0.6468
84601457|NCT01126437|168953108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.971|0.1762
84601458|NCT01126437|168953108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|1.128|||Regression, Cox|||||1.128|0.929|0.6384
84601459|NCT01126437|168953108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.044||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.148|||Regression, Cox|||||1.148|0.949|0.3784
84601460|NCT01126437|168953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.22|0.98|0.1255
84620428|NCT03775486|168988077|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|6.71||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Coughing Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||6.71|-4.81|
84620429|NCT03775486|168988077|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.88||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Pain in chest Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||1.88|-6.39|
84620430|NCT03775486|168988079|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.47||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Fatigue Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||5.47|-2.20|
84620431|NCT03775486|168988079|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|7.9||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Appetite loss Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||7.90|-1.46|
84620432|NCT04194944|168988093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.309|0.0002
84620433|NCT04194944|168988094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.482||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.700|0.331|0.0001
84620434|NCT04194944|168988095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.7|0.3996
84620435|NCT04194944|168988096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|0.9|0.1390
84620436|NCT04194944|168988099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|1.4|0.0028
84620437|NCT04194944|168988100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.2|1.6|0.0003
84620438|NCT04194944|168988101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.633|||Log Rank|||||0.633|0.224|0.0001
84620439|NCT04194944|168988102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.684|||Log Rank|||||0.684|0.256|0.0004
84620440|NCT04194944|168988105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|0.8|0.1809
84620441|NCT04194944|168988106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|1.4|0.0167
84620442|NCT05214768|168988123|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.98||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.2|-76.3|||ANCOVA|||||-76.3|-370.2|0.003
84620443|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.20|<.0001
84620444|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-1.55|<.0001
84620445|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.62|<.0001
84620446|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.52|<.0001
84620447|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.55|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-1.55|<.0001
84620448|NCT05579977|168988205|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
84673508|NCT00689481|169082403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.843
84673509|NCT00689481|169082404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.034
84673510|NCT00689481|169082405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is significant based on the Holm stepwise closed testing procedure to control multiplicity for the key secondary analyses if primary analysis was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center.||||||0.004
84673511|NCT00689481|169082406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.052
84673512|NCT00689481|169082407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.033
84620449|NCT05579977|168988206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-3.88|0.0055
84620450|NCT05579977|168988206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.89|-5.84|<.0001
84620451|NCT05579977|168988206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.18|-7.07|<.0001
84673513|NCT00689481|169082408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.859
84620452|NCT05579977|168988206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-6.50|<.0001
84620453|NCT05579977|168988206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|-3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.93|-6.91|<.0001
84620454|NCT05579977|168988209|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
84673514|NCT00689481|169082408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.015
84673515|NCT00445328|169082442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is based on chi-square test with alpha as 0.01.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84620455|NCT02756572|168988260|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84620456|NCT02756572|168988261|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84620457|NCT02756572|168988262|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
84620458|NCT02756572|168988263|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84620459|NCT04177212|168988283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50 percent (%).|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||< 0.0001
84620460|NCT04177212|168988284|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50%.|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||0.0003
84620461|NCT01279681|168988290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.49|0.93
84620462|NCT02831764|168988299|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 copies per milliliter) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter \[cells/mm\^3\]).|||2.9|-4.3|
84620463|NCT02831764|168988300|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 24 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||3.6|-3.4|
84620464|NCT02831764|168988301|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.7|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.7|-6.4|
84620465|NCT02831764|168988302|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||5.3|-5.3|
84620466|NCT02831764|168988303|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.19||The generalised Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalised Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.19|0.88|0.797
84620467|NCT02831764|168988307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|50.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||50.4|0.8|0.043
84620468|NCT02831764|168988307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|34.8|||MMRM||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||34.8|-17.7|0.523
84620469|NCT02831764|168988308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|38.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||38.0|-23.2|0.635
84673516|NCT00445328|169082444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Major Bleeding||||1.0000
84673517|NCT00445328|169082447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1355
84673518|NCT04074317|169082488|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001||||||Least-squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84673519|NCT04074317|169082488|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.||||||0.694|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.694
84673520|NCT04074317|169082488|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84673521|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-21.29||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.23|-1.36|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||-1.36|-41.23|0.041
84620470|NCT02831764|168988309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|40.0|||MMRM||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||40.0|-29.9|0.777
84503238|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.49||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.49|-5.70|
84620471|NCT02831764|168988320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
84620472|NCT02831764|168988320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.022
84620473|NCT02831764|168988320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum RBP|||1.1|-1.4|0.797
84620474|NCT02831764|168988320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum RBP|||1.9|-0.5|0.258
84620475|NCT02831764|168988321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.034
84620476|NCT02831764|168988322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.006
84620477|NCT02831764|168988325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.4|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||5.4|1.8|<0.001
84620478|NCT02831764|168988325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||3.5|0.0|0.056
84620479|NCT02831764|168988325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.2|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.2|1.7|<0.001
84620480|NCT02831764|168988325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.0|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.0|1.6|<0.001
84620481|NCT02831764|168988328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.55|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum or Plasma Creatinine|||-1.55|-4.49|<0.001
84620482|NCT02831764|168988328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.65|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.65|-4.59|<0.001
84620483|NCT02831764|168988329|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.53|-4.56|<0.001
84620484|NCT02831764|168988330|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.19|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.19|-4.52|<0.001
84620485|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|0.941|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum B2M.|||0.941|0.893|<0.001
84620486|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.914|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.939|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum B2M.|||0.939|0.890|<0.001
84620487|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.901|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M.|||0.901|0.621|0.002
84503239|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|32.07||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.07|-4.81|
84620488|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.693||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.892|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M.|||0.892|0.538|0.005
84620489|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.889||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.992|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.992|0.796|0.036
84620490|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.938||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.061|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.061|0.830|0.308
84620491|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.781||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.934|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.934|0.654|0.007
84620492|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.935|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.935|0.588|0.012
84620493|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.104|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Phosphate.|||1.104|0.868|0.728
84620494|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.062||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.194|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Phosphate.|||1.194|0.945|0.311
84620495|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.887|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.887|0.769|<0.001
84620496|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.93|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.930|0.795|<0.001
84620497|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.796||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.927|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||0.927|0.683|0.003
84620498|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.903||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.056|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||1.056|0.773|0.200
84620499|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.936|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.936|0.728|0.003
84620500|NCT02831764|168988331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.888||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.001|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||1.001|0.787|0.052
84620501|NCT02831764|168988332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.942||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.065|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.065|0.833|0.338
84620502|NCT02831764|168988332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.826|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.826|0.545|<0.001
84620503|NCT02831764|168988332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.082||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.213|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.213|0.966|0.174
84620504|NCT02831764|168988332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.873|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.946|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.946|0.806|<0.001
84620505|NCT02831764|168988332|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.894|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.894|0.716|<0.001
84620506|NCT02831764|168988333|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.107|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.107|0.852|0.658
84503240|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|20.96||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-11.62|
84503241|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.54||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.54|-15.1|
84620507|NCT02831764|168988333|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.584|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.706|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.706|0.483|<0.001
84620508|NCT02831764|168988333|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.12|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.120|0.892|0.993
84620509|NCT02831764|168988333|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.913|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.913|0.785|<0.001
84620510|NCT02831764|168988333|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.819|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.819|0.667|<0.001
84620511|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-2.08|||MMRM||Week 24, Bone ALP|||-2.08|-3.25|<0.001
84673522|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|16.54|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||16.54|-31.43|0.453
84673523|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|13.85||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|36.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||36.15|-8.46|0.161
84503242|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|15.53||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.53|-4.67|
84503243|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.67||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.67|-32.34|
84503244|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|0.96||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.96|-24.12|
84503245|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|-1.83||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-1.83|-35.47|
84620512|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.44|||MMRM||Week 48, Bone ALP|||-2.44|-3.75|<0.001
84620513|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.71|||MMRM||Week 28, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.71|-5.63|<0.001
84620514|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|-4.91|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.91|-6.89|<0.001
84620515|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-10.6|||MMRM||Week 24, Serum PINP|||-10.6|-16.4|<0.001
84620516|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-10.2|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum PINP|||-10.2|-15.4|<0.001
84620517|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.09|||MMRM||Week 24, CTX-1|||-0.0900|-0.1640|<0.001
84620518|NCT02831764|168988334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2043|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2532|-0.1554|||MMRM||Week 48, CTX-1|||-0.1554|-0.2532|<0.001
84620519|NCT02831764|168988335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.54|||MMRM||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.54|-2.72|<0.001
84620520|NCT02831764|168988335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-2.85|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.85|-4.69|<0.001
84620521|NCT02831764|168988335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-8.3|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.3|-16.8|<0.001
84620522|NCT02831764|168988335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1529|-0.0838|||MMRM||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.0838|-0.1529|<0.001
84620523|NCT02831764|168988336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.53|-2.74|<0.001
84620524|NCT02831764|168988336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.91|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.91|-4.87|<0.001
84620525|NCT02831764|168988336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.2|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.8|<0.001
84620526|NCT02831764|168988336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1739|-0.0988|||MMRM||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.0988|-0.1739|<0.001
84620527|NCT02831764|168988337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.8|||MMRM||Week 24|||-0.8|-7.5|0.015
84620528|NCT02831764|168988337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6|||MMRM||Week 48|||2.6|-2.8|0.960
84620529|NCT02831764|168988338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Vitamin D|||0.0|-5.9|0.048
84620530|NCT02831764|168988339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.1|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Vitamin D|||3.1|-3.6|0.887
84620531|NCT02831764|168988346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||Fisher Exact||Week 24|||5.6|1.5|<0.001
84620532|NCT02831764|168988346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Fisher Exact||Week 48|||5.4|0.2|0.037
84620533|NCT02831764|168988347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Week 96|||6.1|0.2|0.045
84620534|NCT02831764|168988348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.0|||Fisher Exact||Week 144|||6.0|-0.8|0.160
84620535|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|65.62|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.62|9.98|
84620536|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.72|29.1|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||29.10|-82.72|
84620537|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.94|150.39|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||150.39|-26.94|
84620538|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|48.55|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||48.55|-3.42|
84620539|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|72.09|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||72.09|5.88|
84620540|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|33.3|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||33.30|-53.10|
84620541|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|145.5|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||145.50|-14.43|
84620542|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|127.94|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||127.94|-8.62|
84620543|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|46.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.10|-7.65|
84620544|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|49.13|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||49.13|-11.06|
84620545|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|117.09|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||117.09|-30.59|
84620546|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.14|97.73|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||97.73|-72.14|
84620547|NCT02831764|168988353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|62.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|140.12|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||140.12|-16.09|
84620548|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|36.6|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||36.6|-22.7|
84620549|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|73.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||73.2|-46.8|
84620550|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|152.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||152.5|-37.2|
84620551|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|31.7|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||31.7|-23.5|
84620552|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|67.7|||||Age Group-1,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||67.7|-2.7|
84620553|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|14.2|||||Age Group-1,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||14.2|-77.1|
84620554|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.4|91.8|||||Age Group-1,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.8|-81.4|
84620555|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|36.5|||||Age Group-2, \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||36.5|-19.4|
84620556|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.3|91.3|||||Age Group-2, \>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.3|-82.3|
84644701|NCT06054269|169024916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.404
84644702|NCT06054269|169024916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.879
84620557|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|46.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.1|-100.8|
84673524|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.37|-12.48|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||-12.48|-35.37|<0.001
84620558|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|41.2|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||41.2|-15.7|
84620559|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||43.1|-20.4|
84620560|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|44.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||44.0|-119.6|
84620561|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|105.7|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||105.7|-74.4|
84620562|NCT02831764|168988354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|120.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||120.5|-45.4|
84673525|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.0|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||14.00|-7.80|0.564
84673526|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|27.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.96|38.09|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||38.09|15.96|<0.001
84620563|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|35.0|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||35.0|-34.1|
84620564|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|84.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||84.9|-55.6|
84620565|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|140.3|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||140.3|-87.3|
84620566|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-29.4|
84620567|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|49.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.1|-32.5|
84620568|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|41.1|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||41.1|-67.6|
84620569|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|133.9|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||133.9|-68.5|
84620570|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|90.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||90.8|-80.7|
84620571|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|35.3|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||35.3|-31.1|
84620572|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|50.6|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||50.6|-23.2|
84620573|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.3|40.4|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||40.4|-155.3|
84620574|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.2|64.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||64.0|-144.2|
84620575|NCT02831764|168988355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|129.6|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.6|-63.3|
84673527|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.22|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||13.22|-16.70|0.813
84673528|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|2.35||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|16.17|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||16.17|-11.47|0.730
84620576|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|49.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.2|-31.1|
84620577|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.9|65.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.8|-98.9|
84620578|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|189.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||189.1|-77.2|
84620579|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|39.9|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||39.9|-35.2|
84620580|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|74.0|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||74.0|-22.3|
84620581|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|25.8|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||25.8|-98.6|
84620582|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|137.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||137.2|-89.0|
84503246|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.16|1.32||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.32|-29.16|
84620583|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.9|72.2|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||72.2|-125.9|
84620584|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|46.5|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.5|-30.3|
84620585|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|46.3|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||46.3|-39.4|
84620586|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.2|-5.1|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||-5.1|-237.2|
84620587|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.4|132.6|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||132.6|-106.4|
84620588|NCT02831764|168988356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|224.0|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||224.0|4.6|
84620589|NCT02831764|168988357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0137|0.01|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0100|-0.0137|0.759
84620590|NCT02831764|168988357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0088|0.0095|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0095|-0.0088|0.943
84620591|NCT02831764|168988357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0117|0.0079|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0079|-0.0117|0.703
84620592|NCT02831764|168988358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.0104|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0104|-0.0110|0.957
84620593|NCT02831764|168988359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0079||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0032|0.0189|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0189|-0.0032|0.162
84620594|NCT02831764|168988360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0|-2.6|0.045
84644703|NCT06054269|169024917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||<0.001
84644704|NCT06054269|169024917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.002
84644705|NCT06054269|169024917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.468
84620595|NCT02831764|168988360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.9|0.358
84620596|NCT02831764|168988360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-1.9|0.328
84620597|NCT02831764|168988361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
84620598|NCT02831764|168988362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||1.6|-1.0|0.674
84620599|NCT00101686|168988372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.0152||95.0|1.09|1.89||p-value corresponds to the log-rank test for comparing Kaplan-Meier survival curves.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \[mIRI:FOLFIRI\] is from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model using treatment (FOLFIRI, mIRI, CapeIRI), age (\<=70 vs \>70), performance status (0 vs 1), aspirin (Yes vs No), celecoxib (Yes or No) as the covariates.|||1.89|1.09|0.0152
84620600|NCT00101686|168988373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.0042||95.0|1.16|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.16|0.0042
84673529|NCT04074317|169082489|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|4.09||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|19.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||19.15|-10.97|0.582
84673530|NCT04074317|169082495|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80-125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|37.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.36|43.75||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||43.75|31.36|<0.0001
84620601|NCT00101686|168988373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.368||||0.0156||95.0|1.04|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|1.04|0.0156
84620602|NCT00101686|168988373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.4659||95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.81|0.4659
84620603|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|47.2||||||95.0|38.85|55.71|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||55.71|38.85|
84620604|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|43.3||||||95.0|34.95|51.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||51.86|34.95|
84620605|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|38.6||||||95.0|30.66|47.06|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||47.06|30.66|
84620606|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4751
84620607|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1591
84620608|NCT00101686|168988374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4395
84620609|NCT00101686|168988375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.268||||0.0879||95.0|0.96|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.96|0.0879
84620610|NCT00101686|168988375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2765||95.0|0.9|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.90|0.2765
84620611|NCT00101686|168988375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.9364||95.0|0.8|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.80|0.9364
84620612|NCT00101686|168988377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7163||95.0|0.86|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.86|0.7163
84620613|NCT00101686|168988378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|39.4||||||95.0|32.83|46.34|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||46.34|32.83|
84620614|NCT00101686|168988378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|46.5||||||95.0|39.76|53.42|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||53.42|39.76|
84620615|NCT00101686|168988378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1559
84620616|NCT00101686|168988379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5316||95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.86|0.5316
84620617|NCT00101686|168988380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.269||||0.2835||95.0|0.75|2.15|||Log Rank|||||2.15|0.75|0.2835
84620618|NCT00101686|168988381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|57.9||||||95.0|44.08|70.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||70.86|44.08|
84620619|NCT00101686|168988381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.33|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||66.33|40.00|
84620620|NCT00101686|168988381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7388|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7388
84620621|NCT00101686|168988383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.794||||0.037||95.0|1.12|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|1.12|0.0370
84620622|NCT02119871|168988428|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84620623|NCT02119871|168988429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
84620624|NCT02119871|168988430|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84620625|NCT00721396|168988449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 44/76-SL strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
84620626|NCT00721396|168988449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference %(B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 5/99 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
84620627|NCT00721396|168988449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against NZ98/254 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||-4|-12|
84620628|NCT00721396|168988450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for diphtheria (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Diphtheria antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-1|
84620629|NCT00721396|168988450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for tetanus toxoid (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of immune response to Tetanus antigens when routine vaccines are administered concomitantly with rMen+OMV NZ vaccine.||2|-1|
84673531|NCT04074317|169082496|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|435.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.0001
84620630|NCT00721396|168988455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen FHA when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||4|-5|
84620631|NCT00721396|168988455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen pertactin antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-7|
84620632|NCT00721396|168988455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen PT when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-4|
84620633|NCT01721161|168988456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.48||||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|3.65|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||3.65|-10.61|0.3337
84620634|NCT01721161|168988457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.89||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.92|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||1.92|-9.70|0.1868
84620635|NCT01721161|168988458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.76||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-11.26|0.1488
84620636|NCT01721161|168988459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.15||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.21|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||2.21|-4.51|0.4975
84503247|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|6.77||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||6.77|-20.97|
84503248|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|9.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.04|-28.28|
84503249|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|33.54||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.54|-1.27|
84620637|NCT01721161|168988460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.76||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-5.50|0.3505
84620638|NCT01721161|168988461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.6|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 1.25% chart||3.6|-6.9|0.5371
84620639|NCT01721161|168988461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.9|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 2.5% chart||4.9|-6.5|0.7741
84620640|NCT01721161|168988462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.2||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 1.25% chart||4.3|-6.6|0.6645
84620641|NCT01721161|168988462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference|-0.8||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 2.5%||5.2|-6.7|0.8015
84760412|NCT01857713|169277220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was based on the primary effectiveness variable (% reduction in RSI from Baseline to Week 4). It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.||||<0.05
84760413|NCT03759665|169277226|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.75||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.50|0.00|0.044
84760414|NCT03759665|169277228|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.25|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.25|-0.13|0.206
84503250|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|15.18||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.18|-18.78|
84503251|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|36.39||||||For change in pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.39|-3.22|
84503252|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|26.47||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.47|-5.68|
84503253|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|23.36||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.36|-20.19|
84620642|NCT01721161|168988463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.55||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-15.12|0.0504
84620643|NCT02365649|168988477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.1||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-0.3|0.056
84620644|NCT02365649|168988477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.4||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.4|-1.6|0.108
84620645|NCT02365649|168988477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
84620646|NCT02365649|168988477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.2||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.2|6.8|0.004
84620647|NCT02365649|168988477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.5|1.8|0.025
84620648|NCT02365649|168988478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.5||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-12.3|0.74
84620649|NCT02365649|168988478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|34.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-2.0|0.082
84620650|NCT02365649|168988478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|0.5||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|15.0||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|-14.1|0.952
84620651|NCT02365649|168988478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|28.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|-6.1|0.205
84620652|NCT02365649|168988478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.6||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|-11.5|0.607
84620653|NCT02365649|168988479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|22.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|-12.5|0.564
84620654|NCT02365649|168988479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|31.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|-7.2|0.221
84503254|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|40.1||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.1|-7.62|
84503255|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.49|23.02||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.02|-17.49|
84620655|NCT02365649|168988479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|43.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43|1.4|0.036
84620656|NCT02365649|168988479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.2|0.179
84620657|NCT02365649|168988479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|22.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22|-14.3|0.677
84620658|NCT02365649|168988480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-12|0.363
84620659|NCT02365649|168988480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.3||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|40.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40|-5.5|0.137
84620660|NCT02365649|168988480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.5||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|29.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|-14.9|0.512
84503256|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|22.03||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.03|-16.29|
84503257|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|20.92||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.92|-9.81|
84620661|NCT02365649|168988480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|48.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|-1.8|0.035
84620662|NCT02365649|168988480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|35.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.6|-10.7|0.29
84620663|NCT02365649|168988481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-0.9||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-15.0|0.896
84620664|NCT02365649|168988481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|37.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.3|0.0|0.05
84620665|NCT02365649|168988481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|18.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-12.4|0.702
84620666|NCT02365649|168988481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.3||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|32.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.2|-3.6|0.117
84620667|NCT02365649|168988481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-2.4||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.6|-16.4|0.736
84620668|NCT02365649|168988482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.9||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-2.3|0.276
84620669|NCT02365649|168988482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.9||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-2.5|0.195
84620670|NCT02365649|168988482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.0|-2.9|0.355
84620671|NCT02365649|168988482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
84620672|NCT02365649|168988482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.5|0.185
84620673|NCT02365649|168988483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|0.0|0.05
84620674|NCT02365649|168988483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|47.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.1|11.9|0.001
84620675|NCT02365649|168988483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|42.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.0|8.5|0.003
84620676|NCT02365649|168988483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|55.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.4|17.6|< 0.001
84620677|NCT02365649|168988483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|50.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.2|13.9|< 0.001
84620678|NCT02365649|168988484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.2|-7.2|0.243
84620679|NCT02365649|168988484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|49.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.9|8.3|0.006
84620680|NCT02365649|168988484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|44.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.1|4.4|0.017
84620681|NCT02365649|168988484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|58.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|14.8|< 0.001
84620682|NCT02365649|168988484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|58.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|15.2|< 0.001
84620683|NCT02365649|168988485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|32.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|-11.7|0.353
84620684|NCT02365649|168988485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.5|0.0|0.05
84760415|NCT03759665|169277231|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0327||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0327|0.104|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1040|-0.0327|0.210
84620685|NCT02365649|168988485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|34.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|-9.6|0.268
84620686|NCT02365649|168988485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|28.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|51.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|4.8|0.018
84620687|NCT02365649|168988485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|37.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|-8.1|0.204
84620688|NCT02365649|168988486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|34.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|-14.4|0.421
84620689|NCT02365649|168988486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|36.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|-13.8|0.371
84620690|NCT02365649|168988486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-14.4|0.445
84620691|NCT02365649|168988486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|19.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|49.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|-10.2|0.198
84620692|NCT02365649|168988486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|27.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|-17.0|0.654
84620693|NCT02365649|168988487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.7||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|40.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|-3.1|0.093
84620694|NCT02365649|168988487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.5||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.1|0.176
84620695|NCT02365649|168988487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|35.9||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|65.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.5|6.3|0.017
84620696|NCT02365649|168988487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|26.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|0.7|0.044
84620697|NCT02365649|168988487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
84620698|NCT02365649|168988488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-8.1|0.564
84644706|NCT06054269|169024917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.057
84644707|NCT06054269|169024918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.112
84644708|NCT06054269|169024918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.149
84644709|NCT06054269|169024918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.101
84644710|NCT06054269|169024918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.259
84644711|NCT06054269|169024919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.097
84644712|NCT06054269|169024919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.733
84644713|NCT06054269|169024919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.477
84644714|NCT06054269|169024919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.312
84601461|NCT01126437|168953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.18|0.94|0.3441
84601462|NCT01126437|168953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.92|0.5573
84601463|NCT01126437|168953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.066|||Regression, Cox|||||1.066|0.959|0.6823
84601464|NCT01126437|168953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||||1.037|0.932|0.5377
84601465|NCT01126437|168953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.028||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||||1.084|0.975|0.3048
84601466|NCT01126437|168953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.105||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.336|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.336|0.913|0.3043
84601467|NCT01126437|168953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.331|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.331|0.909|0.3263
84601468|NCT01126437|168953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.209|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.209|0.834|0.9644
84601469|NCT01126437|168953112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.526|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.526|0.898|0.2439
84601470|NCT01126437|168953112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.453|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.453|0.850|0.4413
84601471|NCT01126437|168953112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.363|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.363|0.814|0.6910
84601472|NCT01220973|168953116|OTHER||Slope|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84601473|NCT02851797|168953167|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|generalised least square mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.989||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|ANCOVA||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|Log transformation applied||0.989|0.745|=0.0345
84601474|NCT02851797|168953168|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in time to rise from the Floor at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 m, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|difference in least square means|-3.28|||=|0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.573|3.018||See comment above|ANCOVA||See comment above|||3.018|-9.573|=0.3044
84601475|NCT02851797|168953169|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|9.96|||=|0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.071|31.983||See comment above|ANCOVA|LS means, CIs, p-values were obtained from analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6MWT at Month18.|See comment above|||31.983|-12.071|=0.3723
84601476|NCT02851797|168953170|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in total NSAA score at Month 18 with baseline values for: total NSAA score, 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|1.91|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.533||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above.|||3.533|0.295|=0.0209
84601477|NCT02851797|168953171|SUPERIORITY|Estimated cumulative failures, ratio of cumulative failures, CIs, and p-values are obtained from a negative binomial regression on the subject cumulative number of failures across all post-baseline visits. Total failed items at baseline, baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose were included as independent covariates, with treatment group and steroid use included as indep classification factors.|Ratio of cumulative failures|0.61|||=|0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.927||same comment as above|negative binomial regression model|Estimated cumulative failures, their ratio were obtained from a negative binomial regression on the cumulative N of failures across all visits.|"A lower ratio indicates a greater reduction in cumulative loss of function across 18 months for givinostat compared with placebo.~See also comment above."|||0.927|0.408|=0.0202
84601478|NCT02851797|168953172|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.19|||=|0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.401||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall knee extension||0.401|-0.030|=0.0902
84601479|NCT02851797|168953172|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.09|||=|0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.213||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall elbow flexion||0.213|-0.041|=0.1818
84726107|NCT05361304|169204545|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval of the mean difference between Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology and Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology is greater than -5.|LSM Differences|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||6.5|-7.1|
84620699|NCT02365649|168988488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
84620700|NCT02365649|168988488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|8.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|26.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-8.7|0.326
84620701|NCT02365649|168988489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|30.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|-6.2|0.195
84601480|NCT02851797|168953173|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in VL MFF at Month 18 with baseline VL MFF and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|-2.92|||=|0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.641|-0.204||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above|||-0.204|-5.641|=0.0354
84620702|NCT02365649|168988489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|40.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|-4.4|0.116
84620703|NCT02365649|168988489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|31.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|-5.8|0.178
84601481|NCT03077438|168953176|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0||||||Serogroup A||14|1.1|
84601482|NCT03077438|168953176|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|52.2||||||Serogroup C||52.2|42.2|
84601483|NCT03077438|168953176|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.7||||||Serogroup Y||16.7|7.7|
84601484|NCT03077438|168953176|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|20.5||||||Serogroup W||20.5|8.9|
84601485|NCT03077438|168953177|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32||||||Serogroup A||1.32|0.91|
84601486|NCT03077438|168953177|OTHER||GMT Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|17.3||||||Serogroup C||17.3|11.3|
84601487|NCT03077438|168953177|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.9||||||Serogroup Y||1.9|1.31|
84601488|NCT03077438|168953177|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.69||||||Serogroup W||1.69|1.21|
84601489|NCT03077438|168953178|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.47||||||Serogroup A||1.47|0.883|
84601490|NCT03077438|168953178|OTHER||GMT Ratio|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|22.6||||||Serogroup C||22.6|13.4|
84601491|NCT03077438|168953178|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78||||||Serogroup Y||1.78|1.07|
84601492|NCT03077438|168953178|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.83||||||Serogroup W||1.83|1.12|
84601493|NCT03077438|168953179|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.38||||||Serogroup A||1.38|0.816|
84601494|NCT03077438|168953179|OTHER||GMT Ratio|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|16.0||||||Serogroup C||16|8.24|
84601495|NCT03077438|168953179|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.38||||||Serogroup Y||2.38|1.41|
84601496|NCT03077438|168953179|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82||||||Serogroup W||1.82|1.16|
84601497|NCT03077438|168953180|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.7||||||Serogroup A||16.7|-1.6|
84601498|NCT03077438|168953180|OTHER||Percentage Difference|51.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|57.8||||||Serogroup C||57.8|43.5|
84601499|NCT03077438|168953180|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.1||||||Serogroup Y||18.1|4.2|
84620704|NCT02365649|168988489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|30.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.0|2.8|0.031
84620705|NCT02365649|168988489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
84620706|NCT02365649|168988490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.8||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|-8.7|0.392
84620707|NCT02365649|168988490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
84620708|NCT02365649|168988490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-6.8|0.199
84620709|NCT02365649|168988490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.9||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|24.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|-10.6|0.439
84726108|NCT03320941|169204546|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-2.92|
84620710|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-103.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.69|657.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||657.87|-865.69|0.788
84726109|NCT03320941|169204546|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.7||||||||-1.70|-4.15|
84726110|NCT03320941|169204546|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-2.26||||||||-2.26|-4.54|
84726111|NCT03320941|169204546|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-2.77||||||||-2.77|-5.01|
84620711|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1092.83|364.29||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||364.29|-1092.83|0.325
84620712|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-926.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.78|-179.63||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-179.63|-1672.78|0.015
84620713|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-763.1||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1534.52|8.39||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||8.39|-1534.52|0.053
84620714|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-359.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1119.52|400.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||400.56|-1119.52|0.352
84620715|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-396.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1565.39|772.9||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||772.90|-1565.39|0.503
84620716|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1531.04|802.44||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||802.44|-1531.04|0.537
84620717|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-483.2||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1677.87|711.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||711.52|-1677.87|0.425
84620718|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1025.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2373.24|322.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||322.08|-2373.24|0.134
84620719|NCT02365649|168988491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-637.9||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1833.82|557.96||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||557.96|-1833.82|0.293
84620720|NCT02365649|168988492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.97||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||9.97|-9.02|0.921
84620721|NCT02365649|168988492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|8.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.08|-11.19|0.75
84620722|NCT02365649|168988492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||7.87|-11.7|0.7
84620723|NCT02365649|168988492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.51||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-1.51|-21.38|0.024
84620724|NCT02365649|168988492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|8.79||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.79|-10.72|0.845
84620725|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|16.92||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||16.92|-13.60|0.830
84620726|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|33.0||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||33.00|2.03|0.027
84620727|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.9||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|24.47||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.47|-6.72|0.263
84620728|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|37.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||37.52|5.68|0.008
84503258|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|7.57||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.57|-19.52|
84673532|NCT04074317|169082497|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|60.44||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.41|80.43||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.43|45.41|0.0075
84726112|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|15.35|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||15.350|0.344|0.390
84503259|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.75|8.46||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.46|-19.75|
84503260|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|4.05||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||4.05|-39.11|
84601500|NCT03077438|168953180|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|20.9||||||Serogroup W||20.9|3.9|
84601501|NCT03077438|168953181|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6||||||Serogroup A||16.6|-1.3|
84601502|NCT03077438|168953181|OTHER||Percentage Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|50.6||||||Serogroup C||50.6|36.8|
84601503|NCT03077438|168953181|OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|19.2||||||Serogroup Y||19.2|7.6|
84601504|NCT03077438|168953181|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7||||||Serogroup W||24.7|9.4|
84601505|NCT02512874|168953185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84601506|NCT03888235|168953203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.003
84601507|NCT03888235|168953203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||SI Exercise versus usual care. Bonferroni alpha correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84601508|NCT03888235|168953203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score between those using a pelvic support belt and those using usual treatment||||0.314
84601509|NCT03888235|168953204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Oswestry low back pain and disability (ODI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares the score at initial visit and the score 2 months later after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. =(ODI time 0 - ODI 2 months). The greater the difference, the better the recovery of back function.||||< 0.001
84601510|NCT03888235|168953205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in brief pain inventory score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.17
84601511|NCT03888235|168953205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Bonferroni alpha correction of p\<0.0167.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score at the one month visit, is used to compare the pain levels of those having done one month of corrective exercises to those who continued with conventional treatments for their low back pain.||||0.089
84601512|NCT03888235|168953205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score is used to compare those using a pelvic support belt for one month and those with delayed treatment||||0.092
84601513|NCT03888235|168953206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All participants are assessed as a single group as they receive the same two treatments for one month. Brief pain inventory (BPI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares BPI score at baseline visit and BPI score 2 months later, after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. The score is between 0 and 10. The higher the change in score the greater the pain relief.||||< 0.001
84601514|NCT03888235|168953207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes there is no improvement after one month in posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) measured using the sacroiliac forward flexion test (SIFFT) between the three treatment groups.||||0.016
84601515|NCT03888235|168953207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the distance between the posterior sacroiliac spine levels (PSISL) between those who use their usual low back pain treatments and those who are given the corrective exercises (SIFFTE) and use them as needed for one month.||||0.009
84601516|NCT03888235|168953207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Bonferroni correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that that using a pelvic support belt will not help correct sacroiliac joint asymmetry as measured using the distance between the posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL), baseline and one month later better than conventional treatment for low back pain.||||0.034
84601517|NCT03888235|168953208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Since all participants have received the same 2 treatment for one month, we will treat them as a single group. We will measure the distance between their posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) when they enter the study and two months later after they have used the corrective exercise and the sacroiliac belt for one month. Corona prevented some participants from returning for examination, which this test requires. Only 11 participants were present in each group: 33 participants tested.||||< 0.0001
84601518|NCT03888235|168953208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
84601519|NCT03888235|168953209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the physiotherapy as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
84601520|NCT03888235|168953210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the acupuncture as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
84620729|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|24.53||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.53|-6.88|0.269
84620730|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|27.25||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||27.25|-6.63|0.231
84620731|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|45.15||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||45.15|10.68|0.002
84620732|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|34.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||34.72|-0.51|0.057
84620733|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|46.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||46.56|11.12|0.002
84644715|NCT06054269|169024920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.220
84644716|NCT06054269|169024920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.003
84644717|NCT06054269|169024920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.897
84644718|NCT06054269|169024920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.931
84644719|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5888|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Hgb||||0.5888
84644720|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Weight||||0.6600
84644721|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7999|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)||||0.7999
84644722|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2092|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Ethnicity||||0.2092
84644723|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Geographic Ancestry||||0.9996
84644724|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Sex||||0.7002
84644725|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Age||||0.5536
84644726|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Co-administration with food||||0.0085
84644727|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Diabetic||||0.0021
84644728|NCT01587898|169024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Region||||0.2194
84644729|NCT01738477|169024964|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-diphtheria. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than, or equal to -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to diphtheria.||9.95|-3.25|
84644730|NCT01738477|169024964|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-tetanus. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to tetanus.||9.95|-3.25|
84644731|NCT01302834|169024977|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 1.45 (hazard ratio scale; IMRT + Cetuximab / IMRT + Cisplatin). If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was \<1.45, non-inferiority would be concluded. Design was based on a group sequential design with 3 interim analyses, one-sided 0.05, and 80% power.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.94|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.94||
84644732|NCT01302834|169024978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.29|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.29|1.29|0.0002
84644733|NCT01302834|169024979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.1|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||3.10|1.35|0.0005
84601521|NCT03888235|168953211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the yoga exercises as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
84601522|NCT03888235|168953212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the core exercises as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
84601523|NCT03888235|168953213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with treatments by a chiropractor as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
84601524|NCT03888235|168953214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with massage therapy as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt.||||<0.00001
84601525|NCT01425359|168953257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Angina frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.008
84601526|NCT01425359|168953258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Sublingual nitroglycerin use frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.003
84601527|NCT03520348|168953263|NON_INFERIORITY|It is considered less than 20% of differences between groups to consider non-inferiority||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
84601528|NCT03520348|168953264|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.680
84601529|NCT03520348|168953265|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.839
84601530|NCT03520348|168953266|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.137
84601531|NCT03520348|168953268|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.667
84601532|NCT03520348|168953269|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.561|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.561
84601533|NCT03520348|168953270|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84601534|NCT03520348|168953271|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
84601535|NCT03520348|168953272|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.414
84601536|NCT01849575|168953283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84601537|NCT01907321|168953291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||.001
84601538|NCT01907321|168953292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||.519
84601539|NCT03650803|168953295|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||MRF T1 Changes||||0.046
84601540|NCT03650803|168953295|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 Changes||||0.064
84601541|NCT03650803|168953296|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T1 relaxation time||||0.820
84601542|NCT03650803|168953296|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 relaxation time||||0.605
84601543|NCT03655301|168953329|OTHER||Least squares mean|0.9405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8093|1.0931||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of Cmax||1.0931|0.8093|
84601544|NCT03655301|168953330|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1205|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2555||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC(0-24)||1.2555|1.0000|
84601545|NCT03655301|168953331|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9772|1.2714||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC||1.2714|0.9772|
84601546|NCT01639339|168953351|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 1 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.32|1.04|0.0311
84601547|NCT01639339|168953352|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.74||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 2 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.74|1.11|0.0167
84601548|NCT01639339|168953353|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.38||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 3 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.38|1.06|0.0245
84601549|NCT01639339|168953354|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. Test 4 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using Cox proportional hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.77|0.34|0.0014
84601550|NCT01639339|168953355|OTHER|||||||0.0096||||||P-value is rank analysis of covariance model comparing Belimumab and Placebo with covariates for treatment group, induction regimen(CYC vs MMF),race(Black vs Non-black), Baseline uPCR, and eGFR. Test 5 of 5 in step-down sequential testing procedure.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0096
84601551|NCT00367744|168953363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided signed rank test||The primary outcome measure was the change in limb fat at 48 weeks between the rosiglitazone and placebo group.||||0.02
84601552|NCT02063867|168953386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.17
84620734|NCT02365649|168988493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|29.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||29.72|-5.12|0.165
84620735|NCT02365649|168988494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
84620736|NCT02365649|168988494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.7||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|43.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|-10.0|0.221
84620737|NCT02365649|168988494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|49.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.2|-9.2|0.18
84620738|NCT02365649|168988494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
84620739|NCT02365649|168988495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.5||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|-15.5|0.607
84601553|NCT02063867|168953387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.16
84601554|NCT02063867|168953388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.43
84601555|NCT02063867|168953395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||<0.001
84601556|NCT02063867|168953396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126||||||Remains significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0126
84601557|NCT02063867|168953397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.002
84601558|NCT02063867|168953398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0032
84601559|NCT04376684|168953402|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.82|0.96|0.0456
84601560|NCT04376684|168953403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8574
84601561|NCT04376684|168953404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.22|0.61|0.2057
84601562|NCT04376684|168953405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.24|0.50|0.3061
84601563|NCT04376684|168953406|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.41|0.59|0.6665
84601564|NCT04376684|168953407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.18|0.65|0.1942
84601565|NCT04376684|168953408|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.24|0.65|0.5324
84601566|NCT04376684|168953409|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.49|0.80|0.2871
84601567|NCT04376684|168953410|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.58||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.58|0.85|0.1754
84620740|NCT02365649|168988495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|-9.6|0.272
84620741|NCT02365649|168988495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.9||||-0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|37.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|-6.1|-0.157
84726113|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|87.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||87.552|2.844|0.002
84601568|NCT04376684|168953411|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.79||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.79|0.93|0.0616
84601569|NCT04376684|168953412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.63||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.63|0.84|0.1830
84601570|NCT04376684|168953413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.39||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.39|0.95|0.0831
84601571|NCT04376684|168953414|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.0||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.00|0.83|0.2557
84601572|NCT04376684|168953415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8560
84601573|NCT04376684|168953416|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.66|0.69|0.7533
84601574|NCT04376684|168953417|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.32|0.95|0.0959
84601575|NCT04376684|168953418|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.50|0.84|0.4421
84601576|NCT04376684|168953419|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.8||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.80|0.73|0.2814
84601577|NCT04376684|168953420|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.42||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.42|0.77|0.3901
84601578|NCT04376684|168953421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.36|0.75|0.4763
84601579|NCT04376684|168953422|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.56|0.84|0.1973
84601580|NCT04376684|168953423|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.67||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.67|0.88|0.1173
84601581|NCT04376684|168953424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.13||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||10.13|1.57|0.0037
84601582|NCT04376684|168953425|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.06||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.06|0.77|0.3581
84601583|NCT04376684|168953426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.54|0.63|0.9621
84601584|NCT04376684|168953427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.29|0.54|0.4167
84601585|NCT04376684|168953428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.25|0.53|0.3408
84620742|NCT02365649|168988495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|50.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|4.9|0.017
84620743|NCT02365649|168988495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.8||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|23.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|-18.4|0.798
84620744|NCT02365649|168988496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.8||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|22.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|-2.5|0.119
84620745|NCT02365649|168988496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|29.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.7|1.1|0.034
84620746|NCT02365649|168988496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|23.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|7.3|0.004
84620747|NCT02365649|168988496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|50.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.5|14.2|< 0.001
84620748|NCT02365649|168988496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.9|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|6.6|< 0.006
84620749|NCT02365649|168988497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-12.7|0.647
84620750|NCT02365649|168988497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|37.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.1|-2.9|0.093
84620751|NCT02365649|168988497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-5.6|0.165
84620752|NCT02365649|168988497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|46.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.3|3.4|0.023
84620753|NCT02365649|168988497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.0||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|25.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|-11.0|0.448
84620754|NCT02365649|168988498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.62|0.412
84760416|NCT03759665|169277231|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0291||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0863|0.0262|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.0262|-0.0863|0.212
84760417|NCT03759665|169277232|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.75|-1.75|<0.001
84620755|NCT02365649|168988498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.34||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.34|-2.47|0.01
84620756|NCT02365649|168988498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.13||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.13|-2.13|0.082
84620757|NCT02365649|168988498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.73|0.004
84620758|NCT02365649|168988498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.26||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.26|-0.93|0.766
84620759|NCT02365649|168988499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.56|-1.75|0.314
84620760|NCT02365649|168988499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.68||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.68|-3.01|0.002
84620761|NCT02365649|168988499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.52|-1.94|0.255
84620762|NCT02365649|168988499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.2||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.2|-2.61|0.022
84620763|NCT02365649|168988499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.48||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.48|-1.92|0.239
84620764|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|21.4||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||21.4|-36.4|1.000
84620765|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|32.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||32.5|-22.5|1.000
84620766|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.272
84620767|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||8.6|-2.7|1.000
84620768|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.8||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||26.8|-0.7|0.068
84620769|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|12.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||12.3|-23.1|1.0000
84620770|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|18.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.7|1.000
84620771|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|23.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||23.3|-16.7|1.000
84620772|NCT02365649|168988500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
84620773|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|35.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||35.5|-35.5|1.000
84620774|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||42.9|-17.9|0.483
84620775|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|11.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||11.6|-41.6|0.633
84620776|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|26.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||26.4|-12.7|0.424
84620777|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
84620778|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.9|-2.4|0.149
84620779|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|30.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||30.7|-19.1|0.684
84644734|NCT01302834|169024980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.36|0.94|0.09
84503261|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.0||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.00|-26.5|
84726114|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|64.32|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||64.320|2.511|0.002
84503262|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|9.15||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.15|-23.13|
84503263|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|16.31||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.31|-30.48|
84601586|NCT04376684|168953429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.23|0.85|0.4250
84601587|NCT04376684|168953430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.59|0.81|0.4774
84601588|NCT04376684|168953431|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.89||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||0.89|0.18|0.0119
84601589|NCT04376684|168953432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.24|0.83|0.4404
84601590|NCT04376684|168953433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.72|0.72|0.6253
84601591|NCT04376684|168953434|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.30|0.94|0.1078
84601592|NCT04376684|168953435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.31|0.94|0.1140
84601593|NCT04376684|168953436|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.40|0.80|0.7084
84601594|NCT04376684|168953437|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.52|0.84|0.4085
84601595|NCT02950155|168953502|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|2.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.11|||Fisher Exact|||The primary end-point was analyzed as an intention-to-treat analysis, with Fisher's exact test of the difference in proportion, with α=0·05 to indicate statistically significant difference||5.11|1.20|0.007
84601596|NCT02950155|168953503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||2.1|-4.4|0.79
84601597|NCT02950155|168953504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||0.8|-3.3|0.34
84601598|NCT02950155|168953505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||3.8|-8.2|0.47
84601599|NCT02950155|168953506|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|1.89||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Fisher Exact|||||3.44|1.04|0.036
84601600|NCT03569748|168953513|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin=0.04|Proportion Difference|0.1342||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0014|0.2671|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||H0: P1-P2 ≤ -Margin||0.2671|0.0014|0.0051
84601601|NCT03569748|168953514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
84601602|NCT03569748|168953515|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0003
84601603|NCT02979093|168953520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown||||0.106
84601604|NCT02979093|168953520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.20458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1101||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for the Amygdala: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces.||||0.0709
84601605|NCT02979093|168953520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08546||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0964
84601606|NCT02979093|168953520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07914||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Amygdala: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0538
84726115|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.813|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.362|84.085|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||84.085|3.362|<0.001
84726116|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.697||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|33.006|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||33.006|0.087|0.727
84620780|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.5|-11.5|0.404
84620781|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|34.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.1|-12.8|0.470
84620782|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620783|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
84620784|NCT02365649|168988501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620785|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||14.6|-48.4|0.624
84620786|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|36.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||36.1|-28.3|1.000
84503264|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|27.63||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.63|-5.86|
84503265|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|1.91||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.91|-24.11|
84503266|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|14.0||||||For change in pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.00|-24.26|
84503267|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|24.44||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.44|-14.18|
84503268|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|13.59||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.59|-26.25|
84503269|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|33.32||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.32|-15.26|
84620787|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|9.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||9.1|-48.0|0.363
84620788|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.2|-2.1|0.495
84620789|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.6|-0.6|0.066
84620790|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||8.9|-30.3|0.645
84620791|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||25.5|-16.8|0.686
84644735|NCT01302834|169024981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.58|0.61|0.95
84644736|NCT01302834|169024983|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84644737|NCT01302834|169024991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
84503270|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.71|26.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.82|-25.71|
84503271|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.07|28.01||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.01|-24.07|
84620792|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|28.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.2|-19.5|0.721
84620793|NCT02365649|168988502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
84620794|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.5|-47.5|1.000
84620795|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||37.8|-27.8|0.765
84620796|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.4|-42.4|1.000
84620797|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||32.5|-47.5|1.000
84676620|NCT04160260|169088767|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|107.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-48) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg intravenous (IV) omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log Geometric Mean (GM) AUC(0-48) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.98 (0.2091).||107.5|84.2|
84503272|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|24.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.86|-5.89|
84503273|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.19|3.17||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.17|-43.19|
84503274|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.1||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.10|-27.24|
84503275|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|8.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.96|-41.10|
84620798|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||43.9|-21.4|0.502
84620799|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||42.9|-32.9|1.000
84620800|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||37.3|-42.3|1.000
84620801|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||54.5|-9.5|0.180
84620802|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||25.6|-45.6|0.702
84601607|NCT02979093|168953521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09687||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (Addiction vs. Control) and condition (Oxytocin \[OT\] vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs. placebo for Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) for happy own vs. happy unknown infant faces."||||0.319
84601608|NCT02979093|168953521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10968||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for vmPFC for Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces."||||0.171
84601609|NCT02979093|168953521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.20839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08405||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs placebo for Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC) for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.0179
84601610|NCT02979093|168953521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11827||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for dlPFC for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.7171
84601611|NCT01974206|168953584|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization strata, and the 90% CIs of the CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.47|0.43|0.307
84601612|NCT01974206|168953585|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.15||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||2.15|0.46|0.576
84601613|NCT01974206|168953586|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.59||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.59|0.48|0.408
84601614|NCT01974206|168953587|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.61|0.48|0.419
84601615|NCT01974206|168953588|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio could not be calculated as 100% of ASP0113 group showed graft survival, and this leads to having a value of 0 for the denominator for the ratio thus odds ratio is not estimable. The 90% CI (2-sided) values for the odds ratio are 0.11 to NA, where NA is an infinity value.||||0.5
84601616|NCT03989349|168953591|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|19.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||19.8|4.6|0.0006
84601617|NCT03989349|168953592|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|5.6|0.0008
84601618|NCT03989349|168953593|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|20.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||20.3|4.6|0.0006
84601619|NCT03989349|168953594|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.0|6.6|0.0004
84620803|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||3.9|-58.9|0.214
84644738|NCT01302834|169024994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5438
84644739|NCT01302834|169024998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7108||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7108
84503276|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.72|-5.5||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-5.50|-42.72|
84601620|NCT03989349|168953595|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.1|30.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||30.3|16.1|<0.0001
84601621|NCT03989349|168953595|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.2|34.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.5|21.2|<0.0001
84601622|NCT03989349|168953596|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.5|36.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||36.6|17.5|<0.0001
84601623|NCT03989349|168953596|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.5|42.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||42.3|24.5|<0.0001
84601624|NCT03989349|168953597|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|23.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||23.3|10.9|<0.0001
84601625|NCT03989349|168953598|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|25.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.8|11.0|<0.0001
84601626|NCT03989349|168953599|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.8|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|10.8|< 0.0001
84601627|NCT03989349|168953600|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.5|31.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||31.4|12.5|<0.0001
84601628|NCT03989349|168953601|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|26.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting the randomized stratification variables (IGA severity and PP NRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.1|15.6|< 0.0001
84601629|NCT03989349|168953602|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.0|29.9||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||29.9|15.0|<0.0001
84620804|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.0|-2.5|0.086
84620805|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||37.2|-37.2|1.000
84503277|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|10.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.61|-29.66|
84673533|NCT04074317|169082497|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|93.32||||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.14|124.16||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA|Based on Least-Squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||124.16|70.14|0.6773
84673534|NCT04074317|169082497|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|97.43||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|130.14||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||130.14|72.94|0.8768
84760418|NCT03759665|169277232|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.001
84620806|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||46.6|-31.6|1.000
84620807|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|63.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.6|1.4|0.051
84620808|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||34.8|-34.8|1.000
84620809|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||60.0|-5.0|0.075
84620810|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.2|-18.6|0.705
84620811|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.4|-20.0|1.000
84760419|NCT03759665|169277234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.031||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.063|0.020
84620812|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.0|-5.0|0.075
84620813|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.2|-18.6|0.705
84620814|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||18.5|-17.4|1.000
84620815|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.8|-20.5|1.000
84620816|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||5.2|-18.0|0.348
84620817|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||20.7|-13.4|0.686
84620818|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||34.8|-19.8|0.616
84620819|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.3|-20.5|0.420
84503278|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.93|7.46||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.46|-47.93|
84620820|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||12.4|-20.0|1.000
84503279|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|46.77||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.77|3.23|
84601630|NCT03989349|168953603|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|17.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||17.4|9|< 0.0001
84726117|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.066|386.473|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||386.473|2.066|0.012
84620821|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||21.8|-20.5|1.000
84620822|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-14.4|1.000
84601631|NCT03989349|168953604|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|14.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.3|5.5|0.0001
84601632|NCT03989349|168953605|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|19.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level||19.2|11|< 0.0001
84503280|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|25.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.99|-13.49|
84503281|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|46.41||||||For change in pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.41|-7.12|
84503282|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|43.66||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.66|0.38|
84503283|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|38.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-18.49|
84503284|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|55.65||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.65|-13.98|
84503285|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|42.83||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.83|-19.02|
84601633|NCT03989349|168953606|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.5|22.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.1|10.5|<0.0001
84760420|NCT03759665|169277234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.042|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.063|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.063|0.021|<0.001
84620823|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
84503286|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|39.94||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.94|-16.13|
84503287|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.38|23.38||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.38|-23.38|
84503288|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|17.21||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups||17.21|-34.53|
84601634|NCT03989349|168953607|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|9.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
84601635|NCT03989349|168953608|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.2|11.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||11.8|4.2|0.0004
84601636|NCT02488135|168953609|NON_INFERIORITY|An a priori sample size was calculated using a non-inferiority limit (d) set at 25%, significance level (α) of 5% and power of 80%. We assumed that success in each group would be 93% based on the literature examining anterior nasal packing in ideal conditions and considering our selection criteria in the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) population. Attrition was assumed to be 0% due to the short duration of treatment. This yielded 26 participants with 13 patients in each study arm.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84601637|NCT02488135|168953610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during placement.||||0.0022
84601638|NCT02488135|168953610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during treatment.||||0.0007
84601639|NCT02488135|168953610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between scores for pain during removal.||||0.0021
84601640|NCT02248649|168953611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|covariates: baseline age and years of education||||||0.2
84601641|NCT02248649|168953612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84601642|NCT02248649|168953613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84601643|NCT02438683|168953617|OTHER||Slope|0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0012|0.0046||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected HR change from baseline (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis).||0.0046|0.0012|
84601644|NCT02438683|168953618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|6.97||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||6.97|0.73|
84601645|NCT02438683|168953619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|8.16||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.16|1.69|
84601646|NCT02438683|168953620|OTHER||Slope|0.0011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0009|0.003||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected QTcF change from baseline (ddQTcF) and independent variable. Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject (Primary analysis). The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||0.0030|-0.0009|
84644740|NCT00899392|169025015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Student's t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84644741|NCT00899392|169025016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney Test-non parametric||||>0.05
84620824|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.6|-21.9|0.555
84620825|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||21.8|-27.2|0.830
84620826|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-36.0|0.518
84620827|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|43.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||43.6|-18.6|0.428
84503289|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|26.04||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.04|-52.01|
84620828|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|28.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||28.4|-20.7|0.757
84620829|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||32.4|-23.2|0.745
84620830|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.0|-34.6|1.000
84620831|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||27.7|-20.6|0.773
84620832|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-29.4|0.838
84620833|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|14.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||14.1|-40.0|0.497
84620834|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||34.9|-14.0|0.404
84620835|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.8|-29.4|0.838
84620836|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||31.6|-24.4|1.000
84503290|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|19.24||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.24|-71.87|
84503291|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|14.31||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.31|-26.59|
84644742|NCT00899392|169025017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||>0.05
84644743|NCT00899392|169025018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
84644744|NCT03836001|169025039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84644745|NCT03836001|169025040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84620837|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.8|-7.0|0.174
84620838|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|32.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||32.3|-19.1|0.611
84620839|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620840|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|0.488
84620841|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620842|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620843|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|0.488
84620844|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620845|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620846|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.0|-13.4|1.000
84620847|NCT02365649|168988503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84620848|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||45.5|-72.2|1.000
84620849|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.1|-50.2|1.000
84620850|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||44.8|-4.8|1.000
84620851|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||33.2|-79.8|0.423
84644746|NCT03836001|169025041|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84644747|NCT03836001|169025042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84644748|NCT03836001|169025043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84673535|NCT04074317|169082498|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.51|65.11||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was ana analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||65.11|44.51|<0.0001
84673536|NCT04074317|169082498|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|73.16||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|87.67||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||87.67|61.06|0.0192
84726118|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.333||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|116.82|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||116.820|0.914|0.059
84620852|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|8.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||8.2|-74.0|0.250
84620853|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.6|-8.6|1.000
84620854|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.8|-4.8|1.000
84601647|NCT02438683|168953621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.39|5.7||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||5.70|3.39|
84726119|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.456||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|100.292|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||100.292|0.891|0.062
84726120|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|48.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||48.552|0.265|0.336
84601648|NCT02438683|168953622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.13||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.13|1.34|
84601649|NCT02438683|168953623|OTHER||Slope|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0032|0.0076||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected max HR (dHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis)||0.0076|0.0032|
84601650|NCT02438683|168953624|OTHER||Slope|-0.0014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0008||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||0.0008|-0.0036|
84601651|NCT02438683|168953624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0052|-0.0007||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||-0.0007|-0.0052|
84601652|NCT00147017|168953625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84601653|NCT00147017|168953626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84601654|NCT00147017|168953627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84601655|NCT01846299|168953680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.16|0.40|0.0111
84601656|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||0.18|-0.36|0.4990
84601657|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.29|-0.83|<0.0001
84673537|NCT04074317|169082498|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|135.91||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.1|163.31||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||163.31|113.10|0.0244
84673538|NCT04074317|169082499|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|73.53||||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.2541
84673539|NCT04074317|169082499|OTHER||Ratio of least-squares means|103.89|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||>0.9999
84673540|NCT04074317|169082499|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|141.29||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.1747
84673541|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.59|64.83||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||64.83|43.59|<0.0001
84673542|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|65.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.02|78.8||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.80|54.02|0.0018
84620855|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||33.1|-50.2|1.000
84620856|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||45.5|-72.2|1.000
84620857|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|12.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||12.2|-100.0|0.203
84620858|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||33.1|-50.2|1.000
84620859|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||45.5|-72.2|1.000
84620860|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
84726121|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio, log|9.112||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|103.872|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||103.872|0.799|0.075
84726122|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.312||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.665|322.412|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||322.412|2.665|0.006
84726123|NCT03320941|169204547|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|37.949||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.477|414.232|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||414.232|3.477|0.003
84726124|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.19||||||Dysglycemic||-0.19|-3.56|
84620861|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||56.6|-33.8|1.000
84620862|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
84620863|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620864|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84620865|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620866|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620867|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84726125|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.46||||||Dysglycemic||-1.46|-4.56|
84620868|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620869|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|42.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||42.1|-100.0|1.000
84620870|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84620871|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620872|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||75.4|-75.4|1.000
84620873|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84620874|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620875|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||75.4|-75.4|1.000
84726126|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.82||||||Dysglycemic||-1.82|-4.71|
84620876|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.7|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.0|-86.7|1.000
84620877|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
84620878|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||44.0|-31.2|1.000
84620879|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-48.6|0.655
84620880|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.0|0.2|0.541
84620881|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|34.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||34.4|-37.0|1.000
84620882|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||8.9|-67.0|0.178
84620883|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.0|-4.2|1.000
84620884|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|33.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||33.9|-54.4|1.000
84620885|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-48.6|0.655
84620886|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||46.3|-50.1|1.000
84620887|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|19.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||19.2|-73.0|0.320
84620888|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||28.1|-48.6|0.655
84620889|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.3|-50.1|1.000
84620890|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|44.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.5|-52.2|1.000
84726127|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.74||||||Dysglycemic||-1.74|-4.93|
84726128|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.15||||||T2DM||-0.15|-3.12|
84726129|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.61||||||T2DM||-0.61|-4.37|
84620891|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.0|-40.6|1.000
84620892|NCT02365649|168988504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|71.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||71.5|-29.2|0.603
84620893|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|56.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||56.5|-25.6|0.673
84620894|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|53.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||53.3|-14.0|0.265
84620895|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||51.5|-25.6|0.695
84620896|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.6||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||20.3|-61.4|0.394
84620897|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|28.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.3|-36.1|1.000
84620898|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|26.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||26.7|-47.9|0.683
84676621|NCT04160260|169088768|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|115.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-24) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg IV omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log GM AUC(0-24) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.26 (0.1985).||115.5|88.0|
84620899|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||61.4|-4.1|0.205
84620900|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|46.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||46.9|-17.9|0.388
84760421|NCT03759665|169277235|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|3.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||3.5|3.0|<0.001
84620901|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-28.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||8.0|-65.6|0.236
84620902|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-50.6|1.000
84620903|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-6.3|0.131
84620904|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-45.6|1.000
84676622|NCT01891734|169088815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84676623|NCT01891734|169088816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84726130|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.52||||||T2DM||-1.52|-5.20|
84620905|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|62.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||62.2|-19.6|0.411
84620906|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.2||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|64.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.5|-0.2|0.067
84601658|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference is calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.56|-1.10|<0.0001
84601659|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.08|-0.52|0.0090
84601660|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.45|-0.89|<0.0001
84601661|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.22|-1.66|<0.0001
84601662|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
84601663|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.39|-0.85|<0.0001
84601664|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.85|<0.0001
84620907|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||37.2|-39.5|1.000
84620908|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|62.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||62.0|-8.8|0.178
84620909|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|12.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.3|-23.8|0.720
84620910|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-27.2|0.683
84620911|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||58.9|-12.8|0.215
84620912|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|5.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||5.8|-30.4|0.279
84620913|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||15.4|-28.2|0.716
84620914|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.1|-27.5|1.000
84620915|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||7.1|-23.5|0.400
84620916|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.0|-19.6|1.000
84620917|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||38.0|-22.2|0.620
84620918|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.1|-23.5|0.400
84601665|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.14|-0.59|0.0015
84601666|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.61|-1.05|<0.0001
84601667|NCT05243745|168953720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.49|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.49|-1.95|<0.0001
84601668|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.572||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||11.02|0.83|0.0231
84601669|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|23.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||23.47|13.37|<0.0001
84620919|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.2|-22.7|1.000
84620920|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|26.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.6|-18.7|1.000
84620921|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.6|-9.7|0.678
84620922|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|26.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.2|-10.5|0.636
84601670|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|29.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||29.02|18.83|<0.0001
84601671|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.293||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|13.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||13.51|4.43|0.0002
84601672|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.22|22.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||22.20|13.22|<0.0001
84601673|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.27|37.34|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||37.34|28.27|<0.0001
84601674|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|15.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||15.13|5.28|<0.0001
84601675|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|18.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||18.80|9.05|<0.0001
84601676|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.42|41.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||41.60|31.42|<0.0001
84601677|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.761||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|15.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||15.20|4.26|0.0006
84601678|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|24.55|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||24.55|13.57|<0.0001
84601679|NCT05243745|168953721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|39.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.73|44.94|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||44.94|33.73|<0.0001
84601680|NCT02998203|168953731|OTHER|One-sample t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||<0.001
84601681|NCT02998203|168953732|OTHER|non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||<0.001
84601682|NCT02998203|168953733|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84601683|NCT02998203|168953734|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.017
84601684|NCT02998203|168953735|OTHER|Logistic mixed-effect model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84601685|NCT02998203|168953736|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.167|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.167
84601686|NCT02998203|168953737|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.07
84601687|NCT02998203|168953738|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84601688|NCT02998203|168953739|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.023|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.023
84601689|NCT02998203|168953740|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.259
84601690|NCT02998203|168953741|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=\<0.001.||||<0.001
84601691|NCT02998203|168953742|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.913|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.913
84601692|NCT02998203|168953743|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.338
84601693|NCT02998203|168953744|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=0.01.||||0.001
84620923|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|52.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||52.5|-9.7|0.190
84620924|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.3|-17.3|0.504
84601694|NCT04187144|168953776|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the 2.098 Z-statistic boundary.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 5.8838.|22.8|6.4|
84601695|NCT04187144|168953776|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in Percent|14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.018 p-value boundary||22.8|6.4|0.0003
84601696|NCT00245050|168953873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.16|||Chi-squared|||Based on published literature, it is estimated that the incidence of HFS for all grades is 49%. A decrease of 50% or more in the incidence of HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine would be of clinical significance. A sample size of 27 patients per group was chosen as this would allow us to detect a difference between HFS incidence of 49% and 11.5% (alpha=0.05, two-sided, power=0.80). Interim analysis was conducted after 30 patients were enrolled and had evaluable HFS assessment data.||2.16|0.536|<0.05
84601697|NCT00245050|168953874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.916
84601698|NCT02301546|168953875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84601699|NCT04838054|168953876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values \<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
84601700|NCT04838054|168953877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84601701|NCT04838054|168953878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84601702|NCT02449889|168953892|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment comparisons were done in a sequential manner. First non-inferiority (NI) was tested for HP-hCG IM compared to rhCG SC (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) \> -3.0). If NI was demonstrated, NI was also to be tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.8|-0.6|
84620925|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||31.0|-27.8|0.916
84644749|NCT03836001|169025044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.02|-0.24|0.09
84601703|NCT02449889|168953892|NON_INFERIORITY|As step 2 in the pre-specified sequential testing, NI was tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||2.0|-0.5|
84601704|NCT02449889|168953893|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of MII oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.5|-0.6|
84601705|NCT02449889|168953893|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of Mll oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||1.6|-0.4|
84601706|NCT02449889|168953894|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.3|-0.6|
84601707|NCT02449889|168953894|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC.||1.4|-0.5|
84601708|NCT01973387|168953899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.291|||Log Rank|||||0.291|0.109|<0.0001
84601709|NCT00396006|168953905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0195
84601710|NCT00396006|168953909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
84601711|NCT00396006|168953910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
84601712|NCT00396006|168953912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1875
84601713|NCT00396006|168953913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.4375
84620926|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|31.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||31.7|-31.7|1.000
84620927|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-35.3|0.504
84620928|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|22.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||22.3|-36.6|0.635
84620929|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|42.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.5|-21.1|0.513
84620930|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-24.7|0.898
84620931|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|15.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||15.5|-41.7|0.379
84620932|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.4|-34.5|0.822
84620933|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||35.0|-17.3|0.508
84620934|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||22.4|-34.3|0.683
84726131|NCT03320941|169204548|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-2.79||||||T2DM||-2.79|-5.93|
84620935|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|45.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||45.1|-16.6|0.490
84620936|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.5|-1.9|0.078
84620937|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|38.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||38.4|-17.7|0.466
84644750|NCT03836001|169025045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.03|-0.19|0.16
84644751|NCT03836001|169025047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
84644752|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1217|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Sex||||=0.1217
84644753|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8241|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA=Analysis of variance||PCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.8241
84726132|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.900|-3.104|0.278
84644754|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3471|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.3471
84644755|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9951|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.9951
84644756|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0631|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.0631
84644757|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7473|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.7473
84620938|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620939|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|0.447
84620940|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620941|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|1.000
84620942|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.193
84620943|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.498
84620944|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620945|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|0.447
84620946|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620947|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620948|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|0.447
84620949|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620950|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620951|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-15.5|1.000
84644758|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4422|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.4422
84644759|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1796|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.1796
84644760|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3535|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.3535
84644761|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1508|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1508
84644762|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2671|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.2671
84644763|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0594|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.0594
84620952|NCT02365649|168988505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
84620953|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||43.9|-57.2|1.000
84620954|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||55.8|-9.2|0.323
84620955|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||60.0|6.7|0.516
84503292|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|11.48||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.48|-35.46|
84620956|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|14.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||14.0|-77.4|0.191
84620957|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||22.6|-26.0|1.000
84620958|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||24.0|-7.3|1.000
84620959|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||60.0|6.7|0.261
84620960|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||55.8|-9.2|0.323
84620961|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||58.5|-41.8|1.000
84620962|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||23.9|-77.2|0.593
84620963|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.8|-9.2|0.323
84503293|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|49.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.04|-20.97|
84620964|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.5|-41.8|1.000
84620965|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|66.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||66.5|-23.1|0.600
84644764|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5484|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.5484
84644765|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5387|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.5387
84644766|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5270
84760422|NCT03759665|169277235|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|5.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||5.0|4.5|<0.001
84620966|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||65.2|-1.9|0.162
84620967|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|67.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||67.4|-34.1|1.000
84620968|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|77.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.2|-50.5|1.000
84644767|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3863|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.3863
84644768|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4206|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4206
84503294|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|62.61||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.61|-15.83|
84503295|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|38.73||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-30.84|
84503296|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|62.2||||||For change in pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.20|-13.08|
84644769|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0538|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.0538
84644770|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9572|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.9572
84644771|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4742|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.4742
84644772|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5735|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.5735
84644773|NCT04876690|169025060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3760
84644774|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4814|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Sex||||=0.4814
84644775|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.3136
84644776|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5808|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.5808
84644777|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2965|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.2965
84644778|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2874|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.2874
84644779|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4269|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.4269
84644780|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8931|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.8931
84644781|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9384|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.9384
84644782|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8286|||||||Mann-Whitney|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.8286
84644783|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1919|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1919
84644784|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6452|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.6452
84644785|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7218|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.7218
84644786|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9738|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.9738
84644787|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.2419
84644788|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5524|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5524
84644789|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4443|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.4443
84644790|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4106|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4106
84644791|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7795|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.7795
84644792|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2964|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.2964
84644793|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.3287
84644794|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0091|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.0091
84644795|NCT04876690|169025061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3889|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3889
84644796|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8001|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Age||||=0.8001
84644797|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4532|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: BMI||||=0.4532
84644798|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9597|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9597
84644799|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3304|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.3304
84644800|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6333|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Since Seton Replacement||||=0.6333
84644801|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8003|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.8003
84620969|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84620970|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620971|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||2.9|-82.9|0.464
84620972|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||19.3|-100.0|0.400
84620973|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||17.2|-100.0|0.464
84620974|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84503297|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|34.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.94|-38.65|
84620975|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620976|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|41.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||41.8|-95.1|1.000
84620977|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
84620978|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
84620979|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-77.2|1.000
84620980|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|-70.8|1.000
84620981|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
84620982|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|40.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.4|-33.8|1.000
84644802|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0032|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.0032
84644803|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0923|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0923
84503298|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.43|56.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.73|-37.43|
84503299|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.22|97.54||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.54|-71.22|
84620983|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.5|-15.2|0.408
84503300|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|68.22||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.22|-22.61|
84503301|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.59||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.59|-39.10|
84503302|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|46.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.86|1.09|
84620984|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.2|9.5|0.266
84620985|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-0.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||-0.5|-66.2|0.121
84620986|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||-10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||14.6|-34.6|-10.0
84620987|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.3|-6.0|1.000
84620988|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.9|-45.3|1.000
84620989|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||48.5|-15.2|0.408
84620990|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||55.7|-29.1|1.000
84620991|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|11.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||11.9|-65.3|0.241
84620992|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||48.5|-15.2|0.408
84503303|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|63.11||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.11|-39.03|
84503304|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|58.52||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||58.52|-20.74|
84503305|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.94|15.28||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.28|-111.94|
84503306|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|20.74||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.74|-22.59|
84503307|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.98|39.43||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.43|-24.98|
84620993|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||55.7|-29.1|1.000
84620994|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|36.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.6|-43.3|1.000
84620995|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|62.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||62.9|-2.9|0.217
84503308|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|77.71||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.71|-57.71|
84503309|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.87|24.79||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.79|-58.87|
84620996|NCT02365649|168988506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|69.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.9|-16.5|0.603
84620997|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||52.6|-27.6|0.686
84620998|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
84620999|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||27.4|-47.4|0.709
84621000|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.1|-16.6|1.000
84621001|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.0|-6.1|0.428
84621002|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||22.9|-9.3|0.639
84621003|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|39.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.2|-22.2|0.583
84621004|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.9|-7.2|0.171
84621005|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
84621006|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84503310|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|13.1||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.10|-43.10|
84503311|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.75|57.3||||||For change in pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.30|-41.75|
84503312|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.79|20.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.46|-53.79|
84621007|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.0|-13.4|1.000
84621008|NCT02365649|168988507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84621009|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
84621010|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
84621011|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
84621012|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.1|-14.6|1.000
84621013|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.3|-10.1|1.000
84621014|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|16.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||16.7|-11.8|1.000
84621015|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
84621016|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
84621017|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|20.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||20.4|-11.9|0.623
84621018|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621019|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.7|-18.7|1.000
84621020|NCT02365649|168988508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|0.501
84621021|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
84621022|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
84644804|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0994|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0994
84503313|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.14|30.92||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.92|-73.14|
84601714|NCT02163967|168953917|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.Increase in HRV at 2Amp compared to sham.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in High frequency HRV after 20 minutes of stimulation or 15 minutes after cessation of stimulation at the low (1mAmp) or high (2mAmp) dose compared to sham stimulation||||<.02
84601715|NCT02163967|168953918|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the number of side effects reported during either dose of stimulation compared to sham stimulation. Statistical differences were examined for light flickering in peripheral vision . Other side effects were reported by too few subjects to be analyzed statistically.||||<.001
84601716|NCT02163967|168953919|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.81
84676624|NCT02447991|169088830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.33||||||Significance level p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.33
84601717|NCT02163967|168953920|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.47
84601718|NCT03272828|168953921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
84601719|NCT03272828|168953922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.06
84503314|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|51.13||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.13|-115.58|
84601720|NCT03272828|168953923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.45
84601721|NCT04295681|168953943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of MoCA scores (90th day of treatment minus baseline) were compared.||1.70|0.47|0.0006
84601722|NCT04295681|168953944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 12th day of treatment) were compared.||0.37|-0.58|0.67
84601723|NCT04295681|168953944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 90th day of treatment) were compared.||0.50|-0.47|0.94
84601724|NCT04295681|168953945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with no significant disabilities after 90 days of treatment .||||0.89
84601725|NCT04295681|168953946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.067
84601726|NCT04295681|168953946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.81
84601727|NCT04295681|168953946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.17
84644805|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0444|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.0444
84644806|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.0860
84644807|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9415|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9415
84644808|NCT04876690|169025062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3709|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.3709
84644809|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0674|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Age||||=0.0674
84644810|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9392|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: BMI||||=0.9392
84644811|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6387|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.6387
84644812|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7846|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.7846
84644813|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3972|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Since Seton Placement||||=0.3972
84644814|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9496|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9496
84644815|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.813|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.8130
84644816|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4588|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.4588
84644817|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8663|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.8663
84644818|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1349|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.1349
84644819|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5647|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.5647
84644820|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9509|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9509
84644821|NCT04876690|169025063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5328|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.5328
84621023|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
84621024|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.9|-9.2|1.000
84621025|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
84621026|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||11.5|-9.1|1.000
84621027|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
84621028|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
84621029|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||12.1|-14.1|1.000
84621030|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84621031|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
84621032|NCT02365649|168988509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84621033|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|51.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||51.9|-21.9|0.669
84621034|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||45.2|-15.2|0.343
84621035|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||17.2|-57.2|0.442
84621036|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|32.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||32.2|-23.4|1.000
84676625|NCT02447991|169088831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.18||||||Signficant at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication||||<0.18
84621037|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|23.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.5|-13.6|0.601
84621038|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.7|-18.2|1.000
84621039|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||47.5|-14.5|0.301
84621040|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.4|-10.3|0.256
84621041|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|29.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.5|-26.5|0.917
84621042|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|1.000
84621043|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.3|-28.8|0.697
84621044|NCT02365649|168988510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.126
84621045|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.8|-30.8|0.691
84621046|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||60.0|-2.5|0.086
84621047|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||25.6|-45.6|0.702
84621048|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||-1.0|-24.0|0.557
84621049|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
84621050|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.2|-14.4|0.707
84726133|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.265|0.747|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.747|-3.265|0.216
84726134|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.069|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.504|-3.069|0.158
84726135|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.401|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.022|-3.401|0.053
84726136|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.444|0.717|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.717|-5.444|0.130
84726137|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.156|-0.994|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.994|-7.156|0.011
84621051|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|28.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.8|-27.9|1.000
84621052|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||40.6|-7.2|0.175
84601728|NCT04295681|168953947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of participants having at least one adverse event were compared.||||0.656
84601729|NCT04295681|168953948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84601730|NCT04295681|168953950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
84601731|NCT04295681|168953951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
84601732|NCT04295681|168953952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Systolic blood pressure. Analysis of varience (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.438
84601733|NCT04295681|168953952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Diastolic blood pressure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.56
84601734|NCT04295681|168953953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at the baseline.||||0.72
84601735|NCT04295681|168953953|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||1
84601736|NCT04295681|168953954|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84601737|NCT04686084|168953991|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84601738|NCT02292758|168954009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.93|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.930|0.431|0.7609
84601739|NCT02292758|168954009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.656|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.656|0.249|
84601740|NCT02292758|168954012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.062|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.062|0.209|0.0446
84601741|NCT02292758|168954012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.089|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.089|0.151|
84601742|NCT02292758|168954014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3415
84601743|NCT02292758|168954015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1279
84601744|NCT02292758|168954016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.447
84601745|NCT02292758|168954017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.655|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.655|0.345|0.3738
84601746|NCT02292758|168954018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cetuximab comparison||||0.4283
84601747|NCT02292758|168954018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Irinotecan comparison||||0.5262
84601748|NCT03639623|168954022|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.053
84726138|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.322|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.996|-4.322|0.215
84601749|NCT03639623|168954023|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.958
84601750|NCT03639623|168954024|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.011
84601751|NCT03639623|168954025|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.454
84601752|NCT03639623|168954026|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.154
84601753|NCT03639623|168954027|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||0.125
84601754|NCT03639623|168954027|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: AST||||0.375
84601755|NCT03639623|168954027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.001
84601756|NCT03639623|168954028|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.054
84601757|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.378
84601758|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.010
84601759|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Non-HDL-C||||0.264
84601760|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C||||0.954
84601761|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 2||||0.127
84601762|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 3||||0.029
84601763|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: LDL-C||||0.630
84601764|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL-C||||0.010
84601765|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL concentration||||0.160
84601766|NCT03639623|168954029|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||Small dense LDL-C||||0.020
84601767|NCT03639623|168954030|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.529
84621053|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.4|-18.0|0.517
84621054|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
84621055|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
84621056|NCT02365649|168988511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621057|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|41.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||41.0|-41.0|1.000
84621058|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
84621059|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
84621060|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||19.3|-24.3|1.000
84621061|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
84676626|NCT02447991|169088832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.62||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.62
84503315|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|125.26||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||125.26|-18.60|
84726139|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|0.888|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.888|-4.515|0.184
84601768|NCT03639623|168954031|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: LDL Size||||0.403
84601769|NCT03639623|168954032|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.669
84601770|NCT03639623|168954033|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.021
84601771|NCT03639623|168954033|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Large VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.011
84601772|NCT03639623|168954033|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Medium VLDL particles||||0.060
84601773|NCT03639623|168954033|OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Small VLDL particles||||0.324
84601774|NCT03639623|168954034|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.010
84601775|NCT03639623|168954035|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.249
84601776|NCT03639623|168954036|OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||paired t-test|||Time to peak RQ||||0.0193
84601777|NCT03639623|168954037|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Physical component score||||0.960
84601778|NCT03639623|168954037|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Mental component score||||0.249
84601779|NCT00744978|168954054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; Type I error rate for primary hypothesis was 5%; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.53|-1.37|0.3873
84601780|NCT00744978|168954055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.49||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.49|-0.39|0.2465
84621062|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
84621063|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-28.7|1.000
84621064|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.9|-14.0|0.404
84621065|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
84621066|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
84673543|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|122.73||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.33|148.66||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||148.66|101.33|0.2391
84673544|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.58|61.73||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||61.73|47.58|<0.0001
84673545|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|71.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.99|80.69||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.69|62.99|0.0002
84673546|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|131.55||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.01|149.17||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||149.17|116.01|0.0026
84726140|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.611|2.552|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.552|-2.611|0.982
84621067|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
84621068|NCT02365649|168988512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621069|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|43.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||43.8|-23.8|0.606
84726141|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|3.401|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.401|-1.809|0.544
84673547|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|51.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.74|56.39||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||56.39|46.74|<0.0001
84673548|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|78.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|85.76||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.76|71.39|0.0003
84673549|NCT04074317|169082500|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|152.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.91|167.22||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||167.22|138.91|<0.0001
84673550|NCT03091192|169082501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.37|0.313
84673551|NCT03091192|169082502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Savolitinib|||1.17|0.21|0.110
84673552|NCT02096835|169082527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
84673553|NCT02096835|169082528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
84673554|NCT02096835|169082529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
84503316|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|41.58||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.58|-34.92|
84673555|NCT02096835|169082530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.571
84673556|NCT01706952|169082531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|For surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% confidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. We used the average per patient over time.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 13 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A power study was per formed with a power of 80% and a clinically significant difference in bleeding between the sides of 20% with a significance level of 5% (p \< 0.05).|"For the primary objective of surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides treated with cocaine vs adrenaline and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% con- fidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. As all of these values were measured over time, we used the average per patient over time. The total blood loss per side within subjects was also calculated, with 95% confidence interval again calculated by a Student t test. Once again, we took the average per patient over time as the main outcome.~Finally, we used a linear regression with surgical field improvement as the outcome and HR, MAP, or etCO2 as covariates, to investigate which variables may be related to the outcome. As these measures were taken over time, we used repeated measures analysis to investigate how these items correlate over time.~In addition to the operating surgeon, the statistician was blinded to the vasoconstrictor allocation."|||0.05
84673557|NCT00023673|169082538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Lung V20||||0.62
84673558|NCT00023673|169082538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Lung V20||||0.22
84673559|NCT00023673|169082539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Mean Lung Dose||||0.30
84673560|NCT00023673|169082539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Lung Dose||||0.17
84503317|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|20.96||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-34.3|
84673561|NCT00023673|169082539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Esophageal Dose||||0.08
84673562|NCT00548808|169082589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.4% for HbA1c was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.25|0.716
84673563|NCT00548808|169082590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.279
84673564|NCT00548808|169082590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.846
84673565|NCT00548808|169082590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.741
84673566|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 16 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.50|0.41|0.465
84673567|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28||P-value for Patients Achieving HbA1c \<7% at 16 Weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.28|0.51|0.365
84673568|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.95||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.95|0.65|0.683
84673569|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.68|0.810
84673570|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.01||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||2.01|0.69|0.555
84673571|NCT00548808|169082591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.67|0.829
84673572|NCT00548808|169082593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.604
84673573|NCT00548808|169082593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-value for Week 32 Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.814
84601781|NCT00744978|168954056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.5||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.50|-0.33|0.2092
84601782|NCT00744978|168954057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.56||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.56|-1.30|0.4339
84673574|NCT00548808|169082593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.582
84601783|NCT00744978|168954058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect, and stratum, site, period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9745
84673575|NCT00548808|169082596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||P-value for Cholesterol.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.04|-0.26|0.162
84673576|NCT00548808|169082596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-value for Triglycerides.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.05|-0.30|0.165
84673577|NCT00548808|169082596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.18|0.510
84673578|NCT00548808|169082596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.06|-0.02|0.382
84673579|NCT04300296|169082598|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|19.3|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||19.3|-44.8|
84673580|NCT04300296|169082598|OTHER||Posterior median difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.7|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||40.7|-17.0|
84673581|NCT04300296|169082598|OTHER||Posterior median difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.4|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||35.4|-25.4|
84673582|NCT02896127|169082628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.69|||Regression, Logistic||||"PTFU=post-treatment follow-up (12 weeks after last study treatment)~95% confidence intervals are from a score method with continuity correction."|3.69|1.65|<.0001
84673583|NCT02477020|169082642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.442||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|||1.35|-12.26|0.115
84621070|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||64.1|5.9|0.034
84676627|NCT02447991|169088833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.19||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportions of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.19
84621071|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||0.6|-30.6|0.532
84621072|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.8|-20.5|1.000
84601784|NCT00744978|168954059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.92|-0.57|0.2852
84601785|NCT00744978|168954060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||2.53|0.02|0.0468
84601786|NCT00744978|168954061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.03|-0.02|0.8811
84601787|NCT00744978|168954062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.00|0.0830
84601788|NCT00744978|168954063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.03|0.7226
84601789|NCT00744978|168954064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.62||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Week 1: difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.62|-6.68|0.5588
84601790|NCT00744978|168954065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|1.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.05|-9.34|0.1173
84601791|NCT00744978|168954066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|3.96||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.96|-6.58|0.6251
84601792|NCT00744978|168954067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.05|0.9109
84601793|NCT00744978|168954068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.06|0.6632
84601794|NCT00744978|168954069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.07|0.5450
84673584|NCT02477020|169082643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.508||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||2.19|-3.77|0.602
84673585|NCT02477020|169082643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||2.19|-6.62|0.322
84503318|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.94|100.6||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||100.60|-58.94|
84673586|NCT02477020|169082643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|2.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.10|-9.02|0.221
84601795|NCT00744978|168954070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.02|0.2799
84601796|NCT00744978|168954071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo aAnalyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.03|0.9675
84601797|NCT00744978|168954072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.05|0.5008
84601798|NCT00744978|168954073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.2245
84601799|NCT00744978|168954074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.4974
84601800|NCT00744978|168954075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.02|0.8525
84601801|NCT01218958|168954076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||The Hochberg method was used to adjust P-value for multiple comparisons (ie, 380 mg dose vs. placebo and 190 mg dose vs. placebo).|Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox|||"The event rate (percentage) is represented by the number of heavy drinking days divided by number of days at risk. For each day, the active groups' results were contrasted with placebo to form the event rate ratio. Thus, a hazard ratio of 0.75 for the 380 mg group indicates a 25% reduction in heavy drinking compared with that of placebo.~The method of analysis estimates the average ratio over time and accounts for discontinuation. Point/interval estimates for pairwise ratios were derived."||0.940|0.600|0.0245
84601802|NCT01218958|168954076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.018|||Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox model|||||1.018|0.677|0.0744
84601803|NCT04077996|168954125|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non inferiority analysis was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Summary statistics were computed, and a significance level (α) of 5% has been established.||1.3|0.91|<0.05
84601804|NCT04077996|168954125|NON_INFERIORITY|margin 30%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84601805|NCT04077996|168954126|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|1.0|0.14|6.6|||Fisher Exact|||||6.6|0.14|<0.05
84601806|NCT02333396|168954166|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-5.77|0.44
84726142|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|1.663|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.663|-3.084|0.552
84673587|NCT02477020|169082643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|4.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||4.11|-8.33|0.504
84621073|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||13.3|-14.4|1.000
84621074|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.6|-16.0|1.000
84503319|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.54|63.2||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.20|-44.54|
84601807|NCT02333396|168954167|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-0.61|0.09
84601808|NCT02333396|168954168|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.36|-0.09|0.05
84601809|NCT02333396|168954169|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimare|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.67|-1.63|0.19
84601810|NCT02333396|168954170|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-5.33|0.93
84601811|NCT02333396|168954171|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.31|-3.02|0.79
84601812|NCT02333396|168954174|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-2.62|0.64
84601813|NCT02333396|168954175|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-3.02|0.39
84601814|NCT02333396|168954177|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estiamte|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
84601815|NCT02333396|168954178|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
84601816|NCT02684058|168954183|SUPERIORITY|one-sided p-value at 2.5% level of significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.4|||Chi-squared|||||22.4|2.3|<0.001
84601817|NCT02684058|168954188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.55||Log-rank test at an overall one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Log Rank|||Up to approx. 3 years||0.55|0.17|<0.001
84601818|NCT03219034|168954232|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cross-over design: Median differences between oral appliances at the end of the first 4-week leg of the study (T2). The hypothesis tested was that REI would be lowered more with Appliance A than B.||||0.152
84601819|NCT03172884|168954252|OTHER||LS means|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|2.081||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Healthy Subjects||2.081|0.921|
84601820|NCT03172884|168954252|OTHER||LS means|1.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.093||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.093|0.998|
84601821|NCT03172884|168954252|OTHER||LS means|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.486|0.858||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||0.858|0.486|
84601822|NCT03172884|168954253|OTHER||LS Means|1.711|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|2.55||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.550|1.148|
84601823|NCT03172884|168954253|OTHER||LS Means|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.115|3.46||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.460|2.115|
84601824|NCT03172884|168954253|OTHER||LS Means|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.659||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.659|0.696|
84601825|NCT03172884|168954254|OTHER||LS Means|1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.251|2.498||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.498|1.251|
84601826|NCT03172884|168954254|OTHER||LS Means|2.735|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.163|3.459||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.459|2.163|
84601827|NCT03172884|168954254|OTHER||LS Means|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.549||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.549|0.815|
84601828|NCT01468207|168954307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|15.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|26.5||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|5.3|=0.003
84601829|NCT01468207|168954307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|0.3|=0.048
84601830|NCT01468207|168954307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|2.2|=0.027
84601831|NCT01468207|168954308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.1|||Chi-squared|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.1|-13.4|=0.961
84601832|NCT01468207|168954309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|2.8|||=|0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|14.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.2|-8.6|=0.628
84676628|NCT02447991|169088834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.14
84503320|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|75.3||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||75.30|-35.30|
84673588|NCT02477020|169082643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.48||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||2.48|-10.30|0.229
84673589|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 1||0.38|-1.84|0.195
84673590|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.36||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.36|-2.74|0.132
84673591|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.959||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 3||-0.05|-3.84|0.045
84673592|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 4||0.49|-3.56|0.135
84621075|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.8|-11.7|0.350
84621076|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.3|2.0|0.034
84621077|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|18.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.9|1.000
84621078|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
84621079|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
84621080|NCT02365649|168988513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621081|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.536
84673593|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 5||0.14|-4.17|0.067
84673594|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.31||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 6||0.31|-4.11|0.092
84676629|NCT02447991|169088835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.72||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.72
84621082|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.238
84621083|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||24.3|-34.3|1.000
84621084|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||23.8|-43.8|0.606
84621085|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.5|1.000
84621086|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
84621087|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
84621088|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
84621089|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
84621090|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||69.2|5.8|0.099
84621091|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|60.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.3|2.2|0.052
84621092|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
84621093|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.1|0.9|0.194
84621094|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
84621095|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|32.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||32.9|-42.9|1.000
84621096|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|51.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||51.1|-18.6|0.477
84621097|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|21.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.3|-26.4|0.833
84673595|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 1||1.46|-0.78|0.548
84621098|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.7|-30.9|0.732
84621099|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|54.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.2|-15.4|0.468
84621100|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|11.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.7|-34.1|0.339
84726143|NCT03320941|169204549|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.964|0.588|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.588|-3.964|0.143
84601833|NCT01468207|168954310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline, and treatment as covariates.||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||2.4|-19.7|=0.124
84601834|NCT03552536|168954429|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. Least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.6|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8583 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was 64%.|||||
84601835|NCT05898672|168954452|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.89|148.48||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||148.48|115.89|
84601836|NCT05898672|168954453|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|212.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.31|258.9||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||258.90|174.31|
84601837|NCT03119181|168954472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||one-sided permutation test|||one-sided permutation test at 2.5% significance||||0.0097
84601838|NCT02379988|168954490|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.0063||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Heart Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0063
84601839|NCT02379988|168954490|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Lung Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0 .0110
84601840|NCT02379988|168954490|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.5098||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding LAD Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.5098
84601841|NCT02379988|168954491|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.001||||||P-value for Heart Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0010
84601842|NCT02379988|168954491|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Lung Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0110
84601843|NCT02379988|168954492|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.01||||||P-value for Large breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.01
84601844|NCT02379988|168954492|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.1||||||P-value for Small breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.10
84601845|NCT02379988|168954493|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon test was used due to the non-normal distribution of the data|||||=|0.7776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7776
84601846|NCT02089464|168954556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84601847|NCT02089464|168954557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84601848|NCT02089464|168954558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84601849|NCT02089464|168954559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84601850|NCT02089464|168954560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84601851|NCT02089464|168954562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84601852|NCT02089464|168954563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84601853|NCT02089464|168954564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
84601854|NCT03359785|168954580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.2401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.246||||ANOVA||||||-0.246|0.2401
84601855|NCT03359785|168954580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.9053|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.513||||ANOVA||||||-1.513|0.9053
84601856|NCT04262882|168954591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and religion. Analysis in GEE to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Reference group is the comparator arm|||3.64|0.77|0.20
84621101|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.3|0.263
84621102|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
84621103|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
84621104|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
84621105|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
84621106|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.6|-19.6|0.891
84621107|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.3|-25.8|0.779
84503321|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|36.66||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.66|-51.66|
84621108|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
84621109|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
84621110|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
84621111|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||36.2|7.6|0.083
84621112|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|32.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.0|-2.1|0.151
84621113|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||24.1|-22.4|1.000
84726144|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.035|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.035|-0.376|0.018
84503322|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|69.39||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||69.39|-36.06|
84503323|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.36|86.36||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.36|-76.36|
84621114|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|26.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||26.3|-25.4|1.000
84621115|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.2||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.9|-31.3|0.417
84621116|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|6.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||6.2|-46.7|0.125
84621117|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
84621118|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
84673596|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.88|-2.11|0.420
84673597|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 3||1.76|-1.47|0.857
84621119|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|9.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||9.6|-46.1|0.200
84621120|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||50.8|-7.9|0.177
84621121|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|46.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.2|-1.4|0.074
84621122|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
84621123|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.8|-7.9|0.177
84621124|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.8|-12.7|0.343
84673598|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.26||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 4||1.26|-2.44|0.527
84676630|NCT02447991|169088836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.48||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.48
84673599|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 5||1.71|-2.01|0.875
84621125|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.3|-36.1|0.585
84621126|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-9.9|-50.1|0.539
84621127|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|9.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||9.3|-40.8|0.277
84621128|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-42.9|0.422
84621129|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
84621130|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
84621131|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||5.4|-41.1|0.364
84621132|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
84621133|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
84621134|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621135|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621136|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.8|-21.2|0.606
84621137|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|16.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||16.0|-21.7|1.000
84621138|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621139|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
84621140|NCT02365649|168988514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
84621141|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|48.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||48.0|-13.0|0.633
84621142|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.0024
84621143|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||34.8|-34.8|1.000
84621144|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.8|-39.8|1.000
84621145|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
84621146|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||15.1|-55.1|0.384
84621147|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
84621148|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
84621149|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|0.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||0.8|-70.8|0.108
84621150|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||52.6|-27.6|0.686
84621151|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
84621152|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
84621153|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.2|5.8|0.099
84621154|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
84621155|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||38.0|-38.0|1.000
84673600|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.13||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 6||1.13|-2.58|0.441
84621156|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|50.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||50.7|-19.5|0.465
84621157|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||27.0|-19.3|0.745
84621158|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||16.1|-32.6|0.512
84621159|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-12.2|0.281
84621160|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||14.6|-30.8|0.486
84621161|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||8.0|-39.5|0.212
84621162|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
84621163|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
84621164|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
84621165|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||39.9|-23.7|0.678
84621166|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|21.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||21.9|-18.6|0.873
84621167|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|22.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.0|-22.3|0.990
84621168|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
84621169|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
84621170|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
84621171|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|48.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.1|-1.6|0.169
84673601|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 1||0.43|-1.17|0.362
84621172|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.7|11.5|0.005
84621173|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-26.8|0.963
84621174|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||33.2|-19.8|0.729
84673602|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 2||0.83|-1.26|0.687
84673603|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 3||0.76|-1.68|0.458
84673604|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.4||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 4||1.40|-1.38|0.991
84621175|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-25.8|0.804
84673605|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 5||0.82|-2.27|0.354
84673606|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.804||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 6||0.33|-2.85|0.119
84621176|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|13.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||13.1|-41.1|0.306
84621177|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
84621178|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
84621179|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
84621180|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.3|-24.0|0.655
84621181|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||40.0|-9.0|0.221
84621182|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
84621183|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
84621184|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
84621185|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|23.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||23.4|-32.9|0.741
84621186|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-6.0|-44.0|0.544
84621187|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.5||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-38.2|0.238
84621188|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.4|-41.1|0.364
84621189|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
84621190|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
84621191|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||-6.0|-44.0|0.063
84621192|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
84621193|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
84676631|NCT02447991|169088837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.35||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication..||||<0.35
84621194|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621195|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
84621196|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||13.0|-13.4|1.000
84621197|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|18.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||18.7|-14.4|1.000
84621198|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621199|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
84621200|NCT02365649|168988515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
84621201|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.155
84673607|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 1||0.60|-1.25|0.493
84621202|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.024
84621203|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|33.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.4|-40.1|1.000
84621204|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|29.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.2|-46.4|0.633
84621205|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
84621206|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|12.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||12.5|-61.3|0.209
84621207|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.283
84621208|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
84621209|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-41.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|-5.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-5.5|-77.8|0.048
84621210|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||61.4|-18.6|0.408
84621211|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
84621212|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||21.1|-54.5|0.454
84621213|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|69.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.7|1.8|0.183
84621214|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
84621215|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|33.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.6|-44.7|1.000
84621216|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|76.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||76.3|-9.7|0.307
84621217|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-4.1|0.172
84621218|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||55.1|-40.9|1.000
84621219|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.5|-27.8|1.000
84621220|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.7||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.1|-51.5|0.675
84621221|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|33.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||33.5|-59.2|0.644
84621222|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-50.6|1.000
84621223|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.0|-33.4|1.000
84621224|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||55.1|-40.9|1.000
84503324|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.63|42.08||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.08|-77.63|
84621225|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.6|-50.6|1.000
84621226|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.0|-33.4|1.000
84621227|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||55.1|-40.9|1.000
84673608|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 2||1.03|-0.96|0.949
84503325|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.33|28.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-62.33|
84503326|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.59|96.26||||||For change in pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-79.59|
84503327|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.98|52.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.94|-89.98|
84503328|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|93.08||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||93.08|-133.08|
84503329|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.27|77.94||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.94|-151.27|
84503330|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.58|65.91||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||65.91|-72.58|
84673609|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 3||0.33|-2.06|0.153
84726145|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0863||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.105|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.105|-0.447|0.002
84503331|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|163.12||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||163.12|-16.45|
84503332|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|41.56||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.56|-48.23|
84621228|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.2|-40.2|1.000
84503333|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.75|106.0||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.00|-74.75|
84503334|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|83.89||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||83.89|-17.22|
84503335|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|66.37||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-58.04|
84503336|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|38.61||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.61|-28.19|
84503337|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|103.44||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.44|-40.94|
84503338|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.02|145.18||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||145.18|-91.02|
84621229|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|59.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||59.6|-22.9|0.392
84503339|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.46|68.9||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.90|-99.46|
84621230|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-44.7|1.000
84621231|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||51.5|6.5|0.070
84621232|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.2|9.8|0.007
84621233|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|32.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.8|-26.1|0.826
84621234|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||27.7|-27.2|1.000
84621235|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-27.8|0.649
84621236|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.4|-45.7|0.304
84621237|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|38.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||38.7|-18.2|0.720
84621238|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|25.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||25.4|-23.0|0.923
84621239|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.4|-50.4|0.197
84621240|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||43.5|-20.4|0.486
84621241|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||42.7|-7.0|0.168
84621242|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|27.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.6|-34.3|0.833
84621243|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|53.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.4|-8.2|0.173
84621244|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||42.8|-7.6|0.178
84726146|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.136|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.136|-0.437|<0.001
84621245|NCT02365649|168988516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANCOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||30.9|-30.9|1.000
84621246|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||16.3|-71.9|0.580
84621247|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||39.7|-53.6|1.000
84621248|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||23.3|-72.2|0.580
84621249|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-38.9||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||5.2|-83.0|0.287
84621250|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||41.9|-53.0|1.000
84621251|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||38.3|-69.4|1.000
84621252|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||16.3|-71.9|0.580
84673610|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 4||1.35|-1.34|0.994
84621253|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||53.0|-41.9|1.000
84503340|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.69|19.69||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.69|-69.69|
84621254|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||23.3|-72.2|0.580
84621255|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-12.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-12.0|-76.9|0.103
84503341|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|77.4||||||For change in pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.40|-77.40|
84621256|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||53.0|-41.9|1.000
84621257|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|49.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||49.4|-58.3|1.000
84676632|NCT02447991|169088838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.022||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with effectiveness of study medication||||<0.022
84621258|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|48.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||48.7|-48.7|1.000
84621259|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|63.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.0|-29.7|0.637
84621260|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.3|-60.0|1.000
84621261|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||66.6|-29.4|0.570
84621262|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||10.2|-39.7|0.330
84621263|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||19.4|-40.0|1.000
84621264|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||66.6|-29.4|0.570
84503342|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.89|54.32||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||54.32|-82.89|
84503343|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.02|78.69||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.69|-87.02|
84503344|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.57|134.57||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||134.57|-184.57|
84673611|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 5||0.73|-1.96|0.365
84621265|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.7|0.330
84503345|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.73|89.06||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.06|-105.73|
84503346|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.72|188.06||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||188.06|-29.72|
84503347|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|49.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.41|-57.74|
84503348|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.62|72.95||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||72.95|-39.62|
84503349|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|61.66||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.66|-6.42|
84621266|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||35.4|-33.8|1.000
84726147|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.190|-0.486|<0.001
84621267|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||39.7|-42.6|1.000
84621268|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||0.1|-42.9|0.100
84503350|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|81.66||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||81.66|-29.28|
84503351|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.74|56.6||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.6|-63.74|
84503352|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|79.28||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.28|-31.66|
84503353|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.82|110.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.96|-53.82|
84503354|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|34.21||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.21|-94.53|
84621269|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||35.4|-33.8|1.000
84503355|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.26|49.93||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.93|-83.26|
84503356|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.98|88.45||||||For change in pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||88.45|-97.98|
84503357|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|64.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.46|-86.68|
84503358|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|64.93||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.93|-55.41|
84503359|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.86|110.82||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.82|-129.86|
84503360|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.92|79.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.82|-117.92|
84503361|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|159.13||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||159.13|-6.75|
84503362|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|55.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.41|-64.93|
84503363|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.74|260.62||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||260.62|-271.74|
84503364|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.87|197.98||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||197.98|-166.87|
84503365|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.4|
84503366|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.22|241.89||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||241.89|-275.22|
84621270|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|45.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||45.3|-33.8|1.000
84621271|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.6|-29.9|0.598
84726148|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0775||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.067|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.067|-0.245|0.258
84726149|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0774||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.021|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.021|-0.290|0.088
84726150|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|-0.011|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.011|-0.282|0.035
84726151|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.022|-0.248|0.100
84621272|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.3|-30.7|1.000
84621273|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52|Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|50.4|-24.7|0.468
84621274|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-15.7|1.000
84621275|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.4|-15.2|0.538
84621276|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||25.6|-48.0|0.692
84621277|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-46.9|0.388
84621278|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|16.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||16.9|-54.8|0.418
84621279|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-54.1|0.448
84621280|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.9|-47.4|0.430
84621281|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||37.6|-42.8|1.000
84503367|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.94|319.05||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.05|-307.94|
84503368|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.40|
84621282|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.2||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||12.9|-55.3|0.406
84621283|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.9|0.388
84621284|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|30.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||30.8|-46.5|1.000
84621285|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||4.1|-54.7|0.204
84621286|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-34.9|0.907
84503369|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.01|244.64||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||244.64|-215.01|
84503370|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.38|324.6||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||324.60|-302.38|
84503371|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.85|383.63||||||For change in pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||383.63|-305.85|
84503372|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.85|333.63||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.63|-355.85|
84503373|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.52|366.97||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||366.97|-322.52|
84621287|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|36.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||36.3|-40.2|1.000
84621288|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||41.3|-28.4|1.000
84621289|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|48.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.4|-15.5|0.450
84621290|NCT02365649|168988517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.6|-27.0|0.661
84503374|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
84503375|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.61|165.61||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.61|-165.61|
84503376|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.84|173.39||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||173.39|-17.84|
84503377|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.73|84.5||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.5|-106.73|
84503378|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-512.66|404.33||||||For change in global QoL at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||404.33|-512.66|
84503379|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.36|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-143.36|
84503380|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.13|333.46||||||For change in role functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.46|-400.13|
84503381|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-591.86|508.53||||||For change in emotional functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||508.53|-591.86|
84503382|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.67|-66.67||||||For change in cognitive functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-66.67|-66.67|
84503383|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|283.46||||||For change in social functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||283.46|-450.13|
84503384|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.86|311.2||||||For change in fatigue at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||311.2|-177.86|
84621291|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
84621292|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||70.8|-20.8|0.608
84621293|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
84726152|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.033|-0.592|0.029
84673612|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 6||0.17|-2.41|0.088
84621294|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||77.5|-77.5|1.000
84621295|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||49.0|-49.0|1.000
84621296|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||19.3|-79.3|0.565
84621297|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||84.6|15.4|0.467
84621298|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||49.0|-49.0|1.000
84621299|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
84621300|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||89.5|-64.5|1.000
84621301|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.7|-35.7|1.000
84621302|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
84621303|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||84.6|15.4|0.467
84621304|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||60.7|-35.7|1.000
84621305|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
84621306|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
84621307|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||18.2|-28.2|1.000
84621308|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
84621309|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
84621310|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
84621311|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
84621312|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||72.9|-19.6|0.249
84621313|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||18.2|-28.2|1.000
84621314|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||24.6|-29.0|1.000
84621315|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|61.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||61.8|-35.1|0.613
84503385|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.46|400.13||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||400.13|-333.46|
84621316|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||31.5|-34.8|1.000
84673613|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 1||1.03|-0.54|0.535
84621317|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|14.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.8|-45.9|0.615
84621318|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||67.5|-27.5|0.560
84621319|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52||36.8|-26.8|1.000
84621320|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.9|-37.7|1.000
84621321|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
84621322|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.1|-26.1|0.588
84676633|NCT02447991|169088838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.418||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with side effects of study medication||||<0.418
84503386|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
84503387|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in dyspnea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
84503388|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in insomnia at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
84503389|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1050.39|1150.39||||||For change in appetite loss at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1150.39|-1050.39|
84503390|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1850.65|1817.32||||||For change in constipation at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1817.32|-1850.65|
84503391|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in diarrhea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
84503392|NCT00219557|168758299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-383.46|350.13||||||For change in financial difficulties at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||350.13|-383.46|
84503393|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.29||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.29|-10.11|
84503394|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|20.2||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.20|-13.39|
84503395|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|33.43||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.43|5.96|
84503396|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.47||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.47|0.93|
84601857|NCT04262882|168954594|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.|||||<0.001
84601858|NCT04262882|168954594|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601859|NCT04262882|168954594|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601860|NCT04262882|168954595|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|64.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.||"Tests of significance for each follow-up time point:~7-months: unstandardized beta=1.08, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001; 10-months: unstandardized beta=0.79, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001"|||<0.001
84601861|NCT04262882|168954595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601862|NCT04262882|168954595|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601863|NCT04262882|168954596|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|23.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601864|NCT04262882|168954596|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601865|NCT04262882|168954596|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601866|NCT04262882|168954597|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|48.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models were run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601867|NCT04262882|168954597|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Cox|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601868|NCT04262882|168954597|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.04
84601869|NCT04262882|168954598|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|9.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm\*Time p value for 10-months follow up overall.|Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.007
84621323|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
84503397|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|28.91||||||For change in body image at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.91|1.28|
84621324|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|63.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||63.2|-29.9|0.631
84621325|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||44.8|-25.7|0.597
84621326|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|30.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||30.0|-46.7|1.000
84621327|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|71.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||71.8|-18.5|0.361
84621328|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.0|-39.6|0.812
84621329|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|6.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||6.3|-61.3|0.345
84621330|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||57.1|-37.1|1.000
84621331|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.1|-26.1|0.588
84621332|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
84503398|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|23.3||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.30|-14.59|
84503399|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-4.85||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-4.85|-37.53|
84621333|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|65.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||65.4|-25.4|0.635
84621334|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.7|-25.7|0.573
84621335|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-34.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||-0.1|-68.3|0.176
84726153|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1411||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.117|-0.681|0.006
84726154|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1253||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.159|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.159|-0.660|0.002
84621336|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
84621337|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
84621338|NCT02365649|168988518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
84621339|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
84621340|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|57.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||57.5|-32.5|1.000
84621341|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
84621342|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ|Non-respoonders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
84621343|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||3.9|-30.5|1.000
84601870|NCT04262882|168954598|SUPERIORITY|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|unstandardized beta|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
84601871|NCT04262882|168954598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
84621344|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|35.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.6|-19.4|0.651
84621345|NCT02365649|168988519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
84621346|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
84621347|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||49.0|-49.0|1.000
84621348|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
84621349|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||89.5|-64.5|1.000
84601872|NCT04262882|168954599|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|10.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.005
84673614|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 2||0.58|-1.40|0.412
84601873|NCT04262882|168954599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.85|0.99|0.05
84601874|NCT04262882|168954599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.22|0.75|0.71
84601875|NCT04262882|168954600|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
84601876|NCT04262882|168954600|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
84601877|NCT04262882|168954600|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601878|NCT04262882|168954601|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|78.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
84601879|NCT04262882|168954601|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601880|NCT04262882|168954601|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
84601881|NCT04262882|168954602|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|19.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601882|NCT04262882|168954602|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.008
84601883|NCT04262882|168954602|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
84601884|NCT04730635|168954614|OTHER||Posterior Probability|46.3||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≥2 percentage points. A posterior probability value \>55% was required to satisfy the primary hypothesis.||||
84601885|NCT04730635|168954615|OTHER||Posterior Probability|80.67||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≤ 0.1 for this standard deviation change. A posterior probability value \>70% was required to satisfy this secondary hypothesis.||||
84601886|NCT04730635|168954616|OTHER||Posterior Probability|98.8||||||||||||||||||
84601887|NCT03070223|168954617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.10|-0.30|0.31
84601888|NCT03070223|168954619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.88|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model.|Comparison of Month 24 values||2.88|-1.72|0.62
84601889|NCT03070223|168954620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.004|-0.007|0.61
84601890|NCT03070223|168954621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.19|-0.25|0.80
84601891|NCT03070223|168954622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative annualized risk of impairment in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.06|0.98|0.33
84601892|NCT03070223|168954623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.002|-0.013|0.18
84726155|NCT03320941|169204550|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.282|-0.769|<0.001
84621350|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||60.7|-35.7|1.000
84621351|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||31.0|-66.0|1.000
84621352|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|62.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|96.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||96.0|29.0|0.444
84621353|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||72.4|-22.4|0.619
84621354|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-4.0|-71.0|0.231
84621355|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-4.0|-71.0|1.000
84621356|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||72.4|-22.4|0.619
84621357|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
84673615|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 3||0.55|-1.52|0.354
84621358|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|45.0|0.133
84621359|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|82.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||82.5|-7.5|0.315
84621360|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||5.0|-55.0|0.487
84621361|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
84621362|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.487
84621363|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
84621364|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
84621365|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
84621366|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
84621367|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-23.9|0.447
84621368|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||6.0|-19.3|1.000
84621369|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||28.5|-19.7|1.000
84621370|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||67.5|-27.5|0.560
84673616|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 4||0.85|-1.49|0.589
84621371|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|0.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||0.2|-40.2|0.231
84503400|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|9.4||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.40|-25.04|
84503401|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|21.5||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-9.59|
84503402|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|30.4||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.40|-1.61|
84503403|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|22.22||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.22|2.78|
84621372|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.9|-37.7|1.000
84621373|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|45.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.7|-32.4|1.000
84621374|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||18.2|-28.2|1.000
84621375|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.6|-29.0|1.000
84676634|NCT02447991|169088838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.674||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with convenience of study medication||||<0.674
84621376|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
84621377|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|22.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||22.8|-45.7|0.700
84621378|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
84621379|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||69.2|-22.5|0.354
84621380|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||50.4|-18.1|0.450
84621381|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.8|-39.1|1.000
84621382|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||69.2|-22.5|0.354
84621383|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.7|-24.6|0.700
84673617|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 5||0.60|-1.65|0.360
84503404|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.39|1.36|
84621384|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.2|0.621
84621385|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|38.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.5|-51.8|1.000
84621386|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-39.6|0.812
84621387|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
84621388|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.2|-22.5|0.354
84726156|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2094||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.589|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.241|-0.589|0.408
84503405|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|11.71||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.71|-16.36|
84503406|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|24.2||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.20|-11.78|
84503407|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|28.94||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.94|0.79|
84621389|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.4|-18.1|0.450
84621390|NCT02365649|168988520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.9|-46.2|0.621
84621391|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20%of the cells have expected cell count \<5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||95.6|-62.2|1.000
84621392|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||79.6|-21.3|0.592
84621393|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||38.2|-64.8|1.000
84621394|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|80.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||80.0|-80.0|1.000
84621395|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||64.7|-39.7|1.000
84503408|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|34.42||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.42|-7.45|
84503409|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|37.55||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.55|0.17|
84503410|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|22.48||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.48|0.66|
84503411|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|36.95||||||For change in body image at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.95|0.49|
84621396|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|23.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||23.2|-83.2|0.545
84621397|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||90.0|10.0|0.464
84621398|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||64.7|-39.7|1.000
84621399|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-10.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-10.0|-90.0|0.182
84621400|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||95.6|-62.2|1.000
84673618|NCT02477020|169082644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 6||0.58|-1.93|0.288
84673619|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.47||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 1||0.47|-1.87|0.238
84673620|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.784||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 2||0.83|-2.27|0.359
84621401|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||79.6|-21.3|0.592
84621402|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||38.2|-64.8|1.000
84621403|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|28.9|0.429
84621404|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||79.6|-21.3|0.592
84673621|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 3||0.38|-3.34|0.119
84673622|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 4||0.80|-3.21|0.238
84673623|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 5||0.35|-3.81|0.102
84621405|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||4.4|-71.1|0.455
84621406|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|77.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.4|-14.0|0.191
84503412|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|11.17||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.17|-32.40|
84621407|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||22.1|-22.1|1.000
84673624|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 6||0.56|-3.77|0.145
84726157|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.087|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.087|-0.924|0.018
84621408|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-24.0|1.000
84621409|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||71.2|-24.5|0.538
84621410|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||29.8|-29.8|1.000
84621411|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||27.0|-35.3|1.000
84621412|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.1|-26.7|0.515
84621413|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-22.1|1.000
84621414|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||31.9|-23.6|1.000
84621415|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||71.2|-24.5|0.538
84673625|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 1||1.06|-0.93|0.902
84621416|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||4.4|-37.8|0.478
84621417|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||27.0|-35.3|1.000
84503413|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|17.27||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.27|-14.63|
84621418|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.1|-26.7|0.515
84621419|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||34.6|-17.9|1.000
84621420|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||31.9|-23.6|1.000
84621421|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||71.9|-21.9|0.344
84621422|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|53.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||53.5|-17.8|0.429
84621423|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||25.0|-46.4|1.000
84621424|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||57.1|-40.4|1.000
84621425|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||46.6|-29.9|0.671
84621426|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|30.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||30.5|-56.7|0.656
84621427|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||64.7|-31.4|0.627
84621428|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||46.7|-27.7|0.701
84673626|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 2||0.78|-1.96|0.396
84726158|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|-0.217|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.217|-0.956|0.002
84621429|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|18.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||18.1|-56.2|0.603
84503414|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|17.78||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.78|-14.70|
84503415|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|32.75||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.75|-10.65|
84621430|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||64.7|-31.4|0.627
84621431|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|39.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||39.0|-34.2|1.000
84621432|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||38.0|-47.6|1.000
84621433|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||71.9|-21.9|0.344
84621434|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|60.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||60.9|-10.9|0.248
84621435|NCT02365649|168988521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||25.0|-46.4|1.000
84621436|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
84621437|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||70.8|-20.8|0.608
84621438|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
84621439|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||55.1|-15.1|0.250
84621440|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||24.0|-7.3|0.444
84621441|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
84621442|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||37.8|-31.1|1.000
84673627|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 3||1.06|-1.79|0.612
84503416|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|24.13||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.13|-17.33|
84503417|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|22.93||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.93|-4.40|
84621443|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|52.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||52.8|-8.0|0.215
84621444|NCT02365649|168988522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
84621445|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||25.5|-55.5|0.671
84621446|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||39.8|-19.8|0.718
84621447|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||22.4|-52.4|0.461
84676635|NCT02447991|169088838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||Significance of threshold of p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with overall satisfaction of study medication||||<0.016
84621448|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|-14.5||Statistically significant at 0.05 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||-14.5|-85.5|0.030
84621449|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|17.9|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||17.9|-42.9|0.483
84621450|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||20.8|-50.8|0.431
84621451|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|41.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||41.1|-31.1|1.000
84621452|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||23.6|-38.6|0.635
84621453|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-5.2||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-5.2|-74.8|0.056
84621454|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.5|-47.5|1.000
84673628|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 4||1.33|-2.06|0.670
84673629|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 5||1.55|-1.98|0.807
84621455|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||49.7|-14.7|0.296
84621456|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.4|-42.4|1.000
84621457|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|35.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||35.9|-45.9|1.000
84621458|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
84621459|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
84621460|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.6|-12.8|0.259
84676636|NCT02447991|169088839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on physical well-being||||<0.009
84601893|NCT03070223|168954624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time (before vs. after study treatment initiation) and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative average risk of impairment over follow-up time in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.24|0.91|0.47
84503418|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|35.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.39|2.99|
84601894|NCT03070223|168954629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.4|-2.7|0.55
84601895|NCT03070223|168954630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.8|-2.8|0.67
84601896|NCT03070223|168954631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference (pitavastatin minus placebo) at Month 24 was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.52|-0.50|0.98
84601897|NCT03070223|168954632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.3|-0.8|0.31
84601898|NCT03070223|168954633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.9|-0.2|0.21
84601899|NCT01926041|168954661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.48|0.008
84601900|NCT01926041|168954662|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.04||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.13|0.023
84601901|NCT01926041|168954668|OTHER||Beta Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84601902|NCT02136680|168954683|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.046||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.400
84601903|NCT02136680|168954683|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.119||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.022
84601904|NCT02136680|168954683|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.347
84601905|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.959
84601906|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.143||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.021
84621461|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||9.7|-30.6|0.310
84601907|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.048||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.454
84601908|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.015||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up||||0.774
84601909|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.137||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.018
84601910|NCT02136680|168954684|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.051||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.362
84601911|NCT02136680|168954685|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.072||||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.213
84601912|NCT02136680|168954685|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.037||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.561
84621462|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-0.1||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||-0.1|-38.8|0.097
84601913|NCT02136680|168954685|SUPERIORITY|Change in Palliative Outcomes from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group|Regression Coefficient|0.165||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.008
84601914|NCT05032690|168954688|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|104.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||104.93|93.72|
84621463|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.4||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-8.5|0.181
84621464|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||20.0|-15.9|0.826
84621465|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||16.1|-21.2|1.000
84621466|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||45.4|-16.7|0.369
84621467|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|16.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.4|-18.2|1.000
84621468|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.1|-21.2|1.000
84621469|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||42.7|-20.2|0.660
84673630|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 6||0.54|-2.83|0.182
84673631|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 1||1.65|-1.52|0.933
84621470|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||17.5|-19.7|0.908
84621471|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|7.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.7|-27.8|0.446
84621472|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.8|-9.5|0.135
84621473|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-5.7|0.306
84621474|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
84621475|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.2|-25.4|0.754
84676637|NCT02447991|169088839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.467||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on mental well-being||||<0.467
84601915|NCT05032690|168954688|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.28|169.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||169.01|109.28|
84601916|NCT05032690|168954689|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|97.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||97.61|90.08|
84601917|NCT05032690|168954689|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|162.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.25|202.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted"||202.84|130.25|
84601918|NCT05032690|168954690|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.83|102.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||102.80|93.83|
84601919|NCT05032690|168954690|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|146.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.88|182.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||182.58|117.88|
84601920|NCT05151445|168954701|OTHER||95% CI|-3.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.46|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||-1.46|-5.65|0.002
84601921|NCT05151445|168954701|OTHER||95% CI|-3.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.15|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-1.15|-5.07|0.004
84601922|NCT05151445|168954701|OTHER||95% CI|-2.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.16|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||0.16|-4.90|0.038
84601923|NCT05151445|168954702|OTHER||95% CI|9.61||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.77|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||19.77|-0.55|0.062
84601924|NCT05151445|168954702|OTHER||95% CI|9.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|21.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||21.56|-2.01|0.098
84601925|NCT05151445|168954702|OTHER||95% CI|17.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|27.6|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||27.60|6.51|0.003
84601926|NCT05151445|168954703|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||0.37
84601927|NCT05151445|168954703|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||0.724
84601928|NCT05151445|168954703|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||||0.289
84601929|NCT05151445|168954704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||1.000
84621476|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.3|-32.6|0.548
84601930|NCT05151445|168954704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||1.000
84601931|NCT05151445|168954704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Weel 12 vs. Baseline||||1.000
84676638|NCT02447991|169088840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients.This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to fatigue.||||<0.013
84601932|NCT05151445|168954705|OTHER||95% CI|-1.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.76|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||4.76|-6.96|0.696
84601933|NCT05151445|168954705|OTHER||95% CI|-1.08||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||5.56|-7.72|0.734
84601934|NCT05151445|168954705|OTHER||95% CI|-4.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|3.23|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||3.23|-11.53|0.249
84601935|NCT05151445|168954706|OTHER||95% CI|-0.04||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.18|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.18|-5.25|0.989
84601936|NCT05151445|168954706|OTHER||95% CI|3.43||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|9.69|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||9.69|-2.83|0.263
84601937|NCT05151445|168954706|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.68|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||6.68|-5.80|0.882
84601938|NCT05151445|168954707|OTHER||95% CI|-0.62||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.98|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||0.98|-2.23|0.425
84601939|NCT05151445|168954707|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.88|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-0.88|-9.08|0.205
84601940|NCT05151445|168954707|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.8|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||-0.8|-9.08|0.020
84503419|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|22.43||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.43|-23.70|
84503420|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|46.12||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.12|-3.10|
84503421|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|13.19||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.19|-21.57|
84503422|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|7.66||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.66|-32.86|
84503423|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|34.82||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.82|-10.33|
84503424|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|25.85||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.85|-0.18|
84503425|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|24.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.14|-16.45|
84503426|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|37.34||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.34|-23.23|
84621477|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||5.0|-50.1|0.120
84621478|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.4||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.7|-44.5|0.403
84621479|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.0|-33.0|0.533
84621480|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.4|-37.2|0.539
84601941|NCT05151445|168954708|OTHER||95% CI|0.429||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.01|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||11.01|-4.90|0.429
84601942|NCT05151445|168954708|OTHER||95% CI|-4.39||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|3.46|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||3.46|-12.24|0.255
84601943|NCT05151445|168954708|OTHER||95% CI|-7.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|1.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||1.55|-15.55|0.102
84601944|NCT05151445|168954709|OTHER||95% CI|-1.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|5.1|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.10|-8.99|0.568
84601945|NCT05151445|168954709|OTHER||95% CI|-4.11||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.37|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||2.37|-10.59|0.198
84621481|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||35.2|-25.4|0.754
84621482|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|10.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.3|-39.4|0.256
84621483|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-0.8||Statistically significant at 0.1 level.|Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||-0.8|-54.7|0.055
84621484|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||33.2|-28.8|0.887
84621485|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.4|-10.3|0.256
84676639|NCT02447991|169088840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients. This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to sleepiness/drowsiness||||<0.021
84673632|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.66||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 2||1.66|-2.89|0.596
84673633|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|1.57||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 3||1.57|-4.18|0.371
84673634|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.84||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 4||2.84|-3.58|0.821
84601946|NCT05151445|168954709|OTHER||95% CI|-3.76||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|2.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||2.55|-10.08|.225
84601947|NCT02825420|168954749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
84601948|NCT02825420|168954750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
84601949|NCT02825420|168954751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
84601950|NCT02825420|168954753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84601951|NCT02825420|168954755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
84601952|NCT02825420|168954756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
84601953|NCT02226198|168954796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
84601954|NCT02226198|168954797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
84601955|NCT02226198|168954798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
84601956|NCT02226198|168954799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
84601957|NCT02226198|168954800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
84601958|NCT02226198|168954801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
84601959|NCT02226198|168954802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
84601960|NCT02226198|168954803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
84601961|NCT02226198|168954804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
84601962|NCT02226198|168954805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
84601963|NCT02226198|168954806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
84601964|NCT02226198|168954807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
84601965|NCT02226198|168954818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
84601966|NCT02226198|168954819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
84601967|NCT02226198|168954820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-27.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-11.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.0|-41.2|0.006
84601968|NCT02226198|168954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-25.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.5|-38.1|0.005
84676640|NCT02447991|169088841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.76||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.76
84503427|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|21.5||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-26.55|
84621486|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||17.9|-36.0|0.518
84621487|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||37.6|-25.1|0.695
84621488|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|36.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.4|-13.5|0.373
84503428|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|8.56||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.56|-27.48|
84621489|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.8|-34.6|0.628
84621490|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|1.000
84621491|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||20.9|-22.4|1.000
84621492|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|0.251
84621493|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621494|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||17.7|-18.7|1.000
84621495|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|0.501
84673635|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|1.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 5||1.60|-4.81|0.323
84673636|NCT02477020|169082645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 6||0.98|-5.87|0.161
84503429|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|16.7||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.70|-30.62|
84621496|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-3.0|0.488
84673637|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|10.624|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 1||10.624|1.263|0.017
84621497|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621498|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.232
84621499|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.501
84673638|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.782||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|6.014|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 2||6.014|1.287|0.009
84503430|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|27.8||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-20.37|
84503431|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|31.81||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||31.81|-5.73|
84503432|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|33.46||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.46|-3.23|
84503433|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|20.37||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.37|-36.18|
84503434|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.24|51.01||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.01|-20.24|
84503435|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|32.59||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.59|-10.09|
84503436|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.22|40.03||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.03|-25.22|
84503437|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|52.32||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.32|4.23|
84621500|NCT02365649|168988523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||22.1|-3.0|0.488
84621501|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|37.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||37.5|2.5|0.295
84673639|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.818||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.771|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 3||3.771|0.877|0.108
84673640|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.561|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 4||2.561|0.583|0.596
84673641|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.542||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.292|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 5||3.292|0.722|0.263
84503438|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|43.34||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.34|5.09|
84503439|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|50.38||||||For change in body image at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.38|-0.16|
84673642|NCT02477020|169082646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.253||95.0|0.725|3.388|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 6||3.388|0.725|0.253
84673643|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||0.14|-0.23|0.619
84673644|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||0.05|-0.48|0.116
84621502|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||34.9|-7.4|0.355
84621503|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||15.1|-55.1|0.384
84503440|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.95|27.8||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-47.95|
84503441|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|14.57||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.57|-21.78|
84503442|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|28.99||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-17.02|
84621504|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||14.5|-59.5|0.311
84621505|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||11.3|-43.8|0.422
84621506|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
84621507|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
84621508|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
84621509|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
84621510|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-3.9|0.214
84621511|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||50.0|-7.5|0.277
84621512|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||17.2|-57.2|0.442
84621513|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||57.1|-17.1|0.419
84726159|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1831|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|-0.463|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.463|-1.188|<0.001
84726160|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.631|-0.194|0.293
84503443|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|49.55||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.55|-5.39|
84503444|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|34.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.89|-15.33|
84726161|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2068||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.506|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.506|-0.325|0.665
84503445|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|42.06||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.06|-10.43|
84503446|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|42.43||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.43|1.11|
84673645|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||-0.11|-0.77|0.009
84503447|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.91|12.28||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.28|-41.91|
84503448|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|60.62||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.62|1.60|
84503449|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|38.1||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.10|-20.62|
84503450|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.52|42.05||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.05|-68.52|
84601969|NCT02226198|168954822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-28.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-11.4||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.4|-41.7|0.005
84601970|NCT02226198|168954823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.6||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-5.6|-32.8|0.013
84601971|NCT04545047|168954828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality risk difference comparing patients assigned to each group. Adjustment for covariates would be carried out via inverse probability weighting.||3.60|-2.30|
84601972|NCT04545047|168954828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality hazard ratio comparing patients assigned to each group. The hazard ratio was estimated from pooled logistic models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding.||1.62|0.64|
84601973|NCT03895632|168954829|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects model was fit to assess the association between α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) and signal segment.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value obtained form the Wald statistics of the linear mixed-effects model. The threshold for statistical signifiance was p=0.01.|Linear mixed-effects model|||The null hypothesis was that α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) is not related to signal segment (off-, approaching- and on-target).||||<0.0001
84601974|NCT01288612|168954836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84601975|NCT01288612|168954836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84601976|NCT01288612|168954836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84601977|NCT01288612|168954836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
84601978|NCT01288612|168954837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
84601979|NCT01288612|168954838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84601980|NCT01288612|168954839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84601981|NCT01288612|168954840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84601982|NCT01288612|168954841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84601983|NCT01288612|168954842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for pain scale||||<0.001
84601984|NCT01288612|168954842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for choking scale||||<0.001
84601985|NCT01288612|168954842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for gagging scale||||<0.001
84601986|NCT01288612|168954842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for anxiety scale||||<0.001
84601987|NCT01288612|168954842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between arms for overall tolerance scale||||<0.001
84601988|NCT01288612|168954843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84601989|NCT01263015|168954849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.2||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||12.2|2.3|0.003
84601990|NCT01263015|168954851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.1||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 96:The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||13.1|1.2|0.016
84601991|NCT01263015|168954851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|8.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 144:Estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||14.6|1.9|0.010
84726162|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.315|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.315|-0.405|0.803
84621514|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||50.4|-10.4|0.214
84621515|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
84621516|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|56.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.4|-10.1|0.284
84621517|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||24.3|-23.9|0.988
84621518|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||13.9|-38.1|0.370
84621519|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.2|-8.9|0.268
84621520|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||17.5|-27.4|0.665
84621521|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.9|0.759
84621522|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||56.6|-12.8|0.259
84621523|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
84621524|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
84621525|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
84503451|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|52.05||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.05|-7.93|
84621526|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|25.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||25.9|-17.0|0.688
84621527|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|24.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.5|-22.3|0.927
84621528|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.0|-5.0|0.075
84601992|NCT01263015|168954854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted mean is the estimated mean change from baseline (BL) in CD4 + Cell Count at Week 144 in each arm calculated from a repeated measures model including the following covariates: treatment, visit, BL plasma HIV-1 RNA, BL CD4 cell count, treatment\*visit interaction, BL HIV-1 RNA\*visit interaction and BL CD4 cell count\*visit interaction. No assumptions were made about the correlations between a par.'s readings of CD4 i.e. the correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Repeated Measure Mixed Model|||||||0.003
84601993|NCT00303446|168954871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes percent change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.28
84601994|NCT00303446|168954872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.86
84601995|NCT00303446|168954873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||Comparison of changes from baseline in manual muscle testing results.||||0.47
84601996|NCT00303446|168954874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.13
84601997|NCT00303446|168954875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.46
84601998|NCT00303446|168954876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.11
84601999|NCT00303446|168954877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.08
84602000|NCT00303446|168954878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.73
84602001|NCT00303446|168954879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.37
84673646|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||0.00|-0.72|0.049
84673647|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||-0.09|-0.85|0.016
84673648|NCT02477020|169082647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.035||95.0|-0.83|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.035
84602002|NCT00303446|168954880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.65
84602003|NCT00303446|168954881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.99
84602004|NCT00303446|168954882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||1.0
84602005|NCT00303446|168954883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.014
84602006|NCT00303446|168954884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Generalized estimating equation model showed a significant interaction between time and treatment; therefore a two sample t-test was used at each time point. P-value is given for comparison at 24 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84602007|NCT00303446|168954885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.61
84602008|NCT00450294|168954903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
84602009|NCT00450294|168954904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
84602010|NCT03392883|168954928|OTHER|Paired version (T-test for paired sample, Friedman and McNemar tests) was used for contrasting the equality among the variables at different moments of time. In order to adjust our results by potential confounders, ANCOVA analyses was performed. Symmetric 95% confidence intervals will be provided for relevant parameters. All p-values were referred to two-sided hypotheses. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||<0.001
84602011|NCT03392883|168954928|OTHER|||||||0.552||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Acceptability subscale results.||||0.552
84602012|NCT03392883|168954928|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.320
84602013|NCT03392883|168954928|OTHER|||||||0.879||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.879
84676641|NCT02447991|169088842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.041||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness episodes measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.041
84621529|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|32.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||32.7|-4.8|0.154
84621530|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.2|-14.4|0.707
84621531|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.0|10.0|0.085
84621532|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||33.3|-4.0|0.137
84621533|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||14.5|-38.2|0.370
84621534|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|24.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||24.4|-31.6|1.000
84621535|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|7.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||7.0|-39.8|0.174
84621536|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||9.7|-43.9|0.203
84621537|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|44.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||44.7|-4.5|0.286
84621538|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||20.6|-27.7|0.773
84673649|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 1||0.21|-0.29|0.746
84673650|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 2||-0.03|-0.72|0.034
84621539|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
84621540|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||44.4|-14.1|0.332
84673651|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 3||-0.17|-0.97|0.006
84621541|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.8|-7.5|0.189
84621542|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.1||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||13.9|-42.2|0.329
84621543|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
84621544|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
84673652|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.013
84621545|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.7|-37.8|0.484
84621546|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||37.3|-57.3|1.000
84621547|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|16.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||16.5|-38.9|0.431
84621548|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.1|-48.5|0.250
84621549|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|50.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||50.9|-40.9|1.000
84673653|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 5||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
84673654|NCT02477020|169082648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 6||-0.18|-1.15|0.007
84621550|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||23.3|-25.2|1.000
84621551|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||19.6|-31.1|1.000
84621552|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
84673655|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|8.267||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 1||8.267|0.899|0.077
84621553|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||20.9|-22.4|1.000
84621554|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|12.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||12.8|-28.5|0.627
84621555|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
84621556|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||17.7|-18.7|1.000
84621557|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|26.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||26.8|-18.3|1.000
84621558|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|29.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||29.3|-0.7|0.232
84621559|NCT02365649|168988524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||20.6|-6.3|0.412
84621560|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-745.7||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2369.73|878.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||878.37|-2369.73|0.356
84621561|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.5||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2698.52|459.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||459.50|-2698.52|0.158
84673656|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.331||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|5.153||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 2||5.153|1.055|0.036
84503452|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|42.89||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.89|-5.64|
84621562|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1166.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3531.3|1199.32||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||1199.32|-3531.30|0.322
84621563|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-828.2||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2387.16|730.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||730.75|-2387.16|0.287
84621564|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1286.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2772.59|200.43||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Responders, Week 52||200.43|-2772.59|0.088
84673657|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.208|5.99||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 3||5.990|1.208|0.015
84726163|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1787||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.103|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.103|-0.615|0.159
84503453|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|57.84||||||For change in body image at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.84|-9.93|
84503454|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|59.78||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.78|-32.70|
84503455|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|55.74||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.74|-29.46|
84503456|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|36.79||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.79|-24.04|
84503457|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|59.12||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.12|-17.94|
84503458|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|40.71||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.71|-20.12|
84503459|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|59.69||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.69|-8.22|
84503460|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|71.81||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||71.81|5.32|
84503461|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.14|44.25||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||44.25|-53.14|
84503462|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|61.57||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.57|-69.90|
84503463|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|50.45||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.45|-24.52|
84503464|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.41|30.11||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.11|-76.41|
84621565|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-502.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2505.74|1501.38||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||1501.38|-2505.74|0.613
84503465|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.89|33.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.00|-71.89|
84503466|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|87.13||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||87.13|7.31|
84503467|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|119.34||||||For change in body image at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.34|-36.00|
84503468|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|82.83||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.83|-5.05|
84503469|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|66.37||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-2.09|
84503470|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|29.64||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||29.64|-44.46|
84503471|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|66.37||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-40.45|
84503472|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|60.49||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.49|-32.71|
84503473|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|77.89||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.89|-16.16|
84503474|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|86.62||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.62|-44.95|
84503475|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.22|78.19||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.19|-115.22|
84621566|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-823.64|1390.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1390.49|-823.64|0.609
84621567|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-78.2||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-930.47|774.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||774.16|-930.47|0.855
84621568|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.66|1318.57||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1318.57|-751.66|0.584
84621569|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|356.6||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1095.03|1808.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1808.19|-1095.03|0.624
84621570|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-135.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1233.48|963.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||963.25|-1233.48|0.806
84621571|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|186.2||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1229.59|1602.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1602.06|-1229.59|0.793
84503476|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.71|86.63||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.63|-39.71|
84621572|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-304.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1350.04|740.44||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||740.44|-1350.04|0.561
84621573|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2083.81|-154.11||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 28||-154.11|-2083.81|0.024
84621574|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-819.3||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1959.79|321.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||321.21|-1959.79|0.156
84621575|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-346.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1592.66|899.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||899.45|-1592.66|0.580
84621576|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1275.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2415.88|-135.92||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 52||-135.92|-2415.88|0.029
84621577|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-534.9||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1883.23|813.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||813.50|-1883.23|0.431
84621578|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.4||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1200.67|1149.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1149.95|-1200.67|0.965
84621579|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|623.6||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.52|1430.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1430.64|-183.52|0.123
84621580|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|368.2||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1031.23|1767.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1767.60|-1031.23|0.591
84621581|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|192.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-648.22|1032.68||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1032.68|-648.22|0.642
84621582|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|455.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.37|992.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||992.95|-81.37|0.093
84621583|NCT02365649|168988525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|463.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.99|1356.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1356.20|-428.99|0.296
84621584|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|15.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||15.83|-19.83|0.822
84621585|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.4||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|8.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||8.25|-20.97|0.386
84726164|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3249||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.122|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.122|-1.176|0.110
84503477|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.69|104.76||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||104.76|-130.69|
84503478|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|103.42||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.42|-7.12|
84503479|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.16|122.02||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||122.02|63.16|
84503480|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.03|96.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.14|-85.03|
84503481|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|103.54||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.54|-29.46|
84503482|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.45|27.16||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.16|-41.45|
84503483|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|59.64||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.64|-67.04|
84503484|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.79|89.97||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.97|-104.79|
84503485|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|103.25||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.25|-58.80|
84503486|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|91.83||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||91.83|-36.28|
84503487|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|96.52||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.52|-74.30|
84503488|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|84.21||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.21|-142.55|
84503489|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.46|101.35||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||101.35|-212.46|
84503490|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.93|96.26||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-62.93|
84503491|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.74|116.31||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.31|-87.74|
84673658|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|3.735||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 4||3.735|0.807|0.158
84503492|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|139.72||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||139.72|7.90|
84503493|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.64|118.74||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||118.74|33.64|
84503494|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.64|121.79||||||For change in body image at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||121.79|-64.64|
84503495|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.11|99.53||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||99.53|-28.11|
84503496|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.01|77.34||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.34|-104.01|
84503497|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.03|51.14||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.14|-140.03|
84503498|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|97.98||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.98|-88.45|
84503499|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|82.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.89|-54.32|
84503500|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.45|114.07||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||114.07|-66.45|
84503501|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.14|119.63||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.63|-56.14|
84503502|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.35|63.35||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.35|-163.35|
84503503|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.23|96.66||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.66|-125.23|
84726165|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3296||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.691|-0.373|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.373|-1.691|0.003
84621586|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.9||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|29.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||29.95|-4.22|0.136
84621587|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|19.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||19.97|-17.87|0.912
84621588|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|3.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||3.25|-27.77|0.118
84621589|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|30.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||30.65|-5.61|0.171
84621590|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.9||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||12.63|-26.50|0.479
84621591|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-17.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-1.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders, Week 36||-1.04|-33.12|0.037
84621592|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|25.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||25.65|-11.86|0.463
84621593|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.6||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|14.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||14.37|-23.59|0.627
84621594|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|3.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||3.37|-27.75|0.122
84621595|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|28.89||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||28.89|-7.49|0.243
84621596|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||14.63|-22.95|0.658
84621597|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.69|3.12||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||3.12|-27.69|0.115
84621598|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|28.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||28.06|-7.96|0.267
84503504|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
84503505|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
84621599|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|10.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||10.06|-9.74|0.974
84621600|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.55||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||6.55|-7.61|0.882
84621601|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||7.75|-7.92|0.982
84673659|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|3.789||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 5||3.789|0.798|0.164
84503506|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.55|141.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||141.00|14.55|
84503507|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.61|131.61||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||131.61|40.61|
84621602|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|12.51||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||12.51|-8.11|0.673
84621603|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|10.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.04|-4.64|0.467
84621604|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|10.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.23|-5.79|0.583
84621605|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|24.31||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||24.31|-13.33|0.564
84621606|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|11.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||11.04|-15.74|0.728
84621607|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|20.08||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||20.08|-9.16|0.460
84621608|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.0||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|32.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||32.75|-8.72|0.253
84621609|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|15.84||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||15.84|-13.67|0.884
84621610|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|21.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||21.95|-10.28|0.474
84621611|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.6||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||24.30|-17.03|0.727
84621612|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|16.78||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||16.78|-12.63|0.780
84621613|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|22.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||22.54|-9.57|0.424
84621614|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.3||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|11.62||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||11.62|-14.23|0.841
84621615|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|8.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||8.75|-12.94|0.702
84621616|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|17.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||17.83|-6.43|0.353
84621617|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|16.0||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||16.00|-11.89|0.770
84621618|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|6.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||6.37|-17.04|0.367
84726166|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|-0.476|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.476|-1.654|<0.001
84503508|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.48|106.48||||||For change in body image at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.48|-56.48|
84503509|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|132.13||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||132.13|-37.69|
84503510|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.68|110.68||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.68|-70.68|
84503511|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.87|25.2||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.20|-91.87|
84503512|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|97.45||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.45|-41.89|
84503513|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|67.36||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||67.36|-34.03|
84503514|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.19|116.86||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.86|-100.19|
84503515|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|105.58||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||105.58|-53.73|
84503516|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.07|117.07||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||117.07|-117.07|
84503517|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.53|249.31||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||249.31|-221.53|
84503518|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.62|271.74||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||271.74|-260.62|
84503519|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.41|285.75||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||285.75|-152.41|
84503520|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|319.08||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.08|-119.08|
84503521|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.75|252.41||||||For change in body image at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||252.41|-185.75|
84503522|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.04|170.93||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||170.93|-82.04|
84503523|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
84503524|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.34|180.12||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||180.12|-202.34|
84503525|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
84503526|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
84503527|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.6|165.37||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.37|-87.60|
84503528|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
84503529|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.19|230.75||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||230.75|-275.19|
84503530|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-491.86|608.53||||||For change in pancreatic pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||608.53|-491.86|
84503531|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in eating related items at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
84503532|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in altered bowel habits at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
84503533|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.06|191.73||||||For change in jaundice at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||191.73|-175.06|
84503534|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in ascites at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
84503535|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in indigestion at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
84503536|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in flatulence at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
84673660|NCT02477020|169082649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|7.77||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 6||7.770|1.523|0.003
84621619|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|20.07||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||20.07|-6.09|0.291
84503537|NCT00219557|168758300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1375.5|1436.61||||||For change in side effects at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1436.61|-1375.5|
84503538|NCT02273206|168758306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2562|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.2562
84621620|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.7||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|19.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||19.40|-20.87|0.942
84673661|NCT02477020|169082650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.547||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||4.86|-1.26|0.246
84673662|NCT02477020|169082650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.767||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.69||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|Least square mean difference||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction|Change at Week 6||5.69|-1.30|0.216
84503539|NCT02273206|168758306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.9795
84503540|NCT02273206|168758306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.3917
84602014|NCT03392883|168954928|OTHER|||||||0.242||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Reach/Access subscale results.||||0.242
84602015|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.237||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.237
84602016|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.492
84602017|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.285||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.285
84602018|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.964||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.964
84602019|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.942||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Resources subscale results.||||0.942
84602020|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.366||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Scope subscale results.||||0.366
84602021|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.021
84602022|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.832
84602023|NCT03392883|168954929|OTHER|||||||0.827||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.827
84602024|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.118
84602025|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.896||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.896
84602026|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.739||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.739
84602027|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.724
84602028|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.301
84602029|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.034
84602030|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.015
84621621|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|4.91||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||4.91|-28.89|0.162
84621622|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|29.82||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||29.82|-7.96|0.253
84621623|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|27.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||27.21|-16.25|0.617
84621624|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|12.24||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||12.24|-24.22|0.515
84621625|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|13.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|34.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||34.23|-6.53|0.180
84621626|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|21.09||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||21.09|-21.86|0.972
84621627|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|13.1||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||13.10|-22.94|0.589
84621628|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|14.1||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|34.22||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||34.22|-6.07|0.168
84621629|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||12.36|-8.50|0.712
84621630|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||3.90|-8.41|0.465
84621631|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.52||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.52|-6.83|0.924
84621632|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|9.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||9.60|-8.88|0.938
84621633|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|7.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||7.64|-3.17|0.410
84673663|NCT02477020|169082651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BNSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.91|-3.67|0.820
84673664|NCT02477020|169082651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|1.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-6.93|0.163
84621634|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|6.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||6.35|-5.89|0.941
84621635|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|9.67||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||9.67|-8.23|0.872
84676642|NCT02447991|169088843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.12||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.12
84621636|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|4.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||4.20|-6.27|0.692
84503541|NCT02273206|168758307|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.346||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.851||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline colorectal cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.851|0.979|0.0677
84621637|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.54|-6.32|0.896
84621638|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|9.87||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||9.87|-7.92|0.826
84621639|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.58||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.58|-4.82|0.885
84621640|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.76||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.76|-6.03|0.964
84621641|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|9.72||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||9.72|-7.59|0.806
84621642|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.47|-4.65|0.871
84621643|NCT02365649|168988526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|5.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.19|-6.28|0.850
84621644|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.9||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|25.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||25.90|-33.73|0.792
84621645|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|18.1||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|44.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||44.75|-8.62|0.179
84621646|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.87|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||12.63|-50.87|0.230
84621647|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|16.4||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|50.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||50.40|-17.54|0.337
84621648|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|23.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.93|-21.75|0.924
84621649|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|14.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||14.35|-37.69|0.373
84621650|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|22.79||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||22.79|-28.94|0.813
84621651|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|28.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||28.65|-18.02|0.651
84621652|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|1.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||1.49|-49.12|0.065
84726167|NCT03320941|169204551|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869|-0.728|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.728|-1.869|<0.001
84503542|NCT02273206|168758308|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.41||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline breast cancer up to date status, age, and income|||1.410|0.753|0.8501
84621653|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.61|48.28||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||48.28|-37.61|0.802
84503543|NCT02273206|168758309|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.228||Treatment Group(CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline cervical cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.228|0.625|0.4432
84503544|NCT02273206|168758310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Two-sample t-test|p\<0.05||PHQ9 Intervention Arm Difference between baseline and 12-month follow up||||0.39
84621654|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|21.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.63|-20.46|0.955
84621655|NCT02365649|168988527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.6||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|14.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||14.47|-35.73|0.395
84621656|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0082||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.1136||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1136|-0.1299|0.893
84621657|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0685||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1705||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1705|-0.0334|0.182
84621658|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1323||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2552|-0.0093||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||-0.0093|-0.2552|0.036
84621659|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0768||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0749|0.2286||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.2286|-0.0749|0.316
84503545|NCT02273206|168758311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at baseline.||||0.60
84503546|NCT02273206|168758311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 6 Months||||0.86
84621660|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0573||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.1617||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1617|-0.0471|0.277
84621661|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0428||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0741|0.1597||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1597|-0.0741|0.467
84621662|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.036||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1336|0.0616||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.0616|-0.1336|0.464
84621663|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0404||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0444|0.1252||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.1252|-0.0444|0.345
84621664|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0873||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1822|0.0076||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||0.0076|-0.1822|0.071
84503547|NCT02273206|168758312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at Baseline.||||0.60
84503548|NCT02273206|168758312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 12 months.||||0.23
84503549|NCT02273206|168758313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4483|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.4483
84503550|NCT02273206|168758313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.1706
84503551|NCT02273206|168758313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3568|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.3568
84503552|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at baseline.||||0.85
84503553|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 6 months.||||0.23
84503554|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 12 months.||||0.98
84503555|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at baseline.||||0.57
84621665|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1109||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1109|0.3326||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.3326|-0.1109|0.317
84621666|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0848||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|0.1945||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1945|-0.0248|0.125
84621667|NCT02365649|168988528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0559||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0745|0.1864||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1864|-0.0745|0.390
84621668|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.7||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|24.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||24.16|-6.79|0.263
84621669|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|15.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|28.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||28.93|1.47|0.031
84621670|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||3.90|-27.93|0.135
84621671|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|23.27||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.27|-10.61|0.458
84621672|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|13.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||13.45|-9.59|0.738
84503556|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 6 months.||||0.92
84621673|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|7.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||7.60|-18.32|0.412
84621674|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.9||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|16.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||16.36|-8.56|0.534
84621675|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|22.01||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||22.01|-0.10|0.052
84673665|NCT02477020|169082652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||6.19|-0.81|0.131
84673666|NCT02477020|169082652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.313||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||7.19|-1.96|0.260
84673667|NCT02477020|169082653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||3.73|-3.61|0.973
84503557|NCT02273206|168758314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 12 months.||||0.99
84503558|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at baseline.||||0.20
84621676|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-1.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders||-1.63|-26.15|0.027
84726168|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.707||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.898|5.822|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.822|-4.898|0.865
84673668|NCT02477020|169082653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||3.92|-5.00|0.812
84673669|NCT02504372|169082697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96|||||HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.96|0.68|
84673670|NCT02504372|169082698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||1.16|0.59|0.13499
84673671|NCT02504372|169082699|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.97|0.62|0.01327
84673672|NCT02504372|169082706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.91|0.63|0.00143
84673673|NCT01502644|169082735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|32.2|||Linear Mixed Modeling|Group, group×week, average baseline pain, and opioid use at baseline were entered as fixed effects using an autoregressive covariance structure.||||32.2|3.7|0.01
84621677|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|21.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.97|-24.02|0.928
84621678|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|8.77||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||8.77|-13.72|0.658
84503559|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.17
84621679|NCT02365649|168988529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.5||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|9.96||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||9.96|-16.96|0.601
84621680|NCT02365649|168988531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-1.0|-99.0|1.000
84621681|NCT02365649|168988531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
84621682|NCT02365649|168988531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
84621683|NCT02365649|168988531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
84673674|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.019|0.264
84673675|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.079|-0.013|0.165
84503560|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.69
84503561|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at baseline.||||0.72
84621684|NCT02365649|168988532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-13.3|-100.0|1.000
84621685|NCT02365649|168988532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||86.7|-20.0|0.250
84621686|NCT02365649|168988532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||95.6|-62.2|1.000
84621687|NCT02365649|168988532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|0.500
84621688|NCT02365649|168988532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|1.000
84621689|NCT03865446|168988557|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|130.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.03|199.22|||||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||199.22|86.03|
84621690|NCT03865446|168988558|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|104.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.12|151.16|||||The model was an ANOVA model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values are back-transformed from the log scale.|||151.16|72.12|
84621691|NCT02021565|168988578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||alpha = 0.025|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Analysis 1 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks with assistance from the informal caregiver.||||0.973
84621692|NCT02021565|168988578|SUPERIORITY|Alpha = .025||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.223
84621693|NCT02021565|168988579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 1 is for the Veteran care recipient reported task efficacy||||0.547
84621694|NCT02021565|168988579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the Veteran reported confidence that he/she can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.891
84621695|NCT02021565|168988580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.729
84621696|NCT03324802|168988582|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
84621697|NCT03324802|168988583|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
84621698|NCT03324802|168988585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
84621699|NCT03324802|168988586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
84621700|NCT03324802|168988587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.97
84621701|NCT03324802|168988588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Gray Test P-value|||||||0.5
84621702|NCT03324802|168988589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
84621703|NCT00104650|168988610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.28|||<|0.001||95.0|3.35|45.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||45.03|3.35|<0.001
84621704|NCT00104650|168988610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.002||95.0|1.74|16.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||16.36|1.74|0.002
84621705|NCT00104650|168988610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.8||||||95.0|60.8|89.9||||||||89.9|60.8|
84621706|NCT00104650|168988610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
84621707|NCT00104650|168988610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.6||||||95.0|14.6|46.3||||||||46.3|14.6|
84621708|NCT00104650|168988611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.9||||||95.0|46.2|79.2||||||||79.2|46.2|
84621709|NCT00104650|168988611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
84621710|NCT00104650|168988611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1||||||||55.1|21.5|
84621711|NCT00104650|168988612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.388
84621712|NCT00104650|168988613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.79|||<|0.001||95.0|2.01|7.15|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||7.15|2.01|<0.001
84621713|NCT00104650|168988613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.23|8.36|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||8.36|2.23|<0.001
84621714|NCT00104650|168988614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.274||||0.006||95.0|0.11|0.687|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.687|0.110|0.006
84621715|NCT00104650|168988614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199||||0.001||95.0|0.076|0.523|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.523|0.076|0.001
84621716|NCT00104650|168988615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.056
84621717|NCT00104650|168988616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.162||||0.105||95.0|0.018|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||||1.465|0.018|0.105
84621718|NCT00104650|168988616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.43||95.0|0.143|2.289|||Regression, Cox|||||2.289|0.143|0.430
84621719|NCT00104650|168988617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|1.44||||||||1.44|0.05|
84621720|NCT00104650|168988617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||||95.0|0.08|1.76||||||||1.76|0.08|
84621721|NCT02294058|168988619|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.663||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age, number of gadolinium enhancing (GdE) lesions and included the natural log transformation of time as an offset term.||||0.663|0.405|<0.0001
84621722|NCT02294058|168988619|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.688||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.864||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and the number of GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.||||0.864|0.547|0.0013
84621723|NCT02294058|168988620|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.517|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.625||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.625|0.427|<0.0001
84621724|NCT02294058|168988620|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.754||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.910|0.625|0.0032
84621725|NCT02294058|168988621|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.536||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.536|0.256|<0.0001
84621726|NCT02294058|168988621|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.662||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.932||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.932|0.471|0.0182
84621727|NCT02294058|168988622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.402|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.402|0.340|0.3055
84621728|NCT02294058|168988622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.886||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.705|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.705|0.460|0.7163
84621729|NCT02294058|168988623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.337|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.337|0.460|0.6725
84621730|NCT02294058|168988623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.535||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.963|||Cox proportional hazard model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.963|0.595|0.3755
84621731|NCT02294058|168988624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|16.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||16.92|4.84|0.0006
84621732|NCT02294058|168988624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.12||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per IVRS.||||11.32|-1.07|0.1130
84503562|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.72
84621733|NCT02294058|168988625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|10.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||10.24|-1.19|0.1180
84621734|NCT02294058|168988625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.95||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||8.60|-2.70|0.3023
84621735|NCT02294058|168988626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS category per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||<0.0001
84621736|NCT02294058|168988626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS Scale per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||0.0615
84621737|NCT02294058|168988627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.077|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score.||||0.077|-0.010|0.1290
84621738|NCT02294058|168988627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.015||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.059|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score||||0.059|-0.028|0.4942
84621739|NCT02294058|168988628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.18|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||3.180|0.104|0.0364
84673676|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.020|0.271
84503563|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.87
84503564|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at baseline.||||0.65
84621740|NCT02294058|168988628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.559|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||2.559|-0.510|0.1905
84621741|NCT02294058|168988628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.523|2.234|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||2.234|-1.523|0.7104
84621742|NCT02294058|168988628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.045|1.705|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||1.705|-2.045|0.8587
84621743|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.132|0.003|0.037
84621744|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.181|0.051|<0.001
84621745|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.216|0.086|<0.001
84621746|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.209|0.081|<0.001
84621747|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.263|0.159|<0.001
84621748|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|-0.003|0.066
84621749|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.135|0.031|0.002
84621750|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.128|0.026|0.003
84673677|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.100|0.010|0.018
84673678|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.101|0.010|0.018
84503565|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.82
84503566|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.92
84503567|NCT02273206|168758315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.56
84503568|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.17
84503569|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.38
84503570|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.07
84621751|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.087|-0.017|0.189
84621752|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.080|-0.023|0.273
84621753|NCT03084796|168988632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.045|-0.058|0.813
84621754|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.095|0.022|0.002
84621755|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.113|0.040|<0.001
84621756|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.163|0.089|<0.001
84621757|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.177|0.104|<0.001
84621758|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.220|0.147|<0.001
84621759|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.055|-0.018|0.322
84621760|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.104|0.031|<0.001
84621761|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.118|0.045|<0.001
84621762|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.086|0.013|0.008
84621763|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.100|0.027|<0.001
84621764|NCT03084796|168988633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.022|0.443
84621765|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
84503571|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.99
84503572|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.15
84503573|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.55
84673679|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.124|0.032|<0.001
84673680|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.052||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.097|0.023
84673681|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.000|-0.091|0.051
84673682|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.098|0.023
84673683|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.021|-0.068|0.306
84673684|NCT01573624|169082810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.023|-0.068|0.330
84503574|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.34
84503575|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 6 months. .||||0.31
84673685|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.3|9.5|<0.001
84673686|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||23.9|10.9|<0.001
84673687|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||25.1|12.1|<0.001
84673688|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.4|16.5|<0.001
84673689|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.4|15.5|<0.001
84503576|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.39
84503577|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at baseline.||||0.87
84503578|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 6 months.||||0.83
84503579|NCT02273206|168758316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.36
84673690|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.5|20.6|<0.001
84673691|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-4.7|-17.6|<0.001
84673692|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.1|-16.1|0.004
84673693|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-1.9|-14.9|0.012
84673694|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||2.3|-10.6|0.209
84673695|NCT01573624|169082811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.4|-11.6|0.124
84676643|NCT02447991|169088844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.051||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.051
84673696|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.9|9.5|<0.001
84621766|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.052|<0.001
84621767|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.177|0.109|<0.001
84621768|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.127|<0.001
84621769|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.198|0.131|<0.001
84621770|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.020|0.418
84621771|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
84621772|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|0.055|<0.001
84621773|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|0.024|<0.001
84621774|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|0.041|<0.001
84621775|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.016|0.308
84621776|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.147|0.038|<0.001
84621777|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.188|0.079|<0.001
84621778|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.120|<0.001
84621779|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.127|<0.001
84621780|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.284|0.175|<0.001
84621781|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.013|0.141
84503580|NCT02273206|168758317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.95
84602031|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.081
84621782|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.137|0.028|0.003
84621783|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.142|0.035|0.001
84621784|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.013|0.137
84621785|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.006|0.082
84602032|NCT03392883|168954930|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Knowledge subscale results.||||0.790
84602033|NCT03392883|168954931|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time.||||0.023
84602034|NCT03392883|168954932|OTHER|||||||0.589||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time in this data.||||0.589
84602035|NCT03392883|168954933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
84602036|NCT03392883|168954934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the total scores (sum of 12 items) at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
84602037|NCT03392883|168954935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
84602038|NCT03392883|168954936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the number of standard drinks per week at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
84602039|NCT01545232|168954990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size (580) planned to detect a clinically meaningful 10% difference in 24-hour mortality (11% vs. 21%) supported by prior data. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 pts. \& given the final observed mortality proportions in 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 95% power to detect the pre-specified 10% difference at 24 hours if such differences existed.||1.08|0.52|0.12
84602040|NCT01545232|168954991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size of 580 planned to detect clinically meaningful a 12% difference in 30-day mortality (23% vs. 35%),supported by prior data. DSMB increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 patients \& given final observed mortality proportions in the 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 92% power to detect the pre-specified 12% difference at 30 days, if such differences existed.||1.12|0.65|0.26
84602041|NCT01545232|168954993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.83
84602042|NCT01545232|168954994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.44
84602043|NCT01545232|168954996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.11
84602044|NCT01545232|168954997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.8|
84602045|NCT01545232|168954998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.8|
84602046|NCT01545232|168954999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized logit model regression|||||||0.37
84602047|NCT01545232|168955000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.14
84602048|NCT01545232|168955001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.10
84602049|NCT00378599|168955024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.38||||||||0.38|0.21|
84602050|NCT01106859|168955030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups.||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 4 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||1.5|0.1|0.0174
84726169|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.765||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.235|5.716|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.716|-5.235|0.931
84673697|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||24.0|10.5|<0.001
84673698|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.0|14.4|<0.001
84673699|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||35.5|22.1|<0.001
84673700|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.6|16.2|<0.001
84673701|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.4|19.8|<0.001
84673702|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.5|-17.2|0.003
84673703|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-2.5|-16.2|0.007
84673704|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.5|-12.3|0.126
84621786|NCT03084796|168988634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.060|-0.048|0.823
84673705|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.523||95.0|-4.6|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||9.1|-4.6|0.523
84621787|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|0.022|0.002
84621788|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|0.036|<0.001
84621789|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.085|<0.001
84673706|NCT01573624|169082812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||3.1|-10.5|0.290
84673707|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.036
84673708|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.064
84726170|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.433||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.817|3.82|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.820|-5.817|0.682
84726171|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.312|3.142|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.142|-6.312|0.508
84621790|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|0.113|<0.001
84621791|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.202|||MMRM|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.202|0.124|<0.001
84621792|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.052|-0.025|0.485
84621793|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.025|0.001
84621794|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.053|<0.001
84621795|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|0.011|0.012
84621796|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.039|<0.001
84621797|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.011|0.157
84621798|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.011|0.021
84621799|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.053|<0.001
84673709|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.1|-0.3|0.335
84621800|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.103|<0.001
84621801|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.099|<0.001
84503581|NCT02273206|168758317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.08
84621802|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.271|0.154|<0.001
84621803|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.015|0.149
84621804|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.034|0.002
84726172|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.206||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.138|9.749|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.749|-7.138|0.757
84503582|NCT02273206|168758317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 12 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.27
84621805|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.031|0.003
84621806|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.009|0.096
84621807|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.012|0.122
84621808|NCT03084796|168988635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.054|-0.062|0.886
84621809|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.141|0.008|0.029
84503583|NCT02273206|168758318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.54
84621810|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.188|0.055|<0.001
84673710|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||-0.1|-0.5|0.012
84621811|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.250|0.117|<0.001
84621812|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.142|<0.001
84621813|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.360|0.227|<0.001
84503584|NCT02273206|168758318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
84621814|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.019|0.161
84621815|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.043|0.001
84621816|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.201|0.068|<0.001
84621817|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.004|0.066
84621818|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
84503585|NCT02273206|168758318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
84621819|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.042|0.465
84621820|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.030|0.008
84503586|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.74
84621821|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.256|0.091|<0.001
84621822|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.136|<0.001
84621823|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.131|<0.001
84621824|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.409|||McNemar|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.409|0.244|<0.001
84621825|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.021|0.144
84621826|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.024|0.011
84621827|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.019|0.016
84621828|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.037|0.280
84621829|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|-0.042|0.342
84621830|NCT03084796|168988636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.088|0.886
84621831|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.163|0.032|0.003
84621832|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.221|0.091|<0.001
84621833|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.273|0.143|<0.001
84621834|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.172|<0.001
84621835|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.341|0.211|<0.001
84503587|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.86
84621836|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|-0.006|0.076
84621837|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.046|<0.001
84621838|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.205|0.075|<0.001
84621839|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.117|-0.013|0.116
84621840|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.016|0.014
84621841|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.036|0.384
84621842|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.236|0.064|<0.001
84621843|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.290|0.118|<0.001
84673711|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.023
84621844|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.335|0.162|<0.001
84621845|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.339|0.168|<0.001
84621846|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.268|<0.001
84621847|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.031|0.214
84621848|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|0.012|0.025
84621849|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.019|0.016
84621850|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|-0.042|0.313
84673712|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
84621851|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.135|-0.035|0.250
84621852|NCT03084796|168988637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.080|0.898
84621853|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.153|0.006|0.035
84621854|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.085|<0.001
84621855|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.127|<0.001
84621856|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.315|0.168|<0.001
84621857|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.351|0.204|<0.001
84621858|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.005|0.035
84621859|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.048|0.001
84673713|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|0.0|0.104
84673714|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.5|0.0|0.062
84503588|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.79
84503589|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
84621860|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.088|<0.001
84621861|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|-0.031|0.256
84621862|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.156|0.010|0.027
84621863|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.114|-0.033|0.281
84673715|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.6|0.1|0.006
84673716|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.217
84673717|NCT01573624|169082813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.143
84673718|NCT00613509|169082843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9406
84503590|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.71
84621864|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.050|0.003
84621865|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.288|0.106|<0.001
84621866|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.340|0.157|<0.001
84621867|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.336|0.155|<0.001
84621868|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.258|<0.001
84621869|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|-0.034|0.222
84621870|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.108||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.199|0.017|0.020
84621871|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.015|0.022
84621872|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.039|0.262
84621873|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.041|0.290
84621874|NCT03084796|168988638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.094|0.938
84621875|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, including treatment, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 value as covariate."||2.24|1.21|0.002
84621876|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.94|1.61|<0.001
84621877|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.78|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.78|2.07|<0.001
84621878|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.15|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.15|2.27|<0.001
84621879|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.17|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.17|2.30|<0.001
84621880|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.76|1.00|0.052
84673719|NCT00613509|169082843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio test|||||||0.9179
84621881|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.26|1.28|<0.001
84621882|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.48|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.48|1.41|<0.001
84621883|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.69|0.98|0.074
84621884|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.85|1.08|0.013
84621885|NCT03084796|168988639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.44|0.84|0.494
84621886|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.107|0.011|0.017
84621887|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.032|0.001
84621888|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
84621889|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.063|<0.001
84621890|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
84621891|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.069|-0.026|0.377
84621892|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.111|0.015|0.010
84621893|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.100|0.005|0.031
84621894|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.006|0.085
84621895|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.079|-0.016|0.199
84621896|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.037|-0.058|0.657
84621897|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.022|0.246
84726173|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.571|8.563|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||8.563|-8.571|0.999
84621898|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.154|0.046|<0.001
84621899|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.173|0.064|<0.001
84621900|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.196|0.088|<0.001
84621901|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.178|0.070|<0.001
84621902|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|0.014|0.014
84621903|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.141|0.032|0.002
84621904|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.057|<0.001
84621905|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.035|0.493
84621906|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.011|0.119
84621907|NCT03084796|168988641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.030|0.392
84621908|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.203|0.015|0.023
84621909|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|-0.003|0.058
84621910|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|-0.035|0.215
84621911|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.187|-0.001|0.051
84621912|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.051|0.364
84621913|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.112|0.694
84503591|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.77
84621914|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.143|0.297
84503592|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.64
84503593|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.11
84503594|NCT02273206|168758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||1.00
84621915|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.109|0.734
84621916|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.062|-0.124|0.514
84621917|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.090|0.957
84621918|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|-0.060|0.479
84621919|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.079|0.687
84621920|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.165|-0.034|0.195
84503595|NCT02273206|168758321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months. Recoding of the continuous measure was based on quartiles.||||0.56
84503596|NCT02273206|168758322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale Score at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.18
84621921|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.011|0.030
84503597|NCT02273206|168758322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale score at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.32
84503598|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.50
84503599|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.51
84621922|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.179|-0.019|0.112
84621923|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.174|-0.026|0.147
84621924|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.144|-0.054|0.370
84621925|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|-0.009|0.074
84621926|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|-0.039|0.233
84621927|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.145|-0.054|0.369
84621928|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.112|-0.084|0.773
84621929|NCT03084796|168988642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.068|-0.130|0.536
84621930|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||1.77|0.62|0.848
84621931|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.28|0.80|0.264
84621932|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.76|0.343
84621933|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.98|1.02|0.042
84621934|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.02|0.71|0.503
84503600|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.02
84621935|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.16|0.76|0.354
84673720|NCT01686646|169082881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|3.5||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||6.5|0.4|0.0248
84621936|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.07|0.73|0.447
84621937|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.83|0.97|0.064
84621938|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.62|0.57|0.867
84621939|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.22|0.76|0.347
84621940|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.32|0.79|0.269
84503601|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
84503602|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.69
84621941|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||3.30|1.12|0.018
84621942|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.49|1.50|<0.001
84503603|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.63
84503604|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.55
84621943|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.44|1.75|<0.001
84621944|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.02|1.94|<0.001
84621945|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.26|1.41|0.001
84621946|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.35|0.78|0.284
84621947|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.84|0.91|0.103
84621948|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.14|1.01|0.045
84621949|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.12|0.67|0.557
84621950|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.34|0.74|0.345
84621951|NCT03084796|168988643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.00|0.61|0.732
84621952|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the BDI, BDI by visit interaction as covariates."||0.81|-0.52|0.666
84673721|NCT01686646|169082881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||4.1|-0.6|0.1513
84503605|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.34
84503606|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.19
84621953|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.07|-0.25|0.224
84621954|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.27|0.239
84621955|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.46|0.13|0.019
84621956|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.14|0.124
84726174|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|10.88|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.880|-3.848|0.342
84726175|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|10.292|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.292|-4.454|0.430
84673722|NCT01686646|169082881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.6||Not significant based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in change from baseline in number of valid responses from RVIP task.||6.6|1.1|
84673723|NCT01686646|169082882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of accurate responses from the RVIP.||6.1|-0.2|0.0696
84673724|NCT01686646|169082882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.2||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.2|0.3|
84673725|NCT01686646|169082882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||3.9|-1.7|
84673726|NCT00749931|169082903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84673727|NCT00749931|169082904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative reduction|0.47||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84621957|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.92|-0.39|0.432
84621958|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.91|-0.41|0.454
84673728|NCT03993938|169082910|OTHER|Delta PVI percentage change and Delta LAP (v-wave) percentage change were correlated using Spearman's rank correlation - two-tailed.|Spearman's rank correlation|0.34||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||||||0.066
84673729|NCT04590495|169082919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9460
84673730|NCT04590495|169082920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.5699
84621959|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.31|-0.01|0.053
84621960|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.65|-0.67|0.973
84673731|NCT04590495|169082921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6068
84673732|NCT04590495|169082922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9030
84621961|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.04|-0.27|0.247
84503607|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.47
84503608|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.38
84673733|NCT04590495|169082923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2668
84673734|NCT04590495|169082924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8749||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score|paired t test|||||||0.8749
84673735|NCT04590495|169082925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score for physical sedation|paired t test|||||||0.7922
84673736|NCT04590495|169082926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9925||||||adjusted for baseline SSS score|paired t test|||||||0.9925
84673737|NCT04590495|169082927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2628||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.2628
84673738|NCT04590495|169082928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347||||||adjusted for baseline scores|paired t test|||||||0.0347
84673739|NCT04590495|169082929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.6331
84673740|NCT04590495|169082930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.4720
84673741|NCT04590495|169082931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0200
84673742|NCT04590495|169082932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0620
84673743|NCT03467425|169082933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline CAT score, number of exacerbations in the prior year, actual prior medication use strata and country.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical comparison is presented for combined data of responders, non-responders and those with imputed CAT score at Week 24.|||1.51|1.13|<0.001
84726176|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.461||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.312|6.52|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||6.520|-7.312|0.909
84621962|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
84621963|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.28|-0.05|0.071
84621964|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.64|0.32|0.004
84503609|NCT02273206|168758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.98
84621965|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.68|0.35|0.003
84621966|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.86|<0.001
84621967|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.75|0.41|0.002
84621968|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.03|-0.29|0.271
84621969|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
84621970|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.56|0.25|0.007
84621971|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.69|-0.63|0.923
84621972|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.12|0.108
84621973|NCT03084796|168988644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.16|-0.16|0.134
84621974|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|14.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||14.63|1.13|0.022
84621975|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.48|0.07|0.048
84621976|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.40|-0.09|0.053
84621977|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.04|2.55|0.007
84503610|NCT02273206|168758324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.78
84503611|NCT02273206|168758324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.20
84621978|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.61||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.53|-2.31|0.191
84621979|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.60|-7.80|0.747
84621980|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.50|-7.96|0.720
84621981|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.14|-5.31|0.680
84621982|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.57|-6.82|0.971
84621983|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.21|-4.17|0.460
84621984|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.37|-4.09|0.441
84621985|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.08|-0.55|0.070
84621986|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|15.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||15.72|1.16|0.023
84673744|NCT03467425|169082934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.073|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with covariates of treatment group, Baseline FEV1, actual prior medication use strata, country and timing of spirometry.|||0.073|0.026|<0.001
84621987|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.96||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.31|-0.40|0.064
84621988|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|18.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||18.38|3.79|0.003
84621989|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.72|-3.32|0.274
84673745|NCT03467425|169082935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.53|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, actual prior medication use strata and country.|||4.53|0.87|0.103
84673746|NCT01387607|169082957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1906||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.36|-1.10|0.0001
84673747|NCT01387607|169082958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4376||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8732|2.3667||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into much/very much improved and other.||2.3667|0.8732|0.1397
84676644|NCT02447991|169088845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.006
84621990|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|8.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.93|-5.57|0.649
84503612|NCT02273206|168758324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 12 Months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.77
84503613|NCT02273206|168758325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at baseline.Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.70
84621991|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||7.51|-7.12|0.958
84621992|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|11.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.58|-2.93|0.242
84621993|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.81|-8.77|0.690
84621994|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.87|-4.58|0.473
84621995|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.43|-3.17|0.267
84621996|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|13.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.99|0.65|0.032
84621997|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.61||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.24|0.97|0.025
84621998|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.49|0.12|0.046
84621999|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|16.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.85|3.52|0.003
84622000|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.25|-2.45|0.207
84622001|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.91|-6.33|0.932
84622002|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.14|-7.17|0.879
84622003|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.50|-3.77|0.396
84503614|NCT02273206|168758325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.89
84622004|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.83|-7.44|0.812
84622005|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.19|-4.03|0.444
84503615|NCT02273206|168758325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.95
84503616|NCT03063632|168758332|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Per Global Response Score used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome, Response is assessed by the standard response criteria: Complete Response (CR), complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease where all categories (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood) have complete response/noninvolved; Partial Response (PR), regression of measurable disease; Stable Disease (SD), failure to attain CR, PR, or PD.|Simple statistics. Non-responders excluded from analysis.|||
84503617|NCT03063632|168758333|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
84622006|NCT03084796|168988645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||10.04|-3.27|0.319
84622007|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.18|-0.67|<0.001
84622008|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
84622009|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.02|-0.47|0.067
84622010|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.66|<0.001
84622011|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.47|0.084
84622012|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.39|-0.10|0.243
84622013|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.44|-0.05|0.112
84622014|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.23|0.929
84622015|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.30|-0.19|0.668
84622016|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.11|-0.38|0.281
84622017|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.43|0.134
84622018|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.14|-0.70|0.003
84622019|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.05|-0.61|0.020
84673748|NCT01387607|169082958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4626||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8596|2.4886||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into any improvement (participants who were very much improved or much improved or minimally improved) and other.||2.4886|0.8596|0.1510
84622020|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.62|0.017
84726177|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.311|7.93|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.930|-6.311|0.821
84726178|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.508|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.508|-11.240|0.132
84726179|NCT03320941|169204552|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.367|0.905|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.905|-11.367|0.093
84503618|NCT03063632|168758334|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Progression is assessed by the standard response criteria used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome (skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood, global). Per Global Response Score, progression is defined as Progressive Disease (PD) in any category (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood).|Kaplan-Meier method|||
84622021|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
84622022|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.52|0.115
84622023|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.19|0.532
84622024|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.35|-0.21|0.603
84622025|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.17|-0.38|0.460
84622026|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.29|0.921
84622027|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.47|0.172
84622028|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.10|-0.46|0.210
84622029|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.67|<0.001
84622030|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.55|0.016
84622031|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.54|0.025
84622032|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
84503619|NCT03063632|168758335|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
84622033|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.48|0.083
84673749|NCT01387607|169082959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6804||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.32||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-6.30|0.0762
84503620|NCT03063632|168758336|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Binomial distribution|||
84503621|NCT02741271|168758340|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.2|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method, using the constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model for missing data|Between-Treatment Difference|||7.20|3.21|<0.001
84503622|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|8.56|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.56|3.53|<0.001
84622034|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.13|0.355
84622035|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.38|-0.11|0.283
84622036|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.20|-0.29|0.712
84622037|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.27|-0.23|0.877
84622038|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.41|0.195
84622039|NCT03084796|168988646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.07|-0.43|0.150
84622040|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.967||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.181|-1.753|0.016
84622041|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|-0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.043|-1.606|0.039
84622042|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.227||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.441|-2.012|0.002
84622043|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.949||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|-0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.164|-1.733|0.018
84622044|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|-1.374|0.169
84622045|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.923|-0.638|0.720
84622046|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|0.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.523|-1.043|0.515
84622047|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.800|-0.764|0.963
84673750|NCT01387607|169082960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8924||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2007|2.9827||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||2.9827|1.2007|0.0044
84622048|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.377|-1.182|0.311
84673751|NCT01387607|169082961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9683||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1151|3.4742||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||3.4742|1.1151|0.0189
84673752|NCT01387607|169082962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0152||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.54||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-7.39|0.0900
84622049|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|0.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.654|-0.903|0.754
84622050|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.060|-0.503|0.485
84622051|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.349||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|-0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.403|-2.294|0.005
84622052|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.159||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.218|-2.100|0.016
84622053|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.466||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.516|-2.416|0.003
84622054|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.337|-0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.454|-2.337|0.004
84622055|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.797|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.150|-1.797|0.097
84622056|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.126|-0.746|0.690
84622057|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.827|-1.061|0.808
84622058|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|0.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.889|-0.983|0.922
84622059|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.307||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.634|-1.248|0.522
84622060|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.237||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.696|-1.170|0.618
84622061|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|1.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.012|-0.871|0.884
84622062|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.158||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.337|-1.978|0.006
84622063|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.992||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.175|-1.808|0.017
84622064|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.346||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|-0.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.524|-2.168|0.001
84673753|NCT01387607|169082963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1858||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.83||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for snoring.||6.83|-1.77|0.2485
84673754|NCT01387607|169082963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.1||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for awaken short of breath.||2.10|-6.81|0.2993
84673755|NCT01387607|169082963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4485||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|13.85||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sleep adequacy.||13.85|4.21|0.0003
84673756|NCT01387607|169082964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.51||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for quantity of sleep.||0.51|0.07|0.0106
84673757|NCT01387607|169082964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6428||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.43||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for somnolence||7.43|0.96|0.0112
84673758|NCT01387607|169082965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6438||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.18||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-6.29|0.0637
84673759|NCT01387607|169082966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.87||Logistic regression model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.67|0.6767
84673760|NCT01387607|169082967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.5||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.50|-1.26|<0.0001
84622065|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.172||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|-0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.353|-1.991|0.005
84622066|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.149|-1.539|0.107
84673761|NCT01387607|169082968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7785||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.42|-1.92||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-1.92|-32.42|0.0273
84673762|NCT01387607|169082969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0677||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.15|-0.12|0.8082
84673763|NCT01387607|169082970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.41|-0.89|<0.0001
84673764|NCT01387607|169082971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7309||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|22.55||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||22.55|-7.76|0.3388
84673765|NCT01387607|169082972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||1.18|0.35|0.0003
84673766|NCT01387607|169082973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8414||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.82||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-2.50|0.3186
84673767|NCT01387607|169082974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0404||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.43||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.43|-1.67|0.7149
84673768|NCT01387607|169082975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.54|0.2442
84673769|NCT01387607|169082976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4019||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|1.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|-8.34|0.1332
84673770|NCT01387607|169082977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3595||0.2934||95.0|-1.09|0.33||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.09|0.2934
84673771|NCT01387607|169082978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3621||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.12||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.54|0.0226
84673772|NCT02742103|169083000|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.005|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||-0.005|-0.296|
84673773|NCT02742103|169083001|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.025|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.025|-0.277|
84622067|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.980|-0.648|0.689
84622068|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.630|-1.007|0.651
84622069|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.801|-0.830|0.973
84622070|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.461|-1.170|0.393
84622071|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.632|-0.993|0.663
84673774|NCT02533921|169083017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6749||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1706|2.8338|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||2.8338|0.1706|0.0272
84673775|NCT02533921|169083018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8267||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7569|0.5097|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.5097|-2.7569|0.1761
84673776|NCT02533921|169083019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3889||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2291|0.3059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.3059|-1.2291|0.2369
84673777|NCT02533921|169083020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9349|0.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|||0.6730|-0.9349|0.7484
84673778|NCT02533921|169083021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4789||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6338|0.2581|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.2581|-1.6338|0.1529
84673779|NCT02533921|169083022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3934||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9382|0.6167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.6167|-0.9382|0.6834
84673780|NCT01610700|169083045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.93||||0.124||95.0|-13.52|1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change in the primary impairment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.65|-13.52|0.124
84673781|NCT01610700|169083046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change in the spasticity visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.37|-14.56|0.062
84673782|NCT01610700|169083047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.88||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|8.96|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||8.96|-12.73|0.731
84673783|NCT01610700|169083048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.3||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|5.21|||ANCOVA|||The change in the muscle spasm visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||5.21|-11.82|0.443
84673784|NCT01610700|169083049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.85||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|6.6|||ANCOVA|||The change in the tremor visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.60|-20.31|0.311
84622072|NCT03084796|168988647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.991|-0.643|0.676
84622073|NCT00479713|168988803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<=|0.001||95.0|-14.1|-7.33|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-7.33|-14.10|<=0.001
84622074|NCT00479713|168988804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L)||3.0|1.5|<=0.001
84673785|NCT01610700|169083050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in bladder problems visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.38|-14.90|0.154
84622075|NCT00479713|168988804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.8|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L)||4.4|1.8|<=0.001
84503623|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|9.35|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 2 hr Post-Dose|||9.35|4.74|<0.001
84503624|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.28|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 60 min Post-Dose|||8.28|4.09|<0.001
84622076|NCT00479713|168988805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.56|-4.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-4.84|-9.56|<=0.001
84622077|NCT00479713|168988806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.06||||0.056||95.0|-9.56|-0.3|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank.|||-0.30|-9.56|0.056
84622078|NCT00479713|168988807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.433||95.0|-3.21|1.38|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||1.38|-3.21|0.433
84622079|NCT00479713|168988808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<=|0.001||95.0|-12.5|-6.31|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-6.31|-12.50|<=0.001
84622080|NCT00479713|168988809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<=|0.001||95.0|-13.49|-5.69|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-5.69|-13.49|<=0.001
84622081|NCT00479713|168988810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.07|-3.43|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-3.43|-9.07|<=0.001
84622082|NCT00479713|168988811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<=|0.001||95.0|-10.91|-5.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-5.30|-10.91|<=0.001
84622083|NCT00479713|168988812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67||||0.172||95.0|-16.67|2.87|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank|||2.87|-16.67|0.172
84622084|NCT00141102|168988813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
84622085|NCT00141102|168988814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
84622086|NCT00141102|168988815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4146
84622087|NCT00141102|168988816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.1132
84622088|NCT00141102|168988818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0495
84503625|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|8.67|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 30 min Post-Dose|||8.67|5.10|<0.001
84622089|NCT00141102|168988819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0006
84622090|NCT00141102|168988820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.45|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.45|0.36|<0.0001
84622091|NCT00141102|168988821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||1.25|0.98|<0.0001
84622092|NCT00141102|168988822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.748|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||3.84|1.96|<0.0001
84622093|NCT00141102|168988823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.156|5.141|||Fisher Exact|||GGT||5.141|2.156|<0.0001
84622094|NCT00141102|168988823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|1.509||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|3.684|||Fisher Exact|||AST||3.684|0.618|0.3809
84622095|NCT00141102|168988823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.089||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|4.038|||Fisher Exact|||ALT||4.038|1.081|0.0264
84622096|NCT00141102|168988824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-8.78|||ANCOVA|||GGT||-8.78|-11.51|<0.0001
84622097|NCT00141102|168988824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||AST||-1.84|-2.94|<0.0001
84622098|NCT00141102|168988824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||ALT||-5.52|-7.20|<0.0001
84622099|NCT00141102|168988825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.24|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.24|-2.11|0.6795
84622100|NCT00141102|168988826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.74|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.74|-6.55|0.5920
84673786|NCT01610700|169083051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with better/much better assessments was compared between groups using a Fisher's Exact Test.||2.43|0.77|0.293
84622101|NCT00141102|168988827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.06|-0.09|0.6819
84622102|NCT06172348|168988862|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|21.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|24.8|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||24.80|19.31|
84622103|NCT06172348|168988862|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.21|14.27|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||14.27|11.21|
84622104|NCT06172348|168988863|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|94.54|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||94.54|79.11|
84622105|NCT06172348|168988863|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|83.9|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||83.90|70.65|
84622106|NCT06172348|168988864|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.16|146.02|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||146.02|105.16|
84622107|NCT06172348|168988864|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.51|151.06|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||151.06|111.51|
84622108|NCT06172348|168988865|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|119.76|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||119.76|96.46|
84622109|NCT06172348|168988865|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.19|121.17|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||121.17|99.19|
84622110|NCT05274958|168988873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient measures for both groups were first summarized descriptively with means and standard deviations. To compare the two groups, a t-test was used.||||<0.05
84622111|NCT03400475|168988878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.088||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84673787|NCT01610700|169083053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Beck's Depression Inventory score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.50|-1.11|0.450
84673788|NCT01610700|169083054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA|||The change baseline in the mean Fatigue Severity Scale Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.18|-0.43|0.427
84673789|NCT01610700|169083056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.72||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.82|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total 28-item General Health Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.82|-2.38|0.647
84673790|NCT01610700|169083058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total bladder control test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.54|-1.77|0.889
84622112|NCT03400475|168988879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84622113|NCT03400475|168988880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.596||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84622114|NCT03400475|168988881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84622115|NCT03400475|168988882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.581||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84622116|NCT03400475|168988883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84622117|NCT03400475|168988884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.696||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84622118|NCT03400475|168988885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84622119|NCT03400475|168988886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|213.314||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84673791|NCT01610700|169083061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean sleep quality 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||-0.08|-14.11|0.047
84673792|NCT01610700|169083062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.53||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean sleep amount 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.40|-11.45|0.198
84673793|NCT01610700|169083063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.36||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.07|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean feeling upon wakening 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.07|-8.80|0.717
84622120|NCT03400475|168988887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.356||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84622121|NCT03400475|168988888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6537||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84622122|NCT03400475|168988889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84503626|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|8.39|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 15 min Post-Dose|||8.39|4.89|<0.001
84503627|NCT02741271|168758343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.91|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 5 min Post-Dose|||5.91|2.50|<0.001
84622123|NCT03400475|168988890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
84622124|NCT03400475|168988891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
84622125|NCT03400475|168988892|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84673794|NCT01610700|169083064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.47||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Barthel Activities for Daily Living scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.07|-1.01|0.087
84622126|NCT03400475|168988893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.062
84503628|NCT02741271|168758344|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|8.27|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure on Day 1|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.27|4.36|<0.001
84503629|NCT02741271|168758344|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.26|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure at Week 12|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||6.26|0.41|0.026
84503630|NCT02741271|168758345|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.63||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.11|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure|Between-Treatment Difference|||4.11|-0.85|0.197
84622127|NCT03400475|168988894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
84622128|NCT03400475|168988895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84622129|NCT04491136|168988922|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||At least one SVT occurred||||>0.9999
84622130|NCT04491136|168988922|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||At least one NSVT occurred||||0.7905
84622131|NCT04491136|168988922|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||At least one PVC occurred||||0.6250
84622132|NCT04491136|168988924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||3.70|1.11|0.0008
84622133|NCT04491136|168988925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Ridit analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5733
84622134|NCT04491136|168988926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-231.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-415.9|-47.02|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||-47.02|-415.90|0.0006
84622135|NCT04491136|168988928|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one shock||||>0.9999
84622136|NCT04491136|168988928|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one ATP event||||0.0654
84622137|NCT02360228|168988938|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups.H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.47
84726180|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.013||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.579|3.393|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.393|-4.579|0.769
84622138|NCT02360228|168988940|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the PANSS score from day 5 to baseline. H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.37
84622139|NCT02360228|168988941|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the BACS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)"||||0.11
84622140|NCT01712204|168988945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Possion regression|||||1.07|0.62|0.1356
84622141|NCT02679287|168988964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in percentage of time \<70 mg/dL in SAP vs. evening-overnight CLC session. Change in HbA1c during study sessions was used as a covariate of the model.||2.4|1.2|<0.0001
84622142|NCT03628976|168988990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0096
84622143|NCT03628976|168988991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.764
84622144|NCT03628976|168988992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.446
84622145|NCT00851786|168988994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||The p-value was adjusted for baseline gpELISA titer, measurement time (week 6 vs. week 12), CD4 stratum and age.|Linear mixed effect model|Natural log transformed gpELISA titers after one or two doses of vaccine was modeled.||Null hypothesis: VZV antibody titer measured by gpELISA, after 1 or 2 doses of ZOSTAVAX/placebo is the same between ZOSTAVAX arm and the placebo arm||0.69|0.45|<.001
84644822|NCT02660138|169025064|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-10.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.31|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.31|-16.36|0.0001
84644823|NCT02660138|169025064|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-6.73|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-6.73|-17.65|<0.0001
84644824|NCT02660138|169025065|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|160.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.9|211.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||211.9|109.9|<0.0001
84644825|NCT02660138|169025065|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|189.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.1|238.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||238.2|140.1|<0.0001
84644826|NCT02660138|169025066|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-16.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-16.4|-32.3|<0.0001
84644827|NCT02660138|169025066|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-21.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-21.1|-36.2|<0.0001
84644828|NCT02660138|169025067|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|155.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.5|210.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||210.4|100.5|<0.0001
84644829|NCT02660138|169025067|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|181.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.2|234.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||234.3|129.2|<0.0001
84644830|NCT02660138|169025068|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|35.6|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||35.60|2.72|0.0006
84622146|NCT00865345|168989007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA model|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|100.0|||ANCOVA|null model ANOVA is used to calculate 95% CI around accuracy rate. Intercept was fit in the abscence of other predictors.||||100|60|<0.05
84622147|NCT00599872|168989041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.418|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.15|<0.05
84622148|NCT00599872|168989042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.72|<0.05
84622149|NCT00387881|168989047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|25.0||Endpoints were co-primary and both needed to have p-value of \<0.05 to be considered indicative of efficacy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Migraine Pain-Free at 2 hours Post-Dose|Pain-Free (2 hours)||25|10|<0.001
84622150|NCT00387881|168989047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|8.0|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 hours Post-dose|Sustained Pain-Free (2-24 hours)||22|8|<0.001
84622151|NCT00496015|168989070|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criteria: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups (Synflorix PRE Group minus Synflorix I Group) was above 0%.|Difference in percentages|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|32.11||||||||32.11|11.78|
84622152|NCT01116401|168989103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
84622153|NCT01116401|168989104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
84622154|NCT02341235|168989153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.35
84622155|NCT02341235|168989154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||0.22
84622156|NCT02341235|168989155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.97
84622157|NCT02341235|168989156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.98
84622158|NCT02341235|168989157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.83
84622159|NCT02341235|168989158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.055
84622160|NCT02341235|168989159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.71
84673795|NCT01610700|169083068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.81||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.6|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Guy's Neurological Disability Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.60|0.02|0.048
84622161|NCT02341235|168989160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.33
84622162|NCT02341235|168989161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.94
84622163|NCT02341235|168989162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.57
84622164|NCT02341235|168989163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.30
84622165|NCT02341235|168989164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.44
84622166|NCT02341235|168989165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.62
84622167|NCT02341235|168989166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.70
84622168|NCT02341235|168989167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.41
84622169|NCT02341235|168989168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.72
84622170|NCT02341235|168989175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
84622171|NCT02341235|168989177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.580
84622172|NCT02341235|168989185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.461
84622173|NCT02341235|168989187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.934
84622174|NCT04244253|168989216|SUPERIORITY||Difference of score|-1.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed-model repeated measures|MMRM included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction using an unstructured covariance matrix.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||1.0|-3.3|0.288
84622175|NCT04244253|168989217|OTHER||Difference in response rate|5.6||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.8|||χ2 test|The MADRS response rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and the placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||16.8|-5.6|0.329
84622176|NCT04244253|168989218|OTHER||Difference of Proportion|1.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.3|||χ2 test|The MADRS remission rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||10.3|-7.2|0.731
84622177|NCT00628030|168989278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.008
84622178|NCT00628030|168989279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.041
84622179|NCT00628030|168989280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
84622180|NCT00628030|168989281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84622181|NCT00628030|168989282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.024
84622182|NCT01292187|168989301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0265
84622183|NCT01292187|168989302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0340
84726181|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.630|-4.462|0.839
84622184|NCT02920892|168989303|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.22|0.1587
84622185|NCT02920892|168989304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.66||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-3.34|0.1054
84622186|NCT02920892|168989305|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.79|0.32
84622187|NCT02920892|168989306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-1.98|0.78
84622188|NCT02920892|168989307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-2.05|0.94
84622189|NCT02920892|168989308|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.81|0.1428
84622190|NCT02920892|168989309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9462||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8764|1.0215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0215|0.8764|0.24
84622191|NCT02920892|168989310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.27|0.4|0.92
84622192|NCT03827655|168989311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo were obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.33|0.63|=0.649
84622193|NCT03827655|168989311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.43||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.43|0.69|=0.505
84622194|NCT03827655|168989312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.71|=0.449
84622195|NCT03827655|168989312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.44|0.69|=0.507
84622196|NCT03827655|168989313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.52||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.52|0.73|=0.406
84622197|NCT03827655|168989313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.11||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.11|0.54|=0.880
84622198|NCT03827655|168989314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.48||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.48|0.72|=0.446
84622199|NCT03827655|168989314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.09||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.09|0.53|=0.892
84622200|NCT03827655|168989315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.23||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.23|0.60|=0.760
84622201|NCT03827655|168989315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.18||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-squared test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.18|0.58|=0.810
84622202|NCT03827655|168989316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.64||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.64|0.78|=0.288
84622203|NCT03827655|168989316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.47||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.47|0.72|=0.453
84622204|NCT03827655|168989317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.0||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.00|-0.17|=0.046
84622205|NCT03827655|168989317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.11||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.11|-0.11|=0.516
84622206|NCT03827655|168989318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.06|-0.12|=0.296
84622207|NCT03827655|168989318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.13||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.13|-0.07|=0.677
84622208|NCT03827655|168989319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.57||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.57|0.76|=0.338
84622209|NCT03827655|168989319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.73|=0.422
84622210|NCT03649217|168989323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
84622211|NCT03649217|168989324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
84622212|NCT03649217|168989325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
84622213|NCT03649217|168989326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0002
84622214|NCT03649217|168989327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
84622215|NCT02552966|168989330|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This t-test was applied to determine if the mean salivary pepsin concentration changed between baseline and 2 week post UESAD measurements.||||||0.61
84622216|NCT02552966|168989331|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84622217|NCT02552966|168989332|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84622218|NCT02552966|168989333|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84540144|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|12.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.01|-0.95|0.1600
84622219|NCT01216202|168989334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The association between change in serum testosterone levels and cumulative mean testicular radiation dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE). No preoperative RT contributed with baseline values.||||0.014
84622220|NCT01216202|168989335|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-4.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for time between preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and surgery.||The association between change in total number of sperms per ejaculate and relative mean testicular dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-1.0|-6.9|0.008
84622221|NCT01774799|168989344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||||||||1.69|0.69|
84622222|NCT01774799|168989345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.2||||||||2.20|0.66|
84622223|NCT01774799|168989346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||||||||1.58|0.58|
84622224|NCT01774799|168989347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.82||||||||2.82|1.13|
84622225|NCT01774799|168989348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
84622226|NCT03799341|168989371|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.177
84622227|NCT03799341|168989372|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84622228|NCT03799341|168989373|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
84622229|NCT03799341|168989374|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
84622230|NCT03799341|168989375|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
84622231|NCT03799341|168989376|OTHER|||||||0.976|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.976
84622232|NCT03799341|168989377|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.920
84622233|NCT03799341|168989378|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.873
84622234|NCT03799341|168989379|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
84622235|NCT03799341|168989379|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
84622236|NCT03799341|168989379|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.022
84726182|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.807||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.811|2.345|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.345|-4.811|0.496
84673796|NCT01610700|169083069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Atkinson Morley Information Processing Battery test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.64|-1.85|0.904
84673797|NCT00120042|169083118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We planned that up to 300 women would be recruited. This sample size would achieve 80% poer at a 5% significance level to detect a reduction from 40% placental retention rate with no specific therapy (Group 1) to 20% with Group 2 or 3. An interim analysis was planned after 240 women had been recruited.||||0.05
84673798|NCT00120042|169083119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84673799|NCT01049919|169083147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.31|0.31|0.224
84673800|NCT01049919|169083148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.671
84673801|NCT01049919|169083149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.714
84673802|NCT01049919|169083151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.85|0.16|0.018
84673803|NCT03120013|169083166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84622237|NCT03799341|168989379|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.024
84622238|NCT03799341|168989380|OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.973
84503631|NCT00410410|168758359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata (whether a participant had an inadequate response and/or intolerance to anti-TNF therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA comparison being statistically significant at 5% level, ABA \~10 vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level.||Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between ABA arm and placebo (PLA) arm. ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm,expected PLA response rate=40%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=65%. ABA \~10 mg/kg vs. PLA: power=90%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 40%, ABA \~10=60%.||1.09|0.48|0.124
84673804|NCT03120013|169083167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84673805|NCT03120013|169083168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84673806|NCT03120013|169083169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84673807|NCT03120013|169083170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84673808|NCT03120013|169083171|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.006
84673809|NCT03120013|169083172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84673810|NCT03120013|169083173|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.043
84673811|NCT00025883|169083240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within GLD group.||||<0.001
84673812|NCT00025883|169083240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within PLD group.||||0.004
84673813|NCT00025883|169083241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within GLD group.||||0.05
84673814|NCT00025883|169083241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within PLD group.||||0.02
84673815|NCT02908529|169083252|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84673816|NCT04099524|169083254|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
84673817|NCT04099524|169083254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84673818|NCT04099524|169083255|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|chi-square|3.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
84673819|NCT04099524|169083256|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
84622239|NCT03799341|168989380|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during the 12-week treatment interval. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.662
84622240|NCT03799341|168989381|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.878
84622241|NCT03799341|168989381|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.645
84622242|NCT04037891|168989382|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.57|72.99||||||||72.99|-53.57|
84622243|NCT04037891|168989382|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|78.39||||||Comparison of incidence of ocular TEAE in all patients receiving rVA576 (part 1 and 2) vs placebo||78.39|-25.45|
84622244|NCT03100149|168989394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.21|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-4.21|0.2385
84622245|NCT03100149|168989394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-2.82|0.7169
84622246|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.13|-0.30|0.6116
84622247|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.3||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.30|-0.13|0.6188
84622248|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.4||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.40|-0.48|0.9062
84622249|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.46||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.46|-0.43|0.9621
84622250|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.34||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.34|-0.71|0.6510
84622251|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|0.65||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.65|-0.41|0.7709
84622252|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|1.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||1.01|-0.33|0.5177
84622253|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||0.61|-0.73|0.9095
84622254|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|-0.27||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||-0.27|-3.49|0.1354
84673820|NCT04099524|169083257|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance||||<0.05
84622255|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||0.61|-2.64|0.4217
84622256|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.56|-0.38|0.8053
84622257|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.73||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.73|-0.22|0.4970
84622258|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.779||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|-0.07||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||-0.07|-2.07|0.1703
84622259|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.5729|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.45|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||0.56|-1.45|0.5729
84622260|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.19||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||-0.19|-1.02|0.0628
84622261|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||0.01|-0.82|0.2125
84673821|NCT04733157|169083258|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.69|0.33
84622262|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.06||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.06|-0.22|0.4577
84503632|NCT00410410|168758361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA comparison for clinical response being significant at 5% level, this comparison for remission will be tested at 5%.|Conditional on both the remission comparison for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA, and the clinical response comparison for ABA\~10 vs PLA being significant at 5%, the secondary remission comparison for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between each of the ABA and placebo (PLA). At 5% significance level, Aba 30/\~10 vs. PLA: power=96%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA rate=15%. ABA 30/\~10 =35%; Aba \~10 vs. PLA: power=82%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%||0.67|.06|
84622263|NCT03100149|168989395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.13|-0.15|0.9182
84622264|NCT03100149|168989396|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.05|0.3582
84622265|NCT03100149|168989396|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.0||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.06|0.1955
84622266|NCT03100149|168989397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.54||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-0.09|0.3611
84622267|NCT03100149|168989397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.75||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.13|0.0727
84622268|NCT03100149|168989398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.18||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.50|0.4265
84622269|NCT03100149|168989398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.16||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.49|0.4063
84622270|NCT03100149|168989399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.15||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.48|0.3847
84673822|NCT03337724|169083278|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.45|0.71|0.9237
84673823|NCT03337724|169083279|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.40|0.71|0.9965
84622271|NCT03100149|168989399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.36||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.57|0.7055
84760423|NCT02599961|169277239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|-60.46||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Month 0-3||-60.46|-105.00|< 0.0001
84622272|NCT03100149|168989400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.87|0.41||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.87|0.4142
84760424|NCT02599961|169277239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.46|-23.36||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 4-6||-23.36|-86.46|0.0006
84622273|NCT03100149|168989400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.47||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.81|0.4486
84622274|NCT03100149|168989401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.42||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.3769
84622275|NCT03100149|168989401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.53||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.53|1.02|0.1658
84622276|NCT03100149|168989402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.33||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.77|0.9542
84622277|NCT03100149|168989402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.63|0.4567
84622278|NCT01420926|168989449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Stratified 1-sided log-rank|||||||0.30
84622279|NCT04290039|168989467|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5265|0.636|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6360|0.5265|
84622280|NCT04290039|168989467|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3171|0.3839|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3839|0.3171|
84673824|NCT03337724|169083287|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||||Stratification was done prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.58|0.73|
84673825|NCT03337724|169083287|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.37|0.65|
84622281|NCT04290039|168989467|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5524|0.6582|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6582|0.5524|
84622282|NCT04290039|168989468|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4971|0.6004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6004|0.4971|
84622283|NCT04290039|168989468|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2788|0.3367|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3367|0.2788|
84622284|NCT04290039|168989468|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5104|0.6164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6164|0.5104|
84622285|NCT04290039|168989469|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4273|0.7118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.7118|0.4273|
84622286|NCT04290039|168989469|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0381|0.0641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.0641|0.0381|
84622287|NCT04290039|168989469|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0695|0.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.1167|0.0695|
84622288|NCT00453154|168989514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using a 1-sided significance level of 0.15, the study has approximately 89% power to reject the null hypothesis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|70.0|1.27|2.08||All randomization was done using a permuted-block scheme with a block size of 6, stratified by combination chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin) and number of combination chemotherapy cycles (\< 6 vs 6 cycles)|Log Rank|||||2.08|1.27|0.02
84622289|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=1963). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.23|0.09|
84673826|NCT03337724|169083290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.22|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).||Stratified Analysis|2.22|0.83|0.2162
84673827|NCT03238911|169083365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-51.5|-77.4|<0.0001
84540145|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|13.41||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||13.41|-3.94|0.3671
84622290|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=1917). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.05|0.73|
84622291|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2356). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.05|
84673828|NCT03238911|169083366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.8979
84726183|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.774||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.622|1.402|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.402|-5.622|0.237
84622292|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2357). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.56|0.35|
84622293|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2534). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.27|0.14|
84622294|NCT03629886|168989525|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2547). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
84622295|NCT03629886|168989526|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2818). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.19|
84622296|NCT03629886|168989526|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.37||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2815). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.37|1.06|
84622297|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2718). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.24|0.11|
84622298|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2722). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.99|0.72|
84622299|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.06|
84540146|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|16.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||16.46|-1.28|0.1587
84760425|NCT02599961|169277239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.882||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.62|-19.45||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 7-9||-19.45|-85.62|0.0019
84622300|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.47||||||95.0|0.38|0.58||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.58|0.38|
84622301|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2786). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
84622302|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.59||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2782). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.59|0.39|
84622303|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.18|
84622304|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2784). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.51|0.33|
84622305|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2806). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.39|0.23|
84622306|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.46||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2803). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.46|0.28|
84676645|NCT02447991|169088846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.67
84540147|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|17.21||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||17.21|-2.03|0.1932
84673829|NCT03238911|169083367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose will be compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-23.3|-52.2|<0.0001
84673830|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
84673831|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.27|0.85|<0.0001
84673832|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.25|0.81|<0.0001
84673833|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.60|1.10|<0.0001
84673834|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.32|0.75|<0.0001
84673835|NCT03238911|169083368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.39|0.86|<0.0001
84673836|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|20.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||20.79|10.32|<0.0001
84673837|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.62|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|26.62|<0.0001
84676646|NCT00019682|169088868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84503633|NCT00410410|168758362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|If ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA remission comparison is significant at 5% level, the mucosal healing comparison for the same treatment group will be tested at 5%|Conditional on both the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA and the comparison for remission for ABA \~10 vs. PLA being significant, the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1) for mucosal healing. ABA 30/\~10 vs. placebo: power=99%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate=30%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=60%. ABA \~10 vs. placebo: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 30%, ABA \~10 mg/kg=55%||1.05|0.42|
84503634|NCT00410410|168758363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms.||||0.044
84676647|NCT00019682|169088869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Unadjusted 2 tail p value.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
84676648|NCT00019682|169088870|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84676649|NCT00019682|169088871|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-G scale||||>0.05
84622307|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88||||||95.0|0.75|1.02||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2759). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.02|0.75|
84622308|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2773). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.93|0.67|
84622309|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.16||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2794). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.16|0.07|
84622310|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2802). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
84622311|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2753). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
84622312|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2756). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.34|1.03|
84622313|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|1.87||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2666). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.87|1.48|
84673838|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.71|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|25.71|<0.0001
84503635|NCT00410410|168758369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.149
84622314|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.0||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2663). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.00|1.61|
84622315|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2783). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.73|0.50|
84622316|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.76|0.53|
84622317|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2772). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.62|0.42|
84622318|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.65||||||95.0|0.55|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2768). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.55|
84622319|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.4||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2814). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.40|0.24|
84622320|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2797). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.45|0.28|
84503636|NCT00106028|168758417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|9.111|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.111|-0.235|0.0625
84540148|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|16.37||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||16.37|-2.95|0.2518
84673839|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|50.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||50.32|33.89|<0.0001
84673840|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|41.48|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.48|23.09|<0.0001
84673841|NCT03238911|169083369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.33|44.78|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||44.78|27.33|<0.0001
84673842|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.04|-80.45|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-80.45|-131.04|<0.0001
84673843|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.95|-38.58|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-38.58|-82.95|<0.0001
84673844|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-293.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-368.15|-218.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-218.30|-368.15|<0.0001
84673845|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-83.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-83.33|-151.60|<0.0001
84503637|NCT00106028|168758418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.537||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|7.497|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.497|-4.424|0.6103
84673846|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-40.61|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.61|-101.80|<0.0001
84673847|NCT03238911|169083371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-19.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-19.39|-54.92|<0.0001
84673848|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.42|-61.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-61.76|-136.42|<0.0001
84673849|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-25.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-25.90|-72.80|<0.0001
84676650|NCT00019682|169088871|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-F scale||||>0.05
84622321|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.74|0.51|
84622322|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2763). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.54|
84622323|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.56||||||95.0|0.46|0.68||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2775). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.68|0.46|
84622324|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2785). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.71|0.49|
84622325|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.61|0.41|
84622326|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2824). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.12|0.84|
84622327|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.88|0.63|
84644831|NCT02660138|169025068|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|39.61|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||39.61|3.05|0.0003
84676651|NCT00019682|169088871|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 scale||||>0.05
84540149|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|15.83||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||15.83|-2.53|0.2320
84622328|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.33|1.91|
84622329|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|5.49||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.49|4.79|
84622330|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|6.1||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.10|5.36|
84622331|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|5.65||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.65|4.94|
84622332|NCT03629886|168989527|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|6.69||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.69|5.91|
84622333|NCT03016312|168989534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.445|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.445|0.971|0.0940
84622334|NCT03016312|168989534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.37|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.370|0.913|0.2786
84622335|NCT03016312|168989535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.2||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.97|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||4.97|-5.38|0.9391
84622336|NCT03016312|168989535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-4.03||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.14|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||3.14|-11.21|0.2706
84622337|NCT03016312|168989537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.086|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.086|0.775|0.3157
84622338|NCT03016312|168989537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.072|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.072|0.754|0.2366
84622339|NCT03016312|168989538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.21||||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|10.37|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||10.37|-5.95|0.5959
84622340|NCT03016312|168989538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.44||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.23|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||7.23|-4.35|0.6262
84622341|NCT03016312|168989539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 50% Decrease Response Rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-4.5|7.8|||||||Odds Ratio: 1.1 95%CI: 0.8, 1.5|7.8|-4.5|
84622342|NCT03016312|168989540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.251|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.251|0.890|0.5359
84622343|NCT03016312|168989540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.238|0.869|0.6857
84676652|NCT00019682|169088871|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SDS scale||||>0.05
84676653|NCT01612546|169088883|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84676654|NCT02276495|169088888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
84622344|NCT00904813|168989555|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (90% CI) was 1.22 with lower limit: 0.33, and upper limit: 3.45.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the three-armed group comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.56|0.06|0.52
84622345|NCT00904813|168989555|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (95% CI) was 0.99 with lower limit: 0.68, and upper limit: 1.42.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the three armed randomisation comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.35|0.64|0.92
84622346|NCT00904813|168989555|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.27|0.36|0.59
84622347|NCT00904813|168989555|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.18|0.69|0.39
84622348|NCT00904813|168989556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.32||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||1.32|0.40|0.289
84622349|NCT00904813|168989556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.84|0.30|0.009
84622350|NCT00904813|168989556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.65|0.23|<0.001
84622351|NCT00904813|168989556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group E was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and long-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||6.37|0.39|0.521
84622352|NCT00904813|168989557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age, sex and type of surgery.|No pCR was used as reference group.|The association between pathological complete response (pCR), eg no signs of viable tumour or metastatic nodes (T0N0) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox-regression model.||0.99|0.26|0.046
84622353|NCT01169103|168989565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that mean decrease in visceral fat in our population would be 0.85\*standard deviation score (SDS). Therefore, 18 subjects in each group would be required in order for us to have an 81.7% chance of detecting a significant difference in the mean 6-month changes in visceral adiposity between the groups at a 5% significance level by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in visceral fat following administration of rhGH or placebo in obese adolescent girls.||||0.70
84676655|NCT02276495|169088889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84760426|NCT02599961|169277239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.13|-52.17||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 10-12||-52.17|-113.13|< 0.0001
84760427|NCT00143312|169277276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|7.0||||||95.0|2.0|19.0||||||||19|2|
84760428|NCT00143312|169277276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|10.0||||||95.0|2.0|27.0||||||||27|2|
84622354|NCT01169103|168989565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SAT p-value||||0.30
84622355|NCT01169103|168989566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
84622356|NCT01169103|168989567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total Cholesterol p-value||||0.03
84622357|NCT01169103|168989567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Triglyceride p-value||||0.57
84622358|NCT01169103|168989567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Low-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.062
84622359|NCT01169103|168989567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in High-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.0396
84622360|NCT01169103|168989568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84622361|NCT01169103|168989569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84622362|NCT02656017|168989584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GSRS score as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||0.26|-0.13|0.50
84622363|NCT02656017|168989585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Gray's test|||The Gray's test of homogeneity for competing risks was used to compare cumulative incidence of tolerating the drug between study arms.||||0.12
84760429|NCT00143312|169277277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 6 months|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
84622364|NCT02656017|168989586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Cumulative incidence between study arms and logistic regression was used to assess the association between study arms.||||0.98
84622365|NCT02656017|168989587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 PCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.60|-1.81|0.72
84622366|NCT02656017|168989588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 MCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||4.25|-2.02|0.49
84622367|NCT02656017|168989589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare back pain frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.44
84622368|NCT02656017|168989590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in eGFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||6.87|-1.40|0.20
84622369|NCT02656017|168989591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||5.62|-2.11|0.38
84622370|NCT02656017|168989592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|11.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||11.65|-3.48|0.31
84622371|NCT02656017|168989593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.61|-1.78|0.72
84622372|NCT02656017|168989594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||14.76|-10.05|0.80
84622373|NCT02656017|168989595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare abdominal fullness interfered as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.83
84622374|NCT02656017|168989596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with sleep frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.72
84622375|NCT02656017|168989597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with strenuous physical activity frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.28
84622376|NCT01755234|168989598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84622377|NCT01755234|168989599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84622378|NCT01755234|168989600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
84622379|NCT01755234|168989601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.84
84622380|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||||95.0|0.22|0.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.53|0.22|
84622381|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.12|0.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.81|0.12|
84622382|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||||95.0|0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|0.06|
84622383|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||||95.0|0.34|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|0.34|
84622384|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||||95.0|0.16|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.39|0.16|
84622385|NCT00614380|168989631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.1|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.10|
84676656|NCT02276495|169088890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.013
84760430|NCT00143312|169277278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at End of Prophylaxis|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
84622386|NCT01506271|168989645|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|MK-7655 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-6.2|< 0.001
84622387|NCT01506271|168989645|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.8|-2.0|< 0.001
84622388|NCT01506271|168989646|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.5|-4.7|0.979
84622389|NCT01506271|168989646|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||1.5|-6.2|0.153
84622390|NCT01506271|168989647|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.7|-2.4|0.324
84622391|NCT01506271|168989647|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference|Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.2|-3.3|> 0.999
84622392|NCT01506271|168989648|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|20.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||20.1|-5.4|
84622393|NCT01506271|168989648|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|18.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||18.8|-6.7|
84622394|NCT01506271|168989649|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-10.3|
84622395|NCT01506271|168989649|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.1|-5.0|
84622396|NCT01506271|168989650|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.7|-4.5|
84622397|NCT01506271|168989650|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.8|-4.4|
84622398|NCT01506271|168989651|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.9|-4.0|
84622399|NCT01506271|168989651|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-4.8|
84622400|NCT01506271|168989652|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.3|-6.7|
84622401|NCT01506271|168989652|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-3.7|
84622402|NCT01506271|168989653|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0.6|-7.5|
84622403|NCT01506271|168989653|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-6.7|
84622404|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.1|-4.7|
84622405|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.2|-4.6|
84622406|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||6.9|-7.3|
84622407|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||8.0|-6.5|
84622408|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||9.6|-2.3|
84622409|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||11.8|-0.7|
84622410|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||3.5|-7.6|
84622411|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||2.2|-8.4|
84622412|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||4.7|-2.4|
84622413|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||9.7|1.0|
84622414|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.6|-5.0|
84622415|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.7|-4.9|
84622416|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.3|-3.7|
84622417|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.4|-3.7|
84622418|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||4.2|-6.5|
84622419|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||3.0|-7.2|
84622420|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||-0.3|-8.7|
84622421|NCT01506271|168989654|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||4.3|-6.4|
84622422|NCT01506271|168989655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
84622423|NCT01506271|168989655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
84622424|NCT01506271|168989656|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.0|-9.1|0.001
84622425|NCT01506271|168989656|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||5.3|-9.7|0.002
84622426|NCT01506271|168989657|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.2|-6.3|< 0.001
84622427|NCT01506271|168989657|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.3|-2.0|< 0.001
84622428|NCT01506271|168989658|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.4|-6.7|< 0.001
84622429|NCT01506271|168989658|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.5|-6.3|< 0.001
84622430|NCT01506271|168989659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.9|-9.6|0.002
84622431|NCT01506271|168989659|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.2|-7.2|< 0.001
84622432|NCT01506271|168989660|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-7.4|< 0.001
84622433|NCT01506271|168989660|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-5.2|< 0.001
84622434|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||5.1|-7.3|
84726184|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.435|7.415|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.415|-5.435|0.758
84622435|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||0.1|-10.3|
84673850|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.47|-140.09|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-140.09|-242.47|<0.0001
84622436|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||5.0|-5.2|
84622437|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||6.3|-4.5|
84622438|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||15.3|-3.9|
84622439|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||13.6|-5.4|
84622440|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||11.0|-2.0|
84622441|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||7.8|-4.2|
84622442|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||12.0|-3.6|
84622443|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||8.0|-6.5|
84622444|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||5.1|-7.3|
84622445|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 1250mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||8.5|-5.0|
84622446|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||7.4|-9.8|
84622447|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||6.5|-10.5|
84622448|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
84622449|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
84622450|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.4|-5.7|
84622451|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.5|-5.7|
84622452|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
84622453|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
84622454|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||0.7|-10.7|
84760431|NCT00143312|169277282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 6 months|79.0||||||95.0|64.0|91.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||91|64|
84760432|NCT00143312|169277282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 12 months|69.0||||||95.0|52.0|83.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||83|52|
84622455|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||4.4|-8.4|
84622456|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||8.1|-2.4|
84622457|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||4.5|-4.7|
84622458|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||2.0|-9.9|
84622459|NCT01506271|168989662|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||6.6|-6.9|
84622460|NCT00462306|168989669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||4000 parturients and 500 non-pregnant achieves 90% power to detect a difference of 3% positive Berlin Questionnaire rates between pregnant and non-pregnant women using a two sided chi squared test at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||We hypothesized that the rate of positive Berlin questionnaires would be higher in pregnant women compared to age matched controls undergoing surgery.||||0.001
84622461|NCT00462306|168989670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
84622462|NCT03515824|168989671|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
84622463|NCT03515824|168989671|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
84673851|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.19|-64.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-64.20|-137.19|<0.0001
84622464|NCT03515824|168989671|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.8|30.2||||||||30.2|5.8|
84622465|NCT03515824|168989674|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
84622466|NCT03515824|168989674|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2||||||||60.2|0.0|
84540150|NCT04856917|168830934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|16.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||16.35|-2.08|0.2014
84622467|NCT03515824|168989674|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|21.8||||||||21.8|0.0|
84622468|NCT03515824|168989675|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|84.2||||||||84.2|0.0|
84622469|NCT03515824|168989675|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
84622470|NCT03515824|168989675|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate )ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.5||||||||28.5|0.0|
84622471|NCT01787461|168989694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.14||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.44|-0.16|0.358
84622472|NCT01787461|168989695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.037||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau classification of photoaging and site.||0.27|-0.19|0.568
84622473|NCT01787461|168989696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-0.25|0.797
84622474|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.29|0.965
84622475|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.20|0.674
84622476|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.35|0.916
84622477|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.35|-0.39|0.915
84622478|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.26|-0.40|0.672
84726185|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.574|6.397|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.397|-6.574|0.978
84760433|NCT03603496|169277286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.5|||Chi-squared||Comparing TTCM as numerator, QL as denominator (reference group)|Two-stage multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. 1st stage: we imputed missing data from surveys. 2nd stage: we imputed missing data from biochemical sample collection. Null hypothesis was no difference between arms in biochemically-validated past 7-day abstinence from cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products at 6-months. Sample of 1350 (675/group) was planned to detect a 6.5% difference (23.0% vs. 16.5%) with 84% power and 2-sided p\<0.05.||1.50|0.92|.19
84622479|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.27|0.655
84622480|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.23|0.561
84622481|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.40|-0.14|0.356
84622482|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.28|0.669
84622483|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.34|-0.32|0.954
84622484|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.22|-0.34|0.684
84622485|NCT01787461|168989697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.35|0.886
84673852|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.78|-24.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-24.96|-71.78|<0.0001
84622486|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.37|-0.33|0.901
84622487|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.47|-0.19|0.399
84622488|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.38|0.875
84622489|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.73|0.13|0.005
84622490|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.33|0.876
84622491|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.29|0.789
84622492|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands- Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.31|0.901
84622493|NCT01787461|168989698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.72|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands - Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.72|0.04|0.027
84622494|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.083||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.27|-0.10|0.688
84622495|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.121||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.33|-0.08|0.445
84622496|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.01|0.318
84622497|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.012||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.15|0.633
84622498|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.018||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.23|0.996
84622499|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.059||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.13|0.432
84622500|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.13|0.833
84622501|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.226||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.06|0.171
84622502|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.02||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.16|0.796
84622503|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.033||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.23|0.942
84622504|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.118||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.28|-0.05|0.405
84622505|NCT01787461|168989699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.26|-0.14|0.687
84622506|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.384||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.54|0.23|0.017
84622507|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.248||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.09|0.073
84622508|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.057||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.11|0.117
84622509|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.096||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.31|0.662
84622510|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.1||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.05|0.373
84622511|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.031||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.19|0.294
84622512|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.035||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.20|0.857
84622513|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.206||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.02|0.088
84622514|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.193||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.41|-0.02|0.110
84622515|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.34|0.07|0.112
84622516|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.003||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.13|0.614
84726186|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.758|7.444|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.444|-3.758|0.512
84622517|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.011||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.18|0.693
84622518|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.079||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.06|0.762
84622519|NCT01787461|168989700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.013||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.16|0.662
84622520|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.93||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.18|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||18.18|-10.32|0.587
84622521|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|12.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||12.32|-14.49|0.814
84622522|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|8.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||8.99|-16.14|0.453
84622523|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.16||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|4.61|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.61|-22.92|0.191
84622524|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.28|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.28|-10.07|0.685
84622525|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|23.15|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||23.15|-11.67|0.480
84622526|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.98||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|5.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||5.34|-17.29|0.299
84622527|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.07||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|1.9|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.90|-20.04|0.107
84622528|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|10.76|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||10.76|-14.39|0.776
84622529|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|9.29|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||9.29|-15.96|0.603
84622530|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|7.6|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||7.60|-15.23|0.510
84622531|NCT01787461|168989701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|4.2|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.20|-17.70|0.225
84622532|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.02|-0.46|0.214
84622533|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.09|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.09|0.12|0.027
84622534|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.96|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.96|0.01|0.049
84622535|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.14|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.14|0.20|0.019
84622536|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.36|0.449
84622537|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.07|0.105
84622538|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.68|-0.14|0.205
84622539|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.77|-0.06|0.100
84540151|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|12.06||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||12.06|-4.34|0.4361
84622540|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.66|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.66|-0.17|0.244
84622541|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.56|-0.32|0.594
84622542|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.63|-0.20|0.317
84622543|NCT01787461|168989702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.64|-0.17|0.264
84622544|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.16||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|19.31|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||19.31|-69.63|0.266
84622545|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.99|16.41|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||16.41|-73.99|0.210
84622546|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.78||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|40.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.99|-56.55|0.753
84622547|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.32|46.51|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||46.51|-76.32|0.632
84622548|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|29.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.01|-19.94|0.715
84622549|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.35||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|33.75|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||33.75|-21.04|0.648
84622550|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.49||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.81|15.83|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.83|-48.81|0.315
84622551|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.42||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|48.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||48.34|-19.50|0.402
84622552|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.43||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|40.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.35|-15.49|0.381
84622553|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.44|29.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.43|-26.44|0.916
84622554|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.88||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|24.05|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||24.05|-43.81|0.566
84622555|NCT01787461|168989703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.58||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|47.94|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||47.94|-30.78|0.667
84622556|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.0|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.00|-2.21|0.458
84622557|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.01|-2.07|0.497
84622558|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-3.05|0.113
84760434|NCT03603496|169277287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.35|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.35|1.08|.002
84503638|NCT00106028|168758419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.554||||0.0808||95.0|-0.193|3.301|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.301|-0.193|0.0808
84622559|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.44|-2.11|0.708
84622560|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.82|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.82|-2.34|0.495
84622561|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.27|-4.96|0.243
84622562|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.23|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.23|-4.96|0.453
84622563|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.89|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.89|-2.79|0.745
84622564|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.48|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.48|-2.44|0.987
84622565|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.85|-3.69|0.218
84622566|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.08|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.08|-3.41|0.630
84622567|NCT01787461|168989704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.68|-2.06|0.576
84622568|NCT00965250|168989824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
84622569|NCT00965250|168989825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
84622570|NCT05051579|168989837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.9|<0.001
84622571|NCT05051579|168989837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
84622572|NCT05051579|168989837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.0|-12.4|<0.001
84622573|NCT05051579|168989837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-12.7|<0.001
84622574|NCT05051579|168989838|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-9.9|<0.001
84622575|NCT05051579|168989838|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-12.9|<0.001
84622576|NCT05051579|168989838|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-13.8|<0.001
84622577|NCT05051579|168989838|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-15.0|<0.001
84622578|NCT05051579|168989839|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-9.3|<0.001
84622579|NCT05051579|168989839|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.8|-12.5|<0.001
84622580|NCT05051579|168989839|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-13.1|<0.001
84622581|NCT05051579|168989839|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-13.5|<0.001
84622582|NCT05051579|168989840|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-10.4|<0.001
84622583|NCT05051579|168989840|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-14.2|<0.001
84622584|NCT05051579|168989840|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-14.7|<0.001
84622585|NCT05051579|168989840|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.2|-15.8|<0.001
84622586|NCT05051579|168989841|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-7.2|0.002
84622587|NCT05051579|168989841|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.0|<0.001
84622588|NCT05051579|168989841|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.8|-9.2|<0.001
84622589|NCT05051579|168989841|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-11.3|<0.001
84622590|NCT05051579|168989842|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.8|<0.001
84622591|NCT05051579|168989842|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-10.3|<0.001
84622592|NCT05051579|168989842|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-9.7|<0.001
84622593|NCT05051579|168989842|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.6|-12.7|<0.001
84622594|NCT05051579|168989843|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-3.2|<0.001
84622595|NCT05051579|168989843|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-4.3|<0.001
84622596|NCT05051579|168989843|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.6|<0.001
84622597|NCT05051579|168989843|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.7|<0.001
84622598|NCT05051579|168989844|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.6|<0.001
84622599|NCT05051579|168989844|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.8|-4.8|<0.001
84622600|NCT05051579|168989844|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.2|<0.001
84622601|NCT05051579|168989844|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-5.6|<0.001
84622602|NCT05051579|168989845|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.44|3.61|<0.001
84622603|NCT05051579|168989845|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.01|8.15|<0.001
84622604|NCT05051579|168989845|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|85.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||85.91|8.71|<0.001
84622605|NCT05051579|168989845|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|72.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.77|7.65|<0.001
84622606|NCT05051579|168989846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|114.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||114.40|3.47|<0.001
84622607|NCT05051579|168989846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|224.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.83|6.95|<0.001
84622608|NCT05051579|168989846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|427.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||427.18|13.16|<0.001
84622609|NCT05051579|168989846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.62|413.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||413.21|12.62|<0.001
84622610|NCT05051579|168989847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.92|2.90|<0.001
84622611|NCT05051579|168989847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|83.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.91|7.49|<0.001
84622612|NCT05051579|168989847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|147.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||147.86|8.17|<0.001
84622613|NCT05051579|168989847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.29|8.15|<0.001
84622614|NCT05051579|168989848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|26.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.45|2.59|<0.001
84622615|NCT05051579|168989848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|50.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.68|4.83|<0.001
84622616|NCT05051579|168989848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|88.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.38|8.39|<0.001
84622617|NCT05051579|168989848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|66.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.17|6.59|<0.001
84622618|NCT00932321|168989869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis tested was the independence (lack of association) of mean number of IB days in Cycles 2-6 across treatment groups.||||||0.311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by investigational site.||||||0.311
84622619|NCT04564846|168989871|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.974||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.011|||Analysis of Covariance||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points. Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Comparison to Placebo Across All Time Points||1.011|0.938|0.1628
84622620|NCT04564846|168989873|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.784||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.017|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|1.017|0.605|0.0674
84622621|NCT04564846|168989874|OTHER|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.067||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.167|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points.||1.167|0.976|0.8182
84622622|NCT04564846|168989875|OTHER|AUC Parameters analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.007||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.066|||Analysis of Covariance|||||1.066|0.951|0.8182
84622623|NCT04564846|168989876|OTHER||Analysis of Variance|0.4628|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Parameter analyzed using an Analysis of Variance model with treatment as the main effect.||||||||
84726187|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.792||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.552|5.657|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.657|-5.552|0.985
84622624|NCT04073186|168989902|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the First wearing Cycle was concluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean as greater than 32.|Least-square Mean|59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|64.0|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||64.0|54.6|
84622625|NCT04073186|168989903|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.10 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|-0.044||Distance (4 Meter)|Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||||-0.044|-0.124|
84622626|NCT04073186|168989903|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Intermediate (64 CM)||0.012|-0.068|
84622627|NCT04073186|168989903|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR|Least-square Means|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Near (40 CM)||0.077|-0.003|
84622628|NCT04073186|168989904|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens at 4-week followup compared to it at 2-week follow-up will beconcluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean difference is greater than 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Second Wearing Cycle minus First Wearing Cycle|||-0.1|-8.1|
84622629|NCT00558246|168989963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|Differences in proportion of successes|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||5.9|-5.9|1.0000
84622630|NCT00558246|168989964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84622631|NCT00558246|168989965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84622632|NCT00558246|168989966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2266|||||||McNemar|||||||0.2266
84622633|NCT00558246|168989967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
84622634|NCT05552027|168989975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||At the completion of scenario A (a full child safety seat installation), the participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84622635|NCT05552027|168989975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario B (loose harness straps), participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
84622636|NCT05552027|168989975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario C (loose attachment at the base), like the other two scenarios, participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
84622637|NCT04663321|168989982|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-1.4|0.168
84622638|NCT04663321|168989982|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-6.9|0.697
84622639|NCT04663321|168989983|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-0.8|0.124
84622640|NCT04663321|168989983|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-2.7|0.417
84622641|NCT04663321|168989986|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-1.0|0.187
84622642|NCT04663321|168989986|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||ANCOVA|||||3.1|-4.3|0.738
84622643|NCT04663321|168989987|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS means|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.8|0.182
84622644|NCT04663321|168989988|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.630
84622645|NCT04663321|168989988|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.549
84622646|NCT04663321|168989989|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.0|0.062
84622647|NCT04663321|168989989|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.878
84622648|NCT04862065|168990008|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
84622649|NCT04862065|168990009|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
84622650|NCT04862065|168990010|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
84622651|NCT02748863|168990020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|717.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|7569.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||7569.56|68.00|< 0.0001
84622652|NCT02748863|168990021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|168.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|1337.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1337.22|21.20|< 0.0001
84622653|NCT02748863|168990022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.41|50.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|27.41|< 0.0001
84622654|NCT02748863|168990022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.19|47.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.76|25.19|< 0.0001
84622655|NCT02748863|168990024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|400.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.48|3379.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3379.99|47.48|< 0.0001
84622656|NCT00890825|168990058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.14||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure - Overall survival.|Regression, Cox|Analysis adjusted for the following covariates; WHO PS, gender, histology and smoking status|A Hazard Ratio less than 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||1.14|0.56|0.2069
84622657|NCT00890825|168990059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.79||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|The model allowed for the effect of treatment and included terms for WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|A Hazard Ratio (HR) \< 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||0.79|0.42|0.0138
84622658|NCT00890825|168990060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|53.0||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||53|23|< 0.0001
84622659|NCT00890825|168990062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmeans difference|-17.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.2|-8.86||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-8.86|-25.2|0.004
84622660|NCT00890825|168990063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.34|-13.7||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-13.7|-38.34|0.004
84622661|NCT00890825|168990064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|0.78||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Log Rank|Confidence interval (CI) used Greenwood's formula for the standard error of a survival estimate|A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favours AZD6244 75 mg bd+Docetaxel|||0.78|0.37|0.0158
84622662|NCT00844376|168990065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.77||||||90.0|85.82|106.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUC48 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUC48; restricted (residual) maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation.||106.88|85.82|
84622663|NCT00844376|168990066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.04||||||90.0|84.99|106.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUCinf||106.27|84.99|
84622664|NCT00844376|168990067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.86||||||90.0|83.86|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUClast||107.29|83.86|
84622665|NCT00844376|168990068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|117.9||||||90.0|98.22|141.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for Cmax||141.53|98.22|
84622666|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|<0.001
84673853|NCT03238911|169083372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|5.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.06|-35.04|0.1411
84622667|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
84622668|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.09|0.89|<0.001
84622669|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.12|0.88|<0.001
84622670|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.17|0.93|<0.001
84622671|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.11|0.89|<0.001
84622672|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.25|0.97|<0.001
84726188|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.268|3.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.121|-7.268|0.428
84622673|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.10|0.88|<0.001
84622674|NCT00988884|168990072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||1.10|0.88|<0.001
84622675|NCT00988884|168990073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup A||9.3|-1.7|<0.001
84622676|NCT00988884|168990073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup C||1.1|-5.4|<0.001
84622677|NCT00988884|168990073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|6.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup Y||6.1|-1.8|<0.001
84622678|NCT00988884|168990073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup W-135||0.3|-4.7|<0.001
84622679|NCT00988884|168990074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.9|-0.8|<0.001
84622680|NCT00988884|168990074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.7|-1.2|<0.001
84622681|NCT00988884|168990075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|0.92|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||0.92|0.69|0.003
84622682|NCT00988884|168990075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.01|0.83|<0.001
84673854|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.59|-1.08|0.5620
84622683|NCT00988884|168990075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.08|0.84|<0.001
84622684|NCT00988884|168990075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.21|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.21|0.76|<0.001
84622685|NCT00988884|168990078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.7|-3.5|0.806
84622686|NCT04621448|168990081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference estimate of 2.2 was confirmed. It is slightly different than the difference of the raw change values \[+.7 - (-1.7) = 2.4\] because it comes from the mixed effects model.|||4.39|0.01|0.048
84622687|NCT04621448|168990082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.40|-4.12|0.603
84622688|NCT04621448|168990083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.92|-2.75|0.734
84622689|NCT04621448|168990084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.74|-0.62|0.159
84622690|NCT04621448|168990085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|-1.97|0.818
84622691|NCT04621448|168990086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-0.26|0.089
84622692|NCT04621448|168990087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-0.96|0.631
84622693|NCT04621448|168990088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-0.71|0.484
84622694|NCT04621448|168990089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|-2.36|0.81
84622695|NCT04621448|168990090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-0.77|0.384
84622696|NCT04621448|168990091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-1.65|0.509
84622697|NCT04621448|168990092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|0.24|0.021
84726189|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.669||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.853|4.812|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.812|-5.853|0.846
84622698|NCT04621448|168990093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.94|0.156
84622699|NCT04621448|168990094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|-0.62|0.582
84622700|NCT04621448|168990095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.21|0.271
84622701|NCT04621448|168990096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|-1.52|0.834
84622702|NCT04621448|168990097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.15|-1.62|0.529
84622703|NCT04621448|168990098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.377
84622704|NCT04621448|168990099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.043
84622705|NCT03546621|168990123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||For each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups, a null hypothesis of no clinically significant difference in proportion of responders compared to the control group (Tenofovir only), at week 24, were tested using the one-sided Wald test for superiority, at a one-sided overall significance level of 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing according to Bonferroni-Holm, with the superiority limit (test margin) set to 5%.||||<.0001
84622706|NCT03546621|168990124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.9818
84503639|NCT00106028|168758420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.498||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.648|2.644|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.644|-1.648|0.6466
84622707|NCT03546621|168990124|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value as smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||1.0000
84622708|NCT03546621|168990124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7132||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.7132
84622709|NCT03546621|168990125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.~This analysis, and presentation of descriptive statistics, was repeated for the subgroups of patients with normal/abnormal baseline ALT values."||||0.0232
84622710|NCT03546621|168990125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0047
84622711|NCT03546621|168990125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0010
84622712|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to week 24 and week 48 in ALT levels was performed using van Elteren tests.~Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions (of patients with normal ALT values) against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.1642
84622713|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
84622714|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
84622715|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Boferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
84622716|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7157||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.7157
84622717|NCT03546621|168990126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
84676657|NCT01782131|169088919|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme. The p-Value is based on the one-sided non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of posaconazole vs. voriconazole is established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than 10%.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.0|-11.6|<.0001
84622718|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.7416
84622719|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.4434
84622720|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7371||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||0.7371
84622721|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622722|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9441||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.9441
84622723|NCT03546621|168990127|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622724|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY||Bonferroni-Holm|||||0.5984||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to Week 24 in HBsAg was performed using van Elteren tests. Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data.~Separare comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.5984
84622725|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7529||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.7529
84622726|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3305||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.3305
84622727|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622728|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622729|NCT03546621|168990128|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622730|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||1.0000
84622731|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||1.0000
84622732|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||1.0000
84622733|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622734|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622735|NCT03546621|168990129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
84622736|NCT00660192|168990137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0347
84622737|NCT00660192|168990138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0300
84622738|NCT03318549|168990152|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84622739|NCT03318549|168990152|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84622740|NCT03318549|168990153|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
84622741|NCT03318549|168990156|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
84622742|NCT03318549|168990156|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
84622743|NCT00539994|168990161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84622744|NCT00539994|168990161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84622745|NCT02673918|168990176|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84622746|NCT02673918|168990177|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84726190|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.388||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.825|0.721|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.721|-8.825|0.095
84622747|NCT02741245|168990223|OTHER||Difference in M-estimates|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-32.0|||Shapiro-Wilk test|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach||||-32.0|-39.9|<0.001
84622748|NCT02741245|168990223|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.6|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-11.6|-18.0|<0.001
84622749|NCT02741245|168990223|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-37.9|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-37.9|-45.8|<0.001
84622750|NCT02741245|168990223|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Differecne in M-estimates|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-10.1|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-10.1|-16.6|<0.001
84622751|NCT02586623|168990252|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Log Rank||Droxidopa / Placebo|||1.62|0.67|0.803
84622752|NCT01116648|168990259|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cediranib|||||
84503640|NCT00106028|168758421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.465||||0.7391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.224|2.294|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.294|-3.224|0.7391
84622753|NCT01116648|168990259|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg BID)|200.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Olaparib|||||
84622754|NCT01116648|168990261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.83|||Kaplan-Meier Plot|||||0.83|0.30|0.006
84622755|NCT02849418|168990293|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-0.19|||||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.19|-5.85|
84622756|NCT01405768|168990373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
84622757|NCT01405768|168990375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
84622758|NCT03692208|168990377|OTHER|Quantitative outcomes from chart and survey data were summarized by basic descriptive statistics.|||||<|0.01||||||P-values were calculated. Only P values of \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Exact tests, two-sample t-tests, and paired two-sample t-tests were utilized to assess the outcomes between study arms.||||||<0.01
84622759|NCT01342913|168990384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.018|0.282
84622760|NCT05482308|168990402|OTHER||Mean differences(Test-Reference)|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|104.1|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||104.10|92.92|
84622761|NCT05482308|168990403|OTHER||Mean difference (Test-Reference)|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.5|102.9|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||102.90|81.50|
84622762|NCT00833040|168990434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||difference between the active and placebo groups||||<0.001
84622763|NCT04233008|168990441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84622764|NCT04233008|168990442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84676658|NCT01782131|169088920|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8||||||||8.8|-8.2|
84622765|NCT04233008|168990443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84622766|NCT04233008|168990444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84622767|NCT04233008|168990445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84622768|NCT04233008|168990447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
84622769|NCT00416624|168990453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.41
84622770|NCT00416624|168990455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 80 patients per arm will provide\> 80% power to detect differences between average hemoglobin levels in the\> reference arm and another treatment of 50% of the standard deviation. Note that\> typically one would expect the estimates for the standard deviation at a single time\> point to differ from the standard deviation for the difference from baseline.|||||>|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.13
84622771|NCT00416624|168990457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.49
84622772|NCT00416624|168990460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as 25%.|||||>|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.56
84622773|NCT03489863|168990470|NON_INFERIORITY|see above|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint is non-inferiority in PRU, at 24 hours of prasugrel versus ticagrelor. Under the assumption of 0 difference at 24 hours in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha = 0.05.||2|-38|<0.05
84622774|NCT00657540|168990478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of treatment failures was compared between groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.0185
84622775|NCT00657540|168990479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2302|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests at the 0.025 level of significance were used to test for a difference in proportions between the treatment groups.||||||0.2302
84622776|NCT00657540|168990480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with at least one drug-related adverse event by treatment groups using a two-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.8213
84622777|NCT00657540|168990481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with decreased pain at any time point between treatment groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.2765
84622778|NCT00141453|168990483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79||95.0|0.75|1.24|||Regression, Cox|The covariates were urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and serum creatinine at baseline \& regions (Japan/Hong Kong) for the renal composite event rate.||We planned to collect 400 patients to detect 35% risk reduction for renal outcome in olmesartan group with 80% power at 2-sided .05 alpha level. The Cox regression model was applied to estimate the hazard ratios (HR)between treatment groups with 95% confidence intervals for the renal and cardiovascular composite event rate.||1.24|0.75|0.79
84622779|NCT00141453|168990484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.039||95.0|0.43|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Covariates baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, age and history of cardiovascular disease for cardiovascular composite event rate.||||0.98|0.43|0.039
84622780|NCT04245111|168990504|OTHER|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section||||||||||||||||No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|||
84622781|NCT04755816|168990511|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
84622782|NCT04755816|168990512|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in group A and B. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
84622783|NCT04755816|168990514|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|3.743||||||Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C.||3.743|0.321|
84622784|NCT04755816|168990515|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|6.76|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||6.76|-37.5|
84622785|NCT04755816|168990516|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.901||||||Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B.||1.901|0.163|
84622786|NCT04755816|168990517|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|7.72|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||7.72|-33.67|
84622787|NCT02792231|168990518|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.56|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.560|0.309|<0.001
84622788|NCT02792231|168990519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||Pooled data - this study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
84622789|NCT02792231|168990520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.977|0.449|0.038
84622790|NCT02792231|168990521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
84622791|NCT02792231|168990522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.174|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.174|0.490|0.215
84622792|NCT02792231|168990523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.928|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.928|0.952|0.092
84676659|NCT01782131|169088921|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-9.9|
84726191|NCT03320941|169204553|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|0.623|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.623|-8.610|0.089
84622793|NCT02792231|168990524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.523||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|2.477|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||2.477|0.936|0.090
84622794|NCT02792231|168990525|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.101|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.101|0.037|<.001
84622795|NCT02792231|168990526|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.27|0.17|<.001
84622796|NCT02792231|168990526|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.31|0.12|<.001
84622797|NCT02792231|168990526|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.19|0.13|<.001
84622798|NCT02792231|168990527|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.93|0.85|<.001
84622799|NCT02792231|168990527|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.79|0.70|<.001
84622800|NCT02792231|168990527|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.81|0.71|<.001
84622801|NCT02792231|168990528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.128
84622802|NCT02792231|168990531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.847|0.486|0.002
84622803|NCT02792231|168990532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.898|0.481|0.008
84644832|NCT02660138|169025069|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||16.24|2.02|0.0010
84644833|NCT02660138|169025069|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|44.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||44.43|5.82|<0.0001
84644834|NCT02660138|169025070|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.22|20.37|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||20.37|6.22|0.0003
84644835|NCT02660138|169025070|SUPERIORITY|The secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|24.15|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||24.15|10.36|<0.0001
84644836|NCT02660138|169025071|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||8.86|1.80|0.0007
84644837|NCT02660138|169025071|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|7.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||7.86|1.68|0.0012
84644838|NCT02660138|169025071|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|18.09||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||18.09|3.56|<0.0001
84673855|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|0.38|0.0126
84622804|NCT00423657|168990565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95%CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||5.0|-5.8|
84622805|NCT02653326|168990574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84622806|NCT02653326|168990575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84622807|NCT00657046|168990593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.693
84622808|NCT00657046|168990593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.807
84622809|NCT00657046|168990594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.212
84622810|NCT00657046|168990594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.230
84622811|NCT00657046|168990595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.712
84622812|NCT00657046|168990595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.607
84622813|NCT00657046|168990596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.4602
84622814|NCT00657046|168990596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.940
84622815|NCT00657046|168990597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.376
84622816|NCT00657046|168990597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.903
84622817|NCT00657046|168990598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.319
84726192|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4808||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.106|26.985|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||26.985|-58.106|0.470
84622818|NCT00657046|168990598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.408
84622819|NCT00657046|168990599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.004
84622820|NCT00657046|168990599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.030
84622821|NCT00657046|168990600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.025
84622822|NCT00657046|168990600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.022
84622823|NCT00657046|168990601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
84622824|NCT00657046|168990601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84622825|NCT04864249|168990602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84622826|NCT04864249|168990603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84622827|NCT04864249|168990604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84622828|NCT04864249|168990605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84622829|NCT04864249|168990606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84622830|NCT04864249|168990607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
84622831|NCT04864249|168990608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84622832|NCT04864249|168990609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84622833|NCT04864249|168990610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84622834|NCT04864249|168990611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84622835|NCT04864249|168990612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
84622836|NCT04864249|168990613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84622837|NCT04864249|168990614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84622838|NCT04864249|168990615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84622839|NCT04864249|168990616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84622840|NCT04864249|168990617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84622841|NCT04864249|168990618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84622842|NCT04864249|168990619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84622843|NCT04864249|168990620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84622844|NCT04864249|168990621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84622845|NCT04864249|168990622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84622846|NCT04864249|168990623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84622847|NCT04864249|168990624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84622848|NCT04864249|168990625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84622849|NCT04864249|168990626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84622850|NCT04864249|168990627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84622851|NCT04864249|168990628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84622852|NCT04864249|168990629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84622853|NCT04864249|168990630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84622854|NCT04864249|168990631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84622855|NCT04864249|168990632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84622856|NCT04864249|168990633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
84622857|NCT04864249|168990634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84622858|NCT04864249|168990635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84622859|NCT04864249|168990636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84622860|NCT04864249|168990637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84622861|NCT03192826|168990638|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
84622862|NCT03192826|168990639|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
84622863|NCT03192826|168990640|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
84622864|NCT03192826|168990641|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
84622865|NCT03748823|168990686|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined based on the 90% Confidence interval calculated from the combination z-score that accounts for the interim analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.361||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed Ctrough and included treatment and stratified weight group as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Geometric least squares mean are the least squares mean from the mixed model after back transformation to the original scale. The 90% confidence interval is presented after back transformation to the original scale.|||1.361|1.160|<0.0001
84622866|NCT04678115|168990709|OTHER|Power Calculation: Sample size was estimated based on the treatment condition (three-level factor) effect size on the spontaneous blink IPF measurements (0.55) after eight participants had completed the crossover using one-way analysis of variance power calculation. This led to a sample size of 12 participants with power of 0.80 and type II error of alpha 0.05. To account for possible attrition, 16 were enrolled, with 15 completing the crossover.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects regression was used to determine the effect of treatment condition on the spontaneous blink and resting state open IPF, with participant as random intercept. Covariates of age, gender, blink sequence, and crossover order were investigated alone, and significant (P \< 0.05) covariates were included in the final model, from which the estimated marginal means and their 95% confidence interval were reported. Hypothesis: MLP allows a more complete spontaneous blink.||||<0.001
84622867|NCT04678115|168990710|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis was that both devices (MLP and KFTS) would open the eye equally well, and that both would be better than sham treatment.||||0.001
84622868|NCT04678115|168990711|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||test of proportionality|||A test of proportionality was performed to determine the effect of the three treatments on the probability of the eyelid not fully closing.||||0.001
84622869|NCT02722564|168990744|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p value associated with the change between estimated and actual BrAC when the participants BrAC was ascending to 0.1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84622870|NCT02722564|168990744|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p value associated with change between estimated and actual BrAC as participants BrAC descended to 0.08.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84622871|NCT01782898|168990745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.82
84676660|NCT01782131|169088922|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.9|
84622872|NCT01782898|168990746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
84622873|NCT01782898|168990747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
84622874|NCT00383552|168990752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84622875|NCT00383552|168990753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84622876|NCT00383552|168990755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84622877|NCT00383552|168990756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84622878|NCT00383552|168990757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Longitudinal Model|||||||0.073
84622879|NCT00383552|168990758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||BMI 25 to \<30|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84622880|NCT00383552|168990758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||BMI less than 25 and for BMI 30 or more|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84622881|NCT03096834|168990760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response (NRI).||||5.19|1.43|0.002
84622882|NCT03096834|168990761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3||-0.51|-2.67|0.004
84622883|NCT03096834|168990762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical impairment domain||-1.23|-5.70|0.003
84622884|NCT03096834|168990762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Everyday activities domain||-1.70|-6.12|<0.001
84622885|NCT03096834|168990763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.001
84540152|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|16.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.48|-0.04|0.1018
84622886|NCT03096834|168990764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response||||9.01|1.11|0.025
84622887|NCT02413918|168990775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons (see above). A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in depression and mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0094
84726193|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.6316||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.187|36.501|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||36.501|-49.187|0.770
84622888|NCT02413918|168990775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0001
84622889|NCT00762359|168990776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0425|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.2300|0.0425|<0.0001
84622890|NCT00762359|168990777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84622891|NCT00762359|168990778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84622892|NCT00762359|168990779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
84622893|NCT00762359|168990780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
84622894|NCT00762359|168990782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84622895|NCT00762359|168990783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
84622896|NCT00762359|168990784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0025
84622897|NCT00762359|168990785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
84622898|NCT00762359|168990787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84622899|NCT00762359|168990788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6148
84622900|NCT00762359|168990789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8050
84622901|NCT00762359|168990790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8678||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
84622902|NCT00762359|168990791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2688
84622903|NCT00762359|168990793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7054||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7054
84622904|NCT00762359|168990794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3400
84622905|NCT00762359|168990795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8813
84622906|NCT00762359|168990796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1862
84622907|NCT00762359|168990798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8604
84622908|NCT00762359|168990799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5485||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
84622909|NCT00762359|168990800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7382||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7382
84622910|NCT00762359|168990801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7619
84622911|NCT00762359|168990803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
84622912|NCT00762359|168990804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0046
84622913|NCT00762359|168990805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
84622914|NCT00762359|168990806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1229
84622915|NCT00762359|168990808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2694||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2694
84622916|NCT00762359|168990809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0141
84622917|NCT00762359|168990810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3128||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3128
84622918|NCT00762359|168990811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1450
84622919|NCT00762359|168990813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6175||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6175
84622920|NCT00762359|168990814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4496
84622921|NCT00762359|168990815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4718
84622922|NCT00762359|168990816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4484||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4484
84622923|NCT00762359|168990818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2604
84622924|NCT00762359|168990819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6818||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6818
84622925|NCT00762359|168990820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9015||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9015
84622926|NCT00762359|168990821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4497
84622927|NCT02891174|168990848|EQUIVALENCE|margin=10 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||||The adjusted mean difference between ibuprofen and acetaminophen is presented here. The adjusted mean difference was calculated using a linear mixed model adjusting for time period by intention-to-treat principles.|||5.7|-3.7|
84622928|NCT02891174|168990849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Abdominal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in abdominal pain||||0.59
84622929|NCT02891174|168990849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Perineal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in perineal pain||||0.91
84622930|NCT02891174|168990849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Overall pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in overall pain||||0.88
84622931|NCT02891174|168990850|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84622932|NCT02891174|168990851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||First intervention (24 hours)||||0.02
84540153|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.66|25.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||25.88|6.66|0.0059
84622933|NCT02891174|168990851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Second intervention (24 hours)||||0.06
84622934|NCT02891174|168990851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall satisfaction with pain control during study period||||0.04
84622935|NCT01693029|168990852|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence margin (-0.5, 0.5) g/dL. Results from ANCOVA with factors treatment group and covariates mean baseline Hb and mean weekly dose during the evaluation period (Week 21-28)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2264|0.0413|||||||95% confidence interval for the difference is (-0.2522, 0.0670).|0.0413|-0.2264|
84622936|NCT00308139|168990863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide LAR and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide long-acting release (LAR) once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (LAR minus BYETTA) is less than 0; non-inferiority if this upper limit is less than 0.4%. Power:Assuming 20% dropout rate with 246 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in LAR and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0023
84622937|NCT00308139|168990866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0003
84622938|NCT00308139|168990868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<=6.5% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.2042
84622939|NCT00308139|168990870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.0% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1513
84622940|NCT00308139|168990872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|30.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.458||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|53.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in 2h postprandial glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 14 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the 2h postprandial glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline 2h postprandial glucose.||53.28|6.88|0.0124
84622941|NCT00308139|168990874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.12|-1.29|0.8916
84622942|NCT00308139|168990876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.4|-24.4|<.0001
84622943|NCT00308139|168990880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-2.2|-14.1|0.0077
84622944|NCT00308139|168990882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL-C from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.9|-1.0|0.5613
84622945|NCT00308139|168990885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day -3), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2915
84676661|NCT01782131|169088923|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-13.9|
84622946|NCT01173016|168990899|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Impact of anti-laronidase antibody status on the change in 6MWT outcome was tested||||0.038
84622947|NCT02648204|168990922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.4|Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
84622948|NCT02648204|168990922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
84622949|NCT02648204|168990922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.04|Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
84622950|NCT02648204|168990922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
84622951|NCT02648204|168990923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.51|-3.02|<0.0001
84622952|NCT02648204|168990923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-4.32|<0.0001
84622953|NCT00861705|168990961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0018
84622954|NCT00861705|168990962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0089
84622955|NCT00861705|168990963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.0029
84622956|NCT00861705|168990964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.057
84622957|NCT00861705|168990968|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.1||||||||2.10|0.67|
84622958|NCT00861705|168990968|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.47||||||||2.47|0.82|
84622959|NCT00861705|168990968|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
84622960|NCT00861705|168990969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75||||||||1.75|0.66|
84622961|NCT00861705|168990969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92||||||||1.92|0.74|
84622962|NCT00861705|168990969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
84622963|NCT00861705|168990970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03||||||||2.03|0.66|
84622964|NCT00861705|168990970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.16||||||||2.16|0.72|
84622965|NCT00861705|168990970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.7||||||||1.70|0.53|
84622966|NCT05108246|168990980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.001
84622967|NCT05108246|168990980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.003
84622968|NCT00718510|168990990|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||General Psychopathology Subscale Score|ANOVA|F(1,11)=5.03||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PANSS between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time). A sample size of 14 patients was needed to give 90% power to detect a 4 point difference on the PANSS. This included a drop-out rate of about 10%.||||<0.05
84622969|NCT00718510|168990991|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CGI ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.46
84622970|NCT00718510|168990992|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CDSS ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.55
84622971|NCT02201524|168990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|-1.01||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: Longitudinal analysis of covariance (LANCOVA) model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.01|-9.15|
84622972|NCT02201524|168990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|-1.62||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.62|-9.61|
84622973|NCT02201524|168990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.19|-5.77||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.77|-14.19|
84622974|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.291|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.19|4.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||4.56|-23.19|
84622975|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.87|2.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.50|-24.87|
84622976|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.504|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.45|-4.99||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.99|-33.45|
84622977|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.71|13.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||13.11|-21.71|
84622978|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.273|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.25|-0.82||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.82|-35.25|
84622979|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-9.23||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.23|-44.90|
84622980|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.013|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.53|8.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.39|-28.53|
84622981|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.793|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.33|-11.13||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.13|-47.33|
84622982|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.92|-31.05||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.05|-68.92|
84622983|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.26|-5.24||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.24|-43.26|
84622984|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.18|-8.75||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.75|-46.18|
84622985|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.24|-33.02||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.02|-72.24|
84622986|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.605|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.8|-0.15|||LANCOVA|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.15|-35.80|
84622987|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.44|2.88||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-32.44|
84622988|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.125|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.61|-29.27||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.27|-66.61|
84622989|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-21.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|-2.49||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.49|-41.00|
84622990|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.92|1.42||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-36.92|
84622991|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.893|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.85|-15.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.90|-55.85|
84622992|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.985|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.57|11.07||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||11.07|-32.57|
84622993|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|8.64||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.64|-34.71|
84622994|NCT02201524|168990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.44|-11.48||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.48|-57.44|
84622995|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|0.72||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-4.73|
84622996|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.99|0.38||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-4.99|
84622997|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|-0.86||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.86|-6.45|
84622998|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|2.32||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-4.49|
84622999|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.011|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|-0.49||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.49|-7.23|
84623000|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|-1.67||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.67|-8.65|
84623001|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|1.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.39|-6.07|
84623002|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.78|-2.47||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.47|-9.78|
84623003|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.22|-5.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.56|-13.22|
84623004|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.71|0.21||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.21|-6.71|
84623005|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.45||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-6.40|
84623006|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.167|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.24|-4.95||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.95|-12.24|
84623007|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.89|-0.08||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.08|-7.89|
84623008|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.304|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.68|0.07||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-7.68|
84623009|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-2.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.89|-11.00|
84623010|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.607|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.65|3.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||3.11|-5.65|
84623011|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|1.51||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.51|-7.18|
84623012|NCT02201524|168990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.15|-1.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.89|-11.15|
84623013|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.5|19.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||19.6|-21.5|
84623014|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|40.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.3|-5.9|
84623015|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|38.0|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||38.0|-9.3|
84623016|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.0|9.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.3|-38.0|
84623017|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.4|29.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||29.1|-25.4|
84623018|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|48.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.3|-10.2|
84623019|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|31.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||31.0|-26.7|
84623020|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|49.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.8|-6.9|
84676662|NCT01782131|169088924|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Difference in Percent|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.1||||||||10.1|-11.2|
84623021|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.4|85.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||85.3|36.4|
84623022|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
84623023|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
84623024|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|77.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||77.6|19.7|
84623025|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|43.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.4|-21.4|
84623026|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-29.4|
84623027|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.1|69.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.0|17.1|
84623028|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|63.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||63.4|1.9|
84623029|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|47.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||47.0|-21.4|
84623030|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-11.8|
84623031|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|32.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.3|-40.4|
84623032|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|48.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.2|-23.7|
84623033|NCT02201524|168990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|-28.0|
84623034|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
84623035|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
84623036|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|32.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.2|-14.4|
84623037|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|43.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.6|-6.7|
84623038|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|12.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||12.1|-28.8|
84623039|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|55.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.4|5.4|
84623040|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|55.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.3|0.8|
84623041|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|27.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.3|-27.3|
84623042|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|59.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.8|1.0|
84623043|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|69.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.3|8.8|
84623044|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
84623045|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.4|71.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||71.8|25.4|
84623046|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.2|86.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||86.1|39.2|
84623047|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.3|18.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||18.3|-36.3|
84623048|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|68.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||68.5|6.2|
84623049|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|60.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||60.5|-2.9|
84623050|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|13.7||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||13.7|-47.8|
84623051|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|24.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-40.6|
84623052|NCT02201524|168990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-36.4|
84623053|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
84623054|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
84540154|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|19.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.59|0.26|0.0913
84623055|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|22.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||22.8|-20.7|
84623056|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|24.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-20.3|
84623057|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|33.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-5.6|
84623058|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|61.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||61.1|15.3|
84623059|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.3|11.3|
84623060|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|80.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||80.9|34.7|
84623061|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
84623062|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.4|70.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||70.2|19.4|
84623063|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|46.6||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.6|-2.7|
84623064|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|56.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||56.4|6.4|
84623065|NCT02201524|168990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-4.9|
84623066|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|33.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-4.4|
84623067|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|32.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.0|-5.2|
84623068|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
84623069|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-3.2|
84623070|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|40.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.7|-8.1|
84623071|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.3|59.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.4|7.3|
84623072|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-11.2|
84623073|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|55.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.7|1.7|
84623074|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|57.4|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.4|-1.2|
84623075|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|52.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||52.5|-6.4|
84623076|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.7|66.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||66.7|8.7|
84623077|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.5|76.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||76.6|18.5|
84623078|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|36.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.6|-26.1|
84623079|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.9|44.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||44.5|-18.9|
84623080|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.9|75.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||75.3|12.9|
84726194|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1803||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.462|64.516|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||64.516|-11.462|0.169
84623081|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.2|41.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||41.4|-25.2|
84623082|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|37.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||37.3|-30.5|
84623083|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|46.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.2|-21.9|
84623084|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|34.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||34.6|-33.2|
84503641|NCT00106028|168758422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.258|15.408|||ANCOVA|LS Means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||15.408|5.258|<0.0001
84623085|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|51.9||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||51.9|-17.6|
84623086|NCT02201524|168990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.4|48.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.1|-26.4|
84623087|NCT02795117|168991022|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.4||No p-value was calculated for bioequivalence, only a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|ANOVA|||||105.4|91.0|
84623088|NCT02795117|168991023|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|1.85|||Wald's method|||||1.85|-18.31|
84623089|NCT02694744|168991034|OTHER||||||||||||||||||If the 95% confidence interval for the w/out food Arm overlapped the confidence interval for the w/ food Arm, the study will conclude that there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference between treatment arms.|||
84623090|NCT02694744|168991035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Baseline to week 4.||0.22|-0.17|0.7893
84623091|NCT00883779|168991039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.46|<0.0001
84623092|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in adenocarcinoma subgroup||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
84623093|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Log Rank|||PFS in non-adenocarcinoma subgroup||1.33|0.60|=0.579
84623094|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.53|||Log Rank|||PFS in never smoked subgroup||0.53|0.28|<0.0001
84623095|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||PFS in former/current smoker subgroup||1.10|0.64|=0.2067
84623096|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR mutation||0.35|0.12|<0.0001
84623097|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.34|0.67|=0.7511
84623098|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.58|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.58|0.25|=0.3169
84726195|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8076||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.345|25.157|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||25.157|-49.345|0.521
84623099|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.7|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||0.70|0.37|<0.0001
84623100|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC positive||0.86|0.31|=0.0091
84623101|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||0.88|0.18|=0.0179
84623102|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.64|0.11|=0.0017
84623103|NCT00883779|168991041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.22|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.22|0.37|=0.1880
84623104|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Log Rank|||OS in overall participants (FAS population)||1.04|0.70|=0.1213
84623105|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup adenocarcinoma||0.98|0.62|=0.0356
84623106|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||=|0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.03|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup non-adenocarcinoma||2.03|0.92|=0.1157
84726196|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.7858||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.058|55.828|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||55.828|-100.058|0.571
84623107|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup never smoked||0.89|0.49|=0.0056
84623108|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup current/former smoker||1.50|0.87|=0.3473
84623109|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR mutation||1.14|0.45|=0.1614
84623110|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.11|0.55|=0.1691
84623111|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.28|0.19|=0.1415
84623112|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||1.08|0.59|=0.1447
84623113|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Log Rank|||OS in EGFR IHC positive||0.96|0.35|=0.0310
84623114|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||=|0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.05|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||1.05|0.21|=0.0581
84623115|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.75|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.75|0.14|=0.0063
84623116|NCT00883779|168991042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.36|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.36|0.40|=0.3268
84623117|NCT00883779|168991044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81|||=|0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.8|||Chi-squared|||Difference in non-progression response rates||11.8|-6.2|=0.5289
84623118|NCT00883779|168991045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|33.5|||Chi-squared|||Difference in objective response rates||33.5|16.7|<0.0001
84623119|NCT00883779|168991046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.5|||Log Rank|||||0.50|0.21|<0.0001
84623120|NCT00883779|168991047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.45|<0.0001
84623121|NCT00883779|168991049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.63|=0.0364
84623122|NCT00883779|168991051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.61|=0.0181
84623123|NCT00883779|168991053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.73|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.59|=0.0035
84623124|NCT00883779|168991054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.60|0.9130
84623125|NCT03040141|168991056|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.55|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||13.55|1.03|0.181
84623126|NCT03040141|168991056|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||12.13|0.90|0.073
84623127|NCT03040141|168991056|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|11.48|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||11.48|1.08|0.037
84623128|NCT03040141|168991056|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||3.25|0.40|0.814
84623129|NCT03040141|168991058|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.748||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level. The goal will be used to assess the strength of evidence to select the endpoints for a Phase 3 trial.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.748
84623130|NCT03040141|168991058|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||0.940
84623131|NCT03040141|168991058|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.902||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The total VIS410 high-dose group (high-dose + low-dose) was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.902
84623132|NCT03040141|168991058|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.283
84623133|NCT03040141|168991059|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.919||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.919
84676663|NCT01782131|169088925|OTHER||Survival Rate in Percent|60.7||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|67.8||Based on Stratified Log-Rank method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk).|Kaplan-Meier|From product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.||Analysis of Time to All-Cause Mortality Through Day 114: Posaconazole vs. Voriconazole||67.8|52.8|0.2767
84676664|NCT01782131|169088926|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.7||||||||42.7|-4.1|
84623134|NCT03040141|168991059|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.9||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.900
84760435|NCT03603496|169277288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.37|1.09|.001
84760436|NCT03603496|169277289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.29|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.29|0.98|.079
84760437|NCT03603496|169277290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.44|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.44|1.21|<.0001
84760438|NCT03603496|169277291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.50|1.23|<.0001
84760439|NCT03603496|169277292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.66|1.02|.033
84760440|NCT03594227|169277293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-4.54||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.54|-33.98|0.011
84503642|NCT00106028|168758423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04||||1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|14.887|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||14.887|-2.807|01789
84623135|NCT03040141|168991059|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.99||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level||The combined VIS410 high- and low-dose groups was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.990
84623136|NCT03040141|168991059|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.521||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.521
84623137|NCT03040141|168991060|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.360
84623138|NCT03040141|168991061|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
84623139|NCT03040141|168991061|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.259
84623140|NCT03040141|168991061|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.644||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.644
84623141|NCT03040141|168991061|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
84623142|NCT03040141|168991062|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.624||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.624
84760441|NCT03594227|169277293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-9.36||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-9.36|-38.80|0.001
84760442|NCT03594227|169277293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.133||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-4.67||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.67|-34.41|0.010
84760443|NCT03594227|169277294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.02|-34.33|0.013
84676665|NCT01782131|169088927|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.6||||||||28.6|-6.9|
84760444|NCT03594227|169277294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.69|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-39.69|0.002
84623143|NCT03040141|168991062|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.399||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.399
84623144|NCT03040141|168991062|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.837|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.837
84623145|NCT03040141|168991062|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
84623146|NCT03040141|168991063|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.880
84623147|NCT03040141|168991063|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.778|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
84623148|NCT03040141|168991063|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
84623149|NCT03040141|168991063|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.662
84623150|NCT03040141|168991064|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.640
84623151|NCT03040141|168991064|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.775
84623152|NCT03040141|168991064|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.701
84623153|NCT03040141|168991064|OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.638
84623154|NCT03040141|168991065|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
84540155|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|18.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||18.09|-7.47|0.4921
84623155|NCT03040141|168991065|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||1.000
84623156|NCT03040141|168991065|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
84623157|NCT03040141|168991065|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
84623158|NCT03040141|168991066|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
84623159|NCT03040141|168991066|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
84623160|NCT03040141|168991066|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
84623161|NCT03040141|168991066|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.581|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.581
84623162|NCT03040141|168991067|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.980
84673856|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.02|-1.19|0.6080
84676666|NCT01782131|169088928|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Abnormal Hepatic Laboratory Value||3.6|-2.9|0.8305
84623163|NCT03040141|168991067|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
84623164|NCT03040141|168991067|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
84623165|NCT03040141|168991067|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
84623166|NCT03040141|168991068|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.695
84623167|NCT03040141|168991068|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.542|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.542
84623168|NCT03040141|168991068|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.899|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
84623169|NCT03040141|168991068|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.321
84623170|NCT03040141|168991069|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.663
84623171|NCT03040141|168991069|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.540
84623172|NCT03040141|168991069|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.918|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.918
84623173|NCT03040141|168991069|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.294
84623174|NCT03040141|168991071|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.250
84623175|NCT03040141|168991071|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.133
84623176|NCT03040141|168991071|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.177
84623177|NCT03040141|168991071|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.360
84623178|NCT03040141|168991072|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.636
84676667|NCT01782131|169088928|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.6||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||CNS and Visual Disturbances||4.2|-11.3|0.3633
84503643|NCT00106028|168758424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.196|12.755|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||12.755|-12.196|0.9646
84503644|NCT00106028|168758425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.494||||0.003||95.0|1.912|9.077|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.077|1.912|0.0030
84503645|NCT00106028|168758426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.473||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.245|7.192|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.192|-4.245|0.6106
84623179|NCT03040141|168991072|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.446
84623180|NCT03040141|168991072|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.530
84623181|NCT03040141|168991072|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.463
84623182|NCT03040141|168991073|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.152
84623183|NCT03040141|168991073|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.176|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.176
84623184|NCT03040141|168991073|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.157
84623185|NCT03040141|168991073|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.844|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.844
84623186|NCT03040141|168991074|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.531
84623187|NCT03040141|168991074|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.582
84623188|NCT03040141|168991074|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.550
84623189|NCT03040141|168991074|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|P-value determined based on Cox proportional hazards model Wald Chi-Square Statistic.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.840
84623190|NCT03040141|168991075|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.3534|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.3534
84623191|NCT03040141|168991075|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7839|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7839
84623192|NCT03040141|168991075|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.4893|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.4893
84623193|NCT03040141|168991075|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5101|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5101
84623194|NCT03040141|168991076|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5436|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5436
84623195|NCT03040141|168991076|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.8215|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.8215
84676668|NCT01782131|169088928|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Dermatologic Reactions||3.4|-9.1|0.3724
84676669|NCT01782131|169088928|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Adrenal Insufficiency or Temporal Hypotension||5.5|-3.4|0.6431
84623196|NCT03040141|168991076|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.6319|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.6319
84623197|NCT03040141|168991076|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7011|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7011
84623198|NCT03040141|168991077|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.478|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.478
84623199|NCT03040141|168991077|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.468|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.468
84623200|NCT03040141|168991077|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.412|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.412
84623201|NCT03040141|168991077|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.982|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.982
84623202|NCT04879628|168991095|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.56|0.08|
84623203|NCT04879628|168991095|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.38|0.03|
84623204|NCT00871871|168991121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.01||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.067
84623205|NCT00871871|168991122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.1|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.86|>0.500
84623206|NCT00871871|168991123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.044||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.044|-0.012|0.130
84623207|NCT00871871|168991124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.54|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.67|||ANCOVA|||||0.67|0.40|>0.500
84623208|NCT00871871|168991125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.004||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.014||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.014|-0.023|0.342
84623209|NCT00871871|168991126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0016|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.011|||ANOVA|||||0.011|-0.008|>0.500
84623210|NCT00871871|168991127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.003|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.010|-0.003|>0.500
84673857|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.05|0.12|0.0379
84623211|NCT03863509|168991128|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 384) = 0.707, p = .494||||||.494
84623212|NCT03863509|168991129|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference F(2, 381) = 7.409, p = .001||||||0.001
84676670|NCT01782131|169088929|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8||||||||2.8|-2.8|
84623213|NCT03863509|168991129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|3.24|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried.||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||3.240|-4.080|0.822
84623214|NCT03863509|168991129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.267||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.974|11.559|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.559|2.974|0.001
84623215|NCT03863509|168991129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.485|11.889|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||These are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.889|3.485|<0.001
84623216|NCT03863509|168991130|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 2.616, p = .074|ANCOVA|||||||.074
84623217|NCT03863509|168991131|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|6.609||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002. Age, race, and sex were covaried.|F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.002
84676671|NCT01782131|169088930|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.4||||||||-2.4|-17.9|
84760445|NCT03594227|169277294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.48|-3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.86|-34.48|0.014
84760446|NCT03594227|169277295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.45|-21.14|0.025
84760447|NCT03594227|169277295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.40|-25.10|0.003
84760448|NCT03594227|169277295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.60|-27.49|<0.001
84760449|NCT03594227|169277296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-24.95|0.008
84760450|NCT03594227|169277296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.45|-29.56|<0.001
84760451|NCT03594227|169277296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.679||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.86|-28.18|0.001
84623218|NCT03863509|168991131|OTHER||interaction estimate|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||5.24|1.36|0.001
84623219|NCT03863509|168991131|OTHER||interaction term estimate|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive cigarette smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||5.38|1.20|0.002
84623220|NCT03863509|168991131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.948||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.992
84623221|NCT03863509|168991132|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|5.843||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.003
84676672|NCT01782131|169088931|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8||||||||9.8|-6.1|
84676673|NCT01782131|169088932|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7||||||||2.7|-5.6|
84760452|NCT03594227|169277297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
84760453|NCT03594227|169277297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
84760454|NCT03594227|169277297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
84760455|NCT03594227|169277298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
84760456|NCT03594227|169277298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
84760457|NCT03594227|169277298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
84760458|NCT03594227|169277299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
84760459|NCT03594227|169277299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
84760460|NCT03594227|169277299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.367
84760461|NCT03594227|169277300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.187
84760462|NCT03594227|169277300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.375
84760463|NCT03594227|169277300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
84760464|NCT03594227|169277301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
84760465|NCT03594227|169277301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
84760466|NCT03594227|169277301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
84760467|NCT03594227|169277302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
84760468|NCT03594227|169277302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
84760469|NCT03594227|169277302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.101
84760470|NCT03594227|169277303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84760471|NCT03594227|169277303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
84760472|NCT03594227|169277303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
84760473|NCT03594227|169277304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.407
84760474|NCT03594227|169277304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
84760475|NCT03594227|169277304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
84760476|NCT03594227|169277305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
84760477|NCT03594227|169277305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
84503646|NCT00106028|168758427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.598|8.229|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||8.229|-7.598|0.9372
84623222|NCT03863509|168991132|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.002
84623223|NCT03863509|168991132|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.003
84623224|NCT03863509|168991132|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||||.917
84623225|NCT03863509|168991133|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|49.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||< .001
84623226|NCT03863509|168991133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||7.3|4.83|<0.001
84623227|NCT03863509|168991133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||6.42|3.76|<0.001
84623228|NCT03863509|168991133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.107
84623229|NCT03863509|168991134|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.194||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.002
84623230|NCT03863509|168991134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.002|-0.01|0.003
84623231|NCT03863509|168991134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.002|-0.01|0.001
84623232|NCT03863509|168991134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.582
84623233|NCT03863509|168991135|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time E|1.753||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried.|FMD responses in e-cigarette users, cigarette users, and never-users controls after adjusting for changes in brachial artery diameter.|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.175
84623234|NCT03863509|168991135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||1.56|-0.05|0.067
84676674|NCT01782131|169088933|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.5||||||||4.5|-11.0|
84676675|NCT01627249|169088935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||5.7|1.4|<0.001
84760478|NCT03594227|169277305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
84623235|NCT03863509|168991135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.20|-0.55|0.464
84623236|NCT03863509|168991135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing effects of group, time, and group x time in FMD, age, sex, race adjusted, for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.284
84623237|NCT03863509|168991136|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|8.323|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|F (2,342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||<0.001
84623238|NCT03863509|168991136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-3.20|-9.89|<0.001
84623239|NCT03863509|168991136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-2.52|-9.71|0.001
84623240|NCT03863509|168991136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.787|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.787
84623241|NCT03863509|168991137|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|F (2,345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
84623242|NCT03863509|168991137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.08|-0.31|0.001
84623243|NCT03863509|168991137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.09|-0.33|0.001
84623244|NCT03863509|168991137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.847
84623245|NCT03863509|168991138|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|1.712||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.182
84623246|NCT03863509|168991138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.004|-0.09|0.07
84623247|NCT03863509|168991138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.02|-0.09|0.196
84623248|NCT03863509|168991138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.69
84676676|NCT01627249|169088935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||4.2|0.1|0.034
84760479|NCT03594227|169277306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84760480|NCT03594227|169277306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
84760481|NCT03594227|169277306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
84760482|NCT03594227|169277307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
84760483|NCT03594227|169277307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
84760484|NCT03594227|169277307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.704
84760485|NCT03594227|169277308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84760486|NCT03594227|169277308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
84760487|NCT03594227|169277308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
84760488|NCT03594227|169277309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.430
84623249|NCT03863509|168991139|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.096||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.017
84623250|NCT03863509|168991139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.91|-5.18|0.005
84623251|NCT03863509|168991139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.03|-3.61|0.274
84623252|NCT03863509|168991139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.098
84623253|NCT03863509|168991140|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|0.26||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||.771
84623254|NCT03863509|168991140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||2.12|-2.35|0.918
84623255|NCT03863509|168991140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.63|-3.22|0.518
84623256|NCT03863509|168991140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.539
84623257|NCT03863509|168991141|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.157||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.001
84623258|NCT03863509|168991141|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-1.35|-5.43|0.001
84623259|NCT03863509|168991141|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.89|-2.53|0.778
84623260|NCT03863509|168991141|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.002
84623261|NCT03863509|168991142|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.317||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.014
84623262|NCT03863509|168991142|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.95|-9.21|0.016
84760489|NCT03594227|169277309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.288
84760490|NCT03594227|169277309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
84760491|NCT03594227|169277310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
84760492|NCT03594227|169277310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84760493|NCT03594227|169277310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84760494|NCT03594227|169277311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
84760495|NCT03594227|169277311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.150
84760496|NCT03594227|169277311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
84760497|NCT03594227|169277312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
84760498|NCT03594227|169277312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84760499|NCT03594227|169277312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
84760500|NCT03594227|169277314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
84760501|NCT03594227|169277314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
84760502|NCT03594227|169277314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
84760503|NCT03594227|169277315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.883
84760504|NCT03594227|169277315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.954
84760505|NCT03594227|169277315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
84760506|NCT03594227|169277316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
84623263|NCT03863509|168991142|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||4.48|-4.47|0.998
84623264|NCT03863509|168991142|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.013
84623265|NCT03863509|168991143|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.694||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|F ((2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and-between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
84623266|NCT03863509|168991143|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.04|-0.14|0.001
84623267|NCT03863509|168991143|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.04|-0.08|0.555
84760507|NCT03594227|169277316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
84760508|NCT03594227|169277316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.815
84760509|NCT03594227|169277317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.522
84760510|NCT03594227|169277317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
84760511|NCT03594227|169277317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
84760512|NCT03594227|169277318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-2.53|0.882
84760513|NCT03594227|169277318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-6.31|0.011
84623268|NCT03863509|168991143|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.007
84760514|NCT03594227|169277318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-2.76|0.999
84760515|NCT03594227|169277319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
84760516|NCT03594227|169277319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.319
84760517|NCT03594227|169277319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
84760518|NCT03594227|169277320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
84760519|NCT03594227|169277320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
84760520|NCT03594227|169277320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
84760521|NCT03594227|169277321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
84760522|NCT03594227|169277321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
84760523|NCT03594227|169277321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
84760524|NCT03594227|169277322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.827
84760525|NCT03594227|169277322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
84760526|NCT03594227|169277322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
84760527|NCT03594227|169277323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
84760528|NCT03594227|169277323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.540
84760529|NCT03594227|169277323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
84760530|NCT03594227|169277324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
84760531|NCT03594227|169277324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
84760532|NCT03594227|169277324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
84760533|NCT00774345|169277325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on the stratified cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups.|||1.15|0.61|0.276
84760534|NCT02500628|169277328|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia group||||0.77
84760535|NCT02500628|169277329|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84760536|NCT02500628|169277330|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia patients.||||0.92
84760537|NCT04074928|169277335|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.836||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.836|0.645|
84760538|NCT04074928|169277335|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.809||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.809|0.656|
84760539|NCT04074928|169277335|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.972||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.972|0.791|
84760540|NCT04074928|169277336|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-11.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.447|-6.423||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-6.423|-16.447|
84503647|NCT00106028|168758428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.051|42.3|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||42.300|21.051|<0.0001
84503648|NCT00106028|168758429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.029||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|29.726|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||29.726|-1.667|0.0793
84623269|NCT03863509|168991144|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||ANCOVA for group differences|ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 12.869, p \< .001||||||< .001
84623270|NCT03863509|168991144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.352||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|3.752|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||3.752|-1.048|0.269
84623271|NCT03863509|168991144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.575|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.780|-8.37|<0.001
84623272|NCT03863509|168991144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.672|-4.183|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried.||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-4.183|-9.672|<0.001
84623273|NCT03863509|168991145|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 3.392, p = .035|||Group difference did not survive correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore not followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.035
84673858|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|-0.78|0.2368
84676677|NCT01627249|169088935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs. Bevacizumab||3.2|-0.4|0.12
84623274|NCT03863509|168991146|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 0.601, p = .549||||||.549
84760541|NCT04074928|169277336|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.983||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-9.983|-19.610|
84760542|NCT04074928|169277336|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.327|-1.44||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-1.440|-10.327|
84760543|NCT04074928|169277337|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.16||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||1.160|0.927|
84760544|NCT04074928|169277338|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.443|7.812||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||7.812|-1.443|
84623275|NCT03863509|168991147|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 3.877, p = .022|||Group difference tested after correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore we followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.022
84623276|NCT03863509|168991147|OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||||0.952
84623277|NCT03863509|168991147|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||post hoc pairwise group comparisons.. Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.014
84623278|NCT03863509|168991147|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Age, sex, and race were covaried|ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.011
84623279|NCT03863509|168991148|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Outcome variable log-transformed for analysis. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 33.442, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05 and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
84623280|NCT03863509|168991148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.322|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users:||0.322|0.039|0.013
84623281|NCT03863509|168991148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.844|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.844|0.514|<0.001
84673859|NCT03238911|169083373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.75|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.75|-2.18|0.8287
84673860|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.81|29.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.73|18.81|<0.0001
84760545|NCT04074928|169277339|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.024||||||A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.024|0.790|
84623282|NCT03863509|168991148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.66|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried|"Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)"|Exclusive E-Cig users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.660|0.336|<0.001
84623283|NCT03863509|168991149|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 1.904, p = .150||||||.150
84623284|NCT03863509|168991150|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 385) = 17.872, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||< .001
84676678|NCT01627249|169088936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.1|-48.6|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||-48.6|-91.1|<0.001
84760546|NCT04074928|169277339|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.195||||||B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.195|0.968|
84623285|NCT03863509|168991150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.632||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.019|-1.245|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||-1.245|-6.019|0.003
84623286|NCT03863509|168991150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-5.62|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-5.62|-11.14|<0.001
84623287|NCT03863509|168991150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.456|-2.04|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.040|-7.456|0.001
84623288|NCT03863509|168991151|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
84623289|NCT03863509|168991151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
84623290|NCT03863509|168991151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
84623291|NCT03863509|168991151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
84623292|NCT03863509|168991152|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 1.621, p = .199||||||.199
84623293|NCT03863509|168991153|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
84623294|NCT03863509|168991153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
84623295|NCT03863509|168991153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex, race covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
84623296|NCT03863509|168991153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
84623297|NCT03863509|168991154|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
84623298|NCT03863509|168991154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
84623299|NCT03863509|168991154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
84623300|NCT03863509|168991154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
84623301|NCT03863509|168991155|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 344) = 10.075, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||<0.001
84623302|NCT03861273|168991156|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.81|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.81|-5.44|0.0081
84623303|NCT03861273|168991157|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.96|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.96|-4.27|0.0019
84623304|NCT03861273|168991158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.64|-45.1|||Paired t-test|||The treatment difference (PF-06838435 - FIX Prophylaxis) estimate (95% CI) and p-value were obtained from paired t-test.||-45.10|-63.64|<.0001
84760547|NCT04074928|169277339|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.202||||||B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.202|0.986|
84623305|NCT03861273|168991159|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value from one-sided t-statistic testing the log transformation of the steady state FIX:C \> log(5). Cumulative for 3 assays.|One-sided t-statistic testing|||Week 12 to Month 15||||<.0001
84623306|NCT03861273|168991161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2935.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3403.1|-2468.3|||Paired t-test|||||-2468.30|-3403.10|<.0001
84623307|NCT03861273|168991162|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.42|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||-0.42|-4.67|0.0191
84623308|NCT03861273|168991163|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.21|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.21|-1.35|0.1528
84623309|NCT03861273|168991164|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.61|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.61|-1.63|0.3738
84623310|NCT03861273|168991167|OTHER|||||||0.0117|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0117
84623311|NCT03861273|168991168|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0052
84623312|NCT03861273|168991169|OTHER|||||||0.0237|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0237
84623313|NCT02775916|168991196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.343|1.937||||||||1.937|-3.343|
84623314|NCT02775916|168991197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.52|
84623315|NCT02775916|168991198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|6.89||||||||6.89|-6.08|
84623316|NCT02775916|168991198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.615|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|13.93||||||||13.93|-5.27|
84623317|NCT02775916|168991199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|8.66||||||||8.66|-21.76|
84623318|NCT02775916|168991200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|9.0||||||||9.00|-30.94|
84623319|NCT02775916|168991201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.75|14.37||||||||14.37|-29.75|
84623320|NCT00960622|168991202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-tests for inter-group differences between baseline and end-of-study measurements.Regression analysis, physiological correlates of statistically significant between-group changes.~P\<0.05 chosen for statistical significance"||11.3|-6.3|<0.05
84623321|NCT01600326|168991218|OTHER|Pair-wise comparison at Time point 1 compared to baseline|||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|See comments on P value||||||<0.0001
84623322|NCT01600326|168991218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison||||<0.0001
84623323|NCT01600326|168991219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
84623324|NCT04233801|168991223|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.71|-1.28|< 0.0001
84623325|NCT04233801|168991223|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.70|-1.26|< 0.0001
84623326|NCT04233801|168991224|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.83|0.77|0.1375
84623327|NCT04233801|168991224|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.10|2.11|0.0008
84760548|NCT04074928|169277340|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.526|2.461||||||A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57||2.461|-7.526|
84623328|NCT04233801|168991225|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.34|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.34|-2.66|< 0.0001
84623329|NCT04233801|168991225|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.67|-1.96|< 0.0001
84623330|NCT04233801|168991226|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-3.6||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.40|-7.61|0.0774
84760549|NCT04074928|169277340|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.912|4.911||||||B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57||4.911|-4.912|
84503649|NCT00106028|168758430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.567|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.59|11.545|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.545|5.590|<0.0001
84540156|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|24.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||24.24|-1.95|0.1607
84623331|NCT04233801|168991226|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.01||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.96|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.96|-4.98|0.6160
84623332|NCT04233801|168991227|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.78||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-4.05|0.1222
84623333|NCT04233801|168991227|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|0.65||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.89|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.89|-1.59|0.5687
84623334|NCT04233801|168991228|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-20.05||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|-9.38|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.38|-30.73|0.0003
84623335|NCT04233801|168991228|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-13.54|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-13.54|-34.72|<0.0001
84623336|NCT04233801|168991229|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-56.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.22|-34.41|||ANCOVA|||||-34.41|-78.22|<0.0001
84623337|NCT04233801|168991229|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-60.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.31|-39.11|||ANCOVA|||||-39.11|-82.31|<0.0001
84676679|NCT01627249|169088936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||-1.2|-36|0.036
84760550|NCT04074928|169277340|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.805|5.353||||||B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57||5.353|-2.805|
84760551|NCT04074928|169277341|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.165||||||A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.165|0.914|
84760552|NCT04074928|169277342|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.006|6.856||||||A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57||6.856|-3.006|
84623338|NCT04233801|168991230|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||4.55|0.68|0.2422
84623339|NCT04233801|168991230|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||2.50|0.29|0.7661
84623340|NCT01690052|168991251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The p-value is calculated from the ANOVA||||||0.05
84623341|NCT02421172|168991286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior probablility|0.9729||||||||||||||||||
84623342|NCT01841281|168991295|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||||||0.78
84623343|NCT01841281|168991296|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||The treatment effect was tested as an interaction term between treatment and FeNO. The null hypothesis is the effect of treatment is stratified by the FeNO status. We used a regression model instead of t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in order to control period and carry-over effect which is common in a cross-over study design||||0.09
84623344|NCT00683878|168991297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
84623345|NCT00683878|168991297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.31||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.78|<0.0001
84623346|NCT00683878|168991298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-33.2||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-33.2|-68.7|<0.0001
84623347|NCT00683878|168991298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|-35.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-71.1|<0.0001
84623348|NCT00683878|168991299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.79||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.32|<0.0001
84726197|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.4994||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.325|56.429|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||56.429|-102.325|0.564
84623349|NCT00683878|168991299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.02||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.55|<0.0001
84623350|NCT00683878|168991300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-27.5|<0.0001
84623351|NCT00683878|168991300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-32.2|<0.0001
84623352|NCT00683878|168991301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.119||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||20.1|0.0|0.0496
84623353|NCT00683878|168991301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|26.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||26.7|6.1|0.0018
84623354|NCT00683878|168991302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6006||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.33||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-2.03|0.1566
84623355|NCT00683878|168991302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5995||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.37||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.73|0.0101
84726198|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.855||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.712|99.356|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||99.356|-36.712|0.359
84726199|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.4309||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.093|62.29|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||62.290|-76.093|0.842
84726200|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3259||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.417|35.836|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||35.836|-61.417|0.601
84726201|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.422||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.517|58.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||58.121|-39.517|0.705
84726202|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0444||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.126|65.007|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||65.007|-23.126|0.346
84726203|NCT03320941|169204554|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2205||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.283|28.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||28.556|-56.283|0.516
84726204|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.605||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.185|8.095|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.095|-6.185|0.792
84726205|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7167||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.623|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||6.623|-8.100|0.843
84726206|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2564||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.322|9.578|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.578|-3.322|0.339
84726207|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1859||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.764|8.856|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.856|-3.764|0.426
84726208|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8734||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.299|12.307|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.307|-11.299|0.932
84726209|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3493||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.217|10.302|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.302|-15.217|0.700
84623356|NCT00683878|168991303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4838|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. The comparison was stopped due to the preceding test (PLACEBO + Pio vs Dapa 5MG + Pio) not statistically significant P value = 0.1566.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-2.53|
84623357|NCT00683878|168991303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4688|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.98||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.83|<0.0001
84623358|NCT03112681|168991304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
84623359|NCT03112681|168991304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0002
84623360|NCT04024891|168991310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
84623361|NCT03287791|168991321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-5.73|-16.80|<.0001
84623362|NCT03287791|168991321|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-4.14|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an ANOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-4.14|-15.28|0.0007
84623363|NCT02210000|168991344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3716|-0.0448||Posterior probability of the treatment difference in response rate at Week 12 being greater than 0%.|Bayesian method|||||-0.0448|-0.3716|0.017
84623364|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2353|0.6553|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6553|-0.2353|
84623365|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2275|1.2705|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Feeling full after meals at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.2705|0.2275|
84623366|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0592|1.0374|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.0374|-0.0592|
84623367|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.955|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Not able to finish meal at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9550|0.0396|
84760553|NCT02054897|169277350|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus placebo. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.25|-1.81|< 0.0001
84623368|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3386|0.4395|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Retching at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.4395|-0.3386|
84623369|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3242|0.2492|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Vomiting at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.2492|-0.3242|
84623370|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0483|0.9978|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach visibly larger at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9978|-0.0483|
84623371|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0519|0.9748|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach fullness at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9748|-0.0519|
84623372|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0967|0.9745|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Loss of appetite at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9745|0.0967|
84676680|NCT01627249|169088936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.2|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||-31.3|-71.2|<0.001
84623373|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2746|0.6671|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal pain at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6671|-0.2746|
84623374|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2013|0.8292|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal discomfort at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.8292|-0.2013|
84623375|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0323|0.7997|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Overall severity of your GP symptoms at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7997|-0.0323|
84623376|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2366|0.3723|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea/Vomiting Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.3723|-0.2366|
84623377|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1333|0.9628|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Fullness/Early Satiety Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9628|0.1333|
84623378|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0386|0.9966|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9966|-0.0386|
84623379|NCT02210000|168991345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0049|0.7179|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Total GCSI-DD at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7179|-0.0049|
84623380|NCT03585660|168991389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference in accuracy was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI is greater than the accuracy of mp-MRI.||||0.02
84623381|NCT03585660|168991390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference of AUCs was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the AUCs of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the AUC of HM-MRI is greater than the AUC of mp-MRI.||||0.08
84623382|NCT03585660|168991391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI is greater than the sensitivity of mp-MRI.||||0.97
84623383|NCT03585660|168991392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI is greater than the specificity of mp-MRI.||||<0.01
84673861|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|22.67|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.67|8.83|<0.0001
84673862|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|28.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.22|12.07|<0.0001
84623384|NCT03585660|168991393|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI is greater than the PPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.06|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.06
84623385|NCT03585660|168991394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI is greater than the NPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.97
84623386|NCT05757648|168991401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84623387|NCT05757648|168991402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
84623388|NCT05757648|168991403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
84623389|NCT02646826|168991415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
84623390|NCT02646826|168991416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.44
84623391|NCT00702468|168991419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.162|0.691|||Chi-squared|||||0.691|0.162|0.013
84623392|NCT00702468|168991420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.79|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.79|-1.22|0.720
84623393|NCT00702468|168991421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|5.74|||ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.68|0.86
84623394|NCT00702468|168991423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.78||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|10.96|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|It is important to emphasise that only four placebo subjects were included in the analysis and 11 of the Sativex subjects - this sample size is too small for a meaningful comparison between treatments. The reason for not including some of the data in this analysis is that a number of the subjects who withdrew early from the study restarted their own Sativex before the assessment was done.||10.96|-14.52|0.81
84623395|NCT00702468|168991424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.33|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.33|-1.60|0.271
84623396|NCT00702468|168991425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.562||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|13.997|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.997|1.585|0.017
84623397|NCT00702468|168991426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.55||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.942|118.773|||Regression, Logistic|||||118.773|3.942|0.0011
84623398|NCT00702468|168991427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.444||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|13.718|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.718|0.948|0.1151
84623399|NCT04201431|168991445|OTHER|Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1 and 2 volunteers who completed primary CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls undergoing primary CHMI from VAC069 study running in parallel (NCT03797989).||||||0.01||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing infectivity controls with vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of parasite multiplication rate in vaccinated subjects compared to infectivity controls in a blood-stage controlled human malaria infection model||||0.01
84623400|NCT02374164|168991537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|0.847|||||Ratio Fed/Fasted. Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data. Bioequivalence was reached if the value was 0.80 to 1.25.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in the fasted and fed (high-fat meal) states.||0.847|0.612|
84623401|NCT00867165|168991543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-22.69|||ANCOVA|||||-22.69|-30.80|<0.001
84760554|NCT02054897|169277350|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 0.5 mg versus placebo, if superiority for semaglutide 1.0 mg was concluded. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.15|-1.71|< 0.0001
84623402|NCT00867165|168991544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-17.65|||ANCOVA|||||-17.65|-24.20|<0.001
84623403|NCT00867165|168991545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|-16.45|||ANCOVA|||||-16.45|-24.02|<0.001
84623404|NCT00867165|168991546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|-4.97|0.807
84623405|NCT00867165|168991547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Differrence in least-squares means|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-21.91|||ANCOVA|||||-21.91|-29.59|<0.001
84623406|NCT00867165|168991548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-14.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.35|-2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.00|-27.35|0.021
84623407|NCT00867165|168991549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.95|-20.99|||ANCOVA|||||-20.99|-28.95|<0.001
84623408|NCT00867165|168991550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-23.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-20.39|||ANCOVA|||||-20.39|-27.49|<0.001
84623409|NCT00867165|168991551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-27.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-23.73|||ANCOVA|||||-23.73|-31.70|<0.001
84623410|NCT00867165|168991552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.89|||ANCOVA|||||-16.89|-23.30|<0.001
84623411|NCT00867165|168991553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.15|||ANCOVA|||||-17.15|-23.39|<0.001
84623412|NCT00867165|168991554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-21.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-18.08|||ANCOVA|||||-18.08|-24.67|<0.001
84623413|NCT00867165|168991555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-0.95||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.55|||ANCOVA|||||4.55|-6.46|0.733
84623414|NCT00867165|168991556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.53||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|6.66|||ANCOVA|||||6.66|-5.59|0.863
84623415|NCT00867165|168991557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.92||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|-3.71|0.501
84623416|NCT00867165|168991558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-20.58|||ANCOVA|||||-20.58|-27.78|<0.001
84623417|NCT00867165|168991559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-21.16|||ANCOVA|||||-21.16|-28.06|<0.001
84623418|NCT00867165|168991560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-22.75|||ANCOVA|||||-22.75|-30.35|<0.001
84623419|NCT00867165|168991561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-9.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|3.27|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.27|-22.73|0.137
84623420|NCT00867165|168991562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-15.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.34|-26.05|0.005
84623421|NCT00867165|168991563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-8.61||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|3.23|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.23|-20.44|0.149
84623422|NCT00867165|168991564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-1.91||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-6.15|0.373
84623423|NCT00867165|168991565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-19.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-14.82|||ANCOVA|||||-14.82|-24.70|<0.001
84503650|NCT00106028|168758431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.315||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.477|23.107|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.107|-10.477|0.4575
84623424|NCT00867165|168991566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-16.07|||ANCOVA|||||-16.07|-25.59|<0.001
84623425|NCT00867165|168991567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-23.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-17.97|||ANCOVA|||||-17.97|-29.00|<0.001
84623426|NCT00867165|168991568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-22.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-17.34|||ANCOVA|||||-17.34|-27.25|<0.001
84623427|NCT00867165|168991569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-19.12|||ANCOVA|||||-19.12|-29.88|<0.001
84623428|NCT00867165|168991570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.69|-19.62|||ANCOVA|||||-19.62|-30.69|<0.001
84623429|NCT00867165|168991571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.71|-22.91|||ANCOVA|||||-22.91|-35.71|<0.001
84623430|NCT00867165|168991572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-22.29|||ANCOVA|||||-22.29|-34.41|<0.001
84623431|NCT00867165|168991573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-19.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.87|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.70|-23.87|<0.001
84623432|NCT00867165|168991574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-46.11||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.14|15.92|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||15.92|-108.14|0.116
84623433|NCT00867165|168991575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|17.27||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|55.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||55.00|-20.46|0.382
84673863|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.49|38.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||38.96|25.49|<0.0001
84673864|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.79|30.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||30.95|14.79|<0.0001
84673865|NCT03238911|169083374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|17.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||17.82|3.39|0.0043
84673866|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.00|-0.34|0.0552
84623434|NCT00867165|168991576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.36|-43.87|||ANCOVA|||||-43.87|-55.36|<0.001
84623435|NCT00867165|168991577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-58.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.67|-53.38|||ANCOVA|||||-53.38|-63.67|<0.001
84623436|NCT00867165|168991578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-61.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.51|-54.53|||ANCOVA|||||-54.53|-67.51|<0.001
84623437|NCT00867165|168991579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.22|-52.26|||ANCOVA|||||-52.26|-73.22|0.001
84623438|NCT00867165|168991580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.14|||ANCOVA|||||-44.14|-54.83|<0.001
84623439|NCT00867165|168991581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-57.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.87|-53.11|||ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-62.87|<0.001
84623440|NCT00867165|168991582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.54|-56.66|||ANCOVA|||||-56.66|-68.54|<0.001
84623441|NCT00867165|168991583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-64.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.11|-55.23|||ANCOVA|||||-55.23|-74.11|<0.001
84623442|NCT00867165|168991584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-18.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||||-11.99|-24.70|<0.001
84623443|NCT00867165|168991585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-20.02|||ANCOVA|||||-20.02|-31.20|<0.001
84623444|NCT00867165|168991586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.89|-22.59|||ANCOVA|||||-22.59|-34.89|<0.001
84623445|NCT00867165|168991587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-32.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-23.9|||ANCOVA|||||-23.90|-40.38|<0.001
84623446|NCT00867165|168991588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|20.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.91|||ANCOVA|||||31.91|8.10|0.001
84623447|NCT00867165|168991589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|26.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|38.58|||ANCOVA|||||38.58|13.99|<0.001
84760555|NCT00960843|169277356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was no difference between arms. Original power calculation specified 24 per group and this was achieved under initial randomization. However, due to failure to follow protocol specified adjustment criteria, pressure and weight data from one site had to be excluded.||||0.0520
84623448|NCT00867165|168991590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.12|49.28|||ANCOVA|||||49.28|24.12|<0.001
84623449|NCT00867165|168991591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|24.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|37.67|||ANCOVA|||||37.67|10.43|<0.001
84623450|NCT03550378|168991592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.384|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.27|-19.498|||ANCOVA|||||-19.498|-41.270|<0.001
84623451|NCT00647296|168991654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.19|-1.41|0.1385
84623452|NCT00647296|168991654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.88|-0.65|0.7718
84623453|NCT00647296|168991654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||1.18|-0.38|0.3146
84760556|NCT00960843|169277357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0225
84540157|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|29.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||29.48|-1.02|0.1244
84623454|NCT00647296|168991655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.40|-2.61|0.7973
84623455|NCT00647296|168991655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||4.89|-0.87|0.1732
84623456|NCT00647296|168991655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.39|-2.48|0.7635
84623457|NCT00647296|168991666|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 150 mg/day arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.64|-0.12|0.1772
84623458|NCT00647296|168991667|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 300 mg/day treatment arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.83|-2.06|0.4025
84760557|NCT00960843|169277358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
84673867|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.13|-0.60|0.0023
84760558|NCT00652366|169277360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.88|0.2026
84623459|NCT01300234|168991669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|58.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|45.8|71.3||HBeAg-positive participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach is used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||71.3|45.8|<0.0001
84623460|NCT01300234|168991669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.7|34.3||HBeAg-negative participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach was used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||34.3|16.7|<0.0001
84623461|NCT04612725|168991688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.26||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.26|-3.28|0.3824
84623462|NCT04612725|168991688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.5||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.50|-4.09|0.1244
84623463|NCT04612725|168991689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|2.8||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.80|-6.95|0.4016
84760559|NCT00652366|169277362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.77|0.6298
84760560|NCT00652366|169277363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-6.1||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.0|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||5.0|-17.2|0.2543
84760561|NCT00652366|169277363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.56||||||||1.56|0.19|
84760562|NCT00652366|169277365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-15.52||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|1.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||1.3|-32.4|0.0603
84760563|NCT00652366|169277367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.60|0.2678
84760564|NCT00652366|169277367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.74|0.8449
84623464|NCT04612725|168991689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|0.56||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.56|-9.28|0.0819
84623465|NCT04612725|168991689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.63||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.63|-7.74|0.3314
84623466|NCT04612725|168991689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.74||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.47||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.47|-8.95|0.1582
84623467|NCT04612725|168991690|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.86||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.86|-4.10|0.1995
84623468|NCT04612725|168991690|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.76||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.73||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.73|-4.25|0.1654
84623469|NCT04612725|168991691|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|11.72||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|25.82||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.82|-2.37|0.1373
84623470|NCT04612725|168991691|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|10.73||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|24.88||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.88|-3.42|0.1697
84623471|NCT04612725|168991691|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|1.03||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|18.96||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.96|-16.90|0.9105
84623472|NCT04612725|168991691|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|9.27||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|27.9||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||27.90|-9.37|0.3389
84623473|NCT04612725|168991692|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.68||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.68|-4.00|0.4203
84623474|NCT04612725|168991692|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.27||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.27|-5.46|0.0754
84760565|NCT00652366|169277369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.51|0.0217
84623475|NCT04612725|168991692|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.89||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.89|-4.01|0.4772
84760566|NCT00652366|169277369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1596
84676681|NCT01627249|169088937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||10.1|2.9|0.001
84760567|NCT01967537|169277374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.23
84760568|NCT04703075|169277377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
84623476|NCT04612725|168991692|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|0.97||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.97|-4.96|0.1851
84623477|NCT04612725|168991694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9678||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9678
84623478|NCT04612725|168991694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3689||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3689
84623479|NCT04612725|168991694|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-3.43||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|12.11||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.11|-18.96|0.6624
84623480|NCT04612725|168991694|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.28||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|16.4||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.40|-15.84|0.9726
84623481|NCT04612725|168991696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.32||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.32|-1.90|0.7256
84623482|NCT04612725|168991696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.72||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.72|-0.54|0.1890
84623483|NCT04612725|168991696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.24||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.24|-2.51|0.5048
84760569|NCT03649061|169277388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To compare the two randomization groups, a linear mixed model with DAS28-CRP as outcome (Bell et al. 2014), including random intercepts per patient, adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP, randomization timepoint, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity was used.||||<0.05
84760570|NCT03649061|169277389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A binomial generalized linear mixed effect model for repeated measures of remission from randomization up until 28 weeks after was carried out, with adjustment for baseline DAS28-CRP, moment of randomization, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity.||||<0.05
84760571|NCT00802204|169277404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|describe.....||Baseline outcome measurements are compared between lean and obese. Baseline and post outcome measurements are compared for the obese who completed VLCD||||<0.05
84623484|NCT04612725|168991696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.88||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.88|-0.89|0.2991
84623485|NCT04612725|168991697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.32||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||7.32|-4.05|0.5704
84623486|NCT04612725|168991697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.5||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.50|-7.98|0.4416
84623487|NCT04612725|168991697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.47||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.02||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||8.02|-5.09|0.6591
84623488|NCT04612725|168991697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.04||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|3.54||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.54|-9.62|0.3624
84623489|NCT04612725|168991698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.98||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.98|-2.02|0.7037
84623490|NCT04612725|168991698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.29||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.29|-3.78|0.3320
84623491|NCT04612725|168991698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.9||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.90|-1.42|0.3590
84623492|NCT04612725|168991698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.8||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.80|-3.56|0.5175
84623493|NCT03349723|168991702|OTHER||Slope|0.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9155|1.0457|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0457|0.9155|
84623494|NCT03349723|168991703|OTHER||Slope|0.9892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9207|1.0577|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0577|0.9207|
84623495|NCT03409796|168991704|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdBaseline (B) and Vh:Cd15.||||0.385
84623496|NCT03409796|168991704|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdB and Vh:Cd15.||||0.003
84623497|NCT03409796|168991705|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.010
84623498|NCT03409796|168991705|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson GLMM was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.006
84623499|NCT03270436|168991729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3599||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3599
84623500|NCT03270436|168991729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3207||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3207
84623501|NCT03270436|168991730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5698||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5698
84676682|NCT01627249|169088937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||8.0|1.4|0.0031
84760572|NCT00802204|169277404|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare baseline and post-diet outcome measures||||<0.05
84623502|NCT03270436|168991730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4106||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4106
84623503|NCT03270436|168991731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0293
84623504|NCT03270436|168991731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4686
84623505|NCT03270436|168991732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0068
84623506|NCT03270436|168991732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9181||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9181
84623507|NCT03270436|168991733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5984
84623508|NCT03270436|168991733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3376||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3376
84673868|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.21|-0.80|0.0008
84673869|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.49|-1.11|<0.0001
84623509|NCT03270436|168991734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.2960
84623510|NCT03270436|168991734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1519||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1519
84623511|NCT03270436|168991735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.2824
84623512|NCT03270436|168991735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7547||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.7547
84623513|NCT03270436|168991736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6928||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.6928
84676683|NCT01627249|169088937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||4.8|-1.1|0.21
84623514|NCT03270436|168991736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4947
84673870|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.28|-1.01|0.0006
84673871|NCT03238911|169083375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.23|-0.94|0.0014
84673872|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.71|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.71|-7.96|0.7447
84673873|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-0.63|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.63|-18.78|0.0363
84673874|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|9.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.59|-10.56|0.9242
84673875|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.49|-22.84|0.0602
84673876|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|-7.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-7.73|-28.68|0.0008
84673877|NCT03238911|169083376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.75|-6.83|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-6.83|-32.75|0.0031
84673878|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.104|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.104|-0.029|0.2670
84673879|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.142|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.142|0.028|0.0040
84673880|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.127|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.127|0.001|0.0472
84676684|NCT01627249|169088938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||2.7|-1.3|0.69
84760573|NCT02043548|169277411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||GEE|||||||0.86
84623515|NCT03270436|168991737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1539
84623516|NCT03270436|168991737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1878||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1878
84623517|NCT03270436|168991738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4322||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4322
84623518|NCT03270436|168991738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9529||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9529
84623519|NCT01751061|168991758|SUPERIORITY|To test the primary hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.|||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated. A two-sided type-I error rate of 0.05 was set for all tests; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. All participants were included in analyses as per their group randomization.|GEE|||We estimated that 210 patients (315 surrogates, assuming \~1.5 per patient) would provide a power of 80% to detect a between-groups mean CSCS score difference of 9 percentage points between Interviews 1 and 2, assuming a baseline mean of 50, SD=24, a type-I error=5%, a correlation between interviews of 0.5, an expectation that 50% of patients would have multiple surrogates, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8 for multiple surrogates for a patient, and 5% dropout before Interview 2.||||<0.05
84623520|NCT01751061|168991759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||Generalized linear model.||||<0.05
84623521|NCT01751061|168991760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||||||<0.05
84623522|NCT01751061|168991761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
84623523|NCT01751061|168991762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
84623524|NCT01751061|168991763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
84623525|NCT01751061|168991764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|GEE|||To test the hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.||||<0.05
84623526|NCT04673214|168991765|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the modification in the clinical evolution of the conjunctivitis sign in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call is rejected.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms|Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There will be no modification in the clinical evolution ≥ 25% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under an early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call from U.M.F 13 and U.M.F 20 from I.M.S.S., during the period of December 2020- February 2021, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%.||||0.05
84623527|NCT04673214|168991765|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical evolution (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID -19 in early intervention treatment. vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical course (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in early intervention treatment vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of the twenty%||||0.05
84673881|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.171|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.171|0.031|0.0050
84673882|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.172|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.172|0.029|0.0061
84623528|NCT04673214|168991766|SUPERIORITY|Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with the outcome of improvement in the Modification of the clinical evolution of the symptoms of patients with COVID-19 using double therapy was reported 95.7% (n = 44) Vs. triple therapy 90.8% (n = 59) and therapeutic failure 4.3% (n = 2) vs. 9.2% (n = 6), respectively.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19|Chi-squared|||Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
84623529|NCT04673214|168991767|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a mean duration of 2 days with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in early intervention treatment as a result of improving the modification of the clinical evolution of symptoms vs therapeutic failure.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference in days of effectiveness in clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a potency 90%, a Type I error rate of 1%, and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
84623530|NCT04673214|168991768|SUPERIORITY|A total of 62 patients was calculated, however due to the availability of medication, it was recalculated to 111 patients, that is, 65 cases in the triple therapy group and 46 in the double therapy group would be necessary for the analysis.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistical test|||Assuming a 25% efficacy in modifying the clinical course (COVID-19 mild phase symptoms) of patients with COVID-19 under a comparative treatment for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%||||0.05
84623531|NCT05635461|168991770|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
84623532|NCT05635461|168991771|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
84623533|NCT05635461|168991772|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|27.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.09|31.13|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||31.13|25.09|
84623534|NCT05635461|168991773|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|2.247|||ANOVA|||||2.2470|0.9265|<0.0001
84623535|NCT05635461|168991773|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4475|3.0035|||ANOVA|||||3.0035|2.4475|<0.0001
84623536|NCT05635461|168991774|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
84623537|NCT05635461|168991774|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0010
84623538|NCT05635461|168991775|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.96|172.92|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.92|150.96|
84623539|NCT05635461|168991776|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.98|172.95|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.95|150.98|
84673883|NCT03238911|169083377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.126|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.126|-0.016|0.1282
84676685|NCT01627249|169088938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||1.5|-2.3|0.69
84540158|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|30.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||30.51|-0.02|0.1004
84623540|NCT05635461|168991777|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|304.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.51|338.31|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||338.31|273.51|
84623541|NCT05635461|168991778|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|1.537|||ANOVA|||||1.5370|0.0060|0.0662
84623542|NCT05635461|168991779|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0039
84623543|NCT04664153|168991820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.74||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.76|-20.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-20.12|-58.76|0.0004
84623544|NCT04664153|168991821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.02|-2.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.77|-7.02|<0.0001
84623545|NCT00097500|168991839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84623546|NCT00097500|168991840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4185||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4185
84623547|NCT00097500|168991841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
84623548|NCT00097500|168991841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1188||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1188
84623549|NCT00097500|168991842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
84623550|NCT00097500|168991842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1996
84623551|NCT00097500|168991843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5522
84623552|NCT00097500|168991844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84623553|NCT00097500|168991846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84602051|NCT01106859|168955030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||2.1|0.8|<0.0001
84602052|NCT01106859|168955030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||3.1|1.8|<0.0001
84602053|NCT01106859|168955031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 4 hours prior) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.27|0.03|0.0145
84602054|NCT01106859|168955031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.20|-0.05|0.2179
84602055|NCT01106859|168955031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.29|0.04|0.0096
84602056|NCT01106859|168955034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2188||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.2188
84602057|NCT01106859|168955034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0117||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0117
84602058|NCT01106859|168955034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
84602059|NCT01106859|168955036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.1250
84602060|NCT01106859|168955036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0074
84623554|NCT00189098|168991864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0|||risk differences (RD)||Risk difference and 95% confidence intervals reported for 6 weeks follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||-6|-44|
84623555|NCT00189098|168991864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|4.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 12 week follow-up|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||4|-34|
84503651|NCT00106028|168758432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.594||||0.0172||95.0|6.801|68.386|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||68.386|6.801|0.0172
84623556|NCT00189098|168991864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|22.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 1 year follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||22|-12|
84623557|NCT00189098|168991865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|10.0|||rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 6 and 12 weeks follow-up.|||10|-34|
84623558|NCT00189098|168991866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|14.0|||rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||14|-22|
84623559|NCT00189098|168991867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|9.0|||Rate differences (95%CI interval)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 6 to 12 weeks follow-up.|||9|-23|
84623560|NCT00189098|168991868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|37.0|||Rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||37|-7|
84623561|NCT00189098|168991869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||Rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for participants who underwent Ear Nose and Throat Surgery between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||24|-12|
84623562|NCT00474123|168991880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.3
84623563|NCT00474123|168991881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.65
84623564|NCT00474123|168991882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.02
84623565|NCT00474123|168991883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.85
84623566|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.288|0.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 1||0.190|-0.288|0.7239
84623567|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.163|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 2||0.163|-0.127|0.8351
84623568|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.287|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 3||0.110|-0.287|0.4541
84623569|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.272|0.093|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 4||0.093|-0.272|0.4148
84623570|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.254|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 5||0.254|-0.082|0.3887
84623571|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|0.484|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 6||0.484|-0.093|0.2594
84623572|NCT01009060|168991903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.139|0.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 7||0.344|-0.139|0.4778
84676686|NCT01627249|169088938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||3.1|-0.9|0.69
84623573|NCT01009060|168991904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737||||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.884|2.409|||ANCOVA|||||2.409|-3.884|0.6947
84623574|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.252||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.535|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Speed of Processing/Simple Reaction Time|||0.030|-0.535|0.1399
84623575|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.176|0.534|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Attention/Vigilance|||0.534|-0.176|0.3992
84623576|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.391||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.845|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory|||0.845|-0.063|0.1547
84623577|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.279||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.685|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Visual Learning|||0.685|-0.127|0.2531
84760574|NCT02043548|169277412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.77
84760575|NCT02043548|169277413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||binomial test|||||||0.40
84623578|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.398||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.963|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Verbal Learning|||0.963|-0.167|0.2417
84623579|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.055|0.409|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Reasoning/Problem Solving|||0.409|-0.055|0.2069
84623580|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.262|0.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Social Cognition|||0.322|-0.262|0.8645
84623581|NCT01009060|168991905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.364|0.503|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory (Two-Back Memory)|||0.503|-0.364|0.7873
84623582|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.024||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.872|-1.175|||ANCOVA||For Speed of Processing|||-1.175|-6.872|0.0225
84623583|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24||||0.3317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|1.605|||ANCOVA||For Attention/Vigilance|||1.605|-6.085|0.3317
84623584|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.038||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.482|1.406|||ANCOVA||For Working Memory|||1.406|-5.482|0.3243
84623585|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.746||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.667|3.175|||ANCOVA||For Visual Learning|||3.175|-4.667|0.7497
84540159|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.61|28.39||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||28.39|-3.61|0.2015
84623586|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.112||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.537|6.761|||ANCOVA||For Verbal Learning|||6.761|-0.537|0.1585
84623587|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.972||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.709|4.654|||ANCOVA||For Reasoning and Problem Solving|||4.654|-2.709|0.6582
84623588|NCT01009060|168991906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.338||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.316|4.639|||ANCOVA||For Social Cognition|||4.639|-5.316|0.9092
84623589|NCT01009060|168991907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.024||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.237|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||1.190|-3.237|0.4406
84676687|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.5378||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.5378
84623590|NCT01009060|168991908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.876||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.743|2.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||2.990|-6.743|0.5197
84623591|NCT01009060|168991909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.824||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.334|5.982|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||5.982|-2.334|0.4637
84623592|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||<0.001
84623593|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.063
84623594|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||< 0.001
84623595|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.004
84623596|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.082
84623597|NCT00300755|168991970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.217
84623598|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.002
84623599|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.033
84623600|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||<0.001
84623601|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||0.002
84623602|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Refusal to eat.||||0.009
84623603|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.004
84623604|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.044
84623605|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.002
84623606|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
84623607|NCT00300755|168991971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
84623608|NCT00300755|168991972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Cough without cold.||||0.004
84623609|NCT00300755|168991972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Noisy breathing.||||0.047
84623610|NCT04571944|168991974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.6|-20.1|0.129
84623611|NCT04571944|168991975|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|11.0||||||||11.0|-9.3|
84623612|NCT04571944|168991976|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.2||||||||5.2|-5.1|
84623613|NCT04571944|168991977|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Based on aligned rank test.|Hodges-Lehmann method|||||1.0|-2.0|0.485
84623614|NCT04571944|168991978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.8|-20.2|0.136
84623615|NCT02734693|168992009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|-2.802|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol.||-2.802|-7.565|<0.001
84623616|NCT02734693|168992012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.395||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.987|38.346|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.346|8.987|0.002
84623617|NCT02734693|168992012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.389||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.381|38.714|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.714|9.381|0.002
84623618|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.07||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.36|0.85|0.009
84623619|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|0.91|0.71|1.15||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.15|0.71|0.009
84623620|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||ANOVA|Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.07|0.67|0.009
84623621|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|2.03||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.64||Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||2.64|1.56|0.065
84623622|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.63||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.11|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||2.11|1.26|0.065
84623623|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.04|0.62|0.065
84673884|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.37|-0.82|0.4618
84676688|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.919
84726210|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0946||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-2.406|0.131
84623624|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.88||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.13|0.69|0.011
84623625|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.09|0.65|0.011
84623626|NCT00539981|168992028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.96||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.23|0.75|0.011
84623627|NCT00539981|168992029|SUPERIORITY|Relative protective efficacy is equivalent to absolute efficacy which is defined as the reduction in the influenza rate for Flublok relative to placebo.|Relative protective efficacy|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|99.5||||||FluBlok versus Placebo||99.5|-148.0|
84623628|NCT02675907|168992032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
84623629|NCT02675907|168992033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84623630|NCT02675907|168992033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84623631|NCT02675907|168992033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (SPID24)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84623632|NCT02675907|168992033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 4 (SPID12-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84623633|NCT02675907|168992033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 5 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84623634|NCT02675907|168992034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0076
84623635|NCT02675907|168992035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84623636|NCT02675907|168992035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
84673885|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.20|-0.54|0.3660
84623637|NCT02675907|168992035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
84623638|NCT02675907|168992036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
84623639|NCT02675907|168992036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
84623640|NCT02675907|168992036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
84623641|NCT02675907|168992037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1228
84623642|NCT02675907|168992038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1048
84623643|NCT02675907|168992039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0451
84673886|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.30|-0.25|0.8580
84676689|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.4255||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.4255
84623644|NCT02675907|168992040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0107
84623645|NCT02675907|168992041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0781
84623646|NCT02675907|168992042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0430
84623647|NCT02675907|168992043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.1070
84623648|NCT02675907|168992044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0046
84623649|NCT01611792|168992045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84623650|NCT01611792|168992046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.86||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0038
84623651|NCT01611792|168992047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
84623652|NCT01611792|168992048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
84623653|NCT01611792|168992049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84623654|NCT01611792|168992050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84623655|NCT02051764|168992070|OTHER|||||||0.2837||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Overall change from baseline between groups. Test compared slopes of cognitively impaired (CI) vs healthy volunteers (HV). As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were the different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.2837
84623656|NCT02051764|168992070|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid negative only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.9276
84623657|NCT02051764|168992070|OTHER|||||||0.6324||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid positive only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.6324
84623658|NCT00591006|168992071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84623659|NCT00591006|168992071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.12
84623660|NCT00591006|168992071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.15
84623661|NCT00591006|168992071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.10
84623662|NCT00591006|168992072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
84623663|NCT00591006|168992072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
84623664|NCT00591006|168992072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
84623665|NCT00591006|168992072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
84623666|NCT00591006|168992073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
84623667|NCT00591006|168992073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
84623668|NCT00591006|168992073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.11
84623669|NCT00591006|168992073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
84623670|NCT02898454|168992074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.03|<0.0001
84623671|NCT02898454|168992075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.51|-2.10|<0.0001
84623672|NCT02898454|168992076|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 52 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-4.46|-5.80|<0.0001
84623673|NCT02898454|168992077|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-2.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.02|-2.87|<0.0001
84623674|NCT02898454|168992078|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|12.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.07|8.98|<0.0001
84623675|NCT02898454|168992079|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.81|-1.15|<0.0001
84623676|NCT02898454|168992080|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|-13.85||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-13.85|-20.87|<0.0001
84623677|NCT02898454|168992081|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.83|-2.59|<0.0001
84623678|NCT02898454|168992081|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-2.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.03|-2.78|<0.0001
84623679|NCT02898454|168992082|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.92|-1.30|<0.0001
84676690|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.1037||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.1037
84673887|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.74|0.05|0.0257
84540160|NCT04856917|168830935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|31.81||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||31.81|-0.27|0.1057
84623680|NCT02898454|168992082|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.80|-1.18|<0.0001
84623681|NCT02898454|168992083|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-17.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.27|-25.45|<0.0001
84623682|NCT02898454|168992083|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-16.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-16.65|-24.81|<0.0001
84623683|NCT03071263|168992136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||α-level 0.05. Stratified by baseline potassium category (4.3-\<4.7 mEq/L or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L) and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as randomized|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 280 subjects has 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 20% or more in the proportion of subjects remaining on spironolactone at Week 12, at α = 0.05.||||<0.0001
84623684|NCT03071263|168992137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5757||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5757
84623685|NCT03071263|168992138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||The p-value is from a test comparing the difference between two groups in the mean change in AOBP SBP from baseline.||||0.6367
84623686|NCT02354235|168992161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.15|<0.001
84623687|NCT02354235|168992162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-29.2|||ANCOVA|||||-29.2|-48.5|<0.001
84623688|NCT02354235|168992163|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-3.20|<0.001
84623689|NCT02354235|168992164|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-100.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.2|-78.4|||ANCOVA|||||-78.4|-122.2|<0.001
84623690|NCT02354235|168992165|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-36.9|||ANCOVA|||||-36.9|-64.9|<0.001
84623691|NCT03069352|168992166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.071|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||1.071|0.524|0.114
84623692|NCT03069352|168992166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.061|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.061|0.521|0.103
84673888|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.77|0.19|0.0016
84623693|NCT03069352|168992167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
84623694|NCT03069352|168992167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623695|NCT03069352|168992168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
84623696|NCT03069352|168992168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623697|NCT03069352|168992169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
84623698|NCT03069352|168992169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623699|NCT03069352|168992170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
84623700|NCT03069352|168992170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623701|NCT03069352|168992171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
84540161|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.19|-0.08|0.5157
84623702|NCT03069352|168992171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623703|NCT03069352|168992172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.41|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3, Day 1||-0.41|-8.60|
84623704|NCT03069352|168992172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|0.19|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||0.19|-10.03|
84623705|NCT03069352|168992172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.36|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||4.36|-5.98|
84623706|NCT03069352|168992172|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.64|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 day 1||4.64|-7.94|
84623707|NCT03069352|168992172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.126
84623708|NCT03069352|168992173|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|12.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3 Day 1||12.06|-6.23|
84623709|NCT03069352|168992173|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|24.59|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||24.59|2.18|
84623710|NCT03069352|168992173|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||19.06|-4.83|
84623711|NCT03069352|168992173|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.511|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|21.26|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 Day 1||21.26|-8.49|
84623712|NCT03069352|168992173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.085
84673889|NCT03238911|169083379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.07|0.0185
84673890|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.84||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.26|7.57|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||7.57|-37.26|0.1922
84673891|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.28||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.24|43.68|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.68|-80.24|0.5601
84623713|NCT03069352|168992174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.817|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.817|0.416|0.002
84623714|NCT03069352|168992174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.839|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.839|0.430|0.003
84673892|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.02||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.74|-1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.30|-140.74|0.0459
84623715|NCT03069352|168992175|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||35.0|10.8|0.001
84623716|NCT03069352|168992175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84623717|NCT03069352|168992176|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|15.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||29.0|1.4|0.040
84623718|NCT03069352|168992176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84623719|NCT03069352|168992177|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|35.8||||||||35.8|9.0|
84623720|NCT03069352|168992178|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.8||||||||35.8|-0.4|
84623721|NCT03069352|168992179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
84623722|NCT03069352|168992179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
84623723|NCT03069352|168992180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
84623724|NCT03069352|168992180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
84623725|NCT03069352|168992184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.985|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.985|0.503|0.040
84623726|NCT03069352|168992184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.0|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.000|0.514|0.049
84623727|NCT01928927|168992220|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.73|0.26|0.97
84623728|NCT01928927|168992221|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.83|0.31|0.61
84623729|NCT00179621|168992289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 5 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
84623730|NCT00179621|168992289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 10 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
84623731|NCT00179621|168992290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
84623732|NCT00179621|168992290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
84623733|NCT00179621|168992300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84623734|NCT00179621|168992300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84623735|NCT00179621|168992301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
84623736|NCT00179621|168992301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
84623737|NCT00179621|168992302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.062
84623738|NCT00179621|168992302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.113
84623739|NCT02973100|168992333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.07|<.001
84623740|NCT02973100|168992333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.14|<0.001
84623741|NCT02973100|168992333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.24|<.001
84623742|NCT02973100|168992334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.489|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.368|71.667|||Regression, Logistic|||||71.667|8.368|<.001
84623743|NCT02973100|168992334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.906|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.238|84.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||84.300|9.238|<.001
84623744|NCT02973100|168992334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.852|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.672|62.242|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.242|7.672|<.001
84623745|NCT02973100|168992335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.02|<0.001
84623746|NCT02973100|168992335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.91|<0.001
84623747|NCT02973100|168992335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-2.12|<0.001
84623748|NCT02973100|168992336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-2.3|0.025
84623749|NCT02973100|168992336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
84623750|NCT02973100|168992336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.7|<0.001
84673893|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-207.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.82|-145.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-145.84|-268.82|<0.0001
84673894|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.81|-32.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.39|-124.81|0.0010
84673895|NCT03238911|169083380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.75|-28.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-28.82|-88.75|0.0002
84673896|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|55.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||55.33|26.30|<0.0001
84673897|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|11.53|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.53|1.69|0.0089
84673898|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-32.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.03|-54.92|<0.0001
84503652|NCT00106028|168758433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.492||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.807|35.824|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||35.824|-36.807|0.9786
84623751|NCT01419236|168992341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.91|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.91|-0.59|0.380
84623752|NCT01419236|168992342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.08|-0.96|0.164
84623753|NCT01419236|168992343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.15|-0.31|0.342
84623754|NCT01419236|168992344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.57|0.05|0.079
84623755|NCT01419236|168992345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.10|-0.50|0.535
84673899|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-5.41|0.3730
84673900|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.90|-6.15|0.4778
84673901|NCT03238911|169083381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|1.98|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.98|-5.44|0.3575
84676691|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0008||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.0008
84760576|NCT02043548|169277414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84623756|NCT01419236|168992346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|-0.22|0.172
84623757|NCT01419236|168992347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.04|-0.41|0.473
84623758|NCT01419236|168992348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.87|-1.03|0.885
84623759|NCT01419236|168992349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.55|-0.61|0.938
84623760|NCT03224130|168992357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.21
84623761|NCT03224130|168992358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
84623762|NCT03224130|168992359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.24
84623763|NCT03224130|168992360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
84623764|NCT03224130|168992361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.50
84623765|NCT03224130|168992362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
84623766|NCT03224130|168992363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.92
84623767|NCT02764385|168992371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.01||||||||2.01|1.73|
84623768|NCT02764385|168992371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|We adjust for clustering of visit within clinician and clinical site and the stepped wedge study design using generalized estimating equation methods.||||1.02|.45|.05
84623769|NCT02764385|168992372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.1||||||||2.10|1.73|
84623770|NCT04607668|168992415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||Two-sided p-value for treatment effect was generated from a nonparametric ANCOVA controlling for stratification factors of Region and Prior chemotherapy with study baseline ANC value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|<0.001
84673902|NCT03238911|169083382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-3.6|-20.1|0.0050
84673903|NCT02239536|169083383|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84673904|NCT02239536|169083384|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84623771|NCT04607668|168992416|OTHER||aRR|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||modified Poisson model|||||0.19|0.01|<0.001
84623772|NCT02250326|168992430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||1.94|0.90|
84623773|NCT02250326|168992431|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.207|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Disease Control Rate Ratio is DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel Alone|1.207|0.778|
84623774|NCT02250326|168992432|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.754|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Overall Response Rate Ratio is ORR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over ORR of nab-Paclitaxel Alone.|1.754|0.398|
84623775|NCT02250326|168992433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.57||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.57|1.08|
84623776|NCT04516746|168992440|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.34|80.47|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.47|65.34|<0.001
84623777|NCT04516746|168992444|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|64.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.05|71.03|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||71.03|56.05|<0.001
84623778|NCT04516746|168992445|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.68|76.57|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||76.57|60.68|<0.001
84623779|NCT04516746|168992446|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.62|77.64|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||77.64|61.62|<0.001
84623780|NCT04516746|168992447|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.13|80.13|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.13|65.13|<0.001
84623781|NCT04516746|168992448|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.62||||Poisson regression exact conditional|||The exact 1-sided 97.5% CI and p-value were estimated based on stratified Poisson regression with exact conditional method (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as strata factor and log of total number of participants for each combination of study arm and strata as an offset).|||71.62|<0.001
84673905|NCT02239536|169083384|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84673906|NCT02215070|169083431|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84673907|NCT02215070|169083433|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
84673908|NCT02215070|169083434|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
84673909|NCT02449356|169083437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84673910|NCT02449356|169083438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84673911|NCT01221441|169083445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
84673912|NCT01221441|169083446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
84673913|NCT01221441|169083447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated KOOS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for KOOS is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
84673914|NCT01221441|169083448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated Lysholm score with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for Lysholm score is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
84673915|NCT02665481|169083458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.07|-0.15|0.50
84673916|NCT02665481|169083458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.19|-0.04|0.18
84673917|NCT02665481|169083458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.17|-0.04|0.23
84673918|NCT02665481|169083458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.47
84673919|NCT02665481|169083459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.19|-0.02|0.12
84673920|NCT02665481|169083459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.44
84673921|NCT02665481|169083459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.18|-0.03|0.17
84673922|NCT02665481|169083459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.11|-0.12|0.93
84673923|NCT02665481|169083460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|7.34|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||7.34|-14.27|0.53
84673924|NCT02665481|169083460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-6.44|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||-6.44|-33.88|0.004
84673925|NCT02665481|169083460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|13.85|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||13.85|-7.76|0.58
84673926|NCT02665481|169083460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.46|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||7.46|-19.98|0.37
84673927|NCT02665481|169083461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|68.36|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||68.36|-22.95|0.33
84673928|NCT02665481|169083461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|73.88|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||73.88|-23.18|0.31
84673929|NCT02665481|169083461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.83|28.48|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||28.48|-62.83|0.46
84673930|NCT02665481|169083461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.41|69.64|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||69.64|-27.41|0.39
84673931|NCT02665481|169083462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.01|-0.02|0.37
84673932|NCT02665481|169083462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.10
84673933|NCT02665481|169083462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.02|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.02|-0.004|0.21
84673934|NCT02665481|169083462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.09
84673935|NCT02665481|169083463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.69|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.69|-0.38|0.57
84673936|NCT02665481|169083463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.55|-0.58|0.96
84673937|NCT02665481|169083463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.29|-0.78|0.37
84623782|NCT04516746|168992449|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|84.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.97|94.5|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||94.50|58.97|<0.001
84623783|NCT04516746|168992450|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|94.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.98|99.34|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||99.34|58.98|0.005
84623784|NCT04516746|168992457|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|54.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.48|61.26||||||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||61.26|46.48|
84623785|NCT01194830|168992492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005||95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.91|0.0005
84623786|NCT01194830|168992493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.0001
84623787|NCT01194830|168992494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002||95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.84|0.0002
84623788|NCT01194830|168992495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003||95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
84623789|NCT01194830|168992496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|9.358|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.358|1.764|0.0010
84623790|NCT01194830|168992497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.433||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|26.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.260|1.124|0.0352
84623791|NCT01194830|168992498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.951||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|5.274|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.274|1.651|0.0003
84623792|NCT01194830|168992499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0972||95.0|-26.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||2.2|-26.1|0.0972
84623793|NCT01194830|168992500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.45||0.9368||95.0|-53.8|49.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline 2-hour PPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||49.86|-53.80|0.9368
84623794|NCT00435409|168992514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2239||||0.9409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9487|1.5789||Stratification factors included metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1), from interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.5789|0.9487|0.9409
84623795|NCT00435409|168992514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1084||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8817|1.3935||Stratification factors include metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] 2 or more sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs more than 1), from IVRS.|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.3935|0.8817|0.8120
84623796|NCT00435409|168992515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.97||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare objective response rate (ORR) between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||1.97|0.69|0.3143
84623797|NCT00435409|168992515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.13||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare ORR between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.13|0.83|0.1269
84760577|NCT02043548|169277415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||GEE|||||||0.78
84623798|NCT00435409|168992517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0372||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8322|1.2927||Stratification factors (all from IVRS) included number of metastatic organ sites (\<=2 vs \>2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR- vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib + capecitabine versus capecitabine.|||1.2927|0.8322|0.6275
84623799|NCT03631940|168992528|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||Hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|Hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||||5.37|-6.36|.87
84623800|NCT03562195|168992539|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probablity|0.9999|||||||||||Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing|A BDB approach was used in the estimation of primary endpoint in the Chinese participants of this study, with information borrowed from MEA115588.|"Pr (rate ratio \<1 \| data)\>0.999. The 'positive result' is defined as if the posterior probability that the rate ratio is less than 1 is at least 0.95"|||||
84623801|NCT03562195|168992539|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is defined as the rate ratio of events between Mepolizumab 100mg SC versus placebo is less than 1.|Rate Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Negative binomial model|||||0.50|0.24|<0.001
84623802|NCT00117637|168992561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.27|0.61|0.50
84623803|NCT00117637|168992562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.239||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.239|0.628|0.469
84623804|NCT00117637|168992563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
84623805|NCT00117637|168992564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84623806|NCT00117637|168992566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.022
84623807|NCT00117637|168992568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.015
84623808|NCT00117637|168992570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.073
84623809|NCT00117637|168992572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.067
84623810|NCT00117637|168992573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.005
84623811|NCT00117637|168992574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.001
84623812|NCT00117637|168992575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.019
84623813|NCT00117637|168992584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
84623814|NCT00614575|168992596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84623815|NCT00614575|168992597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84623816|NCT00614575|168992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84623817|NCT00614575|168992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84673938|NCT02665481|169083463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.57|-0.57|0.99
84673939|NCT02665481|169083464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.33|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||2.33|-0.47|0.19
84623818|NCT03535974|168992615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.122||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84623819|NCT00549640|168992649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||||||0.973
84623820|NCT00549640|168992650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 tailed test||||||0.500
84623821|NCT00549640|168992651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|For each subject, the average daily withdrawal score for the 14 days following target quit date was calculated and expressed as a change from baseline||||||0.65
84623822|NCT00549640|168992651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|analysis performed using daily scores||||||0.79
84673940|NCT02665481|169083464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.77|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||2.77|-0.19|0.09
84673941|NCT02665481|169083464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.83|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.83|-1.97|0.42
84673942|NCT02665481|169083464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.94|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||1.94|-1.01|0.54
84676692|NCT02451748|169088974|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0001||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.0001
84676693|NCT01176591|169088982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84676694|NCT01176591|169088983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84676695|NCT01176591|169088984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84676696|NCT01176591|169088985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84623823|NCT02732600|168992690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||1.68|-0.66|0.39
84623824|NCT02732600|168992690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.06|-0.75|0.35
84623825|NCT02732600|168992690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.60|-0.57|0.21
84623826|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test used to compare group differences in Cohesiveness at BASELINE||13.48|-2.2|0.156
84623827|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group means on Communication at BASELINE||19.8|-3.85|0.182
84623828|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|22.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group differences on Role Clarity at BASELINE||22.57|-5.74|0.234
84623829|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group values on Goals at Baseline||33.5|-5.22|0.149
84623830|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of differences between groups on Cohesiveness at 6-Months||13.8|-14.7|0.947
84623831|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of groups differences on Communication at 6 Months||18.4|-15.6|0.870
84623832|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|23.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 6 months||23.63|-11.26|0.478
84623833|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|17.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 6 Months||17.83|-13.35|0.773
84623834|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|38.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Cohesiveness at 1year||38.6|-20.4|0.498
84676697|NCT01176591|169088987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84623835|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|26.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Communication at 1 year||26.7|-20.3|0.780
84623836|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|46.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 1 year||46.11|-23.19|0.474
84623837|NCT02732600|168992691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|28.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 1 year||28.21|-8.21|0.267
84623838|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 6 months||1.00|-0.09|0.098
84623839|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on COLLABORATION at 6 months||1.43|-0.43|0.282
84623840|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PEER SPECIALIST AS LIAISON at 6 months||2.29|-0.05|0.06
84623841|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PROVIDES INFO ON SERVICES at 6 months||1.59|0.07|0.34
84623842|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Symptoms and Medication at 6-months||2.62|-0.94|0.34
84623843|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 6-months||1.50|-1.03|0.66
84623844|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 6 Months||2.16|-0.36|0.15
84623845|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 6-months||0.59|-1.01|0.59
84623846|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 6 months||1.68|-1.77|0.95
84623847|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 6 months||1.68|-0.58|0.32
84623848|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across both groups on Resources at 6 months||2.04|-0.60|0.27
84623849|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Performance Reviews at 6 months||1.85|-1.71|0.93
84623850|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 1 year||-0.005|-1.45|0.15
84623851|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Collaboration at 1 year||0.32|-1.7|0.04
84623852|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Peer Specialists as Liaison at 1 year||0.17|-2.07|0.08
84623853|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Provides Info on Services at 1 year||0.18|-0.58|0.26
84623854|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison between groups on Symptoms and Medication at 1 year||2.83|-4.53|0.61
84623855|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 1 year||1.01|-2.87|0.30
84623856|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 1 year||-0.52|-2.08|0.004
84623857|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 1 year||-0.60|-4.20|0.01
84676698|NCT01073618|169088988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|75.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.36|78.94|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||78.94|71.36|
84623858|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 1 year||23.5|-24.1|0.90
84623859|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 1 year||0.12|-3.02|0.06
84623860|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Resources at 1 year||1.37|-0.97|0.71
84623861|NCT02732600|168992692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison on Performance Reviews at 1 year||2.23|-5.03|0.41
84623862|NCT02732600|168992693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.88||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at Baseline||5.88|1.29|0.002
84623863|NCT02732600|168992693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 6 Months||5.78|-0.54|0.10
84623864|NCT02732600|168992693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 1 year||4.14|-3.06|0.77
84623865|NCT02732600|168992694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.38||p value for 1st year only|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.38|0.56|0.02
84623866|NCT02732600|168992694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.04|-4.67|0.93
84623867|NCT02732600|168992695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p value for 1st year||||1.37|0.68|0.0001
84623868|NCT02732600|168992696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.96|1.46|0.02
84623869|NCT02732600|168992696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.54|-3.14|0.38
84623870|NCT02732600|168992697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.2|-12.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-12.66|-186.2|0.027
84623871|NCT02732600|168992698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|0.28|0.001
84623872|NCT00550407|168992703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
84726211|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.197||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.619|12.269|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.269|-8.619|0.727
84623873|NCT03883581|168992723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84623874|NCT03883581|168992724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.647
84623875|NCT03883581|168992725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
84623876|NCT03883581|168992726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84623877|NCT03883581|168992727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
84623878|NCT02099864|168992741|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|108.8|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact test was used rather than simple logistic regression.||||108.8|0.9|0.055
84623879|NCT02099864|168992742|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.3|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact was used rather than regression.||||5.3|0.1|1.000
84623880|NCT02099864|168992743|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17.0|0.0|1.000
84623881|NCT02099864|168992744|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.84
84623882|NCT02099864|168992745|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.14
84623883|NCT02099864|168992746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|0.1|1.00
84623884|NCT02099864|168992748|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for the responders minus the median for the non-responders.|||||0.01
84623885|NCT02099864|168992751|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
84623886|NCT02099864|168992752|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56|||Regression, Cox|||||0.56|0.08|0.002
84623887|NCT02099864|168992753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.02|0.23
84623888|NCT02099864|168992754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
84726212|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5876||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.342|9.999|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.999|-8.342|0.857
84623889|NCT02099864|168992759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.82|||Regression, Cox|||||11.82|2.03|<0.001
84623890|NCT03062358|168992760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.99|0.63|0.0180
84623891|NCT03062358|168992761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.92|0.60|0.0032
84760578|NCT02043548|169277415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84623892|NCT03062358|168992762|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. \>= 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|16.0|6.7|0.00004
84623893|NCT03062358|168992764|OTHER||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.13281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|14.8|-4.1|0.13281
84623894|NCT03062358|168992765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.90|0.58|0.0019
84623895|NCT01650194|168992777|OTHER|||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.6150
84623896|NCT01650194|168992779|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623897|NCT01650194|168992780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623898|NCT01650194|168992781|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623899|NCT01650194|168992782|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623900|NCT01650194|168992783|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623901|NCT01650194|168992785|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623902|NCT01650194|168992786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84623903|NCT01650194|168992787|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.0002
84623904|NCT01650194|168992788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
84673943|NCT02652624|169083493|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 470 participants (\~235 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 87% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the 2 treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.9|2.9|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.9|-2.9|
84623905|NCT02649556|168992814|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.65||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of HDL-C levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|3.65|-0.160|
84623906|NCT02649556|168992815|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.131||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of White Blood Cell counts between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|-0.131|-0.694|
84623907|NCT02649556|168992816|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|2.17||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of FEV1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|2.17|-0.339|
84673944|NCT02652624|169083493|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84726213|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7173||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.126|8.734|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.734|-10.126|0.883
84623908|NCT02649556|168992817|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0231|6.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of sICAM-1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|6.10|0.0231|
84623909|NCT02649556|168992818|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|14.3|||||Derived as 100 x (1-Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 11-DTXB2 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|14.3|-8.74|
84623910|NCT02649556|168992819|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.7|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 8-epi-PGF2α levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|14.7|-1.03|
84623911|NCT02649556|168992820|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of Total NNAL levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|54.8|36.2|
84623912|NCT02649556|168992821|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|39.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of COHb levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|39.1|23.3|
84623913|NCT01602224|168992839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.401
84623914|NCT01602224|168992839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.455
84623915|NCT01602224|168992839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib and 300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only compared to placebo.||||0.419
84623916|NCT00770653|168992855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (H0) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group ≤ the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. Alternate hypothesis (H1) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group \> the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. The relevant clinical effect size to detect with adequate power was 0.35. With this assumption, a one sided t-test with a type I error rate had 80% power to reject the H0 for the H1 when the sample size was 130 patients per group.||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
84623917|NCT00770653|168992856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA||Deviation from the normal distribution assumption was detected for original and rank-transformed data for all time-points due to p-value of Shapiro-Wilk test, indicating the normal distribution assumption might be distrusted for HDL-cholesterol data.|||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
84623918|NCT00770653|168992857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1311||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2951|0.0329|||ANCOVA|||||0.0329|-0.2951|0.1167
84623919|NCT00770653|168992858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9479||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4331|3.5373|||ANCOVA|||||3.5373|-39.4331|0.1012
84673945|NCT02652624|169083494|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.7|4.5|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||4.5|-3.7|
84673946|NCT02652624|169083494|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84760579|NCT03829657|169277421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.27|0.196
84623920|NCT00770653|168992859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1292||||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0109|23.2693|||ANCOVA|||||23.2693|-17.0109|0.7486
84623921|NCT00770653|168992860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2355||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1253|6.6543|||ANCOVA|||||6.6543|-7.1253|0.9464
84623922|NCT00770653|168992861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1574||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0193|0.3341|||ANCOVA|||||0.3341|-0.0193|0.0807
84623923|NCT00770653|168992862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4222|-2.5855|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5855|-6.4222|<.0001
84623924|NCT00770653|168992863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0707||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4665|8.6079|||ANCOVA|||||8.6079|-6.4665|0.7799
84623925|NCT00770653|168992864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3161|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0994|7.5329|||ANCOVA|||||7.5329|5.0994|<.0001
84623926|NCT00770653|168992865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8323||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8312|1.1665|||ANCOVA|||||1.1665|-2.8312|0.4131
84623927|NCT00770653|168992866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8847|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3067|-0.4627|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4627|-1.3067|<.0001
84623928|NCT00770653|168992867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4903||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3979|0.4172|||ANCOVA|||||0.4172|-5.3979|0.0929
84623929|NCT00770653|168992868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8832||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6571|0.8906|||ANCOVA|||||0.8906|-2.6571|0.3279
84673947|NCT02652624|169083495|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.0|||ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||34|-27|0.84
84673948|NCT01993108|169083507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
84673949|NCT01993108|169083507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.118
84673950|NCT01993108|169083507|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.349
84673951|NCT01993108|169083507|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
84673952|NCT01993108|169083508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
84673953|NCT01993108|169083508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.240
84760580|NCT01295216|169277427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.4|||||Systolic blood pressure at 12 months|||1.40|-2.15|
84760581|NCT01295216|169277427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.32|||||Diastolic blood pressure for 12 months|||1.32|-1.29|
84623930|NCT00770653|168992869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher Exact|-3.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|8.39|||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of participants with a calculated compliance \>80% and \<120% are presented for both treatment groups. In addition, the p-values of Fisher's exact test, the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of patients per treatment group and for the difference between the treatment groups are provided.||8.39|-14.83|0.2895
84623931|NCT00770653|168992870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9516||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.1999|34.2967|||ANCOVA|||||34.2967|-94.1999|0.3517
84623932|NCT00770653|168992871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.4477||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.2256|83.3302|||ANCOVA|||||83.3302|-386.2256|0.1979
84623933|NCT00770653|168992872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8589||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.3229|113.6052|||ANCOVA|||||113.6052|-163.3229|0.7186
84623934|NCT00770653|168992873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9728||||0.5058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9915|20.0459|||ANCOVA|||||20.0459|-39.9915|0.5058
84623935|NCT00770653|168992874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3988||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7193|117.5169|||ANCOVA|||||117.5169|-60.7193|0.5230
84623936|NCT00770653|168992875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-367.2639||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-964.3923|229.8646|||ANCOVA|||||229.8646|-964.3923|0.2203
84623937|NCT00770653|168992876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0794||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6468|151.8057|||ANCOVA|||||151.8057|-95.6468|0.5850
84623938|NCT00770653|168992877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4205||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3207|-0.5202|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5202|-4.3207|0.0138
84623939|NCT00770653|168992878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1139|1.8578|||ANCOVA|||||1.8578|-30.1139|0.0817
84623940|NCT00770653|168992879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9935||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4843|2.4712|||ANCOVA|||||2.4712|-0.4843|0.1761
84623941|NCT00770653|168992880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5263||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3832|3.6695|||ANCOVA|||||3.6695|1.3832|0.0002
84623942|NCT00770653|168992881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2345||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0675|5.4016|||ANCOVA|||||5.4016|1.0675|0.0055
84623943|NCT00770653|168992882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9712||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3863|5.5562|||ANCOVA|||||5.5562|0.3863|0.0264
84623944|NCT00770653|168992883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5394||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|5.0901|||ANCOVA|||||5.0901|-0.0114|0.0509
84623945|NCT00770653|168992884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1718||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|4.8097|||ANCOVA|||||4.8097|-0.4660|0.1013
84623946|NCT00770653|168992885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1346||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7338|5.0031|||ANCOVA|||||5.0031|-0.7338|0.1363
84623947|NCT00770653|168992886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4181||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6561|5.4922|||ANCOVA|||||5.4922|-0.6561|0.1165
84623948|NCT04906499|168992894|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.68|
84623949|NCT04906499|168992896|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.44|
84623950|NCT04906499|168992898|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.77||||||||1.77|-0.13|
84623951|NCT04906499|168992900|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.93||||||||1.93|-0.05|
84623952|NCT04906499|168992902|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.67|
84623953|NCT04906499|168992903|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.48|
84623954|NCT04906499|168992904|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||||0.71|-0.88|
84623955|NCT04906499|168992905|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||||||||0.73|-0.87|
84623956|NCT04906499|168992907|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.44||||||||0.44|-1.24|
84623957|NCT01908426|168992910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geo. region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.92|0.63|0.0049
84623958|NCT01908426|168992911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52|||Log Rank|The Log Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geographic region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
84623959|NCT01908426|168992912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0086
84623960|NCT03346434|168992922|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|34.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.37|13.27|< 0.0001
84623961|NCT03346434|168992923|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.47|55.16||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.16|29.47|< 0.0001
84623962|NCT03346434|168992932|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.38|-38.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-38.40|-62.38|< 0.0001
84623963|NCT03346434|168992933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.47|-34.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-34.79|-59.47|< 0.0001
84623964|NCT03346434|168992934|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|52.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.27|26.18|< 0.0001
84673954|NCT01993108|169083508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.081
84673955|NCT01993108|169083508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.247
84623965|NCT03346434|168992935|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|56.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.67|30.03|< 0.0001
84623966|NCT03346434|168992936|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|62.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.00|35.03|< 0.0001
84623967|NCT03346434|168992937|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|22.5|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.60|12.37|= 0.0001
84623968|NCT03346434|168992938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.204|-17.329||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-17.329|-31.204|< 0.0001
84623969|NCT03346434|168992939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-6.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.89|-11.26|< 0.0001
84623970|NCT03346434|168992940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-30.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-30.21|-46.65|< 0.0001
84623971|NCT03346434|168992941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.317||Threshold significance was at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.317|1.093|< 0.0001
84623972|NCT03346434|168992942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.029|-2.6||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-2.600|-4.029|< 0.0001
84623973|NCT03346434|168992943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.789|-5.814||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-5.814|-9.789|< 0.0001
84623974|NCT03346434|168992944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-4.75||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-10.29|< 0.0001
84623975|NCT03346434|168992945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.711|-6.202||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.202|-11.711|< 0.0001
84623976|NCT03346434|168992946|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0015||||||Threshold significance is at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||= 0.0015
84623977|NCT03346434|168992947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.56||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-6.35|= 0.0997
84623978|NCT03525444|168992950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|15.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.4|12.1|<0.0001
84623979|NCT03525444|168992951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|15.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.8|12.7|<0.0001
84623980|NCT03525444|168992952|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
84623981|NCT03525444|168992953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-39.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-39.3|-44.4|<0.0001
84623982|NCT03525444|168992954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.5|<0.0001
84623983|NCT03525444|168992955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.23|0.85|<0.0001
84623984|NCT03525444|168992956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-38.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-38.5|-44.0|<0.0001
84623985|NCT03525444|168992957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|23.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.2|16.9|<0.0001
84623986|NCT03525444|168992959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||||||||0.43|0.17|
84623987|NCT03525444|168992960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.4||||||||3.4|2.3|
84623988|NCT01183689|168993002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.41||No interim analyses were conducted. Pairwise differences among the three arms were assessed with a 2 degree of freedom Wald Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Above is provided the mean difference between Arms 1 and 2.|Mean changes from random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences among groups over time.||1.41|0.23|<0.05
84673956|NCT01993108|169083509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
84760582|NCT03036293|169277475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.217|2.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.91|0.217|0.0055
84503653|NCT00106028|168758434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.952|23.672|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.672|-40.952|0.5971
84540162|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.34|0.06|0.0178
84623989|NCT01183689|168993002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|This was fitted with Proc Mixed in SAS.|95% confidence interval excludes 0|Mean changes from a random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences between groups over time. This entry is for the comparison between groups 1 and 3.||3.22|2.05|<0.05
84623990|NCT01183689|168993003|OTHER|Generalized Estimating Equations|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the average percent of weight gainers over time among the three groups. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in these average percentages. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 at each visit depending on their weight gain status. The percentages were summarized with odds ratios for weight gain over time.||1.90|1.02|<0.05
84623991|NCT01183689|168993003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.19|||generalized estimating equations|||This is a parallel analysis, comparing groups 1 and 3, using generalized estimating equations to summarize the odds ratio for weight gain in group 1 versus group 3,||3.19|1.64|<0.05
84623992|NCT01183689|168993004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on a 2 degree of freedom Wald test within the mixed effect model to test for pairwise differences among the 3 arms.|Listed above is the mean difference between arms 1 and 2|Mean differences at 2 years are calculated from a linear contrast within a mixed effects model. Note that this comparison is between Groups 1 and 2.||2.24|0.39|<0.05
84623993|NCT01183689|168993004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear contrast was used to compare groups 1 and 3 at 24 months.||A linear contrast from a mixed effects model was used to compare mean differences at 24 months between groups 1 and 3.||2.98|1.11|<0.05
84623994|NCT01183689|168993005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.92||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for pairwise difference among the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to assess mean differences in changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure. This analysis compares groups 1 and 2.||3.92|0.06|0.13
84623995|NCT01183689|168993005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.84|||ANOVA|||Mean differences in systolic blood pressure between groups 1 and 3 over time.||2.84|-0.98|0.13
84623996|NCT01183689|168993006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to compare mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean differences from baseline to 2 years were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.14|0.32|0.06
84623997|NCT01183689|168993006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.33||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom omnibus test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years in diastolic blood pressure.||2.33|-0.49|0.06
84623998|NCT01183689|168993007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.52||The p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years were compared between Groups 1 and 2.||3.52|-6.12|0.73
84623999|NCT01183689|168993007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.58||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in total cholesterol changes from baseline among groups.||0.58|-4.36|0.73
84624000|NCT01183689|168993008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.52||The p-value is a 2 degree of freedom test from the generalized estimating equations analysis applied to the longitudinal binary data among the 3 study arms.|generalized estimating equations|||The average percentage of participants who were obese across follow-up were compared among the 3 arms using a generalized estimating equations approach for repeated binary measures. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 depending on their obesity status at each exam. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.52|1.23|<0.001
84624001|NCT01183689|168993008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.1||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|generalized estimating equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.10|1.12|0.008
84624002|NCT01183689|168993009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.45||the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups were assessed using a 2 degree of freedom F-test||0.45|-0.61|0.002
84624003|NCT01183689|168993009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among all 3 groups|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were based on analyses of variance.||1.08|0.02|0.002
84760583|NCT03036293|169277475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.1|3.96|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate. Yeo-Johnson transformation with λ=1,09 was applied. Statistical inference performed for transformed values.|estimate and CL are backtransformed|Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||3.96|1.1|<0.0001
84624004|NCT01183689|168993010|SUPERIORITY|A 2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA was used to compare mean differences in changes among the 3 arms of the study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.38||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.|ANOVA|The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.||Changes in units of the scale from baseline to 2 years||-0.38|-1.32|<0.001
84624005|NCT01183689|168993010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||0.37|-0.57|<0.001
84673957|NCT01993108|169083509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.497
84624006|NCT01183689|168993011|SUPERIORITY|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.71||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study, not adjusted for multiple comparisons among endpoints|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||0.71|-0.31|<0.001
84624007|NCT01183689|168993011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.39||This p-value is from a 2 degree freedom test of differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 groups.||1.39|0.37|0.002
84624008|NCT01183689|168993012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare mean differences among arms||2 degree F-test from analysis of variance applied to 2 year changes in scores from baseline||0.45|-0.71|<0.001
84624009|NCT01183689|168993012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.98||This p-value is from the omnibus 2 degree of freedom test for mean differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||1.98|0.82|<0.001
84624010|NCT01183689|168993013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom test from analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences in general health index values among the 3 arms||0.09|-0.24|0.24
84624011|NCT01183689|168993013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||This p-value is from the 2 degree of freedom test of differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the three arms.||0.02|-0.32|0.24
84624012|NCT01183689|168993014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms using analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean differences between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.81|-0.77|0.16
84624013|NCT01183689|168993014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.51||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compared mean differences among the 3 groups.||4.51|-0.09|0.16
84673958|NCT01993108|169083509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.814
84624014|NCT01183689|168993015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.23||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||4.23|-3.89|0.75
84624015|NCT01183689|168993015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|5.49||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test.|ANOVA||No significant differences between groups 1 and 3.|Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes among the 3 groups.||5.49|-2.61|0.75
84624016|NCT01183689|168993016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.28||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA||No significant difference between groups 1 and 2.|Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||0.28|-2.44|0.05
84624017|NCT01183689|168993016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.32||This p-value is from an F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.32|-3.00|0.05
84673959|NCT01993108|169083509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.593
84673960|NCT01993108|169083510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.926
84673961|NCT01993108|169083510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
84673962|NCT01993108|169083510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.852
84673963|NCT01993108|169083510|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.552
84673964|NCT01663259|169083517|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84673965|NCT01663259|169083518|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84673966|NCT01663259|169083519|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84673967|NCT01018264|169083523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value|This represents the effect size between solifenacin and placebo.|||||0.53
84673968|NCT01018264|169083524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84673969|NCT01018264|169083525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
84673970|NCT01018264|169083526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.27||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
84673971|NCT01018264|169083527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84540163|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.48|0.10|0.0132
84624018|NCT01183689|168993017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.45||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean changes between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||0.45|-1.37|0.03
84624019|NCT01183689|168993017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.3||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.30|-2.11|0.03
84624020|NCT01183689|168993018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 2 includes 0.|Mean differences from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were assessed using analysis of variance.||3.00|-0.84|0.20
84624021|NCT01183689|168993018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.35||This p-value is from an analysis of variance comparing all 3 groups.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 includes 0.|Analysis of variance was used to compare differences among the 3 groups.||1.35|-1.45|0.20
84624022|NCT01183689|168993019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance, with no adjustment for multiple outcomes|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean 2 year differences among 3 arms||0.10|-0.34|0.02
84624023|NCT01183689|168993019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.08|-0.52|0.02
84624024|NCT01183689|168993020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|60.0||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare 3 arms with respect to 2-year changes in kilocalories|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean differences among 3 arms in changes in kilocalories from baseline to year 2||60|-164|0.58
84624025|NCT01183689|168993020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.0|61.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to assess mean differences in 2 year changes in kilocalories intake among the 3 groups.||61|-162|0.58
84624026|NCT01183689|168993021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.02||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare changes in waist circumference from baseline among the three arms|ANOVA|No adjustment to degrees of freedom|Difference between groups 1 and 2: 95% confidence interval includes 0|2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA to compare differences among 3 arms||0.02|-2.55|0.001
84624027|NCT01183689|168993021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test for differences among the 3 arms|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 does not include 0.|Mean change in waist girth from baseline to year 2||-1.14|-3.69|0.001
84624028|NCT01183689|168993022|SUPERIORITY|Chi-squared test to compare the percentage of participants reporting self-weighing more than once per week among the 3 arms.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02||This is based on a 2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio test to compare differences among the 3 arms.|Regression, Logistic||The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing the rates of self-weighing at year 2 between groups 1 and 2 excludes 0.|Logistic regression to compare differences among the 3 groups||3.02|1.04|0.004
84624029|NCT01183689|168993022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.94||2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio statistic to compare differences among the 3 arms|Regression, Logistic|No adjustments|The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing groups 1 and 3 excludes 0.|Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the rates of daily self-weighing at 2 years among the 3 groups.||3.94|1.40|0.004
84624030|NCT01959503|168993024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
84624031|NCT01959503|168993025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|19.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.89|4.07|<0.0001
84624032|NCT01959503|168993026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|18.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.11|3.27|<0.0001
84624033|NCT04231669|168993132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Linear Mixed-effects regression|||||||0.05
84624034|NCT00807911|168993178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.994|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.994|0.434|0.047
84624035|NCT00807911|168993179|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.602||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.977|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.977|0.371|0.040
84673972|NCT00812929|169083528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.56|
84624036|NCT00807911|168993180|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|1.657|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.657|0.334|0.47
84673973|NCT00812929|169083528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.32|
84673974|NCT00812929|169083528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.18||||||||3.18|-2.52|
84673975|NCT00812929|169083528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|5.37||||||||5.37|-0.31|
84673976|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.638|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.75||||||2 Hours||5.75|-0.72|
84673977|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.58||||||9.5 Hours||2.58|-2.34|
84673978|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|5.84||||||2 Hours||5.84|-0.64|
84673979|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.22||||||9.5 Hours||3.22|-1.70|
84624037|NCT00807911|168993181|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.97|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.970|0.215|0.036
84624038|NCT00836589|168993195|NON_INFERIORITY|"Estimated SAEFR at 5 years is 92.5% with a 5% non-inferiority margin (87.5%).~Type I error (alpha) is 0.05 (one-sided for non-inferiority).~Statistical power is 80%."||||||0.002|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||0.0020
84624039|NCT03324607|168993205|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
84624040|NCT01018030|168993238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
84624041|NCT01018030|168993238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.07|-0.64|0.014
84624042|NCT00286442|168993266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.32||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.32|-0.68|<0.001
84624043|NCT00286442|168993266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.67|<0.001
84624044|NCT00286442|168993267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.37|<0.001
84624045|NCT00286442|168993267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.40|<0.001
84624046|NCT00286442|168993268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
84624047|NCT00286442|168993268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
84624048|NCT00286442|168993269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
84673980|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|6.03||||||2 Hours||6.03|-0.45|
84540164|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.54|0.16|0.0034
84673981|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.95||||||9.5 Hours||5.95|1.02|
84673982|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.54||||||2 Hours||9.54|3.06|
84673983|NCT00812929|169083529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.73||||||9.5 Hours||4.73|-0.19|
84673984|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.25|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.25|-1.37|
84624049|NCT00286442|168993269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
84624050|NCT00286442|168993270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
84624051|NCT00286442|168993270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
84624052|NCT00286442|168993271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
84624053|NCT00286442|168993271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
84624054|NCT00286442|168993272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-6.8|-20.7|<0.001
84624055|NCT00286442|168993272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-4.9|-18.9|<0.001
84624056|NCT00286442|168993273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.5|-23.9|<0.001
84624057|NCT00286442|168993273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.6|-24.1|<0.001
84624058|NCT00286442|168993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-11.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.0|-24.6|<0.001
84624059|NCT00286442|168993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-24.3|<0.001
84624060|NCT00286442|168993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-28.0|<0.001
84673985|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.8|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||1.80|-1.66|
84624061|NCT00286442|168993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-25.6|<0.001
84624062|NCT00286442|168993276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.9|-25.6|<0.001
84624063|NCT00286442|168993276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.6|-25.4|<0.001
84624064|NCT00286442|168993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-27.4|<0.001
84624065|NCT00286442|168993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-25.0|<0.001
84624066|NCT00286442|168993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.4|-26.7|<0.001
84624067|NCT00286442|168993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.8|-24.2|<0.001
84503654|NCT00106028|168758435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.014||||0.4154||95.0|-1.442|3.47|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.470|-1.442|0.4154
84503655|NCT00106028|168758436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884||||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|4.623|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.623|-2.855|0.6404
84624068|NCT00286442|168993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-10.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.2|-27.3|<0.001
84624069|NCT00286442|168993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-8.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.8|-25.9|<0.001
84624070|NCT00286442|168993280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.65||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.650|0.213|<0.001
84624071|NCT00286442|168993280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.405||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.708||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.708|0.231|0.002
84673986|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.63|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||2.63|-0.82|
84673987|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.43|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.43|-1.19|
84673988|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.95|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||2.95|-0.51|
84624072|NCT00286442|168993281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.302||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.635||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.635|0.143|0.002
84673989|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.9|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.90|-1.55|
84673990|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.82|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.82|-0.80|
84673991|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.03|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||5.03|1.57|
84673992|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.62|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.62|-1.83|
84624073|NCT00286442|168993281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.510|0.109|<0.001
84624074|NCT00286442|168993282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-7.4|0.634
84624075|NCT00286442|168993282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-10.5|0.136
84624076|NCT00286442|168993283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.0|-6.9|0.274
84624077|NCT00286442|168993283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA||Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-9.1|0.046
84624078|NCT00286442|168993284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.655
84624079|NCT00286442|168993284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.645
84624080|NCT00286442|168993285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-6.3|0.748
84624081|NCT00286442|168993285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.7|0.432
84624082|NCT00286442|168993286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.8|0.427
84624083|NCT00286442|168993286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.5|-4.6|0.746
84673993|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.48|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||5.48|0.86|
84673994|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.84|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||3.84|0.38|
84673995|NCT00812929|169083530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.44|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||3.44|-0.00|
84673996|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.21|0.71|
84624084|NCT00286442|168993287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.2|-5.0|0.727
84624085|NCT00286442|168993287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601||||1.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-4.5|1.6
84673997|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.06|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||2.06|0.59|
84673998|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.43|0.93|
84673999|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.48|0.81|
84624086|NCT00286442|168993288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-0.15|0.066
84624087|NCT00286442|168993288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-0.74|0.180
84503656|NCT00106028|168758437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|3.179|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.179|-6.499|0.4978
84624088|NCT00286442|168993289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.68|-5.02|0.944
84624089|NCT00286442|168993289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.40|-7.40|0.316
84624090|NCT00286442|168993290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|4.77||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.77|-5.42|0.901
84624091|NCT00286442|168993290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.68|-6.59|0.578
84624092|NCT00286442|168993291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-2.67|0.708
84624093|NCT00286442|168993291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.21|-2.44|0.601
84624094|NCT00286442|168993292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.72|-1.48|0.398
84624095|NCT00286442|168993292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.69||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.69|-1.56|0.425
84624096|NCT00286442|168993293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.23|0.50|0.018
84624097|NCT00286442|168993293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.60|-0.15|0.067
84624098|NCT00286442|168993294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|-0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.009|-0.064|0.011
84624099|NCT00286442|168993294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.075|<0.001
84624100|NCT00286442|168993295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.070|<0.001
84624101|NCT00286442|168993295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.062|0.004
84624102|NCT00286442|168993296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.011|-0.068|0.007
84624103|NCT00286442|168993296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|-0.008||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.008|-0.066|0.011
84624104|NCT00286442|168993297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.080|<0.001
84624105|NCT00286442|168993297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.015||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.015|-0.072|0.003
84624106|NCT00286442|168993298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.005|-0.097|0.078
84624107|NCT00286442|168993298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.047||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.047|-0.056|0.860
84624108|NCT00286442|168993299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.106|0.048
84624109|NCT00286442|168993299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.05||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.050|-0.057|0.889
84624110|NCT00286442|168993300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.336||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.642||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.642|0.030|0.031
84624111|NCT00286442|168993300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.611||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.611|-0.002|0.051
84624112|NCT00286442|168993301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.384||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.384|-0.209|0.563
84674000|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.66|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.66|1.01|
84674001|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.25|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.25|0.86|
84674002|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.69|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||3.69|1.19|
84674003|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|10.94|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||10.94|2.75|
84674004|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.64|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.64|1.00|
84674005|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||6.48|2.00|
84674006|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.87|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.87|1.07|
84674007|NCT00812929|169083531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|12.71|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||12.71|2.90|
84726214|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2883||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.547|7.597|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.597|-9.547|0.821
84602061|NCT01106859|168955036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of Zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
84602062|NCT01106859|168955038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.5000
84602063|NCT01106859|168955038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0156
84602064|NCT01106859|168955038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0001
84602065|NCT01007435|168955047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|7.14||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||7.14|3.19|<0.0001
84602066|NCT01007435|168955047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.55||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + placebo to methotrexate treatment groups.||5.55|2.47|<0.0001
84602067|NCT01007435|168955047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.11||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons. This comparison came after the break in statistical hierarchy.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 4 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||4.11|1.80|<0.0001
84602068|NCT03327220|168955121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|1.3||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that true iovera° mean was greater than or equal to the true standard of care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that true iovera° mean was less than true standard of care mean.||3.2|-0.6|0.0841
84624113|NCT00286442|168993301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.41||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.410|-0.188|0.467
84624114|NCT00286442|168993302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.501||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.501|-0.127|0.243
84624115|NCT00286442|168993302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.595||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.595|-0.037|0.083
84624116|NCT00286442|168993303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.463||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.463|-0.152|0.321
84674008|NCT04589559|169083563|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in cardiac-related interoceptive fear.|||0.67|-3.67|0.152
84674009|NCT04589559|169083564|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-6.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in trait anxiety.|||-0.69|-11.71|0.031
84674010|NCT04589559|169083565|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.9||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in negative affect.|||2.21|-6.01|0.323
84674011|NCT04589559|169083566|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change in the measure|0.58||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A positive value of the estimation parameter of mean change in the measure indicates an increase in heart rate variability.|||1.33|-0.16|0.112
84674012|NCT03217136|169083567|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|41.1||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||41.1|-2.6|
84674013|NCT03217136|169083568|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.9||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.9|-12.9|
84674014|NCT03217136|169083569|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|4.93||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||4.93|-26.67|
84760584|NCT03036293|169277475|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence limits were prespecified as \[-2.763; 2.763\]|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.64|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.33|-0.64|0.0008
84674015|NCT03217136|169083570|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.18|-2.89||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||-2.89|-30.18|
84674016|NCT03217136|169083571|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|9.61||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.61|-23.66|
84674017|NCT03217136|169083572|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.59|1.39||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||1.39|-27.59|
84674018|NCT03670810|169083573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.73|2.56|<0.001
84674019|NCT03670810|169083573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|3.07|<0.001
84674020|NCT03670810|169083574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.76|2.10|<.001
84674021|NCT03670810|169083574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.67|4.13|<.001
84674022|NCT03670810|169083575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|2.05|<0.001
84674023|NCT03670810|169083575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|2.04|<0.001
84674024|NCT03670810|169083576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|2.11|<0.001
84674025|NCT03670810|169083576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.53|<0.001
84674026|NCT03670810|169083577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.05|<0.001
84674027|NCT03670810|169083577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|2.77|<0.001
84674028|NCT03670810|169083578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.04|1.30|0.004
84674029|NCT03670810|169083578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.94|2.41|<0.001
84674030|NCT03670810|169083579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|1.80|<0.001
84674031|NCT03670810|169083579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.97|<0.001
84674032|NCT03670810|169083580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.48|<0.001
84674033|NCT03670810|169083580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|1.65|<0.001
84760585|NCT03036293|169277476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.54|-0.08|0.08
84674034|NCT03670810|169083581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|1.10|0.031
84674035|NCT03670810|169083581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.25|2.40|<0.001
84674036|NCT03670810|169083582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|1.29|<0.001
84760586|NCT03036293|169277476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.66|0.02|0.044
84760587|NCT03036293|169277477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.78|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.78|-0.4|0.21
84760588|NCT03036293|169277477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.26|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.26|0.14|0.027
84760589|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.89|0.98|0.065
84760590|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||2.33|1.22|0.0015
84503657|NCT00106028|168758438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.534||||0.027||95.0|0.41|6.658|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.658|0.410|0.0270
84624117|NCT00286442|168993303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.577||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.577|-0.041|0.089
84624118|NCT00286442|168993304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.42||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.420|-0.132|0.305
84624119|NCT00286442|168993304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.468||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.468|-0.086|0.177
84624120|NCT00286442|168993305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.680|0.107|0.007
84624121|NCT00286442|168993305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.550|-0.025|0.074
84624122|NCT00286442|168993306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.117|17.864||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||17.864|2.117|<0.001
84760591|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.7
84624123|NCT00286442|168993306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.322||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.564||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||15.564|1.820|0.002
84624124|NCT00286442|168993307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.271|11.345||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||11.345|3.271|<0.001
84674037|NCT03670810|169083582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|1.21|0.001
84760592|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||1
84624125|NCT00286442|168993307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|8.296||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.296|2.388|<0.001
84674038|NCT03670810|169083583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.33|<0.001
84674039|NCT03670810|169083583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.30|<0.001
84760593|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.01
84760594|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.57
84760595|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.25
84760596|NCT03036293|169277478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.001
84760597|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.23|0.64|0.46
84760598|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.79|0.9|0.17
84760599|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.38
84760600|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.67
84760601|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.85
84760602|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.71
84760603|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.29
84760604|NCT03036293|169277479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.007
84760605|NCT03036293|169277480|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.00002||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||0.33|-0.00002|0.314
84624126|NCT00286442|168993308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|7.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.717|2.327|<0.001
84624127|NCT00286442|168993308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.814|5.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.979|1.814|<0.001
84624128|NCT00286442|168993309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.428|6.934||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.934|2.428|<0.001
84624129|NCT00286442|168993309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.545|7.312||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.312|2.545|<0.001
84624130|NCT00286442|168993310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.554|12.282||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.282|2.554|<0.001
84624131|NCT00286442|168993310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.645|12.684||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.684|2.645|<0.001
84624132|NCT00286442|168993311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.449||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|6.797||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.797|0.883|0.085
84624133|NCT00286442|168993311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|8.046||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.046|1.087|0.034
84624134|NCT00286442|168993312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.404||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.803||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.803|0.340|0.639
84624135|NCT00286442|168993312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|4.223||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||4.223|0.218|0.956
84624136|NCT00286442|168993313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.27|-0.63|0.439
84624137|NCT00286442|168993313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.04|-0.86|0.075
84624138|NCT00286442|168993314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.83||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.83|-0.26|0.305
84624139|NCT00286442|168993314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.47||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.47|-0.63|0.788
84760606|NCT03036293|169277480|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||1|0|0.031
84674040|NCT03670810|169083584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.79|<0.001
84760607|NCT03036293|169277481|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00001||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.00001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00001|-3|0.0021
84760608|NCT03036293|169277481|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00002||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.00002|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00002|-1|0.0056
84760609|NCT05048719|169277482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.13|<0.001
84760610|NCT05048719|169277482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.12|-1.85|<0.001
84760611|NCT05048719|169277482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.98|-1.75|<0.001
84760612|NCT05048719|169277482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
84760613|NCT05048719|169277482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.02|<0.001
84503658|NCT00106028|168758439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.065||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.868|4.998|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.998|-2.868|0.5925
84503659|NCT00106028|168758440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.193||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.604|6.991|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.991|-4.604|0.6840
84503660|NCT00106028|168758441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.0680
84624140|NCT00286442|168993315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.63|-0.58|0.930
84624141|NCT00286442|168993315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.43|-0.79|0.559
84624142|NCT00286442|168993316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.66||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.66|-0.66|0.996
84624143|NCT00286442|168993316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.38|-0.94|0.407
84624144|NCT02174731|168993331|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean changes.|||0.18|0.01|<0.001
84624145|NCT02174731|168993332|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.25|||MMRM||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean change.|||0.25|0.03|<0.001
84624146|NCT02174731|168993333|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|0.00|<0.001
84624147|NCT02174731|168993334|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|-0.01|<0.001
84674041|NCT03670810|169083584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.20|<0.001
84674042|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|53.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||53.37|0.77|0.086
84760614|NCT05048719|169277483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.47|0.626
84760615|NCT05048719|169277483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.18|<0.001
84760616|NCT05048719|169277483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.08|<0.001
84760617|NCT05048719|169277483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
84760618|NCT05048719|169277483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.36|<0.001
84760619|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|20.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.75|2.21|<0.001
84760620|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|117.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||117.16|9.92|<0.001
84624148|NCT02174731|168993335|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was also declared as the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0 and p-value was lower than 0.05.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||-0.27|-0.39|<0.001
84624149|NCT02174731|168993336|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36|||ANCOVA|MAR-based multiple imputation.|Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.36|0.04|<0.001
84624150|NCT02174731|168993337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
84624151|NCT02174731|168993338|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the upper bound of the HR 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa was less than or equal to 1.8. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided. The CIs were from Wald and ties were calculated using the Efron method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.64|<0.001
84624152|NCT00079040|168993341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|73.6||||||||73.6|52.4|
84624153|NCT00910104|168993395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.3||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression. Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||37.3|2.0|=0.001
84624154|NCT00910104|168993395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|17.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|83.0||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression adjusted for baseline covariates (including duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) and baseline DB). Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||83|3.7|0.001
84624155|NCT00910104|168993395|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion with reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \<=2.0 mg/dL).||||<0.0001
84503661|NCT00106028|168758442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4121||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.4121
84624156|NCT03583099|168993396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.0|||generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-6.9|0.47
84624157|NCT03583099|168993397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|20.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||20.7|0.1|0.05
84624158|NCT03583099|168993398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.2|-6.7|0.75
84624159|NCT03583099|168993399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||6.1|-11.5|0.54
84624160|NCT03583099|168993400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.3|-2.1|0.16
84674043|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|59.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||59.08|0.89|0.065
84624161|NCT03583099|168993401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.1|-6.4|0.82
84624162|NCT03583099|168993402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-13.0|0.06
84624163|NCT03583099|168993403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||9.5|-14.5|0.68
84624164|NCT03583099|168993404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|33.38|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||33.38|-6.72|0.19
84624165|NCT03583099|168993405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.85||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|19.52|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||19.52|-17.82|0.93
84674044|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||6.68|1.42|0.004
84624166|NCT03583099|168993406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|24.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||24.50|-10.84|0.45
84624167|NCT03583099|168993407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|25.78|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.78|-10.58|0.41
84624168|NCT03583099|168993408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|16.88|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.88|-13.17|0.81
84624169|NCT03583099|168993409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|31.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||31.40|-15.38|0.51
84624170|NCT03583099|168993410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-10.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|14.09|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.09|-34.78|0.41
84624171|NCT03583099|168993411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|23.16|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.16|-31.03|0.76
84624172|NCT03583099|168993412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.76||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|23.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.83|-25.36|0.95
84760621|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|196.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||196.24|11.90|<0.001
84624173|NCT03583099|168993413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.36||The p-value is adjusted for baseline CAT score.|Mixed Models Analysis||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.36|-2.01|0.55
84624174|NCT03583099|168993414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.4|-0.1|0.05
84624175|NCT03583099|168993415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.81||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|25.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.08|-21.47|0.88
84624176|NCT03583099|168993416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.62||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|11.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.97|-23.21|0.53
84624177|NCT03583099|168993417|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|28.63|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||28.63|-7.27|0.24
84624178|NCT03583099|168993418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.65|6.55|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.55|-33.65|0.19
84674045|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|14.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||14.44|3.43|<0.001
84624179|NCT03583099|168993419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.38||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.27|-12.50|0.95
84624180|NCT03583099|168993420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.97||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.17|-16.12|0.14
84624181|NCT03583099|168993421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|11.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.27|-13.39|0.87
84624182|NCT03583099|168993422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-15.9|0.81
84624183|NCT03583099|168993423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-7.2|0.63
84674046|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min Postdose 100 mg||2.03|0.98|0.065
84760622|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|153.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||153.64|13.61|<0.001
84760623|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|294.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||294.48|20.26|<0.001
84674047|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min. Postdose 200 mg||2.52|1.25|0.001
84674048|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 100 mg||3.06|1.74|<0.001
84674049|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 200 mg||2.88|1.64|<0.001
84624184|NCT03583099|168993424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-2.5|0.17
84624185|NCT03583099|168993425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.3|-13.0|0.58
84624186|NCT03583099|168993426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-8.3|0.89
84624187|NCT03583099|168993427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.5|-9.2|0.16
84624188|NCT03583099|168993428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-10.9|0.62
84624189|NCT03583099|168993429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.64||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.27|13.99|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.99|-17.27|0.84
84624190|NCT03583099|168993430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.09||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|16.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.80|-4.63|0.27
84624191|NCT03583099|168993431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|12.41|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.41|-6.59|0.55
84624192|NCT03583099|168993432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.37||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.83|-9.09|0.69
84624193|NCT03583099|168993433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.36||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.85|-8.13|0.93
84624194|NCT03583099|168993434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.01||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|2.95|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.95|-10.97|0.26
84624195|NCT03583099|168993435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|10.21|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.21|-14.28|0.74
84760624|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.48|0.678
84624196|NCT03583099|168993436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
84624197|NCT03583099|168993437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.6||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.6|-4.3|0.46
84624198|NCT03583099|168993438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.1|-3.0|0.50
84624199|NCT03583099|168993439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-6.8|0.96
84624200|NCT03583099|168993440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.5|-3.0|0.40
84624201|NCT03583099|168993441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.0|-4.3|0.96
84674050|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min 100 mg||1.71|0.71|0.651
84674051|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min. 200 mg||1.98|0.85|0.220
84760625|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|17.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.24|2.19|<0.001
84503662|NCT00106028|168758443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3658
84624202|NCT03583099|168993442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
84624203|NCT03583099|168993443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-15.2|0.46
84624204|NCT03583099|168993444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-4.7|0.37
84624205|NCT03583099|168993445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.4|-6.0|0.75
84624206|NCT03583099|168993446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.9|-18.3|0.08
84624207|NCT03583099|168993447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.1|-10.6|0.11
84624208|NCT03583099|168993448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.9|-5.1|0.89
84760626|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|29.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.79|2.55|<0.001
84760627|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|22.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.30|3.05|<0.001
84760628|NCT05048719|169277484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|43.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.01|4.51|<0.001
84760629|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.90|2.93|<0.001
84760630|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.57|82.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||82.69|7.57|<0.001
84760631|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|316.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||316.63|12.26|<0.001
84760632|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.56|259.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||259.97|17.56|<0.001
84760633|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|628.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||628.09|26.72|<0.001
84624209|NCT03583099|168993449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.0|-17.5|0.05
84624210|NCT03583099|168993450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|16.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|36.42|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||36.42|-2.89|0.09
84624211|NCT03583099|168993451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.9|-8.6|0.56
84624212|NCT03583099|168993452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|40.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||40.20|-19.39|0.49
84760634|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.43|0.802
84760635|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.31|1.16|0.026
84760636|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.51|1.83|0.006
84760637|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|32.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.71|2.67|<0.001
84760638|NCT05048719|169277485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|79.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.70|4.02|<0.001
84760639|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-32.7|<0.001
84760640|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7|-53.4|<0.001
84760641|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-52.7|<0.001
84760642|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-53.5|<0.001
84760643|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.2|-55.3|<0.001
84760644|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|-10.6|<0.001
84624213|NCT03583099|168993453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||22.1|-0.5|0.06
84624214|NCT03583099|168993454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.41||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|11.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.79|-10.97|0.94
84624215|NCT03583099|168993455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-6.5|0.57
84624216|NCT03583099|168993456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|20.73|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||20.73|-18.01|0.89
84624217|NCT03583099|168993457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-12.1|0.65
84624218|NCT03583099|168993458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|29.96|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||29.96|-5.00|0.16
84760645|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-31.4|<0.001
84624219|NCT03583099|168993459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-3.6|0.29
84624220|NCT03583099|168993460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|18.62|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.62|-8.07|0.44
84624221|NCT03583099|168993461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.5|-7.6|0.62
84624222|NCT03583099|168993462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-23.18|0.39
84624223|NCT03583099|168993463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.8|-13.9|0.08
84624224|NCT03583099|168993464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-11.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.06|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.00|-29.06|0.23
84674052|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 100 mg||1.54|0.78|0.593
84624225|NCT03583099|168993465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.14||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|4.13||The p-value adjusts for baseline CAT score.|Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.13|-6.42|0.97
84624226|NCT03583099|168993466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.003||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.85|-1.86|0.47
84624227|NCT03583099|168993467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|17.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|33.34|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||33.34|2.34|0.02
84624228|NCT03583099|168993468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.6|-2.0|0.12
84624229|NCT03583099|168993469|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test. This test is appropriate since only one outcome per practice was seen.||||||1.0
84674053|NCT03670810|169083586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 200 mg||1.98|1.04|0.030
84674054|NCT03670810|169083587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.092
84674055|NCT03670810|169083587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.211
84760646|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-30.7|0.002
84760647|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-31.4|<0.001
84760648|NCT05048719|169277486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.1|-33.2|<0.001
84760649|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-3.7|0.153
84760650|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-6.4|<0.001
84624230|NCT03583099|168993470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|26.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||26.79|-22.67|0.87
84624231|NCT03583099|168993471|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
84624232|NCT03583099|168993472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|13.28|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.28|-24.33|0.56
84624233|NCT03583099|168993473|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
84624234|NCT03583099|168993474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|32.37|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||32.37|-7.05|0.21
84624235|NCT03583099|168993475|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
84624236|NCT03583099|168993476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-18.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.08|-38.66|0.08
84674056|NCT03670810|169083588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|2.01|<0.001
84674057|NCT03670810|169083588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|2.12|<0.001
84674058|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.056
84760651|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.8|<0.001
84624237|NCT03583099|168993477|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
84624238|NCT03583099|168993478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.67||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|12.71|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.71|-14.06|0.92
84624239|NCT03583099|168993480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.47||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.77|-15.72|0.29
84624240|NCT03583099|168993482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.87||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|11.39|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.39|-17.14|0.69
84624241|NCT03583099|168993483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.15||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|12.76|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.76|-39.06|0.32
84624242|NCT03583099|168993484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-15.5|0.98
84624243|NCT03583099|168993486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.1|-7.0|0.55
84624244|NCT03583099|168993487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.19|12.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.97|-30.19|0.43
84624245|NCT03583099|168993488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.5|-1.4|0.10
84674059|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.267
84674060|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 100 mg||||0.003
84674061|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 200 mg||||0.002
84674062|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Feeling/Concerns 100 mg||||0.014
84674063|NCT03670810|169083589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings/Concerns 200 mg||||0.018
84674064|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment - Agree Strongly Agree||1.62|0.96|0.101
84760652|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.4|<0.001
84760653|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.9|-9.9|<0.001
84760654|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.0|0.914
84674065|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment Agree/Strongly Agree||1.67|0.99|0.063
84674066|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.16|0.68|0.376
84760655|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-4.7|0.015
84760656|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-8.1|<0.001
84624246|NCT03583099|168993489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.82||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|21.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||21.92|-20.92|0.94
84760657|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-7.8|<0.001
84760658|NCT05048719|169277487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.3|<0.001
84760659|NCT00691483|169277515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.56||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||9.56|3.80|<0.0001
84624247|NCT03583099|168993490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-14.4|0.55
84624248|NCT03583099|168993492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-9.3|0.80
84624249|NCT03583099|168993494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.8|-9.7|0.18
84624250|NCT03583099|168993495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.06|25.72|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.72|-26.06|0.99
84624251|NCT03583099|168993496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-12.0|0.59
84624252|NCT03583099|168993498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.4|-14.5|0.82
84624253|NCT03583099|168993500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|19.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.3|-4.1|0.20
84624254|NCT03583099|168993502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.3|-5.5|0.36
84624255|NCT03583099|168993504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|17.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.1|-7.9|0.47
84624256|NCT03583099|168993506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-7.8|0.88
84624257|NCT03583099|168993508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-12.0|0.27
84624258|NCT03583099|168993509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.92|38.04|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||38.04|-47.92|0.82
84624259|NCT03583099|168993510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-14.5|0.87
84674067|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.03|0.60|0.082
84503663|NCT00106028|168758444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3408
84503664|NCT00106028|168758447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253||95.0|0.31|0.922||All Fractures|Cox proportional hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
84624260|NCT03583099|168993511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-37.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|-3.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-3.5|-71.8|0.03
84624261|NCT03583099|168993512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|10.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.3|-5.6|0.56
84624262|NCT03583099|168993513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|1.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.27|-47.40|0.06
84624263|NCT03583099|168993514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.4|-4.0|0.39
84624264|NCT03583099|168993515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.72||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|14.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.80|-18.24|0.84
84624265|NCT03583099|168993516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.9|-2.9|0.42
84624266|NCT03583099|168993517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-42.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-9.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-9.92|-74.27|0.01
84624267|NCT03583099|168993518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.1|-4.2|0.47
84624268|NCT03583099|168993519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.27||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|13.18|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.18|-37.72|0.34
84624269|NCT03583099|168993520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-3.1|0.39
84624270|NCT03583099|168993522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.1|-5.5|0.59
84540165|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.04|0.0510
84624271|NCT03583099|168993524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.8|-8.2|0.94
84624272|NCT03583099|168993525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.4|-12.2|0.93
84624273|NCT03583099|168993526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|5.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.7|-22.0|0.25
84624274|NCT03583099|168993527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|6.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.0|-12.7|0.48
84624275|NCT03583099|168993528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-6.3|0.45
84674068|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.62|0.96|0.096
84760660|NCT00691483|169277516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.55||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||7.55|2.62|<0.0001
84503665|NCT00106028|168758447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.922||All Non-Vertebral Fractures|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
84503666|NCT00106028|168758447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.95||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.950|0.250|0.0501
84503667|NCT00106028|168758447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.41||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.410|0.262|0.2141
84503668|NCT00106028|168758448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416||95.0|0.348|0.98||All Fractures|Wald test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
84503669|NCT00106028|168758448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.98||Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
84503670|NCT00106028|168758448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.076||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.076|0.274|0.0799
84540166|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.03|0.0608
84624276|NCT03583099|168993530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.9|-8.4|0.48
84624277|NCT03583099|168993531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|19.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.5|-20.4|0.97
84624278|NCT03583099|168993532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-0.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.6|-23.5|0.04
84674069|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.80|1.06|0.016
84674070|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Prefer This Treatment||1.49|0.84|0.445
84760661|NCT00691483|169277517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.13||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.13|2.96|<0.0001
84760662|NCT00691483|169277518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|8.75||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.75|3.66|<0.0001
84503671|NCT00106028|168758448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|1.532||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.532|0.304|0.682
84503672|NCT00106028|168758449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.678||||0.0318||95.0|-22.325|-1.031|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-1.031|-22.325|0.0318
84503673|NCT00106028|168758450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|11.536|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.536|-11.401|0.9907
84540167|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.48|-0.10|0.2702
84540168|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.69||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.69|0.11|0.0249
84540169|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.55||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.55|-0.06|0.1853
84760663|NCT00691483|169277518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.58||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.58|2.58|<0.0001
84624279|NCT03583099|168993533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.3|-5.8|0.39
84624280|NCT03583099|168993534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-14.9|0.06
84674071|NCT03670810|169083590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.89|0.243
84674072|NCT03670810|169083591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.142
84674073|NCT03670810|169083592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|1.42|0.004
84674074|NCT03670810|169083592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.47|2.22|<0.001
84540170|NCT04856917|168830936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.5||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.50|-0.11|0.2974
84540171|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.63|-6.62|0.3390
84540172|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|1.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.59|-6.79|0.3243
84624281|NCT03583099|168993535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.0|-8.8|0.82
84674075|NCT03670810|169083593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.74|<0.001
84624282|NCT03583099|168993536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-6.6|0.86
84624283|NCT03583099|168993537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|2.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.5|-17.3|0.14
84624284|NCT03583099|168993539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-14.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|8.22|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.22|-37.54|0.21
84624285|NCT03583099|168993540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast|||||2.7|-2.0|0.76
84624286|NCT03583099|168993543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-2.1|0.66
84624287|NCT04890652|168993546|OTHER|single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
84624288|NCT04890652|168993547|OTHER|Single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
84624289|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.25||LS Means(LSM), standard errors(SE), confidence intervals(CI), \& p-values come from an ANCOVA model with CFB as the dependent variable \& treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-3.56|0.0240
84624290|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.38||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-4.68|0.0004
84624291|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.14||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.44|0.0010
84624292|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.89||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.89|-5.20|<0.0001
84624293|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0058||95.0|-4.0|-0.68||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.00|0.0058
84624294|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.41||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-4.65|0.0003
84624295|NCT03192176|168993562|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.76||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.76|-4.06|0.0042
84624296|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.35||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-3.30|0.0154
84674076|NCT03670810|169083593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|2.50|<0.001
84624297|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.67||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.60|0.0043
84624298|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.83||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-3.76|0.0023
84624299|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
84674077|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.36|0.75|0.953
84674078|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.41|0.78|0.768
84674079|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Phonophobia||0.71|0.39|<0.001
84674080|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Regression, Linear|||Phonophobia||0.62|0.34|<0.001
84624300|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.58||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.52|0.0064
84624301|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||-2.6|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.04|0.0005
84624302|NCT03192176|168993563|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-3.52|0.0063
84624303|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.84|0.0215
84624304|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.01|0.0017
84624305|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.21|<0.0001
84624306|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.37|<0.0001
84624307|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.81|0.0322
84624308|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.0017
84760664|NCT00691483|169277519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.67||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.67|2.58|<0.0001
84624309|NCT03192176|168993564|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.31||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.08|0.0004
84624310|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.67|0.2324
84624311|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.80|0.0736
84624312|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.98|0.0080
84624313|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.22||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.07|0.0028
84624314|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.58|0.4647
84674081|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.63|0.36|<0.001
84674082|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.71|0.40|<0.001
84674083|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||1.25|0.17|0.129
84674084|NCT03670810|169083594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||2.43|0.52|0.769
84760665|NCT00746252|169277521|OTHER|||||||0.495||||||Threshold of significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean weight gain between groups.||||.495
84624315|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.1||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.92|0.0160
84624316|NCT03192176|168993565|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.78|0.0901
84624317|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||0.20|-2.92|0.0865
84760666|NCT03860961|169277530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9238||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cluster-randomized trial, cluster=practice, maximum 25 patients/practice. Assuming 14 pts/practice, cluster size coefficient of variation of 0.5, intra-cluster correlation (ρ) of 0.04, design effect 1.51, and 59.8% of Arm A patients meeting the criteria provides 80% power for a two-sided α=0.05 two-sample test of proportions to detect a 15% absolute improvement in percentage of patients meeting the criteria with 544 patients (after adjusted for withdrawal and loss to follow-up).||||0.9238
84760667|NCT03860961|169277531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5609||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included baseline CVD risk score, practice as random covariate (participants nested within practice) and treatment arm.||||||0.5609
84760668|NCT00493870|169277553|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
84760669|NCT00883337|169277561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5953||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"The study was sized to detect a difference between Teriflunomide and Rebif groups in the time to failure at a significance level of 0.025 with a power of 81%.~Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5953
84760670|NCT00883337|169277561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5190
84760671|NCT00527605|169277568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.23|-8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Dutasteride arm minus placebo arm.|||-8.22|-20.23|<0.0001
84503674|NCT00106028|168758451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.686||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.276|5.903|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||5.903|-15.276|0.3826
84624318|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.10|-4.22|0.0009
84624319|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-1.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.94|-5.06|<0.00001
84760672|NCT02111564|169277604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.52|0.136
84760673|NCT02111564|169277605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.23|0.84|0.124
84760674|NCT02111564|169277606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.42|0.62|0.751
84760675|NCT02111564|169277607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.89|0.22|0.023
84674085|NCT05446909|169083618|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84760676|NCT02111564|169277608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.97|0.54|0.033
84760677|NCT02111564|169277609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.02|0.60|0.073
84760678|NCT02111564|169277610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.58|0.156
84760679|NCT03468309|169277611|SUPERIORITY|T-test was used to compare means at baseline and 12-weeks|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84760680|NCT03468309|169277612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84760681|NCT03468309|169277613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Assumption of sphericity had been violated X2(2)=13.61, p\<.01 so Huynh-Feldt correction was used||||||<0.05
84760682|NCT03468309|169277614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84760683|NCT04986202|169277618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.02||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||2.02|-3.86|0.537
84624320|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.47|-5.63|<0.00001
84624321|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.63|-2.55|0.2360
84624322|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.4||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.80|-3.92|0.0032
84624323|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.19|-4.29|0.0006
84624324|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-2.86|0.1318
84624325|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.04|-4.30|0.0014
84624326|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.58|-4.82|0.0001
84624327|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.00|-5.30|<0.0001
84624328|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.15|-3.15|0.0752
84624329|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-3.38|0.0343
84624330|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.71|-3.95|0.0049
84624331|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.20|-3.50|0.0285
84674086|NCT05446909|169083619|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84674087|NCT05446909|169083620|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84674088|NCT05446909|169083621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84674089|NCT05446909|169083622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.754
84674090|NCT05446909|169083623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.985
84674091|NCT05446909|169083624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.877
84674092|NCT02915029|169083654|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested was that the intervention will increase patient activation.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.5|||ANCOVA|Primary outcome was change in PAM total score, adjusted for baseline level. Adjusting for family clustering with generalized estimated equations.|This reflects the between-group difference for the within-person change scores in PAM total score adjusting for baseline values per person.|Group 1(usual care) is the comparison group, group 2 is the intervention group.|Applied generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for within family (household) clustering.|15.5|1.9|0.01
84674093|NCT05944250|169083681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84674094|NCT05944250|169083685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
84674095|NCT05944250|169083685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
84674096|NCT05944250|169083685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||1
84674097|NCT05944250|169083685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.15
84674098|NCT05944250|169083686|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
84674099|NCT05944250|169083686|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
84760684|NCT04986202|169277618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.09||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||1.09|-4.71|0.221
84503675|NCT00106028|168758452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.629|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.089|-15.169|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-15.169|-38.089|<0.0001
84624332|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.37|-4.69|0.0004
84624333|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-5.14|<0.0001
84674100|NCT05944250|169083686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||0.59
84760685|NCT04986202|169277619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|10.5||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||10.5|-5.7|0.559
84624334|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||-2.28|-5.65|<0.0001
84674101|NCT05944250|169083686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.09
84760686|NCT04986202|169277619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||13.3|-2.7|0.195
84760687|NCT04986202|169277620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.41|-4.71|0.289
84624335|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.37|-3.74|0.0169
84624336|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.73|-4.04|0.0049
84624337|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.18|-4.48|0.0008
84624338|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-3.36|0.0428
84624339|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.34|-4.65|0.0004
84624340|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.84||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.58|-4.88|0.00001
84624341|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.37|-5.73|<0.0001
84624342|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.28|-3.64|0.0225
84624343|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.19|-4.49|0.0008
84624344|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
84624345|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.31|-2.80|0.1168
84624346|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.03|-4.15|0.0012
84624347|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.42|-4.54|0.0002
84624348|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.28|-5.44|<0.0001
84624349|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.42|-3.58|0.0134
84674102|NCT00079274|169083711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.68|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.68|0.92|0.15
84624350|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-3.76|0.0057
84674103|NCT00079274|169083712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.92|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.92|0.85|0.25
84674104|NCT00079274|169083713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
84674105|NCT00079274|169083714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
84624351|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.96|-4.06|0.0016
84624352|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.19|-2.94|0.0843
84624353|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.77|-3.90|0.0035
84624354|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
84624355|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-2.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.10|-5.28|<0.0001
84624356|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.16|-3.33|0.0315
84624357|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.75|0.0063
84503676|NCT00106028|168758453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.04||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.433|26.512|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||26.512|-8.433|0.3075
84540173|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|5.91||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.91|-5.91|1.0000
84624358|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.25|0.0007
84624359|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.29|-2.89|0.1090
84624360|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.95|-4.14|0.0018
84624361|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.34|-4.54|0.0004
84624362|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.15|-5.40|<0.0001
84674106|NCT01302392|169083750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.249||Based on 1-sided test.|Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by the number of previous therapies (3 vs 4 vs ≥ 5) and geographical region (Europe vs. non-Europe)||||1.249|0.760|0.4172
84674107|NCT01702233|169083758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All statistical analyses were of exploratory nature. A one-sided test of non-inferiority of Traumeel®S with respect to dexamethasone at level 0.025 was computed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as qualitative factor and the baseline value of the abduction rotation pain VAS for active external rotation as a covariate. The test decision was based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval . The non-inferiority margin was set to 13 mm on a 0-100 mm VAS scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5|||ANCOVA|||||97.5||<0.05
84726215|NCT03320941|169204555|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1111||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|10.706|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.706|-5.730|0.547
84726216|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4006||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.781|11.689|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.689|-1.781|0.148
84624363|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-3.50|0.0231
84624364|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.67|-3.86|0.0056
84624365|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.17|-4.35|0.0007
84624366|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.85|-2.35|0.3568
84624367|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-3.65|0.0129
84624368|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.97|-4.19|0.0018
84624369|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
84624370|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.27|-3.00|0.1004
84624371|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.35|-3.57|0.0173
84624372|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.77|-3.97|0.0038
84624373|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.48|-2.57|0.1767
84624374|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.16|-3.20|0.0308
84624375|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.00|-4.07|0.0013
84624376|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.36|-4.47|0.0003
84674108|NCT00376168|169083809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
84624377|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.2109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.56|-2.55|0.2109
84726217|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4645||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|7.855|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.855|-5.869|0.775
84726218|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0432||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.826|4.229|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.229|-7.826|0.556
84503677|NCT00106028|168758454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.039||||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.849|6.772|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.772|-16.849|0.3998
84503678|NCT00106028|168758455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.352||||0.1592||95.0|-0.845|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.140|-0.845|0.1592
84503679|NCT00106028|168758456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127||||0.2917||95.0|-0.111|0.365|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.365|-0.111|0.2917
84503680|NCT00106028|168758457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007||||0.9622||95.0|-0.304|0.319|||ANOVA|LS mean and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.319|-0.304|0.9622
84674109|NCT00376168|169083809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||threshold for statistical significance = 0.025|one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
84674110|NCT00376168|169083810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0041
84674111|NCT00376168|169083810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
84674112|NCT00376168|169083811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0010
84674113|NCT00376168|169083811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
84674114|NCT00376168|169083812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0460
84674115|NCT00376168|169083812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0031
84674116|NCT00835497|169083850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|86.5||||||90.0|81.8|91.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||91.6|81.8|
84674117|NCT00835497|169083851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.9|94.2|
84760688|NCT04986202|169277620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.13||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||2.13|-3.86|0.571
84503681|NCT00106028|168758458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.354|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.354|-0.336|0.9596
84602069|NCT03327220|168955122|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective met if the t-test for non-inferiority was statistically significant using a one-sided α = 0.025 level of statistical significance.|Difference in Means|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.1||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that Standard of Care mean minus the iovera° mean was greater than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 14 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in means was less than 14.||6.1|-2.3|<0.0001
84602070|NCT03327220|168955123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|0.5||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Pain in the Past 7 days - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||1.2|-0.2|0.0946
84760689|NCT04986202|169277620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||3.30|-3.80|0.890
84602071|NCT03327220|168955123|SUPERIORITY|Pain Right Now - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.|Difference in Means|0.4||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test,|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-0.6|0.2204
84602072|NCT03327220|168955124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.8||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||2.5|-4.0|0.3231
84602073|NCT00523705|168955125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.467|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||estimate of main effect of treatment in a linear mixed effects model.|Pilot data were examined at treatment endpoint for change from baseline. Statistical power was very low due to the small sample size.||||0.467
84602074|NCT01691885|168955131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, baseline, period and subject as a random effect.||||8.91|2.74|<0.001
84602075|NCT03989427|168955157|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.424||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|2.628||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on BPI scores .||"Null hypothesis is that the sequence of brushing first and flossing later has no effect on gingival inflammation.~No previous studies with Mean and SD were available. Hence, a pilot study was done. 30 participants were randomly assigned to Brush first and floss later (BF) group ; and Floss first brush later(FB) group. After 1 week there was cross-over. 80% power is required to detect mean difference in BPI scores."||2.628|0.221|0.022
84602076|NCT03989427|168955158|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|3.219|||ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on RMNPI index scores||"Null hypothesis:~The sequence of brushing and flossing has no effect on plaque scores~There were no previous studies with Mean and SD to calculate sample. So a pilot study was conducted. 30 participants were randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion to Brush-floss (GroupA) and Floss brush group (group B). Then after 1 week there was cross-over among the groups.2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect the mean difference in BPI scores."||3.219|-3.335|0.971
84602077|NCT01972308|168955159|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.64|
84602078|NCT01972308|168955160|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-1.38|
84602079|NCT01972308|168955161|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.33|
84602080|NCT01972308|168955162|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48||||||||0.48|-0.42|
84602081|NCT01972308|168955163|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.10|
84602082|NCT01972308|168955164|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.24|
84602083|NCT01562314|168955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|2.309|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.309|0.292|0.7532
84602084|NCT01562314|168955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.040|0.419|0.7032
84602085|NCT01180036|168955189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|55.4|||Chi-squared|||||55.4|24.6|0.001
84503682|NCT00106028|168758459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107||||0.34||95.0|-0.114|0.328|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.328|-0.114|0.3400
84503683|NCT00106028|168758460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.142|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.142|-0.084|0.6218
84503684|NCT00449930|168758468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) to be less than 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||||95.0|0.06|0.21|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and baseline value.|||0.21|0.06|
84503685|NCT00449930|168758469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.6|-4.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with diarrhea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% Confidence Interval (CI)."|||-4.2|-10.6|<0.001
84503686|NCT00449930|168758470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.032||95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with nausea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||-0.2|-3.9|0.032
84503687|NCT00449930|168758471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.103||95.0|-4.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with abdominal pain.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.3|-4.0|0.103
84760690|NCT04986202|169277620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.46||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||2.46|-4.55|0.558
84760691|NCT04986202|169277621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|6.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||6.6|-11.1|0.619
84503688|NCT00449930|168758472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.4|0.2|||||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with vomiting.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.2|-2.4|
84503689|NCT03124381|168758477|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (based on ANCOVA) is less than 15 percentage points. Terms for treatment, gender, center as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42||||||Non-inferiority test performed after significance vs. baseline confirmed for each cell. The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was H0: A-B≥15%, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell and Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|
84602086|NCT01180036|168955190|NON_INFERIORITY|With a non-inferiority margin of 15%. enrollment of 63 evaluable patients per study are is required to achieve 80% power to show that RTX is not inferior.||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84602087|NCT04243577|168955191|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were calculated as plus or minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and were ± 3.1.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
84602088|NCT04243577|168955191|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were based on the absolute value of the effect size (Cohen's d) being smaller than 0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a Confidence Interval for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing again, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
84602089|NCT04243577|168955192|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was calculated as minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and was -.99.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
84624378|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.37|-3.44|0.0152
84624379|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.56|-3.61|0.0075
84624380|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.20|-2.96|0.0869
84624381|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.01|-3.14|0.0520
84624382|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.12|-4.30|0.0009
84624383|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.46|-4.68|0.0002
84624384|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-0.03|-3.25|0.0456
84624385|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.59|-3.76|0.0073
84624386|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-4.01|0.0026
84624387|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.20|-2.87|0.0878
84624388|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.32|-3.39|0.0182
84624389|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.44|-4.55|0.0002
84624390|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.40|-4.53|0.0002
84624391|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-3.22|0.0387
84624392|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.80|-3.89|0.0031
84624393|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-3.88|0.0029
84624394|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.09|-2.90|0.0653
84624395|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.47|-3.46|0.0102
84624396|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.36|-4.38|0.0002
84674118|NCT00835497|169083852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|94.2|
84624397|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.67|-4.72|<0.0001
84624398|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.25|-3.30|0.0231
84624399|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
84624400|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
84624401|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.97|-3.96|0.0013
84624402|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.43|-2.89|0.1460
84760692|NCT04986202|169277621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||11.4|-5.8|0.522
84624403|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.23|-2.10|0.6066
84674119|NCT00835497|169083853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|88.9||||||90.0|83.5|94.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||94.6|83.5|
84503690|NCT03124381|168758477|SUPERIORITY|Superiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference is less than 0. Terms for treatment, gender, and center as factors and baseline score as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42|||ANCOVA|||Superiority test performed after non-inferiority confirmed as described above. The null hypothesis for the superiority test was H0: A-B = 0, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Acne Mask and the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|0.538
84503691|NCT01365845|168758520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon)|29.1||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
84503692|NCT00530439|168758572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84503693|NCT00951899|168758574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||A P value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Colesevelam subjects||||0.0006
84503694|NCT00951899|168758574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Placebo subjects||||0.30
84624404|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.54|-1.88|0.8422
84624405|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.67|-2.74|0.2346
84624406|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.33|-3.11|0.1128
84624407|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.55|-2.89|0.1811
84624408|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.87|-2.45|0.3521
84503695|NCT03705169|168758592|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.3|||||The ratios of the geometric means (Arm A/Arm C) and the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 95% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|As dose-normalized AUC 0-12WK values were considered, participants were pooled within Arm (i.e., Arm A participants receiving 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg were pooled and Arm C participants 0.3 or 1.0 mg/kg were pooled).|No comparisons were done with Arm B participants, as only two participants in that arm had available measurements such that AUC 0-12WK could be estimated.|5.3|1.9|
84503696|NCT03705169|168758593|OTHER||Mean|-0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.18||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 7 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.18|-0.53|0.26
84503697|NCT03705169|168758595|OTHER||Mean|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 14 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.19|-0.24|0.78
84503698|NCT00185211|168758612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.0027
84503699|NCT00185211|168758612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.0028||97.47|0.488|0.902|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to CDMS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for CDMS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.902|0.488|0.0028
84503700|NCT00185211|168758613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was: H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0. The two-sided alternative hypothesis was: H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0.||||0.1768
84503701|NCT00185211|168758613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.1604||97.47|0.497|1.174|||Regression, Cox|The variable used as additional covariate adjustment was volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI.|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to confirmed EDSS progression was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group and volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI. The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for confirmed EDSS progression, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.174|0.497|0.1604
84503702|NCT00185211|168758614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8880
84602090|NCT04243577|168955192|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was based on the effect size (Cohen's d) being larger than -0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a one-sided confidence bound for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing, we again hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the newer version of the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
84602091|NCT04243577|168955193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
84624409|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.44|0.3570
84674120|NCT00835497|169083854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|88.4|97.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.1|88.4|
84503703|NCT00185211|168758614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.3832
84503704|NCT00185211|168758615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6e-06||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.000006
84503705|NCT00185211|168758615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.474|0.718|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo, i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to McDonald MS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for McDonald MS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.718|0.474|< 0.000001
84503706|NCT00185211|168758616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.1265||95.0|0.595|1.066||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Andersen-Gill Model|Covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|The time to recurrent relapses was modelled by an extension of Cox's PH regression model (Andersen-Gill Model) for recurrent events with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for recurrent relapses, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.066|0.595|0.1265
84503707|NCT00185211|168758617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7971||||0.0141||95.0|0.665|0.9554||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear Poisson regression|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Risk Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Relapse rate was analyzed by a generalized linear Poisson regression model with individual relapse counts as dependent variable, covariates: treatment arm, steroid use during first event, onset of disease and categorized number of T2 lesions at screening and offset variable natural log of time (in years) as difference between last clinical visit and baseline visit. The treatment effect on the relapse rate was of primary interest.||0.9554|0.6650|0.0141
84503708|NCT00185211|168758618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6078||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6078
84503709|NCT00185211|168758618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8245||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8245
84503710|NCT00185211|168758619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 adjusted for the number of Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0062
84503711|NCT00185211|168758619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative effect size|0.7351||||0.0435||95.0|0.5436|0.994||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear model|Distribution: negative binomial distribution; covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo.|Assuming that the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 follows a negative binomial distribution, a generalized linear model (logarithmic link function, covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at BENEFIT screening) was set up in order to analyze the treatment effect on that MRI outcome.||0.9940|0.5436|0.0435
84674121|NCT00835497|169083855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|88.8|97.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.5|88.8|
84674122|NCT00457197|169083856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline drinks/day used as covariate.||||0.4709
84602092|NCT04243577|168955193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 2 testing, again we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
84602093|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.126|0.437
84602094|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.035|-0.143|0.236
84602095|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|-0.050|0.389
84602096|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.165|-0.013|0.094
84602097|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|-0.003|0.060
84602098|NCT03622112|168955238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|0.023|0.014
84602099|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.105|-0.048|0.463
84602100|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.098|-0.055|0.576
84602101|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.154|0.001|0.047
84602102|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.179|0.025|0.009
84602103|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.178|0.031|0.006
84602104|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.194|0.041|0.003
84602105|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.103|-0.068|0.685
84602106|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.144|-0.026|0.176
84602107|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.183|0.013|0.024
84602108|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.191|0.021|0.014
84602109|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.196|0.032|0.006
84602110|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.249|0.081|< 0.001
84602111|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.106|-0.072|0.707
84602112|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.094|-0.083|0.904
84602113|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.157|-0.018|0.121
84602114|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.188|0.012|0.026
84602115|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.224|0.055|0.001
84602116|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.209|0.035|0.006
84602117|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.081|-0.068|0.856
84602118|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.082|-0.066|0.832
84624410|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.57|-1.73|0.9227
84624411|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.60|-1.84|0.8894
84674123|NCT00457197|169083857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline percent heavy drinking days included as covariate.||||0.1272
84602119|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.145|-0.003|0.060
84602120|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.170|0.022|0.011
84602121|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.181|0.039|0.003
84602122|NCT03622112|168955239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.202|0.055|<0.001
84602123|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.936||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.067|0.822|0.322
84602124|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.999|0.768|0.047
84602125|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.959|0.739|0.010
84602126|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.825||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.941|0.724|0.004
84674124|NCT00457197|169083858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline GGT used as covariate.||||0.9642
84674125|NCT00457197|169083859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline AST used as covariate.||||0.7222
84674126|NCT00457197|169083860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline ALT used as covariate.||||0.1412
84674127|NCT00457197|169083861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD used as covariate.||||0.7071
84674128|NCT00457197|169083862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.2569
84674129|NCT00457197|169083863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.8814
84674130|NCT00457197|169083864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline PACS used as a covariate.||||0.2473
84760693|NCT04986202|169277621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|15.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||15.8|-4.4|0.267
84760694|NCT04986202|169277621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||12.1|-7.6|0.657
84760695|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.05|0.86|0.312
84602127|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.779|0.606|<0.001
84602128|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.719|0.553|<0.001
84602129|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.931||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.076|0.805|0.329
84602130|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.052|0.789|0.203
84602131|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.923||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.065|0.800|0.273
84602132|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.846||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.977|0.734|0.023
84602133|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.852|0.646|<0.001
84602134|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.810|0.609|<0.001
84602135|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.074|0.783|0.283
84602136|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.933||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.092|0.797|0.386
84602137|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.886||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.035|0.758|0.126
84602138|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.855||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.000|0.731|0.050
84602139|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.840|0.623|<0.001
84602140|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.749|0.550|<0.001
84602141|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.927||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.090|0.789|0.359
84602142|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.953||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.118|0.813|0.556
84602143|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.019|0.742|0.084
84602144|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.813||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.953|0.693|0.011
84602145|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.757|0.559|<0.001
84602146|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.729|0.533|<0.001
84602147|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.049|0.821|0.231
84602148|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.037|0.812|0.170
84602149|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.879||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.994|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.994|0.778|0.039
84602150|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.943|0.739|0.004
84602151|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.787|0.622|<0.001
84602152|NCT03622112|168955240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.732|0.575|<0.001
84602153|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.070|-0.139|0.519
84602154|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.026|-0.181|0.141
84624412|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.13|-2.29|0.5074
84624413|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.53|-2.91|0.1753
84624414|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.36|-3.09|0.1212
84624415|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.90|-2.41|0.3702
84624416|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.96|-1.22|0.6459
84624417|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.75|-1.40|0.8248
84624418|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.33|-0.98|0.4226
84624419|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.01|-1.25|0.6469
84624420|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.91|-1.41|0.7642
84540174|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.66||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||1.63|-6.96|0.3320
84624421|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.966||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.966|-2.36|0.4068
84624422|NCT03192176|168993566|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.37|0.7974
84624423|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.17|-3.23|0.0297
84624424|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.58|-4.66|<0.0001
84624425|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.02|-5.10|<0.00001
84624426|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.66|-5.78|<0.0001
84624427|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.36|-2.76|0.1318
84503712|NCT00185211|168758620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.7801
84503713|NCT00185211|168758620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9408||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.9408
84674131|NCT02114879|169083923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Marginal Model|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.007
84674132|NCT02114879|169083924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84674133|NCT02114879|169083925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84726219|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0079||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.391|9.524|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.524|-2.391|0.238
84602155|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.119|-0.088|0.772
84602156|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.162|-0.045|0.270
84602157|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.126|-0.072|0.592
84602158|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.158|-0.045|0.275
84602159|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.083|-0.087|0.963
84602160|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.058|-0.112|0.533
84602161|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.126|-0.044|0.342
84602162|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.165|-0.004|0.061
84602163|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.127|-0.037|0.278
84602164|NCT03622112|168955241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.159|-0.009|0.079
84602165|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.023|-0.328|0.088
84602166|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.257||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.084|-0.430|0.004
84602167|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.049|-0.393|0.012
84602168|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.020|-0.366|0.029
84602169|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.104|-0.434|0.001
84602170|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.054|-0.393|0.010
84602171|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.003|-0.253|0.055
84602172|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.014|-0.268|0.029
84602173|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.003|-0.257|0.044
84602174|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.074|-0.328|0.002
84602175|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.339|<0.001
84602176|NCT03622112|168955242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.053|-0.305|0.005
84602177|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.664||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|16.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.730|-1.403|0.097
84602178|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.981||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|14.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.941|-2.980|0.190
84602179|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.123||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|18.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.052|0.195|0.045
84602180|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.443|24.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||24.445|6.443|<0.001
84602181|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.031|25.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||25.167|8.031|<0.001
84602182|NCT03622112|168955243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.491||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|19.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.256|1.726|0.019
84503714|NCT00185211|168758621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6619||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6619
84503715|NCT00185211|168758621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8558
84503716|NCT00185211|168758622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1208||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.1208
84503717|NCT00185211|168758622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0719
84624428|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.05|-4.13|0.0010
84503718|NCT01893983|168758627|EQUIVALENCE|Compare whether 2 groups had any difference in risk/hazard of mental health engagement at any time during follow-up.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.58||P value 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for site, mental health treatment history and mental health symptom severity at baseline, baseline amphetamine and opioid scores.|The referral alone arm is the reference group (denominator), and the motivational coaching arm is the numerator.|Compare 2 groups in regard to time to first mental health treatment using Cox proportional hazards regression.||1.58|0.81|0.660
84503719|NCT01859390|168758646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test||0.22|-0.49|0.460
84503720|NCT01859390|168758646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.513|0.173|||Regression, Linear||"Regression Model predictors include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1%Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The estimated value is the mean difference between groups for 16 week change in log10 MPO."|||0.173|-0.513|0.325
84503721|NCT01859390|168758647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE incidence|-12.9||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||7.8|-32.1|0.302
84503722|NCT01859390|168758648|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.||1.13|0.78|0.486
84503723|NCT01859390|168758648|SUPERIORITY|Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.|Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.26|||Poisson Regression|||||1.26|0.43|0.269
84503724|NCT01859390|168758649|SUPERIORITY|Two sample T-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.16|-2.30|0.4463
84503725|NCT01859390|168758650|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.37|0.8623
84726220|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4552||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|14.774|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||14.774|-7.152|0.488
84503726|NCT01859390|168758651|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.536||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.009||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Cox model parameters include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1 % Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The parameter of interest is the Hazard Ratio comparing the AquADEKs-2 arm to the control arm."|||1.009|0.284|0.0534
84503727|NCT01859390|168758652|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for PEx calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months in the AquADEKs-2 group was 148 and in the Control group was 147.||1.16|0.44|0.1731
84503728|NCT01859390|168758653|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|7.4||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||7.4|-35.1|0.2363
84503729|NCT01859390|168758654|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-34.5|0.1900
84503730|NCT01706198|168758657|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.34||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy (AMT) at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.34|1.70|<0.001
84624429|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.04|-4.10|0.0011
84624430|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-3.20|0.0405
84503731|NCT01706198|168758658|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.2||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 12 has been presented.|||2.20|1.67|<0.001
84624431|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.55|-4.70|0.0001
84624432|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
84624433|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.07|-5.26|<0.0001
84624434|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.15|-3.34|0.0325
84624435|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.78|-3.92|0.0035
84624436|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.49|-3.61|0.0102
84674134|NCT02114879|169083926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The statistical significance in this test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.96
84760696|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.01|0.83|0.070
84760697|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.911
84760698|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.837
84503732|NCT01706198|168758658|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.91||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 40 has been presented.|||1.91|1.45|<0.001
84624437|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.51|-3.69|0.0098
84624438|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.98|-5.18|<0.0001
84624439|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.70|-4.89|<0.0001
84624440|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.37|-5.61|<0.0001
84624441|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.17|0.0021
84760699|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.07|0.84|0.370
84760700|NCT04986202|169277622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.04|0.83|0.205
84760701|NCT04986202|169277623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.2|-0.2|0.183
84760702|NCT04986202|169277623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||0.7|-0.8|0.898
84760703|NCT04986202|169277623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.1|-0.4|0.316
84760704|NCT04986202|169277623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||0.8|-0.7|0.934
84760705|NCT04986202|169277624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.366||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||2.366|-1.647|0.725
84503733|NCT01706198|168758658|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.02||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 52 has been presented.|||2.02|1.54|<0.001
84503734|NCT01706198|168758659|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.4||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.40|1.82|<0.001
84674135|NCT02114879|169083927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Discharged Home Vs Discharged to Institution and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84760706|NCT04986202|169277624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.382||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.382|-2.571|0.555
84674136|NCT02114879|169083928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Yes/No Rehospitalization and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84674137|NCT00330551|169083929|SUPERIORITY||t-test|0.77|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.058|||t-test, 2 sided||||t(80)=5.3, p\<.001|1.058|0.483|=.05
84760707|NCT04986202|169277624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.025||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||3.025|-1.710|0.586
84760708|NCT04986202|169277624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.815||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.108|1.478||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.478|-3.108|0.486
84760709|NCT04986202|169277625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||3.9|-4.1|0.968
84760710|NCT04986202|169277625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.6|-6.3|0.251
84760711|NCT04986202|169277625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||5.7|-4.8|0.872
84674138|NCT00330551|169083930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.001
84760712|NCT04986202|169277625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|No formal hypothesis testing and p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||4.1|-6.2|0.682
84602183|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.398||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.494|11.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.290|-6.494|0.597
84674139|NCT00330551|169083931|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.83
84503735|NCT01706198|168758659|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.25|1.70|<0.001
84503736|NCT01706198|168758659|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.06||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.06|1.56|<0.001
84503737|NCT01706198|168758659|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.24||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.24|1.69|<0.001
84503738|NCT01706198|168758660|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.62||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.62|1.98|<0.001
84503739|NCT01706198|168758660|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.41||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.41|1.81|<0.001
84503740|NCT01706198|168758660|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.02||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.02|1.53|<0.001
84503741|NCT01706198|168758660|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.21||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.21|1.66|<0.001
84503742|NCT01706198|168758661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.77||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||1.77|1.30|<0.001
84503743|NCT01706198|168758661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.76|1.25|<0.001
84503744|NCT01706198|168758661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||1.63|1.11|<0.001
84674140|NCT00330551|169083932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||A priori hypothesis was that long-acting injectible risperidone would lead to greater duration of work/school attendance than oral risperidone.||||=.20
84674141|NCT00330551|169083933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||||||.71
84503745|NCT01706198|168758661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||1.76|1.24|<0.001
84503746|NCT01706198|168758663|OTHER||Ratio|1.03||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||GLM assuming negative binomial distribution (NBD) adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.28|0.83|0.786
84674142|NCT00330551|169083934|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.57
84674143|NCT00330551|169083936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.16
84674144|NCT00330551|169083937|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.41
84726221|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4845||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|15.68|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||15.680|-6.363|0.400
84503747|NCT01706198|168758664|OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.97|0.461
84602184|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.623|10.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||10.948|-6.623|0.629
84602185|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.833||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.907|12.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||12.573|-4.907|0.389
84602186|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.258||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|19.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.059|1.456|0.022
84602187|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.994||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.571|20.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||20.417|3.571|0.005
84674145|NCT06561217|169083970|NON_INFERIORITY|A predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.05 was used. The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, non-inferiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.00007515||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is Inf due to the test being one-sided. Alternative hypothesis: true median location shift is greater than -0.05|A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the primary null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was non-inferior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction by at least 5% (i.e., noninferiority margin).|||0.00007515|<0.001
84503748|NCT01706198|168758666|OTHER||Ratio|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.91|0.822
84503749|NCT01706198|168758667|OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.15||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.15|1.05|<0.001
84503750|NCT01706198|168758669|OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment; asthma maintenance therapy and ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification; number of severe asthma exacerbations in previous year prior to randomization categorized; gender \& age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.09|0.88|0.697
84503751|NCT01706198|168758670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.07|0.86|0.504
84503752|NCT01706198|168758671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender,age \& number of salbutamol inhalers in year prior to randomization|ANCOVA||Difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||-0.5|-1.1|<0.001
84503753|NCT01706198|168758672|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.38||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented|||1.38|1.09|<0.001
84503754|NCT01706198|168758673|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.06||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.06|1.55|<0.001
84503755|NCT01706198|168758674|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.73||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||1.73|1.31|<0.001
84674146|NCT06561217|169083970|SUPERIORITY|The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, superiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was superior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction.||||0.002
84503756|NCT01706198|168758675|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||||Incidence ratio was calculated as percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group.|||2.7|0.8|
84503757|NCT01706198|168758676|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.74||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||2.74|0.77|0.255
84503758|NCT01084005|168758680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.0001
84760713|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.029||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.236||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.236|0.857|0.760
84503759|NCT01084005|168758681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.45|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.45|<0.0001
84503760|NCT01084005|168758682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.71|<0.0001
84503761|NCT01084005|168758683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.77|<0.0001
84624442|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.52|-4.71|0.0001
84760714|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.209||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.448||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.448|1.010|0.039
84503762|NCT01084005|168758684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
84624443|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.11|0.0020
84624444|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.27|-3.27|0.0210
84624445|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
84624446|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.33|-4.34|0.0003
84624447|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.23|-5.29|<0.0001
84674147|NCT06561217|169083971|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: True difference is equal to 0. Alternate hypothesis: true difference is not equal to 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A two-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test for difference between chart-level efficiency of the Human+AI arm and chart-level efficiency of the Human-alone arm abstraction.||2.55|-1.25|0.513
84674148|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.214
84760715|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.111||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.326||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.326|0.931|0.241
84760716|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.414||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.414|1.001|0.049
84760717|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.151||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.401||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.401|0.946|0.158
84624448|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.86|-3.91|0.0023
84624449|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.24|-4.25|0.0004
84624450|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.74|-3.73|0.0036
84624451|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.29|-3.33|0.0195
84624452|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.17|-4.21|0.0006
84674149|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
84674150|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.457
84674151|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.580
84674152|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
84674153|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84674154|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
84674155|NCT03037528|169083979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
84674156|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.027
84674157|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84503763|NCT01084005|168758685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.7|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-24.7|<0.0001
84674158|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.054
84674159|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
84674160|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
84674161|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
84503764|NCT01084005|168758686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.1|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-28.1|<0.0001
84503765|NCT01084005|168758687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.8|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-29.8|<0.0001
84503766|NCT01084005|168758688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.319|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.321|20.837|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.837|3.321|<0.0001
84674162|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
84674163|NCT03037528|169083980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
84674164|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
84674165|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84674166|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
84674167|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84674168|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
84674169|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
84674170|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.045
84674171|NCT03037528|169083981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
84674172|NCT01833403|169083982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84674173|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|43.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||43.3|17.2|
84674174|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.9|59.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||59.3|30.9|
84674175|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|62.1||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo to historical control of 10% response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo with CR and PR.|||62.1|32.8|<0.001
84674176|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||57.3|11.3|
84674177|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|71.5||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg to 10% historical response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg with CR and PR.|||71.5|43.3|<0.001
84674178|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|29.7|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||29.7|-8.3|0.485
84674179|NCT00558103|169083994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|27.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||52.0|2.3|0.116
84674180|NCT03385239|169084002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-27.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-10|-41|0.0042
84726222|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7651||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.525|10.626|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.626|-8.525|0.826
84726223|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7627||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.389|13.753|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||13.753|-5.389|0.384
84726224|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4636||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|14.486|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.486|-3.360|0.217
84726225|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5491||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.112|7.074|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.074|-11.112|0.659
84726226|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0556||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|3.791|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.791|-12.423|0.291
84726227|NCT03320941|169204556|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0035||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|10.916|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.916|-5.090|0.470
84726228|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2049||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.001|11.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.617|-9.001|0.802
84726229|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4301||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.567|8.943|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.943|-12.567|0.739
84624453|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.27|-4.32|0.0004
84624454|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.92|-5.01|<0.0001
84624455|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.71|0.0061
84624456|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.19|0.0006
84624457|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.78|-3.81|0.0030
84624458|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.09|-3.17|0.0383
84624459|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.24|-4.33|0.0004
84624460|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.04|-4.14|0.0011
84674181|NCT03385239|169084002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-48.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-48|-66|<0.0001
84674182|NCT03385239|169084002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-70|<0.0001
84760718|NCT04986202|169277627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.159||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.404||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.404|0.957|0.131
84760719|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0111||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8819|1.1592||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.1592|0.8819|0.874
84624461|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.93|-5.07|<0.0001
84624462|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.66|-3.80|0.0055
84624463|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-4.09|0.0014
84624464|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.73|-3.80|0.0040
84624465|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.41|-2.68|0.1502
84624466|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.64|-3.74|0.0057
84674183|NCT03385239|169084002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-53|-69|<0.0001
84624467|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
84624468|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.22|-4.38|0.0006
84624469|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.07|-3.21|0.0412
84624470|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
84624471|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.34|-3.43|0.0167
84624472|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.02|-2.94|0.0533
84624473|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.58|-3.54|0.0065
84624474|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.82|-3.80|0.0025
84624475|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.20|-4.22|0.0005
84760720|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9157||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8002|1.0479||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.0479|0.8002|0.200
84624476|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-2.99|0.0541
84624477|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.71|-3.69|0.0039
84624478|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.22|-3.18|0.0245
84624479|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.31|-3.36|0.0187
84624480|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.62|-3.68|0.0060
84624481|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.98|-4.06|0.0014
84624482|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-4.49|0.0003
84760721|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.1063||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.2631||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2631|0.9690|0.135
84503767|NCT01084005|168758691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.214||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.625|||Regression, Logistic|||Lina 5 mg qd vs Placebo||0.625|0.073|0.0048
84674184|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoC III||-8|-47|0.0123
84674185|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-58.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-58|-76|<0.0001
84726230|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7125||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.745|9.922|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.922|-8.745|0.901
84503768|NCT00606684|168758697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.144|||ANCOVA|||||0.144|0.039|<0.001
84726231|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6095||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.852|14.407|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||14.407|-3.852|0.255
84726232|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5585||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.271|18.127|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.127|-16.271|0.914
84726233|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2308||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-19.030|0.959
84726234|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.422||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.343|21.487|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.487|-8.343|0.380
84726235|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5174||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.986|21.228|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.228|-8.986|0.419
84726236|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6209||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|14.02|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.020|-12.450|0.906
84726237|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8489||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.195|9.187|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.187|-18.195|0.513
84726238|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.691|8.216|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.216|-16.691|0.499
84726239|NCT03320941|169204557|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9073||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.948|15.669|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.669|-7.948|0.516
84726240|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.82||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.644|226.284|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||226.284|-136.644|0.625
84726241|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.273||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.326|343.871|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||343.871|-19.326|0.079
84726242|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.062||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.493|225.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||225.617|-87.493|0.384
84726243|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.733||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|191.045|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||191.045|-115.580|0.627
84726244|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.879||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.244|201.003|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||201.003|-155.244|0.797
84726245|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.891||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.215|185.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||185.996|-160.215|0.882
84726246|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.447||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.796|114.902|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||114.902|-175.796|0.675
84726247|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.264||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.099|107.571|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||107.571|-182.099|0.607
84726248|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.822||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.131|398.775|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||398.775|-229.131|0.591
84726249|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|287.328||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.533|594.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||594.190|-19.533|0.066
84726250|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.963|425.997|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||425.997|-113.963|0.252
84726251|NCT03320941|169204558|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|103.135||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.287|363.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||363.556|-157.287|0.431
84726252|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.864|-39.251|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-39.251|-90.864|<0.001
84726253|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.848|-41.542|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-41.542|-93.848|<0.001
84726254|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.942|-47.735|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-47.735|-93.942|<0.001
84726255|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-74.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.117|-51.704|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-51.704|-97.117|<0.001
84726256|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|-38.013|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.013|-135.780|<0.001
84726257|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.266|-37.874|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-37.874|-134.266|<0.001
84726258|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.369|-38.883|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.883|-123.369|<0.001
84624483|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-3.61|0.0100
84624484|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.91|-3.98|0.0019
84624485|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.67|-3.73|0.0049
84624486|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.30|-3.25|0.0186
84624487|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.82|-3.77|0.0024
84624488|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.30|-4.28|0.0003
84624489|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.29|-4.30|0.0003
84624490|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-3.63|0.0058
84760722|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0842||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9527|1.2339||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2339|0.9527|0.220
84624491|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.7|-4.04|0.0008
84624492|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.64|-3.59|0.0050
84624493|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.31|-3.63|0.0205
84674186|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-65.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-65|-80|<0.0001
84624494|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.75|-2.58|0.2818
84624495|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-2.60|0.3102
84624496|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.43|-2.99|0.1422
84624497|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.68|-4.12|0.0064
84674187|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-66|-80|<0.0001
84503769|NCT00606684|168758697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.150|0.046|<0.001
84503770|NCT00606684|168758697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.057|<0.001
84503771|NCT00606684|168758697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.190|0.085|<0.001
84503772|NCT00606684|168758697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.217|||ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.112|<0.001
84503773|NCT00472446|168758701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||.028
84602188|NCT03622112|168955244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.129||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|14.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.737|-2.479|0.163
84602189|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.243||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.054|-0.431|0.012
84602190|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.034|-0.344|0.108
84602191|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.087|-0.286|0.295
84602192|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.116|-0.500|0.002
84602193|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.126|-0.489|<0.001
84602194|NCT03622112|168955245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.009|-0.362|0.062
84602195|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.993|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.795|-4.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-4.191|-15.795|<0.001
84602196|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.972||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.694|-2.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.251|-13.694|0.006
84602197|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.361||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.051|1.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.329|-10.051|0.133
84602198|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.797||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.555|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.040|-13.555|0.008
84602199|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.729||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.195|-3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-3.264|-14.195|0.002
84602200|NCT03622112|168955246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.211|-6.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-6.034|-17.211|<0.001
84602201|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.329|<0.001
84602202|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.007|-0.228|0.066
84602203|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.022|-0.255|0.020
84602204|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.110|-0.350|<0.001
84602205|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|-0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.071|-0.298|0.001
84602206|NCT03622112|168955247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.090|-0.321|<0.001
84602207|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.611||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|18.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.042|1.180|0.026
84602208|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.503||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.927|13.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||13.933|-2.927|0.200
84602209|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|15.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.119|-1.546|0.110
84602210|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.066||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|18.672|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.672|1.461|0.022
84602211|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.750|0.489|0.038
84602212|NCT03622112|168955248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.178||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|15.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.467|-1.112|0.090
84602213|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.936||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|18.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.031|-2.160|0.123
84602214|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.112|11.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.065|-9.112|0.849
84602215|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.242||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.233|8.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||8.748|-11.233|0.807
84602216|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.789||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||22.090|1.488|0.025
84602217|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.574||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|17.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||17.307|-2.160|0.127
84602218|NCT03622112|168955249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.058||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.874|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.990|-4.874|0.318
84602219|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|18.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.855|2.046|0.015
84602220|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.192||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|15.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.592|-1.208|0.093
84624498|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.16|-3.28|0.0752
84624499|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.89|-2.43|0.3632
84624500|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-3.32|0.0625
84624501|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.32|-2.07|0.6613
84624502|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.04|-2.48|0.4209
84624503|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.63|0.3288
84624504|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.33|-3.86|0.0202
84624505|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-3.42|0.0682
84624506|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.96|-2.44|0.3912
84624507|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.09|-2.25|0.4964
84624508|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.68|-1.64|0.9830
84624509|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.71|0.9715
84503774|NCT00472446|168758702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||0.016
84624510|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.86|-1.58|0.8715
84624511|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.66|-2.83|0.2233
84624512|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.80|-2.69|0.2882
84624513|NCT03192176|168993567|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8643||95.0|-1.52|1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.80|-1.52|0.8643
84674188|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||7|-11|0.568
84503775|NCT00472446|168758702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative versus post-operative application||||0.723
84624514|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0104
84624515|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.09|-0.56|0.0060
84624516|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.24|-0.71|<0.0001
84624517|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.38|-0.85|<0.0001
84624518|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.19|-0.28|0.6977
84624519|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0121
84624520|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.54|0.0086
84624521|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.08|-0.66|0.0138
84624522|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.19|-0.78|0.0014
84624523|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.43|-1.02|<0.0001
84624524|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-1.19|<0.0001
84624525|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.14|-0.46|0.2831
84624526|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-0.72|0.0051
84624527|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.22|-0.81|0.0006
84760723|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0496||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9211|1.196||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1960|0.9211|0.467
84503776|NCT00472446|168758704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of the two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Paracetamol:"||||0.94
84760724|NCT04986202|169277628|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0312||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.1711||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1711|0.9080|0.636
84624528|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.14|-0.83|0.0058
84624529|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.28|-0.97|0.0004
84624530|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.46|-1.14|<0.0001
84624531|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.57|-1.27|<0.0001
84624532|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.04|-0.66|0.0807
84674189|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-3|-19|0.008
84760725|NCT01289015|169277650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
84503777|NCT00472446|168758704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Metamizole:"||||0.58
84624533|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.22|-0.91|0.0014
84624534|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.34|-1.02|0.0001
84624535|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.16|-0.85|0.0046
84624536|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.29|-0.99|0.0003
84624537|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.45|-1.14|<0.0001
84624538|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.70|-1.14|<0.0001
84624539|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.77|0.0209
84674190|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||6|-12|0.4476
84674191|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||0|-16|0.0606
84760726|NCT01709149|169277652|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||0.14|-1.30|0.1140
84760727|NCT01709149|169277653|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.963||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|4.34|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||4.34|-3.38|0.8083
84760728|NCT01709149|169277654|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.2|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||-0.20|-6.60|0.0372
84624540|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.24|-0.93|0.0011
84624541|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
84624542|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.67|0.0956
84624543|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0050
84624544|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.45|-1.18|<0.0001
84624545|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-1.40|<0.0001
84624546|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.69|0.0915
84624547|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.02|-0.75|0.0378
84624548|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0053
84624549|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.08|-0.83|0.0614
84760729|NCT01709149|169277655|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.28|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||6.28|2.23|<0.0001
84624550|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.18|-0.92|0.0040
84624551|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.58|-1.33|<0.0001
84624552|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.47|<0.0001
84624553|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.06|-0.70|0.0967
84674192|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|7.0||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|26.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||26|-10|0.4509
84674193|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|4.0||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||23|-12|0.6746
84674194|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|29.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||53|9|0.0032
84674195|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|32.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||32|-6|0.1996
84760730|NCT01709149|169277656|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.63|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||2.63|-1.13|0.4328
84624554|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
84624555|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.38|-1.13|<0.0001
84624556|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.02|-0.75|0.0632
84624557|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.23|-1.00|0.0020
84674196|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||24|1|0.0373
84674197|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||49|21|<0.0001
84624558|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.51|-1.29|<0.0001
84624559|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.69|-1.48|<0.0001
84674198|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|57.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||57|28|<0.0001
84674199|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||44|18|<0.0001
84674200|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||6|-18|0.2826
84674201|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-14|-34|<0.0001
84674202|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-15.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-4|-26|0.0118
84674203|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-20.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-29|0.0009
84624560|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.04|-0.82|0.0308
84624561|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.12|-0.89|0.0105
84674204|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-6|-34|0.0086
84674205|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-44|-60|<0.0001
84674206|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-50.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-50|-64|<0.0001
84674207|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-52|-66|<0.0001
84674208|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|2.0||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||13|-7|0.6801
84503778|NCT00472446|168758705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: paracetamol"||||0.328
84624562|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-1.03|0.0010
84624563|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.69|0.1469
84624564|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.04|-0.84|0.0315
84624565|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
84624566|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
84624567|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.25|-0.56|0.4494
84624568|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.79|0.0595
84726259|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.104|-42.669|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-42.669|-127.104|<0.001
84624569|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-0.96|0.0065
84624570|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.04|-0.77|0.0745
84624571|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
84624572|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.41|-1.22|0.0001
84726260|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.493|-20.461|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-20.461|-74.493|<0.001
84726261|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.914|-25.251|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-25.251|-80.914|<0.001
84726262|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.627|-36.937|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-36.937|-86.627|<0.001
84726263|NCT03320941|169204559|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.291|-40.713|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-40.713|-89.291|<0.001
84726264|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.098|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.098|-4.210|0.764
84726265|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8741||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|5.001|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.001|-2.423|0.493
84726266|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6596||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.908|0.666|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.666|-5.908|0.117
84726267|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6349||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.056|1.421|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.421|-5.056|0.269
84726268|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1677||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|4.017|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.017|-0.676|0.159
84726269|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.294|7.988|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.988|3.294|<0.001
84726270|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0371||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.239|-0.929|0.271
84726271|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.842|2.253|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.253|-1.842|0.841
84674209|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-7|-24|0.0007
84674210|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-14|0.3183
84674211|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-1|-19|0.024
84674212|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|5.0||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||11|-1|0.0936
84674213|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||21|8|<0.0001
84674214|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||25|11|<0.0001
84674215|NCT03385239|169084004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||20|7|<0.0001
84760731|NCT01709149|169277657|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.399||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.9|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||8.90|-8.40|0.9546
84760732|NCT01709149|169277658|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.91|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||7.91|-4.70|0.6166
84760733|NCT00797732|169277672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
84760734|NCT01857869|169277678|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|86.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|94.6||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||94.6|66.8|<0.0001
84760735|NCT01857869|169277678|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|62.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|80.1||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||80.1|29.4|0.0009
84760736|NCT02109484|169277720|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0165
84674216|NCT03385239|169084005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|27.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.20|0.41|0.2591
84602221|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.606||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|16.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.913|0.298|0.042
84674217|NCT03385239|169084005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|740.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||740.02|9.54|<0.0001
84674218|NCT03385239|169084005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|322.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.31|5130.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5130.99|20.31|<0.0001
84674219|NCT03385239|169084005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|342.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.72|4933.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||4933.89|23.72|<0.0001
84674220|NCT03385239|169084006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|69.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.88|0.02|0.9119
84674221|NCT03385239|169084006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.18||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|542.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||542.48|1.36|0.0306
84674222|NCT03385239|169084006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.54||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|514.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||514.20|1.27|0.0344
84674223|NCT03385239|169084006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.47||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|866.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||866.49|2.28|0.0123
84674224|NCT00308711|169084015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|1595.5||||0.974||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank||This was a Kaplan-Meier analysis of median time to vaginal delivery. Cervidil was compared separately to MVI 100 and MVI 50.|Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in time to vaginal delivery for MVI 100 compared to time to vaginal delivery for Cervidil.||||0.974
84674225|NCT00308711|169084015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1977.0||||0.011||95.0|1977.0|2253.0|||Log Rank|||||2253|1977|0.011
84674226|NCT00308711|169084016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) margin was within 15% relative to the rate of cesarean section for the comparator (Cervidil 10 mg dinoprostone vaginal insert).|Cox Proportional Hazard|27.8||||0.64||95.0|23.61|32.31|||Fisher Exact|||||32.31|23.61|0.64
84674227|NCT00308711|169084016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was rate of cearean section within 15% of Cervidil rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|28.0||||0.59||95.0|23.86|32.42|||Fisher Exact|||||32.42|23.86|0.59
84674228|NCT01556204|169084024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||This p-value is from a single comparison between two arms for operative time.|t-test, 2 sided|||Variance estimates for this power analysis were taken from Nezhat C, et al, 2010. We determined that 37 subjects in each arm were needed to detect a difference of ≥ 32 minutes in operating time between conventional and robotic surgery for endometriosis with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.71
84503779|NCT00472446|168758705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: metamizole"||||0.81
84503780|NCT00472446|168758705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled paracetamol dose"||||0.331
84503781|NCT00472446|168758705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled metamizole dose"||||0.440
84503782|NCT00472446|168758706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure for superficial cervical block versus placebo treatment||||0.925
84503783|NCT03211156|168758725|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.757
84503784|NCT03211156|168758726|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84503785|NCT00323609|168758758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.214
84503786|NCT00323609|168758759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 7 days.||||0.430
84624573|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
84760737|NCT02109484|169277720|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||<0.0001
84624574|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.54|0.5317
84503787|NCT00323609|168758759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.655
84503788|NCT00323609|168758759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.756
84503789|NCT00323609|168758759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.503
84503790|NCT00323609|168758759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.837
84624575|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.01|-0.83|0.0424
84503791|NCT00323609|168758760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days||||0.785
84503792|NCT00323609|168758760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.393
84503793|NCT00323609|168758760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months||||0.875
84503794|NCT00323609|168758760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.833
84503795|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 30 days.||||0.180
84503796|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 3 months||||0.822
84503797|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 12 months||||0.291
84674229|NCT01556204|169084025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for pain at baseline for robotic vs conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis.||||0.53
84503798|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 24 months||||0.996
84624576|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.11|-0.91|0.0134
84624577|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0300
84624578|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.02|-0.78|0.0605
84624579|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.40|-1.20|0.0001
84624580|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
84624581|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.13|-0.68|0.1848
84503799|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 30 days||||0.983
84503800|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 3 months||||0.576
84503801|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 12 months||||0.393
84624582|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0321
84624583|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.22|-1.01|0.0025
84624584|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.81|0.0441
84624585|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.82|0.0422
84624586|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.45|-1.27|<0.0001
84674230|NCT01556204|169084025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: 6-weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 weeks comparison between robotic and laparoscopy.||||0.53
84503802|NCT00323609|168758761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 24 months||||0.722
84503803|NCT00323609|168758762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.318
84503804|NCT00323609|168758762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.523
84503805|NCT00323609|168758762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.634
84503806|NCT00323609|168758762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.457
84503807|NCT00323609|168758763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
84503808|NCT00323609|168758764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
84503809|NCT00323609|168758765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84503810|NCT00323609|168758766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.112
84674231|NCT01556204|169084025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This applies to Row title: 6-months|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 months for robotic vs laparoscopy.||||0.48
84624587|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-1.44|<0.0001
84624588|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.11|-0.71|0.1464
84624589|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.10|-0.91|0.0144
84624590|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.26|-1.06|0.0013
84624591|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.02|-0.80|0.0596
84624592|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.85|0.0360
84624593|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.32|-1.15|0.0006
84624594|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.39|-1.23|0.0002
84624595|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.21|-0.62|0.3227
84624596|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.89|0.0220
84624597|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.84|0.0380
84726272|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.758|1.309|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.309|-8.758|0.144
84624598|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.10|-0.60|0.0067
84726273|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5906||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.055|4.302|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.302|-6.055|0.736
84726274|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3113||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|1.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.190|-8.051|0.143
84726275|NCT03320941|169204560|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2659||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.521|2.538|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.538|-6.521|0.383
84726276|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1543||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.941|-1.632|0.572
84726277|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1738||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.980|-1.670|0.578
84726278|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0479||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.124|1.028|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.028|-3.124|0.319
84726279|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0303||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|1.667|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.667|-2.416|0.717
84726280|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|1.701|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.701|-0.562|0.317
84726281|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5716||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.758|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.758|0.460|0.007
84624599|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.05|-0.45|0.1227
84624600|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.05|-0.57|0.0208
84624601|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.10|-0.41|0.2396
84624602|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.15|-0.67|0.0022
84624603|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.53|0.0479
84624604|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.15|-0.35|0.4152
84624605|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.03|-0.52|0.0262
84624606|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.05|-0.43|0.1210
84503811|NCT00323609|168758766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.364
84624607|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.02|-0.52|0.0369
84624608|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.18|-0.32|0.5855
84624609|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.12|-0.62|0.0041
84624610|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.01|-0.50|0.0614
84624611|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-0.36|0.3391
84624612|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.00|-0.49|0.0515
84726282|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5029||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|1.362|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.362|-0.659|0.487
84503812|NCT00323609|168758766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.185
84503813|NCT00323609|168758766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.100
84624613|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.02|-0.47|0.0667
84624614|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.63|0.0047
84624615|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.34|0.5130
84760738|NCT02109484|169277720|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84760739|NCT02109484|169277721|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were peformed||||<0.0001
84760740|NCT02109484|169277721|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84760741|NCT02109484|169277721|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
84624616|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
84760742|NCT02109484|169277722|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Group B 10 mcg P2-VP8 was performed.||||0.0004
84624617|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.07|-0.60|0.0126
84624618|NCT03192176|168993568|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.13|-0.36|0.3507
84624619|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.60|0.0098
84760743|NCT02109484|169277722|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Cohort B 30 mcg P2-VP8 vaccine group was performed.||||<0.0001
84760744|NCT02109484|169277722|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair-wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in Cohort B Placebo group and the Cohort B P2-VP8 group was performed.||||<0.0001
84624620|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.11|-0.63|0.0048
84624621|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.28|-0.80|<0.0001
84624622|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.47|-1.00|<0.0001
84624623|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.21|-0.32|0.6761
84624624|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.57|0.0188
84624625|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.10|-0.61|0.0067
84624626|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.03|-0.68|0.0335
84760745|NCT02111993|169277724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84624627|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.25|-0.91|0.0007
84624628|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.48|-1.14|<0.0001
84624629|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.74|-1.41|<0.0001
84624630|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.17|-0.50|0.3227
84624631|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.11|-0.77|0.0085
84624632|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
84624633|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.12|-0.87|0.0102
84624634|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
84674232|NCT02318693|169084058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.8||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.2|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||6.2|-23.8|0.245
84624635|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
84624636|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.68|-1.46|<0.0001
84624637|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.03|-0.73|0.0740
84624638|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.21|-0.97|0.0024
84674233|NCT02318693|169084059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-5.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.6|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.6|-11.3|0.029
84760746|NCT02111993|169277724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84760747|NCT02111993|169277724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84760748|NCT02111993|169277725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84760749|NCT02111993|169277725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84760750|NCT02111993|169277725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84624639|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.41|-1.17|<0.0001
84624640|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.08|-0.72|0.1197
84624641|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.18|-0.98|0.0046
84624642|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.47|-1.28|<0.0001
84624643|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.69|-1.51|<0.0001
84624644|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.01|-0.80|0.0553
84624645|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.76|0.0823
84624646|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.96|0.0060
84624647|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.0374
84674234|NCT02318693|169084060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-12.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Breakfast. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-25.1|0.041
84674235|NCT02318693|169084060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-14.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Lunch. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-28.1|0.043
84624648|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.19|-1.00|0.0042
84624649|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
84624650|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.54|<0.0001
84624651|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.03|-0.79|0.0710
84624652|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.09|-0.91|0.0160
84624653|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.34|-1.15|0.0003
84726283|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4917||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|1.092|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.092|-0.884|0.833
84624654|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.07|-0.76|0.1013
84624655|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.28|-1.11|0.0011
84624656|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.53|-1.36|<0.0001
84624657|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.72|-1.57|<0.0001
84624658|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.00|-0.85|0.0476
84624659|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.07|-0.90|0.0220
84624660|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.24|-1.07|0.0019
84624661|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.74|0.1457
84624662|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.91|0.0284
84624663|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-1.26|0.0002
84624664|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.48|-1.36|<0.0001
84624665|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.26|-0.61|0.4223
84624666|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.01|-0.87|0.0442
84624667|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-1.02|0.0071
84624668|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.05|-0.80|0.0823
84624669|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.04|-0.89|0.0336
84624670|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.46|-1.32|<0.0001
84624671|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.47|-1.34|<0.0001
84624672|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.59|0.4819
84624673|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.03|-0.88|0.0371
84624674|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.97|0.0121
84624675|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.05|-0.89|0.0281
84760751|NCT02111993|169277726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84624676|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.01|-0.86|0.0436
84624677|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
84760752|NCT02111993|169277726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84624678|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.60|-1.47|<0.0001
84503814|NCT00323609|168758767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.005
84624679|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.11|-0.75|0.1488
84624680|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.06|-0.91|0.0251
84624681|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.23|-1.08|0.0027
84624682|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.07|-0.77|0.1053
84624683|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.04|-0.90|0.0304
84624684|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.43|-1.33|<0.0001
84624685|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.61|-1.49|<0.0001
84726284|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.073||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|4.752|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.752|-3.541|0.771
84726285|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.315|4.267|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.267|-4.315|0.991
84726286|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9486||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|1.732|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.732|-6.064|0.271
84726287|NCT03320941|169204561|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8889||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.986|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.986|-4.570|0.676
84726288|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7535||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.603|9.222|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.222|-9.603|0.968
84760753|NCT02111993|169277726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84624686|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.06|-0.81|0.0873
84624687|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.97|0.0124
84624688|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.27|-1.12|0.0014
84624689|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.68|0.0479
84624690|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.13|-0.54|0.2342
84624691|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.84|0.0070
84624692|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.21|-0.49|0.4291
84624693|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.83|0.0076
84624694|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.10|-0.62|0.1506
84624695|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.24|-0.44|0.5479
84760754|NCT02249143|169277733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|13.22|||Regression, Linear|||FRC values over time were modeled using linear mixed effects regression with treatment group vs. time interaction and repeated measures for the randomization, 2 week, and discharge time points. Compound symmetric covariance structures were used to account for the correlation of FRC values within each patient. We compared outcomes between the two treatment groups and included adjustments for gender, twin gestation, and weight at randomization.||13.22|0.02|<0.05
84760755|NCT02249143|169277734|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84624696|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.57|0.1427
84760756|NCT02249143|169277734|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Group differences in the secondary outcomes were tested at randomization, two weeks, and discharge using independent samples t-tests.||||
84624697|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-0.56|0.1498
84624698|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0103
84674236|NCT02318693|169084060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|5.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Dinner. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||20.4|-10.3|0.509
84760757|NCT01890642|169277748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84760758|NCT01890642|169277749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
84760759|NCT01890642|169277750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84760760|NCT01890642|169277751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
84760761|NCT01890642|169277752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.37
84624699|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.32|-0.36|0.8984
84624700|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0095
84624701|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.60|0.1370
84624702|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.19|-0.46|0.4223
84624703|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.50|0.3265
84624704|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.04|-0.62|0.0852
84624705|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.21|-0.91|0.0021
84624706|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.25|-0.45|0.5717
84624707|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.82|0.0084
84624708|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.04|-0.75|0.0277
84674237|NCT02318693|169084061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|15.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.8|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||28.8|2.5|0.020
84624709|NCT03192176|168993569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.21|-0.46|0.4627
84624710|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.97|-8.62|0.0142
84624711|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.05|-11.73|<0.0001
84624712|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-5.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.31|-12.98|<0.0001
84624713|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-6.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.61|-14.39|<0.0001
84624714|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.44|-7.36|0.0819
84674238|NCT02318693|169084062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 70 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.3|-2.5|0.134
84624715|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.09|-10.78|0.0004
84624716|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.05|-10.69|0.0005
84624717|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.23|-8.01|0.0380
84624718|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-3.64|-11.46|0.0002
84624719|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.17|-11.96|<0.0001
84624720|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.25|-13.17|<0.0001
84624721|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-8.52|0.0245
84624722|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.01|-9.83|0.0031
84624723|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.75|-9.53|0.0046
84624724|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.59|-9.61|0.0064
84624725|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.65|-12.72|<0.0001
84624726|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|-4.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.75|-12.78|<0.0001
84624727|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-6.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.09|-14.27|<0.0001
84674239|NCT02318693|169084062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 60 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.4|-1.5|0.226
84674240|NCT02318693|169084062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 50 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.0|-0.1|0.332
84726289|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7545||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.297|7.531|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.531|-11.297|0.693
84726290|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2623||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.676|3.203|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.203|-13.676|0.222
84726291|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1637||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.648|0.841|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.841|-15.648|0.078
84726292|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0033||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.194|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.910|-13.194|0.850
84726293|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7919||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.676|5.58|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.580|-17.676|0.301
84726294|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2598||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.147|4.972|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.972|-16.147|0.293
84760762|NCT01508702|169277811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
84760763|NCT02425826|169277812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|-25.3|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-25.30|-54.39|<0.0001
84760764|NCT02425826|169277813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-1.0|-3.9|0.0008
84503815|NCT00323609|168758767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.382
84503816|NCT00323609|168758767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.196
84726295|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2191||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.421|3.535|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.535|-17.421|0.189
84503817|NCT00323609|168758767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.281
84726296|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2441||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|15.152|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.152|-13.800|0.926
84503818|NCT00323609|168758768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.033
84503819|NCT00323609|168758768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.981
84503820|NCT00323609|168758768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.631
84726297|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5086||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.802|16.207|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||16.207|-13.802|0.873
84726298|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6977||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.164|7.605|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.605|-19.164|0.391
84726299|NCT03320941|169204562|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3822||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.345|5.163|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.163|-20.345|0.239
84726300|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8326||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.696|2.525|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.525|-8.696|0.278
84726301|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.859||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.639|4.686|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.686|-6.639|0.733
84726302|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5118||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.482|0.468|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.468|-9.482|0.075
84726303|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4659||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|2.616|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.616|-7.152|0.360
84726304|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1699||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.792|4.959|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.959|-11.792|0.416
84726305|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1121||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.893|6.625|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.625|-9.893|0.693
84726306|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6351||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.207|4.396|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.396|-10.207|0.428
84726307|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6414||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.113|9.515|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.515|-5.113|0.548
84726308|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8828||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.128|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.128|-10.400|0.500
84726309|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9906||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.805|7.154|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.154|-8.805|0.837
84726310|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4818||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.556|1.368|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.368|-12.556|0.113
84726311|NCT03320941|169204563|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3512||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.361|1.041|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.041|-12.361|0.096
84726312|NCT01383616|169204571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 3 month ODI Score between Unipedicular and Bipedicular kyphoplasty groups||||0.85
84726313|NCT01383616|169204572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84726314|NCT01383616|169204573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84726315|NCT01383616|169204574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84726316|NCT01383616|169204575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84726317|NCT01383616|169204576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84726318|NCT01383616|169204577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84726319|NCT01383616|169204578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84726320|NCT01383616|169204579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84726321|NCT01383616|169204580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84726322|NCT00896389|169204581|OTHER|Association between genotypes and phenotypes were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84503821|NCT00323609|168758768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.790
84503822|NCT00323609|168758769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.663
84503823|NCT00323609|168758769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.933
84503824|NCT00323609|168758769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.089
84503825|NCT00323609|168758769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.036
84503826|NCT00323609|168758770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.472
84503827|NCT00323609|168758770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.745
84503828|NCT00323609|168758770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.565
84503829|NCT00323609|168758770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.687
84624728|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.36|-10.54|0.0021
84624729|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-3.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-3.66|-11.71|0.0002
84760765|NCT02425826|169277814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) is based on normal approximation|||31.1|11.0|<0.0001
84624730|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-2.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.95|-10.96|0.0007
84624731|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.47|-9.46|0.0075
84503830|NCT00575328|168758826|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|The analysis is not truly informative, since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be viewed with caution.|12.3|-8.7|0.62
84503831|NCT00575328|168758827|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|Analysis was not truly informative since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be interpreted with caution.|13.97|-6.7|0.38
84503832|NCT01504867|168758850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wald|This was a large sample (Wald) test estimated using a conditional logistic regression model with site as a stratification variable.||The primary outcome significance level was adjusted for multiple testing associated with the interim analysis. Its significance level is 92.6%||||0.53
84503833|NCT01504867|168758851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84503834|NCT01504867|168758852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84503835|NCT01504867|168758853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
84503836|NCT01504867|168758854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84503837|NCT01504867|168758855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84503838|NCT01504867|168758856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84503839|NCT03210259|168758871|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|105.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|96.58|114.64|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||114.64|96.58|
84540175|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.45||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|10.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.59|-15.50|0.7595
84760766|NCT02425826|169277815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.7||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||25.7|1.7|0.0365
84624732|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.42|-12.44|<0.0001
84624733|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.16|-12.15|<0.0001
84624734|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-6.16|-14.30|<0.0001
84624735|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.34|-10.46|0.0021
84624736|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.25|-12.25|<0.0001
84624737|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-3.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.62|-11.58|0.0002
84624738|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.05|-8.60|0.0123
84760767|NCT02425826|169277816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||The treatment comparison was only done for Week 16; End of Phase||-4.5|-18.8|0.0016
84760768|NCT02425826|169277817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on 2-sided CMH tests stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||27.6|-4.0|0.0463
84760769|NCT02425826|169277818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|25.24|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM-Effectiveness||25.24|10.36|<0.0001
84760770|NCT02425826|169277818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.4|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM - Side Effects||15.40|-5.40|0.3433
84760771|NCT02425826|169277818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|7.06|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSMQ-Convenience||7.06|-4.25|0.6250
84602222|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.773|19.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.914|2.773|0.010
84760772|NCT02425826|169277818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.16|20.97|||ANOVA|||TSQM-Global Satisfaction||20.97|7.16|<0.0001
84760773|NCT02425826|169277820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.08|-19.91|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate||||-19.91|-54.08|<0.0001
84602223|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.122||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.021|18.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.222|2.021|0.014
84602224|NCT03622112|168955250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.689||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.424|18.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.953|2.424|0.011
84602225|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.199|0.851|0.909
84602226|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.118||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.336|0.935|0.218
84602227|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.129||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.349|0.944|0.181
84602228|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.984||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.174|0.825|0.859
84602229|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.916||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.077|0.780|0.285
84602230|NCT03622112|168955261|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.991||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.182|0.831|0.923
84602231|NCT00385944|168955272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.81|-17.02|<0.001
84602232|NCT00385944|168955273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.65|-10.96|<0.001
84602233|NCT00385944|168955274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.90|-17.06|<0.001
84602234|NCT00385944|168955275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-6.84|0.001
84602235|NCT00385944|168955276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.26|7.05|<0.001
84760774|NCT02425826|169277821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||41.8|16.3|<0.0001
84760775|NCT02425826|169277822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|2-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||22.7|4.4|0.0136
84760776|NCT02997904|169277827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5829|1.4288|||ANOVA|||Ho: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® ≤ Total number of lice and eggs removed with sham control Ha: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® \> Total Number of lice and eggs removed with sham control||1.4288|0.5829|<0.0001
84760777|NCT02997904|169277828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1157|1.3011||The P-Values were \<0.0001 in both comparison groups; total number lice removed and total number of eggs removed|GLIMMX|||Comparison of total number of lice removed and total number of eggs removed were analyzed separately||1.3011|1.1157|<0.0001
84760778|NCT02997904|169277828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6993|0.8805|||GLIMMX|||||0.8805|0.6993|<0.0001
84760779|NCT00879697|169277829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of training in both groups were assessed by a 2-way ANOVA (Time x Group) for repeated measures. When significance was obtained, the Newman-Keuls post hoc test was used to identify the differences.||||<0.05
84760780|NCT00562588|169277870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.683||95.0|0.78|1.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint tele-mRS on day 90 was available in 527 of 543 treated patients (97.1%).||1.461|0.78|0.683
84760781|NCT00562588|169277871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, age, weight, baseline SBP, diabetes, previous stroke and baseline NIHSS||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||||0.607
84760782|NCT00562588|169277872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.202||95.0|0.442|1.189|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||1.189|0.442|0.202
84760783|NCT00328627|169277884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||For the primary analysis, the overall average HbA1c response of the Alogliptin/pioglitazone combination groups was compared with that of the pioglitazone alone groups at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||The null hypothesis was that the doses of alogliptin do not have any additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone. The alternative hypothesis was that at least the higher dose of alogliptin would have an additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
84760784|NCT00328627|169277884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.41|-0.66|<0.001
84602236|NCT00385944|168955277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.81|5.56|0.001
84602237|NCT00385944|168955278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|18.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.34|2.17|0.015
84602238|NCT00385944|168955279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|8.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.84|-1.13|0.123
84602239|NCT00385944|168955280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-10.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.62|-23.05|<0.001
84602240|NCT00385944|168955281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.87|-38.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.01|-70.87|<0.001
84602241|NCT00385944|168955283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||||||<.001
84602242|NCT00385944|168955284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.011||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.011
84602243|NCT00385944|168955284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.847||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.847
84602244|NCT00385944|168955285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.49|-15.99|0.008
84602245|NCT00385944|168955286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.22|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|9.22|<0.001
84602246|NCT01155466|168955290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated mean change from baseline in mean off time for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.53|-0.62|0.8700
84602247|NCT01155466|168955292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||1.6|-7.3|0.899
84602248|NCT01155466|168955292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||2.6|-6.8|0.815
84602249|NCT01155466|168955292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||6.9|-3.9|0.295
84602250|NCT01155466|168955295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.629
84602251|NCT01155466|168955295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.625
84624739|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-4.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.07|-11.63|<0.0001
84503840|NCT03210259|168758872|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the LS means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|93.26|109.7|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||109.70|93.26|
84503841|NCT03210259|168758873|OTHER||Least squares means ratio|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|97.33|118.43|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm as numerator and the continuous arm as the denominator.|No hypothesis was defined and no statistical test was performed.||118.43|97.33|
84624740|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.23|-11.80|<0.0001
84624741|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-6.03|-13.73|<0.0001
84624742|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.47|-10.13|0.0013
84624743|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.41|-10.97|0.0002
84624744|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.89|-10.41|0.0006
84624745|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.07|-8.54|0.0119
84624746|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.09|-10.58|0.0004
84624747|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-4.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-4.06|-11.57|<0.0001
84624748|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-5.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.27|-12.89|<0.0001
84760785|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.48||As a supportive analysis, each of the individual combination treatment groups was compared with the component treatment groups receiving aloliptin alone and pioglitazone alone at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.93|<0.001
84503842|NCT03210259|168758875|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.45|13.96|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||13.96|-2.45|
84760786|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.38|-0.81|<0.001
84624749|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.58|-9.18|0.0057
84624750|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.90|-10.40|0.0006
84760787|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
84760788|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
84503843|NCT03210259|168758876|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|15.62|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||15.62|-4.35|
84624751|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.81|-10.27|0.0006
84624752|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.68|-8.27|0.0210
84624753|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.38|-10.98|0.0002
84624754|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.49|-11.12|0.0002
84624755|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-5.25|-12.99|<0.0001
84624756|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.73|-9.45|0.0047
84624757|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-2.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.67|-10.29|0.0009
84624758|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.71|-10.28|0.0008
84760789|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
84624759|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.51|-7.10|0.0889
84540176|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.11||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.66|-4.57||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-4.57|-23.66|0.0209
84624760|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.13|-9.76|0.0023
84624761|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.71|-10.36|0.0009
84676699|NCT00673049|169088993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.31||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.024 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|Nominal p-values were reported without adjustment for the interim analysis.||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.310|0.909|0.35
84760790|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
84760791|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
84760792|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
84624762|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|-3.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.58|-11.36|0.0002
84624763|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-8.30|0.0255
84624764|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.98|-9.63|0.0031
84624765|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.85|-9.45|0.0037
84624766|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.35|-7.59|0.0316
84624767|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.78|-9.02|0.0036
84624768|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.94|-10.23|0.0004
84624769|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-3.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.54|-10.93|0.0001
84624770|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.00|-7.37|0.0502
84624771|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.99|-9.28|0.0025
84624772|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.44|-8.67|0.0063
84624773|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.08|-8.58|0.0117
84503844|NCT01154153|168758897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio of Geometric mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.045|||ANCOVA||The treatment ratio was calculated as an exponential of the mean difference between treatments in log scale.|Missing cortisol values were imputed with multiple imputation. AUC(0-24 hr) was calculated for each imputation and analyzed with log-transformation using an ANCOVA model and analyzed with treatment, sex, and age group as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline value as a covariate. The mean difference in log scale between treatments and its standard error were calculated by Least Squares mean. Results from multiply imputed data were combined using SAS procedure MIANALYZE.||1.045|0.892|
84624774|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.67|-9.17|0.0047
84760793|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.68|-1.13|<0.001
84624775|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.23|-10.80|0.0003
84624776|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-3.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.86|-11.51|<0.0001
84624777|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.34|-8.97|0.0083
84624778|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.56|-10.10|0.0011
84624779|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.29|-9.77|0.0017
84624780|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.05|-8.37|0.0119
84624781|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
84624782|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.99|-11.38|<0.0001
84624783|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.87|-11.33|<0.0001
84624784|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-9.07|0.0051
84624785|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.96|-10.33|0.0004
84624786|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.34|-9.64|0.0014
84624787|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.51|-8.67|0.0054
84624788|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.55|-9.71|0.0008
84624789|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.97|-11.20|<0.0001
84624790|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-4.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.59|-11.88|<0.0001
84503845|NCT01154153|168758898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|For ANCOVA, treatment arm, randomization strata were fixed effects and baseline value was a covariate.||||-0.37|-1.34|0.0007
84624791|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.99|-9.27|0.0026
84624792|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|-3.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-10.35|0.0003
84624793|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.75|-9.88|0.0006
84624794|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.15|-9.48|0.0126
84624795|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.27|-7.06|0.1724
84624796|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|2.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||2.27|-6.31|0.3548
84760794|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.001
84503846|NCT01154153|168758899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1332||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1332
84503847|NCT01154153|168758900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3314
84503848|NCT02473510|168758903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.2|
84503849|NCT02473510|168758904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|27.6||||||Up to Day 8||27.6|3.6|
84503850|NCT02473510|168758904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|29.3||||||Up to Day 15||29.3|4.4|
84624797|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.53|-8.04|0.0860
84760795|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.92|<0.001
84503851|NCT03404206|168758958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84503852|NCT03404206|168758958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84503853|NCT03404206|168758959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-34.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.67|-23.8|||ANCOVA|||||-23.8|-45.67|
84624798|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.28|-9.89|0.0111
84503854|NCT03404206|168758959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-73.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.01|-57.85|||ANCOVA|||||-57.85|-89.01|
84676700|NCT00673049|169088994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.287||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.001 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), ECOG performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.287|0.898|0.426
84503855|NCT03404206|168758959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-38.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-23.11|||ANCOVA|||||-23.11|-54.29|
84503856|NCT03404206|168758960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-12.89|||ANCOVA|||||-12.89|-23.52|
84503857|NCT03404206|168758960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-33.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.29|-26.14|||ANCOVA|||||-26.14|-41.29|
84760796|NCT00328627|169277916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.39|-0.83|<0.001
84503858|NCT03404206|168758960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-15.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-7.93|||ANCOVA|||||-7.93|-23.09|
84503859|NCT05478603|168758961|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.86|127.04|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||127.04|70.86|
84503860|NCT05478603|168758961|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|133.56|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||133.56|74.50|
84676701|NCT00673049|169088995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.668||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||||5.1|-1.7|0.338
84674241|NCT01639001|169084116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.565||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.02496level.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \< 1.0, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Crizotinib/Chemotherapy). Evaluation of 160 PFS events in the 2 arms using a 1-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 level of significance was required to detect a HR of 0.64 with 80% power.||0.565|0.286|<0.0001
84674242|NCT01639001|169084117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.869|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|53.398||If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was \<= 0.04992.|2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment difference in ORR (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||53.398|30.340|<0.0001
84674243|NCT01639001|169084118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.521||If the PFS and ORR endpoints were significant, OS was to be considered significant if 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG, ethnicity and metastases was \<= 0.02496.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.521|0.734|0.6172
84674244|NCT01639001|169084119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|8.906||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.275|20.086|||2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment Difference in DCR Rate (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||20.086|-2.275|0.1204
84602252|NCT01155466|168955295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||0.7|-6.8|0.948
84602253|NCT01155466|168955296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||0.90|-0.61|0.7044
84602254|NCT01155466|168955296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||1.14|-0.4|0.3439
84602255|NCT01155466|168955296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.08|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||1.08|-0.43|0.3941
84602256|NCT01155466|168955297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Odds ratio was calculated for all randomized and treated participants with at least 1 post treatment value.|"Confidence intervals and P-values were based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average off time as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect."|||1.657|0.597|0.983
84602257|NCT01155466|168955298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated change from baseline in on time without troublesome dyskinesias for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.80|-0.49|0.6405
84602258|NCT02075047|168955315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.32|-7.14|0.005
84602259|NCT02075047|168955316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.69|<0.001
84602260|NCT02075047|168955316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.174
84602261|NCT02075047|168955316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.71|0.024
84602262|NCT02075047|168955316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.138
84602263|NCT02075047|168955317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|-3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.54|-8.16|<0.001
84624799|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.33|-8.94|0.0349
84624800|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.57|-6.77|0.2205
84624801|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.24|-8.29|0.0645
84624802|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|2.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.80|-5.69|0.5031
84624803|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.99|-5.84|0.5263
84624804|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.97|-6.83|0.2782
84624805|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.84|-9.67|0.0198
84624806|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.18|-9.05|0.0417
84624807|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.00|-6.52|0.2963
84760797|NCT02049944|169278040|OTHER|we used t-test on the regression coefficient for the group indicator to test for differences in means categorical variables were evaluated using fisher's exact test of association linear regression for log transformed start adipose concentrations were calculated by dose specific group|Median Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||To detect the number of subjects who obtained a minimal inhibitory concentration (\>4mg/ml) following increased 3g dose of cefazolin. Compare this number to the historical cohort who had received 2g of cefazolin (standard dosing)||||
84760798|NCT01662440|169278041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 7 days after last active vaccination is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|2.8||||||To establish non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 7 days after last active vaccination.||2.8|-2.8|
84760799|NCT01662440|169278042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine is considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.8|7.9||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 28 day after last active vaccination||7.9|-4.8|
84624808|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.83|-5.39|0.5408
84624809|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.41|-4.74|0.7473
84674245|NCT01639001|169084123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.493|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.493|0.246|<0.0001
84760800|NCT01662440|169278043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine co-administered with JE vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.667.|Between groups ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as compared to Rabies vaccines (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at 28day after last active vaccination||1.32|0.86|
84760801|NCT01662440|169278044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of JE vaccine co-administered with Rabies vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of JE vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
84760802|NCT01662440|169278045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine is considered non-inferior to the Rabies vaccine conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 28 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.4||||||Non-inferiority of the Rabies immune response (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared Rabies vaccine (administered alone) as given to a conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination||1.4|-3.8|
84503861|NCT05478603|168758961|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.31|91.98|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||91.98|51.31|
84540177|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.56||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.99|9.87||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.87|-18.99|0.6094
84624810|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.50|-4.07|0.9214
84624811|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.26|-4.19|0.9876
84624812|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.71|-6.86|0.2379
84624813|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.14|-7.45|0.1491
84624814|NCT03192176|168993570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.19|-3.96|0.9560
84624815|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.30|-9.01|0.0089
84624816|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-4.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.48|-12.22|<0.0001
84624817|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|-5.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.34|-13.06|<0.0001
84624818|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.75|-14.58|<0.0001
84624819|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.20|-7.65|0.0630
84624820|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.30|-11.04|0.0003
84674246|NCT01639001|169084124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.338|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||1.338|0.335|0.1270
84624821|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.84|-10.53|0.0007
84624822|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.63|-8.43|0.0231
84624823|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.09|-11.94|<0.0001
84624824|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.05|-11.87|<0.0001
84624825|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-5.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.26|-13.21|<0.0001
84624826|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.84|-8.80|0.0177
84624827|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.60|-10.45|0.0012
84624828|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.64|-9.26|0.0072
84624829|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-9.86|0.0044
84624830|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-5.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-5.21|-13.27|<0.0001
84624831|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-4.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.55|-12.57|<0.0001
84624832|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-6.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.11|-14.29|<0.0001
84624833|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-2.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.87|-11.04|0.0009
84624834|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.39|-12.44|<0.0001
84624835|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.64|-10.65|0.0012
84624836|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.71|-9.72|0.0053
84624837|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|-4.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.73|-12.77|<0.0001
84624838|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.84|-11.84|0.0001
84624839|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|-5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-5.96|-14.12|<0.0001
84624840|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-2.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.78|-10.92|0.0010
84624841|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-4.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.46|-12.49|<0.0001
84624842|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.13|-11.12|0.0005
84624843|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-9.15|0.0057
84624844|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.56|-12.15|<0.0001
84624845|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-4.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.08|-11.68|<0.0001
84624846|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-5.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-5.93|-13.66|<0.0001
84624847|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.85|-10.54|0.0007
84624848|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.95|-11.55|<0.0001
84624849|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.60|-10.16|0.0010
84624850|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.48|-8.99|0.0064
84624851|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-3.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.42|-10.94|0.0002
84624852|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.75|-11.29|0.0001
84624853|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-5.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.03|-12.69|<0.0001
84624854|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.99|-9.62|0.0030
84624855|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.37|-10.92|0.0002
84624856|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.42|-9.91|0.0013
84624857|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-8.61|0.0137
84624858|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-3.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.60|-11.24|0.0002
84624859|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.13|-10.79|0.0004
84624860|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-4.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-4.97|-12.74|<0.0001
84624861|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.07|-9.82|0.0028
84624862|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.94|-10.60|0.0006
84624863|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.21|-9.82|0.0020
84624864|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-7.46|0.0588
84624865|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-9.90|0.0018
84624866|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.34|-9.98|0.0017
84624867|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.32|-11.09|0.0003
84624868|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.81|-8.55|0.0810
84674247|NCT01639001|169084125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.412|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.412|0.186|<0.0001
84624869|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.23|-9.88|0.0020
84624870|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.39|-8.98|0.0076
84624871|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.75|-8.01|0.0182
84624872|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-2.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.16|-9.42|0.0019
84624873|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.71|-10.02|0.0007
84624874|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.35|-10.76|0.0002
84624875|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.50|-7.89|0.0263
84624876|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
84624877|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.07|-8.32|0.0113
84624878|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.54|-9.04|0.0059
84624879|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.25|-9.76|0.0018
84624880|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.05|-10.62|0.0004
84624881|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.73|-11.39|0.0001
84624882|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.75|-9.40|0.0044
84624883|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.84|-10.40|0.0006
84624884|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.07|-9.57|0.0025
84624885|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.49|-8.81|0.0059
84674248|NCT01639001|169084126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.61||2-sided Hochberg adjusted p-values|2 sided unstratified log rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.610|0.307|<0.0001
84760803|NCT01662440|169278046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 7 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to a conventional schedule at 7day after last active vaccine administration.||6.2|-4.1|
84760804|NCT02600507|169278056|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.37|-4.42|0.021
84760805|NCT02600507|169278056|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.32|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.32|-3.65|0.099
84760806|NCT02600507|169278057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.09|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.09|-0.59|0.008
84760807|NCT02600507|169278057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.01|-0.50|0.040
84503862|NCT05478603|168758962|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|173.71|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||173.71|59.74|
84624886|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.74|-10.06|0.0007
84624887|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.79|-11.18|<0.0001
84624888|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.72|-11.18|0.0001
84624889|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-2.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.11|-9.56|0.0022
84624890|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-3.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.19|-10.56|0.0003
84624891|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.13|-9.44|0.0020
84624892|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.01|-9.18|0.0023
84760808|NCT04872101|169278088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|28.5||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||28.5|15.8|<0.001
84760809|NCT04872101|169278089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.8|16.0|<0.001
84760810|NCT04872101|169278090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.3||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.3|0.8|0.043
84676702|NCT01175824|169089010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the LS mean between the two treatment arms (twice-daily insulin lispro Low Mixture minus the comparator arm) at 24 weeks is \<0.4%.|LS mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.38|
84503863|NCT05478603|168758962|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|156.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.53|266.14|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||266.14|91.53|
84624893|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.89|-10.06|0.0004
84624894|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-3.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.81|-11.05|<0.0001
84624895|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.49|-11.80|<0.0001
84624896|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.47|-9.77|0.0011
84624897|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.32|-10.54|0.0002
84624898|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-9.71|0.0008
84624899|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.80|-10.26|0.0054
84624900|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-7.63|0.1145
84624901|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.58|-7.13|0.2106
84624902|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.31|-8.39|0.0685
84624903|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-2.29|-11.02|0.0029
84624904|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.67|-9.42|0.0239
84624905|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.60|-6.86|0.2224
84624906|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.45|-9.17|0.0308
84624907|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.56|-6.13|0.4194
84676703|NCT01175824|169089011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1858||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1858
84624908|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.48|-6.55|0.3759
84624909|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.74|-7.26|0.2285
84624910|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-1.70|-10.71|0.0072
84624911|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.38|-9.46|0.0338
84624912|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.07|-6.64|0.3026
84624913|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.07|-6.45|0.3120
84624914|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.34|-5.11|0.6816
84624915|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.05|-4.85|0.8599
84624916|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.13|-4.64|0.9093
84624917|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.46|-8.43|0.0788
84624918|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.00|-7.92|0.1278
84624919|NCT03192176|168993571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.9848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.27|-4.19|0.9848
84624920|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||28.49|0.76|0.0388
84624921|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|37.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||37.02|9.17|0.0012
84624922|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||51.22|23.41|<0.0001
84674249|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||11.11|3.79|<0.0001
84676704|NCT01175824|169089012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3588||95.0||||HbA1c concentration \<7%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.3588
84676705|NCT01175824|169089012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5958||95.0||||HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5958
84674250|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.613||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.49|0.73|0.0140
84674251|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.652||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.42|-1.12|0.2427
84674252|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7267|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||9.30|4.15|<0.0001
84674253|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8109||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.47|3.15|0.0003
84674254|NCT01639001|169084127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.594||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.06|1.13|0.0140
84760811|NCT04872101|169278091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.8|19.0|<0.001
84503864|NCT05478603|168758962|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|164.51|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||164.51|56.58|
84503865|NCT05478603|168758963|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.91|174.39|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||174.39|59.91|
84503866|NCT05478603|168758963|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|152.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.62|260.9|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||260.90|89.62|
84503867|NCT05478603|168758963|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.9|165.65|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||165.65|56.90|
84503868|NCT05478603|168758964|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.61|134.69|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||134.69|64.61|
84503869|NCT05478603|168758964|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.89|154.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||154.03|73.89|
84676706|NCT01175824|169089013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 12 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0827
84676707|NCT01175824|169089013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5353||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 24 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5353
84624923|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|55.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||55.05|26.88|<0.0001
84624924|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||22.32|-5.98|0.2569
84624925|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|39.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||39.47|11.65|0.0003
84624926|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|44.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||44.06|16.39|<0.0001
84624927|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||29.71|2.11|0.0240
84624928|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|38.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.37|10.62|0.0006
84624929|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|47.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.52|19.87|<0.0001
84624930|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|52.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||52.04|23.93|<0.0001
84624931|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|28.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||28.53|0.38|0.0441
84624932|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|33.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.28|5.58|0.0061
84624933|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|39.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||39.53|11.96|0.0003
84624934|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|35.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||35.07|5.36|0.0078
84624935|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|43.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.22|13.36|0.0002
84624936|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|51.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||51.77|22.07|<0.0001
84624937|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.41|55.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||55.67|25.41|<0.0001
84624938|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|34.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||34.88|4.59|0.0108
84624939|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|39.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||39.84|10.09|0.0011
84624940|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.03|45.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.67|16.03|<0.0001
84676708|NCT01175824|169089017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2833||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2833
84624941|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|35.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||35.23|5.84|0.0063
84624942|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|43.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.46|13.98|0.0002
84624943|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.66|48.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||48.00|18.66|<0.0001
84624944|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.52|56.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.41|26.52|<0.0001
84624945|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|34.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||34.66|4.78|0.0098
84624946|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|44.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||44.61|15.26|<0.0001
84624947|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|47.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||47.73|18.50|<0.0001
84624948|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||29.40|1.48|0.0303
84624949|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|38.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.74|10.77|0.0006
84624950|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.77|44.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.75|16.77|<0.0001
84624951|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.55|53.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||53.00|24.55|<0.0001
84624952|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|33.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||33.23|4.88|0.0086
84624953|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|36.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||36.24|8.33|0.0018
84624954|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|39.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||39.05|11.24|0.0004
84624955|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.60|1.56|0.0282
84624956|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|32.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.92|6.85|0.0029
84624957|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|42.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||42.73|16.58|<0.0001
84624958|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|48.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.99|22.42|<0.0001
84676709|NCT01175824|169089017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 24.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0176
84540178|NCT04856917|168830937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.28||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.34|2.78||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.78|-23.34|0.2076
84624959|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|27.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.90|1.40|0.0304
84624960|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|33.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.50|7.38|0.0022
84624961|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.56|39.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||39.50|13.56|<0.0001
84624962|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|27.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||27.95|0.93|0.0362
84624963|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.41|36.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.47|9.41|0.0009
84624964|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||42.46|15.27|<0.0001
84624965|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.99|50.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||50.57|22.99|<0.0001
84624966|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|29.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||29.34|1.83|0.0265
84624967|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.71|7.60|0.0023
84624968|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.64|40.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||40.59|13.64|<0.0001
84624969|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|22.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||22.99|-3.75|0.1580
84624970|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|31.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.50|4.72|0.0082
84624971|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|38.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||38.71|11.77|0.0003
84624972|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|44.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||44.31|16.93|<0.0001
84624973|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|24.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||24.84|-2.45|0.1074
84624974|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|31.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.76|4.87|0.0077
84624975|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.29|37.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||37.01|10.29|0.0006
84503870|NCT05478603|168758964|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|246.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.57|355.58|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||355.58|170.57|
84503871|NCT05478603|168758965|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.13|122.12|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||122.12|64.13|
84503872|NCT05478603|168758965|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.11|146.83|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||146.83|77.11|
84503873|NCT05478603|168758965|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|169.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.61|233.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||233.47|122.61|
84503874|NCT05478603|168758966|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.6|172.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.03|52.60|
84503875|NCT05478603|168758966|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|166.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|301.62|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||301.62|92.21|
84503876|NCT05478603|168758966|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|237.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.46|430.0|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||430.00|131.46|
84503877|NCT05478603|168758967|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.67|172.59|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.59|52.67|
84503878|NCT05478603|168758967|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|163.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|295.22|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||295.22|90.10|
84503879|NCT05478603|168758967|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.29|433.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||433.47|132.29|
84503880|NCT03182686|168758992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"H0:π ≤ π0 versus HA:π \> π0~Where π0 is the hypothesized clinically significant value for the proportion of responders. The value will be 30% in this study. This test will be tested using an exact binomial test. That is, given the sample size of n, the number of responders X, and the value of π0 =0.30, then probability that X or more events would be observed will be calculated as the p-value. Since this is a one-sided test, the alpha level will be 0.025."||||<0.0001
84503881|NCT01989195|168759041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84540179|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.29|-0.10|0.4482
84676710|NCT01175824|169089023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||||Superiority will be concluded if of 95% CI upper limit for treatment difference (2x-daily insulin lispro LM minus the comparator arm) at 24 wks is \<0%||||-0.05|-0.39|
84503882|NCT00529568|168759055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|6.0||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.9||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||10.9|1.2|0.0202
84624976|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|24.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||24.53|-0.92|0.0689
84624977|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|27.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||27.27|1.84|0.0250
84624978|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|37.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||37.17|11.54|0.0002
84624979|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.57|16.60|<0.0001
84624980|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|21.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||21.36|-4.58|0.2041
84624981|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|31.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||31.20|5.62|0.0049
84624982|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||33.37|8.00|0.0015
84624983|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||28.89|2.68|0.0184
84624984|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|25.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||25.93|-0.28|0.0551
84624985|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|39.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||39.00|12.51|0.0002
84624986|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.17|44.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||44.93|18.17|<0.0001
84624987|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|27.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||27.62|0.89|0.0367
84624988|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|34.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||34.34|7.99|0.0017
84624989|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|37.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.44|11.29|0.0003
84624990|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|27.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.15|1.78|0.0255
84624991|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|27.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.94|2.57|0.0186
84624992|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|39.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||39.36|13.71|<0.0001
84676711|NCT02979535|169089026|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.16||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.16|0.773|
84624993|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.94|42.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.81|16.94|<0.0001
84624994|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|26.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||26.85|1.01|0.0347
84624995|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|34.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.65|9.16|0.0008
84624996|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.75|36.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||36.04|10.75|0.0003
84624997|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|27.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.43|2.13|0.0221
84624998|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|29.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||29.62|4.32|0.0087
84624999|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|39.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||39.23|13.65|<0.0001
84625000|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.13|43.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||43.94|18.13|<0.0001
84625001|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|27.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.70|1.92|0.0244
84625002|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|34.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.62|9.21|0.0008
84625003|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|35.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.83|10.63|0.0003
84625004|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|24.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||24.30|-4.77|0.1871
84760812|NCT04872101|169278092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.2|15.1|<0.001
84625005|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|16.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||16.83|-12.23|0.7552
84625006|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|16.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||16.50|-13.44|0.8407
84625007|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|22.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||22.14|-7.77|0.3450
84676712|NCT02979535|169089026|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.21||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.21|0.803|
84676713|NCT02979535|169089027|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.46||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.46|0.653|
84625008|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|20.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||20.80|-9.34|0.4550
84674255|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0432||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 appetite loss. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-2.30|-9.79|0.0016
84760813|NCT04872101|169278093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||36.7|21.3|<0.001
84503883|NCT00931385|168759091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
84625009|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|25.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||25.44|-4.64|0.1747
84625010|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.5476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|18.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||18.97|-10.08|0.5476
84625011|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.01||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|17.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.84|-13.69|0.7954
84625012|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|16.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.95|-14.41|0.8731
84625013|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|16.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.03|-16.68|0.9689
84625014|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|20.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.21|-12.40|0.6378
84625015|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|17.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.97|-14.82|0.8503
84674256|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5026||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 constipation. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||8.47|0.53|0.0263
84503884|NCT00931385|168759091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
84625016|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|29.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||29.44|-3.51|0.1224
84625017|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|22.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.85|-8.62|0.3743
84625018|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|7.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||7.63|-23.44|0.3173
84625019|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|13.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.32|-17.48|0.7905
84760814|NCT04872101|169278094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.6||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||25.6|11.0|<0.001
84625020|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|8.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||8.98|-23.46|0.3804
84625021|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|10.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||10.38|-21.58|0.4905
84625022|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.83|3.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.68|-28.83|0.1289
84625023|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|22.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||22.61|-9.86|0.4398
84625024|NCT03192176|168993572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|13.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.33|-17.45|0.7921
84625025|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|33.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||33.46|4.82|0.0090
84625026|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|41.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||41.39|12.61|0.0003
84625027|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.14|53.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||53.90|25.14|<0.0001
84625028|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|59.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||59.39|30.27|<0.0001
84625029|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|26.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||26.79|-2.43|0.1019
84625030|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|42.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||42.22|13.45|0.0002
84760815|NCT04872101|169278095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|12.0||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.0|1.1|0.031
84625031|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|43.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||43.82|15.21|<0.0001
84625032|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.76|6.10|0.0049
84625033|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.64|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||42.46|14.64|<0.0001
84676714|NCT02979535|169089027|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||1.27|0.654|
84676715|NCT02979535|169089027|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.17||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.17|0.727|
84625034|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.96|47.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.69|19.96|<0.0001
84625035|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|53.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||53.58|25.40|<0.0001
84625036|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|31.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||31.70|3.50|0.0146
84625037|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|38.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.00|10.21|0.0007
84625038|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|37.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||37.70|10.05|0.0008
84625039|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|37.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||37.90|8.56|0.0020
84625040|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|49.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||49.11|19.60|<0.0001
84625041|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|50.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||50.32|20.96|<0.0001
84625042|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.03|57.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||57.93|28.03|<0.0001
84625043|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|40.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||40.37|10.48|0.0009
84625044|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|45.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.90|16.49|<0.0001
84625045|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.24|43.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.52|14.24|0.0001
84625046|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|37.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||37.66|8.46|0.0021
84625047|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|46.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||46.71|17.42|<0.0001
84625048|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.73|45.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.91|16.73|<0.0001
84625049|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|56.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.68|26.95|<0.0001
84625050|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|40.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||40.43|10.77|0.0008
84676716|NCT02979535|169089027|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.18||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.18|0.733|
84760816|NCT04872101|169278096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.5||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.5|17.5|<0.001
84503885|NCT00931385|168759091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.177|0.106|<0.0001
84503886|NCT00931385|168759092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.146|0.073|<0.0001
84503887|NCT00931385|168759092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.091|<0.0001
84676717|NCT04820673|169089047|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P\<0.0001, calculated by t-test, corresponds to baseline response group domain scores in comparison to week-12 domain scores (CFB). CFB is calculated using available matching data for each domain. Higher domain scores indicate higher disease burden.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 vs Baseline||||<.0001
84760817|NCT04872101|169278097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||23.7|10.2|<0.001
84760818|NCT04872101|169278098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.1||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.1|17.0|<0.001
84760819|NCT04872101|169278099|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|37.4||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||37.4|21.7|<0.001
84760820|NCT04872101|169278100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|27.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.8|13.1|<0.001
84760821|NCT04872101|169278101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|29.0||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.0|15.4|<0.001
84503888|NCT00931385|168759092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
84503889|NCT00931385|168759093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.094|<0.0001
84503890|NCT00931385|168759093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.103|<0.0001
84625051|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.75|45.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.94|16.75|<0.0001
84625052|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.91|43.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.97|14.91|<0.0001
84625053|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|34.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||34.06|6.31|0.0045
84625054|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.68|44.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.49|16.68|<0.0001
84625055|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.14|42.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||42.98|15.14|<0.0001
84625056|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|54.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||54.26|25.96|<0.0001
84760822|NCT04872101|169278102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.5|23.1|<0.001
84760823|NCT04872101|169278103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|39.3||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.3|22.7|<0.001
84760824|NCT04872101|169278104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-34.6||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-34.6|-56.4|<0.001
84760825|NCT04872101|169278105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.8||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.8|-5.0|<0.001
84760826|NCT04872101|169278106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.4|<0.001
84625057|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.28|38.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.42|10.28|0.0007
84625058|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|40.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||40.55|1.78|0.0002
84625059|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.55|37.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||37.22|9.55|0.0010
84760827|NCT04872101|169278107|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
84760828|NCT04872101|169278108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.5|-2.6|<0.001
84760829|NCT04872101|169278109|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-0.99|<0.001
84760830|NCT04872101|169278110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-1.01|<0.001
84760831|NCT04872101|169278111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.9||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.9|17.0|<0.001
84760832|NCT03691974|169278118|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.32||Analyses are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.32|-0.55|0.4192
84625060|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.13|32.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.11|6.13|0.0040
84625061|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|36.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.83|10.80|0.0004
84625062|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|40.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||40.24|14.10|<0.0001
84625063|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.34|48.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.88|22.34|<0.0001
84625064|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|33.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.19|6.76|0.0032
84625065|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|37.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||37.13|11.02|0.0003
84674257|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.94|18.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||18.68|12.94|<0.0001
84760833|NCT03691974|169278119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.80|-0.00|0.0521
84760834|NCT03691974|169278120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.15|-0.52|0.1593
84625066|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.17|36.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.08|10.17|0.0005
84674258|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 dyspnea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-4.19|-11.30|<0.0001
84503891|NCT00931385|168759093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.122|<0.0001
84503892|NCT00931385|168759094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.126|<0.0001
84503893|NCT00931385|168759094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.127|<0.0001
84503894|NCT00931385|168759094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.236|0.160|<0.0001
84625067|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|31.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||31.04|4.20|0.0102
84625068|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.42|39.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.29|12.42|0.0002
84625069|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|39.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.33|12.29|0.0002
84625070|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.58|49.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||49.98|22.58|<0.0001
84625071|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.29|7.00|0.0031
84625072|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|36.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.38|9.43|0.0009
84625073|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|36.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.19|9.42|0.0009
84625074|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|26.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||26.97|0.58|0.0408
84625075|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|33.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||33.21|6.77|0.0031
84625076|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|35.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||35.40|8.80|0.0012
84625077|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|43.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||43.42|16.39|<0.0001
84625078|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|28.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||28.32|1.42|0.0303
84625079|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.87|6.30|0.0040
84503895|NCT00931385|168759095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.135|<0.0001
84503896|NCT00931385|168759095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.127|<0.0001
84503897|NCT00931385|168759095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.257|0.178|<0.0001
84503898|NCT00931385|168759096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.064|<0.0001
84503899|NCT00931385|168759096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.072|<0.0001
84625080|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|32.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.73|6.34|0.0038
84625081|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|28.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||28.68|3.29|0.0137
84625082|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|30.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.82|5.44|0.0052
84674259|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4915||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.17|-9.82|0.0001
84503900|NCT00931385|168759096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.175|0.092|<0.0001
84503901|NCT00931385|168759097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.167|<0.0001
84503902|NCT00931385|168759097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.287|0.170|<0.0001
84503903|NCT00931385|168759097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
84503904|NCT00931385|168759098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.087|<0.0001
84503905|NCT00931385|168759098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.112|<0.0001
84503906|NCT00931385|168759098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.311|0.191|<0.0001
84625083|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.81|35.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||35.39|9.81|0.0006
84503907|NCT00931385|168759099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.132|<0.0001
84676718|NCT00587587|169089049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value compares overall incidence of AEs between groups, ie Apligraf 12/17 and Control 10/13.~UADE is defined in 21CFR812.3(s)"|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test used to evaluate treatment differences between Apligraf subjects and Control subjects experiencing any AEs.||||1.0000
84676719|NCT00587587|169089050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5863||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5863
84625084|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|42.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.32|16.41|<0.0001
84625085|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|26.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||26.63|0.78|0.0378
84625086|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|32.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||32.85|7.31|0.002
84625087|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|30.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.09|4.77|0.0071
84625088|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||33.71|7.61|0.0020
84625089|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|31.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||31.79|5.68|0.0050
84625090|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|37.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.60|11.20|0.0003
84625091|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.77|45.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||45.42|18.77|<0.0001
84625092|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|32.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||32.38|5.79|0.0050
84625093|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|36.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||36.22|9.95|0.0006
84760835|NCT03691974|169278121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.19||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.19|-1.59|0.7757
84625094|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.79|35.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||35.85|9.79|0.0006
84625095|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|30.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||30.98|6.11|0.0036
84625096|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|32.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.65|7.77|0.0015
84625097|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|37.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||37.57|12.41|0.0001
84625098|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.12|42.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.49|17.12|<0.0001
84625099|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|32.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.21|6.90|0.0026
84676720|NCT00587587|169089051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3783
84760836|NCT03691974|169278122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.09||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.09|-1.87|0.6063
84625100|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|35.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||35.94|10.92|0.0003
84625101|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.34|34.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.14|9.34|0.0006
84625102|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|31.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||31.83|6.78|0.0026
84625103|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|33.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||33.33|8.29|0.0012
84625104|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.48|37.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||37.82|12.48|0.0001
84625105|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|44.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||44.67|19.11|<0.0001
84625106|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|32.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||32.81|7.32|0.0021
84625107|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|35.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.29|10.10|0.0004
84625108|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.38|9.42|0.0006
84625109|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.40|1.62|0.0304
84625110|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||22.19|-8.60|0.3857
84625111|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|23.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||23.40|-8.31|0.3497
84625112|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|26.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||26.75|-4.95|0.1771
84625113|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|32.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.29|0.41|0.0444
84625114|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|27.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||27.63|-4.25|0.1500
84625115|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|19.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||19.29|-11.51|0.6196
84625116|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|26.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||26.15|-7.25|0.2664
84625117|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|20.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.59|-12.66|0.6388
84676721|NCT00587587|169089052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar firmness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7149
84625118|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.19|-12.43|0.5797
84625119|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|23.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.47|-11.10|0.4817
84625120|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|27.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||27.79|-6.87|0.2358
84625121|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|31.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||31.77|-3.11|0.1070
84625122|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.4268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|23.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.43|-9.94|0.4268
84625123|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|16.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.08|-17.81|0.9197
84625124|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|16.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.87|-16.77|0.9954
84625125|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.9607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|18.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||18.17|-17.28|0.9607
84625126|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.33|13.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.59|-21.33|0.6625
84674260|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6165||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 financial difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.04|-9.27|0.2099
84503908|NCT00931385|168759099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.254|0.145|<0.0001
84625127|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||17.70|-17.81|0.9952
84625128|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|25.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||25.36|-10.16|0.4001
84625129|NCT03192176|168993573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|14.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||14.10|-19.52|0.7510
84625130|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|18.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.64|1.95|0.0018
84625131|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|25.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.42|2.70|0.0002
84625132|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|33.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.74|3.53|<0.0001
84625133|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|37.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.89|3.91|<0.0001
84625134|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.92|0.64|0.2244
84625135|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|26.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.53|2.77|0.0002
84625136|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.13|2.71|0.0002
84625137|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.45|1.24|0.0149
84625138|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|11.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.73|1.85|0.0011
84625139|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|16.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.45|2.46|0.0001
84625140|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.56|0.0001
84625141|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.34|0.89|0.0897
84625142|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.53|1.42|0.0070
84625143|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.23|1.52|0.0041
84674261|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7756||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.06|-10.49|0.0004
84625144|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.78|1.13|0.0254
84625145|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.04|1.59|0.0032
84625146|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|16.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.51|2.37|0.0002
84625147|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.70|3.00|<0.0001
84625148|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.18|1.17|0.0214
84625149|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.09|1.48|0.0049
84625150|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.22|1.38|0.0078
84625151|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.63|0.93|0.0727
84625152|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.29|1.19|0.0199
84625153|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.01|1.61|0.0034
84625154|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.26|2.16|0.0007
84625155|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.92|0.83|0.1206
84625156|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.03|1.42|0.0070
84625157|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|8.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.54|1.36|0.0088
84625158|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.40|0.58|0.4485
84625159|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.47|1.14|0.0255
84625160|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|11.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.75|1.49|0.0066
84625161|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.01|1.53|0.0061
84625162|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.57|0.89|0.0879
84625163|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.83|1.05|0.0389
84625164|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.73|1.02|0.0446
84625165|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.72|0.45|0.8196
84625166|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.10|0.79|0.1450
84676722|NCT00587587|169089053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar thickness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.1670
84625167|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.11|1.37|0.0114
84625168|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.71|1.12|0.0307
84625169|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.24|0.51|0.5921
84503909|NCT00931385|168759099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.282|0.172|<0.0001
84625170|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.26|1.00|0.0502
84625171|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|9.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.25|1.18|0.0224
84625172|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||2.93|0.47|0.7225
84625173|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.48|0.91|0.0762
84625174|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.53|1.17|0.0252
84625175|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.87|1.00|0.0490
84625176|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.30|0.74|0.1773
84625177|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.16|0.96|0.0609
84625178|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.61|0.79|0.1364
84625179|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.51|0.53|0.5268
84625180|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.46|0.75|0.1645
84625181|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||12.57|1.22|0.0215
84625182|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|0.95|0.0600
84676723|NCT00587587|169089054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7221|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7221
84503910|NCT00931385|168759100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.191|<0.0001
84625183|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.47|0.6503
84625184|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.93|0.0683
84625185|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.44|0.95|0.0618
84625186|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.63|0.50|0.5621
84625187|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.40|0.68|0.2182
84625188|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.15|0.95|0.0600
84625189|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.12|1.17|0.0290
84625190|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.04|0.40|0.8485
84625191|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.42|0.73|0.1652
84625192|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.65|0.67|0.2244
84625193|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.84|0.71|0.2097
84625194|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.92|0.60|0.3708
84625195|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.66|0.92|0.0704
84625196|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.73|1.88|0.0040
84625197|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.55|0.75|0.1625
84625198|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.50|1.46|0.0093
84625199|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|13.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.87|1.42|0.0103
84676724|NCT00587587|169089055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.4080
84503911|NCT00931385|168759100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.183|<0.0001
84503912|NCT00931385|168759100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.232|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.372|0.232|<0.0001
84625200|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.72|0.1965
84625201|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.42|0.98|0.0549
84625202|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.09|1.00|0.0503
84625203|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||27.10|1.82|0.0046
84625204|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.88|0.88|0.0866
84625205|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.40|1.74|0.0045
84625206|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.62|1.22|0.0207
84503913|NCT00931385|168759101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.087|<0.0001
84625207|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.91|0.70|0.2127
84625208|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.43|0.77|0.1521
84625209|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|17.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.70|1.48|0.0098
84625210|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||27.50|1.82|0.0047
84625211|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.51|0.72|0.1817
84625212|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|20.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.95|1.77|0.0042
84625213|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|20.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.74|1.78|0.0039
84760837|NCT03691974|169278123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.39||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.39|-3.30|0.4203
84625214|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.42|0.7025
84625215|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.97|0.36|0.9599
84625216|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.10|0.34|0.9671
84625217|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.83|0.42|0.6810
84625218|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.04|0.43|0.6346
84674262|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.519||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.40|-5.43|0.0902
84503914|NCT00931385|168759101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.086|<0.0001
84625219|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.38|0.7929
84625220|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.28|0.39|0.8188
84625221|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.60|0.30|0.8226
84625222|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.72|0.32|0.9088
84625223|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.24|0.6189
84625224|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.03|0.42|0.6463
84676725|NCT00587587|169089056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9556||0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.9556
84676726|NCT01162005|169089057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84760838|NCT03691974|169278124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.123|-0.538||Analyses are based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.538|-2.123|0.0010
84760839|NCT03691974|169278125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.212|-0.625||Analyses were based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.625|-2.212|0.0005
84760840|NCT00439946|169278135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
84760841|NCT00439946|169278136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84760842|NCT00439946|169278137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84760843|NCT00439946|169278138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
84503915|NCT00931385|168759101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.115|<0.0001
84625225|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.54|0.47|0.5060
84676727|NCT00767000|169089081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.22|-0.80|<0.001
84760844|NCT00439946|169278139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
84760845|NCT00439946|169278140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
84760846|NCT00439946|169278141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
84760847|NCT00439946|169278142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.75
84625226|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.31|0.53|0.3842
84625227|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.23|0.49|0.5021
84625228|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.31|0.14|0.1349
84625229|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.19|0.3191
84625230|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.06|0.09|0.0623
84625231|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.48|0.15|0.1958
84625232|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.19|0.4353
84625233|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.31|0.31|0.9729
84676728|NCT00767000|169089081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.93|-0.36|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.36|-0.93|<0.001
84760848|NCT00439946|169278143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
84760849|NCT00439946|169278144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
84625234|NCT03192176|168993574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.89|0.22|0.4211
84760850|NCT00439946|169278145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||p-value for: Gather/set-up|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.95
84625235|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.35|0.57|0.1938
84625236|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|33.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.91|1.43|0.0162
84625237|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|67.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||67.96|3.04|0.0008
84625238|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||75.68|3.39|0.0005
84625239|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.17|0.56|0.1971
84625240|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|22.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.27|0.83|0.0811
84625241|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|53.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||53.94|2.43|0.0021
84625242|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.64|0.79|0.1370
84760851|NCT00439946|169278145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||p-value for: Prepare drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.02
84625243|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.40|1.22|0.0181
84625244|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|17.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.05|2.43|0.0002
84625245|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.31|2.26|0.0003
84625246|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.49|0.61|0.3241
84625247|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.03|0.68|0.2249
84676729|NCT00767000|169089081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.53|||Contrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.53|-1.10|<0.001
84760852|NCT00439946|169278145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0||||p-value for: Connect drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.20
84760853|NCT00439946|169278145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||p-value for: Change dressing|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.48
84503916|NCT02257632|168759229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-10.32||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all other patients|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-10.32|-19.64|<0.0001
84625248|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.18|1.36|0.0096
84625249|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.05|0.91|0.0768
84625250|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.39|1.14|0.00251
84625251|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.57|2.30|0.0002
84625252|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||19.71|2.70|<0.0001
84625253|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.50|0.83|0.1144
84625254|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.30|0.80|0.1341
84625255|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.22|1.75|0.0017
84625256|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.50|0.77|0.1488
84625257|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.30|1.54|0.0043
84625258|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.57|2.10|0.0005
84625259|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|43.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.58|4.85|<0.0001
84625260|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.68|1.14|0.0262
84625261|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.19|1.95|0.0009
84625262|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.80|2.06|0.0006
84760854|NCT00439946|169278145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value for: Total time|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.11
84760855|NCT00439946|169278146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value for: CAMPHOR Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
84760856|NCT00439946|169278146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Activity Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
84760857|NCT00439946|169278146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
84625263|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.75|0.61|0.3673
84625264|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.91|0.83|0.1207
84625265|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.21|1.90|0.0011
84625266|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|27.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||27.38|3.08|<0.0001
84625267|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.86|0.97|0.0594
84625268|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.09|1.00|0.0500
84625269|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.03|1.29|0.0123
84625270|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.37|0.71|0.2243
84625271|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.24|0.87|0.0976
84625272|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|16.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.44|2.25|0.0004
84625273|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.40|3.04|<0.0001
84625274|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.17|0.82|0.1237
84625275|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.41|1.16|0.0226
84760858|NCT00439946|169278146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Total Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.22
84625276|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.91|1.42|0.0069
84625277|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.75|0.76|0.1666
84625278|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|1.09|0.0317
84625279|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.39|1.94|0.0011
84625280|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||25.46|2.81|0.0001
84625281|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.27|0.84|0.1142
84625282|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.39|1.14|0.0250
84625283|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.75|1.23|0.0166
84625284|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.11|0.52|0.6033
84625285|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.02|0.84|0.1170
84625286|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.91|1.05|0.0400
84503917|NCT02257632|168759230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|-6.94||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all the patients with values|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-6.94|-15.98|< 0.0001
84625287|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.72|1.88|0.0020
84625288|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.54|0.5177
84625289|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.48|0.72|0.2117
84625290|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.67|1.03|0.0426
84625291|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.82|0.62|0.3508
84676730|NCT00767000|169089081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
84760859|NCT00439946|169278147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Effectiveness Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.55
84503918|NCT01764854|168759287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||AZD1722 in-patient and Placebo in-patient are not included in this analysis since it was only a one week evaluation period and an effect was not expected. Also the size (n=8) of the group was too small to .perform this analysis.||||0.46
84503919|NCT01764854|168759288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AZD1722 out-patient and Placebo out-patient were not included in this analysis since stool was only collected in the clinical pharmacology unit of the in-patient groups.||||<0.0001
84625292|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.45|0.58|0.4431
84625293|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.78|1.55|0.0050
84625294|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||16.30|1.84|0.0023
84625295|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.32|0.52|0.5663
84625296|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.83|1.02|0.0461
84625297|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.38|0.98|0.0552
84625298|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.88|0.78|0.1536
84625299|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.20|0.68|0.2575
84625300|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.11|1.38|0.0096
84625301|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|26.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||26.76|2.69|0.0003
84625302|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.1047
84625303|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.0060
84625304|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.71|1.04|0.0414
84625305|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.89|0.90|0.0809
84760860|NCT00439946|169278147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Side-Effects Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
84760861|NCT00439946|169278147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Convenience Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.01
84760862|NCT00439946|169278147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Global Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.52
84625306|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.34|0.69|0.2377
84625307|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.34|1.44|0.0087
84625308|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||18.94|1.90|0.0022
84625309|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.55|0.55|0.4788
84625310|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.94|1.45|0.0074
84625311|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.75|1.22|0.0187
84625312|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.00|0.62|0.3443
84625313|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.22|0.65|0.2867
84625314|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.78|1.66|0.0044
84625315|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|17.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.87|1.74|0.0038
84625316|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.60|0.78|0.1424
84625317|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.07|1.22|0.0191
84625318|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.56|1.16|0.0244
84625319|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.67|0.71|0.1462
84625320|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.97|0.32|0.7403
84760863|NCT04623242|169278149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
84760864|NCT04623242|169278149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.255|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
84760865|NCT04623242|169278150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.92|-2.46|0.805
84760866|NCT04623242|169278151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.823||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of equality (any treatment difference)||2.43|-4.83|0.512
84760867|NCT04623242|169278152|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.864|-0.417|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.417|-0.864|<0.001
84676731|NCT00767000|169089082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.6|-17.5|||Constrained longitudial model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.5|-55.6|<0.001
84625321|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.07|0.61|0.2144
84625322|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.96|0.44|0.4321
84625323|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.75|0.66|0.1778
84625324|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.20|0.28|0.8016
84625325|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.71|0.1486
84625326|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.77|0.15|0.2881
84625327|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.31|0.10|0.1217
84625328|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.28|0.07|0.1027
84625329|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||0.94|0.03|0.0428
84625330|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.21|0.5943
84625331|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.27|0.9280
84625332|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.94|0.30|0.9160
84503920|NCT04169282|168759344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.108
84503921|NCT04169282|168759345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.003
84625333|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.11|0.2262
84625334|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.75|0.13|0.2682
84625335|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.81|0.09|0.2344
84625336|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.22|0.04|0.0835
84760868|NCT04623242|169278153|OTHER|Test of equality (any difference in the proportion of increase in the endpoint)|Ratio|0.3443||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5573
84760869|NCT04623242|169278154|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.60|-1.77|0.707
84625337|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.72|0.19|0.6322
84625338|NCT03192176|168993575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.17|0.20|0.4845
84625339|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.98|0.06|0.9587
84625340|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.89|0.06|0.9895
84625341|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||63.32|0.83|0.0736
84625342|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|61.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||61.78|0.81|0.0767
84625343|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.49|0.35|0.2880
84625344|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.47|0.17|0.5894
84760870|NCT04623242|169278155|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-1.35|0.283
84760871|NCT04623242|169278156|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-1.34|0.674
84760872|NCT04623242|169278157|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.42|-4.86|0.507
84503922|NCT04169282|168759346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.025
84625345|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.78|0.44|0.3093
84625346|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.58|0.62|0.1606
84625347|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|56.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||56.87|2.50|0.0019
84625348|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|68.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||68.73|3.02|0.0008
84625349|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.55|0.11|0.8803
84625350|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.46|0.54|0.2096
84625351|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|37.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||37.11|1.60|0.0110
84760873|NCT04623242|169278158|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-4.41|0.553
84625352|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.11|0.86|0.0845
84625353|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.13|0.79|0.1094
84625354|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||30.07|2.68|0.0004
84625355|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.09|2.10|0.0016
84625356|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.64|0.44|0.4375
84625357|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|0.84|0.0898
84625358|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.06|1.90|0.0027
84625359|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.64|0.78|0.1242
84625360|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.03|0.88|0.0815
84625361|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.27|2.11|0.0009
84625362|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|15.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.64|1.78|0.0027
84503923|NCT00621686|168759353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
84503924|NCT01275313|168759359|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: To determine a difference of 20% in the control group and 10% in the treatment group with 80% power, 440 participants would be needed.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: At-risk nursing home residents provided with an individually-configured manual lightweight wheelchair and skin protection cushion have the same incidence of pressure injury development compared to individuals using a facility-provided manual wheelchair modified with a skin protection cushion and related adjustments.||||0.77
84625363|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.46|0.41|0.6267
84625364|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.38|0.92|0.0709
84625365|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.59|1.59|0.0049
84625366|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.98|0.45|0.5107
84625367|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.22|0.78|0.1297
84625368|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|21.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.22|2.34|0.0005
84625369|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|25.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||25.63|2.82|0.0001
84625370|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.58|0.2990
84625371|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.76|0.1355
84625372|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.14|1.76|0.0028
84625373|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.47|0.41|0.7422
84625374|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.52|0.91|0.0750
84625375|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|16.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.67|2.16|0.0006
84625376|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.65|2.69|0.0001
84676732|NCT00767000|169089082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.7||||0.005||95.0|-45.4|-8.1|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-8.1|-45.4|0.005
84760874|NCT04623242|169278159|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-2.18|0.098
84760875|NCT04623242|169278160|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.68|-1.22|0.173
84503925|NCT00322309|168759365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between the two treatment groups for benzoylecgonine data collected for Week 11.||||>0.05
84625377|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.23|0.38|0.8405
84625378|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.79|0.45|0.6257
84625379|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.36|1.48|0.0060
84625380|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.68|0.54|0.3556
84625381|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.90|1.24|0.0190
84625382|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|30.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||30.68|3.20|<0.0001
84625383|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||47.05|4.67|<0.0001
84676733|NCT00767000|169089082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.0|-16.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-16.0|-54.0|<0.001
84760876|NCT04623242|169278161|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.71|-8.10|0.940
84625384|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.68|0.1936
84503926|NCT00322309|168759366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that means scores for the CGI-O would not differ significantly for these values obtained in the final treatment week, Week 11.||||>0.05
84625385|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.47|1.10|0.0335
84625386|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.17|2.10|0.0009
84625387|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.39|0.34|0.8330
84625388|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.62|0.3410
84625389|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|1.42|0.0075
84625390|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.26|1.78|0.0020
84625391|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.10|0.29|0.6216
84625392|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.71|0.55|0.4615
84625393|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.19|1.12|0.0281
84625394|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.8028
84625395|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.07|0.48|0.6846
84625396|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|1.26|0.0149
84625397|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.65|2.03|0.0009
84503927|NCT00322309|168759367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis involves a between group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||It hypothesized that the two treatment groups would not differ significantly with respect to the total HAM-D scores obtained in the final week of the study (Week 11).||||>0.05
84676734|NCT00767000|169089082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.9|-17.9|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.9|-55.9|<0.001
84760877|NCT04623242|169278162|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.524||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|36.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36.62|-30.49|0.854
84503928|NCT00322309|168759368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|>|0.05||95.0||||Percent of capsules administered does not differ significantly between the two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the mean percentage of capsules of those dispensed between the two groups.||||>0.05
84503929|NCT00322309|168759369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference between the two groups in the mean percent of urines positive for riboflavin.||||>0.05
84625398|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.15|0.29|0.6434
84625399|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.69|0.54|0.4784
84625400|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.55|0.87|0.0955
84625401|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.79|0.40|0.9082
84625402|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.21|0.48|0.6478
84625403|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|9.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.82|1.35|0.0104
84625404|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.94|2.34|0.0004
84625405|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.45|0.34|0.8560
84625406|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.17|0.62|0.3319
84625407|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.95|0.92|0.0747
84760878|NCT04623242|169278163|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.448||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.75|-30.00|0.781
84503930|NCT02008721|168759395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.51
84625408|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.76|0.41|0.8986
84625409|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.53|0.38|0.9712
84625410|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.98|1.22|0.0910
84760879|NCT04623242|169278164|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|6.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.67|-10.05|0.689
84625411|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|16.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.06|2.01|0.0011
84625412|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.39|0.35|0.8466
84625413|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.21|0.79|0.1409
84625414|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.25|0.82|0.1212
84625415|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.88|0.56|0.4269
84625416|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.49|0.52|0.5454
84625417|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.15|0.96|0.0595
84625418|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.98|1.62|0.0041
84625419|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.13|0.28|0.6121
84625420|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.75|0.68|0.2329
84625421|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.90|0.88|0.0891
84625422|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.97|0.03|0.6857
84625423|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.71|0.12|0.7291
84625424|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.41|0.05|0.8951
84503931|NCT02008721|168759396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.82
84625425|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|19.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.74|0.14|0.6865
84625426|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|20.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.24|0.07|0.9132
84674263|NCT01639001|169084128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 pain. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.45|-11.42|<0.0001
84503932|NCT02008721|168759397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.99
84503933|NCT02008721|168759398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.43
84503934|NCT01967888|168759453|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.2||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||000|-14.3|0.542
84503935|NCT01967888|168759454|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1601778||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317803|-0.0025525|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0025525|-0.3178030|0.092
84503936|NCT01967888|168759455|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1178242||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287431|0.0517825|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0517825|-0.2874310|0.161
84503937|NCT01967888|168759456|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.0136||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0508|0.0781|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0781|-0.0508|0.846
84503938|NCT01967888|168759457|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.025||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0939|0.0689|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0689|-0.0939|0.817
84625427|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|16.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.59|0.12|0.7982
84625428|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.57|0.09|0.9029
84625429|NCT03192176|168993576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.94|0.04|0.7971
84503939|NCT01967888|168759458|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-9.4641||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|23.5618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.5618|-42.4900|0.570
84503940|NCT01967888|168759459|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-22.9454|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1826|2.2918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2918|-48.1826|=0.074
84503941|NCT01967888|168759460|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.2074|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6538|0.2389|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2389|-0.6538|=0.358
84503942|NCT01967888|168759461|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.277|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7936|0.2396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2396|-0.7936|=0.288
84503943|NCT01967888|168759462|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.09716|||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41834|7.61266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.61266|-7.41834|=0.980
84503944|NCT01967888|168759463|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.07617|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76562|8.91796|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.91796|-6.76562|=0.785
84503945|NCT01967888|168759464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
84503946|NCT01967888|168759465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
84503947|NCT01967888|168759466|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.33|||Chi-squared|||||22.33|-18.20|0.842
84503948|NCT01967888|168759467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|34.97|||Anderson-Gill model|||||34.97|0.29|0.339
84503949|NCT01967888|168759468|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|25.93|||Chi-squared|||||25.93|-15.91|0.640
84503950|NCT01967888|168759474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.448
84625430|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.34|0.04|0.7899
84625431|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.73|0.05|0.9186
84503951|NCT01967888|168759475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.910
84503952|NCT01967888|168759476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.000
84503953|NCT01967888|168759481|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|31.3491|||=|0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.998|123.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.70|-60.9980|=0.5018
84503954|NCT01967888|168759482|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.5454|||=|0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6619|85.7528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.7528|-38.6619|=0.4537
84503955|NCT00267293|168759485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power for 80%|||||<|0.001||||||comparision of mean temperatures from repeated exposure. At hour 6 temperature|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power for 80%||||<0.001
84503956|NCT00267293|168759485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Binary outcome \<38C and \>=38C|Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84503957|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
84503958|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.45
84503959|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 4: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.38
84503960|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 5: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.12
84503961|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 6: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.70
84625432|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.5303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||25.46|0.19|0.5303
84625433|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|52.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||52.66|0.65|0.1149
84625434|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|77.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.71|1.06|0.0442
84625435|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||35.68|0.35|0.2851
84625436|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|39.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||39.48|0.45|0.2073
84625437|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||37.16|0.36|0.2700
84625438|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|34.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||34.27|0.34|0.2982
84625439|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.3||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|102.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||102.6|1.47|0.0204
84625440|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|93.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||93.74|1.31|0.0270
84625441|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.68|0.19|0.5224
84625442|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|46.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||46.35|0.52|0.1635
84625443|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.97||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|91.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||91.15|1.32|0.0266
84625444|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|31.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||31.21|0.23|0.4299
84625445|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|45.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||45.84|0.52|0.1667
84625446|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.35|0.92|0.0592
84625447|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|151.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||151.2|2.21|0.0070
84625448|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|38.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||38.32|0.37|0.2594
84625449|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.14||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.67|0.92|0.0589
84676735|NCT00767000|169089083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8||||0.791||95.0|-11.6|15.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||15.2|-11.6|0.791
84625450|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||85.20|1.19|0.0338
84625451|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.88|0.12|0.7756
84625452|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.74|0.20|0.9246
84625453|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.93|1.34|0.0177
84625454|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.65|1.34|0.0178
84625455|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.20|0.22|0.8564
84625456|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.00|0.58|0.2202
84625457|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|10.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.25|0.55|0.2498
84625458|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|72.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.29|0.93|0.0576
84625459|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.59|0.33|0.3065
84625460|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|165.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||165.1|2.40|0.0056
84625461|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.05||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|205.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||205.5|3.05|0.0027
84674264|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8547||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.56|-8.15|0.0039
84625462|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|36.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||36.51|0.36|0.2762
84625463|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|62.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||62.69|0.77|0.0851
84625464|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|138.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||138.7|2.09|0.0081
84625465|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|57.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||57.62|0.70|0.0995
84625466|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|51.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||51.80|0.64|0.1184
84676736|NCT00767000|169089083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.3||||0.121||95.0|-2.7|23.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||23.2|-2.7|0.121
84625467|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|218.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||218.3|3.23|0.0023
84625468|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.09||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|157.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||157.9|2.31|0.0062
84625469|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.49||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|65.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||65.87|0.85|0.0695
84625470|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.64||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|75.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||75.98|0.98|0.0520
84625471|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|180.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||180.6|2.75|0.0036
84625472|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||24.23|0.89|0.0676
84625473|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.38|0.80|0.0903
84625474|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.46||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|75.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||75.14|3.18|0.0007
84625475|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.94||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|53.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.77|2.22|0.0032
84625476|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.85|0.55|0.2031
84625477|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||22.10|0.77|0.0972
84760880|NCT04623242|169278165|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|-1.86|0.474
84503962|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
84503963|NCT02063698|168759498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 8: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.44
84625478|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.04||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|53.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.06|2.30|0.0027
84625479|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|13.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.02|0.72|0.1306
84625480|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|19.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.10|1.22|0.0248
84503964|NCT02063698|168759499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.44
84760881|NCT04623242|169278166|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-1.36|0.886
84760882|NCT04623242|169278167|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|-1.03|0.873
84503965|NCT02063698|168759500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.13
84503966|NCT02063698|168759502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84503967|NCT02063698|168759503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84503968|NCT02063698|168759504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84503969|NCT02063698|168759505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84503970|NCT02063698|168759506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84503971|NCT00125931|168759517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||comparison of mean scores at hour 2 vs 3||||0.01
84760883|NCT04623242|169278168|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.87|-4.71|0.394
84760884|NCT04623242|169278169|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-2.41|0.776
84625481|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||28.53|1.79|0.0054
84625482|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|39.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||39.36|2.55|0.0010
84625483|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.45|0.23|0.8271
84625484|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.95|0.77|0.1089
84625485|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||21.93|1.42|0.0138
84625486|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.15|0.63|0.1987
84625487|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.02|0.46|0.3984
84625488|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.45|1.06|0.0402
84625489|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|27.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.95|2.32|0.0010
84625490|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.08|0.17|0.8287
84625491|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.92|0.79|0.1083
84676737|NCT00767000|169089083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.169||95.0|-22.6|4.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||4.0|-22.6|0.169
84760885|NCT04623242|169278170|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-2.78|0.283
84503972|NCT00125931|168759518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean score on treatment vs post-treatment days||||0.01
84503973|NCT00125931|168759518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean scores at pre-treatment vs treatment days||||0.4
84625492|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|20.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.66|1.76|0.0043
84625493|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|13.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.79|0.76|0.1126
84676738|NCT00767000|169089083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.7||||0.321||95.0|-6.6|20.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||20.0|-6.6|0.321
84760886|NCT04623242|169278171|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-2.33|0.634
84760887|NCT04623242|169278172|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.155|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
84625494|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.30|0.69|0.1479
84625495|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|42.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.46|2.59|0.0010
84625496|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|51.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.14|3.31|0.0002
84674265|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9957||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 coughing. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.14|-10.85|0.0004
84674266|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5181||||0.7082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.20|-3.23|0.7082
84674267|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.44|-11.85|<0.0001
84760888|NCT04623242|169278173|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.132|-0.093|0.726
84760889|NCT04623242|169278174|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.295|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.295|-0.130|0.439
84503974|NCT05085613|168759534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6279928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.150369||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.463627|10.71961||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF=6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||10.71961|-9.463627|0.998
84503975|NCT05085613|168759534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.044194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.302202||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.416608|14.505||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.505|-6.416608|0.725
84625497|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.41|0.68|0.1483
84625498|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.84|0.97|0.0557
84674268|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2504||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.36|-2.86|0.1284
84674269|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2363||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.49|-7.98|0.0265
84760890|NCT04623242|169278175|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.033|-0.034|0.967
84760891|NCT04623242|169278176|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.092|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.092|-0.059|0.669
84760892|NCT04623242|169278177|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.419||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.14|195.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||195.22|-264.14|0.768
84760893|NCT04623242|169278179|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2737.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6558.467||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15678.06|10202.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10202.81|-15678.06|0.677
84760894|NCT04623242|169278180|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1078.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1788.474||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4603.28|2446.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2446.64|-4603.28|0.547
84625499|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|25.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.28|1.66|0.0072
84625500|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.24|0.32|0.9715
84625501|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.39|0.50|0.4720
84625502|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.05|0.79|0.1262
84625503|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.92|1.05|0.0396
84625504|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.29|0.19|0.5137
84625505|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.58|0.77|0.1370
84625506|NCT03192176|168993577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.07|0.47|0.5526
84625507|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|16.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.62|1.99|0.0012
84625508|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.68|3.06|<0.0001
84625509|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|33.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.85|3.94|<0.0001
84625510|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|40.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||40.38|4.55|<0.0001
84625511|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.61|0.98|0.0555
84625512|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|23.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.18|2.75|0.0001
84625513|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|23.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.19|2.81|0.0001
84625514|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.39|1.82|0.0012
84625515|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.43|2.06|0.0005
84625516|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.39|2.20|0.0003
84625517|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|23.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.74|2.99|<0.0001
84760895|NCT04623242|169278181|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1935.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2717.64|-1154.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1154.18|-2717.64|<0.001
84625518|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.12|0.0277
84625519|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|10.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.32|1.66|0.0022
84625520|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.41|1.26|0.0314
84625521|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.97|1.54|0.0041
84625522|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.74|1.64|0.0028
84625523|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.98|1.90|0.0011
84625524|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|26.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||26.99|2.86|0.0001
84625525|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.57|1.59|0.0036
84625526|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.67|1.75|0.0018
84625527|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.68|1.14|0.0243
84625528|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.96|0.91|0.0770
84625529|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.69|1.02|0.0451
84625530|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.04|1.25|0.0165
84625531|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||16.23|1.72|0.0037
84676739|NCT02039505|169089097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.37||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.399|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.399|0.779|0.2722
84625532|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.90|0.0812
84625533|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.22|0.97|0.0577
84625534|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.85|0.93|0.0706
84625535|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.00|1.04|0.0404
84503976|NCT05085613|168759534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.53656||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25295|9.179834||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||9.179834|-12.25295|0.980
84503977|NCT05085613|168759535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.002255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801527||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39448|28.39899||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Df = 6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||28.39899|-14.39448|0.813
84503978|NCT05085613|168759535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07444||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.938055|37.18234||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.18234|-6.938055|0.268
84503979|NCT05085613|168759535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305576||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.218891|37.0253||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.0253|-8.218891|0.330
84503980|NCT05085613|168759536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.457003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.380984||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98852|14.07451||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.07451|-16.98852|0.994
84503981|NCT05085613|168759536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.097586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.675066||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.34491|15.14973||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||15.14973|-17.34491|0.998
84503982|NCT05085613|168759536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.926191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.588643||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.110771|24.96315||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||24.96315|-7.110771|0.447
84503983|NCT05085613|168759537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986723||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.985328|0.6761041||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||.6761041|-8.985328|0.113
84503984|NCT05085613|168759537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.685896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046067||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6609|2.289114||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||2.289114|-7.66090|0.473
84503985|NCT05085613|168759537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.469932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102231||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58151|-1.358358||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||-1.358358|-11.58151|0.008
84503986|NCT03654898|168759555|SUPERIORITY||cross-tabulation|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84503987|NCT03654898|168759555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted logistic regression||||1.42|0.80|0.67
84503988|NCT03654898|168759556|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.71||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
84503989|NCT03654898|168759557|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 1 was for TFVdp while test 2 was for 3TCtp.||||0.78
84503990|NCT03654898|168759557|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|2.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 2 was for 3TCtp while test 1 was for TFVdp.||||0.34
84503991|NCT00397839|168759601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58|||<|0.001||95.0|1.41|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|1.41|<0.001
84503992|NCT00397839|168759602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.118||95.0|-0.22|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|-0.22|0.118
84503993|NCT00397839|168759603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.92|1.34|<0.001
84503994|NCT00397839|168759603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.012||95.0|0.32|2.55|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neckm subgroup||2.55|0.32|0.012
84625536|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|11.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.99|1.54|0.0054
84503995|NCT00397839|168759603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.004||95.0|0.56|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.88|0.56|0.004
84503996|NCT00397839|168759604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.40|1.11|<0.001
84503997|NCT00397839|168759604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neck subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
84503998|NCT00397839|168759604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
84503999|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.362||95.0|0.73|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 6||1.13|0.73|0.362
84504000|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.044||95.0|0.72|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 12||1.01|0.72|0.044
84504001|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.30|<0.001
84504002|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|0.41|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 12||0.80|0.41|<0.001
84504003|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.23|<0.001
84504004|NCT00397839|168759605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.33|0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD||0.75|0.33|<0.001
84504005|NCT00362401|168759623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The comparison of the three valve groups with respect to the objective sound measures was made by the one-way ANOVA method. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference on intensity of heart valve sounds among the three groups.||||<0.05
84625537|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.27|1.22|0.0186
84625538|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|22.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||22.14|1.96|0.0023
84625539|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.93|1.33|0.0118
84625540|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.53|1.88|0.0020
84625541|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.14|1.03|0.0430
84625542|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.66|0.70|0.2197
84760896|NCT04623242|169278182|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.014||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.56|-29.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-29.68|-124.56|0.003
84504006|NCT02151461|168759640|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.0435||||||Baseline plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) is adjusted as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0435
84504007|NCT02151461|168759640|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.065
84625543|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.42|0.80|0.1341
84625544|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.05|1.23|0.0196
84625545|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.26|1.41|0.0121
84625546|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.56|0.77|0.1511
84625547|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|15.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.68|1.55|0.0068
84625548|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.79|0.91|0.0741
84625549|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.43|0.65|0.2772
84504008|NCT02151461|168759640|OTHER|||||||0.1216|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1216
84625550|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|0.92|0.0705
84625551|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.39|1.22|0.0220
84760897|NCT04623242|169278183|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.54||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|101.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||101.83|-40.04|0.388
84504009|NCT02151461|168759641|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in incremental plasma glucose AUC at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model will include factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867|||||||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867
84504010|NCT02151461|168759641|OTHER|||||||0.7641|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7641
84504011|NCT02151461|168759641|OTHER|||||||0.2518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2518
84504012|NCT02151461|168759642|OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.0179
84504013|NCT02151461|168759642|OTHER|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0736
84504014|NCT02151461|168759642|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0475
84504015|NCT02151461|168759643|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||||||0.0089
84504016|NCT02151461|168759643|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.376
84504017|NCT02151461|168759643|OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0578
84625552|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.82|1.27|0.0196
84504018|NCT02151461|168759644|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||The HOMA Calculator,is an algorithm that takes account of variations in hepatic and peripheral glucose resistance, increases in insulin secretion curve for plasma glucose concentrations above 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and contribution of circulating proinsulin (eg, C-peptide) to estimate steady state beta cell function (%HOMA-B) and insulin sensitivity (%HOMA-S), as percentages of a normal reference population. %HOMA-IR was analyzed on a logarithmic scale (natural logarithmic transformation).||||0.2177
84504019|NCT02151461|168759644|OTHER|||||||0.4144|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4144
84504020|NCT02151461|168759644|OTHER|||||||0.3117|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3117
84504021|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.011
84504022|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0152
84504023|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0284|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0284
84504024|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1273|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.1273
84504025|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
84504026|NCT02151461|168759645|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1289
84504027|NCT02151461|168759646|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.3143|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group.||||||0.3143
84625553|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.24|1.03|0.0433
84504028|NCT02151461|168759646|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.5677|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5677
84504029|NCT02151461|168759646|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.8407|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8407
84504030|NCT02151461|168759647|OTHER|||||||0.9789|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.9789
84504031|NCT02151461|168759647|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.841
84504032|NCT02151461|168759647|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.748
84504033|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
84504034|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.447
84504035|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.084
84504036|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.964
84504037|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.451
84504038|NCT00408876|168759653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.333
84504039|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.318||95.0|-0.62|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.62|0.318
84504040|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.005||95.0|-0.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.83|0.005
84504041|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.124||95.0|-0.61|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.61|0.124
84504042|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.183||95.0|-0.7|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.70|0.183
84504043|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.778||95.0|-0.48|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-0.48|0.778
84504044|NCT00408876|168759654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.13|0.210
84504045|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.161||95.0|-2.32|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-2.32|0.161
84504046|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.019||95.0|-2.59|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.59|0.019
84504047|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.01||95.0|-2.74|-0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.38|-2.74|0.010
84504048|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.526||95.0|-1.83|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.83|0.526
84504049|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.397||95.0|-1.96|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-1.96|0.397
84504050|NCT00408876|168759655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.813||95.0|-1.35|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.35|0.813
84504051|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.657||95.0|-0.5|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.50|0.657
84625554|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.20|1.08|0.0355
84625555|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.28|0.62|0.3238
84625556|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.68|0.60|0.3208
84625557|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.40|0.67|0.2281
84625558|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.46|0.97|0.0566
84625559|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.73|0.1491
84625560|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.23|0.74|0.1477
84760898|NCT04623242|169278184|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.624||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|-13.97|0.909
84625561|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.64|0.98|0.0532
84625562|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.76|0.73|0.1616
84625563|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.11|0.55|0.4320
84625564|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.35|0.68|0.2231
84625565|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.64|1.10|0.0347
84625566|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.07|1.17|0.0291
84625567|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.38|0.61|0.2805
84625568|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.11|0.95|0.0602
84625569|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.88|0.51|0.5087
84625570|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.38|0.80|0.1224
84760899|NCT04623242|169278185|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0593||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.296|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.296|0.059|0.004
84760900|NCT04623242|169278186|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-3.21|0.754
84760901|NCT04623242|169278188|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|229362.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14863.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|199264.32|259460.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||259460.27|199264.32|<0.001
84504052|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.384||95.0|-0.76|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.76|0.384
84504053|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.04||95.0|-1.1|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.040
84625571|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.02|0.68|0.2280
84625572|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.02|0.71|0.1835
84625573|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|22.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.69|1.51|0.0107
84625574|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.96|0.97|0.0576
84625575|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.68||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.77|2.00|0.0047
84625576|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.64|0.97|0.0569
84504054|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.253||95.0|-1.03|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.03|0.253
84504055|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.034||95.0|-1.36|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.36|0.034
84504056|NCT00408876|168759656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.232||95.0|-0.86|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.86|0.232
84625577|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.68|0.83|0.1078
84625578|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.47|0.90|0.0772
84625579|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.22|0.77|0.1311
84625580|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|21.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||21.96|1.45|0.01255
84625581|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|17.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.54|1.41|0.0128
84625582|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|24.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||24.63|1.62|0.0079
84760902|NCT04623242|169278189|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32906.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1697.541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29406.49|36406.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36406.72|29406.49|<0.001
84504057|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.365||95.0|-0.39|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.39|0.365
84504058|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.232||95.0|-0.95|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.95|0.232
84504059|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.314||95.0|-0.9|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.90|0.314
84504060|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.062||95.0|-1.41|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-1.41|0.062
84504061|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.083||95.0|-1.36|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-1.36|0.083
84504062|NCT00408876|168759657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.859||95.0|-0.54|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.54|0.859
84504063|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.984||95.0|-0.34|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.34|0.984
84504064|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.004||95.0|-0.7|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.13|-0.70|0.004
84504065|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-0.81|<0.001
84504066|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.018||95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.018
84504067|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.003||95.0|-0.87|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-0.87|0.003
84625583|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.67|0.97|0.0572
84625584|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.79|1.14|0.0284
84625585|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.22|0.92|0.0705
84625586|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|16.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.77|1.38|0.0136
84625587|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|48.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||48.29|2.06|0.0043
84625588|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.83|0.90|0.0760
84625589|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|20.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.00|1.65|0.0059
84625590|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.35|1.33|0.0143
84625591|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.35|0.62|0.2779
84625592|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.41|0.41|0.7559
84625593|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.23|0.35|0.9050
84625594|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.38|0.66|0.2163
84625595|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.14|0.70|0.1713
84625596|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.09|0.52|0.3981
84625597|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.96|0.35|0.9692
84625598|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.22|0.60|0.2978
84504068|NCT00408876|168759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.442||95.0|-0.4|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.40|0.442
84504069|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.464||95.0|-0.52|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.14|-0.52|0.464
84504070|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.36|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.36|0.052
84504071|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.37|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.37|0.052
84760903|NCT04623242|169278190|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1286.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|140.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1002.79|1569.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1569.90|1002.79|<0.001
84504072|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021||95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
84504073|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.02||95.0|-1.83|-0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.16|-1.83|0.020
84625599|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.38|0.8525
84625600|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.13|0.21|0.5028
84625601|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.73|0.50|0.4594
84625602|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||8.17|0.80|0.1124
84625603|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.58|0.55|0.3415
84625604|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.83|0.56|0.3635
84625605|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.24|0.5716
84625606|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.23|0.5028
84625607|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.98|0.18|0.3982
84504074|NCT00408876|168759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.988||95.0|-0.7|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.70|0.988
84625608|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.87|0.30|0.93
84760904|NCT04623242|169278191|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9867.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1212.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7419.38|12315.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12315.15|7419.38|<0.001
84760905|NCT00326898|169278198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.23|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.23|0.85|0.80
84504075|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.543||95.0|-0.46|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-0.46|0.543
84504076|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.053||95.0|-1.1|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.10|0.053
84504077|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.024||95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.09|-1.21|0.024
84504078|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.03||95.0|-1.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-1.43|0.030
84504079|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.014||95.0|-1.54|-0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-1.54|0.014
84504080|NCT00408876|168759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.727||95.0|-0.66|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.66|0.727
84504081|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.813||95.0|-0.63|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.63|0.813
84504082|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.035||95.0|-1.21|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.21|0.035
84625609|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|7.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.32|0.61|0.2364
84625610|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.04|0.39|0.7095
84504083|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.054||95.0|-1.17|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.17|0.054
84625611|NCT03192176|168993578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.26|0.6011
84625612|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|33.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.10|1.39|0.0181
84625613|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|47.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.48|2.10|0.0039
84625614|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|99.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||99.65|4.51|0.0001
84625615|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||112.9|5.09|<0.0001
84625616|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|16.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.87|0.59|0.1766
84625617|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|37.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.43|1.58|0.0116
84625618|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.74||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|59.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||59.81|2.71|0.0013
84625619|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.43|1.07|0.0359
84674270|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2237||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in chest. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.71|-7.74|0.0185
84676740|NCT02039505|169089098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|7.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||7.108|1.168|0.0210
84760906|NCT00326898|169278198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|1.17|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.17|0.80|0.72
84504084|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.051||95.0|-1.43|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.43|0.051
84625620|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.33|2.20|0.0004
84625621|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|18.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.98|2.68|<0.0001
84625622|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.53|0.0001
84625623|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.47|0.76|0.1540
84760907|NCT00326898|169278199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.52|0.90|
84504085|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.07||95.0|-1.39|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-1.39|0.070
84504086|NCT00408876|168759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.872||95.0|-0.54|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.64|-0.54|0.872
84504087|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79||95.0|-0.68|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.89|-0.68|0.790
84625624|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.12|1.46|0.0065
84625625|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.14|1.50|0.0052
84625626|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.39|1.44|0.0064
84625627|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|15.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.21|2.26|0.0003
84625628|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.69|2.47|0.0001
84625629|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|22.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||22.42|3.01|<0.0001
84625630|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.97|1.22|0.0171
84625631|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.18|1.71|0.0020
84625632|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.99|1.58|0.0034
84625633|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.59|1.05|0.0399
84625634|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.84|2.23|0.0003
84760908|NCT00326898|169278199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.28|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.28|0.75|
84504088|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.005||95.0|-1.57|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.28|-1.57|0.005
84625635|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.23|1.60|0.0031
84625636|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|28.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.28|3.41|<0.0001
84625637|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.01|1.57|0.0036
84625638|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.11|1.89|0.0009
84676741|NCT02039505|169089104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|3.596|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.596|0.762|0.1980
84760909|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|849.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|786.0|921.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||921|786|<0.0001
84504089|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.009||95.0|-1.52|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.52|0.009
84504090|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.011||95.0|-1.83|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.83|0.011
84625639|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.21|1.35|0.0091
84625640|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.34|0.73|0.2043
84625641|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|12.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.01|1.84|0.0012
84625642|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.70|1.47|0.0058
84674271|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5901||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.23|-7.95|0.0075
84625643|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|23.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||23.83|2.73|0.0002
84625644|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.12|1.16|0.0221
84625645|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.13|1.58|0.0034
84676742|NCT02039505|169089105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.356|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.356|0.755|0.3168
84760910|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1879.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1636.0|2112.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, nonAEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2112|1636|<0.0001
84504091|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.016||95.0|-1.77|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-1.77|0.016
84625646|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.04|1.29|0.0123
84625647|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.78|0.64|0.3291
84625648|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.21|1.30|0.0118
84625649|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.40|1.49|0.0058
84625650|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||17.65|2.03|0.0012
84504092|NCT00408876|168759662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.857||95.0|-0.6|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.60|0.857
84504093|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.948||95.0|-0.81|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.76|-0.81|0.948
84504094|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.096||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-1.20|0.096
84504095|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.239||95.0|-1.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.05|0.239
84504096|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.196||95.0|-1.32|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.32|0.196
84504097|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.367||95.0|-1.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.17|0.367
84504098|NCT00408876|168759663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.637||95.0|-0.5|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.50|0.637
84504099|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.887||95.0|-0.76|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.76|0.887
84504100|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.006||95.0|-1.4|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-1.40|0.006
84504101|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.392||95.0|-0.84|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.84|0.392
84625651|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.32|0.85|0.1043
84625652|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|13.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||13.54|1.85|0.0015
84625653|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.73|0.95|0.0658
84504102|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.036||95.0|-1.48|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.48|0.036
84504103|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.573||95.0|-0.92|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.92|0.573
84504104|NCT00408876|168759664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.064||95.0|-0.03|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.03|0.064
84625654|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.98|0.82|0.1253
84676743|NCT02039505|169089106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.48||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|8.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.626|1.407|0.0067
84504105|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.374||95.0|-1.15|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.15|0.374
84504106|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.007||95.0|-1.55|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.55|0.007
84504107|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.169||95.0|-1.12|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-1.12|0.169
84504108|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.182||95.0|-1.35|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.35|0.182
84504109|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.802||95.0|-0.91|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.91|0.802
84504110|NCT00408876|168759665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.191||95.0|-0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.22|0.191
84504111|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.556||95.0|-1.1|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-1.10|0.556
84504112|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.041||95.0|-1.42|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.42|0.041
84504113|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.22||95.0|-1.14|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.14|0.220
84504114|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.278||95.0|-1.33|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.33|0.278
84504115|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.673||95.0|-1.04|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|-1.04|0.673
84504116|NCT00408876|168759666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.422||95.0|-0.42|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.42|0.422
84504117|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.234||95.0|-1.03|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.03|0.234
84504118|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.40|-1.46|<0.001
84504119|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.213||95.0|-0.87|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.87|0.213
84504120|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.105||95.0|-1.19|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-1.19|0.105
84504121|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.876||95.0|-0.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.60|0.876
84504122|NCT00408876|168759667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.033||95.0|0.05|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.13|0.05|0.033
84504123|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.73|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.73|0.925
84504124|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.008||95.0|-1.49|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.49|0.008
84504125|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.132||95.0|-1.12|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-1.12|0.132
84504126|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.024||95.0|-1.67|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.12|-1.67|0.024
84504127|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.184||95.0|-1.3|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.30|0.184
84504128|NCT00408876|168759668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.262||95.0|-0.27|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|-0.27|0.262
84504129|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.849||95.0|-0.84|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.84|0.849
84504130|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.024||95.0|-1.36|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.36|0.024
84504131|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.773||95.0|-0.73|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.73|0.773
84625655|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|13.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.34|1.88|0.0013
84625656|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.75|1.37|0.0096
84625657|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|17.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||17.96|2.04|0.0012
84625658|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|1.08|0.0344
84625659|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.72|1.55|0.0045
84625660|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.55|0.91|0.0810
84625661|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.70|0.92|0.0761
84625662|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.51|1.41|0.0078
84625663|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.82|1.15|0.0253
84625664|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|19.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.55|1.99|0.0017
84625665|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.87|0.62|0.3512
84625666|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.13|1.07|0.0352
84625667|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.97|0.93|0.0704
84625668|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.76|0.1651
84625669|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.62|0.87|0.0964
84625670|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.59|1.13|0.0276
84625671|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.70|1.58|0.0060
84676744|NCT02039505|169089107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.49||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.409|8.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.642|1.409|0.0066
84625672|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.39|0.76|0.1556
84625673|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.18|1.21|0.0202
84625674|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.67|0.72|0.2063
84625675|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.92|1.06|0.0383
84625676|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.10|1.32|0.0118
84625677|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.97|1.10|0.0314
84625678|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|21.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.34|2.17|0.0010
84625679|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.80|0.87|0.0956
84625680|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|13.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.40|1.72|0.0027
84674272|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6732||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.39|-4.74|0.2848
84625681|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.14|0.94|0.0660
84625682|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.05|0.89|0.0853
84625683|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|9.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.62|1.26|0.0159
84625684|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.53|1.12|0.0303
84625685|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|15.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||15.28|1.54|0.0071
84625686|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.95|0.0621
84625687|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|12.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.15|1.45|0.0081
84674273|NCT01639001|169084129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.398||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 sore mouth. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.24|-4.56|0.0296
84504132|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.097||95.0|-1.43|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.43|0.097
84625688|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.99|0.0533
84625689|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.42|0.66|0.2666
84625690|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.52|0.91|0.0754
84625691|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.64|1.11|0.0313
84625692|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|19.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||19.88|1.67|0.0056
84625693|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.28|0.91|0.0736
84625694|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||10.00|1.24|0.0184
84625695|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.81|0.82|0.1187
84625696|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|12.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.69|1.14|0.0299
84625697|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.89|0.40|0.5989
84504133|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.96||95.0|-0.79|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.79|0.960
84504134|NCT00408876|168759669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|0.00|0.052
84504135|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
84625698|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.14|0.74|0.1337
84625699|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.89|0.45|0.4605
84625700|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||15.65|1.28|0.0188
84625701|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.39|0.5854
84625702|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.86|0.68|0.1768
84504136|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.507
84504137|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.056
84504138|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.816
84504139|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
84504140|NCT00408876|168759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.212
84504141|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.885
84504142|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
84504143|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
84625703|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.78|0.29|0.8426
84625704|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.73|0.17|0.3017
84625705|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.43|0.21|0.5958
84625706|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.01|0.05|0.0515
84625707|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.11|0.31|0.9734
84625708|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.93|0.25|0.7969
84625709|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.40|0.25|0.6637
84625710|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.15|0.45|0.4921
84625711|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.64|0.33|0.8910
84625712|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.78|0.16|0.5881
84625713|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.02|0.01|0.0523
84625714|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.61|0.46|0.4646
84674274|NCT01639001|169084130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9136||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.98|0.85|0.0123
84625715|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.14|0.40|0.5806
84625716|NCT03192176|168993579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.12|0.28|0.9220
84625717|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|42.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||42.25|0.47|0.1933
84674275|NCT01639001|169084131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0425||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D Index score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.08|0.00|0.0320
84674276|NCT01639001|169084133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall percent agreement|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.949|||||95% CI for agreement rate is calculated by the Wilson (Score) Confidence Limit method with alpha=0.05|||0.949|0.914|
84674277|NCT01639001|169084133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kappa|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8065|0.8875|||||Kappa coefficient is a statistic which measures inter-rater agreement for qualitative (categorical) items.|||0.8875|0.8065|
84674278|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504144|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.095
84625718|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|50.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||50.44|0.62|0.1240
84504145|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.040
84504146|NCT00408876|168759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.635
84504147|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.575
84504148|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.009
84504149|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504150|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.115
84504151|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
84625719|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|117.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||117.2|1.71|0.0140
84674279|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504152|NCT00408876|168759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.072
84504153|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.516
84674280|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504154|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
84504155|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504156|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.112
84504157|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.010
84504158|NCT00408876|168759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.219
84625720|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.5||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|142.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||142.7|2.15|0.0075
84625721|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.96|0.17|0.5853
84674281|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674282|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84674283|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504159|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.309
84504160|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
84504161|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504162|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.116
84504163|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.033
84504164|NCT00408876|168759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.480
84504165|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.709
84504166|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.012
84504167|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
84504168|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.097
84504169|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.023
84504170|NCT00408876|168759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.435
84504171|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.931
84504172|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
84504173|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504174|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
84504175|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
84504176|NCT00408876|168759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.416
84504177|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.634
84504178|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.031
84504179|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
84504180|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
84504181|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.003
84504182|NCT00408876|168759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.313
84504183|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.910
84504184|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
84504185|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504186|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.090
84504187|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
84674284|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1131
84674285|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
84674286|NCT02610868|169084140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
84674287|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674288|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674289|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84760911|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5681.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5257.0|6077.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||6077|5257|<0.0001
84504188|NCT00408876|168759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.171
84504189|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.733
84625722|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.05|0.53|0.1596
84625723|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|56.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||56.51|0.74|0.0908
84625724|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|12.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.19|0.72|0.1318
84625725|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.04|1.56|0.0093
84625726|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|38.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||38.22|2.69|0.0006
84625727|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|59.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||59.40|4.11|<0.0001
84625728|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.64|0.60|0.2054
84625729|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.72|0.67|0.1592
84674290|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504190|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.022
84504191|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84504192|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.128
84625730|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||24.07|1.66|0.0070
84625731|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|1.06|0.0392
84625732|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|13.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.96|1.44|0.0096
84625733|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|31.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||31.16|3.28|<0.0001
84625734|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|36.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.90|3.75|<0.0001
84674291|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3130
84674292|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84760912|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|273.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|251.0|295.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||295|251|<0.0001
84504193|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.013
84504194|NCT00408876|168759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.225
84504195|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.890
84504196|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.079
84625735|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.03|0.64|0.2217
84625736|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|13.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.38|1.36|0.0131
84760913|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1021.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.0|1211.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1211|819|<0.0001
84504197|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.035
84625737|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.46|1.76|0.0031
84625738|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.10|0.76|0.1485
84625739|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|9.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.56|1.31|0.0128
84625740|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.81|2.37|0.0003
84625741|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|17.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.77|2.32|0.0003
84625742|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.26|0.67|0.2354
84674293|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1054
84504198|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.117
84504199|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.060
84504200|NCT00408876|168759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.647
84504201|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.243
84625743|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.65|0.87|0.0894
84625744|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.67|1.20|0.0201
84625745|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.94|0.74|0.1614
84625746|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.66|1.32|0.0123
84625747|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|17.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.03|2.17|0.0006
84625748|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||28.36|3.40|<0.0001
84674294|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84674295|NCT02610868|169084141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1663
84674296|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674297|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674298|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84760914|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|72.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||72|48|<0.0001
84760915|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2555.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|834.0|4281.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4281|834|0.0080
84760916|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4041.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3776.0|4305.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4305|3776|<0.0001
84504202|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.110
84504203|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.236
84625749|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.75|0.1609
84625750|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.79|0.86|0.0930
84625751|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.91|1.48|0.0063
84625752|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.74|0.65|0.2621
84625753|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.21|1.37|0.0092
84625754|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.48|2.09|0.0007
84674299|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504204|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
84504205|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
84504206|NCT00408876|168759681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
84504207|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.465||95.0|-0.84|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-0.84|0.465
84625755|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|25.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||25.43|3.08|<0.0001
84625756|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.08|0.55|0.4259
84625757|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.74|0.79|0.1334
84625758|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.77|1.31|0.0120
84674300|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1100
84674301|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674302|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.0000
84674303|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674304|NCT02610868|169084143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
84674305|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674306|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504208|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.002||95.0|-1.3|-0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.29|-1.30|0.002
84760917|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|114.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||114|97|<0.0001
84760918|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|384.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|358.0|413.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||413|358|<0.0001
84760919|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|56.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||56|40|<0.0001
84625759|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.10|0.66|0.2443
84625760|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.25|1.73|0.0022
84625761|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.58|2.35|0.0004
84625762|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|36.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||36.63|4.05|<0.0001
84625763|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.71|0.61|0.3101
84625764|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.00|1.34|0.0116
84625765|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.05|1.56|0.0045
84625766|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.88|0.62|0.3505
84674307|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504209|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.233||95.0|-0.82|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.82|0.233
84625767|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.62|0.92|0.0739
84625768|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.20|1.24|0.0163
84625769|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||25.64|2.81|0.0001
84625770|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.35|0.35|0.8358
84674308|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674309|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674310|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84674311|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9016
84674312|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0753|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0753
84674313|NCT02610868|169084144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4992
84760920|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|892.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|584.0|1192.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1192|584|<0.0001
84760921|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12258.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10482.0|14083.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||14083|10482|<0.0001
84760922|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|322.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.0|398.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||398|245|<0.0001
84760923|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|841.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|556.0|1078.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1078|556|<0.0001
84504210|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.075||95.0|-1.19|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-1.19|0.075
84504211|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.798||95.0|-0.71|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.71|0.798
84760924|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3248.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2790.0|3714.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3714|2790|<0.0001
84760925|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.0|190.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||190|138|<0.0001
84504212|NCT00408876|168759682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.066||95.0|-0.03|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.03|0.066
84504213|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.869
84504214|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
84504215|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84504216|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
84760926|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|628.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|409.0|819.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||819|409|<0.0001
84760927|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||42|18|<0.0001
84760928|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|235.0||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.0|1798.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1798|-1367|0.7628
84674314|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84760929|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2306.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2016.0|2603.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2603|2016|<0.0001
84504217|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
84504218|NCT00408876|168759683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.587
84504219|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.356
84504220|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
84504221|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
84504222|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
84504223|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
84504224|NCT00408876|168759684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.779
84504225|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.747||95.0|-1.47|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.47|0.747
84674315|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504226|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.045||95.0|-2.12|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-2.12|0.045
84504227|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.58||95.0|-0.76|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.76|0.580
84504228|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.185||95.0|-2.14|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-2.14|0.185
84504229|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.438||95.0|-0.77|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.77|0.438
84504230|NCT00408876|168759685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.012||95.0|0.3|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.44|0.30|0.012
84504231|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.729||95.0|-2.16|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.16|0.729
84504232|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.352||95.0|-1.14|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-1.14|0.352
84504233|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.465||95.0|-3.0|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-3.00|0.465
84674316|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674317|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84625771|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.52|0.86|0.1006
84625772|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.34|1.01|0.0484
84625773|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.08|0.50|0.6492
84625774|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.27|0.71|0.2230
84625775|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.02|1.30|0.0126
84625776|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|15.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.98|1.94|0.0014
84625777|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||1.83|0.27|0.4713
84625778|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.12|0.79|0.1397
84625779|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.34|0.71|0.2272
84674318|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4567|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4567
84760930|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|74.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||74|52|<0.0001
84504234|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.677||95.0|-2.09|3.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.21|-2.09|0.677
84625780|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.64|0.72|0.2024
84625781|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.79|0.76|0.1716
84625782|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.51|1.20|0.0199
84625783|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.54|2.80|0.0002
84625784|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.77|0.57|0.4243
84625785|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.78|0.1507
84674319|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674320|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8115|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8115
84674321|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674322|NCT02610868|169084145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3282
84674323|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674324|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504235|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.345||95.0|-3.92|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.38|-3.92|0.345
84760931|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179.0|245.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||245|179|<0.0001
84625786|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.60|1.02|0.0449
84625787|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.24|0.66|0.2759
84625788|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.78|0.76|0.1700
84625789|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.51|1.27|0.0153
84625790|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|17.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.53|2.08|0.0009
84625791|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.23|0.50|0.6228
84625792|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.76|1.02|0.0460
84625793|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.23|0.82|0.1215
84625794|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.48|0.68|0.2470
84625795|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.66|0.72|0.2072
84625796|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.95|0.0621
84625797|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.69|1.93|0.0016
84625798|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.84|0.56|0.4372
84625799|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.66|0.84|0.1100
84625800|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.59|0.99|0.0533
84625801|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|44.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||44.00|0.50|0.1769
84625802|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|23.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||23.53|0.22|0.4942
84674325|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674326|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84625803|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.82||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|112.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||112.7|1.46|0.0214
84625804|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.99|0.16|0.6013
84625805|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|76.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||76.58|0.97|0.0537
84625806|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|39.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||39.91|0.36|0.2662
84625807|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||17.84|0.13|0.7431
84625808|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||35.22|0.35|0.2829
84625809|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||22.29|0.20|0.5311
84625810|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|46.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.83|0.47|0.1857
84625811|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.50|0.06|0.9879
84625812|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|43.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||43.19|0.48|0.1853
84625813|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|46.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.93|0.42|0.2170
84625814|NCT03192176|168993580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||12.62|0.04|0.8354
84625815|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.04|0.06|0.9671
84760932|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||33|15|<0.0001
84625816|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|31.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.87|0.31|0.3289
84625817|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|32.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||32.71|0.32|0.3157
84674327|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3786
84674328|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84674329|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7787|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7787
84625818|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.83|0.06|0.991
84625819|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|26.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||26.12|0.20|0.5139
84625820|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||33.45|0.33|0.3079
84625821|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||75.68|1.03|0.0469
84625822|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|119.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||119.1|1.74|0.0134
84625823|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|46.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||46.90|0.53|0.1606
84625824|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.69||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|58.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||58.35|0.77|0.0854
84625825|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.07||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|54.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||54.72|0.67|0.1082
84625826|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||63.04|0.83|0.0737
84625827|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.98||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|99.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||99.74|1.44|0.0217
84625828|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.24||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|157.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||157.1|2.36|0.0058
84625829|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|41.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||41.87|0.47|0.1924
84625830|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|66.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||66.00|0.86|0.0680
84625831|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|129.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||129.4|1.97|0.0095
84760933|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|277.0||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|581.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||581|-19|0.0581
84504236|NCT00408876|168759686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.102||95.0|-4.04|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-4.04|0.102
84674330|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84504237|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.977||95.0|-2.91|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.91|0.977
84625832|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||37.21|0.36|0.2690
84674331|NCT02610868|169084147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3825
84676745|NCT02039505|169089108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.02||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||6.033|0.677|0.2090
84625833|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.28||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|86.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||86.53|1.22|0.0321
84625834|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.48||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|119.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||119.7|1.75|0.0131
84625835|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.22||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|204.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||204.6|3.11|0.0025
84625836|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|43.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.72|0.49|0.1788
84760934|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5437.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3672.0|7142.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7142|3672|<0.0001
84625837|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|87.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||87.31|1.22|0.0320
84625838|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.24||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|93.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||93.33|1.35|0.0251
84625839|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.83|0.35|0.6154
84625840|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.63|0.65|0.1906
84625841|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.07|1.03|0.0450
84625842|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||24.66|2.10|0.0017
84625843|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.97|0.47|0.3939
84625844|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.74|0.55|0.2869
84625845|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.80|0.66|0.1817
84625846|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|96.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||96.77|1.35|0.0256
84625847|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||112.8|1.65|0.0153
84674332|NCT00739336|169084186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Piecewise linear multilevel models with multiple observations nested within each participant were used. Random components (intercept, slope) were introduced into the model to account for dependence among measurements within a participant and assessed by nested model comparisons using the deviance statistic (difference in -2LL).||||<0.01
84760935|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1019.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|836.0|1191.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1191|836|<0.0001
84760936|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1047.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|564.0|1486.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1486|564|<0.0001
84625848|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.76||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|179.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||179.2|2.64|0.0042
84625849|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.75||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|291.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||291.5|4.39|0.0008
84625850|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|58.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||58.21|0.71|0.0967
84625851|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|72.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.95|0.94|0.0564
84625852|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|190.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||190.5|2.93|0.0030
84625853|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|83.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||83.68|1.13|0.0384
84625854|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||112.9|1.65|0.0153
84625855|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|250.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||250.6|3.72|0.0015
84625856|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.99||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|293.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||293.5|4.41|0.0008
84625857|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.67||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|106.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.1|1.51|0.0192
84625858|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.92||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|141.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||141.0|2.03|0.0089
84625859|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.96||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|201.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||201.6|3.09|0.0025
84625860|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.94|0.84|0.0910
84625861|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.67|1.15|0.0296
84625862|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|28.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||28.44|2.38|0.0009
84625863|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|29.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||29.63|2.46|0.0007
84674333|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2681
84625864|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.86|0.45|0.4152
84676746|NCT02039505|169089109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.38||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|17.981|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||17.981|0.636|0.1571
84625865|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|11.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.93|0.91|0.0700
84625866|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|19.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.84|1.71|0.0048
84625867|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.23|0.72|0.1497
84625868|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.77|0.95|0.0608
84625869|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|19.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.34|1.85|0.0028
84625870|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.13|2.45|0.0005
84625871|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.39|0.30|0.8393
84625872|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.10|1.23|0.0215
84625873|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.94|1.40|0.0112
84625874|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.29|0.55|0.3498
84625875|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.08|0.69|0.1981
84625876|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.78|1.76|0.0029
84504238|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.451||95.0|-1.44|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-1.44|0.451
84504239|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.15||95.0|-0.63|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-0.63|0.150
84625877|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.95||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.40|2.03|0.0011
84625878|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.29|0.9511
84625879|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.45|0.57|0.3241
84676747|NCT00693992|169089116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.47|0.0006
84504240|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.524||95.0|-1.96|3.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.83|-1.96|0.524
84504241|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.23||95.0|-1.13|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-1.13|0.230
84504242|NCT00408876|168759687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.491||95.0|-1.55|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.23|-1.55|0.491
84625880|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||11.16|1.36|0.0111
84625881|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.48|0.74|0.1375
84625882|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.83|0.93|0.0670
84625883|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.04|2.29|0.0009
84625884|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|30.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||30.49|2.91|0.0002
84625885|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.14|0.83|0.0982
84625886|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.80|0.77|0.1233
84625887|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.64|1.46|0.0091
84625888|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.10|0.34|0.9620
84625889|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.59|0.58|0.3527
84625890|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.76|1.06|0.0394
84625891|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.53|1.19|0.0224
84625892|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.44|0.39|0.7891
84625893|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.99|0.88|0.0851
84625894|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.83|0.63|0.2885
84504243|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.645||95.0|-0.49|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.49|0.645
84625895|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|0.05|0.8611
84625896|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.42|0.13|0.7549
84504244|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.027||95.0|0.07|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.12|0.07|0.027
84625897|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||24.66|0.17|0.5658
84625898|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||21.86|0.15|0.6319
84625899|NCT03192176|168993581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.96|0.06|0.9526
84625900|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.26|0.71|0.2251
84625901|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.39|0.0084
84625902|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.62|2.09|0.0007
84625903|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.00|1.87|0.0015
84625904|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||2.95|0.48|0.6976
84625905|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.05|1.73|0.0021
84625906|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.68|1.22|0.0171
84625907|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.04|0.69|0.2224
84760937|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9128.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7346.0|11125.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||11125|7346|<0.0001
84504245|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.006||95.0|0.22|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|0.22|0.006
84760938|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|459.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.0|622.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||622|326|<0.0001
84625908|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.69|0.65|0.2716
84674334|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.02|-0.08|0.0043
84676748|NCT00693992|169089117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.89
84504246|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.18||95.0|-0.21|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.21|0.180
84676749|NCT00693992|169089119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0061
84676750|NCT00693992|169089120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8393
84760939|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2427.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1587.0|3290.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3290|1587|<0.0001
84504247|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.069||95.0|-0.05|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.05|0.069
84504248|NCT00408876|168759688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.564||95.0|-0.38|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.38|0.564
84760940|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|357.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|225.0|525.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologists Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||525|225|<0.0001
84504249|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.929||95.0|-0.92|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.92|0.929
84625909|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|14.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.32|1.41|0.0112
84625910|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.31|1.02|0.0461
84625911|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.47|0.59|0.3463
84625912|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.92|1.04|0.0419
84625913|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.46|0.63|0.2977
84625914|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.21|0.67|0.2300
84625915|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.58|0.94|0.0655
84625916|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.11|1.19|0.0245
84625917|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.93|1.44|0.0129
84625918|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.15|0.79|0.1259
84674335|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.05|-0.12|<.0001
84625919|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.82|0.84|0.1015
84674336|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.08||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.08|-0.15|<.0001
84760941|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|502.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|234.0|768.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||768|234|<0.0001
84760942|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6483.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5329.0|7927.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||7927|5329|<0.0001
84760943|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|199.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||199|112|<0.0001
84504250|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.147||95.0|-0.21|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.21|0.147
84504251|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.7||95.0|-0.64|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-0.64|0.700
84760944|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|516.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.0|645.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||645|401|<0.0001
84760945|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|158.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|231.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||231|97|<0.0001
84760946|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|113.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||113|58|<0.0001
84625920|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.33|1.31|0.0167
84760947|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14582.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12019.0|17097.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||17097|12019|<0.0001
84625921|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.95|0.50|0.5232
84625922|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.68|0.2055
84625923|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.64|0.93|0.0658
84625924|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|35.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||35.75|1.51|0.0136
84625925|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.00|0.59|0.3238
84760948|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|420.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.0|630.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||630|210|<0.0001
84760949|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|658.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|217.0|1131.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1131|217|<0.0001
84504252|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.279||95.0|-0.44|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-0.44|0.279
84625926|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|23.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||23.21|1.48|0.0118
84625927|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||20.62|1.36|0.0163
84625928|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.18|0.42|0.6363
84625929|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.25|0.89|0.0722
84760950|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6040.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3442.0|8795.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||8795|3442|<0.0001
84760951|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|268.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|425.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||425|81|0.0020
84625930|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.73|0.63|0.2019
84625931|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|86.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||86.09|1.20|0.0337
84625932|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.24|0.61|0.2207
84625933|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.57|0.84|0.0849
84625934|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.24|0.84|0.0844
84625935|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.65|0.60|0.2383
84625936|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|9.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.58|0.68|0.1653
84625937|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.48|0.65|0.1836
84674337|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|0.0779
84625938|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|70.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||70.80|0.97|0.0529
84625939|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.27|0.52|0.3197
84625940|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|31.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||31.25|1.11|0.0376
84625941|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||85.64|1.19|0.0343
84625942|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.09|0.49|0.4435
84625943|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.13|0.67|0.1805
84674338|NCT03160703|169084199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.10|0.03|0.0001
84504253|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.822||95.0|-0.86|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.09|-0.86|0.822
84760952|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-991.0|944.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||944|-991|0.9670
84760953|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.0||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|302.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||302|-77|0.2563
84625944|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.95|0.84|0.0857
84625945|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|89.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||89.63|1.23|0.0316
84625946|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.27|0.52|0.3471
84625947|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|32.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||32.09|1.18|0.0313
84625948|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.49||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|106.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.3|1.47|0.0208
84625949|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.97|0.31|0.8669
84625950|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.89|0.37|0.6592
84760954|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|328.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|588.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||588|90|0.0100
84760955|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4984.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3168.0|7335.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7335|3168|<0.0001
84760956|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|112.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|166.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||166|70|<0.0001
84625951|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.98|0.50|0.2923
84625952|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|51.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||51.04|0.65|0.1145
84625953|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.40|0.4470
84625954|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||65.41|0.82|0.0753
84625955|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|60.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||60.24|0.78|0.0829
84625956|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.59|0.28|0.9978
84760957|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|236.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|403.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||403|70|0.01
84674339|NCT03915548|169084221|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.54||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,747)=0.88|||.54
84674340|NCT03915548|169084222|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.09||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,746.4)=2.64|||.09
84674341|NCT03915548|169084223|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.55||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson model with log link; multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,717)=0.7|||.55
84674342|NCT03915548|169084224|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,394.7)=0.18|||.99
84674343|NCT03915548|169084225|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Overall score adjusted P = 0.99 Physical subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Social subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Emotional subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Functional subscale adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||"Group by time interaction:~Overall score: F(3,731.3)=0.03 Physical subscale: F(3,744.5)=0.23 Social subscale: F(3,740.6)=0.32 Emotional subscale: F(3,743)=0.46 Functional subscale: F(3,746.1)=0.3"|||0.99
84674344|NCT03915548|169084226|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Active coping adjusted P = 0.99 Planning adjusted P = 0.21 Positive reframing adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Active planning: F(3,746)=0.8 Planning: F(3,744.8)=2.93 Positive reframing = F(3,742)=0.21|||0.99
84674345|NCT03915548|169084227|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Disengagement: F(3,741.2)=5.09 Reengagement: F(3,745.7)=0.81|||0.02
84674346|NCT03915548|169084228|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Anxiety adjusted P = 0.99 Depression adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Anxiety: F(3,737.5)=0.17 Depression: F(3,733.6)=0.85|||0.99
84674347|NCT03915548|169084229|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.54||Importance subscale: Adjusted P = .09 Performance subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001 Satisfaction subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|Importance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.26 (-.01, 0.54) Performance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.60 (0.32, 0.87) Satisfaction subscale: Cohen's d = 0.76 (0.48, 1.02)|||0.54|-.01|.09
84625957|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.65|0.43|0.4571
84674348|NCT00678691|169084242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||all p-values come from one model analysis and are therefore included in free text as such|piecewise model|A piecewise statistical model results for between group differences: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8||Authors expected armodafinal to work better than placebo reducing BFI scale scores by 30%. A piecewise statistical model was used to compare baseline scores against those over through week 8. Piecewise results for between group differences for BFI Scores: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8).||||<0.05
84674349|NCT05773287|169084243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.509
84625958|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.94|0.44|0.3681
84625959|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|54.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||54.38|0.69|0.1038
84625960|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.72|0.39|0.4639
84625961|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|63.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||63.27|0.81|0.0770
84674350|NCT05773287|169084244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
84674351|NCT03969212|169084286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.68|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|0.93|||GEE|||The odds ratio (OR) shown represents the odds of Baloxavir Marboxil (BMX) versus the odds of Placebo.||0.93|0.50|= 0.013
84674352|NCT03969212|169084287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.75|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|1.12|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.12|0.50|= 0.1550
84674353|NCT03969212|169084288|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo}]|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.55|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.55|
84674354|NCT03969212|169084289|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.46|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.46|
84674355|NCT03969212|169084290|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|0.91|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.91|0.48|
84674356|NCT03969212|169084291|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.09|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.09|0.48|
84674357|NCT03969212|169084292|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.53|0.94|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.94|0.53|
84674358|NCT03969212|169084293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.59|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.59|
84674359|NCT03969212|169084294|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.49|1.07|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.07|0.49|
84760958|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.0||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|145.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||145|-22|0.1061
84674360|NCT03969212|169084295|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.48|
84760959|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|93.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||93|28|<0.0001
84760960|NCT01390909|169278260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7673.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4571.0|10989.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||10989|4571|<0.0001
84625962|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.01|0.26|0.9838
84625963|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.86|0.21|0.6995
84625964|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.71|0.26|0.8808
84625965|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||45.13|0.54|0.1570
84625966|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.26|0.39|0.3742
84625967|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|48.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||48.26|0.57|0.1436
84625968|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||50.77|0.61|0.1277
84625969|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.81|0.20|0.6689
84625970|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.29|0.8019
84625971|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.05|0.23|0.9591
84625972|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|13.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.06|0.42|0.3364
84674361|NCT00280566|169084307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Log Rank|alpha = 0.05 level of significance||Equality of Survival Curves across the treatment groups.||||0.0104
84674362|NCT00280566|169084308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||Log Rank|No adjustment made for multiple comparisons||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0047
84674363|NCT00280566|169084309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205||||||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0205
84760961|NCT00179309|169278285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Multiple comparisons were not done.|Log Rank|||48 evaluable pts will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between two arms (24 evaluable pts per arm). Using standard formulae (e.g. nQuery Advisor v5), this number was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference between 4.2 month median progression free survival (PFS) on the docetaxel alone arm and 8 month median PFS on the arm receiving PANVAC plus docetaxel, with a one-tailed alpha=0.10,assuming 36 months accrual and an additional 12 months of follow-up after the last pt has been enrolled.||||0.12
84760962|NCT05726318|169278320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
84760963|NCT05726318|169278322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
84760964|NCT05726318|169278323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.68
84760965|NCT05726318|169278325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
84760966|NCT05726318|169278326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84625973|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.32|0.39|0.3698
84625974|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.01|0.54|0.1587
84625975|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.06|0.61|0.1300
84625976|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.43|0.4152
84625977|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.50|0.27|0.9645
84625978|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.96|0.43|0.3884
84625979|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.41|0.48|0.2670
84625980|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|62.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||62.90|0.76|0.0861
84625981|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|64.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||64.66|0.80|0.0774
84625982|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.65|1.08|0.0389
84625983|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.57|0.50|0.3695
84625984|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.89|0.48|0.3501
84625985|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.14|0.61|0.2021
84625986|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.62|0.36|0.6201
84625987|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|132.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||132.0|1.42|0.0235
84625988|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.48|0.81|0.0929
84625989|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.33|0.29|0.9820
84625990|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.41|0.44|0.4956
84625991|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.20|0.5708
84625992|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.61|0.61|0.1985
84625993|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.32|0.31|0.8368
84625994|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.76|0.68|0.1397
84625995|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.85|0.52|0.0366
84625996|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.05|0.23|0.7968
84625997|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.81|0.30|0.9074
84625998|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.60|0.10|0.1987
84625999|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.18|0.60|0.2040
84626000|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.99|0.13|0.3318
84626001|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.10|0.31|0.7437
84626002|NCT03192176|168993582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.71|0.36|0.6848
84626003|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.32|0.84|0.1114
84626004|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.04|1.83|0.0013
84626005|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.54|2.65|<0.0001
84626006|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|12.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.89|1.91|0.0010
84674364|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1247|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1: Difference in Change during Period 2 MMRM ANCOVA: center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1247
84504254|NCT00408876|168759689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.299||95.0|-1.22|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.22|0.299
84504255|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.766||95.0|-1.33|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.33|0.766
84504256|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.217||95.0|-0.35|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-0.35|0.217
84626007|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.22|0.49|0.6384
84626008|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.93|2.23|0.0003
84626009|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.45|1.65|0.0025
84626010|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.12|1.12|0.0279
84626011|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.61|1.31|0.0114
84626012|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|21.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||21.45|2.66|0.0001
84626013|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.26|2.25|0.0005
84626014|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.02|0.93|0.0695
84626015|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.77|1.83|0.0015
84626016|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.28|1.30|0.0120
84626017|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.57|0.94|0.662
84626018|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.80|0.85|0.1019
84626019|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|16.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.18|1.83|0.0023
84626020|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|25.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.02|2.15|0.0015
84626021|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.66|0.68|0.2380
84626022|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.81|1.33|0.0120
84626023|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.77|0.88|0.0910
84626024|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.18|0.72|0.1926
84504257|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.88||95.0|-0.89|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.04|-0.89|0.880
84626025|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.15|0.85|0.1017
84626026|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|11.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.45|1.29|0.0153
84626027|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.52||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|28.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.98|1.95|0.0034
84626028|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.76|0.55|0.4539
84760967|NCT04175626|169278332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the rate of TLF for the Orsiro stent at 1 year to a performance goal of 6.9%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The null hypothesis (Ho) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is greater than or equal to 6.9%. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is less than 6.9%.||||<0.0001
84760968|NCT00428974|169278349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||12 weeks, 2mg CF101 vs. Placebo||||0.031
84626029|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.40|1.10|0.0327
84626030|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.30|0.98|0.0555
84626031|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.67|0.58|0.3505
84760969|NCT00428974|169278350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84626032|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|13.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.11|1.17|0.0265
84626033|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|17.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.32|1.32|0.0174
84626034|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.95||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||44.61|1.80|0.0075
84626035|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.68|0.78|0.1228
84760970|NCT02264990|169278358|SUPERIORITY|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used for analyses of the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints to control for the familywise error rate. If veliparib plus C/P treatment was not statistically significantly better compared to the investigators' choice of standard therapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in LSP+ participants, then statistical significance would not be declared for any of the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.048||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided P value ≤ 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Hazard ratio obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.048|0.396|0.113
84504258|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.193||95.0|-0.39|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.94|-0.39|0.193
84504259|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.675||95.0|-0.92|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.92|0.675
84626036|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.38|1.04|0.0431
84626037|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.35|0.87|0.0851
84760971|NCT02264990|169278359|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by investigator's preferred platinum therapy, gender, and ECOG performance status.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.080|0.388|0.260
84626038|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.99|0.53|0.4726
84626039|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.67|0.79|0.1289
84626040|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.84|1.06|0.0400
84626041|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|40.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||40.55|1.67|0.0097
84626042|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.94|0.66|0.2260
84626043|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.63||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|35.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||35.96|2.07|0.0031
84626044|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|49.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||49.90|2.07|0.0043
84626045|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.04|0.47|0.5571
84626046|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.59|0.69|0.1911
84626047|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.41|0.80|0.1101
84626048|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|34.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||34.74|1.36|0.0199
84626049|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.33|0.61|0.2600
84760972|NCT02264990|169278360|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.90|0.23|0.455
84626050|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|46.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||46.19|1.73|0.0090
84626051|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.22||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|145.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||145.2|2.04|0.0089
84626052|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.19|0.36|0.8966
84760973|NCT02264990|169278361|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.176|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.176|0.827|0.846
84760974|NCT02264990|169278362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.235|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.235|0.867|0.473
84760975|NCT02264990|169278363|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.24|0.59|0.409
84760976|NCT01849172|169278370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84504260|NCT00408876|168759690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.288||95.0|-1.5|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-1.50|0.288
84626053|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.51|0.48|0.5031
84626054|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.92|0.59|0.2603
84626055|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.59|0.2447
84626056|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.55|0.49|0.4239
84626057|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|99.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||99.35|1.38|0.0240
84626058|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.41|0.72|0.1457
84626059|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.38|0.34|0.9000
84626060|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.64|0.39|0.7644
84626061|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|0.60|0.2245
84626062|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||27.40|1.02|0.0475
84504261|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.501||95.0|-1.66|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.66|0.501
84504262|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.524||95.0|-0.69|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.69|0.524
84626063|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|8.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.07|0.57|0.2569
84626064|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.32||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|79.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||79.44|1.09|0.0412
84760977|NCT00493038|169278402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||95.0|-1.9|6.2|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates between the two treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus amoxicillin/clavulanate).|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.2|-1.9|
84626065|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.61|0.76|0.1201
84626066|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.23|0.53|0.3814
84626067|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.38|0.8549
84626068|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.24|0.75|0.1274
84626069|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.01|0.90|0.0703
84626070|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.76|0.66|0.1821
84626071|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.96||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||109.5|1.53|0.0187
84626072|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|17.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.00|1.03|0.0458
84626073|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.89|0.41|0.6806
84626074|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.45|0.38|0.8090
84626075|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.26|0.60|0.2352
84626076|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.50|0.74|0.1231
84674365|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7515|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7515
84626077|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||11.76|0.70|0.1445
84626078|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.03||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|102.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||102.7|1.41|0.0230
84504263|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.089||95.0|-0.14|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.91|-0.14|0.089
84626079|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.36|0.86|0.0801
84626080|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.32|0.50|0.4152
84626081|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.65|0.51|0.3845
84626082|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.39|0.65|0.1864
84626083|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.01268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.86|0.73|0.01268
84626084|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.76|0.67|0.1600
84626085|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|32.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||32.11|1.17|0.0317
84626086|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.53|0.89|0.0709
84626087|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.41|0.47|0.4533
84626088|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.60|0.24|0.7053
84626089|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.99|0.49|0.3677
84626090|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.40|0.35|0.7350
84626091|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.15|0.36|0.6443
84626092|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.43|0.4865
84676751|NCT04265755|169089124|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a logistic regression model which includes age, sex, dose switch, Baseline value of interest, and mPRS as covariates and presents the mPRS estimates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Based on a 1 standard deviation increase in mPRS.|Odds of achieving at least 50% reduction from Baseline in mean MMD over months 4, 5, and 6 in relation to mPRS.||1.13|0.90|0.86
84626093|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.27|0.69|0.1628
84626094|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.57|0.24|0.6935
84626095|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.32|0.9753
84626096|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.81|0.23|0.7407
84626097|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.49|0.44|0.4929
84626098|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.15|0.25|0.8496
84674366|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3074|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3074
84504264|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.234||95.0|-0.49|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|-0.49|0.234
84504265|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.04||95.0|0.06|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.56|0.06|0.040
84504266|NCT00408876|168759691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.289||95.0|-0.48|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.59|-0.48|0.289
84504267|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.862||95.0|-0.27|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.32|-0.27|0.862
84504268|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.368||95.0|-0.13|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.13|0.368
84626099|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.05|0.52|0.3248
84626100|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.92|0.59|0.2589
84626101|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.87|0.16|0.3318
84626102|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.01|0.26|0.8536
84504269|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.628||95.0|-0.18|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.18|0.628
84504270|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.573||95.0|-0.21|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-0.21|0.573
84626103|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.84|0.12|0.2817
84626104|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.07|0.17|0.4091
84626105|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.93|0.13|0.3147
84626106|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.24|0.8547
84626107|NCT03192176|168993583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.19|0.20|0.5023
84626108|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.35|1.41|0.0093
84626109|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.09|1.66|0.0035
84626110|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|23.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.90|3.01|<0.0001
84626111|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|21.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.59|2.65|0.0002
84626112|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.22|0.73|0.1664
84626113|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.96|1.94|0.0012
84626114|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|27.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||27.86|3.49|<0.0001
84626115|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.89|1.08|0.0334
84626116|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.62|1.60|0.0034
84626117|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.47|2.45|0.0002
84626118|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.98|1.85|0.0014
84676752|NCT01863446|169089161|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting 1 and Lighting2||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.334
84676753|NCT01863446|169089161|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting3 vs Lighting 4||||||0.423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.423
84504271|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.819||95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.819
84760978|NCT00493038|169278403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||||95.0|-7.9|6.8||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.8|-7.9|
84626119|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.74|0.89|0.0872
84626120|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.98|1.28|0.0131
84626121|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.43|1.05|0.0386
84626122|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.05|1.20|0.0191
84626123|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.26|1.11|0.0291
84626124|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|16.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.58|2.23|0.0004
84626125|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|21.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.02|2.49|0.0003
84626126|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.72|0.86|0.0992
84626127|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|15.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.16|2.11|0.0006
84626128|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.59|1.46|0.0060
84626129|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.14|0.78|0.1472
84504272|NCT00408876|168759692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.687||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.30|0.687
84626130|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.15|0.81|0.1284
84626131|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.50|1.32|0.0117
84674367|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0758|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0758
84504273|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.972||95.0|-0.48|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.48|0.972
84504274|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99||95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.40|0.990
84626132|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|12.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.03|1.49|0.0067
84626133|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.71|0.59|0.4088
84626134|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.96|1.20|0.0194
84626135|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.73|1.03|0.0423
84626136|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.99|0.70|0.2151
84626137|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.99|0.0531
84626138|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.34|1.37|0.0118
84626139|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|80.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||80.46|3.29|0.0006
84626140|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.22|0.59|0.3698
84674368|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0162
84674369|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0003
84674370|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0242|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0242
84504275|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.793||95.0|-0.35|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.35|0.793
84626141|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.53|1.55|0.0059
84626142|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.44|1.17|0.0241
84626143|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.77|0.50|0.5308
84504276|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.981||95.0|-0.5|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.49|-0.50|0.981
84626144|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.90|0.41|0.8603
84504277|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.857||95.0|-0.45|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.45|0.857
84504278|NCT00408876|168759693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.805||95.0|-0.36|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.36|0.805
84504279|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.34||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.26|0.340
84504280|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.848||95.0|-0.45|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.45|0.848
84504281|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.573||95.0|-0.54|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.54|0.573
84504282|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.272||95.0|-0.79|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.79|0.272
84626145|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|11.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.95|1.17|0.0264
84626146|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|16.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.42|1.29|0.0188
84626147|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.27|0.42|0.7642
84626148|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.53|1.46|0.0101
84626149|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.97|0.0572
84674371|NCT00280566|169084310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0161|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0161
84504283|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.161||95.0|-0.88|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.88|0.161
84504284|NCT00408876|168759694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.711||95.0|-0.5|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.50|0.711
84504285|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.713||95.0|-1.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-1.39|0.713
84626150|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.20|0.44|0.7348
84626151|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.25|0.77|0.1397
84676754|NCT01863446|169089162|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting1 vs Lighting2||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.780
84504286|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.288||95.0|-0.44|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.44|0.288
84504287|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.351||95.0|-1.44|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-1.44|0.351
84504288|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.219||95.0|-0.44|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.93|-0.44|0.219
84504289|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.686||95.0|-1.43|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.43|0.686
84504290|NCT00408876|168759695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.05||95.0|-1.97|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.97|0.050
84504291|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.663||95.0|-0.06|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-0.06|0.663
84504292|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.33||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.02|0.330
84504293|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.143||95.0|-0.01|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.01|0.143
84504294|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.218||95.0|-0.02|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.02|0.218
84504295|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.1||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.01|0.100
84504296|NCT00408876|168759696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.614||95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.614
84674372|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0088|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0088
84504297|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.786||95.0|-1.83|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-1.83|0.786
84504298|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.445||95.0|-1.85|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.85|0.445
84626152|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.64|1.21|0.0231
84626153|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.54||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|16.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.15|1.27|0.0196
84626154|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.24|0.42|0.7703
84626155|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|12.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.12|1.21|0.0222
84626156|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.21|0.93|0.0668
84626157|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.22|0.43|0.7533
84626158|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.73|0.59|0.3325
84626159|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.57|0.86|0.0899
84626160|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.79|0.93|0.0642
84626161|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.89|0.46|0.5964
84626162|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|15.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||15.91|1.23|0.0224
84626163|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.96|0.60|0.3139
84626164|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.76|0.45|0.6343
84626165|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.61|0.45|0.6557
84626166|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.51|0.99|0.0516
84626167|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|17.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||17.91|1.07|0.0400
84676755|NCT01863446|169089162|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting3 vs Lighting4||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
84504299|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.043||95.0|0.04|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.04|0.043
84626168|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.24|0.44|0.5825
84626169|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.46||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|37.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||37.83|1.47|0.0152
84626170|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.30|0.73|0.1565
84626171|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.25|0.50|0.4932
84626172|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.12|0.39|0.8504
84626173|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.61|0.89|0.0759
84626174|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|13.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.46|1.01|0.0477
84626175|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.36|0.73|0.1448
84626176|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.71|1.35|0.0173
84626177|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.17|0.81|0.1101
84626178|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.78|0.46|0.6022
84626179|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.73|0.46|0.6128
84626180|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.68|0.82|0.1001
84674373|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3677|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3677
84504300|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.721||95.0|-1.92|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.92|0.721
84626181|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|20.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.12|1.22|0.0255
84626182|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.10|0.72|0.1521
84626183|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|47.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||47.69|1.84|0.0071
84626184|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.93|0.80|0.1150
84626185|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.22|0.40|0.8101
84626186|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.33|0.51|0.4663
84626187|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|14.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.01|1.03|0.0453
84626188|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|12.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.21|0.92|0.0659
84626189|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.86|0.57|0.3117
84626190|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|24.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.73|1.46|0.0129
84626191|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.83|1.14|0.0303
84626192|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.42|0.59|0.2772
84626193|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.16|0.29|0.9432
84626194|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.36|0.59|0.2577
84626195|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.12|0.71|0.1496
84626196|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.55|0.2874
84626197|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.78|0.65|0.1981
84626198|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|11.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.43|0.98|0.0531
84504301|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.053||95.0|-0.02|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-0.02|0.053
84626199|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.22|0.5858
84626200|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.16|0.21|0.5122
84676756|NCT01863446|169089163|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883
84626201|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.89|0.16|0.3415
84626202|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.98|0.25|0.8263
84626203|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.03|0.24|0.8085
84626204|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.43|0.38|0.6745
84626205|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.45|0.34|0.9019
84626206|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.10|0.18|0.4425
84626207|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.17|0.3106
84626208|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.20|0.08|0.0912
84626209|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.20|0.5681
84626210|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.21|0.15|0.4261
84760979|NCT00493038|169278404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||||95.0|-3.8|7.1||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.1|-3.8|
84626211|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.82|0.24|0.7514
84674374|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0734|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0734
84760980|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Swallowing difficulty||||0.008
84760981|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior neck pain||||0.016
84760982|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Right chest pain||||0.019
84760983|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Left chest pain||||0.035
84626212|NCT03192176|168993584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.67|0.16|0.2712
84676757|NCT01863446|169089163|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
84504302|NCT00408876|168759697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.006||95.0|0.54|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.27|0.54|0.006
84504303|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.378||95.0|-0.48|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.48|0.378
84504304|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.723||95.0|-0.84|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-0.84|0.723
84504305|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.542||95.0|-0.95|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.95|0.542
84626213|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.40|1.46|0.0103
84626214|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.48|2.20|0.0011
84626215|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|35.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.86|3.41|<0.0001
84626216|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|34.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||34.55|3.18|0.0001
84626217|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.55|0.71|0.1571
84626218|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.04|2.21|0.0010
84626219|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|23.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.61|2.29|0.0008
84626220|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.18|1.08|0.0342
84626221|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.66|1.16|0.0231
84626222|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.55|1.60|0.0032
84626223|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.22|1.48|0.0059
84674375|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9166|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9166
84504306|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.245||95.0|-1.39|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-1.39|0.245
84504307|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.169||95.0|-1.48|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.48|0.169
84504308|NCT00408876|168759698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.796||95.0|-0.82|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.82|0.796
84626224|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.59|0.68|0.2471
84760984|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Back pain||||0.089
84504309|NCT00408876|168759700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84504310|NCT00408876|168759700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84504311|NCT00408876|168759700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84504312|NCT00408876|168759701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84504313|NCT00408876|168759702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
84504314|NCT00408876|168759703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84504315|NCT00408876|168759703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84626225|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.05|0.0381
84626226|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.48|1.31|0.0113
84626227|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.52|1.01|0.0486
84626228|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.87|1.07|0.0350
84626229|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.90|1.65|0.0027
84626230|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|12.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.47|1.76|0.0020
84626231|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.19|0.94|0.0686
84626232|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.21|1.58|0.0034
84626233|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.22|1.16|0.0222
84626234|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.84|0.89|0.0876
84674376|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2791|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2791
84674377|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.146|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1460
84626235|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.88|1.08|0.0345
84626236|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.99|1.09|0.0319
84626237|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.47|1.92|0.0013
84504316|NCT00408876|168759704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84626238|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.75|0.1751
84676758|NCT00097591|169089196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.927||The primary outcome measure was analyzed first in the UA/NSTEMI population, followed by All ACS subjects, followed by the STEMI population.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For UA/NSTEMI population||0.927|0.726|0.002
84504317|NCT00408876|168759705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84626239|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|11.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.50|1.73|0.0019
84626240|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.97|1.11|0.0284
84626241|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.45|0.66|0.2650
84626242|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.38|0.82|0.1238
84626243|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.74|1.18|0.0219
84626244|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.16|1.84|0.0022
84626245|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.77|0.69|0.2230
84626246|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.97|1.83|0.0018
84626247|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.42|1.19|0.0205
84626248|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.81|0.54|0.4628
84674378|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7301|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7301
84760985|NCT02112370|169278423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior neck pain||||0.634
84626249|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.92|0.58|0.4015
84626250|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.47|1.76|0.0031
84626251|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.50|1.38|0.0115
84626252|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.98|0.66|0.2513
84626253|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|11.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.14|1.39|0.0099
84760986|NCT03504397|169278452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.91||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.910|0.591|0.0024
84760987|NCT03504397|169278453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.954||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.954|0.644|0.0075
84676759|NCT00097591|169089196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.968|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For STEMI population||0.968|0.649|0.019
84626254|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.74|1.16|0.0242
84626255|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.60|0.77|0.1518
84626256|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.17|0.73|0.1811
84626257|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.55|1.30|0.0150
84626258|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|16.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.68|1.67|0.0046
84626259|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.34|0.57|0.3788
84626260|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.70|1.04|0.0424
84626261|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.43|1.30|0.0139
84626262|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.63|0.3057
84626263|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.02|0.59|0.3717
84626264|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.50|1.16|0.0252
84626265|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.69|1.19|0.0235
84626266|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.39|0.46|0.6580
84626267|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|13.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.62|1.54|0.0061
84504318|NCT00408876|168759706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84626268|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.61|1.29|0.0149
84626269|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.62|0.35|0.9282
84626270|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.7902
84626271|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.74|0.73|0.1603
84674379|NCT00280566|169084311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8162
84674380|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0013
84674381|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1167|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1167
84674382|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0188|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0188
84626272|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.14|0.80|0.1144
84626273|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.13|0.26|0.5903
84626274|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.16|1.15|0.0290
84626275|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.26|0.72|0.1721
84626276|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.66|0.2439
84626277|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.19|0.44|0.7402
84626278|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.63|1.04|0.0422
84674383|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3413|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3413
84674384|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.276|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2760
84504319|NCT00408876|168759707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84626279|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.27|1.62|0.0061
84626280|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.92|0.59|0.3191
84626281|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.66|1.78|0.0037
84674385|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0085|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0085
84674386|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1317|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1317
84674387|NCT00280566|169084312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1666|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1666
84674388|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0023
84626282|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.20|1.33|0.0139
84626283|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.42|0.57|0.3757
84626284|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.28|0.45|0.7087
84626285|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.88|0.81|0.1083
84626286|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.14|1.01|0.0473
84674389|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1412|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.1412
84674390|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0861|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0861
84676760|NCT00097591|169089196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.902|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For All ACS population||0.902|0.732|<0.001
84760988|NCT03504397|169278454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.687||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.687|0.994|0.0280
84760989|NCT03504397|169278455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.071||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.071|0.475|0.0508
84760990|NCT03504397|169278456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.492|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.492|0.874|0.1685
84626287|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.64|0.2481
84626288|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|20.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.89|1.64|0.0066
84760991|NCT03504397|169278457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.||||||0.4536
84504320|NCT00408876|168759708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
84626289|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.18|1.02|0.0466
84626290|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.53|0.34|0.8769
84626291|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.82|0.49|0.5448
84626292|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.64|0.53|0.4125
84626293|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.30|1.00|0.0500
84626294|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.87|0.45|0.6167
84626295|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.26|1.21|0.0233
84674391|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.5992|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5992
84674392|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5873|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5873
84674393|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2116|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2116
84674394|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1847|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1847
84626296|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.09|0.89|0.0803
84676761|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|1.559|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major or Minor Bleeding||1.559|1.107|0.002
84760992|NCT03504397|169278458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.087|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.087|0.573|0.0721
84760993|NCT02685709|169278473|NON_INFERIORITY|An assessment of NI was made by comparing the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in biochemical control (octreotide capsules - SRLs) to a NI margin of -20%.|95% CI Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen (M&N)|||||0.5|-19.9|
84626297|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.18|0.76|0.1274
84626298|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.71|0.29|0.9445
84760994|NCT02685709|169278474|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
84504321|NCT00408876|168759709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84626299|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.03|0.47|0.4204
84626300|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.49|0.74|0.1315
84626301|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|12.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.87|0.82|0.0944
84626302|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.89|0.57|0.2801
84626303|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.30|0.72|0.1524
84626304|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.75|0.40|0.6129
84626305|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.18|0.18|0.4617
84626306|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.70|0.20|0.6519
84626307|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.22|0.8011
84626308|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.41|0.51|0.3254
84626309|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.94|0.58|0.2730
84626310|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.41|0.39|0.6601
84626311|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.76|0.20|0.6588
84626312|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.92|0.14|0.3257
84626313|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.10|0.2229
84626314|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.10|0.2425
84626315|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.11|0.23|0.9672
84626316|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.09|0.40|0.5838
84676762|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.683|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding||1.683|1.028|0.029
84626317|NCT03192176|168993585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.28|0.9361
84626318|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.55|1.03|0.0429
84626319|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.12|1.11|0.0296
84626320|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.13|1.65|0.0032
84626321|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|21.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.90|2.31|0.0006
84626322|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.47|0.72|0.2073
84626323|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.36|0.0096
84626324|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.27|1.02|0.0462
84674395|NCT00280566|169084313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.9972|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9972
84674396|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5954|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5954
84626325|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.63|0.77|0.1387
84626326|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.84|0.60|0.3130
84626327|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.40|1.06|0.0392
84626328|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.71|1.43|0.0135
84626329|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.36|0.87|0.0840
84626330|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|15.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.17|1.32|0.0163
84626331|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.84|0.52|0.5056
84626332|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.90|0.58|0.3358
84626333|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.18|0.91|0.0696
84626334|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.82|0.89|0.0794
84626335|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.32||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.28|1.48|0.0149
84626336|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.59|1.09|0.0377
84626337|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|10.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.77|1.03|0.0454
84626338|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.26|1.07|0.0390
84626339|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.64|0.68|0.1947
84760995|NCT02685709|169278475|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
84760996|NCT02685709|169278476|OTHER|||||||||||||Confidence interval was applied||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
84760997|NCT02685709|169278477|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.|Based on this analysis 63.0% of patients in the octreotide capsule group and 51.4% of patients in the SRL injection group entered the Study Extension phase.|||
84504322|NCT00408876|168759709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84626340|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.25|0.61|0.2913
84626341|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.82|0.72|0.1665
84626342|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|110.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||110.3|1.63|0.0157
84626343|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.49|0.86|0.0846
84626344|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|21.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||21.75|1.35|0.0171
84626345|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.49|1.20|0.0262
84676763|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.517||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.126|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - Life-threatening events (LT)||2.126|1.083|0.015
84676764|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.191||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|11.113|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Fatal||11.113|1.1580|0.002
84760998|NCT02685709|169278478|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The mean change in IGF-1 from RCT Baseline to the end of the RCT phase was calculated using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach.|||
84626346|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.95|0.59|0.2858
84626347|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|39.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||39.72|1.47|0.0155
84626348|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.31|0.76|0.1249
84626349|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|15.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.82|0.94|0.0616
84626350|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.32||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|43.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||43.90|1.58|0.0126
84626351|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|11.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.23|0.85|0.0853
84760999|NCT02685709|169278479|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|Estimates were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the mean integrated growth hormone (GH) change from baseline with explanatory factors of treatment group and baseline value.|||
84761000|NCT02685709|169278480|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|The week 26 value was used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
84761001|NCT02685709|169278481|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|The week 26 value is used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
84761002|NCT02685709|169278482|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where any patient who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
84761003|NCT02685709|169278483|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where patient who were biochemically controlled at the RCT Baseline (week 26), and who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
84504323|NCT00408876|168759709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84626352|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.35|0.70|0.1562
84626353|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.91|0.74|0.1297
84626354|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.64|0.2001
84626355|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||73.70|1.00|0.0495
84626356|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.20|0.67|0.1553
84761004|NCT02685709|169278484|OTHER||Proportion of patients|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|72.1|||||Confidence Interval estimated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.||The proportion of patients biochemically controlled at the end of the Run-in phase was defined as IGF-1 \< 1.3 times ULN \[based on the average of week 24 and week 26\])|72.1|56|
84761005|NCT02685709|169278485|OTHER||Proportion of patients|66.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.5|74.1||||||||74.1|58.5|
84761006|NCT02685709|169278486|OTHER||Proportion of patients|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.7|59.1||||||||59.1|38.7|
84761007|NCT02685709|169278490|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The LSM change from baseline estimates are from a mixed model for repeated measures.|||
84761008|NCT04417894|169278528|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.0030
84626357|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|42.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||42.67|1.38|0.0199
84626358|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.34|1.02|0.0472
84626359|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.98|0.51|0.3736
84626360|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.26|0.58|0.2628
84626361|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.39|0.63|0.1998
84626362|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.28|0.68|0.1507
84626363|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||31.94|1.10|0.0385
84626364|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|93.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||93.28|1.26|0.0299
84761009|NCT04417894|169278529|SUPERIORITY||Difference|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|53.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||||53.15|24.06|<0.0001
84626365|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.74|0.30|0.8034
84674397|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.3414|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3414
84761010|NCT03461757|169278548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.2|6.5|< 0.0001
84626366|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.29|0.8532
84761011|NCT03461757|169278549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|3.4|0.0009
84761012|NCT03461757|169278550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|10.8|< 0.0001
84761013|NCT03461757|169278551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
84761014|NCT03461757|169278552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
84761015|NCT03461757|169278553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|4.9|< 0.0001
84761016|NCT03461757|169278554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.7|-19.3|< 0.0001
84761017|NCT03461757|169278555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|8.3|< 0.0001
84761018|NCT03461757|169278556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|12.0|< 0.0001
84761019|NCT03461757|169278557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|2.5|0.0018
84761020|NCT03461757|169278558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|6.3|< 0.0001
84761021|NCT03461757|169278559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.7|0.0007
84761022|NCT03461757|169278560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|4.3|0.0002
84761023|NCT03461757|169278561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.6|7.1|< 0.0001
84626367|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.41|0.28|0.8823
84626368|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|43.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||43.76|0.52|0.1651
84626369|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|59.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||59.55|0.68|0.1048
84626370|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.53|0.64|0.1168
84626371|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.95|0.35|0.6936
84626372|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.90|0.44|0.4315
84626373|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.53|0.31|0.7936
84626374|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|56.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||56.03|0.71|0.0990
84626375|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|52.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||52.21|0.66|0.1128
84626376|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|65.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||65.38|0.83|0.0732
84626377|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.91|0.33|0.6559
84626378|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.96|0.21|0.7333
84626379|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.74|0.24|0.9266
84674398|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.9745|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.9745
84761024|NCT03461757|169278562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|6.9|< 0.0001
84761025|NCT03461757|169278563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|1.2|0.0128
84761026|NCT03461757|169278564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.4|< 0.0001
84626380|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|46.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.13|0.55|0.1518
84761027|NCT03461757|169278565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.3|0.0003
84761028|NCT03461757|169278566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.9|< 0.0001
84626381|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||42.91|0.51|0.1714
84626382|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||51.95|0.60|0.1299
84626383|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|15.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.44|0.49|0.2495
84626384|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.31|0.7065
84626385|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.24|0.30|0.7504
84626386|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.29|0.21|0.7862
84626387|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.59|0.54|0.1550
84626388|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.96|0.51|0.1706
84674399|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.5627|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5627
84761029|NCT03461757|169278567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|0.5|0.0314
84626389|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|49.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||49.11|0.57|0.1415
84626390|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|51.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.74|0.62|0.1241
84626391|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|12.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.29|0.57|0.2169
84626392|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.60|0.28|0.9982
84626393|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.54|0.38|0.5364
84626394|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||51.07|0.63|0.1210
84626395|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|70.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||70.58|0.83|0.0726
84761030|NCT03461757|169278568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|2.3|0.0025
84761031|NCT03461757|169278569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.7||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.7|-0.9|0.0898
84761032|NCT03861559|169278574|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
84761033|NCT03861559|169278575|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761034|NCT03861559|169278577|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761035|NCT03861559|169278578|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761036|NCT03861559|169278579|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761037|NCT03861559|169278581|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84626396|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||65.81|0.82|0.0749
84626397|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.35|0.98|0.0530
84626398|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|8.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.72|0.62|0.2134
84626399|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.41|0.48|0.3688
84626400|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|22.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.11|0.96|0.0563
84626401|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.52|0.79|0.0935
84626402|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|16.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.93|0.81|0.0901
84626403|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.26|0.72|0.1366
84626404|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.08|0.34|0.7876
84626405|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.59|0.45|0.4658
84626406|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.20|0.25|0.8707
84761038|NCT03861559|169278582|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84761039|NCT03861559|169278583|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761040|NCT03861559|169278585|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84504324|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.348||95.0|-4.28|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-4.28|0.348
84626407|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.36|0.49|0.3584
84626408|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.57|0.67|0.1455
84761041|NCT03861559|169278586|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761042|NCT03861559|169278587|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761043|NCT03861559|169278589|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761044|NCT03861559|169278590|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761045|NCT03861559|169278591|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761046|NCT03861559|169278592|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761047|NCT03861559|169278593|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761048|NCT03861559|169278594|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84761049|NCT04036968|169278595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of three drug conditions with cannabidiol to control groups placebo+placebo and hydromorphone+placebo||||||0.195|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.195
84761050|NCT04036968|169278596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84761051|NCT04036968|169278597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.074
84761052|NCT00970853|169278598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The original sample for this study (N=302) was sufficient for an 80% detection of differences in means of at least 1/2 standard deviation. This analysis presents the results of the follow-up of the original sample.||||||0.39||||||non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84761053|NCT00970853|169278599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.99
84761054|NCT00970853|169278600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84626409|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|28.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||28.66|0.90|0.0661
84626410|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.17|0.54|0.3034
84626411|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.60|0.28|0.9901
84626412|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.68|0.42|0.5070
84626413|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.26|0.21|0.7927
84626414|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.69|0.44|0.4426
84626415|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.56|0.23|0.8925
84626416|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.52|0.42|0.4285
84626417|NCT03192176|168993586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.72|0.31|0.9000
84626418|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.06|0.96|0.0602
84626419|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.57|1.89|0.0010
84626420|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.51|2.03|0.0006
84626421|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|25.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.45|3.23|<0.0001
84761055|NCT00970853|169278601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.40
84761056|NCT00970853|169278602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.56
84761057|NCT00970853|169278603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
84761058|NCT00970853|169278604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
84626422|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.22|0.82|0.1259
84626423|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.71|2.65|<0.0001
84626424|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.76|1.41|0.0070
84626425|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.23|1.20|0.0193
84626426|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.81|1.27|0.0148
84626427|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.94|1.83|0.0018
84626428|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|22.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.78|2.32|0.0007
84626429|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.35|1.16|0.0246
84626430|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.60|1.87|0.0016
84626431|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.62|0.90|0.0825
84626432|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.20|0.98|0.0542
84626433|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.33|0.89|0.0837
84626434|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|10.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.26|1.31|0.0131
84626435|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|36.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.19|2.41|0.0012
84626436|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.93|1.08|0.0359
84626437|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|17.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.92|1.91|0.0019
84626438|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|0.93|0.0715
84626439|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.20|1.02|0.0465
84761059|NCT00970853|169278605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
84626440|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.53|0.89|0.0839
84626441|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.28|1.23|0.0191
84626442|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|58.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||58.22|2.52|0.0019
84626443|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.90|0.96|0.0593
84626444|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.04|1.63|0.0048
84626445|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.57|1.00|0.0494
84626446|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.70|0.69|0.1887
84626447|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.7|0.91|0.0717
84626448|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.92|0.74|0.1419
84626449|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY|0.0141|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|120.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||120.6|1.71|0.0141
84626450|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.54|0.88|0.0775
84626451|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.19|1.17|0.0283
84626452|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.96|0.70|0.1767
84626453|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.72|0.72|0.1675
84626454|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.49|0.62|0.2717
84626455|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.64|0.76|0.1367
84626456|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.53||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|113.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||113.0|1.62|0.0162
84761060|NCT00970853|169278606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
84761061|NCT00507559|169278608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is compared to a historical control group, in which 11.1% of subjects experienced one or more MAE within 30 days.||||<0.001
84761062|NCT01765673|169278653|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||paired t test|||||||0.218
84761063|NCT01765673|169278654|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||paired t test|||||||0.017
84626457|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.78|0.88|0.0765
84626458|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|33.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.87|1.79|0.0061
84626459|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|21.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.85|1.33|0.0181
84626460|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.99|0.53|0.3925
84626461|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.12|0.54|0.3740
84626462|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.93|0.69|0.1753
84626463|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||109.5|1.51|0.0195
84626464|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.02|0.66|0.1932
84626465|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.86|0.98|0.0537
84626466|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||39.66|1.50|0.0144
84626467|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.09|0.41|0.6660
84626468|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.62|0.37|0.7923
84626469|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.90|0.51|0.3796
84626470|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|21.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.73|0.81|0.0874
84626471|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.96|0.62|0.1925
84626472|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.38|0.92|0.0651
84626473|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.81|0.44|0.5361
84626474|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.17|0.42|0.6258
84761064|NCT01765673|169278655|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||paired t test|||||||0.022
84761065|NCT01765673|169278656|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||paired t test|||||||0.719
84504325|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.04||95.0|0.11|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|0.11|0.040
84626475|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.06|0.43|0.6275
84626476|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.90|0.62|0.2212
84626477|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|95.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||95.49|1.30|0.0280
84626478|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.32|0.94|0.0589
84626479|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|15.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.39|0.86|0.0799
84626480|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.87|0.78|0.1112
84626481|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.11|0.84|0.0959
84626482|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.85|0.54|0.3886
84626483|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|10.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.52|0.85|0.0864
84626484|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.22||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|119.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||119.5|1.69|0.0145
84626485|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|110.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||110.0|1.56|0.0180
84761066|NCT01765673|169278657|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||paired t test|||||||0.418
84626486|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.53||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|160.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||160.6|2.14|0.0080
84626487|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.65|1.24|0.0236
84626488|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|0.4303|0.5|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.07|0.50|0.4303
84626489|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.39|0.45|0.5529
84761067|NCT01765673|169278658|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||paired t test|||||||0.038
84761068|NCT01765673|169278659|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||paired t test|||||||0.086
84761069|NCT01765673|169278660|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t test|||||||0.16
84761070|NCT01765673|169278661|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||paired t test|||||||0.052
84761071|NCT01765673|169278662|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||paired t test|||||||0.827
84761072|NCT01765673|169278663|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||paired t test|||||||0.088
84761073|NCT01765673|169278664|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||paired t test|||||||0.152
84761074|NCT01765673|169278665|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||paired t test|||||||0.229
84761075|NCT01765673|169278666|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||paired t test|||||||0.121
84761076|NCT01765673|169278667|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||paired t test|||||||0.239
84761077|NCT01765673|169278668|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||paired t test|||||||0.03
84761078|NCT01765673|169278669|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||paired t test|||||||0.067
84761079|NCT01765673|169278670|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||paired t test|||||||0.396
84626490|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.55|0.53|0.3268
84626491|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.02||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|84.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||84.66|1.19|0.0343
84626492|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|79.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||79.82|1.12|0.0391
84626493|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.31||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|115.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||115.1|1.54|0.0187
84626494|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.47|0.71|0.1475
84626495|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.55|0.63|0.2161
84626496|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.04|0.53|0.3478
84626497|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.14|0.61|0.2269
84674400|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.741|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7410
84761080|NCT01765673|169278671|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||paired t test|||||||0.373
84761081|NCT01765673|169278672|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||paired t test|||||||0.744
84626498|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.35|0.89|0.0683
84626499|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|38.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||38.49|1.31|0.0228
84626500|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.72|0.93|0.0620
84674401|NCT00280566|169084314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9632|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9632
84674402|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9538|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9538
84676765|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|2.152|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Symptomatic intracranial hemorrage (ICH)||2.152|0.582|0.736
84504326|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.191||95.0|-0.81|4.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.03|-0.81|0.191
84761082|NCT02475681|169278673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The primary test to compare PFS between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR (Arm B/Arm A) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
84626501|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.62|0.2251
84761083|NCT02475681|169278674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.3|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare PFS between treatment Arms A and C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.30|0.13|<0.0001
84626502|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.99|0.35|0.7908
84626503|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.06|0.48|0.3735
84626504|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.64|0.1856
84626505|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.01798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.20|0.64|0.01798
84626506|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||13.22|0.77|0.1101
84626507|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|11.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.31|0.79|0.1060
84626508|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.86|0.45|0.5258
84626509|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.50|0.34|0.8746
84626510|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.77|0.24|0.7434
84626511|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.80|0.53|0.3211
84626512|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.48|0.41|0.5330
84626513|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|11.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.64|0.77|0.1119
84626514|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.85|0.53|0.3540
84626515|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.29|0.19|0.5076
84626516|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.21|0.5801
84761084|NCT02475681|169278675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
84761085|NCT02475681|169278675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.||||14.9|-1.0|0.0763
84626517|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.82|0.13|0.2785
84626518|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.45|0.19|0.5656
84626519|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.81|0.19|0.6445
84626520|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.99|0.32|0.7363
84626521|NCT03192176|168993587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.86|0.17|0.3455
84626522|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.54|1.60|0.0037
84626523|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.48|1.49|0.0057
84626524|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.13|2.26|0.0003
84626525|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.39|2.37|0.0003
84626526|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.73|0.78|0.1410
84761086|NCT02475681|169278676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare TTNT between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.26|0.08|<0.0001
84626527|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.55|2.20|0.0004
84626528|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|14.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.54|2.08|0.0006
84626529|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.57|1.58|0.0037
84626530|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.16|1.67|0.0026
84674403|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8541|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8541
84676766|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.617||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|5.908|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring inotropes||5.908|1.159|0.016
84761087|NCT02475681|169278676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||P-value based on stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS|Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||0.40|0.15|<0.0001
84626531|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|16.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.60|2.63|0.0002
84626532|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||27.34|3.23|<0.0001
84626533|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.76|1.03|0.0431
84626534|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.29|1.72|0.0020
84626535|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.86|1.11|0.0291
84626536|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.61|1.48|0.0063
84626537|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.11|1.19|0.0202
84626538|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.84|1.55|0.0044
84626539|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||29.38|2.89|0.0002
84674404|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1084|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1084
84626540|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.37|0.93|0.0706
84626541|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|24.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.08|2.79|0.0001
84626542|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.32|1.26|0.0146
84626543|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.24|0.90|0.0816
84626544|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.81|0.87|0.0930
84626545|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.39|1.07|0.365
84626546|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.73|1.65|0.0042
84626547|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.41|1.01|0.0488
84626548|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.36|1.43|0.0075
84626549|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.59|0.86|0.0984
84626550|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.29|0.68|0.2226
84626551|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.08|0.76|0.1467
84626552|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.19|0.92|0.0705
84626553|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|223.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||223.9|3.16|0.0025
84626554|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.40|0.90|0.0757
84626555|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|18.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.74|1.71|0.0045
84676767|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.885|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring surgical intervention||1.885|0.528|0.995
84761088|NCT02475681|169278677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare overall survival between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||1.06|0.21|0.0577
84761089|NCT02475681|169278677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||1.27|0.28|0.1556
84626556|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.67|0.90|0.0771
84626557|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.81|0.71|0.1856
84626558|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.54|0.48|0.5973
84626559|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.77|0.85|0.0935
84626560|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||22.10|1.38|0.0157
84626561|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.32|0.68|0.1963
84626562|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|18.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||18.43|1.53|0.0085
84626563|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.38|0.76|0.1433
84626564|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.37|0.74|0.1577
84626565|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.34|0.74|0.1608
84626566|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.53|0.92|0.0693
84626567|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.57||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|48.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||48.39|1.89|0.0063
84626568|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.05|0.72|0.1637
84626569|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|11.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.47|1.11|0.0326
84626570|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.76|0.1455
84626571|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.32|0.69|0.1951
84674405|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.038|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0380
84626572|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.53|0.54|0.4097
84626573|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.22|0.73|0.1554
84626574|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|17.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.14|1.04|0.0440
84626575|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.47|0.67|0.1928
84626576|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.47|1.25|0.0222
84626577|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.65|0.54|0.4075
84626578|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.56|0.3659
84761090|NCT02025426|169278680|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.547
84761091|NCT02025426|169278682|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.925
84761092|NCT02025426|169278683|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.498
84626579|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.24|0.41|0.7878
84626580|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.38|0.94|0.0635
84626581|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.62||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|123.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||123.3|1.73|0.0137
84626582|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.62|0.79|0.1069
84626583|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|23.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||23.47|1.33|0.0186
84626584|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.56|0.75|0.1434
84626585|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.75|0.72|0.1670
84626586|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.28|0.41|0.7810
84626587|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.26|0.71|0.1682
84761093|NCT02025426|169278684|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
84626588|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.39|1.28|0.0215
84626589|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.52|1.16|0.0306
84626590|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.1||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|52.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||52.29|1.92|0.0059
84626591|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|8.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.43|0.83|0.1004
84626592|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.36|0.70|0.1837
84626593|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.75|0.47|0.5929
84626594|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.07|0.62|0.2588
84626595|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|38.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||38.41|1.54|0.0129
84761094|NCT02025426|169278685|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84761095|NCT02025426|169278686|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.962
84761096|NCT02025426|169278687|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84761097|NCT01166230|169278698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
84761098|NCT01166230|169278699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
84761099|NCT01166230|169278700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
84761100|NCT01008280|169278702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinking days.||||<0.01
84626596|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|35.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||35.61|1.42|0.0168
84626597|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.95||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|50.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.97|1.94|0.0058
84626598|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.26|0.69|0.1934
84626599|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.2181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.12|0.66|0.2181
84626600|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.71|0.53|0.4116
84626601|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.66|0.84|0.0938
84626602|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|41.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||41.08|1.57|0.0125
84626603|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|12.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.23|0.88|0.0761
84626604|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.16|1.14|0.0305
84626605|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.68|1.00|0.0501
84626606|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.77|0.78|0.1212
84626607|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.68|0.35|0.8332
84626608|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.48|0.4285
84626609|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.74|0.83|0.0954
84626610|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.38|0.78|0.1110
84761101|NCT01008280|169278702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
84626611|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.55|0.69|0.1642
84626612|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.24|0.66|0.1976
84761102|NCT01008280|169278702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time by group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
84761103|NCT01008280|169278703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinks.||||<0.01
84626613|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.58|0.43|0.5761
84626614|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.04|0.20|0.4540
84626615|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.96|0.17|0.3732
84626616|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.50|0.46|0.4665
84626617|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.25|0.41|0.5634
84626618|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.70|0.48|0.4297
84626619|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.14|0.31|0.9789
84626620|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.70|0.24|0.7357
84626621|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.50|0.14|0.1977
84626622|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.88|0.14|0.3203
84626623|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.44|0.30|0.9739
84626624|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.97|0.36|0.6714
84626625|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.52|0.22|0.6375
84626626|NCT03192176|168993588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.17|0.2980
84626627|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|16.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.96|1.69|0.0044
84504327|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89||||0.009||95.0|0.97|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.80|0.97|0.009
84626628|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|26.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.83|2.79|0.0002
84626629|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|33.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.54|3.49|<0.0001
84626630|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|31.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.29|3.20|<0.0001
84626631|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.15|0.77|0.1266
84626632|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|17.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.66|1.85|0.0024
84626633|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|24.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||24.26|2.59|0.0003
84626634|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.17|1.18|0.0217
84626635|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.25|1.75|0.0021
84626636|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.37|1.80|0.0016
84626637|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.86|1.79|0.0018
84626638|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.14|1.01|0.0467
84626639|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.28|1.80|0.0016
84626640|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.65|1.16|0.0234
84626641|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.46|1.11|0.0294
84626642|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.73|1.44|0.0068
84626643|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.29|1.68|0.0025
84626644|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|15.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.92|2.13|0.0006
84674406|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2649|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2649
84761104|NCT01008280|169278703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
84761105|NCT01008280|169278703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
84626645|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.61|0.97|0.0572
84626646|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|15.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.97|2.28|0.0003
84626647|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|1.02|0.0460
84626648|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.23|0.79|0.1406
84626649|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.63|1.16|0.0234
84626650|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.22|1.10|0.0302
84626651|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.63|1.87|0.0016
84626652|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.64|0.71|0.2105
84626653|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.81|1.61|0.0033
84626654|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.21|0.85|0.1087
84626655|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.03|0.60|0.3600
84676768|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.499||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|2.379|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring transfusion (\>=4 units)||2.379|0.945|0.084
84626656|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.32|0.79|0.1394
84626657|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.36|0.99|0.0522
84626658|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|11.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.61|1.63|0.0119
84626659|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.53|0.77|0.1474
84761106|NCT01008280|169278704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||<0.01
84626660|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.67|1.76|0.0026
84626661|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.51|0.81|0.1263
84626662|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.95|0.68|0.2327
84626663|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.70|0.79|0.1359
84626664|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.69|1.16|0.0258
84626665|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.04|1.51|0.0076
84626666|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.75|0.83|0.1088
84626667|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|14.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||14.62|1.64|0.0045
84626668|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.50|1.00|0.0493
84626669|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.41|1.06|0.0376
84626670|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.94|0.92|0.0723
84626671|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.17|1.06|0.0396
84674407|NCT00280566|169084315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2394|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2394
84761107|NCT01008280|169278704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
84626672|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|20.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||20.67|1.85|0.0031
84626673|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.96|0.83|0.1044
84626674|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|16.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.75|1.78|0.0029
84626675|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|8.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.45|1.07|0.0364
84602264|NCT02075047|168955317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.59|-6.74|0.002
84761108|NCT01008280|169278704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
84761109|NCT02762513|169278715|OTHER||Median overall survival time (months)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
84761110|NCT02762513|169278716|OTHER||Median PFS time (months)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
84761111|NCT02354703|169278722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||a priori significance P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.94
84761112|NCT02354703|169278723|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||a priori significance is P\<0.05|Chi-squared|adjusted for baseline value||||||1.00
84761113|NCT02354703|169278724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||a priori threshold is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.73
84504328|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.044||95.0|0.08|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|0.08|0.044
84602265|NCT02075047|168955317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.04|-8.21|<0.001
84602266|NCT02075047|168955318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.78|0.001
84602267|NCT02075047|168955318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.16|-0.45|0.349
84602268|NCT02075047|168955318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.103
84602269|NCT02075047|168955318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.68|0.044
84602270|NCT02075047|168955332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|0.00|0.050
84602271|NCT02075047|168955332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.25|-0.03|0.124
84602272|NCT02075047|168955332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
84602273|NCT02075047|168955332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.104
84602274|NCT02075047|168955333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.01|-0.06|0.169
84674408|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8117|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8117
84761114|NCT01968460|169278729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.13||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-2.13|-7.20|0.0004
84761115|NCT01968460|169278729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-1.36||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-1.36|-6.32|0.0027
84761116|NCT01968460|169278730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.84||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.84|-2.86|0.0004
84674409|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0443|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0443
84761117|NCT01968460|169278730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.44||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||0.44|-2.41|0.005
84602275|NCT02075047|168955333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.08|-0.10|0.893
84602276|NCT02075047|168955333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.04|0.915
84602277|NCT02075047|168955333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.01|0.289
84602278|NCT02075047|168955334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.06|-0.01|0.145
84602279|NCT02075047|168955334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.07|-0.01|0.148
84602280|NCT02075047|168955334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.15|-0.01|0.082
84602281|NCT02075047|168955334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.00|0.070
84602282|NCT01229254|168955335|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval was within the pre-specified bounds of \[0.66, 1.50\], the hypothesis of similarity between lower weight and higher weight groups was supported.|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.948||||||Compared to Betrixaban 90 mg (≥80 kg)||0.948|0.591|
84602283|NCT01778049|168955337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0013||95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10) value.|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.52|0.0013
84602284|NCT01778049|168955337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.0001
84602285|NCT01778049|168955338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0103||95.0|-1.15|-0.16|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10).|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.16|-1.15|0.0103
84674410|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3039|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3039
84626676|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.47|0.6396
84626677|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.55|0.4378
84626678|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.44|0.70|0.2045
84626679|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.62|0.85|0.0958
84626680|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.85|0.60|0.3210
84626681|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.39|1.23|0.0199
84626682|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.36|0.80|0.1219
84626683|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.76|0.62|0.2975
84626684|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.80|0.64|0.2763
84626685|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.82|0.79|0.1235
84626686|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||14.19|1.27|0.0190
84626687|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.93|0.66|0.2213
84626688|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|20.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||20.25|1.71|0.0050
84626689|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.85|0.83|0.1053
84626690|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.72|0.85|0.0991
84626691|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.32|0.70|0.2056
84626692|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.57|1.05|0.0407
84626693|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|18.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.30|1.63|0.0059
84626694|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.30|1.20|0.0230
84626695|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|25.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.29|2.14|0.0015
84626696|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.16|1.17|0.0248
84626697|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.83|0.82|0.1091
84626698|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.75|0.61|0.3054
84626699|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.61|0.81|0.1129
84626700|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.37|1.04|0.0432
84626701|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|12.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.60|1.13|0.0315
84626702|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.64|1.33|0.0147
84674411|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.9953|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9953
84626703|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.59|1.05|0.0405
84626704|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.93|0.50|0.5238
84626705|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.97|0.60|0.3060
84626706|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.86|0.55|0.3747
84626707|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|11.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.80|1.03|0.0443
84676769|NCT00097591|169089197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.313||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.656|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Minor Bleeding||1.656|1.040|0.022
84761118|NCT01968460|169278731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|44.77||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||A subject will be defined as a treatment responder in case that the improvement from baseline to the Week12 / Last Observed Value (LOV) in the CGI-S will be of 1 point or more. Baseline adjusted logistic regression (SAS® LOGISTIC procedure) stratified by GeoSite using the STRATA sub-command with the following effects: treatment group and baseline CGI-S measurement was used to test the between the active groups and placebo contrasts.||44.77|1.47|0.0165
84602286|NCT01778049|168955338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0452||95.0|-0.87|-0.01|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.87|0.0452
84602287|NCT02118766|168955351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.038
84602288|NCT04035564|168955457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|1.533|||Chi-squared|||||1.533|0.026|0.71
84602289|NCT04035564|168955458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|18.09|||Chi-squared|||||18.09|0.081|0.89
84602290|NCT04035564|168955459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
84602291|NCT04035564|168955459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||ANOVA|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
84602292|NCT04035564|168955460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.858|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.858|-8.43|0.107
84602293|NCT04035564|168955460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|-8.43|0.107
84602294|NCT04035564|168955461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
84602295|NCT04035564|168955461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||ANOVA|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
84602296|NCT04035564|168955462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.932|||Chi-squared|||||1.932|0.296|0.55
84602297|NCT04035564|168955463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|7.096|||Chi-squared|||||7.096|0.169|0.84
84602298|NCT04035564|168955464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.448|||Chi-squared|||||2.448|0.266|0.70
84602299|NCT04035564|168955465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84602300|NCT04035564|168955465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.57
84602301|NCT03777709|168955468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||A recruitment aim of 40 participants per church (16 churches, 8 per arm, mean of 5 participants per church) provides 80% power to detect a difference of 1.45 in mean LS7 score change between groups (effect size 0.73).|Effect size of 1-unit difference in mean LS7 score was based on meta-analysis indicating each unit increase in mean LS7 metrics equates to a 19% and 11% reduction in CVD and all-cause mortality, respectively. Power calculations to estimate sample size: church goal of 16 churches (8/arm), with mean 5 participants/church (40/arm) to provide 80% power to detect 1.45 difference in average LS7 score change between groups (.01 intracluster correlation, and .5 coefficient of variation of church sizes).||||<0.0001
84602302|NCT03575065|168955500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value was based on an exact binomial test with historic control ORR=0.25|Exact Binomial Test|||||||0.0210
84602303|NCT01528891|168955588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate values at each time point were compared between groups.||||<0.01
84602304|NCT01528891|168955588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
84602305|NCT01528891|168955588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
84602306|NCT01528891|168955589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.0001 was calculated for both groups.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence of agitated patients in each group was compared.||||<0.0001
84602307|NCT01528891|168955590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
84602308|NCT01528891|168955590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, and 5 minutes.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
84602309|NCT01528891|168955590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 5 minutes and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline within each group over time.||||<0.01
84626708|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.06|0.77|0.1269
84761119|NCT01968460|169278731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|24.9||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.90|0.72|0.111
84761120|NCT01968460|169278732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.83||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.83|-4.80|0.0058
84602310|NCT01528891|168955591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||DBP values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
84602311|NCT01528891|168955591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared within each group against the baseline value.||||<0.01
84602312|NCT01528891|168955591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
84602313|NCT04452435|168955592|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4891
84602314|NCT04452435|168955592|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0881|||||||ANCOVA|||A subgroup analyses was performed in subjects with supplemental oxygen use at baseline. A total of 26 subjects in the C21 group and 27 in the placebo group were included in the analysis of change in CRP from baseline to the mean of the last 2 non-missing scheduled assessments during the treatment period by baseline supplemental oxygen use.||||=0.0881
84602315|NCT04452435|168955593|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0492
84602316|NCT04452435|168955594|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9923|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9923
84602317|NCT04452435|168955595|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5355|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.5355
84602318|NCT04452435|168955596|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4738
84602319|NCT04452435|168955597|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9418
84602320|NCT04452435|168955598|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9733|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9733
84602321|NCT04452435|168955599|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0568|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.0568
84602322|NCT04452435|168955600|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.6088|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.6088
84602323|NCT04452435|168955601|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5757|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.5757
84602324|NCT04452435|168955602|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.8588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.8588
84602325|NCT04452435|168955604|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.003
84602326|NCT01437098|168955605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of IF Implanted Subjects|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.5|98.2|||Exact binomial|||||98.2|77.5|<0.001
84674412|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1653|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1653
84761121|NCT01968460|169278732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.39||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.39|-4.26|0.0191
84761122|NCT01968460|169278733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.8||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-5.72|0.0097
84626709|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.13|1.49|0.0095
84626710|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.79|0.1254
84626711|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.63|1.06|0.0402
84626712|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.47|0.4547
84626713|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.99|0.49|0.4008
84626714|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.22|0.71|0.1535
84626715|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||28.95|1.79|0.0055
84626716|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.50|0.64|0.2116
84626717|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.83|0.70|0.1668
84626718|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.98|0.67|0.1824
84626719|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.90|0.25|0.7970
84626720|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.85|0.21|0.7065
84626721|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.93|0.29|0.9126
84626722|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.70|0.74|0.1282
84626723|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.04|0.58|0.2661
84626724|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.09|0.36|0.7457
84676770|NCT00097591|169089198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.894|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.894|0.688|<0.001
84626725|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.41|0.47|0.4095
84626726|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.77|0.28|0.9571
84626727|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.59|0.23|0.8827
84626728|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.74|0.17|0.5944
84626729|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.39|0.66|0.1647
84626730|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.48|0.57|0.2684
84626731|NCT03192176|168993589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.07|0.43|0.5338
84626732|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-0.18|-1.95|0.0179
84626733|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.47|-2.25|0.0027
84626734|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.73|-2.50|0.0004
84626735|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.64|-2.43|0.0009
84626736|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.64|-1.14|0.5806
84626737|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.27|-2.03|0.0105
84626738|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.39|-2.16|0.0048
84626739|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.29|-1.52|0.1801
84626740|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.04|-1.76|0.0609
84626741|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.49|-2.33|0.0028
84626742|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-2.40|0.0018
84626743|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.64|-1.19|0.5519
84626744|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.31|-1.51|0.1922
84626745|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.02|-1.82|0.0463
84626746|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.19|-1.53|0.1288
84626747|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.03|-1.72|0.0577
84626748|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.48|-2.26|0.0027
84626749|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||-1.3|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.41|-2.20|0.0043
84626750|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.52|-1.27|0.4089
84626751|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.31|-1.44|0.2050
84626752|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.11|-1.84|0.0265
84626753|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.88|-1.20|0.7617
84626754|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.32|-0.77|0.6061
84626755|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.21|-0.93|0.7997
84626756|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.60|-0.55|0.3391
84626757|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.61|-1.55|0.3934
84626758|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.04|-1.08|0.9750
84602327|NCT00834990|168955653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.41||||||90.0|97.13|110.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.08|97.13|
84602328|NCT00834990|168955654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.68||||||90.0|96.79|106.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.83|96.79|
84602329|NCT00834990|168955655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.17||||||90.0|98.5|108.05|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.05|98.5|
84602330|NCT00521599|168955664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|assume n=240 per group and standard deviation (STD) = 45 L/min for AM Peak Flow Rate at Week 8. If the two actives are the same, 95% CI of their mean difference has 90% probability to be completely within +/- 15 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|5.49|||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||5.49|-8.74|0.654
84602331|NCT00521599|168955664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.003
84602332|NCT00521599|168955664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.001
84602333|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602334|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
84602335|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.069||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
84602336|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602337|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602338|NCT00791479|168955665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602339|NCT00791479|168955666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602340|NCT00791479|168955666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.023
84602341|NCT00791479|168955666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602342|NCT00791479|168955666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
84602343|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602344|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
84602345|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.456||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
84602346|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.53|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602347|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.96|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602348|NCT00791479|168955667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.71|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602349|NCT00791479|168955668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels \<7.0%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
84602350|NCT00791479|168955668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≤6.5%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
84602351|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602352|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
84602353|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.65||||0.378||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.378
84602354|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.09|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84674413|NCT00280566|169084316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5771|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5771
84602355|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.34|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602356|NCT00791479|168955669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.67|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84602357|NCT00791479|168955670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
84602358|NCT00791479|168955670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.036
84602359|NCT00791479|168955671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.450
84602360|NCT00791479|168955671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.329
84602361|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.969
84602362|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.009
84602363|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.14||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.140
84602364|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.247||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.247
84602365|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.975||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.975
84602366|NCT00791479|168955679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
84602367|NCT01774097|168955710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.6|0.238
84602368|NCT01774097|168955711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-0.2|0.116
84602369|NCT01774097|168955712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.8|0.978
84602370|NCT01774097|168955713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.91||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.91|-1.26|0.752
84602371|NCT01774097|168955714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-0.02|0.871
84602372|NCT01774097|168955715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.06|0.256
84602373|NCT01774097|168955716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.2|0.241
84602374|NCT01774097|168955718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-0.6|0.131
84602375|NCT01774097|168955719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.2||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.2|-2.6|0.626
84674414|NCT01147653|169084317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in GMFM-66 is the same on Autologous Umbilical Cord Blood and Placebo||3.7|-2.6|0.72
84674415|NCT01147653|169084318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84504329|NCT00408876|168759710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.473||95.0|-3.33|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-3.33|0.473
84761123|NCT01968460|169278733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.012||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.012|-4.91|0.0509
84761124|NCT02597855|169278736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference of polyp regression rate between two groups were compared.||||<0.05
84602376|NCT01774097|168955720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||2.3|-4.1|0.591
84602377|NCT01774097|168955721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.7|-3.3|0.722
84602378|NCT00557310|168955722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.363
84602379|NCT00557310|168955723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
84602380|NCT00557310|168955724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.816
84602381|NCT00557310|168955724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.934
84602382|NCT00557310|168955725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.324
84602383|NCT00557310|168955725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.089
84602384|NCT00557310|168955726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.847
84602385|NCT00557310|168955726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.212
84602386|NCT00557310|168955727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.||||||0.335
84602387|NCT00557310|168955727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.916
84602388|NCT00557310|168955727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 12 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.610
84602389|NCT00557310|168955727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.363
84602390|NCT00557310|168955727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
84602391|NCT00557310|168955728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84602392|NCT00557310|168955729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.021
84602393|NCT00557310|168955730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84602394|NCT00557310|168955731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
84602395|NCT00557310|168955732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84602396|NCT00557310|168955732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84602397|NCT00557310|168955733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
84602398|NCT00557310|168955733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.049
84602399|NCT00557310|168955734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
84602400|NCT00557310|168955734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.092
84602401|NCT00557310|168955735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
84602402|NCT00557310|168955735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
84602403|NCT00557310|168955736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
84602404|NCT00557310|168955736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.436
84602405|NCT00557310|168955737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
84602406|NCT00557310|168955737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
84602407|NCT00557310|168955737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
84602408|NCT00557310|168955738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
84602409|NCT00557310|168955738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
84602410|NCT00557310|168955738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.016
84602411|NCT01920568|168955742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.192|||ANCOVA||Primary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.192|-0.440|<0.0001
84602412|NCT01920568|168955743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.188|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, ie log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr)/(BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (Chinese participants, yes or no) and log transformed BL value|||-0.188|-0.444|<0.0001
84602413|NCT01920568|168955744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.193|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect, stratification factor (Breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.193|-0.539|<0.0001
84602414|NCT01703208|168955754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.29|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.29|0.77|
84602415|NCT01703208|168955755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.48|
84602416|NCT01703208|168955756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS Means vs Placebo|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27|||Longitudinal data analysis|Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.27|-0.50|<0.001
84602417|NCT01703208|168955757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs. Placebo|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||4.9|-7.2|
84602418|NCT01703208|168955758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||1.7|-1.0|
84602419|NCT01703208|168955760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.68|0.66|
84602420|NCT01703208|168955762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.26|0.60|
84602421|NCT01703208|168955764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.52|0.58|
84602422|NCT01703208|168955766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.85|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.85|0.88|
84602423|NCT01703208|168955767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.14|||||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|||-0.14|-0.46|
84602424|NCT01703208|168955773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|4.5|||Longitudinal constrained data analysis||Based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.|||4.5|-10.8|0.421
84602425|NCT01703208|168955774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between group rate difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8||Estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|6.9|<0.001
84602426|NCT01703208|168955776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.05|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.05|0.35|
84602427|NCT00252694|168955777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.076|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.076|0.704|0.1994
84602428|NCT04699032|168955845|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.423|0.909||||||||0.909|0.423|
84602429|NCT04699032|168955846|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.458|1.05||||||||1.050|0.458|
84602430|NCT01271712|168955849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified log rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.01 stratified by (3rd vs 4th-line; and geographical region). The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS in the regorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to a proportional hazards relation between the treatment arms.||||<0.000001
84602431|NCT01271712|168955849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.388|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (Confidence Interval) was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||0.388|0.185|
84602432|NCT01271712|168955850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285777|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||0.285777
84602433|NCT01271712|168955850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.265|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over control. 58 (87.9%) patients in placebo group and 91 (68.4%) patients in regorafenib had started open-label treatment with regorafenib before time of final database cutoff 08 Jun 2015.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||1.265|0.653|
84602434|NCT01271712|168955851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||<0.000001
84602435|NCT01271712|168955851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.364|||Regression, Cox|stratified||||0.364|0.170|
84602436|NCT00468676|168955870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||scaled marginal model parameter|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.02||Significance of the four outcome composite|Scaled Marginal Model||Intervention group had significantly lower scaled marginal mean scores than usual care|||-1.02|-2.12|.001
84674416|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.473
84761125|NCT02597855|169278737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was used for a comparison of best corrected visual acuity assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months between type1 and type2.||best corrected visual acuity was compared between two groups||||<0.05
84761126|NCT04681170|169278740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.859|-45.9612|||t-test, 1 sided|||This was a single-arm study, no comparative group can be assigned; the comparison made for the primary efficacy endpoint is done only between baseline and Week 24 in paediatric subjects (5 to ≤17 years of age). Analysis was made using the one-sample t-test to test the null hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was equal to zero against the alternative hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was not equal to zero.||-45.9612|-61.8590|<0.0001
84761127|NCT01394081|169278762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<.0001
84761128|NCT01394081|169278763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|log rank Mantel Cox χ2 = 25.4||||||<.0001
84761129|NCT02814565|169278776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6179
84602437|NCT00468676|168955871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.01|||<|0.01||95.0|||||general estimating equations|||Disability outcomes were measured at six and 12 months after randomization using linear regression models adjusted for baseline values. The disability models combined information across time points and were estimated using general estimating equations to account for correlation. All analyses were based on intent to treat principles||||<0.01
84602438|NCT00468676|168955873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
84602439|NCT00468676|168955874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.1|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||0.1|-6.9|
84602440|NCT00468676|168955875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Regression, Linear||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a linear-regression model predicting a 12-month outcome.|||-0.8|-17.5|
84602441|NCT00468676|168955876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.27|-0.85|
84602442|NCT00443053|168955888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Fisher Exact|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
84602443|NCT00443053|168955889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||Fisher Exact|||||0.32|0.12|<0.001
84602444|NCT01632241|168955895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.93|0.1068
84602445|NCT01632241|168955904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.0937
84602446|NCT01632241|168955906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.17|0.51|0.2264
84602447|NCT01632241|168955908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.8||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.61|0.4996
84602448|NCT05463744|168955916|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|
84602449|NCT05463744|168955917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|0.432
84602450|NCT05463744|168955918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.60|-2.22|0.751
84602451|NCT05463744|168955919|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.79|0.900
84602452|NCT05463744|168955920|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.157|||ANCOVA|||||0.157|-0.110|
84602453|NCT05463744|168955921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|4.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||4.93|-7.38|0.697
84602454|NCT05463744|168955921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.84||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.96|-11.64|0.163
84602455|NCT05463744|168955922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.66|-0.61|0.939
84602456|NCT05463744|168955922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 49 to Week 52||1.17|-0.13|0.116
84602457|NCT05463744|168955923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||ANCOVA|||||2.62|-1.54|0.610
84602458|NCT05463744|168955924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||3.38|-21.30|0.155
84761130|NCT02814565|169278777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4338
84761131|NCT02814565|169278777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1657
84761132|NCT02814565|169278778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0393
84626759|NCT03192176|168993590|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.97|-1.13|0.8830
84626760|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.5872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.73|-6.09|0.5872
84626761|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.35|-4.70|0.3779
84626762|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||4.49|-12.61|0.3506
84626763|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.62|-7.66|0.8236
84626764|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|10.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.87|-6.24|0.5949
84626765|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|7.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.85|-8.65|0.9237
84626766|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|12.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.46|-4.54|0.3599
84626767|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|11.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||11.68|-8.33|0.7422
84626768|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|7.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||7.37|-12.67|0.6030
84626769|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||4.17|-16.07|0.2478
84761133|NCT02814565|169278779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0330
84626770|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.5295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|13.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.47|-6.94|0.5295
84626771|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||8.13|-12.20|0.6938
84626772|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||9.63|-9.93|0.9765
84626773|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|13.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.76|-6.45|0.4771
84626774|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.27|-5.19|0.4256
84761134|NCT02814565|169278779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0262|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0262
84761135|NCT02814565|169278780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5756|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5756
84761136|NCT02814565|169278780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4395
84761137|NCT02814565|169278780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0905|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0905
84761138|NCT02814565|169278781|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 3. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
84626775|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|9.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.01|-8.52|0.9559
84626776|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|3.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||3.07|-14.60|0.2003
84626777|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|6.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.98|-10.86|0.6692
84626778|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|7.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.08|-10.68|0.6894
84626779|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||2.48|-14.66|0.1627
84626780|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.47|-9.18|0.9371
84626781|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|9.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.77|-8.07|0.8521
84626782|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.35|-8.62|0.9367
84626783|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||0.19|-17.82|0.0551
84761139|NCT02814565|169278781|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 7. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
84761140|NCT02814565|169278781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 14. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||0.2757
84761141|NCT02814565|169278782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.3020
84761142|NCT02814565|169278782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2367|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2367
84761143|NCT02814565|169278782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0250
84761144|NCT02814565|169278783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4428
84602459|NCT05463744|168955924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.88||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.55|-19.31|0.278
84602460|NCT05463744|168955925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-2.03|-5.52|<0.001
84602461|NCT05463744|168955925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-1.71|-5.26|<0.001
84602462|NCT05463744|168955926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|-20.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-20.98|-57.59|<0.001
84602463|NCT05463744|168955926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-17.43|-54.44|<0.001
84602464|NCT05463744|168955927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||5.06|1.32|<0.001
84602465|NCT05463744|168955927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||4.70|0.91|0.004
84602466|NCT05463744|168955928|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||||1.41|1.04|0.016
84602467|NCT05463744|168955929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.53|-0.35|0.702
84602468|NCT05463744|168955929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.56|-0.33|0.609
84602469|NCT05463744|168955930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.19|-0.13|0.681
84602470|NCT05463744|168955930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 49 to Week 52||0.24|-0.05|0.182
84602471|NCT05463744|168955931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||2.05|-2.06|0.999
84602472|NCT05463744|168955932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|1.41|||ANCOVA|||||1.41|-3.06|0.468
84626784|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||5.96|-12.32|0.4936
84674417|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Bodily Pain/Discomfort change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.377
84761145|NCT02814565|169278783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1163|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1163
84761146|NCT02814565|169278783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0489
84761147|NCT02814565|169278784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5275|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5275
84761148|NCT02814565|169278784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0880
84761149|NCT02814565|169278784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2542|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2542
84602473|NCT05463744|168955933|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84602474|NCT05463744|168955934|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84602475|NCT05463744|168955935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 26||1.19|-0.33|0.270
84602476|NCT05463744|168955935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 52||1.45|0.000|0.050
84602477|NCT05463744|168955935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 26||1.38|-0.94|0.710
84602478|NCT05463744|168955935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 52||1.61|-0.71|0.447
84602479|NCT00068250|168955946|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose escalation followed the standard 3+3 design, although up to six patients could be accrued per dose level before suspending accrual for toxicity evaluation. If none of the first three patients (0/3), or one of the first three and none of the second three (1/3 and 0/3), experience a DLT, then the current dose level would be considered acceptable, and the next dose opened. Otherwise, the current dose level would be considered too toxic. The highest dose achieved with an acceptable level of toxicity was to considered the Maximum Tolerable Dose (MTD). If at any time a grade 5 toxicity was observed, accrual will be suspended, and the Study Chair would review the event. Furthermore, if the cumulative incidence (obtained by time to event analysis), at any time, of combined acute/late DLTs estimated the toxicity rate to be greater than 30% at any dose level, then the Executive Committee will be notified, and the committee would determine whether to stop accrual.|||
84602480|NCT00068250|168955947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||One-sample z-test|||Null hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \<= 64%; Alternative hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \> 64%. The fixed survival rate for comparison comes from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9310. (RTOG 9310 does not fall within ClinicalTrials.gov registration/reporting requirements.)||||0.006
84674418|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Family Cohesion change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.844
84674419|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.322
84674420|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Health Perceptions change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.927
84674421|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Global Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.199
84674422|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Growth and Development change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.294
84761150|NCT02814565|169278785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6920
84761151|NCT02814565|169278785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0749
84602481|NCT00068250|168955948|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample test of proportions||RTOG 93-10 reported a pre-irradiation chemotherapy complete response rate of 59%. A chi-square test with a 0.20 one-sided significance level provides 81% power to detect the difference between a null hypothesis complete response rate of 59% and the alternative rate of 71% (a 20% increase) for the planned sample size of 52 patients.||||0.82
84674423|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Overall Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.726
84674424|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Emotional change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.315
84674425|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Time change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.396
84674426|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Physical Abilities change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.381
84674427|NCT01147653|169084319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Temperament and Moods change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.869
84602482|NCT03955250|168955958|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84602483|NCT03955250|168955959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
84674428|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12 month Access to Services change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous Cord Blood Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.055
84674429|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Emotional Well Being and Self Esteem change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.121
84674430|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Family Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.647
84761152|NCT02814565|169278785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2371
84761153|NCT02118792|169278790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84761154|NCT03716869|169278852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was conducted using the intent-to-treat principle. Analysis for primary and secondary outcomes that compared universal to targeted screening was conducted using mixed effects logistic regression.||3.10|1.39|<0.001
84602484|NCT03955250|168955959|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
84602485|NCT03955250|168955960|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||>0.05
84602486|NCT03955250|168955960|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
84602487|NCT03955250|168955961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
84602488|NCT03955250|168955961|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
84602489|NCT02240368|168955967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
84602490|NCT02240368|168955968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
84602491|NCT02240368|168955969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84602492|NCT02240368|168955970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84674431|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Functioning change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.170
84674432|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Pain and Impact of Disability change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.410
84674433|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Participation and Physical Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.200
84674434|NCT01147653|169084320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Social wellbeing and acceptance change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.225
84674435|NCT01147653|169084323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290
84626785|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||11.17|-6.89|0.6404
84626786|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|9.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.34|-8.17|0.8955
84626787|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.17|-8.91|0.9776
84626788|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|7.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.01|-9.27|0.7852
84626789|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|9.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.33|-7.02|0.7812
84626790|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|3.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||3.61|-13.07|0.2648
84626791|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|6.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||6.32|-10.41|0.6312
84626792|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|9.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.67|-6.89|0.7416
84626793|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|11.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.41|-4.83|0.4254
84626794|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.54|-4.66|0.4038
84626795|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|4.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||4.85|-14.49|0.3270
84626796|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|7.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.90|-11.21|0.7333
84626797|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||2.28|-17.36|0.1319
84626798|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|7.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.32|-12.38|0.6132
84626799|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|5.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||5.63|-13.98|0.4024
84674436|NCT01147653|169084326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
84674437|NCT01147653|169084327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912
84674438|NCT01147653|169084328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
84674439|NCT01147653|169084329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84504330|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.846||95.0|-3.61|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|-3.61|0.846
84504331|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.934||95.0|-3.45|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.17|-3.45|0.934
84626800|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.4904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|6.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.23|-12.97|0.4904
84626801|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|6.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.69|-12.48|0.5521
84626802|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|7.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.35|-10.38|0.7370
84626803|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.96|-11.62|0.5269
84626804|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|5.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.11|-12.93|0.3937
84626805|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.94|-8.15|0.8460
84626806|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.38|-11.62|0.5673
84626807|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|12.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.79|-4.88|0.3791
84626808|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|9.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.73|-7.86|0.8340
84674440|NCT01147653|169084330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84504332|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.234||95.0|-1.32|5.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.39|-1.32|0.234
84626809|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.88|-9.51|0.9457
84626810|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||7.09|-11.22|0.6570
84674441|NCT01147653|169084331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
84674442|NCT01147653|169084332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.099
84674443|NCT01147653|169084333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
84674444|NCT01147653|169084334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
84504333|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.794||95.0|-4.58|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.50|-4.58|0.794
84504334|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.64||||0.426||95.0|-2.4|5.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.67|-2.40|0.426
84504335|NCT00408876|168759711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.207||95.0|-1.21|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.55|-1.21|0.207
84504336|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.901||95.0|-2.54|2.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.89|-2.54|0.901
84504337|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.926||95.0|-2.35|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.35|0.926
84504338|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62||||0.002||95.0|1.35|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.90|1.35|0.002
84504339|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.841||95.0|-3.02|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.46|-3.02|0.841
84504340|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.014||95.0|0.71|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.19|0.71|0.014
84674445|NCT01147653|169084335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84674446|NCT01147653|169084336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.310
84602493|NCT02793817|168955971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|8.3||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.7||To account for multiplicity, a step-down testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared tests (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.05.||14.7|2.0|0.0105
84602494|NCT02793817|168955972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|28.4||To account for multiplicity, a step-down closed testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted), wherein a priori significance level was 0.05||28.4|11.6|<0.0001
84602495|NCT02793817|168955973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|25.0||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||25.0|9.1|<0.0001
84602496|NCT02793817|168955974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.9||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||26.9|11.0|<0.0001
84602497|NCT02793817|168955975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL.|P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0078
84602498|NCT02793817|168955976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without any adjustment for covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference in change from BL|||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
84602499|NCT02793817|168955977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without adjustments for any covariates.|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL|||-0.03|-0.28|0.0169
84602500|NCT00871117|168955981|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group differences in booster response to diphtheria was greater than or equal to (≥)-10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.58||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of diphtheria (D) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||2.58|-2.54|
84602501|NCT00871117|168955981|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to tetanus was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of tetanus (T) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.26|-1.99|
84602502|NCT00871117|168955982|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PT was ≥ -10%|Difference in booster response rates|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.51||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||3.51|-5.07|
84602503|NCT00871117|168955982|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to FHA was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.39||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.39|-3.59|
84602504|NCT00871117|168955982|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PRN, was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.08||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.08|-0.32|
84602505|NCT00871117|168955983|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios for poliovirus type 1 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.1|0.76|
84602506|NCT00871117|168955983|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 2 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||0.99|0.7|
84602507|NCT00871117|168955983|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 3 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.01|0.71|
84626811|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||3.64|-15.00|0.2310
84626812|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|9.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.96|-8.84|0.9066
84626813|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|4.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||4.30|-14.26|0.2914
84626814|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|9.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.57|-8.73|0.9277
84626815|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.77|-9.51|0.9367
84626816|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.69|-3.46|0.2407
84626817|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|15.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.89|-2.06|0.1305
84626818|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|14.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.75|-3.34|0.2152
84626819|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.89|-1.73|0.1099
84626820|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|16.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.75|-1.99|0.1219
84626821|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|18.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||18.36|0.85|0.0316
84626822|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|15.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.16|-2.44|0.1557
84626823|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|10.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.67|-8.91|0.8592
84626824|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|12.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||12.20|-8.08|0.6891
84626825|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|9.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||9.92|-10.59|0.9481
84674447|NCT01147653|169084338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of Modified Ashworth Scale scores is the same at 1-year post-infusion with autologous cord blood and placebo.||||0.233
84674448|NCT01147653|169084342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
84761155|NCT03716869|169278853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.93|5.07|<0.001
84761156|NCT03716869|169278855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.38|2.49|<0.001
84674449|NCT01147653|169084343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||0.05
84761157|NCT03716869|169278861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|10.58|||Regression, Logistic||Test of interaction terms from mixed-effects logistic regression for subgroup analyses. Information above is sex x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among females. For males, OR 4.05 (95% CI 3.26-5.03).||"Sex x rand group interaction p=0.005 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up.~Females 4.73 (3.19-7.02) Males 2.09 (1.38-3.16)~Sex x rand group interaction p=0.37 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|10.58|6.71|<0.001
84761158|NCT03716869|169278861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|11.35|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is for race/ethnicity x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms for non-Hispanic white students. For non-Hispanic Black students OR 2.55 (95% CI 1.97-3.31), Hispanic 7.45 (4.98-11.17), other 12.41 (7.34-21.00).||"Race/ethnicity x rand group p=0.007 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. non-Hispanic white 2.24 (1.59-3.15) non-Hispanic Black 4.19 (2.03-8.65) Hispanic 10.15 (4.06-25.36) Other 12.22 (1.59-94.12)~Race/ethnicity x rand group interaction p=0.15 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|11.35|6.58|<0.001
84761159|NCT03716869|169278861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.44|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is location x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among urban students. For rural students and identification of depressive symptoms OR 13.60 (95% CI 7.28-25.42).||"Location x rand group interaction p=0.27 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05.~Location x rand group interaction p=0.36 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|6.44|4.65|0.006
84674450|NCT01147653|169084343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and Placebo.||||0.15
84602508|NCT02080481|168955995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||Regression, Linear|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
84602509|NCT02080481|168955996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.25|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Odds ratio for Infiniti Plus versus conventional needle patients|||9.6|0.25|0.56
84602510|NCT02080481|168955997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|1.78||Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between groups and adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.01|0.06
84602511|NCT02080481|168955998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.7|14.6|||Regression, Linear|Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||14.6|-7.7|0.74
84626826|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|8.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||8.68|-12.46|0.7246
84626827|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|11.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.53|-9.94|0.8842
84626828|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.17|-8.74|0.8103
84626829|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|10.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.28|-9.81|0.9631
84626830|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|9.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.47|-9.73|0.9788
84626831|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|8.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.54|-11.26|0.7875
84674451|NCT01147653|169084343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and placebo.||||0.21
84674452|NCT01147653|169084344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of differences between observed and expected GMFM-66 change scores at 1-year post-infusion is the same for patients receiving Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||<0.01
84626832|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.9746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.17|-9.85|0.9746
84626833|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|10.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.86|-9.67|0.9092
84626834|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|10.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.21|-10.55|0.9745
84626835|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|14.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.44|-5.08|0.3458
84626836|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|13.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.45|-6.17|0.4657
84626837|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.76|-7.20|0.5838
84626838|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|11.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||11.39|-9.18|0.8322
84626839|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|12.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.13|-8.59|0.7366
84626840|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|16.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.28|-4.99|0.2971
84626841|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|10.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||10.37|-10.96|0.9562
84626842|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||0.28|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|18.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||18.76|-1.44|0.0926
84626843|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.70|-6.70|0.4996
84626844|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|8.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.75|-9.99|0.8960
84626845|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|12.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.58|-6.68|0.5471
84626846|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|11.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.36|-8.06|0.7380
84626847|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|19.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||19.69|-0.58|0.0644
84626848|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.96|-10.90|0.8475
84626849|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|14.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.59|-4.57|0.3044
84626850|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|13.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.86|-5.42|0.3895
84626851|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|7.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||7.42|-16.50|0.4551
84626852|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|9.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.81|-14.21|0.7182
84626853|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|9.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.20|-15.26|0.6259
84626854|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|19.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||19.40|-6.22|0.3120
84626855|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|6.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||6.37|-18.89|0.3297
84626856|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||15.26|-9.02|0.6130
84504341|NCT00408876|168759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.001||95.0|1.44|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|1.44|0.001
84626857|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|14.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||14.40|-10.09|0.7292
84626858|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.8695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||11.96|-1.11|0.8695
84626859|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|14.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.25|-7.99|0.5800
84626860|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|13.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.50|-9.11|0.7024
84626861|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|23.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||23.23|-0.35|0.0572
84626862|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|13.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.31|-10.04|0.7830
84504342|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.057||95.0|-1.41|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-1.41|0.057
84504343|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.128||95.0|-1.05|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-1.05|0.128
84626863|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||0.1|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|26.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||26.67|4.19|0.0074
84626864|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||22.32|-0.24|0.0551
84626865|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|5.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||5.08|-16.63|0.2959
84626866|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|16.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.74|-5.14|0.2976
84626867|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|13.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.05|-9.07|0.7236
84626868|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||21.63|-1.52|0.0884
84626869|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||6.38|-16.35|0.3887
84626870|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||17.24|-4.80|0.2671
84626871|NCT03192176|168993591|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|13.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.99|-8.20|0.6076
84626872|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.67|-2.93|0.2159
84626873|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.08|-3.70|0.0405
84626874|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.53|-4.18|0.0115
84626875|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.04|-3.62|0.0553
84626876|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.80|-2.82|0.2753
84674453|NCT01147653|169084345|SUPERIORITY|H0: The population distribution of the Peabody Gross Motor Quotient change score 1 year post-infusion with autologous umbilical cord blood is the same in patients receiving a Low infused dose and a High infused dose.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84761160|NCT02469090|169278863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.7||The null-hypothesis to be tested was: H0: APL-130277 is the same as placebo in its effect on the motor function against the 2-sided alternative: H1: Either of the treatment groups is superior to the other in its effect on the motor function.|LS mean difference|To control the family-wise type I error rate, the primary and secondary end points were tested in hierarchical order in the order presented||Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to estimate the treatment difference(APL-130277-placebo) Observed change from pre-dose MDS-UPDRS Part III score values after 30 minutes were response values. Treatment group, visit and the interaction between the treatment group and visit were fixed factors. Change from pre-dose in MDS-UPDRS Part III score after 30 minutes at the last TV at which the randomized dose was given up through TV6 was used as a covariate||-3.7|-11.5|0.0002
84761161|NCT02469090|169278864|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.81||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|7.644|||Adjusted Odds Ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.644|1.036|0.0426
84761162|NCT02469090|169278865|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.84||The hierarchical testing stopped at this endpoint due to non-significant result. P-values for endpoints after this endpoint have not been presented and the confidence interval presented are unadjusted for multiplicity.|Adjusted odds ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.84|1.00|0.0501
84761163|NCT02469090|169278868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.159|0.959||||||||0.959|-3.159|
84761164|NCT02469090|169278869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.84|66.36||||||||66.36|28.84|
84761165|NCT02469090|169278870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|6.12||||||||6.120|-2.162|
84761166|NCT02469090|169278871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-6.7|
84761167|NCT02469090|169278872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.69||||||Median Time to effect for APL-130277 versus placebo patients||5.69|1.99|
84761168|NCT02163434|169278873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84761169|NCT02163434|169278874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84761170|NCT02163434|169278875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84761171|NCT02163434|169278877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84761172|NCT02163434|169278878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84761173|NCT03823391|169278886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|-0.15|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Between groups difference was a single-arm comparison of LS mean of ABBV-3373 estimated from the MMRM model above minus the historical mean of adalimumab (-2.13).|Two primary comparisons were performed between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab. The first was the comparison of ABBV-3373 to historical adalimumab reference value -2.13 based on a meta-analysis consisting of 242 subjects from 3 historical adalimumab studies in which the success criterion was 2-sided P value ≤ 0.1.||-0.15|-0.89|0.022
84626877|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.20|0.5140
84626878|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.38|-4.03|0.0178
84626879|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.98|-1.02|0.9675
84626880|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.49|-1.52|0.3122
84626881|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.00|-1.00|0.9977
84626882|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.97|-1.05|0.9312
84674454|NCT01147653|169084346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in normalized whole brain connectivity is the same in patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||0.38|0.01|0.04
84626883|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.27|0.6005
84626884|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.32|-0.68|0.5284
84626885|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.19|-1.82|0.1111
84626886|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.16|0.1764
84626887|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms||-0.34|-1.73|0.0037
84626888|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.92|-2.30|<0.0001
84626889|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.81|-2.21|<0.0001
84626890|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.18|-1.21|0.1444
84626891|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.23|-1.60|0.0088
84761174|NCT03823391|169278886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899||||||Posterior probability|Historical data borrowing|Based on posterior distribution of means for each group, the probability of Treatment mean - Control mean \< 0 given the observed data was calculated.||The second comparison was ABBV-3373 to adalimumab with combined in-trial and borrowed historical adalimumab data using a Bayesian historical borrowing approach in which the success criterion was posterior probability of ABBV-3373 being better than adalimumab \> 95%. When borrowing 30 historical adalimumab subjects, the combined least squares mean change from Baseline was -2.29.||||0.899
84626892|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.54|-1.93|0.0005
84626893|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0416
84626894|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.03|-0.71|0.0353
84674455|NCT00780572|169084371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9396||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7068|1.249|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2490|0.7068|0.6680
84674456|NCT00727857|169084383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.22|0.51|<0.0001
84674457|NCT00727857|169084383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|1.18|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.18|0.50|<0.0001
84761175|NCT03823391|169278886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.45|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|The mean difference in change from Baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Week 12 between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab was also estimated only based on in-study data.||0.45|-0.74|0.683
84504344|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.007||95.0|-1.42|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.42|0.007
84626895|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.16|-0.84|0.0040
84626896|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.00|-0.69|0.0495
84626897|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.37|-0.31|0.8665
84626898|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.32|-0.35|0.9303
84626899|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.06|-0.62|0.1039
84626900|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.27|-4.78|0.2547
84626901|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.50|-6.60|0.0225
84626902|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-1.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.26|-7.38|0.0058
84626903|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.33|-6.48|0.0301
84626904|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.51|-4.59|0.3220
84626905|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||3.27|-2.80|0.8782
84626906|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.17|-7.27|0.0069
84626907|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.25|-3.49|0.0890
84626908|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.48|-3.25|0.1444
84626909|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.32|-3.51|0.1022
84626910|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.75|-3.07|0.2342
84676771|NCT00097591|169089198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.896|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.896|0.703|<0.001
84761176|NCT03823391|169278887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|3.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||3.70|-7.08|0.601
84626911|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.87|-1.89|0.9906
84626912|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.34|0.5770
84626913|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.61|-3.14|0.1865
84626914|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.65|-1.45|0.4575
84626915|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.77|-1.33|0.6016
84626916|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.86|0.7026
84626917|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.64|0.2971
84626918|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.38|0.5491
84626919|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.25|-0.86|0.7142
84626920|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.89|0.1157
84626921|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.14|-1.30|0.1114
84626922|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.83|0.0025
84626923|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Scre||-0.74|-2.20|<0.0001
84626924|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.48|-0.96|0.5093
84626925|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.86|-2.33|<0.0001
84761177|NCT03823391|169278888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|4.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||4.30|-6.47|0.737
84674458|NCT00727857|169084383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8919||95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.33|-0.37|0.8919
84674459|NCT00727857|169084384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8||||0.0005||95.0|7.8|27.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||27.7|7.8|0.0005
84674460|NCT00727857|169084384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.0021||95.0|5.5|24.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||24.7|5.5|0.0021
84674461|NCT00727857|169084384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5981||95.0|-12.5|7.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.2|-12.5|0.5981
84674462|NCT00727857|169084385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.5074||95.0|-1.43|2.88|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.88|-1.43|0.5074
84674463|NCT00727857|169084385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.0047||95.0|0.9|4.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.95|0.90|0.0047
84674464|NCT00727857|169084385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.0435||95.0|0.06|4.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.33|0.06|0.0435
84674465|NCT00727857|169084386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629||||0.3158||95.0|-0.602|1.861|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.861|-0.602|0.3158
84674466|NCT00727857|169084386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.619||||0.0067||95.0|0.452|2.785|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.785|0.452|0.0067
84674467|NCT00727857|169084386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.989||||0.1094||95.0|-0.223|2.201|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.201|-0.223|0.1094
84674468|NCT00727857|169084387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.5963||95.0|-4.71|13.97|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||13.97|-4.71|0.5963
84674469|NCT00727857|169084387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0265||95.0|2.88|22.24|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||22.24|2.88|0.0265
84674470|NCT00727857|169084387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.33||||0.1053||95.0|-1.77|18.07|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||18.07|-1.77|0.1053
84674471|NCT00727857|169084388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0806||95.0|-0.2|3.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.1|-0.2|0.0806
84674472|NCT00727857|169084388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.6|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-6.5|-9.6|<0.0001
84674473|NCT00727857|169084388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-11.1|-7.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-7.9|-11.1|<0.0001
84674474|NCT00727857|169084389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.0324||95.0|0.31|7.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.14|0.31|0.0324
84674475|NCT00727857|169084389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.0233||95.0|-7.05|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.52|-7.05|0.0233
84674476|NCT00727857|169084389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.9|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-10.90|<0.0001
84674477|NCT00727857|169084390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.0993||95.0|-0.93|10.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.72|-0.93|0.0993
84676772|NCT00097591|169089199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.876|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.876|0.672|<0.001
84761178|NCT03823391|169278889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.49|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis included treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||0.49|-0.92|0.612
84761179|NCT03823391|169278890|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.0||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.5|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||20.5|-28.5|0.877
84761180|NCT03823391|169278891|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.1||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.2|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||11.0|-37.2|0.426
84504345|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.518||95.0|-0.48|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.96|-0.48|0.518
84504346|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.734||95.0|-0.85|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.85|0.734
84626926|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.24|-1.67|0.0090
84674478|NCT00727857|169084390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.367||95.0|-8.14|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.01|-8.14|0.3670
84761181|NCT04283123|169278913|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84504347|NCT00408876|168759713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.239||95.0|-0.97|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.97|0.239
84504348|NCT00990561|168759714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = there is no difference between using ultravate once daily vs. twice daily||||<0.001
84504349|NCT01488019|168759715|NON_INFERIORITY|The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio comparing Perforomist to placebo were estimated. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was wholly less than 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.711|1.308||Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5. Subjects with no primary event at withdrawal or study completion were treated as censored observations at time of withdrawal|Regression, Cox|Treatment, site group, and bronchodilator reversibility included as covariates in the model.|Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist Inhalation Solution vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5.|||1.308|0.711|
84504350|NCT01512979|168759729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.13|-0.46||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.13|<0.0001
84626927|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.84|0.0024
84626928|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.25|-0.47|0.5497
84626929|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.76|0.0276
84626930|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.08|-0.65|0.1274
84626931|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1865
84626932|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1857
84626933|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.39|-0.33|0.8631
84761182|NCT04283123|169278913|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84626934|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.75|0.0304
84626935|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.70|-5.71|0.1246
84626936|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.22|-6.19|0.0680
84626937|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.28|-6.28|0.0729
84674479|NCT00727857|169084390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46||||0.0119||95.0|-13.26|-1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-1.66|-13.26|0.0119
84674480|NCT00727857|169084391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.0423||95.0|-8.48|-0.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.15|-8.48|0.0423
84674481|NCT00727857|169084391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.08|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-12.08|<0.0001
84674482|NCT00727857|169084391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.728||95.0|-7.93|0.35|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.35|-7.93|0.728
84504351|NCT01512979|168759730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0032||95.0|-28.0|-5.7||The model includes treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and continuous baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-5.7|-28.0|0.0032
84626938|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.06|-6.49|0.0541
84626939|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|2.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||2.59|-3.87|0.6960
84626940|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||3.15|-3.27|0.9725
84626941|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||-0.12|-6.53|0.0419
84626942|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.20|-3.57|0.0794
84626943|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.38|-3.47|0.1153
84626944|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||-1.5|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.46|-3.47|0.1334
84626945|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.03|-2.93|0.3457
84626946|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.83|-3.07|0.2607
84761183|NCT04283123|169278914|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84504352|NCT01512979|168759732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0031||95.0|1.573|9.328||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.328|1.573|0.0031
84626947|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.64|-2.18|0.7816
84626948|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.29|-3.54|0.0955
84626949|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.57|0.2582
84626950|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.52|-0.53|0.3448
84626951|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.81|0.6587
84626952|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.93|-1.16|0.8299
84674483|NCT00727857|169084392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.9231||95.0|-7.94|8.76|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.76|-7.94|0.9231
84626953|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.92|-1.17|0.8129
84674484|NCT00727857|169084392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.3082||95.0|-3.86|12.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.19|-3.86|0.3082
84674485|NCT00727857|169084392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.3753||95.0|-4.56|12.07|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.07|-4.56|0.3753
84504353|NCT01512979|168759733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0025||95.0|1.458|5.849||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.849|1.458|0.0025
84504354|NCT01512979|168759734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.448||||0.0008||95.0|1.453|4.123||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.123|1.453|0.0008
84504355|NCT02033876|168759736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
84504356|NCT02033876|168759737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
84674486|NCT00727857|169084393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.4999||95.0|-44.6|91.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||91.4|-44.6|0.4999
84674487|NCT00727857|169084393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.2||||0.0531||95.0|-0.9|129.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||129.3|-0.9|0.0531
84674488|NCT00727857|169084393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9||||0.2369||95.0|-26.9|108.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||108.7|-26.9|0.2369
84761184|NCT04283123|169278914|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84626954|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.66|-0.37|0.2130
84626955|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.59|-1.42|0.4131
84626956|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.15|-1.20|0.1273
84626957|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.31|-1.69|0.0046
84626958|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.80|-2.19|<0.0001
84674489|NCT00727857|169084394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5023||95.0|-0.09|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.19|-0.09|0.5023
84674490|NCT00727857|169084394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
84674491|NCT00727857|169084394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.25|-0.53|<0.0001
84674492|NCT00727857|169084395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7||||0.2849||95.0|-16.5|55.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||55.9|-16.5|0.2849
84674493|NCT00727857|169084395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-112.4|-42.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-42.8|-112.4|<0.0001
84761185|NCT04283123|169278915|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84761186|NCT04283123|169278915|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
84504357|NCT02033876|168759739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84504358|NCT02033876|168759740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
84504359|NCT02033876|168759741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4
84674494|NCT00727857|169084395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-133.4|-61.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-61.2|-133.4|<0.0001
84674495|NCT00727857|169084396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2894||95.0|-4.5|15.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.1|-4.5|0.2894
84626959|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.78|-2.19|<0.0001
84626960|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.06|-1.45|0.0333
84626961|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.02|-1.39|0.0423
84626962|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.12|-1.49|0.0208
84626963|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.55|0.3435
84626964|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.22|-0.98|0.0021
84761187|NCT05030311|169278922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|||-4.00|-8.45|<0.001
84626965|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.02|-0.79|0.0408
84761188|NCT05030311|169278923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-1.56|-3.70|<0.001
84626966|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.05|-0.73|0.0911
84626967|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.33|-0.44|0.7891
84626968|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.38|-0.38|0.9973
84626969|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||-0.1|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.29|-0.47|0.6377
84626970|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.40|-5.95|0.0862
84626971|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.74|-5.74|0.1305
84674496|NCT00727857|169084396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8463||95.0|-10.3|8.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.5|-10.3|0.8463
84504360|NCT02033876|168759742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8
84504361|NCT02033876|168759743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84676773|NCT00097591|169089199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.901|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.901|0.705|<0.001
84761189|NCT05030311|169278924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.36|-4.85|<0.001
84761190|NCT05030311|169278925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||4.84|2.00|<0.001
84626972|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.26|-6.34|0.0707
84626973|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.71|-5.92|0.1232
84626974|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||1.37|-5.18|0.2530
84626975|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||3.04|-3.40|0.9133
84626976|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.58|-5.85|0.1078
84626977|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.18|-4.07|0.0719
84626978|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.49|-3.80|0.1298
84626979|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.13|-2.26|0.9532
84626980|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.55|-1.84|0.7510
84626981|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.42|-3.95|0.1120
84626982|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.19|-2.13|0.9781
84626983|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.77|-3.57|0.2060
84626984|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.76|-1.46|0.5332
84626985|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.70|-1.54|0.4599
84626986|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.55|-0.72|0.4752
84626987|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.07|-1.21|0.9051
84626988|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.15|-1.14|0.9937
84626989|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.35|-0.91|0.6956
84626990|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.44|-1.81|0.2302
84626991|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.25|-1.55|0.1544
84626992|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.72|-1.10|0.6847
84626993|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.64|-1.20|0.5520
84626994|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.36|0.3632
84626995|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.43|0.2828
84626996|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.58|-1.24|0.4702
84626997|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.81|-1.02|0.8262
84626998|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.60|0.3152
84626999|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.56|0.4399
84627000|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.13|-0.67|0.1898
84761191|NCT05030311|169278926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||6.82|2.16|<0.001
84674497|NCT00727857|169084396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2124||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.6|-16.0|0.2124
84761192|NCT05030311|169278927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|39.77|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|||39.77|6.18|<0.001
84761193|NCT05030311|169278928|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.61|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with log link, using treatment arm, geographical region, and prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates.||||3.61|2.01|<0.001
84627001|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.41|-0.40|0.9791
84627002|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.20|-0.61|0.3178
84627003|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.57|0.4174
84627004|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.16|-0.63|0.2490
84627005|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||0.79|-6.57|0.1233
84627006|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.70|-5.76|0.2858
84627007|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.73|-3.87|0.9716
84761194|NCT05030311|169278929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|||3.90|1.53|<0.001
84761195|NCT05030311|169278930|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.41|||Regression, Linear||Statistical model used a negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.41|1.12|<0.001
84761196|NCT04589988|169278945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.068
84761197|NCT04589988|169278946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.063
84761198|NCT04589988|169278947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.724
84676774|NCT00097591|169089200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.921|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.921|0.762|<0.001
84761199|NCT04589988|169278948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.447
84761200|NCT04589988|169278949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.696
84761201|NCT04589988|169278950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.798
84504362|NCT00420290|168759765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||0.031 is the upper level of significance|ANCOVA|||Using data from 128 CHD patients, CRP data were highly skewed, and data were log transformed to achieve normality. With 14 pts in each group (total of 28), it was predicted the minimum detectable difference between control and intervention would be 15% (1.22 for control group and 1.00 for the intervention group), with an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 using t test approach. Thus, planned sample size was 30 to complete the study.||||0.008
84761202|NCT04589988|169278951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.135
84627008|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||4.03|-3.58|0.9072
84627009|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.49|-6.07|0.2334
84627010|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.72|-3.79|0.9859
84627011|NCT03192176|168993592|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.72|-5.77|0.2870
84627012|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.24|-1.41|0.1632
84504363|NCT00420290|168759766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84627013|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.38|-2.03|0.0045
84627014|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.77|-2.43|0.0002
84627015|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.02|-2.70|<0.0001
84627016|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.76|-0.91|0.8569
84627017|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.15|-1.49|0.1110
84627018|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.83|0.0187
84674498|NCT00727857|169084397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.804||95.0|-19.4|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.0|-19.4|0.8040
84504364|NCT00420290|168759767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84504365|NCT00420290|168759768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84504366|NCT00420290|168759769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84627019|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.73|0.4972
84627020|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2568
84627021|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2609
84627022|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.32|-0.78|0.4148
84627023|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.38|0.5575
84627024|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.92|-0.16|0.1671
84627025|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.57|0.9462
84627026|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.04|-0.91|0.0699
84627027|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.20|-1.15|0.0056
84761203|NCT04589988|169278952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.291
84761204|NCT04589988|169278953|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.83||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.76|||Negative binomial regression||IRR reflects REBIL intervention group versus control group.|Fall rates were compared between REBIL and control groups using negative binomial regression. The model adjusted for age, sex, ace, and depression score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that fall rates do not differ between groups.||1.76|0.40|0.631
84761205|NCT01926782|169278967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.8|-45.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-45.0|-59.8|<0.0001
84761206|NCT01926782|169278967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-48.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-48.1|-62.3|<0.0001
84627028|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1117
84627029|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.06|-1.02|0.0265
84674499|NCT00727857|169084397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.0008||95.0|12.0|45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||45.0|12.0|0.0008
84761207|NCT01926782|169278968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-52.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-52.4|-65.0|<0.0001
84674500|NCT00727857|169084397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.6||||0.0005||95.0|13.4|47.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||47.8|13.4|0.0005
84627030|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1119
84627031|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.40|-0.54|0.7607
84627032|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.01|-0.97|0.0437
84627033|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.12|-1.51|0.0211
84627034|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.42|-1.82|0.0017
84627035|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.03|-1.37|0.0598
84627036|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.20|-1.21|0.1573
84627037|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.7257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.58|-0.83|0.7257
84627038|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.72|0.9324
84627039|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.14|0.2172
84627040|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.88|0.0742
84627041|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Score||-0.23|-1.16|0.0035
84761208|NCT01926782|169278968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-65.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.4|-59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-59.5|-70.4|< 0.0001
84627042|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0266
84627043|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.13|-1.06|0.0124
84674501|NCT00727857|169084398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.9604||95.0|-83.3|79.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||79.2|-83.3|0.9604
84674502|NCT00727857|169084398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.3||||0.0004||95.0|62.5|218.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||218.0|62.5|0.0004
84627044|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.28|-0.65|0.4367
84627045|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.48|0.9318
84627046|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.89|0.0714
84674503|NCT00727857|169084398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.3||||0.0006||95.0|61.3|223.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||223.3|61.3|0.0006
84627047|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.29|-1.35|0.2027
84674504|NCT00727857|169084399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9922||95.0|-64.4|65.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||65.1|-64.4|0.9922
84674505|NCT00727857|169084399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.7||||0.0004||95.0|49.7|173.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||173.7|49.7|0.0004
84761209|NCT01926782|169278969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.6|-53.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-53.4|-64.6|<0.0001
84627048|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.53|-2.16|0.0013
84627049|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.87|-2.53|<0.0001
84761210|NCT01926782|169278970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-67.7|-56.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.2|-67.7|<0.0001
84627050|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.16|-2.83|<0.0001
84674506|NCT00727857|169084399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.4||||0.0008||95.0|46.8|175.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||175.9|46.8|0.0008
84627051|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.45|-1.19|0.3791
84674507|NCT00727857|169084400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0072||95.0|-1.86|-0.29|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.29|-1.86|0.0072
84674508|NCT00727857|169084400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.3682||95.0|-0.41|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.41|0.3682
84674509|NCT00727857|169084400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42||||0.0004||95.0|0.64|2.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.20|0.64|0.0004
84674510|NCT00727857|169084401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1986||95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.10|-0.02|0.1986
84676775|NCT00097591|169089201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.919|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.919|0.751|<0.001
84627052|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.15|-1.78|0.0211
84674511|NCT00727857|169084401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1487||95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-0.10|0.1487
84674512|NCT00727857|169084401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0076||95.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.02|-0.14|0.0076
84674513|NCT00727857|169084402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.2384||95.0|-0.21|0.83|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.83|-0.21|0.2384
84674514|NCT00727857|169084402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4617||95.0|-0.69|0.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.31|-0.69|0.4617
84674515|NCT00727857|169084402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0593||95.0|-1.02|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-1.02|0.0593
84627053|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.47|-2.10|0.0021
84627054|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.48|-0.55|0.8890
84761211|NCT01926782|169278971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.5|-53.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.0|-64.5|<0.0001
84761212|NCT01926782|169278972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-50.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.3|-62.3|<0.0001
84761213|NCT01926782|169278973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-54.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.1|-65.0|<0.0001
84627055|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.67|0.5568
84674516|NCT00727857|169084403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5044||95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.54|0.5044
84674517|NCT00727857|169084403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.0004||95.0|-2.22|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.64|-2.22|0.0004
84761214|NCT01926782|169278974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.8|-54.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.0|-64.8|<0.0001
84761215|NCT01926782|169278975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.1|-45.8|<0.0001
84761216|NCT01926782|169278976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.2|-43.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-53.2|<0.0001
84674518|NCT00727857|169084403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-0.89|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.89|-2.53|<0.0001
84761217|NCT01926782|169278977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-39.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.1|-49.9|<0.0001
84674519|NCT00727857|169084404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0017||95.0|-2.64|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.62|-2.64|0.0017
84627056|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.30|-0.75|0.3989
84627057|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.39|-0.66|0.6094
84627058|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.69|-0.35|0.5229
84627059|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.72|-0.31|0.4409
84627060|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.58|-0.45|0.8062
84627061|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.26|-0.71|0.3663
84627062|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||-0.02|-0.99|0.0424
84627063|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.14|-0.85|0.1597
84627064|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.02|-0.97|0.0595
84627065|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.18|-0.80|0.2162
84627066|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.48|-0.49|0.9833
84627067|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.81|0.2034
84627068|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.67|-0.70|0.9576
84627069|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||-0.03|-1.40|0.0410
84627070|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.40|-1.00|0.3961
84674520|NCT00727857|169084404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.01|2.94|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.94|1.01|<0.0001
84674521|NCT00727857|169084404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.59|4.61|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.61|2.59|<0.0001
84627071|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.46|-0.94|0.5012
84627072|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.30|-1.10|0.2592
84627073|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.86|-0.51|0.6141
84627074|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.41|-0.95|0.4390
84627075|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.64|0.4521
84627076|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0257
84627077|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.01|-0.93|0.0564
84627078|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.99|0.0293
84627079|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.26|-0.68|0.3742
84761218|NCT01926782|169278978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.0|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-45.6|-55.0|<0.0001
84761219|NCT01926782|169278979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.2|-49.9|<0.0001
84761220|NCT01926782|169278980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.3|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.8|-55.3|<0.0001
84761221|NCT01926782|169278981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.8|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-54.8|<0.0001
84761222|NCT01926782|169278982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.6|-47.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.9|-57.6|<0.0001
84627080|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.49|0.9106
84674522|NCT00727857|169084405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76||||0.2466||95.0|-2.61|10.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.14|-2.61|0.2466
84674523|NCT00727857|169084405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52||||0.0063||95.0|-14.63|-2.42|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.42|-14.63|0.0063
84674524|NCT00727857|169084405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.29||||0.0002||95.0|-18.65|-5.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.93|-18.65|0.0002
84761223|NCT01926782|169278983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.3|-36.6|<0.0001
84674525|NCT00727857|169084406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.2069||95.0|-2.93|0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.64|-2.93|0.2069
84761224|NCT01926782|169278984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.9|-31.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.1|-38.9|<0.0001
84761225|NCT01926782|169278985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
84627081|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean SCore||0.15|-0.78|0.1844
84627082|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.09|-1.69|0.0287
84627083|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.43|-2.05|0.0028
84627084|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.67|-2.32|0.0004
84627085|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.22|-2.87|<0.0001
84627086|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.26|-1.38|0.1826
84627087|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.79|0.0178
84627088|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.44|-2.06|0.0025
84627089|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.55|0.9163
84627090|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.15|-0.92|0.1597
84627091|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.35|-0.74|0.4871
84627092|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.38|-0.72|0.5401
84627093|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.79|-0.30|0.3788
84627094|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||0.28|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.74|-0.33|0.4541
84674526|NCT00727857|169084406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.0052||95.0|0.73|4.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.15|0.73|0.0052
84674527|NCT00727857|169084406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|5.36|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.36|1.81|<0.0001
84504367|NCT00740727|168759814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of subjects with infusion pain|11.1||||||95.0|1.4|34.7|||95% binomial exact confidence interval|||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, during EASI placement or infusion, at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||34.7|1.4|
84674528|NCT00727857|169084407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.609||95.0|-1.28|0.75|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.75|-1.28|0.6090
84761226|NCT01926782|169278986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-39.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.9|-49.7|<0.0001
84627095|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.56|-0.51|0.9233
84627096|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.35|-0.61|0.6043
84627097|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.15|-0.82|0.1781
84627098|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.34|-0.66|0.5221
84627099|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.32|-0.68|0.4744
84627100|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.66|0.5167
84674529|NCT00727857|169084407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6169||95.0|-1.22|0.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.72|-1.22|0.6169
84674530|NCT00727857|169084407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.974||95.0|-0.99|1.03|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.03|-0.99|0.9740
84674531|NCT00727857|169084408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.615||95.0|-3.09|5.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.21|-3.09|0.6150
84674532|NCT00727857|169084408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.2346||95.0|-6.38|1.57|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.57|-6.38|0.2346
84627101|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.72|-0.25|0.3441
84627102|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.64|0.5362
84627103|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.71|-0.78|0.9349
84674533|NCT00727857|169084408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.1001||95.0|-7.61|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.67|-7.61|0.1001
84627104|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||-0.26|-1.78|0.0084
84627105|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.38|0.1212
84627106|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.89|0.7709
84761227|NCT01926782|169278987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.5|-44.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-54.5|<0.0001
84627107|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.23|-1.33|0.1667
84627108|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.79|-0.72|0.9213
84627109|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.29|-1.21|0.2315
84627110|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.63|0.4731
84504368|NCT00740727|168759815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with next-day EASI site pain|0.0||||||97.5|0.0|18.5|||binomial exact confidence interval|Because the point estimate was zero, the statistical software (STATA version 10MP) reports a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, as assessed on next-day follow-up (24 hours after EASI infusion), at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||18.5|0|
84627111|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.98|0.0310
84627112|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.11|-0.84|0.1320
84674534|NCT00727857|169084409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.1217||95.0|-0.76|6.48|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||6.48|-0.76|0.1217
84761228|NCT01926782|169278988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-42.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.0|-52.2|<0.0001
84627113|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.10|-0.85|0.1212
84627114|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.34|-0.62|0.5689
84627115|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||0.1|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.55|-0.39|0.7340
84674535|NCT00727857|169084409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0009||95.0|-9.36|-2.44|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.44|-9.36|0.0009
84761229|NCT01926782|169278989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.4|-32.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.4|-40.4|<0.0001
84504369|NCT05321810|168759821|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.016
84504370|NCT05321810|168759826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.957|0.690|0.013
84504371|NCT05321810|168759832|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.002
84627116|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.20|-0.73|0.2704
84674536|NCT00727857|169084409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.36|-5.16|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.16|-12.36|<0.0001
84627117|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.67|-1.24|0.5610
84761230|NCT01926782|169278990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.5|-29.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.1|-36.5|<0.0001
84504372|NCT05321810|168759835|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
84627118|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.09|-0.83|0.7966
84627119|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.40|-0.56|0.3965
84627120|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.10|-0.87|0.8189
84627121|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.70|-1.27|0.5693
84627122|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.65|-1.29|0.5217
84627123|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.48|-0.46|0.2988
84627124|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.69|0.7957
84627125|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.26|-0.97|0.2540
84504373|NCT05321810|168759836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.773|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.773|0.420|<0.001
84504374|NCT05321810|168759838|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.350
84504375|NCT05321810|168759839|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.540|0.867|0.324
84504376|NCT05321810|168759841|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.111
84504377|NCT05321810|168759842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.028|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.028|0.730|0.100
84627126|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.75|0.6956
84627127|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.68|-0.57|0.8694
84627128|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.41|-0.84|0.5047
84627129|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.52|0.7515
84627130|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.70|0.7818
84627131|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5770
84627132|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.85|0.1893
84627133|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.79|-0.25|0.2997
84627134|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.44|-0.60|0.7529
84627135|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.31|-0.73|0.4173
84627136|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.69|-0.34|0.4944
84627137|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.49|-0.54|0.9231
84627138|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.52|-1.04|0.5112
84627139|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||-0.09|-1.66|0.0300
84627140|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.04|-1.57|0.0634
84674537|NCT01469065|169084423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|84.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|92.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test. Formal statistical inference was not performed thus p value was not reported.||92.15|78.16|
84627141|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.84|-0.78|0.9406
84627142|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.46|0.1168
84627143|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.80|-0.79|0.9937
84627144|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.32|0.1858
84627145|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5765
84627146|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.17|-0.86|0.1848
84627147|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.61|-0.43|0.7299
84627148|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.54|0.9415
84627149|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.23|-0.82|0.2742
84627150|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.62|-0.41|0.6946
84627151|NCT03192176|168993593|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.53|0.9442
84627152|NCT01890343|168993614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The effect of diagnostic group on mean cortical florbetapir binding relative to cerebellar cortex was determined.||||0.002
84627153|NCT00772538|168993626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.011||95.0|0.02|0.152||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.152|0.020|0.0110
84627154|NCT00772538|168993627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.005||95.0|0.027|0.149||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.027|0.0050
84627155|NCT00772538|168993628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
84674538|NCT01469065|169084423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|97.53||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.53|82.69|
84674539|NCT01469065|169084423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.27|94.63||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.63|80.27|
84504378|NCT05321810|168759844|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.979
84504379|NCT05321810|168759845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.177|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.177|0.854|0.978
84627156|NCT00772538|168993629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0362||95.0|0.006|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.006|0.0362
84627157|NCT00772538|168993630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0007||95.0|0.058|0.214||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.214|0.058|0.0007
84674540|NCT01469065|169084423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|78.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.06|85.03||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||85.03|72.06|
84674541|NCT01469065|169084436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|82.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.06|89.9||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||89.90|76.06|
84504380|NCT05321810|168759847|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
84504381|NCT05321810|168759848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.697|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.697|0.263|<0.001
84627158|NCT00772538|168993631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0067||95.0|0.024|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.024|0.0067
84627159|NCT00772538|168993632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0139||95.0|0.02|0.176||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.176|0.020|0.0139
84627160|NCT00772538|168993633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0347||95.0|0.005|0.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|0.005|0.0347
84627161|NCT00772538|168993634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.1896||95.0|-0.021|0.104||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.104|-0.021|0.1896
84627162|NCT00772538|168993635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0247||95.0|0.009|0.136||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.136|0.009|0.0247
84627163|NCT00772538|168993636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0039||95.0|0.04|0.21||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.210|0.040|0.0039
84627164|NCT00772538|168993637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.19||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.190|0.031|0.0063
84627165|NCT00772538|168993638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0027||95.0|0.042|0.201||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.201|0.042|0.0027
84627166|NCT00772538|168993639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584|<|0.0001||95.0|13.279|31.308||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||31.308|13.279|<0.0001
84627167|NCT00772538|168993640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.699|<|0.0001||95.0|14.027|32.507||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||32.507|14.027|<0.0001
84627168|NCT00772538|168993641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.061|<0.0001
84504382|NCT05321810|168759852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|0.881|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.881|0.599|0.001
84627169|NCT00772538|168993642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.181||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.181|0.068|<0.0001
84504383|NCT00433381|168759873|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 20% of patients progression-free at six months. Alternative hypothesis: 35%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Required sample size = 57.|The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
84504384|NCT00433381|168759874|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 35% discontinuation rate of bevacizumab and temozolomide. Alternative hypothesis: 5%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Sample size = 29.|The determination of treatment tolerability was to be made based on the following rules: If 6 or fewer of the cases (6/29=20.6%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the null hypothesis that the discontinuation rate is at least 35% and conclude tolerability. If 7 or more of the cases (7/29=24.1%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the discontinuation rate no more than 15%.|||
84504385|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91||||||Accuracy estimate, as measured by the Area under the Curve (AUC), for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.91|0.09|
84504386|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.95|0.14|
84504387|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.99||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.99|0|
84674542|NCT01469065|169084436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|92.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.77|78.60|
84674543|NCT01469065|169084436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.59|92.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.76|78.59|
84504388|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.53|
84504389|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
84504390|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.11|
84504391|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.21|
84504392|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
84627170|NCT00772538|168993643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.7012||95.0|-1.165|1.731||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||1.731|-1.165|0.7012
84627171|NCT00772538|168993644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0499||95.0|0.49|1.0||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.00|0.49|0.0499
84627172|NCT00772538|168993645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0102||95.0|0.55|0.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.92|0.55|0.0102
84504393|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0|
84627173|NCT00772538|168993646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062||95.0|0.46|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.88|0.46|0.0062
84627174|NCT00772538|168993647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0065||95.0|0.4|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.88|0.40|0.0065
84627175|NCT00772538|168993648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0561||95.0|0.42|1.01||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.01|0.42|0.0561
84627176|NCT00772538|168993649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5604||95.0|0.3|1.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium|||1.92|0.30|0.5604
84627177|NCT00772538|168993650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5538||95.0|0.54|1.39||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.39|0.54|0.5538
84627178|NCT00772538|168993651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.633||95.0|0.25|2.13||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.13|0.25|0.6330
84627179|NCT00772538|168993652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5714||95.0|-0.103|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|-0.103|0.5714
84504394|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
84627180|NCT00772538|168993653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6099||95.0|-0.109|0.185||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.185|-0.109|0.6099
84504395|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.91||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.91|0.13|
84627181|NCT00772538|168993654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0586||95.0|-0.256|0.005||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.005|-0.256|0.0586
84627182|NCT00772538|168993655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0727||95.0|-0.253|0.011||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.011|-0.253|0.0727
84627183|NCT00772538|168993656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9807||95.0|-0.048|0.047||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.047|-0.048|0.9807
84627184|NCT00772538|168993657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5927||95.0|-0.43|0.246||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.246|-0.430|0.5927
84627185|NCT00772538|168993658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
84627186|NCT00772538|168993658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
84627187|NCT00189540|168993659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 3.||||0.35
84627188|NCT00189540|168993659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 6.||||0.17
84627189|NCT00189540|168993660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 3||||0.55
84627190|NCT00189540|168993660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 6.||||0.28
84627191|NCT00189540|168993661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 3||||0.2
84627192|NCT00189540|168993661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 6||||0.04
84627193|NCT00189540|168993662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84627194|NCT00189540|168993663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 3||||0.77
84627195|NCT00189540|168993663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 6||||0.45
84627196|NCT00189540|168993664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 3 versus baseline.||||0.06
84627197|NCT00189540|168993664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 6 versus baseline.||||0.05
84627198|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.692
84627199|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.467
84627200|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.281
84627201|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.075
84627202|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627203|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627204|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
84627205|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.175
84627206|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.552
84627207|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627208|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84627209|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.618
84627210|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.149
84627211|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.255
84627212|NCT00713609|168993670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627213|NCT00713609|168993671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.922
84627214|NCT00713609|168993671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
84627215|NCT00713609|168993671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
84627216|NCT00713609|168993671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.706
84627217|NCT00713609|168993671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
84627218|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
84627219|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
84627220|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
84627221|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.084
84627222|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627223|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627224|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.776
84627225|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.465
84627226|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
84627227|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627228|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84627229|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
84627230|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.291
84627231|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
84627232|NCT00713609|168993672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84627233|NCT00713609|168993673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.652
84627234|NCT00713609|168993673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.279
84627235|NCT00713609|168993673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.312
84627236|NCT00713609|168993673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
84627237|NCT00713609|168993673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84627238|NCT01903356|168993674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of % of HbA1c before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment.|The difference considered in the analysis is HbA1c values after drug administration minus HbA1c values before drug administration|||<0.0001
84627239|NCT01903356|168993677|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of FPG before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment|The difference considered in the analysis is FPG values after drug administration minus FPG values before drug administration|||<0.0001
84627240|NCT04529083|168993679|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-1.06|0.011
84627241|NCT04529083|168993681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.26|0.63|0.006
84627242|NCT04196686|168993687|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||Cox mixed effects model|||||0.51|0.25|<0.001
84627243|NCT04196686|168993688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.455||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was controlled for dominant hand treatment assignment, dominant hand order, and gender. Overall mean difference calculated from regression model.||0.59|0.32|0.200
84627244|NCT04196686|168993689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00368|||Linear mixed effects model|||The variables in the physiologic model were SCRD change over time and the SCRD change between groups, defined as those with and without VR.||0.00368|0.00007|0.047
84627245|NCT00265564|168993694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We investigated treatment condition differences in change of drug and alcohol use over four time-points using generalized linear mixed modeling analyses. A trajectory for each participant was modeled yielding estimates of baseline scores (intercept), slope, and error. Four between-person parameters were estimated: average baseline score for all participants, average slope over time in TAU condition, effect of being in SS on average intercept, effect of being in SS on average slope.||||> .05
84627246|NCT00265564|168993695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84627247|NCT00265564|168993696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed modeling analysis||||>.05
84627248|NCT00119847|168993697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||p\<0.05 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The planned sample size of 300 subjects was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 0.1 in the change in α1 from baseline to 1 year between the 2 treatment groups on the basis of data from prior studies that indicated that baseline levels of α1 would be 1.0 with a common SD of 0.2.||0.04|-0.12|0.34
84627249|NCT00119847|168993698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.7|-4.8|0.45
84627250|NCT00119847|168993699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.23
84627251|NCT01553084|168993700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Combination NRT will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.7|0.8|.3623
84627252|NCT01553084|168993700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Varenicline will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.2|0.6|.1947
84627253|NCT01553084|168993701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||||1.107|.756|.3613
84627254|NCT01553084|168993701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.142|||Regression, Cox|||||1.142|.779|.5503
84627255|NCT01553084|168993702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.1|.03
84627256|NCT01553084|168993702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.6|.19
84627257|NCT01553084|168993703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00625||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=710||||||.3282
84627258|NCT00659061|168993737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84627259|NCT00659061|168993737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||at endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84627260|NCT00659061|168993739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||95.0|||||ANOVA|adjusted for baseline, child age, sex, number of sprinkles sachets consumed, number of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement)||||||<0.000
84627261|NCT00659061|168993740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84627262|NCT00659061|168993740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84627263|NCT00659061|168993741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||endline|ANOVA|adjusted for baseline child age, sex, # of sprinkle sachet consumed, # of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement||||||0.000
84627264|NCT00659061|168993742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84627265|NCT00659061|168993742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84627266|NCT00659061|168993743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84627267|NCT00659061|168993743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84627268|NCT00659061|168993744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.93
84627269|NCT00659061|168993744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84627270|NCT01856270|168993745|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.114||||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 71 of 205 participants (at 3 Mo post) in the Natural History study endorsed having a headache more than once per week.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening.|||-0.017|.101
84627271|NCT01856270|168993746|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.194||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.057|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 56 of 148 participants (at 3 mo post) in the Natural History study reported pain \>=6.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening|||.057|.017
84627272|NCT01856270|168993747|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.093||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed). Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997).|||.286|-.106|.456
84627273|NCT01856270|168993748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||3.4|-5.1|.684
84627274|NCT01856270|168993749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||2.9|-1.0|.306
84627275|NCT01856270|168993750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||1.6|-0.9|.583
84627276|NCT01856270|168993751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||8.8|-4.0|.444
84627277|NCT01856270|168993752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|53.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||53.3|1.2|.041
84627278|NCT01856270|168993753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||0.3|-3.8|.089
84627279|NCT00467740|168993756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0754||95.0|-0.008|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|-0.008|0.0754
84627280|NCT00467740|168993756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0571||95.0|-0.003|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|-0.003|0.0571
84627281|NCT00467740|168993756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0906||95.0|-0.012|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.012|0.0906
84627282|NCT00467740|168993756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0011||95.0|0.059|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.059|0.0011
84627283|NCT00467740|168993757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.843||0.0393||95.0|0.801|31.675|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.675|0.801|0.0393
84627284|NCT00467740|168993757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.875||0.0005||95.0|12.379|43.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||43.378|12.379|0.0005
84627285|NCT00467740|168993757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|<|0.0001||95.0|20.512|51.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||51.633|20.512|<0.0001
84627286|NCT00467740|168993757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.848|<|0.0001||95.0|27.498|58.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||58.389|27.498|<0.0001
84761231|NCT01926782|169278991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.9|221.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||221.0|20.9|<0.0001
84761232|NCT01926782|169278992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||47.8|13.7|<0.0001
84761233|NCT01926782|169278993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|56.7|1385.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1385.7|56.7|<0.0001
84761234|NCT01926782|169278994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.3|83.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model||83.8|20.3|<0.0001
84627287|NCT00467740|168993758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.1264||95.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|-0.019|0.1264
84627288|NCT00467740|168993758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0232||95.0|0.014|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.014|0.0232
84627289|NCT00467740|168993758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0106||95.0|0.027|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.027|0.0106
84627290|NCT00467740|168993758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.087|0.0001
84627291|NCT00467740|168993759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0329||95.0|0.008|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.008|0.0329
84627292|NCT00467740|168993759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0666||95.0|-0.006|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.006|0.0666
84627293|NCT00467740|168993759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3738||95.0|-0.052|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.052|0.3738
84627294|NCT00467740|168993759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0037||95.0|0.046|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.046|0.0037
84627295|NCT00467740|168993760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2646||95.0|-0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.039|0.2646
84627296|NCT00467740|168993760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3527||95.0|-0.048|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.048|0.3527
84504396|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.06|
84627297|NCT00467740|168993760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1369||95.0|-0.022|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|-0.022|0.1369
84761235|NCT01926782|169278995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.5|498.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||498.3|16.5|<0.0001
84627298|NCT00467740|168993760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0051||95.0|0.039|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.039|0.0051
84627299|NCT00467740|168993761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.017||95.0|0.023|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.232|0.023|0.0170
84627300|NCT00467740|168993761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0646||95.0|-0.006|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.006|0.0646
84627301|NCT00467740|168993761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.602||95.0|-0.077|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.132|-0.077|0.6020
84627302|NCT00467740|168993761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0147||95.0|0.026|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.026|0.0147
84627303|NCT00467740|168993762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4902||95.0|-0.068|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.068|0.4902
84627304|NCT00467740|168993762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2832||95.0|-0.048|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.048|0.2832
84627305|NCT00467740|168993762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6516||95.0|-0.081|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|-0.081|0.6516
84627306|NCT00467740|168993762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.006||95.0|0.042|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.042|0.0060
84627307|NCT00467740|168993763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005||95.0|0.079|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.079|0.0005
84627308|NCT00467740|168993763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.007||95.0|0.038|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.038|0.0070
84627309|NCT00467740|168993763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0512||95.0|-0.001|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|-0.001|0.0512
84627310|NCT00467740|168993763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.331|0.133|<0.0001
84627311|NCT00467740|168993764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1811||95.0|-0.039|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|-0.039|0.1811
84627312|NCT00467740|168993764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2118||95.0|-0.044|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|-0.044|0.2118
84627313|NCT00467740|168993764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.5504||95.0|-0.085|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|-0.085|0.5504
84674544|NCT01469065|169084436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|82.39||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||82.39|69.78|
84761236|NCT01926782|169278996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.4|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||104.4|23.4|<0.0001
84674545|NCT01469065|169084436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Test and Reference|-35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.89|-18.78||||||Treatment difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean.||-18.78|-52.89|
84674546|NCT01469065|169084437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|86.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.13|92.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.70|81.13|
84674547|NCT01469065|169084437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.24|97.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.44|85.24|
84761237|NCT01926782|169278997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|297.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.9|3160.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||3160.6|27.9|<0.0001
84674548|NCT01469065|169084437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.44|93.04||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.04|81.44|
84761238|NCT01926782|169278998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.1|176.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||176.8|34.1|<0.0001
84627314|NCT00467740|168993764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0022||95.0|0.069|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.069|0.0022
84627315|NCT00467740|168993765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.102|<0.0001
84627316|NCT00467740|168993765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.106|<0.0001
84627317|NCT00467740|168993765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.096|<0.0001
84627318|NCT00467740|168993765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.367|0.214|<0.0001
84627319|NCT00467740|168993766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.101|<0.0001
84627320|NCT00467740|168993766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.107|<0.0001
84627321|NCT00467740|168993766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0007||95.0|0.067|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.067|0.0007
84627322|NCT00467740|168993766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.352|0.174|<0.0001
84627323|NCT00467740|168993767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.313|0.115|<0.0001
84627324|NCT00467740|168993767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0021||95.0|0.057|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.057|0.0021
84627325|NCT00467740|168993767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0795||95.0|-0.01|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.010|0.0795
84627326|NCT00467740|168993767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.326|0.129|<0.0001
84627327|NCT00467740|168993768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0003||95.0|0.082|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.276|0.082|0.0003
84674549|NCT01469065|169084437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|77.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.91|83.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||83.34|72.91|
84674550|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|107.96||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.96|92.70|
84674551|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|107.43||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.43|92.04|
84761239|NCT01926782|169278999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-18.3|-37.0|<0.0001
84761240|NCT01926782|169279000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.5|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-22.7|-35.5|<0.0001
84627328|NCT00467740|168993768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0077||95.0|0.035|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.035|0.0077
84627329|NCT00467740|168993768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0427||95.0|0.003|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.003|0.0427
84627330|NCT00467740|168993768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.336|0.143|<0.0001
84627331|NCT00467740|168993769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0005||95.0|0.074|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.263|0.074|0.0005
84627332|NCT00467740|168993769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0003||95.0|0.08|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.080|0.0003
84627333|NCT00467740|168993769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
84627334|NCT00467740|168993769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.390|0.202|<0.0001
84627335|NCT00467740|168993770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
84627336|NCT00467740|168993770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002||95.0|0.09|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.090|0.0002
84761241|NCT01926782|169279001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.4|-14.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.5|-32.4|<0.0001
84627337|NCT00467740|168993770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0047||95.0|0.043|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.043|0.0047
84627338|NCT00467740|168993770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.142|<0.0001
84674552|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|109.84||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.84|94.10|
84627339|NCT00467740|168993771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0002||95.0|0.096|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.096|0.0002
84627340|NCT00467740|168993771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0057||95.0|0.045|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.045|0.0057
84761242|NCT01926782|169279002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-20.4|-32.8|<0.0001
84627341|NCT00467740|168993771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1513||95.0|-0.029|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|-0.029|0.1513
84627342|NCT00467740|168993771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.114|<0.0001
84627343|NCT00467740|168993772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0022||95.0|0.06|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.060|0.0022
84627344|NCT00467740|168993772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0307||95.0|0.011|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.011|0.0307
84627345|NCT00467740|168993772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.132||95.0|-0.025|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.025|0.1320
84627346|NCT00467740|168993772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.337|0.127|<0.0001
84627347|NCT00467740|168993773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1585||95.0|-0.031|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|-0.031|0.1585
84627348|NCT00467740|168993773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0848||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0848
84627349|NCT00467740|168993773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0838||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0838
84627350|NCT00467740|168993773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0014||95.0|0.07|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.070|0.0014
84627351|NCT00467740|168993774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0959||95.0|-0.018|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.018|0.0959
84627352|NCT00467740|168993774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.047||95.0|0.002|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.002|0.0470
84627353|NCT00467740|168993774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.196||95.0|-0.04|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.040|0.1960
84627354|NCT00467740|168993774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.002||95.0|0.068|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.068|0.0020
84627355|NCT00467740|168993775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.027||95.0|0.016|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.016|0.0270
84627356|NCT00467740|168993775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1031||95.0|-0.021|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|-0.021|0.1031
84627357|NCT00467740|168993775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.4378||95.0|-0.077|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|-0.077|0.4378
84627358|NCT00467740|168993775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0064||95.0|0.05|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.303|0.050|0.0064
84761243|NCT01926782|169279003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|12.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.6|3.1|0.0003
84761244|NCT01926782|169279004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.4|1.9|0.0004
84627359|NCT00467740|168993776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.2781||95.0|-0.061|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.210|-0.061|0.2781
84627360|NCT00467740|168993776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3284||95.0|-0.068|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.068|0.3284
84627361|NCT00467740|168993776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.602||95.0|-0.1|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.100|0.6020
84627362|NCT00467740|168993776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0006||95.0|0.104|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.104|0.0006
84627363|NCT00467740|168993777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.079|0.4331
84627364|NCT00467740|168993777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.089|0.5150
84627365|NCT00467740|168993777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.095|0.5714
84627366|NCT00467740|168993777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.028|0.0177
84627367|NCT00467740|168993778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.883|38.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.057|7.883|0.0030
84627368|NCT00467740|168993778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.446|39.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.754|9.446|0.0016
84627369|NCT00467740|168993778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.598|52.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||52.015|21.598|<.0001
84627370|NCT00467740|168993778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.675|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.399|57.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||57.611|27.399|<.0001
84674553|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|104.52||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.52|89.69|
84761245|NCT01926782|169279005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.6|11.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||11.1|2.6|0.0004
84627371|NCT00467740|168993779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.055||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|0.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.957|-3.194|0.2898
84627372|NCT00467740|168993779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.432|-0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.269|-4.432|0.0270
84761246|NCT01926782|169279006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.8|8.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.7|1.8|0.0007
84627373|NCT00467740|168993779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.138|-0.952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.952|-5.138|0.0045
84674554|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|95.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|103.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.44|88.82|
84674555|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.37|106.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||106.64|91.37|
84674556|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|99.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.73||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.73|92.30|
84674557|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|94.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|102.1||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.10|87.53|
84674558|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|100.91||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.91|86.50|
84674559|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|100.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.15|85.81|
84674560|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.08|101.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||101.64|87.08|
84674561|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|87.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|94.81||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.81|81.20|
84627374|NCT00467740|168993779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.865|-5.010|0.0056
84627375|NCT00467740|168993780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.218|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|-0.793|0.2645
84627376|NCT00467740|168993780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.018|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.018|-1.034|0.0423
84627377|NCT00467740|168993780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.842|0.178|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.842|0.2008
84627378|NCT00467740|168993780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|-0.087|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.087|-1.098|0.0218
84674562|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.72|104.67||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.67|89.72|
84674563|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|103.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.76|88.90|
84627379|NCT00467740|168993789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.2156||95.0|-0.368|0.083|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.083|-0.368|0.2156
84627380|NCT00467740|168993789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0869||95.0|-0.422|0.029|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.029|-0.422|0.0869
84627381|NCT00467740|168993789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0044||95.0|-0.552|-0.103|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.103|-0.552|0.0044
84627382|NCT00467740|168993789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0158||95.0|-0.499|-0.052|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.052|-0.499|0.0158
84627383|NCT01168349|168993821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71||||||||0.71|0.42|
84627384|NCT01168349|168993824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84627385|NCT04999839|168993857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.727|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|14.885||P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method.|||14.885|0.933|=0.052
84627386|NCT04999839|168993857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.525|45.994||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||45.994|3.525|<0.001
84627387|NCT04999839|168993857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.526|98.735||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||98.735|8.526|<0.001
84627388|NCT04999839|168993857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.277|156.548||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||156.548|10.277|<0.001
84627389|NCT00528957|168993873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for participants switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for participants continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|4.5|||Normal approximation|The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|Difference is for tenofovir DF minus stavudine or zidovudine (randomized phase)|"The statistical hypotheses for the primary endpoint was as follows:~* Null Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA concentrations \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.~* Alternate Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is no more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48."||4.5|-21.5|
84627390|NCT00528957|168993874|NON_INFERIORITY|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for subjects switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for subjects continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.8|||||The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|||11.8|-13.7|
84627391|NCT03111875|168993923|SUPERIORITY|common effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.87|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|0.87|0.69
84627392|NCT03111875|168993923|SUPERIORITY|average relative effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.43|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.43|0.10
84627393|NCT03111875|168993924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.47|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk).||||1.47|0.87|0.25
84627394|NCT03111875|168993925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.33|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk)||||1.33|0.87|0.41
84627395|NCT01323582|168993948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|28.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite corrected t-test was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||28.6|-21.5|0.76
84627396|NCT01323582|168993949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65||95.0|-4.8|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Correction used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||7.5|-4.8|0.65
84674564|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|99.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.64|92.21|
84761247|NCT01926782|169279007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.3|-2.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-2.6|-21.3|0.0042
84627397|NCT01323582|168993950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for unequal standard deviations was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Half of the period 2 minus period 1 differences were used, since the difference between these two derived means is an unbiased estimate of the effect size.||5.19|-4.58|0.88
84627398|NCT01323582|168993951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Corrected t-test|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|||10.9|-13.9|0.80
84627399|NCT01323582|168993952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||7.3|-30.9|0.21
84627400|NCT01323582|168993953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||-1.26|-28.7|0.034
84627401|NCT01323582|168993954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.16|-9.48|0.015
84627402|NCT01323582|168993955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-1.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.83|-10.97|0.0083
84627403|NCT00988832|168993961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84627404|NCT00988832|168993962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84627405|NCT00988832|168993963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0041
84627406|NCT00988832|168993964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
84627407|NCT00988832|168993965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
84627408|NCT00988832|168993966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
84627409|NCT00988832|168993968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84627410|NCT03174184|168993969|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence tests will be conducted to examine whether the EBA0-14CFU of Arm A is different from the EBA0-14CFU of Arm B. A similar comparison will be done comparing Arm C to Arm D, Arm A to Arm C, Arm D to Arm E, Arm D to Arm F, and Arm E to Arm F.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84627411|NCT02588599|168993993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=8.0; df=53||||||<0.0001
84627412|NCT00402168|168994001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 6, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection (number with acute rejection/number randomized) using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
84627413|NCT00402168|168994001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 12, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
84627414|NCT00402168|168994002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 6: For 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
84627415|NCT00402168|168994002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 12: For 95% CI of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
84761248|NCT01926782|169279008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.5|-8.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-8.6|-21.5|<0.0001
84504397|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.92|0.02|
84627416|NCT00402168|168994005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.8||||||||13.8|-0.1|
84627417|NCT00402168|168994010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Scales (MCS)||3.9|-1.7|0.4491
84627418|NCT00402168|168994010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Scales (PCS)||1.9|-2.5|0.7892
84627419|NCT00402168|168994012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0252||||||Difference in Symptom Occurrence between treatment groups.||.0252|-.010|
84627420|NCT00402168|168994012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0321||||||Difference in Symptom Distress between treatment groups.||.0321|-.002|
84627421|NCT00880698|168994051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|14.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-uninfected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||14.8|-20.6|0.62
84627422|NCT00880698|168994051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-infected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||23.4|-21.0|1.00
84761249|NCT01926782|169279009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.9|-5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.2|-22.9|0.0004
84627423|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|46.1||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||46.1|11.5|<0.001
84627424|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|68.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||68.6|27.1|<0.001
84627425|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||24.8|-11.3|0.20
84627426|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|36.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||36.7|-10.6|0.19
84627427|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|36.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||36.4|0.9|<0.001
84627428|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||50.6|4.7|<0.001
84627429|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|42.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||42.9|8.0|<0.001
84627430|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|75.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||75.9|37.2|<0.001
84627431|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|34.2||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||34.2|-1.7|0.024
84627432|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|35.5||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||35.5|-12.0|0.34
84627433|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|66.3||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||66.3|34.3|<0.001
84627434|NCT00880698|168994052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|81.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||81.7|42.7|<0.001
84627435|NCT00904943|168994058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|104.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84627436|NCT00904943|168994059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|102.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84627437|NCT00904943|168994060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|103.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84627438|NCT03284710|168994066|OTHER|||||||0.358||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.358
84627439|NCT03284710|168994066|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||1.000
84627440|NCT03284710|168994066|OTHER|||||||0.361||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.361
84627441|NCT03284710|168994067|OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.238
84504398|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.80|0.01|
84627442|NCT03284710|168994067|OTHER|||||||0.893||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.893
84627443|NCT03284710|168994067|OTHER|||||||0.411||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.411
84627444|NCT03284710|168994068|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||1.000
84627445|NCT03284710|168994068|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.044
84627446|NCT03284710|168994068|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.045
84627447|NCT03284710|168994069|OTHER|||||||0.215||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.215
84627448|NCT03284710|168994069|OTHER|||||||0.683||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.683
84627449|NCT03284710|168994069|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.322
84627450|NCT05546476|168994110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||2.34|0.49|
84627451|NCT05546476|168994110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.15||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||3.15|1.08|
84627452|NCT05546476|168994110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|4.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||4.34|1.68|
84627453|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|53.36|||=|0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.89|147.6|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||147.60|-40.89|=0.8260
84627454|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-37.9|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.94|57.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||57.14|-132.94|=0.2540
84627455|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.95|||=|0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.63|97.73|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||97.73|-101.63|=0.4870
84627456|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|37.76|||=|0.0497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|75.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||75.46|0.07|=0.0497
84627457|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.36|||=|0.5745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.94|34.22|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||34.22|-42.94|=0.5745
84627458|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|49.85|||=|0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.62|89.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||89.08|10.62|=0.0189
84627459|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.51|||=|0.1302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.03|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.03|-4.00|=0.1302
84627460|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.49|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.18|17.16|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||17.16|-8.18|=0.2780
84627461|NCT05546476|168994111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.11|||=|0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|21.23|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.23|-5.01|=0.1529
84761250|NCT01926782|169279010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.3|-6.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-6.9|-20.3|<0.0001
84627462|NCT05546476|168994112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-130.27|||=|0.5762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1257.31|996.77|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||996.77|-1257.31|=0.5762
84627463|NCT05546476|168994112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|724.14|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-425.81|1874.09|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1874.09|-425.81|=0.1486
84627464|NCT05546476|168994112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|185.62|||=|0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-997.94|1369.18|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1369.18|-997.94|=0.3972
84627465|NCT05546476|168994113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1587.26|||=|0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-443.79|3618.31|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3618.31|-443.79|=0.0985
84627466|NCT05546476|168994113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-98.54|||=|0.5315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2169.67|1972.58|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1972.58|-2169.67|=0.5315
84627467|NCT05546476|168994113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2203.18|||=|0.0437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|4321.85|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||4321.85|84.51|=0.0437
84627468|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.046|=0.5052
84627469|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.004|||=|0.5599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.042|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.042|-0.050|=0.5599
84627470|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.017|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.064|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.064|-0.030|=0.2770
84627471|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.07|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.070|-0.071|=0.5047
84627472|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.026|||=|0.7316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.097|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.097|=0.7316
84627473|NCT05546476|168994114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.4145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.082|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.082|-0.063|=0.4145
84627474|NCT05546476|168994115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.24|||=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|7.28|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.28|1.19|=0.0114
84761251|NCT01926782|169279011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.0|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|3.0|<0.0001
84504399|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.22|
84627475|NCT05546476|168994115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.57|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.57|-2.30|=0.3600
84627476|NCT05546476|168994115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.11|||=|0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|7.17|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.17|1.06|=0.0138
84627477|NCT05546476|168994116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.35|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|3.97|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.97|0.72|=0.0090
84627478|NCT05546476|168994116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.4987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|1.56|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.56|-1.55|=0.4987
84627479|NCT05546476|168994116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.3|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.92|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.92|0.68|=0.0100
84627480|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.43|||=|0.1912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.24|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.24|-0.38|=0.1912
84627481|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.46|||=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.3|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.30|-0.39|=0.1866
84674565|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|102.11||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.11|87.46|
84627482|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.92|||=|0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.75|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.75|0.09|=0.0349
84627483|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||=|0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.14|-0.20|=0.8754
84627484|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38|||=|0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.08|-0.31|=0.8205
84627485|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||=|0.3375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.51|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.51|-0.86|=0.3375
84627486|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||=|0.9138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.45|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.45|-0.14|=0.9138
84627487|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.9011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|1.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.46|-0.18|=0.9011
84674566|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|86.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.69|80.32|
84627488|NCT05546476|168994117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||=|0.6618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|1.02|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.02|-0.61|=0.6618
84627489|NCT03137654|168994239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Linear Mixed Model|||||||.0078
84627490|NCT03137654|168994243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.393
84627491|NCT03137654|168994245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
84627492|NCT03137654|168994246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
84627493|NCT03137654|168994247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0365
84627494|NCT03137654|168994248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
84627495|NCT03137654|168994249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84627496|NCT03137654|168994250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||||||.445
84627497|NCT03137654|168994251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||||||.245
84627498|NCT01706458|168994257|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9060
84627499|NCT00072462|168994270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.14|0.67|0.33
84627500|NCT00072462|168994270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.15|0.66|0.33
84627501|NCT00072462|168994271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.01|0.52|0.06
84627502|NCT00072462|168994271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.05|0.52|0.09
84627503|NCT00072462|168994272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||2.84|0.75|0.13
84627504|NCT00072462|168994272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||2.84|0.75|0.26
84627505|NCT00072462|168994273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.11|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||5.11|0.21|0.97
84627506|NCT00072462|168994273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||5.36|0.22|0.93
84627507|NCT00072462|168994274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.32|0.65|0.67
84627508|NCT00072462|168994274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.22|0.59|0.38
84627509|NCT03448406|168994304|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|4.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||13.0|-5.0|0.3660
84627510|NCT03448406|168994305|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|2.08||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.25|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.25|-2.08|0.2783
84627511|NCT03448406|168994306|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-0.07||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.20|-0.35|0.5512
84627512|NCT03448406|168994307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|3.0||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||11.0|-4.0|0.3657
84627513|NCT03448406|168994308|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||0.14|-0.31|0.4440
84627514|NCT03448406|168994309|OTHER|||||||0.3924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.3924
84627515|NCT03448406|168994310|OTHER|||||||0.4435|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.4435
84627516|NCT03448406|168994311|OTHER|||||||0.5124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5124
84627517|NCT03448406|168994312|OTHER|||||||0.5713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5713
84627518|NCT03448406|168994313|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Mixed model repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: Visit-by-treatment interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|||1.07|0.85|0.4032
84627519|NCT01292486|168994317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 2 days.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehman estimation|||The null hypothesis was that the median day to neutrophil recovery in this study was more than two days longer than historical controls.||0.0|0.0|<0.025
84627520|NCT04369404|168994324|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesize that participants who received the decision aid will have higher knowledge. This is pilot study, thus we did not have a power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|0.7|0.06
84627521|NCT04369404|168994325|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|2.97||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"a chisquare test was conducted to determine if the proportion of treatment unsure responses were different between the usual care and intervention arms."||||0.085
84627522|NCT04369404|168994326|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|1.524||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84627523|NCT03882021|168994341|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|62.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence after removal from AAD at one year.|||62.8|51.2|
84627524|NCT03882021|168994342|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from symptomatic recurrence.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|61.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|67.1|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT recurrence after removal from AAD|||67.1|55.8|
84627525|NCT03882021|168994343|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of single procedure clinical success.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|83.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT without new or increased dose of Class I/III AAD at one year.|||83.6|74.2|
84627526|NCT03882021|168994344|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT|Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|80.1|||||Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT at 12 months.|||80.1|69.9|
84504400|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
84627527|NCT04913610|168994362|OTHER||||||=|0.036|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.036
84627528|NCT04913610|168994362|OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.530
84627529|NCT04913610|168994362|OTHER||||||=|0.852||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.852
84627530|NCT04913610|168994362|OTHER||||||=|0.366||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.366
84627531|NCT04913610|168994363|OTHER||||||=|0.869||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.869
84627532|NCT04913610|168994363|OTHER||||||=|0.973||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.973
84627533|NCT04913610|168994363|OTHER||||||=|0.744||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.744
84627534|NCT04913610|168994363|OTHER||||||=|0.794||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.794
84627535|NCT04913610|168994364|OTHER||||||=|0.559||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.559
84627536|NCT04913610|168994364|OTHER||||||=|0.786||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.786
84627537|NCT04913610|168994364|OTHER||||||=|0.423||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.423
84627538|NCT04913610|168994364|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.920
84627539|NCT04913610|168994365|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
84761252|NCT01926782|169279012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|5.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.4|-0.1|0.0306
84761253|NCT02275338|169279015|OTHER|||||||0.0055||||||The expected proportion of responders using Lanreotide was 50%, 1 sided test, 2.5% significance level alpha and power of 80% using Z-test for binomial proportion.|Binomial test|||One sided binomial test to compare percentage of responding subjects to theoretical proportion of 30%.||||0.0055
84627540|NCT04913610|168994365|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
84627541|NCT04913610|168994365|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
84627542|NCT04913610|168994365|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
84627543|NCT04913610|168994366|OTHER||||||=|0.157||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.157
84627544|NCT04913610|168994366|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
84627545|NCT04913610|168994366|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
84627546|NCT04913610|168994366|OTHER||||||=|0.173||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.173
84627547|NCT04913610|168994367|OTHER||||||=|0.619||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.619
84627548|NCT04913610|168994367|OTHER||||||=|0.194||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.194
84627549|NCT04913610|168994367|OTHER||||||=|0.518||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.518
84627550|NCT04913610|168994367|OTHER||||||=|0.652||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.652
84627551|NCT04913610|168994368|OTHER||||||=|0.386||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.386
84627552|NCT04913610|168994368|OTHER||||||=|0.279||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.279
84627553|NCT04913610|168994368|OTHER||||||=|0.385||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.385
84627554|NCT04913610|168994368|OTHER||||||=|0.755||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.755
84761254|NCT00684788|169279051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|20.02|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||20.02|1.61|=0.008
84761255|NCT00684788|169279052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0033
84627555|NCT01210716|168994370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower 97.5% confidence limit on the mean of the paired differences is greater than -15% of the Control group mean (i.e., p-value \<=0.05), then the Test group will be considered non-inferior in the primary efficacy parameter to Control at the margin of 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.97|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.0||||paired t-test|||A one-sample t-test on the mean of paired differences was used to evaluate the primary objective. Sample size was determined using historical data and the 95% chi-square upper confidence limit on the observed standard deviation of the paired differences. A minimum sample of 27 pairs was required to demonstrate the AMICUS procedure to be non-inferior to Spectra with a mean efficiency of plasma removal with a non-inferiority margin of 15% with at least 97.5% (one-sided) confidence and 90% power.|||4.0|<0.001
84627556|NCT03186209|168994372|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36||Multiplicity protected by hierarchy testing procedure. First in line hypothesis testing, requiring p-value \<0.05.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.36|0.19|<0.0001
84627557|NCT03186209|168994373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.34|0.17|<0.0001
84627558|NCT03186209|168994374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.05|-0.45|0.0126
84627559|NCT03186209|168994375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, treatment\*visit||||0.08|-0.42|0.1835
84627560|NCT03186209|168994376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.24|53.07||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||53.07|24.24|<0.0001
84674567|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|87.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.34|94.93||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.93|81.34|
84761256|NCT00684788|169279055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.42|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.42|0.32|0.939
84627561|NCT03186209|168994377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|50.18||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||50.18|21.52|<0.0001
84627562|NCT03186209|168994378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline proportion of nights awakening, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.01|-0.03|0.3385
84761257|NCT00684788|169279057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|16.245|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.245|0.071|0.959
84761258|NCT00623428|169279061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|"The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.~(second column)."|In order to detect an improvement in SVR rate across all strata equivalent to an odds ratio of 2 (i.e. an increase in SVR by 15 to 16 percentage points at a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 160 patients per treatment group (320 patients in total) were required.||1.43|0.45|0.4557
84627563|NCT03186209|168994379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.28||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.28|-0.58|<0.0001
84627564|NCT03186209|168994380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.43||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Regression, Cox|model including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.43|0.23|<0.0001
84627565|NCT03186209|168994381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.42||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year (2, \>=3), use of OCS||||0.42|0.19|<0.0001
84627566|NCT03186209|168994382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-5.6||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model with covariates: treatment group, baseline SGRQ total score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-5.60|-12.79|<0.0001
84627567|NCT03186209|168994383|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model includes Treatment, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, categorical variable of ER/UC or hospitalization exacerbations during previous year||||0.90|0.24|0.0222
84627568|NCT03186209|168994387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.78|-68.84||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|model includes treatment , baseline eosinophil count, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-68.84|-169.78|<0.0001
84627569|NCT03186209|168994388|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.35|0.51|0.4519
84627570|NCT03186209|168994389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.22|0.02|0.0214
84627571|NCT03186209|168994390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.08|-0.51|0.1589
84627572|NCT01791244|168994393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.25|||linear mixed model|||Linear mixed model, with baseline value, time, Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) at baseline and sex as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||9.25|-8.30|0.9148
84627573|NCT01983228|168994441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.77|0.94|0.09
84627574|NCT01983228|168994442|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.62|0.34
84627575|NCT01983228|168994443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.65||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-1.69|0.38
84627576|NCT01983228|168994444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.49||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.49|-1.68|0.28
84627577|NCT01983228|168994445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.77||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.77|-0.00|0.05
84627578|NCT01983228|168994446|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|193.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-454.93|842.73||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||842.73|-454.93|0.56
84627579|NCT01983228|168994447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.62||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.62|0.85|0.16
84627580|NCT01983228|168994448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.002
84627581|NCT01983228|168994449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.51||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.51|-0.79|0.54
84627582|NCT01983228|168994450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.62||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.62|-0.66|0.41
84627583|NCT01983228|168994451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
84674568|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|91.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.55|98.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.70|84.55|
84627584|NCT01983228|168994452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|540.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|1110.33||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1110.33|-28.77|0.06
84627585|NCT01983228|168994453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.86||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||5.86|-0.01|0.05
84627586|NCT01983228|168994454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|0.15|0.01
84627587|NCT01983228|168994455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.39||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.39|-2.53|0.15
84627588|NCT01983228|168994456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|-0.80|0.56
84627589|NCT01983228|168994457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.46||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.46|-0.17|0.38
84504401|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
84504402|NCT00433381|168759875|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.73|
84504403|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.92|0|
84504404|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
84627590|NCT01983228|168994458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.19||Logistic regression modeling the odds of yes to using opioids for pain treatment adjusting for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.66|0.56
84627591|NCT01983228|168994459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.84||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.84|-0.18|0.21
84627592|NCT01650558|168994475|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.82||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.82|0.89|<=0.05
84627593|NCT01650558|168994475|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.83|0.89|<=0.05
84627594|NCT01650558|168994476|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.30|0.83|<=0.05
84627595|NCT01650558|168994476|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.49|0.91|<=0.05
84627596|NCT01650558|168994477|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.93|0.66|<=0.05
84627597|NCT01650558|168994477|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.68|0.55|<=0.05
84674569|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|95.74||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||95.74|82.00|
84504405|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Accuracy: Area Under the ROC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.25|
84504406|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
84504407|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.44|
84627598|NCT01650558|168994478|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||2.00|1.07|<=0.05
84627599|NCT01650558|168994478|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.96||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.96|1.04|<=0.05
84627600|NCT01650558|168994479|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.55||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.55|1.11|<=0.05
84627601|NCT01650558|168994479|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.58|1.14|<=0.05
84627602|NCT02960217|168994483|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|1.46||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.36||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Participants completing both UX007 treatment period and placebo period (n=42). Per protocol, when the normality assumption is not met (p value for Wilk-Shapiro test \< 0.05), Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be considered as the primary analysis to assess treatment difference in movement disorder event frequency.||4.36|-1.12|0.2684
84627603|NCT02960217|168994483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilk-Shapiro test for normality|||||||< 0.0001
84627604|NCT02960217|168994486|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|25.0||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|91.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=34).||91.5|-62.5|0.6419
84627605|NCT02960217|168994486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
84627606|NCT02960217|168994487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.0|0.9513
84627607|NCT02960217|168994487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8214
84627608|NCT02960217|168994488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.7||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-0.8|0.1572
84674570|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.75|97.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.69|83.75|
84761259|NCT00623428|169279062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.06|0.33|0.0788
84504408|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.17|
84627609|NCT02960217|168994488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8451
84627610|NCT02960217|168994489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-3.8|0.8345
84627611|NCT02960217|168994489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2894|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2894
84627612|NCT02960217|168994490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
84627613|NCT02960217|168994490|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.2||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=21).||5.8|-5.4|0.4898
84504409|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.45|
84627614|NCT02960217|168994491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.8|-2.2|0.5853
84627615|NCT02960217|168994491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1066|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1066
84627616|NCT02960217|168994492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.0|-4.6|0.1875
84627617|NCT02960217|168994492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2034|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2034
84627618|NCT02960217|168994493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.7|0.1138
84627619|NCT02960217|168994493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1478
84627620|NCT02960217|168994494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.6|0.5505
84627621|NCT02960217|168994494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4459|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.4459
84627622|NCT02960217|168994495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.1|0.5544
84627623|NCT02960217|168994495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1104|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1104
84627624|NCT02960217|168994496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-8.5|0.7145
84627625|NCT02960217|168994496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8255|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8255
84627626|NCT02960217|168994497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.6|-2.5|0.4176
84627627|NCT02960217|168994497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6557
84627628|NCT02960217|168994498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.5|-0.4|0.0935
84627629|NCT02960217|168994498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7267
84627630|NCT02960217|168994499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for study baseline CGI-S score, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8329
84627631|NCT02960217|168994499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2348
84627632|NCT02960217|168994501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0315|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0315
84627633|NCT02960217|168994501|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|-0.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||0.5|-1.5|0.2425
84627634|NCT02960217|168994502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0072
84504410|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.19|
84627635|NCT02960217|168994502|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|13.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=12).||13.5|-14.5|1.0000
84627636|NCT02960217|168994503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.1076
84627637|NCT02960217|168994503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7698
84627638|NCT02960217|168994504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0138|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0138
84627639|NCT02960217|168994504|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|2.0||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|20.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||20.5|-3.5|0.3907
84627640|NCT02960217|168994505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|0.5233
84627641|NCT02960217|168994505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6918|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6918
84761260|NCT00623428|169279063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||3.87|0.48|0.5654
84627642|NCT01069484|168994506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the study by Mørkved and Bø (1997), showing 67% prevalence reduction of UI in the PFMT group and 34% reduction in the control group. Assuming a similar effect, two-sided significance of \<0.05, and a power of 0.90, required a total of 62 women. Stratified analysis on major levator ani (LA) muscle defects was planned, but the effect of PFMT in women with such defects was unknown. The statistical advice was to aim for 80 women with- and 80 women without such defects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.32|0.60|0.57
84627643|NCT01069484|168994507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.42|0.49|0.51
84627644|NCT00083889|168994550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4316|0.643||p-value from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio les than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed in each treatment arm using the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.6430|0.4316|<0.0001
84627645|NCT00083889|168994550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5136|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4196|0.6288||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a).||0.6288|0.4196|<.00001
84627646|NCT00083889|168994551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|30.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.31|36.56|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||36.56|25.31|<0.001
84627647|NCT00083889|168994552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|33.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.62|39.69|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||39.69|27.62|<0.001
84627648|NCT00083889|168994553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0510
84761261|NCT00623428|169279065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
84627649|NCT00083889|168994553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0128
84627650|NCT00083889|168994553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8179||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6692|0.9995||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified tests. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.9995|0.6692|0.0490
84627651|NCT00083889|168994554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4345|0.6544||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6544|0.4345|<0.0001
84627652|NCT00083889|168994554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.6352||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6352|0.4191|<.00001
84674571|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.03|98.08||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.08|84.03|
84761262|NCT00623428|169279066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
84627653|NCT00083889|168994555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4558|0.6526||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio \> 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6526|0.4558|<0.0001
84627654|NCT00083889|168994555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5417|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4519|0.6492||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6492|0.4519|<.00001
84627655|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.376|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.450|1.376|<.0001
84627656|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.449|1.421|<.0001
84627657|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|2.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.452|1.443|<.0001
84627658|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.464|1.476|<.0001
84627659|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.491|2.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.475|1.491|<.0001
84627660|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|1.510|<.0001
84627661|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|2.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.519|1.517|<.0001
84627662|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|1.522|<.0001
84627663|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.584|1.522|<.0001
84627664|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.635|1.515|<.0001
84627665|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.509|2.667|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.667|1.509|<.0001
84627666|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.494|2.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.727|1.494|<.0001
84627667|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.483|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.763|1.483|<.0001
84627668|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.830|1.461|<.0001
84627669|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.158|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|2.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.869|1.447|<.0001
84627670|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.941|1.420|<.0001
84627671|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|2.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.983|1.404|<.0001
84627672|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.373|3.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.059|1.373|<.0001
84627673|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.355|3.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.102|1.355|<.0001
84627674|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.321|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.180|1.321|<.0001
84627675|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.263|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.302|3.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.225|1.302|<.0001
84627676|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.305|1.266|<.0001
84627677|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|3.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.351|1.246|<.0001
84627678|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.321|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|3.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.433|1.209|<.0001
84627679|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|3.479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.479|1.188|<.0001
84627680|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.356||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.562|1.150|0.0001
84627681|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.369||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|3.609|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.609|1.128|0.0002
84627682|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.391||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.693|1.089|0.0003
84674572|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|102.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.34|87.69|
84627683|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.740|1.067|0.0004
84627684|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.426||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|3.825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.825|1.027|0.0007
84627685|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.439||||0.0009||95.0|1.005|3.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.872|1.005|0.0009
84627686|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.461||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.958|0.964|0.0013
84627687|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|4.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.006|0.942|0.0016
84627688|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.496||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|0.901|0.0022
84627689|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.509||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.140|0.878|0.0026
84627690|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.531||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|4.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.226|0.836|0.0034
84627691|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.544||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.274|0.813|0.0040
84627692|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.566||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.361|0.772|0.0051
84674573|NCT01469065|169084438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|93.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|100.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.77|86.17|
84627693|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.579||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.410|0.748|0.0058
84627694|NCT00083889|168994558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.602||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|4.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.497|0.706|0.0071
84674574|NCT01469065|169084439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|112.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|127.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||127.50|99.84|
84674575|NCT01469065|169084439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.78|114.85||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||114.85|90.78|
84627695|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.234|4.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.095|2.234|<.0001
84627696|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|2.318|<.0001
84627697|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.358|4.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.097|2.358|<.0001
84627698|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.418|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.119|2.418|<.0001
84627699|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.443|4.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.139|2.443|<.0001
84627700|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|4.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.189|2.474|<.0001
84627701|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.354|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.484|4.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.224|2.484|<.0001
84627702|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.489|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.300|2.489|<.0001
84627703|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|4.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.348|2.486|<.0001
84627704|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.458|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|4.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.446|2.469|<.0001
84627705|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.455|4.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.505|2.455|<.0001
84674576|NCT01469065|169084439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|125.18||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||125.18|98.50|
84674577|NCT01469065|169084439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.46|109.48||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.48|85.46|
84674578|NCT01469065|169084440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|116.3||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||116.30|98.69|
84674579|NCT01469065|169084440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.26|100.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.50|85.26|
84674580|NCT01469065|169084440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.51|104.27||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.27|88.51|
84674581|NCT01469065|169084440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|99.65||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||99.65|84.38|
84674582|NCT04542070|169084442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.2|-0.5|
84674583|NCT04542070|169084442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.2|-0.5|
84674584|NCT04542070|169084443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.0|-0.6|
84674585|NCT04542070|169084443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.0|-0.7|
84761263|NCT01142726|169279068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Month 12|Power estimate assumed 2-sided alpha level of 5% and that 60% of abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MX) patients (pts) would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12 compared with 38% of MX monotherapy pts. Also assumed that 48% of ABA monotherapy pts would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12, yielding an expected treatment difference from MX of 10% in favor of ABA monotherapy; 116 pts randomized to ABA monotherapy would yield a half-length of the 95% CI around that 10% treatment difference of 13.5%.||3.43|1.18|0.010
84674586|NCT04646616|169084476|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a single-group, of outcome measured at baseline and at 3 months. We hypothesized there would be an improvement or sustainability of the protective behaviours.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a single-group study. Selected outcomes were measured at baseline (first interaction with the community popular opinion leader (POL) and 3 months after.||0.39|-0.12|0.28
84674587|NCT04646616|169084477|OTHER|Test of proportions|difference in proportion|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Test of proportions|||Two sample test of proportions, testing whether the proportion of participants who lack health access at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.07|-0.08|0.85
84504411|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.03|
84504412|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||1|0.20|
84674588|NCT04646616|169084478|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who had a SAVAME factor at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.19|-0.04|0.19
84674589|NCT04646616|169084479|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who lack access to SAVAME related services at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.18|-0.04|0.23
84674590|NCT01813019|169084480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
84674591|NCT01696032|169084483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0654
84674592|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84674593|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84674594|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84627706|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.422|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.620|2.422|<.0001
84627707|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.399|4.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.687|2.399|<.0001
84627708|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.584|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.354|4.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.814|2.354|<.0001
84627709|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.326|4.887|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.887|2.326|<.0001
84627710|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.272|5.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.022|2.272|<.0001
84627711|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.099|2.240|<.0001
84627712|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.240|2.180|<.0001
84627713|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.320|2.145|<.0001
84627714|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.466|2.080|<.0001
84627715|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.796|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.043|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.548|2.043|<.0001
84627716|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.836|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.975|5.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.698|1.975|<.0001
84674595|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84627717|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|5.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.781|1.936|<.0001
84674596|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84674597|NCT02203591|169084495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84674598|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|86.6||||||||86.6|75.6|
84674599|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|87.1||||||||87.1|76.3|
84674600|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|88.4||||||||88.4|77.9|
84674601|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|38.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|45.6||||||||45.6|32.3|
84674602|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|53.7||||||||53.7|40.1|
84627718|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.899||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|5.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.933|1.866|0.0002
84761264|NCT01142726|169279068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.18|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Months 12 and 18|Conditional on statistical significance of the 1st coprimary efficacy analysis (CEA), a sample of 116 patients per arm would provide 98% power for the 2nd CEA comparison of the percentage of patients in DAS28-CRP remission at Months 12 and 18 between the abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MTX) arm and the MTX monotherapy arm for intent-to treat population. This sample size calculation assumed 30% remission in the ABA+MTX arm and 8% in the monotherapy arm at Month 18 and a 2-sided alpha level of 5%.||6.18|1.02|0.045
84627719|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.922||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.826|6.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.018|1.826|0.0002
84627720|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.962||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|6.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.172|1.753|0.0004
84627721|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.985||||0.0006||95.0|1.712|6.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.258|1.712|0.0006
84627722|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.638|6.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.413|1.638|0.0010
84627723|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.048||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.597|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.500|1.597|0.0012
84627724|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.089||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|6.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.656|1.521|0.0018
84627725|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.111||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.479|6.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.743|1.479|0.0022
84627726|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.152||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.403|6.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.901|1.403|0.0031
84627727|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.174||||0.0037||95.0|1.36|6.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.988|1.360|0.0037
84627728|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.215||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|7.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.147|1.283|0.0048
84761265|NCT01142726|169279069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.57|||||At Month 12|||1.57|0.55|
84761266|NCT01142726|169279069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.14|||||At Months 12 and 18|||5.14|0.81|
84627729|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.237||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.235|1.240|0.0056
84674603|NCT02203591|169084495|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|59.6||||||||59.6|46.3|
84674604|NCT02203591|169084496|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||||3M CHG/IPA C - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|||-0.10|-0.57|
84761267|NCT00419380|169279088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, tube patency yes/no, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.||||.36
84627730|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.278||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|7.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.394|1.162|0.0071
84627731|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|7.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.482|1.119|0.0081
84627732|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.341||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.642|1.041|0.0099
84627733|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.364||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.730|0.997|0.0111
84627734|NCT00083889|168994559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.404||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.890|0.918|0.0133
84627735|NCT00083889|168994560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5404|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4532|0.6444||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6444|0.4532|<0.0001
84627736|NCT00083889|168994560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5418|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4536|0.6473||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6473|0.4536|<.00001
84627737|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|7.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.119|3.852|<.0001
84627738|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.955|7.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.115|3.955|<.0001
84627739|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.124|4.000|<.0001
84627740|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.061|7.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.162|4.061|<.0001
84627741|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.083|7.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.195|4.083|<.0001
84761268|NCT00419380|169279089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, presence/absence of ear drainage, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.|Chi-squared|||||||.26
84761269|NCT03099707|169279090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|43.0|||Fisher Exact|||||43|0.6|0.105
84674605|NCT02203591|169084496|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.74|||||3M CHG/IPA CH - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|Since there are two investigational products a Hochberg step-up procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.||0.74|-0.44|
84674606|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674607|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761270|NCT00137111|169279152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial proportion|79.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|82.85|||Binomial proportion|||Of the 498 eligible patients, 492 were successfully evaluated with day 46 MRD measurement.||82.85|75.69|
84674608|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761271|NCT00137111|169279153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||||||p-value from t-test after stratified for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test stratified for lineage and ploidy||||.0062
84761272|NCT00137111|169279154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||p-value from t-test after adjusted for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test adjusting for lineage and ploidy||||.15
84627742|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.276|4.100|<.0001
84627743|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.098|7.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.333|4.098|<.0001
84627744|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.764|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.075|7.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.454|4.075|<.0001
84627745|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.053|7.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.531|4.053|<.0001
84627746|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.998|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.684|3.998|<.0001
84627747|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.777|3.960|<.0001
84627748|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|7.955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.955|3.880|<.0001
84627749|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.060|3.830|<.0001
84627750|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|8.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.257|3.731|<.0001
84674609|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674610|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761273|NCT00137111|169279155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9.5e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00000095
84761274|NCT00137111|169279156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0000007
84627751|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.672|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.370|3.672|<.0001
84674611|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674612|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674613|NCT02203591|169084497|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674614|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674615|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674616|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674617|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674618|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674619|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674620|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761275|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.84|0.39|
84627752|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|8.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.581|3.560|<.0001
84627753|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.495|8.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.701|3.495|<.0001
84627754|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|8.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.921|3.373|<.0001
84627755|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.303|9.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.045|3.303|<.0001
84627756|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.174|9.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.273|3.174|<.0001
84627757|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.101|9.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.401|3.101|0.0001
84627758|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.966|9.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.634|2.966|0.0002
84627759|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.327||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|9.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.765|2.890|0.0003
84627760|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.377||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|10.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.002|2.751|0.0006
84627761|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.404||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|10.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.135|2.673|0.0008
84674621|NCT02203591|169084498|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627762|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.453||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|10.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.376|2.530|0.0013
84761276|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.01|0.54|
84627763|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|10.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.510|2.451|0.0016
84674622|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674623|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674624|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674625|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674626|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674627|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761277|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.11|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.11|0.50|
84761278|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.38|
84761279|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.37|
84627764|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.306|10.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.754|2.306|0.0025
84627765|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.557||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.224|10.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.889|2.224|0.0030
84627766|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.606||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|11.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.135|2.077|0.0043
84627767|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.634||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|11.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.272|1.995|0.0051
84627768|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.683||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|11.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.519|1.847|0.0068
84627769|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.71||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|11.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.657|1.764|0.0079
84627770|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.759||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.613|11.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.905|1.613|0.0100
84627771|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|12.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.043|1.530|0.0114
84627772|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.836||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.378|12.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.293|1.378|0.0141
84627773|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.863||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.294|12.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.432|1.294|0.0157
84627774|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.912||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|12.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.683|1.142|0.0189
84674628|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674629|NCT02203591|169084499|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674630|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84504413|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.36|
84627775|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.94||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.822|1.057|0.0208
84627776|NCT00083889|168994561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.989||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|13.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||13.074|0.904|0.0244
84627777|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Physical Well Being (PWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.114|0.805|<.0001
84627778|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.079|0.827|<.0001
84627779|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.063|0.837|<.0001
84627780|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.041|0.847|<.0001
84627781|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|2.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.032|0.848|<.0001
84627782|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|2.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.024|0.844|<.0001
84627783|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|2.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.023|0.838|<.0001
84761280|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.52|
84627784|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.029|0.819|<.0001
84627785|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.037|0.805|<.0001
84674631|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627786|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.056|0.774|<.0001
84674632|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674633|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674634|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674635|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674636|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627787|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.069|0.753|<.0001
84674637|NCT02203591|169084500|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|5.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674638|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627788|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|2.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.099|0.711|<.0001
84627789|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.402||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|2.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.119|0.685|0.0001
84627790|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.396||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.157|0.634|0.0003
84627791|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.392||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.180|0.604|0.0005
84627792|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.386||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.225|0.547|0.0012
84627793|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.383||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.252|0.514|0.0018
84627794|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.376||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|2.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.301|0.451|0.0035
84627795|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.373||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.330|0.416|0.0049
84627796|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.367||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.383|0.350|0.0084
84674639|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627797|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.363||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.414|0.313|0.0110
84627798|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.357||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.470|0.245|0.0168
84627799|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.354||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|0.206|0.0208
84674640|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674641|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674642|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761281|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.95|0.46|
84761282|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.25|0.45|
84627800|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.348||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|0.136|0.0293
84761283|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.54|
84761284|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.35|
84761285|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.67|0.34|
84761286|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformation of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.88|0.37|
84504414|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.94||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.94|0.06|
84504415|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.95|0.22|
84627801|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.344||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.592|0.096|0.0348
84627802|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.338||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.652|0.024|0.0459
84627803|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.335||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|2.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.685|-0.016|0.0528
84627804|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.328||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.746|-0.090|0.0663
84674643|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84674644|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761287|NCT00562354|169279161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.30|
84504416|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.87||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.87|0.13|
84504417|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
84674645|NCT02203591|169084501|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84627805|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.325||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.780|-0.131|0.0744
84627806|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.319||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|2.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.842|-0.205|0.0898
84627807|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.315||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|2.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.877|-0.246|0.0988
84627808|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.309||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.940|-0.321|0.1156
84627809|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.306||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.975|-0.363|0.1252
84627810|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|3.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.038|-0.439|0.1429
84627811|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.296||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|3.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.074|-0.481|0.1529
84627812|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.138|-0.558|0.1711
84627813|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.1813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.173|-0.600|0.1813
84627814|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|3.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.238|-0.677|0.1998
84627815|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.273|-0.720|0.2100
84627816|NCT00083889|168994562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|3.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.338|-0.797|0.2283
84627817|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.214|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Social/Family Well Being (SWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.708|0.719|<.0001
84627818|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.703|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.703|0.729|<.0001
84627819|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.704|0.731|<.0001
84627820|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.710|0.730|<.0001
84627821|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.716|0.727|<.0001
84627822|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.732|0.716|<.0001
84627823|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.744|0.707|<.0001
84627824|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.769|0.687|<.0001
84627825|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.785|0.673|<.0001
84627826|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.818|0.646|<.0001
84627827|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.838|0.629|<.0001
84627828|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.236||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.876|0.595|0.0002
84761288|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.0||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.0|-12.1|
84504418|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
84504419|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.63|
84504420|NCT00433381|168759876|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
84627829|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.237||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.899|0.575|0.0003
84627830|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.942|0.537|0.0005
84627831|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.241||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.967|0.515|0.0008
84627832|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.244||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|2.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.013|0.474|0.0015
84627833|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.040|0.450|0.0021
84627834|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.248||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|2.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.089|0.406|0.0037
84627835|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.116|0.382|0.0048
84627836|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.251||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|2.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.167|0.336|0.0074
84627837|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.253||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.196|0.310|0.0092
84627838|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.248|0.262|0.0132
84627839|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|2.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.278|0.236|0.0159
84627840|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.259||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.332|0.187|0.0213
84627841|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.261||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.362|0.160|0.0248
84627842|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.416|0.110|0.0318
84674646|NCT03306264|169084517|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of Least Square Mean (LSM) for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.66|105.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||105.6|92.66|
84674647|NCT03306264|169084517|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.23|
84627843|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.265||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|2.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.447|0.083|0.0360
84627844|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.267||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|2.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.502|0.032|0.0443
84674648|NCT03306264|169084523|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|104.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.6|91.80|
84627845|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.269||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|0.004|0.0493
84627846|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|2.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.589|-0.047|0.0587
84627847|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.273||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.620|-0.075|0.0642
84627848|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.275||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|2.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.677|-0.127|0.0746
84627849|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.276||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|2.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.708|-0.155|0.0806
84627850|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|2.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.765|-0.207|0.0917
84627851|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.797|-0.236|0.0980
84627852|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.283||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.854|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.854|-0.288|0.1095
84627853|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|2.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.886|-0.318|0.1161
84674649|NCT03306264|169084523|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.20|
84627854|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.944|-0.370|0.1280
84627855|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.288||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|2.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.976|-0.399|0.1346
84627856|NCT00083889|168994563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|3.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.034|-0.452|0.1466
84627857|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Emotional Well Being (EWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.398|0.460|0.0001
84674650|NCT03306264|169084524|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.88|104.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.8|91.88|
84761289|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-11.6|
84761290|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.2|-9.6|
84504421|NCT00433381|168759877|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
84504422|NCT00433381|168759879|OTHER|Agreement was assessed using a Kappa statistic|Kappa Statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||||||Agreement between Local and Central determinations 6-month PFS, based on imaging, was evaluated using Kappa statistics||0.57|0.21|
84627858|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.922|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.375|0.469|<.0001
84627859|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.365|0.471|<.0001
84627860|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.352|0.469|<.0001
84627861|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.907|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.466|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.348|0.466|<.0001
84627862|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.899|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|1.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.345|0.453|<.0001
84627863|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.895||||0.0001||95.0|0.444|1.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.347|0.444|0.0001
84627864|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.888||||0.0002||95.0|0.421|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.355|0.421|0.0002
84627865|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.0003||95.0|0.406|1.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.362|0.406|0.0003
84627866|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.877||||0.0006||95.0|0.375|1.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.379|0.375|0.0006
84627867|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.873||||0.0009||95.0|0.356|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.390|0.356|0.0009
84627868|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.866||||0.002||95.0|0.318|1.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.414|0.318|0.0020
84627869|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.862||||0.0029||95.0|0.295|1.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.428|0.295|0.0029
84627870|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.854||||0.0055||95.0|0.251|1.457|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.457|0.251|0.0055
84674651|NCT03306264|169084524|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|107.2|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||107.2|89.75|
84674652|NCT03306264|169084525|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.74|104.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.5|91.74|
84674653|NCT03306264|169084525|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|106.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||106.5|89.32|
84674654|NCT00554749|169084545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.49|||paired t-test|Paired t-test of SSQ at baseline vs at 6 months, degrees of freedom=6. Difference in SSQ is reported.||||2.49|1.69|<0.001
84674655|NCT02702401|169084560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.987|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.987|0.609|0.0186
84674656|NCT02702401|169084561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.998|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.998|0.611|0.0238
84674657|NCT02702401|169084562|OTHER||Difference in Percent|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||19.5|7.7|
84504423|NCT00433381|168759880|OTHER|Sensitivity|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||||||Sensitivity||0.73|0.46|
84627871|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0076||95.0|0.226|1.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.475|0.226|0.0076
84627872|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.843||||0.0129||95.0|0.179|1.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.508|0.179|0.0129
84627873|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.839||||0.0168||95.0|0.151|1.527|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.527|0.151|0.0168
84627874|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.832||||0.0257||95.0|0.101|1.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.563|0.101|0.0257
84674658|NCT02702401|169084564|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.877||One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.877|0.540|0.0011
84504424|NCT00433381|168759880|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.87||||||Specificity||0.87|0.66|
84627875|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828||||0.0318||95.0|0.072|1.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.583|0.072|0.0318
84674659|NCT00247728|169084572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.072||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
84674660|NCT00247728|169084572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.298||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
84674661|NCT00247728|169084573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.087||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.087
84674662|NCT00247728|169084573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.653||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.653
84674663|NCT01462357|169084575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.15||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion rates (SCR): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.15|-1.16|
84540180|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.33||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.33|-0.05|0.4529
84627876|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.821||||0.0447||95.0|0.019|1.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.622|0.019|0.0447
84627877|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.817||||0.0529||95.0|-0.01|1.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.643|-0.010|0.0529
84627878|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.809||||0.0696||95.0|-0.065|1.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.683|-0.065|0.0696
84627879|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.805||||0.0797||95.0|-0.095|1.706|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.706|-0.095|0.0797
84627880|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.798||||0.0994||95.0|-0.151|1.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.747|-0.151|0.0994
84627881|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.794||||0.111||95.0|-0.182|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.770|-0.182|0.1110
84627882|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.787||||0.1328||95.0|-0.239|1.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.813|-0.239|0.1328
84627883|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.783||||0.1454||95.0|-0.271|1.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.836|-0.271|0.1454
84627884|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.776||||0.1686||95.0|-0.329|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.880|-0.329|0.1686
84627885|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.771||||0.1817||95.0|-0.361|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.904|-0.361|0.1817
84627886|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764||||0.2055||95.0|-0.419|1.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.948|-0.419|0.2055
84540181|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.18|-0.20|0.9320
84627887|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.2188||95.0|-0.452|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.972|-0.452|0.2188
84627888|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753||||0.2427||95.0|-0.51|2.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.016|-0.510|0.2427
84627889|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.2559||95.0|-0.543|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.041|-0.543|0.2559
84761291|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-13.7|
84761292|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.1||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.7|
84761293|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.1||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.9|
84504425|NCT00803959|168759890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigators selected the 11% noninferiority margin on the basis of clinical judgement that it was a reasonable threshold for a trade-off between a decrease in the rate of successful treatment and the potential benefits of eliminating UDS studies from preoperative assessment. To minimize bias toward noninferiority, only women treated per protocol (e.g. who underwent the randomly assigned evaluation) were considered in the primary outcome analysis (ITT analysis considered secondary).|Difference in success % (UDS - no UDS)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.9|||Chi-squared|Noninferiority declared if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in % success (UDS - no UDS) was \< 11%.|Point estimates of success percentage are calculated as 200/259= 77.2% for Office Evaluation Only and 203/264 = 76.9% for Urodynamic Testing arm.|The null hypothesis was that the no UDS group was non-inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a significance level of 5% and a true success rate in each group of 70% with a noninferiority margin of 11 percentage points, we needed to enroll 270 women/group to have 80% power for determining whether the results in the no UDS group were non inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, a sample of 300 women per group was required.||6.9|-7.5|
84627890|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742||||0.2794||95.0|-0.602|2.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.086|-0.602|0.2794
84627891|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.738||||0.2923||95.0|-0.635|2.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.111|-0.635|0.2923
84627892|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.3152||95.0|-0.695|2.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.156|-0.695|0.3152
84627893|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.726||||0.3276||95.0|-0.728|2.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.181|-0.728|0.3276
84761294|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.9||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.9|-10.8|
84761295|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.9||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-8.7|
84627894|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719||||0.3497||95.0|-0.788|2.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.227|-0.788|0.3497
84627895|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.715||||0.3616||95.0|-0.822|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.252|-0.822|0.3616
84627896|NCT00083889|168994564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.3827||95.0|-0.882|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.298|-0.882|0.3827
84627897|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.261|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Functional Well Being (FWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|1.261|<.0001
84761296|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.1|-4.0|
84627898|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.924|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.309|2.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.539|1.309|<.0001
84627899|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.939|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.331|2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.546|1.331|<.0001
84627900|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.965|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.363|2.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.568|1.363|<.0001
84627901|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.376|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.584|1.376|<.0001
84627902|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.007|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.392|2.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.622|1.392|<.0001
84627903|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.022|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.396|2.647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.647|1.396|<.0001
84627904|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.397|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.700|1.397|<.0001
84627905|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.063|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.394|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.732|1.394|<.0001
84627906|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.383|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.797|1.383|<.0001
84627907|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.374|2.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.836|1.374|<.0001
84627908|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.132|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.353|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.910|1.353|<.0001
84627909|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.339|2.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.954|1.339|<.0001
84504426|NCT00803959|168759891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha level is considered to be 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments were made; test had 1 degree of freedom.||Null hypothesis is that the two groups will not differ in the percent meeting 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score.||||0.63
84627910|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.173|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.311|3.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.036|1.311|<.0001
84627911|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.188|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.294|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.082|1.294|<.0001
84761297|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-7.6|
84674664|NCT01462357|169084575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.14||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.14|-1.15|
84674665|NCT01462357|169084576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Titers (GMT): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.69|0.54|
84674666|NCT01462357|169084576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of GMT: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.26|0.20|
84674667|NCT01462357|169084577|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMT ratio|4.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.13|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-18 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||5.13|3.97|0.0001
84674668|NCT01462357|169084577|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio|1.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.91|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-16 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||1.91|1.49|0.0001
84674669|NCT04292730|169084597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|2.483||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||2.483|1.092|0.0174
84674670|NCT04292730|169084597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.952||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||1.952|0.880|0.1826
84761298|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.7|-2.8|
84761299|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.7|-8.8|
84761300|NCT00562354|169279164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.5||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-14.1|
84504427|NCT00803959|168759892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments made; 1 degree of freedom test.||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportion responding very much better or much better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at the 12 month visit."||||0.68
84504428|NCT00803959|168759893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One df t test assumed equal variance; no evidence was found to the contrary.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in UDI score.||||0.68
84761301|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|0.3||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.3|-15.1|
84504429|NCT00803959|168759894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Test was 1 df t-test assuming equal variances; no evidence to the contrary was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to change in ISI score.||||0.40
84674671|NCT04292730|169084597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.497||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||2.497|1.095|0.0168
84674672|NCT04292730|169084597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.917||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||1.917|0.862|0.2186
84674673|NCT04292730|169084598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.8||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.7||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|-5.2|0.3633
84674674|NCT04292730|169084598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|12.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.8||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.8|1.6|0.0201
84674675|NCT01574703|169084603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.37
84674676|NCT01574703|169084604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.53
84674677|NCT01574703|169084605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.34
84674678|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.23||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.23|-5.22|0.8375
84674679|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.05||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||5.05|-5.20|0.9780
84674680|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.27|-5.54|0.6142
84674681|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||5.13|-4.28|0.8602
84761302|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-14.5|
84761303|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-1.0||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.0|-21.4|
84674682|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.64||||0.7217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.88||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.88|-4.15|0.7217
84674683|NCT01574703|169084606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|3.28||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.28|-5.41|0.6322
84674684|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.9687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|3.34||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||3.34|-3.48|0.9687
84674685|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.7||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||4.70|-3.58|0.7905
84674686|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.94||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.94|-3.36|0.8962
84674687|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.63||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|4.98||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||4.98|-3.72|0.7767
84674688|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.85|-3.13|0.9260
84674689|NCT01574703|169084607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|3.31||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.31|-4.85|0.7113
84674690|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.13|-5.27|0.8117
84627912|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|3.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.169|1.260|<.0001
84627913|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.241|3.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.219|1.241|<.0001
84627914|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.256|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.203|3.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.309|1.203|<.0001
84627915|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.271|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.182|3.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.361|1.182|<.0001
84627916|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.142|3.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.454|1.142|<.0001
84627917|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.313||||0.0001||95.0|1.119|3.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.507|1.119|0.0001
84627918|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.0003||95.0|1.076|3.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.603|1.076|0.0003
84627919|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.354||||0.0004||95.0|1.052|3.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.657|1.052|0.0004
84627920|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.381||||0.0007||95.0|1.008|3.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.754|1.008|0.0007
84627921|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.396||||0.0009||95.0|0.983|3.809|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.809|0.983|0.0009
84627922|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.423||||0.0014||95.0|0.938|3.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.908|0.938|0.0014
84627923|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.438||||0.0017||95.0|0.912|3.963|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.963|0.912|0.0017
84627924|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.464||||0.0025||95.0|0.866|4.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.063|0.866|0.0025
84504430|NCT00803959|168759895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in change in MESA stress score.||||0.50
84504431|NCT00803959|168759896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in MESA urgency score.||||0.19
84627925|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.479||||0.003||95.0|0.84|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.119|0.840|0.0030
84627926|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.0042||95.0|0.792|4.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.219|0.792|0.0042
84627927|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.521||||0.0049||95.0|0.766|4.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.275|0.766|0.0049
84627928|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.547||||0.0064||95.0|0.718|4.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.377|0.718|0.0064
84627929|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0073||95.0|0.691|4.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.433|0.691|0.0073
84627930|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.589||||0.0091||95.0|0.643|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.535|0.643|0.0091
84627931|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.604||||0.0103||95.0|0.616|4.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.592|0.616|0.0103
84627932|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.631||||0.0125||95.0|0.567|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.695|0.567|0.0125
84627933|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645||||0.0138||95.0|0.539|4.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.752|0.539|0.0138
84761304|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.9|-13.5|
84504432|NCT00803959|168759897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in IIQ score.||||0.49
84627934|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.672||||0.0164||95.0|0.49|4.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.855|0.490|0.0164
84627935|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.687||||0.0179||95.0|0.462|4.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.912|0.462|0.0179
84627936|NCT00083889|168994565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.714||||0.0208||95.0|0.413|5.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||5.015|0.413|0.0208
84627937|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EuroQoL Five Dimension (EQ-5D): Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||0.076|0.022|0.0004
84627938|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|0.022|0.0003
84761305|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.0||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.0|-14.3|
84627939|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.022|0.0003
84627940|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0003||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0003
84627941|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.0004||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0004
84627942|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0005||95.0|0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.020|0.0005
84627943|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0007||95.0|0.019|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.019|0.0007
84627944|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.0011||95.0|0.017|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.017|0.0011
84504433|NCT00803959|168759898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in SF-12 scores.||||0.02
84504434|NCT00803959|168759899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in PGI-S score.||||0.51
84627945|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.0016||95.0|0.016|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.016|0.0016
84627946|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0029||95.0|0.014|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.014|0.0029
84674691|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.78||||0.7303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.65||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.65|-5.21|0.7303
84674692|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.21||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.21|-5.60|0.5946
84674693|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|3.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.85|-4.27|0.9200
84674694|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.62||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.84||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.84|-4.09|0.7236
84761306|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-0.8||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.8|-24.6|
84761307|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.5||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-16.3|
84627947|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0041||95.0|0.013|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.013|0.0041
84627948|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.0076||95.0|0.011|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.011|0.0076
84627949|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.0105||95.0|0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.009|0.0105
84627950|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0179||95.0|0.007|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.007|0.0179
84627951|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0236||95.0|0.005|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.005|0.0236
84627952|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.037||95.0|0.002|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.073|0.002|0.0370
84627953|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0464||95.0|0.001|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.001|0.0464
84627954|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0667||95.0|-0.002|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|-0.002|0.0667
84627955|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.08||95.0|-0.004|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.076|-0.004|0.0800
84627956|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.107||95.0|-0.007|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.077|-0.007|0.1070
84627957|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.1237||95.0|-0.009|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.078|-0.009|0.1237
84627958|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1561||95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.079|-0.013|0.1561
84627959|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1752||95.0|-0.015|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.080|-0.015|0.1752
84627960|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.2112||95.0|-0.018|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.081|-0.018|0.2112
84627961|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.2319||95.0|-0.02|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.082|-0.020|0.2319
84627962|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2698||95.0|-0.023|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.084|-0.023|0.2698
84627963|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.291||95.0|-0.025|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.085|-0.025|0.2910
84761308|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.0|-29.5|
84761309|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.4|-21.4|
84627964|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.3293||95.0|-0.029|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.086|-0.029|0.3293
84627965|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.3504||95.0|-0.031|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.087|-0.031|0.3504
84627966|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.3881||95.0|-0.034|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.089|-0.034|0.3881
84627967|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4086||95.0|-0.036|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.090|-0.036|0.4086
84627968|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4449||95.0|-0.04|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.091|-0.040|0.4449
84627969|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4646||95.0|-0.042|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.092|-0.042|0.4646
84627970|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.499||95.0|-0.046|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.094|-0.046|0.4990
84627971|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.5176||95.0|-0.048|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.095|-0.048|0.5176
84627972|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.5501||95.0|-0.051|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.097|-0.051|0.5501
84627973|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.5675||95.0|-0.054|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.098|-0.054|0.5675
84674695|NCT01574703|169084608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42||||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|3.17||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.17|-4.01|0.8201
84627974|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.5979||95.0|-0.057|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.099|-0.057|0.5979
84627975|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.6141||95.0|-0.059|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.100|-0.059|0.6141
84627976|NCT00083889|168994566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6424||95.0|-0.063|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.102|-0.063|0.6424
84627977|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|5.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Euro-QoL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.965|2.088|<.0001
84627978|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.165|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.269|6.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.061|2.269|<.0001
84627979|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.358|6.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.128|2.358|<.0001
84627980|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.494|6.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.269|2.494|<.0001
84627981|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.459|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.558|6.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.361|2.558|<.0001
84627982|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.65|6.547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.547|2.650|<.0001
84627983|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.676|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.689|6.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.662|2.689|<.0001
84627984|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.815|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.889|2.741|<.0001
84627985|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.892|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|7.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.024|2.760|<.0001
84761310|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-1.3||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.3|-19.3|
84761311|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.9|-6.2|
84761312|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.5|-12.2|
84627986|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.031|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|7.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.283|2.780|<.0001
84761313|NCT00562354|169279167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.3||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.3|-12.5|
84627987|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.783|7.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.435|2.783|<.0001
84761314|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.1||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-13.8|
84761315|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.0||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||5.0|-15.9|
84761316|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.9|-30.1|
84627988|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.248|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.776|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.720|2.776|<.0001
84627989|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.767|7.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.884|2.767|<.0001
84627990|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.464|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|8.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.188|2.741|<.0001
84627991|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.542||||0.0001||95.0|2.723|8.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.361|2.723|0.0001
84627992|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.681||||0.0002||95.0|2.683|8.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.679|2.683|0.0002
84627993|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.758||||0.0003||95.0|2.657|8.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.859|2.657|0.0003
84627994|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.898||||0.0004||95.0|2.607|9.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.188|2.607|0.0004
84627995|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975||||0.0006||95.0|2.576|9.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.374|2.576|0.0006
84627996|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.114||||0.0009||95.0|2.517|9.711|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.711|2.517|0.0009
84627997|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.191||||0.0011||95.0|2.482|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.900|2.482|0.0011
84761317|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-11.6|
84761318|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.2||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-22.6|
84627998|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.331||||0.0015||95.0|2.417|10.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.244|2.417|0.0015
84627999|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.408||||0.0018||95.0|2.379|10.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.436|2.379|0.0018
84628000|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.547||||0.0025||95.0|2.309|10.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.785|2.309|0.0025
84628001|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.624||||0.0029||95.0|2.269|10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.980|2.269|0.0029
84628002|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.764||||0.0037||95.0|2.195|11.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.332|2.195|0.0037
84628003|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.841||||0.0042||95.0|2.153|11.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.529|2.153|0.0042
84628004|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98||||0.0053||95.0|2.076|11.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.884|2.076|0.0053
84628005|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.057||||0.0059||95.0|2.032|12.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.083|2.032|0.0059
84628006|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.197||||0.0072||95.0|1.953|12.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.441|1.953|0.0072
84628007|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.274||||0.0079||95.0|1.908|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.640|1.908|0.0079
84628008|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.413||||0.0093||95.0|1.826|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.000|1.826|0.0093
84628009|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.491||||0.0101||95.0|1.78|13.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.201|1.780|0.0101
84628010|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63||||0.0117||95.0|1.697|13.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.562|1.697|0.0117
84628011|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.707||||0.0126||95.0|1.65|13.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.764|1.650|0.0126
84628012|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.846||||0.0144||95.0|1.565|14.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.127|1.565|0.0144
84761319|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.9||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.9|-23.8|
84761320|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.4|-19.3|
84761321|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-14.1||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-14.1|-39.0|
84628013|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.924||||0.0153||95.0|1.518|14.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.329|1.518|0.0153
84628014|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.063||||0.0172||95.0|1.432|14.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.693|1.432|0.0172
84628015|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.14||||0.0182||95.0|1.384|14.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.896|1.384|0.0182
84628016|NCT00083889|168994567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.279||||0.0201||95.0|1.297|15.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||15.261|1.297|0.0201
84628017|NCT00960375|168994574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Smoking reduction outcomes were examined in the randomized sample using data from baseline and post-treatment assessments. The variable examined was self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day during the last 7 days. This variable was skewed so a natural log transformation was applied before linear mixed model analysis.||||0.489
84628018|NCT00960375|168994575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This outcome was examined in the randomized sample. Abstinence was defined as self-reported no smoking in the last 7 days + expired CO ≤ 10 PPM. To assess difference in change between conditions, we tested the significance of the condition-by-time interaction using repeated measured mixed models with a random participant effect. Time was binary: post-treatment versus baseline. We used a logistic model for binary outcomes.||||0.685
84628019|NCT03668873|168994596|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.81||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models with repeated measures with fixed effects for baseline CSI, treatment, week as a categorical variable, and treatment-week interaction.|Treatment difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on change in CSI score at 10 weeks. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 units and an attrition rate of 10%, an enrollment target of 90 participants would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 1.85 points or greater with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a two-tailed two-sample t-test.||-0.81|-2.88|<0.001
84628020|NCT03668873|168994597|SUPERIORITY||Absolute percent difference|24.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.0||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on the rate of positive response to CGI-I at 10 weeks. Assuming a 25%-40% positive response rate at 10 weeks in the SPE group and 45 patients per group, power was 90% to detect a 32% or greater difference in positive response rate (57%-72% in SPT group, respectively), with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a Chi-square test.||46|2|0.037
84628021|NCT03668873|168994598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||threshold for significant 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
84628022|NCT03668873|168994599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84628023|NCT03668873|168994600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84628024|NCT04267380|168994602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84628025|NCT04267380|168994603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84628026|NCT04267380|168994604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84628027|NCT04267380|168994605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
84628028|NCT04267380|168994606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84628029|NCT04267380|168994607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84628030|NCT04267380|168994608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84628031|NCT04267380|168994609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84628032|NCT04267380|168994611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84628033|NCT04267380|168994612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84628034|NCT04267380|168994613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84628035|NCT04267380|168994614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84628036|NCT04267380|168994615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84761322|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|6.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.1|-18.7|
84761323|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.7||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.7|-22.6|
84761324|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||8.1|-9.8|
84628037|NCT04267380|168994616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84628038|NCT04267380|168994617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84628039|NCT04267380|168994618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84628040|NCT04267380|168994619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84628041|NCT04267380|168994620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
84628042|NCT04267380|168994621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84628043|NCT03155724|168994661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial, one-sided|||The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the binomial proportion of 'improved' patients to 3.0% with power of 80% and type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0224. A pre-planned interim analysis at 45 patients required a type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0026 to demonstrate significance.||||<0.0001
84628044|NCT00525512|168994665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.1062||95.0|0.97|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|0.97|0.1062
84628045|NCT00525512|168994666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.008||95.0|1.03|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.23|1.03|0.008
84628046|NCT00525512|168994667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.1||||0.0597||95.0|1.0|1.21||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|1.00|0.0597
84628047|NCT00525512|168994668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.15||||0.0131||95.0|1.03|1.29||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|1.03|0.0131
84628048|NCT00525512|168994669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.18||||0.0041||95.0|1.05|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|1.05|0.0041
84628049|NCT00525512|168994670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.11||||0.0945||95.0|0.98|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|0.98|0.0945
84628050|NCT00525512|168994671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.0899||95.0|0.98|1.28||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.98|0.0899
84628051|NCT00525512|168994672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.16||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.160|0.073|<0.0001
84628052|NCT00525512|168994673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.036|0.0005
84628053|NCT00525512|168994674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.0003||95.0|0.041|0.137||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.137|0.041|0.0003
84628054|NCT00525512|168994675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.153||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.058|<0.0001
84628055|NCT00525512|168994676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0005||95.0|0.04|0.141||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.040|0.0005
84761325|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-1.2||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-21.7|
84761326|NCT00562354|169279170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|3.4||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.4|-18.5|
84628056|NCT00525512|168994677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.144||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.144|0.045|0.0002
84628057|NCT00525512|168994678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0059||95.0|0.022|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.022|0.0059
84628058|NCT00525512|168994679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.198||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.198|0.110|<0.0001
84628059|NCT00525512|168994680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.208||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.117|<0.0001
84628060|NCT00525512|168994681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.192||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.192|0.099|<0.0001
84628061|NCT00525512|168994682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.176||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.176|0.077|<0.0001
84628062|NCT00525512|168994683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.185||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.083|<0.0001
84628063|NCT00525512|168994684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.202||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.202|0.097|<0.0001
84628064|NCT00525512|168994685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.183||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.183|0.077|<0.0001
84628065|NCT00525512|168994686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.307||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.307|0.127|<0.0001
84628066|NCT00525512|168994687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.0019||95.0|0.058|0.255||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.255|0.058|0.0019
84628067|NCT00525512|168994688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.0006||95.0|0.078|0.286||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.286|0.078|0.0006
84628068|NCT00525512|168994689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.339||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.339|0.130|<0.0001
84628069|NCT00525512|168994690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.009||95.0|0.04|0.281||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.281|0.040|0.009
84628070|NCT00525512|168994691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212||||0.0002||95.0|0.102|0.322||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.322|0.102|0.0002
84628071|NCT00525512|168994692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.355||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.355|0.128|<0.0001
84628072|NCT00525512|168994693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.375||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.375|0.179|<0.0001
84628073|NCT00525512|168994694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.425||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.425|0.226|<0.0001
84628074|NCT00525512|168994695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.245|0.461||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.461|0.245|<0.0001
84628075|NCT00525512|168994696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.365||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.365|0.154|<0.0001
84628076|NCT00525512|168994697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.194|0.406||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.406|0.194|<0.0001
84628077|NCT00525512|168994698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.364||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.364|0.144|<0.0001
84628078|NCT00525512|168994699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.209|0.456||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.456|0.209|<0.0001
84628079|NCT00525512|168994700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.1131||95.0|-0.72|0.08||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.72|0.1131
84628080|NCT00525512|168994701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9071||95.0|-0.38|0.33||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.38|0.9071
84628081|NCT00525512|168994702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.6878||95.0|-0.35|0.53||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.6878
84628082|NCT00525512|168994703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||||95.0|-2.39|3.11||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.11|-2.39|
84628083|NCT00525512|168994704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||||95.0|-2.66|3.31||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.31|-2.66|
84628084|NCT00525512|168994705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||||95.0|-2.91|3.58||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.58|-2.91|
84628085|NCT00525512|168994706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-2.97|3.43||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.43|-2.97|
84628086|NCT00525512|168994707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||||95.0|-3.02|3.46||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.46|-3.02|
84628087|NCT00525512|168994708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||||95.0|-3.1|3.41||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.41|-3.10|
84628088|NCT00525512|168994709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||||95.0|-3.22|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.22|
84628089|NCT00525512|168994710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||||95.0|-2.78|3.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.52|-2.78|
84628090|NCT00525512|168994711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-3.05|3.51||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.51|-3.05|
84628091|NCT00525512|168994712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||||95.0|-3.4|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.40|
84628092|NCT00525512|168994713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||||95.0|-3.61|3.92||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.92|-3.61|
84628093|NCT00525512|168994714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.53|3.9||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.90|-3.53|
84628094|NCT00525512|168994715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.36|3.71||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.71|-3.36|
84628095|NCT00525512|168994716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||||95.0|-3.82|3.96||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.96|-3.82|
84628096|NCT00525512|168994717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.0072||95.0|-6.97|-1.1||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-6.97|0.0072
84628097|NCT00525512|168994718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.2029||95.0|-5.91|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-5.91|0.2029
84628098|NCT00525512|168994719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0313||95.0|-6.84|-0.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-6.84|0.0313
84628099|NCT00525512|168994720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.0001||95.0|-13.37|-4.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.52|-13.37|0.0001
84628100|NCT00525512|168994721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.6541||95.0|0.719|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Regression, Cox|||||1.230|0.719|0.6541
84628101|NCT00525512|168994722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.06||||0.4443||95.0|0.91|1.25||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.91|0.4443
84628102|NCT00525512|168994723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8644||95.0|-0.05|0.06||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.05|0.8644
84628103|NCT00525512|168994724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4277||95.0|-0.07|0.17||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.4277
84628104|NCT00525512|168994725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7071||95.0|-3.81|2.59||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.7071
84628105|NCT00525512|168994726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.6556||95.0|-3.03|4.81||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.81|-3.03|0.6556
84628106|NCT00525512|168994727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9896||95.0|-3.44|3.48||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-3.44|0.9896
84628107|NCT00525512|168994728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.0807||95.0|-9.19|0.53||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-9.19|0.0807
84628108|NCT01601535|168994749|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||MYCN Amplified vs. MYCN not Amplified|Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
84628109|NCT01601535|168994749|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|MYCN Amplified or Myc Positive vs. MYCN Non-amplified and Myc Negative||||||0.21
84628110|NCT01601535|168994749|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Aurora A protein Positive vs. Aurora A protein Negative||||||1.0
84628111|NCT01601535|168994750|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
84628112|NCT01601535|168994750|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
84628113|NCT01601535|168994751|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||AurkA Codon 31 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary V vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
84628114|NCT01601535|168994751|OTHER|||||||1||||||AurkA Codon 57 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 57 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84628115|NCT03309020|168994754|OTHER|||||||0.802||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses one month after cataract surgery||||0.802
84628116|NCT03309020|168994755|OTHER|||||||0.713||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses three months after cataract surgery||||.713
84628117|NCT03309020|168994756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.69|||||Odds of eye with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 12 months after cataract surgery for controls vs. EVD survivors|Null hypothesis is no difference in the proportion of participants with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between survivor statuses||0.69|0.01|
84628118|NCT03309020|168994757|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.832
84628119|NCT03309020|168994758|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.995
84628120|NCT03309020|168994759|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||0.441
84628121|NCT03309020|168994760|OTHER|||||||0.892||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.892
84628122|NCT03309020|168994761|OTHER|||||||0.913||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.913
84628123|NCT03309020|168994762|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.106
84628124|NCT03309020|168994763|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||0.09
84628125|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|11.04|||t-test, 1 sided|||||11.04|7.40|<0.0001
84628126|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|8.44||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.31|10.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.56|6.31|0.0141
84628127|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.85|12.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||12.74|8.85|<0.0001
84628128|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference Week 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.43||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.96|8.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||||8.91|3.96|0.1045
84628129|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|8.38||||||||8.38|4.66|
84628130|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.33||||||90.0|4.74|9.93||||||||9.93|4.74|
84628131|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|8.88||||||||8.88|3.95|
84628132|NCT05893862|168994779|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.76||||||||4.76|0.81|
84628133|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 0.5 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.11|
84628134|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.98||||||||1.98|-1.26|
84628135|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|3.66||||||||3.66|-1.04|
84628136|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 hr|LS Mean Difference|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|6.64||||||||6.64|1.90|
84628137|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
84628138|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 6 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
84628139|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|11.8||||||||11.80|6.71|
84628140|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 12 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.27|7.35||||||||7.35|2.27|
84628141|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|6.23||||||||6.23|0.91|
84628142|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|6.85||||||||6.85|3.18|
84628143|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.34||||||||6.34|1.56|
84761327|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.86|0.43|
84761328|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.00|0.63|
84628144|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|6.35||||||||6.35|1.49|
84628145|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|7.03||||||||7.03|2.33|
84628146|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|7.12||||||||7.12|2.45|
84628147|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|7.71||||||||7.71|1.93|
84628148|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|8.09||||||||8.09|2.51|
84628149|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|8.74||||||||8.74|2.97|
84628150|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 16 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.79|6.45||||||||6.45|1.79|
84628151|NCT05893862|168994782|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.26||||||||3.26|-1.69|
84628152|NCT02919761|168994794|OTHER||||||=|0.242||||||At Week 4|One-sample binomial test|||||||=0.242
84628153|NCT02919761|168994794|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||At Week 8|One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84628154|NCT02919761|168994794|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84628155|NCT02919761|168994795|OTHER||||||=|0.313||||||Comparison at Week 12|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.313
84628156|NCT02919761|168994795|OTHER||||||=|0.439||||||Comparison at Week 16|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.439
84628157|NCT02919761|168994795|OTHER||||||=|0.028||||||Comparison at Week 20|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.028
84628158|NCT02919761|168994795|OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Comparison at Week 24|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.019
84628159|NCT04972162|168994811|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.38||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Ease of Communication Subscale (EC)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.38
84628160|NCT04972162|168994811|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Background Noise Subscale (BN)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.79
84628161|NCT04972162|168994811|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.51||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Reverberant Room Subscale (RV)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.51
84644839|NCT02660138|169025071|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.47||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||18.47|3.66|<0.0001
84644840|NCT02660138|169025071|OTHER|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|24.95||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||24.95|4.59|<0.0001
84628162|NCT04972162|168994811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Ease of Communication Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||5.2|-4.3|<0.0001
84628163|NCT04972162|168994811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Background Noise Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||7.2|-5.3|<0.0001
84628164|NCT04972162|168994811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Reverberant Room Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||6.5|-4.6|<0.0001
84628165|NCT01352117|168994812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911||||||The critical value for the final analysis was adjusted for the three interim analyses conducted for the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review using the Haybittle-Peto guidelines, at the p-value cutoff of 0.0487.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (asymptotic method) known as van Elteren test, stratification by screening CD4 (\<200 vs. \>=200 cells/mm\^3).||||||0.911
84628166|NCT01766050|168994837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
84628167|NCT01766050|168994837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
84628168|NCT01766050|168994837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
84628169|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.976|
84628170|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049||||||AUC (0-T)||1.049|0.889|
84628171|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.123||||||AUC (0-T)||1.123|0.950|
84761329|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.91|0.48|
84628172|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.127||||||AUC (INF)||1.127|0.975|
84628173|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.049||||||AUC (INF)||1.049|0.892|
84761330|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.85|0.50|
84628174|NCT01766050|168994855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.121||||||AUC(INF)||1.121|0.948|
84628175|NCT01766050|168994856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
84628176|NCT01766050|168994856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
84628177|NCT01766050|168994856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
84628178|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.088||||||AUC (0-T)||1.088|0.944|
84628179|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.103||||||AUC (0-T)||1.103|0.936|
84628180|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.121||||||AUC (0-T)||1.121|0.893|
84628181|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.085||||||AUC (INF)||1.085|0.942|
84628182|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.101||||||AUC (INF)||1.101|0.938|
84628183|NCT01766050|168994857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.121||||||AUC (INF)||1.121|0.896|
84628184|NCT01766050|168994858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.118|1.421||||||||1.421|1.118|
84628185|NCT01766050|168994858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.531||||||||1.531|1.090|
84628186|NCT01766050|168994858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.429||||||||1.429|0.971|
84628187|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.056|1.272||||||AUC (0-T)||1.272|1.056|
84674696|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.81||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.81|-3.22|0.8932
84628188|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.381||||||AUC (0-T)||1.381|1.092|
84628189|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.047|1.41||||||AUC (0-T)||1.410|1.047|
84628190|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.304||||||AUC (INF)||1.304|1.091|
84628191|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.379||||||AUC (INF)||1.379|1.093|
84628192|NCT01766050|168994859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.141|1.482||||||AUC (INF)||1.482|1.141|
84628193|NCT01766050|168994860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.746|0.997||||||||0.997|0.746|
84628194|NCT01766050|168994860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.071||||||||1.071|0.793|
84628195|NCT01766050|168994860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.709|1.034||||||||1.034|0.709|
84628196|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.024||||||AUC (0-T)||1.024|0.817|
84628197|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.175||||||AUC (0-T)||1.175|0.856|
84628198|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.821|
84628199|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|0.982||||||AUC (INF)||0.982|0.783|
84628200|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.2||||||AUC (INF)||1.200|0.885|
84628201|NCT01766050|168994861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.839|1.245||||||AUC (INF)||1.245|0.839|
84628202|NCT01766050|168994862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.021||||||||1.021|0.880|
84628203|NCT01766050|168994862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.993||||||||0.993|0.857|
84628204|NCT01766050|168994862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.028||||||||1.028|0.885|
84628205|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.013||||||AUC (0-T)||1.013|0.874|
84628206|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|1.076||||||AUC (0-T)||1.076|0.902|
84628207|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.12||||||AUC (0-T)||1.120|0.942|
84628208|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.017||||||AUC (INF)||1.017|0.868|
84628209|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|1.098||||||||1.098|0.914|
84628210|NCT01766050|168994863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.142||||||AUC (INF)||1.142|0.940|
84628211|NCT00385671|168994898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between pregabalin \& duloxetine treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||1.04|-0.05|0.076
84628212|NCT00385671|168994899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between duloxetine \& duloxetine+gabapentin treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||0.78|-0.32|0.417
84628213|NCT00385671|168994900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
84628214|NCT00385671|168994900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.520
84628215|NCT00385671|168994900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
84628216|NCT00385671|168994901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.389
84628217|NCT00385671|168994901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.126
84628218|NCT00385671|168994901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.489
84628219|NCT00385671|168994902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests: Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.35|-0.20|0.602
84628220|NCT00385671|168994902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.37|-0.17|0.469
84628221|NCT00385671|168994902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.30|-0.24|0.841
84674697|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.63||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.63|-3.09|0.8747
84628222|NCT00385671|168994903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.55|-0.16|0.276
84628223|NCT00385671|168994903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.37|-0.33|0.929
84628224|NCT00385671|168994903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.17|-0.53|0.313
84628225|NCT00385671|168994904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.04|-0.06|0.078
84628226|NCT00385671|168994904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.20|0.08|0.025
84628227|NCT00385671|168994904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||0.70|-0.41|0.602
84628228|NCT00385671|168994905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||0.94|-0.34|0.353
84628229|NCT00385671|168994905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.34||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||1.34|0.03|0.039
84628230|NCT00385671|168994905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Worst Pain.||1.04|-0.27|0.244
84628231|NCT00385671|168994906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.8||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.80|-0.25|0.298
84674698|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.15||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.15|-3.35|0.6710
84761331|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.52|
84504435|NCT00803959|168759900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in the proportion of women who score moderate or severe on the PGI-S at 12 months||||0.51
84628232|NCT00385671|168994906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.81|-0.25|0.304
84628233|NCT00385671|168994906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: least pain.||0.54|-0.53|0.989
84674699|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.27|-3.32|0.9886
84628234|NCT00385671|168994907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||0.97|-0.14|0.145
84628235|NCT00385671|168994907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||1.03|-0.11|0.112
84628236|NCT00385671|168994907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||0.62|-0.52|0.865
84628237|NCT00385671|168994908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.95||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||0.95|-0.26|0.263
84628238|NCT00385671|168994908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.49|0.24|0.007
84674700|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.14||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.14|-2.92|0.7631
84674701|NCT01574703|169084609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.5||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.50|-3.23|0.8022
84674702|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91||||0.6441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.96||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.96|-4.78|0.6441
84761332|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.48|
84761333|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.56|
84674703|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.26||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.26|-4.63|0.7327
84674704|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.99||||0.6109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.82||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.82|-4.80|0.6109
84674705|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.93||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.93|-2.48|0.8707
84674706|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.48||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.48|-2.63|0.9531
84674707|NCT01574703|169084610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.39|-2.99|0.8262
84504436|NCT00803959|168759901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean overall patient satisfaction score at 12 months.||||0.28
84628239|NCT00385671|168994908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.13|-0.10|0.102
84628240|NCT00385671|168994909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.55|-0.61|0.922
84628241|NCT00385671|168994909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.99||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.99|-0.20|0.195
84674708|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.59||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.67||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||1.67|-2.84|0.6105
84628242|NCT00385671|168994909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||1.02|-0.17|0.162
84674709|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.01||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.01|-2.65|0.7895
84674710|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.8||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||1.80|-2.75|0.6804
84674711|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.49||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.49|-1.95|0.8127
84674712|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.25||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.25|-2.04|0.9218
84628243|NCT00385671|168994910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||0.87|-0.46|0.541
84628244|NCT00385671|168994910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.36||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.36|-0.00|0.051
84628245|NCT00385671|168994910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.15||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.15|-0.21|0.173
84628246|NCT00385671|168994911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.40|0.451
84628247|NCT00385671|168994911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.43|0.485
84628248|NCT00385671|168994911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.65|-0.68|0.969
84628249|NCT00385671|168994912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
84628250|NCT00385671|168994912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.87|-0.27|0.301
84628251|NCT00385671|168994912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.67|-0.47|0.731
84628252|NCT00385671|168994913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.87|-0.45|0.528
84674713|NCT01574703|169084611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.0||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.00|-2.32|0.8841
84674714|NCT02026115|169084616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
84761334|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.61|0.35|
84504437|NCT00803959|168759902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-values was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the proportion having a positive provocative stress test at 12 months was the same in both treatment arms.||||0.19
84628253|NCT00385671|168994913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.51||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.51|-0.84|0.626
84628254|NCT00385671|168994913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.30|-1.06|0.270
84628255|NCT00385671|168994914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||1.13|-0.10|0.098
84628256|NCT00385671|168994914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.90|-0.35|0.383
84628257|NCT00385671|168994914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.39|-0.86|0.452
84628258|NCT00385671|168994915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.82|-0.26|0.309
84628259|NCT00385671|168994915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.93||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.93|-0.17|0.174
84628260|NCT00385671|168994915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.65|-0.45|0.717
84628261|NCT00385671|168994916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.975
84628262|NCT00385671|168994916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.448
84674715|NCT02026115|169084617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Experimental group performed worse than usual care.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
84674716|NCT02026115|169084618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
84674717|NCT02026115|169084619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.36
84540182|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.16||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.16|-0.22|0.3151
84674718|NCT02026115|169084620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
84628263|NCT00385671|168994916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.280
84628264|NCT00385671|168994917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.548
84628265|NCT00385671|168994917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.599
84628266|NCT00385671|168994917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||1.00
84628267|NCT00385671|168994918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.905
84628268|NCT00385671|168994918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.368
84628269|NCT00385671|168994918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.200
84628270|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.572
84628271|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.345
84761335|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.03|0.56|
84761336|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.43|
84628272|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.699
84674719|NCT02026115|169084621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84674720|NCT04084769|169084627|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|6.95||||||Serogroup A||6.95|-3.58|
84674721|NCT04084769|169084627|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||||||Serogroup C||1.60|-5.50|
84628273|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.954
84628274|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.734
84628275|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS.||||0.693
84628276|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.720
84628277|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.722
84628278|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.480
84628279|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.498
84628280|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.865
84628281|NCT00385671|168994919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.408
84628282|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.33||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||1.33|-2.18|0.635
84674722|NCT04084769|169084627|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.14||||||Serogroup Y||1.14|-4.09|
84674723|NCT04084769|169084627|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|2.07||||||Serogroup W||2.07|-4.72|
84761337|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.66|0.38|
84761338|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.60|0.29|
84761339|NCT00562354|169279173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.82|0.42|
84761340|NCT00784654|169279180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84628283|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.24||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.24|-3.24|0.092
84628284|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.65||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.65|-2.80|0.221
84628285|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.85||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.85|-0.88|0.974
84628286|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.13||P-value is for Item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.13|-1.63|0.093
84628287|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.12||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.12|-1.59|0.091
84628288|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.52||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 2 score.||0.52|-0.75|0.733
84628289|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.11||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.11|-1.15|0.102
84628290|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.21||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.21|-1.04|0.193
84761341|NCT00784654|169279181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84761342|NCT00784654|169279182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-15.4|<0.001
84761343|NCT00784654|169279185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84761344|NCT00784654|169279189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84761345|NCT00784654|169279190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|3.5|<0.001
84628291|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.43||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.43|-0.76|0.584
84628292|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.06||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.06|-1.12|0.077
84628293|NCT00385671|168994920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.22|-0.95|0.221
84628294|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|0.32||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||0.32|-3.96|0.096
84628295|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.13||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.13|-3.16|0.353
84628296|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.88||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||2.88|-1.27|0.444
84628297|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.48||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||3.48|-2.29|0.682
84628298|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.82||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.82|-4.08|0.450
84628299|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.04|-4.49|0.218
84628300|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.26|-0.36|0.747
84628301|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.45|-0.18|0.390
84761346|NCT00784654|169279191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84628302|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.49||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.49|-0.12|0.228
84628303|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.67|-0.18|0.260
84628304|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.11|-0.76|0.141
84628305|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.16||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||-0.16|-0.98|0.007
84628306|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.25|-0.61|0.409
84628307|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.35|-0.51|0.715
84628308|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.32|0.641
84628309|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.47|-0.64|0.767
84644841|NCT02660138|169025071|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.56||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo.||29.56|5.40|<0.0001
84761347|NCT00784654|169279192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
84761348|NCT00784654|169279195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.726
84761349|NCT00262873|169279200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84761350|NCT00262873|169279201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84761351|NCT00262873|169279202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84628310|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.52||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.61|0.881
84628311|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.59|-0.51|0.885
84628312|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.32||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.32|-0.96|0.325
84628313|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.56||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.56|-0.73|0.798
84628314|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.87||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.87|-0.39|0.461
84628315|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.66||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.66|-1.02|0.670
84628316|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.35||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.35|-1.37|0.243
84628317|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.48||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.48|-1.14|0.423
84628318|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.35|-1.04|0.333
84674724|NCT06893809|169084657|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|20.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sixty male patients scheduled for TURP surgery were divided into three equal groups. The results were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval, with significance set at p \< 0.05. This was achieved using SPSS 15.0. Between-group comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and Friedman tests. Within-group comparisons used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests, and Friedman tests were used for differences over time.||20|10|0.05
84540183|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.06||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.06|-0.32|0.2908
84628319|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.36||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.36|-1.05|0.334
84628320|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.68||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.68|-0.69|0.990
84628321|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.09||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||1.09|-0.70|0.665
84628322|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.74||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.74|-1.10|0.700
84628323|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.48||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.48|-1.23|0.386
84628324|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.27|0.120
84628325|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.29|0.119
84628326|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.69||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.69|-0.71|0.976
84628327|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.2||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||2.20|0.14|0.026
84761352|NCT03440814|169279206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline growth hormone use and HQ-CT total score. All available subject data were used with no imputation of missing data.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||0.89|-4.24|0.1983
84761353|NCT03440814|169279207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.0294
84761354|NCT03440814|169279208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.4089
84540184|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.24||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.24|-0.15|0.7277
84628328|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.42||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||1.42|-0.69|0.497
84628329|NCT00385671|168994922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.19||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.19|-1.80|0.112
84628330|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.486
84628331|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.983
84628332|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||p-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.411
84628333|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.554
84628334|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.128
84628335|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.488
84628336|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.226
84761355|NCT03440814|169279209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline body fat mass value as a covariate, and randomization stratification variables (as randomized) as factors.||||-0.15|-1.95|0.0225
84761356|NCT03440814|169279210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model for repeated measurements was used. All available data collected before the March 1, 2020 cutoff from each subject were included.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||-0.19|-6.06|0.0369
84761357|NCT01437397|169279211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.144|0.073|<0.0001
84628337|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.710
84628338|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.133
84628339|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.257
84628340|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.412
84628341|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.030
84628342|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.024
84628343|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.250
84628344|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.489
84628345|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.682
84628346|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.953
84761358|NCT01437397|169279211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.123|0.052|<0.0001
84761359|NCT01437397|169279212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.079|0.011|0.010
84761360|NCT01437397|169279212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.060|-0.008|0.133
84761361|NCT01437397|169279213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|2.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||2.018|0.854|<0.0001
84628347|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.803
84628348|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.694
84628349|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.835
84628350|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.435
84628351|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.379
84628352|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.247
84628353|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.784
84628354|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||p-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.696
84628355|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.725
84628356|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.899
84761362|NCT01437397|169279213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||1.972|0.818|<0.0001
84761363|NCT01437397|169279214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.462|-2.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-2.244|-6.462|<0.0001
84761364|NCT01437397|169279214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.819|-1.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-1.637|-5.819|0.0005
84628357|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.782
84628358|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.307
84628359|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.457
84628360|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.712
84628361|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.403
84628362|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.713
84628363|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.498
84628364|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.963
84628365|NCT00385671|168994923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.338
84628366|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.645
84628367|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.248
84628368|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.470
84628369|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.914
84628370|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.505
84628371|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.570
84628372|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.430
84628373|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.090
84628374|NCT00385671|168994924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.341
84628375|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.130
84628376|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.192
84628377|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.936
84628378|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.480
84628379|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.690
84674725|NCT06893809|169084657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied. Non-parametric method used due to ordinal scale structure.|Kruskal-Wallis||Patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared across study arms.|The aim of this analysis is to compare the three groups in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction using a superiority approach. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction scores between the groups. Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.||0|0|>0.05
84761365|NCT00903175|169279215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective was to assess the non-inferiority of everolimus as compared to Sunitinib in terms of PFS-1L \& was based on Bayesian methodology. If the estimated HR for PFS-1L had a value ≤ 1.1, non-inferiority of everolimus to Sunitinib would be declared. Non-inferiority of everolimus compared with Sunitinib as a first-line therapy was not achieved. The estimated HR for PFS-1L was 1.43 which did not satisfy the protocol-defined non-inferiority margin of a HR ≤ 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.77||||||||1.77|1.15|
84628380|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.923
84628381|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.202
84628382|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.114
84628383|NCT00385671|168994925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.954
84628384|NCT00385671|168994926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for tests of direct and indirect effects.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.107
84628385|NCT00385671|168994927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.968
84628386|NCT00385671|168994927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.492
84628387|NCT00385671|168994927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.463
84628388|NCT00385671|168994930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.103
84628389|NCT00385671|168994930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.167
84628390|NCT00385671|168994930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.919
84761366|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|63.2||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.2|42.4|<0.0001
84761367|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|58.9||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.9|38.2|<0.0001
84761368|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.9||||||||14.9|-6.0|
84761369|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
84761370|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
84628391|NCT00385671|168994933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.008
84628392|NCT00385671|168994933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.033
84628393|NCT00385671|168994933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.688
84628394|NCT00385671|168994935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.90|-0.33|0.365
84628395|NCT00385671|168994935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||1.13|-0.20|0.172
84628396|NCT00385671|168994935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.85||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.85|-0.49|0.594
84628397|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.8||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.80|-0.48|0.622
84628398|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.16|-0.18|0.153
84628399|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.00|-0.35|0.344
84674726|NCT06893809|169084659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test used due to ordinal scale and non-normal distribution.|Sensory block levels compared across study arms using numerical dermatomal codes.|||1.6|0.5|0.05
84761371|NCT01358864|169279245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
84761372|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|54.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|65.0||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.0|44.4|<0.0001
84761373|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.8||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.8|40.1|<0.0001
84761374|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.9||||||||14.9|-5.8|
84761375|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
84540185|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.17||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.8463
84628400|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.45||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.45|-0.02|0.058
84628401|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.59|0.07|0.032
84628402|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.9||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.90|-0.66|0.762
84628403|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.73||P-value is for de novo, week 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.73|0.09|0.029
84628404|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.97||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.97|0.27|0.010
84628405|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.06||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.06|-0.63|0.619
84628406|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.69||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||1.69|-0.03|0.058
84628407|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.41||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||2.41|0.61|0.001
84628408|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.58||P-value is for de nove, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.58|-0.23|0.142
84628409|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.76||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.76|-0.05|0.065
84674727|NCT06893809|169084661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||Kruskal-Wallis||Dermatomal regression levels were compared across groups at 60 minutes.|||0.93|0.07|<0.05
84628410|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||2.65|0.75|<0.001
84628411|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.79||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.79|-0.10|0.079
84628412|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 6 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.71|-0.13|0.093
84628413|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.53||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||2.53|0.59|0.002
84628414|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.74||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.74|-0.20|0.119
84628415|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.91||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.91|0.06|0.036
84628416|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.61||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.61|0.68|<0.001
84628417|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.63||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.63|-0.30|0.178
84628418|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.75||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.75|-0.14|0.093
84628419|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.51|0.53|0.003
84761376|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
84761377|NCT01358864|169279247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
84761378|NCT04209855|169279256|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.513|<0.0001
84761379|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.047||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.047
84761380|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.549||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.549
84761381|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.511||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.511
84628420|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.71|-0.28|0.157
84628421|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.82||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.82|-0.05|0.063
84761382|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.031||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.031
84761383|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.483||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.483
84540186|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.11|-0.28|0.5281
84628422|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||2.66|0.70|<0.001
84628423|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.77||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.77|-0.19|0.114
84674728|NCT00991302|169084697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|stratified by dosing complexity||"Treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by dosing complexity.~The test was not stratified by region of enrollment due to dosing complexity and region of enrollment were almost identical: almost all (exception with two) participants in the US region were on QD and all participants in the Peru region were on BID or TID."||||0.52
84674729|NCT02573324|169084716|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|Terms abbreviated below: O6-methylguaninemethlytransferese (MGMT); Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA); EGFRde2-7 (EGFRvIII)||1.26|0.82|0.633
84674730|NCT02573324|169084716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.704
84674731|NCT02573324|169084717|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.24|0.76|0.504
84674732|NCT02573324|169084717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.599
84674733|NCT02573324|169084718|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.80|0.76|0.773
84674734|NCT02573324|169084718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.740
84628424|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.46|-0.44|0.295
84628425|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||2.44|0.45|0.005
84628426|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.94||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.94|-0.06|0.066
84628427|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.58||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.58|-0.35|0.208
84674735|NCT02573324|169084719|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.27|0.71|0.381
84674736|NCT02573324|169084719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.409
84674737|NCT02573324|169084720|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.01|0.70|0.029
84674738|NCT02573324|169084721|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||0.93|0.56|0.002
84628428|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||2.51|0.49|0.004
84628429|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.89||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.89|-0.13|0.086
84628430|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.45||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.45|-0.49|0.328
84628431|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||2.47|0.44|0.005
84628432|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.99||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.99|-0.04|0.059
84628433|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.79|-0.09|0.117
84628434|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.62|-0.25|0.412
84628435|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.26|-0.60|0.445
84628436|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.09||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.09|0.07|0.025
84628437|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.79|-0.21|0.257
84644842|NCT02660138|169025072|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|84.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.73|125.89|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||125.89|43.73|<0.0001
84540187|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.11|-0.28|0.5747
84628438|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
84628439|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.04|-0.05|0.075
84628440|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.68|-0.42|0.634
84628441|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.19|-0.91|0.193
84628442|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.70|-0.46|0.688
84628443|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.56||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.56|-0.60|0.944
84628444|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.45|-0.73|0.640
84628445|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.37|0.439
84628446|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.38|0.461
84628447|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.6||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.60|-0.62|0.976
84628448|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.68|-0.55|0.829
84628449|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.74||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.74|-0.50|0.713
84628450|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.67||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.67|-0.58|0.878
84628451|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.85||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.85|-0.38|0.447
84628452|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.83|-0.41|0.511
84628453|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.59|-0.65|0.924
84628454|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.06||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.06|-0.20|0.185
84628455|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.91|-0.37|0.403
84628456|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.49|-0.79|0.636
84674739|NCT02573324|169084722|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.329||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.626||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.626|1.087|0.994
84761384|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.53||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.530
84761385|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.421||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes included as non-responders.||||0.421
84761386|NCT01745146|169279303|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.332||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.332
84761387|NCT01885000|169279380|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0065
84761388|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who satisfied with appearance.||||= 0.0328
84628457|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
84628458|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.97||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.97|-0.29|0.295
84674740|NCT02573324|169084723|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.185||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.446||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.446|0.972|0.938
84628459|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.64|-0.62|0.975
84674741|NCT02573324|169084724|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.136||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.402||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.402|0.921|0.814
84761389|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance acceptable.||||= 0.5312
84761390|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance concerned.||||= 0.0756
84761391|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who embarrassed with facial redness.||||= 0.0083
84761392|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who self-conscious.||||= 0.0076
84761393|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2186|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who's frequency control last 24 hours||||= 0.2186
84761394|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2373|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who are frustrated.||||= 0.2373
84761395|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who cover up or camouflage.||||= 0.7769
84761396|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who pay attention to the known triggers.||||= 0.8764
84761397|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who avoid the known triggers.||||= 0.6149
84761398|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who interfering with social life.||||= 0.8361
84761399|NCT01885000|169279381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6259|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Interfering with work life||||= 0.6259
84628460|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.93|-0.33|0.349
84628461|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.94|-0.34|0.351
84761400|NCT01885000|169279382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5821|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Mobility.||||= 0.5821
84761401|NCT01885000|169279382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8864|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Self-Care.||||= 0.8864
84628462|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.65|-0.64|0.992
84761402|NCT01885000|169279382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9579|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for usual activities.||||= 0.9579
84761403|NCT01885000|169279382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Pain/Discomfort.||||= 0.1344
84761404|NCT01885000|169279382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1881|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety/Depression||||= 0.1881
84761405|NCT01885000|169279383|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.3935
84761406|NCT01885000|169279384|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.4162
84761407|NCT01789814|169279414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Prasugrel treatment when compared to Clopidogrel was associated with significant reduction in platelets aggregation for all plateles agonist (ADD, SFFFLRN, AYPGKF) at all measured time points.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each patient will have paired samples representing their baseline as well as an on-drug sample. The magnitude of platelet inhibition for each studied agonist will be performed utilizing mean maximal change from baseline in light transmission aggregometry. The paired samples will be analyzed using a two-tailed student's t-test. Statistical significance will be assumed to occur when p\<0.05.||||0.001
84761408|NCT03806127|169279415|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|12.3|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||12.3|-16.1|
84761409|NCT03806127|169279416|OTHER||CMH Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|22.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-D Participants||22.9|-4.8|
84761410|NCT03806127|169279416|OTHER||CMH Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.7|16.4|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-M Participants||16.4|-16.7|
84761411|NCT03806127|169279416|OTHER||CMH Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|All Participants||15.9|-5.4|
84761412|NCT03806127|169279417|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|14.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||14.9|-11.7|
84761413|NCT03806127|169279418|OTHER||CMH Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||18.8|-5.5|
84761414|NCT04302727|169279422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84761415|NCT04302727|169279422|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fully adjusted model||1.93|-1.19|0.64
84628463|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.77||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.77|-0.50|0.681
84628464|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.83|-0.46|0.569
84628465|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.70|-0.60|0.871
84628466|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.78|-0.50|0.675
84628467|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.72||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.72|-0.57|0.823
84628468|NCT00385671|168994936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.59|-0.72|0.850
84628469|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.448
84628470|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.118
84628471|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.021
84628472|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.537
84761416|NCT04302727|169279423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
84761417|NCT04302727|169279423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.67
84761418|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 4||||0.02
84761419|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 4||||<0.0001
84761420|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 12||||0.82
84628473|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.911
84628474|NCT00385671|168994938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.627
84628475|NCT00385671|168994939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.078
84628476|NCT00385671|168994939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.130
84628477|NCT00385671|168994939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.850
84628478|NCT00385671|168994940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
84628479|NCT00385671|168994940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
84628480|NCT00385671|168994940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||0.011
84628481|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||0.830
84628482|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
84628483|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
84628484|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.060
84674742|NCT03892889|169084726|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used based on the prospective phase efficacy sample when applicable.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84761421|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 12||||0.75
84761422|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 24||||0.87
84761423|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 24||||0.27
84761424|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 4||||<0.0001
84761425|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 12||||0.66
84761426|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 24||||0.96
84628485|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.502
84628486|NCT00385671|168994941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.376
84628487|NCT00385671|168994942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.281
84628488|NCT00385671|168994942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.060
84628489|NCT00385671|168994942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.596
84628490|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.332
84628491|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.065
84628492|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.622
84628493|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.103
84628494|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.034
84628495|NCT00385671|168994943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.808
84628496|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.055
84628497|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.051
84628498|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.993
84761427|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 4||||0.0003
84761428|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 12||||0.34
84761429|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 24||||0.20
84761430|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 4||||<0.0001
84761431|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 12||||0.83
84761432|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 24||||0.54
84761433|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 4||||0.008
84761434|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 12||||0.58
84628499|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.928
84628500|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.609
84628501|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.675
84628502|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.985
84628503|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.847
84628504|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.832
84628505|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.169
84628506|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.910
84628507|NCT00385671|168994944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.134
84628508|NCT00385671|168994945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 total bilirubin.||||0.285
84628509|NCT00385671|168994945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.505
84674743|NCT02066298|169084727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||exact binomial test|a priori threshold for significance was 0.025||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.14
84761435|NCT04302727|169279424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 24||||0.79
84761436|NCT04302727|169279425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.001
84761437|NCT04302727|169279425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.57
84761438|NCT04302727|169279425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.32
84761439|NCT04302727|169279426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.77
84761440|NCT04302727|169279426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.48
84761441|NCT04302727|169279426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.68
84761442|NCT04302727|169279427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.91
84761443|NCT04302727|169279427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.52
84761444|NCT04302727|169279427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.97
84628510|NCT00385671|168994945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.679
84628511|NCT00385671|168994946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.047
84628512|NCT00385671|168994946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.232
84628513|NCT00385671|168994946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.424
84628514|NCT00385671|168994947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.298
84628515|NCT00385671|168994947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.987
84628516|NCT00385671|168994947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.297
84628517|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||1.00
84628518|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.749
84628519|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.750
84628520|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.050
84628521|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.320
84761445|NCT04302727|169279428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.29
84761446|NCT04302727|169279428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84761447|NCT04302727|169279428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.09
84761448|NCT04302727|169279429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.96
84761449|NCT04302727|169279429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.77
84761450|NCT04302727|169279429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.94
84761451|NCT04302727|169279430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.55
84761452|NCT04302727|169279430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.83
84761453|NCT04302727|169279430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
84628522|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.440
84628523|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.498
84628524|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.245
84628525|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.160
84628526|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.280
84628527|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||1.00
84628528|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.023
84628529|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.264
84628530|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.325
84628531|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||1.00
84628532|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.121
84628533|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.095
84628534|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||1.00
84628535|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.720
84674744|NCT02066298|169084727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.025|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.029
84761454|NCT04302727|169279431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.99
84761455|NCT04302727|169279431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.71
84761456|NCT04302727|169279431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
84761457|NCT04302727|169279432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.05
84761458|NCT04302727|169279432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.42
84761459|NCT04302727|169279432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.02
84761460|NCT04302727|169279433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
84761461|NCT04302727|169279433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.56
84540188|NCT04856917|168830938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.14|-0.24|0.5081
84628536|NCT00385671|168994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.722
84628537|NCT02535481|168995016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||At 6 weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.366
84628538|NCT02535481|168995016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||At 3 months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84628539|NCT02535481|168995017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative wound healing followed by a log rank test||||||<0.0001
84628540|NCT02535481|168995018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
84628541|NCT02535481|168995019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84628542|NCT02535481|168995020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 6 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84628543|NCT02535481|168995020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 3 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84628544|NCT05543265|168995028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.8|||Chi-squared|||||28.8|6.4|<0.001
84628545|NCT02766023|168995056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.10|0.467
84628546|NCT02766023|168995057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||Chi-squared|||||0.95|0.30|0.031
84628547|NCT02766023|168995058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for self-reported compliance||0.15|-0.08|0.643
84761462|NCT04302727|169279433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84628548|NCT02766023|168995058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for compliance assessed by staining.||0.17|-0.07|0.446
84628549|NCT02766023|168995067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.02|218.57|||Chi-squared|||||218.57|29.02|<0.001
84628550|NCT02766023|168995075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.07|188.66|||Chi-squared|||||188.66|28.07|<0.001
84628551|NCT02766023|168995076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.31|0.030
84628552|NCT00286468|168995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for glycosylated hemoglobin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per-protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level, and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
84628553|NCT00286468|168995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per-protocol criteria.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.001
84628554|NCT00286468|168995080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.13||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.13|-0.33|<0.001
84628555|NCT00286468|168995080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
84628556|NCT00286468|168995081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
84761463|NCT04302727|169279434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.96
84761464|NCT04302727|169279434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.88
84761465|NCT04302727|169279434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.29
84761466|NCT04302727|169279435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.82
84628557|NCT00286468|168995081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.61|<0.001
84628558|NCT00286468|168995082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
84628559|NCT00286468|168995082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.68|<0.001
84628560|NCT00286468|168995083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
84628561|NCT00286468|168995083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
84628562|NCT00286468|168995084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
84628563|NCT00286468|168995084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.71|<0.001
84628564|NCT00286468|168995085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.4|-20.8|0.006
84628565|NCT00286468|168995085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-28.0|<0.001
84628566|NCT00286468|168995086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-7.2|-22.5|<0.001
84628567|NCT00286468|168995086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-12.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.4|-27.7|<0.001
84628568|NCT00286468|168995087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.6|-19.3|0.010
84761467|NCT04302727|169279435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.25
84761468|NCT04302727|169279435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.48
84628569|NCT00286468|168995087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-9.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.1|-25.8|<0.001
84628570|NCT00286468|168995088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-8.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.2|-25.2|<0.001
84761469|NCT04302727|169279436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.0007
84761470|NCT04302727|169279436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.51
84628571|NCT00286468|168995088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-23.9|<0.001
84628572|NCT00286468|168995089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-19.2|0.030
84628573|NCT00286468|168995089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-2.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.5|-20.8|0.012
84628574|NCT00286468|168995090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-11.6|0.701
84628575|NCT00286468|168995090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.7|-15.7|0.228
84628576|NCT00286468|168995091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-19.6|0.097
84628577|NCT00286468|168995091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-2.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.7|-23.9|0.014
84628578|NCT00286468|168995092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-18.3|0.241
84628579|NCT00286468|168995092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|0.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.9|-22.0|0.072
84628580|NCT00286468|168995093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.775||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.306|0.460|0.338
84628581|NCT00286468|168995093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.887||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.887|0.306|0.016
84628582|NCT00286468|168995094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.72||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.720|0.194|0.003
84628583|NCT00286468|168995094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.718||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.718|0.193|0.003
84628584|NCT00286468|168995095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-6.1|0.923
84628585|NCT00286468|168995095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||10.1|-2.7|0.259
84628586|NCT00286468|168995096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.9|-6.6|0.916
84674745|NCT02066298|169084727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.001
84674746|NCT02066298|169084727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.45
84628587|NCT00286468|168995096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.5|-3.0|0.305
84628588|NCT00286468|168995097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.953
84628589|NCT00286468|168995097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.957
84628590|NCT00286468|168995098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.6|-5.9|0.908
84628591|NCT00286468|168995098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-5.6|0.826
84628592|NCT00286468|168995099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.8|-5.9|0.894
84628593|NCT00286468|168995099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.9|-3.8|0.432
84628594|NCT00286468|168995100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-8.1|0.548
84628595|NCT00286468|168995100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.2|-6.3|0.986
84628596|NCT00286468|168995101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.30|-1.78|0.415
84628597|NCT00286468|168995101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.55|-1.54|0.332
84628598|NCT00286468|168995102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.85|-2.47|0.890
84674747|NCT00630877|169084735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84674748|NCT00630877|169084737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
84674749|NCT00630877|169084738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
84674750|NCT00630877|169084739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
84674751|NCT00630877|169084740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
84674752|NCT00630877|169084741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||0.002
84761471|NCT04302727|169279436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.91
84628599|NCT00286468|168995102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.86||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.86|-1.48|0.380
84628600|NCT00286468|168995103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|4.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.85|-2.14|0.448
84628601|NCT00286468|168995103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-2.48|0.568
84628602|NCT00286468|168995104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|6.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.22|-0.32|0.077
84628603|NCT00286468|168995104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|4.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.99|-1.55|0.303
84628604|NCT00286468|168995105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.57|-2.08|0.461
84628605|NCT00286468|168995105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.32|-2.34|0.559
84628606|NCT00286468|168995106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.62||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.62|-1.54|0.430
84628607|NCT00286468|168995106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.61|-0.56|0.124
84628608|NCT00286468|168995107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.013||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.013|-0.099|0.011
84628609|NCT00286468|168995107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.078|0.116
84674753|NCT00630877|169084742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||<0.001
84628610|NCT00286468|168995108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.006|-0.081|0.024
84628611|NCT00286468|168995108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.074|0.059
84628612|NCT00286468|168995109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.011|-0.067|0.159
84628613|NCT00286468|168995109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.077|0.055
84761472|NCT04302727|169279437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.83
84761473|NCT04302727|169279437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.68
84628614|NCT00286468|168995110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.002|-0.080|0.062
84628615|NCT00286468|168995110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.002|-0.084|0.041
84628616|NCT00286468|168995111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.010|-0.069|0.148
84628617|NCT00286468|168995111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.071|0.135
84628618|NCT00286468|168995112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
84628619|NCT00286468|168995112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
84628620|NCT00286468|168995113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.486||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.486|-0.161|0.324
84628621|NCT00286468|168995113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.500|-0.147|0.284
84628622|NCT00286468|168995114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.540|-0.004|0.053
84628623|NCT00286468|168995114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.621||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.621|0.077|0.012
84628624|NCT00286468|168995115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.458||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.458|-0.094|0.196
84628625|NCT00286468|168995115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.502||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.502|-0.051|0.110
84628626|NCT00286468|168995116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.517||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.517|-0.060|0.121
84628627|NCT00286468|168995116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.448||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.448|-0.130|0.280
84628628|NCT00286468|168995117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.320|-0.290|0.924
84674754|NCT01513317|169084789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.082||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who had a reduction in RBC transfusion to treat the anemia of MDS.|||0.20|-0.03|0.271
84628629|NCT00286468|168995117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.444||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.444|-0.168|0.376
84628630|NCT00286468|168995118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.393||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.393|-0.242|0.642
84628631|NCT00286468|168995118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.381||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.381|-0.255|0.698
84628632|NCT00286468|168995119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|3.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.306|0.503|0.596
84628633|NCT00286468|168995119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|4.885||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.885|0.787|0.148
84628634|NCT00286468|168995120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.666||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.666|1.011|0.046
84628635|NCT00286468|168995120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.313|4.78||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.780|1.313|0.005
84628636|NCT00286468|168995121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.519||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.519|1.086|0.025
84628637|NCT00286468|168995121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.707|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.012|6.831||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.831|2.012|<0.001
84628638|NCT00286468|168995122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.994|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.213||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.213|1.720|<0.001
84674755|NCT01513317|169084790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.93|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the change from baseline hemoglobin levels at Week 13.|||0.93|-0.79|0.872
84628639|NCT00286468|168995122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.933||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.933|1.950|<0.001
84628640|NCT00286468|168995123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.627||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.627|0.870|0.115
84628641|NCT00286468|168995123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|6.851||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.851|1.703|<0.001
84628642|NCT00286468|168995124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.689||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||2.689|0.365|0.986
84628643|NCT00286468|168995124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|5.203||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.203|0.808|0.131
84628644|NCT00286468|168995125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.626
84628645|NCT00286468|168995125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.178
84674756|NCT01513317|169084791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.042||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants achieving hemoglobin improvement at Week 13.|||0.15|-0.06|0.494
84761474|NCT04302727|169279437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.64
84628646|NCT00286468|168995126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.16|0.32|<0.001
84628647|NCT00286468|168995126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.02|0.17|0.006
84628648|NCT00286468|168995127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.18|0.20|0.006
84628649|NCT00286468|168995127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.01|0.02|0.040
84628650|NCT00286468|168995128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.73|0.47|<0.001
84628651|NCT00286468|168995128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.55|0.28|0.005
84628652|NCT00286468|168995129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|0.14|0.018
84628653|NCT00286468|168995129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.54|0.21|0.010
84628654|NCT02927301|168995141|SUPERIORITY||Other/Percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.9||||binomial test||||||14.900|<.0001
84628655|NCT02927301|168995142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.41||||0.0358|ONE_SIDED|80.0|5.279||||Fisher Exact||||||5.279|0.0358
84674757|NCT01513317|169084792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.002||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who did not require a blood transfusion in the 8 weeks of treatment before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.09|-0.09|0.986
84628656|NCT02927301|168995143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.363||||0.0395|ONE_SIDED|80.0|6.509||||Chi-squared||||||6.509|0.0395
84628657|NCT04742556|168995149|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.0051||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84628658|NCT04742556|168995149|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.03105||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84628659|NCT04742556|168995149|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.27405||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84628660|NCT03305666|168995196|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84628661|NCT03305666|168995197|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #1.||||0.41
84628662|NCT03305666|168995197|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #2.||||0.25
84628663|NCT03305666|168995197|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #3.||||0.12
84628664|NCT03305666|168995197|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #4.||||0.04
84674758|NCT01513317|169084793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.96||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.27|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means for changes from baseline in bone marrow blasts at Week 13.|||6.27|-2.35|0.363
84674759|NCT01513317|169084794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.69||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.17|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the number of RBC transfusions during the 8 weeks of treament before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.17|-3.55|0.073
84761475|NCT04302727|169279438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
84761476|NCT04302727|169279438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.0001
84761477|NCT04302727|169279438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
84761478|NCT04302727|169279439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Month 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84761479|NCT04302727|169279439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12||||0.40
84761480|NCT04302727|169279439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 24||||0.82
84761481|NCT04302727|169279440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.44
84761482|NCT04302727|169279440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
84628665|NCT03305666|168995197|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #5.||||0.32
84628666|NCT03305666|168995198|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
84628667|NCT02587221|168995205|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.45|-5.27|38.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||38.91|-5.27|
84628668|NCT02587221|168995210|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as the presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|32.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|48.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||48.67|10.23|
84628669|NCT02587221|168995211|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (eg. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|79.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||79.79|-24.03|
84761483|NCT04302727|169279440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.28
84628670|NCT02587221|168995212|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|86.28|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||86.28|-7.98|
84628671|NCT02587221|168995213|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any vaccine strain regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|28.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|49.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||49.08|0.05|
84761484|NCT04302727|169279441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.32
84761485|NCT04302727|169279441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
84761486|NCT04302727|169279441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
84761487|NCT04302727|169279442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
84761488|NCT04302727|169279442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.16
84761489|NCT04302727|169279442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.27
84761490|NCT04302727|169279443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
84761491|NCT04302727|169279443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.01
84761492|NCT04302727|169279443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.06
84761493|NCT04302727|169279444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.41
84761494|NCT04302727|169279444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.24
84761495|NCT04302727|169279444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.74
84761496|NCT04302727|169279445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.13
84761497|NCT04302727|169279445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.10
84761498|NCT04302727|169279445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.12
84761499|NCT04302727|169279446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.002
84761500|NCT04302727|169279446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.001
84761501|NCT04302727|169279446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||<0.001
84761502|NCT05215600|169279450|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
84761503|NCT05215600|169279451|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
84540189|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.20|-0.19|0.8338
84628672|NCT02587221|168995214|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|33.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|54.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||54.57|2.56|
84628673|NCT02587221|168995215|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI is the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|23.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|47.05|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||47.05|-9.69|
84628674|NCT02587221|168995216|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|26.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|51.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||51.13|-11.71|
84628675|NCT02587221|168995221|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.21|66.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||66.67|28.21|
84628676|NCT02587221|168995222|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)"|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|74.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|94.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||94.68|-17.93|
84628677|NCT02587221|168995223|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|60.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.19|76.94|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.94|31.19|
84628678|NCT02587221|168995224|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|57.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.73|76.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.09|22.73|
84628679|NCT02546609|168995225|OTHER|||||||0.0572|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0572
84628680|NCT02546609|168995225|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3770
84628681|NCT02546609|168995226|OTHER|||||||0.3811|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3811
84761504|NCT03092726|169279455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.5||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Differences of least squares (LS) means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a mixed-effect, repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline to each week from weeks 1 to 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 1 to 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||0.50|-0.38|0.590
84628682|NCT02546609|168995226|OTHER|||||||0.8479|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8479
84628683|NCT02546609|168995227|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.7742
84628684|NCT02546609|168995227|OTHER|||||||0.6666|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6666
84628685|NCT02546609|168995228|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0020
84628686|NCT02546609|168995228|OTHER|||||||0.0164|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0164
84628687|NCT02546609|168995229|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4099
84628688|NCT02546609|168995229|OTHER|||||||0.1455|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.1455
84628689|NCT02546609|168995230|OTHER|||||||0.2559|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2559
84628690|NCT02546609|168995230|OTHER|||||||0.9776|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.9776
84628691|NCT02546609|168995231|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2265
84628692|NCT02546609|168995231|OTHER|||||||0.8366|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8366
84628693|NCT02546609|168995232|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
84628694|NCT02546609|168995232|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
84628695|NCT02546609|168995233|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
84628696|NCT02546609|168995233|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
84628697|NCT02546609|168995234|OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0129
84628698|NCT02546609|168995234|OTHER|||||||0.4316|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4316
84628699|NCT02546609|168995235|OTHER|MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||||0.1946|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1946
84628700|NCT02546609|168995235|OTHER|||||||0.4697|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4697
84628701|NCT02546609|168995236|OTHER|||||||0.3474|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3474
84628702|NCT02546609|168995236|OTHER|||||||0.8832|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8832
84628703|NCT02212015|168995237|OTHER||Rate|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Question is, if 6 months progression free survival rate (PFS-R) denoted by pPFS is higher than 35%. Test hypothesis is thus formulated as: H0: pPFS ≤0.35 versus H1: pPFS ≥0.35. This hypothesis is tested at the one-side significance level of 0.05. A 6 months PFS-R of 0.55 of cases or more is considered as clinically relevant success rate. The design is chosen such that rates of 0.55 or higher can be detected with a power of at least 0.8.||||
84628704|NCT02212015|168995238|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84628705|NCT02212015|168995239|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84628706|NCT02212015|168995240|OTHER||Median|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||
84628707|NCT02212015|168995241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 1 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.752
84628708|NCT02212015|168995242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 2 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.621
84674760|NCT02873923|169084797|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.68|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.68|0.63|
84628709|NCT02212015|168995243|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequency of each category is given|||
84628710|NCT02212015|168995244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE)|Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies applied to the total of 26 enrolled subjects.. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE).|||0.349
84628711|NCT02212015|168995245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||||||0.385
84628712|NCT03988400|168995330|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84628713|NCT03988400|168995331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
84628714|NCT03988400|168995332|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84628715|NCT03988400|168995333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84628716|NCT03988400|168995334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84628717|NCT03988400|168995335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84628718|NCT03988400|168995336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84628719|NCT03988400|168995337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84628720|NCT03988400|168995338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84628721|NCT03988400|168995339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84628722|NCT02542865|168995340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance(ANCOVA):cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group (fortified malt based food plus dietary counselling) minus Control Group (dietary counselling only).|||0.8|-12.7|0.0628
84628723|NCT02542865|168995340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group minus Control Group. The corresponding CI is not presented as there is no direct back-transformation.|Since the distribution of the data was found to be more skewed with more zero counts than was anticipated at the time the trial was designed, an additional analysis of log (+1)-transformed data was performed.||||0.0390
84628724|NCT03164668|168995364|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.72|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||0.72|0.13|
84628725|NCT03164668|168995364|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||1.22|0.78|
84628726|NCT03164668|168995365|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.61|||||Model estimated mean ratio in puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those randomized to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||6.61|1.39|
84628727|NCT03164668|168995365|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||||Estimated mean ratio of number of puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||0.92|0.59|
84628728|NCT02913482|168995486|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628729|NCT02913482|168995487|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628730|NCT02913482|168995488|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628731|NCT02913482|168995494|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 12% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628732|NCT02913482|168995496|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628733|NCT02913482|168995497|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84628734|NCT02913482|168995498|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
84628735|NCT02913482|168995499|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
84628736|NCT02913482|168995503|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 42% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.0001
84628737|NCT02913482|168995504|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 60% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.0005|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.0005
84628738|NCT02913482|168995505|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 89% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.2595|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.2595
84761505|NCT03092726|169279459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|-6.6||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|5.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||5.7|-18.7|0.874
84761506|NCT03092726|169279459|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|-5.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|6.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||6.7|-17.7|0.838
84628739|NCT02005016|168995518|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment PNT scores (range: 1-175; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.005
84628740|NCT02005016|168995519|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment CAT modality mean T-scores (range: 30-70, mean: 50; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84628741|NCT00168844|168995540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84628742|NCT00168844|168995540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84628743|NCT00168844|168995541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.0011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0011
84628744|NCT00168844|168995541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84628745|NCT00168844|168995542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84628746|NCT00168844|168995542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.||||||<0.0001
84628747|NCT00168844|168995543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
84628748|NCT00168844|168995543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
84628749|NCT00168844|168995587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628750|NCT00168844|168995587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628751|NCT00168844|168995588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628752|NCT00168844|168995588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628753|NCT00168844|168995589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628754|NCT00168844|168995589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628755|NCT00168844|168995590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628756|NCT00168844|168995590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628757|NCT00168844|168995591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628758|NCT00168844|168995591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628759|NCT00168844|168995592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628760|NCT00168844|168995592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84628761|NCT01446159|168995649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.429|||Log Rank|||||1.429|0.689|0.86
84761507|NCT03092726|169279460|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|2.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|14.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||14.4|-10.0|0.412
84761508|NCT03092726|169279460|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|4.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|16.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||16.4|-7.9|0.269
84761509|NCT03092726|169279461|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|2.68||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||2.68|-4.05|0.369
84761510|NCT03092726|169279461|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|3.24||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.24|-4.51|0.393
84761511|NCT03092726|169279461|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|5.3|||MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.30|-3.57|0.626
84674761|NCT02873923|169084798|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.005|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.005|0.00|
84761512|NCT03092726|169279461|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.16|5.34||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.34|-3.16|0.664
84761513|NCT03092726|169279462|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.22|-2.90|0.534
84761514|NCT03092726|169279462|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|4.91||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||4.91|-1.98|0.758
84761515|NCT03092726|169279462|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|5.96||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.96|-2.56|0.745
84761516|NCT03092726|169279462|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|5.69||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.69|-2.34|0.755
84761517|NCT03092726|169279463|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.17||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.17|-0.78|0.629
84761518|NCT03092726|169279463|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|1.04||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.04|-1.37|0.410
84628762|NCT00537394|168995669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin defined as 15 percentage points. If the confidence interval for the difference in regimen failure between omitting versus adding NRTIs was fully below 15 percentage points, then omitting NRTIs would be concluded to be not inferior to adding NRTIs for this outcome.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|12.5|||||Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and stratum. Differences in week 48 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each stratum.|Null Hypothesis was that omitting NRTIs is inferior to adding NRTIs for the outcome of regimen failure through 48 weeks.||12.5|-6.1|
84628763|NCT01283139|168995684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.03|0.057
84628764|NCT01283139|168995684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|1.01|0.094
84628765|NCT01283139|168995684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|1.16|0.031
84628766|NCT01283139|168995685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.13|0.042
84628767|NCT01283139|168995685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.85|0.264
84628768|NCT01283139|168995685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.14|0.038
84628769|NCT01283139|168995686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.37|0.808
84628770|NCT01283139|168995686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|0.45|0.598
84628771|NCT01283139|168995686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|0.27|0.884
84628772|NCT01283139|168995687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.01|1.22|0.044
84628773|NCT01283139|168995687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.62|0.498
84628774|NCT01283139|168995687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.68|1.20|0.049
84628775|NCT01283139|168995688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.85|0.270
84628776|NCT01283139|168995688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|1.04|0.077
84628777|NCT01283139|168995688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.76|0.453
84628778|NCT03577275|168995727|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.~Assay sensitivity was evaluated by concentration-QTc analysis of the effect on delta delta QTcF of moxifloxacin using a similar model as for the primary analysis."|The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.|||
84628779|NCT02994108|168995732|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|0.415||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.601
84628780|NCT02994108|168995733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.249
84628781|NCT02994108|168995734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.675
84628782|NCT02994108|168995735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.08|1.17|.025
84628783|NCT02994108|168995736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.95|0.08|.923
84628784|NCT02994108|168995737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.174
84628785|NCT02994108|168995738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84628786|NCT02994108|168995739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.964
84628787|NCT02994108|168995740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
84628788|NCT02994108|168995741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.183
84628789|NCT02994108|168995742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
84628790|NCT02994108|168995743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.147
84628791|NCT02994108|168995744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.096
84628792|NCT02994108|168995745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
84628793|NCT01097668|168995781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'ITT population' MRI data with week 16 data.||||<0.001
84628794|NCT01097668|168995781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'MRI population' data with data from week 16.||||0.030
84628795|NCT01428258|168995853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-147.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.0||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84628796|NCT01428258|168995853|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.136
84628797|NCT01428258|168995853|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
84628798|NCT01428258|168995854|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.576
84761519|NCT03092726|169279463|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.22|-1.11|0.531
84628799|NCT01428258|168995855|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.902
84628800|NCT01428258|168995856|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.797
84628801|NCT01428258|168995857|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84628802|NCT05316597|168995947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.914
84628803|NCT05316597|168995948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||.554
84628804|NCT05316597|168995949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.905
84628805|NCT05316597|168995950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.076
84628806|NCT05316597|168995950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.02
84628807|NCT05316597|168995951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.210
84628808|NCT05316597|168995951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.57
84628809|NCT05316597|168995952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.921
84628810|NCT05316597|168995952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
84628811|NCT05316597|168995953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.265
84628812|NCT05316597|168995953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
84628813|NCT05316597|168995954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.724
84628814|NCT05316597|168995955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.716
84628815|NCT05316597|168995956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.852
84628816|NCT05316597|168995957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.166
84628817|NCT05316597|168995958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.046
84628818|NCT03547518|168995973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
84628819|NCT03547518|168995974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
84628820|NCT03547518|168995975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0393
84628821|NCT03547518|168995976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
84628822|NCT03547518|168995977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855
84628823|NCT02923726|168995995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.57|0.92|||Log Rank||Shock only was the reference group. Confidence interval adjusted for interim analyses.|||0.92|0.57|0.005
84628824|NCT02923726|168995996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank||Shock Only was the reference group.|||1.07|0.78|0.284
84628825|NCT02923726|168995997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||Log Rank||Shock Only arm is reference group.|||0.95|0.56|0.020
84628826|NCT02923726|168995998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||0.97|0.44|0.033
84628827|NCT02923726|168995999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||1.41|0.94|0.184
84628828|NCT04386291|168996000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.071
84628829|NCT04386291|168996000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.46
84628830|NCT04386291|168996001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84628831|NCT04386291|168996001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
84628832|NCT04386291|168996002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
84628833|NCT04386291|168996002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5
84761520|NCT03092726|169279463|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.28||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.93|0.603
84761521|NCT03092726|169279464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.67||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 2: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.67|0.68|0.811
84761522|NCT03092726|169279464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.22||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 4: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.22|0.50|0.368
84628834|NCT04386291|168996003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
84628835|NCT04386291|168996003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
84628836|NCT04386291|168996004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
84628837|NCT04386291|168996004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
84628838|NCT04386291|168996005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.038
84628839|NCT04386291|168996005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.059
84628840|NCT04386291|168996006|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.9
84628841|NCT04386291|168996006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subpression subscale analysis||||0.23
84628842|NCT04386291|168996006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.7
84628843|NCT04386291|168996006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Suppression subscale analysis||||0.5
84628844|NCT04386291|168996007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84628845|NCT04386291|168996008|SUPERIORITY||mean rank difference|79.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Witney was used because assumption of normality of variance was violated||||||0.076
84628846|NCT04386291|168996008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
84628847|NCT04576988|168996079|OTHER||Treatment difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.53|54.14||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon (ARSW)|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||54.14|27.53|<0.001
84628848|NCT04576988|168996082|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
84628849|NCT04576988|168996083|OTHER||Treatment difference|-234.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.37|-180.75||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-180.75|-288.37|<0.001
84628850|NCT04576988|168996084|OTHER||Treatment difference|-441.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.54|-309.61||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-309.61|-573.54|<.001
84628851|NCT04576988|168996085|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using CMH method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84761523|NCT03092726|169279464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.21||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 8: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.21|0.50|0.357
84761524|NCT03092726|169279464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.24||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||EOT: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.24|0.52|0.407
84761525|NCT03988335|169279465|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2-sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.24|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.24
84628852|NCT04576988|168996086|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Log rank test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.347|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model was used to generate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI was reported with treatment group as the covariate stratified by the WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy.|||0.347|0.076|<0.001
84628853|NCT04576988|168996087|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
84628854|NCT04576988|168996088|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.040|-0.490|0.010
84628855|NCT04576988|168996089|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.014||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.014|-0.256|0.028
84628856|NCT04576988|168996090|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.084||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||0.084|-0.399|0.156
84628857|NCT02485691|168996134|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73||P-value from 2-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
84628858|NCT02485691|168996135|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.89|0.46|0.0078
84628859|NCT02485691|168996136|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84628860|NCT02485691|168996137|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0003||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84674762|NCT01969838|169084834|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the difference in splenic response rate (SRR) at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.6\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared noninferior to RUX in SRR at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.09||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|0.02|0.014
84761526|NCT03988335|169279466|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.804|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.804
84761527|NCT01692301|169279486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-6.45|0.010
84761528|NCT03987854|169279505|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-7.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-6.16|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84761529|NCT03987854|169279506|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-3.29|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84628861|NCT02485691|168996138|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0004||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
84628862|NCT00395746|168996149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.51|1.02||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||1.02|-1.51|<0.0001
84628863|NCT00395746|168996149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.24|-0.75|||ANOVA|A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||-0.75|-1.24|<0.0001
84628864|NCT00395746|168996150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.33||||||95.0|-1.62|-1.04|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.04|-1.62|
84628865|NCT00395746|168996150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.96||||||95.0|-1.25|-0.67|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.67|-1.25|
84628866|NCT00395746|168996151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-32.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.5|-24.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-24.2|-40.5|<0.0001
84628867|NCT00395746|168996151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.5|-18.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-18.2|-34.5|<0.0001
84628868|NCT00395746|168996152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-30.2||||||95.0|-39.6|-20.7|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-20.7|-39.6|
84628869|NCT00395746|168996152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-24.4||||||95.0|-33.8|-14.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-14.9|-33.8|
84761530|NCT03987854|169279507|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||7.52|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84761531|NCT03987854|169279508|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||5.03|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84761532|NCT03987854|169279509|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6.81|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84761533|NCT03987854|169279510|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||3.46|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84761534|NCT03987854|169279511|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||3.26|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84761535|NCT03987854|169279512|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||3.49|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
84628870|NCT00395746|168996153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-150.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-186.32|-114.12||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-114.12|-186.32|<0.0001
84628871|NCT00395746|168996153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-111.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.61|-74.68||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-74.68|-147.61|<0.0001
84628872|NCT00395746|168996154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-127.57||||||95.0|-166.91|-88.24|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-88.24|-166.91|
84628873|NCT00395746|168996154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-68.68||||||95.0|-108.91|-28.45|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-28.45|-108.91|
84628874|NCT00395746|168996155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-44.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-55.02|-33.89||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-33.89|-55.02|<0.0001
84628875|NCT00395746|168996155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.06|-23.54||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-23.54|-45.06|<0.0001
84628876|NCT00395746|168996156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.49||||||95.0|-46.77|-22.22|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-22.22|-46.77|
84628877|NCT00395746|168996156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-46.34||||||95.0|-58.49|-34.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-34.18|-58.49|
84628878|NCT00395746|168996157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.37||||0.0433||95.0|-22.4|-0.34||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-0.34|-22.40|0.0433
84674763|NCT01969838|169084835|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided CI was calculated for the difference in TSS response rate at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.67\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared to be noninferior to RUX in TSS response rate at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is called the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
84674764|NCT01969838|169084836|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.43|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||0.43|0.19|<0.001
84674765|NCT01969838|169084837|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.26|0.09|<0.001
84674766|NCT01969838|169084838|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||-0.02|-0.19|0.019
84674767|NCT00408993|169084839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05 and interaction effects at 0.10. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator and Baseline.||With 104 patients per arm, the study has at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of -1.20 points in baseline to endpoint mean change on the BPI 24-hour average pain score between Duloxetine and Placebo. Sample size determined using a two-sided t-test with alpha=0.05, and assuming a common standard deviation of 2.5 and a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.617
84674768|NCT00408993|169084840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.070
84674769|NCT00408993|169084840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.151
84674770|NCT00408993|169084840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.012
84504438|NCT00434161|168759903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.351|1.313||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||1.313|0.351|0.188
84504439|NCT00434161|168759903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.242||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.635|2.431||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||2.431|0.635|0.468
84504440|NCT00434161|168759904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.262||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.303|30.828||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.828|-4.303|0.245
84504441|NCT00434161|168759904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.014||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.519|16.491||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.491|-20.519|0.806
84504442|NCT00434161|168759905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.82||0.095|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|4.748||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||A type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||4.748|0.070|0.095
84674771|NCT00408993|169084840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.077
84674772|NCT00408993|169084841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.036
84674773|NCT00408993|169084842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-value for Visit 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.955
84674774|NCT00408993|169084842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Visit 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
84674775|NCT00408993|169084842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Visit 5|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.037
84674776|NCT00408993|169084842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Visit 6|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84674777|NCT00408993|169084842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Visit 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.028
84674778|NCT00408993|169084843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.207
84674779|NCT00408993|169084844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84674780|NCT00408993|169084846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value for 5-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.364
84674781|NCT00408993|169084846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value for 8-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.590
84674782|NCT00408993|169084847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.620
84674783|NCT00408993|169084848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.324
84504443|NCT00434161|168759905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.575|2.15||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||2.150|-2.575|0.806
84504444|NCT00434161|168759906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.436||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.542|32.415||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||For the secondary endpoints, the type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing16. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||32.415|-1.542|0.142
84504445|NCT00434161|168759906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.331||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|22.482||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||22.482|-11.820|0.806
84504446|NCT00434161|168759907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.669|33.43||According to statistical analysis plan it was not planned to calculate any P-Value.||||||33.43|-21.669|
84504447|NCT00434161|168759909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.181||||||||0.181|-0.134|
84504448|NCT00434161|168759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.26||||||||0.260|-0.138|
84504449|NCT00434161|168759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.641|14.264||||||||14.264|-21.641|
84504450|NCT00434161|168759912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|12.58||||||||12.580|-0.679|
84628879|NCT00395746|168996157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|6.67||||0.2359||95.0|-4.39|17.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||17.73|-4.39|0.2359
84628880|NCT00395746|168996158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.3||||||95.0|-24.69|-1.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.90|-24.69|
84628881|NCT00395746|168996158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.11||||||95.0|-18.42|4.21|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||4.21|-18.42|
84628882|NCT00395746|168996159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.75||||0.0071||95.0|0.21|1.3||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.30|0.21|0.0071
84628883|NCT00395746|168996159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
84628884|NCT00395746|168996160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.04||||||95.0|0.42|1.66|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||1.66|0.42|
84628885|NCT00395746|168996160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.13||||||95.0|0.51|1.75|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed||1.75|0.51|
84628886|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.59||||||95.0|0.86|2.96|||Negative binomial regression|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.96|0.86|
84628887|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.56|2.47|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.47|0.56|
84761536|NCT02780648|169279518|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||This p-value represents the type III p-value for overall treatment phase variable significance. An a priori alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cohort B, pain scores were compared across treatment phase (before, during, and after) using ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures.||||0.824
84628888|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.8||||||95.0|0.92|3.54|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.54|0.92|
84628889|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.62||||||95.0|0.85|3.07|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.07|0.85|
84628890|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.48||||||95.0|0.69|3.17|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.17|0.69|
84628891|NCT00395746|168996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.91|0.72|
84628892|NCT02787564|168996242|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84628893|NCT02787564|168996243|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84628894|NCT02787564|168996244|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84628895|NCT02787564|168996245|OTHER|||||||0.443||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
84628896|NCT02787564|168996246|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84628897|NCT02787564|168996247|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84628898|NCT00468169|168996352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1225||||||Log-rank test comparing PFS between two treatment arms|Log Rank|||||||0.1225
84628899|NCT00784563|168996358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Because all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers from the Continuous and Interval Training Arms for analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.||||<0.001
84628900|NCT00784563|168996359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84628901|NCT00784563|168996360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
84628902|NCT00784563|168996361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.271
84628903|NCT00784563|168996362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value=0.009|Regression, Linear|||||||0.070
84628904|NCT00784563|168996363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84628905|NCT00784563|168996364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84628906|NCT00784563|168996365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84628907|NCT00784563|168996366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in total daily equivalent levodopa dose||||||0.003
84628908|NCT00784563|168996367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.146
84628909|NCT00784563|168996368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.037
84628910|NCT00784563|168996369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
84628911|NCT00321789|168996417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||8.3|-3.6|0.44
84628912|NCT00321789|168996418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.01|-0.23|0.03
84628913|NCT00321789|168996419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.02|-0.29|0.02
84628914|NCT00321789|168996420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.03|-0.29|0.02
84628915|NCT00321789|168996421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.03|-0.30|0.11
84628916|NCT00321789|168996422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.20|-0.06|0.26
84628917|NCT00321789|168996423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||generalized estimating equations|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||1.5|1.0|0.06
84674784|NCT00408993|169084849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.642
84674785|NCT00408993|169084849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.601
84674786|NCT00408993|169084850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Chloride|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.014
84674787|NCT00408993|169084850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.005
84674788|NCT00408993|169084850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Sodium|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.011
84674789|NCT00408993|169084850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.044
84674790|NCT00408993|169084851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-values.||||||0.017
84761537|NCT02780648|169279519|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite global health status / quality of life score as the outcome.||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite global health status / quality of life scores across treatment phase.||||0.270
84761538|NCT02780648|169279520|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite physicial functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite physical functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.179
84761539|NCT02780648|169279520|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite role functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.789||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite role functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.789
84674791|NCT02660359|169084854|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-8.97||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-4.44|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-4.44|-13.5|0.0001
84761540|NCT02780648|169279520|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite emotional functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.303||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite emotional functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.303
84628918|NCT00321789|168996424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||generalized estimating equations|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.4|0.9|0.37
84628919|NCT00321789|168996425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||-0.09|-4.13|0.04
84628920|NCT00321789|168996426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||0.10|-1.38|0.09
84628921|NCT00321789|168996427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.7|0.6|0.87
84628922|NCT00534365|168996429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 12% based on previously published multicenter trial of mid-urethral slings. Assuming subjective cure rate for TVT of 82%, 127 individuals in each group will provide 80% to reject the null hypothesis that the true difference in cure rates between the two procedures is less than or equal to 2% using a two group large sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one sided 0.05 significance level.||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
84628923|NCT00534365|168996432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84628924|NCT00534365|168996433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84628925|NCT00310765|168996444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measure analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the pain score change that occurred across each of the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-10). To conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality, the pain scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on exact rates from reference articles cited in the paper. Patients were randomly assigned to active drug (pregabalin) or look alike placebo.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
84628926|NCT00310765|168996445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measures analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the sleep score change that occurred during the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-11. to conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality the sleep scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on the exact rates from the reference articles cited in the paper.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
84628927|NCT03413891|168996465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.60|=0.72
84628928|NCT03413891|168996467|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.37|0.42|=0.36
84628929|NCT03413891|168996468|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.32|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.89|0.12|=0.03
84628930|NCT03413891|168996469|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.12|0.32|=0.11
84628931|NCT03413891|168996470|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.38|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.38|0.13|=0.15
84628932|NCT03413891|168996472|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.57|||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.91|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.91|0.17|=0.37
84628933|NCT03413891|168996473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.26|=0.66
84628934|NCT03413891|168996474|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.98|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.98|0.16|=0.04
84628935|NCT03413891|168996475|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.78|0.18|<0.01
84628936|NCT04905134|168996481|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flexible scope compared with the SOC scope||||0.04
84628937|NCT03137992|168996487|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI was entirely contained within the bioequivalence interval, 0.80 to 1.25.|Least Squared Mean Ratio|0.9369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|1.047|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the Lupin Tiotropium and Spiriva Handihaler LS mean ratio.|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 241 subjects had been randomized with measurable AUC data, which estimated 238 patients would be needed to demonstrate BE with 90% power. Therefore, it was planned that approximately 378 patients would be randomized to allow for a potential 30% loss/withdrawal from the PP population.||1.047|0.834|
84628938|NCT03137992|168996488|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9386|3.646||Efficacy of the Test (T) product was demonstrated if the T was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (p\<0.05 \[two-tailed\]).Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.646|2.9386|<0.001
84628939|NCT03137992|168996488|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0718|3.7797||Study sensitivity was demonstrated if the Reference (R) product was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (P) (p \<0.05 \[two-tailed\]). Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.7797|3.0718|<0.001
84628940|NCT00795704|168996543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
84628941|NCT00795704|168996545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84628942|NCT03980730|168996546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2057
84628943|NCT02392806|168996567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84628944|NCT03125226|168996605|OTHER|Single group mean and standard deviation||||||||||||||||Coordinates in x/y/z planes were assigned to each hydrogel marker on the planning CT and daily CBCT to calculate interfraction motion.|Single group mean and standard deviation|||
84628945|NCT03125226|168996610|OTHER|The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||||||||||||||||The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||
84628946|NCT00301808|168996611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier product limit|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||||||||0.84|0.48|
84628947|NCT02234843|168996615|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||Expl. Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.41|0.11|0.1509
84628948|NCT01607957|168996653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
84628949|NCT01607957|168996654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
84761541|NCT02780648|169279520|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite cognitive functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.989||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite cognitive functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.989
84761542|NCT02780648|169279520|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite social functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.436||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite social functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.436
84761543|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite fatigue symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.659||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite fatigue symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.659
84761544|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite nausea and vomiting symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.295||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite nausea and vomiting symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.295
84628950|NCT00844844|168996667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols:C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (Adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
84628951|NCT00844844|168996668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
84628952|NCT00844844|168996669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
84628953|NCT00844844|168996670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
84628954|NCT00844844|168996671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84628955|NCT00844844|168996672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
84628956|NCT00844844|168996673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
84628957|NCT00844844|168996674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
84628958|NCT00844844|168996675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
84628959|NCT00844844|168996676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84628960|NCT03905096|168996678|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|92.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|100.53|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||100.53|85.34|
84761545|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite pain symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.299||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite pain symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.299
84761546|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite dyspnea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.794||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite dyspnea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.794
84504451|NCT00434161|168759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.26|0.33|0.192
84628961|NCT03905096|168996679|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.21|104.39|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||104.39|93.21|
84628962|NCT03905096|168996680|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.74|106.88|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||106.88|90.74|
84628963|NCT03905096|168996681|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.01|112.68|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||112.68|89.01|
84628964|NCT03905096|168996682|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|94.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.36|101.64|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||101.64|88.36|
84628965|NCT03905096|168996683|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|105.87|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||105.87|94.56|
84628966|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|Wald test of difference in adjusted OS estimates.||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments. The results posted are from the interim analysis per protocol study design.||||0.0001
84628967|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3345||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between response to hypomethylating therapy and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy (No Response to Hypomethylation vs. Any Response or Hematologic Improvement to Hypomethylation vs. No Prior Hypomethylation) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3345
84504452|NCT00434161|168759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.417|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.086|45.919||||||||45.919|-11.086|
84628968|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7328||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between patient age and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< vs. \>= 65) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.7328
84628969|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6261||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between disease duration and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.6261
84628970|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4134||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS score and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4134
84761547|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite insomnia symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite insomnia symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.450
84761548|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite appetite loss symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.389||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite appetite loss symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.389
84628971|NCT02016781|168996687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS-R score and treatment assignment in regression model.||Statistical Analysis 6: This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score (Very Low, Low, or Intermediate vs. High vs. Very High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3147
84628972|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments.||||0.0030
84628973|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9908||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.9908
84628974|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8981||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< or \>= 65) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.8981
84628975|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.1465
84628976|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4991|||||||pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4991
84628977|NCT02016781|168996688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4953
84628978|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the FACT-G scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.2777
84628979|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.2250
84628980|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.1048
84628981|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0888
84628982|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5844||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5844
84628983|NCT02016781|168996689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.0344
84628984|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 PCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5583
84674792|NCT02660359|169084854|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|-5.12|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.12|-14.41|<0.0001
84674793|NCT02660359|169084855|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|45.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|340.69|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline- by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||340.69|6.09|0.0002
84674794|NCT02660359|169084855|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|240.58|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||240.58|4.17|0.0009
84674795|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.34||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||7.34|1.72|0.0007
84674796|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.07||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||6.07|1.43|0.0037
84674797|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.79||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||7.79|2.03|<0.0001
84674798|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by- visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.33||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||5.33|1.40|0.0034
84674799|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.58||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||15.58|3.5|<0.0001
84674800|NCT02660359|169084856|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|11.24||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||11.24|2.48|<0.0001
84674801|NCT02660359|169084858|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|96.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|139.19|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||139.19|53.10|<0.0001
84761549|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite constipation symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|The odds of having a higher constipation symptom composite score after treatment were less than during or before treatment.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite constipation symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.011
84504453|NCT00434161|168759916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.16|0.55|0.236
84761550|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite diarrhea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.101||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite diarrhea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.101
84761551|NCT02780648|169279521|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite financial difficulty symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.306||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite financial difficulty symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.306
84761552|NCT01097304|169279539|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84761553|NCT01097304|169279540|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84761554|NCT01097304|169279541|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.01
84761555|NCT01097304|169279542|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84628985|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.6690
84761556|NCT04472429|169279543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84||tested at the 1-sided 2.5% level|stratified log-rank test||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.84|0.47|0.0006
84628986|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2089||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.2089
84628987|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.4343
84628988|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5942||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5942
84628989|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.1615
84761557|NCT01180660|169279556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||A sample size of 22 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a 16 point difference in the aggregated Qor-40 score for the two study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 16 points similar to what was observed in a previous investigation.||27|3|.01
84761558|NCT05130463|169279559|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
84761559|NCT05130463|169279560|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
84761560|NCT05130463|169279565|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0008
84761561|NCT05130463|169279566|OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0068
84761562|NCT05130463|169279567|OTHER|||||||0.1867||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.1867
84761563|NCT05130463|169279568|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0003
84761564|NCT05130463|169279569|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0020
84761565|NCT05130463|169279569|OTHER|||||||0.0132||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0132
84761566|NCT05130463|169279570|OTHER|||||||0.7591||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.7591
84761567|NCT05130463|169279570|OTHER|||||||0.5161||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.5161
84761568|NCT00844753|169279571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84761569|NCT00844753|169279572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84761570|NCT02189850|169279582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.923
84761571|NCT00371865|169279583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
84628990|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5659||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 MCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5659
84628991|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8555
84628992|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.8995
84628993|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0105
84628994|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.2596
84628995|NCT02016781|168996690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5022||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.5022
84628996|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1768||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the EQ-5D scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.1768
84628997|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8318||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8318
84628998|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4752||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.4752
84628999|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5671||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.5671
84629000|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.3009
84629001|NCT02016781|168996691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3403||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.3403
84629002|NCT02016781|168996692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
84629003|NCT02016781|168996693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
84629004|NCT04886154|168996719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.38|5.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,6-months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.97|3.38|
84761572|NCT00371865|169279584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
84761573|NCT00371865|169279585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.13
84761574|NCT00371865|169279586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
84761575|NCT00371865|169279587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
84761576|NCT04817111|169279589|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84761577|NCT04817111|169279591|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84761578|NCT04817111|169279592|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84761579|NCT04685876|169279640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.355
84629005|NCT04886154|168996719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.65|1.3|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||1.30|-1.65|
84629006|NCT04886154|168996719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.33|5.89|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,6- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.89|3.33|
84761580|NCT04685876|169279640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.578
84761581|NCT04685876|169279642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.248
84761582|NCT04685876|169279642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.297
84761583|NCT04685876|169279643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
84761584|NCT04685876|169279643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.395
84761585|NCT04685876|169279644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.152
84761586|NCT04685876|169279644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.482
84629007|NCT04886154|168996719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6|3.42|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||3.42|0.60|
84629008|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|10.17|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.17|-4.21|
84761587|NCT03809611|169279699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.56||One-sided p-value for treatment difference|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-1.34|0.1832
84761588|NCT03809611|169279700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.78|0.72|0.2830
84761589|NCT02193074|169279702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|50.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.81|66.48|||Fisher Exact||exact unconditional confidence interval|||66.48|31.81|< 0.0001
84761590|NCT02193074|169279703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration.||||||0.0046
84761591|NCT02193074|169279703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3156|0.8902|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.8902|0.3156|0.0164
84761592|NCT02193074|169279704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||DIfference in percentages|68.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.27|81.99|||Fisher Exact|||||81.99|51.27|< 0.0001
84761593|NCT02193074|169279705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration (primary analysis).||||||0.0041
84761594|NCT02193074|169279705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.372||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1787|0.7745|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening (sensitivity analysis).||||0.7745|0.1787|0.0082
84761595|NCT02193074|169279707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|30.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.35|48.09|||Fisher Exact|||||48.09|10.35|0.0004
84761596|NCT02193074|169279708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
84761597|NCT02193074|169279708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|0.5753|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.5753|0.1002|0.0014
84761598|NCT02193074|169279709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3953|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3953
84761599|NCT02193074|169279709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.6698|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||1.6698|0.4270|0.6268
84761600|NCT04179175|169279718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.29|0.59|0.250
84761601|NCT04179175|169279718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.05|0.47|0.044
84629009|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|11.64|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||11.64|-2.71|
84629010|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|12.25|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||12.25|-0.71|
84629011|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|10.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.97|-3.70|
84629012|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|35.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|25.22|44.75|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.75|25.22|
84629013|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|34.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.76|44.1|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.10|23.76|
84629014|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.26|40.19|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||40.19|19.26|
84629015|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.09|43.54|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||43.54|23.09|
84644843|NCT02660138|169025072|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|110.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.17|150.98|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||150.98|70.17|<0.0001
84761602|NCT01262365|169279721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.923|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.923|0.888|=0.175
84761603|NCT01262365|169279721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.714|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.714|0.790|=0.442
84629016|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|30.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.61|40.32|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||40.32|21.61|
84629017|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the MenABCWY-2Gen MenACWY vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.31|39.08|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||39.08|19.31|
84629018|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.42|38.67|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||38.67|19.42|
84629019|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.2|35.45|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||35.45|14.20|
84629020|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.08|43.26|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||43.26|23.08|
84629021|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.61|38.86|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.86|16.61|
84629022|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.67|39.63|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||39.63|18.67|
84629023|NCT04886154|168996720|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|27.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.46|38.02|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.02|15.46|
84629024|NCT03919773|168996758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.629
84629025|NCT03919773|168996759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of proportion with positive treatment response (as defined) in IVIG group compared to albumin||||0.718
84644844|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||11.2|-5.0|0.78
84629026|NCT02977403|168996760|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for AB reaction time measures. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. AB reaction times were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-1.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|16.894||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in AB, change scores were computed (post-pre = delta). Positive scores represent an increase in AB from pre- to post- intervention. Negative ∆reaction time scores represent a decrease in AB from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in AB following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||16.894|-20.790|
84629027|NCT02977403|168996760|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.28|33.377||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||33.377|-35.280|
84629028|NCT02977403|168996761|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.025|
84629029|NCT02977403|168996761|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.019||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.019|-0.288|
84629030|NCT02977403|168996762|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass and height, race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.082||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post-intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.082|-0.085|
84629031|NCT02977403|168996762|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.177|
84629032|NCT02977403|168996763|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.182||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.182|-0.022|
84629033|NCT02977403|168996763|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.103||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.103|-0.139|
84644845|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||10.7|-4.6|0.75
84761604|NCT00130832|169279739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 1||1.4|-2.2|<0.001
84761605|NCT00130832|169279739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 2||1.6|-1.4|<0.001
84761606|NCT00130832|169279739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 3||2.3|-2.3|<0.001
84761607|NCT00130832|169279740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio (concomitant group over staggered group) greater than 0.50.|GMT Ratio|0.54||||0.277||95.0|0.42|0.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on log titer of serum anti-rotavirus IgA||||0.69|0.42|0.277
84504454|NCT00434161|168759917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.23|0.58|0.372
84629034|NCT02977403|168996764|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.113||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.113|-0.086|
84629035|NCT02977403|168996764|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.109||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.109|-0.179|
84629036|NCT02977403|168996765|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.167||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.167|-0.001|
84629037|NCT02977403|168996765|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.063||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.063|-0.201|
84629038|NCT02977403|168996766|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity|beta coefficient|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.121||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.121|-0.059|
84761608|NCT00130832|169279740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve 3-fold rise in serum anti-rotavirus IgA greater than -10%.|Percentage Point Difference|-4.4||||0.002||95.0|-8.0|-1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Percentage point difference (concomitant - staggered)|||-1.4|-8.0|0.002
84761609|NCT03118297|169279773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84761610|NCT03118297|169279774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
84761611|NCT03118297|169279775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84761612|NCT03118297|169279776|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84761613|NCT03118297|169279777|OTHER|No statistical test performed|||||||||||||||||Significance testing not performed. All values below prespecified limit of 5.0 ng/mL.|||
84761614|NCT04227899|169279778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
84629039|NCT02977403|168996766|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.152||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.152|-0.157|
84644846|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.7|-0.6|0.08
84761615|NCT04227899|169279779|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority (NI)|||||||0.0019
84761616|NCT04227899|169279780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84644847|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.2|-1.6|0.17
84644848|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||17.2|-6.5|0.61
84644849|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|16.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||16.8|-4.1|0.32
84644850|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||22.3|1.6|0.03
84644851|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||21.8|0.5|0.04
84644852|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.2|-1.5|1.00
84644853|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||2.3|-3.5|0.88
84644854|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.0|-0.8|0.98
84644855|NCT00899353|169025079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||5.3|-6.6|0.98
84644856|NCT01247298|169025084|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Estimate|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan Meier Estimates of Progression Free Survival (PFS)|||||
84644857|NCT00402233|169025127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.53|-2.26|||ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.53|<0.0001
84644858|NCT00402233|169025127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.54|-2.28|||ANCOVA|||||-2.28|-6.54|<0.0001
84644859|NCT00402233|169025127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.91|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||||-2.52|-6.91|<0.0001
84644860|NCT00402233|169025128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||||95.0|0.431|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.849|0.431|
84644861|NCT00402233|169025128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||||95.0|0.424|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.845|0.424|
84644862|NCT00402233|169025128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||||95.0|0.317|1.492|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.492|0.317|
84644863|NCT00402233|169025129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.014||95.0|0.23|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.23|0.014
84644864|NCT00402233|169025129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03||95.0|0.094|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|0.094|0.03
84629040|NCT02977403|168996767|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.149|
84629041|NCT02977403|168996767|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.131||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.131|-0.266|
84629042|NCT02977403|168996768|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.122|
84629043|NCT02977403|168996768|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.092||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.092|-0.233|
84629044|NCT02977403|168996769|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.126||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.126|-0.041|
84629045|NCT02977403|168996769|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.082||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.082|-0.252|
84629046|NCT02977403|168996770|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.102||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.102|-0.060|
84629047|NCT02977403|168996770|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.119||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.119|-0.260|
84644865|NCT00402233|169025129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.0019||95.0|0.56|2.43|||ANCOVA|||||2.43|0.56|0.0019
84644866|NCT00402233|169025130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.39||95.0|-1.82|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.82|0.39
84644867|NCT00402233|169025130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.37||95.0|-1.84|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.84|0.37
84644868|NCT00402233|169025130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.48||95.0|-1.78|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.78|0.48
84761617|NCT04227899|169279781|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||0.0081
84761618|NCT04735653|169279786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of ANOVA due to the non-normality of the adherence outcomes. We did not block on clinic due to differences in sample characteristics by site.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Medication adherence was compared between groups with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||<0.001
84761619|NCT04735653|169279787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A chi-squared test was used instead of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test due to site differences. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84504455|NCT03342898|168759919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the seroprotection rate difference (Group 1 - Group 3) was less than 5%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69|||||The Newcombe score method was used to compute the 95% CI of the seroprotection rate difference.|||2.69|-1.85|
84629048|NCT02977403|168996771|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.185||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.185|0.030|
84629049|NCT02977403|168996771|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.047|-0.346|
84629050|NCT02977403|168996772|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.175||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.175|0.010|
84629051|NCT02977403|168996772|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.107||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.107|-0.204|
84629052|NCT02977403|168996773|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.123||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.123|-0.032|
84629053|NCT02977403|168996773|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.177||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.177|-0.163|
84644869|NCT02589600|169025134|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||Negative binomial regression||Placebo group is the reference group||Negative binomial regression implemented in the SAS®️ GENMOD procedure with fracture outcome as the dependent variable; duration of follow-up as an offset to account for each participant's exposure; treatment arm as the main independent factor of interest.|1.22|.90|0.7251
84644870|NCT01007253|169025149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean eye symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
84644871|NCT01007253|169025150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean nasal symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.05
84674802|NCT02660359|169084858|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|90.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.07|134.48|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||134.48|47.07|<0.0001
84761620|NCT04735653|169279788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Adjustment for site was not performed. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|||-0.1|-0.5|
84674803|NCT02660359|169084859|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|175.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.9|227.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||227.0|122.90|<0.0001
84629054|NCT02977403|168996774|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.112||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.112|-0.03|
84629055|NCT02977403|168996774|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.14||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.140|-0.168|
84629056|NCT02977403|168996775|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.052||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.052|-0.125|
84629057|NCT02977403|168996775|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.129||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.129|-0.196|
84629058|NCT02977403|168996776|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.093||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.093|-0.091|
84629059|NCT02977403|168996776|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.001||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.001|-0.286|
84629060|NCT02977403|168996777|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.132||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.132|-0.001|
84629061|NCT02977403|168996777|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.055||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.055|-0.246|
84674804|NCT02660359|169084859|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|168.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.6|223.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||223.1|113.6|<0.0001
84629062|NCT02977403|168996778|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.101||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.101|-0.055|
84629063|NCT02977403|168996778|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.137||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.137|-0.178|
84629064|NCT02977403|168996779|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.051||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.051|-0.116|
84629065|NCT02977403|168996779|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.223||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.223|-0.104|
84629066|NCT02977403|168996780|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.078|
84629067|NCT02977403|168996780|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.12||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.120|-0.248|
84644872|NCT01007253|169025151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean sneeze difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.001
84761621|NCT01294800|169279798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.02|-1.37|0.0564
84644873|NCT01007253|169025152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean histamine level difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.11
84644874|NCT01007253|169025153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean tryptase level difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
84644875|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.156
84761622|NCT01294800|169279798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.22|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.22|-1.16|0.1844
84644876|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.395
84644877|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.114
84761623|NCT01294800|169279798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.3||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.36|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.36|-1.04|0.3386
84761624|NCT01294800|169279799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|19.0|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||19.00|-7.75|0.404
84629068|NCT02977403|168996781|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.174||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.174|0.004|
84629069|NCT02977403|168996781|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.201||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.201|-0.159|
84629070|NCT02977403|168996782|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.081||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.081|-0.113|
84629071|NCT02977403|168996782|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.062||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.062|-0.206|
84629072|NCT02977403|168996783|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.209||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.209|0.049|
84629073|NCT02977403|168996783|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.033||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.033|-0.330|
84629074|NCT02977403|168996784|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.207||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.207|0.045|
84629075|NCT02977403|168996784|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.112||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.112|-0.223|
84644878|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.211
84644879|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.332
84629076|NCT02977403|168996785|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.203||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.203|0.027|
84629077|NCT02977403|168996785|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.087||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.087|-0.203|
84629078|NCT02977403|168996786|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.127||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.127|-0.053|
84629079|NCT02977403|168996786|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.069||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.069|-0.240|
84629080|NCT02977403|168996787|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.05||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.050|-0.092|
84629081|NCT02977403|168996787|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.056||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.056|-0.249|
84629082|NCT02977403|168996788|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.069||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.069|-0.095|
84629083|NCT02977403|168996788|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.227|
84674805|NCT02660359|169084860|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-24.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-24.4|-41.5|<0.0001
84761625|NCT01294800|169279799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|18.81|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||18.81|-7.73|0.390
84761626|NCT01294800|169279799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|-4.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|7.97|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||7.97|-17.78|0.508
84761627|NCT01294800|169279800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.7||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.43|-0.00|0.0509
84504456|NCT03342898|168759920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.22|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-1||2.22|1.19|
84629084|NCT02977403|168996789|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.092||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.092|-0.103|
84629085|NCT02977403|168996789|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.11||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.110|-0.173|
84629086|NCT02977403|168996790|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.109||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.109|-0.069|
84629087|NCT02977403|168996790|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.077||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.077|-0.252|
84629088|NCT02977403|168996791|OTHER|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.08||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.080|-0.099|
84629089|NCT02977403|168996791|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.017||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.017|-0.294|
84629090|NCT02977403|168996792|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.095||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.095|-0.069|
84629091|NCT02977403|168996792|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.047|-0.216|
84761628|NCT01294800|169279800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.23|0.1847
84761629|NCT01294800|169279800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.25|0.2021
84629092|NCT02977403|168996793|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.041||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.041|-0.123|
84674806|NCT02660359|169084860|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-23.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-23.4|-41.5|<0.0001
84674807|NCT02660359|169084861|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|152.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|206.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||206.5|99.2|<0.0001
84674808|NCT02660359|169084861|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|169.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.7|227.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||227.6|111.7|<0.0001
84674809|NCT02660359|169084862|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|137.09|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||137.09|7.05|<0.0001
84674810|NCT02660359|169084862|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|126.25|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by- visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||126.25|6.24|<0.0001
84674811|NCT01797536|169084868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR= Mild Hepatic Insufficiency Geometric Mean (GM) divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
84674812|NCT01797536|169084868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.31|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.31|0.40|
84674813|NCT01797536|169084868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.61|0.48|
84674814|NCT01797536|169084869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.34|
84629093|NCT02977403|168996793|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.021||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.021|-0.213|
84674815|NCT01797536|169084869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
84674816|NCT01797536|169084869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.13|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.13|0.35|
84674817|NCT01797536|169084870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.32|
84674818|NCT01797536|169084870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
84674819|NCT01797536|169084870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.08|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.32|
84504457|NCT03342898|168759920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|1.03|1.75|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-2||1.75|1.03|
84629094|NCT02977403|168996794|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.142|
84629095|NCT02977403|168996794|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.097||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.097|-0.290|
84629096|NCT02977403|168996795|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.059||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.059|-0.105|
84629097|NCT02977403|168996795|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.029||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.029|-0.277|
84629098|NCT02977403|168996796|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.027||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.027|-0.140|
84629099|NCT02977403|168996796|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.02||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.020|-0.302|
84629100|NCT02977403|168996797|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.091|
84674820|NCT01797536|169084871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
84674821|NCT01797536|169084871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.25|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.25|0.38|
84629101|NCT02977403|168996797|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.149||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.149|-0.157|
84629102|NCT02977403|168996798|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.071||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.071|-0.092|
84629103|NCT02977403|168996798|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.183||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.183|-0.126|
84629104|NCT02977403|168996799|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.076||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.076|-0.101|
84629105|NCT02977403|168996799|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.06||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.060|-0.273|
84629106|NCT02977403|168996800|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.043||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.043|-0.110|
84629107|NCT02977403|168996800|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.003||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.003|-0.335|
84629108|NCT02977403|168996801|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.069|
84629109|NCT02977403|168996801|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.002||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.002|-0.332|
84644880|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
84644881|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.375
84629110|NCT02977403|168996802|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.146||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.146|-0.037|
84629111|NCT02977403|168996802|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.09||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.090|-0.127|
84629112|NCT02977403|168996803|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.061|
84629113|NCT02977403|168996803|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.042||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.042|-0.215|
84629114|NCT02977403|168996804|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.115||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.115|-0.05|
84629115|NCT02977403|168996804|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.058||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.058|-0.248|
84629116|NCT02977403|168996805|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.042||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.042|-0.075|
84629117|NCT02977403|168996805|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.180|-0.130|
84644882|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.352
84761630|NCT04418765|169279805|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction. A testing strategy was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
84629118|NCT02977403|168996806|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.099||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).||||Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.099|-0.039|
84629119|NCT02977403|168996806|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.049||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.049|-0.335|
84629120|NCT02977403|168996807|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.097|
84629121|NCT02977403|168996807|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.01||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.01|-0.314|
84629122|NCT02977403|168996808|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.156||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.156|-0.051|
84629123|NCT02977403|168996808|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.111||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.111|-0.251|
84629124|NCT02977403|168996809|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.061|
84629125|NCT02977403|168996809|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.044||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.044|-0.260|
84629126|NCT02977403|168996810|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.047|
84629127|NCT02977403|168996810|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.064||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.064|-0.276|
84629128|NCT02977403|168996811|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.057||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.057|-0.092|
84629129|NCT02977403|168996811|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.153||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.153|-0.150|
84629130|NCT02977403|168996812|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.159||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.159|-0.019|
84629131|NCT02977403|168996812|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.070|-0.260|
84629132|NCT02977403|168996813|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.8707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimation equations||Reported variable is a condition by time (pre or post-intervention) interaction term. The model included a Poisson distribution, log link function, exchangeable covariance matrix and was adjusted for age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||||0.256
84629133|NCT04966013|168996826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.408|||Regression, Cox|||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified||1.408|0.717|0.9784
84629134|NCT04966013|168996827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.388||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|2.172||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified|Regression, Cox|||||2.172|0.887|0.1512
84629135|NCT00781768|168996865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be a higher proportion of complete responders among those subjects receiving the combination therapy.||||<.001
84629136|NCT02458313|168996866|SUPERIORITY|DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
84629137|NCT02458313|168996866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.679
84629138|NCT02458313|168996867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||0.951
84629139|NCT02458313|168996867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.884
84629140|NCT03414983|168996871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.07||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.07|0.61|0.3022
84629141|NCT03414983|168996871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.23|0.53|0.3022
84629142|NCT03414983|168996872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.19|0.54|
84761631|NCT04418765|169279805|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
84629143|NCT03414983|168996887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.15||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.15|0.67|0.5041
84761632|NCT04418765|169279806|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.01||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||10.01|4.41|<0.0001
84761633|NCT04418765|169279806|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|7.47||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||7.47|3.29|<0.0001
84629144|NCT03414983|168996887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.32||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.32|0.58|0.5041
84629145|NCT01280903|168996892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84629146|NCT01280903|168996893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||p=0.130 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
84629147|NCT01280903|168996893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||p=0.573 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
84629148|NCT01280903|168996893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||p=0.197 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.197
84629149|NCT01280903|168996894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.461
84629150|NCT01280903|168996895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
84629151|NCT01280903|168996896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.258
84629152|NCT01280903|168996897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.416
84629153|NCT01280903|168996898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84629154|NCT01280903|168996899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||p=0.272 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
84629155|NCT01280903|168996899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||p=0.823 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.823
84629156|NCT01280903|168996899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p=0.076 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
84629157|NCT01280903|168996900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
84629158|NCT01280903|168996901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.856
84629159|NCT01280903|168996902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
84629160|NCT01280903|168996903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.396
84629161|NCT01280903|168996904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
84629162|NCT01280903|168996905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.586
84629163|NCT01280903|168996906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.596
84629164|NCT01280903|168996907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
84629165|NCT01280903|168996908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
84629166|NCT01280903|168996909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||p=0.322 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
84629167|NCT01280903|168996909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||p=0.979 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.979
84629168|NCT01280903|168996910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||p=0.710 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.710
84629169|NCT01280903|168996910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||p=0.133 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
84674822|NCT01797536|169084871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.43|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.43|0.43|
84674823|NCT02099721|169084874|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is a hazard ratio significantly above 0.70.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57|||||The hazard ratio, estimated by a Cox proportional hazard model, has time to first treated VT/VF for 1.5 Prevention in the numerator, with Secondary Prevention in the denominator.|"H0: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) ≤ 0.70~HA: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) \> 0.70"||0.57|0.38|
84761634|NCT04418765|169279807|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-3.0||Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-3.0|-4.5|<0.0001
84629170|NCT01280903|168996911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p=0.005 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84629171|NCT01280903|168996911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||p=0.948 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
84629172|NCT01280903|168996911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||p=0.663 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
84629173|NCT01280903|168996912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p=0.001 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84629174|NCT01280903|168996912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||p=0.031 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84629175|NCT01280903|168996913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.816
84629176|NCT01280903|168996914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
84629177|NCT01280903|168996915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.260
84629178|NCT01280903|168996916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
84629179|NCT01280903|168996917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.947
84629180|NCT01280903|168996918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||p=0.406 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
84629181|NCT01280903|168996918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||p=0.826 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.826
84629182|NCT01280903|168996919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p=0.950 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
84629183|NCT01280903|168996919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||p=0.365 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.365
84629184|NCT01280903|168996920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||p=0.219 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.219
84629185|NCT01280903|168996920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p=0.340 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
84629186|NCT01280903|168996920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||p=0.806 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
84629187|NCT01280903|168996921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p=0.008 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84629188|NCT01280903|168996921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p=0.120 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.120
84629189|NCT02177695|168996927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to pT0, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the GC treatment group.||8.36|0.82|0.1
84629190|NCT02177695|168996927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to pT0, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the ddMVAC treatment group.||2.95|0.42|0.82
84629191|NCT02177695|168996928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.89|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to \<= pT1, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the GC treatment group.||4.89|1.11|0.02
84629192|NCT02177695|168996928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to \<=pT1, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the ddMVAC treatment group.||1.75|0.46|0.76
84629193|NCT00248625|168996938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
84629194|NCT00248625|168996939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
84629195|NCT00248625|168996940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Pepe and Mori test of CIF difference|||||||0.21
84629196|NCT00248625|168996941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.053
84629197|NCT00248625|168996942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.29
84761635|NCT04418765|169279807|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.2|-3.8|<0.0001
84629198|NCT00248625|168996943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.74
84629199|NCT00248625|168996944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage tren|||||||0.54
84629200|NCT00248625|168996945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
84629201|NCT02220920|168996959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.33|<0.001
84629202|NCT02220920|168996960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-18.9|||ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-46.3|<0.001
84629203|NCT02220920|168996961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-3.09|<0.001
84629204|NCT02220920|168996962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.11|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in systolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.11|-6.49|0.058
84629205|NCT02220920|168996962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in diastolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.80|-3.27|0.232
84629206|NCT00834977|168996964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.08||||||90.0|97.23|105.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.09|97.23|
84629207|NCT00834977|168996965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.38||||||90.0|96.63|102.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.22|96.63|
84629208|NCT00834977|168996966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.48||||||90.0|95.8|101.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.23|95.80|
84629209|NCT00834977|168996967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.72||||||90.0|86.95|112.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.09|86.95|
84629210|NCT00834977|168996968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.69||||||90.0|90.54|101.14|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||101.14|90.54|
84629211|NCT00834977|168996969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|99.43||||||90.0|96.48|102.46|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.46|96.48|
84629212|NCT00834977|168996970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.2||||||90.0|92.82|101.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.78|92.82|
84629213|NCT00834977|168996971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.99||||||90.0|92.52|101.68|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.68|92.52|
84629214|NCT00834977|168996972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.24||||||90.0|96.21|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|96.21|
84629215|NCT00989911|168997027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84629216|NCT03402217|168997034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pre and post-score paired comparison.||||.383
84629217|NCT03402217|168997035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Information pre-post paired comparison||||.001
84629218|NCT03402217|168997035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation pre- and post-paired comparison.||||.07
84629219|NCT03402217|168997035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behavior pre and post paired comparison||||.230
84629220|NCT00333775|168997054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0318
84629221|NCT00333775|168997054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.72||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0036
84629222|NCT00333775|168997057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.69|0.1105
84629223|NCT00333775|168997057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.65|0.0241
84629224|NCT00333775|168997058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.62|0.6962
84629225|NCT00333775|168997058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.45|0.0765
84629226|NCT03279081|168997114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|2.37|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|10.55||P-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for interactive web response system (IWRS) randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals (CI) are displayed.|||10.55|-5.82|=0.571
84629227|NCT03279081|168997115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|2.72|||=|0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|10.9||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||10.90|-5.47|=0.515
84629228|NCT03279081|168997116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.374
84629229|NCT03279081|168997117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|1.27|||=|0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.31||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.31|-6.77|=0.757
84629230|NCT03279081|168997118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|1.6|||=|0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|9.66||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.66|-6.46|=0.697
84629231|NCT03279081|168997119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|3.23|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|11.21||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.21|-4.76|=0.428
84629232|NCT03279081|168997120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|2.84|||=|0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.03||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.03|-5.35|=0.497
84629233|NCT03279081|168997121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.363
84629234|NCT03279081|168997122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.18|0.82|=0.833
84629235|NCT03279081|168997123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.16|0.81|=0.717
84629236|NCT03279081|168997124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Relapse Rate|3.03|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|14.34||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||14.34|-8.28|=0.599
84629237|NCT00214045|168997130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
84629238|NCT00214045|168997130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84629239|NCT01283555|168997150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||The p-value presented here represents a comparison of the total number of non-iatrogenic findings at baseline and after one week of product use.|Fisher Exact|||Fishers exact test was used to compare the frequency of non-iatrogenic colposcopic findings at baseline and follow-up visits (after one week of twice-daily product use).||||0.4870
84629240|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629241|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629242|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629243|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629244|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629245|NCT01377584|168997174|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629246|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629247|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629248|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629249|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629250|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629251|NCT01377584|168997175|OTHER||Effect size|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629252|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629253|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629254|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629255|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629256|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84629257|NCT01377584|168997176|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84504458|NCT03342898|168759920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.99|1.61|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-3||1.61|0.99|
84629258|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
84629259|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month and 3 months|||||
84629260|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
84629261|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
84629262|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
84629263|NCT01377584|168997177|OTHER||Effect size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
84629264|NCT01576341|168997189|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incidence rate is based on duration of treatment period (years)|||||
84629265|NCT00617734|168997191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0667|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0667
84629266|NCT00617734|168997192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1935
84629267|NCT00617734|168997194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7455
84629268|NCT01247324|168997255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.719|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.719|0.4|<0.0001
84629269|NCT01247324|168997256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 12||0.90|0.37|= 0.0139
84629270|NCT01247324|168997257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.032|0.104|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.104|0.032|< 0.0001
84629271|NCT01247324|168997258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.229|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.3|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.300|0.174|< 0.0001
84629272|NCT01247324|168997259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.61|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) Chi-Squared test Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and Baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0)||||2.33|1.11|= 0.0106
84629273|NCT01247324|168997260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 24||0.95|0.34|= 0.0278
84629274|NCT01247324|168997261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.428|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.328|0.557|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.557|0.328|< 0.0001
84629275|NCT01247324|168997262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|=|0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.116|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.116|-0.039|= 0.3261
84629276|NCT01247324|168997263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.283|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 22.8%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.283|0.053|= 0.0042
84629277|NCT01247324|168997264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|1.8|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||1.800|-0.414|= 0.2193
84629278|NCT01247324|168997265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.17|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.17|1.39|< 0.0001
84629279|NCT03474588|168997294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Presented is the p value for the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Random Effects Regression Models (RERM), time was log transformed to account for expectation of greater change closer to baseline||||||0.30
84629280|NCT03474588|168997295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24||presented is the p value for the interaction of treatment and time in the model.|Regression, Linear|||Random Effects Regression Model (RERM), included in the model were treatment, time and the interaction of time and treatment.||3.24|-0.46|0.14
84629281|NCT03474588|168997296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.097
84629282|NCT03474588|168997297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
84629283|NCT05010707|168997307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0, and 1 month)||||0.005
84629284|NCT05010707|168997307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-421.71|-28.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.79|-421.71|0.02
84629285|NCT05010707|168997307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-447.1|-54.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.19|-447.10|0.009
84629286|NCT05010707|168997308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.951
84629287|NCT05010707|168997308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||26.4|-29.6|1
84629288|NCT05010707|168997308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||20.8|-35.1|1
84629289|NCT05010707|168997309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.004
84761636|NCT04418765|169279808|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.22|30.15||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||30.15|5.22|<0.0001
84761637|NCT04418765|169279808|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.35||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||24.35|4.16|<0.0001
84629290|NCT05010707|168997309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-280.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.3|-73.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-73.5|-487.3|0.005
84629291|NCT05010707|168997309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-204.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-411.1|0.054
84629292|NCT03563209|168997344|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05/3 (0.0167)|Friedman|||Null hypothesis: no difference between dynamic components of elbow flexor spasticity (spasticity angle) in three different forearm positions. (Comparison groups were Spasticity angle in pronation, Spasticity angle in neutral position and Spasticity angle in supination)||||<0.001
84629293|NCT04567628|168997358|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||=0.003
84629294|NCT04567628|168997359|OTHER||||||=|0.25||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||=0.25
84629295|NCT04567628|168997362|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84629296|NCT04567628|168997364|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84504459|NCT03342898|168759920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.46|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-4||1.46|0.89|
84504460|NCT03342898|168759924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 30. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 1/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||ANOVA model was used for analyses, including the log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|||1.26|0.77|
84504461|NCT01387282|168759931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
84504462|NCT01387282|168759932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.6480
84504463|NCT01387282|168759933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0016
84629297|NCT02892344|168997374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.148|<0.001
84629298|NCT02892344|168997375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.143|-0.293|<0.001
84629299|NCT02892344|168997376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.105|<0.001
84629300|NCT02892344|168997377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.207|0.145|<0.001
84629301|NCT02892344|168997378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FVC||0.139|0.061|<0.001
84629302|NCT02892344|168997378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FEF25-75%||0.345|0.231|<0.001
84629303|NCT02892344|168997379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Morning PEF||32.4|22.1|<0.001
84629304|NCT02892344|168997379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Evening PEF||31.2|21.0|<0.001
84629305|NCT02892344|168997382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|-0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.131|-0.277|<0.001
84629306|NCT02892344|168997383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Night-time number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.05|-0.16|<0.001
84504464|NCT01387282|168759934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.8637
84504465|NCT01387282|168759935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
84504466|NCT02661126|168759936|OTHER|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.92||||||||2.92|1.40|
84504467|NCT02661126|168759937|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.89||||||||2.89|1.39|
84629307|NCT02892344|168997383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daytime number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.08|-0.22|<0.001
84629308|NCT02892344|168997384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|4.3|<0.001
84629309|NCT02892344|168997385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.234|0.064|<0.001
84629310|NCT02892344|168997388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.14|<0.001
84629311|NCT01295814|168997389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.99 (99%) for the improvement in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.~The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.92 (92%) for the improvement in the placebo group from baseline to week 12."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in OSPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||11.8|4.0|0.75
84629312|NCT01295814|168997390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICSI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||6.3|1.7|0.99
84629313|NCT01295814|168997391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||5.8|2.1|0.76
84629314|NCT01295814|168997392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.0||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in PUF in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||10.0|2.6|0.76
84629315|NCT01295814|168997393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||||0.67
84629316|NCT02958917|168997394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629317|NCT02958917|168997395|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.264|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
84629318|NCT02958917|168997396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629319|NCT02958917|168997397|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629320|NCT02958917|168997398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.364|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84629321|NCT02958917|168997399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84629322|NCT02958917|168997400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629323|NCT02958917|168997401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629324|NCT02958917|168997402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629325|NCT02958917|168997403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629326|NCT02958917|168997404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629327|NCT02318706|168997413|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.03||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.30|-0.35|0.8773
84629328|NCT02318706|168997413|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.15||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.17|-0.48|0.3494
84629329|NCT02318706|168997413|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||-0.17|-0.82|0.0027
84504468|NCT02661126|168759938|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.92||||||||2.92|1.39|
84629330|NCT05024032|168997441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-14.8|<0.001
84629331|NCT05024032|168997441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-20.3|<0.001
84629332|NCT05024032|168997442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|60.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.69|8.80|<0.001
84629333|NCT05024032|168997442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.61|73.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.24|9.61|<0.001
84629334|NCT05024032|168997443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.8|<0.001
84629335|NCT05024032|168997443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-10.9|<0.001
84629336|NCT05024032|168997444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|30.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.89|5.63|<0.001
84629337|NCT05024032|168997444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|72.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.71|11.23|<0.001
84629338|NCT05024032|168997445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|98.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.49|6.68|<0.001
84629339|NCT05024032|168997445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.69|275.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||275.37|17.69|<0.001
84629340|NCT05024032|168997446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
84629341|NCT05024032|168997446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-16.0|<0.001
84629342|NCT05024032|168997447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-13.5|<0.001
84629343|NCT05024032|168997447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-18.6|<0.001
84629344|NCT05024032|168997448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.8|<0.001
84629345|NCT05024032|168997448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-6.4|<0.001
84629346|NCT05024032|168997449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.46|<0.001
84629347|NCT05024032|168997449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
84674824|NCT02099721|169084875|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio significantly below 1 indicates reduced mortality in the 1.5 implanted group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66||The p-value is for the effect of treatment group on time to death, adjusting for the baseline covariates of age, gender, QRS duration, ischemic cardiomyopathy, LBBB, NYHA classification, diabetes, LVEF, syncope, NSVT and PVCs.|Wald chi-square||Multiple imputations were employed to account for missing baseline covariates.|The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of implanted to non-implanted 1.5 patients = 1. The alternative is that the ratio is not equal to 1.||0.66|0.40|< 0.0001
84674825|NCT00844545|169084884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
84629348|NCT05024032|168997450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.61|<0.001
84629349|NCT05024032|168997450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
84629350|NCT05024032|168997451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.044
84629351|NCT05024032|168997451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.050
84629352|NCT05024032|168997452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.8|||ANCOVA|||||11.8|3.7|<0.001
84629353|NCT05024032|168997452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|4.4|<0.001
84674826|NCT00844545|169084885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
84674827|NCT00844545|169084886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
84674828|NCT00844545|169084887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
84674829|NCT00844545|169084888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84504469|NCT02661126|168759939|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|2.74||||||||2.74|1.35|
84629354|NCT05024032|168997453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-6.9|<0.001
84629355|NCT05024032|168997454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-9.1|<0.001
84629356|NCT05024032|168997455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-0.51|
84629357|NCT05024032|168997456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||||||||0.14|0.03|
84629358|NCT05024032|168997457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.25|
84629359|NCT05024032|168997458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||||||||-0.16|-0.34|
84629360|NCT05024032|168997459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.79|
84629361|NCT05024032|168997460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.12|
84629362|NCT05024032|168997461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-8.6|
84629363|NCT03175367|168997483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-56.5|< .0001
84629364|NCT03175367|168997483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-35.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.1|-70.7|< .0001
84629365|NCT03175367|168997483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|-38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.3|-73.7|< .0001
84629366|NCT03175367|168997483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|=|0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-5.7||P-Value is not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-42.6|= 0.0109
84629367|NCT03175367|168997483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-32.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.6|-68.4|< .0001
84629368|NCT03175367|168997484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.4|-40.9|= 0.0003
84629369|NCT03175367|168997484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-56.1|< 0.0001
84674830|NCT00844545|169084889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
84629370|NCT03175367|168997484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-59.5|< 0.0001
84629371|NCT03175367|168997484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|=|0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-29.7|= 0.0132
84629372|NCT03175367|168997484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.8|-52.0|< 0.0001
84629373|NCT03175367|168997485|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.1|-38.4|= 0.0111
84629374|NCT03175367|168997485|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.0|-56.7|< 0.0001
84629375|NCT03175367|168997486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.3|-54.4|< 0.0001
84629376|NCT03175367|168997486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.9|-68.8|< 0.0001
84629377|NCT03175367|168997486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-58.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.7|-73.4|< 0.0001
84629378|NCT03175367|168997486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-39.7|= 0.0042
84629379|NCT03175367|168997486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-66.4|< 0.0001
84629380|NCT03175367|168997487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.4|-49.8|= 0.0021
84629381|NCT03175367|168997487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-73.4|< 0.0001
84629382|NCT03175367|168997488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|72.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.8|5.1|< 0.0001
84629383|NCT03175367|168997488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|89.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.2|6.4|< 0.0001
84629384|NCT03175367|168997488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|80.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.5|6.0|< 0.0001
84629385|NCT03175367|168997488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.2|2.5|= 0.0007
84629386|NCT03175367|168997488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|172.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||172.3|10.4|< 0.0001
84629387|NCT03175367|168997489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.5|1.7|= 0.0100
84629388|NCT03175367|168997489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.8|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|129.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||129.9|4.7|= 0.0001
84629389|NCT03175367|168997489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|194.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||194.7|6.7|< 0.0001
84629390|NCT03175367|168997489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|0.5|= 0.3185
84629391|NCT03175367|168997489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|54.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.2|3.9|< 0.0001
84629392|NCT03175367|168997490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||=|0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|0.9|= 0.0718
84674831|NCT00844545|169084890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
84629393|NCT03175367|168997490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|62.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.1|2.1|= 0.0048
84629394|NCT03175367|168997490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|76.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.8|2.8|= 0.0015
84629395|NCT03175367|168997490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.4|0.3|= 0.5270
84629396|NCT03175367|168997490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||=|0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|31.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.7|1.9|= 0.0047
84629397|NCT03175367|168997491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-55.5|= 0.0059
84629398|NCT03175367|168997491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-77.0|< 0.0001
84629399|NCT03175367|168997492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.8|-48.4|< .0001
84629400|NCT03175367|168997492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-57.5|< .0001
84629401|NCT03175367|168997492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.4|-62.5|< .0001
84629402|NCT03175367|168997492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.8|-34.6|= 0.0006
84629403|NCT03175367|168997492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-58.4|< .0001
84629404|NCT03175367|168997493|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.3|-42.6|= 0.0001
84629405|NCT03175367|168997493|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-63.2|< .0001
84629406|NCT03175367|168997494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-34.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-34.3|-57.8|< .0001
84629407|NCT03175367|168997494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-44.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.3|-67.3|< .0001
84674832|NCT00844545|169084891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
84674833|NCT00844545|169084892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
84629408|NCT03175367|168997494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-50.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-50.0|-72.9|< .0001
84629409|NCT03175367|168997494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-12.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-12.4|-38.0|= 0.0001
84629410|NCT03175367|168997494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-33.5|||Regression, Linear|||||-33.5|-58.4|< .0001
84629411|NCT03175367|168997495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|=|0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.4|-31.8|= 0.0228
84629412|NCT03175367|168997495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-31.0|-59.6|< .0001
84629413|NCT03175367|168997496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|=|0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-21.8|= 0.0635
84629414|NCT03175367|168997496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.1|-22.8|= 0.0314
84629415|NCT03175367|168997496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-19.9|= 0.0923
84629416|NCT03175367|168997496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.2|-26.8|= 0.0017
84674834|NCT00844545|169084893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84674835|NCT01532687|169084902|SUPERIORITY|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.017|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study was originally designed with overall one-sided alpha of 5%, where a total of 73 patients (36 in the gemcitabine + placebo arm, and 37 in the gemcitabine + pazopanib arm) were required to achieve 80% power to detect a 2.5 month increase in median PFS (a hazard ratio of 0.55) between the two treatment arms. Study was closed early by the sponsor due to slow accrual and funds and thus was under powered.||||0.017
84629417|NCT03175367|168997496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.8|-26.2|= 0.0009
84629418|NCT03175367|168997497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-4.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.7|-27.4|= 0.0054
84629419|NCT03175367|168997497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-3.7|-25.4|= 0.0085
84629420|NCT02670811|168997498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629421|NCT02670811|168997498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), was analyzed using a paired student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629422|NCT02670811|168997499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629423|NCT02670811|168997500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, total cholesterol (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629424|NCT02670811|168997501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, low density lipoprotein (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629425|NCT02670811|168997502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, high density lipoproteins (mg/dL), between groups were analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629426|NCT02670811|168997503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, triglycerides (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84629427|NCT03714672|168997510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.4|-4.8|<0.0001
84629428|NCT03714672|168997510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.8|-5.2|<0.0001
84674836|NCT01532687|169084902|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.195|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Comparison between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup||||0.195
84674837|NCT01532687|169084902|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.079|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the 'other' sarcoma subgroup (n = 38)||||0.079
84674838|NCT01532687|169084904|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups||||||0.5||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the number of subjects and successes (n = 4)|One-sided Proportions Test|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction)||||0.5
84674839|NCT01532687|169084904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of small number of participants (n = 16) and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Liposarcoma group (n = 16). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for the secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the groups.||||0.3
84674840|NCT01532687|169084904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the small number of participants and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Other Sarcoma group (n = 38). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups.||||0.8
84674841|NCT01532687|169084905|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.481|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival estimated among all randomized participants (n = 54)||||0.481
84629429|NCT03714672|168997510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
84629430|NCT03714672|168997510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.0001
84629431|NCT02364700|168997525|EQUIVALENCE|Group means from baseline to discharge were compared to determine if 6-week and training on the Hand of Hope device elicited changes in outcome measures.|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|||||||<.05
84674842|NCT01532687|169084905|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.353|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival compared between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup (n = 16)||||0.353
84674843|NCT01532687|169084905|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.408|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival comparison between the two treatment arms for the other sarcoma group (n = 38)||||0.408
84674844|NCT01513291|169084921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.33153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.3|0.33153
84674845|NCT01513291|169084922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||21.6|-3.4|
84674846|NCT01513291|169084923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||8.9|-4.0|
84674847|NCT01513291|169084924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.24008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.4|0.24008
84674848|NCT01513291|169084925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.43093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||2.0|0.7|0.43093
84674849|NCT01513291|169084926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Treatment Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||1.5|0.7|0.97370
84629432|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.046||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.098|-0.006|0.085
84629433|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.093|-0.011|0.123
84629434|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.237|0.133|<0.001
84629435|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.266||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.266|0.161|<0.001
84629436|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.209|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.261|0.157|<0.001
84629437|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.22||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.220|0.116|<0.001
84629438|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.219|0.117|<0.001
84629439|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.081|-0.023|0.274
84629440|NCT01054885|168997531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.075|-0.027|0.357
84629441|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.044||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.095
84629442|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.008||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.060|-0.044|0.756
84629443|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.151|0.048|<0.001
84629444|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.197||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.197|0.091|<0.001
84629445|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.183|0.080|<0.001
84629446|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.152||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.152|0.047|<0.001
84629447|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.174||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.174|0.072|<0.001
84629448|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.093
84629449|NCT01054885|168997532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.032||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.083|-0.019|0.224
84629450|NCT00804908|168997536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.071|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.071
84629451|NCT00804908|168997536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.233|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.233
84674850|NCT03732638|169084927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-1.46|0.0099
84629452|NCT03085095|168997548|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups was calculated with a noninferiority margin of -10%.|Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.8|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of non-inferiority was conducted.||11.8|4.1|
84629453|NCT03085095|168997548|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups also excluded 0%. The p value was calculated post hoc.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error of 0.05.||Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of superiority was conducted.||||< 0.0001
84629454|NCT03085095|168997549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
84629455|NCT03085095|168997550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
84629456|NCT03085095|168997551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
84629457|NCT03085095|168997552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.98|80.83||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||80.83|73.98|< 0.0001
84629458|NCT03085095|168997553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
84674851|NCT03732638|169084928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|0.2|0.0438
84674852|NCT03732638|169084929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.34|0.0017
84674853|NCT03732638|169084930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.31||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.80|0.3868
84674854|NCT02732847|169084948|OTHER|Chi square tests used to compared groups||||||0.924||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered|Chi-squared|||||||0.924
84629459|NCT03085095|168997557|OTHER||Treatment difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.1|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||19.1|6.9|
84629460|NCT03085095|168997559|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.0|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||2.0|-7.8|
84629461|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.069|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo' at 1 hour||0.069|0.008|=0.020
84629462|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.101|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.176|0.101|<0.001
84629463|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.158|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.158|0.087|<0.001
84629464|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.045|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.045|-0.016|=0.220
84629465|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.161|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.161|0.087|<0.001
84629466|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.105|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.176|0.105|<0.001
84629467|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.05|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.050|-0.012|0.155
84674855|NCT02214147|169084974|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.8|||||Least Squares Geometric Means Ratio= Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||1.80|1.12|
84674856|NCT02214147|169084975|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|4.43|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||4.43|2.33|
84674857|NCT02214147|169084976|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.53|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||3.53|1.84|
84674858|NCT02664038|169084992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-8.23|2.588|||ANCOVA|covaried for days of heavy drinking over the 30 days prior to randomization.||||2.588|-8.23|<.05
84674859|NCT02664038|169084993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|Days of heavy drinking 30 days prior to randomization||||3.61|-3.26|<.05
84674860|NCT02664038|169084994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.77|TWO_SIDED|0.05|1.45|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measure with Baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks||||4.43|1.45|.77
84674861|NCT02664038|169084995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.61|<.05
84674862|NCT02664038|169084996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.19|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|.19|.05
84674863|NCT04875520|169085013|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall rate compared using GEE model includes any person affiliated with the school who tested positive at least once during the study period that the schools reported to us that were positive. This includes people in our testing program and not in our testing program.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01845||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04981|0.01292|||generalized estimating equations|||||0.01292|-0.04981|0.25
84629468|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.129|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.129|0.053|<0.001
84629469|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.162|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.162|0.090|<0.001
84629470|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.048|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.048|-0.015|0.188
84629471|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|0.093|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.093|0.017|=0.009
84629472|NCT00674817|168997590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.086|0.159|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.159|0.086|<0.001
84629473|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0616|=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.036|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.036|-0.168|=0.856
84629474|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.174|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.174|0.010|=0.033
84629475|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|=|0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.154|-0.019|=0.099
84504470|NCT02661126|168759945|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
84629476|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0612|=|0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.034|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.034|-0.168|=0.862
84629477|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.201|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.201|0.039|=0.008
84629478|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.185|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.185|0.015|0.027
84629479|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0621|=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.155|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.155|-0.050|=0.200
84629480|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.011|0.177|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus that due to GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.177|0.011|=0.031
84629481|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004|0.179|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.179|0.004|=0.043
84629482|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0625|=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.081|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.081|-0.125|=0.637
84629483|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.218|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.218|0.053|=0.004
84629484|NCT00674817|168997591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.189|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.189|0.012|=0.031
84629485|NCT00674817|168997597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|8.041||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||8.041|-0.547|
84629486|NCT00674817|168997597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|5.944||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||5.944|-2.521|
84629487|NCT00674817|168997597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.559|6.069||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||6.069|-2.559|
84629488|NCT00674817|168997597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|3.103||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.103|-5.565|
84629489|NCT00674817|168997598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|9.897||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||9.897|-0.781|
84629490|NCT00674817|168997598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.999|7.532||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||7.532|-2.999|
84629491|NCT00674817|168997598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.429|6.29||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||6.290|-4.429|
84629492|NCT00674817|168997598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.539|4.236||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||4.236|-6.539|
84629493|NCT00674817|168997599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6816|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|4.566||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||4.566|-2.069|
84629494|NCT00674817|168997599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.687||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.687|-2.850|
84674864|NCT04456699|169085014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.97|1.00|0.9774
84629495|NCT00674817|168997599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|2.714||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||2.714|-4.013|
84629496|NCT00674817|168997599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.325|1.427||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||1.427|-5.325|
84629497|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.258|15.139||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||15.139|5.258|
84629498|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|7.567||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||7.567|-2.195|
84629499|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5196|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.883|12.825||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||12.825|2.883|
84629500|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.864|4.097||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-5.864|
84629501|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9782|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.352|17.103||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||17.103|5.352|
84629502|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.418|10.197||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||10.197|-1.418|
84504471|NCT02661126|168759946|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.74||||||||2.74|1.50|
84629503|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|11.886||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||11.886|0.065|
84629504|NCT00674817|168997600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.006|3.84||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.840|-8.006|
84629505|NCT00674817|168997601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|8.542||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||8.542|1.857|
84629506|NCT00674817|168997601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|3.307||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.307|-3.294|
84629507|NCT00674817|168997601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|6.345||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||6.345|-0.433|
84629508|NCT00674817|168997601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.076|1.711||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.711|-5.076|
84629509|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3932|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.839|9.336||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.336|3.839|
84629510|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|3.962||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.962|-1.453|
84674865|NCT04456699|169085014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.49|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||2.49|1.23|0.9993
84629511|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.231|9.738||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.738|4.231|
84629512|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|5.031||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.031|-0.522|
84629513|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2464|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.58||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus maximal GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.580|1.662|
84629514|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.142|2.703||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.703|-2.142|
84629515|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|6.729||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.729|1.802|
84629516|NCT00674817|168997602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|4.106||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||4.106|-0.863|
84629517|NCT00674817|168997603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|5.732||||||GSK961081 400 mcg plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.732|2.456|
84629518|NCT00674817|168997603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|2.258||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.258|-0.967|
84629519|NCT00674817|168997603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.324|5.636||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.636|2.324|
84629520|NCT00674817|168997603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|2.603||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.603|-0.735|
84629521|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|1.748||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.748|-5.420|
84629522|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7809|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|4.113||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.113|-2.914|
84629523|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.261|3.909||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.909|-3.261|
84629524|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.781|1.416||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.416|-5.781|
84504472|NCT02661126|168759947|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.56||||||||2.56|1.15|
84629525|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.762|0.23||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.230|-6.762|
84629526|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|3.348||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.348|-3.502|
84629527|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|5.327||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||5.327|-1.673|
84629528|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|2.279||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.279|-4.743|
84629529|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.976|1.187||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.187|-3.976|
84629530|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2819|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.348|3.71||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||3.710|-1.348|
84629531|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|2.71||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.710|-2.498|
84629532|NCT00674817|168997604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.325|1.899||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.899|-3.325|
84629533|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.997|1.876||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.876|-2.997|
84629534|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|4.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-0.687|
84629535|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2341|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.771|1.098||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.098|-3.771|
84629536|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.516|1.382||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.382|-3.516|
84629537|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0997|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.794||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.794|-2.545|
84629538|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.588|2.668||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.668|-1.588|
84629539|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0999|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.185|2.154||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.154|-2.185|
84629540|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.715|2.648||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.648|-1.715|
84629541|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|0.559||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.559|-2.918|
84629542|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|2.582||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.582|-0.829|
84629543|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.561|0.944||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.944|-2.561|
84629544|NCT00674817|168997605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|1.401||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.401|-2.122|
84629545|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.994||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.994|0.066|
84629546|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2318|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.846||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.846|-0.069|
84629547|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.775||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.775|-0.157|
84629548|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.78||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.780|-0.163|
84629549|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3099|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.485||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.485|0.262|
84629550|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|0.55||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.550|-0.656|
84629551|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|1.443||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.443|0.215|
84629552|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|1.189||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.189|-0.054|
84629553|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.513||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.513|0.110|
84629554|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.372||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus maximum GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.372|-0.025|
84629555|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.414||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.414|0.006|
84504473|NCT02661126|168759948|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.87||||||||2.87|1.20|
84629556|NCT00674817|168997606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.311||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.311|-0.103|
84629557|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.078||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||-0.078|-0.276|
84629558|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.097|-0.096|
84629559|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.022||||||SK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.022|-0.174|
84629560|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.072||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.072|-0.128|
84629561|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.069||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.069|-0.263|
84629562|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.038||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.038|-0.152|
84629563|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.075||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.075|-0.267|
84629564|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.089||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.089|-0.108|
84629565|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.005||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||-0.005|-0.211|
84629566|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.114||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.114|-0.087|
84629567|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.026||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.026|-0.180|
84629568|NCT00674817|168997607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.08||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.080|-0.129|
84629569|NCT01231984|168997672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 8mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm versus 8mm PN on HbA1c|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.058|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.058|-0.209|
84629570|NCT01231984|168997673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4 mm PN and the longer PNs (pooled) was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1c were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm PN vs. longer PN on HbA1c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.051|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.051|-0.23|
84629571|NCT01231984|168997674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.37|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study|t-test, 1 sided|||"Subjects rated the level of pain experienced when using the PN assigned for use during Study Period 2 compared to the PN assigned for use in Study Period 1. By placing a mark on a line, whose midpoint(anchor) was designated as 0, and represented equivalent pain with assigned PNs, ratings on the continuum represented the degree to which the PN used in the second Study Period was less than or greater than the PN used during the first Study Period."|||0.37|<0.05
84629572|NCT01231984|168997675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.83|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.54|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 1 sided||||||18.54|<0.05
84629573|NCT01231984|168997677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 12.7mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units|Effect of 4 mm vs.12.7mm PN on HbA1c|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limit|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||-0.000|-0.190|
84629574|NCT01968447|168997679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84761638|NCT04418765|169279809|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-4.2|-6.7|<0.0001
84629575|NCT04196777|168997704|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 3. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 3, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||0.445|0.016|0.004
84629576|NCT04196777|168997704|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 1. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.593||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.585|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 1, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||3.585|0.710|0.259
84644883|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.312
84629577|NCT04196777|168997704|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 2. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|4.147|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 2, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||4.147|0.135|0.738
84629578|NCT04196777|168997705|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 3 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|1280.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 3 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.001
84629579|NCT04196777|168997705|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 1 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|28662.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 1 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.Type of statistical test||||0.013
84629580|NCT04196777|168997705|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 2 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|784.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 2 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.14
84629581|NCT04196777|168997706|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome. This last variable was included to assess the risk of these secondary outcomes in patients who were not exposed to post-procedural antimicrobials compared to those who were exposed.||0.99|0.58|0.04
84629582|NCT04196777|168997707|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome across all sites, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome.||0.87|0.53|<0.01
84629583|NCT00981656|168997711|OTHER|No testing is done, conclusions are made based on the confidence interval.||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis = this treatment will result in 75% of participants free from radical cystectomy at 3 years. A lower confidence bound of 60% will be promising enough to pursue this regimen further. A sample size of 33 analyzable patients provides a one-sided 97.5% lower bound of 60% relative to the hypothesized 75%. In terms of type I error, this design provides a 2.5% chance of observing a 3-year percentage less than 60% if the true rate is 75%.|If the lower confidence interval (CI) limit was above 60% then the regimen would be considered promising enough to warrant further study for this treatment regimen. If the lower limit was below 25% then the treatment would not be considered worthy of further study. If the lower limit fell between 25% and 60%, the investigators would consider the possibility of further investigation.|||
84629584|NCT04026113|168997723|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.689||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.651|< 0.0001
84629585|NCT04026113|168997723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4323||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4323
84629586|NCT04026113|168997725|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.638||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.638|0.208|0.0001
84629587|NCT04026113|168997725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4381||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4381
84629588|NCT04613362|168997747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97||adjusted for gender which is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.34|0.61
84629589|NCT04613362|168997749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.8028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3895||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5314|3.9257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.9257|-21.5314|0.1724
84504474|NCT02661126|168759949|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.97||||||||2.97|1.38|
84629590|NCT04613362|168997749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9929||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5917|7.2851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.2851|-16.5917|0.4399
84629591|NCT04613362|168997750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0826||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2261|54.8032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||54.8032|-17.2261|0.3021
84629592|NCT04613362|168997750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1338||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3245|28.9254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||28.9254|-39.3245|0.7624
84629593|NCT04613362|168997751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3867||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7794|14.7019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||14.7019|-2.7794|0.1783
84629594|NCT04613362|168997751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1565||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4965|8.0675|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||8.0675|-8.4965|0.959
84761639|NCT04418765|169279809|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.5||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-2.5|-5.0|<0.0001
84761640|NCT01100944|169279855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84761641|NCT01100944|169279864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.30
84761642|NCT01100944|169279864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84761643|NCT01100944|169279864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84761644|NCT01100944|169279865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed.Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.76
84761645|NCT01100944|169279865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
84761646|NCT01100944|169279865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84761647|NCT01100944|169279866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.95
84761648|NCT01100944|169279866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84761649|NCT01100944|169279866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84761650|NCT02296242|169279868|OTHER||Highest dose (mg) with no DLTs.|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||In Part 1, 2 patients experienced DLTs in the 750 mg b.i.d. treatment group (2/7; 29%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the 600 mg b.i.d. group or 300 mg b.i.d. group. Therefore, based on these results, 600 mg b.i.d. was selected as the MTD dose (and RP2D dose) which was used as the treatment dose in Part 2 of the study.||||
84761651|NCT03728309|169279954|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|63.5||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 30 imputed data sets using SAS PROC MIANALYZE with normal approximation.|SAS PROC MIANALYZE|||||63.5|43.5|<0.001
84761652|NCT03728309|169279956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|36.0|||2-sample, t-test|||||36.0|21.0|<0.001
84761653|NCT03728309|169279957|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|65.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||Comparison of treatment group versus control group at Month 1, responder rate difference, 95% CI for risk difference and p-value was estimated based on Fisher's exact test using mITT population with baseline AFLS score of 2 or 3 on both cheeks.|||65.7|40.1|<0.001
84761654|NCT02342015|169279959|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84761655|NCT02342015|169279960|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
84761656|NCT01849770|169279970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||Random slopes model|||||0.56|-1.03|0.561
84761657|NCT01849770|169279970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.66|||Random slopes model|||||0.66|-1.04|0.662
84761658|NCT01849770|169279971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.22|||Random slopes model|||||4.22|-0.80|0.178
84761659|NCT01849770|169279971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.91|||Random slopes model|||||1.91|-3.80|0.510
84761660|NCT00866307|169279985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|64.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage of high risk-High patients taking less than 49 weeks from day 1 of consolidation to day 1 of maintenance therapy is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=73%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed and the lower bound examined. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 73%.||64.4|35.6|
84504475|NCT02661126|168759953|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.53||||||||2.53|1.44|
84761661|NCT00866307|169279986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.7|67.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage receiving at least 8 doses is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=42%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 42%.||67.4|38.7|
84761662|NCT02573155|169279991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0585|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|0.0585|<0.0001
84761663|NCT02573155|169279991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.156|<0.0001
84761664|NCT02508194|169280000|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.9|44.3|||||The CI was estimated by an exact conditional method.|2 sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was used to compare vaccine efficacy (VE). VE = (\[1 - relative risk (RR)\] \*100%), where RR was the RR of ARA-RI in the MEDI7510 group compared with the placebo group. A lower bound of the 90% CI greater than (\>) 0% would demonstrate the efficacy of MEDI7510.||44.3|-106.9|
84761665|NCT00217087|169280023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0098
84761666|NCT00217087|169280024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84761667|NCT00217087|169280025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|the only participant who reported a decrease quality of life related that to a recent surgery not their esophagus.||||||0.2
84504476|NCT02661126|168759954|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|2.63||||||||2.63|1.48|
84629595|NCT04613362|168997752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3097||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2243|1.8989|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.8989|-27.2243|0.0873
84761668|NCT00802685|169280026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Oxygen duration (days) during the first 28 days will be equal between treatment arms.||36|4|0.858
84761669|NCT00802685|169280027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.309|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||null hypothesis: The proportion of subjects on O2 at 36 wk PMA will be equal between treatment arms.||2.309|0.393|0.8
84761670|NCT01328951|169280032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.22|0.85|0.8183
84629596|NCT04613362|168997752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8559||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0154|6.2999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.2999|-21.0154|0.2866
84761671|NCT01328951|169280032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.32|0.87|0.5256
84761672|NCT01328951|169280033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.45|||Chi-squared|||||7.45|-8.25|0.9207
84761673|NCT01328951|169280035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.11|0.80|0.4759
84629597|NCT04613362|168997754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4313||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4168|1.2859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.2859|-4.4168|0.2776
84629598|NCT04613362|168997754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6492||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5651|4.0055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||4.0055|-2.5651|0.6636
84629599|NCT04613362|168997755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6911||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0443|5.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||5.695|-1.0443|0.1733
84761674|NCT01328951|169280035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.06|0.72|0.1635
84761675|NCT01328951|169280036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-2.89||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.93|||Chi-squared|||||3.93|-9.70|0.4069
84761676|NCT01328951|169280037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|2.78||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|6.35|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.35|-0.78|0.1097
84761677|NCT01328951|169280037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.72|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||3.72|0.87|
84761678|NCT01328951|169280039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|1.99||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|9.72|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||9.72|-5.74|0.6062
84761679|NCT01328951|169280039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||1.49|0.79|
84761680|NCT05103332|169280040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-7.6||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-7.6|-16.5|<0.0001
84761681|NCT05103332|169280041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.6|-12.9|<0.0001
84629600|NCT04613362|168997755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7726|2.6911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||2.6911|-3.7726|0.7398
84629601|NCT04613362|168997756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5551||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2476|2.9494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 3 months||2.9494|-3.2476|0.9239
84629602|NCT04613362|168997756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4735||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2238|2.6481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 6 months||2.6481|-3.2238|0.8456
84629603|NCT04613362|168997756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3798||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9175|4.5661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 3 months||4.5661|-4.9175|0.9413
84629604|NCT04613362|168997756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2549||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4526|1.5333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 6 months||1.5333|-7.4526|0.1934
84629605|NCT04613362|168997757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1004||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0852|7.2849|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||7.2849|-1.0852|0.1442
84629606|NCT04613362|168997757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.036||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9892|6.1243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.1243|-1.9892|0.3132
84629607|NCT02218372|168997772|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.9||||||Adjusted difference of CCR at EOT + 2 Days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. Newcombe 95% confidence intervals (CIs) presented for adjusted treatment difference.||23.9|-7.4|
84629608|NCT02218372|168997773|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.2||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.2|1.8|
84629609|NCT02218372|168997774|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|37.7||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||37.7|4.5|
84629610|NCT02218372|168997775|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-1.8||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.8|-34.2|
84504477|NCT02661126|168759955|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.48||||||||2.48|1.54|
84629611|NCT02218372|168997776|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|35.6||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.6|1.9|
84629612|NCT02218372|168997777|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|35.9||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.9|2.3|
84629613|NCT02218372|168997778|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-1.9||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.9|-35.6|
84629614|NCT02218372|168997779|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
84629615|NCT02218372|168997780|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
84629616|NCT02218372|168997781|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
84629617|NCT02218372|168997782|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
84761682|NCT05103332|169280042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|=|0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.8||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA eGFR. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while subjects were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-0.8|-8.2|=0.0183
84629618|NCT02218372|168997783|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
84629619|NCT02218372|168997784|OTHER|Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.|adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOS/EOT +30 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
84629620|NCT02218372|168997785|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||Log Rank|||Time to resolution of diarrhea.||||0.579
84629621|NCT02218372|168997786|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Time to recurrence of CDAD.||||0.023
84629622|NCT02753283|168997795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.007
84629623|NCT02753283|168997795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.018
84629624|NCT02753283|168997796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.014
84629625|NCT02753283|168997796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.002
84629626|NCT02753283|168997797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.060
84629627|NCT02753283|168997797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.055
84629628|NCT02753283|168997798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.112
84629629|NCT02753283|168997798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.070
84629630|NCT02753283|168997799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.904
84629631|NCT02753283|168997799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.616
84629632|NCT02753283|168997800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||<.001
84629633|NCT02753283|168997800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.005
84629634|NCT02753283|168997801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.001
84629635|NCT02753283|168997801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.038
84629636|NCT04090203|168997817|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|75.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|40.0|||The test was performed at a one-sided significance level of 0.05.|Exact binomial test|The null hypothesis of the exact binomial test was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%.|The percentage of successfully desensitized participants is presented with a one-sided 95% CI, obtained from the lower bound of the two-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%, and the alternative hypothesis was that this percentage was greater than 20%. Assuming 80% of study participants would be successfully desensitized, a sample size of 10 patients would provide greater than 90% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided exact binomial test with a significance level of 0.05.|||40.0|0.001
84629637|NCT01488045|168997824|EQUIVALENCE|We compared patient satisfaction for those receiving the 2 sedation regimens using the Schuirmann 2 one-sided t test procedure.15 The groups were declared to be equivalent in terms of patient satisfaction if the 90% CI for the difference in mean satisfaction had outer boundaries indicating \<5% difference on the 100-point VAS. Nonequivalence was declared if the lower 90% CI boundary for the difference was less than -5.0, or if the upper 90% CI boundary for the difference was \>5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-9.6||||||To calculate the required sample size for this study, the equivalence limit was set at 5 units difference on the VAS, with an expected mean difference of 0. The common SD of 16.2 was estimated based on the range of expected scores for the VAS from Ulmer et al. Using these inputs, a total sample size of 262 patients was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the test and standard were not equivalent and conclude that they were equivalent.||-9.6|-18.5|
84629638|NCT02491684|168997843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.29||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.85|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.85|0.43|0.645
84629639|NCT02491684|168997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.97||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.89|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 7|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||9.89|0.39|0.411
84629640|NCT02491684|168997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.25||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.41|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.41|0.46|0.659
84629641|NCT02491684|168997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 14|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
84629642|NCT02491684|168997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
84629643|NCT02491684|168997846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first severe exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||3.77|0.45|0.634
84629644|NCT02491684|168997847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.78|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first moderate exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||16.78|0.07|0.973
84629645|NCT02491684|168997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.09||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.||0.35|-0.17|0.495
84629646|NCT02491684|168997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 6.||0.38|-0.26|0.715
84629647|NCT02491684|168997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 8.||0.28|-0.42|0.687
84629648|NCT02491684|168997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.45|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-14.||0.45|-0.23|0.516
84629649|NCT02491684|168997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-7.||0.37|-0.16|0.417
84629650|NCT02491684|168997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.36|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 8-14.||0.36|-0.34|0.954
84629651|NCT02491684|168997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 15-30.||0.35|-0.35|0.985
84629652|NCT02491684|168997852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 6.||0.24|-0.38|0.660
84629653|NCT02491684|168997852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 8.||0.29|-0.48|0.624
84761683|NCT05103332|169280043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-14.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-14.2|-22.8|<0.0001
84629654|NCT02491684|168997853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.59|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||1.59|-0.51|0.309
84629655|NCT02491684|168997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|16.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|34.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||34.60|-0.63|0.059
84629656|NCT02491684|168997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|34.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||34.05|4.66|0.010
84629657|NCT02491684|168997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.38||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|34.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||34.20|-5.44|0.153
84629658|NCT02491684|168997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|41.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.97|-3.44|0.096
84629659|NCT02491684|168997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.17|-0.03|0.161
84629660|NCT02491684|168997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.17|-0.01|0.087
84629661|NCT02491684|168997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.280
84629662|NCT02491684|168997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.24|-0.02|0.086
84761684|NCT05103332|169280044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-7.3|-14.7|<0.0001
84629663|NCT02491684|168997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.69||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|30.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||30.14|-6.76|0.211
84629664|NCT02491684|168997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.19||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|25.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||25.56|-3.18|0.125
84629665|NCT02491684|168997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.14||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|31.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||31.36|-9.08|0.277
84629666|NCT02491684|168997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|17.13||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|41.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.18|-6.92|0.161
84629667|NCT02491684|168997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.287
84629668|NCT02491684|168997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.14|-0.06|0.457
84629669|NCT02491684|168997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.315
84629670|NCT02491684|168997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.22|-0.03|0.134
84629671|NCT04739982|168997859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.27||An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the change in baseline and follow-up scores of treatment and treatment as usual participants.|t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom=274 Significance level=.05||||.27|-.21|.41
84629672|NCT04739982|168997860|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.39|-.08|.095
84629673|NCT04739982|168997862|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.47|-.09|.09
84629674|NCT00771914|168997875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from baseline compared to four hours after placebo.||||0.00
84629675|NCT00771914|168997875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Aspirin compared to Placebo.||||0.31
84629676|NCT00771914|168997875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.49
84629677|NCT00771914|168997875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from both Aspirin and Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.03
84629678|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2600|0.0600|0.0029
84629679|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1825||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0855|0.2795||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2795|0.0855|0.0007
84629680|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1565||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0419|0.2711||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2711|0.0419|0.0093
84629681|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1764||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0823|0.2704||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2704|0.0823|0.0007
84629682|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1999||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0894|0.3103||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3103|0.0894|0.0010
84629683|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0276|0.2443||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2443|0.0276|0.0159
84674866|NCT04456699|169085015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.21|0.54|0.1527
84504478|NCT02661126|168759956|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.24||||||||2.24|1.29|
84629684|NCT02135861|168997930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0535|0.2961||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2961|0.0535|0.0064
84629685|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0137||||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0968|0.0695||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0695|-0.0968|0.7381
84629686|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0136||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0852||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0852|-0.0580|0.6992
84629687|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0258||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1201|0.0684||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0684|-0.1201|0.5778
84629688|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0738|0.0747||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0747|-0.0738|0.9899
84629689|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0396||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.1153||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1153|-0.0360|0.2912
84629690|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0362||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1355|0.0631||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0631|-0.1355|0.4592
84629691|NCT02135861|168997931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0118||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.08||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0800|-0.1036|0.7936
84629692|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1148||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0236|0.2061||estimates of total lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2061|0.0236|0.0156
84629693|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0523|0.2209||estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA|estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2209|0.0523|0.0026
84629694|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1067||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0094|0.204||estimates of right lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2040|0.0094|0.0328
84629695|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1145||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0235|0.2056||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2056|0.0235|0.0158
84629696|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0917|0.2635||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2635|0.0917|0.0002
84629697|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0956||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0067|0.1979||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1979|-0.0067|0.0658
84629698|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1194||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0251|0.2137||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2137|0.0251|0.0150
84629699|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1428||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0598|0.2259||estimates of total lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2259|0.0598|0.0015
84629700|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1057|0.2496||estimates of left lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2496|0.1057|<.0001
84629701|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0308|0.2212||estimates of right lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2212|0.0308|0.0114
84629702|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1464||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0774|0.2153||estimates of left lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2153|0.0774|0.0002
84629703|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1266|0.3008||estimates of left lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3008|0.1266|<.0001
84629704|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1111||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0151|0.2071||estimates of right lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2071|0.0151|0.0250
84629705|NCT02135861|168997932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1458||||0.0052||95.0|0.0475|0.2442||estimates of right lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2442|0.0475|0.0052
84629706|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0524||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1292|0.0244||estimates of total lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0244|-0.1292|0.1730
84629707|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1196|0.0349||estimates of left lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0349|-0.1196|0.2704
84629708|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0515||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1334|0.0303||estimates of right lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0303|-0.1334|0.2072
84629709|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0603||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.0191||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0191|-0.1398|0.1307
84629710|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0078||||0.8427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0879|0.0722||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0722|-0.0879|0.8427
84629711|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0506||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1269|0.0257||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0257|-0.1269|0.1848
84629712|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0413||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1286|0.0461||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0461|-0.1286|0.3408
84629713|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0267||||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0866|0.0332||estimates of total lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0332|-0.0866|0.3682
84629714|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0201||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.0342||estimates of left lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0342|-0.0744|0.4531
84629715|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0188||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0909|0.0533||estimates of right lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0533|-0.0909|0.5970
84629716|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0159||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0375||estimates of left lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0375|-0.0693|0.5472
84629717|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0125||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0742|0.0491||estimates of left lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0491|-0.0742|0.6793
84629718|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.0466||estimates of right lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0466|-0.0964|0.4806
84629719|NCT02135861|168997933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0029||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0789|0.0731||estimates of right lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0731|-0.0789|0.9379
84629720|NCT02992288|168997942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2297
84629721|NCT02992288|168997942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4409||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4409
84629722|NCT02992288|168997942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2842||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2842
84629723|NCT02992288|168997942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2534||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2534
84629724|NCT02992288|168997942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.3842
84629725|NCT02992288|168997943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8966
84629726|NCT02992288|168997943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9233||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9233
84629727|NCT02992288|168997943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9296||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9296
84629728|NCT02992288|168997943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7357||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7357
84629729|NCT02992288|168997943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9083||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9083
84629730|NCT02992288|168997944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4596||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4596
84629731|NCT02992288|168997944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7859||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7859
84629732|NCT02992288|168997944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5562
84629733|NCT02992288|168997944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5338||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5338
84629734|NCT02992288|168997944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7303||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7303
84674867|NCT04456699|169085015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.30|0.59|0.2491
84674868|NCT04456699|169085016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||6.5|-7.0|0.5272
84629735|NCT02992288|168997945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5703
84629736|NCT02992288|168997945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8253||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8253
84629737|NCT02992288|168997945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6506||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6506
84629738|NCT02992288|168997945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6923||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6923
84629739|NCT02992288|168997945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8036||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8036
84629740|NCT02992288|168997946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9955||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9955
84674869|NCT04456699|169085016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.2||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||2.3|-9.7|0.9020
84629741|NCT02992288|168997946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9946||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9946
84629742|NCT02992288|168997946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9913
84629743|NCT02992288|168997946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9982
84629744|NCT02992288|168997946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9959
84629745|NCT00656513|168997951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An effect size of 0.50 was chosen for sample size calculation. On the basis of a 2-sided t test with alpha= 0.05 and 1 interim analysis, 130 patients were required for 80% statistical power. Adjustment by 10% for loss to follow-up and retrospective ineligibility of recruited study participants yielded a sample size of 144 patients. Actual power given only 96 patients was 68.6%||||0.45
84629746|NCT00656513|168997953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Two-sided test of values at 4 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84629747|NCT00656513|168997953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided test of values at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84629748|NCT00656513|168997953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-sided test of values at 15 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84629749|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||4-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84629750|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84761685|NCT05103332|169280045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-10.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-10.3|-16.9|<0.0001
84504479|NCT02661126|168759957|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|2.57||||||||2.57|1.47|
84629751|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||4 months Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84629752|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||4-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84629753|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||6-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
84629754|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||6-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84629755|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||6-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84629756|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84629757|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||9-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84629758|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||9-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84629759|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||9-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84629760|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||9-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84629761|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||15-month Physical Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84629762|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||15-month Pain/Discomfort; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84629763|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||15-month Personal/Psychological Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84629764|NCT00656513|168997954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||15-month Social Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84629765|NCT00656513|168997955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||4-month score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84629766|NCT00656513|168997955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84629767|NCT00656513|168997955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||9-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84629768|NCT00656513|168997955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||15-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84629769|NCT00656513|168997956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||4-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84629770|NCT00656513|168997956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84629771|NCT00656513|168997956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84629772|NCT00656513|168997956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84629773|NCT00656513|168997957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided test, significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84629774|NCT03199976|168997971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84629775|NCT03199976|168997972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
84629776|NCT03199976|168997973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84761686|NCT05103332|169280046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|33.29||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||33.29|4.61|<0.0001
84629777|NCT03199976|168997974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84629778|NCT02392637|168997975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
84629779|NCT02392637|168997976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.39
84629780|NCT01761877|168997978|OTHER|Mixed Models Analysis|||||<|0.05||||||A p value was calculated for change in breast density from baseline to 12 months separately for each study arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to assess change in breast density using fat/water MRI after 12 months of sulindac intervention in postmenopausal breast cancer patients taking aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. A non-randomized observation arm was included with the same eligibility criteria to assess change in breast density over 12 months using the fat/water MRI method of quantifying breast density. Change was examined separately for each arm.||||<0.05
84629781|NCT01761877|168997979|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629782|NCT01761877|168997980|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84629783|NCT03697252|168998004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-7.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-7.05|-16.07|<0.0001
84629784|NCT03697252|168998006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of KarXT and Placebo at Week 5||||<0.001
84629785|NCT03165617|168998023|SUPERIORITY|Success criterion were met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI was above 20%.|Absolute Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical Analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy Any Strain. Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 20% (primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (2 to \<18 years of age).||62.12|45.67|
84629786|NCT03165617|168998024|SUPERIORITY|Success criteria was met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the VE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint)|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|61.71||||||Statistical analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (≥ 3 to \<18 years of age).||61.71|44.8|
84629787|NCT03165617|168998025|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
84629788|NCT03165617|168998025|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|50.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.43|60.22||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||60.22|38.43|
84629789|NCT03165617|168998025|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.38|61.54||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||61.54|43.38|
84629790|NCT03165617|168998025|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.37|72.34||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||72.34|47.37|
84504480|NCT02661126|168759960|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.75||||||||2.75|0.65|
84629791|NCT03165617|168998026|SUPERIORITY|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
84761687|NCT05103332|169280057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.9|-13.4|<0.0001
84629792|NCT03165617|168998026|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
84629793|NCT03165617|168998026|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
84629794|NCT03165617|168998026|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
84629795|NCT03165617|168998027|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|68.46||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||68.46|51.3|
84629796|NCT03165617|168998027|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
84629797|NCT03165617|168998027|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
84629798|NCT03165617|168998027|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
84629799|NCT03165617|168998028|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.64|71.48||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||71.48|53.64|
84629800|NCT03165617|168998028|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.66|72.32||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||72.32|50.66|
84629801|NCT03165617|168998028|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.25|70.53||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||70.53|50.25|
84504481|NCT02661126|168759961|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.19||||||||3.19|0.79|
84504482|NCT02661126|168759962|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|2.57||||||||2.57|0.51|
84629802|NCT03165617|168998028|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|64.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.84|77.51||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||77.51|44.84|
84629803|NCT02435212|168998049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.803||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|8.15|||ANCOVA|||||8.15|-2.99|0.3598
84629804|NCT02435212|168998050|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|176.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|153.933||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|481.72|||ANCOVA|||||481.72|-129.00|0.2546
84629805|NCT00135226|168998086|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.79|0.01
84629806|NCT00135226|168998086|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.87|0.55
84629807|NCT00135226|168998087|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|1.09|0.003
84629808|NCT00135226|168998088|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
84504483|NCT02661126|168759963|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.05||||||||3.05|0.50|
84629809|NCT00135226|168998088|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
84629810|NCT00135226|168998089|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||||1.24|0.80|
84629811|NCT00135226|168998090|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||||||||1.04|0.85|
84629812|NCT00135226|168998090|OTHER||Risk Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||||||||1.05|0.86|
84629813|NCT00135226|168998091|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||||1.12|0.66|
84629814|NCT00135226|168998091|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||||||||1.02|0.61|
84629815|NCT00135226|168998092|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.77||||||||1.77|0.7|
84629816|NCT00135226|168998092|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||||||||1.50|0.59|
84629817|NCT00135226|168998093|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||||||||1.34|0.68|
84629818|NCT00135226|168998093|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12||||||||1.12|0.57|
84629819|NCT00135226|168998094|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15||||||||1.15|0.84|
84629820|NCT00135226|168998094|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||||1.12|0.82|
84629821|NCT00135226|168998095|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63||||||||1.63|0.86|
84629822|NCT00135226|168998095|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
84629823|NCT00135226|168998096|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01||||||||1.01|0.64|
84629824|NCT00135226|168998096|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59||||||||1.59|1.00|
84629825|NCT00135226|168998097|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.6||||||||1.60|0.46|
84629826|NCT00135226|168998097|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
84629827|NCT00135226|168998098|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3||||||||3.30|0.17|
84629828|NCT00135226|168998098|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.31||||||||3.31|0.17|
84629829|NCT00135226|168998099|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
84629830|NCT00135226|168998099|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.10|0.91|
84629831|NCT00135226|168998100|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43||||||||1.43|0.78|
84629832|NCT00135226|168998101|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||||1.29|0.74|
84629833|NCT00135226|168998101|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||||1.37|0.79|
84629834|NCT00135226|168998102|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.32||||||||1.32|0.97|
84629835|NCT00135226|168998102|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||||1.25|0.91|
84629836|NCT00135226|168998103|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38||||||||1.38|0.76|
84629837|NCT00135226|168998103|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.58||||||||1.58|0.87|
84629838|NCT00135226|168998104|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34||||||||1.34|0.76|
84629839|NCT00135226|168998104|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52||||||||1.52|0.86|
84629840|NCT00135226|168998105|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||||||||1.23|0.58|
84629841|NCT00135226|168998105|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.48||||||||1.48|0.70|
84629842|NCT00135226|168998106|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.41||||||||1.41|0.49|
84629843|NCT00135226|168998106|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22||||||||1.22|0.42|
84629844|NCT00135226|168998107|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41||||||||1.41|0.50|
84629845|NCT00135226|168998107|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
84629846|NCT00135226|168998108|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.54||||||||1.54|0.98|
84629847|NCT00135226|168998109|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||||||||1.12|0.63|
84629848|NCT02893293|168998132|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.002
84629849|NCT02893293|168998133|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.02
84629850|NCT04531176|168998137|NON_INFERIORITY|The results of non-inferiority test results are between pairwise groups. Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison.||||||0.004||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 1% for weight loss change. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.004
84629851|NCT04531176|168998138|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison||||||0.05||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 0.5% for A1C. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84629852|NCT01743469|168998150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.142
84629853|NCT01743469|168998150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>35%).||||1.000
84629854|NCT01743469|168998150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.800
84629855|NCT01743469|168998150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>15%).||||0.630
84629856|NCT01743469|168998151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with a prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.500
84629857|NCT01345240|168998186|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percent seroprotection below 5% between recipients of licensed hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix-B) and recipients of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine.|Difference in percent seroprotection|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-2.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response to the hepatitis B antigen induced by RTS,S/AS01E vaccine versus a licensed hepatitis B vaccine.||-2.16|-7.12|
84629858|NCT01345240|168998189|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.20|0.69|
84629859|NCT01345240|168998189|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.32|0.76|
84674870|NCT04452188|169085020|EQUIVALENCE|Prior studies suggest a 25-50% reduction in oxidative stress in normoxia relative to supra-physiologic oxygen. A 20% difference was considered clinically meaningful, and a sample size of 42 total participants was anticipated to achieve at least 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level. However, an interim analysis recommended by the DSMB after enrollment of 29 patients revealed a significant difference in the primary outcome between the groups, and enrollment was thus stopped.|||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each participant's post-operative samples were normalized to their baseline sample and described as a fold-of-change from baseline.||||<0.01
84761688|NCT05103332|169280058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-5.3|-10.6|<0.0001
84629860|NCT01345240|168998189|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.45|0.84|
84629861|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 1 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.39|0.95|
84629862|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 4 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.48|0.97|
84504484|NCT02661126|168759964|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.91||||||||2.91|0.56|
84629863|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 5 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.52|1.06|
84629864|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 6B responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.83|
84629865|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 7F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.33|0.94|
84629866|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 9V responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.63|1.08|
84674871|NCT04452188|169085022|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the post-operative length of stay between the two groups.||||0.66
84629867|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 14 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.27|0.77|
84761689|NCT05103332|169280059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-6.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-6.3|-10.9|<0.0001
84761690|NCT05103332|169280060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.61||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||10.61|2.43|<0.0001
84761691|NCT05103332|169280071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-3.3|-10.2|=0.0002
84761692|NCT05103332|169280072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|=|0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||1.0|-4.6|=0.2103
84761693|NCT05103332|169280073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-2.3|-6.8|<0.0001
84761694|NCT05103332|169280074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.23||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||3.23|0.87|=0.1230
84674872|NCT04452188|169085023|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the days alive and out of ICU at 30 days since surgery between the two groups||||0.66
84504485|NCT02661126|168759969|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|2.05||||||||2.05|1.19|
84629868|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.38|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 18C responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||2.38|1.38|
84644884|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.134
84629869|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 19F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.89|
84629870|NCT01345240|168998197|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 23F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.55|0.81|
84629871|NCT01345240|168998203|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid, (PT) of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.20|0.97|
84629872|NCT01345240|168998203|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.21|0.97|
84629873|NCT01345240|168998203|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertactin (anti-PRN), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.22|0.98|
84629874|NCT01345240|168998204|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 2, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMC) ratios of rotavirus antibodies (IgA) concentrations is below 2 for the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen||1.61|0.76|
84629875|NCT02183675|168998254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.081|126.225|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||126.225|93.081|
84674873|NCT04452188|169085024|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84504486|NCT02661126|168759970|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.05||||||||2.05|1.20|
84629876|NCT02183675|168998254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|114.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.216|134.326|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||134.326|98.216|
84629877|NCT02183675|168998255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.43|105.19|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||105.19|90.43|
84629878|NCT02183675|168998255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.94|107.4|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||107.40|96.94|
84629879|NCT02183675|168998256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.949|107.734|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||107.734|101.949|
84629880|NCT02183675|168998257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.023|106.964|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||106.964|101.023|
84674874|NCT04452188|169085025|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84674875|NCT04452188|169085026|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84674876|NCT04452188|169085027|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84674877|NCT04452188|169085028|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.1
84761695|NCT06232317|169280110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
84761696|NCT06232317|169280111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
84761697|NCT06232317|169280116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84674878|NCT00556842|169085045|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-9.18|-3.56||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC total at 24 months.||-3.56|-9.18|
84674879|NCT00556842|169085045|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.42|-0.44||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC pain at 24 months.||-0.44|-1.42|
84674880|NCT00556842|169085045|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|-0.23||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC stiffness at 24 months.||-0.23|-0.65|
84674881|NCT00556842|169085045|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.11|-2.83||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC function at 24 months.||-2.83|-7.11|
84674882|NCT00556842|169085046|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.38|1.36||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on mobility (TUG) was estimated. We analyzed the TUG as a dichotomous outcome with the following categories: a) patients who complete the test in ≤12 seconds, and b) those who require \>12 seconds to complete the test or were unable to complete the test. We selected 12 seconds as the cut-off because this was the threshold used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The TUG was summarized using odds ratios and 99% CIs.||1.36|0.38|
84674883|NCT00556842|169085047|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.33|3.14||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 PCS at 24 months.||3.14|-0.33|
84674884|NCT00556842|169085047|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.38|3.05||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 MCS at 24 months.||3.05|-0.38|
84761698|NCT03485820|169280117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|9.6||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||9.6|-7.1|0.76
84674885|NCT00556842|169085048|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.03|0.11||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D utility index at 24 months.||0.11|-0.03|
84674886|NCT00556842|169085048|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.02|3.46||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D VAS at 24 months.||3.46|-2.02|
84674887|NCT01032135|169085050|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84674888|NCT01032135|169085051|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84674889|NCT01032135|169085052|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84674890|NCT01032135|169085057|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.68|0.23|0.0007
84674891|NCT01032135|169085057|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.27|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.27|0.23|0.16
84674892|NCT01032135|169085057|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.60|0.48|0.79
84674893|NCT01032135|169085062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.29|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.29|-1.87|0.009
84674894|NCT01032135|169085062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.52|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.52|-2.20|0.23
84674895|NCT01032135|169085062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.34||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.85|-1.52|0.58
84674896|NCT01032135|169085067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.58|0.19|0.0001
84674897|NCT01032135|169085067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.54|0.29|0.36
84674898|NCT01032135|169085067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.54|0.58|0.45
84674899|NCT01032135|169085072|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.39|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.39|-1.80|0.003
84674900|NCT01032135|169085072|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|-1.10|0.10
84629881|NCT02183675|168998258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.167|104.867|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||104.867|100.167|
84629882|NCT02183675|168998259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.23|111.847|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||111.847|99.230|
84629883|NCT02183675|168998260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|108.28|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||108.280|98.730|
84629884|NCT00627393|168998261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinary multiple logistic regression including treatment arm, infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|Control group is the reference group. Model adjusted for infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|||3.20|0.44|0.73
84629885|NCT00627393|168998264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank P-Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Competing risks analysis for time to GVHD for subjects with allogeneic HST. The sample size was very small (n=7 in the granulocyte group, and n=8 in the control group).|Competing Risks|||||||0.43
84629886|NCT00627393|168998269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25885||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|2.147|||Log Rank|Log-rank test to compare survival distributions between the control group and treatment group.|The control group is considered the reference group.|||2.147|0.778|0.35
84674901|NCT01032135|169085076|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|0.38|0.13
84504487|NCT02661126|168759971|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.98||||||||1.98|1.13|
84504488|NCT02661126|168759972|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.98||||||||1.98|1.05|
84629887|NCT01668784|168998276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|98.52|0.57|0.93||The boundary for statistical significance required the p-value to be less than 0.0148 at the interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio (HR) was Nivolumab over Everolimus.|||0.93|0.57|0.0018
84629888|NCT01668784|168998280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio is nivolumab over everolimus.|||0.99|0.72|0.0340
84629889|NCT01668784|168998286|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard Model|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.63|0.0001
84629890|NCT00795535|168998316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||To avoid overfitting the models, only predictors with p\<0.15 were included in the final models.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare continuous predictors, whereas chi-square tests were used to compare dichotomized predictors between those with and without serious injury. Test characteristics (specificity and positive/negative predictive values) of continuous predictors were reported based on threshold values chosen for a minimum of 80% of sensitivity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the marginal effect of each predictor.||||< 0.15
84629891|NCT03341299|168998337|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.991||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.932|0.7734
84629892|NCT03341299|168998338|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-14.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.38|65.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.38|-94.38|0.7190
84629893|NCT04607005|168998365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.067
84629894|NCT04607005|168998366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.02||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.92|0.043
84629895|NCT04607005|168998367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.5||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-2.37|0.003
84629896|NCT04607005|168998368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.51||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.35|0.002
84674902|NCT01032135|169085076|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.12|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.12|0.33|0.71
84674903|NCT01032135|169085076|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.4|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.40|0.64|0.36
84674904|NCT01032135|169085079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.13||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.60|-0.94|0.75
84674905|NCT01032135|169085079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.3|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.30|-1.98|0.16
84504489|NCT02661126|168759973|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.07||||||||2.07|1.15|
84504490|NCT00461500|168759986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6||0.683||95.0|-27.96|42.43|||ANCOVA||mean difference = drug SFC 100 minus FP 100|||42.43|-27.96|0.683
84504491|NCT01151813|168759999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
84629897|NCT04607005|168998369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.55||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-2.52|0.003
84629898|NCT04607005|168998370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-2.51|0.002
84629899|NCT04607005|168998371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.37||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.90|0.012
84629900|NCT04607005|168998372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.42||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-2.93|0.009
84629901|NCT04607005|168998373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.35||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.99|0.005
84629902|NCT04607005|168998374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.4||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-2.02|0.004
84629903|NCT04607005|168998375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-2.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.57|-18.68|0.010
84629904|NCT04607005|168998376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-3.6||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.60|-19.19|0.004
84629905|NCT04607005|168998377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.21||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-1.43|0.009
84629906|NCT04607005|168998378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.28||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.49|0.004
84629907|NCT04607005|168998379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.26|0.026
84629908|NCT04607005|168998380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.88|0.25|0.018
84629909|NCT03518086|168998383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|3.2|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|3.2|0.00006
84629910|NCT03518086|168998384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|10.8|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.8|<0.00001
84629911|NCT03518086|168998385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|6.3|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|6.3|<0.00001
84629912|NCT03518086|168998386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.875|11.4|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|11.4|<0.001
84629913|NCT03518086|168998387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|13.8|<0.001
84629914|NCT03518086|168998388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|8.6|<0.001
84629915|NCT03518086|168998389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|13.2|<0.00001
84629916|NCT03518086|168998390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The confidence interval of 99.875 % was chosen to match the significance level.|||-0.44|-1.47|<0.00001
84629917|NCT03518086|168998391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|17.15|||ANCOVA|||||17.15|9.28|<0.001
84629918|NCT03518086|168998392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-935.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1363.64|-507.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-507.55|-1363.64|<0.001
84629919|NCT04944992|168998418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.7|22.1|<0.0001
84629920|NCT04944992|168998419|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|difference in percentage|16.3||||||95.0|3.5|29.1||||||||29.1|3.5|
84629921|NCT04944992|168998420|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in percentage|5.6||||||95.0|0.4|13.5||||||||13.5|0.4|
84629922|NCT04944992|168998421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|4.6|<0.001
84629923|NCT04944992|168998422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-1.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.085
84629924|NCT04944992|168998423|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in Least Squared Means|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-3.1||||||||-3.1|-11.2|
84629925|NCT04944992|168998424|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.7||||||90.0|-10.9|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-10.9|
84629926|NCT04944992|168998425|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-11.7||||||90.0|-15.8|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-15.8|
84629927|NCT04944992|168998426|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-6.1||||||90.0|-12.0|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-12.0|
84629928|NCT04944992|168998427|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.3|-0.9||||||||-0.9|-14.3|
84629929|NCT04944992|168998428|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-10.4|
84629930|NCT00303069|168998430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|84.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|93.6||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||93.6|65.2|<0.001
84629931|NCT00303069|168998430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|92.0||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||92.0|61.6|<0.01
84629932|NCT00303069|168998430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|43.8||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||43.8|6.7|<0.001
84629933|NCT00303069|168998431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|48.3||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||48.3|17.2|<0.001
84629934|NCT00303069|168998431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|32.1||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||32.1|1.6|<0.001
84629935|NCT00303069|168998431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||16.9|-8.2|<0.001
84629936|NCT04328077|168998436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|21.5|||ANCOVA|||||21.5|-16.1|0.7755
84629937|NCT04328077|168998436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.369||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-31.3|0.1798
84504492|NCT01151813|168760000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84629938|NCT04328077|168998436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-27.4|0.4229
84629939|NCT01456039|168998442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis ( H0 p≤0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||<0.0001
84629940|NCT00335777|168998467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who were pain free when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||0.289
84629941|NCT00335777|168998468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||1|||||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar test||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who had pain relief when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||1.000
84629942|NCT02798627|168998469|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.97
84629943|NCT03821402|168998471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7645
84629944|NCT03821402|168998471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5509|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5509
84629945|NCT03821402|168998471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0488
84629946|NCT03821402|168998472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3698|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3698
84761699|NCT03485820|169280118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.0||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||5.0|-8.6|0.60
84761700|NCT03485820|169280119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.05|-0.06|0.83
84629947|NCT03821402|168998472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1972
84629948|NCT03821402|168998472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2037
84629949|NCT03821402|168998477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4324
84629950|NCT03821402|168998477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3893|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3893
84674906|NCT01032135|169085079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.04|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.04|-0.85|0.42
84674907|NCT02457325|169085084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
84504493|NCT01151813|168760001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84629951|NCT03821402|168998477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84629952|NCT03821402|168998478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0562
84674908|NCT02457325|169085085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
84674909|NCT02457325|169085086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
84629953|NCT03821402|168998478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
84629954|NCT03821402|168998478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0092
84629955|NCT02851615|168998490|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses were calculated on the PAM-13, our primary outcome measure. Analyses were conducted using the internal Monte Carlo simulation capabilities of Mplus (Version 1.20). Based on the effect size obtained from published pilot data, we expected the change in baseline/posttreatment Behavioral Activation for the SCThrive intervention group to be n2 = .14 (large effect). Based on these assumptions, the desired sample size was 54 participants (N = 27 per group) to achieve power of .80.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|19.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the PAM-13.||19.22|-1.27|.09
84629956|NCT02851615|168998491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.66||The threshold for significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the TRAQ-5||.66|-.19|.28
84629957|NCT02851615|168998492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted a paired-samples t-test to assess for the effects of time (baseline/post-treatment) for participants (n=16) in the SCThrive intervention arm for the UNC TRxANSITION Scale.||.06|-.018|.27
84629958|NCT00313014|168998493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.35|-0.99|<.001
84629959|NCT00313014|168998493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.44||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effect.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.44|-1.07|<.001
84674910|NCT02457325|169085087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
84674911|NCT02457325|169085088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
84674912|NCT02457325|169085089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
84674913|NCT02457325|169085090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
84674914|NCT02457325|169085091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
84674915|NCT02457325|169085092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
84674916|NCT02457325|169085093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.730
84674917|NCT02457325|169085094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
84629960|NCT00313014|168998494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.13|-0.90|.006
84629961|NCT00313014|168998494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.09|-0.70|.158
84761701|NCT03485820|169280120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression , number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.77|0.01|0.046
84629962|NCT00313014|168998495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.11|-3.55|.065
84629963|NCT00313014|168998495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.031||95.0|-3.79|-0.18||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.18|-3.79|.031
84629964|NCT00313014|168998496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.82||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model: treatment, time as fixed effects, screening, prerandomization sleep disturbance subscale as covariates; subject as a random effect||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-2.82|-9.64|<.001
84629965|NCT00313014|168998496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709||0.121||95.0|-6.01|0.7||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.70|-6.01|.121
84629966|NCT02345070|168998521|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg qw versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was done sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported. Analyzed using Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||1.56|-2.56|= 0.6339
84629967|NCT02345070|168998521|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg q2w versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in the order outcome measures were reported (q2w dose group compared to placebo). Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||2.6|-1.47|= 0.5874
84629968|NCT03081117|168998525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of Enrolled group.||||0.669
84629969|NCT03081117|168998526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3914||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 14||Analysis for Intent-to-Treat group.||||0.0366
84504494|NCT01151813|168760002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84761702|NCT03485820|169280121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.96||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.96|0.08|0.02
84629970|NCT03081117|168998526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5146||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 12||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.0103
84629971|NCT03081117|168998529|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
84629972|NCT03081117|168998530|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
84629973|NCT03081117|168998531|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized beta coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||0.244
84629974|NCT03081117|168998532|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
84629975|NCT03081117|168998533|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
84629976|NCT03081117|168998534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
84629977|NCT03081117|168998535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0031351||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.366
84629978|NCT03081117|168998535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0025586||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees fo freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.505
84629979|NCT03081117|168998536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00000061||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.98
84674918|NCT03591575|169085102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patients who reached the serum ferritin threshold at any time point prior to Month 12 were withdrawn from the study as per protocol, so that they could begin on standard chelation therapy. For these individuals, imputed data were used to estimate the values that would likely have been seen at Month 12 had they remained in the study.||||0.0446
84504495|NCT01513551|168760007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||15.0|-1.4|
84504496|NCT01513551|168760007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||17.7|1.1|
84629980|NCT03081117|168998536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0000054||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.86
84629981|NCT04723056|168998539|OTHER|||||||0.282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.282
84629982|NCT04723056|168998540|OTHER|||||||0.217||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.217
84629983|NCT04723056|168998541|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.462
84629984|NCT04723056|168998541|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.179
84629985|NCT04723056|168998542|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.573
84629986|NCT04723056|168998542|OTHER|||||||0.606||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.606
84629987|NCT04723056|168998543|OTHER|||||||0.181||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.181
84629988|NCT04723056|168998544|OTHER|||||||0.407||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.407
84629989|NCT04723056|168998545|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.643
84629990|NCT04723056|168998546|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.625
84629991|NCT04723056|168998546|OTHER|||||||0.707||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.707
84629992|NCT05106894|168998548|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.5||||||||5.5|-7.4|
84629993|NCT05106894|168998549|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.3|
84761703|NCT03485820|169280122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|0.8||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.8|-21.9|0.07
84761704|NCT04289116|169280123|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|1.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.20
84629994|NCT05106894|168998550|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.1||||||||2.1|-5.6|
84629995|NCT00106704|168998617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not), baseline A1C||||-0.57|-90.0|<0.001
84629996|NCT00106704|168998618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not at Visit 3), baseline A1C||||-11.8|-28.4|<0.001
84629997|NCT01780506|168998619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-3.0|4.0||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4.0|-3.0|0.78
84629998|NCT01867671|168998650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|205.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|1758.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1758.51|24.00|<0.0001
84629999|NCT01867671|168998651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.82|||<|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|252.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||252.33|3.07|<0.0031
84630000|NCT01867671|168998652|OTHER|McNemar's Test|Simple Kappa Coefficient|0.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0628|0.2612|||McNemar|||||0.2612|0.0628|<0.0001
84761705|NCT04289116|169280123|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|0.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.58
84504497|NCT01267266|168760024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.20
84630001|NCT01867671|168998653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1464.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|944.0|1985.0|||Chi-squared|||||1985|944|<0.0001
84630002|NCT03486912|168998672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.773
84630003|NCT03486912|168998672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.23|0.544
84630004|NCT03486912|168998672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.811
84630005|NCT03486912|168998673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.09|0.40|0.836
84630006|NCT03486912|168998673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.46|0.30|0.763
84630007|NCT03486912|168998673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.51|0.32|0.821
84630008|NCT03486912|168998674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.25|0.39|0.837
84630009|NCT03486912|168998674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.40|0.54|0.359
84630010|NCT03486912|168998674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.44|0.627
84630011|NCT03486912|168998675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.16|0.40|0.864
84630012|NCT03486912|168998675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.49|0.29|0.743
84630013|NCT03486912|168998675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.27|0.630
84630014|NCT03486912|168998676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.48|0.477
84761706|NCT04289116|169280124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.08
84630015|NCT03486912|168998676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.44|0.32|0.814
84630016|NCT03486912|168998676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.21|0.367
84630017|NCT03486912|168998677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.309
84630018|NCT03486912|168998677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
84630019|NCT03486912|168998677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
84630020|NCT03486912|168998678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|325.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||325.97|0.76|0.054
84630021|NCT03486912|168998678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|549.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||549.08|1.50|0.004
84630022|NCT03486912|168998678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|271.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||271.11|0.57|0.087
84630023|NCT00412984|168998680|SUPERIORITY|With an average 2.1 years follow-up and assuming a stroke rate of 1.20 per hundred patient-years, \~18,000 randomized subjects allocated in a 1:1 ratio to apixaban or warfarin group would be needed to achieve the desired power. These calculations assumed an incidence of 1% loss to follow-up. Non-inferiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed first. If non-inferiority (using a NI margin of 1.38) is demonstrated then, superiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be tested|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||2-sided P-value for superiority test|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status. (experienced, naïve).|apixaban / warfarin|With 448 subjects with confirmed strokes or systemic emboli, study would have at least 90% power to meet both regulatory definitions of non-inferiority described in the following: (1) the non-inferiority (NI) of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk (RR) was less than 1.38; (2) the NI of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 99% CI for RR was less than 1.44.||.95|.66|0.0114
84630024|NCT00412984|168998682|SUPERIORITY|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|||0.80|0.60|<.0001
84630025|NCT00412984|168998684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"||1.00|0.80|0.0465
84630026|NCT00412984|168998685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke||1.13|0.74|0.4220
84761707|NCT04289116|169280124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.02
84630027|NCT00412984|168998685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Hemorrhagic Stroke||0.75|0.35|0.0006
84630028|NCT00412984|168998685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Systemic Embolism||1.75|0.44|0.7020
84630029|NCT00412984|168998685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Myocardial Infarction||1.17|0.66|0.3720
84630030|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding||0.86|0.69|<.0001
84630031|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.81|0.0192
84630032|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding / All-Cause Death||0.92|0.78|0.0002
84630033|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / MI / All-Cause Death||0.97|0.80|0.0107
84630034|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.82|0.0432
84630035|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Hemorrhagic Stroke / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.79|0.0167
84674919|NCT03591575|169085103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||he p-value shown here is for the difference between the groups at Month 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0446
84674920|NCT02915744|169085114|OTHER||ESMO-MCBS (v1.0)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84761708|NCT03194373|169280125|SUPERIORITY|Power to detect a 20% improvement in disease control rate (DCR). Based on historical data, the DCR in R/M HNSCC with single agent platinum therapy is 40%. We hypothesize that addition of Palbociclib will increase DCR at 12 weeks to 60%. Two-stage design. Type I error rate of 0.059 and power of 0.80 when the true response rate is 0.60 with alpha=0.05. The two-stage sample size calculations assume a null probability of 0.40.|Proportion|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|59.0||||||||59|13|
84761709|NCT03194373|169280126|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
84630036|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.80|0.0464
84630037|NCT00412984|168998686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Myocardial Infarction / All-Cause Death||0.99|0.80|0.0253
84630038|NCT00412984|168998688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite Stroke/Systemic Embolism/Major Bleeding in Warfarin/Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) Naive Participants||0.95|0.67|0.0098
84630039|NCT00412984|168998691|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.61|<.0001
84630040|NCT00412984|168998693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.68|<.0001
84761710|NCT03194373|169280127|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
84761711|NCT05853380|169280140|OTHER|The primary outcome was considered successful if the bootstrapped upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. Power was assessed by bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals at different n sizes on a product development population.|RMSD|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87||||||Subjects with simultaneously collected HR and PR comparator data were assigned to the comparison group.|The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the significance threshold of \< 3.0. The study tested hypothesis of accuracy \< 3.0 RMSD by showing the upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the target threshold of \< 3.0.|0.87|0.67|
84761712|NCT00271817|169280153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-41.4|-35.4||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-35.4|-41.4|<0.001
84630041|NCT00412984|168998694|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe GUSTO bleeding events||0.60|0.35|<.0001
84630042|NCT00412984|168998694|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe or Moderate GUSTO bleeding events||0.71|0.50|<.0001
84630043|NCT00412984|168998695|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major TIMI bleeding event||0.70|0.46|<.0001
84630044|NCT00412984|168998695|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major or Minor TIMI bleeding criteria||0.75|0.54|<.0001
84630045|NCT00412984|168998697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.83|0.65|<.0001
84674921|NCT00813358|169085116|NON_INFERIORITY|NI=7%|KM product-limit estimator|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100|97.4|
84674922|NCT04497987|169085117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.26|<0.001
84674923|NCT04497987|169085118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.27|<0.001
84674924|NCT04497987|169085119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.46|0.021
84674925|NCT01660412|169085134|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|0.85|<0.0001
84674926|NCT03551210|169085135|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority bound was designated at the level of -15%|Difference in percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.0||||||||13.0|-0.7|
84674927|NCT03551210|169085135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.29|0.49|=0.499
84761713|NCT00271817|169280154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-36.5|-30.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-30.6|-36.5|<0.001
84761714|NCT00271817|169280155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|18.8|25.3||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.3|18.8|<0.001
84630046|NCT02718898|168998753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|92.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.23|12.39|<0.001
84630047|NCT02718898|168998754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|461.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||461.43|22.79|<0.001
84630048|NCT02718898|168998755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|46.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.40|5.71|<0.001
84630049|NCT02718898|168998756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|40.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.29|4.57|<0.001
84630050|NCT02718898|168998757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|31.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.40|3.08|<0.001
84630051|NCT02718898|168998758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.7|-10.1|<0.001
84630052|NCT02718898|168998759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.8|-24.3|<0.001
84630053|NCT02718898|168998760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|31.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.80|6.12|<0.001
84630054|NCT02718898|168998761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1339|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.264|6.748|||ANCOVA|||||6.748|2.264|<0.001
84630055|NCT02718898|168998762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|3.847|||ANCOVA|||||3.847|-0.253|0.085
84630056|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-22.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||-22.78|-34.72|<0.001
84630057|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Itch||-3.02|-4.60|<0.001
84630058|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||-2.70|-4.30|<0.001
84630059|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort||-3.04|-4.66|<0.001
84630060|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stinging||-2.42|-4.04|<0.001
84630061|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Burning||-2.41|-3.99|<0.001
84630062|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Redness||-3.03|-4.59|<0.001
84630063|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scaling||-3.03|-4.53|<0.001
84630064|NCT02718898|168998763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cracking||-2.79|-4.31|<0.001
84630065|NCT01451606|168998765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Note that sample size was well below our target, making this test very low power.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84630066|NCT01451606|168998766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84630067|NCT01075243|168998784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.71||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.89|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 650 mg caplet.||5.89|1.53|0.0009
84630068|NCT01075243|168998784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|14.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||14.00|8.66|<0.0001
84630069|NCT01075243|168998784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.94|10.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 650 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.31|4.94|<0.0001
84630070|NCT03337308|168998799|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-29.6|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of Least Squares (LS) Means|||-29.6|-46.5|<0.001
84630071|NCT03337308|168998799|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-11.9|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-11.9|-26.1|<0.001
84630072|NCT03337308|168998799|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-6.5|-19.7|<0.001
84630073|NCT03337308|168998800|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-78.75|-15.78||using alpha = 0.01|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-15.78|-78.75|<0.001
84630074|NCT03337308|168998800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-45.0|-7.15||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-7.15|-45.00|0.002
84674928|NCT03551210|169085136|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.3|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.7|||Barnard's test|||Visit 2||9.7|-0.6|=0.08
84630075|NCT03337308|168998800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.734|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-21.35|16.25||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||16.25|-21.35|0.734
84630076|NCT03337308|168998801|SUPERIORITY|using alpha = 0.01|Difference in LS mean|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.9|-23.4|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-23.4|-43.9|<0.001
84630077|NCT03337308|168998801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-25.1|-10.5||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-10.5|-25.1|<0.001
84630078|NCT03337308|168998801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-19.1|-5.0||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.0|-19.1|<0.001
84630079|NCT03337308|168998802|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.1|-19.1||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-19.1|-35.1|<0.001
84630080|NCT03337308|168998802|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.4|-8.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-8.1|-20.4|<0.001
84630081|NCT03337308|168998802|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.1|-4.6||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-4.6|-16.1|<0.001
84630082|NCT03337308|168998803|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-30.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.9|-20.3||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-20.3|-39.9|<0.001
84630083|NCT03337308|168998803|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.3|-5.3||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.3|-20.3|<0.001
84630084|NCT03337308|168998803|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.5|-2.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-2.1|-16.5|0.003
84630085|NCT01614249|168998809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.6||The p-value was adjusted for baseline variations in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) regression model. The significance level was set at p-value less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|In ANCOVA, fish oil group was main effect, participant baseline variables were covariates and presence of interaction between covariates was tested.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the magnitude of change in BDI-II scores between HIV-seropositive pregnant women on fish oil omega-3 EPA-rich supplements and the control group on soybean oil soft gels. A sample size of 91 women per arm gave an 85% power to detect as statistically significant at 5% level, a true difference of 4 scores in the mean depressive symptom scores between the two arms assuming a within group standard deviation of nine in depressive symptom scores.||2.60|-0.58|0.21
84630086|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
84630087|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.012
84630088|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
84630089|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.203
84674929|NCT03551210|169085136|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Barnard's test|||Visit 3||9.8|-2.0|=0.246
84630090|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.008
84630091|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.496||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.496
84630092|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.844
84630093|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
84674930|NCT03551210|169085137|OTHER||||||=|0.154|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.154
84674931|NCT03551210|169085138|OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.14
84761715|NCT00271817|169280156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-14.7||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender|"Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-14.7|-22.6|<0.001
84761716|NCT00271817|169280157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|18.0|25.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.0|18.0|<0.001
84630094|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.062
84630095|NCT02761330|168998833|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.039
84630096|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
84630097|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.039
84630098|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
84630099|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||1.0
84630100|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.195
84630101|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.570
84540190|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.09|-0.31|0.1142
84630102|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.031
84630103|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
84630104|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||1.00
84630105|NCT02761330|168998834|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||0.109
84630106|NCT02761330|168998842|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
84630107|NCT02761330|168998842|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
84630108|NCT02761330|168998842|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.557
84630109|NCT02761330|168998843|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
84630110|NCT02761330|168998843|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.734
84630111|NCT02761330|168998843|OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.322
84630112|NCT02761330|168998844|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.164
84630113|NCT02761330|168998844|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.039
84630114|NCT02761330|168998844|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
84630115|NCT02761330|168998845|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
84761717|NCT00271817|169280158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-21.8|-13.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender.|"Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-13.6|-21.8|<0.001
84761718|NCT00271817|169280159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-4.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-4.2|-10.4|<0.001
84630116|NCT02761330|168998845|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
84630117|NCT02761330|168998845|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
84630118|NCT02761330|168998846|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.129
84630119|NCT02761330|168998846|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
84630120|NCT02761330|168998846|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
84630121|NCT02761330|168998847|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||1.000
84630122|NCT02761330|168998847|OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.496
84630123|NCT02761330|168998847|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.160
84630124|NCT02761330|168998848|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.008
84630125|NCT02761330|168998848|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.359
84630126|NCT02761330|168998848|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
84630127|NCT02711891|168998887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||0.8
84630128|NCT02711891|168998887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||.003
84630129|NCT02711891|168998887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84630130|NCT02711891|168998889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84630131|NCT02711891|168998889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
84630132|NCT02711891|168998891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||||||Comparison of mean BPM during lance procedure for L1 vs L2 Loperamide.|t-test, 1 sided|||The population BPM lance one = population BPM mean lance two. Loperamide 1= Loperamide 2. Placebo 1=Placebo 2.||||.876
84630133|NCT02711891|168998891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085||||||Comparison of the mean between HR one and HR two during the procedure for lance one will equal the mean HR lance two following loperamide gel application.|ANOVA|df 16.||Mean HR during the procedure for lance one will equal mean HR lance two following loperamide gel applciation||||.085
84630134|NCT02677493|168998896|EQUIVALENCE|"All statistical significance testing was performed at a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%.~Exceptionally, non-inferiority was tested at a one-sided CI of 97.5%."||||||0.09135|||||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate if the seroconversion (SCR) and seroprotection (SPR) rates on Day 28 after vaccination of IL-YANG Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Inj. meet the following criteria in all age groups of healthy male and female adults at the age of 19 or older.||||0.09135
84630135|NCT03593044|168998905|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Photopic pupil size||||0.002
84630136|NCT03593044|168998905|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mesopic pupil size||||0.66
84630137|NCT03593044|168998906|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast distance visual acuity||||0.96
84630138|NCT03593044|168998906|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast near visual acuity||||0.77
84630139|NCT03593044|168998906|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Low contrast distance visual acuity||||0.82
84630140|NCT03593044|168998907|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative amplitude||||0.10
84630141|NCT03593044|168998907|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative lag||||0.66
84630142|NCT03593044|168998907|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative facility||||0.24
84630143|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glare||||0.3
84630144|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ghost images||||0.5
84630145|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Strain/tiredness||||0.9
84630146|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changing vision||||0.9
84630147|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headache frequency||||0.3
84630148|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distance clarity||||0.7
84630149|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Computer clarity||||0.3
84630150|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Small print clarity||||0.1
84630151|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vision during sports/hobbies||||1.0
84674932|NCT03551210|169085139|OTHER||||||=|0.26|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.26
84630152|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall vision||||0.2
84630153|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Light sensitivity||||0.7
84630154|NCT03593044|168998908|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort during bright light||||0.002
84630155|NCT03593044|168998909|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right eye intraocular pressure||||0.001
84630156|NCT03593044|168998909|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left eye intraocular pressure||||0.05
84630157|NCT01972217|168998922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.969|||Log Rank|||The 1-sided p-value provides a test for rejecting the null hypothesis of no treatment effect versus the superiority alternative that patients on olaparib have a lower risk of progression compared with placebo.||0.969|0.438|0.017
84630158|NCT01972217|168998935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.261||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.285|0.309
84630159|NCT01972217|168998936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olapatib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TFST||1.130|0.540|0.095
84630160|NCT01972217|168998936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.201||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TSST||1.201|0.545|0.147
84630161|NCT01972217|168998937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.384||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.384|0.600|0.331
84630162|NCT01972217|168998938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.215||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.215|0.511|0.140
84630163|NCT03829228|168998939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment Difference= Visit5-Baseline|||2.01|0.62|<0.0001
84630164|NCT03829228|168998940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84630165|NCT03829228|168998941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment difference=Visit5-Baseline|||1.98|0.64|<0.0001
84630166|NCT03829228|168998942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significant was p=0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84630167|NCT02844569|168998943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84630168|NCT02844569|168998944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84630169|NCT02844569|168998945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84630170|NCT02443688|168998946|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% confidence interval (CI)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-1.34|
84630171|NCT02443688|168998946|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% CI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.64|||ANOVA|||||1.64|-3.78|
84630172|NCT02443688|168998946|SUPERIORITY|Difference from placebo of pooled arms (100mg CTX-4430 and 50mg CTX-4430) in change from baseline in ppFEV1 at Week 48.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5||0.1 alpha level (2-sided) prespecified|ANOVA|||||2.50|-2.20|0.45
84674933|NCT03551210|169085140|OTHER||||||=|0.14||||||Visit 2 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||=0.14
84630173|NCT02443688|168998947|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.02|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.02|1.22|
84630174|NCT02443688|168998947|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.89|1.13|
84630175|NCT02443688|168998947|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.01|1.21|
84630176|NCT02443688|168998947|OTHER|Pooled Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.81|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.81|1.26|
84630177|NCT02443688|168998948|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.58|
84630178|NCT02443688|168998948|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.56|
84674934|NCT03551210|169085140|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 3 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
84674935|NCT03551210|169085140|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 4 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
84674936|NCT00368940|169085168|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.13|0.005
84674937|NCT00368940|169085169|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.20|0.001
84674938|NCT00368940|169085170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0268
84674939|NCT00368940|169085171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84630179|NCT02443688|168998948|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.61|
84630180|NCT02443688|168998954|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.44|0.49|
84630181|NCT02443688|168998954|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.96|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.96|0.84|
84630182|NCT02443688|168998954|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.42|1.07|
84674940|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|26.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||26.5|-4.3|
84761719|NCT00271817|169280160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.004||95.0|-8.0|-1.5||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-1.5|-8.0|0.004
84540191|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.00|-0.38|0.3433
84630183|NCT02443688|168998954|OTHER|Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.46|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.46|0.74|
84630184|NCT02443688|168998955|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.25|
84674941|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|24.8|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||24.8|-5.7|
84630185|NCT02443688|168998955|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.30|
84674942|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||33.1|-1.7|
84674943|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||25.4|-5.7|
84674944|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|27.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||27.4|-3.5|
84674945|NCT01709318|169085174|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|15.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||15.9|-10.7|
84630186|NCT02443688|168998955|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.31|
84630187|NCT05172128|168998994|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Paired t-test comparing baseline value to endpoint value revealed a p-value of 0.80.|||>0.05
84630188|NCT05172128|168998995|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84630189|NCT05172128|168998996|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84630190|NCT05172128|168998997|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84630191|NCT05172128|168999000|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84630192|NCT00837434|168999001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses week 12 CD27+ switched memory as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline CD27+ switched memory||Null Hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 does not differ between individuals treated with etanercept and those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells. Alt. hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 in individuals treated with etanercept is lower than in those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells.||||0.3
84630193|NCT01709721|168999008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Superiority of intrathecal hydromorphone hydrochloride as compared to a control arm.||||0.147
84630194|NCT01709721|168999009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0342
84630195|NCT01709721|168999010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.1642
84630196|NCT01709721|168999011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0160
84630197|NCT01709721|168999012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0007
84630198|NCT01709721|168999013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0088
84630199|NCT01709721|168999014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Rescue (days).|Log Rank|||||||0.011
84630200|NCT01709721|168999015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test (using equally spaced scores).||||0.0335
84630201|NCT01709721|168999017|SUPERIORITY|Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.01||||||Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84630202|NCT02006472|168999018|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.42||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-1.39|0.3202
84630203|NCT02006472|168999018|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.46|-1.06|0.2266
84630204|NCT02006472|168999018|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.66||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.39|-2.07|0.6348
84630205|NCT02006472|168999018|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.04||||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-0.71|0.1447
84761720|NCT00271817|169280161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.1||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-2.1|-7.7|<0.001
84630206|NCT02006472|168999020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.87||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.29|0.0032
84630207|NCT02006472|168999020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.11||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.46|0.7042
84630208|NCT02006472|168999020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.19||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-0.37|0.5099
84630209|NCT02006472|168999020|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.24||||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.33|0.4061
84630210|NCT02006472|168999021|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|0.54|0.0003
84630211|NCT02006472|168999022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84630212|NCT02006472|168999023|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0341||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0658|-0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 26||-0.0026|-0.0658|0.0346
84630213|NCT02006472|168999023|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0444||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0847|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 52||-0.0042|-0.0847|0.0305
84630214|NCT03137381|168999025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.177
84630215|NCT03137381|168999025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84630216|NCT03137381|168999025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84630217|NCT01684917|168999027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
84630218|NCT01684917|168999027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
84630219|NCT01684917|168999028|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
84630220|NCT01684917|168999029|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
84630221|NCT01684917|168999030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
84630222|NCT01684917|168999030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
84630223|NCT01684917|168999030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
84630224|NCT01684917|168999032|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
84761721|NCT00271817|169280162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-5.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-5.0|-10.4|<0.001
84761722|NCT00931359|169280166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Factors of treatment group and analysis center were considered||||||<0.001
84761723|NCT00931359|169280167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
84630225|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.825|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.308759||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058809|6.591192|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference between pre and post KEA in those receiving the active treatment with a history of hamstring strain.||6.591192|1.058809|0.0068
84630226|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.431784||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869044|3.869044|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre /post KEA means after receiving the sham treatment in those with a history of hamstring strains.||3.869044|-1.869044|0.2185
84630227|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6638904|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.450892||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5037233|1.831504|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the active treatment with no history of hamstring strain.||1.831504|-.5037233|0.1281
84630228|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.688237|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.241751||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557137|3.819337|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the sham treatment who have no history of hamstring strain.||3.819337|1.557137|0.00
84630229|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.825||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4543|6.0581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference in effect between active and sham in those with a history of hamstring strain||6.0581|-0.4543|0.090
84630230|NCT03044106|168999039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.024||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4474|-0.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference of effect between active and sham in those without a history of hamstring strain.||-0.3406|-3.4474|0.018
84630231|NCT03367793|168999091|OTHER||f statistic|1.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.341
84630232|NCT03367793|168999091|OTHER||least square means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.36|0.26|
84630233|NCT03367793|168999091|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.38|0.27|
84761724|NCT01564862|169280201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.21||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.21|0.28|0.019
84630234|NCT03367793|168999091|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.39|0.28|
84630235|NCT03367793|168999092|OTHER||f statistic|0.93||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.410
84630236|NCT03367793|168999092|OTHER||least square means|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.41|0.28|
84630237|NCT03367793|168999092|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.39|0.26|
84630238|NCT03367793|168999092|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.41|0.28|
84630239|NCT03367793|168999093|OTHER||f statistic|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.351
84630240|NCT03367793|168999093|OTHER||least square means|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.7|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for PFST.|||12.7|9.3|
84761725|NCT01564862|169280201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.733||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|2.65||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.65|-0.23|0.099
84761726|NCT01564862|169280201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.96||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.96|-0.89|0.460
84761727|NCT01564862|169280202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-4.1|0.001
84761728|NCT01564862|169280202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.5||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
84761729|NCT01564862|169280203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1211||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|-0.052||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.528|0.017
84630241|NCT03367793|168999093|OTHER||least square means|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|12.6|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for VSX.|||12.6|9.2|
84630242|NCT03367793|168999093|OTHER||least square means|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|12.9|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for Clinical Refraction.|||12.9|9.5|
84630243|NCT03367793|168999094|OTHER||f statistic|0.58||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||0.562
84630244|NCT03367793|168999094|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for PFST.|||||
84630245|NCT03367793|168999094|OTHER||proportion|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for VSX.|||||
84630246|NCT03367793|168999094|OTHER||proportion|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
84630247|NCT03367793|168999095|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
84630248|NCT03367793|168999095|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for PFST.|||||
84630249|NCT03367793|168999095|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for VSX.|||||
84630250|NCT03367793|168999095|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
84630251|NCT03367793|168999096|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
84630252|NCT03367793|168999096|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for PFST.|||||
84630253|NCT03367793|168999096|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for VSX.|||||
84630254|NCT03367793|168999096|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
84630255|NCT00423579|168999097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0||95.0|-18.9|-10.1|||Student's t test for independent data||Difference in percentage change in mean LDL-C values (change from baseline to week 6) between the two treatment groups. (Ezetimibe \[EZ\]/Simvastatin \[S\] \[10/20mg\] + S \[placebo\] group minus the EZ/S \[10mg/placebo\] + S \[40mg\] group)|||-10.1|-18.9|0.0000
84630256|NCT04218240|168999126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||A nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis) comparison of the two groups (p=0.049)||||.05
84630257|NCT04218240|168999127|OTHER|Chi-square analysis||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||hypothesis: more people in active PGB/LFX will complete withdrawal CI = 95% P = 0.5||||0.27
84630258|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.2938909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.29389090
84630259|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.97863544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.97863544
84630260|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.60236264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.60236264
84630261|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.35845126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35845126
84630262|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.91766025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.91766025
84630263|NCT05179785|168999128|OTHER|||||||0.09605169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delayed discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delayed discounting task"||||0.09605169
84630264|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.50030946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.50030946
84761730|NCT01564862|169280203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.169||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.169|-0.638|<0.001
84761731|NCT00313209|169280216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|27|<0.0001
84761732|NCT00313209|169280217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|82.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||82|38|<0.0001
84630265|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.3751738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.37517380
84630266|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
84630267|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
84630268|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
84630269|NCT05179785|168999129|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
84630270|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.75298499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75298499
84630271|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.16043787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.16043787
84630272|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
84630273|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
84630274|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
84630275|NCT05179785|168999130|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
84540192|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.04||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.04|-0.37|0.1129
84630276|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.73357221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.73357221
84630277|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.43954526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.43954526
84630278|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.4419898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.44198980
84630279|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.39565784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.39565784
84630280|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.35602382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35602382
84630281|NCT05179785|168999131|OTHER|||||||0.30499144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.30499144
84630282|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.81601415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.81601415
84630283|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.20563452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20563452
84630284|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
84630285|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
84630286|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
84761733|NCT00313209|169280218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.08||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.08|0.58|0.1408
84630287|NCT05179785|168999132|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
84630288|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.83462055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.83462055
84630289|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.21582586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.21582586
84630290|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.59574875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.59574875
84630291|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.75948776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.75948776
84630292|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.7238414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.72384140
84630293|NCT05179785|168999133|OTHER|||||||0.00477281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.00477281
84630294|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.20047055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20047055
84630295|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.77922802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.77922802
84630296|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.29196708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.29196708
84630297|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.05605962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.05605962
84630298|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.57368284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.57368284
84630299|NCT05179785|168999134|OTHER|||||||0.56397238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.56397238
84630300|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.86107891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.86107891
84630301|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.62228799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62228799
84630302|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
84630303|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
84630304|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
84630305|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
84630306|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.62461968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62461968
84630307|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.51324793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.51324793
84630308|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
84630309|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
84630310|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
84630311|NCT05179785|168999135|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
84630312|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.09266386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.09266386
84630313|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.53980185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.53980185
84630314|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
84630315|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
84630316|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
84630317|NCT05179785|168999136|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
84630318|NCT05179785|168999137|OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0265
84630319|NCT05179785|168999137|OTHER|||||||0.1053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.1053
84630320|NCT05179785|168999137|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0033
84630321|NCT04852302|168999141|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the paired observations is zero.||0.86|-4.47|0.168
84630322|NCT04852302|168999142|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.59||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||1.69|-2.29|0.752
84630323|NCT04852302|168999143|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.26||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|4.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||4.34|-13.67|0.285
84630324|NCT04852302|168999143|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.22||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||7.34|-11.74|0.628
84630325|NCT02163538|168999152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84540193|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.00|-0.38|0.2842
84630326|NCT02163538|168999153|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84630327|NCT02163538|168999154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.582
84630328|NCT02163538|168999155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
84630329|NCT02163538|168999156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0281
84630330|NCT02163538|168999157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0821
84630331|NCT03094416|168999310|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.783797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84630332|NCT03094416|168999311|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026128||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1607
84644885|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.315
84630333|NCT03094416|168999312|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.397559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.174962||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4204
84630334|NCT03094416|168999313|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019171||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0062
84630335|NCT03094416|168999314|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.100127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048171||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0438
84630336|NCT03094416|168999315|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093366||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0254
84630337|NCT03094416|168999316|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036679||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7619
84630338|NCT03094416|168999317|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064264||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0655
84630339|NCT03094416|168999318|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053033||0.5542|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5542
84630340|NCT03094416|168999319|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046827||0.682|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6820
84630341|NCT03094416|168999320|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024025||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0468
84630342|NCT03094416|168999321|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088103||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0203
84630343|NCT03094416|168999322|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.030904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038699||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4291
84630344|NCT03094416|168999323|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047802||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5967
84630345|NCT00979940|168999324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
84630346|NCT05386329|168999327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment to end-of-treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5485|=|0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09883|2.1605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CSQ-8 score compared to the end-point (week 8) CSQ-8 score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in CSQ-8 total scores between midpoint (week 4) and end-of-treatment (week 8).||2.1605|-0.09883|=.0719
84644886|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.071
84630347|NCT05386329|168999328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8857|=|0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3884|2.2475||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ credibility score compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ credibility score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment credibility total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||2.2475|-1.3884|=.6316
84630348|NCT05386329|168999329|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9213|=|0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7422|3.0446||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ expectancy scores compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ expectancy scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment expectancy total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||3.0446|-0.7422|=.2225
84630349|NCT05386329|168999331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of post-treatment (week 8) to mid-treatment (week 4)|Wilcoxon Z|0.2712|||=|0.7873|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment utilization between midpoint (week 4) and end of treatment (week 8).||||=.7873
84630350|NCT05386329|168999332|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4944|-5.1903||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) HAM-D score compared to the baseline (week 0) HAM-D score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in HAM-D total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-5.1903|-10.4944|<.0001
84630351|NCT05386329|168999333|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5043|-6.3776||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified secondary outcome that addresses complementary aspects of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) WSAS scores compared to the baseline (week 0) WSAS scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in WSAS total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-6.3776|-13.5043|<.0001
84630352|NCT05386329|168999334|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.512|28.5806||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary outcome assessing a complementary aspect of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores compared to the baseline (week 0) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LES-Q-SF total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||28.5806|14.5120|<.0001
84630353|NCT05712460|168999499|OTHER||Ratio|126.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|150.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||150.10|106.87|
84630354|NCT05712460|168999500|OTHER||Ratio|142.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|174.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||174.32|117.20|
84630355|NCT04363320|168999511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.538|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.169||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a prior threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.002
84630356|NCT04363320|168999511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.0008
84630357|NCT04363320|168999511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.129||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.111
84630358|NCT04363320|168999511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.014||0.235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.235
84630359|NCT04363320|168999512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.153|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.485
84630360|NCT04363320|168999512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new Justice Involved Person counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.0008
84630361|NCT04363320|168999512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.377|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.154||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.015
84540194|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.13||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||-0.13|-0.52|0.0212
84630362|NCT04363320|168999512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.241
84630363|NCT04363320|168999513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.912|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.438||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00002
84630364|NCT04363320|168999513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.855|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00004
84630365|NCT04363320|168999513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.118
84630366|NCT04363320|168999513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.031||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.020
84630367|NCT04363320|168999514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.045
84630368|NCT04363320|168999514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.229||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.000002
84630369|NCT04363320|168999514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.387|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (13 to 24 months)||||0.076
84630370|NCT04363320|168999514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.036||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.019
84630371|NCT02260934|168999518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Two-sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 24||||0.58
84630372|NCT02260934|168999518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.25
84630373|NCT02260934|168999518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 96.||||0.15
84761734|NCT00313209|169280219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.4|-0.2|0.4654
84630374|NCT02260934|168999520|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Two sided test. P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 24|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||
84630375|NCT02260934|168999520|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 48|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||
84630376|NCT02260934|168999520|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms||Week 0 to Week 96 The modified intent to treat population includes all randomized participants who received 1 dose of Solumedrol, 1 dose of rituximab, 1 dose of cyclophosphamide, and, if in the Rituximab/Cyclophosphamide/Belimumab (RCB) arm, 1 dose of belimumab.|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||
84630377|NCT02260934|168999521|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.66||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 24||||0.66
84630378|NCT02260934|168999521|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.65||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 48|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||0.65
84630379|NCT02260934|168999522|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.64||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 24 Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.64
84630380|NCT02260934|168999522|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.37||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 48||||0.37
84630381|NCT02260934|168999522|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 96||||0.32
84630382|NCT02260934|168999523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.91||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 96||||0.91
84630383|NCT02260934|168999524|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.73||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||.73
84630384|NCT02260934|168999524|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.26||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.26
84630385|NCT02260934|168999524|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.29||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 96||||0.29
84630386|NCT02260934|168999525|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||>0.99
84761735|NCT00313209|169280220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||2.2|-1.2|0.5457
84761736|NCT02600494|169280221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|3.53||p-value is Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.53|-1.83|0.514
84630387|NCT02260934|168999526|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.49||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.49
84630388|NCT02260934|168999528|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.89||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.89
84630389|NCT02260934|168999528|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.47||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.47
84630390|NCT02260934|168999528|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.94||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.94
84630391|NCT02260934|168999529|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.08||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.08
84630392|NCT02260934|168999529|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.11||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.11
84630393|NCT02260934|168999529|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.05||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.05
84630394|NCT02260934|168999530|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.2||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||.20
84630395|NCT02260934|168999530|SUPERIORITY|Week 48|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||>0.99
84630396|NCT02260934|168999530|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.63||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.63
84630397|NCT01436526|168999533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.35||||0.0438||90.0|101.59|115.57|||ANOVA|||||115.57|101.59|0.0438
84630398|NCT01436526|168999534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.19||||0.0514||90.0|101.31|115.54|||ANOVA|||||115.54|101.31|0.0514
84630399|NCT01436526|168999535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|111.64||||0.0685||90.0|101.14|123.23|||ANOVA|||||123.23|101.14|0.0685
84630400|NCT05737069|168999609|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9698|1.0327||||||||1.0327|0.9698|
84630401|NCT05737069|168999610|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.0346||||||||1.0346|0.9710|
84630402|NCT05737069|168999611|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9383|1.0288||||||||1.0288|0.9383|
84630403|NCT05737069|168999612|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9755|1.0081||||||||1.0081|0.9755|
84630404|NCT05737069|168999613|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9432|1.0133||||||||1.0133|0.9432|
84630405|NCT05737069|168999614|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9431|1.0567||||||||1.0567|0.9431|
84630406|NCT05178173|168999677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.59
84630407|NCT05178173|168999677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.18
84630408|NCT05178173|168999677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.78
84630409|NCT05178173|168999677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.08
84630410|NCT00498940|168999693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Differences in cardiac index between groups were assessed by an independent 2-sample t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
84630411|NCT00091949|168999821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93||P-value adjusted for interim looks.|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for interim looks.|||0.93|0.62|.0067
84630412|NCT00091949|168999822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; conference interval (CI) adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.1|0.61|0.19
84630413|NCT00091949|168999823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.07|0.52|0.11
84761737|NCT02600494|169280221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.79||p-value is Hochberg adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.79|-3.73|0.895
84761738|NCT02600494|169280222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.400|0.712|0.993
84761739|NCT02600494|169280222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.307|||Regression, Cox|||||1.307|0.657|0.665
84761740|NCT03124563|169280225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||=.006
84761741|NCT03124563|169280226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||.034
84761742|NCT03124563|169280227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and education||||||.065
84630414|NCT00091949|168999825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||p-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes)|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.17|0.73|0.52
84630415|NCT00091949|168999826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo.|Changes in modified mini-mental examination (3MS) score from baseline (to annual scores) were analyzed using a longitudinal repeated measures mixed effects model.||0.280|-0.326|0.88
84630416|NCT00091949|168999827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.05|0.65|0.11
84630417|NCT01084655|168999871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Means|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.666||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.666|0.870|
84630418|NCT01084655|168999872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.455||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.455|0.793|
84630419|NCT01084655|168999875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.417||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.417|0.802|
84630420|NCT01084655|168999876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.195||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.195|0.955|
84630421|NCT05366738|168999883|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.64|109.41||||||||109.41|97.64|
84630422|NCT05366738|168999883|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|103.56||||||||103.56|92.42|
84630423|NCT05366738|168999884|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.15||||||||108.15|97.25|
84630424|NCT05366738|168999884|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.55|102.93||||||||102.93|92.55|
84630425|NCT05366738|168999885|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.49|112.0||||||||112.00|96.49|
84630426|NCT05366738|168999885|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|100.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|108.39||||||||108.39|93.38|
84644887|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.260
84761743|NCT03124563|169280228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.308
84761744|NCT03124563|169280229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANOVA|||||||.349
84761745|NCT03124563|169280230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.022
84761746|NCT04246372|169280255|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.84||||6.21e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.||||||0.00000621
84761747|NCT04246372|169280256|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.91||||6.1e-07||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000061
84761748|NCT04246372|169280257|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.03||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000004
84761749|NCT04246372|169280259|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.14||||3.93e-05||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000393
84761750|NCT04246372|169280260|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.67||||0.00399||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00399
84761751|NCT04246372|169280261|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-3.04||||0.146||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
84761752|NCT04246372|169280263|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.05||||9e-08||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000009
84761753|NCT01696435|169280275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.09|.87|0.62
84761754|NCT01696435|169280275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.26|1.01|0.03
84630427|NCT00906204|168999891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided alpha = 0.05, 85% power, an event rate of 0.70, equivalence margin of 0.20. Sample size = 75 patients per dose group, a total of 150 patients. Data analyzed will be counts of patients in each group who experience one or more component events of the primary endpoint during postoperative days one through seven. The DSMB requested an interim analysis after 80 patients and recommended ending the trial because the primary endpoint had been robustly reached.||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis compares the rates at which patients in each of the two groups cumulatively exceed the five composite endpoint thresholds. There are five safety outcomes monitored during the first seven post-transplantation days. The rates of observed vs. possible safety outcomes are compared.||||0.64
84630428|NCT00906204|168999892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
84630429|NCT00906204|168999893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
84630430|NCT00906204|168999894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
84630431|NCT00906204|168999895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
84630432|NCT00906204|168999896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84630433|NCT02151058|168999909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0999|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8559|-0.4622||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4622|-0.8559|<0.001
84630434|NCT02151058|168999909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1909|-0.7946||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.7946|-1.1909|<0.001
84630435|NCT02151058|168999909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4937|-0.1737||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1737|-0.4937|<0.001
84630436|NCT02151058|168999910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|-0.1263||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1263|-0.4450|<0.001
84630437|NCT02151058|168999910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0811|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4877|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.4877|<0.001
84630438|NCT02151058|168999910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1709|0.0866||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0866|-0.1709|0.520
84630439|NCT02151058|168999911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7043|-0.3217||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3217|-0.7043|<0.001
84630440|NCT02151058|168999911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|-0.4925||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4925|-0.8770|<0.001
84630441|NCT02151058|168999911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0786||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3268|-0.0168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0168|-0.3268|0.030
84761755|NCT01696435|169280276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.05|-0.04|
84761756|NCT01696435|169280276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.07|-0.01|
84630442|NCT02151058|168999912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1556|-0.0102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0102|-0.1556|0.026
84630443|NCT02151058|168999912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1917|-0.0451||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0451|-0.1917|0.002
84630444|NCT02151058|168999912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.0231||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0231|-0.0940|0.234
84630445|NCT02151058|168999913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|-0.0644||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0644|-0.2882|0.002
84630446|NCT02151058|168999913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0573|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4638|-0.2378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2378|-0.4638|<0.001
84630447|NCT02151058|168999913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2648|-0.0841||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0841|-0.2648|<0.001
84630448|NCT02151058|168999914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|-0.1226||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||-0.1226|-0.3713|<0.001
84630449|NCT02151058|168999914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0638|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6236|-0.3722||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3722|-0.6236|<0.001
84630450|NCT02151058|168999914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0511|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3516|-0.1503||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1503|-0.3516|<0.001
84630451|NCT02151058|168999915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.0504||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0504|-0.1970|0.001
84630452|NCT02151058|168999915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0373|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2413|-0.0941||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0941|-0.2413|<0.001
84630453|NCT02151058|168999915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0301||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1034|0.0152||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0152|-0.1034|0.145
84630454|NCT02151058|168999916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3282|-0.1321||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1321|-0.3282|<0.001
84630455|NCT02151058|168999916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4113|-0.2141||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2141|-0.4113|<0.001
84644888|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.264
84644889|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.381
84644890|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.249
84630456|NCT02151058|168999916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1621|-0.0031||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0031|-0.1621|0.042
84630457|NCT02151058|168999917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.3820|<0.001
84630458|NCT02151058|168999917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5724|-0.3565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3565|-0.5724|<0.001
84630459|NCT02151058|168999917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2767|-0.1023||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1023|-0.2767|<0.001
84630460|NCT00124943|168999919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.396
84630461|NCT00124943|168999920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the number of patients with any treatment emergent adverse event. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.783
84630462|NCT00124943|168999921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.293
84630463|NCT00124943|168999921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes||||0.400
84630464|NCT00124943|168999922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||>0.999
84630465|NCT00124943|168999923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.061
84630466|NCT00124943|168999924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.709
84630467|NCT00124943|168999924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.495
84630468|NCT00124943|168999925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value testing dose group differences based on an analysis of variance with dose effect in the model.||||||0.317
84630469|NCT00744497|168999937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.53|0.87|1.13||An interim analysis on survival was performed and the final test was corrected for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Confidence intervals for median overall survival calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Compared survival in arms by 2-sided, alpha=0.0447 level, log-rank test, stratified by bisphosphonate intake (yes/no) and urinary N-telopeptide category (\<60 vs ≥60 nmol/mmol creatinine) defined at randomization. Null hypothesis was survival equal in both arms. Power calculations were that ≥858 deaths would lead to ≥90% power at 5% level for rejecting null hypothesis, given true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.13|0.87|0.9009
84630470|NCT00744497|168999938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.271||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.271|0.688|
84630471|NCT00744497|168999939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.02|0.64|
84630472|NCT00744497|168999940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.763||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.763|0.930|
84630473|NCT00744497|168999941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.05|0.82|
84630474|NCT00744497|168999942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.01|0.79|
84630475|NCT00744497|168999943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.052||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for of experimental to control group.||1.052|0.594|
84630476|NCT03027609|168999952|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.54||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|10.8||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.8|-21.9|0.6154
84630477|NCT03027609|168999953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.01||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|10.5||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||10.5|-18.5|0.8426
84674946|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||16.4|-3.6|
84630478|NCT03027609|168999954|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|3.6||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.3||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||20.3|-13.1|0.3562
84630479|NCT03027609|168999955|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|-2.81||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|13.2||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|-18.9|0.8472
84630480|NCT03027609|168999956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|60.6||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||60.6|-16.2|0.4616
84630481|NCT03027609|168999956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|57.8||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 21||57.8|-13.3|0.4053
84630482|NCT03027609|168999957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|90.9||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||90.9|-14.8|0.0833
84630483|NCT03027609|168999957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|78.1||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1 Day 21||Data for Day 21||78.1|-30.5|0.5151
84630484|NCT03182374|168999967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84630485|NCT03182374|168999968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84630486|NCT03182374|168999969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6655||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6655
84630487|NCT03182374|168999970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84630488|NCT03182374|168999971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||PP population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84630489|NCT03182374|168999972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84630490|NCT00408317|168999974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CFA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects; participant identification (ID) as random effect.||||<0.0001
84630491|NCT00408317|168999975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.68|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CNA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects, and participant ID as random effect.||||<0.0001
84630492|NCT01462370|168999978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin is -3.7 units.|Difference in LS Means|0.89||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.025 (one-sided).|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||With at least 128 participants, the study had a 92% power to establish that etoricoxib is noninferior to ibuprofen (null hypothesis). The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions: 1) an approximately 15% protocol violation rate, 2) a noninferiority margin of -3.7 units (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen), and 3) an intrapatient standard deviation of 8 units.||1.76|0.03|0.043
84630493|NCT01462370|168999979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.57||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||1.57|-1.16|0.768
84630494|NCT01462370|168999980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.07|0.007
84630495|NCT01462370|168999981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.54|0.17|<0.001
84630496|NCT01462370|168999982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||1.14|0.70|0.371
84630497|NCT01462370|168999983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|-0.00|0.051
84630498|NCT01462370|168999984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference in LS Means|0.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.32|0.03|0.019
84630499|NCT01462370|168999986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.31|0.10|<0.001
84630500|NCT01462370|168999987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.10|0.002
84630501|NCT01462370|168999988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|0.03|0.011
84630502|NCT01462370|168999989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.44|0.08|0.004
84630503|NCT01462370|168999990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||2.87|0.90|0.112
84630504|NCT01462370|168999991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||3.45|1.12|0.019
84630505|NCT03651479|169000006|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84761757|NCT01696435|169280277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.13|0.87|0.88
84630506|NCT02399163|169000050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.061|22.454||From ANOVA: participant (random), treatment (fixed), period (fixed)|ANCOVA||Difference is Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse minus Placebo dentifrice/No rinse such that a positive difference implies a larger response value for the Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse.|||22.454|11.061|<0.0001
84630507|NCT01391546|169000089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was greater than 2/3|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||longitudinal regression model|Model adjusted for pre-vaccination titres and age at vaccination in years|GMT ratio = GMT IM route divided by GMT SC route|||1.18|0.93|<0.001
84630508|NCT01391546|169000090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.0|||||GMFR = GMT Post-vaccination/GMT Pre-vaccination|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was \>1.4||3.0|2.4|
84630509|NCT04225897|169000140|OTHER||Difference|-8.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|15.74||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||15.74|-31.78|
84630510|NCT04225897|169000140|OTHER||Difference|-15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|9.7|||Mixed effects analysis of covariance|||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||9.70|-40.15|
84630511|NCT04225897|169000141|OTHER||Difference|14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.68|121.33||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||121.33|-91.68|
84630512|NCT04225897|169000141|OTHER||Difference|-31.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.96|81.57||||||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||81.57|-143.96|
84630513|NCT01921205|169000193|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|31.72|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.342|44.277|||ANCOVA|Seizure frequency (log transformed) is analyzed using analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, pooled center and Baseline seizure frequency.|Percent reduction over placebo is estimated as 100 x (1-exp\[LSMLacosamide-LSMPlacebo\]). Where LSM is Least Square Mean.|||44.277|16.342|=0.0003
84630514|NCT03416985|169000219|OTHER|||||||0.1561||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to plaque level after 30 days||||0.1561
84630515|NCT03416985|169000220|OTHER|||||||0.2161||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to Gingival scores at 30 days||||0.2161
84630516|NCT00459316|169000226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Two-sided p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. There were no adjustments for multiple outcomes.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between CD4% strata.||||0.03
84761758|NCT01696435|169280277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.33|1.03|0.02
84630517|NCT00459316|169000227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||Two sided-p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. No adjustment for multiple primary outcomes was made.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between CD4% strata.||||0.01
84630518|NCT00929695|169000273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84630519|NCT00929695|169000273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
84630520|NCT00929695|169000281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.33||||||||1.33|0.14|
84630521|NCT00929695|169000282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.74|||Regression, Cox|||||0.74|0.12|0.009
84630522|NCT00929695|169000284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||||1.74|0.6|0.95
84630523|NCT01436149|169000285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||2.0|-1.7|0.883
84630524|NCT01436149|169000286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.0|-1.8|0.576
84630525|NCT00573508|169000297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at End of Treatment'.||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
84630526|NCT00573508|169000298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 4', 'Change at Week 8' and 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
84630527|NCT00573508|169000299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value represents change from Baseline to Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
84630528|NCT00573508|169000300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84630529|NCT00573508|169000308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at EOT'.||-11.6|-22.1|<.0001
84761759|NCT01696435|169280278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.19|0.76|0.67
84630530|NCT00528112|169000310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.017||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.017|0.005|
84630531|NCT00528112|169000310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01||||||95.0|0.005|0.018||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.018|0.005|
84630532|NCT00528112|169000332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00823|0.02531||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 5 years||0.02531|0.00823|
84630533|NCT02559622|169000339|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.06|||ANCOVA|||||3.06|-0.72|0.2230
84630534|NCT05810740|169000372|OTHER||LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|96.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|100.46||||||||100.46|92.57|
84630535|NCT05810740|169000373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.47|101.06||||||||101.06|93.47|
84630536|NCT05810740|169000374|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|101.33||||||||101.33|87.25|
84630537|NCT05560425|169000410|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence margin is a range of the compliance score for which the independent training of skills in each group is close enough to be considered equivalent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|8.79|||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 12||Null hypothesis: Compliance with independent training of skills is not equivalent between groups.||8.79|-6.22|<0.05
84630538|NCT04408989|169000415|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.899|
84630539|NCT04408989|169000415|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.956|
84630540|NCT04408989|169000415|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.12|1.01|
84674947|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
84630541|NCT04408989|169000416|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.887|
84630542|NCT04408989|169000416|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.925|
84630543|NCT04408989|169000416|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.11|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.11|0.991|
84630544|NCT03605667|169000453|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) randomization stratification, apolipoprotein E (APoE) status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.8|-1.8|0.9809
84630545|NCT03605667|169000454|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APoE status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||0.3|-0.8|0.4474
84630546|NCT03605667|169000455|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.8670
84630547|NCT03605667|169000456|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||3.9|-0.8|0.1950
84630548|NCT03605667|169000457|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||4.1|-1.1|0.2583
84630549|NCT03605667|169000458|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.3|-0.6|0.4191
84630550|NCT03605667|169000460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics are from an ANCOVA with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.2240
84630551|NCT03605667|169000461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0161
84630552|NCT02121535|169000488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.94|105.08|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||105.08|98.94|
84630553|NCT02121535|169000489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|103.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|110.99|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||110.99|97.03|
84630554|NCT02121535|169000490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|103.8|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||103.80|96.80|
84630555|NCT02121535|169000491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|100.93|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.93|97.94|
84630556|NCT02121535|169000492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|100.94|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.94|98.08|
84630557|NCT02121535|169000493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.72|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||101.72|98.45|
84630558|NCT02121535|169000494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|113.54|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||113.54|106.87|
84630559|NCT02121535|169000495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.53|
84630560|NCT02121535|169000496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.68|
84630561|NCT01074814|169000539|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Results for the primary objective - evaluation of GMI - were presented with descriptive statistics as the ration of PFS on current therapy over the PFS on latest therapy. The percentage of patients with GMI greater than 1.3 was displayed along with its corresponding 95% exact confidence interval.|||
84644891|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.451
84644892|NCT03274999|169025167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.393
84644893|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.006
84674948|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||17.5|-3.8|
84674949|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|18.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||18.9|-2.5|
84674950|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||13.4|-5.0|
84674951|NCT01709318|169085175|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
84674952|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.08||||0.096|||||||LDA|||||||0.096
84674953|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.993|||||||LDA|||||||0.993
84630562|NCT03181932|169000555|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested sequentially at Week 4 (end of Cycle 1), Week 12 (end of Cycle 2) and at Week 20 (end of Cycle 3). If a statistically significant difference was observed in favor of vancomycin inhalation powder compared to placebo after Cycle 1, then the mean change in the FEV1 percent predicted during Cycle 2 was to be tested. Similarly, if the effect after Cycle 2 was statistically significant, then the analysis of Baseline to end of Cycle 3 was to be tested.|Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on previous experience, a sample size of 45 participants per arm would provide 89% power to detect a statistically significant difference at alpha level of 0.05. To account for potential dropouts and/or smaller effect size in a 3-cycle trial, a sample size of 75 participants per arm was to be enrolled in the primary analysis population, which if all completed would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 3.4% at 20 weeks assuming the same standard deviation of 6.3%.||4.1|-1.4|0.325
84630563|NCT02584686|169000564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the study group using the t-test.||||0.0049
84630564|NCT02584686|169000564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the control group using the t-test.||||0.68
84674954|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.08||||0.124|||||||LDA|||||||0.124
84674955|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.05||||0.845|||||||LDA|||||||0.845
84674956|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||0.976|||||||LDA|||||||0.976
84674957|NCT01709318|169085176|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.995|||||||LDA|||||||0.995
84674958|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.01||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
84674959|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.19||||0.996|||||||LDA|||||||0.996
84674960|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.06||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
84674961|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
84674962|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.09||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
84674963|NCT01709318|169085177|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.24||||0.998|||||||LDA|||||||0.998
84674964|NCT03370341|169085184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.56
84674965|NCT03370341|169085185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.38
84674966|NCT05036642|169085240|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.02
84761760|NCT01696435|169280278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.27|0.82|0.88
84761761|NCT02723773|169280285|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.72|84.61|||Poisson regression method||VE=1 - the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||84.61|73.72|
84630565|NCT02584686|169000566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01086956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the study group.||||0.01086956
84630566|NCT02584686|169000566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the control group.||||0.6618176
84630567|NCT02584686|169000568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00751288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the study group before \& after treatment.||||0.00751288
84630568|NCT02584686|169000568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the control group before \& after treatment.||||0.6618176
84630569|NCT02584686|169000569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027191||||||"Due to the small sample size Fisher exact test was chosen. 7 out of 12 in the treatment group answered yes, while 1 out of 12 in the control group answered yes."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027191
84630570|NCT02584686|169000571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109091|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in the number of in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 8 (SEP-Q2 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 9 (SEP-Q2 Question after Treatment), for both (BTXA) and Saline groups."||||0.109091
84630571|NCT02584686|169000573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 10 (SEP-Q3 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 11 (SEP-Q3 Question after Treatment)."||||1
84630572|NCT05966142|169000633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.5913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.42|0.5913
84630573|NCT05966142|169000634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6803
84761762|NCT02723773|169280286|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.55|93.36|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||93.36|75.55|
84761763|NCT02723773|169280286|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.17|94.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||94.35|74.17|
84630574|NCT05966142|169000635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
84630575|NCT05966142|169000636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-1.7|0.5252
84630576|NCT05966142|169000637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
84630577|NCT03253796|169000665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|63.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||63.6|34.1|<0.001
84630578|NCT03253796|169000665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.7|||Meittinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||49.7|17.0|<0.001
84630579|NCT03253796|169000668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||19.4|3.3|
84630580|NCT03253796|169000668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||10.9|-2.8|
84630581|NCT03253796|169000670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
84630582|NCT03253796|169000670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
84630583|NCT03253796|169000672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.0|0.2|
84630584|NCT03253796|169000672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.1|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.1|0.2|
84630585|NCT03253796|169000674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|40.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||40.3|8.5|
84630586|NCT03253796|169000674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|21.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||21.3|-9.9|
84630587|NCT03253796|169000676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||39.0|9.1|
84504498|NCT01335477|168760028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.907||0.0002||95.0|44.78|142.68||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||142.68|44.78|0.0002
84674967|NCT05036642|169085241|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.01
84674968|NCT05036642|169085242|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.48
84674969|NCT02033889|169085288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.71|-1.05|<0.001
84674970|NCT02033889|169085288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.53|-0.87|<0.001
84761764|NCT02723773|169280286|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|77.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|83.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||83.14|69.37|
84504499|NCT01335477|168760029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.0197||95.0|-4.95|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.43|-4.95|0.0197
84504500|NCT01335477|168760030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.005||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo.|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox's regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||0.77|0.19|0.0050
84504501|NCT01335477|168760031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.808|<|0.0001||95.0|70.92|148.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.62|70.92|<0.0001
84504502|NCT01335477|168760032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.69|2.78|<0.0001
84674971|NCT02033889|169085290|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|5.4|-2.1|
84674972|NCT02033889|169085290|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|4.7|-2.5|
84674973|NCT02033889|169085291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.99|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-31.99|-44.50|<0.001
84674974|NCT02033889|169085291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-20.48|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-20.48|-32.90|<0.001
84674975|NCT02033889|169085292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.03|-2.16|<0.001
84674976|NCT02033889|169085292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.11|-2.24|<0.001
84674977|NCT02033889|169085293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|7.62|2.64|<0.001
84674978|NCT02033889|169085293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|5.06|1.81|<0.001
84674979|NCT02033889|169085294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-2.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-2.19|-6.81|<0.001
84630588|NCT03253796|169000676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|37.7|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||37.7|7.3|
84630589|NCT03253796|169000680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|44.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||44.5|19.2|<0.001
84630590|NCT03253796|169000681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|30.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||30.5|0.9|0.037
84630591|NCT00894803|169000682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|an exact logistic regression was used due to the number of events|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
84630592|NCT00894803|169000683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.31|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.31|0.70|0.23
84630593|NCT00894803|169000683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS score and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.71|0.51|0.53
84630594|NCT00894803|169000685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
84630595|NCT00894803|169000686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.76||95.0|0.35|8.02|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||8.02|0.35|0.76
84674980|NCT02033889|169085294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.39|-5.96|0.002
84630596|NCT00894803|169000687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to small number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
84674981|NCT02033889|169085295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.98|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.98|-3.86|0.001
84674982|NCT02033889|169085295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.39|-3.24|0.013
84630597|NCT00894803|169000688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
84630598|NCT00894803|169000689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|Exact methods used due t number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.76|0.38|0.78
84630599|NCT00894803|169000690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.18|0.26|0.99999
84630600|NCT00894803|169000691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.67|0.63|0.35
84630601|NCT00894803|169000691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.02|0.40|0.85
84630602|NCT00894803|169000692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.88|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.88|0.65|0.30
84630603|NCT00894803|169000692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.24|0.44|0.73
84630604|NCT00894803|169000693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.99|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.99|0.61|0.31
84630605|NCT00894803|169000694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.07|0.47|0.55
84630606|NCT00894803|169000695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||2.67|0.46|0.82
84630607|NCT00894803|169000696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.64|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||6.64|0.90|0.07
84630608|NCT00894803|169000696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.88|0.67|0.22
84630609|NCT00449696|169000697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.91||||0.122||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.122
84630610|NCT00449696|169000698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42||||0.071||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.071
84630611|NCT00449696|169000699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.64||||0.058||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.058
84630612|NCT00449696|169000700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for strict OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.022
84630613|NCT00449696|169000700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.242||95.0||||P-value for OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.242
84630614|NCT00449696|169000701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||P-value for physical component scores, physical function subscale, role physical subscale, and bodily pain subscale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84630615|NCT00449696|169000702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.39||||0.037||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.037
84630616|NCT00449696|169000703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.746||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.746
84630617|NCT00449696|169000704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.166||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.166
84630618|NCT00449696|169000705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
84630619|NCT03431259|169000707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0574
84630620|NCT03431259|169000707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.570
84630621|NCT01409707|169000710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no differences between groups at posttreatment on posttraumatic stress disorder measures or alcohol use measures.||||=.068
84630622|NCT01409707|169000711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in alcohol use at posttreatment.||||= 0.39
84630623|NCT01903460|169000713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-40.707||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.679|110.265|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day||110.265|-191.679|0.5740
84630624|NCT01903460|169000713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-7.231||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.726|134.264|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day||134.264|-148.726|0.9147
84630625|NCT01903460|169000713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-23.969||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.969|104.031|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001||104.031|-151.969|0.6954
84630626|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|56.7||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|120.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALT||120.6|-7.2|0.0783
84630627|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|7.8||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|67.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALT||67.0|-51.4|0.7827
84630628|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|32.2||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|86.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALT||86.3|-21.9|0.2235
84761765|NCT02723773|169280286|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|80.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||80.92|62.94|
84630629|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|24.0||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|65.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for AST||65.5|-17.5|0.2372
84630630|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-15.8||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|22.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for AST||22.4|-54.1|0.3914
84630631|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|4.1||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for AST||39.1|-31.0|0.8081
84630632|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|51.7||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.3|243.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALP||243.7|-140.3|0.5748
84630633|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|11.9||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.4|182.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALP||182.2|-158.4|0.8835
84630634|NCT01903460|169000714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|31.8||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.8|199.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALP||199.4|-135.8|0.6917
84630635|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.348||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|1.772|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||1.772|-2.468|0.6907
84630636|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.202||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.052|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||2.052|-1.647|0.7897
84630637|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.073||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.705|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Patient ItchRO||1.705|-1.850|0.9203
84630638|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.21||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.618|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.618|-1.038|0.5966
84630639|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.173||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.926|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.926|-0.580|0.6320
84630640|NCT01903460|169000715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.019||||0.9547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Observer ItchRO||0.673|-0.710|0.9547
84630641|NCT02867436|169000741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|205.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|633.0|||Regression, Linear|||||633|-223|<0.05
84630642|NCT02867436|169000742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.6|-14.1|<0.05
84630643|NCT02867436|169000743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||||0.01|-0.31|<0.05
84630644|NCT02867436|169000744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84630645|NCT02867436|169000745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||After Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84630646|NCT05720897|169000835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||The calculations are based on a Mann Whitney calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study has an 80% power to detect changes in patient's self-reported anxiety as measured by their responses to the psychometrically validated STAI-S \& T instrument of 3.6 within each group (with an effect size of 0.55) and differences of a 5.0 between groups (with an effect size of 0.77).||||.399
84630647|NCT00400179|169000841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3952||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3952
84630648|NCT00400179|169000842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0808
84630649|NCT00400179|169000843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.86|0.9158
84630650|NCT00400179|169000844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.77|0.0320
84630651|NCT00400179|169000845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.80|0.1983
84630652|NCT04780061|169000846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An area under the curve approach was used to analyze the primary outcome, whereby participants' scores for each assessment were summed over the 21-day period. For missing values, we imputed the mean of the most recent and first subsequent measurement or carried the last observation forward if there was no subsequent measurement.||||0.53
84630653|NCT04780061|169000848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84630654|NCT04780061|169000849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
84630655|NCT04050553|169000852|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.67|-3.64|0.7556
84630656|NCT04050553|169000853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-174.77||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.34|-59.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.21|-290.34|0.0043
84630657|NCT04050553|169000854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-488.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-621.25|-355.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-355.36|-621.25|<0.0001
84630658|NCT04050553|169000855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.08|1.69|0.0023
84630659|NCT04050553|169000856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 100 mg/dL.||0.00|-0.13|0.0505
84630660|NCT04050553|169000856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 63 mg/dL.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0104
84630661|NCT04050553|169000856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 45 mg/dL.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0068
84630662|NCT04050553|169000856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 72 mg/dL.||0.08|-0.30|0.2302
84630663|NCT04050553|169000857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For systolic blood pressure.||4.27|-5.28|0.8298
84630664|NCT04050553|169000857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.96||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For diastolic blood pressure.||4.67|-0.76|0.1516
84630665|NCT04050553|169000858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89||||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-4.10|0.5776
84630666|NCT02086175|169000859|SUPERIORITY||percent|48.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.0|66.0|||Fisher Exact|||"Patients will be accrued in a single stage design, with a goal accrual of 25 patients.~Assuming a 30% response rate with rituximab alone, if the true but unknown rate of CR or PR is 50% with the addition of Imprime PGG, the probability of observing 11 or more patients with a response is 0.79 with 0.098 one-sided type-I error.~Therefore a study with 25 patients, in which an observed response rate of 11/25 (44%) would be considered worthy of further consideration."||66|31|0.044
84630667|NCT04314284|169000872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
84630668|NCT04314284|169000873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
84630669|NCT04314284|169000874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
84630670|NCT04314284|169000878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
84630671|NCT04314284|169000879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
84630672|NCT04314284|169000880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84761766|NCT02723773|169280287|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.89|90.12|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50 YOA Group.||90.12|84.89|
84540195|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.14|-0.28|0.7665
84630673|NCT04314284|169000883|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84630674|NCT04314284|169000884|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84630675|NCT04314284|169000886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
84630676|NCT03589859|169000944|OTHER|This was a physiology study, not a treatment trial. The test was for a change in VOR gain.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare pre- and post-training VOR gains||||<0.001
84630677|NCT05565742|169000947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-55.8|<0.001
84630678|NCT05565742|169000947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-68.5|-80.4|<0.001
84630679|NCT05565742|169000947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-93.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-92.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-92.5|-95.1|<0.001
84630680|NCT05565742|169000948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.2|-54.9|0.002
84630681|NCT05565742|169000948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.4|-71.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.1|-82.4|<0.001
84630682|NCT05565742|169000948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|-93.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.6|-96.1|<0.001
84630683|NCT05565742|169000948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-70.2|-81.9|<0.001
84630684|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|1975.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1975.13|6.35|0.001
84630685|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2762.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.74|53463.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||53463.34|142.74|<0.001
84630686|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50904.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1700.95|1523398.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1523398.10|1700.95|<0.001
84630687|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.94||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|527.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||527.74|1.48|0.026
84630688|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|309.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|5320.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||5320.81|17.99|<0.001
84630689|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3060.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.84|56127.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||56127.55|166.84|<0.001
84630690|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.91||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|635.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||635.94|1.70|0.021
84630691|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|579.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|10673.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||10673.41|31.48|<0.001
84630692|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14659.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|646.35|332498.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||332498.98|646.35|<0.001
84630693|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|321.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||321.21|0.79|0.071
84630694|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|1468.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||1468.36|5.07|0.002
84630695|NCT05565742|169000949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|956.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|16422.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||16422.76|55.75|<0.001
84630696|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|191.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||191.58|5.36|<0.001
84630697|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|602.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.36|3805.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||3805.22|95.36|<0.001
84630698|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6953.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|527.56|91646.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||91646.24|527.56|<0.001
84630699|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.46|2104.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||2104.62|57.46|<0.001
84630700|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.99||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|1015.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||1015.84|2.98|0.007
84630701|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|363.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.83|6332.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6332.68|20.83|<0.001
84630702|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2953.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.95|57790.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||57790.71|150.95|<0.001
84630703|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|375.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.46|6571.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6571.66|21.46|<0.001
84630704|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.43||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|331.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||331.69|0.81|0.068
84630705|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|1447.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1447.48|4.99|0.002
84674983|NCT02033889|169085296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|13.90|2.10|<0.001
84630706|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|594.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|10405.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||10405.09|33.99|<0.001
84630707|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|1875.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1875.77|6.47|0.001
84630708|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|74.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||74.29|1.81|0.010
84630709|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|233.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.92|1362.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||1362.79|39.92|<0.001
84630710|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3087.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.26|28778.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||28778.10|331.26|<0.001
84630711|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|829.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||829.42|25.20|<0.001
84630712|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|243.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||243.85|0.51|0.125
84630713|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|148.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|2546.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2546.89|8.64|<0.001
84630714|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1431.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.76|26349.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||26349.86|77.76|<0.001
84630715|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|147.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|2538.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2538.95|8.60|<0.001
84630716|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|104.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||104.02|0.04|0.733
84630717|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.28||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|594.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||594.46|1.98|0.015
84630718|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|159.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|2716.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||2716.42|9.40|<0.001
84630719|NCT05565742|169000950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.98||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|659.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||659.75|2.19|0.013
84630720|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|-30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-30.9|-59.9|<0.001
84630721|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-76.1|-84.7|<0.001
84630722|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
84630723|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
84630724|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-6.2|-50.6|0.019
84630725|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-66.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-55.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-55.9|-73.8|<0.001
84630726|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
84630727|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
84630728|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-28.3|-61.3|<0.001
84630729|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.1|-80.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.3|-88.1|<0.001
84630730|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-96.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-95.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-95.9|-97.4|<0.001
84630731|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|-80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.8|-87.9|<0.001
84674984|NCT02033889|169085296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.22|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|8.22|1.17|0.023
84630732|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-3.6|-49.4|0.029
84630733|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.9|-57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-57.6|-74.9|<0.001
84630734|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.9|-88.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-88.5|-92.9|<0.001
84630735|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-59.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-59.0|-74.8|<0.001
84630736|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||3.7|-37.8|0.093
84630737|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-33.2|-56.0|<0.001
84630738|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-74.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-68.5|-78.8|<0.001
84630739|NCT05565742|169000951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-43.3|-61.7|<0.001
84630740|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-2.6|-17.5|0.010
84630741|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-5.8|-17.7|<0.001
84630742|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
84504503|NCT01335477|168760033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607|<|0.0001||95.0|1.87|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.25|1.87|<0.0001
84630743|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
84630744|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||0.6|-16.2|0.068
84630745|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-3.8|-17.1|0.003
84630746|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
84630747|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
84630748|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-1.2|-16.7|0.026
84630749|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.3|-21.1|<0.001
84630750|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.6|-21.0|<0.001
84630751|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-4.4|-16.3|<0.001
84630752|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||1.7|-14.9|0.111
84630753|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-5.3|-18.1|<0.001
84630754|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-7.8|-20.0|<0.001
84630755|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||400 mg LY3819469, Placebo||-1.9|-14.9|0.013
84630756|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||5.8|-10.7|0.510
84630757|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||2.1|-11.1|0.173
84630758|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-6.8|-18.6|<0.001
84630759|NCT05565742|169000952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||1.7|-11.2|0.139
84630760|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.71||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||23.3|-44.3|0.353
84630761|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.84||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|34.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||34.7|-28.7|0.902
84674985|NCT02033889|169085297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-11.2|-22.2|<0.001
84674986|NCT02033889|169085297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-9.4|-20.9|<0.001
84761767|NCT02723773|169280287|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.25|95.37|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||95.37|86.25|
84761768|NCT02723773|169280287|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.66|96.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||96.24|86.66|
84761769|NCT02723773|169280287|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.98|89.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||89.33|82.98|
84761770|NCT02723773|169280287|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.91|87.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||87.93|79.91|
84761771|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.07|99.53|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.53|93.07|
84761772|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.57|99.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.92|80.57|
84630762|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
84630763|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
84630764|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.41||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||49.7|-32.8|0.987
84674987|NCT02033889|169085316|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-0.71|
84630765|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||17.2|-38.7|0.316
84630766|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
84630767|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
84674988|NCT02033889|169085316|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.83|0.37|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.37|-0.83|
84630768|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||22.6|-36.1|0.461
84630769|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||9.4|-35.6|0.194
84630770|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|27.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||27.2|-24.0|0.898
84630771|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.81||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||17.0|-29.9|0.448
84630772|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.05||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||98.4|-15.4|0.233
84630773|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.04||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|44.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||44.9|-27.6|0.891
84630774|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.18||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||39.9|-29.0|0.984
84630775|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.52||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||67.5|-14.8|0.302
84630776|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.49||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|36.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.8|-37.9|0.684
84630777|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.3|-28.6|0.933
84630778|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.33||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|38.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||38.6|-26.7|0.962
84630779|NCT05565742|169000953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.52||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||56.9|-17.2|0.422
84630780|NCT04272242|169000969|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.93|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmax, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.93|0.91|
84630781|NCT04272242|169000970|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|0.96|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for AUC0-24, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.96|0.96|
84630782|NCT04272242|169000971|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmin, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||1.00|0.97|
84630783|NCT01347112|169001023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||1 tailed fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.034
84630784|NCT01347112|169001024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||1 tailed fisher's exact|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.044
84630785|NCT01347112|169001025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.1|||||data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with treatment as the independent variable and the baseline value included as the co-variate|||2.1|-4.7|
84630786|NCT03591406|169001036|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in proportions|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|4.71|||||2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was computed using the Wilson score method with continuity correction described by Newcombe.|||4.71|-2.15|
84504504|NCT01335477|168760034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.67|2.76|<0.0001
84630787|NCT01122238|169001057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.665
84630788|NCT01122238|169001057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.562
84630789|NCT01122238|169001057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.536
84761773|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.32|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 1.||100.00|79.32|
84630790|NCT01122238|169001057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.206
84630791|NCT01122238|169001058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.98
84630792|NCT01122238|169001058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.40
84630793|NCT01122238|169001058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.99
84630794|NCT01122238|169001058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.33
84630795|NCT02703597|169001067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network Group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to vaping than participants in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||4.20|0.32|0.80
84630796|NCT02703597|169001067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility to vaping over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.43|0.06|<0.01
84630797|NCT02703597|169001068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Adolescents who participated in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to using conventional tobacco than adolescents who participated in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||3.49|0.16|0.70
84630798|NCT02703597|169001068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility of using conventional tobacco over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.40|0.04|<0.01
84630799|NCT02224560|169001076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.57||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.79|-6.67|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-6.67|-34.79|0.0047
84630800|NCT02224560|169001076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.24|-7.69|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.69|-31.24|0.0016
84630801|NCT02224560|169001077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|8.47||Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|1.75|0.0006
84630802|NCT02224560|169001077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|7.26||Calculated using a CMH test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.26|1.47|0.0030
84504505|NCT01335477|168760037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||0.1833||95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||1.86|0.89|0.1833
84630803|NCT02224560|169001078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.76||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-4.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.43|-31.80|0.0091
84630804|NCT02224560|169001078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.47||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.37|-7.47|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.47|-30.37|0.0015
84504506|NCT01335477|168760038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.55|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted.||2.55|1.26|0.0011
84630805|NCT02224560|169001079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||3.30|1.02|0.0439
84630806|NCT02224560|169001079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.66|1.41|0.0020
84630807|NCT01523366|169001080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-167.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.0|-137.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-137.4|-197.0|<.001
84630808|NCT01523366|169001081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.3|-98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||-98.0|-172.3|<.001
84630809|NCT01523366|169001081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-168.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.0|-133.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose||-133.7|-204.0|<.001
84630810|NCT01523366|169001082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-150.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.9|-124.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-124.1|-176.9|<.001
84630811|NCT01523366|169001082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-140.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.4|-111.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-111.9|-168.4|<.001
84630812|NCT01523366|169001082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|-103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-103.2|-158.0|<.001
84630813|NCT01352715|169001085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by randomization stratification factors using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified upper confidence bound for non-inferiority was 10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.5||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 95% confidence interval.||1.5|-8.4|
84630814|NCT01710345|169001111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.742
84630815|NCT01710345|169001111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84630816|NCT02105740|169001124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.178||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|5.11|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both arms with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis first compared the difference of means between hypnosis and control groups during three weeks.||5.110|0.224|0.034
84630817|NCT02105740|169001124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.856||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|6.08|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the second week in the hypnosis group.||6.080|1.253|0.004
84630818|NCT02105740|169001124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.827||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.918|7.582|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the third week in the hypnosis group.||7.582|2.918|0.000
84630819|NCT02105740|169001125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of anxiety at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
84630820|NCT02105740|169001125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of depression at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
84504507|NCT01335477|168760039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.664||||0.0218||95.0|1.08|2.57|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||2.57|1.08|0.0218
84630821|NCT00551642|169001130|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi-square|||||||0.7340
84630822|NCT00198822|169001141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.99||We set an a priori level of statistical significance of p equal to 0.05.|generalized estimating equations|RR with 95% CIs were estimated by GEE binomial regression, with a log link function and exchangeable correlation appropriate for binary data.|The vitamin A group and the Beta-carotene group were compared to the placebo group.|Sample size was based on an expected placebo group MR of 600/100,000 pregnancies, requiring 18,000 pregnancies to detect a 35% reduction in all-cause mortality, with a 5% type I error, 80% power, 1.21 design effect, 15% early pregnancy loss and 10% loss to follow-up. A mid-study DSMB analysis suggested a lower MR, leading the SS to be increased to 67,740. However, with no mortality difference evident at a DSMB meeting in Dec 2006, the trial was halted leaving 59,721 in the trial cohort.||0.99||0.05
84630823|NCT01353898|169001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 200 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
84630824|NCT01353898|169001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 800 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
84630825|NCT01353898|169001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||||||||||||||
84630826|NCT01353898|169001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||||||||||||||||
84630827|NCT01353898|169001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||||||||||||||||
84630828|NCT01353898|169001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||||||||||||||||
84630829|NCT01353898|169001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||||||||||||||||
84630830|NCT02668653|169001186|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratification factors include region, age, and WBC count at the time of diagnosis of AML.||||0.979|0.615|0.0324
84630831|NCT01294553|169001198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|18.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||18.1|12.8|
84630832|NCT04973449|169001243|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||1.32|1.08|
84630833|NCT04973449|169001244|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.14|0.90|
84630834|NCT04973449|169001245|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.49||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||6.49|-3.11|
84630835|NCT04973449|169001246|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|3.89||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.89|3.09|
84630836|NCT04973449|169001249|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|3.36||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.36|3.06|
84630837|NCT04973449|169001250|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.45|
84630838|NCT04973449|169001251|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.35||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.35|0.27|
84630839|NCT04973449|169001252|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.58||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.58|1.25|
84630840|NCT04973449|169001253|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.08|1.63|
84630841|NCT04973449|169001254|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.99|0.78|
84630842|NCT04973449|169001255|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.97|0.78|
84630843|NCT04973449|169001256|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.08|0.83|
84630844|NCT04973449|169001257|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|6.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|7.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.40|5.82|
84630845|NCT04973449|169001258|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.47||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.47|1.99|
84630846|NCT04973449|169001259|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|4.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.90|3.86|
84630847|NCT04973449|169001260|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.39|1.13|
84630848|NCT04973449|169001261|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|5.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||5.08|3.85|
84630849|NCT04973449|169001262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|3.84||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.84|-6.62|
84630850|NCT04973449|169001263|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|23.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.32|10.18|
84630851|NCT04973449|169001264|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-12.07||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.07|-24.22|
84630852|NCT04973449|169001265|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|7.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.23|-7.28|
84630853|NCT04973449|169001266|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|31.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.44|37.82||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.82|24.44|
84630854|NCT04973449|169001267|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.90|-9.40|
84630855|NCT04973449|169001268|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|23.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.41|30.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||30.23|15.41|
84630856|NCT04973449|169001269|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-34.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.77|-27.45||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-27.45|-40.77|
84630857|NCT04973449|169001270|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|15.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||15.10|-1.31|
84630858|NCT04973449|169001271|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|29.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|35.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||35.81|21.76|
84630859|NCT04973449|169001273|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.42||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.42|1.30|
84630860|NCT04973449|169001274|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.81|0.70|
84630861|NCT04973449|169001275|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.39|3.40|
84630862|NCT04973449|169001276|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.7||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.70|0.64|
84630863|NCT04973449|169001277|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.09||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.09|-0.61|
84630864|NCT04973449|169001278|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-35.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-28.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-28.44|-41.46|
84674989|NCT02033889|169085317|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.39|0.00|
84630865|NCT04973449|169001279|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-24.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-18.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-18.56|-31.06|
84630866|NCT04973449|169001280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.56|-1.63|
84630867|NCT04973449|169001281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-14.98||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-14.98|-23.80|
84630868|NCT04973449|169001282|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|39.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.68|45.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||45.21|32.68|
84630869|NCT04973449|169001283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.62||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.62|-1.62|
84761774|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|99.76|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.76|92.46|
84761775|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.96|99.71|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.71|90.96|
84761776|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.15|96.57|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.57|86.15|
84540196|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-0.00|-0.42|0.1777
84630870|NCT04973449|169001284|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.59||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.59|0.45|
84630871|NCT04973449|169001285|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.86|0.68|
84630872|NCT04973449|169001286|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.79||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.79|1.43|
84630873|NCT04973449|169001287|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.85|0.67|
84630874|NCT04973449|169001288|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
84630875|NCT04973449|169001289|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|21.71||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||21.71|7.07|
84630876|NCT04973449|169001290|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
84630877|NCT04973449|169001291|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|23.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.40|10.15|
84630878|NCT04973449|169001292|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|7.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.21|-7.21|
84630879|NCT04973449|169001293|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.28|1.75|
84630880|NCT04973449|169001294|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.32|2.64|
84630881|NCT04973449|169001295|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.69||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.69|1.35|
84630882|NCT04973449|169001296|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.94|0.78|
84630883|NCT04973449|169001297|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-34.41||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-34.41|-47.57|
84630884|NCT04973449|169001298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|13.77||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||13.77|-1.81|
84630885|NCT04973449|169001299|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-26.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-19.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-19.94|-33.10|
84630886|NCT04973449|169001300|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|30.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.94|37.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.90|22.94|
84630887|NCT04973449|169001301|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|22.64||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||22.64|6.36|
84630888|NCT04973449|169001302|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.96|0.74|
84630889|NCT04973449|169001303|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|1.8||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.80|1.62|
84630890|NCT04973449|169001304|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.44|
84630891|NCT04973449|169001305|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.44|0.32|
84630892|NCT03955146|169001326|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.06|0.2926
84630893|NCT02628873|169001335|EQUIVALENCE|Degree of agreement between the 2 Assessors|Degree of agreement / Kappa|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa|||||||< 0.01
84630894|NCT02628873|169001336|SUPERIORITY|T-test to determine whether one method had greater reported pain|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-2.69|< 0.30
84504508|NCT01335477|168760040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.675||0.4019||95.0|-4.69|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.88|-4.69|0.4019
84630895|NCT02628873|169001337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.431|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (pre-procedure versus post-procedure)||||1.56|-2.40|< 0.67
84630896|NCT00107653|169001348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR for Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||P-values are calculated based on the difference in proportion between Latino and Non-Latino White group|Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with SVR. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|SVR for Latino Versus (VS) Non-Latino White||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
84630897|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.00|-0.12|0.0454
84630898|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
84630899|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.06|-0.22|0.0004
84630900|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.09|-0.24|<0.0001
84630901|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.09|-0.25|<0.0001
84644894|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.063
84674990|NCT02033889|169085317|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.99|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.99|-0.38|
84674991|NCT02033889|169085318|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.68|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.68|-0.15|
84630902|NCT00107653|169001349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
84630903|NCT00107653|169001350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.01|-0.15|0.0353
84630904|NCT00107653|169001351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.04|-0.17|0.0014
84630905|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.06|-0.22|0.0006
84630906|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
84630907|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
84630908|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.06|-0.22|0.0008
84630909|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.10|-0.26|<0.0001
84630910|NCT00107653|169001353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.11|-0.27|<0.0001
84630911|NCT00107653|169001354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with ISHAK HAI response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI Response For Latino VS Non-Latino White||-0.0|-0.2|0.0285
84630912|NCT00107653|169001355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in change from baseline of ISHAK HAI activity (necroinflammatory) scores between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI activity For Latino VS Non-Latino White||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
84630913|NCT00107653|169001364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-0.33|-0.96|<0.0001
84674992|NCT02033889|169085318|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.48|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.48|-0.33|
84630914|NCT00107653|169001364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.04|-0.57|0.0921
84630915|NCT00107653|169001364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.36|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-3.36|-14.07|0.0015
84630916|NCT00107653|169001364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|9.49|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||9.49|0.18|0.0421
84630917|NCT00107653|169001365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.864|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.18|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||5.18|1.79|<0.0001
84630918|NCT00107653|169001365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.68|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||1.68|-1.49|0.9047
84630919|NCT00107653|169001365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.71|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||1.71|-1.88|0.9286
84630920|NCT00107653|169001365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.51|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.51|-2.98|0.1653
84630921|NCT00541658|169001384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|0.345|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.345|-0.812|
84644895|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.005
84644896|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.089
84644897|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.112
84644898|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.16
84644899|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.077
84644900|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.157
84644901|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.111
84644902|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.040
84644903|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.241
84504509|NCT01335477|168760041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.022||95.0|-5.71|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.45|-5.71|0.0220
84630922|NCT00541658|169001384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.277|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.277|-0.869|
84630923|NCT00541658|169001385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.232|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant used.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.232|-0.763|0.2955
84630924|NCT00541658|169001386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.412|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.412|-0.674|
84630925|NCT00541658|169001386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.695|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.695|-0.382|
84630926|NCT00541658|169001387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|0.321|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.321|-0.836|
84630927|NCT00541658|169001387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.256|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.256|-0.900|
84630928|NCT00541658|169001388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.903|-0.405|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.405|-1.903|
84630929|NCT00541658|169001388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.789|-0.299|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.299|-1.789|
84630930|NCT00541658|169001389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-0.355|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.355|-1.762|
84674993|NCT02033889|169085319|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.39|-0.76|
84630931|NCT00541658|169001389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.223|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.223|-1.620|
84630932|NCT00541658|169001390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0524
84630933|NCT00541658|169001390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|0.99|0.1207
84630934|NCT00541658|169001391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|1.00|0.0729
84630935|NCT00541658|169001391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.06||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.98|0.1639
84630936|NCT00541658|169001392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0476
84630937|NCT00541658|169001392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.12||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.20|1.04|0.0014
84630938|NCT00541658|169001393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|1.00|0.0547
84630939|NCT00541658|169001393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.1||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.03|0.0066
84674994|NCT02033889|169085319|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.35|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.35|-0.78|
84540197|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3741
84674995|NCT02033889|169085323|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.88|-0.53|
84674996|NCT02033889|169085323|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.88|0.51|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.51|-0.88|
84674997|NCT02033889|169085324|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.98|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.98|-0.48|
84630940|NCT00541658|169001394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.234|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.234|-0.504|
84630941|NCT00541658|169001394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.294|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.294|-0.437|
84630942|NCT00541658|169001395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.082|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.082|-0.724|
84630943|NCT00541658|169001395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|0.112|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.112|-0.692|
84630944|NCT00541658|169001396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.106|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.106|-0.682|
84630945|NCT00541658|169001396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|0.101|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.101|-0.681|
84630946|NCT00541658|169001397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.179|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.110|-1.179|
84630947|NCT00541658|169001397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.059|||ANOVA|||||-0.059|-1.116|
84630948|NCT00541658|169001398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.014|||ANOVA|||||-0.014|-1.030|
84630949|NCT00541658|169001398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.037|||ANOVA|||||0.037|-0.973|
84674998|NCT02033889|169085324|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.91|-0.51|
84540198|NCT04856917|168830939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3321
84630950|NCT00541658|169001399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.201|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.201|-0.731|
84630951|NCT00541658|169001399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.336|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.336|-0.588|
84630952|NCT00541658|169001400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.328|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.156|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.156|-0.811|
84630953|NCT00541658|169001400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|-0.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center, anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.080|-1.045|
84630954|NCT00541658|169001401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.138|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.138|-0.793|
84630955|NCT00541658|169001401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.074|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.074|-1.000|
84630956|NCT00541658|169001402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.032|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.032|-1.189|
84644904|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.284
84644905|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.313
84644906|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.433
84644907|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.406
84504510|NCT01335477|168760042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0152||95.0|-5.97|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.64|-5.97|0.0152
84630957|NCT00541658|169001402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.799|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.194|-1.403|
84630958|NCT00541658|169001403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.018|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.018|-1.128|
84630959|NCT00541658|169001403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.046|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.046|-1.185|
84630960|NCT00541658|169001404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.363|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.363|-0.860|
84630961|NCT00541658|169001404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|0.342|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.342|-0.871|
84630962|NCT00541658|169001405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.071|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.071|-1.185|
84630963|NCT00541658|169001405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.149|0.105|||ANOVA||LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.105|-1.149|
84630964|NCT00541658|169001406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.078|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.078|-1.170|
84630965|NCT00541658|169001406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.042|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.042|-1.199|
84630966|NCT00541658|169001407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.861|-0.329|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.329|-1.861|
84674999|NCT02033889|169085325|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.04|-0.95|
84504511|NCT01335477|168760043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0089||95.0|-5.46|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.79|-5.46|0.0089
84630967|NCT00541658|169001407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.432|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.432|-1.948|
84630968|NCT00541658|169001408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|-0.184|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.184|-1.655|
84630969|NCT00541658|169001408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|-0.326|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.326|-1.787|
84630970|NCT00541658|169001409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|8.427|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.427|-0.885|
84630971|NCT00541658|169001409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.819|7.471|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.471|-1.819|
84630972|NCT00541658|169001410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|7.431|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.431|-2.171|
84630973|NCT00541658|169001410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|9.386|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.386|-0.152|
84630974|NCT00541658|169001411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|9.989|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.989|0.091|
84630975|NCT00541658|169001411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|9.574|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.574|-0.293|
84675000|NCT02033889|169085325|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.23|-0.66|
84630976|NCT00541658|169001412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|11.414|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.414|1.329|
84630977|NCT00541658|169001412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|9.425|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.425|-0.619|
84630978|NCT00541658|169001413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.739|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|10.271|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.271|-0.793|
84630979|NCT00541658|169001413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|9.515|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.515|-1.518|
84630980|NCT00541658|169001414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|10.327|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.327|-0.693|
84630981|NCT00541658|169001414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.295|8.68|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.680|-2.295|
84630982|NCT00541658|169001415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|9.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.160|-0.260|
84630983|NCT00541658|169001415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|8.421|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.421|-0.975|
84630984|NCT00541658|169001416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|9.79|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.790|-0.195|
84630985|NCT00541658|169001416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|9.924|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.924|0.020|
84644908|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
84630986|NCT00541658|169001417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|10.065|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.065|-0.514|
84630987|NCT00541658|169001417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.638||||||95.0|0.356|10.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.920|0.356|
84630988|NCT00541658|169001418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|11.942|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.942|1.162|
84630989|NCT00541658|169001418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|10.897|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.897|0.164|
84630990|NCT00541658|169001419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|14.485|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.485|1.175|
84630991|NCT00541658|169001419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|8.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757|15.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||15.010|1.757|
84630992|NCT00541658|169001420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.385|14.22|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.220|1.385|
84630993|NCT00541658|169001420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|13.69|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||13.690|0.911|
84675001|NCT02033889|169085326|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.72|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.72|-0.61|
84761777|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.78|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.15|70.78|
84761778|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.11|99.89|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.89|72.11|
84630994|NCT00541658|169001421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.145|4.655|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.655|-1.145|
84630995|NCT00541658|169001421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|4.698|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.698|-1.087|
84630996|NCT00541658|169001422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|5.316|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.316|-0.502|
84630997|NCT00541658|169001422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|4.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.194|-1.576|
84630998|NCT00541658|169001423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|4.727|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.727|-1.617|
84630999|NCT00541658|169001423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.779|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.779|-1.556|
84631000|NCT00541658|169001424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.521|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.521|-1.652|
84631001|NCT00541658|169001424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|4.535|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.535|-1.611|
84644909|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.499
84644910|NCT03274999|169025168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.390
84761779|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.13|96.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.93|85.13|
84761780|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.82|96.88|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.88|82.82|
84761781|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.98|96.59|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 3.||96.59|84.98|
84761782|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.20|
84761783|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.39|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.39|
84761784|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|95.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 3.||95.51|79.81|
84761785|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.99|93.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 3.||93.35|68.99|
84631002|NCT00541658|169001425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|6.436|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||6.436|-0.938|
84761786|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.31|95.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.24|80.31|
84504512|NCT01335477|168760044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.1587||95.0|-5.68|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.93|-5.68|0.1587
84631003|NCT00541658|169001425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|7.087|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus daily treatment.|||7.087|-0.255|
84644911|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.053
84631004|NCT00541658|169001426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|5.711|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.711|-1.318|
84761787|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.62|99.85|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.85|60.62|
84761788|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|99.04|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.04|66.10|
84631005|NCT00541658|169001426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|5.751|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.751|-1.248|
84631006|NCT00541658|169001427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
84631007|NCT00541658|169001427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
84631008|NCT00541658|169001428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
84631009|NCT00541658|169001428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
84631010|NCT00541658|169001429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
84631011|NCT00541658|169001429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
84631012|NCT00541658|169001430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
84761789|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.96|95.13|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.13|77.96|
84761790|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|95.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.33|73.30|
84631013|NCT00541658|169001430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
84631014|NCT00541658|169001431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
84631015|NCT00541658|169001431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
84631016|NCT00541658|169001432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
84631017|NCT00541658|169001432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
84631018|NCT00541658|169001433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
84644912|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.206
84761791|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.31|92.63|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.63|68.31|
84761792|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.83|98.61|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 6.||98.61|46.83|
84761793|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.79|99.82|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 6.||99.82|48.79|
84631019|NCT00541658|169001433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
84631020|NCT00541658|169001434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
84631021|NCT00541658|169001434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
84631022|NCT00626106|169001445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.11|0.542
84631023|NCT02201953|169001455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary analyses consisted of non-inferiority test of Group 1 (SOF/VEL 12 weeks) versus Group 2 (SOF+RBV 24 weeks) at the 0.05 significance level. Non-inferiority was assessed using the conventional confidence interval approach and a non-inferiority margin of 10% was applied. The two-sided 95% confidence intervals was constructed using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (i.e cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience)|Difference in proportions|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.6|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||19.6|9.2|
84631024|NCT02201953|169001455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by cirrhosis status and prior HCV treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the lower bound of 95% CI on the difference was \> -10%, the p-value tested for the superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 24 weeks. Superiority was demonstrated if the two-sided p-value is less than 0.05.||||<0.001
84631025|NCT01181349|169001470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.169|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.169
84631026|NCT01181349|169001472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.01
84631027|NCT00321620|169001478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves as least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0002||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy)|||0.95|0.71|0.0002
84631028|NCT00321620|169001479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.95|0.71|0.0085
84631029|NCT00321620|169001480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.94|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.94|0.71|0.0085
84631030|NCT01887327|169001481|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-31.64|||=|2.1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-19.283|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-19.283|-44.000|=0.0000021
84631031|NCT01887327|169001481|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-27.4|||=|2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.657|-15.142|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-15.142|-39.657|=0.0000260
84761794|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.64|93.05|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 6.||93.05|63.64|
84631032|NCT00129402|169001500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84631033|NCT00129402|169001501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84631034|NCT00129402|169001502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84631035|NCT00129402|169001503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||non-parametric model|||||||.48
84631036|NCT00129402|169001504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84631037|NCT00129402|169001505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.95
84631038|NCT02121158|169001511|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.568|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.568|0.534|0.7457
84631039|NCT03873116|169001529|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-24.6||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|14.0|||negative binomial regression model|||||14.0|-50.1|0.181
84631040|NCT03873116|169001529|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-49.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-20.4|||negative binomial regression model|||||-20.4|-67.5|0.003
84631041|NCT03873116|169001532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.018||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.179|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.179|-0.143|0.814
84631042|NCT03873116|169001532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.122||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.036|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.036|-0.280|0.120
84631043|NCT03873116|169001533|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|24.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|50.3|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||50.3|-14.7|0.188
84631044|NCT03873116|169001533|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|47.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|66.6|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||66.6|17.7|0.005
84631045|NCT03873116|169001534|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-12.65||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|8.03|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||8.03|-33.33|0.213
84631046|NCT03873116|169001534|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-19.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|0.99|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||0.99|-39.00|0.061
84631047|NCT00871975|169001723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (percent)|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found an 80.6% sensitivity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
84631048|NCT00871975|169001723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (percent)|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found a 28.1% specificity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
84631049|NCT03592186|169001753|SUPERIORITY|In zero-inflated distributions, two outcomes can be specified: 1) probability of being an excess zero (falling outside expected negative binomial distribution), and 2) count value, if not an excess zero. Our focal effect of interest was Time\*Condition in the count distribution, i.e. effect of condition over time on predicting the percent of days used greater than zero.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models with zero-inflated distributions evaluated whether there was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used. We tested the primary outcome (percent of days of use over the past 90 days, adjusted for time in a controlled environment) for overall number of days of use.||1.36|.97|.12
84631050|NCT03592186|169001754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models using a linear distribution evaluated whether change in substance-related problems differed by condition. The focal effect was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used.||.07|-.34|.19
84631051|NCT03592186|169001755|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the count of positive urine screens by condition at 12 weeks||||.92
84631052|NCT00307801|169001756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
84631053|NCT00632229|169001823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
84631054|NCT00632229|169001824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
84631055|NCT00737672|169001869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
84631056|NCT00737672|169001872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
84631057|NCT00737672|169001875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology with 24-month follow-up data.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
84631058|NCT00737672|169001876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test of non-inferior proportions with delta = 0.15.|||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|One-sided.||||||<0.001
84631059|NCT00737672|169001877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
84631060|NCT00737672|169001880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||1.000
84675002|NCT02033889|169085326|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.78|
84631061|NCT00737672|169001881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
84631062|NCT00737672|169001882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
84631063|NCT02735863|169001891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5352|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5352
84631064|NCT00829426|169001892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|||106.52|98.74|
84631065|NCT00829426|169001893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.88||||||90.0|90.34|95.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||95.48|90.34|
84631066|NCT00829426|169001894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.92||||||90.0|91.47|96.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||96.44|91.47|
84631067|NCT00311766|169001895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary population was the Full Analysis(FA)population. The FA population included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication and who had at least one baseline efficacy parameter recorded||||>0.05
84631068|NCT04672239|169001904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3341||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0734|13.5948||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||13.5948|1.0734|0.0219
84631069|NCT04672239|169001904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7775||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.407|15.148||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||15.1480|2.4070|0.0072
84631070|NCT04672239|169001905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5072||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7759|2.9281|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the QG app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the QuitGuide app treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., end-of-treatment).||2.9281|0.7759|0.2259
84631071|NCT04672239|169001905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.963||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9776|3.9415|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the CtA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., post-treatment).||3.9415|0.9776|0.0579
84761795|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|92.5|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.50|54.30|
84631072|NCT04672239|169001906|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|0.401||||0.9152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app treatment vs. QuitGuide app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.9152
84631073|NCT04672239|169001906|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.372||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Pairwise comparison, SiS app treatment vs. CTA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.3557
84675003|NCT02033889|169085330|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.56|-1.01|
84631074|NCT04672239|169001907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2936||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4983|2.0856||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the QuitGuide treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, QG -1)|||2.0856|-1.4983|0.7469
84631075|NCT04672239|169001907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2569||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5628|3.0766||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, CtA -1)|||3.0766|-0.5628|0.1747
84631076|NCT04672239|169001908|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.9255||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method||||||0.1315
84631077|NCT04672239|169001908|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.401||||0.3403|TWO_SIDED|||||the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app vs. Clearing the Air pamphlet|||||0.3403
84631078|NCT04672239|169001909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2289||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007364|0.4505||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app|0.4505|0.007364|0.0429
84631079|NCT04672239|169001909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1609||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06415|0.386||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet|0.3860|-0.06415|0.1600
84631080|NCT04672239|169001910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08092|0.3848||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QG app|0.3848|-0.08092|0.1996
84631081|NCT04672239|169001910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05636|0.5276||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|0.5276|0.05636|0.0154
84631082|NCT04672239|169001911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6255||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3458|7.5968||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app (control)|7.5968|-2.3458|0.2988
84631083|NCT04672239|169001911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9277||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1015|8.9569||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|8.9569|-1.1015|0.1251
84631084|NCT04672239|169001912|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|-0.8096||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4182
84631085|NCT04672239|169001913|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.909||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0563
84631086|NCT04672239|169001914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1106||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.4354|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4354|-0.2143|0.5018
84631087|NCT04672239|169001915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1406||||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.488|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4880|-0.2068|0.4246
84631088|NCT04672239|169001916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4296||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3597|8.2188|||t-test, 2 sided||SiS app vs. QG (control)|||8.2188|-3.3597|0.4078
84631089|NCT03373240|169001935|OTHER|Examining stop signal reaction time changed across the 4-week training period|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.06|-14.17|.003
84631090|NCT03373240|169001936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.184|||ANOVA|||||.184|-.333|.049
84631091|NCT03373240|169001937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.965|0.136|||ANOVA|||||.136|-3.965|.236
84631092|NCT03373240|169001938|OTHER|Examining whether percentage of risky choices decreased across the 4-wwek training period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.08|-3.15|.039
84631093|NCT03373240|169001939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.13|-3.40|.035
84631094|NCT03373240|169001940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|3.12|<.001
84631095|NCT03373240|169001941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|1.755|||ANOVA|||||1.755|.111|.008
84631096|NCT03373240|169001942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.077|TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.177|0.214|||ANOVA|||||.214|-.177|.077
84631097|NCT03373240|169001943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.822|2.895|||ANOVA|||||2.895|-4.822|.547
84631098|NCT03373240|169001944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|0.742|||ANOVA|||||.742|-1.805|.436
84631099|NCT04825678|169002003|OTHER||Least squares mean (LSM)|40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.05|45.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline monthly migraine days (MMD), and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||45.39|36.05|< 0.001
84631100|NCT04825678|169002003|OTHER||LSM|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|62.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||62.98|-1.30|0.058
84644913|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.221
84631101|NCT04825678|169002004|OTHER||LSM|37.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.62|47.12||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||47.12|28.62|< 0.001
84631102|NCT04825678|169002004|OTHER||LSM|43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.06|48.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||48.44|38.06|< 0.001
84631103|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-40.41||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-40.41|-49.39|< 0.001
84761796|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.76|92.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.51|67.76|
84761797|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.67|99.84|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 7.||99.84|56.67|
84761798|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 7.||98.31|32.04|
84631104|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-54.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.43|-34.86||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-34.86|-73.43|< 0.001
84631105|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|-40.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-40.44|-48.26|< 0.001
84631106|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.51|-34.08||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-34.08|-53.51|< 0.001
84631107|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.65|-40.14||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Social Function Domain||-40.14|-48.65|< 0.001
84631108|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-29.79||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Social Function Domain||-29.79|-60.28|< 0.001
84631109|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.29|-40.7||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-40.70|-50.29|< 0.001
84631110|NCT04825678|169002013|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.16|-34.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-34.96|-85.16|< 0.001
84631111|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-27.03||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Physical Function Domain||-27.03|-41.72|< 0.001
84631112|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-44.69||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Physical Function Domain||-44.69|-54.44|< 0.001
84631113|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.47|-30.06||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Usual Activities Domain||-30.06|-41.47|< 0.001
84631114|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.29||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Usual Activities Domain||-42.29|-51.10|< 0.001
84631115|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-36.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.89|-29.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Social Function Domain||-29.96|-42.89|< 0.001
84631116|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.49|-41.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Social Function Domain||-41.98|-51.49|< 0.001
84631117|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-41.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.47|-33.4||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Emotional Function Domain||-33.40|-49.47|< 0.001
84631118|NCT04825678|169002014|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.95|-42.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Emotional Function Domain||-42.39|-52.95|< 0.001
84631119|NCT02344108|169002048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84631120|NCT02344108|169002049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84631121|NCT02344108|169002050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84631122|NCT02344108|169002051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84631123|NCT02344108|169002052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
84631124|NCT02344108|169002053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
84631125|NCT02344108|169002054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84631126|NCT02344108|169002055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
84631127|NCT02344108|169002056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
84631128|NCT02344108|169002057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
84631129|NCT02344108|169002058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84631130|NCT02344108|169002059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84631131|NCT02344108|169002060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84644914|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.126
84631132|NCT00911170|169002065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (chemotherapy regimen, geographic region, disease stage).|Odds ratio adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|The primary hypothesis was that the percentage of participants treated with study chemotherapy and bevacizumab who experience grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (FN) would be lower in participants randomized to the pegfilgrastim arm compared to placebo arm. The study was designed to have at least 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level to detect a 6% difference in incidence of grade 3/4 FN from 9% to 3%, which is approximately a 66.7% relative reduction.||0.86|0.19|0.014
84631133|NCT00911170|169002066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||Log Rank|P-values based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.36|0.81|0.704
84631134|NCT00911170|169002067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.26|0.88|0.552
84631135|NCT00911170|169002068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.29|0.88|0.502
84631136|NCT00911170|169002069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \> 1.0 indicates a higher event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.39|0.81|0.683
84631137|NCT00911170|169002070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.312||95.0|0.29|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.49|0.29|0.312
84631138|NCT00911170|169002071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.32|0.10|<.001
84631139|NCT00911170|169002072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.56|0.13|<.001
84631140|NCT02153632|169002095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-10.5|0.031
84631141|NCT02153632|169002095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-11.5|0.011
84631142|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
84631143|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-12 Months||||0.4889
84631144|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-18 Months||||0.4889
84631145|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
84631146|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
84631147|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
84631148|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7381|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-6 Months||||0.7381
84631149|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
84631150|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
84631151|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
84631152|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-12 Months||||0.4591
84631153|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-18 Months||||0.4591
84631154|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
84631155|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
84631156|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
84631157|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.5136
84631158|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.7575
84631159|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||>0.999
84631160|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||0.7575
84631161|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
84631162|NCT02144610|169002121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
84631163|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.514
84631164|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.445
84631165|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.863
84631166|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.111
84631167|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.153
84631168|NCT02144610|169002122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||0.002
84631169|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (right brachial)||||0.733
84631170|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (right brachial)||||0.808
84631171|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (right brachial)||||0.487
84631172|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (right brachial)||||0.216
84631173|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (right brachial)||||0.896
84631174|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF) (right brachial)||||0.167
84631175|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (left brachial)||||0.378
84631176|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (left brachial)||||0.390
84631177|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (left brachial)||||0.521
84631178|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (left brachial)||||0.044
84631179|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (left brachial)||||0.423
84631180|NCT02144610|169002125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at LOCF (left brachial)||||0.989
84631181|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.803
84631182|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.668
84631183|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.789
84631184|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.280
84631185|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.324
84631186|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.759
84631187|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.414
84631188|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.886
84631189|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.114
84631190|NCT02144610|169002126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Posterior Tibial)||||0.051
84631191|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.211
84631192|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.036
84631193|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.725
84631194|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.468
84631195|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.854
84631196|NCT02144610|169002127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.233
84631197|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.268
84631198|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.320
84631199|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.315
84631200|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.327
84631201|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.643
84631202|NCT02144610|169002128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.740
84631203|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.147
84631204|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.032
84631205|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.709
84631206|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.771
84631207|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.830
84631208|NCT02144610|169002129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.033
84631209|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.105
84631210|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.557
84631211|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Activities (LOCF)||||0.940
84631212|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|||Social (LOCF)||||0.905
84631213|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||ANCOVA|||Emotional Functioning (LOCF)||||0.782
84631214|NCT02144610|169002130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||ANCOVA|||Composite Overall (LOCF)||||0.802
84631215|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.941
84631216|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.584
84761799|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.54|91.58|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 7.||91.58|59.54|
84761800|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|78.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|92.08|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.08|51.24|
84761801|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.98|92.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.14|65.98|
84761802|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.52|42.67|
84761803|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.31|32.04|
84631217|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.100
84631218|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.916
84631219|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.486
84631220|NCT02144610|169002131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.835
84631221|NCT03881852|169002142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value calculated from LSMean|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84631222|NCT01421719|169002150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t test comparison of baseline number of urinary leaks per day versus number of leaks per day at 6 month evaluation after treatment.||||0.0087
84631223|NCT00565084|169002159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.743||90.0|-0.23|0.35|||ANOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by an ANOVA model with terms for treatment, period, sequence, and patients within sequence. Efficacy advantage over placebo was assessed via the treatment difference in the least-squares (LS) means (ibuprofen vs. average of the 2 placebo treatments) from the ANOVA model and the 90% confidence interval (CI; one-sided alpha=0.05) of the LS mean difference will be assessed.||0.35|-0.23|0.743
84631224|NCT01357850|169002170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0119||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0768|0.1005|||ANOVA|||||0.1005|-0.0768|0.7873
84631225|NCT01357850|169002170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0678||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1356|||ANOVA|||||0.1356|0.0000|0.0499
84631226|NCT01357850|169002170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0467||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0204|0.1137|||ANOVA|||||0.1137|-0.0204|0.1666
84631227|NCT01357850|169002171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.89||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3172.05|3441.83|||ANOVA|||||3441.83|-3172.05|0.9343
84631228|NCT01357850|169002171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1278.77||||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1398.13|3955.68|||ANOVA|||||3955.68|-1398.13|0.3375
84631229|NCT01357850|169002171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|772.7||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1887.77|3433.17|||ANOVA|||||3433.17|-1887.77|0.5582
84631230|NCT01357850|169002172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|-5.43|0.2256
84631231|NCT01357850|169002172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.32|||ANOVA|||||2.32|-4.22|0.5647
84631232|NCT01357850|169002172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.79|||ANOVA|||||2.79|-2.44|0.8942
84631233|NCT03537404|169002212|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|0.142|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.142|-0.103|
84631234|NCT03537404|169002212|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.175|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.175|-0.220|
84631235|NCT03537404|169002213|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.157|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed.|||0.157|-0.075|
84631236|NCT03537404|169002213|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.201|0.064|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.064|-0.201|
84631237|NCT03537404|169002214|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.159|0.383|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.383|0.159|
84631238|NCT03537404|169002215|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.132|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.132|0.016|
84631239|NCT03537404|169002216|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.153|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.153|-0.450|
84631240|NCT03537404|169002217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.354|0.168|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.168|-0.354|
84631241|NCT02435992|169002237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.586||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.938|6.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.636|1.938|0.0001
84761804|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.97|92.45|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.45|59.97|
84631242|NCT02435992|169002238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.755||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|4.294|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.294|1.767|0.0001
84631243|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.95
84631244|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.78
84631245|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
84631246|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631247|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.82
84631248|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
84631249|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631250|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
84631251|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.02
84631252|NCT03879772|169002254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631253|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.56
84631254|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.74
84631255|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.68
84631256|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631257|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
84631258|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.33
84631259|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631260|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.46
84631261|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631262|NCT03879772|169002255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631263|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
84631264|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.45
84761805|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.91|93.4|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 8.||93.40|52.91|
84761806|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.89|86.16|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 9.||86.16|52.89|
84631265|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.12
84631266|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.36
84631267|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.6
84631268|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.17
84631269|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.23
84631270|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.42
84631271|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.09
84631272|NCT03879772|169002256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631273|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.03
84631274|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.04
84631275|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.08
84631276|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.49
84631277|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.93
84631278|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.75
84631279|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631280|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.71
84631281|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631282|NCT03879772|169002257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
84631283|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.16
84631284|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.22
84631285|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
84631286|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
84631287|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.85
84631288|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.96
84631289|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631290|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
84631291|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631292|NCT03879772|169002258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631293|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.05
84631294|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.07
84631295|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.11
84631296|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.31
84631297|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.94
84631298|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.73
84631299|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631300|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.79
84631301|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631302|NCT03879772|169002259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
84631303|NCT00912808|169002260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.049
84631304|NCT00912808|169002261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.27
84631305|NCT00728689|169002297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.4591
84631306|NCT00728689|169002298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-τ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0048
84631307|NCT00728689|169002299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-∞ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0997
84631308|NCT00728689|169002300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, Cmax was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0422
84631309|NCT00728689|169002301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.8581
84631310|NCT00538902|169002336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.026||95.0|1.09|4.39||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||4.39|1.09|0.026
84761807|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|90.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 9.||90.52|3.52|
84631311|NCT00538902|169002336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.004||95.0|1.35|5.3||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||5.30|1.35|0.004
84631312|NCT00538902|169002337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The between-treatment comparison between each adalimumab group vs. placebo was performed at the 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level, without using a stepwise testing procedure or alpha adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Percentage ACR responders at Week 12 were compared between adalimumab and placebo groups, where missing ACR responses were imputed as non-responder.||||||0.009
84631313|NCT00538902|169002337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
84631314|NCT04109547|169002363|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.3|-1.8|<0.0001
84631315|NCT04109547|169002363|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
84631316|NCT04109547|169002363|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84631317|NCT05567783|169002427|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|15.85||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|52.56||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Poisson regression|Estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model|RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group was the only factor in the model|||52.56|-49.27|0.5552
84631318|NCT05567783|169002427|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|44.63|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||44.63|-67.23|
84631319|NCT05567783|169002435|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|57.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|82.15|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||82.15|-2.51|
84631320|NCT05567783|169002435|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.25|55.51|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||55.51|-76.25|
84631321|NCT05567783|169002436|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|44.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|79.26|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||79.26|-50.49|
84631322|NCT05567783|169002436|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.41|51.27|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||51.27|-147.41|
84631323|NCT00001959|169002445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: GFR Decrease during baseline period and treatment period are same||||<0.01
84631324|NCT00001959|169002446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0: Proteinuria during baseline and treatment periods are same||||0.16
84631325|NCT03773978|169002449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.453|||Log Rank|||||0.453|0.128|<0.001
84631326|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||7.46|0.99|0.052
84631327|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||8.28|1.60|0.002
84631328|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.41|2.00|<0.001
84631329|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||7.01|1.62|0.001
84631330|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.07|1.48|0.002
84631331|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|6.52|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||6.52|1.62|<0.001
84631332|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||7.41|1.85|<0.001
84631333|NCT03773978|169002450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||6.50|1.65|<0.001
84631334|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.65|0.59|0.568
84631335|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||6.09|1.40|0.004
84631336|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.15|2.10|<0.001
84631337|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||6.32|1.51|0.002
84631338|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.11|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.11|1.47|0.003
84631339|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.60|1.44|0.003
84631340|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||6.97|1.74|<0.001
84631341|NCT03773978|169002451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||5.66|1.46|0.002
84631342|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.87|0.52|0.972
84631343|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.81|1.27|0.008
84631344|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.97|1.33|0.005
84631345|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||5.94|1.57|<0.001
84631346|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.71|1.25|0.009
84631347|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.47|1.43|0.003
84631348|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||5.83|1.47|0.002
84631349|NCT03773978|169002452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.74|0.99|0.052
84631350|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.75|0.66|0.409
84631351|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.23|1.07|0.030
84631352|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.92|1.13|0.022
84631353|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.08|1.03|0.040
84631354|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.24|1.07|0.032
84631355|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.42|0.85|0.132
84631356|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.10|1.00|0.050
84631357|NCT03773978|169002453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.71|1.15|0.019
84631358|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.92|0.33|0.620
84631359|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||2.78|0.61|0.492
84631360|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.75|0.50|0.715
84631361|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||2.99|0.66|0.384
84631362|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.10|0.70|0.311
84631363|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.34|0.75|0.231
84631364|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||3.95|0.84|0.129
84631365|NCT03773978|169002454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.84|1.02|0.043
84631366|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.98|0.40|0.853
84631367|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||1.71|0.29|0.432
84631368|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.31|0.41|0.960
84631369|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.01|0.73|0.215
84631370|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.22|0.77|0.173
84631371|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.33|0.64|0.367
84631372|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.67|0.77|0.162
84631373|NCT03773978|169002455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.50|0.85|0.113
84631374|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.55|0.42|0.511
84631375|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||3.20|0.84|0.145
84631376|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.72|0.70|0.349
84631377|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||3.25|0.82|0.167
84631378|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.07|0.78|0.212
84631379|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||2.39|0.62|0.577
84631380|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||2.95|0.78|0.225
84631381|NCT03773978|169002456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.90|0.98|0.055
84631382|NCT03773978|169002458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.70|-6.95|0.001
84631383|NCT03773978|169002459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.262||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-21.39|0.003
84631384|NCT03773978|169002460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.91|||ANCOVA|||||1.91|-2.62|0.574
84631385|NCT03773978|169002461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.15|-0.26|0.208
84631386|NCT03773978|169002462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.98|0.019
84631387|NCT00817843|169002489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.766||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"Between treatment difference in the change in FMD from the fasting to the post-fat load state.~Null hypothesis was that combination therapy (simvastatin/ezetimibe) would protect the FMD in the post-fat load phase and would therefore be associated with a smaller drop in FMD~Power calculation was based on the results from a pilot study. To detect a 1.0% difference between treatments with a SD of 2.7% and a power of 90% (alfa 0.05, two tailed) 80 evaluable patients were needed."||||0.766
84631388|NCT03755934|169002490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-3.87|0.0437
84631389|NCT03755934|169002490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.79||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-0.36|0.1878
84631390|NCT03755934|169002490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.58||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-2.19|0.0009
84631391|NCT04266717|169002513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84631392|NCT00940771|169002518|OTHER|Friedman's Test|Chi Square|12.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom.||||||.006
84631393|NCT00940771|169002518|OTHER|Post Hoc testing Post hoc Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|Z=-2.701||Nul lHypothesis that there is no difference between specific time points.||||.007
84631394|NCT00940771|169002519|OTHER|Friedman's test with 3 df||||||0.356|||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.356
84631395|NCT00940771|169002520|OTHER||Chi-square|1.0||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom|1.0 is the actual calculated Chi-X value, not the p value.|The null hypothesis was that there was a difference. We were looking for no difference between before and after switch.||||.801
84631396|NCT00940771|169002521|OTHER|Friedman's test||||||0.075||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05|Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.075
84631397|NCT02072668|169002529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6281|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.6281
84675004|NCT02033889|169085330|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-1.06|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-1.06|
84540199|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|2.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.14|-1.56|0.7932
84631398|NCT02072668|169002530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7973|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7973
84631399|NCT02072668|169002531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4442
84631400|NCT02072668|169002532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2545|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.2545
84631401|NCT02072668|169002538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4374|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4374
84631402|NCT02072668|169002539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.3470
84631403|NCT02072668|169002540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0755
84631404|NCT02072668|169002542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0708
84631405|NCT02072668|169002543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4501
84631406|NCT02072668|169002544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0767|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0767
84631407|NCT02072668|169002545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7250
84631408|NCT05523089|169002546|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-5.7|0.0390
84631409|NCT05523089|169002548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.0185
84631410|NCT05523089|169002550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.0613
84631411|NCT05523089|169002551|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-2.4|0.1587
84631412|NCT05523089|169002553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0236
84675005|NCT02033889|169085331|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.13|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.13|-0.58|
84631413|NCT05523089|169002555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.1282
84631414|NCT05523089|169002556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.3||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-11.2|0.2877
84631415|NCT05523089|169002558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.6|-4.1|0.2517
84631416|NCT05523089|169002562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9024||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.9024
84631417|NCT05523089|169002563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0248
84631418|NCT05523089|169002565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1224||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1224
84631419|NCT05523089|169002567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1023||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1023
84631420|NCT05523089|169002569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1477
84631421|NCT05523089|169002571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1645||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1645
84631422|NCT01148979|169002638|OTHER|A Paired sample t-test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in MDAR score change after 4 weeks of treatment with Vyvanse versus placebo.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis represents a within-subject comparison of change under treatment with Vyvanse versus change under treatment with placebo, using paired t-tests with each subject as their own control. All tests reported are two-tailed.||||<0.05
84631423|NCT00554216|169002645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|10.3||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||10.30|8.43|<0.0001
84631424|NCT00554216|169002645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.71||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.71|2.38|<0.0001
84631425|NCT00554216|169002645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.99||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||6.99|4.65|<0.0001
84631426|NCT00554216|169002646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|12.95||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||12.95|7.13|<0.0001
84631427|NCT00554216|169002646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||5.63|2.80|<0.0001
84631428|NCT00554216|169002646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.33||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.33|1.76|<0.0001
84631429|NCT05764785|169002654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.182
84631430|NCT05764785|169002655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.461
84761808|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|95.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 9.||95.11|-3.24|
84675006|NCT02033889|169085331|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.93|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.93|-0.70|
84631431|NCT05764785|169002656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.228
84631432|NCT05764785|169002657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.295
84631433|NCT05764785|169002658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.915
84631434|NCT05764785|169002659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.226
84631435|NCT00071890|169002660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
84631436|NCT00071890|169002661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Biphasic decline of CD4 after week 24 : first slope before W32 and weaker decline until W168.Slopes significantly different (all p values ≤0.0001) between the 2 groups, more pronounced in the IL-2 groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
84631437|NCT01389596|169002664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.29|0.2577
84631438|NCT01389596|169002664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.41|0.0185
84631439|NCT01389596|169002665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||2.030|0.528|0.8024
84631440|NCT01389596|169002665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|3.147|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||3.147|0.851|0.0092
84631441|NCT03038100|169002697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2785
84631442|NCT03038100|169002698|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.65|0.0376
84631443|NCT03038100|169002699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2), tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3), and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.09|0.78|0.3432
84631444|NCT03038100|169002700|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2) and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.06|0.66|0.1316
84631445|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.62|0.58|0.9096
84631446|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||2.01|0.73|0.4662
84761809|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|89.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 9.||89.35|51.78|
84631447|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.40|0.51|0.5237
84631448|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||2.07|0.76|0.3826
84631449|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.76|0.56|0.9893
84631450|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.61|0.49|0.6892
84631451|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.17|0.30|0.1324
84631452|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.70|0.62|0.9176
84631453|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.68|0.50|0.7861
84631454|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.65|0.65|0.4539
84631455|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.86|0.27|0.4849
84631456|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.34|0.19|0.7470
84631457|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.0896
84631458|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
84631459|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.50|0.56|0.7347
84631460|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.00|0.32|0.0479
84631461|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.05|0.36|0.0712
84631462|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.58|0.56|0.8168
84631463|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.52|0.50|0.6417
84631464|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.72|0.53|0.8821
84631465|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.30|0.32|0.2158
84631466|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.51|0.4762
84631467|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.96|0.61|0.7585
84631468|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.93|0.52|0.9985
84631469|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||5.06|0.85|0.1067
84631470|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.61|0.36|0.6171
84631471|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||23.57|0.08|0.8084
84631472|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||94.30|-100.00|0.3173
84631473|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Presurgical/Surgery||1.77|0.69|0.6802
84631474|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.29|0.48|0.3470
84761810|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|75.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|91.07|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 9.||91.07|43.69|
84761811|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|71.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|85.18|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 10.||85.18|49.03|
84761812|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.89|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 10.||100.00|77.89|
84540200|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|2.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.73|-0.99|0.4365
84631475|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.53|0.5564
84631476|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.99|0.72|0.5000
84631477|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.78|0.57|0.9778
84631478|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.65|0.6005
84631479|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.00|0.50|0.9900
84631480|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||2.15|0.81|0.2634
84631481|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.56|0.9640
84631482|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.46|0.40|0.4117
84631483|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.62|0.63|0.3505
84631484|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||9.45|0.55|0.2439
84631485|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.1573
84631486|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
84631487|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.16|0.45|0.1820
84631488|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||0.80|0.28|0.0046
84631489|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||0.97|0.36|0.0361
84631490|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.06|0.39|0.0848
84631491|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.13|0.37|0.1224
84631492|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.33|0.41|0.3127
84631493|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.65|0.42|0.6065
84631494|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.20|0.45|0.2173
84631495|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.15|0.35|0.1316
84631496|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.76|0.46|0.7678
84631497|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.14|0.34|0.7331
84631498|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||10.92|0.73|0.1235
84631499|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|84.09||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||84.09|-84.09|
84631500|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
84631501|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.78|0.65|0.7869
84631502|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.25|0.43|0.2502
84631503|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.50|0.5066
84631504|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.59|0.56|0.8124
84631505|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4656
84675007|NCT02033889|169085332|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.24|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.24|-1.44|
84631506|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.62|0.6725
84631507|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.41|0.5780
84631508|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.76|0.66|0.7611
84631509|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.94|0.62|0.7588
84631510|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.19|0.30|0.1428
84631511|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.39|0.41|0.9802
84631512|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.70|0.63|0.1967
84631513|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Respnders|8.33||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.28|85.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||85.94|-69.28|0.4795
84631514|NCT03038100|169002706|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
84631515|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.70|0.6651
84631516|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.75|0.9927
84631517|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.77|0.8209
84631518|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.45|0.79|0.6507
84631519|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.87|0.2596
84631520|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.58|0.75|0.6532
84631521|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7592
84631522|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.40|0.62|0.7424
84540201|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|1.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.54|-1.92|0.8543
84631523|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.19|0.85|0.1912
84631524|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.53|0.45|0.5526
84631525|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.52|0.32|0.3609
84631526|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.23|0.20|0.7527
84631527|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
84631528|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.17|0.62|0.3177
84631529|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4184
84631530|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.67|0.5710
84631531|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.19|0.65|0.3973
84631532|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.55|0.80|0.5163
84631533|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.35|0.64|0.6897
84631534|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.67|0.5735
84631535|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.10|0.50|0.1414
84631536|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.55|0.59|0.8655
84631537|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.35|0.38|0.3017
84631538|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.39|0.26|0.2325
84761813|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.71|99.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 10.||99.77|29.71|
84631539|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.69|0.06|0.1717
84631540|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analsyis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
84631541|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.46|0.84|0.4745
84631542|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.22|0.69|0.5499
84631543|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.29|0.73|0.8436
84631544|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.46|0.81|0.5798
84631545|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.39|0.74|0.9094
84631546|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.67|0.81|0.4006
84631547|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.19|0.65|0.4024
84631548|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.41|0.67|0.8796
84631549|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.32|0.53|0.4350
84631550|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.56|0.47|0.6225
84631551|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.77|0.36|0.5775
84631552|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.94|0.07|0.2343
84631553|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.0833
84631554|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.21|0.71|0.6012
84631555|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.11|0.65|0.2291
84631556|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.71|0.6574
84631557|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.35|0.76|0.9217
84631558|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.30|0.70|0.7693
84631559|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.31|0.64|0.6470
84631560|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.70|0.6391
84631561|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.05|0.51|0.0892
84631562|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.01|0.41|0.0550
84631563|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||0.88|0.27|0.0168
84631564|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.65|0.13|0.0021
84631565|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.80|0.17|0.7817
84631566|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
84631567|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.41|0.80|0.6646
84631568|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.30|0.73|0.8677
84631569|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.38|0.79|0.7670
84631570|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.28|0.71|0.7487
84631571|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.68|0.90|0.1882
84631572|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.72|0.84|0.3015
84631573|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.32|0.73|0.9059
84761814|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|60.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.55|79.83|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 10.||79.83|26.55|
84761815|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|74.87|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 10.||74.87|-2.41|
84631574|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.35|0.65|0.7125
84631575|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.07|0.43|0.0947
84631576|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.05|0.32|0.0686
84631577|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.86|0.17|0.0175
84631578|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.30|0.09|0.3376
84631579|NCT03038100|169002707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|23.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||23.34|-100.00|0.5637
84631580|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.30|0.76|0.9770
84631581|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.80|0.7317
84631582|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.80|0.6937
84631583|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.18|0.66|0.3916
84631584|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.17|0.63|0.3363
84631585|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.55|0.75|0.6761
84631586|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.26|0.71|0.6997
84631587|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.72|0.82|0.3592
84631588|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.51|0.62|0.8798
84631589|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.39|0.43|0.3857
84631590|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.85|0.39|0.6854
84631591|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.70|0.11|0.4533
84631592|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|0.3173
84631593|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.47|0.87|0.3658
84631594|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.36|0.80|0.7619
84631595|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.81|0.6580
84631596|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.57|0.88|0.2726
84631597|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.69|0.6973
84631598|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.80|0.4470
84540202|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.8726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|1.58||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.58|-1.91|0.8726
84631599|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.21|0.68|0.5150
84631600|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.82|0.88|0.2103
84631601|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.66|0.68|0.7969
84631602|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.91|0.60|0.8300
84631603|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.55|0.53|0.6987
84631604|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||17.77|0.62|0.1441
84631605|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.3173
84631606|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.74|0.7591
84631607|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.42|0.83|0.5403
84631608|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.55|0.89|0.2654
84631609|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.48|0.82|0.5138
84631610|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.89|0.2138
84631611|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.82|0.88|0.2114
84631612|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.53|0.85|0.3938
84631613|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.38|0.65|0.7793
84631614|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.39|0.69|0.7370
84631615|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.79|0.55|0.9658
84631616|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.46|0.29|0.3015
84631617|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.94|0.15|0.7534
84631618|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
84631619|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.06|0.61|0.1177
84631620|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.56|0.88|0.2730
84631621|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.33|0.73|0.9306
84631622|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.32|0.72|0.8631
84631623|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.86|0.95|0.0977
84631624|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.10|0.97|0.0726
84631625|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.38|0.73|0.9974
84631626|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.63|0.72|0.7069
84631627|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.16|0.78|0.3068
84631628|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.16|0.85|0.1375
84631629|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.29|0.46|0.9540
84631630|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.64|0.10|0.4283
84631631|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.56|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-95.56|
84631632|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.10|0.64|0.2153
84631633|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.27|0.73|0.7878
84631634|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.08|0.61|0.1544
84631635|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.40|0.77|0.8017
84631636|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4295
84631637|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio, log|0.99||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.44|0.68|0.9540
84631638|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.30|0.69|0.7494
84631639|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.74|0.6412
84631640|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.67|0.65|0.8652
84761816|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.03|92.22|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.22|63.03|
84504513|NCT01335477|168760045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713||0.2326||95.0|-1.31|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.41|-1.31|0.2326
84631641|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.18|0.60|0.6912
84631642|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.86|0.33|0.5834
84631643|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||16.05|0.05|0.9578
84631644|NCT03038100|169002708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
84631645|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.63|0.75|0.6063
84631646|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.29|0.63|0.5739
84631647|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.25|0.56|0.3792
84631648|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.73|0.73|0.6022
84631649|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.49|0.59|0.7893
84631650|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.22|0.42|0.2125
84631651|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.46|0.70|0.9661
84631652|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.32|0.52|0.4299
84631653|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.18|0.36|0.1542
84631654|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||6.76|1.04|0.0363
84631655|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.93|0.85|0.0814
84631656|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||38.00|0.43|0.1915
84631657|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-4.39|0.3173
84631658|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.35|0.73|0.9818
84631659|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.45|0.80|0.6263
84631660|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.73|0.9407
84631661|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.39|0.64|0.7700
84631662|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.45|0.63|0.8458
84631663|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.46|0.57|0.7028
84761817|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 11.||98.52|42.67|
84631664|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.83|0.92|0.1391
84631665|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.69|0.8002
84761818|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.07|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 11.||100.00|65.07|
84761819|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.82|92.3|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.30|52.82|
84504514|NCT01335477|168760046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564||0.2475||95.0|-1.26|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.88|-1.26|0.2475
84631666|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.68|0.60|0.9751
84631667|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.78|0.68|0.3811
84631668|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.90|0.58|0.3950
84631669|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|5.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||5.12|0.16|0.8993
84631670|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
84631671|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.68|0.5988
84631672|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.72|0.8859
84761820|NCT02723773|169280288|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.41|89.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 11.||89.77|33.41|
84761821|NCT02723773|169280289|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.75|96.79|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control\>=50 YOA Group.||96.79|64.75|
84631673|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.16|0.58|0.2531
84675008|NCT02033889|169085332|OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.05|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.05|-1.12|
84631674|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.04|0.46|0.0785
84631675|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.03|0.43|0.0641
84631676|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||0.80|0.29|0.0046
84631677|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.70|0.8928
84631678|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.72|0.6106
84631679|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.95|0.67|0.6159
84631680|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.49|0.62|0.5372
84631681|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.58|0.89|0.0845
84631682|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|21.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||21.56|0.62|0.1344
84631683|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
84631684|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.92|1.04|0.0260
84631685|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.75|0.9179
84631686|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.53|0.79|0.5820
84631687|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.47|0.67|0.9772
84631688|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.10|0.49|0.1300
84631689|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.08|0.40|0.0990
84631690|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.50|0.76|0.7133
84631691|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||2.11|0.90|0.1384
84631692|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.26|0.78|0.2895
84631693|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.14|0.77|0.2221
84631694|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||26.10|2.08|0.0005
84631695|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||34.56|0.40|0.2171
84631696|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
84631697|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.48|0.84|0.4647
84631698|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.40|0.78|0.7676
84631699|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.71|0.89|0.1983
84631700|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.44|0.69|0.9874
84631701|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.58|0.4716
84631702|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.18|0.46|0.2041
84631703|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7771
84631704|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.45|0.64|0.8542
84631705|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.50|0.90|0.1230
84631706|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.34|0.88|0.1089
84761822|NCT02723773|169280289|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|46.59|
84761823|NCT02723773|169280289|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-860.45|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.15|-860.45|
84761824|NCT02723773|169280289|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.66|95.95|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||95.95|53.66|
84761825|NCT02723773|169280289|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.83|97.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||97.49|56.83|
84504515|NCT01335477|168760047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379||||0.069||95.0|0.98|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.95|0.98|0.0690
84631707|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||18.30|1.85|0.0011
84631708|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|14.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||14.74|0.43|0.2950
84631709|NCT03038100|169002709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-37.72|
84631710|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.045|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.045|.871|.312
84631711|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.074|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.074|.894|.664
84631712|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.989||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.084|.903|.814
84631713|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.925||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.013|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.013|.844|.093
84761826|NCT02723773|169280290|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.67|95.7|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||95.70|78.67|
84761827|NCT02723773|169280290|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.79|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|77.79|
84761828|NCT02723773|169280290|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|74.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.17|99.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.49|-155.17|
84631714|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.077|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.077|.898|.716
84761829|NCT02723773|169280290|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.29|94.72|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||94.72|73.29|
84631715|NCT01116986|169002715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.031||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.130|.941|.511
84631716|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.290|.916|.341
84631717|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.325|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.325|.941|.207
84631718|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.196||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Counseling Before the Quit Attempt vs. Counseling Before the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.420|1.008|.041
84631719|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.254|.889|.536
84631720|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.246|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.246|.883|.587
84631721|NCT01116986|169002716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.278|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Short Term (8 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum vs. Long Term (26 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.278|.909|.389
84631722|NCT02392624|169002730|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-22.5|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-22.5|-54.5|<0.0001
84631723|NCT02392624|169002731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
84631724|NCT02392624|169002732|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-32.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-14.9|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-14.9|-47.9|0.0004
84631725|NCT02392624|169002733|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 1 sided|The p-value from this test was used to determine the importance of continued treatment in this study. P-value is one-sided with alpha = 0.05.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \>/=5 and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \<5.||||<0.0001
84631726|NCT02392624|169002734|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 2 sided|The p-value from this test was used to evaluate the importance of retreatment after experiencing clinical worsening.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from the time of retreatment to 12 weeks after retreatment in UAS7 was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that this change was non-zero.||||<0.0001
84631727|NCT03819114|169002736|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.20|0.81|
84644915|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.124
84504516|NCT01335477|168760049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.007||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||0.77|0.19|0.0070
84504517|NCT01335477|168760050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2995||95.0|0.4|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.40|0.2995
84631728|NCT03819114|169002736|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.60|1.12|
84631729|NCT03819114|169002736|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|2.18|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.18|1.27|
84631730|NCT03819114|169002736|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.45|
84631731|NCT03819114|169002737|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84631732|NCT03819114|169002738|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.41|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.41|0.96|
84631733|NCT03819114|169002738|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.69|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.69|1.21|
84631734|NCT03819114|169002738|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.96|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.96|1.17|
84631735|NCT03819114|169002738|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.0|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.00|0.60|
84631736|NCT03819114|169002739|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.61|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.61|0.22|
84631737|NCT03819114|169002739|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.44|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.44|0.15|
84631738|NCT03819114|169002739|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.7|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.70|1.20|
84631739|NCT03819114|169002739|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.32|0.09|
84631740|NCT03819114|169002740|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|5.12|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||5.12|3.17|
84631741|NCT03819114|169002740|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|3.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.65|2.33|
84631742|NCT03819114|169002740|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.52|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.52|0.82|
84631743|NCT03819114|169002740|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|4.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||4.93|2.65|
84631744|NCT03819114|169002741|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|2.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.65|1.66|
84631745|NCT03819114|169002741|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.39|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.39|0.89|
84631746|NCT03819114|169002741|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.66|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.66|0.87|
84504518|NCT01335477|168760051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6654||95.0|0.39|1.9|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.90|0.39|0.6654
84631747|NCT03819114|169002741|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.24|
84631748|NCT03819114|169002742|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.59|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.59|0.46|
84631749|NCT03819114|169002742|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.43|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.43|0.34|
84631750|NCT03819114|169002742|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.25|0.93|
84631751|NCT03819114|169002742|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.56|0.41|
84631752|NCT03819114|169002744|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.93|0.60|
84631753|NCT03819114|169002744|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.36|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.36|0.90|
84631754|NCT03819114|169002744|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.33|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.33|1.29|
84631755|NCT03819114|169002744|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.58|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.58|0.32|
84631756|NCT03819114|169002745|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.49|
84631757|NCT03819114|169002745|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.1|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.10|0.71|
84631758|NCT03819114|169002745|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.4|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.40|1.31|
84631759|NCT03819114|169002745|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.47|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.47|0.26|
84631760|NCT03819114|169002746|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.63|0.39|
84631761|NCT03819114|169002746|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.86|0.55|
84631762|NCT03819114|169002746|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.32|
84631763|NCT03819114|169002746|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.38|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.38|0.20|
84631764|NCT03841604|169002747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.32|-1.75|0.1695
84631765|NCT03841604|169002748|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.12|-2.1|0.0784
84631766|NCT03841604|169002749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.01|-0.45|0.0744
84761830|NCT02723773|169280290|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.87|95.41|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||95.41|73.87|
84761831|NCT02723773|169280291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.68|99.81|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.81|43.68|
84761832|NCT02723773|169280291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.21|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|-247.21|
84761833|NCT02723773|169280291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.45|99.79|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.79|37.45|
84631767|NCT03841604|169002750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.49|-0.70|0.7247
84631768|NCT03841604|169002751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-0.43|0.9052
84631769|NCT03841604|169002752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.88|-0.61|0.7115
84631770|NCT03841604|169002753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.04|0.1967
84631771|NCT03841604|169002754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.13|0.5122
84631772|NCT03841604|169002756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-3.03|0.7376
84631773|NCT03841604|169002757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.43|-10.33|0.5349
84761834|NCT02723773|169280291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|99.75|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||99.75|19.81|
84631774|NCT02492763|169002758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.11|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.11|-0.88|0.126
84631775|NCT02492763|169002758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.08|0.11|0.017
84631776|NCT02492763|169002758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.10|-1.12|0.018
84631777|NCT02492763|169002758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.37||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.87|-0.13|0.146
84631778|NCT02492763|169002758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.48||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.48|-1.49|<0.001
84675009|NCT02033889|169085333|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.65|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.65|-0.77|
84675010|NCT02033889|169085333|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.85|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.85|-0.50|
84675011|NCT01312909|169085340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||2.37|0.59|0.6337
84675012|NCT01312909|169085340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||3.39|0.88|0.1114
84675013|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||2.38|0.62|0.5793
84675014|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||3.51|0.91|0.0932
84761835|NCT02723773|169280292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.57|99.17|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.17|71.57|
84761836|NCT02723773|169280292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1830.98|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|-1830.98|
84761837|NCT02723773|169280292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.55|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|17.55|
84631779|NCT02492763|169002761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.6|-12.1|0.301
84675015|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.50|0.61|0.5647
84675016|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.96|0.72|0.2917
84675017|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||2.69|0.58|0.5616
84675018|NCT01312909|169085341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||3.78|0.84|0.1300
84675019|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.6|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.60|-1.69|0.3540
84631780|NCT02492763|169002761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.2||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.1|0.573
84631781|NCT02492763|169002761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|-2.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-12.4|0.295
84631782|NCT02492763|169002761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|2.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.4|0.587
84631783|NCT02492763|169002762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|10.37|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|10.37|3.42|
84631784|NCT02492763|169002762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.33|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|7.33|0.35|
84631785|NCT02492763|169002762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|11.23|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|11.23|4.17|
84631786|NCT02492763|169002762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.19|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|8.19|1.11|
84631787|NCT02492763|169002763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.6|-2.0|0.285
84631788|NCT02492763|169002763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.2|-0.4|0.183
84631789|NCT02492763|169002763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.4|-3.1|0.010
84631790|NCT02492763|169002763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
84631791|NCT02492763|169002763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.018
84631792|NCT02492763|169002764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|10.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.9|-28.2|0.385
84631793|NCT02492763|169002764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|29.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|48.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||48.6|9.7|0.004
84631794|NCT02492763|169002764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-9.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-9.4|-49.6|0.004
84631795|NCT02492763|169002764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|28.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||28.2|-11.7|0.416
84631796|NCT02492763|169002764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-18.0||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-18.0|-57.5|<0.001
84631797|NCT02492763|169002768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.4|-8.8|0.151
84631798|NCT02492763|169002768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.1|-6.2|0.682
84631799|NCT02492763|169002768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-7.7|0.344
84631800|NCT02492763|169002768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||5.4|-5.0|0.948
84631801|NCT02492763|169002768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.5||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||2.5|-7.8|0.306
84631802|NCT02492763|169002769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.8|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.8|-1.7|0.347
84631803|NCT02492763|169002769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.2|-3.3|0.963
84631804|NCT02492763|169002769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.7|-1.9|0.394
84761838|NCT02723773|169280292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.17|99.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.11|69.17|
84631805|NCT02492763|169002769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.1|-3.5|0.905
84631806|NCT02492763|169002769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.9|-1.6|0.325
84631807|NCT01337960|169002799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
84631808|NCT01337960|169002800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.02
84631809|NCT01337960|169002801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.17
84631810|NCT01337960|169002802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.35
84761839|NCT02723773|169280292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.93|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||98.91|60.93|
84504519|NCT01335477|168760052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2209||95.0|0.34|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.34|0.2209
84504520|NCT01335477|168760053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1664||95.0|0.37|1.21|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.21|0.37|0.1664
84631811|NCT02085161|169002820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.196|1.777||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.777|1.196|0.0002
84631812|NCT02085161|169002820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.573||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.573|1.061|0.0109
84631813|NCT02085161|169002820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.272||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the third one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.272|0.853|0.6895
84631814|NCT02085161|169002820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.368||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.368|0.931|0.2188
84631815|NCT02085161|169002820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.507||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.507|1.021|0.0303
84644916|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.167
84644917|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.377
84644918|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.397
84761840|NCT01314703|169280331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.02|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.02|2.66|
84761841|NCT01314703|169280331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|4.33|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||4.33|3.74|
84761842|NCT01314703|169280331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.7|||ANOVA||70%Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||2.70|2.36|
84761843|NCT01314703|169280331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|3.82|||ANOVA||70% Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.82|3.24|
84631816|NCT02085161|169002821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-331.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.375||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.015|252.064||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||252.064|-916.015|0.2639
84631817|NCT02085161|169002821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|161.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|293.506||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-417.314|739.459||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||739.459|-417.314|0.5837
84631818|NCT02085161|169002821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-524.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.802||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1109.806|59.954||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||59.954|-1109.806|0.0783
84761844|NCT04063384|169280332|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Group (bipolar, healthy)-by-condition (alcohol, placebo)-by-time of subjective response interactions on subjective response to alcohol were modeled, covarying beverage condition order, biological sex, and age, with SEAS and DEQ subscale scores as the dependent variables. Time of subjective response (pre- and post-scan) and beverage condition (alcohol, placebo) were within-subject factors and group was an independent between-subject factor.|||<0.05
84631819|NCT02085161|169002821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-493.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.566||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1063.67|77.575||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||77.575|-1063.670|0.0900
84504521|NCT01335477|168760054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2123||95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.16|0.55|0.2123
84631820|NCT02085161|169002821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|685.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.435||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.635|1256.362||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||1256.362|115.635|0.0186
84631821|NCT02085161|169002822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.005||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.005|-0.010|0.5186
84631822|NCT02085161|169002822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.009|-0.006|0.6436
84631823|NCT02085161|169002822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.001||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.001|-0.014|0.1081
84631824|NCT02085161|169002822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.003||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.003|-0.011|0.2612
84631825|NCT02085161|169002822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.015||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.015|0.001|0.0361
84631826|NCT02085161|169002823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.187||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.187|-0.034|0.1727
84631827|NCT02085161|169002823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.252||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.252|0.035|0.0097
84631828|NCT02085161|169002823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.126||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.126|-0.095|0.7815
84631829|NCT02085161|169002823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.04||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.040|-0.174|0.2183
84631830|NCT02085161|169002823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.236||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.236|0.020|0.0203
84631831|NCT02085161|169002824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.645||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.645|1.080|0.0077
84631832|NCT02085161|169002824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.53||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.530|1.011|0.0390
84631833|NCT02085161|169002824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.299||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.299|0.850|0.6452
84761845|NCT04063384|169280333|OTHER||||||<|0.004||||||Results of primary models were considered significant at p ≤ 0.004 (Bonferroni correction for twelve ROI-to-ROI connections).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power analysis suggests this sample size (n = 23 with bipolar disorder, n = 24 healthy comparison participants), at an alpha = 0.05, provides \> 80% statistical power to detect a within subject effect size (ES) d ≥ 0.6 in both subgroups and a between group ES d ≥ 0.8 in this fMRI analysis.|We used a mixed model to examine group by condition by hemisphere (left, right) interactions on ROI-to-ROI FC response to emotional stimuli (contrast: emotional stimuli - squares). Group was an independent between-subject factor, condition and hemisphere were within-subject factors, and ROI-to-ROI FC was the dependent variable.|||<0.004
84761846|NCT04999267|169280470|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84631834|NCT02085161|169002824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.313||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.313|0.874|0.5048
84631835|NCT02085161|169002824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.453||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.453|0.964|0.1066
84761847|NCT04999267|169280471|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84631836|NCT02085161|169002825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.403||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.403|0.255|<0.0001
84631837|NCT02085161|169002825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.429||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.429|0.282|<0.0001
84644919|NCT03274999|169025169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.441
84631838|NCT02085161|169002825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.249||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.249|0.099|<0.0001
84631839|NCT02085161|169002825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.045||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.045|-0.099|0.4677
84631840|NCT02085161|169002825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.255||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.255|0.109|<0.0001
84631841|NCT02085161|169002826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.606||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.606|0.350|<0.0001
84631842|NCT02085161|169002826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.657||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.657|0.403|<0.0001
84631843|NCT02085161|169002826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.415||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.415|0.157|<0.0001
84631844|NCT02085161|169002826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.072||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.072|-0.176|0.4107
84631845|NCT02085161|169002826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.37||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.370|0.119|0.0002
84631846|NCT02085161|169002827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.457||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.457|0.179|<0.0001
84675020|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.98|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.98|-1.35|0.7574
84675021|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.84|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.84|-1.53|0.5676
84761848|NCT04540497|169280473|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||||Inebilizumab versus placebo|||0.28|0.06|
84675022|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.47|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.47|-1.92|0.2356
84761849|NCT04540497|169280480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||||Inebilizumab vs placebo|||0.26|0.05|
84761850|NCT03914326|169280502|SUPERIORITY|Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.77|0.0028
84761851|NCT03323502|169280543|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.3313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||Poisson Regression|||||1.06|0.84|0.3313
84631847|NCT02085161|169002827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.439||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.439|0.165|<0.0001
84631848|NCT02085161|169002827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.314||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.314|0.035|0.0145
84631849|NCT02085161|169002827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.151||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.151|-0.118|0.8150
84631850|NCT02085161|169002827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.263||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.263|-0.008|0.0642
84631851|NCT02930824|169002865|SUPERIORITY|We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||||0.78||||||Analysis was done of adult patients enrolled that have a CYP2C19 Rapid or Ultra-rapid metabolizer result.|t-test, 2 sided|||We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||0.78
84631852|NCT02930824|169002866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Adjusted for baseline score, race, baseline proton pump inhibitor use, baseline histamine receptor antagonist use. A sensitivity analysis of participants only on omeprazole revealed similar findings.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjusted these end points for covariates, including the baseline score, race, and baseline medications using logistic regression||||||0.031
84631853|NCT02930824|169002867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.42||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.3||unadjusted|Log Rank|||||6.3|0.9|0.07
84631854|NCT02930824|169002868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.97
84631855|NCT02930824|169002869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.83
84631856|NCT02494323|169002891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value is adjusted for the comparison of subjects who benefited, were satisfied and willing to continue using the Segmented Electrodes versus subjects who didn't benefit, wern't satisfied ans were not willing to continue using the Segmented Eletrode|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84761852|NCT03323502|169280544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.78|0.3327
84631857|NCT02633306|169002919|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631858|NCT02633306|169002920|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84761853|NCT03323502|169280545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.85|0.3946
84631859|NCT02633306|169002921|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631860|NCT02633306|169002922|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631861|NCT02633306|169002923|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631862|NCT02633306|169002924|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631863|NCT02633306|169002925|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
84631864|NCT01744977|169002926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.300
84631865|NCT01744977|169002927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.5||As measured at 12m|Mixed Models Analysis||This value summarizes the full 12 month period so Mean Difference (Final Values) is appropriate.|||6.5|-8.0|0.839
84631866|NCT00089752|169002952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was designed to achieve at least 80% power, using n 1⁄4 123 per group with an effect size of at least 0.36|Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||a priori threshold was p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Intent to Treat analysis with Last Observation Carried Forward.||0.3|-3.8|0.09
84631867|NCT01598532|169002959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.004
84761854|NCT03615326|169280546|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|PFS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.87|0.61|0.0002
84631868|NCT01598532|169002960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
84631869|NCT01598532|169002961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
84631870|NCT01598532|169002962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effects of LED treatments||||<0.006
84631871|NCT01967940|169002967|SUPERIORITY|Enrollment into this study was stopped early due to the challenge of recruiting a sufficient number of participants who met the eligibility criteria. The actual number of enrolled is 55, among them 43 enrolled in the Randomized Cohort. Based on the actual enrollment numbers, the power to detect a 35% difference drops to 51%, under the same assumptions in the original sample size calculations.|Difference in proportions|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.6|78.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|A sample size of 90 participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, achieves 89% power to detect a 35% difference in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA decreases from baseline exceeding 0.5 log10 between the TAF and placebo arms at Day 10. Sample size and power computation was based on the assumption that 50% of participants in the TAF arm and 15% of participants in the placebo arm achieved a reduction exceeding 0.5 log10 HIV-1 RNA.||78.8|42.6|<0.001
84631872|NCT02593006|169003012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|23.8|||Propensity weighted regression model|||||23.8|-3.2|>0.05
84631873|NCT02593006|169003013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Global test of interaction between time and treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84631874|NCT01929317|169003042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.001
84631875|NCT01929317|169003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 2.|||2.0|-2.4|
84631876|NCT01929317|169003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 4.|||3.1|-1.9|
84631877|NCT01929317|169003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 6.|||3.0|-2.3|
84631878|NCT01929317|169003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 8.|||2.0|-3.4|
84631879|NCT01929317|169003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 12.|||3.9|-2.0|
84631880|NCT01929317|169003045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 2.|||0.3|-0.2|
84631881|NCT01929317|169003045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 4.|||0.4|-0.2|
84631882|NCT01929317|169003045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 6.|||0.3|-0.4|
84631883|NCT01929317|169003045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 8.|||0.3|-0.3|
84631884|NCT01929317|169003045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 12.|||0.6|-0.2|
84631885|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, On status.|||0.1|-1.8|
84631886|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, On status.|||0.1|-2.4|
84631887|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, On status.|||0.3|-2.6|
84631888|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, On status.|||0.3|-2.8|
84631889|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, On status.|||0.7|-2.7|
84631890|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, Off status.|||0.5|-1.8|
84631891|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, Off status.|||0.8|-2.6|
84631892|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, Off status.|||1.0|-2.8|
84631893|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, Off status.|||1.8|-2.1|
84631894|NCT01929317|169003046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, Off status.|||2.1|-2.2|
84631895|NCT01929317|169003047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 2.|||0.4|-0.7|
84631896|NCT01929317|169003047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 4.|||0.6|-0.7|
84631897|NCT01929317|169003047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 6.|||0.8|-0.7|
84631898|NCT01929317|169003047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 8.|||0.7|-0.7|
84631899|NCT01929317|169003047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 12.|||0.5|-0.9|
84631900|NCT01929317|169003060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.04|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||1.04|-1.65|
84631901|NCT01929317|169003060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.45|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||1.45|-1.34|
84631902|NCT01929317|169003060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.24|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||1.24|-1.95|
84631903|NCT01929317|169003060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.75|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||0.75|-2.44|
84631904|NCT01929317|169003060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.58|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||0.58|-2.73|
84761855|NCT03615326|169280547|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|OS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.94|0.67|0.0040
84631905|NCT01929317|169003061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|6.71|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||6.71|-8.77|
84631906|NCT01929317|169003061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|8.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||8.22|-7.94|
84631907|NCT01929317|169003061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.49|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||6.49|-12.06|
84631908|NCT01929317|169003061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|5.14|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||5.14|-14.06|
84761856|NCT03615326|169280548|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Difference in Percentage|12.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||ORR in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||19.4|5.6|0.00020
84761857|NCT04266301|169280561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.07||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very high risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.070|0.671|0.0825
84761858|NCT04266301|169280562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.076||||||||1.076|0.693|
84761859|NCT04266301|169280563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very High risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.130|0.750|0.2132
84761860|NCT04266301|169280564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4692||||||P Value is 1-sided|negative binomial regression model|negative binomial regression model with log link stratified by randomization stratification factor as per IRT and baseline transfusion status||||||0.4692
84761861|NCT04266301|169280565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.4|0.7|0.4865
84761862|NCT04266301|169280566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.2||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||2.2|1|0.5743
84631909|NCT01929317|169003061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|3.96|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||3.96|-15.92|
84631910|NCT01929317|169003062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 2."|||1.21|-1.07|
84631911|NCT01929317|169003062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.7|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 4."|||1.70|-0.75|
84631912|NCT01929317|169003062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.86|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 6."|||1.86|-0.65|
84631913|NCT01929317|169003062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 8."|||2.22|-0.52|
84631914|NCT01929317|169003062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.26|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 12."|||2.26|-0.55|
84631915|NCT01929317|169003063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.36|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 2."|||1.36|-0.98|
84631916|NCT01929317|169003063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.78|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 4."|||1.78|-0.64|
84631917|NCT01929317|169003063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.84|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 6."|||1.84|-0.71|
84631918|NCT01929317|169003063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.39|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 8."|||2.39|-0.47|
84631919|NCT01929317|169003063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.33|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 12."|||2.33|-0.63|
84631920|NCT04322526|169003073|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD signal in the rACC during the processing of contextual cues (pleasant \> unpleasant).||||0.01
84631921|NCT04322526|169003074|OTHER|Mechanistic hypothesis: naltrexone will block contextual processing.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD fMRI signal from the Placebo vs. the Naltrexone session.||||0.0002
84631922|NCT02667119|169003080|SUPERIORITY||F|4.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline scores on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||Compared the two groups at 3 months post-baseline||||.041
84631923|NCT02667119|169003081|SUPERIORITY||F|6.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline score on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||||||.016
84631924|NCT02667119|169003082|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.19||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84631925|NCT02667119|169003083|SUPERIORITY||F|2.25||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale|ANCOVA|||||||.148
84631926|NCT02667119|169003084|SUPERIORITY||F|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale||||||.043
84631927|NCT02667119|169003085|SUPERIORITY||F|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale|ANCOVA|||||||.250
84761863|NCT04266301|169280567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.7|0.8|0.2126
84631928|NCT02667119|169003086|SUPERIORITY||F|0.45||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale||||||.508
84631929|NCT03994081|169003093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.332
84761864|NCT04266301|169280570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.875||||||||0.875|0.576|
84631930|NCT03994081|169003094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
84631931|NCT03994081|169003095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.464
84631932|NCT03994081|169003095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.765
84631933|NCT03994081|169003096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.072
84631934|NCT03994081|169003096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.811
84631935|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.781||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.366|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.366|0.195|0.0091
84631936|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|1.167|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.167|0.161|0.0098
84631937|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.542||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|1.058|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.058|0.025|0.0398
84631938|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.478||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|1.05|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.050|-0.093|0.1008
84631939|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.505||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|1.024|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.024|-0.013|0.0558
84644920|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.034
84761865|NCT04266301|169280571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.038||||||||1.038|0.640|
84761866|NCT02699697|169280615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8325
84761867|NCT02699697|169280616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 3 months||||0.5593
84761868|NCT02699697|169280616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 6 months||||0.8133
84761869|NCT02699697|169280617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 3 months||||0.3058
84761870|NCT02699697|169280617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 6 months||||0.5337
84761871|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.4182
84761872|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.8700
84761873|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 3 months||||0.7008
84761874|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Pain at 3 months||||0.9562
84631940|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.538||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.074|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.074|0.002|0.0491
84631941|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.808||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.329|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.329|0.286|0.0025
84631942|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.627||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.111|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.111|0.143|0.0113
84631943|NCT02059278|169003121|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.456||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.975|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||0.975|-0.063|0.0649
84631944|NCT05452486|169003128|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|-3.89|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic digits comparison||||<0.01
84631945|NCT05452486|169003128|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|5.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic words comparison||||0.69
84631946|NCT03818256|169003156|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.03|0.8511
84631947|NCT03818256|169003160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.474|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.474|0.150|0.8169
84631948|NCT03818256|169003161|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.175||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.78|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||2.780|-2.860|0.9285
84631949|NCT03818256|169003162|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.007||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.033|-0.018|0.5669
84631950|NCT04586205|169003254|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||The baseline measurement for this analysis is the Sternberg Sorting Task (SST) at Baseline. This task is designed to assess how individuals store and retrieve random information from short-term memory. This task was administered to all participants before they were randomized into one of two groups (active TMS first then sham TMS or sham TMS first then active TMS).||||0.024
84644921|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.143
84761875|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Insomnia at 3 months||||0.4951
84761876|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Fatigue at 3 months||||0.7868
84761877|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Appetite loss at 3 months||||0.2200
84761878|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Nausea/vomiting at 3 months||||0.7998
84761879|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Constipation at 3 months||||0.7998
84761880|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Quality of Life at 3 months||||0.7409
84761881|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning at 6 months||||0.0128
84761882|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Functioning at 6 months||||0.5861
84761883|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 6 months||||0.3561
84761884|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Pain at 6 months||||0.1647
84761885|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia at 6 months||||0.3571
84761886|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue at 6 months||||0.1494
84761887|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss at 6 months||||0.8424
84761888|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Nausea/vomiting at 6 months||||0.3287
84761889|NCT02699697|169280618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Constipation at 6 months||||0.0961
84631951|NCT04586205|169003255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference in means between High-Load IAPS (.69) and Low-Load IAPS (.67) in the group that received active then sham TMS.|The baseline measurement for this analysis is the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) at baseline. This is an emotional task using IAPS picture that will also compare low load and high load conditions. The number of images will vary by condition load, but for both the high-load \& low-load conditions, participants will look at IAPS pictures and answer questions about the images. We compare mean High-Load IAPS and Low-Load IAPS scores in the group that received active then sham TMS.||||0.18
84631952|NCT04586205|169003256|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||The outcome measure for this analysis was the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).||||0.19
84631953|NCT04586205|169003257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84631954|NCT04040933|169003291|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.860
84631955|NCT04040933|169003291|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.051
84631956|NCT04040933|169003292|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.259
84631957|NCT04040933|169003292|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.451
84631958|NCT04040933|169003293|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.999
84631959|NCT04040933|169003293|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.739
84631960|NCT04040933|169003294|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84631961|NCT04040933|169003294|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.053
84761890|NCT02699697|169280620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8444
84631962|NCT04040933|169003295|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.666
84631963|NCT04040933|169003295|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
84631964|NCT04040933|169003296|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
84644922|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
84761891|NCT02699697|169280620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 6 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8946
84761892|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 3 months||||0.6700
84761893|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total at 3 months||||0.4350
84761894|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 3 months||||0.6131
84631965|NCT04040933|169003296|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.456
84631966|NCT04040933|169003297|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84631967|NCT04040933|169003297|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.325
84631968|NCT04040933|169003298|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||All hypothesis tests was conducted at 0.05 level without adjustment of multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84631969|NCT04040933|169003298|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||||||<0.001
84631970|NCT02066181|169003301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.7||||Log Rank||||||5.7|<0.001
84631971|NCT02141295|169003329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.39||log-rank|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median PFS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median PFS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.39|0.60|= 0.6753
84631972|NCT02141295|169003332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.49|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median OS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median OS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.49|0.49|= 0.5740
84631973|NCT01432730|169003352|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.6027||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9049|-0.3005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.3005|-0.9049|0.0003
84631974|NCT01432730|169003353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|-9.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-9.62|-41.53|0.003
84631975|NCT01432730|169003354|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.4212||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8568|0.01438|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||0.01438|-0.8568|0.057
84631976|NCT01432730|169003355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||3.87|-20.93|0.172
84675023|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.38|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||1.38|-1.03|0.7730
84631977|NCT01432730|169003356|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.582||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8934|-0.2707|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.2707|-0.8934|0.001
84631978|NCT01432730|169003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.538||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.849|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.227|-4.849|0.033
84631979|NCT01432730|169003358|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.267||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.523|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.010|-4.523|0.049
84631980|NCT01432730|169003359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.237||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.759|-1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.716|-16.759|0.018
84631981|NCT01432730|169003360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.25||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.96|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.54|-40.96|0.035
84631982|NCT00753506|169003420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.59|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analaysis of variance||||>0.10
84631983|NCT03763877|169003430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.926||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|15.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||15.66|-15.42|0.9883
84761895|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 6 months||||0.2518
84761896|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total||||0.5529
84761897|NCT02699697|169280621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 6 months||||0.2833
84504522|NCT01335477|168760055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2032||95.0|-0.15|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.69|-0.15|0.2032
84631984|NCT03763877|169003430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.78|-28.06|0.0842
84631985|NCT03763877|169003430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.636||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|1.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.43|-28.51|0.0763
84631986|NCT03763877|169003431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.265||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|12.85|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||12.85|-16.01|0.8283
84631987|NCT03763877|169003431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.221||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.10|-27.60|0.0698
84631988|NCT03763877|169003431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.207||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-2.99|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.99|-31.63|0.0184
84761898|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.3784
84631989|NCT03763877|169003432|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-4.22||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|8.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.65|-15.64|0.5537
84631990|NCT03763877|169003432|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-13.64||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|1.88|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.88|-26.19|0.1005
84631991|NCT03763877|169003432|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-18.72||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.95|-1.58|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.58|-31.95|0.0387
84631992|NCT03763877|169003433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5733||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|32.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||32.51|-18.00|0.5733
84631993|NCT03763877|169003433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.236||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||13.38|-34.60|0.3861
84631994|NCT03763877|169003433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.916||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||4.19|-46.46|0.1019
84631995|NCT03763877|169003434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3873||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|2.478|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||2.478|-2.961|0.8617
84631996|NCT03763877|169003434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3712||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|0.117|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|0.117|-5.260|0.0609
84631997|NCT03763877|169003434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3633||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.258|-5.087|0.0766
84631998|NCT03763877|169003435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.744||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.267|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||11.267|0.270|0.5592
84761899|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.6640
84761900|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.1745
84761901|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 3 months||||0.5792
84761902|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.6814
84761903|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.5219
84761904|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total||||0.5516
84761905|NCT02699697|169280622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 6 months||||0.4329
84761906|NCT01046825|169280649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5550
84761907|NCT01046825|169280650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3605|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3605
84761908|NCT01046825|169280651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6181
84675024|NCT01312909|169085343|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.45|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.45|-1.99|0.2166
84675025|NCT01312909|169085344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||1.90|0.34|0.6133
84675026|NCT01312909|169085344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||4.79|1.07|0.0335
84761909|NCT05587296|169280656|SUPERIORITY||Diffrence in Least Squares (LS) means|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
84504523|NCT01335477|168760056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.26||95.0|-0.084|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.310|-0.084|0.2600
84631999|NCT03763877|169003435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|14.208|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||14.208|0.368|0.3747
84632000|NCT03763877|169003435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.669||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|32.149|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||32.149|1.000|0.0501
84632001|NCT03763877|169003436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.4|-8.3|0.8013
84632002|NCT03763877|169003436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|7.0|-8.2|0.8694
84632003|NCT03763877|169003436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|0.3|-14.9|0.0581
84632004|NCT03763877|169003437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-3.8|0.6681
84675027|NCT01312909|169085344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||2.65|0.37|0.9874
84675028|NCT01312909|169085344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||6.55|1.19|0.0188
84675029|NCT04622254|169085395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675030|NCT04622254|169085396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675031|NCT04622254|169085397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84632005|NCT03763877|169003437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.5|-4.4|0.8224
84632006|NCT03763877|169003437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7|-9.2|0.0924
84632007|NCT03763877|169003438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.34|-0.68|0.5148
84675032|NCT04622254|169085398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675033|NCT04622254|169085399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675034|NCT04622254|169085400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675035|NCT04622254|169085401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675036|NCT04622254|169085402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675037|NCT04622254|169085403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675038|NCT04622254|169085404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84675039|NCT04622254|169085405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84675040|NCT04622254|169085406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84632008|NCT03763877|169003438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.02|-1.05|0.0434
84675041|NCT04622254|169085407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84632009|NCT03763877|169003438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.00|-1.04|0.0494
84761910|NCT05587296|169280657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84761911|NCT05587296|169280662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84632010|NCT03763877|169003439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.09|-0.35|0.2449
84632011|NCT03763877|169003439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.00|-0.46|0.0502
84632012|NCT03763877|169003439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.06|-0.51|0.0123
84632013|NCT03763877|169003440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2172||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.180|-0.682|0.2510
84632014|NCT03763877|169003440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2202||0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.388|-0.486|0.8246
84761912|NCT05587296|169280663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Last Squares Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84632015|NCT03763877|169003440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2216||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.414|-0.466|0.9067
84632016|NCT03763877|169003441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.075|-0.111|0.6951
84632017|NCT03763877|169003441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0472||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.016|-0.171|0.1030
84632018|NCT03763877|169003441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0471||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.102|-0.085|0.8583
84632019|NCT03763877|169003442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1777||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.457|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.248|-0.457|0.5576
84632020|NCT03763877|169003442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.501|-0.213|0.4261
84632021|NCT03763877|169003442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1822||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.443|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.443|-0.281|0.6571
84632022|NCT03763877|169003443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.405|-0.727|0.5732
84632023|NCT03763877|169003443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2884||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|0.434|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.434|-0.712|0.6312
84632024|NCT03763877|169003443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.368|-0.769|0.4857
84632025|NCT03763877|169003444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.19|-0.11|0.5737
84632026|NCT03763877|169003444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.17|-0.12|0.7563
84632027|NCT03763877|169003444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.11|-0.19|0.5695
84632028|NCT03763877|169003445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.27|-1.34|0.9552
84761913|NCT04102098|169280712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors include geographic region (Asia Pacific excluding Japan vs. rest of world) and High risk features/curative procedure (Ablation vs. Resection with 1 high risk feature vs. Resection with 2 or more high risk features).||0.93|0.56|0.0120
84504524|NCT00549198|168760057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.435
84632029|NCT03763877|169003445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.58|-2.10|0.2633
84632030|NCT03763877|169003445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.46|-2.21|0.1962
84632031|NCT03763877|169003446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.353||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|19.554|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.554|0.094|0.8245
84632032|NCT03763877|169003446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.791||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|32.752|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.752|0.238|0.4140
84632033|NCT03763877|169003446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.872||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.226|180.452|||Regression, Logistic|||||180.452|1.226|0.0341
84632034|NCT03763877|169003447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.5|-16.1|0.4626
84632035|NCT03763877|169003447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-17.9|0.3160
84632036|NCT03763877|169003447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-2.4|-27.4|0.0204
84632037|NCT03763877|169003448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.0|-10.8|0.4601
84632038|NCT03763877|169003448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.9|-8.1|0.9782
84632039|NCT03763877|169003448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.6|-18.3|0.0205
84632040|NCT03763877|169003449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.05|-1.12|0.9529
84632041|NCT03763877|169003449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.25|-1.90|0.1285
84632042|NCT03763877|169003449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.05|-2.32|0.0417
84632043|NCT03763877|169003450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.23|-0.69|0.3141
84632044|NCT03763877|169003450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.03|-0.88|0.0656
84632045|NCT03763877|169003450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.16|-1.12|0.0101
84632046|NCT01774721|169003452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.739|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.739|0.469|<0.0001
84632047|NCT01774721|169003453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.947|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox Regression model|||0.947|0.591|0.0077
84675042|NCT04622254|169085407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84632048|NCT01774721|169003455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|0.779|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.779|0.497|<0.0001
84632049|NCT01774721|169003458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.529|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on IRC review||0.529|0.307|<0.0001
84632050|NCT01774721|169003458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.711|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on Investigator assessment||0.711|0.418|<0.0001
84632051|NCT01774721|169003459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1942
84632052|NCT01774721|169003460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0924
84632053|NCT01774721|169003467|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.173||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.483|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|||||1.483|0.928|0.1641
84632054|NCT00248040|169003492|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.275||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.45|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours time point||4.45|-5.00|0.9076
84632055|NCT00248040|169003492|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|2.444||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|7.21|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours timepoint.||7.21|-2.32|0.3084
84632056|NCT00248040|169003492|OTHER||Difference between means|-2.719||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|2.03|||Other|||||2.03|-7.47|0.2565
84675043|NCT04622254|169085408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84675044|NCT04622254|169085408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84632057|NCT00248040|169003492|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.063||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|6.79|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||6.79|-6.91|0.9855
84632058|NCT00248040|169003492|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|4.519||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|11.39|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours timepoint.||11.39|-2.36|0.1934
84632059|NCT00248040|169003492|OTHER|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-4.582||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.17|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||2.17|-11.3|0.1797
84632060|NCT02282605|169003513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
84632061|NCT02282605|169003513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
84632062|NCT02282605|169003514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||For timepoint Day 3 (12 hours after last dose)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0058
84632063|NCT02282605|169003516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84632064|NCT02282605|169003516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period to discharge.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84632065|NCT02282605|169003516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period through to discharge|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84632066|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.51|-9.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.81|-17.51|<0.0001
84632067|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|-9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.78|-17.49|<0.0001
84632068|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.97|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.45|-12.97|<0.0001
84632069|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-6.72|-14.38|<0.0001
84632070|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.43|-10.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-10.73|-18.43|<0.0001
84632071|NCT03926611|169003518|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.45|-8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-8.78|-16.45|<0.0001
84632072|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.72|-5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.77|-14.72|<0.0001
84632073|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.58|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.63|-14.58|0.0001
84632074|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.635||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.75|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-3.05|-11.75|0.0027
84632075|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.25|-5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.35|-14.25|0.0002
84632076|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.714|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.82|-7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-7.87|-16.82|<0.0001
84632077|NCT03926611|169003519|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.733||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.01|-14.03|0.0003
84632078|NCT00836693|169003529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||5.5|2.2|<0.001
84632079|NCT00836693|169003530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.3|5.1|<0.001
84632080|NCT00836693|169003531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|27.0||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||27.0|8.9|<0.001
84644923|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.250
84632081|NCT00836693|169003535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.8||P-value is for Week 12 change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The change from baseline to endpoint in morning erection percentages was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for baseline value, treatment group, country, age and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||22.8|9.5|<0.001
84632082|NCT00836693|169003536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|>|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANOVA|||The models included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable,treatment group,country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction.In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||26.1|13.9|>0.001
84632083|NCT00836693|169003537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|18.0||p-value is for Total (Change). For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.0|5.5|<0.001
84632084|NCT00836693|169003537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.8||p-value is for Sexual Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||19.8|6.6|<0.001
84632085|NCT00836693|169003537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.5||p-value is for Confidence Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||16.5|3.3|0.0034
84632086|NCT00836693|169003537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.9||p-value is for Self-Esteem Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||17.9|4.1|0.0020
84632087|NCT00836693|169003537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|15.6||p-value is for Overall Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||15.6|-0.5|0.0653
84632088|NCT00836693|169003538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
84632089|NCT00836693|169003539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.1|0.2|0.0089
84675045|NCT01560624|169085411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||Cox proportion-hazard model|||||0.97|0.56|0.0275
84675046|NCT01560624|169085411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0391
84632090|NCT00836693|169003540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.5|0.0|0.0461
84632091|NCT00836693|169003541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
84632092|NCT00836693|169003542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||10.7|2.0|0.0047
84632093|NCT00836693|169003543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||34.3|14.6|<0.001
84632094|NCT00836693|169003544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|33.2||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||33.2|13.7|<0.001
84632095|NCT00836693|169003545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Questions GAQ1. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
84632096|NCT00836693|169003546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Question GAQ2.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
84632097|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|24.4|<0.0001
84632098|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.7|1.6|0.0132
84632099|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
84632100|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|16.8|<0.0001
84675047|NCT01560624|169085412|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimate location shift|7.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|0|0.0913
84675048|NCT01560624|169085413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84675049|NCT01560624|169085414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
84675050|NCT00451282|169085415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
84675051|NCT00451282|169085416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.89
84675052|NCT00451282|169085417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
84761914|NCT03975647|169280784|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.95|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.950|0.607|0.0163
84675053|NCT00451282|169085418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
84632101|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
84632102|NCT01746901|169003588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||18.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|12.5|18.5
84632103|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|59.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.5|39.2|<0.0001
84632104|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.1|-10.1|0.9994
84632105|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.4|12.1|<0.0001
84632106|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|17.0|<0.0001
84632107|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.1|12.8|<0.0001
84632108|NCT01746901|169003589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.4|8.1|0.0005
84632109|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|74.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.9|51.5|<0.0001
84632110|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|0.6|0.0402
84632111|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.7|21.1|<0.0001
84761915|NCT03975647|169280786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.891|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.891|0.459|0.0078
84632112|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|54.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||54.4|30.9|<0.0001
84632113|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.9|20.3|<0.0001
84632114|NCT01746901|169003590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|48.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.1|24.6|<0.0001
84632115|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|124.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.5|91.6|<0.0001
84632116|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.3|-9.6|0.4125
84632117|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|62.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||62.5|29.6|<0.0001
84632118|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.2|52.4|<0.0001
84632119|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|73.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.2|40.3|<0.0001
84632120|NCT01746901|169003591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|69.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||69.0|36.2|<0.0001
84632121|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.7|21.8|<0.0001
84632122|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.5|-8.4|0.6434
84761916|NCT03975647|169280787|OTHER|||||||0.2055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2055
84632123|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.0|-2.0|0.1072
84632124|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|15.4|<0.0001
84632125|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|14.7|<0.0001
84632126|NCT01746901|169003592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.9|0.9|0.0335
84632127|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.0|24.0|<0.0001
84632128|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.8|-11.1|0.9811
84632129|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.9|-2.0|0.1083
84632130|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.9|14.9|<0.0001
84632131|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|12.3|<0.0001
84761917|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified primary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose||Pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Prespecified covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.06|0.51|0.10
84761918|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||Moderate versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|0.98|0.39|0.042
84632132|NCT01746901|169003593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.4|0.5|0.0408
84632133|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.7|25.2|<0.0001
84632134|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.6|-14.9|0.5968
84632135|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.4|-3.1|0.1471
84632136|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
84632137|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|10.6|0.0002
84632138|NCT01746901|169003594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
84632139|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.4|19.6|<0.0001
84632140|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|-6.7|0.6209
84632141|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.3|-1.4|0.0997
84632142|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|32.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.1|14.4|<0.0001
84632143|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|7.7|0.0003
84632144|NCT01746901|169003596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|4.4|0.0036
84632145|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.8|21.1|<0.0001
84632146|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|-11.2|0.5951
84632147|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-1.1|0.0841
84632148|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.6|11.0|<0.0001
84632149|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.4|5.7|0.0014
84632150|NCT01746901|169003597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|1.9|0.0172
84632151|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.9|21.0|<0.0001
84632152|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-15.4|0.2166
84632153|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-1.0|0.0777
84632154|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|6.5|0.0011
84632155|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.7||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|3.3|0.0086
84632156|NCT01746901|169003598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-0.9|0.0775
84632157|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|73.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.6|48.8|<0.0001
84632158|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.2|6.4|0.0032
84632159|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
84632160|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.6|34.8|<0.0001
84632161|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.1|86.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||86.0|61.1|<0.0001
84632162|NCT01746901|169003600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.8|26.0|<0.0001
84632163|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|51.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.8|36.0|<0.0001
84632164|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.2|-4.6|0.4154
84632165|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|13.9|<0.0001
84632166|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.3|17.5|<0.0001
84632167|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|12.3|<0.0001
84632168|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.0|<0.0001
84632169|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|131.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||131.3|97.1|<0.0001
84632170|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.4|-9.8|0.3985
84632171|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.8|38.5|<0.0001
84632172|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|83.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.0|48.8|<0.0001
84632173|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.7|38.5|<0.0001
84632174|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|71.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.2|37.0|<0.0001
84632175|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|302.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|248.8|356.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.8|248.8|<0.0001
84504525|NCT00549198|168760058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.057
84632176|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.8||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.7|-6.2|0.0824
84632177|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|188.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|134.6|242.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||242.5|134.6|<0.0001
84632178|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|216.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||216.0|108.0|<0.0001
84632179|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|141.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|195.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||195.8|87.9|<0.0001
84632180|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|189.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.6|81.7|<0.0001
84632181|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|287.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.1|356.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.1|219.1|<0.0001
84632182|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|101.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|169.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||169.8|32.9|0.0040
84632183|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|218.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.0|287.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||287.0|150.0|<0.0001
84632184|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.0|239.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||239.0|102.0|<0.0001
84632185|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|158.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|227.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.1|90.1|<0.0001
84632186|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|152.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|220.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||220.7|83.7|<0.0001
84632187|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|281.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.8|90.1|0.0002
84632188|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|205.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|300.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||300.8|109.2|<0.0001
84632189|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.2|316.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.7|125.2|<0.0001
84632190|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.1|265.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||265.8|74.1|0.0006
84632191|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|281.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.5|89.9|0.0002
84632192|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|144.9||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|240.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.8|49.1|0.0033
84632193|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|274.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||274.9|65.2|0.0017
84632194|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|211.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|316.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.2|106.6|0.0001
84632195|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|324.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||324.0|114.5|<0.0001
84632196|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.2||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|267.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||267.0|57.3|0.0027
84632197|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.1|290.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.7|81.1|0.0006
84632198|NCT01746901|169003601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.5||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|240.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.4|30.7|0.0116
84632199|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.5|-4.3|<0.0001
84632200|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.4|0.0001
84632201|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.7|0.7005
84632202|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8440
84632203|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.6|0.7295
84632204|NCT01746901|169003602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8757
84632205|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|72.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.9|47.4|<0.0001
84632206|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.6||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|-0.1|0.0514
84632207|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||42.4|17.0|<0.0001
84632208|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|55.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.8|30.3|<0.0001
84632209|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|21.0|<0.0001
84632210|NCT01746901|169003603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|49.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.1|23.7|<0.0001
84632211|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|47.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.2|31.8|<0.0001
84632212|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.0|-3.4|0.2739
84632213|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|8.7|<0.0001
84632214|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.0|19.7|<0.0001
84632215|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|12.8|<0.0001
84632216|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.4|12.0|<0.0001
84632217|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|121.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.8|87.7|<0.0001
84632218|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.3|-9.8|0.4003
84632219|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||60.7|26.6|<0.0001
84632220|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|85.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.4|51.3|<0.0001
84632221|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|71.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.4|37.3|<0.0001
84632222|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|36.0|<0.0001
84632223|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|292.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|240.0|345.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||345.1|240.0|<0.0001
84632224|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.2||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|84.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.7|-20.3|0.2277
84632225|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|173.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.5|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.6|120.5|<0.0001
84632226|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|204.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||204.2|99.1|<0.0001
84632227|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|129.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|182.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||182.3|77.2|<0.0001
84632228|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|175.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||175.1|70.0|<0.0001
84632229|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|295.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|228.3|362.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||362.2|228.3|<0.0001
84632230|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.6||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|2.7|0.0416
84632231|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|204.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.5|271.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||271.3|137.5|<0.0001
84632232|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|160.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|227.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.4|93.5|<0.0001
84632233|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|66.1|0.0001
84632234|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|140.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|207.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.0|73.1|<0.0001
84632235|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.6|311.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||311.3|127.6|<0.0001
84632236|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|236.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.8|53.2|0.0022
84632237|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.4|292.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||292.0|108.4|<0.0001
84632238|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|256.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||256.1|72.4|0.0005
84632239|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|238.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||238.4|54.8|0.0019
84632240|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|132.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|224.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.5|40.8|0.0049
84632241|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|209.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.3|310.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||310.3|108.3|<0.0001
84632242|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|44.7|0.0050
84632243|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.7|301.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.6|99.7|0.0001
84632244|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|255.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||255.3|53.3|0.0030
84632245|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|247.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||247.8|45.9|0.0046
84632246|NCT01746901|169003604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|123.3||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|224.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.3|22.3|0.0171
84632247|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.9|-3.7|0.0016
84632248|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.4|0.0105
84632249|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.7|0.7259
84632250|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.6|0.7813
84632251|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-1.9|0.5235
84632252|NCT01746901|169003605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.6|0.8512
84632253|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0883
84632254|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0241
84632255|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0235
84632256|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0901
84632257|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.6|-3.0|0.1313
84632258|NCT01746901|169003606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.6|-2.0|0.0982
84632259|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|0.2|0.0351
84632260|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-3.3|0.8751
84632261|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-0.3|0.0795
84632262|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.4|-2.7|0.8382
84632263|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|0.4|0.0289
84632264|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-2.6|0.7878
84632265|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|5.6|0.0019
84632266|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.3|-8.1|0.821
84632267|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.5|3.1|0.0094
84632268|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.8|-5.6|0.4454
84675054|NCT03228680|169085428|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin was -3.0 oocytes. The NI was evaluated based on the two-sided 95% CI from the ANOVA on 'number of oocytes retrieved' with treatment and AMH stratum as fixed factors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||If the lower bound of 95% CI was well above pre-specified NI limit of -3.0 oocytes, then NI of FE 999049 to FOLLISTIM with respect to number of oocytes retrieved in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation would be demonstrated|Mean number of oocytes retrieved.||-0.1|-2.3|
84632269|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-1.3|0.0934
84632270|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.2|-2.2|0.1358
84632271|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|92.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||92.7|27.0|0.0004
84632272|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|52.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||52.6|-13.1|0.2365
84632273|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|76.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||76.7|11.1|0.0091
84632274|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.7||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||68.5|2.8|0.0335
84632275|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|63.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.6|-2.1|0.0661
84632276|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.8|-5.9|0.1074
84632277|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|94.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.9|15.8|0.0064
84632278|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|78.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.3|-0.7|0.0543
84632279|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.2||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|89.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.7|10.7|0.0131
84632280|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.5|4.4|0.0297
84632281|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.3||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.8|1.8|0.0407
84632282|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|67.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.1|-12.0|0.1710
84632283|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.7|36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.7|-106.7|0.3362
84632284|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|198.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.5|55.2|0.0006
84632285|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.2||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.8|-18.5|0.1449
84632286|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.7||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|110.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||110.4|-33.0|0.2882
84632287|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.0||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|126.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||126.7|-16.6|0.1314
84632288|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|91.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||91.8|-51.6|0.5808
84632289|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.2||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.6|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.3|-154.6|0.1415
84632290|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|149.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|237.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||237.5|60.7|0.0011
84632291|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.5||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|140.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||140.9|-35.9|0.2423
84632292|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|118.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.8|-58.0|0.4980
84632293|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.5||||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|142.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.9|-33.9|0.2253
84632294|NCT01746901|169003607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|-76.8|0.7945
84632295|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.6|-5.1|0.0129
84632296|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.5|2.0|0.0003
84632297|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.6|0.5483
84632298|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.5|0.5284
84632299|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-0.5|0.1331
84632300|NCT01746901|169003608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.4|-2.1|0.8732
84632301|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-5.9|0.4555
84632302|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-2.5|0.1495
84632303|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|1.8|0.0200
84632304|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.7|-10.3|0.8668
84632305|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.6|-5.3|0.3904
84632306|NCT01746901|169003609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|-7.3|0.6524
84632307|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1771
84632308|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3944
84632309|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1778
84632310|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3960
84632311|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-0.9|0.6125
84504526|NCT00549198|168760059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.060
84632312|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.1|0.9059
84632313|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|-2.9|0.4585
84632314|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.8|-4.2|0.8986
84632315|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.5|0.3641
84632316|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|-4.6|0.9674
84632317|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-3.2|0.5744
84632318|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.4|0.3457
84632319|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.8|-13.3|0.6664
84632320|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.0|-5.8|0.1949
84632321|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|-6.0|0.2009
84632322|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.7|-13.1|0.6595
84632323|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|-8.3|0.3176
84632324|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.6423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|-12.9|0.6423
84632325|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.2|-10.5|0.4358
84632326|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|-5.4|0.1789
84632327|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.0||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.3|-3.3|0.1131
84632328|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.8|-12.6|0.5965
84632329|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.9|-8.5|0.3175
84632330|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.0|-13.3|0.6551
84632331|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.1|-87.5|0.0354
84632332|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|97.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.0|13.4|0.0100
84632333|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.4|-29.0|0.5379
84675055|NCT03228680|169085429|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer.||10.6|-7.5|
84632334|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-45.1|0.8768
84632335|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|49.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.9|-33.8|0.7031
84632336|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|-45.8|0.8507
84632337|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.3||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.5|-121.2|0.0381
84632338|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.0||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|122.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||122.3|5.7|0.0318
84632339|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.2||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.1|-43.6|0.6095
84632340|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|44.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.8|-71.9|0.6470
84632341|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.4|-51.4|0.8136
84675056|NCT03228680|169085430|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG.||9.6|-9.5|
84675057|NCT03228680|169085431|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with vital pregnancy.||10.8|-6.7|
84675058|NCT03228680|169085432|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer.||12.8|-8.9|
84632342|NCT01746901|169003610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.6||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|45.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.7|-71.0|0.6699
84632343|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-3.9|0.1728
84632344|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.6|-1.0|0.2616
84632345|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-1.9|0.7307
84632346|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5473
84632347|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.1|0.4999
84632348|NCT01746901|169003611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5592
84632349|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|2.0|0.0217
84632350|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.6|-7.8|0.5513
84632351|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.8|0.2|0.0469
84632352|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-6.0|0.3604
84632353|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|-5.0|0.2725
84632354|NCT01746901|169003612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4||||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-5.8|0.3461
84632355|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-1.1|0.1828
84632356|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.9|-5.0|0.3908
84632357|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.5|-1.5|0.2513
84632358|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-4.6|0.5035
84632359|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.0|-0.9|0.1452
84632360|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-3.6|0.9303
84632361|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.7|0.9|0.0283
84632362|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-10.5|0.4861
84632363|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-2.5|0.1809
84632364|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.5|-7.1|0.8560
84632365|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.4|-3.1|0.2385
84632366|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.5|-4.1|0.3479
84632367|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.6|4.7|0.0185
84632368|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|-15.8|0.5471
84632369|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.4|1.5|0.0367
84632370|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.1||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.9|-12.6|0.3797
84632371|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|39.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.1|-6.3|0.1557
84632372|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.9|-10.5|0.2904
84632373|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.6|0.4|0.0467
84632374|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.7||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.0|-14.6|0.4056
84675059|NCT03228680|169085434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with blastocyst transfer cancellation.||||0.244
84632375|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.3||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|48.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.9|-2.3|0.0738
84632376|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.7|-12.0|0.2987
84632377|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.2|-2.4|0.0763
84632378|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|37.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.6|-13.1|0.3396
84632379|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.7|-89.1|0.2425
84632380|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|117.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||117.5|6.8|0.0281
84632381|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|78.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.8|-33.0|0.4189
84632382|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||61.4|-49.4|0.8310
84632383|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.8||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|90.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.1|-20.6|0.2161
84632384|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.2|-51.5|0.8905
84632385|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.6|-124.2|0.1597
84675060|NCT03228680|169085435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \<4 oocytes retrieved (low response).||||0.254
84504527|NCT00549198|168760060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.186
84504528|NCT00549198|168760061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.413
84504529|NCT00549198|168760062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, baseline CD4, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit, baseline BMI\*visit and baseline CD4\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.315
84504530|NCT00549198|168760069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
84504531|NCT00549198|168760070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, country group, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
84632386|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|70.9||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|142.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.6|-0.8|0.0525
84632387|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|95.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||95.4|-49.3|0.5294
84632388|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.7|-75.7|0.9126
84632389|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.6||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|106.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||106.3|-37.1|0.3418
84632390|NCT01746901|169003613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|66.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.4|-77.0|0.8833
84504532|NCT00549198|168760071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.036
84504533|NCT00549198|168760072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
84504534|NCT00549198|168760073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.112
84632391|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.2|-6.1|0.0041
84632392|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.8|1.9|0.0006
84632393|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-2.7|0.8765
84632394|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-1.6|0.4746
84632395|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.3|0.4607
84632396|NCT01746901|169003614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-1.0|0.2316
84632397|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|51.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.3|26.4|<0.0001
84632398|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.3|3.3|0.0136
84632399|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.0|6.1|0.0039
84632400|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|48.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.5|23.6|<0.0001
84632401|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.4||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.8|2.9|0.0157
84632402|NCT01746901|169003615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
84632403|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|6.4|<0.0001
84632404|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||9.6|-2.6|0.2550
84632405|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|4.3|0.0010
84632406|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.8|-0.4|0.0667
84632407|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|2.3|0.0075
84632408|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.7|-1.5|0.1354
84632409|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.5|34.2|<0.0001
84632410|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|-9.4|0.3905
84632411|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|11.9|0.0009
84632412|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.3|12.9|0.0006
84632413|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.5|6.3|0.0072
84632414|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|41.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||41.6|8.4|0.0035
84632415|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|248.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.6|308.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||308.3|188.6|<0.0001
84632416|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.2||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|128.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||128.2|8.2|0.0263
84632417|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|211.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||211.1|91.3|<0.0001
84632418|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|225.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.3|105.6|<0.0001
84632419|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|97.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|157.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||157.6|38.3|0.0015
84632420|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|198.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.2|78.7|<0.0001
84632421|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|241.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.8|319.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||319.9|162.8|<0.0001
84632422|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|121.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|42.4|0.0028
84632423|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|243.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.1|85.8|<0.0001
84632424|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|198.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.4|276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||276.6|119.4|<0.0001
84632425|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|189.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.4|32.8|0.0057
84632426|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|89.7|<0.0001
84632427|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|128.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|248.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||248.3|8.5|0.0360
84632428|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.2|341.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||341.7|101.2|0.0004
84632429|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|246.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.8|6.6|0.0388
84632430|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|223.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.2|343.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.2|103.2|0.0003
84632431|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.2||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|226.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||226.8|-12.4|0.0787
84632432|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|181.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|301.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.0|61.5|0.0033
84632433|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|233.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||233.3|-41.2|0.1688
84632434|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|220.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|358.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||358.0|82.6|0.0019
84632435|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.0||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|243.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.5|-31.5|0.1298
84632436|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|210.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|347.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.8|73.0|0.0029
84632437|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.7||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|245.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||245.7|-28.3|0.1189
84632438|NCT01746901|169003616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|153.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|290.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.8|16.4|0.0284
84632439|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0327
84632440|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.0|0.0019
84632441|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.9|0.7508
84632442|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-0.5|0.1868
84632443|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-1.6|0.9944
84632444|NCT01746901|169003617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.6|-0.6|0.2322
84632445|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.6|16.8|<0.0001
84632446|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|-2.8|0.1421
84632447|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.2|9.5|0.0004
84675061|NCT03228680|169085435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 4-7 oocytes retrieved (moderate response).||||0.041
84675062|NCT03228680|169085435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 8-14 oocytes retrieved (targeted response).||||0.705
84675063|NCT03228680|169085435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 15-19 oocytes retrieved (hyperresponse).||||0.183
84675064|NCT03228680|169085435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \>= (more than equal to) 20 oocytes retrieved (severe hyperresponse).||||0.030
84675065|NCT03228680|169085436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \< 15 pmol/L (\<4 oocytes retrieved)||||0.893
84675066|NCT03228680|169085436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=15 oocytes retrieved)||||0.002
84504535|NCT00549198|168760074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit, and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
84632448|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.0|4.5|0.0064
84632449|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|-3.9|0.1974
84632450|NCT01746901|169003618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.8|8.3|0.0008
84675067|NCT03228680|169085436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=20 oocytes retrieved)||||0.021
84675068|NCT03228680|169085438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with early OHSS (any grade).||||0.017
84675069|NCT03228680|169085438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.035
84675070|NCT03228680|169085438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.006
84675071|NCT03228680|169085438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.009
84675072|NCT03228680|169085439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (any grade).||||0.968
84675073|NCT03228680|169085439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.582
84675074|NCT03228680|169085440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles on stimulation Day 6 was analyzed.||||0.198
84675075|NCT03228680|169085441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles at end-of-stimulation was analyzed.||||0.036
84675076|NCT03228680|169085442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.592
84675077|NCT03228680|169085443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.286
84675078|NCT03228680|169085444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The fertilization rate (number of oocytes with 2 pronuclei divided by the number of oocytes retrieved) was analyzed.||||0.395
84675079|NCT03228680|169085445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.001
84675080|NCT03228680|169085445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.004
84675081|NCT03228680|169085446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<.001
84675082|NCT03228680|169085446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<0.001
84632451|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|7.1|<0.0001
84632452|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.2|-4.1|0.6868
84632453|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.5|2.2|0.0058
84632454|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|0.8|0.0229
84632455|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.3|-1.9|0.2168
84632456|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.9|1.7|0.0096
84632457|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.9|20.0|<0.0001
84632458|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|-11.2|0.8009
84632459|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.4||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.3|4.5|0.0086
84632460|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.0|4.4|0.0089
84632461|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-7.6|0.4224
84632462|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.5|9.8|0.0006
84632463|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|134.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||134.2|57.9|<0.0001
84632464|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.7|-15.8|0.2530
84632465|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|78.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|116.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||116.8|40.5|<0.0001
84632466|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.3||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|77.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||77.1|1.6|0.0414
84632467|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|66.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.6|-8.9|0.1329
84632468|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.5||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|7.7|0.0187
84632469|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|121.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.9|31.9|0.0009
84632470|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|89.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.9|0.9|0.0456
84632471|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|82.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|127.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||127.7|37.8|0.0004
84632472|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|84.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.1|-5.0|0.0812
84632473|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|80.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.0|-9.0|0.1174
84632474|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.6|1.5|0.0427
84675083|NCT03228680|169085447|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.09||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH on stimulation Day 6.||1.09|0.98|0.228
84632475|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.9|73.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.0|-66.9|0.9318
84632476|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|110.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|179.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||179.6|41.2|0.0020
84632477|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.5||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|151.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||151.4|11.6|0.0226
84632478|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.0||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.2|-37.3|0.3629
84632479|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.9||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||105.1|-33.4|0.3077
84632480|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.1||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||108.4|-30.1|0.2662
84632481|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.9|-94.7|0.7875
84632482|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|197.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||197.4|32.6|0.0066
84632483|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|164.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.9|-1.4|0.0540
84632484|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||104.3|-60.6|0.6014
84632485|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|118.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.5|-46.3|0.3885
84632486|NCT01746901|169003619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.5||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||112.0|-52.9|0.4801
84632487|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-2.5|0.5494
84632488|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.8|-0.1|0.0626
84632489|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-1.6|0.7216
84632490|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-1.0|0.3647
84632491|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.7|0.4456
84632492|NCT01746901|169003620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|0.0|0.0500
84632493|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.34|-0.69|<0.0001
84632494|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.52|-1.86|<0.0001
84675084|NCT03228680|169085447|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH on stimulation Day 6.||1.17|0.81|0.777
84675085|NCT03228680|169085448|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.94||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH at end-of-stimulation.||0.94|0.84|<0.001
84632495|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.0001
84632496|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.23|-1.58|<0.0001
84632497|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-0.91|<0.0001
84632498|NCT01746901|169003621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.11|-1.46|<0.0001
84632499|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.42|-1.75|<0.0001
84632500|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3309
84632501|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.0001
84632502|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.92|-1.25|<0.0001
84632503|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.59|<0.0001
84632504|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.21|<0.0001
84632505|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.69|-4.37|<0.0001
84632506|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.14|-0.54|0.2475
84632507|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.27|-1.96|<0.0001
84632508|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.27|-2.96|<0.0001
84632509|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.00|-1.68|<0.0001
84632510|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.08|-2.76|<0.0001
84632511|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-10.60|-13.21|<0.0001
84632512|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.93|-8.54|<0.0001
84632513|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-6.59|-9.20|<0.0001
84632514|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.94|-12.55|<0.0001
84632515|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.05|-7.65|<0.0001
84632516|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.05|-11.67|<0.0001
84632517|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-9.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.58|-13.16|<0.0001
84675086|NCT03228680|169085448|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.17||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH at end-of-stimulation.||1.39|1.00|0.057
84675087|NCT03228680|169085449|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.71|0.002
84504536|NCT00549198|168760107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3025
84632518|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-14.28|-17.86|<0.0001
84632519|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.93|-13.53|<0.0001
84632520|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-13.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-13.91|-17.51|<0.0001
84632521|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.09|-10.67|<0.0001
84632522|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-12.39|-15.99|<0.0001
84632523|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-3.63|0.8784
84632524|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.02|-38.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-38.29|-45.02|<0.0001
84632525|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-16.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-16.25|-23.01|<0.0001
84632526|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.67|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.90|-25.67|<0.0001
84632527|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.14|-15.86|<0.0001
84632528|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.21|-23.98|<0.0001
84632529|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|15.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.54|5.75|<0.0001
84632530|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.63|-52.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-52.85|-62.63|<0.0001
84632531|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-17.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.27|-27.09|<0.0001
84632532|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-20.00|-29.83|<0.0001
84632533|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-8.64|-18.41|<0.0001
84675088|NCT03228680|169085450|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol at end-of-stimulation.||0.95|0.76|0.003
84675089|NCT03228680|169085451|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.02||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone on stimulation Day 6.||1.16|0.89|0.814
84675090|NCT03228680|169085452|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone levels at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.68|<0.001
84632534|NCT01746901|169003622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.78|-28.62|<0.0001
84632535|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.57|-11.90|<0.0001
84632536|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||7.32|2.99|<0.0001
84632537|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.20|-2.13|0.9766
84632538|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.44|-6.78|<0.0001
84632539|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.7242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.78|-2.55|0.7242
84632540|NCT01746901|169003623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.28|-6.62|<0.0001
84632541|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.5|14.6|<0.0001
84632542|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-3.9|0.8048
84632543|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.1|4.2|0.0002
84632544|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.4|6.5|<0.0001
84632545|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|2.7|0.0019
84632546|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.1|3.2|0.0010
84632547|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|127.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|161.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||161.2|93.6|<0.0001
84632548|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-29.1|0.7837
84632549|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|99.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||99.6|32.0|0.0002
84632550|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|32.5|0.0002
84632551|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|94.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.1|26.5|0.0006
84632552|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.7|-1.9|0.0640
84675091|NCT03228680|169085453|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6.||0.92|0.73|<0.001
84675092|NCT03228680|169085454|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.72|<0.001
84632553|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|190.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||190.7|94.5|<0.0001
84632554|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.9|-32.3|0.5169
84632555|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|129.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||129.3|33.2|0.0011
84632556|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|125.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||125.2|29.1|0.0018
84632557|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.6||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||111.7|15.6|0.0098
84632558|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.4||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|87.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||87.4|-8.7|0.1078
84675093|NCT03228680|169085455|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.75|<0.001
84504537|NCT00549198|168760108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
84632559|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.9|275.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||275.1|116.9|<0.0001
84632560|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|80.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.5|-77.7|0.9726
84632561|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|193.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.2|35.0|0.0050
84632562|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|83.3||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|162.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||162.4|4.2|0.0392
84632563|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.7||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|147.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.8|-10.4|0.0883
84632564|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|143.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||143.5|-14.7|0.1100
84632565|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|242.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|347.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.2|138.6|<0.0001
84675094|NCT03228680|169085456|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation.||0.99|0.79|0.027
84632566|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.0||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|-125.3|0.6906
84632567|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|223.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||223.0|14.5|0.0259
84632568|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.2||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|207.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.5|-1.1|0.0525
84632569|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.2||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|164.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.4|-44.1|0.2558
84632570|NCT01746901|169003624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|88.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|192.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||192.9|-15.7|0.0952
84632571|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.2|-3.3|0.0298
84632572|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|1.1|0.0008
84632573|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.0|0.6450
84632574|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-0.2|0.0962
84675095|NCT03228680|169085457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of stimulation days at end-of-stimulation.||||0.694
84632575|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.5|-2.6|0.1930
84632576|NCT01746901|169003625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.2|0.0310
84632577|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.0|33.9|<0.0001
84632578|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-4.2|0.3763
84632579|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.8|10.7|<0.0001
84632580|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
84632581|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|13.1|<0.0001
84632582|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.8|<0.0001
84632583|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|284.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|232.9|335.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||335.8|232.9|<0.0001
84632584|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.2||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||82.8|-20.4|0.2336
84632585|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|167.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.7|218.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||218.9|115.7|<0.0001
84675096|NCT00436280|169085491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.206|||||Comparing GCB versus non-GCB|Comparing GCB versus non-GCB||1.206|0.217|
84675097|NCT00436280|169085492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.989|||||Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression|Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression||1.989|0.388|
84675098|NCT01034397|169085508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Wrist region: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84632586|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|199.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.7|96.8|<0.0001
84632587|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|187.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||187.2|84.0|<0.0001
84632588|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|113.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|165.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||165.0|62.1|<0.0001
84675099|NCT01034397|169085508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||2nd and 5th MCP joints: Tocilizumab versus placebo|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.026
84675100|NCT01034397|169085508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Total synovitis score: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84632589|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|278.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.2|343.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.3|213.2|<0.0001
84632590|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|71.3||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|6.1|0.0322
84632591|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|195.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.2|260.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||260.5|130.2|<0.0001
84632592|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|219.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||219.3|89.2|<0.0001
84632593|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|208.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||208.4|78.0|<0.0001
84632594|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|191.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||191.8|61.7|0.0002
84632595|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|202.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.4|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||286.4|118.4|<0.0001
84632596|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|137.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|221.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||221.8|53.3|0.0015
84632597|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|192.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.7|277.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||277.2|108.7|<0.0001
84632598|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|231.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||231.1|63.0|0.0007
84632599|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|232.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||232.4|63.9|0.0007
84632600|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|193.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.6|25.5|0.0110
84632601|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.4|284.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||284.6|107.4|<0.0001
84632602|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|222.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||222.8|45.0|0.0034
84632603|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|190.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|279.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||279.8|102.1|<0.0001
84632604|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|227.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.6|50.3|0.0023
84632605|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|236.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.7|59.0|0.0013
84632606|NCT01746901|169003626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|100.0||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|188.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||188.6|11.3|0.0273
84632607|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.8|-5.0|<0.0001
84632608|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|1.3|0.0004
84632609|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8478
84632610|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.9|0.6192
84632611|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8857
84632612|NCT01746901|169003627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-2.1|0.5092
84504538|NCT00549198|168760109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3323
84632613|NCT02683577|169003640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|1.695|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.176|||||A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.176|0.904|
84632614|NCT02683577|169003640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.579|3.837|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.837|1.579|
84632615|NCT02683577|169003641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
84632616|NCT02683577|169003641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
84632617|NCT02683577|169003642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|4.598|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||4.598|1.144|
84632618|NCT02683577|169003642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.715|5.852|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||5.852|1.715|
84632619|NCT02683577|169003644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.65|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.65|1.11|
84632620|NCT02683577|169003644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.66|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.66|1.51|
84632621|NCT02683577|169003645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.3160
84632622|NCT02683577|169003645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.4671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.4671
84632623|NCT02683577|169003646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|3.94|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||3.94|1.45|
84632624|NCT02683577|169003646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.03|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||5.03|2.45|
84632625|NCT02683577|169003647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.82|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on ln transformed AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||3.82|1.33|
84632626|NCT02683577|169003647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|4.8|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||4.80|2.30|
84504539|NCT00549198|168760110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
84632627|NCT03594110|169003650|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0017 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.83|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|<0.0001
84632628|NCT03594110|169003651|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0145 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|98.55|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.12|0.63|0.1363
84632629|NCT03594110|169003652|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin. Two-sided significance level of \<0.0097 required at interim analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|99.03|0.76|0.98|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to occurrences of all-cause hospitalizations (first and recurrent combined). HR based on an analysis of recurrent events accounting for terminal events using a joint frailty model with terms for age, log(local screening UACR), local screening Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), treatment, sex, screening diabetes status, region.||0.98|0.76|0.0022
84632630|NCT03594110|169003653|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0290 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|97.1|0.68|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to death from any cause. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.11|0.68|0.2122
84632631|NCT03594110|169003654|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
84632632|NCT03594110|169003655|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.17|0.59|0.2932
84632633|NCT03594110|169003656|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence cardiovascular death or end stage kidney disease (ESKD). HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|0.0017
84632634|NCT03594110|169003657|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
84632635|NCT03594110|169003658|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
84632636|NCT03594110|169003659|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of death from any cause or ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.90|0.72|
84632637|NCT03594110|169003660|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.64|
84632638|NCT03594110|169003661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||\[Comparator\] - \[Placebo\]|A mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.11|-0.38|< 0.001
84675101|NCT01034397|169085509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Percentage Change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.421
84632639|NCT03594110|169003662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear||\[Comparator\]-\[Placebo\]|Differences in MRI measurements between treatment groups were assessed using a linear regression with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR was used in the analysis.||17|-42|0.41
84632640|NCT01055197|169003703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.53|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis (H0) was that PCI + RT is not effective versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that PCI + RT is effective. Assumptions were that PCI alone would have hazard rate λc of 1.204 and PCI + RT a hazard rate λc of 0.799 (hazard ratio λt/λc = 0.663). At each planned analysis, the p-value from the log-rank test statistic assessing overall survival was compared to the nominal significance level. The final targeted accrual was 154.||2.53|0.82|0.2103
84632641|NCT01055197|169003704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.24
84632642|NCT01055197|169003706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.0102
84632643|NCT04916587|169003708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|12.6||||||||12.6|10.6|
84632644|NCT04916587|169003709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.3||||||||8.3|6.6|
84632645|NCT04916587|169003710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|0.14|0.03
84632646|NCT00926237|169003760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.40|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.04
84632647|NCT00926237|169003760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.77||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -2.03|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.02
84632648|NCT00926237|169003760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1..28|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz washout - sham washout period|||||.20
84632649|NCT00926237|169003760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.29|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz washout - sham washout|||||.19
84632650|NCT01342211|169003765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.759||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|13.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||13.83|-25.09|0.5661
84632651|NCT01342211|169003765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.422||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|16.49|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||16.49|-21.08|0.8080
84632652|NCT01342211|169003765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.404||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.47|-18.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-18.97|-56.47|0.0001
84632653|NCT01342211|169003765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.08|-30.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-30.14|-68.08|<0.0001
84632654|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||13.92|0.10|0.8998
84632655|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.063||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||19.48|0.22|0.5273
84632656|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.924||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|490.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||490.67|5.93|0.0004
84632657|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|4214.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4214.35|18.65|<0.0001
84632658|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.262||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.21|0.06|0.0860
84632659|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2.25|0.15|0.4308
84632660|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.272||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|43.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.56|1.57|0.0127
84632661|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.528||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|97.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||97.00|1.89|0.0096
84632662|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|61.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||61.54|0.02|0.9519
84632663|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|58.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||58.00|0.02|0.9740
84632664|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.286||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|549.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||549.78|1.46|0.0273
84632665|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.508||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|2384.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2384.03|5.50|0.0022
84632666|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.216||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.12|0.04|0.0684
84632667|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.081||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||3.99|0.29|0.9068
84632668|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.251||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.31|0.61|0.2235
84632669|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|42.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||42.82|1.59|0.0120
84632670|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||9.92|0.01|0.5449
84632671|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|16.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||16.85|0.22|0.5585
84632672|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.059||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|147.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||147.65|3.00|0.0022
84632673|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.851||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|165.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||165.99|3.15|0.0020
84632674|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.12|0.48|0.3750
84632675|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.23|0.28|0.9140
84632676|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.548||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|43.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.57|2.09|0.0036
84632677|NCT01342211|169003766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.093||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|26.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||26.10|1.42|0.0149
84632678|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.674||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.83|0.32|0.5436
84632679|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.734||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.63|0.12|0.7420
84632680|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.151||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|167.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||167.62|4.73|0.0002
84632681|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.214||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|643.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||643.42|7.88|0.0001
84632682|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.203||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.74|0.01|0.3210
84632683|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||12.27|0.39|0.3786
84632684|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.576||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|38.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||38.38|1.50|0.0144
84632685|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.465||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|116.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||116.60|3.59|0.0007
84675102|NCT01034397|169085510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Absolute change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
84632686|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.161||||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||6.30|0.21|0.8626
84632687|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.51|0.30|0.6237
84632688|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.029||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|36.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||36.65|1.76|0.0072
84632689|NCT01342211|169003767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.557||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|113.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||113.20|3.73|0.0005
84632690|NCT02855125|169003795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model .|||1.88|0.71|0.2744
84632691|NCT02855125|169003796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.14|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model.|||2.14|0.80|0.1431
84632692|NCT04467905|169003801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-19.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is the difference in adjusted means for the change between baseline value and nadir in the placebo group and the change between baseline and nadir in the etripamil group.|||-19.3|-40.3|<0.0001
84632693|NCT00664443|169003802|OTHER||Sensitivity|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.2||||||||68.2|63.5|
84632694|NCT00664443|169003803|OTHER||Specificity|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|35.9||||||||35.9|29.0|
84644924|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
84644925|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
84632695|NCT04684836|169003813|SUPERIORITY|The analysis leveraged a difference-in-differences research design in an intent-to-treat framework, comparing outcomes for patients receiving care at high-telehealth practices with patients at comparable low-telehealth practices, before relative to after the onset of the pandemic (when telehealth use increased significantly).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0255||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All models included practice and year-quarter fixed effects, and clustered standard errors at the practice level.|This is the Unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|||||0.0793
84632696|NCT04684836|169003813|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences model|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0786||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5739
84632697|NCT04684836|169003814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0014||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||0.3261
84632698|NCT04684836|169003814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0806|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||<0.01
84632699|NCT04684836|169003815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0217||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.1101
84632700|NCT04684836|169003815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5551||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.4618
84632701|NCT04684836|169003817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.8577|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.8577
84632702|NCT04684836|169003817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2014||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.5954
84632703|NCT02230995|169003859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|100.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.39|96.11|<0.00001
84632704|NCT02230995|169003860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|102.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|105.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||105.76|98.65|<0.00001
84632705|NCT02230995|169003861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.51|104.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.17|93.51|<0.00001
84632706|NCT02230995|169003862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|105.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.78|110.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||110.84|100.78|<0.00001
84632707|NCT02230995|169003863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|98.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.16|100.53|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by ratios of adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.53|96.16|
84632708|NCT02230995|169003864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|108.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.07|101.36|
84632709|NCT05462756|169003872|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size provided \>99% statistical power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM), in insulin efsitora doses compared to insulin glargine, in a 1:1 randomization, a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1%, and a dropout rate of 15%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116||||||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|
84632710|NCT05462756|169003873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|0.855
84632711|NCT05462756|169003874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.81|0.504
84632712|NCT05462756|169003875|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.67||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||Negative binomial model||Relative rate is the ratio of the group means (Insulin Efsitora vs Insulin Glargine).|Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.||1.01|0.44|0.058
84632713|NCT05462756|169003876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.461|0.886|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||0.886|-9.461|0.104
84632714|NCT05462756|169003877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|4.101|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||4.101|-1.404|0.337
84632715|NCT05462756|169003878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|3.508|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||3.508|-0.327|0.104
84632716|NCT05462756|169003879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|1.36|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares). Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||1.360|-4.358|0.304
84504540|NCT00549198|168760111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from ana ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
84632717|NCT05462756|169003880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||0.95|-0.48|0.523
84632718|NCT05462756|169003881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-14.50|-55.57|<0.001
84632719|NCT05462756|169003882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-4.30|-10.79|<0.001
84632720|NCT05462756|169003883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.81|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-39.20|-107.81|<0.001
84632721|NCT05462756|169003884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||5.58|1.49|<0.001
84632722|NCT05462756|169003885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial method using Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as variables.||1.44|0.85|0.442
84632723|NCT05462756|169003886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-0.32|0.543
84504541|NCT00549198|168760112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
84632724|NCT05462756|169003887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||4.0|-0.3|0.099
84632725|NCT01298648|169003927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed cases at Baseline and Week 4.||||||<0.0001
84632726|NCT01298648|169003929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 8.||||||<0.0001
84632727|NCT01298648|169003930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 24.||||||<0.0001
84632728|NCT03077412|169003939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|50.0|||||The 90% exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||50.0|-9.9|
84632729|NCT03077412|169003939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.5|34.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||34.3|-26.5|
84632730|NCT03077412|169003940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|57.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||57.3|-1.3|
84632731|NCT03077412|169003940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|38.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||38.1|-22.5|
84632732|NCT03077412|169003941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|2.49|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.49|0.64|
84632733|NCT03077412|169003941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.75|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||1.75|0.47|
84632734|NCT03077412|169003942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.01|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||4.01|0.87|
84632735|NCT03077412|169003942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.92|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.92|0.65|
84632736|NCT03077412|169003943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.6|21.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||21.3|-55.6|
84632737|NCT03077412|169003943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|24.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||24.1|-51.0|
84632738|NCT02266888|169003946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.248|1.826|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio estimated for Rituximab vs. Placebo|||1.826|0.248|0.514
84632739|NCT02266888|169003950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84632740|NCT02266888|169003951|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84632741|NCT02266888|169003952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
84632742|NCT02266888|169003955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.6|||Paired t-Test|||This is not a comparison between treatment groups, but rather a comparison between timepoints.The Rituximab and Placebo groups were combined for purposes of testing the hypothesis that there would be no change in SD between pre-enrollment and 180 days post-enrollment into the TVI.||-0.60|-2.64|0.015
84632743|NCT02266888|169003957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.502
84632744|NCT02266888|169003958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
84632745|NCT03762993|169003990|OTHER|Changes in phonation threshold pressure were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for the effect of time. A priori significance level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84632746|NCT03762993|169003991|OTHER|Changes in lung volumes were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.01||||||P-value represents effect of group. A priori threshold for significance set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84632747|NCT00918255|169003995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.022
84632748|NCT00918255|169003995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.025
84632749|NCT00918255|169003995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.252
84632750|NCT00918255|169003996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
84632751|NCT00918255|169003996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.019
84632752|NCT00918255|169003996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.286
84632753|NCT00918255|169003997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84632754|NCT00918255|169003997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
84632755|NCT00918255|169003997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.097
84632756|NCT00918255|169003998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
84632757|NCT00918255|169003998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.051
84632758|NCT00918255|169003998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.320
84632759|NCT00918255|169003999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84632760|NCT00918255|169003999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
84675103|NCT01034397|169085513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Wrist region; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84632761|NCT00918255|169003999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.673
84632762|NCT00918255|169004000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
84632763|NCT00918255|169004000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.020
84632764|NCT00918255|169004000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.721
84632765|NCT00918255|169004001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.045
84675104|NCT01034397|169085513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Change in 2nd to 5th MCP; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
84632766|NCT00918255|169004001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.014
84632767|NCT00918255|169004001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.169
84632768|NCT04226742|169004012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-3.71|0.79
84632769|NCT04226742|169004013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|4.32||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.32|-2.52|.61
84632770|NCT04226742|169004014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||Significance threshold of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.05|0.088
84632771|NCT04226742|169004015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|31.99||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.99|-4.62|0.142
84632772|NCT04226742|169004016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.54||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-15.28|0.109
84632773|NCT04226742|169004017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.89|-6.92|0.736
84632774|NCT01193244|169004023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.626|0.799|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at Baseline.||0.799|0.626|<0.00001
84632775|NCT01193244|169004024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.59755||95.0|0.838|1.107|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.107|0.838|0.59755
84632776|NCT01193244|169004025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|||<|0.001||95.0|1.724|2.721|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio greater than (\>)1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.721|1.724|<0.001
84632777|NCT01193244|169004026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.712||||0.001||95.0|1.235|2.373|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline ECOG score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio \> 1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.373|1.235|0.001
84632778|NCT01193244|169004027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.33906||95.0|0.688|1.138|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.138|0.688|0.33906
84675105|NCT01034397|169085513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Total synovitis; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675106|NCT01034397|169085515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Absolute Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675107|NCT01034397|169085516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675108|NCT01034397|169085519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Percentage Change in Bone oedema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.266
84675109|NCT01034397|169085520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||Absolute Change in Bone edema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.337
84675110|NCT01034397|169085523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (global); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.114
84632779|NCT00068692|169004078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiotherapy, and regimen administration||||||0.35
84632780|NCT00068692|169004078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||one-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiaotherapy, regimen administration||||||0.69
84632781|NCT02540629|169004098|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84632782|NCT03847896|169004141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|113.4|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||113.4|7.7|0.025
84632783|NCT03847896|169004141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.4|214.5|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||214.5|109.4|<0.001
84632784|NCT03847896|169004141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|132.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||132.9|28.4|0.003
84632785|NCT03847896|169004142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|142.2|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||142.2|4.4|0.037
84632786|NCT03847896|169004142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|168.8|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||168.8|30.9|0.005
84632787|NCT03847896|169004142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|201.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||201.9|63.6|<0.001
84632788|NCT03847896|169004142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|156.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||156.9|18.8|0.013
84632789|NCT03847896|169004142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|190.1|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||190.1|51.5|<0.001
84632790|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-6|
84632791|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||9|-3|
84632792|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
84632793|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
84632794|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-3|
84632795|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-2|
84632796|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
84632797|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
84632798|NCT03847896|169004143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-1|
84632799|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.699||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.096|0.445|0.118
84675111|NCT01034397|169085524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Absolute Change in DCE-MRI EER; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
84632800|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.187|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.187|0.878|0.161
84675112|NCT01034397|169085527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.271
84632801|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.541|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.541|1.013|0.044
84632802|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|2.584|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.584|1.024|0.039
84632803|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|3.626|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.626|1.456|<0.001
84632804|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.687|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.687|1.471|<0.001
84632805|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.835|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.835|0.731|0.532
84632806|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.868|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.868|0.737|0.499
84632807|NCT03847896|169004145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.618|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.618|0.635|0.955
84632808|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||17.8|-101.9|0.169
84632809|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|111.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||111.5|-7.4|0.086
84675113|NCT01034397|169085528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.370
84632810|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|90.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||90.1|-28.6|0.31
84632811|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||125.4|6.3|0.03
84632812|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|132.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||132.5|13.1|0.017
84632813|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|167.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||167.8|48.1|<0.001
84632814|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|37.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||37.9|-80.5|0.48
84632815|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|73.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||73.2|-45.6|0.648
84632816|NCT03847896|169004146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|94.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||94.5|-24.2|0.246
84632817|NCT00118417|169004154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Paired t-test between endpoint and baseline PDSS|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 38||||||0.0000
84632818|NCT00118417|169004155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change score|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 22||||||0.97
84632819|NCT00118417|169004156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change between baseline and endpoint of Phase 3|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 17||||||0.061
84632820|NCT02978781|169004158|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14 (predose)|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.49|-0.44|0.9143
84632821|NCT02978781|169004159|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-3.50|0.0529
84632822|NCT02978781|169004165|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.70|-3.47|0.7795
84632823|NCT02978781|169004166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.33|-0.65|0.4846
84632824|NCT02978781|169004166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.36|-2.70|0.4567
84632825|NCT02978781|169004167|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.96|-2.48|0.3771
84675114|NCT01034397|169085531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage and absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (wrist); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675115|NCT01034397|169085536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84632826|NCT02978781|169004168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.69|-0.97|0.7302
84632827|NCT02978781|169004168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.85|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.85|-1.10|0.7916
84632828|NCT02978781|169004169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.23|-1.17|0.1807
84632829|NCT02978781|169004170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline(SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes Spirals (AS) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.9|-1.7|0.8709
84632830|NCT02978781|169004170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.4|-1.8|0.7843
84632831|NCT02978781|169004170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.10|-2.72|0.7604
84632832|NCT02978781|169004171|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.17|-1.13|0.1333
84632833|NCT02978781|169004171|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-1.64|0.0572
84632834|NCT02978781|169004171|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.05|-1.05|0.0707
84632835|NCT02978781|169004172|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-2.87|0.0278
84632836|NCT02978781|169004173|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.9579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.54|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.54|-0.57|0.9579
84632837|NCT02978781|169004173|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.30|-1.31|0.0039
84644926|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
84644927|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
84632838|NCT02978781|169004173|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-1.14|0.0099
84632839|NCT02978781|169004174|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes spirals (AS) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.3|-1.5|0.1595
84632840|NCT02978781|169004174|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.1|-0.9|0.0126
84632841|NCT02978781|169004174|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.10|-0.55|0.1536
84632842|NCT00785785|169004183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.466||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.945|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.945|1.104|0.0081
84632843|NCT02453321|169004184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.355
84632844|NCT02453321|169004185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
84632845|NCT01244893|169004188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study uses -0.05 LogMAR as the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00092|0.01045|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as the test lens - control lens.|"Ho: after time period (6-8 days of lens wear), the test lens - control lens will be greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin specified .~Ha: after time period, test-control will be less than the margin specified concluding that the test lens will be inferior to control lens in terms of LogMAR scale"||0.01045|-0.00092|
84632846|NCT00357552|169004192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Success of the strategy is assessed according to whether the lower bound of the exact 90% confidence interval of this proportion is greater than 65%.|proportion|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|92.0|||confidence interval|Success was determined by whether the lower bound of the 90% exact confidence interval was greater than 65%.|exact confidence interval|The null hypothesis was that LPV/r monotherapy provides at least a 65% short-term virologic response. The target sample size was 120 subjects. Assuming an underlying true 24 week success rate of 76%, this sample size was chosen in order to provide at least 90% power to show that the true 24 week virologic success rate of LPV/r monotherapy in this population is greater than 65%.||92|81|
84632847|NCT03089281|169004215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84632848|NCT03089281|169004216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84632849|NCT03089281|169004217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84632850|NCT03089281|169004219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
84632851|NCT03089281|169004220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.49
84632852|NCT03089281|169004221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84632853|NCT03089281|169004222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84632854|NCT03089281|169004223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84632855|NCT03089281|169004224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84675116|NCT01034397|169085539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.067
84632856|NCT03089281|169004225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84632857|NCT03089281|169004226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84632858|NCT03089281|169004227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84632859|NCT01383356|169004288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) in percent|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|125.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg versus (vs.) Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the 80 to 125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and on potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||125|111|
84632860|NCT01383356|169004288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|130.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of drug potency (DP) of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||130|114|
84632861|NCT01383356|169004289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the 90 percent confidence interval of geometric mean ratio is entirely contained within the 80 to125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
84675117|NCT01034397|169085541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84675118|NCT01034397|169085543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
84675119|NCT01034397|169085545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||<0.001
84675120|NCT01034397|169085545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||0.500
84632862|NCT01383356|169004289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs.Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
84632863|NCT01383356|169004290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE), AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
84632864|NCT01383356|169004290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE, AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
84632865|NCT03584789|169004291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|.93|.08
84632866|NCT03584789|169004291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|.86|.18
84632867|NCT03584789|169004292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|9.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.44|.20|.71
84632868|NCT03584789|169004292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.00|.21|.62
84632869|NCT03584789|169004293|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.12|-0.26|.38
84632870|NCT03584789|169004293|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.17|-0.24|.70
84632871|NCT03584789|169004294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|-0.79|.65
84632872|NCT03584789|169004294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.41|-0.99|.41
84632873|NCT03038880|169004346|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|2.6|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||2.6|-6.8|
84632874|NCT03038880|169004346|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.5|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||5.5|-3.4|
84632875|NCT03038880|169004347|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.75|2.56|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||2.56|-6.75|
84632876|NCT03038880|169004347|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.49|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.49|-3.40|
84675121|NCT01034397|169085546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
84632877|NCT03038880|169004347|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|5.25|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.25|-4.26|
84632878|NCT03038880|169004347|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.71|6.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||6.37|-2.71|
84632879|NCT03038880|169004349|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.92|25.44|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.44|-15.92|
84632880|NCT03038880|169004349|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.62|25.53|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.53|-13.62|
84632881|NCT03038880|169004349|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.52|16.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||16.19|-24.52|
84632882|NCT03038880|169004349|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.73|28.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.59|-10.73|
84632883|NCT03038880|169004351|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.72|1.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||1.19|-10.72|
84632884|NCT03038880|169004351|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
84632885|NCT03038880|169004351|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
84675122|NCT01034397|169085549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84675123|NCT01034397|169085551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
84675124|NCT01034397|169085553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.118
84675125|NCT01034397|169085555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675126|NCT01034397|169085557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.437
84675127|NCT01034397|169085558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
84675128|NCT01034397|169085561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.190
84675129|NCT01034397|169085563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.051
84632886|NCT03038880|169004351|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
84632887|NCT03038880|169004352|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|43.05|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.05|0.76|
84504542|NCT00549198|168760113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
84632888|NCT03038880|169004352|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|38.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.56|57.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||57.59|19.56|
84632889|NCT03038880|169004352|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|40.43|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||40.43|-1.14|
84632890|NCT03038880|169004352|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|33.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.95|52.91|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||52.91|14.95|
84632891|NCT03038880|169004353|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
84632892|NCT03038880|169004353|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
84632893|NCT03038880|169004353|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|10.72|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||10.72|-1.19|
84632894|NCT03038880|169004353|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
84632895|NCT03038880|169004354|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.81|30.71|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||30.71|-29.81|
84632896|NCT03038880|169004354|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|14.68|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.29|43.65|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.65|-14.29|
84632897|NCT03038880|169004354|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.57|20.87|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||20.87|-30.57|
84632898|NCT03038880|169004354|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.57|25.8|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.80|-23.57|
84632899|NCT03038880|169004355|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.6|12.15|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||12.15|-36.60|
84632900|NCT03038880|169004355|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.5|28.45|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.45|-18.50|
84632901|NCT03038880|169004355|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.42|13.14|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||13.14|-30.42|
84632902|NCT03038880|169004355|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.65|28.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.37|-13.65|
84632903|NCT02054104|169004403|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.36
84632904|NCT00084136|169004417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04||Not adjusted for multiple interim analyses. Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by country and screening RNA (\< 100,000 c/mL vs \>= 100,000 copies/mL).|The HR is for ddI+FTC+ATV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|||2.04|1.12|<0.01
84632905|NCT00084136|169004418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Other||The HR is for TDF/FTC+EFV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|While original study design specified a non-inferiority test, study follow-up stopped early, not due to treatment effect size or futility, but due to slowing accumulation of primary outcome events. Therefore, 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals about the estimated treatment effect (relative effect estimated by a hazard ratio) are provided.||1.27|0.72|
84632906|NCT02230670|169004436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0817||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.023|-0.302|0.091
84504543|NCT00549198|168760114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0266
84632907|NCT02230670|169004436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology. The significance was assessed using Type II Sums of Squares from this ANCOVA model.||0.01|-0.41|0.041
84632908|NCT02230670|169004437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.42|-0.91|0.466
84632909|NCT02230670|169004437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.77|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by BL MELD category interaction term.||BL MELD \>= 15 subgroup results (N=19), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.77|-3.61|0.003
84632910|NCT02230670|169004437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by etiology interaction term.||NASH Etiology subgroup results (N=20), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.17|-3.09|0.029
84632911|NCT01524796|169004438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84632912|NCT01524796|169004439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84632913|NCT01524796|169004440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84632914|NCT01646125|169004470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.63||||||||1.63|0.35|
84632915|NCT00904033|169004484|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|Main Effects Results only for No Exercise vs Exercise||||||0.86
84632916|NCT00904033|169004485|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
84632917|NCT00904033|169004486|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84632918|NCT00904033|169004487|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84632919|NCT00904033|169004488|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84632920|NCT00904033|169004489|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84632921|NCT00904033|169004490|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84632922|NCT00904033|169004491|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84632923|NCT00865566|169004494|OTHER|Score test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.63|<0.001
84632924|NCT00865566|169004495|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox PH model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||1|0.59|0.05
84632925|NCT00865566|169004496|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.60|<0.001
84632926|NCT00865566|169004497|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||Score test|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, race, and BMI|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.42|0.73|0.903
84632927|NCT00865566|169004498|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||Adjusted for ave, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, and BMI|Regression, Cox|Score test|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.58|0.71|0.783
84632928|NCT00602472|169004502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.50|-0.73|<0.0001
84632929|NCT00602472|169004503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.41|-0.56|<0.0001
84632930|NCT00602472|169004504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.58|-0.78|<0.0001
84632931|NCT00602472|169004505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.59|-0.80|<0.0001
84632932|NCT00602472|169004506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-18.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-18.1|<0.0001
84632933|NCT00602472|169004507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.2|-22.4|<0.0001
84632934|NCT00602472|169004508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.3|-11.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.1|-20.3|<0.0001
84632935|NCT00602472|169004509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.2|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
84632936|NCT00602472|169004510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.332|9.111|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||9.111|3.332|<0.0001
84632937|NCT00602472|169004512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.989|7.327|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||7.327|1.989|<0.0001
84632938|NCT00602472|169004514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.474|4.562|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||4.562|2.474|<0.0001
84644928|NCT03274999|169025170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.233
84644929|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.072
84644930|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.297
84632939|NCT00956007|169004554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08||One-sided significance level = 0.0183|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|This trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 with 80% statistical power and overall one-sided alpha of 0.025 (372 deaths) using a stratified log-rank test, assuming a control arm 3-year survival rate of 60.1%. The amended protocol based on ≥ 5 years potential follow-up projected 169 events, providing 55%, 66%, and 79% power to detect HRs of 0.71, 0.68, and 0.64, respectively, using the original one-sided alpha of 0.0183 the final analysis.||1.08|0.60|0.0747
84632940|NCT00956007|169004555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.0075
84632941|NCT00956007|169004555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2955|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2955
84632942|NCT00956007|169004555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.0001
84632943|NCT00956007|169004555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rach acneiform||||<0.0001
84504544|NCT01473758|168760115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.731|7.538||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||7.538|-4.731|0.6491
84632944|NCT00956007|169004556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84632945|NCT00956007|169004557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.1641
84632946|NCT00956007|169004557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2623|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2623
84632947|NCT00956007|169004557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5378|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.5378
84632948|NCT00956007|169004557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash acneiform||||0.0570
84632949|NCT00956007|169004558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1575|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1575
84632950|NCT00956007|169004559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|||0.98|0.57|0.0168
84632951|NCT01750229|169004565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables included in the Mixed Model were: baseline VAS back pain score, treatment group, and period.||||||0.002
84632952|NCT05571605|169004575|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84632953|NCT01285323|169004603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2819|0.5855||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5855|0.2819|<0.0001
84632954|NCT01285323|169004604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0397||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.179||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.179|0.023|0.0109
84632955|NCT01285323|169004605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0317||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.155||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active-placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.155|0.030|0.0037
84632956|NCT01285323|169004606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.937||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.393||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.393|0.025|0.0259
84644931|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
84644932|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.447
84644933|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
84644934|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
84644935|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
84644936|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
84632957|NCT01285323|169004607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.066||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||-0.066|-0.327|0.0032
84675130|NCT02002767|169085565|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean(GLSM) Ratio|149.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.62|190.49||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||190.49|116.62|
84632958|NCT01285323|169004608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.670|0.353|<0.0001
84632959|NCT01285323|169004609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.059||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.059|0.011|0.0037
84632960|NCT01285323|169004610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1775||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.287||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.287|-0.411|0.7263
84632961|NCT01285323|169004613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.3893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2621|0.5782||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5782|0.2621|<0.0001
84632962|NCT01285323|169004613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio|0.6686||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2878|1.6479||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.6479|0.2878|0.4020
84632963|NCT02158546|169004620|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.1|0.782
84632964|NCT00885170|169004652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|The primary hypothesis of the study was met if; in postmenopausal women previously treated with alendronate with low BMD, two years of treatment with odanacatib 50 mg significantly increased BMD at the femoral neck site compared to placebo (p-value \< 0.001).||4.17|1.17|<0.001
84632965|NCT00885170|169004653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.0|-16.9|
84632966|NCT00885170|169004654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentage vs. Placebo|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||12.6|-0.4|
84632967|NCT00885170|169004655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.14|-0.37|0.166
84632968|NCT00885170|169004656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|5.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||5.17|1.19|0.002
84632969|NCT00885170|169004657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.35|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.35|-0.34|0.142
84675131|NCT02002767|169085566|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|149.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.97|192.11||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||192.11|116.97|
84632970|NCT00885170|169004658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.0|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||4.00|1.41|<0.001
84632971|NCT00885170|169004659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.98|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.98|0.15|0.023
84632972|NCT00885170|169004660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.89|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||3.89|1.26|<0.001
84632973|NCT00885170|169004661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.77|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.77|-0.16|0.103
84632974|NCT00885170|169004662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.22||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.67|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.67|-1.23|0.763
84632975|NCT00885170|169004663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.38||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.72|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.72|-0.96|0.578
84632976|NCT00885170|169004664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|39.72|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||39.72|-19.39|0.500
84632977|NCT00885170|169004665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.82||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.29|24.65|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||24.65|-36.29|0.709
84632978|NCT00885170|169004666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-47.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-31.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.67|-62.40|<0.001
84632979|NCT00885170|169004667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-31.15|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.15|-61.43|<0.001
84632980|NCT00885170|169004668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.96||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|27.22|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||27.22|-5.29|0.186
84632981|NCT00885170|169004669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|12.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|23.1|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||23.10|2.54|0.015
84632982|NCT00885170|169004670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|31.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|55.21|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||55.21|7.13|0.011
84632983|NCT00885170|169004671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|24.01||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|48.94|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||48.94|-0.93|0.059
84632984|NCT00885170|169004672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.16|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||1.16|-0.95|0.846
84632985|NCT00885170|169004673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.38||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||4.67|-1.91|0.413
84632986|NCT00885170|169004674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.91||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|5.85|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||5.85|-17.66|0.326
84632987|NCT00885170|169004675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.47||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|15.32|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||15.32|-12.37|0.835
84675132|NCT02002767|169085567|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.76|135.38||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||135.38|90.76|
84675133|NCT00086580|169085579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.795|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.795|0.467|<0.001
84675134|NCT00086580|169085580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in overall response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of Overall Response.||0.15|-0.03|0.178
84675135|NCT00086580|169085580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in complete response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of complete response (CR).||0.15|0.02|0.018
84675136|NCT00086580|169085581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.648||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.937||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.937|0.449|0.042
84632988|NCT00885170|169004676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-3.13||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|3.78|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||3.78|-10.04|0.376
84504545|NCT01473758|168760116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.766|4.943||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||4.943|-5.766|0.8786
84675137|NCT00086580|169085582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.752|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.752|0.420|<0.001
84675138|NCT00086580|169085584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.718||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.951|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.951|0.543|0.021
84632989|NCT03771664|169004677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7||Average change from baseline in SE was analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with explanatory (treatment, baseline antidepressant use, baseline SE) and response variables \[change from baseline in sleep efficiency at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||7.7|-1.2|0.1537
84675139|NCT00086580|169085592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.059|||Regression, Cox|||||1.059|0.531|0.102
84675140|NCT00086580|169085593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.671|||Regression, Cox|||||0.671|0.292|<0.001
84675141|NCT00086580|169085594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.066||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.836|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||1.836|0.619|0.819
84675142|NCT00086580|169085595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||0.690|0.250|<0.001
84675143|NCT00086580|169085598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.08|0.01|0.014
84675144|NCT03296163|169085599|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis was based on the risk ratio (RR) (MB02/EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[0.73, 1.36\].~The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the RR and corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI)."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.06|||||Direction of comparison is: For RR: MB02/EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (0.758, 1.092)|||1.060|0.780|
84675145|NCT03296163|169085599|EQUIVALENCE|The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference (RD) (MB02-EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[-12%, 12%\] and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.51|2.47|||||Direction of comparison is: For RD: MB02 - EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (-11.76, 3.71)|||2.47|-10.51|
84675146|NCT03296163|169085600|OTHER|Hazard ratio of MB02 versus EU-approved Avastin; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in MB02; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in EU-approved Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||||1.44|0.98|
84675147|NCT03296163|169085601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.485||||||||1.485|0.827|
84675148|NCT00673452|169085606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: PGI-S = baseline PGI-S + treatment + pooled investigator + visit + treatment-by-visit + baseline-by-visit.||Patients treated with 60-120 mg duloxetine for 12 weeks compared with placebo will show greater improvement in symptoms as assessed by Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I). Sample size determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and discontinuation rate of 5% without postbaseline data. With 261 patients per arm, study has approximately 85% power to detect treatment group difference of -0.4 points (standard deviation of 1.5) in PGI-I between treatment groups.||||<0.001
84675149|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.31||P-value for Worst Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.19|<0.001
84504546|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.424|0.821|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.821|0.424|<0.0001
84675150|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24||P-value for Least Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.24|-0.99|0.001
84504547|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|1.21||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.362|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.362|1.050|0.0363
84632990|NCT03771664|169004678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|3.1||Change from BL in overall WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (BL) in overall WASO||3.1|-29.0|0.1126
84632991|NCT03771664|169004678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 1||3.2|-3.3|0.9819
84632992|NCT03771664|169004678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.1||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 2||2.1|-10.6|0.1838
84632993|NCT03771664|169004678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.9||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 3||0.9|-15.0|0.0797
84632994|NCT03771664|169004678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.4||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 4||2.4|-14.5|0.1559
84632995|NCT03771664|169004679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|37.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in overall TST||37.0|-5.5|0.1441
84632996|NCT03771664|169004679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.6||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 1||15.6|-6.2|0.3951
84632997|NCT03771664|169004679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BLPSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 2||12.0|-4.5|0.3705
84632998|NCT03771664|169004679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 3||14.0|-2.0|0.1412
84632999|NCT03771664|169004679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 4||15.0|-2.0|0.1298
84633000|NCT03771664|169004680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|13.2||Change from BL in LPS was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-18.2|0.7526
84675151|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.35||P-value for Average Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.35|-1.13|<0.001
84504548|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|13.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.096|17.994|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||17.994|10.096|<0.0001
84633001|NCT03771664|169004681|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||Change from BL in NAW was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.0|0.6769
84633002|NCT03771664|169004682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in mean duration of awakenings (MDA) in total||0.4|-6.4|0.0824
84633003|NCT03771664|169004682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 1||1.3|-3.0|0.4269
84633004|NCT03771664|169004682|SUPERIORITY|Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 2||2.5|-9.5|0.2482
84633005|NCT03771664|169004682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.2||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 3||3.2|-10.1|0.3076
84633006|NCT03771664|169004682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 4||0.8|-1.9|0.4491
84633007|NCT03771664|169004683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.3||Change from BL in DS N1 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of stage (DS) N1 sleep||5.3|-4.5|0.8724
84633008|NCT03771664|169004683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.7||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep||34.7|2.5|0.0238
84633009|NCT03771664|169004683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.1||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep||16.1|-6.3|0.3863
84633010|NCT03771664|169004683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.9||Change from BL in REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14(EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of REM sleep||-0.9|-19.6|0.0320
84633011|NCT03771664|169004684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Change from BL in PS N1 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score;Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage of stage (PS) N1 sleep time||1.6|-1.7|0.9524
84633012|NCT03771664|169004684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.7||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time||5.7|-0.5|0.0930
84633013|NCT03771664|169004684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time||4.2|-1.9|0.4427
84633014|NCT03771664|169004684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.7||Change from BL in % of REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage (%) of REM sleep time||-1.7|-5.9|0.0006
84633015|NCT03771664|169004685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.42||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|58.4||Change from BL in latency to first REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the first REM period||58.4|8.9|0.0083
84633016|NCT03771664|169004685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|65.0||Change from BL in latency to second REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the second REM period||65.0|21.3|0.0002
84633017|NCT03771664|169004685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|60.2||Change from BL in latency to third REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the third REM period||60.2|16.2|0.0009
84633018|NCT03771664|169004685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|56.3||Change from BL in latency to fourth REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the fourth REM period||56.3|-4.3|0.0899
84633019|NCT03771664|169004686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-171.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.9|-79.4||Change from BL in REM density was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-79.4|-262.9|0.0004
84504549|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.728|1.963|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.963|1.728|<0.0001
84675152|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.31||P-value for Pain Right Now Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.20|<0.001
84675153|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||P-value for General Activity Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.39|<0.001
84675154|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||P-value for Mood Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
84675155|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||P-value for Walking Ability Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.36|-1.24|<0.001
84675156|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value for Normal Work Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
84675157|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.52||P-value for Relations with Other People Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.38|<0.001
84633020|NCT03771664|169004687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-288.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.1|-151.0||Change from BL in REMA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-151.0|-425.1|<0.0001
84633021|NCT03771664|169004689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|39.5||Change from BL in sTST was analyzed by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sTST||39.5|-18.8|0.4814
84633022|NCT03771664|169004689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|2.0||Change from BL in sWASO was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sWASO||2.0|-23.7|0.0964
84633023|NCT03771664|169004689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|21.2||Change from BL in sSL was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sSL||21.2|-7.9|0.3672
84633024|NCT03418714|169004702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in network activity across all networks, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.006
84633025|NCT03418714|169004703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in within- and between-network connectivity across all values, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.001
84633026|NCT01208207|169004704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (90 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the least squares (LS) mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.47|
84633027|NCT01208207|169004705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (60 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the LS mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.37|||ANCOVA|||||5.37|-2.19|
84633028|NCT01208207|169004706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.58||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.96|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-3.96|0.396
84675158|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value for Sleep Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
84675159|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.86||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.86|-1.92|<0.001
84675160|NCT00673452|169085607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.52||P-value for Average Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.33|<0.001
84504550|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|0.87||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|0.96|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.960|0.789|0.0201
84633029|NCT01208207|169004707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.7||||0.112||80.0|-4.88|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-4.88|0.112
84633030|NCT02900378|169004731|OTHER||Differences of least square means|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|15.29||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS)||15.29|-3.93|0.2464
84633031|NCT02900378|169004731|OTHER||Differences of least square means|8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|19.27||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without AE/SAE)||19.27|-1.31|0.0503
84633032|NCT02900378|169004732|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.7|13.41||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with MI)||13.41|-25.70|0.4769
84633033|NCT02900378|169004732|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|6.14||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with LOCF)||6.14|-17.48|0.3463
84633034|NCT02900378|169004732|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|6.91||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without MI/LOCF)||6.91|-19.39|0.3513
84633035|NCT02900378|169004733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.708||||||FAS population||1.708|0.882|
84633036|NCT02900378|169004734|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.748||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.748|0.895|
84633037|NCT02900378|169004735|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.464||||||FAS population||2.464|0.634|
84633038|NCT02900378|169004736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.544||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||2.544|0.644|
84633039|NCT02900378|169004737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.811||||||FAS population||1.811|0.863|
84633040|NCT02900378|169004738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.834||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.834|0.865|
84633041|NCT02900378|169004739|OTHER|||||||0.1814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS)||||0.1814
84633042|NCT02900378|169004739|OTHER|||||||0.3315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.3315
84633043|NCT02900378|169004739|OTHER|||||||0.2414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS)||||0.2414
84633044|NCT02900378|169004739|OTHER|||||||0.1793|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.1793
84633045|NCT02900378|169004740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|1.457||||||Increased levels (\>= 10% increase) of non sedentary daytime physical activity at Week 12||1.457|0.462|
84633046|NCT02900378|169004741|OTHER|||||||0.0516|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0516
84633047|NCT02900378|169004741|OTHER|||||||0.9025|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.9025
84633048|NCT02900378|169004741|OTHER|||||||0.6713|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.6713
84633049|NCT02900378|169004742|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0029
84633050|NCT02900378|169004742|OTHER|||||||0.7754|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.7754
84633051|NCT02900378|169004742|OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.2172
84633052|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0008
84633053|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0008
84633054|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0297
84633055|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0069
84633056|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.2275
84633057|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.3486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.3486
84633058|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.6800
84633059|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.7184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.7184
84633060|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.5301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5301
84633061|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.6019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.6019
84633062|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8229
84633063|NCT02900378|169004743|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.8229
84633064|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0001
84633065|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0123
84633066|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.2560
84633067|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.5865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.5865
84633068|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.5463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.5463
84633069|NCT02900378|169004744|OTHER|||||||0.3212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.3212
84633070|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0004
84633071|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0009
84633072|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0094
84633073|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.0301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0301
84633074|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.1557
84633075|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.6461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6461
84504551|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.253|7.217|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||7.217|5.253|<0.0001
84504552|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|0.958|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.958|0.661|<0.0001
84504553|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|1.12||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.245|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||1.245|0.990|0.1278
84504554|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|9.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.834|13.012|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||13.012|6.834|<0.0001
84504555|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|2.106|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||2.106|1.860|<0.0001
84633076|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.9759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.9759
84633077|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.3941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3941
84633078|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.7209
84633079|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.4444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4444
84633080|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.7247
84504556|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Slope|0.79||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.912|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.912|0.670|0.0082
84504557|NCT04229303|168760194|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|5.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.627|7.421|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||7.421|4.627|<0.0001
84504558|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.308|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||0.308|-0.060|0.2575
84504559|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Slope|1.17||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.316|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||1.316|1.030|0.0491
84633081|NCT02900378|169004745|OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.2933
84633082|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.0854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0854
84633083|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0528
84633084|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.4137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.4137
84633085|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0082
84633086|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.7908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.7908
84633087|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6499
84633088|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.5547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.5547
84633089|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.6961
84633090|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.5946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5946
84633091|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.8957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.8957
84633092|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.8468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8468
84633093|NCT02900378|169004746|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1711
84633094|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0065
84633095|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0316
84633096|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.1342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.1342
84633097|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0252
84633098|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.9024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.9024
84633099|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.9052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.9052
84633100|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2870
84633101|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.3174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3174
84633102|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5020
84504560|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|11.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.435|14.803|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||14.803|8.435|<0.0001
84504561|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Slope|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.363|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||1.363|1.135|<0.0001
84504562|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.634|0.843|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||0.843|0.634|0.0003
84504563|NCT04229303|168760195|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.946|6.254|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||6.254|3.946|<0.0001
84504564|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|2.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.528|2.617|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.617|1.528|0.0004
84504565|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.612|6.187|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.187|3.612|<0.0001
84504566|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|2.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.017|3.925|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t day 10||3.925|2.017|<0.0001
84504567|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.783|7.361|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||7.361|3.783|<0.0001
84504568|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.396|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.396|1.615|<0.0001
84504569|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.178|6.196|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.196|4.178|<0.0001
84504570|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|2.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.791|3.349|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||3.349|1.791|0.0002
84504571|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.365|6.294|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||6.294|3.365|<0.0001
84504572|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.524|2.602|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.602|1.524|0.0005
84633103|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.4037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4037
84633104|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.4823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4823
84633105|NCT02900378|169004747|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1090
84633106|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0061
84633107|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.0143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0143
84633108|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.0708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0708
84633109|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0750
84633110|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.8017
84633111|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.7956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.7956
84633112|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.3499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.3499
84633113|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.1192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.1192
84633114|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.5237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5237
84633115|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.3902
84633116|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.4228|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4228
84633117|NCT02900378|169004748|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1571
84633118|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.3231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.3231
84633119|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.3519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.3519
84633120|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.8335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.8335
84633121|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0465
84633122|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.5016
84633123|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.5941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.5941
84633124|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.2019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2019
84633125|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.4125
84633126|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.5702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5702
84633127|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.4752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4752
84633128|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.5343
84633129|NCT02900378|169004749|OTHER|||||||0.0985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.0985
84633130|NCT02900378|169004750|OTHER|||||||0.4525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.4525
84633131|NCT02900378|169004750|OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0445
84633132|NCT02900378|169004750|OTHER|||||||0.1158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.1158
84633133|NCT02900378|169004750|OTHER|||||||0.3901|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3901
84633134|NCT02900378|169004750|OTHER|||||||0.7725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.7725
84633135|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.1974
84633136|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
84633137|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
84633138|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
84633139|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7418||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.7418
84633140|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2429||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.2429
84633141|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
84633142|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
84633143|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
84633144|NCT01134055|169004765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7673||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.7673
84633145|NCT03060096|169004782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84633146|NCT03060096|169004783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84633147|NCT03060096|169004784|OTHER||Rate|0.764|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.6783||||||||||0.6783|
84633148|NCT02504151|169004828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models was used with treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction in the model.|This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||1.71|-2.28|0.08
84633149|NCT02504151|169004829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||0.07|-0.12|0.48
84633150|NCT02504151|169004830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||-0.06|-9.87|0.485
84633151|NCT02504151|169004831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||8.19|0.07|0.994
84633152|NCT05038982|169004832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.09|118.48||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||118.48|38.09|<0.001
84633153|NCT05038982|169004832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.12||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|98.76||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||98.76|8.55|0.0142
84633154|NCT05038982|169004834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.5||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||12.5|6.3|0.002
84633155|NCT05038982|169004834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||10.6|1.6|0.0215
84633156|NCT05038982|169004835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|14.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||14.3|5.9|0.002
84633157|NCT05038982|169004835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.6|0.77|0.02
84633158|NCT05038982|169004836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.18|2.70|0.0078
84633159|NCT05038982|169004837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|19.89||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||19.89|5.57|0.0098
84633160|NCT05038982|169004837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||16.66|3.10|0.0117
84675161|NCT00673452|169085608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.25||P-value for General Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.41|0.005
84633161|NCT05038982|169004838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|15.94||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||15.94|4.46|0.002
84633162|NCT05038982|169004839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||1.63|0.57|0.0078
84633163|NCT05038982|169004840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.27||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.27|0.025|0.0391
84633164|NCT05038982|169004840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.31|-.080|0.28
84633165|NCT05038982|169004841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|7.235||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.235|0.035|0.0684
84633166|NCT05038982|169004841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.656|1.456||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||||1.456|-3.656|0.375
84633167|NCT05038982|169004842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.04||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||2.04|-3.44|0.207
84633168|NCT05038982|169004842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.389|3.389||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||3.389|-3.389|0.8125
84633169|NCT05038982|169004843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|7.08||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.08|2.52|0.0039
84504573|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.505|5.984|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.984|3.505|<0.0001
84633170|NCT05038982|169004843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0376|4.638||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||4.638|-0.0376|0.0547
84675162|NCT00673452|169085608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.15||P-value for Physical Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-1.30|0.013
84675163|NCT00673452|169085608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.32||P-value for Mental Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.52|0.003
84633171|NCT05038982|169004844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|11.07||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||11.07|6.93|0.0003
84633172|NCT05038982|169004845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.011|8.846||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.846|4.011|<0.0001
84633173|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33||Threshold of significance set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNA sequencing (RNASeq) performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
84633174|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.18|-0.56|0.0003
84633175|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.039||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||0.039|-0.47|0.0952
84633176|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||Threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.13|-0.64|0.004
84633177|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.053||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 0.||-0.053|-0.81|0.0277
84633178|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.049||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 12.||0.049|-0.85|0.077
84675164|NCT00673452|169085608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.26||P-value for Reduced Activity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.26|-1.49|0.005
84633179|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.024||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.024|-0.64|0.0363
84633180|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.062||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.062|-0.63|0.10
84633181|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.27|-0.89|0.0009
84633182|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.20|-0.77|0.2326
84633183|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.18|-0.85|0.0047
84675165|NCT00673452|169085608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.38||P-value for Reduced Motivation. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.38|-1.49|<0.001
84633184|NCT05038982|169004847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0076||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.0076|-0.83|0.0539
84633185|NCT00472576|169004849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|3.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean differences reflect groups differences at end point.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||3.671|0.911|.001
84633186|NCT00472576|169004850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.981|2.901||This test is a comparison of the MK-0657 condition to the placebo condition.|Mixed Models Analysis||The primary outcome of interest is whether the groups differ at the end of the study, so the means represent values at that point in time.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||2.901|-6.981|.272
84633187|NCT02148874|169004870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1.||1.73|0.64|0.84
84633188|NCT02148874|169004870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.75|0.65|0.79
84633189|NCT02148874|169004870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.24|0.71|0.43
84633190|NCT02148874|169004870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.87|0.63|0.77
84633191|NCT02148874|169004871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||2.32|0.84|0.20
84633192|NCT02148874|169004871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.80|0.66|0.74
84633193|NCT02148874|169004871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||3.44|1.04|0.04
84633194|NCT02148874|169004871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||3.04|0.87|0.13
84675166|NCT00673452|169085609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.53||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BDI-II Total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BDI-II total score + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.53|-3.25|0.007
84633195|NCT02148874|169004872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||1.48|0.53|0.64
84633196|NCT02148874|169004872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.50|0.53|0.67
84633197|NCT02148874|169004872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.46|0.88|0.14
84633198|NCT02148874|169004872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.24|0.44|0.25
84504574|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|2.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.851|3.781|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.781|1.851|0.0003
84504575|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.587|7.088|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||7.088|3.587|<0.0001
84633199|NCT03739203|169004873|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.37||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||1.37|-2.10|0.6798
84633200|NCT03739203|169004873|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.38||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.38|-3.11|0.1245
84633201|NCT03739203|169004874|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.15|-0.29|0.5152
84633202|NCT03739203|169004874|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.01||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.01|-0.43|0.0573
84633203|NCT01782378|169004875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.01
84633204|NCT01782378|169004876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.88
84633205|NCT01782378|169004877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.81
84633206|NCT01782378|169004878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||0.23
84633207|NCT01782378|169004879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.12
84633208|NCT01782378|169004880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.52
84633209|NCT01782378|169004881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.27
84633210|NCT01782378|169004882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.37
84633211|NCT01782378|169004883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
84675167|NCT00673452|169085610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: CGI-S score change from baseline at endpoint = CGI-S score baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.16|-0.51|<0.001
84633212|NCT01782378|169004884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.46
84633213|NCT01782378|169004885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.84
84504576|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|2.384|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.384|1.569|<0.0001
84504577|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.608|5.759|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.759|3.608|<0.0001
84504578|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|2.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|3.402|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.402|1.694|0.0007
84633214|NCT01782378|169004886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.93
84633215|NCT01782378|169004887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
84633216|NCT01782378|169004888|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54|<|0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results that were considered credible.||||||<0.26
84633217|NCT01782378|169004889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.45
84633218|NCT01782378|169004890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.46
84633219|NCT01782378|169004891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.64
84633220|NCT01782378|169004892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.82
84633221|NCT01782378|169004893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.43
84633222|NCT01782378|169004894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.15
84633223|NCT01782378|169004895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||.08
84633224|NCT01782378|169004896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.7
84504579|NCT04229303|168760202|OTHER||Slope|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.975|5.974|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||5.974|2.975|<0.0001
84675168|NCT00673452|169085611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.27||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BAI total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BAI total + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.27|-1.13|0.907
84761919|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.86|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||High versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.86|0.53|0.99
84504580|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|2.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.562|2.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.650|1.562|0.0003
84504581|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.74|6.345|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||6.345|3.740|<0.0001
84504582|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.081|3.429|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||3.429|2.081|<0.0001
84504583|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|5.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.647|7.658|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||7.658|4.647|<0.0001
84504584|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.688|2.406|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.406|1.688|<0.0001
84504585|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.964|5.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||5.650|3.964|<0.0001
84504586|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.655|2.711|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||2.711|1.655|<0.0001
84504587|NCT04229303|168760203|OTHER||Slope|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.135|5.135|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax day 10||5.135|3.135|<0.0001
84504588|NCT04229303|168760224|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.146||||||Part 3 - ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND)||0.146|0.107|
84504589|NCT04229303|168760224|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.545|2.853||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||2.853|1.545|
84504590|NCT04229303|168760224|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
84633225|NCT01782378|169004897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.48
84633226|NCT01782378|169004898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.02
84633227|NCT01782378|169004899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
84504591|NCT04229303|168760224|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
84504592|NCT04229303|168760225|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.075||||||Part 3 ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND®)||0.075|0.059|
84504593|NCT04229303|168760225|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.891||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||1.891|0.850|
84504594|NCT04229303|168760225|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
84504595|NCT04229303|168760225|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
84675169|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.22||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.67||P-value for Bodily Pain. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.67|1.76|0.003
84504596|NCT01165684|168760226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (step-wise regimen minus basal-bolus regimen).|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.14||||0.088||95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-0.02|0.088
84504597|NCT01165684|168760227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.55|||<|0.001||95.0|0.42|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|0.42|<0.001
84504598|NCT01165684|168760228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
84504599|NCT01165684|168760229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.39|4.12|<0.001
84504600|NCT01165684|168760230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.56|<0.001
84504601|NCT01165684|168760231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.146||95.0|0.9|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.90|0.146
84504602|NCT01165684|168760234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean|0.12||||0.635||95.0|-0.37|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.60|-0.37|0.635
84504603|NCT01165684|168760237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|0.36||||0.046||95.0|0.01|0.71|||Regression, Linear|||||0.71|0.01|0.046
84504604|NCT01165684|168760238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.48||||0.228||95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
84504605|NCT01165684|168760239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.17||||0.224||95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-0.45|0.224
84504606|NCT04549259|168760241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.33
84504607|NCT04549259|168760241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.63
84633228|NCT01782378|169004900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.82
84633229|NCT01782378|169004901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.2
84633230|NCT01782378|169004902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.71
84633231|NCT01782378|169004903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
84633232|NCT01782378|169004904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.44
84633233|NCT02592798|169004908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|33.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||33.3|-46.8|
84633234|NCT02592798|169004908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|24.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||24.3|-63.3|
84633235|NCT02592798|169004909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6495|2.3855|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||2.3855|-1.6495|
84633236|NCT02592798|169004909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7933|5.6954|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||5.6954|-1.7933|
84633237|NCT02592798|169004910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1483|0.4119|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||0.4119|-0.1483|
84633238|NCT02592798|169004910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5107|0.7551|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||0.7551|-0.5107|
84633239|NCT02592798|169004911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|44.7|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||44.7|-44.7|
84633240|NCT02592798|169004912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1395|6.7645|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||6.7645|-8.1395|
84675170|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|9.43||P-value for General Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||9.43|3.41|<0.001
84633241|NCT02592798|169004912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9402|6.5402|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||6.5402|-13.9402|
84633242|NCT02592798|169004912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5736|4.5736|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Physical function|||4.5736|-6.5736|
84633243|NCT02592798|169004913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.595|29.485|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||29.4850|-4.5950|
84633244|NCT02592798|169004913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5917|16.8717|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||16.8717|-2.5917|
84633245|NCT02592798|169004913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1068|10.3468|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Mobility|||10.3468|-12.1068|
84633246|NCT00705016|169004922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log Hazard ratio (HR), if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||1.59|0.67|0.885
84633247|NCT00705016|169004922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.43||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log HR, if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||2.43|0.99|0.054
84633248|NCT00705016|169004923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.47|0.61|0.800
84633249|NCT00705016|169004923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.63|0.66|0.878
84633250|NCT00705016|169004924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.595||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.276||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.276|0.776|0.205
84633251|NCT00705016|169004924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.671||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|1.465||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.465|0.307|0.317
84633252|NCT00705016|169004925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|3.539||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.539|0.551|0.476
84633253|NCT00705016|169004925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.668||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.555||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.555|0.287|0.347
84633254|NCT00705016|169004926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.81||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.81|0.84|0.294
84633255|NCT00705016|169004926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.57||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.57|1.16|0.007
84633256|NCT00705016|169004927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.39||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.39|0.71|0.391
84633257|NCT00705016|169004927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.21||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||5.21|1.30|0.007
84633258|NCT02233517|169004929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.84
84633259|NCT02233517|169004929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||<0.44
84633260|NCT02233517|169004929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.33
84633261|NCT02233517|169004930|SUPERIORITY|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on DAR scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.26
84633262|NCT02233517|169004931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.90
84633263|NCT02233517|169004931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.85
84675171|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.47||P-value for Mental Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.47|4.41|<0.001
84633264|NCT02233517|169004931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.79
84633265|NCT02233517|169004932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Extent of Participation scale.||-.002|-4.5|0.05
84633266|NCT02233517|169004932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Perceived Limitations scale.||1.08|-2.03|0.53
84633267|NCT02233517|169004932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Satisfaction scale.||1.14|-2.30|0.50
84633268|NCT02233517|169004933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation parameter of 0.28 indicates that at each of the 16 time points, participants in the CBT arm had 0.28 point less of a decrease in disability than those in PCT arm.|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).||||<0.0001
84633269|NCT02233517|169004934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.59
84633270|NCT02233517|169004934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.61
84633271|NCT02233517|169004934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.74
84633272|NCT02233517|169004935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.25
84633273|NCT02233517|169004935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.97
84633274|NCT02233517|169004935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.69
84633275|NCT02233517|169004936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.29
84633276|NCT02233517|169004936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.44
84633277|NCT02233517|169004936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.11
84633278|NCT02233517|169004937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in PTSD in PCT).|Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on PCL Total scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.16
84633279|NCT02233517|169004938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
84633280|NCT02233517|169004938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.55
84761920|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, pooled moderate versus low dose||1.43|0.27|0.26
84633281|NCT02233517|169004938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.87
84633282|NCT02233517|169004939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment.|||||0.49
84633283|NCT02233517|169004939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.70
84633284|NCT02233517|169004939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
84633285|NCT00942604|169004940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84633286|NCT00942604|169004941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84633287|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||6.6|-6.4|0.978
84633288|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.5|-15.4|0.005
84633289|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-8.4|-19.8|0.000
84633290|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-1.9|-13.0|0.030
84633291|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||11.9|-4.9|0.484
84633292|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||0.9|-9.3|0.169
84633293|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-2.6|-14.9|0.023
84633294|NCT01656408|169004949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||5.5|-10.4|0.605
84633295|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||8.7|-4.9|0.635
84633296|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.4|-10.1|0.077
84633297|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.7|-15.0|0.001
84633298|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.9|-8.0|0.556
84633299|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||2.5|-5.5|0.527
84633300|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||1.4|-8.1|0.234
84633301|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-4.1|-12.7|0.002
84633302|NCT01656408|169004950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.5|-4.2|0.726
84633303|NCT01656408|169004951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||7.3|-9.0|0.855
84633304|NCT01656408|169004951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||18.1|-10.8|0.658
84633305|NCT01656408|169004951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||18.9|-6.3|0.392
84633306|NCT01656408|169004952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-6.0|0.563
84633307|NCT01656408|169004952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||2.5|-0.8|0.381
84540203|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.35|-1.22|0.5983
84633308|NCT01656408|169004952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||5.2|-1.7|0.387
84633309|NCT01656408|169004953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||12.8|-3.9|0.357
84633310|NCT01656408|169004953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||15.9|-1.2|0.150
84633311|NCT01656408|169004953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||12.3|-6.3|0.578
84633312|NCT01656408|169004954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||5.5|-5.1|0.942
84633313|NCT01656408|169004954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||8.5|-4.8|0.627
84633314|NCT01656408|169004954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.6|0.9|0.046
84633315|NCT01656408|169004955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.6|-18.0|0.025
84633316|NCT01656408|169004955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-1.1|-11.0|0.055
84633317|NCT01656408|169004956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.4|-4.4|0.999
84633318|NCT01656408|169004956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||5.2|-5.7|0.934
84633319|NCT01656408|169004956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.9|-3.7|0.547
84633320|NCT01656408|169004956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.5|-5.2|0.906
84633321|NCT01656408|169004956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||6.6|-4.0|0.682
84633322|NCT01656408|169004957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||0.0|-11.1|0.099
84633323|NCT01656408|169004957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.7|-10.1|0.034
84633324|NCT01656408|169004958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||1.6|-6.5|0.281
84633325|NCT01656408|169004958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||4.0|-1.2|0.333
84633326|NCT01656408|169004959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.1|-9.7|0.279
84633327|NCT01656408|169004959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||5.2|-6.9|0.817
84633328|NCT01656408|169004960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.7|-3.2|0.756
84761921|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, moderate versus low dose||1.04|0.13|0.06
84761922|NCT04868903|169280797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.71|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, high versus low dose||6.71|0.41|0.47
84633329|NCT01656408|169004960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.6|-0.7|0.158
84633330|NCT01656408|169004960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-2.4|0.404
84633331|NCT01656408|169004960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||7.1|-1.0|0.214
84633332|NCT01656408|169004960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||10.0|0.2|0.086
84633333|NCT01656408|169004961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.9|-16.8|0.003
84633334|NCT01656408|169004961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.1|-12.3|0.105
84633335|NCT01656408|169004962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.6|-7.5|0.691
84633336|NCT01656408|169004962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.8|-4.3|0.570
84633337|NCT01656408|169004962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-4.2|0.666
84633338|NCT01656408|169004962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.9|-10.9|0.534
84633339|NCT01656408|169004962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||9.2|-4.1|0.528
84633340|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-3.8|0.848
84633341|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.0|-8.0|<0.0001
84633342|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.4|-14.4|0.025
84633343|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.8|-7.0|0.044
84633344|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.6|-0.4|0.139
84633345|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-0.2|-8.9|0.088
84633346|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.6|-9.3|0.023
84633347|NCT01656408|169004987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||3.8|-4.5|0.878
84633348|NCT01656408|169004988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.7|-3.4|0.512
84633349|NCT01656408|169004988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.7|-7.5|0.429
84633350|NCT01656408|169004988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.8|-9.3|0.166
84633351|NCT01656408|169004988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.5|-8.6|0.591
84633352|NCT01656408|169004989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.5|-2.5|0.248
84633353|NCT01656408|169004989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.4|-5.6|0.836
84761923|NCT03150173|169280807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
84761924|NCT03150173|169280808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
84761925|NCT03150173|169280809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|6.018|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline self-report of injection-related HIV risk behaviors in the past 30 days||||6.018|0.347|0.6132
84761926|NCT03150173|169280810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
84540204|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|2.86||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.86|-0.77|0.3396
84633354|NCT01656408|169004989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.1|-10.7|0.109
84633355|NCT01656408|169004989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.5|-5.4|0.785
84633356|NCT01656408|169004990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.3|-2.5|0.365
84633357|NCT01656408|169004990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.6|-7.4|0.424
84633358|NCT01656408|169004990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.2|-13.3|0.025
84633359|NCT01656408|169004990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.0|-7.5|0.475
84633360|NCT01656408|169004991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.8|-7.4|0.715
84633361|NCT01656408|169004991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||3.4|-11.9|0.338
84633362|NCT01656408|169004991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||2.3|-10.0|0.281
84633363|NCT01656408|169004992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.9|-2.1|0.317
84633364|NCT01656408|169004993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.2|0.2|0.090
84633365|NCT01656408|169004994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.8|-0.3|0.128
84633366|NCT01656408|169004995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.3|-7.9|0.477
84633367|NCT01656408|169004995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||-0.2|-11.0|0.090
84633368|NCT01656408|169004995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||-2.2|-13.0|0.028
84633369|NCT01656408|169004996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.1|-4.9|0.877
84761927|NCT03150173|169280811|SUPERIORITY||probability of cost effectiveness|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Data generated from the bootstrapping process were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which effectively measure the uncertainty around the ICER point estimate.|||
84633370|NCT01656408|169004997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.2|-9.3|0.827
84633371|NCT01656408|169004998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.0|-11.4|0.161
84633372|NCT01656408|169004999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.3|-18.8|0.046
84633373|NCT01656408|169004999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-8.6|-17.2|0.001
84633374|NCT01656408|169005000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.2|-4.6|0.910
84633375|NCT01656408|169005001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.7|-6.6|0.906
84633376|NCT01656408|169005002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.7|-4.4|0.870
84633377|NCT01656408|169005003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.7|-5.0|<0.0001
84761928|NCT03150173|169280812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||0.10
84761929|NCT03150173|169280813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value.|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||< 0.01
84761930|NCT03150173|169280814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84761931|NCT03150173|169280815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.098
84761932|NCT03150173|169280816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256
84761933|NCT03735667|169280839|NON_INFERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis based on 10,000 samples from the posterior distribution, using a piecewise exponential survival model. The criteria for non-inferiority is met if the posterior probability of non-inferiority is greater than the non-inferiority test threshold.|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis was used to test the non-inferiority hypothesis for the primary endpoint using a non-inferiority margin of 8%. The pre-specified success criteria (the non-inferiority test threshold) was a posterior probability of non-inferiority greater than 97.5%. The observed posterior probability of non-inferiority was 77.9%. The posterior median percentage difference in the rate of the primary outcome was 6.63% (95% Bayesian credible interval: 3.04% to 10.20%).|||
84761934|NCT03755791|169280879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.44|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.44|0.0012
84504608|NCT04549259|168760241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
84504609|NCT04549259|168760241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.90
84504610|NCT04549259|168760241|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.38
84633378|NCT01656408|169005003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-5.7|-10.7|0.001
84633379|NCT01656408|169005004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.8|-4.9|0.038
84633380|NCT01656408|169005005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.2|-6.0|0.238
84633381|NCT01656408|169005006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.6|-4.7|0.048
84675172|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.88||P-value for Physical Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.88|2.06|0.002
84675173|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.45||P-value for Role-Emotional. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||16.45|3.11|0.004
84633382|NCT01656408|169005007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.5|-3.2|0.830
84633383|NCT01656408|169005007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-0.7|-10.8|0.063
84633384|NCT01656408|169005008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.1|-7.1|0.892
84633385|NCT01656408|169005009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.9|-3.4|0.571
84633386|NCT01656408|169005010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.0|-5.4|0.816
84633387|NCT01656408|169005011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.6|-8.4|0.061
84761935|NCT03755791|169280880|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.78|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.78|0.9056
84761936|NCT03109847|169280902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-1.26|0.404
84633388|NCT01656408|169005011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.7|-8.3|0.161
84633389|NCT01656408|169005012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.9|-4.0|0.786
84633390|NCT01656408|169005013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.8|-9.3|0.263
84761937|NCT04976621|169280908|OTHER|Because this was a feasibility study, we did not compute inferential statistics and did not include a power calculation.||||||||||||Because this was a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed.||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
84761938|NCT04976621|169280909|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
84540205|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.5305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|1.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||1.01|-2.23|0.5305
84633391|NCT01656408|169005014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.1|-4.4|0.565
84633392|NCT00363480|169005015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage diffrence|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-23.29|||McNemar|||Comparison between GOAL and ACT response||-23.29|-37.89|<0.0001
84633393|NCT00363480|169005016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-Distribution|50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.15|57.32||||||||57.32|43.15|
84633394|NCT05465317|169005052|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.65|<0.001
84633395|NCT05465317|169005052|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.52|0.001
84633396|NCT05465317|169005052|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.67|0.008
84633397|NCT05465317|169005053|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.60|0.005
84633398|NCT05465317|169005053|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.41|0.02
84633399|NCT05465317|169005053|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.63|0.08
84633400|NCT05465317|169005054|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.00|0.46|0.05
84633401|NCT05465317|169005054|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.09|0.35|0.09
84633402|NCT05465317|169005054|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.29|0.43|0.30
84761939|NCT04976621|169280910|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
84761940|NCT04976621|169280911|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are being used.|||
84633403|NCT05465317|169005055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.08|0.49|0.11
84633404|NCT05465317|169005055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.35|0.12
84633405|NCT05465317|169005055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.42|0.50|0.52
84633406|NCT05465317|169005057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.72|0.02
84633407|NCT05465317|169005057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.05|0.65|0.12
84504611|NCT04549259|168760241|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.78
84633408|NCT05465317|169005057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.10
84633409|NCT05465317|169005058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.11|0.72|0.32
84633410|NCT05465317|169005058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.65|0.50
84633411|NCT05465317|169005058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.68|0.50
84761941|NCT04976621|169280912|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe acceptability/satisfaction for those who received the BA intervention. This tool is completed after the last intervention session when the qualitative interview is also conducted.|Descriptive statistics are used in this feasibility study. We are not using inferential statistics to test for statistical significance.|||
84761942|NCT04976621|169280913|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe recruitment.|||
84761943|NCT04976621|169280914|OTHER||||||||||||||||||One measure of retention was the percent in each group who completed the study, meaning completed the Time 2 follow-up interview (that occurred 3-4 months after the baseline interview). Another measure of retention was the percent in the treatment group that completed four or more treatment sessions.|||
84761944|NCT04976621|169280915|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each of five participants who received the intervention, we reviewed a transcript of 1 intervention session for treatment fidelity. The criterion is that no more than 15% of sessions observed or audiotaped will have a mean less than 2.0.|||
84633412|NCT05465317|169005059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.92|0.62|0.005
84633413|NCT05465317|169005059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.96|0.49|0.03
84633414|NCT05465317|169005059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.02|0.63|0.074
84633415|NCT05465317|169005060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.95|0.46
84633416|NCT05465317|169005060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.90|0.63
84633417|NCT05465317|169005060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.14|0.94|0.52
84633418|NCT05465317|169005061|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.70|0.007
84633419|NCT05465317|169005061|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.57|0.03
84633420|NCT05465317|169005061|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.71|0.10
84633421|NCT05465317|169005062|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.10|0.89|0.15
84633422|NCT05465317|169005062|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.72|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.72|0.40|0.93
84633423|NCT05465317|169005062|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.38|0.91|0.113
84633424|NCT05465317|169005063|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.16|0.71|0.43
84633425|NCT05465317|169005063|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.51|0.32
84633426|NCT05465317|169005063|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.30|0.71|0.81
84633427|NCT05465317|169005064|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.33|0.65|0.69
84761945|NCT03212170|169280916|OTHER|Pearson correlation statistical test||||||0.1347|||||||two-sided hypothesis test|||||||0.1347
84633428|NCT05465317|169005064|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.70|0.51|0.82
84633429|NCT05465317|169005064|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.45|0.60|0.76
84633430|NCT05465317|169005065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.62|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.62|0.29|0.39
84633431|NCT05465317|169005065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.27|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.27|0.09|0.34
84633432|NCT05465317|169005065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.33|0.29|0.72
84633433|NCT05465317|169005066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.66|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.66|0.43|0.62
84633434|NCT05465317|169005066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.64|0.21|0.31
84633435|NCT05465317|169005066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.92|0.46|0.76
84633436|NCT05465317|169005067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.88|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.88|1.58|<0.001
84633437|NCT05465317|169005067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.30|1.48|<0.001
84633438|NCT05465317|169005067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.87|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.87|1.54|<0.001
84633439|NCT02420821|169005075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.95|0.57|0.0205
84633440|NCT02420821|169005077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.08|0.76|0.2675
84633441|NCT02420821|169005079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.13|0.64|0.263
84633442|NCT02420821|169005081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.04|0.74|0.1218
84633443|NCT02420821|169005083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.21|0.72|0.6138
84633444|NCT02420821|169005084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.3||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||9.70|-3.09|0.2733
84675174|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.59||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|8.11||P-value for Role-Physical. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.11|-4.93|0.632
84504612|NCT04549259|168760241|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.45
84504613|NCT04549259|168760241|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.91
84540206|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|3.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||3.29|0.09|0.0819
84633445|NCT02420821|169005086|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.96||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||8.24|-4.32|0.5121
84633446|NCT02420821|169005089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.01|0.71|0.0606
84633447|NCT02420821|169005090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.09||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||11.58|-1.40|0.1011
84633448|NCT02420821|169005093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.98|0.70|0.0254
84633449|NCT02420821|169005095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.79|0.34|0.0020
84633450|NCT02420821|169005097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.00|0.43|0.0497
84633451|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.43|-1.06|<0.0001
84633452|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-0.51|0.2085
84633453|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.71|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.71|-1.33|<0.0001
84633454|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-0.82|0.0013
84633455|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.7|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.70|-1.34|<0.0001
84675175|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.61||P-value for Social Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.61|2.73|<0.001
84633456|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0098
84633457|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
84633458|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.12|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.12|-0.80|0.0080
84633459|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.44|-1.13|<0.0001
84633460|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.15|-0.56|0.2512
84633461|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.28|-1.01|0.0005
84633462|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.05|-0.80|0.0247
84633463|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
84633464|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.10|-0.68|0.1411
84633465|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0014
84633466|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.03|-0.78|0.0728
84644937|NCT03274999|169025171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.500
84644938|NCT01527357|169025184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84644939|NCT01527357|169025185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84644940|NCT01527357|169025186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84644941|NCT01527357|169025187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84761946|NCT03212170|169280918|OTHER|Bland-Altman statistical test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.544||||||||0.544|-0.282|
84675176|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.79||P-value for Vitality. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||7.79|0.84|0.015
84675177|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.14||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.64||P-value for Physical Component Summary (PCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||2.64|-0.35|0.134
84675178|NCT00673452|169085612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.6||P-value for Mental Component Summary (MCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||5.60|2.05|<0.001
84675179|NCT00673452|169085613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MGH-CPFQ change from baseline at endpoint = MGH-CPFQ baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||0.13|-2.05|0.083
84675180|NCT00673452|169085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.32||P-value for Mood. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.18|<0.001
84675181|NCT00673452|169085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.22||P-value for Anxiety. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.22|-1.05|0.003
84675182|NCT00673452|169085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.25||P-value for Pain. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.19|0.003
84675183|NCT00673452|169085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.0||P-value for Sleep. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.00|-0.97|0.050
84675184|NCT00673452|169085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value for Stiffness. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
84675185|NCT00673452|169085615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84675186|NCT00673452|169085616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84675187|NCT00673452|169085617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.88||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.88|-0.25|0.084
84675188|NCT00673452|169085617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.84||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.84|-0.79|0.434
84675189|NCT00673452|169085618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.26||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.26|0.67|0.003
84675190|NCT00673452|169085619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84675191|NCT00673452|169085620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
84675192|NCT03495908|169085623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2207||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6654|0.2241||Non-inferiority p-value based on the 0.4% non-inferiority margin|Mixed Models Analysis||RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference. Upper confidence interval 0.22 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c. Per-protocol analysis is the pre-specified primary outcome.||0.2241|-0.6654|0.007
84675193|NCT03495908|169085624|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||.82
84675194|NCT03495908|169085625|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the 7-point profiles within the ITT population (n=136)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.925||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.217||Results are from a Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Regression, Poisson|Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach|The incidence rate ratio quantitates the risk of hypoglycemia in the RHI group (RR numerator) compared with the RAI group (RR numerator). Results from Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Level 1 (≤70 mg/dL or (\<3.9 mmol/L)) and level 2 hypoglycemia (\<54 mg/dL (\<3.0 mmol/L)) events are analyzed. No level 3 events were reported for either group.||2.217|0.386|0.861
84633467|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.49|-1.32|<0.0001
84633468|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
84633469|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.55|-1.46|<0.0001
84633470|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.03|-0.96|0.0353
84633471|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.34|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.34|-1.35|0.0011
84633472|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.02|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.02|-1.01|0.0582
84633473|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.19|-1.32|0.0089
84633474|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.61|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.61|-0.57|0.9575
84633475|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.29|-1.01|0.2745
84633476|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.55|-0.81|0.7088
84633477|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.36|-1.13|0.3077
84633478|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.63|-0.93|0.7112
84644942|NCT02233946|169025192|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.02|0.47|
84761947|NCT03212170|169280919|OTHER|||||||0.2521|||||||Pearson Correlation Statistical Test|||||||0.2521
84633479|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-1.69|0.0837
84633480|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.04|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.04|-0.88|0.8655
84633481|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.11|-1.07|0.9725
84633482|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.55|-0.80|0.5285
84633483|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.4|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.40|-1.34|0.9663
84633484|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.63|-1.61|0.9914
84633485|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.3|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.30|-1.85|0.8345
84633486|NCT02420821|169005098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||3.91|-2.90|0.7725
84633487|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Pain: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.20|-0.77|0.0010
84633488|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Fatigue: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.34|-0.91|<0.0001
84633489|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Nausea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.69|-1.13|<0.0001
84644943|NCT02233946|169025192|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.31|0.57|
84540207|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|4.31||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.31|0.69|0.0243
84644944|NCT02233946|169025193|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.10|0.40|
84633490|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Disturbed sleep: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.25|-0.79|0.0002
84633491|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feelings of being distressed: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.29|-0.84|<0.0001
84633492|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Shortness of breath: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.32|-0.81|<0.0001
84633493|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Remembering things: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0036
84633494|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Lack of appetite: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.91|-1.46|<0.0001
84633495|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Drowsy: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
84633496|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Dry mouth: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.71|-1.28|<0.0001
84633497|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feeling sad: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
84633498|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Vomiting: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
84633499|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Numbness or tingling: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.10|-0.58|0.0051
84633500|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Rash/Skin Changes: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.83|-1.33|<0.0001
84633501|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Headache: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||0.16|-0.26|0.6541
84644945|NCT02233946|169025194|SUPERIORITY|Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94||||||||0.94|0.41|
84633502|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Mouth/Throat Sores: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.76|-1.28|<0.0001
84633503|NCT02420821|169005099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Diarrhea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.88|-1.27|<0.0001
84633504|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.87|0.58|<0.0001
84633505|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.57|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.57|0.28|<0.0001
84633506|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.84|0.55|<0.0001
84633507|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.44|<0.0001
84633508|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.92|0.62|<0.0001
84633509|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
84633510|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.97|0.66|<0.0001
84633511|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.81|0.49|<0.0001
84633512|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.66|<0.0001
84644946|NCT02233946|169025194|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.32|0.44|
84644947|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.34|0.50|
84633513|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.80|0.46|<0.0001
84761948|NCT04068610|169280991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for comparison of treatment arms obtained from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the location of the primary tumor.||||5.6|0.6|0.3173
84540208|NCT04856917|168830940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|3.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||3.46|-0.03|0.1061
84633514|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.54|<0.0001
84633515|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.65|0.30|<0.0001
84633516|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
84633517|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.66|0.29|<0.0001
84633518|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.79|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.79|0.41|<0.0001
84633519|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
84633520|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.91|0.52|<0.0001
84633521|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.33|<0.0001
84644948|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.19|0.44|
84761949|NCT05535972|169281014|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-6.33|||||CFB in CAT score was analyzed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM) model with covariates of smoking status, CAT score at Baseline, visit, interaction of CAT score at Baseline\*visit. Estimates derived from inverse probability weighted MMRM model.|||-6.33|-7.28|
84633522|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|0.51|<0.0001
84633523|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.41|<0.0001
84633524|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.49|<0.0001
84633525|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.17|0.0010
84633526|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.32|<0.0001
84633527|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.82|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.82|0.23|0.0005
84633528|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.88|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.88|0.23|0.0008
84633529|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.67|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.67|-0.01|0.0591
84633530|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.05|0.29|0.0005
84633531|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|-0.09|0.1378
84633532|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|-0.03|0.0650
84633533|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|-0.01|0.0531
84644949|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||0.91|0.37|
84504614|NCT04549259|168760242|SUPERIORITY||B|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.36
84633534|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.49|0.37|0.0011
84633535|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.14|-0.05|0.0708
84633536|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.29|-0.13|0.1078
84633537|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.47|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.47|-0.22|0.1487
84633538|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.43|-0.77|0.5537
84633539|NCT02420821|169005102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.33|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.33|-1.29|0.5743
84633540|NCT00999102|169005109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.86|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||2.86|-1.86|0.67
84633541|NCT00999102|169005109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||4.55|-3.17|0.72
84633542|NCT00999102|169005110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.99|94.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||94.92|-108.99|0.89
84633543|NCT00999102|169005110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.55|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||39.75|-91.55|0.43
84633544|NCT00888940|169005116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84633545|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8084
84504615|NCT04549259|168760242|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.88
84504616|NCT04549259|168760242|SUPERIORITY||B|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
84504617|NCT04549259|168760242|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.73
84504618|NCT04549259|168760242|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.01
84633546|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633547|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0036
84633548|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0033
84675195|NCT03495908|169085626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01073||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03674|0.01528|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|RHI versus RAI for Insulin Intent-to-treat Population N=136 Mixed Model Estimates for Insulin TDD U/kg I||0.01528|-0.03674|0.415
84675196|NCT03495908|169085627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0776||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2139|1.0587|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|||1.0587|-3.2139|0.320
84675197|NCT03495908|169085628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-265.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.6|-243.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Treatment Difference (RHI-RAI) from repeated measures mixed model least squares estimates|||-243.11|-288.60|<0.0001
84761950|NCT01366417|169281023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.48|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will meet or exceed the 1.0 log reduction in colony forming units/cm\^2 at 30 seconds after application.||2.48|1.95|< 0.05
84761951|NCT01366417|169281023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.51|||ANOVA|||hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 1.0 log 10 colony forming units / cm\^2 at 30 seconds after treatment||2.51|1.99|<0.05
84761952|NCT01366417|169281024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|2.91|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep One Step will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment.||2.91|2.39|<0.05
84633549|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633550|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84761953|NCT01366417|169281024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.86|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment||2.86|2.33|<0.05
84633551|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633552|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84761954|NCT05363683|169281051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
84761955|NCT05363683|169281053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.114
84761956|NCT05363683|169281054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84761957|NCT05363683|169281055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
84633553|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633554|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633555|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633556|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0124
84761958|NCT05363683|169281056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
84761959|NCT05363683|169281057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
84761960|NCT05363683|169281058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
84761961|NCT05363683|169281059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
84761962|NCT04590963|169281060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.537|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.537|0.660|0.989
84633557|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633558|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0588
84633559|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0143
84633560|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1025||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1025
84633561|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0001
84633562|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1138||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1138
84675198|NCT03495908|169085629|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in A1C Non-inferiority Margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1317||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5838|0.3205||p-value for non-inferiority|Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Difference (RHI-RAI) mixed effects repeated measures model analysis.Upper confidence interval 0.32 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|Intent-to-treat secondary outcome of HbA1c response for assessment of non-inferiority of RHI compared to RAI||0.3205|-0.5838|0.02
84675199|NCT03049813|169085631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms - anergia||||||0.027
84633563|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0011
84633564|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633565|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0522
84633566|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8185||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8185
84633567|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0005
84633568|NCT02205736|169005150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Subjects recorded True/False answers to Q25 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The contingency table of 329 responses to Q25 displayed the following: N=260 Correct at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (79.0%), N=7 Correct at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (2.1%), N=49 Incorrect at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (14.9%), N=13 Incorrect at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (4.0%).||||<.0001
84633569|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2482
84633570|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633571|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0050
84633572|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0423
84633573|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633574|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633575|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84644950|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.23|0.43|
84675200|NCT03049813|169085631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765||||||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.0765
84633576|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
84633577|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.7456
84633578|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633579|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0028
84633580|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0707||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0707
84633581|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0026
84633582|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
84633583|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6547||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.6547
84633584|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
84633585|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2850
84644951|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.66||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||2.66|0.67|
84633586|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0606
84633587|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0045
84633588|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9068||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.9068
84633589|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.4142
84633590|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.5637
84633591|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 23 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
84633592|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0196
84633593|NCT02205736|169005151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This outcome measure for Q25 was tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5% in the analyses of 25 questions.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 25 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
84633594|NCT00990704|169005165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms in percentage|13.6||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|49.63|||Fisher Exact|||||49.63|-22.36|0.518
84633595|NCT01002339|169005188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84633596|NCT01002339|169005189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84633597|NCT01002339|169005190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
84633598|NCT01002339|169005191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84633599|NCT01002339|169005192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
84633600|NCT01002339|169005193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
84633601|NCT01002339|169005194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84633602|NCT01002339|169005195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
84633603|NCT01002339|169005196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8
84633604|NCT01002339|169005197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84675201|NCT03049813|169085632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms anergia||||||0.062
84675202|NCT03049813|169085633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, negative symptoms - anergia|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84633605|NCT01002339|169005198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
84633606|NCT01002339|169005199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
84633607|NCT01002339|169005200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
84633608|NCT01002339|169005201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84633609|NCT01002339|169005202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84633610|NCT01002339|169005203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
84633611|NCT01907854|169005204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Changes in HbA1c from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements were analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate, all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
84633612|NCT01907854|169005205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Change in body weight from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements was analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the body weight at baseline as a covariate and all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.99|-2.34|<0.0001
84675203|NCT03049813|169085634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One-sided p value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
84675204|NCT03049813|169085635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One sided p-value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
84675205|NCT03049813|169085636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia).|Regression, Linear|||For this analysis, only participants who completed both pre-test and posttest were included. If someone completed a pre-test SSPA, but not a posttest SSPA, they were not included in the analysis.||||0.692
84633613|NCT02215252|169005211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||0.17|-1.00|
84633614|NCT02215252|169005211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||-0.20|-0.91|
84633615|NCT02215252|169005212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.69||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.69|0.78|
84633616|NCT02215252|169005212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|6.56||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||6.56|1.06|
84633617|NCT02215252|169005213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|4.74||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.74|0.33|
84633618|NCT02215252|169005213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|15.81||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||15.81|1.43|
84633619|NCT02215252|169005214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.32||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.75|
84633620|NCT02215252|169005214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.04||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.04|-1.43|
84633621|NCT02215252|169005215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.43|-0.86|
84633622|NCT02215252|169005215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.00|-1.33|
84633623|NCT02215252|169005216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.87|
84633624|NCT02215252|169005216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.20|-1.36|
84633625|NCT02215252|169005217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.49|
84633626|NCT02215252|169005217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.13||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.13|-1.05|
84633627|NCT02215252|169005218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.39||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.39|-1.09|
84633628|NCT02215252|169005218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.51||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.51|-1.00|
84633629|NCT02215252|169005219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|4.57||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||4.57|-5.12|
84633630|NCT02215252|169005219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.57|-0.66||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.66|-10.57|
84633631|NCT02215252|169005220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.45||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.45|0.34|
84633632|NCT02215252|169005220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.07|0.24|
84633633|NCT02215252|169005221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|-0.02||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.02|-1.16|
84633634|NCT02215252|169005221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.57|
84633635|NCT02215252|169005222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|816.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1161.0|1544.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1544|-1161|
84633636|NCT02215252|169005222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|611.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|812.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-735.0|1956.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1956|-735|
84633637|NCT02215252|169005226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|13.01||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||13.01|2.98|
84633638|NCT02215252|169005226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.95||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||5.95|-4.46|
84633639|NCT02215252|169005227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|20.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||20.17|2.94|
84633640|NCT02215252|169005227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|6.54||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||6.54|-11.38|
84633641|NCT00790842|169005250|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A|Dose in milligrams per day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose for patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 60 mL/min is 25 mg/day|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A||||
84633642|NCT00790842|169005250|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B|Dose in milligrams/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/minute who are not on dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B||||
84633643|NCT00790842|169005250|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C|Lenalidomide dose in mg/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were observed, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/min who are receiving dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C||||
84633644|NCT02606643|169005315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||an alpha level of .05, and a level of power of 80%. These parameters required a sample size of 63 patients per group||||0.814
84633645|NCT03408392|169005327|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|115.54||||||||115.54|96.11|
84633646|NCT03408392|169005328|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.37|109.55||||||||109.55|93.37|
84633647|NCT03408392|169005329|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|114.78||||||||114.78|96.31|
84633648|NCT00561925|169005351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -10%|Cochran's statistic|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.1|10.0|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.0|-0.1|<0.0001
84633649|NCT00561925|169005353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -2%|Cochran's statistic|4.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.11|10.79|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.79|-1.11|<0.0001
84633650|NCT00561925|169005355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7719||95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||0.06|-0.08|0.7719
84633651|NCT00561925|169005356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.87||||0.0078||95.0|8.67|57.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||57.06|8.67|0.0078
84633652|NCT00561925|169005364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence test with 80% -125% boundaries|adjusted gMean|79.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5542||90.0|74.62|84.86||p-value for ratio outside the interval 80%-125%|ANOVA||Inter-individual gCV = 49.9|adjusted geometric mean ratio NVP XR : NVP IR||84.86|74.62|0.5542
84633653|NCT00684021|169005368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||3.9|-4.1|0.959
84633654|NCT00684021|169005369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||Clinical and Safety Outcomes including death, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure and ICD placement. The relative incidences of events are compared between the active and placebo groups.However the paucity of events precluded a reliable time to event analysis.||2.23|0.42|0.93
84633655|NCT00684021|169005370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.9|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||6.9|-12.2|0.585
84633656|NCT00684021|169005371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||8.2|-6.6|0.831
84633657|NCT00684021|169005372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.0|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||7.0|-5.5|0.817
84633658|NCT00684021|169005373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.67|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||3.67|-13.7|0.272
84633659|NCT00684021|169005374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||1.2|-3.0|0.409
84633660|NCT00684021|169005374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|100.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|1000.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1000|15|0.02
84633661|NCT00684021|169005375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||2.9|-3.9|0.777
84633662|NCT02177032|169005382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at day 50 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||||0|-2.4|
84633663|NCT02177032|169005383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.37|
84633664|NCT02177032|169005384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 8)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|0.84|
84633665|NCT02177032|169005384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 15)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.1|1.35|
84633666|NCT02177032|169005384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 91)."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|0.54|
84633667|NCT02177032|169005384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 181)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||ANOVA|||||1.59|0.94|
84675206|NCT00094653|169085650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.85|0.55|0.0004
84633668|NCT02177032|169005384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 366)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.19|||ANOVA|||||2.19|1.27|
84633669|NCT02177032|169005385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.9|||Fisher Exact|||||13.9|3.8|
84633670|NCT02177032|169005385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-1|
84633671|NCT02177032|169005385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.4|-6|
84633672|NCT02177032|169005385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-4.5|
84633673|NCT02177032|169005385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||||11.5|1.3|
84633674|NCT02177032|169005386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||-1|-19.6|
84633675|NCT02177032|169005386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.6|||Fisher Exact|||||2.6|-5.6|
84633676|NCT02177032|169005386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-26|
84633677|NCT02177032|169005386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-29|
84633678|NCT02177032|169005386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-13.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-13.2|-37.8|
84633679|NCT00847210|169005411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||There was no statistical significant difference (p-value \>0.05) in Tmax between the 30 mg and 60 mg dose group. Both age group and site did not have statistically significant effects on Tmax.|ANOVA|||This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.095
84633680|NCT00847210|169005412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the central values for Cmax|1.21||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.63|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole pharmacokinetics between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For natural logarithm of dose-normalized Cmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. Site effect was tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.630|0.897|0.289
84633681|NCT00847210|169005413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the dose-normalized AUC(0-tlqc)|1.158||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.551|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-tlqc) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.551|0.864|0.402
84633682|NCT00847210|169005414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the central values for dose-nor|1.168||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.579|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-24) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.864|0.388
84633683|NCT04634253|169005434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-1.60|0.017
84633684|NCT04634253|169005434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.73|<0.001
84633685|NCT04634253|169005435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.29|0.997
84633686|NCT04634253|169005435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|10.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.40|1.11|0.032
84633687|NCT04634253|169005436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.04|0.235
84633688|NCT04634253|169005436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|0.33|0.661
84633689|NCT04634253|169005437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|0.22|0.965
84633690|NCT04634253|169005437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.33|0.82|0.098
84633691|NCT04634253|169005438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-18.65|0.003
84633692|NCT04634253|169005438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.60|-19.61|<0.001
84633693|NCT04634253|169005439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.77|-17.83|0.008
84633694|NCT04634253|169005439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.22|-18.29|<0.001
84633695|NCT04634253|169005440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.365||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||1.77|-7.63|0.218
84633696|NCT04634253|169005440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.26|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||5.26|-2.95|0.578
84633697|NCT04634253|169005440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.368||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||6.73|-2.69|0.396
84633698|NCT04634253|169005440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.057||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||5.50|-2.67|0.493
84633699|NCT01499355|169005445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, rest of world \[ROW\]) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.367
84633700|NCT01499355|169005445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.283
84633701|NCT01499355|169005446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0486
84633702|NCT01499355|169005446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0668
84633703|NCT01499355|169005447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0628||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0081|0.4843||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4843|0.0081|0.0456
84633704|NCT01499355|169005447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4344||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0996|1.8941||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8941|0.0996|0.5455
84633705|NCT01499355|169005447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0252
84633706|NCT01499355|169005447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2876
84633707|NCT01499355|169005450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.863
84633708|NCT01499355|169005450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.769
84633709|NCT01499355|169005450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.907
84633710|NCT01499355|169005450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.996
84633711|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 1 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.005
84633712|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 2 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.006
84633713|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 3 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform locked||||0.051
84633714|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 4 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.173
84633715|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 5 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.985
84633716|NCT02048670|169005451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 6 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform unlocked||||0.003
84633717|NCT03486834|169005486|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% confidence interval (CI).|Incidence Rate Estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.9||||||||4.9|1.6|
84633718|NCT03486834|169005486|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
84633719|NCT03486834|169005486|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|71.1||||||||71.1|-13.5|
84633720|NCT03486834|169005487|OTHER||Difference in Percent|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|63.5||||||||63.5|55.8|
84633721|NCT03486834|169005487|OTHER||Difference in Percent|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|61.5||||||||61.5|53.5|
84633722|NCT03486834|169005488|OTHER||Difference in Percent|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1||||||||20.1|11.7|
84633723|NCT03486834|169005488|OTHER||Difference in Percent|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|21.6||||||||21.6|13.3|
84633724|NCT03486834|169005489|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
84633725|NCT03486834|169005489|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
84633726|NCT03486834|169005490|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.5||||||||9.5|4.6|
84633727|NCT03486834|169005490|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
84633728|NCT03486834|169005490|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.0|25.0||||||||25.0|-135.0|
84633729|NCT02379091|169005507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and participant as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.09|-1.31|0.086
84540209|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|2.97||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.97|-2.69|0.9333
84633730|NCT02379091|169005507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.13||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.13|-1.32|0.107
84633731|NCT02379091|169005507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.23||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||-0.23|-1.61|0.010
84633732|NCT03326713|169005522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (TP vs TCN)||15.2|2.5|<.0001
84633733|NCT03326713|169005522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TCN)||19.4|2.8|<.0001
84633734|NCT03326713|169005522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TP)||4.0|0.4|1.2
84633735|NCT00935584|169005581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
84633736|NCT00935584|169005581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
84633737|NCT00935584|169005582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
84633738|NCT00935584|169005582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wicoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
84633739|NCT00935584|169005583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
84633740|NCT00935584|169005583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
84633741|NCT00935584|169005584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
84633742|NCT00935584|169005584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
84633743|NCT00935584|169005585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
84633744|NCT00935584|169005585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
84633745|NCT00935584|169005586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
84633746|NCT00935584|169005586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
84633747|NCT01198977|169005647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.013||||||Baseline and 3-month follow-up for arm 1 and arm 2.|ANOVA|||||||.013
84644952|NCT02233946|169025195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.99|0.50|
84644953|NCT01879579|169025213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84644954|NCT01879579|169025214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Interval-censoring survival analysis|||||||0.007
84644955|NCT01879579|169025215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.99
84644956|NCT01879579|169025216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.78
84633748|NCT01198977|169005647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.005||||||Comparing baseline to 6-month follow-up.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
84633749|NCT01198977|169005647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.01||||||The interaction effect between the two conditions across time. Baseline, 3-month, 6-month.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
84633750|NCT01198977|169005648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.009||||||Comparing depression scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
84633751|NCT01198977|169005648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group X Time interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.032||||||Interaction effects between the telephone counseling and education counseling groups over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||.032
84633752|NCT01198977|169005649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.049||||||Physical Activity Interaction effect between the Telephone Counseling and Education Counseling Group over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||0.049
84633753|NCT01198977|169005649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.014||||||Comparing physical activity scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||.014
84633754|NCT01285557|169005650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||Unstratified Log-rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.28|0.76|0.9312
84633755|NCT01285557|169005651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.14|0.65|0.3039
84633756|NCT01285557|169005652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.08|0.66|0.1683
84633757|NCT06482125|169005668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.955||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.098|118.972|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||118.972|14.098|0.001
84633758|NCT06482125|169005669|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.345
84633759|NCT06482125|169005670|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.450
84633760|NCT06482125|169005671|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.356|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.356
84633761|NCT06482125|169005672|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.202||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.095|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.095|2.310|0.07
84633762|NCT04701762|169005676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.14|0.29|||GLM cumulative logit GEE model|||||0.29|0.14|<0.001
84633763|NCT04701762|169005677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.03|0.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.14|0.03|<0.001
84633764|NCT04701762|169005678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.48|1.58|||GLM log-binomial model (log link)|||||1.58|0.48|0.53
84633765|NCT04701762|169005679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.92|<0.001
84633766|NCT04701762|169005680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.34|0.27
84633767|NCT05786651|169005681|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84633768|NCT05786651|169005682|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons of mean values of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84633769|NCT04953728|169005702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77306724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.77306724
84633770|NCT04953728|169005702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.24
84633771|NCT04953728|169005702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.45
84633772|NCT04953728|169005702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
84633773|NCT04953728|169005702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during Sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
84633774|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81019363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.81019363
84633775|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
84633776|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.21
84633777|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to Sham||||0.58
84633778|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
84633779|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.18
84633780|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.78
84633781|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.89
84761963|NCT04590963|169281061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.528|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.528|0.704|0.891
84633782|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to sham||||0.05
84633783|NCT04953728|169005703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.07
84633784|NCT04953728|169005704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00046998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.00046998
84633785|NCT04953728|169005704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74369428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.74369428
84633786|NCT04953728|169005704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09854383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.09854383
84633787|NCT04953728|169005704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24872746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.24872746
84633788|NCT04953728|169005704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04828889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.04828889
84633789|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.02
84633790|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
84633791|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.01
84761964|NCT04590963|169281062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.568|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.568|0.790|0.574
84633792|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.04
84633793|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
84633794|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.23
84633795|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.17
84633796|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.15
84633797|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.43
84633798|NCT04953728|169005705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.19
84633799|NCT04953728|169005706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
84633800|NCT04953728|169005706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
84633801|NCT04953728|169005706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.17
84633802|NCT04953728|169005706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.88
84633803|NCT04953728|169005706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
84633804|NCT04953728|169005707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.007
84633805|NCT04953728|169005707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.83
84633806|NCT04953728|169005707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
84633807|NCT04953728|169005707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.004
84633808|NCT04953728|169005707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.056
84633809|NCT01399372|169005719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|Sample size of 89 provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 at a one-sided alpha level of 0.15.||0.95|0.27|0.015
84644957|NCT01879579|169025217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.04
84633810|NCT01399372|169005720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|||1.58|0.38|0.48
84633811|NCT01399372|169005722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model of EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS was run with independent variables treatment arm, time, baseline Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and baseline neurologic symptoms (none/minor vs. moderate/severe), including the interaction of treatment and time, representing difference in the longitudinal trajectory of the scores between the treatment arms. Prospectively, the interaction effect was of most interest and is reported here,||||0.005
84633812|NCT01399372|169005723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.31|||Gray's test||Reference arm = Chemotherapy arm|||1.31|0.21|0.18
84633813|NCT01732718|169005738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.51
84633814|NCT01732718|169005739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84633815|NCT01732718|169005741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84633816|NCT01732718|169005743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||see comments for explanation|albuminuria examined as continuous variable (linear mixed model to analyze effect) and categorical generalized variable (estimating equation approach)||||||0.57
84633817|NCT01732718|169005747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84633818|NCT01732718|169005748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in AMC||||0.1469
84633819|NCT01732718|169005748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ALC||||0.2382
84633820|NCT01732718|169005748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ANC||||0.5833
84633821|NCT01732718|169005751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5184
84633822|NCT02653417|169005753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 1 = 5 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
84633823|NCT02653417|169005753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 2 = 10 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
84633824|NCT02653417|169005753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 3 = 20 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
84633825|NCT02904954|169005766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|66.6||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the MPR proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the MPR proportion between the two arms.||66.6|26.7|0.0001
84633826|NCT02904954|169005767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the two arms.||||0.89
84633827|NCT02904954|169005768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|62.3||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the objective clinical response proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the objective clinical response proportion between the two arms. Objective clinical response proportion is defined as the proportion of patients in each arm who have complete response or partial response.||62.3|24.4|0.0001
84633828|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Results presented were Bonferonni-corrected for a mid-point safety analysis||Comparisons of concentrations in D3 dosing groups at study end were made by ANOVA. Adherence of 80% was pre-specified for inclusion in analyses. .||||<.0001
84633829|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=.56
84633830|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0009
84633831|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
84633832|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.006
84633833|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
84633834|NCT01554241|169005777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
84633835|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni)|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84633836|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=0.47
84633837|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.002
84633838|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
84633839|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.02
84633840|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
84633841|NCT01554241|169005778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0003
84633842|NCT02129699|169005822|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model for treatment effect, analysis adjusted for stratification factors||||1.19|0.78|0.355
84633843|NCT02129699|169005823|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.82|0.459
84633844|NCT02000115|169005922|NON_INFERIORITY|8.0% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|1.5||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.7||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·0%)|We analysed the primary effectiveness endpoint in the intention-to- treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||5.7||0.006
84644958|NCT01879579|169025218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
84644959|NCT01879579|169025223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equation modeling|||||||0.008
84644960|NCT01879579|169025224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.003
84761965|NCT04590963|169281063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.512|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.512|0.818|0.530
84504619|NCT04549259|168760242|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
84633845|NCT02000115|169005923|NON_INFERIORITY|8.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|4.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·5%)|We analysed the primary safety endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||8.1||0.03
84633846|NCT02000115|169005925|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 4%|Difference in percentages between groups|0.4||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.3||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions.|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 4%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||2.3||0.001
84633847|NCT02000115|169005926|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|||p for non-inferiority|two-sample t-test|The test statistic is based on two sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -10, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-3.5|<0.0001
84633848|NCT02000115|169005927|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 6%|Difference in percentages between groups|5.6||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.5||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 6%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||8.5||0.40
84633849|NCT02000115|169005928|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin on -36 meters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|||p for non-inferiority|two sample t-test|The test statistic is based on a two-sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -36, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-15.4|0.0003
84633850|NCT05006573|169005933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.82|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Placebo) and its 95% CI are estimated using a negative binomial model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline blood eosinophil category, and number of exacerbations from previous year.|||1.82|0.71|0.5911
84633851|NCT05006573|169005934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.91|||Regression, Cox||The analysis is performed using cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, number of exacerbations in previous year and baseline eosinophil category.|||1.91|0.67|0.6677
84633852|NCT04922216|169005975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.20|-0.61|0.52
84633853|NCT04922216|169005975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.63|-1.19|0.54
84633854|NCT04922216|169005975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.31|-0.50|0.39
84633855|NCT04922216|169005975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.30|-0.52|0.70
84540210|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.27||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.27|-1.40|0.3972
84633856|NCT04922216|169005975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.36|-1.45|0.47
84633857|NCT04922216|169005976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.84|-0.36|0.43
84633858|NCT04922216|169005976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.18|-1.01|0.17
84633859|NCT04922216|169005976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.13|-0.06|0.08
84633860|NCT04922216|169005976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.91|-0.28|0.58
84633861|NCT04922216|169005976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.28|-0.91|0.55
84633862|NCT04922216|169005977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard dietary monitoring and simplified dietary monitoring (factor 1).||1.39|0.70|0.95
84633863|NCT04922216|169005977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Weekly adaptive activity goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive activity goals coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between weekly adaptive activity goals and daily adaptive activity goals (factor 2).||2.05|1.03|0.03
84633864|NCT04922216|169005977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Fixed decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision points coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between fixed message decision points and adaptive message decision points (factor 3).||1.20|0.60|0.36
84633865|NCT04922216|169005977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard message decision rules and adaptive message decision rules (factor 4).||1.42|0.72|0.95
84633866|NCT04922216|169005977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.69|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|No message choice coded as 0 (reference) and message choice coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between no message choice and message choice (factor 5).||1.69|0.85|0.29
84633867|NCT00905164|169006007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|105.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||105.03|94.27|
84633868|NCT00905164|169006008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|100.13||||||90.0|97.6|102.72|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.72|97.60|
84675207|NCT00094653|169085651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.87|0.51|0.0026
84633869|NCT00905164|169006009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|101.53||||||90.0|99.01|104.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.12|99.01|
84504620|NCT04549259|168760242|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.08
84540211|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||3.99|0.23|0.0662
84633870|NCT01039376|169006025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.7|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.70|0.43|<0.0001
84633871|NCT01039376|169006026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
84633872|NCT01039376|169006027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.25|0.69|0.6046
84633873|NCT01039376|169006029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.96|0.62|0.0178
84633874|NCT01039376|169006030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.32|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.32|0.42|0.3136
84633875|NCT01039376|169006031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.19|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.19|0.29|0.1603
84761966|NCT04590963|169281064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.154|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.154|0.274|0.115
84633876|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.35||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Disease Effects Scale|||-0.35|-4.04|0.0199
84633877|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue Scale|||-0.97|-6.61|0.0085
84633878|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.21||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Future Health Scale|||0.21|-7.37|0.0642
84675208|NCT00094653|169085651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.30|0.83|0.7575
84633879|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.72||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Infection Scale|||2.72|-1.67|0.6398
84675209|NCT00094653|169085653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
84761967|NCT04590963|169281065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for HPV Status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.231|0.297|0.162
84504621|NCT04549259|168760242|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
84633880|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-1.28||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Problems Scale|||-1.28|-7.37|0.0055
84633881|NCT01039376|169006032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.71||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Side Effects Scale|||-0.71|-4.27|0.0063
84633882|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.69||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Appetite Loss|||0.69|-3.64|0.1816
84633883|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|3.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Cognitive Functioning|||3.97|-1.18|0.2863
84633884|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.33||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Constipation|||0.33|-4.28|0.0932
84540212|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|2.04||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||2.04|-1.73|0.8898
84633885|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.66||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Diarrhoea|||2.66|-1.67|0.6533
84633886|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|0.42||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Dyspnoea|||0.42|-5.06|0.0963
84633887|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Emotional Functioning|||6.51|1.27|0.0037
84633888|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.82||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue|||-1.82|-7.45|0.0013
84633889|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Financial Difficulties|||1.51|-5.02|0.2902
84633890|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.05||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Nausea and Vomiting|||0.05|-2.49|0.0606
84633891|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.15||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Pain|||-0.15|-5.93|0.0393
84633892|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.96||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Physical Functioning|||3.96|-0.33|0.0968
84633893|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.17||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Global Health Status/QOL|||4.17|-0.61|0.1449
84633894|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.7||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Role Functioning|||6.70|0.43|0.0259
84633895|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.65||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Functioning|||6.65|0.64|0.0175
84633896|NCT01039376|169006033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.75||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Insomnia|||1.75|-5.33|0.3209
84633897|NCT01039376|169006034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Utility Score|||0.06|0.01|0.0110
84633898|NCT01039376|169006034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.49||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Thermometer Score|||3.49|-0.73|0.1999
84633899|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.547|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|2.276|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 6q-, or +12q or 13q-/no abberation|||2.276|1.051|
84761968|NCT00309985|169281148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect a 33.3% improvement in median survival time across treatments with one-sided type I error of 0.025 and 80% power.||||0.0003
84633900|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.934|17.54|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 17p-/no abberation|||17.540|4.934|
84633901|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|7.21|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 11q-/no abberation|||7.210|2.468|
84633902|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|2.339|||||HR estimated for B2 Microglobulin Group 2 with 3500 as cut off: \>3500 ug/L/\<=3500 ug/L|||2.339|1.434|
84633903|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.76|||||HR estimated for IgVH Mutational Status 1 Mutated/Unmutated|||0.760|0.432|
84633904|NCT01039376|169006046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|2.448|||||HR estimated for VH3-21 Usage Flag Yes/No.|||2.448|0.692|
84633905|NCT00123422|169006052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and a p value of \< 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||0.015
84633906|NCT00123422|169006053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||<0.05
84761969|NCT00309985|169281149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84761970|NCT00309985|169281150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84761971|NCT00309985|169281151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84761972|NCT00309985|169281152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84633907|NCT04555616|169006054|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome analyzed via success rates among groups.||||0.12
84633908|NCT03219528|169006073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.78
84633909|NCT03219528|169006073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.88
84633910|NCT03219528|169006082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.77
84633911|NCT03219528|169006082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.58
84633912|NCT02120898|169006084|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI interval was -0.20 to +0.20 for therapeutic equivalence.|Percentage difference|-1.16||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's confidence interval (CI) with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||5.62|-7.93|0.0702
84633913|NCT02120898|169006085|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.14||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|6.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's CI with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||6.35|-6.08|0.0318
84675210|NCT00094653|169085653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
84633914|NCT05021978|169006098|OTHER|||||||0.1048||||||Change from baseline to Day 7 in TETRAS Upper Limb Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Includes timepoint as fixed effect and baseline TETRAS score as a covariate. Within subject variability modeled using unstructured covariance pattern.||Sample size is a convenience sample determined according to feasibility to provide sufficient and safety data to inform the development of future controlled studies with PRAX-944. In the open-label phase of the trial (Part A ), at least 10 participants would provide an 80% probability of observing at least 1 AE with an underlying incidence of 15% or greater and provide approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.0 on the primary endpoint change from baseline in TETRAS Upper Limb score.||||0.1048
84633915|NCT05021978|169006098|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Change from baseline to Day 14 in TETRAS UL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
84633916|NCT05021978|169006102|OTHER|||||||0.4025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline to Day 7||||||0.4025
84633917|NCT05021978|169006102|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||Change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0766
84633918|NCT05021978|169006103|OTHER|||||||0.2501||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2501
84633919|NCT05021978|169006103|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Chnage from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1874
84633920|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.4722||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4722
84633921|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.6215||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
84633922|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.9648||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9648
84633923|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.2855||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2855
84633924|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
84633925|NCT05021978|169006104|OTHER|||||||0.2364||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2364
84633926|NCT05021978|169006108|OTHER|||||||0.0216|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0216
84633927|NCT05021978|169006109|OTHER|||||||0.1042||||||Change from baseline Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1042
84633928|NCT05021978|169006109|OTHER|||||||0.0257||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0257
84633929|NCT05021978|169006110|OTHER|||||||0.2971||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2971
84633930|NCT05021978|169006110|OTHER|||||||0.2034||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2034
84633931|NCT05021978|169006110|OTHER|||||||0.1105||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1105
84633932|NCT05021978|169006111|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0050
84633933|NCT05021978|169006111|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
84633934|NCT05021978|169006111|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0061
84633935|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.9776||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9776
84633936|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.1962||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1962
84633937|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.9419||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9419
84633938|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0668
84633939|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.9191||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9191
84633940|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.6075||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6075
84633941|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.246||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2460
84633942|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.6736||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6736
84633943|NCT05021978|169006112|OTHER|||||||0.8511||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8511
84504622|NCT04549259|168760243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.049
84540213|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|2.82||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.82|-0.85|0.3664
84633944|NCT05021978|169006113|OTHER|||||||0.1505||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1505
84675211|NCT00094653|169085653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
84633945|NCT05021978|169006113|OTHER|||||||0.0543||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
84633946|NCT05021978|169006113|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
84633947|NCT05021978|169006114|OTHER|||||||0.8638||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8638
84633948|NCT05021978|169006114|OTHER|||||||0.0605||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0605
84633949|NCT05021978|169006114|OTHER|||||||0.0871||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0871
84633950|NCT01411891|169006126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4||||||||8.4|0.3|
84633951|NCT01411891|169006127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.4|0.65
84633952|NCT00414596|169006134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary pain end-point was assessed by a mixed effect model with time (visit) and as fixed effects and subject as random effect.||"Hypothesis: Patients with chronic low back pain who undergo spinal decompression with a standardized 6-week regimen consisting of 20 treatments with the spinal decompression system would experience \>50% reduction in their verbal score of pain intensity.~Power Analysis: Mean pain scores at time of enrollment were assumed to equal 6 with potential reduction in pain of 50%. To obtain 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05, sample size was estimated as 20 patients."||||.0001
84633953|NCT04614974|169006140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84633954|NCT04614974|169006141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84633955|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.5
84633956|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.01
84633957|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.2
84633958|NCT04614974|169006142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.02
84633959|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||0.5
84633960|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||1.0
84633961|NCT04614974|169006142|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Apnea pre/post||||1.0
84633962|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.5
84633963|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.07
84633964|NCT04614974|169006143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||0.06
84633965|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||1.0
84633966|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Coughing pre/post||||0.02
84633967|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing pre/post||||1.0
84633968|NCT04614974|169006143|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Gagging pre/post||||1.0
84633969|NCT04614974|169006144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84633970|NCT04614974|169006145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84633971|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA. Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
84633972|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.44|15.98|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||15.98|5.44|0.0873
84761973|NCT00309985|169281153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
84633973|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.87|8.74|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||8.74|-0.87|0.4912
84633974|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.5|16.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||16.62|5.50|0.0942
84633975|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.96|12.66|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||12.66|1.96|0.2499
84633976|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|19.45|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||19.45|7.49|0.0580
84633977|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.075|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.66|18.59|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||18.59|6.66|0.0750
84633978|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|16.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.14|23.19|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||23.19|10.14|0.0316
84633979|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||19.53|6.90|0.0783
84633980|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||27.96|12.58|0.0266
84633981|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||19.53|6.90|0.0783
84633982|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||27.96|12.58|0.0266
84633983|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.51|17.54|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||17.54|4.51|0.1545
84633984|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.22|25.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||25.94|10.22|0.0528
84633985|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.92|21.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||21.14|6.92|0.0968
84633986|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||23.85|7.81|0.0966
84633987|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||24.42|9.72|0.0507
84633988|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||23.85|7.81|0.0966
84633989|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||24.42|9.72|0.0507
84633990|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||23.85|7.81|0.0966
84633991|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.12|26.22|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||26.22|10.12|0.0574
84633992|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.12|31.04|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||31.04|11.12|0.0749
84633993|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.09|7.38|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.38|-0.09|0.4116
84633994|NCT00658359|169006149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.09|2.12|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.12|-4.09|0.7895
84633995|NCT00658359|169006150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|13.9|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||13.9|-9.1|0.683
84675212|NCT00094653|169085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
84761974|NCT00309985|169281153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.40
84633996|NCT00658359|169006150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||16.1|-8.3|0.529
84633997|NCT00658359|169006151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.97|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA|||13.49|4.97|0.0699
84633998|NCT00658359|169006151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.89|13.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA|||13.58|2.89|0.1958
84633999|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
84634000|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.934|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.52|3.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||3.71|-4.52|0.9340
84634001|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
84634002|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
84634003|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
84634004|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
84634005|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
84634006|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
84634007|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.86|3.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||3.50|-5.86|0.8322
84634008|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.27|0.73|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||0.73|-8.27|0.4809
84634009|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634010|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84634011|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634012|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84634013|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634014|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84634015|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634016|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84675213|NCT00094653|169085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
84634017|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634018|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84634019|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
84634020|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
84634021|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
84634022|NCT00658359|169006153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
84634023|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.33|-5.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-5.71|-15.33|0.0654
84634024|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-0.72|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.72|-11.43|0.3398
84634025|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.99|-3.51|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-3.51|-13.99|0.1601
84634026|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
84634027|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.47|-1.7|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.70|-12.47|0.2685
84634028|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
84634029|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.32|-3.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.30|-14.32|0.1785
84634030|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.158|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.95|-3.78|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.78|-14.95|0.1580
84634031|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.0|-6.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-6.53|-18.00|0.0718
84634032|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.63|-7.02|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-7.02|-18.63|0.0629
84634033|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate differences|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
84634034|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
84634035|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
84634036|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
84634037|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
84634038|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
84634039|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
84634040|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
84634041|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
84634042|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
84634043|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
84634044|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
84634045|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.95|-2.84|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||-2.84|-11.95|0.1715
84634046|NCT00658359|169006154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.74|0.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.14|-9.74|0.4131
84634047|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
84634048|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.91|5.8|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||5.80|-2.91|0.7799
84634049|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
84634050|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.41|2.95|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.95|-6.41|0.7555
84634051|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
84634052|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.539|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.41|9.06|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||9.06|-1.41|0.5390
84634053|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.44|2.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.16|-7.44|0.6432
84634054|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.2|7.55|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||7.55|-3.20|0.7336
84634055|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.9099|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.28|4.79|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||4.79|-6.28|0.9099
84504623|NCT04549259|168760243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
84634056|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.01|6.56|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||6.56|-5.01|0.9106
84634057|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.22|1.42|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.42|-10.22|0.5244
84634058|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.11|5.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.31|-7.11|0.9029
84634059|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.78|3.63|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.63|-8.78|0.7267
84634060|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.7168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.06|3.6|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.60|-9.06|0.7168
84634061|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
84634062|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.99|1.88|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.88|-10.99|0.5515
84634063|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
84634064|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
84634065|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
84634066|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
84634067|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.03|6.15|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||6.15|-7.03|0.9551
84634068|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
84634069|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test|||Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
84634070|NCT00658359|169006155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
84634071|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.6|-1.36|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-1.36|-12.60|0.2957
84634072|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|2.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||2.37|-9.66|0.6097
84634073|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.28|-2.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.86|-14.28|0.2064
84634074|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|0.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||0.86|-11.34|0.4696
84634075|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
84634076|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.29|1.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||1.37|-11.29|0.5093
84634077|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
84634078|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.8|4.48|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||4.48|-8.80|0.7846
84634079|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.33|-4.28|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-4.28|-16.33|0.1501
84634080|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.62|2.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.84|-10.62|0.6263
84634081|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634082|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634083|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634084|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634085|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634086|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634087|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634088|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634089|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634090|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634091|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
84634092|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
84634093|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.61|3.02|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||3.02|-7.61|0.7166
84634094|NCT00658359|169006156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.76|0.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.73|-9.76|0.4692
84634095|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
84634096|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
84634097|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634098|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634099|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634100|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634101|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634102|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634103|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634104|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634105|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634106|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634107|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634108|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634109|NCT00658359|169006157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||5.57|1.46|0.1503
84634110|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.4|-0.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.31|-3.40|0.3128
84634111|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.91|0.26|0.3134
84634112|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.3|1.77|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||1.77|-2.30|0.9129
84634113|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.91|0.26|0.3134
84634114|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
84634115|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.91|0.26|0.3134
84634116|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
84634117|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.91|0.26|0.3134
84634118|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-3.45|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-3.45|-11.43|0.1164
84634119|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.93|1.52|0.1545
84634120|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
84634121|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.93|1.52|0.1545
84634122|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
84634123|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||8.73|3.10|0.0774
84634124|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
84634125|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||8.73|3.10|0.0774
84634126|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
84634127|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||8.73|3.10|0.0774
84634128|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
84634129|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||8.73|3.10|0.0774
84634130|NCT00658359|169006158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
84634131|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|21.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||21.22|7.49|0.0786
84634132|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.03|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.29|-10.03|0.7360
84634133|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.27|19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||19.05|5.27|0.1377
84634134|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.21|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.20|-14.21|0.4131
84634135|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.49|20.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||20.55|6.49|0.1057
84634136|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-20.75|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-5.68|-20.75|0.1402
84634137|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.91|25.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||25.29|9.91|0.0542
84634138|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.09||0.3866|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.24|17.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||17.24|0.24|0.3866
84634139|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.33|20.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||20.71|4.33|0.1981
84634140|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.81|4.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.51|-15.81|0.6397
84634141|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.35|28.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||28.51|11.35|0.0508
84634142|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.45|19.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.28|-2.45|0.5143
84634143|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|60.0|23.46|41.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||41.06|23.46|0.0021
84634144|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.47||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.07|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||3.61|-19.07|0.5661
84634145|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.33|38.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||38.08|20.33|0.0057
84634146|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.89||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.18|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.21|-22.18|0.4504
84634147|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.39||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.78|39.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.96|20.78|0.0078
84634148|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.11|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||6.20|-18.11|0.6802
84675214|NCT00094653|169085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
84675215|NCT00094653|169085657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0433
84540214|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||4.05|0.25|0.0655
84634149|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|60.0|17.61|37.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||37.95|17.61|0.0216
84634150|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.58|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.88|-14.58|0.9026
84634151|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|31.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||31.24|9.51|0.1146
84634152|NCT00658359|169006160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.18|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.90|-19.18|0.6918
84634153|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.09|12.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||12.14|1.09|0.3139
84634154|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.06|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||1.31|-10.06|0.5176
84634155|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|12.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||12.06|1.02|0.3191
84634156|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.62|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||2.71|-8.62|0.6608
84634157|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.37|13.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||13.66|2.37|0.2319
84634158|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.43|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.58|-12.43|0.3554
84634159|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.33|24.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||24.57|12.33|0.0113
84634160|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.479|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.07|12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||12.39|-1.07|0.4790
84634161|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.93|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||16.99|3.93|0.1776
84675216|NCT00094653|169085657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84634162|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.27|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.73|-11.27|0.7307
84634163|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|18.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.48|4.59|0.1625
84634164|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.25|19.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.29|2.25|0.2876
84634165|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.027|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.54|25.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||25.70|11.54|0.0270
84675217|NCT00094653|169085657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0402
84675218|NCT00094653|169085660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0179
84634166|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.7444|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.31|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||5.44|-12.31|0.7444
84634167|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.08|28.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||28.29|14.08|0.0122
84634168|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.75|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||-1.47|-19.75|0.3288
84634169|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.63|26.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||26.05|10.63|0.0453
84634170|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-17.09|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||1.91|-17.09|0.5016
84634171|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.27|27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||27.59|11.27|0.0453
84634172|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.83|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||8.10|-11.83|0.8747
84634173|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.72|15.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||15.69|-1.72|0.4997
84634174|NCT00658359|169006161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-23.26|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||-2.88|-23.26|0.2804
84634175|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.68|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||11.90|7.68|<0.0001
84634176|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.12|7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.52|3.12|0.0418
84634177|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.28|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||11.51|7.28|0.0002
84634178|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.09|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||7.51|3.09|0.0437
84634179|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.21|10.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||10.53|6.21|0.0011
84634180|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.27|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||4.36|-0.27|0.4565
84675219|NCT00094653|169085660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
84540215|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|2.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||2.57|-1.61|0.6921
84634181|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.54|13.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.26|8.54|0.0001
84634182|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.69|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||6.89|1.69|0.1654
84634183|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.95|11.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||11.96|6.95|0.0015
84675220|NCT00094653|169085660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0429||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
84634184|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||7.23|1.02|0.2636
84634185|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.45|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.71|3.45|0.0520
84634186|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.02|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.67|2.02|0.1760
84634187|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.38|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||9.77|4.38|0.0274
84634188|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||2.44|-4.51|0.8018
84634189|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.91|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||8.35|2.91|0.0819
84634190|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.75|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.41|-5.75|0.6103
84634191|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.54|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.41|2.54|0.1168
84634192|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.54|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.99|0.54|0.3357
84634193|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.31|10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.54|4.31|0.0448
84634194|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.51|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||5.29|-2.51|0.7642
84761975|NCT05575063|169281154|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary safety endpoint was met (Safety Population), as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in IOP spike rate, estimated to be 0.08% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-5.07%; 5.23%\]).|Not Measured|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values in this section are in percentage.|||5.23|-5.07|
84504624|NCT04549259|168760243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
84504625|NCT04549259|168760243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.54
84504626|NCT04549259|168760243|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.09
84504627|NCT04549259|168760243|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.40
84504628|NCT04549259|168760243|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.66
84634195|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.67|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.32|2.67|0.1295
84634196|NCT00658359|169006162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.87|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.13|-1.87|0.6540
84634197|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.55|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||10.33|-22.55|0.7543
84634198|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.33||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-27.07|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.17|-27.07|0.6249
84634199|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-35.17|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-2.15|-35.17|0.3415
84634200|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.47||0.072|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-54.1|-19.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-19.63|-54.10|0.0720
84634201|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.99||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.83|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-4.17|-37.83|0.2937
84634202|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.38||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-59.72|-23.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-23.73|-59.72|0.0512
84634203|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.037|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-63.75|-27.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-27.11|-63.75|0.0370
84634204|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.13|16.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.28|-24.13|0.8701
84634205|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.15||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-48.24|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-9.25|-48.24|0.2146
84634206|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.58||0.462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-45.09|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||3.03|-45.09|0.4620
84634207|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.28||0.8639|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.28|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||24.60|-16.28|0.8639
84761976|NCT05575063|169281155|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary effectiveness endpoint was met (modified ITT Population) as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in mean ECC percent change, estimated to be -0.50% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-3.37%; 2.37%\]).|Difference in Percent Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values are in percentage.|||2.37|-3.37|
84761977|NCT04941456|169281175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08||||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|22.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||22.63|-74.80|0.2795
84634208|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.65||0.323|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-56.11|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-4.50|-56.11|0.3230
84634209|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.92||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|51.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||51.47|9.51|0.2214
84634210|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.08||0.7492|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.26|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.75|-37.26|0.7492
84634211|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.15||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.57|26.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||26.79|-15.57|0.8236
84634212|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.1||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.2|42.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||42.54|-13.20|0.6578
84634213|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.12||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.9|39.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.76|-5.90|0.5326
84634214|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.44||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-42.99|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||15.00|-42.99|0.6845
84634215|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.73||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.83|32.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||32.54|-15.83|0.7713
84634216|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.06||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.47|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||23.26|-37.47|0.8438
84634217|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.7||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.78|47.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||47.91|-3.78|0.4724
84634218|NCT00658359|169006163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.98||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.89|49.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||49.38|-12.89|0.6218
84634219|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.01|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.35|-9.01|0.7693
84634220|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.7396|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.22|9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||9.73|-4.22|0.7396
84761978|NCT04941456|169281178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6957||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|0.7877|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.7877|-2.179|0.3416
84761979|NCT03347838|169281195|SUPERIORITY||Observed response rate|0.526||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the 6-month response rate is less than or equal to 0.3.||1|0.32|0.03
84634221|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.51|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.17|-13.51|0.3881
84634222|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.42|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.53|-12.42|0.5114
84634223|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.21|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||2.36|-11.21|0.5829
84634224|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.99|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-2.53|-16.99|0.2559
84634225|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.65|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||10.14|-4.65|0.7548
84634226|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.7998|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|10.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Match 30||10.49|-5.63|0.7998
84634227|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.74|18.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.03|2.74|0.2531
84634228|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.72|19.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.57|0.72|0.3650
84634229|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.53|15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.19|-0.53|0.4328
84761980|NCT04191187|169281341|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 18 Months|70.8||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|59.2|||One sided log rank test|Log Rank||||||59.2|0.002
84761981|NCT03924869|169281347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|||"Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.24|0.69|0.29320
84634230|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.35||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.5|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-3.38|-22.50|0.2547
84634231|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.75|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.69|0.75|0.3572
84634232|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.64||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.86|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||12.74|-6.86|0.8009
84634233|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.82|4.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||4.07|-11.82|0.6814
84761982|NCT03924869|169281348|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.93971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.9||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|Per protocol, since the EFS null hypothesis was not rejected, the OS hypothesis was not formally tested and the p-value should be considered nominal.||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.90|0.93|0.93971
84761983|NCT03924869|169281349|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||Per protocol, there was no hypothesis pre-specified for TDDM to be formally tested.||||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.42|0.74|
84761984|NCT03924869|169281352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.48|||cLDA model|||"Stats:~LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||2.48|-4.90|0.5187
84634234|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.84|22.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||22.93|2.84|0.2803
84634235|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.72|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||5.50|-11.72|0.7613
84634236|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35||0.8554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.65|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.15|-12.65|0.8554
84634237|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||7.84|-10.18|0.9132
84634238|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.79||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.63|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.90|-6.63|0.7465
84634239|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||7.76|-11.34|0.8747
84761985|NCT03924869|169281353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.69|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||0.69|-9.38|0.0906
84761986|NCT03924869|169281354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|5.31|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||5.31|-2.83|0.5482
84634240|NCT00658359|169006167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.96||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||3.72|-18.10|0.5793
84634241|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|15.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.11|10.40|<0.0001
84634242|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.96|15.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.82|10.96|<0.0001
84634243|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.95|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.00|8.95|0.0002
84634244|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.37|14.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.59|9.37|0.0002
84634245|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.32|15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||15.39|10.32|<0.0001
84634246|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.08|16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||16.35|11.08|<0.0001
84634247|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.03|18.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||18.69|13.03|<0.0001
84634248|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.61|16.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.61|10.61|0.0002
84634249|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.12|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.21|9.12|0.0010
84761987|NCT03924869|169281355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.53|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||4.53|-6.50|0.7253
84634250|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.2|15.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.92|9.20|0.0019
84634251|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.56|15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.27|9.56|0.0004
84634252|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.81|12.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.16|5.81|0.0182
84634253|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.22|15.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.58|9.22|0.0013
84634254|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.99|11.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||11.22|3.99|0.0782
84634255|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.64|17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.43|10.64|0.0007
84634256|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.24|14.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||14.22|6.24|0.0322
84634257|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|10.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||10.86|4.59|0.0399
84634258|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.49|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.73|0.49|0.3391
84634259|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.17|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||11.33|4.17|0.0702
84634260|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.221|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.89|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.15|1.89|0.2210
84634261|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.59|17.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||17.46|8.59|0.0150
84634262|NCT00658359|169006169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.4875|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.91|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.45|-0.91|0.4875
84634263|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.83|18.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.13|10.83|0.0010
84634264|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.16|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.70|11.16|0.0010
84634265|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.16|17.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.76|10.16|0.0023
84634266|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.65|17.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.48|9.65|0.0039
84634267|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.04|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.00|11.04|0.0017
84634268|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.81|19.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.04|10.81|0.0026
84634269|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.27|22.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.81|14.27|0.0003
84634270|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||20.91|11.99|0.0022
84634271|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.55|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.84|10.55|0.0065
84634272|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.87|19.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.99|9.87|0.0137
84634273|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||20.64|11.99|0.0018
84634274|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.47|17.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||17.01|7.47|0.0316
84761988|NCT03924869|169281356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.28|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||3.28|-3.70|0.9055
84761989|NCT04706507|169281383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.098
84761990|NCT04706507|169281384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84634275|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.57|21.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||21.09|11.57|0.0043
84634276|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.47|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.12|4.47|0.1226
84634277|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.17|21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||21.78|12.17|0.0034
84634278|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.29|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.29|6.29|0.0724
84634279|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.02|13.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||13.03|3.02|0.1782
84634280|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.14|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||9.46|-2.14|0.5947
84634281|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.081|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.2|14.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.79|5.20|0.0810
84634282|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.04|10.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.81|0.04|0.3965
84634283|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.44|22.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||22.88|11.44|0.0128
84761991|NCT04706507|169281385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.130
84634284|NCT00658359|169006170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.91|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||11.33|-1.91|0.5487
84634285|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.46|18.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.29|13.46|<0.0001
84634286|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.49|16.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||16.46|11.49|<0.0001
84634287|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.71|16.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||16.34|10.71|<0.0001
84634288|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.67|14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.45|8.67|0.0009
84634289|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.72|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||18.53|12.72|<0.0001
84634290|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.91|14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||14.88|8.91|0.0010
84634291|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|16.03|22.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.55|16.03|<0.0001
84634292|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.27|13.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.98|7.27|0.0082
84634293|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.09|18.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.36|11.09|0.0008
84634294|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.16|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||12.64|5.16|0.0462
84634295|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.11|18.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.28|11.11|0.0007
84634296|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.87|12.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.24|4.87|0.0519
84634297|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.66|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||17.50|9.66|0.0039
84634298|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.09|13.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||13.15|5.09|0.0580
84634299|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.62|20.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||20.61|12.62|0.0006
84634300|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.04|16.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||16.26|8.04|0.0136
84634301|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.39|17.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||17.39|9.39|0.0053
84634302|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.66|12.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||12.88|4.66|0.0736
84634303|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.58|17.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||17.67|9.58|0.0050
84761992|NCT04706507|169281386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.02|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo arm is the comparison group.||5.02|1.40|0.003
84761993|NCT04706507|169281387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.68|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo group is the comparator group.||3.68|1.32|0.002
84761994|NCT04706507|169281388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84761995|NCT04706507|169281389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
84634304|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.61|13.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||13.93|5.61|0.0491
84634305|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||18.91|10.40|0.0041
84634306|NCT00658359|169006171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.066|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.22|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||13.97|5.22|0.0660
84634307|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||1.36|-5.45|0.2393
84634308|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||0.14|-7.29|0.0595
84634309|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||5.49|-2.77|0.5182
84634310|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||2.56|-6.49|0.3938
84634311|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.46|-3.89|0.8932
84675221|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.6|-2.5|0.2805
84634312|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.67|-4.48|0.9673
84634313|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||5.23|-1.76|0.3290
84634314|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||4.92|-2.75|0.5780
84634315|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||3.62|-3.72|0.9799
84634316|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||5.83|-2.31|0.3960
84634317|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||3.75|-4.05|0.9400
84634318|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||4.72|-3.94|0.8583
84634319|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||8.37|-0.73|0.0997
84634320|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||4.52|-5.47|0.8520
84634321|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||2.27|-5.64|0.4023
84634322|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||7.92|-0.80|0.1092
84634323|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.52|-0.10|0.1754
84634324|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.57|-0.11|0.1802
84634325|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||3.29|-3.31|0.9966
84634326|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||1.19|-6.04|0.1880
84634327|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||4.73|-2.81|0.6154
84634328|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||7.43|-0.91|0.1248
84761996|NCT04706507|169281391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of ICU free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.037
84761997|NCT04706507|169281392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This analysis evaluated any level of CMV reactivation.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||<0.001
84761998|NCT04706507|169281392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||This analysis evaluate CMV reactivation \> 1000 UI/mL.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||0.3
84634329|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.34|-5.63|0.4174
84634330|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.66|-7.54|0.3486
84634331|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||5.37|-4.33|0.8335
84634332|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||4.24|-8.24|0.5291
84634333|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||7.00|-2.82|0.4033
84634334|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||5.99|-6.74|0.9078
84634335|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||5.86|-2.31|0.3947
84675222|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.2|-5.0|0.6300
84761999|NCT05568888|169281394|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (ITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.13|-5.02|1.9
84634336|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||6.20|-4.26|0.7165
84634337|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||5.75|-2.87|0.5112
84634338|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||10.04|-1.18|0.1218
84634339|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||7.05|-2.11|0.2895
84634340|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||5.32|-6.58|0.8349
84634341|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||10.97|0.28|0.0393
84634342|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||8.16|-5.69|0.7266
84634343|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.27|-3.02|0.4916
84634344|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.38|-5.62|0.9008
84634345|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.55|-0.17|0.2965
84634346|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.84|-0.09|0.1147
84634347|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.31|-4.42|0.7786
84634348|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.49|-6.45|0.5582
84634349|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.47|-0.37|0.0727
84634350|NCT00658359|169006172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.59|-2.86|0.3264
84634351|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.33|-0.10|0.3093
84634352|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.36|-0.12|0.3223
84634353|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.30|-0.14|0.4858
84634354|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.36|-0.13|0.3679
84634355|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.17|-0.27|0.6416
84634356|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.14|-0.34|0.4241
84634357|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.39|-0.09|0.2133
84634358|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.44|-0.09|0.1918
84634359|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.14|-0.55|0.0010
84634360|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.13|-0.59|0.0020
84634361|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.40|-0.08|0.2012
84634362|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.29|-0.25|0.8986
84634363|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.20|-0.13|0.6724
84634364|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.19|-0.18|0.9297
84634365|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.23|-0.28|0.8682
84634366|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.53|-0.18|0.3392
84634367|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.32|-0.20|0.6545
84634368|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.55|-0.18|0.3253
84634369|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.25|-0.26|0.9698
84634370|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.54|-0.17|0.3065
84634371|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.23|-0.33|0.7147
84634372|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.53|-0.25|0.4852
84634373|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.46|0.0888
84634374|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.65|0.0719
84634375|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.33|-0.24|0.7531
84634376|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.30|-0.49|0.6412
84634377|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.18|-0.20|0.9186
84634378|NCT00658359|169006173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.33|-0.21|0.6629
84634379|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||1.53|-5.22|0.2826
84634380|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||5.09|-2.65|0.5371
84634381|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||1.02|-1.41|0.7503
84634382|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||2.21|-0.60|0.2610
84634383|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.82|-1.04|0.3656
84634384|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||1.37|-3.16|0.4405
84634385|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||2.25|-5.45|0.4135
84634386|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||6.37|-4.45|0.7272
84634387|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain symptoms Converted Score||1.22|-1.56|0.8111
84634388|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||3.13|-0.86|0.2636
84634389|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.67|-1.77|0.6890
84634390|NCT00658359|169006174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.05|-4.31|0.4853
84634391|NCT02558296|169006177|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.56|<0.0001
84634392|NCT02558296|169006178|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.4||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories, history of heart failure, treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
84634393|NCT02558296|169006179|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-2.24||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c and eGFR, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline body weight as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-2.24|-3.07|<0.0001
84634394|NCT02558296|169006180|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.42||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c, GFR categories, BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline SBP as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.42|-5.51|0.0112
84634395|NCT02558296|169006181|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.50|<0.0001
84634396|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.49|-0.63|<0.0001
84634397|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
84634398|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
84634399|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
84634400|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.31||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.31|-0.54|<0.0001
84634401|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.27||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.27|-0.51|<0.0001
84634402|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.3||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.30|-0.56|<0.0001
84634403|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.23||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.23|-0.54|<0.0001
84634404|NCT02558296|169006181|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.07|-0.47|0.0045
84504629|NCT04549259|168760243|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.87
84634405|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-1.15||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.15|-1.55|<0.0001
84634406|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.18|-1.61|<0.0001
84634407|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.16||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.16|-1.61|<0.0001
84634408|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.89||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.89|-1.41|<0.0001
84634409|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.98||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.98|-1.48|<0.0001
84634410|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.72||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.72|-1.27|<0.0001
84634411|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.90|-1.50|<0.0001
84634412|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.82||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.82|-1.49|<0.0001
84634413|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.24|-1.01|0.0008
84675223|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||6.8|-3.9|0.6026
84762000|NCT05568888|169281394|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.8||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.13|-5.80|3.1
84634414|NCT02558296|169006182|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.08||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||0.08|-1.09|0.0462
84634415|NCT02558296|169006183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
84634416|NCT02558296|169006184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during entire study.|||0.49|0.35|<0.0001
84634417|NCT02558296|169006185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.11||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||3.11|1.33|0.0005
84634418|NCT02558296|169006186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during the entire study.|||2.38|1.40|<0.0001
84634419|NCT02558296|169006187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.20|0.33|0.0803
84634420|NCT02558296|169006187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.01|0.22|0.0272
84634421|NCT02558296|169006187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.18|0.34|0.0757
84634422|NCT02558296|169006187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.01|0.23|0.0273
84634423|NCT02919995|169006197|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.038||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|1.007|0.0196
84634424|NCT02919995|169006197|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.024||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.997|0.0802
84634425|NCT02919995|169006197|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.986||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.017|||ANCOVA|||||1.017|0.957|0.3487
84634426|NCT02919995|169006198|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.072||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.026|0.0043
84634427|NCT02919995|169006198|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.055||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|1.014|0.0109
84634428|NCT02919995|169006198|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.984||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.942|0.4306
84634429|NCT02919995|169006199|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.065||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|1.021|0.0064
84634430|NCT02919995|169006199|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.049||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.089|||ANCOVA|||||1.089|1.011|0.0149
84634431|NCT02919995|169006199|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.945||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.945|0.466
84634432|NCT02919995|169006200|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.061||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.107|||ANCOVA|||||1.107|1.017|0.0093
84634433|NCT02919995|169006200|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.042||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.082|||ANCOVA|||||1.082|1.004|0.0333
84634434|NCT02919995|169006200|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.982||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|0.941|0.3693
84634435|NCT01821118|169006228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.184|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.184|0.820|
84634436|NCT01821118|169006228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.056|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.056|0.825|
84634437|NCT01821118|169006229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.735|0.989|||||SE of mean is presented on log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.989|0.735|
84634438|NCT01821118|169006229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.031|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.031|0.788|
84634439|NCT01821118|169006230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.086|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.086|0.933|
84634440|NCT01821118|169006230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.114|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.114|0.990|
84634441|NCT01821118|169006230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.052|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.052|0.947|
84634442|NCT01821118|169006230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.063|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.063|0.960|
84634443|NCT01821118|169006231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1281|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1576|0.2781||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.2781|-0.1576|
84634444|NCT01821118|169006231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2843|0.1124||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1124|-0.2843|
84634445|NCT01821118|169006231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2018|0.1042||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1042|-0.2018|
84634446|NCT01821118|169006231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1061|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2689|0.0914||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0914|-0.2689|
84634447|NCT01821118|169006232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0207|0.1136||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1136|-0.0207|
84634448|NCT01821118|169006232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0383|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0084|0.139||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1390|0.0084|
84634449|NCT01821118|169006232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0352|0.079||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0790|-0.0352|
84762001|NCT05568888|169281395|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-3.6||||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.15||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.15|-7.35|3.0
84634450|NCT01821118|169006232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.0694||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0694|-0.0460|
84634451|NCT02557139|169006257|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
84762002|NCT05568888|169281396|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 30 days in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-6.0||||1.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-0.68||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.68|-11.42|1.4
84634452|NCT02557139|169006257|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|0.23
84634453|NCT02557139|169006258|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 34.25%|125.00|80.00|<0.001
84634454|NCT02557139|169006258|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability;|125.00|80.00|0.16
84634455|NCT02557139|169006258|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
84634456|NCT02557139|169006258|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|0.18
84634457|NCT01216189|169006276|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.138||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.044||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-0.044|-0.232|0.004
84634458|NCT01216189|169006276|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.011||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.075||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||0.075|-0.097|0.805
84634459|NCT01216189|169006277|SUPERIORITY||Mean change in FSFI scores|-9.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for Age, Psychological General Well-being total score and relationship with partner.||"The association between mean change in total FSFI score and preoperative RT was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE), using no preoperative radiotherapy as the reference group."||-1.99|-16.66|0.013
84634460|NCT01721044|169006300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
84634461|NCT01721044|169006301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634462|NCT01721044|169006302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634463|NCT01721044|169006303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.140
84634464|NCT01721044|169006304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
84634465|NCT01721044|169006305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84675224|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||8.9|-1.1|0.1219
84634466|NCT01721044|169006306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84675225|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||11.0|-0.9|0.0978
84634467|NCT01721044|169006307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.723|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.723
84634468|NCT01721044|169006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
84634469|NCT01721044|169006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
84634470|NCT01721044|169006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
84634471|NCT01721044|169006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
84634472|NCT01721044|169006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
84675226|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||3.8|-6.0|0.6590
84675227|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||11.7|-3.0|0.2480
84540216|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||4.88|0.59|0.0406
84634473|NCT01721044|169006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.015
84634474|NCT01721044|169006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
84634475|NCT01721044|169006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
84634476|NCT01721044|169006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
84634477|NCT01721044|169006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
84634478|NCT01721044|169006311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634479|NCT01721044|169006311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634480|NCT01721044|169006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634481|NCT01721044|169006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84634482|NCT01721044|169006313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634483|NCT01721044|169006313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84634484|NCT01721044|169006314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.012
84634485|NCT01721044|169006314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.104
84634486|NCT01721044|169006315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84634487|NCT01721044|169006315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84634488|NCT01721044|169006316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634489|NCT01721044|169006316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84634490|NCT01721044|169006317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634491|NCT01721044|169006317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84634492|NCT01721044|169006318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.005
84634493|NCT01721044|169006318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.004
84634494|NCT01721044|169006318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.002
84634495|NCT01721044|169006318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.026
84634496|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.448
84675228|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.4742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||12.0|-5.6|0.4742
84675229|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||8.3|-6.1|0.7597
84540217|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|1.38||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||1.38|-2.24|0.6872
84634497|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.058
84634498|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.446
84634499|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.401
84634500|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
84634501|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
84634502|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
84634503|NCT01721044|169006319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
84634504|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
84634505|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
84634506|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.001
84634507|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.003
84634508|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
84634509|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
84634510|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.001
84634511|NCT01721044|169006320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.002
84634512|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.362
84634513|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.170
84634514|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.753
84634515|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.715
84634516|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.077
84634517|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.058
84634518|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.232
84634519|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.534
84634520|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.079
84634521|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.070
84634522|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.327
84634523|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.479
84675230|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.2|-4.7|0.9119
84634524|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.001
84634525|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.005
84634526|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.001
84634527|NCT01721044|169006321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.030
84634528|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
84634529|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||24.7|16.1|
84675231|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.0|-6.9|0.7616
84634530|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.4|11.9|
84634531|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.5|8.7|
84634532|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
84634533|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|31.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.7|18.5|
84634534|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||26.6|15.7|
84634535|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.4|10.1|
84634536|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
84634537|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|25.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||25.7|15.3|
84675232|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||6.0|-3.6|0.6266
84675233|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||4.8|-4.8|0.9984
84675234|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||3.7|-7.8|0.4873
84634538|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||25.1|15.9|
84634539|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||18.9|11.9|
84634540|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
84634541|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|30.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||30.1|16.9|
84634542|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|28.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||28.7|17.6|
84634543|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|22.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||22.3|12.7|
84634544|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.2|0.8|
84634545|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|26.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||26.5|16.6|
84634546|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.1|11.6|
84634547|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.0|8.1|
84634548|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
84634549|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|34.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||34.6|20.5|
84634550|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|24.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||24.1|13.5|
84634551|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.0|10.1|
84634552|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
84634553|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|31.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.3|19.9|
84634554|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||22.8|14.5|
84634555|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||17.5|10.8|
84634556|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.4|0.9|
84634557|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|44.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||44.4|27.0|
84634558|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|29.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||29.6|18.2|
84634559|NCT04032093|169006333|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||21.7|12.0|
84634560|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.1|8.1|
84634561|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|5.5|
84634562|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|23.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||23.4|10.7|
84634563|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.5|
84634564|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.6|4.5|
84634565|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||19.9|11.1|
84634566|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.6|6.5|
84634567|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||28.0|13.1|
84634568|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||11.4|4.2|
84634569|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|11.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||11.8|4.5|
84634570|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|14.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.2|8.3|
84634571|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|6.5|
84634572|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|15.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.9|7.1|
84634573|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||12.9|5.2|
84634574|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.5|3.1|
84634575|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||18.7|10.5|
84634576|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.7|7.4|
84634577|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||18.3|7.7|
84634578|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.5|5.5|
84634579|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||8.8|3.3|
84634580|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||12.3|7.4|
84634581|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|12.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||12.4|5.7|
84634582|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.4|6.4|
84634583|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||6.8|2.9|
84634584|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.3|2.5|
84634585|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|16.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||16.6|9.2|
84634586|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||17.9|7.1|
84634587|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|15.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.2|7.0|
84634588|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.7|
84634589|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.0|2.7|
84634590|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.9|8.6|
84634591|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.0|7.4|
84634592|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||22.1|10.2|
84634593|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.6|3.9|
84634594|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.9|2.9|
84634595|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||21.2|12.5|
84675235|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||6.7|-2.7|0.3938
84675236|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||5.2|-8.1|0.6695
84634596|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||19.1|8.6|
84634597|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|26.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||26.2|11.9|
84634598|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.4|5.7|
84634599|NCT04032093|169006335|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.9|3.9|
84504630|NCT04549259|168760244|SUPERIORITY||B|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.24
84540218|NCT04856917|168830941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|2.92||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.92|-0.81|0.3392
84540219|NCT03620708|168830952|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|3.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84634600|NCT01356277|169006338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted, ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|We estimated a sample size of 75 participants per group to have 85% power to detect a 20% difference in taking adherence between groups, using 2-sided tests and setting alpha at 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 40%. Targeted enrollment of 176 participants accounted for 15% drop-out. Only participants with electronic pillbox data could be included. For participants who withdrew or stopped using the pillbox, all available pillbox data were included.||2.39|1.15|0.006
84762003|NCT05568888|169281397|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare difference in proportion of subjects between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||18.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.05||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypotheses: The proportion of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours in BE1116 is no better than the control.|Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|3.05|-7.98|18.9
84762004|NCT03708770|169281406|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Secondary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The Secondary Patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
84762005|NCT03708770|169281407|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Primary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The primary patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
84762006|NCT04026711|169281422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.81
84762007|NCT05486065|169281428|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.25|0.0002
84762008|NCT05486065|169281428|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.19|0.0003
84762009|NCT05486065|169281428|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.50|<.0001
84762010|NCT05486065|169281428|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.05||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||ANCOVA|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.||0.47|-0.38|0.8305
84762011|NCT05486065|169281428|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.72|0.1678
84634601|NCT01356277|169006339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|||2.50|1.21|0.003
84762012|NCT05486065|169281428|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.67|0.2445
84762013|NCT03360539|169281438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.1|
84762014|NCT03360539|169281439|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.3|
84762015|NCT03360539|169281440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-2.9|
84762016|NCT03360539|169281441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-1.5|
84762017|NCT03360539|169281442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.4|-2.3|
84634602|NCT01356277|169006340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon ranksum|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the SD of tacrolimus trough levels between intervention and control.||||0.49
84634603|NCT01356277|169006341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84634604|NCT01356277|169006342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84634605|NCT01356277|169006343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates were compared between intervention and control groups using Chi square||||0.26
84634606|NCT01356277|169006344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84634607|NCT03397966|169006380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The investigators tested the effect of treatment (BNP vs. control) on the primary endpoint using mixed effects modeling, adjusting for treatment sequence, to assess the effect of treatment on each endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint is change in resting energy expenditure, calculated as final resting energy expenditure adjusted for baseline level, using linear regression. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of treatment on each endpoint. The investigators adhered to intention-to-treat principles. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.063
84634608|NCT03397966|169006381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of BNP on adipose gene expression of UCP1 compared with placebo. The alternative hypothesis is that UCP1 expression would be significantly higher after BNP treatment compared with placebo.||||0.07
84675237|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||4.6|-11.3|0.4041
84762018|NCT03360539|169281443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.6|-2.4|
84762019|NCT03360539|169281444|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.3|-1.6|
84540220|NCT03620708|168830953|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|4.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.113
84762020|NCT03360539|169281445|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|28.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in grams|||28.0|-43.7|
84762021|NCT03360539|169281446|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-2.4|
84540221|NCT03620708|168830954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.661||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.032
84762022|NCT03360539|169281447|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.5|-0.6|
84540222|NCT03620708|168830955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.543||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of confidence in ability to quit.||||.227
84634609|NCT02864394|169006404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio, HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test.||1.14|0.61|0.1276
84634610|NCT02864394|169006405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Log Rank|||OS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||0.95|0.60|0.0076
84634611|NCT02864394|169006406|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.07|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test.||1.07|0.54|0.0534
84634612|NCT02864394|169006407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||1.08|0.66|0.0847
84634613|NCT02864394|169006408|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||30.7|11.5|<0.0001
84634614|NCT02864394|169006409|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS\>=50% vs. TPS 1-49%). If no participants were in one of the treatment arms involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||21.6|8.8|<0.0001
84634615|NCT02446899|169006479|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|26.3||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|6.3|0.0013
84634616|NCT02446899|169006480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|28.2||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||28.2|6.5|0.0022
84762023|NCT03360539|169281448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in weeks|||0.2|0.0|
84762024|NCT03360539|169281449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-0.3|
84634617|NCT02446899|169006481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.7||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||35.7|6.8|0.0135
84634618|NCT02446899|169006482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.6||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||43.6|4.3|0.0392
84634619|NCT02446899|169006483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.0||Adjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||20.0|-10.6|0.5469
84634620|NCT02446899|169006484|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94||Adjusted p-value.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.||0.94|0.48|0.0809
84634621|NCT01106690|169006500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.437|||ANCOVA|||||-0.437|-0.811|<0.001
84675238|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||8.3|-4.5|0.5538
84675239|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||2.4|-10.3|0.2259
84675240|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||5.7|-9.6|0.6168
84540223|NCT03620708|168830955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported importance of quitting smoking.||||.715
84675241|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||4.3|-8.2|0.5329
84675242|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||5.0|-4.7|0.9397
84762025|NCT03360539|169281450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-2.5|
84540224|NCT03620708|168830955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported readiness to quit smoking.||||.190
84675243|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||4.6|-7.1|0.6716
84762026|NCT03360539|169281451|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.4|-1.1|
84762027|NCT03360539|169281452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.7|-4.7|
84762028|NCT03360539|169281453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-0.5|
84634622|NCT01106690|169006500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.575|||ANCOVA|||||-0.575|-0.951|<0.001
84634623|NCT01106690|169006501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.57|1.26|0.007
84634624|NCT01106690|169006501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.60|2.73|<0.001
84634625|NCT01106690|169006502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.857|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.96|-21.78|||ANCOVA|||||-21.78|-36.96|<0.001
84634626|NCT01106690|169006502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-28.11|||ANCOVA|||||-28.11|-43.30|<0.001
84634627|NCT01106690|169006503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.315|19.236|||ANCOVA|||||19.236|9.315|<0.001
84675244|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||6.2|-3.3|0.5497
84504631|NCT04549259|168760244|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.17
84675245|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||0.3|-12.8|0.0625
84675246|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||3.9|-11.9|0.3214
84675247|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||4.2|-8.7|0.4898
84675248|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||0.6|-11.8|0.0761
84504632|NCT04549259|168760244|SUPERIORITY||B|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
84504633|NCT04549259|168760244|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
84540225|NCT03620708|168830956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.728||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.188
84540226|NCT03690388|168831067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.13|0.36|||Log Rank|||||0.36|0.13|< 0.0001
84675249|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||3.7|-11.2|0.3187
84675250|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||4.2|-7.9|0.5548
84675251|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||3.1|-12.1|0.2450
84675252|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||8.2|-10.0|0.8464
84675253|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep Disturbance change from baseline||3.7|-10.9|0.3351
84675254|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite loss change from baseline||5.5|-9.1|0.6291
84762029|NCT03360539|169281457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.5|-3.2|
84762030|NCT03360539|169281458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-3.0|
84762031|NCT03360539|169281459|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||1.08|0.95|
84634628|NCT01106690|169006503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.509|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.293|22.166|||ANCOVA|||||22.166|12.293|<0.001
84634629|NCT01106690|169006504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.6|<0.001
84634630|NCT01106690|169006504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.6|<0.001
84634631|NCT01106690|169006505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.879|-1.251|||ANCOVA|||||-1.251|-6.879|0.005
84634632|NCT01106690|169006505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.433||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.281|-0.643|||ANCOVA|||||-0.643|-6.281|0.016
84634633|NCT01106690|169006506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-12.1|0.034
84634634|NCT01106690|169006506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-28.1|0.003
84634635|NCT01106690|169006507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|1.2|0.010
84762032|NCT03360539|169281460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.9|0.1|
84634636|NCT01106690|169006507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|2.8|<0.001
84540227|NCT00266630|168831072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.9||||||||-1.90|-4.10|
84540228|NCT00266630|168831076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-14.06||||||||-14.06|-25.58|
84634637|NCT01544335|169006525|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Correlation coefficient|The correlation between RVC and ΔL-Dex values was plotted, and the correlation strength was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.||||||<0.001
84634638|NCT02106390|169006534|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||"H44/76- The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the H44/76 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination."||1.10|0.71|
84634639|NCT02106390|169006534|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||5/99-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the 5/99 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.45|0.74|
84634640|NCT02106390|169006534|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||NZ98/254-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the NZ98/254 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.25|0.82|
84634641|NCT02106390|169006534|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||M10713-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the M10713 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.40|0.77|
84634642|NCT02106390|169006535|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.11|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup A-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for serogroup A at one month after the fourth vaccination.||3.11|1.97|
84762033|NCT03360539|169281461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.1|
84762034|NCT03360539|169281463|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-3.1|
84762035|NCT03360539|169281464|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.7|-2.4|
84762036|NCT03360539|169281465|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.4|-8.0|
84762037|NCT03360539|169281473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.8|-2.4|
84634643|NCT02106390|169006535|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup C-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup C at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.38|0.83|
84762038|NCT03360539|169281474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-1.1|
84634644|NCT02106390|169006535|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.74|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup W-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup W-135 at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.74|1.04|
84634645|NCT02106390|169006535|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup Y-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup Y at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
84634646|NCT01532986|169006576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.222|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.222|0.157|>0.05
84634647|NCT01532986|169006577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.04|>0.05
84634648|NCT01532986|169006578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.52|>0.05
84634649|NCT01532986|169006579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.34|>0.05
84634650|NCT01532986|169006580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-2.04|>0.05
84675255|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||10.1|-7.4|0.7675
84634651|NCT01532986|169006581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|10.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.46|-8.02|>0.05
84634652|NCT01532986|169006582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.00|>0.05
84634653|NCT01532986|169006583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.45|>0.05
84634654|NCT01532986|169006584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.62|-20.42|<0.05
84634655|NCT01532986|169006585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-4.20|>0.05
84634656|NCT03096288|169006618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|52.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||52|-9|0.169
84762039|NCT03360539|169281475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of injuries|||0.1|-0.1|
84762040|NCT03360539|169281476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.1|-5.3|
84762041|NCT03360539|169281477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||0.1|-0.7|
84762042|NCT03360539|169281478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.0|-0.4|
84634657|NCT03096288|169006618|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||45|-11|0.236
84634658|NCT02004093|169006622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3967|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3967
84634659|NCT02004093|169006622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4552
84634660|NCT02004093|169006622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.49||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio equals (=) 1|Wald test|||||1.49|0.92|0.3972
84634661|NCT02004093|169006623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.32||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|16.6|||Chi-squared|||||16.6|-3.9|0.3943
84762043|NCT03360539|169281479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||5.0|-0.4|
84762044|NCT03360539|169281480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.2|-2.3|
84762045|NCT03360539|169281481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
84762046|NCT03360539|169281482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.5|-1.0|
84762047|NCT03360539|169281483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.6|
84762048|NCT03360539|169281484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-2.4|
84762049|NCT03360539|169281485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.6|-1.9|
84634662|NCT02004093|169006623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.17|||||approximate 80% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||2.17|0.86|
84634663|NCT02004093|169006624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3655|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3655
84634664|NCT02004093|169006624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1319
84634665|NCT02004093|169006624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.61|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.61|0.92|0.3679
84634666|NCT02004093|169006627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8129
84634667|NCT02004093|169006627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6920
84634668|NCT02004093|169006627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.32|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.32|0.82|0.8137
84634669|NCT02004093|169006630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5726
84634670|NCT02004093|169006630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3903
84634671|NCT02004093|169006630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.43|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.43|0.87|0.5870
84634672|NCT02004093|169006632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9261|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9261
84634673|NCT02004093|169006632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8591
84634674|NCT02004093|169006632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.41||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1|Wald test|||||1.41|0.74|0.9262
84634675|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.06|-0.03|0.0651
84634676|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.70|-0.44|0.6490
84634677|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.94|-0.09|0.1059
84634678|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.55|-0. 54|0. 9818
84675256|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||4.0|-10.2|0.3911
84634679|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.85|-0.08|0. 1071
84634680|NCT01995838|169006637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.17|0.19|0.0063
84634681|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||7.94|1.19|0.0083
84634682|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.01|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.01|0.86|0.0151
84634683|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|8.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.93|2.54|0.0005
84634684|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Days 1-2||11.45|4.73|<0.0001
84634685|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||12.93|7.20|<0.0001
84634686|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|13.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||13.08|7.18|<0.0001
84634687|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|3.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.90|-3.22|0.8505
84634688|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.94||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||7.66|0.22|0.0380
84634689|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.12|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||9.12|2.40|0.0008
84634690|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|11.32|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||11.32|4.24|<0.0001
84634691|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|10.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||10.92|4.86|<0.0001
84634692|NCT01995838|169006638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|12.02|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||12.02|5.72|<0.0001
84634693|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.09|0.54|0.1407
84634694|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY|Days 1-2|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.55||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.80|0.38|0.0018
84634695|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.83|0.43|0.0025
84634696|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.76|0.38|0.0006
84634697|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
84634698|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2:||0.54|0.29|<0.0001
84634699|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||1.08|0.49|0.1158
84675257|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-0.2|-12.9|0.0431
84634700|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.75|0.33|0.0010
84504634|NCT04549259|168760244|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.045
84504635|NCT04549259|168760244|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.07
84504636|NCT04549259|168760244|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.57
84504637|NCT04549259|168760244|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.42
84504638|NCT02462421|168760301|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Viewed as unnecessary inasmuch as none of the comparisons achieved p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Each of the variant genotypes was compared to the control group (homozygous for major alleles at all three genetic loci) in an unpaired t-test. The study was terminated early because it was clear that we would not meet our recruitment targets and that the study was likely underpowered.~Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant."||||0.92
84504639|NCT02462421|168760301|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.63||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.63
84504640|NCT02462421|168760301|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.86||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.86
84634701|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.69|0.32|<0.0001
84634702|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
84634703|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.57|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.57|0.29|<0.0001
84634704|NCT01995838|169006639|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.48|0.24|<0.0001
84634705|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||2.33|-24.48|0.1050
84675258|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-2.4|-17.4|0.0101
84762050|NCT03360539|169281487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-4.3|
84634706|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|11.87|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||11.87|-16.46|0.7501
84634707|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.43|-23.94|0.0818
84634708|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.81||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.18|-6.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-6.43|-33.18|0.0038
84634709|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.75|17.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||17.93|-40.75|<0.0001
84634710|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.59|-14.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-14.09|-37.59|<0.0001
84634711|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4642||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|20.98|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||20.98|-9.60|0.4642
84634712|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|13.64|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||13.64|-18.27|0.7754
84634713|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|3.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.75|-25.14|0.1461
84634714|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.73||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|0.51|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.51|-29.97|0.0581
84634715|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.74|-33.86|0.0019
84634716|NCT01995838|169006640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.12|-7.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.91|-35.12|0.0020
84634717|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.09|-7.20|0.1483
84634718|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||3.69|-4.96|0.7720
84634719|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.44|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.44|-2.44|0.4548
84634720|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.39||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|1.72|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.72|-6.51|0.2530
84634721|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.41||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|5.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.93|-1.11|0.1794
84634722|NCT01995838|169006644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||4.63|-2.74|0.6148
84634723|NCT00643162|169006754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
84634724|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \<10.80 versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \>= 10.80||||0.0135
84634725|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5082||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \<= 80.5 Kg versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \> 80.5||||0.5082
84634726|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino||||0.9770
84634727|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline geographic ancestry as African American versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no geographic ancestry as African American||||0.0618
84634728|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender as male versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender female||||0.7495
84634729|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \<65 years versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \>=65 years||||0.7865
84634730|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad with food versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad without food||||0.0622
84634731|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2044||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline diabetes presence versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no Baseline diabetes||||0.2044
84634732|NCT01587924|169006842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as the US and Canada versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as not the US and Canada||||0.8537
84634733|NCT02141204|169006871|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between HRV Liq Group over the HRV Lyo Group should be greater than or equal to (≥) 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.34|||ANCOVA|95% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio and the logarithm of baseline concentration were used as fixed effects in this ANCOVA model.||Anti-RV IgA GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between GSK Biologicals' HRV liquid vaccine (HRV Liq Group) and GSK Biologicals' HRV lyophilized vaccine (HRV Lyo Group) in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-RV antibodies, one month after the administration of the second dose of study vaccine.||1.34|0.65|
84634734|NCT03848728|169006883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.16|||TMLE|||||1.16|1.03|0.0019
84634735|NCT02581410|169006893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (No prev- Zvax over Prev-Zvax) 1 month post-dose 2 is below 1.5 in terms of anti-gE antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To compare humoral immune responses at 1 month after dose 2 of GSK1437173A (Month 3) in subjects ≥ 65 years of age who received Zostavax ≥ 5 years earlier (Prev-Zvax) as compared to subjects who have never received Zostavax (No prev-Zvax).||1.17|0.92|
84634736|NCT02876601|169006908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.408
84634737|NCT02876601|169006909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
84634738|NCT02876601|169006910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84634739|NCT02876601|169006911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.642
84634740|NCT02876601|169006912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84634741|NCT02876601|169006913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.326
84634742|NCT02876601|169006914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.796
84634743|NCT02876601|169006915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.918
84675259|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||9.5|-2.8|0.2796
84762051|NCT03360539|169281488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
84634744|NCT02876601|169006916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.877
84634745|NCT02876601|169006917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
84634746|NCT02876601|169006918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.938
84634747|NCT03863080|169006927|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-56.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
84634748|NCT03863080|169006927|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-74.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
84634749|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634750|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634751|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634752|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634753|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634754|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-80.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634755|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634756|NCT03863080|169006928|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
84634757|NCT03863080|169006929|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||0.0009
84634758|NCT03863080|169006929|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-101.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||<0.0001
84634759|NCT04730271|169006967|NON_INFERIORITY|Test of non-inferiority: Absolute value deviation from plan with ROBOTIC is less than it is with manual instruments (not using ROBOTIC) under a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 degrees|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84634760|NCT04730271|169006968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
84634761|NCT04730271|169006969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
84634762|NCT04730271|169006970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
84634763|NCT04730271|169006971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84634764|NCT04730271|169006972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.6330
84634765|NCT04730271|169006972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a serious local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.0400
84634766|NCT04730271|169006972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4079|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.4079
84762052|NCT03360539|169281489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.7|-1.0|
84762053|NCT03360539|169281490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.2|-3.0|
84762054|NCT03360539|169281491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-2.6|
84504641|NCT02462421|168760302|OTHER|"We compared the two groups (wild type versus SLC2A9 variant homozygotes. Null hypothesis: there are no differences between the two groups with respect to the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on fractional excretion of uric acid in the urine."||||||0.04||||||Because the study was terminated early, we did not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. We are reporting a nominal p-value without adjusting for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment. As a result the study did not achieve the statistical power that had been planned.||||0.04
84504642|NCT02462421|168760303|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.07||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.07
84504643|NCT02462421|168760303|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.53||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.53
84504644|NCT02462421|168760303|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
84504645|NCT02462421|168760304|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.|||||<|0.01||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||<0.01
84504646|NCT02462421|168760304|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.77||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.77
84504647|NCT02462421|168760304|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.65||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.65
84634767|NCT04730271|169006972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local serious adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.1262
84634768|NCT04730271|169006974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6662|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6662
84634769|NCT04730271|169006974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8154
84634770|NCT04730271|169006975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 12 weeks||||0.0165
84634771|NCT04730271|169006975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 1 year||||0.1331
84634772|NCT04730271|169006976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.1596
84634773|NCT04730271|169006976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6834
84634774|NCT04730271|169006977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.5675
84634775|NCT04730271|169006977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9240
84634776|NCT04730271|169006978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4586
84634777|NCT04730271|169006978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6951
84634778|NCT04730271|169006979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8000
84634779|NCT04730271|169006979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9730
84634780|NCT04730271|169006980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4636
84634781|NCT04730271|169006980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8088
84634782|NCT04730271|169006981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4851
84540229|NCT04909853|168831103|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|165.25|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||165.25|101.93|
84634783|NCT04730271|169006981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6486
84634784|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for Pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8887
84634785|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4007
84634786|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain at rest at 12 weeks||||0.0074
84634787|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain at rest at 1 year||||0.0663
84634788|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with Activity at 1 year||||0.7096
84634789|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.5321
84634790|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.0709
84634791|NCT04730271|169006982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 1 year||||0.1274
84634792|NCT04730271|169006983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the accuracy achieved in the first 10 cases compared to the subsequent cases||||0.6745
84634793|NCT02350296|169006984|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|108.12||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|94.12|97.57|119.81||"treatment P value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||119.81|97.57|0.1455
84634794|NCT02350296|169006985|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.26|117.38||"Treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.38|104.26|0.0023
84762055|NCT03360539|169281492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.6|-1.5|
84634795|NCT02350296|169006986|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.69||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.35|117.41||"treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.41|104.35|0.0021
84634796|NCT02350296|169006987|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.0201|||||||Friedman|||||||0.0201
84634797|NCT02223858|169006991|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 patients (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.791|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.791
84634798|NCT02223858|169006992|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.880
84634799|NCT02223858|169006993|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscale, and a 80% power.||||||0.901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.901
84634800|NCT03198507|169006994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Statistical testing was 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84540230|NCT04909853|168831103|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.18|168.55|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||168.55|113.18|
84634801|NCT03198507|169006997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84634802|NCT00241839|169006998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for possibly unequal variance was made|A positive value of the estimated value would favor the allopurinol arm. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We compared the drop in baseline of diastolic BP for the two treatment groups Allopurinol vs. Placebo by a Satterthwaite corrected t-test.||8.7|-0.17|0.059
84634803|NCT00241839|169006999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||Positive numbers indicate a drop. We compared baseline minus value at treatment end for the two treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used for potentially unequal variances.|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|||4.3|-2.0|0.47
84634804|NCT00241839|169007000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Sattherthwaite correction was used|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable. The 24 hour was in the opposite direction of the cuff.|||-2.6|-11.0|0.0020
84634805|NCT00241839|169007001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used.|Allopurinol was associated with a significant decrease in uric acid over the treatment period as compared to placebo. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We expected allopurinol to be associated with a decrease in uric acid.||2.59|1.72|<0.001
84634806|NCT04954833|169007002|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR. A value of 0.05 logMAR is approximately 2.5 letters on the ETDRS chart.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.02|-0.01|
84762056|NCT03360539|169281493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.37|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.37|-0.1|
84762057|NCT03360539|169281494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.5|-0.45|
84762058|NCT03360539|169281495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.0|0.3|
84634807|NCT04954833|169007003|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. A 10% of difference in the rate of lens fit acceptance is considered clinically significant.|Posterior mean difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.01|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference between the Test and Control (Test - Control) was used to evaluate non-inferiority.|Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval|||0.010|-0.009|
84634808|NCT00043979|169007039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||7 participants who did not receive a transplant compared with 21 participants transplanted.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||.0003
84634809|NCT01189032|169007125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||It's the p-value of linear trend. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.004
84634810|NCT01189032|169007125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||It's the p-value of Saturated at 1% DE-089. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.006
84504648|NCT02462421|168760305|OTHER|Null hypothesis: None of the three genotypes is associated with an alteration in the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on urinary Na excretion||||||0.2||||||Because the study was terminated early, the study does not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. Accordingly, nominal p-values are reported.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The wild type genotype group was compared to homozygotes for each of the three other genotypes."||||0.20
84504649|NCT02462421|168760305|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.01
84634811|NCT01166282|169007134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.17|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.69|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-99.69|=0.039
84634812|NCT01166282|169007135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||=|0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.08|-5.32|=0.382
84634813|NCT01166282|169007136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||=|0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.97|||1-way ANOVA|||||1.97|-8.78|=0.209
84634814|NCT01166282|169007137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.26|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.26|-4.49|=0.509
84634815|NCT01166282|169007138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||=|0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|40.5|||Fisher Exact|||||40.5|-18.5|=0.514
84634816|NCT01166282|169007139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|-2.0|=0.111
84634817|NCT01166282|169007140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|8.1|=0.031
84634818|NCT00346697|169007144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84504650|NCT02462421|168760305|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.16||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.16
84634819|NCT00346697|169007145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.80
84634820|NCT00346697|169007146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84634821|NCT00346697|169007147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84634822|NCT00346697|169007148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84634823|NCT00346697|169007149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84634824|NCT00346697|169007150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84634825|NCT00346697|169007151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84634826|NCT00346697|169007152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84634827|NCT00346697|169007153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84634828|NCT00346697|169007154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84634829|NCT00346697|169007155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84634830|NCT00346697|169007156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84634831|NCT00346697|169007157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84634832|NCT00346697|169007158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84634833|NCT02691507|169007176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634834|NCT02691507|169007176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
84634835|NCT02691507|169007176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|1.998||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.998|-1.196|0.616
84634836|NCT02691507|169007177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634837|NCT02691507|169007177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84762059|NCT03360539|169281496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||1.1|0.1|
84634838|NCT02691507|169007177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|2.46||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.460|-0.767|0.297
84634839|NCT02691507|169007178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634840|NCT02691507|169007178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634841|NCT02691507|169007178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|2.426||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.426|-0.973|0.394
84634842|NCT02691507|169007179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634843|NCT02691507|169007179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634844|NCT02691507|169007179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.709||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.709|-1.140|0.690
84634845|NCT02691507|169007180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634846|NCT02691507|169007180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634847|NCT02691507|169007180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|1.397||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.397|-1.556|0.914
84634848|NCT02691507|169007181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84504651|NCT02462421|168760306|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.21||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.21
84504652|NCT02462421|168760306|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
84634849|NCT02691507|169007181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634850|NCT02691507|169007181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|1.314||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.314|-1.796|0.757
84634851|NCT02691507|169007182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634852|NCT02691507|169007182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634853|NCT02691507|169007182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|1.129||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.129|-2.075|0.556
84634854|NCT02691507|169007183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84675260|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||10.8|-2.2|0.1940
84675261|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||14.8|-0.9|0.0821
84675262|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||3.8|-9.0|0.4169
84675263|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||4.2|-7.5|0.5717
84504653|NCT02462421|168760306|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.39||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
84634855|NCT02691507|169007183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634856|NCT02691507|169007183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.824|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-2.824|0.106
84634857|NCT02691507|169007184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634858|NCT02691507|169007184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634859|NCT02691507|169007184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.407|40.247||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||40.247|13.407|<0.001
84634860|NCT02691507|169007185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634861|NCT02691507|169007185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
84634862|NCT02691507|169007185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.301|27.352||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||27.352|11.301|<0.001
84675264|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|8.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||8.4|-5.6|0.6949
84675265|NCT00094653|169085662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||2.6|-8.8|0.2849
84675266|NCT00378703|169085694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm B (bevacizumab and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk)||||0.89
84634863|NCT02691507|169007186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84675267|NCT00378703|169085694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm C (bevacizumab and sorafenib) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.54
84762060|NCT03360539|169281497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-0.7|
84634864|NCT02691507|169007186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.009
84634865|NCT02691507|169007186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.829|24.187||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.187|7.829|<0.001
84634866|NCT02691507|169007187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634867|NCT02691507|169007187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
84634868|NCT02691507|169007187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.684|20.82||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||20.820|5.684|<0.001
84634869|NCT02691507|169007188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634870|NCT02691507|169007188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.049
84634871|NCT02691507|169007188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.138||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.766|22.387||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||22.387|5.766|0.001
84634872|NCT02691507|169007189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634873|NCT02691507|169007189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.024
84634874|NCT02691507|169007189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.679||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.862|23.66||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||23.660|4.862|0.004
84634875|NCT02691507|169007190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634876|NCT02691507|169007190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.015
84634877|NCT02691507|169007190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|21.252||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.252|4.291|0.004
84634878|NCT02691507|169007191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84634879|NCT02691507|169007191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.034
84634880|NCT02691507|169007191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|24.621||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.621|0.805|0.037
84634881|NCT02284243|169007247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0180
84634882|NCT02284243|169007248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, and SPID 0-24|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84634883|NCT02284243|169007249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to perceptible and meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84634884|NCT02284243|169007250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in pain|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test for general association stratified by site||||||<0.05
84634885|NCT02284243|169007252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
84634886|NCT02284243|169007253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7718
84634887|NCT00541385|169007269|OTHER|"Analysis of the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group. Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is ≤90%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is \>90%."|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for significance was ≤0.025.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84634888|NCT00541385|169007269|NON_INFERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of PA compared to the AL group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 using a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (Newcombe Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin for the EE population. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in 28-day PCR-corrected ACPR was not lower than 10%.|ACPR percent difference|-1.2||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-Square test. If the calculated p-value was \<0.05, then the superiority of PA over AL was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group."||2.1|-3.6|0.3728
84634889|NCT01526733|169007305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|2.71||Comparison of Day 1 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||2.71|1.71|<0.0001
84634890|NCT01526733|169007305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.29||Comparison of Day 4 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||3.29|2.08|<0.0001
84634891|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
84634892|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||4.7|-18.7|0.241
84634893|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.0|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||1|-22.6|0.072
84634894|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-4.5|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-4.5|-27.9|0.007
84634895|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.9|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-13.9|-37.3|< 0.001
84634896|NCT02839200|169007365|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|3.3|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||3.3|-20.4|0.155
84634897|NCT02952820|169007369|SUPERIORITY||least squares geometric mean (LSGM)ratio|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM) model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (missing not at random/complete case missing value \[MNAR/CCMV\]).||0.843|0.636|<.0001
84634898|NCT02952820|169007369|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.810|0.607|<.0001
84634899|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.781|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.842|0.725|<.0001
84634900|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.752|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.811|0.698|<.0001
84634901|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.893|0.735|<.0001
84504654|NCT00992264|168760307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months in intent to treat sample. Participants receiving content written in a Prescriptive tone were compared against persons receiving content in a Motivational tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.51|0.51|
84504655|NCT00992264|168760307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.91|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons who randomly received a Testimonial were compared against persons receiving No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.91|0.66|
84504656|NCT00992264|168760307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.02|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated navigation were compared to those not assigned to Dictated navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||2.02|0.70|
84504657|NCT00992264|168760307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders were compared against persons who received No Emails (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.30|0.43|
84504658|NCT00992264|168760308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Prescriptive Tone were compared to persons assigned to receive content in a Motivational Tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.43|0.62|
84634902|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.848|0.698|<.0001
84634903|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.778|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.878|0.690|<.0001
84634904|NCT02952820|169007370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.869|0.681|<.0001
84634905|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.961|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.961|2.638|<.0001
84634906|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.133|7.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||7.452|4.133|<.0001
84504659|NCT00992264|168760308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to receive a Testimonial were compared to persons assigned to receive No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.07|0.46|
84504660|NCT00992264|168760308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.18|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated Navigation were compared to persons not assigned to Dictated Navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||1.18|0.51|
84634907|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|4.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||4.146|0.307|0.0230
84504661|NCT00992264|168760308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Proactive Email reminders were compared to persons not assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.03|0.44|
84504662|NCT00909727|168760309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|18.3||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||18.3|6.6|<0.0001
84634908|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.635|5.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.595|1.635|0.0003
84634909|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|6.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.377|2.068|0.0001
84634910|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|6.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.501|2.220|<.0001
84634911|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.236|6.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.861|2.236|0.0001
84634912|NCT02952820|169007371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.373|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.960|2.373|<.0001
84634913|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-14.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.411|-7.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.245|-21.411|<.0001
84634914|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.813|-9.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-9.626|-23.813|<.0001
84634915|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.568|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||2.540|-13.568|0.1796
84634916|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.129||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.098|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||1.088|-15.098|0.0898
84634917|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-13.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.218|-4.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-4.631|-22.218|0.0028
84634918|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.578||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.053|-1.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-1.104|-19.053|0.0277
84634919|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.014||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.306|-7.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.643|-27.306|0.0005
84634920|NCT02952820|169007372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.951||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.378|-2.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-2.964|-22.378|0.0105
84634921|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.488|30.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 Nights After the First Dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||30.579|13.488|<.0001
84634922|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|31.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.258|40.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||40.334|23.258|<.0001
84634923|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.269||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.418|22.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||22.102|1.418|0.0259
84634924|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.757|32.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||32.505|11.757|<.0001
84634925|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|17.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.906||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.781|28.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||28.968|5.781|0.0034
84634926|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|21.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.946||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.014|33.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||33.359|10.014|0.0003
84634927|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|18.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.324||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.14|30.969|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be missing at random (MAR).||30.969|6.140|0.0034
84634928|NCT02952820|169007373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.392||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.137|35.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||35.234|10.137|0.0004
84634929|NCT02952820|169007374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|13.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep onset responders: Statistical analysis 1||21.10|6.24|0.0004
84634930|NCT02952820|169007374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|12.53||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Onset Responders: Statistical analysis 2||19.86|5.20|0.0009
84634931|NCT02952820|169007374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|14.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|22.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 3||22.33|6.97|0.0002
84634932|NCT02952820|169007374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|9.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 4||17.35|2.29|0.0110
84634933|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.15|-1.27|0.0137
84634934|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.38|-1.51|0.0011
84634935|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.57|-1.75|0.0001
84634936|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.76|-1.96|<.0001
84634937|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.90|<.0001
84634938|NCT02952820|169007376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.92|<.0001
84634939|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.12|-3.44|0.0670
84675268|NCT00378703|169085694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm D (sorafenib and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.68
84634940|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.25|-3.83|0.0257
84634941|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.34|-4.02|0.0206
84634942|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-1.18|-4.91|0.0014
84634943|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.52|-4.48|0.0134
84634944|NCT02952820|169007377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.54|-4.57|0.0128
84634945|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.353|0.057|0.0067
84634946|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.320|0.023|0.0237
84634947|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.261|-0.107|0.4120
84634948|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.258|-0.111|0.4347
84634949|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.289|-0.141|0.4992
84634950|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.471|0.039|0.0208
84634951|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.378|-0.089|0.2248
84634952|NCT02952820|169007378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.497|0.026|0.0298
84634953|NCT00298558|169007407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.06||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.14|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.27|-0.14|0.43
84634954|NCT00298558|169007407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.11||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.31|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.10|-0.31|0.17
84634955|NCT00298558|169007407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.15|-0.25|0.52
84634956|NCT00298558|169007410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.17|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.12|-0.17|0.69
84634957|NCT00298558|169007410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.23|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.09|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.38|0.09|<0.01
84634958|NCT00298558|169007410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.08|-0.20|0.27
84634959|NCT00298558|169007412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.29|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.29|0.45
84634960|NCT00298558|169007412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.005||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.22|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.22|0.95
84675269|NCT00378703|169085697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0076
84762061|NCT03919162|169281501|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.152||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of ABC score between the PQ912 and Placebo group after 24 weeks of treatment.~P-values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the 1-sided hypothesis that the rate of decrease of ABC score is greater for the PQ912 group than for the Placebo group. The test should be carried out at a 1-sided 40% significance level, using the mixed effects model. Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data.||0.152|-0.036|0.2261
84634961|NCT00298558|169007412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.43|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.88|0.43|<0.01
84634962|NCT00298558|169007413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.84|0.12|<0.01
84634963|NCT00298558|169007413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.02|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.74|0.02|<0.01
84634964|NCT00298558|169007413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.36|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.01|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.72|0.01|<0.01
84634965|NCT00298558|169007414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.97
84634966|NCT00298558|169007414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.22|-0.25|0.86
84675270|NCT00378703|169085697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0085
84762062|NCT03919162|169281502|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.00526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00742||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02017|0.00964||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of EEG theta power between the PQ912 and Placebo groups after 24 weeks of treatment.~Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤ 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qEEG data, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|"Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the hypothesis that increase in EEG theta power is greater for Placebo than for PQ912 (1-sided, alpha = 0.05). Higher theta power is worse; hence this alternative hypothesis indicates benefit of the drug.~Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data."||0.00964|-0.02017|0.4814
84762063|NCT03919162|169281503|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.92||Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value is ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CDR-SB score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of CDR-SB scores between the PQ912 and the Placebo arms. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with within-participant change in CDR-SB score as the outcome. The study planned with 207 participants (including 25% drop-out) per group to have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 points in CDR-SB score. Power calculation was based on a 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05.||0.92|-1.03|0.9135
84634967|NCT00298558|169007414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.008||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.93
84634968|NCT00298558|169007415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.19|0.78
84634969|NCT00298558|169007415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.21|-0.21|0.96
84634970|NCT00298558|169007415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.26|0.56
84634971|NCT02908672|169007432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||0.97|0.64|0.0224
84634972|NCT02908672|169007433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||1.07|0.67|0.1607
84634973|NCT02908672|169007434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.63||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.15|-6.90|0.6997
84634974|NCT02908672|169007436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.1191
84634975|NCT02908672|169007437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.2||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|17.04|||Z-test|||||17.04|-0.65|0.0693
84634976|NCT01424072|169007446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.023
84634977|NCT01424072|169007447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|This result was only to the domain Social Support.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days) and at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0,022
84634978|NCT01424072|169007448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.039
84634979|NCT01424072|169007448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANOVA|It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up and then it was used the post hoc test.||Coping Strategy: Confrontation domain||||0.029
84634980|NCT01322945|169007468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84634981|NCT05307692|169007495|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.41|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.39|-3.41|0.308
84634982|NCT05307692|169007496|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.29|-3.33|0.282
84634983|NCT05232682|169007525|OTHER||F-test|2.41||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1183
84634984|NCT05232682|169007526|OTHER||F-test|0.07||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9308
84634985|NCT05232682|169007527|OTHER||F-test|2.1||||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1517
84634986|NCT05232682|169007528|OTHER||F-test|0.14||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8747
84634987|NCT05232682|169007529|OTHER||F-test|1.19||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3269
84634988|NCT05232682|169007530|OTHER||F-test|1.14||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3411
84634989|NCT01136980|169007553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.028
84634990|NCT02605122|169007555|OTHER||Proportion experiencing TEAE or TESAE|34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|47.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||47|23|
84762064|NCT03919162|169281504|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|5.238||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in CFC2 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CFC2, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: The key secondary CFC2 follows the primary endpoint (Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes), if it is statistically significant, followed by the remaining secondary endpoints in the order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan. Hierarchical testing is stopped as soon as a non-significant result is encountered. If the primary hypothesis is met, then a test for a statistically significant difference will be conducted for the CFC2, however at 4% significance level||5.238|-3.345|0.6528
84634991|NCT02605122|169007556|OTHER||Achievement of ECR|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|74.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||74|49|
84634992|NCT02605122|169007557|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Improvement|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|78.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||78|58|
84634993|NCT02605122|169007558|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Cure|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|73.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||73|50|
84634994|NCT03751657|169007559|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.02|-0.38|0.0818
84634995|NCT03751657|169007573|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.97||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.25|-4.19|0.0818
84634996|NCT02223702|169007584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Friedman Test|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
84634997|NCT02223702|169007585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
84634998|NCT02754440|169007590|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
84634999|NCT02754440|169007590|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
84635000|NCT02754440|169007590|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
84540231|NCT04909853|168831103|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.4|196.68|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||196.68|111.40|
84635001|NCT02754440|169007591|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.904|||||||Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.904|
84675271|NCT00378703|169085697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.3006
84762065|NCT03919162|169281505|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.303||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ABC as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.303|-0.103|0.3241
84762066|NCT03919162|169281506|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.02857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01846||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06746|0.01032||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in qEEG as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qECG data, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.01032|-0.06746|0.1398
84762067|NCT03919162|169281507|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.01||The analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in FAQ as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline FAQ score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||3.01|-4.22|0.7377
84762068|NCT03919162|169281508|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|2.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.292|6.36||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ADAS-Cog-13 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ADAS-Cog-13 score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||6.360|-2.292|0.3496
84762069|NCT03919162|169281509|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|1.62||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in NPI as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||1.62|-7.81|0.1933
84675272|NCT03181542|169085703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84675273|NCT03181542|169085704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.40
84675274|NCT03181542|169085705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.90
84675275|NCT01868633|169085722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84635002|NCT02754440|169007591|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
84635003|NCT02754440|169007591|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
84635004|NCT00297258|169007624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.0||||0.653||90.0|11.0|47.6|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||47.6|11.0|0.653
84635005|NCT00297258|169007624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
84635006|NCT00297258|169007624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|49.0|||<|0.001||90.0|34.3|63.2|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||63.2|34.3|<0.001
84635007|NCT00297258|169007624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
84675276|NCT03890367|169085780|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.2|5.68|
84762070|NCT06400745|169281549|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0232||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||0.0232||
84540232|NCT04909853|168831104|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|153.91|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||153.91|99.64|
84635008|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|8.49||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.49|-3.96|
84635009|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-3.19|
84635010|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.35||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.35|-2.25|
84635011|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||26.2|13.7|
84635012|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|9.58||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.58|2.80|
84635013|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|15.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||15.5|7.87|
84635014|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-8.80|-18.9|
84635015|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-1.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.56|-7.67|
84635016|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.33||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.33|-11.5|
84635017|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|12.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.9|2.72|
84635018|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.46||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.46|1.30|
84762071|NCT04102189|169281550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-13.23|||ANCOVA|||Responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment, stratification groups (sex and Tanner stage at baseline) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline BMI as covariate.||-13.23|-20.27|<.0001
84635019|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.18|1.93|
84635020|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|7.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.30|-5.49|
84635021|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|1.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.54|-6.96|
84635022|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|6.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.16|-2.85|
84635023|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|23.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||23.8|11.2|
84635024|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|10.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||10.7|2.32|
84635025|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|18.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.7|9.75|
84635026|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.34|-14.6|
84635027|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.297||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.297|-7.22|
84762072|NCT03401489|169281588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.72||Significance threshold was α=0.05, two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were also run for sensitivity analyses, adjusting for baseline SBP, site, and race.|Difference defined as Control minus PACESETTER at 12 months (SBP \<130 mmHg); odds ratio \<1 favors the PACESETTER arm.|Comparison between PACESETTER and control arms at 12 months for proportion of participants with SBP \<130 mmHg using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with logit link. Model included baseline SBP, site, and race as covariates.||2.72|.36|0.822
84635028|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.71||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.71|-11.6|
84635029|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|7.39|
84635030|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.5|2.91|
84635031|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|6.88|
84635032|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.30|-7.41|
84635033|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|6.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.56|-2.15|
84635034|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.47|-3.23|
84635035|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.6||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||25.6|13.2|
84635036|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|13.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||13.3|4.78|
84762073|NCT03401489|169281589|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare systolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.1||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values favor the control arm.|||12.1|-7.3|0.623
84635037|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.9|10.4|
84635038|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.52|-15.6|
84635039|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|0.764||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.764|-9.26|
84635040|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.87||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.87|-12.6|
84635041|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|17.4||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||17.4|7.17|
84635042|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|11.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.0|0.917|
84635043|NCT01263197|169007628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|5.98|
84762074|NCT03401489|169281590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.0||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values favor the PACESETTER arm.|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare diastolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.||6.0|-7.8|0.614
84762075|NCT05478252|169281603|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin semaglutide J versus insulin semaglutide B was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 2.5%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.30|<.0001
84762076|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|-0.16|
84762077|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.10|
84635044|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.06||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.06|-1.81|
84635045|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.85||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.85|-1.38|
84635046|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.56|-0.209|
84635047|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.02|-2.94|
84635048|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.43|1.09|
84635049|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|-0.322|
84635050|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.41||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.41|-11.5|
84635051|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.56|-5.21|
84635052|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|0.557||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.557|-6.73|
84675277|NCT03890367|169085781|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
84762078|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|-0.05|
84635053|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|6.53||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.53|-3.61|
84675278|NCT03890367|169085782|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
84675279|NCT03890367|169085783|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>0%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.20|5.68|
84762079|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.33|
84540233|NCT04909853|168831104|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.52|236.46|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||236.46|148.52|
84635054|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|5.99|
84635055|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|10.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.8|3.49|
84635056|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.34|-5.28|
84635057|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-5.93|
84635058|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|3.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.68|-4.35|
84635059|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|3.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.20|-7.42|
84762080|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.65|
84635060|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|9.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.12|-0.404|
84635061|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.90|-4.14|
84635062|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|1.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.37|-9.69|
84635063|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.718||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.718|-10.2|
84635064|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|0.32||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.320|-8.71|
84675280|NCT03890367|169085784|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.28||||||||2.28|-2.30|
84675281|NCT03890367|169085785|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
84762081|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.16|
84762082|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
84635065|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.74||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.74|-2.34|
84635066|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.43|-1.54|
84635067|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|9.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.37|0.319|
84635068|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|8.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.12|-3.44|
84635069|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|7.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.00|-3.22|
84635070|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.52|-1.85|
84635071|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.10|-5.45|
84635072|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|8.29||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||8.29|-1.93|
84635073|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.81|-1.56|
84635074|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.59|-6.79|
84635075|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||4.68|-5.00|
84540234|NCT04909853|168831104|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|304.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.6|390.21|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||390.21|237.60|
84635076|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.54|-5.20|
84635077|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|7.17||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.17|-3.27|
84635078|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.59|-1.17|
84635079|NCT01263197|169007629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|8.67||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.67|-0.103|
84635080|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.44|-3.90|
84635081|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.02|-1.91|
84635082|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.18|-2.58|
84635083|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.07|-1.34|
84635084|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|6.69||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.69|0.674|
84635085|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|4.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.81|-0.0178|
84540235|NCT03071692|168831163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||||||||1.16|0.92|
84762083|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
84762084|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|-0.04|
84762085|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|-0.17|
84762086|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.77|-0.16|
84762087|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.74|-0.07|
84762088|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.58|
84762089|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.85|-0.13|
84504663|NCT00909727|168760310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. no imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). Estimates were obtained from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit \& treatment group, \& adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||15.5|4.5|0.0006
84635086|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-0.619||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-0.619|-7.83|
84762090|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|-0.15|
84762091|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.527|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|-0.10|
84762092|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|-0.10|
84762093|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.85|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.85|-0.05|
84762094|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.54|
84635087|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.12|-4.45|
84635088|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.969||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.969|-4.81|
84762095|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.27|
84635089|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.10|-1.15|
84635090|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.9|4.30|
84675282|NCT03890367|169085786|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
84635091|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|8.94||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.94|3.12|
84635092|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|2.82||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.82|-4.65|
84635093|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.44|-4.33|
84762096|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|-0.18|
84635094|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.378|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.95||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.95|-2.20|
84635095|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|4.62||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.62|-2.86|
84762097|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.09|
84762098|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.69|-0.19|
84762099|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.81|
84635096|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|6.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.80|-0.966|
84635097|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|0.366|
84635098|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.07|-6.84|
84635099|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.44|-5.39|
84762100|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|0.42|
84762101|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|0.19|
84540236|NCT03071692|168831164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||||||||1.20|0.92|
84635100|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.66||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.66|-5.30|
84635101|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|9.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.56|1.63|
84635102|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.3|3.39|
84635103|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.1|3.11|
84635104|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.92||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.92|-3.23|
84635105|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.21||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.21|-8.17|
84635106|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.14||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.14|-2.88|
84635107|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.98||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.98|-2.17|
84635108|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.76||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.76|-3.62|
84635109|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|5.55||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.55|0.522|
84635110|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.38||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.38|-3.90|
84675283|NCT03890367|169085787|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|9.85||||||||9.85|1.83|
84675284|NCT03890367|169085788|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
84675285|NCT03890367|169085789|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
84762102|NCT04823650|169281621|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|-0.09|
84635111|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.47|-6.36|
84675286|NCT03890367|169085790|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|2.67||||||||2.67|-2.71|
84762103|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|0.02|
84675287|NCT03890367|169085791|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
84675288|NCT03890367|169085792|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
84675289|NCT04524403|169085794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.52|0.7870
84675290|NCT04524403|169085794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.51|-1.01|0.4018
84675291|NCT04524403|169085795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-1.03|0.5228
84540237|NCT03071692|168831165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
84635112|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.45||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.45|-4.79|
84635113|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|11.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.9|2.59|
84635114|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.0|1.13|
84675292|NCT04524403|169085796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.802|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.802|0.661|0.2537
84635115|NCT01263197|169007630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.16|1.89|
84675293|NCT04524403|169085796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.722|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.722|0.308|0.8740
84635116|NCT00473382|169007631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|30.2||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||30.2|11.4|<0.0001
84635117|NCT00473382|169007631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|42.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.8|23.8|<0.0001
84635118|NCT00473382|169007632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||11.5|5.4|<0.0001
84635119|NCT00473382|169007632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.3|6.4|<0.0001
84635120|NCT00473382|169007633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|21.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|31.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||31.9|10.8|0.0002
84635121|NCT00473382|169007633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|37.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||37.9|16.4|<0.0001
84762104|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|0.35|
84762105|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.14|
84645332|NCT02047318|169026438|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-94.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.915||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.26|-43.55||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-43.55|-145.26|0.0012
84762106|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.11|
84762107|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.52|-0.01|
84762108|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.04|
84504664|NCT00909727|168760311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.5||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||13.5|-1.4|0.1092
84504665|NCT00909727|168760311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||11.8|-1.6|0.1354
84635122|NCT00473382|169007634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.1||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|1.7|0.0119
84635123|NCT00473382|169007634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|4.5||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||10.1|-1.2|0.1384
84635124|NCT00473382|169007635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||14.6|2.0|0.0102
84635125|NCT00473382|169007635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||17.3|5.1|0.0005
84635126|NCT00473382|169007636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-72.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-72.0|-151.6|<0.0001
84675294|NCT04524403|169085797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.021|-0.021|0.9870
84675295|NCT04524403|169085797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.008||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.029|-0.013|0.4624
84540238|NCT03071692|168831166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16||||||||1.16|0.93|
84540239|NCT03071692|168831167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
84540240|NCT03071692|168831168|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ration|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||||1.13|0.87|
84540241|NCT03071692|168831169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||||||||1.09|0.69|
84540242|NCT03071692|168831170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||||||||1.41|0.95|
84635127|NCT00473382|169007636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.7|-94.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-94.8|-169.7|<0.0001
84635128|NCT00473382|169007637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-4.3||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.8|-9.3|0.0853
84635129|NCT00473382|169007637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-5.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.7|-9.8|0.0073
84635130|NCT00473382|169007638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|14.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|21.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||21.1|6.8|0.0002
84645333|NCT02047318|169026439|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.992||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.77|-18.12||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-18.12|-265.77|0.032
84645334|NCT02047318|169026440|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.095|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|-0.726||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.726|-1.464|< 0.0001
84645335|NCT02047318|169026441|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores from baseline over time (to Week 158) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.958|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7868||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.784|-0.132||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 158 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed over time (with Week 158 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.132|-1.784|0.0307
84675296|NCT00600821|169085801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.761||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.761|0.679|0.639
84762109|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|0.17|
84762110|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.259|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.71|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.71|-0.04|
84540243|NCT03071692|168831171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||||||||1.19|0.69|
84540244|NCT03071692|168831172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||||||||1.14|0.84|
84762111|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.04|
84540245|NCT03071692|168831173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||||||||1.32|0.83|
84635131|NCT00473382|169007638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||36.4|20.2|<0.0001
84635132|NCT00473382|169007639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
84635133|NCT00473382|169007639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84635134|NCT03070964|169007655|SUPERIORITY||Exact binomial estimator|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4||||||||48.4|2.1|
84635135|NCT01094119|169007657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0069
84635136|NCT00357903|169007703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|53.87||||||||53.87|0.00|
84635137|NCT00357903|169007703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|1.3||||||95.0|0.97|1.71||||||||1.71|0.97|
84540246|NCT03071692|168831174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26||||||TT Variant||1.26|0.75|
84540247|NCT03071692|168831174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||CT Variant||1.47|0.96|
84540248|NCT03071692|168831174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||CC Variant||1.39|0.69|
84635138|NCT00606593|169007705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-10.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-3.9|||Linear model|||||-3.9|-17.0|0.0018
84635139|NCT00606593|169007705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.6|||Linear model|||||-12.6|-25.7|<0.0001
84635140|NCT00606593|169007705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-24.9|||Linear model|||||-24.9|-38.0|<0.0001
84635141|NCT00606593|169007705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-39.9|||Linear model|||||-39.9|-53.3|<0.0001
84635142|NCT00606593|169007706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|21.2|||Linear model|||||21.2|7.4|<0.0001
84635143|NCT00606593|169007706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.4|||Linear model|||||28.4|14.6|<0.0001
84635144|NCT00606593|169007706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|41.6|||Linear model|||||41.6|27.8|<0.0001
84635145|NCT00606593|169007706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.0|||Linear model|||||62.0|48.2|<0.0001
84635146|NCT01600170|169007708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
84635147|NCT01600170|169007709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.45||||||Threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.45
84675297|NCT00600821|169085802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.689||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.689|0.739|0.699
84762112|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
84540249|NCT03071692|168831175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13496
84540250|NCT03071692|168831176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84635148|NCT01600170|169007710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.80
84762113|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
84635149|NCT01600170|169007711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.04
84635150|NCT01600170|169007712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.15
84635151|NCT01600170|169007713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.63
84635152|NCT01600170|169007714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.035
84675298|NCT00600821|169085803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.676||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy. Risk ratio in comparison to the Bevacizumab group was calculated assuming all other factors as constant.||1.107|0.412|0.9422
84762114|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
84762115|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
84762116|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
84762117|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
84635153|NCT01600170|169007715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.62
84635154|NCT01600170|169007716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.99
84635155|NCT01209325|169007717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Two-sided p-value|Exact poisson test|||||||0.112
84762118|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
84762119|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
84635156|NCT01209325|169007717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 3.4 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.447
84635157|NCT01209325|169007718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.224
84635158|NCT01209325|169007718|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value.||||||0.361|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.361
84635159|NCT01209325|169007719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.079
84635160|NCT01209325|169007719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.8 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.350
84635161|NCT01209325|169007720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Exact poisson test|||||||0.162
84675299|NCT04116229|169085891|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.28
84675300|NCT04116229|169085891|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.03
84762120|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
84635162|NCT01209325|169007720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the Merck 020 per-protocol historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.490
84635163|NCT01209325|169007721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Two-sided p-value is comparing naive and prior exposure groups for HPV 6.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.671
84635164|NCT01209325|169007721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 1.8 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.5 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.312
84635165|NCT01209325|169007722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||>0.999
84635166|NCT01209325|169007722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.209
84635167|NCT01209325|169007723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.386
84635168|NCT01209325|169007723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 2.9 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.9 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.305
84635169|NCT01209325|169007724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.622
84635170|NCT01209325|169007724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.7 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.150
84635171|NCT01209325|169007725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.064
84635172|NCT01209325|169007726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745||||||Two-sided test.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.745
84635173|NCT01209325|169007727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.014
84635174|NCT01209325|169007728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.166
84635175|NCT01209325|169007729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.789
84635176|NCT01209325|169007730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Two-sided p-value.|0.809|||||||0.809
84635177|NCT01209325|169007731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.422
84635178|NCT01209325|169007732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.423
84635179|NCT00607373|169007742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Fifty-one patients were enrolled to allow for patient withdrawals and potential exclusions from analysis sets.||||<0.001
84635180|NCT00607373|169007743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84675301|NCT04116229|169085892|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|-0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
84635181|NCT00607373|169007745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84635182|NCT00607373|169007748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84635183|NCT00607373|169007750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.013
84635184|NCT00607373|169007752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84635185|NCT00607373|169007754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
84635186|NCT00607373|169007756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84635187|NCT00607373|169007758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
84635188|NCT00607373|169007760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
84635189|NCT04546672|169007802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|55.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||55.4|-31.1|0.58
84635190|NCT04546672|169007803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.4|9.2|<0.001
84675302|NCT04116229|169085892|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|0.52||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
84635191|NCT04546672|169007804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||Fisher Exact|||||6.2|0.9|0.087
84635192|NCT04546672|169007805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|12.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.6|-26.4|0.48
84635193|NCT04546672|169007806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.02
84635194|NCT04546672|169007807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-2.2|0.27
84675303|NCT04116229|169085892|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|-0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
84635195|NCT01724346|169007810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.155|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||P-value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.220|0.110|< 0.0001
84635196|NCT01724346|169007813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.141||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.054|< 0.0001
84635197|NCT01724346|169007814|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.496|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|3.131||Rate ratio and p-value are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0-1 vs 2) and Rai stage (0/I/II vs III/IV) at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.131|1.990|< 0.0001
84635198|NCT00525161|169007822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Response Rate at 3 months|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Defined as complete response/partial response after 3 months of adding sorafenib to endocrine therapy|Based on known historical response rate to sorafenib of no better than 5-10%, the study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the clinical response rate is no better than 10% versus the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 25% when sorafenib is added to endocrine therapy. In the first stage, 18 patients were planned for enrollment, and if two or fewer responses were observed, the trial would be terminated. The study stopped after 11 due to slow accrual and withdrawal of funding.||||
84635199|NCT00525161|169007823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Progression Free Survival|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.3||||||||11.3|2.6|
84635200|NCT01397968|169007826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.0001
84635201|NCT01397968|169007827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84540251|NCT03071692|168831177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84540252|NCT03071692|168831178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96689|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96689
84635202|NCT02970162|169007828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||LS means|Least square means|Fixed effects treatment and QMG at Baseline. Between-treatment difference in LS means (95% CI) -6.54 (-9.78, -3.29).||||||0.0004
84635203|NCT02970162|169007829|SUPERIORITY||LS means|2.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.38||CFB for SGI score was modeled as the response, with fixed effects terms for treatment and SGI at Baseline|Fixed effects linear model|This statistical test applies to the change from baseline SGI scores to Day 4 values row.||||4.38|1.53|0.0003
84635204|NCT02970162|169007830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0020
84635205|NCT02970162|169007831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
84635206|NCT00750438|169007832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.972
84635207|NCT00750438|169007833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 24 weeks||||0.559
84635208|NCT00750438|169007833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.062
84635209|NCT00750438|169007833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.099
84635210|NCT00750438|169007834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
84635211|NCT00750438|169007835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.001
84635212|NCT00750438|169007835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.723
84635213|NCT00750438|169007835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.027
84635214|NCT00750438|169007836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
84635215|NCT00750438|169007836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
84635216|NCT00750438|169007836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.549
84762121|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.34|-0.25|
84762122|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.27|-0.13|
84762123|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.21|-0.21|
84762124|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.50|
84762125|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.50|-0.31|
84762126|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.29|-0.62|
84762127|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|-0.02|
84762128|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
84762129|NCT04823650|169281622|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.07|
84762130|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.93|0.45|
84762131|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
84762132|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
84762133|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.13|
84762134|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
84762135|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.05|
84540253|NCT03071692|168831179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84762136|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
84762137|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
84762138|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
84762139|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.56|-0.48|
84540254|NCT03071692|168831180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09178|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09178
84540255|NCT03071692|168831181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84540256|NCT03071692|168831182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84540257|NCT03071692|168831183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84540258|NCT05387889|168831189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.054
84762140|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.82|
84635217|NCT02819011|169007895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare changes in two groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.040
84635218|NCT02819011|169007896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.005
84635219|NCT02819011|169007897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.019
84635220|NCT02819011|169007899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Repeated measures to compare the changes of both groups from pre-intervention to post-intervention year.||||0.572
84635221|NCT02819011|169007900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.650
84635222|NCT02819011|169007901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.756
84762141|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.58|
84762142|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.83|-0.14|
84762143|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
84762144|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
84762145|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.56|-0.07|
84762146|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.04|
84635223|NCT02819011|169007904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.769
84762147|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.04|
84762148|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.733|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|-0.18|
84762149|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.89|-0.21|
84635224|NCT02819011|169007905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.857
84635225|NCT02819011|169007906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.829
84635226|NCT04603027|169007921|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|7.12||||||||7.12|-20.28|
84540259|NCT05387889|168831190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.25
84635227|NCT04603027|169007921|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|5.04||||||||5.04|-22.07|
84635228|NCT04603027|169007921|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|4.65||||||||4.65|-23.22|
84635229|NCT04603027|169007922|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|9.9||||||||9.90|-13.91|
84635230|NCT04603027|169007922|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|8.52||||||||8.52|-15.21|
84635231|NCT04603027|169007922|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|11.53||||||||11.53|-12.33|
84635232|NCT04603027|169007923|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.46||||||||0.46|-1.88|
84635233|NCT04603027|169007923|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.82|
84635234|NCT04603027|169007923|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.05|
84635235|NCT04603027|169007924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.94||||||||6.94|1.01|
84635236|NCT04603027|169007924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.37||||||||7.37|1.17|
84635237|NCT04603027|169007924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.7||||||||4.70|0.63|
84635238|NCT04603027|169007925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.100
84762150|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.79|-0.21|
84762151|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.71|
84762152|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.62|
84762153|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.26|
84762154|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.07|
84762155|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.02|
84762156|NCT04823650|169281623|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.06|
84762157|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.71|
84762158|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.90|
84762159|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.88|
84762160|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.58|
84762161|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
84762162|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.04|
84635239|NCT04603027|169007925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.034
84635240|NCT04603027|169007925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.094
84635241|NCT04603027|169007929|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.96||||||||10.96|0.45|
84762163|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
84635242|NCT04603027|169007929|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.78||||||||8.78|0.42|
84635243|NCT04603027|169007929|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|9.51||||||||9.51|0.46|
84635244|NCT04603027|169007930|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
84635245|NCT04603027|169007930|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
84762164|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
84762165|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.04|
84635246|NCT04603027|169007930|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
84635247|NCT04603027|169007931|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
84635248|NCT04603027|169007931|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
84635249|NCT04603027|169007931|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
84635250|NCT04603027|169007932|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
84635251|NCT04603027|169007932|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
84635252|NCT04603027|169007932|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
84635253|NCT04603027|169007933|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
84762166|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
84635254|NCT04603027|169007933|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
84635255|NCT04603027|169007933|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
84635256|NCT04603027|169007934|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
84635257|NCT04603027|169007934|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
84635258|NCT04603027|169007934|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
84635259|NCT04603027|169007935|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|28.84||||||||28.84|-19.99|
84762167|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
84762168|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
84635260|NCT04603027|169007935|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|21.55||||||||21.55|-26.47|
84635261|NCT04603027|169007935|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|36.92||||||||36.92|-12.03|
84635262|NCT04603027|169007936|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
84635263|NCT04603027|169007936|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
84635264|NCT04603027|169007936|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
84635265|NCT04603027|169007937|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.62|73.35||||||||73.35|-50.62|
84635266|NCT04603027|169007937|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|73.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.69|126.92||||||||126.92|21.69|
84635267|NCT04603027|169007937|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.58|56.81||||||||56.81|-44.58|
84635268|NCT04603027|169007938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
84635269|NCT04603027|169007938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
84635270|NCT04603027|169007938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
84635271|NCT02873702|169008042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority to lansoprazole if the lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|21.3||||||Healing Period: Dexlansoprazole 60 mg versus Healing Period: Lansoprazole 30 mg||21.30|-26.59|
84635272|NCT03249116|169008044|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.33||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: self-reported anxiety between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.723
84635273|NCT03249116|169008045|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.34||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: electrodermal activity between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.271
84635274|NCT03249116|169008046|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.45||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: heart rate between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.638
84635275|NCT03249116|169008047|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.14||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: number of errors between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.868
84635276|NCT03249116|169008048|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.21||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: lowest number reached/highest number of correct responses between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.809
84635277|NCT00221117|169008055|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
84635278|NCT00221117|169008056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The subject's impairment and demographic characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics for parametric and nonparametric data. The baseline outcome data of the intervention and control groups were compared using Fisher exact test (for categorical variables) and Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables). Comparisons between the intervention and control groups were carried out using linear regression analysis adjusted for the baseline degree of disability (baseline AIS).||||0.05
84635279|NCT01255436|169008066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.0||p-value\<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.0|-9.4|0.06
84635280|NCT01255436|169008067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-4.1|0.14
84635281|NCT01255436|169008068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Numerator is Treatment Group (SMS reminders) and Denominator is Control Group (No SMS reminders)|||1.6|1.0|0.045
84635282|NCT01255436|169008069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.53|||Fisher Exact|||||1.53|1.04|0.014
84635283|NCT04816669|169008070|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 lyophilized SDV - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid MDV and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||0.77|0.60|
84635284|NCT04816669|169008078|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 frozen-liquid LNP - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid RTU and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.68|0.77|
84635285|NCT01229267|169008086|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.746|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is \>0.25.||0.746|0.484|
84635286|NCT01229267|169008087|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.818|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.818|0.490|
84635287|NCT01229267|169008088|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.86|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.860|0.498|
84635288|NCT01229267|169008089|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.952|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.952|0.446|
84635289|NCT01229267|169008090|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.5|||Normal approximation||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-5.1|0.942
84635290|NCT01499277|169008098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.41||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam). CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||5.41|-6.9|
84635291|NCT01499277|169008099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|7.48||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||7.48|-4.32|
84635292|NCT01499277|169008100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|10.39||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||10.39|-6.21|
84635293|NCT01499277|169008101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|12.86||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||12.86|-2.11|
84635294|NCT01499277|169008102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.06||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||7.06|-4.05|
84762169|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
84762170|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
84762171|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
84635295|NCT01499277|169008103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.73||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||8.73|-2.19|
84635296|NCT01499277|169008104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.18||||RD is the difference in relapse rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||1.18|-3.98|
84635297|NCT01499277|169008105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.15||||RD is the difference in success rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||3.15|-6.34|
84635298|NCT00880919|169008111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Mean changes were calculated using each groups linear and quadratic effects||||.015
84635299|NCT02015637|169008123|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rate|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|1.36||||||||1.36|-13.18|
84635300|NCT02015637|169008124|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rates|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-3.87||||||||-3.87|-16.03|
84635301|NCT06170242|169008139|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in least square (LS) means|-540.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-680.8|-400.33|||ANCOVA|||High Dose versus (vs) Placebo||-400.33|-680.80|<0.0001
84635302|NCT06170242|169008139|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-523.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-674.46|-371.78|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-371.78|-674.46|<0.0001
84635303|NCT06170242|169008139|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS means|-536.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-641.71|-430.89|||ANCOVA|||Pooled EDP-323 vs Placebo||-430.89|-641.71|<0.0001
84635304|NCT06170242|169008140|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.81|-4.85|<0.0001
84635305|NCT06170242|169008140|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.89|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.89|-5.44|<0.0001
84762172|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
84635306|NCT06170242|169008141|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.29||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.92|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.50|0.6330
84635307|NCT06170242|169008141|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.14||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||1.17|-1.46|0.8309
84635308|NCT06170242|169008143|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo.||-0.61|-2.53|0.0021
84635309|NCT06170242|169008143|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.09||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||0.18|-2.35|0.0905
84635310|NCT06170242|169008146|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-203.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.18|-135.07|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-135.07|-272.18|<0.0001
84762173|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
84762174|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
84635311|NCT06170242|169008146|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-215.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.84|-141.22|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-141.22|-288.84|<0.0001
84762175|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.75|-0.15|
84635312|NCT06170242|169008147|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.40|-4.05|<0.0001
84635313|NCT06170242|169008147|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.34|-4.11|<0.0001
84635314|NCT06170242|169008148|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.44||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.68|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||2.68|0.20|0.0238
84635315|NCT06170242|169008148|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.68||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||2.99|0.36|0.0134
84635316|NCT06170242|169008150|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-2.18||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.12|-4.23|0.0389
84635317|NCT06170242|169008150|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.31||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||1.10|-3.73|0.2713
84635318|NCT06170242|169008152|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-280.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-404.44|-156.77|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-156.77|-404.44|<0.0001
84635319|NCT06170242|169008152|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-301.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.53|-173.76|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-173.76|-428.53|<0.0001
84635320|NCT06170242|169008153|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.02|-5.26|<0.0001
84635321|NCT06170242|169008153|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.05|-5.35|<0.0001
84635322|NCT06170242|169008154|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.08||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.03|-2.19|0.0552
84762176|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.81|-0.21|
84762177|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.50|-0.23|
84635323|NCT06170242|169008154|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.38||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.69|0.5599
84635324|NCT06170242|169008155|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.04||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.10|-1.97|0.0307
84635325|NCT06170242|169008155|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.53||||0.4119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-1.81|0.4119
84635326|NCT06170242|169008156|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.37||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-4.40|-22.34|0.0042
84635327|NCT06170242|169008156|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.19||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-4.00|-22.38|0.0058
84635328|NCT06170242|169008157|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-18.72||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-6.84|-30.61|0.0026
84675304|NCT04116229|169085892|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|0.22||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
84762178|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.76|-0.12|
84762179|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.04|
84762180|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.34|
84635329|NCT06170242|169008157|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-19.28||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-7.26|||ANCOVA|||||-7.26|-31.30|0.0022
84635330|NCT02863419|169008169|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin. The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|<0.0001
84635331|NCT02863419|169008169|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|0.0645
84635332|NCT02863419|169008169|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
84635333|NCT02863419|169008169|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84635334|NCT02863419|169008169|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|0.0056
84762181|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.25|
84762182|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.01|
84762183|NCT04823650|169281624|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|0.00|
84762184|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.53|
84762185|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
84762186|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
84762187|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.14|
84762188|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
84762189|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
84762190|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
84762191|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
84762192|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
84762193|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.69|-0.32|
84762194|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.69|
84762195|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.47|
84540260|NCT05387889|168831191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.07
84635335|NCT02863419|169008169|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.4|0.0001
84762196|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.80|-0.13|
84762197|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|-0.05|
84762198|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.71|-0.03|
84762199|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.66|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.66|-0.08|
84635336|NCT02863419|169008170|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.9|0.0003
84635337|NCT02863419|169008170|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-3.0|-4.7|<0.0001
84635338|NCT02863419|169008170|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
84635339|NCT02863419|169008170|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral sema 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
84635340|NCT02863419|169008191|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.4915
84635341|NCT02863419|169008191|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.48|0.21|<0.0001
84635342|NCT02863419|169008192|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||2.22|0.62|0.6252
84635343|NCT02863419|169008192|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.09|<0.0001
84635344|NCT02362282|169008209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84635345|NCT03511937|169008213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-5.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-5.0|-57.9|0.02
84635346|NCT03511937|169008214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.5|156.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||156.6|-295.5|0.55
84635347|NCT03511937|169008215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||-4|-23|0.006
84635348|NCT03511937|169008216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.010
84635349|NCT03511937|169008217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust standard errors.||||0.5|-0.2|0.403
84635350|NCT03511937|169008218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.8|0.1|0.005
84635351|NCT03511937|169008219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|43.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||43|32|<0.001
84635352|NCT03511937|169008220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.9|1.4|<0.001
84635353|NCT03511937|169008221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
84635354|NCT03511937|169008222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
84635355|NCT03511937|169008223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.1|0.7|<0.001
84635356|NCT03511937|169008224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.001|0.055
84635357|NCT03511937|169008225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.27|0.258
84635358|NCT03511937|169008226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.30|0.416
84635359|NCT03511937|169008227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.24|-0.14|0.609
84635360|NCT03511937|169008228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.1|0.002
84762200|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
84635361|NCT03511937|169008229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||2.3|1.8|<0.001
84635362|NCT03511937|169008230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.23|0.311
84675305|NCT04116229|169085893|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.18|||>|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.46
84635363|NCT03511937|169008231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.08|-0.30|0.253
84635364|NCT03511937|169008232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.14|-0.22|0.658
84675306|NCT04116229|169085893|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.22|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.5
84675307|NCT04116229|169085894|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.62
84675308|NCT04116229|169085894|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.82
84635365|NCT03511937|169008233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.3|172.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||172.3|-271.3|0.661
84635366|NCT03511937|169008234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||26.6|-1.6|0.082
84635367|NCT01931566|169008274|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.023
84675309|NCT04116229|169085895|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
84675310|NCT04116229|169085895|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
84762201|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.03|
84635368|NCT01931566|169008275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.307
84635369|NCT00638014|169008305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84635370|NCT04625101|169008307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4326
84635371|NCT01869764|169008332|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
84635372|NCT01869764|169008333|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84635373|NCT04717336|169008346|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Paired Differences|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||Paired T-Test|A paired t-test was applied across both periods because this is a cross-over study where each participant serves at their own control.||The aim of this analysis is to test whether there is a statistically significant difference in Pulse Wave Velocity when participants are on sodium chloride vs. placebo, regardless of period.||0.23|-0.22|0.98
84635374|NCT02039843|169008347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Two-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in WHO-DAS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time \& timeXgroup interaction||||||0.052
84635375|NCT02039843|169008348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.421
84635376|NCT02039843|169008349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in MCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.606
84635377|NCT02039843|169008350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PSQI score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.210
84635378|NCT02039843|169008351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCL-5 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.036
84675311|NCT04116229|169085896|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
84504666|NCT00909727|168760312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-46.8||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.8|-61.8|<0.0001
84504667|NCT00909727|168760312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-46.0||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.0|-60.9|<0.0001
84504668|NCT00909727|168760313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with dependent variable weight; treatment as a fixed effect; and intercept, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||2.9|0.9|0.0004
84504669|NCT00909727|168760313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2||P-value is for the treatment effect at Week 48 (obtained as a linear contrast of treatment at Day 336). There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with random intercept and random slope, treatment as a fixed effect, and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for categorical baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.2|1.3|0.0002
84504670|NCT01339910|168760316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month OS (MAC-RIC)|9.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.3||This final test was performed at a 0.049 significance level, since 0.001 was spent at interim analyses and the overall significance level was 0.050.|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month overall survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||20.3|-0.8|0.07
84504671|NCT01339910|168760317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month RFS (MAC-RIC)|20.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|32.0||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in relapse-free survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month relapse-free survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||32.0|8.9|< 0.01
84635379|NCT02039843|169008352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PHQ-9 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.079
84635380|NCT02039843|169008353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in DAR score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.155
84635381|NCT02039843|169008354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in SBI adjusted for gender, site, baseline SBI, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.157
84635382|NCT02039843|169008355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.430
84762202|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.86|0.11|
84762203|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.29|
84762204|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.78|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.78|-0.20|
84762205|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.23|
84635383|NCT02039843|169008356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.358
84762206|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.00|
84762207|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.03|
84635384|NCT02039843|169008357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
84635385|NCT02039843|169008367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.383
84635386|NCT02039843|169008368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.932
84635387|NCT01958164|169008369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|89.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||89.3|23.3|
84635388|NCT01958164|169008370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|90.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||90.3|20.7|
84635389|NCT03894813|169008428|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84635390|NCT03894813|169008429|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84635391|NCT03894813|169008430|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84635392|NCT03894813|169008431|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84635393|NCT03894813|169008432|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84635394|NCT02656693|169008433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00017
84635395|NCT02656693|169008435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84762208|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.20|
84762209|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
84762210|NCT04823650|169281625|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|-0.02|
84762211|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.19|
84635396|NCT02656693|169008437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84635397|NCT02656693|169008438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84635398|NCT02656693|169008440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84635399|NCT02656693|169008441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84635400|NCT02656693|169008442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
84635401|NCT02656693|169008443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84635402|NCT02656693|169008444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84635403|NCT02656693|169008445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84635404|NCT02656693|169008446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84635405|NCT02656693|169008447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84635406|NCT02656693|169008448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84635407|NCT02656693|169008449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84635408|NCT02656693|169008450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84635409|NCT02656693|169008451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84635410|NCT02656693|169008452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84635411|NCT02656693|169008453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
84635412|NCT02656693|169008454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84635413|NCT02656693|169008455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84635414|NCT02656693|169008456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84635415|NCT02656693|169008457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
84635416|NCT02656693|169008458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84504672|NCT01339910|168760318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of disease relapse during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of disease relapse was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||< 0.001
84635417|NCT03284307|169008459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Dexmedetomidine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.012
84635418|NCT03284307|169008459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Ketamine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.236
84635419|NCT03284307|169008459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Propofol, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.174
84635420|NCT03284307|169008459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Sleep, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.640
84762212|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.11|
84762213|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|-0.06|
84504673|NCT01339910|168760319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating disease relapse as a competing risk.||||0.002
84504674|NCT01339910|168760320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.002
84635421|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.134
84635422|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.012
84635423|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1 degree of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.487
84635424|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.046
84635425|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.010
84762214|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.70|-0.35|
84635426|NCT03284307|169008461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.356
84635427|NCT03284307|169008462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
84635428|NCT03284307|169008462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|14 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
84635429|NCT03284307|169008462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||0.067
84635430|NCT03284307|169008463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.5
84635431|NCT03284307|169008463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|11 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.37
84635432|NCT03284307|169008463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.12
84635433|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.23|-0.04|0.1524
84635434|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.16|-0.11|0.7086
84635435|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.01|-0.26|0.0651
84635436|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.02||||0.7937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.12|0.7937
84635437|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.10|-0.18|0.5587
84635438|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.09|-0.13|0.7285
84635439|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.09|0.5802
84635440|NCT02255435|169008474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.08|-0.08|0.9698
84635441|NCT02255435|169008475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment group, time, interaction between treatment and time, interaction between baseline and time; covariates: site, baseline mFARS|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||-0.50|-4.31|0.0141
84635442|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.18|-4.80|0.2310
84635443|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.47|-3.51|0.7298
84635444|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.00|-3.99|0.5102
84635445|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.04|-3.94|0.5281
84635446|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.57|-4.42|0.3458
84635447|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||0.09|-4.68|0.0587
84635448|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.58||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||3.10|-1.94|0.6480
84635449|NCT02255435|169008476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.66|-2.87|0.2174
84762215|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.66|
84762216|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.02|
84635450|NCT02948634|169008499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84635451|NCT02948634|169008500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84635452|NCT02948634|169008501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84635453|NCT00499616|169008505|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.9841||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients between 12-18 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma and favorable biological features on ANBL0531 and patients less than 12 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma on A3961 were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3212
84635454|NCT00499616|169008509|OTHER||Log-Rank Test Statistic|5.0049||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0253
84635455|NCT00499616|169008510|OTHER|The overall survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.|Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6709||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.1022
84635456|NCT00499616|169008511|OTHER||Chi-Square Test Statistic|9.9111||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The association between extent of surgical resection with occurrence of complications was determined using the chi-square test.||||.0016
84762217|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.78|0.08|
84635457|NCT00826462|169008539|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations||||A linear GEE regression model adjusted for the significant covariates at p \< 0.05 from the univariate GEE logistic regression models calculated for success|||<0.01
84635458|NCT00826462|169008539|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations|||||||<0.01
84675312|NCT04116229|169085896|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.5
84635459|NCT00826462|169008543|OTHER||||||||||||||||||linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression model adjusted for significant covariates; between groups estimated odds ratio (OR) for no pain on two isometric movements using logistic GEE regression model adjusted for significant covariates; 99 % confidence intervals|||
84635460|NCT03085797|169008552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment,region,Baseline score,Baseline eosinophilcount(BEC). Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal|||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
84635461|NCT03085797|169008553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.18||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.18|-4.09|<0.001
84635462|NCT03085797|169008554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, Baseline total endoscopic score (centrally read), Baseline nasal obstruction VAS, Baseline BEC, number of previous surgeries (1, 2, \>2 as ordinal).|||0.76|0.25|0.003
84635463|NCT03085797|169008555|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-3.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.26||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.26|-4.10|0.003
84635464|NCT03085797|169008556|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-16.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-9.42||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk 52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-9.42|-23.57|0.003
84635465|NCT03085797|169008557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||p-Value was based on logistic regression model and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic||Covariates: treatment group, geographic region, number of oral corticosteroids courses for NP in last 12 months(0,1,\>1 as ordinal), Baseline total endoscopic score(centrally read),Baseline nasal obstruction VAS score,log(e) Baseline eosinophil count.|||0.92|0.36|0.020
84635466|NCT03085797|169008558|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-2.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.91||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-1.91|-3.44|0.020
84675313|NCT04116229|169085897|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.09
84675314|NCT04116229|169085897|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.45
84635467|NCT03085797|169008559|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-0.08|-0.65|0.020
84762218|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
84635468|NCT04050202|169008563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.45|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score.|||||<0.01
84635469|NCT04050202|169008564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score|||||<0.01
84635470|NCT02974543|169008573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84635471|NCT02974543|169008574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84635472|NCT00220636|169008577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the HDRS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||<.001
84635473|NCT00220636|169008579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|-3.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the GAFS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.009
84635474|NCT00220636|169008580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the BDI score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.008
84635475|NCT00539942|169008581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Unable to analyze data||||<.05
84635476|NCT02910986|169008598|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage with improved knowledge (defined as having an incorrect response at T0 and a correct response at T1) was compared between study groups with chi-square tests.||||> 0.05
84635477|NCT02910986|169008599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84635478|NCT02910986|169008600|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
84635479|NCT02910986|169008600|OTHER||difference between EC and UC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-6.0|11.2||||||||11.2|-6.0|
84635480|NCT02910986|169008600|OTHER||difference between INT and UC|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.3|14.3||||||||14.3|-4.3|
84635481|NCT02910986|169008600|OTHER||difference between INT and ENH|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.0|11.9||||||||11.9|-7.0|
84635482|NCT03682770|169008629|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|39.189||The p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline body weight.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method|||39.189|1.266|0.0420
84635483|NCT03682770|169008630|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|1.305||P-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101) of the LS mean change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA|||||1.305|0.031|0.0400
84635484|NCT03682770|169008631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.91||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.612|27.44||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kilo allergy unit per liter \[kUA/L\] vs \>100 kUA/L) and body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||27.440|-3.612|0.0806
84762219|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
84762220|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|-0.15|
84635485|NCT03682770|169008633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.668|32.474||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||32.474|-11.668|0.3530
84762221|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.15|
84635486|NCT03682770|169008634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.37||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|1.029||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.029|-0.281|0.2628
84635487|NCT03682770|169008635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.36||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.004|20.282||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||20.282|-25.004|0.8140
84635488|NCT03682770|169008636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.599||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.599|-0.699|0.8805
84635489|NCT03682770|169008638|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage|-85.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.47|-73.91||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate,- and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-73.91|-99.47|<0.0001
84635490|NCT03682770|169008639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-68.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.4||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate, and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-56.40|-86.71|<0.0001
84635491|NCT01317277|169008647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||In between-group analyses, overall MEMS adherence was defined as % of doses taken.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods.||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.68
84635492|NCT01317277|169008648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||MEMS adherence based on dose timing was examined for between-group differences.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.95
84635493|NCT01317277|169008649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Z = -1.97|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods; P-Value is calculated.||Text-reported METH use days||||0.05
84762222|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.68|-0.04|
84635494|NCT02688777|169008657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84635495|NCT02688777|169008658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84635496|NCT02688777|169008659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set for p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84635497|NCT02688777|169008660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84635498|NCT02688777|169008661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84675315|NCT04116229|169085898|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.19
84635499|NCT02688777|169008662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set at p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84635500|NCT02688777|169008663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior threshold for significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84635501|NCT02688777|169008664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84635502|NCT02688777|169008665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84635503|NCT02688777|169008666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84635504|NCT02688777|169008667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84635505|NCT02688777|169008668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84675316|NCT04116229|169085898|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.52
84635506|NCT02688777|169008669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84635507|NCT02549365|169008670|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.9|||||Incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza is compared between those vaccinated and household controls. VE will be calculated as 1 - RR with 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression.|||13.9|0.6|
84635508|NCT00912795|169008673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|0.62|
84635509|NCT00912795|169008674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||||||||3.2|0.50|
84635510|NCT00912795|169008675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.5||||||||7.5|0.81|
84635511|NCT00912795|169008676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|.62|
84635512|NCT01075685|169008719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Type 3 tests of fixed effects|||||||0.0279
84635513|NCT01075685|169008720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0189
84635514|NCT01075685|169008721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84635515|NCT01075685|169008722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.082
84635516|NCT00531661|169008723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||0.0002
84635517|NCT00531661|169008724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implantation cases free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implantation cases was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
84635518|NCT00531661|169008725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all patients implanted was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
84635519|NCT00531661|169008726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0077
84635520|NCT00531661|169008727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0292
84762223|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.31|
84762224|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.20|
84635521|NCT00531661|169008728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0280
84635522|NCT00531661|169008729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0236
84635523|NCT00531661|169008730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||<0.0001
84762225|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.592|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|-0.19|
84762226|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.10|
84762227|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.10|
84762228|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.04|
84635524|NCT00531661|169008731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implanted patients was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
84635525|NCT00531661|169008732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all implanted patients was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
84635526|NCT02858362|169008739|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 23 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.048||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.048|-0.002|
84635527|NCT02858362|169008739|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.042||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||0.042|-0.03|
84635528|NCT02858362|169008740|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.324|-0.898||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||-0.898|-4.324|
84635529|NCT02858362|169008740|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|3.435||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||3.435|-1.103|
84635530|NCT02858362|169008741|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.989|0.315||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.315|-3.989|
84635531|NCT02858362|169008741|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|4.324||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||4.324|0.096|
84635532|NCT02304367|169008790|OTHER|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in osteoid thickness is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0428
84635533|NCT02304367|169008791|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OS/BS is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.9770
84635534|NCT02304367|169008792|OTHER|||||||0.0858|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OV/BV is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0858
84635535|NCT02304367|169008793|OTHER|||||||0.4077|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in Mlt is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.4077
84635536|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 24||||0.016
84635537|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 48||||0.030
84635538|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 96||||0.259
84635539|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 144||||0.346
84635540|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 168||||0.213
84635541|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 192||||0.873
84635542|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 216||||0.001
84635543|NCT02304367|169008800|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 240||||0.040
84762229|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|0.26|
84762230|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.05|
84762231|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.18|
84762232|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.06|
84504675|NCT01339910|168760320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.065
84635544|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 24||||<0.0001
84635545|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 48||||<0.0001
84635546|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 96||||0.001
84635547|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 144||||0.007
84635548|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 168||||0.005
84635549|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 192||||0.004
84635550|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 216||||0.002
84635551|NCT02304367|169008801|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 240||||0.006
84635552|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 24||||< 0.001
84635553|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 48||||< 0.001
84635554|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 96||||<0.001
84635555|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635556|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635557|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635558|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84635559|NCT02304367|169008802|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84635560|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 24||||0.659
84635561|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 48||||0.752
84635562|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 96||||0.594
84635563|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.614|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 144||||0.614
84635564|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 168||||0.542
84635565|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 192||||0.067
84635566|NCT02304367|169008803|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 216||||0.330
84635567|NCT02304367|169008803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 240||||0.161
84635568|NCT02304367|169008804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
84635569|NCT02304367|169008804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
84635570|NCT02304367|169008804|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 96||||0.001
84635571|NCT02304367|169008804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635572|NCT02304367|169008804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635573|NCT02304367|169008804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635574|NCT02304367|169008804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84762233|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.86|-0.07|
84762234|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.38|
84635575|NCT02304367|169008804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84635576|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 24||||< 0.001
84635577|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 48||||< 0.001
84635578|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 96||||0.002
84635579|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635580|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84762235|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.01|
84762236|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|-0.08|
84762237|NCT04823650|169281626|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.11|
84762238|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.94|
84635581|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635582|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84635583|NCT02304367|169008805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84635584|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
84635585|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
84635586|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635587|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635588|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635589|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635590|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84635591|NCT02304367|169008806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84635592|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 24||||0.878
84635593|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 48||||0.081
84635594|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 96||||0.001
84762239|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.72|
84635595|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635596|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635597|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635598|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 216||||0.055
84635599|NCT02304367|169008807|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 240||||0.041
84635600|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.817
84635601|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.042
84635602|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635603|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635604|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84675317|NCT04116229|169085899|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.90
84762240|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.01|
84762241|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
84762242|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.75|
84762243|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.16|
84762244|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
84675318|NCT04116229|169085899|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.87
84635605|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635606|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.174
84635607|NCT02304367|169008808|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84635608|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER|||||||0.694|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.694
84635609|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.047
84635610|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635611|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635612|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635613|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635614|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.170
84504676|NCT01339910|168760321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.005
84762245|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
84504677|NCT01339910|168760321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 100 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.011
84504678|NCT01339910|168760321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at 18 months post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.39
84504679|NCT01339910|168760322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.024
84504680|NCT01339910|168760322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.066
84504681|NCT01339910|168760323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.019
84504682|NCT02965820|168760332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0030
84504683|NCT00829413|168760333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.2|||McNemar|||||48.2|27.4|<.0001
84504684|NCT00829413|168760333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|50.3|||McNemar|||||50.3|30.4|<.0001
84504685|NCT00829413|168760333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
84504686|NCT00829413|168760334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|7.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2|||McNemar|||||18.2|-2.4|0.1380
84762246|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.47|
84504687|NCT00829413|168760334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|37.5|||McNemar|||||37.5|19.7|<.0001
84635615|NCT02304367|169008809|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
84504688|NCT00829413|168760334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|50.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.5|||McNemar|||||59.5|42.0|<.0001
84504689|NCT00829413|168760335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.2|||McNemar|||||29.2|14.1|<.0001
84504690|NCT00829413|168760335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|40.7|||McNemar|||||40.7|27.3|<.0001
84504691|NCT00829413|168760335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
84504692|NCT00829413|168760336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504693|NCT00829413|168760336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504694|NCT00829413|168760336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504695|NCT00829413|168760337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504696|NCT00829413|168760337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504697|NCT00829413|168760337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
84504698|NCT03175120|168760351|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.75|-1.09|<.0001
84504699|NCT03882047|168760412|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504700|NCT03882047|168760412|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504701|NCT03882047|168760412|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84504702|NCT03882047|168760413|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504703|NCT03882047|168760413|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504704|NCT03882047|168760413|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
84504705|NCT03882047|168760414|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504706|NCT03882047|168760414|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504707|NCT03882047|168760414|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84635616|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.090
84635617|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.226
84635618|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.918
84762247|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.45|-0.39|
84762248|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.07|
84762249|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|-0.21|
84762250|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|0.42|
84762251|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.48|
84762252|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.20|
84635619|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.616
84762253|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.58|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.58|-0.07|
84762254|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
84762255|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.12|
84762256|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.58|
84762257|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.52|
84635620|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.041
84635621|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.002
84762258|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.94|
84504708|NCT03882047|168760415|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84504709|NCT03882047|168760415|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504710|NCT03882047|168760415|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84635622|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.137
84635623|NCT02304367|169008810|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.368
84635624|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.018
84635625|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.133
84762259|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.42|
84762260|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.53|
84762261|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.94|
84635626|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.321
84635627|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.218
84635628|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.788
84635629|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.156
84635630|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.155
84762262|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.73|
84762263|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.77|
84762264|NCT04823650|169281627|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
84762265|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.74|
84762266|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
84635631|NCT02304367|169008811|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.580
84635632|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.002
84635633|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.273
84635634|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.469
84762267|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.66|
84762268|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.92|
84762269|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
84635635|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.828
84635636|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635637|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.141
84635638|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.606
84635639|NCT02304367|169008812|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.907
84635640|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.001
84635641|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.149
84635642|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.372
84635643|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.116
84635644|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||0.013
84635645|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.962
84635646|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.664
84635647|NCT02304367|169008813|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.790
84504711|NCT03882047|168760416|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504712|NCT03882047|168760416|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504713|NCT03882047|168760416|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84762270|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.19|
84762271|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.89|
84762272|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
84762273|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.50|
84762274|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.42|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.42|-0.64|
84762275|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.64|
84762276|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|0.00|
84762277|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.49|
84504714|NCT03882047|168760417|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84504715|NCT03882047|168760417|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84635648|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||0.050
84504716|NCT03882047|168760417|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84504717|NCT03882047|168760418|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504718|NCT03882047|168760418|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504719|NCT03882047|168760418|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84504720|NCT03882047|168760419|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504721|NCT03882047|168760419|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504722|NCT03882047|168760419|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
84504723|NCT03882047|168760420|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504724|NCT03882047|168760420|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504725|NCT03882047|168760420|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84504726|NCT03882047|168760421|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84635649|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.526
84635650|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.845
84635651|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.782
84635652|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.020
84762278|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.68|
84762279|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.11|
84504727|NCT03882047|168760421|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504728|NCT03882047|168760421|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.53
84504729|NCT03882047|168760422|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504730|NCT03882047|168760422|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84504731|NCT03882047|168760422|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84504732|NCT00723554|168760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average inhalation times from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||-5.4|-6.9|<0.001
84762280|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.17|
84762281|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.65|
84762282|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
84762283|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|-0.09|
84762284|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.34|
84762285|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
84762286|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.63|
84762287|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.76|
84762288|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
84762289|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.61|
84762290|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.79|
84762291|NCT04823650|169281628|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
84762292|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.95|
84762293|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.09|
84762294|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.96|
84762295|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
84762296|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.90|
84762297|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.28|
84762298|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
84762299|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
84762300|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.94|
84762301|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.39|-0.44|
84504733|NCT00723554|168760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of days of dosing from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.6|-1.0|0.59
84635653|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.005
84635654|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 216||||0.136
84635655|NCT02304367|169008814|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.101
84635656|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||< 0.001
84635657|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.238
84635658|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.286
84635659|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.093
84635660|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.890
84635661|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.059
84635662|NCT02304367|169008815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623||||||Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.|GEE model|||Week 216||||0.623
84635663|NCT02304367|169008815|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.411
84635664|NCT02304367|169008816|OTHER|||||||0.8209|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.8209
84762302|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.53|
84762303|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.06|
84762304|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.30|
84762305|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.44|
84762306|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.12|
84504734|NCT00723554|168760452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of daily doses from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.7|0.2|<0.001
84675319|NCT04116229|169085900|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.26
84762307|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.11|
84635665|NCT02304367|169008816|OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2851
84635666|NCT02304367|169008816|OTHER|||||||0.6689|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.6689
84635667|NCT02304367|169008816|OTHER|||||||0.1612|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1612
84635668|NCT02304367|169008817|OTHER|||||||0.4093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.4093
84635669|NCT02304367|169008817|OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5720
84635670|NCT02304367|169008817|OTHER|||||||0.3501|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.3501
84635671|NCT02304367|169008817|OTHER|||||||0.5172|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.5172
84635672|NCT02304367|169008818|OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 24||||0.0046
84635673|NCT02304367|169008818|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 48||||0.0012
84635674|NCT02304367|169008819|OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.6475
84635675|NCT02304367|169008819|OTHER|||||||0.5319|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5319
84635676|NCT02304367|169008819|OTHER|||||||0.9206|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.9206
84635677|NCT02304367|169008819|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1530
84635678|NCT02304367|169008820|OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2125
84635679|NCT02304367|169008820|OTHER|||||||0.1241|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1241
84635680|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.410
84635681|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.210
84635682|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.060
84635683|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.076
84635684|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.171
84635685|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.141
84762308|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.84|
84762309|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|-0.04|
84635686|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.263
84635687|NCT02304367|169008821|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.320
84635688|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.407
84635689|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.192
84762310|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.26|
84635690|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.106
84635691|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.020
84635692|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.002
84635693|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.220
84635694|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.230
84635695|NCT02304367|169008822|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.232
84635696|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.082
84635697|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.176
84635698|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.047
84635699|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.017
84635700|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.000
84635701|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.057
84635702|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.071
84635703|NCT02304367|169008823|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.070
84635704|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.014
84635705|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.309
84635706|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.036
84635707|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.096
84635708|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.005
84635709|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.022
84635710|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.022
84635711|NCT02304367|169008824|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.004
84635712|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
84635713|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.019
84635714|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635715|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.006
84762311|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.80|-0.07|
84762312|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.88|0.15|
84635716|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635717|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||< 0.001
84635718|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.002
84635719|NCT02304367|169008825|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.002
84635720|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.016
84635721|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.004
84635722|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635723|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635724|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635725|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.036
84635726|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.008
84635727|NCT02304367|169008826|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.008
84635728|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.006
84635729|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.003
84635730|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||<0.001
84635731|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635732|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
84635733|NCT02304367|169008827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.007
84635734|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.005
84635735|NCT02304367|169008827|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
84635736|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.009
84635737|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.020
84635738|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.044
84635739|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635740|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.015
84635741|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.125
84635742|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.004
84635743|NCT02304367|169008828|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.018
84635744|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.148
84635745|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.295
84635746|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.005
84635747|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
84635748|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.014
84762313|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.18|
84762314|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.05|
84635749|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.140
84635750|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84635751|NCT02304367|169008829|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.142
84635752|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
84635753|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.077
84635754|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.046
84635755|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.049
84635756|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.003
84635757|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.073
84762315|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
84635758|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.109
84635759|NCT02304367|169008830|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
84635760|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.328
84635761|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.015
84635762|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.020
84635763|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.004
84635764|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.021
84635765|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.080
84635766|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
84635767|NCT02304367|169008831|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.003
84635768|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.207
84635769|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.008
84675320|NCT04116229|169085900|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
84675321|NCT04116229|169085901|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.54
84762316|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|0.57|
84762317|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
84762318|NCT04823650|169281629|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.53|
84762319|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.40|-0.20|
84762320|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.50|-0.22|
84762321|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.64|-0.05|
84635770|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.598|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.598
84635771|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.237
84675322|NCT04116229|169085901|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.77
84635772|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.899
84635773|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.585
84635774|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.461
84635775|NCT02304367|169008832|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.583
84635776|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.654
84635777|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.579
84635778|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.123
84635779|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.712
84635780|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.258
84635781|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.851
84762322|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.39|-0.18|
84762323|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.30|-0.07|
84762324|NCT04823650|169281630|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.57|-0.04|
84762325|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.51|-0.16|
84635782|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.849
84635783|NCT02304367|169008833|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.153
84635784|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.002
84635785|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.030
84762326|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|-0.04|
84762327|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
84762328|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.15|
84762329|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.04|
84762330|NCT04823650|169281631|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.03|
84762331|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.31|
84762332|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
84762333|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.92|-0.09|
84762334|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.18|
84762335|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.82|-0.07|
84762336|NCT04823650|169281632|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.90|-0.04|
84635786|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.011
84635787|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.186
84635788|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
84635789|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.330
84635790|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.072
84635791|NCT02304367|169008834|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.045
84635792|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.369
84635793|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.026
84635794|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
84635795|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.235
84635796|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.009
84635797|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.278
84675323|NCT03192150|169085932|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with ACC Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||< 0.0001
84762337|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.52|-0.16|
84762338|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|-0.06|
84762339|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.06|
84762340|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.84|-0.21|
84635798|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.046
84635799|NCT02304367|169008835|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.035
84635800|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.442
84635801|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.677
84635802|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.027
84635803|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.420
84635804|NCT02304367|169008836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
84635805|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.312
84635806|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.249
84635807|NCT02304367|169008836|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.102
84635808|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.856
84635809|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.898
84635810|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.785
84635811|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.932
84635812|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.545
84635813|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.580
84635814|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.462
84635815|NCT02304367|169008837|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.260
84635816|NCT03599089|169008847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84635817|NCT03599089|169008848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0245
84635818|NCT03599089|169008849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0019
84762341|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|-0.02|
84762342|NCT04823650|169281633|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.75|-0.06|
84635819|NCT02983552|169008877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 4 week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 4 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||1.7|-2.2|0.71
84635820|NCT02983552|169008879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.4|2.1|||||A 2-sided 98.3% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 8-week visit.|||2.1|-2.4|
84635821|NCT02983552|169008885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-13.0|9.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 4-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.||9|-13|
84762343|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.31|-0.24|
84762344|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.19|
84762345|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.72|-0.17|
84762346|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.44|-0.22|
84762347|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.18|
84762348|NCT04823650|169281634|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.18|
84762349|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|0.08|
84762350|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.97|0.72|
84635822|NCT02983552|169008886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-15.0|12.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 8-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.|For secondary visual acuity outcomes, which included the 8-week treatment group comparison, a Bonferroni adjustment was used to control for multiple testing (3 outcomes tested) to preserve the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided alpha=0.017 per test).|12|-15|
84635823|NCT02983552|169008888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84635824|NCT02983552|169008890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84675324|NCT03192150|169085933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.311||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|4.074||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||4.074|1.311|0.0054
84675325|NCT03192150|169085933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.967|6.519||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||6.519|1.967|< 0.0001
84762351|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.15|
84635825|NCT02983552|169008892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84635826|NCT02983552|169008894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84635827|NCT02983552|169008899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.5|0.4|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 4 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.4|-2.5|
84635828|NCT02983552|169008900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.3|0.3|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 8 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.3|-2.3|
84635829|NCT02983552|169008901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 4-week visit.||||0.37
84635830|NCT02983552|169008902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 8-week visit.||||0.99
84635831|NCT02983552|169008903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.20
84762352|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.87|0.10|
84762353|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.96|0.67|
84762354|NCT04823650|169281635|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.05|
84675326|NCT03192150|169085933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.909|6.426||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||6.426|1.909|< 0.0001
84762355|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
84635832|NCT02983552|169008904|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
84635833|NCT02983552|169008905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.44
84635834|NCT02983552|169008906|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
84635835|NCT02983552|169008907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.12
84635836|NCT02983552|169008908|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
84635837|NCT02983552|169008909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.12
84635838|NCT02983552|169008910|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
84635839|NCT02983552|169008913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.07
84762356|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.37|
84635840|NCT02983552|169008914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group. This was utilized for each item in the survey.||||0.06
84675327|NCT03192150|169085933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.987|6.736||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||6.736|1.987|< 0.0001
84762357|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.73|
84635841|NCT02983552|169008917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||Statistical significance of the interaction term was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to test the 2-way interaction between treatment group with each factor (baseline age and visual acuity were treated as continuous factors), adjusting for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and the nested terms from the interaction term. Formal subgroup analyses were only performed if there was a minimum of 20 participants in every subgroup category across both treatment groups for factors treated as categorical variables in the model.||||>0.01
84635842|NCT00976560|169008923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.35|||BMMRM|Bayesian Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures (BMMRM)|Prior distribution of N(-4.1, 6.4009) incorporated into the posterior for the treatment difference at Week 6. The presented Confidence Interval is Highest Probability Density (HPD).||Posterior probability of the treatment difference being greater than 1.6 points in favor of GW856553 7.5mg BID as compared to placebo at Week 6 is 15.46 and for 0 is 72.98 and for 2 is 7.87.|1.35|-2.54|
84635843|NCT01469377|169008961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.6|-2.4|0.2404
84635844|NCT01469377|169008961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||-0.6|-3.7|0.0114
84762358|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|0.06|
84762359|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.93|0.45|
84762360|NCT04823650|169281636|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.63|
84762361|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.16|
84762362|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.49|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.49|-0.21|
84762363|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
84762364|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.35|-0.22|
84635845|NCT01469377|169008962|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.3|-2.5|0.2404
84635846|NCT01469377|169008962|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.0|-2.8|0.1140
84635847|NCT04939415|169008963|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
84504735|NCT00723554|168760456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in percentage of complete doses delivered from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||15.6|6.5|<0.0001
84504736|NCT01614509|168760470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit intended for all participants.||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit. And we compare the difference of central retinal thickness between two groups||||0.60
84504737|NCT00475852|168760481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographical region.||||0.7|-2.1|0.313
84635848|NCT04939415|169008964|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.023||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
84635849|NCT04939415|169008966|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.073||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
84635850|NCT04939415|169008967|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|2.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
84635851|NCT04939415|169008969|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|3.243||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.231
84635852|NCT04939415|169008970|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.034||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
84635853|NCT04939415|169008971|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.083||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
84635854|NCT04939415|169008973|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.213||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.462
84635855|NCT04939415|169008974|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.153||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
84675328|NCT03192150|169085933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.952||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|5.462||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||5.462|1.596|0.0008
84635856|NCT04939415|169008975|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.185||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group by Day interaction||||||0.668
84504738|NCT00475852|168760482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.030
84504739|NCT00475852|168760483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.007
84504740|NCT00475852|168760484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.318
84504741|NCT00475852|168760485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.018
84504742|NCT00475852|168760486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||0.5|-1.5|0.295
84504743|NCT00475852|168760487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.16|||||||ANOVA|Controlled for region.|This analysis excluded subjects who were lost to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent before Day 30, or whose Day 30 visit occurred prior to Day 30.|||||0.160
84635857|NCT04939415|169008976|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.032||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.860
84635858|NCT04939415|169008977|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.035||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.853
84635859|NCT04939415|169008978|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.995
84635860|NCT04939415|169008979|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.27||||0.266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
84635861|NCT04939415|169008980|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.533||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction is reported.|||||0.039
84635862|NCT04939415|169008980|SUPERIORITY||F Ratio|13.897|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,23||day 0 to day 14 for the mQFPD group were examined.||||<0.001
84635863|NCT04939415|169008980|SUPERIORITY||F ratio|0.41||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 1,20||day 0 to day 14 for the Placebo Group were examined.||||0.529
84635864|NCT04939415|169008981|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.710
84635865|NCT04939415|169008982|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.855||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.099
84635866|NCT04939415|169008983|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.497||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.228
84635867|NCT04939415|169008984|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.537||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.119
84635868|NCT04939415|169008985|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.219||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.643
84635869|NCT04939415|169008986|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.817
84635870|NCT04939415|169008987|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.315||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.578
84635871|NCT04939415|169008988|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.215||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.643
84635872|NCT04939415|169008989|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.987||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.159
84635873|NCT04308291|169008990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84635874|NCT00354432|169009033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used with the baseline means constrained to be equal in the four groups.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hot flash severity score at 12 weeks.||||.3455
84635875|NCT00354432|169009034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in quality of life between the four groups at 12 weeks.||||0.2081
84635876|NCT00439517|169009091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.889|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.889|0.515|0.0048
84635877|NCT00439517|169009092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.777|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||2.777|1.110|0.016
84635878|NCT00439517|169009093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.213|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.213|0.603|0.3797
84635879|NCT00439517|169009094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.263|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|||1.263|0.755|0.8575
84635880|NCT01262989|169009101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.95||||||90.0|97.17|109.07|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||109.07|97.17|
84762365|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.35|
84635881|NCT01262989|169009102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.79||||||90.0|96.99|108.93|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||108.93|96.99|
84635882|NCT01262989|169009103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.47||||||90.0|87.59|101.9|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||101.90|87.59|
84635883|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.93|
84635884|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.01|0.96|
84635885|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.00|0.94|
84635886|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
84635887|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.06|0.96|
84635888|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.07|0.93|
84635889|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.11|0.99|
84635890|NCT02637037|169009123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.96|
84635891|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.94|
84635892|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.02|0.97|
84635893|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||0.98|0.93|
84635894|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
84635895|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.08|0.97|
84635896|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.95|
84635897|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.09|0.97|
84635898|NCT02637037|169009124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.07|0.95|
84635899|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.03|0.93|
84635900|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.90|
84635901|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.05||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.05|0.89|
84635902|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.03|0.87|
84675329|NCT01448850|169085946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.25||Data was analyzed using Poisson regression with Pearson correction, adjusting for treatment, background therapy and history of previous exacerbations.|Poisson regression|||||1.25|0.68|0.645
84675330|NCT01420302|169085996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84675331|NCT03235024|169086092|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 52 per group would achieve \>80% power to reject the null hypothesis of equal means when the population mean difference is μ1 - μ2 = (-1.4) - (-5.3) = 3.9 with a standard deviation for both groups of 7.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.025 using a 1-sided 2-sample equal variance t-test.||||||0.0228||||||At Week 2|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0228
84675332|NCT02357576|169086099|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of PNAC in the two groups.||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.617
84675333|NCT02357576|169086100|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of severe PNAC.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
84635903|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.07|0.96|
84635904|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.04|0.92|
84635905|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.06|0.95|
84635906|NCT02637037|169009125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.94|
84635907|NCT00611026|169009137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||<0.0001
84635908|NCT00611026|169009137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0228
84635909|NCT00611026|169009137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0072
84635910|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0020
84635911|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0519
84635912|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1503
84635913|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84635914|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0002
84675334|NCT02357576|169086101|OTHER|The Kaplan Meier curve was used to evaluated the time to first PNAC event.||||||0.2716|||||||Log Rank|A log rank test was used to test the equality of the survival curve between the two groups.||||||0.2716
84762366|NCT04823650|169281637|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.71|-0.32|
84762367|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.53|-0.16|
84635915|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0130
84635916|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84635917|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0021
84635918|NCT00611026|169009138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0525
84635919|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.1|-0.5|0.0161
84635920|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.4|0.0944
84635921|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.3|0.3613
84635922|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
84762368|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.64|-0.114|
84635923|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0043
84635924|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0186
84635925|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
84635926|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0407
84635927|NCT00611026|169009139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0016
84635928|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0217
84635929|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84675335|NCT00261716|169086118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Intent to treat analysis||||.33
84635930|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0020
84635931|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0217
84635932|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84635933|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0421
84635934|NCT00611026|169009140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0023
84635935|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.3823
84635936|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.4802
84635937|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.8355
84762369|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.73|-0.17|
84635938|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.12|0.0286
84635939|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||0.0|-0.2|0.0794
84635940|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||0.1|-0.1|0.5906
84635941|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.3|0.0134
84635942|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1759
84635943|NCT00611026|169009141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1661
84675336|NCT00261716|169086119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=36||intent to treat analysis||||.75
84675337|NCT00261716|169086120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=17||||||.41
84635944|NCT00611026|169009142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0021
84635945|NCT00611026|169009142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0200
84635946|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0006
84635947|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0202
84635948|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.2126
84675338|NCT00261716|169086121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact= 1.0; one degree of freedom||intent to treat --all participants who obtained at least one job||||>.05
84675339|NCT00261716|169086121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
84762370|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.76|-0.23|
84762371|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.12|
84762372|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.15|
84762373|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.65|-0.18|
84635949|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84635950|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0019
84635951|NCT00611026|169009143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0148
84635952|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0012
84675340|NCT00261716|169086122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect- F(1,12)=..85||Intent to treat analysis||||.37
84675341|NCT00261716|169086122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F(1,54)=.2.05||||||.16
84675342|NCT00261716|169086122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F (1,54)=.. 24||||||.63
84675343|NCT00261716|169086123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=.26||intent to treat analysis||||.62
84675344|NCT00261716|169086123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F (1,58)=.21 ,.||||||.65
84675345|NCT00261716|169086123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F(1,58)=.06||||||.81
84675346|NCT00261716|169086124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=1.95,||Intent to treat analysis||||.19
84675347|NCT00261716|169086124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect (1.54)=2.99,||||||.09
84675348|NCT00261716|169086124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect (F(1,54)=.74||||||.39
84675349|NCT00128180|169086125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84635953|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0205
84762374|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.87|-0.17|
84762375|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.75|-0.20|
84762376|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.06|
84762377|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.74|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.10|
84635954|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84762378|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.03|
84762379|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.77|-0.20|
84762380|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.56|-0.12|
84762381|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.71|-0.18|
84762382|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
84762383|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.65|-0.22|
84762384|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.77|-0.14|
84635955|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0038
84762385|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.86|-0.22|
84635956|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0219
84635957|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
84635958|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0805
84635959|NCT00611026|169009144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0093
84635960|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.0|-0.7|0.0374
84635961|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.2|-0.5|0.3161
84635962|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.1|-0.5|0.1817
84635963|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
84635964|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
84635965|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
84635966|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
84635967|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.1|-0.7|0.1467
84635968|NCT00611026|169009145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
84762386|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.72|-0.18|
84762387|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.74|-0.17|
84762388|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.78|-0.02|
84762389|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
84762390|NCT04823650|169281638|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.07|
84635969|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0828
84635970|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84635971|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0008
84762391|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.28|
84762392|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.95|0.23|
84762393|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
84762394|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
84762395|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.55|
84762396|NCT04823650|169281639|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.93|
84762397|NCT01844986|169281679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
84762398|NCT01844986|169281679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.97|0.23|
84635972|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0022
84635973|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84762399|NCT01844986|169281680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.53|0.60|0.8903
84762400|NCT01844986|169281680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||2.28|0.29|
84762401|NCT01844986|169281681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.23|<0.0001
84635974|NCT00611026|169009146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0008
84635975|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0576
84635976|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.2230
84635977|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.3555
84635978|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84635979|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0009
84635980|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0071
84635981|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
84762402|NCT01844986|169281681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.99||Not applicable due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||0.99|0.23|
84762403|NCT01844986|169281682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.35|0.0002
84762404|NCT01844986|169281682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.35|0.23|
84762405|NCT01844986|169281683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.779|-1.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||-1.216|-4.779|0.0010
84762406|NCT01844986|169281684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
84635982|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.1764
84635983|NCT00611026|169009147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0001
84762407|NCT01844986|169281684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.23|0.29|
84762408|NCT01844986|169281685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
84635984|NCT00611026|169009148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84635985|NCT00611026|169009148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0003
84635986|NCT00611026|169009148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0302
84635987|NCT00611026|169009148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84635988|NCT00611026|169009148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0007
84675350|NCT02047110|169086135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||26.6|-12.1|0.2652
84675351|NCT02047110|169086135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|20.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||20.8|-15.9|0.4129
84675352|NCT02047110|169086135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||17.0|-21.8|0.4243
84675353|NCT02047110|169086136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0229
84762409|NCT01844986|169281685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.26||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.26|0.25|
84635989|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.0701
84635990|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.4823
84635991|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.1702
84635992|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84635993|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0059
84635994|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0014
84635995|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84635996|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.1|0.3110
84635997|NCT00611026|169009149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.2|0.0004
84635998|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.3|-2.7|0.0136
84635999|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.4|-2.0|0.1918
84636000|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.3|-1.7|0.1505
84636001|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.0001
84636002|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.7|-3.3|0.0034
84636003|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.8|-3.0|0.0006
84636004|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-2.3|-5.0|<0.0001
84636005|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.2|-2.5|0.0859
84762410|NCT01844986|169281686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
84636006|NCT00611026|169009150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
84636007|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
84636008|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0024
84636009|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6514|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.6514
84636010|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84636011|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0063
84636012|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0494
84636013|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0003
84636014|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0991
84636015|NCT00611026|169009151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0169
84636016|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0009
84636017|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0279
84762411|NCT01844986|169281686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.42|0.47|
84762412|NCT01844986|169281687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
84636018|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||||0.2817
84636019|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
84636020|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0001
84636021|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0177
84636022|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84636023|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0107
84636024|NCT00611026|169009152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0005
84636025|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0011
84636026|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
84636027|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3713
84636028|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0002
84636029|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1485
84636030|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0040
84636031|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
84636032|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0060
84636033|NCT00611026|169009153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0016
84636034|NCT00611026|169009154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-4.7|-9.5|<0.0001
84636035|NCT00611026|169009154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-4.8|0.0458
84636036|NCT00611026|169009154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-2.7|-6.6|<0.0001
84636037|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||7.9|3.4|<0.0001
84636038|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Placebo: HRQL scale score total.||4.6|0.1|0.0429
84636039|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL scale score total.||5.2|1.5|0.0003
84636040|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||9.2|4.0|<0.0001
84636041|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Placebo vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||4.9|-0.3|0.0795
84636042|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||6.3|2.1|<0.0001
84636043|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||9.6|4.3|<0.0001
84636044|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||5.7|0.4|0.0229
84636045|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL coping domain.||6.0|1.7|0.0004
84636046|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||6.9|2.0|0.0003
84762413|NCT04846881|169281688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4753||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in overall composite T-score of the MCCB at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the stratification factor (screening MCCB overall composite T-score) and fixed effects for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with unstructured covariance structure for within-participant dependencies. The primary comparison was iclepertin 10 mg daily vs. placebo at Week 26.||1.656|-0.211|0.1291
84762414|NCT04846881|169281689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6042||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|1.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in SCoRS at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||1.901|-0.472|0.2375
84762415|NCT04846881|169281690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|2.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in VRFCAT at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||2.419|-1.753|0.7541
84504744|NCT00475852|168760488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.|For subjects with a Day 30 visit prior to Day 30, information from their Day 180 visit, if available, was used to impute the mortality and rehospitalization status at Day 30.|||0.6|-2.4|0.238
84636047|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||4.5|-0.3|0.0923
84636048|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL sleep domain.||4.4|0.4|0.0180
84636049|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||5.1|1.3|0.0011
84636050|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.1|-0.7|0.2208
84504745|NCT00475852|168760492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||1.21|0.98|0.109
84636051|NCT00611026|169009155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.5|0.4|0.0117
84636052|NCT02395081|169009159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||SBP wk 16-20|ANOVA|||||||0.70
84636053|NCT02395081|169009161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84636054|NCT02395081|169009162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
84636055|NCT02395081|169009164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84636056|NCT02395081|169009165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84636057|NCT02395081|169009166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
84636058|NCT02395081|169009167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84504746|NCT01809314|168760493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The difference between Baseline and Month 4 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
84504747|NCT01809314|168760494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Overall (all categories combined) change from Baseline in ECOG performance status at Month 4 was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
84636059|NCT02395081|169009168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84636060|NCT02395081|169009169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84636061|NCT02721966|169009195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
84636062|NCT02721966|169009195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||6.10|2.41|<.0001
84636063|NCT02721966|169009196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
84636064|NCT02721966|169009197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.67|<.0001
84636065|NCT02721966|169009197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.84|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|9.84|3.20|<.0001
84636066|NCT02721966|169009198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.43|<.0001
84636067|NCT02721966|169009198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.21|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|10.21|3.04|<.0001
84762416|NCT04846881|169281691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in PRECIS at Week 24 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.099|-0.074|0.7769
84675354|NCT02047110|169086136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.3||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||0.1|-0.6|0.1038
84636068|NCT02721966|169009199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.7|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.0|<.0001
84636069|NCT02721966|169009199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.8|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-7.8|-18.0|<.0001
84636070|NCT02721966|169009200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.4|<.0001
84636071|NCT02721966|169009200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.8|-20.3|<.0001
84636072|NCT02721966|169009201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline SPARCC index as continuous covariate.|0.1|-1.1|0.0971
84636073|NCT02721966|169009201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-0.1|-1.3|0.0207
84675355|NCT02047110|169086136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.5||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0101
84636074|NCT02721966|169009202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.076|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.076|-0.273|0.0005
84636075|NCT02721966|169009202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.136|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.136|-0.331|<.0001
84636076|NCT02721966|169009203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.7|1.8|0.0002
84636077|NCT02721966|169009203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.3|1.4|0.0007
84636078|NCT02721966|169009204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.5|<.0001
84636079|NCT02721966|169009204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.4|<.0001
84636080|NCT02721966|169009205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|9.95|3.31|<.0001
84636081|NCT02721966|169009205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|8.16|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|8.16|2.83|<.0001
84636082|NCT02453711|169009220|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.85|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.05 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-0.85|-6.55|=0.0055
84675356|NCT02047110|169086137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|33.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||33.8|-4.6|0.0238
84636083|NCT02453711|169009220|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.49|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.1 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-3.49|-9.16|<0.0001
84636084|NCT02453711|169009220|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-6.46|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.2 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.46|-12.15|<0.0001
84636085|NCT02453711|169009220|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-6.03|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.3 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.03|-11.72|<0.0001
84675357|NCT02047110|169086137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|35.3||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||35.3|-0.8|0.0120
84504748|NCT02345486|168760509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"reported mean difference is a difference in proportions."|||0.74|0.66|0.001
84636086|NCT02453711|169009220|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-8.72|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.4 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-8.72|-14.38|<0.0001
84636087|NCT04674761|169009289|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline score as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, baseline direct bilirubin, treatment group, time (in months), and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects. One-sided p-value was reported.||-0.33|-1.44|0.0012
84636088|NCT04674761|169009290|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-112.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.78|-46.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline serum bile acid (sBA) concentration data as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, treatment group, visits (Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. The comparison of treatment difference in change from baseline to the average of Week 20 and Week 24 is estimated and tested using contrast. One-sided p-value was reported.||-46.69|-178.78|0.0006
84636089|NCT02469870|169009291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||ANCOVA|||To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.598
84636090|NCT02469870|169009292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.81
84675358|NCT02047110|169086137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.0465
84675359|NCT02047110|169086138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|19.4|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||19.4|-19.4|
84762417|NCT04846881|169281692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.925|0.654|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference in ToL at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|For change from baseline to Week 26 in the T-score of the number of correct responses on ToL, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score (\<30, ≥30), and baseline number of correct responses on ToL T-score were fitted to the data.||0.654|-2.925|0.2133
84762418|NCT04560998|169281693|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.13||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.211|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.211|1.056|0.0004
84762419|NCT04560998|169281694|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.08||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.156|1.004|0.0380
84762420|NCT04560998|169281695|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.518|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.518|0.478|0.0108
84762421|NCT04560998|169281696|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.11||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.197|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.197|1.033|0.0046
84762422|NCT01950390|169281721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.383|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.23||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratification factors of BRAF mutation status (wild type/mutation) and prior therapy (yes/no) were used in the stratified analysis|One-sided 90% Repeated Confidence Interval for Hazard Ratio with Arm A as Reference|||1.23||0.383
84675360|NCT02047110|169086138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|18.3|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||18.3|-18.3|
84675361|NCT02047110|169086138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||26.6|-12.1|
84675362|NCT02047110|169086139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|43.1||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||43.1|5.5|0.0092
84504749|NCT03563027|168760534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|433.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.0|1203.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1203|-337|.81
84504750|NCT03563027|168760534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1224.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|451.0|1996.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1996|451|.005
84504751|NCT03563027|168760535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-160.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-983.0|663.0|||Regression, Linear|||||663|-983|.92
84504752|NCT03563027|168760535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|564.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.0|1389.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1389|-261|.37
84636091|NCT02469870|169009293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.404
84504753|NCT03563027|168760536|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||.24|.18|<.001
84636092|NCT02469870|169009294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.246
84636093|NCT02469870|169009295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.007
84636094|NCT02469870|169009296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test||||.045
84636095|NCT05340478|169009315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84636096|NCT00092443|169009318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|72.5|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|85.6|||Exact Binomial Test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||85.6|50.6|<0.001
84636097|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|56.7||||||95.0|44.0|66.8||||||||66.8|44.0|
84636098|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.7||||||95.0|0.3|9.5||||||||9.5|0.3|
84636099|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|14.5||||||95.0|6.9|25.8||||||||25.8|6.9|
84636100|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|5.1||||||||5.1|0.0|
84762423|NCT01950390|169281722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||Two-sided|Log Rank|Stratified Log rank test||||1.20|0.61|0.358
84504754|NCT03563027|168760536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||||.37|.31|<.001
84636101|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|9.0||||||95.0|3.4|18.5||||||||18.5|3.4|
84636102|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|4.8||||||||4.8|0.0|
84636103|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|39.7||||||95.0|27.6|52.8||||||||52.8|27.6|
84636104|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|1.4||||||95.0|0.0|7.7||||||||7.7|0.0|
84762424|NCT01950390|169281723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.482
84762425|NCT01950390|169281725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.937
84762426|NCT05938920|169281727|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1026|2.8831||||||||2.8831|-4.1026|
84504755|NCT03563027|168760537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|.06|<.001
84636105|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|24.6||||||95.0|14.5|37.3||||||||37.3|14.5|
84636106|NCT00092443|169009319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.9||||||95.0|0.4|10.1||||||||10.1|0.4|
84636107|NCT01500720|169009325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|3.01||P-value was calculated from stratified two-sided log-rank test, stratifying for brain metastases and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level at the time of randomization.|Stratified Two-Sided Log-Rank Test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a COX Proportional Hazards regression model, stratifying for brain metastases and LDH level at the time of randomization.|||3.01|1.563|<0.0001
84636108|NCT00740857|169009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84636109|NCT00740857|169009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||0.001
84636110|NCT00740857|169009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84636111|NCT00740857|169009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.118
84636112|NCT00740857|169009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60....||||<0.001
84636113|NCT00740857|169009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.041
84636114|NCT00740857|169009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
84636115|NCT00740857|169009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84636116|NCT00740857|169009351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.056
84636117|NCT00740857|169009351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
84636118|NCT00740857|169009352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84636119|NCT00740857|169009353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84762427|NCT05938920|169281727|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0738|4.4179||||||||4.4179|-3.0738|
84762428|NCT05938920|169281727|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30479|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|7.3433||||||||7.3433|-1.6970|
84762429|NCT05938920|169281727|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.2933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5273|3.9408||||||||3.9408|-4.5273|
84762430|NCT05938920|169281728|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0566||||||||0.0566|-0.1050|
84636120|NCT00740857|169009354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
84636121|NCT02963506|169009355|OTHER||Correlation statistic|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.||||<0.001
84636122|NCT02963506|169009355|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||6.48|1.04|=0.040
84636123|NCT02963506|169009355|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|10.86||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||10.86|1.83|=0.001
84636124|NCT02963506|169009355|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||13.48|2.27|<0.001
84636125|NCT02963506|169009355|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|12.92||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||12.92|2.19|<0.001
84636126|NCT02963506|169009356|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.24|-0.86|<0.001
84636127|NCT02963506|169009356|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.83|-1.47|<0.001
84636128|NCT02963506|169009356|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.72|-1.35|<0.001
84636129|NCT02963506|169009356|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.82|-1.45|<0.001
84636130|NCT02963506|169009357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.67||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||3.67|0.80|=0.163
84762431|NCT05938920|169281728|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0687|0.1074||||||||0.1074|-0.0687|
84762432|NCT05938920|169281728|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0087|0.1872||||||||0.1872|-0.0087|
84762433|NCT05938920|169281728|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04585|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0981|0.0817||||||||0.0817|-0.0981|
84762434|NCT05938920|169281729|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9549|1.7462||||||||1.7462|-2.9549|
84762435|NCT05938920|169281729|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9603|3.2624||||||||3.2624|-1.9603|
84762436|NCT05938920|169281729|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.4975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3187|5.3136||||||||5.3136|-0.3187|
84762437|NCT05938920|169281729|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8142|2.7724||||||||2.7724|-2.8142|
84762438|NCT05938920|169281730|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.5762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0035|2.8511||||||||2.8511|-4.0035|
84762439|NCT05938920|169281730|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.5884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.90433|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1449|4.3216||||||||4.3216|-3.1449|
84636131|NCT02963506|169009357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|8.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||8.48|1.84|<0.001
84636132|NCT02963506|169009357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.61||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||7.61|1.66|=0.001
84636133|NCT02963506|169009357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|14.28||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||14.28|2.92|<0.001
84636134|NCT02963506|169009358|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|15.96||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||15.96|1.74|=0.003
84636135|NCT02963506|169009358|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|35.38||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||35.38|4.03|<0.001
84636136|NCT02963506|169009358|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|42.46||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||42.46|4.81|<0.001
84636137|NCT02963506|169009358|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|44.27||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||44.27|5.02|<0.001
84636138|NCT02963506|169009359|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.10|-1.31|=0.094
84636139|NCT02963506|169009359|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.34|<0.001
84636140|NCT02963506|169009359|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.35|<0.001
84636141|NCT02963506|169009359|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
84636142|NCT02963506|169009360|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.07|-1.35|=0.075
84762440|NCT05938920|169281730|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.6554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8486|7.1593||||||||7.1593|-1.8486|
84762441|NCT05938920|169281730|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3227|4.1977||||||||4.1977|-4.3227|
84504756|NCT03563027|168760537|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||.20|.15|<.001
84636143|NCT02963506|169009360|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.37|-1.79|=0.003
84636144|NCT02963506|169009360|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.84|=0.002
84636145|NCT02963506|169009360|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.81|-2.22|<0.001
84636146|NCT04845568|169009389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|5.43||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for physical activity does not differ between conditions.||5.43|-3.16|0.592
84762442|NCT01251861|169281731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
84762443|NCT01251861|169281740|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.5||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.50
84636147|NCT04845568|169009389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Healthy Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||2.02|-4.39|0.453
84636148|NCT04845568|169009390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.892||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness to Change Child's Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in readiness for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||.892|-.342|.368
84636149|NCT04845568|169009390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.827||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions to help child improve physical activity from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.827|-.575|.714
84636150|NCT04845568|169009391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child attitudes toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child attitudes toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||3.34|-4.39|.783
84636151|NCT04845568|169009391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.07||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intentions toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child intentions toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||2.07|-6.05|.323
84636152|NCT04845568|169009391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|6.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in caregiver intentions toward helping their child engage in healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||6.01|-1.79|.276
84636153|NCT04845568|169009392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fruits. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fruit servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.08|-.59|.547
84636154|NCT04845568|169009392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.86||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of vegetables. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child vegetable servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.86|-.87|.990
84636155|NCT04845568|169009392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fast food. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fast food servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.45|-.86|.527
84636156|NCT04845568|169009393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child weekly intake of breakfast. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child breakfast meals per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.01|-1.33|.777
84636157|NCT04845568|169009393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of family dinners. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child family dinners per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.79|-2.26|.329
84636158|NCT04845568|169009394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.99||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child screentime. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child screentime per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.99|-0.07|.086
84636159|NCT04845568|169009394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child active hours. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child active hours per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.40|-.64|.64
84636160|NCT00630838|169009395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.897
84636161|NCT00256997|169009423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5498||||||P-value was calculated by Cox proportional hazard model stratified for positive and negative symptom scale.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||||0.5498
84636162|NCT03843541|169009434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.763|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||<0.001
84675363|NCT02047110|169086139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|30.5||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||30.5|-5.9|0.1243
84675364|NCT02047110|169086139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.1198
84762444|NCT01251861|169281741|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.28||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.28
84504757|NCT02040766|168760554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|4.821||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or non-corticosteroid (NCS) therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||4.821|0.796|0.0063
84504758|NCT02040766|168760554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.354|2.614||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.614|-1.354|0.5332
84504759|NCT02040766|168760554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.077|2.924||significance at 0.05|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.924|-1.077|0.3649
84504760|NCT02040766|168760554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.902|3.088|||ANCOVA|||||3.088|-0.902|0.2823
84762445|NCT07106489|169281743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.8705
84762446|NCT07106489|169281744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9161
84504761|NCT02040766|168760555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|17.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.06|5.58|0.0001
84504762|NCT02040766|168760555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.24|2.71|0.0041
84504763|NCT02040766|168760555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|13.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.35|1.79|0.0103
84504764|NCT02040766|168760555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.23|0.71|0.0278
84504765|NCT02040766|168760556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|17.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.45|5.96|<0.0001
84504766|NCT02040766|168760556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|4.20|0.0007
84504767|NCT02040766|168760556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|15.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.68|4.11|0.0008
84504768|NCT02040766|168760556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|14.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.49|2.95|0.0031
84636163|NCT03843541|169009435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.783||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.002
84636164|NCT03843541|169009436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.239
84636165|NCT03843541|169009437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.037
84636166|NCT03843541|169009438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.093
84636167|NCT03843541|169009438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.118
84636168|NCT03843541|169009439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
84636169|NCT03843541|169009439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.110
84636170|NCT03843541|169009440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
84636171|NCT03843541|169009440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.402
84636172|NCT03843541|169009441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.|||1.00|0.43|0.002
84636173|NCT03843541|169009442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.45|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||"The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.~."|||1.00|0.45|<0.001
84636174|NCT03843541|169009443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.356
84636175|NCT03843541|169009443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.007
84636176|NCT03843541|169009444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.380
84636177|NCT03843541|169009444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.018
84636178|NCT03843541|169009445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.366
84636179|NCT03843541|169009445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.027
84636180|NCT03843541|169009446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.052
84636181|NCT03843541|169009446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.058
84636182|NCT03843541|169009447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.309
84636183|NCT03843541|169009447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.006
84636184|NCT04301193|169009458|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Using standard techniques for estimating sample size, a Delong's test indicated that a total of 61 samples would be sufcient to detect a 0.2 increase in the AUROC from the null hypothesis 0.5, assuming an alpha level of 5% and 90% power \[12\]. The manuscript was referenced against the STROBE checklist for cohort studies. Descriptive statistics were used to present.||||<0.05
84636185|NCT04301193|169009458|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84636186|NCT02930018|169009460|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS (Acute Ischemic Stroke) patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.146||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.511||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was that administration of nerinetide (NA-1) would result in an increase in the proportion of responders. The primary analysis was a Wald test for treatment group difference in the primary outcome from a logistic regression adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (alteplase use, first declared thrombectomy device), and the 6 covariates used in the minimization. The trial was designed to have 80% power to detect an 8.7% absolute difference between groups.||1.511|0.869|0.335
84636187|NCT02930018|169009461|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.342||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.342|0.781|0.866
84636188|NCT02930018|169009462|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.776||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.143||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.143|0.527|0.199
84636189|NCT02930018|169009463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.657||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.603|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.603|1.055|0.028
84636190|NCT02930018|169009463|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84636191|NCT02930018|169009463|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84636192|NCT02930018|169009464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.329|0.943|0.088
84636193|NCT02930018|169009464|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84636194|NCT02930018|169009464|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84762447|NCT07106489|169281745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.4166
84636195|NCT02930018|169009465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.572||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.013|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.013|0.323|0.055
84636196|NCT02930018|169009465|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84636197|NCT02930018|169009465|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
84636198|NCT02930018|169009466|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.286|0.612|0.529
84636199|NCT02930018|169009467|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.121|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.121|0.545|0.181
84636200|NCT02930018|169009468|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.874|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.874|0.588|0.869
84636201|NCT04193189|169009482|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin (2-CpG minus 3-alum): -10%.|Common proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.1|20.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||20.9|4.1|
84636202|NCT04193189|169009482|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.4|26.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe repeated confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||26.2|10.4|
84636203|NCT04193189|169009482|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|11.8|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Secondary objective of Group A||11.8|-0.2|
84762448|NCT07106489|169281746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9995
84636204|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|18.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 8 in 2-CpG, Week 28 in 3-alum)||18.1|0.1|
84504769|NCT02040766|168760557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.174|-0.548|0.0002
84636205|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|27.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 12 in 2-CpG, Week 32 in 3-alum)||27.9|10.0|
84636206|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.7|37.2|||||Common SP proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 2-CpG, Week 48 in 3-alum)||37.2|17.7|
84636207|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.3|42.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 52 in 2-CpG, Week 72 in 3-alum)||42.3|21.3|
84636208|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.5|32.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32)||32.3|15.5|
84636209|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.2|41.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48)||41.2|23.2|
84636210|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|28.9|48.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72)||48.1|28.9|
84762449|NCT07106489|169281747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0422
84636211|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|16.4|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 3-CpG, Week 8 in 2-CpG)||16.4|3.1|
84636212|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|10.5|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32 in 3-CpG, Week 12 in 2-CpG)||10.5|-0.8|
84636213|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|11.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48 in 3-CpG, Week 28 in 2-CpG)||11.2|-0.8|
84636214|NCT04193189|169009484|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|14.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72 in 3-CpG, Week 52 in 2-CpG)||14.2|0.7|
84762450|NCT07106489|169281748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0027
84762451|NCT07106489|169281749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.2598
84762452|NCT07106489|169281750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Beetroot effect|||||0.1725
84504770|NCT02040766|168760557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.331|0.1320
84504771|NCT02040766|168760557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|-0.240|0.5866
84504772|NCT02040766|168760557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.007|-0.369|0.0587
84504773|NCT02040766|168760558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.065|-0.261|0.0011
84504774|NCT02040766|168760558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.013|-0.185|0.0869
84504775|NCT02040766|168760558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.060|-0.138|0.4388
84504776|NCT02040766|168760558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.180|0.1041
84504777|NCT02040766|168760559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2870
84504778|NCT02040766|168760559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5257|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5257
84504779|NCT02040766|168760559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9982
84636215|NCT00684060|169009491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|0.95||Threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||Comparison of change in global LVEF in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||.95|-7.05|<0.05
84636216|NCT00684060|169009492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.05||95.0|0.08|1.17|||Fisher Exact|||comparison of the proportion of events in patients in the active group to those in patients in the control group||1.17|0.08|<0.05
84636217|NCT00684060|169009493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||6.8|-9.3|<0.05
84636218|NCT00684060|169009494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||10.9|-9.5|<0.05
84636219|NCT00684060|169009495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||9.2|-4.1|<0.05
84636220|NCT00684060|169009496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|<|0.05||95.0|-9.9|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||6.9|-9.9|<0.05
84636221|NCT00684060|169009497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in infarct zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||1.3|-2.8|<0.05
84636222|NCT00684060|169009498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.05||95.0|-6.0|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in border zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||0.8|-6.0|<0.05
84636223|NCT00702715|169009499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the estimated median treatment difference in recovery time must have fallen entirely within the pre-specified interval between -60 sec to +60 sec in order to claim equivalence|Median Difference (Final Values)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|143.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||143.0|36.0|
84636224|NCT00702715|169009500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|120.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||120.0|36.0|
84636225|NCT00702715|169009501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|103.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||103.0|31.0|
84636226|NCT02260180|169009566|SUPERIORITY|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84636227|NCT02260180|169009566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.0001
84636228|NCT02260180|169009567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||||<0.0001
84504780|NCT02040766|168760559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7633|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7633
84636229|NCT02260180|169009567|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||The primary efficacy analysis of mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate. Comparisons between vehicle and each A-101 group were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||<0.0001
84636230|NCT00243269|169009587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary analyses consisted of calculating means and standard deviations on nausea for the four study arms to generate an effect size estimate for a later R01. We also planned to use a 2 x 2 (i.e., two levels of expectancy CDs and two levels of expectancy handouts) full factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the efficacy of these two methods of expectancy enhancement in reducing Average Nausea as well as any interaction effects.||||0.932
84636231|NCT00243269|169009588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA to compare means of the four groups was used.||||0.84
84636232|NCT01837823|169009592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.231||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.054
84636233|NCT01837823|169009593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.074||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||for minimum lumen area site||||0.50
84636234|NCT01864603|169009609|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Comparison of Phase 1 arms||1.17|0.77|
84636235|NCT01864603|169009610|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75||||||||0.75|0.09|
84644961|NCT02927067|169025228|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) margin of primary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -7%, NI was assumed. Power calculation: Assuming 68% (maribavir), 60% (valganciclovir) participants achieve confirmed viremia clearance,494 participants (247 per group) would yield \>90% power to declare NI based on 2-group test of equivalence in proportions. Considering 10% dropout,550 participants (275 per group) were planned to be enrolled and randomized.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.36|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), 95% CI, and p-value.|||-0.36|-14.98|
84675365|NCT02047110|169086140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.2||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||0.2|-1.0|0.1241
84675366|NCT02047110|169086140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|0.3||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||1.0|-0.5|0.3033
84675367|NCT02047110|169086140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.2||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||0.4|-0.8|0.3203
84675368|NCT02047110|169086141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||26.6|-12.1|0.2639
84675369|NCT02047110|169086141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|25.7||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||25.7|-10.9|0.2691
84675370|NCT02047110|169086141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||17.0|-21.8|0.4174
84675371|NCT01959581|169086149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<.05
84726323|NCT00896389|169204582|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||<|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84726324|NCT00896389|169204583|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84726325|NCT00896389|169204584|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84726326|NCT00896389|169204585|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84726327|NCT00896389|169204586|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84636236|NCT00337675|169009660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.51||95.0|-11.4|19.6||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||19.6|-11.4|0.510
84636237|NCT00337675|169009660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.884||95.0|-19.2|14.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||14.0|-19.2|0.884
84636238|NCT00337675|169009661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.176||95.0|-0.46|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.46|0.176
84636239|NCT00337675|169009661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.202||95.0|-0.44|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.44|0.202
84636240|NCT00337675|169009662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.045||95.0|-0.24|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.24|0.045
84636241|NCT00337675|169009662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.061||95.0|-0.23|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.23|0.061
84636242|NCT02136069|169009663|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.9||||0.8114||95.0|-8.7|6.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.83|-8.70|0.8114
84636243|NCT02136069|169009664|NON_INFERIORITY|with margin -12.5%|Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-12.0||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-3.26||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test was used to determine the nominal p-value.||||-3.26|-20.50|0.1293
84636244|NCT02136069|169009665|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-3.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|4.74||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.74|-11.53|0.4056
84636245|NCT02136069|169009666|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-2.4||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.14||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.14|-8.88|0.4591
84636246|NCT02136069|169009667|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|5.3||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|18.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.13|-7.54|0.4196
84636247|NCT02136069|169009668|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-12.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|-2.66||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.66|-21.84|0.0118
84636248|NCT02136069|169009669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-4.9||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|4.12||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.12|-13.76|0.2845
84636249|NCT02136069|169009670|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.3||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.84||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.84|-14.30|0.1234
84636250|NCT02136069|169009671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|2.94||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|-12.84|0.2168
84636251|NCT02136069|169009672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-9.5||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|0.29||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|-19.06|0.0564
84636252|NCT02136069|169009673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|2.7||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|-14.51|0.1729
84636253|NCT02136069|169009674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.8||||0.8941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|10.68||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.68|-12.01|0.8941
84636254|NCT02136069|169009683|SUPERIORITY|Week 10|Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.1||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|4.3||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||4.3|-10.6|0.4106
84636255|NCT02136069|169009683|SUPERIORITY|Week 30|Difference in Adjusted Means|-5.7||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-13.3|0.1434
84636256|NCT02136069|169009683|SUPERIORITY|Week 54|Difference in Adjusted Means|-6.1||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|1.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-13.6|0.1103
84636257|NCT04693234|169009685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0054
84636258|NCT04693234|169009686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0127
84636259|NCT05814367|169009705|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.014|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The sample size of 38 was calculated to provide at least 90% statistical power to test Non-inferiority of the Test lens compared to the Control lens using a paired t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||0.014|-0.025|
84636260|NCT00408200|169009731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84636261|NCT00573144|169009770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84636262|NCT00573144|169009771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84636263|NCT00573144|169009772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84636264|NCT03051178|169009773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.|ANOVA|||TRS scores measured across different stimulation conditions were assessed using a mixed model ANOVA with the participant as a random effect. All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.||||<0.01
84636265|NCT00125164|169009788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.19|2.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.39|1.19|<0.0001
84636266|NCT00125164|169009788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.99|3.16||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.16|1.99|< 0.0001
84636267|NCT00125164|169009788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0032||95.0|0.27|1.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.31|0.27|0.0032
84636268|NCT00125164|169009789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.24|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.24|< 0.0001
84636269|NCT00125164|169009789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.34|0.6||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.60|0.34|< 0.0001
84636270|NCT00125164|169009789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0495||95.0|0.0|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.22|0.00|0.0495
84636271|NCT00125164|169009797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|2.4||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.40|1.26|<0.0001
84636272|NCT00125164|169009797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|2.26|3.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.39|2.26|<0.0001
84636273|NCT00125164|169009797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0002||95.0|0.5|1.51|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.51|0.50|0.0002
84636274|NCT00125164|169009798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
84636275|NCT00125164|169009798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.64||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
84636276|NCT00125164|169009798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0071||95.0|0.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.26|0.04|0.0071
84636277|NCT02023697|169009822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.878|1.272|||Log Rank||Arm B / Arm (A+C)|||1.272|0.878|0.7047
84636278|NCT02023697|169009824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.939|1.69|||Log Rank||Arm C /Arm A|||1.690|0.939|0.3134
84636279|NCT02023697|169009828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.892|1.297|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.297|0.892|0.6205
84636280|NCT02023697|169009830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.999||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.341|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.341|0.744|0.9958
84636281|NCT02023697|169009834|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.823|1.385|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.385|0.823|0.7461
84636282|NCT02023697|169009836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.041|2.306|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||2.306|1.041|0.1550
84636283|NCT02023697|169009840|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.805|1.167|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.167|0.805|0.8284
84636284|NCT02023697|169009842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.804|1.396|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.396|0.804|0.7896
84636285|NCT02023697|169009846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.803|1.21|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.210|0.803|0.9274
84636286|NCT02023697|169009848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.514|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.514|0.850|0.5754
84636287|NCT02023697|169009854|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.188|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.188|0.678|0.6214
84636288|NCT02023697|169009856|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.505|1.475|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.475|0.505|0.7214
84636289|NCT01354314|169009865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.893
84636290|NCT01354314|169009865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.594
84636291|NCT01354314|169009865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.712
84636292|NCT01354314|169009866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.673
84636293|NCT01354314|169009866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.153
84636294|NCT01354314|169009866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.282
84636295|NCT01354314|169009867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.327
84636296|NCT01354314|169009867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.178
84636297|NCT01354314|169009867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.480
84636298|NCT01354314|169009868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.267
84636299|NCT01354314|169009868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.368
84636300|NCT01354314|169009868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
84636301|NCT00478023|169009897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|18.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.9|25.3||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||25.3|10.9|<0.0001
84636302|NCT00478023|169009897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.7|28.0||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||28.0|13.7|<0.0001
84636303|NCT00478023|169009897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.3|30.4||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||30.4|16.3|<0.0001
84636304|NCT00478023|169009897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.4|27.8||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||27.8|13.4|<0.0001
84636305|NCT00478023|169009898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|37.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.6|52.6||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||52.6|21.6|<0.0001
84636306|NCT00478023|169009898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|44.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|28.6|59.5||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariates.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||59.5|28.6|<0.0001
84636307|NCT00478023|169009898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|51.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.1|66.7||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA||Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||66.7|36.1|<0.0001
84636308|NCT00478023|169009898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|46.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|31.4|62.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as a covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||62.4|31.4|<0.0001
84636309|NCT05019521|169009901|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0413||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.126|-0.010|0.9205
84636310|NCT05019521|169009901|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0425||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.086|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|-0.086|0.9205
84636311|NCT05019521|169009901|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.033|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.106|-0.033|0.9205
84636312|NCT04292899|169009947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.115||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a continuous covariate.|Proportional odds model|||||1.115|0.507|0.1563
84636313|NCT04292899|169009947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.976||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||0.976|0.458|0.0368
84636314|NCT04292899|169009948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||P-value for comparison of the percentages between the two groups was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline clinical status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.0|-7.4|0.7678
84636315|NCT04672655|169009961|OTHER|||||||0.8875||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.8875
84636316|NCT04672655|169009962|OTHER|||||||0.4811||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.4811
84636317|NCT04672655|169009963|OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.754
84636318|NCT04672655|169009964|OTHER|||||||0.0406||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.0406
84636319|NCT04672655|169009965|OTHER|||||||0.9032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.9032
84636320|NCT01077050|169009986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Melanoma|96.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.2|||The point estimate of the observed sensitivity that is based on generalized linear mixed model is equal to that calculated in the usual manner.|Clopper-Pearson 1-sided||||||94.2|
84636321|NCT01077050|169009986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Basal Cell Carcinoma|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for Basal Cell Carcinoma||||100|92.6|
84636322|NCT01077050|169009986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed sensitivity for squamous cell c|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for squamous cell carcinoma||||99.8|68.1|
84636323|NCT01077050|169009986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Note that calculating odds ratio adjusting for subjects having multiple lesions, yields similar result.||||25.5|6.6|<0.0001
84636324|NCT05475483|169009988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-2.51|= 0.045
84636325|NCT05475483|169009989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.37|0.91|= 0.078
84636326|NCT05475483|169009990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.80|0.143
84540261|NCT03762239|168831232|SUPERIORITY||Relative (percent) changes in the median|1.37||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|5.56|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in better performance, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in attention measures among adolescents in high schools.||5.56|-2.81|0.52
84636327|NCT05475483|169009991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-3.40|= 0.032
84636328|NCT02641561|169010015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84636329|NCT00479687|169010016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||There was a single primary variable and the a-prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effects repeated measure model with baseline VAS, treatment, and week as fixed effects and subject nested within site as a random effect.||||||0.0380
84636330|NCT00689260|169010040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-Value based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test for difference in medians between log aware and log unaware||||0.908
84636331|NCT02563067|169010077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.96|0.50|0.059
84636332|NCT02563067|169010077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.01|0.52|0.114
84636333|NCT02563067|169010078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.32|-0.02|0.369
84636334|NCT02563067|169010078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.30|-0.04|0.824
84636335|NCT02563067|169010079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.01|-0.36|0.369
84636336|NCT02563067|169010079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.10|-0.28|0.824
84636337|NCT02563067|169010080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.154|-0.018|0.369
84636338|NCT02563067|169010080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.124|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.124|-0.048|0.824
84636339|NCT02563067|169010081|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.07|0.62|0.369
84540262|NCT03762239|168831233|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0607|0.0865|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher riskloving behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined risk taking measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0865|-0.0607|0.72
84636340|NCT02563067|169010081|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.00|0.58|0.348
84636341|NCT02563067|169010082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.21|-0.07|0.824
84636342|NCT02563067|169010082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.26|-0.02|0.824
84636343|NCT02563067|169010083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.03|-0.28|0.824
84636344|NCT02563067|169010083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.08|-0.23|0.824
84636345|NCT02563067|169010084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.119|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.119|-0.019|0.369
84636346|NCT02563067|169010084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.13|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.130|-0.008|0.595
84636347|NCT00839319|169010086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Correlations between serum hormone levels and IT hormones, and between IT hormones were performed on 23 subjects in 4 groups using Spearmen technique.||||||<0.05
84636348|NCT02914301|169010127|OTHER|We compared outcomes between study arms using t-tests for continuous outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84636349|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.05||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-3.41|0.864
84636350|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.9||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-3.61|0.539
84636351|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.39||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-5.21|0.091
84636352|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|0.6||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-4.93|0.124
84636353|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|3.19||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.19|-5.04|0.658
84636354|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.439
84636355|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
84636356|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
84636357|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
84636358|NCT01485172|169010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.407
84636359|NCT01485172|169010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.003||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.98|0.40|0.397
84636360|NCT01485172|169010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.40|0.79|0.131
84636361|NCT01485172|169010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.515||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.92|1.25|0.018
84636362|NCT01485172|169010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.02||95.0|1.22|10.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.64|1.22|0.020
84636363|NCT01485172|169010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.679||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.16|0.59|0.202
84636364|NCT01485172|169010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.544||||0.662||95.0|0.22|10.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.84|0.22|0.662
84675372|NCT02802345|169086154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.|"H0: There is no difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone.~Ha: There is a difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone."|2.30|-3.33|0.7191
84675373|NCT02802345|169086155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.198||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.||1.39|-7.27|0.1823
84636365|NCT01485172|169010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.485||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.55|0.40|0.557
84636366|NCT01485172|169010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.72|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.72|0.51|0.347
84636367|NCT01485172|169010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.38|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.38|0.49|0.379
84636368|NCT01485172|169010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.194||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.63|0.19|0.851
84636369|NCT01485172|169010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|7.03|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.03|0.36|0.540
84636370|NCT01485172|169010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.473||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.47|0.49|0.494
84636371|NCT01485172|169010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.06|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.06|0.81|0.115
84636372|NCT01485172|169010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||8.55|1.02|0.045
84636373|NCT01485172|169010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|10.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.90|0.58|0.221
84636374|NCT01485172|169010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.93||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.93|-3.78|0.662
84636375|NCT01485172|169010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-4.63|0.621
84636376|NCT01485172|169010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.01||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-6.50|0.150
84636377|NCT01485172|169010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-7.43|0.048
84636378|NCT01485172|169010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.35||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.35|-6.32|0.715
84504781|NCT00479401|168760567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority hypothesis comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was to be tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points. The primary efficacy endpoint in UPDRS part II+III was the change from baseline (week 0) to week 33 on the UPDRS Parts II+III score combined. The statistical model was analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline UPDRS Part II+III. Fixed terms in the model were treatment, country, and UPDRS Part II+III score at baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis was tested using an analysis of covariance model with α = 0.05 in full analysis set with last observation carried forward.|PPX ER non-inferior to PPX IR, if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference is higher than the non-inferiority margin of -3|A non-inferiority hypothesis (H0: μER - μIR \< -3 vs. H1: μER - μIR ≥ -3) comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points.||1.7|-2.2|
84636379|NCT01485172|169010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.81||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-0.46|0.158
84636380|NCT01485172|169010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.76||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-1.71|0.446
84636381|NCT01485172|169010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.36||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.10|0.163
84636382|NCT01485172|169010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-2.27|0.117
84636383|NCT01485172|169010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.2||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-2.67|0.456
84636384|NCT01485172|169010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|5.5||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-4.38|0.823
84636385|NCT01485172|169010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.68||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.68|-4.86|0.568
84636386|NCT01485172|169010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.63||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-7.01|0.101
84636387|NCT01485172|169010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.18||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-7.70|0.040
84636388|NCT01485172|169010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.77|-6.08|0.811
84636389|NCT01485172|169010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.86|0.102
84636390|NCT01485172|169010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.41|0.723
84636391|NCT01485172|169010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.66|0.084
84636392|NCT01485172|169010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.42|0.697
84636393|NCT01485172|169010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-0.06|0.086
84636394|NCT01485172|169010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.49|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.49|0.17|0.733
84636395|NCT01485172|169010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.411||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.02|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.02|0.50|0.519
84636396|NCT01485172|169010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.204||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|12.07|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.07|1.46|0.008
84636397|NCT01485172|169010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.46|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||15.46|1.93|0.001
84636398|NCT01485172|169010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.281||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.98|0.27|0.752
84636399|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.67|0.08|
84636400|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.99|0.35|
84636401|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.76|0.15|
84636402|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.93|0.21|
84636403|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.9||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.90|0.05|
84636404|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.68||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.68|0.10|
84636405|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum||1.00|0.50|
84636406|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.39|-0.02|
84636407|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER|Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||1.00|0.50|
84636408|NCT02028208|169010206|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||||Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0 palladium chloride in petrolatum||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.17|-0.05|
84636409|NCT00838513|169010243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
84636410|NCT00838513|169010244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
84636411|NCT00838513|169010245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
84636412|NCT00838513|169010246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84636413|NCT00838513|169010247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
84636414|NCT00838513|169010248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
84636415|NCT00838513|169010249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
84636416|NCT00838513|169010250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
84636417|NCT00838513|169010251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
84636418|NCT00838513|169010252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84636419|NCT00838513|169010253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
84636420|NCT00838513|169010254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
84636421|NCT01388335|169010276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|0.95|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||0.950|0.691|
84636422|NCT01388335|169010276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.02|0.815|
84636423|NCT01388335|169010277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.5|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for S-warfarin.|||3.50|0.76|
84636424|NCT01388335|169010277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|6.84|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for R-warfarin.|||6.84|-1.00|
84636425|NCT01388335|169010278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.44|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||1.44|1.14|
84675374|NCT02802345|169086156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||1.02|-5.40|0.1809
84675375|NCT02802345|169086157|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.529||0.3421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.58|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||2.58|-7.39|0.3421
84675376|NCT02802345|169086158|SUPERIORITY||Percentage ratio (%)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage ratio = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) / (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Relative risk, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||1.20|0.58|
84675377|NCT02802345|169086158|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference (%)|-5.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage difference = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) - (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Risk difference, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||5.52|-16.25|0.334
84675378|NCT03773757|169086165|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q patient over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8719
84636426|NCT01388335|169010278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.47|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.47|1.08|
84636427|NCT01388335|169010283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.00|0.86|
84636428|NCT01388335|169010284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.02|0.95|
84636429|NCT01388335|169010287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.03||||||90.0|0.99|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 0 hours.|||1.08|0.99|
84636430|NCT01388335|169010287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 4 hours.|||1.06|0.98|
84636431|NCT01243580|169010288|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing Ortho-Cyclen to Ag200-15|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84675379|NCT03773757|169086166|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of SM-EOLD over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8389
84675380|NCT03773757|169086167|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of PHQ-8 over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.3431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3431
84636432|NCT01243580|169010289|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84636433|NCT01243580|169010290|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84636434|NCT01243580|169010291|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cylen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
84636435|NCT01243580|169010292|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0009
84636436|NCT01243580|169010293|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0167
84636437|NCT01243580|169010294|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
84636438|NCT01243580|169010295|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0175|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0175
84636439|NCT01243580|169010296|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84636440|NCT01243580|169010297|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
84636441|NCT01032889|169010315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.00|-0.61|0.052
84636442|NCT01032889|169010315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.16|-0.77|0.003
84636443|NCT01032889|169010316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.06|-0.55|0.117
84636444|NCT01032889|169010316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.30|-0.91|<0.001
84636445|NCT01032889|169010317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.46|-2.44|0.005
84636446|NCT01032889|169010317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-1.48|-3.48|<0.001
84636447|NCT01032889|169010318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-606.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1482.0|269.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||269.3|-1482|0.166
84504782|NCT02868281|168760598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.87||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|48.11|||Mixed effect logistic regression||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||48.11|1.29|0.027
84504783|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.222
84504784|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.156
84636448|NCT01032889|169010318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-110.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1013.0|792.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||792.6|-1013|0.803
84636449|NCT01032889|169010319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.69|-2.32|<0.001
84636450|NCT01032889|169010319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.85|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.85|-2.46|<0.001
84636451|NCT03523988|169010320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
84636452|NCT03523988|169010320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
84636453|NCT03523988|169010320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.41
84636454|NCT03523988|169010321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.65
84636455|NCT03523988|169010321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
84636456|NCT03523988|169010321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.69
84636457|NCT03523988|169010322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
84636458|NCT03523988|169010322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.31
84636459|NCT03523988|169010322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.37
84636460|NCT03532451|169010329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Null hypothesis is the change in CD8+ cell density is not significantly different from zero.||||0.08
84636461|NCT03532451|169010329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.002
84636462|NCT03532451|169010330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
84504785|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.245
84636463|NCT02840461|169010373|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population. If the confidence interval is within 80-125% for the primary endpoint, then the Test and Reference treatments are considered therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|103.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|110.0||||||||110.00|97.95|
84636464|NCT02840461|169010373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-3.42|||ANOVA|||||-3.42|-16.24|0.0027
84636465|NCT02840461|169010373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|-3.4|||ANOVA|||||-3.40|-16.25|0.0028
84636466|NCT02840461|169010374|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (with Yates correction) for the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test and Reference groups considered to be a clinical success was contained within the pre-defined equivalence limits \[-20%, +20%\], the therapeutic equivalence of the Test to Reference product was considered supported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.2||||||||14.2|-2.7|
84636467|NCT01287741|169010375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.12|0.78|0.4753
84636468|NCT01287741|169010376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.10|0.72|0.2736
84636469|NCT01027806|169010413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84636470|NCT02923921|169010435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.265|||Log Rank|||The primary test to compare overall survival between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by region and prior therapy. The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) - (Pegilodecakin + FOLFOX Arm / FOLFOX Arm) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in interactive voice response system (IVRS).||1.265|0.863|0.6565
84636471|NCT02923921|169010436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.19|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||1.190|0.808|0.8144
84636472|NCT02923921|169010437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|0.4|0.7044
84636473|NCT02923921|169010438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8|0.9|0.1463
84636474|NCT02923921|169010439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.741|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||2.741|0.370|0.9952
84636475|NCT02923921|169010440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|-11.6|0.2298
84636476|NCT01474239|169010453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was assessed with a one-sided alpha error of 10 percent (%).|Exact Binomial Test|||The 6-month OS rate (OS-6) for bevacizumab was compared to the expected proportion of 0.60 under null hypothesis (ineffective treatment) with the application of the exact binomial test. The one-tailed statistical hypotheses was p0 less than or equal to (≤) 0.60 (null hypothesis) versus pA greater than or equal to (≥) 0.77 (alternative hypothesis), where p is the estimated probability of survival at 6 months.||||0.4291
84636477|NCT02082119|169010482|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84636478|NCT02840799|169010500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2619326||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6552259|0.3934043||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -0.49979, df = 58. N=59 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.|Only participants that successfully crossed over were included in the t-test (N=59).|We considered an increase in peak VO2 of \~0.6 ml/kg/min to be the minimum clinically significant change. Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints with a two-sided α=0.05. PASS11157 was used to perform power calculations.||0.3934043|-0.6552259|0.6191
84636479|NCT02840799|169010500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.62||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.62|-.043|0.711
84636480|NCT02840799|169010501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.217657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065196||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.910612|6.3459261|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.0738, df = 62, p-value = 0.2871, N=63 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.||6.3459261|-1.910612|0.2871
84636481|NCT02840799|169010501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.88||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect. Randomization sequence was not included in the final model due to lack of evidence for a carry over effect. Phase 1 data for participants that did not crossover due to IDS were considered for the model (N=74).||1.88|-6.12|0.2935
84636482|NCT02840799|169010502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1859922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578944||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9674467|5.3392901||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3844, df=65, p=0.171. N=66 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossover correctly.||||5.3392901|-0.9674467|0.171
84636483|NCT02840799|169010502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.51||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.61||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.61|-5.62|0.113
84636484|NCT02840799|169010503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.776572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99464||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264221|10.817366||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.69507, df=46, p=.4905. N=47 due to only analyzed participants that correctly crossovered.||||10.817366|-5.264221|0.4905
84636485|NCT02840799|169010503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.088||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.48||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||9.48|-7.30|0.796
84636486|NCT02840799|169010504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.11189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.84245||0.4017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.63637|57.41259|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.86929,, df=12, p=0.4017||||57.41259|-133.63637|0.4017
84636487|NCT02840799|169010504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|61.77||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.15|157.69||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.69|-34.15|0.183
84636488|NCT02840799|169010505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202782||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4959279|0.9014918||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.58074, df=59, p=0.5636||||0.9014918|-0.4959279|0.5636
84636489|NCT02840799|169010505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3118||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.37||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.37|-0.99|0.361
84636490|NCT02840799|169010506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1532142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.1532142||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1998786|0.8934502||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.29271, df=61, p=0.7707||||0.8934502|-1.1998786|0.7707
84636491|NCT02840799|169010506|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18872||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.25||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||1.25|-0.88|0.724
84636492|NCT02840799|169010507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3262821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2333465||0.1680825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1421806|0.7947447||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3983, df=51, p=0.1681||||0.7947447|-0.1421806|0.1680825
84504786|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.057
84504787|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.151
84636493|NCT02840799|169010507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4082||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.88|0.0930
84636494|NCT02840799|169010508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176768||0.07984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4966754|0.2638017||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||t = -1.7985, df=39, p=0.07984|||0.2638017|-4.4966754|0.07984
84636495|NCT02840799|169010508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.9||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.90|-0.54|0.135
84636496|NCT02840799|169010509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01295984||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454871|0.0069404||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00694040|-0.0454871|0.1450
84636497|NCT02840799|169010509|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01324||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.01|0.3047
84636498|NCT02840799|169010510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494971||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.598617|5.585256||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.585256|-12.598617|0.44
84636499|NCT02840799|169010510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.39106||||0.39911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.44||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.44|-4.66|0.39911
84636500|NCT02642315|169010513|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
84504788|NCT02868281|168760599|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.114
84636501|NCT02642315|169010514|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
84636502|NCT00943072|169010538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|56.6||P-value for the primary endpoint was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (North America vs. Rest of World) and baseline BCVA (BCVA \> 20/200 and BCVA ≤ 20/200)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||56.6|33.0|< 0.0001
84636503|NCT00943072|169010539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.36|26.04|||ANCOVA||RD is the IAI group minus sham group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||26.04|17.36|< 0.0001
84636504|NCT00943072|169010539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.36|||||||||||ANCOVA||LS Mean indicates is the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
84636505|NCT00943072|169010540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-311.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.4|-234.4|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-234.4|-389.4|< 0.0001
84636506|NCT00943072|169010540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-487.1|||||||||||ANCOVA||The Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
84636507|NCT00943072|169010541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-1.1|-12.2|0.0059
84636508|NCT00943072|169010542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.91|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||9.91|2.61|0.0009
84636509|NCT00943072|169010542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|8.8|||||||||||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
84636510|NCT00552188|169010553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value||||0.34
84636511|NCT00552188|169010554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline||||0.15
84636512|NCT01193257|169010564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.12085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.036|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\[less than or equal to\] \<=4, greater than \[\>\] 4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||1.036|0.739|0.12085
84636513|NCT01193257|169010565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|0.885|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\<=4, \>4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||0.885|0.653|0.00038
84636514|NCT01193257|169010566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||< 0.0001
84636515|NCT01193257|169010567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12778|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||0.12778
84636516|NCT00373113|169010599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|1.869||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors. The set of stratification factors included those used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Null hypothesis is that PFS (median=4.2 months) for sunitinib arm equals PFS for capecitabine arm. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect statistical difference in PFS between two treatment groups assuming the hazard ratio (sunitinib/capecitabine) is 0.75 and both arms follow exponential distribution.||1.869|1.156|0.002
84636517|NCT00373113|169010600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|1.933||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that was used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.933|1.188|<0.001
84636518|NCT00373113|169010601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|16.1||||||||16.1|7.6|
84636519|NCT00373113|169010601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||||||||21.6|12.0|
84636520|NCT00373113|169010601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.049||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.1|||Pearson Chi-Square Test|||||1.1|-11.2|0.109
84636521|NCT00373113|169010602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.788||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|7.459|||Log Rank|||||7.459|1.042|0.037
84636522|NCT00373113|169010604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.611||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that were used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank|||||1.611|0.896|0.219
84636523|NCT04661579|169010635|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|35.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 1 and 4. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||54.2|10.3|0.009
84636524|NCT04661579|169010636|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|-24.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|22.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 2 and 5. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||22.2|-97|0.369
84636525|NCT01396447|169010643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|||0.5|-4.3|0.1292
84636526|NCT01396447|169010643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.6||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|||-1.6|-6.3|0.0010
84636527|NCT01396447|169010643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|||-0.1|-4.9|0.0374
84636528|NCT01396447|169010644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.1|-0.4|0.3025
84675381|NCT03773757|169086168|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q caregiver distress over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model including a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.6612|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6612
84504789|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.05||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.18|0.487
84636529|NCT01396447|169010644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.2|-0.6|0.0044
84636530|NCT01396447|169010644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0489
84636531|NCT04881942|169010666|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|89.44||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.77|163.11|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham)|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||163.11|15.77|0.0184
84636532|NCT04881942|169010666|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|195.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.01|269.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||269.38|122.01|<.0001
84636533|NCT04881942|169010666|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|168.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.17|242.5|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||242.50|95.17|<.0001
84636534|NCT04881942|169010666|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|182.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.63|256.67|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||256.67|108.63|<.0001
84636535|NCT04881942|169010669|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5972.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4191.1|7753.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7753.6|4191.1|<.0001
84636536|NCT04881942|169010669|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6099.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4317.8|7881.2|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7881.2|4317.8|<.0001
84636537|NCT04881942|169010669|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6484.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4701.7|8267.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||8267.6|4701.7|<.0001
84636538|NCT04881942|169010669|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5366.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3575.9|7157.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7157.7|3575.9|<.0001
84636539|NCT04881942|169010672|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.25|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.25|-2.92|0.9150
84636540|NCT04881942|169010672|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.40|-2.70|0.8217
84636541|NCT04881942|169010672|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|21.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.06|24.16|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||24.16|18.06|<.0001
84636542|NCT04881942|169010672|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.91|34.12|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||34.12|27.91|<.0001
84636543|NCT04881942|169010675|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1678.4||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|592.14|2764.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2764.6|592.14|.0031
84636544|NCT04881942|169010675|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1199.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.74|2285.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2285.7|113.74|.0310
84636545|NCT04881942|169010675|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|3354.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2266.6|4442.3|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||4442.3|2266.6|<.0001
84636546|NCT04881942|169010675|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|2511.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1416.1|3605.9|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3605.9|1416.1|<.0001
84636547|NCT04881942|169010678|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|.0002
84636548|NCT04881942|169010678|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|0.0003
84636549|NCT04881942|169010678|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.47|0.21|<.0001
84636550|NCT04881942|169010678|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.43|0.17|<.0001
84636551|NCT04881942|169010685|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.039|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.039|0.031|<.0001
84504790|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.16|0.546
84636552|NCT04881942|169010685|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.038|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.038|0.030|<.0001
84675382|NCT03773757|169086169|SUPERIORITY|A zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model was used to compare the mean numbers of hospitalization/ED events between the two groups. The ZIP model consists of a combination of a standard Poisson distribution for count data and a binary logistic regression model to account for additional zero events exceeding what would be expected from an underlying Poisson distribution.||||||0.0007|||||||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model|||||||0.0007
84504791|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.314
84636553|NCT04881942|169010685|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.044|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.044|0.036|<.0001
84636554|NCT04881942|169010685|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.033|<.0001
84636555|NCT04881942|169010686|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.04|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.040|0.031|<.0001
84636556|NCT04881942|169010686|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.032|<.0001
84636557|NCT04881942|169010686|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.046|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.046|0.037|<.0001
84636558|NCT04881942|169010686|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.042|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.042|0.033|<.0001
84636559|NCT04881942|169010687|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.665|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.665|0.407|<.0001
84636560|NCT04881942|169010687|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.537|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.537|0.280|<.0001
84636561|NCT04881942|169010687|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.596|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.596|0.339|<.0001
84636562|NCT04881942|169010687|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.559|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.559|0.301|<.0001
84636563|NCT04881942|169010689|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.62|341.96|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||341.96|213.62|<.0001
84636564|NCT04881942|169010689|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|241.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.99|305.64|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||305.64|176.99|<.0001
84636565|NCT04881942|169010689|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|248.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|184.01|312.43|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||312.43|184.01|<.0001
84636566|NCT04881942|169010689|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|257.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.58|322.26|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||322.26|193.58|<.0001
84675383|NCT01109316|169086171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline HbA1c.|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.76|0.20|
84636567|NCT04881942|169010690|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.223|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|2.58|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.580|1.915|<.0001
84636568|NCT04881942|169010690|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.897|2.557|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.557|1.897|<.0001
84636569|NCT04881942|169010690|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.439|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.439|1.810|<.0001
84636570|NCT04881942|169010690|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|2.382|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.382|1.767|<.0001
84636571|NCT04881942|169010691|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|709.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|549.19|870.54|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||870.54|549.19|<.0001
84636572|NCT04881942|169010691|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|568.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|407.18|729.51|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||729.51|407.18|<.0001
84636573|NCT04881942|169010691|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.34|722.67|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||722.67|401.34|<.0001
84636574|NCT04881942|169010691|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|517.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.11|678.34|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||678.34|356.11|<.0001
84636575|NCT01056016|169010721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage of patients with whom pediatrician in each group utilized each practice behavior at baseline and 6-months was computed. The reported statistical analysis did not account potential clustering due to the small number of practices in this study.||||=.003
84636576|NCT02289157|169010723|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Ho: There is no difference between number of patients with wound complications between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||1.4|0.5|0.54
84636577|NCT02289157|169010724|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-squared, df (3)||Ho: There is no difference between the types wound morbidity in the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.31
84636578|NCT02289157|169010725|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Ho: There is no difference between initial length of stay between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84636579|NCT02289157|169010726|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in length of stay after readmission for wound morbidity between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.41
84636580|NCT02289157|169010727|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ho: There is no difference between the number of ER visits made per person between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.38
84636581|NCT02289157|169010728|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Ho: There is no difference between the number of visits made to the clinic for wound morbidity per patient between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84636582|NCT02289157|169010729|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference between number of readmissions between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.52
84636583|NCT02289157|169010729|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the use of post operative antimicrobials between the the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.45
84636584|NCT02289157|169010729|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the number of patients with Incision and Drainage and/or Extirpation between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.44
84636585|NCT02289157|169010730|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: scheduled vs unscheduled cesarean section and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.68||||||Ho: There is no difference between patients with wound morbidity that is significantly affected by the use of icNPT and whether or not the cesarean is scheduled or unscheduled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.68
84636586|NCT02289157|169010731|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: pfannenstiel vs midline abdominal incision and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.27|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.27
84636587|NCT02289157|169010732|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: ruptured vs unruptured membranes and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
84636588|NCT02289157|169010733|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between labor vs no labor stratified by icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.49
84636589|NCT02289157|169010734|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between patients with hypertension versus no hypertension stratified by icNPT versus standard dressing in wound morbidity||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.92
84636590|NCT02289157|169010735|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction in icNPT and Standard wound dressings stratified by women with insulin requiring diabetes and no insulin requiring Diabetes.||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.22
84636591|NCT02289157|169010736|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between chorioamnionitis and no chorioamnionitis stratified by icNPT and standard dressing, for wound morbidity||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.74
84504792|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.04|-0.19|0.197
84636592|NCT00670306|169010784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84636593|NCT01301027|169010785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84636594|NCT01301027|169010786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
84636595|NCT01301027|169010787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
84636596|NCT01301027|169010788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984
84636597|NCT01009619|169010795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
84636598|NCT01009619|169010796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
84636599|NCT02817464|169010876|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.36||||||||2.36|1.44|
84636600|NCT02817464|169010877|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
84636601|NCT02817464|169010879|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
84636602|NCT02817464|169010880|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.01||||||||2.01|1.30|
84636603|NCT02817464|169010881|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4||||||||1.40|1.04|
84636604|NCT02817464|169010882|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.13||||||||1.13|0.23|
84636605|NCT02817464|169010884|OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0073
84636606|NCT03801044|169010912|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84636607|NCT04421027|169010967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.67|0.1800
84636608|NCT04421027|169010968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.58|0.7280
84636609|NCT04421027|169010969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.86|0.5444
84636610|NCT04421027|169010970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (net)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.0|0.0586
84636611|NCT04421027|169010971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.99|0.1453
84636612|NCT04421027|169010972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Proportional Odds Model|||Day 4||1.47|1.00|0.0464
84636613|NCT04421027|169010973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.49|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.49|1.04|0.0172
84636614|NCT04421027|169010974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.41|0.97|0.0921
84636615|NCT04421027|169010975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.56|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.56|1.05|0.0168
84636616|NCT04421027|169010976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.6|0.0626
84636617|NCT04421027|169010977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.81|0.4290
84636618|NCT04421027|169010978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.41|0.0018
84636619|NCT04421027|169010979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.65|||ANOVA|||||0.65|-0.62|0.9526
84636620|NCT04421027|169010980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.061|||Log Rank|||||1.061|0.741|0.1831
84636621|NCT04421027|169010981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.421|||Log Rank|||||1.421|1.017|0.0243
84636622|NCT04421027|169010982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4||0.08|-0.42|0.191
84636623|NCT04421027|169010982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.14|-0.49|0.278
84636624|NCT04421027|169010982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.24|-0.49|0.496
84636625|NCT04421027|169010982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.19|-0.70|0.263
84636626|NCT04421027|169010984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6436
84636627|NCT04421027|169010985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1270
84636628|NCT04421027|169010986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.68|0.3058
84636629|NCT04421027|169010987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-0.49|0.7073
84636630|NCT02867384|169011075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
84636631|NCT01727024|169011121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||0.451
84636632|NCT00948441|169011137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||matched pairs T test to compare infection rates during the two study periods||||0.012
84636633|NCT00104520|169011142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||0.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||H0: no difference between AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in time to need for inhaled or IV antibiotics. Assuming 2-sided significance level of 0.05, \~210 subjects (70 in each AZLI group, 35 in each placebo group) provided \>90% power to reject null hypothesis based on Lakatos normal approximation method with weights being one. Therefore, 250 subjects were to be randomized at Visit 2 (Day -28) to ensure at least 210 participants entered double-blind treatment period at Day 0.||||0.0070
84636634|NCT00104520|169011143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.21||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores.||9.21|0.81|0.0196
84636635|NCT00104520|169011144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.28||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.06||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in percent change from baseline in FEV1 (L).||10.060|2.500|0.0012
84636636|NCT00104520|169011146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline highest MIC of aztreonam for PA (\<=2, 4-8, 16-128 or \>=256 μg/mL) value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in mean change from baseline in log10 PA CFUs in sputum.||-0.193|-1.125|0.0059
84636637|NCT01640834|169011164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||0.14|-11.82|0.0542
84636638|NCT01640834|169011164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.89||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group.||1.16|-14.95|0.0826
84636639|NCT01640834|169011165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-0.4|-33.7|0.0460
84636640|NCT01640834|169011165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-4.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-4.3|-35.0|0.0192
84636641|NCT01640834|169011170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-9|-82|0.0187
84636642|NCT01640834|169011170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-23.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-23|-96|0.0048
84636643|NCT01640834|169011171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4423.0||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8256.0|-590.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-590|-8256|0.0278
84636644|NCT01640834|169011171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5187.0||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8371.0|-2004.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-2004|-8371|0.0046
84636645|NCT00806819|169011234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||0.99|0.70|0.0435
84636646|NCT00806819|169011235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.21|0.85|0.8940
84636647|NCT00806819|169011236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.00|0.70|0.0506
84636648|NCT00806819|169011237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.02|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.02|0.73|0.0865
84636649|NCT00806819|169011238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|0.65|0.7279
84636650|NCT00806819|169011238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.76||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||1.76|0.75|0.5180
84636651|NCT00806819|169011241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|1.02|0.0387
84636652|NCT00806819|169011241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.75||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||1.75|0.95|0.1071
84636653|NCT00806819|169011243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||0.1558
84636654|NCT00806819|169011243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||0.0565
84636655|NCT00806819|169011244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.16|0.74|0.5068
84636656|NCT00806819|169011245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.05|0.66|0.1181
84636657|NCT00806819|169011245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.12|0.77|0.4264
84636658|NCT00806819|169011245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.23|0.84|0.8929
84636659|NCT01326104|169011261|SUPERIORITY||comparing two curves|0.286||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.764||This is the p-value comparing Group A with historical control.|Log Rank|One sample log rank.||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||0.764|0.107|0.927
84636660|NCT01326104|169011261|SUPERIORITY||compare two curves|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p-value comparing Group B with historical control.|Log Rank|||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||||<0.001
84636661|NCT01326104|169011261|SUPERIORITY||Comparing two curves|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.276||This is the p-value comparing Groups A and B combined with historical control.|Log Rank|||||0.276|0.03|<0.001
84636662|NCT04073225|169011267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||33.2|-100.9|.323
84636663|NCT04073225|169011268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-81.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.5|-165.2|.057
84636664|NCT04073225|169011269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||6.08|0.03|.047
84636665|NCT04073225|169011270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.6|-1.4|.565
84636666|NCT04073225|169011271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.03|-0.50|0.147
84636667|NCT04073225|169011272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.4||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.3|533.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||533.0|-334.3|.605
84636668|NCT04073225|169011273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|130.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.7|248.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||248.6|-259.7|.590
84636669|NCT04073225|169011274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.85||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.11|133.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||133.68|-183.11|.743
84636670|NCT04073225|169011275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|5.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.71|-7.91|0.731
84644962|NCT02927067|169025229|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of the key secondary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -7%, then noninferiority (NI) was assumed. Because the NI of the primary efficacy endpoint was not established, the NI hypothesis of the key secondary endpoint was not tested formally.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|12.76|||||CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|||12.76|-3.91|
84636671|NCT05407064|169011276|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 4 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 4 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 4 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
84636672|NCT05407064|169011277|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 8 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 8 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
84636673|NCT05407064|169011278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1157|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1157
84636674|NCT05407064|169011278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.6630
84636675|NCT05407064|169011278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0004
84636676|NCT05407064|169011278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0100
84636677|NCT05407064|169011279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2309
84636678|NCT05407064|169011279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7218|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.7218
84504793|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.282
84636679|NCT05407064|169011279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0637|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0637
84636680|NCT05407064|169011279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0216
84636681|NCT05407064|169011280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1006
84636682|NCT05407064|169011280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2225|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2225
84636683|NCT05407064|169011280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0025
84636684|NCT05407064|169011280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0042
84636685|NCT05407064|169011281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6258
84636686|NCT05407064|169011281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.95
84636687|NCT05407064|169011281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0174
84636688|NCT05407064|169011281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0206
84636689|NCT05407064|169011282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.5538
84636690|NCT05407064|169011282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6650
84636691|NCT05407064|169011282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0190
84636692|NCT05407064|169011282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0034
84504794|NCT02868281|168760600|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.03||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.08|-0.15|0.543
84636693|NCT05407064|169011283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.7236
84636694|NCT05407064|169011283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.9738
84636695|NCT05407064|169011283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0338
84504795|NCT02868281|168760601|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.06||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline FEV1, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.180|-0.059|0.273
84504796|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.0||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|16.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.3|-40.3|0.367
84636696|NCT05407064|169011283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0282
84636697|NCT05407064|169011284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.9302
84636698|NCT05407064|169011284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6763
84636699|NCT05407064|169011284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0816
84636700|NCT05407064|169011284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0190
84636701|NCT05407064|169011285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.5647
84636702|NCT05407064|169011285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3497
84636703|NCT05407064|169011285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0229
84636704|NCT05407064|169011285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0073
84636705|NCT05407064|169011286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0158
84675384|NCT01109316|169086172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.52|-0.07|
84675385|NCT01109316|169086172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.56|-0.05|
84636706|NCT05407064|169011286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0429
84636707|NCT05407064|169011286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
84636708|NCT05407064|169011286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
84504797|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|21.2|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.2|-35.5|0.587
84675386|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.51|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.51|-0.29|
84675387|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.73|-0.41|
84675388|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.24|-0.18|
84636709|NCT05407064|169011287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0804
84636710|NCT05407064|169011287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0532
84675389|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.27|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.27|-0.56|
84504798|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.7||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|23.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.7|-33.1|0.721
84636711|NCT05407064|169011287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
84636712|NCT05407064|169011287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
84636713|NCT05407064|169011288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2152
84636714|NCT05407064|169011288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3369
84636715|NCT05407064|169011288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0010
84636716|NCT05407064|169011288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0046
84636717|NCT05407064|169011289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.4489
84636718|NCT05407064|169011289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.7326
84636719|NCT05407064|169011289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0492
84636720|NCT05407064|169011289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0131
84636721|NCT05407064|169011290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3330
84636722|NCT05407064|169011290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1193
84636723|NCT05407064|169011290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0032
84636724|NCT05407064|169011290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0127
84636725|NCT05407064|169011291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0046
84636726|NCT05407064|169011291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0052
84636727|NCT05407064|169011291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
84636728|NCT05407064|169011291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
84636729|NCT05407064|169011292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0567
84636730|NCT05407064|169011292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0235
84636731|NCT05407064|169011292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
84636732|NCT05407064|169011292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
84636733|NCT05407064|169011293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2632
84636734|NCT05407064|169011293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2962
84636735|NCT05407064|169011293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0013
84636736|NCT05407064|169011293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0547
84636737|NCT05407064|169011294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0937
84636738|NCT05407064|169011294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.8230
84636739|NCT05407064|169011294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0032
84636740|NCT05407064|169011294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0129
84636741|NCT05407064|169011295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1889
84636742|NCT05407064|169011295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1589
84636743|NCT05407064|169011295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0008
84636744|NCT05407064|169011295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0194
84636745|NCT05407064|169011296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0057
84636746|NCT05407064|169011296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0168
84636747|NCT05407064|169011296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000
84636748|NCT05407064|169011296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
84636749|NCT05407064|169011297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0958
84636750|NCT05407064|169011297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0544
84636751|NCT05407064|169011297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0029
84636752|NCT05407064|169011297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0006
84636753|NCT05407064|169011298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.2038
84636754|NCT05407064|169011298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.1977
84636755|NCT05407064|169011298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0357
84636756|NCT05407064|169011298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0302
84636757|NCT05407064|169011299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2165
84636758|NCT05407064|169011299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6868
84636759|NCT05407064|169011299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1350
84636760|NCT05407064|169011299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0273
84636761|NCT05407064|169011300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2450
84636762|NCT05407064|169011300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3461
84636763|NCT05407064|169011300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1110
84636764|NCT05407064|169011300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2386
84636765|NCT05407064|169011301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1475
84636766|NCT05407064|169011301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0308
84636767|NCT05407064|169011301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
84636768|NCT05407064|169011301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0004
84636769|NCT05407064|169011302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0873
84504799|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.3||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|25.1|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.1|-31.7|0.801
84636770|NCT05407064|169011302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1702
84636771|NCT05407064|169011302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0007
84636772|NCT05407064|169011302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0001
84636773|NCT05407064|169011303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.4193
84636774|NCT05407064|169011303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1663
84636775|NCT05407064|169011303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0002
84636776|NCT05407064|169011303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0306
84636777|NCT05407064|169011304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0534
84636778|NCT05407064|169011304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.6551
84636779|NCT05407064|169011304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0079
84636780|NCT05407064|169011304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.1133
84636781|NCT05407064|169011305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1248
84636782|NCT05407064|169011305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1788
84636783|NCT05407064|169011305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0030
84636784|NCT05407064|169011305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0534
84636785|NCT00124306|169011360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5||||||IC Symptom Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.5|-2.5|
84636786|NCT00124306|169011360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2||||||IC Problem Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.2|-2.3|
84636787|NCT00124306|169011360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.3||||||Wisconsin Symptom Survey - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-1.3|-6.3|
84636788|NCT05767749|169011372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine)|||14.0|-12.8|0.93
84636789|NCT05767749|169011372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.8|-8.3|0.54
84636790|NCT05767749|169011372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.0|-8.7|0.60
84636791|NCT02685267|169011413|OTHER|The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.|log-rank test|0.6761||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.||||0.6761
84636792|NCT00662675|169011436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-fat as a covariate.||The power calculation was based on the assumption that the true mean difference between the active and the placebo group was 31.2% with a common standard deviation of 22.6% using a 2-sided, 2-sample, t-test with a 5% significance level.||||<0.001
84636793|NCT00662675|169011437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-protein(nitrogen) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84636794|NCT03860818|169011450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of inpatient hospitalization during study||||<.001
84636795|NCT03860818|169011450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84636796|NCT03860818|169011451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical analysis applies to all rows.||||||<0.001
84675390|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.6|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.60|-0.48|
84636797|NCT03860818|169011452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9064
84636798|NCT03860818|169011453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84636799|NCT00505778|169011480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|1.3||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.9|-2.3|0.5016
84636800|NCT00505778|169011481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.8||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||3.5|-1.8|0.5426
84636801|NCT00505778|169011482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.7|-4.6|0.9770
84636802|NCT00505778|169011483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.796|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||||1.796|0.762|0.4726
84636803|NCT00505778|169011484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference BID-QD in Least Square Mean|-0.45||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA with prior Asacol dose category as factor.||||0.20|-1.09|0.1753
84644963|NCT02927067|169025230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
84644964|NCT02927067|169025231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
84644965|NCT02927067|169025231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.62||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.62|5.23|=0.001
84644966|NCT02927067|169025231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.87||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.87|5.80|<0.001
84636804|NCT00505778|169011485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|Difference BID-QD Remission Rates|3.6||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||8.5|-1.3|0.1557
84636805|NCT04857320|169011486|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.6e-05|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of Freedom = 5||Glucose was monitored by means of a wearable Continuous Glucose Monitor for several days prior to, during and post dosing. Measurements were gathered for each subject and averaged within-subject data. Our null hypothesis was that post prandial serum glucose would not vary significantly from their baseline values.||||0.000016
84636806|NCT04857320|169011487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0
84636807|NCT04857320|169011487|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0.000003
84636808|NCT04857320|169011487|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000002
84636809|NCT04857320|169011487|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000035
84636810|NCT04857320|169011487|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000004
84636811|NCT04857320|169011488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0
84636812|NCT04380519|169011531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012||||0.434|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.88|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.880|0.434
84636813|NCT04380519|169011531|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.125||||0.073|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.989|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.989|0.073
84636814|NCT04380519|169011533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.019||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.892|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.892|0.393
84636815|NCT04380519|169011533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.098||||0.061|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.975|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.975|0.061
84636816|NCT04380519|169011534|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.44||||||||1.44|0.31|
84636817|NCT04380519|169011534|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||||0.89|0.12|
84636818|NCT04380519|169011534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49||||||||1.49|0.28|
84636819|NCT04380519|169011534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||||0.87|0.11|
84636820|NCT04380519|169011535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.92||||||||5.92|0.93|
84636821|NCT04380519|169011535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.09||||||||4.09|0.55|
84636822|NCT04380519|169011535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.81||||||||6.81|0.94|
84675391|NCT01109316|169086173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.65|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.65|-0.85|
84636823|NCT04380519|169011535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.46||||||||4.46|0.53|
84636824|NCT03656380|169011536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84636825|NCT03656380|169011537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84636826|NCT03656380|169011538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84636827|NCT03656380|169011539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84636828|NCT03656380|169011540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||\<15 eos/hpf||||<0.001
84636829|NCT03656380|169011540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||≤6 eos/hpf||||0.02
84636830|NCT03656380|169011540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||≤1 eos/hpf||||0.27
84636831|NCT03656380|169011541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84636832|NCT03656380|169011542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
84636833|NCT05300763|169011549|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.22|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.22|1.25|
84636834|NCT05300763|169011550|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (96.25%) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|1.18|3.41|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.41|1.18|
84636835|NCT05300763|169011551|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (97.5 %) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|3.64|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.64|1.30|
84636836|NCT05300763|169011552|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.02|1.04|
84636837|NCT02100696|169011561|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|12.2||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|3.95|0.0033
84636838|NCT02100696|169011562|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.8||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|14.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.56|-7.13|0.4956
84636839|NCT02100696|169011563|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|12.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|17.94||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.94|4.19|0.0028
84636840|NCT02100696|169011564|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.3||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.14||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.14|3.21|0.0241
84675392|NCT01109316|169086174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.14|-0.02|
84636841|NCT02100696|169011565|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|17.22||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.22|-2.54|0.1605
84636842|NCT02100696|169011566|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.6||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|13.66||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.66|-1.22|0.3881
84636843|NCT02100696|169011567|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|4.9||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|14.69||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.69|-6.78|0.5879
84636844|NCT02100696|169011568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.5|0.0351
84636845|NCT02100696|169011569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.2698
84636846|NCT02100696|169011570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.6||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.2698
84636847|NCT02100696|169011571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|0.3881
84675393|NCT01109316|169086174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.18|0.01|
84636848|NCT02100696|169011572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|9.1||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.9||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||17.9|0.2|0.0445
84636849|NCT02100696|169011573|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.1||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|19.88||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.88|-19.67|0.9959
84636850|NCT02100696|169011574|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|3.8||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|14.7||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.70|-7.26|0.5014
84636851|NCT02100696|169011575|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.6||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|20.35||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.35|-19.08|0.9538
84675394|NCT01109316|169086175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.75|0.50|
84675395|NCT01109316|169086175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.67|0.29|
84636852|NCT02100696|169011576|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|25.78||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.78|2.66|0.0153
84636853|NCT02100696|169011577|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|16.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|28.41||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.41|4.44|0.0073
84636854|NCT02100696|169011578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|11.9||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|21.71||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.71|1.87|0.0174
84636855|NCT02100696|169011579|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.3||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|21.6||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.83|0.3015
84636856|NCT02100696|169011580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.4||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|21.17||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.17|-6.23|0.2787
84636857|NCT02100696|169011581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.1|0.0763
84636858|NCT02100696|169011582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.5329
84636859|NCT02100696|169011583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-4.9||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.0||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||3.0|-12.7|0.2228
84675396|NCT01109316|169086175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.41|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.41|0.56|
84675397|NCT01109316|169086175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.64|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.64|0.66|
84675398|NCT01109316|169086176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
84636860|NCT00048074|169011620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.814|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (2mg q 2 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.814|0.701|<0.001
84636861|NCT00048074|169011620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.578|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (3mg q 3 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.578|0.471|<0.001
84636862|NCT00356304|169011671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
84636863|NCT02504216|169011675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||IxRS: Interactive web/voice response system||0.96|0.76|=0.0043
84636864|NCT02504216|169011676|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||=|0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Log Rank|P-value (2-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||||2.10|0.97|=0.0695
84636865|NCT02504216|169011677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|=0.0004
84636866|NCT02504216|169011678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0140
84636867|NCT02504216|169011679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
84636868|NCT02504216|169011680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0145
84636869|NCT02504216|169011681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|=0.0051
84636870|NCT02504216|169011682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.27|0.92|=0.8322
84636871|NCT02504216|169011683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.00|0.37|=0.0235
84636872|NCT02504216|169011684|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|1.10|=0.0068
84636873|NCT02504216|169011685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.95|=0.0979
84636874|NCT03237286|169011713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0004
84636875|NCT00826202|169011801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d= 0.67||||||0.07
84636876|NCT00826202|169011802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|cohen's d=0.84||||||.056
84636877|NCT00826202|169011803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d=0.68||||||0.03
84675399|NCT01109316|169086177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.164
84636878|NCT00826202|169011804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d=0.93||||||0.12
84636879|NCT00912197|169011830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.135
84636880|NCT00912197|169011831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.688
84675400|NCT01109316|169086177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.185
84636881|NCT00912197|169011832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||after treatment, 56 days||||0.715
84636882|NCT00912197|169011833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
84636883|NCT00912197|169011833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.007
84675401|NCT01109316|169086178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.736
84675402|NCT01109316|169086178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.006
84636884|NCT00912197|169011833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.05
84636885|NCT00912197|169011837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||Acetate||||0.024
84644967|NCT02927067|169025231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|17.5||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||17.50|1.98|=0.014
84644968|NCT02927067|169025232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.3|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|0.02||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||0.02|-14.64|=0.051
84644969|NCT02927067|169025232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|2.2|||=|0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|10.37||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.37|-6.05|=0.606
84644970|NCT02927067|169025232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|1.0|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|9.31||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.31|-7.27|=0.809
84644971|NCT02519855|169025268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported a conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Longitudinal regression model|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||0.95|0.80|<0.001
84644972|NCT02519855|169025269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR from Baseline|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.05||A lower bound of the 95% CI on the GMFR \> 1.4 indicated that the Concomitant Group induces an acceptable VZV antibody response. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported this conclusion.|Longitudinal regression||Estimated GMFR, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age.|||2.05|1.76|<0.001
84644973|NCT02519855|169025270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.18|0.88|<0.001
84644974|NCT02519855|169025271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.29|0.94|<0.001
84644975|NCT02519855|169025272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.14|0.88|<0.001
84636886|NCT00756613|169011842|EQUIVALENCE|We considered a 20% reduction in primary events to be a reasonable goal of intensive glycemic control over the anticipated 15-year study time period. This effect size was chosen by taking into consideration both the probability of observing an effect of that size given the level of achieved A1c separation, and the perceived value to the patient of this level of benefit relative to the risk and burden of intensive glycemic control.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the long term effects of intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes on major cardiovascular events.||1.06|0.78|0.24
84636887|NCT00756613|169011843|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is expected 20% reduction for the intensive treatment group compared to the standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.81
84636888|NCT00756613|169011844|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 20% reduction of intensive treatment group versus standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.67|0.48
84636889|NCT00756613|169011846|EQUIVALENCE|T-test comparing between the two groups of treatment using the average score of last two surveys.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
84636890|NCT04901715|169011847|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84636891|NCT04901715|169011847|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
84636892|NCT04901715|169011847|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
84636893|NCT04901715|169011848|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
84636894|NCT04901715|169011848|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.066
84636895|NCT04901715|169011848|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
84636896|NCT00494676|169011851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.0|||McNemar||The marginal odds ratio based on discordant pairs was computed.|The analysis used a McNemar test for data combined across both periods of the crossover. We estimated that 70% and 35% of participants would say yes to the real and sham prisms, respectively. For a 2-tailed test, the minimum sample size to detect a 35% difference in yes responses to real and sham prisms was 57 participants, assuming 30% overlap (30% said yes to both pairs of glasses), power of 90% and α of 1%. Assuming an attrition rate of 20%, we planned to enroll 68 participants.||21.0|1.8|= 0.001
84636897|NCT00494676|169011852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mobility improvement scores were normally distributed. A paired t-test was used to conduct a within-subjects comparison of the crossover differences in mobility scores between real and sham prism glasses. An alpha level of 5% was used to indicate statistical significance for secondary analyses||1.3|-0.1|= 0.09
84636898|NCT00494676|169011853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|0.7|= 0.002
84636899|NCT00494676|169011854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|= 0.21
84636900|NCT01256294|169011910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
84636901|NCT01256294|169011910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of AUC0-12h were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.08|0.97|0.486
84636902|NCT01256294|169011915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Ratio of geometric means: Generic tacrolimus/Branded tacrolimus|||1.20|1.00|
84636903|NCT01256294|169011915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.18||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of Cmax were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.18|1.01|0.057
84636904|NCT00724711|169011932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This study was designed to show noninferiority (change of \< 12%) in regard of proportions of responders (TLOVR) at Week 48.~With 170 subjects in each group, the lower limit of observed one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 with 80% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups is 0.820 (82%) at Week 48.~312 subjects were enrolled, representing 8% less than planned (n = 340). As a result, power to claim non-inferiority decreased to 78%."|Difference in percentages between groups|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.2|||Inverted two one-sided tests|Inverted two one-sided tests with the standardized statistic||"Null hypothesis: The TVD group is at least 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)~Alternative hypothesis: The TVD group is less than 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)"||11.2|-5.1|
84644976|NCT02519855|169025273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.13|0.87|<0.001
84636905|NCT01621802|169011967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses is ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.98|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.98|-0.72|
84636906|NCT01621802|169011967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|2.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-Measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||2.97|0.02|
84504800|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|23.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.4|-33.3|0.704
84504801|NCT02868281|168760602|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-32.4|0.762
84504802|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|16.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.5|-42.1|0.354
84504803|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.4||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|21.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.0|-37.8|0.538
84504804|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-34.4|0.716
84636907|NCT01621802|169011968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.97|-0.72|
84644977|NCT01842633|169025286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.36|
84644978|NCT02057042|169025302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84504805|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.1||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||26.3|-32.5|0.822
84644979|NCT02057042|169025303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84644980|NCT02057042|169025304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84644981|NCT02057042|169025305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84504806|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.4|-33.4|0.767
84504807|NCT02868281|168760603|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.7|-33.4|0.779
84504808|NCT02868281|168760604|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline AQLQ(S) score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.6|-0.0|0.059
84504809|NCT02868281|168760605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.926|||Cox proportional hazards model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||2.926|1.160|0.010
84636908|NCT01621802|169011968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
84636909|NCT01621802|169011969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|1.84|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.84|-0.98|
84636910|NCT01621802|169011969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
84636911|NCT01621802|169011970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.92|
84636912|NCT01621802|169011970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.1|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration country - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.10|0.96|
84636913|NCT01621802|169011971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.0|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.00|0.83|
84636914|NCT01621802|169011971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.87|
84636915|NCT01621802|169011972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|Adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by Com\_MMR\_CO group) for antibodies to rubella virus.||1.09|0.97|
84636916|NCT01621802|169011972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.95|
84504810|NCT02868281|168760606|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||Generalised linear model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||3.73|0.32|0.897
84636917|NCT01149148|169011993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.626||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.02||A prior threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between baseline and three months is (baseline - 3 month). The difference in control and intervention is (intervention - control), which in this case is (unblinded - blinded).|The goal was to determine whether cerebral oximetry monitoring during surgery affected cognitive outcomes. Cerebral Oximetry Monitoring unblinded (intervention), and Cerebral Oxymetry Monitoring blinded (control) were given Mini Mental State Exam prior to surgery and three months after surgery. The differences between baseline and 3 month were calculated and compared between the intervention and control groups using t-test.||2.02|-1.36|0.678
84636918|NCT03436082|169011995|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84636919|NCT03436082|169011997|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84636920|NCT00950859|169011999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|91.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||91|58|
84636921|NCT00950859|169011999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|96.0||||||95.0|79.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||100|79|
84636922|NCT02917642|169012025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of bacteria within the root canal system.||||0.04
84636923|NCT02917642|169012026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of endotoxin within the root canal system.||||0.94
84636924|NCT02249832|169012027|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84636925|NCT02249832|169012028|EQUIVALENCE|A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||<0.001
84636926|NCT02249832|169012029|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean distance walked in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84636927|NCT04335136|169012120|OTHER|||||||0.5207||||||The level of significance was 5% (2-sided).|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis tested: H0: pAPN01 = pPlacebo; H1: pAPN01 ≠ pPlacebo (with p=proportion of patients with event).~A total of 186 patients (93 per group) was estimated to yield 80% power to detect a 20% absolute risk reduction in the primary, from 50% in the placebo group to 30% in the APN01 group, at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. To consider patients who would be randomized but not treated, a total of 200 patients (100 per group) were planned to be enrolled."||||0.5207
84636928|NCT04335136|169012120|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom: 1||||1.70|0.23|0.3588
84636929|NCT03328208|169012141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84636930|NCT03328208|169012142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84636931|NCT02105961|169012168|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.068
84636932|NCT02105961|169012168|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.034
84636933|NCT02105961|169012168|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period|||1.05|0.70|0.140
84636934|NCT02105961|169012168|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.05|0.70|0.140
84644982|NCT02057042|169025306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84644983|NCT02057042|169025307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84636935|NCT02105961|169012169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio(Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.82||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.140
84636936|NCT02105961|169012169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.82||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.103
84636937|NCT02105961|169012169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.140
84636938|NCT02105961|169012169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.030
84636939|NCT02105961|169012170|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.140
84636940|NCT02105961|169012170|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.042
84636941|NCT02105961|169012170|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
84636942|NCT02105961|169012170|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
84636943|NCT02105961|169012171|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.447
84636944|NCT02105961|169012171|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.180
84636945|NCT02105961|169012171|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
84636946|NCT02105961|169012171|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
84636947|NCT02105961|169012172|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.926
84636948|NCT02105961|169012172|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.055
84636949|NCT02105961|169012172|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.926
84636950|NCT02105961|169012172|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.547
84636951|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1771
84636952|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2833
84636953|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.0909
84636954|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.2310
84636955|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.0801
84636956|NCT03860259|169012173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Total||||0.0307
84636957|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1956
84636958|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2274||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2274
84636959|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1090
84636960|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.1618
84636961|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1264||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.1264
84636962|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.0394
84636963|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3968||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.3968
84636964|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3407||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.3407
84636965|NCT03860259|169012174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4033||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4033
84636966|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1707||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.1707
84636967|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3446
84636968|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.4310
84636969|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3143||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.3143
84636970|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4749
84636971|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.3728
84636972|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.1628
84636973|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.0731
84636974|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4909
84636975|NCT03860259|169012175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4411||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4411
84636976|NCT03860259|169012176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1786||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Acetaminophen||||0.1786
84636977|NCT03860259|169012176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1876||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Ibuprofen||||0.1876
84636978|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3638||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline PCS||||0.3638
84636979|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 PCS||||0.0856
84636980|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 PCS||||0.4428
84636981|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3378||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 PCS||||0.3378
84636982|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3942||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 PCS||||0.3942
84636983|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline MCS||||0.2190
84636984|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 MCS||||0.1112
84636985|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1737||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 MCS||||0.1737
84636986|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2408||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 MCS||||0.2408
84636987|NCT03860259|169012177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 MCS||||0.0380
84636988|NCT03860259|169012178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2220
84636989|NCT03860259|169012179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2856
84636990|NCT03860259|169012182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2241
84636991|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2714||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.2714
84636992|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3749
84636993|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3862||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.3862
84636994|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1735
84636995|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4304||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4304
84636996|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.4902
84636997|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.4371
84636998|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.1950
84675403|NCT01109316|169086178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
84675404|NCT01109316|169086178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.017
84675405|NCT01109316|169086179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.471
84675406|NCT01109316|169086179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
84636999|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4124
84637000|NCT03860259|169012183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.0268
84637001|NCT02283762|169012185|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-2.34||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.3|||MMRM (Method 1)|||||0.30|-4.99|0.0815
84675407|NCT01109316|169086179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.737
84675408|NCT01109316|169086179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
84675409|NCT01109316|169086181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.006
84675410|NCT01109316|169086181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.002
84675411|NCT01109316|169086182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.060
84675412|NCT01109316|169086182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.486
84675413|NCT01109316|169086183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.056
84637002|NCT02283762|169012186|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|%|0.2||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|14.09|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.09|-13.68|0.9770
84637003|NCT02283762|169012187|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.07||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||0.08|-0.23|0.3529
84675414|NCT01109316|169086183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.805
84675415|NCT01109316|169086183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.020
84675416|NCT01109316|169086183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.051
84675417|NCT00395044|169086200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.029
84675418|NCT00550836|169086278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||It was calculated that 39 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have 80% to detect a difference in median survival of 6 vs. 9.7 months for GE vs. PGE respectively with a minimum follow up of 6 months. Sample size was determined using a 1-sided log-rank test at alpha=0.20.||||0.36
84675419|NCT00550836|169086279|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84675420|NCT00550836|169086280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.419
84675421|NCT00550836|169086281|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
84637004|NCT02283762|169012188|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.79||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.69|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.69|-0.12|0.0887
84637005|NCT02283762|169012189|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.54|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.54|0.11|0.0241
84637006|NCT02283762|169012190|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.0|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||3.00|-3.40|0.9010
84637007|NCT02268175|169012194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was that treatment with ARM 1 will have a pCR/MRD rate of 35% compared with Arm 2 rate of 10%. Given 75 men randomized in 2:1 ratio to Arm 1 (N=50) or Arm 2 (N=25), there was 84% power to detect this difference, using Fisher's exact test with one-sided type I error of 0.1.||||0.151
84637008|NCT00078897|169012253|OTHER|Negative binomial regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.91|0.68
84637009|NCT03776812|169012266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.22|0.56|0.3293
84637010|NCT03776812|169012266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.98|0.44|0.0384
84637011|NCT04758637|169012345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.59||The calculated p-value is 7.62E-10.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated mean pill counts from the last week of baseline (week 26) to the last week of the intervention period (week 53) between control and non-fatal is 0.||13.59|2.4|0
84637012|NCT04758637|169012345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|-6.97||The calculated p-value is 2E-16.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated means from the study start (week 0) to the study end (week 23) between control and fatal is 0.||-6.97|-25.14|0
84637013|NCT04758637|169012346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|-0.43|0.219
84637014|NCT04758637|169012346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.46|-1.9|0.229
84637015|NCT01120964|169012389|OTHER|Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Total duration of postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation was analyzed by treatment group using summary statistics, and was compared between citrulline and placebo groups using an ANOVA.~Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for: 1) zero durations censored, 2) zero durations uncensored, 3) patients with zero duration excluded. The same analyses were performed with re-intubation time removed."||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
84637016|NCT01120964|169012390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||Re-intubation time included. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
84637017|NCT01120964|169012391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|96.0||The threshold for significance was P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||96.0|5.4|0.0418
84637018|NCT01120964|169012392|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|28.1||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.1|-2.6|0.0727
84637019|NCT01120964|169012393|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.8||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.5|1313.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1313.2|-193.5|0.1271
84637020|NCT01120964|169012394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.1|-7.0|0.9720
84504811|NCT02191579|168760618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.681|9.085||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.085|2.681|<0.001
84637021|NCT01120964|169012395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-7.7|0.8884
84637022|NCT01120964|169012396|OTHER|Total number of postoperative hours spent in PICU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.14||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|187.67||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||187.67|-49.39|0.1891
84637023|NCT01120964|169012397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|71.1||Duration including re-intubation time. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.1|-10.8|0.0479
84637024|NCT01120964|169012398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.7|-2.2|0.2637
84637025|NCT01120964|169012400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||41.0|-25.9|0.6431
84637026|NCT01120964|169012401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.2|213.1|||ANOVA|||||213.1|-134.2|0.6408
84637027|NCT03036215|169012464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study, no power analysis applicable; no statistical test||||
84637028|NCT03036215|169012465|OTHER|pilot study; no statistical test performed|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test run||||
84637029|NCT03036215|169012466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test for significance run||||
84637030|NCT00130247|169012489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.051||||||95.0|0.01|0.09|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of binomial proportion of relapse: Intention-to-treat||0.09|0.01|
84637031|NCT00130247|169012492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.43||||||95.0|0.94|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 1 year. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 1 year were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||12.5|0.94|
84637032|NCT00130247|169012492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident rate ratio|4.52||||||95.0|1.29|15.9|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 2 years. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 2 years were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||15.9|1.29|
84637033|NCT00130247|169012498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||||95.0|0.01|0.1|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|||0.10|0.01|
84637034|NCT00843284|169012508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.35|-3.97|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||Change from Baseline; observational study||-3.97|-4.35|<0.0001
84675422|NCT02144675|169086283|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<.05
84675423|NCT01458171|169086326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.45||||||||0.450||
84504812|NCT02191579|168760619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.936|-4.462||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-4.462|-7.936|<0.001
84637035|NCT00843284|169012509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.24|-3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test.||Change from baseline||-3.80|-4.24|<0.0001
84637036|NCT00147069|169012512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
84637037|NCT00147069|169012513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p value was calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84637038|NCT00147069|169012514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84637039|NCT00147069|169012515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84637040|NCT00122980|169012522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Based on pilot data, the efficacy of hydroxyurea to reduce secondary stroke rate was not predicted to be equivalent to transfusions. Therefore, an increased stroke rate (non-inferiority margin = 0.20) was allowed by study design. This acceptable stroke margin was predicted to be offset by the likelihood of significantly greater improvement in the management of iron overload through elimination of transfusions along with serial phlebotomy in the Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy arm."||||||0.214||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20, the non-inferiority margin, AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation (see next primary endpoint analysis).||||0.214
84637041|NCT00122980|169012523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||The a priori defined LOCF approach was deemed to be biased due to the study's early termination, and was replaced by this mixed models analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Including main effects of age at consent, baseline iron, and treatment group, on observed change from baseline Log10 transformed values only.||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis (see previous primary endpoint analysis) in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20 AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean log10 transformed LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation.||||0.144
84637042|NCT00122980|169012524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
84637043|NCT00122980|169012525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||>0.05
84637044|NCT00122980|169012526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline to endpoint scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||0.841
84675424|NCT01458171|169086326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.523||||||||0.523||
84637045|NCT00122980|169012527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
84637046|NCT00122980|169012528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||0.039
84637047|NCT00122980|169012529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis controlling for baseline value and time on study.||||||0.033
84637048|NCT00122980|169012530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline value and time on study||||||<0.01
84637049|NCT00459732|169012531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84637050|NCT00459732|169012532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.44
84637051|NCT00459732|169012533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance adjusted for baseline osteocalcin level.||||||0.16
84637052|NCT01243242|169012540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using the median test for independent samples|Median|||For the primary endpoint (CAARS change), median test was applied as the primary analysis due to outlier numbers observed ; secondary analysis of the primary endpoint utilized ANCOVA with adjustment to age, gender and site (which is usually expected to influence the endpoint) as well as baseline values. Additional parametric T-test was applied, but was found less effective due to outlier values.||||0.0093
84637053|NCT01243242|169012541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) and to Visits 3 through 5 in the primary endpoint, CAARS, and secondary endpoint scales, CGI-S, TOVA and AAQoL between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0195
84637054|NCT01243242|169012542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0093
84637055|NCT03983317|169012574|OTHER|We tested if the average drinks consumed was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.026
84637056|NCT03983317|169012576|OTHER|We tested if the average craving intensity was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.001
84637057|NCT04248491|169012612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
84637058|NCT04248491|169012613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84637059|NCT04248491|169012615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84637060|NCT04248491|169012617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
84637061|NCT04248491|169012618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
84637062|NCT04248491|169012619|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84637063|NCT04248491|169012620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
84637064|NCT04248491|169012621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
84637065|NCT04248491|169012622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
84637066|NCT04248491|169012623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.472
84637067|NCT04248491|169012625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
84637068|NCT01068964|169012627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. That is, if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean diurnal IOP change between the two groups (Group 1 minus Group 2) is less than 1.5 mm Hg, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. The study had an 85% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.57||||||A non-inferiority test was performed for comparing the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was that the mean diurnal IOP change at Week 4 for Group 1 was at least 1.5 mmHg greater than that for Group 2. The hypothesis was tested using a confidence interval approach based on a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including factors for treatment and investigator.||0.57|-1.68|
84637069|NCT01305577|169012641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.28|2.70|<0.001
84637070|NCT01305577|169012641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo. An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme.||10.94|3.52|<0.001
84637071|NCT01305577|169012642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||25.87|1.20|0.028
84637072|NCT01305577|169012642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|52.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||52.90|2.75|<0.001
84637073|NCT01305577|169012643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.14|1.74|<0.001
84637074|NCT01305577|169012643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.11|2.99|<0.001
84637075|NCT01305577|169012644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
84637076|NCT01305577|169012644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
84637077|NCT01305577|169012645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.47|0.61|<0.001
84637078|NCT01305577|169012645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.84|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.84|0.99|<0.001
84637079|NCT01305577|169012646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.87|-2.50|<0.001
84637080|NCT01305577|169012646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline values as covariate.||||-1.15|-2.79|<0.001
84637081|NCT01305577|169012647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84637082|NCT01305577|169012647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84637083|NCT02834793|169012682|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.3|||=|0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|4.8||The p-value was based on a rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region, and age-group as factors, and prerandomization drop seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.8|-49.2|= 0.107
84637084|NCT01147627|169012731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|108 patients in each group was needed to provide 90% power to detect non-inferiority of exenatide, shown by a mean difference of 0.4% in HbA1c change from baseline.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84637085|NCT04643158|169012736|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0236||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1934|0.2406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2406|-0.1934|0.828
84637086|NCT04643158|169012736|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.196||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0143|0.3778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3778|0.0143|0.035
84637087|NCT04643158|169012756|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-38.31||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.11|31.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||31.72|-71.11|0.202
84644984|NCT01206387|169025308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84637088|NCT04643158|169012756|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-15.43||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|60.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||60.96|-55.57|0.596
84637089|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||||||||1.03|0.66|
84637090|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||||||||1.10|0.65|
84637091|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||||||||0.86|0.49|
84637092|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||||||||1.10|0.83|
84637093|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||||1.19|0.85|
84637094|NCT02197078|169012763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||||||||0.96|0.66|
84637095|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||||||||1.23|0.66|
84637096|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
84637097|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.01||||||||1.01|0.48|
84637098|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
84637099|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.28||||||||1.28|0.79|
84637100|NCT02197078|169012764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||||||||1.06|0.62|
84637101|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94||||||||0.94|0.51|
84637102|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9||||||||0.90|0.44|
84637103|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88||||||||0.88|0.41|
84637104|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
84637105|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||||1.19|0.77|
84637106|NCT02197078|169012765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
84637107|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38||||||||1.38|0.58|
84637108|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
84637109|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||||||||0.78|0.24|
84637110|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||||1.25|0.73|
84637111|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52||||||||1.52|0.78|
84637112|NCT02197078|169012766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05||||||||1.05|0.52|
84637113|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.18||||||||2.18|1.10|
84637114|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.03||||||||3.03|1.19|
84637115|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||||1.68|0.73|
84637116|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
84637117|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56||||||||1.56|0.77|
84637118|NCT02197078|169012767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
84637119|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.0||||||||2.00|0.97|
84637120|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.72||||||||2.72|1.07|
84637121|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
84637122|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76||||||||1.76|1.01|
84637123|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27||||||||2.27|1.02|
84637124|NCT02197078|169012768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.71||||||||1.71|0.81|
84637125|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.47||||||||1.47|1.04|
84637126|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||||||||1.61|1.06|
84637127|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
84637128|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
84637129|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||||1.27|0.90|
84637130|NCT02197078|169012769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||||||||1.09|0.75|
84637131|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.06||||||||4.06|0.64|
84637132|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.58||||||||4.58|0.61|
84637133|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.48||||||||5.48|0.62|
84637134|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4||||||||2.40|0.57|
84637135|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.43||||||||2.43|0.38|
84637136|NCT02197078|169012770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.27||||||||4.27|0.64|
84637137|NCT00622440|169012771|OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Effect Size|0.275||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum||The wilcoxon rank sum effect size ranges in strength of effect from small (0.10 - \< 0.30), to medium (0.30 - \< 0.50), to large (\>=0.50) with a total range of 0 to 1|Estimated Effect Size for Phase 3 Trial||||.042
84637138|NCT02223377|169012775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.56|0.997
84637139|NCT02223377|169012780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.03|||ANOVA|||||-0.03|-1.43|0.040
84637140|NCT04154189|169012784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08||One-sided P value|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (less than \[\<\]18 years, more than or equal to \[\>=\]18 years) in interactive response technology (IRT). Efron method was used for ties.|||1.08|0.27|0.0396
84637141|NCT04154189|169012785|OTHER|Difference in PFS rates, and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs): CI and p-value constructed using the difference of the 2 Kaplan-Meier PFS rates (4 months) and the 2 corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|10.2||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|31.1||One-sided P value|Kaplan-Meier Method|||||31.1|-10.6|0.1683
84644985|NCT01206387|169025309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84644986|NCT01206387|169025310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84637142|NCT04154189|169012787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.62||Nominal p-value from stratified log-rank test adjusted for the randomization stratification factor, that is, age.|Stratified Log-rank One-sided Test||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (\<18 years, \>=18 years) in IRT. Efron method was used for ties.|||1.62|0.53|0.3924
84637143|NCT04154189|169012788|OTHER|Difference and 95% CI: difference of 2 Kaplan-Meier OS-1y rates and corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|-22.9||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|1.9||One-sided P value|Kaplan Meier Method|||||1.9|-47.6|0.0352
84637144|NCT04154189|169012789|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3||||||||22.3|-6.4|
84637145|NCT04154189|169012790|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.0||||||||20.0|-10.3|
84637146|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637147|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637148|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637149|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.010
84637150|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
84637151|NCT02280408|169012804|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.969
84637152|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
84637153|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
84637154|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
84637155|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
84637156|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
84637157|NCT02280408|169012805|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.733
84637158|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637159|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637160|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637161|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.132
84637162|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.070
84637163|NCT02280408|169012806|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.743
84637164|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637165|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637166|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
84637167|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.014
84637168|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
84637169|NCT02280408|169012807|OTHER|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.923
84637170|NCT02474069|169012814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.07|0.39|0.087
84637171|NCT02474069|169012815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.28|0.43|0.281
84637172|NCT04173494|169012826|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|15.67||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.81|5.54|0.0095
84637173|NCT04173494|169012827|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0, MMB was to be declared non-inferior to DAN.|Non-inferiority difference|13.58||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Non-inferiority difference, defined as p(MMB) - (0.8) \*p(DAN) where p(MMB) is percentage of participants with TI status in MMB arm and p(DAN) is percentage of participants with TI status in DAN arm.|||25.30|1.86|0.0116
84637174|NCT04173494|169012828|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.59|43.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.51|22.59|< 0.0001
84637175|NCT04173494|169012829|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.22||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.43|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-2.43|-10.0|0.0014
84637176|NCT04173494|169012830|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|18.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|26.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.59|9.77|0.0011
84637177|NCT04173494|169012831|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|17.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.40|7.99|0.0012
84637178|NCT04173494|169012832|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|10.62||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|23.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.64|-2.40|0.1133
84637179|NCT04173494|169012835|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.778|||Anderson & Gill proportional means model|||||0.778|0.397|0.0006
84637180|NCT04173494|169012836|OTHER||Stratified CMH|-8.26||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.18|0.1602
84637181|NCT04173494|169012837|OTHER||Stratified CMH|19.0||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|33.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||33.32|4.68|0.0124
84637182|NCT04173494|169012837|OTHER||Stratified CMH|15.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1.5g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||28.90|2.47|0.0282
84504813|NCT02191579|168760620|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.248|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.766|-2.731||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value for Week 30 were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-2.731|-5.766|<0.001
84637183|NCT04173494|169012837|OTHER||Stratified CMH|6.97||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=2g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||19.35|-5.41|0.2844
84637184|NCT04173494|169012842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.572|||Log Rank|||||1.572|0.504|0.6879
84637185|NCT04173494|169012843|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.804||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.386|||Log Rank|||||1.386|0.466|0.4320
84637186|NCT04173494|169012844|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.0|||MMRM|||||0.00|-1.42|0.0513
84637187|NCT04173494|169012845|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.82||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-2.48|||MMRM|||||-2.48|-19.15|0.0113
84637188|NCT04173494|169012846|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.31||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.11|||MMRM|||||4.11|-1.49|0.3570
84637189|NCT03023813|169012862|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84637190|NCT03023813|169012863|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84637191|NCT03023813|169012864|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
84637192|NCT03023813|169012865|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84637193|NCT03023813|169012866|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84637194|NCT03023813|169012867|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84637195|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Percent change in weight (lbs.) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included weight loss||2.26|-8.18|0.27
84637196|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Change in systolic blood pressure since the baseline encounter (mmHg)|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included blood pressure control||3.27|-16.12|0.19
84637197|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Percentage point change in HbA1c (%) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included glycemic control||0.45|-1.82|0.24
84637198|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Percentage point change in 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (%), as estimated by the American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equations, since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.26|||Generalized linear mixed regression||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||1.26|-3.65|0.34
84504814|NCT02191579|168760621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001||95.0|2.014|8.157||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value for the Week 29-32 interval were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.157|2.014|<0.001
84504815|NCT00769015|168760622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.06||Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. The p-value refers to the overall test of between group differences in rates of depression.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.06|.27|.067
84504816|NCT00769015|168760623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|4.3|||Linear Mixed effects model|||||4.30|-5.92|.75
84637199|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.46||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||9.70|-26.63|0.36
84637200|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Change in smoking intensity (defined as a change in smoking status from Current Every Day to either Current Some Days or Quit; or from Current Some Days to Quit) since the baseline encounter.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|45.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. OR \<1 indicates reduction in smoking intensity; OR \>1 indicates increase in smoking intensity.|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included tobacco cessation||45.56|0.03|0.92
84637201|NCT03023813|169012868|OTHER|Receipt of colorectal cancer screening since the baseline encounter|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1000.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. Lower limit estimate was \<0.001 and upper limit estimate was \>1000 (ClinicalTrials.gov does not allow \< or \> to be entered into the confidence interval lower limit or upper limit fields).|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included colorectal cancer screening||1000|0.001|0.99
84637202|NCT00202878|169012884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.988|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.988|0.887|0.016
84637203|NCT00202878|169012885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.903|0.035
84637204|NCT00202878|169012886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|0.983|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.983|0.847|0.016
84644987|NCT01206387|169025311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84644988|NCT01206387|169025312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
84637205|NCT00202878|169012887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.897|0.035
84637206|NCT01474018|169012891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84637207|NCT01474018|169012892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84637208|NCT01474018|169012892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84637209|NCT02433080|169012895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.5|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies for the outcomes 2-8.||16.5|-3.6|0.05
84637210|NCT03563183|169012909|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine Group compared to Placebo Group.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|95.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.58|98.22|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Non-Frail-HZ/su vs Non-Frail-Placebo groups.||98.22|91.58|<0.0001
84637211|NCT03563183|169012909|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.41|94.43|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Pre-Frail-HZ/su vs Pre-Frail-Placebo groups.||94.43|84.41|<0.0001
84637212|NCT03563183|169012909|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.36|96.65|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Frail-HZ/su vs Frail-Placebo groups.||96.65|75.36|<0.0001
84637213|NCT03563183|169012909|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.61|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Unknown-HZ/su vs Unknown-Placebo groups.||100|14.61|0.069
84637214|NCT03563183|169012910|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|97.1|
84637215|NCT03563183|169012910|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|98.7||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||98.7|86.6|
84637216|NCT03563183|169012910|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|62.6|
84637217|NCT03563183|169012910|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||||||||||||VE against the BOI due to confirmed HZ. The 95% Confidence Interval was not calculated as there were no subjects reported with a confirmed Zoster episode in the Unknown-HZ/su Group.||||
84637218|NCT01594528|169012930|OTHER|||||||0.992||||||comparison between groups for body indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
84637219|NCT01594528|169012930|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||comparison between groups facial indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84637220|NCT01594528|169012930|OTHER|||||||0.586||||||comparison between groups for vocal indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.586
84637221|NCT00486291|169012931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||It is anticipated that the pooled standard deviation (SD) of the change from baseline in HbA1c will be between 1.0 and 1.5. With 90 subjects per treatment group the study will have 90% power (two-sided alpha=0.05) to detect a mean difference between groups of 0.486 for SD=1.0, and a mean difference between groups of 0.729 for SD=1.5.||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
84637222|NCT00486291|169012932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-8.1|<0.0001
84637223|NCT03462511|169012966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Independent variables: study month, study group, their interactions and a person-level random intercept to incorporate clustering.|Regression, Linear|||Based on estimated effect size from our prior feasibility trial, the target enrollment was 87 dyads plus additional 20% to account for attrition before Month 6 or blood transfusions or acute illness rendering HbF levels inaccurate.||||0.067
84637224|NCT03462511|169012967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared the difference in proportion of days covered by hydroxyurea at two timepoints: (1) from the year prior to study entry to 6 months (the end of the active intervention phase of the trial) and (2) from 6 months to 12 months (the sustainability phase of the trial).||||0.60
84637225|NCT03462511|169012968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, generic quality of life (QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||<0.001
84637226|NCT03462511|169012968|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test generic quality of life (QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in quality of life experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.04
84637227|NCT03462511|169012969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||0.47
84637228|NCT03462511|169012969|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.045
84637229|NCT03462511|169012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, responsibility for self-management concordance for youth-caregiver dyads in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 6 months.||||0.002
84637230|NCT03462511|169012970|NON_INFERIORITY|50% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test youth caregiver concordance for self-management responsibility scores for months 0-6 (efficacy period) were compared to months 6-12 (sustainability period).||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in concordance between youth and caregivers for self-management responsibility experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 6 to month 12.||||0.23
84637231|NCT02160899|169013014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84637232|NCT02160899|169013014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84637233|NCT02160899|169013014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Exact Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.044
84637234|NCT01667419|169013052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.37|0.0010
84637235|NCT01667419|169013052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.2598
84637236|NCT01667419|169013053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.37|0.0133
84637237|NCT01667419|169013053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.57|0.6815
84637238|NCT01667419|169013054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94|||Log Rank|||||.94|0.30|0.0274
84637239|NCT01667419|169013054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.55|0.8597
84637240|NCT00856518|169013058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline MEP value comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.899
84637241|NCT00856518|169013058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response||||||0.946
84637242|NCT00856518|169013058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|EMST arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison||||||0.00042
84637243|NCT00856518|169013058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
84637244|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline total score and subscale score comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.05
84637245|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response for total score and all subscale scores except for Burden and Pharyngeal domains||||||> 0.05
84637246|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Burden domain||||||0.014
84637247|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.022
84637248|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison for the total SWAL-QOL score and subscale scores except for the Burden and Mental Health domains.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
84637249|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.038
84637250|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.031
84637251|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.027
84637252|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.016
84637253|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.007
84637254|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Saliva domain||||||0.036
84637255|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Fear domain||||||0.004
84637256|NCT00856518|169013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Total SWAL-QOL score||||||0.016
84637257|NCT06026124|169013096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637258|NCT06026124|169013096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637259|NCT06026124|169013097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637260|NCT06026124|169013097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637261|NCT06026124|169013098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637262|NCT06026124|169013098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637263|NCT06026124|169013099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
84637264|NCT06026124|169013099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
84637265|NCT06026124|169013100|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.17
84637266|NCT06026124|169013100|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
84637267|NCT06026124|169013101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
84637268|NCT06026124|169013102|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.51|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.51
84637269|NCT03001817|169013103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637270|NCT03001817|169013104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637271|NCT03001817|169013105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
84637272|NCT03001817|169013106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5443|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5443
84637273|NCT03001817|169013107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
84637274|NCT03001817|169013108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637275|NCT03001817|169013109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637276|NCT03001817|169013110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637277|NCT03001817|169013111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637278|NCT03001817|169013112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4939|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4939
84637279|NCT03001817|169013113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637280|NCT03001817|169013114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.8371
84637281|NCT03001817|169013115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3415
84637282|NCT03001817|169013116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637283|NCT03001817|169013117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637284|NCT03001817|169013118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637285|NCT03001817|169013119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7442|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7442
84637286|NCT03001817|169013120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637287|NCT03001817|169013121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637288|NCT03001817|169013122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0374
84637289|NCT03001817|169013123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7429|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7429
84637290|NCT03001817|169013124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637291|NCT03001817|169013125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637292|NCT03001817|169013126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637293|NCT03001817|169013127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637294|NCT03001817|169013128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637295|NCT03001817|169013129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3669|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3669
84637296|NCT03001817|169013130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637297|NCT03001817|169013131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637298|NCT03001817|169013132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637299|NCT03001817|169013133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637300|NCT03001817|169013134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0509
84637301|NCT03001817|169013135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637302|NCT03001817|169013136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637303|NCT03001817|169013137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637304|NCT03001817|169013138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637305|NCT03001817|169013139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0647
84637306|NCT03001817|169013140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0007
84637307|NCT03001817|169013141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1399|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1399
84637308|NCT03001817|169013142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0122
84637309|NCT03001817|169013143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0994
84637310|NCT03001817|169013144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0904|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0904
84637311|NCT03001817|169013145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4346
84637312|NCT03001817|169013146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1474|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1474
84637313|NCT03001817|169013147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0054
84637314|NCT03001817|169013148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0002
84637315|NCT03001817|169013149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637316|NCT03001817|169013150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0118
84637317|NCT03001817|169013151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637318|NCT03001817|169013152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84637319|NCT03001817|169013153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2049
84637320|NCT03001817|169013154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637321|NCT03001817|169013155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637322|NCT03001817|169013156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637323|NCT03001817|169013157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637324|NCT03001817|169013158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9117
84637325|NCT03001817|169013159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84637326|NCT00035932|169013218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.09|
84637327|NCT00035932|169013218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.55||||||||0.55|0.07|
84637328|NCT00035932|169013219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.04|
84637329|NCT00035932|169013219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
84637330|NCT00035932|169013222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.12|
84637331|NCT00035932|169013222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Distance|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.6||||||||0.60|0.07|
84637332|NCT00035932|169013223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Randomized participants||12.3|-13.3|
84637333|NCT00035932|169013224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1||||||||14.1|-7.0|
84637334|NCT00035932|169013224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|0.4||||||||0.4|-22.9|
84637335|NCT00035932|169013226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-16.9|
84637336|NCT00035932|169013226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-28.5|
84637337|NCT00035932|169013228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||13.2|-12.5|
84637338|NCT00035932|169013229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|15.4||||||||15.4|-9.1|
84637339|NCT00035932|169013229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-29.4|
84637340|NCT00035932|169013230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.4||||||||11.4|-13.7|
84637341|NCT00035932|169013230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-30.6|
84637342|NCT00035932|169013231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||10.3|-15.0|
84637343|NCT00035932|169013232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.0||||||||10.0|-14.6|
84637344|NCT00035932|169013232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.1||||||||-7.1|-30.7|
84637345|NCT00035932|169013233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|5.8||||||||5.8|-18.7|
84637346|NCT00035932|169013233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-5.9||||||||-5.9|-29.9|
84637347|NCT00035932|169013235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.3|7.5||||||||7.5|-44.3|
84637348|NCT00035932|169013235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.5|-15.3||||||||-15.3|-74.5|
84637349|NCT00035932|169013236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.6|10.6||||||||10.6|-45.6|
84504817|NCT00769015|168760624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in least squares mean|3.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|-12.22|.68
84504818|NCT00769015|168760625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.41|||Least squares mean|||||7.41|-2.58|.34
84637350|NCT00035932|169013236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-79.2|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-79.2|
84637351|NCT00035932|169013238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
84637352|NCT00035932|169013238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between number of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 400 mg / SQV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
84637353|NCT00035932|169013240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between ATV Cmin of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
84637354|NCT00035932|169013240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
84637355|NCT00035932|169013240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between # of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
84637356|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-6.0||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.0|-15.5|
84637357|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.6|-16.9|
84637358|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.7||||||HDL cholesterol||0.7|-13.6|
84637359|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.1||||||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-9.3|
84637360|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-15.6|
84504819|NCT00769015|168760626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.76|||Least squares mean|||||5.76|-9.80|.68
84504820|NCT00769015|168760627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|6.82|||Least squares mean|||||6.82|-4.04|.68
84504821|NCT00769015|168760628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|9.17|||Least squares mean|||||9.17|-5.94|.68
84504822|NCT02060461|168760629|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Students t-test of FS200 and IntraLase intraoperative flap thickness measurements obtained by ultrasound pachymetry||||.003
84504823|NCT01133821|168760639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time effect for HRSD-17||||<0.0001
84504824|NCT01133821|168760640|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline scores||||||>0.05
84504825|NCT02917447|168760641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in PCL by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.15
84504826|NCT02917447|168760642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||.049
84637361|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|1.8||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.8|-15.5|
84637362|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.2||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-13.2|-35.0|
84637363|NCT00035932|169013242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-23.4||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-23.4|-43.4|
84637364|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.2||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.2|-17.0|
84637365|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.5||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.5|-17.4|
84637366|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|3.5||||||HDL Cholesterol||3.5|-12.4|
84637367|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference Estimate|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.3||||||HDL Cholesterol||9.3|-11.0|
84637368|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|1.2||||||Fasting LDL CHolesterol||1.2|-19.0|
84637369|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-17.7|
84637370|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-17.7||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-17.7|-41.6|
84637371|NCT00035932|169013243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.1||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-27.1|-49.7|
84637372|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, Total Cholesterol||-8.3|-20.1|
84637373|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed values, total cholesterol||-1.3|-16.1|
84637374|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed values, HDL cholesterol||-1.2|-19.9|
84637375|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, HDL cholesterol||7.0|-14.0|
84637376|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.8|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting LDL||-1.8|-22.3|
84637377|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|4.8|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed Cases, Fasting LDL cholesterol||4.8|-19.0|
84637378|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-8.0|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||-8.0|-38.6|
84637379|NCT00035932|169013244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||1.3|-36.5|
84637380|NCT00035932|169013255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.41|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|overall||0.41|-0.13|
84637381|NCT00035932|169013255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.38|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|last observation carried forward||0.38|-0.16|
84637382|NCT04413617|169013266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||-0.08|-0.62|0.0158
84637383|NCT04413617|169013266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||0.23|-0.32|0.3933
84637384|NCT02511106|169013285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
84637385|NCT02511106|169013286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.34|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.34|0.21|<0.0001
84637386|NCT02511106|169013289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3307|0.7299|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7299|0.3307|0.0004
84637387|NCT02511106|169013290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3439|0.7017|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7017|0.3439|<0.0001
84637388|NCT01015638|169013297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84637389|NCT01015638|169013298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
84637390|NCT01015638|169013299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84637391|NCT01015638|169013300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
84637392|NCT00984620|169013309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-1.25||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||11.8|-14.3|0.855
84637393|NCT00984620|169013310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|9.02||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||23.3|-5.3|0.229
84637394|NCT00984620|169013311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|5.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.3|-7.3|0.417
84637395|NCT00984620|169013312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|2.99||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||16.6|-10.6|0.676
84637396|NCT00984620|169013313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|3.24||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||14.6|-8.1|0.588
84637397|NCT00984620|169013314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.78||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.6|-9.0|0.512
84637398|NCT00984620|169013316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1397||||||Compare 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (24 Weeks) over 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks) using log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.1397
84637399|NCT05487196|169013357|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin δ was set as the median of fentanyl group + 30 representing a 1-point pain numeric rating scale difference per unit time across the 30-minute initiation period. A conventional 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed using normal distribution assumptions. Analysis was by intent to treat. Comparisons of PI-AUC30 between the three agents were made by one-way ANOVA.||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.226
84637400|NCT05487196|169013358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84637401|NCT05487196|169013359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84637402|NCT05487196|169013360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84637403|NCT05487196|169013361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84637404|NCT05487196|169013362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
84637405|NCT05487196|169013363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
84637406|NCT05487196|169013364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84637407|NCT05487196|169013365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
84637408|NCT05487196|169013366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
84637409|NCT05487196|169013367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
84637410|NCT05487196|169013368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
84637411|NCT05487196|169013369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
84637412|NCT03530124|169013378|SUPERIORITY|The number of infants with ≥1 apneic event for each group and compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group (\< 28 weeks versus ≥ 28 weeks) to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.73|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the primary objective.|||5.73|1.27|0.0104
84644989|NCT00920907|169025313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.114|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.114|0.916|
84644990|NCT00920907|169025317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.156|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was to be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for ipilimumab Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%. Point estimates and 90% CIs were constructed for the ratio of geometric means (Process C/Process B) for ipilimumab Cmax.||1.156|0.922|
84644991|NCT00920907|169025322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||omnibus conditional F-test|0.4||||0.85||||||Not corrected for multiple testing|F-test|numerator 5 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Time-by-process interaction. Null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same for both processes.||||0.85
84644992|NCT00920907|169025322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-statistic|4.35|||<|0.0001|||||||F-test|numerator 10 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Overall time effect. Null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in either process group (treatment arm).||||<0.0001
84644993|NCT04389970|169025344|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no conclusion of significance can be made.||||.39
84644994|NCT04389970|169025345|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.3
84644995|NCT04389970|169025346|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.77
84644996|NCT04389970|169025347|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test.||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.66
84644997|NCT04389970|169025348|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.88
84644998|NCT04389970|169025349|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.03
84644999|NCT04389970|169025350|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.06
84645000|NCT04389970|169025351|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.04
84645001|NCT04389970|169025352|OTHER|Single group, within subjects analysis.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||0
84504827|NCT02917447|168760643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.92
84637413|NCT03530124|169013379|OTHER|The number of apnea events were compared using a linear regression model (assuming a Poisson distribution) with study site and gestational age group covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.11
84637414|NCT03530124|169013380|OTHER|Average duration of apnea episodes between groups were compared using a mixed effects model with a random intercept for each infant with one or more events and study site and gestational age group as covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Effects Model|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.36
84637415|NCT03530124|169013381|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants requiring an increase in respiratory support for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.23|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|||7.23|0.59|0.3555
84637416|NCT03530124|169013382|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants with ≥1 cardiorespiratory event using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|Only Duke University had viable monitoring data to analyze this compound outcome objective.||2.77|0.29|1.0000
84637417|NCT03530124|169013383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.63|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|The proportion of infants requiring positive pressure ventilation for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea during the 48-hour monitoring period.||21.63|0.17|1.0000
84637418|NCT00947882|169013412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0911||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0911
84637419|NCT00947882|169013412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0865
84504828|NCT03081767|168760644|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||Actual P-Value = 3.89597E-42. A P-value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
84637420|NCT00947882|169013412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.2342||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2342
84645002|NCT01555957|169025353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesized that among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs, infants receiving 1g/kg/day S-ILE (lipid minimizing strategy) would have decreased incidence of IFALD compared to those receiving 2g/kg/day S-ILE. We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of DB would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.94
84645003|NCT01555957|169025354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of direct bilirubin would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.0005
84645004|NCT00718081|169025355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84504829|NCT02763579|168760660|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.62|0.0170
84504830|NCT02763579|168760661|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.54|0.0069
84504831|NCT02763579|168760662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||||1.37|0.55|
84637421|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0367||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Months 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0367
84637422|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0231||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0231
84637423|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.1638||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1638
84637424|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1941||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparisons vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1941
84637425|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.1083||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1083
84637426|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.2782||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2782
84637427|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.1562||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1562
84637428|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.1736||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1736
84645005|NCT00718081|169025355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84645006|NCT01198158|169025389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Log Rank|OS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors.||||||0.739
84645007|NCT01198158|169025390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Log Rank|PFS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors||||||0.832
84637429|NCT00947882|169013413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3132||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.3132
84637430|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.628||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.628|0.814|0.2034
84637431|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|2.71||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.710|0.834|0.1748
84637432|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.195||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.195|0.964|0.0658
84504832|NCT02763579|168760663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.911|||Log Rank|||||0.911|0.562|0.0063
84637433|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.184||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.184|0.979|0.0587
84645008|NCT05478174|169025393|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0411|0.0255||P-Value for non inferiority test|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.0255|-0.0411|<0.001
84645009|NCT05478174|169025394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0716||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1742|0.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.0310|-0.1742|0.171
84504833|NCT02763579|168760664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.47||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|17.27|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 6 months||17.27|-0.33|0.0593
84504834|NCT02763579|168760664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.02|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 1 year||13.02|1.52|0.0133
84504835|NCT02763579|168760665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|13.46||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.64|||Z-test|||OS Rate at 1 year||23.64|3.29|0.0095
84637434|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|3.283||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.283|1.003|0.0490
84637435|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.464||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||2.464|0.774|0.2742
84637436|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.304||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.304|0.706|0.4206
84637437|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|2.16||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.160|0.664|0.5494
84637438|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.975||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||1.975|0.609|0.7586
84637439|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|2.717||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.717|0.816|0.1946
84637440|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|2.174||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.174|0.667|0.5380
84637441|NCT00947882|169013414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.308||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.308|0.702|0.4263
84637442|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.113|4.59||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.590|-10.113|0.4607
84637443|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24||||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|4.128||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.128|-10.614|0.3876
84637444|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|3.096||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.096|-11.650|0.2548
84637445|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|5.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.322|-9.729|0.5652
84637446|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.768|6.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||6.322|-8.768|0.7502
84637447|NCT00947882|169013415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.513|5.581||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.581|-9.513|0.6089
84637448|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.294||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.294|-1.068|0.8511
84637449|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.477||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.477|-0.900|0.6331
84637450|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.113|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.250|-1.113|0.9090
84637451|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|1.802||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.802|-0.956|0.5469
84637452|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.200|-1.576|0.7906
84637453|NCT00947882|169013416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.773|0.987||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||0.987|-1.773|0.5757
84637454|NCT05188053|169013417|OTHER|"Sample size calculations were performed to estimate the number of subjects needed to detect a 30% difference in NRS pain AUC scores between the study groups.~30% reduction in pain was considered the minimal clinically important difference in pain control based off previous pain research.~A 30% reduction in pain would correspond with a difference of approximately 136 in area under the curve of mean pain over time."||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance||Two-sample t-test with unequal variance. The null hypothesis is that there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups based on a standard alpha value of 0.05.||||0.170
84637455|NCT02695420|169013484|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||||34.7|9.6|0.0008
84637456|NCT02695420|169013484|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.3|||Repeated measures model|||||42.3|16.3|< 0.0001
84637457|NCT02695420|169013484|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.4|||Repeated measures model|||||38.4|12.6|0.0002
84637458|NCT01742286|169013499|OTHER||MTD/RDE|510.0||||||||||||||||||
84637459|NCT01742286|169013499|OTHER||MTD/RDE|500.0||||||||||||||||||
84637460|NCT04530136|169013515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon rank test|||||||0.0346
84637461|NCT04530136|169013516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.4441
84637462|NCT04530136|169013517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1021|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale for Clin Improvement|||||||0.1021
84637463|NCT04530136|169013518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.1615
84637464|NCT02878798|169013519|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were completed|Slope|0.2105|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4328||||||||||-0.4328|
84637465|NCT02878798|169013520|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were done|Slope|-1.5219|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1933||||||||1.1933||
84637466|NCT02878798|169013521|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6337|0.5872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5872|-0.6337|
84637467|NCT02878798|169013522|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.168||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4612|0.1253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1253|-0.4612|0.261
84637468|NCT02878798|169013523|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0213|0.8992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8992|-1.0213|0.9007
84637469|NCT02878798|169013524|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0106||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0793|0.1005|||Hurdle model|||||0.1005|-0.0793|0.8174
84637470|NCT02878798|169013525|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7394||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3775|-0.1013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1013|-1.3775|0.0233
84637471|NCT02878798|169013526|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1328||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.7164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7164|-0.982|0.7586
84637472|NCT02878798|169013527|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0021||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.0799|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0799|-0.084|0.9604
84637473|NCT02878798|169013528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0396||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1053|0.0261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0261|-0.1053|0.2365
84637474|NCT02878798|169013529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3848||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1336|10.9032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9032|-6.1336|0.5813
84637475|NCT02878798|169013530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0547||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5705|1.4611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4611|-3.5705|0.4092
84637476|NCT01309282|169013531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
84637477|NCT01309282|169013532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
84637478|NCT01309282|169013533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01403|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01403
84637479|NCT01309282|169013534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0355
84637480|NCT01309282|169013535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5469
84637481|NCT01309282|169013536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
84637482|NCT01309282|169013537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
84637483|NCT01309282|169013538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0904
84637484|NCT01309282|169013539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2969
84637485|NCT01387542|169013549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.000
84637486|NCT01387542|169013550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
84637487|NCT01387542|169013551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
84637488|NCT01387542|169013552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.000
84637489|NCT03601117|169013553|OTHER|This is to test for the antidepressant effect of LDLPFC stimulation. Test is change in score from baseline to approximately 48 hours after the final session.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
84637490|NCT02762370|169013583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0452
84637491|NCT02954172|169013605|EQUIVALENCE|the equivalence margin of the ORR ratio was set at (0.75, 1.33).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.077||||||||1.077|0.756|
84637492|NCT02954172|169013606|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.7066|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7066
84637493|NCT02954172|169013607|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3497
84637494|NCT00233064|169013625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|1.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.9|0.0|
84637495|NCT00233064|169013625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.5||||||95.0|0.0|2.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||2.9|0.0|
84637496|NCT00233064|169013625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.3||||||95.0|0.0|1.5|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.5|0.0|
84637497|NCT04976192|169013646|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.94||||||||0.94|-1.56|
84637498|NCT04976192|169013647|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.58||||||||0.58|-1.37|
84637499|NCT04976192|169013647|OTHER||Relative Potency|0.89|||||||||||||Relative potency of TEV-45779 and XOLAIR is a co-primary efficacy endpoint for FDA submission.|The relative potency of the test drug to the reference drug was defined as the dose of the test drug that produced the same biological response as 1 unit of the dose of the reference drug. Relative potency was demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for relative potency fell entirely within the equivalence margins.||||
84637500|NCT04236141|169013682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|40.43||||||||40.43|-19.00|
84637501|NCT04236141|169013683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.03|36.31||||||||36.31|-22.03|
84637502|NCT04236141|169013684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
84637503|NCT04236141|169013685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|52.3||||||||52.30|-9.44|
84637504|NCT04236141|169013686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
84637505|NCT04236141|169013687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
84637506|NCT04236141|169013688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|48.42||||||||48.42|-12.70|
84637507|NCT04236141|169013689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
84637508|NCT04236141|169013690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|60.38||||||||60.38|-10.38|
84637509|NCT04236141|169013691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.84|40.98||||||||40.98|-33.84|
84637510|NCT01303224|169013845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted by using the Hochberg Procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel-Test was used to compare separately each of the 3 active treatment groups with placebo using a two-sided overall significance level of 5%. The proportion of responders was tested with the following hypotheses: H0 (placebo) vs H1(Ibodutant:1mg/3mg/10mg). Approximately 80% power based on the assumptions: rate placebo 40%, expected mean therapeutic gain over placebo 15% for at least one dose of Ibodutant.||||<0.05
84637511|NCT01303224|169013846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.05
84637512|NCT01888432|169013850|NON_INFERIORITY|HO: πT - πC ≥ 0.12 vs. HA: πT - πC \< 0.12, where πT and πC are the true proportions of composite efficacy failure of tBPAR, GL, or D, (tBPAR/GL/D) at 12 months post-transplant for the respective treatment groups. The proportion of 0.12, or 12%, was pre-determined as the non-inferiority (NI) margin for composite efficacy failure.|Kaplan-Meier|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.7||Z-test p-value for non-inferiority test (non-inferiority margin = 12%) is for one-sided test and should be compared to 0.05 significance level.|Z-test|||non-inferior efficacy failure of the reduced tacrolimus regimen to control by rejecting the null hypothesis.||3.7|-5.2|< 0.001
84637513|NCT01888432|169013851|NON_INFERIORITY|the null hypothesis below was tested at the one-sided α = 0.05 level: H0: μT - μC ≤ -6 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs. HA: μT - μC \> -6 mL/min/1.73 m\^2, where μT and μC are the true means of change in eGFR (MDRD-4) from randomization to Month 12 post-transplant for the reduced tacrolimus group and control group, respectively.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|-0.09|< 0.001
84637514|NCT01888432|169013852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-1.21|<0.001
84637515|NCT01888432|169013854|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.0|-4.7|
84637516|NCT01888432|169013854|OTHER|tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.6|-5.1|
84637517|NCT01888432|169013854|OTHER|On-treatment tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.4|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||1.4|-5.7|
84637518|NCT01888432|169013855|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|5.1|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.1|-3.4|
84637519|NCT01888432|169013855|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.6|-3.6|
84637520|NCT01888432|169013856|OTHER|graft loss at month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||0.5|-2.1|
84504836|NCT02763579|168760666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.221||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.874|||Log Rank|||Cough||1.874|0.795|0.3604
84637521|NCT01888432|169013857|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
84637522|NCT01888432|169013857|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|6.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||6.6|-2.1|
84637523|NCT01888432|169013858|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
84637524|NCT01888432|169013858|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.2|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||7.2|-1.1|
84637525|NCT01888432|169013858|OTHER|Month 24 (On-treatment death)|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.9|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.9|-2.5|
84637526|NCT01888432|169013859|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|5.3|||||Month 12|||5.3|-3.9|
84637527|NCT01888432|169013859|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|7.2|||||Month 24|||7.2|-3.0|
84637528|NCT01888432|169013860|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.1|||||Month 12|||3.1|-4.5|
84637529|NCT01888432|169013860|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|4.2|||||Month 24|||4.2|-4.2|
84637530|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|30.6|||||Composite endpoint|||30.6|-19.9|
84637531|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3|||||On-treatment composite endpoint|||19.3|-6.0|
84637532|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.7|||||Graft loss/death|||28.7|-24.6|
84637533|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tBPAR|||33.1|-4.2|
84637534|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6|||||Death|||31.6|-9.4|
84637535|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||AR|||35.2|-28.9|
84637536|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tAR|||33.1|-4.2|
84637537|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|52.1|||||BPR|||52.1|-22.3|
84637538|NCT01888432|169013864|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||BPAR|||35.2|-28.9|
84637539|NCT01888432|169013865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.91|39.89||||||||39.89|-59.91|
84504837|NCT02763579|168760666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.553|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest||1.553|0.722|0.7712
84637540|NCT03054129|169013866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
84637541|NCT03054129|169013867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
84637542|NCT03054129|169013868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
84637543|NCT03054129|169013869|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84637544|NCT03054129|169013870|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84637545|NCT03054129|169013871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
84637546|NCT03054129|169013872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
84637547|NCT03054129|169013873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
84637548|NCT03054129|169013874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
84637549|NCT03054129|169013875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
84637550|NCT03054129|169013876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
84637551|NCT03054129|169013877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84637552|NCT03054129|169013878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
84637553|NCT03054129|169013879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
84637554|NCT03054129|169013880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
84637555|NCT03054129|169013881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
84637556|NCT03054129|169013882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.040
84637557|NCT03054129|169013883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
84637558|NCT03054129|169013884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
84637559|NCT03054129|169013885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
84637560|NCT03054129|169013886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
84637561|NCT03054129|169013887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
84637562|NCT03054129|169013888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
84637563|NCT03054129|169013889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
84637564|NCT03054129|169013890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
84637565|NCT03054129|169013891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.684
84637566|NCT03054129|169013892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.112
84637567|NCT03054129|169013893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
84637568|NCT03054129|169013894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
84637569|NCT03054129|169013895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.736
84637570|NCT03054129|169013896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
84637571|NCT03054129|169013897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
84637572|NCT03054129|169013898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
84637573|NCT03054129|169013899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
84637574|NCT03054129|169013900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
84637575|NCT03054129|169013901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
84637576|NCT03054129|169013902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
84637577|NCT03844945|169013903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84637578|NCT01043939|169013911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11||24 participants required to achieve 80% power to detect mean difference of 0.3 in RH-PAT index score between juice groups, assuming standard deviation of the difference was 0.25, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|||0.11|-0.42|0.25
84637579|NCT01043939|169013912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.09||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.||||8.91|-2.73|0.29
84637580|NCT01043939|169013913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|0.92||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|MPO was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||1.03|0.82|0.15
84637581|NCT01043939|169013914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|1.34||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|hs-CRP was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||2.62|0.69|0.37
84637582|NCT01954927|169013920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||1-sided p-value|z-test Proportion|z-test of proportions without continuity correction||||||0.227
84637583|NCT01954927|169013921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
84637584|NCT01954927|169013922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.181
84637585|NCT01954927|169013923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.730
84637586|NCT01954927|169013924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.713
84637587|NCT01954927|169013925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
84637588|NCT01954927|169013926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
84637589|NCT00535288|169013977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.2|-2.2|<0.01
84645010|NCT05478174|169025395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.31|||ANOVA|||||-1.31|-2.22|<0.001
84637590|NCT00535288|169013977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.7|-2.7|<0.01
84637591|NCT00535288|169013977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.4|<0.01
84637592|NCT00535288|169013977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
84637593|NCT00535288|169013978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.12|<0.01
84637594|NCT00535288|169013978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.11|0.02
84637595|NCT00535288|169013978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.02|-0.13|<0.01
84637596|NCT00535288|169013978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.03|-0.14|<0.01
84637597|NCT00535288|169013979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||0.1|-2.1|0.08
84637598|NCT00535288|169013979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.5|-2.7|<0.01
84504838|NCT02763579|168760666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.552|||Log Rank|||Pain in Arm or Shoulder||1.552|0.747|0.6922
84504839|NCT02763579|168760666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.019|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||1.019|0.549|0.0650
84504840|NCT02967133|168760673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5186
84504841|NCT03051256|168760759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0122
84637599|NCT00535288|169013979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.7|<0.01
84637600|NCT00535288|169013979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-3.1|<0.01
84637601|NCT00535288|169013982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.00|-0.12|0.07
84637602|NCT00535288|169013982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.05||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.24
84637603|NCT00535288|169013982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.29
84637604|NCT00535288|169013982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.14|0.02
84637605|NCT00745849|169014000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84637606|NCT05111301|169014002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
84637607|NCT05111301|169014003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
84637608|NCT05111301|169014004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.54
84504842|NCT03051256|168760759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0308
84504843|NCT03051256|168760760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0103
84504844|NCT03051256|168760760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0039
84637609|NCT05111301|169014005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.03
84637610|NCT05111301|169014006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.001
84637611|NCT05111301|169014007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.01
84504845|NCT03051256|168760761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1237
84637612|NCT05111301|169014008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.80
84637613|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.07|-1.15|0.4540
84637614|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.77|9.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||9.99|5.77|< 0.0001
84637615|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|13.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||13.44|9.22|< 0.0001
84637616|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.48|10.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.70|6.48|< 0.0001
84637617|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.85|11.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||11.07|6.85|< 0.0001
84637618|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.96|10.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.18|5.96|< 0.0001
84637619|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|7.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.64|3.42|< 0.0001
84637620|NCT02785770|169014025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.74||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.85|1.64|0.0036
84637621|NCT02785770|169014026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.8|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.80|-2.38|0.8195
84637622|NCT02785770|169014026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|6.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.64|2.44|0.0004
84637623|NCT02785770|169014027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|2.22|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.22|-1.95|0.9146
84637624|NCT02785770|169014027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.14|2.95|<0.0001
84637625|NCT02785770|169014028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|3.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.33|-0.84|0.3272
84637626|NCT02785770|169014028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|6.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.36|2.16|0.0009
84637627|NCT02785770|169014029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.60|-2.57|0.7024
84637628|NCT02785770|169014029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.36|0.16|0.0768
84637629|NCT02785770|169014030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.97||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.06|0.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.12|-4.06|0.1201
84637630|NCT02785770|169014030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|3.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.31|-0.89|0.3424
84637631|NCT02785770|169014031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.44|0.2870
84637632|NCT02785770|169014031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-2.21|0.9334
84637633|NCT02785770|169014032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.16||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|-0.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.07|-4.24|0.0893
84637634|NCT02785770|169014032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.51|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.51|-4.71|0.0412
84637635|NCT02785770|169014033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.43|0.2892
84637636|NCT02785770|169014033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.78||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.68|-4.88|0.0294
84637637|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.78|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.78|-0.22|0.1600
84637638|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.87|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.87|0.88|0.0092
84637639|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-0.59|0.3174
84637640|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.81|0.7344
84637641|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-1.00|0.5881
84637642|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-2.32|0.3680
84637643|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.76|-2.23|0.4200
84637644|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|-1.53|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-1.53|-4.53|0.0009
84637645|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.96|5.97|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.97|2.96|< 0.0001
84637646|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|7.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.33|4.32|< 0.0001
84637647|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|5.59|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.59|2.58|< 0.0001
84637648|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.53||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|4.03|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.03|1.02|0.0059
84637649|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.01|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.01|1.00|0.0063
84504846|NCT03051256|168760761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1017
84504847|NCT03051256|168760762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0066
84504848|NCT03051256|168760762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0014
84504849|NCT03051256|168760763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0245
84504850|NCT03051256|168760763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0253|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0253
84637650|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|2.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.95|-0.06|0.1138
84637651|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-1.86|0.6976
84504851|NCT03051256|168760764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0454|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0454
84504852|NCT03051256|168760764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0043
84504853|NCT03051256|168760765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0177
84504854|NCT03051256|168760765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0072
84504855|NCT03051256|168760766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0895
84504856|NCT03051256|168760766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0109
84637652|NCT02785770|169014034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|-0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.61|-3.62|0.0208
84637653|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-2.53|0.5760
84637654|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.94||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|0.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.95|-2.83|0.4126
84637655|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.72|-3.06|0.3085
84637656|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.88|0.3889
84637657|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|1.32|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.46|0.6192
84637658|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-4.34|0.0332
84637659|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.48|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.48|-2.30|0.7224
84637660|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.37|0.6507
84637661|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|0.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.18|-3.62|0.1366
84637662|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.81||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-4.71|0.0153
84637663|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.88||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.02|-3.78|0.1040
84637664|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.51||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.40|-3.41|0.1924
84637665|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.94||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|-0.04|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.04|-3.84|0.0928
84637666|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.06||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.16|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.16|-3.96|0.0745
84637667|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.91|0.3836
84637668|NCT02785770|169014035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.97|-0.17|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.17|-3.97|0.0734
84637669|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.96|-0.36|0.2588
84637670|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.30|-1.03|0.8465
84637671|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.18|-0.15|0.1502
84637672|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.14|-1.19|0.9700
84637673|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.34|0.0947
84637674|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.36|-0.96|0.7759
84637675|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.13|0.9649
84637676|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-1.08|0.9034
84637677|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.49|-1.85|0.3391
84637678|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.19||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.35|0.0948
84637679|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.74||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.43|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.43|-1.91|0.2959
84637680|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|-1.24|0.9161
84637681|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.24|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-3.24|0.0036
84637682|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.44|-1.89|0.3063
84637683|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.4918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-1.65|0.4918
84637684|NCT02785770|169014036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.55|-1.78|0.3862
84637685|NCT04838977|169014048|SUPERIORITY||Between group difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.8||||||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in mean CPSS at 10 weeks in the intervention group versus the control group.||-0.8|-7.6|
84637686|NCT00621348|169014071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.93||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The risk ratio is for Group A compared with Group C.|The incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatremia with current standard intravenous fluid therapy was approximately 30%. Sample of 72 patients would be needed in each group to demonstrate the decrease in incidence of hyponatremia (defined as plasma sodium\< 130 mEq/L) to 10%, with a power of 80 percent and alpha error of 0.05. In view of short study period and feasibility it was planned a priori to enroll at least 50 patients in each treatment limb.||0.93|0.016|<0.05
84637687|NCT01256190|169014129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84637688|NCT01256190|169014130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84637689|NCT01256190|169014131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.022
84637690|NCT01256190|169014132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to treat analysis||||0.113
84637691|NCT01256190|169014133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.025
84637692|NCT03364270|169014148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.84||Threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean 18F-RGD uptake (expressed as a target to background ratio) in the culprit artery (carotid artery implicated in stroke or transient ischemic attack \[TIA\]) when compared to mean 18F-RGD uptake in the contralateral carotid artery. A paired t-test was used to compare 18F-RGD uptake in culprit plaque to plaque in the contralateral artery.||0.84|0.33|.001
84637693|NCT00918736|169014168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previous report using 5 weekly injections, mean AOS score reduction is 2.6 with the SD of 1.8 in 75 patients. To test whether AOS reduction would be \> 1 using pair t-test after 3 weekly injections, investigators need \> 42 patients to give \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis-mean AOS score reduction \<1 at 6 months, given that both the mean and standard deviation of AOS score reduction equal to 2. Considering possible dropout of participants, investigators decide to include 50 patients||||<0.05
84637694|NCT00312195|169014243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2544||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95||P value is from a logistic regression analysis with terms for treatment effect, country and pain site (hip, knee, back and other).|Regression, Logistic||Primary variable was defined as: ratio of the probability of having ineffective treatment divided by the probability of having effective treatment.|H0: the odds of ineffective treatment is the same for subjects receiving placebo as for those receiving BTDS versus the alternative H1: the odds of ineffective treatment is different for subjects receiving placebo from those receiving BTDS.||2.95|1.09|.0217
84637695|NCT01247272|169014261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|113.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.03|118.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||118.96|108.03|
84637696|NCT01247272|169014262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.18|113.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.69|102.18|
84504857|NCT00124020|168760774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||||95.0|-6.8|7.2||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.||||||7.2|-6.8|
84637697|NCT01247272|169014263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.12|102.09|
84637698|NCT01247272|169014264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.54|107.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.76|99.54|
84637699|NCT01247272|169014265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.66|110.12|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.12|101.66|
84637700|NCT01247272|169014266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.27|110.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.61|101.27|
84637701|NCT02791763|169014271|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (-1.0 g/dL).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.28|-0.07|<.0001
84637702|NCT02791763|169014272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
84637703|NCT02791763|169014273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
84637704|NCT01400880|169014357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.27||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for TOCO and IUPC. Agreement between TOCO and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.27|1.70|
84637705|NCT01400880|169014357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.92||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for the electrode sensor and IUPC. Agreement between electrode sensor and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.92|2.98|
84675425|NCT01192152|169086345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.065|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.065|1.025|
84637706|NCT01708902|169014423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.01|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||0.01|-0.45|0.0587
84637707|NCT01708902|169014423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.78|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.78|-1.23|<0.0001
84675426|NCT01192152|169086345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|103.05||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84675427|NCT01192152|169086345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.61||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84675428|NCT01192152|169086346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.062|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.062|1.009|
84675429|NCT01192152|169086346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|101.16||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84675430|NCT01192152|169086346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|97.72||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84675431|NCT01192152|169086348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.053|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.053|0.948|
84675432|NCT01192152|169086348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84675433|NCT01192152|169086348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.88||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84675434|NCT01192152|169086365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.959|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.959|0.833|
84675435|NCT01192152|169086365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|8713.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment B||||
84675436|NCT01192152|169086365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|9746.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
84675437|NCT01192152|169086366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric least squares means|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.968|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.968|0.848|
84675438|NCT01192152|169086366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|8377.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84675439|NCT01192152|169086366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|9246.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
84675440|NCT01192152|169086368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|0.98|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.980|0.859|
84675441|NCT01192152|169086368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1055.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
84637708|NCT01708902|169014423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
84637709|NCT01708902|169014423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.64|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.64|-1.09|<0.0001
84637710|NCT01708902|169014424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|2.961|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.961|0.946|0.0771
84637711|NCT01708902|169014424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|9.522|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||9.522|3.164|<0.0001
84637712|NCT01708902|169014424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.678|4.767|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.767|1.678|<0.0001
84637713|NCT01708902|169014424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.259|6.454|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.454|2.259|<0.0001
84637714|NCT01708902|169014425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.565||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|8.701|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||8.701|1.997|0.0001
84637715|NCT01708902|169014426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|2.746|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.746|1.004|0.0480
84637716|NCT01708902|169014426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.452|10.164|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.164|3.452|<0.0001
84637717|NCT01708902|169014426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|4.239|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.239|1.563|0.0002
84637718|NCT01708902|169014426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.968|2.751|<0.0001
84637719|NCT01708902|169014427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.110|1.383|0.0062
84637720|NCT01708902|169014428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.07|-0.53|0.0109
84637721|NCT01708902|169014428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.81|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.81|-1.27|<0.0001
84637722|NCT01708902|169014428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID ' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID' .|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.24|-0.70|<0.0001
84637723|NCT01708902|169014428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.58|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.58|-1.04|<0.0001
84675442|NCT01192152|169086368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1151.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
84637724|NCT01708902|169014429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The treatment effect of the 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' was compared with 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate."||-0.63|-1.87|0.0001
84637725|NCT01708902|169014430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.130|0.456|0.9705
84637726|NCT01708902|169014430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|5.938|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.938|1.612|0.0007
84637727|NCT01708902|169014430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|6.849|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.849|1.486|0.0029
84637728|NCT01708902|169014430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|10.238|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.238|2.318|<0.0001
84637729|NCT01708902|169014431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|5.42|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.420|0.642|0.2523
84637730|NCT01708902|169014432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|0.98|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||0.98|-11.72|0.0971
84637731|NCT01708902|169014432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.67|-26.16|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-26.16|-38.67|<0.0001
84637732|NCT01708902|169014432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-3.27|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-3.27|-15.66|0.0028
84637733|NCT01708902|169014432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-18.08|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-18.08|-30.54|<0.0001
84637734|NCT01708902|169014433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.48|-16.95|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-16.95|-53.48|0.0002
84637735|NCT01708902|169014434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.838|0.052|0.0271
84637736|NCT01708902|169014434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.202|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||6.202|0.150|0.9699
84637737|NCT01708902|169014434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.882|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.882|0.038|0.0343
84637738|NCT01708902|169014435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||0.976|0.013|0.0474
84504858|NCT00268346|168760775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage response|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||binomial test for a single proportion|||In patients with prior chemotherapy, \>25% response indicates efficacy and \<10% indicates lack of efficacy. In patients with no prior chemotherapy, \>45% response indicates efficacy and \<25% indicates lack of efficacy. Using a 5% significance level, the study was designed to have 80% power to test each hypothesis.||||<0.05
84637739|NCT02633020|169014437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7||0.7451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|20.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline % aberrant IELs vs total IELs as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||20.56|-30.26|0.7451
84504859|NCT00981253|168760786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-18.7|
84504860|NCT00981253|168760787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84504861|NCT00981253|168760788|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.24|
84637740|NCT02633020|169014438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.48||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.73|19.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline % aberrant IELs vs intestinal epithelial cells as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.29|-95.73|0.1803
84637741|NCT02633020|169014439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|60.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline VH:CD ratio as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||60.31|-38.97|0.6607
84637742|NCT02633020|169014440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|0.20|0.9204
84637743|NCT02633020|169014441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.34||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.57|52.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA) model with baseline total IEL counts as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||52.12|-77.57|0.6885
84637744|NCT02633020|169014442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with subject as a random effect and treatment group, time (week) and their interaction as fixed effects.||||1.8|0.77|0.4469
84637745|NCT02633020|169014444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.26|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.26|-0.53|0.4832
84637746|NCT02633020|169014445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.35|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and a time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.35|-0.64|0.5561
84637747|NCT05661851|169014448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|13.38|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||13.38|-1.67|
84637748|NCT05661851|169014449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Mean Population Difference Estimate|5.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.456|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8904|14.5768|||Bootstrapping methods||Bootstrap Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||14.5768|-2.8904|
84637749|NCT01014910|169014480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on a previously-identified mean LOS of 65.3 hours, we estimated we would need to enroll 80 patients in each study arm to provide adequate sample size to detect a difference in mean LOS of 18 hours with 80% power and alpha=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Sample size calculations were performed using Power and Sample Size Calculator, version 3.0 (by developers William D. Dupont and Walton D. Plummer Jr)||Differences in LOS were compared between study arms using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 for Windows (StataCorp). All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||<0.05
84637750|NCT01014910|169014481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit in each study arm was compared between study arms using the Pearson χ2 test. All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||0.05
84637751|NCT02445794|169014490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
84637752|NCT01136785|169014491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||two-sided t test for the change from baseline between the treated and untreated groups.||||0.01
84637753|NCT01136785|169014492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||2-sided Paired t-test|||comparing pre and post Interstitial Glucose levels in the active CPAP group||||0.011
84637754|NCT01136785|169014493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84637755|NCT01136785|169014494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||Plasma cortisol pre and post 1-week of active CPAP||||0.754
84637756|NCT01136785|169014495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.308
84637757|NCT01136785|169014496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.036
84637758|NCT02654769|169014506|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic- Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.37|8.63|||Fisher Exact|||||8.63|-12.37|<0.0001
84675443|NCT03022617|169086377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84637759|NCT02654769|169014507|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic - Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.14|7.86|||Fisher Exact|||Partial Clearance at Week 8||7.86|-13.14|<0.0001
84645011|NCT03702244|169025397|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing for recurrent events was performed using the negative binomial methods for recurrent events.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, sex, and coronary artery disease equivalent (diabetes, history of peripheral artery disease or cerebrovascular disease), and intended first test strata (invasive or noninvasive).|Sample size and power calculations for this study are based on the hypothesis that the precision evaluation arm is superior to the usual care arm on the time-to-first event of the composite 3-component endpoint: all-cause death, non-fatal MI, or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD over a 12-month of follow-up. Time to event analysis will use the date of the event, including the date of catheterization at which the absence of obstructive CAD is demonstrated.||0.41|0.20|<.001
84645012|NCT01993836|169025403|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.18|-0.23|
84645013|NCT01993836|169025403|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Abeta and continuous cognitive index||0.13|-0.29|
84645014|NCT01993836|169025403|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.32|-0.08|
84645015|NCT01993836|169025404|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.22|-0.19|
84645016|NCT01993836|169025404|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.34|-0.05|
84645017|NCT01993836|169025405|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
84645018|NCT01993836|169025406|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.532
84645019|NCT01993836|169025406|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.565
84675444|NCT01339390|169086397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7347|1.5229||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 12 months, comparing the change in weight from 12 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.5229|-.7347|0.4937
84675445|NCT01339390|169086397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5395|1.7181||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 24 months, comparing the change in weight from 24 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.7181|-0.5395|0.3062
84504862|NCT00981253|168760789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-0.14|.95
84645020|NCT01993836|169025406|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.110
84645021|NCT01993836|169025407|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau/Abeta ratio Change between anesthetic groups||||0.439
84645022|NCT01993836|169025407|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau/Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.082
84645023|NCT01993836|169025408|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.801
84645024|NCT02296138|169025422|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Ratio of rates vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.93||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.02|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.02|0.85|0.0498
84504863|NCT00981253|168760790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
84504864|NCT00981253|168760791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-0.78|0.99
84504865|NCT00981253|168760792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
84504866|NCT00981253|168760792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.14|0.99
84645025|NCT02296138|169025422|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on SPARK/FLAME- Covariates: Smoking status, baseline inhaled corticosteroid, Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage, region, COPD Assessment Test score (replacing baseline symptom score), exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids history in previous year (replacing 1-year history of exacerbations)||0.96|0.84|0.0010
84645026|NCT02296138|169025422|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on HERMES- Covariates: age, sex, smoking status, baseline Long-acting Beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid, region and percent predicted post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second||0.98|0.85|0.0080
84645027|NCT02296138|169025422|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on TRINITY/TRILOGY- Covariates: Treatment, region, severity of airflow limitation, and smoking status as effects, and exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids in previous year.||0.96|0.84|0.0011
84637760|NCT04473235|169014509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.531
84637761|NCT04473235|169014510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the left hippocampus and left prefrontal cortex.||||0.627
84637762|NCT04473235|169014510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the right hippocampus and right prefrontal cortex.||||0.120
84637763|NCT00955305|169014544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||one-sided p-value using stratified logrank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.33
84637764|NCT00955305|169014545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||two-sided p-value by stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.95
84637765|NCT00955305|169014546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||two sided p-value by Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84637766|NCT00109590|169014549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject Cpredose LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum.||||0.009
84637767|NCT00109590|169014549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject C4hour LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum||||0.048
84637768|NCT02123251|169014559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2139||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.8293|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, race, gender, and baseline hypertension.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||0.8293|-0.0092|0.0553
84637769|NCT02123251|169014560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9571||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1274|1.5442|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.5442|-6.1274|0.2416
84637770|NCT02123251|169014561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2622||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5632|1.3846|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.3846|-3.5632|0.3881
84637771|NCT02123251|169014562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7086||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4517|13.7653|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||13.7653|-16.4517|0.8617
84637772|NCT02123251|169014563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5519||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7478|38.1737|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||38.1737|-73.7478|0.5333
84675446|NCT04011475|169086401|OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
84637773|NCT02123251|169014564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2351||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3509|11.1702|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||11.1702|-9.3509|0.8620
84637774|NCT02123251|169014565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0433||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3272|2.7626|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||2.7626|-1.3272|0.4915
84637775|NCT02123251|169014566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||standard diffs-in-diffs model|||A standard diffs-in-diffs model was utilized to estimate the causal effect of the intervention on medical costs per patient/day. The average change in cost over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the cost per patient per day from baseline to endpoint between groups.||||>0.05
84637776|NCT02123251|169014567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3148||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0233|1.2572|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference in these average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the General Diet subscale from baseline to endpoint between groups. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to examine changes in SDSCA between groups at different time points.||1.2572|0.0233|0.0420
84637777|NCT02123251|169014568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0981|4.1395|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The effect of age and gender is adjusted in the GEE model.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that of the control group. The difference in the average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p=0.05. Null assumed no group difference in the Physical Component Summary measure of SF-36v2 from baseline to midpoint. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine changes in health measures between groups at different time points.||4.1395|0.0981|.0399
84637778|NCT01221285|169014571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgE. Denominator is baseline IgE.|||2.8|1.1|0.02
84637779|NCT01221285|169014572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.4|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG. Denominator is baseline IgG.|||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
84637780|NCT01221285|169014573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.5|||Fold Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG4. Denominator is baseline IgG4.|||22.5|7.5|<0.0001
84637781|NCT01221285|169014574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change|-42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-26.2|||Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline FAB. Denominator is baseline FAB.|||-26.2|-59.4|<0.0001
84637782|NCT01904773|169014628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0087||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment, compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||Comparison with placebo||||0.0087
84637783|NCT01904773|169014628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.1198||||||Bonferroni-Holm compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||||||0.1198
84637784|NCT04518995|169014632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
84637785|NCT04518995|169014632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
84637786|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.32||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.32|0.17|<0.0001
84637787|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.43||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.26|<0.0001
84637788|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.38|0.24|<0.0001
84637789|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|<0.0001
84637790|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.39|0.26|<0.0001
84637791|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
84637792|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.31|<0.0001
84637793|NCT04518995|169014633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
84637794|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.02|-0.00|0.0816
84637795|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|0.01|0.0005
84637796|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.09|0.03|0.0002
84637797|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
84637798|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
84637799|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.19|0.10|<0.0001
84637800|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.33|0.20|<0.0001
84637801|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.28||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.28|0.19|<0.0001
84637802|NCT04518995|169014634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.41|0.28|<0.0001
84637803|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.1|-4.4|0.0564
84637804|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.0|-5.9|0.0054
84637805|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0001
84637806|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-10.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-10.3|-19.5|<0.0001
84637807|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.0|-27.5|<0.0001
84637808|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-23.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-23.8|-36.3|<0.0001
84637809|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-21.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-21.8|-35.1|<0.0001
84637810|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-31.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-31.3|-45.7|<0.0001
84637811|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
84637812|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-36.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-36.8|-52.3|<0.0001
84637813|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-31.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-31.8|-46.7|<0.0001
84637814|NCT04518995|169014635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-39.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-39.0|-55.1|<0.0001
84637815|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84637816|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84637817|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84637818|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84637819|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84637820|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84637821|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84637822|NCT04518995|169014636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84637823|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84637824|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84637825|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84637826|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
84637827|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84637828|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
84637829|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84637830|NCT04518995|169014637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84637831|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84637832|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
84637833|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84637834|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|<0.0001
84637835|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.8|<0.0001
84637836|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.6|-2.3|<0.0001
84637837|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
84637838|NCT04518995|169014638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|<0.0001
84637839|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
84637840|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
84637841|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
84637842|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.1|<0.0001
84637843|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.0|-1.7|<0.0001
84637844|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.3|<0.0001
84637845|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
84637846|NCT04518995|169014639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.6|<0.0001
84637847|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.06|<0.0001
84637848|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
84637849|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
84637850|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.32|<0.0001
84637851|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.06|0.02|0.0006
84637852|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
84637853|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
84637854|NCT04518995|169014640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.37|0.24|<0.0001
84504867|NCT00294723|168760793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.42||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.42|-0.83|<0.0001
84637855|NCT04518995|169014641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.2|0.3|0.0010
84637856|NCT04518995|169014641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.6|<0.0001
84637857|NCT04518995|169014641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.2|<0.0001
84637858|NCT04518995|169014641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
84637859|NCT04518995|169014642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
84637860|NCT04518995|169014642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
84637861|NCT04518995|169014642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.0|1.0|<0.0001
84637862|NCT04518995|169014642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
84637863|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
84637864|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84637865|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
84637866|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
84637867|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84637868|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
84637869|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
84637870|NCT04518995|169014643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
84637871|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.34|0.17|< 0.0001
84637872|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.42|0.23|< 0.0001
84637873|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.27|< 0.0001
84637874|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.48|0.30|< 0.0001
84637875|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.42|0.26|< 0.0001
84637876|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.51|0.34|< 0.0001
84637877|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.44||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.29|< 0.0001
84637878|NCT04518995|169014644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.53||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.53|0.35|< 0.0001
84637879|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
84637880|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84637881|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
84637882|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.0|-1.4|<0.0001
84637883|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84637884|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|<0.0001
84637885|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
84637886|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
84637887|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
84637888|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84637889|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
84637890|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
84637891|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
84637892|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
84637893|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
84637894|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
84637895|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
84637896|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
84637897|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84637898|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84637899|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84637900|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
84637901|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
84637902|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84637903|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
84637904|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|< 0.0001
84637905|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
84637906|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84637907|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
84637908|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
84637909|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
84637910|NCT04518995|169014645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84637911|NCT04518995|169014646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.2|0.2489
84637912|NCT04518995|169014646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.1|-0.1|0.1235
84637913|NCT04518995|169014646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.5|-0.5|0.9765
84637914|NCT04518995|169014646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.8|-0.3|0.3559
84637915|NCT04518995|169014647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
84637916|NCT04518995|169014647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.39|0.27|<0.0001
84637917|NCT00813943|169014652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.972||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||0.972|0.484|0.0328
84637918|NCT00813943|169014652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.204||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.204|0.612|0.3771
84637919|NCT01235598|169014665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-1.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0|-3.0|0.049
84637920|NCT01235598|169014666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference within group changes|-1.0||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \< 0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained. Testing was stopped in the next step.||1.0|-3.0|0.206
84637921|NCT01235598|169014670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.0035||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.0025||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0025|-0.0120|0.164
84504868|NCT00294723|168760793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.0014||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.13|-0.53|0.0014
84504869|NCT00294723|168760793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0046||95.0|-0.5|-0.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.09|-0.50|0.0046
84504870|NCT00294723|168760794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.87||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.87|-4.28|<.0001
84637922|NCT01235598|169014671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.069||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.138||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.1380|-0.2010|0.865
84637923|NCT01235598|169014672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-421.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1542.5|-47.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||-47.0|-1542.5|0.015
84637924|NCT01235598|169014684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.394
84637925|NCT01235598|169014685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.625
84637926|NCT01235598|169014686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.128
84637927|NCT01235598|169014687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.732
84637928|NCT01235598|169014688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.411
84637929|NCT01235598|169014689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.208
84637930|NCT01235598|169014690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||0.0|-1.0|0.254
84637931|NCT01235598|169014691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||1.0|-2.0|0.472
84637932|NCT00395343|169014701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum (on vs. not on metformin); insulin stratum (pre-mixed vs. intermediate or long-acting)||||-0.42|-0.70|<0.001
84637933|NCT00395343|169014702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-6.5|-23.4|<0.001
84637934|NCT00395343|169014703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.1|-25.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-25.1|-47.1|<0.001
84637935|NCT00395343|169014704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|36.5||||0.01||95.0|8.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; log-scaled baseline value; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||64.7|8.9|0.01
84637936|NCT00395343|169014705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.89|6.85||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum||||6.85|1.89|<0.001
84637937|NCT00395343|169014706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.584||95.0|0.45|4.18||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|||4.18|0.45|0.584
84637938|NCT00395343|169014707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.72|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum, treatment by insulin stratum interaction||||-0.40|-0.72|<0.001
84637939|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1334||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0583|0.3251|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Grey matter||0.3251|-0.0583|0.1695
84637940|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.388|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For posterior cingulate Gyrus||0.3880|-0.0380|0.1057
84637941|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1426||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.3543|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Frontal lobe||0.3543|-0.0691|0.1833
84637942|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1366||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0574|0.3307|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For parietal lobe||0.3307|-0.0574|0.1644
84637943|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1259||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.2989|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Posterior temporal lobe||0.2989|-0.0471|0.1509
84637944|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1339||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0747|0.3424|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For cerebellum||0.3424|-0.0747|0.2041
84637945|NCT00265148|169014708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1094||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0385|0.2572|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For medial temporal lobe||0.2572|-0.0385|0.1445
84637946|NCT00265148|169014709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1211||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0763|0.3185|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||At Month 1||0.3185|-0.0763|0.2251
84637947|NCT00265148|169014709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0893||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0643|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Month 6||0.2430|-0.0643|0.2497
84637948|NCT00265148|169014710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.8|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test , Month 1||0.80|-0.59|0.7618
84637949|NCT00265148|169014710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 6||0.66|-0.53|0.8350
84637950|NCT00265148|169014710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.51|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 12||0.51|-0.78|0.6735
84637951|NCT00265148|169014711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.3|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.30|-0.44|0.7045
84637952|NCT00265148|169014711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||0.32|-0.40|0.8181
84637953|NCT00265148|169014711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53|||Repeated measure mixed model|||AT Month 12||0.53|-0.71|0.7688
84637954|NCT00265148|169014711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||Repeated measure mixed model|||Overall||0.26|-0.40|0.6810
84637955|NCT00265148|169014715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.99|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 1||1.99|-2.38|0.8593
84637956|NCT00265148|169014715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||4.32|-1.43|0.3201
84637957|NCT00265148|169014715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.04|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||6.04|-1.68|0.2627
84637958|NCT00265148|169014715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.64|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For overall period||3.64|-1.35|0.3633
84637959|NCT00265148|169014716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.26|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For overall period||0.26|-0.48|0.5647
84637960|NCT00265148|169014716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.46|-0.46|0.9935
84637961|NCT00265148|169014716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||0.28|-0.72|0.3794
84637962|NCT00265148|169014716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||0.49|-0.70|0.7357
84637963|NCT00265148|169014719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4971.6||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255515.6|15572.4|||Repeated measure mixed model|Arithmetic means have been presented; however, statistical analysis is based upon the least square (LS) means||At Month 6||15572.4|-255515.6|0.6299
84637964|NCT00265148|169014719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12223.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7450.6|31896.5|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||31896.5|-7450.6|0.2184
84637965|NCT00265148|169014720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||-0.1|-1.0|0.0129
84637966|NCT00265148|169014720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 12||0.6|-1.0|0.5607
84637967|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1154||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0967|0.3275|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3275|-0.0967|0.2800
84637968|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1337||||0.4159||95.0|-0.1931|0.4605|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4605|-0.1931|0.4159
84637969|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1491||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0897|0.3878|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3878|-0.0897|0.2158
84637970|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2346||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.6042|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.6042|-0.1350|0.2087
84637971|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1233||||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1162|0.3628|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3628|-0.1162|0.3064
84637972|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1734||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1952|0.542|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.5420|-0.1952|0.3500
84637973|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0937|0.3538|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3538|-0.0937|0.2487
84637974|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1038||||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.4516|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4516|-0.2440|0.5521
84637975|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1384||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.3409|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3409|-0.0640|0.1760
84637976|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0837||||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2303|0.3978|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3978|-0.2303|0.5952
84637977|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0847||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1169|0.2863|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2863|-0.1169|0.4025
84637978|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.453|||Repeated measure mixed model95|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4530|-0.1458|0.3081
84637979|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0839||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0758|0.2436|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2436|-0.0758|0.2964
84637980|NCT00265148|169014732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0892|0.3963|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3963|-0.0892|0.2101
84637981|NCT03583385|169014749|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.18|112.37||||||||112.37|95.18|
84637982|NCT03583385|169014750|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|115.19||||||||115.19|98.99|
84637983|NCT04780919|169014755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at 3 weeks follow-up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The Group A will have significantly decreased Cross Section Area compared to Group B at 3 weeks follow up after last application.||||0.722
84637984|NCT04780919|169014756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in the timeframe of the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B in the timeframe of the last application compared to baseline.||||0.096
84637985|NCT04780919|169014757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.035
84637986|NCT04780919|169014758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.171
84637987|NCT04780919|169014761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in 3 weeks follow up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The VISA-A score will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.104
84675447|NCT04011475|169086401|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.604|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group B using group B as reference.|||1.604|0.47|0.6665
84637988|NCT04491604|169014773|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|45.8||||0.00192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|68.0|||McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (primary wounds with complete healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||68.0|23.6|0.00192
84637989|NCT04491604|169014774|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|51.0||||0.00047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|72.6||There is no multiplicity adjustment needed since the hypothesis testing are hierarchical.|McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (complete wound healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||72.6|29.3|0.00047
84637990|NCT02191865|169014823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|215.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.71|384.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||384.32|120.71|
84637991|NCT02191865|169014823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|867.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|572.93|1312.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1312.41|572.93|
84637992|NCT02191865|169014824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|221.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.73|365.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||365.01|134.73|
84637993|NCT02191865|169014824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|761.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|439.01|1319.18|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1319.18|439.01|
84637994|NCT02191865|169014825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|216.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|390.45|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||390.45|120.37|
84637995|NCT02191865|169014825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|870.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|576.36|1315.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1315.49|576.36|
84637996|NCT01523275|169014827|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of 44 subjects (22 in each arm) would provide 90% power to detect a difference in the time interval to reoperation of 6 months between the two treatment arms, at an alpha level of 0.05. This difference of 6 months is clinically meaningful and is smaller than previous case series studies would suggest. However, due to poor patient accrual, the study was closed prior to reaching the desired study size.||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84637997|NCT01523275|169014828|EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 6 months to symptom progression is clinically meaningful.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84637998|NCT01523275|169014829|EQUIVALENCE|0.5 liters per second is clinically significant.||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84637999|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84638000|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84638001|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638002|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84638003|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.550
84638004|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638005|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638006|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84638007|NCT00689117|169014952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638008|NCT00689117|169014953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84638009|NCT00689117|169014953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638010|NCT00689117|169014953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638011|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.065
84638012|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84638013|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638014|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638015|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.284
84638016|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638017|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638018|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84638019|NCT00689117|169014954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638020|NCT00689117|169014955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.671
84638021|NCT00689117|169014955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.919
84638022|NCT00689117|169014955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84638023|NCT00689117|169014956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84638024|NCT00689117|169014956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638025|NCT00689117|169014956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638026|NCT00332722|169015009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
84638027|NCT00332722|169015010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
84638028|NCT02657408|169015011|EQUIVALENCE|confirmatory statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.27||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.87|||ANOVA|||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.87|0.86|0.3043
84638029|NCT02657408|169015012|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.16||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.16|0.88|
84638030|NCT02657408|169015013|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.03||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||4.03|0.59|
84638031|NCT02657408|169015014|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.85||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||2.85|0.49|
84638032|NCT02657408|169015015|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.83||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.83|0.91|
84638033|NCT02657408|169015016|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.18|0.90|
84638034|NCT02657408|169015017|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.53||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.53|0.91|
84638035|NCT02657408|169015018|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.09|0.80|
84638036|NCT02657408|169015019|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.28||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.28|0.51|
84638037|NCT02657408|169015020|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.97||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||0.97|0.43|
84638038|NCT02447302|169015021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|-0.3||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.30|-1.68|= 0.0091
84638039|NCT02447302|169015021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|=|0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.24||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.24|-1.11|= 0.1457
84638040|NCT02447302|169015022|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|39.0||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||39.0|9.8|= 0.003
84638041|NCT02447302|169015022|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|=|0.3059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|17.2||MH estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.2|-9.1|= 0.3059
84638042|NCT02447302|169015023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.36||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.36|-1.32|= 0.0020
84638043|NCT02447302|169015023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|=|0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.08||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.08|-0.85|= 0.0858
84638044|NCT02447302|169015024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.17|-0.37||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.37|-2.17|= 0.0100
84638045|NCT02447302|169015024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.27||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.27|-1.48|= 0.1277
84638046|NCT02447302|169015025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|5.51||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||5.51|1.40|= 0.0071
84638047|NCT02447302|169015025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||=|0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||||3.14|0.83|= 0.1192
84638048|NCT02447302|169015026|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.5|38.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||38.1|13.5|= 0.0003
84638049|NCT02447302|169015026|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|17.7||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.7|-3.5|= 0.1360
84675448|NCT04011475|169086401|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.377||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|5.221|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.221|1.083|0.0310
84540263|NCT03762239|168831234|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.029||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.0584|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of patience, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined patience measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0584|-0.1170|0.50
84638050|NCT02447302|169015027|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|35.3||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||35.3|2.6|= 0.0282
84638051|NCT02447302|169015027|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|=|0.1309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|28.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||28.1|-5.3|= 0.1309
84638052|NCT02428478|169015034|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Tonic analysis||||0.01
84638053|NCT02428478|169015034|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Phasic analysis||||0.38
84638054|NCT02428478|169015035|OTHER||Median Change|-0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.037
84638055|NCT02428478|169015035|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||>0.5
84638056|NCT01057589|169015052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
84638057|NCT01057589|169015052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
84638058|NCT01057589|169015053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
84638059|NCT01057589|169015053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.788
84638060|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84638061|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84638062|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84638063|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84638064|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84638065|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84638066|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84638067|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84638068|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84638069|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84638070|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84638071|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84638072|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84504871|NCT00294723|168760794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.87|-2.47||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.47|-3.87|<.0001
84504872|NCT00294723|168760794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.41||||0.2584||95.0|-1.11|0.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.30|-1.11|0.2584
84638073|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84638074|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84638075|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84638076|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84638077|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84638078|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84638079|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84638080|NCT01057589|169015054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84638081|NCT01215097|169015059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.70|<0.0001
84638082|NCT01215097|169015060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.311|||ANCOVA|||||-0.311|-0.555|<0.0001
84638083|NCT01215097|169015061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.752|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.752|<0.0001
84638084|NCT01215097|169015062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
84638085|NCT01215097|169015063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.71|<0.0001
84638086|NCT01215097|169015064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0233||95.0|-17.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-17.8|0.0233
84638087|NCT01215097|169015065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.7|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.7|<0.0001
84638088|NCT01215097|169015066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005||95.0|-17.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-17.3|0.0050
84638089|NCT01215097|169015067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0044||95.0|-19.5|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-19.5|0.0044
84638090|NCT01215097|169015069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.831|13.769|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>=7.0%||13.769|2.831|<0.0001
84638091|NCT01215097|169015071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0129||95.0|1.404|17.592|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||17.592|1.404|0.0129
84638092|NCT01215097|169015072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.799|5.185|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with HbA1c at least lowering 0.5% from baseline||5.185|1.799|<0.0001
84638093|NCT01497366|169015085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.0|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and the 95% CI calculated were based on stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||8.0|-7.5|
84638094|NCT03508908|169015098|OTHER||US dollars per DALY averted|3098.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)|Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)||||
84638095|NCT00829504|169015123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.16||||||90.0|95.5|105.04|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.04|95.5|
84638096|NCT00829504|169015124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.76||||||90.0|95.45|108.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.49|95.45|
84638097|NCT00829504|169015125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.1||||||90.0|95.64|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|95.64|
84504873|NCT00294723|168760795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.44|-2.86||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.86|-4.44|<.0001
84638098|NCT01129583|169015149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84638099|NCT01129583|169015150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84638100|NCT01129583|169015151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84638101|NCT04672954|169015152|OTHER||Ratio|1.29||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|2.13|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.34|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.13|0.78|0.3941
84638102|NCT04672954|169015152|OTHER||Ratio|1.66||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.79|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.35|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.79|0.99|0.1089
84638103|NCT04672954|169015152|OTHER||Ratio|1.14||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.85|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.32|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||1.85|0.71|0.6308
84638104|NCT04672954|169015152|OTHER||Ratio|1.75||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.89|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.33|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.89|1.06|0.0690
84638105|NCT00281658|169015178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||Stratified Log-Rank (one-sided)|Log Rank||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Primary OS analysis cut-off date = 18-Jun-2010||0.94|0.58|0.0062
84504874|NCT00294723|168760795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-2.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.06|-3.63|<.0001
84540264|NCT03762239|168831235|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0184|0.1394|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of positive reciprocity behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the positive reciprocity measures among adolescents in high schools||0.1394|-0.0184|0.13
84638106|NCT00281658|169015179|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Final OS analysis cut-0ff date = 23-Nov-2021||0.98|0.64|
84638107|NCT00281658|169015180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log rank test stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|||0.66|0.44|
84638108|NCT00281658|169015181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47||||||||3.47|1.54|
84638109|NCT00281658|169015182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.58||||||||3.58|1.54|
84638110|NCT00281658|169015187|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.57||||||Participants with PIK3CA wild-type||7.57|1.07|
84638111|NCT00281658|169015188|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.63||||||Participants with PTEN low||4.63|1.28|
84638112|NCT00281658|169015188|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.82||||||Participants without PTEN low||4.82|1.04|
84638113|NCT00281658|169015190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.49||||||Participants with PTEN low||6.49|1.58|
84638114|NCT00281658|169015190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.66||||||Participants without PTEN low||5.66|1.13|
84638115|NCT00669409|169015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.8|-17.8|
84638116|NCT00669409|169015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
84638117|NCT00669409|169015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.1|-18.5|
84638118|NCT00669409|169015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|1.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.8|-29.4|
84638119|NCT00669409|169015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.7|-55.2|
84638120|NCT00669409|169015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
84638121|NCT00669409|169015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|0.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.8|
84638122|NCT00669409|169015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.9|-11.7|
84638123|NCT00669409|169015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|4.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.6|-26.6|
84504875|NCT00294723|168760795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0462||95.0|-1.59|-0.01||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.01|-1.59|0.0462
84638124|NCT00669409|169015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-30.5|
84638125|NCT00669409|169015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
84638126|NCT00669409|169015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
84638127|NCT00669409|169015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.0|-12.6|
84638128|NCT00669409|169015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-25.0|
84638129|NCT00669409|169015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|16.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.1|-25.4|
84638130|NCT00669409|169015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-18.1|
84638131|NCT00669409|169015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.1|-33.6|
84638132|NCT00669409|169015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|14.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.4|-17.2|
84638133|NCT00669409|169015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.4|-26.7|
84638134|NCT00669409|169015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-5.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.0|-46.5|
84638135|NCT00669409|169015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|15.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.0|-16.6|
84638136|NCT00669409|169015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.8|
84638137|NCT00669409|169015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-21.0|
84638138|NCT00669409|169015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-28.3|
84638139|NCT00669409|169015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.2|-49.6|
84638140|NCT00669409|169015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|14.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-16.8|
84638141|NCT00669409|169015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-35.0|
84638142|NCT00669409|169015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|9.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.8|-21.8|
84638143|NCT00669409|169015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-28.0|
84638144|NCT00669409|169015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.1|-50.6|
84638145|NCT00669409|169015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-11.9|
84638146|NCT00669409|169015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-35.1|
84638147|NCT00669409|169015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.3|
84638148|NCT00669409|169015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.4|-27.8|
84638149|NCT00669409|169015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-4.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.3|-45.8|
84638150|NCT00669409|169015208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.5|-9.1|
84638151|NCT00669409|169015208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-0.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-31.7|
84638152|NCT00669409|169015208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-18.5|
84638153|NCT00669409|169015208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|5.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.3|-25.9|
84638154|NCT00669409|169015208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-2.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.7|-44.2|
84638155|NCT00669409|169015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|27.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.0|-4.6|
84638156|NCT00669409|169015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.5|-30.0|
84638157|NCT00669409|169015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|17.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.3|-14.3|
84638158|NCT00669409|169015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.3|-21.9|
84638159|NCT00669409|169015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|1.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.0|-40.5|
84638160|NCT00669409|169015210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|26.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.6|-5.0|
84638161|NCT00669409|169015210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.0|
84638162|NCT00669409|169015210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.0|-14.6|
84638163|NCT00669409|169015210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.2|-21.0|
84638164|NCT00669409|169015210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-35.3|
84638165|NCT00669409|169015211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|26.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.1|-5.5|
84638166|NCT00669409|169015211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-27.0|
84638167|NCT00669409|169015211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.3|-13.3|
84638168|NCT00669409|169015211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-19.2|
84638169|NCT00669409|169015211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-34.4|
84638170|NCT00669409|169015212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|26.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.8|-4.8|
84638171|NCT00669409|169015212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.6|-23.9|
84638172|NCT00669409|169015212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-14.0|
84638173|NCT00669409|169015212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
84638174|NCT00669409|169015212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-33.5|
84638175|NCT00669409|169015213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|27.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.2|-4.4|
84638176|NCT00669409|169015213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.2|
84638177|NCT00669409|169015213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-11.2|
84638178|NCT00669409|169015213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-20.3|
84638179|NCT00669409|169015213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|16.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.6|-24.9|
84638180|NCT00669409|169015214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|12.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.3|-20.7|
84638181|NCT00669409|169015214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.0|-35.6|
84638182|NCT00669409|169015214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.1|-20.5|
84638183|NCT00669409|169015214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.3|-31.9|
84638184|NCT00669409|169015214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.8|-56.4|
84638185|NCT00669409|169015215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.2|
84638186|NCT00669409|169015215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-0.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-33.0|
84638187|NCT00669409|169015215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.1|-13.5|
84638188|NCT00669409|169015215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.2|
84638189|NCT00669409|169015215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-32.8|
84638190|NCT00669409|169015216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.1|-22.9|
84638191|NCT00669409|169015216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.7|
84638192|NCT00669409|169015216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-15.0|
84638193|NCT00669409|169015216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-27.1|
84638194|NCT00669409|169015216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-26.0|
84638195|NCT00669409|169015217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-21.1|
84675449|NCT04011475|169086401|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.901|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group B versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.901|1.250|0.0116
84638196|NCT00669409|169015217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-35.9|
84638197|NCT00669409|169015217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-20.4|
84638198|NCT00669409|169015217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.3|-30.0|
84638199|NCT00669409|169015217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|-6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.2|-48.8|
84638200|NCT00669409|169015218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.4|-19.6|
84638201|NCT00669409|169015218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.8|
84638202|NCT00669409|169015218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.4|
84540265|NCT03762239|168831236|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.022||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0595|0.1035|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher Altruism behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the Altruism measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.1035|-0.0595|0.58
84638203|NCT00669409|169015218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.5|-32.8|
84638204|NCT00669409|169015218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.4|-53.9|
84638205|NCT00669409|169015219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|12.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.9|-20.1|
84638206|NCT00669409|169015219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-5.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.2|-37.9|
84638207|NCT00669409|169015219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|6.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.9|-25.7|
84540266|NCT03762239|168831237|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1786|0.2049|||Ordered logistic regression|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher trust, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the subjective trust measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.2049|-0.1786|0.89
84638208|NCT00669409|169015219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-31.5|
84638209|NCT00669409|169015219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.2|-53.7|
84638210|NCT00669409|169015220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|16.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.0|-17.0|
84638211|NCT00669409|169015220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-4.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-37.6|
84638212|NCT00669409|169015220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.5|-24.1|
84638213|NCT00669409|169015220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.2|
84638214|NCT00669409|169015220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.5|-48.1|
84638215|NCT00669409|169015221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.2|-12.8|
84638216|NCT00669409|169015221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-34.8|
84638217|NCT00669409|169015221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|11.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.0|-21.7|
84638218|NCT00669409|169015221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.1|-30.1|
84638219|NCT00669409|169015221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-46.0|
84638220|NCT00669409|169015222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.5|
84638221|NCT00669409|169015222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|0.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.6|-32.0|
84638222|NCT00669409|169015222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|15.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.9|-16.7|
84638223|NCT00669409|169015222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.7|-25.5|
84638224|NCT00669409|169015222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.5|-42.0|
84638225|NCT00669409|169015223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.6|-8.4|
84638226|NCT00669409|169015223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.6|
84638227|NCT00669409|169015223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-17.1|
84638228|NCT00669409|169015223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-24.4|
84638229|NCT00669409|169015223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-38.0|
84638230|NCT00669409|169015224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|25.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.3|-7.7|
84638231|NCT00669409|169015224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.5|-29.2|
84638232|NCT00669409|169015224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|16.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.8|-15.8|
84638233|NCT00669409|169015224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.6|-23.6|
84638234|NCT00669409|169015224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-37.0|
84638235|NCT00669409|169015225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.4|
84638236|NCT00669409|169015225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-27.1|
84638237|NCT00669409|169015225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.7|-16.9|
84638238|NCT00669409|169015225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.4|-23.9|
84638239|NCT00669409|169015225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-37.1|
84638240|NCT00669409|169015226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.1|
84638241|NCT00669409|169015226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-24.4|
84638242|NCT00669409|169015226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|18.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.4|-14.2|
84638243|NCT00669409|169015226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-24.3|
84638244|NCT00669409|169015226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|14.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.9|-27.6|
84638245|NCT00669409|169015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.6|
84638246|NCT00669409|169015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
84504876|NCT00294723|168760796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.38||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.38|-0.83|<.0001
84638247|NCT00669409|169015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-21.8|
84638248|NCT00669409|169015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.2|-31.6|
84638249|NCT00669409|169015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-19.0|-62.6|
84638250|NCT00669409|169015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|12.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.5|-20.9|
84638251|NCT00669409|169015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-32.6|
84638252|NCT00669409|169015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
84638253|NCT00669409|169015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-28.4|
84638254|NCT00669409|169015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-38.8|
84638255|NCT00669409|169015229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.2|-22.2|
84638256|NCT00669409|169015229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
84638257|NCT00669409|169015229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.7|-15.6|
84638258|NCT00669409|169015229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-28.0|
84638259|NCT00669409|169015229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-30.1|
84638260|NCT00669409|169015230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.8|-20.6|
84638261|NCT00669409|169015230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.3|-35.6|
84638262|NCT00669409|169015230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.7|-19.6|
84638263|NCT00669409|169015230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-30.9|
84540267|NCT03762239|168831238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.24|-0.49|0.50
84638264|NCT00669409|169015230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-51.2|
84638265|NCT00669409|169015231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|17.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.1|-16.3|
84638266|NCT00669409|169015231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-35.4|
84638267|NCT00669409|169015231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.1|-24.1|
84540268|NCT03762239|168831239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.10|-0.20|0.47
84638268|NCT00669409|169015231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.9|-31.9|
84638269|NCT00669409|169015231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|-9.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.5|-53.1|
84638270|NCT00669409|169015232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-16.9|
84638271|NCT00669409|169015232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.4|-36.7|
84638272|NCT00669409|169015232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-24.2|
84638273|NCT00669409|169015232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.8|
84675450|NCT04011475|169086402|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.04|0.43|0.0756
84638274|NCT00669409|169015232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-12.0|-55.6|
84638275|NCT00669409|169015233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-12.9|
84638276|NCT00669409|169015233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-36.5|
84638277|NCT00669409|169015233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|10.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-23.3|
84638278|NCT00669409|169015233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-31.2|
84638279|NCT00669409|169015233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-6.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.4|-50.0|
84638280|NCT00669409|169015234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.0|-9.4|
84638281|NCT00669409|169015234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.2|-34.4|
84638282|NCT00669409|169015234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-20.0|
84638283|NCT00669409|169015234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-29.9|
84540269|NCT03762239|168831240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.74|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||1.74|-8.51|0.20
84540270|NCT03762239|168831241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||4.60|-5.10|0.92
84638284|NCT00669409|169015234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.7|-50.3|
84638285|NCT00669409|169015235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|29.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.1|-4.3|
84638286|NCT00669409|169015235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-31.4|
84638287|NCT00669409|169015235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.6|-14.6|
84638288|NCT00669409|169015235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-25.0|
84638289|NCT00669409|169015235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-44.9|
84638290|NCT00669409|169015236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|28.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.3|-5.1|
84638291|NCT00669409|169015236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|1.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.1|-32.1|
84638292|NCT00669409|169015236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-13.5|
84638293|NCT00669409|169015236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-23.1|
84638294|NCT00669409|169015236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-40.7|
84638295|NCT00669409|169015237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.0|-4.4|
84504877|NCT00294723|168760796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% CI for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.31||||0.0076||95.0|-0.54|-0.08||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0076
84638296|NCT00669409|169015237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.8|
84638297|NCT00669409|169015237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
84638298|NCT00669409|169015237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-23.9|
84638299|NCT00669409|169015237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-40.4|
84638300|NCT00669409|169015238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.5|
84638301|NCT00669409|169015238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-26.3|
84638302|NCT00669409|169015238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|18.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.5|-14.7|
84504878|NCT00294723|168760796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0129||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.52|0.0129
84540271|NCT03762239|168831242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.22|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||2.22|-4.94|0.46
84638303|NCT00669409|169015238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|9.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.2|-23.6|
84638304|NCT00669409|169015238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|1.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.4|-42.2|
84638305|NCT00669409|169015239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|30.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||30.2|-3.2|
84638306|NCT00669409|169015239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.3|
84638307|NCT00669409|169015239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|21.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||21.7|-11.5|
84638308|NCT00669409|169015239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.8|-24.1|
84638309|NCT00669409|169015239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-31.6|
84638310|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|6.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.4|-24.7|
84638311|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-4.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-36.0|
84638312|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|11.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-19.9|
84638313|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-0.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-30.9|
84638314|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-8.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.9|-49.4|
84638315|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|14.3||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.3|-16.9|
84638316|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|1.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.7|-29.5|
84638317|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|16.5||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-15.4|
84638318|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|3.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.7|-27.3|
84638319|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-2.4||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.4|-43.1|
84675451|NCT04011475|169086402|OTHER||Rate ratio|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|8.4|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||8.40|2.27|< 0.0001
84638320|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-0.3||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.3|-33.2|
84638321|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-10.8||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-10.8|-43.7|
84638322|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.4|
84638323|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.2||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-35.6|
84638324|NCT00669409|169015240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-45.8|
84638325|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.6||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.6|-18.5|
84638326|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.3|
84675452|NCT04011475|169086402|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.34||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.68|0.17|0.0022
84504879|NCT00294723|168760797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.68||2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.68|-4.28|<0.0001
84675453|NCT04011475|169086403|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.25||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.65|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||4.65|0.34|0.7394
84638327|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|28.1||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.1|-3.2|
84638328|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.4||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-23.1|
84638329|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|17.2||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.2|-23.3|
84638330|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|16.3||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.3|-14.9|
84638331|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|5.7||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.7|-25.5|
84638332|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.5|-3.4|
84638333|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.0||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-21.9|
84675454|NCT04011475|169086404|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.11|0.38|0.1116
84675455|NCT04011475|169086404|OTHER||Rate ratio|3.78||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.88|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||7.88|1.81|0.0004
84638334|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|15.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-25.2|
84638335|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.5|-21.4|
84638336|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|2.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.7|-30.3|
84638337|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|32.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||32.7|-0.6|
84638338|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|9.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.5|-22.9|
84675456|NCT04011475|169086404|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.41||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.89|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.89|0.19|0.0239
84675457|NCT04011475|169086405|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.71||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.61|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.61|0.32|0.4164
84675458|NCT04011475|169086405|OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.8|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||30.8|1.59|0.0100
84675459|NCT04011475|169086405|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.91|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.91|0.04|0.0377
84675460|NCT04011475|169086406|OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2035
84675461|NCT04011475|169086407|OTHER|||||||0.1858|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.1858
84675462|NCT04011475|169086408|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0144
84675463|NCT04011475|169086408|OTHER|||||||0.9219|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9219
84540272|NCT03762239|168831243|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.1446||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.0928|||Ordered logistic regression|Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher assessment of math skills, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the self assessed math skills measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.0928|-0.3820|0.232
84675464|NCT04011475|169086408|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9590
84675465|NCT04011475|169086409|OTHER|||||||0.2909|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2909
84675466|NCT04011475|169086409|OTHER|||||||0.1618|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.1618
84675467|NCT04011475|169086409|OTHER|||||||0.4695|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.4695
84675468|NCT04011475|169086410|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||> 0.9999
84675469|NCT04011475|169086410|OTHER|||||||0.2516|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2516
84675470|NCT04011475|169086410|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0036
84675471|NCT04011475|169086411|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.6189
84675472|NCT04011475|169086411|OTHER|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.7656
84675473|NCT04011475|169086411|OTHER|||||||0.3594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.3594
84675474|NCT04011475|169086412|OTHER|||||||0.0483|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.0483
84638339|NCT00669409|169015241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|17.4||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.4|-25.5|
84638340|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|8.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-22.9|
84638341|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-3.3||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-34.4|
84638342|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|6.1||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.1|-25.2|
84638343|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-0.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-30.8|
84638344|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-7.6||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-48.1|
84638345|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|9.9||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-21.3|
84638346|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-1.4||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.4|-32.6|
84638347|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|7.5||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-24.3|
84638348|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-1.3||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.2|
84638349|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-7.1||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.1|-47.8|
84638350|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|7.4||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-25.5|
84638351|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.2||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-36.1|
84638352|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.3||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.3|-22.1|
84638353|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.6||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.9|
84638354|NCT00669409|169015242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-1.5||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.5|-44.4|
84638355|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.8|-12.2|
84638356|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.1||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.1|-27.0|
84638357|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-17.4|
84638358|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|5.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.8|-24.8|
84638359|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.3||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.3|-39.2|
84638360|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.6||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.6|-10.6|
84675475|NCT02348489|169086418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate (%)|1.92||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-3.67|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The complete response rate was compared between the treatment groups using a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at an alpha level of 0.04 stratified to adjust for stratification factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||7.5|-3.67|0.482
84638361|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.1||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.1|-24.0|
84638362|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|14.8||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-17.1|
84638363|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|6.3||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.3|-24.6|
84638364|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|2.5||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.5|-38.2|
84638365|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|14.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.6|-18.3|
84638366|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-36.5|
84638367|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-19.5|
84675476|NCT02348489|169086419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Stratified log-rank|||Overall survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the treatment groups using a 2-sided stratification log-rank test, stratified by the same factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||1.14|0.83|0.7328
84638368|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.4||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.1|
84638369|NCT00669409|169015243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|10.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-32.0|
84638370|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.6||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.6|-2.5|
84638371|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-21.0|
84638372|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|20.9||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.9|-10.4|
84638373|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.5||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-23.1|
84638374|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|10.8||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.8|-29.7|
84638375|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|29.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.8|-1.3|
84638376|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
84638377|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.8|-9.1|
84675477|NCT01777997|169086432|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, repeated measures (GEE)|||Estimated mean change from baseline to weeks 24-48 on ART from repeated measures (GEE) model, against the null hypothesis of zero change. Estimated mean represents on ART levels minus pre-ART levels.||||0.001
84675478|NCT01694706|169086441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.2||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|141.88|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||141.88|102.09|0.3420
84675479|NCT01694706|169086441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.21|116.76|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||116.76|76.21|0.0962
84675480|NCT01694706|169086442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.4||0.3993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.19|169.628|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||169.628|83.190|0.3993
84675481|NCT01694706|169086442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.0||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.783|133.03|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||133.030|65.783|0.2204
84638378|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.1||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-25.8|
84638379|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-28.8|
84675482|NCT01694706|169086443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|121.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.32|143.74|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||143.74|102.32|0.3765
84638380|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|23.4||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||23.4|-9.5|
84638381|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|10.6||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-22.4|
84638382|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.9||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.9|-4.5|
84675483|NCT01694706|169086443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.4||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.25|117.67|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||117.67|76.25|0.0946
84675484|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Mean treatment difference|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg pooled - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.22|-1.73|<0.0001
84675485|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.11|-0.69|0.0069
84675486|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.60|-1.18|<0.0001
84638383|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|7.2||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.2|
84638384|NCT00669409|169015244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.5||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.5|-22.4|
84638385|NCT05367492|169015285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||14.1|3.0|<0.001
84638386|NCT05367492|169015285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the primary outcome measure. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
84638387|NCT05367492|169015286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.3||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||12.3|3.1|<0.001
84638388|NCT05367492|169015286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
84638389|NCT05367492|169015287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||16.9|2.1|0.001
84638390|NCT05367492|169015287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
84638391|NCT05367492|169015288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.83||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.83|-2.93|0.001
84638392|NCT05367492|169015288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study group.||||||<0.001
84540273|NCT04471428|168831244|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.156|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||1.156|0.676|0.3668
84638393|NCT05367492|169015289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-4.45||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-4.45|-9.08|<0.001
84638394|NCT05367492|169015289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus tests of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||<0.001
84540274|NCT04471428|168831244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.182|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.182|0.696|0.4709
84504880|NCT00294723|168760797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.52|-1.93||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.93|-3.52|<0.0001
84540275|NCT04471428|168831245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.923|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||0.923|0.585|0.0079
84638395|NCT05367492|169015290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.48||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.48|-3.08|0.008
84638396|NCT05367492|169015290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus Wald test of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||0.02
84638397|NCT05367492|169015291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84638398|NCT05367492|169015291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
84638399|NCT00353470|169015292|SUPERIORITY||shared parameters model|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Power: to detect a between-group effect size of 0.45, for statistical power of 0.80, 56 patients for PFPP or CBT vs. 28 for ART were required. Response rates at termination were calculated by chi-square in the full ITT sample using LOCF.||||>0.16
84638400|NCT00353470|169015292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84638401|NCT02891070|169015327|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of Tisseel to DuraSeal for the primary endpoint, the lower limit of the 95% CI (based on normal approximation) for the difference in average predicted proportions had to be greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
84638402|NCT02891070|169015329|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
84638403|NCT02891070|169015330|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
84638404|NCT02891070|169015331|OTHER|||||||0.1015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1015
84638405|NCT02891070|169015332|OTHER|||||||0.9943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9943
84540276|NCT04471428|168831245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.915|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified analysis||0.915|0.583|0.0061
84638406|NCT02891070|169015333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|-13.60|
84638407|NCT01767142|169015352|OTHER||sucess proportion|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.8|90.7||||||||90.7|74.8|
84638408|NCT04975230|169015367|OTHER||Cohen's D|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.37|0.0227
84638409|NCT00926029|169015381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84638410|NCT00926029|169015382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84638411|NCT02471612|169015383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||Comparing the sensitivity of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM|McNemar|||"Area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure the size of the prediction composed by the graphic display between the 'sensitivity' and the '1-specificity' relationship. AUC can range from 0.5 to 1.0 and a result of 1.0 indicates a perfect discriminatory ability. An AUC value \> 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value \< 0.60 is regarded as poor."||||0.665
84638412|NCT01776307|169015456|OTHER|Descriptive analysis for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||The exact 95% confidence interval is based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
84638413|NCT01776307|169015457|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
84638414|NCT01776307|169015458|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
84638415|NCT03083990|169015490|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9502|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8921|1.012|||ANOVA|||||1.0120|0.8921|>0.05
84638416|NCT03083990|169015491|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9483|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8896|1.0108|||ANOVA|||||1.0108|0.8896|>0.05
84638417|NCT03083990|169015492|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9749|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9123|1.0418|||ANOVA|||||1.0418|0.9123|>0.05
84638418|NCT05871450|169015515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84638419|NCT01901250|169015535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Permutation test|Adjusted for child's gender, caries burden at study entry, surface-years at risk, and study cohort.||||||0.25
84638420|NCT00916929|169015536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate per patient year of follow up|1.5||||||95.0|||||exact method|95% Upper Confidence Limit of objective performance criteria||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Expected False Positive Rate ≥1.5 per patient-year of follow-up Ha: Expected False Positive Rate \<1.5 per patient-year of follow-up~The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for expected FPR is less than 1.5 per patient-year of follow-up."||||
84638421|NCT00916929|169015537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|50.0||||exact method|||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Sensitivity ≤ 50% Ha: Sensitivity \> 50%~The desired outcome was to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for sensitivity is greater than 50%."|||50|
84638422|NCT02055118|169015543|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||The Mixed model repeated measures included fixed categorical effects for treatment, visit week, treatment by visit week interaction, baseline GCA classification factor (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 70 or \>70), baseline age group (\<6 years or \>=6 years), treatment by baseline GCA classification factor interaction, treatment by baseline age group interaction, interaction between baseline GCA classification factor and baseline age group, genotype, and the baseline GCA score as a continuous covariate.||13.3|-7.3|0.5669
84638423|NCT02745080|169015609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.72|0.98|0.0719
84638424|NCT02745080|169015610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||3.71|1.67|<0.0001
84540277|NCT04471428|168831246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||5.84|-8.85|0.6846
84638425|NCT02745080|169015611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.55|0.90|0.2251
84638426|NCT02745080|169015612|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit as factors, weight/baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit, baseline score by analysis visit as interation terms and unstructured covariance structure|||0.05|-0.10|0.5465
84638427|NCT02745080|169015613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.87|0.91|0.1498
84638428|NCT00329524|169015625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on paired t-test.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84638429|NCT00329524|169015626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||test for order effect|||||||.05
84638430|NCT01001325|169015628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in incidence of pandemic strain influenza infection for people given seasonal influenza vaccine compared to those given a placebo.~Power to detect a 2-fold difference if attack rate in non-vaccinated participants is 10%: 86%"||||0.685
84638431|NCT02758184|169015629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1031.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|681.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84638432|NCT01584440|169015643|SUPERIORITY||Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Z-statistic|-1.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD): data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
84638433|NCT01584440|169015643|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638434|NCT01584440|169015643|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84540278|NCT04471428|168831246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.63|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.63|0.47|
84638435|NCT01584440|169015645|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
84638436|NCT01584440|169015645|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 36|||
84638437|NCT01584440|169015645|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638438|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|0.77||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Delusions Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.444
84638439|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 36|||||
84638440|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 70|||||
84638441|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.18||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Hallucinations Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.861
84638442|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 36|||||
84638443|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 70|||||
84638444|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.32||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Depression/Dysphoria Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.749
84638445|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 36|||||
84638446|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 70|||||
84638447|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.81||||0.416|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Anxiety Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.416
84638448|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain; Day 36|||||
84540279|NCT04471428|168831246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||5.84|-8.85|0.7216
84638449|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain|||||
84638450|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.07||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Euphoria/Elation Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.287
84638451|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 36|||||
84638452|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 70|||||
84638453|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.31||||0.191|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Apathy/Indifference Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.191
84638454|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
84638455|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
84638456|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Disinhibition Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.271
84638457|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 36|||||
84638458|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 70|||||
84638459|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.18||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Irritability/Lability Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.029
84638460|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 36|||||
84638461|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 70|||||
84638462|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.21||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.027
84638463|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 36|||||
84638464|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 70|||||
84638465|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.09||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.274
84638466|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 36|||||
84638467|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 70|||||
84638468|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.65||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Appetite/Eating Changes Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.513
84638469|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 36|||||
84638470|NCT01584440|169015646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 70|||||
84638471|NCT01584440|169015647|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.53|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
84638472|NCT01584440|169015647|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638473|NCT01584440|169015647|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638474|NCT01584440|169015648|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.001
84638475|NCT01584440|169015648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638476|NCT01584440|169015648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638477|NCT01584440|169015649|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
84638478|NCT01584440|169015649|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638479|NCT01584440|169015649|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 70|||
84638480|NCT01584440|169015650|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.010
84638481|NCT01584440|169015650|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638482|NCT01584440|169015650|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638483|NCT01584440|169015651|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.002
84638484|NCT01584440|169015651|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638485|NCT01584440|169015651|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638486|NCT01584440|169015652|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.008
84638487|NCT01584440|169015652|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638488|NCT01584440|169015652|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638489|NCT01584440|169015653|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.050
84638490|NCT01584440|169015653|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638491|NCT01584440|169015653|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638492|NCT01584440|169015654|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.020
84638493|NCT01584440|169015654|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638494|NCT01584440|169015654|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638495|NCT01584440|169015655|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.053
84638496|NCT01584440|169015655|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638497|NCT01584440|169015655|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638498|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.72||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Caregiver|||||0.469
84638499|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 36|||||
84638500|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 70|||||
84638501|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Participant|||||0.159
84638502|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 36|||||
84638503|NCT01584440|169015656|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 70|||||
84638504|NCT01584440|169015657|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.163
84638505|NCT01584440|169015657|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
84638506|NCT01584440|169015657|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
84638507|NCT01584440|169015658|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.08||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.279
84638508|NCT01584440|169015658|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 8|||||
84638509|NCT01584440|169015658|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 22|||||
84638510|NCT01584440|169015658|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 43|||||
84638511|NCT01584440|169015658|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 57|||||
84638512|NCT01584440|169015659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.5|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||4.50|1.62|0.0001
84638513|NCT01584440|169015659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||3.43|0.75|0.2184
84638514|NCT01584440|169015660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.42|||ANCOVA|||||5.42|1.11|0.0266
84638515|NCT01584440|169015661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.55|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||3.55|1.31|0.002
84638516|NCT01584440|169015661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||5.00|1.08|0.031
84638517|NCT01584440|169015662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.46|||ANCOVA|||||4.46|1.31|0.0048
84638518|NCT00531427|169015693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistics are based on a mixed effect general linear model||"\[Week 12 analysis\] The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS arm was superior to the placebo arm.~Pain scale is 11 points (0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine)."||0.05|-0.80|0.0853
84638519|NCT00531427|169015694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.159||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|ANCOVA|with treatment as a factor and screening and pre-randomization mean pain as covariates.||Categorical analysis P value is based on a Fisher's exact test. Mean daily number of tablets for subjects who took \<=1 dose of supplemental analgesia||0.159|-0.233|0.7098
84638520|NCT00531427|169015695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.48||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 4, 8, 12 analysis The sleep disturbance subscale was analyzed using the mixed effect linear model with fixed effects for treatment (BTDS or placebo) and time (weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12) as categorical, screening mean and prerandomization mean value as covariates, and subject as a random effect.||-1.48|-7.44|0.0034
84638521|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.43|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg versus (Vs) Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.43|0.31|
84638522|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.39|0.28|
84638523|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.45|0.32|
84638524|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.44|0.31|
84638525|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.54|0.39|
84638526|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.56|0.40|
84638527|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.66|0.47|
84638528|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.69|0.49|
84638529|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.75|0.53|
84638530|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||0.80|0.57|
84638531|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||0.80|0.56|
84638532|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||0.74|0.52|
84638533|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.71|0.51|
84638534|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM||0.74|0.52|
84638535|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||0.81|0.58|
84638536|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||0.80|0.57|
84638537|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||0.78|0.56|
84638538|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||0.80|0.57|
84638539|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||0.78|0.55|
84638540|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||0.81|0.58|
84638541|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||0.86|0.61|
84638542|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||0.86|0.61|
84638543|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||0.85|0.61|
84638544|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||0.84|0.60|
84638545|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||0.86|0.61|
84638546|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||0.93|0.66|
84638547|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||0.93|0.66|
84638548|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||0.79|0.56|
84638549|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||0.93|0.66|
84638550|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||0.94|0.66|
84638551|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||0.87|0.62|
84638552|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||0.86|0.61|
84638553|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||0.91|0.65|
84638554|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||1.01|0.65|
84638555|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||0.96|0.61|
84638556|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||1.00|0.59|
84638557|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||1.05|0.63|
84638558|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||1.00|0.52|
84638559|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.09|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||1.09|0.56|
84638560|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||1.14|0.53|
84638561|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||1.22|0.59|
84638562|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||1.13|0.50|
84638563|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, AM|||1.25|0.55|
84638564|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, PM|||1.16|0.51|
84638565|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, AM|||1.49|0.66|
84638566|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, PM|||1.51|0.29|
84638567|NCT02712047|169015696|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 24, AM|||1.64|0.32|
84638568|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|68.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||68.03|23.69|
84638569|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|67.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||67.55|23.20|
84638570|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|56.21|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||56.21|11.86|
84638571|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||53.73|9.38|
84638572|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|45.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||45.03|0.68|
84638573|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.77|59.12|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||59.12|14.77|
84638574|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|41.66|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||41.66|-3.00|
84638575|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|43.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||43.03|-1.32|
84638576|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|39.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||39.11|-5.47|
84638577|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|44.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||44.14|-0.41|
84638578|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|35.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||35.67|-9.57|
84638579|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|51.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||51.98|5.38|
84638580|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|39.26|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||39.26|-5.08|
84638581|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|46.94|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|||46.94|0.28|
84638582|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|35.05|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||35.05|-9.30|
84638583|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|29.68|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||29.68|-14.67|
84638584|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|25.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||25.74|-19.11|
84504881|NCT00294723|168760797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0642||95.0|-1.55|0.05||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariance.||0.05|-1.55|0.0642
84638585|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|26.0|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||26.00|-18.34|
84638586|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|33.82|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||33.82|-11.11|
84504882|NCT00294723|168760798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-20.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.09|-11.46||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-11.46|-29.09|<.0001
84638587|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|50.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||50.03|5.43|
84638588|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|36.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||36.98|-7.57|
84638589|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|15.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||15.55|-28.80|
84638590|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|27.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||27.11|-18.39|
84638591|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|30.57|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||30.57|-13.99|
84638592|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|22.92|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||22.92|-21.64|
84638593|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.96|16.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||16.19|-29.96|
84638594|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|51.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||51.13|5.76|
84638595|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|34.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||34.74|-10.13|
84638596|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|26.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||26.36|-18.16|
84638597|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|41.63|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||41.63|-3.89|
84638598|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|28.88|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||28.88|-16.17|
84638599|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|41.41|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||41.41|-3.27|
84638600|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|52.15|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||52.15|6.87|
84638601|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|37.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||37.19|-17.91|
84638602|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||53.73|-4.20|
84638603|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|79.45|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||79.45|14.63|
84638604|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|52.52|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||52.52|-12.30|
84638605|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|65.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||65.27|-15.02|
84638606|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.04|32.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||32.25|-48.04|
84638607|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|54.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||54.25|-37.22|
84638608|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|58.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||58.67|-28.50|
84638609|NCT02712047|169015698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|55.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||55.73|-45.35|
84638610|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.46|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.46|0.26|
84638611|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.36|0.16|
84638612|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.44|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.44|0.24|
84675487|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.90|-1.47|<0.0001
84675488|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral Semaglutide 20 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.09|-1.68|<0.0001
84675489|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.30|-1.89|<0.0001
84675490|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.14|-1.72|<0.0001
84675491|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.04|-1.64|<0.0001
84675492|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.27|-1.85|<0.0001
84675493|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||1.45|0.87|<0.0001
84675494|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.96|0.38|<0.0001
84675495|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.67|0.08|0.0116
84675496|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.18||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 20 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.47|-0.12|0.2440
84638613|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.34|0.14|
84638614|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.36|0.16|
84504883|NCT00294723|168760798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.92||||0.027||95.0|-18.7|-1.12||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.12|-18.70|0.0270
84638615|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.28|0.08|
84638616|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.34|0.14|
84638617|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.27|0.07|
84638618|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.17|-0.03|
84638619|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.14|-0.06|
84638620|NCT02712047|169015699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||0.13|-0.07|
84638621|NCT03861988|169015732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84638622|NCT02617485|169015740|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9565|1.1321||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1321|0.9565|
84638623|NCT02617485|169015741|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9822|1.1464||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1464|0.9822|
84638624|NCT00220779|169015753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||||||0.2g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.221
84638625|NCT00220779|169015753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||0.4 g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.471
84638626|NCT02248675|169015765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||.153
84638627|NCT02248675|169015766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.627
84638628|NCT02248675|169015767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
84638629|NCT02248675|169015768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
84638630|NCT03745820|169015778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328|=|0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.37|||MMRM|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM)model was used to analyze change from baseline of outcome measure(OM)using fixed effects of treatment group,region,study visit,study visit-by-treatment interaction,baseline value of OM,baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.37|-2.88|=0.8472
84638631|NCT03745820|169015778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|=|0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.29|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.29|-2.94|=0.8053
84638632|NCT03745820|169015782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.20|=0.0637
84638633|NCT03745820|169015782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|=|0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.23|=0.0659
84638634|NCT03745820|169015783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.5|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.50|-0.32|=0.6653
84638635|NCT03745820|169015783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.51|-0.30|=0.6140
84638636|NCT03745820|169015784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033|=|0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.94|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.14|=0.2886
84638637|NCT03745820|169015784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|=|0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.53|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.53|-1.55|=0.6349
84638638|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.345|=|0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.11||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.11|-2.21|=0.7372
84638639|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346|=|0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.12||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.12|-3.20|=0.6894
84638640|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162|=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.16||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.16|-4.44|=0.0674
84638641|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161|=|0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.87|-2.72|=0.7132
84638642|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203|=|0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.29||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.29|-2.46|=0.9428
84638643|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.202|=|0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|3.3||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.30|-1.45|=0.4425
84638644|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|=|0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.64||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.64|-4.66|=0.3455
84504884|NCT00294723|168760798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.36||||0.0223||95.0|-19.24|-1.48||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.48|-19.24|0.0223
84504885|NCT00294723|168760799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-17.79||||0.0003||95.0|-27.48|-8.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-8.09|-27.48|0.0003
84540280|NCT04471428|168831246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||1.62|0.47|
84638645|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.595|=|0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.21||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.21|-3.09|=0.9686
84638646|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.85||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.85|-1.49|=0.3832
84638647|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean DIfference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.357|=|0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.75||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.75|-1.61|=0.4297
84638648|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.14|-3.55|=0.6245
84638649|NCT03745820|169015785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|=|0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|4.43||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.43|-1.25|=0.2698
84638650|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.76||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.76|-1.65|=0.4654
84638651|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608|=|0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.87|-1.53|=0.5886
84638652|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655|=|0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.22||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.22|-1.37|=0.9079
84638653|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|=|0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-1.78|=0.4441
84638654|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.017|=|0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.79|-5.18|=0.5537
84540281|NCT04471428|168831248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.16|0.59|0.2700
84675497|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.26|-0.34|0.7973
84675498|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.13||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.42|-0.16|0.3901
84675499|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.22||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.52|-0.09|0.1612
84675500|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.17||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.46|-0.13|0.2669
84675501|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.26||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.56|-0.05|0.0989
84504886|NCT00294723|168760799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-11.33||||0.0217||95.0|-20.99|-1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.66|-20.99|0.0217
84504887|NCT00294723|168760799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.46||||0.1942||95.0|-16.23|3.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.30|-16.23|0.1942
84540282|NCT04471428|168831248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.17|0.60|0.3031
84675502|NCT01923181|169086444|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.09||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.39|-0.21|0.5565
84675503|NCT00456092|169086486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.2||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||10.20|1.72|0.002
84675504|NCT00456092|169086486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.88||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||13.88|2.40|< 0.001
84675505|NCT00456092|169086489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|24.67|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||24.67|1.06|0.056
84675506|NCT00456092|169086489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.35|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.35|1.49|0.012
84675507|NCT00456092|169086490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|47.54|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||47.54|0.61|0.204
84675508|NCT00456092|169086490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|37.88|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||37.88|0.45|0.371
84540283|NCT04471428|168831249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.79|0.86|0.2408
84540284|NCT04471428|168831249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.81|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.81|0.88|0.1992
84675509|NCT00456092|169086491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.11|0.79|0.264
84638655|NCT03745820|169015786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.02||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.02|-5.95|=0.3320
84638656|NCT03745820|169015787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.28|-0.23|=0.8517
84540285|NCT04471428|168831250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|15.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|25.59|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 6 months||25.59|6.12|0.0014
84540286|NCT04471428|168831250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.32||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.21|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||13.21|-0.56|0.0719
84675510|NCT00456092|169086491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.91|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.91|1.00|0.071
84675511|NCT00456092|169086492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.57|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.57|0.66|0.549
84675512|NCT00456092|169086492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.03|0.53|1.000
84638657|NCT03745820|169015787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.25|-0.25|=0.9952
84638658|NCT00966875|169015808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||A log transformed dose was used in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
84638659|NCT00966875|169015809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84638660|NCT00966875|169015809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
84638661|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
84638662|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
84638663|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84504888|NCT00294723|168760800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-16.63||||0.0007||95.0|-26.19|-7.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-7.06|-26.19|0.0007
84638664|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638665|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638666|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638667|NCT00966875|169015813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638668|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
84638669|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.306
84675513|NCT00456092|169086493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.34|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.34|0.98|0.083
84638670|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84638671|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
84638672|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
84638673|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84638674|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
84638675|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.191
84638676|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84638677|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84638678|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
84638679|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84638680|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84638681|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
84638682|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.388
84638683|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84638684|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84638685|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
84638686|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84638687|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.696
84638688|NCT00966875|169015815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
84638689|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
84638690|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
84638691|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
84675514|NCT00456092|169086493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.44|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.44|0.77|0.279
84504889|NCT00294723|168760800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.02||||0.0395||95.0|-19.56|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.56|0.0395
84504890|NCT00294723|168760800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1789||95.0|-16.24|3.03||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.03|-16.24|0.1789
84638692|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638693|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638694|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
84638695|NCT00966875|169015817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.007
84638696|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.093
84638697|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.023
84638698|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
84638699|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
84638700|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.028
84638701|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638702|NCT00966875|169015819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638703|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.247
84638704|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.315
84638705|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
84638706|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
84675515|NCT00456092|169086494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.66|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.66|0.66|0.548
84638707|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.055
84638708|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.365
84638709|NCT00966875|169015821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.005
84675516|NCT00456092|169086494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.11|0.52|1.000
84638710|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.778
84638711|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.865
84638712|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.030
84638713|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.331
84638714|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||P-value is for Week 12..|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.039
84638715|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.292
84638716|NCT00966875|169015823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.003
84638717|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.090
84638718|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.131
84638719|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
84638720|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
84638721|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
84638722|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638723|NCT00966875|169015825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638724|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638725|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.012
84638726|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638727|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638728|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638729|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
84638730|NCT00966875|169015827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
84638731|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84638732|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.076
84638733|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84675517|NCT00456092|169086497|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.58||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.136
84675518|NCT00456092|169086497|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.080
84540287|NCT04471428|168831251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.85||||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.92|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in OS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||9.92|-11.63|0.8767
84638734|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84638735|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84638736|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84638737|NCT00966875|169015829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84638738|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
84675519|NCT00456092|169086498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.211|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||1.211|0.745|0.650
84675520|NCT00456092|169086498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.024|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.024|0.791|0.283
84638739|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
84638740|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
84638741|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.056
84638742|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
84638743|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
84638744|NCT00966875|169015831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
84675521|NCT00456092|169086499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.337||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.26|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.260|0.791|0.253
84675522|NCT00456092|169086499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.023||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|8.63|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||8.630|1.059|0.026
84638745|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.272
84638746|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.962
84638747|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.236
84638748|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.316
84638749|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.138
84638750|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.975
84638751|NCT00966875|169015833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.079
84638752|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.982
84638753|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.276
84675523|NCT00456092|169086500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.215|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.215|0.457|0.984
84638754|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.050
84638755|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
84638756|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.046
84638757|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
84638758|NCT00966875|169015835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.066
84638759|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.538
84638760|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
84638761|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
84638762|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
84638763|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.393
84638764|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.077
84638765|NCT00966875|169015837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.105
84675524|NCT00456092|169086500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|4.797|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||4.797|0.158|0.836
84675525|NCT00456092|169086505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.4||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.308
84504891|NCT00294723|168760801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.9||||0.0038||95.0|-21.6|-4.2||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-4.2|-21.6|0.0038
84540288|NCT04807400|168831353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-25.77||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.77|-37.91|<0.001
84638766|NCT01589653|169015852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently when the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).|Treatment difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analyses were adjusted for treatment, strata, country and baseline HbA1c||The null-hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by: H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.08|-0.54|<0.001
84638767|NCT02386189|169015876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was conducted on change between baseline and 12-month follow-up.||||0.02
84638768|NCT02386189|169015877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84638769|NCT02386189|169015878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84638770|NCT02386189|169015879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
84638771|NCT02386189|169015880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84638772|NCT02386189|169015881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84638773|NCT02386189|169015882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84638774|NCT04657666|169015883|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Based on a combination of 300 linear mixed models for crossover data on the response variable change from baseline in LLMT-6 with period level LLMT-6 baseline covariate, treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pattern mixture model (PMM) control-based imputation, mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.23|-0.16|0.7152
84638775|NCT00606905|169015903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.61|||Chi-squared|||||4.61|0.41|<0.05
84638776|NCT03120351|169015904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.06|-7.11|0.28
84540289|NCT04807400|168831353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-25.94||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.94|-38.35|<0.001
84638777|NCT04250077|169015918|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.36923076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16518156||0.02578184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0021812|0.64531855|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.64531855|-0.0021812|0.02578184
84638778|NCT04250077|169015919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0454545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62386242||0.00787297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18213496|35.9087741|||t-test, 1 sided|||||35.9087741|4.18213496|0.00787297
84638779|NCT04250077|169015920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.183333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8274398||0.01387108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.356073|-5.0105927|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-5.0105927|-73.356073|0.01387108
84638780|NCT04250077|169015921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.43728901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28323704||0.00908118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59437702|15.280201|||t-test, 1 sided|||||15.2802010|1.59437702|0.00908118
84638781|NCT04250077|169015922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47698833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68529034||0.34633293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1910435|9.14502026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.14502026|-6.1910435|0.34633293
84638782|NCT04250077|169015923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4285714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07315199||0.57872623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4078121|4.55066924|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.55066924|-5.4078121|0.57872623
84638783|NCT04250077|169015924|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.29230769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81588207||0.06283641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873203|2.97193574|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.97193574|-0.3873203|0.06283641
84638784|NCT04250077|169015925|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.11794871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16796576||0.26422281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2233244|0.43508919|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.43508919|-0.2233244|0.26422281
84638785|NCT03255629|169015937|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||McNemar|||||||0.103
84638786|NCT03255629|169015938|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.180
84638787|NCT03255629|169015940|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
84638788|NCT03255629|169015941|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
84638789|NCT03255629|169015942|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||McNemar|||||||0.083
84638790|NCT03255629|169015943|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||||||0.025
84638791|NCT03255629|169015945|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.049
84638792|NCT03255629|169015946|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.056
84638793|NCT03255629|169015947|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84638794|NCT03255629|169015948|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
84638795|NCT03255629|169015949|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.195
84638796|NCT03255629|169015950|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
84638797|NCT03255629|169015951|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
84638798|NCT03255629|169015952|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
84638799|NCT03255629|169015953|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.611
84638800|NCT03255629|169015954|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.183
84638801|NCT03255629|169015955|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84638802|NCT03255629|169015956|OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
84638803|NCT03255629|169015957|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||McNemar|||||||0.865
84638804|NCT03255629|169015958|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||McNemar|||||||0.875
84638805|NCT04075734|169015973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.59
84638806|NCT04075734|169015973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.003
84638807|NCT04075734|169015974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
84638808|NCT04075734|169015975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.07
84638809|NCT04075734|169015976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.2
84638810|NCT04075734|169015977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.006
84638811|NCT04075734|169015978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.86
84638812|NCT04075734|169015979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
84638813|NCT04075734|169015980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of intervention over time.||||||0.02
84638814|NCT04075734|169015981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.29
84638815|NCT04075734|169015982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.13
84638816|NCT04075734|169015983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
84638817|NCT04075734|169015984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
84638818|NCT04075734|169015985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.66
84638819|NCT04075734|169015986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.15
84638820|NCT01024309|169015996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Apriori level of significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum was used||||||.04
84638821|NCT01024309|169015997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.08
84638822|NCT01024309|169015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.04
84638823|NCT01024309|169015999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.22
84638824|NCT01024309|169016000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||.0029
84638825|NCT01024309|169016001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.13
84638826|NCT01024309|169016002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum||||||0.29
84638827|NCT01024309|169016003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.23
84638828|NCT01024309|169016004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcox Rank Sum Test||||||0.49
84638829|NCT00329797|169016005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||The study is designed to show a 40% relative reduction in the yearly ABF hazard rate, equivalent to an improvement in a 3-year FABF rate from 88% to 92.6%. A sample size of 1030 analyzable patients with a one-sided log-rank test at α = 0.05, was calculated to provide 80% statistical power, with one interim analysis and a final analysis for efficacy using Haybittle-Peto boundaries.||||0.95
84638830|NCT00329797|169016006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Lumbar||||<0.0001
84638831|NCT00329797|169016006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - right||||0.47
84638832|NCT00329797|169016006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - left||||0.0002
84638833|NCT00329797|169016006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - right||||0.076
84638834|NCT00329797|169016006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - left||||0.0007
84638835|NCT00329797|169016007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical subscale||||0.33
84638836|NCT00329797|169016007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Social subscale||||0.82
84638837|NCT00329797|169016007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional subscale||||0.51
84638838|NCT00329797|169016007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Functional subscale||||0.25
84638839|NCT00329797|169016007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Total||||0.63
84638840|NCT02093819|169016012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0249|1.2376|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.2376|1.0249|
84638841|NCT02093819|169016012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|1.1307|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 600mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis=28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1307|0.7830|
84638842|NCT02093819|169016013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9946|1.1518|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1518|0.9946|
84638843|NCT02093819|169016013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8174|1.1032|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50 mg to 600 mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis 28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1032|0.8174|
84638844|NCT00862641|169016015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1451||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by investigative site. Sites with \<15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.1451
84638845|NCT00862641|169016015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the CMH test stratified by investigative site. Sites with less than 15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.5790
84638846|NCT00862641|169016018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0029
84638847|NCT00862641|169016018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.6189
84638848|NCT00862641|169016019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0015
84638849|NCT00862641|169016019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.4385
84638850|NCT00862641|169016020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0789
84638851|NCT00862641|169016020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0258
84638852|NCT00862641|169016021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.2087
84638853|NCT00862641|169016021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0289
84638854|NCT00862641|169016022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.9904
84638855|NCT00862641|169016022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.8085
84638856|NCT00711477|169016029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9||||||||0.90|0.50|
84638857|NCT00711477|169016030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.72|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.72|-1.83|0.380
84638858|NCT00711477|169016031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.07|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||2.07|-2.87|0.744
84638859|NCT00711477|169016032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.56|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.56|-3.84|0.139
84638860|NCT00711477|169016033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.24|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.24|-2.96|0.094
84638861|NCT00711477|169016034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.51|-5.48|0.102
84638862|NCT00711477|169016035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.16||95.0|-22.7|3.89|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||3.89|-22.7|0.160
84638863|NCT00711477|169016036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.8||||||||0.80|0.40|
84638864|NCT00711477|169016037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0||||||||1.00|0.50|
84638865|NCT00711477|169016038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.24||||||||1.24|0.74|
84638866|NCT00711477|169016039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.65||||||||1.65|0.95|
84638867|NCT00711477|169016040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.57||||||||0.57|0.31|
84638868|NCT01980485|169016100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study had 87% power to detect a 40% increase in 28-dayabstinence rates (i.e., from 50% to 70%) based on a two-tailed chi-squared test and alpha = 0.05. We selected this effect size as being at the lower end of the effect size continuum that would be clinically meaningful at 28 days and have the potential to still be meaningful in the longer term even with similar relapse rates in both groups over subsequent months.||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.65
84638869|NCT00612807|169016105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.056||95.0||||Interaction indicates that slope of change varied by identified patient status and tx condition. Slope of change in depression was significantly negative for everyone but identified patients in the control condition.|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.056
84638870|NCT00612807|169016106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.32||95.0|||||Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.32
84638871|NCT00612807|169016106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether means at each timepoint varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.005||95.0||||We probed this interaction and discovered that at each assessment, spouses in the couple therapy + medication treatment group reported greater dyadic adjustment than did spouses in the medication alone condition (b = 10.53, z = 2.72, p = 0.006).|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.005
84638872|NCT00744042|169016117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Testing whether median change in rickets severity from Baseline to Week 24, measured by RGI-C at Week 24, is from zero.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|The last post-baseline observation carry forward method is used; patients with no post-baseline assessments were imputed as having no change.||One treatment group||||0.0039
84638873|NCT02259088|169016123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value for treatment difference is derived from the two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the row means score statistics.|Estimated from ANOVA (stratified) model. Stratified analysis includes DME type (focal, diffuse, honeycomb and petaloid) and Baseline BCVA(≤ 60 letters and \> 60 letters) as factors.|||7.5|4.1|<0.001
84645028|NCT02296138|169025423|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.03|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.03|0.87|0.1188
84645029|NCT02296138|169025424|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of events vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.89||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalization was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.03|0.76|0.1265
84504892|NCT00294723|168760801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.3||||0.1616||95.0|-15.0|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.5|-15.0|0.1616
84540290|NCT04807400|168831355|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.13|||ANOVA|||||2.13|0.62|<0.001
84638874|NCT01818752|169016147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.101||The p-value boundary for PFS analysis was 0.02141.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The inferential test associated with the primary analysis of PFS was assessed against an overall 1-sided significance level of α=0.025.||1.101|0.746|0.1590
84638875|NCT01818752|169016148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.211||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.637||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.637|0.896|0.8934
84638876|NCT01818752|169016149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.973||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.973|1.010|0.0218
84638877|NCT01818752|169016150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.589||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.589|0.875|0.1388
84638878|NCT01818752|169016151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.048|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.088||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Pearson Chi-Square test||Unstratified odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated.|||0.088|0.026|< 0.0001
84638879|NCT01818752|169016152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|6.51||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||Treatment groups were compared using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), the randomization stratification factors - ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region, age, and random effects of subject intercept and coefficient on time.||6.51|3.48|< 0.0001
84638880|NCT02872285|169016178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.793|8.199||ANCOVA was used to compare mean percent change in PASI score between baseline and Week 12 between LYC-30937 and placebo treatment groups with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Subjects included in this analysis had to have both a baseline and Week 12 PASI scores.||8.199|-33.793|0.2205
84638881|NCT02872285|169016179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided p-value.||||||0.4712
84638882|NCT02872285|169016180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|20.18|||ANCOVA|||||20.18|-30.87|0.6695
84638883|NCT02872285|169016181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
84638884|NCT02872285|169016182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
84645030|NCT02296138|169025425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.06|0.82|0.2773
84645031|NCT02296138|169025426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.75|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.75|0.67|0.7357
84645032|NCT04369924|169025427|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.25
84645033|NCT04369924|169025428|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.12
84645034|NCT04369924|169025429|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.70
84645035|NCT04369924|169025430|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|3.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
84645036|NCT04369924|169025431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
84645037|NCT04369924|169025432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.59
84540291|NCT04807400|168831355|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|0.60|<0.001
84675526|NCT00456092|169086505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.003
84675527|NCT00456092|169086505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.182
84675528|NCT00456092|169086505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.026
84675529|NCT00456092|169086506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.016
84675530|NCT00456092|169086506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.105
84675531|NCT00456092|169086508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors and baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.028
84675532|NCT00456092|169086508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors with baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.004
84675533|NCT01268644|169086528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P value comparing baseline to week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84675534|NCT01268644|169086529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value comparing week 0 with week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84504893|NCT00294723|168760801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1319||95.0|-15.3|2.0||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.0|-15.3|0.1319
84540292|NCT04807400|168831356|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61|||ANOVA|||||0.61|-0.67|0.9347
84540293|NCT04807400|168831357|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|-3.62|0.6759
84675535|NCT01268644|169086530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P value comparing week 0 to week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84675536|NCT01268644|169086531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
84675537|NCT01416194|169086532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
84675538|NCT01416194|169086532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.2|0.4|0.91
84675539|NCT01416194|169086533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
84675540|NCT01416194|169086533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.4|0.5|0.76
84675541|NCT01416194|169086534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.3|0.01
84675542|NCT01416194|169086534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.4|0.37
84504894|NCT00294723|168760802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.3||||0.0105||95.0|-21.71|-2.89||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-2.89|-21.71|0.0105
84540294|NCT04807400|168831357|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|-3.25|0.5756
84638885|NCT06457204|169016183|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 6.9."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.4|
84638886|NCT06457204|169016184|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.6|105.5|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 15.0."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.5|91.6|
84638887|NCT06457204|169016185|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.1."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.2|
84638888|NCT01410357|169016228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Bonferroni corrections were conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.785
84638889|NCT01410357|169016229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.016
84638890|NCT01410357|169016230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.001
84638891|NCT01410357|169016231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.003
84638892|NCT01410357|169016232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.086
84638893|NCT01410357|169016233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.872
84638894|NCT01410357|169016234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.662
84638895|NCT01410357|169016235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
84638896|NCT01410357|169016236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.175
84638897|NCT01410357|169016237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.680
84638898|NCT01410357|169016238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.407
84638899|NCT01410357|169016239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.870
84675543|NCT01416194|169086535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.5|0.10
84540295|NCT04807400|168831358|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.62|||ANCOVA|||||3.62|-3.02|0.8580
84540296|NCT03656744|168831360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.199
84638900|NCT01410357|169016240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.707
84638901|NCT01410357|169016241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.838
84638902|NCT01410357|169016242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
84638903|NCT01410357|169016243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
84638904|NCT01410357|169016244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.510
84638905|NCT01410357|169016245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.573
84638906|NCT01410357|169016246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.758
84675544|NCT01416194|169086535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.2|0.4|0.19
84540297|NCT03656744|168831360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84638907|NCT01410357|169016247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
84638908|NCT01410357|169016248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
84638909|NCT01410357|169016249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84638910|NCT01410357|169016250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.878
84638911|NCT01410357|169016251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
84638912|NCT01410357|169016252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.227
84638913|NCT03630770|169016253|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.7||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the control group.||1.7|0.55|0.9
84638914|NCT03630770|169016253|OTHER||Rate Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|25.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the control group.||25|2.6|<0.001
84638915|NCT03630770|169016253|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.75||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the MCT group.||0.75|0.03|0.02
84638916|NCT03630770|169016253|OTHER||Rate Ratio|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|533.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the MCT group.||533|6.9|<0.001
84638917|NCT03467152|169016265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6909||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6909
84638918|NCT03467152|169016266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.492||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.492|0.695|0.8251
84638919|NCT03467152|169016267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.247||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.247|0.584|0.3003
84638920|NCT03467152|169016268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9198||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.9198
84638921|NCT03467152|169016269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2909
84638922|NCT03467152|169016270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6127
84638923|NCT03467152|169016271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8780
84638924|NCT03467152|169016272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.4090
84638925|NCT03467152|169016273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8736||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8736
84540298|NCT03656744|168831361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
84540299|NCT03656744|168831361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
84638926|NCT01086358|169016292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.49|-2.92|0.007
84638927|NCT01086358|169016293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.27|-1.79|0.010
84638928|NCT01086358|169016294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||0.03|-1.39|0.059
84638929|NCT01086358|169016295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.84|||Regression, Logistic|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used. In these models, a logit link function was used for a favorable response (yes/no) with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects..||6.84|1.22|0.016
84638930|NCT01743001|169016306|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-4.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.5||To control for multiplicity across the primary and secondary endpoints, all secondary endpoints were analyzed hierarchically according to order and significance as pre-specified in the protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group, presence of DS (yes/no), and WHO FC (II vs III/IV) as categorical factors, and baseline 6MWD value as covariate||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between macitentan and placebo for the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in 6MWD. Null hypothesis was tested by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||13.5|-22.8|0.6120
84638931|NCT01743001|169016307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.24||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for randomized treatment group and location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid / post-tricupsid ) as factors.||For this secondary endpoint of WHO functional class, the improvement from baseline to Week 16 in WHO functional class was evaluated. The null hypothesis is the odds of improvement are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group.||1.24|0.23|0.1450
84638932|NCT01743001|169016308|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.6818||95.0|-0.29|0.44||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect(pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors, baseline Borg dyspnea index as covariate||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in the Borg dyspnea index is the same in the macitentan and in the placebo group.||0.44|-0.29|0.6818
84638933|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning.||3.1|-5.0|0.6431
84540300|NCT03656744|168831362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
84540301|NCT03656744|168831362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84540302|NCT03656744|168831363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.884
84540303|NCT03656744|168831363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.236
84638934|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical.||3.9|-6.7|0.5988
84638935|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index.||6.2|-5.9|0.9642
84638936|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|3.1||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions.||7.3|-1.2|0.1542
84638937|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality.||5.3|-3.1|0.6020
84638938|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning.||4.4|-7.2|0.6340
84638939|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.8||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional.||3.0|-8.7|0.3384
84638940|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.8|-6.4|0.2704
84638941|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning (norm-based).||1.3|-2.1|0.6431
84540304|NCT03656744|168831364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.196
84540305|NCT03656744|168831364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84638942|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical (norm-based).||1.5|-2.6|0.5988
84638943|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index (norm-based).||2.6|-2.5|0.9642
84540306|NCT03656744|168831365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.294
84540307|NCT03656744|168831366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
84540308|NCT03656744|168831366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.090
84540309|NCT03656744|168831367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
84638944|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.5||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions (norm-based).||3.5|-0.6|0.1542
84540310|NCT03656744|168831367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.534
84638945|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality (norm-based).||2.6|-1.5|0.6020
84638946|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning (norm-based).||1.9|-3.1|0.6340
84638947|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional (norm-based).||1.4|-4.1|0.3384
84540311|NCT03656744|168831368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
84540312|NCT03656744|168831368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
84540313|NCT03656744|168831369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
84540314|NCT03656744|168831369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.120
84638948|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.0|-3.6|0.2704
84540315|NCT03656744|168831370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
84540316|NCT03656744|168831370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
84638949|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.7||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Physical Component Summary Score.||2.3|-1.0|0.4332
84638950|NCT01743001|169016309|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.1||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Mental Component Summary Score.||1.2|-3.4|0.3416
84638951|NCT03052426|169016312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9327||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.1394, DF 2 for aches||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for aches/pains at the three month time frame||||0.9327
84638952|NCT03052426|169016312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7523||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.5693, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the three month time frame||||0.7523
84638953|NCT03052426|169016312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9196||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.1676, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the three month time frame.||||0.9196
84638954|NCT03052426|169016313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6316||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.9190, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSquare Analysis were completed||||0.6316
84638955|NCT03052426|169016313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 2.6983, DF||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the six month time frame.||||0.2595
84638956|NCT03052426|169016313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4495||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 1.5991, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the six month time frame||||0.4495
84638957|NCT03052426|169016314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Aches (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.26, 15.18) = 34.70, p \< 0.0001)|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||<0.0001
84638958|NCT03052426|169016314|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006||||||Uncomfortable (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.43, 17.15) = 14.39, p = 0.0006), from time 1 to times 2 and 3|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||=0.0006
84504895|NCT00294723|168760802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.49||||0.606||95.0|-11.95|6.98||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||6.98|-11.95|0.6060
84540317|NCT03656744|168831371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.488
84540318|NCT03656744|168831371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84638959|NCT03052426|169016314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Interference (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.55, 18.66) = 34.09, p \< 0.0001), from time 1 to times 2 and 3.|MANOVA|||We used repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons to examine the decrease of the variables over time. Significant differences for within subjects by time were found||||<0.0001
84638960|NCT03679754|169016337|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Subjects in the Expansion trial did not have biopsies analyzed for cellular responses.|||
84638961|NCT00776919|169016356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638962|NCT00776919|169016356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.016
84638963|NCT00776919|169016356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84638964|NCT00776919|169016357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638965|NCT00776919|169016357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84638966|NCT00776919|169016357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638967|NCT00776919|169016358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638968|NCT00776919|169016358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.102
84540319|NCT03656744|168831372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.674
84540320|NCT03656744|168831372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84540321|NCT03656744|168831373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.588
84540322|NCT03656744|168831373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
84638969|NCT00776919|169016358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638970|NCT00776919|169016359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84504896|NCT00294723|168760802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.81||||0.0392||95.0|-19.14|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.14|0.0392
84638971|NCT00776919|169016359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.032
84638972|NCT00776919|169016359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638973|NCT03116152|169016370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.972|||Log Rank|||||0.972|0.504|0.032
84638974|NCT03116152|169016371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.722|0.979
84638975|NCT03116152|169016372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.4||||||||15.4|-2.2|
84638976|NCT03116152|169016373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.345
84638977|NCT02692391|169016397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84638978|NCT02692391|169016398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84638979|NCT02692391|169016399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
84638980|NCT02692391|169016400|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84675545|NCT01416194|169086536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
84638981|NCT00800254|169016401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84638982|NCT00800254|169016403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.003
84638983|NCT02660983|169016409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) means|-0.58||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.79|0.3455
84638984|NCT02660983|169016410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.12||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09|||ANCOVA||LS mean of Donepezil group - LS mean of Placebo (when the difference of LS mean scores were less than 0, considered as demonstrated hypothesis), analyzed with ANCOVA model with baseline (CIBIS) as covariate and treatment as main effect.|||0.09|-0.32|0.2570
84638985|NCT02660983|169016411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.03|0.0396
84540323|NCT03656744|168831374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.236
84638986|NCT02660983|169016412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-7.73||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|4.68|||ANCOVA|||Part A||4.68|-20.13|0.2213
84638987|NCT02660983|169016412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-14.88||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Part B||0.33|-30.10|0.0551
84638988|NCT01253577|169016423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0280
84638989|NCT01253577|169016424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84638990|NCT01253577|169016425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0023
84638991|NCT05601544|169016429|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.25||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.25|0.19|<.0001
84638992|NCT05601544|169016429|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.18|0.14|<.0001
84638993|NCT05601544|169016432|SUPERIORITY||Median Ratio|0.83||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.64|1.09||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083.|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Median Ratio was calculated as test over control|It was calculated that 16 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 92% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||1.09|0.64|0.0465
84540324|NCT03656744|168831374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.944
84638994|NCT05601544|169016433|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.112|0.17||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 29 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 91% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||0.170|0.112|<.0001
84638995|NCT04303195|169016434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-1.67|0.1350
84638996|NCT04303195|169016434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.79|0.0997
84638997|NCT04303195|169016434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-1.58|0.2195
84638998|NCT04303195|169016435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.11|0.7944
84638999|NCT04303195|169016435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.36|0.4956
84639000|NCT04303195|169016435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.26||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.76|0.6260
84639001|NCT04303195|169016436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.00|-1.15|0.8866
84639002|NCT04303195|169016436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-1.19|0.8699
84639003|NCT04303195|169016436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.91|0.7297
84639004|NCT04303195|169016437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.76|0.9034
84504897|NCT00294723|168760803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.98||||0.0227||95.0|-20.42|-1.54||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-1.54|-20.42|0.0227
84540325|NCT03656744|168831375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
84639005|NCT04303195|169016437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.68|0.9742
84639006|NCT04303195|169016437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.31|0.2235
84639007|NCT04303195|169016438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.34|0.3567
84639008|NCT04303195|169016438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|0.1129
84639009|NCT04303195|169016438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.4590
84639010|NCT04303195|169016439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.27|0.5250
84639011|NCT04303195|169016439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.41|0.3991
84639012|NCT04303195|169016439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.05|0.9006
84639013|NCT04303195|169016440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.64||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-1.11|0.6009
84639014|NCT04303195|169016440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.23|0.4654
84639015|NCT04303195|169016440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.97|-0.83|0.8842
84639016|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.71||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.057||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||0.057|-5.99|0.1044
84540326|NCT03656744|168831375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
84540327|NCT03656744|168831376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
84639017|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMEANS Difference|-1.38||||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.94||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||2.94|-5.71|0.5292
84639018|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.51||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.5||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-8.52|0.0278
84639019|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.8||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.84||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||5.84|-2.25|0.3821
84639020|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|3.13||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|8.02||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||8.02|-1.76|0.2084
84639021|NCT01065454|169016536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.33||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.0||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||3.00|-5.66|0.5442
84639022|NCT01065454|169016537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.56||||||||4.56|-0.83|
84639023|NCT01065454|169016537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.51||||||||3.51|-3.12|
84639024|NCT01065454|169016537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.77||||||||3.77|-3.31|
84639025|NCT01065454|169016538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-46.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-3.8||||||||-3.8|-89.4|
84639026|NCT01065454|169016538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-32.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|20.4||||||||20.4|-84.9|
84639027|NCT01065454|169016538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-26.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|30.0||||||||30.0|-83.0|
84639028|NCT01065454|169016539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.9|5.5||||||||5.5|-172.9|
84639029|NCT01065454|169016539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-58.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.1|45.6||||||||45.6|-162.1|
84639030|NCT01065454|169016539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-43.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|67.1||||||||67.1|-153.7|
84540328|NCT03656744|168831376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.855
84540329|NCT03656744|168831377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.107
84639031|NCT01065454|169016540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-239.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.4|-115.3||||||||-115.3|-363.4|
84639032|NCT01065454|169016540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-120.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.4|32.6||||||||32.6|-274.4|
84639033|NCT01065454|169016540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-25.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.3|138.2||||||||138.2|-189.3|
84639034|NCT01065454|169016541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-446.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-687.4|-205.6||||||||-205.6|-687.4|
84639035|NCT01065454|169016541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-231.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.4|67.2||||||||67.2|-530.4|
84639036|NCT01065454|169016541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-34.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|283.7||||||||283.7|-353.7|
84639037|NCT01065454|169016542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-3.1|
84639038|NCT01065454|169016542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-3.1|
84639039|NCT01065454|169016542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.5||||||||1.5|-3.2|
84639040|NCT01065454|169016543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSS-MEANS Difference|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.0|
84639041|NCT01065454|169016543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.1|
84639042|NCT01065454|169016543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-4.9|
84639043|NCT01065454|169016544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14||||||||1.14|-0.58|
84639044|NCT01065454|169016544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||||||||1.87|-0.23|
84639045|NCT01065454|169016544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.11|
84639046|NCT01065454|169016545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|1.09||||||||1.09|-8.76|
84639047|NCT01065454|169016545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANs Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|6.01||||||||6.01|-6.05|
84639048|NCT01065454|169016545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|4.06||||||||4.06|-8.93|
84639049|NCT01065454|169016546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.21|
84639050|NCT01065454|169016546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.69||||||||1.69|-0.07|
84639051|NCT01065454|169016546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.15||||||||1.15|-0.74|
84639052|NCT01065454|169016547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|7.22||||||||7.22|-17.33|
84639053|NCT01065454|169016547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|15.11||||||||15.11|-14.55|
84639054|NCT01065454|169016547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|10.69||||||||10.69|-21.05|
84639055|NCT01065454|169016548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|12.6||||||||12.60|-21.13|
84639056|NCT01065454|169016548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|23.16||||||||23.16|-17.59|
84639057|NCT01065454|169016548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|17.2||||||||17.20|-26.43|
84639058|NCT01065454|169016549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|17.95||||||||17.95|-7.38|
84639059|NCT01065454|169016549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|22.73||||||||22.73|-9.79|
84639060|NCT01065454|169016549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|26.84||||||||26.84|-6.14|
84639061|NCT01065454|169016550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.55|
84639062|NCT01065454|169016550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|-0.34|
84639063|NCT01065454|169016550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.45|
84639064|NCT01065454|169016551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|38.81||||||||38.81|-18.48|
84639065|NCT01065454|169016551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.76|42.59||||||||42.59|-26.76|
84639066|NCT01065454|169016551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|31.78||||||||31.78|-44.08|
84639067|NCT01065454|169016553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|14.61||||||||14.61|-13.36|
84639068|NCT01065454|169016553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|5.39||||||||5.39|-24.32|
84639069|NCT01065454|169016553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|10.13||||||||10.13|-22.26|
84639070|NCT01065454|169016555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.04|
84639071|NCT01065454|169016555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.07|
84639072|NCT01065454|169016555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.07|
84639073|NCT01065454|169016556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-0.78||||||||-0.78|-12.81|
84639074|NCT01065454|169016556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|0.35||||||||0.35|-13.96|
84639075|NCT01065454|169016556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|0.28||||||||0.28|-15.29|
84639076|NCT01065454|169016557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-24.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.58|68.33||||||||68.33|-117.58|
84639077|NCT01065454|169016557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-53.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.46|55.88||||||||55.88|-162.46|
84639078|NCT01065454|169016557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|119.06||||||||119.06|-135.78|
84639079|NCT01065454|169016558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-407.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1055.23|240.54||||||||240.54|-1055.23|
84639080|NCT01065454|169016558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-447.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1212.74|318.22||||||||318.22|-1212.74|
84639081|NCT01065454|169016558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-517.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1369.48|334.53||||||||334.53|-1369.48|
84639082|NCT01065454|169016559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.01|
84639083|NCT01065454|169016559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.02|
84639084|NCT01065454|169016559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
84639085|NCT01065454|169016560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.04|
84639086|NCT01065454|169016560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.04|
84639087|NCT01065454|169016560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.07|
84639088|NCT01065454|169016561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANSA Difference|-14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.79|2.53||||||||2.53|-30.79|
84639089|NCT01065454|169016561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.89|7.43||||||||7.43|-32.89|
84639090|NCT01065454|169016561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|5.0||||||||5.00|-41.53|
84639091|NCT05688670|169016565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-0.59|0.001
84639092|NCT05688670|169016566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-24 hour postoperative opioid use||0.08|-0.20|0.41
84639093|NCT05688670|169016566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||24-48 hour postoperative opioid use||0.06|-0.37|0.14
84639094|NCT05688670|169016566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-48 hours hours after surgery||0.09|-0.52|0.16
84639095|NCT05688670|169016567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.02|0.004
84639096|NCT05688670|169016568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|-20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.1|-78.9|0.002
84639097|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.06||||0.69||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.69
84639098|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.3||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.30
84639099|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
84639100|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.001||95.0||||Values from Groups I, II and III were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.001
84639101|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.61||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.61
84504898|NCT00294723|168760803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.83||||0.7047||95.0|-11.33|7.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||7.66|-11.33|0.7047
84504899|NCT00294723|168760803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.15||||0.0553||95.0|-18.51|0.21||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||0.21|-18.51|0.0553
84504900|NCT00294723|168760804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.34||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.34|-0.77|<0.0001
84540330|NCT03656744|168831377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.489
84639102|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.02||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.02
84639103|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.002||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.002
84639104|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.08
84540331|NCT03656744|168831378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.515
84540332|NCT03656744|168831378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.887
84540333|NCT03656744|168831379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84540334|NCT03656744|168831379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84639105|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.004||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639106|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639107|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84675546|NCT01416194|169086536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.1|0.4|0.90
84675547|NCT01416194|169086537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.5|1.4|<0.01
84675548|NCT01416194|169086537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.7|0.74
84675549|NCT01416194|169086538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.6|0.3|<0.01
84540335|NCT03656744|168831380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.124
84639108|NCT00488683|169016571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639109|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.70
84675550|NCT01416194|169086538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.4|0.01
84675551|NCT01416194|169086539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.1|<0.01
84675552|NCT01416194|169086539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.2|0.06
84675553|NCT01416194|169086540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
84675554|NCT01416194|169086540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.4|0.5|0.38
84675555|NCT01416194|169086542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.9|0.24
84675556|NCT01416194|169086542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.6|0.8|0.59
84675557|NCT01416194|169086543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.0|0.6|0.03
84540336|NCT03656744|168831380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.171
84540337|NCT03295630|168831419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||||
84639110|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.37||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.37
84639111|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
84675558|NCT01416194|169086543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.6|0.19
84639112|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.0001
84639113|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.01||||0.94||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.94
84639114|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.70
84639115|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.3||||0.04||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
84639116|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46||||0.004||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.004
84639117|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.005||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639118|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639119|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.43||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84540338|NCT03295630|168831419|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.78||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||0.78|-0.1|
84639120|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.82||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639121|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.68||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 2 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.68
84639122|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.46||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.46
84639123|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
84639124|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45|||<|0.001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.001
84639125|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.75||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.75
84639126|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.27||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.27
84639127|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.07||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
84639128|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.23||||0.06||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.06
84639129|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0029||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639130|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0059||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84540339|NCT03295630|168831419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed step count||||
84540340|NCT03295630|168831419|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed steps||1.0|0.99|
84639131|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639132|NCT00488683|169016572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639133|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
84639134|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
84639135|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.006||||0.98||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.98
84639136|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
84639137|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
84639138|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.68
84639139|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.006
84639140|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.16||||0.48||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.48
84639141|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
84639142|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
84639143|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.60
84639144|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
84639145|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
84639146|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.0||||1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
84639147|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.24
84639148|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
84639149|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639150|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639151|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639152|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639153|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639154|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639155|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639156|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639157|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.0002||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.0002
84540341|NCT03736031|168831470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.09
84639158|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.90
84639159|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.02
84639160|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
84639161|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.22||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.22
84639162|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
84639163|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.82||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.82
84639164|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.66||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.66
84639165|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.03
84639166|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.53||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.53
84639167|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.35||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.35
84639168|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
84639169|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
84639170|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
84639171|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.56||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.56
84639172|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.84
84639173|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639174|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.001||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84675559|NCT01416194|169086544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.2|<0.01
84675560|NCT01416194|169086544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.3|0.24
84675561|NCT01222494|169086547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.01
84675562|NCT01222494|169086548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.04
84639175|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639176|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639177|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639178|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639179|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84675563|NCT01222494|169086549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.70
84675564|NCT01222494|169086550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.003
84675565|NCT01174030|169086551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.392|||<|0.001||95.0|2.637|26.71|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||26.710|2.637|<0.001
84675566|NCT01174030|169086551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.549||95.0|0.586|2.747|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||2.747|0.586|0.549
84675567|NCT01174030|169086551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.738||||0.027||95.0|1.097|12.742|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||12.742|1.097|0.027
84675568|NCT01174030|169086552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.683||||0.003||95.0|1.388|5.188|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model||||5.188|1.388|.003
84675569|NCT01174030|169086552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.892||||0.056||95.0|0.98|3.651|||GEE: Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.651|0.980|0.056
84540342|NCT03736031|168831471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.81
84675570|NCT01174030|169086552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.885||||0.074||95.0|0.946|3.756|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.756|0.946|0.074
84675571|NCT01174030|169086553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.582|||<|0.001||95.0|2.755|15.723|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalize Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||15.723|2.755|<0.001
84675572|NCT01174030|169086553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.853||||0.093||95.0|0.903|3.802|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.802|0.903|0.093
84540343|NCT03736031|168831472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84639180|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639181|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.08
84639182|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.74
84639183|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.94
84639184|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.09||||0.51||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
84639185|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
84639186|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.09
84639187|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.81||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.81
84639188|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.07||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.07
84639189|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.02
84639190|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.59||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
84639191|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
84639192|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.9||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.9
84639193|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.02
84639194|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.20
84639195|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
84639196|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.33||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
84540344|NCT03736031|168831473|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84639197|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639198|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0027||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639199|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0002||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639200|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0077||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639201|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639202|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639203|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0023||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639204|NCT00488683|169016573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639205|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
84639206|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
84639207|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
84639208|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.26
84675573|NCT01174030|169086553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.365||||0.054||95.0|0.96|5.825|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||5.825|0.960|0.054
84639209|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
84639210|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.17||||0.42||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.42
84639211|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.02
84639212|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.65||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.65
84675574|NCT04086472|169086556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|7.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||7.64|-10.25|0.808
84639213|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.58||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.58
84639214|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.19||||-0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||-0.51
84639215|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
84639216|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.06||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.06
84639217|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
84639218|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.32||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
84639219|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.49||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.18
84639220|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
84639221|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639222|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639223|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639224|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639225|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639226|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639227|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.6||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639228|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639229|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.83||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.001
84639230|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.57||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.57
84639231|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.65||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.001
84639232|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.11||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.11
84639233|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.02||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.94
84675575|NCT04086472|169086556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.51||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|2.43|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||2.43|-15.46|0.229
84639234|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0003||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
84639235|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.004||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||1.00
84639236|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.3||||0.37||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.37
84639237|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.52||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.09
84639238|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
84639239|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
84639240|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
84639241|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
84639242|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.30
84639243|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.74||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.74
84639244|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.378||||0.25||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.25
84639245|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.69||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639246|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639247|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.42||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639248|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84675576|NCT04086472|169086556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.81||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.58|3.96|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.96|-13.58|0.363
84639249|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0004||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639250|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639251|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84675577|NCT04086472|169086556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.92||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.02|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.02|-14.87|0.273
84639252|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639253|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.86||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.86
84639254|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.7
84639255|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.58||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.58
84639256|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.44||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.44
84639257|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.75||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.75
84639258|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.84||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.84
84639259|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.67||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.67
84639260|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.002||||0.99||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.99
84639261|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.62
84639262|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.17||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.36
84639263|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.003||||0.99||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.99
84639264|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.2||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
84639265|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.62
84639266|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.69||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
84639267|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.60
84540345|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|4.393|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.393|0.223|
84639268|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.95
84639269|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639270|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639271|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639272|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639273|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639274|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639275|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639276|NCT00488683|169016574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639277|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
84639278|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.44||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
84639279|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.69||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
84639280|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.38||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.20
84639281|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.88||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.88
84639282|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
84639283|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.37||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.37
84639284|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.36
84639285|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639286|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.2||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639287|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639288|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.15||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639289|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639290|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84675578|NCT04086472|169086557|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|37.78|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||37.78|-36.57|
84639291|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639292|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639293|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639294|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.79||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.79
84639295|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.16||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.16
84639296|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
84639297|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.98||||0.003||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.003
84639298|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.91||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.91
84639299|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.57||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.01
84639300|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.19||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.19
84639301|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.89||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
84639302|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639303|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639304|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84675579|NCT04086472|169086557|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||15.53|-56.70|
84639305|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.96||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639306|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
84639307|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.90
84639308|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.008||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.008
84639309|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.42||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.08
84639310|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.52||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.52
84639311|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.18
84639312|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.37||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
84675580|NCT04086472|169086557|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.09|20.01|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||20.01|-53.09|
84639313|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.55||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.55
84639314|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
84639315|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639316|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
84639317|NCT00488683|169016575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
84639318|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.0006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0006
84639319|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.0021||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0021
84639320|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||
84639321|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells 1 month after booster vaccination||||0.53
84639322|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Groups 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
84639323|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.84
84639324|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
84639325|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
84675581|NCT04086472|169086557|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|Treatment vs. Placebo||15.53|-56.70|
84639326|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
84639327|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
84639328|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
84639329|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
84639330|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.06||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.06
84639331|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||<0.001
84639332|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.01
84639333|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.10
84639334|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
84639335|NCT00488683|169016576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.25||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
84639336|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.04||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.70
84639337|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.63||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.63
84639338|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.74
84639339|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.74
84639340|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.05
84639341|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.36
84639342|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.18
84639343|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.82||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.82
84639344|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0013||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||
84639345|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0014||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||
84639346|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0008||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||
84639347|NCT00488683|169016582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0009||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||
84639348|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.34||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639349|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639350|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.09||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells at 5 months of age and hSBA titers at 12 months of age after a 2, 4-month course of MenACWY-CRM vaccination for the serogroup C||||
84639351|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639352|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639353|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639354|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.74||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639355|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.53||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639356|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639357|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639358|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639359|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639360|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639361|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.78||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639362|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.94||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639363|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.85||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639364|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639365|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639366|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639367|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639368|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639369|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639370|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639371|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.28||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639372|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639373|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
84639374|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639375|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
84639376|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639377|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639378|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.39||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639379|NCT00488683|169016583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
84639380|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.24||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639381|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639382|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.52||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639383|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639384|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639385|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.29||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639386|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639387|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639388|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.7||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639389|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639390|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.5||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639391|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639392|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639393|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639394|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639395|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639396|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639397|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639398|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639399|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639400|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639401|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639402|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639403|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639404|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639405|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
84639406|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639407|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
84639408|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||0.0436||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||0.0436
84639409|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
84639410|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639411|NCT00488683|169016584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
84639412|NCT03818035|169016592|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided two-group normal approximation Wald Z-test with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for 'disease duration' to test for non-inferiority of 100 mg q16w to 100 mg q8w with non-inferiority margin of 10%. Stratified analysis results are reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|4.5|||Wald Z-test|||||4.5|-5.7|0.0013
84639413|NCT00982423|169016612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline dose of furosemide (3 weeks) versus reduced dose of furosemide (approximately 6 weeks).||||<0.05
84639414|NCT00982423|169016612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between GFR taken at baseline dose Furosemide (3 weeks) versus normal GFR||||<0.05
84639415|NCT00982423|169016617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between reduced dose Furosemide and baseline dose Furosemide||||0.075
84639416|NCT01248104|169016636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Continuous variables were compared by multivariate linear regression analysis to adjust for possible covariates of intraoperative fluids, age, bypass time, and procedure time. Tukey-Kramer test was then used to compare for specific differences between groups for each variable. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. All comparisons were made at a significance level of 0.05, and analysis was performed with Minitab version 17).||||||0.35||||||The primary outcome measure showed that there was no difference in PRBC transfusion frequency or amounts in the operating room or the in ICU up to POD 2|ANOVA|||A power analysis based on the comparison of a 15% difference in total transfusion amounts up to POD 2 between the treatment groups indicated a total sample size of 80 with a power of 0.8, confidence interval 0.9, and p= 0.05.||||0.35
84639417|NCT00635219|169016662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.51||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.51|-3.92|0.1321
84639418|NCT00635219|169016662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.72||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.72|-3.73|0.1847
84639419|NCT00635219|169016662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.82||This dose was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-3.59|0.2187
84639420|NCT00635219|169016662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.2||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-4.27|0.0741
84639421|NCT00635219|169016663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.42||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.42|-4.01|0.1120
84639422|NCT00635219|169016663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.59|-3.85|0.1487
84639423|NCT00635219|169016663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.10|-3.31|0.3246
84639424|NCT00635219|169016663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||-0.24|-4.70|0.0298
84675582|NCT00048724|169086576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.452||||0.1439||95.0|0.88|2.396|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The primary scientific hypothesis is that, 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of clinical events in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.396|0.880|0.1439
84639425|NCT00635219|169016664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.23|0.90|0.1370
84639426|NCT00635219|169016664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.43|0.97|0.0664
84639427|NCT00635219|169016664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.12|0.85|0.2023
84639428|NCT00635219|169016664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.40|0.96|0.0765
84639429|NCT00635219|169016665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1436
84639430|NCT00635219|169016665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.10|-0.44|0.2114
84639431|NCT00635219|169016665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1389
84639432|NCT00635219|169016665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.06|-0.48|0.1271
84639433|NCT00635219|169016666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.79||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.79|-4.08|0.4421
84639434|NCT00635219|169016666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.77|-4.07|0.4399
84639435|NCT00635219|169016666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|3.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||3.40|-2.65|0.8093
84639436|NCT00635219|169016666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.41||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.41|-5.61|0.0897
84639437|NCT00635219|169016667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.52|-2.35|0.6748
84639438|NCT00635219|169016667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.25||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.25|-3.64|0.0871
84639439|NCT00635219|169016667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.96||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.96|-2.94|0.3186
84639440|NCT00635219|169016667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.19||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.19|-3.79|0.0768
84639441|NCT00635219|169016668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.81||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.81|0.70|0.6258
84639442|NCT00635219|169016668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.76|0.68|0.7178
84639443|NCT00635219|169016668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.55|0.59|0.8651
84639444|NCT00635219|169016668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.69|0.65|0.8563
84639445|NCT00635219|169016669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.57||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.57|-2.82|0.1925
84639446|NCT00635219|169016669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.69|-2.72|0.2434
84639447|NCT00635219|169016669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.39||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.39|-2.00|0.7246
84639448|NCT00635219|169016669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.27|-3.16|0.0981
84639449|NCT00635219|169016670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2285
84639450|NCT00635219|169016670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1794
84639451|NCT00635219|169016670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1741
84639452|NCT00635219|169016670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2247
84639453|NCT00635219|169016671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.45||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.45|-1.93|0.7789
84675583|NCT00048724|169086577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.007||95.0|1.13|2.166|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The secondary hypothesis is that 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of disease progression in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.166|1.130|0.0070
84639454|NCT00635219|169016671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.5||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.50|-1.91|0.8121
84639455|NCT00635219|169016671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.59|-1.82|0.8918
84639456|NCT00635219|169016671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.75||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.75|-1.69|0.9720
84639457|NCT00796445|169016678|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.169|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.169|0.879|0.8566
84639458|NCT00796445|169016678|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.491|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.491|0.828|0.4821
84639459|NCT00796445|169016678|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.212|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.212|0.691|0.5375
84639460|NCT00796445|169016679|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.023||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.175|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.175|0.890|0.7534
84675584|NCT02595684|169086580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
84639461|NCT00796445|169016679|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.457|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.457|0.821|0.5385
84639462|NCT00796445|169016679|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.207|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.207|0.698|0.5419
84675585|NCT02595684|169086580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.635
84639463|NCT02737891|169016691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.29||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-1.29|-6.36|0.004
84639464|NCT02737891|169016692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||0.33|-0.23|0.724
84639465|NCT02737891|169016693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-2.3||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-2.30|-4.65|<0.0001
84639466|NCT05194579|169016698|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays Cmax statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|117.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.07|132.93|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||132.93|103.07|
84675586|NCT02595684|169086581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
84675587|NCT02595684|169086581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
84639467|NCT05194579|169016699|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUClast statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|122.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|138.22|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||138.22|107.90|
84639468|NCT05194579|169016700|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUCinf statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|140.82|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||140.82|108.75|
84639469|NCT03232333|169016762|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.71
84639470|NCT03232333|169016763|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.63
84639471|NCT03232333|169016764|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=.01
84639472|NCT01087736|169016781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.89||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98||We tested our Primary hypothesis with a random-intercept repeated subject negative binomial model, modeling week (baseline - week 12) as a continuous variable. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.|negative binomial regression|||Our primary protocol-defined analysis was to examine the within-group efficacy of topiramate to reduce percent drinking days (%DD).||0.98|0.89|0.019
84639473|NCT01087736|169016781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There were no pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We were only tested change within the topiramate condition.||||0.00
84645038|NCT01653132|169025433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.194|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||||negative values correspond to a reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A.|Based on the primary outcome measure of mean reduction in saliva weight at 1 month post Inco-A /placebo as compared to baseline, using paired t-test with a two-sided nominal significance (alpha) of 0.05, assuming a correlation of 0.5 between observations, a sample size of 10 pairs has a power of 0.803 to detect a 50% difference in salivary weight.||0.32|-0.71|
84645039|NCT01653132|169025434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|6.2|||||negative numbers represent reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A|||6.2|-50.8|
84645040|NCT01653132|169025435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.69|||||negative values represent reduction in scores (improvement in drooling) with Inco-A|||0.69|-1.16|
84645041|NCT01653132|169025436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.071||||||||0.071|-0.633|
84645042|NCT01653132|169025437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.46|
84645043|NCT03312751|169025438|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate|62.9||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|78.5|||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||78.5|44.9|0.0053
84645044|NCT03312751|169025438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.2839
84639474|NCT01087736|169016781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.38||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||"A secondary analysis was powered to detect a Signal or statistical trend (p\<0.10) for a difference between the topiramate and placebo condition. We compared percent drinking days per week between groups averaged over the active phase of the trial (weeks 1-12). The negative binomial model included fixed effect for week, treatment group, and the interaction between treatment group and week. We covaried for baseline %DD averages to control for prestudy and study enrollment effects."||0.94|0.15|0.036
84639475|NCT01087736|169016782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We planned to explore the efficacy of topiramate in reducing PTSD symptom severity. We used random-intercept linear mixed models to explore the efficacy for topiramate related reduction in PTSD symptomatology. We looked for an effect of week within TOP. Baseline scores for PTSD symptoms were used as covariates in group comparisons. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.||||<0.026
84639476|NCT01087736|169016782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There was not a pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We only examined within group change in the topiramate condition.||||0.00
84639477|NCT00759564|169016783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|124.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.57|145.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.94|106.57|
84639478|NCT00759564|169016783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|163.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.72|191.34||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||191.34|139.72|
84639479|NCT00759564|169016783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.16|70.83||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||70.83|48.16|
84639480|NCT00759564|169016785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|167.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.27|204.61||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||204.61|137.27|
84639481|NCT00759564|169016785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|246.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.11|301.27||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||301.27|202.11|
84645045|NCT03312751|169025438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.0031
84645046|NCT01203852|169025487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test of mean change in blood pressure before and after treatment with metoprolol and chlorthalidone were \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84645047|NCT01203852|169025488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with chlorthalidone was \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with chlorthalidone||||<0.0001
84645048|NCT01203852|169025488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with metoprolol was 0.049.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with metoprolol||||0.049
84645049|NCT02582684|169025492|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.95|0.83|
84645050|NCT02582684|169025493|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|Proportion|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.94|0.82|
84639482|NCT00759564|169016785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|130.32||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||130.32|88.06|
84639483|NCT00759564|169016786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|168.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.4|205.75||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||205.75|137.40|
84639484|NCT00759564|169016786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|248.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.98|303.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||303.94|202.98|
84639485|NCT00759564|169016786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|110.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.84|134.98||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||134.98|89.84|
84639486|NCT00759564|169016788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|134.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.88|165.52||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||165.52|109.88|
84639487|NCT00759564|169016788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|226.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|184.36|277.72||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||277.72|184.36|
84639488|NCT00759564|169016788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|285.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|221.8|366.33||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||366.33|221.80|
84639489|NCT00759564|169016790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.81|275.87||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||275.87|158.81|
84639490|NCT00759564|169016790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.83|465.25||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||465.25|267.83|
84639491|NCT00759564|169016790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|742.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|529.59|1041.5||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1041.50|529.59|
84639492|NCT00759564|169016791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.72|276.66||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||276.66|158.72|
84645051|NCT02582684|169025494|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.91|0.77|
84645052|NCT01431300|169025529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
84675588|NCT02595684|169086582|SUPERIORITY|||||||515|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0515
84639493|NCT00759564|169016791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.57|466.39||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||466.39|267.57|
84639494|NCT00759564|169016791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|735.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|523.56|1034.0||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1034.00|523.56|
84639495|NCT03495856|169016813|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05. That calculated p-value in the statistical hypothesis test was equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.55|0.05
84639496|NCT03495856|169016814|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.71|-6.63|0.017
84639497|NCT03495856|169016815|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.50|-1.39|0.938
84639498|NCT03495856|169016816|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.15|-5.53|0.005
84639499|NCT03495856|169016817|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|-5.09|0.124
84639500|NCT03495856|169016818|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.07|-7.30|0.001
84675589|NCT02595684|169086582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
84540346|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|3.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4E Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.628|0.316|
84639501|NCT03495856|169016819|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.31|0.018
84639502|NCT03495856|169016820|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|0.58|0.016
84639503|NCT03495856|169016821|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.03|-7.88|0.002
84639504|NCT03495856|169016822|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|18.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.07|8.47|<0.001
84639505|NCT03495856|169016823|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.08|3.92|0.001
84639506|NCT00435045|169016824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the non-HDL-C response was assessed by calculating the 2-sided 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)for each difference in response based on comparing the effects of increases in atorvastatin dose on the percent changes from baseline to the end of each atorvastatin period, a repeated-ANOVA model was used.||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84639507|NCT00567255|169016849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.19|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||||-3.93|-5.19|<0.001
84639508|NCT00567255|169016850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-4.38|||ANCOVA|||||-4.38|-5.95|<0.001
84639509|NCT00567255|169016851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.61|||<|0.001||95.0|4.95|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.84|4.95|<0.001
84639510|NCT00567255|169016852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|4.05|<0.001
84639511|NCT00567255|169016853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|3.60|<0.001
84639512|NCT00567255|169016854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-2.53|||ANCOVA|||||-2.53|-4.33|<0.001
84675590|NCT02595684|169086583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84675591|NCT02595684|169086583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84675592|NCT02595684|169086584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
84540347|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|6.053|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker HDAC2 Nucleus with PFS.||6.053|0.454|
84639513|NCT00567255|169016855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||ANCOVA|||||3.57|1.61|<0.001
84639514|NCT00567255|169016856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84639515|NCT00567255|169016857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.09|2.46|<0.001
84639516|NCT00567255|169016858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.24||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
84639517|NCT00567255|169016859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84639518|NCT00567255|169016860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-1.60|
84675593|NCT02595684|169086584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
84639519|NCT00567255|169016861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84645053|NCT01431300|169025529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
84645054|NCT02720094|169025537|SUPERIORITY||A bias-adjusted hazard ratio|0.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.62|||Regression, Cox||The bias-adjusted hazard ratio, CI, and p-value account for the group-sequential trial design and the early stopping time.|||0.62|0.18|0.0005
84639520|NCT00567255|169016862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-4.54||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-4.54|-9.92|
84639521|NCT00567255|169016863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-1.44||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.44|-7.29|
84639522|NCT00567255|169016864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.30|-0.70|
84639523|NCT00567255|169016865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.58||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.58|0.16|
84639524|NCT00567255|169016866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.49|
84639525|NCT00567255|169016867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.52|-0.56|
84639526|NCT00567255|169016868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.02||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.02|-0.98|
84639527|NCT04145219|169016904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average daily TCRS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
84639528|NCT04145219|169016905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.6|0.2|<0.0001
84639529|NCT04145219|169016906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rhinitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.8|0.2|0.0016
84639530|NCT04145219|169016907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs.12 SQ-HDM|||1.7|0.6|<0.0001
84639531|NCT04145219|169016908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.7|0.3|<0.0001
84639532|NCT04145219|169016909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|0.2|0.0018
84639533|NCT04145219|169016910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The overall PRQLQ score was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the overall PRQLQ score as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline overall PRQLQ score as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.1|<0.0001
84639534|NCT04145219|169016911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average asthma DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.0|0.0259
84639535|NCT04145219|169016912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a SABA free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included SABA free day (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average asthma DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day where a subject with asthma did not use SABA, odds ratio is (odds active/odds Placebo).||3.3|1.0|0.0527
84639536|NCT04145219|169016913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|-0.1|0.1256
84645055|NCT02720094|169025537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.328||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.61|||Regression, Cox||The unadjusted hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region.|||0.61|0.18|0.0005
84645056|NCT02720094|169025539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||The P-Values are two-sided.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis population Injection Step 2 Efficacy consists of the subset of the mITT population who received at least one injection and had at least one HIV test result after the week 5 injection visit.||0.45|0.10|<0.001
84639537|NCT04145219|169016914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.5|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis mild day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis TCRS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day with no or mild rhinitis symptoms, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||2.5|1.3|0.0008
84639538|NCT04145219|169016915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis exacerbation day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a rhinitis exacerbation day, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||0.7|0.4|<0.0001
84639539|NCT04145219|169016916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
84639540|NCT04145219|169016917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
84639541|NCT00835211|169016951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.5||||||90.0|87.8|108.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.3|87.8|
84639542|NCT00835211|169016952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.9|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.2|86.9|
84639543|NCT00835211|169016953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.5||||||90.0|87.7|106.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.1|87.7|
84639544|NCT02343549|169016955|SUPERIORITY||12-Month Survival Rate|0.333||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of Stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|Assuming the true 12-month survival rate is 0.30 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.20 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level. A Simon optimal 2-stage design with Stage 1 n=22 and a total of n=46 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 22, the rejection region in number of subjects alive at 12 months is 0 - 7, and for n = 46 it is 8 - 17.||0.701|0.075|0.537
84639545|NCT02343549|169016956|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||12.8|4.8|
84639546|NCT02343549|169016957|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median PFS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median progression free survival.|||10.4|4.8|
84639547|NCT02343549|169016958|OTHER|Estimation only|Response Rate|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.701|0.075|
84639548|NCT02343549|169016959|OTHER|Estimation only|Disease Control Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.0||||||||1.000|0.664|
84639549|NCT02343549|169016960|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||8.6|3.7|
84639550|NCT02343549|169016961|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of disease control.|||10.4|4.8|
84639551|NCT05498701|169016987|OTHER||Ratios of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|99.7||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis AUCinf fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||99.70|87.10|
84639552|NCT05498701|169016988|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.0||||||90.0|76.25|86.04||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis Cmax fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||86.04|76.25|
84639553|NCT01864005|169016989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. statistical significance level: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
84675594|NCT02595684|169086585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
84639554|NCT01864005|169016989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.421||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.559|58.283|||ANOVA|||||58.283|18.559|0.0003
84639555|NCT01864005|169016990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0828
84639556|NCT01864005|169016991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84639557|NCT01864005|169016992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84639558|NCT01864005|169016993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84639559|NCT00763698|169017001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||The objective performance criteria established for freedom from left ventricular lead related complications at 3 months was greater than 80%. At least 80% of the patients were required to be free from left venticular lead related complications at 3 months.|||5|
84639560|NCT00763698|169017002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.5||||Wilson score interval method||||||2.5|
84540348|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|36.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PCREB Nucleus with PFS.||36.628|0.455|
84639561|NCT02184572|169017004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 39.0°C (≥ 102.2°F) should be equal to or below 5%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.89||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C.||2.89|-0.93|
84639562|NCT02184572|169017004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 38.0°C (≥ 100.4°F) should be equal to or below 10%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.85||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 38.0°C.||4.85|-2.89|
84639563|NCT02448641|169017035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.09||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.09|0.35|0.6743
84639564|NCT02448641|169017036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.18||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with mRS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||1.18|0.15|0.1000
84639565|NCT02448641|169017039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.17||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): -0.36 (1.283)|Statistical analysis: NeuroQOL score for the Upper Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.17|-2.90|0.7788
84639566|NCT02448641|169017039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.43||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 0.58 (0.934)|Statistical Analysis: NeuroQOL score for Lower Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.43|-1.26|0.5347
84639567|NCT02448641|169017041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||MMRM: Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 1.2 (1.18)|"Change from Baseline at Month 6~Between-group Effect size is calculated as the LS mean difference divided by the model estimate of the pooled SD, obtained from the square root of the diagonal element, associated with the analysis visit summarized, from the covariance matrix."||3.6|-1.1|0.2959
84639568|NCT02448641|169017042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.92||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.92|0.31|0.6854
84639569|NCT02663934|169017056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|||||.25|.05|0.31
84639570|NCT02663934|169017057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in Global CBF in EXS vs. SIS||||.24
84639571|NCT02663934|169017057|OTHER||Slope|0.41||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Strength \& Change in Frontal Brain Volume in EXS||||.02
84639572|NCT02663934|169017057|OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Changes in Brain Volumes associated with changes Memory Performance in EXS||||0.02
84639573|NCT02663934|169017058|OTHER||Slope|0.47||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Increases in Time Spent in MVPA and Increased Learning Performance in EXS||||.005
84639574|NCT04556383|169017059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||10.2|-15.2|0.6694
84639575|NCT04556383|169017059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.8|-9.0|0.4719
84639576|NCT04556383|169017061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|8.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.3|-23.2|0.3263
84639577|NCT04556383|169017061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||25.8|-6.1|0.2002
84639578|NCT04556383|169017062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.9|-15.2|0.9472
84639579|NCT04556383|169017062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.4|-9.3|0.3685
84675595|NCT02595684|169086585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
84504901|NCT00294723|168760804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0122||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0122
84639580|NCT04556383|169017063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.2|-12.7|0.8484
84639581|NCT04556383|169017063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.3|-6.4|0.2392
84639582|NCT04556383|169017064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||12.5|-14.8|0.8493
84639583|NCT04556383|169017064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||16.5|-11.5|0.6647
84639584|NCT04556383|169017065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.0|-19.1|0.2263
84639585|NCT04556383|169017065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.2|-14.8|0.8259
84504902|NCT00294723|168760804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0123||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0123
84504903|NCT00294723|168760805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.0||||0.1396||95.0|-9.4|1.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.3|-9.4|0.1396
84639586|NCT04556383|169017066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||18.1|-12.7|0.7418
84639587|NCT04556383|169017066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||24.2|-7.8|0.2758
84639588|NCT04556383|169017067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.9|-20.6|0.3504
84639589|NCT04556383|169017067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.5|-14.2|0.8009
84639590|NCT04556383|169017068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||13.7|-14.3|0.9474
84639591|NCT04556383|169017068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.0||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||10.8|-16.6|0.6409
84639592|NCT04556383|169017069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.3|-22.4|0.1932
84639593|NCT04556383|169017069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.9|-17.6|0.7459
84639594|NCT00884741|169017070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||1.37|0.93|0.11
84639595|NCT00884741|169017071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||0.94|0.66|0.004
84639596|NCT00884741|169017072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84639597|NCT04219085|169017083|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84639598|NCT04219085|169017084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84639599|NCT04219085|169017085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84639600|NCT00538785|169017152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.586|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.586|0.344|
84639601|NCT00538785|169017153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|1.989|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.989|0.101|
84639602|NCT02937584|169017191|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.11||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.22|1.02|0.0187
84639603|NCT02937584|169017191|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.33||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.33|1.14|<0.0001
84639604|NCT02937584|169017192|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.75||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.95|0.59|0.0219
84639605|NCT02937584|169017192|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.71||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.71|0.44|<0.0001
84639606|NCT02937584|169017193|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.24|1.01|0.0283
84639607|NCT02937584|169017193|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.31|1.12|<0.0001
84639608|NCT02937584|169017194|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.76||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.97|0.59|0.0304
84540349|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.253|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.253|0.180|
84540350|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.576|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Nucleus with PFS.||1.576|0.083|
84639609|NCT02937584|169017194|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.72|0.41|0.0003
84639610|NCT02937584|169017195|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.065||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.158|-0.028|0.1582
84639611|NCT02937584|169017195|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.151||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.292|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.292|0.010|0.0375
84639612|NCT02937584|169017196|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.978||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.073|0.891|0.6176
84639613|NCT02937584|169017196|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.938||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.056|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.056|0.833|0.2699
84639614|NCT00505076|169017225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline scores, was used to compare treatment groups on cognitive and functional measures. The predefined primary cognition outcome measure was the MCCB (MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Research) Consensus Cognitive Battery) composite T-score, tested at overall two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.21
84639615|NCT00505076|169017226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.47
84639616|NCT00505076|169017227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.84
84639617|NCT02250703|169017228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Difference in proportions in satisfactory sedation on separation from parents and on induction between M and D groups (Primary Outcome variables)|Chi-squared|||A sample size of at least 33 patients in each group would detect at least 30% difference in proportion of children who achieve satisfactory sedation between the M and D groups at 0.05 level of significance and 80% power||||0.025
84639618|NCT02250703|169017229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84639619|NCT02250703|169017230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84639620|NCT02250703|169017231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84639621|NCT04093024|169017238|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||0.8|-0.8|0.9858
84639622|NCT04093024|169017239|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||1.6|-1.7|0.9769
84639623|NCT04093024|169017241|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||4.0|-1.8|0.4442
84639624|NCT04093024|169017244|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.8|-1.5|0.8820
84639625|NCT04093024|169017245|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.3|-3.2|0.9652
84675596|NCT02595684|169086586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
84639626|NCT04093024|169017246|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||4.0|-9.3|0.4084
84639627|NCT04093024|169017247|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.6|-1.6|0.9928
84639628|NCT04093024|169017248|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.6|-2.3|0.6366
84639629|NCT04093024|169017249|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||5.9|-5.2|0.8823
84639630|NCT04093024|169017250|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2491||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3966|5.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.8070|-3.3966|0.5962
84639631|NCT04093024|169017251|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1424||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7015|8.2481|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.2481|-4.7015|0.5776
84639632|NCT04093024|169017252|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.316||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.975|8.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.707|-8.975|0.9755
84639633|NCT04093024|169017253|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|3.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|14.157|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||14.157|-7.250|0.5140
84639634|NCT04093024|169017254|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.358||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.848|7.908|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||7.908|-5.848|0.7613
84639635|NCT04093024|169017255|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.049||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.026|10.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||10.707|-10.026|0.9468
84639636|NCT04093024|169017256|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|5.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.02|-0.39|0.0908
84639637|NCT04093024|169017257|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.25|-0.69|0.1222
84639638|NCT04093024|169017258|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.2||0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|65.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||65.0|-50.7|0.8012
84639639|NCT04093024|169017259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.8||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.1|37.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||37.2|-103.1|0.3401
84639640|NCT00647270|169017268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.4|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference between adalimumab 80 mg monthly and placebo divided by the difference between adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo.|Adalimumab 80 mg monthly versus placebo: The null hypothesis associated with this comparison stated that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be inferior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response percentage; the alternative hypothesis was that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be superior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response.||7.4|-13.3|0.074
84639641|NCT00647270|169017268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sensitivity analysis was proposed for the non-inferiority comparison. If the lower confidence limit of θ80 - θ40 was greater than -0.1, then the non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg eow would be claimed||||||0.74||95.0||||Non - inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly compared with 40 mg eow could not be tested because the null hypothesis of the first comparison was not rejected.|Chi-squared|||The non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow) was to be claimed if at least 50% of the treatment effect of adalimumab 40 mg eow over placebo was to be achieved by adalimumab 80 mg monthly over placebo.||||0.74
84639642|NCT00647270|169017269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
84639643|NCT00647270|169017270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
84639644|NCT00647270|169017270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
84639645|NCT00647270|169017271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for the Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
84639646|NCT00647270|169017272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
84639647|NCT01565343|169017273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9893||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
84639648|NCT01565343|169017273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9574||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient of Control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
84639649|NCT01565343|169017273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.413||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
84639650|NCT01565343|169017273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.839||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
84639651|NCT02059291|169017281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||<0.0001
84639652|NCT02059291|169017281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0020
84639653|NCT02059291|169017281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0050
84639654|NCT02059291|169017282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|69.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.21|4.15|<0.0001
84639655|NCT02059291|169017282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|65.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||65.59|2.83|0.0006
84639656|NCT02059291|169017282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.79||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|224.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.86|2.52|0.0028
84639657|NCT02059291|169017283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|151.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||151.31|5.86|<0.0001
84639658|NCT02059291|169017283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|63.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.89|2.53|0.0010
84639659|NCT02059291|169017283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|36.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.57|1.20|0.0149
84639660|NCT02059291|169017284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.46||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|332.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||332.92|0.92|0.0286
84639661|NCT02059291|169017284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.26||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|51.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.97|0.53|0.0778
84639662|NCT02059291|169017284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.69||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|268.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||268.50|1.04|0.0235
84639663|NCT02059291|169017285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.17||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|113.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.44|0.75|0.0513
84639664|NCT02059291|169017285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|366.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||366.24|0.27|0.2168
84639665|NCT02059291|169017285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|313.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||313.49|0.15|0.3571
84639666|NCT01433289|169017338|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study hypothesis tested whether Polyphenon E given twice daily for 14 days at the specified doses has an effect on antiviral activity compared with placebo, measured by differences from baseline to day 14 in plasma HIV-1 RNA level (log10 copies/mL). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no change at Day 14 versus baseline.||||>0.05
84639667|NCT01433289|169017338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Analysis was stratified by treatment group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the change of log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml between treatment groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
84639668|NCT00470834|169017368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
84639669|NCT00470834|169017368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46|||||The hazard ratio is based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.46|0.61|
84639670|NCT00470834|169017368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|39.05|||||Relative Risk Reduction = 100 \* (1 - Relative Risk).|||39.05|-46.14|
84639671|NCT00244140|169017373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR1|95.8||||||95.0|93.3|97.6||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||97.6|93.3|
84639672|NCT00244140|169017373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR2|96.3||||||95.0|93.9|98.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||98.0|93.9|
84639673|NCT00244140|169017373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR3|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||99.4|96.6|
84639674|NCT00244140|169017374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||||100.0|98.6|
84639675|NCT00244140|169017375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent|99.5||||||95.0|98.1|99.9||||||||99.9|98.1|
84639676|NCT00244140|169017376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR1|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||99.4|96.6|
84639677|NCT00244140|169017376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR2|100.0||||||95.0|99.0|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||100.0|99.0|
84639678|NCT00244140|169017376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR3|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||100.0|98.6|
84639679|NCT02673541|169017378|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84639680|NCT05408637|169017383|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between stimulation (Active vs Sham).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|||||
84639681|NCT05408637|169017383|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at percent difference between stimulation (Active vs Sham).||||
84639682|NCT05408637|169017383|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between Active and Sham using Cohen's d.||||
84639683|NCT05408637|169017384|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.8392|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|||||
84639684|NCT05408637|169017384|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we calculated percent difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).||||
84639685|NCT05408637|169017384|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5) using Cohen's d.||||
84639686|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER||rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.767||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the IGT at Baseline vs Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.||||0.15
84639687|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across Baseline, Day 1, and Day 5.||||||0.038|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.038
84639688|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across all timepoints (Baseline, Day 1, Day 5, Follow-Up).||||||0.043|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.043
84639689|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BIS across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.134||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BIS across timepoints||||||0.42
84639690|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BRIEF-A across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions.||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BRIEF-A across timepoints||||||0.232
84639691|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Impulsivity across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.575||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|i7 Impulsivity||||||0.06
84639692|NCT05408637|169017385|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Venturesomeness across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.275||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
84675597|NCT02595684|169086586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
84639693|NCT05408637|169017386|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6
84639694|NCT05408637|169017386|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Follow Up due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
84639695|NCT04975438|169017390|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-33.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-14.84|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis under the hypothetical strategy using an informative prior (robust MAP prior).|||-14.84|-50.96|
84675598|NCT02595684|169086587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84675599|NCT02595684|169086587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
84675600|NCT02595684|169086588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84675601|NCT02595684|169086588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
84675602|NCT02595684|169086589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
84675603|NCT02595684|169086589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
84639696|NCT04975438|169017391|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-3.6|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis with vague priors and adjusting for baseline EASI.|||-3.60|-15.70|
84639697|NCT02693132|169017417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639698|NCT02693132|169017418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639699|NCT02693132|169017419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639700|NCT02693132|169017420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639701|NCT02693132|169017421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639702|NCT04343235|169017432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
84675604|NCT02595684|169086590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
84675605|NCT02595684|169086590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
84675606|NCT02595684|169086591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
84675607|NCT02595684|169086591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
84675608|NCT02595684|169086592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.722
84675609|NCT02595684|169086592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
84675610|NCT02595684|169086593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
84675611|NCT02595684|169086593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84675612|NCT02595684|169086594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
84675613|NCT02595684|169086594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.952
84675614|NCT02595684|169086595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84675615|NCT02595684|169086595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
84675616|NCT02595684|169086596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
84675617|NCT02595684|169086596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
84675618|NCT04574362|169086599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||13.0|5.4|<0.0001
84639703|NCT04343235|169017433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Main effect for Randomization group|ANOVA|||||||0.70
84639704|NCT04343235|169017434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.77
84639705|NCT04343235|169017435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.54
84639706|NCT04343235|169017436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.1|-1.5|0.47
84639707|NCT04343235|169017437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84639708|NCT04343235|169017438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84639709|NCT01763996|169017444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.76||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that includes sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subjects within sequence as a random factor.||||13.76|-10.10|0.756
84639710|NCT00865280|169017455|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.5|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.5|-12.4|
84639711|NCT00865280|169017456|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|8.3|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.3|-15.5|
84639712|NCT00865280|169017457|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
84639713|NCT00865280|169017458|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
84639714|NCT00865280|169017459|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
84639715|NCT00865280|169017460|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
84639716|NCT01168986|169017462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84639717|NCT01168986|169017463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84639718|NCT01168986|169017464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84639719|NCT01168986|169017465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
84639720|NCT01419197|169017561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.661||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two treatment arms at the overall two-sided significance level of 0.5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.661|0.422|<0.0001
84645057|NCT01903252|169025551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority, pre-defined non-inferiority margin 10% A two-sided 95% confidence interval about the difference in proportions was constructed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.8|||Non-inferiority|||If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.||3.8|-8.1|0.005
84645058|NCT01903252|169025552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentag|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.4|80.6||||||||80.6|69.4|
84645059|NCT01903252|169025554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.2|||Non-inferiority|||||2.2|-6.5|<0.001
84645060|NCT01903252|169025555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.9|||Non-inferiority|||||3.9|-10.1|0.026
84645061|NCT01903252|169025556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Non-inferiority|||||1.4|-10.9|0.048
84645062|NCT01903252|169025557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.1|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.1|-10.8|0.042
84645063|NCT01903252|169025558|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.7|||Non-inferiority|||||2.7|-11.0|0.048
84645064|NCT01903252|169025559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9|||Non-inferiority|||||0.9|-11.5|0.068
84645065|NCT01903252|169025560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Non-inferiortiy|||||4.0|-9.8|0.021
84645066|NCT01903252|169025561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.7|-10.3|0.031
84645067|NCT01903252|169025562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.8|||Non-inferiority|||||1.8|-9.2|0.013
84645068|NCT01903252|169025563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.0|||Non-inferiority|||||3.0|-10.8|0.042
84639721|NCT01419197|169017562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.552||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.826||The 2-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this first OS interim analysis was HR\<0.363 (p-value \< 0.0000013).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.826|0.369|0.0034
84639722|NCT01419197|169017563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||29.2|16.2|<0.0001
84639723|NCT01419197|169017565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|20.09||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||20.09|5.03|0.0011
84639724|NCT01419197|169017565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.7||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|28.75||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||28.75|-5.41|0.1805
84639725|NCT01419197|169017566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.517|||Log Rank|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||1.517|0.819|0.4952
84639726|NCT01419197|169017568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.85||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this second and final interim analysis was HR\<0.748 (p value \< 0.012).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease versus no visceral disease).||0.850|0.539|0.0007
84639727|NCT01419197|169017569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|19.14||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||19.14|5.67|0.0003
84639728|NCT01419197|169017569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|19.33||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||19.33|2.58|0.0104
84639729|NCT00146848|169017570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||The changes in quality of life were compared between groups using two-sided t-tests.||3.74|-3.14|0.86
84639730|NCT00146848|169017570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in changes in quality of life between groups were compared using a t-test.||5.16|-2.18|0.43
84639731|NCT00146848|169017571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||One sided test testing for shift towards improvement in either atrial support pacing treatment arm compared to the DDD-40 arm.||||0.55
84639732|NCT00146848|169017571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||0.80
84639733|NCT00146848|169017572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.||2.30|-22.65|0.11
84639734|NCT00146848|169017572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.~To adjust for multiple comparisons, an alpha level of 0.025 should be used to deem significance."||-0.37|-26.11|0.04
84639735|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in Least-square (LS) Means|-0.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.43|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.43|-3.42|0.732
84645069|NCT01903252|169025564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.557
84645070|NCT01903252|169025565|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.987
84645071|NCT01903252|169025566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||The result of the mean difference is not corresponding to the values in the table due to rounding as specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP).|||0.2|-0.1|0.455
84675619|NCT04574362|169086600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||20.0|9.6|<0.0001
84675620|NCT04574362|169086601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||23.3|13.0|<0.0001
84639736|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.06|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.06|-3.94|0.531
84639737|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.88||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.08|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.08|-5.83|0.056
84639738|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.92||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-6.00|0.063
84639739|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-1.99|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.99|-7.79|0.002
84639740|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-2.31|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.31|-8.32|0.001
84639741|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-2.6|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.60|-8.62|0.001
84639742|NCT01798849|169017575|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-7.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.63|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.63|-10.50|<0.0001
84639743|NCT01798849|169017578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.34||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.02|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.02|-5.70|0.165
84639744|NCT01798849|169017578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-0.21|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.21|-6.86|0.038
84639745|NCT01798849|169017578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-3.1|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.10|-9.55|0.000
84639746|NCT01798849|169017578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-3.92|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.92|-9.35|<0.0001
84639747|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.67||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|0.8|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.80|-6.14|0.128
84639748|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.72|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.72|-2.24|0.305
84639749|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-4.23|0.070
84639750|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-0.19|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.19|-5.48|0.036
84639751|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.37|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.37|-6.40|<0.0001
84639752|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-3.46|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.46|-7.29|<0.0001
84639753|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.65|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.65|-6.70|<0.0001
84639754|NCT01798849|169017579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-4.5|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.50|-11.95|<0.0001
84639755|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.05|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.05|-4.59|0.212
84639756|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.32||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.64|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||6.64|0.00|0.050
84639757|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.48||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Mixed effect model||Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.47|0.49|0.016
84639758|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|8.92|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||8.92|1.51|0.007
84639759|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|11.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.10|3.03|0.001
84639760|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|10.71|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.71|2.54|0.002
84639761|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|10.76|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.76|5.45|<0.0001
84639762|NCT01798849|169017580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|14.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|17.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||17.57|10.54|<0.0001
84639763|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.66||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.93|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.93|-4.24|0.202
84639764|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.57|-5.03|0.115
84639765|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.09|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.09|-5.40|0.043
84639766|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.19||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.84|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.84|-3.22|0.901
84639767|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Mixed effect model|-4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|||-1.57|-6.74|0.002
84639768|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.06|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.06|-6.48|0.008
84639769|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.98|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.98|-4.51|0.201
84639770|NCT01798849|169017581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-2.11|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.11|-7.37|0.001
84639771|NCT01798849|169017582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.53||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.10|-4.97|0.042
84639772|NCT01798849|169017582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.88|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.88|-5.71|0.010
84645072|NCT01903252|169025567|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The apparent difference between the values in the table and the mean difference is due to rounding as defined in the SAP.|||0.1|-0.1|0.937
84675621|NCT04574362|169086602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||22.3|11.4|<0.0001
84675622|NCT04574362|169086603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||-8.0|-15.0|<0.0001
84675623|NCT04574362|169086604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk differences and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.2|4.3|<0.0001
84675624|NCT04574362|169086605|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.0|4.4|<0.0001
84675625|NCT04574362|169086606|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|-0.7||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||0.4|-1.9|0.2057
84675626|NCT04574362|169086606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||1.1|-1.1|0.9702
84675627|NCT04574362|169086606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||2.8|-0.7|0.2419
84675628|NCT04574362|169086606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||4.8|-0.1|0.0597
84675629|NCT04574362|169086606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||8.4|2.1|0.0012
84639773|NCT01798849|169017582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-3.89|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.89|-8.94|<0.0001
84639774|NCT01798849|169017582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|-5.25|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-5.25|-11.32|<0.0001
84675630|NCT04574362|169086607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.5||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||2.5|-3.9|0.6809
84675631|NCT04574362|169086607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||6.0|-1.6|0.2586
84675632|NCT04574362|169086607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||8.8|0.2|0.0421
84675633|NCT04574362|169086607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||11.3|1.8|0.0066
84675634|NCT04574362|169086607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||14.9|4.8|0.0002
84675635|NCT04574362|169086608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.4||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||2.8|-23.5|0.1148
84675636|NCT03759223|169086654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84639775|NCT01798849|169017583|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.54||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.87|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.87|-1.80|0.638
84675637|NCT03759223|169086654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84675638|NCT03759223|169086654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||12:12 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
84639776|NCT01798849|169017583|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.72||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.63|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||3.63|-2.20|0.616
84639777|NCT01798849|169017583|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.33||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.56|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.56|0.11|0.041
84639778|NCT01798849|169017583|OTHER||Difference in LS means|9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.3|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.30|6.98|<0.0001
84639779|NCT01798849|169017584|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.65||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.52|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.52|-3.81|0.677
84639780|NCT01798849|169017584|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.92||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.24|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.24|-4.08|0.554
84639781|NCT01798849|169017584|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.29||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|0.78|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.78|-5.35|0.137
84639782|NCT01798849|169017584|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.19|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.19|-6.37|0.006
84639783|NCT00743106|169017602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean decrease in GFR was an estimated 11% less for fenoldopam than for placebo (interim-adjusted 95% confidence interval 9% more, 31% less).|||9|-31|0.15
84639784|NCT00743106|169017603|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric mean|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We assessed the effect of fenoldopam on creatinine over time (immediately postoperatively and on PODs 1-4). A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the main effect of fenoldopam on the postoperative log-transformed (base 2) serum creatinine, adjusting for baseline serum creatinine.||1.19|0.79|0.78
84639785|NCT03060551|169017627|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.256||||||p value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
84639786|NCT03060551|169017628|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.682||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
84639787|NCT03060551|169017629|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.151||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
84639788|NCT03060551|169017630|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.516||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.516
84639789|NCT03060551|169017631|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.|||||>|0.999||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84639790|NCT03060551|169017632|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.034||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
84639791|NCT03060551|169017633|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.656||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
84639792|NCT03060551|169017634|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.096||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
84645073|NCT01903252|169025568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.357
84639793|NCT03060551|169017635|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.019||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
84639794|NCT03060551|169017636|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.05||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
84639795|NCT03060551|169017637|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
84639796|NCT03060551|169017638|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.024||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84639797|NCT03060551|169017639|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.188||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
84639798|NCT03060551|169017640|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
84639799|NCT03060551|169017641|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.633||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
84639800|NCT03060551|169017642|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.38||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
84639801|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.91. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1028 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|104.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.78|113.44|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||113.44|95.78|
84639802|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.85. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0831 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.31|103.58|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||103.58|84.31|
84639803|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.66. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0971 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.9|109.11|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||109.11|91.90|
84639804|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.66. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 73.29% to 136.44% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|112.6|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||112.60|94.44|
84639805|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.75. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.24% to 134.70% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|102.26|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||102.26|85.29|
84639806|NCT05477108|169017674|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.81. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.21% to 134.75% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.44|108.71|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||108.71|91.44|
84639807|NCT05477108|169017675|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 34.29. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0593 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.35|115.72|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.72|100.35|
84639808|NCT05477108|169017675|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 86.08. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2925 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Ratio Mean (%)|112.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|136.49|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||136.49|92.27|
84639809|NCT05477108|169017675|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 47.07. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1250 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|112.15|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||112.15|91.76|
84639810|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 35.68. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0668 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|115.01|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.01|99.30|
84639811|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 74.17. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2735 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|116.79|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||116.79|89.12|
84639812|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 66.88. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2210 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|122.36|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||122.36|94.91|
84639813|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.41|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||114.41|98.39|
84645074|NCT01903252|169025569|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.2|0.099
84645075|NCT01903252|169025570|OTHER||Percentage|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|27.5||||||||27.5|16.8|
84645076|NCT01903252|169025571|OTHER||Percentage|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|66.3||||||||66.3|53.6|
84645077|NCT01903252|169025572|OTHER||Percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|32.3||||||||32.3|20.9|
84645078|NCT01903252|169025573|OTHER||Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|51.3||||||||51.3|38.5|
84645079|NCT01903252|169025574|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
84639814|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.18|111.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||111.82|84.18|
84639815|NCT05477108|169017676|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.59|120.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||120.75|92.59|
84639816|NCT03376295|169017706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model||The hazard ratio (HR) is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for moderate/severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.20|0.90|
84639817|NCT03376295|169017706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.36|||Cox proportional hazards model||HR presented is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.65|
84639818|NCT03376295|169017707|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Negative binomial model||The rate ratio (RR) (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Moderate/severe exacerbation||1.25|0.92|
84639819|NCT03376295|169017707|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Negative binomial model||The RR (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Severe exacerbation||1.33|0.55|
84639820|NCT03376295|169017708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an as-treated analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.05|0.42|
84675639|NCT05421078|169086667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
84639821|NCT03376295|169017708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an on-treatment analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.92|0.48|
84639822|NCT00893815|169017709|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|||1.10|0.27|0.09
84639823|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.61||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of verbal fluency impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.61|0.35|0.45
84639824|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.56||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of abstraction executive functioning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.56|0.35|0.43
84639825|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.17||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of speed of information processing impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||5.17|0.41|0.56
84639826|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.93||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of attention/working memory impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||2.93|0.60|0.49
84639827|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.84||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of learning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||0.84|0.22|0.01
84639828|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.34||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of recall impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||3.34|0.58|0.46
84639829|NCT00893815|169017710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.85||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of motor speed \& dexterity impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.85|0.43|0.76
84675640|NCT05421078|169086667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
84639830|NCT01808092|169017909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|2.46||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in cMITT analysis set||2.46|-10.76|0.007
84639831|NCT01808092|169017910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|6.39||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in CE at TOC analysis set||6.39|-7.86|<0.001
84540351|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|4.901|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS209 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.901|0.473|
84639832|NCT02204124|169017958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84639833|NCT02204124|169017959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.513
84639834|NCT02204124|169017962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84639835|NCT02204124|169017963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.132
84639836|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #1 is for readmission||||0.975
84675641|NCT05421078|169086667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
84639837|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #2 is for wound infection.||||0.401
84639838|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #3 is for gastroparesis.||||0.975
84639839|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #4 is for pancreatic fistula.||||0.401
84639840|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #5 is for intraabdominal abscess.||||0.219
84639841|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #6 is for anastomotic leakage.||||0.401
84639842|NCT02204124|169017964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #7 is for blood product transfusion (anemia).||||0.219
84639843|NCT02908490|169017965|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline FMD within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|-1.42||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-3.54|0.185
84639844|NCT02908490|169017966|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline EndoPAT within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.331||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.331|0.069|0.003
84639845|NCT02908490|169017972|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|7.63||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|15.63||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.63|-0.36|0.061
84639846|NCT02908490|169017973|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|55.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|97.81||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.81|12.79|0.011
84639847|NCT02908490|169017974|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|74.93||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|157.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.84|-7.98|0.077
84639848|NCT03615040|169018036|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||A generalised linear model (assuming neg. binomial distribution) was used. The model includes the number of exacerbations during the 48 week treatment as an outcome with explanatory variables of treatment arm \& number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), and log-time on trial (in weeks) as an offset. The offset, allows for different lengths of time in the trial. Only observed exacerbations were used alongside the corresponding time period in the offset.||1.14|0.53|0.195
84675642|NCT05421078|169086668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||p value is calculated||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
84675643|NCT05421078|169086668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
84639849|NCT03615040|169018039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||-0.2|-6.4|0.039
84675644|NCT05421078|169086668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
84675645|NCT05421078|169086669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
84639850|NCT03615040|169018040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||2.00|-0.91|0.469
84639851|NCT03615040|169018041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 4||||0.90
84639852|NCT03615040|169018041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 12||||0.95
84639853|NCT03615040|169018041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 24||||0.78
84639854|NCT03615040|169018041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 36||||0.88
84639855|NCT03615040|169018041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 48||||0.78
84639856|NCT03615040|169018042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|6.2||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS total||6.2|-24.9|0.236
84639857|NCT03615040|169018042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Dyspnoea||0.7|-10.6|0.083
84639858|NCT03615040|169018042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Cough||4.7|-8.9|0.546
84639859|NCT03615040|169018042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.0||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Sputum production||4.0|-7.8|0.527
84639860|NCT03615040|169018043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 12||||0.84
84639861|NCT03615040|169018043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 24||||0.52
84639862|NCT03615040|169018043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 36||||0.82
84639863|NCT03615040|169018043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 48||||0.95
84639864|NCT03615040|169018044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FEV1/FVC ratio: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||18.97|-0.83|0.069
84639865|NCT03615040|169018045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score and patient identification as a random effect to account for repeated measures over time was fitted for each outcome. Adjusted mean difference between treatment arms with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported. In the modified ITT population.||0.09|-0.01|0.094
84639866|NCT03615040|169018046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.52||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Total Lung Capacity||0.52|-0.46|0.905
84639867|NCT03615040|169018046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.47||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume||0.47|-0.62|0.775
84639868|NCT03615040|169018047|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||White blood cell count||1.07|0.95|0.736
84639869|NCT03615040|169018047|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil Count||0.69|0.51|<0.001
84639870|NCT03615040|169018047|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neutrophil Count||1.13|0.93|0.678
84639871|NCT03615040|169018048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil count||0.33|0.19|<0.001
84639872|NCT03615040|169018064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litres): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.35|-0.14|0.362
84639873|NCT03615040|169018064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litre):Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.44|-0.61|0.713
84639874|NCT03615040|169018065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre FEV1 predicted: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||12.20|-8.63|0.711
84639875|NCT03615040|169018065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC predicted (%): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||7.1|-27.9|0.214
84639876|NCT03615040|169018066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|1.65||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume/Total Lung Capacity ratio.||1.65|-7.53|0.201
84639877|NCT03615040|169018067|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.75||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Macrophage count||1.07|0.52|0.114
84639878|NCT03615040|169018068|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Epithelium count||1.15|0.54|0.215
84675646|NCT05421078|169086669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
84675647|NCT05421078|169086669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
84639879|NCT02365480|169018079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|36.37|||Fisher Exact|||||36.37|0.10|0.60
84639880|NCT01099449|169018108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.73
84639881|NCT01099449|169018108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.29
84639882|NCT01099449|169018109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.054
84639883|NCT01099449|169018109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.27
84639884|NCT01099449|169018110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.29
84675648|NCT05421078|169086670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
84675649|NCT05421078|169086670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
84639885|NCT01099449|169018110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.25
84639886|NCT01099449|169018113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.89
84639887|NCT01099449|169018113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.496
84639888|NCT01099449|169018114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
84639889|NCT01099449|169018114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.66
84639890|NCT00612105|169018165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|0.312|||ANCOVA|||||0.312|-1.171|0.2537
84639891|NCT00475982|169018190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.965||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.965
84639892|NCT00475982|169018191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
84639893|NCT00475982|169018192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.294
84639894|NCT00475982|169018192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.440
84639895|NCT00475982|169018192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.49||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.3|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||21.3|-4.31|0.186
84639896|NCT00475982|169018193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.162
84639897|NCT00475982|169018193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.986
84639898|NCT00475982|169018193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.02|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||7.02|-2.58|0.353
84639899|NCT00475982|169018194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.283
84639900|NCT00475982|169018194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.701
84639901|NCT00475982|169018194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.24|||paired t-test|||analysis between the intervention and control arms||8.24|-6.70|0.835
84639902|NCT00475982|169018195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.00
84639903|NCT00475982|169018195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.009
84639904|NCT00475982|169018195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.59|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||3.59|0.64|0.007
84639905|NCT00475982|169018196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.073
84639906|NCT00475982|169018196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.207
84639907|NCT00475982|169018196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.75|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||2.75|-0.08|0.063
84639908|NCT00993226|169018197|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.36|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.36|-0.79|0.467
84639909|NCT00993226|169018198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|2.58|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||2.58|-7.59|0.331
84639910|NCT00119678|169018208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||||Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of abatacept versus placebo for SLE disease flare. The 95% two-sided confidence interval was provided for the hazard ratio for treatment.|||1.5|0.7|
84639911|NCT00791817|169018246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1998|1.6097||||Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|values are Geometric Means and Confidence Intervals are on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted||1.6097|1.1998|
84639912|NCT01134705|169018254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures Analysis of covariance|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.001
84639913|NCT01134705|169018255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84639914|NCT01134705|169018256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
84639915|NCT00509145|169018257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.911|||Over-dispersed Poisson Regression||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo|Response variable: number of relapses during 24 months. Offset based on the log of subject's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. In addition to the treatment group, the Poisson regression model included the following covariates: baseline EDSS score, log of prior 2-year number of relapses+1 and Country or Geographical Region (CGR).||0.911|0.650|0.0024
84639916|NCT00101452|169018273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84639917|NCT01994889|169018274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||0.0006
84639918|NCT01994889|169018275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.958|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.958|0.508|0.0259
84639919|NCT01994889|169018276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6761|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5639|0.8107||Poisson regression analysis with treatment, TTR genotype, NYHA baseline classification, treatment-by-TTR genotype interaction, and treatment-by-NYHA baseline classification interaction terms as factors adjusted for treatment duration.|Poisson regression analysis|||||0.8107|0.5639|<0.0001
84639920|NCT01994889|169018277|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|75.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.56|93.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||L.S. means are from an ANCOVA (MMRM) model with an unstructured covariance matrix; center and participant within center as random effects; treatment, visit, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type), and visit by treatment interaction, as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||93.80|57.56|<.0001
84639921|NCT01994889|169018278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|17.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Change at Month 30||17.83|9.48|<.0001
84639922|NCT01994889|169018279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.980|0.488|0.0383
84639923|NCT01994889|169018280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84639924|NCT02969655|169018281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -1.0 g/dL. Even if the 95% CI for the difference was completely negative (i.e. lied fully within the range -1.0 to \<0 g/dL) non-inferiority was concluded on condition that the mean Hgb estimated in the daprodustat group was within the target range.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.23|-0.11|<.0001
84639925|NCT02969655|169018282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment and Baseline Hgb.|||1.71|0.34|0.7442
84639926|NCT01510769|169018299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|-0.03|0.1298
84639927|NCT01510769|169018299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.42|0.17|<0.0001
84639928|NCT01510769|169018300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.07|0.4453
84639929|NCT01510769|169018300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.02|0.1149
84639930|NCT01510769|169018301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6450
84639931|NCT01510769|169018301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4118
84639932|NCT01510769|169018302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.24|0.3034
84639933|NCT01510769|169018302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.04|-0.34|0.0210
84639934|NCT02874144|169018329|SUPERIORITY|intention-to-treat with participants analyzed according to a randomly assigned treatment group irrespective of compliance.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time compare relative rate of change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) and within the to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only)..|For inflammatory mediator analyses, data were reported as mean (SEM) with statistical significance determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.|||<0.05
84645080|NCT03735238|169025584|OTHER|Not applicable. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.||||||||||||||||This is a single arm implementation trial with no comparison group. This outcome represents the reach/penetration of the implementation at each site over the trial duration. We did not perform power calculation. There was no null hypothesis stated. Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|||
84639935|NCT02874144|169018329|SUPERIORITY|This was a superiority trial. We used repeated-measures linear regression using the mixed procedure to calculate means for each outcome by visits and treatment status. We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|repeated-measures linear regression|We used repeated-measures linear regression using the MIXED procedure to calculate means (SEMS) for each outcome by visits and treatment status.|Our study did not include at relative risk.|The trial design is a continuous outcome superiority trial with primary efficacy outcome measures of change in Total Polyp Score (TPS) comparing AZD to placebo arm from V1 to V5. Total polyp score is a standardized method for assessing nasal polyp size by endoscopy, based on a scale of 1-4 per side. Inclusion criterion for this study is a TPS of ≥4 with a maximum of 8 and a standard deviation ± 2. A clinically meaningful effect is considered to be a decrease in total polyp score of 1.5.||||<0.05
84639936|NCT02975557|169018362|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The type I error was adjusted by using the alpha spending function approach with O'Brien-Fleming type boundaries.||We evaluated if the categorical type of tolerability measure is different between control (Artificial Tears) and intervention (Brimonidine, including both 0.15% high and 0.075% low doses groups).||||1
84639937|NCT01578850|169018364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).|Participants who took rescue therapy had the final value taken before rescue used for analysis at all ensuing time points.|||35.81|16.78|<0.001
84639938|NCT01578850|169018365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|40.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value from CMH test of general association was stratified by geographic region.||||40.61|6.83|0.019
84639939|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Baseline||0.57|-1.76|0.371
84639940|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
84639941|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||9.98|-4.76|0.667
84639942|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
84639943|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||29.10|8.81|0.004
84639944|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||40.83|20.79|<0.001
84639945|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.89|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.89|<0.001
84639946|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.51|41.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.08|21.51|<0.001
84639947|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.95|40.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.47|19.95|<0.001
84639948|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.81|16.78|<0.001
84639949|NCT01578850|169018367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.47|16.67|<0.001
84675650|NCT05421078|169086670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
84675651|NCT05421078|169086671|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
84504904|NCT00294723|168760805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.9||||0.2968||95.0|-8.3|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.5|-8.3|0.2968
84639950|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|11.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||11.68|-9.03|0.774
84639951|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|21.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||21.69|2.86|0.034
84639952|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|27.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||27.54|6.33|0.020
84639953|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|14.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.48|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||23.80|5.48|0.007
84639954|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|34.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||34.98|14.72|<0.001
84639955|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|27.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||27.38|10.16|<0.001
84675652|NCT05421078|169086671|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
84639956|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.03|40.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.76|21.03|<0.001
84639957|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|29.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||29.52|11.78|<0.001
84639958|NCT01578850|169018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|36.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||36.93|17.38|<0.001
84639959|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||-0.20|-0.73|<0.001
84639960|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||-0.11|-0.61|0.006
84639961|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||-0.39|-0.96|<0.001
84639962|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||-0.28|-0.82|<0.001
84639963|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||-0.46|-1.03|<0.001
84639964|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||-0.37|-0.92|<0.001
84639965|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||-0.40|-0.98|<0.001
84675653|NCT05421078|169086671|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
84504905|NCT00294723|168760805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.2||||0.6639||95.0|-6.5|4.1||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||4.1|-6.5|0.6639
84639966|NCT01578850|169018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
84639967|NCT01578850|169018372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84639968|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 24||8.90|-6.13|0.961
84639969|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
84639970|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|28.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||28.53|8.08|0.007
84639971|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.42|41.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||41.39|21.42|<0.001
84675654|NCT05421078|169086672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
84639972|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.83|<0.001
84639973|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.02|21.53|<0.001
84639974|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|41.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 44||41.05|20.54|<0.001
84639975|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.82|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.74|16.82|<0.001
84639976|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|37.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.44|16.63|<0.001
84639977|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 24||1.65|-1.69|0.766
84639978|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|8.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||14.10|2.32|0.091
84639979|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||11.75|1.28|0.227
84639980|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||16.60|3.27|0.072
84639981|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||15.20|2.43|0.108
84639982|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|18.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||18.72|4.69|0.035
84675655|NCT05421078|169086672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
84675656|NCT05421078|169086672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
84639983|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||17.06|4.20|0.030
84639984|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||18.06|4.15|0.048
84639985|NCT01578850|169018374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|17.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||17.58|4.92|0.016
84639986|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
84639987|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 24||9.16|-2.38|0.341
84639988|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 28||28.27|8.40|0.004
84639989|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.88|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 36||34.40|13.88|<0.001
84639990|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.85|37.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 44||37.35|16.85|<0.001
84675657|NCT05421078|169086673|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
84639991|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 52||34.42|13.61|<0.001
84639992|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 24||10.06|-5.50|0.774
84639993|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.03|-7.15|0.645
84639994|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|16.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 36||16.35|0.36|0.080
84639995|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.68|1.49|0.025
84639996|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 52||16.88|1.02|0.088
84639997|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
84639998|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 24||10.13|-3.57|0.258
84639999|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|27.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 28||27.92|7.49|0.005
84640000|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 36||37.55|16.93|<0.001
84640001|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.83|42.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 44||42.23|21.83|<0.001
84640002|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|38.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 52||38.69|18.00|<0.001
84640003|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|11.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 24||11.51|-5.51|0.672
84640004|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.00|-8.03|0.556
84640005|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 36||18.45|2.07|0.022
84640006|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.25|0.85|0.047
84640007|NCT01578850|169018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 52||20.57|3.70|0.031
84640008|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 28||-0.01|-4.19|0.049
84640009|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 36||-1.05|-5.72|0.005
84640010|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.67|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 44||-1.67|-6.37|<0.001
84675658|NCT05421078|169086673|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
84640011|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 52||-1.68|-6.36|<0.001
84640012|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 28||-0.03|-4.40|0.047
84640013|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 36||-1.12|-5.97|0.004
84640014|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.88|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 44||-1.88|-6.78|<0.001
84640015|NCT01578850|169018378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 52||-1.84|-6.70|<0.001
84640016|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 24||3.90|-4.21|0.742
84640017|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 28||17.06|2.45|0.143
84640018|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|19.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 36||19.51|3.31|0.111
84640019|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 44||18.49|1.80|0.175
84640020|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 52||19.05|2.49|0.088
84640021|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|9.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 24||9.75|-4.78|0.584
84640022|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.5||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|21.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 28||21.34|1.59|0.226
84504906|NCT00294723|168760806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.81||||0.172||95.0|-9.28|1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|-9.28|0.1720
84504907|NCT00294723|168760806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.906||95.0|-5.82|5.16||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.16|-5.82|0.9060
84504908|NCT00294723|168760806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2089||95.0|-8.91|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.91|0.2089
84640023|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 36||27.56|6.76|0.012
84640024|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.59|29.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 44||29.35|8.59|0.006
84640025|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|28.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 52||28.16|7.30|0.014
84640026|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-2.7||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 24||8.11|-13.49|0.702
84640027|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.1||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 28||17.50|-3.37|0.378
84675659|NCT05421078|169086673|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
84640028|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 36||27.56|7.12|0.004
84640029|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 44||28.55|8.40|0.001
84640030|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|26.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 52||26.02|5.96|0.005
84640031|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 24||5.67|-6.19|0.921
84640032|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 28||8.86|-2.19|0.410
84640033|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 36||12.48|0.41|0.073
84640034|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|10.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 44||10.08|-0.97|0.219
84640035|NCT01578850|169018380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 52||12.40|-0.60|0.196
84640036|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.05|-1.84|0.062
84640037|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.27|-2.41|0.015
84640038|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.57|-2.72|0.003
84640039|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.66|-2.85|0.002
84640040|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.50|-0.77|0.680
84640041|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.45|-1.04|0.437
84640042|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.17|-1.31|0.131
84640043|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.25|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.25|-1.22|0.199
84640044|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.28|-2.60|0.115
84640045|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.35|-3.42|0.017
84640046|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.76|-3.91|0.004
84640047|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.97|-4.19|0.002
84640048|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.42|-1.13|0.368
84640049|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.32|-1.46|0.208
84640050|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.05|-1.73|0.064
84640051|NCT01578850|169018382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.10|-1.66|0.081
84640052|NCT01578850|169018384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.16|-0.90|0.005
84640053|NCT01578850|169018384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
84640054|NCT01578850|169018384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.54|-1.35|<0.001
84640055|NCT01578850|169018384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.53|-1.33|<0.001
84640056|NCT01578850|169018386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.01|-1.00|0.048
84640057|NCT01578850|169018386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.43|-1.44|<0.001
84640058|NCT01578850|169018386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
84640059|NCT01578850|169018386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
84640060|NCT01578850|169018388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.11||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-1.16|-27.07|0.033
84640061|NCT01578850|169018388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-3.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-3.68|-30.39|0.013
84640062|NCT01578850|169018388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.54||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-2.73|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-2.73|-30.35|0.019
84640063|NCT01578850|169018388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.78|-5.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-5.54|-33.78|0.007
84640064|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 28||0.48|-8.91|0.078
84640065|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-2.59|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 36||-2.59|-12.49|0.003
84640066|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 44||-3.18|-13.20|0.001
84640067|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-3.55|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 52||-3.55|-13.64|<0.001
84640068|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-1.06|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 28||-1.06|-10.75|0.017
84675660|NCT05421078|169086674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
84504909|NCT00294723|168760807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.04||||0.2749||95.0|-8.51|2.42||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.42|-8.51|0.2749
84640069|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.34|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 36||-3.34|-13.85|0.001
84640070|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-4.26|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 44||-4.26|-14.72|<0.001
84640071|NCT01578850|169018390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.99|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 52||-3.99|-14.60|<0.001
84640072|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 28||-1.05|-9.39|0.014
84640073|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 36||-1.46|-11.09|0.011
84640074|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-3.44|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 44||-3.44|-12.06|<0.001
84640075|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-2.85|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 52||-2.85|-11.48|0.001
84640076|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.49|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 28||-2.49|-9.23|<0.001
84640077|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-5.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 36||-5.05|-12.33|<0.001
84640078|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 44||-3.80|-11.38|<0.001
84640079|NCT01578850|169018392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 52||-2.60|-10.03|<0.001
84640080|NCT01711216|169018413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|||||Test statistic (d.f.) 1.0157 (1) A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used, exact p-value was computed using Monte Carlo estimation.|Mantel Haenszel|||Test of association between the number of regular menstrual cycles during the follow-up period and the number of dydrogesterone therapy cycles received during the treatment period (Follow-up Analysis Set) Follow-up Analysis Set (N=915)||||0.3181
84640081|NCT00750152|169018482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||one-sided p-value from CMH test|0.001||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test after stratification by site compared the proportion of complete cure in NAFT-500 to that of placebo to evaluate its superiority.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-500 group with that in the placebo group, the following one-sided null and alternate hypotheses will be tested:~* H0: p1 \<= p0~* Ha: p1 \> p0 where p0 and p1 denote the proportion of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.025
84640082|NCT03456882|169018486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6346||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.6346
84645081|NCT02119676|169025636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and geographical region.|Estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by mGPS score and geographical region|||1.49|0.73|0.588
84645082|NCT02119676|169025636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||1-sided|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by geographical region.|Estimated using Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by geographical region|||1.23|0.48|0.136
84645083|NCT04268823|169025642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938||0.298|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.524|0.119|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.119|-0.524|0.298
84645084|NCT04268823|169025643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.5|-0.9|0.651
84640083|NCT03456882|169018486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3585
84504910|NCT00294723|168760807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.43||||0.8765||95.0|-5.05|5.92||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.92|-5.05|0.8765
84504911|NCT00294723|168760807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2088||95.0|-8.9|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.90|0.2088
84504912|NCT01127581|168760810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-677.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||Sample size 675 per group provides 90% power to see an improvement of ≥320 minutes (20% improvement from DVI) in time to vaginal delivery between MVI 200 \& DVI assuming a median time of 1600 minutes for DVI \& 34% dropout rate based on 5% 2-sided test|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
84640084|NCT03456882|169018487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4388||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.4388
84640085|NCT03456882|169018487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.2||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9887
84640086|NCT03456882|169018488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9622
84640087|NCT03456882|169018488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6533
84640088|NCT03456882|169018489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9137||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9137
84540352|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|3.699|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS65 Nucleus with PFS.||3.699|0.223|
84640089|NCT03456882|169018489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3985
84640090|NCT03456882|169018490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2543||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2543
84640091|NCT03456882|169018490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2209
84640092|NCT03456882|169018491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2738
84640093|NCT03456882|169018491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4239
84640094|NCT03456882|169018492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.1708
84640095|NCT03456882|169018492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.8133
84640096|NCT03456882|169018493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5239||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.5239
84640097|NCT03456882|169018493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4401
84640098|NCT03456882|169018494|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction||Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.5725
84640099|NCT03456882|169018494|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5728
84640100|NCT03456882|169018495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the survival curves over the on-treatment and the off-treatment follow-up period are not different between groups.||||0.9212
84640101|NCT03456882|169018496|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.0101
84504913|NCT01127581|168760811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 675 subjects per group will provide a sufficient number of subjects to assess non-inferiority of MVI 200 with respect to rate of cesarean delivery, based on an alpha level of 5% and 80% power for a two-sided approach using a 10% non-inferiority limit (relative to the DVI rate), assuming a 30% rate of cesarean delivery in the DVI group compared to a 26% rate in the MVI 200 group.|Difference in Populations|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|3.59|||Chi-squared||MVI 200 - DVI|The analysis of the cesarean delivery rates during the first hospitalization was based on a between-treatment-group difference. If the upper limit of the asymptotic two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in event rates (MVI minus DVI) was less than the calculated non-inferiority margin (10% relative to the DVI rate, i.e., 0.1 times DVI rate), then MVI 200 would be considered non-inferior to DVI.||3.59|-5.79|
84504914|NCT01127581|168760812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-543.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who did not deliver during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge without delivery, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
84504915|NCT01127581|168760813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-390.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
84504916|NCT01127581|168760814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84640102|NCT03456882|169018496|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5924
84640103|NCT03456882|169018497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9598||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9598
84640104|NCT03456882|169018497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9390
84640105|NCT03456882|169018497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.3442
84640106|NCT03456882|169018498|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 physical mobility. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1503
84640107|NCT03456882|169018498|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 ADL and independence.Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1556
84640108|NCT03456882|169018498|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 eating and drinking. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.0319
84504917|NCT01127581|168760815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84504918|NCT01127581|168760816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84504919|NCT01127581|168760817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84504920|NCT01127581|168760818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84504921|NCT01127581|168760819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
84640109|NCT03456882|169018498|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 communication. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.6419
84640110|NCT03456882|169018498|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 emotional reactions. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.3951
84640111|NCT03456882|169018499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9563
84640112|NCT03456882|169018500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2253
84640113|NCT03456882|169018501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6263
84640114|NCT03456882|169018502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3671
84640115|NCT03456882|169018503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.845|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.845
84640116|NCT03456882|169018504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2161
84640117|NCT03456882|169018505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4962
84640118|NCT03456882|169018506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.8738
84540353|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|7.867|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFT70 Nucleus with PFS.||7.867|0.432|
84640119|NCT03456882|169018506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7556||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.7556
84640120|NCT03456882|169018506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6477
84640121|NCT03456882|169018506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 48 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 48 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6084
84504922|NCT03979677|168760895|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
84504923|NCT03979677|168760896|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Point change in DHI was tests.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
84640122|NCT03698591|169018514|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
84640123|NCT03698591|169018514|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
84640124|NCT03698591|169018514|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.656||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distancing performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period.||||.108
84640125|NCT03698591|169018514|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
84640126|NCT03698591|169018515|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
84640127|NCT03698591|169018515|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
84640128|NCT03698591|169018515|OTHER||t-statistic|2.694||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test a potential effect of study period on distancing effort.||||.012
84640129|NCT03698591|169018515|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
84640130|NCT03698591|169018515|OTHER||F-statistic|7.162||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distancing effort. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.013
84640131|NCT03698591|169018516|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
84640132|NCT03698591|169018516|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
84640133|NCT03698591|169018516|OTHER||t-statistic|1.282||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distraction performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period.||||.210
84640134|NCT03698591|169018516|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
84640135|NCT03698591|169018517|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
84640136|NCT03698591|169018517|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
84640137|NCT03698591|169018517|OTHER||t-statistic|0.828||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test the effect of study period on distraction effort.||||.415
84640138|NCT03698591|169018517|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
84640139|NCT03698591|169018517|OTHER||F-statistic|0.396||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distraction performance. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.535
84640140|NCT01909011|169018524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84640141|NCT01909011|169018525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
84640142|NCT01909011|169018526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84640143|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
84640144|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
84640145|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
84640146|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||0.018
84640147|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.301
84640148|NCT03425253|169018528|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.011
84640149|NCT03425253|169018529|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84640150|NCT03425253|169018530|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.597
84640151|NCT03425253|169018531|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84640152|NCT03425253|169018532|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84640153|NCT03425253|169018533|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84640154|NCT03425253|169018534|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.003
84640155|NCT03425253|169018535|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Both Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
84640156|NCT03425253|169018535|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Right Side of the Face, End of study||||<0.001
84640157|NCT03425253|169018535|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Left Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
84640158|NCT00695097|169018536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline)compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.25
84640159|NCT00695097|169018536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.46
84640160|NCT00695097|169018536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) biopsy CD20 cell density||||0.054
84640161|NCT00695097|169018536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD20 cell density||||0.62
84640162|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
84640163|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from study Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Central memory T cells||||0.0493
84640164|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
84640165|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
84640166|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Central memory T cells||||< 0.0001
84640167|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
84640168|NCT02720107|169018556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||TH17 central memory cells||||< 0.0001
84640169|NCT02522624|169018560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84640170|NCT02522624|169018560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.16
84640171|NCT02522624|169018560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||<.001
84640172|NCT02522624|169018561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84640173|NCT02522624|169018561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.30
84640174|NCT02522624|169018561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.82
84640175|NCT02522624|169018562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84640176|NCT02522624|169018562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.82
84640177|NCT02522624|169018562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.15
84640178|NCT02522624|169018563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.92|0.10
84640179|NCT02522624|169018563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.26
84640180|NCT02522624|169018563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.58
84640181|NCT02522624|169018564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.01||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|1.58|<.001
84640182|NCT02522624|169018564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.39
84640183|NCT02522624|169018564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.57
84640184|NCT02522624|169018565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.95||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||17.95|5.94|<.001
84540354|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|3.109|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker P GSK3B Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.109|0.276|
84640185|NCT02522624|169018565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.001
84640186|NCT02522624|169018565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for numeracy.||||0.46
84640187|NCT00730028|169018617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||5.1|-7.6|0.7688
84640188|NCT00730028|169018617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.1|-5.4|1.0000
84640189|NCT00730028|169018617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-5.6||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.6|-19.2|<0.0001
84640190|NCT00730028|169018617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-5.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.4|-19.1|0.0002
84640191|NCT00730028|169018620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||4.9|-10.2|0.5200
84640192|NCT00730028|169018620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.7|-8.4|0.7324
84640193|NCT00730028|169018620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-6.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-6.4|-22.0|0.0001
84640194|NCT00730028|169018620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-5.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.0|-20.8|0.0008
84640195|NCT00730028|169018621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.3||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||5.3|-7.1|0.7707
84640196|NCT00730028|169018621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.5|-2.0|0.2141
84640197|NCT00730028|169018621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.5|-12.4|0.0593
84640198|NCT00730028|169018621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.1|-15.3|0.0017
84640199|NCT00730028|169018622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.8|-13.1|0.1381
84645085|NCT04268823|169025644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|0.78|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.78|-3.55|0.288
84540355|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.033|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PKCb2 Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.033|0.320|
84640200|NCT00730028|169018622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.2|-6.4|0.8302
84640201|NCT00730028|169018622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||1.1|-14.3|0.0838
84640202|NCT00730028|169018622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.2|-15.2|0.0507
84640203|NCT00730028|169018623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.9|-13.3|0.1505
84640204|NCT00730028|169018623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.2|-10.9|0.1666
84640205|NCT00730028|169018623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-8.0|-23.0|<0.0001
84640206|NCT00730028|169018623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.2|-19.0|0.0046
84640207|NCT00730028|169018624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||2.8|-13.6|0.1815
84640208|NCT00730028|169018624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.1|-13.2|0.1552
84640209|NCT00730028|169018624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-7.8|-24.0|<0.0001
84640210|NCT00730028|169018624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-2.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-2.0|-18.7|0.0145
84645086|NCT04268823|169025645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.09|11.48|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||11.48|-3.09|0.338
84645087|NCT04268823|169025646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|4.42|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Total score||4.42|-6.05|0.795
84645088|NCT04268823|169025646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.16|12.66|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Symptoms score||12.66|-1.16|0.170
84645089|NCT04268823|169025646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.259||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.02|4.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Activity score||4.80|-6.02|0.851
84645090|NCT04268823|169025646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.61|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.78|4.65|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Impact score||4.65|-8.78|0.610
84645091|NCT04268823|169025647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.557||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough symptom score||7.80|-7.30|0.956
84645092|NCT04268823|169025647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671||0.369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|11.99|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum symptom score||11.99|-3.55|0.369
84640211|NCT01250496|169018644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed. The threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: aminophylline administration does not reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint as compared to placebo. The chi-square test was used to compare event rate between the study arm.||0.98|0.2|0.04
84640212|NCT01250496|169018645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||"null hypothesis: the rate of regadenoson adverse effects (global symptomatic burden) in the aminophylline and placebo group are not statistically different.~The chi-square test was used for comparison."||0.7|0.2|< 0.001
84640213|NCT01425463|169018648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the investigational drug (Ferrous (II) Glycine Sulphate Complex) to the reference drug (Polyferose) was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval was greater than -7.0 g/L.|LS-Mean of ANCOVA|-2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.09||||||||4.09|-8.47|
84640214|NCT01236547|169018656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.1379|Log Rank||Reference arm = placebo|Assuming hazard ratio (pazopanib/placebo) of 0.625 (1-year 19% vs. 35.4%), 1-sided alpha 0.15, logrank test, 80% power, 1 interim analysis, required 71 deaths in 79 eligible patients (88 allowing 10% ineligible) in original design. The protocol was amended for phase II final analysis to be performed after all phase II eligible participants were potentially followed for 3 years with 1-sided alpha 0.1379, providing 77% power. See Limitations and Caveats||1.43|0.52|0.2831
84640215|NCT01236547|169018658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.15|Reference arm = placebo|||2.67|0.55|0.6880
84640216|NCT01236547|169018659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1921||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1921
84640217|NCT01236547|169018660|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84640218|NCT01236547|169018661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||1.00
84640219|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.57||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.57|-1.00|
84640220|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.11|-0.53|
84640221|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.52||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.52|-0.02|
84640222|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.41||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-0.41|-2.01|
84640223|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.81||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7 , pre-breakfast||1.81|0.18|
84640224|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.34||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.34|0.66|
84640225|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.75||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.75|1.16|
84640226|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.18||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||0.18|-1.74|
84640227|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.19||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.19|-0.81|
84640228|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.55||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.55|-0.35|
84640229|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.08||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.08|-2.05|
84640230|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.29||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.29|-0.71|
84640231|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.29|0.22|
84640232|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.65||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.65|0.68|
84640233|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.54|-1.65|
84640234|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.89||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.89|-0.40|
84640235|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.78||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.78|-0.36|
84640236|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.09||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.09|-2.15|
84640237|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.61||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.61|-0.66|
84640238|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.95|0.60|
84640239|NCT01128621|169018720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.86||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.86|0.63|
84640240|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|17.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||17.56|-17.17|
84640241|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.98||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.98|-34.70|
84640242|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|12.12||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||12.12|-23.04|
84640243|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|21.58||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||21.58|-13.89|
84640244|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.39||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||14.39|-21.70|
84640245|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.25|-2.17||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-2.17|-39.25|
84675661|NCT05421078|169086674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
84640246|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|9.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||9.01|-27.63|
84640247|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|12.14||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||12.14|-19.43|
84675662|NCT05421078|169086674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
84640248|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|-0.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-32.72|
84640249|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.34|-6.16||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-6.16|-38.34|
84640250|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|11.51||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||11.51|-20.69|
84640251|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|17.28||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||17.28|-15.40|
84640252|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.82|4.68||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||4.68|-28.82|
84640253|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-0.6||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-34.72|
84640254|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|5.8||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||5.80|-44.00|
84640255|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-2.39||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-2.39|-53.56|
84640256|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.82|1.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.60|-48.82|
84640257|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|28.53||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||28.53|-22.34|
84640258|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|3.69||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||3.69|-48.07|
84640259|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.66|-4.48||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-4.48|-57.66|
84640260|NCT01128621|169018721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-0.42||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-0.42|-52.98|
84640261|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.50|-1.50|
84640262|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.54|-0.51|
84640263|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|0.05|
84640264|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.07||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.07|-1.98|
84640265|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.5||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.50|-0.59|
84640266|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.55||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.55|0.39|
84675663|NCT05421078|169086675|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
84640267|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||3.01|0.96|
84640268|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.76|-1.38|
84640269|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.49||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.49|-0.70|
84640270|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.93||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.93|-0.18|
84640271|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.25||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.25|-1.95|
84640272|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.66||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.66|-0.58|
84640273|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.4||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.40|0.09|
84640274|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.83||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.83|0.63|
84640275|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.91||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.91|-1.21|
84675664|NCT05421078|169086675|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
84504924|NCT01335464|168760924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.68|172.84||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||172.84|77.68|<0.0001
84640276|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.81||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.81|-0.34|
84640277|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.28|0.21|
84640278|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.46||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.46|-1.71|
84640279|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.57||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.57|-0.62|
84640280|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.49||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.49|0.23|
84640281|NCT01128621|169018724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.95||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.95|0.79|
84640282|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.25|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|-59.25|
84640283|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.23|-16.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-16.56|-79.23|
84640284|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|6.2||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||6.20|-55.53|
84640285|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|25.89||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||25.89|-36.76|
84640286|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|8.63||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||8.63|-55.00|
84640287|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.18|-9.74||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-9.74|-75.18|
84640288|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|13.37||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||13.37|-51.83|
84640289|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.15|12.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||12.28|-49.15|
84640290|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.08|-27.24||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-27.24|-90.08|
84640291|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-6.05||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-6.05|-67.96|
84640292|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.31|21.52||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||21.52|-41.31|
84640293|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.44|23.36||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||23.36|-40.44|
84640294|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.58|-15.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-15.95|-81.58|
84640295|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|5.58||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||5.58|-59.80|
84640296|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|8.23||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||8.23|-48.95|
84640297|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.92|-24.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-24.50|-82.92|
84640298|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.24|-8.86||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-8.86|-66.24|
84640299|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|21.27||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||21.27|-37.20|
84640300|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.397|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|17.3||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||17.30|-42.10|
84640301|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.2|-15.3||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-15.30|-76.20|
84640302|NCT01128621|169018725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.82|0.64||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.64|-59.82|
84640303|NCT04074161|169018760|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||||-6.80|-11.97|<0.0001
84640304|NCT00864916|169018792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
84640305|NCT00275340|169018798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered to determine significant group differences; thus trends are reported for p\<0.20.|||||p<|0||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean change scores were computed on domain and summary scores. Mean differences in change scores between groups were computed and t-tests used to detect significant differences.||||p<0.20
84640306|NCT00783198|169018811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.57|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.57|-2.95|0.0039
84675665|NCT05421078|169086675|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
84675666|NCT05421078|169086676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
84675667|NCT05421078|169086676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
84675668|NCT05421078|169086676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
84640307|NCT00783198|169018811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.07|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-1.07|-3.41|0.0002
84640308|NCT00783198|169018812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.09|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.09|-2.08|0.0320
84640309|NCT00783198|169018812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.82|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.82|-2.78|0.0003
84640310|NCT00783198|169018813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.01|-1.54|0.0472
84640311|NCT00783198|169018813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.19|-1.70|0.0144
84640312|NCT00783198|169018814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.19|-1.11|0.1686
84640313|NCT00783198|169018814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.18|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.18|-1.46|0.0125
84640314|NCT00783198|169018815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.65|0.0039
84640315|NCT00783198|169018815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.64|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.64|-1.95|0.0001
84640316|NCT04784442|169018820|SUPERIORITY|The overall Type I error rate will be controlled by performing comparison versus the placebo group starting from the highest ETC 1002 dose group by a closed testing procedure at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-13.88|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.88|-24.81|<0.001
84675669|NCT05421078|169086677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
84675670|NCT05421078|169086677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
84640317|NCT04784442|169018820|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-14.41|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 120 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-14.41|-25.45|<0.001
84640318|NCT04784442|169018820|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-3.12|||ANCOVA||||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|-3.12|-14.22|0.002
84640319|NCT03158285|169018839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|22.9|< 0.001
84640320|NCT03158285|169018839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.1|22.4|< 0.001
84640321|NCT03158285|169018840|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.2372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.1534|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1534|-0.3210|< 0.001
84640322|NCT03158285|169018840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3544|-0.1864|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1864|-0.3544|< 0.001
84640323|NCT03158285|169018841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|24.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|10.0|< 0.001
84640324|NCT03158285|169018841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|11.5|< 0.001
84640325|NCT03158285|169018842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
84640326|NCT03158285|169018842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|58.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.4|41.2|< 0.001
84640327|NCT03158285|169018843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|30.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|13.1|< 0.001
84640328|NCT03158285|169018843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|13.7|< 0.001
84640329|NCT03158285|169018844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.90|0.072
84640330|NCT03158285|169018844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.13|0.011
84640331|NCT03158285|169018845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|11.8|0.030
84640332|NCT03158285|169018845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.4|0.030
84640333|NCT03158285|169018846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|7.4|0.030
84640334|NCT03158285|169018846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.5|0.011
84640335|NCT03158285|169018847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|< 0.001
84640336|NCT03158285|169018847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.001
84640337|NCT03158285|169018848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.79||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.99|< 0.001
84640338|NCT03158285|169018848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-2.87|0.002
84640339|NCT03158285|169018849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|2.75|0.011
84640340|NCT03158285|169018849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.85|||ANCOVA|||||4.85|2.39|0.011
84640341|NCT03158285|169018850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.43||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.80|< 0.001
84640342|NCT03158285|169018850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.47||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.83|< 0.001
84640343|NCT03158285|169018851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.02||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.56|0.072
84640344|NCT03158285|169018851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.54|||ANCOVA|||||3.54|0.60|0.072
84640345|NCT03158285|169018852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|12.6|< 0.001
84640346|NCT03158285|169018852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|17.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.2|< 0.001
84640347|NCT03158285|169018853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|9.1|< 0.001
84640348|NCT03158285|169018853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|4.1|< 0.001
84675671|NCT05421078|169086677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
84675672|NCT05421078|169086678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
84675673|NCT05421078|169086678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
84675674|NCT05421078|169086678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
84675675|NCT05421078|169086679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
84675676|NCT05421078|169086679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
84675677|NCT05421078|169086679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
84675678|NCT05421078|169086680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
84675679|NCT05421078|169086680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
84504925|NCT01335464|168760925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.9657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.40|-2.50|0.9657
84504926|NCT01335464|168760926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.42|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||2.42|0.54|0.6728
84504927|NCT01335464|168760927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.708|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.27|148.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.59|71.27|<0.0001
84675680|NCT05421078|169086680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
84675681|NCT05421078|169086681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
84675682|NCT05421078|169086681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
84675683|NCT05421078|169086681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
84675684|NCT03698773|169086686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84675685|NCT03698773|169086687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84675686|NCT00414050|169086724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Modified Process Hepatitis B vaccine-5µg (micrograms) declared non-inferior to RECOMBIVAX HB™ if the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for the ratio of Geometric Mean Titers (Modified Process Vaccine 5 micrograms/RECOMBIVAX HB™) was \>= 0.67. The study had 98 percent power for this test, based on an assumption of true equality.|Ratio of geometric means|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.35||||||Comparison of Induced (effected) Geometric Mean Titer for the Modified Hepatitis B Process Vaccine and RECOMBIVAX Hepatitis B vaccine.||2.35|1.69|
84675687|NCT00515827|169086725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-value is 2-sided and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
84675688|NCT03254134|169086734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.97||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of stroke for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.970|0.534|
84640349|NCT02744040|169019061|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Total HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.048
84640350|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640351|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640352|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640353|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640354|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640355|NCT02744040|169019062|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640356|NCT02744040|169019063|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Integrated HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||>0.05
84640357|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640358|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84640359|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
84645093|NCT04268823|169025647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.001||0.613|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|8.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough impact score||8.68|-4.61|0.613
84645094|NCT04268823|169025647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.58|8.47|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum impact score||8.47|-6.58|0.835
84645095|NCT04268823|169025649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|0.0|0.335
84645096|NCT04268823|169025650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|-0.1|0.645
84640360|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
84640361|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
84640362|NCT02744040|169019064|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
84640363|NCT02744040|169019065|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||TILDA stimulation reservoir measure at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.057
84640364|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.01||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.010
84640365|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||<0.0001
84640366|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
84640367|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
84640368|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.052||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.052
84640369|NCT02744040|169019066|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
84640370|NCT01008423|169019074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||<0.0001
84640371|NCT01809639|169019084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||.42
84640372|NCT02140593|169019093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84640373|NCT02140593|169019094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84640374|NCT01675167|169019131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.64||P value was adjusted using weighted z-test (CHW).|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.32|<.00001
84640375|NCT01675167|169019132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||<.0001
84640376|NCT01675167|169019132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Stratum (Dose Level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||<.0001
84640377|NCT01379508|169019159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Missing DNA data at Wk 52=failure: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||2.5|-10.5|
84640378|NCT01379508|169019159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1||||||Imputing +/- 7 days DNA for Wk 52: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||3.1|-9.4|
84640379|NCT01379508|169019159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4||||||Imputing LOCF DNA for wk 52: d/c for non response prior to Wk 52: Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with LOCF for other patients||0.4|-7.9|
84640380|NCT01379508|169019159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||Imputing within +28d DNA for wk52: d/c for non response \<28 days from Wk 52:Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with the earliest available assessment within the 28-day window starting from the scheduled Week 52 date for other patients (if no such assessment is available, treated as failure)||3.8|-8.3|
84640381|NCT03952039|169019172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||39.4|19.9|<0.0001
84640382|NCT03952039|169019173|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis (based on CRF)|Difference in Proportion|17.1||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||||29.4|4.8|0.0033
84640383|NCT03952039|169019174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||45.1|21.9|<0.0001
84640384|NCT03952039|169019177|SUPERIORITY||Greenland and Robins method|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.7|||Greenland and Robins method|||||29.7|10.0|
84640385|NCT04174365|169019195|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.05|||Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||2.05|-4.49|0.4597
84640386|NCT04174365|169019196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||MMRM|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||0.32|-0.46|0.7315
84640387|NCT05141448|169019198|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A C3 (EMO-118) minus omafilcon A|||0.06|0.02|
84640388|NCT00913458|169019208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||12.5|2.7|<0.0001
84675689|NCT03254134|169086735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.994||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of systemic embolism for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.994|0.303|
84640389|NCT00913458|169019208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.3||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.3|1.3|0.0085
84675690|NCT01009099|169086740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Co-variates included in the analysis were time walked on the constant workrate test at baseline and adherence (sessions completed/expected).||The outcomes compared were time walked on the constant workrate treadmill test measured in minutes.||||0.63
84640390|NCT00913458|169019208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.8||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Linear|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|1.0|0.0397
84640391|NCT00913458|169019209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~End of Phase 1"||||<0.0001
84640392|NCT00913458|169019210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.1183
84640393|NCT00913458|169019210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0286
84640394|NCT00913458|169019211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640395|NCT00913458|169019212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640396|NCT00913458|169019213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13"||||0.0063
84640397|NCT00913458|169019213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 26"||||0.0053
84640398|NCT00913458|169019213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 39"||||0.0027
84640399|NCT00913458|169019213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.0002
84640400|NCT00913458|169019213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0005
84640401|NCT00913458|169019214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640402|NCT00913458|169019215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84675691|NCT00799617|169086752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||0.78|0.38|<0.001
84640403|NCT00913458|169019216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640404|NCT00913458|169019217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640405|NCT00913458|169019218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640406|NCT00913458|169019219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640407|NCT00913458|169019220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640408|NCT00913458|169019221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640409|NCT00913458|169019222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640410|NCT00913458|169019223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640411|NCT00913458|169019224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"P-value is from McNemar's test for no change from baseline in response rate.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
84640412|NCT00913458|169019225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.6|0.4|0.4075
84640413|NCT00913458|169019225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.88||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|33.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||33.1|2.4|0.0011
84640414|NCT00913458|169019225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||13.9|1.7|0.0031
84640415|NCT00913458|169019226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|0.3|0.5951
84504928|NCT01335464|168760928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.50|2.54|<0.0001
84640416|NCT00913458|169019226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.5|0.9|0.0934
84640417|NCT00913458|169019226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.4|1.1|0.0314
84640418|NCT00913458|169019227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.8|0.5|0.6152
84640419|NCT00913458|169019227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.4|1.0|0.0432
84640420|NCT00913458|169019227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.3|0.8|0.1189
84640421|NCT00913458|169019228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|1.0|0.0535
84640422|NCT00913458|169019228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.5|1.4|0.0064
84640423|NCT00913458|169019228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.6|0.6|0.3696
84640424|NCT00913458|169019229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.2|0.9|0.0788
84640425|NCT00913458|169019229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.0|1.9|0.0007
84640426|NCT00913458|169019229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|0.9|0.0676
84640427|NCT00913458|169019230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.56||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||59.5|1.0|0.0548
84640428|NCT00913458|169019230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|94.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||94.2|1.6|0.0166
84640429|NCT00913458|169019230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.3619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.5|0.6|0.3619
84540356|NCT00451178|168831489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.758|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PTEN Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.758|0.242|
84640430|NCT00913458|169019231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.7|1.6|0.0017
84640431|NCT00913458|169019231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.0|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||28.0|4.4|<0.0001
84640432|NCT00913458|169019231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||8.8|1.3|0.0111
84640433|NCT00913458|169019232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.7|-16.6|0.0328
84640434|NCT00913458|169019232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-13.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-13.2|-30.1|<0.0001
84640435|NCT00913458|169019232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-4.5|-21.5|0.0035
84640436|NCT00913458|169019233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.1|-11.8|0.2473
84640437|NCT00913458|169019233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-5.1|-21.3|0.0016
84640438|NCT00913458|169019233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.6|-17.0|0.0348
84640439|NCT00913458|169019234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.6|-12.6|0.1248
84540357|NCT02729909|168831490|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of confidence interval (CI)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||||1.9|0.1|0.020
84640440|NCT00913458|169019234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.14||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-6.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.5|-21.8|0.0004
84645097|NCT04268823|169025651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.4|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||3.4|0.8|0.010
84645098|NCT02093351|169025665|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.22|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.22|1.06|
84645099|NCT02093351|169025666|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.90|0.71|
84645100|NCT02093351|169025667|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|Geometric Least Squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.97|0.84|
84675692|NCT00799617|169086753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.45||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes is the odds ratio for achieving the outcome versus not achieving the outcome among men assigned to testosterone versus those assigned to placebo.||2.45|0.83|0.20
84675693|NCT00799617|169086754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.83|0.30
84675694|NCT00799617|169086755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|67.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||67|14|.003
84675695|NCT00799617|169086756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|8.7||Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors.|Regression, Linear|||||8.7|4.8|<.001
84675696|NCT00799617|169086757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.79||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.~The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors."||0.79|-0.92|.88
84675697|NCT00799617|169086758|SUPERIORITY|Dichotomous hemoglobin response is an increase of 1g/dL or more from baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|277.8||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a logistic mixed model with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The statistical analysis was intent-to-treat by a logistic mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.||||277.8|3.7|.002
84675698|NCT00799617|169086759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.74||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.74|2.13|<0.001
84675699|NCT00799617|169086760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.61||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.61|1.68|<0.001
84675700|NCT00799617|169086761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.18||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-3.00|0.28
84675701|NCT00799617|169086762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|0.90|0.15
84675702|NCT00799617|169086763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.29||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|0.20|0.03
84675703|NCT00799617|169086764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.46||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.04|0.06
84675704|NCT00799617|169086765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.5||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|0.31|0.03
84675705|NCT00799617|169086766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
84675706|NCT00799617|169086767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.19|-0.79|<0.001
84675707|NCT00799617|169086768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.23||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.23|-1.20|0.004
84675708|NCT00799617|169086769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|80.0||Determined by linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||80|13|.006
84675709|NCT00799617|169086770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|26.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||26|-80|.31
84675710|NCT00799617|169086771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||3.7|2.1|<.001
84640441|NCT00913458|169019234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.8|-16.4|0.0306
84640442|NCT00913458|169019235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.6|0.5|0.4717
84640443|NCT00913458|169019235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.8|1.0|0.0551
84640444|NCT00913458|169019235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|0.7|0.2141
84640445|NCT00913458|169019237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.4|-0.5|0.9652
84640446|NCT00913458|169019237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2168
84640447|NCT00913458|169019237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2131
84675711|NCT00799617|169086772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.3||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||5.3|3.2|<.001
84675712|NCT00799617|169086773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.0|0.9|<.001
84675713|NCT00799617|169086774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.5|0.5|<.001
84675714|NCT00799617|169086775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."||1.7|0.8|<.001
84640448|NCT00913458|169019239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.9|||ANCOVA||Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.|Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hyothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.9|-10.0|0.9338
84640449|NCT00913458|169019239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.2|-16.4|0.7130
84640450|NCT00913458|169019239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.6|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.6|-16.6|0.6628
84640451|NCT00913458|169019241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.74||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|-15.5|0.1303
84504929|NCT01335464|168760929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.33|2.11|<0.0001
84640452|NCT00913458|169019241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-6.0|||Longitudinal statisitical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.0|-27.1|0.0024
84640453|NCT00913458|169019241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.5|-20.2|0.0621
84640454|NCT00913458|169019243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|6.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.9|-15.0|0.4664
84640455|NCT00913458|169019243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.57||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-2.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.6|-30.6|0.0210
84640456|NCT00913458|169019243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.1|-26.2|0.0713
84640457|NCT00913458|169019245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-1.1|-17.1|0.0256
84640458|NCT00913458|169019245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-11.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-11.1|-28.1|<0.0001
84504930|NCT01335464|168760930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.48|2.52|<0.0001
84640459|NCT00913458|169019245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.0|-19.0|0.0161
84504931|NCT01335464|168760933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.79|1.32|0.0007
84640460|NCT03595618|169019246|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02465||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00317|0.09345||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value||0.09345|-0.00317|0.165
84640461|NCT03595618|169019246|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02585||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03868|0.06267||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.06267|-0.03868|0.939
84645101|NCT02093351|169025668|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.04|0.84|
84645102|NCT02093351|169025669|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.98|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.98|0.91|
84640462|NCT03595618|169019246|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02536||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02641|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.07300|-0.02641|0.682
84640463|NCT03595618|169019247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||2.58|0.84|0.396
84640464|NCT03595618|169019247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.50|0.53|0.951
84640465|NCT03595618|169019247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.83|0.64|0.985
84640466|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-5.6|0.467
84640467|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.5|-5.4|0.557
84640468|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.6|-5.3|0.593
84645103|NCT02093351|169025670|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.21|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters||1.21|0.99|
84645104|NCT02093351|169025671|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.21|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.21|1.11|
84645105|NCT02093351|169025672|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.84|0.63|
84645106|NCT02093351|169025673|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.93|0.80|
84645107|NCT02093351|169025674|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.05|0.76|
84645108|NCT02093351|169025675|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.99|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.99|0.91|
84645109|NCT02093351|169025676|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.25|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.25|1.07|
84645110|NCT01099709|169025677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
84675715|NCT00799617|169086776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|809.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||809|5.3|<.001
84675716|NCT00799617|169086777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.9||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||10.9|6.0|<.001
84675717|NCT00799617|169086778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.2||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||7.2|4.3|<.001
84640469|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.0|0.776
84640470|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.3|-1.2|0.446
84640471|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.1|0.649
84675718|NCT00799617|169086779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.6|1.1|<.001
84675719|NCT00799617|169086780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|0.3|.005
84675720|NCT00799617|169086781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.5|<.001
84675721|NCT00799617|169086782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.09|0.25|.01
84675722|NCT00799617|169086783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|-0.01|.052
84675723|NCT00799617|169086784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.58||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-0.45|0.27
84675724|NCT00799617|169086785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||0.19|-0.76|.24
84504932|NCT01335464|168760934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.847||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.66|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.66|1.28|0.0010
84504933|NCT01335464|168760935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||1.29|0.55|0.4298
84640472|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.9|-4.1|0.452
84640473|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-3.7|0.665
84640474|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.2|-3.9|0.598
84640475|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.400
84640476|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.393
84640477|NCT03595618|169019248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.2|-0.5|0.858
84504934|NCT01335464|168760936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.10|-5.74|0.1832
84504935|NCT01335464|168760937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.446||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ Impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||3.70|-1.97|0.5510
84540358|NCT02729909|168831491|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||1.9|0.0|0.051
84504936|NCT01335464|168760938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||1.61|-3.99|0.4049
84504937|NCT01335464|168760939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.75|-3.31|0.5446
84504938|NCT01335464|168760940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.60|-4.35|0.6203
84504939|NCT01335464|168760941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.803||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within- patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||3.30|-3.78|0.8942
84640478|NCT03595618|169019249|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.7||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.7|-7.1|0.705
84640479|NCT03595618|169019249|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.8|-9.0|0.243
84640480|NCT03595618|169019249|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.9|-6.1|0.949
84675725|NCT00799617|169086786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.65|-1.89|.89
84675726|NCT00799617|169086787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.88||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.88|-12.91|.14
84504940|NCT01335464|168760942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.596||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.77|-1.49|0.3042
84675727|NCT00799617|169086788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a linear mixed model for continuous outcomes with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Intent-to-treat analysis by a linear mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.|||1.39|0.48|<.001
84504941|NCT01335464|168760943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.83|0.89|0.1818
84504942|NCT01335464|168760945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||2.46|0.56|0.6793
84640481|NCT03595618|169019250|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||6.3|-3.4|0.890
84640482|NCT03595618|169019250|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.6|-7.1|0.682
84640483|NCT03595618|169019250|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.0||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||5.0|-4.8|1.000
84640484|NCT03595618|169019251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.58|0.70|0.991
84640485|NCT03595618|169019251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.43|0.64|0.992
84640486|NCT03595618|169019251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.23|0.55|0.653
84640487|NCT03595618|169019252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02156||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00448|0.08005||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08005|-0.00448|0.193
84504943|NCT01335464|168760946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.36|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.36|0.29|0.2880
84645111|NCT01099709|169025677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
84645112|NCT01099709|169025678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.73|97.53|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.53|93.73|
84645113|NCT01099709|169025679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.85|97.68|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.68|93.85|
84645114|NCT00706849|169025680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 treatment groups.||||<0.001
84640488|NCT03595618|169019252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02235||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00801|0.07962||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.07962|-0.00801|0.256
84675728|NCT01848990|169086810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 participants (Pt) being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.18|-0.08|0.4516
84675729|NCT01848990|169086811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.14||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 Pt being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.28|-0.01|0.0711
84675730|NCT01848990|169086812|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.69||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0105
84675731|NCT01848990|169086812|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0130
84675732|NCT01848990|169086812|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.78||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0511
84675733|NCT01848990|169086812|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.34||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1176
84675734|NCT01848990|169086813|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.81||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0456
84675735|NCT01848990|169086813|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.92||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.2322
84675736|NCT01848990|169086813|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.87||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1365
84675737|NCT01848990|169086813|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.07||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.8909
84675738|NCT01848990|169086814|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.98||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7292
84675739|NCT01848990|169086814|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.95||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5895
84675740|NCT01848990|169086815|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.04||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5414
84675741|NCT01848990|169086815|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.03||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7110
84675742|NCT01848990|169086816|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-3.4||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.5||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.5|-14.2|0.5394
84675743|NCT01848990|169086816|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|4.3||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.8||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.8|-6.1|0.4151
84675744|NCT01848990|169086816|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||9.6|-9.5|0.9930
84675745|NCT01848990|169086816|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.9||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-6.4|0.9410
84675746|NCT01848990|169086817|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-4.8||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.7||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-14.3|0.3239
84675747|NCT01848990|169086817|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.2||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||10.2|-7.4|0.7540
84675748|NCT01848990|169086817|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.7904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|7.2||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.2|-9.5|0.7904
84675749|NCT01848990|169086817|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.6||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||3.4|-8.5|0.4016
84504944|NCT01335464|168760947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.47|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.47|0.25|0.3515
84504945|NCT01335464|168760948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.82|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.82|0.26|0.4869
84504946|NCT01335464|168760949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.51|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.51|0.36|0.4430
84640489|NCT03595618|169019252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02243||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00514|0.08281||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08281|-0.00514|0.201
84645115|NCT00706849|169025682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645116|NCT00706849|169025684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645117|NCT00706849|169025686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84504947|NCT01335464|168760950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.25|0.52|0.3558
84645118|NCT00706849|169025688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84645119|NCT00706849|169025690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84640490|NCT03595618|169019253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.12394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13671||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02464|9.27252||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||9.27252|-3.02464|0.627
84640491|NCT03595618|169019253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.46842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21111||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82659|6.76343||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||6.76343|-5.82659|0.998
84640492|NCT03595618|169019253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.11756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2759||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.30536|10.54049||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||10.54049|-2.30536|0.449
84640493|NCT03595618|169019254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.84781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75674||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51643|10.21205||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||10.21205|-4.51643|0.789
84645120|NCT00706849|169025692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84645121|NCT00706849|169025694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84645122|NCT00706849|169025696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84645123|NCT00706849|169025698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
84645124|NCT02616601|169025704|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval on the percentage difference between generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream lesion clearance were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these percentages was greater than and statistically different (p\<0.05) from the vehicle cream percentage, then generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.03|11.11|||||90% Wald's confidence interval with a continuity correction for the difference (Generic Fluorouracil Cream - Carac \[Fluorouracil\] Cream) in complete clearance rates.|||11.11|-11.03|
84645125|NCT02616601|169025704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84645126|NCT02616601|169025704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84645127|NCT03718299|169025705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||||<0.001
84645128|NCT03718299|169025706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84645129|NCT03718299|169025707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645130|NCT03718299|169025708|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|76.2||||||||76.2|46.5|
84645131|NCT03718299|169025709|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|98.6||||||||98.6|81.7|
84645132|NCT03718299|169025710|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|90.4||||||||90.4|62.7|
84645133|NCT03718299|169025711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645134|NCT03718299|169025712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645135|NCT03718299|169025713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645136|NCT03718299|169025714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645137|NCT03718299|169025715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645138|NCT03718299|169025716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645139|NCT03718299|169025717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645140|NCT03718299|169025718|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.5||||||||39.5|12.9|
84645141|NCT03718299|169025719|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||||||||32.1|8.0|
84645142|NCT03718299|169025720|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|64.2||||||||64.2|33.7|
84645143|NCT03718299|169025721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Activity Impairment||||<0.001
84645144|NCT03718299|169025721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Work Productivity Impairment||||<0.001
84645145|NCT03718299|169025722|SUPERIORITY||Mean|79.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.06|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time- Effectiveness||||
84645146|NCT03718299|169025722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time-Side Effects||||<0.001
84645147|NCT03718299|169025722|SUPERIORITY||Mean|82.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Convenience||||
84645148|NCT03718299|169025722|SUPERIORITY||Mean|81.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Global Satisfaction||||
84645149|NCT03718299|169025723|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Improvement in Symptoms||||
84645150|NCT03718299|169025723|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Speed of Symptom Improvement||||
84645151|NCT03718299|169025723|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Frequency of Taking Medication||||
84640494|NCT03595618|169019254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84747||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19071|3.89553||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.89553|-11.19071|0.661
84640495|NCT03595618|169019254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.55176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81987||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04053|4.93701||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||4.93701|-10.04053|0.843
84640496|NCT03595618|169019255|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0499||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.1929||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1929|-0.0028|0.141
84640497|NCT03595618|169019255|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861|0.1177||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1177|-0.0861|0.981
84640498|NCT03595618|169019255|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0286|0.1792||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1792|-0.0286|0.349
84640499|NCT02279407|169019259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.83||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||Hypotheses tested using Dunnett's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons versus a single control (placebo).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|0.70|0.046
84640500|NCT02279407|169019260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the 3 hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.75|0.502
84640501|NCT02279407|169019260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.73|0.562
84640502|NCT03890666|169019264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||||||||||The statistical model is a logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor, pooled study sites as a random factor, and baseline ACT score as a covariate.||||
84640503|NCT01816945|169019281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84640504|NCT01816945|169019284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for PHQ-9 at 12 months||||0.96
84675750|NCT01848990|169086818|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.9|-5.6|0.5260
84640505|NCT01816945|169019285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for Social Network Score at 12 month||||0.043
84640506|NCT01323855|169019300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.62|||||Severe CRI/Healthy|||2.62|0.54|
84640507|NCT01323855|169019301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.87|||||Moderate CRI/Healthy|||2.87|0.59|
84640508|NCT01323855|169019302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|5.04|||||Mild CRI/Healthy|||5.04|1.38|
84640509|NCT00329849|169019310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup A, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup A one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||47|29|
84640510|NCT00329849|169019310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup C, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup C one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||40|19|
84640511|NCT00329849|169019310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup W, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup W one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||39|17|
84640512|NCT00329849|169019310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup Y, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|28.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup Y one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||28|8|
84504948|NCT01335464|168760951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.64|-0.07|0.1138
84640513|NCT00329849|169019311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety of MenACWY-CRM vaccination was considered non-inferior to the safety of MenACWY-PS vaccination if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio (MenACWY-CRM group divided by MenACWY-PS group) of the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during 1 to 7 days after vaccination was less than 3.|Group Ratio|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|49.2|||Risk ratio(MenACWY-CRM/MenACWY-PS)|||||49.2|0.82|
84640514|NCT00653432|169019326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1450
84640515|NCT00653432|169019327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5824|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.5824
84675751|NCT01848990|169086819|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.5||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-3.7|0.8049
84540359|NCT02729909|168831491|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||2.0|1.0|0.003
84640516|NCT00653432|169019328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9136
84640517|NCT00653432|169019329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1699|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1699
84640518|NCT00653432|169019330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3238|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3238
84675752|NCT01848990|169086820|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8955||||||HbA1c \<7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8955
84640519|NCT00653432|169019331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0427
84640520|NCT00653432|169019332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.8206
84640521|NCT00653432|169019333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9818
84640522|NCT00653432|169019334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0542|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0542
84640523|NCT00653432|169019335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3230
84640524|NCT00322621|169019351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.001||97.5|0.35|0.79||Significance level 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that duloxetine treatment effect on pain reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is not maintained, as indicated by an increase of more than 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale. Null hypothesis is rejected at significance level 0.025 if the upper bound of one-sided 97.5% CI is less than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point.||0.79|0.35|<0.001
84640525|NCT00322621|169019354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.269
84640526|NCT00322621|169019355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84640527|NCT00322621|169019356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
84640528|NCT00322621|169019357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84640529|NCT00322621|169019358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.075
84640530|NCT00322621|169019359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84640531|NCT00322621|169019360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
84640532|NCT00322621|169019361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84640533|NCT00322621|169019362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
84640534|NCT00322621|169019363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
84640535|NCT00322621|169019364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.124
84675753|NCT01848990|169086820|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8926||||||HbA1c ≤6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8926
84640536|NCT00322621|169019365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
84640537|NCT00322621|169019366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
84640538|NCT00322621|169019367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84640539|NCT00322621|169019368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84640540|NCT00322621|169019369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84640541|NCT00322621|169019370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
84640542|NCT00322621|169019371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
84640543|NCT00322621|169019372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.713
84640544|NCT00322621|169019373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
84640545|NCT00322621|169019374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.711
84640546|NCT00322621|169019375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
84640547|NCT00322621|169019376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216
84640548|NCT00322621|169019377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
84640549|NCT00322621|169019380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
84640550|NCT00322621|169019381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84640551|NCT00322621|169019382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.666
84640552|NCT00322621|169019383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
84640553|NCT00322621|169019384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
84640554|NCT00322621|169019385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
84640555|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|26.5||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|78.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||78.9|-25.9|0.321
84640556|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|13.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|65.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||65.1|-38.9|0.620
84640557|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|35.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||35.4|-55.5|0.665
84640558|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.6||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|48.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||48.4|-57.6|0.865
84640559|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|31.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|77.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||77.9|-14.1|0.174
84640560|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|19.3||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|71.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||71.9|-33.4|0.472
84640561|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|42.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|88.7||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||88.7|-3.8|0.072
84640562|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|21.9||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|58.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||58.0|-14.2|0.234
84640563|NCT01328444|169019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|32.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|68.8||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||68.8|-3.9|0.080
84640564|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.143||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.143|0.030|0.003
84640565|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.196||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.196|0.084|<0.001
84645152|NCT03718299|169025723|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Side Effects||||
84645153|NCT03718299|169025724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84645154|NCT00075270|169025776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on the log-rank test.|||1.05|0.72|0.142
84645155|NCT00075270|169025777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.82||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||1.04|0.65|0.094
84645156|NCT00246571|169025796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8889|1.628||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from the interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||For core radiology laboratory assessment||1.6280|0.8889|0.8885
84645157|NCT00246571|169025796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1598||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8703|1.5457||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank|||For investigator's assessment||1.5457|0.8703|0.8472
84640566|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.148||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.148|0.050|<0.001
84640567|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.181||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.181|0.067|<0.001
84640568|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.161||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.161|0.062|<0.001
84640569|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.086||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.086|-0.028|0.320
84640570|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.120|0.019|0.007
84640571|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.249||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.249|0.172|<0.001
84640572|NCT01328444|169019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.209||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.209|0.129|<0.001
84640573|NCT00600119|169019449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7781
84640574|NCT00600119|169019449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0020
84640575|NCT00600119|169019449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84640576|NCT00600119|169019450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5118
84640577|NCT00600119|169019450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
84640578|NCT00600119|169019450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84640579|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5522
84640580|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0589
84540360|NCT02729909|168831491|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||1.9|0.1|0.009
84640581|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1691||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1691
84640582|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6293||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6293
84640583|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0836||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0836
84640584|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1155||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1155
84640585|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9938||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9938
84640586|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2101
84640587|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4597
84640588|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4822||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4822
84640589|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0171
84640590|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0160
84640591|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6857||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6857
84640592|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0253
84640593|NCT00600119|169019451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0772
84640594|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5008
84640595|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1823||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1823
84640596|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7045||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7045
84640597|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7088||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7088
84640598|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5828
84640599|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
84640600|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7848||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7848
84640601|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0335||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0335
84640602|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0591
84640603|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9317||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9317
84675754|NCT01848990|169086821|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.13||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.03|-0.76|0.7735
84640604|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0675
84640605|NCT00600119|169019452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1745||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1745
84504949|NCT01335464|168760952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0896||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.161|-0.191|0.8650
84675755|NCT01848990|169086822|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.0||Daily bolus dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.0|-4.1|0.4948
84640606|NCT00561977|169019453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|time measurement, treatment group, interaction between time and group term as fixed effect, subject as random effect.||Mean dietary quality score by visit and study group was estimated using SAS PROC MIXED. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.13 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).||||0.14
84640607|NCT00977080|169019459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the IV stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.016
84640608|NCT00977080|169019459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the oral stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.260
84640609|NCT00977080|169019460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84640610|NCT00977080|169019460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.239
84640611|NCT00977080|169019461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84640612|NCT00977080|169019461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.704
84640613|NCT00977080|169019462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
84640614|NCT00977080|169019463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84675756|NCT01848990|169086822|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.3||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2||Daily basal dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||5.2|-0.5|0.1099
84675757|NCT01848990|169086822|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||Daily total dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.6|-3.7|0.5830
84504950|NCT00591253|168760953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.97|0.001
84504951|NCT00591253|168760953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-4.86||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-4.86|-10.69|<0.001
84504952|NCT00591253|168760954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-10.18|<0.001
84504953|NCT00591253|168760954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-10.27|<0.001
84640615|NCT00977080|169019463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84640616|NCT00977080|169019464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
84640617|NCT00977080|169019464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84640618|NCT01616693|169019480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|13.2||||||||13.2|-4.4|
84640619|NCT01616693|169019480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.2||||||||16.2|-1.4|
84640620|NCT01616693|169019480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.8||||||||22.8|.8|
84640621|NCT01616693|169019482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||||||||6.6|-4.3|
84640622|NCT01616693|169019482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.3||||||||2.3|-8.6|
84675758|NCT01848990|169086823|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.1|-1.0|0.8778
84640623|NCT01616693|169019482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||||||||5.7|-9.8|
84640624|NCT02395172|169019486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.71|= 0.0721
84504954|NCT00591253|168760955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-5.47|0.001
84504955|NCT00591253|168760955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.77|-7.78|<0.001
84504956|NCT00591253|168760956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-5.22|0.004
84504957|NCT00591253|168760956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-5.08|0.006
84640625|NCT02395172|169019487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||||1.05|0.77|
84640626|NCT02395172|169019488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
84640627|NCT02395172|169019489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.41||||||||1.41|0.98|
84640628|NCT02395172|169019492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||||||||2.13|0.92|
84640629|NCT02395172|169019493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.86||||||||2.86|1.08|
84640630|NCT04525885|169019532|SUPERIORITY|Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|8.7||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|70.03|||ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||70.03|-30.51|0.713
84640631|NCT04525885|169019535|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|11.58||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|74.57||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||74.57|-28.68|0.628
84640632|NCT04525885|169019536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.13||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.43|0.917
84640633|NCT04525885|169019537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.38|0.687
84675759|NCT01848990|169086824|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.1||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.1|-6.3|0.3233
84675760|NCT01848990|169086826|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.8||Average glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.8|-5.8|0.7708
84675761|NCT01848990|169086826|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.8||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.6||Median glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||8.6|-5.0|0.6058
84675762|NCT01848990|169086826|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.7||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||Average daily standard deviation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.5|-4.0|0.6571
84675763|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.9||Time per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-11.3|0.6252
84504958|NCT00591253|168760957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.14|0.001
84504959|NCT00591253|168760957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.97|-10.96|<0.001
84504960|NCT00591253|168760958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.86|<0.001
84675764|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-5.5||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|14.9||Time per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.9|-25.9|0.5929
84675765|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|6.9||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|28.3||Time per day \>70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||28.3|-14.4|0.5207
84675766|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-23.3||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|41.2||Time per day \<140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||41.2|-87.8|0.4754
84675767|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|23.9||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|88.6||Time per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||88.6|-40.7|0.4644
84675768|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Time per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
84675769|NCT01848990|169086827|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|18.4||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|74.4||Time per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||74.4|-37.5|0.5151
84504961|NCT00591253|168760958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.81|-7.99|<0.001
84675770|NCT01848990|169086828|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-33.5||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.9|48.9||Area per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||48.9|-115.9|0.4216
84504962|NCT00591253|168760959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-8.54|0.008
84504963|NCT00591253|168760959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.69|-10.85|<0.001
84504964|NCT00591253|168760960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-5.69|0.024
84504965|NCT00591253|168760960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-3.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.19|-8.39|<0.001
84675771|NCT01848990|169086828|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-84.7||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.2|209.8||Area per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||209.8|-379.2|0.5697
84675772|NCT01848990|169086828|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|342.9||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6772.3|7458.2||Area per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7458.2|-6772.3|0.9241
84675773|NCT01848990|169086828|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Area per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
84504966|NCT00591253|168760961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-2.08||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-8.52|0.001
84504967|NCT00591253|168760961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-4.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-10.88|<0.001
84504968|NCT00591253|168760962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-6.08|0.001
84640634|NCT04525885|169019538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.49|0.49|
84640635|NCT04525885|169019539|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.64||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates||4.64|0.80|
84640636|NCT04525885|169019540|OTHER|Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||||||||2.72|0.45|
84640637|NCT00096356|169019543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.64||The a priori significance level was 0.05 for the primary outcome; there is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimate of the difference in arms (Co-Q10 minus placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained such that baseline fatigue was the same in both groups and unadjusted for any baseline covariates.||0.64|-3.39|0.1815
84640638|NCT00096356|169019544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.53||0.05 significance level; no multiple comparison adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Higher is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained to have equal means at baseline, unadjusted for other covariates||6.53|-2.56|.3903
84640639|NCT00096356|169019545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.88||0.05 significance level, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance, constrained such that the baseline means are equal, unadjusted of other covariates||1.88|-3.25|.6014
84640640|NCT00978757|169019551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84640641|NCT03009396|169019559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2112
84640642|NCT03009396|169019560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0356
84640643|NCT03009396|169019561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0514
84504969|NCT00591253|168760962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-3.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-7.88|<0.001
84504970|NCT00591253|168760963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-8.72|0.014
84504971|NCT00591253|168760963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.92|-12.50|<0.001
84504972|NCT00591253|168760964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-7.17|0.012
84640644|NCT03009396|169019562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1259
84640645|NCT03009396|169019563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4114
84640646|NCT02043808|169019565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.92|0.52|
84640647|NCT02043808|169019566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.98|0.71|
84640648|NCT02043808|169019567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.59|
84640649|NCT02043808|169019568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.70|0.13|
84640650|NCT02043808|169019569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.77|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.77|0.30|
84640651|NCT02043808|169019570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.76|
84640652|NCT02043808|169019571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.30|0.89|
84640653|NCT02043808|169019572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.03|0.50|
84640654|NCT02043808|169019573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.54|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.54|0.99|
84640655|NCT02043808|169019574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.72|0.17|
84640656|NCT02043808|169019575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.64|0.22|
84640657|NCT02043808|169019576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.26|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.26|0.55|
84640658|NCT02043808|169019577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.95|0.45|
84640659|NCT02043808|169019578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.31|0.31|
84640660|NCT02043808|169019579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.21|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.21|0.16|
84640661|NCT02043808|169019580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.81|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||2.81|0.34|
84640662|NCT02043808|169019581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.69|0.52|
84640663|NCT01457352|169019627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2062
84640664|NCT01457352|169019628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0485|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0485
84640665|NCT03137069|169019644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.02||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.01|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-1.03|-13.01|0.0559
84640666|NCT03137069|169019644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||5.58|-6.60|0.8892
84640667|NCT03137069|169019644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-0.57|-12.29|0.0717
84640668|NCT03137069|169019644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.53||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-3.55|-15.50|0.0097
84640669|NCT03137069|169019645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.1087
84640670|NCT03137069|169019645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.3418
84640671|NCT03137069|169019645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0459
84640672|NCT03137069|169019645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0190
84640673|NCT03137069|169019646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.94|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-6.82|-18.94|0.0010
84640674|NCT03137069|169019646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.83||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||3.46|-9.11|0.4565
84640675|NCT03137069|169019646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.03||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||1.03|-11.10|0.1711
84640676|NCT03137069|169019646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.97|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-4.56|-16.97|0.0050
84640677|NCT02600871|169019649|SUPERIORITY|The significance of variation in proportions with treatment (Provodine®, Control) was assessed with Fisher's Exact tests and variation in the mean with treatment was assessed with T-tests.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
84640678|NCT01478048|169019694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06||Log Rank test was stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor use (Yes versus No), presence of at least 1 FcγRIIIa V allele (Yes versus No) and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3) at randomization|Log Rank|Adjusted alpha level= 0.30||||1.06|0.49|0.0923
84640679|NCT01478048|169019697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference using Chan-Zhang method|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.8||||||||17.8|-13.2|
84640680|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|Comparison to baseline values||Evaluated within group across time||||0.49
84640681|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
84640682|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
84640683|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
84640684|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
84640685|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.31
84640686|NCT00955201|169019700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.28
84640687|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.53
84640688|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
84640689|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
84640690|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
84640691|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.80
84640692|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.63
84640693|NCT00955201|169019701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.31
84504973|NCT00591253|168760964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-4.48||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.48|-10.63|<0.001
84640694|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.39
84640695|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
84640696|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
84640697|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
84640698|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.70
84640699|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.45
84640700|NCT00955201|169019702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.22
84640701|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
84640702|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.90
84640703|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
84640704|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.78
84640705|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
84504974|NCT00591253|168760965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.65||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|1.27|0.004
84640706|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.97
84640707|NCT00955201|169019703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
84640708|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
84640709|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.69
84640710|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
84640711|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
84640712|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.45
84640713|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.91
84640714|NCT00955201|169019704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.51
84640715|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640716|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.72
84640717|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640718|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640719|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.85
84640720|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.98
84640721|NCT00955201|169019705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.68
84640722|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.91
84640723|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640724|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
84640725|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
84640726|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.38
84640727|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
84640728|NCT00955201|169019706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.94
84640729|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640730|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.97
84640731|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
84640732|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
84640733|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.16
84640734|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.37
84675774|NCT01848990|169086828|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.2||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6792.2|7308.7||Area per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Least squares mean treatment difference (Hylenex minus Standard CSII)|||7308.7|-6792.2|0.9423
84504975|NCT00591253|168760965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.31||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.13|0.016
84640735|NCT00955201|169019707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.75
84640736|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
84640737|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
84640738|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
84640739|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
84640740|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.28
84640741|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.28
84675775|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Leisure activities|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5246
84675776|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Work life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.8|0.6380
84675777|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Local or long distance travel|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5719
84504976|NCT00591253|168760966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.11|0.018
84640742|NCT00955201|169019708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.83
84640743|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
84640744|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
84640745|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
84640746|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
84640747|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.55
84640748|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.31
84640749|NCT00955201|169019709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.32
84640750|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
84640751|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.92
84640752|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.93
84640753|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
84640754|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.50
84640755|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.47
84640756|NCT00955201|169019710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.97
84640757|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.83
84640758|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.91
84640759|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
84640760|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.95
84640761|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.26
84640762|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.42
84675778|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Vacations|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.4052
84675779|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Do physically|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.7240
84640763|NCT00955201|169019711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.95
84640764|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
84640765|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.53
84640766|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.79
84640767|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.94
84640768|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.75
84640769|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
84640770|NCT00955201|169019712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.63
84640771|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.98
84640772|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
84640773|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.89
84640774|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.90
84640775|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.98
84640776|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.94
84640777|NCT00955201|169019713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.91
84504977|NCT00591253|168760966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.16||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|1.13|0.015
84640778|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640779|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
84640780|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
84640781|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640782|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.96
84640783|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.86
84640784|NCT00955201|169019714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.92
84640785|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.03
84640786|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.29
84640787|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.36
84640788|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.15
84640789|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-responses across groups at baseline.||||0.20
84640790|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 12 wks.||||0.51
84640791|NCT00955201|169019715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 24 wks.||||0.59
84640792|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
84640793|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.01
84640794|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
84640795|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.98
84640796|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.96
84640797|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.06
84640798|NCT00955201|169019716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.14
84640799|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640800|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.36
84640801|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
84640802|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.46
84640803|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.14
84640804|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.05
84640805|NCT00955201|169019717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.01
84640806|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640807|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640808|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.67
84640809|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.55
84640810|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.40
84640811|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.47
84640812|NCT00955201|169019718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.43
84640813|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
84640814|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
84640815|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
84640816|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
84640817|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.88
84640818|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.48
84640819|NCT00955201|169019719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
84675780|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Family life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6876
84675781|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Friendships and social life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6478
84640820|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
84640821|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
84675782|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||Close personal relationship|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.6|0.9744
84640822|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.51
84640823|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.89
84640824|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.46
84640825|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.72
84640826|NCT00955201|169019720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24wks.||||0.22
84640827|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640828|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
84640829|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
84640830|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
84640831|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.39
84640832|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.59
84640833|NCT00955201|169019721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.29
84640834|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.97
84640835|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640836|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.09
84640837|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.05
84640838|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.11
84640839|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.41
84640840|NCT00955201|169019722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.03
84640841|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
84640842|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640843|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
84640844|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.48
84640845|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.58
84640846|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.50
84640847|NCT00955201|169019723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.33
84640848|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640849|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640850|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
84640851|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
84675783|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||Sex life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.8|-0.3|0.3177
84640852|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.38
84504978|NCT00591253|168760967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.24||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.24|1.31|0.004
84640853|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.55
84640854|NCT00955201|169019724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.37
84640855|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
84640856|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
84640857|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
84640858|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640859|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.81
84640860|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.60
84640861|NCT00955201|169019725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
84640862|NCT00955201|169019726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
84675784|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||Physical appearance|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.7|-0.2|0.2087
84640863|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
84640864|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640865|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84504979|NCT00591253|168760967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.13|1.57|<0.001
84504980|NCT01841359|168760968|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84504981|NCT01841359|168760969|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84640866|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.72
84640867|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.62
84640868|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.33
84640869|NCT00955201|169019727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
84640870|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
84640871|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640872|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
84640873|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.76
84640874|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.82
84640875|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.53
84640876|NCT00955201|169019728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.68
84640877|NCT00955201|169019729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.70
84640878|NCT00955201|169019731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
84640879|NCT00955201|169019732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.45
84640880|NCT00955201|169019733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.04
84640881|NCT00955201|169019734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.77
84640882|NCT00955201|169019735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.12
84640883|NCT00955201|169019736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.42
84640884|NCT00955201|169019737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.79
84640885|NCT03032380|169019761|NON_INFERIORITY|The study hypothesis was that the all-cause mortality rate at Day 14 in participants who received cefiderocol would be non-inferior to that in participants who received high-dose meropenem. The margin of non-inferiority was 12.5%. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mortality at Day 14 between the 2 treatment groups (cefiderocol - meropenem) was smaller than 12.5%.|Treatment Difference|0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 14 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||8.2|-6.6|0.0020
84675785|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||Self-confidence|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.4|0.7907
84640886|NCT03032380|169019762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the eradication rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.7|-13.5|
84640887|NCT03032380|169019763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.5|-12.5|
84640888|NCT03032380|169019764|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.2|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.2|-8.8|
84640889|NCT03032380|169019765|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.1|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||5.1|-12.8|
84640890|NCT03032380|169019766|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.8|-10.9|
84640891|NCT03032380|169019767|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-0.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||-0.5|-24.4|
84640892|NCT03032380|169019768|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|7.9|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||7.9|-15.5|
84640893|NCT03032380|169019769|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||15.8|-7.9|
84640894|NCT03032380|169019770|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 28 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||9.8|-8.7|
84640895|NCT03032380|169019771|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.4|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at EOS based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||13.4|-6.3|
84640896|NCT03032380|169019772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Hospitalization time at test of cure||||0.9382
84675786|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.3||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Motivation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.3444
84504982|NCT01841359|168760970|OTHER||||||=|0.20492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.20492
84640897|NCT03032380|169019772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of hospitalization time at follow-up||||0.6552
84640898|NCT01105065|169019871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||There would be no change in retinal vascular dysregulation after treatment with brimonidine||||<0.0001
84640899|NCT01105065|169019872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t-test|||A paired t-test was used to determine if their was a statistically significant difference between the mean deviation of the frequency doubling perimetry in the RVD patients pre and post brimonidine treatment.||||0.28
84675787|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||The way people in general react|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.1|0.2175
84640900|NCT00422084|169019873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 5% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the CI for the difference \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|0.3||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8||If non-inferiority of PA is demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to AL is statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than -5%."||1.8|-0.7|0.578
84640901|NCT03996369|169019881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.69|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|18.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.23|1.14|=0.026
84640902|NCT03996369|169019882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.11|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.23|3.00|=0.009
84640903|NCT03996369|169019883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.48|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|28.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.15|6.81|=0.001
84675788|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.4||||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Feelings about the future|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.0|0.2062
84504983|NCT01841359|168760971|OTHER|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2655
84504984|NCT01841359|168760972|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84640904|NCT03996369|169019884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.44|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||14.39|0.50|=0.036
84640905|NCT03996369|169019885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|32.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.29|10.18|<0.001
84640906|NCT03996369|169019886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.24|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.20|2.27|=0.009
84640907|NCT03996369|169019887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.85|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.13|-1.42|=0.115
84640908|NCT03996369|169019887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.83|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|20.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||20.47|3.19|=0.007
84640909|NCT03996369|169019887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.84|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|24.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.69|4.98|=0.003
84640910|NCT03996369|169019888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.48|-0.81|=0.128
84640911|NCT03996369|169019888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.32|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|13.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.64|3.01|=0.002
84640912|NCT03996369|169019888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.06|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||13.49|0.62|=0.032
84640913|NCT03996369|169019888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.18|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|16.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.54|1.82|=0.014
84640914|NCT03996369|169019889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.55|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|25.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.46|5.65|=0.002
84640915|NCT03996369|169019889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.98|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.91|4.05|=0.007
84640916|NCT03996369|169019889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|33.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||33.25|11.95|<0.001
84640917|NCT03996369|169019889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.58|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.47|6.70|=0.002
84640918|NCT03996369|169019890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.99|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.91|6.07|=0.002
84640919|NCT03996369|169019890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.45|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|26.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||26.36|4.54|=0.006
84640920|NCT03996369|169019890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|32.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.85|11.43|<0.001
84640921|NCT03996369|169019890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|29.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.33|7.65|<0.001
84504985|NCT01841359|168760973|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.597
84504986|NCT01841359|168760974|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84504987|NCT01841359|168760975|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84504988|NCT01841359|168760976|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
84504989|NCT01841359|168760977|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
84504990|NCT01841359|168760978|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
84540361|NCT02729909|168831492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.62||The proportion of participants with an SBM within 24 hours after first dose in Week 1 is analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.62|1.19|0.009
84640922|NCT01782469|169019892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84640923|NCT01782469|169019892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84640924|NCT01782469|169019892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84640925|NCT01782469|169019892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84640926|NCT01782469|169019893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||.130
84640927|NCT01782469|169019893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.031
84640928|NCT01782469|169019893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.006
84640929|NCT01782469|169019893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
84640930|NCT02614469|169019896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|108.0|||||Fed/Fasting Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||108|98.0|
84645158|NCT00246571|169025797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.71||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Core radiology laboratory assessment||1.71|0.06|0.9624
84675789|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Financial situation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.5|0.8762
84540362|NCT02729909|168831493|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.2|-0.6|0.001
84640931|NCT02614469|169019897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|102.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||102|96.9|
84640932|NCT02614469|169019901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|118.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||118|90.9|
84640933|NCT02614469|169019902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|112.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||112|62.1|
84640934|NCT04620798|169019912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.07|0.96|
84640935|NCT04620798|169019912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.44|0.77|
84640936|NCT04620798|169019913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.10|0.89|
84640937|NCT04620798|169019913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.62|0.50|
84640938|NCT04620798|169019914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.96|
84675790|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Living situation and conditions|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.5|0.8900
84675791|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.5||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Depend on others|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.1|0.1367
84675792|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||Freedom to eat|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.9|-0.3|0.3144
84675793|NCT01848990|169086829|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Freedom to drink|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6869
84540363|NCT02729909|168831493|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
84504991|NCT00291330|168761059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|1.7||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.70|0.65|<0.0001
84504992|NCT00291330|168761059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the risk difference based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|1.5||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.50|-0.80|<0.0001
84540364|NCT02729909|168831493|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.024
84640939|NCT04620798|169019914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.31|0.74|
84640940|NCT04620798|169019915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.09|0.84|
84640941|NCT04620798|169019915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.72|0.33|
84640942|NCT04620798|169019916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.74|
84640943|NCT04620798|169019916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.25|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||3.25|0.60|
84640944|NCT04620798|169019917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.03|0.99|
84675794|NCT01848990|169086830|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
84675795|NCT01848990|169086831|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||DTSQs|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.3|-1.1|0.9081
84640945|NCT04620798|169019917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.21|0.77|
84675796|NCT01848990|169086831|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||DTSQc|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.6|-1.5|0.9840
84675797|NCT02553746|169086837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.748
84675798|NCT02553746|169086838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.498
84640946|NCT04620798|169019918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.97|
84640947|NCT04620798|169019918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.11|0.60|
84640948|NCT04620798|169019919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.97|
84640949|NCT04620798|169019919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.12|0.74|
84640950|NCT04620798|169019920|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71|||||This analysis compares the probability of seroconverting during the study period. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and seroconversion. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.71|0.52|
84640951|NCT01960907|169019935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.342
84640952|NCT01960907|169019936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.915
84640953|NCT01960907|169019937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84640954|NCT00441116|169019946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.37||0.0319||95.0|0.75|14.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Drug A minus Drug B|Month 6 - Baseline||14.33|0.75|0.0319
84675799|NCT02553746|169086839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
84675800|NCT02553746|169086840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.162
84675801|NCT02553746|169086841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.104
84675802|NCT02553746|169086842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
84640955|NCT01332461|169020018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.926|||Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.926|0.455|0.05
84640956|NCT01332461|169020019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.109||COPD-related hospitalization|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.109|0.326|<0.05
84640957|NCT01332461|169020019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.977||COPD-related ER visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.977|0.434|<0.05
84640958|NCT01332461|169020019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.008||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.008|0.658|<0.05
84675803|NCT01312766|169086855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The one-way Analysis of Variance with Least-Squares means was performed to calculate the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between the two treatments. If the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between means (hMG-IBSA minus Menopur®) was greater than -2.1, then hMG-IBSA would be considered to be not-inferior to the comparator.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||ANOVA|||||3.43|0.43|0.012
84675804|NCT01312766|169086856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84675805|NCT01312766|169086858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
84675806|NCT01312766|169086859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84675807|NCT01312766|169086862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84675808|NCT01312766|169086863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84675809|NCT01312766|169086864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84675810|NCT01312766|169086865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84675811|NCT01312766|169086866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84675812|NCT01312766|169086867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84504993|NCT00291330|168761059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.65|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at day 180||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and the day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.84|0.65|
84640959|NCT01332461|169020019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.785|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.948||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician+Rx|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.948|0.649|<0.05
84640960|NCT00029146|169020021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.7||||0.78||95.0|-10.4|13.8|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference. The 2-sided z-statistic was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.The study was terminated early for futility after 195 of the planned 372 participants were enrolled.||13.8|-10.4|0.78
84640961|NCT00029146|169020022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|3.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|16.1|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors.||16.1|-9.2|0.59
84640962|NCT00029146|169020023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-3.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||2.6|-9.0|0.27
84640963|NCT00029146|169020024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.2|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||5.2|-2.5|0.50
84640964|NCT00029146|169020025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||9.7|-1.2|0.13
84640965|NCT00029146|169020026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|6.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|19.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||19.6|-6.5|.33
84640966|NCT00029146|169020027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-6.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group. In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-1 indicates a good outcome.|||7.3|-20.6|0.41
84640967|NCT00029146|169020028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9|||Fisher Exact||Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-2 indicates a good outcome.|||16.9|-8.2|0.70
84640968|NCT00029146|169020029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.85
84640969|NCT00029146|169020030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative indicates lower score in non-surgical group.A higher score indicates better quality of life|||0.07|-0.54|0.13
84645159|NCT00246571|169025797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||1.98|0.27|0.8140
84675813|NCT00298038|169086885|SUPERIORITY|Analysis based on the overall comparison of time to the first breakthrough overt HE episode between rifaximin and placebo groups adjusting for analysis region, using the Cox proportional hazards model (Score test, \[that is, Log rank test stratified by analysis region\]) with a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 under the proportional hazards assumption.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.641|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.641|0.276|<0.0001
84675814|NCT00827372|169086894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With a sample size of 14 evaluable subjects, we will have 80% power to detect a change in excess arm volume of .8 standard deviations using a two-sided paired t-test. We will have 90% power to detect a difference of .9 standard deviations. A Paired T-Test was used to test the difference in arm volume from the second baseline measurement to Cycle 2 only.||||0.0658
84540365|NCT02729909|168831493|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.010
84640970|NCT00029146|169020031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.||Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||13.7|-10.7|0.81
84640971|NCT03567343|169020047|EQUIVALENCE|Significance set to 0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.82||The threshold for statistical significance was P\< 0.05.|Paired T-test|||||0.82|-5.03|0.1543
84640972|NCT03567343|169020047|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.24|||Paired T-test|||||1.24|-6.3|0.1827
84640973|NCT03567343|169020048|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.56|||Paired T-test|||||1.56|-1.96|0.8165
84640974|NCT03567343|169020048|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.94|||Paired T-test|||||3.94|-0.77|0.1821
84675815|NCT00827372|169086895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used to compare the IFP affected at first versus affected at last reading.||||0.0061
84675816|NCT00827372|169086896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used for the difference in the impedance ratio from the second baseline to cycle 2, day 1||||0.0143
84675817|NCT03223298|169086919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean change (from pre-op) in Jaw Pain compared between the Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.80
84675818|NCT03223298|169086920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean Jaw Function Limitation Scale score compared between Botox group and placebo group.||||0.50
84675819|NCT03223298|169086921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.30
84675820|NCT03223298|169086921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.50
84675821|NCT03223298|169086922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score, compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.40
84675822|NCT01257204|169087035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.9|36.8|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.8|4.9|
84640975|NCT03567343|169020049|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.94||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|37.69|||Paired T-test|||||37.69|4.19|0.0156
84640976|NCT03567343|169020049|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.08||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|40.8|||Paired T-test|||||40.8|-0.64|0.0572
84640977|NCT03567343|169020050|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|0.41|||Paired T-test|||||0.41|-9.37|0.0781
84640978|NCT03567343|169020050|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.1|||Paired T-test|||||2.1|-8.1|0.242
84640979|NCT03567343|169020051|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.32|||Paired T-test|||||5.32|0.49|0.0195
84640980|NCT03567343|169020051|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.12|||Paired T-test|||||8.12|1.19|0.0097
84640981|NCT03567343|169020052|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||Paired T-test|||||1.28|0.59|<0.0001
84640982|NCT03567343|169020052|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81|||Paired T-test|||||0.81|0.08|0.0179
84640983|NCT03567343|169020053|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.83|||Paired T-test|||||3.83|-3.89|0.9875
84640984|NCT03567343|169020053|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.82|||Paired T-test|||||5.82|-6.23|0.9463
84640985|NCT03567343|169020054|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|28.5||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|47.17|||Paired T-test|||||47.17|9.84|0.0037
84640986|NCT03567343|169020054|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|9.84||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|35.31|||Paired T-test|||||35.31|-15.63|0.4395
84640987|NCT03567343|169020055|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||Paired T-test|||||0.53|-0.59|0.912
84640988|NCT03567343|169020055|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.83|||Paired T-test|||||0.83|-1.04|.8207
84640989|NCT03567343|169020056|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.47|||Paired T-test|||||0.47|-2.26|0.1929
84640990|NCT03567343|169020056|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.86|||Paired T-test|||||2.86|-3.35|0.8744
84640991|NCT03567343|169020057|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.54|||Paired T-test|||||0.54|-2.45|0.2048
84640992|NCT03567343|169020057|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.42|||Paired T-test|||||2.42|-0.5|0.1933
84640993|NCT03567343|169020058|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.13|||Paired T-test|||change in mean number of lapses||-0.13|-3.25|0.034
84540366|NCT02729909|168831494|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||1.0|0.4|<0.001
84640994|NCT03567343|169020058|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.5242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.71|||Paired T-test|||Change in number of lapses||1.71|-0.88|0.5242
84640995|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||6.25|-4.92|0.8106
84640996|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|9.09|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||9.09|-1.35|0.1427
84640997|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.21|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||1.21|-1.11|0.9344
84640998|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.69|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||2.69|0.40|0.0092
84640999|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.12|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||2.12|-1.55|0.755
84641000|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||1.92|-0.44|0.2131
84641001|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.43|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||2.43|-0.05|0.06
84641002|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.82|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||0.82|-0.34|0.4117
84641003|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.73|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.73|-1.64|0.9548
84641004|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.79|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.79|-0.83|0.4649
84641005|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.18|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.18|-0.65|0.5656
84641006|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.15|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.15|-0.5|0.4307
84641007|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|3.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||3.25|-0.92|0.2651
84641008|NCT03567343|169020059|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.53|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||1.53|-2.61|0.5992
84641009|NCT03567343|169020060|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.22|||Paired T-test|||||2.22|-1.48|0.6869
84641010|NCT03567343|169020060|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Paired T-test|||||3.43|-0.65|0.1769
84641011|NCT03567343|169020061|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.72|||Paired T-test|||||2.72|-1.69|0.6422
84641012|NCT03567343|169020061|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.16|||Paired T-test|||||2.16|-0.9|0.4106
84641013|NCT03567343|169020062|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Paired T-test|||||0.58|-1.05|0.5672
84641014|NCT03567343|169020062|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.99|||Paired T-test|||||0.99|-0.77|0.805
84641015|NCT03567343|169020063|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Median Difference (Net)|-43.09||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.43|12.26|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||12.26|-98.43|.1236
84641016|NCT03567343|169020063|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|16.11|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||16.11|-20.13|.8241
84641017|NCT01185353|169020084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84641018|NCT01185353|169020086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
84641019|NCT01185353|169020086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.088
84641020|NCT01185353|169020086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641021|NCT01185353|169020086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641022|NCT01185353|169020088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84641023|NCT01185353|169020088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
84641024|NCT01185353|169020088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641025|NCT01185353|169020088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84675823|NCT01257204|169087035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9|36.3|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.3|3.9|
84675824|NCT01257204|169087044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|26.7|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||26.7|-6.8|
84675825|NCT01257204|169087044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.4|24.2|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||24.2|-9.4|
84675826|NCT02057757|169087047|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 1.25 Days.||||||0.5634|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.5634
84641026|NCT01185353|169020090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
84641027|NCT01185353|169020090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
84641028|NCT01185353|169020090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84675827|NCT02057757|169087048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The p-value for each time point was calculated; Day 3|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.645
84675828|NCT02057757|169087048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The p-value for each value was calculated (Day 7).|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.989
84675829|NCT02057757|169087048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.809
84675830|NCT02057757|169087048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.671
84641029|NCT01185353|169020090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641030|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.480
84641031|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
84641032|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641033|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84641034|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
84641035|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.201
84641036|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641037|NCT01185353|169020094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84641038|NCT01185353|169020096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84641039|NCT01185353|169020096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.167
84641040|NCT01185353|169020096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641041|NCT01185353|169020096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84641042|NCT01185353|169020098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84641043|NCT01185353|169020098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
84641044|NCT01185353|169020098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84641045|NCT01185353|169020098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
84641046|NCT01185353|169020100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.039
84641047|NCT01185353|169020100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
84641048|NCT01185353|169020100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84641049|NCT01185353|169020100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
84641050|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.217
84641051|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
84641052|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641053|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641054|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641055|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
84641056|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641057|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641058|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641059|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
84641060|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641061|NCT01185353|169020102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641062|NCT01185353|169020104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
84641063|NCT01185353|169020104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84675831|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4277||||||Cough|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.4277
84675832|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4022||||||Sore Throat|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.4022
84641064|NCT01185353|169020104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641065|NCT01185353|169020104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641066|NCT01185353|169020106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
84641067|NCT01185353|169020106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
84641068|NCT01185353|169020106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641069|NCT01185353|169020106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641070|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.409
84641071|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.371
84641072|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641073|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84641074|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84641075|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84641076|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84641077|NCT01185353|169020108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84641078|NCT01185353|169020110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84641079|NCT01185353|169020110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
84675833|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5957||||||Fatigue|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5957
84641080|NCT01185353|169020110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641081|NCT01185353|169020110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641082|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.021
84641083|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
84641084|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641085|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84641086|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.449
84675834|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||Nasal Discharge|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0446
84675835|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8628||||||Difficulty Breathing|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.8628
84641087|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.578
84641088|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.140
84641089|NCT01185353|169020111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
84641090|NCT01185353|169020112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.||||||0.005
84641091|NCT01185353|169020112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.135
84641092|NCT01185353|169020112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84641093|NCT01185353|169020112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84641094|NCT01185353|169020113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
84641095|NCT01185353|169020113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.164
84641096|NCT01185353|169020113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84641097|NCT01185353|169020113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
84641098|NCT02270944|169020120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||To demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ia when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.32|0.79|
84645160|NCT00246571|169025800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1599||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8648|1.5558||One-sided log rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib versus standard of care.|||1.5558|0.8648|0.8394
84645161|NCT03390842|169025825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of subjects|24.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||38.7|10.2|= 0.0015
84645162|NCT03390842|169025825|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|24.4|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||38.2|9.7|= 0.0015
84645163|NCT03390842|169025825|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|43.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||43.7|15.6|< 0.0001
84645164|NCT03390842|169025826|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.03|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.03|0.96|= 0.0002
84645165|NCT03390842|169025827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value based on analysis of covariance model with rank of change from baseline in total score as dependent variable; treatment (PBO or TRC101) as a fixed effect; and baseline total score, Baseline eGFR, Baseline Bicarbonate as continuous covariates.|ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in KDQOL-PFD: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
84645166|NCT03390842|169025828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline for Repeated Chair Stand Test: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
84645167|NCT01848782|169025836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.5
84645168|NCT01848782|169025837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8
84645169|NCT01848782|169025838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.6
84645170|NCT01848782|169025839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8
84645171|NCT01848782|169025840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2
84645172|NCT03828370|169025848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
84645173|NCT03828370|169025849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.034
84641099|NCT02270944|169020121|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes III when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.30|0.76|
84641100|NCT02270944|169020122|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ib when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.22|0.72|
84641101|NCT00183729|169020128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null: the two groups would not differ in depressive symptoms over time (ie both groups would improve equally in terms of their depressive symptoms) Power calculation: none; this was a pilot study||||0.42
84641102|NCT00183729|169020130|SUPERIORITY|(no comments)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: functional recovery would be the same in both groups. Power calculation: none. This was a pilot study.||||0.06
84641103|NCT00796926|169020131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84641104|NCT03512457|169020138|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square||||||0.12||||||P-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance. The hypothesis was that more women randomized to the intensive intervention would perform skin self-examination.|Chi-squared|Chi-Squared is equal to 1.58, with a P-Value of 0.12.||change from baseline to 3 months in performance of skin self-examination Parallel: response rate||||0.12
84641105|NCT03512457|169020139|SUPERIORITY|Types of lesions in the following categories: Benign nevus, seborrheic keratosis, lentigo, dermatofibroma, atypical nevus. melanoma|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||results of skin clinical examination and biopsy of clinically suspicious moles||||<0.05
84641106|NCT00006289|169020149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B, without knowing which drug is Neurotropin or Placebo) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
84641107|NCT00006289|169020150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
84641108|NCT00006289|169020151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
84641109|NCT00576420|169020161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||90.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.1564
84641110|NCT00576420|169020163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.060
84641111|NCT00576420|169020163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.005
84641112|NCT00576420|169020164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.123
84641113|NCT00576420|169020164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.026
84641114|NCT00576420|169020165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.929
84641115|NCT00576420|169020165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.228
84641116|NCT00576420|169020167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.234
84641117|NCT00576420|169020167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.955
84641118|NCT00576420|169020168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.106
84641119|NCT00576420|169020168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.243
84641120|NCT00576420|169020168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
84641121|NCT00576420|169020169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.257
84641122|NCT00576420|169020169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.096
84641123|NCT00576420|169020169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
84675836|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Headache|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.16
84641124|NCT02043899|169020199|OTHER|"1. Exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≤90%) using α=0.05 on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT SIOPEN consensus scores. If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected, then trial stopped early for futility.~2. If the null hypothesis was rejected, then a one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%) was performed (α=0.025). If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected then the trial stopped early for efficacy."|||||<|0.001||||||Overall design has 82% power and an α of 0.03. Total minimum sample size of 100 lesions was calculated based on a single stage A'hern design with p0 = 0.90 and p1 = 0.97. The overall power and α was calculated based on exact binomial probabilities.|Exact one-sided binomial test||||"For the primary endpoint, a sensitivity analysis was also performed on patients with \<20 positive lesions on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT to test if few patients with large numbers of positive lesions were affecting the results. The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the overall analysis.~Secondary efficacy analysis, separate exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%), performed (α=0.025) performed for skeletal and soft tissue lesions."|||<0.001
84641125|NCT00362180|169020209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 26.||||0.7244
84504994|NCT00291330|168761060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.622||95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.70|-1.00|0.6220
84504995|NCT00291330|168761060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9844||95.0|0.69|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.69|0.9844
84641126|NCT00362180|169020209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 99.||||0.0513
84641127|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix™/Hib vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
84641128|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
84645174|NCT00461331|169025860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.52||95.0|87.9|100.0|||Regression, Linear|7 patients underwent early termination of either one or both of their test period due to loss of glycemic control||Glucose levels for patients when they were on each insulin were analyzed. All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables. This was a pilot study.||100.0|87.9|0.52
84504996|NCT00291330|168761061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.2||||0.6466||95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.70|-1.10|0.6466
84504997|NCT00291330|168761061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.385||95.0|0.4|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.42|0.40|0.3850
84641129|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
84641130|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.78||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.78|-4.78|
84675837|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1234||||||Muscle Pain|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.1234
84675838|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2155||||||Nausea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.2155
84641131|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
84641132|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
84641133|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
84641134|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
84675839|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Vomiting|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5176
84675840|NCT02057757|169087050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6986||||||Diarrhea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.6986
84675841|NCT02057757|169087051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.9850
84675842|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.681
84675843|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.341
84675844|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.321
84675845|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.957
84675846|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.788
84675847|NCT02057757|169087052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.544
84675848|NCT02057757|169087053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.671
84540367|NCT02729909|168831494|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||0.9|0.4|<0.001
84675849|NCT02057757|169087053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.325
84675850|NCT02057757|169087053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
84675851|NCT02057757|169087053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
84675852|NCT02057757|169087053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.311
84675853|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.973
84675854|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.575
84675855|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.548
84675856|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
84675857|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
84675858|NCT02057757|169087054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
84675859|NCT02057757|169087055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Pneumonia|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.928
84675860|NCT02057757|169087055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669||||||ARDS|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9669
84675861|NCT02057757|169087055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0832||||||Bronchitis|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0832
84675862|NCT02057757|169087056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years ) - Global Assessment: Have you felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.0360
84675863|NCT02057757|169087056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you functioning as well as you were before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0380
84675864|NCT02057757|169087056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5035||||||Children (\< 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Have you/your child felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5035
84675865|NCT02057757|169087056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9231||||||Children (\<18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you/your child functioning as well as you/your child were before you/your child had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9231
84675866|NCT02057757|169087060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||No Detectable Virus on Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9785
84675867|NCT02809976|169087074|OTHER|single group/descriptive analysis||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.02
84641135|NCT01106092|169020216|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
84641136|NCT03930264|169020234|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||ANOVA|||||1.35|0.93|0.3008
84641137|NCT03930264|169020235|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-τ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.06||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||ANOVA|||||1.13|1.00|0.1061
84641138|NCT03930264|169020236|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-∞ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.02||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.96|0.5696
84641139|NCT02434471|169020243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84641140|NCT02434471|169020244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84641141|NCT01473368|169020246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84641142|NCT01473368|169020250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84641143|NCT04839562|169020254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1|-7.7|=.0106
84641144|NCT04839562|169020255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.002
84641145|NCT04839562|169020256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
84641146|NCT04839562|169020257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
84641147|NCT04839562|169020258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0348
84641148|NCT04839562|169020259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1
84641149|NCT04839562|169020260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
84641150|NCT04839562|169020261|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1864
84641151|NCT04839562|169020262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.4173
84641152|NCT04839562|169020263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0343
84641153|NCT04839562|169020264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0636|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0636
84641154|NCT04839562|169020265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.065
84641155|NCT04839562|169020266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
84641156|NCT04839562|169020267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.2829
84641157|NCT01347580|169020272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.327||pvalue at 0.025 , adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.327|0.799|0.8214
84641158|NCT01347580|169020273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.441||P value at 0.025 adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.441|0.801|0.6322
84641159|NCT01347580|169020274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.595|0.661|0.9056
84641160|NCT01347580|169020275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.942|0.760|0.4168
84641161|NCT01347580|169020276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.189||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.856|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.856|0.042|0.0307
84641162|NCT01347580|169020277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.462|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.462|0.876|0.344
84641163|NCT01347580|169020278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.506|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.506|0.996|0.0547
84641164|NCT01347580|169020279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.096|0.588|0.1660
84641165|NCT01949337|169020284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.80|0.33
84641166|NCT01012219|169020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||||1.56|0.96|
84641167|NCT01350544|169020328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91||a priori threshold for significance for p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used generalized linear mixed models predicting adherence at baseline and 1.5-, 3-, 4.5-, and 6-months post-baseline, with intervention , time, interaction between intervention and time, medical and socio-demographic covariates, and baseline viral load. Sample size was determined with a power analysis assuming .80 power and an alpha level of .05 that would allow for detection of a small-to-medium effect size in adherence between arms.||0.91|0.69|.005
84641168|NCT00594425|169020355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|5.53||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|19.04||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||19.04|-7.97|0.5288
84504998|NCT00291330|168761062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.2981||95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.00|-0.30|0.2981
84641169|NCT00594425|169020355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|3.95||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|16.69||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||16.69|-8.79|0.7539
84641170|NCT00594425|169020356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.64||||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.63||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||2.63|-7.91|0.3236
84641171|NCT00594425|169020356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.19||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.26||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||4.26|-6.64|0.6657
84641172|NCT00594425|169020384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||%success rate|3.09||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|17.33||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||17.33|-11.16|0.7889
84641173|NCT00594425|169020384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent success|5.48||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|21.11||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||21.11|-10.15|0.8880
84641174|NCT00594425|169020385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.33||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.86||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.86|-6.53|0.9151
84641175|NCT00594425|169020385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.18||||0.7233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|5.45||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.45|-7.81|0.7233
84641176|NCT02558829|169020387|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome positive; C = MAC outcome negative and ITT positive|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.84|83.78||||||The estimated percentages of the agreements and the two-sided 95% confidence interval (or one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the percent agreement based on Clopper-Pearson are presented. The performance of the MAC (cut-off point 2.8 ng/mL) was considered to be acceptable if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (or lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI) was 75% or higher for 'percent negative agreement', and 70% or higher for the 'percent positive agreement'.||83.78|62.84|
84641177|NCT02558829|169020387|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = MAC outcome negative and ITT outcome negative; B = MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome negative|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.2|98.32||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1.||98.32|85.20|
84641178|NCT02558829|169020388|OTHER|The secondary diagnostic accuracy measure was 'percent overall agreement'.|overall agreement|83.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.38|89.29||||||This variable was analyzed using the same methodology described for the analyses for the primary efficacy variables. in the below, the results for Step 1 (peak GH level among all post baseline samples) are presented.||89.29|76.38|
84641179|NCT02558829|169020390|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Pre/post dose comparison of ECGs was done for both GHSTs. During the GHSTs, ECGs were measured at pre-dose (up to 15 min before) and 60 minutes post-dose. Furthermore, ECGs were measured at screening and at End-of-Study (EOS) Visit.~Calculations were done from two time points: baseline and 60 min post-dose. Baseline is either the screening or pre-dose value."||||
84641180|NCT02558829|169020390|OTHER|Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this secondary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84641181|NCT02558829|169020391|OTHER|Sensitivity is the probability that the test result is positive given the subject has the disease (for the purpose of this analysis, all group A subjects were assumed to have AGHD, but none of the group D subjects). Sensitivity (SS) was estimated by: SS = TP/(TP+FN). TP=True AGHD positive subject; FN=False AGHD negative subject.|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||Sensitivity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||0.96|0.72|
84641182|NCT02558829|169020391|OTHER|"Specificity is the probability that the test result is negative given the subject does not have the disease.~Specificity (SP) was estimated by: SP = TN/(TN+FP). TN = True AGHD negative Subjects; FP = False AGHD positive subjects."|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||Specificity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||1.00|0.80|
84675868|NCT00113516|169087088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.315|0.494|||Kaplan-Meier||The probability of survival along with the corresponding confidence interval (CI) (for the log \[-log (1-year survival rate)\]) was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival rate itself.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is 0.40 versus the alternative hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is at least 0.55. The sample size was determined using a One-Sample Survival design, assuming alpha=0.05 (1-sided), power= 0.90, 6 month accrual, a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, and an expectation that approximately 5% of subjects may be lost to follow-up.||0.494|0.315|
84675869|NCT00113516|169087092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|38.2||||||||38.2|18.2|
84675870|NCT00113516|169087106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.474
84675871|NCT00113516|169087107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.836
84641183|NCT02558829|169020392|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= test outcome positive for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension; C = test outcome positive for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension.|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.29|98.62||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this outcome.||98.62|65.29|
84641184|NCT02558829|169020392|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension; B = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.41|100.0||||||Amendment no 1 had been issued for selected sites in Europe to obtain exploratory data on the repeatability of the MAC in a subset of subjects that had completed the core study.||100.00|79.41|
84641185|NCT00097981|169020393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.49
84641186|NCT00097981|169020394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.42
84641187|NCT00097981|169020395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.42
84641188|NCT00097981|169020396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5162
84641189|NCT00097981|169020397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.797|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.797|0.529|0.93
84641190|NCT00412373|169020400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.774||95.0|-2.7|3.7|||ANOVA|P-value based on the actual value and was from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Actual Score.|||3.7|-2.7|0.774
84641191|NCT00412373|169020401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|P-values are from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-4.9|-13.8|<0.001
84641192|NCT00412373|169020402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.2|-4.4|<0.001
84641193|NCT00412373|169020403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.8|-3.1|<0.001
84675872|NCT00113516|169087107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.071
84641194|NCT00412373|169020404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
84641195|NCT00412373|169020405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.1|-4.2|<0.001
84641196|NCT00412373|169020406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-3.3|<0.001
84641197|NCT00412373|169020407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
84641198|NCT00412373|169020408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.001||95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.6|-2.6|0.001
84641199|NCT00412373|169020409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016||95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
84675873|NCT00113516|169087107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.393
84641200|NCT00412373|169020411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.002||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
84641201|NCT00412373|169020412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84641202|NCT00412373|169020413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.046
84641203|NCT00412373|169020415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.7|-6.4|<0.001
84641204|NCT00412373|169020417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.0|-7.7|0.001
84641205|NCT03241368|169020453|OTHER|Comparative - This purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of the PillCam Crohn's capsule \[referred to as capsule endoscopy (CE)\] as compared to IC with MRE.||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|Exact McNemar's test||This was a 1-arm, non-powered study. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was estimated for each treatment group, along with the 95% confidence interval. The difference between treatment groups in Sensitivity and Specificity was compared.||||0.125
84641206|NCT04740905|169020457|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.1|-2.2|
84641207|NCT04740905|169020457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Tested at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept.||1.1|-2.2|0.4978
84641208|NCT04740905|169020459|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-12.3|
84641209|NCT04740905|169020475|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.9|
84641210|NCT01054183|169020509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.57||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of successful 1st intubation attempt is the same for both groups||||0.57
84641211|NCT01054183|169020510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.002||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: overall successful intubation rate is the same for both groups.||||0.002
84641212|NCT02034409|169020526|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week OMERACT-OARSI response the minimally clinically significant difference is an absolute rate difference of 10% between sham and PLIUS groups. With a total sample size of 144 the probability of correctly selecting the group with the greatest OORR is at least 0.885 assuming (δ=10%) that the sham group is drawn from a population with a 50% response rate and the PLIUS group is drawn from a population with response rate of at least 60% or at most 40%.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
84540368|NCT02729909|168831494|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||0.8|0.4|<0.001
84641213|NCT02034409|169020527|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week cartilage change outcome measure the minimally clinically significant difference is 33 μm. With a difference of 33 μm, σ=152 μm standard deviation, k=2 groups, and P=0.90 probability to obtain τ=1.8124, which we use to estimate the per-group sample size: n=σ2(τ/δ\*)2=72 or a total of 144.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
84641214|NCT02342418|169020551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84641215|NCT02342418|169020552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test||||0.214
84675874|NCT00113516|169087107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.029
84675875|NCT00113516|169087107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.247
84675876|NCT00113516|169087108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.305
84675877|NCT00113516|169087109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.738
84641216|NCT00428584|169020557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||P value refers to mean change to 30 minute post injection|ANOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a two-way ANOVA model on ranked data including treatment group and site as fixed effect.||||0.524
84641217|NCT00428584|169020558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.484
84641218|NCT00428584|169020559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.838
84641219|NCT00428584|169020560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||No pain is defined as a VAS = 0 for all 21 full dose injections.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.451
84641220|NCT00428584|169020561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.338
84641221|NCT02390791|169020582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||generalized linear model|assuming a Poisson distribution with a log link function||||||0.04
84641222|NCT02390791|169020583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84641223|NCT02390791|169020584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
84641224|NCT02390791|169020585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84641225|NCT02390791|169020586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84641226|NCT02390791|169020587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
84540369|NCT02729909|168831494|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||0.7|0.2|<0.001
84641227|NCT02390791|169020588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84641228|NCT02390791|169020589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84641229|NCT02390791|169020590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.48
84641230|NCT02390791|169020591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.71
84641231|NCT01181986|169020644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence, group (diabetes duration) and time.||||||<0.0001
84641232|NCT01181986|169020644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.006
84641233|NCT01181986|169020644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.003
84641234|NCT01181986|169020645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence and diabetes duration group.||||||<0.0001
84641235|NCT01181986|169020646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84641236|NCT01330017|169020691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4912||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4912
84641237|NCT01330017|169020691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
84641238|NCT01330017|169020691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
84641239|NCT01330017|169020691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5983
84641240|NCT01221272|169020699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.67||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on PDS would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the PDS p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.6|0.29
84641241|NCT01221272|169020700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.65||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on TPD would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the TPD p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-0.4|0.22
84641242|NCT02656680|169020704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U Test||||0.72
84641243|NCT02656680|169020705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test comparing proportion retained in each condition.||||0.31
84641244|NCT02656680|169020706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84641245|NCT02656680|169020707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||We compared mean percent weight loss from baseline across groups with a one-way ANOVA. One participant became pregnant and thus removed from the analysis. This analysis is exploratory given that this pilot study was not powered to detect weight loss differences between groups.||||0.218
84641246|NCT02656680|169020708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.421
84641247|NCT01122264|169020726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.51|0.85||P-value: Tadalafil Once a Day versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
84675878|NCT00113516|169087109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.438
84675879|NCT00113516|169087109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.236
84675880|NCT00113516|169087109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.287
84675881|NCT00113516|169087109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.772
84675882|NCT00113516|169087110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.537
84675883|NCT00113516|169087111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.813
84675884|NCT00113516|169087111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.849
84675885|NCT00113516|169087111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.121
84675886|NCT00113516|169087111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.582
84675887|NCT00113516|169087111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.383
84675888|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.15|0.61|0.6782
84675889|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.30|0.77|0.1980
84675890|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.98|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.98|0.82|0.1344
84675891|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
84675892|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|11.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 1||11.13|1.19|0.0153
84675893|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
84675894|NCT00113516|169087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
84675895|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.39|0.65|0.5070
84675896|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.82|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||2.82|0.63|0.4474
84675897|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.95|0.40|0.7599
84675898|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
84675899|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||3.58|0.43|0.6878
84675900|NCT00113516|169087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
84675901|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.62|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.62|0.39|0.5277
84675902|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.29|0.58|0.4660
84675903|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.44|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.44|0.52|0.5337
84675904|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
84675905|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.07|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.07|0.54|0.2948
84675906|NCT00113516|169087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
84675907|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.56|0.7824
84675908|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.47|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.47|0.77|0.1918
84675909|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||4.30|0.85|0.1093
84675910|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
84675911|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|13.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||13.85|1.26|0.0110
84675912|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
84675913|NCT00113516|169087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
84641248|NCT01122264|169020726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.37|0.65||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.65|0.37|<0.001
84641249|NCT01122264|169020726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Tadalafil Once a Day treatment groups using Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||1.71|1.02|0.033
84641250|NCT02882152|169020784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
84641251|NCT02882152|169020785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
84675914|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.53|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.53|0.62|0.5215
84540370|NCT02729909|168831495|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.1|-0.9|0.020
84641252|NCT02871882|169020786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84641253|NCT00791973|169020797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.33
84641254|NCT00791973|169020798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.14
84641255|NCT00797966|169020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.81|-2.87|0.6551
84675915|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.49|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.49|0.72|0.2504
84675916|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.11|0.42|0.8766
84675917|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
84675918|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||4.18|0.46|0.5627
84675919|NCT00113516|169087116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
84675920|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.84|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.84|0.39|0.6682
84675921|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.00|0.49|0.6854
84675922|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.37|0.49|0.6028
84675923|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
84675924|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.15|0.50|0.3411
84641256|NCT00797966|169020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.55|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.55|-2.30|0.7037
84641257|NCT00797966|169020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||-0.21|-4.08|0.0303
84641258|NCT00797966|169020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo|||0.18|-0.43|0.4166
84641259|NCT00797966|169020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.15|-0.35|0.4193
84641260|NCT00797966|169020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.10|-0.60|0.0064
84641261|NCT00797966|169020804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||6.02|-2.67|0.4490
84641262|NCT00797966|169020804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||4.24|-3.02|0.7412
84641263|NCT00797966|169020804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||5.17|-2.10|0.4070
84641264|NCT00797966|169020805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.42|-0.86|0.4954
84641265|NCT00797966|169020805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.35|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.35|-0.73|0.4902
84641266|NCT00797966|169020805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.12|-1.20|0.0161
84641267|NCT00797966|169020811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.46|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.46|-2.54|0.5953
84641268|NCT00797966|169020811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.55|-1.66|0.9479
84641269|NCT00797966|169020811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.22|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.22|-2.95|0.0919
84641270|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3998||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.3998
84641271|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8838||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.8838
84641272|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4012||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.4012
84641273|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.6131
84641274|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.5964
84641275|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.2540
84641276|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.8524
84641277|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6969||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.6969
84641278|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3108||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.3108
84641279|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8719||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.8719
84641280|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6105||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.6105
84641281|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.0709
84641282|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.9574
84641283|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.2310
84641284|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.0672
84641285|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8441||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.8441
84641286|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6741||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.6741
84641287|NCT00797966|169020812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.0183
84641288|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.49||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.12|0.3007
84641289|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.94||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||2.10|0.42|0.8812
84641290|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.32||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.07||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.07|0.10|0.0553
84641291|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.78||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.05|0.30|0.6051
84641292|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.92||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.85||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.85|0.46|0.8264
84641293|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.10|0.54|0.8690
84641294|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.44|0.74|0.3441
84641295|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.14||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.94||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.94|0.67|0.6375
84641296|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.21||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.21|0.78|0.3135
84641297|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.35||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||4.18|1.32|0.0035
84641298|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||2.31|0.70|0.4358
84641299|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.41||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.41|1.20|0.0063
84641300|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.23||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.23|0.72|0.3968
84641301|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.00|0.81|0.2990
84641302|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.39||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.25|0.86|0.1614
84641303|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.29||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.12|0.79|0.3254
84641304|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.02||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.62|0.64|0.9463
84641305|NCT00797966|169020813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.65|1.14|0.0080
84641306|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.59||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||3.90|0.09|0.5791
84641307|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.43||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.10|0.2653
84641308|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.39||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.87||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.87|0.08|0.2259
84641309|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.83||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.18|0.32|0.6986
84641310|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.61||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.35||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.35|0.28|0.2339
84641311|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.15|0.53|0.8615
84641312|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.20|0.51|0.8807
84641313|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.77|0.52|0.9035
84641314|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.19||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.24|0.64|0.5898
84641315|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.58||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.58|0.93|0.0840
84641316|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.88|0.49|0.9115
84641317|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.77||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.17|0.98|0.0522
84641318|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.24||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.34||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.34|0.65|0.4997
84641319|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.16||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.93|0.69|0.5846
84641320|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.76|0.55|0.9602
84641321|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.62||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||3.02|0.87|0.1254
84641322|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.99||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.99|0.65|0.6670
84641323|NCT00797966|169020814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.7||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.93|0.98|0.0525
84641324|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.84|0.52|0.9462
84641325|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.8||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.49|0.43|0.4971
84641326|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.93||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.63|0.53|0.8118
84641327|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.95||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.53||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.53|0.59|0.8323
84641328|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.08|0.43|0.0930
84641329|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.88||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.32||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.32|0.59|0.5530
84641330|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.61|0.69|0.8007
84641331|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.03||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.49|0.71|0.8945
84641332|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.17||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.64|0.83|0.3837
84641333|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.63|0.72|0.7064
84641334|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.52|0.74|0.7469
84641335|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.34||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.86|0.97|0.0832
84641336|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.61|0.74|0.6611
84641337|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.13||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.56|0.83|0.4435
84641338|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.98|1.09|0.0118
84540371|NCT02729909|168831495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||||0.072
84641339|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.89||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.26||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.26|0.63|0.5111
84641340|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.9||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.22|0.66|0.4903
84641341|NCT00797966|169020815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.28||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.67|0.98|0.0662
84641342|NCT03859973|169020876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.866||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|0.833|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.833|-2.605|0.3101
84641343|NCT03859973|169020877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.051||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.676|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.676|-2.778|0.2309
84641344|NCT03859973|169020878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.577||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|2.362|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, continuous covariate of baseline value, categorical factor of age group.||2.362|-1.207|0.5237
84641345|NCT03859973|169020879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.669||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (baseline, Week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group.||2.172|-3.510|0.6420
84641346|NCT00917644|169020937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.79||||||90.0|94.57|103.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||103.20|94.57|
84675925|NCT00113516|169087117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
84675926|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4768
84675927|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.13|0.84|0.1484
84675928|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.18|0.50|0.8957
84675929|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.85|0.33|0.5681
84675930|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.88|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||10.88|1.35|0.0074
84540372|NCT02729909|168831495|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.9|<0.001
84641347|NCT00917644|169020939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUClast calculated value.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.72||||||90.0|94.41|103.23|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||103.23|94.41|
84641348|NCT00917644|169020940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.66||||||90.0|95.73|114.42|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Observed directly from data.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||114.42|95.73|
84641349|NCT02683746|169020988|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tested was that the liquid drug product would provide glycemic control non-inferior to the lyophilized drug product for a period of 26 weeks of treatment in participants with T2DM. Non-inferiority testing was performed at a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 0.4.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model|||||0.24|-0.13|0.0002
84641350|NCT02683746|169020996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14||||||||0.14|-0.83|
84641351|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.13|-0.07|<0.0001
84641352|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.20|-0.07|<0.0001
84641353|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.24|-0.08|<0.0001
84641354|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.20|-0.16|<0.0001
84641355|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.19|-0.15|<0.0001
84641356|NCT02683746|169020997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.20|-0.17|<0.0001
84641357|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.65|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 1 are presented.|||0.65|-0.15|
84641358|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 2 are presented.|||0.69|-0.20|
84641359|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 3 are presented.|||0.40|-0.42|
84641360|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.36|-0.42|
84641361|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 5 are presented.|||0.57|-0.19|
84641362|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.55|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 6 are presented.|||0.55|-0.26|
84641363|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 7 are presented.|||0.71|-0.16|
84641364|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.60|-0.22|
84641365|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 9 are presented.|||0.47|-0.41|
84641366|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 10 are presented.|||0.57|-0.28|
84641367|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 11 are presented.|||0.56|-0.34|
84641368|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.46|-0.41|
84641369|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 13 are presented.|||0.57|-0.47|
84641370|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.54|-0.41|
84641371|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.53|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.53|-0.47|
84641372|NCT02683746|169020998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.14|-0.83|
84641373|NCT04987944|169021002|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|5.0||||||||5.0|-24.5|
84641374|NCT04987944|169021003|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|11.5||||||||11.5|-19.4|
84641375|NCT04987944|169021004|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.972||||||||0.972|-0.125|
84641376|NCT00345332|169021008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84641377|NCT00345332|169021009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84641378|NCT04121078|169021010|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for Cmax based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed Cmax with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for Cmax. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.62|8.42||||||||8.42|4.62|
84641379|NCT04121078|169021011|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUC∞ based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUC∞ with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC∞. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.25|6.25||||||||6.25|4.25|
84641380|NCT04121078|169021012|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUClast based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUClast with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUClast. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.29|6.32||||||||6.32|4.29|
84641381|NCT02012582|169021039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed model analysis for TIL with the patient as random effect and study day, cohort, treatment, and interaction between study day and treatment as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Groups||||<0.04
84641382|NCT02012582|169021040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Group||||<0.01
84641383|NCT03207438|169021042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
84641384|NCT03207438|169021042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.18
84641385|NCT03207438|169021042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
84641386|NCT03207438|169021042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.14
84641387|NCT03207438|169021043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
84641388|NCT03207438|169021043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.17
84641389|NCT03207438|169021043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
84641390|NCT03207438|169021043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.13
84540373|NCT02729909|168831495|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.9|0.004
84641391|NCT03207438|169021044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher's exact test|||Day 4 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup|An exact OR could not be estimated by R; the 95% confidence interval was 0.31 to infinity, p = .33.|||.33
84641392|NCT03207438|169021044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test||The exact limits of 95% confidence interval could not be estimated, it was reported as 0.40 to infinity.|Week 1 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.44
84641393|NCT03207438|169021044|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.38||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.73
84641394|NCT03207438|169021044|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|1.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.11
84641395|NCT03207438|169021044|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The actual estimated Chi-squared statistic was 6.35(10\^-31)|Week 6 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.50
84641396|NCT03207438|169021045|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated chi-squared statistic was 1.88(10\^-29).|Day 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.5
84641397|NCT03207438|169021045|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 1 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.03
84641398|NCT03207438|169021045|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.02
84641399|NCT03207438|169021045|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.22
84641400|NCT03207438|169021045|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|2.45||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 6 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.059
84641401|NCT03554486|169021059|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
84641402|NCT03554486|169021060|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84641403|NCT03554486|169021061|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84641404|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0642|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.95|-55.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-55.08|-61.95|<0.0001
84641405|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-68.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.66|-65.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-65.16|-70.66|<0.0001
84641406|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.26|-84.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.95|-87.26|<0.0001
84641407|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.7|-36.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-36.10|-44.70|<0.0001
84641408|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.78|-47.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-47.70|-54.78|<0.0001
84641409|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.4|-56.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.56|-62.40|<0.0001
84641410|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.06|-28.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-28.62|-45.06|<0.0001
84641411|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.72|-37.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-37.38|-51.72|<0.0001
84641412|NCT02509117|169021101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.51|-56.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.42|-66.51|<0.0001
84641413|NCT02199717|169021116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All statistical analyses were completed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics such as mean (± SD) and range were calculated and provided for demographic variables, accelerometry variables and questionnaire outcomes. Differences between the two groups (mild/moderate versus severe haemophilia) were examined in exploratory analyses.||||0.32
84641414|NCT02199717|169021117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|306.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|254.8|358.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||358|254.8|<0.01
84641415|NCT00934843|169021120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.33|||Multivariate risk computation|||The current study was designed with an anticipated enrollment of 87 patients per treatment arm to achieve a statistical power of 80% (1- β) while controlling type I error at 0.05 (α) using a more conservative estimate of LCOS rate in the Single Dose MP group of 33%, and an incidence of LCOS in the Two Dose MP group of 15%.||1.33|0.45|0.35
84641416|NCT00934843|169021121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||A repeated measures analysis of variance framework was used for longitudinal analysis of inotrope score. In order to identify potential confounding variables, a variable was considered a relevant covariate and added into the model with a p ≤ 0.15.|ANCOVA|||||||0.43
84641417|NCT00934843|169021123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
84641418|NCT00934843|169021124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.||||||0.047
84641419|NCT03259620|169021125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2587
84641420|NCT03602560|169021137|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84641421|NCT03602560|169021137|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84641422|NCT03602560|169021138|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 4). Breslow-Day test was used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84641423|NCT03602560|169021138|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4). Breslow-Day test is used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.||||||0.0839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
84641424|NCT03602560|169021139|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.87|0.0164
84641425|NCT03602560|169021139|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.77|0.4781
84641426|NCT01340872|169021151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
84641427|NCT01340872|169021155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
84641428|NCT01340872|169021156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|||1.43|< 0.0001
84641429|NCT01340872|169021167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
84641430|NCT01340872|169021168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF - Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
84641431|NCT01502332|169021177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84641432|NCT01502332|169021178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
84641433|NCT01502332|169021179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
84641434|NCT01502332|169021181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.267
84641435|NCT03039621|169021182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance equals 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
84641436|NCT03039621|169021183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84641437|NCT03039621|169021184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84540374|NCT03300817|168831509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.6834
84641438|NCT03039621|169021185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84641439|NCT03039621|169021186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 2 to Day 3, 4, 5 and 6 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0201
84641440|NCT03039621|169021187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
84641441|NCT03039621|169021188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
84641442|NCT03039621|169021188|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.22|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.22
84675931|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.70|0.06|0.1637
84504999|NCT00291330|168761062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.1092||95.0|0.86|4.68|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||4.68|0.86|0.1092
84505000|NCT00291330|168761063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.5327||95.0|-1.2|0.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.60|-1.20|0.5327
84505001|NCT00291330|168761063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3332||95.0|0.03|3.15|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.15|0.03|0.3332
84505002|NCT00291330|168761064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.1||||0.8018||95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.80|-1.00|0.8018
84641443|NCT03039621|169021189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 1 to Day 2, 3 and 4 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0037
84641444|NCT03039621|169021190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84641445|NCT00789074|169021200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84505003|NCT00291330|168761064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8203||95.0|0.54|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.63|0.54|0.8203
84505004|NCT00291330|168761065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5063||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category major bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.48|0.45|0.5063
84641446|NCT00789074|169021201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
84641447|NCT00789074|169021202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||F=16.60|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
84641448|NCT00789074|169021203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||F=2.92|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.04
84641449|NCT00789074|169021204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.02
84641450|NCT00789074|169021205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.97
84641451|NCT01733212|169021222|EQUIVALENCE|Considering the null hypothesis that the number of participants who will have vomiting will be equal in the two arms, we performed this study with a significance level of 0.05% and power of 80% to prove that there is a difference in the number.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of participants who had vomiting in each group is compared to the other. Two sided Chi square test was conducted, Type I error of 0.05% and power of 80% are considered.||||0.07
84641452|NCT01369329|169021226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
84641453|NCT01369329|169021226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
84641454|NCT01369329|169021227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
84641455|NCT01369329|169021227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
84641456|NCT01369329|169021228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
84641457|NCT01369329|169021228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
84641458|NCT01369329|169021229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
84641459|NCT01369329|169021229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
84641460|NCT01369329|169021230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.009
84641461|NCT01369329|169021230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
84641462|NCT00159822|169021231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|31.7||||||95.0|18.08|48.09|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|For sample size calculation, null hypothesis (p\<p0) is defined as response rate \<15% (ie, weak drug efficacy). Alternative hypothesis (p\>pA) defined as response rate \>30%. To reduce the chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis to 5% (α=5%) and incorrectly rejecting the alternate hypothesis to 20% (β=20%) it was calculated that a sample size of 48 subjects was required. Null hypothesis was rejected (assessing efficacy of study drug) if the number of eligible success was ≥ than n=12.||48.09|18.08|
84641463|NCT00159822|169021232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|33.3||||||95.0|18.6|51.0|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|Month 3 success=yes||51.0|18.6|
84641464|NCT00159822|169021232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|43.9||||||95.0|28.5|60.3|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|EOT success=yes||60.3|28.5|
84641465|NCT00159822|169021238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate overall survival|0.85||||||95.0|0.725|0.976|||||Global survival rate calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival.|||0.976|0.725|
84641466|NCT02788279|169021306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.73|0.9871
84641467|NCT02788279|169021306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.71|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.71|0.83|0.3360
84641468|NCT02788279|169021306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.74|0.9686
84641469|NCT02788279|169021306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.69|0.83|0.3553
84641470|NCT02788279|169021307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.65|0.94|0.1208
84675932|NCT00113516|169087118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|29.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||29.12|0.23|0.4328
84641471|NCT02788279|169021307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.94|1.00|0.0509
84641472|NCT02788279|169021307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.60|0.92|0.1726
84641473|NCT02788279|169021307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.91|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.91|1.00|0.0467
84641474|NCT02788279|169021308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.51||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.94|||Stratified Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.94|-3.92|1.0000
84641475|NCT02788279|169021308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.89|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.89|-4.89|1.0000
84641476|NCT01029405|169021363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||<0.001
84641477|NCT01976988|169021433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
84675933|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.21|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.21|0.72|0.4269
84641478|NCT01976988|169021434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
84641479|NCT01976988|169021435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84641480|NCT01976988|169021436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84641481|NCT01976988|169021437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84641482|NCT01976988|169021438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84641483|NCT01270802|169021466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that the declines in FMD seen with TDF/FTC/EFV in our previous study would fully reverse. Thus, the clinically relevant effect size to be detected for FMD change was +3.12% (SD 4%) in those switching from EFV to RAL. Using a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error and 20% type II error, a sample size of 13 per group would be needed to find a difference in FMD between groups. Allowing for a 10% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 15 subjects per group.||2.37|-0.75|0.67
84641484|NCT01270802|169021467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|9.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.77|-13.04|0.40
84641485|NCT01512667|169021468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.23||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||2.23|1.15|
84641486|NCT01512667|169021469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.81||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.81|1.18|
84641487|NCT02700334|169021503|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84675934|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.86|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||1.86|0.51|0.9290
84641488|NCT02700334|169021504|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
84641489|NCT02700334|169021505|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
84641490|NCT02700334|169021506|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
84641491|NCT02700334|169021507|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84641492|NCT02700334|169021508|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
84641493|NCT02700334|169021509|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84641494|NCT02700334|169021510|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84641495|NCT02700334|169021511|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
84641496|NCT02700334|169021512|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
84641497|NCT02700334|169021513|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.721
84641498|NCT02700334|169021514|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
84641499|NCT02700334|169021515|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
84641500|NCT02700334|169021516|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
84641501|NCT02700334|169021517|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84641502|NCT02700334|169021518|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
84641503|NCT02700334|169021519|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
84641504|NCT00770146|169021527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With at least 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 groups.||||<0.001
84641505|NCT00770146|169021529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84641506|NCT00770146|169021531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84641507|NCT00770146|169021533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84641508|NCT00770146|169021535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84675935|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.91|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.91|0.44|0.8195
84641509|NCT00770146|169021537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
84641510|NCT00770146|169021539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84641511|NCT00770146|169021541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84641512|NCT00770146|169021543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84641513|NCT00770146|169021545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84641514|NCT02412488|169021551|OTHER|"The goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision. The target sample size of approximately 200 subjects undergoing Reveal LINQ insertion was selected to ensure that the upper 95% confidence interval would be within 3 percentage points of the point estimate of the untoward event rate assuming the underlying rate was 2%"|Event Rate expressed as a percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||||The estimate is the observed rate of untoward events expressed as a percentage. The 95% confidence interval is also expressed as a percentage|"There was no formal statistical hypothesis test associated with the primary outcome measure. Rather the goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision."||2.1|0|
84641515|NCT03222492|169021571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
84641516|NCT03222492|169021571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.444
84641517|NCT03222492|169021572|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
84641518|NCT03222492|169021572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.400
84641519|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
84641520|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
84641521|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
84675936|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.38|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.38|0.26|0.2210
84641522|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
84641523|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
84641524|NCT03222492|169021573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.500
84641525|NCT03222492|169021574|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
84641526|NCT03222492|169021574|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
84641527|NCT03222492|169021575|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
84641528|NCT03222492|169021575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.467
84641529|NCT03222492|169021576|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
84641530|NCT03222492|169021576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.400
84641531|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.464
84641532|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.500
84675937|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||1.85|0.24|0.4297
84641533|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.250
84641534|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.167
84641535|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.083
84641536|NCT03222492|169021577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.083
84641537|NCT03222492|169021578|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
84641538|NCT03222492|169021578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.429
84641539|NCT03222492|169021579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.286
84641540|NCT03222492|169021579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.067
84641541|NCT03222492|169021580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.100
84641542|NCT03222492|169021581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.100
84641543|NCT03222492|169021592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
84641544|NCT03222492|169021592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
84641545|NCT03222492|169021593|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84675938|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.11|0.06|0.0522
84641546|NCT03222492|169021593|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
84641547|NCT00816023|169021600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||||||0.474
84641548|NCT02312882|169021609|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84641549|NCT02025556|169021636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-4.07|< .0001
84641550|NCT02025556|169021636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.38|-3.9|< .0001
84641551|NCT02189954|169021641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84641552|NCT02189954|169021641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U|||||||<0.05
84641553|NCT02112045|169021645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
84641554|NCT02112045|169021646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
84641555|NCT02775240|169021657|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.378|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Digoxin||1.378|1.130|
84641556|NCT02775240|169021658|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.144|||Linear mixed effects model|||Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextromethorphan||1.144|0.778|
84641557|NCT02775240|169021659|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|1.007|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextrorphan||1.007|0.883|
84641558|NCT02775240|169021665|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.324|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Digoxin||1.324|1.099|
84675939|NCT00113516|169087119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||7.00|0.05|0.6949
84505005|NCT00291330|168761065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category of any bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.85|0.59|0.0002
84505006|NCT02629965|168761076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.153|0.077|<0.001
84641559|NCT02775240|169021667|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|0.999|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Dextrorphan||0.999|0.943|
84641560|NCT02775240|169021668|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.287|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Digoxin||1.287|1.080|
84641561|NCT02775240|169021669|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.118|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast of Dextromethorphan||1.118|0.696|
84641562|NCT02775240|169021670|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|0.998|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Dextrorphan||0.998|0.949|
84641563|NCT02775240|169021671|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.138|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast ratio values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Dextromethorphan/Dextrorphan (Parent/Metabolite) AUClast ratio||1.138|0.721|
84641564|NCT00247611|169021694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance were 0.05 alpha two tailed.|HLM|||For the ITT sample, the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from was associated with a p-value of 0.12, two-tailed alpha 0.05.||||0.12
84641565|NCT00247611|169021694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance was 0.05 alpha, two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample, study arm was associated with perfect ACTG-assessed 3-day ARV adherence at p = 0.024, alpha two-tailed.||||0.024
84675940|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.65|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.65|0.51|0.7660
84505007|NCT02629965|168761077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.211|14.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|14.548|-6.211|0.4291
84641566|NCT00247611|169021695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||For the ITT or OP samples, the significance threshold between groups over time for differential increases in proportion with suppressed (undetectable) viral load was p \> 0.50. The study was underpowered to detect differences in Viral load.||||>0.50
84641567|NCT00247611|169021696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||0.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed|HLM|||For the ITT sample (t=586) the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
84641568|NCT00247611|169021696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample the pattern of increased proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
84641569|NCT00247611|169021697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference in unemployment rate between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.001
84641570|NCT00247611|169021697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference of participants on disability between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.01
84641571|NCT00445588|169021740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||cox regression model was used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control with same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, and surgical procedure|Regression, Cox|cox regression model used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, surgical procedure||The overall failure rate will be estimated by dividing the number of events (death) with the total exposure time in the study cohort. 95% confidence intervals and median time of survival will be calculated using standard methods.||1.3|0.6|0.4
84675941|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.23|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.23|0.72|0.2682
84641572|NCT00796991|169021752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log(Cmax) using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1)||1.168|0.794|
84675942|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.70|0.69|0.2726
84675943|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.55|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.55|0.22|0.2787
84675944|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.4||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.56|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||17.56|1.09|0.0241
84641573|NCT00796991|169021752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.243|0.848|
84641574|NCT00796991|169021752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AIC Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.150|0.974|
84641575|NCT00796991|169021752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934||||||90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
84641576|NCT00796991|169021752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.798|
84641577|NCT00796991|169021756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1).||1.196|0.954|
84641578|NCT00796991|169021756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to dacarbazine log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.099|0.757|
84641579|NCT00796991|169021756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to active metabolite AIC log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AUC(INF) for AIC. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.056|0.891|
84641580|NCT00796991|169021756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
84641581|NCT00796991|169021756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7981|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.7981|
84641582|NCT00796991|169021762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||p-value was not corrected for multiple testing. F-statistic = 1.86.|conditional F test|15 degrees freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in any treatment group. Conditional F-tests were used to test for mean ALC changes over time in each treatment arm and the difference between treatment arms in the pattern of change in ALC over time.||||0.027
84641583|NCT00796991|169021762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.94|Omnibus conditional F-test|10 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in all treatment groups. Test of overall time-by-treatment interaction used an omnibus conditional F-test.||||0.5
84675945|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|48.81|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||48.81|0.59|0.0943
84675946|NCT00113516|169087120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.79|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||11.79|0.04|0.8084
84641584|NCT00796991|169021762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =1.08|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.37
84641585|NCT00796991|169021762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.39|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.85
84641586|NCT00796991|169021762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic = 1.41|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.22
84641587|NCT03467685|169021792|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84641588|NCT04345367|169021798|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.5|15.8|<0.0001
84641589|NCT04345367|169021799|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.0||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|8.2|<0.0001
84641590|NCT04345367|169021800|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.7||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.7|5.3|0.0008
84641591|NCT04345367|169021801|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||8.7|0.2|
84641592|NCT04345367|169021801|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.9|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|13.2|
84641593|NCT04345367|169021801|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.1|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.1|6.9|
84641594|NCT04345367|169021801|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|20.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|5.5|
84641595|NCT04345367|169021801|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.3|-0.4|
84641596|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.4|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.4|1.8|
84675947|NCT00047463|169087125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would be similar in tolerance. This was a pilot study so we did not do a power calculation.||||0.26
84641597|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.0|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.0|13.8|
84641598|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.3|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||25.3|11.4|
84641599|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.5|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.5|8.2|
84641600|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.0|3.0|
84641601|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.5|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.5|-1.4|
84641602|NCT04345367|169021802|OTHER||Estimate of difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||7.2|-5.9|
84641603|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.7|2.8|
84675948|NCT01559311|169087145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H01: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2a vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2a~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2a is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in CRT-P ON Gp,"||||0.1734
84641604|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.9|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|14.3|
84641605|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.4|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.4|12.5|
84641606|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|23.0|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||23.0|8.7|
84641607|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.2|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.2|5.9|
84641608|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.4|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.4|2.0|
84641609|NCT04345367|169021803|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|11.8|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.8|-2.8|
84641610|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.1|||||Day 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.1|3.1|
84641611|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.3|||||Day 3. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.3|1.7|
84641612|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.8|||||Day 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.8|6.0|
84641613|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|20.3|||||Day 5. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.3|8.8|
84641614|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.0|||||Day 6. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.0|6.9|
84641615|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.0|||||Day 7. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.0|13.8|
84641616|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|28.3|||||Day 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.3|15.9|
84641617|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.1|||||Day 9. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.1|15.2|
84641618|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of other|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|27.9|||||Day 10. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.7|
84641619|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.6|||||Day 11. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.6|13.3|
84641620|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.9|||||Day 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.6|
84675949|NCT01559311|169087145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H03: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2b vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2b~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2b is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in the CRT-P OFF Gp"||||0.1439
84641621|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.2|||||Day 13. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.8|
84641622|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.2|||||Day 14. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.6|
84641623|NCT04345367|169021804|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.9|||||Day 15. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.9|16.0|
84641624|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.5|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||24.5|10.1|
84641625|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.1|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|6.0|
84641626|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.4|-2.5|
84675950|NCT01559311|169087146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6276|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H02: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2a vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2a~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* μLVESV, 2a is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the CRT-P ON group"||||0.6276
84641627|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.5|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||10.5|-3.4|
84641628|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.0|-4.9|
84641629|NCT04345367|169021805|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.9|-1.9|
84641630|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.6|-14.0|
84641631|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-7.6|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-17.4|
84641632|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-6.6|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.6|-15.6|
84641633|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-5.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-5.1|-13.7|
84641634|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-2.9|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.9|-10.9|
84641635|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-9.0|
84641636|NCT04345367|169021807|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-7.1|
84641637|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-14.5|
84641638|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-9.5|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-9.5|-16.0|
84641639|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.8|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.8|-13.6|
84641640|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.1|-10.5|
84641641|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.0|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.0|-9.3|
84641642|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-8.2|
84641643|NCT04345367|169021808|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-6.6|
84641644|NCT04345367|169021809|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.4|
84641645|NCT04345367|169021809|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.3|
84641646|NCT04345367|169021809|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.3|
84641647|NCT04345367|169021810|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-0.3|
84641648|NCT04345367|169021810|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.2|
84641649|NCT04345367|169021810|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
84641650|NCT04345367|169021811|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-2.6|
84641651|NCT04345367|169021811|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-1.6|
84641652|NCT04345367|169021811|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.2|-1.4|
84641653|NCT04345367|169021811|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-1.2|
84675951|NCT01559311|169087146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H04: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2b vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2b~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* and μLVESV, 2b is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in CRT-P OFF group."||||0.5871
84641654|NCT04345367|169021811|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-1.0|
84641655|NCT04345367|169021812|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.856|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.856|-1.220|
84641656|NCT04345367|169021812|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.267|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||4.267|-0.081|
84675952|NCT01706250|169087192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.98||0.6779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6779
84675953|NCT01706250|169087192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.51||0.2847|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for NIL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.2847
84675954|NCT01706250|169087192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.35||0.6894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for TL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6894
84675955|NCT01706250|169087193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9909|||||||Signed Rank|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.9909
84675956|NCT01706250|169087193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.91||0.6671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV- BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.6671
84675957|NCT01706250|169087193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.05||0.0632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0632
84675958|NCT01706250|169087194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.31||0.7385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7385
84641657|NCT04345367|169021812|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|1.281|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.281|-2.914|
84641658|NCT04345367|169021813|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.7|-2.5|
84641659|NCT04345367|169021813|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-2.2|
84641660|NCT04345367|169021813|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-1.3|
84641661|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
84675959|NCT01706250|169087194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.7296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7296
84675960|NCT01706250|169087194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.11||0.3774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.3774
84641662|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
84641663|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
84675961|NCT01706250|169087195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.53||0.7634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7634
84675962|NCT01706250|169087195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.61||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.4087
84675963|NCT01706250|169087195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.4||0.2455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2455
84675964|NCT01706250|169087196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
84675965|NCT01706250|169087196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.1250
84675966|NCT01706250|169087196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.625|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.6250
84675967|NCT01706250|169087196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||1.0000
84675968|NCT01706250|169087197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
84675969|NCT01706250|169087197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
84675970|NCT01706250|169087198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.00
84675971|NCT01706250|169087198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||1.0000
84675972|NCT01706250|169087199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Peeling, for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
84675973|NCT01706250|169087200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67||0.5313||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5313
84675974|NCT01706250|169087200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.5000
84675975|NCT01706250|169087200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.75|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.7500
84641664|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-0.9|
84641665|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.2|-2.0|
84641666|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.6|-1.5|
84641667|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||||Snoring score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-4.2|
84641668|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Snoring score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.5|-3.3|
84641669|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||||Snoring score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.7|
84641670|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.6|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.6|-6.6|
84641671|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.4|-6.2|
84641672|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-4.1|
84641673|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.6|-1.6|
84641674|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||5.4|0.4|
84641675|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.9|
84641676|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.3|-2.8|
84641677|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-4.4|
84641678|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.3|
84641679|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-3.0|
84641680|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.5|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-4.0|
84641681|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.9|-2.5|
84641682|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.0|
84641683|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.1|-4.8|
84641684|NCT04345367|169021814|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-3.2|
84641685|NCT04345367|169021815|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.8|-1.5|
84675976|NCT01706250|169087200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.25|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
84675977|NCT01706250|169087201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.2131|||||||Signed Rank)|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.2131
84675978|NCT01706250|169087201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||0.2656||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.2656
84675979|NCT01706250|169087201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.2344||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2344
84675980|NCT01706250|169087201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.3594||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3594
84675981|NCT01706250|169087202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.6172|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.6172
84641686|NCT04345367|169021815|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-0.8|
84641687|NCT04345367|169021815|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.6|
84641688|NCT04345367|169021815|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-0.6|
84641689|NCT04345367|169021815|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.5|
84641690|NCT04345367|169021816|OTHER||Least square mean difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.7||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment as a main effect and baseline disease severity as covariates.||25.7|10.5|
84641691|NCT04345367|169021817|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.1|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|7.3|
84675982|NCT01706250|169087202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.3984|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.3984
84675983|NCT01706250|169087202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0781||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0781
84675984|NCT01706250|169087202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.375||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3750
84675985|NCT01706250|169087203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1||95.0|||||[Signed Rank]|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
84675986|NCT01706250|169087203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.0625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.0625
84675987|NCT01706250|169087203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2500
84675988|NCT01706250|169087203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
84675989|NCT01706250|169087204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5000
84675990|NCT01706250|169087204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.75||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7500
84675991|NCT01706250|169087204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.4531||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.4531
84675992|NCT01706250|169087204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.6250
84675993|NCT02188485|169087254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Thwarted belonging (INQ-TB) at 10 week follow-up||||.278
84675994|NCT02188485|169087254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Perceived burden (INQ-PB) at 10-week follow-up||||.591
84675995|NCT02188485|169087255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.511
84675996|NCT02188485|169087256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.014
84675997|NCT02442830|169087267|OTHER|Log rank test||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||.002
84675998|NCT03851016|169087296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of depressive symptoms between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the GDS-12R at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in depressive symptoms."||||.113
84505008|NCT02629965|168761078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.704||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.692|174.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|174.694|-155.692|0.9098
84641692|NCT04345367|169021817|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.4|-1.6|
84641693|NCT04345367|169021817|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||4.0|-7.1|
84641694|NCT04345367|169021817|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.6|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||3.6|-7.6|
84641695|NCT04345367|169021817|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||1.9|-10.3|
84641696|NCT01227824|169021882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG - RAL) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.1|||||Analysis was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusted for the following Baseline stratification factors: baseline HIV-1 RNA and background dual NRTI.|||7.1|-2.2|
84641697|NCT01755026|169021894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|191.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.01|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84641698|NCT00392379|169021896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Based upon previous research, we hypothesized that the end-of-treatment abstinence rate for subjects receiving placebo would be 35% and the abstinence rate for subjects receiving the 4-mg nicotine lozenge would be 53%. A resulting power calculation indicated that 270 subjects (135 per group) were required in order to have 85% power to detect a significant difference (two-sided, α = 0.05 level test).||||<0.05
84641699|NCT02184624|169021912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical comparison for categories Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641700|NCT02184624|169021912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641701|NCT02184624|169021912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641702|NCT02184624|169021912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641703|NCT02184624|169021912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84675999|NCT03851016|169087297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Presence of Meaning (POM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the POM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in POM."||||.123
84676000|NCT03851016|169087298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mancova|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Search for Meaning (SFM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the SFM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in SFM."||||.910
84676001|NCT00853658|169087300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.03|0.85|0.1724
84676002|NCT00853658|169087300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority) Non-Diabetic patients||1.07|0.85|0.4579
84676003|NCT00853658|169087300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified Non-inferiority margin 1.104 is used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.90|0.0368
84676004|NCT00853658|169087300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.10|0.90|0.9118
84676005|NCT01227512|169087316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9495||||||The alpha level was set at 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|Participants who used rescue therapy within first 7 days of treatment period were censored at time they started the rescue therapy.||||||0.9495
84676006|NCT01227512|169087317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.146||95.0|-0.7|0.11||alpha level was set at 0.05. p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Includes factors of treatment, study center and covariate baseline.||||0.11|-0.70|0.1460
84676007|NCT01227512|169087318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.315||95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 24 hours post-dose.||0.19|-0.57|0.3150
84676008|NCT01227512|169087318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5381||95.0|-0.57|0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 72 hours post-dose.||0.30|-0.57|0.5381
84676009|NCT01227512|169087319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2702||95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was derived from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.73|0.2702
84676010|NCT01227512|169087320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.0019||95.0|1.43|6.11||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.11|1.43|0.0019
84505009|NCT02629965|168761079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.217|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.633|-1.217|0.5338
84641704|NCT02184624|169021913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641705|NCT02184624|169021913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641706|NCT02184624|169021913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641707|NCT02184624|169021913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641708|NCT02184624|169021913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641709|NCT02184624|169021914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
84641710|NCT02184624|169021914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
84676011|NCT01227512|169087321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5128||||||p-value was derived from Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by treatment. Participants who received rescue therapy were censored at the time of receiving rescue therapy.|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.5128
84676012|NCT01227512|169087322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.1||||0.5795||95.0|0.79|1.52||P-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.52|0.79|0.5795
84676013|NCT01227512|169087323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.33||||0.1568||95.0|0.07|1.65||p-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.07|0.1568
84676014|NCT02556710|169087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score||||||0.94
84676015|NCT02556710|169087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score||||||0.53
84676016|NCT02556710|169087360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84676017|NCT02139644|169087361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.154||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.267|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.267|0.041|0.0076
84676018|NCT02139644|169087361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.131||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.250|0.011|0.0322
84676019|NCT02139644|169087361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.335||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.453|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.453|0.216|0.0000
84676020|NCT02139644|169087361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.325||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.447|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.447|0.203|0.0000
84641711|NCT02184624|169021914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
84641712|NCT02184624|169021914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641713|NCT02184624|169021914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.014
84641714|NCT02184624|169021915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641715|NCT02184624|169021915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641716|NCT02184624|169021915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84641717|NCT02184624|169021915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84641718|NCT02184624|169021915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84641719|NCT02184624|169021916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for DISKUS/ACCUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84641720|NCT02184624|169021916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for MDI inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84641721|NCT02184624|169021916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for TURBUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84641722|NCT02184624|169021916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for HANDIHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84641723|NCT02184624|169021916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for BREEZHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84641724|NCT02184624|169021917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641725|NCT02184624|169021917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641726|NCT02184624|169021917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641727|NCT02184624|169021917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641728|NCT02184624|169021917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641729|NCT02184624|169021918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641730|NCT02184624|169021918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641731|NCT02184624|169021918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641732|NCT02184624|169021918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641733|NCT02184624|169021918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84641734|NCT02365233|169021933|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||IRB withheld the data due to inadequate supporting documentation|||
84641735|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|92.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.65|107.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||107.57|77.65|<0.001
84641736|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.47|123.87||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||123.87|88.47|<0.001
84641737|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|122.17||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||122.17|85.14|<0.001
84641738|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|-10.19||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-10.19|-24.73|<0.001
84641739|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|-3.11||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-3.11|-17.67|0.019
84641740|NCT01375075|169021957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.17|-4.36||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-4.36|-20.17|0.011
84641741|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|7.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||7.88|-0.39|0.136
84641742|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|6.94||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||6.94|-1.28|0.257
84641743|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|10.1||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||10.10|1.70|0.021
84641744|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|3.62||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.62|-4.71|0.829
84641745|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.24||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.24|-1.69|0.603
84641746|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.78||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.78|-3.11|0.656
84641747|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.34||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.34|-0.67|0.228
84641748|NCT01375075|169021960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|1.51||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.51|-3.47|0.516
84641749|NCT01375075|169021961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.11|-2.57|0.513
84641750|NCT01375075|169021961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.90|-1.82|0.970
84641751|NCT01375075|169021961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.17|-1.66|0.824
84641752|NCT01375075|169021961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.52|-2.18|0.769
84641753|NCT01375075|169021962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.43|-0.65|0.735
84676021|NCT02139644|169087362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.262||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.356|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.356|0.168|0.0000
84641754|NCT01375075|169021962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.76|-0.32|0.503
84641755|NCT01375075|169021962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.54|-0.53|0.988
84641756|NCT01375075|169021962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.13|-0.95|0.207
84641757|NCT01375075|169021963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.84|-0.57|0.756
84641758|NCT01375075|169021963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.70|-0.71|0.990
84641759|NCT01375075|169021963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.97|-0.47|0.565
84641760|NCT01375075|169021963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.89|-0.53|0.678
84676022|NCT02139644|169087362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.266||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.36|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.172|0.0000
84676023|NCT02139644|169087362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.151||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.244|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.244|0.057|0.0017
84676024|NCT02139644|169087362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.119||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.212|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.212|0.025|0.0132
84641761|NCT01375075|169021964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.12|-0.90|0.856
84641762|NCT01375075|169021964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.10|-0.90|0.869
84641763|NCT01375075|169021964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.13|-0.92|0.869
84641764|NCT01375075|169021964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.63|-0.40|0.317
84641765|NCT01375075|169021966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.20|-0.24|0.888
84676025|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.926||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|19.471||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.471|2.380|0.0123
84641766|NCT01375075|169021966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.23|-0.21|0.939
84641767|NCT01375075|169021966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.36|-0.08|0.296
84641768|NCT01375075|169021966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.40|-0.04|0.181
84641769|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.16|-33.41||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-33.41|-53.16|<0.001
84641770|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.89|-66.97||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-66.97|-86.89|<0.001
84641771|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.87|-80.75||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-80.75|-100.87|<0.001
84641772|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.12|-57.39||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-57.39|-77.12|<0.001
84641773|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.88|-32.33||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-32.33|-52.88|<0.001
84641774|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.15|-68.71||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-68.71|-89.15|<0.001
84641775|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.08|-83.26||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-83.26|-104.08|<0.001
84641776|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-85.46|-64.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-64.57|-85.46|<0.001
84641777|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.53|-42.04||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-42.04|-58.53|<0.001
84641778|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.32|-74.83||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-74.83|-91.32|<0.001
84641779|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-94.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.92|-86.1||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-86.10|-102.92|<0.001
84641780|NCT01375075|169021967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.2|-59.16||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-59.16|-76.20|<0.001
84641781|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.21||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.21|1.38|<0.001
84641782|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|3.48||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.48|2.65|<0.001
84641783|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.04|3.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.88|3.04|<0.001
84676026|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|7.018||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|15.567||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||15.567|-1.531|0.1074
84641784|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.81|<0.001
84641785|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.36||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.36|1.40|<0.001
84641786|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.47||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.47|2.51|<0.001
84641787|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|4.41||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.41|3.42|<0.001
84641788|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|2.52||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.52|1.56|<0.001
84641789|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|2.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.31|1.34|<0.001
84641790|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.34|3.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.31|2.34|<0.001
84641791|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|3.73||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.73|2.74|<0.001
84676027|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|20.824||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.253|29.395||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.395|12.253|0.0000
84676028|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.273||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.728|29.818||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.818|12.728|0.0000
84641792|NCT01375075|169021968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.65|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.65|<0.001
84641793|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|74.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|95.07||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||95.07|53.38|<0.001
84641794|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|136.14||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||136.14|94.58|<0.001
84641795|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.5|156.63||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||156.63|114.50|<0.001
84676029|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|9.898||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.349|18.447||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.447|1.349|0.0233
84641796|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.5|-7.43||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-7.43|-23.50|0.002
84641797|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.37|-15.38||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-15.38|-31.37|<0.001
84641798|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.32|-14.06||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-14.06|-30.32|<0.001
84641799|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.32|124.18||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||124.18|82.32|<0.001
84641800|NCT01375075|169021969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.72|-6.55||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-6.55|-22.72|0.003
84641801|NCT00545129|169021972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. Least squares (LS) mean difference, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.18|0.569
84641802|NCT00545129|169021973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.34|-0.60|0.581
84641803|NCT00545129|169021973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-0.56|0.795
84641804|NCT00545129|169021973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.93|-0.76|0.843
84641805|NCT00545129|169021973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.42|-1.34|0.292
84676030|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|14.255||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.732|22.778||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||22.778|5.732|0.0011
84676031|NCT02139644|169087363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.347||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|18.872||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.872|1.822|0.0175
84641806|NCT00545129|169021974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
84641807|NCT00545129|169021974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
84641808|NCT00545129|169021974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.98|-0.74|0.776
84641809|NCT00545129|169021974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.93|0.978
84505010|NCT02629965|168761080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|2.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|2.926|-1.048|0.3524
84505011|NCT02629965|168761081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.966|7.481|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|7.481|-2.966|0.3949
84641810|NCT00545129|169021974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-1.10|0.689
84641811|NCT00545129|169021975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
84641812|NCT00545129|169021975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
84641813|NCT00545129|169021975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.13|-0.68|0.618
84641814|NCT00545129|169021975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.85|0.818
84641815|NCT00545129|169021975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.09|-0.87|0.819
84641816|NCT00545129|169021976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.74|-0.66|0.906
84641817|NCT00545129|169021976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.85|-0.95|0.906
84641818|NCT00545129|169021976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.29|-0.78|0.613
84641819|NCT00545129|169021976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.95|0.988
84641820|NCT00545129|169021976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.92|-1.01|0.922
84641821|NCT00545129|169021977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.03|0.655
84641822|NCT00545129|169021977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.96|-0.85|0.897
84641823|NCT00545129|169021977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.20|-0.93|0.798
84505012|NCT02629965|168761082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|9.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|9.411|-4.572|0.4955
84641824|NCT00545129|169021977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.27|-0.83|0.672
84641825|NCT00545129|169021977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.56|0.243
84641826|NCT00545129|169021978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.52|-1.16|0.445
84641827|NCT00545129|169021978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.00|0.992
84641828|NCT00545129|169021978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.34|0.655
84641829|NCT00545129|169021978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.30|-1.09|0.860
84641830|NCT00545129|169021978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.89|-1.52|0.595
84641831|NCT00545129|169021979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.35|-1.76|0.179
84641832|NCT00545129|169021979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.02|0.938
84641833|NCT00545129|169021979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.41|0.621
84641834|NCT00545129|169021979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.21|-1.44|0.863
84676032|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.165||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.08||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.080|-0.251|0.0002
84641835|NCT00545129|169021979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.51|-1.95|0.237
84641836|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
84641837|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
84641838|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
84641839|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.53|0.44|0.601
84641840|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
84641841|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
84641842|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.66|0.43|0.596
84641843|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.24|0.39|0.552
84641844|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
84641845|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
84641846|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||14.32|1.04|0.029
84641847|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.36|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||11.36|0.67|0.143
84641848|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
84641849|NCT00545129|169021980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
84641850|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
84641851|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
84641852|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
84641853|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.88|0.38|0.795
84641854|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
84641855|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
84641856|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.39|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.39|0.33|1.000
84641857|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.83|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.83|0.33|0.771
84641858|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
84641859|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
84641860|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.30|0.66|0.187
84641861|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.43|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.43|0.48|0.399
84641862|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
84641863|NCT00545129|169021981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
84641864|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.73|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 1: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.73|0.77|0.188
84641865|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.54|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 2: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.54|0.72|0.207
84641866|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.93|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 3: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.93|0.60|0.317
84641867|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 4: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.71|0.50|0.554
84676033|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.143||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.229|0.0010
84676034|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|-0.144||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.144|-0.315|0.0000
84676035|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.194||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.109||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.109|-0.279|0.0000
84676036|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.064||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.021||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.021|-0.150|0.1381
84641868|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.89|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 5: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.89|0.32|0.581
84676037|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.051||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.035||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.035|-0.136|0.2438
84641869|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 6: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.43|0.26|0.252
84676038|NCT02139644|169087364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.029||||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.057||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.057|-0.114|0.5095
84676039|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.463||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|-0.209||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.209|-0.716|0.0004
84505013|NCT02629965|168761083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.176|0.091|<0.0001
84641870|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.64|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 7: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.64|0.26|0.365
84641871|NCT00545129|169021983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 8: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.36|0.25|0.212
84641872|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.13|0.215
84641873|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.42|-0.45|0.947
84641874|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.20|-0.56|0.341
84641875|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.17|-0.83|0.180
84641876|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.84|-0.43|0.509
84641877|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.82|-0.62|0.767
84641878|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.95|-0.11|0.108
84641879|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.26|0.280
84641880|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.53|0.747
84641881|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.88|-0.87|0.991
84641882|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.99|-0.41|0.335
84641883|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.48|-4.57|0.159
84641884|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.16|0.136
84641885|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||5.90|-3.46|0.186
84641886|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.49|-1.52|0.292
84641887|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.30|-0.34|0.225
84641888|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.58|0.517
84641889|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||2.48|-2.48|1.000
84641890|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.99|-1.01|<0.001
84641891|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.63|-0.75|0.362
84641892|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|51.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||51.87|-51.87|1.000
84641893|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Retching/Vomiting MDR): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.76|-3.30|0.031
84641894|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.32|-0.28|0.886
84641895|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.33|-0.52|0.660
84641896|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.14|-0.54|0.238
84641897|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.42|0.360
84641898|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.54|-0.16|0.278
84641899|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.27|-0.34|0.809
84641900|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.38|-0.35|0.944
84641901|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.48|0.892
84641902|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.39|0.884
84641903|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.26|0.919
84641904|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.33|0.752
84641905|NCT00545129|169021984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.24|-0.34|0.715
84641906|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.77|0.666
84641907|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.86|0.745
84641908|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.83|-1.14|0.749
84641909|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.90|-1.16|0.794
84641910|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.33|0.772
84641911|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.34|-0.73|0.547
84641912|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-1.43|0.650
84641913|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.27|0.808
84641914|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.07|-1.19|0.915
84641915|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.54|0.757
84641916|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.17|-1.19|0.987
84676040|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.464||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.718|-0.211||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.211|-0.718|0.0003
84676041|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.675||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.928|-0.421||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.421|-0.928|0.0000
84676042|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.704||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.45||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.450|-0.957|0.0000
84676043|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.212||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.042||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.042|-0.465|0.1014
84505014|NCT02629965|168761084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.123|0.088|<0.0001
84505015|NCT02629965|168761085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.197|0.130|<0.0001
84641917|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.14|0.781
84641918|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.38|-1.13|0.834
84641919|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.32|0.851
84641920|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.68|0.701
84505016|NCT02629965|168761086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.162|0.103|<0.0001
84641921|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.68|0.453
84641922|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.60|-2.15|0.258
84676044|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.239||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.014||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.014|-0.492|0.0640
84676045|NCT02139644|169087365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.241||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|0.013||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.013|-0.494|0.0626
84676046|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1679
84676047|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1701||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1701
84676048|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0437||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.0437
84676049|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1718
84676050|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3134||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
84676051|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.993||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9930
84676052|NCT02139644|169087366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9999
84676053|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.301||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.508||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.508|0.094|0.0044
84676054|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.458||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.458|0.048|0.0155
84676055|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.676||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.676|0.270|0.0000
84676056|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.437||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.437|0.023|0.0293
84676057|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.172||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.372||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.372|-0.028|0.0913
84676058|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.023||||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.177||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.177|-0.223|0.8216
84676059|NCT02139644|169087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.071||||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.133|-0.275|0.4934
84676060|NCT03143829|169087403|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences at week 10||||0.083
84676061|NCT03143829|169087404|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive comparison||||.099
84676062|NCT03143829|169087405|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison at time 4||||.558
84676063|NCT03143829|169087406|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||descriptive comparison of resource use||||.153
84641923|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.09|-1.53|0.736
84641924|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.87|-1.76|0.491
84641925|NCT00545129|169021985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.04|-1.53|0.695
84641926|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.19|-1.34|0.897
84641927|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.43|-0.90|0.643
84641928|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.68|-1.45|0.464
84641929|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.46|0.593
84641930|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.77|0.423
84641931|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.54|-1.21|0.805
84676064|NCT02391948|169087409|OTHER||mean population value age 12|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|98.6||||||||98.6|97.8|
84641932|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.30|0.882
84641933|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.81|-1.79|0.446
84641934|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.05|-1.77|0.604
84641935|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-2.24|0.393
84641936|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.97|-2.33|0.399
84641937|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.66|-1.43|0.876
84676065|NCT02391948|169087409|OTHER||mean population value age 12|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|91.1||||||||91.1|86.6|
84676066|NCT02391948|169087409|OTHER||mean population value age 12|50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|53.6||||||||53.6|46.5|
84676067|NCT02391948|169087409|OTHER||mean population value age 12|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|27.0||||||||27.0|23.7|
84641938|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.58|0.740
84641939|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.31|-1.56|0.854
84641940|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-2.24|0.436
84641941|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.21|-2.81|0.087
84641942|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.72|-2.40|0.278
84641943|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.84|0.548
84641944|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.79|-2.33|0.318
84505017|NCT02629965|168761087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.156|0.100|<0.0001
84505018|NCT02629965|168761088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.056|<0.0001
84505019|NCT02629965|168761089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.114|0.058|<0.0001
84641945|NCT00545129|169021986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.99|-2.02|0.484
84641946|NCT00545129|169021987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH test) stratified by center.||||0.399
84641947|NCT00545129|169021987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.779
84641948|NCT00545129|169021987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.922
84641949|NCT00545129|169021987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.811
84641950|NCT00545129|169021987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.237
84641951|NCT00545129|169021988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
84641952|NCT00545129|169021988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.70|0.202
84505020|NCT02629965|168761090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.059|<0.0001
84505021|NCT02629965|168761091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.189|0.114|<0.0001
84505022|NCT03443869|168761092|NON_INFERIORITY|LET was concluded non-inferior to VGCV if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for difference in percentage of participants with adjudicated CMV disease (LET - VGCV) was no higher than 10%|Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.8|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||3.8|-6.5|
84641953|NCT00545129|169021988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.30|-0.54|0.571
84641954|NCT00545129|169021988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.43|-0.55|0.808
84641955|NCT00545129|169021988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.51|-0.57|0.913
84641956|NCT00545129|169021989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
84641957|NCT00545129|169021989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.65|0.339
84641958|NCT00545129|169021989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.67|0.408
84641959|NCT00545129|169021989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.67|0.686
84641960|NCT00545129|169021989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.40|-0.81|0.493
84641961|NCT00545129|169021990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
84641962|NCT00545129|169021990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract method.||||0.947
84641963|NCT00545129|169021990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
84505023|NCT03443869|168761093|OTHER||Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||0.1|-3.4|
84505024|NCT03443869|168761095|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.2|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||4.2|-4.4|
84505025|NCT03443869|168761096|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.9|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||-0.9|-7.0|
84641964|NCT00545129|169021990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
84641965|NCT00545129|169021990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|18.86|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||18.86|0.12|0.759
84641966|NCT00545129|169021991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
84641967|NCT00545129|169021991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract test.||||0.950
84641968|NCT00545129|169021991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
84641969|NCT00545129|169021991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
84641970|NCT00545129|169021991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.89|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||23.89|0.17|0.578
84641971|NCT00821509|169022004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|1.03||||0.004|||||||proportion test|The test was carried out using the proportions calculated from the number of sick-leave episodes over the number o total follow-up weeks in each arm||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of days-off period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.004
84641972|NCT00821509|169022005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|0.933||||0.04|||||||proportion test|||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of an infectious disease period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.04
84641973|NCT01894568|169022015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|0.4% is the margin of Non-inferiority|LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.41|0.005
84641974|NCT03720652|169022048|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.18
84641975|NCT03720652|169022048|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
84641976|NCT03720652|169022048|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.13|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.13
84641977|NCT03720652|169022049|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.70
84641978|NCT03720652|169022049|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.66
84641979|NCT03720652|169022049|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.84
84641980|NCT03720652|169022050|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.015
84641981|NCT03720652|169022050|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
84641982|NCT03720652|169022050|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Program Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.002
84641983|NCT03720652|169022051|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.022
84641984|NCT03720652|169022051|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
84641985|NCT03720652|169022051|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.090
84641986|NCT03720652|169022052|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.051
84641987|NCT03720652|169022052|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.044
84641988|NCT03720652|169022052|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||1.00
84641989|NCT03720652|169022053|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.023
84641990|NCT03720652|169022053|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.56
84641991|NCT03720652|169022053|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.16
84641992|NCT03720652|169022054|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.15
84641993|NCT03720652|169022054|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.12
84641994|NCT03720652|169022054|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.018
84641995|NCT03720652|169022055|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.33
84641996|NCT03720652|169022055|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.88
84641997|NCT03720652|169022055|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.67
84641998|NCT03720652|169022056|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84641999|NCT03720652|169022056|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642000|NCT03720652|169022056|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642001|NCT03720652|169022057|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.17
84642002|NCT03720652|169022057|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
84642003|NCT03720652|169022057|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.062
84642004|NCT03720652|169022058|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.013
84642005|NCT03720652|169022058|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
84642006|NCT03720652|169022058|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.003
84642007|NCT03720652|169022059|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
84642008|NCT03720652|169022059|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.010
84642009|NCT03720652|169022059|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.085
84642010|NCT03720652|169022060|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642011|NCT03720652|169022060|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642012|NCT03720652|169022060|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642013|NCT03720652|169022061|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.046
84642014|NCT03720652|169022061|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.14
84642015|NCT03720652|169022061|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.058
84642016|NCT03720652|169022062|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642017|NCT03720652|169022062|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642018|NCT03720652|169022062|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
84642019|NCT03073733|169022074|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|5.8|||linear model for repeated measures|||||5.8|-10.3|0.582
84642020|NCT03073733|169022074|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.0|||linear model for repeated measures|||||8.0|-8.2|0.984
84642021|NCT03073733|169022075|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|1.2986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1341|3.7313|||linear model for repeated measures|||||3.7313|-1.1341|0.290
84642022|NCT03073733|169022075|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7793||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6516|1.9433|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1.9433|-2.6516|0.759
84642023|NCT03073733|169022076|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-278.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|305.192||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1126.21|568.75|||linear model for repeated measures|||||568.75|-1126.21|0.515
84642024|NCT03073733|169022076|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|292.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|308.659||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-562.87|1147.23|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1147.23|-562.87|0.499
84642025|NCT03073733|169022077|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-2.1|0.160
84642026|NCT03073733|169022077|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.5|0.622
84642027|NCT03073733|169022078|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.176|-0.399|0.442
84642028|NCT03073733|169022078|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1037||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.409|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.409|-0.165|0.401
84642029|NCT03073733|169022080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
84642030|NCT03073733|169022081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
84642031|NCT03073733|169022082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
84642032|NCT03073733|169022083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
84642033|NCT03073733|169022084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.2)||||||0.099
84642034|NCT03073733|169022084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9)||||||0.130
84642035|NCT03073733|169022085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0959|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0959
84642036|NCT03073733|169022086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1868|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1868
84642037|NCT03073733|169022087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
84642038|NCT03073733|169022088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.264
84642039|NCT03073733|169022088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.9)||||||0.139
84642040|NCT03073733|169022089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.261
84642041|NCT03073733|169022089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.3)||||||0.139
84642042|NCT03073733|169022090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.8).||||||0.350
84642043|NCT03073733|169022090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.500
84642044|NCT03073733|169022091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.9).||||||0.220
84642045|NCT03073733|169022091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9).||||||0.119
84642046|NCT03073733|169022092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.7)||||||0.006
84642047|NCT03073733|169022093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
84642048|NCT03073733|169022094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84642049|NCT03073733|169022095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
84642050|NCT03073733|169022096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
84642051|NCT03073733|169022097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.9)||||||0.019
84642052|NCT03073733|169022097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.019
84642053|NCT03073733|169022098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84642054|NCT03073733|169022099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84642055|NCT03073733|169022100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
84642056|NCT03073733|169022101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 56.3)||||||0.075
84642057|NCT03073733|169022101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.2)||||||0.062
84642058|NCT03073733|169022102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.9)||||||0.255
84642059|NCT03073733|169022102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.7)||||||0.109
84642060|NCT03073733|169022103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.7).||||||0.488
84642061|NCT03073733|169022103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.273
84642062|NCT03073733|169022104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84642063|NCT03073733|169022105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84642064|NCT03073733|169022106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84642065|NCT03073733|169022107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
84642066|NCT03073733|169022108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.2)||||||0.019
84642067|NCT03073733|169022108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.7)||||||0.011
84642068|NCT03073733|169022109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84642069|NCT03073733|169022110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.096
84642070|NCT03073733|169022111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
84642071|NCT03073733|169022112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 51.5)||||||0.076
84642072|NCT03073733|169022112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 26.1)||||||0.057
84642073|NCT03073733|169022113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 29.0)||||||0.117
84642074|NCT03073733|169022113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.5)||||||0.083
84642075|NCT03073733|169022114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.7)||||||0.172
84642076|NCT03073733|169022114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.140
84642077|NCT03073733|169022115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.4).||||||0.011
84642078|NCT03073733|169022116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0406
84642079|NCT03073733|169022117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84642080|NCT03073733|169022118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84642081|NCT03073733|169022119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84642082|NCT03073733|169022120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 22.2)||||||0.030
84642083|NCT03073733|169022120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.3)||||||0.033
84642084|NCT03073733|169022121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84642085|NCT03073733|169022122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84642086|NCT03073733|169022123|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84642087|NCT03073733|169022124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 606.4)||||||0.080
84642088|NCT03073733|169022124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 52.3)||||||0.050
84642089|NCT03073733|169022125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 35.7)||||||0.099
84642090|NCT03073733|169022125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 17.6)||||||0.076
84642091|NCT03073733|169022126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.5)||||||0.1099
84642092|NCT03073733|169022126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 14.3)||||||0.012
84642093|NCT01227629|169022160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to last available value||||0.0357
84642094|NCT01227629|169022161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26711||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to week 12||||0.26711
84642095|NCT03207035|169022171|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84642096|NCT03207035|169022172|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84642097|NCT03207035|169022173|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84642098|NCT03207035|169022174|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84642099|NCT03207035|169022175|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84642100|NCT03207035|169022176|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84642101|NCT03207035|169022177|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
84642102|NCT03207035|169022178|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84642103|NCT01588470|169022180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84642104|NCT01588470|169022182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84642105|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.409||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.291|0.740
84642106|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642107|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.187||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.187|-0.504|0.367
84642108|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642109|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.389||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.389|-0.318|0.843
84642110|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642111|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.52||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.520|-0.351|0.703
84642112|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642113|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.413||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.413|-0.442|0.947
84676068|NCT02391948|169087409|OTHER||mean population value age 12|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|7.38||||||||7.38|5.66|
84642114|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642115|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.361||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.361|-0.514|0.732
84642116|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642117|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.576||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.576|-0.623|0.939
84642118|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642119|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.54||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.540|-0.637|0.872
84642120|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642121|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|0.512||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.512|-0.688|0.773
84676069|NCT02391948|169087410|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.49||||||||0.49|0.38|
84676070|NCT02391948|169087410|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77||||||||0.77|0.60|
84676071|NCT02391948|169087410|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||||1.07|0.79|
84676072|NCT02391948|169087410|OTHER||mean population value age 12|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.54||||||||1.54|1.22|
84676073|NCT02391948|169087410|OTHER||mean population value age 12|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.31||||||||2.31|2.01|
84676074|NCT02391948|169087411|OTHER||mean population value|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|4.54||||||||4.54|4.43|
84676075|NCT02391948|169087411|OTHER||mean population value|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.2||||||||4.20|3.99|
84642122|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84505026|NCT01360632|168761112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||0.2|-2.58|0.0925
84642123|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|0.686||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.686|-0.834|0.848
84642124|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642125|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.684||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.684|-0.810|0.869
84642126|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642127|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.925||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.603|0.679
84642128|NCT02880956|169022198|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642129|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|0.96||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.960|-1.764|0.562
84642130|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642131|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.602|0.081||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.081|-2.602|0.066
84642132|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676076|NCT02391948|169087411|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|4.25||||||||4.25|3.75|
84676077|NCT02391948|169087411|OTHER||mean population value|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.19||||||||3.19|2.73|
84505027|NCT01360632|168761112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-0.13|-2.92|0.0327
84505028|NCT01360632|168761113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.13|-2.73|0.0737
84642133|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.343|1.41||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.410|-1.343|0.962
84642134|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642135|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.734|0.755||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.755|-2.734|0.265
84676078|NCT02391948|169087411|OTHER||mean population value|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.75||||||||1.75|1.44|
84505029|NCT01360632|168761113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.51|-3.39|0.0079
84642136|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642137|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.775|0.618||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.618|-2.775|0.212
84642138|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.29|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642139|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.223|1.29||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.290|-2.223|0.602
84642140|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676079|NCT02391948|169087412|OTHER||mean population value|1362.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1313.6|1410.7||||||||1410.7|1313.6|
84676080|NCT02391948|169087412|OTHER||mean population value|1096.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1028.8|1158.62||||||||1158.62|1028.80|
84676081|NCT02391948|169087412|OTHER||mean population value|592.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|533.79|652.72||||||||652.72|533.79|
84676082|NCT02391948|169087413|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|4.07||||||||4.07|3.91|
84676083|NCT02391948|169087413|OTHER||mean population value|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|3.6||||||||3.60|3.39|
84642141|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.519||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.519|-2.489|0.635
84642142|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642143|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.233|1.712||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.712|-2.233|0.795
84642144|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642145|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.128||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.128|-0.910|0.281
84642146|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642147|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.043||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.043|-2.918|0.729
84642148|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642149|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.047|1.863||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.863|-3.047|0.636
84642150|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642151|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|3.575||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.575|-1.515|0.427
84642152|NCT02880956|169022207|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642153|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.083|0.690
84642154|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642155|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.131||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.131|-0.075|0.595
84642156|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676084|NCT02391948|169087413|OTHER||mean population value|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|3.37||||||||3.37|3.08|
84676085|NCT02391948|169087413|OTHER||mean population value|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|2.93||||||||2.93|2.67|
84642157|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.175||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.175|0.037|0.201
84642158|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642159|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.184||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.184|-0.067|0.361
84642160|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642161|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.162||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|Week 48||0.162|-0.082|0.522
84676086|NCT02391948|169087413|OTHER||mean population value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.91||||||||1.91|1.67|
84676087|NCT02391948|169087414|OTHER||mean population value|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.47|0.72||||||||0.72|0.47|
84642162|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676088|NCT02391948|169087414|OTHER||mean population value|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3||||||||1.30|0.91|
84676089|NCT02391948|169087414|OTHER||mean population value|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||||||||0.89|0.48|
84505030|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.26|-1.86|0.0096
84676090|NCT02391948|169087414|OTHER||mean population value|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.65||||||||1.65|1.12|
84676091|NCT02391948|169087414|OTHER||mean population value|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.6||||||||2.60|2.08|
84676092|NCT02391948|169087415|OTHER||mean population value age 12|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|72.0||||||||72.0|69.1|
84676093|NCT02391948|169087415|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|65.0||||||||65.0|59.4|
84676094|NCT02391948|169087415|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|65.0||||||||65.0|60.9|
84676095|NCT02391948|169087415|OTHER||mean population value age 12|58.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|59.7||||||||59.7|56.7|
84676096|NCT02391948|169087415|OTHER||mean population value age 12|51.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|53.6||||||||53.6|50.2|
84676097|NCT02391948|169087416|OTHER||mean population value age 12|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|80.4||||||||80.4|76.0|
84676098|NCT02391948|169087416|OTHER||mean population value age 12|66.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.5||||||||68.5|63.5|
84676099|NCT02391948|169087416|OTHER||mean population value age 12|60.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|63.3|||mean population value age 12|||||63.3|57.3|
84676100|NCT02391948|169087416|OTHER||mean population value age 12|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|40.3||||||||40.3|35.6|
84676101|NCT02391948|169087416|OTHER||mean population value age 12|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|16.5||||||||16.5|12.4|
84676102|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.02|||||Data from all GMFCS levels was used, country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in family-centredness outcome.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||2.02|1.06|
84676103|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.03|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||2.03|1.07|
84676104|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in the amount of focus on environment.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.38|0.96|
84505031|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.47|-1.14|0.4137
84642163|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.219||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.219|-0.033|0.147
84676105|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in focus on participation.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.58|1.07|
84676106|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of physical therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.58|0.72|
84676107|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of occupational therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.28|0.74|
84676108|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of speech and language therapy.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.60|0.97|
84676109|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.88|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.88|1.00|
84676110|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.44|0.78|
84642164|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642165|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.117||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.117|-0.243|0.492
84642166|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642167|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.141||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.141|-0.213|0.691
84642168|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642169|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.317||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.317|-0.043|0.135
84642170|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642171|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.187||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.187|-0.273|0.713
84676111|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.26|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.26|0.54|
84676112|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.87|1.00|
84676113|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.53|0.83|
84676114|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.3|0.59|
84505032|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.4|-2.47|0.0065
84642172|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676115|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.29|0.9|
84676116|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.22|0.86|
84642173|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.111||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.111|-0.341|0.318
84642174|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642175|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.222||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.222|-0.244|0.927
84676117|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.13|0.7|
84676118|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.31|0.9|
84505033|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.14|-1.93|0.0914
84642176|NCT02880956|169022208|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642177|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.098||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.098|-0.219|0.456
84642178|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642179|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.023||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.023|-0.290|0.093
84642180|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642181|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.135||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.135|-0.187|0.750
84642182|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642183|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.366||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.366|-0.049|0.134
84642184|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642185|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.305||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.305|-0.099|0.316
84505034|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.28|-2.5|0.0139
84642186|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642187|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.339||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.339|-0.078|0.218
84642188|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642189|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.169||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.169|-0.219|0.799
84642190|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642191|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.111||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.111|-0.273|0.406
84642192|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642193|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.105||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.105|-0.285|0.363
84642194|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84505035|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.4|-1.82|0.2097
84642195|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.093||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.093|-0.400|0.220
84642196|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642197|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.099||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.099|-0.386|0.245
84642198|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642199|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.178|-0.323|0.569
84642200|NCT02880956|169022209|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642201|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.19||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.190|-0.177|0.945
84642202|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642203|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.178|-0.184|0.974
84642204|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84505036|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.38|-2.75|0.0099
84642205|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.181||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||||0.181|-0.190|0.963
84642206|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642207|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.154||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.154|-0.255|0.625
84642208|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642209|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.125||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.125|-0.272|0.468
84642210|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642211|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.254||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.254|-0.155|0.636
84642212|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642213|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.236||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.236|-0.204|0.887
84505037|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.1|-2.48|0.034
84642214|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642215|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.486||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.486|0.051|0.016
84642216|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642217|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.342||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.342|-0.097|0.272
84642218|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642219|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.347||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.347|-0.223|0.671
84642220|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642221|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.378|-0.183|0.493
84642222|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642223|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.387||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.387|-0.190|0.501
84642224|NCT02880956|169022210|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642225|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.431||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.431|-0.307|0.742
84642226|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642227|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|0.218||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.218|-0.511|0.431
84642228|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642229|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.574|0.290
84642230|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84505038|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.27|-2.8|0.0177
84642231|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.258||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.258|-0.492|0.541
84642232|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642233|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|0.272||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.272|-0.459|0.617
84642234|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642235|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.233||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.233|-0.517|0.457
84642236|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642237|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.59||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.590|-0.151|0.245
84642238|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642239|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.496||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.496|-0.238|0.491
84642240|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642241|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.652||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.652|-0.085|0.132
84642242|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642243|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.313||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.313|-0.434|0.751
84642244|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642245|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.103|-0.635|0.157
84642246|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642247|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.172|-0.585|0.283
84642248|NCT02880956|169022211|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642249|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.231||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.231|-0.085|0.363
84642250|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642251|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.124||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.124|-0.188|0.688
84642252|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642253|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.281||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.281|-0.039|0.137
84642254|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642255|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.122||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.122|-0.300|0.408
84642256|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642257|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.085||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.085|-0.325|0.249
84642258|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642259|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.157||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.157|-0.265|0.616
84642260|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642261|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.304|-0.163|0.555
84642262|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642263|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.258||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.258|-0.203|0.815
84642264|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642265|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.409||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.409|-0.057|0.138
84642266|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642267|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.220|-0.397|0.573
84642268|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642269|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.365||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.365|-0.241|0.689
84642270|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642271|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.382||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.382|-0.243|0.662
84642272|NCT02880956|169022212|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642273|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.167||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-0.555|0.291
84642274|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642275|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.001||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.001|-0.713|0.051
84642276|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642277|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.383||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.383|-0.346|0.921
84642278|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642279|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.12||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.120|-0.711|0.163
84642280|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642281|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.239||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.239|-0.567|0.424
84505039|NCT01360632|168761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.44|-2.98|0.0085
84505040|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.1|-1.74|0.0286
84505041|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.4|-1.24|0.3173
84505042|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.11|-2.23|0.0313
84642282|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84505043|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.09|-2.04|0.0732
84642283|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.326||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.326|-0.510|0.664
84642284|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84505044|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.21|-2.51|0.0206
84505045|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.25|-2.06|0.1233
84505046|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.39|-2.84|0.0097
84676119|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.32|0.91|
84505047|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.41|-2.86|0.0092
84505048|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.33|-2.94|0.0139
84676120|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.24|0.76|
84676121|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.15|.7|
84676122|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.48|.74|
84676123|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life -Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.21|.72|
84676124|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.5|.89|
84505049|NCT01360632|168761115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.81|-3.42|0.0015
84676125|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.38|.65|
84676126|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.31|.81|
84642285|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.265||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.265|-0.638|0.417
84642286|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642287|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.166||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.166|-0.727|0.217
84642288|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642289|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.526||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.526|-0.381|0.753
84642290|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642291|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.270|-0.740|0.362
84642292|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642293|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.575||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.575|-0.432|0.780
84642294|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642295|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.509||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.509|-0.526|0.974
84642296|NCT02880956|169022213|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642297|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.278||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.278|-0.269|0.976
84642298|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 24||||
84642299|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.296||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.296|-0.244|0.850
84642300|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642301|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.275||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.275|-0.281|0.981
84642302|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642303|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.318||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.318|-0.323|0.989
84642304|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642305|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.307|-0.319|0.970
84642306|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642307|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.526|0.215
84642308|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642309|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.25||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.250|-0.392|0.665
84642310|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642311|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.012||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.012|-0.625|0.059
84642312|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642313|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.251||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.251|-0.394|0.663
84642314|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642315|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.348||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.348|-0.413|0.866
84642316|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642317|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.238||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.238|-0.514|0.471
84642318|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642319|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.287||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.287|-0.493|0.604
84642320|NCT02880956|169022214|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642321|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.202||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.202|-0.067|0.325
84642322|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642323|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.088||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.088|-0.177|0.510
84642324|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642325|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.100|0.601
84642326|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642327|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.157|0.783
84642328|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642329|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.103|-0.165|0.646
84642330|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642331|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.05||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.050|-0.226|0.209
84642332|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642333|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.11||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.110|-0.246|0.454
84676127|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.39|.87|
84642334|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642335|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.043||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.043|-0.306|0.141
84642336|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642337|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.031|-0.323|0.107
84676128|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.25|.6|
84676129|NCT02391948|169087417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.53|.92|
84642338|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642339|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.232||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.232|-0.243|0.961
84642340|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642341|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.173||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.173|-0.290|0.618
84676130|NCT02391948|169087421|OTHER||population average|2319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1460.0|3218.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3218|1460|
84676131|NCT02391948|169087421|OTHER||population average|1858.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.0|2530.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||2530|1233|
84642342|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642343|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.092||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.092|-0.385|0.227
84642344|NCT02880956|169022215|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642345|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.697||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.697|-0.009|0.056
84642346|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642347|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.349||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.349|-0.348|0.997
84642348|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642349|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.772||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.772|0.056|0.023
84642350|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642351|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.558||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.558|-0.274|0.502
84642352|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642353|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.224||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.224|-0.587|0.379
84642354|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642355|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.394||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.394|-0.439|0.916
84642356|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642357|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.302||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.302|-0.633|0.487
84642358|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642359|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.473||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.473|-0.451|0.963
84642360|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642361|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|0.51||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.510|-0.424|0.856
84642362|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642363|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.748||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.748|-0.341|0.463
84642364|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642365|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.557||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.557|-0.518|0.943
84642366|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642367|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|1.295||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.295|0.191|0.009
84642368|NCT02880956|169022216|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642369|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.136||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.136|-0.408|0.325
84642370|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642371|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.263||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.263|-0.274|0.966
84642372|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642373|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.220|-0.330|0.695
84642374|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642375|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.221||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.221|-0.348|0.662
84642376|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642377|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.304|-0.250|0.849
84642378|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642379|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.284||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.284|-0.286|0.995
84642380|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642381|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.378|-0.256|0.707
84642382|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642383|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.333||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.333|-0.294|0.901
84642384|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642385|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.439||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.439|-0.195|0.451
84642386|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642387|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.298||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.298|-0.429|0.722
84676132|NCT02391948|169087422|OTHER||population average|5240.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3874.0|6670.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||6670|3874|
84676133|NCT02391948|169087422|OTHER||population average|4319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3258.0|5443.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||5443|3258|
84676134|NCT02391948|169087423|OTHER||population average|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|151.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||151|67|
84676135|NCT02391948|169087423|OTHER||population average|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|145.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||145|58|
84642388|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676136|NCT02391948|169087423|OTHER||population average|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||35|0|
84676137|NCT02391948|169087424|OTHER||population average|2815.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2025.0|3650.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3650|2025|
84676138|NCT02391948|169087424|OTHER||population average|3109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2502.0|3739.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3739|2502|
84676139|NCT02391948|169087424|OTHER||population average|1056.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|471.0|1665.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||1665|471|
84676140|NCT00274716|169087466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-5.3|0.157
84676141|NCT00274716|169087466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-7.1|0.010
84676142|NCT00274716|169087466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-6.4|0.042
84642389|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.503|0.420
84642390|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642391|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.241||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.241|-0.495|0.498
84642392|NCT02880956|169022217|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642393|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.142||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.142|-0.138|0.975
84642394|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642395|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.261||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.261|-0.014|0.078
84642396|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642397|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.094||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.094|-0.188|0.514
84642398|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642399|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.036||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.036|-0.367|0.107
84642400|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642401|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.116|-0.275|0.425
84642402|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642403|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.011||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.011|-0.413|0.039
84642404|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642405|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.212||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.212|-0.302|0.729
84642406|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642407|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.307|-0.198|0.671
84642408|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642409|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.276||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.276|-0.235|0.876
84642410|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642411|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.362||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.362|-0.266|0.763
84642412|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642413|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.185||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.185|-0.434|0.429
84642414|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676143|NCT00274716|169087466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-2.1|0.517
84642415|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.381||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.381|-0.256|0.701
84642416|NCT02880956|169022218|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642417|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.137||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.137|-0.115|0.867
84642418|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642419|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.116|-0.132|0.898
84642420|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642421|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.168||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.168|-0.088|0.537
84642422|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642423|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.045||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.245|0.176
84642424|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642425|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.031|-0.251|0.125
84642426|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642427|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.114||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||week 48||0.114|-0.176|0.676
84642428|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676144|NCT00274716|169087466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||2.3|-3.9|0.602
84642429|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.071||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.071|-0.301|0.226
84642430|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642431|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.145||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.145|-0.222|0.683
84642432|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642433|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.204||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.204|-0.168|0.848
84642434|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84676145|NCT00274716|169087467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-9.7|0.046
84642435|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.192||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.192|-0.305|0.656
84642436|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642437|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.209||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.209|-0.279|0.777
84642438|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642439|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.397||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.397|-0.106|0.256
84642440|NCT02880956|169022219|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642441|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.269|0.479
84676146|NCT00274716|169087467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-8.7|0.108
84642442|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642443|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.091|-0.299|0.295
84642444|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642445|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.215|-0.186|0.884
84642446|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642447|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.155||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.155|-0.281|0.569
84642448|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642449|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.171||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.171|-0.254|0.702
84642450|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642451|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.283||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.283|-0.155|0.566
84642452|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676147|NCT00274716|169087467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.8|-9.0|0.099
84676148|NCT00274716|169087467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-5.7|0.752
84676149|NCT00274716|169087467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||5.0|-4.7|0.941
84642453|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|0.065||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.065|-0.458|0.141
84676150|NCT00274716|169087468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
84676151|NCT00274716|169087468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
84642454|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642455|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.23||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.230|-0.285|0.834
84676152|NCT00274716|169087468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
84676153|NCT00274716|169087468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.0|-0.5|0.462
84676154|NCT00274716|169087468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.3|-0.2|0.118
84676155|NCT00274716|169087469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.1|-3.7|0.059
84676156|NCT00274716|169087469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-1.7|-5.5|<0.001
84676157|NCT00274716|169087469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.5|-3.3|0.136
84642456|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642457|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.215|-0.309|0.724
84642458|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84676158|NCT00274716|169087469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||1.4|-2.2|0.686
84676159|NCT00274716|169087469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-0.3|-4.0|0.022
84676160|NCT00274716|169087470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.7|-20.8|0.005
84676161|NCT00274716|169087470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.5|-16.7|0.066
84676162|NCT00274716|169087470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||4.4|-13.4|0.319
84676163|NCT00274716|169087470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.8|-16.4|0.077
84676164|NCT00274716|169087470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||5.1|-12.2|0.418
84642459|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.095||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.095|-0.559|0.163
84642460|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676165|NCT00274716|169087471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.2|-11.3|0.015
84642461|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.21||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.432|0.497
84642462|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676166|NCT00274716|169087471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||1.1|-9.2|0.124
84676167|NCT00274716|169087471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||7.2|-3.1|0.429
84676168|NCT00274716|169087471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.4|-13.3|0.001
84676169|NCT00274716|169087471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.1|-11.1|0.018
84676170|NCT00274716|169087472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|22.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||22.8|-12.9|0.587
84676171|NCT00274716|169087472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||12.8|-23.5|0.562
84676172|NCT00274716|169087472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|20.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.4|-15.8|0.802
84676173|NCT00274716|169087472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|20.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.5|-15.2|0.772
84676174|NCT00274716|169087472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||10.6|-25.9|0.409
84676175|NCT01602315|169087480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||median HR|0.99||||||||||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Bayesian Cox proportional hazard (PH) model.||||
84676176|NCT01602315|169087480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.69|0.643
84676177|NCT01602315|169087480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from central data \[SLD (C)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||0.97|0.30|0.039
84676178|NCT01602315|169087483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier method (median)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|88.0|||||days|||88.0|27.0|
84676179|NCT01602315|169087489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.79|0.313
84676180|NCT01602315|169087490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier (median)|294.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.0|463.0||||||||463.0|172.0|
84676181|NCT01602315|169087504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.49|0.235
84676182|NCT01602315|169087504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from local data \[SLD (L)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||1.02|0.4|0.062
84676183|NCT04193202|169087505|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|0.75||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.44|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline LCQ total score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12|||1.44|0.06|0.034
84642463|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.349||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.349|-0.314|0.919
84676184|NCT04193202|169087506|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-6.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.97||Nominal p value, not controlled for multiplicity|Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline mean weekly cough severity VAS score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12.|||-1.97|-11.88|0.006
84676185|NCT00127790|169087511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.010
84676186|NCT00127790|169087511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.581|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.581
84676187|NCT00127790|169087511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.011|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.011
84676188|NCT00127790|169087512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.33
84676189|NCT00127790|169087512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.112|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.112
84642464|NCT02880956|169022220|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642465|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.974|0.409||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.974|0.423
84642466|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642467|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.047||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.047|-1.408|0.036
84642468|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642469|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.147||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.147|-1.250|0.121
84642470|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676190|NCT00127790|169087512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.737|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.737
84642471|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|0.296||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.296|-1.163|0.244
84642472|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642473|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.086||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.086|-1.330|0.085
84642474|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642475|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.177||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.177|-1.280|0.137
84642476|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642477|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|1.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.091|-0.294|0.258
84642478|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84676191|NCT00127790|169087513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.063|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.063
84642479|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.814||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.814|-0.555|0.711
84642480|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642481|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.924||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.924|-0.454|0.503
84642482|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642483|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.784||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.784|-0.806|0.978
84676192|NCT00127790|169087513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.786|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.786
84676193|NCT00127790|169087513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.039|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.039
84642484|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642485|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|0.342||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.342|-1.239|0.265
84676194|NCT00127790|169087514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.016|||||||Generlaized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.016
84642486|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676195|NCT00127790|169087514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.187|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.187
84642487|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.925||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.704|0.789
84642488|NCT02880956|169022221|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.||||
84642489|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.395||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.395|-0.965|0.720
84642490|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642491|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.607|0.722||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.722|-1.607|0.455
84642492|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642493|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|1.625||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.625|-0.755|0.473
84642494|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642495|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.187|1.512||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.512|-1.187|0.813
84642496|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84642497|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|0.78||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.780|-1.863|0.421
84642498|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642499|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|1.564||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.564|-1.139|0.758
84642500|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642501|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.066||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-2.140|0.511
84676196|NCT00127790|169087514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2||||0.015|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.015
84642502|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642503|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|0.527||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.527|-2.623|0.192
84642504|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642505|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|2.294||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.294|-0.914|0.398
84676197|NCT03091751|169087541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.88|245.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||245.70|-224.88|0.77
84676198|NCT03091751|169087542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3068||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1501|0.4635|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4635|0.1501|0.002
84676199|NCT03091751|169087543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3|-8.9|0.30
84676200|NCT03091751|169087544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0058||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0003|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0003|-0.0119|0.16
84642506|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642507|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|2.784||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.784|-0.851|0.296
84642508|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642509|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.442||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.442|-2.126|0.706
84505050|NCT01360632|168761116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.23|-0.87|0.0008
84505051|NCT01360632|168761116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B||0.23|-0.41|0.5792
84642510|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505052|NCT01360632|168761116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.12|-0.87|0.0091
84505053|NCT01360632|168761116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.73|0.0474
84505054|NCT01360632|168761117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.22||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.22|-0.94|0.0015
84642511|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|3.617||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.617|-0.036|0.055
84642512|NCT02880956|169022222|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642513|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.166||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.166|-0.266|0.651
84642514|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642515|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.104||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.104|-0.318|0.320
84505055|NCT01360632|168761117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.15|-0.56|0.2627
84505056|NCT01360632|168761117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3||-0.09|-0.89|0.0158
84505057|NCT01360632|168761117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.08|-0.88|0.0191
84642516|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642517|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.182||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.182|-0.250|0.757
84642518|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676201|NCT03091751|169087545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.609||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.344|-1.879|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.879|-13.344|0.02
84642519|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.236||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.236|-0.241|0.984
84642520|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505058|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||-0.03|-0.88|0.0377
84642521|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.17||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.170|-0.296|0.595
84642522|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642523|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.291||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.291|-0.187|0.670
84642524|NCT02880956|169022223|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642525|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.260|0.722
84642526|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642527|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.198||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.198|-0.232|0.878
84642528|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642529|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.29||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.290|-0.151|0.535
84642530|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642531|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.239||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.239|-0.266|0.916
84642532|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505059|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||-0.43|For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.04|-0.91|0.0741
84642533|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.165||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.165|-0.330|0.511
84642534|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642535|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.292||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.292|-0.217|0.771
84642536|NCT02880956|169022224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642537|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.159|0.903
84505060|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.81||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.81|-0.07|0.0966
84505061|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.31|-0.66|0.4774
84505062|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.05|-0.76|0.0263
84642538|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642539|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.145||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.145|-0.185|0.811
84642540|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642541|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.194||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.194|-0.145|0.775
84642542|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642543|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.096||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.096|-0.337|0.273
84642544|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642545|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.176||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.176|-0.248|0.740
84642546|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642547|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.155||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.155|-0.282|0.567
84642548|NCT02880956|169022225|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642549|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.187||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.187|-0.204|0.931
84642550|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642551|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.063||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.063|-0.320|0.187
84642552|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84505063|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.07|-0.89|0.0214
84505064|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.32|-0.40|0.8281
84505065|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
84505066|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.26|-0.99|0.0008
84505067|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.14|-0.97|0.0093
84505068|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.14|-0.59|0.2182
84642553|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.201||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.201|-0.191|0.961
84726104|NCT05361304|169204542|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under LLHC.||0.020|-0.030|
84505069|NCT01360632|168761118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.06|-0.90|0.0256
84505070|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||-0.04|-1.01|0.0341
84505071|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||School/work: Week 14||0.06|-0.99|0.0816
84642554|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642555|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.227||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.227|-0.260|0.894
84642556|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642557|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.251||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.251|-0.226|0.917
84642558|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642559|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.303||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.303|-0.186|0.639
84642560|NCT02880956|169022226|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642561|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851|2.703||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.703|-5.851|0.470
84642562|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642563|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.819|4.548||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||4.548|-3.819|0.864
84642564|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84505072|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.78||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||0.78|-0.21|0.2561
84505073|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 14||0.25|-0.82|0.2952
84642565|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.826|-0.15||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.150|-8.826|0.043
84642566|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642567|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.874||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.041|6.27||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||6.270|-5.041|0.831
84642568|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505074|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.03||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.03|-0.82|0.0331
84642569|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.843||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|7.404||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||7.404|-3.784|0.525
84642570|NCT02880956|169022227|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505075|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.03|-0.90|0.0352
84642571|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.239|4.255||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||4.255|-7.239|0.610
84642572|NCT02880956|169022227|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642573|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|1.214||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.214|-2.798|0.438
84642574|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642575|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|2.788||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.788|-1.164|0.419
84642576|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642577|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.959|2.092||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.092|-1.959|0.948
84642578|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642579|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|2.101||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.101|-4.180|0.516
84642580|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642581|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.582||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.055|3.168||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.168|-3.055|0.971
84642582|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642583|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|1.8||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.800|-4.577|0.392
84642584|NCT02880956|169022228|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642585|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.465||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.465|-3.080|0.148
84642586|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642587|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|0.246||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.246|-3.278|0.092
84642588|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642589|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.915||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|0.152||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.152|-3.446|0.073
84505076|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.25|-0.54|0.4860
84642590|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642591|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|2.599||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.599|-1.652|0.662
84642592|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642593|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|2.068||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.068|-2.089|0.992
84642594|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642595|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|1.32||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.320|-2.961|0.451
84642596|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642597|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.088|1.739||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.739|-3.088|0.583
84642598|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642599|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.975|0.795||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.795|-3.975|0.191
84642600|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642601|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|1.329|||repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.329|-3.541|0.372
84505077|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.05|-0.93|0.0282
84642602|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642603|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|1.571||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.571|-3.553|0.447
84642604|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642605|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.334|2.719||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.719|-2.334|0.881
84642606|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642607|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.881|2.383||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.383|-2.881|0.853
84642608|NCT02880956|169022229|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642609|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.567|0.762||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.762|-2.567|0.287
84642610|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642611|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.661|0.633||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.633|-2.661|0.227
84642612|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642613|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|0.681||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.681|-2.698|0.241
84642614|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642615|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.073|2.696||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.696|-1.073|0.397
84642616|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642617|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.443||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.443|-2.239|0.671
84642618|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642619|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.052|0.738||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.738|-3.052|0.231
84642620|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642621|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.137||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.701||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||4.701|0.230|0.031
84676202|NCT01161329|169087550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was estimated that 128 individuals would be required for 80 % Power with a type I error of 5% to detect a 2-point difference in BBS with a standard deviation of +/- 4 points. Because of the slow recruitment and the statistically significant improvements observed in the primary outcome in the intervention group during an interim analysis the study was finalized with fewer participants than had been initially calculated.||||||0.001||||||The Bonferroni method was used to assess longitudinal Changes and correct for multiple comparisons, with significance set at p\<0.016 to minimize the risk for type I errors.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the effects on the outcome measures. Between-group differences for all outcome measures were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.||||0.001
84642622|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642623|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|2.888||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.888|-1.532|0.547
84642624|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642625|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.521|2.984||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.984|-1.521|0.524
84642626|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642627|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.499|1.836||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.836|-3.499|0.540
84642628|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642629|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|2.046||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.046|-3.208|0.664
84642630|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642631|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.923|1.546||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.546|-3.923|0.393
84642632|NCT02880956|169022230|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642633|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.498||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.498|-0.534|0.946
84642634|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84505078|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.24|-1.01|0.0016
84642635|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.813|0.206||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.206|-0.813|0.242
84642636|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642637|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.360|-0.685|0.541
84642638|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642639|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.691||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.691|-0.481|0.724
84642640|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642641|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.913||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.913|-0.226|0.236
84642642|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642643|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.695||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.695|-0.477|0.714
84642644|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84676203|NCT01161329|169087551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value for the man differnece in SPPB between grpoups att three months was 0.09|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84676204|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.660
84676205|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.734
84676206|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.629
84676207|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.752
84676208|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.512
84676209|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84676210|NCT03161314|169087558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84676211|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.128
84676212|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.889
84676213|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.793
84676214|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.602
84676215|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.574
84676216|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84676217|NCT03161314|169087559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84505079|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.09|-0.94|0.0186
84676218|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.374
84676219|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.674
84676220|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.781
84676221|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.778
84676222|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.727
84676223|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.014
84676224|NCT03161314|169087560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
84676225|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.390
84676226|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.770
84676227|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.603
84676228|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.922
84676229|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.560
84676230|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.181
84676231|NCT03161314|169087561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84676232|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.334
84676233|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.766
84676234|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.598
84676235|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.682
84676236|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.707
84676237|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.008
84676238|NCT03161314|169087562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
84676239|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.287
84676240|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.861
84676241|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.641
84676242|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.864
84676243|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.888
84676244|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.262
84676245|NCT03161314|169087563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
84676246|NCT01599650|169087579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|7.3|<0.0001
84676247|NCT01599650|169087579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|5.8|<0.0001
84676248|NCT03304379|169087593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.63|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.286||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.286|-0.971|= 0.0003
84676249|NCT03304379|169087593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||>|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a MMRM model with baseline, randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction"||-0.383|-1.154|> 0.0001
84676250|NCT03304379|169087594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.290|-0.981|= 0.0003
84676251|NCT03304379|169087594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.198|-0.443||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using an Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction."||-0.443|-1.198|<0.0001
84676252|NCT03304379|169087595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.581|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.092||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||2.092|1.195|= 0.0013
84676253|NCT03304379|169087596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.009||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on a multiple imputation approach using Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model.||-0.009|-0.28|= 0.0365
84676254|NCT03402243|169087615|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a total menthol ban smoked relative to those randomized to a menthol cigarette ban|||1.75|1.1|
84676255|NCT03402243|169087615|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol cigarettes ban relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.11|0.68|
84676256|NCT03402243|169087615|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.45|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol ban for cigarettes and e-cigarettes relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.45|0.99|
84676257|NCT03402243|169087615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average number of puffs per participants over the 6 week study period||||0.349
84676258|NCT03402243|169087616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of cigarette packs selected||||0.185
84676259|NCT03402243|169087616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of e-cigarette liquid units selected||||0.076
84676260|NCT03402243|169087617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84676261|NCT01649856|169087620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.076||95.0|-1.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|-1.1|0.076
84676262|NCT00835406|169087658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-36 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|97.94||||||90.0|90.96|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.45|90.96|
84676263|NCT00835406|169087659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-35 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|100.36||||||90.0|92.85|108.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.48|92.85|
84676264|NCT02138214|169087702|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.567
84676265|NCT02138214|169087703|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
84676266|NCT02138214|169087705|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84676267|NCT02138214|169087707|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
84676268|NCT02138214|169087708|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
84676269|NCT02138214|169087709|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
84676270|NCT02550652|169087722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|-3.4|0.1145
84676271|NCT02550652|169087722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.1|22.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference in Percentage of Participants||||22.6|2.1|0.1145
84676272|NCT02550652|169087723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246||95.0|3.0|37.2||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|3.0|0.0246
84676273|NCT02550652|169087723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.9|31.3||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|8.9|0.0246
84676274|NCT02550652|169087724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0744
84676275|NCT02550652|169087725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015||95.0|4.7|38.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.7|4.7|0.0150
84505080|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.04|-0.73|0.0824
84676276|NCT02550652|169087725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.6|32.8||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|10.6|0.0150
84676277|NCT02550652|169087726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.4||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-17.5|0.8461
84505081|NCT01360632|168761119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.16|-1.02|0.0077
84505082|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.18|0.0436
84676278|NCT02550652|169087726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|8.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-12.1|0.8461
84676279|NCT02550652|169087727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3530
84676280|NCT02550652|169087728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.491||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.491|-1.13|<0.0001
84505083|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.03|-0.15|-0.06
84642645|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.593|-0.496|0.860
84642646|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84505084|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.08|-0.34|0.0012
84505085|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0266
84676281|NCT02550652|169087728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.019|-0.602||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.602|-1.019|<0.0001
84642647|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|0.343||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.343|-0.733|0.476
84676282|NCT02550652|169087729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.275||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.275|0.081|0.0004
84642648|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642649|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.694||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.694|-0.393|0.586
84676283|NCT02550652|169087729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.115|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|0.115|0.0004
84676284|NCT02550652|169087730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.124|||ANCOVA|Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).||||0.124|0.052|<0.0001
84642650|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642651|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.903||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.903|-0.371|0.412
84642652|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642653|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.868|-0.386|0.450
84642654|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642655|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.816||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.816|-0.481|0.612
84642656|NCT02880956|169022231|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642657|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|0.535||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.535|-1.058|0.520
84642658|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642659|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.201|0.374||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.374|-1.201|0.303
84642660|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642661|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.307|0.315||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.315|-1.307|0.230
84642662|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642663|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5222||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.356||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.356|-1.698|0.200
84642664|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642665|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.917||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.917|-1.080|0.873
84642666|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642667|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|0.576||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.576|-1.482|0.388
84642668|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642669|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.955||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.955|-1.355|0.734
84642670|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642671|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|0.668||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.668|-1.608|0.417
84505086|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.07|-0.33|0.0034
84505087|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.2|0.3053
84642672|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642673|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.836|0.482||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.482|-1.836|0.252
84642674|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642675|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.462||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.462|-1.170|0.827
84642676|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642677|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.962|1.624||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.624|-0.962|0.615
84642678|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642679|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|1.014||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.014|-1.653|0.637
84642680|NCT02880956|169022232|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642681|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|0.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.308|-1.135|0.261
84642682|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676285|NCT02550652|169087730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.065|0.112||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.112|0.065|<0.0001
84642683|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.001||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.001|-0.420|0.423
84642684|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642685|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|0.361||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.361|-1.097|0.322
84642686|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642687|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|1.049||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.049|-0.511|0.498
84642688|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642689|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|1.51||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.510|-0.006|0.052
84642690|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642691|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.572||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.572|-0.993|0.597
84642692|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642693|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.788||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.788|-0.689|0.896
84676286|NCT02550652|169087731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09||95.0|-2.4|30.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|-2.4|0.0900
84642694|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642695|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.258||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.258|-0.192|0.149
84642696|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642697|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.499||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.499|-0.980|0.522
84642698|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642699|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.567||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.567|-1.103|0.528
84642700|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642701|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|1.116||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.116|-0.519|0.474
84642702|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642703|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.513||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.513|-1.176|0.441
84642704|NCT02880956|169022233|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642705|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.082||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.082|-1.383|0.027
84642706|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642707|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-1.123|0.146
84642708|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676287|NCT02550652|169087731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|24.5||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|3.2|0.0900
84505088|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.29|0.0541
84642709|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.537|-0.22||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.220|-1.537|0.009
84642710|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642711|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.634|-0.674|0.952
84642712|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642713|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.734||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.734|-0.540|0.764
84642714|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84642715|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.191|0.109||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.109|-1.191|0.103
84642716|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642717|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.028||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.028|-1.396|0.060
84642718|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642719|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.316|0.098||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.098|-1.316|0.091
84642720|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642721|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|0.147||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.147|-1.274|0.120
84642722|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642723|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.464||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.464|-1.090|0.429
84642724|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642725|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.97||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.970|-0.559|0.597
84642726|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642727|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.858||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.858|-0.717|0.860
84642728|NCT02880956|169022234|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642729|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|0.885||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.885|-1.069|0.854
84642730|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642731|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|0.562||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.562|-1.368|0.412
84642732|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642733|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.424||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.424|-1.554|0.262
84642734|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642735|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|2.036||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.036|-0.209|0.110
84642736|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642737|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|0.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.469|-1.713|0.263
84642738|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642739|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.217||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.217|-1.026|0.868
84642740|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642741|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|1.029||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.029|-1.298|0.820
84642742|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642743|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.308|-0.984|0.781
84505089|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.28|0.0912
84505090|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.04|-0.28|0.1553
84642744|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642745|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|1.238||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.238|-1.082|0.895
84642746|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642747|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|1.991||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.991|-0.724|0.359
84642748|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642749|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|1.67||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.670|-0.985|0.612
84642750|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642751|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|1.867||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.867|-0.872|0.475
84642752|NCT02880956|169022235|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642753|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|0.878||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.878|-0.799|0.926
84642754|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642755|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.58||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.580|-1.082|0.553
84642756|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642757|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.677||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.677|-1.021|0.690
84642758|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642759|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|1.879||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.879|-0.085|0.073
84642760|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642761|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|1.273||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.273|-0.641|0.517
84642762|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642763|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|1.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.360|-0.609|0.454
84642764|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84642765|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|1.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.596|-0.456|0.276
84642766|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642767|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|1.058||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.058|-0.973|0.935
84642768|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642769|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.066||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-0.990|0.942
84642770|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642771|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|1.436||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.436|-0.802|0.578
84642772|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84676288|NCT02550652|169087732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|-6.4|0.1838
84642773|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|1.441||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.441|-0.762|0.545
84642774|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642775|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|0.597||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.597|-1.697|0.346
84642776|NCT02880956|169022236|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642777|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.1||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.100|-0.473|0.202
84642778|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642779|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.239||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.239|-0.327|0.760
84642780|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642781|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.17||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.170|-0.409|0.419
84676289|NCT02550652|169087732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|21.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.5|0.1838
84676290|NCT02550652|169087733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|-10.0|0.3726
84505091|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.05|-0.27|0.1855
84505092|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.28|0.2015
84642782|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642783|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.317||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.317|-0.363|0.893
84642784|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
84642785|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.354||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.354|-0.306|0.886
84505093|NCT01360632|168761120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.32|0.0852
84642786|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642787|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|0.162||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.162|-0.515|0.306
84642788|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642789|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.079||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.079|-0.535|0.008
84642790|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642791|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.023||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.023|-0.474|0.031
84642792|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642793|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.059||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.059|-0.514|0.014
84642794|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
84642795|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.016||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.016|-0.514|0.065
84642796|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642797|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.055||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.055|-0.465|0.121
84642798|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642799|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.097||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.097|-0.438|0.210
84642800|NCT02880956|169022237|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642801|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.176||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.176|-0.564|0.303
84642802|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642803|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.194||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.194|-0.536|0.358
84642804|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676291|NCT02550652|169087733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|18.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-4.0|0.3726
84642805|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.195||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.195|-0.553|0.347
84642806|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642807|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.205|0.494
84642808|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642809|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.189|0.454
84642810|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642811|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.388||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.388|-0.240|0.644
84642812|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642813|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.551||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.551|-0.363|0.685
84642814|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642815|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.73||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.730|-0.168|0.219
84642816|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642817|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.61||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.610|-0.302|0.507
84642818|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84676292|NCT01196871|169087749|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.439|3.548|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% confidence interval (CI) are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.548|2.439|
84676293|NCT01196871|169087749|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.431|3.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.560|2.431|
84676294|NCT01196871|169087749|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.826|3.035|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.035|1.826|
84642819|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.167|-0.683|0.233
84642820|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642821|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.446||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.446|-0.383|0.881
84642822|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642823|NCT02880956|169022238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.335||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.335|-0.520|0.671
84642824|NCT02880956|169022238|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642825|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.232|0.377||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.377|-1.232|0.297
84642826|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642827|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.786||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.786|-0.808|0.979
84642828|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84505094|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.17|0.0817
84642829|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.996|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.634|-0.996|0.663
84642830|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642831|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.282||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.282|-1.220|0.961
84642832|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642833|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.083|1.344||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.344|-1.083|0.833
84642834|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642835|NCT02880956|169022239|OTHER||LS Mean of Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.017|1.484||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.484|-1.017|0.714
84642836|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642837|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|0.876||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.876|-1.733|0.518
84642838|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642839|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.973||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.973|-1.598|0.633
84642840|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642841|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|1.112||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.112|-1.488|0.776
84642842|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84505095|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.16|0.1406
84505096|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
84505097|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0287
84505098|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.05|-0.32|0.0071
84642843|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.558||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.558|-1.723|0.316
84642844|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642845|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.569||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.569|-1.660|0.336
84642846|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642847|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|0.663||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.663|-1.647|0.403
84642848|NCT02880956|169022239|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642849|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.716||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.716|-0.856|0.861
84642850|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642851|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.905||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.905|-0.648|0.746
84642852|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642853|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.868|-0.724|0.859
84676295|NCT01196871|169087749|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|3.068|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.068|1.839|
84676296|NCT01196871|169087750|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.843|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.843|1.440|
84642854|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84505099|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.06|-0.22|0.2503
84642855|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|1.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.469|-0.369|0.240
84642856|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642857|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.087||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.087|0.023|0.044
84642858|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84676297|NCT01196871|169087750|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.838|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.838|1.300|
84505100|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-0.3|0.0539
84505101|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0398
84505102|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.03|-0.3|0.1168
84505103|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.32|0.0621
84505104|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.32|0.089
84642859|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|1.524||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.524|-0.312|0.195
84642860|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84642861|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.229||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.229|-0.921|0.778
84642862|NCT02880956|169022240|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642863|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|1.376||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.376|-0.743|0.558
84642864|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642865|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|1.124||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.124|-1.025|0.928
84642866|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
84642867|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.704||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.704|-0.425|0.238
84642868|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505105|NCT01360632|168761121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.03|-0.38|0.0213
84505106|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.18|-2.37|0.0228
84642869|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.898||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.898|-0.186|0.107
84642870|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642871|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|1.942||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.942|-0.214|0.116
84642872|NCT02880956|169022240|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642873|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.29||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.290|-0.442|0.683
84676298|NCT01196871|169087752|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.14|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.140|0.921|
84642874|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642875|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.368||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.368|-0.356|0.973
84642876|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642877|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.352||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.352|-0.389|0.921
84642878|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642879|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.257||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.257|-0.751|0.335
84642880|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642881|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.596|-0.383|0.670
84642882|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642883|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.519||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.519|-0.486|0.950
84642884|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642885|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.281||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.281|-0.729|0.383
84642886|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642887|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.494||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.494|-0.504|0.985
84642888|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642889|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.027||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.027|-0.982|0.064
84642890|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642891|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.729||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.729|-0.374|0.527
84642892|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642893|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.854||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.854|-0.226|0.254
84642894|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642895|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.488||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.488|-0.628|0.805
84642896|NCT02880956|169022241|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642897|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.935|0.485||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.485|-0.935|0.534
84642898|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642899|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.821||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.821|-0.580|0.735
84676299|NCT01196871|169087752|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects mode Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.538|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.538|1.026|
84676300|NCT01196871|169087754|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.152|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.152|0.929|
84505107|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.73|-1.47|0.5081
84505108|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.53|-3.2|0.0064
84676301|NCT01196871|169087754|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.164|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.164|0.972|
84676302|NCT01196871|169087756|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.818|
84676303|NCT01196871|169087756|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.807|
84676304|NCT01196871|169087757|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.259|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.259|0.791|
84676305|NCT03062891|169087772|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline anxiety symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.40|-1.33|.572
84676306|NCT03062891|169087773|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline depression symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.98|-1.82|.934
84676307|NCT03062891|169087774|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.89|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between attentional problems and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.89|-0.76|.253
84676308|NCT03062891|169087775|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline paranois and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.10|-0.70|.215
84676309|NCT03062891|169087775|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.14||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline hallucinations and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.11|-0.83|.254
84676310|NCT03062891|169087775|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline cognitive disorganization and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.59|-2.13|.778
84642900|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642901|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|-0.24||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.240|-1.673|0.009
84642902|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642903|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.806||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.806|-0.854|0.954
84676311|NCT03062891|169087776|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.67|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline positive mental health and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.67|-2.16|.800
84676312|NCT03062891|169087777|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline perceived stress and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.44|-1.25|.525
84676313|NCT03062891|169087778|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|3.03|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline threatening life events and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.03|-0.43|.140
84676314|NCT03062891|169087779|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in anxiety symptoms across the intervention period.||-0.25|-4.90|.030
84676315|NCT03062891|169087780|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.01|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in depression symptoms across the intervention period.||1.01|-2.24|.456
84676316|NCT03062891|169087781|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.53|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes attentional problems across the intervention period.||0.53|-5.21|.110
84642904|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642905|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.622|0.997||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.997|-0.622|0.649
84642906|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642907|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.443||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.443|-1.220|0.358
84642908|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642909|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.963||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.963|-1.155|0.859
84642910|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84676317|NCT03062891|169087782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-0.07|||Generalized estimating equations|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (paranoia) across the intervention period.||-0.07|-3.31|.041
84676318|NCT03062891|169087782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.48|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (hallucinations) across the intervention period.||0.48|-0.92|.531
84676319|NCT03062891|169087782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (cognitive disorganization) across the intervention period.||0.11|-0.84|.130
84676320|NCT03062891|169087783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in positive mental health across the intervention period.||1.30|-1.17|.916
84676321|NCT03062891|169087784|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.03||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.23|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in perceived stress across the intervention period.||-0.23|-3.83|.027
84676322|NCT03062891|169087786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline anxiety symptoms and exploding head syndrome||2.40|0.77|.296
84642911|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|1.437||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.437|-0.644|0.455
84642912|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642913|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|0.539||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.539|-1.578|0.335
84642914|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642915|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|1.233||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.233|-1.447|0.875
84642916|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642917|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.561||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.561|-1.068|0.712
84505109|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.44|-2.23|0.1898
84642918|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642919|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.112|0.59||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.590|-2.112|0.269
84642920|NCT02880956|169022242|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642921|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|1.577||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.577|-1.509|0.966
84642922|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642923|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|1.4||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.400|-1.646|0.874
84642924|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642925|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|2.551||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||2.551|-0.572|0.213
84642926|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642927|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.242||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.242|-0.490|0.208
84642928|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642929|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|2.365||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.365|-0.307|0.131
84642930|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642931|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|2.719||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.719|-0.014|0.052
84642932|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642933|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.908|2.268||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.268|-1.908|0.866
84642934|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642935|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.523||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.523|-1.599|0.660
84642936|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642937|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|3.995||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.995|-0.184|0.074
84642938|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642939|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.828||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.828|-2.545|0.747
84642940|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
84642941|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|2.304||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.304|-2.004|0.891
84642942|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642943|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.759||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.759|-1.650|0.621
84642944|NCT02880956|169022243|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642945|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.064|-0.010|0.147
84642946|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676323|NCT03062891|169087786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline insomnia symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.02|0.47|.065
84642947|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.031||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.031|-0.041|0.795
84642948|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.147|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84642949|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.069||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.069|-0.006|0.095
84642950|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
84676324|NCT03062891|169087786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline depression symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.15|0.39|.145
84676325|NCT03062891|169087786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline life stress and exploding head syndrome||2.19|0.73|.398
84676326|NCT03062891|169087786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between sleep paralysis and exploding head syndrome||2.38|1.24|.001
84642951|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.072||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.072|-0.028|0.390
84642952|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84505110|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.56|-3.62|0.0074
84505111|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||1.11|-1.95|0.5935
84642953|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.052|0.898
84642954|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
84642955|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.057||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.057|-0.044|0.800
84676327|NCT03509948|169087801|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|79.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|95.35||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.35|66.40|
84676328|NCT03509948|169087802|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|92.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|95.95||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.95|88.37|
84676329|NCT03509948|169087803|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|97.2||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||97.20|84.99|
84676330|NCT03509948|169087805|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||1.75|0.25|
84676331|NCT03509948|169087807|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|95.41||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.41|87.55|
84676332|NCT03221257|169087810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.9326|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9326
84676333|NCT03221257|169087811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9968|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9968
84676334|NCT03221257|169087812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7489
84676335|NCT03221257|169087813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8898
84676336|NCT03221257|169087814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3826
84676337|NCT03221257|169087815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2819
84676338|NCT03221257|169087816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7534
84676339|NCT03221257|169087817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1701
84676340|NCT03221257|169087818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3515
84676341|NCT03221257|169087819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1177
84676342|NCT03221257|169087820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1931
84676343|NCT03221257|169087821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|121.3||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1811
84676344|NCT03221257|169087822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified log rank|||||||0.3261
84676345|NCT03221257|169087823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.454
84676346|NCT02517905|169087838|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.7||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-33.5|0.8661
84676347|NCT02517905|169087839|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-4.0||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|10.2|||ANOVA|||||10.2|-18.2|0.5780
84676348|NCT02517905|169087840|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|5.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|52.1|||ANOVA|||||52.1|-40.2|0.8010
84676349|NCT01940705|169087878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.578||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Skills scale||||0.001
84676350|NCT01940705|169087878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.235||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Knowledge scale||||0.003
84676351|NCT01940705|169087879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.956||||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.414
84676352|NCT01940705|169087880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.847
84676353|NCT00459134|169087881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.0||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis is that sexual function will be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||3.00|-1.67|0.576
84505112|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.29|-3.52|0.0211
84505113|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.27|-2.96|0.1031
84642956|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
84642957|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.066|0.977
84642958|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642959|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.063|0.990
84642960|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642961|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.067||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.067|-0.063|0.944
84642962|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
84642963|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.085||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.085|-0.079|0.942
84642964|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642965|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.074||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.074|-0.087|0.876
84642966|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84505114|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.41|-3.02|0.1366
84642967|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.143||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.143|-0.024|0.163
84642968|NCT02880956|169022244|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
84642969|NCT00833664|169022245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|88.1|109.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.5|88.1|
84642970|NCT00833664|169022246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|107.6||||||90.0|104.7|110.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.6|104.7|
84642971|NCT00833664|169022247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|92.7|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.0|92.7|
84642972|NCT00678743|169022250|SUPERIORITY|All statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed. Comparability of baseline characteristics between those who did and did not opt to enter the extension study was assessed with the chi square test and analysis of variance.||||||0.0008||||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
84642973|NCT04531462|169022257|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg = mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||Threshold level for statistical significance: α = 0.05 .|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed classification effects for treatment, gender, baseline renal function, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction, and a linear covariate for baseline HbA1c and age. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
84642974|NCT04531462|169022258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.39|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline muscle mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.39|-1.61|0.2310
84642975|NCT04531462|169022259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline body fat measurement, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-1.04|-2.65|<0.0001
84642976|NCT04531462|169022260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.22|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline lean body mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.22|-1.28|0.1632
84642977|NCT04531462|169022261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline total body water, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0384
84642978|NCT04531462|169022262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline bone mineral content, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.1975
84642979|NCT04531462|169022263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.081||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.098|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included baseline skeletal muscle index, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.098|-0.259|0.3725
84642980|NCT04531462|169022264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline grip strength, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.5|-1.1|0.4208
84642981|NCT04531462|169022265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline 5-time chair stand test, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.0|0.9267
84642982|NCT04175509|169022266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.378
84642983|NCT04175509|169022267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.753
84642984|NCT04175509|169022268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84642985|NCT04175509|169022269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84642986|NCT04175509|169022270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84642987|NCT04175509|169022271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84642988|NCT04175509|169022272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84642989|NCT04175509|169022273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84642990|NCT01727700|169022298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-6.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.34||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard deviation \[SD\] of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-2.34|-10.18|0.0020
84645175|NCT00461331|169025861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.165||0.15||95.0|0.97|9.23|||Regression, Linear||This was between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change using Insulin Aspart and Insulin Lispro. Adequate samples were not available to do the analysis for day 2.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.23|0.97|0.15
84645176|NCT00461331|169025862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.55||95.0|4.4|9.4|||Regression, Linear||This was for test period 1 between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.4|4.4|0.55
84505115|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.75|-2.68|0.2709
84505116|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.2|-3.4|0.0812
84676354|NCT00459134|169087882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.89||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis was that quality of life would be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||7.89|1.09|0.010
84505117|NCT01360632|168761122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.29|-3.33|0.1001
84642991|NCT01727700|169022298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-5.86||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard SD of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-5.86|-13.84|<0.0001
84642992|NCT01727700|169022299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.03||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.52||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.52|-1.54|0.0001
84642993|NCT01727700|169022299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.49||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.49|-1.54|0.0002
84642994|NCT01727700|169022300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.26||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|-5.08||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.08|-21.43|0.0017
84642995|NCT01727700|169022300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-11.04||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.04|-27.70|<0.0001
84642996|NCT01727700|169022301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.33||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.27|0.0010
84676355|NCT00829621|169087883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.36
84642997|NCT01727700|169022301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.44||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.41|0.0002
84642998|NCT01727700|169022302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.36||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.88||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||1.88|0.98|0.0835
84642999|NCT01727700|169022302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.61||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.16||P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||2.16|1.20|0.0014
84643000|NCT01727700|169022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|1.16||||0.9187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.05||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.05|0.19|0.9187
84643001|NCT01727700|169022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9576||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.9576
84643002|NCT01727700|169022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|4.06||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.95||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.95|1.10|0.0132
84643003|NCT01727700|169022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.51||||0.0278||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.0278
84676356|NCT01856140|169087938|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.52
84676357|NCT01856140|169087938|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.47
84676358|NCT01856140|169087938|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.52
84676359|NCT01856140|169087939|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.227
84643004|NCT02484859|169022313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median intraoperative bleeding scores were compared with Wilcoxon test. In this pilot study the power analysis showed that a sample size of 44 patients in each group was sufficient to detect a difference of 0.2 in the mean (standard deviation of 0.4) with an 80% power with an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 20%. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the distribution of data.||||>0.69
84643005|NCT02484859|169022314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84643006|NCT02484859|169022315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84643007|NCT02484859|169022316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at arrrival to post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.05
84643008|NCT02484859|169022316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at discharge from post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.55
84643009|NCT02484859|169022317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84643010|NCT02054481|169022318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|53.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||53.8|19.0|<0.0001
84643011|NCT02054481|169022319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 12||28.2|1.0|0.0355
84643012|NCT02054481|169022319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 24||36.2|6.0|0.0062
84643013|NCT02054481|169022320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||42.9|11.3|0.0008
84643014|NCT02054481|169022321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||21.1|-0.8|0.0706
84676360|NCT01856140|169087939|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.573
84643015|NCT02054481|169022322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||37.7|1.9|0.0300
84676361|NCT01856140|169087939|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
84643016|NCT02054481|169022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||36.6|5.7|0.0072
84643017|NCT02054481|169022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Log Rank|||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84643018|NCT02320903|169022337|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was 0.16.|||
84643019|NCT02320903|169022337|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.22.|||
84643020|NCT02320903|169022338|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
84643021|NCT02320903|169022338|OTHER|What was the within-group change over time effect size?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for teen report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
84643022|NCT02320903|169022339|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.10.|||
84643023|NCT02320903|169022339|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.28.|||
84643024|NCT02320903|169022340|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.16.|||
84676362|NCT01856140|169087940|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.262
84676363|NCT01856140|169087940|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.631
84676364|NCT01856140|169087940|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.796
84676365|NCT01856140|169087941|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.337
84676366|NCT01856140|169087941|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks||||0.078
84643025|NCT02320903|169022340|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.21.|||
84643026|NCT02320903|169022341|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.62.|||
84643027|NCT02320903|169022341|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.23.|||
84643028|NCT02320903|169022342|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
84643029|NCT02320903|169022342|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure within-groups change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.26.|||
84643030|NCT02320903|169022343|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d =.12.|||
84643031|NCT02320903|169022344|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.81.|||
84643032|NCT02320903|169022345|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.43.|||
84643033|NCT02320903|169022346|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report on this measure was d = 24.|||
84643034|NCT02564432|169022347|EQUIVALENCE|This is not a randomized clinical trial but is an observational study, each patient's thigh skin site served as the control.|Base mean abundance|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Unweighted UniFrac (qualitative)|Both weighted and unweighted UniFrac were calculated; weighted UniFrac is calculated to be p = 0.398 while unweighted UniFrac was P\<0.03|Differential abundance of Staphylococcus aureus in the stoma calculated by Log2 fold change (y-axis) versus base mean abundance (x-axis)|Sample similarity was calculated using the statistical comparisons of community composition.||||<0.05
84643035|NCT02564432|169022347|OTHER|"In this study, dissimilarities between the stomal and healthy thigh skins were tested.~Observational study. Used only for visualizing trends in the data."|PERMANOVA|0.001|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Each stomal community type was distinguished by both its diversity and taxonomic composition|Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|||Loess Regression was used to visualize temporal trends in the Shannnon Diversity and relative abundance of microbes (Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Corynebacterium, and obligate anaerobes).|||<0.005
84643036|NCT04575597|169022358|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated confidence intervals (CIs) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|2.5||||||||2.5|-12.2|
84643037|NCT04575597|169022358|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.2||||||||6.2|-9.9|
84643038|NCT04575597|169022358|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Differences in Rates %|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.6|
84643039|NCT04575597|169022358|SUPERIORITY|Difference in rates %, associated CIs, and p-value were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-6.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-2.4|-11.3|0.0012
84643040|NCT04575597|169022361|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13||||||||1.13|0.48|
84643041|NCT04575597|169022361|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||||1.08|0.46|
84643042|NCT04575597|169022361|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||||||||1.11|0.47|
84643043|NCT04575597|169022361|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||||1.18|0.92|
84643044|NCT04575597|169022362|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.76||||||||2.76|0.80|
84643045|NCT04575597|169022362|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.09||||||||2.09|0.69|
84643046|NCT04575597|169022362|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62||||||||1.62|0.54|
84643047|NCT04575597|169022362|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33||||||||1.33|0.95|
84643048|NCT04575597|169022363|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46||||||||1.46|0.62|
84676367|NCT01856140|169087941|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.439
84505118|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-2.24|0.0496
84505119|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.63|-1.61|0.387
84505120|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.38|-3.13|0.0125
84643049|NCT04575597|169022363|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
84643050|NCT04575597|169022363|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.07||||||||1.07|0.45|
84643051|NCT04575597|169022363|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||||||||1.23|0.93|
84643052|NCT04575597|169022364|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||||||||1.83|0.62|
84643053|NCT04575597|169022364|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||||||||1.26|0.40|
84643054|NCT04575597|169022364|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85||||||||0.85|0.20|
84643055|NCT04575597|169022364|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||||||||1.18|0.86|
84643056|NCT04575597|169022365|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.34||||||||1.34|0.32|
84676368|NCT00924950|169087992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8571||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
84643057|NCT04575597|169022365|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71||||||||2.71|0.76|
84643058|NCT04575597|169022365|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42||||||||1.42|0.39|
84643059|NCT04575597|169022365|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
84643060|NCT04575597|169022366|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||||||||1.61|0.66|
84643061|NCT04575597|169022366|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.09||||||||2.09|0.83|
84643062|NCT04575597|169022366|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.23||||||||1.23|0.47|
84643063|NCT04575597|169022366|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||||1.16|0.88|
84643064|NCT04575597|169022367|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41||||||||1.41|0.62|
84643065|NCT04575597|169022367|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69||||||||1.69|0.70|
84643066|NCT04575597|169022367|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
84643067|NCT04575597|169022367|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31||||||||1.31|1.01|
84643068|NCT04575597|169022368|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.69||||||||1.69|0.54|
84643069|NCT04575597|169022368|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0||||||||2.00|0.61|
84643070|NCT04575597|169022368|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38||||||||1.38|0.50|
84643071|NCT04575597|169022368|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||||1.21|0.90|
84643072|NCT04575597|169022369|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.76||||||||2.76|0.77|
84643073|NCT04575597|169022369|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.38||||||||3.38|0.92|
84643074|NCT04575597|169022369|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.86||||||||2.86|0.81|
84643075|NCT04575597|169022369|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24||||||||1.24|0.89|
84643076|NCT04575597|169022370|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.2||||||||2.20|0.81|
84643077|NCT04575597|169022370|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31||||||||2.31|0.85|
84643078|NCT04575597|169022370|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65||||||||1.65|0.57|
84676369|NCT00982319|169087994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84643079|NCT04575597|169022370|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
84643080|NCT04575597|169022371|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.91||||||||1.91|0.36|
84643081|NCT04575597|169022371|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.97||||||||2.97|0.64|
84643082|NCT04575597|169022371|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.02||||||||2.02|0.37|
84643083|NCT04575597|169022371|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||||||||1.14|0.74|
84643084|NCT04575597|169022372|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||||||||1.06|0.44|
84643085|NCT04575597|169022373|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||||||||0.67|0.06|
84643086|NCT04575597|169022373|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||||||||0.83|0.13|
84643087|NCT04575597|169022373|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.79||||||||0.79|0.09|
84643088|NCT04575597|169022373|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||||||||1.36|0.87|
84643089|NCT04575597|169022374|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.23||||||||2.23|0.74|
84643090|NCT04575597|169022374|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8||||||||1.80|0.45|
84643091|NCT04575597|169022374|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.89||||||||1.89|0.55|
84643092|NCT04575597|169022374|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
84643093|NCT04575597|169022375|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.33||||||||2.33|0.83|
84643094|NCT04575597|169022375|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.48||||||||1.48|0.50|
84643095|NCT04575597|169022375|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.72||||||||1.72|0.56|
84643096|NCT04575597|169022375|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43||||||||1.43|1.01|
84643097|NCT04575597|169022376|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.19||||||||2.19|0.29|
84643098|NCT04575597|169022376|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.44||||||||2.44|0.34|
84643099|NCT04575597|169022376|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.23||||||||4.23|0.74|
84643100|NCT04575597|169022376|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||||||||1.04|0.67|
84643101|NCT04575597|169022377|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.53||||||||6.53|0.98|
84643102|NCT04575597|169022377|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.52||||||||2.52|0.23|
84643103|NCT04575597|169022377|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||||1.84|0.11|
84643104|NCT04575597|169022377|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16||||||||1.16|0.66|
84643105|NCT04575597|169022378|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32||||||||3.32|0.46|
84643106|NCT04575597|169022378|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.74||||||||3.74|0.54|
84643107|NCT04575597|169022378|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.76||||||||2.76|0.34|
84643108|NCT04575597|169022378|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1||||||||1.10|0.66|
84643109|NCT04575597|169022379|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.52||||||||2.52|0.41|
84643110|NCT04575597|169022379|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.9||||||||1.90|0.26|
84643111|NCT04575597|169022379|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0||||||||3.00|0.51|
84643112|NCT04575597|169022379|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
84643113|NCT04575597|169022380|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.75||||||||1.75|0.36|
84643114|NCT04575597|169022380|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||||||||1.64|0.33|
84643115|NCT04575597|169022380|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||||||||1.62|0.31|
84643116|NCT04575597|169022380|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16||||||||1.16|0.76|
84643117|NCT04575597|169022381|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
84643118|NCT04575597|169022381|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78||||||||1.78|0.38|
84643119|NCT04575597|169022381|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
84643120|NCT04575597|169022381|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
84643121|NCT04575597|169022382|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.34||||||||1.34|0.26|
84643122|NCT04575597|169022382|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.37||||||||1.37|0.28|
84643123|NCT04575597|169022382|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.74||||||||1.74|0.38|
84643124|NCT04575597|169022382|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||||||||1.21|0.79|
84643125|NCT04575597|169022383|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.02||||||||3.02|0.47|
84643126|NCT04575597|169022383|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.2||||||||2.20|0.29|
84643127|NCT04575597|169022383|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.45||||||||2.45|0.32|
84643128|NCT04575597|169022383|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||||1.11|0.62|
84643129|NCT04575597|169022384|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.27||||||||2.27|0.30|
84643130|NCT04575597|169022384|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0||||||||1.00|0.04|
84643131|NCT04575597|169022384|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.91||||||||1.91|0.23|
84643132|NCT04575597|169022384|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
84643133|NCT04575597|169022385|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2||||||||1.20|0.28|
84643134|NCT04575597|169022385|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.95||||||||0.95|0.20|
84643135|NCT04575597|169022385|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||||||||1.59|0.43|
84643136|NCT04575597|169022385|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||||||||1.19|0.73|
84643137|NCT04575597|169022386|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.11||||||||2.11|0.35|
84643138|NCT04575597|169022386|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.34||||||||1.34|0.16|
84676370|NCT03779997|169087996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Log-linear GEE regression|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of urine drug tests (UDT) negative for opioids between the two treatment arms.Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is the reference group.||1.02|0.60|0.07
84643139|NCT04575597|169022386|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||||2.79|0.50|
84643140|NCT04575597|169022386|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32||||||||1.32|0.74|
84643141|NCT04575597|169022387|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.54||||||||15.54|0.06|
84676371|NCT03779997|169087997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the percentage of patients engaged in treatment at week 12. TAU is the reference group.||1.10|0.65|0.20
84676372|NCT03779997|169087998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the percentage of participants engaged in treatment at week 24 post-randomization. TAU is the reference group.||1.16|0.45|0.18
84676373|NCT03779997|169087999|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.7||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms on the number of consecutive weeks with UDT negative for opioids.||2.7|-0.9|0.31
84643142|NCT04575597|169022387|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA = Upper limit not reached as no events were recorded||||||||0.00|
84643143|NCT04575597|169022387|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.99||||||||15.99|0.06|
84643144|NCT04575597|169022387|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25||||||||1.25|0.46|
84643145|NCT04575597|169022388|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.83||||||||3.83|0.58|
84643146|NCT04575597|169022388|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.05||||||||3.05|0.42|
84643147|NCT04575597|169022388|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.93||||||||3.93|0.57|
84643148|NCT04575597|169022388|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||||1.10|0.61|
84643149|NCT04575597|169022389|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.21||||||||1.21|0.11|
84676374|NCT03779997|169088000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the number of participants who self-reported illicit opioid use at week 12.||2.26|0.23|0.57
84676375|NCT03779997|169088001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.066||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|GEE Poisson regression||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the mean number of days adherent to buprenorphine by self-report.||1.15|0.89|0.88
84643150|NCT04575597|169022389|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.36||||||||1.36|0.20|
84643151|NCT04575597|169022389|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.89||||||||1.89|0.29|
84643152|NCT04575597|169022389|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2||||||||1.20|0.68|
84643153|NCT04575597|169022390|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33||||||||1.33|0.09|
84643154|NCT04575597|169022390|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||||||||2.15|0.30|
84643155|NCT04575597|169022390|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.48||||||||1.48|0.18|
84643156|NCT04575597|169022390|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
84643157|NCT04575597|169022391|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|15.59||||||||15.59|0.59|
84643158|NCT04575597|169022391|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.16||||||||6.16|0.29|
84643159|NCT04575597|169022391|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.44||||||||1.44|0.09|
84643160|NCT04575597|169022391|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.3||||||||2.30|0.62|
84643161|NCT04575597|169022392|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|11.88||||||||11.88|1.14|
84643162|NCT04575597|169022392|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.98||||||||3.98|0.34|
84643163|NCT04575597|169022392|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||||2.68|0.27|
84643164|NCT04575597|169022392|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.39||||||||2.39|0.96|
84643165|NCT04575597|169022393|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.45||||||||3.45|0.82|
84643166|NCT04575597|169022393|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.33||||||||2.33|0.55|
84643167|NCT04575597|169022393|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29||||||||1.29|0.27|
84643168|NCT04575597|169022393|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.2||||||||2.20|1.14|
84643169|NCT04575597|169022394|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73||||||||2.73|0.73|
84643170|NCT04575597|169022394|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.94||||||||1.94|0.52|
84643171|NCT04575597|169022394|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.32||||||||1.32|0.34|
84643172|NCT04575597|169022394|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78||||||||1.78|1.03|
84643173|NCT04575597|169022395|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.66||||||||1.66|0.35|
84643174|NCT04575597|169022395|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||||||||1.79|0.38|
84643175|NCT04575597|169022395|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.81||||||||1.81|0.37|
84643176|NCT04575597|169022395|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
84643177|NCT04575597|169022396|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-5.9|
84643178|NCT02108262|169022403|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|1.0|||=|0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||2.5|-0.1|= 0.1241
84643179|NCT02108262|169022403|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.7|-0.5|= 0.4994
84643180|NCT02108262|169022404|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|-0.2|||=|0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||0.7|-1.4|= 0.4988
84643181|NCT02108262|169022404|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.9|-0.7|= 0.6241
84643182|NCT02108262|169022405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||2.05|0.67|= 0.5733
84643183|NCT02108262|169022405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.57|= 0.9717
84643184|NCT05027971|169022466|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.07||||||||.07|.002|
84643185|NCT05027971|169022467|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084||||||||.084|.006|
84676376|NCT03779997|169088003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who had one or more urine drug tests negative for buprenorphine.||3.24|0.42|0.77
84643186|NCT05027971|169022468|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.768||||||||.768|.553|
84676377|NCT03779997|169088004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who tested positive for stimulants at week 12.||1.43|0.32|0.30
84643187|NCT05027971|169022469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-14.2||||||||-14.2|-17.4|
84643188|NCT05027971|169022472|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
84643189|NCT05027971|169022473|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
84643190|NCT05027971|169022474|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
84643191|NCT05027971|169022475|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.943||||||||.943|.810|
84643192|NCT05027971|169022476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.6||||||||18.6|11.3|
84643193|NCT05027971|169022477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||||||||-2.9|-3.9|
84643194|NCT05027971|169022478|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
84643195|NCT02486627|169022479|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.1||||||||3.1|-10|
84643196|NCT02486627|169022480|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.3||||||||20.3|2.7|
84643197|NCT03192358|169022496|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study. The statistical test explores whether there were significant differences in tongue pressure between the two cohorts. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower maximum anterior isometric tongue pressures compared to the people with PD.||||< 0.001
84676378|NCT03779997|169088005|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in mean treatment satisfaction scores||0.32|-0.29|0.91
84676379|NCT00563797|169088008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||F=7.73|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison is between baseline and during treatment.||||0.014
84505121|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.19|-2.57|0.0898
84643198|NCT03192358|169022497|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study rather than a trial. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower regular effort saliva swallow pressures than the individuals with PD.||||< 0.001
84643199|NCT01978938|169022567|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI test was based on the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), using the method proposed without stratification by Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in Responder (clinical cure and microbiologic success) rates in the micro-ITT population exceeded -10%, then the null hypothesis was rejected and the NI of eravacycline to levofloxacin was declared.|Treatment Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.2||||||For the FDA, an NI margin of 10% was used, which was based on historical data regarding the treatment effect of antibiotics. A 10% NI margin for the Responder outcome is robust and can sufficiently confirm a clinically meaningful treatment effect of eravacycline in the treatment of cUTI.||1.2|-14.1|
84643200|NCT02650921|169022572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|76.1|||McNemar|||||76.1|53.3|<0.0001
84643201|NCT02650921|169022573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|82.7|||McNemar|||||82.7|61.9|<0.0001
84643202|NCT02650921|169022574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|57.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|69.8|||McNemar|||||69.8|44.8|<0.0001
84643203|NCT02650921|169022575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|59.3|||McNemar|||||59.3|32.3|<0.0001
84643204|NCT00160667|169022606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||=|0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|13.41|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||13.41|-12.82|=0.965
84643205|NCT00160667|169022606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|14.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||14.65|-11.69|=0.825
84643206|NCT00043550|169022627|SUPERIORITY|The proposed sample size had at least 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.36 between the two active treatment conditions and placebo during the active phase. These power calculations were based on a priori values of within-subject correlation of 0.50, 10% attrition, and 6 assessment points.|Slope|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall significant effect for treatment, as well as the two moderating effects, used a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167 (0.05/3).|HLM|||Comparison of conditions||||.95
84643207|NCT00043550|169022627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||HLM|||effects of conditions over time||||<.0001
84643208|NCT00043550|169022627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.41||||||||.41|-.35|
84643209|NCT00043550|169022627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45||||||||.45|-.33|
84643210|NCT02285062|169022652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.14|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors|||1.140|0.632|0.2864
84643211|NCT02285062|169022653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.344|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.344|0.802|0.7294
84643212|NCT02285062|169022654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.3|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by 3 factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.300|0.716|0.8760
84643213|NCT02285062|169022655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2933||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2933
84643214|NCT02285062|169022656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9964||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9964
84643215|NCT02285062|169022657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR was derived from COX model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors mentioned above.|||1.157|0.521|0.2143
84643216|NCT02285062|169022658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.167||||0.315||95.0|0.856|1.59|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR is derived from Cox model|||1.590|0.856|0.3150
84643217|NCT01143701|169022687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Utilizing the full sample (n=577), an intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||-1.19|-5.89|<.05
84643218|NCT01143701|169022688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||1.75|-4.71|<0.05
84643219|NCT04355728|169022705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in the number of subjects experiencing serious adverse events in the UC-MSC vs control group."||||.04
84643220|NCT04355728|169022714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.289||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.948|||Log Rank||Censoring was limited to dropout from study, and the event of interest was recovery. In the case of death, the patient's time to recovery was censored at the end of study observation; thus the patient remained in the risk set for all KM estimations.|"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in Time to Recovery up to 31 days post infusion between the UC-MSC group and control group. Time to recovery was estimated in each group with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Log-rank tests were used to compare hazards between groups."||0.948|0.088|0.0307
84643221|NCT04355728|169022715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
84643222|NCT04355728|169022716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
84643223|NCT04355728|169022747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0356
84643224|NCT04355728|169022748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0215
84643225|NCT04355728|169022749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3498.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3078.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6404.7|-591.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-591.2|-6404.7|0.0210
84643226|NCT04355728|169022751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.48
84643227|NCT04355728|169022751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.41
84643228|NCT04355728|169022752|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
84643229|NCT04355728|169022752|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (Class II) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
84643230|NCT04355728|169022753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.44
84643231|NCT04355728|169022753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.5238
84643232|NCT04157673|169022791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||This is the overall treatment effect from the mixed model. p-value threshold set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||0.0002
84643233|NCT04157673|169022792|OTHER|Effect size of mean differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size = 0.73|Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||
84643234|NCT04157673|169022793|OTHER|Effect size of mean pre-post differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.295|||TWO_SIDED||||||||cohen's d effect size for mean differences pre to post-treatment = 1.20|||||
84643235|NCT03011892|169022814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-59.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.85|-41.47|||MMRM|||||-41.47|-77.85|< 0.0001
84643236|NCT03011892|169022815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-14.76|||MMRM|||DB: Vehicle BID, Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||-14.76|-51.27|0.0004
84643237|NCT03011892|169022815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.23|-22.57|||MMRM|||||-22.57|-59.23|< 0.0001
84643238|NCT03011892|169022815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-54.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.93|-36.7|||MMRM|||||-36.70|-72.93|< 0.0001
84643239|NCT03011892|169022816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|14.63||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|32.73|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||32.73|-3.47|0.1127
84643240|NCT03011892|169022816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.74||||0.4659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|24.92|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.5% QD||24.92|-11.44|0.4659
84643241|NCT03011892|169022816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.18||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.13|10.77|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 1.5% QD||10.77|-25.13|0.4320
84643242|NCT03011892|169022816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.02||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.05|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.00|-30.05|0.1903
84505122|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.74|-3.88|0.004
84643243|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.12||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-10.41|||MMRM|||Week 2||-10.41|-39.84|0.0009
84643244|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.64|-33.06|||MMRM|||Week 2||-33.06|-62.64|< 0.0001
84643245|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-41.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-26.08|||MMRM|||Week 2||-26.08|-56.00|< 0.0001
84643246|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.69|-30.4|||MMRM|||Week 2||-30.40|-59.69|< 0.0001
84505123|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.74|-2.4|0.301
84643247|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.99||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|24.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||24.63|-4.66|0.1806
84643248|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|8.95|||MMRM|||Week 2||8.95|-20.82|0.4333
84643249|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.94||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||4.63|-24.51|0.1805
84643250|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.74||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|1.98|||MMRM|||Week 2||1.98|-27.45|0.0895
84643251|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.74|-9.02|||MMRM|||Week 8||-9.02|-47.74|0.0042
84643252|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.03|-17.01|||MMRM|||Week 8||-17.01|-56.03|0.0003
84643253|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||MMRM|||Week 8||||< 0.0001
84676380|NCT00563797|169088009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||F=36.32|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of baseline and post-treatment||||.0001
84676381|NCT00563797|169088010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
84643254|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.53|-37.77|||MMRM|||Week 8||-37.77|-76.53|< 0.0001
84643255|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.78||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|26.93|||MMRM|||Week 8||26.93|-11.37|0.4243
84643256|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|18.95|||MMRM|||Week 8||18.95|-19.65|0.9715
84643257|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.03||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|9.99|||MMRM|||Week 8||9.99|-28.05|0.3507
84643258|NCT03011892|169022817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 8||-1.82|-40.15|0.0320
84643259|NCT02282293|169022824|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61||Calculated p-value|Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
84643260|NCT02282293|169022826|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61|||Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
84643261|NCT02282293|169022828|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.48||Calculated p-value|GEE|||||1.48|0.13|0.19
84643262|NCT02282293|169022829|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.45|||Chi-squared|||||2.45|0.72|0.35
84643263|NCT03381729|169022843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-6.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to stand alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 7 (13.7%) participants achieved the ability to stand alone and 44 (86.3%) participants did not achieve the ability to stand alone.|22.8|-21.8|>0.9999
84643264|NCT03381729|169022844|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Least Squares Mean|5.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|9.0|||Mixed-Model Repeat Measure||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where the least squares mean (95% confidence interval) of the change from baseline in HFMSE scores at 12 months was 0.5 (-2.2 to 3.2).|9.0|1.9|0.0027
84643265|NCT03381729|169022846|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to walk alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 PubMed 25080519) where 5 (9.8%) participants achieved the ability to walk alone and 46 (90.2%) participants did not achieve the ability to walk alone.|27.0|-17.2|>0.9999
84643266|NCT01551420|169022849|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of no change after home use|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Two way comparison between scores at baseline and after 9-12 weeks of Prosthetic use. Alpha=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-tests||||0.28|-0.27|.9358
84643267|NCT01551420|169022849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of QOL measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-1.47|0.08
84676382|NCT00563797|169088011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.019
84676383|NCT01591746|169088038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84676384|NCT01591746|169088039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84643268|NCT01551420|169022850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analyses was 44 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with UEFS data at both time points).||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
84643269|NCT01551420|169022850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS use measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.40|-0.73|<0.0001
84643270|NCT01551420|169022851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analysis was 34 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with TAPES data at both time points).||0.11|-0.55|0.186
84643271|NCT01551420|169022851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for TAPES at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from TAPES measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.23|-2.06|0.0168
84643272|NCT01551420|169022852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||1.05|-2.99|0.3367
84643273|NCT01551420|169022852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.39|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from AM-ULA measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.39|-3.84|0.6339
84643274|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with SF-36V Role Physical data at both time points).||4.05|-7.53|0.5465
84643275|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.37||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Social Functioning data at both time points).||1.57|-9.12|0.1610
84643276|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Physical Functioning data at both time points).||3.68|-4.90|0.7765
84643277|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|1.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V; Role Physical measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.02|-27.72|0.0669
84676385|NCT01591746|169088040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Right breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.45
84676386|NCT01591746|169088040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Left breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.98
84676387|NCT01591746|169088041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84676388|NCT01591746|169088042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84676389|NCT01591746|169088043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84676390|NCT01298063|169088053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.96|126.27||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||126.270|67.960|0.1998
84676391|NCT01298063|169088053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.278|124.549||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.549|72.278|0.1440
84643278|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|6.54|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Social Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||6.54|-23.01|0.2592
84643279|NCT01551420|169022853|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-30.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-17.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Physical Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-17.23|-43.23|<0.0001
84643280|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Writing data at both time points).||0.07|-0.05|0.6691
84643281|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Page turning data at both time points).||0.00|-0.05|0.0511
84643282|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Lifting Small Items data at both time points).||0.04|-0.02|0.5942
84643283|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Checkers data at both time points).||-0.01|-0.07|0.0101
84643284|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Feeding data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.1063
84643285|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Light Cans data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.2474
84643286|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Heavy Cans data at both time points).||0.02|-0.09|0.1604
84643287|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Writing measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-0.12|0.4208
84643288|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Page Turning measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.02|-0.09|0.1959
84643289|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Lifting Small Items measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.03|-0.09|0.3328
84645177|NCT02106923|169025900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|105.514|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.514|100.505|<0.0001
84645178|NCT02106923|169025900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.809|103.823|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.823|96.809|<0.0001
84645179|NCT02106923|169025900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.507|98.721|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||98.721|93.507|<0.0001
84645180|NCT02106923|169025901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|112.81|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||112.81|92.30|0.0011
84645181|NCT02106923|169025901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|102.53|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.53|95.45|<0.0001
84505124|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.48|-3.82|0.0118
84643290|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Checkers measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
84643291|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Feeding measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.00|-0.12|0.0552
84643292|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Light Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0319
84643293|NCT01551420|169022854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Heavy Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.04|-0.24|0.0073
84643294|NCT01551420|169022855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Spontaneity data at both time points).||0.15|-0.24|0.6529
84643295|NCT01551420|169022855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Skill data at both time points).||0.22|-0.26|0.8490
84643296|NCT01551420|169022855|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Spontaneity at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Spontaneity measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.48|-0.22|0.4589
84643297|NCT01551420|169022855|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.44|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Skill at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Skill measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.44|-0.31|0.7110
84676392|NCT01298063|169088054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|109.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.683|144.947||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||144.947|82.683|0.2002
84676393|NCT01298063|169088054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|126.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.8||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.028|187.159||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||187.159|86.028|0.5281
84676394|NCT01298063|169088055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|90.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.915|122.705||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||122.705|66.915|0.2309
84676395|NCT01298063|169088055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.563|124.764||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.764|71.563|0.1546
84676396|NCT04632940|169088057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8912||0.5553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.251|-2.308|0.5553
84676397|NCT02442700|169088086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84676398|NCT00752908|169088095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84676399|NCT00887341|169088100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.238
84676400|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.121
84505125|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.19|-3.54|0.0287
84643298|NCT01551420|169022856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|253.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|325.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.7|360.5|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 38 participants.||Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with T-MAP data at both time points).|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|360.5|146.7|<0.0001
84643299|NCT01551420|169022856|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-183.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|186.9||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-574.3|208.2|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for T-MAP at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from T-MAP measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||208.2|-574.3|0.3397
84643300|NCT01551420|169022857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.53|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 24 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||8.53|0.07|0.0465
84643301|NCT01551420|169022857|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.82|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 19participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.82|-7.60|0.3450
84643302|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with CRIS: Extent of Limitations data at both time points).||2.79|-1.86|0.6881
84643303|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Perceived Limitations data at both time points).||3.67|-5.01|0.7363
84643304|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.12||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Satisfaction data at both time points).||1.01|-3.99|0.2361
84643305|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|1.29|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Extent of Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.29|-15.43|0.0932
84643306|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.99|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Perceived Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.99|-22.9|0.0951
84643307|NCT01551420|169022858|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.43|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Satisfaction measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||3.43|-13.3|0.2346
84643308|NCT01252732|169022891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.0||||||||2.0|-7.5|
84643309|NCT01252732|169022892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.0||||||||7.0|-2.6|
84643310|NCT01252732|169022893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.7|
84643311|NCT04966910|169022911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||This p-value applies to the time x condition interaction variable in a repeated-measure ANOVA for client data.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA including a time x condition interaction term to test for differences in slopes by condition for client data.||||0.036
84643312|NCT04966910|169022912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||.226
84643313|NCT04966910|169022913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.674
84643314|NCT04966910|169022914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.317
84643315|NCT04966910|169022915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.741
84643316|NCT04966910|169022916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.737
84676401|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.809
84676402|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.367
84643317|NCT00830791|169022933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.26|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.322.|||1.26|0.43|0.325
84643318|NCT00830791|169022934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.061 for this comparison.|||1.20|0.76|0.718
84643319|NCT00830791|169022935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.104 for this comparison.|||2.20|1.21|0.014
84643320|NCT00830791|169022937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.6|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.133.|||1.60|0.81|0.505
84643321|NCT00830791|169022939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
84643322|NCT00830791|169022940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
84643323|NCT02446171|169022954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|105.84|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.84|92.40|
84643324|NCT02446171|169022954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.17|107.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.43|93.17|
84643325|NCT02446171|169022954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|100.4|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.40|88.70|
84643326|NCT02446171|169022955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|105.8|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.80|92.24|
84643327|NCT02446171|169022955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|107.72|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.72|93.65|
84643328|NCT02446171|169022955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|100.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.82|89.20|
84643329|NCT02446171|169022956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.09|106.92|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||106.92|88.09|
84643330|NCT02446171|169022956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|110.16|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||110.16|91.80|
84643331|NCT02446171|169022956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||111.82|93.13|
84643332|NCT02415842|169023140|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.72|0.73|
84643333|NCT02415842|169023140|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.81|0.83|
84643334|NCT02415842|169023140|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.24|0.63|
84643335|NCT02415842|169023141|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 21 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.47|1.12|
84643336|NCT02415842|169023141|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||3.03|1.54|
84643337|NCT02415842|169023141|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.54|1.49|
84676403|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.339
84643338|NCT02415842|169023141|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 385 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.01|1.32|
84643339|NCT02415842|169023142|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.69|1.14|
84643340|NCT02415842|169023142|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.73|1.28|
84676404|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.017
84676405|NCT00887341|169088107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.451
84676406|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.377
84643341|NCT02415842|169023142|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.44|1.00|
84676407|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.387
84676408|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.304
84676409|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.509
84676410|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.110
84676411|NCT00887341|169088108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.504
84676412|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.327
84676413|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.786
84643342|NCT02415842|169023143|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|10.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|36.83|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.83|-16.50|
84676414|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.482
84676415|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.680
84676416|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.690
84676417|NCT00887341|169088109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.516
84676418|NCT00887341|169088110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.970
84505126|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.12|-3.39|0.0686
84505127|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.04|-3.47|0.056
84643343|NCT02415842|169023143|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|36.98|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.98|-14.45|
84643344|NCT02415842|169023143|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.56|18.65|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||18.65|-30.56|
84643345|NCT02415842|169023144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|47.01|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||47.01|5.96|
84643346|NCT02415842|169023144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|36.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.41|57.53|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||57.53|11.41|
84643347|NCT02415842|169023144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|24.71|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||24.71|-11.91|
84643348|NCT02415842|169023144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 365.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|22.15|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||22.15|-6.19|
84643349|NCT02415842|169023145|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|20.24|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||20.24|-13.06|
84643350|NCT02415842|169023145|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|34.76|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||34.76|0.35|
84643351|NCT02415842|169023145|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|15.0|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||15.00|-13.76|
84676419|NCT00887341|169088110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.587
84643352|NCT00178503|169023151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear trend P value|0.0|||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with MPH dosing regimen as the within-subjects variable.||||=.001
84643353|NCT00178503|169023152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.005||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
84643354|NCT00178503|169023153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.0|||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84643355|NCT00464490|169023154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Ventilator time (DG) = Ventilator time (CG)||||0.02
84643356|NCT00528970|169023180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.944||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.944
84643357|NCT00528970|169023180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.208||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.208
84643358|NCT03860935|169023187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||<0.0001
84645182|NCT02106923|169025901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|110.52|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.52|93.59|0.0002
84645183|NCT02106923|169025902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.446|105.373|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.373|100.446|<0.0001
84645184|NCT02106923|169025902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.448|103.738|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.738|96.448|<0.0001
84505128|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-3.75|0.0448
84643359|NCT03860935|169023188|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.477|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|20.18|59.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||59.10|20.18|<0.0001
84643360|NCT03860935|169023189|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.79|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||14.10|5.79|<0.0001
84643361|NCT03860935|169023190|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.73|8.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||8.46|5.73|<0.0001
84643362|NCT03860935|169023191|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|25.0||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level as recorded in IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0569
84643363|NCT03086967|169023198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84643364|NCT03086967|169023199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
84643365|NCT03086967|169023200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84643366|NCT03086967|169023201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84643367|NCT03086967|169023202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
84643368|NCT03086967|169023203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84643369|NCT03086967|169023204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
84643370|NCT03086967|169023205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84643371|NCT03086967|169023206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84643372|NCT03086967|169023207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84643373|NCT03086967|169023208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84643374|NCT01475071|169023225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority margin of -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.0345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.8||||paired Student's t statistic|||The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Metvix and daylight compared to Metvix and the lamp in terms of lesion complete response rate.|||-6.8|0.0345
84643375|NCT01475071|169023226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided Wilcoxon rank signed||superiority of Metvix adaylight and Metvix Lamp in term of pain||||<0.001
84643376|NCT01437995|169023252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.69|1.65||||||||1.65|0.69|
84643377|NCT01437995|169023253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
84643378|NCT01437995|169023253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
84643379|NCT01437995|169023253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
84643380|NCT01437995|169023254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41||||||||1.41|0.63|
84643381|NCT01437995|169023254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.73||||||||1.73|0.80|
84643382|NCT01437995|169023254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81||||||||1.81|0.83|
84643383|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.15
84643384|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||<0.001
84643385|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.027
84643386|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.40
84643387|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.032
84643388|NCT01437995|169023255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.21
84643389|NCT01437995|169023256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.14
84643390|NCT01437995|169023256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||<0.001
84643391|NCT01437995|169023256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.031
84676420|NCT00887341|169088110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.184
84676421|NCT00887341|169088110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.600
84676422|NCT00887341|169088110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.937
84643392|NCT04456673|169023261|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.435||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|-0.188|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.188|-0.682|0.0002
84643393|NCT04456673|169023262|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.082||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.124|||MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.124|0.040|0.0001
84643394|NCT04456673|169023263|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-3.371||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.811|-0.931|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.931|-5.811|0.0068
84643395|NCT04456673|169023264|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates.||1.581|0.856|0.3329
84643396|NCT04456673|169023265|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.113|0.011|0.0182
84643397|NCT03874429|169023281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was no higher than 2 points for the the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To assess the non inferiority of T2259 compared to Vismed Multi, two-sided 95% confidence interval from ANCOVA model was computed of the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi. The model was adjusted for the main effects of investigation product and baseline score.||1.05|-0.42|
84676423|NCT01591681|169088125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||Sample size was computed to be 45 participants using the system for 42 nights (21 nights with system active and 21 control nights) for a total of 1,890 nights in order to have 90% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in nocturnal hypoglycemia assuming a true population rate of 30% of control nights and 15% of intervention nights with hypoglycemia after adjusting for the correlation from repeated nights and misclassification due to sensor inaccuracy.||||<0.001
84676424|NCT01591681|169088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||<0.001
84676425|NCT01591681|169088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
84676426|NCT01591681|169088128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
84676427|NCT01591681|169088129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
84676428|NCT01591681|169088130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.71
84676429|NCT01591681|169088131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.62
84643398|NCT01101308|169023284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.51|107.27|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||107.27|97.51|
84643399|NCT01101308|169023285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|103.0|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||103.00|97.19|
84643400|NCT01101308|169023286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|102.99|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||102.99|97.14|
84643401|NCT00711516|169023288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-241.8||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.0|2102.3||The hierarchical testing procedure was employed to control the studywise error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The assumption of normality was violated (p-value ≤0.05), therefore the treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Using the standardized difference of 1.10, 28 evaluable patients (14 per treatment group) were required to provide 80% power while controlling the 2-sided, Type 1 error rate at 0.05. With an estimated 25% attrition rate, a total of 38 patients (19 per group) were planned. First analyzed using ANCOVA,the residuals were used to test for normality using Shapiro-Wilk; normality was violated therefore treatment comparison used the Wilcoxon rank sum.||2102.3|-2470.0|0.7382
84643402|NCT00711516|169023289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|53.2||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|136.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical hypothesis for this key secondary efficacy variable was to be tested using the same model as specified for the primary objective efficacy variable (ANCOVA, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon as appropriate). All statistical tests were 2 tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.||136.1|-17.8|0.1661
84643403|NCT00711516|169023290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|78.9||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|311.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||311.3|-157.8|0.5774
84643404|NCT00711516|169023291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|90.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-806.7|707.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||707.0|-806.7|0.8610
84643405|NCT00711516|169023292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|252.8||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1066.5|1523.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1523.8|-1066.5|0.6907
84643406|NCT00711516|169023293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-8.0|0.2456
84643407|NCT00711516|169023294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.0|-8.0|0.7115
84643408|NCT00711516|169023295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.0|-13.0|0.6103
84643409|NCT00711516|169023296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.0|-18.0|0.9619
84643410|NCT00711516|169023297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-335.5||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.7|723.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||723.3|-1270.7|0.4544
84643411|NCT00711516|169023298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6410.3||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1064.7|12087.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12087.3|1064.7|0.0193
84676430|NCT01591681|169088132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.10
84505129|NCT01360632|168761123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.27|-3.98|0.0251
84676431|NCT01591681|169088133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
84643412|NCT00711516|169023299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.1|0.1704
84643413|NCT00711516|169023300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.3|0.0609
84643414|NCT00711516|169023301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0||Nominal P-value for treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the studywise error rate at 0.05. If treatment was statistically significant on the primary variable, the key secondary variable would be claimed as significant if p-value was \<= 0.05. If primary and key secondary variables were significant subsequent secondary variables following the order presented here would be claimed as significant if their p-values were \<= 0.05. If any were \>0.05 subsequent p-values would be reported as nominal p-values.||-0.0|-5.8|0.0499
84643415|NCT00711516|169023302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7343||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7343
84643416|NCT00711516|169023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.3||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||14.3|-1.8|0.1246
84643417|NCT00711516|169023304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.026||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.684|19.98|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.980|-21.684|0.7382
84643418|NCT00711516|169023305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|25.043|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.043|-19.195|1.000
84643419|NCT00711516|169023306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.282||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|14.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.770|-11.460|0.8861
84643420|NCT00711516|169023307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.825||||0.4738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.601|37.987|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.987|-12.601|0.4738
84643421|NCT00711516|169023308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between fMRI variable and performance on the 2-back working memory test||||0.0573
84643422|NCT00711516|169023308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.0754
84643423|NCT00711516|169023309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2727||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2727
84643424|NCT00711516|169023309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5671||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||.5671
84643425|NCT00711516|169023310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1169||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1169
84643426|NCT00711516|169023310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1634
84643427|NCT00711516|169023311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.0692
84643428|NCT00711516|169023311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.8876
84505130|NCT01360632|168761124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||0.29|-1.63|0.1732
84643429|NCT00711516|169023312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.6030
84676432|NCT01591681|169088134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.98
84505131|NCT01360632|168761124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0066
84643430|NCT00711516|169023312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||<.0001
84643431|NCT00711516|169023313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.9170
84643432|NCT00711516|169023313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.9642
84643433|NCT00711516|169023314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7813||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.7813
84643434|NCT00711516|169023314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1560
84643435|NCT00711516|169023315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.9010
84643436|NCT00711516|169023315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.0135
84643437|NCT00711516|169023324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.841||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.778|19.313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.313|-27.778|0.7053
84643438|NCT00711516|169023325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.792||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.631|16.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.190|-30.631|0.5163
84643439|NCT00711516|169023326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.108||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.341|5.498|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.498|-14.341|0.8711
84643440|NCT00711516|169023327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.855||||0.1825||95.0|-15.357|25.714|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.714|-15.357|0.1825
84643441|NCT00711516|169023328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-323.5||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9311.0|2375.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2375.5|-9311.0|0.9282
84643442|NCT00711516|169023329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1069.0|426.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||426.0|-1069.0|1.0000
84643443|NCT00711516|169023330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-82.8||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-788.0|165.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||165.5|-788.0|0.5284
84643444|NCT00711516|169023331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.8||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3151.0|1006.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1006.5|-3151.0|0.8997
84643445|NCT00711516|169023332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.1||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-58.2|0.1305
84643446|NCT01895361|169023333|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crisis history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-2.00|= 0.010
84643447|NCT01895361|169023333|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.69|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.02|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.02|-1.84|= 0.180
84676433|NCT01591681|169088135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.93
84676434|NCT03282955|169088136|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 1.151||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
84676435|NCT02486406|169088183|SUPERIORITY||Wilson's score method|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.7||||||According to the Highlights of Prescribing Information of PEGASYS, the SVR24 rate was 47% among 45 treatment-naïve pediatric participants with HCV GT1 in the NV17424 trial. To show that the DAA regimen is superior to this current standard of care by 20%, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the SVR12 rate across all participants in the study must be greater than 67%.||99.7|91.7|
84676436|NCT01129141|169088218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-22.86|<.0001
84676437|NCT03837496|169088254|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.27||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||Analysis comparing the change in monthly adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||1.27|-2.59|.504
84643448|NCT01895361|169023334|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-45.3|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
84643449|NCT01895361|169023334|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-32.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
84643450|NCT01895361|169023335|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-4.36|= 0.450
84643451|NCT01895361|169023335|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.61|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||2.61|-3.90|= 0.837
84643452|NCT01895361|169023336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.741|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.741|0.331|= 0.001
84676438|NCT03837496|169088254|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in weekly adherence rates to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||-0.10|-0.44|.225
84676439|NCT03837496|169088255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in self-reported endocrine therapy adherence between groups on the MARS-5 scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||0.66|-0.40|.630
84643453|NCT01895361|169023336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.097|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.097|0.515|= 0.136
84643454|NCT01895361|169023337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.866|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.866|0.329|= 0.022
84643455|NCT01895361|169023337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.092|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.092|0.440|= 0.100
84643456|NCT01895361|169023338|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.0|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.98|= 0.015
84643457|NCT01895361|169023338|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.87|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.77|= 0.120
84643458|NCT01895361|169023339|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|0.00|= 0.780
84643459|NCT01895361|169023339|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|0.00|= 0.868
84643460|NCT00095147|169023345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of abatacept versus placebo for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.67|-1.42|<0.001
84643461|NCT00095147|169023346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Infliximab versus placebo were compared for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.39|-1.14|<0.001
84643462|NCT00095147|169023348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between ABA and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||33.6|7.7|0.001
84643463|NCT00095147|169023348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|17.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|30.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between INF and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||30.7|5.1|0.005
84643464|NCT00095147|169023350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.23|-0.53|<0.001
84643465|NCT00095147|169023350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.15|-0.45|<0.001
84643466|NCT00095147|169023352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||6.12|1.92|<0.001
84643467|NCT00095147|169023352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|3.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.91|1.10|0.004
84643468|NCT00095147|169023352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.40|1.25|0.002
84645185|NCT02106923|169025902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.758|99.311|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||99.311|93.758|<0.0001
84676440|NCT03837496|169088256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|6.44||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in satisfaction with adjuvant endocrine therapy between groups on the CTSQ from baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||6.44|-1.27|.186
84676441|NCT03837496|169088257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.91||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in symptom distress between groups on the BCPT scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||1.91|-3.49|.562
84676442|NCT01130740|169088273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a comparison of 6-month outcomes between the two study groups. (Primary comparison is for 12 months.)||||0.158
84676443|NCT01130740|169088273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the 12-month comparison between the 2 study groups, which is the primary study analysis.||||0.008
84676444|NCT01130740|169088274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the between-group 12-month comparison.||||0.274
84676445|NCT01130740|169088275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.177
84676446|NCT01208233|169088289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|LOCF was used to impute missing data.||||1.31|0.41|0.4962
84676447|NCT01208233|169088289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was based on OC.||||1.07|0.29|0.2517
84676448|NCT01208233|169088290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.942||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.972|5.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||5.254|-4.972|0.9716
84676449|NCT01208233|169088291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2392||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.401|20.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||20.177|1.401|0.1417
84676450|NCT01208233|169088292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4241||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.351|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||-3.310|-17.351|0.0611
84676451|NCT01208233|169088292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2899||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.011|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||4.480|-4.011|0.9433
84676452|NCT01208233|169088293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8448||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.668|-3.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||-3.957|-21.668|0.0654
84676453|NCT01208233|169088294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.76|0.54|0.9510
84676454|NCT01208233|169088295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.51|0.48|0.7234
84676455|NCT01208233|169088296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6755||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.156|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.589|-1.156|0.6759
84676456|NCT01208233|169088297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||BI \>=95, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.81|0.4213
84643469|NCT00095147|169023352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|2.68||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.05|0.31|0.027
84643470|NCT01779219|169023416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Fisher's exact test (two-tailed)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84643471|NCT01779219|169023417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84643472|NCT01779219|169023418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total length of hospital stay||||0.16
84643473|NCT01779219|169023418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the preoperative hospital stay||||0.73
84643474|NCT01779219|169023418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the postoperative hospital stay||||1.0
84643475|NCT01779219|169023419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total OR time||||<0.001
84643476|NCT01779219|169023419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time of preoperative preparations||||0.004
84505132|NCT01360632|168761125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.21|-1.78|0.1226
84643477|NCT01779219|169023419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Time of the operation (skin-to-skin)"||||0.024
84643478|NCT00906971|169023420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of defecations was recorded.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||<0.05
84643479|NCT00906971|169023421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of fecal incontinence was recorded reported at the beginning of the study|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||>0.05
84643480|NCT00223236|169023422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4637|||||||Chi-squared|df=1 n=34||Null hypothsis is no group association in cocaine use.||||.4637
84643481|NCT03050775|169023452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
84643482|NCT03050775|169023452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.085|0.358
84643483|NCT03050775|169023453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~30 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.3|0.823
84505133|NCT01360632|168761125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.68|-2.69|0.001
84505134|NCT01360632|168761126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.73|-0.93|0.8164
84643484|NCT03050775|169023453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~60 minutes post-induction. Data was obtained from 33 subjects in the treatment group.||0.3|-0.2|0.853
84643485|NCT03050775|169023453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~120 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.2|0.986
84643486|NCT03050775|169023454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Post-operative shivering observed||5.9|0.5|0.540
84643487|NCT03050775|169023455|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.672
84643488|NCT03050775|169023456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Data was obtained from 32 subjects in the treatment group.||0.1|-0.2|0.571
84643489|NCT03050775|169023457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|0.5|0.619
84643490|NCT03050775|169023458|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|75.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|250.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||250|-100|0.404
84643491|NCT03603509|169023460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad = HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone Alternative Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad NE HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone||||0.062
84643492|NCT03603509|169023469|SUPERIORITY|null hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index = CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline alternate hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index not equal to CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84643493|NCT03386253|169023488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Group x time p value|ANOVA|||||||0.77
84643494|NCT03493815|169023489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.9|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||1.90|0.28|0.51
84643495|NCT03493815|169023490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.18|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||2.18|0.15|0.41
84643496|NCT03493815|169023491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84643497|NCT03493815|169023492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
84643498|NCT03811093|169023493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.036|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.828||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. Change in Body Fat Percentage.||2.828|1.243|<0.01
84643499|NCT03811093|169023493|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Percent of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -.83 and standard deviation 1.50218."||||0.20
84645186|NCT02106923|169025903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.522|110.412|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.412|99.522|<0.0001
84645187|NCT02106923|169025903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.03|109.134|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||109.134|95.030|<0.0001
84643500|NCT03811093|169023493|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.075
84643501|NCT03811093|169023494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.829|10.296||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change over time in measured body circumference. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. measured body circumference.||10.296|3.829|<0.01
84643502|NCT03811093|169023494|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Total Inches Lost or Gained is normal with mean -7.136 and standard deviation 5.796."||||0.20
84643503|NCT03811093|169023494|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.44
84643504|NCT03811093|169023495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4703|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3372|6.6034||p-value is computed using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change in body fat, measured in pounds. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. change in pounds of body fat.||6.6034|2.3372|<0.01
84643505|NCT03811093|169023495|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the Weight of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -2.49 and standard deviation 3.71209."||||.200
84643506|NCT03811093|169023495|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||.438
84643507|NCT01122394|169023507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||robust regression|controlling for provider clustering||Robust regressions were performed||||0.29
84676457|NCT01208233|169088297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.651||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BI=100, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.98|0.92|0.2760
84505135|NCT01360632|168761126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.28|-1.39|0.1939
84643508|NCT01122394|169023508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|This analysis includes participants in pre-action and action/maintenance||||||0.25
84643509|NCT01122394|169023509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84643510|NCT01122394|169023510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
84643511|NCT01122394|169023511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
84643512|NCT00775203|169023512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and study center as categorical factors and HAMD-17 baseline as covariate.||The primary null hypothesis for the HAMD-17 total score is that there is no difference between the Trazodone Contramid® OAD group and the placebo group at Week 8. A sample size of 133 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in the absolute mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) change from baseline of 3.0 units assuming that the common standard deviation is 7.5 using a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.0119
84643513|NCT04896229|169023526|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.022
84676458|NCT01208233|169088298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4547||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|11.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.348|-0.150|0.2118
84676459|NCT01208233|169088299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7844||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.252|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.375|-1.252|0.5541
84505136|NCT01360632|168761127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.57|-1.14|0.5192
84505137|NCT01360632|168761127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-1.75|0.0443
84505138|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.26|0.0248
84643514|NCT04896229|169023527|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.800
84643515|NCT04896229|169023528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.235
84643516|NCT04896229|169023529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.325
84643517|NCT04896229|169023530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.502
84643518|NCT04896229|169023531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.005
84643519|NCT04896229|169023532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.712
84643520|NCT04896229|169023533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.245
84505139|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.03|-0.22|0.1334
84643521|NCT04896229|169023534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.282
84643522|NCT04896229|169023535|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.289
84643523|NCT04896229|169023536|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.296
84643524|NCT02692651|169023584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.195
84643525|NCT02692651|169023585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.99
84643526|NCT02692651|169023586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.999
84643527|NCT03490981|169023587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
84643528|NCT03490981|169023588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.342
84643529|NCT03490981|169023589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.646
84643530|NCT03490981|169023590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.205
84643531|NCT03490981|169023591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.492
84643532|NCT03490981|169023592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.272
84643533|NCT03490981|169023593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.870
84643534|NCT03490981|169023594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.570
84643535|NCT01860846|169023613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004||||||Baseline vs. 12 months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||=0.004
84643536|NCT01860846|169023614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.022
84643537|NCT01860846|169023615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.006
84643538|NCT01860846|169023616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643539|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Physical Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84676460|NCT01208233|169088300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4178||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.874|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|-0.874|0.4260
84643540|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Physical Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643541|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Emotional Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.001
84643542|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Vitality Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.019
84643543|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Mental Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.017
84643544|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.007
84643545|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bodily Pain Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643546|NCT01860846|169023617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||General Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.005
84643547|NCT01860846|169023618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bowel-related Symptoms Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643548|NCT01860846|169023618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Systemic Symptoms Scores:The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643549|NCT01860846|169023618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Emotional Function Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643550|NCT01860846|169023618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Function Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
84643551|NCT01856764|169023622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5542|0.4574||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: SCORAD change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline SCORAD score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4574|-1.5542|0.276
84676461|NCT01208233|169088301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.477|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4394||0.65|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.547|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L+R)/28 × 100%||9.500|-4.547|0.6500
84643552|NCT01856764|169023623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.454||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9134|1.0835||MMRM model: TEWL change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline TEWL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0835|-12.9134|0.095
84643553|NCT01856764|169023624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7656|-0.3492||MMRM model: Assessment of Pruritus change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline Assessment of Pruritus score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3492|-2.7656|0.013
84643554|NCT02239120|169023625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.69|0.1028
84643555|NCT02239120|169023626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.97|0.94|0.1076
84643556|NCT02239120|169023627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.68|0.0892
84643557|NCT02239120|169023628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.06|0.73|0.1911
84643558|NCT02239120|169023629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||0.96|0.36|0.0354
84643559|NCT02239120|169023630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.38|0.66|0.8074
84643560|NCT02239120|169023631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.83|0.58|0.9064
84643561|NCT02239120|169023633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.36|0.49|0.4352
84643562|NCT02239120|169023634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.47|1.12|0.0003
84643563|NCT00853996|169023640|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons since this was primary endpoint. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84643564|NCT00853996|169023641|OTHER|||||||0.067||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.067
84643565|NCT00853996|169023642|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84643566|NCT00853996|169023643|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84643567|NCT00853996|169023644|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84643568|NCT00609362|169023650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is un-adjusted. A priori threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum number of participants was determined by power calculations to be 44 (22 in each group), assuming a difference in change in BMD of 1.7%, a standard deviation of 2%, a power of 80%, and a level of significance of 5%.||||0.055
84643569|NCT00609362|169023651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
84643570|NCT00609362|169023652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84645188|NCT02106923|169025903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.217|102.211|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||102.211|90.217|<0.0001
84645189|NCT02106923|169025904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.071||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.925|111.329|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||111.329|87.925|0.0027
84645190|NCT02106923|169025904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.792|113.859|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||113.859|102.792|<0.0001
84676462|NCT01208233|169088301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7431||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.834|12.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L/14) × 100%||12.583|-4.834|0.5671
84643571|NCT01087788|169023659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|44.6||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||44.6|22.8|<0.001
84643572|NCT01087788|169023659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|38.7||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.7|16.5|<0.001
84643573|NCT01087788|169023660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|5.77||Diff. of CZP 200mg+400mg versus PBO (and corresponding 95% Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-antagonist exposure as factors \& BL mTSS score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the pre-defined primary analysis.||5.77|-27.05|=0.203
84643574|NCT01087788|169023660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||Difference of CZP 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||-0.04|-0.38|=0.017
84643575|NCT01087788|169023660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||Difference of CZP 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||0.07|-0.27|=0.261
84643576|NCT01087788|169023661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|51.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||51.0|29.5|<0.001
84643577|NCT01087788|169023661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.8||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||43.8|21.8|<0.001
84643578|NCT01087788|169023662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline HAQ-DI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.42|<0.001
84676463|NCT01208233|169088301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2816||0.843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.771|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(R/14) × 100%||7.870|-5.771|0.8430
84643579|NCT01087788|169023663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|56.9||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||56.9|35.7|<0.001
84643580|NCT01087788|169023664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the predefined analysis.||0.05|-0.43|=0.127
84643581|NCT01087788|169023664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the post-hoc analysis for the subgroup 'Baseline mTSS \> 6'.||-0.01|-1.04|=0.048
84643582|NCT00827931|169023691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.99||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.4|171.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||171.5|-371.4|0.460
84676464|NCT01208233|169088302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.011|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L R)/(L+R)||0.201|0.011|0.1512
84676465|NCT01208233|169088303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5041||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.929|-0.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.629|-1.929|0.0128
84676466|NCT01208233|169088304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1226||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.248|-0.070|0.4713
84643583|NCT00827931|169023692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.61||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.5|219.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||219.3|-386.5|0.579
84643584|NCT00827931|169023693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|239.19||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-672.6|305.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||305.5|-672.6|0.452
84643585|NCT00827931|169023694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-417.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|152.51||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-729.4|-106.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||-106.1|-729.4|0.010
84643586|NCT00827931|169023695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.701
84643587|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
84643588|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in adults.||2|-1|
84643589|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
84643590|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||3|-4|
84643591|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||1|-2|
84643592|NCT00492063|169023700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in the elderly population.||4|-2|
84643593|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||7|-3|
84645191|NCT02106923|169025904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.116|116.559|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||116.559|92.116|0.0060
84643594|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||4|-6|
84643595|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||8|0|
84643596|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||5|-6|
84643597|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||8|-2|
84643598|NCT00492063|169023701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||11|2|
84643599|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||1.28|0.9|
84643600|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||0.99|0.72|
84676467|NCT01208233|169088311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7201||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.026|2.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||2.995|-4.026|0.8501
84676468|NCT01181895|169088315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.188||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|||0.188|-0.048|0.244
84676469|NCT01181895|169088315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.113||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Salmetarol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Salmeterol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.124|0.926
84643601|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||1.3|0.99|
84643602|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||1.12|0.82|
84643603|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||1.02|0.74|
84643604|NCT00492063|169023702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||1.4|1.11|
84643605|NCT01402427|169023704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.033|||Fisher Exact|||||0.033|-0.011|0.28
84643606|NCT01402427|169023705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84676470|NCT00023452|169088343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.24|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the rate in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the rate in the 9INH arm.|||0.01||
84676471|NCT00023452|169088344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Rate|-0.21|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.04||
84505140|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
84643607|NCT01402427|169023706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84643608|NCT01402427|169023707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84643609|NCT01402427|169023708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84643610|NCT01402427|169023709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84643611|NCT01402427|169023710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84643612|NCT01947855|169023716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.77|-64.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 25 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-64.97|-144.77|<0.0001
84643613|NCT01947855|169023716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-85.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.01|-44.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 10 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-44.97|-126.01|<0.0001
84643614|NCT00608569|169023723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Results were considered to be statistically significant if p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test (unstratified)||||0.133
84643615|NCT04456153|169023731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||GLMM|||||||0.170
84643616|NCT04456153|169023732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||GLMM|||||||0.051
84505141|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.38|0.0019
84643617|NCT04456153|169023735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84643618|NCT04456153|169023736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||trapezoidal method|||||||0.76
84643619|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|generalized estimation equation (GEE)|||Change at Week 24||0.88|0.48|< 0.0001
84643620|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||0.79|0.57|< 0.0001
84643621|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||0.75|0.44|< 0.0001
84643622|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
84643623|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||0.73|0.41|< 0.0001
84643624|NCT02312687|169023762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.76||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||0.76|0.43|< 0.0001
84643625|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.75||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|3.09||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 24||3.09|-22.59|0.1366
84676472|NCT00023452|169088345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.25|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.03||
84676473|NCT00023452|169088346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84643626|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|3.42||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 48||3.42|-25.76|0.1334
84643627|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-9.17||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 72||-9.17|-27.07|< 0.0001
84643628|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 96||-14.35|-36.21|< 0.0001
84643629|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-13.26||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 120||-13.26|-31.51|< 0.0001
84643630|NCT02312687|169023763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.11|-16.56||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 144||-16.56|-40.11|< 0.0001
84643631|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|215493.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|194650.78|236335.97||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||236335.97|194650.78|< 0.0001
84643632|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|202525.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|168364.92|236685.83||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||236685.83|168364.92|< 0.0001
84676474|NCT00023452|169088347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 3 Drug Toxicity||||0.24
84676475|NCT00023452|169088347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 4 Drug Toxicity||||0.59
84643633|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221481.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179628.07|263333.98||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||263333.98|179628.07|< 0.0001
84643634|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221674.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|181313.34|262034.81||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||262034.81|181313.34|< 0.0001
84643635|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|208270.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|167217.98|249322.06||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||249322.06|167217.98|< 0.0001
84643636|NCT02312687|169023764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|235953.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166110.59|305796.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||305796.52|166110.59|< 0.0001
84643637|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1277.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1202.34|1353.34||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||1353.34|1202.34|< 0.0001
84643638|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1244.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1166.1|1323.88||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1323.88|1166.10|< 0.0001
84643639|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.56|1363.43||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||1363.43|1233.56|< 0.0001
84643640|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1311.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1238.3|1383.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||1383.80|1238.30|< 0.0001
84643641|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1368.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1327.4|1409.96||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||1409.96|1327.40|< 0.0001
84643642|NCT02312687|169023765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1208.31|1388.51||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||1388.51|1208.31|< 0.0001
84643643|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|12.58||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||12.58|3.16|0.0011
84643644|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.7||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||7.90|-2.50|0.3092
84643645|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.62||||0.2958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.53||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||7.53|-2.29|0.2958
84643646|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.31||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.33||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||4.33|-3.71|0.8796
84643647|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||4.16|-5.11|0.8396
84643648|NCT02312687|169023766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.43||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.15||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||2.15|-9.00|0.2284
84643649|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.83||||||Change at Week 24||0.83|0.32|
84643650|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.56||||||Change at Week 48||0.56|0.37|
84676476|NCT00023452|169088348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
84643651|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56||||||Change at Week 72||0.56|0.28|
84643652|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||||||Change at Week 96||0.60|0.27|
84643653|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||||||Change at Week 120||0.48|0.23|
84643654|NCT02312687|169023767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62||||||Change at Week 144||0.62|0.32|
84643655|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||||||Change at Week 24||0.07|0.01|
84643656|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 48||0.03|-0.01|
84643657|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 72||0.04|-0.01|
84643658|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07||||||Change at Week 96||0.07|0.02|
84643659|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
84643660|NCT02312687|169023768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Change at Week 144||0.05|-0.01|
84643661|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 24||-0.01|-0.07|
84643662|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||||||Change at Week 48||0.01|-0.03|
84643663|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||||||Change at Week 72||0.01|-0.04|
84643664|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||||||Change at Week 96||-0.02|-0.07|
84643665|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||||||Change at Week 120||0.02|-0.03|
84643666|NCT02312687|169023769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||||||Change at Week 144||0.01|-0.05|
84643667|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||||||Change at Week 24||0.08|-0.10|
84643668|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||||||Change at Week 48||0.10|-0.07|
84643669|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||Change at Week 72||0.16|-0.01|
84643670|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Change at Week 96||0.06|-0.09|
84676477|NCT00023452|169088350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84643671|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||||||Change at Week 120||0.10|-0.12|
84643672|NCT02312687|169023770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||||||Change at Week 144||0.06|-0.16|
84643673|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|47.6||||||Change at Week 24||47.60|-1.81|
84643674|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|32.62||||||Change at Week 48||32.62|-2.32|
84643675|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|36.53||||||Change at Week 72||36.53|-14.33|
84676478|NCT00023452|169088351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84676479|NCT00023452|169088352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.19|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.06|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.06||
84676480|NCT04551105|169088361|SUPERIORITY||different in area under the LROC curve|0.0374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.0557|||OR-DBM model|||||0.0557|0.0190|<0.05
84676481|NCT04551105|169088362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84643676|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|4.2||||||Change at Week 96||4.20|-37.50|
84643677|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.53|39.49||||||Change at Week 120||39.49|-32.53|
84643678|NCT02312687|169023771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|68.22||||||Change at Week 144||68.22|-11.12|
84643679|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.62|58.08||||||Change at Week 24||58.08|-87.62|
84643680|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-70.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.31|19.74||||||Change at Week 48||19.74|-161.31|
84643681|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.96|78.73||||||Change at Week 72||78.73|-110.96|
84643682|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.61|67.13||||||Change at Week 96||67.13|-150.61|
84643683|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-76.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.29|85.08||||||Change at Week 120||85.08|-237.29|
84643684|NCT02312687|169023772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-96.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.59|14.46||||||Change at Week 144||14.46|-206.59|
84643685|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 24||0.03|-0.01|
84643686|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 48||0.04|-0.01|
84643687|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||||||Change at Week 72||0.02|-0.02|
84643688|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||Change at Week 96||0.02|-0.04|
84643689|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
84643690|NCT02312687|169023773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||||||Change at Week 144||0.08|-0.01|
84643691|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.92||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|28.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||28.52|1.33|0.0314
84643692|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.73||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.55||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||9.55|-13.00|0.7640
84643693|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-14.35|-30.20|< 0.0001
84643694|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-20.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-13.94||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-13.94|-27.92|< 0.0001
84643695|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.77||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|-4.6||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-4.60|-32.93|0.0094
84643696|NCT02312687|169023774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|-14.54||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-14.54|-36.89|< 0.0001
84643697|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.68||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|11.32||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||11.32|-1.96|0.1673
84643698|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.68||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.72||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1.72|-7.09|0.2330
84643699|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-5.36||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-5.36|-9.54|< 0.0001
84643700|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-6.29||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-6.29|-9.86|< 0.0001
84643701|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|-6.95||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-6.95|-13.07|< 0.0001
84643702|NCT02312687|169023775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-7.02||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-7.02|-14.77|< 0.0001
84643703|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|343.38||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.66|609.11||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||609.11|77.66|0.0113
84643704|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|41.45||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.23|161.13||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||161.13|-78.23|0.4972
84643705|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.96||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.34|62.41||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||62.41|-186.34|0.3288
84676482|NCT04551105|169088363|SUPERIORITY||different in sensitivity|-0.0013|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2307|0.2281|||McNemar|||||0.2281|-0.2307|<0.05
84643706|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.62||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.39|55.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||55.16|-192.39|0.2772
84643707|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-53.41||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.47|45.66||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||45.66|-152.47|0.2907
84643708|NCT02312687|169023776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-97.46||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.57|11.65||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||11.65|-206.57|0.0800
84643709|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|72.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.21|105.7||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||105.70|39.21|< 0.0001
84643710|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|44.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|58.47||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||58.47|30.34|< 0.0001
84643711|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.24|43.37||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||43.37|13.24|0.0002
84643712|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|27.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|40.22||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||40.22|13.81|< 0.0001
84643713|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.02||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|29.4||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||29.40|-3.37|0.1195
84643714|NCT02312687|169023777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|43.12||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|109.2||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||109.20|-22.96|0.2009
84643715|NCT04545944|169023785|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|192.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.8|242.4||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||242.4|152.8|
84643716|NCT04545944|169023786|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|188.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.6|236.9||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||236.9|150.6|
84676483|NCT04551105|169088363|SUPERIORITY||different in specificity|0.1065|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.2122|||McNemar|||||0.2122|0.0008|<0.05
84676484|NCT04551105|169088363|SUPERIORITY||different in PPV|-0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1824|0.0104|||McNemar|||||0.0104|-0.1824|<0.05
84676485|NCT04551105|169088363|SUPERIORITY||different in NPV|0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0104|0.1824|||McNemar|||||0.1824|-0.0104|<0.05
84676486|NCT00320281|169088368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.432
84505142|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
84643717|NCT04545944|169023787|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|193.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|233.1||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||233.1|160.5|
84643718|NCT01514370|169023793|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.271
84643719|NCT01634191|169023844|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.2|
84643720|NCT01634191|169023846|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.0|154.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||154|107|
84643721|NCT01634191|169023847|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.1|
84643722|NCT01634191|169023848|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|157.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||157|109|
84505143|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.34|0.0254
84643723|NCT01634191|169023849|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|123.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||123|90.5|
84643724|NCT01634191|169023850|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|126.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||126|92.3|
84643725|NCT01634191|169023851|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Elderly - Young) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.153
84643726|NCT01634191|169023852|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Female - Male) and 90% CI of the difference calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.169
84643727|NCT03645434|169023859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.151|<0.0001
84643728|NCT03645434|169023864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.146|0.051|<0.0001
84643729|NCT03645434|169023864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.242|0.148|<0.0001
84643730|NCT03645434|169023865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||0.346|0.266|<0.0001
84643731|NCT03645434|169023865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.425|0.324|<0.0001
84643732|NCT03645434|169023865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.329|<0.0001
84643733|NCT03645434|169023866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.551||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.876|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.226|-0.876|0.0010
84643734|NCT03645434|169023866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.486|-1.248|<0.0001
84643735|NCT03645434|169023866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.397|-1.047|<0.0001
84643736|NCT03645434|169023867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.571||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.563|-0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.579|-2.563|0.0022
84643737|NCT03645434|169023867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.386|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-1.230|-3.541|<0.0001
84505144|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0035
84643738|NCT03645434|169023867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.912||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|-0.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.901|-2.923|0.0003
84643739|NCT03645434|169023878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.741|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.794|-1.741|<0.0001
84643740|NCT03645434|169023878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.800|-1.804|<0.0001
84643741|NCT00167778|169023879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
84643742|NCT00167778|169023880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
84643743|NCT00167778|169023881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
84643744|NCT00167778|169023882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
84643745|NCT00167778|169023883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
84643746|NCT00167778|169023885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.8
84643747|NCT00167778|169023886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
84643748|NCT00167778|169023887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.4
84643749|NCT00167778|169023888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84676487|NCT03328897|169088370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.77|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.77|-5.70|<0.001
84676488|NCT03328897|169088370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.33|-5.24|<0.001
84643750|NCT00167778|169023889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84643751|NCT00167778|169023890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84643752|NCT00167778|169023891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84643753|NCT00167778|169023892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84643754|NCT00167778|169023893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
84643755|NCT00167778|169023894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons||||||=0.13
84643756|NCT00167778|169023895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.92
84643757|NCT00167778|169023896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.37
84643758|NCT00167778|169023897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.27||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.27
84643759|NCT00167778|169023898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.20
84643760|NCT00167778|169023899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.59
84643761|NCT00167778|169023900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.057
84643762|NCT00167778|169023901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.78||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.78
84643763|NCT02081859|169023918|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
84643764|NCT02081859|169023919|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84676489|NCT03328897|169088371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-7.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-7.14|-13.25|<0.001
84643765|NCT03739242|169023950|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.57|-29.75|||ANCOVA|||||-29.75|-48.57|<0.0001
84643766|NCT03739242|169023951|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-30.74|||ANCOVA|||||-30.74|-51.73|0.0001
84643767|NCT03739242|169023952|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.09||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-2.87|0.9510
84643768|NCT03739242|169023953|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.58|-31.82|||ANCOVA|||||-31.82|-51.58|<0.0001
84643769|NCT03739242|169023954|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-7.0||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-17.59|0.1924
84676490|NCT03328897|169088371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|-6.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-6.10|-12.14|<0.001
84643770|NCT03739242|169023955|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-17.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-10.98|||ANCOVA|||||-10.98|-23.54|<0.0001
84643771|NCT03739242|169023956|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.19|<0.0001
84643772|NCT03739242|169023957|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
84643773|NCT03739242|169023958|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-3.47||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|-12.64|0.4535
84643774|NCT03739242|169023959|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.74||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-1.76|0.5594
84643775|NCT03739242|169023960|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.07||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-1.63|0.9266
84643776|NCT03739242|169023961|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|6.02||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|16.69|||ANCOVA|||||16.69|-4.66|0.2654
84643777|NCT03739242|169023962|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-5.95||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.47|||ANCOVA|||||4.47|-16.37|0.2595
84643778|NCT03739242|169023963|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.003||||0.8476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.039|0.8476
84643779|NCT03739242|169023964|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.21||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.49|0.1499
84643780|NCT03739242|169023965|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.71||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|11.25|||ANCOVA|||||11.25|-7.83|0.7224
84643781|NCT00039871|169023966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.217||||||99.0|0.195|0.239||||||||0.239|0.195|
84643782|NCT00039871|169023967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.563||||||95.0|0.529|0.596||||||||0.596|0.529|
84643783|NCT00039871|169023968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.122||||||95.0|0.076|0.169||||||||0.169|0.076|
84643784|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine Group Difference|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||84.1|68.1|
84643785|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|69.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||69.2|49.9|
84643786|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|73.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||73.5|60.5|
84643787|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.8|5.3|
84643788|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10 vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|4.9|
84643789|NCT02446743|169023969|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||15.9|4.3|
84643790|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||31.4|18.2|
84643791|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine groups difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||30.1|13.2|
84643792|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||39.6|20.0|
84643793|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.9|-3.4|
84643794|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41)\]|vaccine group differences|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|0.33|
84643795|NCT02446743|169023970|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.5|-10.0|
84643796|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.6|16.5|
84643797|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.9|14.6|
84676491|NCT03328897|169088372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-4.24|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-4.24|-7.59|<0.001
84676492|NCT03328897|169088372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-3.69|-7.00|<0.001
84643798|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|35.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||35.3|16.4|
84643799|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|60.8|
84643800|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|81.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||81.3|65.3|
84643801|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|72.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||72.3|53.6|
84643802|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.0|3.7|
84643803|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.3|3.3|
84643804|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|22.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.0|4.5|
84643805|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.8|-3.4|
84643806|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.4|-3.3|
84643807|NCT02446743|169023972|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.5|-6.4|
84643808|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|10.1|
84643809|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.1|7.5|
84643810|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|29.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.9|12.3|
84643811|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|72.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||72.4|59.6|
84643812|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|77.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||77.0|60.8|
84676493|NCT03328897|169088373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.27|<0.001
84643813|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|55.2|
84643814|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.6|4.9|
84643815|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.7|1.2|
84643816|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.6|7.5|
84643817|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.0|-6.8|
84643818|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|-9.8|
84643819|NCT02446743|169023973|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|-7.8|
84676494|NCT03328897|169088373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.29|<0.001
84643820|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.12|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.12|2.07|
84643821|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.72|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.72|1.66|
84676495|NCT03328897|169088374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|32.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.37|3.88|<0.001
84676496|NCT03328897|169088374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|17.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.17|2.01|0.001
84676497|NCT03328897|169088375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.51|<0.001
84676498|NCT03328897|169088375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.41|0.002
84676499|NCT03328897|169088376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.3|-5.7|<0.001
84505145|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.39|0.0152
84643822|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.07|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.07|2.15|
84643823|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||21|12|
84643824|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|28.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||28|14|
84643825|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|20.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||20|9.05|
84643826|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|1.26|
84643827|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.51|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.51|1.11|
84643828|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.28|1.27|
84643829|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.68|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.68|0.94|
84676500|NCT03328897|169088376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-1.8|-5.1|<0.001
84676501|NCT03328897|169088377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.33|||Regression, Cox|||||2.33|1.25|<0.001
84676502|NCT03328897|169088377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||||2.25|1.22|0.001
84676503|NCT00672477|169088388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
84643830|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.05|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.05|0.85|
84643831|NCT02446743|169023974|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|0.81|
84643832|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||21.6|8.0|
84643833|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||23.1|10.8|
84643834|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|11.0|
84643835|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|63.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||63.3|43.0|
84643836|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.1|22.0|
84643837|NCT02446743|169023979|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|47.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.2|33.6|
84643838|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||25.4|15.0|
84643839|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|27.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.0|10.7|
84643840|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.8|15.6|
84643841|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.8|8.0|
84643842|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.6|12.8|
84643843|NCT02446743|169023980|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.2|1.5|
84643844|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.3|21.9|
84643845|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.3|21.8|
84643846|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.1|19.2|
84643847|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|24.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.3|14.3|
84643848|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.5|12.1|
84643849|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||26.4|13.3|
84643850|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|49.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||49.9|35.2|
84643851|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.6|67.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||67.3|46.6|
84643852|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|42.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.5|23.0|
84643853|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.3|8.8|
84643854|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.0|12.6|
84643855|NCT02446743|169023981|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|2.7|
84676504|NCT00672477|169088389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84676505|NCT03264157|169088407|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is p-p0 ≤ -0.1. The alternative hypothesis is p-p0 \> -0.1, where p is the proportion of subjects with anti-rabies titer of \>0.5 IU/mL at Day 14 in subjects receiving BPL HRIG + vaccine and p0 is the proportion receiving comparator HRIG + vaccine. We reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level, and conclude that p-p0 \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 95% binomial confidence interval exceeds -0.1.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|||The threshold for this test is \<=0.025.|Farrington and Manning test||||||-0.05|0.0006
84505146|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.42|0.004
84643856|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|46.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.3|33.9|
84643857|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|38.9|
84643858|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|42.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.2|26.6|
84643859|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|21.6|
84643860|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.0|15.5|
84643861|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|38.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.1|22.9|
84676506|NCT03264157|169088408|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non inferiority margin was 20%. The lower bound of the 95% CI required should be greater than 0.8 to conclude non-inferiority.|lower 95% CI|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
84676507|NCT03264157|169088409|SUPERIORITY||95% CI|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Data analyzed as log normal. The value presented is the untransformed value of the difference between means.|||||
84676508|NCT03264157|169088410|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Farrington and Manning test|||||0.10|-0.05|0.0006
84676509|NCT03264157|169088411|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Farrington and Manning test||For Day 14, all subjects achieved the endpoint (RVNA titer \> LLOQ). Since the statistic to measure the performance is a proportion, the proportion is 1 and no variance is calculable.|||0|0|0
84643862|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|50.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.6|35.1|
84676510|NCT00009737|169088413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25 in a first step, and then of 1.20 in a second step.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.00|0.75|0.053
84676511|NCT00009737|169088414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||0.99|0.74|0.041
84643863|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|60.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||60.9|39.3|
84643864|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.2|29.9|
84643865|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.6|12.9|
84643866|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.8|17.9|
84643867|NCT02446743|169023982|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|6.4|
84643868|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.20|2.11|
84643869|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.85|15.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||15|8.85|
84643870|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.79|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.79|1.70|
84643871|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|17.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||17|8.22|
84643872|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.20|2.20|
84505147|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.013
84505148|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.02|-0.33|0.0755
84505149|NCT01360632|168761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0|-0.39|0.0527
84643873|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|16.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||16|7.75|
84643874|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||21|12|
84643875|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||90|51|
84643876|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||26|13|
84643877|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||107|51|
84643878|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||22|8.99|
84643879|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||95|41|
84643880|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|1.24|
84643881|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Post booster dose/ post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||7.76|4.49|
84643882|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.54|1.13|
84645192|NCT02106923|169025905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.13|108.47|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||108.47|89.13|0.0008
84643883|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|12.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||12|5.83|
84643884|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.20|1.22|
84643885|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.58|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||6.58|2.88|
84643886|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|0.97|
84643887|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.25|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.25|2.08|
84643888|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.18|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.18|0.90|
84643889|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.81|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.81|2.04|
84643890|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.82|0.82|
84643891|NCT02446743|169023983|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.36|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.79|
84643892|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|20.7|
84643893|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|38.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.7|19.3|
84643894|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.9|18.3|
84676512|NCT00009737|169088415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.01|0.69|0.071
84643895|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|27.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval or the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.9|15.9|
84676513|NCT01163682|169088422|NON_INFERIORITY|"This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 2 points on the BPI-SF worst pain score, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.~Null Hypothesis: electro-acupucture does not prevent taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.90|0.25
84676514|NCT01163682|169088423|NON_INFERIORITY|This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 5 points on the FACT-NTX scale, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.97|0.09
84676515|NCT03224468|169088443|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 85.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.40|0.15|<0.001
84676516|NCT03224468|169088444|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in scale score for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher score for MM).|The mean difference in scale scores between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||0.4|-1.4|0.50
84676517|NCT03224468|169088445|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 84.3% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.24|-0.30|0.90
84676518|NCT03224468|169088446|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.39|-0.38|0.93
84676519|NCT03224468|169088447|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 90.4% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.43||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||-0.43|-1.30|<0.001
84505150|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0275
84643896|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|28.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.5|11.5|
84643897|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|31.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.9|14.6|
84676520|NCT03224468|169088448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||2.5|-1.0|
84676521|NCT03224468|169088450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the congruency cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||3.5|-19.0|
84505151|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.04|-0.22|0.1583
84643898|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|45.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.4|29.8|
84643899|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||64.7|43.5|
84643900|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.1|12.9|
84643901|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||30.8|14.7|
84643902|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|35.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.5|12.2|
84643903|NCT02446743|169023985|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|32.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.9|10.6|
84643904|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.5||Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4.5|-15.0|
84643905|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|11.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.4|-17.0|
84643906|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||7.3|-20.0|
84643907|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.2|-0.9|
84643908|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
84676522|NCT03224468|169088451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-2.2|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the switching cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||-2.2|-45.9|
84643909|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
84643910|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
84643911|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
84643912|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
84643913|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-7.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-7.5|-35.2|
84643914|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.7|-46.5|
84643915|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-17.1|-38.4|
84643916|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.2|-19.2|
84643917|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||12.3|-14.1|
84643918|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||5.6|-13.6|
84643919|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.6|3.6|
84643920|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.6|6.4|
84643921|NCT02446743|169023986|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||20.3|7.6|
84643922|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-33.1|-52.7|
84645193|NCT02106923|169025905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|102.8|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.80|94.77|<0.0001
84505152|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0021
84505153|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.4|0.0018
84505154|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.43|0.0011
84505155|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.36|0.0235
84643923|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.6|-3.9|
84643924|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.4|-2.7|
84643925|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-29.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-29.8|-58.4|
84643926|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.1|-7.7|
84643927|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
84643928|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.4|-51.8|
84645194|NCT02106923|169025905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|114.74|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||114.74|94.09|0.0021
84645195|NCT02889562|169025927|OTHER|Pearson chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84645196|NCT02889562|169025930|OTHER|t-test and Wilcoxon analysis||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
84505156|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.10|-0.44|0.0021
84505157|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0111
84505158|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.44|0.0030
84645197|NCT01943474|169025932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84505159|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.47|0.0046
84643929|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.0|-3.3|
84643930|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-2.4|
84643931|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.8|-12.4|
84643932|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.7|-2.2|
84643933|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.5|2.8|
84643934|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-17.8|
84643935|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.0|-3.2|
84643936|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.5|3.7|
84643937|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.0|-11.8|
84643938|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-4.6|
84645198|NCT01943474|169025933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84505160|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0237
84643939|NCT02446743|169023987|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-0.8|
84645199|NCT01943474|169025934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84643940|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-34.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-34.3|-54.4|
84643941|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.2|-4.5|
84643942|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.9|-1.9|
84643943|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-32.0|-60.8|
84643944|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-7.3|
84643945|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
84643946|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-25.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.5|-53.3|
84643947|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.1|-4.8|
84643948|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score methodx|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-0.6|
84643949|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.6|-15.9|
84643950|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
84643951|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
84645200|NCT01943474|169025935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84645201|NCT01943474|169025936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84645202|NCT01943474|169025939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84505161|NCT01360632|168761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.45|0.0171
84505162|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.68|0.51|0.5279
84505163|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
84505164|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.92||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.72|0.99|0.0484
84505165|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.60|0.5813
84505166|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.90|0.1236
84505167|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.10|0.70|0.4998
84505168|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.64||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.61|1.03|0.0365
84505169|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.52||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.43|0.95|0.0822
84643952|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.3|-19.2|
84505170|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.78|0.79|0.4049
84643953|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
84643954|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
84643955|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.4|
84645203|NCT01943474|169025940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84505171|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|0.84|0.2951
84505172|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.53||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.20|1.06|0.0248
84643956|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
84643957|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
84643958|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||-15.7|-36.6|
84643959|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-13.3|
84643960|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.3|12.8|
84643961|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-5.8|-32.5|
84643962|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-22.3|
84643963|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|31.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.3|8.4|
84505173|NCT01360632|168761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.21|1.03|0.0326
84505174|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.87||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.55|0.30|0.7993
84643964|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-15.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.5|-46.0|
84643965|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.8|-10.8|
84645204|NCT00814801|169026010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.34|||Least Square Means|||||-0.34|-2.64|0.0113
84645205|NCT00814801|169026010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.44|||Least Square Means|||||-1.44|-3.74|<0.0001
84643966|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.8|12.1|
84643967|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.1|-13.4|
84643968|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-3.2|
84643969|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.2|4.2|
84643970|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||16.1|-15.1|
84643971|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.9|-4.7|
84643972|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|5.9|
84643973|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||8.6|-16.7|
84643974|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-5.7|
84643975|NCT02446743|169023988|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.1||||||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-0.7|
84643976|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-19.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-19.0|-40.4|
84643977|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.3|-2.6|
84643978|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.5|3.9|
84643979|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-12.9|-41.8|
84643980|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.2|-6.0|
84643981|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|1.4|
84643982|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-14.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-14.6|-45.1|
84643983|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.5|1.9|
84643984|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.0|4.4|
84643985|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.5|-16.0|
84643986|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
84643987|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-0.33|
84643988|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-20.5|
84643989|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
84643990|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
84505175|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
84643991|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.0|-19.4|
84643992|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
84643993|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.4|-1.2|
84643994|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.1|-30.0|
84643995|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-7.6|
84643996|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.2|23.2|
84643997|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-3.0|-25.9|
84505176|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.16|0.71|0.2825
84643998|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.9|-17.1|
84643999|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.3|20.5|
84644000|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.2|-40.1|
84644001|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.1|-3.9|
84644002|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|44.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||44.1|22.0|
84644003|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.0|-16.0|
84644004|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.9|-6.8|
84644005|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.9|5.3|
84644006|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.1|-18.0|
84644007|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-9.7|
84644008|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.8|8.2|
84644009|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.1|
84644010|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.8|-8.4|
84644011|NCT02446743|169023989|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|12.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.6|-0.47|
84645206|NCT00814801|169026012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||Least Square Means|||||3.7|-0.2|0.0774
84505177|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.2||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.58|0.6375
84505178|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.92|0.0923
84644012|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.29|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.29|2.85|
84644013|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.69|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.69|2.02|
84644014|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.88|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||5.88|3.38|
84644015|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||10|6.51|
84676523|NCT03224468|169088452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.011|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate better ability to identify target items for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.011|-0.007|
84676524|NCT03224468|169088453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of total errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.7|-1.8|
84644016|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|9.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|13.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||13|7.17|
84644017|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|9.87|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||9.87|4.82|
84644018|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.98|
84644019|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.73|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.73|1.89|
84644020|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.78|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.78|1.67|
84644021|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.36|1.52|
84644022|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.59|1.37|
84644023|NCT02446743|169023990|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.58|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.58|1.41|
84644024|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||1.8|-7.5|
84644025|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|62.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||62.5|42.1|
84644026|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||64.7|50.5|
84644027|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.0|-14.1|
84644028|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|28.1|
84644029|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.1|32.7|
84644030|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.8|-8.0|
84645207|NCT00814801|169026012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4|||Least Square Means|||||2.4|-1.5|0.6207
84645208|NCT00814801|169026013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-0.6|0.8419
84645209|NCT00814801|169026013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Least Square Means|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7942
84505179|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.29||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.30|0.73|0.3812
84505180|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.63||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|1.00|0.0464
84644031|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|71.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||71.5|45.0|
84644032|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||78.5|61.2|
84505181|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.64|1.00|0.0490
84644033|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4|-9.1|
84505182|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.32||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.06|0.85|0.2124
84645210|NCT00814801|169026014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Least Square Means|||||0.5|-1.6|0.3141
84645211|NCT00814801|169026014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-1.3|0.6089
84645212|NCT02486718|169026033|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.013|||Log Rank|||||1.013|0.710|0.0683
84645213|NCT02486718|169026034|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.998||||||||0.998|0.691|
84645214|NCT02486718|169026035|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.91||||||||0.910|0.545|
84645215|NCT02486718|169026037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|12.23||||||||12.23|-0.28|
84645216|NCT02486718|169026038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.36||||||||13.36|-0.06|
84645217|NCT02486718|169026039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.79||||||||19.79|1.56|
84645218|NCT02486718|169026040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|11.9||||||||11.90|-0.94|
84645219|NCT02486718|169026041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|11.7||||||||11.70|-1.94|
84645220|NCT02486718|169026042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.76||||||||19.76|1.16|
84645221|NCT02486718|169026043|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.761||||||||0.761|0.332|
84645222|NCT02081248|169026050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test comparing mean QuIC-A scores performed using 150 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-A, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Mean QuIC-A scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.37
84645223|NCT02081248|169026051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Testing performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' perception of their comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-B, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median QuIC-B scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.39
84505183|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.14|0.93|0.1078
84644034|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|48.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||48.1|27.0|
84644035|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||40.4|25.2|
84644036|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.2|-8.7|
84644037|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|58.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.6|27.7|
84644038|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|53.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||53.0|31.1|
84644039|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||0.9|-19.2|
84644040|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|18.2|
84644041|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|34.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||34.4|13.2|
84644042|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.4|-4.7|
84644043|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|45.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||45.7|25.6|
84644044|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||61.1|45.2|
84644045|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-8.4|
84644046|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|43.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||43.0|12.1|
84505184|NCT01360632|168761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.69||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.14|0.0094
84644047|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|57.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/154 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||57.1|33.6|
84644048|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-8.0|
84644049|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.5|27.8|
84644050|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|69.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||69.6|47.9|
84644051|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-1.1|
84644052|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||34.9|19.1|
84644053|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|46.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.6|31.6|
84644054|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.7|-4.9|
84644055|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|37.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.1|9.7|
84644056|NCT02446743|169023992|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|25.1|
84645224|NCT02081248|169026052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the DICCT, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median DICCT scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.17
84645225|NCT02081248|169026055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' state anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median state anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.21
84645226|NCT02081248|169026055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' trait anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median trait anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.25
84645227|NCT02081248|169026056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction with the consent process, as measured by a study-specific questionnaire, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median participant satisfaction scores were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.80
84676776|NCT02312310|169089202|SUPERIORITY|Test of trend across doses.||||||0.393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in outcome from baseline to 12 weeks tested using mixed effects models controlling for baseline measures, treatment, sex, age, and education.|||The flavanol effect on the change in each outcome from baseline to 12 weeks was tested using linear mixed effects models controlling for the respective baseline measures, four categories of treatment, sex, age, and education. Regression adjusted mean within-group tests of change were estimated and tested for statistical significance from the model. The primary test used for assessing the treatment effect was the linear trend contrast from the model across: placebo, low, medium and high dose. The model for cognitive measures incorporated additional outcome measurement times at 4 weeks and 20 weeks and included categorical time (4, 12, 20 weeks) as a predictor as well as a treatment (4 category) by time interaction, and a random intercept to control for repeated measures within individuals (results for 4 and 20 weeks not presented).|||.393
84676777|NCT01168999|169089207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84676778|NCT01168999|169089208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84676779|NCT01168999|169089209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84676780|NCT01168999|169089210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84676781|NCT01168999|169089211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||0.05
84676782|NCT01168999|169089212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84676783|NCT00491244|169089218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.21|||Chi-squared|||||2.21|1.46|< 0.001
84676784|NCT00491244|169089219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.65|0.35
84676785|NCT01276327|169089220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|102.81|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.11|
84676786|NCT01276327|169089221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|94.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|99.55|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||99.55|89.08|
84676787|NCT01276327|169089222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together.|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|79.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.65|85.72|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||85.72|74.65|
84676788|NCT01276327|169089223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|97.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|106.51|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||106.51|88.90|
84676789|NCT01276327|169089224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|102.81|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.10|
84676790|NCT01276327|169089225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|101.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|105.67|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||105.67|98.18|
84676791|NCT01276327|169089226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|80.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|86.34|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||86.34|75.60|
84676792|NCT00807092|169089229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||||95.0|-1.332|1.306||A statistical significant threshold p less than 0.025|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean IAUC(0-4hours) as covariate|BIAsp 30 - BHI 30|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment greater than or equal to 0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment less than 0 mol\*h/L"||1.306|-1.332|
84676793|NCT00807092|169089230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2412||95.0|-0.802|3.157||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Breakfast|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for breakfast:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||3.157|-0.802|0.2412
84713650|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.91|27.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||27.67|-22.91|0.9019
84713651|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-149.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.97||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-303.77|5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||5.35|-303.77|0.2103
84511664|NCT03980483|168774829|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5 % Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-18.6|-2.3|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-2.3|-18.6|
84713652|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.4|-1.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-1.88|-42.40|0.1634
84713653|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.28||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-108.04|10.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||10.80|-108.04|0.2727
84713654|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.29||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.65|13.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||13.36|-32.65|0.5839
84713655|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.58||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-312.25|-23.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-23.45|-312.25|0.1597
84713656|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.27||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.81|-5.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.43|-48.81|0.1138
84713657|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.93||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-102.78|-21.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-21.13|-102.78|0.0888
84713658|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.19||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.79|23.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||23.60|-24.79|0.9741
84713659|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-159.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-282.59|-35.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-35.87|-282.59|0.1354
84713660|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.21||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.41|-3.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-3.52|-49.41|0.1425
84713661|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.61||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.18|-11.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-11.01|-98.18|0.1326
84713662|NCT03858634|169173776|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.95|23.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||23.58|-31.95|0.8433
84713663|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-130.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-203.39|-58.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-58.19|-203.39|0.0768
84713664|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.69||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.49|6.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||6.34|-43.49|0.3341
84713665|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.82||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-166.52|84.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||84.74|-166.52|0.4995
84713666|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.37|9.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||9.06|-16.37|0.7071
84713667|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.18|-34.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-34.77|-70.18|0.0305
84713668|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.01|5.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||5.81|-19.01|0.4884
84713669|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.63||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-104.93|14.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||14.35|-104.93|0.2885
84713670|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.73|20.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||20.06|-9.73|0.6505
84713671|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-82.91|-61.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-61.34|-82.91|0.0062
84713672|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.34|-6.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.76|-32.34|0.0571
84713673|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 6||||
84713674|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.38|9.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.84|-18.38|0.6927
84713675|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.33|-57.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-57.94|-73.33|0.0038
84505248|NCT02046369|168761164|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint (the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at Week 6)will be analyzed using a likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).The response (dependent) variable is the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score assessed weekly (Weeks 1 to 6).The MMRM model includes fixed effects terms for treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled country, age stratum (stratification factor, CDRS-R total score at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|LS mean differnce (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||A mean difference in change from Baseline in CDRS-R total score of 5.0 units was assumed for the lurasidone 20-80 mg/day arm over the placebo arm, and a common standard deviation of 14.2 units (effect size=0.35), a sample size of 145 subjects per treatment arm was calculated to yield a power of 85%. With an expected attrition rate of 15%, approximately 170 subjects per treatment arm (340 in total) were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio .||-3.0|-8.4|<0.0001
84645336|NCT02047318|169026444|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|210.32||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|115.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||115.6|-100.7|0.8863
84645337|NCT02047318|169026445|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|322.22||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.5|153.8||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||153.8|-522.5|0.22
84645338|NCT02047318|169026446|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|51.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.77||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|97.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||97.7|5.4|0.0307
84645339|NCT02047318|169026447|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|42.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|140.41||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|189.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||189.7|-105|0.4934
84645340|NCT02047318|169026448|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant|Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.98||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|51.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||51.6|-9.1|0.1571
84645341|NCT02047318|169026449|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.84||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|119.0||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||119|-94.7|0.7815
84713676|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|-4.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-4.30|-30.43|0.0940
84713677|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.73||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.1|-11.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-11.65|-133.10|0.1694
84713678|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-10.50|0.7811
84713679|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-72.51|-63.91||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-63.91|-72.51|0.0011
84713680|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.02|-10.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-10.70|-36.02|0.0245
84713681|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.88|-43.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-43.74|-79.88|0.0603
84713682|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|21.04||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||21.04|-5.29|0.4365
84645342|NCT02047318|169026450|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|257.78||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|128.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||128.7|-136.4|0.9513
84645343|NCT02047318|169026451|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|356.88||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-431.2|317.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||317.9|-431.2|0.7133
84645344|NCT02047318|169026452|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.348||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.37||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.37|-1.05|0.7839
84645345|NCT02047318|169026452|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.982||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||0.35|-0.66|0.5298
84645346|NCT02047318|169026453|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505||0.8218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.24||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||5.24|-6.31|0.8218
84676794|NCT00807092|169089230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216||0.794||95.0|-2.724|2.087||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Lunch|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for lunch:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||2.087|-2.724|0.794
84645347|NCT02047318|169026453|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.001||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.58||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.58|-2.62|0.5549
84676795|NCT00807092|169089230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.3093||95.0|-2.2|0.703||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Dinner|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for dinner:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||0.703|-2.2|0.3093
84676796|NCT00807092|169089231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0891||95.0|-0.069|0.964||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.964|-0.069|0.0891
84676797|NCT00807092|169089233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0472||95.0|0.006|0.984||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.984|0.0060|0.0472
84713683|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.11|-49.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-49.26|-88.11|0.0218
84645348|NCT01857310|169026454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.7|
84645349|NCT01857310|169026454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.88|
84645350|NCT01857310|169026455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.2|
84645351|NCT01857310|169026455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.1|
84645352|NCT01857310|169026456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-12.5|3.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.9|-12.5|
84645353|NCT01857310|169026456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.6|3.1|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.1|-13.6|
84645354|NCT01857310|169026457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.5|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.5|-2.5|
84645355|NCT01857310|169026457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.4|-2.7|
84505249|NCT02046369|168761165|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.1|-2.2|0.0385
84645356|NCT01857310|169026458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.8|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0.1|-0.8|
84645357|NCT01857310|169026458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.9|0.0|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0|-0.9|
84713684|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.65|-3.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.45|-35.65|0.1238
84713685|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.88|-10.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.72|-98.88|0.1437
84713686|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.56|14.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||14.43|-12.56|0.9279
84713687|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.69|-41.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-41.24|-77.69|0.0254
84713688|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.23|-4.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-4.43|-33.23|0.0994
84676798|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.676||95.0|-0.41|0.63||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 2) value of BG as covariate|Before breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.63|-0.41|0.676
84676799|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.026||95.0|0.15|2.31||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.31|0.15|0.026
84505250|NCT02046369|168761166|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.5|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||6.5|1.2|0.0044
84505251|NCT02046369|168761167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
84645358|NCT01857310|169026459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.4|0.5|
84645359|NCT01857310|169026459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.3|0.3|
84645360|NCT01857310|169026460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|22.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||22.5|-19.7|
84645361|NCT01857310|169026460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|21.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.4|-20.9|
84645362|NCT01857310|169026461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.0|-4.7|
84645363|NCT01857310|169026461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.91|
84645364|NCT01857310|169026462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.9|
84645365|NCT01857310|169026462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.08|0.89|
84645366|NCT01857310|169026463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-0.5|
84645367|NCT01857310|169026463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.97|||||Adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.97|0.37|
84713689|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.36||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.9|28.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||28.54|-119.90|0.3656
84645368|NCT01857310|169026464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.5|-3.7|
84645369|NCT01857310|169026464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.15|0.75|
84645370|NCT01857310|169026465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-1.9|
84645371|NCT01857310|169026465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.36|0.63|
84645372|NCT01857310|169026466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-1.9|
84645373|NCT01857310|169026466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.27|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.27|0.47|
84505252|NCT02046369|168761168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.8|-2.2|0.3715
84505253|NCT02046369|168761169|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.22||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).|LS mean differnece (SE)|||||-0.22|-0.66|<0.0001
84645374|NCT01857310|169026467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.8|-1.4|
84645375|NCT01857310|169026467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.39|0.89|
84645376|NCT01857310|169026468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.6|0.2|
84645377|NCT01857310|169026468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.16|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.16|1.04|
84645378|NCT01857310|169026469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.0|-1.5|
84713690|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.79|8.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||8.94|-14.79|0.7465
84505254|NCT01191255|168761170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum phosphorus was calculated via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Week-52-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84505255|NCT01191255|168761171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum Ferritin were created via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Study-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84505256|NCT01191255|168761172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84505257|NCT01191255|168761173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84505258|NCT01191255|168761174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84676800|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.5||95.0|-0.53|1.08||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.08|-0.53|0.5
84676801|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.747||95.0|-0.86|1.19||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.19|-0.86|0.747
84676802|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.581||95.0|-1.23|0.69||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.69|-1.23|0.581
84676803|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.326||95.0|-1.42|0.48||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.48|-1.42|0.326
84676804|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.643||95.0|-0.61|0.99||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Bedtime|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.99|-0.61|0.643
84676805|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.008||95.0|0.21|1.33||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|3 AM|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.33|0.21|0.0080
84676806|NCT00807092|169089234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.274||95.0|-0.22|0.75||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.75|-0.22|0.274
84676807|NCT00807092|169089235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.062||95.0|-0.05|2.04||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Breakfast|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.04|-0.05|0.062
84676808|NCT00807092|169089235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.933||95.0|-1.12|1.22||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Lunch|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.22|-1.12|0.933
84676809|NCT00807092|169089235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.922||95.0|-1.16|1.05||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Dinner|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.05|-1.16|0.922
84676810|NCT00807092|169089235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.313||95.0|-0.28|0.85||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.85|-0.28|0.313
84713691|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.75|-62.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-62.90|-101.75|0.0153
84645379|NCT01857310|169026469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.49|0.75|
84645380|NCT01857310|169026470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.5|
84645381|NCT01857310|169026471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|26.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Birth weight will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||26.4|-156|
84645382|NCT01857310|169026472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.6|
84676811|NCT00807092|169089236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.6149||95.0|-0.547|0.921||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean MAGE as covariate||The full analysis set using LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) consists of all randomised subjects who had been exposed to at least one dose of the trial products.||0.921|-0.547|0.6149
84676812|NCT00807092|169089237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.5706||95.0|-0.813|1.468||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of GA as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 %"||1.468|-0.813|0.5706
84676813|NCT00807092|169089238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.8598||95.0|-0.243|0.243||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of HbA1c as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0%"||0.243|-0.243|0.8598
84676814|NCT00807092|169089239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671||95.0|-0.307|0.198||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 3.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.198|-0.307|0.671
84505259|NCT02196506|168761175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.62|-3.97|0.0074
84676815|NCT00807092|169089239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7544||95.0|-0.088|0.064||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 2.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.064|-0.088|0.7544
84676816|NCT01229228|169089249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7891|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.923|27.91|||ANCOVA|||||27.910|16.923|<0.001
84713692|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|0.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||0.72|-33.88|0.2184
84713693|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.78||0.7726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-50.37|34.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||34.07|-50.37|0.7726
84505260|NCT02196506|168761176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||0.23|-0.66|0.3331
84505261|NCT02196506|168761177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.27|-4.23|0.0263
84645383|NCT01857310|169026472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.24|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.24|0.03|
84645384|NCT01857310|169026473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.5|-0.3|
84645385|NCT01857310|169026473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.95|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||8.95|0.25|
84645386|NCT01857310|169026474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.4|-0.2|
84645387|NCT01857310|169026474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.9|0.18|
84645388|NCT01857310|169026475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.0|-0.8|
84645389|NCT01857310|169026475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.21|0.53|
84645390|NCT01857310|169026476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-0.4|
84645391|NCT01857310|169026476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.32|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.32|0.68|
84645392|NCT01857310|169026477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.23||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Fertilization rate will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||3.23|-7.90|
84645393|NCT01857310|169026478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of good quality embryos will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.11|-0.33|
84645394|NCT01857310|169026479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.05||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Proportion of good quality embryos on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||4.05|-6.66|
84713694|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.07|7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||7.63|-26.07|0.4760
84713695|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
84713696|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|4.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||4.40|-30.43|0.3329
84713697|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|44.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||44.92|-48.31|0.9564
84713698|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.84|10.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||10.06|-25.84|0.5661
84676817|NCT01260922|169089266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.07|107.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.51|97.07|
84676818|NCT01260922|169089267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|97.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||97.46|92.11|
84676819|NCT02708745|169089268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84676820|NCT02708745|169089269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84676821|NCT02708745|169089270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||For the barrier 'not having enough time to discuss vaccine concerns', P=0.78. For the barrier 'not realizing until late in visit that parent had vaccine concerns', P=0.37. For the barrier 'not understanding parent specific vaccine concerns', P=0.66.|Chi-squared|||||||0.78
84676822|NCT01700946|169089275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
84676823|NCT01700946|169089276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.105
84676824|NCT01700946|169089277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1181
84676825|NCT01168934|169089280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|43.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.68|47.56||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||47.56|39.68|
84676826|NCT01168934|169089283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|44.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.9|48.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||48.78|40.90|
84676827|NCT02480621|169089298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
84676828|NCT02617589|169089299|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.58|1.09|0.0037
84676829|NCT02617589|169089300|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.71|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.71|1.19|
84676830|NCT02617589|169089304|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.55|1.10|0.0024
84676831|NCT01975389|169089305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.021469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.65|0.021469
84676832|NCT01975389|169089306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.007597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.93|0.60|0.007597
84676833|NCT01975389|169089307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.035958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.99|0.68|0.035958
84676834|NCT01975389|169089308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.015694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.95|0.64|0.015694
84676835|NCT01975389|169089309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.814224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.46|0.62|0.814224
84676836|NCT01975389|169089310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.96|0.65|0.018053
84713699|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
84713700|NCT03858634|169173778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.4|7.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||7.13|-29.40|0.4275
84713701|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.54||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.32|38.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.46|-94.32|0.5403
84505262|NCT02196506|168761178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.72|-5.24|0.0099
84505263|NCT01743677|168761186|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.15|0.56||||||||0.56|-3.15|
84505264|NCT01743677|168761187|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.43||||||||0.43|-3.28|
84505265|NCT01743677|168761188|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-0.44||||||||-0.44|-4.15|
84505266|NCT01743677|168761189|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.5||||||||0.50|-3.21|
84505267|NCT01743677|168761190|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|2.93||||||||2.93|-0.78|
84505268|NCT01743677|168761191|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.71||||||||2.71|-1.00|
84676837|NCT01975389|169089311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.446033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.50|0.446033
84676838|NCT01975389|169089312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.029977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.57|0.029977
84676839|NCT01975389|169089313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.162615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.44|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.44|0.14|0.162615
84676840|NCT01975389|169089314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.051534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.00|0.59|0.051534
84676841|NCT01975389|169089315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
84676842|NCT01975389|169089316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.294331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.24|0.50|0.294331
84676843|NCT01975389|169089318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
84676844|NCT01975389|169089319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.34|0.60|0.601200
84676845|NCT01975389|169089320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.678061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.67|0.72|0.678061
84676846|NCT01975389|169089321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.010457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.94|0.63|0.010457
84676847|NCT01975389|169089322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.509847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.01|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||2.01|0.71|0.509847
84676848|NCT01975389|169089323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.90|0.58|0.002981
84676849|NCT01975389|169089324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.748975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.70|0.748975
84676850|NCT01975389|169089325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.32|0.63|0.626157
84676851|NCT01975389|169089326|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.91|-55.89|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-55.89|-57.91|<0.001
84676852|NCT01975389|169089327|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.11|-72.5|||MMRM|||LS mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-72.50|-75.11|<0.001
84676853|NCT01975389|169089328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-38.06|||ANCOVA|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-38.06|-40.55|<0.001
84676854|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.81|-50.94|||MMRM|||Non-HDLC: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.94|-52.81|<0.001
84676855|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-16.86|||MMRM|||VLDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-16.86|-19.96|<0.001
84676856|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.44|-26.96|||MMRM|||RLP-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-26.96|-31.44|<0.001
84676857|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-50.42|||MMRM|||Apo B: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.42|-52.37|<0.001
84676858|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|7.5|||MMRM|||HDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||7.50|6.33|<0.001
84676859|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|4.9|||MMRM|||Apo A-I: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||4.90|3.90|<0.001
84676860|NCT01975389|169089329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-37.22|||MMRM|||Total cholesterol: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-37.22|-38.75|<0.001
84676861|NCT01975389|169089330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||MMRM|||Triglycerides: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.83|0.81|<0.001
84676862|NCT01975389|169089330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.69|||MMRM|||Lp(a): LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the Difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.69|0.67|<0.001
84676863|NCT01975389|169089331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance.||1.09|1.02|0.002
84505269|NCT01743677|168761192|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|3.0||||||||3.00|-0.71|
84676864|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||||95.0|1.5|1.79|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.79|1.50|
84676865|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||||95.0|1.17|1.41|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.41|1.17|
84676866|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||||95.0|1.59|2.0|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||2.00|1.59|
84676867|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
84676868|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.41|1.94|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.94|1.41|
84505270|NCT01743677|168761193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|4.0||||||||4.00|0.29|
84676869|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||||95.0|1.26|1.76|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.76|1.26|
84676870|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||||95.0|1.23|1.57|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.57|1.23|
84676871|NCT01331694|169089332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
84505271|NCT01743677|168761194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|3.21||||||||3.21|-0.50|
84676872|NCT00508742|169089366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.65||||||||0.65|0.47|
84676873|NCT00508742|169089367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||Month 7: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.9|0.5|
84676874|NCT00508742|169089367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 12: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
84676875|NCT00508742|169089367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||||||Month 13: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.5|0.3|
84676876|NCT00508742|169089367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 18: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
84676877|NCT00508742|169089367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||||||Month 24: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.8|0.4|
84676878|NCT03246529|169089372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (by response status and baseline platelet count),||||||<0.0001
84676879|NCT03246529|169089373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84676880|NCT03246529|169089374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84676881|NCT04419493|169089403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.87|110.1|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.10|94.87|
84505272|NCT01743677|168761195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.62|12.96||||||||12.96|9.62|
84505273|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.44||||||0.25 hour post-dose||2.44|-2.11|
84505274|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|4.06||||||0.5 hour post-dose||4.06|-0.49|
84505275|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.26||||||1 hour post-dose||5.26|0.71|
84676882|NCT04419493|169089405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|99.18|112.88|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||112.88|99.18|
84676883|NCT04419493|169089407|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% .|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.79|110.12|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.12|94.79|
84676884|NCT01040871|169089408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|2.037|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by IPI score|Odds ratio: VR-CAP CR rate relative to R-CHOP CR rate|||2.037|0.529|0.915
84676885|NCT02652780|169089432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.8783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.102|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.102|-0.119|0.8783
84676886|NCT01172938|169089444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.3|9.7|0.0001
84676887|NCT01172938|169089444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.4|2.2|0.0166
84676888|NCT01172938|169089445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.060|-0.258|0.0017
84676889|NCT01172938|169089445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.014|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.014|-0.211|0.0252
84676890|NCT01172938|169089446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|30.9||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|13.4|<0.0001
84713702|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|376.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|631.83||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-462.83|1214.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1214.97|-462.83|0.5587
84713703|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.99||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-205.33|69.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||69.93|-205.33|0.4516
84713704|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.13|0.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||0.15|-25.13|0.2052
84676891|NCT01172938|169089446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|4.2|0.0038
84676892|NCT01172938|169089447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|-0.08||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.080|-0.283|0.0005
84676893|NCT01172938|169089447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.135||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.034||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.034|-0.236|0.0091
84676894|NCT01172938|169089448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.42||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.13|0.71|0.0056
84676895|NCT01172938|169089448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.40|-0.00|0.0504
84676896|NCT01172938|169089449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.6|0.0017
84676897|NCT01172938|169089449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|18.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-1.2|
84676898|NCT01172938|169089450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.8|-12.9|0.0023
84676899|NCT01172938|169089450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.7|-10.8|
84676900|NCT01172938|169089451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.2|
84676901|NCT01172938|169089451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
84676902|NCT01172938|169089452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.1|
84676903|NCT01172938|169089452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
84505276|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|3.36||||||2 hours post-dose||3.36|-1.19|
84676904|NCT01172938|169089453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-2.34|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.34|-7.41|
84676905|NCT01172938|169089453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.86|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.86|-6.92|
84676906|NCT01172938|169089454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.31|-0.76|
84676907|NCT01172938|169089454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.25|-0.70|
84505277|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|4.44||||||4 hours post-dose||4.44|-0.11|
84505278|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|2.33||||||8 hours post-dose||2.33|-2.22|
84645395|NCT01857310|169026480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos transferred will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.10|-0.11|
84505279|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|2.76||||||12 hours post-dose||2.76|-1.79|
84645396|NCT01857310|169026481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos cryopreserved will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.18|-0.23|
84645397|NCT01857310|169026482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|21.2||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Sperm penetration percentage will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||21.2|-45.4|
84645398|NCT01857310|169026483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared with Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||0.03|-0.16|
84645399|NCT01857310|169026484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61|||||Fewer than 4 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.61|0.88|
84645400|NCT01857310|169026485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||||Fewer than 8 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.43|0.77|
84645401|NCT01857310|169026486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.87|
84645402|NCT01857310|169026487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.06|0.63|
84645403|NCT01857310|169026488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||ICSI|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Method of fertilization will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.80|
84645404|NCT01857310|169026489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Excellent or good quality|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Quality of embryos transferred will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.21|0.88|
84645405|NCT01857310|169026490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.43|||||Abnormal|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Chromosomal complement will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||7.43|0.74|
84645406|NCT00998764|169026493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 13||2.23|-0.74|0.324
84645407|NCT00998764|169026493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 26||1.92|-1.33|0.723
84676908|NCT01172938|169089455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.23|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.23|0.43|
84505280|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|4.38||||||16 hours post-dose||4.38|-0.17|
84676909|NCT01172938|169089455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.03|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.03|-1.77|
84676910|NCT01172938|169089456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||5.40|1.72|
84676911|NCT01172938|169089456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.88|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||3.88|0.21|
84676912|NCT01172938|169089457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|34.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||34.0|15.2|
84676913|NCT01172938|169089457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|3.4|
84676914|NCT01172938|169089458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-5.7|-15.4|
84676915|NCT01172938|169089458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.2|-12.0|
84676916|NCT01172938|169089459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.0|-1.6|
84676917|NCT01172938|169089459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.6|
84676918|NCT01172938|169089460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.2|
84676919|NCT01172938|169089460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.5|
84676920|NCT01172938|169089461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.75|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-3.75|-9.00|
84676921|NCT01172938|169089461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-1.79|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.79|-7.03|
84676922|NCT01172938|169089462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.46|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.46|-0.94|
84676923|NCT01172938|169089462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.22|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.70|
84676924|NCT01172938|169089463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.10|0.32|
84676925|NCT01172938|169089463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.29|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.29|-1.50|
84676926|NCT01172938|169089464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|16.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-10.1|
84676927|NCT01172938|169089464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|21.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.1|-6.5|
84676928|NCT01172938|169089465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|19.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-13.4|
84676929|NCT01172938|169089465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-9.1|
84676930|NCT01172938|169089466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||29.3|9.0|
84505281|NCT01743677|168761196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|3.06||||||24 hours post-dose||3.06|-1.49|
84505282|NCT04578548|168761216|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|2.64|||Random coefficient regression model|||Based on a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on htTKV log-transformed values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||2.64|-4.34|0.606
84645408|NCT00998764|169026493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 39||1.89|-1.81|0.966
84645409|NCT00998764|169026493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 52||1.92|-1.93|0.996
84645410|NCT00998764|169026493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 78||1.26|-3.67|0.336
84645411|NCT00998764|169026494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 13||0.79|-1.11|0.737
84645412|NCT00998764|169026494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 26||0.40|-1.76|0.213
84645413|NCT00998764|169026494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 39||0.38|-2.19|0.168
84645414|NCT00998764|169026494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 52||0.48|-2.30|0.197
84645415|NCT00998764|169026494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 78||0.06|-4.21|0.044
84645416|NCT00998764|169026495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||0.33|-6.30|0.077
84645417|NCT00998764|169026495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||0.67|-6.02|0.117
84645418|NCT00998764|169026495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||0.19|-7.38|0.063
84645419|NCT00998764|169026495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||2.44|-5.95|0.412
84645420|NCT00998764|169026495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||2.73|-8.28|0.321
84645421|NCT00998764|169026496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||1.09|-3.24|0.329
84645422|NCT00998764|169026496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||1.92|-3.31|0.601
84645423|NCT00998764|169026496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||1.56|-4.67|0.328
84645424|NCT00998764|169026496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||4.13|-2.70|0.680
84645425|NCT00998764|169026496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||4.77|-5.05|0.954
84645426|NCT00998764|169026497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||2.62|-2.40|0.931
84645427|NCT00998764|169026497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||1.67|-3.26|0.524
84645428|NCT00998764|169026497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||2.27|-6.32|0.353
84645429|NCT00998764|169026498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||1.51|-2.92|0.531
84645430|NCT00998764|169026498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||0.59|-4.28|0.137
84645431|NCT00998764|169026498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||0.96|-7.60|0.128
84645432|NCT00998764|169026499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.63|-0.49|0.811
84645433|NCT00998764|169026499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||0.69|-0.45|0.681
84676931|NCT01172938|169089466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.4|
84511892|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.021||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.021|-0.018|0.887
84645434|NCT00998764|169026499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||0.72|-0.51|0.742
84645435|NCT00998764|169026499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||0.83|-0.48|0.598
84645436|NCT00998764|169026499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||0.77|-0.85|0.922
84645437|NCT00998764|169026500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
84645438|NCT00998764|169026500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||1.01|-0.07|0.089
84645439|NCT00998764|169026500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||1.08|-0.17|0.152
84645440|NCT00998764|169026500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||1.25|-0.21|0.160
84645441|NCT00998764|169026500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||1.26|-0.73|0.603
84645442|NCT04761627|169026501|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.9325|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8874|0.9799|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||0.9799|0.8874|
84645443|NCT04761627|169026502|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.0018|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CIs were estimated using the ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0018|0.8977|
84645444|NCT04761627|169026504|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9617|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8319|1.1119|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 28: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of Geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 28 were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, and geographic region.||1.1119|0.8319|
84645445|NCT04761627|169026504|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8879|1.0515|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 40: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 40 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0515|0.8879|
84645446|NCT04761627|169026504|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geomtric LS Means Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0785|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 52: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 52 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0785|0.8916|
84645447|NCT04761627|169026505|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.77|||||Mean difference in PASI percent improvement from baseline at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the switching and continued-use groups. Missing PASI scores at the week 64 visit were imputed by MI.||2.77|-2.62|
84645448|NCT04761627|169026506|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|6.2|||||Response difference in PASI 75 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||6.2|-5.7|
84645449|NCT04761627|169026507|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|7.8|||||Response difference in PASI 100 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||7.8|-7.4|
84676932|NCT01172938|169089467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|26.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.5|-0.1|
84676933|NCT01172938|169089467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.0|-2.4|
84645450|NCT04761627|169026509|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|3.1|||||Switching group - continued-use group|Risk difference for any EOI: risk difference and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.||3.10|-4.17|
84645451|NCT01933789|169026511|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.446||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.446|0.844|<0.001
84645452|NCT01933789|169026512|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.251|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.583||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.583|0.920|<0.001
84645453|NCT01933789|169026513|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.381|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.715||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.715|1.046|<0.001
84645454|NCT01933789|169026515|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.334||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.699||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Occurrence of goal-concordant care||0.699|-0.031|0.073
84645455|NCT01933789|169026516|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.481||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.877||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.877|0.085|0.017
84645456|NCT01933789|169026517|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|2.022||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|3.569||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the latent variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.569|0.476|0.010
84645457|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.209||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|3.479||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's feelings about getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.479|0.939|0.001
84645458|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.237||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.804||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about details of getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||2.804|-0.330|0.122
84645459|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.329||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|5.083||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about how long the patient might have to live.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.083|-0.426|0.098
84645460|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.573||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|4.887||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for outcome variable as measured at baseline: pt. minority status, education, income; clinician type \& specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about what dying might be like.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||4.887|-1.742|0.352
84645461|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|4.625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.19||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's involvement in end-of-life treatment decisions.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||7.190|2.060|<0.001
84645462|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.404||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|3.909||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about things in life that are important to the patient.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.909|0.898|0.002
84645463|NCT01933789|169026518|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.455||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.159||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician type.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's religious/spiritual beliefs.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.159|-0.250|0.075
84645464|NCT01933789|169026519|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.103||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.122||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression variable and for the patient racial/ethnic minority status.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression - Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time.||0.122|-0.327|0.369
84645465|NCT01933789|169026520|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.263||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|1.097||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: standard PHQ-8 composite score.||1.097|-0.571|0.536
84645466|NCT01933789|169026521|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.208||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.461||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression var; pt age, minority status, education, health status; clin specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.461|-0.044|0.106
84645467|NCT01933789|169026522|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.446||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.368||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Standard PHQ-8 composite score||1.368|-0.476|0.343
84645468|NCT01933789|169026523|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.034||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.232|0.734
84676934|NCT01172938|169089468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-6.8|
84676935|NCT01172938|169089468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|24.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.2|-8.7|
84511893|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.014||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.014|-0.024|0.619
84645469|NCT01933789|169026524|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|0.041||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.028||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Clustered Tobit regression because strong floor effect on composite score. Adjusted for baseline level of composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Standard GAD-7 composite score||1.028|-0.946|0.935
84645470|NCT01933789|169026525|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.042||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.247|0.689
84645471|NCT01933789|169026526|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|-0.105||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.995||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians. Clustered Tobit regression because of strong floor effect on composite score."|Clustered Tobit regression|Adjusted for baseline level of the GAD-7 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.995|-1.204|0.852
84645472|NCT01933789|169026527|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.221||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|0.482||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient race and health status and by clinician type and specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.482|-0.923|0.418
84713705|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.89||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.09|4.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||4.28|-123.09|0.2240
84713706|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.33||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.7|103.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||103.65|-24.70|0.4242
84713707|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.61||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-225.44|71.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||71.01|-225.44|0.4295
84713708|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.64|1.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||1.20|-38.64|0.2272
84645473|NCT01933789|169026528|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.175||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.962||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.962|-0.613|0.568
84645474|NCT01933789|169026529|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.815||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.815|-0.534|0.592
84645475|NCT01933789|169026532|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.398|1.04||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.040|-1.398|0.705
84645476|NCT01933789|169026533|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.123||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.805||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.805|-0.560|0.644
84645477|NCT01933789|169026534|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.165||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.833|3.503||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient education and health status and by clinician gender.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.503|-3.833|0.908
84645478|NCT01933789|169026535|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.121||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.403||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.403|-0.646|0.552
84645479|NCT01933789|169026536|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.293||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.553||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.553|-1.139|0.372
84645480|NCT01933789|169026537|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.13||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.369||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.369|-0.630|0.501
84645481|NCT01933789|169026538|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.38||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.380|-1.160|0.192
84645482|NCT01933789|169026539|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.461||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.461|-0.489|0.940
84645483|NCT01933789|169026540|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.229||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.587||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.587|-1.044|0.470
84645484|NCT01933789|169026541|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.454||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.454|-0.474|0.955
84645485|NCT01933789|169026542|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.287||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|0.431||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.431|-1.005|0.303
84645486|NCT03935399|169026547|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures one factor ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.83
84645487|NCT03935399|169026548|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.92
84645488|NCT03935399|169026549|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.79
84645489|NCT03935399|169026550|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.93||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.93
84645490|NCT03935399|169026551|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.89||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.89
84645491|NCT03935399|169026552|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.83
84645492|NCT03935399|169026553|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power caclulation||||||0.57||||||Exploratory analysis without power caclulation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.57
84645493|NCT03102190|169026560|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the safety endpoints will be presented with means and standard deviations of their occurrence within the study population. The safety of the drug will be determined by analyzing the rate of adverse events in both phases of the trial. An occurrence of 10% within the study population will be considered significant.|||
84645494|NCT00481507|169026604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||Reply: Only one test was performed for the primary outcome. No covariates were entered into this model and p-value is unadjusted.|Chi-squared|The results obtained from the logistic regression are equivalent to the chi-square test with one degree of freedom.||Reply: The null hypothesis was the rates of diarrhea for Kefir vs. Placebo are not different. Post power calculation was not performed because the difference observed (21.9% vs. 18%) was less than a difference that which would be considered clinically important.||1.43|0.54|>.05
84645495|NCT04711837|169026615|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.042||Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%: 95% CI; (-5.4%, 4.2%)|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.042|-0.054|
84645496|NCT01150474|169026616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84645497|NCT01150474|169026617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84645498|NCT01150474|169026618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84645499|NCT01150474|169026619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84645500|NCT01150474|169026620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84645501|NCT01150474|169026621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84645502|NCT01150474|169026622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84645503|NCT01150474|169026623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84645504|NCT01150474|169026624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84645505|NCT01077154|169026645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.14|0.82|0.70
84645506|NCT01077154|169026646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hzard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.19|0.91|0.57
84645507|NCT01077154|169026647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.36|0.92|0.26
84676936|NCT01172938|169089469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|35.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||35.5|17.1|
84676937|NCT01172938|169089469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|23.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.1|5.4|
84676938|NCT01172938|169089470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.8|3.7|
84676939|NCT01172938|169089470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.0|3.0|
84676940|NCT01172938|169089471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-0.4|
84676941|NCT01172938|169089471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.7|0.8|
84676942|NCT01172938|169089472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|8.3|
84676943|NCT01172938|169089472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|4.0|
84676944|NCT01172938|169089473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.2|4.8|
84676945|NCT01172938|169089473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.3|1.2|
84676946|NCT01172938|169089474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.9|-2.8|
84676947|NCT01172938|169089474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.0|0.8|
84676948|NCT01172938|169089475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|14.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.8|-17.7|
84676949|NCT01172938|169089475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|19.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.6|-14.8|
84676950|NCT01172938|169089476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||28.2|6.6|
84676951|NCT01172938|169089476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|27.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|5.6|
84676952|NCT01172938|169089477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.4|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-10.7|
84645508|NCT01077154|169026648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.22|0.83|0.94
84676953|NCT01172938|169089477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|26.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.2|-8.5|
84676954|NCT04188041|169089511|OTHER|see above||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to test for significant change in confidence.||||0.02
84676955|NCT04177693|169089523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.112
84676956|NCT04177693|169089524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.613
84676957|NCT04177693|169089525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.202
84676958|NCT04177693|169089526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.508
84676959|NCT04177693|169089527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
84676960|NCT04177693|169089528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.327
84676961|NCT04177693|169089529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.633
84676962|NCT04177693|169089530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.146
84676963|NCT04177693|169089531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
84676964|NCT04177693|169089532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84676965|NCT04177693|169089533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84676966|NCT00618657|169089534|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84676967|NCT00618657|169089534|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84645509|NCT01077154|169026649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.21|0.92|0.41
84676968|NCT04713748|169089560|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Interclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.0001
84676969|NCT00406029|169089563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.753
84676970|NCT00406029|169089563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline at endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.162
84676971|NCT00406029|169089563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-2.1|0.049
84676972|NCT00406029|169089563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-2.2|0.019
84676973|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.9|0.935
84676974|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.326
84676975|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.7|0.070
84676976|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
84676977|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.0|0.982
84676978|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.5|0.281
84645510|NCT02207946|169026650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site included as fixed factors and baseline included as covariate.||0.16|-1.02|0.144
84645511|NCT04035486|169026676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.79|0.49|<0.0001
84645512|NCT04035486|169026677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.80|0.48|0.0002
84645513|NCT04035486|169026682|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.43|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||A 95% CI was calculated on the percentage of participants with a Response or Stable Disease using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.||100.00|88.43|
84645514|NCT04035486|169026683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).|An adjusted CI of (0.54, 1.51) was computed at the 2-sided 99.84% level, considering a 2-sided significance level of 0.00158 for the overall survival interim analysis, based on the O'Brien and Fleming spending function, assuming 334 deaths for the final overall survival analysis.|1.24|0.65|0.5238
84645515|NCT04035486|169026685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic||And odds ratio of greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.44|1.06|0.0261
84645516|NCT04035486|169026687|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.36||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|0.72|||ANCOVA||A difference in least square means less than 0 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using analysis of covariance with baseline tumor size and time from baseline scan to randomization as covariates and with factors race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.72|-7.44|0.1067
84645517|NCT04035486|169026688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.81|0.63|0.4483
84645518|NCT04035486|169026689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.52|0.0132
84645519|NCT04035486|169026690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.94|0.56|0.0159
84645520|NCT04035486|169026691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.51|0.0157
84645521|NCT04035486|169026698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.83|0.44|
84645522|NCT04035486|169026699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9|||||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.90|0.44|
84645523|NCT03947684|169026707|OTHER|Generalized linear model (GLM) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
84645524|NCT03947684|169026708|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645525|NCT03947684|169026708|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
84645526|NCT03947684|169026709|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645527|NCT03947684|169026709|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
84645528|NCT03947684|169026710|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
84676979|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.6|0.261
84676980|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.4|0.447
84676981|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.378
84676982|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.7|0.299
84676983|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.6|0.377
84676984|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-1.3|0.707
84676985|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.4|0.562
84676986|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.156
84676987|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.6|0.292
84676988|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.2|0.034
84676989|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.762
84676990|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.9|0.092
84676991|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.3|0.013
84676992|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.4|-2.5|0.005
84511894|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.019|-0.02|0.952
84676993|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.293
84676994|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.0|0.095
84676995|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.04||95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.3|0.040
84676996|NCT00406029|169089564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.5|0.011
84676997|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.470
84676998|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.505
84676999|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.114
84677000|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.042
84677001|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.8|0.684
84645529|NCT03947684|169026711|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
84645530|NCT03947684|169026711|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
84645531|NCT03947684|169026712|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645532|NCT03947684|169026712|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
84645533|NCT03947684|169026713|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645534|NCT03947684|169026713|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
84645535|NCT03947684|169026714|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645536|NCT03947684|169026714|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
84645537|NCT03947684|169026715|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645538|NCT03947684|169026715|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
84645539|NCT03947684|169026716|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
84645540|NCT03947684|169026716|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
84645541|NCT03947684|169026717|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
84645542|NCT03947684|169026717|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
84645543|NCT03947684|169026718|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
84645544|NCT03947684|169026718|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
84645545|NCT03947684|169026719|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645546|NCT03947684|169026719|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
84645547|NCT03947684|169026721|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645548|NCT03947684|169026721|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
84645549|NCT03947684|169026722|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
84645550|NCT03947684|169026722|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||<0.05
84645551|NCT03947684|169026723|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
84645552|NCT03947684|169026723|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
84677002|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.7|0.489
84677003|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.305
84677004|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.6|0.451
84677005|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.5|0.680
84677006|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.466
84677007|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.8|0.450
84677008|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.523
84677009|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.6|0.309
84677010|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.3|0.136
84677011|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.2|0.106
84677012|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.3|0.144
84677013|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.1|0.954
84677014|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.152
84677015|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.3|0.012
84677016|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
84677017|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.3|0.151
84677018|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.235
84677019|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|0.5|0.007
84677020|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.1|0.033
84677021|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.757
84677022|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.341
84677023|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.024
84677024|NCT00406029|169089565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.049
84677025|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.151
84677026|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.1|0.930
84645553|NCT03947684|169026724|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
84645554|NCT03947684|169026724|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
84645555|NCT03947684|169026725|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
84645556|NCT03947684|169026725|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
84645557|NCT03947684|169026726|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
84645558|NCT03947684|169026726|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
84645559|NCT02104739|169026728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.27
84645560|NCT02104739|169026728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Saxagliptin at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.59
84645561|NCT02104739|169026728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Placebo at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.51
84645562|NCT02104739|169026728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide extended-release (ER) at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.31
84645563|NCT02104739|169026730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84645564|NCT02104739|169026732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
84645565|NCT02104739|169026732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
84645566|NCT02104739|169026734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
84645567|NCT02104739|169026736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
84645568|NCT02104739|169026736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
84645569|NCT02104739|169026738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84645570|NCT02104739|169026739|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
84645571|NCT02104739|169026739|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
84645572|NCT05772702|169026740|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to FU2). Null hypothesis: D1 == FU2||||<0.0005
84645573|NCT05772702|169026741|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to D5). Note: D5 HDRS-17 were determined prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 == D5||||<0.0005
84645574|NCT05772702|169026743|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||QIDS change score were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645575|NCT05772702|169026744|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||ASRM scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 ASRM surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645576|NCT05772702|169026745|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||SHAPS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 SHAPS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645577|NCT05772702|169026746|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 OVERALL scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645578|NCT05772702|169026746|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|This subscale did not require sphericity corrections.||DASS-42 DEPRESSION SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645579|NCT05772702|169026746|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 ANXIETY SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84677027|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.343
84677028|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.746
84677029|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.5|0.222
84677030|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.0|0.673
84677031|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.7|0.415
84677032|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.3|0.968
84677033|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.0|0.543
84677034|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.4|0.967
84677035|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.8|0.411
84677036|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.6|0.864
84505283|NCT04578548|168761218|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean difference|-2.31||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.02|||Random coefficient regression model|||Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) from a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on eGFR values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, the time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||1.02|-5.64|0.171
84677037|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.449
84677038|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.0|0.411
84677039|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.0|0.576
84677040|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.9|0.603
84677041|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.4|0.842
84677042|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.9|0.558
84677043|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|-0.6|0.245
84677044|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.5|0.930
84677045|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.759
84677046|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.4|0.374
84677047|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
84677048|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-2.1|0.607
84677049|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.907
84677050|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.1|0.368
84677051|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.1|0.654
84677052|NCT00406029|169089566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.769
84677053|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.055
84677054|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.071
84677055|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.288
84677056|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.764
84677057|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.342
84677058|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.611
84677059|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.424
84677060|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.991
84677061|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.3|0.185
84677062|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.0|0.597
84677063|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.5|0.090
84677064|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.686
84677065|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.0|0.501
84677066|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.6|0.764
84677067|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.715
84677068|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.7|0.924
84677069|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.264
84677070|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.976
84505284|NCT00395083|168761221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
84677071|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.9|0.626
84677072|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.925
84677073|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.849
84677074|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.755
84677075|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.8|0.863
84677076|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.5|0.477
84677077|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.432
84677078|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.909
84677079|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.812
84677080|NCT00406029|169089567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.540
84677081|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.7|0.829
84505285|NCT00395083|168761222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
84505286|NCT00395083|168761223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Regression, Cox|||||6.17|1.46|0.003
84677082|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.0|0.042
84677083|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.204
84677084|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.1|0.035
84677085|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.696
84677086|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.625
84677087|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.478
84677088|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.5|0.380
84677089|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.2|0.925
84677090|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.285
84677091|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.296
84677092|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.5|0.241
84677093|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.9|0.571
84677094|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.032
84677095|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.4|0.214
84677096|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.051
84645580|NCT05772702|169026746|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 STRESS SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645581|NCT05772702|169026747|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||STAI scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 STAI surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||0.021
84645582|NCT05772702|169026748|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||QIDS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
84645583|NCT05772702|169026749|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||CGI severity scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU2||||<0.0005
84677097|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.9|0.572
84677098|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.041
84677099|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.240
84677100|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.0|0.047
84677101|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.5|0.228
84677102|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.1|0.030
84677103|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.059
84677104|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.2|0.021
84677105|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.6|0.428
84677106|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
84677107|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.1|0.064
84677108|NCT00406029|169089568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.047
84677109|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.345
84645584|NCT05772702|169026749|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CGI improvement scores were submitted to a paired t-test to measure difference between the improvement assessment on D5 and the assessment at FU2. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D5 = FU2||||0.006
84645585|NCT05033002|169026788|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
84645586|NCT05033002|169026788|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
84645587|NCT05033002|169026789|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.002
84645588|NCT05033002|169026789|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.010
84645589|NCT05033002|169026790|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.001
84645590|NCT05033002|169026790|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0002||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.032
84645591|NCT05033002|169026791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.506|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
84645592|NCT05033002|169026792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis|The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.||||||.441
84645593|NCT05033002|169026792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0002||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.734
84645594|NCT05204381|169026802|OTHER|||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.077||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.783
84677110|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.468
84505287|NCT00395083|168761224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Log Rank|||||6.17|1.46|0.002
84645595|NCT05204381|169026803|OTHER|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.002||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.965
84645596|NCT05204381|169026804|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 3.046||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.089
84645597|NCT04214288|169026805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0167||90.0|0.42|0.82|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.82|0.42|0.0167
84645598|NCT04214288|169026805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.009||90.0|0.46|0.89|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.89|0.46|0.0090
84645599|NCT04214288|169026806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4828||90.0|0.63|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.31|0.63|0.4828
84645600|NCT04214288|169026806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3691||90.0|0.69|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.67|0.69|0.3691
84645601|NCT04214288|169026810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.64|0.84|0.2554
84677111|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.596
84677112|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.107
84677113|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.348
84645602|NCT04214288|169026810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1658||90.0|0.91|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.89|0.91|0.1658
84645603|NCT03997383|169026817|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|14.693||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|28.692||P-value was determined by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,stratified by baseline tafamidis use.Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann method, stratified by baseline tafamidis use. Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|||28.692|0.693|0.0162
84645604|NCT03997383|169026818|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|7.242||P-value was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) as described in the Statistical analysis plan.|MMRM|||||7.242|0.176|0.0397
84645605|NCT03997383|169026819|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Win Ratio|1.27||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||Z-test|P-value was analyzed by a z-test using the mean and variance of the log-transformed win ratio estimate.||||1.61|0.99|0.0574
84677114|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.1|0.938
84677115|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.1|0.897
84677116|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.518
84677117|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.2|0.311
84677118|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.0|0.597
84677119|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.925
84645606|NCT03997383|169026820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.602|||Andersen-Gill||HR was derived using an Andersen-Gill model, including the treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and age as covariates.|||1.602|0.620|0.9888
84645607|NCT03997383|169026821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.883||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.341|||Modified Andersen-Gill|P-value was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use.|HR was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use, including treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline NYHA class, and age as covariates.|||1.341|0.582|0.5609
84677120|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.478
84645608|NCT00708201|169026829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|2.311|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||2.311|1.359|<0.0001
84645609|NCT00708201|169026830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.5|||Log Rank|||||-11.5|-37.8|<0.001
84645610|NCT00708201|169026831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-9.9|||Log Rank|||||-9.9|-35.0|<0.001
84645611|NCT00708201|169026832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84645612|NCT00708201|169026833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.71|||Fisher Exact||This is the relative risk for being a responder (alvimopan/placebo).|||1.71|1.12|<0.01
84677121|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.5|0.995
84677122|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.0|0.057
84677123|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.431
84677124|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-0.2|0.099
84677125|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.847
84645613|NCT00708201|169026834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-20.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for overall POM is presented.||||<0.001
84645614|NCT00708201|169026835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
84677126|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.2|0.093
84677127|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.471
84677128|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|-0.2|0.102
84677129|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.9|0.415
84677130|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.0|0.0|0.051
84677131|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-0.3|0.103
84677132|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|0.3|0.022
84677133|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.2|0.903
84677134|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.1|0.074
84645615|NCT00708201|169026836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
84645616|NCT00708201|169026837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.94||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|0.62|||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo.|||0.62|-14.5|0.0946
84645617|NCT02554279|169026839|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power, to demonstrate the non-inferiority of menotropin to recombinant FSH at 1-sided significance level of 0.025 with a -12% non-inferiority margin.|Absolute difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1||||||Null hypothesis was defined as the difference between ongoing pregnancy rate of participants randomized and treated with menotropin and recombinant FSH, as ≤-12%.||12.1|-2.7|
84645618|NCT02554279|169026840|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9||||||||8.9|-6.6|
84645619|NCT02554279|169026841|OTHER||Absolute difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.8|
84645620|NCT02554279|169026842|OTHER||Absolute difference|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-19.2|
84677135|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.4|0.185
84677136|NCT00406029|169089569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.0|0.054
84677137|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.985
84677138|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.3|0.556
84677139|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.776
84677140|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.777
84677141|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.920
84505288|NCT00972153|168761225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
84505289|NCT00972153|168761226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
84505290|NCT01806597|168761240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|154.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||154.6|2.4|0.0002
84505291|NCT01806597|168761240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|211.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||211.9|4.1|<0.0001
84505292|NCT01034137|168761247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|2.506|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.506|1.589|< 0.001
84505293|NCT01034137|168761247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.323|1.481|< 0.001
84505294|NCT01034137|168761247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||1.160|0.915|0.616
84505295|NCT01828255|168761300|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84677142|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.155
84677143|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.843
84505296|NCT01381900|168761308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||||-0.367|-0.644|<0.001
84505297|NCT01381900|168761308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||||-0.453|-0.731|<0.001
84505298|NCT01381900|168761309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.694|||ANCOVA|||||-0.694|-1.375|<0.001
84505299|NCT01381900|168761309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.089|||ANCOVA|||||-1.089|-1.769|<0.001
84505300|NCT01381900|168761310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.7|<0.001
84505301|NCT01381900|168761310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-2.9|<0.001
84505302|NCT01381900|168761311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|2.09|
84677144|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.673
84505303|NCT01381900|168761311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.27|2.55|
84505304|NCT01381900|168761312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.45|
84505305|NCT01381900|168761312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|1.88|
84511665|NCT03980483|168774829|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5% CI in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-21.2|-4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-4.8|-21.2|
84677145|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.612
84677146|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.512
84645621|NCT02757950|169026865|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.548||||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.157||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.157|0.259|0.1147
84645622|NCT02757950|169026866|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.428||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.851||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.851|0.215|0.0155
84645623|NCT02757950|169026867|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.254||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.746||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.746|0.086|0.0127
84677147|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.269
84511666|NCT05150964|168775149|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The hearing aid fitting prescription will have no effect on the speech reception thresholds."||||<0.05
84677148|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.516
84645624|NCT02757950|169026868|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.638||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.863||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.863|0.471|0.0036
84645625|NCT02757950|169026869|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|1.342||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.89||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.890|0.952|0.0931
84645626|NCT01673282|169026910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Based on an ANCOVA model for absolute change in ratio of dose and DDD with group as a fixed effect and the ratio of dose and DDD at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.36|=0.0003
84645627|NCT03485495|169026911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.007
84645628|NCT03485495|169026912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
84645629|NCT03485495|169026913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.8762
84645630|NCT03485495|169026914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.2082
84645631|NCT03485495|169026915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-3 data.||||0.0038
84645632|NCT03485495|169026915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-2 data.||||0.0018
84645633|NCT03485495|169026915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO data.||||0.46
84677149|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.8|0.597
84645634|NCT03485495|169026916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADP-PA data.||||0.88
84645635|NCT03485495|169026916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADR-PA data.||||0.93
84677150|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.7|0.766
84511667|NCT05150964|168775149|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the speech reception threshold."||||>0.05
84677151|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.9|0.428
84677152|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.7|0.796
84677153|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.988
84677154|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.786
84645636|NCT02915874|169026917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84645637|NCT02915874|169026918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84645638|NCT02915874|169026919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84645639|NCT02915874|169026920|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84645640|NCT02915874|169026921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84645641|NCT02915874|169026922|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84677155|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.702
84677156|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.371
84677157|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.981
84677158|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.282
84677159|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.550
84677160|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.720
84677161|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.742
84677162|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.2|0.211
84677163|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.906
84677164|NCT00406029|169089570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.868
84677165|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.747
84645642|NCT02915874|169026923|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84645643|NCT02751931|169026975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.28|98.89||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||98.89|45.28|<0.001
84645644|NCT02751931|169026975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|113.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.95|147.47||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||147.47|78.95|<0.001
84645645|NCT02751931|169026976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|12.38||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||12.38|-20.55|0.618
84645646|NCT02751931|169026976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.22||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||25.22|5.10|0.005
84645647|NCT02751931|169026976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|29.54||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||29.54|-0.31|0.055
84645648|NCT02751931|169026976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|20.42||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||20.42|6.75|<0.001
84645649|NCT02751931|169026977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.75|63.97||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at week 4 - Children.||63.97|18.75|<0.001
84645650|NCT02751931|169026977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|122.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||122.36|39.20|<0.001
84645651|NCT02751931|169026978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.28||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||2.28|-1.40|0.632
84645652|NCT02751931|169026978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.67|-1.94|0.321
84645653|NCT02751931|169026978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.45||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-0.45|-3.27|0.011
84645654|NCT02751931|169026978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.94||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.94|-2.49|0.359
84645655|NCT02751931|169026979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.56|-6.21||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||-6.21|-18.56|<0.001
84645656|NCT02751931|169026979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.48||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|7.13||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||7.13|-20.09|0.334
84645657|NCT02751931|169026979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.87|-11.35||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-11.35|-24.87|<0.001
84645658|NCT02751931|169026979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.19||||0.005||95.0|-22.02|-4.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||-4.36|-22.02|0.005
84645659|NCT02751931|169026980|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
84645660|NCT02751931|169026980|OTHER|||||||0.148||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.148
84645661|NCT02751931|169026980|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.002
84645662|NCT02751931|169026980|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.039
84645663|NCT02751931|169026981|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
84645664|NCT02751931|169026981|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.007
84645665|NCT02751931|169026981|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
84645666|NCT02751931|169026981|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
84645667|NCT02751931|169026982|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
84645668|NCT02751931|169026982|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.006
84645669|NCT02751931|169026982|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
84645670|NCT02751931|169026982|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.001
84645671|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||28.1|1.0|0.035
84645672|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|58.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||58.9|13.1|0.003
84645673|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||45.5|14.7|<0.001
84677166|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.140
84677167|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.148
84677168|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.2|0.005
84677169|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.256
84677170|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.343
84677171|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.102
84677172|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.161
84677173|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.150
84645674|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|79.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||79.3|24.6|<0.001
84645675|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|51.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||51.1|22.7|<0.001
84645676|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|68.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||68.9|21.3|<0.001
84645677|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|46.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||46.3|18.2|<0.001
84645678|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|19.2|0.001
84645679|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|60.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||60.0|23.3|<0.001
84645680|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|94.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||94.9|23.8|0.002
84677174|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
84677175|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.013
84677176|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.120
84677177|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.971
84677178|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.456
84645681|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|83.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||83.2|24.5|<0.001
84645682|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|52.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|83.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||83.8|20.5|0.002
84645683|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|63.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||63.7|22.0|<0.001
84645684|NCT02751931|169026983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|72.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||72.3|12.5|0.008
84645685|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|40.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.1|-5.1|0.126
84645686|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|75.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||75.4|9.3|0.014
84677179|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.018
84677180|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
84677181|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.3|0.422
84677182|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.651
84645687|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|46.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|71.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||71.7|21.7|<0.001
84645688|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|117.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||117.2|29.3|0.002
84645689|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Mean Difference (Net)|45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|68.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||68.4|22.1|<0.001
84645690|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|78.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.3|7.4|0.020
84645691|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|54.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||54.3|12.2|0.003
84645692|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|76.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||76.8|17.8|0.003
84645693|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|82.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||82.6|17.1|0.004
84645694|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|84.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|137.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||137.1|31.6|0.003
84645695|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|99.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||99.0|21.2|0.003
84677183|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.096
84677184|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.860
84677185|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.8|0.511
84645696|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.78||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|98.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||98.9|10.6|0.017
84677186|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.286
84677187|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-1.4|0.004
84677188|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.060
84677189|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.345
84645697|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|84.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||84.4|22.6|0.001
84645698|NCT02751931|169026984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|99.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.6|9.0|0.021
84645699|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.13||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|40.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.7|-4.5|0.113
84645700|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.58||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|72.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||72.2|-1.1|0.056
84645701|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|63.7|||t-test, 2 sided|From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||63.7|11.7|0.005
84645702|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|118.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||118.5|22.2|0.006
84645703|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|66.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||66.8|21.0|<0.001
84645704|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.11||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|78.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.4|-2.2|0.063
84645705|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||49.9|8.2|0.008
84645706|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|74.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||74.2|11.9|0.009
84645707|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|75.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||75.2|13.2|0.006
84645708|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|132.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||132.3|30.4|0.003
84677190|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.439
84677191|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.4|0.004
84677192|NCT00406029|169089577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.040
84677193|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.1|0.743
84677194|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.2|0.225
84677195|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.2|0.252
84645709|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|97.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||97.2|19.8|0.004
84645710|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|50.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|99.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||99.1|2.7|0.039
84645711|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|85.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||85.8|21.7|0.002
84645712|NCT02751931|169026985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.13||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|99.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.8|-1.6|0.057
84645713|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|40.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.0|-24.0|0.617
84645714|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.52||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|76.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||76.0|3.0|0.035
84645715|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.81||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|48.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||48.3|-8.7|0.167
84645716|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|124.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||124.7|25.8|0.005
84645717|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.01||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|62.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||62.3|5.7|0.020
84645718|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.43||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|84.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||84.9|3.9|0.033
84645719|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.68||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|34.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||34.7|-17.3|0.503
84645720|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|7.8|0.016
84645721|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.76||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|80.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||80.2|1.4|0.043
84645722|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|86.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|131.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||131.8|41.5|<0.001
84645723|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.08||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|79.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||79.6|-17.5|0.203
84645724|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|68.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|124.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||124.2|12.7|0.019
84677196|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-2.3|0.173
84645725|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.83||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|62.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||62.4|1.3|0.042
84645726|NCT02751931|169026986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|87.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||87.3|-11.0|0.121
84645727|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||3.4|-2.7|0.818
84645728|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.2|0.114
84645729|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||0.0|-2.3|0.052
84645730|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.8|0.066
84645731|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||6.7|-4.4|0.674
84645732|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||0.6|-1.9|0.278
84645733|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||5.0|-4.2|0.871
84645734|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||0.3|-1.6|0.153
84645735|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||3.9|-3.5|0.922
84645736|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.0|-1.5|0.047
84645737|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||-0.4|-3.6|0.018
84645738|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.7|0.070
84645739|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.1|-2.0|0.083
84645740|NCT02751931|169026987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.1|-2.3|0.064
84645741|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||||0.692
84645742|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||||0.018
84645743|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||0.061
84645744|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.008
84645745|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.612||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||||0.612
84645746|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||||0.018
84645747|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.858||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||||0.858
84645748|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||||0.004
84645749|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.003
84645750|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
84645751|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||||0.045
84645752|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||||0.002
84645753|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||||0.006
84645754|NCT02751931|169026988|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||||0.007
84645755|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||0.6|0.1|0.018
84645756|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||1.6|0.0|0.045
84645757|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||1.2|0.1|0.013
84645758|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||2.2|0.6|0.002
84645759|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||1.8|0.5|0.001
84645760|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||3.3|1.2|<0.001
84677197|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.3|0.757
84677198|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.1|0.581
84677199|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.195
84677200|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.4|0.272
84677201|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.758
84677202|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.1|0.416
84677203|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.174
84677204|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-1.1|0.547
84677205|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.8|0.372
84677206|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.4|0.942
84677207|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.8|0.082
84677208|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.3|0.267
84677209|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.5|0.801
84677210|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.753
84677211|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-3.1|0.087
84677212|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.796
84677213|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
84677214|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.8|0.784
84677215|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-3.5|0.024
84645761|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.001
84677216|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.6|0.963
84677217|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.8|0.331
84677218|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.898
84677219|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-3.0|0.058
84677220|NCT00406029|169089578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.3|0.832
84677221|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.3|-2.0|0.365
84677222|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.4|0.476
84677223|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.6|-2.0|0.343
84677224|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-6.8|0.103
84677225|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-6.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.0|0.224
84505306|NCT01772368|168761313|OTHER|linearity statistical test|||||<|0.0001||||||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.||A linear in log-dose-trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined precisely as log (dose+1) to accommodate the case of Fp MDPI 100 mcg, since the dose used in this trend analysis was the salmeterol dose. The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest FS MDPI dose (100/50 mcg) compared with Fp MDPI 100 mcg was positive, regardless of the results of the tests for the other doses.||||<0.0001
84677226|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.448
84677227|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.4|0.154
84677228|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-1.1|-8.5|0.010
84677229|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.6|0.540
84677230|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.7|0.646
84677231|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.9|0.608
84677232|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-6.0|0.343
84511895|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.016||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.016|-0.022|0.765
84677233|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.9|-2.5|0.419
84677234|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.8|0.562
84677235|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-5.3|0.525
84677236|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.0||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-7.0|0.148
84677237|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-5.4|0.546
84677238|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.7||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-7.6|0.068
84677239|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.5||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.5|0.208
84645762|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||3.0|0.9|<0.001
84505307|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|251.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|215.6|287.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||287.1|215.6|<0.0001
84645763|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||2.0|0.7|<0.001
84645764|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||3.2|1.2|<0.001
84645765|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.002
84645766|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||2.8|1.0|<0.001
84645767|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||2.2|0.5|0.002
84645768|NCT02751931|169026989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||3.2|1.1|<0.001
84645769|NCT02751931|169026990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.49||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||6.49|-2.40|0.352
84645770|NCT02751931|169026990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.53||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.53|-11.34|0.127
84645771|NCT02751931|169026990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|6.57||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||6.57|-3.96|0.613
84645772|NCT02751931|169026990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|0.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.20|-13.78|0.056
84645773|NCT02751931|169026991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.86||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||0.86|-0.14|0.153
84645774|NCT02751931|169026991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.08||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.08|0.19|0.007
84645775|NCT02751931|169026991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.93||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.93|-0.10|0.106
84645776|NCT02751931|169026991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||1.51|0.38|0.003
84645777|NCT02233478|169027012|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of ellagic acid concentration 0 to 24 hours post-dose area under the curve was made to PJ alone vs. PJ with soy protein after intervention.~Due to the quality issue of soybean flour, data from this intervention group was not analyzed."||||0.82
84645778|NCT01986933|169027013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-7.53||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-7.53|-35.25|0.0027
84645779|NCT01986933|169027013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|-27.15||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-27.15|-55.17|<0.0001
84645780|NCT01986933|169027013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.11|-26.67||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-26.67|-54.11|<0.0001
84645781|NCT06661954|169027038|OTHER|paired t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences|||||<|0.05||||||Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction was used to control type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Peak sacral pressure (mmHg) was collected for every minute of the 10 minute recording. Two averages for each test condition were analyzed (Minutes 1-3 (Min1-3) and 6-8 (Min6-8)). These averages capture pressure during two different 5 minute cycles, when conceivably, sacral pressure would differ. Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction controlled type 1 error.||||<0.05
84645782|NCT01892722|169027042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
84645783|NCT04153149|169027049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||=|0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, age group, and log-transformed baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as covariates.||0.929|0.555|=0.0118
84645784|NCT04153149|169027050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, NYHA class, age group, and log-transformed baseline NT-proBNP as covariates.||0.929|0.487|=0.0162
84645785|NCT04153149|169027051|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|26.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|=|7.97e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|39.55|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||39.55|13.38|=0.0000797
84645786|NCT04153149|169027052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.03|50.15|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||50.15|14.03|=0.0005
84645787|NCT04153149|169027053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.2|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||9.20|2.40|=0.0008
84645788|NCT04153149|169027054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|13.4|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||13.40|3.98|=0.0003
84645789|NCT04153149|169027056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.7|||=|0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||16.1|1.3|=0.0217
84645790|NCT04153149|169027057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.5|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||22.2|2.7|=0.0121
84645791|NCT05171816|169027079|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.48||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.48|0.83|0.2592
84677240|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-7.5|0.099
84677241|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-3.6|0.731
84677242|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-4.5|0.861
84677243|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-5.2|0.621
84677244|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-6.4|0.288
84677245|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.1|-3.5|0.861
84505308|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|227.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|191.6|263.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||263.5|191.6|<0.0001
84677246|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.0|0.954
84677247|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-5.5|0.419
84677248|NCT00406029|169089579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.9|0.088
84677249|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|-3.5|0.924
84677250|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-3.8|0.840
84677251|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.4|0.599
84677252|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-6.0|0.134
84505309|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|196.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.2|232.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/512.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||232.5|161.2|<0.0001
84677253|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-4.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.3|-4.1|0.846
84677254|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.3|0.467
84645792|NCT05171816|169027080|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.29||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.29|0.57|0.7251
84645793|NCT05171816|169027081|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.64|0.60|0.9715
84645794|NCT05171816|169027082|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.06||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.06|0.20|0.4937
84645795|NCT05171816|169027083|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.87||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||4.87|0.61|0.4923
84677255|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.8|0.533
84645796|NCT05171816|169027085|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||3.39|0.63|0.3407
84645797|NCT04391569|169027092|OTHER|||||||0||||||P-value from logistic regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.0000
84645798|NCT04391569|169027093|OTHER|||||||0.1619||||||P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derive by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.1619
84645799|NCT04391569|169027095|OTHER|||||||0.2097|||||||fixed weight combination test|||||||0.2097
84645800|NCT04391569|169027096|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000
84645801|NCT04391569|169027097|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test. P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|||||||0.0075
84645802|NCT04641221|169027102|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.18||main effect for one-on-one sessions.|zero-inflated negative-binomial (ZINB)|We specified a multilevel (week nested within participant) model which included terms for each main effect and each interaction effect and covariates.|Main effect for One-one sessions.|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.18|1.02|0.028
84645803|NCT04641221|169027102|SUPERIORITY|Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.17|||zero-inflated negative binomial||Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.17|1.02|0.039
84645804|NCT04641221|169027102|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|Zero-inflated negative binomial||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||0.93|0.80|0.001
84645805|NCT00997113|169027103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the change in serum catecholamines from one minute before the procedure to one minute after. In order to detect a 20% difference in mean catecholamine values between groups, assuming a 30% standard deviation, with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 (80% power), power analysis indicated that 10 patients per group were required.||||0.940
84645806|NCT00219544|169027107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0018||95.0|-1.27|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference = pregabalin minus placebo|The study is powered to detect clinically significant difference of 1.2 between treatment groups in mean pain score at end of treatment. The statistical sample size calculation requires a total of 144 subjects to complete the Double-Blind phase of the study: a sample size of 72 in each treatment group will have 90% power to detect a difference in treatment mean pain scores of 1.2 assuming that the common standard deviation is 2.2 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||-0.30|-1.27|0.0018
84645807|NCT00219544|169027110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001||95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
84645808|NCT00219544|169027110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.41|-0.53|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.53|-1.41|<.0001
84645809|NCT00219544|169027110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
84645810|NCT00219544|169027110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
84645811|NCT00219544|169027110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0022||95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.25|-1.14|0.0022
84645812|NCT00219544|169027116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0031||95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.18|0.0031
84645813|NCT00219544|169027119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0177||95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.09|-0.94|0.0177
84645814|NCT00219544|169027119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.44|-1.31|<.0001
84645815|NCT00219544|169027119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005||95.0|-1.28|-0.36|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.36|-1.28|0.0005
84645816|NCT00219544|169027119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003||95.0|-1.31|-0.39|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.39|-1.31|0.0003
84645817|NCT00219544|169027119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0011||95.0|-1.18|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.30|-1.18|0.0011
84645818|NCT00219544|169027120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0069||95.0|-15.5|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-15.5|0.0069
84511896|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.03|-0.11|0.258
84645819|NCT00219544|169027121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0023||95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-A||-0.5|-2.1|0.0023
84645820|NCT00219544|169027121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0013||95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-D||-0.5|-1.9|0.0013
84645821|NCT00219544|169027122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0828||95.0|-0.79|12.75|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Impact||12.75|-0.79|0.0828
84645822|NCT00219544|169027122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0197||95.0|1.05|11.94|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Satisfaction||11.94|1.05|0.0197
84645823|NCT00219544|169027123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||The distribution of the responses to the PGIC at EOT was compared between the 2 treatment groups using the 7 categories of the PGIC.||||0.0278
84645824|NCT00219544|169027124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0049||95.0|-1.28|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Pain interference||-0.23|-1.28|0.0049
84645825|NCT00219544|169027124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0037||95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Pain severity||-0.25|-1.29|0.0037
84645826|NCT00219544|169027125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0719||95.0|0.0|0.11|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Health State Profile||0.11|-0.00|0.0719
84645827|NCT00219544|169027125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.418||95.0|-2.96|7.1|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Visual Analog Scale||7.10|-2.96|0.4180
84645828|NCT04030026|169027156|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|< 0.0001
84645829|NCT04030026|169027158|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|<0.0001
84645830|NCT04030026|169027159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.717||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.717|0.230|0.0087
84645831|NCT04030026|169027160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0014
84645832|NCT04030026|169027160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0001
84645833|NCT04030026|169027160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.001
84645834|NCT04030026|169027161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0198
84645835|NCT04030026|169027161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0374
84645836|NCT04030026|169027161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2982||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.2982
84645837|NCT04030026|169027162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo)|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 8||||0.0054
84645838|NCT04030026|169027162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 15||||<0.0001
84645839|NCT04030026|169027162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 21||||0.0001
84645840|NCT04030026|169027163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0107
84645841|NCT04030026|169027163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change for baseline at Day 16||||0.0051
84645842|NCT04030026|169027163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.1513
84645843|NCT04030026|169027164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||||||0.3601
84645844|NCT03764033|169027170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|5.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-3.66|0.729
84645845|NCT03764033|169027171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|4.61||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-4.46|0.975
84677256|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.7|0.094
84677257|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-3.7|0.994
84677258|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.5|0.944
84677259|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.424
84677260|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-7.8|0.042
84677261|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|-0.4|0.075
84677262|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|0.0|0.052
84677263|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.9|-4.0|0.975
84511897|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.094||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.094|-0.049|0.535
84645846|NCT03764033|169027172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-5.27|0.831
84645847|NCT03764033|169027173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-1.87||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.87|-11.31|0.006
84645848|NCT03764033|169027174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-1.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-11.34|0.008
84645849|NCT03764033|169027175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.37|0.066
84645850|NCT03764033|169027176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.043
84677264|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-5.2|0.541
84677265|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.1|0.931
84677266|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-4.7|0.618
84677267|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.8||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-5.6|0.341
84677268|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-6.0|0.256
84677269|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||6.0|-2.4|0.399
84677270|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.4|-2.5|0.477
84677271|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-6.8|0.172
84677272|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-6.2|0.254
84677273|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.6|0.972
84677274|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.0|-3.5|0.891
84677275|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.6|0.143
84677276|NCT00406029|169089580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-6.8|0.083
84677277|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.2|0.154
84677278|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.380
84677279|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.3|0.288
84677280|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.355
84677281|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.831
84677282|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-1.2|0.198
84677283|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.792
84677284|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.749
84677285|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.896
84677286|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.480
84677287|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.4|0.285
84677288|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.3|0.212
84645851|NCT03764033|169027177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
84505310|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|151.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.9|187.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||187.5|115.9|<0.0001
84645852|NCT03764033|169027178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.74|0.028
84645853|NCT02477696|169027192|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of acalabrutinib was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.429.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||||Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by 17p deletion status (yes versus no) and number of prior therapies (1-3 versus \>=4).|||1.27|0.79|
84645854|NCT02278341|169027205|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.339||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline Hb by visit as continuous variable.||0.339|0.132|<0.001
84645855|NCT02278341|169027206|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.261||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable. Statistical analysis used was ANCOVA model with multiple imputations (MI). Missing hemoglobin data was imputed for each treatment relying on non-missing data from all participants within each treatment group using the MCMC imputation model.||0.261|0.082|<0.001
84645856|NCT02278341|169027207|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus ESA (the non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups is -15%).|Difference of Percentages|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.6||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||7.6|-2.9|<0.05
84645857|NCT02278341|169027208|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.304||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline LDL, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||-0.304|-0.451|<0.001
84677289|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.9|0.883
84677290|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.9|0.947
84645858|NCT02278341|169027209|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-31.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-22.4||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-22.4|-41.4|<0.001
84645859|NCT02278341|169027210|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.205|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|1.059||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.059|-0.649|<0.05
84645860|NCT02278341|169027211|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.856|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|1.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.828|-0.115|<0.05
84645861|NCT02278341|169027212|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was 1.|LSM Difference|-0.849|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.971|0.273||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.273|-1.971|<0.05
84677291|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.1|0.663
84677292|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.3|0.157
84677293|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.4|0.283
84677294|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.0|0.768
84677295|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.334
84677296|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.2|0.465
84677297|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.688
84645862|NCT02278341|169027213|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.276||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.||1.276|0.669|<0.05
84645863|NCT02278341|169027214|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.579|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|0.536||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.536|-1.694|=0.308
84645864|NCT02278341|169027215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.254||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.254|0.668|=0.582
84645865|NCT02278341|169027216|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentages|1.4|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.5||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||6.5|-3.8|=0.609
84677298|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.062
84677299|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.2|0.579
84677300|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.644
84677301|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.825
84677302|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.233
84677303|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.853
84677304|NCT00406029|169089581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.6|0.592
84677305|NCT01958918|169089621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1850
84677306|NCT02114892|169089649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
84677307|NCT02114892|169089650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
84677308|NCT02114892|169089651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
84677309|NCT02114892|169089652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.338
84677310|NCT02114892|169089653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
84677311|NCT02114892|169089654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84677312|NCT02114892|169089655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
84677313|NCT02114892|169089656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84677314|NCT02114892|169089657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84677315|NCT02114892|169089658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
84677316|NCT02114892|169089659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
84677317|NCT02114892|169089660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
84677318|NCT02114892|169089661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84677319|NCT02114892|169089662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84677320|NCT02114892|169089663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
84677321|NCT00659269|169089680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84645866|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.256||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.256|0.072|<0.001
84645867|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.546||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.546|0.339|<0.001
84645868|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.672||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.672|0.451|<0.001
84645869|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.708|||<|0.001||95.0|0.588|0.828||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.828|0.588|<0.001
84645870|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.768|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.89||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.890|0.645|<0.001
84677322|NCT02832674|169089681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint was an evaluation of the proportion of subjects with ≥ 20 mm2 lift at Day 90.||||0.05
84677323|NCT02832674|169089682|OTHER|Binomial test of proportions||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
84677324|NCT02832674|169089683|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of all effectiveness endpoints was conducted on the ITT population and on the PP population.|The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
84677325|NCT02832674|169089684|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
84677326|NCT02832674|169089685|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
84645871|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.855||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.855|0.604|<0.001
84645872|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.856||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 7 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.856|0.603|<0.001
84645873|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.826||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.826|0.574|<0.001
84645874|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.659|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.788||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.788|0.530|<0.001
84677327|NCT02832674|169089686|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
84677328|NCT00718042|169089687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|99.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.79|99.91|||Point Estimate||Numerator = All blood donors tested nonreactive from all True Negative blood donors (16,223) Denominator = All True Negative blood donors (16,246) True Negative excludes donor specimens positive by supplemental testing (3)|||99.91|99.79|
84677329|NCT00718042|169089689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|96.70|
84677330|NCT00718042|169089692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|99.8|||Percentage Negative|||||99.8|97.4|
84677331|NCT04327934|169089696|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
84677332|NCT04327934|169089697|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.|||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
84645875|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.593|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.727||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.727|0.459|<0.001
84645876|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.64||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.640|0.366|<0.001
84645877|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.51||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.510|0.229|<0.001
84645878|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.363|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.496||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.496|0.230|<0.001
84645879|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.284|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.414||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.414|0.154|<0.001
84645880|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.197|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.329||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.329|0.065|=0.003
84677333|NCT04327934|169089697|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84677334|NCT04327934|169089700|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Friedman's tests to compare slopes|Friedman's test|||||||0.05
84677335|NCT04327934|169089702|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84677336|NCT04327934|169089702|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
84677337|NCT04327934|169089703|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.0023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0023
84677338|NCT04327934|169089704|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
84677339|NCT04327934|169089705|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
84677340|NCT02443298|169089706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.18|1.81|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.81|1.18|0.0255
84677341|NCT02443298|169089707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2|1.79|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.79|1.20|0.0131
84677342|NCT02443298|169089708|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.4937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2366|1.8044|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.8044|1.2366|0.0065
84677343|NCT02443298|169089709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|1.57|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Time to first event is obtained from fitting a Cox proportional-hazards model including treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate||1.57|0.88|0.4619
84677344|NCT02443298|169089710|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8652|1.4803|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.4803|0.8652|0.5550
84677345|NCT02443298|169089711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.104|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||0.026|-0.104|0.4423
84677346|NCT02443298|169089712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.126|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||-0.009|-0.126|0.1377
84677347|NCT02443298|169089713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.297|||ANCOVA||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model separately for each week including treatment, OCS use at baseline, and baseline as covariates. The weekly averages of daily measurements are calculated before fitting the model.||0.297|0.000|0.1985
84677348|NCT01047683|169089714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-21.5||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A standard deviation of 45% in the TG measurements and a significance level of P \< 0.01 required a sample size of 69 completed patients per treatment group to provide greater than or equal to 90% power to detect a difference of 30% between AMR101 and placebo in the percentage of change from baseline in the fasting TG levels.||-21.5|-46.6|<0.0001
84677349|NCT01047683|169089714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-5.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-5.6|-33.3|0.0051
84713709|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.9||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-135.23|24.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.95|-135.23|0.3416
84645881|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.316||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.316|0.059|=0.004
84645882|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.373||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.373|0.113|<0.001
84645883|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.207|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.34||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.340|0.074|=0.002
84645884|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.358||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.358|0.096|<0.001
84645885|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.||Week 32 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.334|0.064|=0.004
84645886|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.279|||<|0.001||95.0|0.15|0.409||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 34 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.409|0.150|<0.001
84645887|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.391||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.121|<0.001
84645888|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.136|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.277||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.277|-0.006|=0.060
84645889|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|||=|0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.236||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.236|-0.071|=0.293
84645890|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|||=|0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.177||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.177|-0.123|=0.723
84645891|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.348||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.348|0.049|=0.009
84713710|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.75||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|150.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||150.19|-35.02|0.4192
84713711|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.42||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-231.66|98.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||98.02|-231.66|0.5245
84645892|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.147|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.298||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.298|-0.004|=0.056
84505311|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.4|229.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||229.5|157.4|<0.0001
84511898|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.076|0.866
84645893|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.196|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.346||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.346|0.047|=0.010
84645894|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.427||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.427|0.123|<0.001
84645895|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.206|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.353||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.353|0.059|=0.006
84645896|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.118|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.269||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.269|-0.033|=0.127
84645897|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.211|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.371||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.371|0.051|=0.010
84645898|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.102|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.255||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.255|-0.051|=0.191
84645899|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.192|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.351||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.033|=0.018
84645900|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.044|||=|0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.2||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.200|-0.111|=0.576
84645901|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.203|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.369||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.369|0.037|=0.017
84645902|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.184|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.338||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.338|0.031|=0.019
84645903|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||=|0.056||95.0|-0.004|0.333||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.333|-0.004|=0.056
84645904|NCT02278341|169027217|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.099|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.273||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.273|-0.076|=0.267
84645905|NCT02278341|169027218|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.347|0.127|<0.001
84645906|NCT02278341|169027218|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.105|||=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.225||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.225|-0.015|=0.086
84645907|NCT02278341|169027218|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.284||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.284|0.014|=0.031
84645908|NCT02278341|169027219|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.346|0.125|<0.001
84645909|NCT02278341|169027219|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.232|-0.024|=0.110
84645910|NCT02278341|169027219|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.288|0.010|=0.036
84645911|NCT02278341|169027224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154|||=|0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.411||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.411|0.943|=0.164
84645912|NCT02278341|169027225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.462|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.462|0.656|=0.917
84645913|NCT02278341|169027226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.313||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.313|0.573|=0.501
84645914|NCT02278341|169027227|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.006|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.01|-0.02|=0.507
84645915|NCT02278341|169027228|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.132|||=|0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.16|||ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||4.16|-3.90|=0.949
84677350|NCT01047683|169089715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-13.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05 for secondary and exploratory endpoints.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-13.9|-43.4|0.0005
84677351|NCT01047683|169089715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-30.3|0.1152
84505312|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|57.88||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|93.7||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||93.7|22.0|0.0017
84677352|NCT01047683|169089716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-6.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.3|-20.2|0.0006
84677353|NCT01047683|169089716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.2|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||2.2|-12.3|0.2367
84677354|NCT01047683|169089717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-3.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-3.2|-13.5|0.0019
84677355|NCT01047683|169089717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.9|-7.8|0.2367
84511899|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.017||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.017|-0.041|0.413
84645916|NCT02278341|169027229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.368|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.465|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.465|0.291|<0.001
84645917|NCT02278341|169027230|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 37-52 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-18.4|-51.8|<0.001
84677356|NCT01047683|169089718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.1|-12.9|0.6768
84677357|NCT01047683|169089718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||15.6|-5.4|0.3022
84645918|NCT02278341|169027230|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|-27.0|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 53-104 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-27.0|-70.3|<0.001
84645919|NCT02278341|169027240|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.521|||=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.25||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.250|-0.208|=0.161
84645920|NCT02278341|169027241|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.126|||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|1.387||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.387|-1.135|=0.845
84645921|NCT02278341|169027242|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.128|||=|0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.703|2.447||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||2.447|-2.703|=0.922
84505313|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|34.14||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|70.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||70.1|-1.8|0.0624
84645922|NCT04902326|169027250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.78
84645923|NCT04902326|169027251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.64
84713712|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.31||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.47|-0.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-0.05|-35.47|0.1988
84713713|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.11||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.08|22.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.72|-161.08|0.3054
84713714|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|229.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|377.23||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-271.51|730.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||730.22|-271.51|0.5504
84713715|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.27||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-214.96|72.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||72.65|-214.96|0.4493
84713716|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.63||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-67.74|-12.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-12.85|-67.74|0.0665
84713717|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-78.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-167.25|9.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||9.75|-167.25|0.2411
84713718|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.3||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.51|166.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||166.08|-44.51|0.4528
84713719|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.46||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.72|100.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||100.85|-183.72|0.6381
84713720|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.44|-8.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.62|-54.44|0.0837
84713721|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.45||0.3428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.53|34.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||34.13|-183.53|0.3428
84505314|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.42||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|39.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||39.1|-32.3|0.8503
84505315|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-41.72||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-5.8||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-5.8|-77.6|0.0229
84645924|NCT04902326|169027252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
84645925|NCT04902326|169027253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
84645926|NCT04902326|169027254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean months engaged (with DPP or metformin) of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||<0.0001
84645927|NCT02397564|169027255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
84645928|NCT01155479|169027296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||4.30|0.86|0.0033
84645929|NCT01155479|169027296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|1.3||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.94|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.94|-0.41|0.1382
84645930|NCT01155479|169027296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.4||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.11|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.11|-1.29|0.6378
84645931|NCT01155479|169027296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.3||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.03|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.03|-1.35|0.6923
84645932|NCT01155479|169027297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-9.7||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.82||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.82|-21.0|0.0785
84645933|NCT01155479|169027297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-6.3||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|5.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||5.05|-17.6|0.2735
84645934|NCT01155479|169027297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-3.7||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|7.99||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||7.99|-15.2|0.4823
84645935|NCT01155479|169027297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-2.3||||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|9.24||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||9.24|-13.9|0.6827
84645936|NCT01155479|169027298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.7||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.27|0.09|0.0235
84645937|NCT01155479|169027298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.04|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.04|-0.11|0.1093
84645938|NCT01155479|169027298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.75|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.75|-0.42|0.5756
84645939|NCT01155479|169027298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.70|-0.45|0.6657
84677358|NCT01047683|169089719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-11.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.3|-25.0|<0.0001
84505316|NCT01772368|168761313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.5|-157.4||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-157.4|-229.5|<0.0001
84645940|NCT02360605|169027303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||FIT completion rates were defined as the percentage of FIT tests returned. Screening ratios were defined as the PC to AC ratio of FIT completion rates. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between literacy level and study arm were assessed.||||0.61
84645941|NCT02360605|169027304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.30
84645942|NCT02360605|169027305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.97
84645943|NCT05867342|169027319|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84645944|NCT05867342|169027320|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84645945|NCT05867342|169027321|OTHER|||||||0.126||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.126
84645946|NCT05867342|169027323|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
84645947|NCT05867342|169027324|OTHER|||||||0.418||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
84645948|NCT05867342|169027325|OTHER|||||||0.756||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
84645949|NCT01277081|169027344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86|||Repeated Measure Analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over the first 15 minutes compared to baseline.||0.86|0.58|<0.0001
84645950|NCT01277081|169027345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over 60 minutes.||0.72|0.44|<0.0001
84645951|NCT01277081|169027346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.65|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for cold symptoms score after 60 minutes.||0.65|0.36|<0.0001
84677359|NCT01047683|169089719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.4|-15.1|0.0182
84677360|NCT02822794|169089734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
84677361|NCT02822794|169089734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL +RBV 24 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
84505317|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|226.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.4|281.1||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||281.1|172.4|<0.0001
84677362|NCT04788147|169089763|OTHER|"The modified 3+3 design with 6 patients at the 'Recommended RefleXion FDG Dose level' aims to ensure that the observed proportion of patients below activity threshold to be less than 33%.~Probability of Observations at Most 1 of 6 below Activity Threshold True below activity rate 40% 30% 20% 10% Probability at most 1 of 6 patients below activity threshold 0.233 0.420 0.655 0.886"||||||||||||||||"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|||
84677363|NCT05101252|169089787|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR for distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.14|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test for superiority for distance.||-0.01|-0.14|
84677364|NCT05101252|169089787|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Least-square Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.06|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 12 subjects were required to test for superiority for intermediate.||0.07|-0.06|
84677365|NCT05101252|169089787|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for near.|Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.02|0.16|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for superiority for near.||0.16|0.02|
84677366|NCT05101252|169089788|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 98.75% confidence interval was above 32.|Least-square Mean|50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|43.1|58.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 13 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores.||58.5|43.1|
84677367|NCT05101252|169089789|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference was below 0.05 logMAR.|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 95% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Test compared to the Control for distance (4m).||0.05|-0.05|
84505318|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|198.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.7|252.9||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||252.9|143.7|<0.0001
84677368|NCT01243944|169089790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|32.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|1337.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1337|5.04|< 0.0001
84677369|NCT01243944|169089791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|1144.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1144|4.24|<0.0001
84677370|NCT01243944|169089792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.06|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using stratified exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by adjusting for the WBC/platelet status (abnormal vs normal) at baseline.||||9.06|1.50|0.0016
84677371|NCT01731171|169089815|OTHER|The effect of treatment was calculated using logistic regression and the Cox proportional hazard function employing age, gender, and race as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Values less than one favor adjunctive probiotic treatment, while values higher than one favor the placebo.|||||=.029
84677372|NCT01731171|169089816|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.022
84677373|NCT01731171|169089817|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=.009
84677374|NCT01731171|169089818|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||=.017
84677375|NCT01736852|169089820|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10%, α = 0.025, power = 0.80,||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||.ample size calculations were performed using an expected rate of 4% for each group,a one-sided exact test, α = 0.025, power = 0.80, non-inferiority margin of 10% resulting in a sample size of 124 patients or 62 patients per treatment arm.||||0.06
84677376|NCT00403546|169089822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||1.12|-1.09|0.980
84677377|NCT00403546|169089822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.95|0.08|0.033
84677378|NCT00403546|169089822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.77|-0.32|0.171
84677379|NCT00403546|169089822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.62|-0.62|0.380
84505319|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|158.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|213.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.3|104.7|<0.0001
84677380|NCT00403546|169089822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.08|-1.32|0.840
84677381|NCT00403546|169089823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.88|-1.23|0.737
84677382|NCT00403546|169089823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||0.80|-1.09|0.764
84677383|NCT00403546|169089823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.32|-0.82|0.642
84677384|NCT00403546|169089823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||0.83|-1.50|0.570
84677385|NCT00403546|169089823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.17|-1.34|0.894
84677386|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Baseline||5.05|-8.68|0.599
84677387|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 1||9.37|-2.31|0.235
84677388|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 2||8.57|-3.80|0.449
84677389|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 4||10.56|-3.28|0.301
84677390|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 6||6.63|-8.13|0.842
84677391|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 8||14.09|-1.43|0.109
84677392|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Baseline||4.02|-5.62|0.741
84677393|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 1||6.19|-3.32|0.552
84677394|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 2||7.84|-2.18|0.268
84677395|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|6.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 4||6.56|-4.53|0.719
84677396|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 6||2.96|-8.68|0.334
84677397|NCT00403546|169089825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 8||10.37|-1.61|0.151
84677398|NCT00403546|169089827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with random slopes||At Baseline||9.50|-3.97|0.416
84677399|NCT00403546|169089827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||4.33|-3.59|0.854
84677400|NCT00403546|169089827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||6.58|-2.68|0.406
84677401|NCT00403546|169089827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||2.21|-8.23|0.256
84677402|NCT00403546|169089827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||4.45|-7.20|0.642
84677403|NCT00403546|169089829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.20|-1.55|0.135
84677404|NCT00403546|169089829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.21|-0.33|0.262
84677405|NCT00403546|169089829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.49|-0.33|0.209
84677406|NCT00403546|169089829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.07|-1.01|0.950
84677407|NCT00403546|169089829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.76|-0.61|0.340
84677408|NCT01504438|169089865|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84677409|NCT01504438|169089866|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
84677410|NCT01504438|169089867|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84677411|NCT01504438|169089868|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84677412|NCT01070810|169089871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84677413|NCT01070810|169089872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Time to shock reversal was complicated by a high incidence of death prior to the event. To account for this we classified death as a competing risk event and used the estimated cumulative incidence function (CIF) to illustrate the comparison of CIFs between the two treatment groups using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. We tested the subdistribution hazards of these two CIF functions and obtained the estimated hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals.||1.62|0.61|0.97
84677414|NCT01070810|169089873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84677415|NCT01070810|169089874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84677416|NCT01070810|169089875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84677417|NCT05061446|169089883|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
84645952|NCT01277081|169027347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered two treatments being compared to be equal for cold symptom score after 60 minutes.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
84645953|NCT03977454|169027354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was a comparison between groups at 24 hours.||||0.69
84645954|NCT03977454|169027355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 days post operation.||||0.92
84645955|NCT03977454|169027356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84645956|NCT03977454|169027358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 weeks.||||0.85
84645957|NCT02129777|169027369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.179|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.179|-0.162|0.925
84645958|NCT02129777|169027369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.162
84645959|NCT02129777|169027369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.118|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.118|-0.187|0.671
84645960|NCT02129777|169027369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.182
84645961|NCT02129777|169027371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||4.9|-2.1|0.435
84645962|NCT02129777|169027371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||5.4|-1.6|0.279
84645963|NCT02129777|169027371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.5|-0.4|0.085
84645964|NCT02129777|169027371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-0.7|0.110
84645965|NCT02129777|169027372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.211|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.211|-0.265|0.827
84645966|NCT02129777|169027372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.198|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.198|-0.269|0.768
84677418|NCT05061446|169089883|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
84677419|NCT05061446|169089884|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
84677420|NCT05061446|169089884|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
84645967|NCT02129777|169027372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.112||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.106|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.106|-0.330|0.338
84505320|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|116.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|171.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||171.6|62.4|<0.0001
84511900|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.042||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.042|-0.018|0.445
84645968|NCT02129777|169027372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.226|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.226|-0.261|0.890
84677421|NCT05061446|169089885|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|40.24||||||||40.24|-0.24|
84645969|NCT02129777|169027373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.139|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12:CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.139|-0.043|0.295
84645970|NCT02129777|169027374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.216|-0.191|0.906
84645971|NCT02129777|169027374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.143|-0.222|0.677
84645972|NCT02129777|169027374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.007|-0.268|0.107
84645973|NCT02129777|169027374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.087|-0.248|0.371
84645974|NCT02129777|169027375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.221|-0.030|0.134
84645975|NCT02129777|169027376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.6|0.258
84645976|NCT02129777|169027376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.5|0.365
84677422|NCT05061446|169089885|OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|52.48||||||||52.48|10.68|
84645977|NCT02129777|169027376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.4|-0.3|0.757
84645978|NCT02129777|169027376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.3|-0.4|0.825
84645979|NCT02129777|169027377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.1|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.10|-4.48|0.931
84645980|NCT02129777|169027377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.143||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.84|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.84|-2.65|0.459
84645981|NCT02129777|169027377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|7.93|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.93|-0.63|0.094
84645982|NCT02129777|169027377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.09|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.09|-1.52|0.203
84645983|NCT02129777|169027378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.86|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.86|-1.92|0.448
84511901|NCT02087904|168775429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.026|-0.032|0.835
84645984|NCT02129777|169027378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.22|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.22|-2.53|0.099
84677423|NCT05061446|169089886|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
84677424|NCT05061446|169089886|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|15.3||||||||15.30|-4.78|
84677425|NCT05061446|169089887|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|53.6||||||||53.60|-1.22|
84677426|NCT05061446|169089887|OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|71.68||||||||71.68|19.30|
84677427|NCT03056690|169089890|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Week 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (week 8) and treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|LSMean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.76|0.086
84677428|NCT03056690|169089896|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|12.5|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||12.5|-11.9|0.551
84677429|NCT03056690|169089897|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|19.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||19.1|-5.2|0.202
84677430|NCT03056690|169089898|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|13.8|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||13.8|-10.5|0.451
84677431|NCT03056690|169089899|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.1||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|18.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||18.1|-6.2|0.174
84677432|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|1.9||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 2||1.90|-4.86|0.235
84677433|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|0.89||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 4||0.89|-6.84|0.103
84677434|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.78|1.6||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 8||1.60|-6.78|0.154
84677435|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|1.77||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 2||1.77|-4.45|0.238
84505321|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.3|213.7||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.7|104.3|<0.0001
84677436|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|-0.24||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 4||-0.24|-7.22|0.039
84677437|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|0.81||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 8||0.81|-6.93|0.097
84677438|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean DIfference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|0.04||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 2||0.04|-2.03|0.057
84677439|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|-0.29||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 4||-0.29|-2.39|0.018
84677440|NCT03056690|169089900|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|0.3||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 8||0.30|-2.02|0.111
84677441|NCT03056690|169089901|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.05|0.75||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Function Subscale||0.75|-7.05|0.092
84677442|NCT03056690|169089901|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.85|0.28||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms subscale||0.28|-6.85|0.065
84677443|NCT03056690|169089901|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.01||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall Impact Subscale.||-0.01|-2.15|0.049
84511902|NCT02087904|168775430|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|21.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-7.3|0.311
84505322|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|67.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|122.2||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||122.2|13.3|0.0150
84505323|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|39.31||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|94.0||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||94.0|-15.3|0.1578
84505324|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.02||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|54.4||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||54.4|-54.4|0.9993
84645985|NCT02129777|169027378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.78|-1.96|0.396
84645986|NCT02129777|169027378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.23|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.23|-2.54|0.102
84645987|NCT02129777|169027379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.20|-2.29|0.099
84645988|NCT02129777|169027379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.03|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.03|-2.49|0.045
84677444|NCT03056690|169089902|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||Likelihood test|||Week 2||2.24|0.91|0.192
84677445|NCT03056690|169089902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.07||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihod test|||Week 4||2.07|0.86|0.285
84677446|NCT03056690|169089902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.87||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihood test|||EOT||1.87|0.78|0.486
84677447|NCT03056690|169089903|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.05|||Likelihood test|||Week 8||2.05|0.85|0.305
84677448|NCT02610140|169089913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.859125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). P-value is calculated based on alpha level 0.0125.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by Time to progression (TTP) on 1st line treatment.|PFS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1,738|0.850|0.859125
84677449|NCT02610140|169089914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.655624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.506||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). Alpha spending/boundary for interim was 0.00245. Alpha boundary value for final analysis was 0.02421.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine/vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment.|OS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1.506|0.763|0.655624
84677450|NCT02610140|169089919|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate symptoms|4.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|17.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||17.51|-8.20|0.244
84677451|NCT02610140|169089920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.313747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.779|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.779|0.386|0.313747
84677452|NCT02610140|169089921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.378916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.533|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.533|0.557|0.378916
84677453|NCT02610140|169089922|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate of pain|6.64||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||||22.68|-9.40|0.214
84511668|NCT05150964|168775150|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
84645989|NCT02129777|169027379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.25|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.25|-2.21|0.118
84645990|NCT02129777|169027379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.0|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.00|-2.44|0.050
84645991|NCT02129777|169027380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.36|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.36|-1.63|0.211
84645992|NCT02129777|169027380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.13|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.13|-1.85|0.087
84645993|NCT02129777|169027380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.71|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.71|-1.26|0.580
84645994|NCT02129777|169027380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.90|-1.06|0.873
84645995|NCT02129777|169027381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||11.8|-15.2|0.803
84645996|NCT02129777|169027381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|21.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||21.4|-5.7|0.248
84677454|NCT02610140|169089925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|39.3||||||||39.3|0.1|
84677455|NCT02610140|169089925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.9||||||||35.9|0.0|
84677456|NCT02127307|169089928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3227|0.6156||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox proportional hazards model|||"AdreView-Heart Failure Group with H/M \<1.60 vs. H/M ≥1.60:~Data analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model to demonstrate the relationship of consensus numeric H/M ratio and time to adverse cardiac events to identify participants with higher risk of death. Hazard (risk) of a death for a participant with H/M ratio at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/Hh (t)=Ψ,where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.6156|0.3227|<0.0001
84677457|NCT01312961|169089937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment groups and stratification factor (prior ICS/LABA combination therapy dose) as covariates.||0.280|0.021|<0.0001
84677458|NCT04122443|169089968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|0.3|
84645997|NCT02129777|169027381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.2|-12.7|0.914
84645998|NCT02129777|169027381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||17.9|-9.2|0.523
84645999|NCT02129777|169027382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||2.8|-2.7|0.978
84646000|NCT02129777|169027382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.5|-3.9|0.389
84646001|NCT02129777|169027382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-4.2|0.316
84646002|NCT02129777|169027382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.7|-4.9|0.142
84646003|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-5.6|0.229
84646004|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||3.0|-3.6|0.863
84677459|NCT04122443|169089969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|29.0||||||||29|-3|
84646005|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.7|-1.9|0.403
84646006|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.4|-2.5|0.597
84677460|NCT04122443|169089970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|23.0||||||||23|-5|
84677461|NCT04122443|169089971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.0||||||||21|-10|
84677462|NCT03047447|169090007|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with HgA1c for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84677463|NCT03047447|169090008|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with weight for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
84677464|NCT03047447|169090009|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with BMI for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
84677465|NCT03047447|169090010|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with body fat mass for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
84677466|NCT03047447|169090011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with blood ketones for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
84677467|NCT02669329|169090020|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|93.4||||||||93.4|72.9|
84677468|NCT01404312|169090045|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin: 1.25 events per 100 person-years.~Sample size determination was based on the assumption of a primary endpoint rate of 2.0/100 person-years, with a one-sided 0.025 alpha level, and targeting at least 90% power. This required a sample size of approximately 2500. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for loss to follow-up, interim monitoring, and to allow for subgroup analyses with reasonable power."|Incidence Rate Difference|-0.0231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.346|0.3|||||"Estimate given as Incidence rate in Arm A - Incidence Rate in Arm B (negative favors Arm A).~Incidence rate units: Events per 100 person-years"|Mantel-Haenszel method used for estimating standardized incidence rate in each arm and incidence rate difference.||0.300|-0.346|
84677469|NCT01404312|169090046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.002||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any SAE occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm A = Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm B."||0.002|-0.035|0.073
84677470|NCT01404312|169090047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0058||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.007||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any targeted adverse event occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm A = Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm B."||0.007|-0.019|0.405
84677471|NCT01404312|169090048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|3.332|||||"Estimate given as: Odds of being in higher category (more stringent management due to toxicity) for Arm B compared with arm A~Not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|"Odds ratio of being in higher category estimated from proportional odds model~H0: Odds ratio of being in higher category for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||3.332|1.315|
84677472|NCT01404312|169090049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3078||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||H0: Survival curve Arm A = Survival curve Arm B||||0.3078
84677473|NCT01404312|169090050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.396||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.559||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio||Hazard ratio given as: Arm B hazard / Arm A hazard, i.e. HR \> 1 favors arm A|"Competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray model, treating TB-related deaths as competing risks, and other deaths including deaths of unknown cause as the event of interest.~H0: Hazard Ratio for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||2.559|0.762|0.2802
84505325|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-42.05||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|12.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||12.6|-96.7|0.1311
84677474|NCT00071487|169090058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using a last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.2|-19.4|0.3677
84677475|NCT00071487|169090058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||20.6|-8.7|0.4244
84677476|NCT00071487|169090058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|6.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||6.6|-19.6|0.3296
84677477|NCT00071487|169090059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6423||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.6423
84677478|NCT00071487|169090059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8536||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.8536
84511903|NCT02087904|168775430|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
84677479|NCT00071487|169090059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.9705
84677480|NCT00071487|169090060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||4.1|-22.4|0.1763
84713722|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.93||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|52.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||52.27|-8.63|0.3533
84646007|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||6.5|-2.7|0.416
84646008|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.1|-3.8|0.770
84646009|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.2|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.2|-4.0|0.798
84646010|NCT02129777|169027383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.5|-4.1|0.767
84646011|NCT02129777|169027384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.11|0.570
84646012|NCT02129777|169027384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.10|0.619
84646013|NCT02129777|169027384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.11|-0.06|0.597
84677481|NCT00071487|169090060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||14.3|-20.9|0.7112
84646014|NCT02129777|169027384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.12|-0.06|0.509
84677482|NCT00071487|169090060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.5|-22.2|0.3320
84677483|NCT00071487|169090061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||8.4|-65.6|0.1287
84646015|NCT02129777|169027385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|9.6|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||9.6|-11.7|0.845
84646016|NCT02129777|169027385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.4|-4.8|0.323
84646017|NCT02129777|169027385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.8|-11.7|0.697
84646018|NCT02129777|169027385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.7|-12.6|0.633
84646019|NCT02129777|169027386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.3|-2.2|0.537
84646020|NCT02129777|169027386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.6|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.6|-0.8|0.142
84646021|NCT02129777|169027386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.3|0.8|0.015
84646022|NCT02129777|169027386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.8|-0.7|0.121
84677484|NCT00071487|169090061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|42.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||42.1|-36.2|0.8807
84677485|NCT00071487|169090061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|7.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||7.3|-68.1|0.1131
84646023|NCT05040971|169027408|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-11.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|-9.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.42|-12.97|<0.0001
84646024|NCT05040971|169027409|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|45.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||45.21|8.68|<0.0001
84677486|NCT00071487|169090062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||10.4|-13.8|0.7823
84677487|NCT00071487|169090062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|3.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||3.4|-18.2|0.1774
84677488|NCT00071487|169090062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||9.1|-14.8|0.6406
84677489|NCT00071487|169090063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|29.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||29.1|-38.6|0.7822
84677490|NCT00071487|169090063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|15.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||15.4|-45.3|0.3332
84677491|NCT00071487|169090063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|21.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||21.5|-46.9|0.4660
84677492|NCT00071487|169090064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5615||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.5615
84677493|NCT00071487|169090064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.7593
84677494|NCT00071487|169090064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2273||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.2273
84505326|NCT01772368|168761314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.7|-104.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-104.3|-213.7|<0.0001
84505327|NCT01772368|168761315|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|2.202||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||2.202|1.690|
84646025|NCT01101191|169027471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.67|106.66|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||106.66|98.67|
84646026|NCT01101191|169027472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.81|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.81|94.20|
84646027|NCT01101191|169027473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.41|99.94|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.94|94.41|
84646028|NCT02387476|169027477|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean AHI is rounded to a single decimal point in the text of the report (3.0 and 2.4, respectively), in order to be consistent with standard reporting of AHI.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||2.9|-1.7|<0.001
84646029|NCT02387476|169027478|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean ODI values are rounded to a single decimal point value in the text of the table (1.4 and 1.1, respectively) to ensure consistency with ODI reporting standards.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
84677495|NCT00071487|169090065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-7.1||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|10.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||10.6|-24.7|0.4355
84677496|NCT00071487|169090065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.4||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|24.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||24.2|-15.5|0.6669
84677497|NCT00071487|169090065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|17.7||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|37.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||37.9|-2.5|0.0882
84677498|NCT05209191|169090124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84677499|NCT05209191|169090126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test.||||.38
84505328|NCT01772368|168761315|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.911|0.702|
84677500|NCT05209191|169090127|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|52.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
84677501|NCT00701389|169090134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 90% CI is less than 5 mmHg, the primary hypothesis would be supported.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Effect Model|||100 mg sumatriptan/600 mg telcagepant minus 100 mg sumatriptan/telcagepant placebo||3.0|0.0|
84646030|NCT00645788|169027493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||ANCOVA|||"Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 mg - matching placebo\|=0 and \|Cipro 48.75 mg - matching placebo\|=0"||||0.076
84646031|NCT00645788|169027495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||"At visit 7 (End of treatment) Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 - matching placebo\| =0 and~\|Cipro 48.75 - matching placebo\| =0"||||0.068
84646032|NCT02290431|169027516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||single-sample binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
84505329|NCT01772368|168761315|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.485||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.485|0.376|
84646033|NCT02197234|169027532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.41|93.7|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||93.70|63.41|
84646034|NCT02197234|169027533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.16|108.41|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||108.41|77.16|
84646035|NCT04445792|169027630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7195
84646036|NCT04445792|169027630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8054
84646037|NCT04445792|169027630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
84646038|NCT04445792|169027631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4385
84646039|NCT04445792|169027631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7185
84646040|NCT04445792|169027631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
84646041|NCT04445792|169027632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9222
84646042|NCT04445792|169027632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1918
84646043|NCT04445792|169027632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0119
84646044|NCT04445792|169027633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6971
84646045|NCT04445792|169027633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
84646046|NCT04445792|169027633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0441
84646047|NCT04445792|169027634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7988|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7988
84646048|NCT04445792|169027634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0483
84646049|NCT04445792|169027634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0104
84646050|NCT04445792|169027635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
84646051|NCT04445792|169027635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2348
84646052|NCT04445792|169027635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0517
84646053|NCT04445792|169027636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6835
84646054|NCT04445792|169027636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0205
84646055|NCT04445792|169027636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0036
84646056|NCT04445792|169027637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5878
84646057|NCT04445792|169027637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1051
84646058|NCT04445792|169027637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0292
84646059|NCT04445792|169027638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84646060|NCT04445792|169027638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5973
84646061|NCT04445792|169027638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
84646062|NCT00562627|169027661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84646063|NCT00562627|169027662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84646064|NCT00562627|169027663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84646065|NCT05128929|169027693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||"Null: There is no significant difference in the mean primary endpoint (PVR) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.~The following analysis utilizes PVR determined by TD."||2.79|-1.47|0.541
84646066|NCT05128929|169027695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (mPAP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.27|-4.34|0.599
84646067|NCT05128929|169027696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|115.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (6MWT distance) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||115.95|-21.43|0.166
84646068|NCT05128929|169027697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (emPHasis-10 score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.98|-8.22|0.975
84646069|NCT05128929|169027698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (SGRQ Score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||1.4|-19.40|0.086
84646070|NCT05128929|169027699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.92||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|193.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (serum HA) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||193.46|-45.61|0.215
84646071|NCT05128929|169027700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.47||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.26|840.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (NT-proBNP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||840.20|-377.26|0.442
84646072|NCT02604017|169027721|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 91% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 12-week arm, 270 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 12-week arm to the historical control rate for HCV GT1 subjects who are treatment-naïve or treated with pegIFN/RBV (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|99.1|
84646073|NCT02604017|169027722|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 (8-week group minus 12-week group) must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an -5% noninferiority margin and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||1.1|-1.1|
84646074|NCT02604017|169027723|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and a -5% noninferiority margin, and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||0.6|-1.8|
84505330|NCT01772368|168761315|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.196||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.196|0.151|
84505331|NCT01772368|168761316|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|3.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.149|4.168||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||4.168|3.149|
84646075|NCT01634178|169027732|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric least squares (LS) mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|106.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||106.6|90.7|
84646076|NCT01634178|169027734|OTHER||Median Difference|0.75||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Fed - Fasted) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.25|0.25|0.0077
84646077|NCT01634178|169027735|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% CI of the geometric LS mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|112.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|115.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||115.6|109.3|
84646078|NCT01634178|169027736|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|112.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.9|115.1|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an ANOVA with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||115.1|108.9|
84646079|NCT02524977|169027754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84505332|NCT01772368|168761316|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.534|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|1.763||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||1.763|1.335|
84646080|NCT01112683|169027760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||20 subjects per group were expected to provide 60% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 correct patterns (change from baseline to week 16) on the Paired Associates Learning and to provide 40% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 patterns recognized on the Pattern Recognition Memory. A two-sided test at type I error rate of 5% was used. Sample size incorporated an inflation factor of 20% to account for ineligibility of 10% of randomized participants.||||0.403
84646081|NCT01112683|169027761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|ONE_SIDED|90.0||||This P-Value refers to the SIB-R Broad independence score.|Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||No power calculations were performed for the secondary measures.||||0.371
84646082|NCT01255787|169027806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|2.035||Adjustment for multiplicity for the comparisons was based on the Dunnett-Hsu procedure.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance.||2.035|-3.258|0.9070
84646083|NCT01255787|169027806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.938|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.938|-4.310|0.3006
84646084|NCT01255787|169027806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.436|0.794|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.794|-4.436|0.2399
84646085|NCT03160859|169027842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square||||0.62
84646086|NCT00773838|169027856|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Exact Test for Binomial Parameter|||||||0.419
84646087|NCT02502006|169027864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84646088|NCT02502006|169027865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84646089|NCT02502006|169027866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84646090|NCT02502006|169027867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2217
84646091|NCT02502006|169027868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.77
84646092|NCT02502006|169027868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.18
84646093|NCT02502006|169027869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.57
84646094|NCT02502006|169027869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.07
84646095|NCT02502006|169027870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.88
84646096|NCT02502006|169027870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84646097|NCT00509262|169027871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus glipizide) to be less than 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate, or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|||0.06|-0.29|
84646098|NCT00509262|169027872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-4.8|||Miettirnen& Nurminen method||Miettirnen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe) \& prior diabetes pharmacotherapy|||-4.8|-17.1|0.001
84646099|NCT00509262|169027873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|16.1|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose.|||16.1|-1.9|
84646100|NCT00509262|169027874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms of treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline body weight.|||-1.0|-2.6|<0.001
84646101|NCT02398227|169027898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.968
84646102|NCT02398227|169027899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.560
84646103|NCT02674854|169027924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
84646104|NCT02674854|169027924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
84646105|NCT03149848|169027925|OTHER||Ratio|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.743|0.831||||||||0.831|0.743|
84646106|NCT03149848|169027926|OTHER||Ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|0.895||||||||0.895|0.761|
84646107|NCT03149848|169027927|OTHER||Ratio|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.776||||||||0.776|0.702|
84646108|NCT03149848|169027930|OTHER||Ratio|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.204|1.345||||||||1.345|1.204|
84646109|NCT00400153|169027948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liter|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.7135||95.0|-0.0222|0.0152|||ANCOVA|||||0.0152|-0.0222|0.7135
84646110|NCT00400153|169027949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.028|0.066|||ANCOVA|||||0.066|0.028|< 0.0001
84646111|NCT00400153|169027950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1389||95.0|-0.039|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.039|0.1389
84646112|NCT00400153|169027951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.124||95.0|-0.036|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.036|0.124
84646113|NCT00400153|169027952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4888||95.0|-0.026|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.026|0.4888
84646114|NCT00400153|169027953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.1433||95.0|-0.033|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.033|0.1433
84646115|NCT00400153|169027954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.083|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.083|0.04|< 0.0001
84646116|NCT00400153|169027955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.024|0.065|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.065|0.024|< 0.0001
84646117|NCT00400153|169027956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.027|0.067|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.067|0.027|< 0.0001
84646118|NCT00400153|169027957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0258||95.0|0.003|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|0.003|0.0258
84646119|NCT00400153|169027958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3749||95.0|-0.032|0.012|||ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.032|0.3749
84646120|NCT00400153|169027959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3355||95.0|-0.033|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.033|0.3355
84646121|NCT00400153|169027960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0743||95.0|-0.042|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.042|0.0743
84646122|NCT00400153|169027961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5711||95.0|-0.015|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.015|0.5711
84646123|NCT00400153|169027962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.2274||95.0|-0.033|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.033|0.2274
84646124|NCT00400153|169027963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8065||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.018|0.8065
84646125|NCT00400153|169027964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.043|< 0.0001
84646126|NCT00400153|169027965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.044|< 0.0001
84646127|NCT00400153|169027966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.081|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.081|0.04|< 0.0001
84646128|NCT00400153|169027967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.089|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.089|0.047|< 0.0001
84646129|NCT00400153|169027980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.417||95.0|-0.058|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.058|0.417
84646130|NCT00400153|169027981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3505||95.0|-0.059|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.059|0.3505
84646131|NCT00400153|169027982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3499||95.0|-0.058|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.058|0.3499
84677502|NCT00701389|169090135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model|||sumatriptan placebo/600 mg telcagepant minus sumatriptan placebo/telcagepant placebo||2.7|-0.2|
84677503|NCT04808609|169090153|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.76|||Fisher Exact|||||6.76|0.24|0.77
84505333|NCT01772368|168761316|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.694|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.911|0.694|
84505334|NCT01772368|168761316|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.295|0.39||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.390|0.295|
84505335|NCT02449291|168761319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.016) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
84646132|NCT00400153|169027983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.8288||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.044|0.8288
84646133|NCT00400153|169027984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.154|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.154|0.069|< 0.0001
84646134|NCT00400153|169027985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.132|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.132|0.049|< 0.0001
84646135|NCT00400153|169027986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.138|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.138|0.056|< 0.0001
84646136|NCT00400153|169027987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.135|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.135|0.054|< 0.0001
84646137|NCT00400153|169027988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0688||95.0|-0.003|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.003|0.0688
84646138|NCT00400153|169027989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.3895||95.0|-0.064|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.064|0.3895
84677504|NCT04808609|169090154|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.78|||Chi-squared|||||3.78|0.43|0.66
84677505|NCT04808609|169090155|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.86|-0.44|0.59
84677506|NCT04808609|169090155|OTHER|feasibility|Cohen's D|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||Results from Paired T-Test assessing the with-subject time effect on exhaled CO in ppm from baseline to 12 weeks||0.74|0.07|0.02
84511904|NCT02087904|168775430|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
84646139|NCT00400153|169027990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.959||95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.045|0.959
84646140|NCT00400153|169027991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7652||95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.053|0.7652
84646141|NCT00400153|169027992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.6244||95.0|-0.057|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.057|0.6244
84646142|NCT00400153|169027993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.873||95.0|-0.041|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.041|0.873
84646143|NCT00400153|169027994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.5294||95.0|-0.06|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.06|0.5294
84646144|NCT00400153|169027995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.563||95.0|-0.032|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.032|0.563
84646145|NCT00400153|169027996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.167|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.167|0.075|< 0.0001
84646146|NCT00400153|169027997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.174|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.174|0.084|< 0.0001
84646147|NCT00400153|169027998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.163|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.163|0.072|< 0.0001
84677507|NCT04808609|169090156|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-0.46|0.61
84677508|NCT04808609|169090157|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.42|0.55
84646148|NCT00400153|169027999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.171|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.171|0.081|< 0.0001
84646149|NCT00400153|169028004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06396||0.9943||95.0|-0.1259|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.1259|0.9943
84646150|NCT00400153|169028004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06441||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1463|0.1064|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1064|-0.1463|0.7569
84646151|NCT00400153|169028005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206||0.3659||95.0|-0.1276|0.3458|||ANCOVA|||||0.3458|-0.1276|0.3659
84646152|NCT00400153|169028005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3947|0.08395|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.08395|-0.3947|0.203
84646153|NCT00400153|169028006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03199||0.809||95.0|-0.05503|0.0705|||ANCOVA|||||0.0705|-0.05503|0.809
84646154|NCT00400153|169028006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03225||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001746|0.1283|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1283|0.001746|0.044
84646155|NCT00400153|169028007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03002||0.6674||95.0|-0.04598|0.07179|||ANCOVA|||||0.07179|-0.04598|0.6674
84646156|NCT00400153|169028007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03033||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04376|0.07523|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.07523|-0.04376|0.604
84646157|NCT00400153|169028008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0653||0.4238||95.0|-2.3995|5.7047|||ANCOVA|||||5.7047|-2.3995|0.4238
84646158|NCT00400153|169028008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0874||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6578|6.533|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||6.533|-1.6578|0.2431
84677509|NCT04808609|169090158|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|-0.61|0.99
84677510|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-5.1|-12.1|
84677511|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-10.8||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-10.8|-20.1|
84511905|NCT02087904|168775431|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.8||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-11.9|0.744
84646159|NCT00400153|169028009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.173||95.0|-0.034|0.187|||ANCOVA|||||0.187|-0.034|0.173
84646160|NCT00400153|169028009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.056|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.056|-0.165|0.336
84646161|NCT00400153|169028010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.924||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.115|0.924
84646162|NCT00400153|169028010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.053|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.053|-0.19|0.266
84646163|NCT00400153|169028011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.139||95.0|-0.031|0.225|||ANCOVA|||||0.225|-0.031|0.139
84646164|NCT00400153|169028011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.146|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.146|-0.111|0.788
84646165|NCT00400153|169028016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646166|NCT00400153|169028017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
84646167|NCT00400153|169028018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
84646168|NCT00400153|169028019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
84646169|NCT00400153|169028020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646170|NCT00400153|169028021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646171|NCT00400153|169028022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646172|NCT00400153|169028023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84677512|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.9|-12.0|
84677513|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.8|-7.8|
84677514|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.2|-4.6|
84677515|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.2||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-1.2|-7.0|
84646173|NCT00400153|169028024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646174|NCT00400153|169028025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
84646175|NCT02581943|169028058|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.366
84646176|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for CD4+FoxP3||||||0.327
84646177|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for MDSC||||||0.142
84677516|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.7|-2.7|
84677517|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.6||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.6|-11.3|
84713723|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.53||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.51|42.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||42.66|-170.51|0.3755
84713724|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.39|-16.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.87|-58.39|0.0268
84646178|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.462||||||test for CD4+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
84646179|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.87||||||test for CD8+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
84646180|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.414||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
84646181|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.121||||||test for Monocytes|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
84646182|NCT02581943|169028059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.624||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.624
84646183|NCT02581943|169028060|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
84646184|NCT02581943|169028061|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
84646185|NCT02581943|169028062|OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.692
84646186|NCT02581943|169028063|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
84646187|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test for CD8+ICOS||||||0.917
84646188|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for MDSC||||||0.746
84646189|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.302||||||test for CD4+ICOS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.302
84646190|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for CD8+ICOS+||||||0.130
84646191|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.628||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.628
84646192|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||test for Monocytes|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.567
84646193|NCT02581943|169028064|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.311
84646194|NCT00829985|169028071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 1.12) vs. the extract group (numerator = 2.16).|||2.45|1.51|<0.0001
84646195|NCT00829985|169028072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.13||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 0.93) vs. the extract group (numerator = 1.06).|||1.32|0.98|0.088
84646196|NCT00829985|169028073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.7) minus change in the placebo group (0.7).|||12.99|-4.89|0.37
84646197|NCT00829985|169028074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|5.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.0) minus change in the placebo group (-1.3).|||11.51|-0.77|0.09
84646198|NCT04473482|169028079|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals|||
84646199|NCT04473482|169028080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||GEEs with robust sandwich estimators and Wald 95% CIs with conversion to Odds Ratios|||||
84646200|NCT01076075|169028100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
84646201|NCT01076075|169028101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, difference in the Least Squares Means.||-21.7|-45.3|<0.001
84646202|NCT01076075|169028102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-10.7|-26.4|<0.001
84646203|NCT05038904|169028118|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 10 subjects allowed for 80% power to detect a 3-fold increase (1.1 natural log units; i.e. 1 food dose escalation) in the threshold food dose using a paired t test with p\<0.05. For this sample size determination, the primary endpoint was assumed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of 1.1 natural log units.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84646204|NCT05038904|169028119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
84646205|NCT05038904|169028120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84646206|NCT05038904|169028121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants' ex vivo basophil activation during acalabrutinib treatment was compared to their own baseline level.||||0.002
84646207|NCT00472459|169028178|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.514||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.911|||t-test, 2 sided||The 95 % confidence intervals for the lesion complete response rates and lesion recurrence rates were estimated using the method of Clopper and Pearson.|||0.911|0.116|0.0120
84646208|NCT00472459|169028179|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.413||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.016|-0.190|0.1761
84646209|NCT00472459|169028180|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|1.357|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.357|-0.156|0.1183
84646210|NCT00472459|169028181|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|1.309|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.309|-0.323|0.2322
84646211|NCT00472459|169028182|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.562|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.562|-0.202|0.1286
84646212|NCT02186301|169028222|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|274.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated||||||||109|
84646213|NCT02186301|169028222|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|207.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|260.0||||||||260.0|112.0|
84646214|NCT02186301|169028222|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|390.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|499.0||||||||499.0|282.0|
84646215|NCT02186301|169028223|OTHER||Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|49.1||||||||49.1|8.7|
84646216|NCT02186301|169028223|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|59.4||||||||59.4|22.7|
84646217|NCT02186301|169028223|OTHER||Percentage|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|88.5||||||||88.5|64.0|
84646218|NCT02186301|169028224|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|225.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated.||||||||113|
84646219|NCT02186301|169028224|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|195.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.0|617.0||||||||617.0|143.0|
84646220|NCT02186301|169028224|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|335.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|480.0||||||||480.0|282.0|
84646221|NCT00095238|169028228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||Comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 6 (first 2 columns)||1.3|-0.8|
84646222|NCT00095238|169028228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 14 (columns 3 and 4)||1.7|-0.5|
84646223|NCT03505671|169028245|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
84646224|NCT03505671|169028245|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (overall, N=20)|||||
84646225|NCT03505671|169028245|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (intervention, N=9)|||||
84646226|NCT03505671|169028245|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (Usual Care, N=11)|||||
84511906|NCT02087904|168775431|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.7||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|-10.1|0.581
84646227|NCT03505671|169028246|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P value for the motor subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
84646228|NCT03505671|169028246|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P value for autonomic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84646229|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
84646230|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84646231|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Week 12 p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
84646232|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||P value for Week 12 numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84646233|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84646234|NCT03505671|169028247|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling interference|Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84646235|NCT03505671|169028248|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84713725|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.79||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-151.2|-7.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-7.75|-151.20|0.1672
84646236|NCT03505671|169028248|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for 12 weeks numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84646237|NCT03505671|169028248|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for week 12 - baseline change in numbness or tingling severity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84646238|NCT03505671|169028249|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84646239|NCT03505671|169028250|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84646240|NCT03505671|169028251|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for cross sectional area sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
84646241|NCT03505671|169028251|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for cross sectional area for median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
84646242|NCT03505671|169028252|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for amplitude - sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
84646243|NCT03505671|169028252|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P value for amplitude - tibial, ankle|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
84646244|NCT03505671|169028252|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P value for amplitude tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84646245|NCT03505671|169028252|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P value for amplitude median, wrist|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
84646246|NCT03505671|169028252|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for amplitude, median, elbow|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
84646247|NCT03505671|169028253|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for latency sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
84646248|NCT03505671|169028253|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P value for latency tibial, ankle data|ANCOVA|||||||0.76
84646249|NCT03505671|169028253|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P value for latency tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.24
84646250|NCT03505671|169028253|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for latency median wrist data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
84646251|NCT03505671|169028253|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||P value for latency median elbow data|ANCOVA|||||||0.51
84713726|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.81||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.09|104.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.55|-17.09|0.3518
84713727|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.22||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.52|24.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||24.09|-161.52|0.2974
84505336|NCT02449291|168761319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.015) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
84646252|NCT03505671|169028254|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value for velocity sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.98
84646253|NCT03505671|169028254|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P value for velocity tibial data|ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84646254|NCT03505671|169028254|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for velocity median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
84646255|NCT02038829|169028259|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0569||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0569|-0.0318|0.9730
84646256|NCT02038829|169028259|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.1264||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1264|0.0380|0.0014
84646257|NCT02038829|169028259|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1532||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1532|0.0644|<0.0001
84646258|NCT02038829|169028259|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0931|0.1818||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation||0.1818|0.0931|<0.0001
84677518|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.6|-3.1|
84677519|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.9|-3.1|
84713728|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.83|-13.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.33|-62.83|0.0555
84713729|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-78.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.72||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-171.17|14.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||14.62|-171.17|0.2614
84713730|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.89||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.62|81.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||81.98|-18.62|0.4134
84505337|NCT02449291|168761320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84505338|NCT02449291|168761320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84646259|NCT02038829|169028259|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2012||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2012|0.1121|<0.0001
84646260|NCT02038829|169028260|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0163|0.0888|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0888|0.0163|0.0046
84646261|NCT02038829|169028260|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0478|0.1206|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1206|0.0478|<0.0001
84646262|NCT02038829|169028260|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.1621|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1621|0.0890|<0.0001
84646263|NCT02038829|169028260|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1601|0.2325|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2325|0.1601|<0.0001
84646264|NCT02038829|169028260|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1537|0.2268|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2268|0.1537|<0.0001
84646265|NCT00749580|169028263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
84646266|NCT05803603|169028299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||McNemar|||We recruited 8 homeless individuals and followed them for 12 months. 4 individuals (50%) were housed at 6 months and 3 (37.5) were housed at 12 months.|See results above|10.92|.37|.125
84646267|NCT06460493|169028303|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 12, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|100.0|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||100.0|38.0|
84646268|NCT06460493|169028304|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 6, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|89.5|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||89.5|22.0|
84646269|NCT05007717|169028336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever missing a visit during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.20|0.89|0.631
84646270|NCT05007717|169028337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever being virally unsuppressed during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.16|0.54|0.237
84646271|NCT05007717|169028338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for always having \>80% coverage during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.02|0.94|0.386
84677520|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.5|-2.6|
84677521|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||2.0|-1.5|
84646272|NCT05007717|169028339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.41|0.71|0.991
84646273|NCT05007717|169028340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given fast track visits during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.46|1.01|0.037
84677522|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-3.9||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-3.9|-11.4|
84677523|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||14.0|8.6|
84677524|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.3|-6.9|
84677525|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|7.1||||||95.0|4.2|10.2||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||10.2|4.2|
84677526|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.0||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-14.0|-22.1|
84677527|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.4||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.4|10.2|
84677528|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|15.5||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.5|10.3|
84677529|NCT04382326|169090196|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||4.5|-2.2|
84677530|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.63|
84677531|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.73|0.61|
84677532|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.7|0.86||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.70|
84677533|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
84505339|NCT02449291|168761321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
84646274|NCT05007717|169028341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given long intervals during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.12|0.97|0.276
84646275|NCT03553836|169028342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|||0.82|0.45|0.00046
84646276|NCT03553836|169028345|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||||7.3|1.0|
84646277|NCT03553836|169028346|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.9||||||||16.9|9.1|
84646278|NCT04626310|169028359|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.8
84646279|NCT04626310|169028359|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.544
84646280|NCT04626310|169028359|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.442
84677534|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.85|0.70|
84677535|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.79|0.62|
84677536|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.82||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.70|
84677537|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.73|0.88||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.88|0.73|
84646281|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.09
84646282|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
84646283|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|1.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
84646284|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
84646285|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
84646286|NCT04626310|169028360|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
84646287|NCT04626310|169028361|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.475
84646288|NCT04626310|169028361|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.654
84646289|NCT04626310|169028361|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.791
84646290|NCT04626310|169028362|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.001
84646291|NCT04626310|169028362|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.078
84646292|NCT04626310|169028362|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.080
84646293|NCT04626310|169028363|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff DBT-ER-IP|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.13
84646294|NCT04626310|169028363|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.046
84646295|NCT04626310|169028363|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.617
84677538|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.00|0.81|
84677539|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
84646296|NCT04626310|169028364|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.005
84646297|NCT04626310|169028364|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.281
84646298|NCT04626310|169028364|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.066
84677540|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.94|0.77|
84677541|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.96|0.78|
84646299|NCT04626310|169028365|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.108
84646300|NCT04626310|169028365|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.014
84646301|NCT04626310|169028365|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.001
84646302|NCT04626310|169028366|OTHER||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.211
84646303|NCT04626310|169028366|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.148|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.148
84646304|NCT04626310|169028366|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.857|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.857
84677542|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.57|
84505340|NCT02449291|168761321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.552
84646305|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-ER-IP|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.693
84646306|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-IE-IP|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.998
84677543|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.06||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.06|1.71|
84505341|NCT02449291|168761322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.003
84505342|NCT02449291|168761322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
84505343|NCT02449291|168761323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.209
84505344|NCT02449291|168761323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.440
84677544|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.94||||||95.0|2.64|3.26||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||3.26|2.64|
84677545|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.84|1.51|
84677546|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.97|0.79|
84677547|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.95||||||95.0|5.39|6.55||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||6.55|5.39|
84677548|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.01||||||95.0|4.54|5.52||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.52|4.54|
84677549|NCT04382326|169090197|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.85||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.85|3.99|
84677550|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.4||||||Diphtheria: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-1.4|-7.5|
84677551|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||||||Tetanus: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.0|
84677552|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||Pertussis (PT): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.5|
84505345|NCT02449291|168761324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84677553|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-2.5|3.9||||||Pertussis (FHA): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-2.5|
84677554|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.7|2.2||||||Pertussis (PRN): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.2-Sided CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-4.7|
84677555|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|2.9||||||HBsAg: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-3.2|
84505346|NCT02449291|168761324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84505347|NCT02449291|168761325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.115
84505348|NCT02449291|168761325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.222
84677556|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.4|3.2||||||Poliovirus (Type 1): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-3.4|
84677557|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-2.4|4.6||||||Poliovirus (Type 2): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||4.6|-2.4|
84677558|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.1||||||Poliovirus (Type 3): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.2|
84646307|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DSS DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.680
84646308|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.333
84646309|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.632
84646310|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to DBT-ER.||||.178
84646311|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-IP|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to IP.||||.689
84646312|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-IE-IP|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-IE to IP.||||.917
84646313|NCT04626310|169028367|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.603
84646314|NCT04626310|169028368|SUPERIORITY||Other[Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-IP]|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.762
84677559|NCT04382326|169090198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Hib (≥0.15 μg/mL): 2-Sided CI were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.0|
84677560|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.59|
84646315|NCT04626310|169028368|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.478
84646316|NCT04626310|169028368|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.705
84646317|NCT04626310|169028369|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
84505349|NCT02449291|168761326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
84505350|NCT02449291|168761326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.505
84713731|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.99||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-154.44|15.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||15.24|-154.44|0.2620
84646318|NCT04626310|169028369|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
84646319|NCT04626310|169028369|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
84505351|NCT02449291|168761327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
84505352|NCT02449291|168761327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
84713732|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.46|-18.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-18.02|-62.46|0.0269
84713733|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-81.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.32||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.46|-7.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.02|-155.46|0.1709
84713734|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.61|60.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||60.22|25.61|0.0042
84713735|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.22||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.19|35.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||35.88|-142.19|0.3772
84713736|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.06|-7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.63|-49.06|0.0857
84713737|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.34||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.48|-34.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-34.20|-120.48|0.0607
84505353|NCT02449291|168761328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84505354|NCT02449291|168761328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84505355|NCT02363010|168761329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 12 month weight losses.||||.68
84713738|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|88.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.79||0.4862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.57|255.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||255.22|-77.57|0.4862
84713739|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.73||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.96|40.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.58|-146.96|0.3968
84713740|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.31|-2.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-2.11|-46.31|0.1624
84713741|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.58|-14.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-14.93|-138.58|0.1349
84713742|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.81||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.38|74.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||74.56|16.38|0.0525
84713743|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.98||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-172.71|19.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||19.55|-172.71|0.2719
84713744|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.86|-7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-7.49|-53.86|0.0957
84713745|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.98||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.83|-25.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-25.78|-133.83|0.0942
84713746|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.6||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.16|66.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||66.09|3.16|0.1606
84713747|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.2||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.58|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.58|-156.58|0.2096
84713748|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.32||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.74|-4.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-4.89|-53.74|0.1279
84713749|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.96|-37.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-37.08|-112.96|0.0479
84713750|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.28|63.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||63.37|2.28|0.1700
84646320|NCT04626310|169028370|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to IP.||||.313
84646321|NCT04626310|169028370|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-IE to IP.||||.747
84646322|NCT04626310|169028370|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.444
84646323|NCT01850602|169028371|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-Inferiority margin: 1.0 mg/dL~Non-Inferiority was considerd to be confirmed if the upper limit of two-sided confidence interval became 1.0 mg/dL or less."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.63|0.020
84646324|NCT01315236|169028378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Conducted in the mITT population using a stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test, to compare the treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, adjusting for the randomization strata (presence/absence of CF and MAC versus Mycobacterium abscessus).|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"The primary efficacy analysis tested the following hypotheses:~* H0: There is no difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~* Ha: There is a difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~Statistical analysis applies to all day 84 rows."||||0.072
84646325|NCT01315236|169028379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||||0.003
84646326|NCT01315236|169028380|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.68||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|25.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazard model||25.79|1.25|0.0129
84646327|NCT01315236|169028381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Ordinal Logistic Regressions Model||||0.077
84646328|NCT01315236|169028382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified Wilcoxon-rank sum||||0.4545
84646329|NCT01315236|169028384|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.69||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.64|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||5.64|1.28|0.0076
84677561|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.64|
84713751|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.67||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.03|-24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-24.15|-136.03|0.1142
84713752|NCT03858634|169173783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.82||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.8|9.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.71|-45.80|0.3980
84713753|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.17|14.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||14.86|-41.17|0.4979
84646330|NCT00740051|169028410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.86|-0.29||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-0.29|-0.86|<0.0001
84646331|NCT00740051|169028411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.88|-0.32||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo. The primary analysis performed at the interim was re-run at the end of the study to accommodate changes made to the final study database.||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
84646332|NCT00740051|169028412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0002||95.0|-31.1|-9.9||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-9.9|-31.1|0.0002
84646333|NCT00740051|169028413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.576||||0.0374||95.0|1.057|6.279||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||6.279|1.057|0.0374
84646334|NCT00740051|169028414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.285||||0.1281||95.0|0.71|15.196||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||15.196|0.710|0.1281
84646335|NCT00740051|169028415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.801||||0.0046||95.0|1.374|5.711||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||5.711|1.374|0.0046
84646336|NCT02011893|169028418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 7.5 points, where the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were measured on a scale of 0 to 100. Testing was carried out at a 5% significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for non-inferiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||<0.001
84646337|NCT02011893|169028419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||||||Superiority analysis performed|McNemar|||||||0.083
84646338|NCT02011893|169028421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Superiority analysis performed|t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for superiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||0.017
84713754|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.88||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.63|38.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.83|4.63|0.1079
84713755|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.7||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-114.19|43.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||43.07|-114.19|0.4837
84505356|NCT02363010|168761329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||A prior threshold for significance was p\<.05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 18 month weight losses.||||.11
84505357|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month moderator to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||.41
84677562|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.63|0.78||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.78|0.63|
84646339|NCT00930982|169028422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674|<|0.001||||||p-value should be \< 0.023 (one-sided) for a significant result as an interim analysis was performed. Results based on the no-interaction model which was defined as primary analysis.|ANCOVA|Baseline cfu was covariate, treatment and pooled centers factors. As the p-value for interaction was 0.214, the no-interaction model is appropriate.|Least square mean Ciprofloxacin minus placebo|"Ho: CFU(EOT\|Cipro) - CFU(baseline\|Cipro) \> CFU(EOT\|Placebo) - CFU(baseline\|Placebo) CFU = colony forming units EOT=End of treatment (Day 29) Sample size was based a difference of 1.2 log10 CFU/g between placebo and Ciprofloxacin and a standard deviation of 2 log10 CFU/g"||||< 0.001
84646340|NCT00518973|169028438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||t = 2.8|t-test, 2 sided|Hours occupied by preoccupations.||||||.15
84505358|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.46
84646341|NCT00518973|169028438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .56|t-test, 2 sided|Hours of rituals||||||.40
84646342|NCT00518973|169028439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||t = .13|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
84646343|NCT00518973|169028440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||t = .52|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for Trait||||||.48
84646344|NCT00518973|169028440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||t = .09|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for State||||||.77
84646345|NCT00518973|169028441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||t = .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.83
84646346|NCT00518973|169028442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .78|t-test, 2 sided|Positive Scale||||||.40
84646347|NCT00518973|169028442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||t=3.0|t-test, 2 sided|Negative Scale||||||.11
84646348|NCT00518973|169028442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||t = .02|t-test, 2 sided|General Scale||||||.90
84646349|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0081||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0081
84646350|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0243||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0243
84646351|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.071||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0710
84646352|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0008||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0008
84646353|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1094||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.1094
84646354|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2029||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.2029
84646355|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8599||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.8599
84646356|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0007||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.0007
84646357|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0246||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0246
84646358|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.078||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0780
84646359|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0167||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0167
84646360|NCT03239665|169028452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.9417||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.9417
84646361|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0011||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0011
84505359|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.82
84505360|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.42
84677563|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.77|0.61|
84677564|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.65|0.81||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.65|
84677565|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.70|0.51|
84677566|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.69|0.81||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.69|
84677567|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.80|0.65|
84677568|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.71|0.89||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.89|0.71|
84677569|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.7|0.84||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.84|0.70|
84677570|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.72|
84505361|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.28
84505362|NCT02363010|168761330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.82
84646362|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
84646363|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0028||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0028
84646364|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||<0.0001
84646365|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||1||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||1.0
84646366|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.643||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.6430
84646367|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1193||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1193
84646368|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
84646369|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4861||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.4861
84646370|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0002||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0002
84677571|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.73|0.86||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.73|
84646371|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3247||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3247
84646372|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4627||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.4627
84646373|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1244||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1244
84646374|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0575||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0575
84646375|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7489||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.7489
84646376|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0098||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0098
84646377|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1797||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1797
84646378|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3613||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3613
84646379|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.5972||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.5972
84646380|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.024||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0240
84646381|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2437||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.2437
84646382|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0631||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0631
84646383|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.054||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.0540
84646384|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7298||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7298
84646385|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4218||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.4218
84677572|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.75||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.75|0.58|
84713756|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|-4.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-4.98|-15.99|0.0208
84713757|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.54||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.74|22.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||22.38|-54.74|0.5413
84505363|NCT02363010|168761331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 12 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.06
84713758|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.28|33.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||33.74|1.28|0.1683
84505364|NCT02363010|168761331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 18 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.30
84505365|NCT02363010|168761332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 12 month waist circumference.||||.59
84505366|NCT02363010|168761332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 18 month waist circumference.||||.57
84646386|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2282||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.2282
84646387|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8711||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.8711
84646388|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0027||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0027
84646389|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7579||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7579
84646390|NCT03239665|169028453|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1299||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1299
84677573|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||||95.0|1.81|2.16||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.16|1.81|
84677574|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.32||||||95.0|1.18|1.49||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.49|1.18|
84677575|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||||95.0|1.39|1.67||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.67|1.39|
84677576|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.54|0.67||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.67|0.54|
84677577|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|5.3||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.30|4.39|
84677578|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.06||||||95.0|3.68|4.48||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.48|3.68|
84677579|NCT04382326|169090199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.64||||||95.0|1.46|1.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.83|1.46|
84646391|NCT03239665|169028455|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
84646392|NCT03239665|169028455|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6806||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.6806
84646393|NCT03239665|169028455|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
84646394|NCT03239665|169028455|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4908||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.4908
84646395|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7728|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.7728
84646396|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6871|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6871
84646397|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8259|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8259
84646398|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8868|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.8868
84646399|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8069|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8069
84677580|NCT04382326|169090207|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.29||||||95.0|1.05|1.58||||||Measles: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.58|1.05|
84505367|NCT02363010|168761333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
84646400|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8489|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8489
84677581|NCT04382326|169090208|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38||||||Mumps: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.38|0.85|
84677582|NCT04382326|169090209|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||||||Rubella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.48|1.02|
84677583|NCT04382326|169090210|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||||||Varicella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution)||1.17|0.84|
84511907|NCT02087904|168775431|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-3.5|0.146
84646401|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3985|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3985
84677584|NCT02710630|169090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|119.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.838|139.834|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||139.834|101.838|
84677585|NCT02710630|169090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|52.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|168.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.341|84.158|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||84.158|33.341|
84646402|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1722|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1722
84646403|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7318|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7318
84646404|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6309|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6309
84646405|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7881|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7881
84646406|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6798|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6798
84646407|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8548|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8548
84646408|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3182|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.3182
84677586|NCT02710630|169090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|59.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.255|76.955|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.955|45.255|
84677587|NCT02710630|169090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.698|133.53|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.530|87.698|
84646409|NCT03239665|169028456|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7986|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7986
84677588|NCT02710630|169090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.939|129.297|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.297|93.939|
84677589|NCT02710630|169090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.569|140.579|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||140.579|99.569|
84677590|NCT02710630|169090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|57.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|132.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.502|85.837|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||85.837|38.502|
84646410|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0163|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0163
84646411|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.0028
84646412|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0433|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0433
84677591|NCT02710630|169090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|61.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.13|79.72|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||79.720|48.130|
84677592|NCT02710630|169090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.704|133.629|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.629|87.704|
84677593|NCT02710630|169090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.238|127.281|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.281|91.238|
84677594|NCT02710630|169090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.627|137.621|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.621|101.627|
84646413|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0592|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0592
84646414|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1843|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1843
84646415|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.5933
84646416|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3942|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3942
84646417|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9062|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.9062
84646418|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9618|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.9618
84646419|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.1140
84646420|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0141|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0141
84646421|NCT03239665|169028457|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0457
84677595|NCT02710630|169090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|87.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.404|109.722|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||109.722|69.404|
84677596|NCT02710630|169090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|71.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.828|86.648|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||86.648|58.828|
84677597|NCT02710630|169090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|116.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.516|135.41|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.410|100.516|
84677598|NCT02710630|169090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|109.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.452|127.75|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.750|94.452|
84677599|NCT02710630|169090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|135.491|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.491|98.783|
84646422|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6153|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.6153
84646423|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8299|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8299
84646424|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0405|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0405
84646425|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3776|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3776
84646426|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.2856|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.2856
84646427|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0016
84646428|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9449|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.9449
84505368|NCT02363010|168761333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.998
84646429|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6143|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6143
84646430|NCT03239665|169028458|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0036
84646431|NCT03239665|169028459|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||<0.0001
84646432|NCT03239665|169028459|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0012
84677600|NCT02710630|169090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|50.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.519|80.689|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||80.689|31.519|
84677601|NCT02710630|169090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|56.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.388|74.122|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||74.122|43.388|
84677602|NCT02710630|169090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.554|130.732|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||130.732|87.554|
84677603|NCT02710630|169090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.399|125.432|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||125.432|91.399|
84677604|NCT02710630|169090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|137.644|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.644|96.740|
84677605|NCT02710630|169090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|54.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|138.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.818|81.774|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||81.774|35.818|
84677606|NCT02710630|169090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|58.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|71.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.489|76.431|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.431|45.489|
84677607|NCT02710630|169090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.846|131.836|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||131.836|85.846|
84677608|NCT02710630|169090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|103.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|122.628|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||122.628|87.740|
84646433|NCT03239665|169028459|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0034
84677609|NCT02710630|169090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.063|134.13|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||134.130|99.063|
84677610|NCT02710630|169090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|83.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.033|106.163|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||106.163|66.033|
84677611|NCT02710630|169090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|68.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.452|83.782|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||83.782|56.452|
84646434|NCT03170232|169028477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.7||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.6|266.2|||Repeated measures random coefficient|||||266.2|-400.6|0.679
84646435|NCT00718237|169028521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|94.1||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||94.1|47.4|<0.001
84646436|NCT00718237|169028522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|90.6||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||90.6|39.9|<0.001
84646437|NCT00718237|169028523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|100.0||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||100.0|55.4|<0.001
84646438|NCT02635646|169028527|OTHER|T test for mean comparisons between independent groups||||||0.844||||||Significant p value less than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
84646439|NCT02635646|169028528|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
84646440|NCT02635646|169028529|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84646441|NCT02635646|169028530|OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
84505369|NCT02363010|168761333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.878
84646442|NCT02635646|169028531|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84646443|NCT00971620|169028542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||4.00|-2.00|.70
84646444|NCT00971620|169028544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.06
84646445|NCT00971620|169028545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||WIlcoxon rank sum test|||||||.007
84677612|NCT02710630|169090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.616|129.51|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.510|88.616|
84646446|NCT00971620|169028546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.48
84646447|NCT00971620|169028547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.04
84677613|NCT02710630|169090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.625|124.114|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||124.114|91.625|
84677614|NCT02461589|169090217|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.30|<0.0001
84646448|NCT00971620|169028549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.07
84646449|NCT01423604|169028554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.061||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||1.061|0.506|0.0494
84646450|NCT01423604|169028554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.888||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Cox Regression Analysis of Overall Survival: C-reactive protein (CRP) \> 13 μg/ml; Statistical analysis plan (SAP) specified subgroup analysis||0.888|0.281|0.0081
84646451|NCT01423604|169028555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efron approximation of hazard ratio|0.75||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.094||Two-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.094|0.513|0.1340
84646452|NCT01423604|169028557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.0236
84646453|NCT03324581|169028559|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.81|||=|0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.92||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||5.92|-4.30|=0.7554
84646454|NCT03324581|169028559|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.61|||=|0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-1.6||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-1.60|-11.6|=0.0101
84646455|NCT03324581|169028559|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.42|||=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-2.50|-12.3|=0.0033
84646456|NCT04721067|169028585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values||||10.60|-15.14|0.607
84505370|NCT02363010|168761333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.602
84505371|NCT02363010|168761334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.487
84505372|NCT02363010|168761334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.262
84646457|NCT04721067|169028586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-10.74|0.766
84646458|NCT04721067|169028587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.54||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.05|555.14|||ANCOVA|||||555.14|-264.05|0.465
84646459|NCT04721067|169028588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|137.79||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.71|344.3|||ANCOVA|||||344.30|-68.71|0.178
84646460|NCT04721067|169028589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.58|0.548
84505373|NCT02363010|168761334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.851
84505374|NCT02363010|168761334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
84511908|NCT02087904|168775432|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.3||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|12.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-14.9|0.824
84646461|NCT04721067|169028590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.80|-3.14|0.579
84646462|NCT04721067|169028591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.74|||ANCOVA|||||3.74|-5.00|0.766
84646463|NCT04721067|169028592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|1.93|||ANCOVA|||||1.93|-4.39|0.42
84646464|NCT04721067|169028593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|-1.34|0.91
84646465|NCT04721067|169028594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.60|-4.03|0.73
84646466|NCT04721067|169028595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.30|0.42
84677615|NCT02461589|169090217|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.61|<0.0001
84646467|NCT04721067|169028596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-0.90|0.18
84646468|NCT04721067|169028597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-7.97|0.48
84646469|NCT04721067|169028598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.08|||ANCOVA|||||3.08|-0.24|0.08
84646470|NCT04721067|169028599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.52|||ANCOVA|||||14.52|-13.50|0.94
84646471|NCT04721067|169028602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.32|-0.45|0.32
84646472|NCT04721067|169028603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.75|0.61
84646473|NCT04721067|169028604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|-4.42|0.52
84646474|NCT04721067|169028605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.61
84646475|NCT04721067|169028606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|8.97|||ANCOVA|||||8.97|-1.61|0.16
84646476|NCT04721067|169028607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-0.13|0.13
84646477|NCT04721067|169028608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.41|||ANCOVA|||||7.41|0.35|0.03
84677616|NCT02461589|169090217|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-1.95|<0.0001
84646478|NCT04721067|169028609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|-11.07|0.41
84646479|NCT04721067|169028610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-0.83|0.17
84646480|NCT04721067|169028611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|16.55|||ANCOVA|||||16.55|-9.58|0.58
84646481|NCT04721067|169028612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-0.79|0.74
84646482|NCT04721067|169028613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|129.077||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|315.92|||ANCOVA|||||315.92|-57.78|0.17
84677617|NCT02461589|169090217|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.60|-2.12|<0.0001
84677618|NCT01038921|169090221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those subjects were on Melatonin was compared to the average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those same subjects were on Placebo using an intent-to-treat mixed model. Power was estimated based on having 30 subjects completing both the melatonin arm and the placebo arm.||||0.013
84677619|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.132|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.132
84677620|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.658|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.658
84677621|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.142
84677622|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.207
84677623|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.077|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.077
84646483|NCT04721067|169028614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|109.71||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.37|327.78|||ANCOVA|||||327.78|-108.37|0.31
84646484|NCT04721067|169028615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.00|-4.52|0.92
84646485|NCT04721067|169028616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|-6.28|0.66
84646486|NCT03070444|169028621|OTHER|GEE analysis|GEE analysis|0.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.51|||GEE analysis|||||1.51|0.48|0.0002
84677624|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.331|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.331
84677625|NCT02828111|169090265|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.117|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.117
84677626|NCT02828111|169090269|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.038
84646487|NCT03070444|169028622|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84646488|NCT01373489|169028623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84646489|NCT02582255|169028627|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
84646490|NCT02582255|169028628|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
84646491|NCT02582255|169028629|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
84646492|NCT02582255|169028630|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
84646493|NCT04854642|169028631|OTHER||Least square mean difference|71.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.13|75.29|||ANOVA|||||75.29|68.13|<0.0001
84646494|NCT04854642|169028632|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|96.93|||ANOVA|||||96.93|85.30|0.0170
84646495|NCT04854642|169028633|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.9||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|97.16|||ANOVA|||||97.16|85.04|0.0213
84646496|NCT04854642|169028634|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84646497|NCT01709578|169028653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.711|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.247||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||4.247|1.730|<0.0001
84677627|NCT02828111|169090269|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.099
84677628|NCT02828111|169090269|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.198|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.198
84677629|NCT02828111|169090269|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.757|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.757
84677630|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.043
84677631|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.312
84677632|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.353
84677633|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.093
84677634|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||1.000
84646498|NCT01709578|169028653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|5.115||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.115|2.108|<0.0001
84646499|NCT01709578|169028654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.202||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.086||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.086|-0.318|0.0007
84646500|NCT01709578|169028654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|-0.095||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.095|-0.325|0.0004
84646501|NCT01709578|169028655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.658||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.658|-1.283|<0.0001
84646502|NCT01709578|169028655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.752|-1.135||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.135|-1.752|<0.0001
84646503|NCT01709578|169028656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|4.959||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.959|1.764|<0.0001
84646504|NCT01709578|169028656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|5.566||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.566|2.045|<0.0001
84646505|NCT01709578|169028657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|7.332||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.332|1.774|0.0002
84646506|NCT01709578|169028657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|5.383||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.383|1.308|0.0056
84646507|NCT01709578|169028658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|9.132||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.132|2.339|<0.0001
84646508|NCT01709578|169028658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.948|11.413||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.413|2.948|<0.0001
84646509|NCT01709578|169028659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.444|-4.167||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.167|-10.444|<0.0001
84646510|NCT01709578|169028659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.727|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.833|-6.622||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.622|-12.833|<0.0001
84646511|NCT01709578|169028660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.048||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.048|-0.318|0.0078
84646512|NCT01709578|169028660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.109||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.109|-0.376|0.0004
84646513|NCT01709578|169028661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.049||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.049|1.450|0.0004
84646514|NCT01709578|169028661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|5.846||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.846|2.305|<0.0001
84677635|NCT02828111|169090270|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with combined vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.157
84677636|NCT04096560|169090275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|32.73||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||32.73|20.07|<0.001
84505375|NCT02363010|168761335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.796
84677637|NCT04096560|169090275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.68|36.07||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||36.07|23.68|<0.001
84677638|NCT04096560|169090275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|41.34||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||41.34|28.73|<0.001
84677639|NCT04096560|169090282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-6.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-6.16|-14.07|<0.001
84677640|NCT04096560|169090282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-7.56||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-7.56|-15.20|<0.001
84677641|NCT04096560|169090282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|-9.09||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-9.09|-16.96|<0.001
84677642|NCT04096560|169090283|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.05|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.317||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the generalized estimating equation (GEE) Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.317|0.007|=0.002
84677643|NCT04096560|169090283|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.2|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.767||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.767|0.050|=0.019
84677644|NCT04096560|169090283|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.15|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.482||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.482|0.047|=0.001
84677645|NCT00534352|169090288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmin as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|95.47||||||90.0|82.77|110.1||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmin)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmin. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.1|82.77|
84677646|NCT00534352|169090288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmax as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|102.6||||||90.0|92.91|113.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmax)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmax. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||113.3|92.91|
84677647|NCT00534352|169090288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for AUC24 as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|LS means of ratios|98.97||||||90.0|89.23|109.8||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (AUC24)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of AUC24. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||109.8|89.23|
84677648|NCT00534352|169090288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Css,av as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|99.3||||||90.0|89.39|110.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Css,av)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Css,av. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.3|89.39|
84677649|NCT00833924|169090337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of 30-day freedom from MAE|99.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day Freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (88%).||100|95.4|<0.01
84677650|NCT00833924|169090338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month Device Success Rate|97.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|99.4|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (84%).||99.4|92.4|<0.01
84646515|NCT01709578|169028662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.515||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|3.848||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3.848|-0.818|0.2026
84646516|NCT01709578|169028662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.013||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|4.309||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.309|-0.282|0.0854
84646517|NCT00988325|169028726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to cessation of viral sheddi|119.0|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0|230.0||p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (treatment groups)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Test was used for testing homogeneity of survival curves|Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||230|113|=0.166
84646518|NCT00988325|169028728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time to Resolution of Fever in Patients|14.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0||The p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (not including Total)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||20|12|=0.059
84646519|NCT01155219|169028732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84646520|NCT01314911|169028734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent detectable in the Placebo arm.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Oseltamivir arm was better than the placebo arm and that the detectable rate in the Oseltamivir arm was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the placebo arm (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-3.0|-21.4|0.0097
84646521|NCT01314911|169028737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
84646522|NCT01314911|169028738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.41
84677651|NCT01485861|169090342|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.56|0.1606
84646523|NCT01314911|169028739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.88
84646524|NCT01314911|169028740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7461||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.7461
84646525|NCT01314911|169028741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1501||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.1501
84646526|NCT01314911|169028742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.3025
84646527|NCT01314911|169028743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.5466
84646528|NCT01314911|169028745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|two-sample binomial exact test|The two-sample binomial exact test was performed in PROC STATXACT.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|||3.0|-1.4|0.5311
84646529|NCT01314911|169028746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|This test compared the difference in percentages of participants with at least one complication between two randomized arms.||4.7|-3.8|0.8498
84646530|NCT01314911|169028748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-5.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent with detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent with detectable in the placebo arm.|-5.1|-22.2|0.0021
84646531|NCT01314911|169028751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84646532|NCT03560739|169028818|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|Geo-mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||1.25|.8|
84646533|NCT03560739|169028818|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.3131|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||0||
84646534|NCT03560739|169028819|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|geo-mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||1.25|.8|
84677652|NCT01485861|169090342|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.66|0.5300
84677653|NCT01485861|169090342|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (prostate-specific antigen \[PSA\] only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.54|0.1689
84677654|NCT01485861|169090342|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.69|0.7484
84677655|NCT01485861|169090343|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.22|0.0064
84646535|NCT03560739|169028819|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.2446|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion.|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||0||
84646536|NCT01362595|169028824|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Due to the small sample size, the statistical approach is primarily descriptive in nature.|||
84646537|NCT04243421|169028835|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
84646538|NCT04243421|169028836|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84646539|NCT04243421|169028836|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0034
84677656|NCT01485861|169090343|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.25|0.0285
84677657|NCT01485861|169090361|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.62|0.4170
84677658|NCT01485861|169090361|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.6712
84677659|NCT01485861|169090361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.27|0.62|0.5164
84511909|NCT02087904|168775432|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.8||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.5||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|-12.8|0.964
84677660|NCT01485861|169090361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.44|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.44|0.72|0.8955
84677661|NCT01485861|169090362|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.33|0.1472
84677662|NCT01485861|169090362|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.23|0.0157
84677663|NCT01485861|169090365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.51|= 0.0665
84677664|NCT01485861|169090365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.9319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.73|= 0.9319
84646540|NCT04243421|169028837|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84677665|NCT01485861|169090365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.97|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior Enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||0.97|0.50|= 0.0710
84677666|NCT01485861|169090365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.31|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.31|0.70|= 0.7890
84646541|NCT04123665|169028842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment group and gender, and the baseline whole mouth mean BI and whole mouth MGI as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment (experimental) minus second named treatment (control).|||-0.04|-0.11|<0.0001
84646542|NCT00958789|169028867|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy hypothesis, H0, the total KSS change from preoperative to 2 years postoperative will be less than or equal to delta. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, will be that the total KSS change from preop to 2 years postoperative is greater than delta. When delta=63, the hypothesis will test for non-inferiority. When delta=70, the hypothesis will test for superiority.~H0: mean 2-year - mean preop less than or equal to delta. Ha: mean 2-year - mean preop greater than delta."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.43||||||||||64.43|
84646543|NCT00478881|169028889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.045||||0.5293||95.0|-33.194|17.104||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P\<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo-Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||17.104|-33.194|0.5293
84646544|NCT00478881|169028890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.668||||0.0575||95.0|-0.021|1.358||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo - Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||1.358|-0.021|0.0575
84646545|NCT00478881|169028891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.8533||95.0|-6.335|7.65||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||7.650|-6.335|0.8533
84677667|NCT01485861|169090366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.37|= 0.2906
84677668|NCT01485861|169090366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.2716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.35|= 0.2716
84677669|NCT01485861|169090367|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|1.97|||=|0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|14.18|||Chi-squared|||||14.18|-10.25|= 0.7913
84677670|NCT01485861|169090367|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|-1.22|||=|0.8675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.80|-13.24|= 0.8675
84677671|NCT01485861|169090368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.43|||=|0.4176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|58.32|||Chi-squared|||||58.32|-11.43|= 0.4176
84677672|NCT01485861|169090368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.43|||=|0.2802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.58|38.44|||Chi-squared|||||38.44|-7.58|= 0.2802
84677673|NCT01485861|169090369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.58|||=|0.3646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.65|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.80|-7.65|= 0.3646
84677674|NCT01485861|169090369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.22|||=|0.9821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.89|16.33|||Chi-squared|||||16.33|-15.89|= 0.9821
84677675|NCT01485861|169090370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.17|||=|0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.93|24.58|||Chi-squared|||||24.58|-30.93|= 0.8489
84677676|NCT01485861|169090370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.38|||=|0.5186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.36|41.12|||Chi-squared|||||41.12|-16.36|= 0.5186
84677677|NCT01485861|169090371|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|3.8|||Log Rank|||||3.80|0.45|= 0.6780
84677678|NCT01485861|169090371|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.24|= 0.8372
84677679|NCT01485861|169090371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.7733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|3.5|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||3.50|0.17|= 0.7733
84677680|NCT01485861|169090371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46|||=|0.4227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|16.59|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||16.59|0.36|= 0.4227
84677681|NCT01485861|169090372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.3173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.3173
84677682|NCT01485861|169090372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.6171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.6171
84677683|NCT01485861|169090373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.75|||=|0.6652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.47|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-10.47|= 0.6652
84677684|NCT01485861|169090373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.48|||=|0.3734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|21.24|||Chi-squared|||||21.24|-6.29|= 0.3734
84677685|NCT01485861|169090374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
84677686|NCT01485861|169090374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
84677687|NCT01485861|169090375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.24|||=|0.8317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.07|19.54|||Chi-squared|||||19.54|-15.07|= 0.8317
84677688|NCT01485861|169090375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.14|||=|0.6139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|21.88|||Chi-squared|||||21.88|-11.60|= 0.6139
84677689|NCT01485861|169090376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.85|||=|0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|62.56|||Chi-squared|||||62.56|7.14|= 0.0505
84677690|NCT01485861|169090376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.6|||=|0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.54|13.35|||Chi-squared|||||13.35|-32.54|= 0.4989
84677691|NCT01485861|169090379|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.8483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.61|= 0.8483
84677692|NCT01485861|169090379|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.70|= 0.7850
84677693|NCT01485861|169090379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.65|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.65|0.66|= 0.8847
84677694|NCT01485861|169090379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.63|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.63|0.67|= 0.8647
84677695|NCT01485861|169090380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.8271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.39|= 0.8271
84677696|NCT01485861|169090380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.7383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.35|= 0.7383
84677697|NCT01144338|169090384|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||||1.004|0.832|0.061
84677698|NCT01144338|169090385|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1.3 vs. H1: HR \< 1.3|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis uses the same endpoint and cox regression method as the primary efficacy analysis. However, the statistical hypothesis is a non-inferiority test with a margin of HR=1.3.||1.004|0.832|< 0.001
84677699|NCT01144338|169090386|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.77|0.016
84677700|NCT01144338|169090387|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.76|0.096
84677701|NCT01144338|169090388|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.85|0.622
84677702|NCT01144338|169090389|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.70|0.095
84677703|NCT01144338|169090390|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.402
84677704|NCT01144338|169090391|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.78|0.485
84677705|NCT02401672|169090398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84677706|NCT02401672|169090399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84505376|NCT02363010|168761335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.481
84646546|NCT00478881|169028892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59||||0.1539||95.0|-37.057|5.876||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||5.876|-37.057|0.1539
84646547|NCT00478881|169028893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.374||||0.2348||95.0|-32.834|8.087||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.087|-32.834|0.2348
84646548|NCT00478881|169028894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.195||||0.3289||95.0|-24.692|8.303||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.303|-24.692|0.3289
84646549|NCT00478881|169028895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.721||||0.0609||95.0|-0.033|1.476||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||1.476|-0.033|0.0609
84646550|NCT00478881|169028896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.4928||95.0|-0.22|0.456||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.456|-0.220|0.4928
84646551|NCT00478881|169028897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823||||0.3248||95.0|-2.476|0.829||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.829|-2.476|0.3248
84646552|NCT00478881|169028898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.095||||0.5312||95.0|-4.533|2.342||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||2.342|-4.533|0.5312
84677707|NCT02401672|169090400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84677708|NCT02401672|169090401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84677709|NCT04796610|169090402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||2.98|.1|0.49
84646553|NCT01083173|169028926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 24 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
84646554|NCT01083173|169028926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
84646555|NCT01041495|169028971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.869
84646556|NCT01041495|169028972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS). The final visit VAPS at 8th week will be compared against baseline VAPS scores for both treatment groups||||.486
84646557|NCT01041495|169028972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.486
84646558|NCT01041495|169028973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||As above- this was the difference between the groups on mean avg, it was used here|||||.869
84646559|NCT01041495|169028973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.275
84646560|NCT03584373|169028974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.89|0.70
84646561|NCT03584373|169028975|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-1.08|0.58
84677710|NCT04796610|169090403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|146.91||Model is adjusted for participant age|Regression, Logistic||Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||146.91|1.93|.011
84646562|NCT03584373|169028976|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.56|-3.25|0.006
84646563|NCT03584373|169028977|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-2.26|0.04
84646564|NCT03584373|169028978|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|-1.67|0.33
84646565|NCT03584373|169028979|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.10|0.47
84646566|NCT03780400|169028981|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.5145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5145
84646567|NCT03780400|169028982|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.3683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3683
84677711|NCT04796610|169090404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.97|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||0.97|0.07|.03
84646568|NCT03780400|169028983|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.9858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9858
84646569|NCT03780400|169028984|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84646570|NCT03780400|169028985|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84646571|NCT01923168|169029002|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|1.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||1.7|-4.5|0.282
84646572|NCT01923168|169029003|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|4.2|||Posterior mean difference|Posterior mean difference||||4.2|-1.9|0.697
84646573|NCT01923168|169029004|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.5|9.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||9.7|-12.5|0.435
84646574|NCT01923168|169029005|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|13.2|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||13.2|-8.4|0.611
84646575|NCT02522871|169029048|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.132|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.049|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.049||<0.0001
84646576|NCT02522871|169029048|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.145|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.062|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.062||<0.0001
84646577|NCT02522871|169029049|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.025|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.025|-0.084|<0.0001
84646578|NCT02522871|169029050|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
84646579|NCT02522871|169029050|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
84646580|NCT02522871|169029051|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
84646581|NCT02522871|169029051|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
84646582|NCT01262352|169029083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.069||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a mixed effect model. The model included the absolute change from the baseline in each period as the dependent variable, sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, study baseline LCI as the covariate, and subject nested within sequence as the random effect.||-1.15|-2.98|0.0004
84646583|NCT01262352|169029084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.007||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.21||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this efficacy variable was performed in a similar way as the analysis for the primary efficacy variable.||12.21|1.80|0.0117
84646584|NCT01262352|169029085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.54|-38.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for change from baseline in average sweat chloride was similar to the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.||-38.16|-53.54|<0.0001
84646585|NCT01262352|169029086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.991||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The raw scores in CFQ-R were summarized into different domains of health (12 domains for adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, 8 domains for children ages 12 and 13 years, 8 domains for children ages 6 to 11 years, and 11 domains for parents/caregivers). Each domain was analyzed in a similar way as for the primary efficacy variable. The primary analytical focus was the respiratory health domain which was analyzed by combining all self-response questionnaire versions.||13.39|-5.40|0.3796
84646586|NCT02925793|169029101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1% and 5% groups (statistical analysis 2) produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0106
84677712|NCT01410110|169090426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.25||a prior threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 40||t-test for equality of means||6.25|-11.57|.55
84646587|NCT02925793|169029101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1%(statistical analysis 1) and 5% groups produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0483
84646588|NCT01244490|169029109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-11.9|<0.001
84646589|NCT01244490|169029109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-6.8|0.017
84646590|NCT01244490|169029110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|11.1|<0.001
84646591|NCT01244490|169029110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|12.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|-0.9|0.024
84646592|NCT01244490|169029111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.217||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.076|||ANCOVA|||||-0.076|-0.358|0.003
84646593|NCT01244490|169029111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.162||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||||-0.019|-0.305|0.026
84646594|NCT01244490|169029112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.209||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||||-0.059|-0.358|0.006
84646595|NCT01244490|169029112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.09||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.241|0.242
84646596|NCT01244490|169029113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84646597|NCT01244490|169029113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.196
84646598|NCT01244490|169029115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.064||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.064|-0.266|0.001
84646599|NCT01244490|169029115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|-0.001||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.207|0.048
84646600|NCT01244490|169029116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.211||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.007||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.416|0.043
84646601|NCT01244490|169029116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.125||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.08||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.080|-0.331|0.231
84646602|NCT01244490|169029117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diiference in Least Squares Mean|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.094|-0.364|<0.001
84505377|NCT02363010|168761335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.872
84646603|NCT01244490|169029117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.181||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|-0.045||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.045|-0.317|0.009
84646604|NCT01244490|169029118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.094||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.204|0.096
84646605|NCT01244490|169029118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.046||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.180|0.242
84646606|NCT01244490|169029119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.049||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.191|0.500
84646607|NCT01244490|169029119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.078||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.066||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.066|-0.222|0.288
84646608|NCT01244490|169029120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.233||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|-0.092||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.374|0.001
84646609|NCT01244490|169029120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.111||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.031||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.253|0.124
84646610|NCT01244490|169029121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.056||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.018||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.131|0.139
84646611|NCT01244490|169029121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.039||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.037||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.115|0.315
84646612|NCT05985980|169029146|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is true that the ST/HR index (μV/bpm) ıs similar between the early and late follicular phases||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
84646613|NCT05985980|169029147|EQUIVALENCE|High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||0.109
84646614|NCT05985980|169029148|EQUIVALENCE|ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.111
84646615|NCT05985980|169029149|EQUIVALENCE|ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.414
84646616|NCT05985980|169029150|EQUIVALENCE|Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.062
84646617|NCT05985980|169029151|EQUIVALENCE|Estrogen levels increase at the late follicular phase.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84646618|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.6|-2.5|
84646619|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-3.3|-16.0|
84646620|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.2|-0.4|
84646621|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.1|-0.9|
84646622|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.2|
84646623|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-3.8|
84646624|NCT00366340|169029306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.5||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.5|-6.0|
84646625|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.84|0.63|
84646626|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.82|0.52|
84646627|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.74|
84677713|NCT01410110|169090427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.05||Time X Condition|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models allows for all randomized participants (N=48) to be included in the model.||F Test (df = 1,39.32), Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition||2.05|-1.73|.86
84677714|NCT01410110|169090428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.39||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.39|-7.36|<.31
84677715|NCT01410110|169090429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.08||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=39||||2.08|-1.77|.87
84677716|NCT01410110|169090430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,36.86)||1.33|-2.07|.67
84677717|NCT01410110|169090431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition, F Test F (df = 1,42.4)||.83|-1.67|.50
84677718|NCT01410110|169090432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,70.15)||2.01|.32|.008
84677719|NCT01410110|169090433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,37.8)||3.93|.169|.03
84677720|NCT01410110|169090434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|9.46||a priori p-value is .05. for two-tailed test. Positive estimated value is in the direction of the experimental condition.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,39.8)||9.46|-1.73|.17
84677721|NCT02799082|169090455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"The percentages stated relate to the total number of subjects for the respective week and treatment.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by center"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84646628|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.76|
84646629|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.49||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.49|2.04|
84677722|NCT02799082|169090456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84677723|NCT02799082|169090464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84677724|NCT02799082|169090465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84677725|NCT03735862|169090480|OTHER|Paired t-Test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.001
84677726|NCT03735862|169090481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.0001
84677727|NCT01072201|169090484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84677728|NCT01072201|169090485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84677729|NCT01072201|169090486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.05
84677730|NCT00360334|169090487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.001||95.0|2.62|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the primary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the primary outcome||8.46|2.62|<0.001
84677731|NCT00360334|169090488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001||95.0|3.11|10.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||10.64|3.11|<0.001
84677732|NCT00360334|169090489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84677733|NCT00360334|169090490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.28||95.0|0.44|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.26|0.44|0.280
84646630|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.71|0.51|
84646631|NCT00366340|169029307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
84646632|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||8.3|-3.0|
84646633|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|13.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.0|-4.1|
84646634|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups(13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.4|
84646635|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-9.3|0.3||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.3|-9.3|
84646636|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Haemophilus Influenzae Type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
84677734|NCT00360334|169090491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.191||95.0|0.42|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.19|0.42|0.191
84646637|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.0|2.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.0|
84646638|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||4.4|-0.4|
84646639|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84646640|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84646641|NCT00366340|169029310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-1.3|3.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-1.3|
84677735|NCT00360334|169090492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.363||95.0|0.66|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||3.07|0.66|0.363
84677736|NCT00360334|169090494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84646642|NCT00366340|169029311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.58|0.96|
84646643|NCT00366340|169029311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b µg/mL the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.39|0.95|
84646644|NCT00366340|169029312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
84646645|NCT00366340|169029312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.01|0.75|
84677737|NCT00360334|169090495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84677738|NCT00360334|169090496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84677739|NCT00360334|169090497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84677740|NCT00360334|169090498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84646646|NCT00366340|169029313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated.||1.11|0.69|
84646647|NCT00366340|169029313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.71|
84646648|NCT00450112|169029419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
84646649|NCT00450112|169029420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646650|NCT00450112|169029420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646651|NCT00450112|169029421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646652|NCT00450112|169029421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646653|NCT00450112|169029422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646654|NCT00450112|169029422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84677741|NCT00360334|169090499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.91||||0.001||95.0|3.7|210.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||210.54|3.70|0.001
84677742|NCT00360334|169090501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
84677743|NCT00360334|169090502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.100
84677744|NCT00360334|169090503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
84677745|NCT00360334|169090504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.471
84677746|NCT00360334|169090505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.601
84677747|NCT00360334|169090506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.650
84646655|NCT00450112|169029423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed..||||<0.0001
84646656|NCT00450112|169029423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646657|NCT00450112|169029425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646658|NCT00450112|169029425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646659|NCT00450112|169029426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84677748|NCT00360334|169090507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84646660|NCT00450112|169029426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
84646661|NCT01582854|169029435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.9|0.005
84646662|NCT01582854|169029436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.3|-2.6|0.122
84646663|NCT01582854|169029436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-1.9|-5.5|<0.001
84646664|NCT01582854|169029437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.7|-0.1|0.111
84646665|NCT01582854|169029437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.2|0.1|0.016
84646666|NCT01582854|169029437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.3|0.2|0.013
84646667|NCT01582854|169029437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.7|0.3|0.003
84646668|NCT01582854|169029438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 3||19.5|0.9|0.032
84646669|NCT01582854|169029438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 6||19.5|0.8|0.034
84646670|NCT01582854|169029438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.3|||Chi-squared|||Month 12||19.3|0.8|0.035
84677749|NCT00360334|169090508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.667
84677750|NCT00360334|169090509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.675||||0.139||95.0|0.401|1.136|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.136|0.401|0.139
84677751|NCT00360334|169090510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.317||||0.001||95.0|0.159|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||0.630|0.159|0.001
84677752|NCT00360334|169090511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.716||95.0|0.235|2.705|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||2.705|0.235|0.716
84646671|NCT01582854|169029439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Month 6||2.1|-8.5|0.251
84646672|NCT01582854|169029439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.7|-9.7|0.221
84646673|NCT01582854|169029440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.1|-0.4|0.239
84646674|NCT01582854|169029440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-0.5|0.136
84646675|NCT01582854|169029440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.2|-0.3|0.890
84646676|NCT01582854|169029440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.2|-0.4|0.455
84646677|NCT00251004|169029480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||7.3|-2.9|0.001
84646678|NCT00251004|169029480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.2||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||5.2|-4.6|<0.001
84646679|NCT00251004|169029481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z - test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants composite efficacy failure is \<10%.||9.1|-5.5|0.014
84646680|NCT00251004|169029481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in composite efficacy failure rates is \<10%.||3.3|-10.8|<0.001
84677753|NCT00360334|169090512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.113
84677754|NCT00360334|169090513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||<0.001
84646681|NCT00251004|169029482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.5||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||6.5|-1.6|<0.001
84646682|NCT00251004|169029482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||3.3|-4.9|<0.001
84646683|NCT00591578|169029516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-1.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-5.59|<0.001
84646684|NCT00591578|169029516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.06||Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.06|-6.01|<0.001
84646685|NCT00591578|169029517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-5.90|0.015
84646686|NCT00591578|169029517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-8.00|<0.001
84646687|NCT00591578|169029518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-3.44|<0.001
84646688|NCT00591578|169029518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.99|<0.001
84677755|NCT00360334|169090514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.740
84677756|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.88|0.0004
84646689|NCT00591578|169029519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-4.06|0.001
84646690|NCT00591578|169029519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.21||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-4.32|<0.001
84646691|NCT00591578|169029520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.44||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.44|-5.53|<0.001
84646692|NCT00591578|169029520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-5.96|<0.001
84646693|NCT00591578|169029521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-3.54|0.002
84646694|NCT00591578|169029521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.06|<0.001
84646695|NCT00591578|169029522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-5.96|<0.001
84646696|NCT00591578|169029522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-2.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.24|-6.63|<0.001
84646697|NCT00591578|169029523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-3.48|0.008
84646698|NCT00591578|169029523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-4.33|<0.001
84646699|NCT00591578|169029524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.57|0.002
84646700|NCT00591578|169029524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.85||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.85|-6.16|<0.001
84646701|NCT00591578|169029525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-3.63|0.003
84646702|NCT00591578|169029525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.20|<0.001
84646703|NCT00591578|169029526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-1.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.76|0.005
84646704|NCT00591578|169029526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-1.06||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-5.87|0.005
84646705|NCT00591578|169029527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-4.04|0.009
84646706|NCT00591578|169029527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-4.34|0.004
84646707|NCT00591578|169029528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.00|1.07|0.016
84677757|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.99|<0.0001
84505378|NCT02363010|168761335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.802
84646708|NCT00591578|169029528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.23|1.19|0.002
84646709|NCT00591578|169029529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.10|1.02|0.041
84646710|NCT00591578|169029529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.28||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.28|1.09|0.015
84646711|NCT00591578|169029530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.99||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||1.99|1.07|0.018
84646712|NCT00591578|169029530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.33||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.33|1.24|<0.001
84646713|NCT04644783|169029531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
84646714|NCT04644783|169029532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
84646715|NCT01723696|169029533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|30.3||P-value adjusted for design factors of site, gestational age at randomization and covariates of length, race, and sex of infant.|ANCOVA|||Our targeted sample size of 218 infants with successful FEFs at 3 months of age was determined to detect with 90% power, at a significance level of 0.05, increases of 15% in mean FEF75 in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group.||30.3|-6.1|0.19
84646716|NCT02380690|169029536|SUPERIORITY|ECLIPSE was powered to detect an effect size of 0.45.||||||0.981||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.981
84646717|NCT02380690|169029537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
84646718|NCT02380690|169029538|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on primary outcome.||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.546.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84505379|NCT02363010|168761336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.926
84511910|NCT02087904|168775432|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|15.6||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-11.3|0.763
84646719|NCT02380690|169029539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.403.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646720|NCT02380690|169029540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.452.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646721|NCT02380690|169029541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.243.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
84646722|NCT02380690|169029542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.133.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.864
84646723|NCT02380690|169029543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.102.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.780
84646724|NCT02380690|169029544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.536.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646725|NCT02380690|169029545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.340.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.997
84646726|NCT02380690|169029546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.384.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646727|NCT02380690|169029547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.730.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84677758|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.89|0.0007
84677759|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-1.05|<0.0001
84646728|NCT02380690|169029548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.161.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.914
84646729|NCT02380690|169029549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.930.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646730|NCT02380690|169029550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.379.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646731|NCT02380690|169029551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.969.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
84646732|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||For the incidence of bleeding events, paired comparison between the DU-176b groups was performed using the χ2 test.||||0.429
84646733|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.077
84646734|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.1|-11.2|
84646735|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
84646736|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.3|-7.6|
84646737|NCT00829933|169029555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|18.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.1|-2.7|
84646738|NCT03687970|169029561|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression was applied to predict binary outcome while controlling for other potential confounding factors (age, cumulative chemotherapy dose, chemotherapy group).|Slope|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||threshold for p value is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
84646739|NCT03687970|169029562|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.22||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|||||The thrshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.7525
84646740|NCT03687970|169029562|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for Control group patients without painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.32||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficien|||||||0.1876
84646741|NCT03687970|169029562|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber pain threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.13||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.61
84646742|NCT03687970|169029562|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|-0.2812205||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.2914
84646743|NCT00491556|169029581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-7.97|-12.20|<0.0001
84646744|NCT00491556|169029582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||0.26|-3.87|0.0834
84677760|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0006||95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.88|0.0006
84677761|NCT04666441|169090529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007||95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.87|0.0007
84646745|NCT00491556|169029583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-317.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.04|-244.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-244.68|-390.04|<0.0001
84646746|NCT00491556|169029584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|242.38||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.25|75.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||75.85|-124.25|0.6222
84646747|NCT00491556|169029585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|152.57||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.77|7.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.18|-124.77|0.0781
84646748|NCT00491556|169029586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.61||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.9|-27.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-27.16|-179.90|0.0102
84646749|NCT00491556|169029587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.72||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.40|-41.66|0.1616
84646750|NCT00491556|169029588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.17||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.59|-10.58|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-10.58|-75.59|0.0117
84646751|NCT00491556|169029589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.27|-52.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-52.57|-101.27|< 0.0001
84646752|NCT00491556|169029590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.75||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|46.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||46.60|-12.86|0.2519
84677762|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.72|0.0002
84677763|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.82|<0.0001
84677764|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
84677765|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.75|0.0002
84511911|NCT02495467|168775464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.22|0.0132
84646753|NCT00491556|169029591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.46|-81.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-81.12|-172.46|< 0.0001
84646754|NCT00491556|169029592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.39|129.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||129.90|45.39|0.0003
84646755|NCT00491556|169029593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.77||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.98|132.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||132.90|-51.98|0.3739
84646756|NCT00491556|169029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|166.4||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.82|-19.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-19.90|-163.82|0.0147
84646757|NCT00491556|169029595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.92|112.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||112.71|46.92|< 0.0001
84646758|NCT00491556|169029596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.18||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.56|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||4.76|-45.56|0.1067
84646759|NCT00491556|169029597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.8||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|137.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||137.43|44.20|0.0005
84677766|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.004||95.0|-0.62|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.62|0.0040
84677767|NCT04666441|169090530|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0007||95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.67|0.0007
84677768|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.82|<0.0001
84511912|NCT02495467|168775465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|0.09|0.0122
84677769|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.90|<0.0001
84677770|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.97|<0.0001
84677771|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.58|-1.19|<0.0001
84646760|NCT00491556|169029598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.41||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|61.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||61.34|5.64|0.0207
84646761|NCT00491556|169029599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|145.62||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.34|23.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||23.60|-102.34|0.2082
84646762|NCT00491556|169029600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|139.33||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.73|147.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||147.23|26.73|0.0067
84646763|NCT00491556|169029601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.78|-12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-12.36|-23.78|< 0.0001
84646764|NCT00491556|169029602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||7.80|-4.48|0.5815
84646765|NCT00491556|169029603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|14.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||14.62|7.85|< 0.0001
84646766|NCT00491556|169029604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.12|-5.87|0.0594
84646767|NCT00491556|169029605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|17.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.01|8.15|0.0001
84646768|NCT00491556|169029606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|8.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||8.66|-0.81|0.0995
84646769|NCT00491556|169029607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||2.84|1.05|0.0002
84646770|NCT00491556|169029608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.68|-0.61|0.9150
84646771|NCT00491556|169029609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-17.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.55|-29.48|< 0.0001
84677772|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.84|<0.0001
84646772|NCT00491556|169029610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.96||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||9.28|-5.38|0.5864
84646773|NCT00491556|169029611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.31|25.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||25.65|18.31|< 0.0001
84646774|NCT00491556|169029612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.93|-5.34|0.1592
84646775|NCT00491556|169029613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.04||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.74|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||9.74|0.20|0.0420
84511913|NCT02495467|168775466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|0.21|<0.0001
84646776|NCT00491556|169029614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.39||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||3.16|-7.56|0.4029
84646777|NCT00491556|169029615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|17.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.21|11.99|< 0.0001
84646778|NCT00491556|169029616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.46|-5.81|0.0239
84646779|NCT00491556|169029617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-14.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-14.91|-23.79|< 0.0001
84646780|NCT00491556|169029618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||2.43|-9.33|0.2363
84677773|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.95|<0.0001
84511914|NCT02495467|168775467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.12|0.0055
84646781|NCT00491556|169029619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|23.45|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||23.45|15.93|< 0.0001
84646782|NCT00491556|169029620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.37|-4.43|0.0929
84646783|NCT00491556|169029621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||1.34|-6.40|0.1886
84646784|NCT00491556|169029622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.38|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.38|-1.65|0.2831
84646785|NCT00491556|169029623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|13.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||13.94|9.10|< 0.0001
84677774|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.98|<0.0001
84677775|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.25|<0.0001
84677776|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.37|-0.87|<0.0001
84677777|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.93|<0.0001
84677778|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
84646786|NCT00491556|169029624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.88||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.67|-5.75|0.0157
84646787|NCT00491556|169029625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.24|-17.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.06|-28.24|< 0.0001
84646788|NCT00491556|169029626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||10.88|-2.41|0.1999
84646789|NCT00491556|169029627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||15.41|9.52|< 0.0001
84646790|NCT00491556|169029628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.12||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.26|-4.17|0.0808
84646791|NCT00491556|169029629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|17.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.69|5.72|0.0005
84646792|NCT00491556|169029630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.81|-6.41|0.9198
84677779|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.61|-1.25|<0.0001
84677780|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.80|<0.0001
84677781|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-0.89|<0.0001
84677782|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.97|<0.0001
84505380|NCT02363010|168761336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.820
84505381|NCT02363010|168761336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.127
84505382|NCT02363010|168761336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.814
84505383|NCT02884206|168761345|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority that LCZ696 does not lead to a relevant decrease in cognition compared to valsartan at year 3, the lower bound of 95% CI does not include the pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) boundary (Cohen's D) of -0.3. An effect size of 0.3 in Cohen's D is generally considered as small.|LSM|-0.018||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.087|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0277, 95% CI: -0.1101 to 0.0778|0.0870|-0.1230|0.7363
84505384|NCT02884206|168761346|NON_INFERIORITY|To show that the point estimate of SUVr difference in mean change over 3 years is in favor of LCZ696 and the non-inferiority is demonstrated, with the upper bound of the 95% CI excluding the NI boundary of 0.01.|Least Squares Mean|-0.0292||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0593|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Multiple Imputation ANCOVA in Global cortical composite||0.0010|-0.0593|0.0579
84505385|NCT02884206|168761347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0007||||0.9916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1353|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for memory domain|Cohen's D: 0.0009; 95% CI: -0.0912 to 0.0922|0.1353|-0.1339|0.9916
84505386|NCT02884206|168761347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0327||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1024|0.1677|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for executive function domain|Cohen's D: 0.0391, 95% CI: -0.0727 to 0.1192|0.1677|-0.1024|0.6348
84505387|NCT02884206|168761347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1042||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2783|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for attention domain|Cohen's D: -0.0967, 95% CI: -0.1542 to 0.0387|0.0700|-0.2783|0.2403
84646793|NCT00491556|169029631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||4.97|2.40|< 0.0001
84646794|NCT00491556|169029632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.21|-2.41|0.0215
84677783|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.15|<0.0001
84505388|NCT02884206|168761348|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1105||||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6906|0.4696|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0308, 95% CI: -0.1208 to 0.0820|0.4696|-0.6906|0.7081
84505389|NCT02491788|168761349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84505390|NCT02927847|168761358|OTHER||t-value|0.138||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
84677784|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.76|<0.0001
84677785|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
84505391|NCT02927847|168761359|OTHER||t-value|-0.575||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
84505392|NCT02927847|168761360|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.739
84505393|NCT03255031|168761369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
84505394|NCT03255031|168761370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84505395|NCT00602030|168761445|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimation of odds ratio adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||1.89|0.27|0.505
84505396|NCT00602030|168761446|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group .|||1.54|0.06|0.13
84505397|NCT00602030|168761447|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||3.27|0.34|0.918
84505398|NCT01271933|168761460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was calculated using log-rank test for comparing pregabalin CR with placebo|Log Rank|||||||0.0186
84646795|NCT04480424|169029647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-4.0||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|14.5||p-value was calculated using Fisher's exact method with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in mortality rate between the two treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||14.5|-22.3|0.8275
84646796|NCT04480424|169029648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8599||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the Cumulative Incidence Function (CIF) between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.8599
84677786|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.82|<0.0001
84646797|NCT04480424|169029649|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|2.58||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.12||p-value was calculated using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.12|-1.96|0.2626
84646798|NCT04480424|169029650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6854||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the CIF between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.6854
84646799|NCT04480424|169029651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.02||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.78||95% CI for difference in least square mean (LSM) between treatment groups and the associated p-value were calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||3.78|-3.82|0.9917
84646800|NCT04480424|169029652|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.05||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.4|||Kenward-Roger|p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.40|-0.29|0.7557
84646801|NCT04480424|169029653|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.4||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86||p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||||0.86|-0.07|0.0922
84646802|NCT04480424|169029657|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.4||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.28|-0.47|0.3611
84646803|NCT04480424|169029657|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|-0.1||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.94||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.94|-2.13|0.9238
84646804|NCT04480424|169029657|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.08||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.73||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||2.73|-2.58|0.9541
84646805|NCT04480424|169029658|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.53|-1.42|0.9366
84646806|NCT00076024|169029670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.867|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using one-sided Log rank test, stratified for estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-positive or ER-negative/unknown), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.867|0.819|0.156
84646807|NCT00076024|169029671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|17.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.9|||Fisher Exact|||||31.9|3.0|0.038
84646808|NCT02417844|169029676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.19|107.74|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||107.74|92.19|
84646809|NCT02417844|169029677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|105.24|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.24|94.23|
84646810|NCT02417844|169029678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.39|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.39|93.90|
84677787|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.95|<0.0001
84646811|NCT00902161|169029682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Treatment Difference|32.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|49.0||There was only 1 primary hypothesis, so no multiplicity adjustment was required.|A linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis that the difference on Rt(65) between the \[MK-0893 1g + Propranolol\] vs. \[PBO + Propranolol\] \>=60 min. If p-value \< 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected at the significance level of 0.05, thus supporting the primary hypothesis that the treatment difference is less than 60 minutes.||49|15|0.005
84646812|NCT03052764|169029699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-3.68|<.0001
84646813|NCT03052764|169029700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.37|||||Values obtained were from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes)at each scheduled visit.|||50.37|0.75|
84646814|NCT03052764|169029701|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-3.30|<.0001
84646815|NCT03052764|169029702|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-3.73|<.0001
84646816|NCT03052764|169029703|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.09|0.0004
84646817|NCT03052764|169029704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|52.57|||||Values were obtained from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes) at each scheduled visit.|||52.57|3.23|
84646818|NCT03150485|169029705|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was established is the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 50%.|Estimated Proportion|77.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.15|90.29|||Agresti-Coull|||The Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions of subjects with less than 2 lens modifications.||90.29|56.15|
84646819|NCT00403403|169029755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0097||95.0|0.323|0.862|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.862|0.323|0.0097
84646820|NCT00403403|169029756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.039|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||2.039|0.660|0.6054
84646821|NCT00403403|169029757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.3269||95.0|-9.6|29.0|||Chi-squared|||||29.0|-9.6|0.3269
84646822|NCT00403403|169029759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.305||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.644|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.644|0.144|0.0011
84646823|NCT00920829|169029789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with unstructured variance/covariance matrices was used to evaluate the primary outcome measure.||||0.724
84646824|NCT00920829|169029789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a test of the main effect of medication, with a null hypothesis of no difference between Naltrexone and Placebo groups.||||0.023
84646825|NCT02284178|169029793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.432
84646826|NCT02284178|169029794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||GEE|||||||0.684
84646827|NCT02284178|169029795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.858
84646828|NCT02284178|169029797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.460
84646829|NCT02284178|169029798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.214
84646830|NCT02284178|169029799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
84646831|NCT02284178|169029800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
84646832|NCT03954041|169029818|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.62|||=|0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|14.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read, imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||14.98|-5.74|= 0.3752
84646833|NCT03954041|169029819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.36||||||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.36|0.40|
84646834|NCT03954041|169029820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.86||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression on mRS adjusting for covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline mRS score, and baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.86|0.56|=0.4306
84646835|NCT03954041|169029822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53|||=|0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|5.13||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||5.13|-8.19|= 0.6478
84646836|NCT03954041|169029823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||=|0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.02||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) based on eCRF, and baseline absolute hematoma volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||2.02|-2.20|=0.9314
84646837|NCT03954041|169029824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.18|||=|0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|11.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline absolute edema volume based on central read, baseline GCS based on eCRF, and imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||11.98|-7.61|= 0.6569
84646838|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.5||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.50|-1.99|
84646839|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.52||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.52|-1.88|
84646840|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.69|-0.76|
84646841|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.01||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.01|-0.37|
84505399|NCT01271933|168761464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-1.2|0.3310
84505400|NCT01271933|168761467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.9247
84646842|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.91||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.91|-0.59|
84646843|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.71||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.71|-0.77|
84646844|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.36|-1.84|
84677788|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
84677789|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
84677790|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
84505401|NCT01271933|168761476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset||8.5|-19.7|0.4314
84505402|NCT01271933|168761476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|19.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset||19.6|-17.1|0.8915
84511915|NCT02495467|168775468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|0.20|0.001
84646845|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.45||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.45|-1.81|
84646846|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.06|-0.39|
84646847|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.93||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.93|-0.46|
84646848|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.28|-0.23|
84646849|NCT03868124|169029828|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.29|-0.19|
84646850|NCT03981822|169029837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
84646851|NCT03981822|169029837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
84646852|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
84646853|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
84646854|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0648
84646855|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
84646856|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0190
84646857|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
84646858|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
84646859|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
84505403|NCT01271933|168761477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|0.4571
84646860|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0539||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0539
84505404|NCT01271933|168761478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3779
84505405|NCT01271933|168761479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.2009
84677791|NCT04666441|169090531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.16|<0.0001
84646861|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1638
84677792|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-0.64|0.0005
84677793|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|<0.0001
84646862|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4766||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4766
84646863|NCT03981822|169029838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1588||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1588
84646864|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
84646865|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
84646866|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0118
84646867|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day84 EOT Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0026
84677794|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-0.75|<0.0001
84677795|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
84677796|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.21|-0.69|0.0003
84677797|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.77|<0.0001
84505406|NCT01271933|168761481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.6|0.1845
84646868|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0174
84646869|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1311
84646870|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
84646871|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
84505407|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep disturbance||1.0|-18.9|0.0305
84646872|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
84646873|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 EOT Visit Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0024
84646874|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1034
84646875|NCT03981822|169029839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1029
84677798|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.78|<0.0001
84677799|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.41|-0.98|<0.0001
84677800|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.72|<0.0001
84677801|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.74|<0.0001
84677802|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.30|-0.79|<0.0001
84677803|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.99|<0.0001
84646876|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
84646877|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1477
84677804|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.63|0.0009
84677805|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
84677806|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.77|<0.0001
84677807|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.92|<0.0001
84677808|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.57|0.0046
84677809|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.15|-0.62|0.0011
84677810|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.13|-0.62|0.0029
84677811|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.08|-0.66|0.0120
84505408|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Snoring||15.5|-5.0|0.3133
84646878|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0062
84646879|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0046
84677812|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
84677813|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.62|0.0011
84677814|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.17|-0.66|0.0011
84505409|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Awakening Short of Breath or with a Headache||3.5|-11.2|0.2985
84646880|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0177
84646881|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0054
84646882|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0013
84646883|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0034
84646884|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0156
84677815|NCT04666441|169090532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.87|0.0001
84677816|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.14|-0.85|0.0070
84677817|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
84677818|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0008||95.0|-1.0|-0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-1.00|0.0008
84677819|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0125||95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.85|0.0125
84677820|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0696||95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||0.03|-0.70|0.0696
84505410|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep adequacy||17.7|-4.1|0.2159
84646885|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0367
84646886|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1746
84646887|NCT03981822|169029840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0123
84646888|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.24||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, Tx by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.24|-5.41|0.0021
84646889|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.72||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.66|-5.95|0.0150
84646890|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-1.69||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.69|-6.54|0.0011
84646891|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.32||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.32|-8.25|0.0007
84646892|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.91||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.91|-7.50|0.0012
84646893|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.26||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.26|-6.78|0.0349
84646894|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.85||P-value is based on MMRM mode|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.85|-7.47|<0.0001
84646895|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.43||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Degrees of freedom associated with the error term were computed using Kenward-Rogers method.||-2.43|-8.37|0.0005
84646896|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.12||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-4.12|-9.65|<0.0001
84646897|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-2.92||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.92|-9.67|0.0004
84646898|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.57||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-3.57|-9.89|<0.0001
84646899|NCT03981822|169029841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.94||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.94|-10.20|0.0005
84646900|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.31|-20.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-20.87|-51.31|<0.0001
84646901|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.95||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.18|-19.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-19.56|-66.18|0.0004
84646902|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.15|-35.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.87|-88.15|<0.0001
84646903|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.44|-49.77||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-49.77|-111.44|<0.0001
84646904|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.17|-35.25||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.25|-103.17|0.0001
84646905|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.22||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.61|8.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||8.56|-90.61|0.1033
84677821|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.07|-0.79|0.0187
84677822|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.39|<0.0001
84677823|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.53|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.53|<0.0001
84677824|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
84505411|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Somnolence||2.9|-13.4|0.2041
84646906|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.26|-39.39||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-39.39|-73.26|<0.0001
84677825|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.60|-1.50|<0.0001
84646907|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.61|-28.8||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-28.80|-81.61|<0.0001
84646908|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-76.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.19|-45.61||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-45.61|-107.19|<0.0001
84646909|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.96|-31.55||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-31.55|-102.96|0.0003
84677826|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.46|-1.34|<0.0001
84677827|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.48|-1.35|<0.0001
84677828|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004||95.0|-1.23|-0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
84677829|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058||95.0|-1.08|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-1.08|0.0058
84511916|NCT02495467|168775469|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.995||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.032|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.032|0.960|0.7999
84677830|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0046||95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.20|-1.11|0.0046
84677831|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0019||95.0|-1.18|-0.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-1.18|0.0019
84677832|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.33|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-1.33|<0.0001
84677833|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0079||95.0|-1.04|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-1.04|0.0079
84646910|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.32|-32.78||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-32.78|-110.32|0.0004
84646911|NCT03981822|169029842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.52||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|-11.88||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-11.88|-120.82|0.0178
84646912|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0004
84646913|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0005
84646914|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0698||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0698
84646915|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0100
84646916|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0101
84646917|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0077
84646918|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0640
84646919|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0045
84646920|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.2840
84646921|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0132
84646922|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4668||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4668
84646923|NCT03981822|169029843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0064
84646924|NCT03981822|169029844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0364
84646925|NCT03981822|169029844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0215
84646926|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.63||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.1|9.23||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||9.23|-76.10|0.1222
84646927|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.51||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-1.9||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 112 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.90|-81.30|0.0403
84646928|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.88||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.79|5.33||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||5.33|-77.79|0.0863
84646929|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.13||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.76|-1.73||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.73|-100.76|0.0428
84646930|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.93||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.46|-17.0||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-17.00|-110.46|0.0084
84677834|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0515||95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.00|-0.90|0.0515
84677835|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1864||95.0|-0.77|0.15|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.15|-0.77|0.1864
84505412|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index I||1.8|-13.4|0.1319
84646931|NCT03981822|169029845|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.11||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|-6.35||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-6.35|-103.08|0.0273
84505413|NCT01271933|168761484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index II||2.0|-13.4|0.1473
84646932|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on MMRM model|LS mean difference|-44.65||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|22.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.47|-69.96|0.3083
84646933|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.8||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|15.56||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||15.56|-86.93|0.1686
84505414|NCT01271933|168761485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3596
84511917|NCT02495467|168775470|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.989||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.043|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.043|0.937|0.6746
84646934|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.06||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.04|22.1||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.10|-87.04|0.2384
84646935|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.96||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.37|2.27||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||2.27|-103.37|0.0603
84646936|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.87||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.71|-18.83||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-18.83|-138.71|0.0109
84646937|NCT03981822|169029846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.62||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.64|-0.99||Analysis is base on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.99|-127.64|0.0467
84646938|NCT02742246|169029847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Group by Time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
84646939|NCT02742246|169029848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Group by time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
84646940|NCT00054717|169029855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646941|NCT00054717|169029856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84646942|NCT00054717|169029857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84677836|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2866||95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.21|-0.72|0.2866
84677837|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.647||95.0|-0.58|0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.36|-0.58|0.6470
84677838|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.028||95.0|-0.97|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.06|-0.97|0.0280
84677839|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0854||95.0|-0.84|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.05|-0.84|0.0854
84505415|NCT01271933|168761487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.36||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day relative to the event occurring in Placebo for Pregabalin.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day."||2.36|0.66|0.4985
84646943|NCT00054717|169029858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646944|NCT00054717|169029859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646945|NCT00054717|169029860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646946|NCT00054717|169029861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646947|NCT00054717|169029862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646948|NCT00054717|169029863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646949|NCT00054717|169029864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646950|NCT00054717|169029865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646951|NCT00054717|169029866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646952|NCT00054717|169029867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646953|NCT00054717|169029868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646954|NCT00054717|169029869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646955|NCT00054717|169029870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646956|NCT00054717|169029871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
84646957|NCT00054717|169029872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84646958|NCT00054717|169029873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84646959|NCT00054717|169029874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84646960|NCT00054717|169029914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9894
84646961|NCT01896479|169029946|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin used was 1.58.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7||Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.90|0.1916
84646962|NCT01896479|169029947|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0195||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).||||1.7|0.6|0.9437
84677840|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.07|-0.69|0.1078
84646963|NCT03139604|169029948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|2.204||Not adjusted for multiplicity with interim and final analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||binomial distribution||2.204|0.959|0.0782
84646964|NCT02882074|169029974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||0.64|-0.11|0.158
84646965|NCT02882074|169029975|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|1.28||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Syndecan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.28|0.57|0.388
84646966|NCT02882074|169029976|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.68||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Endocan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.68|0.84|0.257
84646967|NCT02882074|169029977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|0.23|0.003
84646968|NCT01117051|169029978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.305
84646969|NCT03190369|169029981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures ANCOVA.||Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment groups (Hylan G-F 20 and placebo), site, visit and visit by treatment interaction, as well as the baseline WOMAC A1 score as a covariate).||0.395|-0.144|0.3610
84646970|NCT04543409|169029988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.17|361.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The OR estimate and p-value was obtained from the CMH test controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. Odds ratio values \>1 favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|Analysis completed at Week 24.||361.64|38.17|<0.0001
84646971|NCT04543409|169029989|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the DSQ scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|2.999||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.35|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in DSQ = Treatment + baseline DSQ + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||7.35|-1.36|0.1770
84646972|NCT04543409|169029990|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil (eos) counts after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.53|-77.85|||ANCOVA|Model: Percent change from baseline in Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts = Treatment + baseline Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||-77.85|-114.53|<0.0001
84677841|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2235||95.0|-0.62|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.14|-0.62|0.2235
84505416|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Physical Functioning||6.8|-9.5|0.7400
84505417|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|12.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Physical||12.3|-7.1|0.5938
84646973|NCT04543409|169029991|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total grade score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TGS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS grade score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.14|-0.21|<0.0001
84646974|NCT04543409|169029992|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total stage score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.122|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TSS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS stage score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.09|-0.16|<0.0001
84646975|NCT04543409|169029993|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the centrally-read EREFS total score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in EREFS TS = Treatment + baseline EREFS TS + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Analysis completed at Week 24.||0.32|-0.52|0.7322
84646976|NCT04543409|169029994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|43.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. OR values \>1 would favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|||43.47|5.79|<0.0001
84677842|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1369||95.0|-0.68|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.09|-0.68|0.1369
84511918|NCT02495467|168775471|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.075||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.170|0.987|0.0959
84646977|NCT04543409|169029998|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related pain.||0.42|-0.50|0.8656
84646978|NCT04543409|169029998|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.181||||0.3926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related discomfort.||0.23|-0.60|0.3926
84646979|NCT04543409|169029998|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.344||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Overall episode severity.||0.05|-0.74|0.0867
84646980|NCT04543409|169030000|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.267||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Abdominal pain severity||0.70|-0.16|0.2248
84646981|NCT04543409|169030000|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.296||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Nausea severity.||0.71|-0.11|0.1575
84646982|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.202||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Eating/Diet Impact||1.98|-1.57|0.8239
84646983|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.147||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social Impact||1.10|-0.80|0.7623
84646984|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference of Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.49|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Emotional Impact||1.49|-1.47|0.9898
84646985|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.386||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.41|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Disease Anxiety||1.41|-0.64|0.4603
84646986|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.162||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.56|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Swallowing Anxiety||0.56|-0.89|0.6613
84646987|NCT04543409|169030003|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.017||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.13|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Total Score||6.13|-4.09|0.6965
84646988|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.27|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Physical functioning (PF)||1.27|-1.93|0.6852
84646989|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to physical health (RP)||0.72|-2.57|0.2685
84677843|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.661||95.0|-0.48|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.31|-0.48|0.6610
84677844|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0284||95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.05|-0.81|0.0284
84677845|NCT04666441|169090536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.08||95.0|-0.71|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.04|-0.71|0.0800
84646990|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Bodily pain (BP)||1.71|-3.27|0.5380
84646991|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.75|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||General health perceptions (GH)||1.75|-1.81|0.9734
84646992|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.19|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Vitality (VT)||2.19|-2.09|0.9653
84646993|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social functioning (SF)||0.98|-4.04|0.2326
84646994|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.08|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to emotional problems (RE)||2.08|-3.44|0.6274
84646995|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Mental health (MH)||1.42|-3.14|0.4599
84646996|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.28|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Psychometrically-based physical summary score (PCS)||1.28|-2.07|0.6456
84646997|NCT04543409|169030005|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|1.84|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Mental health component summary scores (MCS)||1.84|-3.08|0.6206
84646998|NCT03595774|169030074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0833||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0833
84646999|NCT03595774|169030075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0131
84647000|NCT03595774|169030076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012728||||||a prior threshold for significant of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measured followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.012728
84647001|NCT03595774|169030077|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.00000002
84647002|NCT03595774|169030078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017215||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.017215
84677846|NCT01114516|169090569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier survival analysis||||0.018
84677847|NCT01114516|169090570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.05||||||||2.05|1.06|
84647003|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.13||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.13|-1.45|
84505418|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Pain Index||12.4|-5.9|0.4842
84511919|NCT02495467|168775472|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.267|1.829|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.829|1.267|<0.0001
84677848|NCT01114516|169090571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
84713759|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.45||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|43.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||43.89|-161.43|0.3933
84713760|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.58|-14.06|0.3705
84647004|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.56||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.56|-1.92|
84647005|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.51|-0.86|
84647006|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.11|-1.43|
84647007|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.82||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.82|-0.63|
84647008|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.57||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.57|-0.89|
84647009|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.06||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.06|-1.38|
84647010|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.48|-1.83|
84647011|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.43|-0.93|
84647012|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||-0.08|-1.40|
84647013|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.83||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.83|-0.62|
84647014|NCT03519386|169030081|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.69||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.69|-0.77|
84505419|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 General Health Perceptions||0.8|-12.9|0.0827
84647015|NCT03101267|169030084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.69|-0.52|0.777
84647016|NCT03101267|169030084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.983||95.0|-0.61|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.59|-0.61|0.983
84647017|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.10|-0.75|0.710
84647018|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.99|-0.84|0.872
84647019|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.08|-0.73|0.701
84677849|NCT03779841|169090586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.58|0.1612
84511920|NCT02495467|168775473|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.545|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.545|1.128|0.0005
84511921|NCT02495467|168775474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||<0.0001
84647020|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.95|0.86|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.86|-0.95|0.925
84647021|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.97|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.97|-0.64|0.690
84647022|NCT03101267|169030085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.87|-0.73|0.868
84647023|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.29|-0.14|0.502
84647024|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.20|-0.23|0.879
84647025|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.22|-0.10|0.444
84647026|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.16|-0.16|0.987
84647027|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.18|-0.12|0.645
84647028|NCT03101267|169030086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.08|-0.22|0.357
84647029|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.44|-0.20|0.472
84647030|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.21|-0.43|0.497
84647031|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.36|-0.28|0.821
84647032|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.19|-0.45|0.414
84647033|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.17|0.414
84647034|NCT03101267|169030087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.37|-0.20|0.566
84647035|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.822||95.0|-0.37|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.30|-0.37|0.822
84647036|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.42|-0.24|0.587
84505420|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|5.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Vitality||5.8|-12.09|0.4561
84647037|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.30|0.975
84511922|NCT02495467|168775475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||0.0003
84511923|NCT04625114|168775535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
84647038|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.31|0.980
84647039|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.21|-0.35|0.621
84647040|NCT03101267|169030088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.25|-0.31|0.831
84647041|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.29|0.864
84647042|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.21|0.502
84647043|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.40|-0.25|0.652
84647044|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.41|-0.25|0.633
84647045|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.35|-0.20|0.596
84647046|NCT03101267|169030089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.34|-0.21|0.621
84647047|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.65|-0.22|0.336
84647048|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.80|-0.07|0.102
84647049|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.56|-0.34|0.625
84647050|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.78|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.78|-0.12|0.145
84647051|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.19||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.59|-0.22|0.364
84647052|NCT03101267|169030090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.76|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.76|-0.05|0.082
84647053|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.21|0.623
84647054|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.13|0.288
84647055|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.24|0.830
84647056|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.44|-0.10|0.208
84647057|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.19|0.616
84647058|NCT03101267|169030091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.09|0.207
84647059|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.06|0.157
84647060|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.41|0.01|0.039
84647061|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.14|0.459
84647062|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.38|-0.06|0.153
84647063|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.06|0.195
84647064|NCT03101267|169030092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.38|0.01|0.038
84511924|NCT04625114|168775536|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.965||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.942|||Regression, Cox|||||1.942|0.480|0.921
84647065|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.37||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.29|-0.56|0.433
84647066|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.24|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.24|-0.59|0.479
84647067|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.71|0.648
84647068|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.72|0.654
84647069|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.09|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.09|-0.55|0.514
84647070|NCT03101267|169030093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.17|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.17|-0.47|0.400
84647071|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.39||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.54||The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.|MMRM|||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.54|-0.76|0.505
84647072|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.58|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.58|-0.71|0.451
84647073|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.88|0.623
84647074|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.87|0.620
84647075|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.35||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.37|-0.68|0.504
84647076|NCT03101267|169030094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.42||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.45|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.45|-0.60|0.414
84647077|NCT02431247|169030115|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value for non-inferiority of Test versus Control arm. The non-|Difference in percentage|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.1||inferiority margin is 10%.|Mantel Haenszel|||||7.1|-1.6|< 0.001
84647078|NCT02431247|169030118|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.074|||ANCOVA|||||0.074|-0.171|= 0.437
84647079|NCT02431247|169030119|OTHER||LS mean difference|18.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.808|=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.595|47.55|||ANCOVA|||||47.550|-10.595|= 0.213
84647080|NCT02431247|169030120|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.05|< 0.001
84647081|NCT02431247|169030121|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|1.57|< 0.001
84647082|NCT02431247|169030122|OTHER||LS mean difference|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.25|||ANCOVA|||||8.25|3.83|< 0.001
84647083|NCT02431247|169030123|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.87|||ANCOVA|||||3.87|0.93|= 0.001
84647084|NCT02431247|169030125|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
84647085|NCT02431247|169030126|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
84647086|NCT02431247|169030127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
84647087|NCT02431247|169030128|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
84713761|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|35.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||35.34|-81.36|0.5644
84647088|NCT02431247|169030129|OTHER||||||=|0.147|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.147
84647089|NCT02431247|169030134|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.678|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 24)||2.678|1.227|< 0.001
84647090|NCT02431247|169030134|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.934|3.791|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 48)||3.791|1.934|< 0.001
84647091|NCT02431247|169030134|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|2.919|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 24)||2.919|1.259|< 0.001
84647092|NCT02431247|169030134|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.858|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 48)||2.858|0.539|= 0.004
84647093|NCT00322153|169030170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-0.4 in placebo and 2.2 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for SIB baseline value.||The co-primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 24 in SIB total score. Missing SIB total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||4.2|1.0|0.001
84647094|NCT00322153|169030171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The co-primary efficacy parameter was CIBIC-Plus total score at week 24. Missing CIBIC-Plus total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||||0.008
84647095|NCT00322153|169030172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-1.7 in placebo and -1.0 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for ADCS-ADL19 baseline value.||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 24 in the total score of the 19-Item Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL19). Missing scores at week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||1.8|-0.3|0.177
84647096|NCT00495131|169030207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between 2 groups SVR estimation: 24 weeks (60%), 48 weeks (75%) alfa erros: 0.05, power: 0.80||||< 0.001
84647097|NCT00266864|169030220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in lean tissue mass across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||<0.01
84647098|NCT00266864|169030221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|103.0||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in resting energy expenditure across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||0.051
84647099|NCT02338336|169030222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84647100|NCT03332771|169030294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.357|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.357|-0.120|0.3306
84647101|NCT03332771|169030294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.181|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.181|-0.265|0.7112
84647102|NCT03332771|169030295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.027|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.027|-0.440|0.0827
84647103|NCT03332771|169030295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.167|-0.571|0.0003
84647104|NCT03332771|169030296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-0.803|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups (placebo, sotagliflozin 200 mg, sotagliflozin 400 mg, glimepiride), randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130,≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.803|-2.173|<0.0001
84647105|NCT03332771|169030296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.651|-2.517|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-2.517|-4.651|< 0.0001
84647106|NCT03332771|169030297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.288||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.701|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.650|-6.701|0.0012
84647107|NCT03332771|169030297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.491|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.491|-5.890|0.0973
84647108|NCT03332771|169030298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.319|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.319|-5.730|<0.0001
84505421|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Social Functioning||8.4|-8.8|0.9645
84647109|NCT03332771|169030299|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Weighted average of percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum \[randomization strata of HbA1c \[≤8.5%, \>8.5%\] at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP \[\<130, ≥130 mmHg\] at screening using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||-11.12|-19.67|<0.0001
84647110|NCT01966692|169030304|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|106.0||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|114.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||114|99|0.4132
84677850|NCT03779841|169090586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.37|0.79|0.7789
84677851|NCT03779841|169090587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2972|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.2972
84677852|NCT03779841|169090587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8722
84505422|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Emotional||12.4|-9.1|0.7636
84511925|NCT01629381|168775538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.4|-11.3|0.03
84505423|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Mental Health Index||8.4|-5.7|0.7067
84505424|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Component Score||3.2|-3.9|0.8352
84647111|NCT01966692|169030304|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|109.0||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|116.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||116|102|0.1295
84647112|NCT01966692|169030304|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|114.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|122.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||122|106|0.0078
84647113|NCT01966692|169030305|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|208.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||208|159|<0.001
84647114|NCT01966692|169030305|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|190.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.0|217.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||217|166|<0.001
84647115|NCT01966692|169030305|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|213.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.0|244.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||244|186|<0.001
84647116|NCT05523323|169030313|OTHER||Estimate difference|29.5||||0.0002014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|43.9|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The exact binomial method by Clopper and Pearson was used to generate the estimate difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|||43.9|14.0|0.0002014
84647117|NCT05523323|169030314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||3.7e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||unstratified Log-rank test.|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||0.55|0.21|0.0000037
84647118|NCT05523323|169030315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.30933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.54|||Unstratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||1.54|0.49|0.30933
84647119|NCT05654441|169030339|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84647120|NCT05654441|169030340|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84647121|NCT05654441|169030341|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84647122|NCT05654441|169030342|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84647123|NCT05654441|169030343|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
84647124|NCT05654441|169030344|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.666
84505425|NCT01271933|168761489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental Component Score||4.6|-4.2|0.9347
84647125|NCT05654441|169030345|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.522
84647126|NCT05654441|169030346|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.438
84647127|NCT05654441|169030347|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.181
84647128|NCT05654441|169030348|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.833
84647129|NCT05654441|169030349|OTHER|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.455
84647130|NCT03718871|169030388|SUPERIORITY||intracluster correlation coefficient|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.363||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Given that the intervention arm showed 100% uptake, a multi-level regression model could not be created with a zero in the denominator in the intervention group. We therefore used Fisher's exact test to assess for significant differences in proportion of HIV testing between study arms.||0.363|0.015|<0.001
84647131|NCT03718871|169030389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84647132|NCT03718871|169030390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
84647133|NCT03718871|169030391|OTHER|No comparison between study arm groups was made in this analysis, as it was limited to control arm only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06||Significance threshold two-sided alpha = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.06|1.02|<0.01
84647134|NCT03718871|169030392|OTHER|No comparison was made with the intervention arm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04||Univariate analysis|Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.04|0.30|0.07
84647135|NCT03718871|169030393|OTHER|Comparison between study arms was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.18|0.16|0.09
84647136|NCT00737464|169030401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84647137|NCT01885871|169030418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84647138|NCT00905827|169030423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||<0.01
84647139|NCT00905827|169030423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||0.01
84505426|NCT01271933|168761491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-A Anxiety scale||2.3|-0.5|0.1901
84647140|NCT00509392|169030426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84647141|NCT00509392|169030427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84647142|NCT00509392|169030428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84647143|NCT00509392|169030429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2962||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2962
84647144|NCT00509392|169030430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0048
84647145|NCT00509392|169030431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0036
84647146|NCT00509392|169030432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
84647147|NCT00509392|169030433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5761
84647148|NCT00509392|169030434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84647149|NCT00509392|169030435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84647150|NCT00509392|169030436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84647151|NCT00509392|169030437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0050
84647152|NCT00509392|169030439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
84647153|NCT00509392|169030440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84647154|NCT00509392|169030441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
84647155|NCT00509392|169030442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2825
84647156|NCT00509392|169030443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0854
84647157|NCT00509392|169030444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
84647158|NCT00509392|169030445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0457||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0457
84647159|NCT00509392|169030446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9463
84647160|NCT03228420|169030456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84647161|NCT03355664|169030495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|0.2|0.38
84647162|NCT04218123|169030531|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84647163|NCT04218123|169030531|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
84713762|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.82||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.75|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.94|-11.75|0.6384
84647164|NCT04218123|169030531|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
84647165|NCT04218123|169030531|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||>0.05
84647166|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.31|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Physical Functioning||||=0.31
84647167|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Role Functioning||||0.633
84647168|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.424|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Mental Health||||0.424
84647169|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Social Functioning||||0.057
84647170|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Health Perceptions||||0.296
84647171|NCT04218123|169030533|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Pain||||0.872
84647172|NCT04218123|169030534|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.538
84647173|NCT04218123|169030535|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.686|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.686
84647174|NCT04218123|169030536|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.167
84647175|NCT04218123|169030537|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.8
84647176|NCT04218123|169030538|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.425|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.425
84647177|NCT04218123|169030539|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent.|||||=|0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.054
84647178|NCT01289782|169030543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||38.6|20.1|<0.001
84647179|NCT01289782|169030544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.2|19.6|<0.001
84647180|NCT01289782|169030545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||39.3|20.8|<0.001
84647181|NCT01289782|169030546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||34.8|16.8|<0.001
84647182|NCT01289782|169030573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-20.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6399|-8.7181|||Piecewise-Linear Model Approach|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-8.7181|-32.6399|<0.001
84647183|NCT01289782|169030573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9931|-9.6064|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-9.6064|-37.9931|<0.001
84647184|NCT01289782|169030574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-230.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.9203||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-438.2662|-22.6626|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-22.6626|-438.2662|0.030
84647185|NCT01289782|169030574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-248.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.6753||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.8253|-3.5916|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-3.5916|-492.8253|0.047
84647186|NCT01289782|169030575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-278.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6088||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.2529|-70.8668|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-70.8668|-485.2529|0.009
84647187|NCT01289782|169030575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-307.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.1956||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.4006|-64.0429|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-64.0429|-551.4006|0.013
84647188|NCT01289782|169030576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|46.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.7966||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.6374|242.436|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||242.4360|-149.6374|0.642
84647189|NCT01289782|169030576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|57.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|115.1548||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.1143|283.4414|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||283.4414|-169.1143|0.620
84647190|NCT02131532|169030577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.398|17.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in fatigue scores between baseline and three-month assessments||17.102|1.398|0.03
84647191|NCT02131532|169030578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|5.937|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in depression scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.937|-0.687|0.10
84647192|NCT02131532|169030579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.991|0.491|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in independence scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.491|-0.991|0.45
84647193|NCT02131532|169030580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.769|-1.981|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in scores of general rating of recovery between baseline and three-month assessments||-1.981|-25.769|0.03
84647194|NCT02131532|169030581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.594||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|12.448|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in physical strength scores between baseline and three-month assessments||12.448|-14.010|0.89
84647195|NCT02131532|169030582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.729|3.519|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in memory and thinking scores between baseline and three-month assessments||3.519|-7.729|0.009
84647196|NCT02131532|169030583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.624|-6.183|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in emotion scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-6.183|-30.624|0.009
84647197|NCT02131532|169030584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.883|1.598|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in communication scores between baseline and three-month assessments||1.598|-15.883|0.10
84647198|NCT02131532|169030585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.455|0.455|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in daily activities scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.455|-5.455|0.09
84647199|NCT02131532|169030586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.091|-0.551|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in mobility scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-0.551|-7.091|0.03
84647200|NCT02131532|169030587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.264||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.594|5.844||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in hand function scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.844|-9.594|0.58
84647201|NCT02131532|169030588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.691||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.304|-5.847||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in social activity scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-5.847|-23.304|0.006
84677853|NCT03779841|169090588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.96|0.50|0.9814
84647202|NCT01754909|169030637|SUPERIORITY|Occurrence rates, comparison by t test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84647203|NCT01569464|169030661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.42||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||2.42|-2.96|0.8451
84647204|NCT01569464|169030662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||0.75|-0.61|0.8336
84647205|NCT01856023|169030738|SUPERIORITY|one -sample binomial test - 1-year estimated OS for these 28 patients was 75% (95%CI: 51%, 88%)||||||0.001||||||compared to the historical control rate of 46% one year survival|Log Rank|||OS rates of the Evaluable population in entire cohort was compared with the historical control rate of 46% (Hodi, et al NEJM 2010) using a one-sample binomial test due to early termination of enrollment without reaching target accrual; planned analysis to be the difference between treatment arms using log-rank test. One year OS along with 95% CI estimated for entire population and each treatment arm separately.||||.001
84647206|NCT00424255|169030740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2251||95.0||||The one-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.2251
84647207|NCT00424255|169030740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4502||95.0||||The two-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.4502
84647208|NCT00424255|169030740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||||Hazard Ratios were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.43|0.85|
84647209|NCT02797054|169030849|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
84647210|NCT02797054|169030850|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
84647211|NCT02797054|169030851|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84647212|NCT02797054|169030852|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.895
84647213|NCT02797054|169030853|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
84647214|NCT02797054|169030854|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
84647215|NCT02797054|169030855|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
84647216|NCT02797054|169030856|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84647217|NCT01306877|169030871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The objective is to reject H0 at the 0.05 significance level. A one-sided 95% confidence upper limit for PC - PE will be constructed by Newcombe's generalized Wilson score method (Newcombe 1998). H0 will be rejected at the 0.05 significance level if this upper limit is \<7%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.314||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.18||P-value calculated from per protocol analysis set|Chi-squared|||||-0.18||0.0001
84505427|NCT01271933|168761491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-D Depression scale||1.0|-1.6|0.6914
84511926|NCT01629381|168775540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.1|-11.7|0.03
84647218|NCT01306877|169030875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1844
84647219|NCT01306877|169030876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5647
84647220|NCT01306877|169030877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9062
84647221|NCT00744471|169030935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.69||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.87|<0.001
84647222|NCT00744471|169030935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.1||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.10|-2.28|<0.001
84647223|NCT00744471|169030935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.16||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.34|<0.001
84647224|NCT00744471|169030936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.61||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.74|<0.001
84647225|NCT00744471|169030936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.06|<0.001
84647226|NCT00744471|169030936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.04||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.04|-2.17|<0.001
84713763|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.62||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.13|51.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||51.95|-169.13|0.4229
84713764|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.47|-1.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.18|-31.47|0.1688
84713765|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.11||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.59|-13.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-13.53|-105.59|0.1243
84713766|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.79||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|29.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.22|-15.35|0.6841
84647227|NCT00744471|169030937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.51|0.001
84647228|NCT00744471|169030937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
84647229|NCT00744471|169030937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
84677854|NCT03779841|169090588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.97|0.50|0.9715
84505428|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 1: Physical activities||1.2|-0.5|0.3721
84647230|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
84647231|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
84647232|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
84647233|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.11|<0.001
84677855|NCT03779841|169090589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.1281
84505429|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 2: Feel good||1.4|-1.1|0.8084
84511927|NCT01629381|168775541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|-8.0|0.53
84647234|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.57|<0.001
84647235|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.41||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.41|-2.50|<0.001
84647236|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.53||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.65|<0.001
84647237|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.20|<0.001
84677856|NCT03779841|169090589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8820
84647238|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.45|-2.56|<0.001
84647239|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-2.10|<0.001
84647240|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.25|-2.46|<0.001
84647241|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.57|<0.001
84647242|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.56||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.75|<0.001
84647243|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.12|<0.001
84647244|NCT00744471|169030938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.20|<0.001
84647245|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
84647246|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
84647247|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
84647248|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.08|<0.001
84647249|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.52|<0.001
84647250|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.54|<0.001
84647251|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.63||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.71|<0.001
84647252|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.12||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.12|-2.21|<0.001
84647253|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.52||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.52|-2.60|<0.001
84647254|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.99||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.99|-2.11|<0.001
84505430|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 3: Work missed||0.5|-0.9|0.6312
84647255|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.45|<0.001
84647256|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-1.7||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.70|-2.82|<0.001
84677857|NCT03779841|169090590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.57|0.1623
84677858|NCT03779841|169090590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.78|0.7776
84677859|NCT03779841|169090591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.56|0.1603
84677860|NCT03779841|169090591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.80|0.6706
84677861|NCT03779841|169090592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.55|0.1583
84677862|NCT03779841|169090592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.43|0.80|0.6694
84677863|NCT03779841|169090593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2578
84677864|NCT03779841|169090593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.47|0.76|0.7526
84677865|NCT03779841|169090594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2549
84677866|NCT03779841|169090594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.45|0.73|0.8544
84677867|NCT03779841|169090595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.14|0.48|0.1718
84677868|NCT03779841|169090595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.3801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.27|0.54|0.3801
84677869|NCT03779841|169090596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.54|0.5531
84677870|NCT03779841|169090596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.33|0.51|0.4213
84677871|NCT03779841|169090597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.73|0.49|0.8040
84511928|NCT02158494|168775542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 2 weeks||||0.41
84511929|NCT02158494|168775542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 14 weeks||||0.47
84647257|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.71||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-1.82|<0.001
84647258|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.03|-2.15|<0.001
84647259|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.40|-2.51|<0.001
84647260|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.85|<0.001
84647261|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.15|<0.001
84647262|NCT00744471|169030939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.27|-2.40|<0.001
84647263|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
84647264|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
84677872|NCT03779841|169090597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.98|0.61|0.7573
84677873|NCT03779841|169090598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.4065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.67|0.28|0.4065
84511930|NCT02158494|168775542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 26 weeks||||0.99
84647265|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
84647266|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.12|<0.001
84647267|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.6||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.60|-2.64|<0.001
84647268|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.43||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.43|-2.46|<0.001
84505431|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 4: Do job||1.2|-1.0|0.8824
84647269|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.64||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.72|<0.001
84647270|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.09||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.09|-2.18|<0.001
84647271|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.35||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.35|-2.43|<0.001
84647272|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.77||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.77|-1.93|<0.001
84647273|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.15|-2.31|<0.001
84647274|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.47|<0.001
84647275|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 : ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.52|<0.001
84647276|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.78||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.91|<0.001
84647277|NCT00744471|169030940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.97||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.09|<0.001
84647278|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
84647279|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
84647280|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
84647281|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.10|<0.001
84647282|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.59||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.59|-2.61|<0.001
84647283|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.49||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.49|-2.51|<0.001
84647284|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.76||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.83|<0.001
84647285|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.26|<0.001
84713767|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.83||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.31|40.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||40.59|-147.31|0.3963
84713768|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.85|-8.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-8.32|-39.85|0.0571
84677874|NCT03779841|169090598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.70|0.60|0.5257
84677875|NCT03779841|169090599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.11|0.55|0.1612
84677876|NCT03779841|169090599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.35|0.74|0.9966
84677877|NCT03779841|169090600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.52|0.30|0.3374
84677878|NCT03779841|169090600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.45|0.62|0.5403
84677879|NCT03779841|169090601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.94||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||13.42|1.16|0.0163
84677880|NCT03779841|169090601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||9.64|0.76|0.1101
84677881|NCT03779841|169090602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.16|0.64|0.3339
84677882|NCT03779841|169090602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.85|0.4614
84677883|NCT01016834|169090613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary analyses and other PPMQ-R variables, the mean of the differences between each subject's rating of overall treatment satisfaction at the end of study based on the subject's experience using Sumavel DosePro and the rating at baseline based on the subject's pre-study triptan treatment were compared using a two-sided paired t-test at the 5% level of significance||||0.0007
84677884|NCT06748040|169090621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||P-value less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-2.4|0.4852
84677885|NCT04621500|169090622|OTHER|The sequencing transcriptional profile cannot be analyzed by a statistical method.|||||||||||||||||In this open label study, the RNA sequencing transcription analysis was performed to assess if the transcriptome would be modified by vitamin D supplementation and it uniformaly was.|||
84677886|NCT03809182|169090630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in plasmatic glucose levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.38
84677887|NCT03809182|169090631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in insulin levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.02
84677888|NCT03794089|169090637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline GAD-7 total scores||||0.035
84505432|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 5: Pain||0.4|-1.5|0.2742
84505433|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 6: Fatigue||1.0|-0.8|0.8520
84677889|NCT03794089|169090638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline PHQ-9 total scores||||0.231
84677890|NCT03794089|169090639|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.393||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.393
84677891|NCT03794089|169090639|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
84677892|NCT03794089|169090639|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.013||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.013
84677893|NCT03794089|169090639|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.049
84677894|NCT03794089|169090640|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.008
84677895|NCT03794089|169090640|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||<0.001
84677896|NCT03794089|169090640|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
84505434|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 7: Rested||0.7|-1.4|0.5264
84505435|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 8: Stiffness||0.9|-1.3|0.6601
84677897|NCT03794089|169090640|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.008
84677898|NCT03794089|169090641|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.44||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.440
84677899|NCT03794089|169090641|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
84677900|NCT03794089|169090641|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.032
84505436|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 9: Anxiety||1.0|-1.2|0.8937
84677901|NCT03794089|169090641|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.091||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.091
84677902|NCT03794089|169090642|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.058||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.058
84677903|NCT03794089|169090642|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.032
84677904|NCT03794089|169090642|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.007||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.007
84677905|NCT03794089|169090642|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.044
84677906|NCT03794089|169090643|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.328||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.328
84677907|NCT03794089|169090643|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.148||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.148
84677908|NCT03794089|169090643|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.002
84677909|NCT03794089|169090643|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.069
84677910|NCT03794089|169090644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline Q-LES-Q-SF total scores||||0.928
84677911|NCT03794089|169090645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.402
84677912|NCT03794089|169090646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||<0.001
84677913|NCT03794089|169090647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||.006
84647286|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.53|<0.001
84647287|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.00|-2.11|<0.001
84647288|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.49|<0.001
84647289|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.72|-2.83|<0.001
84647290|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.75||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.87|<0.001
84647291|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.14|<0.001
84647292|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
84647293|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.74||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.74|-1.86|<0.001
84647294|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.05|-2.17|<0.001
84647295|NCT00744471|169030941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
84505437|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 10: Depression||0.9|-1.0|0.9151
84505438|NCT01271933|168761493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the total score||7.3|-8.2|0.9045
84647296|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
84647297|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
84647298|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
84647299|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
84647300|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
84677914|NCT03794089|169090648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.004
84677915|NCT03794089|169090649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.002
84647301|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-0.73|<0.001
84647302|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.054
84647303|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.29||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.68|<0.001
84647304|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
84647305|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.55|<0.001
84647306|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.001
84677916|NCT00116805|169090650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 160 subjects in the TDF group and 80 subjects in the ADV group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the TDF treatment was inferior to the ADV treatment (the difference in proportions was less than -0.080) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the TDF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|63.6||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x upper limit of the normal range \[ULN\] or \> 4 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT was used to evaluate difference between groups in proportion of complete responders.||||63.6|44.6|<0.001
84677917|NCT00116805|169090651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|72.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||72.3|53.8|<0.001
84677918|NCT00116805|169090652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Two-sided 95% CIs, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment group differences.||||9.3|-12.0|0.801
84677919|NCT00116805|169090657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||||17.2|-5.6|0.320
84677920|NCT00116805|169090663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|26.1||P-value corresponds to a Z-test. Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||26.1|1.1|0.032
84505439|NCT01271933|168761495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: General Fatigue||0.9|-0.4|0.4606
84505440|NCT01271933|168761495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Fatigue||0.5|-1.0|0.4703
84647307|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.73|<0.001
84647308|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.008
84677921|NCT00116805|169090664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||1.9|-21.5|0.100
84713769|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.32|30.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||30.73|-101.32|0.4457
84713770|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.99||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.44|28.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||28.32|-19.44|0.8075
84713771|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.75||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-162.84|47.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||47.40|-162.84|0.4093
84713772|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.42|-9.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-9.76|-45.42|0.0543
84647309|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
84647310|NCT00744471|169030942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.43|0.012
84647311|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
84647312|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
84647313|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
84647314|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
84677922|NCT00116805|169090669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.4||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||16.4|-4.2|0.245
84677923|NCT00116805|169090669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.9||P-value for HBeAg seroconversion corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg seroconversion.||14.9|-5.5|0.363
84677924|NCT00116805|169090670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|11.9||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||11.9|-11.3|0.963
84505441|NCT01271933|168761495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced activity||1.0|-0.4|0.4009
84505442|NCT01271933|168761495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced motivation||1.3|-0.1|0.0695
84647315|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
84647316|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
84647317|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.43|0.022
84647318|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
84647319|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
84647320|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.60|<0.001
84677925|NCT00116805|169090670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.7||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \>4 x ULN).||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBe.||11.7|-10.4|0.904
84677926|NCT00116805|169090671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||19.9|1.9|0.018
84677927|NCT00116805|169090671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg seroconversion.||10.2|-1.5|0.148
84647321|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.47||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-0.88|<0.001
84647322|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.79|<0.001
84647323|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
84677928|NCT00116805|169090672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||P-value above for HBsAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||6.5|-4.8|0.757
84677929|NCT00116805|169090672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.9||P-value above corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBs.||5.9|-4.2|0.733
84677930|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.78|0.617
84677931|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.23|0.732
84677932|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.20|0.715
84677933|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.85|0.177
84677934|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.94|0.579
84677935|NCT01159938|169090702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.19|0.167
84647324|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.68|<0.001
84647325|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
84677936|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.10|0.676
84677937|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-1.27|0.957
84677938|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.68|0.513
84677939|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.47|0.623
84677940|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.57||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.51|0.916
84677941|NCT01159938|169090703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.73|0.413
84677942|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.94|0.724
84647326|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.47|0.010
84647327|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.66|<0.001
84647328|NCT00744471|169030943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.53|0.001
84647329|NCT04706416|169031014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.48|||Fisher Exact|||||1.48|0.26|0.297
84647330|NCT04706416|169031014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.19|0.541
84505443|NCT01271933|168761495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental fatigue||0.4|-0.7|0.5869
84647331|NCT04706416|169031015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91|||Fisher Exact|||||0.91|0.15|0.039
84647332|NCT04706416|169031015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.09|0.081
84647333|NCT04706416|169031016|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.0|-1.0|0.643
84647334|NCT04706416|169031016|SUPERIORITY||β-coefficient|-4.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.87|-5.67|0.001
84647335|NCT04706416|169031017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|0.25|0.133
84647336|NCT04706416|169031018|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.0|-1.0|0.092
84713773|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.88|30.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.78|-92.88|0.4711
84505444|NCT01271933|168761497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.81||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Benefit from treatment||4.81|1.09|0.0296
84505445|NCT01271933|168761497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.61||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Satisfaction from treatment||2.61|0.64|0.4691
84647337|NCT04706416|169031019|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|-2.0|0.834
84647338|NCT04706416|169031020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0|0.149
84647339|NCT04706416|169031021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||||0.80|0.12|0.015
84647340|NCT02730208|169031036|OTHER|Treatment effect outcomes are estimates.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|4.52||||||||4.52|-7.47|
84647341|NCT03437512|169031045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||familywise error rate (FWE) corrected to .05 with cluster threshold of 80 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84647342|NCT03437512|169031046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||Analyses conduced with a mixed ANOVA, with between-subjects factor of group (active, sham) and two within-subjects factors: time (post, follow up) and speech task (reading, conversation).||||.936
84647343|NCT03437512|169031047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||||||.619
84647344|NCT03693170|169031063|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The null hypothesis that the true response rate is 30% will be tested against a one-sided alternative.~The cORR will be provided with a corresponding Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI for the Efficacy Set.~This design yields a 1-sided type I error rate equal to 1.6% and power of 80% when the true response rate is 45%."|If 37 or more confirmed responses were observed in the 90 treated subjects with a centrally confirmed BRAFV600E mutation, corresponding to a lower limit of Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI exceeding 30%, the study was considered to have met its primary endpoint. If more than 90 subjects were enrolled, the lower limit of Clopper-Pearson was to be used for decision.|||
84647345|NCT02840240|169031187|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.07|0.003
84647346|NCT02840240|169031188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|2.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|18.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic main campus.||18.54|0.21|0.77
84647347|NCT02840240|169031188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview hospital.||3.16|0.03|0.09
84713774|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.89||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|32.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||32.79|-6.74|0.3925
84713775|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.24||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-164.22|66.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||66.72|-164.22|0.5095
84505446|NCT01271933|168761497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.01||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Willingness to continue treatment||2.01|0.48|0.9577
84505447|NCT01271933|168761499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Work Time Missed||39.2|-0.5|0.0562
84505448|NCT01271933|168761499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Impairment While Working||9.2|-7.0|0.7892
84505449|NCT01271933|168761499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Activity Impairment||6.8|-0.4|0.0819
84505450|NCT01271933|168761499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Overall Work Impairment||5.4|-2.2|0.4135
84505451|NCT01271933|168761510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.1|0.1224
84505452|NCT01271933|168761511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||6.9|-9.3|0.7680
84505453|NCT01271933|168761512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.1360
84505454|NCT01271933|168761513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6489.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12579.5||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18648.6|31627.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Total daytime activity||31627.6|-18648.6|0.6077
84505455|NCT01271933|168761514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.2|0.6647
84505456|NCT00252187|168761551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in end systolic LV volume index compared between two groups||||0.004
84505457|NCT00252187|168761551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in LV end diastolic volume was compared between two groups||||0.001
84505458|NCT00252187|168761552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84505459|NCT00252187|168761554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84505460|NCT00252187|168761555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84505461|NCT03764059|168761559|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority is based on a 95% CI of the difference between the investigational and control groups with respect to the rate of clinically acceptable restorations at 1-year post placement. The non-inferiority margin was 7%. To establish non-inferiority the lower limit has to be \> -7%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.2|- 0.6|< 0.0001
84505462|NCT01102777|168761560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of outcome, MMRC dyspnea score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.142
84505463|NCT01102777|168761561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.502
84505464|NCT01102777|168761562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.90
84505465|NCT01102777|168761563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.93
84505466|NCT01102777|168761564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson regression|Adjusted for age, gender, oxygen use, and arm.||||||.08
84505467|NCT01102777|168761565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.731
84505468|NCT01102777|168761566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.52
84505469|NCT01102777|168761567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The determination of arm occurred after recruitment, and Study Reach is a recruitment value.||||
84505470|NCT01102777|168761568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.11
84505471|NCT01102777|168761569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.01
84505472|NCT00210626|168761636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate used is Baseline SF-36 PF Score. Baseline SF-36 PF Score was collected prior to the start of Procrit or Placebo treatment||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Procrit and Placebo in average SF-36 Physical Function Scores||||0.3807
84505473|NCT00210626|168761637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7038||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7038
84505474|NCT01086215|168761650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
84505475|NCT01086215|168761650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
84505476|NCT01086215|168761650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
84505477|NCT01086215|168761650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
84505478|NCT01965652|168761654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72||The significance level was set at 0.05 (2-sided). The analysis of efficacy endpoints was not adjusted for multiplicity; hence, the p-values are purely nominal. A mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method was used for the comparisons.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||1.72|0.83|<0.0001
84505479|NCT01965652|168761654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||1.47|0.53|<0.0001
84677943|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.2||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-1.05|0.479
84677944|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.41||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.41|-1.76|0.825
84677945|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.25||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.65|0.378
84677946|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.46||The p-value is for the LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120 mins post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.84|0.553
84647348|NCT02840240|169031189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.5|24.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.3|0.5|0.11
84647349|NCT02840240|169031190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.2|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|0.2|0.60
84647350|NCT01617148|169031197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84647351|NCT01617148|169031198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84647352|NCT01617148|169031199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84677947|NCT01159938|169090704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.83|0.512
84677948|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.51||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.09|0.466
84677949|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.60|0.449
84677950|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.96||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.96|-1.25|0.792
84677951|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.63|0.493
84647353|NCT01617148|169031200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84647354|NCT00423670|169031207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|16.7||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||30|3.5|0.0126
84647355|NCT00423670|169031207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|18.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||32.2|5.5|0.0048
84647356|NCT00423670|169031207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||42.5|16.5|<0.0001
84647357|NCT00423670|169031207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||49.8|24.7|<0.0001
84647358|NCT00423670|169031208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|5.1||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||14.3|-4.2|0.2864
84647359|NCT00423670|169031209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|15.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for the baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||24.8|6.5|0.0009
84647360|NCT01052844|169031259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Complete protection from nausea and vomiting (CP) was defined as the absence of any episode of nausea or vomiting and no use of rescue medication. CP was further defined as either acute (ACP), when occurring during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy; delayed (DCP), when occurring during the period from days 2 through 5 after chemotherapy; or overall, when occurring over the entire period of the study (first 120 hours).||||0.04
84647361|NCT01052844|169031260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We evaluated associations between categorical variables using the Chi-Square test||||0.06
84647362|NCT01466595|169031264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no other adjustments||"Null hypothesis:~There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 4"||||0.028
84647363|NCT02313454|169031307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19|||Paired t-test||Intranasal Application relative to the Extranasal Application|||-0.19|-1.0|0.008
84647364|NCT02313454|169031308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.4|||Paired t-test||Intranasal application relative to Extranasal application|||-3.4|-19.0|0.004
84647365|NCT02325791|169031335|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|1.15||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.898|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||5.201|-2.898|0.5773
84647366|NCT02325791|169031335|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|3.438||Analysis performed using CMH statistics with randomization stratum adjusted using Mantel-Haenzel (MH) method to assess pairwise treatment difference (i.e. absolute risk reduction of each suptavumab arm compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each Suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.438|-4.318|
84647367|NCT02325791|169031339|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.291|3.959|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.959|-5.291|
84647368|NCT02325791|169031339|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.836|6.867|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||6.867|-2.836|
84647369|NCT00107952|169031349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.6|5.5||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||5.5|-8.6|
84647370|NCT03475875|169031356|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||-0.9|-7.7|
84647371|NCT03475875|169031357|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||1.0|-4.7|
84647372|NCT04025710|169031358|OTHER|single arm design|SADE-free rate|0.97||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary hypothesis evaluates the SADE free rate (pSADE\_free) at 3 months. Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%||1|0.9|0.05
84677952|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.25|0.091
84647373|NCT02376283|169031388|OTHER|A p value \< 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||Continuous variables expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).Continuous variables analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test.||||<0.05
84647374|NCT02376283|169031388|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,36) = 12.282||STEMI- clop vs prasl vs tic||||< 0.0001
84677953|NCT01159938|169090705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.9||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.90|-0.39|0.425
84677954|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.4||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.36|0.275
84677955|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.784||95.0|-1.44|1.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.44|0.784
84677956|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.43||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.01|0.197
84647375|NCT02376283|169031388|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,40) = 29.097||NSTEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor||||< 0.0001
84647376|NCT02376283|169031389|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Measurement) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
84647377|NCT02376283|169031389|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||=|0.123|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(6,56)=1.707||STEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||=0.123
84647378|NCT02376283|169031389|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(4,62)=18.932||NSTEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||<0.0001
84647379|NCT02376283|169031390|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
84647380|NCT02376283|169031390|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||=|0.81||||||STEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor|ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,17) = 0.321||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||=0.810
84677957|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.90|0.122
84677958|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.16|0.246
84677959|NCT01159938|169090706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.06|0.298
84677960|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.48||P-value is for the Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||-0.48|-6.50|0.024
84677961|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.09||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|The LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||3.09|-2.59|0.859
84677962|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.87||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.87|-5.25|0.155
84713776|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.35|-16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.18|-51.35|0.0199
84505480|NCT01965652|168761654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||1.50|0.52|<0.0001
84505481|NCT01965652|168761654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||1.51|0.49|0.0001
84505482|NCT01965652|168761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.25|-0.44|<0.0001
84647381|NCT02376283|169031390|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||NSTEMI- clopi vs pras vs tic|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,25) = 14.103||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||< 0.0001
84647382|NCT00633867|169031402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
84647383|NCT01827358|169031413|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|315.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|49.6|2698.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2698.8|49.6|<0.001
84647384|NCT01827358|169031414|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|1666.3|||Fisher Exact|||||1666.3|5.5|<0.001
84647385|NCT01827358|169031415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.28|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||3.28|0.30|0.997
84647386|NCT01827358|169031416|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||4.76|0.37|0.656
84647387|NCT01827358|169031418|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Cox proportional hazards models|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.01|0.03|0.182
84647388|NCT01827358|169031419|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.12|0.03|0.198
84647389|NCT00282347|169031476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5538
84647390|NCT02101112|169031485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.054|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.118||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.118|0.994|
84505483|NCT01965652|168761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
84505484|NCT01965652|168761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.18|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.18|-0.40|<0.0001
84647391|NCT02101112|169031485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|0.839||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.839|0.741|
84505485|NCT01965652|168761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
84647392|NCT02101112|169031486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.076||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.076|0.981|
84647393|NCT02101112|169031486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|0.875||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.875|0.797|
84647394|NCT02101112|169031487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.075||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.075|0.981|
84647395|NCT02101112|169031487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|0.871||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.871|0.794|
84647396|NCT04894916|169031521|OTHER|single group|mean|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is equal to 71."||||<0.001
84647397|NCT04894916|169031524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84647398|NCT04894916|169031525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84647399|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.68
84647400|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.18
84647401|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.18
84647402|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.17
84647403|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.33
84647404|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.40
84647405|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
84647406|NCT04894916|169031526|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||0.37
84647407|NCT04894916|169031527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84647408|NCT04894916|169031528|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.03
84647409|NCT04894916|169031528|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||0.45
84647410|NCT04894916|169031528|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.||||0.17
84647411|NCT04894916|169031528|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.62
84647412|NCT04894916|169031530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84647413|NCT04894916|169031531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84647414|NCT04894916|169031532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84647415|NCT04894916|169031533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84647416|NCT04894916|169031534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84647417|NCT00734747|169031537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
84647418|NCT05063318|169031562|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|272.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.22|348.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||348.86|213.22|
84647419|NCT05063318|169031563|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|236.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.35|316.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||316.00|177.35|
84647420|NCT05063318|169031564|SUPERIORITY||least-squares geometric mean ratio.|115.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|133.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||133.33|100.07|
84647421|NCT05063318|169031565|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio.|217.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.81|311.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence (TR or RT) as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||||311.82|151.81|
84647422|NCT05063318|169031566|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.66|46.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||46.9|28.66|
84647423|NCT05063318|169031567|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|99.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.76|151.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||151.74|65.76|
84647424|NCT01865084|169031580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
84647425|NCT01865084|169031580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.538||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
84647426|NCT02821910|169031612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.89|100.66|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.66|92.89|
84647427|NCT02821910|169031612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|103.7|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.70|97.99|
84647428|NCT02821910|169031612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.96|103.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.85|95.96|
84505486|NCT01965652|168761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.12|-0.35|<0.0001
84505487|NCT01965652|168761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.10|-0.31|0.0002
84505488|NCT01965652|168761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03|||Mixed-effects model repeated meaures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.03|-0.26|0.0173
84647429|NCT02821910|169031613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|103.42|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.42|90.65|
84647430|NCT02821910|169031613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|104.68|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.68|87.44|
84677963|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.30|-3.46|0.685
84505489|NCT01965652|168761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.06|-0.30|0.0035
84505490|NCT01965652|168761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.16|-0.40|<0.0001
84505491|NCT01965652|168761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.01|-0.26|0.0336
84677964|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.84||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.64||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||1.64|-5.33|0.292
84647431|NCT02821910|169031613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.12|105.25|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.25|92.12|
84647432|NCT02821910|169031614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|104.08|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.08|86.60|
84647433|NCT02821910|169031614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.65|112.96|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.96|100.65|
84647434|NCT02821910|169031614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|106.64|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.64|94.54|
84647435|NCT02821910|169031615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|104.94|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.94|91.46|
84677965|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|5.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||5.33|-1.25|0.216
84677966|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.18||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.18|-5.92|0.065
84677967|NCT01159938|169090707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.8||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.80|-2.96|0.954
84677968|NCT01159938|169090708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.27||P-value is for Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.27|-0.31|0.905
84677969|NCT01159938|169090708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.69||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.69|0.14|0.004
84677970|NCT01159938|169090708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.23|-0.41|0.584
84677971|NCT01159938|169090708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.44|-0.19|0.436
84677972|NCT00982020|169090728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis terms included baseline BMI, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, intervention group\*visit.||||||0.150
84677973|NCT00982020|169090729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model terms included: baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, and region.||||||0.520
84505492|NCT01965652|168761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.37|<0.0001
84505493|NCT01965652|168761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.04|-0.28|0.0114
84505494|NCT01965652|168761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
84505495|NCT01965652|168761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.13|-0.38|<0.0001
84505496|NCT01965652|168761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.04|-0.29|0.0119
84677974|NCT00982020|169090731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.008
84647436|NCT02821910|169031615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.23|110.91|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.91|90.23|
84647437|NCT02821910|169031615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|108.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||108.38|94.58|
84647438|NCT02821910|169031616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.94|105.71|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.71|89.94|
84647439|NCT02821910|169031616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|117.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.41|133.07|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||133.07|103.41|
84647440|NCT02821910|169031616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|102.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|107.1|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.10|98.56|
84647441|NCT02821910|169031617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|100.75|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.75|92.13|
84677975|NCT00982020|169090732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.266
84677976|NCT00982020|169090733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.954
84677977|NCT00982020|169090734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.103
84677978|NCT00982020|169090735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.436
84647442|NCT02821910|169031617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.95|110.45|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.45|99.95|
84647443|NCT02821910|169031617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.41|104.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.38|96.41|
84647444|NCT02821910|169031618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|100.54|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.54|92.86|
84647445|NCT02821910|169031618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|97.96|
84647446|NCT02821910|169031618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|95.81|
84647447|NCT02821910|169031619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|102.56|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.56|90.94|
84677979|NCT01722331|169090736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||62.8|49.6|<0.001
84677980|NCT01722331|169090736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||64.1|51.0|<0.001
84677981|NCT01722331|169090737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||58.5|44.8|<0.001
84677982|NCT01722331|169090737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||57.4|43.6|<0.001
84677983|NCT01722331|169090741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.8|26.8|<0.001
84505497|NCT01965652|168761659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.39|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
84647448|NCT02821910|169031619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.5|104.01|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.01|87.50|
84647449|NCT02821910|169031619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.44|104.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.85|92.44|
84647450|NCT02821910|169031620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|103.48|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.48|87.36|
84647451|NCT02821910|169031620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|113.15|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.15|98.78|
84647452|NCT02821910|169031620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|112.22|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.22|92.00|
84647453|NCT01082640|169031621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.37|0.459
84647454|NCT01082640|169031621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.30|-0.23|0.789
84505498|NCT01965652|168761659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.51|<0.0001
84647455|NCT01082640|169031622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.687||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|5.73||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||5.73|-0.97|0.162
84647456|NCT01082640|169031622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.57||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||4.57|-2.18|0.485
84647457|NCT01082640|169031623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
84647458|NCT01082640|169031623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
84647459|NCT01082640|169031623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||0.062
84647460|NCT03577171|169031626|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.154||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-0.322|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 12||-0.322|-1.986|0.0077
84647461|NCT03577171|169031626|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.141||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|-0.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 24||-0.309|-1.973|0.0084
84677984|NCT01722331|169090741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.0|25.9|<0.001
84677985|NCT01722331|169090742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.2|8.3|<0.001
84647462|NCT00559754|169031663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4915
84647463|NCT00559754|169031664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4864
84647464|NCT00559754|169031665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3613
84647465|NCT00559754|169031666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6605
84647466|NCT00559754|169031667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8311|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8311
84647467|NCT00559754|169031668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2230
84647468|NCT00559754|169031669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8696|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8696
84647469|NCT00559754|169031670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
84647470|NCT00559754|169031671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3235
84713777|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.48||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|13.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||13.69|-99.26|0.3029
84505499|NCT01965652|168761659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.27|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.27|-0.54|<0.0001
84505500|NCT01965652|168761659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
84505501|NCT01965652|168761659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.23|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.23|-0.52|<0.0001
84505502|NCT01965652|168761660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.30|-0.49|<0.0001
84505503|NCT01965652|168761660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.46|<0.0001
84505504|NCT01965652|168761660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.22|-0.43|<0.0001
84505505|NCT01965652|168761660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
84505506|NCT01965652|168761660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.20|-0.42|<0.0001
84505507|NCT01965652|168761661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.28|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.28|-0.50|<0.0001
84647471|NCT00559754|169031672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0693
84505508|NCT01965652|168761661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Anaysis||-0.20|-0.44|<0.0001
84505509|NCT01965652|168761661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.15|-0.40|<0.0001
84505510|NCT01965652|168761661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
84505511|NCT01965652|168761661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.15|-0.41|<0.0001
84505512|NCT01965652|168761662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.34|<0.0001
84505513|NCT01965652|168761662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.35|<0.0001
84647472|NCT00559754|169031674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4254
84677986|NCT01722331|169090742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.3|8.0|<0.001
84505514|NCT01965652|168761662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
84647473|NCT00559754|169031676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647474|NCT00559754|169031677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647475|NCT00559754|169031679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647476|NCT02117414|169031684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.75|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|one-proportion binomial exact test|||The alternative hypothesis is that the MRI-related event-free rate between the MRI procedure and one month post-MRI is greater than 90%. The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is greater than 90% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.025. Assuming type I error rate 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis 90% and true even-free rate 0.995, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned subjects in order to obtain 90% power.|||97.75|<0.0001
84647477|NCT02117414|169031685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience a VPCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-3.8|<0.0001
84647478|NCT02117414|169031686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 8%.|Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a significant decrease in ventricular sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 8%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 8% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 8%"|||-4.1|0.0001
84647479|NCT02117414|169031687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 95% log-log transformed lower confidence bound at 120 days post-implant calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method is greater than 80%.|Complication-free rate|95.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.0|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||"The system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and the one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than 80%.~H0: p ≤ 0.80 HA: p \> 0.80 where p is the system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and 120 days (the approximate time of the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit)."|||93.0|<0.0001
84647480|NCT02117414|169031688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."|||-3.1|<0.00001
84647481|NCT02117414|169031689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Because the success rate was 100% in each group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a SVC defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose SVC defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."||||
84647482|NCT02117414|169031690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.0||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience an APCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-7.0|0.006
84647483|NCT02117414|169031691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.3||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a 50% decrease in atrial sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-6.2|0.005
84647484|NCT00701376|169031703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-15.6|2.94|||paired t-test|||||2.94|-15.6|0.03
84647485|NCT00701376|169031704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-22.0|6.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.83|-22.0|0.08
84647486|NCT00701376|169031705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-7.55|19.2|||paired t-test|||||19.2|-7.55|0.14
84647487|NCT00701376|169031707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.38|-0.02|||paired t-test|||||-0.02|-0.38|<0.001
84677987|NCT01722331|169090744|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-6.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.8|-8.6|<0.001
84677988|NCT01722331|169090744|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-6.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.5|-8.3|<0.001
84677989|NCT01722331|169090745|OTHER||Difference in percentages|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||45.4|31.9|<0.001
84677990|NCT01722331|169090745|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||42.5|29.3|<0.001
84647488|NCT00701376|169031708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.68|0.23|||paired t-test|||||0.23|-0.68|0.10
84647489|NCT00701376|169031709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-8.68|5.25|||paired t-test|||||5.25|-8.68|0.21
84677991|NCT04088097|169090751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
84677992|NCT04088097|169090752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||.75
84677993|NCT04088097|169090753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
84677994|NCT03556761|169090756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|0.20|0.03
84647490|NCT00701376|169031711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.002
84647491|NCT00701376|169031712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.04
84647492|NCT00701376|169031713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.005
84647493|NCT00701376|169031714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84647494|NCT02537574|169031724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.61|0.940
84647495|NCT02537574|169031724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.48|0.383
84647496|NCT01593722|169031743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84647497|NCT02788474|169031811|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00282||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00621|0.00488||random coefficient regression (random slopes and intercepts) model including sex, age and height as covariates (Due to the low number of measurements per patient, baseline CRPM was included as a response rather than as a covariate in the analysis)|random coefficient regression|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo|"The rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with arbitrary covariance matrix.~Since the distribution of the data was not normal, a log10 transformation was performed before conducting the statistical analyses.~Significance tests were based on least-square means using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (2-sided α=0.05)."||0.00488|-0.00621|0.8146
84647498|NCT02788474|169031812|OTHER||slope estimate|22.001||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|57.58|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in the Extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarker CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks as covariates was applied for placebo-treated patients only to evaluate the potential of CRPM as a prognostic biomarker.||57.58|-11.83|0.2084
84647499|NCT02788474|169031812|OTHER||slope estimate|-45.566||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.55|16.37|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess how nintedanib treatment affected the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM up to Week 12, treatment and treatment-CRPM slope interaction as covariates was applied.||16.37|-109.55|0.1537
84647500|NCT02788474|169031812|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the overall treatment regimen affected disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3116
84647501|NCT02788474|169031812|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks could explain the effect of treatment on disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3175
84647502|NCT02788474|169031813|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.00121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00273|0.00515||random coefficient regression model (C1M (negative reciprocal root-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C1M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00515|-0.00273|0.5469
84647503|NCT02788474|169031814|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00262||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00823|0.00209||random coefficient regression model (C3M (log10-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C3M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00209|-0.00823|0.2429
84677995|NCT03556761|169090757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.95|0.12
84647504|NCT04718103|169031825|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.73|||Negative Binomial Distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.73|0.36|<0.001
84647505|NCT04718103|169031826|SUPERIORITY||Least-square (LS) means|-2.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by SGRQ Total Score measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||1.23|-5.84|0.200
84647506|NCT04718103|169031827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Mean|-0.11||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.11|-0.33|0.333
84677996|NCT03556761|169090758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.25|0.14
84677997|NCT03556761|169090759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.64|0.36
84677998|NCT03556761|169090760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||.13|-0.09|0.76
84677999|NCT03556761|169090761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84678000|NCT03556761|169090762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|28.59||||||||28.59|0.32|
84678001|NCT03556761|169090763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.39|0.03
84678002|NCT01154166|169090776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean for treatment difference|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.26|||ANCOVA||The estimated value indicates the treatment difference for the adjusted mean for Ropinirole PR and placebo.|||-1.26|-2.27|<0.001
84678003|NCT01282710|169090818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04627||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between SureCALL® and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||.04627
84678004|NCT01282710|169090818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1676||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between TOCO and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||0.1676
84678005|NCT01807585|169090820|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by the application of a Z-test with a 10% non-inferiority margin as well as examination of confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.6|||One tailed Z-test|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||7.6|-0.7|<0.0001
84678006|NCT02504645|169090823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2631
84678007|NCT01854554|169090825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Gray's test|Cumulative Incidence Function treating progressive disease (RANO) or death before cognitive function decline as a competing risk.||||||.74
84678008|NCT01854554|169090826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||.60
84678009|NCT01854554|169090827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
84678010|NCT02819726|169090829|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|95.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.07|104.37||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||104.37|87.07|
84678011|NCT02819726|169090829|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.54|102.15||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.15|85.54|
84678012|NCT02819726|169090829|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|107.45||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||107.45|89.49|
84678013|NCT02819726|169090830|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|101.81||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.81|86.91|
84678014|NCT02819726|169090830|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|94.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.21|102.16||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.16|87.21|
84678015|NCT02819726|169090830|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|100.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|108.65||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||108.65|92.68|
84678016|NCT02819726|169090831|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|96.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.52|102.46||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.46|90.52|
84678017|NCT02819726|169090831|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.64|105.05||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.05|92.64|
84678018|NCT02819726|169090831|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|109.14||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||109.14|96.14|
84678019|NCT02819726|169090832|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.03|101.23||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.23|89.03|
84678020|NCT02819726|169090832|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|105.3||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.30|92.61|
84678021|NCT02819726|169090832|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|110.95||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||110.95|97.54|
84678022|NCT02819726|169090833|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|102.79||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.79|77.20|
84678023|NCT02819726|169090833|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.72|118.56||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||118.56|88.72|
84678024|NCT02819726|169090833|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|115.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.51|133.21||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||133.21|99.51|
84505515|NCT01965652|168761662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
84505516|NCT01965652|168761662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.09|-0.33|0.0006
84647507|NCT04718103|169031828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.056||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.154|-0.043|0.267
84647508|NCT04718103|169031829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.09|-0.52|0.173
84647509|NCT04718103|169031830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.07|-0.48|0.138
84647510|NCT04718103|169031831|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1.|Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.13|||Negative binomial distribution|||||1.13|0.16|0.087
84647511|NCT01369485|169031850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size calculation was determined using the 2-sided Chi-square test with a significance level of 5% and 80% power based upon the following assumptions: (1) proportion of responders at end of 12 weeks of treatment would be 50% in the active (test) group and 25% in the inactive (control) group; (2) a responder was defined as a subject who experienced decrease of ≥50% in mean urgency urinary incontinence episodes (leaks) between baseline and Week 12 of the study; (3) 20 % dropout rate.||||0.3636
84647512|NCT01369485|169031850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4849
84647513|NCT01369485|169031851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2893
84647514|NCT01369485|169031851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3223
84647515|NCT01369485|169031852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3387
84647516|NCT01369485|169031853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6557
84647517|NCT01369485|169031854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4354
84647518|NCT01369485|169031855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9918
84647519|NCT01369485|169031855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3770
84647520|NCT01369485|169031856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4147|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4147
84647521|NCT01369485|169031856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0877
84647522|NCT01369485|169031857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2032
84647523|NCT01369485|169031858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4151||||||Calculated for only those patients who had prior OAB treatment only.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4151
84647524|NCT01369485|169031859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Endpoint defined as percentage of patients that much improved or very much improved following treatment."||||0.9814
84647525|NCT01369485|169031859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7305|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7305
84647526|NCT01369485|169031860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2191
84647527|NCT01369485|169031860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5357
84647528|NCT00708071|169031930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25||||0.143||95.0|-0.04|0.49|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.49|-0.04|0.143
84647529|NCT00708071|169031931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.48|0.12|
84505517|NCT01965652|168761663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
84505518|NCT01965652|168761663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.24|-0.48|<0.0001
84678025|NCT02819726|169090834|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.106|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.106|-0.422|0.2402
84678026|NCT02819726|169090834|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.063|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.063|-0.469|0.1346
84678027|NCT02819726|169090834|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.224|-0.314|0.7429
84678028|NCT02819726|169090843|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.250|-0.428|0.6068
84678029|NCT02819726|169090843|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.249|0.5990
84678030|NCT02819726|169090843|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.532|||ANCOVA|||Week 53 (EOS) MabThera vs Rituxan. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.532|-0.165|0.3053
84678031|NCT02819726|169090844|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|23.03||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||23.03|-4.74|
84678032|NCT02819726|169090844|OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|11.22||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||11.22|-15.95|
84678033|NCT02819726|169090844|OTHER||Difference (%)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|2.45||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||2.45|-25.47|
84678034|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|22.46||||||ACR20 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||22.46|-4.07|
84678035|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference (%)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|17.03||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.03|-10.22|
84678036|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference (%)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|7.51||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||7.51|-19.10|
84678037|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference (%)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.22||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||21.22|-1.52|
84678038|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|17.13||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.13|-6.69|
84678039|NCT02819726|169090845|OTHER||Difference (%)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|92.0|-15.68|6.41||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||6.41|-15.68|
84678040|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.671|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.671|-3.230|0.1997
84647530|NCT00708071|169031932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.32|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.32|-0.11|
84647531|NCT00708071|169031933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.18|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.18|-0.24|
84678041|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.848|-2.074|0.9098
84647532|NCT00708071|169031934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.21|-0.21|
84647533|NCT00708071|169031935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.24|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.24|-0.17|
84647534|NCT00708071|169031936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.645
84647535|NCT00708071|169031937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.103
84647536|NCT00708071|169031938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.833
84647537|NCT00708071|169031939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.501
84647538|NCT00708071|169031940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.247
84647539|NCT00708071|169031941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.715
84647540|NCT00708071|169031943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.754
84678042|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||3.150|-0.817|0.2480
84678043|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.909|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Tender Joint Count (TJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.996|-4.909|0.1931
84678044|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.722|2.184|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||2.184|-3.722|-0.77
84678045|NCT02819726|169090846|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|4.18|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.180|-1.805|0.4352
84678046|NCT02819726|169090847|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.541|2.226|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||2.226|-10.541|0.2008
84647541|NCT00708071|169031944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.388
84647542|NCT00708071|169031945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.234
84647543|NCT00708071|169031946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
84647544|NCT00708071|169031947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.625
84647545|NCT00708071|169031948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
84647546|NCT00708071|169031949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
84647547|NCT00708071|169031950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.521
84647548|NCT00708071|169031951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||90.0||||alpha = 10%|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|||||||0.324
84647549|NCT00708071|169031952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.661
84647550|NCT00708071|169031953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
84647551|NCT00708071|169031954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.699
84647552|NCT00708071|169031957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||0.0010
84647553|NCT00708071|169031959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.182||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.34|||McNemar's test of paired proportions|Alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (Number of SoC Participants with Hematoma/Seroma) - (Number of FS VH S/D 4 Participants with Hematoma/Seroma)|||0.34|0.04|0.014
84678047|NCT02819726|169090847|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||-0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.771|5.994|||ANOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||5.994|-6.771|-0.39
84647554|NCT02140775|169031965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||A Chi-Square test was conducted between the treatment groups and the dichotomous outcome of successful achievement of employment goal.||||.602
84647555|NCT02140775|169031966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-7.75|.066
84647556|NCT02140775|169031967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|12.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.09|-18.59|.674
84647557|NCT00945854|169031973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84647558|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.071|-0.075|0.9538
84647559|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.081||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.081|-0.070|0.8787
84647560|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.066|-0.062|0.9544
84678048|NCT02819726|169090847|OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.665|10.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||10.204|-2.665|0.2498
84647561|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.112||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.112|-0.106|0.9550
84678049|NCT02819726|169090848|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0302|5.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.841|-8.0302|0.7322
84678050|NCT02819726|169090848|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.623||0.5418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.347|4.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||4.920|-9.347|0.5418
84678051|NCT02819726|169090848|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.136|6.169|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||6.169|-8.136|0.7869
84678052|NCT02819726|169090849|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.062|5.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.496|-8.062|0.7097
84678053|NCT02819726|169090849|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.317|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.317|-8.280|0.6683
84678054|NCT02819726|169090849|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.078|6.682|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||6.682|-7.078|0.9548
84678055|NCT02819726|169090850|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.000|-0.339|0.0505
84678056|NCT02819726|169090850|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.033|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.033|-0.307|0.1141
84678057|NCT02819726|169090850|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI )0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.204|-0.139|0.7111
84678058|NCT02819726|169090851|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|3.253|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||3.253|-4.113|0.8183
84678059|NCT02819726|169090851|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.868||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.164|5.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.191|-2.164|0.4186
84678060|NCT02819726|169090851|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.768|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.655|-1.768|0.3035
84678061|NCT02819726|169090852|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.413|-0.375|0.9249
84678062|NCT02819726|169090852|OTHER||LS Measn Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.442|-0.351|0.05
84678063|NCT02819726|169090852|OTHER||LS Means Diference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.376|0.8962
84678064|NCT02819726|169090853|OTHER||Difference (%)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.83||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||7.83|-2.56|
84678065|NCT02819726|169090853|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.67||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||6.67|-4.74|
84678066|NCT02819726|169090853|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|3.39||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.39|-6.75|
84678067|NCT02819726|169090854|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.9||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.90|-6.9|
84678068|NCT02819726|169090854|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|3.86||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.86|-7.07|
84713778|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|28.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.16|-6.28|0.4094
84647562|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.105||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.105|-0.121|0.8874
84647563|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.095||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.095|-0.099|0.9595
84647564|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.064||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.064|-0.164|0.3826
84647565|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.065||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.065|-0.164|0.3912
84647566|NCT01227564|169032007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.050|-0.149|0.3221
84647567|NCT01227564|169032008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.18||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.07|1293.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1293.42|-1197.07|0.9384
84647568|NCT01227564|169032008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|581.98||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.17|1942.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1942.13|-778.17|0.3945
84678069|NCT02819726|169090854|OTHER||Differnce (%)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|5.83||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||5.83|-6.05|
84678070|NCT02819726|169090855|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|15.1||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||15.10|-12.59|
84678071|NCT02819726|169090855|OTHER||Difference (%)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|14.03|||Difference (%)|||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||14.03|-13.75|
84678072|NCT02819726|169090855|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|12.91||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||12.91|-15.14|
84678073|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-137.1|181.3||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||181.3|-137.1|
84678074|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|69.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.8|230.8||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||230.8|-91.8|
84678075|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-112.5|207.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||207.2|-112.5|
84678076|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|310.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.9|809.4||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||809.4|-187.9|
84678077|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|296.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.8|806.1||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||806.1|-213.8|
84678078|NCT02819726|169090861|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-527.4|498.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||498.2|-527.4|
84678079|NCT00359762|169090864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority test was based on the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI for the hazard ratio of Exenatide/Glimepiride;the upper bound was compared to 1.25: if \<1.25, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is more than 1.25 times greater than the risk with Glimepiride is rejected.Superiority test was based on the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio. If CI excludes 1, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is equal to that with Glimepiride is rejected.|Hazard Ratio|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.899|||Regression, Cox|Time to treatment failure was modeled using Cox regression with treatment and baseline HbA1c as predictive terms.||The null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (H1) for the primary analysis (i.e., non-inferiority) are:H0: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \>=1.25.H1: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \< 1.25. With 527 patients in each arm, the study would have approximately 90% power to conclude non-inferiority of Exenatide to Glimepiride.||0.899|0.623|0.0020
84678080|NCT00359762|169090865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|99.95|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to treatment failure were compared between treatment groups using log rank test.||||0.0315
84678081|NCT00359762|169090866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.25|-12.58|0.7648
84678082|NCT00359762|169090867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.399||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-28.88|0.0528
84678083|NCT00359762|169090868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.06|-0.07|0.9040
84678084|NCT00359762|169090869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.05|0.2500
84678085|NCT00359762|169090870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.27|-9.40|0.9001
84678086|NCT00359762|169090871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|20.95|||ANCOVA|||Change in DI30/DG30 ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||20.95|1.44|0.0246
84678087|NCT00359762|169090872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.81|1.53|0.0036
84678088|NCT00359762|169090873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in disposition index from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.50|3.15|0.0006
84678089|NCT00359762|169090874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0128
84678090|NCT00359762|169090875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0015
84678091|NCT00359762|169090876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-1.03|<.0001
84678092|NCT00359762|169090877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
84505519|NCT01965652|168761663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.21|-0.45|<0.0001
84678093|NCT00359762|169090878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.97|-3.64|<.0001
84678094|NCT00359762|169090879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (2 hours) plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.55|-2.84|<.0001
84678095|NCT00359762|169090880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.49|-6.31|<.0001
84678096|NCT00359762|169090881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.79|-7.61|<.0001
84678097|NCT00359762|169090882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.24|-3.18|0.0228
84678098|NCT00359762|169090883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and visit by treatment interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.86|-2.30|0.3737
84678099|NCT00359762|169090884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.08|-0.43|0.0042
84678100|NCT00359762|169090885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.13|0.7914
84678101|NCT00359762|169090886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.10|0.02|0.0011
84678102|NCT00359762|169090887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||The number of hypoglycemic episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||0.37|0.22|<.0001
84678103|NCT00359762|169090888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value at Period III as a covariate. The compound symmetric covariance structure was assumed.||0.55|-0.00|0.0508
84678104|NCT01762761|169090898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|93.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.26|7.29|<0.001
84678105|NCT01762761|169090899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|66.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.33|8.54|<0.001
84678106|NCT01762761|169090900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|18.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.94|3.84|<0.001
84678107|NCT01762761|169090901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.13|0.001
84678108|NCT01762761|169090902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.21|0.306
84678109|NCT01762761|169090903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.34|||Log Rank|||||9.34|4.01|<0.001
84678110|NCT01762761|169090904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.37|0.05|<0.001
84678111|NCT01762761|169090905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|131.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.12|2.09|0.008
84678112|NCT01762761|169090906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
84678113|NCT01762761|169090907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
84678114|NCT01385059|169090948|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84678115|NCT03169153|169090964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects repeated measures|||||||<0.0001
84678116|NCT01652716|169090977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1349||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|Based on a repeated measures mixed model including fixed categorical effects of treatment||||-0.10|-0.63|0.0072
84678117|NCT01652716|169090978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2247
84678118|NCT01652716|169090979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.841||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|1.3||Adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-21.7|0.1656
84678119|NCT01652716|169090980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4497||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.28|-0.48|0.3744
84678120|NCT01652716|169090981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8957||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|58.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.64|-5.16|0.0985
84678121|NCT04028388|169090987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.65|0.56|0.1465
84678122|NCT04028388|169090991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.93|||Log Rank|||DOR is calculated in the subpopulation of subjects experiencing a response (CR or PR). Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome.||7.93|0.39|0.4576
84678123|NCT04028388|169090992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.48|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome"||3.48|0.65|0.0776
84678124|NCT04028388|169090994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.49|||Log Rank|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.49|0.79|0.2539
84678125|NCT04028388|169090995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.42|0.76|0.3062
84678126|NCT02752048|169091026|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.757|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.000|-6.757|0.596
84678127|NCT02752048|169091026|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.349||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.918|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.918|-2.220|0.433
84678128|NCT02752048|169091027|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.650|-1.618|0.382
84678129|NCT02752048|169091027|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.397||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.817|-1.610|0.501
84678130|NCT02752048|169091028|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.363|1.298|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.298|-2.363|0.549
84678131|NCT02752048|169091028|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.801|1.351|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.351|-1.801|0.767
84678132|NCT01312467|169091029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||A paired t-test|||||||> 0.773
84647569|NCT01227564|169032008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|315.08||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-812.15|1442.3||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1442.30|-812.15|0.5773
84647570|NCT01227564|169032009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.16||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.31|111.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||111.62|-63.31|0.5818
84647571|NCT01227564|169032009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.42||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|174.21||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||174.21|-5.37|0.0648
84647572|NCT01227564|169032009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.29||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|132.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||132.05|-23.47|0.1672
84647573|NCT01227564|169032010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|3.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||3.22|-9.94|0.3106
84678133|NCT00132769|169091033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.48||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.18|||ANCOVA|||||4.18|-1.21|0.278
84678134|NCT00132769|169091034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.66||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.13|-24.45|0.543
84678135|NCT00132769|169091041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio between treatments|0.84||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.63|0.225
84647574|NCT01227564|169032010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|2.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||2.27|-11.28|0.1876
84678136|NCT01431508|169091042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 and Baseline||||<0.05
84678137|NCT00129259|169091043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses change in ln(AUC+1) as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline ln(AUC+1).||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC does not differ between treatment groups after adjusting for baseline C-peptide AUC.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC differs between the treatment groups after adjusting for baseline values."||||0.002
84647575|NCT01227564|169032010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1.79|-9.66|0.1742
84678138|NCT00129259|169091044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline HbA1c.||"Null hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline (pre-treatment) to Month 24 does not differ between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Month 24 differs between treatment groups."||||0.697
84678139|NCT00129259|169091045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline daily insulin use per kg||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg does not differ between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg differs between the treatment and control groups."||||0.110
84678140|NCT00139997|169091071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84678141|NCT02199691|169091073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.0||||||Serogroup A||15|3.4|
84678142|NCT02199691|169091073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.0||||||Serogroup C||29|20.3|
84678143|NCT02199691|169091073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.2||||||||20.2|12.3|
84678144|NCT02199691|169091073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|24.8||||||Serogroup W||24.8|14.2|
84647576|NCT01227564|169032011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.36||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.52|42.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||42.81|-103.52|0.4089
84647577|NCT01227564|169032011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.69|-7.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||-7.11|-159.69|0.0327
84647578|NCT01227564|169032011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.88||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|7.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||7.06|-120.82|0.0801
84647579|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.78||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|76.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||76.71|-37.15|0.4892
84647580|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.06||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|110.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||110.63|-8.51|0.0915
84647581|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.42||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|85.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||85.72|-14.88|0.1638
84647582|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.29||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|252.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||252.86|-54.28|0.2006
84647583|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|225.63||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.18|386.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||386.09|65.18|0.0067
84647584|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.46||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.05|298.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||298.87|26.05|0.0204
84647585|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.13||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|240.89||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||240.89|-12.63|0.0766
84647586|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
84678145|NCT02199691|169091074|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.5||||||Serogroup A||10.5|-0.8|
84678146|NCT02199691|169091074|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||Serogroup C||2.4|-2.5|
84678147|NCT02199691|169091074|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.2||||||Serogroup Y||1.2|-4.3|
84647587|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
84647588|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.84||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.29|284.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||284.97|-69.29|0.2277
84647589|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
84678148|NCT02199691|169091074|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.6||||||Serogroup W||2.6|-7.3|
84678149|NCT02199691|169091075|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.99||||||PT: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.99|0.722|
84678150|NCT02199691|169091075|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|0.842||||||FHA: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.842|0.661|
84678151|NCT02199691|169091075|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|0.903||||||PRN: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.903|0.627|
84678152|NCT02199691|169091075|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.878||||||FIM: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.878|0.525|
84678153|NCT02199691|169091076|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3||||||Serogroup Diphtheria||1.3|-3.3|
84678154|NCT02199691|169091076|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9||||||Serogroup Tetanus||1.9|-1.2|
84678155|NCT02199691|169091077|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||HPV Type 6||6.3|-1.8|
84678156|NCT02199691|169091077|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||HPV Type 11||3.9|-1.3|
84647590|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
84678157|NCT02199691|169091077|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 16||3.6|-1.9|
84678158|NCT02199691|169091077|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 18||3.6|-1.9|
84678159|NCT04286594|169091086|OTHER|Change in single group over time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.457|14.876|||t-test, 1 sided|||||14.876|8.457|<0.001
84678160|NCT03117387|169091139|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis estimates bias between TOF-Cuff and electromyography.|bias|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-0.05|0.05||||||"Paired measurements were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis modified for repeated measurements (http://sec.lumc.nl/method\_agreement\_analysis, Leiden, the Netherlands).~This Bland-Altman analysis corrects for between subject variability of repeated paired measurements in individual subjects."||0.05|-0.05|
84647591|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.92||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|298.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||298.45|-14.62|0.0747
84647592|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.4||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.02|367.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||367.79|41.02|0.0151
84647593|NCT01227564|169032012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.16||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.25|313.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||313.07|33.25|0.0161
84647594|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.652||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|1.267||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.267|-6.570|0.1807
84678161|NCT03403634|169091140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|df = 11. one-sided as post treatment increases were of interest. the fold changes were log-transformed prior to inferences.||||||0.046
84678162|NCT05955560|169091155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A two-sided paired t-test was used and p-value derived. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84678163|NCT01543256|169091187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 20%||||||0.008|||||||Exact non-inferiority|||||||.008
84678164|NCT01543256|169091188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.568
84678165|NCT01543256|169091189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
84678166|NCT01543256|169091190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.99
84678167|NCT01543256|169091191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.519
84678168|NCT01543256|169091192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
84678169|NCT00822510|169091193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84678170|NCT00822510|169091195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|0.79|||||ANOVA|||||||.79
84678171|NCT00822510|169091196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
84678172|NCT00822510|169091197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
84678173|NCT00822510|169091198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|0.71|||||ANOVA|||||||.71
84678174|NCT00822510|169091199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.01|||||ANOVA|||||||.01
84678175|NCT03119766|169091211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.85|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.85|0.04|0.041
84678176|NCT03119766|169091211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factor Treatment and random factor research center were used in mixed model. Difference in mean changes between groups was estimeted."|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared. Influence of between center variation was estimated.||1.74|0.04|0.041
84647595|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.497||||0.8051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.515|4.508||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||4.508|-3.515|0.8051
84647596|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.078||||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.364||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||2.364|-4.519|0.5331
84647597|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.641||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||3.641|-3.990|0.9274
84647598|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.458||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.458|-0.360|0.0743
84647599|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.687||||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|5.031||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||5.031|-1.656|0.3163
84647600|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.645||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.721|3.43||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||3.430|-6.721|0.5190
84647601|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.758||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|9.991||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||9.991|-0.476|0.0740
84647602|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.937|6.049||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||6.049|-2.937|0.4909
84647603|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.383||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.549|6.783||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||6.783|-7.549|0.9151
84678177|NCT03119766|169091212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 1 point.||||0.067
84505520|NCT01965652|168761663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
84505521|NCT01965652|168761663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.19|-0.44|<0.0001
84678178|NCT03119766|169091212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 2 points.||||0.029
84678179|NCT03119766|169091212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 3 points.||||0.082
84678180|NCT03119766|169091212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 4 points.||||0.046
84678181|NCT03119766|169091212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 5 points.||||0.111
84647604|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|12.857||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||12.857|-2.069|0.1533
84647605|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|8.915||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||8.915|-3.904|0.4371
84647606|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.999|6.579||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.579|-10.999|0.6167
84647607|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.993|15.212||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||15.212|-2.993|0.1844
84647608|NCT01227564|169032013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.888|9.878||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.878|-5.888|0.6205
84647609|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|1.018||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.018|-0.183|0.1695
84647610|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.759||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.759|-0.465|0.6331
84647611|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.812||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.812|-0.247|0.2907
84647612|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|0.688||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.688|-0.675|0.9846
84647613|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.392||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.392|-1.000|0.3845
84647614|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.450|-0.748|0.6204
84647615|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.221|1.192||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||1.192|-1.221|0.9810
84647616|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.796||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.034|0.443||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.443|-2.034|0.2034
84647617|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.405||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|0.659||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.659|-1.469|0.4491
84647618|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.827|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||2.337|-1.827|0.8074
84647619|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.189|1.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.131|-3.189|0.3444
84647620|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.464||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.464|-2.239|0.6772
84647621|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.652||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|3.367||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.367|-2.063|0.6325
84678182|NCT03119766|169091213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.15|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of NDI scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.15|-0.93|0.435
84647622|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.606|2.007||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.007|-3.606|0.5706
84505522|NCT01965652|168761664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.53|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.53|-0.81|<0.0001
84647623|NCT01227564|169032014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.337|-2.485|0.9513
84647624|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.043||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.043|-0.074|0.6054
84647625|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.084||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.084|-0.035|0.4087
84647626|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.056||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.056|-0.046|0.8518
84647627|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.036|-0.085|0.4216
84647628|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.097||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.097|-0.028|0.2730
84647629|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.058|-0.048|0.8549
84647630|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.068||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.068|-0.120|0.5847
84505523|NCT01965652|168761664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.43|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.43|-0.73|<0.0001
84647631|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.163||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.163|-0.030|0.1740
84647632|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.103||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.103|-0.063|0.6255
84647633|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.131|-0.177|0.7658
84647634|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.240|-0.082|0.3309
84647635|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.166||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.166|-0.110|0.6872
84647636|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.202||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.202|-0.196|0.9752
84678183|NCT03119766|169091214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.26|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of SF-36 scores (physical health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.26|-2.00|0.655
84678184|NCT03119766|169091214|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.1|||ANOVA|||Mean changes of SF-36 scores (mental health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.10|-0.79|0.375
84647637|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.349||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.349|-0.064|0.1715
84647638|NCT01227564|169032015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.250|-0.105|0.4145
84647639|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.022|-0.043|0.5134
84678185|NCT03119766|169091215|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84678186|NCT03119766|169091216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.08
84678187|NCT03119766|169091216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect||||0.139
84678188|NCT03119766|169091216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.251
84678189|NCT02034578|169091219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.04||||||B versus A||1.040|0.873|
84678190|NCT02034578|169091219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|0.865||||||C versus A||0.865|0.749|
84678191|NCT02034578|169091221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.01||||||B versus A||1.010|0.924|
84678192|NCT02034578|169091221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|0.942||||||C versus A||0.942|0.896|
84505524|NCT01965652|168761664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.36|-0.66|<0.0001
84505525|NCT01965652|168761664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.38|-0.69|<0.0001
84505526|NCT01965652|168761664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.32|-0.64|<0.0001
84505527|NCT01965652|168761665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84505528|NCT02524106|168761666|OTHER||percentage difference|61.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
84505529|NCT02524106|168761667|OTHER||percentage difference|39.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
84505530|NCT01121900|168761668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|46.0|||||Test/reference (%)|||46.0|34.4|
84505531|NCT01121900|168761669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-tlast) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|88.3|||||Test/reference (%)|||88.3|74.2|
84505532|NCT01121900|168761670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|83.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|91.1|||||Test/reference (%)|||91.1|76.5|
84505533|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.89|||||Confidence interval (CI), estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for pre dose|||9.89|2.72|
84505534|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|9.87|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 1 hour post dose|||9.87|3.00|
84505535|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.82|10.6|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 2 hour post dose|||10.60|4.82|
84505536|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|9.89|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 3 hour post dose|||9.89|2.94|
84505537|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.54|10.65|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 4 hour post dose|||10.65|2.54|
84505538|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|10.14|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 6 hour post dose|||10.14|1.57|
84505539|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.735|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|9.47|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 8 hour post dose|||9.47|0.35|
84505540|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|13.42|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 10 hour post dose|||13.42|4.08|
84505541|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|10.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 12 hour post dose|||10.36|1.16|
84505542|NCT01328054|168761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|7.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 24 hour post dose|||7.36|0.15|
84505543|NCT04147715|168761695|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9913|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9232|1.0645|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fit with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0645|0.9232|
84505544|NCT04147715|168761695|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0671|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0671|0.8916|
84678193|NCT02034578|169091222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.011||||||B versus A||1.011|0.926|
84678194|NCT02034578|169091222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.947||||||C versus A||0.947|0.899|
84647640|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.041|-0.024|0.6083
84647641|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.027|-0.029|0.9401
84647642|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.016|-0.051|0.2950
84647643|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.037|-0.031|0.8817
84678195|NCT01138124|169091238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.75|1.51|<0.0001
84678196|NCT01138124|169091238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.82||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|1.34|0.0001
84678197|NCT01138124|169091238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.52||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.36|0.98|0.0627
84678198|NCT01138124|169091238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.85|0.2183
84511669|NCT05150964|168775150|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The presentation level will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
84678199|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.28|1.86|<0.0001
84713779|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.25||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.63|60.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||60.05|-159.63|0.4828
84713780|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.26|-52.26|0.0383
84713781|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.5322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.66|34.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||34.65|-86.66|0.5322
84713782|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.38|12.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.03|-24.38|0.6577
84713783|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.08|88.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||88.40|-165.08|0.6259
84713784|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.01|-15.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.38|-56.01|0.0312
84713785|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-108.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.73||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.97|-77.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-77.61|-138.97|0.0103
84713786|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|26.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||26.56|-6.59|0.4330
84713787|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.23||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.82|83.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||83.39|-158.82|0.6165
84713788|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.13||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.11|-11.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-11.84|-52.11|0.0488
84713789|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.9||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.53|46.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||46.16|-84.53|0.6636
84713790|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.18|39.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||39.52|8.18|0.0583
84713791|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.87||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.55|58.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||58.36|-148.55|0.4975
84713792|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.17|-9.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-9.82|-51.17|0.0653
84713793|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.98||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.42|48.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||48.62|-95.42|0.6316
84713794|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.05|46.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||46.18|7.05|0.0874
84713795|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.39||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|50.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||50.03|-139.99|0.4662
84713796|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.76|-5.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-5.51|-45.76|0.1073
84647644|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.022|-0.037|0.6072
84647645|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.036|-0.060|0.6259
84647646|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.076||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.076|-0.023|0.2807
84647647|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.050|-0.035|0.7224
84647648|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.067||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.067|-0.080|0.8532
84647649|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.116||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.116|-0.038|0.3116
84647650|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.082||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.082|-0.049|0.6246
84647651|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.108||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.108|-0.092|0.8697
84678200|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy"|||3.85|1.66|<0.0001
84678201|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.03|1.51|0.001
84678202|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.49|1.32|0.0042
84678203|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.97|0.0645
84678204|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.11|0.87|0.1232
84678205|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.55||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.78|0.17|0.3160
84678206|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.48||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||1.57|0.15|0.2234
84678207|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.76|0.3071
84678208|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.17||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.11|0.65|0.6062
84678209|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.31||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.97|0.58|0.5205
84678210|NCT01138124|169091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.57|0.48|0.8042
84678211|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
84678212|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.46|1.85|<0.0001
84678213|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.13|1.47|0.0015
84678214|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.45||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.62|1.31|0.0053
84678215|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.94|0.0777
84678216|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.69|0.83|0.1762
84678217|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.82||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.28|0.29|0.6990
84678218|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.01|0.26|0.5274
84678219|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3245
84678220|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.07|0.64|0.6388
84505545|NCT04147715|168761697|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9421|1.1377|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1377|0.9421|
84647652|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.176||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.176|-0.032|0.1707
84647653|NCT01227564|169032016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.129||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.129|-0.049|0.3732
84647654|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.028||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.028|-0.040|0.7259
84647655|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.051||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.051|-0.018|0.3517
84678221|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.51|0.49|0.796
84678222|NCT01138124|169091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.94||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.15|0.41|0.8772
84678223|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.47|1.88|<0.0001
84678224|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.11|1.71|<0.0001
84678225|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.19||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.25|1.12|0.0212
84678226|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.81|0.99|0.0522
84678227|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.05|0.0337
84678228|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.64||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.95|0.92|0.0947
84678229|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.64|0.3928
84678230|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.72|0.54|0.6502
84678231|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3275
84678232|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.64|0.6365
84678233|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.42|0.9858
84678234|NCT01138124|169091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.12|0.36|0.7671
84678235|NCT01138124|169091242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|1.22|0.0031
84511670|NCT05150964|168775150|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
84678236|NCT01138124|169091242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.49|1.13|0.0095
84678237|NCT01138124|169091242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.91|0.0970
84678238|NCT01138124|169091242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.97|0.89|0.1123
84678239|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.53||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||4.44|1.44|0.0012
84678240|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.14|1.32|0.0034
84678241|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.18||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.32|0.9|0.0856
84678242|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|0.87|0.0996
84678243|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.63|0.98|0.0563
84678244|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.43|0.92|0.0896
84678245|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.01|0.49|0.5308
84678246|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.39||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.02|0.48|0.5458
84678247|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.19|0.35|0.7744
84678248|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.11|0.33|0.6999
84678249|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.32||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.47|0.39|0.6528
84713797|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.31||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.62|45.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||45.96|-92.62|0.6197
84713798|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|40.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.55|0.63|0.1868
84713799|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.32||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.65|26.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||26.71|-136.65|0.3321
84713800|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.67||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-3.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-3.95|-45.64|0.1310
84713801|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.49||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.15|64.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||64.13|-88.15|0.8128
84713802|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.75|43.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||43.69|5.75|0.1004
84713803|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.81||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.28|21.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||21.71|-147.28|0.2962
84713804|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|-4.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-4.67|-48.31|0.1236
84713805|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.55||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.1|70.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||70.11|-79.10|0.9276
84713806|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.55|37.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||37.45|1.55|0.1657
84713807|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.8||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.54|31.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||31.71|-148.54|0.3461
84647656|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.035||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.035|-0.024|0.7311
84505546|NCT04147715|168761697|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8791|0.9411|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||0.9411|0.8791|
84647657|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.026||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.026|-0.041|0.6446
84713808|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.51||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.58|-5.64||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.64|-49.58|0.1118
84713809|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.24||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.75|51.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||51.89|-89.75|0.6912
84713810|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.5|40.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||40.35|5.50|0.0973
84713811|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.33||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.72|18.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||18.37|-133.72|0.2890
84713812|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.43|1.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||1.60|-45.43|0.2310
84713813|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.17||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.69|61.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||61.28|-86.69|0.7967
84713814|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.98||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.5|36.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||36.44|-3.50|0.2868
84713815|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.08|8.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||8.37|-138.08|0.2369
84713816|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.97|1.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||1.17|-44.97|0.2228
84713817|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.51||0.774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.74|62.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||62.89|-92.74|0.7740
84713818|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|33.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||33.98|-3.74|0.3000
84713819|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-131.59|-13.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-13.30|-131.59|0.1472
84713820|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.77|14.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||14.94|-39.77|0.5536
84713821|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.65||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.13|53.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||53.84|-89.13|0.7131
84713822|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.49|34.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||34.24|-6.49|0.3762
84713823|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.26|-14.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-14.97|-133.26|0.1419
84713824|NCT03858634|169173785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.22|15.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||15.95|-39.22|0.5817
84647658|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.066|-0.002|0.0640
84505547|NCT04147715|168761698|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9679|1.0479|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0479|0.9679|
84647659|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.4057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.041|-0.017|0.4057
84647660|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.037|-0.066|0.5742
84647661|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.093||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.093|-0.013|0.1336
84647662|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.058|-0.033|0.5734
84647663|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.071|-0.104|0.7067
84678250|NCT01138124|169091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.47|0.38|0.6722
84678251|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||5.85|1.79|<0.0001
84647664|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.132||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.132|-0.049|0.3600
84647665|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.090|-0.065|0.7454
84647666|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.100|-0.113|0.9037
84647667|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.181||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.181|-0.040|0.2082
84647668|NCT01227564|169032017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.127||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.127|-0.063|0.5044
84647669|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.17|-0.23|0.7687
84647670|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.24|-0.16|0.6804
84647671|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.18|-0.17|0.9452
84647672|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.23|-0.27|0.8825
84647673|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.24|-0.28|0.8791
84647674|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.20|-0.24|0.8628
84647675|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.26|-0.35|0.7843
84647676|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.60|-0.04|0.0857
84678252|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|1.59|0.0005
84678253|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.54||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.25|1.03|0.042
84678254|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.4||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.98|0.96|0.0603
84678255|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.65|0.69|0.3762
84678256|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.63|0.68|0.4073
84647677|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.39|-0.15|0.3878
84505548|NCT04147715|168761698|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9605|1.0105|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0105|0.9605|
84647678|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.45|-0.39|0.8918
84647679|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.76|-0.09|0.1233
84647680|NCT01227564|169032018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.55|-0.19|0.3302
84647681|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.97|-0.67|0.1597
84647682|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.91|-4.01|0.2130
84647683|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||2.16|-2.06|0.9616
84647684|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||4.62|-1.06|0.2143
84678257|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.95||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.12|0.29|0.9294
84505549|NCT04147715|168761700|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.2477|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2477|1.1171|
84511671|NCT05150964|168775151|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||<0.05
84678258|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.29|0.3|0.9875
84678259|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.19||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.54|0.66
84678260|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.45|0.5|0.8110
84678261|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.96|0.58|0.3336
84678262|NCT01138124|169091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.84|0.55|0.3782
84647685|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.12|-4.87|0.2151
84647686|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.51||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.51|-2.61|0.9704
84647687|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.95||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||3.95|-3.00|0.7857
84647688|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-6.45|0.1323
84647689|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.97|-4.29|0.4618
84647690|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.22|-1.74|0.2622
84678263|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.88|0.92|0.0841
84678264|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.75||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.63|0.85|0.1313
84678265|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.34|0.78|0.1488
84678266|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.05||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.46|0.77|0.1495
84678267|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.22|1.42|0.0013
84678268|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.07|1.35|0.0026
84678269|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.78||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.69|0.68|0.2421
84678270|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.53|0.64|0.2899
84678271|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.29|0.42|0.9723
84678272|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.13|0.39|0.8206
84678273|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.82|0.35|0.8135
84678274|NCT01138124|169091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.86|0.34|0.8173
84678275|NCT00466193|169091250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84678276|NCT00466193|169091252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84678277|NCT00466193|169091255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0||||P-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
84678278|NCT01614210|169091256|OTHER||percentage decrease in Ki67 after 7 days|||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
84678279|NCT03669081|169091288|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the test was no difference between groups.||||||0.006||||||The significance level for this test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test due to the skewed nature of the morphine equivalents data and the small sample sizes in each group.||||||0.006
84678280|NCT03669081|169091289|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.029|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.029
84678281|NCT03669081|169091290|NON_INFERIORITY|We conducted a 1-sided non-inferiority test using an alpha level of 0.025, for a comparison of the fold change of creatinine levels (pre-operative creatinine/post-operative creatinine) in the Toradol group. Our minimum non-inferiority margin was 0.5, ie the post-operative creatinine level could only increase to at most two times the pre-operative creatinine level.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value was compared to a significance threshold of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The safety outcome was used to power our study.To achieve 90% power at a 2.5% significance level for testing that the post-surgery creatinine increase is at most two-fold (where 1.5 fold is expected), or alternatively for the pre-surgery creatinine group to be ≥0.5 times the post-surgery, we need 17 subjects in the toradol group. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority test (one sided t-test) using a coefficient of variation of 0.25 based on preliminary data.||||<0.0001
84678282|NCT03669081|169091291|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84678283|NCT03669081|169091292|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.|||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84678284|NCT00389324|169091294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The administration effect between SC and IV was assessed by exponentiation of the difference in least squares means between study phases (Test minus Reference) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio between study phases (Test/Reference) for AUC. The Test (SC) was to be considered non-inferior to Reference (IV) if the lower bound of 90% CIs for the geometric LSM ratios of AUC between the Test and Reference was above 0.80 (80%).|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.888||||||90.0|0.861|0.917|||ANOVA||An adjusted steady-state area under the concentration vs. time curve following SC administration based on IV dosing schedule was calculated as AUC0-τ,SC multiplied by 3 or 4 for subjects on every-3-week or every-4-week IV dosing schedule.|The IV phase was considered as the Reference study phase and the SC phase as the Test study phase. The ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means (LSM), differences between adjusted means and the standard error associated with these differences.||0.917|0.861|
84678285|NCT02753751|169091379|SUPERIORITY|The Mantel-Haenszel test was used, accounting for each hospital as an individual stratum, and to obtain the pooled relative risks across hospitals without adjusting for other baseline factors. (Alert arm is the numerator, control arm is the denominator.) Patients discharged prior to 14 days without an outcome of interest were assumed to be free of that outcome at 14 days. A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In our retrospective analysis of patients with AKI at 3 potential study hospitals, the composite outcome was 24.5%. A clinically meaningful relative reduction in this risk would be 20%. 5,024 patients (2,512 in each group) would have 90% power to detect a difference in outcome at least this extreme at a two-sided alpha of 0.05 as calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. We have elected to increase this number by 20% to account for potential contamination.||1.13|0.93|0.67
84678286|NCT01854827|169091388|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
84678287|NCT01854827|169091389|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
84678288|NCT01854827|169091390|OTHER|Percents with serious AEs prior to liver transplant were calculated, along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bounds.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
84678289|NCT01854827|169091391|OTHER|Percent of patients with level 3-5 toxicity are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bound.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
84678290|NCT01854827|169091392|OTHER|Percent of patients with other expected AEs are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence limit lower bound.|Percent of patients|27.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|14.5||||||||||14.5|
84678291|NCT01854827|169091393|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5486|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared to the historical placebo control from the START study (n=64): PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||2.38||0.5486
84678292|NCT01854827|169091394|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG relative to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.8455|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical control of START study placebo (N=64). PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||1.22||0.8455
84678293|NCT01854827|169091395|SUPERIORITY|One-sided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.8431|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.24||One-sided|Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical START placebo control (N=64).||1.24||0.8431
84678294|NCT01854827|169091396|SUPERIORITY|One-sided for IVIG superior to historical START placebo control. PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1||||||K-M estimates for survival for IVIG vs the historical START placebo control are provided, along with one-sided 90% upper bounds of the confidence intervals.||2.1||
84678295|NCT00736996|169091398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with PIO was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
84678296|NCT00736996|169091398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with EET was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
84678297|NCT00736996|169091399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
84678298|NCT00736996|169091399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
84678299|NCT00736996|169091400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
84678300|NCT00736996|169091400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
84678301|NCT02667912|169091401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|21.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||21.4|0.3|0.045
84678302|NCT02667912|169091404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84678303|NCT02667912|169091405|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
84678304|NCT02667912|169091406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-11.9|0.27
84678305|NCT02667912|169091407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-3.7|0.17
84678306|NCT02667912|169091410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
84678307|NCT02667912|169091411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84678308|NCT02667912|169091412|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.304
84678309|NCT02667912|169091413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84678310|NCT02667912|169091414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84678311|NCT02667912|169091415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84678312|NCT02667912|169091416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84678313|NCT02667912|169091417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84678314|NCT02667912|169091418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
84678315|NCT02667912|169091419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84647691|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.55|-5.64|0.4499
84647692|NCT01227564|169032019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.91|-3.21|0.8454
84647693|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.96|-0.18|0.1796
84647694|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.69|-0.49|0.7281
84647695|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.75|-0.26|0.3347
84647696|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.20|-0.43|0.3425
84647697|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.52|-1.16|0.4501
84647698|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.75|-0.68|0.9227
84678316|NCT02667912|169091420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
84678317|NCT02667912|169091421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
84678318|NCT02667912|169091422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.238
84678319|NCT02667912|169091423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969
84678320|NCT02667912|169091424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84511672|NCT05150964|168775151|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
84678321|NCT02660944|169091431|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 85 RSLV-132 versus placebo||4.15|-3.42|0.845
84678322|NCT02660944|169091431|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 169 RSLV-132 versus placebo||3.70|-4.66|0.818
84678323|NCT03586999|169091444|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The proportion achieving a complete response will be calculated and will compared to null proportion of 30%. The population proportion for complete response rate, p-value and 90% confidence intervals for the complete response rate will be calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was to be suspended, if, at any time, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the true probability of achieving a complete response falls below 30% while assuming the treatment drug will elicit a 56% complete response rate. Statistically significant evidence for this low complete response rate is defined as an observed complete response rate whose upper one-sided 90% confidence limit is 0-30%. Sample size calculations were made assuming 80% power.||||.1
84678324|NCT02059148|169091462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.38||||||||1.38|1.11|
84678325|NCT02059148|169091463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.23||||||||1.23|1.05|
84678326|NCT02059148|169091464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|1.00|0.0006
84678327|NCT03880578|169091478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome measure is change over time between treatment groups, reported as a mean adjusted difference.|change in the composite score of the ThyPRO between groups|||-5.7|-14.9|<0.001
84678328|NCT03880578|169091479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-4.34|0.06
84678329|NCT03880578|169091480|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||MAD obtained after log transformation of TSH|||2.03|1.27|<0.001
84678330|NCT03880578|169091481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT3||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
84678331|NCT03880578|169091481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT4||0.15|-1.81|0.12
84678332|NCT03880578|169091482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-14.6|<0.001
84678333|NCT02328326|169091501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.18|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAM, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAM is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAM score compared to patient participants in PACT.||5.18|0.02|0.048
84678334|NCT02328326|169091502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.67|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of ukpds, insulin use, site, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline. Reference for comparison is PACT.|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in ukpds 5 year risk score is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' 5-year cardiovascular event risk.||2.67|-0.87|0.32
84678335|NCT02328326|169091503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Healthy Eating, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Healthy Eating is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' Healthy Eating scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.22|0.20|0.01
84647699|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.45|-0.51|0.3450
84647700|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.45|-1.58|0.2740
84647701|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.82|-0.92|0.9140
84647702|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.24|-0.18|0.0923
84647703|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.35|-1.11|0.8482
84647704|NCT01227564|169032020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.64|-0.49|0.2840
84647705|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.92|-4.90|0.1767
84647706|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-1.29|-7.23|0.0057
84647707|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.57||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-0.57|-5.69|0.0176
84713825|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.77||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-63.6|119.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||119.06|-63.60|0.6532
84505550|NCT04147715|168761700|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9656|1.1373|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1373|0.9656|
84647708|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.61|-3.98|0.6790
84678336|NCT02328326|169091504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of A1c, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in A1c is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' A1c score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.51|-0.17|0.33
84647709|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||3.20|-3.62|0.9028
84647710|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.47||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.47|-3.36|0.7600
84647711|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.86|-4.51|0.4089
84647712|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|1.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.15|-5.49|0.1964
84647713|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|1.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.09|-4.58|0.2234
84647714|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.12|-3.52|0.6186
84678337|NCT02328326|169091505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.35|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SBP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SBP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' SBP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.35|-7.00|0.18
84678338|NCT02328326|169091506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.19|-0.95|0.83
84678339|NCT02328326|169091507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PEPPI, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PEPPI is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PEPPI score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.93|-0.71|0.79
84678340|NCT02328326|169091508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Cho to HDL Ratio, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Chol to HDL Ratio is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' Chol to HDL Ratio score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.40|-0.09|0.21
84678341|NCT02328326|169091510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of IOCQ, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in IOCQ is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' IOCQ score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.53|0.08|0.01
84505551|NCT04147715|168761702|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.3445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2352|1.4636|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.4636|1.2352|
84647715|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.06|-3.60|0.5853
84647716|NCT01227564|169032021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.75|-3.23|0.5541
84647717|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.93||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.93|-2.09|0.9370
84647718|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.88||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.88|-3.19|0.2597
84647719|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.14|-2.38|0.4852
84647720|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.22|-2.69|0.4542
84678342|NCT02328326|169091511|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent distribution among categories|difference in count|-1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||Difference in count of those who stopped smoking in CO-IMPACT vs. those who stopped smoking in PACT.|||0.17
84713826|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.38|35.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||35.85|11.38|0.0187
84713827|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.53||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.27|44.68||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||44.68|-123.27|0.4707
84647721|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|0.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.97|-3.04|0.3061
84647722|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.84|-2.61|0.3082
84647723|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-3.09|0.2672
84647724|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.07|-4.15|0.0427
84647725|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.15|-3.37|0.0716
84647726|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.7184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.00|-2.09|0.7184
84647727|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.03|-2.06|0.7004
84647728|NCT01227564|169032022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.6723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.71|-1.77|0.6723
84713828|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.22|4.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||4.59|-8.22|0.7108
84713829|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.36||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-76.47|121.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||121.23|-76.47|0.7355
84713830|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|34.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||34.52|-0.66|0.2167
84647729|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.68|-1.58|0.9535
84647730|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.65|-1.63|0.9914
84647731|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.44||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.44|-1.39|0.9682
84647732|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.64|-2.96|0.2008
84647733|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.60|-2.07|0.7988
84678343|NCT02328326|169091512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Physical Activity, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Physical activity is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Physical activity score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.47|-0.56|0.87
84678344|NCT02328326|169091513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Sugar Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Sugar Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Sugar Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.68|-0.22|0.31
84678345|NCT02328326|169091514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.89|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Pressure Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Pressure Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Pressure Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.89|-0.76|0.87
84678346|NCT02328326|169091515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Take Oral Meds as Prescribed, insulin use, randomization strat variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Oral Meds as Prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Oral Meds as Prescribed score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.23|-0.42|0.56
84678347|NCT02328326|169091516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of Take Insulin as Prescribed, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Insulin as prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Insulin as Prescribed compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.41|-0.26|0.67
84678348|NCT02328326|169091517|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Foot Care is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Foot Care score compared to patient participants in PACT.|Median Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Foot Care, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|0.75|-0.22|0.29
84678349|NCT02328326|169091518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SE, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SE is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' SE scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.71|0.09|0.01
84713831|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.16|51.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||51.13|-178.16|0.4058
84713832|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|2.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.15|-14.95|0.3323
84713833|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.11||0.6496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.29|145.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||145.80|-77.29|0.6496
84713834|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|30.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||30.70|-3.12|0.2925
84713835|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.98||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-198.92|57.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||57.46|-198.92|0.4074
84647734|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.87|-2.27|0.3764
84647735|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.25|-2.98|0.4177
84647736|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.68|-2.67|0.6494
84647737|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.18|-2.54|0.4674
84647738|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|1.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.81|-3.85|0.4709
84647739|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||4.07|-1.70|0.4128
84647740|NCT01227564|169032023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.58|-2.41|0.9478
84647741|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||2.35|-3.40|0.7146
84713836|NCT03858634|169173787|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.56||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.6|-1.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.49|-29.60|0.1584
84713837|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-111.31|65.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||65.69|-111.31|0.7013
84713838|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.35||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|35.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||35.05|-8.30|0.4230
84713839|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.96||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.9|48.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||48.69|-169.90|0.4055
84713840|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.41|-6.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.96|-38.41|0.0709
84647742|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.33||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.33|-4.60|0.2733
84647743|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.46|-3.62|0.3969
84647744|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||2.92|-2.43|0.8566
84647745|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.42|-3.98|0.3460
84647746|NCT01227564|169032024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.82|-2.86|0.6582
84678350|NCT02328326|169091519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Lorig\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Lorig\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Lorig\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.55|-0.34|0.67
84678351|NCT02328326|169091520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16|||Regression, Linear||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in CSIS is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' CSIS score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.16|-0.60|0.53
84713841|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.17||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-103.77|139.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||139.17|-103.77|0.8268
84713842|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|31.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.75|-7.03|0.4082
84713843|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.86||0.4818|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|60.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||60.56|-161.43|0.4818
84713844|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-8.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.58|-45.64|0.0673
84713845|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.15||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.0|164.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||164.10|-105.00|0.7429
84713846|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.55||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.88|39.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||39.79|3.88|0.1227
84713847|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.06||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.95|62.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||62.02|-156.95|0.4996
84713848|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-15.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-15.43|-51.87|0.0244
84713849|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.24||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.5|104.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.92|-105.50|0.9967
84647747|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|13.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||13.36|-18.36|0.7537
84647748|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.86|3.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.65|-28.86|0.1266
84647749|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|18.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||18.41|-28.34|0.6724
84647750|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.89|-5.5||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||-5.50|-53.89|0.0170
84647751|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.94||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.67|30.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||30.78|-92.67|0.3196
84647752|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.64|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.31|-129.64|0.0490
84647753|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|46.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||46.79|-14.70|0.2969
84647754|NCT01227564|169032026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.42|5.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||5.03|-57.42|0.0973
84647755|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|5.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||5.10|-7.94|0.6653
84647756|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||9.15|-4.20|0.4613
84647757|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||5.61|-4.18|0.7710
84647758|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|8.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||8.04|-1.99|0.2328
84647759|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.58|-0.97|0.3693
84647760|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.56||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.56|-1.09|0.4220
84647761|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|9.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.23|-24.25|0.3728
84647762|NCT01227564|169032027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07||||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|8.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||8.91|-25.05|0.3452
84647763|NCT05308290|169032059|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84647764|NCT05308290|169032060|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84647765|NCT05308290|169032061|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84678352|NCT02328326|169091521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baselineNet difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.25|-0.61|0.50
84647766|NCT05308290|169032062|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84647767|NCT05308290|169032063|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
84647768|NCT00586196|169032080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||GEE|||||2.3|0.4|
84647769|NCT00586196|169032081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||GEE|||||1.2|-1.5|
84647770|NCT00410202|169032088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Hochberg procedure|||||19.9|-2.0|0.1336
84647771|NCT00410202|169032088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.5|||Hochberg procedure|||||15.5|-4.2|0.2619
84647772|NCT00410202|169032089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|15.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.4|||Hochberg procedure|||||26.4|3.7|0.0095
84647773|NCT00410202|169032090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.1||||||||21.1|2.5|
84647774|NCT00410202|169032090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|18.2||||||||18.2|-1.1|
84647775|NCT00410202|169032091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|23.9||||||||23.9|1.8|
84647776|NCT00410202|169032092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.4||||||||17.4|0.3|
84678353|NCT00153101|169091582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8462||95.0|0.92|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.92|0.8462
84647777|NCT00410202|169032092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.3||||||||17.3|-0.1|
84647778|NCT00410202|169032093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|23.4||||||||23.4|2.4|
84647779|NCT00410202|169032096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|-0.994|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.994|-1.534|
84647780|NCT00410202|169032096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.281|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.281|-0.824|
84647781|NCT00410202|169032098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7||||||||10.7|-15.5|
84647782|NCT00410202|169032098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6||||||||12.6|-15.0|
84647783|NCT00410202|169032099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|10.6||||||||10.6|-16.2|
84505552|NCT04147715|168761702|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0137|1.1441|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1441|1.0137|
84647784|NCT00410202|169032100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||||||||6.7|-5.2|
84647785|NCT00410202|169032100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.2||||||||7.2|-4.6|
84647786|NCT00410202|169032101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.5|
84678354|NCT00153101|169091582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.0019||97.5|0.93|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.93|0.0019
84678355|NCT00153101|169091583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9086||95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.9086
84647787|NCT00410202|169032102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.8||||||||6.8|-2.4|
84647788|NCT00410202|169032102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-3.5|
84647789|NCT00410202|169032103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-3.6|
84647790|NCT00410202|169032104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
84647791|NCT00410202|169032104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.0|
84647792|NCT00410202|169032106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
84647793|NCT00410202|169032106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
84647794|NCT00144027|169032113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|47.53|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression predicting 6-month adherence, controling for baseline depression, extrapyramidal side effects, and baseline adherence.||||47.53|1.21|0.03
84647795|NCT05080660|169032114|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.73|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.73|-0.26|
84647796|NCT05080660|169032115|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.76|-0.39|
84647797|NCT05080660|169032116|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.47|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.47|-0.23|
84647798|NCT05080660|169032117|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.34|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.34|-0.67|
84647799|NCT05080660|169032118|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.35|
84647800|NCT05080660|169032119|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.35|
84647801|NCT05080660|169032120|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.88|-0.88|
84647802|NCT05080660|169032121|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|6.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||6.38|-0.29|
84505553|NCT04147715|168761703|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1176|1.2754|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2754|1.1176|
84647803|NCT05080660|169032122|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.23|
84647804|NCT05080660|169032123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.37|-0.39|
84647805|NCT05080660|169032124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.81|-0.21|
84647806|NCT05080660|169032125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.9|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.90|-0.31|
84647807|NCT05080660|169032126|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|12.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.52|-0.24|
84647808|NCT05080660|169032127|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.18|-1.90|
84647809|NCT05080660|169032128|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.27|-0.32|
84678356|NCT00153101|169091583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0004||97.5|0.9|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.90|0.0004
84647810|NCT05080660|169032129|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.52|
84647811|NCT05080660|169032130|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.95|250.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||250.88|-51.95|
84647812|NCT05080660|169032131|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.51|293.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||293.69|-46.51|
84647813|NCT05080660|169032132|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.06|
84647814|NCT05080660|169032133|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.07|
84678357|NCT00153101|169091584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.4535||95.0|0.93|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.93|0.4535
84678358|NCT00153101|169091584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9421||95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9421
84678359|NCT00153101|169091585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2909||95.0|0.94|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.94|0.2909
84647815|NCT04221230|169032143|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.8|0.121
84647816|NCT03119701|169032169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.19|0.21|0.78
84647817|NCT03119701|169032170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.52|0.28|0.57
84647818|NCT03119701|169032171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84647819|NCT03119701|169032173|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84647820|NCT03119701|169032176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Exact Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test||||||0.3620
84647821|NCT03119701|169032179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and Day 6.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||<.0001
84647822|NCT03119701|169032179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Baseline visit|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.13
84647823|NCT03119701|169032179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Day 1|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.0035
84647824|NCT03119701|169032179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Day 9|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.009
84647825|NCT03119701|169032179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Day 13|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.10
84647826|NCT03119701|169032180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Patients with an observation below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) value at baseline for CD73 were set to have the LLOQ value (LLOQ = 4 ng/ml) at baseline for subgroup determination purposes (2-fold increase in CD73 from baseline). Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2 ng/mL.||||0.66
84647827|NCT03119701|169032181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Observations of zero were imputed as 1 pg/ml before logarithmic transformation.||||0.3
84647828|NCT02043379|169032183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to calculate the sample size necessary to detect a meaningful clinical difference for our primary endpoint.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
84647829|NCT02043379|169032184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
84647830|NCT02043379|169032185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84647831|NCT02043379|169032186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.26||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84647832|NCT02043379|169032187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-CPB albumin||||0.42
84647833|NCT02043379|169032187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for test signficance|t-test, 2 sided|||48 hour post CPB albumin||||0.06
84647834|NCT02043379|169032188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84647835|NCT02043379|169032189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.81||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Admit Inotrope Score||||0.81
84647836|NCT02043379|169032189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.82
84647837|NCT02043379|169032189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.9
84647838|NCT02043379|169032189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.23||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.23
84678360|NCT00153101|169091585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2534||95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.94|0.2534
84678361|NCT00153101|169091586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2248||95.0|0.79|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.79|0.2248
84647839|NCT02043379|169032190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.49||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84647840|NCT02043379|169032191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84647841|NCT02043379|169032192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.32||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative IgG level||||0.32
84647842|NCT02043379|169032192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative IgG level||||0.36
84647843|NCT02043379|169032192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 3 (72 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
84647844|NCT02043379|169032192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 5 (120 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
84647845|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.6||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.60
84678362|NCT00153101|169091586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1829||95.0|0.79|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.79|0.1829
84678363|NCT00153101|169091587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4984||95.0|0.82|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.82|0.4984
84678364|NCT00153101|169091587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1203||95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.97|0.1203
84678365|NCT00153101|169091588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.73|0.4221
84678366|NCT00153101|169091588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7305||95.0|0.51|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.60|0.51|0.7305
84678367|NCT00153101|169091589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6248||95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.54|0.6248
84647846|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.06
84647847|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.06
84647848|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.33||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative||||0.33
84647849|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative||||0.05
84647850|NCT02043379|169032193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.83||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative||||0.83
84647851|NCT02043379|169032194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour levels||||0.27
84647852|NCT02043379|169032194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.34
84678368|NCT00153101|169091589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.36|0.0751
84678369|NCT00153101|169091590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3682||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3682
84505554|NCT04147715|168761703|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9881|1.1119|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1119|0.9881|
84647853|NCT02043379|169032194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.14
84647854|NCT02043379|169032194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.13||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.13
84647855|NCT02043379|169032194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.02
84647856|NCT02043379|169032195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
84647857|NCT02043379|169032196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84647858|NCT02043379|169032197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.09||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-48 hours post-CPB||||0.09
84647859|NCT02043379|169032197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-24 hours post CPB||||0.52
84647860|NCT02043379|169032198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.72||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84647861|NCT02043379|169032199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.63||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84647862|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.41||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.41
84647863|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.34
84678370|NCT00153101|169091590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6014||95.0|0.69|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.69|0.6014
84678371|NCT00153101|169091591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.255||95.0|0.91|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.91|0.2550
84678372|NCT00153101|169091591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5297||95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.86|0.5297
84678373|NCT00153101|169091592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4593||95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.82|0.4593
84678374|NCT00153101|169091592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7468||95.0|0.68|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||||1.32|0.68|0.7468
84678375|NCT00153101|169091593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.5461
84678376|NCT00153101|169091593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3436||95.0|0.68|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.68|0.3436
84647864|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.47
84647865|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.42
84647866|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.82
84647867|NCT02043379|169032200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.44
84647868|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.28
84647869|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.37
84647870|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.42
84647871|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.31||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.31
84647872|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.38
84647873|NCT02043379|169032201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.4
84647874|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
84647875|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.12||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.12
84647876|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.51||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.51
84647877|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.27
84647878|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.88||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.88
84647879|NCT02043379|169032202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
84647880|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.35
84647881|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.39||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.39
84678377|NCT00153101|169091594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0133||95.0|0.8|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.80|0.0133
84678378|NCT00153101|169091594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1251||95.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.84|0.1251
84678379|NCT00153101|169091595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0213||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.67|0.0213
84678380|NCT00153101|169091595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2396||95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.75|0.2396
84647882|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.58||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.58
84647883|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.36
84647884|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.61||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.61
84647885|NCT02043379|169032203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
84647886|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
84647887|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.02
84647888|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.34
84678381|NCT00153101|169091596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0111||95.0|0.83|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.83|0.0111
84678382|NCT00153101|169091596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0606||95.0|0.85|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.85|0.0606
84678383|NCT00153101|169091597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0082||95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|1.05|0.0082
84647889|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.35
84647890|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.67
84647891|NCT02043379|169032204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.47
84647892|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.46||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.46
84647893|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.04
84647894|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.14
84647895|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.82
84647896|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.9
84647897|NCT02043379|169032205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.78||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.78
84678384|NCT00153101|169091597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2164||95.0|0.95|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.95|0.2164
84678385|NCT00153101|169091598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3732||95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|0.3732
84678386|NCT00153101|169091598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.3633||95.0|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.94|0.3633
84678387|NCT00153101|169091599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2713||95.0|0.97|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.97|0.2713
84678388|NCT00153101|169091599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.515||95.0|0.95|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.95|0.5150
84678389|NCT00153101|169091600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3485||95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.10|0.77|0.3485
84678390|NCT00153101|169091600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1235||95.0|0.96|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.36|0.96|0.1235
84678391|NCT00153101|169091601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.869||95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.11|0.89|0.8690
84678392|NCT00153101|169091601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4337||95.0|0.94|1.17|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.17|0.94|0.4337
84505555|NCT04147715|168761705|OTHER||Slope|0.9857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9341|1.0373||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(Cmax) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0373|0.9341|
84647898|NCT02043379|169032206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour level||||0.37
84647899|NCT02043379|169032206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.47
84647900|NCT02043379|169032206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.47
84647901|NCT02043379|169032206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.79
84647902|NCT02043379|169032206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.04
84647903|NCT02043379|169032207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.43||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.43
84647904|NCT02043379|169032207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.68||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||max||||0.68
84647905|NCT02043379|169032208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.87||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.87
84647906|NCT02043379|169032208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-operative max||||0.79
84647907|NCT04340063|169032220|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant was used and fixed effects were time (assessment order) and a time by group interaction (Treadmill or Movement Amplification). A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.55|0.25|<0.001
84647908|NCT04340063|169032220|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16||Interaction effect for time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.22|0.8
84647909|NCT04340063|169032220|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.36||Effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.36|-0.18|0.5
84647910|NCT04340063|169032220|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17||Interaction effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.17|-0.31|0.6
84647911|NCT04340063|169032221|OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.62||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used||0.62|-0.50|0.8
84647912|NCT04340063|169032221|OTHER||Slope|-0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||-0.16|-1.2|0.012
84678393|NCT00153101|169091602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2666||95.0|0.83|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.05|0.83|0.2666
84505556|NCT04147715|168761705|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7705|1.0019|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|"The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed state and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed Cmax were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.0019|0.7705|
84505557|NCT04147715|168761707|OTHER||Slope|1.0252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.0665||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-last) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0665|0.9840|
84647913|NCT04340063|169032221|OTHER||Slope|0.26||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75||Effect of time (post-training to follow-up)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.75|-0.22|0.3
84647914|NCT04340063|169032221|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29||Interaction effect of time (post-training to follow-up) by group|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.29|-0.69|0.4
84647915|NCT04340063|169032222|OTHER||Slope|-52.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-651.0|456.0||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||456|-651|0.9
84647916|NCT04340063|169032222|OTHER||Slope|79.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-622.0|780.0||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||780|-622|0.8
84647917|NCT00396032|169032270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
84647918|NCT00396032|169032270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0035
84647919|NCT00396032|169032272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0396
84678394|NCT00153101|169091602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4784||95.0|0.85|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.08|0.85|0.4784
84505558|NCT04147715|168761707|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.073|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-last were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0730|0.8585|
84647920|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.7|-4.9|0.071
84647921|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-5.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||0.7|-5.0|0.074
84678395|NCT00153101|169091603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0483||95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.0483
84678396|NCT00153101|169091604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2192||95.0|0.81|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.81|0.2192
84647922|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||2.9|-2.7|0.930
84647923|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||2.0|-3.7|0.491
84647924|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.1|-4.5|0.021
84647925|NCT02237911|169032292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||1.0|-3.6|0.179
84678397|NCT00153101|169091605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7764||95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.85|0.7764
84678398|NCT00153101|169091606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0574||95.0|0.62|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.62|0.0574
84678399|NCT00153101|169091607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1365||95.0|0.64|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.64|0.1365
84678400|NCT00153101|169091608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.694||95.0|0.82|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.82|0.6940
84678401|NCT00153101|169091609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0245||95.0|1.06|2.35|||Regression, Cox|||||2.35|1.06|0.0245
84678402|NCT00153101|169091610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5798||95.0|0.36|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.36|0.5798
84678403|NCT00153101|169091611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0006||95.0|0.65|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.65|0.0006
84678404|NCT00153101|169091612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0085||95.0|0.48|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.48|0.0085
84647926|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
84647927|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.01|0.012
84647928|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.005
84647929|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.052
84678405|NCT00153101|169091613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0015||95.0|0.69|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||||0.92|0.69|0.0015
84678406|NCT00153101|169091614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0101||95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|1.08|0.0101
84678407|NCT00153101|169091615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9563||95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.9563
84678408|NCT00153101|169091616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.0868||95.0|0.98|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.98|0.0868
84678409|NCT00153101|169091617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0172||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.60|0.0172
84678410|NCT00153101|169091618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1431||95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.78|0.1431
84678411|NCT00153101|169091619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8974||95.0|0.81|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.81|0.8974
84678412|NCT01175226|169091624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
84678413|NCT03299192|169091641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This feasibility study is small and not designed to look at outcome statistics|GEE with Ancova features|||||||.001
84647930|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.015
84647931|NCT02237911|169032293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.489
84678414|NCT00983580|169091643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.448
84678415|NCT00983580|169091644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This statistical analysis compares the difference between the number of patients with No adenoma recurrence at 12 months with those with adenoma recurrence at 12 months.||||0.358
84678416|NCT00983580|169091646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.513
84678417|NCT04737538|169091650|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.8|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-8.8|-13.3|<0.0001
84678418|NCT04737538|169091651|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||2.4|-1.6|0.4488
84678419|NCT04737538|169091652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.1|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-9.1|-13.8|<0.0001
84678420|NCT03149328|169091658|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.3||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis is that both groups are the same.||||0.30
84678421|NCT03149328|169091659|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis = both groups are the same||||0.28
84678422|NCT03149328|169091660|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of hospitalizations"||||0.22
84713850|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.57||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|37.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||37.12|1.15|0.1739
84713851|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-152.39|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||42.26|-152.39|0.3978
84647932|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||114|-106|0.943
84647933|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.0|142.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||142|-112|0.814
84647934|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.0|95.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||95|-125|0.787
84678423|NCT03149328|169091660|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.1||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of emergency room visits"||||0.10
84678424|NCT03149328|169091661|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.18
84678425|NCT03149328|169091662|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.79
84678426|NCT03149328|169091663|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||<0.001
84678427|NCT01306617|169091672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||For the percentage of subjects with HCV RNA suppressed below the LLOD from Week 4 through Week 12, if it was assumed that 60% of subjects would be successfully suppressed from Week 4 through Week 12, then 20 subjects in arm 1 would give a 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of (38.5%, 81.5%), 10 subjects in arm 2 would give a 95% CI of (29.6%, 90.4%), and 15 subjects in arm 3 would give a 95% CI of (35.2%, 84.8%) for the percentage of subjects suppressed using the binomial exact method.||||0.547
84678428|NCT01306617|169091672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.207
84678429|NCT01306617|169091673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
84647935|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|92.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||92|-164|0.581
84647936|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|109.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||109|-71|0.676
84647937|NCT02237911|169032294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|154.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||154|-52|0.330
84647938|NCT00048061|169032335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 50/50 mg monthly) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.615||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|1.216|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 50/50) and the active-control.|||1.216|0.013|0.045
84678430|NCT01306617|169091674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
84678431|NCT01306617|169091674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.375
84678432|NCT01306617|169091675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
84678433|NCT01306617|169091675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
84678434|NCT01306617|169091676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
84678435|NCT01306617|169091676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
84678436|NCT01306617|169091677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.395
84678437|NCT01306617|169091677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
84678438|NCT01306617|169091678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
84678439|NCT05204134|169091690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84678440|NCT05204134|169091691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84505559|NCT04147715|168761708|OTHER||Slope|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9866|1.0695||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-inf) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0695|0.9866|
84678441|NCT05204134|169091692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84678442|NCT05204134|169091693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84678443|NCT05204134|169091694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84678444|NCT05204134|169091695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84678445|NCT05204134|169091696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678446|NCT05204134|169091697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678447|NCT05204134|169091698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678448|NCT05204134|169091699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between 2 week run-in and 13 weeks Control-IQ use with adaptation.||||<0.001
84678449|NCT05204134|169091700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678450|NCT05204134|169091701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678451|NCT05204134|169091702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678452|NCT05204134|169091703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678453|NCT05204134|169091704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678454|NCT05204134|169091705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678455|NCT05204134|169091706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678456|NCT05204134|169091707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678457|NCT05204134|169091708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84678458|NCT05204134|169091709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84678459|NCT05204134|169091710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84678460|NCT05204134|169091711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84678461|NCT03320070|169091731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5076
84678462|NCT03320070|169091733|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84678463|NCT03320070|169091735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0848
84678464|NCT03320070|169091737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2005
84678465|NCT03320070|169091739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9416
84678466|NCT03320070|169091741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1853|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1853
84678467|NCT02212028|169091743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|126.0|||ANOVA|||||126|10|0.022
84678468|NCT02212028|169091744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84678469|NCT00262834|169091758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.42
84678470|NCT00262834|169091759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.50
84678471|NCT00262834|169091760|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84678472|NCT01075074|169091805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Corrected for 6 comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample size of 23 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in the aggregated QOR40 score for the 3 study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 12.||||0.006
84678473|NCT01075074|169091805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|1|0.03
84647939|NCT00048061|169032335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 100 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.906|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 100 mg) and the active-control|||0.906|-0.312|0.338
84647940|NCT00048061|169032335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 150 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.605|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 150 mg) and the active-control.|||1.605|0.395|0.001
84647941|NCT02169284|169032364|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
84647942|NCT02169284|169032364|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
84647943|NCT02169284|169032364|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.272
84647944|NCT02169284|169032364|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.220
84647945|NCT02169284|169032365|OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.361
84647946|NCT02169284|169032365|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.383
84647947|NCT02169284|169032365|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.427
84678474|NCT01075074|169091805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||31|2|0.01
84647948|NCT02169284|169032365|OTHER|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.416
84647949|NCT02169284|169032366|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
84647950|NCT02169284|169032366|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.199
84647951|NCT02169284|169032366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
84647952|NCT02169284|169032367|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
84647953|NCT02169284|169032367|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.288
84647954|NCT02169284|169032367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
84647955|NCT02169284|169032368|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at Baseline||||0.792
84647956|NCT02169284|169032368|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at surgery visit||||0.261
84678475|NCT01075074|169091805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-16|1.0
84678476|NCT01075074|169091806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||P values is corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
84678477|NCT01075074|169091806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
84647957|NCT02169284|169032369|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.721
84647958|NCT02169284|169032369|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.108
84647959|NCT02169284|169032370|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.444
84647960|NCT02169284|169032370|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.663
84647961|NCT02169284|169032371|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||1.000
84647962|NCT02169284|169032371|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Cytoplasm p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.792
84647963|NCT02169284|169032371|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Entire Cell p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, p-value between arms||||1.000
84647964|NCT02169284|169032372|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.772
84647965|NCT05014490|169032408|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|110.37|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||110.37|94.54|
84647966|NCT05014490|169032409|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.97|101.54|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||101.54|96.97|
84647967|NCT00873860|169032460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on analysis of variance (ANOVA).|ANOVA|||||||0.573
84647968|NCT00873860|169032460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.640
84647969|NCT00873860|169032460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.224
84647970|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.4686
84647971|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3170
84647972|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1664||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.1664
84647973|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3234||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3234
84647974|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3133
84647975|NCT00873860|169032461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2108||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.2108
84505560|NCT04147715|168761708|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0766|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-inf were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0766|0.8643|
84647976|NCT00873860|169032468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 92: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.934
84647977|NCT00873860|169032468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 169: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
84647978|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647979|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6022||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6022
84647980|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647981|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647982|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647983|NCT00873860|169032473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84647984|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.551
84647985|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.492
84647986|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.983
84647987|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.991
84647988|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.900
84647989|NCT00873860|169032474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.673
84647990|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.546
84647991|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.534
84647992|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.847
84647993|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.987
84678478|NCT01075074|169091806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|300.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||300|98|0.0004
84647994|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.992
84647995|NCT00873860|169032475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.688
84647996|NCT01858636|169032477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% upper confidence bound of 5.5%||Ho: Pt ≥ 8% Ha: Pt \< 8%, where Pt is the proportion of deployed subjects with a protocol-defined vascular complication.||||0.0029
84647997|NCT01858636|169032478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% lower confidence bound of 96.4%||Ho: St ≤ 90% Ha: St \> 90%, where St is the proportion of deployed subjects achieving hemostasis within 5 minutes.||||<0.0001
84647998|NCT02378025|169032509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
84647999|NCT02378025|169032510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
84648000|NCT02378025|169032511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84648001|NCT02378025|169032512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.25
84648002|NCT02378025|169032513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.22
84648003|NCT02378025|169032514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.41
84648004|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.195|0.777|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.777|-0.195|
84648005|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2843|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.206|0.769|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.769|-0.206|
84648006|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|1.299|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.299|0.017|
84648007|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.189|1.49|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.490|0.189|
84648008|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4954|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|1.512|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.512|-0.177|
84648009|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4887|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.078|1.746|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.746|0.078|
84648010|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.803|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.803|0.150|
84648011|NCT04437368|169032521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|2.022|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.022|0.445|
84648012|NCT04437368|169032522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|3.979|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.979|-0.441|
84648013|NCT04437368|169032522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.863|3.412|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.412|-0.863|
84648014|NCT04437368|169032522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|4.468|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||4.468|-0.386|
84648015|NCT04437368|169032522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3857|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.099|3.655|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||3.655|-1.099|
84648016|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|8.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||8.1|-10.3|
84648017|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|3.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||3.7|-16.3|
84678479|NCT01075074|169091806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|278.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||278|98|0.0003
84648018|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|4.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||4.1|-14.5|
84648019|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-1.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-1.6|-21.7|
84648020|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.5|-18.4|
84648021|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-22.1|
84648022|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|6.9|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.9|-12.7|
84648023|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|2.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.7|-17.9|
84648024|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|12.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||12.5|-7.4|
84648025|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|9.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||9.6|-11.1|
84648026|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|11.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.5|-8.7|
84648027|NCT04437368|169032528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|7.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.8|-13.8|
84648028|NCT01484054|169032617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Quality of Lens Vision at 7-9 days of follow-up.||5.20|-3.20|
84648029|NCT01484054|169032618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Lens Comfort at 7-9 days of follow-up.||10.19|-0.79|
84648030|NCT01484054|169032619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|9.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|13.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho: The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Handling at 7-9 days follow-up.||13.07|5.81|
84648031|NCT01539317|169032620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase II: During Blinded 4 weeks||||0.0149
84648032|NCT01539317|169032620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase III||||0.412
84648033|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Desire||||0.66
84648034|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (S)||||0.11
84648035|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (L)||||0.15
84648036|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (C)||||0.28
84678480|NCT01075074|169091806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|83.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||83|-105|0.86
84678481|NCT01075074|169091807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
84678482|NCT01075074|169091807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||50|8|0.01
84648037|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Orgasm||||0.07
84648038|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.004
84648039|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Enjoyment||||0.54
84648040|NCT01539317|169032621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Partner||||0.92
84648041|NCT01539317|169032622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Each of 8 site comparisons had its own P-value and a value of \<0.001 was the difference at the most tender sites|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84648042|NCT00364130|169032651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
84648043|NCT00364130|169032652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
84678483|NCT01075074|169091807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|47.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||47|12|0.003
84648044|NCT00364130|169032653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84648045|NCT00364130|169032654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The outcome was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
84648046|NCT00364130|169032655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.84
84648047|NCT00364130|169032656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
84648048|NCT00364130|169032657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.70
84648049|NCT00364130|169032658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
84648050|NCT01352468|169032698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.35
84648051|NCT01352468|169032699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.68
84648052|NCT01352468|169032700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.57
84648053|NCT01178073|169032701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.724|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.724|0.348|0.0002
84648054|NCT01178073|169032701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.477||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.723|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.723|0.314|0.0004
84648055|NCT01178073|169032701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.827|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.827|0.338|0.0045
84648056|NCT01178073|169032702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-33.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-20.66|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||-20.66|-44.78|<0.0001
84648057|NCT01178073|169032702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-25.09||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||-6.40|-40.04|0.0111
84648058|NCT01178073|169032702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-41.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.16|-26.97|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||-26.97|-53.16|<0.0001
84648059|NCT01178073|169032703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|2.319|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||2.319|1.054|0.0264
84648060|NCT01178073|169032703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.308|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||2.308|0.878|0.1518
84678484|NCT01075074|169091807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-18|0.95
84678485|NCT01075074|169091808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
84678486|NCT01075074|169091808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.01
84678487|NCT01075074|169091808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.04
84648061|NCT01178073|169032703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.723||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.833|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||2.833|1.047|0.0321
84648062|NCT01178073|169032704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|22.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||33.50|12.00|<0.0001
84678488|NCT01075074|169091808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|-30|0.92
84678489|NCT00844194|169091837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.1|||ANCOVA|with last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||-1.10|-1.89|< 0.0001
84678490|NCT00844194|169091837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.30|< 0.0001
84678491|NCT00562159|169091936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.4|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.40|-2.22|=0.005
84678492|NCT00562159|169091937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.26|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.26|-1.46|=0.015
84678493|NCT00562159|169091938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.06|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.06|-0.96|=0.084
84678494|NCT00562159|169091939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.05|-0.48|=0.022
84678495|NCT01659021|169091949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are from the proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.37|0.18|<0.0001
84648063|NCT01178073|169032704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|24.75||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||38.50|11.00|0.0005
84648064|NCT01178073|169032704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|20.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||33.70|8.00|0.0030
84648065|NCT01178073|169032705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.0|0.0|0.2287
84648066|NCT01178073|169032705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
84678496|NCT01659021|169091950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|34.76||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||34.76|8.17|<0.0001
84678497|NCT01659021|169091951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|483.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.63|2467.02||P-value was calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||2467.02|94.63|<0.0001
84678498|NCT01659021|169091952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, IGHV mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank|||||1.15|0.54|0.247
84678499|NCT01659021|169091953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model without any adjustments.|||0.51|0.17|
84678500|NCT01381172|169091970|OTHER|The primary analysis employed a Bayesian repeated measures linear model to estimate group differences in mean pVO2 at 24 weeks from baseline, with 30% borrowing of information (70% down-weighting) from the corresponding treatment group difference observed in the FIX-5 study subgroup. The Bayesian posterior probability would need to be \> 0.975 to be considered a positive result with statistical significance.||||||0.975||||||The posterior probability (Pr) that the mean difference in pVO2 (Δ3) between device and control groups is greater than zero must exceed 0.975 to meet the primary effectiveness endpoint.|Bayesian posterior probability|||The FIX-HF-5C Study was a study designed to confirm the preliminary evidence reported in the FIX-HF-5 subgroup analysis demonstrating improvement in subjects with LVEF 25-45% and NYHA class III-IV. A Bayesian statistical approach was employed to leverage the data available, particularly the pVO2 results, from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup.||||0.975
84678501|NCT02334800|169091977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|73.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.81|93.71||||||||93.71|57.81|
84678502|NCT02334800|169091977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.57|146.79||||||||146.79|90.57|
84678503|NCT02334800|169091977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.0|170.19||||||||170.19|105.00|
84678504|NCT02334800|169091978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.93|129.03||||||||129.03|69.93|
84678505|NCT02334800|169091978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.69|159.95||||||||159.95|86.69|
84678506|NCT02334800|169091978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.63|176.43||||||||176.43|95.63|
84678507|NCT02334800|169091979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|83.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.37|105.43||||||||105.43|65.37|
84678508|NCT02334800|169091979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.73|170.53||||||||170.53|105.73|
84678509|NCT02334800|169091979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|176.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.28|224.63||||||||224.63|139.28|
84648067|NCT01178073|169032705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
84648068|NCT01178073|169032706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.00|-0.75|
84648069|NCT01178073|169032706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
84648070|NCT01178073|169032706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
84648071|NCT04533685|169032746|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received reminder letters to the arm receiving no reminder letter (control)|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
84648072|NCT04533685|169032746|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received direct appointment scheduling to the arms not receiving direct appointment scheduling.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
84648073|NCT04533685|169032746|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-commitment reminders to the arms not receiving pre-commitment reminders.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|1.00|
84648074|NCT04533685|169032746|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder to the arms not receiving pre-appointment reminder.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
84648075|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648076|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648077|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648078|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648079|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648080|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648081|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648082|NCT00245219|169032748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648083|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648084|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648085|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648086|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84678510|NCT02334800|169091980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|72.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.43|93.93||||||||93.93|56.43|
84648087|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648088|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648089|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648090|NCT00245219|169032749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648091|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648092|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648093|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648094|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
84648095|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648096|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648097|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84678511|NCT02334800|169091980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|149.11||||||||149.11|89.58|
84678512|NCT02334800|169091980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.38|173.73||||||||173.73|104.38|
84678513|NCT02334800|169091981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|82.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|105.71||||||||105.71|63.83|
84648098|NCT00245219|169032750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
84648099|NCT02021656|169032760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial Exact Test|||A sample size of 100 Chinese participants in the treatment naive group provided at least 90% power to detect a 17% improvement in SVR12 rate from the historical control rate of 57% using 2-sided exact one-sample binomial test at significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84648100|NCT00510952|169032766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.551||95.0|-0.21|0.11||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin glargine, injected once a day, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 week endpoint (last observation carried forward).||0.11|-0.21|0.551
84648101|NCT00510952|169032767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
84648102|NCT00510952|169032767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
84648103|NCT00510952|169032767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
84648104|NCT00510952|169032767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
84648105|NCT00510952|169032768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.634
84648106|NCT00510952|169032768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
84648107|NCT00510952|169032769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.323||95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatment groups (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine at actual morning pre-meal at endpoint.||0.19|-0.06|0.323
84648108|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.302
84648109|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.144
84648110|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.279
84648111|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.928
84648112|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.918
84648113|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.875
84648114|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.316
84648115|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.389
84648116|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.836
84648117|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.394
84648118|NCT00510952|169032770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.609
84648119|NCT00510952|169032771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.468
84648120|NCT00510952|169032771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84648121|NCT00510952|169032771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84648122|NCT00510952|169032772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.316
84648123|NCT00510952|169032772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||<0.001
84648124|NCT00510952|169032772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.102
84648125|NCT00510952|169032774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.975||95.0|-0.61|0.59||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint.||0.59|-0.61|0.975
84648126|NCT00510952|169032775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.031
84648127|NCT00510952|169032776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.015
84648128|NCT01659658|169032801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01||P-value was calculated from the unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to compare hematologic response rate between the treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|Statistical analysis was planned to be collected and analyzed in a combined manner for the non-ixazomib arm groups versus ixazomib group in this outcome measure.||2.01|0.60|=0.7623
84648129|NCT01659658|169032802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to make comparisons between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||1.38|0.41|=0.3510
84648130|NCT01659658|169032804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.29|0.52|=0.389
84648131|NCT01659658|169032805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.09|0.52|=0.135
84648132|NCT01659658|169032806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.21|0.48|0.2421
84648133|NCT01659658|169032807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.97|0.39|=0.036
84648134|NCT01659658|169032808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.99||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to compare vital organ response rate between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||3.99|0.72|=0.2260
84678514|NCT02334800|169091981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.82|173.6||||||||173.60|104.82|
84648135|NCT01659658|169032809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|||1.12|0.52|=0.163
84648136|NCT01659658|169032812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.96|0.49|=0.025
84648137|NCT01659658|169032813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.88|0.38|=0.010
84648138|NCT04233034|169032825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.10|-0.11|0.89
84648139|NCT04233034|169032825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.27|0.01|0.04
84648140|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.08|-0.10|0.80
84648141|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.08|0.80
84648142|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.09|-0.13|0.80
84648143|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.09|0.69
84648144|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.25|-0.02|0.08
84648145|NCT04233034|169032826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.28|-0.01|0.08
84648146|NCT04233034|169032829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-14|-37|<0.001
84648147|NCT04233034|169032829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||16|-25|0.74
84648148|NCT04233034|169032830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
84648149|NCT04233034|169032830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||13|-9|0.74
84648150|NCT04233034|169032831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
84648151|NCT04233034|169032831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||14|-8|0.95
84648152|NCT04233034|169032832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
84648153|NCT04233034|169032832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.26|0.79
84648154|NCT04233034|169032834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-9|-22|<0.001
84648155|NCT04233034|169032834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference at 52 weeks (verapamil - placebo) adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||9|-13|0.74
84648156|NCT04233034|169032835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-1|-7|0.003
84648157|NCT04233034|169032835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (verapamil - placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||4|-6|0.74
84678515|NCT02334800|169091981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|178.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.62|229.57||||||||229.57|138.62|
84678516|NCT02334800|169091984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|147.68||||||||147.68|78.06|
84648158|NCT04233034|169032836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.17|-0.04|0.23
84648159|NCT04233034|169032836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.79
84648160|NCT04233034|169032837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.7|-0.3|0.39
84648161|NCT04233034|169032837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.74
84648162|NCT04233034|169032839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
84648163|NCT04233034|169032839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.4|-1.0|0.65
84648164|NCT04233034|169032842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.20|-0.01|0.07
84648165|NCT04233034|169032842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.05|-0.30|0.52
84648166|NCT02247531|169032846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.157||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.313|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.313|0.001|0.0479
84648167|NCT02247531|169032846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.087||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.243|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.243|-0.069|0.2739
84678517|NCT02334800|169091984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|137.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|189.12||||||||189.12|99.96|
84678518|NCT02334800|169091984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|172.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.25|236.96||||||||236.96|125.25|
84678519|NCT00575588|169091998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
84678520|NCT00575588|169091999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-28.5||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Fisher Exact|||||-28.5|-38.1|<0.0001
84678521|NCT00575588|169092000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.7||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.0001
84648168|NCT02247531|169032847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||3.9|-4.8|0.8400
84648169|NCT02247531|169032847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.7|-3.1|0.5587
84648170|NCT02247531|169032848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.09|-0.88|0.8358
84648171|NCT02247531|169032848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.26||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.74|-1.25|0.6117
84648172|NCT02247531|169032849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.7||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.5|-1.2|0.4651
84648173|NCT02247531|169032849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.1|-1.6|0.7885
84648174|NCT02247531|169032850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.7|0.6892
84648175|NCT02247531|169032850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9104
84678522|NCT00575588|169092001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|-0.0001||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0001|-0.0046|0.040
84648176|NCT02247531|169032851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.5|-1.8|0.8931
84648177|NCT02247531|169032851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.1||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||0.5|-2.8|0.1754
84648178|NCT02247531|169032852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.7|0.3707
84648179|NCT02247531|169032852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.8382
84648180|NCT02247531|169032853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.35||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.85|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.85|-5.16|0.6841
84648181|NCT02247531|169032853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.07||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.52|-5.37|0.7443
84648182|NCT02247531|169032854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||6.52|-6.28|0.9713
84648183|NCT02247531|169032854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.72||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||4.63|-8.08|0.5945
84648184|NCT02247531|169032855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.22||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.27|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.27|-0.83|0.2438
84648185|NCT02247531|169032855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.03||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.07|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.07|-1.01|0.3202
84648186|NCT02247531|169032856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.64||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.14|0.14|0.0388
84648187|NCT02247531|169032856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.2||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.68|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||4.68|-0.29|0.0833
84678523|NCT00575588|169092002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Repeated Measures|||||0.06|-0.17|
84678524|NCT00575588|169092003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.0||||||||-30.0|-39.8|
84678525|NCT00575588|169092004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-2.2|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.20|-3.32|
84648188|NCT02247531|169032857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.04||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.91|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.91|-1.84|0.4795
84648189|NCT02247531|169032857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.45|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.45|-2.26|0.6822
84678526|NCT00575588|169092005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|-0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0022|-0.0048|
84505561|NCT04147715|168761709|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9949|1.0606|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed t1/2,z as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed t1/2,z were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0606|0.9949|
84648190|NCT02247531|169032858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.04||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.14|-0.07|0.5227
84648191|NCT02247531|169032858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.13|-0.09|0.7475
84648192|NCT02247531|169032859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.049||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.252|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.252|-0.153|0.6333
84678527|NCT02703844|169092016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0089
84678528|NCT00801684|169092030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The difference between the active treatment was compared to placebo. For a null hypothesis, the difference would equal 0 (zero).||||<0.0001
84678529|NCT00614939|169092034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.12|-0.71|0.007
84505562|NCT04147715|168761716|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.5167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2654|1.818|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8180|1.2654|
84648193|NCT02247531|169032859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.025||||0.8105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.230|-0.180|0.8105
84648194|NCT02247531|169032859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.584|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.584|0.097|0.0063
84648195|NCT02247531|169032859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.182||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.422|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.422|-0.058|0.1359
84648196|NCT03347188|169032860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.67|-0.73|0.1876
84648197|NCT04824365|169032909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1438||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6213|-0.0545|||ANOVA|two-way ANOVA||||-0.0545|-0.6213|0.0197
84648198|NCT04824365|169032910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1843|0.2605|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.2605|-0.1843|0.736
84648199|NCT04824365|169032911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1049||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1069|0.5193|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.5193|0.1069|0.0030
84648200|NCT04824365|169032912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|2.302|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.302|1.105|<0.0001
84648201|NCT04824365|169032913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9672|2.298|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.298|0.9672|<0.0001
84648202|NCT04824365|169032914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|2.452|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.452|1.477|<0.0001
84648203|NCT04824365|169032915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9521|-0.01413|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.01413|-0.9521|0.0435
84648204|NCT04824365|169032916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2711||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5862|0.4841|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.4841|-0.5862|0.8509
84648205|NCT04824365|169032917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3177||0.6738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4921|0.76|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.7600|-0.4921|0.6738
84648206|NCT04824365|169032918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2478|0.8669|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.8669|-0.2478|0.2753
84648207|NCT04824365|169032919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.9043|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.9043|-1.948|<0.0001
84648208|NCT03463031|169032939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
84648209|NCT03463031|169032940|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
84648210|NCT03463031|169032941|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|< 0.001
84648211|NCT03463031|169032942|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.233
84648212|NCT01068652|169032943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment comparison was based on a non-inferiority criterion and the following hypotheses were tested: H0: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 ≥0.4% against the alternative hypothesis (Detemir non-inferior to BIAsp 30) HA: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 \<0.4% where μBIAsp 30 and μDetemir are the mean HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment with the two treatment regimens.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3406||95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To investigate the effect of different treatments, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse HbA1c at week 50 with treatment group (2 categories: insulin detemir and aspart; BIAsp 30), country and pre-trial OAD(s) treatment (one OAD vs. more OADs) as factors and HbA1c at baseline (week 0) as a covariate. The treatment difference was estimated and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated.||0.34|-0.12|0.3406
84648213|NCT00417482|169032960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.94||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.45|||Stratified Cox analysis|||The primary hypothesis of a difference in survival functions between the initial Phase B placebo (Arm 3) and risperidone continuation (Arms 1+2) conditions was tested in the primary analysis using the stratified Cox analysis. For descriptive purposes, the overall rate of relapse was assessed as the number of follow-up or for secondary interpretative support, as a simple proportion of patients entering a 16-week period.||3.45|1.09|0.02
84678530|NCT00614939|169092035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.847||0.339||95.0|-37.91|13.22|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||13.22|-37.91|0.339
84648214|NCT00417482|169032961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|21.98|||stratified cox analyses|||Similar analyses were used to test the secondary hypothesis in the relapse risk in weeks 17 to 32 of Phase B between the patients who continued to receive risperidone (Arm 1) \& the patients who discontinued risperidone at week 16 \& were switched to placebo (Arm 2). Patients who died \& those in whom a relapse was considered to be imminent before they were dropped out in Phase B were classified as having relapse.||21.98|1.08|0.02
84648215|NCT00417482|169032962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in MMSE.||1.35|-0.08|0.08
84648216|NCT00417482|169032963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.94||95.0|-1.01|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in TESS.||0.93|-1.01|0.94
84648217|NCT00417482|169032964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in EPS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.41|-1.50|0.26
84648218|NCT00417482|169032965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in AIMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.07|-0.50|0.13
84648219|NCT00417482|169032966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in PSMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.23|-1.47|0.149
84648220|NCT00417482|169032967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in weight, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||2.95|-3.77|0.81
84648221|NCT03739840|169032968|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|-5.6|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|19.2||Adjusted p-values are from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||19.2|-38.1|=0.687
84648222|NCT03739840|169032968|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.5|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|28.7||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.7|-22.7|=0.687
84505563|NCT04147715|168761716|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.8372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5696|2.1506|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1506|1.5696|
84648223|NCT03739840|169032968|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.3|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.6||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.6|-22.9|=0.687
84648224|NCT03739840|169032972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.38||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.38|0.39|=0.803
84505564|NCT04147715|168761716|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.525|2.0057|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0057|1.5250|
84648225|NCT03739840|169032972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.65||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||2.65|0.27|=0.772
84648226|NCT03739840|169032972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.08||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.08|0.33|=0.989
84678531|NCT00614939|169092036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.938||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|29.93|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||29.93|-38.65|0.798
84678532|NCT00614939|169092037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.815||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|106.94|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||106.94|-18.93|0.164
84678533|NCT00614939|169092038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.74|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||0.74|-2.10|
84678534|NCT00614939|169092039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.67|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.67|-2.14|
84678535|NCT00614939|169092040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|5.93|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||5.93|-1.05|
84678536|NCT00614939|169092041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.37|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=26 for saxagliptin and n=34 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c"||||-0.37|-1.27|
84678537|NCT00614939|169092042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|18.33|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||18.33|-54.28|
84678538|NCT00614939|169092043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.77|34.3|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||34.30|-65.77|
84678539|NCT00614939|169092044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.44|68.26|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||68.26|-144.44|
84678540|NCT00614939|169092045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.04|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.04|-2.99|
84678541|NCT00614939|169092046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.89|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.89|-3.66|
84678542|NCT00614939|169092047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.76|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||3.76|-8.04|
84713852|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.73||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.07|-52.26|0.0397
84713853|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.66||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.32|126.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||126.14|-105.32|0.8922
84713854|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|36.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||36.45|-1.80|0.2439
84713855|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.29|19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||19.61|-120.29|0.3076
84713856|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.32|-15.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.55|-57.32|0.0322
84648227|NCT03739840|169032973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.18||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.18|0.61|=0.425
84648228|NCT03739840|169032973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.85||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||2.85|0.53|=0.625
84648229|NCT03739840|169032973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.34||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||4.34|0.84|=0.125
84678543|NCT02673697|169092071|NON_INFERIORITY|"The primary analysis will calculate the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference \[MACCECONTROL~\- MACCEPERCEVAL\] is lower than 0.05 (predetermined non-inferiority margin): The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis."||||||0.9914||||||The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis.|Bayesian|||"A the primary analysis will compare Perceval valve (Treatment arm) vs. standard sutured stented valve (Control arm) on the Per Protocol population.~A one-sided non-inferiority test, using the non-inferiority margin Δ=0.05, will be performed to compare the two arms on the proportion of subjects that are event-free at one year (primary analysis)."||||0.9914
84678544|NCT03321019|169092097|OTHER||F-statistic|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degree of freedom - 3, 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||<.0001
84678545|NCT03321019|169092098|OTHER||F-statistic|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to control for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3. 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.72
84678546|NCT03321019|169092099|OTHER||F-statistic|3.048||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Dunnett's T3 method was used to account for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 3, 229||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.02
84648230|NCT03739840|169032974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||=|0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|20.36||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||20.36|-17.08|=0.737
84648231|NCT03739840|169032974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.17|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.91||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||21.91|-10.00|=0.458
84648232|NCT03739840|169032974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.31|||=|0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|28.21||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||28.21|-10.92|=0.341
84648233|NCT01058265|169033004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PCS between two groups.||||0.487
84648234|NCT01058265|169033005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MCS between two groups.||||0.817
84648235|NCT02869438|169033016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.161|-0.007|0.0707
84678547|NCT03321019|169092100|OTHER||F-statistic|2.939||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted in the analysis for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 231||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.034
84678548|NCT03321019|169092101|OTHER||F-statistic|1.494||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 274||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.022
84678549|NCT01242527|169092144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-2.89||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.89|-40.70|0.005
84678550|NCT01242527|169092144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.32|-2.29||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.29|-40.32|0.007
84505565|NCT04147715|168761716|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9741|2.3313|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.3313|1.9741|
84713857|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.67||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.98|-49.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-49.36|-139.98|0.0418
84648236|NCT02869438|169033016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.104|-0.077|0.7747
84648237|NCT02869438|169033016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.173|-0.014|0.0969
84648238|NCT02869438|169033016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average over Day 28, 56, and 84|||0.135|-0.022|0.1558
84648239|NCT02869438|169033017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline RV, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||0.153|-0.505|0.2847
84648240|NCT02869438|169033018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.9|-83.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline eosinophils counts, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||-83.06|-118.9|<0.0001
84648241|NCT02869438|169033019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.08|-0.049|0.6384
84678551|NCT01242527|169092144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|-8.38||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-8.38|-45.12|<0.001
84648242|NCT02869438|169033019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.109|-0.016|0.148
84648243|NCT02869438|169033019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.101|-0.049|0.4959
84648244|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.073|-0.062|0.8667
84648245|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.115|-0.033|0.2734
84648246|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.098|-0.068|0.7252
84648247|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.164|-0.014|0.0976
84648248|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.122|-0.077|0.6536
84678552|NCT04177108|169092159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0098||95.0|0.28|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.28|0.0098
84678553|NCT04177108|169092159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.2396||95.0|0.42|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.42|0.2396
84678554|NCT04177108|169092159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9809||95.0|0.63|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.63|0.9809
84678555|NCT04177108|169092160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6805||95.0|0.55|2.51|||Log Rank|||||2.51|0.55|0.6805
84678556|NCT04177108|169092160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.6314||95.0|0.55|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.55|0.6314
84678557|NCT04177108|169092160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9164||95.0|0.52|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.52|0.9164
84678558|NCT03176693|169092194|EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis was calculated based on findings reported by Weingarten et al. of more frequent episodes of hypotension (defined as difference of mean systolic blood pressure \<30% from baseline) in phenoxybenzamine compared with doxazosin (15.7% versus 5.1%). Using a standard deviation of 16 and 11 (derived from reported interquartile ranges, assuming normal distribution), respectively, to achieve 80% power using an alpha =.05, a total sample size of 56 patients was determined.||||||0.56||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: hemodynamic instability time will not differ between arms||||.56
84678559|NCT02207829|169092202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus tiotropium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to tiotropium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|0.029|<0.001
84505566|NCT04147715|168761718|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.6277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4038|1.8874|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8874|1.4038|
84678560|NCT01968434|169092231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to detect a 0.75 point difference between any two treatment groups with a 90% power and p\<0.05. Such sample size was 60 subject which was elevated ot 75 subjects per group to account for drop outs. For comparison of cough evaluation before and after treatment a paired Student t test was used.||||<0.01
84678561|NCT01968434|169092232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84678562|NCT01968434|169092233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84678563|NCT04837482|169092249|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of AGN-190584 was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least-square mean difference between AGN-190584 and vehicle was greater than the pre-specified margin of -0.25.|Least-Square (LS) Mean|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model with repeated measures||||-0.103|-0.346|0.0006
84678564|NCT00987467|169092251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84678565|NCT02646423|169092253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
84678566|NCT02646423|169092254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||||||||1.16|0.86|
84678567|NCT02646423|169092255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.16|
84678568|NCT02646423|169092256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.81|
84678569|NCT02646423|169092257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.27||||||||1.27|-1.96|
84678570|NCT02646423|169092258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.66||||||||1.66|-0.94|
84678571|NCT02646423|169092259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.09|
84678572|NCT02646423|169092260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||||||||1.51|0.46|
84678573|NCT02646423|169092261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56||||||||1.56|0.64|
84678574|NCT02646423|169092262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.81||||||||2.81|0.64|
84678575|NCT02646423|169092263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.62||||||||6.62|0.60|
84678576|NCT02646423|169092264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.35||||||||1.35|0.72|
84678577|NCT02646423|169092265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48||||||||1.48|0.86|
84678578|NCT00086346|169092266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.342
84678579|NCT00086346|169092267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between treatment groups of percentages of patients with biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.||||0.017
84678580|NCT00086346|169092268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||1 way ANOVA, two sided|||||||>0.05
84678581|NCT00086346|169092269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori criterion for declaring non-inferiority was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) having a ≥ 5% difference in graft loss. -5.2 is \< 5 % difference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||||95.0|-5.2|2.8|||||Weighted difference in percentage of graft loss: (CNI% minus SRL%); negative values are favorable to CNI group|||2.8|-5.2|
84678582|NCT03017508|169092272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.34||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test on VAS scores during speech comparing sublingual riluzole to placebo||||0.056
84678583|NCT02162810|169092283|OTHER||||||<|0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the number of 0 cell counts, it is not possible to do individual statistics for each complication, so we looked at the incidence of complications overall between the two arms.||||<.62
84678584|NCT02162810|169092284|OTHER||||||<|0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.61
84678585|NCT02162810|169092285|OTHER||||||<|0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Degloving||||<.87
84678586|NCT02162810|169092285|OTHER||||||<|0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Ventral Chordee||||<.64
84505567|NCT04147715|168761718|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4785|2.0605|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0605|1.4785|
84678587|NCT02162810|169092285|OTHER||||||<|0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Plication||||<.85
84678588|NCT00706121|169092291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||Log binomial regression|||||1.02|0.9|0.96
84678589|NCT00706121|169092292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Log binomial regression|||||1.08|0.78|0.32
84678590|NCT00706121|169092294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Log binomial regression|||||1.07|0.77|0.24
84678591|NCT00706121|169092295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||Log binomial regression|||||1.10|0.96|0.38
84678592|NCT02223390|169092309|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two conditions.||||||0.08||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05. The p-value presented corresponds to the time by condition interaction parameter.|Mixed Models Analysis|To assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time by intervention condition, linear mixed models were fit using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS.||Statistical analyses reported below is for PCL - Total at 3 months.||||0.08
84678593|NCT02223390|169092310|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot RCT with two conditions.||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold was defined as p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84678594|NCT00795600|169092375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364||0.849||95.0|-7.404|6.114||H01 (hypothesis): Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.114|-7.404|0.849
84678595|NCT00795600|169092376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.948||95.0|-7.588|6.407||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.407|-7.588|0.948
84678596|NCT00795600|169092377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|498.7||0.696||95.0|-805.8|1198.5||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1198.5|-805.8|0.696
84648249|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.188|-0.004|0.0595
84648250|NCT02869438|169033020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||0.147|-0.02|0.1377
84648251|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||2.58|0.85|0.1604
84648252|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||2.19|0.76|0.3400
84648253|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||2.70|0.93|0.0924
84648254|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||2.71|0.91|0.1052
84648255|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||2.21|0.77|0.3271
84648256|NCT02869438|169033021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||2.29|0.77|0.3017
84648257|NCT02869438|169033022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||-0.105|-0.481|0.0024
84648258|NCT02869438|169033022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|-0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-0.195|-0.609|0.0002
84648259|NCT02869438|169033022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.312||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-0.07|-0.554|0.0117
84648260|NCT02869438|169033022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.472||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.213|-0.731|0.0004
84648261|NCT02869438|169033022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-0.188|-0.603|0.0002
84648262|NCT02869438|169033023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.229||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.832|-3.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-3.626|-10.832|0.0001
84648263|NCT02869438|169033023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.942||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.538|-1.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-1.346|-10.538|0.0115
84648264|NCT02869438|169033023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.599||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.898|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-3.898|-13.3|0.0004
84648265|NCT02869438|169033023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.133|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-3.38|-11.133|0.0003
84505568|NCT04147715|168761718|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.9102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7788|2.0513|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0513|1.7788|
84648266|NCT02869438|169033024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.414||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|15.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline FeNO value, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||15.321|-4.492|0.2825
84648267|NCT02869438|169033034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline PGI-S score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.081|-0.649|0.0120
84648268|NCT02869438|169033035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.88|1.50|0.0018
84648269|NCT02869438|169033036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.09|1.24|0.0107
84648270|NCT03583073|169033045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|DF = 1||||||.053
84648271|NCT03583073|169033046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|4.06|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.06|-0.18|.072
84648272|NCT05323656|169033067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.077||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.98|22.0|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group|Null hypothesis: the mean best percentage change in the tumour size between the treatment groups are the same. With 25 patients per treatment group, using a 2-sided t-test, there will be 85% power to detect a 20% mean difference between the treatment groups in best percentage change in tumour size, with an estimated standard deviation of 30% and a 2 sided alpha of 20%.||22.0|-11.98|0.7008
84648273|NCT05323656|169033068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: The risk for progression, as defined by RECIST v1.1, is the same between treatment groups. If the true hazard ratio is 0.5, approximately 38 progression events as defined by RECIST v1.1 will be required to have \> 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in PFS with 2-sided p\<0.2||0.89|0.38|.1023
84648274|NCT05323656|169033069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.89||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|21.3||a priori threshold for significance (0.2) not met.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CAF levels does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CAFs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||21.3|-2.3|0.2986
84648275|NCT05323656|169033070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|23.52|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CD8+ TILs does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CD8+ TILs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||23.52|-9.86|0.5918
84648276|NCT05323656|169033071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|22.02|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||22.02|-0.34|0.2135
84648277|NCT05323656|169033075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|0.85||||||No formal test of significance undertaken.||0.85|0.24|
84648278|NCT05323656|169033078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.17|30.36|||ANCOVA|The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.||Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline PD-L1 CPS with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.2.||30.36|5.17|0.0782
84648279|NCT05323656|169033079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.22
84648280|NCT05323656|169033079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.395||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.20
84648281|NCT05323656|169033080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.037
84648282|NCT05323656|169033080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.123
84648283|NCT05323656|169033081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.41
84648284|NCT05323656|169033081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.023||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.11
84678597|NCT00795600|169092378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|515.4||0.71||95.0|-844.0|1229.7||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1229.7|-844.0|0.710
84648285|NCT03880461|169033099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84648286|NCT03880461|169033100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84648287|NCT03880461|169033101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
84648288|NCT03614975|169033135|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A/H1N1|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84648289|NCT03614975|169033135|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||A/H3N2|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84648290|NCT03614975|169033135|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84648291|NCT03614975|169033135|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.23
84648292|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1:Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84648293|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84648294|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84648295|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.94
84648296|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado :Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84648297|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado : Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
84648298|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84648299|NCT03614975|169033136|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84648300|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
84648301|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.23
84648302|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
84648303|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
84648304|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
84648305|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
84648306|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
84648307|NCT03614975|169033137|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
84648308|NCT01390220|169033144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0109
84648309|NCT01390220|169033145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0043
84648310|NCT01390220|169033146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0124
84648311|NCT01390220|169033147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier estimates.||||0.0124
84648312|NCT00136604|169033160|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of subjects with SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128 between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the TRITANRIX-HEPB+Mencevax + Meningitec control group was above -10%.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix and Meningitec vaccine given concomitantly in terms of the percentage of subjects with an SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128.||3.05|-1.53|
84648313|NCT00136604|169033162|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in seroprotection (anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL) between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the Tritanrix-Hepb/Mencevax+Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix Group was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix vaccine when used as a booster vaccine in Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT primed subjects in terms of the percentage of subjects with an anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL.||3.05|-1.53|
84648314|NCT02017171|169033185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|linear model for correlated errors||Treatment difference = Allopurinol-Placebo|||1.9|-1.9|0.999
84648315|NCT02017171|169033186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.2|-1.6|
84648316|NCT02017171|169033187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.3|-1.7|
84648317|NCT02017171|169033188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.4|-1.5|
84678598|NCT00795600|169092379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|288.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|766.41||0.709||95.0|-1252.0|1828.4|||ANCOVA|||||1828.4|-1252.0|0.709
84678599|NCT00795600|169092380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732||0.948||95.0|-5.668|5.313|||ANCOVA|||||5.313|-5.668|0.948
84505569|NCT04147715|168761718|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.0478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9203|2.1837|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1837|1.9203|
84648318|NCT02017171|169033189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.5|-1.0|
84678600|NCT00795600|169092381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1151.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|810.48||0.162||95.0|-2780.0|477.33|||ANCOVA|||||477.33|-2780.0|0.162
84678601|NCT00795600|169092382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.131||95.0|-6.34|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|-6.340|0.131
84678602|NCT00795600|169092383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.69||0.766||95.0|-851.3|630.51|||ANCOVA|||||630.51|-851.3|0.766
84678603|NCT00795600|169092384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.716||95.0|-3.949|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-3.949|0.716
84678604|NCT00795600|169092385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.483||95.0|-0.906|1.888|||ANCOVA|||||1.888|-0.906|0.483
84648319|NCT02017171|169033190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||2.9|0.5|
84648320|NCT02017171|169033191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||1.8|1.0|
84648321|NCT02017171|169033192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|1.6|1.0|
84648322|NCT02017171|169033193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||4.5|0.8|
84648323|NCT02398409|169033198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to Baseline (BL)||||.8407
84678605|NCT00795600|169092386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.909||0.952||95.0|-3.721|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|-3.721|0.952
84678606|NCT00795600|169092387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||0.711||95.0|-1.778|1.221|||ANCOVA|||||1.221|-1.778|0.711
84678607|NCT00795600|169092388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854||0.397||95.0|-5.31|2.141|||ANCOVA|||||2.141|-5.310|0.397
84678608|NCT00795600|169092389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.985||0.421||95.0|-30.99|13.159|||ANCOVA|||||13.159|-30.99|0.421
84678609|NCT00795600|169092390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.216||0.42||95.0|-17.55|7.43|||ANCOVA|||||7.430|-17.55|0.420
84678610|NCT00795600|169092391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.007||0.705||95.0|-31.1|21.178|||ANCOVA|||||21.178|-31.10|0.705
84505570|NCT04147715|168761725|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8057|1.06|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0600|0.8057|
84648324|NCT02398409|169033198|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 months compared to BL||||.0150
84648325|NCT02398409|169033198|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared BL||||.8373
84648326|NCT02398409|169033199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.6445
84648327|NCT02398409|169033199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.5247
84648328|NCT02398409|169033199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.9974
84648329|NCT02398409|169033200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1918
84648330|NCT02398409|169033200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.9212
84648331|NCT02398409|169033200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.2358
84678611|NCT00795600|169092392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.776||0.341||95.0|-14.19|5.007|||ANCOVA|||||5.007|-14.19|0.341
84678612|NCT00795600|169092393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.902||95.0|-0.064|0.073|||ANCOVA|||||0.073|-0.064|0.902
84648332|NCT02398409|169033201|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.1107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1107
84648333|NCT02398409|169033201|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.0562
84648334|NCT02398409|169033201|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.8579
84648335|NCT02536833|169033202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|3.65|||ANCOVA|||||3.65|-6.57|0.575
84648336|NCT02536833|169033202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.09|||ANCOVA|||||4.09|-6.63|0.643
84648337|NCT02536833|169033202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.75|||ANCOVA|||||5.75|-5.07|0.901
84678613|NCT00795600|169092394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.839||95.0|-8.525|6.947|||ANCOVA|||||6.947|-8.525|0.839
84678614|NCT00795600|169092395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.607||95.0|-0.105|0.062|||ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.105|0.607
84648338|NCT02536833|169033203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-8.31|0.271
84648339|NCT02536833|169033203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.32|-6.06|0.898
84648340|NCT02536833|169033203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|-4.74|0.795
84648341|NCT02536833|169033204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-7.74|0.283
84648342|NCT02536833|169033204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|3.86|||ANCOVA|||||3.86|-6.82|0.588
84648343|NCT02536833|169033204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-5.76|0.853
84648344|NCT02536833|169033205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|2.49|||ANCOVA|||||2.49|-8.26|0.292
84648345|NCT02536833|169033205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|-5.34|0.931
84648346|NCT02536833|169033205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.76|||ANCOVA|||||5.76|-4.92|0.878
84648347|NCT02536833|169033206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.16|||ANCOVA|||||6.16|-3.83|0.648
84648348|NCT02536833|169033206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|1.75|||ANCOVA|||||1.75|-8.02|0.209
84648349|NCT02536833|169033206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|5.33|||ANCOVA|||||5.33|-4.78|0.915
84678615|NCT00795600|169092396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.777|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.635||95.0|-9.254|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.700|-9.254|0.635
84678616|NCT00795600|169092397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.628||95.0|-0.663|0.403|||ANCOVA|||||0.403|-0.663|0.628
84678617|NCT00795600|169092398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.46||0.535||95.0|-46.03|24.182|||ANCOVA|||||24.182|-46.03|0.535
84648350|NCT02536833|169033207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|-5.16|0.969
84648351|NCT02536833|169033207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|-8.89|0.174
84648352|NCT02536833|169033207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-4.97|0.908
84648353|NCT02536833|169033208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.10|0.334
84648354|NCT02536833|169033208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.04|0.124
84648355|NCT02536833|169033208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.02|0.032
84648356|NCT02536833|169033209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-8.00|0.405
84648357|NCT02536833|169033209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|-4.37|0.552
84648358|NCT02536833|169033209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-4.91|0.763
84648359|NCT02536833|169033210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.71|||ANCOVA|||||1.71|-9.50|0.173
84648360|NCT02536833|169033210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|7.36|||ANCOVA|||||7.36|-5.12|0.724
84648361|NCT02536833|169033210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|5.53|||ANCOVA|||||5.53|-6.17|0.914
84648362|NCT02536833|169033211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.12|0.529
84648363|NCT02536833|169033211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.08|0.259
84648364|NCT02536833|169033211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.21|0.807
84648365|NCT02536833|169033212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.73||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-17.44|0.049
84648366|NCT02536833|169033212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.43|||ANCOVA|||||3.43|-15.49|0.211
84648367|NCT02536833|169033212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|3.78|||ANCOVA|||||3.78|-14.24|0.254
84648368|NCT02536833|169033213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.82|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-19.82|0.036
84648369|NCT02536833|169033213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-17.18|0.170
84648370|NCT02536833|169033213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|-15.33|0.171
84648371|NCT02536833|169033214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.06|0.021
84648372|NCT02536833|169033214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.07|0.131
84648373|NCT02536833|169033214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.35|0.789
84648374|NCT02220998|169033215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 120 per treatment group provided 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the SOF/VEL group and the SOF+RBV group. It was based on the assumptions that the non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 94%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.3|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||10.3|0.2|
84648375|NCT02220998|169033215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was stratified by cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 12 weeks was to be tested if the efficacy of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks was demonstrated to be statistically noninferior to SOF+RBV for 12 weeks (ie, if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the strata-adjusted difference in the proportions between groups was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10%).||||0.018
84648376|NCT01977937|169033235|OTHER|Differences in average pre-operative \& total post-operative average VAS scores were compared between groups using an unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Hospitalization outcomes including number of days to transition off PCA, number of days with Foley catheter, \& episodes of nausea, emesis, or POSS \> 3 were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05 for all unpaired parametric and non-parametric comparisons.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test was used to assess for normal distribution. Experimental \& control groups were assessed for significant differences in age, hospital days, \& spinal levels fused using unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Differences in weight \& BMI were assessed using unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Differences in average VAS scores on the operative day, each post-operative day, and average total daily opioid were compared using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test.||||0.07
84648377|NCT01977937|169033236|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in the average total daily opioid were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test||||0.02
84678618|NCT00795600|169092399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332||0.66||95.0|-10.65|6.813|||ANCOVA|||||6.813|-10.65|0.660
84678619|NCT00795600|169092426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.518||95.0|-2.572|1.313|||ANCOVA|||||1.313|-2.572|0.518
84678620|NCT00795600|169092427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.673||95.0|-3.123|2.032|||ANCOVA|||||2.032|-3.123|0.673
84505571|NCT04147715|168761725|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|1.1415|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.1415|0.9299|
84678621|NCT00795600|169092428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.738||95.0|-2.319|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.250|-2.319|0.738
84678622|NCT00795600|169092429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.346||95.0|-2.3|6.423|||ANCOVA|||||6.423|-2.300|0.346
84678623|NCT00795600|169092430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.781||95.0|-10.71|14.167|||ANCOVA|||||14.167|-10.71|0.781
84678624|NCT01248884|169092465|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
84678625|NCT01248884|169092465|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
84678626|NCT01248884|169092465|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
84678627|NCT01248884|169092465|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
84678628|NCT01248884|169092467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.11|1.44||||||||1.44|1.11|
84678629|NCT01248884|169092467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.14|1.54||||||||1.54|1.14|
84713858|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.44||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.49|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||42.26|6.49|0.0865
84713859|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-124.96|27.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||27.11|-124.96|0.3489
84713860|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.34|-16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-16.79|-59.34|0.0286
84713861|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.63||0.7198|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.32|147.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||147.59|-90.32|0.7198
84713862|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.32|56.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||56.63|21.32|0.0088
84713863|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.39|7.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||7.34|-120.39|0.2371
84713864|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.14||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.3|-19.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-19.35|-62.30|0.0210
84713865|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.07||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.17|108.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||108.94|-68.17|0.7312
84713866|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.88|58.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||58.83|19.88|0.0150
84713867|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.22|10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||10.52|-117.22|0.2559
84678630|NCT01248884|169092467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.43||||||||1.43|1.1|
84678631|NCT01248884|169092467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|1.84||||||||1.84|1.37|
84678632|NCT01248884|169092468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.19|3.0||||||||3|-10.19|
84678633|NCT01248884|169092468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.53|7.7||||||||7.7|-6.53|
84678634|NCT01248884|169092469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.27|4.63||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||4.63|-3.27|
84678635|NCT01248884|169092469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.57|2.36||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||2.36|-4.57|
84678636|NCT01248884|169092469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.62|3.8||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.8|-4.62|
84678637|NCT01248884|169092469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|3.02||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.02|-5.07|
84678638|NCT01343407|169092518|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-22.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|-8.7|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-8.7|-35.7|0.011
84678639|NCT01343407|169092518|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-18.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|-5.8|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.8|-32.1|0.023
84678640|NCT01343407|169092519|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 52.2 (90% CI: 28.3, 68.2). The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.72|0.32|0.006
84678641|NCT01343407|169092519|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.81|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 42.4 (90% CI: 19.3, 58.8) The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.81|0.41|0.012
84678642|NCT01343407|169092520|OTHER||LSM Difference|85.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.3|106.4|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||106.4|65.3|<0.001
84678643|NCT01343407|169092520|OTHER||LSM Difference|83.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.9|102.7|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||102.7|63.9|<0.001
84678644|NCT04079933|169092529|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square (LS) means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||8.27|-33.5|0.2347
84713868|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.97||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.21|-13.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-13.72|-56.21|0.0419
84713869|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.66||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.95|119.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||119.74|-78.95|0.7589
84713870|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.97|62.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||62.31|15.97|0.0374
84713871|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.8|8.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.93|-118.80|0.2463
84713872|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.78||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.56|-10.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.90|-55.56|0.0632
84678645|NCT04079933|169092529|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||10.2|-33.9|0.2905
84678646|NCT04079933|169092530|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72||||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|99.4|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL||99.4|-107|0.9433
84678647|NCT04079933|169092530|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|97.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||97.5|-122|0.8264
84713873|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.73||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.41|126.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||126.78|-75.41|0.7053
84713874|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.25||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|17.09|60.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||60.34|17.09|0.0285
84713875|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.58|5.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||5.32|-134.58|0.2236
84713876|NCT03858634|169173787|OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.65|-12.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-12.41|-58.65|0.0558
84713877|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.86||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.41|149.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||149.24|-89.41|0.7089
84713878|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.08|53.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||53.35|14.08|0.0347
84713879|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.94||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|18.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||18.16|-139.99|0.2835
84713880|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.31|-12.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-12.77|-58.31|0.0525
84713881|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.68|129.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||129.66|-81.68|0.7347
84713882|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|12.5|49.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||49.60|12.50|0.0390
84713883|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-127.49|6.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||6.33|-127.49|0.2299
84713884|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.7|-8.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-8.53|-56.70|0.0884
84713885|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.44||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.37|116.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||116.87|-84.37|0.8085
84713886|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|41.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||41.14|-1.33|0.2283
84713887|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.26||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.76|-9.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-9.11|-130.76|0.1625
84648378|NCT00191646|169033311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Using a two-sided log-rank test with a Type I error of 0.05, 636 events for PFS out of the 919 patients would give an 80% statistical power under the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio of the G/C arm versus the P/C arm was 0.08.||||0.199
84648379|NCT00191646|169033312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.771
84648380|NCT00191646|169033312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.784
84648381|NCT00191646|169033313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.621
84678648|NCT04079933|169092531|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.10|-4.35|0.4903
84648382|NCT00191646|169033314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.013
84648383|NCT01505647|169033339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMT induced by ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is statistically non-inferior to that induced by the current process vaccine if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||The hypothesis tested is that the GMT at Week 6 postvaccination with ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is non-inferior to that with the current process vaccine||1.20|0.98|<0.001
84648384|NCT01505647|169033340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis tested was that ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) induces an acceptable GMFR in VZV antibody titer from prevaccination to 6 weeks postvaccination||||<0.001
84648385|NCT05032859|169033350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||3.32|1.54|<0.0001
84678649|NCT04079933|169092531|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.07|-4.88|0.4251
84678650|NCT04079933|169092532|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||13.5|-33.2|0.4060
84678651|NCT04079933|169092532|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||14.7|-35.4|0.4165
84648386|NCT05032859|169033351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.53|<0.0001
84648387|NCT05032859|169033352|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-5.02|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-5.02|-8.17|<0.0001
84648388|NCT05032859|169033353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.34||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.||Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|3.94|1.39|0.0013
84648389|NCT05032859|169033354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.50|1.34|0.0015
84648390|NCT01948310|169033404|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648391|NCT01948310|169033404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.03
84648392|NCT01948310|169033404|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
84678652|NCT04079933|169092533|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-269.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1773.0|1235.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1235|-1773|0.7240
84648393|NCT01948310|169033404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.005
84678653|NCT04079933|169092533|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|50.5||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1566.0|1667.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1667|-1566|0.9508
84678654|NCT04079933|169092534|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||7.12|-45.1|0.1524
84678655|NCT04079933|169092534|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|16.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||16.3|-40.4|0.4014
84713888|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.87|-10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.52|-57.87|0.0707
84713889|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.17||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.79|82.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||82.55|-81.79|0.9944
84648394|NCT01948310|169033405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648395|NCT01948310|169033405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648396|NCT01948310|169033405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||0.03
84648397|NCT01948310|169033405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648398|NCT01948310|169033406|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648399|NCT01948310|169033406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.13
84648400|NCT01948310|169033406|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
84648401|NCT01948310|169033406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.013
84648402|NCT01557894|169033407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
84648403|NCT01557894|169033408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
84648404|NCT01557894|169033409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor.||||||<0.01
84648405|NCT01557894|169033410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84648406|NCT01557894|169033411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84648407|NCT03402659|169033412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105548||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26973|0.14777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.14777|-0.26973|0.564
84648408|NCT03402659|169033413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||4.8|-6.0|0.823
84678656|NCT04079933|169092535|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.0674|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.0674|-0.946|0.0241
84648409|NCT03402659|169033414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.6|-0.4|0.806
84648410|NCT03402659|169033415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.5|-1.0|0.489
84648411|NCT03402659|169033416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-1.8|-35.8|0.031
84648412|NCT03402659|169033417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-0.5|-3.6|0.012
84648413|NCT03402659|169033418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.0||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-738.9|504.2|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||504.2|-738.9|0.709
84648414|NCT03402659|169033419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.03||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||10.7|-52.7|0.192
84648415|NCT03402659|169033420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||1.6|-43.6|0.068
84648416|NCT03402659|169033421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.11||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.7|42.4|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||42.4|-262.7|0.156
84648417|NCT03402659|169033422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.0|-0.0|0.590
84648418|NCT01442038|169033424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.099||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): acute coronary syndrome (ACS) versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.099|0.818|0.48
84648419|NCT01442038|169033425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.691||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.691|0.244|0.40
84648420|NCT01442038|169033426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.994||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.994|0.579|0.82
84648421|NCT01442038|169033427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.256||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.256|0.745|0.81
84648422|NCT02128828|169033437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
84648423|NCT00090051|169033438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Log Rank|non-stratified|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide(FC) group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide+rituximab (FCR) group.||0.96|0.60|0.0218
84648424|NCT00090051|169033439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.2874
84648425|NCT00090051|169033441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.0002
84648426|NCT00090051|169033444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8842||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.8842
84648427|NCT00090051|169033446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.54|<.0001
84648428|NCT00090051|169033447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.74|0.5976
84648429|NCT00090051|169033448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.54|<.0001
84648430|NCT00090051|169033449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.35|||Chi-squared|||||3.35|1.39|0.0005
84648431|NCT00090051|169033450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.46|0.3085
84648432|NCT00090051|169033451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.51|0.0007
84648433|NCT00090051|169033452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.55|0.0002
84648434|NCT01298531|169033453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.17|-10.38|||ANCOVA|Not specifed.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with Baseline NSAID score and treatment as explanatory variables. The hypothesis tested for the primary endpoint was as follows: H0: ΔETN = ΔPlacebo; H1: ΔETN ≠ ΔPlacebo.||-10.38|-44.17|0.0019
84648435|NCT01298531|169033454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.78||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|-4.57|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||-4.57|-34.99|0.0115
84648436|NCT01298531|169033455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 4.||-0.18|-1.68|0.0153
84648437|NCT01298531|169033456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||0.00|-1.76|0.0510
84648438|NCT01298531|169033458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||0.65|0.07|0.0066
84678657|NCT04079933|169092535|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.367||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|0.108|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||0.108|-0.843|0.1292
84678658|NCT04079933|169092536|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-0.803|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.803|-19.2|0.0333
84713890|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.71|44.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||44.05|3.71|0.1327
84648439|NCT01298531|169033459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.01|-16.38|||ANCOVA|||The changes from baseline in the continuous endpoints of mini BASDAI was analyzed using ANCOVA. The total NSAID score for the first 8 weeks of randomized treatment was calculated as an AUC using the linear trapezoidal rule.||-16.38|-91.01|0.0053
84648440|NCT01298531|169033460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.963||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.01|1.10|0.0324
84648441|NCT01298531|169033463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||7.27|1.00|0.0501
84648442|NCT01298531|169033465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.103||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.54|1.13|0.0284
84648443|NCT01298531|169033467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||9.72|0.47|0.3291
84648444|NCT01298531|169033468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.44|-1.11|<0.0001
84648445|NCT01298531|169033469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.28|-1.09|0.0011
84648446|NCT01298531|169033471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0011
84648447|NCT01298531|169033472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0037
84713891|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.09|-5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-5.35|-133.09|0.1777
84648448|NCT01298531|169033476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.40|-2.20|0.0050
84648449|NCT01298531|169033477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.33|0.0256
84648450|NCT01298531|169033479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.01|-2.00|0.0474
84648451|NCT01298531|169033480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.20|-2.36|0.0212
84648452|NCT01298531|169033482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.21|-2.40|0.0198
84648453|NCT01298531|169033483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.32|-2.69|0.0132
84713892|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.34|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||4.61|-52.34|0.2796
84713893|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.4||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.15|98.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||98.30|-83.15|0.8999
84648454|NCT01298531|169033485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.11|-1.50|0.0237
84648455|NCT01298531|169033486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-1.74|0.0297
84511673|NCT05150964|168775151|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
84648456|NCT01298531|169033487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.23|-2.09|0.0152
84648457|NCT01298531|169033488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-2.22|0.0344
84648458|NCT01298531|169033490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.52|-2.16|0.0017
84648459|NCT01298531|169033491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.07|0.0233
84648460|NCT01298531|169033500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|4.901|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||4.901|0.822|0.1260
84648461|NCT01298531|169033503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates. Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect.||6.08|1.00|0.0498
84648462|NCT01298531|169033505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.15|-0.87|0.1601
84678659|NCT04079933|169092536|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||3.08|-16.6|0.1767
84678660|NCT04079933|169092537|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||1.34|-4.36|0.2961
84678661|NCT04079933|169092537|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||2.03|-4.12|0.5015
84678662|NCT04079933|169092538|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide||6.68|-30.9|0.2048
84713894|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|43.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||43.23|0.68|0.1867
84713895|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.68|-6.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-6.94|-134.68|0.1717
84648463|NCT01298531|169033506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.27|-0.86|0.2967
84648464|NCT01298531|169033512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.75|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||6.75|-1.94|0.2735
84648465|NCT01298531|169033513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||1.34|0.02|0.0422
84648466|NCT06400979|169033582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84648467|NCT06400979|169033583|SUPERIORITY|To assess the reduction of nausea following aromatherapy, pre- and post- aromatherapy scores were compared using paired t-tests||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84648468|NCT06400979|169033584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84648469|NCT06400979|169033585|OTHER|Perceived effectiveness of aromatherapy for patient satisfaction were compared with respect to post-aromatherapy scores and pre-post changes in scores using two-sample t-tests||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|73.4|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84713896|NCT03858634|169173787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.46||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.5|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||4.61|-52.50|0.2792
84648470|NCT06400979|169033586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84648471|NCT06400979|169033587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84648472|NCT02343081|169033598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the ratio of the mean for Cmax for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|Cmax|94.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|107.69|||ANOVA|Primary parameters were analyzed using ANOVA. A linear, mixed model for crossover designs (two-period, two-sequence, two-treatment) was used.|Cmax Test/Reference Ratio|Bioequivalence assessment was made for the 90% CI for the ratio of log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters μT / μR and with the two one-sided Schuirmann T-test procedure under the null hypothesis||107.69|82.69|<0.05
84648473|NCT02343081|169033602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-t for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-t|100.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|104.28|||ANOVA||AUC0-t Test/Reference Ratio|||104.28|97.81|<0.05
84648474|NCT02343081|169033603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-inf for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-inf|101.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.54|||ANOVA||AUC0-inf Test/Reference Ratio|||104.54|98.60|<0.05
84713897|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.41||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.77|4.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.10|-98.77|0.2289
84713898|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.08||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|38.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||38.27|0.96|0.1788
84505572|NCT04147715|168761727|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6628|1.0696|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0696|0.6628|
84648475|NCT02675231|169033631|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.0506|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.0506
84648476|NCT02675231|169033631|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.7695|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.7695
84648477|NCT02675231|169033632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.30|0.36|0.241
84648478|NCT02675231|169033632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.36|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.36|0.38|0.313
84648479|NCT02675231|169033633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.08|0.42|0.104
84648480|NCT02675231|169033633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.10|0.43|0.120
84648481|NCT02675231|169033634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.00|0.42|0.049
84648482|NCT02675231|169033634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.12|0.48|0.153
84648483|NCT02675231|169033639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.232
84648484|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Global health status||||0.689
84648485|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.141|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scales: Physical functioning||||0.141
84648486|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Role functioning||||0.095
84648487|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.591|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Emotional functioning||||0.591
84648488|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.935|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Cognitive functioning||||0.935
84648489|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Social functioning||||0.578
84648490|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Fatigue||||0.308
84648491|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Nausea and vomiting||||0.043
84505573|NCT04147715|168761727|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8542|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7185|1.0155|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0155|0.7185|
84648492|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Pain||||0.026
84648493|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Dyspnoea||||0.276
84648494|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Insomnia||||0.041
84648495|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Appetite loss||||0.262
84648496|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.285|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Constipation||||0.285
84648497|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Diarrhoea||||< 0.001
84648498|NCT02675231|169033640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Financial difficulties||||0.180
84648499|NCT02675231|169033641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.033
84648500|NCT02675231|169033641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.275
84648501|NCT02675231|169033642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.546
84648502|NCT02675231|169033642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.620
84648503|NCT02961218|169033645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.85||probability reduction of average pain score in ACZ885 \> Placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Lower limit and upper limit represents the credibility interval from the Bayesian analysis.|||0.85|-1.03|0.55
84648504|NCT02961218|169033647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.408||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.253|0.658|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.658|0.253|0.002
84648505|NCT02961218|169033648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.862|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.862|0.657|<.001
84648506|NCT02961218|169033649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.682||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.849|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.849|0.547|0.004
84648507|NCT02961218|169033650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.718||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.556|0.925|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.925|0.556|0.032
84648508|NCT02961218|169033657|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.4|||Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||||3.40|0.58|0.455
84648509|NCT04616027|169033660|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|141.6||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.60|70.15|
84648510|NCT04616027|169033660|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.51|145.63||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.63|70.51|
84648511|NCT04616027|169033660|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|146.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.16|208.22||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||208.22|103.16|
84648512|NCT04616027|169033660|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.31|143.92||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||143.92|71.31|
84648513|NCT04616027|169033661|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|156.93||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||156.93|79.52|
84648514|NCT04616027|169033661|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|173.38||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||173.38|83.49|
84648515|NCT04616027|169033661|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|190.62||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||190.62|94.46|
84648516|NCT04616027|169033661|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|100.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.89|141.87||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.87|71.89|
84648517|NCT04616027|169033662|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.6|154.86||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||154.86|79.60|
84648518|NCT04616027|169033662|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|116.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|164.56||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||164.56|82.76|
84648519|NCT04616027|169033662|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.56|187.85||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||187.85|96.56|
84648520|NCT04616027|169033662|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|141.3||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.30|72.63|
84648521|NCT04616027|169033663|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|115.94||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||115.94|88.89|
84648522|NCT04616027|169033663|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|110.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.05|126.37||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||126.37|96.05|
84713899|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.35||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-275.19|156.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||156.06|-275.19|0.6544
84648523|NCT04616027|169033663|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.63|137.77||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||137.77|105.63|
84648524|NCT04616027|169033663|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|127.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.26|145.12||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.12|111.26|
84648525|NCT00591266|169033683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|-9.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.09|-13.29|<0.001
84648526|NCT00591266|169033683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.81|-13.00|<0.001
84648527|NCT00591266|169033684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-8.1||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.10|-13.93|<0.001
84648528|NCT00591266|169033684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-6.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.63|-12.48|<0.001
84648529|NCT00591266|169033685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-6.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.11|-8.84|<0.001
84648530|NCT00591266|169033685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-6.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-9.01|<0.001
84648531|NCT00591266|169033686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.23|-6.62|<0.001
84648532|NCT00591266|169033686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-7.28|<0.001
84648533|NCT00591266|169033687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-9.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.41|-13.86|<0.001
84648534|NCT00591266|169033687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|-8.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.95|-13.39|<0.001
84648535|NCT00591266|169033688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.5||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.50|-9.47|<0.001
84648536|NCT00591266|169033688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-6.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-9.52|<0.001
84648537|NCT00591266|169033689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-7.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-12.07|<0.001
84648538|NCT00591266|169033689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-7.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.31|-12.03|<0.001
84648539|NCT00591266|169033690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-4.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.57|-7.94|<0.001
84648540|NCT00591266|169033690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|-4.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-7.96|<0.001
84648541|NCT00591266|169033691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-9.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.92|-14.63|<0.001
84648542|NCT00591266|169033691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-9.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.23|-13.93|<0.001
84648543|NCT00591266|169033692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-6.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-9.98|<0.001
84713900|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.39|-45.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-45.09|-99.39|0.0023
84648544|NCT00591266|169033692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-6.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-9.82|<0.001
84648545|NCT00591266|169033693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-6.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-11.45|<0.001
84648546|NCT00591266|169033693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-6.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.30|-11.51|<0.001
84648547|NCT00591266|169033694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.00|-7.88|<0.001
84648548|NCT00591266|169033694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-4.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.61|-8.47|<0.001
84713901|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
84713902|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.37||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|43.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||43.26|-13.39|0.4926
84678663|NCT04079933|169092538|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide||12.8|-27.4|0.4731
84678664|NCT04079933|169092539|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-2.47|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.47|-5.25|<0.0001
84678665|NCT04079933|169092539|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-2.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.34|-5.14|<0.0001
84678666|NCT04079933|169092540|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.5|-30.5|<0.0001
84678667|NCT04079933|169092540|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-14.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.1|-30.4|<0.0001
84678668|NCT04079933|169092541|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.408||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|0.0673|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0673|-0.884|0.0919
84713903|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
84713904|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.61|-45.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-45.22|-94.61|0.0014
84648549|NCT00591266|169033695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.26||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.15|<0.001
84648550|NCT00591266|169033695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|2.05|<0.001
84648551|NCT00591266|169033696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.08|<0.001
84648552|NCT00591266|169033696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.75||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.75|2.25|<0.001
84648553|NCT00591266|169033697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|1.71|<0.001
84648554|NCT00591266|169033697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.82||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.82|2.01|<0.001
84648555|NCT03737851|169033708|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.584||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||2.584|0.559|
84648556|NCT03737851|169033708|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.421||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||1.421|0.266|
84648557|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.25 hours||0.52|-1.02|0.5196
84713905|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
84713906|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.97||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.65|36.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||36.82|-21.65|0.7339
84713907|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
84648558|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.44||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change in VAS score from baseline at 0.5 hours||0.44|-1.09|0.3983
84713908|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.92|-39.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-39.22|-95.92|0.0055
84713909|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.73||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.7|-14.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-14.15|-101.70|0.1188
84713910|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.26|27.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||27.35|-21.26|0.8697
84713911|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.62|117.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||117.94|-178.62|0.7368
84713912|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.03|11.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||11.03|-29.03|0.5571
84713913|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.21||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.8|3.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||3.69|-101.80|0.2251
84713914|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|42.48||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||42.48|-7.90|0.3733
84713915|NCT03858634|169173789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.57||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.16|102.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||102.89|-148.16|0.7662
84713916|NCT03858634|169173789|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.87||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.54|16.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.44|-28.54|0.7241
84713917|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.04||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.69|26.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||26.43|-68.69|0.5195
84713918|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|22.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.26|0.34|0.1869
84713919|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-87.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.3||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-191.75|16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||16.79|-191.75|0.2545
84713920|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|-6.57||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.57|-33.88|0.0643
84713921|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.11||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.52|4.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||4.35|-61.52|0.2503
84713922|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.58||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.08|17.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||17.62|-13.08|0.8468
84713923|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.93||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-222.98|55.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||55.18|-222.98|0.3755
84713924|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.58|-6.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-6.15|-35.58|0.0755
84713925|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.76|13.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||13.65|-70.76|0.3486
84713926|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.28|8.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.50|-17.28|0.6559
84713927|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.46||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.35|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||24.94|-165.35|0.2987
84713928|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.29|-0.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-33.29|0.1966
84713929|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.56|0.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.62|-83.56|0.2051
84713930|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|10.25||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||10.25|-16.79|0.7511
84713931|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.27||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.68|-5.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-5.59|-153.68|0.1797
84713932|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.61|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.08|-31.61|0.1715
84713933|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.32||0.185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-71.47|-1.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-1.63|-71.47|0.1850
84713934|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.19||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.15|11.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||11.29|-21.15|0.6907
84713935|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.85||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.97|-29.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-29.02|-118.97|0.0901
84713936|NCT03858634|169173791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.34||0.564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.64|9.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.94|-25.64|0.5640
84713937|NCT03858634|169173792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
84713938|NCT03858634|169173792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
84713939|NCT03858634|169173792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
84511674|NCT05150964|168775152|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
84713940|NCT03858634|169173792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
84713941|NCT05415722|169173793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.178|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||3.406|-26.178|0.1303
84713942|NCT05415722|169173793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.924||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.14|-7.799|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||-7.799|-39.140|0.0036
84713943|NCT05415722|169173793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.545|-25.064|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-25.064|-56.545|<0.0001
84713944|NCT05415722|169173794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.17|9.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||9.39|-73.17|0.1289
84713945|NCT05415722|169173794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.65||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.08|13.58|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||13.58|-72.08|0.1790
84713946|NCT05415722|169173794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.96||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|-32.23|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-32.23|-119.08|0.0008
84713947|NCT05415722|169173795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.895||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.352|-1.128|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-1.128|-32.352|0.0358
84713948|NCT05415722|169173795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.858|-28.612|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-28.612|-58.858|<0.0001
84713949|NCT05415722|169173796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.09||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.33|-18.96|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-18.96|-106.33|0.0053
84713950|NCT05415722|169173796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.97|-27.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-27.39|-110.97|0.0014
84713951|NCT03435614|169173801|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We selected the individual signs and symptoms associated with the presence of OIWS based on a difference of greater than 15 % in the assessments between the group with OIWS and the group not displaying OIWS. This 15 % difference was judged to be of clinical significance. The signs and symptoms which did not meet this difference were not considered (data not available).|||
84713952|NCT02683447|169173803|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.039||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Pearson correlation|||||||0.039
84713953|NCT02683447|169173804|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.01||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS correct score||||<0.01
84713954|NCT02683447|169173804|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS risk score||||0.322
84713955|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||31.4|9.0|0.004
84713956|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||15.5|-3.7|0.150
84713957|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||0.2|-27.6|0.054
84713958|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.1||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|28.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||28.8|-2.3|0.091
84713959|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-0.4|-21.2|0.044
84713960|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-22.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-12.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-12.5|-36.4|0.001
84713961|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|28.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Pain||28.9|-10.0|0.333
84713962|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.2||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||17.2|-23.4|0.760
84713963|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||7.1|-32.2|0.205
84713964|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Swelling||29.7|-3.9|0.128
84713965|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.0||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||13.0|-17.0|0.779
84713966|NCT03848065|169173838|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|-15.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||1.7|-31.5|0.076
84713967|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-10.6||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||8.7|-29.1|0.282
84713968|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.9||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|9.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||9.5|-28.7|0.317
84713969|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|20.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||20.4|-19.2|0.948
84713970|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||29.6|-9.4|0.303
84678669|NCT04079933|169092541|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.886|0.0751|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0751|-0.886|0.0975
84678670|NCT04079933|169092541|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.31||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.499|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean percent change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.499|-17.1|0.0643
84678671|NCT04079933|169092541|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.0661|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.0661|-17.7|0.0517
84678672|NCT04079933|169092542|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.216||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.2160
84678673|NCT04079933|169092542|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.0648||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.0648
84678674|NCT04079933|169092543|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.5977||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study||||0.5977
84678675|NCT04079933|169092544|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL||35.5|-15.5|0.4388
84713971|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||15.0|-22.6|0.681
84713972|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-14.4||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||5.4|-33.2|0.153
84505574|NCT04147715|168761728|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6645|1.0561|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0561|0.6645|
84648559|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.75 hours||0.5|-1.03|0.4890
84648560|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 1 hour||0.56|-0.97|0.5903
84648561|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 1.5 hours||0.64|-0.90|0.7352
84648562|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2 hours||0.61|-0.92|0.6892
84648563|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2.5 hours||0.76|-0.78|0.9767
84648564|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Median Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3 hours||1.09|-0.44|0.3964
84648565|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3.5 hours||0.98|-0.55|0.5669
84678676|NCT04079933|169092545|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites||1.38|-0.48|0.3390
84505575|NCT04147715|168761728|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7213|1.0085|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0085|0.7213|
84648566|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 4 hours||0.62|-0.91|0.7006
84648567|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 5 hours||0.67|-0.87|0.7940
84648568|NCT05298306|169033713|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.||Change from baseline VAS score at 6 hours|Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|0.61|-0.92|0.6892
84505576|NCT02173301|168761756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.066
84648569|NCT03496571|169033776|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||||-68|-122|<0.001
84648570|NCT03496571|169033776|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-102.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-128|<0.001
84648571|NCT03496571|169033776|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-121|<0.001
84505577|NCT02173301|168761756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.001
84648572|NCT03496571|169033777|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|76.0|||Fisher Exact|||||76|27|<0.001
84648573|NCT03496571|169033777|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|82.0|||Fisher Exact|||||82|34|<0.001
84648574|NCT03496571|169033777|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|74.0|||Fisher Exact|||||74|36|<0.001
84648575|NCT03496571|169033778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-20.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-40|0.05
84648576|NCT03496571|169033778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-33.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13|-53|0.002
84648577|NCT03496571|169033778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9|-44|0.004
84648578|NCT01226043|169033793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.44|||ANOVA|The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied to impute missing Week 4 overall patient preference values for ANOVA analysis.||The hypothesis was to determine whether patients have higher preference score for Lantus® SoloSTAR® pen compared to Lantus® vial/syringe. Differences of patient preference score greater than 0.5 were considered clinically meaningful. The power for detecting a true difference of 0.5 considering a standard deviation from 1.6 to 2.5, assuming 130 evaluable patients per arm and a two-sided test at 0.05 significance level ranged from 89% to more than 99%.||2.44|2.15|<0.0001
84648579|NCT00910988|169033818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the two way interaction between time and order and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is alpha equal to 0.05. There was no 3 way interaction.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with time as the repeated measure, drug assignment as a fixed factor, and order as a fixed factor.||The hypothesis being tested is whether there is a significant effect of one or both antipsychotics on whole body insulin sensitivity. Sample size was calculated using power calculations to detect significant effects of treatment on insulin sensitivity. Drug assignment is a 2-level fixed factor (olanzapine vs ziprasidone) as is order (drug first vs placebo first). Baseline of the dependent variable as well as baseline DEXA total fat were entered into the model as covariates.||||0.001
84648580|NCT00910988|169033821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the 3 way interaction between time, drug (olanzapine vs ziprasidone), and order (drug first vs placebo first) and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that olanzapine and ziprasidone would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue, which was measured by evaluating the rate of appearance of labeled glycerol. The alternative hypothesis is that olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue.||||0.57
84648581|NCT03911843|169033848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||the p-value of significance was calculated using the analysis system|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84648582|NCT03911843|169033848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84648583|NCT03911843|169033849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84648584|NCT03911843|169033850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84648585|NCT01907100|169033851|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.907|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II Part||0.907|0.340|0.0174
84648586|NCT01907100|169033851|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III part:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.30|0.79|0.5430
84648587|NCT01907100|169033852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.412|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II||1.412|0.433|0.4132
84648588|NCT01907100|169033852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.58|0.79|0.7306
84648589|NCT01907100|169033853|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.||Exact 95% CI by Clopper and Pearson.|1.58|0.76|0.3189
84648590|NCT01907100|169033854|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.55|0.40|0.7512
84648591|NCT00667602|169033858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage Difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10% .||-1|-15|
84648592|NCT00667602|169033859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10%.||-2|-13|
84648593|NCT00667602|169033860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|79.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||79|64|
84648594|NCT00667602|169033860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||13|3|
84648595|NCT00667602|169033860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|86.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||86|73|
84648596|NCT00667602|169033860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||5|-2|
84648597|NCT00667602|169033862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, prevaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.12|0.76|
84648598|NCT00667602|169033862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||0.93|0.57|
84648599|NCT00667602|169033864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|13.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (prevaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5 .||13|8.43|
84648600|NCT00667602|169033864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|10.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (one month postvaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||10|6.35|
84648601|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84648602|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84713973|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.7||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Irritability||28.2|-7.2|0.237
84713974|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.4||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|25.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||25.0|-10.3|0.406
84713975|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.3||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||15.5|-21.8|0.729
84713976|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||17.5|-7.1|0.385
84713977|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||15.4|-11.0|0.719
84713978|NCT03848065|169173839|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||8.9|-14.9|0.610
84713979|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-8.1|
84648603|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-3|
84713980|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-7.9|
84713981|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||7.9|-8.1|
84713982|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114- SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||8.5|-8.1|
84713983|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||6.3|-11.7|
84713984|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||11.6|-6.0|
84713985|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-8.1|
84505578|NCT02173301|168761756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||<0.001
84505579|NCT02173301|168761757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.501
84648604|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-3|
84648605|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84648606|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, for any of the antigens, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84648607|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
84648608|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
84648609|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
84648610|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
84648611|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
84713986|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-7.9|
84713987|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||7.9|-8.1|
84505580|NCT02173301|168761757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.340
84505581|NCT02173301|168761757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.075
84505582|NCT02173301|168761758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.229
84505583|NCT02173301|168761758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.604
84505584|NCT02173301|168761758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.573
84648612|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-3|
84648613|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
84648614|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
84648615|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84648616|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
84648617|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
84648618|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
84648619|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
84713988|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-8.1|
84713989|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-7.9|
84713990|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||7.9|-8.1|
84648620|NCT00667602|169033865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC)|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
84648621|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination)given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-13|
84648622|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PNC 6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-12|
84713991|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||6.3|-11.9|
84713992|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||8.5|-7.9|
84713993|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||5.8|-11.9|
84713994|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.2|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||-0.2|-21.2|
84713995|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.1|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||2.1|-17.9|
84713996|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|10.2|||||Difference=% V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||10.2|-15.6|
84713997|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||8.5|-8.1|
84713998|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||6.3|-11.7|
84713999|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||11.6|-6.0|
84714000|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-8.1|
84714001|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-7.9|
84714002|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||7.9|-8.1|
84714003|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||6.3|-11.9|
84714004|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||8.5|-7.9|
84714005|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||5.8|-11.9|
84714006|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-8.1|
84714007|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-7.9|
84714008|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||7.9|-8.1|
84714009|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-8.1|
84714010|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-7.9|
84714011|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||7.9|-8.1|
84714012|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-8.1|
84714013|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-7.9|
84714014|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||7.9|-8.1|
84678677|NCT04079933|169092546|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-205.0||||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-745.0|334.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA||334|-745|0.4526
84678678|NCT04079933|169092547|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin||0.2|-0.2|0.9440
84678679|NCT04079933|169092548|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide||1|-1|0.7484
84678680|NCT04079933|169092549|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent||0|0|0.9992
84678681|NCT04079933|169092571|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.1661||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.1661
84678682|NCT04079933|169092571|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.2139||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.2139
84678683|NCT00022516|169092649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.6|0.14
84678684|NCT00022516|169092650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.65|0.3570
84678685|NCT00022516|169092651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.62|0.3178
84678686|NCT00022516|169092652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.6|0.06
84678687|NCT04289753|169092674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69||||||||0.69|0.46|
84678688|NCT04289753|169092675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
84648623|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PnC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 or MenC was considered non-inferior, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than -10%.||2|-11|
84678689|NCT04289753|169092676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||||1.0|0.70|
84678690|NCT00366626|169092713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by two medication (naltrexone vs placebo) design. The main hypothesis was that the effect of naltrexone (mean naltrexone drinking - placebo drinking) would be greater in the 40asp subjects than in the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis there would be no gene by medication interaction. The mean difference above is then the difference in the size of the naltrexone effect in the two genotypes, equivalent to the interaction.||3.69|-1.85|0.51
84678691|NCT00366626|169092714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.11|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by 2 medication (naltrexone vs. placebo)interaction analysis. The main hypothesis was that subjects who had 40asp OPRM1 allele would a greater naltrexone effect on drinking (Placebo - Naltrexxone) than the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis was the gene by medication interaction.||4.11|-1.22|0.28
84678692|NCT05799495|169092715|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3178||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.262|-1.080|0.0181
84648624|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
84648625|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7( PNC 18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-19|
84648626|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 19F, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-17|
84678693|NCT05799495|169092715|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3562||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.26|-0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.344|-1.260|0.0127
84678694|NCT05799495|169092715|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.506|-0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.827|-1.506|<.0001
84678695|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3402||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.046|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.170|-1.046|0.0378
84678696|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.782|-0.826|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.826|-1.782|0.0003
84678697|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.509|-0.788|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.788|-1.509|<.0001
84678698|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2732||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.287|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.416|-0.287|0.5931
84678699|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2914||0.508|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.369|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.381|-0.369|0.5080
84678700|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.501|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.073|-0.501|0.1692
84678701|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2004||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.497|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.019|-0.497|0.1172
84678702|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2178||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.337|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.224|-0.337|0.3979
84678703|NCT05799495|169092716|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1655||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.595|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||-0.170|-0.595|0.0109
84714015|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|10.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||10.4|-9.8|
84714016|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||12.4|-5.7|
84714017|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||5.8|-11.9|
84714018|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|96.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||96.4|77.2|
84505585|NCT03740100|168761759|OTHER||Percent with objective response|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||||||The primary endpoint was to determine the objective response rate of patients with R/M HNSCC harboring NOTCH1 LOF mutations to oral bimiralisib using RECIST v1.1. We used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. In order to have 80% power to detect a response rate of 30%, (one-sided α=0.05 and β=0.20), we planned to enroll up to 10 patients in the first stage. If ≥ 2 patients had an objective response, then the study would enroll an additional 19 patients in the second stage.||58|1|
84648627|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-12|
84648628|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-12|
84648629|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-11|
84648630|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-10|
84648631|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
84648632|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-6|-24|
84648633|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC19F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-17|
84648634|NCT00667602|169033866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-13|
84648635|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|78.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||78|63|
84714019|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.7|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||98.7|84.1|
84714020|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||3.6|-15.2|
84505586|NCT01710306|168761771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1996
84505587|NCT00634283|168761779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84505588|NCT00634283|168761779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold was set at 0.05, 2-tailed, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PFC over the one-week placebo lead-in period was compared between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naive groups using a between groups t-test.|"Group differences in PFC changes over time during administration of venlafaxine were assessed using mixed-model analysis.~we compared brain functional changes over the course of venlafaxine treatment between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naïve subjects using linear mixed model analysis (random intercept model) conducted using full maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Changes in PFC were calculated from the end of placebo lead-in to 48 hours, and 1, 2, and 4 weeks, yielding a within-group factor of time with four levels. We employed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure to reflect our assumption that PFC measurements closer together in time would be more highly correlated."|||0.32
84648636|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||6|-3|
84648637|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||7|-2|
84648638|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
84648639|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|39.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||39|24|
84648640|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
84648641|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||11|-3|
84648642|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-5|-22|
84648643|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-4|-17|
84648644|NCT00667602|169033871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
84714021|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|90.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||90.5|67.9|
84714022|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|95.2|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||95.2|76.4|
84648645|NCT00667602|169033873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers at one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.83|0.96|
84648646|NCT01436162|169033888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.3|-2.3|0.583
84648647|NCT01436162|169033889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||0.7|-1.9|0.354
84648648|NCT01535664|169033913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.2||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment.||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall gait. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall gait was the average of WA, TW, and SQT; a higher score is indicative of better performance.||7.20|0.87|0.015
84648649|NCT01535664|169033914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||2.8|0.7|0.003
84648650|NCT01535664|169033915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.507|12.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||12.950|2.507|0.006
84648651|NCT01535664|169033916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||0.54|0.19|<.001
84648652|NCT01535664|169033917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.84||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall balance. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall balance was a weighted average of SOT, LOS, and ADT.||3.84|-8.60|0.434
84648653|NCT00395538|169033937|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.015||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, 2 \& 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariate for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate was included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.015
84648654|NCT00395538|169033937|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84648655|NCT00395538|169033937|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.649||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Cn.BV/TV change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Cn.BV/TV, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.649
84648656|NCT00395538|169033938|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.N values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.371||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.371
84714023|NCT03848065|169173841|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|8.2|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||8.2|-22.7|
84714024|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 1||1.00|0.58|
84648657|NCT00395538|169033938|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.129||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Po.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Po.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.129
84648658|NCT00395538|169033938|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.538||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.538
84648659|NCT00395538|169033939|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|A baseline covariate not added to model since it would over-parameterize the model.||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
84648660|NCT00395538|169033939|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84678704|NCT00439777|169092736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events will give a power of 90% to demonstrate that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided alpha=0.05). The mean overall incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and therefore 1465 patients per group would be needed. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2067||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.68|0.75|0.0026
84678705|NCT00439777|169092737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.56||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox||The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.||1.56|0.86|0.33
84678706|NCT00439777|169092738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.14|0.63|0.275
84678707|NCT00439777|169092739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.93|0.70|0.55
84678708|NCT00439777|169092740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3289||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.79|0.49|0.85
84648661|NCT00395538|169033939|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.374||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.374
84648662|NCT00395538|169033940|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84648663|NCT00395538|169033940|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648664|NCT00395538|169033940|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.168||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.168
84648665|NCT00395538|169033941|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.083||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.083
84648666|NCT00395538|169033941|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84678709|NCT00439777|169092741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08756||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||If the primary efficacy analysis shows that rivaroxaban is non-inferior to the comparator, the principal safety outcome was to be compared between treatment groups to maintain the overall type I error of 0.05 (2-sided) (a closed testing procedure).|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.07|0.76|0.23
84678710|NCT03855189|169092765|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678711|NCT03855189|169092765|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||<0.01
84511675|NCT05150964|168775152|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
84678712|NCT03855189|169092765|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||0.06
84678713|NCT03855189|169092766|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
84678714|NCT03855189|169092766|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678715|NCT03855189|169092766|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.50
84678716|NCT03855189|169092769|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678717|NCT03855189|169092769|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84648667|NCT00395538|169033941|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.164||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.164
84648668|NCT00395538|169033942|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.031||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.031
84648669|NCT00395538|169033942|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648670|NCT00395538|169033942|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.178||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.178
84648671|NCT00395538|169033943|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84678718|NCT03855189|169092769|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
84511676|NCT05150964|168775152|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||>0.05
84648672|NCT00395538|169033943|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
84678719|NCT03855189|169092770|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
84678720|NCT03855189|169092770|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678721|NCT03855189|169092770|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
84678722|NCT03855189|169092771|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
84678723|NCT03855189|169092771|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84648673|NCT00395538|169033943|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.172||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.172
84678724|NCT03855189|169092771|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.81
84678725|NCT03855189|169092772|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
84678726|NCT03855189|169092772|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678727|NCT03855189|169092772|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.17
84678728|NCT03855189|169092773|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678729|NCT03855189|169092773|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
84678730|NCT03855189|169092773|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.39
84678731|NCT03855189|169092774|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84511677|NCT05150964|168775153|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
84678732|NCT03855189|169092774|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678733|NCT03855189|169092774|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
84678734|NCT03855189|169092775|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84678735|NCT03855189|169092775|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678736|NCT03855189|169092775|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.54
84678737|NCT03855189|169092776|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678738|NCT03855189|169092776|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678739|NCT03855189|169092776|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.71
84678740|NCT03855189|169092777|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678741|NCT03855189|169092777|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678742|NCT03855189|169092777|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.77
84678743|NCT03855189|169092778|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
84678744|NCT03855189|169092778|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84678745|NCT03855189|169092778|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
84678746|NCT03855189|169092779|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678747|NCT03855189|169092779|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678748|NCT03855189|169092779|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.59
84678749|NCT03855189|169092780|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
84678750|NCT03855189|169092780|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678751|NCT03855189|169092780|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.43
84678752|NCT03855189|169092781|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
84678753|NCT03855189|169092781|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.08
84678754|NCT03855189|169092781|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.96
84678755|NCT03855189|169092782|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678756|NCT03855189|169092782|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678757|NCT03855189|169092782|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.64
84678758|NCT03855189|169092783|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.25
84678759|NCT03855189|169092783|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
84678760|NCT03855189|169092783|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.26
84678761|NCT03855189|169092784|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84511678|NCT05150964|168775153|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
84648674|NCT00395538|169033944|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648675|NCT00395538|169033944|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.018||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.018
84648676|NCT00395538|169033944|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.155||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.155
84648677|NCT00395538|169033945|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.72||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.720
84648678|NCT00395538|169033945|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.944||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.944
84678762|NCT03855189|169092784|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678763|NCT03855189|169092784|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
84678764|NCT03855189|169092785|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
84678765|NCT03855189|169092785|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678766|NCT03855189|169092785|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
84678767|NCT03855189|169092786|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
84678768|NCT03855189|169092786|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84678769|NCT03855189|169092786|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.53
84678770|NCT03855189|169092787|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
84678771|NCT03855189|169092787|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678772|NCT03855189|169092787|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
84678773|NCT03855189|169092788|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84648679|NCT00395538|169033945|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.73||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.730
84648680|NCT00395538|169033946|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.019||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.019
84648681|NCT00395538|169033946|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.017||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.017
84648682|NCT00395538|169033946|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.843||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.843
84678774|NCT03855189|169092788|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678775|NCT03855189|169092788|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.34
84678776|NCT03855189|169092789|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678777|NCT03855189|169092789|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678778|NCT03855189|169092789|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
84678779|NCT03855189|169092790|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
84678780|NCT03855189|169092790|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678781|NCT03855189|169092790|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84678782|NCT03855189|169092791|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
84648683|NCT00395538|169033947|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.013||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.013
84648684|NCT00395538|169033947|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.025||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.025
84648685|NCT00395538|169033947|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.608||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.608
84648686|NCT00395538|169033948|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.043||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.043
84648687|NCT00395538|169033948|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.334||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.334
84678783|NCT03855189|169092791|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678784|NCT03855189|169092791|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
84678785|NCT03855189|169092792|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
84678786|NCT03855189|169092792|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
84678787|NCT03855189|169092792|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
84648688|NCT00395538|169033948|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.269||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Th change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Th, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.269
84648689|NCT00395538|169033949|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.358||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.358
84648690|NCT00395538|169033949|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.76||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.760
84648691|NCT00395538|169033949|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.57||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.570
84648692|NCT00395538|169033950|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.166||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.166
84648693|NCT00395538|169033950|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.895||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.895
84648694|NCT00395538|169033950|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.282||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.282
84678788|NCT01418209|169092821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
84678789|NCT01418209|169092821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold of statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
84648695|NCT00395538|169033951|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
84648696|NCT00395538|169033951|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648697|NCT00395538|169033951|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.680
84648698|NCT00395538|169033952|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
84648699|NCT00395538|169033952|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
84648700|NCT00395538|169033952|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.904||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.904
84648701|NCT00395538|169033953|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84678790|NCT01418209|169092822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||<0.001
84648702|NCT00395538|169033953|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648703|NCT00395538|169033953|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.010
84648704|NCT00395538|169033954|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648705|NCT00395538|169033954|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648706|NCT00395538|169033954|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
84648707|NCT00395538|169033955|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84678791|NCT01418209|169092822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||0.005
84678792|NCT01418209|169092824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.01
84714025|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.13|0.65|
84678793|NCT01418209|169092824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.07
84678794|NCT01418209|169092826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo.||||<0.001
84678795|NCT01418209|169092826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.03
84678796|NCT02939105|169092843|OTHER||success proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|96.2||||||||96.2|69.3|
84678797|NCT01802411|169092847|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|13.1||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|57.0|||ANCOVA|||||57|-31|0.5598
84678798|NCT02670629|169092862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84678799|NCT02055352|169092889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A change of 5-10% from baseline values is considered to be clinically important. The estimated adjusted treatment difference for budesonide 400 μg twice a day/ indacaterol 150 μg once daily minus fixed combination of fluticasone/ salmeterol 250/ 50 μg twice daily was displayed along with the associated one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. If the lower limit of this confidence interval was to the right (i.e. above) - 10 mL, then non-inferiority could be claimed.||||||0.004|||||||Mixed effects General linear model|||||||0.004
84678800|NCT05349617|169092898|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|86.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|90.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||90.3|80|<0.0001
84678801|NCT05349617|169092899|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|90.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|117.0||Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||117|69|<0.0001
84678802|NCT05349617|169092905|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|84.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||84.6|72.3|<0.0001
84678803|NCT05349617|169092905|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||80.1|67.1|<0.0001
84678804|NCT05349617|169092906|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|56.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||56|32|<0.0001
84678805|NCT05349617|169092906|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|35.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||35|22|<0.0001
84678806|NCT05349617|169092907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
84678807|NCT05349617|169092907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
84678808|NCT05349617|169092907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
84678809|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|94.6|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||94.6|86.0|<0.0001
84678810|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||96.5|89.2|<0.0001
84648708|NCT00395538|169033955|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
84648709|NCT00395538|169033955|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.228||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.228
84648710|NCT00395538|169033956|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
84648711|NCT00395538|169033956|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
84678811|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|94.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||94.8|86.3|<0.0001
84678812|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|87.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||87.5|75.9|<0.0001
84678813|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|88.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|92.0|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||92.0|82.4|<0.0001
84678814|NCT05349617|169092908|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|86.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||86.8|75.2|<0.0001
84511679|NCT05150964|168775153|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescripton will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
84511680|NCT01239121|168775155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-0.27|0.175
84678815|NCT00746954|169092909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparisons among groups||||0.45
84678816|NCT01763567|169092923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84678817|NCT01763567|169092924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84678818|NCT01763567|169092925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84678819|NCT01763567|169092926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|85.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84678820|NCT01763567|169092927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84678821|NCT00566228|169092939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|0.62|0.690
84678822|NCT00566228|169092942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.679
84714026|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114-IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.16|0.68|
84511681|NCT01239121|168775156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|.49|0.964
84511682|NCT03657160|168775158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.27|<0.001
84511683|NCT03657160|168775159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.37|0.0043
84648712|NCT00395538|169033956|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.670
84648713|NCT00395538|169033957|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
84648714|NCT00395538|169033957|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648715|NCT00395538|169033957|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.712||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.712
84678823|NCT02041195|169092950|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-1.72||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.72|-6.81|0.004
84678824|NCT02041195|169092950|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|-1.03|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One-sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.03|-6.23|0.012
84678825|NCT02041195|169092952|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|-1.89||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.89|-5.24|<0.001
84678826|NCT02041195|169092954|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|-1.0|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.00|-3.44|0.002
84678827|NCT00674986|169092973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.01|0.0416
84678828|NCT00674986|169092974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84678829|NCT00674986|169092975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2777
84678830|NCT00674986|169092976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1160
84678831|NCT00674986|169092977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1146
84678832|NCT00674986|169092978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0470
84678833|NCT00674986|169092979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84678834|NCT01880424|169092981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001||95.0|1.21|2.09||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||2.09|1.21|0.0010
84714027|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.76|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.76|0.96|
84511684|NCT03657160|168775160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.39|0.0204
84511685|NCT03657160|168775161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.22|0.0668
84511686|NCT03657160|168775162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.34|0.1458
84648716|NCT00395538|169033958|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.029||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.029
84648717|NCT00395538|169033958|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648718|NCT00395538|169033958|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.104||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.104
84648719|NCT00395538|169033959|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.088||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.088
84648720|NCT00395538|169033959|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
84648721|NCT00395538|169033959|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.325||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.325
84648722|NCT00395538|169033960|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 3 participants with non-missing Ec.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648723|NCT00395538|169033960|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648724|NCT00395538|169033960|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.974||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.974
84648725|NCT00395538|169033961|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
84648726|NCT00395538|169033961|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.023
84648727|NCT00395538|169033961|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.288||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.288
84678835|NCT01880424|169092982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.83|3.58||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||3.58|1.83|<0.0001
84678836|NCT03521635|169092999|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.0|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release|Mean changes from baseline of PDSS-2 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.0|-2.7|0.688
84678837|NCT03521635|169093000|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by patients were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.8|-1.2|0.690
84714028|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.01|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||2.01|1.10|
84648728|NCT00395538|169033962|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.202||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.202
84678838|NCT03521635|169093000|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by caregivers were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.1|-2.7|0.376
84678839|NCT03521635|169093001|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep night-time sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.9|0.333
84678840|NCT03521635|169093001|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep overall night sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.3|-0.8|0.374
84678841|NCT03521635|169093001|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep daytime sleepiness score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.4|0.352
84678842|NCT03521635|169093002|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of EMO sore were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.2|-0.8|0.259
84511687|NCT03657160|168775163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.46|0.0105
84648729|NCT00395538|169033962|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.486||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.486
84648730|NCT00395538|169033962|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.535||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.535
84678843|NCT03521635|169093003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PDSS-2 score \<18 were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||2.54|0.36|0.9373
84714029|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.18|0.65|
84511688|NCT00686959|168775167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.79|0.831
84648731|NCT00395538|169033963|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
84648732|NCT00395538|169033963|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
84648733|NCT00395538|169033963|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.328||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.328
84648734|NCT00395538|169033964|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84648735|NCT00395538|169033964|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
84648736|NCT00395538|169033964|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.789||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.789
84648737|NCT00395538|169033965|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.651||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.651
84678844|NCT03521635|169093004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.49|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of EMO score were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||7.49|0.73|0.1611
84648738|NCT00395538|169033965|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.58||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.580
84648739|NCT00395538|169033965|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.338||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.338
84511689|NCT00686959|168775168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.71|0.130
84511690|NCT00686959|168775169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.458
84648740|NCT00395538|169033966|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
84648741|NCT00395538|169033966|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.110
84648742|NCT00395538|169033966|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.764||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.764
84648743|NCT00395538|169033967|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.227||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.227
84648744|NCT00395538|169033967|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.194||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.194
84714030|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||0.90|0.58|
84714031|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.00|0.65|
84714032|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.11|0.72|
84714033|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.16|0.60|
84714034|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.31|0.69|
84511691|NCT00686959|168775172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed within the radiation treatment field||||0.132
84511692|NCT00686959|168775172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed inside thorax, outside of radiation field||||0.337
84648745|NCT00395538|169033967|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.434||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.434
84648746|NCT00395538|169033968|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
84648747|NCT00395538|169033968|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
84648748|NCT00395538|169033968|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.787||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.787
84648749|NCT00395538|169033969|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.082||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.082
84678845|NCT03521635|169093005|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of PDQ-8 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.3|0.517
84678846|NCT03521635|169093006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of CGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
84678847|NCT03521635|169093007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
84714035|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.21|0.64|
84714036|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.84|0.47|
84714037|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.93|0.52|
84714038|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||1.21|0.68|
84511693|NCT00686959|168775172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed distant disease||||0.457
84714039|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.79|0.36|
84511694|NCT00686959|168775173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.150
84648750|NCT00395538|169033969|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.057||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.057
84648751|NCT00395538|169033969|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.547||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.547
84648752|NCT00395538|169033970|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.922||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.922
84648753|NCT00395538|169033970|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.342||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.342
84648754|NCT00395538|169033970|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.449||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.449
84648755|NCT01876810|169034003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results are considered significant at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84648756|NCT01876810|169034003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84505589|NCT01715415|168761787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic peg-interferon/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) treatment-experienced subjects administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 60% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 70% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.1|98.4|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and numbered secondary efficacy endpoints.|With a sample size of 300 subjects and assuming that 85% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) 12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 60% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion).||98.4|94.1|
84648757|NCT01876810|169034004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84648758|NCT01876810|169034004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84648759|NCT01876810|169034005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used|participants self-reportd VAS craving at the time of neutral cue presentation|||||0.4
84648760|NCT01876810|169034005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used||||||0.4
84648761|NCT01857583|169034008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|33.6|||ANCOVA|||||33.6|-10.0|
84648762|NCT01857583|169034008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||||42.1|-10.2|
84648763|NCT04571515|169034021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|46.6|||Emax|||||46.6|9.9|0.003
84648764|NCT04571515|169034021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.3|||Emax|||||45.3|13.8|<0.001
84648765|NCT04571515|169034021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|46.2|||Emax|||||46.2|14.4|<0.001
84648766|NCT04571515|169034021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|48.6|||Emax|||||48.6|13.5|<0.001
84648767|NCT04571515|169034022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.4|
84648768|NCT04571515|169034022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.5|
84648769|NCT04571515|169034022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-1.8|
84648770|NCT04571515|169034022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.1|
84648771|NCT04571515|169034023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.1|||Emax|||||23.1|7.3|<0.001
84648772|NCT04571515|169034023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.9|||Emax|||||22.9|9.3|<0.001
84648773|NCT04571515|169034023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Emax|||||23.4|9.7|<0.001
84648774|NCT04571515|169034023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7|||Emax|||||24.7|9.4|<0.001
84648775|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.208
84648776|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.005
84648777|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.192
84648778|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.067
84648779|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.059
84648780|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||<0.001
84648781|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.017
84648782|NCT04571515|169034024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.002
84648783|NCT04571515|169034025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.051
84648784|NCT04571515|169034025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.035
84648785|NCT04571515|169034025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.016
84648786|NCT04571515|169034025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.180
84648787|NCT04571515|169034026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.022
84648788|NCT04571515|169034026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.028
84648789|NCT04571515|169034026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.007
84648790|NCT04571515|169034026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.005
84714040|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.90|0.41|
84714041|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||1.30|0.59|
84714042|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.81|0.46|
84505590|NCT01715415|168761788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and the first 3 secondary endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84714043|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.90|0.52|
84714044|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||1.17|0.67|
84714045|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||0.99|0.57|
84714046|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.13|0.65|
84714047|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.15|0.67|
84714048|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.19|0.60|
84714049|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.43|0.72|
84714050|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.16|0.59|
84714051|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.90|0.53|
84714052|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.92|0.54|
84714053|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||1.27|0.76|
84714054|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.15|0.66|
84714055|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||0.96|0.55|
84714056|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.57|0.90|
84714057|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.89|0.57|
84714058|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.95|0.62|
84714059|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||1.15|0.75|
84714060|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.57|
84714061|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.58|
84714062|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.36|0.73|
84714063|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|134.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.91|204.62|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||204.62|88.91|
84714064|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.18|309.69|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||309.69|135.18|
84678848|NCT03521635|169093008|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of ESS score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.7|-1.4|0.820
84678849|NCT00414700|169093009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion||Test for superiority||||0.003
84678850|NCT00414700|169093010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||Test for superiority||||0.010
84678851|NCT00414700|169093011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -9 % points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-3.28|6.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Overall KOOS score, age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||||6.90|-3.28|
84648791|NCT03646643|169034110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.97||A priori threshold \<0.05. Multiple comparisons adjustments: not needed.|Log Rank||The distal CS to LA connection elimination group had fewer recurrences (6.7%) compared with the standard group (46.7%), which translated to an 88% lower hazard of recurrence compared with the standard group.|Power calculation: assuming alpha 0.05, power 0.8, 1:1 randomization, and estimated relative risk of 14.4 for AF susceptibility with rate-dependent CS-LA conduction block, we anticipated a minimum sample size of 6 patients per group would be necessary to detect a difference using the log-rank test. Additional patients were recruited to account for potential losses to follow-up and a smaller detectable difference.||0.97|0.02|0.047
84648792|NCT00145600|169034134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.953||||||||0.953|0.820|
84648793|NCT00145600|169034134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
84648794|NCT00145600|169034134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
84648795|NCT00145600|169034134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.86||||||||0.860|0.726|
84648796|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3097
84648797|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648798|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648799|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648800|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648801|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648802|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0197
84648803|NCT00145600|169034135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84678852|NCT04564833|169093041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84648804|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648805|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648806|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84648807|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648808|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648809|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648810|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3624||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3624
84648811|NCT00145600|169034136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648812|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0254
84648813|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648814|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0004
84648815|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.32||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
84648816|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648817|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648818|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
84678853|NCT04564833|169093041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84678854|NCT04564833|169093042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3954
84678855|NCT04564833|169093042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0682|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
84678856|NCT04564833|169093043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6755
84678857|NCT04564833|169093043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6758
84505591|NCT01715415|168761789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 65% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|98.9|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||98.9|93.0|
84648819|NCT00145600|169034137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0061||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0061
84648820|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0687
84648821|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
84648822|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9478
84648823|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648824|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2999||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2999
84648825|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648826|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3121
84648827|NCT00145600|169034138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648828|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
84648829|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648830|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0282||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0282
84648831|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.35||||0.0002||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0002
84648832|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0038||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0038
84648833|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648834|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1474
84648835|NCT00145600|169034139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648836|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0281||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0281
84678858|NCT04564833|169093044|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84648837|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648838|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0050
84648839|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648840|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0005
84648841|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
84648842|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0552
84648843|NCT00145600|169034140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648844|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648845|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648846|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxan signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648847|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648848|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0017
84648849|NCT00145600|169034141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648850|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2758||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2758
84648851|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648852|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1731||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1731
84648853|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648854|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0846
84648855|NCT00145600|169034142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648856|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4263
84648857|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648858|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648859|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648860|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0468
84648861|NCT00145600|169034143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648862|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648863|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0019||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0019
84678859|NCT04564833|169093044|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84648864|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84648865|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0704||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0704
84678860|NCT01303627|169093047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed x2 test or Mann Whitney U test as approriate. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||The incidence of complications on removal of the cLMA has been reported 54 % in awake patients group A power analysis indicated that a minimum 16 patients in each group were required to demonstrate a difference that 50% reduction the complications (a power of 80% and α error 0.05).||||<0.05
84678861|NCT01175382|169093062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to compare mean changes from baseline to 6 weeks among groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used for imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
84678862|NCT01175382|169093063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test for differences in mean change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks in voiding frequency controlling for age and 6 week frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||.0013
84648866|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0200
84678863|NCT01175382|169093064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in 24-hour voiding frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline voiding frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.2933
84678864|NCT01175382|169093065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test means changes among the groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0051
84678865|NCT01175382|169093066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1402|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change score among groups controlling for age and baseline score||||.1402
84678866|NCT01175382|169093067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Nocturia among groups adjusting for baseline values of nocturia and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0015
84678867|NCT01175382|169093068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire from baseline to 6 weeks among groups after controlling for baseline value and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||<.0001
84678868|NCT01175382|169093069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of Covariance comparing mean chance in IPSS from baseline to 6 weeks among groups controlling for baseline IPSS values and age.~Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data."||||<.0001
84678869|NCT01175382|169093070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
84678870|NCT01175382|169093071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0222
84648867|NCT00145600|169034144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84678871|NCT01175382|169093072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0217
84678872|NCT01175382|169093073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in Urgency Score from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week Urgency Score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.6690
84678873|NCT01175382|169093074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0812|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Incontinence Episodes from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and frequency of incontinence episodes at 6 weeks. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0812
84678874|NCT01175382|169093075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in nocturia from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week nocturia frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.5578
84678875|NCT01175382|169093076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week OAB-q score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0279
84678876|NCT01175382|169093077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in the International Prostate Symptom Scale (IPSS) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups||||0.2553
84678877|NCT01175382|169093078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
84678878|NCT01175382|169093079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8153|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8153
84678879|NCT01175382|169093080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5536
84678880|NCT01175382|169093081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Nocturia frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Nocturia frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.2035
84678881|NCT01175382|169093082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Urgency Score differed among the groups after adjusting for Urgency Scoe and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0549
84648868|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7192
84648869|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648870|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8663||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8663
84648871|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648872|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7626||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7626
84648873|NCT00145600|169034145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648874|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4807||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4807
84648875|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648876|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0824
84648877|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648878|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0496
84648879|NCT00145600|169034146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648880|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0157
84648881|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648882|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
84648883|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648884|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1478
84648885|NCT00145600|169034147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648886|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0831
84678882|NCT01175382|169093083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Incontinent Episodes differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Incontinent episodes frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.5070
84678883|NCT01175382|169093084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0529
84678884|NCT01175382|169093085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in International Prostate Symptom Score from Baseline to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for baseline International Prostate Symptom Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.2384
84678885|NCT02203019|169093086|EQUIVALENCE|Outcome comparison used the Mann Whitney U test||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
84678886|NCT02203019|169093087|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
84678887|NCT02203019|169093088|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
84678888|NCT02203019|169093089|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Chi square test.||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
84678889|NCT04495712|169093106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
84648887|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.25||||0.0027||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0027
84648888|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0135
84648889|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.27||||0.0024||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0024
84648890|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9848||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9848
84648891|NCT00145600|169034148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0974||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0974
84648892|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0040
84648893|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648894|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
84678890|NCT04495712|169093107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
84678891|NCT04495712|169093108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84678892|NCT03447769|169093143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|||1.14|0.78|0.258
84648895|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648896|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8108||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8108
84648897|NCT00145600|169034149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
84648898|NCT00145600|169034150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|0.944||||||||0.944|0.805|
84648899|NCT00145600|169034150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
84648900|NCT00145600|169034150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
84648901|NCT00145600|169034150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.853||||||||0.853|0.716|
84648902|NCT05402020|169034155|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.15|0.87|
84648903|NCT05402020|169034156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (triple therapy escalation) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||0.85|0.53|
84648904|NCT05402020|169034157|OTHER||Incidence difference|-37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-15.8|||||Incidence difference calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]-\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||-15.8|-60.1|
84648905|NCT05402020|169034157|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||0.85|0.51|
84648906|NCT05402020|169034158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia after initiation of study drug) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.93|0.36|
84648907|NCT05402020|169034159|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.03|0.81|
84648908|NCT05402020|169034160|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.18|0.87|
84648909|NCT02694523|169034170|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||32.4|17.5|<0.001
84648910|NCT02694523|169034171|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||30.1|16.6|<0.001
84648911|NCT02694523|169034172|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||61.1|28.9|<0.001
84648912|NCT02694523|169034173|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||24.9|13.0|<0.001
84648913|NCT02694523|169034174|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||23.9|9.5|<0.001
84648914|NCT02694523|169034175|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
84648915|NCT02694523|169034176|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
84648916|NCT02694523|169034177|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||55.8|22.0|<0.001
84648917|NCT01086423|169034178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.76||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™ -IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-D, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.76|-1.88|
84648918|NCT01086423|169034178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-T, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.56|
84678893|NCT03447769|169093148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 \<1%||1.58|0.76|0.676
84648919|NCT01086423|169034179|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-2.13||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRP antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-2.13|-14.44|
84648920|NCT01086423|169034180|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 1 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
84648921|NCT01086423|169034180|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 2 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
84648922|NCT01086423|169034180|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 3 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
84648923|NCT01086423|169034181|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.89||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PT antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||1.89|-3.74|
84648924|NCT01086423|169034181|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.11||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-FHA antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-0.11|-6.75|
84648925|NCT01086423|169034181|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.04||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRN antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.04|-4.6|
84648926|NCT01367119|169034196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.171
84648927|NCT01367119|169034197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.258
84648928|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for nausea||||0.091
84648929|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for headache||||0.763
84648930|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for myalgia||||0.356
84648931|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for visual disturbance||||0.093
84648932|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for confusion||||0.003
84648933|NCT01367119|169034198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for recovery room agitation||||0.860
84648934|NCT03180684|169034232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Clopper Pearson|A 1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%. Superiority of VGX-3100 alone was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0071
84648935|NCT03180684|169034232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Clopper Pearson|1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%.Superiority of VGX-3100+imiquimod was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0004
84648936|NCT02652767|169034259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.158|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.158|-0.182|0.8890
84648937|NCT01130103|169034287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||caps total score at weeks 5 and 10||.85|.30|.01
84648938|NCT01130103|169034287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change in CAPS total from week 5 to week 10||.74|.43|<.001
84648939|NCT01130103|169034291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|129.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||treatment group effect: remission rate at weeks 5 and 10||129|1.23|.03
84648940|NCT01130103|169034291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|176.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change over time in remission rate from week 5 to 10||176|2.44|0.007
84648941|NCT03091777|169034303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84678894|NCT03447769|169093148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.05||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥1% and \<49%||1.05|0.34|0.036
84678895|NCT03447769|169093148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.43||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥50%||2.43|0.73|0.823
84648942|NCT03091777|169034303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84648943|NCT02314143|169034306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|4.459|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for dabrafenib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||4.459|0.224|1.0000
84648944|NCT02314143|169034306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|10.166|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for trametinib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||10.166|0.382|0.4216
84678896|NCT03447769|169093149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 \< median||1.72|0.87|0.872
84678897|NCT03447769|169093149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 ≥ median||1.33|0.62|0.303
84678898|NCT03029208|169093189|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||||An ANCOVA model including randomization stratification factors Baseline Hgb and treatment was performed to obtain a point estimate and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa).|||0.14|-0.34|
84678899|NCT03029208|169093190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.4||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|49.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in this average monthly IV iron dose between arms, including factors for Baseline dose, treatment and the randomization stratification factors.|||49.9|-11.0|0.8949
84648945|NCT00089674|169034320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|6.2|<0.0001
84648946|NCT00089674|169034321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|4.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||4.4|3.5|<0.0001
84648947|NCT00089674|169034322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.1|4.4|<0.0001
84648948|NCT00089674|169034323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.4|8.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||8.4|7.4|<0.0001
84648949|NCT00089674|169034324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.4|4.4|<0.0001
84648950|NCT00089674|169034325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.4|6.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||6.1|5.4|<0.0001
84648951|NCT00089674|169034326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1048||95.0|0.46|1.08||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.46|0.1048
84648952|NCT00089674|169034327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0125||95.0|0.18|0.78||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.0125
84648953|NCT00089674|169034328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7961||95.0|0.57|1.55||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.57|0.7961
84648954|NCT00089674|169034329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7961||95.0|0.44|1.11||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.44|0.7961
84648955|NCT03963401|169034330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|38.52|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's method|||||38.52|3.94|0.1172
84648956|NCT03963401|169034330|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.26|37.5|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||37.50|9.26|0.0197
84648957|NCT03963401|169034330|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.65|44.93|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||44.93|17.65|0.0006
84648958|NCT03963401|169034331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|39.19|||Normal approximation method|||||39.19|2.72|0.0588
84648959|NCT03963401|169034331|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|26.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.72|40.9|||Normal approximation method|||||40.90|11.72|0.0030
84648960|NCT03963401|169034331|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.93|45.5|||Normal approximation method|||||45.50|16.93|0.0003
84648961|NCT01476644|169034365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
84648962|NCT01610271|169034366|SUPERIORITY|ABS was expected to be superior to Control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.05||a priori threshold was 0.05|Regression, Logistic|penalized maximum likelihood (Firth) logistic regression, because infection rate was very low (\<3%), as expected|The dispersion is the SE of the OR. ABS was the numerator group, Control was the denominator.|A sample size of 150 per group provided a power of 80% to detect a statistically significant (α≤0.05) 3% difference in SSI rate based on a historical infection rate of 6% in the facility where operations were performed.||2.05|0.01|0.067
84648963|NCT02393690|169034370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
84648964|NCT02393690|169034371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
84648965|NCT02393690|169034372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1764
84678900|NCT03029208|169093191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|10.27|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||10.27|-3.82|0.8168
84648966|NCT02393690|169034373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0756
84648967|NCT00252629|169034397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of fatigue complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0002
84678901|NCT03029208|169093191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.21||||0.9793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|8.26|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.26|0.17|0.9793
84678902|NCT03029208|169093191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.1||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.7|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.70|-0.51|0.9597
84648968|NCT00252629|169034398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of pain symptom from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0008
84648969|NCT00252629|169034399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of cognitive dysfunction complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.004
84648970|NCT00252629|169034400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p value was based on t-test||||0.0001
84648971|NCT02819518|169034404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy (taxane versus \[vs\] gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs. no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.98|0.70|0.0120
84648972|NCT02819518|169034405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.91|0.62|0.0016
84648973|NCT02819518|169034406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.88|0.50|0.0018
84648974|NCT02819518|169034407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.05|0.76|0.0797
84648975|NCT02819518|169034408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.04|0.72|0.0563
84648976|NCT02819518|169034409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.95|0.55|0.0093
84678903|NCT03029208|169093192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|4.53|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.53|-4.72|0.4840
84678904|NCT03029208|169093192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.82|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.82|-0.85|0.9156
84678905|NCT03029208|169093192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.33|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.33|-1.76|0.7966
84678906|NCT03029208|169093193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.01||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Negative binomial model||Model estimated exacerbation rates, ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.39|0.73|0.5174
84678907|NCT03029208|169093195|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||||The difference in change from Baseline in post-randomization Hgb at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||0.36|-0.29|
84678908|NCT03029208|169093196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-0.8||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for treatment and randomization stratification factors were used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||10.7|-12.2|0.5411
84678909|NCT03029208|169093197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.27|||||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||11.27|-4.45|
84678910|NCT03029208|169093198|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.61|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.61|0.46|0.1538
84678911|NCT03029208|169093199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.66|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and dialysis start manner.|||3.66|0.31|0.5348
84678912|NCT03029208|169093200|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39||||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.44|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.44|-2.22|0.6641
84678913|NCT03029208|169093200|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.89|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.89|-0.63|0.1030
84678914|NCT03029208|169093200|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.48|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.48|-1.51|0.3157
84678915|NCT03029208|169093200|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.84|-3.46|0.8855
84678916|NCT03029208|169093201|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.66|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.66|-2.99|0.7146
84505592|NCT01715415|168761790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 77% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.9||||||||99.9|93.6|
84648977|NCT02819518|169034410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|3.8||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||10.6|-3.2|0.1413
84648978|NCT02819518|169034411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|6.1||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||14.0|-2.1|0.0725
84678917|NCT03029208|169093201|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.53||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.76|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.76|-3.82|0.9050
84678918|NCT03029208|169093201|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.28|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.28|-2.91|0.5950
84678919|NCT03029208|169093201|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.70|-3.17|0.5619
84678920|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.49|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.49|-2.21|0.4523
84678921|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.43|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.43|-2.57|0.5222
84678922|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.02|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||5.02|-0.35|0.0440
84678923|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.46|-5.68|0.9523
84678924|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.91|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.91|-1.82|0.4811
84678925|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.11|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.11|-1.56|0.3834
84648979|NCT02819518|169034412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR(%) vs. Control|12.1||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||23.4|0.4|0.0213
84648980|NCT02819518|169034416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. control|4.7||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||11.8|-2.4|0.0966
84678926|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.24|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.24|-1.72|0.3983
84678927|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.15|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.15|-2.51|0.5617
84678928|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.15||||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.18|-3.48|0.8336
84678929|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.57|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.57|-3.40|0.9188
84678930|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.99|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.99|-2.96|0.6495
84678931|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.56|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.56|-3.09|0.5737
84678932|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.82|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.82|-2.15|0.3963
84678933|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.25|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||3.25|-2.01|0.3220
84678934|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||3.18|-2.13|0.3485
84678935|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.49||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.9|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.90|-4.87|0.8064
84678936|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29||||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.98|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||0.98|-3.57|0.8687
84678937|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.70|-1.29|0.2435
84678938|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.41|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.41|-3.15|0.7747
84678939|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.81|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.81|-3.26|0.7141
84678940|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.03||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.59|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.59|-3.65|0.7803
84678941|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.0|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||1.00|-3.35|0.8556
84678942|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.77|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.77|-2.61|0.4763
84678943|NCT03029208|169093202|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.8|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||3.80|-2.35|0.3208
84678944|NCT03029208|169093203|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.46|-3.50|0.7910
84678945|NCT03029208|169093203|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45||||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|1.14|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.14|-4.03|0.8648
84678946|NCT03029208|169093204|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.19|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.19|-2.75|0.5879
84678947|NCT03029208|169093204|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.43||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.26|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain scor was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.26|-4.12|0.8525
84678948|NCT03029208|169093205|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.14|-0.09|0.3154
84678949|NCT03029208|169093206|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||5.9|-12.7|0.7651
84714065|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||0.99|0.44|
84511931|NCT00854308|168775614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.622|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||1.622|0.727|0.6873
84648981|NCT02819518|169034417|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|5.0||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||13.1|-3.2|0.1164
84648982|NCT02819518|169034418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|10.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||22.3|-0.7|0.0327
84648983|NCT03552965|169034444|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.14, SD=0.378, Range=1, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=7 Robust: Mean=1.17, SD=0.577, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=12"|||
84648984|NCT03552965|169034445|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.894, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.91, SD=1.136, Range=3, 25th percentile=2, Median=3, 75th percentile=4, n=11"|||
84648985|NCT03552965|169034446|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2.5, SD=0.577, Range=1, 25th percentile=2, Median=2.5, 75th percentile=3, n=4 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1.225, Range=3, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.5, n=9"|||
84648986|NCT03552965|169034447|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.83, SD=0.753, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=9"|||
84648987|NCT03552965|169034448|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.707, Range=2, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=2.38, SD=1.188, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.25, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.75, n=8"|||
84648988|NCT03552965|169034449|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=15.5, SD=23.76242, Range=75, 25th percentile=0, Median=5, 75th percentile=21.25, n=10 Robust: Mean=14.1346, SD=17.87095, Range=52.5, 25th percentile=0, Median=6.25, 75th percentile=27.5, n=13"|||
84648989|NCT03552965|169034450|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=45.625, SD=30.68744, Range=71.25, 25th percentile=11.25, Median=58.125, 75th percentile=71.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=64.3182, SD=15.0142, Range=48.75, 25th percentile=66.25, Median=70, 75th percentile=71.25, n=11"|||
84648990|NCT03552965|169034451|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=60, SD=23.68412, Range=60, 25th percentile=38.125, Median=68.75, 75th percentile=77.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=54.8611, SD=29.91815, Range=80, 25th percentile=24.375, Median=66.25, 75th percentile=80, n=9"|||
84648991|NCT03552965|169034452|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=31.67, SD=31.38139, Range=85, 25th percentile=5.625, Median=25, 75th percentile=56.875, n=6 Robust: Mean=54.0278, SD=24.57274, Range=67.5, 25th percentile=33.75, Median=62.5, 75th percentile=72.5, n=9"|||
84648992|NCT03552965|169034453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=50.75, SD=30.29284, Range=72.5, 25th percentile=21.875, Median=48.75, 75th percentile=80.625, n=5 Robust: Mean=38.4375, SD=26.69897, Range=66.25, 25th percentile=15, Median=29.375, 75th percentile=68.75, n=8"|||
84648993|NCT01711372|169034454|OTHER||||||||||||||Chi-squared|||AUC or ROC for Groundskeeper Game|AUC of ROC is 0.78|||
84648994|NCT01711372|169034455|OTHER||||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnoses is 0.76|||
84648995|NCT01711372|169034456|OTHER|AUC of ROC|||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnosis is 0.62|||
84648996|NCT00729924|169034459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis was that the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the partial plasma area-under-the-curve 0-4h value would differ between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
84648997|NCT00729924|169034460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We explored post-hoc whether the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the 2-hour plasma concentration differs between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
84648998|NCT00518687|169034487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|18.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|55.8||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significantly greater than 20%|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||55.8|-48.6|0.584
84648999|NCT00518687|169034488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.1|-0.1|0.997
84649000|NCT00518687|169034489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|12.9||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|50.0||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||50.0|-50.8|0.347
84505593|NCT04136626|168761793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0475||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3977|0.3027||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.3027|-4.3977|0.0871
84649001|NCT00518687|169034490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|29.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|51.2||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||51.2|-1.8|0.032
84649002|NCT00137631|169034527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05||95.0|0.33|1.01|||negative binomial regression|||||1.01|0.33|< 0.05
84649003|NCT00137631|169034528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||<|0.05||95.0|1.05|1.68|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.68|1.05|< 0.05
84649004|NCT00137631|169034529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05||95.0|0.69|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|0.69|< 0.05
84649005|NCT00137631|169034530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49|||<|0.05||95.0|0.28|0.87|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||0.87|0.28|< 0.05
84649006|NCT00137631|169034531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||<|0.05||95.0|0.42|1.53|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.53|0.42|< 0.05
84678950|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.43||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-0.82|||MMRM||Tired/Low energy/Weak domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.82|-12.05|0.9875
84678951|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.11||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|0.3|||MMRM||Chest pain/Shortness of breath domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.30|-8.52|0.9663
84678952|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-1.35|||MMRM||Cognitive domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.35|-11.84|0.9930
84678953|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.12|||MMRM||Shortness of breath, no activity: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.12|-8.19|0.8765
84678954|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.27||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|0.94|||MMRM||Severity-short breath, Resting: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.94|-9.48|0.9464
84678955|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|2.47|||MMRM||Difficulty standing for long time: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.47|-13.09|0.9101
84678956|NCT03029208|169093207|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.52||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.86|||MMRM||Difficulty sleeping: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-13.90|0.9586
84649007|NCT00085709|169034532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The interim analysis only reported a p-value for testing whether the hazard ratio was not equal to 1.5.||Interim futility analysis of the alternative hypothesis for disease-free survival. The design specified a hazard ratio of (observation: GO) of 1.5.||||<0.001
84649008|NCT00085709|169034533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0025||95.0|||||Test of difference of proportions|||Interim futility analysis alternative hypothesis based on the design specification that the 7+3+GO arm would have a 12% increase in CR rate.||||<0.0025
84649009|NCT04622735|169034551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0031
84649010|NCT04622735|169034551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6787
84649011|NCT02007512|169034569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.257|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.257|0.535|0.3631
84649012|NCT02007512|169034569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.586|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.586|0.659|0.9212
84649013|NCT02007512|169034570|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.955|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.955|0.205|0.0335
84649014|NCT02007512|169034570|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.554||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.363|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.363|0.225|0.1936
84649015|NCT02007512|169034587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.438|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.438|0.599|0.7378
84649016|NCT02007512|169034587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.483|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.483|0.632|0.8817
84649017|NCT02007512|169034588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.522||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|1.217|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.217|0.224|0.1270
84649018|NCT02007512|169034588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.961|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.961|0.143|0.0359
84649019|NCT02545075|169034609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided p-value based on unstratified chi-square test||||||0.5059
84649020|NCT02545075|169034610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided unstratified chi-square||||||0.6202
84649021|NCT02545075|169034611|SUPERIORITY||Stratified cox proportional hazard model|1.13||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c)||||1.45|0.87|0.7267
84649022|NCT02545075|169034612|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.9||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c) and BRAF mutation status as entered into the IVRS||||1.15|0.71|0.2503
84649023|NCT02545075|169034613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.64|0.9932
84649024|NCT02545075|169034614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.03|0.48|0.9738
84649025|NCT00573248|169034723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
84649026|NCT00573248|169034724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smoker versus nonsmoker) ANOVA||||<0.025
84649027|NCT00573248|169034725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
84649028|NCT00573248|169034726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
84649029|NCT04105543|169034766|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|4.24|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for MDADI Composite Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.24|-12.64|0.173
84649030|NCT04105543|169034766|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.998||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.43|7.39|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for MDADI Composite Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||7.39|-28.43|0.225
84649031|NCT04105543|169034767|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.09|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 3 months (n=8)||0.09|-0.246|0.779
84649032|NCT04105543|169034767|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.12|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 6 months (n=4)||0.12|-0.218|0.465
84649033|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.444||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.4|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.4|-14.4|0.213
84649034|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.667||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|20.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||20|-17.8|0.686
84649035|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.846||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|12.82|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||12.82|-0.769|0.498
84649036|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|10.256||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|35.89|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||35.89|-15.39|0.416
84649037|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|16.67|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||16.67|-20.84|0.778
84649038|NCT04105543|169034768|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||25|-25|0.89
84649039|NCT04105543|169034769|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for XeQOL Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||9.5|-2|0.138
84649040|NCT04105543|169034769|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for XeQOL Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||16|-10|0.225
84649041|NCT04105543|169034770|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||5|-3|0.674
84649042|NCT04105543|169034770|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||6|-6|0.892
84649043|NCT02103218|169034787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.62
84649044|NCT02103218|169034788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.15
84649045|NCT02103218|169034789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.47
84505594|NCT04136626|168761793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-3.4385||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7394|-1.1376||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups.||-1.1376|-5.7394|0.0036
84649046|NCT02103218|169034790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
84649047|NCT02103218|169034791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||<0.001
84649048|NCT02103218|169034792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.77.|linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.02
84649049|NCT02103218|169034793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.67
84649050|NCT02103218|169034794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.45
84649051|NCT02103218|169034795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
84649052|NCT02103218|169034796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.42
84678957|NCT03029208|169093208|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 8 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|0.02|0.9810
84678958|NCT03029208|169093208|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 12 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.26|-0.17|0.6743
84678959|NCT03029208|169093208|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.40|-0.09|0.8997
84649053|NCT02103218|169034797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.63
84649054|NCT02103218|169034798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.78.|count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.05
84678960|NCT03029208|169093208|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.47|-0.12|0.8835
84714066|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|41.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||41.13|15.34|
84649055|NCT02103218|169034799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.50
84505595|NCT04136626|168761794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8743||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7666|1.0181||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||1.0181|-2.7666|0.3616
84649056|NCT02103218|169034801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.86
84649057|NCT02103218|169034802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.46
84649058|NCT02103218|169034803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
84649059|NCT02103218|169034804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
84649060|NCT02103218|169034805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.43
84649061|NCT02301988|169034815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.77||||0.519||95.0|-8.99|16.54|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||16.54|-8.99|0.519
84649062|NCT02301988|169034816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.29||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|32.1|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||32.10|-25.52|0.7817
84649063|NCT02301988|169034817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|21.35|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||21.35|-5.95|0.2234
84649064|NCT02301988|169034818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.96||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.91|27.99|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.99|-33.91|0.8169
84649065|NCT02301988|169034819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|11.11||||0.1607||95.0|-5.64|27.85|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.85|-5.64|0.1607
84649066|NCT02301988|169034820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.68||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|60.94|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||60.94|-13.57|0.1486
84649067|NCT02301988|169034821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.09||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|27.2|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||27.20|-15.01|0.4980
84649068|NCT02301988|169034822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.66||||0.3032||95.0|-12.25|31.58|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||31.58|-12.25|0.3032
84649069|NCT02301988|169034824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.76|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||22.76|-14.37|0.6280
84649070|NCT02301988|169034825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.33||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|49.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||49.71|-33.04|0.6291
84649071|NCT02750943|169034837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-25.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.682|-19.998||From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group, gender and baseline MGI stratification as factors baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-19.998|-30.682|<0.0001
84649072|NCT01074047|169034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|The p-value is two-sided from an unstratified log-rank test|The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.02|0.69|0.0829
84649073|NCT01074047|169034843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.03|0.69|0.1009
84511932|NCT00854308|168775615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7101||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||||0.7101
84649074|NCT01074047|169034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.0|||||Estimates of the 1-year (365 day) survival probabilities and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented by treatment group. The CI for the difference in the 1-year survival probabilities was derived using Greenwoods variance estimate.|||21.0|3.5|
84649075|NCT01074047|169034845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of EFS||1.05|0.72|0.1495
84649076|NCT01074047|169034846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of RFS||1.66|0.75|0.5832
84649077|NCT01074047|169034847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5384|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.5384
84649078|NCT01074047|169034849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.0376
84649079|NCT01074047|169034873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Ratio|0.79||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||negative binomial regression analysis|||||1.02|0.62|0.0721
84649080|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 4||0.94|0.48|
84649081|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 6B||1.04|0.64|
84649082|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 9V||1.23|0.74|
84649083|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 14||1.01|0.45|
84649084|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 18C||1.31|0.70|
84649085|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 19F||0.77|0.40|
84649086|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 23F||1.05|0.64|
84649087|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 4||2.80|1.39|
84649088|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.84|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 6B||3.84|2.41|
84649089|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 9V||1.62|0.98|
84649090|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|9.79|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 14||9.79|4.53|
84649091|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.24|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 18C||3.24|1.68|
84649092|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|6.07|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 19F||6.07|3.29|
84649093|NCT01298544|169034881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.63|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 23F||2.63|1.65|
84649094|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-7.3|-29.4|
84649095|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||3.0|-3.1|
84649096|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||7.3|-5.9|
84649097|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.1|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||3.1|-10.3|
84678961|NCT03207750|169093215|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-D antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-D concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.79||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-D antibodies.||0.79|-0.80|
84678962|NCT03207750|169093215|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-T antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-T concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.77||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-T antibodies.||0.77|-0.79|
84678963|NCT03207750|169093216|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-HB antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-HB concentration|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 10 mIU/mL) of anti-HB antibodies.||0.16|-1.90|
84678964|NCT03207750|169093217|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 1 concentration|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.||1.15|-0.60|
84678965|NCT03207750|169093217|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 2 concentration|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.||0.98|-1.02|
84714067|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.93|55.83|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||55.83|20.93|
84714068|NCT03848065|169173842|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||1.19|0.45|
84511933|NCT00854308|168775616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib||||0.3671
84649098|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-1.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-1.0|-22.7|
84649099|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||0.6|-7.1|
84649100|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||2.3|-4.5|
84649101|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||37.0|12.7|
84649102|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|7.715|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||7.715|-0.011|
84649103|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||19.6|1.9|
84678966|NCT03207750|169093217|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 3 concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.||0.84|-0.87|
84505596|NCT04136626|168761794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-1.3076||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3014|0.6862||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups.||0.6862|-3.3014|0.1973
84714069|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.9|-7.7|
84714070|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.0|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||12.0|-10.8|
84649104|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|40.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||40.5|19.4|
84649105|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|41.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||41.5|17.9|
84714071|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.0|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.0|-8.0|
84714072|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|12.4|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.8|
84714073|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.7|
84714074|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
84714075|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-8.1|
84714076|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-7.9|
84714077|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
84714078|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-8.1|
84714079|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-7.9|
84714080|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||7.9|-8.1|
84714081|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-8.1|
84714082|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-7.9|
84714083|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||7.9|-8.1|
84649106|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.9|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||13.9|1.2|
84649107|NCT01298544|169034882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||13.0|1.8|
84649108|NCT05169567|169034883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.57|0.02
84649109|NCT00859027|169034930|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in femoral neck BMD from baseline||||0.004
84649110|NCT00859027|169034930|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in total hip BMD from baseline||||0.001
84649111|NCT00859027|169034930|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline||||0.04
84714084|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-8.1|
84649112|NCT00859027|169034930|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for the femoral neck BMD||||<0.01
84649113|NCT00859027|169034930|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for total hip BMD||||<0.01
84649114|NCT00859027|169034931|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for NTX||||0.015
84649115|NCT00859027|169034931|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for CTX||||0.01
84649116|NCT02775903|169034932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1838|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.1838
84649117|NCT02775903|169034933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.6180
84649118|NCT02775903|169034934|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.7016|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor)||||||0.7016
84649119|NCT02775903|169034935|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.6076|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.6076
84649120|NCT02775903|169034936|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.384|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.3840
84649121|NCT02775903|169034937|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8961|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8961
84649122|NCT02775903|169034938|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.3591|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.3591
84649123|NCT02775903|169034939|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.9031|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.9031
84649124|NCT02775903|169034941|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.2409|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very intermediate vs poor).||||||0.2409
84649125|NCT02775903|169034942|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0688|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0688
84649126|NCT02775903|169034943|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.4894|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.4894
84649127|NCT02775903|169034945|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0381|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0381
84649128|NCT02775903|169034947|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8973|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8973
84649129|NCT02775903|169034947|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0691|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0691
84649130|NCT05419908|169035028|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-7.79||Least square (LS) mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||||-7.79|-16.89|<0.001
84714085|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-7.9|
84714086|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||7.9|-8.1|
84714087|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-8.1|
84714088|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||"Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13~-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method."|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-7.9|
84714089|NCT03848065|169173843|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||7.9|-8.1|
84714090|NCT04137367|169173856|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We estimated a priori that a total of 100 participants would be needed to detect a difference between ABM and sham condition, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and (1-β) of .80. Power calculation was based on the assumption that 50 % of the participants allocated to ABM would report a minimum of 3 points reduction on BDI-II at six months, compared to 20 % in the sham condition. Assuming 15 % lost to follow up, power calculation indicated the need for 50 participants in each condition||||.05
84714091|NCT00764751|169173885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.0|||Paired t-test|||||25|5.6|=0.003
84714092|NCT00764751|169173885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|1.9|||Paired t-test|||||1.9|-36.0|0.07
84505597|NCT04136626|168761795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7992||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4246|0.8262||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.8262|-6.4246|0.1289
84649131|NCT05419908|169035029|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.466|-0.802||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.802|-1.466|<0.001
84649132|NCT05419908|169035029|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.948|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.362|-0.535||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.535|-1.362|<0.001
84649133|NCT05419908|169035029|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|-0.741||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.741|-1.504|<0.001
84649134|NCT05419908|169035030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.02|-9.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.54|-17.02|<0.001
84649135|NCT05419908|169035030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.27||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-7.27|-16.30|<0.001
84649136|NCT05419908|169035030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-7.83||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-7.83|-17.00|<0.001
84649137|NCT05419908|169035031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-29.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-29.1|-50.5|<0.001
84649138|NCT05419908|169035031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-23.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-23.0|-47.9|<0.001
84649139|NCT05419908|169035031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.9|-22.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-22.1|-47.9|<0.001
84649140|NCT05419908|169035032|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|81.0||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||81.00|49.15|<0.001
84649141|NCT05419908|169035032|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|30.37|66.59||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||66.59|30.37|<0.001
84649142|NCT05419908|169035032|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.76|69.24||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||69.24|35.76|<0.001
84649143|NCT05419908|169035033|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|84.21||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||84.21|53.70|<0.001
84649144|NCT05419908|169035033|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|50.7|||<|0.001||95.0|31.93|69.42||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||69.42|31.93|<0.001
84649145|NCT05419908|169035033|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.99|75.01||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||75.01|39.99|<0.001
84649146|NCT05419908|169035034|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.47|70.84||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||70.84|37.47|<0.001
84649147|NCT05419908|169035034|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.001||95.0|29.62|65.99||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||65.99|29.62|<0.001
84649148|NCT05419908|169035034|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.86|66.14||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||66.14|28.86|<0.001
84649149|NCT05419908|169035035|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|49.7|||<|0.001||95.0|33.54|65.79||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||65.79|33.54|<0.001
84649150|NCT05419908|169035035|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.83|59.85||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||59.85|27.83|<0.001
84649151|NCT05419908|169035035|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|42.5|||<|0.001||95.0|26.34|58.66||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||58.66|26.34|<0.001
84649152|NCT05419908|169035036|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|62.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.56|79.05||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||79.05|46.56|<0.001
84649153|NCT05419908|169035036|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|63.47||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||63.47|28.85|<0.001
84649154|NCT05419908|169035036|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.57|73.43||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||73.43|41.57|<0.001
84649155|NCT05419908|169035037|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|61.5|||<|0.001||95.0|45.4|77.55||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||77.55|45.40|<0.001
84649156|NCT05419908|169035037|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.53|62.69||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||62.69|23.53|<0.001
84649157|NCT05419908|169035037|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001||95.0|33.92|71.08||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||71.08|33.92|<0.001
84649158|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work||-1.60|-3.45|<0.001
84649159|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work||-1.42|-3.15|<0.001
84649160|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work||-1.20|-3.03|<0.001
84649161|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Activities||-1.46|-3.19|<0.001
84649162|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.47||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Activties||-1.47|-3.21|<0.001
84649163|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.29||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Activties||-1.29|-3.09|<0.001
84649164|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.31||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Leisure Activities||-1.31|-2.99|<0.001
84649165|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.55||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Leisure Activties||-1.55|-3.19|<0.001
84649166|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.62||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Leisure Activties||-0.62|-2.66|0.002
84649167|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sleep||-1.78|-4.08|<0.001
84649168|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.57||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sleep||-1.57|-3.86|<0.001
84649169|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sleep||-1.54|-3.67|<0.001
84649170|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.81||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mood||-0.81|-2.67|<0.001
84649171|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.16||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Mood||-1.16|-3.09|<0.001
84649172|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Mood||-0.88|-2.69|<0.001
84649173|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Concentration||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
84649174|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-3.21|-1.25||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Concentration||-1.25|-3.21|<0.001
84649175|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Concentration||-0.88|-2.91|<0.001
84649176|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Relations With Others||-0.46|-2.20|0.003
84649177|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Relations With others||-0.90|-2.80|<0.001
84649178|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.77||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Relations With Others||-0.77|-2.66|<0.001
84649179|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sexuality||0.13|-2.25|0.081
84649180|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sexuality||0.00|-2.80|0.050
84649181|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.51||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.19||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sexuality||-0.19|-2.84|0.026
84649182|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.79||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Enjoyment of Life||-0.79|-2.51|<0.001
84649183|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Enjoyment of Life||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
84649184|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Enjoyment of Life||-0.78|-2.88|<0.001
84714093|NCT00324805|169173920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Arm II versus Arm I|||1.19|0.82|0.90
84649185|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week4: Overall Quality of Life||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
84649186|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.61||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Quality of Life||-1.61|-3.41|<0.001
84649187|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Quality of Life||-1.41|-3.31|<0.001
84649188|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.23||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-1.23|-2.73|<0.001
84649189|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-1.40|-3.02|<0.001
84649190|NCT05419908|169035038|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-1.13|-2.83|<0.001
84649191|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Getting to Sleep||2.100|0.651|<0.001
84649192|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.827||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Getting to Sleep||1.827|0.505|<0.001
84649193|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.895||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.599||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Getting to Sleep||1.599|0.190|0.014
84649194|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|3.539||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||3.539|1.308|<0.001
84649195|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.251||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||3.251|1.31|<0.001
84649196|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.433|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|3.532||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||3.532|1.334|<0.001
84649197|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.877||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|1.789||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Awake Following Sleep||1.789|-0.034|0.059
84649198|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.457||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.335||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Awake Following Sleep||2.335|0.579|0.001
84714094|NCT00324805|169173921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Arm II vs. Arm I|||1.15|0.86|0.95
84649199|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.113||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|2.12||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Awake Following Sleep||2.120|0.107|0.031
84649200|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.203||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|2.088||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.088|0.317|0.008
84649201|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.597||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.556||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.556|0.639|0.001
84649202|NCT05419908|169035039|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.842||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|1.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Behaviour Following Sleep||1.800|-0.116|0.084
84649203|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.3|-0.3|0.881
84649204|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.383
84649205|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.301
84649206|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Psychological||-0.4|-4.5|0.020
84714095|NCT05977530|169173928|SUPERIORITY||comparison of ranks in Wilcoxon|0.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
84649207|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Psychological||-1.2|-5.4|0.003
84649208|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Psychological||-1.0|-5.2|0.005
84649209|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Physical||0.9|-1.2|0.732
84678967|NCT03207750|169093218|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PT antibodies.||1.03|0.86|
84678968|NCT03207750|169093218|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-FHA antibodies.||1.08|0.92|
84678969|NCT03207750|169093218|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRN antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PRN antibodies.||1.10|0.86|
84678970|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 1 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 1.||1.14|0.93|
84678971|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 3 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 3.||1.11|0.91|
84678972|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 4 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 4.||1.09|0.90|
84678973|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 5 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 5.||1.17|0.94|
84678974|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6A.||1.12|0.92|
84649210|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Physical||0.6|-1.9|0.282
84649211|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Physical||0.5|-1.7|0.254
84649212|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Vasomotor||-1.4|-2.7|<0.001
84649213|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Vasomotor||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
84649214|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Vasomotor||-1.3|-2.6|<0.001
84649215|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Total Symptom Score||-1.0|-8.2|0.013
84649216|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Total Symptom Score||-3.1|-10.7|<0.001
84649217|NCT05419908|169035040|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Total Symptom Score||-2.8|-9.9|<0.001
84649218|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work/School||-0.8|-2.7|<0.001
84649219|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work/School||-1.3|-2.8|<0.001
84678975|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6B should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6B.||1.12|0.83|
84678976|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 7F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 7F.||1.08|0.91|
84678977|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 9V should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 9V.||1.14|0.93|
84649220|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work/School||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
84649221|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Life||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
84649222|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Life||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
84649223|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Life||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
84649224|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.4|-2.2|0.005
84649225|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.9|-2.5|<0.001
84649226|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
84678978|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 14 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 14.||1.13|0.89|
84649227|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Global Functional Impairment||-2.0|-6.9|<0.001
84649228|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Global Functional Impairment||-3.6|-8.0|<0.001
84649229|NCT05419908|169035041|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Global Functional Impairment||-2.8|-7.8|<0.001
84649230|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Lost||0.6|-0.5|0.936
84649231|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Lost||0.1|-0.1|0.884
84649232|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Lost||0.1|-0.4|0.124
84649233|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.8|0.052
84649234|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.060
84649235|NCT05419908|169035042|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.049
84649236|NCT05015530|169035161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||α-diversity assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.908
84649237|NCT00438451|169035213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0201
84649238|NCT00438451|169035213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1536||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1536
84649239|NCT00438451|169035213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3615
84649240|NCT00438451|169035213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0478
84649241|NCT00438451|169035213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.838||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|3.093|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for treatment (p=0.0578), country (p=0.4649), pooled sites (p=0.4420) and number of concurrent diseases (p=0.0192)|"Odds ratio given here is for comparison LEV vs CBZ: OR=1.838 KI=(1.092-3.093) LEV vs LTG: OR=1.169 KI=(0.689-1.984) CBZ vs LTG: OR=0.636 KI=(0.377-1.073) Number of concurrent diseases: OR=0.921 KI=(0.859-0.987)"|||3.093|1.092|0.0578
84649242|NCT00438451|169035214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0596||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0596
84649243|NCT00438451|169035215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2517
84649244|NCT00438451|169035216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3303
84649245|NCT00438451|169035217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5022||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5022
84649246|NCT01288027|169035225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||one sample t-test|||Statistical significance for change from Baseline was measured using one sample t-test||||0.1860
84649247|NCT02413372|169035232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.09|-5.26|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-5.26|-9.09|
84649248|NCT02413372|169035232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.14|-3.25|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-3.25|-7.14|
84649249|NCT02413372|169035232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-2.84|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-2.84|-8.01|0.0004
84649250|NCT02413372|169035232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-1.23|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-1.23|-6.47|0.0084
84649251|NCT00760214|169035248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-11.04|<.001
84649252|NCT00760214|169035248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|-6.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.39|-11.66|<.001
84505598|NCT04136626|168761795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-4.5704||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1939|-0.9468||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups.||-0.9468|-8.1939|0.0137
84649253|NCT00760214|169035249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-3.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-6.85|<.001
84649254|NCT00760214|169035249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-4.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.12|-7.21|<.001
84649255|NCT00760214|169035250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-7.64|<.001
84649256|NCT00760214|169035250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.66|-7.27|0.002
84649257|NCT00760214|169035251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-0.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-4.61|0.003
84649258|NCT00760214|169035251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.89|0.001
84649259|NCT00760214|169035252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-6.87|0.017
84649260|NCT00760214|169035252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-6.50|0.029
84649261|NCT00760214|169035253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-4.15|0.052
84678979|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 18C should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 18C.||1.14|0.92|
84649262|NCT00760214|169035253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-0.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-4.49|0.022
84649263|NCT00760214|169035254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-7.46|0.003
84649264|NCT00760214|169035254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-7.18|0.004
84649265|NCT00760214|169035255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.60|0.008
84649266|NCT00760214|169035255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-4.93|0.003
84649267|NCT00760214|169035256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.77|-9.12|<.001
84649268|NCT00760214|169035256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-2.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.67|-8.96|<.001
84649269|NCT00760214|169035257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.15|0.006
84649270|NCT00760214|169035257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.65||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-5.89|<.001
84649271|NCT00760214|169035258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-5.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.60|-12.15|<.001
84649272|NCT00760214|169035258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.95|-11.46|<.001
84649273|NCT00760214|169035259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-3.17||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-8.19|<.001
84678980|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19A.||1.15|0.93|
84678981|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19F.||1.12|0.95|
84678982|NCT03207750|169093219|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 23F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 23F.||1.10|0.87|
84678983|NCT03207750|169093220|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 0.15 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||2.28|-1.94|
84678984|NCT03207750|169093221|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.99||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 1.0 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||3.99|-5.75|
84678985|NCT03207750|169093222|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PT antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
84714096|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|FSFI Total, HRI Cohen's d|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.1||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for FSFI total, FSFI lubrication, FSFI pain, and FSFI desire subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||2.10|.62|
84714097|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Total, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37||||||||2.37|.86|
84649274|NCT00760214|169035259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-2.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.82|-7.81|<.001
84649275|NCT00994318|169035260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||0.95|0.44|0.026
84649276|NCT00994318|169035260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400-600mcg/L) compared with FCM targeting low ferritin level (100 - 200 mcg/L).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||1.05|0.45|0.082
84714098|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87||||||||1.87|.49|
84714099|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.66||||||||2.66|1.02|
84714100|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, HRI Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.36||||||||1.36|.16|
84649277|NCT00994318|169035260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.93|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management without taking into account the Hb trigger.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.93|0.39|0.020
84649278|NCT00994318|169035260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.88|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on local laboratory data, instead of central laboratory data.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.88|0.43|0.008
84649279|NCT00994318|169035260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on subjects with a complete set of Hb values from central laboratory.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)"||1.10|0.45|0.12
84649280|NCT00736879|169035279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
84649281|NCT00736879|169035279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.41|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.41|-1.07|<0.0001
84649282|NCT00736879|169035279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.50|-1.17|<0.0001
84649283|NCT00736879|169035280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5481||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.65||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the primary endpoint was significant.||-0.65|-2.81|0.0018
84649284|NCT00736879|169035280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5474||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-2.76|0.0024
84649285|NCT00736879|169035280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5598||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.63||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-2.83|0.0022
84649286|NCT00736879|169035281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.859||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-3.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-26.7|0.0103
84649287|NCT00736879|169035281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-14.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-14.3|-37.2|<0.0001
84649288|NCT00736879|169035281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-20.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.8|-44.3|<0.0001
84714101|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, VVA Cohen's d|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.38||||||||1.38|.24|
84649289|NCT00736879|169035282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-24.61||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-24.61|-59.56|<0.0001
84649290|NCT00736879|169035282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.27|-30.03||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.03|-66.27|<0.0001
84649291|NCT00736879|169035282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.67|-42.5||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-42.50|-78.67|<0.0001
84649292|NCT00736879|169035283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|34.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||34.3|3.6|0.0157
84649293|NCT00736879|169035283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|23.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.8|-6.2|0.2512
84649294|NCT00736879|169035283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.069||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||30.3|-1.3|0.0726
84649295|NCT00736879|169035284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7954||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.77||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.37|0.3163
84649296|NCT00736879|169035284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.99|-2.22|
84714102|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, HRI Cohen's d|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.82||||||||1.82|.46|
84714103|NCT05692960|169173932|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, VVA Cohen's d|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.86||||||||1.86|.55|
84505599|NCT04136626|168761796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3953||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0543|10.8448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||10.8448|-2.0543|0.1796
84649297|NCT00736879|169035284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.16|-3.09|
84649298|NCT01272284|169035319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion successful|85.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.81|78.1||||Fisher Exact|||The final significance level is 0.04191 accounting for one interim analysis conducted at 80% of final information, thus a 95.81% Confidence Limit (CL) was used.|||78.1|<0.0001
84649299|NCT06138145|169035363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84649300|NCT06138145|169035363|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.05
84649301|NCT06138145|169035363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84649302|NCT02047227|169035401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4741|0.003|||Poisson Regression Model|||||0.003|-0.4741|0.054
84649303|NCT01302379|169035412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|97.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.5|-97.5|<0.05
84649304|NCT02766465|169035427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||<0.001
84649305|NCT02766465|169035427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing significant cerebrovascular event between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. Significant cerebrovascular event includes stroke, transient ischemic attack, and seizure. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||0.027
84649306|NCT02766465|169035427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe Vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the second year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the second year after assignment.||||< 0.001
84649307|NCT02766465|169035428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 6MWD from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.869
84649308|NCT02766465|169035429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TRJV from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.636
84649309|NCT02766465|169035431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Physical Function changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.242
84649310|NCT02766465|169035432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Anxiety changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.343
84649311|NCT02766465|169035433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Depression changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.491
84649312|NCT02766465|169035434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing fatigue score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
84649313|NCT02766465|169035435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Sleep Disturbance changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.594
84649314|NCT02766465|169035436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing social roles score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
84649315|NCT02766465|169035437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing pain interference score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.071
84649316|NCT02766465|169035438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.146
84649317|NCT02766465|169035439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 28-Day Pain Diary Average Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.649
84649318|NCT02766465|169035440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ASCQ-Me Stiffness changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.207
84649319|NCT02766465|169035441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1 changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.596
84649320|NCT02766465|169035442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.684
84649321|NCT02766465|169035443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1/FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.863
84649322|NCT02766465|169035444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing VC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.455
84649323|NCT02766465|169035445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TLC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.767
84649324|NCT02766465|169035446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing RV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.241
84649325|NCT02766465|169035447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ERV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.268
84649326|NCT02766465|169035448|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing IC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||>0.999
84649327|NCT02766465|169035449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FRC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.832
84649328|NCT02766465|169035450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing DLCO changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.370
84649329|NCT02766465|169035451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05;|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing oxygen saturation changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.094
84649330|NCT02766465|169035453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.313
84649331|NCT02766465|169035454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.233
84649332|NCT02435069|169035457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069751||||||significance level set at \<0.05 a priori|two-sample pooled variance t-test|Two-tailed||"Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.~Power analysis conducted using data from this study with α = 0.5, power of .80, correlation between two means of .598, and effect size of 1.554 estimated a sample size of 11 would be needed to minimize the risk of a Type II error to (20%)."||||0.069751
84649333|NCT02435069|169035458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.172
84649334|NCT02435069|169035461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8028|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two-sided||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the difference in calprotectin levels between samples obtained at baseline and samples obtained following the completion of the NS and USP Glycerin flush in the dosing phase of the study.||||0.8028
84649335|NCT02435069|169035462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346594|||||||two-sample pooled variance t test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.346594
84649336|NCT02520661|169035477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 14 days||1.22|0.62|
84649337|NCT02520661|169035477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 30 days||1.30|0.72|
84649338|NCT02443519|169035494|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.9||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to adjust for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in the proportino of people with Severe MIDAS scores (Score \>=21) in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||3.9|-0.7|.027
84649339|NCT02443519|169035495|SUPERIORITY||Slope|14.1|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.8||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to account for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|Positive slope indicated larger reductions in HDI in the MBCT-M group compared to the WL/TAU group.|||21.8|0.8|<.004
84649340|NCT02443519|169035496|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with Treatment and Time in the model|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in headache days in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||2.8|-3.7|.773
84649341|NCT02443519|169035497|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in headache attack pain intensity in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||0.16|-0.14|.888
84678986|NCT03207750|169093222|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for FHA antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
84678987|NCT03207750|169093222|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PRN antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
84678988|NCT00289341|169093243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for injection site reaction only||||0.001
84678989|NCT00289341|169093243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for all other adverse events||||>0.2
84678990|NCT00289341|169093245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Linear Spline model|||||||0.016
84649342|NCT02443519|169035498|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|12.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Pain Catastrophizing Scale in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||12.42|2.48|.035
84649343|NCT02443519|169035499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.05||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Chronic Pain Acceptance in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||4.74|-10.83|.572
84649344|NCT02443519|169035500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.46||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a smaller decrease in the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.46|-11.76|.609
84678991|NCT03893448|169093246|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-4.8|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-9.3|= 0.039
84649345|NCT02443519|169035501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|13.91||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Headache Specific Locus of Control Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||13.91|2.99|.022
84649346|NCT02443519|169035502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.53||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||3.53|-7.56|.124
84649347|NCT02443519|169035503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.48||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.33||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Depression score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.33|0.63|.017
84649348|NCT02443519|169035504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.82||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|5.68||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Anxiety score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||5.68|-0.03|.259
84649349|NCT02443519|169035505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicated a larger decrease in MIDI scores in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU|||-0.3|-1.6|.007
84649350|NCT02567552|169035515|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3395
84649351|NCT02567552|169035516|OTHER|||||||0.1523|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1523
84649352|NCT02567552|169035517|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between groups||||0.1189
84649353|NCT02567552|169035519|OTHER|||||||0.2042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2042
84649354|NCT02567552|169035520|OTHER|||||||0.6262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6262
84649355|NCT02567552|169035521|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2301
84649356|NCT02567552|169035522|OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5118
84649357|NCT02567552|169035523|OTHER|||||||0.8371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8371
84649358|NCT02567552|169035524|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84649359|NCT02567552|169035525|OTHER|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
84649360|NCT02567552|169035526|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84649361|NCT01828320|169035560|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.08||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.34
84649362|NCT01828320|169035561|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.93
84649363|NCT01828320|169035562|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.01
84649364|NCT01828320|169035563|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.17
84649365|NCT01828320|169035564|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.31
84649366|NCT01828320|169035565|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.001||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.80
84649367|NCT01828320|169035566|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.96
84649368|NCT01828320|169035567|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
84649369|NCT01828320|169035568|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
84649370|NCT01828320|169035569|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
84649371|NCT01828320|169035570|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
84649372|NCT01828320|169035571|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.03
84649373|NCT01828320|169035572|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.71
84649374|NCT01828320|169035573|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
84649375|NCT01828320|169035574|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.11||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.85
84649376|NCT01828320|169035575|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
84649377|NCT01828320|169035576|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.05
84505600|NCT04136626|168761796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|6.7962||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|13.2785||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups.||13.2785|0.3140|0.0400
84649378|NCT01828320|169035577|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.88
84649379|NCT01828320|169035578|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.97
84649380|NCT01828320|169035579|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: Alone"||||0.88
84649381|NCT01828320|169035579|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.18||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a family member"||||0.43
84649382|NCT01828320|169035579|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a peer"||||0.37
84649383|NCT01828320|169035580|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
84649384|NCT01828320|169035581|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.49
84649385|NCT01828320|169035582|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.60
84649386|NCT01828320|169035583|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.42
84649387|NCT01828320|169035584|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.01
84649388|NCT02160782|169035618|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group least squares (LS) means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in sBA levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-117.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.828||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.38|-2.18|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in fasting sBA levels was evaluated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 sBA as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the MITT population, which included all participants who were enrolled, received study drug through Week 18, and had a reduction from baseline in sBA of ≥50% at the Week 12 or Week 18 measurement.||-2.18|-232.38|0.0464
84649389|NCT02160782|169035619|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-87.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.979||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.37|-42.09||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||-42.09|-133.37|0.0005
84678992|NCT03893448|169093246|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-0.4|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site induration Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||3.7|-4.6|= 0.836
84678993|NCT03893448|169093246|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.9|||=|0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||7.6|-1.9|= 0.235
84678994|NCT03893448|169093246|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||6.5|-1.7|= 0.260
84678995|NCT03893448|169093247|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Decreased appetite Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.8|-6.3|= 0.446
84505601|NCT00936377|168761833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84505602|NCT00936377|168761833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84678996|NCT03893448|169093247|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|1.0|||=|0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Irritability Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||5.1|-3.0|= 0.622
84678997|NCT03893448|169093247|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Somnolence (drowsiness) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-7.6|= 0.202
84678998|NCT03893448|169093247|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Urticaria (Hives) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.3|-2.4|= 0.985
84678999|NCT03893448|169093248|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.4|-0.4|
84679000|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.8|-5.2|< 0.001
84505603|NCT00936377|168761834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84505604|NCT00936377|168761834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84505605|NCT00936377|168761835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
84649390|NCT02160782|169035620|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.704|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.051|-1.357|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.357|-2.051|< 0.0001
84679001|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
84679002|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.6|-4.0|< 0.001
84649391|NCT02160782|169035621|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Pt) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.072|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.645|-1.498|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Pt) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.498|-2.645|< 0.0001
84649392|NCT02160782|169035622|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Obs) between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|-0.844|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Obs) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.844|-2.122|< 0.0001
84649393|NCT02160782|169035623|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Pt) between the treatment groups was statistically significant. While the number of participants included in analysis for the end point indicates 28, there were only 14; n = 5 for ItchRO(Pt): MRX and n = 9 for ItchRO(Pt): placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4641||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.009|-0.967|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO (Pt) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Pt) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.967|-3.009|0.0013
84649394|NCT02160782|169035624|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.33||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|17.2||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||17.2|-72.8|0.2163
84649395|NCT02160782|169035625|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALP levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.44||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|72.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALP levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALP as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||72.6|-52.6|0.7455
84649396|NCT02160782|169035626|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.54||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|30.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||30.9|-33.4|0.9358
84649397|NCT02160782|169035627|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALT levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|55.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALT levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALT as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||55.2|-25.1|0.4472
84505606|NCT00936377|168761835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84505607|NCT00936377|168761836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe||||0.18
84649398|NCT02160782|169035628|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.424||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.08|||Student's t-test|||||0.08|-1.01|0.0893
84505608|NCT00936377|168761836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.35
84649399|NCT02160782|169035629|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in total bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in total bilirubin was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 total bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.6|-0.88|0.7
84649400|NCT02160782|169035630|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.012||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||Student's t-test|||||-0.11|-0.9|0.0139
84649401|NCT02160782|169035631|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in direct bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in direct bilirubin levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 direct bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.53|-0.56|0.9517
84649402|NCT00413400|169035632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||treatment effect (etanercept vs. placebo) using ANCOVA including baseline CRP, age, and race||||0.20
84649403|NCT00413400|169035633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated for each timepoint and repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.92
84649404|NCT00413400|169035634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes were calculated for each time point, then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.02
84649405|NCT00413400|169035635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||repeated measures ANCOVA|||percent change calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.02
84649406|NCT00413400|169035636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.46
84649407|NCT00413400|169035637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84649408|NCT00413400|169035638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84649409|NCT00413400|169035639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.59
84649410|NCT00413400|169035640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||<0.0001
84649411|NCT00413400|169035641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.08
84714104|NCT05692960|169173933|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|BITS, HRI Cohen's d|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.63||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for the BITS. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.63|.34|
84505609|NCT00936377|168761837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||1
84505610|NCT00936377|168761837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||0.47
84505611|NCT00936377|168761837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||1
84649412|NCT00413400|169035642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, and race||||0.55
84649413|NCT00891462|169035644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
84649414|NCT00891462|169035644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
84649415|NCT01083485|169035657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||A P value was not part of the analysis plan. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin was -1.0 meaning that OXN PR can be one unit inferior to OXY PR and still be considered non-inferior.|ANCOVA|The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed on the PP data using a mixed-model repeat measure analysis of covariance RMANCOVA.||The sample size was calculated for a significance level of 2.5% (1 sided) with 90% power. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 were assumed.||0.3|-0.5|
84649416|NCT00674973|169035659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (erlotinib compared with placebo), including 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.10|0.63|0.1909
84649417|NCT00763048|169035664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84649418|NCT00763048|169035665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84649419|NCT00763048|169035666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84649420|NCT00763048|169035667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649421|NCT00763048|169035668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649422|NCT00763048|169035669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649423|NCT00763048|169035670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649424|NCT00763048|169035671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649425|NCT00763048|169035672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84649426|NCT05108922|169035674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, Apolipoprotein (ApoE) ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|5.30|<0.001
84649427|NCT05108922|169035675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, ApoE ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|2.04|0.008
84505612|NCT00936377|168761837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||0.2
84505613|NCT00936377|168761838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84649428|NCT05108922|169035676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.84|-36.54||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for endpoint measures: Change (CHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-36.54|-54.84|<0.001
84649429|NCT05108922|169035677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-48.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.99|-38.44||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: Percent change (PCHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-38.44|-57.99|<0.001
84649430|NCT05108922|169035678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-18.64||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-18.64|-61.87|<0.001
84649431|NCT05108922|169035679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-23.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|-15.6||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.60|-32.35|<0.001
84649432|NCT05108922|169035680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-25.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.15||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.15|-34.49|<0.001
84649433|NCT05108922|169035681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|20.81||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured|Regression, Logistic|||||20.81|3.37|<0.001
84505614|NCT00936377|168761839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84505615|NCT00936377|168761839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84505616|NCT00936377|168761840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84649434|NCT05108922|169035682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|99.99||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.71|<.001
84649435|NCT05108922|169035683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-26.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.78|-13.73||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.73|-39.78|<0.001
84649436|NCT05108922|169035684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|0.0558
84714105|NCT05692960|169173933|SUPERIORITY||BITS, VVA Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.01||||||||1.01|.03|
84714106|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|PROMIS Interest, HRI Cohen's d|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-test for PROMIS interest, lubrication and satisfaction subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.75|.41|
84714107|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Interest, VVA Cohen's d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.18||||||||1.18|.09|
84714108|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, HRI Cohen's d|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.89||||||||1.89|.45|
84714109|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, VVA Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.44||||||||1.44|.13|
84679003|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-4.2|< 0.001
84679004|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.001
84679005|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.3|-6.6|< 0.001
84679006|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.1|-1.9|< 0.001
84679007|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.6|-2.8|< 0.001
84679008|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-1.6|< 0.001
84679009|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.7|-2.6|< 0.001
84679010|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.8|-3.2|< 0.001
84679011|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.4|-2.1|< 0.001
84505617|NCT00936377|168761840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
84511934|NCT00854308|168775617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.986|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||0.986|0.284|0.0418
84511935|NCT01390844|168775619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|47.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.18|20.24|<0.0001
84679012|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.7|-3.2|< 0.001
84714110|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.67||||||||2.67|.88|
84714111|NCT05692960|169173934|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||||||||2.50|.74|
84714112|NCT04719832|169173935|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), baseline inhaled CS dose (medium, high), geographical region, baseline percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Negative binomial distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.59|0.30|< 0.001
84649437|NCT05108922|169035685|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|
84649438|NCT05108922|169035686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-3.88||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.88|-20.19|0.004
84649439|NCT05108922|169035687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84649440|NCT05108922|169035688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-4.93||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.93|-21.96|0.002
84649441|NCT05108922|169035689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|11.34||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.34|1.93|<0.001
84649442|NCT05108922|169035690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|30.54||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||30.54|1.32|0.022
84679013|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||9.2|4.6|< 0.001
84679014|NCT03893448|169093249|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.3|-7.8|< 0.001
84679015|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.59|< 0.001
84649443|NCT05108922|169035691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.59||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-27.07|0.028
84649444|NCT05108922|169035692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids.|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|15.889||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.889|-0.226|
84679016|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
84679017|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.03|0.88|< 0.001
84649445|NCT02349061|169035702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|7.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|1.41|0.0057
84649446|NCT02349061|169035703|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.23|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.23|-2.94|0.0929
84649447|NCT02349061|169035704|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.383||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|0.506|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.506|-1.271|0.3944
84649448|NCT02349061|169035705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.43|0.9939
84649449|NCT02349061|169035706|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-2.17||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.45|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.45|-4.78|0.1032
84649450|NCT02360995|169035766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.652
84649451|NCT02360995|169035767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84649452|NCT02360995|169035768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84649453|NCT02360995|169035769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.533
84649454|NCT02360995|169035770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84649455|NCT02360995|169035771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84649456|NCT02611960|169035780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.19|0.67|0.2262
84649457|NCT02611960|169035781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.75|0.94|0.9419
84649458|NCT02611960|169035782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.9||||0.63479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage = 0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||8.9|-12.7|0.63479
84649459|NCT00351000|169035800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.956
84649460|NCT00351000|169035801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
84649461|NCT04131556|169035802|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|77.16|||ANOVA|||||77.16|59.50|
84649462|NCT04131556|169035802|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.73|70.9|||ANOVA|||||70.90|54.73|
84649463|NCT04131556|169035803|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.75|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.75|0.75|<.001
84649464|NCT04131556|169035803|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.25|0.75|<.001
84714113|NCT04719832|169173936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.36|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline SGRQ total score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline SGRQ total score and visit by treatment group||0.39|-7.11|= 0.080
84649465|NCT04131556|169035804|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|81.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.88|89.4|||ANOVA|||||89.40|73.88|
84649466|NCT04131556|169035804|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|85.79|||ANOVA|||||85.79|70.92|
84649467|NCT04131556|169035805|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|83.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.12|91.64|||ANOVA|||||91.64|76.12|
84649468|NCT04131556|169035805|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|80.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.26|88.16|||ANOVA|||||88.16|73.26|
84649469|NCT04131556|169035808|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.006
84649470|NCT04131556|169035808|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.011
84649471|NCT02476422|169035823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-1.8|0.211
84649472|NCT01859143|169035836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence criterion for fever within 7 days of vaccination mentioned that the upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for difference in percentage of participants with fever \>=101 degrees F should be less than 5 percentage points.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||A two-sided 95% CI was constructed using the exact method based on the score statistic proposed by Chan and Zhang.|||2.6|-5.3|
84649473|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.9|||||Any symptom within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||23.9|-1.9|
84649474|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
84649475|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
84649476|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
84649477|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||||Runny nose within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||17.7|-2.6|
84679018|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.66|< 0.001
84649478|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.6|||||Sore throat within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.6|-2.2|
84679019|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.52|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.58|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.58|0.48|= 0.167
84649479|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Cough within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.7|-9.3|
84649480|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Vomiting within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
84649481|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||||Muscle aches within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.3|-8.0|
84649482|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.4|||||Chills within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.4|-4.1|
84649483|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||9.8|-6.5|
84649484|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.9|||||Headache within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.9|-7.8|
84649485|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|24.4|||||Any symptom within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||24.4|-1.6|
84649486|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.9|-4.5|
84649487|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>=101 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
84649488|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
84649489|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
84649490|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|18.6|||||Runny nose within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||18.6|-1.8|
84726375|NCT02105688|169204616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||A one-sided exact test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITA was less than 67% (historical reference rate derived from NCT01667731). The p-value was based on a one-sided exact test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.025 supports a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>67%.||||<0.001
84649491|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Sore throat within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
84649492|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.7|||||Cough within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.7|-8.6|
84649493|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||Vomiting within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||2.6|-5.3|
84649494|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.8|||||Muscle aches within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.8|-7.8|
84649495|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.5|||||Chills within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.5|-3.3|
84649496|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
84649497|NCT01859143|169035837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.0|||||Headache within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||12.0|-8.7|
84649498|NCT00700570|169035843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1341
84649499|NCT00700570|169035845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0010
84649500|NCT05896748|169036001|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|0.998|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.998|0.901|
84649501|NCT05896748|169036001|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.995|0.877|
84649502|NCT05896748|169036001|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.0|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||1.000|0.872|
84726376|NCT02105688|169204617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.0||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-8.3|
84726377|NCT02105688|169204618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||1.9|-5.0|
84726378|NCT01358175|169204620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|2.20|<0.0001
84726379|NCT01358175|169204620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|6.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.65|2.28|<0.0001
84726380|NCT02469155|169204629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.51|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measure|||||3.51|-3.39|0.972
84726381|NCT02469155|169204629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.84|-2.92|0.789
84649503|NCT05896748|169036001|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.059|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within CAB||1.059|0.943|
84649504|NCT05896748|169036002|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.056|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.056|0.952|
84649505|NCT05896748|169036002|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.002|0.921|
84649506|NCT05896748|169036002|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|0.973|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||0.973|0.885|
84649507|NCT05896748|169036002|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.053|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within RPV||1.053|0.955|
84679020|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.71|< 0.001
84679021|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.71|< 0.001
84679022|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.00|0.84|< 0.001
84679023|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
84649508|NCT05896748|169036003|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.99|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.990|0.897|
84649509|NCT05896748|169036003|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.965|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.965|0.860|
84649510|NCT05896748|169036003|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.966|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.966|0.857|
84649511|NCT05896748|169036003|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.074|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within CAB||1.074|0.938|
84649512|NCT05896748|169036004|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.982|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.982|0.895|
84649513|NCT05896748|169036004|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.963|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.963|0.876|
84649514|NCT05896748|169036004|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|0.952|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.952|0.861|
84679024|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.70|< 0.001
84679025|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
84679026|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.79|0.69|< 0.001
84679027|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.99|0.80|< 0.001
84679028|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|3.98|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||3.98|3.33|< 0.001
84679029|NCT03893448|169093250|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.10|< 0.001
84679030|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.72|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.72|0.62|< 0.001
84679031|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
84679032|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.84|0.71|< 0.001
84679033|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.58|< 0.001
84679034|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.65|0.54|< 0.001
84714114|NCT04719832|169173937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.04|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.18|-0.27|= 0.690
84714115|NCT04719832|169173938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.001|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.088|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.088|-0.089|= 0.991
84649515|NCT05896748|169036004|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.986|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within RPV||0.986|0.891|
84649516|NCT05896748|169036005|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.906|0.983|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.983|0.906|
84649517|NCT05896748|169036005|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.995|0.895|
84649518|NCT05896748|169036005|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.994|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.994|0.876|
84649519|NCT05896748|169036005|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.105|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||1.105|0.979|
84649520|NCT05896748|169036006|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.002|0.932|
84714116|NCT04719832|169173939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.09|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.31|-0.50|= 0.650
84649521|NCT05896748|169036006|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|0.989|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.989|0.922|
84714117|NCT04719832|169173940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.26|-0.42|= 0.647
84714118|NCT04285515|169173942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.84|-7.60|<0.0001
84714119|NCT04285515|169173943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-3.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.05|-8.29|<0.0001
84714120|NCT04285515|169173944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-3.29|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.29|-8.61|<0.0001
84714121|NCT04285515|169173945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.88|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.88|-7.25|<0.0001
84714122|NCT04285515|169173946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39|||Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measure|||||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
84714123|NCT04285515|169173947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.31|-0.91|<0.0001
84714124|NCT04285515|169173948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.27|-0.89|0.0003
84714125|NCT04285515|169173949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.44|-0.82|<0.0001
84714126|NCT02618577|169173950|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.08|0.6|0.15
84714127|NCT02618577|169173951|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.39||||||||1.39|0.45|
84714128|NCT02618577|169173952|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18||||||||1.18|0.67|
84714129|NCT02618577|169173953|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.53|0.88|0.28
84714130|NCT02618577|169173954|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.38|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||3.38|1.3|0.002
84714131|NCT02618577|169173955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L UK Index||0.01|-0.02|
84714132|NCT02618577|169173955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.38|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L VAS, FU 24months||1.38|-1.46|
84714133|NCT02618577|169173955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.09|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|Karnofsky score||1.09|-0.56|
84714134|NCT02618577|169173956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.87|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q convenience||0.87|-1.12|
84714135|NCT02618577|169173956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.52|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q satisfaction||0.52|-2.60|
84714136|NCT02618577|169173959|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.96||||||||0.96|0.27|
84714137|NCT02618577|169173960|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31||||||||1.31|0.62|
84649522|NCT05896748|169036006|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|0.991|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.991|0.907|
84649523|NCT05896748|169036006|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.058|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.058|0.972|
84649524|NCT00857415|169036056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Correlation test||Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.89|0.58|<0.0001
84649525|NCT00857415|169036057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 3 blinded readers||100|91|
84649526|NCT04795622|169036066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.4365||||||||2.4365|0.7530|
84649527|NCT04795622|169036067|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.0856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2395|0.0683||||||X-axis||0.0683|-0.2395|
84649528|NCT04795622|169036067|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2268|0.1608||||||Y-axis||0.1608|-0.2268|
84649529|NCT04795622|169036067|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|0.1791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1551|0.5133||||||Z-axis||0.5133|-0.1551|
84649530|NCT00337350|169036072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
84649531|NCT00337350|169036073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
84649532|NCT00337350|169036074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
84649533|NCT02035475|169036110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the incidence of detected lymphoceles whether the EndoWrist 1 Vessel Sealer or the Fenestrated Maryland BiPolar Instrument were used.||||0.412
84649534|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|2.63|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||2.63|-1.38|
84649535|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.71|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||5.71|1.67|
84649536|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.12|11.16|||||Treatment comparison at 6 hours.|||11.16|7.12|
84649537|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|11.07|||||Treatment comparison at 8 hours.|||11.07|7.10|
84649538|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|1.85|||||Treatment comparison at 12 hours.|||1.85|-2.14|
84649539|NCT01460368|169036112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|5.63|||||Treatment comparison at 24 hours.|||5.63|1.63|
84649540|NCT01460368|169036113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.21|10.94|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||10.94|5.21|
84649541|NCT01460368|169036113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.69|13.43|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||13.43|7.69|
84649542|NCT02791399|169036141|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.20|-2.45|<0.05
84649543|NCT02791399|169036142|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.06|-0.15|<0.05
84649544|NCT02791399|169036143|NON_INFERIORITY|Pain intensity and pain-related function were tested in non-inferiority analyses, as we hypothesized that the ISOT intervention would not negatively impact pain or function. One-half SD difference in change was considered the appropriate non-inferiority limit.|Non-inferiority analysis|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84649545|NCT02791399|169036144|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is comparing estimated averages and probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||1.85|-5.83|<0.05
84649546|NCT02791399|169036145|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||8.80|-6.73|<0.05
84649547|NCT00704912|169036151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||Log-binomial model|||||6.6|1.0|0.06
84649548|NCT00704912|169036151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.1|||Log-binomial model|||||6.1|0.9|0.08
84649549|NCT00704912|169036151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1|||Log-binomial model|||||2.1|0.5|0.82
84649550|NCT00704912|169036152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log-binomial model|||||1.7|1.0|0.06
84649551|NCT00704912|169036152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Log-binomial model|||||1.9|1.1|0.002
84649552|NCT00704912|169036152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log-binomial model|||||1.1|0.7|0.28
84649553|NCT00704912|169036153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. OCP|||-3.8|-6.3|<.0001
84649554|NCT00704912|169036153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Combined vs. OCP|||-3.7|-6.2|<.0001
84649555|NCT00704912|169036153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. Combined|||1.2|-1.3|0.92
84649556|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline.|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||2.2|0.6|0.60
84649557|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.3|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||4.3|1.4|0.001
84649558|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||1.2|0.4|0.18
84649559|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.08
84649560|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.001
84649561|NCT00704912|169036154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.22
84649562|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.43|-5.93|0.14
84649563|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.49||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.49|-3.75|0.79
84649564|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-2.24||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-2.24|-7.35|<0.01
84649565|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-1.15|-6.37|0.04
84649566|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.95||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.95|-5.04|0.72
84649567|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.46||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.46|-3.18|0.80
84649568|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.44|-5.97|0.14
84679035|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.81|0.67|< 0.001
84714138|NCT05192109|169173961|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
84649569|NCT01920555|169036168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.96||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.96|-4.65|0.72
84679036|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
84679037|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
84679038|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.89|0.73|< 0.001
84511936|NCT01390844|168775620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.83||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|52.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||52.18|10.15|0.0063
84511937|NCT01390844|168775621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.51|47.72|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.72|20.51|<0.0001
84679039|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.78|< 0.001
84679040|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.68|< 0.001
84679041|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.74|< 0.001
84649570|NCT01920555|169036169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|2.14||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.14|-12.44|0.33
84649571|NCT01920555|169036169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|4.72||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||4.72|-9.03|0.53
84649572|NCT01920555|169036169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-3.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-3.15|-16.56|0.02
84649573|NCT01920555|169036169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-0.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.93|-14.52|0.08
84649574|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.22|-1.83|0.08
84649575|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-1.02|0.82
84649576|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.54||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.54|-2.02|0.00720
84679042|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
84679043|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.11|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||5.11|4.30|< 0.001
84679044|NCT03893448|169093251|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.83|2.36|< 0.001
84679045|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Diphtheria toxoid % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.1|-2.6|< 0.001
84679046|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Tetanus toxoid: % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.4|< 0.001
84511938|NCT01390844|168775622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.18||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|51.83|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||51.83|8.96|0.0086
84649577|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.04884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.29|-1.81|0.04884
84649578|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.28||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.28|-1.70|0.48
84649579|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.55||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.55|-1.32|0.82
84649580|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.09||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.09|-1.91|0.16
84649581|NCT01920555|169036170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.07|-1.78|0.27
84649582|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.17|-1.25|0.54
84679047|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis toxin (PT): % ≥ 5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.9|-0.7|< 0.001
84679048|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
84679049|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis fimbrae types 2/3 (FIM 2/3): % ≥20 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.1|-3.1|< 0.001
84679050|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis pertactin (PRN): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||6.8|-3.2|< 0.001
84511939|NCT01390844|168775623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|42.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||42.22|15.26|<0.001
84511940|NCT01390844|168775624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|55.01|||Mittienen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||55.01|12.12|0.004
84649583|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.58|-0.78|1.00
84649584|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.31||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.31|-1.64|0.03
84649585|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.11|-1.24|0.54
84649586|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.57||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.57|-0.96|1.00
84649587|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-0.93|1.00
84649588|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.06||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.06|-1.35|0.52
84649589|NCT01920555|169036171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-1.33|0.54
84649590|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.08|-0.79|0.74
84649591|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.45||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.45|-0.37|1.00
84511941|NCT04448678|168775637|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0401
84511942|NCT04448678|168775638|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
84511943|NCT04448678|168775639|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
84649592|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.21||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.21|-1.01|0.02
84649593|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-0.72|0.80
84649594|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.18|-0.83|0.88
84649595|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.44|-0.53|1.00
84679051|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 1: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.7|< 0.001
84649596|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.15|-0.79|0.88
84649597|NCT01920555|169036172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.19|-0.76|0.88
84649598|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|23.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||23.29|-0.94|0.49
84679052|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 2: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
84649599|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||12.93|-10.19|1.00
84649600|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|27.77||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||27.77|5.31|0.03
84649601|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.68||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|20.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.16|-2.81|0.82
84649602|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|19.05||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||19.05|-8.83|1.00
84649603|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|6.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||6.59|-19.87|1.00
84649604|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|20.53||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.53|-5.26|1.00
84649605|NCT01920555|169036173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|17.91||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||17.91|-8.31|1.00
84649606|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.56||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.56|-3.99|1.00
84649607|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||3.43|-1.90|0.17
84649608|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.16|-5.32|0.30
84649609|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.93|-3.35|1.00
84649610|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.66||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.66|-3.25|1.00
84649611|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||5.59|-0.06|0.39
84649612|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.58|-3.91|1.00
84649613|NCT01920555|169036174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.35||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.35|-3.22|1.00
84679053|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 3: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
84511944|NCT00113425|168775640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
84511945|NCT00113425|168775641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.43
84649614|NCT01051466|169036198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||The significance level was 0.05 for a 2-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.457
84649615|NCT01051466|169036199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.627
84649616|NCT01051466|169036199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the left amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
84649617|NCT01051466|169036199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the right amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
84649618|NCT01051466|169036200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the subgenual anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
84649619|NCT01051466|169036200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
84649620|NCT01051466|169036200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84649621|NCT01051466|169036200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
84649622|NCT01051466|169036200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
84649623|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.174
84649624|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.488
84649625|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.480
84679054|NCT03893448|169093252|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Haemophilus influenzae Type B polyribosylribitol phosphate (Hib-PRP): % ≥0.15 ug/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
84679055|NCT03893448|169093253|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PT GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.89|< 0.001
84679056|NCT03893448|169093253|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FHA GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.87|< 0.001
84511946|NCT00113425|168775642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.79
84649626|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
84649627|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.697
84649628|NCT01051466|169036201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
84511947|NCT00113425|168775643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.10
84649629|NCT01051466|169036203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||The p-value is for change from baseline BDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
84649630|NCT01051466|169036203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||The p-value is for change from baseline proBDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
84649631|NCT01051466|169036204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||The p-value is for change from baseline trkB.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
84649632|NCT01051466|169036205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine TNFα.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.797
84649633|NCT01051466|169036205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.269
84649634|NCT01051466|169036205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-6.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
84649635|NCT00810108|169036214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The geometric mean and 90% confidence interval assessed whether the crushed and whole tablet administration AUCs were equivalent.|Ratio of Crushed/Whole Tablet AUC|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lopinavir AUC was compared between whole tablet and crushed tablet administration by using a ratio of crushed/whole AUC.||0.69|0.45|<0.05
84649636|NCT01539642|169036225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.89|80.14|||ANCOVA|||||80.14|19.89|0.001
84649637|NCT02600351|169036226|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 98% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-18.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.2|-40.7|0.065
84649638|NCT02600351|169036226|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 125 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 95% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-11.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-32.1|0.25
84649639|NCT00567593|169036250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||.01
84649640|NCT00739999|169036251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Atorvastatin CL/F based on 70 kg BW|699.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|570.0|881.0|||non-linear mixed-effects model|Measures of parameter estimation uncertainty (95% CI) were determined by non-parametric bootstrap analysis.||Atorvastatin apparent clearance (CL/F) was described as a function of body weight using an allometric equation. The estimated parameter given is an extrapolation of the model for participants who weigh 70 kg.||881|570|
84649641|NCT03875768|169036274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size is 0.5. The investigators hypothesize that the intervention will lead to an increase in average DASH score of 2 units. The investigators used a standard deviation for 2 units for both intervention and attention control groups since higher variability may be observed with a bigger sample size than the pilot study.||0.50|-0.44|0.89
84649642|NCT03875768|169036275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between intervention and control group is 0.6 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.4|-5.3|0.26
84679057|NCT03893448|169093253|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FIM 2/3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.28|0.91|< 0.001
84679058|NCT03893448|169093253|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PRN GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.84|< 0.001
84679059|NCT03893448|169093254|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||p value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.2|-1.6|< 0.001
84679060|NCT03893448|169093255|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Measles antigen ≥255 mIU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.3|-1.8|< 0.001
84679061|NCT03893448|169093255|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Mumps antigen ≥10 mumps Ab units/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.2|-3.8|< 0.001
84679062|NCT03893448|169093255|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Rubella antigen ≥10 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-2.3|< 0.001
84679063|NCT03893448|169093256|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-3.2|< 0.001
84679064|NCT03893448|169093257|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||-0.5|-2.2|< 0.001
84679065|NCT03893448|169093258|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|92.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.47|101.47|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||101.47|83.47|< 0.001
84679066|NCT03893448|169093258|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.16|33.26|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||33.26|26.16|< 0.001
84649643|NCT03875768|169036276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between intervention and control group is 0.75 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.2|-3.1|0.39
84505618|NCT00387712|168761842|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.001||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the primary outcome category (peak fitness) using repeated measures analysis of variance. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||"Power Calculation: It was calculated that 29 subjects should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for peak fitness for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.~Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in peak fitness levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points."||||0.001
84511948|NCT00113425|168775644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.73
84649644|NCT01925274|169036279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.71||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||||12.0|-83.4|0.164
84649645|NCT00749515|169036352|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84649646|NCT00749515|169036353|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
84649647|NCT00749515|169036354|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
84649648|NCT00749515|169036355|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
84649649|NCT00749515|169036356|OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
84649650|NCT00277446|169036361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||<0.03
84649651|NCT00277446|169036362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.02
84649652|NCT00277446|169036363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.88
84649653|NCT01680887|169036364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
84649654|NCT02448810|169036388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.1||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.1|0.5|0.246
84649655|NCT02448810|169036388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.4||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.4|0.5|0.354
84649656|NCT00568685|169036410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-S score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0048
84649657|NCT00568685|169036411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-I score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0153
84649658|NCT00568685|169036412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value relates to the sum of adverse events leading to discontinuation.|Fisher Exact|||||||.4500
84649659|NCT00568685|169036413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0240
84649660|NCT00568685|169036415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||95.0||||This is the p value for heart rate change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.8005
84649661|NCT00568685|169036416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4128||95.0||||This is the p value for temperature change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.4128
84679067|NCT03893448|169093259|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|95.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.1|96.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||96.5|93.1|< 0.001
84679068|NCT03893448|169093259|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|85.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|87.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||87.7|82.3|< 0.001
84679069|NCT03893448|169093260|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|68.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.1|75.02|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||75.02|63.10|< 0.001
84649662|NCT00568685|169036417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9761||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.9761
84649663|NCT00568685|169036417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6419||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.6419
84649664|NCT00568685|169036418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2213||95.0||||This is the p value for weight change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.2213
84649665|NCT01231230|169036419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||< 0.001
84649666|NCT01231230|169036419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||<0.001
84649667|NCT01231230|169036419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||>0.05
84649668|NCT02001181|169036440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.8|-40.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model for repeated measures analysis included all the participants in FAS.||||-40.8|-62.8|<0.0001
84649669|NCT01842815|169036445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0077
84679070|NCT03893448|169093260|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|44.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.04|49.14|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||49.14|41.04|< 0.001
84505619|NCT00387712|168761843|OTHER|Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in myosin heavy chain levels levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Power Calculation: It was calculated that 22 participants should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for myosin heavy chain isoforms for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.||||0.11
84649670|NCT01842815|169036446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00012||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.00012
84649671|NCT01842815|169036447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0034
84649672|NCT01483807|169036455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.254|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of performance (change in articulation accuracy) with SPT-R versus SPT-B items. Based on the existing literature, it was predicted that the mean effect size associated with SPT-R would be greater than that for SPT-B.||||.254
84649673|NCT01483807|169036456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25||||0.043|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||On the basis of existing literature. SPT-R was predicted to be associated with greater increase in articulatory accuracy over baseline levels than SPT-B.||||.043
84649674|NCT01483807|169036457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of change in accuracy of articulation of untreated items: SPT-R versus SPT-B items. It was predicted that there would be a greater increase in accuracy for SPT-R items.||||.396
84649675|NCT01483807|169036458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of effect sizes obtained for untreated SPT-R versus untreated SPT-B items. It was predicted that effect sizes would be greater for SPT-R untreated items.||||.212
84649676|NCT03438383|169036461|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.88
84649677|NCT03438383|169036461|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.23
84649678|NCT03438383|169036461|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 hours post-operatively||||0.008
84649679|NCT03438383|169036461|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.001
84679071|NCT03893448|169093263|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
84679072|NCT03893448|169093264|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
84679073|NCT03893448|169093265|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
84649680|NCT03438383|169036462|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.75
84679074|NCT00856583|169093338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 patient years of exposure (PYE) were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the WRT+30 days period.||1.500|0.831|0.05
84649681|NCT03438383|169036462|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.09||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.09
84649682|NCT03438383|169036462|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.008
84649683|NCT03438383|169036462|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.013
84649684|NCT03438383|169036463|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.05
84649685|NCT03438383|169036463|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.55
84649686|NCT03438383|169036463|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.13||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48h post-operatively||||0.13
84649687|NCT03438383|169036463|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.011
84649688|NCT03438383|169036464|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.83
84649689|NCT03438383|169036464|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.37
84649690|NCT03438383|169036464|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.0035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.0035
84649691|NCT03438383|169036464|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||1.5e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.000015
84649692|NCT03635788|169036487|SUPERIORITY|The study had approximately 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of regimen failure|Cumulative probability difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-32.4|-4.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC. 98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of regimen failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-4.3|-32.4|
84649693|NCT03635788|169036488|SUPERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of virologic failure|cumulative probability difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-33.5|-9.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of virologic failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-9.3|-33.5|
84649694|NCT03635788|169036489|SUPERIORITY||cumulative probability diffeence|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-31.6|-6.9||||||Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of treatment-related failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.|Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|-6.9|-31.6|
84649695|NCT03635788|169036490|SUPERIORITY|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-8.1|||Fisher Exact||||Treatment difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|-8.1|-35.6|<0.001
84649696|NCT03635788|169036491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-12.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.||-12.8|-36.1|<0.001
84679075|NCT00856583|169093338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% CI for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 PYE were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.405|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the ORT period.||1.405|0.684|<0.05
84649697|NCT03635788|169036496|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative probability difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-21.3|4.5|||||Treatment difference in cumulative of permanent treatment discontinuation was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of permanent treatment discontinuation in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||4.5|-21.3|
84649698|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649699|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649700|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649701|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649702|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649703|NCT01854658|169036555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
84649704|NCT02203071|169036561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84649705|NCT02203071|169036562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84649706|NCT02203071|169036563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.11
84649707|NCT02203071|169036564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
84649708|NCT02203071|169036565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84649709|NCT02203071|169036566|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84649710|NCT00195273|169036584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||||||Calculated for 12 month analysis|ANOVA|Analysis of variance with treatment group and center as factors||||||0.6081
84649711|NCT00195273|169036587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4662|||||||ANOVA|Calculated for 3 month analysis||||||0.4662
84649712|NCT02595970|169036591|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|20.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.59|-24.52|<0.0001
84649713|NCT02595970|169036601|SUPERIORITY|adjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|19.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.58|-23.52|<0.0001
84649714|NCT01886716|169036602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .71|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training."||||=.40
84649715|NCT01886716|169036602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .08|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training."||||=.78
84649716|NCT01886716|169036603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .18|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training"||||=.67
84649717|NCT01886716|169036603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = 1.01|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training"||||=.32
84649718|NCT03793556|169036641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.27||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|2.04|||Unpaired t test|||||2.04|-7.03|0.276
84649719|NCT03793556|169036642|OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA model examined the entire curve profile.||||||0.0157
84649720|NCT03793556|169036652|OTHER|||||||0.0496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0496
84649721|NCT03793556|169036654|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0065
84649722|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.375
84649723|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.156
84649724|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||>0.999
84649725|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.906
84649726|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
84649727|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.906
84649728|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||<0.001
84649729|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.106
84649730|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.012
84649731|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.008
84649732|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.009
84649733|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.029
84649734|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
84649735|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
84649736|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.500
84649737|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.500
84649738|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
84505620|NCT00387712|168761844|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.81||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the secondary outcome category (30 ft walk time - fastest comfortable gait) using repeated measures analysis of variance.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in 30 foot walk time (sec) between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||0.81
84505621|NCT02891200|168761859|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear model with study site and setting as fixed effects, and adjusted for baseline SGRQ domain scores.||||5.38|-2.47|0.467
84505622|NCT03907280|168761870|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||0.63|0.39|
84649739|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
84649740|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
84649741|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
84649742|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||>0.999
84649743|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.125
84649744|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.500
84649745|NCT01325623|169036678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
84649746|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.1529
84649747|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0942
84649748|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2831
84649749|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.3639
84649750|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.4470
84649751|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1311
84649752|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.3898
84649753|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0511
84649754|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0019
84511949|NCT00113425|168775645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.02
84649755|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.1106
84649756|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1273
84649757|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.1305
84649758|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1123
84649759|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.2309
84649760|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3191
84649761|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0679
84649762|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2082
84649763|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1790
84505623|NCT03907280|168761870|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|40.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.68|51.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||51.15|31.68|
84511950|NCT00113425|168775646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.003
84649764|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.6869
84649765|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.6094
84649766|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.1530
84679076|NCT00856583|169093339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.55|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), region, year since start of enrollment||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||5.55|1.45|0.0022
84679077|NCT00856583|169093340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.78|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age and sex.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of the secondary primary outcome (one patient in the risperidone group reported more than one occurrence of this event) was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.78|0.63|0.29
84649767|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3339
84649768|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.1473
84679078|NCT00856583|169093341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.41|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.41|0.36|0.34
84679079|NCT00856583|169093342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.28|0.40|0.26
84679080|NCT00856583|169093343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.98|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy).||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.98|0.91|0.081
84649769|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5035
84649770|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.6653
84649771|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.8622
84649772|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.4456
84679081|NCT00856583|169093344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.32|0.33|0.24
84679082|NCT00856583|169093345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.85|0.70|0.59
84679083|NCT00856583|169093346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.29|0.66|0.65
84679084|NCT00856583|169093347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||0.99|0.45|0.044
84679085|NCT00856583|169093348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.57|1.01|0.040
84679086|NCT00856583|169093349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.43|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: disease duration, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.43|1.28|<0.0001
84679087|NCT01944046|169093350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||not adjusted primary outcome|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline, age category, functionality category||||||0.503
84679088|NCT01944046|169093351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||not adjusted primary outcome, p threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|adjustment for value at week 24,||||||0.61
84679089|NCT00823082|169093366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84679090|NCT00823082|169093367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84679091|NCT00823082|169093368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||At ICU discharge visit||||0.6115
84511951|NCT00113425|168775647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.62
84649773|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.6876
84649774|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0328
84649775|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0067
84679092|NCT00823082|169093369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||0.1211
84679093|NCT00823082|169093369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||1.000
84679094|NCT00823082|169093370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.4870
84679095|NCT00823082|169093371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.3897
84679096|NCT00823082|169093372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84679097|NCT00823082|169093373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
84679098|NCT00823082|169093374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0209
84679099|NCT00823082|169093375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number of units of packed red blood cells||||0.7433
84679100|NCT00823082|169093375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of fresh frozen plasma||||0.7453
84679101|NCT00823082|169093375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of platelets||||0.2705
84649776|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5928|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5928
84649777|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.7179
84649778|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.5014
84649779|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.9640
84649780|NCT01325623|169036679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.8537
84649781|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.2079
84649782|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.6562
84649783|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9376|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.9376
84511952|NCT00113425|168775648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.85
84649784|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0100
84649785|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.8532
84649786|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.4954
84649787|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.1877
84649788|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.4189
84679102|NCT00823082|169093376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4460
84649789|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.2365
84649790|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4138
84649791|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.8701
84679103|NCT00823082|169093377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4936
84679104|NCT00823082|169093378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||1.000
84679105|NCT00823082|169093378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.6218
84679106|NCT00823082|169093379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.9574
84649792|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0527
84649793|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1353
84649794|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.6927
84649795|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.4964
84679107|NCT00823082|169093380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7489|||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.7489
84679108|NCT03452917|169093385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.0||||Chi-squared||||||-8.0|0.82
84679109|NCT03452917|169093385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.5||||Chi-squared||||||-6.5|0.66
84649796|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0238
84649797|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0139
84649798|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2822
84649799|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.1363
84649800|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0019
84649801|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1293
84679110|NCT03452917|169093386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.44
84679111|NCT03452917|169093386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
84679112|NCT03452917|169093387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.4|-0.9|0.12
84679113|NCT03452917|169093387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.6|-2.5|0.41
84649802|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.5252
84679114|NCT03452917|169093388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.5|||Chi-squared|||||3.5|-8.3|0.42
84511953|NCT00113425|168775649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.49
84649803|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0642
84649804|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0025
84649805|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0024
84649806|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4464
84649807|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0511
84649808|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0002
84679115|NCT03452917|169093388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-8.0|0.49
84679116|NCT03452917|169093389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6|||Chi-squared|||||8.6|-7.8|0.93
84679117|NCT03452917|169093389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Chi-squared|||||13.3|-2.8|0.20
84679118|NCT03452917|169093390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|-7.7|0.50
84679119|NCT03452917|169093390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||||3.7|-7.8|0.48
84679120|NCT03452917|169093391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.49
84679121|NCT03452917|169093391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
84649809|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.0296
84649810|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.3115
84649811|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0270
84714139|NCT05192109|169173961|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of diagnostic group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.93
84511954|NCT00113425|168775650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.21
84649812|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0008
84649813|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0683
84649814|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2226
84649815|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0823
84649816|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.1459
84649817|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.2610
84649818|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||||||0.9119
84649819|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0826
84649820|NCT01325623|169036683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0036
84649821|NCT01461980|169036711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||||||Diphtheria: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Diphtheria antigens).||1.03|0.86|
84649822|NCT01461980|169036711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99||||||Tetanus: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Tetanus antigens).||0.99|0.85|
84649823|NCT01461980|169036712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||Pertussis toxoid: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Pertussis toxoid).||1.02|0.85|
84649824|NCT01461980|169036712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin antigens).||0.98|0.84|
84649825|NCT01461980|169036712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98||||||Pertussis pertactin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis pertactin antigens).||0.98|0.80|
84649826|NCT01461980|169036712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3 antigens).||1.08|0.74|
84649827|NCT01461980|169036713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01||||||Serogroup A: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup A antigens).||1.01|0.82|
84714140|NCT05192109|169173961|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
84679122|NCT01767116|169093392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%..|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
84714141|NCT05192109|169173962|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
84649828|NCT01461980|169036713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Serogroup C: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup C antigens).||1.15|0.90|
84649829|NCT01461980|169036713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||||||Serogroup Y: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup Y antigens).||1.09|0.89|
84649830|NCT01461980|169036713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||Serogroup W-135: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup W-135 antigens).||1.04|0.83|
84649831|NCT01461980|169036714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.02|0.84|
84649832|NCT01461980|169036714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.00|0.82|
84649833|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.28|<0.001
84649834|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
84649835|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.94|0.001
84649836|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.015
84649837|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.453
84649838|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.61|0.177
84511955|NCT00113425|168775651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.27
84649839|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.70|0.062
84649840|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.59|0.212
84505624|NCT03907280|168761870|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|40.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.86|50.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.||Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||50.83|31.86|
84511956|NCT00113425|168775652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.04
84649841|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
84649842|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.35|-1.15|<0.001
84649843|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.98|0.004
84649844|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.95|0.007
84714142|NCT05192109|169173962|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.22
84649845|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.37|-0.43|0.879
84649846|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.60|0.330
84649847|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.75|0.083
84649848|NCT00809354|169036753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.59|0.360
84649849|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.23|<0.001
84649850|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
84714143|NCT05192109|169173962|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
84714144|NCT04164888|169173981|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.95|-70.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.18|-98.95|<0.0001
84714145|NCT04164888|169173981|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-80.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.58|-66.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-66.29|-94.58|<0.0001
84714146|NCT04164888|169173981|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-70.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.75|-99.00|<0.0001
84714147|NCT04164888|169173982|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-48.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.06|-32.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-32.99|-63.06|<0.0001
84714148|NCT04164888|169173982|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-49.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|34.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||34.69|-64.50|<0.0001
84714149|NCT04164888|169173982|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-51.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.34|-36.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-36.64|-67.34|<0.0001
84714150|NCT02696707|169173999|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin between groups was set as 4%|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
84714151|NCT05546749|169174021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was performed to predict pain intensity by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline pain intensity score.||0.54|-3.1|0.17
84679123|NCT01767116|169093392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
84505625|NCT01399723|168761892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority between amoxicillin and benzyl penicillin was defined a priori as a risk difference of treatment failure and associated upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of \<7%. A sample size of 576 would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.2|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||4.2|-5.0|
84649851|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.87|0.003
84649852|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.83|0.007
84649853|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.39|0.824
84649854|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.64|0.100
84649855|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
84649856|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.45|0.565
84649857|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
84649858|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
84649859|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
84649860|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
84649861|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.40|-0.39|0.980
84649862|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.56|0.383
84649863|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.77|0.057
84649864|NCT00809354|169036754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.59|0.312
84649865|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
84649866|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
84649867|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
84649868|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.14|0.961
84505626|NCT01399723|168761893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||5.8|-5.0|
84505627|NCT01399723|168761896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||3.0|-10.0|
84649869|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.272
84649870|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.271
84649871|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.128
84649872|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.133
84649873|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
84505628|NCT00810732|168761897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.94|0.0040
84505629|NCT00810732|168761897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.99|0.0018
84649874|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.34|0.004
84649875|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.20|0.414
84649876|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.057
84649877|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.06|0.277
84649878|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.328
84649879|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
84649880|NCT00809354|169036755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.864
84649881|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
84649882|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
84649883|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
84649884|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
84649885|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
84505630|NCT00810732|168761897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.33|0.7945
84679124|NCT01767116|169093393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a -10% margin, a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV compared with ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a 1-sample test for superiority).||1.4|-0.5|
84679125|NCT01767116|169093394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84679126|NCT01767116|169093395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
84679127|NCT01767116|169093395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
84679128|NCT04307186|169093398|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."|||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
84679129|NCT04307186|169093398|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.5775||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 2||||0.5775
84505631|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||-0.91|-6.08|0.0087
84679130|NCT04307186|169093398|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.3173||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 3||||0.3173
84679131|NCT04307186|169093399|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of gadoquatrane versus gadobutrol was evaluated using CIs based on the t-distribution. A non-inferiority margin of 1 was used, i.e. meaning that a 95% two-sided CI for the mean difference gadoquatrane minus gadobutrol score must exclude the value -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13||P-Value was calculated. Non-inferiority was achieved with a one-sided p-value lower than 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Average reader||0.13|-0.24|<0.0001
84679132|NCT04307186|169093400|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.34|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.34|1.06|
84679133|NCT04307186|169093400|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.25|0.94|
84679134|NCT04307186|169093401|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.28|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.28|1.87|
84679135|NCT04307186|169093401|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.25|1.86|
84679136|NCT04307186|169093402|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.43|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.43|1.11|
84505632|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||0.66|-4.50|0.1424
84679137|NCT04307186|169093402|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.32|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.32|1.05|
84679138|NCT02854540|169093405|OTHER||Mean difference (percent)|59.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84679139|NCT00754845|169093408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by the stratification factors at randomization||||0.91|0.48|0.01
84679140|NCT00754845|169093409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
84679141|NCT00754845|169093410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.73|0.83
84679142|NCT00754845|169093411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84679143|NCT03238001|169093412|NON_INFERIORITY|In order to show non-inferiority, a lower 90% confidence limit (CL) for the difference in kappa scores would need to be greater than or equal to -0.20. The 90% confidence interval was calculated based on 5000 bootstrapped differences in kappa scores.|Lower 90% CL for difference in Kappas|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||||90% CI for Kappa of DCTclock/MoCA - Kappa of MMSE/MoCA (estimated with bootstrap method using 5000 bootstraps).|A two-one-sided tests approach was taken, where, prior to analysis, it was determined that a delta (equivalence margin) of 0.20 would be considered a significant difference between the DCTclock/MoCA kappa and the MMSE/MoCA kappa. The reasoning behind this determination can be found in the study's statistical analysis plan.||0.05|-0.12|
84679144|NCT05003791|169093431|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84679145|NCT05003791|169093432|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84679146|NCT05003791|169093433|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84679147|NCT01422070|169093437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation adjusts the confidence interval for the correlation of outcomes within-centre.|The fully adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an OR of 0.63 in favour of the presence of an intermediate care unit in the hospital|The null hypothesis was that hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units with intermediate care unit in the hospital is similar to that of the patients admitted to intensive care units without intermediate care unit in the hospital||0.88|0.45|<0.05
84679148|NCT03191903|169093438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5874|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5874
84679149|NCT03191903|169093439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0829
84679150|NCT03191903|169093440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4673
84679151|NCT03191903|169093441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9408
84679152|NCT03191903|169093442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7770
84679153|NCT03191903|169093443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7590
84679154|NCT03191903|169093444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8309
84679155|NCT03191903|169093445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6215
84679156|NCT03191903|169093446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2160
84679157|NCT03191903|169093447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7026
84679158|NCT03191903|169093448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0438|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0438
84679159|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.001
84679160|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough or Shortness of Breath||||0.356
84679161|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.001
84679162|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||||0.962
84679163|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.651|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty falling or staying asleep||||0.651
84679164|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY|Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty remembering||||0.230
84679165|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Dizziness||||0.275
84679166|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.987|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.987
84679167|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever, chills, sweats||||0.037
84679168|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.534|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea or vomiting||||0.534
84679169|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neuropathy||||0.002
84679170|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.349|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Skin problems||||0.349
84679171|NCT02897141|169093477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight loss or wasting||||0.020
84679172|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Physical functioning scale||||0.001
84679173|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to physical health scale||||0.458
84679174|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to emotional problems scale||||0.725
84679175|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.807|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Energy/fatigue scale|\[Not specified\]|||0.807
84679176|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being scale||||0.693
84679177|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning scale||||0.128
84679178|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scale||||0.007
84679179|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General health scale||||0.960
84679180|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical health summary scale||||0.836
84679181|NCT02897141|169093478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental health summary scale||||0.822
84679182|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.529|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.529
84679183|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.312
84679184|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.841|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.841
84679185|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.848
84679186|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||||0.208
84679187|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with participation in social roles||||0.754
84679188|NCT02897141|169093479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain interference||||0.454
84679189|NCT02897141|169093480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.252
84679190|NCT02897141|169093481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||CASE adherence index||||0.017
84679191|NCT02897141|169093481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visual analogue scale||||0.338
84679192|NCT02897141|169093482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.743|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall||||0.743
84679193|NCT02897141|169093482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||||0.166
84679194|NCT02897141|169093482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived usefulness||||0.899
84679195|NCT02897141|169093482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived ease of use||||0.803
84679196|NCT02897141|169093482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||User Control||||0.480
84679197|NCT01344460|169093491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.3|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||15.2|<0.000
84679198|NCT01344460|169093491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.2|<0.000
84714152|NCT05546749|169174022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to predict opioid craving score by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline opioid craving score.||13.1|-40.3|0.32
84679199|NCT01344460|169093491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|24.0|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.5|<0.000
84679200|NCT01344460|169093491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.3|<0.000
84679201|NCT01344460|169093491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|25.6|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||21.9|<0.000
84679202|NCT01344460|169093492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-2.2|
84679203|NCT01344460|169093492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-9.7|
84679204|NCT01344460|169093492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||5.1|
84679205|NCT01344460|169093492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.8|
84679206|NCT01344460|169093492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.7|
84679207|NCT01344460|169093493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.0|
84679208|NCT01344460|169093493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||9.1|
84679209|NCT01344460|169093493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.6|
84679210|NCT01344460|169093493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.2|
84679211|NCT01344460|169093493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.0|
84679212|NCT01344460|169093494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|46.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||46.2|
84679213|NCT01344460|169093494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|51.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|43.6||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||43.6|
84679214|NCT01344460|169093494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|45.5||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||45.5|
84679215|NCT01344460|169093494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|53.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|44.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||44.8|
84679216|NCT01344460|169093494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|71.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.7||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||64.7|
84679217|NCT01344460|169093495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.9||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||94.9|
84679218|NCT01344460|169093495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||93.8|
84679219|NCT01344460|169093495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|96.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||95.2|
84679220|NCT01344460|169093495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||94.8|
84679221|NCT01344460|169093495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||97.8|
84679222|NCT01344460|169093498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84679223|NCT01344460|169093498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
84679224|NCT01344460|169093498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84679225|NCT01344460|169093498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
84679226|NCT03483623|169093521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679227|NCT03483623|169093522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679228|NCT03483623|169093523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679229|NCT03483623|169093524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679230|NCT03483623|169093525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679231|NCT03483623|169093526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679232|NCT03483623|169093527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679233|NCT03483623|169093528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
84679234|NCT00560833|169093529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.3|<0.01
84679235|NCT00560833|169093529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-3.1|<0.01
84679236|NCT00560833|169093529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
84679237|NCT00560833|169093529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
84505633|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||1.00|-4.15|0.2277
84679238|NCT00560833|169093531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-2.0|0.06
84679239|NCT00560833|169093531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.01
84679240|NCT00560833|169093531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
84679241|NCT00560833|169093531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.6|<0.01
84679242|NCT00560833|169093532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.09|0.62
84679243|NCT00560833|169093532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
84679244|NCT00560833|169093532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.13|0.01
84505634|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.03|-6.16|0.1599
84505635|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.52|-4.66|0.5545
84505636|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.09|-5.08|0.4095
84505637|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-1.67|-6.49|0.0012
84679245|NCT00560833|169093532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
84679246|NCT00560833|169093533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.06|1.0
84679247|NCT00560833|169093533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.09|0.72
84679248|NCT00560833|169093533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.13
84679249|NCT00560833|169093533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.15
84679250|NCT01085318|169093534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|864.1||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
84679251|NCT01085318|169093535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|644.99|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84679252|NCT00612313|169093593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated rate of time spent well was evaluated using a Poisson regression with adjustment for CDRS-R score at the end of the acute phase, age group, and gender.|Regression, Poisson||Differencein percentages represents estimated percentage for medication management + CBT Arm minus estimated percentage for medication management only Arm.|||||.02
84679253|NCT05932290|169093597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.71|0.37|<.0001
84679254|NCT05932290|169093598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.|||0.64|0.22|.0003
84679255|NCT05932290|169093601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox||HRs were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.88|0.47|.0062
84679256|NCT05932290|169093602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77|||Regression, Cox|IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.||||0.77|0.27|.0032
84679257|NCT04401579|169093663|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|1.00|0.047
84679258|NCT04401579|169093679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0||||||||0|-12|
84679259|NCT04401579|169093680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||||||||0|-10|
84679260|NCT04401579|169093690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|1.01|0.44
84679261|NCT04401579|169093700|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.06|0.002
84679262|NCT04401579|169093701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|1.05|0.005
84679263|NCT04401579|169093702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|1.07|0.003
84679264|NCT04401579|169093705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.68|0.73|
84679265|NCT04401579|169093705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants.||1.50|0.75|
84679266|NCT04401579|169093705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.37|0.93|
84679267|NCT04401579|169093705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants.||1.74|1.03|
84679268|NCT04401579|169093706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.60|1.08|
84679269|NCT04401579|169093706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.31|0.89|
84679270|NCT04401579|169093707|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.46||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.46|1.04|
84679271|NCT04401579|169093707|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.32|0.85|
84679272|NCT00489970|169093716|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.16|4.17|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.17|-1.16|
84679273|NCT00489970|169093716|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.52|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-1.52|
84714153|NCT05546749|169174031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.6|||Regression, Linear||RelieVRx was associated with lower stress score.|We performed a mixed effects model to predict stress score at week 6 by arm, controlling for baseline stress score.||3.6|-23.1|0.137
84505638|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-0.57|-5.38|0.0159
84679274|NCT00489970|169093716|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.41|4.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.15|-3.41|
84679275|NCT00489970|169093716|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.69|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-3.69|
84679276|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.31|1.79|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||1.79|1.31|
84505639|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.30|-3.51|0.3627
84679277|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.62|6.01|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.01|4.62|
84679278|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.07|4.25|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||4.25|3.07|
84679279|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.64||||||97.5|1.33|2.03|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||2.03|1.33|
84679280|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.37|6.36|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.36|4.37|
84714154|NCT05292872|169174039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.752||1-sided p-values are proportion of bootstrap replicates exceeding null (defined as a HR of 1) in each direction), and the two-tailed p-value is twice the smaller of one-tailed p-values. A two-tailed p-value was calculated for HR using this method.|Nonparametric bootstrap approach|||||0.752|0.143|<.001
84714155|NCT02561247|169174089|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value|t-test, 1 sided|Null Hypothesis Value = -38; Degrees of Freedom=16; t-value=-4.13||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons/multiplicity in this study, since there was only one primary endpoint, one arm, and one pre-specified primary null hypothesis.||||0.0008
84505640|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-1.03|-5.69|0.0057
84649886|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
84649887|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
84679281|NCT00489970|169093718|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.58|5.57|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||5.57|3.58|
84679282|NCT00489970|169093719|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.67|2.85|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.85|-14.67|
84679283|NCT00489970|169093719|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.63|7.79|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||7.79|-10.63|
84679284|NCT00489970|169093719|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.33|2.73|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.73|-20.33|
84679285|NCT00489970|169093719|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.98|0.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||0.15|-22.98|
84679286|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.09|3.08|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.08|-9.09|
84679287|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.16|-1.4|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||-1.40|-13.16|
84679288|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-10.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.5|-3.38|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||-3.38|-17.50|
84714156|NCT05210608|169174094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the post-treatment assessment.||2.18|-.85|.29
84505641|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||1.80|-2.86|0.6503
84505642|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-0.50|-5.16|0.0183
84649888|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
84649889|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
84649890|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
84649891|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
84649892|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
84649893|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
84649894|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
84714157|NCT05210608|169174094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the 1 month follow up||5.79|-3.45|.48
84649895|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
84649896|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
84649897|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.50|-1.17|<0.001
84649898|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.22|<0.001
84649899|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.01|<0.001
84649900|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.85|0.003
84649901|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.50|0.341
84649902|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.71|0.031
84649903|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.49|0.349
84649904|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.29|0.780
84649905|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
84649906|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
84649907|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
84649908|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.88|0.005
84649909|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.26|-0.47|0.562
84649910|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.77|0.028
84649911|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.68|0.084
84649912|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.38|0.910
84505643|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.27|-5.89|0.0726
84505644|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||3.14|-3.01|0.9661
84649913|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.40|<0.001
84649914|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.27|<0.001
84649915|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.25|<0.001
84649916|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.88|0.003
84649917|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.72|0.039
84649918|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.74|0.032
84505645|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.19|-5.94|0.0656
84505646|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||-0.92|-5.39|0.0068
84505647|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||1.24|-3.22|0.3760
84505648|NCT00810732|168761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||0.07|-4.40|0.0572
84649919|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.50|0.409
84505649|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.45|-0.39|0.8823
84505650|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.43|-0.41|0.9457
84649920|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.461
84649921|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.59|<0.001
84649922|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.40|<0.001
84649923|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.17|<0.001
84649924|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.97|0.002
84649925|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.58|0.281
84649926|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.81|0.023
84649927|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.79|0.031
84649928|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.56|0.331
84649929|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.001
84649930|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.001
84649931|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
84649932|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.98|<0.001
84649933|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.781
84649934|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.71|0.057
84649935|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.80|0.016
84649936|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.50|0.450
84649937|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.47|<0.001
84649938|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
84649939|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.12|<0.001
84649940|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
84649941|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.47|0.699
84649942|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.408
84649943|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.74|0.077
84649944|NCT00809354|169036756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.65|0.182
84649945|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
84649946|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
84649947|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
84649948|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
84649949|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
84649950|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
84649951|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
84649952|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
84649953|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
84649954|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
84649955|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
84649956|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
84649957|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
84649958|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
84649959|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
84649960|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
84649961|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.82|0.005
84649962|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.05|<0.001
84649963|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.25|<0.001
84649964|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.23|<0.001
84649965|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.177
84649966|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
84679289|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.03|5.57|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||5.57|-10.03|
84679290|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.38|8.66|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||8.66|-2.38|
84679291|NCT00489970|169093720|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.53|3.18|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.18|-14.53|
84679292|NCT00492349|169093774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
84679293|NCT00492349|169093775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||All treatment main and interaction effect p-values were \> 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline CPT Detectability served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||>0.05
84679294|NCT00492349|169093776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline Antisaccade Errors served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
84679295|NCT01928719|169093778|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.58|||Regression, Cox||The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||5.58|1.95|<0.0001
84505651|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.44|-0.40|0.9358
84679296|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.81||Testing the effect of treatment group in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Age Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|The reference group is Same Nicotine Content Group.||5.81|1.99|<0.0001
84649967|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.52|0.286
84649968|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.33|0.952
84649969|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
84679297|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03||Testing the effect of age group (ages 30-39) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 30-39 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.03|0.26|0.06
84679298|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.66||Testing the effect of age group (ages 40-49) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 40-49 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.66|0.17|<0.002
84679299|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 50-59) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 50-59 to Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.65|0.16|<0.002
84649970|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.94|0.003
84505652|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.25|-1.03|0.0022
84649971|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.52|-1.26|<0.001
84649972|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.29|<0.001
84649973|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.36|0.972
84649974|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.69|0.096
84505653|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.36|-0.41|0.8956
84505654|NCT00810732|168761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.23|-1.00|0.0030
84649975|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.72|0.069
84649976|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.39|0.902
84649977|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
84649978|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.61|-1.33|<0.001
84649979|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.66|-1.38|<0.001
84679300|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.18||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 60-65) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 60-65 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.18|0.13|0.1
84649980|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.55|<0.001
84649981|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.75|0.028
84649982|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.013
84649983|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.58|0.217
84649984|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.53|0.351
84649985|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
84649986|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.45|-1.22|<0.001
84649987|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.38|<0.001
84649988|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.80|-1.57|<0.001
84649989|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.389
84649990|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.72|0.087
84649991|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.74|0.072
84649992|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.57|0.340
84649993|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
84679301|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.66||Testing the effect of working status in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Age, and BMI.||The reference group is not currently working.|The direction of comparison is currently working to not currently working.|2.66|0.92|0.1
84714158|NCT05210608|169174095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.8|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|102.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to Post-treatment.||102.10|19.90|=0.015
84505655|NCT00752791|168761905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.44|-0.24|
84679302|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||Testing the effect of BMI Normal Weight group (\>=18.5 \& \<25) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Normal Weight (\>=18.5 \& \<25) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight (\<18.5)||0.67|0.1|0.006
84679303|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92||Testing the effect of BMI Overweight group (\>=25 \& \< 30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Overweight (\>=25 \& \< 30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.92|0.13|0.034
84679304|NCT01928719|169093779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||Testing the effect of BMI Obese group (\>=30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Obese (\>=30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.77|0.13|0.011
84679305|NCT01928719|169093780|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-1.75|-6.44|0.0006
84679306|NCT01928719|169093781|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-136.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.7|-101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-101.7|-171.7|<.0001
84679307|NCT01928719|169093782|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-0.38|-7.68|0.0305
84505656|NCT01769378|168761914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.57|<0.001
84679308|NCT01928719|169093783|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||3.33|0.28|0.0207
84679309|NCT01928719|169093784|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||0.23|-0.56|0.4191
84505657|NCT01769378|168761915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|33.84|||Regression, Logistic|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||\<7.0% HbA1c||33.84|3.82|<0.001
84679310|NCT01054820|169093853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change from baseline. Study powered at 95 percent (%) to detect a mean change of at least 1.2 units, with assumed standard deviation of at most 3.2 units.||||<0.0001
84679311|NCT01054820|169093854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
84679312|NCT01054820|169093855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679313|NCT01054820|169093856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679314|NCT01054820|169093857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679315|NCT01054820|169093858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679316|NCT01054820|169093861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679317|NCT00321919|169093864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.778976||||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first cardiovascular event in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference with regard to the event-free distribution of the combined endpoint of all protocol specified cardiovascular events between Early Epoetin beta therapy and Late Epoetin beta therapy groups.||1.14|0.53|0.2036
84679318|NCT00321919|169093865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.744575||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.7|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of an event of the time to death due to cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.70|0.33|0.4833
84679319|NCT00321919|169093867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658259||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to death for all causes in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy treatment group.|||1.15|0.38|0.1391
84679320|NCT00321919|169093870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.804594||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of time to first cardiovascular intervention in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group|||1.51|0.43|0.4985
84679321|NCT00321919|169093872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82046||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.23|0.55|0.3419
84679322|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 1.||||0.0029
84679323|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0081
84679324|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental health scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0005
84679325|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental Health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0965
84679326|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0004
84679327|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.9864
84679328|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0097
84679329|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1670
84679330|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0058
84679331|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1455
84679332|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0009
84679333|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0123
84679334|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.3155
84679335|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.7076
84679336|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.1291
84679337|NCT00321919|169093879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.5528
84679338|NCT00996996|169093889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed response.|||100|90|
84679339|NCT00996996|169093890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a response.|||100|94|
84679340|NCT00996996|169093891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR.|||80|59|
84679341|NCT00996996|169093891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CCR.|||6|0|
84679342|NCT00996996|169093891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|85.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + confirmed CCR.|||85|65|
84679343|NCT00996996|169093891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|26.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed PR.|||26|9|
84649994|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.39|-1.11|<0.001
84649995|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.42|<0.001
84649996|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
84649997|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.42|0.762
84649998|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.056
84649999|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.84|0.010
84650000|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.54|0.335
84650001|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
84650002|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.24|<0.001
84679344|NCT00996996|169093892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|84.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR.|||84|64|
84650003|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
84650004|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.52|<0.001
84650005|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.46|0.782
84650006|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.47|0.719
84650007|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.69|0.158
84650008|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.67|0.183
84679345|NCT00996996|169093892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CCR.|||8|0|
84679346|NCT00996996|169093892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|87.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR + CCR.|||87|68|
84679347|NCT00996996|169093892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a PR.|||29|11|
84679348|NCT00760929|169093919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4301||90.0|0.58|1.21|||Wald Test|||||1.21|0.58|0.4301
84679349|NCT00760929|169093919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0342||90.0|0.42|0.9|||Wald Test|||||0.90|0.42|0.0342
84679350|NCT01666002|169093923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84679351|NCT01666002|169093924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84679352|NCT02585895|169093939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|74.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|86.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening LDL-C level|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||86.8|44.6|< 0.0001
84505658|NCT01769378|168761915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|35.34|||Regression, Logistic|||≤6.5% HbA1c||35.34|3.71|<0.001
84679353|NCT02585895|169093940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-52.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.18|-41.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-41.30|-64.18|< 0.0001
84679354|NCT02585895|169093941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-46.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-36.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-36.90|-55.85|< 0.0001
84679355|NCT02585895|169093942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-28.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.||||-28.21|-43.39|< 0.0001
84679356|NCT01169467|169093947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
84679357|NCT03108924|169093952|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.13||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.13|0.53|
84679358|NCT03108924|169093955|OTHER||GMR|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|4.41||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||4.41|2.01|
84679359|NCT03108924|169093955|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.96||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.96|2.82|
84679360|NCT03108924|169093955|OTHER||GMR|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.59||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.59|2.95|
84679361|NCT03108924|169093957|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.08||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.08|0.54|
84505659|NCT01769378|168761916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-20.53|||ANCOVA|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||-20.53|-46.55|<0.001
84505660|NCT01769378|168761917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||0.18|-1.53|0.120
84505661|NCT01769378|168761918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09||No adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.54|0.161
84679362|NCT03108924|169093960|OTHER||GMR|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.2||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||5.20|2.01|
84679363|NCT03108924|169093960|OTHER||GMR|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.49|6.7||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.70|2.49|
84679364|NCT03108924|169093960|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|7.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.39|2.65|
84679365|NCT03108924|169093962|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.03|0.52|
84679366|NCT03108924|169093965|OTHER||GMR|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|3.56||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.56|1.22|
84679367|NCT03108924|169093965|OTHER||GMR|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.25||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.25|1.10|
84679368|NCT03108924|169093965|OTHER||GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.19||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.19|1.13|
84679369|NCT03108924|169093967|OTHER||GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.9||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.90|0.88|
84679370|NCT03108924|169093970|OTHER||GMR|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.50|0.23|
84679371|NCT03108924|169093970|OTHER||GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.35||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.35|0.14|
84679372|NCT03108924|169093970|OTHER||GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.34|0.13|
84679373|NCT03108924|169093972|OTHER||GMR|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.39|0.25|
84679374|NCT03108924|169093972|OTHER||GMR|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.16|0.07|
84679375|NCT01255358|169093980|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary analysis on ICARS Total score has been conducted on the ITT Population employing carry-forward and carry-backward procedures for missing data imputation, in order to evaluate all enrolled patients.||-0.9|-7.1|0.02
84679376|NCT01255358|169093981|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall analysis on the PP Population||-2|-8.4|0.0031
84679377|NCT01255358|169093986|OTHER|VABS Total score and subscales have been analyzed with a RMANOVA design, using age as covariate (dichotomized as Low- or High-, using median age as threshold).|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VABS total score at V7||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
84679378|NCT01255358|169093987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|1|<0.0001
84679379|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.222
84679380|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.107
84679381|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.127
84679382|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.954
84679383|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.385
84679384|NCT01046643|169094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.310
84679385|NCT01046643|169094084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.594
84679386|NCT01046643|169094084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.653
84679387|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.452
84679388|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.868
84679389|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.549
84505662|NCT01769378|168761919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.49|-19.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.40|-38.49|<0.001
84505663|NCT00678392|168761930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.812||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) and prior treatment. One-sided log-rank test at 0.025 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.544|<0.0001
84679390|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.124
84679391|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.158
84679392|NCT01046643|169094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.055
84679393|NCT01046643|169094086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.561
84679394|NCT01046643|169094086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.726
84679395|NCT02504294|169094144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded since the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-12.5%).|Difference in Percentage|-1.3975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6503|4.8553||||||Clustered binomial analysis using logistic regression method was performed and generalized estimating equation method was used to construct 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence intervals (CIs).||4.8553|-7.6503|
84679396|NCT02504294|169094145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1062.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.95||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2643.2|519.2|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline ESA dose as covariate.||519.2|-2643.2|0.1874
84679397|NCT00144339|169094146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9524||95.0|-4.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-4|0.9524
84679398|NCT00144339|169094147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.2074||95.0|-2.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||6|-2|0.2074
84679399|NCT00144339|169094148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2488
84679400|NCT00144339|169094149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.0145
84679401|NCT00144339|169094150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.299||95.0|-12.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-12|0.2990
84679402|NCT00144339|169094151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.8375||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.8375
84679403|NCT00144339|169094152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.1143||95.0|-14.0|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||2|-14|0.1143
84679404|NCT00144339|169094153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.787||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.7870
84679405|NCT00144339|169094154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.784||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||0.3|-0.2|0.7840
84505664|NCT00678392|168761931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.174|||Log Rank|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||1.174|0.800|0.3744
84679406|NCT00144339|169094155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2705
84679407|NCT00144339|169094156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.306
84679408|NCT00144339|169094157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8103||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.8103
84679409|NCT00144339|169094158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.9814
84679410|NCT00144339|169094159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||Log Rank|Cox regression with treatment|Median estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
84679411|NCT00144339|169094160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio calculated as estimated number of events in tio/number of events in placebo|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
84679412|NCT00144339|169094161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3481
84679413|NCT00144339|169094162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0011||95.0|0.83|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.95|0.83|0.0011
84679414|NCT00144339|169094163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1766||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1766
84679415|NCT00144339|169094164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0024||95.0|0.78|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.95|0.78|0.0024
84679416|NCT00144339|169094165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3413||95.0|0.82|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of events between tiotropium bromide and placebo|||1.07|0.82|0.3413
84679417|NCT00144339|169094166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.8624||95.0|0.87|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of days of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation leading to hospitalization between tio and placebo|Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.||1.18|0.87|0.8624
84679418|NCT00144339|169094167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.098|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.098|0.077|<.0001
84679419|NCT00144339|169094168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.037|<.0001
84679420|NCT00144339|169094169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.087|<.0001
84679421|NCT00144339|169094170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.069|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.069|0.047|<.0001
84679422|NCT00144339|169094171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.115|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.115|0.091|<.0001
84679423|NCT00144339|169094172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.042|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.042|<.0001
84679424|NCT00144339|169094173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.104|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.104|0.078|<.0001
84679425|NCT00144339|169094174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.066|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.066|0.040|<.0001
84679426|NCT00144339|169094175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.107|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.107|0.081|<.0001
84505665|NCT00678392|168761932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.056||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.003|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||3.003|1.408|0.0001
84505666|NCT05117099|168761979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||.548
84505667|NCT05117099|168761981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||.915
84650009|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.90|0.004
84650010|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
84650011|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.48|-1.20|<0.001
84650012|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.76|-1.48|<0.001
84650013|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.51|0.408
84505668|NCT05117099|168761982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||.663
84505669|NCT05117099|168761983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||.138
84505670|NCT05117099|168761984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|||||||.114
84650014|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.67|0.097
84650015|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.79|0.018
84650016|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.64|0.132
84650017|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.26|-1.08|0.001
84505671|NCT05117099|168761985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||.065
84505672|NCT05117099|168761986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||ANOVA|||||||.394
84505673|NCT05117099|168761987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANOVA|||||||.388
84505674|NCT05117099|168761988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||ANOVA|||||||.332
84505675|NCT02784106|168761989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.07|
84505676|NCT02784106|168761990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.54|1.69||||||||1.69|-5.54|
84650018|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.25|-1.07|0.002
84650019|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.37|-1.19|<0.001
84650020|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.55|-1.37|<0.001
84505677|NCT02784106|168761991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||Day 28||0.06|-0.13|
84505678|NCT02784106|168761991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.09||||||Day 56||0.09|-0.18|
84650021|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.42|-0.40|0.959
84650022|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.31|-0.51|0.618
84650023|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.11|-0.71|0.149
84505679|NCT02784106|168761991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.12||||||Day 84||0.12|-0.15|
84505680|NCT02784106|168761992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14||||||Day 28||0.14|0.01|
84505681|NCT02784106|168761992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Day 56||0.11|-0.05|
84505682|NCT02784106|168761992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.07||||||Day 84||0.07|-0.15|
84505683|NCT02784106|168761993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.37|2.58||||||||2.58|-5.37|
84650024|NCT00809354|169036757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.22|-0.60|0.370
84679427|NCT00144339|169094176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.049|<.0001
84650025|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
84650026|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
84650027|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
84650028|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
84650029|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
84650030|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
84650031|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
84650032|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.49|-0.18|0.371
84650033|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.40|0.647
84650034|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.62|0.073
84505684|NCT02784106|168761994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.16||||||Day 28||0.16|-0.33|
84650035|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.55|0.161
84650036|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.961
84650037|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.42|0.697
84650038|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.62|0.139
84650039|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.64|0.120
84650040|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.44|0.637
84650041|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.72|0.028
84650042|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.74|0.024
84650043|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.51|0.339
84650044|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.50|0.381
84650045|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.51|0.438
84650046|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.66|0.111
84679428|NCT00144339|169094177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.109|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.109|0.081|<.0001
84650047|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.059
84650048|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.57|0.282
84650049|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.37|0.927
84650050|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.65|0.094
84650051|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.80|0.012
84679429|NCT00144339|169094178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.047|<.0001
84505685|NCT02784106|168761994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.43||||||Day 84||0.43|-0.29|
84650052|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.51|0.363
84650053|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.45|-0.32|0.742
84650054|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.53|0.436
84650055|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
84650056|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.57|0.332
84650057|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
84650058|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
84650059|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
84650060|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
84650061|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
84650062|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
84650063|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
84650064|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
84650065|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-0.99|<0.001
84679430|NCT00144339|169094179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.114|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.114|0.085|<.0001
84679431|NCT00144339|169094180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.08|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.080|0.051|<.0001
84679432|NCT00144339|169094181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.080|<.0001
84505686|NCT02784106|168761995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.04|
84650066|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
84650067|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.29|<0.001
84650068|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.29|<0.001
84650069|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.25|-0.95|<0.001
84650070|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.32|-1.02|<0.001
84650071|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.22|<0.001
84650072|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.001
84505687|NCT02784106|168761996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.13|
84650073|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.86|0.003
84650074|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.24|<0.001
84650075|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.26|<0.001
84650076|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.41|<0.001
84650077|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
84650078|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.47|-1.21|<0.001
84650079|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.36|<0.001
84650080|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.83|-1.56|<0.001
84650081|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.93|0.001
84650082|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
84650083|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
84511957|NCT00113425|168775653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
84511958|NCT01523899|168775727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson chi squared, Fisher exact, 2 sample t-tests||||||||
84650084|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.40|<0.001
84650085|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.40|-1.17|<0.001
84650086|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
84650087|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.32|<0.001
84650088|NCT00809354|169036758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.51|<0.001
84650089|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
84650090|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
84650091|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
84650092|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
84650093|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
84650094|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
84650095|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
84650096|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.47|0.389
84650097|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.68|0.035
84650098|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.56|0.155
84650099|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.30|-0.35|0.876
84650100|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.33|0.864
84650101|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.54|0.338
84650102|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.66|0.101
84650103|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.46|0.605
84650104|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.78|0.013
84650105|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
84650106|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.57|0.199
84679433|NCT00144339|169094182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.045|<.0001
84679434|NCT00144339|169094183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.103|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.103|0.073|<.0001
84679435|NCT00144339|169094184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.033|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.033|<.0001
84505688|NCT03151499|168762067|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.74|10.601|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||10.601|5.740|
84650107|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.363
84650108|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.47|0.613
84650109|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.53|0.416
84650110|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.66|0.143
84505689|NCT03151499|168762068|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.767|14.098|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||14.098|6.767|
84650111|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.60|0.245
84511959|NCT01523899|168775728|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84650112|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|-0.41|0.745
84650113|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.69|0.062
84650114|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.80|0.014
84650115|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.52|0.367
84650116|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.39|0.995
84650117|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.735
84650118|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.67|0.169
84650119|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.60|0.295
84650120|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
84650121|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
84650122|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
84650123|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
84679436|NCT00144339|169094185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.211|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.211|0.168|<.0001
84679437|NCT00144339|169094186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.073|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.073|0.037|<.0001
84650124|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
84650125|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
84650126|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
84650127|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
84650128|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-0.94|<0.001
84650129|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.09|<0.001
84511960|NCT02158936|168775747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.65||One sided p value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) stratification factors||||0.65|0.21|1.000
84650130|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.30|<0.001
84511961|NCT02158936|168775748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Log Rank|||Confidence Intervals estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with eltrombopag compared with Placebo. Log-rank test stratified by IVRS stratification factors||2.08|0.97|0.164
84650131|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.67|-1.32|<0.001
84650132|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
84650133|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.99|<0.001
84650134|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.48|-1.19|<0.001
84650135|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
84650136|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.89|0.002
84650137|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.32|<0.001
84650138|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.001
84650139|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.86|-1.55|<0.001
84650140|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.18|<0.001
84650141|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.28|<0.001
84650142|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
84650143|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.56|<0.001
84650144|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.02|<0.001
84505690|NCT03151499|168762069|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.081|11.126|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, therefore no hypothesis was tested.The statistical analysis model is an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||11.126|6.081|
84505691|NCT00415532|168762070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.172|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.352||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.352|0.084|<0.0001
84505692|NCT00415532|168762071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.307||||0.0005||95.0|0.154|0.611||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.611|0.154|0.0005
84505693|NCT00415532|168762074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0133
84650145|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.37|-1.08|<0.001
84650146|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.36|<0.001
84650147|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.52|<0.001
84650148|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.29|<0.001
84650149|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.30|<0.001
84505694|NCT00415532|168762075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3434||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3434
84505695|NCT00415532|168762076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0076||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0076
84505696|NCT00415532|168762077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0246||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
84650150|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.36|<0.001
84650151|NCT00809354|169036759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.79|-1.57|<0.01
84650152|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
84650153|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
84650154|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
84650155|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
84650156|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
84650157|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
84650158|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
84650159|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
84650160|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.20|0.207
84505697|NCT01952574|168762078|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
84511962|NCT02158936|168775765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.990|
84511963|NCT02158936|168775766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.99|||ANOVA|||||1.99|0.970|
84679438|NCT00144339|169094187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.228|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.228|0.180|<.0001
84505698|NCT01952574|168762078|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||0.86|-1.07|0.83
84511964|NCT00705536|168775795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0006
84650161|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.27|0.020
84650162|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.13|0.941
84650163|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.18|0.494
84650164|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
84650165|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.18|0.467
84650166|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.774
84650167|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.06|0.315
84650168|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.088
84650169|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.084
84650170|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.066
84650171|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.073
84650172|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.682
84650173|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.014
84650174|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.28|0.027
84650175|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.14|0.871
84679439|NCT00144339|169094188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.034|<.0001
84679440|NCT00144339|169094189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.222|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.222|0.173|<.0001
84679441|NCT00144339|169094190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.07|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.070|0.026|<.0001
84679442|NCT00144339|169094191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.221|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.221|0.167|<.0001
84511965|NCT00705536|168775795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84679443|NCT00144339|169094192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.026|<.0001
84679444|NCT00144339|169094193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.216|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.216|0.161|<.0001
84679445|NCT00144339|169094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.035|0.084|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.084|0.035|<.0001
84679446|NCT00144339|169094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.213|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.213|0.157|<.0001
84679447|NCT00144339|169094196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0005||95.0|0.021|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.021|0.0005
84679448|NCT00144339|169094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.229|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.229|0.170|<.0001
84679449|NCT00144339|169094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.093|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.093|0.038|<.0001
84679450|NCT00144339|169094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.215|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.215|0.154|<.0001
84679451|NCT00144339|169094200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.002||95.0|0.017|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.017|0.0020
84679452|NCT00144339|169094201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.139|<.0001
84679453|NCT00144339|169094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0365||95.0|0.002|0.061|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.061|0.002|0.0365
84679454|NCT00144339|169094203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.147|<.0001
84679455|NCT00144339|169094204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.0002||95.0|0.018|0.058|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.058|0.018|0.0002
84679456|NCT00144339|169094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.21|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.210|0.161|<.0001
84679457|NCT00144339|169094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0018||95.0|0.014|0.06|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.060|0.014|0.0018
84679458|NCT00144339|169094207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.151|<.0001
84679459|NCT00144339|169094208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0069||95.0|0.009|0.055|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.055|0.009|0.0069
84679460|NCT00144339|169094209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.127|<.0001
84679461|NCT00144339|169094210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.002||95.0|0.015|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.015|0.0020
84679462|NCT00144339|169094211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.194|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.194|0.139|<.0001
84511966|NCT00705536|168775796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84679463|NCT00144339|169094212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0165||95.0|0.006|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.006|0.0165
84679464|NCT00144339|169094213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.199|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.199|0.141|<.0001
84679465|NCT00144339|169094214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.059|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.059|0.004|0.0248
84679466|NCT00144339|169094215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.196|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.196|0.136|<.0001
84679467|NCT00144339|169094216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.0004||95.0|0.022|0.078|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.078|0.022|0.0004
84679468|NCT00144339|169094217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.130|<.0001
84679469|NCT00144339|169094218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.0809||95.0|-0.003|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.003|0.0809
84679470|NCT00144339|169094219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.119|<.0001
84679471|NCT00144339|169094220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.0915||95.0|-0.004|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.004|0.0915
84679472|NCT00144339|169094221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.535|-2.226|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.226|-3.535|<.0001
84679473|NCT00144339|169094222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.771|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.461|-2.081|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.081|-3.461|<.0001
84679474|NCT00144339|169094223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.593|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.352|-1.834|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.834|-3.352|<.0001
84679475|NCT00144339|169094224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.191|-1.576|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.576|-3.191|<.0001
84679476|NCT00144339|169094225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.423|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.277|-1.569|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.569|-3.277|<.0001
84679477|NCT00144339|169094226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.345|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.229|-2.462|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.462|-4.229|<.0001
84511967|NCT00705536|168775796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84679478|NCT00144339|169094227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.742|-1.894|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.894|-3.742|<.0001
84679479|NCT00144339|169094228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.303|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.266|-1.34|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.340|-3.266|<.0001
84679480|NCT00144339|169094229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0242||95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||0.98|0.74|0.0242
84505699|NCT01952574|168762078|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|92.0|-0.83|1.05|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||1.05|-0.83|0.82
84650176|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.301
84650177|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.23|0.181
84650178|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.30|0.013
84650179|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.031
84650180|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.874
84650181|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.447
84650182|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.27|0.059
84650183|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.23|0.196
84650184|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
84650185|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.845
84650186|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
84650187|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
84650188|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
84650189|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
84650190|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
84650191|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
84650192|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.28|0.011
84650193|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
84650194|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.43|<0.001
84650195|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.36|<0.001
84505700|NCT01952574|168762079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.42|||Generalised Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one percent change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 104 in the erenumab 70 mg group)||3.42|1.17|0.011
84505701|NCT01952574|168762079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.18|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 99 in the erenumab 21 mg group)||2.18|0.71|0.44
84650196|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.043
84650197|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.31|0.007
84650198|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
84650199|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
84650200|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.074
84650201|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
84679481|NCT00144339|169094230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0339||95.0|0.76|0.99|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years ; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Hazard ratio of all cause mortality vital status was information followed-up after discontinuation; vital status information up to 1440 days after the start of treatment was used||0.99|0.76|0.0339
84650202|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
84679482|NCT00144339|169094231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0859||95.0|0.79|1.02|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|||1.02|0.79|0.0859
84679483|NCT00144339|169094232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1936||95.0|0.67|1.08|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.08|0.67|0.1936
84679484|NCT00144339|169094233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2377||95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.09|0.71|0.2377
84679485|NCT00144339|169094234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.029||95.0|0.73|0.98|||Z-test|incidence rate = number of patients with event/ time at risk|Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.98|0.73|0.0290
84679486|NCT00144339|169094235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.44||||0.1158||95.0|0.91|2.26|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||2.26|0.91|0.1158
84679487|NCT00144339|169094236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.7725||95.0|0.68|1.33|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.33|0.68|0.7725
84650203|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.49|<0.001
84650204|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.21|0.236
84650205|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.112
84650206|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.38|<0.001
84650207|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
84679488|NCT00144339|169094237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.25||||0.2666||95.0|0.84|1.87|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.87|0.84|0.2666
84505702|NCT01952574|168762079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 107 in the erenumab 7 mg group)||1.63|0.53|0.80
84679489|NCT00144339|169094238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.59||||0.0337||95.0|0.37|0.96|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.96|0.37|0.0337
84679490|NCT00144339|169094239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.58||||0.0537||95.0|0.33|1.01|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.01|0.33|0.0537
84679491|NCT00144339|169094240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.71||||0.0403||95.0|0.52|0.99|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.99|0.52|0.0403
84679492|NCT00144339|169094241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.77|0.0001
84505703|NCT01952574|168762080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.12|-0.92|0.13
84505704|NCT01952574|168762080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.54|-0.51|0.95
84505705|NCT01952574|168762080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.87|-0.14|0.16
84650208|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.059
84650209|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
84679493|NCT00144339|169094242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.2||||0.4789||95.0|0.73|1.98|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.98|0.73|0.4789
84679494|NCT00144339|169094243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0014||95.0|0.76|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.76|0.0014
84505706|NCT00770991|168762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All patients received BRB suppositories and were pooled for the analysis comparing baseline and end of study polyp counts.||||0.065
84505707|NCT00770991|168762094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
84505708|NCT00770991|168762095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
84650210|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.36|0.001
84679495|NCT00144339|169094244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.61||||0.0236||95.0|0.4|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.40|0.0236
84505709|NCT02444533|168762173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain on day of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.043
84505710|NCT02444533|168762173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain at 14 days after surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.445
84650211|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.51|<0.001
84650212|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
84650213|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.038
84650214|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.33|0.007
84650215|NCT00809354|169036760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
84679496|NCT00144339|169094245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.5064||95.0|0.81|1.11|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.11|0.81|0.5064
84679497|NCT00144339|169094246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.69||||0.0104||95.0|0.52|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.52|0.0104
84679498|NCT04102501|169094251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5858
84679499|NCT04102501|169094252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8061
84511968|NCT00705536|168775797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0059
84650216|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
84679500|NCT02371369|169094274|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
84505711|NCT02444533|168762174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for ibuprofen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.650
84505712|NCT02444533|168762174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for acetaminophen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.970
84650217|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
84650218|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
84650219|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
84650220|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
84650221|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
84505713|NCT02444533|168762174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for oxycodone usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.835
84505714|NCT02444533|168762175|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 7 days. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||1.0
84679501|NCT02371369|169094275|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0043
84650222|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
84650223|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
84679502|NCT02371369|169094276|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
84650224|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.23|0.091
84650225|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.29|0.009
84650226|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.835
84650227|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.463
84650228|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.16|0.713
84650229|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.267
84650230|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.552
84650231|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.885
84650232|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.26|0.47
84679503|NCT02371369|169094277|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0019
84505715|NCT01945138|168762196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84505716|NCT01945138|168762197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
84505717|NCT01945138|168762198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
84505718|NCT01945138|168762199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.848
84505719|NCT01945138|168762200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
84505720|NCT01945138|168762201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84650233|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.26|0.056
84650234|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.117
84505721|NCT01945138|168762202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
84650235|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.106
84650236|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.673
84650237|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
84650238|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.065
84650239|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.567
84650240|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.135
84650241|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.094
84650242|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
84650243|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.087
84650244|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.18|0.542
84650245|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.17|0.643
84650246|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.301
84650247|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.22|0.237
84650248|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
84650249|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.854
84650250|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
84650251|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
84650252|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
84650253|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
84650254|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
84650255|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
84650256|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.27|0.016
84650257|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
84650258|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.19|-0.44|<0.001
84650259|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.39|<0.001
84650260|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.27|0.037
84650261|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
84650262|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||0.07|-0.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.001
84679504|NCT02371369|169094278|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
84679505|NCT01587651|169094308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% CI of the difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel (2 arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between prasugrel 10 mg QD MD and ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD, a common SD of 60 PRU (based on previous DSI studies and published data), and a drop-out rate not exceeding 15%, a sample size of 105 allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU (non-inferiority margin) with a power of 90%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|67.2||||||ANCOVA model included treatment as a main effect and pre-randomization baseline PRU as a covariate. The combined prasugrel groups were modeled as a single treatment. If the upper limit of the CI for the mean difference was not greater than 45 PRU, then the PD response to prasugrel 10 mg QD MD was deemed noninferior to that achieved by ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD.||67.2|24.9|
84679506|NCT00358735|169094334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84679507|NCT00358735|169094335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84679508|NCT00358735|169094336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
84679509|NCT00358735|169094338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.953
84679510|NCT00358735|169094339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.050
84650263|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
84650264|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.042
84650265|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
84679511|NCT00358735|169094340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84679512|NCT00358735|169094341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.507
84679513|NCT00358735|169094342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
84650266|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
84650267|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.50|<0.001
84650268|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.22|0.182
84650269|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.080
84650270|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
84650271|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
84679514|NCT00358735|169094343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.798
84679515|NCT00358735|169094344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
84679516|NCT02308033|169094353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84679517|NCT02308033|169094354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84679518|NCT02308033|169094355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of normal Nugent scores at 7-14 days||||<0.001
84679519|NCT02308033|169094356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.034
84679520|NCT03285477|169094362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
84679521|NCT03285477|169094363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
84505722|NCT01945138|168762203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.205
84650272|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.016
84650273|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
84650274|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.42|<0.001
84650275|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
84650276|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.29|0.032
84650277|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.33|0.006
84679522|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 25% nitrous oxide||||0.55
84679523|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21, 25% nitrous oxide vs placebo at 24 hours||||0.47
84679524|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.49
84505723|NCT01945138|168762204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
84505724|NCT01945138|168762205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
84505725|NCT01945138|168762206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84505726|NCT01945138|168762207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.401
84679525|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.34
84679526|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 2 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.94
84505727|NCT01945138|168762208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84505728|NCT01945138|168762209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
84505729|NCT01945138|168762210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
84505730|NCT00566709|168762262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84505731|NCT00566709|168762263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
84679527|NCT03283670|169094374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.80
84650278|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.009
84650279|NCT00809354|169036761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.41|<0.001
84650280|NCT01480089|169036821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.214|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 2 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.214|-2.830|.098
84679528|NCT01165281|169094375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that the upper limit of the confidence interval of intergroup differences in change from baseline is not higher than the noninferiority margin of 1 with a 1-tailed significance level of 0.025 and 90% power, the sample size was calculated to be 133 patients in each group for a total of 266 patients. Assuming approximately 20% of patients would be excluded from the analyses, the target sample size was 330 patients.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.383|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the JNS024 ER group was not inferior to oxycodone CR as defined by the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between JNS024 ER and oxycodone CR on the mean change from baseline of the NRS pain intensity score during the last 3 days of study drug administration. It was to be concluded that JNS024 ER is not inferior to oxycodone CR if the upper 95% confidence limit is less than 1 point.||0.383|-0.506|0.786
84679529|NCT02062502|169094438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.2|-3.2|<0.001
84650281|NCT01480089|169036822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 12 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.973|-1.103|.90
84650282|NCT01439568|169036830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0608||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6598|1.7055|||Logrank Test|||||1.7055|0.6598|0.8072
84650283|NCT03194503|169036900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows in the post-intervention column. ITT analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||0.92|0.47|0.015
84650284|NCT03194503|169036901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows and is a per-protocol analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||1.20|0.50|0.250
84650285|NCT04231318|169036902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0406
84650286|NCT04231318|169036902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0795|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0795
84650287|NCT04231318|169036902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7601
84650288|NCT04231318|169036903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1942
84650289|NCT04231318|169036903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0957|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0957
84650290|NCT04231318|169036903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4526|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4526
84650291|NCT04231318|169036904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1309
84650292|NCT04231318|169036904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1700
84679530|NCT02062502|169094439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on fold-difference, excluding a decrease of 1.5 fold or more.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.85|<0.001
84679531|NCT02062502|169094439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Antibody Response Rate|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|98.9|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||98.9|94.4|<0.001
84679532|NCT03586648|169094451|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than 32 points.|Least-square Mean|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|45.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||Data only from the first period will be used if period effect is significant.||45.9|32.7|
84679533|NCT03586648|169094452|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than -5 points.|Least-square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.||-3.3|-19.7|
84679534|NCT02099838|169094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84679535|NCT02099838|169094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0650
84679536|NCT02099838|169094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
84679537|NCT02099838|169094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84679538|NCT02099838|169094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0849
84679539|NCT02099838|169094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
84679540|NCT02099838|169094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84679541|NCT02099838|169094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2428
84679542|NCT02099838|169094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0003
84679543|NCT02099838|169094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84679544|NCT02099838|169094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group.. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7353
84679545|NCT02099838|169094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0013
84679546|NCT02099838|169094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1147
84650293|NCT04231318|169036904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7609|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7609
84650294|NCT04231318|169036905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1000
84650295|NCT04231318|169036905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
84650296|NCT04231318|169036905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3830
84650297|NCT04231318|169036906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0298
84650298|NCT04231318|169036906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0217
84650299|NCT04231318|169036906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4451|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4451
84679547|NCT02099838|169094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4006
84650300|NCT04231318|169036907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1197
84679548|NCT02099838|169094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0614
84679549|NCT02099838|169094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3795
84679550|NCT02099838|169094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4236||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4236
84650301|NCT04231318|169036907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
84650302|NCT04231318|169036907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0223
84650303|NCT04231318|169036908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1067
84650304|NCT04231318|169036909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1715|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1715
84650305|NCT04231318|169036909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0736
84650306|NCT04231318|169036909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4098|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4098
84650307|NCT04231318|169036910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2718|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2718
84650308|NCT04231318|169036910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0182|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0182
84650309|NCT04231318|169036910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1131
84650310|NCT04231318|169036911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2143
84650311|NCT04231318|169036911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1628
84650312|NCT04231318|169036911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6036
84650313|NCT04231318|169036912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2220
84650314|NCT04231318|169036912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1410
84650315|NCT04231318|169036912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5418|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5418
84650316|NCT04231318|169036913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1619
84650317|NCT04231318|169036913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1683
84650318|NCT04231318|169036913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6969|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6969
84650319|NCT04231318|169036914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0701
84650320|NCT04231318|169036914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0925
84650321|NCT04231318|169036914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6981
84650322|NCT04231318|169036915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0275
84650323|NCT04231318|169036915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1738|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1738
84650324|NCT04231318|169036915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8364
84650325|NCT04231318|169036916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2227
84650326|NCT04231318|169036916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1114
84650327|NCT04231318|169036916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4635|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4635
84650328|NCT00471146|169036925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.309||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.309|0.786|0.5436
84650329|NCT00471146|169036926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.298||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.The p-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.298|0.779|0.5203
84650330|NCT00471146|169036927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Differences in OR between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||10.1|1.0|0.038
84650331|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.603|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.603|0.998|
84650332|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.262|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.262|0.791|
84650333|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.897|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.897|0.558|
84650334|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.089|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.089|0.681|
84650335|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.956|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.956|0.596|
84679551|NCT02099838|169094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||1.0000
84679552|NCT02099838|169094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3151||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3151
84679553|NCT02099838|169094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6963
84679554|NCT02099838|169094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3204||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3204
84679555|NCT02099838|169094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0038
84650336|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.693|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.693|0.434|
84650337|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.817|0.510|
84679556|NCT02099838|169094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3812||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3812
84505732|NCT00566709|168762264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
84505733|NCT00566709|168762265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84505734|NCT00566709|168762266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
84650338|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.0|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.000|0.625|
84650339|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.71|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.710|0.441|
84679557|NCT02099838|169094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0108
84679558|NCT02099838|169094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5476||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5476
84505735|NCT00566709|168762267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.22
84650340|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.862|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.862|0.538|
84679559|NCT02099838|169094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1248
84505736|NCT02668302|168762273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values from two-sample T-test with equal variance assumption||||||0.4709
84505737|NCT00895583|168762276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Two-sided alpha equals (=) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||1.3|0.4|0.239
84505738|NCT00895583|168762277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||1.4|0.5|0.422
84505739|NCT00895583|168762278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.4|0.5|0.524
84505740|NCT00895583|168762278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.2|0.4|0.298
84505741|NCT00895583|168762279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.0|0.3|0.055
84505742|NCT00895583|168762279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.3|0.4|0.330
84505743|NCT00895583|168762280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.5|0.4|0.543
84505744|NCT00895583|168762280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.8|0.6|1.000
84505745|NCT00895583|168762282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||5.5|0.5|0.019
84505746|NCT00895583|168762282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||1.1|-4.8|0.215
84505747|NCT00895583|168762282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||3.9|-2.7|0.722
84650341|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.757|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.757|0.470|
84650342|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.549|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.549|0.342|
84650343|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.647|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.647|0.403|
84650344|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.896|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.896|0.560|
84505748|NCT00895583|168762282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||4.4|-3.0|0.710
84505749|NCT00895583|168762283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope difference (SRL-TAC)|-1.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with GFR as the dependent variable and study day as the independent variable.|Slope difference (sirolimus \[SRL\] minus tacrolimus \[TAC\])||0.5|-4.2|0.131
84505750|NCT00895583|168762285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||0.8|-8.6|0.105
84505751|NCT00895583|168762285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||14.3|1.1|0.023
84505752|NCT00895583|168762285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||6.4|-6.8|0.955
84650345|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.088|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.088|0.683|
84505753|NCT00895583|168762285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|14.6||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||14.6|-8.2|0.582
84505754|NCT00895583|168762286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84505755|NCT00895583|168762287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 12 Post-transplantation||||1.000
84505756|NCT00895583|168762287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 24 post-transplantation||||0.215
84505757|NCT00895583|168762288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||||0.499
84505758|NCT00895583|168762288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.067
84505759|NCT00895583|168762288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 18||||0.061
84505760|NCT00895583|168762288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||0.020
84505761|NCT00895583|168762291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-therapy Period||||1.000
84505762|NCT00895583|168762291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-therapy Period||||1.000
84505763|NCT00895583|168762292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.284
84505764|NCT00895583|168762292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.046
84505765|NCT00895583|168762292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||1.000
84505766|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 12||||<0.001
84505767|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 24||||<0.001
84505768|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.824|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 12||||0.824
84505769|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 24||||0.735
84505770|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 12||||<0.001
84650346|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.954|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.954|0.597|
84650347|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.692|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.692|0.435|
84650348|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.817|0.511|
84650349|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.541|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.541|0.961|
84650350|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.352|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.352|0.841|
84650351|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.981|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.981|0.612|
84650352|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.157|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.157|0.719|
84650353|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.109|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.109|0.692|
84650354|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.804|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.804|0.504|
84650355|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.949|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.949|0.593|
84714159|NCT05210608|169174095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.69||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|142.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to 1 month follow-up.||142.57|-14.57|.08
84714160|NCT05210608|169174096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|8.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to Post-treatment.||8.86|-9.86|.90
84714161|NCT05210608|169174096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.42|22.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant difference in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to the 1 month follow-up.||22.42|-49.42|.32
84714162|NCT05210608|169174097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|19.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to post-treatment.||19.10|-5.10|.18
84714163|NCT05210608|169174097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.38|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to the 1 month follow up.||7.38|-25.38|.18
84714164|NCT04963270|169174098|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.16|-1.88|0.0196
84714165|NCT04963270|169174099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.22|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.22|-1.82|0.0123
84714166|NCT04963270|169174100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-12.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||1.9|-27.3|0.088
84714167|NCT04963270|169174101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-10.5||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||3.3|-24.2|0.137
84714168|NCT04963270|169174102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.46|-2.80|0.0062
84714169|NCT04963270|169174103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted Mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.56|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.56|-2.80|0.0034
84714170|NCT04963270|169174104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.34|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.34|-3.36|0.1094
84679560|NCT02099838|169094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3620
84679561|NCT02099838|169094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5636||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5636
84679562|NCT02099838|169094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3681
84679563|NCT02099838|169094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2589
84679564|NCT02099838|169094463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7972||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7972
84679565|NCT02099838|169094463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7801
84679566|NCT02099838|169094463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8744||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8744
84650356|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.919|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.919|0.574|
84650357|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.084|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.084|0.675|
84650358|NCT00973349|169036954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.489|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.489|0.931|
84650359|NCT01015131|169036964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1521|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0932|0.2111|||paired t-test|||||0.2111|0.0932|<0.01
84650360|NCT02452697|169036976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
84650361|NCT05098938|169036997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.716
84650362|NCT05098938|169036998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
84650363|NCT05098938|169036999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.712
84650364|NCT05098938|169037000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.575
84650365|NCT00866788|169037004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1601
84650366|NCT00866788|169037004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
84650367|NCT00866788|169037004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0473
84650368|NCT00866788|169037005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1640
84650369|NCT00866788|169037005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
84650370|NCT00866788|169037005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0558||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0558
84650371|NCT00866788|169037006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1411||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1411
84650372|NCT00866788|169037006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
84650373|NCT00866788|169037006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0248
84650374|NCT00866788|169037007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.5507
84650375|NCT00866788|169037007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1525
84650376|NCT00866788|169037007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0449||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0449
84650377|NCT00866788|169037008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.7261
84650378|NCT00866788|169037008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.162
84650379|NCT00866788|169037008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.6504
84650380|NCT02339285|169037015|OTHER|F-test; Treatment effect|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2, 29)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||>0.10
84650381|NCT02339285|169037015|OTHER|F-test; Session effect|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1, 31)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||<0.001
84650382|NCT02339285|169037015|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (session x treatment)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2,29)||||||>0.10
84650383|NCT02339285|169037016|OTHER|F-test; Condition effect|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(2,21.595)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.05
84650384|NCT02339285|169037016|OTHER|F-test; Region effect (region defined as region of brain - frontal, parietal, occipital temporal)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(3, 79.358)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.001
84650385|NCT02339285|169037016|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (region x condition)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(6, 68.284)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||>0.10
84650386|NCT02339285|169037017|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups."||||>0.10
84650387|NCT02053051|169037022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84650388|NCT00537238|169037025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the difference in proportion (Pregabalin - Levetiracetam) was greater than -0.12.|Difference in Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
84650389|NCT00537238|169037026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference|4.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.9|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||10.9|-2.6|0.3571
84650390|NCT00537238|169037028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0822
84650391|NCT00537238|169037028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.9175
84650392|NCT00537238|169037028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0483
84650393|NCT00537238|169037028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.7139
84650394|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.69|-0.36|0.1334
84650395|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.52|-0.19|0.3551
84511969|NCT00705536|168775797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0105
84650396|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.53|-1.45|0.3638
84714171|NCT04963270|169174105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.27|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.27|-3.05|0.0999
84714172|NCT04963270|169174106|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.04|-4.36|0.0456
84714173|NCT04963270|169174107|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.11|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.11|-4.10|0.0382
84714174|NCT04963270|169174108|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-18.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.9|-33.5|0.013
84714175|NCT04963270|169174109|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.9|-36.2|0.002
84714176|NCT04963270|169174110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.41|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.41|-4.57|0.0002
84714177|NCT04963270|169174111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.53|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.53|-4.47|<0.0001
84714178|NCT04963270|169174112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.6|-35.4|0.004
84714179|NCT04963270|169174113|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-19.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-5.9|-32.8|0.005
84714180|NCT04963270|169174114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-19.4|0.847
84714181|NCT04963270|169174115|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-4.3||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-15.4|0.441
84714182|NCT04963270|169174116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19|-2.1|0.115
84714183|NCT04963270|169174117|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|8.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-1|0.077
84714184|NCT04963270|169174118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-6.77||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|-17.25|0.1314
84714185|NCT04963270|169174119|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Risk Difference|-5.07||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.61|-14.74|0.2264
84714186|NCT04963270|169174120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.29|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.29|0.59|0.0179
84714187|NCT04963270|169174121|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.42|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.42|1.04|0.0066
84714188|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||17.86|-17.81|0.998
84714189|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|10.93||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||10.93|-24.73|0.445
84714190|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|20.36||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||20.36|-15.33|0.781
84714191|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|14.75||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||14.75|-20.93|0.732
84714192|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|29.14||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||29.14|-6.53|0.212
84714193|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|11.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||11.39|-24.27|0.476
84714194|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||18.26|-17.40|0.962
84714195|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|31.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||31.16|-6.96|0.211
84714196|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||21.73|-16.40|0.782
84714197|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|33.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.78|-4.34|0.129
84714198|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||32.35|-5.80|0.171
84650397|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.34|0.2457
84650398|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.81|-1.26|0.6640
84714199|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|34.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||34.62|-3.49|0.108
84714200|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|23.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||23.30|-14.83|0.661
84714201|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|33.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.27|-4.85|0.142
84714202|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|31.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.04|-7.08|0.216
84714203|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|26.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||26.48|-11.71|0.445
84714204|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|35.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||35.19|-2.92|0.096
84714205|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|30.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||30.96|-7.19|0.220
84714206|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|31.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.78|-6.35|0.189
84714207|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|16.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||16.41|-21.75|0.782
84714208|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|25.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||25.18|-12.98|0.528
84714209|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|20.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||20.12|-15.45|0.795
84714210|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|11.69|||mean difference|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||11.69|-23.96|0.497
84714211|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.44||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|25.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.21|-10.34|0.409
84650399|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.17|-0.30|0.5950
84650400|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.76|-1.38|0.5701
84505771|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 24||||0.001
84650401|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.08|-0.33|0.2452
84650402|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.33|-1.88|0.1697
84505772|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 12||||<0.001
84505773|NCT00895583|168762293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 24||||0.028
84505774|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Baseline||||0.429
84505775|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 12||||0.326
84650403|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.36|0.2283
84650404|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.16|-2.54|0.0262
84650405|NCT00537238|169037029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.00|-0.52|0.0495
84650406|NCT00537238|169037030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.64|-0.82|0.8084
84650407|NCT00537238|169037030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.47|0.5263
84650408|NCT00537238|169037030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.85|-0.34|0.4008
84650409|NCT00537238|169037030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.59|-0.61|0.9749
84650410|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.01|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.01|-5.08|0.6161
84650411|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|1.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.56|-4.83|0.3154
84650412|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.54|-7.94|0.5930
84650413|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|14.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||14.76|5.27|<0.0001
84650414|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.75|||ANCOVA|||Baseline awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.75|-5.83|0.4807
84505776|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 24||||0.517
84505777|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agents (insulin), Baseline||||1.000
84650415|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|4.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.94|-3.18|0.6708
84505778|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 12||||1.000
84505779|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 24||||0.223
84650416|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.7574
84650417|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.10|0.2615
84650418|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.54|-6.42|0.5703
84650419|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.75|-7.74|0.2160
84650420|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|5.03|||ANCOVA|||Baseline somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||5.03|-2.89|0.5952
84650421|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.95|-4.40|0.6984
84650422|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.34|-3.09|0.9389
84650423|NCT00537238|169037031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.27|-2.00|0.6344
84650424|NCT00537238|169037032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.444|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.444|0.715|0.9285
84650425|NCT00537238|169037032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.110|0.972|0.0696
84650426|NCT01193660|169037039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.59|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650427|NCT01193660|169037040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|3.94|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MENTAL Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84679567|NCT02099838|169094464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8034
84679568|NCT02099838|169094464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7675||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7675
84679569|NCT02099838|169094464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6918||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6918
84679570|NCT02099838|169094465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0339||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0339
84650428|NCT01193660|169037041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MOTOR Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650429|NCT01193660|169037043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||The baseline and post-therapy data of each group were compared using paired t-test statistics.|t-test, 2 sided|Voxels with an uncorrected p-value of \<0.05 were considered significant, and an extent threshold Ke of 100 voxels was set by SPM implanted in Matlab.||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of three experimental groups are same each other, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) has much higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation Group or Rehabilitation Group. This study is a pilot study and therefore, power calculation was not applicable in our study. The sample size of each group is more than 30.||||0.05
84650430|NCT01193660|169037045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction of group and visit|0.9|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650431|NCT01193660|169037046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|1.279|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650432|NCT01193660|169037047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.996|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650433|NCT01193660|169037048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.56|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
84650434|NCT01193660|169037049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|We compared the ratio of participants with a certain adverse event (AE) and without the AE between three groups using Fisher Exact test.||||||<0.05
84650435|NCT00785928|169037075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is p-value for the fitted ACR50 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.059
84650436|NCT00785928|169037075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|119.0||||0.042||95.0||||This is the p-value for the estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is ED95 in mg.||||||0.042
84650437|NCT00785928|169037076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||This is the p-value for the fitted ACR20 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.044
84650438|NCT00785928|169037076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|118.5||||0.005||95.0||||This p-value is for estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) of the ACR20 and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is the ED95 in mg.||||||0.005
84650439|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.623
84650440|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
84650441|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.568
84650442|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.633
84650443|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
84679571|NCT02099838|169094465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0997
84650444|NCT00785928|169037077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.289
84650445|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
84650446|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
84650447|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.367
84650448|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
84650449|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
84650450|NCT00785928|169037078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.133
84650451|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
84650452|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.874
84650453|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
84650454|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.357
84679572|NCT02099838|169094465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5015||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5015
84679573|NCT01227889|169094466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6||The p value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
84679574|NCT01227889|169094467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.61|0.20|
84679575|NCT01227889|169094468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||1.18|0.57|
84650455|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
84650456|NCT00785928|169037079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
84650457|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.875
84650458|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84650459|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84650460|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.304
84650461|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.489
84650462|NCT00785928|169037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.091
84650463|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.746
84650464|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
84650465|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.549
84650466|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.619
84650467|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.893
84650468|NCT00785928|169037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
84650469|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.583
84650470|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.311
84650471|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.752
84650472|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.737
84650473|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.522
84650474|NCT00785928|169037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
84650475|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.969
84650476|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.352
84650477|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.406
84650478|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
84679576|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.03|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-1.03|-1.72|
84650479|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.708
84650480|NCT00785928|169037083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84650481|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.880
84650482|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.575
84650483|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.992
84650484|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.646
84650485|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
84650486|NCT00785928|169037084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.472
84650487|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.952
84650488|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
84650489|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
84650490|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
84650491|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
84650492|NCT00785928|169037085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
84650493|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
84650494|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.826
84650495|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
84650496|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.127
84650497|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
84650498|NCT00785928|169037086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
84505780|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Baseline||||0.498
84650499|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.562
84679577|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (mg)|21.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|42.64|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||42.64|9.99|
84650500|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
84650501|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.304
84650502|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.832
84650503|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84650504|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.980
84679578|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.61|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.61|3.20|
84650505|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.569
84650506|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.953
84650507|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
84650508|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
84650509|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.821
84650510|NCT00785928|169037087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.045
84650511|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.236
84650512|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84650513|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84650514|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84650515|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.734
84679579|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.68|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.68|0.70|
84679580|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||0.88|0.50|
84505781|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 12||||0.566
84650516|NCT00785928|169037090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
84650517|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.901
84650518|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.840
84650519|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.882
84650520|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
84650521|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.340
84650522|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.850
84650523|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.447
84650524|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.909
84650525|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
84650526|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84650527|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84650528|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84650529|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
84650530|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
84505782|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 24||||0.423
84505783|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Baseline||||0.033
84505784|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 12||||0.900
84505785|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 24||||0.802
84650531|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
84650532|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
84505786|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Baseline||||0.260
84505787|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 12||||0.086
84505788|NCT00895583|168762294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 24||||0.723
84650533|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
84650534|NCT00785928|169037091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84650535|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0018
84650536|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2289
84650537|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1112
84650538|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.4681
84650539|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4828
84650540|NCT01675427|169037100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2702
84650541|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.4133
84650542|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.4400
84650543|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.8597
84650544|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.3975
84650545|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1781
84650546|NCT01675427|169037101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3159
84650547|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0126
84650548|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7174
84650549|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1380
84650550|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.6258
84650551|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5751
84650552|NCT01675427|169037102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1681
84650553|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.2693
84650554|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.3240
84650555|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7006
84650556|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0403
84679581|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MED (mg)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.41|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||3.41|0.75|
84679582|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||TD (mg)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.63|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.63|2.20|
84650557|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1075
84650558|NCT01675427|169037103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3295
84650559|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9859
84679583|NCT02019719|169094485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MAD (mg)|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|11.44|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||11.44|6.51|
84505789|NCT00895583|168762295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.11||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 12; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.11|1.38|<0.001
84505790|NCT00895583|168762295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.26||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 24; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.26|1.39|<0.001
84505791|NCT00895583|168762296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Pre-randomization||||1.000
84505792|NCT00895583|168762296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period||||0.020
84505793|NCT00895583|168762296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period||||0.021
84505794|NCT00895583|168762297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84505795|NCT00895583|168762298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period, any treatment||||<0.001
84650560|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.7055
84650561|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0920
84650562|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0781
84650563|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4795
84650564|NCT01675427|169037104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3069
84650565|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5216
84505796|NCT00895583|168762298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period, any treatment||||0.685
84505797|NCT00895583|168762299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
84505798|NCT00895583|168762300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.265
84505799|NCT00895583|168762301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.61||0.672|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.672
84505800|NCT00895583|168762302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.504
84650566|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3419
84650567|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.7586
84650568|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1351
84650569|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
84505801|NCT00895583|168762303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.637
84505802|NCT00895583|168762304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.955
84505803|NCT00895583|168762305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|216.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|198.84||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.279
84505804|NCT00895583|168762306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.337
84505805|NCT00895583|168762307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 24)||||0.025
84505806|NCT00895583|168762307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 1 year (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 12)||||0.012
84650570|NCT01675427|169037105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3921|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3921
84650571|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8537
84650572|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0763
84650573|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2432
84650574|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4247
84650575|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4884
84650576|NCT01675427|169037106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6119
84650577|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2416
84650578|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2671
84505807|NCT00895583|168762307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 2 years (from On-Therapy Month 12 to On-Therapy Month 24)||||1.000
84505808|NCT00895583|168762308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
84650579|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.4619
84650580|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.8364
84650581|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
84650582|NCT01675427|169037107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2887
84650583|NCT01675427|169037108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0049
84650584|NCT01675427|169037109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.5651
84650585|NCT01675427|169037110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0420
84650586|NCT01675427|169037111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.4545
84650587|NCT01675427|169037112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650588|NCT01675427|169037113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650589|NCT01675427|169037114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650590|NCT01675427|169037115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650591|NCT01675427|169037116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.5468
84505809|NCT00895583|168762308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
84505810|NCT00895583|168762308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (24-Month)||||0.386
84650592|NCT01675427|169037117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0020
84650593|NCT01675427|169037118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.1623
84650594|NCT01675427|169037119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0663
84650595|NCT01675427|169037120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.2617
84650596|NCT01675427|169037121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0526
84650597|NCT01675427|169037122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.7918
84650598|NCT01675427|169037123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0842
84650599|NCT01675427|169037124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650600|NCT01675427|169037125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650601|NCT01675427|169037126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650602|NCT01675427|169037127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650603|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650604|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2887
84650605|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
84650606|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1634
84505811|NCT00895583|168762308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (24-Month)||||1.000
84505812|NCT00895583|168762309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.129
84505813|NCT00895583|168762310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84505814|NCT00895583|168762311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
84650607|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8956
84650608|NCT01675427|169037128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650609|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650610|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0145
84650611|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1027
84650612|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5998
84650613|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2935
84650614|NCT01675427|169037129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0039
84650615|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1981
84650616|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1616
84650617|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1192
84650618|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4485
84650619|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1525
84650620|NCT01675427|169037130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7262|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7262
84650621|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0911
84650622|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4674
84650623|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1604
84650624|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5937
84650625|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3830
84679584|NCT04535037|169094503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of group GMC ratio (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was above 0.5.|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.185||||The 95% CI for GMC ratio derived from an ANOVA model on log10 transformed concentration was used. GMC was adjusted for DTPA vaccination of the mother.||To demonstrate that the Haemophilus influenzae type b(Hib) response of Infanrix Hexa Group is non-inferior to the Vaxelis Group in terms of anti-PRP GMCs, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.185|0.710|
84505815|NCT00895583|168762312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.158
84650626|NCT01675427|169037131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0507
84650627|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8686
84650628|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3135
84650629|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0578
84650630|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5833
84650631|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1610
84650632|NCT01675427|169037132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2925
84714212|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.70|-9.92|0.382
84714213|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|25.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.54|-10.05|0.390
84511970|NCT00705536|168775798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84650633|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3709
84650634|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2054
84650635|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.8457
84650636|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3492
84650637|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2846
84650638|NCT01675427|169037133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2646
84650639|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5348
84714214|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|14.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||14.10|-21.54|0.680
84714215|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|18.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||18.65|-16.99|0.927
84714216|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|23.98||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||23.98|-11.95|0.508
84511971|NCT00705536|168775798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84650640|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5469
84650641|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0463
84650642|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.9393
84650643|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3404
84650644|NCT01675427|169037134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4237
84650645|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2510
84650646|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2943
84679585|NCT04535037|169094504|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the non inferiority of anti-PRP GMC ratio was met and the LL of the 2 sided 95% CI on group difference in the percentage (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was more than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.49||||The 2 sided 95% CI of group difference in seroconversion rate (Inv\_group minus Com\_group) was computed based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||To demonstrate that the Hib response in Infanrix Hexa group is non-inferior to Vaxelis Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 5 µg/mL, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.49|-14.10|
84679586|NCT02731131|169094513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
84679587|NCT02731131|169094515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84650647|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0478
84650648|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5387
84650649|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3878
84650650|NCT01675427|169037135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0748
84650651|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9887
84650652|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5507
84679588|NCT02731131|169094516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
84650653|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0175
84650654|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2246
84650655|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3519
84650656|NCT01675427|169037136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7140
84650657|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8622
84650658|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1622
84650659|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2566
84650660|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1574
84650661|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5784
84679589|NCT02731131|169094517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
84679590|NCT02731131|169094518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
84679591|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||%Geometric least-square mean(GLSM) ratio|105.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|143.23||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||143.23|77.08|
84679592|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|142.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.52|168.84||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||168.84|120.52|
84679593|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|110.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|140.49||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||140.49|86.99|
84679594|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|62.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.84|87.81||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||87.81|43.84|
84679595|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|66.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|120.21||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||120.21|36.72|
84505816|NCT03558997|168762313|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.73||||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.023|30.487|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.487|-21.023|0.7185
84650662|NCT01675427|169037137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6603
84650663|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0605
84650664|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0899
84650665|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0634
84650666|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.6165
84650667|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1649
84650668|NCT01675427|169037138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9159|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9159
84650669|NCT01675427|169037139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.7454
84650670|NCT01675427|169037139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0016
84650671|NCT01675427|169037139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5261
84650672|NCT01675427|169037139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3422
84650673|NCT01675427|169037139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9026
84650674|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0017
84650675|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.8864
84650676|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0291
84650677|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5472
84511972|NCT00705536|168775799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3019||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.3019
84650678|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||1.000
84650679|NCT01675427|169037140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1148
84650680|NCT01675427|169037141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.4207
84650681|NCT01675427|169037141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0566
84650682|NCT01675427|169037141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1211
84650683|NCT01675427|169037141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3772
84650684|NCT01675427|169037141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4023
84650685|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650686|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2132
84505817|NCT03558997|168762314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|1.254|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.254|-0.661|0.5438
84511973|NCT00705536|168775800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0401
84650687|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
84650688|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3031
84650689|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9550
84650690|NCT01675427|169037142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650691|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650692|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1890
84650693|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5793
84650694|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0847
84650695|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5506
84650696|NCT01675427|169037143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0020
84650697|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
84650698|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0061
84650699|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
84511974|NCT00705536|168775800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84650700|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3885
84650701|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3597
84650702|NCT01675427|169037144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650703|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650704|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0005
84650705|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0110
84650706|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0980
84650707|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2264
84650708|NCT01675427|169037145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650709|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0098
84650710|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.6291
84650711|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
84650712|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5588
84650713|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9932
84650714|NCT01675427|169037146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650715|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
84650716|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0020
84650717|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
84650718|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7166
84650719|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3217
84650720|NCT01675427|169037147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650721|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1894
84679596|NCT02509624|169094519|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|103.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.75|206.83||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||206.83|51.75|
84679597|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|99.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|135.92||||||AUClast of selonsertib||135.92|73.38|
84679598|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|141.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|169.55||||||AUClast of selonsertib||169.55|118.50|
84679599|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|112.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|143.65||||||AUClast of selonsertib||143.65|87.69|
84679600|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.06|86.98||||||AUClast of GS-607509||86.98|43.06|
84679601|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.62|110.91||||||AUClast of GS-607509||110.91|33.62|
84679602|NCT02509624|169094520|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|96.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.47|190.67||||||AUClast of GS-607509||190.67|48.47|
84679603|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|88.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|105.1||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.10|74.83|
84679604|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|91.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.76|105.52||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.52|78.76|
84679605|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|100.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.73|119.88||||||Cmax of selonsertib||119.88|83.73|
84505818|NCT03558997|168762315|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.928|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.928|-0.877|0.9559
84511975|NCT00705536|168775801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog +rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84679606|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|71.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|93.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||93.50|54.58|
84679607|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.59|67.54||||||Cmax of GS-607509||67.54|32.59|
84679608|NCT02509624|169094521|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|130.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||130.50|67.60|
84679609|NCT01055639|169094552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84679610|NCT01055639|169094553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84679611|NCT01055639|169094554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84679612|NCT01055639|169094555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84679613|NCT01055639|169094556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84679614|NCT01055639|169094557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84679615|NCT01055639|169094558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84679616|NCT01055639|169094559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84679617|NCT01055639|169094560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84679618|NCT02896855|169094580|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.99|0.49|0.0418
84679619|NCT02896855|169094580|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.71||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.01|0.50|0.0556
84679620|NCT02896855|169094580|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.81|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.81|0.45|0.0008
84679621|NCT02896855|169094580|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.85|0.47|0.0019
84679622|NCT02896855|169094582|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.68||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.03|0.45|0.0658
84679623|NCT02896855|169094582|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.06|0.46|0.0864
84679624|NCT02896855|169094584|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistical test is stratified by disease type and hormone receptor status.|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1126
84679625|NCT02896855|169094584|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1108
84505819|NCT03558997|168762316|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.25||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.028|30.53|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.530|-16.028|0.5416
84505820|NCT03558997|168762317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|-0.037|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.037|-1.848|0.0414
84505821|NCT03558997|168762318|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.45||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.874|-7.034|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-7.034|-53.874|0.0108
84505822|NCT03558997|168762319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.665||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.21|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||3.2100|-0.770|0.1449
84505823|NCT03558997|168762320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|335.3||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.47|1746.55|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1746.55|-551.47|0.1231
84505824|NCT03558997|168762321|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-13.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|-8.36|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-8.3600|-23.9400|<0.0001
84505825|NCT03558997|168762322|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.51|-94.98|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-94.98|-205.51|<0.0001
84505826|NCT03558997|168762323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.2700|0.4500|<0.0001
84505827|NCT01149616|168762325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84650722|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0054
84650723|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
84650724|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5360
84650725|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2185
84650726|NCT01675427|169037148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84505828|NCT01149616|168762326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
84505829|NCT01149616|168762327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated, and threshold for significance calculated at less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.05
84505830|NCT03529955|168762333|EQUIVALENCE|The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||||0.01||||||The investigators hypothesized that genes identified as significantly differentially expressed between the two groups will have ≥2-fold change at p\<0.01.|ANOVA|||The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||0.01
84505831|NCT01070394|168762366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.001
84505832|NCT01070394|168762367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.569
84505833|NCT01070394|168762367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES In-Clinic, a subset of the overall AMSES||||.827
84505834|NCT01070394|168762367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES, Evening, a subset of the AMSES||||.569
84650727|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
84650728|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0003
84650729|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0106
84650730|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7821
84650731|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2372
84650732|NCT01675427|169037149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650733|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0688
84505835|NCT01070394|168762368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.001
84505836|NCT01070394|168762369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|||||||<.001
84505837|NCT01070394|168762370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.0001
84650734|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4367
84679626|NCT02896855|169094585|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.24|0.49|0.2867
84679627|NCT02896855|169094592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.75|||||The treatment difference for change from baseline to maximum on-treatment decrease in LVEF is defined as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo.|||0.75|-1.96|
84679628|NCT02265705|169094599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.9|2.5|0.001
84505838|NCT01070394|168762371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||0.001
84650735|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
84650736|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1951
84650737|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2927
84650738|NCT01675427|169037150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0013
84650739|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0247
84650740|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0034
84505839|NCT03586830|168762374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-3.06|||Hochberg Approach|||||-3.06|-6.05|<.001
84505840|NCT03586830|168762374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Hochberg Approach|||||-4.36|-7.34|<.001
84505841|NCT03586830|168762374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.75|||Hochberg Approach|||||-5.75|-8.70|<.001
84505842|NCT04192799|168762378|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.85|0.65|<0.001
84505843|NCT04192799|168762379|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.19||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.19|1.06|<0.001
84511976|NCT00705536|168775801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84650741|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0017
84650742|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3346
84650743|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3215
84650744|NCT01675427|169037151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0003
84650745|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3609
84650746|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0018
84650747|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0356
84650748|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7044
84650749|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8578
84679629|NCT02265705|169094600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.31|0.001
84679630|NCT02265705|169094601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-1.25|0.001
84679631|NCT02265705|169094602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3||||||||3.3|-0.5|
84650750|NCT01675427|169037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0076
84650751|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
84650752|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2017
84650753|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5878
84650754|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4144
84650755|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4492
84650756|NCT01675427|169037153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650757|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0671
84650758|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1009
84679632|NCT02265705|169094603|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.9|-28.0|0.004
84650759|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0635
84650760|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4162
84650761|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9305
84650762|NCT01675427|169037154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0041
84650763|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0059
84650764|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2808
84650765|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2401
84650766|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2993
84650767|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5529
84650768|NCT01675427|169037155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
84650769|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650770|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3572
84679633|NCT02265705|169094604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.002
84505844|NCT04192799|168762380|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.09|0.80|0.37
84505845|NCT04192799|168762381|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.27||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||12.27|0.14|0.81
84650771|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2041
84650772|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0467
84650773|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0525
84650774|NCT01675427|169037156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650775|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650776|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
84650777|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5275
84650778|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6593
84650779|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0372
84650780|NCT01675427|169037157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84505846|NCT04192799|168762382|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Slope|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.11|-0.01|0.12
84511977|NCT00705536|168775803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.5589
84650781|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650782|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3857
84650783|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2356
84650784|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.7993
84650785|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2164
84650786|NCT01675427|169037158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650787|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650788|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0001
84650789|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4820
84650790|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.8668
84650791|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2032
84650792|NCT01675427|169037159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650793|NCT01675427|169037160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0103
84650794|NCT01675427|169037160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8373
84650795|NCT01675427|169037160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3672
84650796|NCT01675427|169037161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0637
84650797|NCT01675427|169037161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0474
84650798|NCT01675427|169037161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84511978|NCT00705536|168775803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
84650799|NCT01675427|169037162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650800|NCT01675427|169037162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
84650801|NCT01675427|169037162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5522
84650802|NCT01675427|169037163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.5117
84650803|NCT01675427|169037163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3437
84650804|NCT01675427|169037163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650805|NCT01675427|169037164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0381
84650806|NCT01675427|169037164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.6852
84650807|NCT01675427|169037164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1185
84650808|NCT01675427|169037165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2611
84650809|NCT01675427|169037165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.6059
84650810|NCT01675427|169037165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
84650811|NCT01675427|169037166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84505847|NCT00458302|168762383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary comparison was performed at Week 48. If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|6.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment arm, so 250 patients in total.||6.8|-10.1|
84650812|NCT01675427|169037166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0048
84650813|NCT01675427|169037166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5127
84650814|NCT01675427|169037167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3465
84650815|NCT01675427|169037167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7358|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7358
84650816|NCT01675427|169037167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650817|NCT01675427|169037168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84511979|NCT00549718|168775809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84650818|NCT01675427|169037169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650819|NCT01675427|169037170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
84650820|NCT01675427|169037171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||0.0066
84650821|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0018
84650822|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0425
84650823|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9829
84650824|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6700
84511980|NCT00549718|168775810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84650825|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7672
84650826|NCT01675427|169037172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0067
84650827|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0003
84650828|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1637
84650829|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.8579
84650830|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6935
84650831|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8124
84650832|NCT01675427|169037173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650833|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1834
84650834|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8543
84650835|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1485
84650836|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0260
84650837|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5317
84650838|NCT01675427|169037174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
84650839|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650840|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
84511981|NCT00722124|168775862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.615
84650841|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4423
84650842|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3824
84650843|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5246
84650844|NCT01675427|169037175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650845|NCT01675427|169037176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650846|NCT01675427|169037176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1947
84650847|NCT01675427|169037176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.0226
84511982|NCT00722124|168775862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.826
84650848|NCT01675427|169037177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.1158
84650849|NCT01675427|169037177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3675
84650850|NCT01675427|169037177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0948
84650851|NCT01675427|169037178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1236
84650852|NCT01675427|169037178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0119
84650853|NCT01675427|169037178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.7472
84511983|NCT00581139|168775863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
84511984|NCT00581139|168775865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
84650854|NCT01675427|169037179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.9734
84650855|NCT01675427|169037179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8303
84650856|NCT01675427|169037179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0006
84650857|NCT01675427|169037180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0065
84650858|NCT01675427|169037180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.9999
84650859|NCT01675427|169037180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3472
84650860|NCT01675427|169037181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2564
84650861|NCT01675427|169037181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7361
84650862|NCT01675427|169037181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650863|NCT01675427|169037182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0097
84650864|NCT01675427|169037182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
84650865|NCT01675427|169037182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9778
84650866|NCT01675427|169037183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0151
84650867|NCT01675427|169037183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.1052
84650868|NCT01675427|169037183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0007
84650869|NCT01675427|169037184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650870|NCT01675427|169037184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0012
84650871|NCT01675427|169037184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1717
84650872|NCT01675427|169037184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0253
84650873|NCT01675427|169037185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650874|NCT01675427|169037185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0330
84679634|NCT02265705|169094605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|0.001
84650875|NCT01675427|169037185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1595
84511985|NCT00581139|168775866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
84650876|NCT01675427|169037185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0412
84650877|NCT01675427|169037186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650878|NCT01675427|169037186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0421
84650879|NCT01675427|169037186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7658
84650880|NCT01675427|169037186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2950
84650881|NCT01675427|169037187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650882|NCT01675427|169037187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0827
84511986|NCT00581139|168775867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
84650883|NCT01675427|169037187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7817
84650884|NCT01675427|169037187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.1986
84650885|NCT01675427|169037188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650886|NCT01675427|169037188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0002
84650887|NCT01675427|169037188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0394
84650888|NCT01675427|169037188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0493
84650889|NCT01675427|169037189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
84650890|NCT01675427|169037189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0196
84650891|NCT01675427|169037189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.3268
84650892|NCT01675427|169037189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1667
84650893|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0021
84650894|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.5319
84650895|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.0114
84679635|NCT02265705|169094606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.3|0.001
84679636|NCT00941603|169094642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.2|||ANOVA|Least-square (LS) means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.2|-7.2|0.06
84511987|NCT00581139|168775868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
84511988|NCT00581139|168775869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
84505848|NCT00458302|168762384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment are, so 250 patients in total.||7.8|-9.9|
84650896|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2293
84650897|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2857
84650898|NCT01675427|169037190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
84650899|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0081
84650900|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0563
84679637|NCT00941603|169094642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.|ANOVA|||||0.6|-6.7|0.10
84505849|NCT00458302|168762386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|10.58|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|||10.58|-7.99|
84650901|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3516
84650902|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0064
84650903|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2707
84650904|NCT01675427|169037191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
84650905|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0634
84650906|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7176
84511989|NCT00581139|168775870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
84650907|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3944
84650908|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.8610
84650909|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4543
84650910|NCT01675427|169037192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0406
84650911|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.8234
84650912|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2427
84650913|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.4805
84650914|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2901
84650915|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3927|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3927
84650916|NCT01675427|169037193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.5769
84650917|NCT02556203|169037194|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided Confidence interval|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2089302|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.7040824||||||"H0: HR(t)\>=1.20 for all time points t\>=0, (i.e. the hazard for the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban-based treatment group is more than 20% larger than that in the antiplatelet-based control group)"||1.7040824||
84650918|NCT02556203|169037195|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||=|0.04223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|1.01|= 0.04223
84679638|NCT00941603|169094642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-5.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||-2.0|-9.4|<0.01
84679639|NCT00941603|169094642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.4|-5.0|0.48
84650919|NCT02556203|169037196|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.07745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.37|0.95|= 0.07745
84650920|NCT02556203|169037197|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||=|0.01156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.80|1.08|= 0.01156
84650921|NCT02556203|169037198|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||=|0.21595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.69|0.89|= 0.21595
84650922|NCT02556203|169037199|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||=|0.02216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.94|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.94|1.08|= 0.02216
84650923|NCT02556203|169037200|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.02702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.62|1.05|= 0.02702
84650924|NCT02556203|169037201|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||=|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.41|1.41|= 0.00001
84650925|NCT05021081|169037213|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.21|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean photopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.21|-0.70|
84650926|NCT05021081|169037214|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.36|-0.81|
84650927|NCT05021081|169037215|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.068|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Given no historical data is available, the sample size was not determined based on any empirical sample size calculation. A power analysis was conducted using a paired sample t-test (exact method) with a 2-sided type I error rate 0.05 to estimate statistical power based on different assumptions. The power analysis showed that the statistical power for testing superiority would be approximately 80% or higher with the effect size of -0.05 (mean difference: Test minus Control).||0.068|-0.029|
84650928|NCT00100178|169037225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.47
84650929|NCT02477839|169037226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Difference ratio in LS Mean was calculated as the exp \[LSMLCM-LSMplacebo\].||1.14|0.83|
84650930|NCT02477839|169037226|OTHER||Percent reduction|3.19|||=|0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was estimated as 100 x (1-exp \[LSMLCM-LSMPBO\]).||17.50|-13.59|=0.6895
84650931|NCT00631696|169037244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A non-inferiority margin of 20% was used to test the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the difference (PGB - PBO) in the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is ≥20% and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference in proportion of participant with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is \<20%.|percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|14.3|||Confidence Interval Approach||The confidence interval was based on asymptotic normal distribution.|Study powered to show non-inferiority (NI) of pregabalin (PGB) to placebo (PBO) on the percentage of participants (N) with a ≥50% reduction in MSC from Bsl to end of washout (Week (Wk) 26, or last assessment on or after Wk 12 if Wk 26 not done). NI to be declared if upper bound of 95% CI for difference between PGB and PBO not \>20%. Assuming proportion of N with 50% reduction to be 6% for both groups, sample size N=65 per group would provide \>90% power to show NI of PGB to PBO.||14.30|-2.29|
84679640|NCT00941603|169094642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||3.3|-4.0|0.85
84679641|NCT00941603|169094643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.4|-6.5|0.09
84650932|NCT00631696|169037245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.136||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.136|-0.385|0.3462
84650933|NCT00631696|169037246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.156||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.156|-0.420|0.3652
84650934|NCT00631696|169037247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.054||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.054|-0.464|0.1204
84650935|NCT00631696|169037248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|24.65||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.999|70.302||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||70.302|-20.999|0.2875
84650936|NCT00631696|169037249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.93||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.292|80.158||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||80.158|-14.292|0.1699
84650937|NCT00631696|169037250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.12||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.804|40.558||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||40.558|-52.804|0.7958
84650938|NCT00631696|169037251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|1.494||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.494|-3.645|0.4094
84650939|NCT00631696|169037252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.649|2.352||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||2.352|-2.649|0.9064
84650940|NCT00631696|169037253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|1.477||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.477|-3.207|0.4666
84650941|NCT01050543|169037254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|9.6|||ANOVA|||To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to the efficacy of neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a 2-way ANOVA model adjusted for trial site.||9.6|6.8|<0.0001
84679642|NCT00941603|169094643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-0.2|-7.1|0.04
84650942|NCT02439879|169037257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t test|||All data were analyzed using the SPSS v16 statistical package software. To compare categorical variables, the chi2 test was used, and, for continuous variables,the T-test for independent or paired samples was applied.Data are expressed as percent values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean ± SD or mean ± SEM||||< 0.05
84650943|NCT00943124|169037275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14||||||90.0|1.09|1.2||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.20|1.09|
84650944|NCT00943124|169037276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.05|1.16||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.16|1.05|
84679643|NCT00941603|169094643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-1.0|-7.9|0.01
84679644|NCT00941603|169094643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.0|-4.9|0.41
84679645|NCT00941603|169094643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||4.2|-2.7|0.68
84679646|NCT02079805|169094644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.78||||||Telmisartan 40 mg, Azilsartan 20 mg||1.78|-0.89|
84679647|NCT00383435|169094660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84679648|NCT00383435|169094660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84679649|NCT00383435|169094661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84679650|NCT00383435|169094661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.029
84679651|NCT00383435|169094662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84505850|NCT01144663|168762397|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI (confidence interval) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||1.2|-1.17|
84505851|NCT01144663|168762397|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percenttage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.4||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.4|-1.57|
84505852|NCT01144663|168762397|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.43||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.43|-2.45|
84679652|NCT00383435|169094662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
84679653|NCT02347761|169094669|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mea Difference (SE)|0.1036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0663|0.1409||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|MMixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of this endpoint|standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1409|0.0663|<0.0001
84679654|NCT02347761|169094669|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1334||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|Mixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of the endpoint.|Standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1334|0.0589|<0.0001
84679655|NCT02347761|169094670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0856|0.1672||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least squares mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1672|0.0856|<0.0001
84679656|NCT02347761|169094670|SUPERIORITY|In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|LS mean (SE)|0.1052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1457|||LS mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1457|0.0647|<0.0001
84679657|NCT03198000|169094697|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.055|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.055|-0.140|0.392
84679658|NCT03198000|169094697|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.107|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.107|-0.086|0.828
84679659|NCT03198000|169094698|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.411|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.411|0.539|0.576
84679660|NCT03198000|169094698|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.368|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.368|0.552|0.544
84679661|NCT03198000|169094699|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.074|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.074|-0.085|0.893
84679662|NCT03198000|169094699|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.084|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.084|-0.073|0.886
84679663|NCT03198000|169094700|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.02|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.020|-0.177|0.117
84679664|NCT03198000|169094700|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.041|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.041|-0.153|0.255
84679665|NCT03198000|169094702|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.78|-0.05|0.085
84679666|NCT03198000|169094702|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.64|-0.18|0.269
84679667|NCT03198000|169094703|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.10|-0.60|0.162
84679668|NCT03198000|169094703|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.14|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.14|-0.55|0.234
84679669|NCT03198000|169094704|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.48|0.398
84679670|NCT03198000|169094704|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.13|-0.54|0.233
84679671|NCT00968669|169094790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.435
84679672|NCT00968669|169094790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.828
84679673|NCT00968669|169094790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.628
84679674|NCT00968669|169094791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.271
84679675|NCT00968669|169094791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.319
84679676|NCT00968669|169094791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.502
84679677|NCT00968669|169094792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.756
84679678|NCT00968669|169094792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.047
84679679|NCT00968669|169094792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||1.000
84679680|NCT00968669|169094793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1764
84679681|NCT00968669|169094793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4031
84679682|NCT00968669|169094793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84679683|NCT00968669|169094794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8475|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8475
84679684|NCT00968669|169094794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0811
84679685|NCT00968669|169094794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84679686|NCT00968669|169094795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.938||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.144
84679687|NCT00968669|169094795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.395|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.395
84505853|NCT01144663|168762397|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.48||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||-0.48|-2.84|
84505854|NCT03273387|168762486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||95% Confidence interval 1.97 - 11.3 statistical significant if p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=2.988 df=18||||||0.008
84505855|NCT03273387|168762487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||statistical significant if p \<0.05|two-way ANOVA|DF=3||||||0.33
84505856|NCT03273387|168762488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||95% Confidence interval 15.92 to 42.53 statistical significant if p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=4.598 df=19||||||0.0002
84650945|NCT00943124|169037277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.93|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.00|0.93|
84650946|NCT00943124|169037278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.87|0.97||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.97|0.87|
84650947|NCT00943124|169037279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.99|1.04||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.04|0.99|
84650948|NCT00943124|169037280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08||||||90.0|1.02|1.14||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.14|1.02|
84505857|NCT02040428|168762502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Adaptive group sequential design|Whitehead method for triangular test||Superiority||||0.0001
84505858|NCT02040428|168762503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
84505859|NCT02058628|168762506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Data is represented as per CTR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|DUAC versus SKINOREN with a nominal alpha level of 5%, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004
84650949|NCT00943124|169037281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.77||||||90.0|0.72|0.82||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.82|0.72|
84505860|NCT01172600|168762520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.17|||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for VAS at baseline (before 1st block), number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This is an intention- to-treat analysis. We assigned missing outcomes to 10 patients.|||1.17|-1.43|0.84
84505861|NCT01172600|168762520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.28|||Regression, Linear||This is a per-protocol analysis, using 68 patients with completed data.|||0.28|-2.34|0.12
84505862|NCT01172600|168762521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.8|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||1.21|-1.80|0.63
84505863|NCT01172600|168762522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.05|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||0.82|-3.05|0.16
84505864|NCT02322879|168762550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84650950|NCT00943124|169037282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.89|0.94||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.94|0.89|
84679688|NCT00968669|169094795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.863|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.863
84650951|NCT04010539|169037283|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above -10.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5||||||||5.5|-5.6|
84650952|NCT04010539|169037283|SUPERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above 0.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||5.5|-5.6|0.5072
84650953|NCT02992132|169037303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.0||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||15.0|-4.8|
84650954|NCT02992132|169037303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.5||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||10.5|-8.5|
84650955|NCT00457366|169037317|OTHER|We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as the covariate to analyze the PANSS-EC at hour 2.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84650956|NCT01916967|169037322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.65|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in least squares (LS) means of Desloratadine 5 mg and Placebo||-0.65|-1.69|<0.001
84650957|NCT01916967|169037322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.61|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in LS means of Desloratadine 10 mg and Placebo||-0.61|-1.66|<0.001
84650958|NCT01104155|169037344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|||||||1-sided exact binomial|Based on a one-sided exact binomial test compared to 9%.||||||0.204
84650959|NCT01104155|169037344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||1-sided exact binomial|||||||0.041
84650960|NCT01385371|169037377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
84650961|NCT01385371|169037378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.001
84650962|NCT01385371|169037379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
84650963|NCT01385371|169037380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.027||95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0|-0.2|0.027
84650964|NCT01385371|169037381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
84650965|NCT01385371|169037382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.9|<0.001
84650966|NCT01385371|169037383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.31||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.31|-0.94|0.0001
84650967|NCT01385371|169037384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.6|-0.4|0.644
84650968|NCT02979197|169037401|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-sample t-test was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib (arm 1) was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with Amlodipine+Placebo (arm 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was considered met if the lower limits of the 97.5% one-side confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SBPday change in arm 1 and 50% of the mean change in arm 2 was less than 0.||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF method was used. Primary efficacy analysis was based on the difference between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo (arms 1 and 2, respectively) in the mean change in SBPday from Baseline to final (Day 13), where a subject completed the 14-day treatment plan, or to Day 6, where a subject was withdrawn from treatment before the Day 13 dose but after the Day 6 dose, or to baseline, where a subject was withdrawn before the Day 6 dose.||||0.024
84650969|NCT02979197|169037402|OTHER|ANOVA F-test was used to compare the mean changes in body weight from baseline to end of treatment among the three treatment arms. The omni-bus test was to conclude if any differences existed.||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in body weight was the 1st of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.006
84679689|NCT00968669|169094796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.717|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.717
84679690|NCT00968669|169094796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.070
84679691|NCT00968669|169094796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.934|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.934
84679692|NCT00968669|169094797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.813
84650970|NCT02979197|169037403|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered SBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.826|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in SBP24h was the 2nd of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.826
84650971|NCT02979197|169037404|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered DBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in DBP24h was the 3rd of the 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.500
84679693|NCT00968669|169094797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.290
84679694|NCT00968669|169094797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
84679695|NCT00968669|169094798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.764
84679696|NCT00968669|169094799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.986
84650972|NCT02979197|169037405|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib improved creatinine clearance to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in creatinine clearance was the 4th of 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.668
84650973|NCT02979197|169037406|SUPERIORITY|Differences in the occurrence of TEAEs between treatment arms were evaluated using Chi-square test.||||||0.675|||||||Chi-squared|Computed on the number of subjects who had at least one TEAE.||||||0.675
84650974|NCT02979197|169037406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Regression, Logistic|TEAE (1=at least one TEAE occurred for the subject; 0=otherwise) as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect.||||||0.555
84650975|NCT02979197|169037407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification were treated as 0.||||0.226
84650976|NCT02979197|169037408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification (BLQ) were treated as 0.04 ng/mL. Assignment of BLQ values to a nonzero number allowed computation of the log transformation. The selection of 0.04 ng/mL was based on the lower limit of quantification of the validated bioanalytical method (0.05 ng/mL) and selecting the next lowest number at the hundredth decimal place.||||0.215
84650977|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -3.48 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -5.4 to -1.6||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Celecoxib arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0005
84679697|NCT00968669|169094800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.7171|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7171
84650978|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.72 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -3.6 to 0.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0750
84650979|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.92 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 2.8||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Placebo+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.4184
84650980|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2022|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.76 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.5 to 1.0||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo arms.||||0.2022
84650981|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.56 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 3.5||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.5410
84650982|NCT02979197|169037409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = 0.19 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.9 to 5.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Placebo and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.9397
84650983|NCT02436681|169037412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84650984|NCT02436681|169037414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.0468
84650985|NCT02436681|169037416|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.014
84650986|NCT02436681|169037417|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.018
84650987|NCT01599832|169037428|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||P-value was from test of significance of log-transformed baseline K\^trans.|Regression, Cox|Multivariate model with adjustment for prior treatment, and clinical prognostic index (good/intermediate/poor) (n=16 had complete data)||||||0.083
84650988|NCT05597020|169037451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference vs placebo|20.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, week within period, and interaction of treatment and week were factors; baseline sTST assessment was covariate.||||33.7|8.0|0.002
84650989|NCT03029702|169037453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84650990|NCT03029702|169037454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84650991|NCT03029702|169037455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84679698|NCT00968669|169094800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.6219|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6219
84679699|NCT00968669|169094800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6182|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6182
84679700|NCT00968669|169094801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.712|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7120
84679701|NCT00968669|169094801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.5086|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5086
84505865|NCT01464827|168762555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.61||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Group G|"The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the percentage of treatment-naïve participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs (at the 150 mg ABT-450 dose) and ribavirin for 8 weeks (Group A) versus 12 weeks (Group G).~Logistic regression with baseline log10 HCV RNA level, treatment group, Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), and geographic region (US or non-US) as predictors."||2.61|0.09|0.406
84505866|NCT01464827|168762556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.02||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 12 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.02|0.08|0.266
84650992|NCT03029702|169037456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84650993|NCT03029702|169037457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84650994|NCT03029702|169037458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84650995|NCT03029702|169037459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
84650996|NCT03029702|169037460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84650997|NCT05595382|169037464|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures of likelihood to enroll (on a 1 to 7 scale with higher numbers indicating a greater likelihood) pre/post intervention||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 359)||||||.001
84650998|NCT05595382|169037465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 358)||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing mood (rated on a 1-10 scale with higher scores indicating better mood) given to participants before and after the study manipulation by group||||.357
84650999|NCT05595382|169037466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||||||.102
84651000|NCT03722173|169037479|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|141.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.64|154.71|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the geometric means (gMeans) (T/R) for AUC0-tz and their 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||154.71|129.64|
84651001|NCT03722173|169037480|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|113.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.47|125.32|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for Cmax and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||125.32|102.47|
84651002|NCT03722173|169037481|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|142.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.3|155.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for AUC0-∞ and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||155.93|130.30|
84651003|NCT06624449|169037507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84651004|NCT00257608|169037519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.708||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.580|0.0006
84651005|NCT00257608|169037525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.205|||Log Rank|||||1.205|0.698|0.5341
84651006|NCT01896050|169037526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare difference in change in body mass index between baseline and 12 months between aromatase inhibitor- and tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.03
84651007|NCT01896050|169037526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BMI squared|-0.01845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02308||0.4262|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Examine association between change in body mass index and change in grip strength with aromatase inhibitor therapy. For the primary outcome, linear regression was used for analysis with change of grip strength as response variable. In the original statistical analysis plan only aromatase inhibitor-treated patients were to be included in this analysis. This analysis was not performed on the tamoxifen group because it isn't clinically relevant.||||0.4262
84651008|NCT01896050|169037527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in maximum grip strength between baseline and 12 months for aromatase inhibitor-treated versus tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.032
84651009|NCT01896050|169037528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04||||||Association between baseline body mass index and discontinuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy. The original statistical analysis plan only called for analyzing the aromatase inhibitor-treated patients, not the tamoxifen-treated patients.||1.04|0.92|
84651010|NCT04806503|169037660|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.056|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.056|-0.045|0.817
84651011|NCT04806503|169037660|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.053|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.053|-0.050|0.946
84651012|NCT04806503|169037660|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.029|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.029|-0.077|0.380
84651013|NCT04806503|169037660|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.062|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.062|-0.039|0.667
84651014|NCT04806503|169037661|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.081|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.081|-0.038|0.474
84651015|NCT04806503|169037661|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.086|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.086|-0.036|0.419
84651016|NCT04806503|169037661|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322||0.914||95.0|-0.06|0.067|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.067|-0.060|0.914
84651017|NCT04806503|169037661|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0305||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.094|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.094|-0.026|0.263
84651018|NCT04806503|169037662|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.083|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.083|-0.024|0.284
84651019|NCT04806503|169037662|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.065|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.065|-0.044|0.711
84651020|NCT04806503|169037662|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.06|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.060|-0.051|0.871
84651021|NCT04806503|169037662|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.08|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.080|-0.027|0.329
84651022|NCT04806503|169037663|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|10.847|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||10.847|0.083|0.516
84651023|NCT04806503|169037663|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|16.398|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||16.398|0.367|0.177
84651024|NCT04806503|169037663|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|22.094|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||22.094|0.604|0.079
84651025|NCT04806503|169037663|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|8.381|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||8.381|0.136|0.476
84651026|NCT04806503|169037664|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|3.726|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.726|0.201|0.577
84651027|NCT04806503|169037664|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|2.353|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.353|0.113|0.804
84651028|NCT04806503|169037664|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.602|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.602|0.045|0.850
84651029|NCT04806503|169037664|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|3.08|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.080|0.157|0.684
84651030|NCT04806503|169037665|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.593|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.593|0.089|0.728
84651031|NCT04806503|169037665|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|5.529|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||5.529|0.242|0.428
84651032|NCT04806503|169037665|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA when n = 1.||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression||||||0.000|0.500
84651033|NCT04806503|169037665|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|3.07|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.070|0.026|0.851
84651034|NCT00734474|169037735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategies.|LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
84505867|NCT01464827|168762556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.4||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.40|0.18|0.525
84651035|NCT00734474|169037735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
84651036|NCT00734474|169037735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
84651037|NCT00734474|169037735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
84651038|NCT00734474|169037737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.09||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-1.09|-1.42|<0.001
84651039|NCT00734474|169037737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.88|-1.21|<0.001
84651040|NCT00734474|169037737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.48||Comparison at 26 weeks. One-sided raw p-value with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.001
84505868|NCT01464827|168762556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.92||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + K + L\] : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 12 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||4.92|0.55|0.375
84651041|NCT00734474|169037737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
84651042|NCT00734474|169037737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
84651043|NCT00734474|169037737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
84651044|NCT00734474|169037737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
84651045|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison at 26 weeks.||||-1.51|-2.27|<0.001
84651046|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.1||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.85|<0.001
84651047|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|0.012
84651048|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.13||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.82|<0.001
84651049|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
84505869|NCT01464827|168762557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-12.16||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group B - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.88|-25.20|0.068
84505870|NCT01464827|168762557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.75||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Groups \[C + D + J\] - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.43|-13.93|0.065
84651050|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-1.1||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.93|<0.001
84651051|NCT00734474|169037739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
84651052|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.51||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|40.28||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.28|-3.25|0.095
84651053|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.08||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|38.69||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.69|-4.54|0.121
84651054|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.41||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|37.29||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.29|-6.47|0.167
84651055|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|22.26||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.26|-9.49|0.430
84651056|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.77||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|24.47||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.47|-6.94|0.273
84651057|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.07||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|31.64||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.64|-9.49|0.291
84651058|NCT00734474|169037740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.28||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|41.53||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.53|1.03|0.039
84651059|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.14||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-2.27|<0.001
84651060|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.6||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.73|<0.001
84511990|NCT00840632|168775879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|93.26||||||90.0|83.39|104.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.31|83.39|
84651061|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.54|0.953
84651062|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.92||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-2.08|<0.001
84505871|NCT01464827|168762558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.13||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|1.51||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group E - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs with and without ribavirin was compared using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||1.51|-15.77|0.106
84505872|NCT01464827|168762559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.34||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + H + I\] : Groups \[K + L + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs and ribavirin in treatment-naïve versus null-responders was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose as predictors.||5.34|0.37|0.616
84651063|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.48||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.65|<0.001
84651064|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.49||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.78|<0.001
84651065|NCT00734474|169037742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.01||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.29|0.054
84679702|NCT00968669|169094801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.5184|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5184
84651066|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
84651067|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-1.34|0.133
84651068|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.5||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.01|0.512
84651069|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
84651070|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-1.36|0.128
84651071|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.42||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-2.30|0.005
84651072|NCT00734474|169037744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-1.48|0.256
84679703|NCT00968669|169094802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.837
84679704|NCT00968669|169094802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.756
84651073|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|6.8|<0.001
84651074|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|14.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.3|5.2|<0.001
84651075|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.8|1.8|<0.001
84651076|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.9|2.7|<0.001
84651077|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9|1.8|<0.001
84651078|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.0||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.0|2.4|<0.001
84651079|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.6|<0.001
84651080|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.4|6.5|<0.001
84651081|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.8|2.8|<0.001
84679705|NCT00968669|169094802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.224
84679706|NCT00968669|169094803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.409
84679707|NCT00968669|169094803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.847
84679708|NCT00968669|169094803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.968
84679709|NCT00968669|169094804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.208
84679710|NCT00968669|169094805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.574
84651082|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5 at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.3|0.005
84651083|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
84651084|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
84651085|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.9|3.4|<0.001
84651086|NCT00734474|169037745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.7|1.5|<0.001
84651087|NCT00942448|169037768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||< 0.001
84651088|NCT00942448|169037768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|18.4|0.001
84651089|NCT00942448|169037781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|30.8|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||30.8|17.6|< 0.001
84679711|NCT03836287|169094823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.72|1.47|0.0004
84679712|NCT03836287|169094824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.543||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||||-11.00|-48.42|0.0019
84679713|NCT02255175|169094831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.501, df=33||||||.620
84679714|NCT02255175|169094832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.185, df=33||||||.855
84505873|NCT04604184|168762576|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.39||||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||5.30|-16.08|0.3232
84505874|NCT04604184|168762577|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.86||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||2.82|-22.54|0.1274
84651090|NCT00942448|169037781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||31.7|18.4|<0.001
84651091|NCT03089320|169037782|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|31.68|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||31.68|0.08|
84651092|NCT03089320|169037783|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|18.23|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||18.23|0.17|
84651093|NCT03089320|169037784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effects model||1.34|-9.97|.05
84679715|NCT02255175|169094833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-.310, df=33||||||.758
84679716|NCT02255175|169094834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.653, df=33||||||.518
84651094|NCT00313300|169037792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||5.4|-1.0|
84651095|NCT00313300|169037792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||7.3|0.4|
84651096|NCT00313300|169037793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||||1.19|0.44|
84651097|NCT00313300|169037793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||||||||1.04|0.35|
84651098|NCT00313300|169037794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||11.3|1.8|
84651099|NCT00313300|169037794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|15.2|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||15.2|4.8|
84651100|NCT00313300|169037795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.17||||||||1.17|0.44|
84651101|NCT00313300|169037795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.07||||||||1.07|0.37|
84651102|NCT00313300|169037796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.0|-1.3|
84651103|NCT00313300|169037796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.7|-1.1|
84651104|NCT00313300|169037797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
84651105|NCT00313300|169037797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
84651106|NCT00313300|169037797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
84651107|NCT00313300|169037797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
84651108|NCT00313300|169037798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.1||||||||8.1|0.0|
84679717|NCT02255175|169094835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.465, df=33||||||.645
84679718|NCT02255175|169094836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.56, df=33||||||.015
84679719|NCT02255175|169094837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.705, df=33||||||.486
84679720|NCT02255175|169094838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.216, df=33||||||.831
84679721|NCT02255175|169094839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|F(1,33)=17.91||||||.0002
84679722|NCT01949480|169094841|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.643
84679723|NCT01949480|169094843|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS at rest.||||.077
84679724|NCT01949480|169094843|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS during deep inspiration at 24 hrs.||||0.39
84679725|NCT01949480|169094844|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.605
84679726|NCT01949480|169094845|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is for the Local Anesthetic infused in 24 hrs.||||0.104
84651109|NCT00313300|169037798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.3||||||||9.3|0.0|
84651110|NCT00313300|169037798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.5||||||||10.5|3.4|
84651111|NCT00313300|169037798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0||||||||8.0|1.4|
84651112|NCT00313300|169037799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||||||||14.9|1.8|
84679727|NCT01949480|169094846|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
84505875|NCT04604184|168762578|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.66||||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.43|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||15.43|-10.11|0.6828
84505876|NCT04604184|168762579|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Covariates are treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalization||||0.99|0.46|0.0445
84505877|NCT04604184|168762580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.87|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates|Difference = covariate adjusted BI 764198 - covariate adjusted Placebo|||1.87|-3.47|0.5526
84505878|NCT04604184|168762581|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.32||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|11.65|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 15||11.65|-1.01|0.0995
84651113|NCT00313300|169037799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|18.4||||||||18.4|3.4|
84651114|NCT00313300|169037799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.2||||||||23.2|11.6|
84651115|NCT00313300|169037799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.1||||||||15.1|5.6|
84651116|NCT00313300|169037800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
84651117|NCT00313300|169037800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
84651118|NCT00313300|169037800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
84651119|NCT00313300|169037800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
84651120|NCT00313300|169037801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|-0.9|
84651121|NCT00313300|169037801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1||||||||5.1|0.6|
84651122|NCT00313300|169037801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||||||||6.9|1.3|
84651123|NCT01973569|169037817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||The hierarchical testing procedure was applied for multiple comparisons of the primary endpoint. First, comparison between AMG 162 60mg Q3M vs placebo is tested. Only if it is rejected, comparison of AMG 162 60mg Q6M vs placebo is formally tested.|van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0235
84651124|NCT01973569|169037818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0360
84651125|NCT01973569|169037819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1323|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.1323
84651126|NCT01973569|169037820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0448
84651127|NCT01973569|169037821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0104
84651128|NCT01973569|169037822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.2570
84651129|NCT01973569|169037823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|5.63|||Regression, Cox|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline (BL) value, machine type, BL value-by-machine type interaction, and BL use of glucocorticoid was used.||||5.63|4.41|<0.0001
84651130|NCT05027464|169037825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.759||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was P \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Patient demographics were fixed effects, and randomization units with clinics nested within randomization units were random effects.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Generalized linear mixed model to account for patient demographics and hierarchical levels for clinics nested within VAHCS. Null hypothesis is that both arms perform equivalently in vaccine uptake after a year. Power was based on recruited VAHCSs and at least 1,000 Veterans per clinic. Using two-sided 0.05 type I error rate, 5-20% outcome rate in UC, we have 90% power to detect between a 9.6% and 14.6% difference with a total sample size of 90,000 to 100,000.||1.759|0.888|0.202
84679728|NCT01949480|169094847|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
84679729|NCT01949480|169094848|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
84679730|NCT01949480|169094849|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.574
84505879|NCT04604184|168762581|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|15.31|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 29||15.31|-3.19|0.1992
84651131|NCT05027464|169037825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.738|0.867|0.247
84651132|NCT05027464|169037825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|2.334|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis; same model and null hypothesis but reassigning small clinics to their parent VAHCS facility, small meaning \< 100 participants. This data set uses the primary analysis data set with the primary visit constraint.||2.334|0.684|0.455
84505880|NCT04604184|168762581|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 60||18.62|-0.76|0.0709
84651133|NCT05027464|169037825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|2.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||2.075|0.765|0.364
84651134|NCT05027464|169037825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.268||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.778|||Regression, Logistic|||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.778|0.904|0.168
84651135|NCT05027464|169037826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.535||P \< 0.05 and no multiple comparison adjustment|Regression, Logistic|We adjusted for patient demographics as fixed effects and randomization units and associated clinics as a three-level random effect.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Power calculation is similar to the calculation for the primary outcome. Null hypothesis is described in the outcome comparison related to this statistical analysis plan.||1.535|0.643|.976
84651136|NCT05027464|169037826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.361|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.361|0.702|0.893
84651137|NCT05027464|169037826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||1.507|0.613|0.863
84651138|NCT05027464|169037826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.607|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.607|0.636|0.963
84651139|NCT05027464|169037827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.781||Threshold: P \< 0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed modeling adjusted for baseline covariates and hierarchical levels for randomization units and clinics within them.|Odds ratio in favor of intervention arm (MI) has values higher than 1.|No power calculation for this exploratory outcome. Null hypothesis is that both arms will have equal uptake rates of the COVID-19 Booster vaccination during the study period.||1.781|0.796|0.395
84651140|NCT05027464|169037828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.311||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the p-value threshold was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline covariates and flu vaccine in prior year, with hierarchical random effects for ran. unit/site|Odds ratio in favor of novel intervention arm has values higher than 1|Null hypothesis is that both study arms will have equal rates of flu vaccination uptake during the study period. No power calculation since this outcome is exploratory.||1.311|0.97|0.119
84505881|NCT04604184|168762581|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.35||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|20.28|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 90||20.28|0.41|0.0412
84651141|NCT04066647|169037835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93928821||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 tailed, unpaired t test with Bonferroni correction||||||0.9
84651142|NCT02651467|169037836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the Placebo Control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.584|-1.181|<0.0001
84505882|NCT01625377|168762600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-21.34|<0.0001
84505883|NCT03513497|168762613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84651143|NCT02651467|169037836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.738||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.738|-1.333|<0.0001
84651144|NCT02651467|169037837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2478||95.0|-0.107|0.413||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.413|-0.107|0.2478
84651145|NCT00333801|169037843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84505884|NCT03513497|168762614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84651146|NCT00333801|169037844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84651147|NCT00333801|169037845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84651148|NCT03633617|169037850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.58|71.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||71.04|39.58|<0.0001
84651149|NCT03633617|169037850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.44|68.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||68.54|43.44|<0.0001
84651150|NCT03633617|169037850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|65.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||65.79|41.20|<0.0001
84651151|NCT03633617|169037851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.32||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.107|-5.537|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.537|-19.107|0.0004
84651152|NCT03633617|169037851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.423|4.406|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||4.406|-5.423|0.8393
84651153|NCT03633617|169037851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.811|-5.022|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.022|-14.811|<0.0001
84505885|NCT03513497|168762615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84505886|NCT03513497|168762616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84511991|NCT00840632|168775880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.35||||||90.0|92.08|109.36|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.36|92.08|
84651154|NCT03633617|169037852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.896|-49.615|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-49.615|-86.896|<0.0001
84651155|NCT03633617|169037852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.098|-55.338|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-55.338|-103.098|<0.0001
84651156|NCT03633617|169037852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.194|-65.046|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-65.046|-112.194|<0.0001
84651157|NCT03633617|169037853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.222|-17.745|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-17.745|-57.222|0.0002
84651158|NCT03633617|169037853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.35||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.734|9.038|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||9.038|-17.734|0.5243
84651159|NCT03633617|169037853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.272|-9.513|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-9.513|-36.272|0.0008
84651160|NCT03633617|169037854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.759|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9061|-0.6127|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.6127|-0.9061|<0.0001
84651161|NCT03633617|169037854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.666|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7773|-0.5538|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5538|-0.7773|<0.0001
84651162|NCT03633617|169037854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.682|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7929|-0.5707|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5707|-0.7929|<0.0001
84651163|NCT03633617|169037855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8842|-0.5978|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5978|-0.8842|<0.0001
84651164|NCT03633617|169037855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7674|-0.554|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5540|-0.7674|<0.0001
84651165|NCT03633617|169037855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7778|-0.5655|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5655|-0.7778|<0.0001
84651166|NCT03633617|169037856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
84651167|NCT03633617|169037856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-3.02|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-3.02|-4.86|<0.0001
84651168|NCT03633617|169037856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.93|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-2.93|-4.77|<0.0001
84651169|NCT03633617|169037857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.69|73.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||73.33|41.69|<0.0001
84651170|NCT03633617|169037857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|83.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||83.70|61.05|<0.0001
84651171|NCT03633617|169037857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.25|85.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||85.50|64.25|<0.0001
84651172|NCT03633617|169037858|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.73|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.7300|-2.7200|<0.0001
84651173|NCT03633617|169037858|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.11|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1100|-2.4200|<0.0001
84651174|NCT03633617|169037858|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.15|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1500|-2.4400|<0.0001
84651175|NCT03633617|169037859|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.27|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.2700|-1.7400|<0.0001
84651176|NCT03633617|169037859|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.05|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0500|-1.7300|<0.0001
84651177|NCT03633617|169037859|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.07|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0700|-1.8200|<0.0001
84651178|NCT03633617|169037860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|21.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||34.38|9.42|0.0017
84651179|NCT03633617|169037860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||38.09|17.20|<0.0001
84651180|NCT03633617|169037860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|39.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||39.46|18.36|<0.0001
84651181|NCT03633617|169037861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.368||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6388|-0.0975|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs Placebo|||-0.0975|-0.6388|0.0077
84651182|NCT03633617|169037861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1782|0.1485|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.1485|-0.1782|0.8586
84651183|NCT03633617|169037861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|-0.1471|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.1471|-0.4703|0.0002
84651184|NCT03633617|169037862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.03|-3.87|0.0467
84651185|NCT03633617|169037862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5469||95.0|-2.03|1.08|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||1.08|-2.03|0.5469
84651186|NCT03633617|169037862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.13|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.13|-3.0|0.0718
84651187|NCT03633617|169037863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.52|-2.93|0.0051
84651188|NCT03633617|169037863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.44|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.44|-1.38|0.3152
84651189|NCT03633617|169037863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.45|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.45|-2.30|0.0037
84651190|NCT03633617|169037864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-2.26|-23.21|0.0170
84651191|NCT03633617|169037864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.3||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||2.93|-5.51|0.5493
84651192|NCT03633617|169037864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||5.02|-4.9|0.9887
84679731|NCT01949480|169094850|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.913
84651193|NCT00580970|169037885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9138||||||Considering all late rectal toxicities, 38% (20/53) of participants developed physician reported Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity during 2 year follow up. The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A one sided t-test, with 5% level of significance, and 83% power was used which required 53 subjects.||||||0.9138
84511992|NCT00840632|168775881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.17||||||90.0|92.71|106.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.08|92.71|
84651194|NCT03161093|169037886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.028|-0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.324|-1.028|0.0002
84651195|NCT03161093|169037887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|-0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.346|-1.046|<0.0001
84651196|NCT03161093|169037888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.401|-0.594|0.7036
84651197|NCT03161093|169037889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.297|-0.657|0.4605
84679732|NCT01949480|169094851|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.783
84714217|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|14.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.35|-21.66|0.688
84511993|NCT00840632|168775882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.93||||||90.0|99.8|106.15|||||Informational Purposes Only|||106.15|99.80|
84511994|NCT00840632|168775883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.24||||||90.0|98.11|102.43|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.43|98.11|
84714218|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|34.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||34.03|-1.88|0.079
84714219|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|26.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||26.96|-8.96|0.323
84714220|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|27.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||27.85|-5.39|0.183
84714221|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|14.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.02|-19.24|0.756
84714222|NCT04802967|169174135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|20.59|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||20.59|-12.68|0.638
84714223|NCT04636528|169174155|EQUIVALENCE|A minimal detectable difference of 11.2 points was selected based on the psychometric properties of the scale. Considering a power of 80%, a 2-sided 0.05 significance level, and a 10% dropout rate, 82 patients would be necessary to detect an 11.2-point difference between the 2 groups.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||9.8|-13.5|0.75
84714224|NCT04636528|169174155|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.16||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.32|0.71
84714225|NCT04636528|169174156|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.2|-1.4|0.12
84714226|NCT04636528|169174157|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|30.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|||||30.2|-34.6|0.89
84714227|NCT04636528|169174158|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.5|-1.0|0.51
84714228|NCT04636528|169174159|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84714229|NCT04636528|169174160|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.6|-1.5|<.001
84714230|NCT04636528|169174161|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.5|-1.4|<.001
84714231|NCT04636528|169174162|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|A robust method on the medians.||||0.4|-1.3|.27
84714232|NCT04636528|169174163|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|11.8||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84714233|NCT04636528|169174164|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714234|NCT04636528|169174165|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84714235|NCT04636528|169174166|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714236|NCT01073566|169174173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Pre-study power calculations determined that 28 completed subjects provided 90% power to detect equivalence for the primary endpoint of MDBG of bolus-patch compared to pen/syringe using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, when the margin of equivalence for MDBG is 1.11 mmol/L, the true mean difference is 0.0, and the standard deviation of the differences is 1.72 mmol/L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device.|A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||0.16|-0.97|0.098
84714237|NCT01073566|169174174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device|This was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at 95%, 2-sided. A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||-0.17|-0.80|0.004
84714238|NCT01073566|169174175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Higher number is better. The answers were scored on a scale of 0-100 to standardize as described in the original papers.||||<0.001
84714239|NCT01389856|169174177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84714240|NCT01389856|169174178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3407
84714241|NCT01389856|169174179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2399
84714242|NCT01389856|169174181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84714243|NCT01389856|169174182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2235
84651198|NCT00570765|169037935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||Hierarchical testing strategy was proposed to account for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was evaluated as follows: if statistical significance at alpha=0.05 is shown for the 10 mg OCA versus placebo, then the statistical significance at alpha=0.05 for the 50 mg OCA versus placebo was evaluated. If no statistical significance was shown at alpha=0.05 at the first step, then the subsequent comparison was not considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84651199|NCT00570765|169037936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84651200|NCT00570765|169037937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tx arms will be compared using the 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, at 5% significance level. Tx groups will be pairwise compared vs. placebo.||||||<0.01
84651201|NCT03711266|169037953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|44.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Thirty patients were included in the final analysis. The analysis strategy was intent-to-treat, and multiple imputation was used to impute missing follow-up data. We included auxiliary variables that were correlated with the missing variables at r \> 0.4 (Enders, 2010).||44.3|18.5|<.001
84651202|NCT00057876|169037985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test is conducted for OS to see whether the two treatment arms are different in their overall survival probabilities.||||0.017
84651203|NCT00057876|169037986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
84651204|NCT00057876|169037987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate (CR+PR) between two treatment groups||||0.99
84651205|NCT02758171|169037992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.818|103.644|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.644|99.818|<0.0001
84651206|NCT02758171|169037993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|99.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|103.672|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.672|95.290|<0.0001
84651207|NCT02758171|169037994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|102.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.945|106.91|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.910|97.945|<0.0001
84651208|NCT02758171|169037995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|107.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.4||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.561|117.282|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||117.282|98.561|0.0027
84651209|NCT02758171|169037996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.574|103.336|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.336|99.574|
84714244|NCT01389856|169174183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1468
84714245|NCT01389856|169174184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0789
84714246|NCT01389856|169174185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3723
84714247|NCT01389856|169174186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0569
84714248|NCT01389856|169174187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1015
84714249|NCT01389856|169174188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0824
84714250|NCT01389856|169174189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3863
84651210|NCT02758171|169037997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|98.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.456|103.082|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.082|93.456|
84651211|NCT02437383|169038010|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.6||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates for site, baseline value, sex, race, treatment, visit, a treatment\*visit interaction, and an unstructured covariance structure.||||2.6|-6.2|0.414
84651212|NCT02787551|169038073|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, world region as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Analysis included all scheduled measurements obtained during 26-week randomized treatment period, including those obtained after IMP discontinuation/introduction of rescue medication.||-0.508|-0.770|<0.0001
84651213|NCT02787551|169038075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.11|43.99||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonist. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method method stratified on randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), and randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype at screening. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order (only HbA1c \< 7% was part of testing).||43.99|28.11|<.0001
84651214|NCT02787551|169038077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.341||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and and baseline FPG value-by visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-1.341|-2.001|<0.0001
84651215|NCT02787551|169038079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-0.708||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-0.708|-1.325|<0.0001
84651216|NCT02787551|169038081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.279||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-2.279|-3.420|<0.0001
84714251|NCT01389856|169174190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3936
84714252|NCT01389856|169174191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2436
84714253|NCT01389856|169174192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1756
84714254|NCT01389856|169174193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1155
84714255|NCT01389856|169174194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1400
84714256|NCT05337306|169174218|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA controlling for study arm and baseline||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|covariates include arm and baseline level of outcome||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for those lost to follow up; null hypothesis group 1 follow-up outcome = group 2 follow-up outcome.||||.049
84714257|NCT05337306|169174219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for lost to follow-up||||.040
84714258|NCT05337306|169174220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for dropout/lost to follow up||||.220
84714259|NCT03031470|169174253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.688
84714260|NCT03031470|169174254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.700
84714261|NCT03031470|169174255|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Treatment groups were compared for frequency of allograft nonfunction using Fisher exact test||||||>0.999
84714262|NCT03031470|169174256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
84714263|NCT03031470|169174257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
84714264|NCT03031470|169174259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for degree of allograft steatosis using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.574
84651217|NCT02787551|169038083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.468|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-0.508|-1.468|<0.0001
84651218|NCT00620464|169038091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||90.0||||Applies to all parameters.|Bioequivalence Testing|||||||0.05
84651219|NCT00620464|169038092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.05||95.0|||||Bioequivalence Testing|||||||<=0.05
84651220|NCT02038452|169038093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
84651221|NCT02038452|169038094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.17|-0.53|<0.001
84651222|NCT02038452|169038095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.09|-0.43|0.003
84511995|NCT00840632|168775884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.1||||||90.0|98.12|102.12|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.12|98.12|
84651223|NCT02038452|169038096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.30|-1.64|0.005
84651224|NCT02038452|169038097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.87|0.22|0.018
84651225|NCT02038452|169038100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.23|-0.11|0.500
84651226|NCT02038452|169038101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.33|-0.07|0.21
84651227|NCT02038452|169038102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.166|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.166|-0.175|0.96
84651228|NCT02038452|169038103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||1.59|-0.02|0.055
84651229|NCT02038452|169038104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||2.20|0.55|0.76
84651230|NCT02038452|169038105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.77|0.73|0.23
84651231|NCT02038452|169038106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.98|0.41|0.66
84651232|NCT02038452|169038107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||7.34|0.28|0.66
84714265|NCT03031470|169174260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of cold ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.843
84714266|NCT03031470|169174261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of earm ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.701
84714267|NCT03031470|169174271|SUPERIORITY|"General survival and graft survival (graft loss will be qualified as an event for graft survival) within 1 year were presented with Kaplan-Mayer curves and survival time median with 95% CI. Treatment groups will be compared using logrank test."||||||0.416|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.416
84714268|NCT03461276|169174275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)."||||<0.0001
84714269|NCT03461276|169174275|SUPERIORITY|Additional test|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84505887|NCT01412541|168762626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The evaluable sample size required for 90% power is 150 (50 Control plus 100 Test). This endpoint is not the sample-size driver of the study. Randomization of 476 subjects is expected to provide at least 405 evaluable subjects, after adjustment for up to 15% censoring) and approximately 99% power.||||||0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||"To assess if proportion of subjects with at least one safety event\* in the Test group is inferior or not inferior to that of Control group through 12-months Post index procedure (PPI) H0: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically inferior to that of the Control group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically non-inferior to that of the Control group."||||0.025
84651233|NCT02038452|169038108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.18|0.63|0.40
84651234|NCT02038452|169038109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||5.66|0.70|0.20
84651235|NCT02038452|169038110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.53|0.001
84651236|NCT02038452|169038111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.17|0.74
84651237|NCT02038452|169038112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
84651238|NCT02038452|169038113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.16|0.58
84651239|NCT02038452|169038114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.72|0.009
84651240|NCT02038452|169038115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.54||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.02|0.058
84651241|NCT02038452|169038116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.85||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-0.79|0.95
84651242|NCT02038452|169038117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.26||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.45|0.35
84651243|NCT02038452|169038118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
84651244|NCT02038452|169038119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.21|-0.59|<0.001
84651245|NCT02038452|169038120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.08|-0.44|0.005
84651246|NCT02038452|169038121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.38|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.38|-1.72|0.002
84651247|NCT02038452|169038122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.17|0.006
84651248|NCT02038452|169038123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.24|-0.13|0.58
84651249|NCT02038452|169038124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.09|0.25
84651250|NCT02038452|169038125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.18|-0.17|0.93
84651251|NCT02038452|169038126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.61|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.61|-0.01|0.052
84651252|NCT02038452|169038127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.88|0.58|0.53
84651253|NCT02038452|169038128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.34|0.61|0.41
84651254|NCT02038452|169038130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.06|0.57|0.52
84651255|NCT02038452|169038131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||5.78|0.72|0.18
84651256|NCT02038452|169038132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
84651257|NCT02038452|169038133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
84651258|NCT02038452|169038134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
84651259|NCT02038452|169038135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.48|-1.85|0.001
84651260|NCT02038452|169038136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.16|0.007
84651261|NCT02038452|169038137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.25|-0.15|0.63
84651262|NCT02038452|169038138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.10|0.28
84651263|NCT02038452|169038139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.20|-0.18|0.900
84651264|NCT02038452|169038140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.59|-0.11|0.09
84651265|NCT02038452|169038141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.85|0.56|0.58
84651266|NCT02038452|169038142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.01|0.57|0.52
84651267|NCT02038452|169038144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.95|0.53|0.61
84679733|NCT00298233|169094872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|conditional univariate logistic regressi|analysis stratified by study site||Based on previous studies, assumption was made that 30% of children and 55% of adults treated with standard dose oseltamivir would test negative for virus on day five. This would require a sample size of 242 patients to show a 20% absolute improvement in cessation of viral shedding with 85% power and a two sided α of 0.05. To allow for study withdrawals, the target sample size was set at 300 patients.||||0.42
84651268|NCT02038452|169038145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||6.58|0.77|0.14
84651269|NCT02038452|169038146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.12|-0.93|0.014
84651270|NCT02038452|169038147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.26|-0.50|0.53
84651271|NCT02038452|169038148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.05|-0.44|0.015
84651272|NCT02038452|169038149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.23|-0.97|0.002
84651273|NCT02038452|169038150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.16|-0.60|0.25
84651274|NCT02038452|169038151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.57|145.59|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups performed on multiply imputed data||||145.59|-94.57|
84651275|NCT02038452|169038152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.84|187.31|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups on complete data.||||187.31|-104.84|
84651276|NCT02038452|169038153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|279.21|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||279.21|-37.09|
84651277|NCT02038452|169038154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.84|291.24|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||291.24|-120.84|
84651278|NCT02038452|169038155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.01|
84651279|NCT02038452|169038156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.027|||Regression, Linear|||||0.027|-0.034|
84651280|NCT02038452|169038157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.045|||Regression, Linear|||||0.045|-0.093|
84651281|NCT02337738|169038164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.364|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-0.364|-1.320|0.0006
84651282|NCT02337738|169038164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.122|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 0.5mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 0.5mg - Placebo).|||-0.122|-1.070|0.0140
84651283|NCT03911154|169038175|OTHER|We used linear mixed effect models (in SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with random subject intercept to account for the clustered nature of the data. The model included factors for stimulus modality (4 levels), sleep restriction night (4 levels), and their interaction.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention were averaged across assessments within each day and the statistical analysis adjusted for baseline.||1.060|-0.403|0.36
84651284|NCT03911154|169038175|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention upon emergent awakening||0.608|-1.222|0.49
84651285|NCT03911154|169038176|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.797||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.310|-5.400|0.87
84651286|NCT03911154|169038177|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|1.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DSST was averaged across DSST administrations within each day and was adjusted for baseline performance.||1.543|-1.767|0.89
84651287|NCT03911154|169038178|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DST was averaged across DST administrations within each day and adjusted for baseline.||0.678|-0.919|0.76
84651288|NCT03911154|169038179|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mean weighted score on the ROBoT was adjusted for baseline.||0.456|-0.286|0.64
84651289|NCT00406354|169038180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.5|-5.0|<.001
84651290|NCT00406354|169038181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-3.8|-11.0|<.001
84679734|NCT00298233|169094873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.54
84651291|NCT00406354|169038182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.8|-5.3|<.001
84651292|NCT00406354|169038183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-2.0|-5.8|<.001
84651293|NCT00406354|169038184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.2|-0.6|<.001
84651294|NCT00406354|169038185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
84651295|NCT00406354|169038186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.9|-6.2|0.010
84679735|NCT00298233|169094874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel chi-square stratified by study site||||||0.54
84651296|NCT00406354|169038187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-3.2|0.010
84651297|NCT00406354|169038188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||2.0|-4.9|0.406
84651298|NCT00406354|169038189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
84651299|NCT00406354|169038190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
84651300|NCT00406354|169038191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
84651301|NCT00406354|169038192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.3||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||9.3|0.8|0.021
84651302|NCT00406354|169038193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.4|-13.8|0.017
84651303|NCT00406354|169038194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||10.9|-0.0|0.050
84651304|NCT00406354|169038195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||16.4|4.9|<.001
84651305|NCT00406354|169038196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.6|1.6|0.015
84651306|NCT00406354|169038197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive results are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.7|1.4|0.018
84651307|NCT00406354|169038198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||11.5|-1.6|0.138
84651308|NCT00406354|169038199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.193||||0.016||95.0|1.16|4.146||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Log Rank|||||4.146|1.160|0.016
84679736|NCT00298233|169094875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
84679737|NCT00298233|169094876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
84679738|NCT00298233|169094877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
84679739|NCT04773015|169094894|OTHER|||||||0.6371|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6371
84679740|NCT04773015|169094895|OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1448
84679741|NCT04773015|169094896|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1507
84679742|NCT04773015|169094897|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1189
84714270|NCT03461276|169174275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.34|||ANCOVA|||The average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal between the two treatment groups was compared using an ANCOVA model, using the MΔ anti-Aβ40 antibody signal as the dependent variable, baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) as covariate and treatment group and amyloid positivity as fixed effects.||3.34|2.96|<0.0001
84714271|NCT03461276|169174275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|t-test (sensitivity hypothesis). A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"1-sided t-test to compare the ABvac40 and placebo groups.~The primary analysis (t-test) was repeated, using the mITT Analysis Set to test the hypothesis:~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) ≤ 1.778~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) \> 1.778 The alternative hypothesis was confirmed."||||<0.0001
84714272|NCT03461276|169174275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The change in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal from baseline to each post-baseline efficacy visit was analyzed using a Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM), using the mITT Analysis Set.~Dependent variable: change from baseline in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal. Fixed effects: treatment, protocol-specified visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and amyloid positivity. Covariates: baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal and baseline age; Repeated measure: measures within-patient at each visit."||||<0.05
84714273|NCT03461276|169174282|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||<0.001
84714274|NCT03461276|169174282|OTHER||||||=|0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.047
84651309|NCT00406354|169038200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the initial three weeks of study treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
84651310|NCT00406354|169038201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the nine-week study treatment period.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.101
84651311|NCT01224665|169038203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we specified a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Log Rank|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|3-year DFS estimates of 55% among participants undergoing SLND and 65% undergoing ELND were used to estimate the target HR. Assuming exponential DFS distribution, 5 years of enrollment, 3 years of follow-up, and 564 eligible participants, the trial would have 85% power to detect a 28% lower risk of recurrence or death with ELND than SLND.||1.40|0.86|0.45
84651312|NCT01224665|169038204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||||Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|We assumed that the standard lymphadenectomy arm has 5-year survival of 55%, so we had 83% statistical power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.72 (55% vs. 65% survival at 5 years).||1.45|0.88|
84651313|NCT02080637|169038213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline versus 2 hours post-ambrisentan||||0.01
84651314|NCT02080637|169038214|OTHER||Slope|-27.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-775.0|723.0|||Regression, Linear|||||723|-775|0.94
84651315|NCT02080637|169038215|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.3|||Regression, Linear|||||6.3|-3.9|0.61
84651316|NCT01278160|169038241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-0.24|0.22|||ANCOVA|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||The null hypothesis is H0: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) = 0 against the alternative hypothesis HA: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) ≠ 0. This trial is an extension to BIAsp-3756 (NCT01123980), hence no particular sample size calculation was made.||0.22|-0.24|
84651317|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.2||||0.2569||95.0|-0.15|0.56||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.56|-0.15|0.2569
84651318|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.09||||0.812||95.0|-0.63|0.8||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.80|-0.63|0.8120
84651319|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.35||||0.2843||95.0|-0.29|0.99||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.99|-0.29|0.2843
84651320|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.4614||95.0|-0.5|1.11||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.11|-0.50|0.4614
84651321|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.44||||0.1591||95.0|-0.17|1.04||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.04|-0.17|0.1591
84714275|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||=|0.9936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9936
84714276|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||=|0.0391||||||MMRM - Week 6A|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0391
84714277|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||< 0.0001
84714278|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||< 0.0001
84714279|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
84714280|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
84714281|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||=|0.0299|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0299
84651322|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.03||||0.9327||95.0|-0.63|0.69||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.69|-0.63|0.9327
84651323|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.25||||0.4063||95.0|-0.84|0.34||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is bedtime profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.34|-0.84|0.4063
84651324|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.2198||95.0|-0.18|0.79||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is 2.00 - 4.00 a.m. profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.79|-0.18|0.2198
84651325|NCT01278160|169038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.04||||0.8424||95.0|-0.47|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast the following day profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.38|-0.47|0.8424
84651326|NCT01278160|169038243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7312||95.0|0.36|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below 7% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||2.06|0.36|0.7312
84651327|NCT01278160|169038244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1257||95.0|0.05|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate|The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.44|0.05|0.1257
84651328|NCT01278160|169038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.72||||0.1911||95.0|0.43|1.18|||Negative binomial regression model||For all episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.18|0.43|0.1911
84651329|NCT01278160|169038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.61||||0.2949||95.0|0.66|3.92|||Negative binomial regression model||For nocturnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||3.92|0.66|0.2949
84651330|NCT01278160|169038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077||95.0|0.38|1.05|||Negative binomial regression model||For diurnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.05|0.38|0.0770
84651331|NCT01278160|169038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.1687||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression model||For minor episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.27|0.25|0.1687
84651332|NCT00932737|169038254|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||-0.1|-1.3|0.0156
84714282|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
84714283|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
84714284|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER||||||=|0.1267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1267
84714285|NCT03461276|169174283|OTHER|MMRM - Week 104A|||||=|0.2477|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.2477
84714286|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.2151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.2151
84714287|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0169
84714288|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.0008
84714289|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0002
84714290|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
84714291|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0023
84651333|NCT00932737|169038255|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||0.0|-1.2|0.0512
84651334|NCT00932737|169038256|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.0|-1.3|0.0351
84651335|NCT00932737|169038257|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide and Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.3557
84651336|NCT00932737|169038258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.004|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.004|0.572|0.831
84651337|NCT00932737|169038259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.387|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.387|0.626|0.557
84651338|NCT00932737|169038260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||1.490|0.365|0.396
84651339|NCT00932737|169038261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.336||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.827|0.632|0.448
84651340|NCT00932737|169038262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|5.604|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||5.604|1.093|0.030
84651341|NCT00932737|169038263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.378|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||3.378|0.810|0.167
84651342|NCT00932737|169038264|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.2560
84651343|NCT00932737|169038265|OTHER|||||||0.5179|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.5179
84651344|NCT02718300|169038278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4046|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4046
84651345|NCT02718300|169038280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7802|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.7802
84651346|NCT02718300|169038282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6856|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.6856
84651347|NCT02718300|169038284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3385|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3385
84651348|NCT02718300|169038286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by Easter Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4005
84651349|NCT02718300|169038288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3138
84651350|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.3577
84651351|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.388|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.388|0.791|
84651352|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.435|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.435|0.936|
84651353|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1709
84651354|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.281|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.281|0.780|
84651355|NCT02718300|169038294|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.448|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.448|0.955|
84651356|NCT02718300|169038295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.6693
84651357|NCT02718300|169038295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.1521
84651358|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.0809
84651359|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.994|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||0.994|0.342|
84679743|NCT03325712|169094936|OTHER||Slope|0.8188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0725|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6966|0.941|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9410|0.6966|
84679744|NCT03325712|169094937|OTHER||Slope|0.7708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6449|0.8967|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.8967|0.6449|
84714292|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0021
84651360|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.477|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.477|0.658|
84651361|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1525|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1525
84651362|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.867|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.867|0.604|
84651363|NCT02718300|169038296|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.414|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||2.414|0.937|
84651364|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2873|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2873
84651365|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.336|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.336|0.773|
84651366|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.429|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.429|0.943|
84651367|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1601|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1601
84651368|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.274|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.274|0.773|
84651369|NCT02718300|169038297|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.452|0.955|
84651370|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.0830
84651371|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.753|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.753|0.846|
84651372|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.399|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.399|0.654|
84651373|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.354|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.354|0.656|
84651374|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.298|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.298|0.579|
84651375|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.2402
84651376|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.069|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.069|0.461|
84651377|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.073|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.073|0.456|
84651378|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.951|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.951|0.428|
84651379|NCT02718300|169038301|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.99|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.990|0.397|
84651380|NCT02718300|169038302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 1||||0.0756
84651381|NCT02718300|169038302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0866|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.0866
84651382|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4287|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.4287
84651383|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.914|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.914|0.329|
84651384|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|4.251|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.251|0.252|
84651385|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.731|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.731|0.180|
84651386|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|2.348|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.348|0.118|
84651387|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.9788
84651388|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|3.896|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.896|0.198|
84651389|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.56|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||5.560|0.270|
84651390|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|3.821|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.821|0.221|
84651391|NCT02718300|169038303|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|4.299|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||4.299|0.169|
84651392|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.1208
84651393|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.879|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.879|0.832|
84651394|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.518|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.518|0.649|
84651395|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.45|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.450|0.645|
84651396|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.35|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.350|0.548|
84651397|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3218|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.3218
84651398|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.2|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.200|0.482|
84651399|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.277|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.277|0.506|
84714293|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0007
84651400|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.028|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.028|0.432|
84651401|NCT02718300|169038304|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.051|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.051|0.390|
84651402|NCT03673046|169038308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2532|-6.9978||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-eeek waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BDD-YBOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-6.9978|-13.2532|<.0001
84651403|NCT03673046|169038309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0346||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3275|-1.2022||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in QIDS-SR total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-1.2022|-5.3275|0.0023
84651404|NCT03673046|169038310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0698|-2.6126||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BABS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.6126|-7.0698|<.0001
84651405|NCT03673046|169038311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2237|-2.5458||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in SDS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.5458|-9.2237|.0008
84651406|NCT03673046|169038312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4553||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|18.6428||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LESQ-SF total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||18.6428|4.8630|.0011
84651407|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.24|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||12.24|2.50|
84679745|NCT03325712|169094938|OTHER||Slope|0.7167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4922|0.9412|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9412|0.4922|
84651408|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||70.76|0.00|
84651409|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|11.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||11.94|2.44|
84651410|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.94|1.44|
84651411|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||70.76|0.00|
84651412|NCT03693300|169038321|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.69|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.69|1.40|
84651413|NCT03894046|169038339|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than +20%.~Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than 0."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|3.5||||||The non-inferiority assessment was based on the 2-sided 95% CIs computed using a continuity-corrected Z-statistic for the difference (\[sulbactam-durlobactam + imipenem/cilastatin\] - \[colistin + imipenem/cilastatin\]) in 28-day all-cause mortality rates between the treatment groups.||3.5|-30|
84679746|NCT03325712|169094939|OTHER||Slope|0.6825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4556|0.9094|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9094|0.4556|
84714294|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.0012
84714295|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.0018
84651414|NCT03894046|169038340|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was obtained based on a Chi-Square test for treatment group differences.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of patients with nephrotoxicity as measured by RIFLE criteria at any post-baseline visit based on the Investigator's opinion for the Safety Population for Part A, excluding patients with chronic hemodialysis at baseline baseline.||||0.0002
84651415|NCT02160990|169038367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84651416|NCT02160990|169038368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84651417|NCT02160990|169038369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84651418|NCT04195906|169038374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.877|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.46|3.0||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline BWAT-CUA score and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM=Mixed model for repeated measures Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||3.00|-2.46|0.877
84651419|NCT04195906|169038375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.146|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-4.8|27.78||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||27.78|-4.80|0.146
84651420|NCT04195906|169038376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.706|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.38|0.56||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||0.56|-0.38|0.706
84679747|NCT03325712|169094940|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.18|121.25||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||121.25|87.18|
84651421|NCT04195906|169038377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.995|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.27|5.24||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||5.24|-5.27|0.995
84679748|NCT03325712|169094940|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|93.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.94|108.32||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||108.32|79.94|
84679749|NCT03325712|169094940|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.59|116.42||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||116.42|103.59|
84679750|NCT03325712|169094940|OTHER||Ratio ( T/R)|108.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|127.66||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||127.66|92.00|
84679751|NCT03325712|169094940|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.43|128.79||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||128.79|92.43|
84714296|NCT03461276|169174284|OTHER||||||=|0.738|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.738
84651422|NCT04195906|169038378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.09||This model includes the stratification factor sodium thiosulfate use at baseline and the treatment as covariates|Regression, Logistic|As there is only a measure post-baseline, a logistic regression model was run instead of a generalized estimating equations model.|The odds ratio displayed is the odds ratio of having an improved result of SNF472 versus Placebo. The results 'Worsened', 'Equal', and 'Missing' are combined in one category and it is the reference for the odds ratio calculation.|||4.09|0.58|0.384
84714297|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.7623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.7623
84651423|NCT04195906|169038379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes between arms|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.93||MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, continuous variables maintenance opioid dose, Week (1 to 12) and Week by randomized treatment interaction. The random coefficients are the intercept and Week as a continuous variable.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used||||1.93|-0.79|0.406
84651424|NCT04612790|169038509|OTHER||Difference in percentage of responders|6.7||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.29|||Logistic regression model with Firth adj|||Estimates were from a logistic regression model using the Firth adjustment (adj) that included treatment group, baseline disease severity (moderate, severe) and time of BP diagnosis (participants with newly diagnosed BP, participants with a previous diagnosis of BP who have relapsed) as categorical covariates.||24.29|-10.90|0.509
84651425|NCT03053271|169038515|OTHER|No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||||||||||||||||No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||
84651426|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||||||Serotype 1: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.74|
84651427|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 3: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.70|
84651428|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.91||||||Serotype 4: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.91|0.55|
84651429|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 5: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.78|
84679752|NCT03325712|169094941|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.99|119.31||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||119.31|83.99|
84679753|NCT03325712|169094941|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|84.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.29|98.62||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||98.62|72.29|
84505888|NCT01412541|168762627|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test at α=0.05. The response variable in each subject will be the presence or absence of at least one efficacy event from the time following the index procedure through 12 months. The study evaluable sample size required for 90% power is approximately 405 subjects. After adjustment for 15% censoring through 12 months, the study size is 476.||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test.||"To assess whether the proportion of subjects with at least one efficacy event\* in the Test group is equal or not to that of Control group through 12-months post-index procedure.~H0: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is equal to that of the Test group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is not equal to that of the Test group."||||0.05
84651430|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.53|
84651431|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.08|0.64|
84651432|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||||||Serotype 7F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.83|
84651433|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 9V: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.0|0.69|
84651434|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92||||||Serotype 14: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.92|0.62|
84651435|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.06|0.64|
84651436|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 19A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.04|0.72|
84651437|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||||||Serotype 19F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.71|
84651438|NCT02124161|169038524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03||||||Serotype 23F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.03|0.56|
84651439|NCT02124161|169038525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Strain A/H1N1: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.88|
84651440|NCT02124161|169038525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32||||||Strain A/H3N2: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.32|1.01|
84651441|NCT02124161|169038525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Strain B/Brisbane: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.95|
84679754|NCT03325712|169094941|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|126.88||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||126.88|94.34|
84651442|NCT02124161|169038525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||Strain B/Massachusetts: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.21|0.90|
84651443|NCT02124161|169038528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.4||||||AE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||7.4|-1.9|
84651444|NCT02124161|169038528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||SAE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
84651445|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.8||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.8|-8.3|0.333
84714298|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.1506|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.1506
84651446|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.9|-9.6|0.105
84651447|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-7.6|0.090
84651448|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||7.8|-4.2|0.590
84505889|NCT03294538|168762644|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|7.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||7.2|-5.8|
84651449|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-7.5|0.044
84651450|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-6.2|0.574
84651451|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-6.3|0.648
84651452|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.2|-12.5|0.057
84651453|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-7.3|0.030
84651454|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.6|-6.6|0.233
84651455|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.7|-4.5|0.152
84651456|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-5.1|0.926
84651457|NCT02124161|169038530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-9.1|0.143
84651458|NCT02124161|169038533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H1N1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||11.0|-0.9|0.094
84651459|NCT02124161|169038533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-3.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H3N2: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-9.9|0.232
84651460|NCT02124161|169038533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Brisbane: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.5|-6.6|0.734
84651461|NCT02124161|169038533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.5||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Massachusetts: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.3|-7.2|0.627
84651462|NCT01950169|169038592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
84651463|NCT01950169|169038593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
84651464|NCT01950169|169038594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|The analyses included exposure measures treatment groups and sex as fixed factors. Age and baseline values for FFMI, FMI were included as covariates.||||||0.05
84651465|NCT02617888|169038604|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84651466|NCT00178633|169038649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84651467|NCT02907268|169038678|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84714299|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.1071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.1071
84651468|NCT02907268|169038679|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84651469|NCT02907268|169038680|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84651470|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-10.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
84679755|NCT03325712|169094941|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|95.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.75|114.21||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.21|79.75|
84679756|NCT03325712|169094941|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|90.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.75|114.59||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.59|70.75|
84679757|NCT02265237|169094942|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.4|100.0|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||100.0|92.4|
84679758|NCT02265237|169094942|SUPERIORITY|97.5% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV GT4-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|86.7|99.2|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||99.2|86.7|
84714300|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.0212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0212
84714301|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0014
84714302|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
84714303|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||< 0.0001
84714304|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
84714305|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
84714306|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||< 0.0001
84651471|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.1858
84651472|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0007
84651473|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
84651474|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
84651475|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3384
84651476|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|19.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
84651477|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0002
84651478|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
84714307|NCT03461276|169174285|OTHER||||||=|0.0251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0251
84714308|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.6515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.6515
84714309|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.7447|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.7447
84714310|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.4518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.4518
84714311|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.5416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.5416
84714312|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.3504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.3504
84714313|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.2109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.2109
84714314|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.0049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0049
84714315|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0498
84714316|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.2181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2181
84651479|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3249
84651480|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
84651481|NCT02633501|169038681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|51.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
84651482|NCT02963935|169038693|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised subjects regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.59|||ANCOVA|Missing observations were imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference (x100) multiple imputation approach.|Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatrment policy estimand. The hypothesis and the alternative are: H: μliraglutide ≥ μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide \< μplacebo. μliraglutide and μplacebo denote the true mean of % weight change for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo group, respectively. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.59|-5.31|0.0003
84679759|NCT02265237|169094942|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|82.6|97.7|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||97.7|82.6|
84679760|NCT02265237|169094943|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|-3.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|3.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part I (arm A and B), since superiority was demonstrated for both arms in the primary outcome measures, testing continued to the first secondary outcome measure.||3.07|-9.85|0.304
84651483|NCT02963935|169038693|OTHER|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised subjects assuming that all subjects remained on trial product (on-treatment principle)|Treatment difference|-4.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.64|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug data before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.64|-6.54|0.0000
84651484|NCT02963935|169038694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.14|1.53|0.0003
84651485|NCT02963935|169038694|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.61|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||4.61|1.75|0.0000
84651486|NCT02963935|169038695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x10000) imputation approach.||3.14|1.01|0.0469
84679761|NCT02265237|169094944|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|6.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|13.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part II (arm C), since superiority was demonstrated for the primary outcome measure, testing continued to the second secondary outcome measure.||13.81|-0.91|0.086
84714317|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.2087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2087
84714318|NCT03461276|169174286|OTHER||||||=|0.8599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8599
84714319|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.9469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9469
84714320|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.9063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.9063
84714321|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.3418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.3418
84714322|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0236
84714323|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0012
84714324|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0004
84714325|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0008
84714326|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
84714327|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
84714328|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.1255|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1255
84714329|NCT03461276|169174287|OTHER||||||=|0.4232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4232
84651487|NCT02963935|169038695|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.69|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||3.69|1.24|0.0063
84651488|NCT02963935|169038696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.74|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.74|1.08|0.0311
84651489|NCT02963935|169038696|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.62|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||5.62|1.33|0.0060
84651490|NCT02963935|169038697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.72|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|"Treatment policy estimand. Week 16 responders were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.~Missing values are considered as non-responders."||5.72|1.93|<0.0001
84651491|NCT02963935|169038698|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-2.72||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.77|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||-0.77|-4.68|0.0063
84651492|NCT02963935|169038698|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.28|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.28|-5.62|0.0020
84651493|NCT02963935|169038699|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.52|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||1.52|-1.19|0.8137
84651494|NCT02963935|169038699|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg- placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.43|-1.12|0.8053
84651495|NCT02963935|169038700|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|0.87||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.14|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||5.14|-3.41|0.6916
84651496|NCT02963935|169038700|OTHER||treatment difference|1.25||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.45|||Mixed models repeated measurements (MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||5.45|-2.95|0.5572
84651497|NCT02963935|169038701|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|3.12||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|18.92|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||18.92|-12.68|0.6986
84651498|NCT02963935|169038701|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|24.48|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||24.48|-9.15|0.3700
84651499|NCT01209923|169038744|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test||Children BIA was compared to hydrostatic weighing; adults were compared to DEXA.||||0.001
84679762|NCT00839072|169094968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax does not exceed 125%.|Ratio of the mean|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.99|69.81|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||69.81|50.99|
84714330|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.9211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9211
84714331|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.2817|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.2817
84714332|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.2984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.2984
84714333|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.8402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.8402
84714334|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.4428|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.4428
84651500|NCT02955797|169038751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was greater than (\>) -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.78||||||Serogroup A||1.78|-5.84|
84651501|NCT02955797|169038751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|16.1||||||Serogroup C||16.1|8.16|
84651502|NCT02955797|169038751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|6.19||||||Serogroup Y||6.19|-1.34|
84651503|NCT02955797|169038751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|5.28||||||Serogroup W||5.28|-4.37|
84651504|NCT02955797|169038752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||||||Serogroup A||6.2|-3.6|
84651505|NCT02955797|169038752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|22.8||||||Serogroup C||22.8|13.6|
84651506|NCT02955797|169038752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|6.03||||||Serogroup Y||6.03|-2.76|
84651507|NCT02955797|169038752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.18||||||Serogroup W||6.18|-5.85|
84651508|NCT02955797|169038753|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.963||||||Serogroup A||0.963|0.697|
84651509|NCT02955797|169038753|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|9.52||||||Serogroup C||9.52|6.05|
84651510|NCT02955797|169038753|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Serogroup Y||1.51|1.09|
84651511|NCT02955797|169038753|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56||||||Serogroup W||1.56|1.12|
84651512|NCT02955797|169038754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||||||Serogroup A||1.24|0.85|
84651513|NCT02955797|169038754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|20.4||||||Serogroup C||20.4|13.4|
84651514|NCT02955797|169038754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||||||Serogroup Y||1.44|0.97|
84651515|NCT02955797|169038754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.63||||||Serogroup W||1.63|1.1|
84651516|NCT02955797|169038755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.672||||||Serogroup A||0.672|0.367|
84651517|NCT02955797|169038755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.19||||||Serogroup C||2.19|0.814|
84651518|NCT02955797|169038755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.04||||||Serogroup Y||2.04|1.15|
84651519|NCT02955797|169038755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.75||||||Serogroup W||1.75|0.944|
84651520|NCT01881373|169038756|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-0.47|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model.|Intervention vs control communities comparing 24 months to baseline|||-0.47|-7.29|0.02
84651521|NCT01881373|169038756|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|3.32||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.32|-8.58|0.28
84651522|NCT01881373|169038757|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.41||Intervention vs control communities comparing 78 months to baseline.|Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.41|-2.87|0.009
84651523|NCT01881373|169038757|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|17.24|||Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal comparing 78 months to baseline.||17.24|-8.5|0.49
84651524|NCT01881373|169038758|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Difference in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||<0.01
84651525|NCT01881373|169038759|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|change in prevalence between communities|-12.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.28||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-4.28|-20.92|0.003
84651526|NCT01881373|169038759|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|3.5||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Temporal communities. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.50|-10.36|0.33
84505890|NCT03294538|168762645|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
84651527|NCT01881373|169038760|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.05||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.05|-1.37|0.02
84651528|NCT01881373|169038760|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.49||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||0.49|-1.79|0.13
84714335|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.4156
84714336|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.8706|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.8706
84651529|NCT01881373|169038761|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.86
84651530|NCT01881373|169038762|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.68
84651531|NCT01881373|169038763|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.55
84651532|NCT01881373|169038764|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.11
84651533|NCT01881373|169038765|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||mixed model adjusting for age and sex and cluster of community and strata of jurisdiction; intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline||||0.08
84651534|NCT01881373|169038766|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
84651535|NCT01881373|169038767|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.54
84651536|NCT01881373|169038768|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.90
84651537|NCT01881373|169038769|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
84651538|NCT01881373|169038770|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||intervention vs control communities|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.48
84679763|NCT00839072|169094969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCT is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|78.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|88.51|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||88.51|69.70|
84651539|NCT01881373|169038771|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|differences in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||<0.01
84651540|NCT01881373|169038772|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.44
84679764|NCT00839072|169094970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC∞ is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|80.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.67|90.68|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||90.68|70.67|
84714337|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.8691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.8691
84714338|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.2188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2188
84651541|NCT01881373|169038773|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.81
84651542|NCT01881373|169038774|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.68
84651543|NCT01881373|169038775|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.69
84651544|NCT01881373|169038776|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.11
84651545|NCT01881373|169038777|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.40
84651546|NCT01881373|169038778|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.37
84651547|NCT01881373|169038778|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.51
84651548|NCT02742441|169038836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
84651549|NCT02742441|169038837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (plaque elevation, scaling, and erythema).||||<0.001
84651550|NCT02742441|169038838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
84714339|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.1448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1448
84714340|NCT03461276|169174288|OTHER||||||=|0.5004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5004
84714341|NCT03461276|169174289|OTHER||||||=|0.1058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1058
84714342|NCT03461276|169174289|OTHER||||||=|0.0922|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0922
84714343|NCT03461276|169174290|OTHER||||||=|0.9313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.9313
84714344|NCT03461276|169174290|OTHER||||||=|0.2243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2243
84714345|NCT03461276|169174290|OTHER||||||=|0.0952|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0952
84714346|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.3599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - left||||= 0.3599
84714347|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.8913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - left||||= 0.8913
84714348|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.4736|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - left||||= 0.4736
84714349|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.9095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - right||||= 0.9095
84714350|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.8744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - right||||= 0.8744
84714351|NCT03461276|169174291|OTHER||||||=|0.9307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - right||||= 0.9307
84714352|NCT03461276|169174292|OTHER||||||=|0.3982|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3982
84505891|NCT03294538|168762645|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|20.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
84714353|NCT03461276|169174292|OTHER||||||=|0.7035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7035
84714354|NCT03461276|169174292|OTHER||||||=|0.6334|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6334
84651551|NCT03789396|169038843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of patient odds of being hyperoxic and not on room air pre- versus post-intervention||0.97|0.57|0.03
84651552|NCT00546104|169038855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|9.0||The p-value is from a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis the mean relative change in Src from baseline to 4 weeks is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||The median change in SRC from baseline to 4 weeks was estimated.||9|-30|0.3
84651553|NCT00546104|169038856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.10|-.30|0.3
84651554|NCT02281773|169038859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.34||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.34|-2.76|0.1256
84651555|NCT02281773|169038859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.84||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.84|-1.30|0.7337
84651556|NCT02281773|169038859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.95||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.95|-1.31|0.6994
84651557|NCT02281773|169038859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.93|-2.19|0.4270
84651558|NCT02281773|169038864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.6|-0.9|0.5972
84651559|NCT02281773|169038864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.7|-1.9|0.3817
84679765|NCT01297062|169094974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI), equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.5||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.50|-2.21|
84505892|NCT03294538|168762646|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|6.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||6.2|-9.0|
84679766|NCT01297062|169094975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|-1.16||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-1.16|-2.88|
84679767|NCT01297062|169094976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.15||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.15|-2.11|
84679768|NCT01297062|169094977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|8.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||8.12|2.82|
84714355|NCT03461276|169174293|OTHER||||||=|0.2193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2193
84714356|NCT03461276|169174293|OTHER||||||=|0.5543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5543
84714357|NCT03461276|169174294|OTHER||||||=|0.7324|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7324
84714358|NCT03461276|169174294|OTHER||||||=|0.1719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.1719
84714359|NCT03461276|169174295|OTHER||||||=|0.7977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7977
84714360|NCT03461276|169174295|OTHER||||||=|0.8828|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8828
84714361|NCT03461276|169174296|OTHER||||||=|0.7954|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7954
84714362|NCT03461276|169174296|OTHER||||||=|0.5895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5895
84714363|NCT03461276|169174297|OTHER||||||=|0.743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.743
84714364|NCT03461276|169174297|OTHER||||||=|0.832|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.832
84714365|NCT03461276|169174298|OTHER||||||=|0.2283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2283
84714366|NCT03461276|169174298|OTHER||||||=|0.886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.886
84714367|NCT03461276|169174299|OTHER||||||=|0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.909
84714368|NCT03461276|169174299|OTHER||||||=|0.8498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8498
84714369|NCT03461276|169174300|OTHER||||||=|0.8711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8711
84714370|NCT03461276|169174300|OTHER||||||=|0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1098
84714371|NCT03461276|169174300|OTHER||||||=|0.6179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.6179
84714372|NCT03461276|169174300|OTHER||||||=|0.3715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3715
84714373|NCT03461276|169174301|OTHER||||||=|0.8949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8949
84714374|NCT03461276|169174301|OTHER||||||=|0.8712|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8712
84714375|NCT03461276|169174301|OTHER||||||=|0.8748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.8748
84714376|NCT03461276|169174301|OTHER||||||=|0.6402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6402
84714377|NCT03461276|169174302|OTHER||||||=|0.552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.552
84714378|NCT03461276|169174302|OTHER||||||=|0.9371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9371
84714379|NCT03461276|169174302|OTHER||||||=|0.2354|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2354
84714380|NCT03461276|169174302|OTHER||||||=|0.4608|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4608
84714381|NCT03461276|169174303|OTHER||||||=|0.3246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3246
84714382|NCT03461276|169174303|OTHER||||||=|0.8047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8047
84714383|NCT03461276|169174303|OTHER||||||=|0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.916
84714384|NCT03461276|169174303|OTHER||||||=|0.9582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.9582
84714385|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail A||||= 0.777
84714386|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.1727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail A||||= 0.1727
84679769|NCT01297062|169094978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.46|12.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||12.67|8.46|
84679770|NCT01297062|169094979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.71|13.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||13.13|8.71|
84679771|NCT01297062|169094982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0008||||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0017|0.0033|||Mixed Models Analysis||The linear mixed-effects model includes placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP as response, plasma exenatide concentration as covariate, fixed intercept of zero, subject random slope.|The analysis is to test the significance of the linear regression slope (null hypothesis: slope equal to zero) between placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP and exenatide concentration.||0.0033|-0.0017|0.5962
84679772|NCT01682837|169094983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84679773|NCT01682837|169094984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84679774|NCT01682837|169094985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84679775|NCT01682837|169094986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
84679776|NCT01682837|169094987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84679777|NCT01682837|169094988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84679778|NCT01682837|169094989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84679779|NCT01682837|169094990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84679780|NCT01682837|169094991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84679781|NCT04369469|169095008|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0205||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1703|0.1293||One-sided Mantel-Haenszel test of the difference in two proportions stratified by intubated or not intubated on Day 1 and a family-wise Type I error of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence interval using the Sato variance estimator, combined overall imputations.|||0.1293|-0.1703|0.6059
84679782|NCT00364858|169095027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Agresti and Min|-0.176||||||95.0|-0.357|0.058||||||Difference in proportion of Clinical Success = (Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q4 - Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q2).||0.058|-0.357|
84679783|NCT04745169|169095129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84679784|NCT04745169|169095130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84679785|NCT04745169|169095131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84679786|NCT04745169|169095132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84679787|NCT04745169|169095133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84679788|NCT04745169|169095134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84679789|NCT04745169|169095135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84679790|NCT04745169|169095136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84679791|NCT04745169|169095137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84679792|NCT01024569|169095157|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.027
84679793|NCT01024569|169095158|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||Mixed Effects Random Regression analysis was used to assess the effects of study condition on Hope outcomes.||||0.020
84679794|NCT01024569|169095159|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.029
84679795|NCT01024569|169095160|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.042
84679796|NCT01024569|169095161|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||.001
84679797|NCT02811861|169095230|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.80|0.53|<0.0001
84679798|NCT02811861|169095230|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.49|0.32|<0.0001
84679799|NCT00377819|169095270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.35%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.25|0.44|<0.0001
84651560|NCT02281773|169038864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.8||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.8|-0.9|0.4800
84651561|NCT02281773|169038864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.5|-1.1|0.7507
84651562|NCT02281773|169038865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9399
84651563|NCT02281773|169038865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9919
84651564|NCT02281773|169038865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3027
84651565|NCT02281773|169038865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3901
84651566|NCT02899299|169038876|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|96.6|0.6|0.91||Boundary for statistical significance was a p-value \< 0.0345|Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.91|0.60|0.0020
84651567|NCT02899299|169038879|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.13|0.77|
84651568|NCT02899299|169038880|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||\<1% PD-L1||1.32|0.64|
84651569|NCT02899299|169038880|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.88|0.59|
84651570|NCT02899299|169038881|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63||||||\< 1% PD-L1||2.63|1.22|
84651571|NCT02899299|169038881|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.96|0.61|
84679800|NCT00377819|169095271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.22%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
84679801|NCT00377819|169095272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84679802|NCT02031276|169095391|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.6||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure.||27.5|-2.2|0.0955
84679803|NCT02031276|169095392|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|13.4||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||30.1|-3.3|0.1151
84679804|NCT02031276|169095393|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||20.6|3.5|0.0057
84679805|NCT02031276|169095394|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||33.0|4.4|0.0104
84679806|NCT02031276|169095395|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|2.4||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||9.2|-4.5|0.4977
84679807|NCT02031276|169095396|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|7.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||13.0|1.7|0.0107
84679808|NCT01148810|169095397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian analysis|0.96|||||||||||||||Probability that the difference (BAF312-Placebo) is greater than the threshold|||
84679809|NCT02165722|169095434|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
84714387|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail A||||= 0.0218
84714388|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail A||||= 0.2789
84714389|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.2261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail B||||= 0.2261
84714390|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.9743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail B||||= 0.9743
84714391|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.2556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail B||||= 0.2556
84714392|NCT03461276|169174304|OTHER||||||=|0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail B||||= 0.1008
84714393|NCT03461276|169174305|OTHER||||||=|0.6189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.6189
84714394|NCT03461276|169174305|OTHER||||||=|0.6937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.6937
84714395|NCT03461276|169174305|OTHER||||||=|0.6981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6981
84714396|NCT03461276|169174307|OTHER||||||=|0.2863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2863
84714397|NCT03461276|169174307|OTHER||||||=|0.3703|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3703
84714398|NCT03461276|169174308|OTHER||||||=|0.9663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9663
84714399|NCT03461276|169174308|OTHER||||||=|0.3843|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3843
84714400|NCT03461276|169174309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)"||||< 0.0001
84714401|NCT03461276|169174309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84714402|NCT03461276|169174309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|3.02|< 0.0001
84714403|NCT05530603|169174393|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||.009
84714404|NCT05530603|169174394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
84714405|NCT05530603|169174395|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||.033
84714406|NCT05530603|169174396|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||.068
84714407|NCT05530603|169174397|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||.001
84714408|NCT05530603|169174398|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84714409|NCT05530603|169174399|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84714410|NCT02043678|169174400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.374|0.917|0.2636
84714411|NCT02043678|169174401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.151||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||1.374|0.964|0.1194
84714412|NCT02043678|169174402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.152||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.383|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.383|0.960|0.1283
84714413|NCT02043678|169174403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.389|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.389|0.945|0.1669
84714414|NCT02043678|169174404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.308|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.308|0.816|0.7871
84679810|NCT02165722|169095434|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
84679811|NCT02165722|169095434|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.||||<0.001
84679812|NCT02165722|169095434|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84505893|NCT03294538|168762647|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.2897|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.2897
84679813|NCT02165722|169095435|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001
84679814|NCT02165722|169095435|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84679815|NCT02165722|169095435|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84679816|NCT02165722|169095435|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84679817|NCT02417246|169095459|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|131.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC from 0 to 24 hours (0-24) for patients on the 50mg dose of brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared by a paired t-test (n=28)||||131.2|-41.1|0.3
84679818|NCT02417246|169095459|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER falls within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||The analysis included a total of 20 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||0.95|0.76|
84679819|NCT02417246|169095459|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|74.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC0-24 for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||74.3|-60.0|0.8
84679820|NCT02417246|169095459|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.01||This analysis included 21 individuals who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||1.01|0.86|
84679821|NCT02417246|169095460|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||6.6|-1.5|0.2
84679822|NCT02417246|169095460|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.95||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients||||||0.95|0.79|
84679823|NCT02417246|169095460|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||2.3|-7.3|0.3
84651572|NCT02899299|169038883|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.88|0.62|0.0008
84651573|NCT03423641|169038884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||2.20|0.30|.68
84651574|NCT03423641|169038885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.91|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.91|0.56|0.01
84651575|NCT03423641|169038886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.12|0.75|0.39
84651576|NCT03423641|169038887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.90|0.49|0.01
84651577|NCT03423641|169038888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.59|0.30|<0.01
84651578|NCT03423641|169038889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.1|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.10|0.42|0.12
84651579|NCT03423641|169038890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.7|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.70|0.22|0.34
84651580|NCT03423641|169038891|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Structural Model|0.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.76|0.49|<0.01
84651581|NCT03423641|169038892|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.84|0.60|<0.01
84651582|NCT03423641|169038893|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.87|0.77|<0.01
84651583|NCT03423641|169038894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.88|0.25|0.02
84651584|NCT03423641|169038895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.03|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.03|0.37|0.07
84651585|NCT03423641|169038896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.05|0.63|0.11
84714415|NCT02043678|169174405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.378|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.378|0.921|0.2467
84714416|NCT03216057|169174415|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was calculated that 130 subjects randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms have 85% power to detect a difference of at least 20% in triglyceride percentage changes compared with placebo at week 12, assuming a common standard deviation in percentage change of 35%, a 2-sided α = 0.05, and we add 20% for lost follow-up, finally the number of subjects for each arm was 65.|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-16.2|-32.7|<0.01
84714417|NCT03216057|169174416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-36.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-36.8|-83.0|<0.01
84714418|NCT03216057|169174417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.9|-16.1|0.01
84714419|NCT03216057|169174418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.05|-15.8|0.3
84714420|NCT03216057|169174419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.5|-21.2|<0.01
84714421|NCT03216057|169174420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.02
84714422|NCT03216057|169174421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.8|-6.3|0.6
84714423|NCT03216057|169174422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-0.9|0.1
84714424|NCT03216057|169174423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21|5.8|<0.01
84714425|NCT03216057|169174424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|0.4|<0.01
84714426|NCT04568603|169174425|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is contained within the interval (0.70, 1.43).|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
84714427|NCT04568603|169174426|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
84714428|NCT04568603|169174427|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 1.43.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
84679824|NCT02417246|169095460|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic A and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than a pre-planned sample size of 38.||||||1.23|1.02|
84679825|NCT02417246|169095461|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic B, adjusting for quartile, (quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0858|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0858
84651586|NCT00369122|169038930|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on a report by Laciano, et al. an SAE rate of 5% and AE rate of 35% were considered tolerable and an SAE rate \>=20% and AE rate \>=55% excessive. If there were \>=6 pts with SAES or \>=22 pts with AEs then the treatment would be rejected. This study design provides alpha of 0.05 and power of 90%.|||
84651587|NCT00408629|169038936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.019
84651588|NCT00408629|169038937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.004
84679826|NCT02417246|169095461|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic A, adjusting for quartile,(quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||p for medication\*quartile interaction considered significant if p\<0.025.|||||0.0168
84679827|NCT02417246|169095462|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-2.39||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
84679828|NCT02417246|169095462|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-0.543||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
84679829|NCT02417246|169095462|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory SBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.371||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
84679830|NCT02417246|169095462|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory DBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.329||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
84679831|NCT02417246|169095463|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|1.233||||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
84679832|NCT02417246|169095463|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|1.134||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
84679833|NCT04321460|169095478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.564||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|16.039|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.039|1.66|0.007
84679834|NCT04321460|169095479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.898|14.268|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.268|1.898|0.002
84651589|NCT00408629|169038938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.047
84651590|NCT00408629|169038939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84651591|NCT00408629|169038940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
84651592|NCT00408629|169038941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84651593|NCT00408629|169038942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure were needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
84651594|NCT00408629|169038943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
84679835|NCT01308749|169095492|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No analyses were completed, this is descriptive only and is an absolute value (number of participants).|||
84679836|NCT01308749|169095496|EQUIVALENCE|Within group test of difference using t-scores adjusted by baseline score, no correction for multiple comparisons, nonparametric model||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84679837|NCT01308749|169095498|EQUIVALENCE|t-test between groups||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|no adjustment for multiple comparison. non parametric||||||0.23
84679838|NCT00784810|169095539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To achieve a study with 80% power at the 1-sided 5% significance level, for the purposes of demonstrating non inferiority, a sample size of 98 subjects per treatment group was required, i.e. a total of 196 subjects completing the study.|||-5.65|0.002
84679839|NCT04433767|169095581|OTHER||Slope|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||||< 0.001
84679840|NCT04433767|169095583|OTHER||Intercept|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.32|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.32|0.04|0.0127
84679841|NCT04433767|169095584|OTHER||Intercept|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.51|0.17|0.0005
84679842|NCT04433767|169095585|OTHER||Intercept|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.42|-0.04|0.1027
84679843|NCT04433767|169095586|OTHER||Intercept|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.37|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.37|-0.18|0.4846
84679844|NCT04433767|169095587|OTHER||Intercept|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|62.36|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||62.36|-44.28|0.7290
84679845|NCT04433767|169095588|OTHER||Intercept|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||4.78|-5.28|0.9196
84505894|NCT03294538|168762647|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.4949|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.4949
84651595|NCT00408629|169038944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.013
84651596|NCT00408629|169038945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
84651597|NCT00408629|169038946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.058
84651598|NCT00408629|169038947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.028
84651599|NCT00408629|169038948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
84651600|NCT00408629|169038949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
84651601|NCT00408629|169038950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
84679846|NCT04433767|169095589|OTHER||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.33|0.01|0.033
84679847|NCT04433767|169095590|OTHER||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.35|0.01|0.041
84679848|NCT04433767|169095591|OTHER||Slope|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-4.45|-17.81|0.001
84679849|NCT04433767|169095592|OTHER||Slope|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-5.33|-19.94|0.001
84679850|NCT04433767|169095593|OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.15|<0.001
84679851|NCT04433767|169095594|OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.34|-0.92|0.001
84679852|NCT04433767|169095595|OTHER||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.18|-0.65|<0.001
84679853|NCT04433767|169095596|OTHER||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.23|-1.17|0.183
84679854|NCT04433767|169095597|OTHER||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.13|-0.74|0.170
84679855|NCT04433767|169095598|OTHER||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.80|0.00|0.051
84651602|NCT00408629|169038951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.007
84651603|NCT00408629|169038952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
84651604|NCT00191906|169038953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for Overall. No adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.504
84651605|NCT00191906|169038954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus Normal controls.||||0.970
84651606|NCT00191906|169038955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.579
84651607|NCT00191906|169038955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests are performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for RD versus RD controls.||||0.144
84651608|NCT00191906|169038956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment by study-arm-interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.005
84651609|NCT00191906|169038957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.097
84679856|NCT04433767|169095599|OTHER||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
84651610|NCT00191906|169038958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.003
84651611|NCT00191906|169038959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
84651612|NCT00191906|169038960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
84651613|NCT00191906|169038961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
84679857|NCT04433767|169095600|OTHER||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.69|0.17|0.002
84679858|NCT04433767|169095601|OTHER||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.83|0.21|0.002
84679859|NCT04433767|169095602|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||1.23|-1.05|0.876
84651614|NCT00191906|169038962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
84651615|NCT00191906|169038963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||||||0.094
84651616|NCT00191906|169038964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction||||||0.312
84651617|NCT00191906|169038965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus normal controls.||||0.508
84651618|NCT00191906|169038966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C versus normal controls||||0.769
84651619|NCT00191906|169038967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.302
84651620|NCT00191906|169038967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.663
84651621|NCT00191906|169038968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.070
84651622|NCT00191906|169038968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.179
84651623|NCT01890746|169038979|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|114.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|132.7||||||||132.7|99.5|
84651624|NCT01890746|169038980|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|114.0||||||||114.0|97.1|
84651625|NCT01890746|169038981|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.8|110.2||||||||110.2|76.8|
84651626|NCT01890746|169038982|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|111.7||||||||111.7|92.9|
84651627|NCT01890746|169038983|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.5|142.8||||||||142.8|102.5|
84651628|NCT01890746|169038984|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|119.4||||||||119.4|95.0|
84651629|NCT01890746|169038985|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|110.0||||||||110.0|76.5|
84651630|NCT01890746|169038986|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|111.2||||||||111.2|92.4|
84651631|NCT01890746|169038987|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.7|142.6||||||||142.6|100.7|
84651632|NCT01890746|169038988|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|118.3||||||||118.3|93.6|
84651633|NCT01890746|169038989|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.2|113.0||||||||113.0|57.2|
84651634|NCT01890746|169038990|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|129.0||||||||129.0|87.6|
84651635|NCT01890746|169038991|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|127.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|191.9||||||||191.9|84.2|
84651636|NCT01890746|169038992|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|110.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|145.7||||||||145.7|83.9|
84651637|NCT01890746|169038993|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|286.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|910.7||||||||910.7|90.1|
84651638|NCT01890746|169038994|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|202.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.3|311.8||||||||311.8|131.3|
84505895|NCT00782509|168762700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.116|<0.0001
84651639|NCT01890746|169038996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.48|||Log Rank|||||2.48|0.28|0.7461
84505896|NCT00782509|168762700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.110|<0.0001
84651640|NCT01890746|169038997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.74|0.6175
84651641|NCT01890746|169038998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5281||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1084|2.2086|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2086|0.1084|0.3224
84651642|NCT01890746|169039000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6942
84651643|NCT01890746|169039001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1151||||0.7397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5585|2.229|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2290|0.5585|0.7397
84651644|NCT01890746|169039002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.38|||Log Rank|||||6.38|0.95|0.0781
84651645|NCT01890746|169039006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8749||||0.7122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4023|1.8943|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8943|0.4023|0.7122
84651646|NCT01890746|169039007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.96|0.0688
84651647|NCT00777205|169039010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.57|<0.05
84651648|NCT00777205|169039011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.03|<0.05
84651649|NCT00777205|169039012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-0.93|<0.05
84651650|NCT00777205|169039013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.039|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.89|-2.66|<0.05
84651651|NCT00777205|169039014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.16||||||||3.16|-3.31|
84651652|NCT03198078|169039047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.33||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-1.1||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-1.10|-9.55|0.0136
84651653|NCT03198078|169039047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.53||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.21||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-2.21|-10.8|0.0032
84651654|NCT03198078|169039048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.22|-2.65|0.0205
84651655|NCT03198078|169039048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.15||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.91||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.91|-3.40|0.0008
84651656|NCT03198078|169039048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.28||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.28|-2.04|0.1360
84651657|NCT03198078|169039048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.24||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.24|-2.14|0.1158
84651658|NCT03198078|169039049|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.55||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.20|1.09|0.0111
84651659|NCT03198078|169039049|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.51||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.06|0.0224
84651660|NCT03198078|169039050|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.18||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||1.81|0.77|0.4415
84651661|NCT03198078|169039050|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.48||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.01|0.0472
84651662|NCT03198078|169039051|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.48||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.31||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||5.31|-0.35|0.0854
84679860|NCT00167544|169095604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|30.29|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of total brain tissue volume was performed using multiple linear regression controlling for postmenstrual age at MRI scan to adjust for differences in timing at MRI. The distributions of potentially important confounding variables at baseline were compared in the two groups using parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate. All analyses were performed using STATA 11.0. Please see PubMed: 23140612.||30.29|-19.49|<0.05
84679861|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.69|92.54|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||92.54|73.69|
84679862|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.65|94.3|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||94.30|73.65|
84679863|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|94.28|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||94.28|74.69|
84679864|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.94|97.04|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||97.04|88.94|
84679865|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|101.43|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||101.43|91.55|
84679866|NCT01764945|169095637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||99.24|89.88|
84679867|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|74.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|83.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||83.83|65.44|
84679868|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|73.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.33|84.68|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||84.68|63.33|
84679869|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.94|89.99|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||89.99|68.94|
84679870|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.42|85.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||85.84|71.42|
84679871|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|88.46|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||88.46|69.54|
84679872|NCT01764945|169095638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.35|87.94|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||87.94|69.35|
84679873|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.98|88.55|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||88.55|75.98|
84679874|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|80.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.58|87.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||87.83|74.58|
84679875|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.84|84.67|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||84.67|74.84|
84679876|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|95.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||95.84|87.53|
84679877|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||99.24|89.76|
84679878|NCT01764945|169095639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.42|97.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||97.63|88.42|
84651663|NCT03198078|169039051|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.99||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.88||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||6.88|1.09|0.0072
84651664|NCT03198078|169039052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.13|-0.36|0.3589
84651665|NCT03198078|169039052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.05|-0.45|0.1118
84679879|NCT03819660|169095651|OTHER||percentage|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84679880|NCT01136291|169095653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The homogeneity between the groups was compared by the Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables.A comparison between values before and after the study group session was performed by the Student's t test. The effect of the exercise was evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA, where the effect of time and group were evaluated on pressure, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI)and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnarie domains.||||<0.05
84679881|NCT01827904|169095684|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from Baseline at the 3 Month visit in the Exablate test vs. Sham control arms was tested using the t-test.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|alpha = 0.05 for the hypothesis test. H0: M3ExAblate ≤ M3Sham H1: M3ExAblate \> M3Sham||"Note that the Crossover group was a rescue treatment group and not integral to the experimental design statistical analysis."||||<0.001
84679882|NCT00780962|169095690|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.0|||Wald|||"The study was powered to find a 10% absolute risk reduction in the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (a=.05, 90% power). We initially estimated the need for 600 patients and repowered to 800 patients after the 1st interim analysis. The study was halted for futility at the 2nd interim analysis.~Reported here 357 (89.4%) of the 399 enrolled subjects who completed a second blood draw at the time the study closed."||6.0|-4.8|>0.5
84651666|NCT03198078|169039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.03|-0.56|0.0287
84651667|NCT03198078|169039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.06|-0.62|0.0184
84651668|NCT03198078|169039064|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.39|-0.24|
84651669|NCT03198078|169039064|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.51|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.51|-0.14|
84679883|NCT01660763|169095691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|108.98|||ANCOVA|||||108.98|66.20|<0.001
84679884|NCT01910519|169095701|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M183-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0039
84679885|NCT01910519|169095701|OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M115-cytokines-receptors cluster at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0368
84679886|NCT01910519|169095701|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M74-transcriptional targets of glucocorticoid receptor at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0465
84679887|NCT01910519|169095701|OTHER|||||||0.0411|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M58-B cell development/activation at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0411
84679888|NCT01910519|169095701|OTHER|||||||0.0067|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M114.0-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0067
84679889|NCT04266028|169095702|OTHER|No statistical analyses were performed.|no statistical analyses were performed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No statistical analyses were performed||||No statistical analyses were performed.|No statistical analyses were performed.|||
84679890|NCT00952653|169095706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.08|78.33|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||78.33|65.08|
84714429|NCT04568603|169174428|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.1||||||||1.10|1.03|
84651670|NCT03198078|169039065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.18|-0.30|
84651671|NCT03198078|169039065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.36|-0.13|
84651672|NCT03198078|169039066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.09|-0.08|
84651673|NCT03198078|169039066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.14|-0.04|
84651674|NCT02607930|169039069|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-4.8|3.6|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.6|-4.8|
84651675|NCT02607930|169039069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.78
84679891|NCT00952653|169095707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.04|93.74|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||93.74|79.04|
84679892|NCT00952653|169095708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.43|97.97|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||97.97|87.43|
84505897|NCT00782509|168762701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0116||95.0|0.011|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|0.011|0.0116
84651676|NCT02607930|169039070|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.1|-6.9|
84714430|NCT04568603|169174430|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
84505898|NCT00782509|168762701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0095||95.0|0.012|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.012|0.0095
84651677|NCT02607930|169039070|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.45
84651678|NCT02607930|169039071|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.4|-8.5|
84651679|NCT02607930|169039071|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.39
84651680|NCT02607930|169039072|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.6|-4.8|
84651681|NCT02607930|169039072|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.87
84651682|NCT02607930|169039073|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||4.6|-6.9|
84651683|NCT02607930|169039073|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.69
84651684|NCT02607930|169039074|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.1|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||2.1|-10.5|
84714431|NCT04568603|169174431|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.13||||||||1.13|1.04|
84714432|NCT04568603|169174433|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
84651685|NCT02607930|169039074|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.19
84651686|NCT02607930|169039075|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.06|-0.12|0.48
84651687|NCT02607930|169039076|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.09|-0.09|0.99
84651688|NCT02607930|169039077|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.10|-0.08|0.88
84651689|NCT02607930|169039078|OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-24|0.69
84651690|NCT02607930|169039079|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-39|0.94
84651691|NCT02607930|169039080|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|18.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||18|-59|0.30
84651692|NCT02607930|169039081|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.346||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.748|||ANOVA|||||0.748|-0.057|0.092
84651693|NCT02607930|169039082|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.135||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.625|||ANOVA|||||0.625|-0.356|0.59
84651694|NCT02607930|169039083|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.271||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.893|||ANOVA|||||0.893|-0.351|0.39
84651695|NCT02607930|169039084|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.221||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.300|-0.741|0.41
84651696|NCT02607930|169039085|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.485||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|0.155|||ANOVA|||||0.155|-1.126|0.14
84651697|NCT02607930|169039086|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.406||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.307|||ANOVA|||||0.307|-1.119|0.26
84651698|NCT03387683|169039095|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.31121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46184||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|1.24141||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo-Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||1.24141|-0.61900|0.504
84651699|NCT03387683|169039096|OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.74969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18363||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64837|6.14775||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo - Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||6.14775|-2.64837|0.427
84651700|NCT03840174|169039109|OTHER||GMT Ratio|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|252.4|||||Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio and 95% CI were estimated using an ANOVA model.|||252.4|23.9|
84651701|NCT03789214|169039133|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||.950
84651702|NCT03789214|169039134|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
84651703|NCT03789214|169039135|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||.691
84651704|NCT03789214|169039136|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||||||.620
84651705|NCT03789214|169039137|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||||||.067
84651706|NCT01484132|169039155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline to 6 months was different from 0.||||0.58
84651707|NCT01484132|169039155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.061||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.084||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.084|-0.206|0.406
84651708|NCT01484132|169039155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.017||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.067||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.067|-0.101|0.693
84651709|NCT01484132|169039155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.123||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.05||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.050|-0.296|0.160
84651710|NCT01484132|169039155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.029||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.073||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.073|-0.131|0.574
84505899|NCT00782509|168762702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.057|<0.0001
84714433|NCT04568603|169174434|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
84714434|NCT04568603|169174435|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.11||||||||1.11|1.03|
84714435|NCT04564742|169174439|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||A closed testing procedure including a pre-specified hierarchical ordering of the primary and secondary endpoints was utilised. No multiplicity control was placed on the exploratory endpoints.|Win Ratio Analysis|||The primary objective of the study was to determine if the clinical benefit of dapagliflozin was superior as compared with placebo, utilizing a hierarchical composite endpoint and win-ratio (WR) method. With a presumed WR of 1.20, 4000 patients were provide an 80% statistical power for the primary endpoint, maintaining a 1:1 allocation between treatments. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle using the Full Analysis Set.||1.50|1.20|<0.001
84505900|NCT00782509|168762702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011||95.0|0.036|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.036|0.0011
84505901|NCT00782509|168762703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.131|<0.0001
84505902|NCT00782509|168762703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.138|<0.0001
84505903|NCT00782509|168762704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.130|<0.0001
84651711|NCT01484132|169039156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.11
84651712|NCT01484132|169039156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.299||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.494||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.494|0.105|0.003
84651713|NCT01484132|169039156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.365||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.585||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.585|0.145|0.002
84651714|NCT01484132|169039157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.27
84651715|NCT01484132|169039157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.068||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.123||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.123|-0.258|0.480
84651716|NCT01484132|169039157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.145||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.145|-0.293|0.501
84651717|NCT01484132|169039158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.41
84651718|NCT01484132|169039158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.082||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.254||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.254|-0.418|0.612
84505904|NCT00782509|168762704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.119|<0.0001
84679893|NCT00952653|169095709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|110.11|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||110.11|92.96|
84651719|NCT01484132|169039158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.078||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.495||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.495|-0.339|0.696
84651720|NCT01484132|169039159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.76
84651721|NCT01484132|169039159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.018||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|1.025||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||1.025|-1.061|0.968
84651722|NCT01484132|169039159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|0.775||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.775|-0.941|0.822
84651723|NCT00464269|169039220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|12.8|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to a 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam (BRV) dose and Placebo (PBO) is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using the 95 % confidence intervals.||22.6|1.7|=0.025
84651724|NCT00464269|169039220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|4.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.0|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam dose an Placebo is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using 95 % confidence intervals.||15.0|-8.1|=0.492
84651725|NCT05055453|169039247|OTHER|A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.|||||<|0.001||||||"Result for comparison between automatic only and preferred app settings."|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||||||<0.001
84679894|NCT00952653|169095710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.04|78.72|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||78.72|66.04|
84679895|NCT00952653|169095713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.42|94.96|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||94.96|80.42|
84679896|NCT00380068|169095716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.64|<|0.001||95.0|11.8|29.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||29.3|11.8|<0.001
84679897|NCT00380068|169095717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.001
84679898|NCT00380068|169095718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
84679899|NCT00380068|169095719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-25.5||||||95.0|-33.6|-16.3|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.3|-33.6|
84679900|NCT00380068|169095720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-29.2||||||95.0|-39.8|-16.6|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.6|-39.8|
84679901|NCT00380068|169095721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84679902|NCT00380068|169095722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84679903|NCT00380068|169095723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||||<0.001
84505905|NCT00782509|168762705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.135|<0.0001
84679904|NCT00380068|169095724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||||<0.001
84679905|NCT00380068|169095725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|89.4||||||95.0|84.4|92.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||92.8|84.4|
84679906|NCT00380068|169095726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|84.1||||||95.0|78.2|88.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||88.6|78.2|
84679907|NCT00380068|169095727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.4|97.4|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.4|91.4|
84679908|NCT00380068|169095728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|92.9||||||95.0|88.3|95.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||95.8|88.3|
84679909|NCT00380068|169095729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.0||||||95.0|88.5|97.9|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.9|88.5|
84679910|NCT00380068|169095730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|90.0||||||95.0|81.6|94.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||94.7|81.6|
84679911|NCT00380068|169095731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|97.1||||||95.0|93.6|98.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||98.7|93.6|
84679912|NCT00380068|169095732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.2|97.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.6|91.2|
84679913|NCT01812044|169095738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.035
84679914|NCT01812044|169095738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.189
84679915|NCT01812044|169095738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.298
84679916|NCT01884350|169095762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.24||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7||P-value (two-sided) corresponds to the two-sample t-tests for difference in percentage of adherence at Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-2.18|0.8117
84679917|NCT01884350|169095763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
84679918|NCT01884350|169095763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
84679919|NCT01884350|169095764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F-test p-value is obtained from the one-way ANOVA model||||||0.8707|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8707
84714436|NCT05448105|169174504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|"Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing the participants' SUS scores to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability."||||||0.02
84714437|NCT05448105|169174507|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.04
84714438|NCT05448105|169174508|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is calculated p-value. The threshold for significance was less than 0.05.|paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||<0.01
84714439|NCT05448105|169174509|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.16
84714440|NCT05448105|169174510|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.69
84714441|NCT05448105|169174511|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.90
84714442|NCT05448105|169174512|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.11
84714443|NCT05448105|169174513|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.22
84714444|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the calculated p-value.|McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||1.00
84714445|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.55
84714446|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.11
84679920|NCT01884350|169095764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.68||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.68|-2.88|0.6399
84679921|NCT01884350|169095764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|3.29||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|-3.45|0.9616
84679922|NCT01884350|169095764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.24||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|-2.60|0.6341
84679923|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1924
84679924|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0305||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0305
84651726|NCT05055453|169039247|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Result of comparison between preferred app setting and extreme app setting"|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||< 0.001
84651727|NCT05055453|169039247|OTHER|"Result of comparison between automatic only and extreme app setting."||||||0.002|||||||Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||0.002
84651728|NCT05055453|169039248|OTHER|Analysis of first home trial|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84651729|NCT05055453|169039248|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of second home trial||||<.001
84679925|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Mini-mental state examination score|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0107
84679926|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6982||||||Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6982
84651730|NCT01532973|169039273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.77|4.74||||||||4.74|3.77|
84679927|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7277||||||Higher professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7277
84679928|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7581||||||Intermediate occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7581
84679929|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328||||||Large employers and higher managerial and adm. occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2328
84651731|NCT01532973|169039273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|4.9||||||||4.90|3.92|
84651732|NCT01532973|169039273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.08|4.05||||||||4.05|3.08|
84651733|NCT01532973|169039274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.69||||||||1.69|0.34|
84651734|NCT01532973|169039274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.74||||||||2.74|1.39|
84651735|NCT01532973|169039274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|3.39||||||||3.39|2.05|
84651736|NCT01532973|169039275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.68|3.72||||||||3.72|2.68|
84651737|NCT01532973|169039275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|4.47||||||||4.47|3.44|
84651738|NCT01532973|169039276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|4.58||||||||4.58|3.20|
84651739|NCT01532973|169039276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.98|5.36||||||||5.36|3.98|
84651740|NCT01532973|169039276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.92|4.3||||||||4.30|2.92|
84651741|NCT01532973|169039277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.54||||||||1.54|-0.09|
84651742|NCT01532973|169039277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|3.39||||||||3.39|1.75|
84651743|NCT01532973|169039277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.66||||||||3.66|2.02|
84651744|NCT01532973|169039278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.55|3.8||||||||3.80|2.55|
84651745|NCT01532973|169039278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|4.26||||||||4.26|3.00|
84679930|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7507
84679931|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Lower supervisory and technical occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0091
84679932|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673||||||Never worked and long-term unemployed vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6730
84679933|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0117
84679934|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Semi-routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1910
84679935|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9559||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.9559
84651746|NCT04916769|169039312|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of ajusted geometric means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.76|115.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.53|97.76|
84651747|NCT04916769|169039312|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.97|110.56||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.56|93.97|
84651748|NCT04916769|169039313|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|108.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||108.53|86.37|
84651749|NCT04916769|169039313|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|106.61||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||106.61|85.34|
84651750|NCT04916769|169039314|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|115.68||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||115.68|97.54|
84651751|NCT04916769|169039314|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|110.91||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.91|93.95|
84679936|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0264
84679937|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1087
84679938|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0679
84679939|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2128
84679940|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3739||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.3739
84679941|NCT01884350|169095765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||VKA status: Naive vs. Non-Naive|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.843
84651752|NCT05736224|169039323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No sunscreen compared to test sunscreen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84651753|NCT03950791|169039343|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|3864.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, p \< .05 used as threshold for statistical significance|Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U|No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Standardized Test Statistic = .139|Morphine equivalent dosage outcome variables were not normally distributed (skewness values between 4.5 and 4.8, kurtosis values between 25.7 and 30.0), which necessitated non-parametric analysis using independent-samples Mann-Whitney U Test||||.89
84651754|NCT02719327|169039345|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.99||ASL values at 18 months were regressed on treatment group (IPE vs placebo) statistically controlling for age at baseline visit and ASL measured at baseline visit.|Regression, Linear|||The proposed study aims to investigate the effects of 18 months of IPE vs. placebo on regional cerebral blood flow in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyrus as measured by arterial spin-labeling MRI . IPE was hypothesized to improve regional cerebral blood flow over placebo after 18 months.||0.99|-5.36|0.17
84651755|NCT02719327|169039346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Regression, Linear|18 month Beta-amyloid(1-42) was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline visit and Beta-amyloid(1-42) at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Beta-amyloid(1-42) concentration in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.25|-0.04|.12
84651756|NCT02719327|169039346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.045||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.061|||Regression, Linear|log-transformed 18 month pTau181 was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and log-transformed ptau181at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Phosphorylated tau (pTau181) measured in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.061|0.004|0.05
84651757|NCT02719327|169039346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.106||18 months total Tau was regressed on Group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and total Tau at baseline.|Regression, Linear||Placebo group was the reference group.|Total tau was log-transformed prior to analysis to better approximate a normal distribution.||0.106|-0.0008|.07
84651758|NCT02719327|169039347|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.023|||Linear Mixed Effects model|Covariates included education level, gender, and age at baseline visit.|Placebo group was the reference group.|Four cognitive tests were standardized (baseline mean and standard deviation) prior to averaging to create the ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (ADCS-PACC) score. The final composite score was standardized again using baseline mean and standard deviation (range -3.15 to 3.10). Higher scores indicate better cognitive performance. A linear mixed effects model was used to determine if change in ADCS-PACC composite scores was modified by treatment group.||0.023|-0.009|.48
84651759|NCT06350474|169039355|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||One-sided test for non-inferiority.|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||1.1|-0.5|<0.0001
84679942|NCT04295564|169095783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|155.9||This is a calculate p value|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for the correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing||||155.9|8.3|<0.05
84679943|NCT04295564|169095784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient test.||||1.1|0.1|<0.02
84714447|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.63
84714448|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.12
84714449|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.33
84714450|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of urine microalbumin||||0.23
84714451|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for urine microalbumin||||0.58
84714452|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of body mass index (BMI)||||1.00
84714453|NCT05448105|169174514|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for body mass index (BMI)||||0.27
84714454|NCT03381196|169174723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0216
84714455|NCT03628924|169174733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.6|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|-4.6|= 0.166
84714456|NCT03628924|169174733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.6|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-10.3|= 0.459
84714457|NCT03904147|169174790|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.44||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method||The Win Ratio provides an estimation of the treatment effect.|||||0.0311
84714458|NCT03904147|169174791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||exact test|||||||0.0008
84714459|NCT03904147|169174792|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test|||||||<0.0001
84714460|NCT03904147|169174793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||<0.0001
84714461|NCT03904147|169174794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
84714462|NCT03904147|169174795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||0.2482
84714463|NCT03904147|169174796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
84714464|NCT03904147|169174797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
84714465|NCT03904147|169174798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||normal approximation|||||||0.1090
84714466|NCT05270408|169174804|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.93||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.25
84714467|NCT05270408|169174804|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.18
84714468|NCT05270408|169174804|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.48
84714469|NCT05270408|169174804|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.64
84714470|NCT05270408|169174805|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.98
84714471|NCT05270408|169174805|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.22
84714472|NCT05270408|169174805|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.97
84714473|NCT05270408|169174805|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.23
84714474|NCT05270408|169174806|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84714475|NCT05270408|169174806|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.42||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
84714476|NCT05270408|169174807|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
84714477|NCT05270408|169174807|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.08||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84714478|NCT05270408|169174808|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
84714479|NCT05270408|169174808|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
84714480|NCT05270408|169174810|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.96||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84505906|NCT00782509|168762705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.127|<0.0001
84651760|NCT06350474|169039356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.2|-0.4|0.414
84651761|NCT06350474|169039357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||2.9|-1.0|0.241
84651762|NCT06350474|169039358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.6|-2.5|0.233
84651763|NCT06350474|169039359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.97|-0.4|0.42
84651764|NCT06350474|169039360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.61|-0.92|0.69
84651765|NCT06350474|169039361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.5||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.5|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||6.5|-1.5|0.275
84651766|NCT06350474|169039363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||3.4|-1.6|0.686
84651767|NCT06350474|169039364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|13.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.8|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||21.8|5.6|0.0010
84651768|NCT06350474|169039365|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.53|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the DA-discontinue and DA-continue arms are 1486.3 and 1471.4 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||2.53|1.51|<0.0001
84651769|NCT06350474|169039366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.03||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.0|-0.6|0.1758
84651770|NCT00717093|169039367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.58||p-values obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|||3.58|1.59|<0.0001
84651771|NCT00717093|169039368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.58||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative|Odds Ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.58|1.12|0.0118
84651772|NCT00717093|169039369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative.||||2.67|1.17|0.0063
84651773|NCT00717093|169039370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.41||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 12||3.41|1.52|<0.0001
84651774|NCT00717093|169039370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.13||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.13|0.94|0.0919
84505907|NCT00782509|168762706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.131|<0.0001
84505908|NCT00782509|168762706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.102|<0.0001
84505909|NCT00782509|168762707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.127|<0.0001
84679944|NCT04295564|169095785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|121.0||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing.||||121|4.5|<0.05
84679945|NCT04295564|169095786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31||This is a calculated p value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
84679946|NCT04295564|169095786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gestational age at birth (stratification variable)||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
84505910|NCT00782509|168762707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.123|<0.0001
84505911|NCT00782509|168762708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0043||95.0|0.017|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.089|0.017|0.0043
84505912|NCT00782509|168762708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
84505913|NCT00782509|168762709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.037|<0.0001
84505914|NCT00782509|168762709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|0.049|<0.0001
84505915|NCT00782509|168762710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0002
84505916|NCT00782509|168762710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0186||95.0|0.007|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|0.007|0.0186
84679947|NCT04537923|169095788|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.24|<0.001
84679948|NCT04537923|169095789|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.08|<0.001
84679949|NCT04537923|169095789|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.30|<0.001
84679950|NCT04537923|169095789|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.49|<0.001
84651775|NCT00418015|169039399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test||||0.54
84651776|NCT00418015|169039400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84651777|NCT00418015|169039401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
84651778|NCT00418015|169039402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.02
84651779|NCT00418015|169039403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
84651780|NCT00418015|169039403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84651781|NCT01453725|169039424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|43.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||43.6|17.5|<0.0001
84651782|NCT01453725|169039425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|46.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||46.1|20.4|<0.0001
84679951|NCT04537923|169095790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|2.25|<0.0001
84651783|NCT01453725|169039426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|40.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||40.6|14.4|<0.0001
84651784|NCT01453725|169039427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|15.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|27.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||27.1|3.2|0.0136
84651785|NCT01453725|169039428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||||||<0.0001
84651786|NCT01436396|169039446|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.976|1.87||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||1.87|-0.976|
84651787|NCT01436396|169039447|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.383||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||0.383|-2.81|
84651788|NCT00216476|169039463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis was that there is no difference in treatment effect between risperidone LAI and quetiapine by mean relapse free period; given a estimated relapse rate of 30% for risperidone LAI and 42% for quetiapine, with 80% power and 5% 2-tailed significance level, 251 subjects were needed per treatment arm. To adjust for an estimated 20% discontinuations for reasons other than relapse, 628 subjects in total were needed. Actual relapse rates were 17% (risperidone LAI) and 31% (quetiapine).||||<0.0001
84651789|NCT00216476|169039465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.0001
84651790|NCT00216476|169039465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84651791|NCT00216476|169039465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1026
84651792|NCT00216476|169039466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84651793|NCT00216476|169039466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84651794|NCT00216476|169039466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0446
84651795|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0941
84679952|NCT04537923|169095790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.88|4.27|<0.0001
84679953|NCT04537923|169095790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.75|5.37|<0.0001
84651796|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84505917|NCT00782509|168762711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
84505918|NCT00782509|168762711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.002||95.0|0.021|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.021|0.0020
84651797|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1146
84651798|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.5589
84651799|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84651800|NCT00216476|169039467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
84651801|NCT01254292|169039522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|86.5|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.5|77.1|
84651802|NCT01254292|169039522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.4|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.4|76.7|
84651803|NCT02083081|169039553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.38
84651804|NCT02083081|169039554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.45
84651805|NCT02083081|169039555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.96
84651806|NCT02905149|169039568|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|14.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Generalized Hodges-Lehmann median difference is used. These are robust to the possibility that the population distributions in the two groups are different in ways other than location. It may not represent the raw median difference.|||14.5|4|< 0.05
84651807|NCT04856891|169039586|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|78.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|89.1|||Fisher Exact|||||89.1|62.2|<0.0001
84651808|NCT04856891|169039587|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.3||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.0|0.8822
84651809|NCT04856891|169039588|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-64.7|||ANCOVA|||||-64.7|-85.2|<0.0001
84505919|NCT00782509|168762712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.02|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.020|0.0024
84505920|NCT00782509|168762712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1614||95.0|-0.011|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.064|-0.011|0.1614
84651810|NCT04856891|169039589|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|90.6|||Fisher Exact|||||90.6|64.8|<0.0001
84651811|NCT04856891|169039590|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|43.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.9|||Fisher Exact|||||59.9|23.5|<0.0001
84651812|NCT04856891|169039591|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|18.0|||Fisher Exact|||||18.0|-22.2|1.0000
84651813|NCT04856891|169039592|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|6.9||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|26.3|||Fisher Exact|||||26.3|-13.8|0.4502
84651814|NCT04856891|169039593|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-3.1||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 24 Percent Change from Baseline||11.8|-18.1|0.6805
84651815|NCT00543543|169039693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|99.8|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.8|80.9|<0.0001
84651816|NCT00543543|169039694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.9|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.9|85.0|
84651817|NCT00543543|169039695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 6||1.06|0.99|<0.001
84651818|NCT00543543|169039695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.83|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 11||0.83|0.77|<0.001
84651819|NCT00543543|169039695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 16||1.03|0.96|<0.001
84651820|NCT00543543|169039695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.23|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 18||1.23|1.14|<0.001
84651821|NCT00543543|169039702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|97.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||97.1|94.6|
84651822|NCT04308304|169039717|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
84651823|NCT04308304|169039717|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
84651824|NCT04308304|169039717|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
84651825|NCT04308304|169039717|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
84651826|NCT04308304|169039718|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
84651827|NCT04308304|169039718|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
84651828|NCT04308304|169039718|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
84651829|NCT04308304|169039718|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
84651830|NCT04308304|169039719|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
84651831|NCT04308304|169039719|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
84651832|NCT04308304|169039719|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.06|0.59|
84679954|NCT04537923|169095791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-11.5|<0.001
84651833|NCT04308304|169039719|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.08|0.51|
84679955|NCT04537923|169095791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.9|-14.5|<0.001
84679956|NCT04537923|169095791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.0|-16.7|<0.001
84679957|NCT04537923|169095792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-30.8|<0.001
84679958|NCT04537923|169095792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-40.6|<0.001
84651834|NCT04308304|169039720|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.8||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.80|0.48|
84651835|NCT04308304|169039720|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.81|0.55|
84651836|NCT04308304|169039720|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.93|0.49|
84651837|NCT04308304|169039720|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.98|0.54|
84651838|NCT04308304|169039725|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
84651839|NCT04308304|169039726|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
84651840|NCT04308304|169039727|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||||||||||||||||
84651841|NCT04502979|169039746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-0.11|0.07
84651842|NCT04502979|169039747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.73|10.41||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.41|-252.73|0.04
84679959|NCT04537923|169095792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.8|-39.3|<0.001
84679960|NCT04537923|169095793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.0|0.682
84679961|NCT04537923|169095793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-9.9|0.010
84679962|NCT04537923|169095793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-16.0|<0.001
84679963|NCT04537923|169095794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|11.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.83|5.66|<0.001
84679964|NCT04537923|169095794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|24.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.96|11.44|<0.001
84679965|NCT04537923|169095794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.49|32.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.93|14.49|<0.001
84651843|NCT00165984|169039753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Regression, Cox|||||13.9|1.7|0.003
84651844|NCT01686828|169039775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.164
84651845|NCT01686828|169039776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||RM-ANOVA|||Time-by-group interaction for fat mass||||0.003
84651846|NCT01686828|169039776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Time-by-group interaction for lean mass|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.03
84651847|NCT01686828|169039777|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that short-term testosterone deprivation would not affect lipoprotein lipase expression in adipose tissue. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if a time-by-group effect was apparent for lipoprotein lipase expression.||||>0.1
84679966|NCT04537923|169095795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|43.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.46|18.36|<0.001
84679967|NCT04537923|169095795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.76|94.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||94.39|36.76|<0.001
84679968|NCT04537923|169095795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.49|127.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||127.33|47.49|<0.001
84679969|NCT04537923|169095796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|0.5|0.005
84679970|NCT04537923|169095796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
84679971|NCT04537923|169095796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
84679972|NCT04537923|169095797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.3|0.020
84679973|NCT04537923|169095797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|1.5|<0.001
84679974|NCT04537923|169095797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|0.7|0.004
84679975|NCT01261611|169095798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 210 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84679976|NCT01261611|169095798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 213 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84651848|NCT02130024|169039859|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.21|-0.05|0.236
84651849|NCT02130024|169039860|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.02||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.15|-0.11|0.769
84651850|NCT02130024|169039861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||1.59|0.44|0.586
84651851|NCT02130024|169039861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 to Month 24 Analysis||6.22|0.83|0.110
84651852|NCT02130024|169039861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment||Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.09|0.67|0.554
84651853|NCT02130024|169039862|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to \<Month 12 Analysis||1.04|0.95|0.733
84679977|NCT01261611|169095798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline TWSTRS Total score, BTX status at baseline and pooled centre as explanatory variables had been performed. The non-inferiority margin was 3 points.|LS mean difference|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|3.883||||||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Dysport arms was performed. A total of 315 subjects were included in the analysis.||3.883|-0.819|
84679978|NCT01808690|169095828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted multivariable models, which included sex, pubertal status, change in BMI, and baseline M/I.||Insulin function was defined as M/I (mg/kg/min)/(insulin). Power calculations were based on data from a small study in youth with poorly controlled T1DM, which reported a significant increase in M/I in the 11 participants treated with Metformin. On the basis of the effect size reported in that study, a sample size of 25 per group and an alpha of 0.05 provided us with 93% power to detect a difference of 1 SD in the primary outcome of M/I.||||0.005
84679979|NCT01808690|169095829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the variable, sex, age, change in VO2peak, change in insulin sensitivity, and treatment condition.||||||0.46
84679980|NCT01808690|169095830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
84679981|NCT01808690|169095831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
84679982|NCT01808690|169095832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of BMI percentile, diabetes duration, and A1c.||||||0.01
84651854|NCT02130024|169039862|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.01||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||1.08|0.95|0.745
84651855|NCT02130024|169039863|OTHER||Treatment Effect|2.32||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||4.92|-0.27|0.079
84651856|NCT02130024|169039863|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.95||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||4.61|-0.71|0.151
84651857|NCT02130024|169039864|OTHER||Treatment Effect|10.12||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|29.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||29.06|-8.82|0.294
84651858|NCT02130024|169039864|OTHER||Treatment Effect|11.86||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|31.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||31.07|-7.35|0.225
84651859|NCT02130024|169039865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 2 Analysis||1.35|0.51|0.461
84651860|NCT02130024|169039865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 Analysis||1.21|0.44|0.215
84651861|NCT02130024|169039865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 24 Analysis||1.48|0.51|0.616
84679983|NCT01808690|169095833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.03
84679984|NCT01808690|169095834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.8
84679985|NCT02395120|169095835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.08||We addressed the issue of multiple testing, both multiple comparisons and multiple sites, using a gatekeeper approach. The use of 0.05 alpha level for each test maintained a 0.05 family-wise alpha level for the six tests (three at each site).|Regression, Logistic||||The primary outcome analysis utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit link for the binary dental care receipt outcome. The GEE analysis was conducted using dental care receipt outcomes as restorative care alone (ICDAS codes ≥3), as well as combined preventive (i.e. sealants) and restorative care (ICDAS codes ≥1). Models were fit separately to the overall data (all sites combined), the combined EC and WA sites (based on our original plan of two predominantly low-income school districts), and the BD schools alone. Each model included, as covariates, indicator variables for intervention, site (except for the model with BD alone), child grade, and caregiver demographic variables (race, education, marital status). Corresponding estimated odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed.|3.08|1.21|<0.05
84679986|NCT00377234|169095838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Null hypothesis: Preference rate (including patients not expressing treatment preference and considering order treatments were received) for monthly ibandronate = 50%. Null hypothesis is rejected if P-value was below significance threshold of P \<0.05|Garts Test|||||||<0.0001
84679987|NCT00377234|169095838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-values for the primary analysis test whether the overall preference rate for ibandronate equals 50%. Preference within each sequence is not tested.|Prescott Test|||||||<0.0001
84679988|NCT01997398|169095843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences in baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were assessed using a series of repeated measures general linear models with a single within-subjects factor and no between-subjects factors.|Repeated measures general linear models|||||||<0.001
84679989|NCT00626522|169095845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.280|0.131|<0.0001
84651862|NCT02130024|169039866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||2.08|0.53|0.891
84679990|NCT00626522|169095845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.329|||ANCOVA|||||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
84679991|NCT00626522|169095845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
84679992|NCT05732454|169095856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.76|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||8.83|-16.36|=0.5580
84651863|NCT02130024|169039866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||3.35|0.77|0.206
84651864|NCT02130024|169039867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||5.93|0.45|0.460
84651865|NCT02130024|169039867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.90|0.30|0.913
84651866|NCT02130024|169039869|OTHER||Treatment Effect|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 5 Analysis||32.95|21.44|<0.001
84651867|NCT02130024|169039869|OTHER||Treatment Effect|28.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.08|34.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 9 Analysis||34.68|23.08|<0.001
84651868|NCT03507400|169039895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84679993|NCT05732454|169095857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.07|||=|0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|28.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||28.85|-10.70|=0.3685
84651869|NCT03507400|169039895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||pooled comparison of the participants of the non-waiting list and the waiting list before and after Introvision||||0.003
84651870|NCT03507400|169039897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84651871|NCT03507400|169039898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.003
84714481|NCT05270408|169174810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA||||Eta2 effect sizes produced from the pairwise comparisons were transformed to Cohen's d for examination of effect sizes. A small/weak effect size was demonstrated (Cohen's d = 0.10), when adjusting for baseline performance.|||0.68
84714482|NCT06044090|169174822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.856
84651872|NCT03507400|169039899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
84651873|NCT03507400|169039900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
84651874|NCT03507400|169039904|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84651875|NCT03507400|169039904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84651876|NCT03507400|169039904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84651877|NCT01555983|169039905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Armitage trend tes|0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve 30% pain reduction during the 8-hour period was 4 (95% CI: 2.1-25.3) for the lower dose vs. placebo, and 3 (95% CI: 1.6-4.2) for the higher dose versus placebo.||||<.05
84651878|NCT02495831|169039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate (ratio of geometric means|90.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval is \< 125.00%, no effect of safinamide on diclofenamic acid bioavailability is present (no interaction present).|ANOVA|||The PK parameters AUC0-t and Cmax were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Before analysis, the data were transformed using a neperian logarithmic transformation. ANOVA was performed taking into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as fixed effects with a variance components structure of the covariance matrix.||125|80|0.1
84651879|NCT02495831|169039915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|114.02||||||||114.02|96.40|
84651880|NCT00573183|169039928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2019|9.2842||95% confidence interval|Mixed Models Analysis|A covariate adjustment was used: average number of days of stimulant use within a 30-day window of assessment from 90 days pre-baseline to baseline.|The STAGE-12 group represented the numerator and TAU represented the reference group/denominator|Mixture model with a logistic part for assessing zero-inflation and a negative binomial part for the over-dispersed count data, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the odds ratios for logistic part and incidence rate ratios for negative binomial part.||9.2842|1.2019|<0.05
84714483|NCT06044090|169174822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.613
84714484|NCT06044090|169174823|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84714485|NCT06044090|169174823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.691
84714486|NCT06044090|169174824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
84714487|NCT06044090|169174824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
84714488|NCT05034328|169174851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84714489|NCT05034328|169174852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.451|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treament chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.451|0.778|0.7026
84714490|NCT05034328|169174853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.469|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.469|0.792|0.6322
84651881|NCT00573183|169039928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0131|5.8637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8637|1.0131|<0.01
84651882|NCT00573183|169039929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression|Zero-inflated negative binomial random-e|Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression adjusted for average number of days of pre-baseline attendance||Outcome measure: Number of days of self-reported Self-Help meeting attendance by the Substance Use Calendar (SUC) within a 30-day window of assessment at mid-treatment, end-of-treatment, first, second, third and last follow-ups||||<0.05
84651883|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diphtheria Toxin \>=0.1 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651884|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Tetanus Toxin \>=0.01 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651885|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis Toxin \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651886|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis FHA \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651887|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 1 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84679994|NCT05732454|169095858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-29.22|||=|0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|-2.9|||Rubin's rule|||Jump-to-Control (JTC) method was used for evaluation. A complete imputed dataset was analyzed using analysis of covariance model including effects of treatment group, actual stratification factor, and baseline value. Multiple results of the treatment comparison were combined using Rubin's rules, reporting the combined treatment difference, its standard error, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value, across the visits.||-2.90|-55.53|=0.0303
84651888|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 2 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651889|NCT01926015|169039982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 3 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
84651890|NCT01364649|169039995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|The primary analysis was performed by using observed case data only.||||4.02|0.48|0.013
84651891|NCT01788046|169039999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|52.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of percentage of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||52.17|18.18|< 0.001
84651892|NCT01788046|169040000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|70.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by screening PTH category, prior cinacalcet use within 8 weeks prior to randomization, and region.||||70.37|16.35|< 0.001
84651893|NCT01788046|169040001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.53|-65.14|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-65.14|-77.53|< 0.001
84651894|NCT01788046|169040002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-6.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-6.03|-8.38|< 0.001
84679995|NCT01153633|169095873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.2317
84679996|NCT01153633|169095877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4905
84679997|NCT01153633|169095878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9945||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.9945
84505921|NCT00782509|168762713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.025|0.0012
84651895|NCT01788046|169040003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-10.51|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.51|-18.65|< 0.001
84651896|NCT01788046|169040004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-3.92|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-3.92|-12.15|< 0.001
84651897|NCT01147640|169040009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84651898|NCT01147640|169040010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84651899|NCT00091442|169040012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5988||95.0|0.86|1.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: Designed to detect an improvement in median survival from 15 months to 19.5 months with 80% power.||1.3|0.86|0.5988
84651900|NCT00091442|169040013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - no difference in response rate between the two treatment groups.||||0.0085
84651901|NCT00091442|169040014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.77|||Log Rank|||"Null hypothersis - no difference in Time to Progression (TTP) between the two treatment groups.~Designed to detect an improvement in median TTP from 6 months to 7.8 months with 80% power, assuming exponential survival distribution."||0.77|0.55|<0.0001
84651902|NCT00986830|169040036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||||A reduction in SNOT-20 score of 0.8 or more is considered clinically meaningful.|||<0.0001
84651903|NCT00986830|169040037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84651904|NCT00986830|169040038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84679998|NCT00384085|169095879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.56||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.52||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.97|0.0628
84651905|NCT00986830|169040039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84651906|NCT00986830|169040040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84651907|NCT00986830|169040041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84651908|NCT00986830|169040042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.292
84651909|NCT00986830|169040043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84651910|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.8||||||||2.800|0.258|
84651911|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.333||||||||1.333|0.319|
84651912|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|4.352||||||||4.352|0.291|
84651913|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.819||||||||3.819|0.220|
84651914|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|3.741||||||||3.741|0.292|
84651915|NCT02038881|169040092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.892||||||||2.892|0.598|
84714491|NCT05034328|169174854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.356|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.356|0.726|0.9598
84714492|NCT05034328|169174855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.880|0.945|0.1016
84714493|NCT05034328|169174856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.601|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.601|0.830|0.3954
84714494|NCT05034328|169174857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||1.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.703|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.703|0.871|1.218
84714495|NCT05034328|169174858|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The impact of the treatment chosen on the risk to develop respiratory complication requiring antibiotic prescription during a 20-day follow-up was analyzed by a multivariate logistic model||||>0.05
84714496|NCT05034328|169174859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.644|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.644|0.174|0.0010
84714497|NCT03468868|169174860|NON_INFERIORITY|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 10% (or 0.10 feet per second) for this population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.14|<0.01
84714498|NCT03468868|169174861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|384.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|174.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||174.5|-29.56|0.16
84714499|NCT03468868|169174862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.96||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.41|-10.84|0.13
84714500|NCT03468868|169174863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|5.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.32|-3.55|0.70
84714501|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.71||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Anxiety Domain||2.30|-0.97|0.43
84714502|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Depression Domain||1.74|-1.26|0.75
84714503|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Fatigue Domain||0.97|-2.71|0.35
84714504|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.83||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function Domain||0.99|-0.88|0.91
84714505|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function Domain||2.85|0.20|0.02
84714506|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Cognitive Function Domain||0.76|-2.54|0.29
84714507|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol Domain||2.42|-0.26|0.11
84714508|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Positive Affect and Well-Being Domain||2.28|-1.19|0.54
84714509|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Sleep Disturbance Domain||0.81|-2.00|0.41
84714510|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.65||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.02|-1.22|0.63
84714511|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.44||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.47|-1.16|0.48
84714512|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Stigma Domain||1.45|-1.32|0.92
84714513|NCT03468868|169174864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Communication Domain||0.37|-1.31|0.28
84714514|NCT03468868|169174865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Physical||2.60|-7.55|0.34
84714515|NCT03468868|169174865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.37||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Psychological||3.88|-6.63|0.24
84714516|NCT03468868|169174866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Cognitive||2.56|-1.83|0.74
84714517|NCT03468868|169174866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Physical||-0.12|-4.07|0.04
84714518|NCT03468868|169174866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Psychosocial||0.39|-0.68|0.59
84714519|NCT03468868|169174866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Total||2.30|-6.05|0.38
84714520|NCT03468868|169174867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.34|0.87
84714521|NCT03468868|169174868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.08|0.05
84714522|NCT00986856|169174869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.01||95.0|1.4|120.4||Test for the hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||120.4|1.4|<0.01
84505922|NCT00782509|168762713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.034|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.034|0.0002
84505923|NCT00782509|168762714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0004||95.0|0.031|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.031|0.0004
84651916|NCT02038881|169040093|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.507||||||||1.507|0.385|
84651917|NCT02038881|169040094|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.603||||||||0.603|0.200|
84651918|NCT02038881|169040094|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.992||||||||0.992|0.285|
84651919|NCT02038881|169040095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|4.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|13.793||||||||13.793|1.241|
84651920|NCT02038881|169040095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.365|15.558||||||||15.558|1.365|
84651921|NCT02038881|169040095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.699||||||||0.699|0.066|
84651922|NCT02038881|169040095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.782||||||||0.782|0.072|
84651923|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|2.038||||||||2.038|0.333|
84651924|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.508||||||||1.508|0.410|
84651925|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.536||||||||1.536|0.187|
84651926|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.716||||||||1.716|0.203|
84651927|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|6.731||||||||6.731|0.972|
84651928|NCT02038881|169040096|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|2.412||||||||2.412|0.612|
84651929|NCT02038881|169040097|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.606||||||||1.606|0.480|
84651930|NCT02038881|169040098|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.542||||||||0.542|0.146|
84651931|NCT02038881|169040098|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.718||||||||0.718|0.178|
84679999|NCT00384085|169095880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of Lantus/Apidra-1 would be established if the upper limit of the 2 sided, 99.75% CI for the difference in the mean change from baseline between Lantus/Apidra-1 and Novolog Mix 70/30 was \<0.5%.|Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.34||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0025 level for noninferiority testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.82|0.0359
84680000|NCT00384085|169095881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.64||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|1.04|0.0313
84680001|NCT00384085|169095882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.31||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.63|0.0565
84651932|NCT02038881|169040099|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|6.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.493|18.15||||||||18.150|2.493|
84651933|NCT02038881|169040099|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|7.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.693|19.649||||||||19.649|2.693|
84651934|NCT02038881|169040099|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.672||||||||0.672|0.115|
84651935|NCT02038881|169040099|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.541||||||||0.541|0.100|
84651936|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|17.9||||||||17.9|-34.1|
84651937|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
84680002|NCT00384085|169095883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.12|0.0140
84680003|NCT00384085|169095884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.02||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.61|0.9268
84680004|NCT00384085|169095884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.11||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.19|0.0107
84651938|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|32.6||||||||32.6|-24.5|
84651939|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|29.2||||||||29.2|-31.5|
84651940|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|22.2||||||||22.2|-32.8|
84651941|NCT02038881|169040100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|10.1||||||||10.1|-25.1|
84651942|NCT02038881|169040101|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.6||||||||11.6|-15.2|
84651943|NCT02038881|169040102|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
84651944|NCT02038881|169040102|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
84651945|NCT02038881|169040103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|33.0||||||||33.0|-19.6|
84651946|NCT02038881|169040103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|44.4||||||||44.4|-11.0|
84651947|NCT02038881|169040103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|14.3||||||||14.3|-35.6|
84651948|NCT02038881|169040103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|10.5||||||||10.5|-40.5|
84651949|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|20.3||||||||20.3|-38.4|
84651950|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
84651951|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|17.6||||||||17.6|-38.4|
84651952|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|23.7||||||||23.7|-35.6|
84651953|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|47.8||||||||47.8|-7.7|
84680005|NCT00384085|169095884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.06||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.61|1.17|0.0121
84680006|NCT01944631|169095913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.095|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.095|-1.321|0.0895
84680007|NCT01944631|169095914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.113|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.113|-0.464|0.2310
84680008|NCT01944631|169095915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|0.156|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.156|-1.042|0.1465
84505924|NCT00782509|168762714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.108|0.033|0.0002
84505925|NCT00782509|168762715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.132|<0.0001
84651954|NCT02038881|169040104|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|13.4||||||||13.4|-20.5|
84651955|NCT02038881|169040105|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|13.2||||||||13.2|-12.0|
84651956|NCT02038881|169040106|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
84651957|NCT02038881|169040106|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
84651958|NCT02038881|169040107|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|45.8||||||||45.8|-4.5|
84651959|NCT02038881|169040107|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|55.4||||||||55.4|5.8|
84651960|NCT02038881|169040107|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.7||||||||11.7|-33.0|
84651961|NCT02038881|169040107|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-46.7|
84651962|NCT01904058|169040118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.28||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|8.03||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using generalized linear model (GLM). The model included terms for treatment group, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval for mean were presented.||8.03|-12.59|0.6603
84651963|NCT01904058|169040118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.23||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score was evaluated by ANCOVA using a GLM. The model included terms for treatment group, ALP level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction, and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95% confidence interval for the mean, were presented.||6.23|-14.20|0.4380
84651964|NCT02664610|169040128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84651965|NCT02664610|169040129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84651966|NCT02927262|169040170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.336|||Log Rank||HR \& 95% CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors:age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.336|0.407|0.163
84651967|NCT02927262|169040171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.627||95.0|0.54|2.364|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||2.364|0.540|0.627
84651968|NCT02927262|169040172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.455|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.455|0.510|0.296
84651969|NCT02927262|169040173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||2-sided P-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.970
84651970|NCT02927262|169040173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.415
84651971|NCT02927262|169040173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.271
84680009|NCT01944631|169095916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.102||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.845|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||6.845|-5.390|0.8148
84651972|NCT02927262|169040173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24/EoT||||0.179
84651973|NCT03467048|169040196|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath Video Laryngoscopy is non-inferior to Macintosh direct laryngoscopy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.75|2.22|<0.01
84651974|NCT03467048|169040197|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.975|0.04|2.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.28|0.04|0.08
84651975|NCT03467048|169040198|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|7.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.77|0.1|0.41
84651976|NCT03841448|169040201|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-37.367||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.951|0.46|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||0.460|-60.951|0.1032
84651977|NCT03841448|169040202|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-36.167||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.552|5.978|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||5.978|-61.552|0.1432
84651978|NCT03841448|169040203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|21.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||21.27|0.43|0.1177
84651979|NCT03841448|169040203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
84680010|NCT01944631|169095917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratifying for the variable 'baseline TSS'||||||0.1887
84651980|NCT03841448|169040204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||20.34|0.45|0.1533
84651981|NCT03841448|169040204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
84651982|NCT03841448|169040205|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-45.771||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.093|-26.309|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS means difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||-26.309|-60.093|0.0021
84651983|NCT01739361|169040217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
84651984|NCT01470859|169040251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed on the changes of PDRP Z score between levodopa and pramipexole groups.||||||0.84
84651985|NCT01470859|169040251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V1||||||0.93
84651986|NCT01470859|169040251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.31
84680011|NCT01944631|169095918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1069||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.84|||Regression, Logistic||A value greater than one favours bisolviral|||1.840|0.666|0.6954
84680012|NCT01262651|169095933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.16|0.00|0.0854
84680013|NCT02239679|169095968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0166
84651987|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.691
84651988|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.706
84651989|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.635
84651990|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.341
84651991|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.049
84651992|NCT01470859|169040252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.874
84651993|NCT01470859|169040253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.720
84651994|NCT01470859|169040253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V5||||||0.867
84651995|NCT01470859|169040254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|indenpendent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.793
84651996|NCT01470859|169040254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.430
84651997|NCT01470859|169040255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V2||||||0.345
84651998|NCT01470859|169040255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.410
84651999|NCT05268055|169040300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.525
84680014|NCT02239679|169095974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0102
84652000|NCT05268055|169040300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.045
84652001|NCT05268055|169040300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.046
84680015|NCT02239679|169095974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0089
84652002|NCT05268055|169040301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.200
84652003|NCT05268055|169040301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.075
84652004|NCT05268055|169040301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.015
84652005|NCT05268055|169040302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.246
84652006|NCT05268055|169040302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.151
84652007|NCT05268055|169040302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.033
84652008|NCT05268055|169040303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.212
84652009|NCT05268055|169040303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.893
84652010|NCT05268055|169040303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.160
84652011|NCT05268055|169040304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Healthcare Provider Cultural Competence measure.||||0.752
84680016|NCT02239679|169095975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0004
84680017|NCT02239679|169095975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
84714523|NCT00986856|169174870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.023||95.0|1.1|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|1.1|0.023
84714524|NCT00986856|169174871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|0.3|0.54
84714525|NCT00986856|169174872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|0.8|0.1
84714526|NCT00986856|169174873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1
84652012|NCT05268055|169040304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment.||||0.493
84652013|NCT05268055|169040304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale.||||0.085
84652014|NCT03319173|169040316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|8.7|||Regression, Linear|||||8.7|7.79|<0.0001
84652015|NCT03319173|169040317|OTHER||Estimate|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||0.39|0.31|<0.0001
84652016|NCT03319173|169040318|OTHER||Estimate|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|0.41|<0.0001
84652017|NCT03319173|169040319|OTHER||Estimate|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
84652018|NCT03319173|169040320|OTHER||Estimate|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Regression, Linear|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
84652019|NCT03319173|169040321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Estimate|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
84652020|NCT03319173|169040322|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||||0.78|0.72|<0.0001
84652021|NCT03319173|169040323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.37|||Estimate|||||0.37|0.30|<0.0001
84652022|NCT03319173|169040324|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
84652023|NCT03319173|169040325|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
84652024|NCT03319173|169040326|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|0.71|<0.0001
84652025|NCT03319173|169040327|OTHER||Estimate|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
84652026|NCT03319173|169040328|OTHER||Estimate|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.156|||Regression, Linear|||||1.156|1.104|<0.0001
84652027|NCT03319173|169040329|OTHER||Estimate|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.049|||Regression, Linear|||||1.049|1.025|<0.0001
84652028|NCT03319173|169040330|OTHER||Estimate|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|0.91|<0.0001
84652029|NCT03319173|169040331|OTHER||Estimate|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.149|||Regression, Linear|||||1.149|1.096|<0.0001
84652030|NCT02468232|169040346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0881||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6501|1.8212|||Regression, Cox|||For Primary Composite||1.8212|0.6501|0.6260
84652031|NCT02468232|169040346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||For CV Death||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
84652032|NCT02468232|169040346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2673||||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7039|2.2818|||Regression, Cox|||For 1st HF Hospitalization||2.2818|0.7039|0.7851
84652033|NCT02468232|169040347|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8657||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7585|0.988||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 4 analysis||0.9880|0.7585|0.0326
84652034|NCT02468232|169040347|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8538||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7509|0.9708||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||0.9708|0.7509|0.0161
84652035|NCT02468232|169040347|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8112||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6916|0.9514||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure of ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||0.9514|0.6916|0.0104
84652036|NCT02468232|169040349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6492|1.6152|||Regression, Cox|||First triple composite endpoint||1.6152|0.6492|0.5406
84652037|NCT02468232|169040349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||CV health||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
84652038|NCT02468232|169040349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8546||||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3952|1.8479|||Regression, Cox|||First worsening of HF in outpatient||1.8479|0.3952|0.3448
84652039|NCT02468232|169040350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 4 analysis||||0.7115
84652040|NCT02468232|169040350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 8 analysis||||0.1752
84652041|NCT02468232|169040350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2688|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Month 6 analysis||||0.2688
84652042|NCT02468232|169040351|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|2.5455||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2306|6.3216|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||6.3216|-1.2306|0.1854
84652043|NCT02468232|169040351|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|1.2695||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1715|5.7104|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||5.7104|-3.1715|0.5737
84652044|NCT02468232|169040352|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8699||||0.6501||95.0|0.4763|1.5887|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.5887|0.4763|0.6501
84505926|NCT00782509|168762715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.142|<0.0001
84505927|NCT00782509|168762716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.119|<0.0001
84652045|NCT02468232|169040353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6211
84652046|NCT02468232|169040355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1895||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6116|2.3134|||Regression, Cox|||||2.3134|0.6116|0.6955
84652047|NCT02468232|169040357|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0192||||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6925|1.4999|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.4999|0.6925|0.9233
84652048|NCT02468232|169040358|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0754||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2264|5.1067|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||5.1067|0.2264|0.9272
84652049|NCT02468232|169040360|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4504||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|1.0665||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.0665|0.1902|0.0697
84652050|NCT01914757|169040378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.85|0.49|0.002
84652051|NCT01914757|169040378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.95|0.54|0.019
84652052|NCT01914757|169040379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.92|0.45|0.015
84652053|NCT01914757|169040379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.86|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.86|0.42|0.005
84652054|NCT01914757|169040380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.213|0.037|0.005
84652055|NCT01914757|169040380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.204|0.028|0.01
84652056|NCT01914757|169040381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.176|-0.049|0.268
84652057|NCT01914757|169040381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.096|-0.127|0.786
84652058|NCT01914757|169040382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.07|-0.32|0.224
84652059|NCT01914757|169040382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.43|0.019
84652060|NCT01914757|169040383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.13|-0.44|0.287
84652061|NCT01914757|169040383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.29|-0.28|0.966
84652062|NCT01914757|169040384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma rescue medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.99|-0.58|0.603
84652063|NCT01914757|169040384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.28|-1.29|0.209
84652064|NCT01914757|169040385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||30.12|1.59|0.029
84652065|NCT01914757|169040385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|29.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||29.64|0.9|0.037
84652066|NCT01914757|169040385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.54||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||32|3.07|0.018
84652067|NCT01914757|169040385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||35.79|6.65|0.004
84652068|NCT01914757|169040386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4
84652069|NCT01914757|169040386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.01|-0.08|0.146
84652070|NCT01914757|169040387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.01|-0.38|0.043
84505928|NCT00782509|168762716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.111|<0.0001
84652071|NCT01914757|169040387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.07|-0.44|0.008
84652072|NCT01914757|169040388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.51|0.078
84652073|NCT01914757|169040388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.16|-0.37|0.449
84652074|NCT01914757|169040389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.69|0.31|<0.001
84652075|NCT01914757|169040389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.45|0.023
84652076|NCT01914757|169040390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first Exacerbation||0.80|0.46|<0.001
84652077|NCT01914757|169040390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.55|0.018
84652078|NCT01914757|169040391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.82|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||1.82|0.48|0.837
84652079|NCT01914757|169040391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.35|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||2.35|0.64|0.538
84652080|NCT01914757|169040395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.37|-0.04|0.119
84652081|NCT01914757|169040395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.45|0.04|0.019
84652082|NCT02024529|169040417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
84652083|NCT02024529|169040418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.75
84652084|NCT02024529|169040419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.18
84652085|NCT02024529|169040420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.81
84714527|NCT00986856|169174874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.043||95.0|0.9|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.5|0.9|0.043
84714528|NCT00986856|169174875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.8||||0.007||95.0|1.5|109.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||109.6|1.5|0.007
84714529|NCT00986856|169174876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.008||95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.8|-4.8|0.008
84714530|NCT02969707|169174877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||Examining the Change in sum of positive z-transformed CC.||||0.035
84714531|NCT02969707|169174877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||2-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of all z-transformed CC.||||0.7
84714532|NCT02969707|169174877|SUPERIORITY|2-sample t-test||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of negative z-transformed CC.||||0.11
84714533|NCT02969707|169174877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.98||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample(paired) t-test||Examining the change in positive functional connectivity between the L-DLPFC and the dACC within the active group from pre to post TMS.||||0.008
84714534|NCT02969707|169174879|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U statistic|601.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||0.046
84714535|NCT02969707|169174879|OTHER||Cohen's R|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimate of effect size|Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||
84714536|NCT02969707|169174880|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Mann-Whitney U statistic|702.5|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in HIS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.412
84714537|NCT02969707|169174883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||||||0.037
84714538|NCT02969707|169174883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
84714539|NCT02969707|169174883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84714540|NCT02969707|169174888|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Cohen's d|-0.234||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects model|||We used standard mixed-effects modeling to estimate the change (slope) in pain in our 2\*2 pre- and post-assessment design. Pain ratings were calculated by averaging pain ratings across 5 assessments under four conditions (TMS with hypnosis, TMS without hypnosis, Sham with hypnosis, Sham without hypnosis). Based on these change estimates, we derived the two main effects (TMS, Hypnosis) and their interaction effect on the change in pain from the pre- to post-treatment assessment.||||0.49
84714541|NCT02969707|169174889|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in SOARS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.454
84680018|NCT02605954|169096040|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the ABC/3TC+3rd Agent group at Week 24, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 24.|Difference in Percentages|-4.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|-9.4|0.15
84652086|NCT02476201|169040422|SUPERIORITY|Using a one-sided, one sample Exact Binomial Test and a significance level of 2.5%, the study required 74 patients to reach a power of 90%. With the MPP feature activated at baseline, it was assumed that the proportion of responders at 6 months was 75%. The MPP responder rate was compared to 57%, which is the responder rate obtained from literature for patients without the MPP feature activated.|Percentage|67.1||||0.0435|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.6||||Exact binomial||||||55.6|0.0435
84652087|NCT01856907|169040437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.035
84652088|NCT01856907|169040438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Subjects (SS)/ Treatment Group x repeated measures (visit) design||||0.044
84652089|NCT01856907|169040439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.034
84652090|NCT01856907|169040440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||.047
84652091|NCT01856907|169040441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.017
84652092|NCT01856907|169040442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.014
84652093|NCT01856907|169040443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.042
84652094|NCT01856907|169040444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.002
84652095|NCT01856907|169040445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
84652096|NCT01856907|169040446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
84652097|NCT01856907|169040447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84652098|NCT00694707|169040477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-3.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-3.3|-11.8|0.0005
84652099|NCT00694707|169040477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-4.6|-13.1|<0.0001
84652100|NCT00694707|169040477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-6.2|-14.6|<0.0001
84652101|NCT00694707|169040477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-10.8|-19.4|<0.0001
84652102|NCT00694707|169040478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0040
84652103|NCT00694707|169040478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0003
84652104|NCT00694707|169040478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
84652105|NCT00694707|169040478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
84652106|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.42
84652107|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.32
84652108|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.36
84652109|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.17||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.23
84652110|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression model with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.26
84652111|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Treatment Effect|0.007||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.95
84652112|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.92
84652113|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.59
84652114|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Interaction Term|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.54
84680019|NCT02605954|169096041|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the delayed switch group at Week 12, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval will be expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 12.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|0.17
84680020|NCT02605954|169096043|OTHER||Difference in least square mean|-36.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||||9|-80|0.11
84652115|NCT04041375|169040486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.05
84680021|NCT03740490|169096046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each outcome was modeled using a mixed-effects regression with the change score as the dependent variable and treatment group (Smart-T vs. QuitGuide) as the predictor, restricted to participants who received or would have received that type of message.||0.08|-0.28|0.284
84680022|NCT03740490|169096047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.11|0.477
84680023|NCT03740490|169096048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.456
84680024|NCT03740490|169096049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.215
84680025|NCT00779246|169096061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis was that ASC and CHG would be no different in preventing acquisition of MRSA.||2.9|0.5|>0.05
84680026|NCT00148343|169096064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.75|||||Mixed model analysis. Slope is in reference to treatment x time interaction for full 36 weeks|||2.75|-0.2|
84680027|NCT00148343|169096065|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to from baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks.|||-0.09|-10.05|<0.05
84505929|NCT00782509|168762717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
84505930|NCT00782509|168762717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.130|<0.0001
84680028|NCT00148343|169096066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.096|14.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to start of treatment to end of follow up at 36 weeks|||14.716|-14.096|<0.05
84680029|NCT00148343|169096067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|8.89|||||Mixed models analysis. Slope refers to baseline to final follow up at 36 weeks|||8.89|-12.79|
84680030|NCT00148343|169096068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks|||0.057|-0.045|<0.05
84505931|NCT00782509|168762718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.108|<0.0001
84505932|NCT00782509|168762718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.094|<0.0001
84680031|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|Geometric Mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
84680032|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
84680033|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.17|0.85|
84680034|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.87|
84680035|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.88|
84680036|NCT03579459|169096069|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.23|0.83|
84680037|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Statistical comparisons of the 7 mean changes from baseline to different time-points (0-24 hours) were undertaken in one mixed effects model of analysis taking into account the cross-over nature of the study and the multiple time points within each period to explore a possible treatment effect in this small proof of concept study. Change from baseline at 0.5 hours is presented in this section|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 0.5 hours||1.19|-1.23|0.9733
84505933|NCT00782509|168762719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
84505934|NCT00782509|168762719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.098|<0.0001
84652116|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.03
84652117|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.83
84652118|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.12
84652119|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.39||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.17
84652120|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.85
84652121|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.94
84680038|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.79||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1 hour. The change from baseline at 1 hour was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.79|-1.64|0.4942
84680039|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.6866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1.5 hours. The change from baseline at 1.5 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.97|-1.46|0.6866
84680040|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 2 hours. The change from baseline at 2 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.32|-2.11|0.1488
84680041|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 4 hours. The change from baseline at 4 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.86|-1.57|0.5644
84680042|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 8 hours, The change from baseline at 8 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.51|-1.91|0.2561
84680043|NCT04153409|169096078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 24 hours. The change from baseline at 24 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||1.20|-1.22|0.9875
84652122|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.47
84505935|NCT00782509|168762720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.118|<0.0001
84652123|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.08||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.82
84652124|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.66
84652125|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
84652126|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
84652127|NCT04041375|169040487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.40
84652128|NCT04041375|169040489|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.93
84652129|NCT04041375|169040489|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
84652130|NCT04041375|169040490|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.32||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.66
84652131|NCT04041375|169040490|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.99||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
84680044|NCT00407537|169096097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-3.89||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|It was estimated that each study site would on average complete 8 evaluable participants, therefore enrolling 164 sites, 1968 participants would provide at least 90% power to detect a 10% relative reduction in the 10-year predicted risk of total CHD at 12 months (as calculated from the Framingham model) from the control arm based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||-3.89|-5.55|<0.001
84505936|NCT00782509|168762720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.120|<0.0001
84505937|NCT00782509|168762721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.263|<0.0001
84505938|NCT00782509|168762721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.265|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.265|<0.0001
84652132|NCT04041375|169040493|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.45||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.38
84680045|NCT00407537|169096098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-3.93||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-3.93|-5.58|<0.001
84680046|NCT00407537|169096099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.72||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.72|-1.23|<0.001
84680047|NCT00407537|169096100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.59||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.59|-1.16|<0.001
84680048|NCT00407537|169096101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.15||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.15|-1.56|<0.001
84680049|NCT00407537|169096102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.14||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.14|-1.57|<0.001
84652133|NCT04041375|169040493|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.64||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
84652134|NCT04041375|169040494|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.74
84652135|NCT04041375|169040494|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.62
84652136|NCT04041375|169040495|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.16||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.72
84680050|NCT00407537|169096107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-0.88|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.88|-5.42|<0.007
84505939|NCT00782509|168762722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.174|<0.0001
84505940|NCT00782509|168762722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.159|<0.0001
84652137|NCT04041375|169040495|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.58
84652138|NCT04041375|169040496|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.36||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.50
84652139|NCT04041375|169040496|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.72||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
84652140|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.193||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.165
84652141|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.216
84652142|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
84652143|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.070
84652144|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
84505941|NCT00782509|168762723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.195|<0.0001
84652145|NCT01967342|169040499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.519
84652146|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.196
84652147|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.447
84680051|NCT00407537|169096108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.37|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.37|-2.86|<0.011
84680052|NCT00407537|169096109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.5|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-3.50|-8.00|<0.001
84680053|NCT00407537|169096110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-1.92|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-1.92|-4.42|<0.001
84505942|NCT00782509|168762723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.315|0.178|<0.0001
84505943|NCT00782509|168762724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.308|0.170|<0.0001
84680054|NCT00407537|169096111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
84680055|NCT00407537|169096111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
84680056|NCT00407537|169096111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
84680057|NCT00407537|169096111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effects linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
84680058|NCT00407537|169096112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
84680059|NCT00407537|169096112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
84680060|NCT00407537|169096112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
84680061|NCT00407537|169096112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
84680062|NCT00407537|169096113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
84680063|NCT00407537|169096113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
84680064|NCT00407537|169096113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
84680065|NCT00407537|169096113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
84505944|NCT00782509|168762724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.314|0.176|<0.0001
84680066|NCT00407537|169096114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Total cholesterol||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
84680067|NCT00407537|169096114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
84680068|NCT00407537|169096114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
84680069|NCT00407537|169096114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
84652148|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||<.001
84652149|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.021
84652150|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
84652151|NCT01967342|169040500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.305
84652152|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.082
84680070|NCT01380327|169096119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.98).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT -high dose, Placebo - high dose||2.3|1.2|0.001
84680071|NCT01380327|169096119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. low dose group (numerator=2.69).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||3.1|1.7|<0.0001
84680072|NCT01380327|169096120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.32).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||1.4|1.1|<0.0001
84680073|NCT01380327|169096120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.14).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||1.2|1.0|0.11
84505945|NCT00782509|168762725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.171|<0.0001
84505946|NCT00782509|168762725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.150|<0.0001
84680074|NCT01380327|169096121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.57).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||2.4|1.0|0.06
84652153|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.652|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.652
84505947|NCT00782509|168762726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.147|<0.0001
84652154|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
84652155|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.241
84680075|NCT01380327|169096121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.45).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||2.2|0.9|0.13
84680076|NCT01380327|169096122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|-12.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (-7.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||7.5|-33.2|0.21
84680077|NCT01380327|169096122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|13.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (19.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||34.1|-7.1|0.20
84680078|NCT05046795|169096124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|150.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.145|197.671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||197.671|104.145|<0.0001
84680079|NCT05046795|169096125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|144.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.61|186.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||186.088|102.610|<0.0001
84505948|NCT00782509|168762726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.148|<0.0001
84680080|NCT05046795|169096126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|287.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.933|363.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.570|211.933|<0.0001
84680081|NCT05046795|169096127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|105.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|139.12|||ANCOVA|||||139.12|72.60|<0.0001
84680082|NCT05046795|169096128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|154.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.86|210.78|||ANCOVA|||||210.78|98.86|<0.0001
84680083|NCT05046795|169096129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-8.49|0.0064
84680084|NCT05046795|169096130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.16|0.0144
84680085|NCT01040130|169096140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|1.065|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.221|1.065|0.0002
84680086|NCT01040130|169096140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0003||95.0|1.062|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.219|1.062|0.0003
84680087|NCT01040130|169096141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.112|<0.0001
84680088|NCT01040130|169096141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.245|0.104|<0.0001
84680089|NCT01040130|169096142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0007||95.0|-1.205|-0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.326|-1.205|0.0007
84680090|NCT01040130|169096142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0051||95.0|-1.077|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.192|-1.077|0.0051
84680091|NCT01040130|169096143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.325|0.191|<0.0001
84680092|NCT01040130|169096143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.362|0.226|<0.0001
84680093|NCT01040130|169096144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.107|<0.0001
84680094|NCT01040130|169096144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.064|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.210|0.064|0.0003
84680095|NCT01040130|169096145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0447||95.0|-0.204|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.002|-0.204|0.0447
84680096|NCT01040130|169096145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.2132||95.0|-0.166|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.037|-0.166|0.2132
84680097|NCT01040130|169096146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5698||95.0|-0.391|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.391|0.5698
84652156|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
84652157|NCT01967342|169040501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.422
84652158|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (6-months).||||<.001
84652159|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (10-weeks).||||.001
84652160|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at pre-treatment (10-weeks).||||.217
84652161|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.009
84652162|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.001
84652163|NCT01967342|169040502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.389
84652164|NCT00395733|169040523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for investigators only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9736||||||90.0|0.9315|1.0168|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0168|0.9315|
84652165|NCT00395733|169040523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 1 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.954||||||90.0|0.9122|0.9965|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9965|0.9122|
84652166|NCT00395733|169040523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 2 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9458||||||90.0|0.8776|1.024|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0240|0.8776|
84680098|NCT01040130|169096146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1003||95.0|-0.05|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.561|-0.050|0.1003
84680099|NCT01040130|169096147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0784||95.0|-0.258|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.014|-0.258|0.0784
84505949|NCT00782509|168762727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.104||95.0|-0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|-0.012|0.1040
84505950|NCT00782509|168762727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0172||95.0|0.015|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.015|0.0172
84505951|NCT00782509|168762728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0106||95.0|0.022|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.022|0.0106
84652167|NCT00395733|169040523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 3 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.8698||||||90.0|0.78|0.9657|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9657|0.7800|
84652168|NCT03725852|169040532|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|42.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.483||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.84|166.49||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model at each time point including treatment, sex, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither), age, height, and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||166.49|-81.84|0.495
84652169|NCT03725852|169040533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.5|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs||24.5|-17.3|
84652170|NCT03725852|169040533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|30.7|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Serious TEAEs||30.7|-3.0|
84652171|NCT03725852|169040533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs related to study drug||49.4|8.2|
84680100|NCT01040130|169096147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1013||95.0|-0.252|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.023|-0.252|0.1013
84652172|NCT03725852|169040533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|36.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs leading to study drug discontinuation||36.4|6.7|
84652173|NCT03725852|169040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause deaths||||0.397
84652174|NCT03725852|169040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related deaths||||0.397
84505952|NCT00782509|168762728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.046|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.046|0.0013
84652175|NCT03725852|169040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause hospitalizations||||0.131
84652176|NCT03725852|169040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related hospitalizations||||0.762
84680101|NCT01040130|169096148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0015||95.0|-0.339|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.081|-0.339|0.0015
84652177|NCT03725852|169040535|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.713||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.87|22.64||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline 6MWT distance as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||22.64|-40.87|0.565
84652178|NCT03725852|169040536|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference.|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.91||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||5.91|-9.06|0.673
84652179|NCT03725852|169040537|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|8.53||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Symptoms score||8.53|-9.98|0.875
84680102|NCT01040130|169096148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.503|-0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.243|-0.503|<0.0001
84652180|NCT03725852|169040537|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.038||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|6.02||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Activity score||6.02|-14.29|0.416
84652181|NCT03725852|169040537|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.92||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Impacts score||7.92|-8.32|0.961
84652182|NCT03725852|169040538|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84652183|NCT04981392|169040542|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0066
84652184|NCT04981392|169040543|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0058
84652185|NCT03072732|169040544|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 1 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.75|0.57|
84652186|NCT03072732|169040544|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 2 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.35|0.12|
84652187|NCT01697358|169040549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||0.036
84652188|NCT01697358|169040550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
84652189|NCT01697358|169040551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
84652190|NCT01697358|169040552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline ODI, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
84652191|NCT01697358|169040553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline PCS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
84652192|NCT01697358|169040554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||< 0.001
84652193|NCT02387710|169040555|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.5
84680103|NCT01040130|169096149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0005||95.0|0.052|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.185|0.052|0.0005
84652194|NCT02913612|169040565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.65||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|1.12|0.0205
84652195|NCT02913612|169040565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.14|||Fisher Exact|||||5.14|0.91|0.0619
84652196|NCT02913612|169040565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.23||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.82|||Fisher Exact|||||2.82|0.53|0.6281
84652197|NCT04402060|169040589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Wald method.||1.51|0.63|0.82
84652198|NCT04402060|169040590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|3.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||3.40|0.77|0.36
84652199|NCT04402060|169040592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||0.51|0.01|0.03
84505953|NCT00782509|168762729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.3821||95.0|-0.04|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|-0.040|0.3821
84652200|NCT04402060|169040593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.72|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||1.72|0.69|0.93
84652201|NCT00810693|169040606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 12 weeks were imputed with worst value of 0m in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using ANCOVA, with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group, region and treatment naive/add-on therapy as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant||||<0.0001
84652202|NCT00810693|169040606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.06|51.51||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||51.51|20.06|<0.0001
84652203|NCT00810693|169040606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84652204|NCT00810693|169040607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
84652205|NCT00810693|169040607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-281.37|-170.08||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-170.08|-281.37|<0.0001
84652206|NCT00810693|169040607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84652207|NCT00810693|169040608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
84652208|NCT00810693|169040608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-431.81||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.52|-82.1||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-82.10|-781.52|0.0157
84652209|NCT00810693|169040608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84652210|NCT00810693|169040609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0033||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0033
84652211|NCT00810693|169040610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.55||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.|"The test is for difference of occurence of Any event."||-0.55|-9.85|0.0046
84652212|NCT00810693|169040611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0022
84680104|NCT01040130|169096149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0073||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.159|0.025|0.0073
84505954|NCT00782509|168762729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1917||95.0|-0.024|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.024|0.1917
84652213|NCT00810693|169040612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0663
84652214|NCT00810693|169040612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|0.01|0.0197
84652215|NCT00810693|169040612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84652216|NCT00810693|169040613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0019
84652217|NCT00810693|169040613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.54||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-2.54|-9.79|0.0009
84680105|NCT01040130|169096150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.275|0.136|<0.0001
84680106|NCT01040130|169096150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.285|0.146|<0.0001
84680107|NCT01040130|169096151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.9239||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.127|-0.115|0.9239
84505955|NCT00782509|168762730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1808||95.0|-0.023|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|-0.023|0.1808
84680108|NCT01040130|169096151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7368||95.0|-0.144|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.102|-0.144|0.7368
84680109|NCT01040130|169096152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8302||95.0|-0.146|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.146|0.8302
84680110|NCT01040130|169096152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0202||95.0|-0.292|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.292|0.0202
84652218|NCT00810693|169040613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84680111|NCT01040130|169096153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.123|0.056|<0.0001
84505956|NCT00782509|168762730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.37||95.0|-0.039|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|-0.039|0.3700
84652219|NCT02345226|169040626|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 400 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 95% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and EFV/FTC/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-5.9|1.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the EFV/FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the EFV/FTC/TDF group.||1.8|-5.9|
84652220|NCT02345226|169040626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
84652221|NCT01848704|169040638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.07|0.03
84652222|NCT01848704|169040639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-1.13|0.03
84652223|NCT01848704|169040640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.95|0.18
84652224|NCT01848704|169040641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.08|0.029
84652225|NCT01848704|169040642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.03|0.061
84652226|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Vancomycin, all patients||||0.92
84652227|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, organisms not requiring vancomycin.||||0.032
84652228|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin-susceptible enterococci||||0.037
84652229|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.||||0.2
84652230|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin.||||0.035
84652231|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For piperacillin-tazobactam.||||0.012
84652232|NCT01898208|169040677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For cefepime.||||0.56
84652233|NCT01898208|169040678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.55
84652234|NCT01898208|169040679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate de-escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||<0.0001
84652235|NCT01898208|169040679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||0.04
84652236|NCT01898208|169040680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.015
84652237|NCT01898208|169040681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the FilmArray test to control arm.||||<0.0001
84652238|NCT01898208|169040681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares FilmArray plus antimicrobial stewardship to the control arm.||||<0.0001
84680112|NCT01040130|169096153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.134|0.068|<0.0001
84680113|NCT01040130|169096154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.258|0.191|<0.0001
84680114|NCT01040130|169096154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.193|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.259|0.193|<0.0001
84652239|NCT01898208|169040682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis is to compare the three groups.||||0.79
84652240|NCT01898208|169040683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
84652241|NCT01898208|169040684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is a comparison of the 3 groups.||||0.62
84652242|NCT01898208|169040685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the three groups.||||0.60
84652243|NCT01898208|169040686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for all-cause mortality.||||0.74
84652244|NCT01898208|169040686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for attributable mortality.||||0.42
84652245|NCT01898208|169040687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is a comparison across all three groups.||||0.82
84652246|NCT01898208|169040689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for total hospitalization costs.||||0.7789
84652247|NCT01898208|169040689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for laboratory test cost.||||0.0006
84652248|NCT01898208|169040689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for antimicrobials costs.||||0.6540
84652249|NCT01498978|169040694|OTHER|Exact binomial test (two-sided).||||||0.754|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Exact binomial test (two-sided). Null hypothesis: the proportion is equal to 0.5||||0.754
84652250|NCT01498978|169040695|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
84652251|NCT01498978|169040698|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
84652252|NCT01498978|169040699|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84652253|NCT01498978|169040700|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.524
84652254|NCT02155881|169040703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.01|-0.98|0.9716
84652255|NCT02155881|169040704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.02|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.02|-0.87|0.8713
84652256|NCT02155881|169040705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.81|-0.61|0.7789
84652257|NCT02155881|169040706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.86|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.86|-0.55|0.6630
84652258|NCT02155881|169040707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.19|-0.35|0.5593
84652259|NCT02155881|169040707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Runny nose: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.22|0.7085
84680115|NCT01040130|169096155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0006||95.0|0.046|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.167|0.046|0.0006
84652260|NCT02155881|169040707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Itching: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.22|0.7309
84652261|NCT02155881|169040707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.30|-0.29|0.9584
84680116|NCT01040130|169096155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0017||95.0|0.037|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.037|0.0017
84680117|NCT01040130|169096156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.227|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
84680118|NCT01040130|169096156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.348|0.233|<0.0001
84680119|NCT01040130|169096157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.429|0.207|<0.0001
84680120|NCT01040130|169096157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.414|0.192|<0.0001
84680121|NCT01040130|169096158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.701|0.470|<0.0001
84680122|NCT01040130|169096158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001||95.0|0.502|0.734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.734|0.502|<0.0001
84680123|NCT00782340|169096164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
84680124|NCT00782340|169096165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHDAS composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
84680125|NCT00782340|169096166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.010
84680126|NCT00782340|169096167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.003
84680127|NCT00782340|169096168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.009
84680128|NCT00782340|169096169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||<0.001
84680129|NCT00782340|169096170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the this endpoint was not positive, no additional statistical analyses will be performed on secondary endpoints.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.327
84680130|NCT01458574|169096257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
84505957|NCT00782509|168762731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2312||95.0|-0.029|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.029|0.2312
84680131|NCT01458574|169096257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|37.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.6|21.4|<0.0001
84680132|NCT01458574|169096258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|32.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.5|16.0|<0.0001
84680133|NCT01458574|169096258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|41.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.0|24.2|<0.0001
84680134|NCT01458574|169096259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
84680135|NCT01458574|169096259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
84680136|NCT01458574|169096260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|30.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||30.6|14.8|<0.0001
84680137|NCT01458574|169096260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
84680138|NCT01458574|169096261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
84505958|NCT00782509|168762731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0596||95.0|-0.003|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.144|-0.003|0.0596
84680139|NCT01458574|169096261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.1|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.1|13.5|<0.0001
84680140|NCT01458574|169096262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|35.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.5|18.1|<0.0001
84680141|NCT01458574|169096262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|37.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.7|20.3|<0.0001
84680142|NCT01458574|169096263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||28.3|14.1|<0.0001
84680143|NCT01458574|169096263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||33.8|19.0|<0.0001
84652262|NCT02155881|169040708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Itching/Burning Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.46|-0.11|0.2266
84652263|NCT02155881|169040708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Redness: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.17|-0.35|0.4888
84652264|NCT02155881|169040708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Tearing/Watering Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|-0.22|0.8316
84652265|NCT02155881|169040709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.25|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.25|-0.80|0.2968
84652266|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Activities: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.85|0.3533
84652267|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.32|-0.84|0.3712
84652268|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Non-nose/Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.29|-0.69|0.4098
84680144|NCT01458574|169096264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
84680145|NCT01458574|169096264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|57.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||57.2|31.8|<0.0001
84652269|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Practical Problems: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.28|-1.00|0.2683
84505959|NCT00782509|168762732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.311||95.0|-0.036|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.036|0.3110
84505960|NCT00782509|168762732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.9426||95.0|-0.076|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.071|-0.076|0.9426
84652270|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.38|-0.82|0.4643
84652271|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.74|0.4502
84652272|NCT02155881|169040710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Emotional: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.95|0.1770
84652273|NCT01033851|169040756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A repeated measure ANOVA, with time as the repeated measure, treatment arm as between-subjects factor and CGI-S score as the dependent variable, found a main effect of time (F(1,84)=62.19, p\<0.001) and a significant treatment arm X time interaction (F(1,84)=4.51, p=0.0366).||||0.0366
84652274|NCT01011738|169040791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.349||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|7.271||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||7.271|1.542|0.0022
84652275|NCT01011738|169040791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.595||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.063||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||8.063|1.603|0.0019
84652276|NCT01011738|169040791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.851||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.99||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Weight in kg was analyzed as independent predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.990|0.732|0.0369
84652277|NCT01011738|169040795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.539||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.539|0.045|0.0033
84505961|NCT00782509|168762733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.268||95.0|-0.032|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.032|0.2680
84652278|NCT01011738|169040795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.191||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.594|||Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||0.594|0.062|0.0042
84652279|NCT01011738|169040795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.528||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.15||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, ALT ratio was analysed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||2.150|1.086|0.0149
84652280|NCT02642029|169040820|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1989|0.0002||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0002|-.1989|0.51
84652281|NCT02642029|169040820|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.0256||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0256|-.1770|0.143
84652282|NCT02642029|169040821|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.0446||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||.626
84680146|NCT01458574|169096264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|41.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.4|18.7|<0.0001
84680147|NCT01458574|169096264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|31.1|<0.0001
84680148|NCT01458574|169096265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.0|13.8|<0.0001
84505962|NCT00782509|168762733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0662||95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.005|0.0662
84652283|NCT02642029|169040821|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0903||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.322
84652284|NCT02642029|169040822|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-9.797||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.1118
84652285|NCT02642029|169040822|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-47.764||||9e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.00000009
84680149|NCT01458574|169096265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|52.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||52.3|28.7|<0.0001
84652286|NCT02642029|169040823|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.91||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.910
84680150|NCT01458574|169096266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|39.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||39.7|20.9|<0.0001
84680151|NCT01458574|169096266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|46.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||46.4|28.1|<0.0001
84652287|NCT02642029|169040823|OTHER|Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|beta coefficient for depressed mood|0.00071||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00048|0.0019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, depressed mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00190|-0.00048|0.243
84652288|NCT02642029|169040824|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.83||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.830
84652289|NCT02642029|169040824|OTHER||beta coefficient for anxiety|-0.00063||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00179|0.00052||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, anxiety). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00052|-0.00179|0.284
84652290|NCT02642029|169040825|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.755||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.755
84652291|NCT02642029|169040825|OTHER||beta coefficient for elated mood|-0.0007||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00208|0.00067||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, elated mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00067|-0.00208|0.317
84652292|NCT02642029|169040826|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.035||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.035
84652293|NCT02642029|169040826|OTHER||beta coefficient for auditory hallucinat|0.00195||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00021|0.00369||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, auditory hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00369|0.00021|0.028
84680152|NCT01458574|169096266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|40.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||40.2|22.4|<0.0001
84680153|NCT01458574|169096266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.5|32.9|<0.0001
84680154|NCT01458574|169096267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.7|20.9|<0.0001
84680155|NCT01458574|169096267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|49.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||49.0|31.4|<0.0001
84505963|NCT00782509|168762734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.2249||95.0|-0.028|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.028|0.2249
84680156|NCT01458574|169096268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
84652294|NCT02642029|169040827|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.748||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.748
84652295|NCT02642029|169040827|OTHER||beta coefficient for visual hallucinatio|-0.00039||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00151||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, visual hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00151|-0.00230|0.685
84652296|NCT02642029|169040828|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.02||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.020
84652297|NCT02642029|169040828|OTHER||beta coefficient for paranoid ideation|0.0004||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00108|0.00188||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, paranoid ideation). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00188|-0.00108|0.597
84652298|NCT02642029|169040829|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.237||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.237
84652299|NCT02642029|169040829|OTHER||beta coefficient for ideas/del of refere|-0.00142||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.00065||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, ideas/delusions of reference). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00065|-0.00350|0.178
84652300|NCT02642029|169040830|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.33||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.330
84652301|NCT02642029|169040830|OTHER||beta coefficient for delusions of contro|-0.00038||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00305|0.00228||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, delusions of control). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00228|-0.00305|0.777
84652302|NCT00676338|169040844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.62|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.26|0.17||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.17|-0.26|0.620
84680157|NCT01458574|169096268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
84505964|NCT00782509|168762734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0994||95.0|-0.012|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|-0.012|0.0994
84652303|NCT00676338|169040844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.328|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.15|0.35||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.35|-0.15|0.328
84652304|NCT00676338|169040844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.62|-0.13||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.13|-0.62|<.001
84680158|NCT01458574|169096268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
84680159|NCT01458574|169096268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.2|21.9|<0.0001
84680160|NCT01458574|169096269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
84680161|NCT01458574|169096269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.7|14.0|<0.0001
84680162|NCT01458574|169096270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|4.5|0.0006
84680163|NCT01458574|169096270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.7|1.5|0.0092
84505965|NCT00782509|168762735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.261|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.261|<0.0001
84652305|NCT00676338|169040845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.151
84652306|NCT00676338|169040845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.913
84652307|NCT00676338|169040845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
84652308|NCT00676338|169040846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.10|-0.66|0.155
84652309|NCT00676338|169040846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.75||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.75|-0.12|0.153
84652310|NCT00676338|169040846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.68|-1.56|<.001
84652311|NCT00676338|169040847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.53||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.53|-0.61|0.892
84652312|NCT00676338|169040847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-2.9||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-2.90|-4.21|<.001
84652313|NCT00676338|169040847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.63||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.63|-1.92|<.001
84652314|NCT00676338|169040848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.15||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.15|-0.18|0.873
84652315|NCT00676338|169040848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.14|-0.52|<.001
84680164|NCT01458574|169096270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
84652316|NCT00676338|169040848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.022
84652317|NCT00676338|169040849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.02|-0.09|0.004
84652318|NCT00676338|169040849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.11||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.11|-0.19|<.001
84505966|NCT00782509|168762735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.263|<0.0001
84652319|NCT00676338|169040849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.142
84652320|NCT00676338|169040850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.10|0.94|0.657
84652321|NCT00676338|169040850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.27|1.06|0.002
84652322|NCT00676338|169040850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.14|0.95|0.398
84652323|NCT00676338|169040853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.74||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.74|-3.52|0.201
84652324|NCT00676338|169040853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.93||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.93|-1.94|0.693
84652325|NCT00676338|169040853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.96||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.96|-1.84|0.646
84652326|NCT00676338|169040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.73||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.73|-1.02|0.610
84652327|NCT00676338|169040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.58|0.43|0.013
84652328|NCT00676338|169040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.49||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.49|-1.60|0.946
84680165|NCT01458574|169096270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.9|5.5|<0.0001
84680166|NCT01458574|169096271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
84680167|NCT01458574|169096271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||5.8|0.3|0.0350
84680168|NCT01458574|169096272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.0|10.3|<0.0001
84680169|NCT01458574|169096272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.0|8.5|<0.0001
84652329|NCT02122458|169040855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|9.56||Given the preliminary nature of this treatment study and the small number of participants the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|An Adjusted Rank Transform was applied to the data prior to applying the mixed model analyses.||The null hypothesis evaluated by the HHIA was that self-perceived hearing handicap would not reduce from baseline to 6-months post-fitting.||9.56|-8.66|.05
84680170|NCT01458574|169096272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|22.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.5|8.8|<0.0001
84680171|NCT01458574|169096272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|27.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.0|12.7|<0.0001
84680172|NCT01458574|169096273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.4|5.9|<0.0001
84680173|NCT01458574|169096273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.7|7.7|<0.0001
84652330|NCT02122458|169040856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Given the small sample size and the preliminary nature of this study, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||.05
84652331|NCT02833350|169040861|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|8.0||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|21.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.64|-5.64|0.2503
84652332|NCT02833350|169040861|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|12.93||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|23.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.48|2.37|0.0164
84652333|NCT02833350|169040861|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|20.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|30.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.79|9.21|0.0003
84652334|NCT02833350|169040863|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-8.58||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.82|0.1694
84652335|NCT02833350|169040863|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-1.5||||0.8132||95.0|-13.96|10.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.95|-13.96|0.8132
84652336|NCT02833350|169040864|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|13.7||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|28.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.61|-1.21|0.0717
84680174|NCT01458574|169096274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||17.9|6.3|<0.0001
84680175|NCT01458574|169096274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||13.5|2.8|0.0021
84652337|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||adjusted difference|-0.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.23|-0.45|0.8504
84652338|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.04||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.21|||ANCOVA|||At week 1, Day 7||0.21|-0.28|0.9884
84652339|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 1 Day 7||0.18|-0.31|0.9230
84652340|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.31|-0.43|0.9853
84652341|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.15|-0.38|0.6826
84652342|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.45|0.2634
84505967|NCT00782509|168762736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.153|<0.0001
84652343|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.14|-0.72|0.2885
84680176|NCT01458574|169096274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
84652344|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.01|-0.61|0.0598
84652345|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.01|-0.62|0.0440
84652346|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.76|0.4271
84652347|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.66|0.0969
84652348|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.01|-0.68|0.0612
84652349|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.12|-0.84|0.2079
84652350|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
84652351|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
84652352|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.82|0.34|<.0001
84652353|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.80|0.31|<0.0001
84652354|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.74|0.20|<.0001
84652355|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.66|0.13|0.0009
84652356|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.25|<.0001
84652357|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.85|0.24|<.0001
84652358|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.76|0.08|0.0095
84652359|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.74|0.06|0.0153
84652360|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.54|-0.16|0.4839
84652361|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.16|0.5035
84652362|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.11||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.38|0.4286
84652363|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.10|-0.50|0.1831
84652364|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.02|-0.65|0.0667
84652365|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.42|-1.11|<0.0001
84652366|NCT02833350|169040868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
84652367|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.55|0.5807
84652368|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.39|0.6270
84652369|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.15||||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.12|-0.42|0.4475
84652370|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.35|-0.47|0.9891
84652371|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.21||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.51|0.2244
84652372|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.01|-0.58|0.0586
84652373|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.08|-0.85|0.1338
84652374|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.74|0.0119
84652375|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.11|-0.77|0.0046
84652376|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.82|0.3943
84652377|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.37||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.00|-0.74|0.0526
84652378|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.02|-0.76|0.0365
84652379|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.41||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.11|-0.93|0.1696
84652380|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.25|-1.01|0.0002
84652381|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.24|-1.00|0.0003
84652382|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.90|0.37|<0.0001
84652383|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.88|0.34|<0.0001
84652384|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.79|0.21|0.0001
84652385|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.43||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.72|0.14|0.0012
84652386|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.91|0.25|<0.0001
84652387|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.21|0.0002
84652388|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.46||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.82|0.09|0.0084
84652389|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.44||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.07|0.0124
84652390|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.15||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.52|-0.23|0.7565
84652391|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.16||||0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.22|0.7158
84652392|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.22||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.52|0.1368
84652393|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.05|-0.62|0.0974
84652394|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.00|-0.76|0.0479
84652395|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.46|-1.22|<0.0001
84652396|NCT02833350|169040869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.42|-1.24|0.0001
84652397|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09||||0.9193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.24|-0.41|0.9193
84652398|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.1||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.33|0.7062
84652399|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.08||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.31|0.8542
84652400|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.24|-0.51|0.8095
84652401|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.44|0.3862
84652402|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.16||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.12|-0.43|0.4328
84652403|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.20|-0.68|0.4915
84652404|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.26||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-0.58|0.1441
84652405|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.07|-0.56|0.1890
84652406|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.25||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.24|-0.74|0.5566
84652407|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.32||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.68|0.0920
84652408|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.06|-0.65|0.1391
84505968|NCT00782509|168762736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.139|<0.0001
84505969|NCT00782509|168762737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.196|<0.0001
84505970|NCT00782509|168762737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.323|0.179|<0.0001
84505971|NCT00782509|168762738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.154|<0.0001
84652409|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.17|-0.86|0.2873
84505972|NCT00782509|168762738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.137|<0.0001
84652410|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.16|-0.91|0.0020
84652411|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.17|-0.92|0.0016
84652412|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.31||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.55|0.07|0.0050
84652413|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.57|0.10|0.0020
84652414|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.62|0.07|0.0082
84652415|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.63|0.08|0.0056
84652416|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.82|0.19|0.0004
84652417|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.84|0.21|0.0002
84652418|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.34||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.69|-0.01|0.0650
84652419|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.37||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.72|0.02|0.0365
84652420|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.47|-0.28|0.9338
84652421|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.29|0.9520
84652422|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.19||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.45|0.1496
84652423|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.17|-0.43|0.3936
84652424|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.68|0.0346
84652425|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.31|-1.04|0.0004
84652426|NCT02833350|169040870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.34|-1.11|0.0003
84680177|NCT01458574|169096274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.6|6.8|<0.0001
84680178|NCT01458574|169096275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
84680179|NCT01458574|169096275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||7.8|1.4|0.0064
84652427|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.53|0.6083
84652428|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.08|-0.44|0.2672
84652429|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.09|-0.43|0.3158
84652430|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.14||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.28|-0.55|0.8495
84680180|NCT01458574|169096277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-1.9|-3.2|<0.0001
84680181|NCT01458574|169096277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.2|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-2.2|-3.5|<0.0001
84680182|NCT01458574|169096277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
84680183|NCT01458574|169096277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-2.5|-4.1|<0.0001
84680184|NCT01458574|169096278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|25.0|<0.0001
84680185|NCT01458574|169096278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
84652431|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.03|-0.58|0.0856
84652432|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.27||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.04|-0.57|0.1021
84652433|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.15|-0.82|0.2762
84680186|NCT01458574|169096278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|50.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.3|21.6|<0.0001
84680187|NCT01458574|169096278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
84680188|NCT01458574|169096279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||44.8|18.8|<0.0001
84680189|NCT01458574|169096279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
84680190|NCT01458574|169096280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|53.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||53.8|23.4|<0.0001
84680191|NCT01458574|169096280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
84505973|NCT00782509|168762739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.153|<0.0001
84652434|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0286
84652435|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0274
84652436|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.24|-0.81|0.4981
84652437|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.00|-0.78|0.0472
84652438|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.03|-0.75|0.0753
84652439|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.13|-0.99|0.1853
84652440|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0009
84652441|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0008
84652442|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.67|0.15|0.0005
84652443|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.68|0.16|0.0003
84652444|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.69|0.09|0.0060
84652445|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.70|0.10|0.0039
84652446|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.18|0.0007
84652447|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.19|0.0007
84652448|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.77|0.01|0.0450
84652449|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.04|0.0259
84652450|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9881
84652451|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9891
84652452|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||-0.00|-0.57|0.0463
84652453|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.23||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.56|0.1867
84652454|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.81|0.0213
84652455|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 8. Day 56||-0.37|-1.19|0.0003
84652456|NCT02833350|169040871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
84652457|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652458|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
84652459|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.82||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.62|-1.98|0.3482
84652460|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
84652461|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
84680192|NCT01458574|169096280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|48.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||48.8|20.1|<0.0001
84680193|NCT01458574|169096280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
84680194|NCT01458574|169096281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.9||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.2|2.6|0.0074
84680195|NCT01458574|169096281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|2.4|0.0103
84680196|NCT01458574|169096281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.5|6.2|0.0018
84680197|NCT01458574|169096281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.9|5.5|0.0029
84680198|NCT01458574|169096282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|0.1|0.0419
84680199|NCT01458574|169096282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.9|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||19.9|2.3|0.0121
84680200|NCT02279641|169096316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|159.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||159|111|
84680201|NCT02279641|169096316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|67.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|70.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||70.7|65.2|
84680202|NCT02279641|169096318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|93.3|
84680203|NCT02279641|169096318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
84652462|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|4.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.89|-3.07|0.6546
84652463|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||5.35|-6.95|0.7988
84652464|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||4.36|-4.35|0.9975
84652465|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|10.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||10.25|-1.16|0.1185
84680204|NCT02279641|169096318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
84680205|NCT02279641|169096319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||112|94.9|
84680206|NCT02279641|169096319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
84680207|NCT02279641|169096321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||98.0|81.8|
84680208|NCT02279641|169096321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|119.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|125.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||125|114|
84680209|NCT02279641|169096322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|96.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||96.6|79.3|
84505974|NCT00782509|168762739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.133|<0.0001
84652466|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.4||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|4.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.21|-9.01|0.4765
84652467|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.61||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||11.12|-1.90|0.1655
84652468|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.18||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|15.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||15.26|1.11|0.0234
84652469|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|13.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||13.67|-7.27|0.5490
84652470|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|24.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||24.03|7.22|0.0003
84652471|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.91||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|18.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||18.43|3.39|0.0044
84652472|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
84652473|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
84652474|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
84652475|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
84652476|NCT02833350|169040872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||23.70|-0.41|0.0584
84652477|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652478|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
84652479|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
84652480|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652481|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
84652482|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
84652483|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
84652484|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
84652485|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.05|-3.23|0.6669
84652486|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.6309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|4.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.93|-8.13|0.6309
84505975|NCT00782509|168762740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.133|<0.0001
84505976|NCT00782509|168762740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.138|<0.0001
84652487|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.83||||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.56|-2.90|0.4473
84652488|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.73||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|7.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.91|-2.45|0.3021
84652489|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.7134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|6.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||6.94|-10.14|0.7134
84652490|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.7||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|10.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.19|-2.79|0.2635
84652491|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.11|-2.02|0.1749
84652492|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
84652493|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652494|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652495|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652496|NCT02833350|169040873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.37||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.20|-8.46|0.7848
84652497|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.28|-6.28|1.0000
84652498|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.93||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.37|-2.50|0.5941
84680210|NCT02279641|169096322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.0|210.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||210|177|
84680211|NCT02279641|169096322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|94.4|
84680212|NCT02279641|169096325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|87.7|
84680213|NCT02279641|169096326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
84680214|NCT02279641|169096327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
84680215|NCT02279641|169096328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|86.7|
84505977|NCT00782509|168762741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0028||95.0|0.049|0.235|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.049|0.0028
84680216|NCT04964089|169096329|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-3.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA as covariates.||||-0.29|-3.88|0.0083
84680217|NCT01365494|169096338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the post vaccination (day 14) ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.667|Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 14|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority in immune response of the Zagreb postexposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen postexposure schedule at study day 14||1.19|0.89|
84680218|NCT01365494|169096340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 7|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA|||||0.48|0.3|
84680219|NCT01365494|169096340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 42|0.96||||||95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.86|
84680220|NCT01664078|169096342|OTHER|The Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis set includes all subjects who had the aortic bifurcate device introduced into the body. This ITT analysis set will be used for all safety and clinical assessment endpoints.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
84680221|NCT03351049|169096355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Compare the effectiveness of reactive support surfaces with and without low air loss in preventing pressure injuries||||0.8
84652499|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.93|-2.93|1.0000
84505978|NCT00782509|168762741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0013||95.0|0.061|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.061|0.0013
84652500|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.17|-6.17|1.0000
84505979|NCT00782509|168762742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|23.099|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.099|3.622|0.0072
84505980|NCT00782509|168762742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.894|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.323|30.545|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.545|11.323|<0.0001
84505981|NCT00782509|168762743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.242|22.67|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.670|2.242|0.0169
84505982|NCT00782509|168762743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.574|30.731|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.731|10.574|<0.0001
84505983|NCT00782509|168762744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.167|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.167|-0.665|0.0011
84505984|NCT00782509|168762744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.267|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.267|-0.760|<0.0001
84505985|NCT00782509|168762745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.111|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.111|-0.729|0.0077
84505986|NCT00782509|168762745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.065|-0.456|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.456|-1.065|<0.0001
84505987|NCT00782509|168762746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.342|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.342|-1.333|0.0010
84505988|NCT00782509|168762746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|-0.789|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.789|-1.767|<0.0001
84505989|NCT00782509|168762747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
84652501|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.95|-2.95|1.0000
84652502|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
84652503|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.77|-6.62|0.8929
84652504|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||3.51|-3.78|0.9424
84652505|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||2.51|-4.40|0.5927
84652506|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.40|-6.31|0.8788
84652507|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.87||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8 Day 56||5.09|-3.36|0.6876
84652508|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.97||||0.6656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.35|-3.42|0.6656
84652509|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Day 84||5.42|-6.34|0.8787
84652510|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.74||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-3.17|0.7101
84652511|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.55|-2.16|0.2425
84652512|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.68|-8.68|1.0000
84680222|NCT02877485|169096356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.9||"Statistical Tests:~Independent t-test to assess differences in mean change in NOSE scores when comparing the two study groups, and p\<0.05 deemed statistically significant"|t-test, 2 sided||Change in Mean NOSE score from baseline to post saline versus change in NOSE score from baseline to post intranasal steroid.|"1\) H0: mean change in NOSE score from baseline after in study group 1 = mean change in NOSE score from baseline in study group 2~Power calculation: To detect a 20% difference in NOSE scores with 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 required 20 participants per study group, for a total of 40 participants."||8.9|-6.0|0.7
84652513|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.39|-8.39|1.0000
84652514|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.03||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|11.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.22|-7.17|0.6658
84652515|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|8.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.77|-8.77|1.0000
84652516|NCT02833350|169040874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.57||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|17.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||17.66|-4.52|0.2457
84652517|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.02|-6.73|0.4960
84652518|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.18||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.98|-5.34|0.2736
84652519|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.08||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.10|-6.26|0.0608
84652520|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.25||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||3.52|-6.02|0.9237
84652521|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.14||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||0.33|-6.60|0.0893
84652522|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.07||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||-0.63|-7.51|0.0138
84652523|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.80|-8.24|0.3358
84652524|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.57||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.94|-8.20|0.0078
84652525|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.68||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.06|-8.30|0.0059
84652526|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.29||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.80|-7.39|0.6503
84652527|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.12||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.59|-6.84|0.1282
84652528|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.78|-6.65|0.1675
84652529|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||2.09|-7.96|0.4220
84652530|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.42|-8.77|0.0027
84652531|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.47||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.78|-9.15|0.0011
84652532|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.21||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.37|0.05|0.0455
84652533|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.31||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.48|-0.87|0.2309
84505990|NCT00782509|168762747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0008||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0008
84505991|NCT00782509|168762748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0028||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0028
84652534|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.27||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|6.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.72|-0.18|0.0698
84652535|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.33||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.76|-1.09|0.2851
84652536|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.29||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.90|0.69|0.0131
84652537|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.18||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.78|0.59|0.0161
84652538|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.85||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.51|0.18|0.0360
84652539|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.70|0.37|0.0252
84652540|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.03||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-2.59|0.9032
84652541|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.66||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.30|-2.97|0.9791
84652542|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.54|-6.98|0.0927
84652543|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.12||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.09|-6.33|0.3202
84652544|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.04|-8.36|0.0476
84652545|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|-5.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 54||-5.55|-14.31|<0.0001
84505992|NCT00782509|168762748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0169||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0169
84652546|NCT02833350|169040875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-8.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-3.90|-12.56|0.0003
84652547|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652548|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
84652549|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
84652550|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652551|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
84652552|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
84652553|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652554|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
84652555|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
84652556|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652557|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
84505993|NCT00782509|168762749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0180
84505994|NCT00782509|168762749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0015||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0015
84505995|NCT00782509|168762750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1313||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1313
84505996|NCT00782509|168762750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0089||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0089
84505997|NCT00782509|168762751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.436|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.436|0.687|0.9853
84505998|NCT00782509|168762751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.763|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.763|0.873|0.2344
84505999|NCT00782509|168762752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|2.38|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.380|0.463|0.9035
84652558|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||10.34|0.57|0.0286
84652559|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
84652560|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.57||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|9.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||9.52|-0.39|0.0708
84652561|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|10.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.86|0.05|0.0478
84652562|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652563|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652564|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
84652565|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.11||||0.3838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||13.36|-5.14|0.3838
84652566|NCT02833350|169040876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.47|-10.10|0.9009
84652567|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.27|-7.00|0.5455
84652568|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.97||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||1.36|-5.30|0.4114
84652569|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.62||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.72|-5.97|0.1739
84652570|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.9761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||4.06|-5.93|0.9761
84652571|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||0.41|-6.78|0.0998
84652572|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.97||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||-0.39|-7.54|0.0239
84652573|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.98||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.30|-9.25|0.2018
84652574|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.67||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.87|-9.48|0.0011
84652575|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.27||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.48|-9.06|0.0026
84652576|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.47||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.90|-7.84|0.6336
84652577|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.49||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.41|-7.38|0.0950
84652578|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|0.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.71|-7.06|0.1451
84652579|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.28||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||1.87|-8.43|0.3434
84652580|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.45||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.68|-9.23|0.0016
84652581|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-2.10|-9.65|0.0006
84652582|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.64||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.96|1.31|0.0025
84652583|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.98||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.32|0.64|0.0129
84652584|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||7.62|0.46|0.0206
84652585|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.26||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.82|-0.30|0.0841
84652586|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.42|0.91|0.0088
84652587|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.07||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.81|1.34|0.0034
84652588|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.39|0.71|0.0138
84652589|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.85||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.69|1.02|0.0073
84652590|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.29||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.03|-2.46|0.8284
84652591|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.86||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.60|-2.88|0.9525
84652592|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.46|-6.91|0.0856
84652593|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.08||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.20|-6.36|0.3374
84652594|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.24||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-8.53|0.0534
84652595|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-6.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||-6.32|-15.33|<0.0001
84506000|NCT00782509|168762752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.209|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.209|0.415|0.9304
84506001|NCT00782509|168762753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.657|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.657|0.717|0.6690
84506002|NCT00782509|168762753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|2.002|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.002|0.902|0.1437
84506003|NCT00782509|168762754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2251||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8188|1.7234|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7234|0.8188|0.3637
84506004|NCT00782509|168762754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8874|1.8527|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.8527|0.8874|0.1853
84506005|NCT00782509|168762755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4664||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4244|2.5063|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.5063|0.4244|0.9455
84506006|NCT00782509|168762755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5028||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.7064|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.7064|0.4696|0.7883
84652596|NCT02833350|169040877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|-4.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-4.81|-13.63|<0.0001
84506007|NCT00782509|168762756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.9717|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.9717|0.8370|0.2514
84652597|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652598|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
84652599|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
84652600|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84506008|NCT00782509|168762756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.3373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2901||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8735|2.0474|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0474|0.8735|0.1807
84652601|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
84652602|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
84652603|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652604|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
84652605|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
84652606|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
84652607|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
84506009|NCT01798485|168762807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.372|||Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||Primary study hypothesis was tested at a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level using a stratified log-rank test.||1.372|0.899|0.3293
84680223|NCT02877485|169096357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-tests to assess differences in mean NOSE score when the treatment groups were combined (saline arm+ steroid arm) at five post-operative time intervals compared to the combined preoperative baseline scores. Significance at p\<0.05.|Paired t-test|||H0: Mean pre- treatment baseline patient NOSE score = Mean post- treatment baseline patient NOSE score.||||<0.001
84680224|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93
84680225|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
84680226|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84680227|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84680228|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
84680229|NCT02250612|169096396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
84652608|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.03|-0.76|0.1050
84652609|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
84652610|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.65||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|8.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.35|-1.04|0.1270
84652611|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.91|-0.00|0.0501
84652612|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652613|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84680230|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84680231|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
84680232|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84680233|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.412
84680234|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.79
84680235|NCT02250612|169096397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
84652614|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
84652615|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
84652616|NCT02833350|169040878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|11.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.95|-10.58|0.9051
84652617|NCT01188421|169040891|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Group|1.31||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group (e.g., Buprenorphine, Tramadol, Clonidine) on COWS Total Score Ratings|ANOVA|||A power analysis determined 40 participants in each group would detect a moderate effect size, assuming an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Due to the expiration of buprenorphine tablets, recruitment was terminated after enrolling 103 participants. This study utilized an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis. The ITT analysis includes all volunteers who signed informed consent, were randomized into the study's treatment conditions, and took at least 1 dose of study medication.||||.275
84652618|NCT01188421|169040891|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Phase|3.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Phase (e.g., Stabilization, Taper, Post-Taper) on COWS total score.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
84680236|NCT03822533|169096399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.089|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference using independent samples t-test.||0.089|-0.059|0.69
84680237|NCT03822533|169096399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.063||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||Presenting β-values from linear regression analysis for group variable adjusted for baseline differences in EQ-5D-3L-index. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||0.063|-0.093|
84680238|NCT03822533|169096400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-891.0|164.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||164|-891|0.17
84680239|NCT03822533|169096400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-870.0|143.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||||143|-870|
84680240|NCT03822533|169096401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-616.0|150.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||150|-616|0.23
84680241|NCT03822533|169096401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.0|139.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis.||Linear regression analysis. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||139|-605|
84680242|NCT03822533|169096404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.0|314.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||314|-219|0.72
84680243|NCT03822533|169096405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-178.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-239|<0.01
84680244|NCT03822533|169096406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.2|-42|0.01
84680245|NCT03822533|169096407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|36.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36|-59|0.62
84680246|NCT03822533|169096408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|-13|0.87
84680247|NCT03822533|169096409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-728.0|220.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||220|-728|0.27
84680248|NCT03822533|169096410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-113|0.96
84680249|NCT03214367|169096426|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.16|0.060
84680250|NCT03214367|169096426|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.04|0.003
84680251|NCT03214367|169096427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-20.6|||ANCOVA|||||-20.6|-35.3|<0.001
84680252|NCT03214367|169096427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|5.0|0.002
84680253|NCT03214367|169096428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||||-21.2|-41.1|<0.001
84680254|NCT03214367|169096428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-17.6|0.235
84680255|NCT03214367|169096437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.16|0.184
84680256|NCT03555396|169096438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|6.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.46|-13.53|0.483
84680257|NCT03555396|169096439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.637
84680258|NCT03555396|169096440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.54||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|18.49||Difference in mean change in adherence from baseline to 6 month follow-up between individuals in the intervention and control arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multilevel linear mixed model with random effects (dyad \& intercept); adjusting for participant age, sex, baseline adherence, and partner HIV status||||18.49|0.59|0.037
84680259|NCT03555396|169096441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher's Exact Test used for small sample sizes||||||0.621
84680260|NCT04827212|169096486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
84680261|NCT04827212|169096487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline values as there was a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84680262|NCT04827212|169096488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline value due to a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84680263|NCT04827212|169096489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
84680264|NCT04827212|169096490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84680265|NCT04827212|169096491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84680266|NCT04827212|169096492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84680267|NCT04827212|169096493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84680268|NCT04827212|169096494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84680269|NCT04827212|169096495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
84680270|NCT04827212|169096496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84680271|NCT04827212|169096497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84680272|NCT04827212|169096498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84680273|NCT04827212|169096499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84680274|NCT04827212|169096500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84680275|NCT04827212|169096501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84680276|NCT04827212|169096502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84680277|NCT04827212|169096503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
84680278|NCT04827212|169096504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84680279|NCT04827212|169096505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84506010|NCT01798485|168762807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.821|1.503||||||"Futility analysis for the first Interim Analysis which had a database cutoff of 19 October 2015. For the first interim analysis, if the lower limit of the 2-sided 99.5% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio was greater than 0.75, then the study could be stopped for futility, based on Data Monitoring Committee recommendation.~Hazard ratio and 99.5% CI were calculated using the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region)."||1.503|0.821|
84652619|NCT01188421|169040891|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Group x P|2.03||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Group x Phase interaction on COWS Total Score|ANOVA|||||||0.092
84652620|NCT01604408|169040897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.660|0.192|<0.001
84652621|NCT01604408|169040898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.461||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.883|-0.039|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.039|-0.883|0.073
84652622|NCT01604408|169040899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.062||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.276|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.276|-2.400|0.191
84652623|NCT01604408|169040900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.057|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.057|-0.023|0.478
84652624|NCT00075218|169040901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.329|||<|0.001||95.0|0.233|0.466||The nominal levels of significance for the interim and final analyses were determined at the time of the analyses using the Lan-DeMets procedure with an O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule.|Log Rank|two-sided unstratified log-rank test||The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the median TTP from placebo treatment is 4 months versus the alternative hypothesis that the median TTP from sunitinib treatment is at least 6 months with an overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and power of 90%.||0.466|0.233|<0.001
84652625|NCT00075218|169040902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.347|||<|0.001||95.0|0.253|0.475||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||0.475|0.253|<0.001
84652626|NCT00075218|169040904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.306||95.0|0.679|1.129||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||1.129|0.679|0.306
84652627|NCT00075218|169040905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505||||0.306||95.0|0.262|1.134||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time||95% CI for Hazard Ratio is from 2.5% and 97.5% Empirical Percentiles of 100,000 Bootstraps.|||1.134|0.262|0.306
84652628|NCT00075218|169040907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percentage)|6.6||||||95.0|3.8|10.5|||||Used exact method based on binomial distribution.|||10.5|3.8|
84652629|NCT00075218|169040907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (%)|6.58||||0.004||95.0|3.47|9.7||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Pearson chi-square test|||||9.70|3.47|0.004
84652630|NCT00075218|169040910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.339|||<|0.001||95.0|0.244|0.472||two-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.472|0.244|<0.001
84652631|NCT00075218|169040910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.001||95.0|0.232|0.46|||Log Rank|log-rank test of treatment stratified by prior imatinib mesylate response and McGill Pain Questionnaire's Present Pain Intensity score||Stratified log-rank test||0.460|0.232|<0.001
84652632|NCT00075218|169040911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.9322||95.0|0.508|1.86|||Log Rank|2-sided, unstratified log-rank test||||1.860|0.508|0.9322
84652633|NCT00075218|169040912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (percent)|17.3||||0.0046||95.0|6.7|28.0|||Pearson chi-square||95% CI of Difference based on normal distribution. Percent = (number of subjects with response per total subjects per treatment in defined analysis population)\*100.|||28.0|6.7|0.0046
84652634|NCT05280782|169041046|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Systolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Systolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
84652635|NCT05280782|169041046|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Diastolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Diastolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
84652636|NCT05280782|169041047|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Heart Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Heart Rate values were normal.|||
84652637|NCT05280782|169041048|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Respiratory Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.016
84652638|NCT05280782|169041049|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Temperature values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Temperature values were normal.|||
84652639|NCT05280782|169041050|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
84652640|NCT05280782|169041051|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
84680280|NCT04827212|169096506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84680281|NCT04827212|169096507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
84680282|NCT04827212|169096508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
84506011|NCT01798485|168762808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.161||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.403||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with stratification variables, ECOG, screening total LDH levels, and geographic region, used to compare the treatment groups.||||1.403|0.961|0.1180
84680283|NCT04827212|169096509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84506012|NCT01798485|168762809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.754||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.754|0.865|0.2506
84680284|NCT00304070|169096516|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 90% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.44
84680285|NCT00304070|169096516|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 50% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.40
84680286|NCT00304070|169096516|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.55||||8.53e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 15% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.00000853
84680287|NCT00320216|169096523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square test|Stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg\].||||||<0.001
84680288|NCT00320216|169096523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84680289|NCT00320216|169096523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84680290|NCT00320216|169096523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the 4 pairwise comparisons between ustekinumab groups and placebo were performed sequentially at alpha = 0.05. The order of testing was prespecified from high to low doses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis:No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 300 participants (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test with stratification by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.01
84680291|NCT00320216|169096524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84680292|NCT00320216|169096524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84506013|NCT01798485|168762810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
84506014|NCT01798485|168762811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 6 weeks||||0.339
84506015|NCT01798485|168762811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 12 weeks||||0.817
84680293|NCT00320216|169096524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|||||||<0.001
84680294|NCT00320216|169096524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo.||||<0.001
84680295|NCT00377676|169096527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to test the primary hypothesis at a one-sided alpha = .05 and have a power of 0.9, when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the total number of subjects with all-cause SAEs that must be observed during the study was found to be 235. Assuming the placebo rate is 0.08, the required sample size was found to be 2991.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.27||Using the Lan and Demets alpha spending function for O'Brien-Fleming boundaries and the overall one-sided significance level of 5%, a level of 0.04068 was to be used at the interim analysis and 0.03938 at the time of the final analysis.|Regression, Cox||cycloset to placebo|||1.27||<0.05
84680296|NCT00377676|169096528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||In order to test the hypothesis for serious cardiovascular adverse events as for the primary endpoint at a one-sided alpha = 0.5 when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the final sample size of 3000 to 3300 subjects was to provide at least 62% power, assuming a hypothetical rate of events of 3.43%, or 103 to 113 cardiovascular SAEs. Upon demonstration of non-inferiority - a 2 sided using 95% CI was used to assess for superiority.||.96|.35|<0.05
84680297|NCT00377676|169096529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||If the standard deviation of HbA1c level is about 1.0% and the baseline and 24 week scores have a correlation of 0.50 then the effect size is 0.5%/1.0% = 0.50. For the metformin/SU analysis, 160 subjects assuming a standard deviation of 1.0% would provide a power of 90% power to detect differences in mean changes of 0.5% or larger.||||<0.001
84680298|NCT00377676|169096530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84714542|NCT02969707|169174890|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .104, F(2,48) = 2.794, β = .320, p = .023)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.023
84506016|NCT01798485|168762812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.344||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|4.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||4.551|1.207|0.0111
84652641|NCT05280782|169041052|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Sodium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Sodium values were normal.|||
84652642|NCT05280782|169041052|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Potassium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Potassium values were normal.|||
84652643|NCT05280782|169041052|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Chloride values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Chloride values were normal.|||
84652644|NCT05280782|169041052|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection CO2 values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
84652645|NCT05280782|169041053|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Glucose values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
84652646|NCT05280782|169041053|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Calcium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
84652647|NCT05280782|169041053|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Creatinine values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.453||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.453
84652648|NCT05280782|169041053|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection BUN values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.125||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.125
84652649|NCT05280782|169041053|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Bilirubin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
84652650|NCT05280782|169041054|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Protein values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Total Protein values were normal.|||
84652651|NCT05280782|169041054|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Albumin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
84652652|NCT05280782|169041055|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Alkaline Phosphatase values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Alkaline Phosphatase values were normal.|||
84652653|NCT05280782|169041055|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection ALT values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
84652654|NCT05280782|169041055|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection AST values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the AST values were normal.|||
84680299|NCT02528214|169096560|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|28.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|40.67||Threshold for significance at two-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference represents reduction difference i.e. dupilumab - placebo.|The outcome measure was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included percentage reduction of OCS dose at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment group, baseline eosinophil level, optimized OCS dose at baseline, region as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||40.67|15.81|< 0.0001
84680300|NCT02528214|169096562|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved the 50% OCS dose reduction criterion as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||7.67|2.06|< 0.0001
84652655|NCT05280782|169041056|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection WBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.687
84652656|NCT05280782|169041057|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hemoglobin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
84652657|NCT05280782|169041058|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hematocrit values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.000
84680301|NCT02528214|169096563|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|8.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved a reduction of OCS dose to \<5 mg/day at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||8.39|2.39|< 0.0001
84680302|NCT02528214|169096564|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included binary status of whether or not a participant achieved their maximum possible reduction of OCS dose per protocol at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||4.73|1.4|0.0024
84680303|NCT02528214|169096565|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant no longer required OCS at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||5.1|1.47|0.0015
84680304|NCT00121238|169096593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84680305|NCT03593655|169096605|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equation|Poisson (log) link, adjusted for period, offset of number of visits per period, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust errors.|The incidence rate ratio compares FTC/TDF to the dapivirine vaginal ring.|Comparison of the proportion of participants experiencing a grade 2 adverse event between products, with a null hypothesis of no difference.||1.12|0.90|0.92
84680306|NCT03732209|169096611|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|7.155||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||Reported values in outcome measures data table reflect mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin for each group (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.017
84680307|NCT03732209|169096612|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|4.885||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||The values reported in the outcome measures data table reflect mean change in AUC (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.042
84652658|NCT05280782|169041059|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Platelets values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Platelets values were normal.|||
84652659|NCT05280782|169041060|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection RBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
84680308|NCT03732209|169096613|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|2.33||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.146
84680309|NCT03732209|169096614|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.042
84680310|NCT01866410|169096656|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
84680311|NCT01866410|169096657|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5
84680312|NCT00553267|169096660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.77|-1.75||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.75|-3.77|<0.0001
84680313|NCT00553267|169096660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.86|-1.84||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.84|-3.86|<0.0001
84680314|NCT00553267|169096661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.15|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.16|-5.15|<0.0001
84680315|NCT00553267|169096661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.35|-2.36|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.36|-5.35|<0.0001
84680316|NCT00553267|169096662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.21|0.002
84680317|NCT00553267|169096662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|2.65|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.65|1.37|<0.001
84680318|NCT00553267|169096663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004||95.0|1.3|4.25|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.25|1.30|0.004
84680319|NCT00553267|169096663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.004||95.0|1.29|4.22|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.22|1.29|0.004
84680320|NCT00553267|169096664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.002||95.0|1.21|2.34|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.34|1.21|0.002
84680321|NCT00553267|169096664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.68|1.38|<0.001
84680322|NCT00553267|169096665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.027||95.0|1.04|2.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.00|1.04|0.027
84680323|NCT00553267|169096665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.15|1.12|0.008
84680324|NCT00553267|169096666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.006||95.0|1.14|2.21|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.21|1.14|0.006
84506017|NCT01798485|168762813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.551|0.797|0.5191
84506018|NCT01798485|168762816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.233||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.621||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.621|0.937|0.1343
84652660|NCT05280782|169041061|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection MCV values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the MCV values were normal.|||
84652661|NCT01163266|169041075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.08||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.08|-4.45|0.058
84652662|NCT01163266|169041075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.35|-5.92|0.002
84652663|NCT01163266|169041076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|2.093|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.093|0.796|0.301
84652664|NCT01163266|169041076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.639||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.652||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.652|1.013|0.044
84652665|NCT01163266|169041077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.05|-0.45|0.119
84652666|NCT01163266|169041077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.04|-0.55|0.024
84652667|NCT01163266|169041078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-0.56|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS Total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.56|-8.03|0.025
84652668|NCT01163266|169041078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-3.60|-10.92|<0.001
84652669|NCT01163266|169041079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.665||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|3.018|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.018|0.918|0.093
84652670|NCT01163266|169041079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.779||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.233|0.979|0.059
84652671|NCT01163266|169041080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.66|-3.44|0.183
84652672|NCT01163266|169041080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.30|-4.50|0.025
84680325|NCT00553267|169096666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|1.2|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.20|0.002
84506019|NCT01798485|168762817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
84652673|NCT02586064|169041081|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.28
84652674|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84652675|NCT02586064|169041081|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.87
84652676|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84680326|NCT00553267|169096667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.006
84680327|NCT00553267|169096667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
84680328|NCT01306162|169096689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|191.0|240.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation.|150mg DE + 400mg DR same time (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||240|191|1.0000
84680329|NCT01306162|169096689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.0|151.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||151|112|0.6697
84680330|NCT01306162|169096689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|236.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.9992||90.0|173.0|321.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||321|173|0.9992
84680331|NCT01306162|169096689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|162.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.0|221.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||221|119|0.9171
84680332|NCT01306162|169096690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|187.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.3||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.0|215.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||215|162|0.9999
84680333|NCT01306162|169096690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|138.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||138|95|0.2207
84680334|NCT01306162|169096690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|225.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.1||0.9946||90.0|156.0|326.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||326|156|0.9946
84680335|NCT01306162|169096690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|133.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|190.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||190|94|0.6221
84680336|NCT01306162|169096691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|241.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||241|190|1.0000
84506020|NCT01992107|168762839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H1N1||1.14|0.93|
84506021|NCT01992107|168762839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.97|
84506022|NCT01992107|168762839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.1|0.89|
84680337|NCT01306162|169096691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.0|155.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||155|113|0.7223
84680338|NCT01306162|169096691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|258.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9993||90.0|182.0|365.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||365|182|0.9993
84680339|NCT01306162|169096691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|159.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|222.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||222|114|0.8875
84506023|NCT01992107|168762839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.14|0.87|
84680340|NCT01306162|169096692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|207.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||207|156|0.9998
84680341|NCT01306162|169096692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|114.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|136.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||136|95|0.1866
84680342|NCT01306162|169096692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|234.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.7||0.9958||90.0|160.0|340.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||340|160|0.9958
84680343|NCT01306162|169096692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|126.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|179.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||179|89|0.5164
84680344|NCT02830594|169096694|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.6|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.60
84680345|NCT02830594|169096695|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.87|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.87
84680346|NCT02830594|169096696|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.64|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.64
84680347|NCT02232893|169096701|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84680348|NCT02120924|169096786|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the inflammatory (papules and pustules) lesion counts in PP population.||1.05|0.92|
84680349|NCT02120924|169096787|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided, continuity-corrected, 90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with treatment success on the IGE was constructed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.116|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\].|||0.116|-0.028|
84680350|NCT02730819|169096799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
84680351|NCT02730819|169096800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
84680352|NCT02099006|169096825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T test||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.30
84680353|NCT02099006|169096825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.33
84680354|NCT02099006|169096825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.65
84680355|NCT02099006|169096825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline and baclofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.25
84680356|NCT02099006|169096825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1.0
84680357|NCT02099006|169096826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.31
84680358|NCT02099006|169096826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1
84680359|NCT02099006|169096826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.66
84680360|NCT02099006|169096826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.42
84680361|NCT02099006|169096826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline/baclofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.79
84680362|NCT01410448|169096827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0921
84680363|NCT01308580|169096844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.214|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|98.89||1.184|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 relative to 25 mg/m\^2 dose group was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of 1-sided 98.89% confidence interval of hazard ratio (20 mg/m\^2 versus 25 mg/m\^2) was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.214.||1.184||
84680364|NCT01308580|169096844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.922||||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 was considered to be superior to 20 mg/m\^2 dose if the lower bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval of hazard ratio was greater than 1.|||0.922|
84680365|NCT01308580|169096845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.24|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.24|0.974|
84680366|NCT01308580|169096846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.331|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.331|0.902|
84680367|NCT01308580|169096848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.393|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.393|1.025|
84680368|NCT01308580|169096850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.251|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.251|0.874|
84680369|NCT02091167|169096897|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We powered for a medium effect size based on our previous study with effect size (partial ղ2) of 0.10384 for the main within-subject factor in the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. With a power of 80%, and a two-sided probability of a type I error of 5%, the resulting minimum sample size was 30 participants. To account for waiving or dropouts we increased the estimated sample size to approximately 10%, resulting in 33 subjects in total (approximately 16 to 17 subjects in each group).|"Most of data (age, patterns of crack-cocaine use, 5-items OCCS) were normally distributed according to the D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test, thus they were analyzed by parametric tests. Between-group (sham- and real tDCS) comparisons were conducted by unpaired Student´s t-tests. For all other non-parametric data (gender, schooling, employment, marital state and tobacco use), Chi-square or Fisher tests were used to compare sham and real tDCS groups.~Besides the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni-corrected t-tests, linear regression analyses were done over craving scores obtained along the 4-week treatment (five time-points measurements) for both groups. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t-tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and real tDCS groups with unpaired t-test."|||0.05
84680370|NCT02091167|169096898|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Two patients from each group were lost to follow-up after their discharge from the hospital.||||0.05
84680371|NCT00791765|169096899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
84680372|NCT00791765|169096900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
84680373|NCT00791765|169096901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided pairwise van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||Comparison of week 24 outcome to week 12 outcome (see Outcome Measure 1)||||<0.0001
84680374|NCT00791765|169096902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided test with modified ridit scores stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
84680375|NCT00156065|169096916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8619||||||95.0|0.6912|0.9644|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9644|0.6912|
84680376|NCT00156065|169096916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8834||||||95.0|0.7744|0.955|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9550|0.7744|
84680377|NCT00156065|169096916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.9376||||||95.0|0.7631|0.9952|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9952|0.7631|
84680378|NCT04389762|169096969|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84680379|NCT04389762|169096970|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84680380|NCT04389762|169096971|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84680381|NCT04389762|169096972|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84680382|NCT04389762|169096973|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84680383|NCT04389762|169096974|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
84680384|NCT04389762|169096975|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84680385|NCT03508843|169097001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
84680386|NCT03508843|169097002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
84680387|NCT03508843|169097003|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||>.05
84680388|NCT03073603|169097010|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0753||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.15|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test for difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1500|0.0063|0.521
84680389|NCT03073603|169097011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.766
84680390|NCT03073603|169097012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.604
84680391|NCT03073603|169097013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
84680392|NCT03073603|169097014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
84680393|NCT03073603|169097015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.831
84680394|NCT03073603|169097016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
84680395|NCT03073603|169097017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.983
84680396|NCT03073603|169097018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
84506024|NCT01992107|168762840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H1N1||6.9|-2.5|
84506025|NCT01992107|168762840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H3N2||9.2|-1.4|
84652677|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence hypothesis was assessed using the confidence intervals for the mean differences compared to margins of equivalence (-7,7). The equivalence hypothesis was examined based on the difference between the amount of change from the baseline to the end of treatment on the CAPS between the two conditions. Confidence interval is -7.0 to 1.9.||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change||||0.26
84652678|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84652679|NCT02586064|169041081|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.68
84506026|NCT01992107|168762840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||4.5|-5.5|
84506027|NCT01992107|168762840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||3.2|-6.5|
84680397|NCT03073603|169097019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.748
84680398|NCT03073603|169097020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
84680399|NCT03073603|169097021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
84680400|NCT03073603|169097022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962
84680401|NCT03073603|169097023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84680402|NCT03073603|169097024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
84680403|NCT03073603|169097025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
84680404|NCT03073603|169097026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
84680405|NCT03073603|169097027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.575
84680406|NCT03073603|169097028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
84680407|NCT03073603|169097029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
84680408|NCT03073603|169097030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84680409|NCT00823719|169097036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|85.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + DHAP treatment.|||85.7|48.2|
84680410|NCT00823719|169097036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|71.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + ICE treatment.|||71.9|36.4|
84680411|NCT00823719|169097036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|73.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Total Ofatumumab + Chemotherapy treatment.|||73.5|47.4|
84680412|NCT00924885|169097079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary end-point was the 'overall pain experience', evaluated as described previously. Assuming the mean overall pain in the RN group to be 27 mm (value chosen after analysis of data from a previous study, Cerne et al., 2006) on VAS, with a standard deviation (SD) of 21.5 mm, 121 patients in each group would be needed to demonstrate a decrease in overall pain of 8 mm (30%) with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed tests).||||0.04
84680413|NCT02508480|169097090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect.||||0.66
84680414|NCT02508480|169097091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884||||||Group effect for Proactive Coping|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Proactive Coping."||||0.884
84652680|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84652681|NCT02586064|169041081|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.84
84652682|NCT02586064|169041081|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84652683|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Baseline||||0.36
84652684|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||4-Week||||0.34
84652685|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||8-Week||||0.43
84652686|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.09
84652687|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||End of Treatment||||0.41
84652688|NCT02586064|169041082|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypotheses were assessed using the confidence interval for the mean differences (-0.33 to 0.20) compared to margin of superiority (-.05).||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Change||||0.64
84652689|NCT02586064|169041082|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
84652690|NCT02586064|169041083|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.40
84652691|NCT02586064|169041083|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.65
84652692|NCT02586064|169041083|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.64
84652693|NCT02586064|169041083|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.64
84652694|NCT02586064|169041083|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.76
84652695|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.11
84652696|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4-Week||||0.48
84652697|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||8-Week||||0.74
84652698|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.34
84652699|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.65
84652700|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.14
84652701|NCT02586064|169041084|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.18
84652702|NCT02586064|169041085|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.08
84652703|NCT02586064|169041085|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.07
84652704|NCT02586064|169041085|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
84652705|NCT02586064|169041085|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.003
84652706|NCT02586064|169041085|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
84652707|NCT02586064|169041086|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.05
84652708|NCT02586064|169041086|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.04
84652709|NCT02586064|169041086|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
84652710|NCT02586064|169041086|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||<0.001
84652711|NCT02586064|169041086|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
84652712|NCT02586064|169041087|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.45
84652713|NCT02586064|169041087|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.71
84652714|NCT02586064|169041087|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.60
84652715|NCT02586064|169041087|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.13
84652716|NCT02586064|169041087|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.80
84652717|NCT02586064|169041088|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.35
84652718|NCT02586064|169041088|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
84652719|NCT02586064|169041088|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.74
84652720|NCT02586064|169041088|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
84652721|NCT02586064|169041088|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
84652722|NCT02586064|169041089|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.39
84652723|NCT02586064|169041089|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.15
84652724|NCT02586064|169041089|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.72
84652725|NCT02586064|169041089|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.04
84652726|NCT02586064|169041089|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.19
84652727|NCT02586064|169041090|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.33
84652728|NCT02586064|169041090|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
84652729|NCT02586064|169041090|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.88
84680415|NCT02508480|169097091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||Group effect for Avoidant Coping.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Avoidant Coping."||||0.543
84680416|NCT02508480|169097092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.135
84652730|NCT02586064|169041090|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.06
84652731|NCT02586064|169041090|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.56
84652732|NCT02586064|169041091|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.16
84652733|NCT02586064|169041091|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.06
84652734|NCT02586064|169041091|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.46
84652735|NCT02586064|169041091|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.001
84652736|NCT02586064|169041091|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.002
84652737|NCT02586064|169041092|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.24
84652738|NCT02586064|169041092|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.81
84652739|NCT02586064|169041092|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.24
84652740|NCT02586064|169041093|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.41
84652741|NCT02586064|169041093|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.21
84652742|NCT02586064|169041093|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.50
84652743|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.70
84652744|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||0.96
84652745|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8||||0.59
84652746|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.61
84652747|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.84
84652748|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Follow Up||||0.30
84652749|NCT02586064|169041094|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
84652750|NCT03181893|169041102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.26|-9.37|||LANCOVA-P model|||||-9.37|-20.26|<0.0001
84652751|NCT03181893|169041119|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|28.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 4||28.77|-7.10|0.1537
84652752|NCT03181893|169041119|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.761||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|31.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 8||31.29|-6.29|0.1312
84652753|NCT03181893|169041119|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.161||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|40.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 12||40.68|-1.79|0.0647
84652754|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.003
84652755|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.9
84652756|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||<0.001
84652757|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.42
84652758|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.84
84652759|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||0.015
84652760|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.085
84652761|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.62
84652762|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.48
84652763|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.14
84652764|NCT01967173|169041150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.096
84652765|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.8|1.000
84652766|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-0.7|1.000
84652767|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.0|0.391
84652768|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.696
84652769|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.7|0.921
84652770|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.693
84652771|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.7|0.770
84652772|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.0|-3.7|0.938
84652773|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.5|0.340
84652774|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.6|0.258
84652775|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.4|0.381
84652776|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.6|0.287
84652777|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.420
84652778|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.7|0.227
84506028|NCT01992107|168762846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.29||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.29|0.22|
84652779|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.427
84652780|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||2.2|-8.4|0.256
84652781|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.198
84652782|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||2.1|-0.3|0.132
84652783|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.4|0.227
84506029|NCT01992107|168762847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.1||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-42.1|-51.1|
84506030|NCT01992107|168762848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.42||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c /GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.42|0.35|
84652784|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.208
84652785|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.5|0.265
84652786|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.6|0.340
84652787|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.7|0.347
84652788|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||10.6|-2.0|0.179
84680417|NCT02508480|169097093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the interpersonal function subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.25
84652789|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.4|0.556
84680418|NCT02508480|169097093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The p-value represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the intrapsychic foundations subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.118
84652790|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-1.2|0.760
84652791|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.3|0.636
84652792|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.774
84652793|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.771
84652794|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-1.5|0.468
84652795|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.1|-1.2|0.886
84652796|NCT01346969|169041151|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.5|-7.0|0.668
84652797|NCT02002832|169041177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean for the treatment difference(lurasidone-risperidone) at week 6 and its 95% confidence interval was presented based on the MMRM. Non-inferiority for lurasidone relative to risperidone was evaluated by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval to the non-inferiority margin of 7.0. Plots of estimates for change from baseline in PANSS total score based on MMRM over time (Week 1 to Week 6) with 95% confidence intervals was provided for each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|1.0|
84652798|NCT03540030|169041179|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.297
84652799|NCT03540030|169041180|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||At the 6 hour time point|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84652800|NCT03540030|169041180|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At the 12 hour time point||||0.005
84652801|NCT03540030|169041181|OTHER|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
84652802|NCT03540030|169041182|OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0154
84652803|NCT03540030|169041183|OTHER|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2139
84652804|NCT03540030|169041185|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
84652805|NCT03540030|169041186|OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9669
84652806|NCT03540030|169041187|OTHER|||||||0.9208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9208
84652807|NCT03540030|169041188|OTHER|||||||0.6481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.6481
84652808|NCT03540030|169041188|OTHER|||||||0.3911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.3911
84680419|NCT02508480|169097094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The p-value is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.||||0.917
84652809|NCT03540030|169041189|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
84652810|NCT03540030|169041190|OTHER|||||||0.3177|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3177
84652811|NCT03540030|169041191|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
84652812|NCT03540030|169041192|OTHER|||||||0.2349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2349
84652813|NCT03540030|169041193|OTHER|||||||0.7892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7892
84652814|NCT03540030|169041194|OTHER|||||||0.2023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.2023
84652815|NCT03540030|169041194|OTHER|||||||0.2486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.2486
84652816|NCT03329508|169041198|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.0|||MMRM|||||-1.0|-4.33|0.0018
84652817|NCT03329508|169041198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.63|||MMRM|||||-1.63|-4.96|0.0001
84652818|NCT03329508|169041199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.0001
84652819|NCT03329508|169041199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.05
84652820|NCT03329508|169041200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.21|||MMRM|||||-0.21|-2.84|0.0231
84652821|NCT03329508|169041200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.43|||MMRM|||||-0.43|-3.06|0.0092
84652822|NCT03329508|169041201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.57|||MMRM|||||-0.57|-1.77|0.0001
84652823|NCT03329508|169041201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92|||MMRM|||||-0.92|-2.13|<0.0001
84652824|NCT03329508|169041202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.85|||MMRM|||||0.85|-5.21|0.1589
84652825|NCT02959983|169041253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1-12||||0.0022
84652826|NCT02959983|169041254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0119
84652827|NCT02959983|169041254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.0048
84652828|NCT02959983|169041254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0207
84652829|NCT02959983|169041254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.3700
84652830|NCT02959983|169041255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0174
84652831|NCT02959983|169041255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.3832
84652832|NCT02959983|169041255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0052
84652833|NCT02959983|169041255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0619|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0619
84652834|NCT02959983|169041256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1-4||||0.0330
84652835|NCT02959983|169041256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0063
84652836|NCT02959983|169041256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0018
84652837|NCT02728596|169041263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age group, comorbidity, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.||PP-CSF use in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||1.57|0.12|0.21
84652838|NCT02728596|169041263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||3.20|0.44|0.74
84652839|NCT02728596|169041263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||7.08|0.70|0.17
84652840|NCT02728596|169041263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||1.19|0.11|0.094
84652841|NCT02728596|169041264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age.||FN incidence rate in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||2.95|0.75|0.26
84652842|NCT02728596|169041264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||FN incidence rate in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||18.80|0.23|0.51
84652843|NCT02728596|169041264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||2.88|0.41|0.87
84652844|NCT02728596|169041264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||3.57|0.44|0.68
84652845|NCT02728596|169041265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||1.95|0.39|0.74
84652846|NCT02728596|169041265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||2.88|0.41|0.87
84652847|NCT02728596|169041265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||This is comparing the FN incidence rate in the arm randomized to alert against PP-CSF vs usual care in intermediate risk participants.||3.57|0.44|0.68
84652848|NCT03221270|169041277|SUPERIORITY|alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.25||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.25|0.66
84652849|NCT03439657|169041288|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group should be \<1.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.16|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group GMCs ratio was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-gE GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-gE antibodies, one month after the administration of last vaccine dose.||1.16|0.99|
84652850|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-1), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.33|0.82|
84652851|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-3), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.86|
84652852|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-4), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.52|1.02|
84652853|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-5), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.81|
84652854|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.56|1.02|
84652855|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.73|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6B), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.73|1.07|
84680420|NCT02508480|169097095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.017
84652856|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-7F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.44|1.01|
84652857|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.39|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-9V), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.39|0.97|
84652858|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-14), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.42|0.94|
84652859|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-18C), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.34|0.92|
84652860|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.87|
84652861|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.90|
84652862|NCT03439657|169041289|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-23F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.50|0.96|
84652863|NCT00370071|169041303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||In this single arm study, the number of newly active lesions per 3 months during treatment was compared to the number of newly active lesions during 3-month pre-treatment (Alternative hypothesis: Number of lesions is reduced during treatment with Interferon beta-1b). The sample size was calculated for the use of the one-sided Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test at level 2.5% (Power of 90% - anticipating P(X\&lt;Y)=0.15 and allowing for 25% exclusion from Per Protocol Set).||||<0.0001
84652864|NCT00370071|169041304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84652865|NCT00370071|169041305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||0.0017
84652866|NCT00370071|169041306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|One-sided p-value from Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank-Test for comparing the baseline visit to treatment visits||Lesion volume at Week 12. 38 subjects were evaluated.||||<0.0001
84652867|NCT00370071|169041306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||Lesion volume at Week 24. 37 subjects were evaluated.||||=0.0019
84652868|NCT03572972|169041315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.707||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of hazard ratio (HR) at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.707|0.541|
84652869|NCT03572972|169041315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.687||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.687|0.530|
84680421|NCT02508480|169097096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.597
84680422|NCT02508480|169097097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.076
84680423|NCT02508480|169097098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.978
84680424|NCT04969250|169097112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
84680425|NCT04969250|169097113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
84506031|NCT01992107|168762849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-29.3||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-29.3|-38.8|
84506032|NCT02022007|168762852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.007
84506033|NCT02022007|168762853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This was a Subjects (SS)/Groups repeated measures design||||.02
84506034|NCT02022007|168762854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|n||Pretreatment fasting glucose levels were compared with post-treatment levels||||<0.0001
84506035|NCT02022007|168762855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||.038
84506036|NCT02022007|168762856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84506037|NCT02022007|168762857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||||||.025
84506038|NCT02022007|168762858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
84652870|NCT03572972|169041315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.884|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.884|0.563|
84680426|NCT04969250|169097114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
84680427|NCT04969250|169097115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84680428|NCT02119416|169097124|OTHER|Maximum heart rate after 2 mg/kg of caffeine compared to baseline was assessed using a mixed effects regression model. Sex and pubertal stage were included in the model as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|mixed effects regression|||||||<0.05
84680429|NCT02119416|169097124|OTHER|We compared means of our dependent variables after administration of different doses of caffeine.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was set prior to the analysis and all comparisons were planned.|ANCOVA|||We used repeated measures ANOVAS and conducted planned comparisons between groups as post-hoc tests.||||< 0.05
84680430|NCT02119416|169097125|OTHER|mixed effects regression models were used with sex and pubertal stage as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05|||||||mixed effects regression|||order was included in the analysis. We examined caffeine dose.||||<0.05
84680431|NCT02119416|169097125|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84680432|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.36|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||7.36|4.46|<.001
84680433|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.27|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||6.27|3.79|<.001
84680434|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.19|1.28|<.001
84680435|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.29|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||4.29|2.73|<.001
84680436|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||3.66|2.32|<.001
84680437|NCT04118348|169097135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.43|0.96|.114
84652871|NCT03572972|169041316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.134|0.870|
84652872|NCT03572972|169041316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.073||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.073|0.839|
84652873|NCT03572972|169041316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.082||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.082|0.854|
84680438|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||4.15|2.02|<.001
84680439|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.3|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||3.30|1.57|<.001
84680440|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.27|1.04|.030
84652874|NCT03572972|169041317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.664||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.664|0.512|
84680441|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.59|1.37|<.001
84680442|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.06|1.06|.021
84680443|NCT04118348|169097136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.71|0.95|.107
84680444|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-0.03|
84506039|NCT02022007|168762859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
84680445|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.13|0.25|
84506040|NCT02022007|168762860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||.026
84506041|NCT02022007|168762861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
84652875|NCT03572972|169041317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.953|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.953|0.597|
84680446|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.80|-0.20|
84680447|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.95|-0.24|
84680448|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg- Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||1.09|-0.05|
84680449|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.69|-0.61|
84680450|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.11|0.15|
84680451|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.86|-0.06|
84680452|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.77|-0.29|
84680453|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.12|0.10|
84680454|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.08|0.09|
84680455|NCT00833989|169097180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||0.73|-0.39|
84680456|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|19.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference =GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 4||19.71|-0.60|
84680457|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||18.26|-1.32|
84680458|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.24|-11.1|
84680459|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|23.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||23.15|0.01|
84680460|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.411|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|19.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||19.89|-2.35|
84680461|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||13.21|-12.2|
84680462|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|20.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||20.66|-1.34|
84680463|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|18.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||18.13|-3.22|
84680464|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.60|-22.9|
84680465|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|22.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 7||22.24|-3.07|
84506042|NCT02022007|168762862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
84652876|NCT03572972|169041317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.04|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.040|0.685|
84652877|NCT03572972|169041318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.985||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.985|0.761|
84652878|NCT03572972|169041318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|0.862||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.862|0.684|
84652879|NCT03572972|169041318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.975||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.975|0.786|
84652880|NCT03572972|169041319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.964||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.964|0.470|
84652881|NCT03572972|169041319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.337|
84652882|NCT03572972|169041319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.018||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.018|0.548|
84652883|NCT03572972|169041320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|2.145||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||2.145|0.998|
84652884|NCT03572972|169041320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.225||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.225|0.647|
84652885|NCT03572972|169041320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.888||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.888|0.447|
84506043|NCT02022007|168762863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84652886|NCT03572972|169041321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.738||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.738|0.556|
84652887|NCT03572972|169041321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.544|
84652888|NCT03572972|169041321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.954|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.954|0.588|
84652889|NCT03572972|169041322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.122||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.122|0.850|
84652890|NCT03572972|169041322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.1||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.100|0.848|
84652891|NCT03572972|169041322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|1.125||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.125|0.877|
84680466|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|18.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.15|-6.37|
84652892|NCT03572972|169041323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.523||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.523|0.119|
84652893|NCT03572972|169041323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.711||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.711|0.203|
84680467|NCT00833989|169097181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|10.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||10.84|-17.1|
84680468|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|12.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||12.86|-15.81|
84680469|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.852|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|23.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||23.80|-4.08|
84652894|NCT03572972|169041323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.722||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.722|0.247|
84652895|NCT03572972|169041324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|1.615||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.615|0.343|
84652896|NCT03572972|169041324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.402||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.402|0.342|
84652897|NCT03572972|169041324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.747||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.747|0.498|
84652898|NCT03572972|169041325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.731||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.731|0.492|
84652899|NCT03572972|169041325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.522|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.522|0.719|
84652900|NCT03572972|169041325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.824|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.824|0.920|
84652901|NCT03572972|169041326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.91|0.62|
84652902|NCT03572972|169041326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.83||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.830|0.586|
84652903|NCT03572972|169041326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.094||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.094|0.801|
84652904|NCT03572972|169041327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.658|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.658|0.212|
84506044|NCT01261325|168762912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|31.2||"Type I error rate of 0.05 based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure would be considered statistically significant or similar, as accurate and appropriate."|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.2|13.3|<0.001
84506045|NCT01261325|168762912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|31.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.6|13.8|<0.001
84680470|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|9.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||9.60|-20.41|
84680471|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|18.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.07|-22.87|
84680472|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|26.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||26.00|-15.95|
84680473|NCT00833989|169097182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|12.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.15|-32.29|
84680474|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||10.61|-10.4|
84680475|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|13.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||13.26|-7.75|
84680476|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|15.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||15.88|-6.17|
84680477|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||14.45|-12.1|
84680478|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.426|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||15.12|-11.0|
84680479|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||11.68|-16.1|
84652905|NCT03572972|169041327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.737||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.737|0.392|
84680480|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.664|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.18|-12.9|
84680481|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595||||95.0|-12.4|14.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.43|-12.4|
84680482|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|13.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||13.32|-15.2|
84680483|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||16.40|-11.9|
84680484|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||17.55|-10.5|
84680485|NCT00833989|169097183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|14.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||14.39|-15.4|
84680486|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|8.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||8.65|-5.33|
84680487|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||6.96|-7.56|
84680488|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|11.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.78|-2.67|
84680489|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|9.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.89|-5.78|
84680490|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||5.72|-10.4|
84680491|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.55|-6.68|
84680492|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|11.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||11.85|-4.94|
84680493|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.12|-8.15|
84680494|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|9.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.50|-7.97|
84680495|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|11.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||11.61|-5.53|
84680496|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||6.32|-11.5|
84680497|NCT00833989|169097184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|12.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.69|-5.22|
84680498|NCT00833989|169097185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 4||||0.9260
84680499|NCT00833989|169097185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 6||||0.5647
84680500|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 3||0.49|-3.17|
84680501|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 3||1.57|-1.95|
84680502|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 3||-1.02|-4.83|
84680503|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.08|-2.47|
84680504|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.44|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.44|-1.98|
84680505|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-2.77|
84680506|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.57|-3.64|
84680507|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.24|-2.97|
84680508|NCT00833989|169097186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.408|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.408|-0.66|
84680509|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|45.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.04|-6.11|
84680510|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|45.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.64|-3.66|
84680511|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|38.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||38.50|-14.9|
84680512|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|34.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||34.06|-2.63|
84680513|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|29.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||29.50|-6.38|
84680514|NCT00833989|169097187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||12.08|-27.1|
84680515|NCT00833989|169097188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.43|-4.12|
84680516|NCT00833989|169097188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.62|-3.96|
84680517|NCT00833989|169097188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.01|-5.31|
84680518|NCT00833989|169097189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.63|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.63|-3.12|
84680519|NCT00833989|169097189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||4.30|-1.20|
84680520|NCT00833989|169097189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.98|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment+Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.98|-3.09|
84680521|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.264|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.264|-0.841|
84680522|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|0.241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.241|-0.862|
84506046|NCT01261325|168762913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.6|1.6|<0.001
84652906|NCT03572972|169041327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.87||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.870|0.507|
84652907|NCT03572972|169041328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.666||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.666|0.871|
84652908|NCT03572972|169041328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.218||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.218|0.691|
84652909|NCT03572972|169041328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.027||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.027|0.578|
84652910|NCT03572972|169041329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.701||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.701|0.481|
84680523|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|0.361|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.361|-0.966|
84680524|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.593|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.593|-0.184|
84506047|NCT01261325|168762913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.3|1.5|<0.001
84652911|NCT03572972|169041329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.766||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.766|0.534|
84652912|NCT03572972|169041329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.13|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.130|0.622|
84652913|NCT03572972|169041330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.061||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.061|0.732|
84652914|NCT03572972|169041330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.947||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.947|0.678|
84680525|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.494|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.494|-0.284|
84652915|NCT03572972|169041330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.032||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.032|0.754|
84652916|NCT02484690|169041364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.57||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|4.74||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.74|-1.60|0.5244
84652917|NCT02484690|169041364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.59||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.86|1.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.67|-4.86|0.5308
84652918|NCT02484690|169041364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.59|-4.62|0.5309
84652919|NCT02484690|169041365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.77|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that the Arm E mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.42|-3.77|0.3034
84652920|NCT02484690|169041366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.63||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.77||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||17.77|-6.52|0.5527
84652921|NCT02484690|169041366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.09||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|8.76||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||8.76|-14.95|0.7382
84680526|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.965|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.965|-0.132|
84680527|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.961|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.961|-0.650|
84680528|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|1.213|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.213|-2.249|
84680529|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.436|1.898|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.898|-2.436|
84680530|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.031|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.031|-0.420|
84680531|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|1.168|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.168|-1.183|
84506048|NCT01261325|168762914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.2||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||24.2|7.6|<0.001
84652922|NCT02484690|169041366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.32||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.32|3.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||3.67|-18.32|0.3932
84680532|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|3.077|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.077|-0.064|
84652923|NCT02484690|169041367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.71||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.74|-0.69||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||-0.69|-10.74|0.2328
84652924|NCT02484690|169041368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.26|12.22||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||12.22|-13.26|0.9581
84652925|NCT02484690|169041368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.08||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.99|2.82||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.82|-22.99|0.3166
84652926|NCT02484690|169041368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.68||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.01|4.64||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.64|-20.01|0.4244
84652927|NCT02484690|169041369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.64||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.6|5.32||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||5.32|-18.60|0.5586
84680533|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.056|4.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.344|-1.056|
84680534|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|2.219|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.219|-2.681|
84680535|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.279|2.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.910|-3.279|
84680536|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|2.672|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.672|-1.428|
84680537|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.356|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.356|-2.560|
84680538|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.736|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.736|-0.610|
84680539|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4588|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|4.607|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.607|-1.494|
84680540|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|2.041|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.041|-3.102|
84680541|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|3.101|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.101|-3.471|
84680542|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2689|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|3.367|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.367|-1.996|
84680543|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.838|1.726|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.726|-2.838|
84680544|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|5.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.322|-0.884|
84680545|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|4.958|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.958|-1.696|
84652928|NCT02484690|169041370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.93|7.93||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.93|-5.93|0.8536
84652929|NCT02484690|169041370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.14||||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|16.83||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||16.83|-0.56|0.2303
84506049|NCT01261325|168762914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|26.4||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||26.4|10.4|<0.001
84680546|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.219|2.203|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.203|-3.219|
84680547|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|3.588|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.588|-3.369|
84680548|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5675|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.446|4.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.150|-2.446|
84680549|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.074|2.359|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.359|-3.074|
84680550|NCT00833989|169097190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.937|5.308|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.308|-1.937|
84680551|NCT01934218|169097253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.7|||Basic longitudinal model|||||2.7|-2.7|0.988
84680552|NCT01934218|169097254|OTHER|Euflexxa would be considered superior to Gel-One if the difference in mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 was 5 mm or greater (on the 100mm VAS pain scale). If the difference in mean change values were within 5 mm, Gel-One would not be considered inferior to Euflexxa.||||||||||||||||A post-hoc non-inferiority comparison of the Gel-One mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 (Following 50-foot walk test) against the same assessment collected from subjects treated with Euflexxa in a separate study (PMID:19539353) was also performed.|Change from baseline (95% CI) for Euflexxa was -25.7 (-29.0, -22.4) and the difference between Euflexxa and Gel-One (95% CI) was -3.8 (-inf, -0.3).|||
84506050|NCT01261325|168762918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.82||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.82|0.56|<0.001
84506051|NCT01261325|168762918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.79|0.54|<0.001
84506052|NCT01261325|168762919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.80|0.53|<0.001
84652930|NCT02484690|169041370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.79|7.95||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.95|-5.79|0.8406
84652931|NCT02484690|169041371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.23|9.68||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||9.68|-11.23|1.0000
84652932|NCT02484690|169041372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.65||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.81|31.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||31.11|-5.81|0.3798
84680553|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.12|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.12|-1.42|
84680554|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.17|-0.93|
84680555|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.47|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.47|-0.75|
84680556|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.62|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.62|-1.15|
84680557|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.03|-0.51|
84680558|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.01|0.99|
84680559|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
84680560|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
84652933|NCT02484690|169041372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.88||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.3|20.03||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||20.03|-18.3|0.9529
84652934|NCT02484690|169041372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|32.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.65|50.96||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||50.96|14.65|0.0208
84652935|NCT02484690|169041373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.35||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.0|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||6.27|-19.0|0.5185
84652936|NCT02484690|169041374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.45||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.61|37.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||37.29|1.61|0.1624
84652937|NCT02484690|169041374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.8|21.37||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||21.37|-15.8|0.8475
84652938|NCT02484690|169041374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.52||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.93|46.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||46.11|10.93|0.0381
84652939|NCT02484690|169041375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-14.4||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.1|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||0.29|-29.1|0.2089
84652940|NCT02484690|169041378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.61|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.81|-1.61|0.6717
84680561|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|0.99|
84680562|NCT01156701|169097267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
84680563|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||0.36|-1.17|
84680564|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.03|-0.80|
84680565|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.18|-0.75|
84680566|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.85|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||0.85|-0.89|
84680567|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.11|-0.31|
84652941|NCT02484690|169041378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.23||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|1.47||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.47|-1.01|0.8131
84652942|NCT02484690|169041378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between each of the treatment groups (Arms B, C, or D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arms B, C, or D means were different from Arm A mean.||1.29|-1.07|0.9069
84652943|NCT02484690|169041380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.28|-2.20|0.3189
84652944|NCT02484690|169041380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.22||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|2.52||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.52|-0.07|0.2256
84652945|NCT02484690|169041380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.35||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.57||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.57|-0.86|0.7086
84652946|NCT02484690|169041382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.78||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.51|-2.07|0.4353
84652947|NCT02484690|169041382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.45||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|2.78||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.78|0.11|0.1652
84652948|NCT02484690|169041382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.61111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|1.75||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.75|-0.76|0.61111
84652949|NCT02612129|169041399|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.03|||GLMM for Repeated Measures|||A general linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measurements was used for the analysis of NPC disease severity assessed based on the 5-domain NPCCSS scores at Month 12. The general linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was fitted with treatment, miglustat level and visit as fixed effects including treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate.||-0.03|-2.76|0.0456
84652950|NCT02612129|169041400|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||1.0000
84652951|NCT02612129|169041401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||0.5456
84652952|NCT02612129|169041402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Log-Rank Test|||Log-rank test had been stratified by miglustat use.||||0.8021
84652953|NCT02612129|169041403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3662|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 6||||0.3662
84652954|NCT02612129|169041403|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 12||||1.0000
84652955|NCT02612129|169041404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 6 was analyzed using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||0.66|-4.04|0.1546
84652956|NCT02612129|169041404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model is fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||1.01|-4.24|0.2199
84652957|NCT02612129|169041405|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline 5-domain NPCCSS score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||-0.19|-2.03|0.0188
84680568|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||1.00|0.99|
84680569|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
84680570|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
84680571|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.01|0.99|
84680572|NCT01156701|169097268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
84680573|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.54|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.54|-0.61|
84506053|NCT01261325|168762919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.71|0.47|<0.001
84506054|NCT01261325|168762920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.93|0.60|0.009
84652958|NCT02612129|169041407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||0.08|-10.26|0.0536
84652959|NCT02612129|169041407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.85|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||3.85|-9.90|0.3785
84680574|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||-0.04|-0.45|
84680575|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.09|-0.39|
84652960|NCT02612129|169041408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.6951
84652961|NCT02612129|169041408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7542|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.7542
84680576|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.81|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.81|-0.38|
84680577|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.02|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.02|-0.22|
84680578|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.02|0.99|
84680579|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|1.00|
84680580|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|1.00|
84680581|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|1.00|
84680582|NCT01156701|169097269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
84680583|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.4|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||3.40|-0.83|
84652962|NCT02612129|169041408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.4880
84680584|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.47|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.47|-0.98|
84680585|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.67|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.67|-0.85|
84680586|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.76|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||3.76|-0.70|
84680587|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.12|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.12|-0.44|
84680588|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||1.03|0.99|
84680589|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
84652963|NCT02612129|169041408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1804|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.1804
84652964|NCT02612129|169041409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.40|-0.92|0.3710
84652965|NCT02612129|169041409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.37|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.37|-1.82|0.7899
84652966|NCT02612129|169041410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.34||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.01|32.33|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||32.33|-53.01|0.6195
84652967|NCT02612129|169041410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.87||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.73|29.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||29.00|-60.73|0.4693
84652968|NCT02612129|169041410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|22.12|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||22.12|-15.71|0.7283
84652969|NCT02612129|169041410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.91||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.54|35.72|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||35.72|-47.54|0.7708
84652970|NCT04092582|169041571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.55|0.6835
84652971|NCT04092582|169041572|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0989||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5925|2.0381|||Poisson regression|||||2.0381|0.5925|0.7648
84652972|NCT04092582|169041573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.43|0.5248
84652973|NCT04092582|169041574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.1250
84652974|NCT04092582|169041575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.2249
84652975|NCT04092582|169041576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9693
84652976|NCT04092582|169041577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9855|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9855
84652977|NCT02903355|169041589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4385
84652978|NCT02903355|169041590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5562
84680590|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.01|0.99|
84680591|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.99|
84652979|NCT02903355|169041591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5441|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5441
84652980|NCT02903355|169041592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3666
84652981|NCT02903355|169041593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4446
84652982|NCT02903355|169041594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5431
84652983|NCT02903355|169041595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7409
84652984|NCT02903355|169041596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1597
84652985|NCT02903355|169041597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.2784
84652986|NCT02903355|169041598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2303|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.2303
84652987|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0007
84652988|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||0.0007
84652989|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||0.0011
84652990|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||0.0015
84652991|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0029
84652992|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||0.0004
84652993|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||0.0059
84680592|NCT01156701|169097270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
84680593|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.79|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||2.79|-3.08|
84680594|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.25|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.25|-2.39|
84680595|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.35|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.35|-2.51|
84680596|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.14|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||4.14|-2.29|
84680597|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.59|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.59|-0.58|
84506055|NCT01261325|168762920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.85|0.55|<0.001
84506056|NCT00947765|168762925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84680598|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||1.03|0.97|
84680599|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.98|
84506057|NCT00947765|168762926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84652994|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||0.0002
84652995|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0002
84652996|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84652997|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84652998|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84680600|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.98|
84680601|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.98|
84680602|NCT01156701|169097271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
84652999|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0002
84680603|NCT02911948|169097287|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.0% for null hypothesis (H0): D=0.0% against the alternative (HA): D≠0.0%, where D is the mean difference (IDegLira - IDeg).|Treatment contrast|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-1.06|-1.50|<0.0001
84680604|NCT03965052|169097320|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84680605|NCT03965052|169097322|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lissamine green treatment groups||||1.000
84680606|NCT03965052|169097322|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.667
84680607|NCT03965052|169097323|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84680608|NCT03965052|169097324|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||the analysis was per protocol||||0.977
84506058|NCT00947765|168762927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
84680609|NCT03965052|169097326|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
84680610|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
84680611|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84680612|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
84506059|NCT00947765|168762928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84506060|NCT00947765|168762929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
84506061|NCT00947765|168762930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0184
84653000|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653001|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653002|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653003|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653004|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84680613|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
84653005|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653006|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653007|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653008|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653009|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653010|NCT01313858|169041625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653011|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0003
84653012|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653013|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653014|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653015|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653016|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653017|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653018|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653019|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84506062|NCT00947765|168762931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0058
84506063|NCT00947765|168762932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0064
84506064|NCT01033864|168762933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8055
84506065|NCT01033864|168762934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2548
84653020|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653021|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653022|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653023|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84506066|NCT01033864|168762935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4417
84506067|NCT01033864|168762936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0455
84653024|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84506068|NCT01033864|168762937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2300
84653025|NCT01313858|169041626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653026|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653027|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653028|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653029|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653030|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653031|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653032|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653033|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653034|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653035|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84506069|NCT01033864|168762938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0106
84506070|NCT01033864|168762939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3401
84506071|NCT01033864|168762940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0074
84506072|NCT01033864|168762941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84653036|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653037|NCT01313858|169041627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
84653038|NCT01392443|169041644|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||single-sample biniminal test|||||||0.0007
84653039|NCT01895062|169041649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.022
84653040|NCT03019575|169041653|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model|Geometric Mean Ratio|9.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|11.97||||||||11.97|7.44|
84653041|NCT01935791|169041673|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.01
84653042|NCT01935791|169041674|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.001
84653043|NCT05203289|169041685|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|111.23|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 105.455."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||111.23|93.31|
84653044|NCT05203289|169041686|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.06|116.81|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 106.431."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||116.81|95.06|
84653045|NCT05203289|169041687|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|98.76|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 104.874."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||98.76|84.38|
84680614|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
84680615|NCT03021187|169097361|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
84680616|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.0|-1.8|0.0392
84680617|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-3.0|0.0001
84506073|NCT02400710|168762943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84653046|NCT03270644|169041689|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.27|-3.64||||||Mean hourly HR was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-3.64|-7.27|
84506074|NCT02400710|168762944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
84653047|NCT03270644|169041690|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.939||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||0.939|0.832|
84653048|NCT03270644|169041691|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.917|1.0||||||Ratio of geometric LSMeans of Cmax used a mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for fixed effects for treatment, time point, time point by treatment, and random effect for subjects.||1.00|0.917|
84653049|NCT03270644|169041692|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.04||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.04|0.967|
84653050|NCT03270644|169041693|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.03||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.03|0.967|
84653051|NCT03270644|169041694|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|-0.64||||||PR interval was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-0.64|-6.39|
84653052|NCT03270644|169041695|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.57|7.57||||||Systolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||7.57|3.57|
84653053|NCT03270644|169041696|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|4.95||||||Diastolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||4.95|1.99|
84653054|NCT00333177|169041697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||P value is for CT-HBT X RLAI-Oral Ris interaction|ANCOVA|Covaried baseline value of dependent variable||A priori hypothesis was that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would enhance this effect.||||<0.03
84653055|NCT00333177|169041698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||P-value is for each main effect. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 for each main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that LAI would be superior to oral risperidone and that CT would be superior to health behavior training (HBT) based on main effects.||||<.02
84653056|NCT00333177|169041699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||A priori hypothesis was that RLAI would lead to less medication non-adherence than Oral Ris.||1.10|.57|.001
84653057|NCT00333177|169041700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is for CT vs. HBT main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<.05
84653058|NCT00333177|169041701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
84653059|NCT00333177|169041702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.|ANOVA|2 X 2 ANOVA was computed.||||||<0.02
84653060|NCT00333177|169041703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Chi-square of frequencies of relapse vs. non-relapse were calculated, with a priori hypothesis that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<0.01
84714543|NCT02969707|169174890|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .081, F(1,49) = 4.315, β = .284, p = .043)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.043
84714544|NCT02969707|169174890|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .103, F(1,49) = 5.632, β = .321, p = .022)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.022
84653061|NCT00333177|169041704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2 X 2 ANOVA calculated. P-value is for main effect of RLAI vs. Oral Ris.|ANOVA|||||||<.05
84653062|NCT00333177|169041705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for main effect of CT vs. HBT.|ANOVA|||||||<.02
84653063|NCT00333177|169041706|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for RLAI vs. Oral Ris main effect.|ANOVA|||||||=.053
84653064|NCT01426438|169041729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.28
84653065|NCT01426438|169041729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.19
84653066|NCT00910273|169041777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: No difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Sample size of 36 subjects per treatment arm was planned based on an expected difference of 0.9 in FMD (Standard Deviation \[SD\] 1.5), with 80% power and 5% significance level."||8.58|-5.14|0.608
84653067|NCT00910273|169041778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses available for Week 4 only, due to limited number of participants for Week 24 to Week 52.|Week 4||7.00|-3.35|0.476
84653068|NCT00910273|169041779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.13|-0.08|0.650
84653069|NCT00910273|169041779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Bulb; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.07|-0.13|0.513
84653070|NCT00910273|169041779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Internal Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.08|-0.14|0.592
84653071|NCT00910273|169041784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.50|-3.05|0.008
84653072|NCT00910273|169041784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.33|-3.70|0.021
84653073|NCT00910273|169041792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.40|-1.74|0.003
84653074|NCT00910273|169041792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.10|-1.72|0.029
84653075|NCT00910273|169041798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.05|-2.13|0.041
84506075|NCT02330081|168762953|NON_INFERIORITY|The FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of platelet recovery must be ≥ 66% of fresh control platelet values|Risk Ratio (RR)|83.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet recovery of treatment over control||||76.2|
84653076|NCT00910273|169041798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
84653077|NCT00910273|169041799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||1.57|-0.89|0.575
84653078|NCT00910273|169041799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||2.30|-0.52|0.204
84653079|NCT03488355|169041800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84653080|NCT01361568|169041825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-15.14|<0.05
84680618|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
84653081|NCT01361568|169041826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-420.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|139.16|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84653082|NCT01361568|169041826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-230.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.26|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84653083|NCT01361568|169041826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-260.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.99||0.068||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
84653084|NCT01361568|169041827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84653085|NCT01361568|169041827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.059||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
84653086|NCT01361568|169041828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.82|0.22|<0.05
84653087|NCT01361568|169041828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.11|<0.05
84653088|NCT01361568|169041829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom (df = 1)||||||0.001
84653089|NCT01361568|169041830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84653090|NCT01361568|169041831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84653091|NCT01254630|169041833|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.364|0.791|||||Point estimate and 97.5% CI of vaccine efficacy (primary endpoint) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) be \>0.25.||0.791|0.364|
84653092|NCT01254630|169041834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.8|
84653093|NCT01254630|169041835|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.899|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.899|0.480|
84653094|NCT01254630|169041836|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.984|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.984|-0.005|
84653095|NCT01254630|169041837|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|0.972|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.972|-1.275|
84653096|NCT01254630|169041838|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.6|
84653097|NCT01999868|169041848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study. This analysis is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.||||0.41
84653098|NCT01999868|169041848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.013
84653099|NCT01999868|169041848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.50
84653100|NCT01999868|169041848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.67
84653101|NCT01999868|169041849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.019
84653102|NCT01999868|169041849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
84653103|NCT01999868|169041849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.018
84680619|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|0.0111
84680620|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
84506076|NCT02330081|168762954|NON_INFERIORITY|One of the FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of the mean platelet survival time must be ≥58% of fresh control platelet mean survival time|Mean Ratio Survival Time|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|77.0||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet survival time of treatment over control||||77.0|
84653104|NCT01999868|169041849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.07
84653105|NCT01999868|169041850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.16
84653106|NCT01999868|169041850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.002
84653107|NCT01999868|169041850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.23
84653108|NCT01999868|169041850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.43
84653109|NCT01999868|169041851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.06
84653110|NCT01999868|169041851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.008
84653111|NCT01999868|169041852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.005
84653112|NCT01999868|169041852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
84653113|NCT01999868|169041853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40||||0.013
84653114|NCT01999868|169041853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 88||||0.95
84653115|NCT01999868|169041854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20), baseline DLQI, and pre-screening disease duration, centered on the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40||||0.18
84653116|NCT01999868|169041854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization (PASI score week 0:12-20 or \>20), DLQI score at baseline, duration of disease prior to screening, centered about median, are covariates||Week 12 to 88||||0.045
84653117|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.80|1.24|
84680621|NCT03021187|169097362|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.0|-4.4|<0.0001
84680622|NCT03021187|169097382|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.02|0.53|0.0627
84653118|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.15|0.78|
84653119|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.12|0.80|
84506077|NCT01688037|168762983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.2966
84653120|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.76||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.76|1.19|
84653121|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.86|0.59|
84653122|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.86|1.15|
84653123|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.42|0.97|
84653124|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.13||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||2.13|1.36|
84653125|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.67|0.48|
84653126|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.89|0.53|
84653127|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.67|1.05|
84680623|NCT03021187|169097382|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.89|0.44|0.0083
84680624|NCT03021187|169097382|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.81|0.40|0.0019
84680625|NCT03021187|169097383|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.08|0.53|0.1210
84680626|NCT03021187|169097383|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.74|0.32|0.0007
84680627|NCT03021187|169097383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.73|0.31|0.0006
84680628|NCT03394924|169097398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52|0.6|0.106
84680629|NCT03394924|169097398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|65.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.22|0.75|0.063
84680630|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.47||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.32|-1.39|0.616
84680631|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.16|-1.78|0.844
84680632|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.32|-1.67|0.18
84680633|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.44|-1.71|0.239
84680634|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.21||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.73|-0.31|0.116
84680635|NCT03394924|169097402|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.72||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.28|-0.84|0.36
84680636|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-25.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.07|-11.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-11.04|-40.07|0.001
84680637|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-5.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-5.6|-37.1|0.009
84680638|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-10.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-10.35|-32.48|0.000
84680639|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.87|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-8.87|-32.8|0.001
84680640|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-86.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.78|-49.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-49.21|-123.78|0.000
84680641|NCT03394924|169097403|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-115.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.04|-75.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-75.22|-155.04|0.000
84680642|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.66||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||9.79|-63.1|0.148
84680643|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.02|10.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||10.05|-68.02|0.142
84680644|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.51|-5.68|0.02
84680645|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.79||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.97|-6.6|0.009
84653128|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.76|0.53|
84653129|NCT00761631|169041862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.28|0.91|
84653130|NCT00502944|169041867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|32.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test completed among patients randomized||32|27|<0.001
84653131|NCT00502944|169041868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test offered||47|42|<0.001
84653132|NCT00502944|169041869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|-4.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test accepted among patients offered||-1|-8|0.02
84653133|NCT00310401|169041871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Paired T Test|||Paired T Test was used to compare the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from enrollment to procurement between albuterol and saline treated donors||||0.98
84653134|NCT00319501|169041882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||p-value is adjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Cox Proportional Hazard||Age adjusted|Null hypothesis||0.88|0.34|0.012
84680646|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-41.96||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.47|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-8.44|-75.47|0.015
84680647|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.91|-11.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-11.21|-81.91|0.011
84653135|NCT00319501|169041884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.066
84653136|NCT00319501|169041885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.443
84680648|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-9.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||-1.75|-17.7|0.018
84680649|NCT03394924|169097404|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.73||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||1.95|-15.41|0.125
84680650|NCT03394924|169097405|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.56|0.000
84680651|NCT03394924|169097405|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.54|0.002
84680652|NCT03394924|169097406|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.65|0.026
84653137|NCT00319501|169041886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84653138|NCT00319501|169041887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.61||p-Value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance.|Model included treatment and age category.|||1.61|-0.11|0.086
84653139|NCT00319501|169041888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.56||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|ANOVA||Model included treatment and age category.|||1.56|0.02|0.045
84653140|NCT00667875|169041895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model, Group by time (4 time blocks) with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix. Baseline drinks per day was used as a covariate.||||0.49
84653141|NCT00667875|169041896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model (SPSS linear mixed) with an unstructured variance/covariance and baseline percent heavy drinking days as a covariate||||0.03
84653142|NCT00667875|169041897|SUPERIORITY|Anova across all three treatment groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Naltrexone or naltrexone placebo pills taken F=3.9 df 2 Aripiprazole or aripiprazole placebo pills taken F=4.6 df 2||||||<.05
84653143|NCT00667875|169041898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|f 3.2 df 2||Anova across three groups||||<.05
84653144|NCT01892865|169041904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|44.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in predictive imprecision for the end of the operative day between the two arms||44|3.15|0.024
84653145|NCT01892865|169041904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson regression|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in throughput between the two arms||1.34|1.01|0.04
84653146|NCT01892865|169041905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson Regression|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in throughput between the two scheduling methods||1.34|1.01|0.04
84653147|NCT01892865|169041906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in personnel satisfaction between the groups||||0.04
84653148|NCT01892865|169041907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the adverse event rates between the two scheduling methodologies||||0.44
84680653|NCT03394924|169097406|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.104
84680654|NCT03394924|169097407|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.81||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.17|50.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||50.78|-37.17|0.757
84680655|NCT03394924|169097407|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|31.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|77.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||77.97|-14.42|0.174
84680656|NCT03394924|169097407|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||1.23|-3.18|0.378
84680657|NCT03394924|169097407|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||-0.83|-5.38|0.008
84506078|NCT01688037|168762984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.743
84653149|NCT02569671|169041965|NON_INFERIORITY|"is less than the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior bone gain).~The hypotheses associated with the primary analysis are defined as:~H0: µc - µs ≥ δ H1: µc - µs \< δ where µc is the mean change in crestal bone levels from implant loading to 12 months post-implant loading for the treatment group, µs is the mean change for the control group, and δ is the 0.5 mm non-inferiority margin. The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.95|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||SD for both test and control group is 0.5 mm, A difference between groups of ≥ 0.5 mm is considered clinically significant, The difference between the treatment groups is expected to be 0 mm, Statistical test will be one-sided 5% significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The null hypothesis for the primary analysis is that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior bone gain). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the observed data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups|The change in mean bone level from implant loading to 12-month follow-up was calculated. Change in crestal bone levels was calculated as the crestal bone level at 12-months post implant loading minus crestal bone level at implant loading.|||.950
84653150|NCT02569671|169041967|NON_INFERIORITY|Smaller bone dimensional thickness of the buccal plate measurements indicates less bone loss and better healing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.022|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||All secondary effectiveness endpoints were planned to be summarized descriptively, and no hypothesis tests was planned.||||0.022
84653151|NCT01757535|169041974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was derived using Kosorok's method.|0.86|0.55|0.0009
84653152|NCT01757535|169041975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.8||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|||0.80|0.52|< 0.0001
84653153|NCT01757535|169041981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9345||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6136|1.4231||Stratification factors: • Age (at induction therapy): 55 to 64 years and ≥ 65 years • Prior history of MDS: yes/no • Cytogenetic risk (at induction therapy): intermediate-risk/poor-risk • Received consolidation therapy following induction: yes/no|Regression, Cox|||||1.4231|0.6136|0.7522
84653154|NCT04508335|169041998|EQUIVALENCE|We use 2, one-sided t-tests, each with alpha set at 0.05 to test the composite null hypothesis that the mean difference score (μReia-μCurrent) between the Reia pessary and baseline (current pessary) on the PFDI-20, is greater than 18.3 (H01), the upper equivalence limit, or lower than -18.3 (H02), the lower equivalence limit.||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H01: μReia-μCurrent \> 18.3 and H02: μReia-μCurrent \< -18.3. The alternative hypothesis is thus: HA: -18.3 ≤ μReia-μCurrent ≤ 18.3.||||.0021
84653155|NCT04508335|169042000|OTHER|Mean difference of PFIQ scores. A negative difference (Reia pessary - current pessary) indicates that the PFIQ-7 score improved with the Reia pessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|||||p value adjusted for multiple variables|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PFIQ scores at baseline with subjects using current pessary then after treatment with Reia pessary||||0.0192
84680658|NCT03394924|169097408|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||3.76|-3.07|0.841
84680659|NCT03394924|169097408|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.49||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||1.04|-6.01|0.163
84506079|NCT01688037|168762985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1151
84680660|NCT03394924|169097408|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||-0.05|-1.02|0.03
84680661|NCT03394924|169097408|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||0.09|-0.9|0.11
84680662|NCT03394924|169097409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.27|-0.25|0.944
84680663|NCT03394924|169097409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.24|-0.3|0.83
84653156|NCT00531934|169042029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.175
84653157|NCT00531934|169042032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3 intensity skin rash (folliculitis)||||<0.001
84653158|NCT00531934|169042038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.525|0.143
84653159|NCT00531934|169042041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.529|0.153
84653160|NCT00531934|169042047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3||||0.003
84653161|NCT00316719|169042083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a Non-inferiority Analysis with the margin of -1.0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.94|<0.001
84680664|NCT03394924|169097409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.1|-0.19|0.546
84680665|NCT03394924|169097409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.13|-0.18|0.785
84680666|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.08|-0.43|0.176
84680667|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.23|-0.3|0.783
84680668|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.03|-1.31|0.061
84680669|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.08|-1.34|0.08
84680670|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.08||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.37|-0.21|0.584
84680671|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.08|-0.51|0.148
84680672|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.05|-1.04|0.074
84680673|NCT03394924|169097410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.28|-0.87|0.304
84680674|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||0.82|-0.32|0.378
84680675|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||1.23|0.07|0.03
84680676|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.53||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.03|0.04|0.036
84680677|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.69|0.67|0.000
84680678|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||0.96|-0.92|0.971
84680679|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.01||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||1.99|0.04|0.042
84653162|NCT02280304|169042099|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, FDR whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design. To report NS p-values and associated z-scores, uncorrected cluster ps were queried.|t-test, 1 sided|||Z-scores represent Fisher transformed correlation coefficients representing the correlations between hypothesized regions. Positive values represents positive connectivity between regions. Negative values represent anticorrelations, or negative relations, between hypothesized regions.||||>0.05
84653163|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653164|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation subscale of the CRIS, Post - Pre|||||
84653165|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653166|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation Scale of the Cris pre- post|||||
84653167|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653168|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohens d reflects the Cris pre post Perceived Limitations scale|||||
84653169|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653170|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohens d|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653171|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653172|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653173|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653174|NCT02280304|169042100|OTHER||Cohens d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653175|NCT02280304|169042101|OTHER||Cohens d|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
84653176|NCT02280304|169042101|OTHER||Cohens d|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
84653177|NCT02280304|169042102|OTHER||Cohens d|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size change (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
84680680|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||1.14|-0.4|0.336
84680681|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.46||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||2.26|0.67|0.000
84680682|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||1.25|-0.29|0.214
84680683|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||2.02|0.44|0.003
84680684|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.21||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||4.9|-0.47|0.103
84506080|NCT01688037|168762985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-0.8|0.0277
84506081|NCT02100956|168762986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in VAS pain scale scores after intrathecal study drug injection between oxytocin and placebo. To account for repeated measures across time and drug conditions, VAS apin scale scores were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with random intercepts at the level of participant. Each outcome was regressed on fixed-effects for order of study day, study drug, time after injection, and drug x time interaction.||||<0.05
84653178|NCT02280304|169042102|OTHER||Cohens d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
84653179|NCT02280304|169042103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0099||||||The p-value obtained for the L PHG seed/L IPL cluster is 0.0099. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<.0099
84653180|NCT02280304|169042103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||The p-value obtained for the L anterior PGH seed/left VMPC cluster is 0.02. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for six seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<0.02
84653181|NCT02280304|169042104|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|3.8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in MPFC p\<0.000038 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across whole brain. Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<.000038
84653182|NCT02280304|169042104|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in the right cerebellum (crus 2) p\<0.000149 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain. Bonferroni for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<0.000149
84653183|NCT02975336|169042105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.91|0.5462
84680685|NCT03394924|169097411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.35||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|9.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||9.13|3.57|0.000
84680686|NCT03394924|169097412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|30.06|||ANCOVA|||||30.06|-5.09|0.16
84680687|NCT03394924|169097412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|25.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.67|43.48|||ANCOVA|||||43.48|7.67|0.006
84680688|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||2.43|-2.72|0.908
84680689|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||1.27|-4.09|0.298
84680690|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.91||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||3.76|0.07|0.042
84680691|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||5.38|1.55|0.001
84680692|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.04|-4.96|0.839
84680693|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.36|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.36|-5.00|0.891
84680694|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||2.77|-2.25|0.834
84653184|NCT02975336|169042105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.76|0.5462
84653185|NCT02975336|169042105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.67|0.5462
84653186|NCT02975336|169042106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|0.69|0.5462
84653187|NCT02975336|169042106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|0.68|0.5462
84653188|NCT02975336|169042106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.59|0.5462
84653189|NCT02975336|169042134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.40|0.57|0.7034
84680695|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||3.92|-1.33|0.327
84680696|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.12||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||1.62|-5.86|0.262
84680697|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||3.12|-4.68|0.69
84680698|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.62||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||0.95|-2.19|0.433
84653190|NCT02975336|169042134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.31|0.5462
84653191|NCT02975336|169042134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.97|0.42|0.5462
84653192|NCT02975336|169042135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.74|0.5462
84653193|NCT02975336|169042135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.49|0.5462
84653194|NCT02975336|169042135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.65|0.5462
84653195|NCT02975336|169042136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.73|0.2434
84653196|NCT02975336|169042136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.73|0.2389
84653197|NCT02975336|169042136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.76|0.1952
84653198|NCT02975336|169042137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.89|0.87|0.0987
84653199|NCT02975336|169042137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.85|0.51|0.9201
84653200|NCT02975336|169042137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.20|0.60|0.5645
84653201|NCT02975336|169042138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.44|0.3743
84653202|NCT02975336|169042138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.50|0.6445
84653203|NCT02975336|169042138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.41|0.2634
84653204|NCT02975336|169042139|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.59||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.81||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.81|0.66|0.2989
84653205|NCT02975336|169042139|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.19||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||2.19|0.33|0.7325
84653206|NCT02975336|169042139|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.22||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.22|0.51|0.5910
84653207|NCT02975336|169042140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.72|0.3635
84680699|NCT03394924|169097413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||2.03|-1.28|0.653
84680700|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.34||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|74.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||74.18|-71.51|0.971
84680701|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.54||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.86|79.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||79.95|-68.86|0.882
84680702|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-51.66||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.27|35.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||35.96|-139.27|0.242
84680703|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-94.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.85|-3.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||-3.75|-184.85|0.042
84680704|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.57||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.03|51.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||51.89|-101.03|0.52
84680705|NCT03394924|169097417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.96||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.07|67.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||67.16|-103.07|0.672
84680706|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|44.54||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.97|295.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||295.06|-205.97|0.611
84680707|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.98||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.28|351.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||351.31|-411.28|0.819
84680708|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.41||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.92|300.74|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||300.74|-251.92|0.818
84680709|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.53||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.33|414.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||414.27|-435.33|0.948
84680710|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-91.7||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-475.92|292.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||292.51|-475.92|0.412
84680711|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-250.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.33|104.98|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||104.98|-605.33|0.094
84680712|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-83.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.15|111.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||111.75|-279.15|0.266
84680713|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-238.19||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-470.22|-6.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||-6.15|-470.22|0.047
84680714|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|28.41||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.2|237.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||237.02|-180.2|0.694
84680715|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-39.5||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.32|185.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||185.32|-264.32|0.615
84680716|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.93||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.6|235.46|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||235.46|-229.6|0.974
84680717|NCT03394924|169097418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.05||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.24|231.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||231.15|-283.24|0.793
84653208|NCT02975336|169042140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.06|0.0329
84680718|NCT02276482|169097423|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.5|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.5|-6.3|
84653209|NCT02975336|169042140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.59|0.7619
84653210|NCT02975336|169042141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.79|0.2642
84653211|NCT02975336|169042141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.87|0.1489
84653212|NCT02975336|169042141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.56|0.9285
84653213|NCT02975336|169042144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.49|0.9061
84653214|NCT02975336|169042144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.61|0.6053
84653215|NCT02975336|169042144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.40|0.5200
84680719|NCT02276482|169097424|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.8|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||10.8|-3.4|
84680720|NCT02276482|169097425|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.4|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||4.4|-12.9|
84680721|NCT02276482|169097426|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||7.7|-7.4|
84653216|NCT02975336|169042153|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|21.2||||||||21.2|-9.7|
84653217|NCT02975336|169042153|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.6||||||||15.6|-14.5|
84653218|NCT02975336|169042153|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.6||||||||16.6|-13.5|
84653219|NCT02975336|169042157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.46|0.7728
84653220|NCT02975336|169042157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.28|0.3314
84653221|NCT02975336|169042157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.36|0.7205
84653222|NCT02975336|169042158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|0.35|0.8364
84653223|NCT02975336|169042158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.37|0.8287
84653224|NCT02975336|169042158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.16|0.35|0.7621
84653225|NCT02975336|169042159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.23|0.8464
84653226|NCT02975336|169042159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.16|0.4170
84653227|NCT02975336|169042159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.27|0.9988
84653228|NCT02975336|169042160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.62|0.6970
84653229|NCT02975336|169042160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.75|0.3234
84680722|NCT02276482|169097427|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84680723|NCT02005471|169097436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified analysis: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.18|<.0001
84680724|NCT02005471|169097436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
84653230|NCT02975336|169042160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.54|0.9846
84653231|NCT03689530|169042165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.7436
84680725|NCT02005471|169097438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.28|0.13|<.0001
84653232|NCT03689530|169042166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1212
84653233|NCT03689530|169042167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8839|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8839
84653234|NCT03689530|169042168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1137
84653235|NCT03689530|169042169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0162
84653236|NCT03689530|169042171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.2117
84653237|NCT03689530|169042172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4169
84653238|NCT03689530|169042173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8785|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8785
84653239|NCT03689530|169042174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1006
84653240|NCT03689530|169042175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7168|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7168
84653241|NCT03689530|169042176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0001
84653242|NCT03689530|169042177|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.799|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.885|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653243|NCT03689530|169042178|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.732|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653244|NCT03689530|169042179|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.222|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653245|NCT03689530|169042180|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.141|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84653246|NCT03689530|169042181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9126
84653247|NCT03689530|169042182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7405
84653248|NCT03689530|169042183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5956|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5956
84653249|NCT03689530|169042184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3341|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3341
84653250|NCT03689530|169042185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2049
84653251|NCT03689530|169042186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0335
84653252|NCT03689530|169042187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3219
84653253|NCT03689530|169042188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5223
84653254|NCT01977794|169042189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P value in both groups (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) for comparison of SBP after 18 weeks versus baseline|Paired t test|||For each group (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) SBP after 18 weeks compared to baseline (under monotherapy). Superiority was assessed between FDC and monotherapies.||||<0.001
84653255|NCT00533897|169042194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|9.59||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|18.34||There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||A continuity corrected Chi-square test was used to compare percentage of positive antibody responses of SC placebo vs. SC abatacept (Period II treatment groups) on Day 169. P-value was evaluated at 0.05 significance level (2-sided). 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference (SC PLA - SC ABA) between ABA and PLA in the immunogenicity rates was also calculated. Point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the two Period II treatment group and the corresponding 95% CIs were also provided.||18.34|0.83|0.119
84653256|NCT00533897|169042195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.25||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||14.25|-4.50|
84653257|NCT00533897|169042199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|8.43||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||8.43|-8.21|
84653258|NCT03792191|169042277|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00007||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-0.00005|0.62
84653259|NCT03792191|169042278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84653260|NCT03792191|169042279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.079|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.079|-0.15|0.6
84653261|NCT03792191|169042280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.021||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.082|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.082|-0.125|0.77
84653262|NCT03792191|169042281|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-1|0.077
84653263|NCT03792191|169042282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00003||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00001|0.00003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.00003|-0.00001|0.1
84653264|NCT03792191|169042283|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
84653265|NCT03792191|169042284|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
84653266|NCT03792191|169042286|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84653267|NCT00398918|169042356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results presented are for post-hoc comparisons of least squares means with Tukey-Kramer adjucted p values.|The estimated value is for the difference between the means obtained for the second hour of the self-administration sessions for the placebo and zonisamide conditions.|The analysis involved a within subjects comparison. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the amount of ethanol consumed in either the first or second hour of self-administration sessions. Results presented here are for the second hour of the self-administration sessions.||||<0.05
84653268|NCT00398918|169042357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.61||95.0||||P value shown is for a post-hoc comparison of least squares means generated by the mixed model used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for difference between DSMT scores at 40 minutes post alcohol ingestion for zonisamide and placebo involved post-hoc comparisons of least squares means.|Null hypothesis: No difference in DSMT scores for zonisamide and placebo treatments 40 minutes after ingestion of ethanol.||||0.61
84653269|NCT03917459|169042358|OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|9.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||9.01|-3.29|0.3432
84653270|NCT00131508|169042362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in REE ratio between the placebo and glutamine groups. The study was designed to provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 for this objective. Due to slow accrual, the sample size of 46 participants required to obtain the designed power of the study was not realized.||||0.17
84653271|NCT00131508|169042363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change of body mass index between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.53
84653272|NCT00131508|169042364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in red blood cell glutamine between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
84653273|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
84653274|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.14
84653275|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.20
84653276|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
84653277|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.61
84653278|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.65
84680726|NCT02005471|169097438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.30|0.14|<.0001
84680727|NCT02005471|169097440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.57|0.21|<.0001
84680728|NCT02005471|169097440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.56|0.22|<.0001
84680729|NCT02005471|169097442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.49|0.09|<.0001
84680730|NCT02005471|169097442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.46|0.09|<.0001
84680731|NCT02005471|169097443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
84506082|NCT04345471|168762997|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-2.5|0.509
84680732|NCT02005471|169097443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
84680733|NCT02005471|169097444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
84680734|NCT02005471|169097444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
84680735|NCT02005471|169097445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|33.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.51|16.63|<.0001
84680736|NCT02005471|169097445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.88|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.88|2.68|
84680737|NCT02005471|169097446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.10|16.00|<.0001
84680738|NCT02005471|169097446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.85|2.68|
84680739|NCT02005471|169097448|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||0.74|0.37|0.0002
84680740|NCT02005471|169097448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.76|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.76|0.39|0.0003
84680741|NCT02005471|169097450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.17|<.0001
84680742|NCT02005471|169097450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
84680743|NCT02005471|169097454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.39|0.23|<.0001
84680744|NCT02005471|169097454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.41|0.25|<.0001
84680745|NCT02005471|169097455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negativity Rates|49.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.44|57.64|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||57.64|40.44|<.0001
84680746|NCT02005471|169097455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||17.85|6.50|
84680747|NCT02005471|169097456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD negative rates|13.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|18.82|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||18.82|7.99|<.0001
84680748|NCT02005471|169097456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|69.35|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||69.35|3.82|
84680749|NCT00627705|169097467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||mixed effects regression models|F= 0.81||Cohen's d = 0.30||||0.449
84680750|NCT00627705|169097469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale (F = 6.80; p = \<.001; d = .96).|Mixed effects regression models|||F values were derived from the interaction of participant group (NAC vs. placebo) and time (week) in mixed effects regression models. Cohen's d was computed based on the standardized mean difference in the change from baseline to week 12.||||<.001
84680751|NCT00627705|169097471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||mixed effects regression models|degrees of freedom were 1, 22||F-values were derived from the interaction of Participant Group (NAC vs. Placebo) and Time (Week) in mixed effects regression models.||||.141
84714545|NCT02969707|169174890|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.041|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .083, F(1,49) = 4.425, β = .288, p = .041)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.041
84653279|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.55
84653280|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.69
84653281|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.82
84653282|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.99
84653283|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.30
84653284|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
84653285|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.50
84714546|NCT02969707|169174896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to creatine is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to creatine.||||0.728
84653286|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.45
84653287|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.46
84653288|NCT00131508|169042365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.84
84653289|NCT00131508|169042366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.20
84506083|NCT04345471|168762997|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided. The value was based on the post-hoc analysis by not taking into account the multiplicity.|MMRM|||||0.4|-3.3|0.131
84653290|NCT00131508|169042366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.81
84653291|NCT00131508|169042366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.70
84653292|NCT00131508|169042367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.69
84653293|NCT00131508|169042367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.75
84653294|NCT00131508|169042367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.93
84653295|NCT00131508|169042368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.56
84653296|NCT00131508|169042368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||1.0
84653297|NCT00131508|169042368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.61
84653298|NCT00131508|169042369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in pulse rate between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.83
84653299|NCT00131508|169042370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in hand grip between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.40
84653300|NCT00850070|169042380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.35|||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value comparison was active treatment minus placebo.|Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. There were no transformations.||||<.35
84653301|NCT00850070|169042381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.06
84653302|NCT00850070|169042387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84653303|NCT05047770|169042390|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-gE antibody concentration was below (\<) 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to HZ/su vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-dose 2 of HZ/su vaccine administration (Week 14 for HZ/suSeq group and Week 12 for HZ/suCoAd group).||1.13|0.89|
84653304|NCT05047770|169042391|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-S protein antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone, in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both HZ/suSeq and HZ/suCoAd groups).||1.32|0.90|
84653305|NCT05047770|169042392|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H1N1 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.18|0.89|
84680752|NCT00932893|169097511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.638||To control family-wise Type 1 error, a step-down procedure was applied in following order: PFS, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025.|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, brain metastases, and prior epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) from the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.638|0.371|<0.0001
84680753|NCT00932893|169097512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.1145||95.0|0.661|1.104||Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG PS score, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model were also presented.||1.104|0.661|0.1145
84680754|NCT00932893|169097514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.394|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.463|4.676||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||4.676|2.463|<0.0001
84680755|NCT00932893|169097515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.502|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.297|1.741||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||1.741|1.297|<0.0001
84680756|NCT00932893|169097516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.697|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|2.103||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||2.103|1.368|<0.0001
84680757|NCT00932893|169097522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.373|0.661|||Log Rank|||The p-value was obtained from 2-sided unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.661|0.373|<0.0001
84714547|NCT02969707|169174896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to water is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to water.||||0.720
84714548|NCT05201079|169174897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.395||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|97.79|0.54|10.624||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Logistic||Numerator: fidaxomicin; denominator: MBK-01|||10.624|0.540|0.228
84714549|NCT05201079|169174903|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Alpha value used: 0.0221|Statistical analysis using Odds Ratio cannot be performed because there are zero patients with bad progress in MBK-01 group.|||
84714550|NCT05201079|169174904|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|1.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.300
84714551|NCT05201079|169174906|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.900
84714552|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.104.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.749
84714553|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.249.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.620
84714554|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.024.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.160
84653306|NCT05047770|169042392|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H3N2 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.05|0.82|
84653307|NCT05047770|169042392|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.14|0.89|
84653308|NCT05047770|169042392|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.17|0.93|
84653309|NCT05047770|169042393|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-S antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both FluD-QIVSeq and FluD-QIVCoAd groups).||1.13|0.84|
84653310|NCT05047770|169042394|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.4|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||6.4|-5.1|
84653311|NCT05047770|169042394|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.2|-7.8|
84653312|NCT05047770|169042394|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.9|-5.8|
84653313|NCT05047770|169042394|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||3.9|-7.0|
84714555|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||Main effect of the Group for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.257.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.614
84714556|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 7.705. Effect size = 0.046.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.007
84714557|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
84653314|NCT03758443|169042429|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.69|-1.22|0.5809
84653315|NCT03758443|169042429|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.59|-1.33|0.4501
84653316|NCT03758443|169042429|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.30|-1.60|0.1809
84653317|NCT03758443|169042430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3762
84653318|NCT03758443|169042430|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653319|NCT03758443|169042430|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653320|NCT03758443|169042431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.0||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.11||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.110|-0.104|0.9542
84653321|NCT03758443|169042431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.071||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.071|-0.126|0.5863
84653322|NCT03758443|169042431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.069||P-value is shown for Conhran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.069|-0.131|0.5408
84653323|NCT03758443|169042432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6656|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6656
84653324|NCT03758443|169042432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6424|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6424
84653325|NCT03758443|169042432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6199
84653326|NCT03758443|169042433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2643
84680758|NCT02207816|169097561|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|74.38||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.0|97.14|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||97.14|-130|0.2235
84653327|NCT03758443|169042433|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653328|NCT03758443|169042433|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653329|NCT03758443|169042434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653330|NCT03758443|169042434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653331|NCT03758443|169042434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84653332|NCT00696800|169042448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Treatment groups were formally compared with a generalized linear model for the ongoing pregnancy rate which included factors for treatment group, age at randomization, and region. A pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 8% was applied.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-3.8|
84653333|NCT00696800|169042449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in number of oocytes. If the 95% confidence interval of the difference exceeded -3 or +5 oocytes, then Corifollitropin Alfa treatment was not considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Treatment groups were formally compared including covariates treatment group, age and center.|ANOVA|||||1.9|0.5|0.001
84653334|NCT05224141|169042471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.59|1.00|0.9762
84653335|NCT05224141|169042472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.23|0.82|0.5316
84714558|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||Main effect of the Group for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.474.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.494
84653336|NCT05224141|169042473|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||4.9|-11.1|
84680759|NCT02207816|169097561|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-9.57||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|72.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||72.64|-339|0.8972
84680760|NCT02207816|169097561|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.58||||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|78.0|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.00|-119|0.5333
84653337|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.72||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.72|-0.28|0.39
84653338|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.79||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.79|-0.84|0.94
84653339|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.74|-0.69|0.95
84653340|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.05|-0.69|0.09
84653341|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.18|-0.24|0.79
84653342|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.53|0.57
84653343|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.35|0.97
84680761|NCT02207816|169097561|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.2||||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|83.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||83.69|-90.9|0.3523
84680762|NCT02207816|169097562|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|53.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|81.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||81.13|-13.7|0.0930
84680763|NCT02207816|169097562|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.33||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|64.82|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||64.82|-67.1|0.5035
84680764|NCT02207816|169097562|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|32.08||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|69.87|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||69.87|-53.1|0.3504
84653344|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.24|-0.10|0.41
84653345|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.52||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-0.41|0.82
84653346|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.53||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.53|-0.26|0.49
84653347|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.15||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.15|-0.80|0.18
84653348|NCT02390908|169042499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.32|-0.28|0.89
84653349|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.92||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.68|58.53||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.53|-54.68|0.95
84653350|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Beta|23.99||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.54|115.51||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||115.51|-67.54|0.61
84653351|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-23.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.82|41.4||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||41.40|-88.82|0.48
84506084|NCT04345471|168762999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
84653352|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.19||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.76|58.14||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.14|-49.76|0.88
84653353|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|35.21||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||35.21|-19.88|0.59
84653354|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-24.95||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.78|16.88||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||16.88|-66.78|0.24
84680765|NCT02207816|169097562|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|37.57||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|73.01|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||73.01|-44.4|0.2704
84680766|NCT02207816|169097563|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.26||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||7.69|-20.0|0.4434
84680767|NCT02207816|169097563|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-8.1||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|5.7|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||5.70|-23.9|0.2634
84714559|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||Main effect of the Visit for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.932.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.339
84653355|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|18.32||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|43.27||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||43.27|-6.63|0.15
84653356|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|30.74||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||30.74|-10.20|0.33
84653357|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.42||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|57.09||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||57.09|-44.24|0.80
84506085|NCT04345471|168762999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||0.8|-1.9|0.424
84653358|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.43||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.47|74.61||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||74.61|-85.47|0.89
84653359|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|62.94||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||62.94|-60.61|0.97
84653360|NCT02390908|169042500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-38.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.51|2.72||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||2.72|-79.51|0.07
84653361|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-7.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|4.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||4.78|-20.52|0.22
84653362|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Beta|10.29||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|26.82||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||26.82|-6.25|0.22
84653363|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.27||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|11.08||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||11.08|-11.63|0.96
84680768|NCT02207816|169097563|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.62||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|13.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||13.13|-13.7|0.9278
84653364|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.97||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.97|0.72|0.03
84653365|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|11.47||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.47|-4.78|0.42
84653366|NCT02390908|169042501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||6.54|-5.85|0.91
84653367|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||5.78|0.61|0.02
84653368|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.86||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|2.61||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||2.61|-4.33|0.63
84653369|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||7.54|0.80|0.02
84653370|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.67||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.67|-1.47|0.46
84653371|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.55||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.55|-1.12|0.50
84653372|NCT02390908|169042502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.52||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-1.23|0.43
84680769|NCT02207816|169097563|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|5.32||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|17.09|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||17.09|-8.12|0.4189
84680770|NCT02207816|169097564|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|82.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||82.90|-32.2|0.1302
84680771|NCT02207816|169097564|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.9||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.9|65.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||65.90|-96.9|0.6897
84680772|NCT02207816|169097564|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.9||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|70.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.90|-82.9|0.5299
84680773|NCT02207816|169097564|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.4||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|70.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.70|-84.1|0.5307
84680774|NCT02207816|169097565|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|46.2||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|81.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||81.80|-45.0|0.1853
84653373|NCT01479127|169042508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I OFF state"||||0.058
84653374|NCT01479127|169042508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I Dyskinesia state"||||1.000
84653375|NCT01479127|169042508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Normal state"||||0.153
84653376|NCT01479127|169042508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II OFF state"||||0.140
84653377|NCT01479127|169042508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Dyskinesia state"||||0.374
84653378|NCT01479127|169042509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.574
84653379|NCT01479127|169042509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD||||0.661
84653380|NCT01479127|169042509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD + time w/ TD||||0.574
84653381|NCT01479127|169042510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Rapid alternating movement of hands||||0.500
84653382|NCT01479127|169042510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Arising from chair||||1.000
84653383|NCT01479127|169042510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Postural stability||||0.250
84653384|NCT01479127|169042510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Body bradykinesia and hypokinesia||||0.500
84653385|NCT01479127|169042510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Dyskinesia||||0.250
84653386|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.870
84653387|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part I||||0.374
84653388|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II||||0.799
84653389|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II (Off-time)||||0.493
84653390|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part III||||0.530
84653391|NCT01479127|169042511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part IV sub-score of dyskinesia||||0.108
84653392|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.636
84653393|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Mobility||||0.329
84653394|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Activities of daily living||||0.902
84653395|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Emotional well-being||||0.220
84653396|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Stigma||||0.799
84653397|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Social support||||0.178
84653398|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Cognition||||0.456
84653399|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Communication||||0.866
84653400|NCT01479127|169042512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Bodily discomfort||||0.576
84653401|NCT01479127|169042513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"On state staging"||||1.000
84653402|NCT01479127|169042513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"Off state staging"||||1.000
84653403|NCT01479127|169042514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||||||0.125
84653404|NCT01479127|169042519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.074
84653405|NCT03469934|169042539|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.15|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.150|-0.265|0.5703
84653406|NCT03469934|169042543|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.139|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||MMRM analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.139|-0.239|0.5901
84653407|NCT03469934|169042544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FEV1 was compared between etokimab and placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||0.43|-0.25|0.5960
84653408|NCT03469934|169042545|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.823||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|22.96|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FeNO was compared between etokimab and placebo using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||22.96|-17.90|0.7993
84653409|NCT03569033|169042556|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.32||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.66|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.66|-2.29|0.748
84653410|NCT03569033|169042557|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.99||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|-5.33|0.754
84653411|NCT03569033|169042558|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.50|0.627
84653412|NCT03569033|169042559|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.28|0.631
84653413|NCT02256072|169042637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.12|||ANCOVA|||H1: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased planning with regard to planning behavior score (measured via the Planning Assessment tool) one (efficacy) month after intervention.||2.12|0.37|0.0054
84653414|NCT02256072|169042638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, importance of religion, stroke, and self efficacy score) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables (current utilization of services, physical function assessment, co-morbidities, social support, health literacy, self-efficacy, and sociodemographics) with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those found to have a significant association with outcome will be included in a linear mixed model, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for outcome.||||0.0471
84680775|NCT02207816|169097565|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.0||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|76.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.60|-69.3|0.3828
84653415|NCT02256072|169042639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (confidence in using the internet, self efficacy score, support score, and race/ethnicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.|The score is the equally-weighted sum of responses to the five questions in the CAHS instrument. Each question has a scale of 1-5, with a total possible range of 5-25. No subscores are calculated.|H2: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased confidence in accessing home services (measured via the Confidence in Accessing Home Services tool) one (efficacy) and three (effect retention) months after intervention.||||0.423
84653416|NCT02256072|169042640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, income, health literacy, education level, high blood pressure, and kidney disease) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Compared to participants in the attention control group, participants receiving PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN will show increased UHS 1 (efficacy) and 3 (effect retention) months post-intervention. Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those with a significant association with outcome will be included in a LMM for UHS, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for UHS.||||<0.0001
84653417|NCT03019185|169042704|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|13.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||16.27|10.48|<0.0001
84653418|NCT03019185|169042705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.38|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||13.60|5.38|<0.0001
84653419|NCT03019185|169042706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.144||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|11.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||11.89|3.41|0.0005
84653420|NCT03019185|169042707|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 48.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9451||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.39|3.40|0.0008
84653421|NCT03019185|169042708|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 100.|LS Mean change from baseline|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7484||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||7.72|0.84|0.0150
84680776|NCT02207816|169097565|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|31.2||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|72.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.70|-66.5|0.4112
84680777|NCT02207816|169097565|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.8||||0.4121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|72.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.50|-67.6|0.4121
84680778|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|58.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||58.80|15.70|<0.0001
84680779|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effiicacy|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|60.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||60.80|17.40|<0.0001
84680780|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.0||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|33.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||33.90|-6.60|0.0883
84680781|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.0||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|31.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.70|-10.7|0.1889
84680782|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|34.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||34.00|-5.90|0.0770
84680783|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||20.70|-25.8|1.0000
84680784|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.8||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|46.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||46.90|-17.5|0.1624
84680785|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-2.3||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|29.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||29.00|-47.6|0.9112
84680786|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|9.2||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|30.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||30.10|-18.0|0.4023
84653422|NCT03019185|169042709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|8.8|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||8.80|1.37|0.0021
84653423|NCT03019185|169042710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.94|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||7.94|0.58|0.0232
84680787|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.4||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|18.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||18.90|-34.5|0.7091
84680788|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-1.4||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|23.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.60|-34.7|0.9361
84680789|NCT02207816|169097566|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-6.8||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|19.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||19.60|-42.0|0.6280
84680790|NCT02207816|169097567|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.4987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3779.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-3779|0.4987
84680791|NCT02207816|169097567|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4051.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-4051|1.0000
84680792|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-254.6||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3399.0|32.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||32.50|-3399|0.1025
84653424|NCT03355365|169042712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84653425|NCT03355365|169042713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84653426|NCT03355365|169042714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84653427|NCT03355365|169042715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84653428|NCT03355365|169042716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
84653429|NCT03355365|169042717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84653430|NCT03355365|169042718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84653431|NCT03355365|169042719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
84653432|NCT03355365|169042720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84653433|NCT04622306|169042721|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total clinical failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified in ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%.|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Expected test condom total clinical failure rate - expected control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
84653434|NCT04622306|169042721|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CLof difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Test condom total clinical failure rate - control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
84653435|NCT04622306|169042721|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.37||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set|GEE|||The non-inferiority analysis was repeated after removing couples where the male partner had a penis length greater than 170 mm. The polyurethane condom B has a specified nominal length of 170 mm and is not recommended for men with penises longer than the length of the condom.||2.5||0.025
84653436|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H01 LotA ≠ LotB versus H1 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.29|0.92|
84653437|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H02 LotA ≠ LotC versus H12 LotA = Lotc H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.31|0.93|
84653438|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.2|0.85|
84680793|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-398.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4642.0|-3.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||-3.20|-4642|0.0284
84680794|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.7||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|79.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||79.20|-78.8|0.3543
84653439|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 Strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.3|0.97|
84653440|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.13|0.85|
84653441|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.01|0.76|
84680795|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.0|63.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||63.20|-151|1.0000
84680796|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.0||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|88.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||88.00|-120|0.3809
84653442|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.23|0.91|
84653443|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.33|0.99|
84653444|NCT00617851|169042722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.26|0.94|
84653445|NCT03228433|169042766|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The least squares(LS) means and difference of least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099||||||||1.099|0.823|
84653446|NCT03228433|169042766|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), log (ln) (parameter) equal to (=) intercept plus (+) slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln(0.8) per (/)l n(r) to 1 + ln(1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25||||||||1.25|1.04|
84653447|NCT03228433|169042767|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 627.51 to 659.59|LS Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.097||||||||1.097|0.825|
84680797|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|39.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.0|86.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||86.90|-140|0.5490
84680798|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-46.3||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.0|36.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||36.20|-249|0.3239
84680799|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|47.6||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|84.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||84.10|-54.5|0.2184
84680800|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-116.8||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-476.0|10.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||10.30|-476|0.0724
84680801|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-81.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-393.0|27.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||27.90|-393|0.2055
84680802|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-18.4||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.0|57.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||57.90|-245|0.8138
84680803|NCT02207816|169097568|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|24.4||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|78.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.40|-148|0.7887
84714560|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the General health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.783.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.380
84714561|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Main effect of the Group for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.072|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.790
84714562|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.465.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.498
84714563|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 5.490.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.023
84714564|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Main effect of the Group for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.356.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.553
84714565|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
84714566|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.319.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.574
84653448|NCT03228433|169042767|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22||||||||1.22|1.00|
84653449|NCT03228433|169042768|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The LS means and difference of LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals CIs.|LS Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.431|0.781||||||||0.781|0.431|
84653450|NCT03228433|169042768|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.06||||||90.0|0.96|1.17||||||||1.17|0.96|
84653451|NCT05981391|169042790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84653452|NCT03881670|169042816|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.0023|||||||Friedman Test|||Change in ratings over time||||0.0023
84653453|NCT03881670|169042816|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.4679|||||||Friedman Test|||change in ratings over time||||0.4679
84653454|NCT00914485|169042818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Increase in mean, post-intervention versus baseline, across 18 providers and 369 patients.||||.03
84680804|NCT02207816|169097569|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|59.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||59.39|12.84|0.0077
84653455|NCT04889222|169042856|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the INVSENSOR00050 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0.00097||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00097
84653456|NCT04889222|169042857|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the RD SET SpO2 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One-Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00000
84653457|NCT02478372|169042881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at \<0.01|Chi-squared|||||||0.332
84653458|NCT00113087|169042890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84653459|NCT00113087|169042891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.42||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84653460|NCT00113087|169042892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84653461|NCT00113087|169042893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84653462|NCT00113087|169042894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
84653463|NCT00113087|169042895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84653464|NCT00113087|169042896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84653465|NCT00113087|169042897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84653466|NCT00113087|169042898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84653467|NCT00113087|169042899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84653468|NCT00113087|169042900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84653469|NCT00113087|169042901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84653470|NCT00113087|169042902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84653471|NCT00113087|169042903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84653472|NCT00113087|169042904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84653473|NCT00113087|169042905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84653474|NCT00113087|169042906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84653475|NCT00113087|169042907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84653476|NCT00113087|169042908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84653477|NCT00113087|169042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84653478|NCT00113087|169042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84653479|NCT00113087|169042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84653480|NCT00113087|169042912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84653481|NCT00113087|169042913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84680805|NCT02207816|169097569|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.52||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|24.8|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||24.80|-45.3|0.7922
84653482|NCT00113087|169042914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84680806|NCT02207816|169097569|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.03||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|51.67|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||51.67|-4.22|0.0802
84680807|NCT02207816|169097569|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|33.87||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|55.32|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||55.32|2.13|0.0387
84653483|NCT00113087|169042915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84653484|NCT00113087|169042916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
84653485|NCT00113087|169042917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84653486|NCT00113087|169042918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84653487|NCT03452228|169042919|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|1238.9||||||||1238.9|-89.4|
84653488|NCT03452228|169042919|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|121.2||||||||121.2|-82.2|
84653489|NCT02761733|169042941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3652||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9559|0.2255||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.2255|-6.9559|.0679
84653490|NCT02761733|169042941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.882||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2957|0.5317||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||0.5317|-6.2957|.0999
84653491|NCT02761733|169042941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0139||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4957|2.3779||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 148|||2.3779|-4.4957|.5588
84653492|NCT02761733|169042941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2798||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6771|3.2367||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 136|||3.2367|-2.6771|.8532
84653493|NCT02761733|169042942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4524||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5302|0.6254||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 180|||0.6254|-7.5302|.0988
84653494|NCT02761733|169042942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3087||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1799|3.5625||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|||3.5625|-4.1799|.8760
84653495|NCT02761733|169042942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.541||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|6.3054||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 153|||6.3054|-1.2234|.1878
84653496|NCT02761733|169042942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6237||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.6526||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 143|||1.6526|-4.9000|.3330
84653497|NCT02761733|169042943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9284||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4728|6.616||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 175|||6.6160|-10.4728|.6588
84653498|NCT02761733|169042943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3959||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2237|11.0155||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 169||a priori test||11.0155|-2.2237|.2633
84653499|NCT02761733|169042943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9703||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2107|-0.7299||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|a priori test||-0.7299|-17.2107|.0343
84653500|NCT02761733|169042943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7297||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4864|10.9458||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis||Satterthwaite adjusted df = 163|a priori test||10.9458|-3.4864|.3126
84653501|NCT02761733|169042944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1241||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5675|0.3193||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 142|||.3193|-.5675|.5840
84653502|NCT02761733|169042944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2642||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1754|0.7038||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 184|||.7038|-.1754|.2404
84653503|NCT02761733|169042944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3192||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0667|0.7051||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 129|||.7051|-.0667|.1074
84653504|NCT02761733|169042944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0576||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3238|0.439||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 131|||.4390|-.3238|.7677
84653505|NCT02761733|169042945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4507|0.3987||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 182|||.3987|-.4507|.9046
84653506|NCT02761733|169042945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2258||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1591|0.6107||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.6107|-.1591|.2518
84653507|NCT02761733|169042945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.437||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|-0.037||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||-.0370|-.8370|.0338
84653508|NCT02761733|169042945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2564||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6086|0.0958||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 157|||.0958|-.6086|.1555
84680808|NCT02207816|169097570|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.69||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|53.07|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||53.07|14.60|0.0028
84680809|NCT02207816|169097570|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|10.14||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|31.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.64|-18.1|0.4430
84653509|NCT02761733|169042946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2967||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5599|-0.0335||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 213|||-.0335|-.5599|.0283
84653510|NCT02761733|169042946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0401||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.2771||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 194|||.2771|-.1969|.7407
84653511|NCT02761733|169042946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2338||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4778|0.0102||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 186|||.0102|-.4778|.0619
84653512|NCT02761733|169042946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3793||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.1596||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 172|||-.1596|-.5990|.0009
84653513|NCT02713204|169042947|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|0.02||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.99|0.9894
84653514|NCT02713204|169042947|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.25||||0.8346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.59|-2.09|0.8346
84653515|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.2||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.00|-4.41|0.4611
84653516|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Least square mean difference|-2.0||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.22|-5.22|0.2225
84653517|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.82||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.32|-3.97|0.6063
84653518|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.11|-6.39|0.0426
84680810|NCT02207816|169097570|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.99||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|50.04|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||50.04|4.67|0.0245
84653519|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.39||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-1.19|-7.58|0.0073
84653520|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.17||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.36|-2.01|0.4690
84653521|NCT02713204|169042948|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.42||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.54||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.54|-0.69|0.1267
84653522|NCT02713204|169042949|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.57||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|16.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.20|-39.5|0.4130
84653523|NCT02713204|169042949|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.88||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|16.85|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.85|-26.2|0.6587
84680811|NCT02207816|169097570|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|34.24||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|52.61|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||52.61|8.74|0.0122
84653524|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.04||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|55.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||55.43|-21.35|0.3833
84653525|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.85||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|51.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||51.53|-25.84|0.5141
84653526|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.89||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|71.67|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||71.67|-3.89|0.0785
84653527|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|42.27||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|79.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||79.98|4.56|0.0281
84653528|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.65||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|54.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||54.96|-21.67|0.3934
84653529|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.05||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|59.22||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||59.22|-17.13|0.2790
84653530|NCT02713204|169042950|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.38||||0.6586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.64|28.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||28.88|-45.64|0.6586
84653531|NCT02713204|169042951|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.55||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-1.01|0.4889
84653532|NCT02713204|169042951|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.46|-0.99|0.7027
84653533|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.13|-2.34|0.4927
84653534|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.38||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.13|-1.36|0.6645
84653535|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.89||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.83|-2.61|0.3091
84653536|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.29|0.4898
84653537|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.89|-2.50|0.3504
84653538|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.98||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.74|-2.70|0.2632
84653539|NCT02713204|169042952|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.21||||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-1.46|0.8056
84653540|NCT02713204|169042953|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.25|-1.11|0.5065
84653541|NCT02713204|169042953|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.55|0.7418
84653542|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19||||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.62|-1.99|0.8383
84653543|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|-1.91|0.9180
84653544|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-3.20|0.1238
84653545|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.97||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-2.73|0.2819
84653546|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.02||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-2.78|0.2581
84653547|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-2.66|0.3390
84653548|NCT02713204|169042954|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.05||||0.9558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-1.69|0.9558
84653549|NCT00788073|169042975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84653550|NCT00788073|169042976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84653551|NCT00660673|169042991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||<0.001
84653552|NCT00660673|169042991|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||0.433
84653553|NCT00660673|169042992|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||<0.001
84653554|NCT00660673|169042992|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.150
84653555|NCT00660673|169042993|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.725
84653556|NCT00660673|169042993|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.019
84653557|NCT01903031|169043035|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
84653558|NCT01903031|169043035|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||<0.001
84653559|NCT01903031|169043036|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
84653560|NCT01903031|169043036|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||0.004
84653561|NCT02298023|169043175|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the three groups. Statistical power: 0.80||||0.35
84653562|NCT02298023|169043176|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
84653563|NCT02298023|169043177|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.882|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.882
84653564|NCT02298023|169043178|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
84653565|NCT02298023|169043179|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.977
84653566|NCT02298023|169043180|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.867|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.867
84653567|NCT02298023|169043181|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.916|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.916
84653568|NCT02298023|169043182|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
84653569|NCT00569270|169043185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FEV1 of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.027
84653570|NCT00569270|169043186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|0.19||||0.96||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p=0.05|Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema; measure includes change in FEV1 post tiotropium||||0.96
84653571|NCT00569270|169043187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FRC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.318
84653572|NCT00569270|169043188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FVC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.078
84653573|NCT00569270|169043189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|-0.26||||0.4||95.0|||||Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema (19 patients); measures include change in IC at trough tiotropium.||||0.4
84653574|NCT00569270|169043190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak IC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.067
84653575|NCT00569270|169043191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Mean difference of Peak FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.615
84653576|NCT00569270|169043192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.325
84653577|NCT00569270|169043193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.345
84653578|NCT00569270|169043194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC(L) in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.068
84653579|NCT00569270|169043195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of trough FVC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.589
84714567|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Main effect of the Group for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.482.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.490
84653580|NCT00569270|169043196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough IC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.922
84653581|NCT00569270|169043197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.02||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.02
84653582|NCT00569270|169043198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.13||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough TLC (L) of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.13
84653583|NCT00569270|169043199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in IC before and after dynamic hyperinflation. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.0001
84714568|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 4.850|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.032
84653584|NCT00569270|169043200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Total lung capacity was similar in all groups and was not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||>0.05
84653585|NCT00569270|169043201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p= 0.05|Spearman rho|Spearman rho = -0.26||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema||||0.36
84653586|NCT00492531|169043216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|38.0|||ANCOVA|6 minute walk was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and 6 minute walk distance, TRV stratum and study site as covariate.||||38|-56|0.70
84653587|NCT02128932|169043238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment , country and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.67|-0.96|<0.0001
84653588|NCT02128932|169043238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3%).|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated meausrements with treatment, country and stratum value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
84653589|NCT03685123|169043246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
84680812|NCT02207816|169097571|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|30.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||30.71|15.93|<.0001
84680813|NCT02207816|169097571|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.81|26.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||26.71|10.81|<.0001
84680814|NCT02207816|169097571|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|15.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|23.54|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.54|6.72|0.0009
84680815|NCT02207816|169097571|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.15||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|21.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||21.39|4.05|0.0056
84653590|NCT03685123|169043247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
84653591|NCT03685123|169043248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
84653592|NCT03685123|169043249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
84653593|NCT03685123|169043250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL levels||||0.983
84653594|NCT03685123|169043250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL levels||||0.56
84653595|NCT03685123|169043250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||||0.71
84653596|NCT03685123|169043250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||0.313
84653597|NCT03685123|169043251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||systolic Blood pressure||||0.72
84653598|NCT03685123|169043251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood pressure||||0.61
84653599|NCT03685123|169043251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1609|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic blood pressure between the PA-REC and the WM-REC Groups.||||0.1609
84653600|NCT03685123|169043251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic blood pressure between the PA-REC and WM-REC Groups||||0.446
84653601|NCT03685123|169043252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
84653602|NCT03685123|169043253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.857
84653603|NCT03685123|169043254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.825
84653604|NCT03685123|169043255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.061
84653605|NCT03685123|169043257|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and WM-REC groups||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL particle size||||0.105
84653606|NCT03685123|169043257|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and the WM-REC groups||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL particles||||0.849
84653607|NCT03685123|169043259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||ANOVA|||Change in steps per day from week 10 to week 28||||0.278
84653608|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 General Health (GH)||||0.238
84653609|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical health (PH)||||0.124
84653610|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 role physical||||0.769
84653611|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Bodily Pain||||0.352
84653612|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Vitality||||0.898
84653613|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 social function||||0.444
84653614|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health||||0.537
84653615|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Role Emotional||||0.448
84653616|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health (Sum)||||0.537
84653617|NCT03685123|169043260|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical Health (sum)||||0.482
84653618|NCT03685123|169043262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653619|NCT03685123|169043263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84653620|NCT03685123|169043264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in body fat||||<0.001
84653621|NCT03685123|169043265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653622|NCT03685123|169043266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL||||0.004
84653623|NCT03685123|169043266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL||||0.04
84653624|NCT03685123|169043266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Total Cholesterol||||<0.001
84653625|NCT03685123|169043266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||<0.001
84653626|NCT03685123|169043267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84653627|NCT03685123|169043267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic blood pressure||||0.001
84653628|NCT03685123|169043267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aortic blood pressure (mmHg)||||<0.001
84653629|NCT03685123|169043267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic pressure||||<0.001
84653630|NCT03685123|169043268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653631|NCT03685123|169043269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653632|NCT03685123|169043270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
84653633|NCT03685123|169043271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653634|NCT03685123|169043273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84653635|NCT03685123|169043274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653636|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||General Health|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653637|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health||||<0.001
84653638|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role physical||||0.023
84653639|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bodily Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84653640|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality||||<0.001
84653641|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Functioning||||<0.001
84653642|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health||||0.0105
84653643|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional||||<0.001
84653644|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 mental health Components (sum)||||0.01
84653645|NCT03685123|169043275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Components Sum||||<0.001
84653646|NCT03685123|169043276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in kilocalories consumed from baseline to week 10||||<0.001
84653647|NCT03685123|169043277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL Particle Size||||0.658
84653648|NCT03685123|169043277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL participle size||||0.07
84653649|NCT03113916|169043298|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.20|1.05|=.001
84653650|NCT03113916|169043299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.29|.23
84653651|NCT03113916|169043300|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000000676||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00000002|0.00000137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.00000137|-.00000002|.06
84653652|NCT03113916|169043301|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Values given need to be multiplied by 10 to the power of -10 (i.e., x 10\^-10).|||4.73|-16|.29
84653653|NCT03113916|169043302|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.351||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.978|-.277|.27
84680816|NCT02207816|169097572|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|54.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.00|10.00|0.0053
84680817|NCT02207816|169097572|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.7||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|35.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||35.20|-20.0|0.4255
84653654|NCT03113916|169043303|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.015||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.003|-.032|.10
84653655|NCT03113916|169043304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-23.0|.07
84653656|NCT03113916|169043305|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-1.41|.12
84653657|NCT03113916|169043306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.174||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.302|.050|.008
84653658|NCT03113916|169043307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.015||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.059|-.029|.50
84653659|NCT03113916|169043308|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.013|-.013|.99
84653660|NCT01758523|169043311|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84653661|NCT01758523|169043312|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
84653662|NCT01758523|169043313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45|||Chi-squared|||||6.45|0.96|0.057
84653663|NCT01758523|169043314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||||20.7|1.5|0.007
84653664|NCT01758523|169043315|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||significance for drug x AKR1C3\*2 G-carrier genotype|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
84653665|NCT01758523|169043316|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
84653666|NCT01893203|169043317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
84653667|NCT04729621|169043321|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-1.45, +1.45).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.15||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline LS-BMD and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes imputed using multiple imputation methods under the MAR assumption.||1.15|-0.73|
84653668|NCT04729621|169043322|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-20, +20).|Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|18.29||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 26 in sCTX-1 as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline sCTX-1 and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes are not imputed. Results below the limit of quantification (BLQ) are imputed as the low limit of quantification (LLOQ = 0.033 ng/mL).||18.29|-0.14|
84653669|NCT02663908|169043344|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|2.794|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.794|0.589|0.5294
84653670|NCT02663908|169043345|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.234|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||3.234|0.448|0.7126
84653671|NCT02663908|169043346|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.595|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.595|0.022|0.0853
84653672|NCT02663908|169043347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.594||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|6.673|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||6.673|0.381|0.5196
84653673|NCT02663908|169043348|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.457|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||4.457|0.181|0.8966
84653674|NCT02663908|169043349|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|2.62|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.620|0.088|0.3857
84653675|NCT02663908|169043350|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|2.176|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.176|0.324|0.7180
84653676|NCT02663908|169043352|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.539|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.539|0.512|0.6701
84653677|NCT02663908|169043353|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.907||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.235|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 168||0.235|-2.048|0.1193
84653678|NCT02663908|169043353|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.213||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.047|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 168||0.047|-0.473|0.1080
84680818|NCT02207816|169097572|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|51.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||51.40|-2.40|0.0479
84653679|NCT02663908|169043353|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.916||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|0.257|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 336||0.257|-2.089|0.1256
84653680|NCT02663908|169043353|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.047||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.218|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 336||0.218|-0.312|0.7261
84653681|NCT02663908|169043357|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.002||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.032|||ANCOVA|Compared using an ANCOVA model, where the QALY is the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment group, age group and region, respectively.||||0.032|-0.036|0.9110
84653682|NCT02663908|169043358|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.57||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 168||0.27|-3.41|0.0936
84653683|NCT02663908|169043358|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 336||2.78|-1.11|0.4000
84653684|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.045||||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.122|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 168||0.122|-0.032|0.2535
84653685|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.127|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 168||0.127|-0.055|0.4370
84653686|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.116||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 168||0.248|-0.016|0.0852
84653687|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.012||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.111|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 168||0.111|-0.087|0.8156
84653688|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.051||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.135|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 336||0.135|-0.033|0.2299
84653689|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.038||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.136|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 336||0.136|-0.060|0.4440
84653690|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.007||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.146|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 336||0.146|-0.131|0.9172
84680819|NCT02207816|169097572|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|18.1||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|42.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||42.80|-16.9|0.2346
84680820|NCT02207816|169097573|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.9||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.40|10.30|0.0051
84653691|NCT02663908|169043359|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.093||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.204|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 336||0.204|-0.019|0.1028
84653692|NCT03281577|169043400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-25.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.757|-9.858||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as covariate.|||-9.858|-41.757|0.0012
84653693|NCT03281577|169043400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-27.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.224|-9.813||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-9.813|-45.224|0.0018
84653694|NCT03281577|169043400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-41.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.616|-23.902||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-23.902|-59.616|<.0001
84653695|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.72||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.795||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.795|-0.364|0.2590
84653696|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|2.418||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||2.418|0.119|0.0280
84653697|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.45||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|1.66||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.660|-0.757|0.6882
84653698|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.87||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|3.25||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||3.250|0.493|0.0062
84653699|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.19||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|2.717||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.717|-0.327|0.1490
84680821|NCT02207816|169097573|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|37.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||37.10|-17.3|0.3340
84680822|NCT02207816|169097573|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|28.5||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|50.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||50.50|-2.90|0.0511
84653700|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.63||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|2.2||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.200|-0.931|0.6285
84714569|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.181.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.145
84714570|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||Main effect of the Group for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.535.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.467
84653701|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.29||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|2.501||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.501|0.073|0.0358
84653702|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|2.621||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.621|0.035|0.0430
84653703|NCT03281577|169043401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.25||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.107|1.611||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||1.611|-1.107|0.9419
84653704|NCT03281577|169043402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|33.12||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|65.439||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||65.439|0.799|0.0436
84653705|NCT03281577|169043402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|57.98||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.555|92.396||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||92.396|23.555|0.0007
84653706|NCT03281577|169043402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|44.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.249|80.629||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||80.629|8.249|0.0134
84653707|NCT03281577|169043403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-10.27||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.507|0.96||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.960|-21.507|0.0789
84653708|NCT03281577|169043403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-13.28||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.242|-1.314||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-1.314|-25.242|0.0270
84653709|NCT03281577|169043403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-11.63||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.206|0.952||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.952|-24.206|0.0750
84653710|NCT00491764|169043417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9||||0.005||95.0|8.9|36.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||36.8|8.9|0.005
84680823|NCT02207816|169097573|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|44.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||44.20|-13.5|0.1729
84653711|NCT00491764|169043417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.1|||<|0.001||95.0|38.0|70.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.1|38.0|<0.001
84653712|NCT00491764|169043417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.5|62.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||62.4|28.5|<0.001
84653713|NCT00491764|169043417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.012||95.0|6.7|33.3|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||33.3|6.7|0.012
84653714|NCT00491764|169043417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.1|||<|0.001||95.0|21.1|53.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||53.2|21.1|<0.001
84653715|NCT00491764|169043418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.7||||0.002||95.0|11.2|40.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||40.2|11.2|0.002
84653716|NCT00491764|169043418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
84653717|NCT00491764|169043418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|31.4|65.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||65.5|31.4|<0.001
84653718|NCT00491764|169043418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
84653719|NCT00491764|169043418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3|||<|0.001||95.0|37.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.8|37.8|<0.001
84653720|NCT00491764|169043419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
84653721|NCT00491764|169043419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
84653722|NCT00491764|169043419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|82.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||82.8|50.6|<0.001
84653723|NCT00491764|169043419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
84653724|NCT00491764|169043419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.1|||<|0.001||95.0|40.7|73.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||73.5|40.7|<0.001
84653725|NCT01601132|169043433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Significant difference defined a priori as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5663
84653726|NCT01601132|169043434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.77|110.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Cmax, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Cmax to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, (AUC0-∞), and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||110.12|101.77|
84653727|NCT01601132|169043435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.81|109.59|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-t)\], expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-t) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||109.59|101.81|
84653728|NCT01601132|169043436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|106.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|112.04|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) , expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||112.04|101.10|
84653729|NCT01601132|169043437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.25|98.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed CL/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed CL/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||98.92|89.25|
84653730|NCT01601132|169043438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|98.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|106.85|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Vd/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Vd/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||106.85|90.97|
84680824|NCT02207816|169097576|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.0|99.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||99.20|-859|0.6244
84680825|NCT02207816|169097576|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|92.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||92.30|-1358|1.0000
84680826|NCT02207816|169097576|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-188.9||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15000.0|76.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.80|-15000|0.6244
84653731|NCT02110238|169043440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A VAS (0-100 mm) WOMAC Pain subscale score CFB; an equal n t-test for non-inferiority of means; a non-inferiority margin of -8 mm; change standard deviation of 26 mm; two-sided alpha=0.05; 80% power; an expected mean difference of 0, and a drop-out plus important deviation percentage of approximately 20% were used to establish study sample size.|Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.17|||||"A MERM regression model was fit to the change from baseline at weeks 3, 6, and 12. The over weeks 3, 6, and 12 single point estimate least square mean change was calculated for both arms, the difference and its 95% confidence interval calculated."|||0.17|-6.77|
84653732|NCT01479478|169043443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.87
84653733|NCT00142935|169043461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Outcome: engage in treatment post release, yes or no||||<0.001
84653734|NCT00142935|169043462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.02
84653735|NCT00142935|169043463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
84653736|NCT00142935|169043464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
84653737|NCT00142935|169043466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8
84653738|NCT03055156|169043467|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84653739|NCT03055156|169043468|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84653740|NCT03055156|169043469|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84653741|NCT03055156|169043470|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84653742|NCT03055156|169043471|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Wake values||||0.02
84653743|NCT03055156|169043471|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of REM values||||0.06
84653744|NCT03055156|169043471|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 1 values||||0.83
84653745|NCT03055156|169043471|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 2 values||||0.87
84653746|NCT03055156|169043471|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 3 values||||0.97
84653747|NCT03055156|169043472|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84653748|NCT03055156|169043473|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84653749|NCT03055156|169043475|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84653750|NCT03055156|169043476|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 0-90 minutes||||0.86
84653751|NCT03055156|169043476|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 90-180 minutes||||0.29
84653752|NCT03055156|169043476|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 180-270 minutes||||0.58
84653753|NCT03055156|169043476|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 270-360 min||||0.62
84653754|NCT03055156|169043477|OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to compare the difference in core body temperature trend over time between the two study arms. Interaction between time and topper type on CBT was calculated.||||0.389
84653755|NCT03055156|169043477|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect over time from both study arms on CBT. Main effect of time on CBT.||||0.01
84653756|NCT03055156|169043477|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect of the intervention on CBT including all time points. Main effect of topper type on CBT.||||0.642
84653757|NCT03055156|169043478|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84653758|NCT03055156|169043479|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84653759|NCT03055156|169043480|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84653760|NCT04269707|169043486|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in hemoglobin from baseline to day 35 was assessed using paired t-tests (two-sided test, alpha = 0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-0.40|0.1711
84653761|NCT00074984|169043492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|1.222|||Log Rank|Comparison is based on a 2-sided log-rank test.||||1.222|0.269|0.1449
84653762|NCT00074984|169043492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|1.025|||Wald Test|||Time to First Primary Endpoint Adjusting for Baseline Proteinuria using Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.025|0.211|0.0577
84653763|NCT00074984|169043493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.927|||Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Analysis of Time to First Renal Event for ITT population.||1.927|0.278|0.5261
84653764|NCT03080454|169043497|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean percent change from baseline in area under the curve for the resistance torque measure across 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean percent change in area under the curve between anodal and sham Doublestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.004||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean percent change in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84653765|NCT03080454|169043498|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean Tardieu Scale Score summed across 11 joints of the upper extremity in 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change between anodal and sham Doubleestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.003||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean score in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.003
84653766|NCT01952145|169043504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDegLira versus IGlar was considered as confirmed, if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.30%.|Treatment contrast|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||This primary endpoint was analysed on the FAS using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.45|-0.74|< 0.001
84653767|NCT04138810|169043511|NON_INFERIORITY|We defined the non-inferiority margin to be 5 points which with a sample of size of 25 women per arm would mean we would have a type I error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.80.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||||||||1.03|-1.95|
84653768|NCT03779711|169043547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8095|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.8095
84653769|NCT03779711|169043548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline circumferential strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline circumferential strain, is used to assess change in circumferential strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.3029
84653770|NCT03779711|169043549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain, is used to assess change in longitudinal strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.0323
84653771|NCT03779711|169043550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 12-months post-surgery.||||0.6765
84653772|NCT03779711|169043551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3456|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to discharge.||||0.3456
84653773|NCT03779711|169043552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery.||||0.7760
84653774|NCT03779711|169043553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9563|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in weight from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9563
84653775|NCT03779711|169043554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in heart rate from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9095
84653776|NCT03779711|169043555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6391|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in oxygen saturation from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.6391
84653777|NCT03779711|169043562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8782|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery||||0.8782
84680827|NCT02207816|169097576|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7509.0|98.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||98.80|-7509|1.0000
84680828|NCT02207816|169097577|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2098.0|71.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||71.50|-2098|0.6869
84653778|NCT00413244|169043574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||log mean|||"Statistician used all the time points post-baseline together (Overall). The result gives the estimates and 95% CI of the treatment effect from longitudinal analyses (generalized estimating equation method) which basically pools data from all visits post-baseline."||||0.03
84653779|NCT02653872|169043586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|153.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.16|172.83|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||172.83|136.16|
84653780|NCT02653872|169043586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.84|68.34|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||68.34|53.84|
84653781|NCT02653872|169043587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|132.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.78|143.64|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||143.64|121.78|
84653782|NCT02653872|169043587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.69|123.49|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||123.49|104.69|
84653783|NCT02653872|169043588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|133.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.7|145.29|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||145.29|122.70|
84653784|NCT02653872|169043588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|112.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.34|122.37|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||122.37|103.34|
84653785|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.0701
84653786|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1383|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.1383
84653787|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0478|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Perianal disease||||=0.0478
84653788|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1454|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Ileal disease||||=0.1454
84653789|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=1.0000
84653790|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=0.4992
84653791|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Episcleritis||||=1.0000
84653792|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Uveitis||||=1.0000
84653793|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
84653794|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.2022
84653795|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
84653796|NCT04873700|169043610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.0000
84653797|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2896|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.2896
84653798|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.0006
84653799|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.089|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=0.0890
84653800|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Pyoderma gangrenosum||||=1.0000
84653801|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=1.0000
84653802|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Primary sclerosing cholangitis||||=1.0000
84653803|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
84653804|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0752|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.0752
84653805|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
84653806|NCT04873700|169043611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1032|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.1032
84653807|NCT01044706|169043630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|108.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0321|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|114.44||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 55|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-144 at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for AUC0-144 hour.||114.44|102.79|<0.05
84653808|NCT01044706|169043631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|110.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0281|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.43|115.82||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 56|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for Cmax.||115.82|105.43|<0.05
84653809|NCT00116428|169043655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The study null hypothesis is that the chronic success rates for the THERMOCOOL and AAD groups are equal.||||<0.001
84653810|NCT01032174|169043660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
84653811|NCT01032174|169043661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.15||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained terms for treatment, gender, age and Body Mass Index (BMI).|ANCOVA|Least square mean was adjusted for gender, age and BMI.||||2.15|-0.03|0.0568
84653812|NCT01032174|169043662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0682
84653813|NCT02572609|169043679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|113.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.48|121.1|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||121.10|106.48|0.0082
84653814|NCT02572609|169043680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC0-t will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|119.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.65|124.79|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||124.79|114.65|0.0438
84653815|NCT02635776|169043701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|73.3|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||73.3|53|<0.0001
84653816|NCT02635776|169043702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.7|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||57.7|38|<0.0001
84653817|NCT02635776|169043703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|78.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||78.5|58.6|<0.0001
84653818|NCT02635776|169043704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (using equally spaced scores), stratified by region (North America, Europe)||Treatment difference in maximum severity||||<0.0001
84653819|NCT02925117|169043725|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-36.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-36.3|-66.5|< 0.001
84653820|NCT02925117|169043725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-23.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-23.6|-53.7|<0.001
84653821|NCT02925117|169043725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-1.4|-31.4|0.032
84653822|NCT02925117|169043726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|58.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|74.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||74.8|42.5|< 0.001
84653823|NCT02925117|169043726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||59.6|25.5|<0.001
84653824|NCT02925117|169043726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.7|2.7|0.022
84653825|NCT02925117|169043727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||62.7|31.1|<0.001
84680829|NCT02207816|169097577|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-406.0||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4650.0|-7.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||-7.80|-4650|0.0213
84653826|NCT02925117|169043727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||43.4|13.8|<0.001
84653827|NCT02925117|169043727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||23.5|0.3|0.044
84653828|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-46.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-46.3|-72.3|<0.001
84653829|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-34.3|-61.1|<0.001
84653830|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-17.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-17.8|-44.3|<0.001
84653831|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-48.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-48.9|-83.9|<0.001
84653832|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-20.4|-56.4|<0.001
84680830|NCT02207816|169097578|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12000.0|89.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||89.60|-12000|1.0000
84653833|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-11.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-11.2|-46.6|0.002
84653834|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|-39.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-39.9|-78.6|<0.001
84653835|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-18.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-18.4|-58.3|<0.001
84653836|NCT02925117|169043728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-10.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-10.3|-49.4|0.003
84653837|NCT02925117|169043729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-50.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-50.5|-80.0|<0.001
84653838|NCT02925117|169043729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-33.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-33.3|-62.6|<0.001
84653839|NCT02925117|169043729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-11.5|-40.8|<0.001
84653840|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-58.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-44.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-44.9|-71.7|<0.001
84653841|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-23.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-23.4|-50.8|<0.001
84653842|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-15.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-15.0|-41.9|<0.001
84653843|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-34.3|-61.7|<0.001
84653844|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-20.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-20.5|-48.5|<0.001
84653845|NCT02925117|169043730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-6.4|-33.9|0.004
84653846|NCT02925117|169043731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|87.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||87.1|58.3|<0.001
84653847|NCT02925117|169043731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|61.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||61.9|27.9|<0.001
84680831|NCT02207816|169097578|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-304.8||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20000.0|59.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||59.90|-20000|0.2154
84680832|NCT02207816|169097579|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-24.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0|73.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||73.30|-526|1.0000
84653848|NCT02925117|169043731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||39.4|7.5|0.004
84653849|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|85.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||85.2|56.2|<0.001
84653850|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||67.3|30.8|<0.001
84653851|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|13.4|<0.001
84653852|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|60.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||75.9|45.3|<0.001
84653853|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||65.9|31.3|<0.001
84653854|NCT02925117|169043732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||46.6|9.8|0.003
84653855|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||58.5|29.1|<0.001
84653856|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||39.6|12.6|<0.001
84653857|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||18.8|-0.0|0.051
84653858|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||62.4|31.3|<0.001
84653859|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||38.1|9.6|0.001
84653860|NCT02925117|169043733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||23.6|0.1|0.049
84680833|NCT02207816|169097579|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-77.1||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-725.0|55.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||55.00|-725|0.3834
84680834|NCT02207816|169097579|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-297.5||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19000.0|60.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||60.70|-19000|0.3740
84653861|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|68.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||82.8|54.0|<0.001
84653862|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|18.5|<0.001
84653863|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|25.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||41.7|9.6|0.002
84653864|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|54.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||69.9|39.0|<0.001
84653865|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||52.5|19.1|<0.001
84653866|NCT02925117|169043734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||36.8|5.7|0.008
84653867|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||44.6|16.2|<0.001
84653868|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.9|-0.1|0.052
84653869|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.5|0.1|0.048
84653870|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||53.3|22.2|<0.001
84653871|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||32.5|5.6|0.006
84653872|NCT02925117|169043735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||10.8|-6.0|0.581
84653873|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||25.2|3.2|0.012
84653874|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||8.0|-3.4|0.428
84653875|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.6||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||11.8|-2.5|0.206
84653876|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||36.2|10.4|<0.001
84653877|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||18.8|0.1|0.048
84653878|NCT02925117|169043736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||8.1|-3.4|0.426
84680835|NCT02207816|169097579|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-498.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27000.0|27.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||27.40|-27000|0.1240
84680836|NCT02349295|169097586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.48||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi).|Regression, Logistic|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.||||8.48|2.65|<0.001
84653879|NCT02925117|169043742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-18.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-18.1|-34.9|<0.001
84680837|NCT02349295|169097586|OTHER|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and TNFi experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi)||6.78|2.12|<0.001
84653880|NCT02925117|169043742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-14.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-14.6|-31.4|<0.001
84653881|NCT02925117|169043742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||0.8|-16.0|0.075
84653882|NCT02925117|169043743|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|65.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||65.2|29.6|<0.001
84653883|NCT02925117|169043743|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||71.3|35.5|<0.001
84653884|NCT02925117|169043743|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.3|2.8|0.021
84653885|NCT01682954|169043750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84653886|NCT01682954|169043751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84680838|NCT06111742|169097612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Induction||||<0.001
84680839|NCT06111742|169097612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OR entry||||<0.001
84680840|NCT06111742|169097613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84680841|NCT06111742|169097615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84680842|NCT01914926|169097616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We estimated a sample size of 200 patients assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive diltiazem and metoprolol would achieve 80% power to detect non-inferiority using a one-sided two sample t-test. The margin of equivalence is -10.||||.0001
84653887|NCT00621959|169043763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.546||95.0|-0.59|0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment and center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.31|-0.59|0.546
84653888|NCT00621959|169043764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442||95.0|-0.27|0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.12|-0.27|0.442
84653889|NCT00594659|169043770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||accelerated bootstrapping|||Pairwise comparison; non-parametric tests performed because of non-normal distribution||||<0.05
84653890|NCT00594659|169043770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||pairwise comparison; non-parametric analysis||||< .05
84653891|NCT00594659|169043770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||nonparametric pairwise comparison; non-normal distribution||||> 0.05
84653892|NCT00594659|169043771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||piecewise mixed model with logit link an|Performed across all assessments.|Slope and p-value above are for group 1: baseline to ETX. Group 3 vs. Group 1 baseline to ETX slope, p \< 0.05. All other pairwise comparisons p \> 0.05.|pairwise comparisons among groups across 4 follow-up timepoints||||< 0.05
84653893|NCT03320057|169043780|OTHER|We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models to assess whether study implementation was associated with pharmacists' overall medication abortion knowledge. Multivariable GEE analyses included time period (baseline and endline) as the primary independent variable, adjusted for gender and years of experience, and accounted for clustering by pharmacy site and individual pharmacist.|Beta Coefficient|0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Coefficients in adjusted analyses examining overall medication abortion knowledge represent the difference in mean knowledge scores between baseline and endline.|Medication abortion knowledge scores were based on a set of 15 items. We first assessed the internal consistency reliability of the 15 knowledge items and considered a Cronbach's alpha coefficient above .70 to be acceptable to examine the items as a combined score.||0.17|0.11|<0.05
84653894|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.759
84653895|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.500
84653896|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.144
84653897|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.648
84653898|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.929
84680843|NCT03204279|169097628|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|0.076||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.55
84653899|NCT02468674|169043782|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.530
84653900|NCT02468674|169043783|OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.839
84680844|NCT03204279|169097628|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|-0.041||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.75
84653901|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.669
84653902|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.773
84653903|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.290
84653904|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.766
84653905|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.885
84653906|NCT02468674|169043784|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.840
84653907|NCT02468674|169043785|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.367
84653908|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.875
84653909|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.909
84653910|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.168
84653911|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.632
84653912|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.310
84653913|NCT02468674|169043786|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.321
84653914|NCT02468674|169043787|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.395
84653915|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.120
84680845|NCT01059565|169097766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.91||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|5.06||"To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||"The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.~A sample size of 50 participants per group provided at least 80% power to detect an 8.5% difference in mean AUCave of relative change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted through Week 24 using a two-sided 0.05-level test, assuming a common standard deviation of 15."||5.06|-3.24|0.663
84680846|NCT01059565|169097767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4158||||||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|Negative binomial regression|The negative binomial regression model included an offset parameter which accounted for potential differing study durations due to discontinuations.||The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.4158
84680847|NCT01059565|169097768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.18||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.78||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||1.78|-4.43|0.939
84680848|NCT01059565|169097769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.77||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.86|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.86|-3.33|0.711
84680849|NCT01059565|169097770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.49|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.49|-3.30|0.762
84680850|NCT01059565|169097771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.95||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|8.44|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.44|-4.54|0.553
84680851|NCT01059565|169097772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.28|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||7.28|-1.20|0.170
84653916|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.297
84653917|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.074
84680852|NCT01059565|169097773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|5.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||5.49|-10.62|0.528
84680853|NCT01059565|169097774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|8.34|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.34|-1.11|0.132
84680854|NCT01059565|169097775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value was based on a Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure model that included terms for treatment, visit, baseline, and treatment/visit interaction.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||0.56|-0.29|0.531
84680855|NCT01059565|169097776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.93||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||2.48|-0.62|0.232
84680856|NCT01059565|169097777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.103
84680857|NCT01059565|169097778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.646
84653918|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.022
84653919|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.106
84653920|NCT02468674|169043788|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.211
84653921|NCT02468674|169043789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: ASMI at Week 49||||1.000
84653922|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.084
84653923|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.283
84653924|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.323
84653925|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.018
84653926|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.179
84680858|NCT01059565|169097779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.284
84653927|NCT02468674|169043790|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.227
84653928|NCT02468674|169043791|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: LBM at Week 49||||1.000
84653929|NCT00705289|169043889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|0.1402||||0.0003|||||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and age (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.0003
84653930|NCT00705289|169043890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|-0.01||||0.7991||95.0|||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and time since diagnosis (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7991
84653931|NCT00705289|169043891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7152||95.0|||||ANOVA|The association between Baseline DAS28 and gender is based on a one-way Anova.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and gender (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7152
84653932|NCT00705289|169043892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Relationship between DAS28 and Country of Residence was based on a 1-way ANOVA calculated as P-value.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and country of residence (prior to infliximab therapy)||||<0.0001
84653933|NCT00705289|169043893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (all subjects, prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
84653934|NCT00705289|169043893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.0|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with early RA, not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.0|
84653935|NCT00705289|169043893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
84653936|NCT00705289|169043893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.1|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA who failed or did not tolerate another anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.1|
84680859|NCT00574587|169097781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||95% Confidence interval|54.0|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|20.0|34.0|74.0|||Simon's Mimimax 2-stage design|||||74|34|<0.10
84680860|NCT01592435|169097785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84653937|NCT01419626|169043922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.461|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.341|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.341|-0.581|<0.001
84653938|NCT01419626|169043922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.669|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|-0.549|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.549|-0.789|<0.001
84653939|NCT01419626|169043922|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis at Week 4|Difference in LS mean|-0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.090|-0.326|<0.001
84653940|NCT01419626|169043923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.363|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.363|-0.625|<0.001
84653941|NCT01419626|169043923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.697|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|-0.567|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.567|-0.828|<0.001
84653942|NCT01419626|169043923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.203||||0.002||95.0|-0.333|-0.074|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.074|-0.333|0.002
84653943|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.021|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.021|-0.059|<0.001
84653944|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.044|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.064|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.025|-0.064|<0.001
84653945|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.015|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.015|-0.023|0.671
84653946|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.061|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.061|-0.121|<0.001
84653947|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.114|-0.175|<0.001
84653948|NCT01419626|169043924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.023|-0.083|<0.001
84653949|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.065|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.065|-0.115|<0.001
84653950|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.138|-0.189|<0.001
84653951|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.048|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.048|-0.099|<0.001
84653952|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.120|-0.180|<0.001
84653953|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.226|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.226|-0.287|<0.001
84653954|NCT01419626|169043925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.077|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.077|-0.137|<0.001
84653955|NCT01419626|169043926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.259|-0.465|<0.001
84653956|NCT01419626|169043926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.534|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.431|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.431|-0.637|<0.001
84653957|NCT01419626|169043926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.069|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.069|-0.273|0.001
84653958|NCT01419626|169043927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.292|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.292|-0.510|<0.001
84653959|NCT01419626|169043927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|-0.449|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.449|-0.667|<0.001
84653960|NCT01419626|169043927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.049|-0.265|<0.001
84653961|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.014|-0.046|<0.001
84653962|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.023|-0.055|<0.001
84653963|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.009||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.007|-0.025|0.294
84653964|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.019||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.003|-0.035|0.020
84653965|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.018|-0.050|<0.001
84653966|NCT01419626|169043928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.015||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||0.001|-0.031|0.071
84653967|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.067|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.083|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.050|-0.083|<0.001
84653968|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.066|-0.099|<0.001
84653969|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.016||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.000|-0.032|0.057
84653970|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.059|-0.095|<0.001
84653971|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.083|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.083|-0.120|<0.001
84653972|NCT01419626|169043929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.024||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.006|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.006|-0.042|0.009
84653973|NCT01145625|169043941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -6.565.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.4|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 24 data.||5.4|-6.0|0.9170
84653974|NCT01145625|169043942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.4158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 12 data.||8.2|-3.4|<0.4158
84653975|NCT01145625|169043943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 52 data.||4.1|-7.1|0.5980
84653976|NCT04289623|169043944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.35|1.05|.007
84653977|NCT04289623|169043944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.19|0.56|.287
84653978|NCT04289623|169043944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.27|0.87|.590
84653979|NCT04289623|169043944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||3.32|1.05|.035
84653980|NCT04289623|169043945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.37|0.98|.085
84653981|NCT04289623|169043945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.33|0.60|.569
84653982|NCT04289623|169043945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.17|0.54|.240
84653983|NCT04289623|169043945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.95||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.95|0.45|.871
84653984|NCT00762385|169043952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1247||||98.3|-0.2346|0.03164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.03164|-0.2346|
84653985|NCT00762385|169043953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02287||||98.3|-0.04297|0.00556|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.005560|-0.04297|
84653986|NCT00762385|169043954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||||98.3|0.04553|0.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.2726|0.04553|
84653987|NCT02130570|169043964|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91||This is the P-value for the adjusted IRR.|Regression poissant|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.91|0.30|0.02
84653988|NCT02130570|169043965|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||This is the p-value for the adjusted rate|Regression poissant|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.95|0.64|0.01
84680861|NCT01592435|169097786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
84680862|NCT00690755|169097836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
84680863|NCT00762320|169097866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=4||||||=.004
84653989|NCT02130570|169043966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||This is the P-value for the adjusted Odds Ratio|Regression, Logistic|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect . OR: odds ratio|1.85|0.64|0.77
84653990|NCT02130570|169043967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the P-value for the adjusted difference.|Regression, Linear|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect.|||0.91
84653991|NCT02130570|169043968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.85||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments and the P-value computed for each survey question."|Regression, Logistic||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for a list of the estimated value and 95% CI for each survey question."||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|1.51|0.47|0.57
84653992|NCT04424888|169043971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21875
84653993|NCT04424888|169043972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.90625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90625
84653994|NCT04424888|169043973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Akkermansia Munciphilae.||||0.020
84653995|NCT04424888|169043973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Bifidobacterium infantis.||||0.078
84653996|NCT04424888|169043973|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium beijerinckii.|No statistical test was conducted since Clostridium beijerinckii was not detected in any sample.|||
84653997|NCT04424888|169043973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium butyricum.||||0.20
84653998|NCT04424888|169043973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Anaerobutyricum hallii.||||0.12
84653999|NCT04424888|169043974|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All participants had the same number of sensors (3) throughout the study, so no statistical analysis is conducted.|||
84654000|NCT04424888|169043975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average number of daily photos is greater in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.41
84654001|NCT04424888|169043976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average time between consecutive scans is smaller in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.13
84654002|NCT03863197|169043984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84680864|NCT00762320|169097871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=7||||||<.001
84654003|NCT03863197|169043985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654004|NCT03863197|169043986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654005|NCT03863197|169043987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654006|NCT03863197|169043988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654007|NCT03863197|169043989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654008|NCT03863197|169043993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654009|NCT03863197|169043994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84654010|NCT01065597|169043995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||0.001
84654011|NCT01065597|169043996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||>0.05
84654012|NCT01065597|169043998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84654013|NCT01781975|169043999|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00176|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.00176|0.048
84654014|NCT04545060|169044030|SUPERIORITY||adjusted relative risk ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.5||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.50|0.09|<0.001
84654015|NCT04545060|169044048|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.63|0.19|<0.001
84654016|NCT04545060|169044049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.76||two-sided, alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.38|<0.001
84654017|NCT04545060|169044051|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.232||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.065||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.065|-0.399|0.007
84654018|NCT04545060|169044055|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.59|0.12|0.002
84654019|NCT00973674|169044063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||||0.99
84654020|NCT00973674|169044064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.77|||Log Rank|||||3.77|0.74|.033
84680865|NCT00718718|169097882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
84654021|NCT00973674|169044065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
84654022|NCT02068027|169044153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4503||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4503
84654023|NCT02068027|169044154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7350
84654024|NCT00494299|169044155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.2520462|||||||||||||The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by the response of TACE (Responder group A versus Responder group B), ECOG performance status (PS) (0 versus 1) and the number of prior TACE (1 versus 2).|||||
84654025|NCT00494299|169044155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8735||||||95.0|0.6972|1.0942|||||Hazard Ratio: Sorafenib/Placebo.|||1.0942|0.6972|
84654026|NCT03800173|169044177|OTHER||Slope|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.096||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed Cmax. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.096|0.868|
84654027|NCT03800173|169044178|OTHER||Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.128||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-inf Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1||1.128|0.872|
84654028|NCT03800173|169044178|OTHER||Slope|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.219||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-t. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.219|0.952|
84654029|NCT00579098|169044186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.75
84654030|NCT00579098|169044187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.37
84654031|NCT00579098|169044188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84654032|NCT00579098|169044189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||Comparison between treatment groups. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84654033|NCT00579098|169044190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in total cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
84654034|NCT00579098|169044190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in LDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
84654035|NCT00579098|169044190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in HDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||0.92
84654036|NCT00347360|169044243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.41499. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
84654037|NCT00347360|169044244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.00485. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
84654038|NCT00144391|169044272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84654039|NCT00739674|169044369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
84654040|NCT00739674|169044370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
84654041|NCT00739674|169044371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
84654042|NCT00739674|169044372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
84654043|NCT00739674|169044373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.507
84654044|NCT00739674|169044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.058
84654045|NCT00739674|169044375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.158
84654046|NCT00739674|169044376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.064
84654047|NCT00739674|169044377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.262
84506086|NCT03280537|168763016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.12||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.12|-1.05|0.0140
84654048|NCT00739674|169044378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.026
84654049|NCT00739674|169044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.212
84654050|NCT01519271|169044389|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84654051|NCT01397890|169044404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.044||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.069|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.069|1.019|0.0004
84654052|NCT01397890|169044405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.079|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.102|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.102|1.057|<0.0001
84680866|NCT00718718|169097882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.052
84680867|NCT00718718|169097882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
84654053|NCT01397890|169044406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.111|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.111|1.062|<0.0001
84654054|NCT01397890|169044407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.018||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.037|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.037|0.999|0.0570
84654055|NCT01397890|169044408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.067|1.033|<0.0001
84654056|NCT01397890|169044409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.073|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.073|1.036|<0.0001
84680868|NCT00718718|169097882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
84680869|NCT00718718|169097883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84654057|NCT01397890|169044410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.050|0.990|0.1956
84654058|NCT01397890|169044411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.091|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.091|1.035|<0.0001
84654059|NCT01397890|169044412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.303||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.904|30.702|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.702|9.904|0.0001
84654060|NCT01397890|169044413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.587|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.407|19.766|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||19.766|7.407|<0.0001
84654061|NCT01397890|169044414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.147|24.791|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||24.791|10.147|<0.0001
84654062|NCT01397890|169044415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.428||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.463|39.393|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||39.393|13.463|0.0001
84654063|NCT01397890|169044416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.192||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.491|26.894|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.894|7.491|0.0006
84654064|NCT01397890|169044417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.347|26.596|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.596|10.347|<0.0001
84654065|NCT01397890|169044418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.437|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.437|-0.900|<0.0001
84654066|NCT01397890|169044419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.552|-0.198|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.198|-0.552|<0.0001
84654067|NCT01397890|169044420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.361|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.361|-0.741|<0.0001
84654068|NCT01397890|169044421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.082|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.082|-0.391|0.0028
84680870|NCT00718718|169097883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84680871|NCT00718718|169097883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84680872|NCT00718718|169097883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84680873|NCT00718718|169097883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84654069|NCT01397890|169044422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.007|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.007|-0.240|0.0372
84654070|NCT01397890|169044423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.113|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.113|-0.350|0.0001
84654071|NCT01397890|169044424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.159|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.159|-0.364|<0.0001
84654072|NCT01397890|169044425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.143||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.040|-0.246|0.0067
84654073|NCT01397890|169044426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.022|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.022|-0.222|0.0171
84654074|NCT01397890|169044427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.593||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.839|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable morning PEF as a covariate||||0.839|0.419|0.0032
84654075|NCT01397890|169044427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.614||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.916|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||0.916|0.412|0.0167
84654076|NCT01397890|169044427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0196
84654077|NCT00434954|169044428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assuming 25% dropouts) gave a power of 85% to detect non-inferiority of exenatide BID for change in HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 0.4%; assumed common standard deviation of 1.1%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.291||Non-inferiority: upper limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) to be \< 0.4%.|Mixed effect model repeat measures(MMRM)|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects); p-value: superiority test||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart 70/30 BID for glycemic control (change in HbA1c, outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2). This is the first part of the hierarchical test.||0.291|-0.003|0.055
84654078|NCT00434954|169044429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.554
84654079|NCT00434954|169044430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.159
84654080|NCT00434954|169044435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Non overlapping 95% CI's: statistically significant difference p\<0.05.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|For each treatment group, the incidence of hypoglycemia at Week 26 and 95% CIs were derived from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart BID for glycemic control (outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2).The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assumed dropout rate 25%) gave 96% power to detect superiority of exenatide BID for the risk of hypoglycemia, assuming incidences of 3.6% for exenatide BID and 17.5% for insulin aspart BID (alpha=0.05).||||<0.05
84654081|NCT00434954|169044436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at baseline \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
84654082|NCT00434954|169044437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at Visit 1 \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
84680874|NCT00718718|169097884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
84654083|NCT01961362|169044444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05 considered to represent statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84654084|NCT01961362|169044444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84654085|NCT01961362|169044445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84654086|NCT01761175|169044498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84654087|NCT01761175|169044499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84654088|NCT01761175|169044500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
84654089|NCT01761175|169044501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
84654090|NCT01761175|169044502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84654091|NCT01761175|169044503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84654092|NCT01761175|169044504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84680875|NCT01218438|169097951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.024|||Poisson|||||0.024||<0.0001
84680876|NCT01760239|169098061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84654093|NCT00467857|169044569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.655
84654094|NCT00467857|169044570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.276
84654095|NCT00467857|169044571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.375
84654096|NCT00467857|169044572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.039
84654097|NCT00467857|169044573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.057
84654098|NCT00467857|169044574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.646
84654099|NCT00467857|169044575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.788
84654100|NCT00467857|169044576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.960
84654101|NCT00467857|169044577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.359
84654102|NCT00467857|169044578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.730
84654103|NCT00467857|169044579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.348
84654104|NCT00467857|169044580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.512
84654105|NCT00467857|169044581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.285
84654106|NCT00467857|169044582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84654107|NCT03576495|169044599|SUPERIORITY|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' knowledge improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident knowledge, resident knowledge was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares the average scores (in percent) of the residents' knowledge assessment at time period 2 between the Early Intervention and Delayed Intervention groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2422
84654108|NCT03576495|169044600|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' preparation for caring for culturally diverse patients improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident preparedness assessed by the Cross-Cultural Care Survey, resident preparedness was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||1.000
84654109|NCT03576495|169044601|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|0.9||||0.6295|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' self-assessed skills improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident skills, resident skills were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.6295
84654110|NCT03576495|169044602|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|2.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' beliefs improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident beliefs, beliefs were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.0199
84654111|NCT03576495|169044603|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|2.2||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Limited English Proficiency and Informed Consent OSCE."||||0.2665
84680877|NCT01760239|169098062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.046
84680878|NCT01760239|169098063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84680879|NCT01983293|169098064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84654112|NCT03576495|169044603|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Trust and Pain."||||0.0001
84680880|NCT03147248|169098066|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 22 was greater that the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.6.|Difference of Least square mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||The least squares means and standard errors, estimate of treatment difference (CT-P13 SC 120 mg - CT-P13 IV 3 mg/kg), and 2-sided 95% CI obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA considering the treatment as fixed effect and country, serum CRP concentration at Week 2 (≤0.6 mg/dL vs. \>0.6 mg/dL), and body weight at Week 6 (≤100 kg vs. \>100 kg) as covariates.||0.52|0.02|
84680881|NCT03750552|169098071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.58|-1.05|0.574
84680882|NCT03750552|169098072|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.28|-0.84|0.331
84680883|NCT03750552|169098073|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.48|-1.01|0.481
84654113|NCT03576495|169044604|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|3.19||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to trust at time period 2."||||0.5079
84654114|NCT03576495|169044604|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|1.92||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to limited English proficiency at period 2."||||0.1571
84680884|NCT03750552|169098074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.17|-0.12|0.740
84680885|NCT03750552|169098075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.24|-0.02|0.0903
84680886|NCT02008890|169098095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.53|0.50|0.5722
84680887|NCT02008890|169098095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||6.60|1.04|0.0411
84680888|NCT02008890|169098096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.9431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.47|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.47|-4.59|0.9431
84680889|NCT02008890|169098096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|0.88|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||0.88|-7.14|0.1576
84680890|NCT01227681|169098141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is significant deterioration of UPDRS part III scores from baseline to post G-CSF injection one year||||0.64
84680891|NCT00434057|169098360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to melanoma|98.0||||0.05||95.0|95.1|100.0|||exact mid-P||"Of 127 melanomas, 114 melanomas had a pre-biopsy diagnosis of Melanoma can not be ruled out or Not melanoma, which qualified them for primary endpoint analysis of sensitivity. MelaFind correctly identified 112/114 melanomas."|MelaFind's sensitivity to cutaneous melanoma and 95% confidence intervals were determined.||100|95.1|0.05
84680892|NCT00434057|169098360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificty of MelaFind and examining dermatologists on the same set of pigmented skin lesions.||||0.02
84680893|NCT00958919|169098391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|2.69|.0004
84680894|NCT00958919|169098392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.85|0.49|.024
84680895|NCT00958919|169098393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84680896|NCT00958919|169098394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84680897|NCT00958919|169098395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84680898|NCT00373334|169098458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
84680899|NCT00373334|169098458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
84680900|NCT00373334|169098459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.746
84680901|NCT00373334|169098459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.262
84654115|NCT03576495|169044604|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|4.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to consent at time period 2."||||0.0001
84680902|NCT00373334|169098460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.609
84680903|NCT00373334|169098460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.938
84680904|NCT04256733|169098490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
84680905|NCT04256733|169098491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
84680906|NCT04256733|169098492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84654116|NCT03576495|169044604|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|0.19||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to pain at time period 2."||||0.2956
84654117|NCT03576495|169044605|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||We used Cox Proportional Hazard to assess time to discharge, with 5.31 days as the estimated value for the difference between the two groups.|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patients length of stay improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. Patient length of stay was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups to measure an effect of the PACTS intervention."||||0.0028
84654118|NCT00516074|169044616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 25 subjects were intended to be randomized to both the exenatide and placebo arms. Assuming an approximate 24% dropout rate, 19 patients per treatment arm would complete the study. A sample of 19 patients per treatment group would provide 90% power to detect a 10 bpm difference between treatment groups in change in daily mean heart rate from baseline.||||||0.1585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1585
84654119|NCT00516074|169044617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.1624||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1624
84654120|NCT00516074|169044618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.5077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5077
84654121|NCT00516074|169044619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.9034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9034
84654122|NCT00516074|169044620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4270
84680907|NCT01369342|169098532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680908|NCT01369342|169098532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680909|NCT01369342|169098533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||0.009
84654123|NCT00516074|169044621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2600
84680910|NCT01369342|169098533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680911|NCT01369342|169098534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680912|NCT01369342|169098534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680913|NCT01369342|169098535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680914|NCT01369342|169098535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680915|NCT01369342|169098536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84506087|NCT03280537|168763017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.19|-0.80|0.0017
84506088|NCT03280537|168763018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.73|0.0024
84654124|NCT01589978|169044622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given the performance goal of 3.2%, with expected rate for PROMUS Element Plus of 2.2% and a one-sided 5% significance level, approximately 1,706 PLATINUM-like patients will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single binomial test will be performed to compare observed rate against performance goal, the normal approximation of the test statistic will be used. The performance goal is met if the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the observed binary rate is less than performance goal.||||<.0001
84654125|NCT01589978|169044642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is calculated for one-sample chi-square test for a single proportion using nQuery AdvisorVersion 5.0. The expected annual increase in ST rate is estimated to be 0.4% based on the current data available from the pooled TAXUS Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data and the PG is 1.0% using a delta of 0.6%. Given a one-sided 5% significance level, a minimum of 1,660 PLATINUM-like patients at 5-yrs will be required to provide 90% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The expected annual increase of stent thrombosis rate is assumed to be 0.4%, based on the observed increase in incidence rate of stent thrombosis of approximately 0.4% annually for PLATINUM-like patients in the pooled TAXUS SR Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data. Using a delta of 0.6%, the performance goal is set to 1.0% (expected rate + delta = 0.4% + 0.6% = 1.0%).||||<.0001
84654126|NCT04010695|169044649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
84654127|NCT02187744|169044725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|6.49|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||6.49|-8.02|
84654128|NCT02187744|169044725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|6.23|||||Unstratified analysis.|||6.23|-8.59|
84654129|NCT02187744|169044727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|10.96|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||10.96|-16.58|
84654130|NCT02187744|169044727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|11.4|||||Unstratified analysis.|||11.40|-17.40|
84654131|NCT02187744|169044728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|15.94|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||15.94|-4.01|
84654132|NCT02187744|169044728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|16.27|||||Unstratified analysis.|||16.27|-4.08|
84654133|NCT00134030|169044731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.61|0.214
84654134|NCT00134030|169044731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.78|0.86
84654135|NCT00134030|169044731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||Difference in RMST|||Secondary RMST analysis performed in poor response group, due to evidence of non-proportional hazards.||4.9|-3.3|0.69
84654136|NCT00134030|169044732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.69|0.804
84654137|NCT00134030|169044732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.81|0.674
84654138|NCT00945893|169044764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The currently proposed study provided at least 99.9% power to rule out a rate increase of 10 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%. Power is also high if the true difference is slightly greater than zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%.|Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.9|||Score|||The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponded to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): Rate Difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): Rate Difference \< 10%||1.9|-6.0|
84654139|NCT00945893|169044765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||7.7|-8.8|
84506089|NCT03280537|168763019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
84654140|NCT00945893|169044766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.6|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CIs for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||12.6|-5.6|
84654141|NCT00945893|169044767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.3|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||16.3|-0.8|
84654142|NCT00945893|169044768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|22.8|||Score|||||22.8|-4.1|
84654143|NCT00945893|169044771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|14.5|||Score|||||14.5|-13.9|
84654144|NCT00945893|169044774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.8|||Score|||||11.8|-14.7|
84654145|NCT00945893|169044777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.9|||Score|||||14.9|-12.6|
84654146|NCT00945893|169044786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-7.7|
84654147|NCT00945893|169044787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|5.3|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||5.3|-23.5|
84680916|NCT01369342|169098536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
84680917|NCT04723576|169098537|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.189||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||1.446|-1.068|.77
84680918|NCT04723576|169098538|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.238||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.785|-0.310|.39
84680919|NCT04723576|169098539|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.232||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.153|-0.618|.24
84680920|NCT04723576|169098540|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.352|-0.085|.23
84680921|NCT04723576|169098541|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.44
84680922|NCT04723576|169098542|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Odds Ratio, log|-0.051||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Repeated measure logistic regression|using GEE method|Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.85
84680923|NCT04723576|169098543|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care|||0.484|-0.025|.08
84680924|NCT01571362|169098580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was if unadjusted p was less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: No treatment difference. Power was 90%, 2-sided Alpha of 0.05, with assumed difference of 1 point and assumed standard deviation of 2.4 points.||-0.14|-1.11|0.0114
84680925|NCT01571362|169098581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.7547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and Baseline score and final total daily dose of Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.94|0.7547
84680926|NCT01571362|169098582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid)||||||0.1272
84680927|NCT01571362|169098583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid and non-opioid).||||||0.0210
84680928|NCT01571362|169098584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0248
84680929|NCT01571362|169098585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0090
84680930|NCT01571362|169098586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0874|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0874
84680931|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680932|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680933|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680934|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
84680935|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
84680936|NCT01571362|169098587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
84680937|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680938|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680939|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
84680940|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
84680941|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
84680942|NCT01571362|169098588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
84680943|NCT01571362|169098589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.18|-1.06|0.0056
84680944|NCT01571362|169098589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0090
84680945|NCT01571362|169098589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.16|-0.91|0.1684
84680946|NCT01571362|169098589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
84654148|NCT00945893|169044788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||10.8|-9.3|
84654149|NCT01435603|169044792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.273||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
84654150|NCT02012283|169044803|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between plain and spiced broccoli intake was compared.||||0.001
84654151|NCT02012283|169044804|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the broccoli intake with and without spices among low restraint eaters vs. the change among high restraint eaters.||||0.031
84654152|NCT04547712|169044814|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|78.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|59.4||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||59.4|
84654153|NCT04547712|169044814|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|91.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|75.6||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||75.6|
84654154|NCT04547712|169044815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0120
84654155|NCT04547712|169044815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0491||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0491
84654156|NCT03298867|169044817|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|73.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.89|88.01||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||88.01|58.89|<0.001
84654157|NCT03298867|169044818|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|70.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.89|85.75||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||85.75|55.89|<0.001
84714571|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.795|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.100
84654158|NCT03298867|169044819|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|54.67||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||54.67|17.39|<0.001
84654159|NCT03298867|169044820|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.8||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-1.80|-2.77|<0.001
84654160|NCT03298867|169044821|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|63.02||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||63.02|15.55|0.001
84654161|NCT03298867|169044822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|14.64||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||14.64|4.08|<0.001
84654162|NCT04680052|169044837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.58|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.580|0.324|<0.0001
84654163|NCT04680052|169044839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.653|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.653|0.383|<0.0001
84654164|NCT04680052|169044840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.13|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.13|1.04|0.0286
84654165|NCT04680052|169044842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.128|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.128|0.306|0.1061
84654166|NCT04680052|169044843|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.03|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.03|1.06|0.0221
84680947|NCT01571362|169098590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2||-0.02|-0.78|0.0412
84680948|NCT01571362|169098590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4||-0.48|-1.27|<0.0001
84680949|NCT01571362|169098590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.08|0.0055
84680950|NCT01571362|169098590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.27|<0.0001
84680951|NCT01571362|169098591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.27|-1.02|0.0007
84654167|NCT04680052|169044844|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.33|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.33|0.61|0.4093
84654168|NCT04680052|169044845|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.47|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.47|0.69|0.2874
84654169|NCT04680052|169044846|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.02|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.02|1.30|0.0014
84654170|NCT04680052|169044847|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.74|1.29|0.0009
84654171|NCT04680052|169044849|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.473|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.678|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.678|0.330|<0.0001
84654172|NCT04680052|169044851|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.763|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.763|0.397|0.0003
84680952|NCT01571362|169098591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.16|0.0006
84680953|NCT01571362|169098591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0070
84680954|NCT01571362|169098591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.31|<0.0001
84680955|NCT01571362|169098592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.23|-1.05|0.0022
84680956|NCT01571362|169098592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.21|0.0003
84654173|NCT04680052|169044853|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.519|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.519|0.476|0.5837
84654174|NCT04680052|169044855|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.563|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.563|0.294|<0.0001
84680957|NCT01571362|169098592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.23|0.0078
84680958|NCT01571362|169098592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.62|-1.52|<0.0001
84680959|NCT01571362|169098593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.21|-0.95|0.0022
84680960|NCT01571362|169098593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.15|0.0002
84654175|NCT04680052|169044857|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.647|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.647|0.357|<0.0001
84654176|NCT04680052|169044858|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.43|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.43|1.43|0.0003
84654177|NCT04680052|169044859|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.86|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.86|1.33|0.0005
84680961|NCT01571362|169098593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.16|-1.06|0.0078
84654178|NCT04680052|169044861|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.681|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.681|0.312|<0.0001
84654179|NCT04680052|169044863|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.475|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||3.475|0.409|0.7469
84680962|NCT01571362|169098593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.54|-1.35|<0.0001
84654180|NCT06956170|169044876|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment arm as an explanatory variable.|||2.78|0.10|
84654181|NCT01332500|169044920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654182|NCT01332500|169044920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654183|NCT01332500|169044920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.005
84680963|NCT01571362|169098594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.04|-0.78|0.0285
84680964|NCT01571362|169098594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.11|-0.85|0.0106
84680965|NCT01571362|169098594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.27|-0.60|0.4529
84654184|NCT01332500|169044920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.336
84654185|NCT01332500|169044920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.162
84654186|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654187|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.349
84654188|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.208
84654189|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.239
84654190|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.583
84506090|NCT03280537|168763020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.44||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.44|-1.39|0.0002
84506091|NCT03280537|168763021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.3||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.30|-0.87|<0.0001
84654191|NCT01332500|169044921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total heath plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654192|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654193|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.177
84654194|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.173
84654195|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.191
84654196|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.254
84654197|NCT01332500|169044922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654198|NCT01332500|169044923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.866
84654199|NCT01332500|169044923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.094
84654200|NCT01332500|169044923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.832
84654201|NCT01332500|169044923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.392
84654202|NCT01332500|169044923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.752
84654203|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654204|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.054
84654205|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.590
84654206|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.382
84654207|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.343
84654208|NCT01332500|169044924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654209|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
84654210|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.146
84654211|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.826
84654212|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.354
84654213|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.514
84654214|NCT01332500|169044925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.001
84654215|NCT01650844|169044926|OTHER|We estimated the power to detect the smallest clinically significant difference in mean SFDs post intervention between the groups, accounting for repeated measures. A sample of 400 obtains greater than 90% power to detect a difference of 0.8 SFD per 2 weeks or greater. Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84654216|NCT01687998|169044927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.111|||Regression, Cox|||Primary Endpoint: Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Primary Endpoint of Cardiovascular (CV) Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for Unstable Angina (UA)||1.111|0.911|0.9054
84654217|NCT01687998|169044928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-36.08|||ANOVA|||LDL-C||-36.08|-38.15|<0.0001
84654218|NCT01687998|169044928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.01|133.09|||ANOVA|||HDL-C||133.09|130.01|<0.0001
84654219|NCT01687998|169044929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.089|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of All-Cause Mortality, MI, Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for UA||1.089|0.901|0.8463
84654220|NCT01687998|169044930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.112|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Coronary Revascularization||1.112|0.901|0.9874
84654221|NCT01687998|169044931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.003||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.127|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, Stroke, or Hospitalization for UA||1.127|0.893|0.9574
84654222|NCT01687998|169044932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of Triple Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Stroke||1.100|0.846|0.5917
84654223|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.7||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-1.7|-6.1|0.0005
84654224|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-4.0|-10.0|<.0001
84654225|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-5.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-5.6|-12.8|<.0001
84654226|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.3||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-7.3|-15.0|<.0001
84654227|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-9.6|-18.4|<.0001
84654228|NCT01663532|169044933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-10.8|-19.4|<.0001
84680966|NCT01571362|169098594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.25|-1.06|0.0018
84680967|NCT01571362|169098595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.20|-1.22|0.0061
84680968|NCT01571362|169098595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.19|-1.28|0.0087
84680969|NCT01571362|169098595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.06|-1.18|0.0769
84680970|NCT01571362|169098595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.53|-1.67|0.0002
84680971|NCT01571362|169098596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.06|-0.95|0.0250
84680972|NCT01571362|169098596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.36|0.0002
84680973|NCT01571362|169098596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.29|0.0038
84680974|NCT01571362|169098596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
84680975|NCT01571362|169098597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.38|-1.22|0.0002
84654229|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
84680976|NCT01571362|169098597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0010
84680977|NCT01571362|169098597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.32|0.0041
84680978|NCT01571362|169098597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
84680979|NCT01571362|169098598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.14|-1.06|0.0115
84680980|NCT01571362|169098598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.17|0.0099
84506092|NCT03280537|168763022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|-8.82||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-8.82|-21.26|<0.0001
84680981|NCT01571362|169098598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.10|-1.31|0.0222
84680982|NCT01571362|169098598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.54|0.0001
84680983|NCT01571362|169098599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.24|-1.09|0.0025
84680984|NCT01571362|169098599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.31|-1.23|0.0012
84654230|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.2|-0.6|<.0001
84654231|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-0.7|<.0001
84654232|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
84654233|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
84654234|NCT01663532|169044934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
84654235|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0006
84654236|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.3|<.0001
84654237|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.0|-4.3|<.0001
84654238|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.6|-5.1|<.0001
84506093|NCT03280537|168763023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.35||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.35|-0.90|<0.0001
84680985|NCT01571362|169098599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.27|0.0078
84680986|NCT01571362|169098599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
84680987|NCT01571362|169098600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||0.04|-0.86|0.0727
84680988|NCT01571362|169098600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||0.00|-0.94|0.0501
84680989|NCT01571362|169098600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.37|-0.67|0.5704
84680990|NCT01571362|169098600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0096
84680991|NCT01571362|169098601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-27.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.968||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.34|-6.16|||ANCOVA||Difference between treatment groups evaluated by ANCOVA with treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||-6.16|-49.34|0.0120
84680992|NCT01571362|169098602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.5||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.29|95.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the average daily rescue acetaminophen during the Titration Period and final total daily study medication dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||95.55|-103.29|0.9390
84680993|NCT01571362|169098608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 20% loss of analgesic response||||0.0014
84680994|NCT01571362|169098608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 30% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0024
84680995|NCT01571362|169098608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 40% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0006
84680996|NCT01571362|169098608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 50% loss of analgesic response||||0.0021
84680997|NCT01571362|169098610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors.||||||0.006
84680998|NCT01571362|169098620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to the End of Open-Label Titration Period.||||<0.0001
84680999|NCT01571362|169098621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline.||||<0.0001
84681000|NCT01571362|169098622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 2.||0.10|-2.20|0.0733
84681001|NCT01571362|169098622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.57||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 4.||0.57|-1.96|0.2783
84681002|NCT01571362|169098622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 8.||1.93|-0.77|0.3951
84681003|NCT01571362|169098622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.9063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.28||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 12.||1.28|-1.14|0.9063
84681004|NCT01571362|169098623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted change from Baseline to Week 2.||0.18|-1.65|0.1139
84681005|NCT01571362|169098623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 4.||0.44|-1.84|0.2264
84681006|NCT01571362|169098623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.63||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 8.||1.63|-0.81|0.5074
84681007|NCT01571362|169098624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
84681008|NCT01571362|169098625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
84681009|NCT01571362|169098626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.2211
84681010|NCT01571362|169098627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5767|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.5767
84681011|NCT01571362|169098630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.0004
84654239|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.4|-6.2|<.0001
84654240|NCT01663532|169044935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.7|-6.4|<.0001
84681012|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Functioning.||||<0.0001
84681013|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Physical.||||<0.0001
84681014|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Bodily Pain.||||<0.0001
84506094|NCT03280537|168763024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
84506095|NCT03280537|168763025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.61||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||20.61|0.00|1.0000
84506096|NCT03280537|168763026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|15.25|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||15.25|1.07|0.0396
84506097|NCT03280537|168763027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
84506098|NCT03280537|168763028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|60.23||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||60.23|1.23|0.0139
84506099|NCT03280537|168763029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.18||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-1.18|-3.00|<0.0001
84506100|NCT03280537|168763030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.15||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.15|1.57|0.0011
84506101|NCT01016652|168763047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis, with \>=5 CLUE points being the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There are not significant differences between the two lenses (etafilcon A multifocal (test) vs. etafilcon A sphere (control)for Vision quality.~Ha: The test lens is greater than or equal by 5 CLUE points than the control lense."||1.59|-9.86|
84506102|NCT01016652|168763048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin will be exceeded if the test lens is greater than or equal to 0.25D over the control lens.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There is not a difference between the test lens and the control lens for amplitude of accommodation.~Ha: Monocular amplitude of accommodation of the test lens is significantly better than the control lens"||0.10|-0.09|
84506103|NCT02034799|168763053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumed proportion of success for SOC is 0.95 and the proportion of success for the Bioseal group at which the power is calculated is 0.95. A sample size of 112 subjects per group achieves 80% power to detect the non-inferiority margin difference between the group proportions of -0.10. One-sided significance level of 0.025 was used. Using drop-out rate of 10%, 125 subjects per treatment group were randomized for a total of 250 subjects.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.199||||||H0: Delta \</= -0.1 HA: Delta \> -0.1 Delta is difference in proportion of successes between Bioseal and SOC gropus (Bioseal minus SOC). Success is defined as hemostasis at the TBS at 6 minutes following treatment application||0.199|-0.048|
84506104|NCT00789802|168763143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
84506105|NCT00789802|168763143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
84681015|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for General Health.||||<0.0001
84681016|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Vitality.||||<0.0001
84681017|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Social Functioning.||||<0.0001
84681018|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Emotional.||||<0.0001
84681019|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Health.||||<0.0001
84681020|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Component Score.||||<0.0001
84681021|NCT01571362|169098631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Component Score.||||0.0026
84681022|NCT01571362|169098632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, Mental Health, Physical Component Score, and Mental Component Score||||<0.0001
84681023|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning.||2.49|-1.26|0.5181
84681024|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Physical.||1.93|-2.00|0.9733
84506106|NCT02410252|168763149|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There was no statistical analysis conducted on demographic characteristics or baseline surveys|descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses.||||
84681025|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Bodily Pain.||4.18|0.57|0.0100
84681026|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.4712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.95||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for General Health Perceptions.||0.95|-2.06|0.4712
84681027|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.99||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Vitality.||0.99|-3.30|0.2898
84681028|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.044||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.54||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Social Functioning.||3.54|-0.57|0.1565
84681029|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.79||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Emotional.||1.79|-3.52|0.5220
84681030|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.995||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Health.||1.98|-1.94|0.9865
84681031|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.77||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Component Score.||2.77|-0.72|0.2491
84506107|NCT02410252|168763149|OTHER|Only percents were calculated, no formal statistical analysis was completed.||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not completed. This was a feasibility study with small n and was not powered to determine statistical significance.||||Only percent will be calculated. No statistical analysis will be conducted.|No statistical analysis was conducted as part of this study.|||
84681032|NCT01571362|169098633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Component Score.||1.43|-2.80|0.5219
84681033|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.71||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Functioning.||3.71|-0.67|0.1731
84681034|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Physical.||3.32|-1.12|0.3290
84681035|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Bodily Pain.||4.45|0.33|0.0232
84506108|NCT02410252|168763150|OTHER||%|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"GAD-7 scores were coded as a categorical variable as follows: mild anxiety (total score 0 to 5) and moderate/ severe anxiety (total score 6-15).~Proportion of participants with mild and moderate/ severe anxiety at enrollment and closeout was compared using Cochran's Q test."||||0.13
84506109|NCT02410252|168763151|OTHER||%|84.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses. All analysis was conducted using STATA version 14.2 with an alpha of 0.05 set a priori. Since this was an exploratory study with descriptive statistics, a complete case analysis approach was adopted for this study||||0.05
84506110|NCT00006170|168763176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84506111|NCT00006170|168763176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.25||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
84506112|NCT00006170|168763176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.07
84506113|NCT00006170|168763177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84681036|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for General Health Perceptions.||1.49|-1.89|0.8139
84506114|NCT00006170|168763177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.053||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
84506115|NCT00006170|168763177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
84506116|NCT00006170|168763178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.006||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
84506117|NCT00006170|168763178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.45||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.45
84506118|NCT00006170|168763178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.046||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.046
84506119|NCT04527471|168763199|OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84506120|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.74|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"||||
84506121|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506122|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506123|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506124|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506125|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506126|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506127|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506128|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506129|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506130|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506131|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506132|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506133|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506134|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506135|NCT01492582|168763201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
84506136|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||<0.001
84506137|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.03
84506138|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.48
84681037|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|1.75||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Vitality.||1.75|-2.65|0.6878
84681038|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.12||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Social Functioning.||4.12|-0.13|0.0658
84681039|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.94||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Emotional.||2.94|-2.48|0.8670
84681040|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Health.||2.45|-1.71|0.7259
84506139|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea; Systemic - Fatigue Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||<0.001
84506140|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Headache Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.07
84681041|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Component Score.||3.65|-0.32|0.0989
84681042|NCT01571362|169098634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.142||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Component Score.||2.25|-2.25|0.9969
84681043|NCT01571362|169098635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681044|NCT01571362|169098636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681045|NCT01571362|169098637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84506141|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.28
84506142|NCT01492582|168763202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.45
84506143|NCT04081337|168763233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.68||||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|89.72|||ANCOVA|||||89.72|-50.36|0.5733
84506144|NCT04081337|168763234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-855.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.87|-621.02|||ANCOVA|||||-621.02|-1090.87|<0.0001
84506145|NCT04081337|168763235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.22||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.65|96.2|||ANCOVA|||||96.20|-102.65|0.9481
84506146|NCT04081337|168763236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||||-0.018|-0.051|<0.0001
84506147|NCT04081337|168763237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.028||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.010|-0.045|0.0031
84506148|NCT04081337|168763238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|251.89||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.09|384.69|||ANCOVA|||||384.69|119.09|0.0004
84506149|NCT04081337|168763239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted protein oxidation||-3.22|-10.51|0.0005
84506150|NCT04081337|168763239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|14.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|20.93|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted fat oxidation||20.93|8.02|<0.0001
84506151|NCT04081337|168763239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-13.83|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted carbohydrate oxidation||-13.83|-39.46|0.0001
84506152|NCT04081337|168763240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.90|-11.04|<0.0001
84506153|NCT04081337|168763241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.05|-5.12|<0.0001
84506154|NCT04081337|168763242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||||-3.22|-6.93|<0.0001
84681046|NCT01571362|169098638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84506155|NCT04081337|168763243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-2.16|0.0304
84506156|NCT04081337|168763244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||For Triglyceride||-1.06|-2.60|<0.0001
84506157|NCT04081337|168763244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||For VLDL||-0.48|-1.19|<0.0001
84506158|NCT04081337|168763244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||For HDL||-0.02|-1.05|0.0436
84506159|NCT04081337|168763244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||ANCOVA|||For Free fatty acid||0.66|0.23|0.0002
84506160|NCT04081337|168763245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.34|0.8762
84506161|NCT04081337|168763246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.49||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.19|||ANCOVA|||||6.19|0.79|0.0126
84506162|NCT04081337|168763247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-2.34|0.0222
84506163|NCT04081337|168763248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.48|<0.0001
84506164|NCT02637076|168763249|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F(2,36)=1.26||||||0.31
84506165|NCT02637076|168763254|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.748
84506166|NCT02295774|168763260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mc Nemar's χ2 test|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|"The results of the γH2AX analysis were listed and summarised by frequency tables by visit and colonic region.~The results were compared between Visit 2 and Visit 1 for each colonic region and overall using the Mc Nemar's χ2 test.~In case of the presence of at least one positive colonic region, that visit was to be considered as 'Positive' for the overall γH2AX analysis."||||
84681047|NCT01571362|169098639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.065||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.065|-0.001|0.0605
84506167|NCT01633827|168763262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84506168|NCT01633827|168763263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
84506169|NCT01633827|168763264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84506170|NCT01633827|168763265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84506171|NCT01633827|168763266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84506172|NCT01851590|168763275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for negative KOH staining, negative cultures, and a combination of these at 4- and 10-month time points. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and χ2-tests were used to analyse efficacy criteria.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The sample size was estimated according to complete mycological cure at 10 months. Estimation was based on the design of a binary-outcome head-to-head superiority trial. Orally administered terbinafine treatment was considered the active control. Approximately 25 patients / arm were required to have 80% power (β=0.2) at a two-sided α=0.05 significance level to detect a decrease in primary outcome from 50% in the terbinafine arm to 15% in the amorolfine or resin lacquer treatment arms.||||<0.05
84681048|NCT01571362|169098640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.66||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors; Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.66|-3.22|0.7196
84681049|NCT01571362|169098641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.055||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.013|0.2280
84681050|NCT01571362|169098642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.3||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.30|-1.77|0.2701
84681051|NCT01571362|169098643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain.||||0.3822
84681052|NCT01571362|169098643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
84681053|NCT01571362|169098643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
84681054|NCT01571362|169098643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
84681055|NCT01571362|169098644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain||||0.0017
84681056|NCT01571362|169098644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
84681057|NCT01571362|169098644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
84681058|NCT01571362|169098644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
84681059|NCT01571362|169098645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.43|-10.06|0.1389
84681060|NCT01571362|169098645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|5.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.80|-11.56|0.5094
84681061|NCT01571362|169098645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.043||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|5.26||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.26|-10.81|0.4944
84681062|NCT01571362|169098646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.295||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|1.81||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.81|-15.33|0.1201
84681063|NCT01571362|169098646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.288||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.62|-15.60|0.3497
84681064|NCT01571362|169098646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.532||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|6.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||6.65|-11.41|0.6008
84681065|NCT01571362|169098647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.986||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|2.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.62|-17.29|0.1458
84681066|NCT01571362|169098647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|3.68||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.68|-22.38|0.1558
84681067|NCT01571362|169098647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.582||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.98|-16.25|0.3604
84506173|NCT01851590|168763276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84506174|NCT01851590|168763277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84506175|NCT01851590|168763278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84506176|NCT01851590|168763279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Qualitative data are expressed as frequencies and percentages, and differences between parallel groups were compared with the χ2-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84506177|NCT00696709|168763280|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
84506178|NCT00696709|168763281|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
84506179|NCT00696709|168763282|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
84506180|NCT00696709|168763283|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA with log-transformed VZV responses at each visit as response variables and visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
84506181|NCT00696709|168763284|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
84681068|NCT01571362|169098648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.389||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|0.46||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.46|-8.95|0.0768
84506182|NCT00696709|168763284|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||8.8|-9.2|
84681069|NCT01571362|169098648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.29|-4.30|0.7109
84506183|NCT00696709|168763285|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|52.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||52.6|15.2|<0.001
84506184|NCT00696709|168763285|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|57.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||57.0|19.6|<0.001
84506185|NCT00696709|168763286|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|16.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||16.1|-25.3|
84506186|NCT00696709|168763286|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|24.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||24.9|-16.9|
84506187|NCT00696709|168763287|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.4|-9.3|0.480
84506188|NCT00696709|168763287|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.8|-9.2|0.469
84506189|NCT00696709|168763288|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
84506190|NCT00696709|168763288|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.0|-10.8|
84506191|NCT00321711|168763302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||||95.0|0.153|6.95||||||||6.950|0.153|
84506192|NCT00321711|168763302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.333||||||95.0|0.028|3.926||||||||3.926|0.028|
84506193|NCT00321711|168763302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.118||||||95.0|0.007|1.882|||||Adjusted by the stratification factor|||1.882|0.007|
84506194|NCT00321711|168763303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.063|15.988|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||15.988|0.063|
84506195|NCT00321711|168763304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||||95.0|0.347|9.618|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||9.618|0.347|
84506196|NCT00321711|168763304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.445||||||95.0|0.037|5.325|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.325|0.037|
84506197|NCT00321711|168763304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||||95.0|0.032|6.08|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||6.080|0.032|
84506198|NCT00321711|168763305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence rate|-33.5||||||95.0|-69.0|2.0|||||Romiplostim - placebo|||2.0|-69.0|
84506199|NCT00321711|168763305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.315||||||95.0|0.029|3.412||||||||3.412|0.029|
84506200|NCT00321711|168763305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.211||||||95.0|0.021|2.082||||||||2.082|0.021|
84506201|NCT01227668|168763310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.12|||Stratified log rank|||||1.12|0.28|0.097
84506202|NCT01227668|168763311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.02||For secondary endpoints, hierarchical testing aimed to keep the overall experiment-wise type I error rate to \<=0.05. Difference in chg from BL was tested at 0.05 significance only if APR arm significantly differed vs placebo from primary analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-8.82|0.051
84506203|NCT01227668|168763312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Treatment diff in chg from BL to endpnt in IS score was tested at 0.05 signif only if ARP arm signif differed vs pb from PA. Thus, if ARP arm signif differed vs pb in IS score, treatment diff in mean CGI-I score at endpnt was tested at 0.05 signfnce.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.090
84506204|NCT00543439|168763320|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of arithmetic means|0.03||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.08|||Paired t-test|||Ratio of the arithmetic means of the ABR for OD cohort: OD therapy to OD cohort: RP therapy 25 IU/kg was calculated. One-sided 95% CI for this ratio was reported.||0.08||0.0020
84506205|NCT00543439|168763321|EQUIVALENCE|90% 2-sided CI for the mean difference in ABRs for the 2 prophylaxis regimens for ITT participants was constructed using the t distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom (n equals the number of participants) to assess the equivalence of the 2 regimens. Equivalence was demonstrated and the null hypothesis rejected if the limits of the 90% CI fell wholly within the interval of (-4, 4) bleeds per year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|2.22||||||||2.22|0.03|
84506206|NCT01709383|168763343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
84506207|NCT01709383|168763345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.64
84681070|NCT01571362|169098648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|0.85||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.85|-9.14|0.1031
84681071|NCT01571362|169098649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.776||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.80|-10.26|0.0926
84681072|NCT01571362|169098649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.24||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.24|-8.42|0.6437
84506208|NCT00526890|168763445|OTHER|||||||0.3149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to test the correlation between selenium levels and serious adverse events.||||0.3149
84506209|NCT04014959|168763460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -4.47||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
84506210|NCT04014959|168763460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -3.00||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
84506211|NCT04014959|168763460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -2.96||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
84506212|NCT04014959|168763460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -5.05||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
84506213|NCT04014959|168763462|OTHER|Statistics are an unadjusted linear regression of change in DASS-21 depression score on the pre-intervention TMS/fMRI evoked brain response.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = -33.60||Analysis to investigate the correlation between changes in DASS-21 Scores (Secondary Outcome) and Evoked Functional Brain Activity (Other Pre-specified Outcome) pre and post the 3-Day TMS Intervention Regimen.||||0.007
84506214|NCT02004847|168763467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment (week 12) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0005
84506215|NCT02004847|168763468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment during the attack period (week 4) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0036
84506216|NCT02004847|168763469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from end of treatment (week 12, visit 7) to end of follow up (week 16, visit 8) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.3075
84506217|NCT02004847|168763470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 4 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0140
84506218|NCT02004847|168763470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 12 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0064
84506219|NCT02004847|168763470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 16 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.1020
84506220|NCT05188521|168763508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84681073|NCT01571362|169098649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.391||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|5.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.65|-7.84|0.7480
84506221|NCT05188521|168763509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
84654241|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.3|-1.6|0.0023
84654242|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-2.0|0.0032
84654243|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.8|-2.7|0.0003
84654244|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.2|<.0001
84654245|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.4|-3.7|<.0001
84654246|NCT01663532|169044936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.6|-4.1|<.0001
84654247|NCT01663532|169044937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled centers as factors and Baseline value as covariate for the comparison at other visits.|Difference in least square mean of change were derived from ANCOVA model.|Statistical analysis for Week 10.||10.1|4.1|<.0001
84654248|NCT01663532|169044938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH raw mean scores differ test (Van Elteren test) controlling for pooled centers.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
84654249|NCT01663532|169044939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling by region (pooled sites).||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||32.4|12.9|<.0001
84654250|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Linear contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Linear contrasts were for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||<0.0001
84654251|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Quadratic contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Quadratic contrasts are for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||0.2274
84654252|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.2|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||3.20|-1.84|0.5950
84654253|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.48|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||7.48|2.38|0.0002
84681074|NCT01571362|169098650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.666||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.07||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.07|-21.68|0.0098
84506222|NCT05188521|168763510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84506223|NCT05188521|168763511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.138
84506224|NCT05188521|168763512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84506225|NCT05188521|168763513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
84506226|NCT05188521|168763514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84506227|NCT05188521|168763515|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84506228|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|14.68||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRP|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|14.68|8.44|< 0.001
84506229|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.96||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Diphtheria|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.96|-0.95|< 0.001
84506230|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Tetanus|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.74|-0.71|< 0.001
84506231|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV1|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.07|-0.51|< 0.001
84506232|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.21||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV2|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.21|-0.69|< 0.001
84506233|NCT01341639|168763518|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.73||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV3|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.73|-0.7|< 0.001
84506234|NCT01341639|168763519|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.85||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for HBsAg|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.85|-0.49|< 0.001
84506235|NCT01341639|168763519|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.86||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PT|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.86|0.32|< 0.001
84681075|NCT01571362|169098650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.336||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.63|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.25|-23.63|0.0186
84681076|NCT01571362|169098650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|0.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.32|-18.72|0.0581
84681077|NCT01571362|169098651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.25|-22.87|0.0177
84681078|NCT01571362|169098651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.998||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|-2.14||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.14|-26.19|0.0219
84681079|NCT01571362|169098651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.589||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|0.78||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.78|-21.47|0.0679
84681080|NCT01571362|169098652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.654||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-2.27||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.27|-12.72|0.0052
84681081|NCT01571362|169098652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.29|-10.54|0.1249
84681082|NCT01571362|169098652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.64||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||-2.64|-13.74|0.0040
84681083|NCT02105948|169098779|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted for FEV1,smoking status and offset of log (time in on-and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.036
84681084|NCT02105948|169098779|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.029
84681085|NCT02105948|169098780|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative Binomial Model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|>0.999
84681086|NCT02105948|169098780|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|=0.731
84681087|NCT02105948|169098781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.036
84681088|NCT02105948|169098781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.012
84681089|NCT02105948|169098782|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.598
84681090|NCT02105948|169098782|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.479
84654254|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.82|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||6.82|1.68|0.0013
84654255|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.21|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||10.21|5.20|<0.0001
84654256|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|9.55|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||9.55|4.51|<0.0001
84654257|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.32|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (250 ppm).|||5.32|0.23|0.0325
84654258|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.35|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A'.|||0.35|-4.67|0.0920
84654259|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.93|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B'.|||0.93|-4.04|0.2185
84654260|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|12.37|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||12.37|7.36|<0.0001
84654261|NCT02195583|169045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|11.75|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426ppm) + zinc base B' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||11.75|6.77|<0.0001
84654262|NCT00094172|169045034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||This is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.929
84654263|NCT00094172|169045034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the secondary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.823
84654264|NCT00094172|169045035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||||||.208
84654265|NCT00094172|169045036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.526
84654266|NCT02555683|169045057|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.41|0.77|0.800
84654267|NCT02555683|169045057|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.14|0.61|0.510
84654268|NCT02555683|169045058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.26|-0.11|0.819
84654269|NCT02555683|169045058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.32|-0.05|0.591
84654270|NCT02555683|169045059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.07|-0.31|0.819
84654271|NCT02555683|169045059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.02|-0.37|0.591
84654272|NCT02555683|169045060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0365||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.139|-0.005|0.800
84654273|NCT02555683|169045060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.121||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.121|-0.021|0.523
84654274|NCT02555683|169045061|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.96||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.22|0.75|0.819
84654275|NCT02555683|169045061|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.01|0.61|0.510
84654276|NCT02555683|169045062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.23|-0.07|0.819
84654277|NCT02555683|169045062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.27|-0.03|0.591
84506236|NCT01341639|168763519|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.29||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for FHA|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|-1.29|-4.39|< 0.001
84506237|NCT01341639|168763519|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.52||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRN|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.52|-1.4|< 0.001
84714572|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.019.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.890
84714573|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.742
84714574|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 21.912. Effect size = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||<0.001
84654278|NCT02555683|169045063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.04|-0.27|0.819
84654279|NCT02555683|169045063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||-0.04|-0.35|0.591
84654280|NCT02555683|169045064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.134||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.134|0.019|0.819
84654281|NCT02555683|169045064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.097||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.097|-0.017|0.591
84654282|NCT00002651|169045171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The overall type I error rate used is 0.05. The type II error rate is 0.10 (power = 0.9). The trial planned for a one-sided test of the hypothesis that the hazard ratio of intermittent CAD to continuous CAD is 1.2. A hazard ratio of 1.0 was used as the specific alternative in the trial size computations. Thus, rejection of the hypothesis will be evidence against the possibility that the intermittent CAD hazard ratio is larger than the continuous CAD hazard ratio by 20% or more.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.99|0.15
84654283|NCT00002651|169045172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.97||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.97|-0.31|0.09
84654284|NCT00002651|169045173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.76||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|1.00|0.003
84654285|NCT00002651|169045174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-5|-14|<0.001
84654286|NCT00002651|169045175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|36.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||36|1|0.04
84654287|NCT00002651|169045176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.46||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.83|0.23
84654288|NCT00944671|169045181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a 3-period crossover design, assuming a true within subject variance for natural log AUC of 0.029, 24 subjects completing the study, and alpha = 0.05, there is a 0.995 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of AUC for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
84654289|NCT00944671|169045182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true within subject variance for natural log Cmax of 0.017, there is a 0.999 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of Cmax for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
84654290|NCT00944671|169045183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
84654291|NCT00944671|169045184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
84654292|NCT00304746|169045191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||For a complete presentation of the above analysis, please see the published paper presenting the full results of this study.|mixed effects linear regression analysis|||Our primary analysis of efficacy was a mixed effects linear regression analysis comparing the rate of change of score on the HAM-D during the blinded treatment phase between groups. Our model for the mean of the outcome variable included terms for treatment, time (modeled as a continuous variable), and treatment-by-time. The measure of effect was the treatment-by-time interaction, which can be interpreted as the difference in slope with respect to time, of the outcome measure.||||0.71
84681091|NCT02105948|169098783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|>0.999
84681092|NCT02105948|169098783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|=0.901
84681093|NCT02105948|169098784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|>0.999
84681094|NCT02105948|169098784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|=0.244
84681095|NCT02105948|169098785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|>0.999
84681096|NCT02105948|169098785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|=0.160
84681097|NCT02105948|169098786|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|>0.999
84681098|NCT02105948|169098786|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|=0.556
84681099|NCT02105948|169098787|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|>0.999
84681100|NCT02105948|169098787|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|=0.532
84681101|NCT02105948|169098788|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|>0.999
84681102|NCT02105948|169098788|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|=0.252
84681103|NCT02558010|169098795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated, and does not indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84681104|NCT03980470|169098827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.198
84681105|NCT03980470|169098828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
84681106|NCT03980470|169098829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84681107|NCT03980470|169098830|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84681108|NCT03980470|169098831|OTHER|Bland-Altmann analysis (bias)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84681109|NCT03762135|169098884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||This relates to the entirety of the 6-week period.|GEE Linear Regression|Generalized Estimation Equation Linear Regression||||||0.044
84681110|NCT01462344|169098886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison was statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2.675, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.285||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.272|||Regression, Cox||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||2.272|0.726|0.006
84681111|NCT01462344|169098886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0063|||||Estimated for Absolute risk difference|||0.0063|-0.0024|
84681112|NCT01462344|169098887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.012|||||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||1.012|0.729|
84506238|NCT01341639|168763521|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.25||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Measles|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.25|-2.82|< 0.001
84506239|NCT01341639|168763521|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|6.4||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Mumps|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.4|-0.12|< 0.001
84506240|NCT01341639|168763521|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.34||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Rubella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.34|-1.5|< 0.001
84506241|NCT01341639|168763521|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.06||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Varicella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.06|-2.11|< 0.001
84506242|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.4|-1.9|
84506243|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or vaccine-related systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-1.8|
84506244|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.1|
84506245|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.4|
84506246|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.3|-2.4|
84506247|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-3.2|
84506248|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.2|-3.3|
84506249|NCT01341639|168763522|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-3.7|
84506250|NCT01341639|168763523|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site erythema|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|10.1|-0.5|
84506251|NCT01341639|168763523|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site pain|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.8|-3.2|
84506252|NCT01341639|168763523|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.6|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site swelling|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|9.6|-1.6|
84506253|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site bruising|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-1.8|
84506254|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haematoma|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-0.6|
84506255|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haemorrhage|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.8|-2.3|
84681113|NCT00360529|169098909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0454
84681114|NCT00360529|169098909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0024
84681115|NCT00360529|169098910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2606||95.0|-1.0|3.7||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||3.7|-1.0|0.2606
84681116|NCT00360529|169098910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.066||95.0|-0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||4.6|-0.1|0.066
84506256|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site induration|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.5|-7.8|
84681117|NCT00360529|169098911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.1601||95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|-2.9|0.1601
84681118|NCT00360529|169098911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0001||95.0|-5.6|-2.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-2.2|-5.6|0.0001
84681119|NCT00360529|169098912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1144||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.0|-0.3|0.1144
84681120|NCT00360529|169098912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-0.2|-0.5|0.0001
84681121|NCT00360529|169098913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0173||95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.4|0.0|0.0173
84681122|NCT00360529|169098913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|0.2|0.0001
84681123|NCT00360529|169098914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0071||95.0|0.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||2.6|0.4|0.0071
84681124|NCT00360529|169098914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0001||95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||3.6|1.4|0.0001
84681125|NCT00360529|169098915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|34.7||||0.0513||95.0|29.0|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 25 mg bid versus placebo||40.4|29.0|0.0513
84681126|NCT00360529|169098915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|38.6||||0.0059||95.0|32.6|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||44.6|32.6|0.0059
84681127|NCT03069482|169098987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.377|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.754
84681128|NCT03069482|169098988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.369||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero inflated negative binomial mixed methods regression.||||2.6|1.2|0.044
84681129|NCT03069482|169098989|OTHER||Percent accrual relative to target N|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||The goal of this outcome was to determine whether the trial could reach its enrollment target (90 participants).|||
84681130|NCT03069482|169098990|OTHER||Percent retention relative to target|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||We calculated the percent of retained participants relative to the retention target (N = 62)|||
84681131|NCT03069482|169098991|OTHER||Percent of respondents|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84681132|NCT03069482|169098993|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|8.29574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|16.453|||Yuen's trimmed mean t-test|||||16.453|0.138|0.046
84681133|NCT03069482|169098994|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|7.79514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|17.457|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||17.457|-1.867|0.109
84681134|NCT03069482|169098995|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|2.22222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.50537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|8.943|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||8.943|-4.492|0.50537
84681135|NCT03069482|169098996|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|5.83333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.27411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.54|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||16.54|-4.88|0.27411
84681136|NCT01461668|169099042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for the odds ratio is based upon the inversion Fisher's exact test|||1.86|0.08|0.320
84681137|NCT00581230|169099049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
84681138|NCT00581230|169099050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84681139|NCT05912400|169099051|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).|Spearman's Rho|||||||<0.01
84506257|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site nodule|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-1.7|
84506258|NCT01341639|168763524|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.6|3.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site warmth|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3|-0.6|
84506259|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Crying|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-6.3|
84506260|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Decreased appetite|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.3|-8.4|
84506261|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Irritability|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-1.7|
84506262|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Pyrexia|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3.4|-6.7|
84506263|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Somnolence|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-7.8|
84506264|NCT01341639|168763525|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Vomiting|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-4.4|
84681140|NCT05912400|169099051|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
84681141|NCT05912400|169099051|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
84506265|NCT01379781|168763557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model was used to compare Hamilton Rating Scales of Depression (HRSD) for women who received the PREPP intervention between the pre-randomization assessment and the 6 weeks postpartum session.||||.01
84506266|NCT02247479|168763558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.019||||0.8381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.167|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.167|-0.206|0.8381
84506267|NCT02247479|168763558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.051||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.236|-0.134|0.5901
84506268|NCT02247479|168763559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||4.8|-5.2|0.9350
84506269|NCT02247479|168763559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.2|-5.0|0.9789
84506270|NCT02247479|168763560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.28||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.22|-0.66|0.5538
84506271|NCT02247479|168763560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.63||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.35|-1.60|0.2032
84506272|NCT02247479|168763561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.0||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.8|-0.7|0.2547
84506273|NCT02247479|168763561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.6|-1.9|0.8423
84681142|NCT05912400|169099051|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index)||||||0.88
84681143|NCT05912400|169099051|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
84681144|NCT05912400|169099052|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation btwn ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain)||||||0.54
84506274|NCT02247479|168763562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.2|0.8|0.3248
84506275|NCT02247479|168763562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.8|0.7|0.7209
84506276|NCT02247479|168763563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.6|-1.4|0.5695
84506277|NCT02247479|168763563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.3|-1.7|0.7865
84506278|NCT02247479|168763564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.7|0.6|0.9448
84506279|NCT02247479|168763564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.8|0.6|0.8764
84506280|NCT02247479|168763565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|5.66||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|12.38|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||12.38|-1.07|0.0991
84506281|NCT02247479|168763565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.99||||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|5.69|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.69|-7.66|0.7713
84506282|NCT02247479|168763566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.72||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.53|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.53|-5.09|0.6204
84506283|NCT02247479|168763566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.47||||0.6705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.25|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.25|-5.31|0.6705
84506284|NCT02247479|168763567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.64|-2.35|0.7246
84506285|NCT02247479|168763567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.56||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.4|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.40|-3.53|0.1193
84506286|NCT02247479|168763568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||2.39|-2.84|0.8659
84506287|NCT02247479|168763568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.94||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.64|-4.51|0.1399
84506288|NCT02247479|168763569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.99||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|3.76|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.76|-1.79|0.4855
84506289|NCT02247479|168763569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.6||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|1.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.13|-4.33|0.2515
84506290|NCT02247479|168763570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.07||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.04|-0.18|0.2075
84681145|NCT05912400|169099052|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
84506291|NCT02247479|168763570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.02|-0.19|0.1222
84506292|NCT02247479|168763571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.022||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.223|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.223|-0.266|0.8612
84506293|NCT02247479|168763571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.077||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.319|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.319|-0.165|0.5317
84506294|NCT02247479|168763571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.033||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.257|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.257|-0.322|0.8240
84506295|NCT02247479|168763571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.006||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.294|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.294|-0.283|0.9676
84506296|NCT01132118|168763572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value calculated was for the difference betweeen the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.930
84506297|NCT01132118|168763572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||The P-value was calculated for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.785
84506298|NCT01132118|168763573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||||||Unadjusted P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.575
84506299|NCT01132118|168763573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.308
84506300|NCT01132118|168763574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference betweeen change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo suing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.468
84506301|NCT01132118|168763574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.902
84506302|NCT01132118|168763575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.004
84506303|NCT01132118|168763575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.004
84506304|NCT01132118|168763576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.009
84506305|NCT01132118|168763576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.011
84506306|NCT01132118|168763577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.730
84506307|NCT01132118|168763577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.208
84506308|NCT01132118|168763578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Unadjusted P-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.487
84506309|NCT01132118|168763578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||||||P-value adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxycholorquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.884
84506310|NCT03551730|168763629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84506311|NCT03551730|168763629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84506312|NCT03551730|168763629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84506313|NCT03551730|168763630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|53922.58||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1529
84506314|NCT03551730|168763630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|124993.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84506315|NCT03551730|168763630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|96385.09||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
84506316|NCT00096265|168763692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.31||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.31|0.89|0.93
84506317|NCT00096265|168763692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.36|0.92|0.95
84506318|NCT00096265|168763693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.30
84506319|NCT00096265|168763693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.48
84681146|NCT05912400|169099052|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
84506320|NCT00096265|168763695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.39
84506321|NCT00096265|168763695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.28
84506322|NCT00096265|168763696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||108 with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||0.002
84506323|NCT00096265|168763696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||108 cases with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||< 0.001
84506324|NCT00096265|168763697|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84506325|NCT00096265|168763697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||0.56
84506326|NCT00096265|168763698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.78
84506327|NCT00096265|168763698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.80
84506328|NCT01506323|168763699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to post-treatment (week 8). Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<.006
84506329|NCT01506323|168763699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||repeated measures||||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to 2 months follow-up.||||<.031
84506330|NCT01506323|168763700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on false discovery rate adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .86 at baseline.||||0.82
84506331|NCT01506323|168763700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||0.82
84506332|NCT01506323|168763701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .85 at baseline.||||<0.008
84506333|NCT01506323|168763701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment||||<0.09
84506334|NCT01506323|168763702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .78 at baseline.||||<.006
84506335|NCT01506323|168763702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<.03
84506336|NCT01506323|168763703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.0008
84506337|NCT01506323|168763703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<0.006
84506338|NCT01506323|168763704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. Raw p-value was \<0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score in this study was .86 at baseline.||||<0.10
84506339|NCT01506323|168763704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment.||||<0.49
84506340|NCT01506323|168763705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .96 at baseline.||||<0.78
84506341|NCT01506323|168763705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.99
84506342|NCT01506323|168763706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis was from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<0.04
84506343|NCT01506323|168763706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.25
84506344|NCT01506323|168763707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.99
84506345|NCT01506323|168763707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.94
84506346|NCT01506323|168763708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .88 at baseline.||||<0.12
84506347|NCT01506323|168763708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.49
84506348|NCT01506323|168763709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score was .89 at baseline.||||<0.59
84506349|NCT01506323|168763709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.10
84506350|NCT02232074|168763710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||3.14|0.21|0.77
84506351|NCT02232074|168763711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|45.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||45.4|0.35|0.26
84506352|NCT02232074|168763712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.53
84506353|NCT02232074|168763713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the LUNG cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.43
84506354|NCT02232074|168763714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.18
84506355|NCT02232074|168763715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.33
84506356|NCT02232074|168763716|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
84506357|NCT02232074|168763717|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
84506358|NCT02232074|168763718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.62
84506359|NCT02232074|168763719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.69
84506360|NCT02232074|168763720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the breast cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.58
84681147|NCT05912400|169099052|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
84681148|NCT05912400|169099052|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
84506361|NCT02232074|168763721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the lung cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.09
84681149|NCT05912400|169099053|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
84681150|NCT05912400|169099053|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
84681151|NCT05912400|169099054|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||<0.01
84681152|NCT05912400|169099054|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||0.54
84681153|NCT05912400|169099055|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
84681154|NCT05912400|169099055|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
84681155|NCT05912400|169099056|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
84681156|NCT05912400|169099056|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
84681157|NCT05912400|169099057|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.88
84681158|NCT05912400|169099057|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
84506362|NCT02232074|168763722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.79||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will receive quality care (i.e. receipt of radiation within one year of diagnosis).||2.79|0.28|0.79
84681159|NCT03248739|169099074|EQUIVALENCE|Based on occlusion data from the previously referenced prospective study, as well as a P-value of 0.05 and power of 0.80, the study will need to include 90 patients to demonstrate statistical significance. To ensure that power is adequate, we will plan to enroll 120 patients (60 in each arm).||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84681160|NCT01259713|169099079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the interim analysis performed when 50% of the subjects had completed the study, an alpha of 0.0003 was spent. Therefore, the significance level for the 2-sided test in the primary analysis at the end of the study was 0.0497 (corresponding to 95.03% confidence interval (CI)).|Relative risk reduction|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-0.32|0.66||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|A two-group Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level and 2:1 allocation of 354 randomized subjects (236 AmBisome, 118 placebo) would have 81% power to detect a relative reduction of 75% if the rate of IFI is 10% in the placebo group (based on unpublished data from the German Multicenter Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Group (GMALL) and consistent with the published rate of 16.4% in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing remission induction).||0.66|-0.32|0.24
84681161|NCT01259713|169099080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.50|-0.11|0.15
84681162|NCT01259713|169099081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.47|-0.94|0.97
84681163|NCT01259713|169099082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|||||||0.33
84681164|NCT01259713|169099083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.53|-0.19|0.22
84681165|NCT01259713|169099084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
84681166|NCT01259713|169099085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
84681167|NCT01259713|169099086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|Participants without consolidation/salvage therapy dates were censored using the earlier of the Early Termination and Study Completion dates.||||||0.69
84681168|NCT01259713|169099087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|Participants were not stratified for leukemia risk.||0.19|-0.04|0.20
84506363|NCT02232074|168763723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment.||||0.71
84681169|NCT00765843|169099098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||baseline comparisons||||0.78
84681170|NCT00765843|169099098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||one month comparisons||||0.21
84681171|NCT00765843|169099098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||three months comparisons||||0.93
84681172|NCT03814889|169099124|OTHER|||||||0.00025|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|Paired, ordinal data||||||0.00025
84681173|NCT03814889|169099125|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.0014
84681174|NCT03814889|169099126|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84506364|NCT02232074|168763724|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment||||0.61
84506365|NCT02232074|168763725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
84506366|NCT02232074|168763726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.89
84506367|NCT02232074|168763727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
84506368|NCT02232074|168763728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
84506369|NCT02232074|168763729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.13
84506370|NCT02232074|168763730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
84506371|NCT01075763|168763745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.64
84506372|NCT01075763|168763745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.92
84506373|NCT01075763|168763746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.63
84506374|NCT01075763|168763746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
84506375|NCT01075763|168763747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.45
84506376|NCT01075763|168763747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.88
84506377|NCT01075763|168763747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
84506378|NCT01075763|168763747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.81
84681175|NCT03814889|169099127|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84506379|NCT01075763|168763748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.29
84506380|NCT01075763|168763748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.36
84506381|NCT01075763|168763748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
84506382|NCT01075763|168763748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.41
84506383|NCT01075763|168763749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.86
84506384|NCT01075763|168763749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.62
84506385|NCT01075763|168763749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.21
84506386|NCT01075763|168763750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.95
84506387|NCT01075763|168763750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.73
84506388|NCT01075763|168763750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.30
84506389|NCT01075763|168763752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.80
84506390|NCT01075763|168763752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
84506391|NCT01075763|168763752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.12
84506392|NCT01075763|168763753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.53
84506393|NCT01075763|168763753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
84506394|NCT01075763|168763753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
84506395|NCT00586521|168763754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was analyzed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon test (number of joint bleeds prophylaxis treatment compared to number of joint bleeds on-demand treatment) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
84681176|NCT03814889|169099130|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxcon Signed-Ranks|||||||0.001
84681177|NCT02103439|169099146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the difference in the early virological response rate with Algeron and PegIntron should be higher than the non-inferiority margin of 0.2 (-20%)||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
84506396|NCT00586521|168763754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The maximum individual reduction in the actual number of joint bleeds after the switch to prophylactic treatment was analyzed by a paired t-test of the individual difference between prophylaxis treatment bleed compared to on-demand treatment bleeds.||||<0.001
84506397|NCT00586521|168763755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||paired t-test (prophylaxis compared to on-demand) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
84506398|NCT00586521|168763756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The Gilbert Score was the sum of 3 scores: pain (0=no pain to 3=severe pain); bleeding score (0=none to 3=3 or more major bleeds or 7 or more minor bleeds); and physical score (based on swelling, muscle atrophy; and axial deformity (at knee or ankle), range of motion, crepitus on motion, flexion contracture, instability.||||<0.001
84681178|NCT02103439|169099147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval between the difference in rate of rapid virological response with Algeron and PegIntron should be more than the non-inferiority margin (-20 %)|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
84506399|NCT00586521|168763757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||The alpha level for a significant P-value was pre-defined at 5%.|paired t-test|||"The Haemo-QoL A questionnaire measures the subject's self-assessment of disease impact on physical functioning, role functioning, worry, consequences, positive affect, and treatment concern."||||0.314
84681179|NCT04542343|169099175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.246|3.754|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.75400|2.24600|<0.01
84681180|NCT04542343|169099176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.256785|-2.343215|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.343215|-4.256785|<0.001
84681181|NCT04542343|169099181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21818|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36828|-0.06809|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06809|-0.36828|<0.01
84681182|NCT04542343|169099182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00459|0.10788|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10788|0.00459|<0.05
84681183|NCT01816594|169099183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participantss||||0.811
84681184|NCT01816594|169099184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.830
84506400|NCT01711021|168763793|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis for SKAMP total score in Double-Blind period||||-4.97|-6.76|< 0.001
84506401|NCT01711021|168763795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84506402|NCT01844583|168763802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.35|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.35|0.97|
84506403|NCT01844583|168763803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.45|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.45|1.08|
84506404|NCT01844583|168763804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.53|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.53|1.07|
84506405|NCT01844583|168763807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.26|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.26|0.84|
84506406|NCT01844583|168763808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.62|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.62|0.41|
84506407|NCT01844583|168763809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.7|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.70|0.41|
84681185|NCT01816594|169099185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.786
84506408|NCT00449072|168763815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (LS Mean)|-0.45||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|The treatment arm, age group (at Visit 1) and sex were fixed effects, and baseline growth velocity was a covariate in the ANCOVA model||||-0.11|-0.78|0.0096
84506409|NCT00449072|168763816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|||0.58|-0.83|0.7341
84681186|NCT01816594|169099186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.286
84681187|NCT01816594|169099187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.177
84506410|NCT00449072|168763817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differerence|-0.15||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in nasal stuffiness||0.08|-0.37|0.1963
84506411|NCT00449072|168763817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Discharge||0.17|-0.24|0.7193
84506412|NCT00449072|168763817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Sneezing||0.29|-0.12|0.4020
84506413|NCT00449072|168763817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Itching||0.20|-0.23|0.8854
84506414|NCT00449072|168763818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.0951
84681188|NCT01816594|169099188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.929
84681189|NCT01816594|169099189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.811
84681190|NCT01816594|169099190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.840
84681191|NCT01816594|169099191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.724
84681192|NCT01816594|169099192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.964
84681193|NCT01816594|169099193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - pCR||||0.546
84681194|NCT01816594|169099194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - pCR||||0.949
84681195|NCT01816594|169099195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - ORR||||0.053
84681196|NCT01816594|169099196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - ORR||||0.949
84681197|NCT01816594|169099197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.666
84681198|NCT01816594|169099198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.803
84506415|NCT00449072|168763818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 240||||0.1247
84506416|NCT00449072|168763818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 360||||0.0207
84506417|NCT00449072|168763819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2445||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.2445
84506418|NCT00449072|168763819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4488||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 240||||0.4488
84506419|NCT00449072|168763819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Statistical Analysis for Day 360||||0.0142
84506420|NCT01787825|168763827|NON_INFERIORITY|This is McNemar design.|percentage concordance|77.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.68|83.93||The blinded readers assessed concordance of normal versus abnormal and overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|McNemar||Overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|There was a comparison between normal and abnormal images. And detailed analysis of abnormal images that were considered clinical significant.||83.93|68.68|1.0000
84506421|NCT01787825|168763829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage concordance|71.93||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.07|79.36|||Bowkers|||||79.36|63.07|0.972
84506422|NCT00617461|168763879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.1|||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA (repeated measures mixed model) with body mass index, baseline 24-hr average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.10|-0.48|0.013
84506423|NCT00457665|168763912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
84506424|NCT01620489|168763929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.43||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not used since there was only one primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested using a two-sided test based on a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis. The model included treatment, country, stratification groups (6 groups from cross-classifying renal function category (2 levels: eGFR\<45 and ≥45 mL/min) and the background insulin treatment category (3 levels: basal, premix or no insulin)) as fixed effects factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within week.||-0.43|-0.90|<0.0001
84506425|NCT01620489|168763930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|4.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.46|8.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c and body weight at baseline as covariates. No weight gain was defined as change from baseline to Week 26 in body weight ≤0 kg.||8.18|2.46|<0.0001
84506426|NCT01620489|168763931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|3.94|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.12|7.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c at baseline as covariates.||7.30|2.12|<0.0001
84506427|NCT01620489|168763932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.58|-0.58||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in the 7-point profile (SMPG) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.58|-1.58|<0.0001
84506428|NCT01620489|168763933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.51|||=|0.0022||95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Not adjusted for multiple comparisons||Change from baseline in BMI (kg/m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed separately using an MMRM analysis model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.18|-0.83|= 0.0022
84506429|NCT01620489|168763934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment ratio|0.98|||=|0.3575||95.0|0.94|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The ratio to baseline in eGFR (mL/min/1.73m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was estimated based on log-transformed data for changes from baseline. The responses were analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and log-transformed baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit. The resulting estimates were back-transformed to the original scale.||1.02|0.94|= 0.3575
84506430|NCT01484028|168763948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 LogMAR was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is the monocular distance Snellen VA (LogMAR scale) of etafilcon A with embedded print and PVP for dark/light eyes is non-inferior to that of etafilcon A control lenses.||0.017|0.004|
84506431|NCT01360450|168763970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||yes the P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|2 sided ANOVA|Mean difference between the two treatment arms|||||>0.05
84506432|NCT02277769|168764001|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|34.69||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.69|20.46|< 0.0001
84506433|NCT02277769|168764001|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.87|34.99||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.99|20.87|< 0.0001
84506434|NCT02277769|168764002|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.75|39.94||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||39.94|24.75|< 0.0001
84506435|NCT02277769|168764002|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|43.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||43.81|28.69|< 0.0001
84506436|NCT02277769|168764003|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.13|33.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||33.87|19.13|< 0.0001
84506437|NCT02277769|168764003|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.11|36.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.95|22.11|< 0.0001
84506438|NCT02277769|168764004|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|45.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||45.60|30.03|< 0.0001
84506439|NCT02277769|168764004|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|44.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||44.06|28.56|< 0.0001
84506440|NCT02277769|168764005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.04|-21.83||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.83|-36.04|< 0.0001
84506441|NCT02277769|168764005|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-25.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.49|-40.20|< 0.0001
84506442|NCT02277769|168764006|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|22.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.68|9.99|< 0.0001
84506443|NCT02277769|168764006|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.66|27.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||27.93|14.66|< 0.0001
84506444|NCT02277769|168764007|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|13.98||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13.98|5.54|< 0.0001
84681199|NCT00413153|169099199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Initial samples size of N=16 calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 30% change in muscle glucose uptake between groups. Student's t-test used to compare change from baseline and determine treatment effect (net difference over time between the ATV/r vs. LPV/r groups).||||0.035
84506445|NCT02277769|168764007|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||16.32|7.31|< 0.0001
84506446|NCT02277769|168764008|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|-1.587||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.587|-2.605|< 0.0001
84506447|NCT02277769|168764008|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.982|-1.957||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.957|-2.982|< 0.0001
84506448|NCT02277769|168764009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.86|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-28.86|-43.46|< 0.0001
84506449|NCT02277769|168764009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.55|-30.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.88|-45.55|< 0.0001
84681200|NCT00413153|169099200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs. LPV/r)||||0.12
84506450|NCT02277769|168764010|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|51.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||51.29|35.12|< 0.0001
84506451|NCT02277769|168764010|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|47.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||47.19|30.92|< 0.0001
84681201|NCT00413153|169099201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.002
84506452|NCT02277769|168764011|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.09|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||29.59|16.09|< 0.0001
84506453|NCT02277769|168764011|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|30.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||30.05|16.63|< 0.0001
84506454|NCT02277769|168764012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.062|-13.927||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.927|-22.062|< 0.0001
84506455|NCT02277769|168764012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.491|-15.529||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.529|-23.491|< 0.0001
84506456|NCT02277769|168764013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-25.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.40|-37.36|< 0.0001
84506457|NCT02277769|168764013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.75|-27.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-27.80|-39.75|< 0.0001
84506458|NCT02277769|168764014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-4.47||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.47|-6.86|< 0.0001
84506459|NCT02277769|168764014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.72||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.72|-7.10|< 0.0001
84506460|NCT02277769|168764015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-5.57||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.57|-8.36|< 0.0001
84506461|NCT02277769|168764015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-6.64||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.64|-9.36|< 0.0001
84506462|NCT02277769|168764016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.09||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.09|-5.34|< 0.0001
84506463|NCT02277769|168764016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-3.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.81|-6.04|< 0.0001
84506464|NCT02277769|168764017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.70|-33.73|< 0.0001
84506465|NCT02277769|168764017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.03|-22.74||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.74|-35.03|< 0.0001
84506466|NCT02277769|168764018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-13.53||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.53|-21.96|< 0.0001
84681202|NCT00413153|169099202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.02
84681203|NCT00413153|169099203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84506467|NCT02277769|168764018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-10.78||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.78|-19.16|< 0.0001
84506468|NCT02826603|168764022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.72|<0.0001
84506469|NCT02826603|168764023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|1.63|<0.0001
84506470|NCT02826603|168764024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.89|<0.0001
84506471|NCT02826603|168764025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|2.65|<0.0001
84506472|NCT02826603|168764026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.80|<0.0001
84506473|NCT02826603|168764027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.96|<0.0001
84681204|NCT00413153|169099204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.72
84506474|NCT02826603|168764028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.89|<0.0001
84506475|NCT02826603|168764029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|1.96|<0.0001
84506476|NCT02826603|168764030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|2.19|<0.0001
84506477|NCT02826603|168764031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|1.41|<0.0001
84506478|NCT00905489|168764032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio NVP XR: NVP IR (%)|91.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.47|99.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted geometric means are estimated from the mixed model for intra-individual comparison.||||99.64|83.47|0.0080
84506479|NCT00982410|168764065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2255|-0.0722|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NRS-1 pain level. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|EUC (Arm 2) was referent. Estimation parameter = value for Cognitive Behavior Treatment group minus value for Educational Support group.|Ho: There was no difference in average pain level across the follow-up period, between CBT group and Educational support group.||-0.07220|-1.2255|<0.05
84506480|NCT00982410|168764066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline WHY MPI General Activity score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Education Support group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT group minus value for Educational Support group.|||0.466|0.034|<0.05
84506481|NCT00982410|168764067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days of alcohol use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.||||||<0.01
84506482|NCT00982410|168764068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days illicit drug use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.||||||>0.05
84506483|NCT00982410|168764069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain tolerance. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Educational Support group = referent. Estimation parameter = CBT group minus EUC group, adjusted for BL pain tolerance. Cold tolerance distribution had ceiling and floor effects; and, \~20% of participants refused cold tolerance task in follow-up.|||14.32|-5.00|>0.05
84506484|NCT00982410|168764070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.28|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. EUC group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT minus value for Educational Support group.|||16.63|3.93|<0.005
84506485|NCT01073020|168764077|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the LAGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.60
84506486|NCT01073020|168764077|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the RYGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.005
84506487|NCT01073020|168764078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||0.33
84506488|NCT01073020|168764078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||<0.001
84506489|NCT01073020|168764079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
84506490|NCT01073020|168764079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
84506491|NCT01073020|168764080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in LAGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.81
84506492|NCT01073020|168764080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in RYGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.009
84654293|NCT01431989|169045192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|93.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.17|86.99|0.0000
84506493|NCT01644890|168764081|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary PFS analysis was confirmed whether or not the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) for NK105 relative to PTX fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.215 (\<1.215) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model that included allocation adjustment factors other than the study site as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.592|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|Based on the results of previous studies, the expected median PFS was 5.5 months for PTX and 6.35 months for NK105. Assuming a randomization period of 18 months, a follow-up period of 12 months, a one-sided significance level of 2.5%, a power of 85% and the non-inferiority margin of 1.215, the number of patients was estimated to 172 pts per group, a total of 344 patients. Considering an expected withdrawal/dropout rate of approximately 20%, the target sample size was set at 414.||1.592|0.989|
84506494|NCT01644890|168764082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.62|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|||1.620|0.885|
84506495|NCT01644890|168764083|OTHER||Difference in ORR (%)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.7||||||||2.7|-17.4|
84506496|NCT03031899|168764102|NON_INFERIORITY|"1. Rose bengal should stain the areas positively stained by Toluidine blue~2. areas stained by rose bengal that shows dysplasia in biopsy"|SN, SP, PPV, NPV|||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84506497|NCT00094302|168764112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 320 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 351 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.77|0.14
84506498|NCT00094302|168764113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 336 subjects (160 in the Spironolactone group and 176 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||1.12|0.73|0.35
84506499|NCT00094302|168764114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 8 subjects (3 in the Spironolactone group and 5 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||2.50|0.14|0.48
84506500|NCT00094302|168764115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 451 subjects (206 in the Spironolactone group and 245 in the Placebo group) who have been confirmed to have experienced the event"||0.99|0.69|0.04
84506501|NCT00094302|168764116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to event from randomization. Subjects who did not experience endpoint were censored at time of last contact. Attempts were made to determine vital status as of each subject's last potential visit, based on randomization, even if the subject ended study participation before then. This outcome was adjudicated. There were 252 events over 6,022 patient-years in Spironolactone arm and 274 events over 5,981 patient-years in Placebo arm.||1.08|0.77|0.29
84506502|NCT00094302|168764117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 382 subjects in Spironolactone group and 404 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.06|0.80|0.28
84506503|NCT00094302|168764118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 291 subjects in Spironolactone group and 320 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.76|0.15
84681205|NCT00413153|169099205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.22
84681206|NCT00413153|169099206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Ancova|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.004
84506504|NCT00094302|168764119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||No covariate adjustment|Negative binomial regression||Spironolactone compared to Placebo|There were a total of 869 confirmed heart failure hospitalizations (394 in the Spironolactone group and 475 in the Placebo group) during the 11,471 person-years collected over the course of the TOPCAT trial (5,755 person-years in the Spironolactone group and 5,716 person-years in the Placebo group). The incidence rate of heart failure hospitalizations for each treatment group was compared using a negative binomial regression with a p-value threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.||0.97|0.58|0.03
84506505|NCT00094302|168764120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 60 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.38|0.67|0.82
84506506|NCT00094302|168764121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 56 subjects (29 in the Spironolactone group and 27 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.83|0.64|0.76
84506507|NCT00094302|168764122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 103 subjects (52 in the Spironolactone group and 51 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.50|0.69|0.94
84506508|NCT00094302|168764123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 129 subjects (65 in the Spironolactone group and 64 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.42|0.71|0.98
84506509|NCT00094302|168764124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 117 subjects (57 in the Spironolactone group and 60 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.35|0.65|0.73
84506510|NCT00094302|168764125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.87||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were 295 subjects (175 in the Spironolactone group and 120 in the Placebo group) experiencing this endpoint. This endpoint did not undergo adjudication by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.87|1.18|<0.01
84506511|NCT00094302|168764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 61 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.35|0.66|0.75
84506512|NCT00094302|168764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
84681207|NCT00413153|169099207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.0002
84506513|NCT00094302|168764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
84506514|NCT00094302|168764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.87
84681208|NCT01221597|169099221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84681209|NCT01221597|169099222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0451
84681210|NCT01221597|169099223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84681211|NCT01221597|169099224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0268
84681212|NCT01221597|169099225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0800
84506515|NCT00094302|168764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.16
84681213|NCT01221597|169099226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3085
84681214|NCT01221597|169099227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6321|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6321
84681215|NCT01221597|169099228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7965
84506516|NCT00094302|168764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score and treatment group as predictor variables. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group.||||0.99
84506517|NCT00094302|168764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.39
84506518|NCT00094302|168764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.01
84506519|NCT00094302|168764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were a total of 1558 subjects (766 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 792 subjects in the Placebo) who were hospitalized for any cause while on study. This endpoint was not adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.04|0.85|0.25
84681216|NCT01221597|169099229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84681217|NCT04420221|169099372|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-74.76||||0.8042||92.5|-680.61|36.62|||Log Rank|One-sided Group Sequential Design with non-binding beta, yielding two CIs based on cumulative alpha (92.5%) and beta (80.5%) spending|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||36.62|-680.61|0.8042
84681218|NCT04420221|169099373|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-38.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.77|40.86|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||40.86|-245.77|
84681219|NCT04420221|169099374|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-75.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.41|17.46|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||17.46|-295.41|
84681220|NCT00511004|169099375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.2
84681221|NCT00511004|169099376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
84681222|NCT02935062|169099398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84681223|NCT02935062|169099399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.011
84681224|NCT04313634|169099404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.611
84681225|NCT04313634|169099405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
84681226|NCT04313634|169099406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84681227|NCT04313634|169099407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
84681228|NCT04313634|169099409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
84681229|NCT01201629|169099411|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
84681230|NCT01201629|169099412|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84681231|NCT03086447|169099434|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of monocular VA better than equal to 20/40 with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agresti-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable VA throughout the study.|Proportion of eyes with overall acceptable VA assessed throughout the study period (up to 4-week) in the Test group was compared to the historical control acceptable rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100|96.5|
84506520|NCT00094302|168764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
84506521|NCT00094302|168764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
84506522|NCT00094302|168764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.53
84506523|NCT00094302|168764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
84506524|NCT00094302|168764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.11
84506525|NCT00094302|168764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
84506526|NCT00094302|168764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.59
84506527|NCT00094302|168764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.54
84506528|NCT00094302|168764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.98
84506529|NCT00094302|168764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.02
84506530|NCT00494975|168764152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.56|||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||The VAS score of pruritus intensity was recorded for each participant at baseline and weekly until week 12 so that each one had 12 repeatedly measured data scores. To investigate the predictive effects of age, sex, comorbid diseases, phototherapy, and results of blood laboratory exams on the intensity of pruritus, marginal linear regression model was fitted to the repeatedly measured VAS score data using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method.||1.56|0.31|<0.05
84506531|NCT03734237|168764159|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1|Risk Ratio (RR)|-26.7||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||7.6|-73.7|0.1412
84506532|NCT03734237|168764159|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|-13.1||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|18.2|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||18.2|-56.4|0.4552
84506533|NCT02833415|168764171|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.9398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.0053
84506534|NCT02833415|168764171|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2424||0.5394|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.5394
84506535|NCT02398188|168764179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.397
84506536|NCT02398188|168764180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.379
84506537|NCT00220701|168764191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|2.82||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.10
84506538|NCT01176448|168764198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With 12 scars (or pairs to compare), our power calculation had a 95 percent probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 percent significance level, if a significant difference between treatments is 1.5 units (based on a 0-4 scale as mentioned above). This is based on the assumption that the within-patient standard deviation of the response variable is 0.5 units.||||||0.77||95.0||||Appropriately powered, this study failed to reject the null hypothesis that fraxel achieves a similar cosmetic result at 3 months when compared to dermabrasion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||efficacy outcomes analyzed by 3 surgeons blinded to the treatment and scars evaluated by halves comparing pre-treatment photos to 3-month photos and given a score on the quartile scale described in table 1. The ordinal rater scores of each evaluator were then averaged, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks performed on the group's scores. (table 5) There were 4 Fraxel winners, 4 Dermabrasion winners, and 4 ties. There was a p value of 0.77 indicating no significant difference between the categories||||.77
84506539|NCT00755326|168764199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84506540|NCT01617577|168764211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||ADAScog scores at baseline vs final visit (wk 14); null hypothesis is there is no difference between scores||||0.36
84506541|NCT01617577|168764211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PAL(mem) at baseline and 14 wk (final visit): null hypothesis is thereis no difference in score||||0.058
84506542|NCT01617577|168764211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PALtot trials adj at baseline vs 14wk (final visit)||||0.034
84506543|NCT00368966|168764212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-2.9|1.6||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.6|-2.9|
84506544|NCT00368966|168764212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-2.3|4.9||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.9|-2.3|
84681232|NCT03086447|169099435|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens fit with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable lens fit at fitting (visit 1).|Proportion of eyes with acceptable lens fit assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
84714575|NCT05201079|169174917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.986.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.089
84506545|NCT00368966|168764212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506546|NCT00368966|168764213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
84506547|NCT00368966|168764214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.7|0.94||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.70|
84506548|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 4, the Geometric Mean fold Rise (GMFR) were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
84506549|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.28||||||95.0|8.18|10.53||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||10.53|8.18|
84506550|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.15||||||95.0|1.05|1.25||||||For serotype 6B, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.25|1.05|
84506551|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||||95.0|1.41|1.83||||||For serotype 14, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.83|1.41|
84714576|NCT05825755|169174918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
84506552|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.45||||||95.0|1.3|1.61||||||For serotype 18C, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.61|1.30|
84506553|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.03||||||For serotype 19F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.83|
84506554|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0||||||95.0|3.55|4.5||||||For serotype 23F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||4.50|3.55|
84506555|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||||95.0|1.46|1.76||||||For serotype 1, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.76|1.46|
84714577|NCT05825755|169174919|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
84714578|NCT05825755|169174920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.791
84506556|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 3, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
84506557|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.94||||||95.0|1.78|2.11||||||For serotype 5, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.11|1.78|
84506558|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.87||||||95.0|2.58|3.2||||||For serotype 6A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||3.20|2.58|
84506559|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.18||||||95.0|1.98|2.41||||||For serotype 7F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.41|1.98|
84506560|NCT00368966|168764217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|1.18|1.44||||||For serotype 19A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.44|1.18|
84506561|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506562|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.9||||||95.0|-6.0|2.0||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-6.0|
84714579|NCT04103580|169174925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.247
84506563|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506564|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506565|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 64 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.6|-5.2|
84506566|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506567|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 39 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-4.4|
84506568|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.7|
84506569|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4||||||95.0|-5.1|2.2||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 11 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-5.1|
84506570|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84506571|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84506572|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 99 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.6|
84681233|NCT03086447|169099436|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens stability with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable stability at fitting.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable stability assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
84681234|NCT03086447|169099437|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of absolute rotation with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Least square mean proportion|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.5|99.9||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Linear mixed model with binomial dist.||Above 80% of eyes in the Test group had acceptable rotation.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable absolute rotation assessed at 15-minute upon insertion (fitting, visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||99.9|97.5|
84714580|NCT04103580|169174925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.049
84506573|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
84506574|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-5.8|2.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 69 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.8|
84506575|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.7|-2.5|
84506576|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506577|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.8|-2.8|
84506578|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
84506579|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.9|-2.1|
84506580|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
84506581|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-2.1|
84506582|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.8|
84506583|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.4|
84506584|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.6|-0.6|
84506585|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.0|-1.0|
84506586|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
84506587|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-1.1|
84506588|NCT00368966|168764218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
84506589|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.82|1.23||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.82|
84506590|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.76|1.18||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.76|
84506591|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.76|1.19||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.19|0.76|
84681235|NCT03086447|169099438|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects per each study group is sufficient to demonstrate no statistical difference in the CS incidence rate between the Test and Control groups with a minimum of 80% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 0.005% with a correlation of 0.3 between eyes within subject.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.437||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Bayesian beta-binomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior estimate (Test over Control) was used to test no difference between the Test and Control groups.|odds ratio calculated as Test over Control|Proportion of eyes with unacceptable corneal staining (CS) throughout all planned and unplanned visits in the Test group was compared to that in the Control group.||1.437|0.004|
84681236|NCT03086447|169099439|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||11.5|2.1|
84681237|NCT03086447|169099440|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||0.9|-7.2|
84681238|NCT03086447|169099441|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference in the distribution between the Test and Control groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.22|||Generalized LMM w/ binomial dist.||Odds ratio of Test over Control was calculated.|Proportion of eyes with optimal VA assessed at fitting in the Test group was compared to the Control group.||3.22|0.98|
84681239|NCT00809757|169099442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|0.342|||||Difference is Placebo MDI minus Levalbuterol UDV|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.342|-1.412|
84506592|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.98||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.69|
84506593|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.75|1.09||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.75|
84506594|NCT00368966|168764219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.88|1.29||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.29|0.88|
84506595|NCT00368966|168764220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.75|0.96||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.75|
84506596|NCT00368966|168764220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.88|1.2||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.88|
84506597|NCT00368966|168764220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.02||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.71|
84506598|NCT00368966|168764220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.12||||||95.0|0.9|1.4||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.40|0.90|
84506599|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.93|1.13||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.93|
84506600|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.96|1.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.96|
84681240|NCT00809757|169099442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|0.335|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations||0.335|-1.714|
84681241|NCT00809757|169099442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.771|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.771|-1.080|
84506601|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.92|1.18||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.92|
84506602|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.88|1.14||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.88|
84681242|NCT02693665|169099505|SUPERIORITY|First measure of congruence was taken at 2 weeks post-baseline for controls, or immediately post-Session 2 for intervention dyads. Analysis presented here assessed differences between groups in agreement. This represents the underlying data without examining the pattern of congruence for each dyad over time. Longitudinal latent class analysis of congruence in responses over time between adolescents/families was conducted at the person not variable level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.57|||longitudinal latent class analysis|examined the pattern of change over time.||"Analysis was at the level of the dyad. AIM 1. To evaluate the efficacy of FACE-TC on patient-family congruence in treatment preferences.~H1a: FACE-TC participants will better maintain congruence over time, compared to controls.~H1b: Development of congruence may not be homogeneous and FACE-TC may influence the pattern of congruence development."||9.57|1.09|<0.05
84681243|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.00743162|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at baseline comparing intervention and control.||1.094|0.928|<0.05
84681244|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05037501|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96438584|1.14403138||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at 3 months post baseline comparing intervention and control. We hypothesized that anxiety would be lower in the intervention group compared to controls.||1.14403138|0.96438584|<0.05
84681245|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY|See earlier comments.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01136067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92887892|1.10116656||See earlier comments.|t-test, 2 sided|See earlier comments.||This is analysis for 6 month outcomes of Emotional-distress - anxiety. See details in 3 month outcomes.||1.10116656|0.92887892|<0.05
84681246|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14070431|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04444724|1.2458325|||t-test, 2 sided||See earlier comments.|These are the 12 month outcomes for Emotional distress - anxiety. See earlier comments.||1.24583250|1.04444724|<0.05
84681247|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98078271|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89845609|1.07065301|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is for the outcome Emotional distress - depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that adolescent in the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms compared to controls at 3, 6, and 12 month outcomes. The following are the baseline comparisons between control and intervention which were controlled for in the 3, 6, and 12 month analysis of outcomes.||1.07065301|0.89845609|<0.05
84681248|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04007715|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94970156|1.13905306|||t-test, 2 sided|||The results here are for the outcome variable Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms at 3 month outcomes. We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms than controls.||1.13905306|0.94970156|<0.05
84681249|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07347088|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9806271|1.17510491|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesize that Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms would be lower in intervention adolescents compared to controls at 6 months post intervention.||1.17510491|0.98062710|<0.05
84681250|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11582434|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01653156|1.22481585|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower scores on Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms compared to controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.22481585|1.01653156|<0.05
84681251|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.98803061|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89065531|1.09605195|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have no differences in fatigue at baseline if randomization was successful. In this analysis we examine the baseline results.||1.09605195|0.89065531|<0.05
84681252|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13509797|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01959639|1.26368376|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention arm would report less Fatigue at 3 months outcome compared to controls.||1.26368376|1.01959639|<0.05
84681253|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04944737|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94281417|1.16814089|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Fatigue at 6 months post baseline compared to control adolescents.||1.16814089|0.94281417|<0.05
84681254|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11042568|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99383841|1.24068981|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intervention adolescents would report less Fatigue than controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.24068981|0.99383841|<0.05
84506603|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.88|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.88|
84506604|NCT00368966|168764221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.78|1.02||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.78|
84506605|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|0.1|4.4||||||For serotype 4, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||4.4|0.1|
84506606|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|41.2||||||95.0|34.9|46.9||||||For serotype 6B, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||46.9|34.9|
84681255|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9683347|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88658183|1.05762611|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that there would be no differences at baseline between intervention and control adolescents with respect to Pain Interference.||1.05762611|0.88658183|<0.05
84506607|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.3||||||95.0|4.1|10.4||||||For serotype 9V, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||10.4|4.1|
84506608|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-3.4|1.2||||||For serotype 14, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||1.2|-3.4|
84506609|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4||||||95.0|3.1|9.5||||||For serotype 18C, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||9.5|3.1|
84506610|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
84506611|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.5||||||95.0|20.7|31.9||||||For serotype 23F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||31.9|20.7|
84506612|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|5.1||||||For serotype 1, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||5.1|0.8|
84506613|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||For serotype 3, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||6.3|-1.8|
84506614|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||||95.0|5.9|13.9||||||For serotype 5, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||13.9|5.9|
84506615|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0||||||95.0|8.6|17.2||||||For serotype 6A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||17.2|8.6|
84506616|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.1|3.1||||||For serotype 7F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.1|-0.1|
84506617|NCT00368966|168764222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
84506618|NCT01333033|168764228|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84506619|NCT01006707|168764280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.042
84506620|NCT01006707|168764281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.322
84506621|NCT01006707|168764282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.261
84506622|NCT00818623|168764291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5.86e-05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000586
84506623|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
84506624|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|87.5||||||95.0|66.1|95.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||95.8|66.1|
84506625|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|66.7||||||95.0|33.7|86.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||86|33.7|
84506626|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|54.5||||||95.0|22.9|78.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78|22.9|
84506627|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|100.0||||||95.0|85.8|100.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||100|85.8|
84506628|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|75.0||||||95.0|52.6|87.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||87.9|52.6|
84506629|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|95.7||||||95.0|72.9|99.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||99.4|72.9|
84506630|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|62.5||||||95.0|40.3|78.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78.4|40.3|
84506631|NCT00818623|168764292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|88.9||||||95.0|69.4|96.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||96.3|69.4|
84506632|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0031
84506633|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|45.8||||||95.0|25.6|64.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64|25.6|
84506634|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|38.1||||||95.0|12.1|64.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64.3|12.1|
84506635|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|32.7||||||95.0|8.3|60.6||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||60.6|8.3|
84506636|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|83.3||||||95.0|61.5|93.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||93.4|61.5|
84506637|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|49.4||||||95.0|28.3|67.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.4|28.3|
84506638|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|82.0||||||95.0|58.8|92.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||92.8|58.8|
84506639|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|50.0||||||95.0|29.1|67.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.8|29.1|
84681256|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04450374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95307464|1.1447037|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 3 months post baseline.||1.14470370|0.95307464|<0.05
84506640|NCT00818623|168764293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|70.4||||||95.0|49.4|83.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||83.9|49.4|
84506641|NCT00818623|168764294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0866
84506642|NCT00818623|168764295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.033
84506643|NCT00818623|168764296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.131
84506644|NCT00358826|168764299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84506645|NCT00358826|168764299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84506646|NCT00358826|168764299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84506647|NCT00358826|168764300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84506648|NCT00358826|168764300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84506649|NCT00358826|168764300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84654294|NCT01431989|169045193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|87.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|93.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.65|82.55|0.0018
84654295|NCT01431989|169045194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric means T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.51||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|93.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.12|86.96|0.0000
84681257|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07182133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97835451|1.17421748|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 6 months post baseline.||1.17421748|0.97835451|<0.05
84681258|NCT02693665|169099506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.09964781|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.00051223|1.20860622|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that at 12 month outcome adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Pain Interference compared to control adolescents.||1.20860622|1.00051223|<0.05
84681259|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace Subscale at 3 months post intervention||1.09|0.88|<0.05
84506650|NCT00358826|168764301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
84506651|NCT00358826|168764301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.863
84506652|NCT00358826|168764301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.996
84506653|NCT00358826|168764302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.331
84506654|NCT00358826|168764302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.606
84506655|NCT00358826|168764302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84506656|NCT00358826|168764303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
84506657|NCT00358826|168764303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
84506658|NCT00358826|168764303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.60
84506659|NCT00358826|168764304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
84506660|NCT00358826|168764304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
84506661|NCT00358826|168764304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
84506662|NCT00358826|168764305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
84506663|NCT00358826|168764305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84506664|NCT00358826|168764305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
84506665|NCT01211769|168764356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
84506666|NCT01211769|168764356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.71||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.69
84506667|NCT01211769|168764357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
84506668|NCT01211769|168764357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.73||||0.53||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.53
84506669|NCT01211769|168764358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
84506670|NCT01211769|168764358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|1.08||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.37
84506671|NCT00947427|168764361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
84506672|NCT01533428|168764362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level||-0.8|-12.3|0.025
84506673|NCT01533428|168764363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.2|-12.9|0.018
84506674|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 2.||2.3|-10.4|0.208
84506675|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 3.||-0.4|-13.1|0.036
84506676|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 4.||-0.8|-13.5|0.027
84681260|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.08|0.88|<0.05
84681261|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 12 months post intervention||1.02|0.82|<0.05
84681262|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale score at 3 months post intervention||1.16|0.73|<0.05
84681263|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.21|0.76|<0.05
84506677|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 5.||-1.0|-13.6|0.024
84506678|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 6.||0.0|-12.6|0.051
84506679|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 7.||-1.8|-14.4|0.012
84506680|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 8.||-0.8|-13.5|0.026
84506681|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 9.||-0.6|-13.2|0.032
84506682|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 10.||-1.2|-13.9|0.020
84506683|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 11.||-1.1|-13.7|0.022
84506684|NCT01533428|168764364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 12.||-2.7|-15.3|0.005
84681264|NCT02693665|169099507|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale scores at 12 months post intervention||1.17|0.72|<0.05
84681265|NCT02693665|169099508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||GEE model|||Caregiver Strain subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.15|-0.42|<0.05
84681266|NCT02693665|169099508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||GEE model|||Positive Caregiving Appraisal subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.36|0.02|<0.05
84681267|NCT02693665|169099508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||GEE model|||Caregiver Distress subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.32|-0.35|<0.05
84681268|NCT02693665|169099508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.38|||GEE model|||Family Well-Being subscale at 3 months post-intervention, comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.38|-0.07|<0.05
84506685|NCT01533428|168764366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.2|0.9|0.108
84681269|NCT02693665|169099510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Intervention effect for quality of adolescent communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income and on active treatment.|It is the standard error of the slope, but this was not an option.|Quality of communication analysis for adolescents||||0.47
84681270|NCT02693665|169099510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Testing intervention effect for family member quality of communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income nd on active treatment.|This is standard error of the slope.|Quality of communication analysis for family member.||||<0.01
84681271|NCT02693665|169099516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent positive score comparing intervention with TAU.||||<0.05
84681272|NCT02693665|169099516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
84506686|NCT01533428|168764366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.4|1.0|0.050
84506687|NCT01533428|168764367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.1|0.7|0.403
84681273|NCT02693665|169099516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member positively worded score comparing intervention with treatment as usual.||||<0.05
84506688|NCT01533428|168764367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.0|0.7|0.446
84506689|NCT01533428|168764368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.072
84506690|NCT01533428|168764369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.075
84506691|NCT01533428|168764370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.169
84681274|NCT02693665|169099516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
84681275|NCT02010060|169099551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.074
84681276|NCT02010060|169099551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in waist circumference between AERO and CON||||0.684
84681277|NCT02010060|169099551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the AERO group and the AERO-PA group||||0.180
84681278|NCT02010060|169099552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO-PA group and the CON group||||0.011
84681279|NCT02010060|169099552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
84681280|NCT02010060|169099552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO and AERO-PA group||||0.258
84681281|NCT02010060|169099553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of body weight between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.104
84681282|NCT02010060|169099553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the CON and AERO groups||||0.578
84681283|NCT02010060|169099553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.300
84681284|NCT02010060|169099554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.002
84681285|NCT02010060|169099554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) AERO and CON groups||||0.314
84681286|NCT02010060|169099554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.041
84681287|NCT02010060|169099555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.891
84681288|NCT02010060|169099555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO groups||||0.417
84681289|NCT02010060|169099555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.484
84681290|NCT02010060|169099556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.274
84681291|NCT02010060|169099556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.461
84681292|NCT02010060|169099556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.739
84681293|NCT02010060|169099557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.837
84681294|NCT02010060|169099557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.895
84681295|NCT02010060|169099557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.744
84681296|NCT02010060|169099558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL)||||0.067
84681297|NCT02010060|169099558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.254
84681298|NCT02010060|169099558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.501
84681299|NCT02010060|169099559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO-PA and CON groups||||0.456
84681300|NCT02010060|169099559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the CON and AERO groups||||0.422
84681301|NCT02010060|169099559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.136
84681302|NCT02010060|169099560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.483
84681303|NCT02010060|169099560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose between the CON and AERO groups||||0.274
84681304|NCT02010060|169099560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.685
84681305|NCT02010060|169099561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.489
84681306|NCT02010060|169099561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the CON and AERO groups||||0.652
84681307|NCT02010060|169099561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.822
84681308|NCT02010060|169099562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON group and the AERO-PA group||||<0.001
84681309|NCT02010060|169099562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON and the AERO group||||0.648
84681310|NCT02010060|169099562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||<0.001
84681311|NCT02010060|169099563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in kilocalories (dietary intake) between CON and AERO-PA group||||0.226
84681312|NCT02010060|169099563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.215
84681313|NCT02010060|169099563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake (kilocalories) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.957
84681314|NCT02010060|169099564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.337
84681315|NCT02010060|169099564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin level between the AERO and CON groups||||0.770
84681316|NCT02010060|169099564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.515
84681317|NCT04414696|169099565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.5|-3.3|
84506692|NCT01533428|168764371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 8 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||5.0|-1.6|0.320
84506693|NCT01533428|168764371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 12 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||4.5|-2.1|0.473
84506694|NCT01533428|168764371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 2 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||2.2|-4.4|0.514
84506695|NCT01533428|168764372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.7|-0.5|0.719
84506696|NCT01533428|168764372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.3|-0.8|0.334
84506697|NCT01533428|168764372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.7|0.726
84506698|NCT01533428|168764373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.6|0.841
84506699|NCT01533428|168764373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.2|-0.9|0.171
84506700|NCT01533428|168764373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.4|-0.7|0.595
84506701|NCT01533428|168764375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-0.9|-17.2|0.030
84506702|NCT01533428|168764375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.5|-17.4|0.020
84506703|NCT02473991|168764381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during second trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
84506704|NCT02473991|168764382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during third trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
84506705|NCT03118739|168764402|SUPERIORITY||Mean % Change from Baseline|-39.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.785|-3.814||||||||-3.814|-61.785|
84506706|NCT00717977|168764452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.009
84506707|NCT00717977|168764453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.04
84506708|NCT00717977|168764454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Adjusted for device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||<0.001
84506709|NCT02180061|168764574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||One-sided p-value. The ORR was deemed clinically meaningful if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval exceeded 10% (p\<0.0250).|Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0216
84506710|NCT01469364|168764586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2030
84506711|NCT01469364|168764587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2527
84506712|NCT01469364|168764592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Absolute Difference|-1.52||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 PCS||||0.34
84506713|NCT01469364|168764592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.78||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 MCS||||0.18
84506714|NCT01469364|168764593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|1.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 PCS||||0.09
84506715|NCT01469364|168764593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|-1.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 MCS||||0.31
84506716|NCT01469364|168764594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ measure||||0.56
84506717|NCT01469364|168764595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.15||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ Measure||||0.68
84506718|NCT01469364|168764596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.7454
84681318|NCT04414696|169099566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|14.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||14.5|-23.5|
84681319|NCT04414696|169099567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.5||||||||9.5|-1.9|
84681320|NCT04414696|169099568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||21.5|-18.9|
84506719|NCT01469364|168764597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was completed.||||||0.9638
84506720|NCT01590433|168764603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84506721|NCT01767597|168764613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||No p-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were required. Significance was determined using a p-value \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Power calculations were performed to detect \>15% difference in immediate linkage-to-care and vaccination. We hypothesized from discussions with an expert panel that \~30% of participants would have appropriate care with standard HBV serology. Assuming type 1 error=0.05 and power=80%, 152 participants per arm would be needed. As \~40% of the population would be nonimmunized or HBsAg-positive from previous data, a minimum 375 participants per arm would be required.||||0.5
84506722|NCT01095003|168764717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||The final analysis of progression free survival was conducted once the required number of events(615 progressions or deaths) was reached.using the IRC assessment of date of progressions following the blinded radiological and clinical review of data. Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided.A stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the two treatment arms||0.99|0.71|0.0426
84681321|NCT04414696|169099569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-3.7|
84681322|NCT04414696|169099570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||4.2|-7.7|
84681323|NCT04414696|169099571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||2.1|-1.2|
84681324|NCT04414696|169099572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-1|
84506723|NCT01095003|168764718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.7657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.83|0.7657
84506724|NCT01095003|168764719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.103
84506725|NCT01095003|168764720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0089
84506726|NCT02637557|168764722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.952||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.222|8.318||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.318|-14.222|0.6065
84681325|NCT04414696|169099573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.2|-3.4|
84681326|NCT04414696|169099574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.3|-4.9|
84681327|NCT00844857|169099679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM) terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment \* visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.~A conservative estimate of effect size of 0.4 was used in the sample size estimation for this study. A randomized ratio of 2:1 provided a 90% power with an effect size of 0.4."||||0.003
84506727|NCT02637557|168764722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.036||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.318|2.245||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.245|-20.318|0.1160
84681328|NCT00844857|169099680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.035
84681329|NCT00844857|169099681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.003
84681330|NCT00844857|169099682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Ordinal Logistic Regression Model terms include baseline CDRS-R, baseline YMRS, and treatment.|Ordinal Logistic Regression|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.007
84681331|NCT00844857|169099683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.527
84681332|NCT00844857|169099684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.030
84681333|NCT00844857|169099685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model terms included baseline, country, and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.002
84681334|NCT00844857|169099686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
84506728|NCT02637557|168764722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.943||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.334|-0.551||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.551|-23.334|0.0400
84506729|NCT02637557|168764722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0225
84506730|NCT02637557|168764723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.711||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.028|6.606||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.606|-14.028|0.4795
84506731|NCT02637557|168764723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.739||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.066|7.588||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.588|-13.066|0.6020
84506732|NCT02637557|168764723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.602||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|1.826||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.826|-19.030|0.1055
84506733|NCT02637557|168764723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1387||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1387
84506734|NCT02637557|168764724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.299||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.299|-0.415|0.7488
84506735|NCT02637557|168764724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.103||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.611|0.1627
84506736|NCT02637557|168764724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.417||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|-0.056||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.056|-0.777|0.0237
84506737|NCT02637557|168764724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0130
84506738|NCT02637557|168764725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.265||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.265|-0.369|0.7470
84506739|NCT02637557|168764725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.27||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.270|-0.364|0.7699
84681335|NCT00844857|169099687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
84681336|NCT00844857|169099687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||P-value for Suicidal Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.667
84681337|NCT00844857|169099687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation or Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
84681338|NCT00844857|169099688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
84681339|NCT00844857|169099689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||||||P-value for ADHDRS-IV-PI Total Score. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.545
84506740|NCT02637557|168764725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.064||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.577|0.1157
84506741|NCT02637557|168764725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1374
84506742|NCT02637557|168764726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.77||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.77|0.47|0.7903
84506743|NCT02637557|168764726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.71||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.71|0.70|0.3518
84506744|NCT02637557|168764726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.26||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.83|0.1544
84506745|NCT02637557|168764727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.23||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.25|0.1489
84506746|NCT02637557|168764727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.19|0.51|0.8891
84506747|NCT02637557|168764727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.76|0.2237
84681340|NCT00844857|169099690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.066
84681341|NCT00844857|169099691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
84506748|NCT02637557|168764728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.18|0.48|0.6566
84506749|NCT02637557|168764728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.98||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.98|0.81|0.1280
84681342|NCT00844857|169099692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
84681343|NCT00844857|169099693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.050
84506750|NCT02637557|168764728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.91||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.79|0.1463
84506751|NCT02637557|168764729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.279|0.683||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.683|-1.279|0.5504
84506752|NCT02637557|168764729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.252||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|1.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.244|-0.741|0.6177
84506753|NCT02637557|168764729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|1.513||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.513|-0.488|0.3138
84506754|NCT02637557|168764730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|0.935||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.935|-0.897|0.9675
84506755|NCT02637557|168764730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|1.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.345|-0.507|0.3741
84506756|NCT02637557|168764730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.461||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|1.385||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.385|-0.464|0.3275
84506757|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.272||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.272|-0.226|0.8560
84506758|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.373||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.373|-0.126|0.3301
84506759|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.8845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.233||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.233|-0.270|0.8845
84506760|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.303|-0.262|0.8879
84506761|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.299||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.299|-0.266|0.9072
84506762|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.177||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.177|-0.393|0.4573
84506763|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.251|-0.350|0.7476
84506764|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.239||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.239|-0.362|0.6873
84506765|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.258||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.045|-0.562|0.0952
84506766|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.291||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.291|-0.326|0.9111
84506767|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.313||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.313|-0.304|0.9772
84506768|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.235||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.546|0.1390
84506769|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.316||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.316|-0.349|0.9215
84506770|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.055||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.278||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.278|-0.388|0.7453
84506771|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.393||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.057||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.057|-0.729|0.0220
84654296|NCT01431989|169045195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The non-parametric method included the following factors: Sequence, Formulation, Period, Formulation and Residual||||0.375|-0.125|0.3390
84681344|NCT00844857|169099694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
84681345|NCT00844857|169099695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Fasting Glucose. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.980
84506772|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.053||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.387||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.387|-0.282|0.7561
84506773|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.263||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.263|-0.406|0.6758
84506774|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.01||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.010|-0.686|0.0434
84506775|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.392|-0.308|0.8123
84506776|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.306||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.306|-0.394|0.8038
84506777|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.053|-0.654|0.0954
84506778|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.275||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.275|-0.430|0.6649
84506779|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.262||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.091|-0.614|0.1448
84654297|NCT02100514|169045203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-45.8|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from an mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-45.8|-54.0|<0.001
84681346|NCT00844857|169099695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Cholesterol. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
84681347|NCT00844857|169099695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
84681348|NCT00844857|169099696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.005
84681349|NCT00844857|169099697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
84681350|NCT00844857|169099698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
84681351|NCT00570674|169099705|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
84681352|NCT00570674|169099706|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
84681353|NCT00570674|169099707|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Sign test|||||||0.52
84681354|NCT00570674|169099708|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Sign test|||||||0.39
84681355|NCT00907153|169099742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.0|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.000|-0.034|0.05
84681356|NCT00907153|169099743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.62|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||3.62|-5.89|0.62
84681357|NCT00907153|169099744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|7.02|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.02|-14.32|0.48
84681358|NCT00907153|169099745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.96|-12.07|0.02
84681359|NCT00907153|169099746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|16.54|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||16.54|-3.97|0.22
84681360|NCT00907153|169099747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.29|37.98|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||37.98|-210.29|0.33
84681361|NCT00907153|169099748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|17.34|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||17.34|-42.94|0.39
84681362|NCT00907153|169099749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.9|11.78|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||11.78|-161.9|0.09
84506780|NCT02637557|168764731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.403||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.759|0.0264
84681363|NCT00907153|169099750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.59|34.06|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||34.06|-32.59|0.96
84681364|NCT00907153|169099751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.99|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.99|-1.84|0.21
84681365|NCT00907153|169099752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|24.64|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||24.64|-24.43|0.99
84681366|NCT00907153|169099753|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.93||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.26|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||6.26|-10.12|0.62
84681367|NCT00907153|169099754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|20.85|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||20.85|-20.29|0.98
84681368|NCT00907153|169099755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|55.08|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||55.08|-34.61|0.64
84681369|NCT00907153|169099756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|8.51|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||8.51|-22.81|0.88
84681370|NCT00907153|169099757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||2.41|-8.70|0.25
84681371|NCT00907153|169099758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.13|61.48|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||61.48|27.13|<0.001
84654298|NCT02100514|169045204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-30.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-30.2|-36.1|<0.001
84654299|NCT02100514|169045204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-26.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-26.3|-32.8|
84681372|NCT00907153|169099759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||5.20|-2.08|0.38
84681373|NCT00907153|169099760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|13.67|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||13.67|-29.34|0.46
84681374|NCT00778648|169099761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84681375|NCT02120027|169099763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.64|0.949
84681376|NCT02120027|169099764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.88|0.193
84681377|NCT02120027|169099765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.70|0.872
84681378|NCT02120027|169099766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.339||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.79|0.272
84681379|NCT02120027|169099767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.73|0.567
84681380|NCT01002872|169099768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84654300|NCT02100514|169045204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-20.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-20.5|-27.0|
84681381|NCT01002872|169099769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
84681382|NCT01002872|169099770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.897
84681383|NCT01002872|169099771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
84681384|NCT01002872|169099772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.416
84681385|NCT01002872|169099773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
84681386|NCT01002872|169099774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.955
84681387|NCT01002872|169099775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84681388|NCT01002872|169099776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0066
84681389|NCT02388724|169099833|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals of the difference was more than -10% (non-inferiority margin), non-inferiority for Vonoprazan relative to Lansoprazole was declared.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.822|6.087||||||||6.087|-3.822|
84681390|NCT02388724|169099834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|15.371||||||2 Weeks||15.371|-1.054|
84681391|NCT02388724|169099834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.763|8.395||||||4 Weeks||8.395|-4.763|
84681392|NCT01217073|169099849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.50|-0.93|<0.001
84681393|NCT01217073|169099849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.001
84681394|NCT01217073|169099849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
84681395|NCT01217073|169099849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.28||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.001
84681396|NCT01217073|169099849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.06|-0.50|0.012
84681397|NCT01217073|169099850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.4||||||||18.4|-6.2|
84654301|NCT02100514|169045205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-41.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.7|-49.7|<0.001
84654302|NCT02100514|169045205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-36.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.5|-45.3|
84654303|NCT02100514|169045205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-28.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.2|-36.7|
84654304|NCT02100514|169045206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-41.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.1|-48.9|<0.001
84654305|NCT02100514|169045206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-36.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.1|-44.8|
84654306|NCT02100514|169045206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-28.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.4|-37.0|
84506781|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.102||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.347||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.347|-0.143|0.4137
84506782|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.147||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.392|-0.098|0.2395
84506783|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.036||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.212||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.212|-0.284|0.7729
84506784|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.079||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.363||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.363|-0.205|0.5824
84506785|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.028||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.312||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.312|-0.256|0.8466
84506786|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.118||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.169||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.169|-0.405|0.4192
84506787|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.264||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.264|-0.333|0.8192
84506788|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.226|-0.372|0.6320
84506789|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.043|-0.647|0.0254
84506790|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.266||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.266|-0.360|0.7689
84506791|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.117||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.196||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.196|-0.430|0.4631
84506792|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.019||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.019|-0.615|0.0651
84506793|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.271|-0.392|0.7197
84506794|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.097||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.234||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.234|-0.428|0.5649
84506795|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.422||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.087||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.087|-0.757|0.0138
84506796|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.388|-0.269|0.7202
84506797|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.236||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.236|-0.421|0.5784
84506798|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.376||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.044||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.044|-0.708|0.0266
84506799|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.293|-0.391|0.7770
84654307|NCT02100514|169045207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-46.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-46.6|-56.7|<0.001
84654308|NCT02100514|169045207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-40.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-40.6|-52.2|
84654309|NCT02100514|169045207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-43.3|
84654310|NCT02100514|169045208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001||95.0|-53.7|-39.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-53.7|<0.001
84654311|NCT02100514|169045208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||||95.0|-47.9|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.6|-47.9|
84654312|NCT02100514|169045208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||||95.0|-41.3|-25.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-25.5|-41.3|
84681398|NCT01217073|169099850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.7||||||||24.7|-0.1|
84506800|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.114||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.228|-0.456|0.5121
84506801|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.02||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.020|-0.711|0.0384
84506802|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.245||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.245|-0.431|0.5876
84506803|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.636|0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.040|-0.636|0.0842
84506804|NCT02637557|168764732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.452||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.110|-0.793|0.0098
84506805|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.054||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.301||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.301|-0.193|0.6663
84506806|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.148||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.396||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.396|-0.100|0.2400
84506807|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.227||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.227|-0.273|0.8560
84506808|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.335||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.335|-0.232|0.7209
84506809|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.013||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.271|-0.297|0.9283
84506810|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.162||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.124||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.124|-0.449|0.2659
84506811|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.298||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.298|-0.310|0.9680
84506812|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.180|-0.429|0.4213
84681399|NCT01217073|169099850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.0||||||||18.0|-6.5|
84506813|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.004||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.004|-0.618|0.0471
84506814|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.288|-0.337|0.8769
84681400|NCT01217073|169099850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.7||||||||17.7|-6.8|
84681401|NCT01217073|169099850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.5||||||||14.5|-9.8|
84681402|NCT01217073|169099851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.1|
84681403|NCT01217073|169099851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
84506815|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.254|-0.372|0.7109
84654313|NCT02100514|169045209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0|-36.9|-24.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-24.6|-36.9|<0.001
84654314|NCT02100514|169045209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||||95.0|-33.9|-21.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.2|-33.9|
84654315|NCT02100514|169045209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-13.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.5|-85.2|
84654316|NCT02100514|169045210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.4|<0.001
84654317|NCT02100514|169045210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||||95.0|3.2|7.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.2|
84654318|NCT02100514|169045210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||||95.0|3.6|8.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||8.3|3.6|
84654319|NCT02100514|169045211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-44.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||||95.0|-48.8|-39.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-48.8|
84654320|NCT02100514|169045211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-40.9|
84654321|NCT02100514|169045212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
84654322|NCT02100514|169045212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
84681404|NCT01217073|169099851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.0||||||||4.0|-4.1|
84681405|NCT01217073|169099851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
84681406|NCT01217073|169099851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.9||||||||7.9|-1.7|
84506816|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.062||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.062|-0.570|0.1146
84506817|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.048||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.378||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.378|-0.281|0.7736
84506818|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.310|-0.350|0.9059
84506819|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.034||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.034|-0.633|0.0779
84506820|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.412||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.412|-0.241|0.6068
84506821|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.024||||0.8838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.303|-0.352|0.8838
84506822|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.323||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.008|-0.653|0.0556
84506823|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.051||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.287||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.287|-0.389|0.7673
84506824|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.289|-0.389|0.7709
84506825|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.043|-0.728|0.0273
84506826|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.289|-0.378|0.7950
84506827|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.236||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.098||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.098|-0.570|0.1656
84506828|NCT02637557|168764733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.385||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.722|0.0254
84506829|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.3||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.300|-0.114|0.3788
84506830|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.397||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.397|-0.020|0.0761
84506831|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.189||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.189|-0.232|0.8415
84506832|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.294||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.294|-0.190|0.6719
84506833|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.007||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.237|0.9549
84506834|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.149||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.149|-0.342|0.4408
84506835|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.253||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.253|-0.262|0.9736
84506836|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.114||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.114|-0.405|0.2703
84506837|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.351||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.089|-0.612|0.0087
84681407|NCT01217073|169099852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.1||||||||13.1|-9.8|
84681408|NCT01217073|169099853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-9.1|
84506838|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.243|-0.295|0.8480
84506839|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.344|0.5966
84506840|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.324||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.051||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.051|-0.596|0.0203
84506841|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.244|-0.294|0.8540
84506842|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.250|-0.293|0.8757
84506843|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.059||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.059|-0.605|0.0174
84506844|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.078||||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.358||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.358|-0.202|0.5831
84506845|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.204||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.204|-0.360|0.5859
84506846|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.291||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.007||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.007|-0.575|0.0447
84506847|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.388|-0.203|0.5365
84506848|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.241|-0.355|0.7067
84506849|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.317||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.017|-0.616|0.0386
84506850|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.336||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.336|-0.253|0.7804
84506851|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.171||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.171|-0.422|0.4064
84506852|NCT02637557|168764734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.333||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.035|-0.632|0.0289
84506853|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.167|0.7207
84506854|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.133|-0.275|0.4946
84506855|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.129||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.129|-0.283|0.4596
84506856|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.067||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.315||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.315|-0.182|0.5987
84506857|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.122||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.127||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.127|-0.372|0.3348
84506858|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.19||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.190|-0.313|0.6288
84506859|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.048||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.216|-0.312|0.7193
84681409|NCT01217073|169099854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-30.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-30.7|-59.0|<0.001
84681410|NCT01217073|169099854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-41.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-27.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-27.8|-55.3|<0.001
84681411|NCT01217073|169099854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-21.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-21.3|-48.9|<0.001
84681412|NCT01217073|169099854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-33.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.3|-19.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-19.7|-47.3|<0.001
84681413|NCT01217073|169099854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-18.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-4.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.8|-32.9|0.009
84681414|NCT01217073|169099855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-13.4||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-13.4|-29.4|<0.001
84681415|NCT01217073|169099855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-5.7|-21.3|<0.001
84506860|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.006||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.006|-0.534|0.0452
84681416|NCT01217073|169099855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.3|-22.2|<0.001
84506861|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.014||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.014|-0.519|0.0635
84506862|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.156||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.156|-0.409|0.3800
84506863|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.053|-0.620|0.0200
84506864|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.043|-0.614|0.0244
84506865|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.2||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.200|-0.392|0.5232
84506866|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.282||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|0.015||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.015|-0.579|0.0623
84506867|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.255||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.045|-0.554|0.0951
84506868|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.243|-0.363|0.6985
84506869|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.373||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.069||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.069|-0.677|0.0163
84506870|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.039||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.039|-0.652|0.0273
84506871|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.250|-0.362|0.7187
84506872|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.017|-0.596|0.0640
84506873|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.175||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.175|-0.793|0.0023
84506874|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.22||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.220|-0.378|0.6033
84506875|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.05||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.050|-0.650|0.0222
84506876|NCT02637557|168764735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.482||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.180|-0.785|0.0019
84506877|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.357||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.357|-0.072|0.1922
84506878|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.072||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.288|-0.143|0.5091
84506879|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.254|-0.181|0.7394
84506880|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.334||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.334|-0.189|0.5845
84506881|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.228|-0.296|0.7959
84506882|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.249||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.249|-0.280|0.9086
84506883|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.173||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.173|-0.333|0.5334
84506884|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.212||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.042||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.042|-0.466|0.1020
84506885|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.100|-0.613|0.0066
84506886|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.145||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.145|-0.399|0.3586
84506887|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.075||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.075|-0.621|0.0128
84506888|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.384||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.109||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.109|-0.660|0.0064
84506889|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.076||||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.218|-0.369|0.6124
84506890|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.071||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.071|-0.518|0.1365
84506891|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.355||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.058|-0.652|0.0193
84506892|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.258||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.258|-0.333|0.8046
84506893|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.023||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.023|-0.616|0.0350
84506894|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.392||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.691|-0.093||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.093|-0.691|0.0105
84506895|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.094||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.214||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.214|-0.403|0.5482
84506896|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.068||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.068|-0.687|0.0170
84506897|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.469||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|-0.157||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.157|-0.781|0.0034
84506898|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.202||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.202|-0.388|0.5346
84506899|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.040|-0.632|0.0262
84506900|NCT02637557|168764736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.545||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|-0.246||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.246|-0.843|0.0004
84506901|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.284||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.284|-0.088|0.3007
84506902|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.328||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.328|-0.042|0.1295
84506903|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.159||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.159|-0.216|0.7671
84506904|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.238|-0.217|0.9308
84506905|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.277||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.277|-0.176|0.6595
84506906|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.102||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.102|-0.356|0.2771
84506907|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.031||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.031|-0.436|0.0887
84506908|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.022||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.022|-0.443|0.0758
84506909|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.063||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.063|-0.534|0.0132
84506910|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.160|-0.332|0.4903
84506911|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.176||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.176|-0.313|0.5824
84506912|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.215||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.033|-0.463|0.0885
84506913|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.13||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.130|-0.352|0.3652
84506914|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.131||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.131|-0.348|0.3739
84506915|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.027||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.027|-0.512|0.0294
84506916|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.102||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.351|0.4236
84506917|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.144||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.144|-0.353|0.4071
84506918|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.259||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.008|-0.510|0.0434
84506919|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.147||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.147|-0.354|0.4172
84506920|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.321|0.5759
84654323|NCT02100514|169045212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
84506921|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.033|-0.538|0.0271
84506922|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.115|-0.395|0.2804
84506923|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.035|-0.472|0.0913
84506924|NCT02637557|168764737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.123||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.123|-0.637|0.0039
84506925|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.128||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.319||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.319|-0.064|0.1902
84506926|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.292||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.292|-0.091|0.3021
84506927|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.165||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.165|-0.221|0.7750
84506928|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.099||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.33||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.330|-0.133|0.4022
84506929|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.293|-0.169|0.5971
84654324|NCT02100514|169045213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||||95.0|2.5|5.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.8|2.5|
84654325|NCT02100514|169045213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||||95.0|2.2|5.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.5|2.2|
84654326|NCT02100514|169045213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||||95.0|2.4|6.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.2|2.4|
84654327|NCT02100514|169045214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||||95.0|-0.7|2.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.8|-0.7|
84654328|NCT02100514|169045214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||||95.0|-1.1|3.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.0|-1.1|
84654329|NCT02100514|169045214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||||95.0|-1.0|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-1.0|
84654330|NCT02100514|169045215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
84654331|NCT02100514|169045215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
84654332|NCT02100514|169045215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
84654333|NCT02100514|169045216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||||95.0|-73.0|-60.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.5|-73.0|
84654334|NCT02100514|169045217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||||95.0|-76.7|-55.4||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.4|-76.7|
84654335|NCT02100514|169045218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||||95.0|-72.0|-61.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-61.1|-72.0|
84506930|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.188|-0.279|0.7024
84506931|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.115||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.111||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.111|-0.342|0.3173
84506932|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.076||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.076|-0.378|0.1906
84506933|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.046|-0.412|0.1177
84506934|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.297|0.6936
84506935|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.152||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.152|-0.343|0.4466
84506936|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.155||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.095||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.095|-0.405|0.2225
84506937|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.193||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.193|-0.297|0.6764
84506938|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.061||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.184||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.184|-0.306|0.6243
84506939|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.156||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.091|-0.403|0.2151
84506940|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.160|-0.351|0.4611
84506941|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.116||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.116|-0.394|0.2849
84506942|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.03||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.030|-0.485|0.0833
84506943|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.242||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.242|-0.277|0.8955
84506944|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.207|-0.312|0.6916
84506945|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.103||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.103|-0.421|0.2345
84506946|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.218|-0.304|0.7466
84506947|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.176||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.084||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.084|-0.437|0.1843
84506948|NCT02637557|168764738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.003||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.003|-0.531|0.0471
84506949|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.088||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.265||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.265|-0.088|0.3258
84506950|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084||||0.3483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.261||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.261|-0.092|0.3483
84506951|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.022||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.201|-0.156|0.8055
84506952|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.103||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.326||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.326|-0.119|0.3627
84506953|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.087||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.310|-0.135|0.4404
84506954|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.226|-0.224|0.9939
84681417|NCT01217073|169099855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-11.2||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-11.2|-26.9|<0.001
84681418|NCT01217073|169099855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.5|-10.4|0.539
84506955|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.128||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.100|-0.356|0.2716
84506956|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.116||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.112||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.112|-0.345|0.3175
84506957|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.021|-0.483|0.0325
84506958|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.169||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.415|0.1769
84506959|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.058|-0.434|0.1343
84681419|NCT01552213|169099887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.53|0.32
84681420|NCT01552213|169099888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84681421|NCT01552213|169099889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
84506960|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.295||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|-0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.046|-0.544|0.0203
84506961|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.110|-0.415|0.2543
84506962|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.142||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.121||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.121|-0.405|0.2892
84506963|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.306||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.040|-0.571|0.0243
84681422|NCT01552213|169099890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84681423|NCT01552213|169099891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84506964|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.194||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.194|-0.312|0.6471
84681424|NCT01552213|169099892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84681425|NCT01552213|169099893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84506965|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.359|0.4123
84506966|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.278||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.021|-0.534|0.0338
84506967|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.172||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.172|-0.362|0.4841
84506968|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.115|-0.419|0.2627
84681426|NCT01552213|169099894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84681427|NCT01552213|169099895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84681428|NCT01552213|169099896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84681429|NCT01552213|169099897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84681430|NCT01552213|169099898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84681431|NCT01552213|169099899|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84681432|NCT01552213|169099900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84681433|NCT00321854|169099912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6503||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6503
84681434|NCT00321854|169099913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9568||95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.7|0.9568
84506969|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.041||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.041|-0.581|0.0241
84654336|NCT02100514|169045219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-69.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||||95.0|-75.2|-63.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.1|-75.2|
84654337|NCT02100514|169045220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-71.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||||95.0|-77.5|-65.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-65.1|-77.5|
84681435|NCT00321854|169099914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.0001
84506970|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.355|0.4881
84506971|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.099||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.099|-0.427|0.2205
84506972|NCT02637557|168764739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.433||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.168||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.168|-0.699|0.0015
84506973|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.238|-0.152|0.6653
84506974|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.345|-0.046|0.1327
84654338|NCT02100514|169045221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||95.0|-51.9|-43.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.6|-51.9|
84654339|NCT02100514|169045222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||||95.0|-12.5|-8.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-8.3|-12.5|
84681436|NCT00321854|169099915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.8|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-5.8|<0.0001
84506975|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.155|0.6697
84506976|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.8598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.210|0.8598
84681437|NCT00321854|169099916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.1|<0.0001
84681438|NCT00321854|169099917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8693||95.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.8|0.8693
84681439|NCT00321854|169099918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8155||95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.5|0.8155
84681440|NCT00321854|169099919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-6|<0.0001
84681441|NCT00321854|169099920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.4|<0.0001
84681442|NCT00321854|169099921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.9|<0.0001
84681443|NCT00321854|169099922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7999||95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.5|0.7999
84681444|NCT00321854|169099923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7395||95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.1|0.7395
84681445|NCT00321854|169099924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
84681446|NCT00321854|169099925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4|<0.0001
84681447|NCT00321854|169099926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0002||95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0002
84681448|NCT00321854|169099927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9256||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9256
84681449|NCT00321854|169099928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9792||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9792
84681450|NCT00321854|169099929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0001
84681451|NCT00321854|169099930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
84681452|NCT00321854|169099931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
84681453|NCT00321854|169099932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0376||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.5|0.0376
84681454|NCT00321854|169099933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1607||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1607
84681455|NCT00321854|169099934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0173||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0173
84681456|NCT00321854|169099935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0007
84681457|NCT00321854|169099936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4381||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4381
84681458|NCT00321854|169099937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.796||||0.5116||95.0|0.403|1.573|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.573|0.403|0.5116
84681459|NCT00321854|169099938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.7913||95.0|0.403|3.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The ordinal responses (3 levels) were analysed using the proportional odds model extension of logistic regression||3.299|0.403|0.7913
84506977|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.344||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.344|-0.118|0.3354
84681460|NCT00321854|169099939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1702||95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.3|0.1702
84681461|NCT00321854|169099940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0009||95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
84681462|NCT00321854|169099941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0005||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
84681463|NCT00321854|169099942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0422||95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-1.4|0.0422
84681464|NCT00321854|169099943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.2149||95.0|-1.823|0.677|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.677|-1.823|0.2149
84681465|NCT00321854|169099944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.031||||0.0001||95.0|-3.125|-0.938|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.938|-3.125|0.0001
84681466|NCT00321854|169099945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2605||95.0|0.0|0.026|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.026|0|0.2605
84681467|NCT00321854|169099946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.089|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.089|0|<0.0001
84681468|NCT00321854|169099947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0489||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0489
84681469|NCT00321854|169099948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0282||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0282
84681470|NCT00321854|169099964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8397||95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-5.4|0.8397
84681471|NCT03905655|169099969|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84681472|NCT03905655|169099969|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84681473|NCT03905655|169099969|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84681474|NCT03905655|169099970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84681475|NCT03905655|169099970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84681476|NCT03905655|169099970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84681477|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681478|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681479|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681480|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681481|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681482|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681483|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681484|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681485|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681486|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.001
84681487|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681488|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681489|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||<0.001
84681490|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.002
84506978|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.055||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.289|-0.179|0.6429
84506979|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.101||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.135||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.135|-0.336|0.4010
84506980|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.129||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.106||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.106|-0.364|0.2821
84506981|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.089|-0.388|0.2189
84506982|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.161||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.161|-0.346|0.4717
84506983|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.158||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.158|-0.349|0.4572
84506984|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.165||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.092||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.092|-0.422|0.2064
84506985|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.088||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.164||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.164|-0.339|0.4932
84506986|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.069||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.183||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.183|-0.321|0.5897
84506987|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.089|-0.421|0.2014
84506988|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.215||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.215|-0.304|0.7384
84506989|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.216|-0.303|0.7423
84506990|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.141||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.122||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.122|-0.404|0.2923
84506991|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.188|-0.359|0.5388
84681491|NCT03905655|169099971|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681492|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84506992|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.281||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.281|-0.266|0.9565
84681493|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84506993|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.099||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.376|0.4848
84506994|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.117||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.117|-0.445|0.2523
84506995|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.112||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.393|0.4356
84506996|NCT02637557|168764740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.086||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.086|-0.485|0.1706
84506997|NCT02637557|168764741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.115|-0.155|0.7689
84506998|NCT02637557|168764741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.170|-0.103|0.6287
84681494|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681495|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84506999|NCT02637557|168764741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.207|-0.066|0.3106
84681496|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681497|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681498|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84654340|NCT02100514|169045223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||||95.0|1.6|3.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.6|1.6|
84507000|NCT02637557|168764742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.101||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.100|0.9961
84507001|NCT02637557|168764742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.094||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.109|0.8829
84507002|NCT02637557|168764742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.201|-0.001|0.0527
84507003|NCT04041570|168764791|OTHER|t-tests were only employed to determine which individuals were responders. Response rates with 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were reported within group.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and was only used to assess whether participants had a positive response or not.|t-test, 1 sided|This test was only used to determine whether participants were positive responders or not.||Statistical testing was performed within group and not between groups. Positivity for an individual was determined if there was a significant (p-value\<0.05) increase (one-sided test) in the ELISA titers at week 4 when compared to those at baseline. For each participant a t-test was performed to compare the triplicate baseline titers to their triplicate week 4 titers. The proportion of positive responses and associated Clopper-Pearson 95% was calculated within group.|For each participant, a positive response was defined as a significant increase in ELISA titer post vaccination (Week 4) from baseline (Week 0). Within each participant, a t-test is performed to compare the triplicate readings (replicates 1-3) post vaccination versus the triplicate readings at baseline. A participant is defined as a positive responder if one-sided t-test has p-value \< 0.05. The proportion of responders and associated 95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Intervals were calculated.|||0.05
84507004|NCT03532009|168764805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||F-test|||The p-value was obtained by pooling the p-values from Chi-square tests performed on individual data sets using the F-distribution and reflects a global test of no difference in distribution of patients in the respective categories between SZC and placebo groups. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between SZC and placebo in the distribution of percentage of patients in the 4 RAASi treatment categories. The hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 5%.||||0.426
84507005|NCT01602614|168764817|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.3117|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.3117
84507006|NCT01602614|168764818|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.6175||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.6175
84507007|NCT01602614|168764819|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.7129||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.7129
84507008|NCT01602614|168764820|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9828|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9828
84507009|NCT01602614|168764821|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9656|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9656
84654341|NCT02100514|169045224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||95.0|-1.8|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.8|
84654342|NCT02100514|169045224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||95.0|-1.6|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.6|
84654343|NCT02100514|169045224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-1.6|-1.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.2|-1.6|
84654344|NCT02100514|169045225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.4|
84654345|NCT02100514|169045225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
84654346|NCT02100514|169045225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.4|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.4|
84507010|NCT01602614|168764822|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5113|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5113
84507011|NCT01602614|168764823|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.217||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.2170
84507012|NCT01602614|168764824|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.4299||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.4299
84507013|NCT01602614|168764825|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.8629||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.8629
84507014|NCT01602614|168764826|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5717||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5717
84507015|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|7.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.95|1.41|0.021
84507016|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|14.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.6|1.6|
84507017|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.26|1.34|0.030
84507018|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|14.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.9|0.8|
84507019|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.17|0.13|0.64
84507020|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|5.5||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.5|-5.2|
84507021|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.33|0.03|0.49
84507022|NCT01694485|168764834|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|5.4||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.4|-5.5|
84507023|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.52|1.71|<0.001
84507024|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.8|33.2||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||33.2|11.8|
84507025|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.31|1.53|0.003
84507026|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|31.8||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.8|9.0|
84507027|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.02|1.29|0.024
84681499|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681500|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681501|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681502|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681503|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681504|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681505|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681506|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681507|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681508|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681509|NCT03905655|169099972|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681510|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681511|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681512|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681513|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681514|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681515|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681516|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681517|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681518|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681519|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681520|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681521|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681522|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681523|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681524|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681525|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681526|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681527|NCT03905655|169099973|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681528|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681529|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681530|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681531|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84507028|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|34.1||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||34.1|4.9|
84507029|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.22|0.13|0.18
84507030|NCT01694485|168764835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|2.7||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.7|-24.4|
84507031|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.07|1.35|0.011
84507032|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|24.0||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||24.0|4.8|
84507033|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.82|1.15|0.041
84681532|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681533|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84507034|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|22.1||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.1|1.7|
84681534|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681535|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681536|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681537|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84681538|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84681539|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681540|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
84681541|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
84681542|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
84681543|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
84507035|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.97|0.32|0.68
84507036|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|9.4||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.4|-11.9|
84507037|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.22|0.21|0.60
84507038|NCT01694485|168764836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|11.3||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.3|-14.9|
84507039|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.36|1.03|0.090
84507040|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|10.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.4|-0.6|
84507041|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.56|0.38|0.72
84507042|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|4.6||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.6|-4.7|
84507043|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.41|0.16|0.86
84654347|NCT02100514|169045226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.9||||||95.0|32.08|90.59||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||90.59|32.08|
84507044|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|6.2||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.2|-3.9|
84654348|NCT02100514|169045226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.0||||||95.0|11.15|26.07||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||26.07|11.15|
84507045|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.31|0.04|0.64
84507046|NCT01694485|168764837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.4|-4.2|
84507047|NCT02907203|168764838|NON_INFERIORITY|Compared with the Performance Goal: 0.9mm|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.5|0.000
84654349|NCT02100514|169045226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1||||||95.0|6.18|13.48||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||13.48|6.18|
84507048|NCT03588390|168764892|OTHER||Slope|0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5006|0.8914|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8914|0.5006|
84507049|NCT03588390|168764892|OTHER||Slope|0.9244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6764|1.1724|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1724|0.6764|
84507050|NCT03588390|168764893|OTHER||Slope|0.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4556|0.851|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8510|0.4556|
84507051|NCT03588390|168764893|OTHER||Slope|0.8586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5929|1.1242|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1242|0.5929|
84654350|NCT02100514|169045227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.4||||||95.0|48.84|501.11||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||501.11|48.84|
84654351|NCT02100514|169045227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.8||||||95.0|39.77|308.46||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||308.46|39.77|
84681544|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
84507052|NCT00384033|168764894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||2.70|-0.60|0.198
84507053|NCT00384033|168764894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.20|0.028
84654352|NCT02100514|169045227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.3||||||95.0|19.52|96.13||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||96.13|19.52|
84681545|NCT03905655|169099974|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
84681546|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.006
84654353|NCT00885846|169045248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Regression analysis performed for equal variance at baseline.||||||0.664||95.0|||||Repeated ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2||Power analysis suggested 27 participants, 9 in each group.||||0.664
84681547|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.003
84681548|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.004
84681549|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.006
84507054|NCT00384033|168764894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.00|0.047
84507055|NCT00384033|168764895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.110
84654354|NCT03719612|169045251|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.947||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.358
84507056|NCT00384033|168764895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.009
84507057|NCT00384033|168764895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.008
84507058|NCT00384033|168764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.10|0.248
84654355|NCT03719612|169045251|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.699||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.804
84654356|NCT03719612|169045251|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.412||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.371
84507059|NCT00384033|168764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.10|0.011
84507060|NCT00384033|168764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.00|0.026
84507061|NCT00384033|168764897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||4.00|-0.60|0.149
84507062|NCT00384033|168764897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.60|1.10|0.004
84507063|NCT00384033|168764897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.80|1.10|0.005
84507064|NCT00384033|168764898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.46|-0.22|0.473
84507065|NCT00384033|168764898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.61||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.61|-0.07|0.119
84507066|NCT00384033|168764898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.27|0.710
84507067|NCT00384033|168764899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||1.50|-0.30|0.215
84507068|NCT00384033|168764899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.30|0.40|0.005
84507069|NCT00384033|168764899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.10|0.20|0.024
84507070|NCT00384033|168764900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.17||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.17|-0.10|0.100
84507071|NCT00384033|168764900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.42|0.16|0.014
84507072|NCT00384033|168764900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.38|0.06|0.032
84507073|NCT00384033|168764901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.50|-0.20|0.445
84507074|NCT00384033|168764901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.70|-0.00|0.056
84507075|NCT00384033|168764901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.90|0.10|0.006
84507076|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||7.90|-0.90|0.124
84507077|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||9.10|0.30|0.035
84507078|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||8.80|-0.70|0.093
84507079|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||7.70|-1.40|0.177
84507080|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||9.10|0.10|0.048
84507081|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||8.10|-0.50|0.088
84507082|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||8.40|-1.00|0.122
84654357|NCT03719612|169045252|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.952||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.030
84654358|NCT03719612|169045252|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.466||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.312
84654359|NCT03719612|169045252|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.725||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.347
84654360|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.977|
84654361|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.966|0.936|
84654362|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
84654363|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.959|0.923|
84654364|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.947|
84507083|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||10.50|1.10|0.015
84654365|NCT03719612|169045253|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
84654366|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.978|
84654367|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|0.983||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.983|0.967|
84654368|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|0.981||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.981|0.963|
84507084|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.2||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||9.20|-0.80|0.103
84507085|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.50|-1.70|0.384
84507086|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||5.10|-1.20|0.221
84507087|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.70|-1.90|0.411
84507088|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||6.70|-2.80|0.412
84507089|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||9.60|0.20|0.042
84507090|NCT00384033|168764902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||7.80|-1.20|0.155
84507091|NCT00952484|168764903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the median RGI-C score for the asfotase alfa combined reporting group to the historical control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
84507092|NCT00952484|168764904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0097
84507093|NCT00952484|168764905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0789
84507094|NCT00952484|168764906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7417
84507095|NCT00952484|168764907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.7570
84507096|NCT00952484|168764908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84507097|NCT00952484|168764909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84507098|NCT02422290|168764916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|7.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CY-BOCS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||7.87|-2.27|.20
84507099|NCT02422290|168764917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CGI-S scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.16|-.56|.18
84507100|NCT02422290|168764918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.78|-2.78|1.00
84507101|NCT02422290|168764919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|18.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||18.96|-15.46|.77
84507102|NCT02750306|168764920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.2||||0.00128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|45.2|||ANCOVA|||||45.2|11.1|0.00128
84507103|NCT02750306|168764923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7||||0.01354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-28.1|0.01354
84507104|NCT01842958|168764940|NON_INFERIORITY|The test arm will be considered non-inferior to the control arm if the 95% upper confidence interval of the estimated difference between the test and control arms is less than -0.5mm.||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint is change in crestal bone level from loading to 12 months post-loading. The primary analysis is a test for non-inferiority of the test implant to the control implant at the one-sided 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is that µ3.3 ≥ µ4.1 + δ, where µ3.3 is the mean change in crestal bone level for the test implants, µ4.1 is the mean change in crestal bone level for control implants, and δ is a pre-specified clinically significant difference.||||0.02
84507105|NCT00320593|168764992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was a comparison of treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model in which myopia at 3 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior SVL wear. The sample size was computed to reach a 90% power and type I error rate of 5%, so that a difference in 3-year myopia progression between treatment groups would be detected if the true difference was at least 0.60 D, assuming a standard deviation of 0.85 D in each group and loss of follow up of 10%.||0.55|0.01|
84507106|NCT00320593|168764992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||ANCOVA|||An adjusted analysis for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent from baseline to 3 years was performed by including in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model the following covariates in addition to baseline myopia and prior single vision lens wear, which are known to be related to myopia progression: age, sex, ethnicity, accommodative lag, and magnitude of near esophoria.||0.53|0.02|
84507107|NCT00320593|168764995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.28|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 1 year, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 1 year, in which myopia at 1 year was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 1 year values were known) were included.||0.28|-0.005|
84507108|NCT00320593|168764996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.45|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 2 years, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 2 years, in which myopia at 2 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 2 year values were known) were included.||0.45|0.02|
84507109|NCT00283686|168764998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test for differences between treatment groups over time.||||5.0|-0.8|0.52
84507110|NCT00283686|168764998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing differences between blood pressure groups over time||||-0.2|-1.6|0.006
84507111|NCT00283686|168764999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences in treatment over time (differences in slopes over time).||||0.3|-0.6|0.52
84654369|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.910|
84507112|NCT00283686|168764999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||adjusted for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences between groups over time (differences in slopes over time)||||0.6|-0.3|0.55
84507113|NCT00283686|168765000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.9|-3.3|0.57
84507114|NCT00283686|168765000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-3.4|-8.5|<0.0001
84507115|NCT00283686|168765001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.18
84507116|NCT00283686|168765001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.19
84507117|NCT00283686|168765002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing the annual change over time between ACE/ARB and ACE alone|||0.22|-0.40|0.58
84507118|NCT00283686|168765002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing annual change in LVMI between Low Blood Pressure and Standard Blood Pressure groups|||-0.29|-0.91|0.0002
84507119|NCT00283686|168765003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change in mL/min/1.73 m\^2 for ACE+ARB compared to ACE alone|||8.50|-2.55|0.29
84507120|NCT00283686|168765003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change mL/min/1.73 m\^2 between low and standard blood pressure groups|||6.50|-4.54|0.73
84507121|NCT00283686|168765004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.95|0.53|0.0228
84507122|NCT00283686|168765004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.22|0.70|0.59
84507123|NCT00283686|168765005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.17|-0.19|0.87
84507124|NCT00283686|168765005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.31|-0.046|0.14
84507125|NCT00283686|168765006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.46|0.036|0.0221
84507126|NCT00283686|168765006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-0.018|-0.44|0.0339
84507127|NCT01716754|168765010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.35|0.576
84507128|NCT01716754|168765010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.46|0.556
84507129|NCT01716754|168765012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.61|0.483
84507130|NCT01716754|168765012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.79|0.261
84507131|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.604
84507132|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.260
84507133|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.937
84507134|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.880
84507135|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.762
84507136|NCT01716754|168765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.408
84507137|NCT00481247|168765015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Hasford Score.||||||0.0056
84507138|NCT00481247|168765016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||||||||1.13|0.55|
84507139|NCT00481247|168765018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.77||||||Hazard Ratio and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.77|1.20|
84507140|NCT00481247|168765019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.89||||||Hazard Ratio, and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.89|1.25|
84507141|NCT02110706|168765041|OTHER|"A futility (non-superiority) design is a screening tool to identify whether agents should be candidates for phase III trials while minimizing costs/sample size If futility is declared, results would imply not cost effective to conduct a future phase III clinical trial If futility is not declared, suggests that there could be a clinically meaningful effect - supports exploration in a larger, phase III trial"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||"This futility design tests the following hypothesis:~H0: Rituximab improves outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP ≥ 0.30 - not futile) versus HA: Rituximab does not improve outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP \< 0.30 - futile)"||2.41||0.03
84507142|NCT02110706|168765042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||% of study participants with treatment related AEs||2.21|0.23|0.63
84507143|NCT02110706|168765042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||% study participants with treatment related SAEs||2.11|0.27|0.65
84507144|NCT02110706|168765043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.93|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.02|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the MGC. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline MGC scores.||2.02||0.93
84507145|NCT02110706|168765044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.39|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.03|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the QMG. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline QMG scores.||1.03||0.39
84507146|NCT02970669|168765047|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means (SacVal/Ena)|0.9456||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8863|1.0088|||ANCOVA|model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.||||1.0088|0.8863|0.0895
84507147|NCT02970669|168765048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|293.6||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.5|1503.8|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||1503.8|-916.5|0.6316
84507148|NCT02970669|168765050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.038||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|4.138|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.138|-0.062|0.0570
84507149|NCT02970669|168765051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.478||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|4.403|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.403|0.553|0.0121
84507150|NCT01714505|168765078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-tests: compare LBGI, carbohydrates for hypoglycemia treatment, % of time in range and average BG on CLC vs OL.||||||0.003
84507151|NCT01714505|168765079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
84507152|NCT01714505|168765080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84507153|NCT03065283|168765111|EQUIVALENCE|p\< or = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis, and an independent Student's t-test was used for intergroup analysis. Data are represented in mean between-group difference with a 95% CI, and analysis was by intention to treat.||0.57|-0.38|0.05
84507154|NCT01691508|168765135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.56|||Proportional odds model|||||4.56|1.25|0.008
84507155|NCT02006706|168765147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the DAS28 at baseline and DAS28 after 24 weeks of follow-up|||4.22|1.73|<0.001
84507156|NCT02006706|168765148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84507157|NCT05431153|168765152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|103.91|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||103.91|94.00|
84507158|NCT05431153|168765152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.88|102.35|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.35|93.88|
84507159|NCT05431153|168765152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|105.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||105.73|91.79|
84507160|NCT05431153|168765153|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.48|106.12|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.12|87.48|
84507161|NCT05431153|168765153|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.65|102.0|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.00|85.65|
84507162|NCT05431153|168765153|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.86|106.9|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.90|89.86|
84507163|NCT05431153|168765154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|124.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||124.93|99.55|
84507164|NCT05431153|168765154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.68|106.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.73|90.68|
84507165|NCT05431153|168765155|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|128.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||128.93|96.46|
84507166|NCT05431153|168765155|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.06|88.26|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||88.26|75.06|
84507167|NCT04828161|168765161|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.86|<0.001
84507168|NCT04828161|168765161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.014
84507169|NCT04828161|168765161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.68|0.002
84654370|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
84654371|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.896|
84507170|NCT02324972|168765217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.25|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 20 subjects per group was assumed to have 80% power to allow detection of a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in TLSS between the 2 groups, if the effect size was approximately less than or equal to 0.9. This is equivalent to detecting a difference of -4.5 between the 2 groups with a common standard deviation of 5. The primary analysis was doing using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputed data.||1.25|-1.30|0.636
84507171|NCT02324972|168765218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.68|||ANOVA|||||0.68|-0.44|0.677
84507172|NCT02324972|168765219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.983|1.544|||ANOVA|||||1.544|-1.983|0.802
84507173|NCT02324972|168765220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.076|7.292|||ANOVA|||||7.292|-7.076|0.976
84507174|NCT02324972|168765221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.72|||ANOVA|||||6.72|-1.68|0.233
84507175|NCT01082952|168765226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated for the results of ASM proliferation following incubation with eosinophils isolated from patients in each group. p\< 0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|Proliferation data was evaluated using two-way factorial ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test.||||||<0.05
84507176|NCT00135707|168765228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis states that antioxidant therapy initiated prior to 16 weeks gestation in women will reduce the frequency of serious maternal and infant complications associated with pregnancy related hypertension. We estimated that with a sample size of 10,000 women, the study would have 90% power to show a 30% reduction in the rate of the primary outcome, from 4% in the placebo to 2.8% in the vitamin group, with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.25|0.91|0.42
84507177|NCT00135707|168765229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.85|0.79
84507178|NCT00135707|168765230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.47|0.35
84507179|NCT00135707|168765231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.39|0.16
84507180|NCT00135707|168765232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63|||Chi-squared|||||1.63|0.25|0.34
84507181|NCT00135707|168765233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.94|||Chi-squared|||||7.94|0.78|0.11
84507182|NCT00135707|168765234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.68|||Chi-squared|||||1.68|0.39|0.57
84507183|NCT00135707|168765235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.89|0.18
84507184|NCT00135707|168765236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|0.48|0.84
84507185|NCT00135707|168765237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.93|0.33
84507186|NCT00135707|168765238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|1.03|0.004
84507187|NCT00135707|168765239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.95|0.25
84507188|NCT00135707|168765240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.15||95.0|0.47|1.12|||Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.47|0.15
84507189|NCT00135707|168765241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.32|0.51
84507190|NCT00135707|168765242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.82|0.33
84507191|NCT00135707|168765243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.75|0.74
84507192|NCT00135707|168765244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.40|0.12
84507193|NCT00135707|168765245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.97|0.35
84507194|NCT00135707|168765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.08|||Chi-squared|||||1.08|0.08|0.05
84507195|NCT00135707|168765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.45|0.05
84507196|NCT00135707|168765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84507197|NCT00135707|168765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84507198|NCT00135707|168765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||\<37 weeks' gestation||1.09|0.87|0.63
84507199|NCT00135707|168765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Chi-squared|||\<32 weeks' gestation||1.06|0.69|0.16
84507200|NCT00135707|168765252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.72|0.53
84507201|NCT00135707|168765253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84507202|NCT00135707|168765254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.79|0.98
84507203|NCT00135707|168765255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.81|0.32
84507204|NCT00135707|168765256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.92|0.58
84507205|NCT00135707|168765257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.83|0.75
84507206|NCT00135707|168765258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.29|0.78
84507207|NCT00135707|168765259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.23|||Chi-squared|||||2.23|0.76|0.34
84507208|NCT00135707|168765260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.32|0.41
84507209|NCT00135707|168765261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.30|0.61|0.62
84507210|NCT00135707|168765262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.48|||Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.49|0.56
84507211|NCT00135707|168765263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84507212|NCT00135707|168765264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Chi-squared|||||1.26|0.82|0.86
84507213|NCT00135707|168765265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.89|0.32
84507214|NCT01681030|168765266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.998|||||CI for EVARREST Group|||0.998|0.640|
84507215|NCT01681030|168765266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.59|||||CI for Topical Hemostat group|||0.590|0.133|
84507216|NCT01681030|168765266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.766|||||CI for Standard of Care group|||0.766|0.167|
84507217|NCT02743702|168765286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84507218|NCT05034731|168765307|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681550|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.002
84507219|NCT05034731|168765308|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84507220|NCT02649231|168765380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.75||||||Confirmed alcohol relapse by drug condition at 6 months using the Alcohol Timeline-Followback. Logistic regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and alcohol education).||1.75|0.28|
84507221|NCT02649231|168765381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.0||||||Linear regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and psychoeducation). Only participants with a minimum of 159 days of completed drinking self-report data were included in the main ITT analysis as this was the shortest duration of time before any participant completed the 6 month (23-25 week) follow up in the study. Reporting time was capped at 180 days.||19.0|1.1|
84507222|NCT00891878|168765412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
84507223|NCT00891878|168765413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84507224|NCT02292238|168765421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8691|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5727||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||Power was calculated based on expected difference in change on the ADAS-Cog of 3 points between the treatment and control groups. Estimates based on using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 4, enrolling 29 patients per group, (N = 58) suggest 80% power to detect a mean change of 3 between treatment and placebo.||||0.125
84507225|NCT02292238|168765422|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00184|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0225||0.7529|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.7529
84507226|NCT02292238|168765423|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8176||0.3687|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.3687
84507227|NCT02292238|168765424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8988||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.4850
84507228|NCT02292238|168765425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3097||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.0337
84507229|NCT02292238|168765426|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6161|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6812||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.315
84507230|NCT00494806|168765427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05||95.0|0.3174|1.1383|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 64|Relative risk not calculated.|"No differences in time to first flatus between the rocking and non rocking groups is the null hypothesis.~Sample size calculations by setting the criterion for significance at .05, two-tailed test (an effect in either directions was accepted), and power at .80. A total sample of 54 participants was determined necessary to yield statistically significant results (27 in Group A and 27 in Group B)."||1.1383|0.3174|<0.05
84507231|NCT02041702|168765452|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Ratio|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|Clopper-Pearson CI for the binomial proportion|The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than 90%.|The hypothesis was: H0: P≤ 90% vs H1: P\>90% P: The proportion of subjects free from MRI scan related complications at 1 month post MRI scan in cardiac MRI scan group||100|97.6|<0.01
84507232|NCT02041702|168765453|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-0.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.8|||Farrington-Manning Test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL\>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI scan group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||3.8|-5.6|0.0007
84507233|NCT02041702|168765454|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-1.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||2.8|-6.2|0.0012
84507234|NCT02041702|168765455|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-2.7||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|4.3|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was:H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in MRI Scan Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||4.3|-9.8|0.0446
84507235|NCT02041702|168765456|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|2.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|8.4|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||8.4|-3.2|0.0002
84507236|NCT01364870|168765462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The p value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for the multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.016
84507237|NCT01364870|168765463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.008
84507238|NCT01618305|168765464|SUPERIORITY|P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84507239|NCT01618305|168765465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.557
84507240|NCT01618305|168765466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.909
84507241|NCT01618305|168765467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by maternal gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.938
84507242|NCT01618305|168765468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
84507243|NCT01618305|168765469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
84507244|NCT01618305|168765474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.623
84507245|NCT01618305|168765475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.63
84507246|NCT01618305|168765476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.54
84507247|NCT01618305|168765477|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84507248|NCT01618305|168765478|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84507249|NCT01618305|168765479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of HIV-infected infants among those who had a determinable HIV-infection status was compared between arms.||||0.064
84507250|NCT00095199|168765509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.21|0.87|0.756
84507251|NCT00095199|168765509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.13|0.73|0.391
84507252|NCT00095199|168765510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.20|0.86|0.864
84654372|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
84507253|NCT00095199|168765510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.41|0.90|0.307
84507254|NCT00095199|168765511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.26||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.26|0.78|0.200
84507255|NCT00095199|168765511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.74|0.52|0.683
84507256|NCT00095199|168765512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.62|0.86|0.310
84507257|NCT00095199|168765512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.4||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.40|0.93|0.100
84654373|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.988|0.977|
84654374|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.978|
84654375|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|0.962||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.962|0.928|
84681551|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.141
84681552|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.081
84681553|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.160
84681554|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.184
84681555|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.046
84654376|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
84681556|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.379
84507258|NCT00095199|168765513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.06|0.46|0.091
84507259|NCT00095199|168765513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.5||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.50|0.72|0.361
84507260|NCT00095199|168765514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.74|0.77|0.472
84507261|NCT00095199|168765514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.27|0.42|0.272
84507262|NCT00095199|168765515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.36||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.36|0.74|0.236
84507263|NCT00095199|168765515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.18||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.18|0.42|0.887
84507264|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on Least Square Mean (LSM) from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||5.15|1.13|0.002
84507265|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.91||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.33|-0.52|0.210
84507266|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.79||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|2.21|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.21|-0.64|0.280
84654377|NCT03719612|169045254|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
84654378|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
84654379|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.888|
84654380|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.978|0.931|
84507267|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.25|||ANCOVA|||||4.25|0.22|0.030
84681557|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.308
84654381|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.955||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.955|0.864|
84654382|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.970|0.907|
84654383|NCT03719612|169045255|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.945|0.834|
84654384|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.971|
84654385|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
84654386|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
84654387|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.966|0.896|
84654388|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
84654389|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|0.956||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.956|0.866|
84654390|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|0.994||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.994|0.982|
84654391|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.957|
84654392|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.973|
84654393|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.959|0.876|
84654394|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.989|0.966|
84654395|NCT03719612|169045256|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.952|0.855|
84654396|NCT01496248|169045258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654397|NCT01496248|169045259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654398|NCT01496248|169045260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654399|NCT01496248|169045261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654400|NCT01496248|169045262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654401|NCT01496248|169045263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654402|NCT01496248|169045264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84681558|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.794
84654403|NCT01496248|169045265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84654404|NCT03407625|169045289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||log binomial regression||||We used generalized estimating equations for the log binomial regression with cluster entered as a random effect.|1.05|0.95|0.86
84654405|NCT02197273|169045313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.764
84654406|NCT02197273|169045314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.206
84654407|NCT02197273|169045315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher exact|0.486||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.656
84654408|NCT04154930|169045316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.54|86.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||86.89|52.54|<0.001
84654409|NCT04154930|169045317|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.67|84.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 6 Months After Baseline||84.28|60.67|<0.001
84654410|NCT04154930|169045317|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|66.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.97|77.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 9 Months After Baseline||77.92|54.97|<0.001
84507268|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.35||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.33|0.023
84654411|NCT04154930|169045317|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|64.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 12 Months After Baseline||64.26|40.57|<0.001
84507269|NCT02761980|168765589|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||1.29|-1.54|0.864
84507270|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.51|0.29|0.004
84507271|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.39||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.82|-0.04|0.078
84507272|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.74|-0.13|0.172
84507273|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.13|-0.10|0.098
84507274|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.21|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.21|-0.01|0.054
84681559|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.297
84681560|NCT03905655|169099975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.007
84681561|NCT03905655|169099976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
84507275|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.34|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.34|-0.52|0.692
84507276|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.88|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.88|0.86|< 0.001
84681562|NCT03905655|169099976|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
84507277|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.61||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.33|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.33|-0.10|0.094
84507278|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.17|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.17|-0.27|0.217
84507279|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.27||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.27|0.24|0.015
84507280|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.44|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.44|0.40|0.006
84507281|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.16||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.55|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||0.55|-0.87|0.659
84507282|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.08|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||4.08|1.16|< 0.001
84507283|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.79||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.82|-0.25|0.135
84507284|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.7||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.74|-0.34|0.186
84507285|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.83||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.29|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.29|0.37|0.014
84681563|NCT03905655|169099976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
84681564|NCT02566031|169099977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.011|0.0129
84681565|NCT02566031|169099978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.098|||ANCOVA|||-45 min||0.098|0.017|0.0058
84681566|NCT02566031|169099978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.091|||ANCOVA|||-15min||0.091|0.009|0.0161
84681567|NCT02566031|169099979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.646|||ANCOVA|||||0.646|-0.033|0.0767
84681568|NCT02566031|169099980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.77|0.1008
84681569|NCT03317002|169100098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
84681570|NCT03317002|169100098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.08||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.001
84681571|NCT03317002|169100099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
84681572|NCT03317002|169100099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.09||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12||0.001
84681573|NCT01981564|169100120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA F=3.55, df=1, p=0.06||||0.06
84681574|NCT01715805|169100166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.2||||0.7948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine + ADT - Placebo + ADT|||1.2|-1.6|0.7948
84507286|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.92||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.39|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.39|0.45|0.011
84654412|NCT00657358|169045320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R^2 (adj)|0.477|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|DF=2 DFDEN=371.8, F-ratio=10.66||||||<0.001
84654413|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.299
84654414|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.007
84654415|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.019
84507287|NCT02761980|168765590|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.94|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||0.94|-1.12|0.865
84507288|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.449
84507289|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.142
84507290|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.822
84507291|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.671
84507292|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.514
84507293|NCT02761980|168765591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.191
84681575|NCT01715805|169100167|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.7||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine +ADT - Placebo + ADT|||0.5|-1.9|0.2784
84681576|NCT02219932|169100174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||fampridine vs. placebo|Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||2.26|1.15|0.006
84654416|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.000
84507294|NCT02761980|168765592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment term in the model.|hazard ratio|||||||0.997
84507295|NCT02761980|168765592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.998
84507296|NCT02761980|168765592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.997
84507297|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.67||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.13|0.101
84507298|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.16||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.41|0.582
84654417|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.000
84654418|NCT02628938|169045327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.001
84654419|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.496
84654420|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.244
84654421|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.19
84654422|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of of using Miswak sticks||||0.829
84654423|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.341
84507299|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||0.72|-0.43|0.614
84507300|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.29|0.212
84507301|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.53||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.28|0.202
84507302|NCT02761980|168765593|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.58|0.965
84654424|NCT02628938|169045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.82
84654425|NCT02628938|169045329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.008
84507303|NCT02780661|168765595|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.86||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.196||Log10 change from baseline in aerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||-0.196|-1.530|0.0144
84654426|NCT02628938|169045329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.001
84507304|NCT02780661|168765596|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.261||Log10 change from baseline in anaerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||0.261|-1.230|0.1879
84507305|NCT01806688|168765601|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
84507306|NCT01806688|168765602|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
84507307|NCT01806688|168765604|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
84507308|NCT01907087|168765606|OTHER|Inference is by an exact binomial test of the null hypothesis H0: Prob(response) \<= 0.50 vs. the alternative hypothesis H1: Prob(response) \> 0.50, where Prob(response) denotes the population probability of a response. The confidence interval is an exact interval with significance level α=0.05.|Proportion of responders|0.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||exact binomial test|||"Responder Analysis using ITT Population: Proportion of Subjects without an Unreversed Two-point Decline or Score of 0 in ML Scale Score at 48 Weeks.~A 'response' is defined as the absence of an unreversed two-point decline or score of 0 in the 0-to-6 point CLN2 score at 48 weeks."||0.97|0.66|0.0002
84507309|NCT01907087|168765606|OTHER|"Subject rate of decline per 48 weeks is estimated: (baseline CLN2 score - last CLN2 score)/(time elapsed in units of 48 weeks).~P-value computed as a two-sided t-test for the hypothesis H0: Rate=2.0 points lost/48 weeks vs. H1: Rate not equal 2.0 points lost/48 weeks."|Slope|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Slopes Analysis using ITT Population: Estimated Rate of Decline (300 mg Dosing Period).||0.75|0.05|<0.0001
84507310|NCT02708290|168765625|OTHER|Participants in the MITA group were matched to those in Control (treatment-as-usual) group using propensity score analysis based on age and all four ATEC subscales at baseline. Least squares means were calculated for all subscales at all visits.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"The concept of a Visit was developed by dividing the three-year-long observation interval into 3-month periods. All evaluations were mapped into 3-month-long bins (Reference: Mahapatra, S. et al. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 1). It was then hypothesized that there was a three-way interaction between an age group, Visit, and treatment. This hypothesis was modeled by applying the Linear Model with repeated measures, where a three-way interaction term was introduced to test the hypothesis."||||<0.0001
84507311|NCT02192905|168765633|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-3.34|.63
84507312|NCT02192905|168765634|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|-0.0096|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.0096|-.0285|<0.001
84507313|NCT02192905|168765635|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.011||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.006|-.039|0.143
84507314|NCT02192905|168765636|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.07||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-5.11|.73
84507315|NCT04583579|168765637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
84507316|NCT02261428|168765640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|8.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.73|1.79|<0.05
84507317|NCT02337933|168765668|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84507318|NCT02337933|168765669|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84507319|NCT02337933|168765670|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84507320|NCT02337933|168765671|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
84507321|NCT02337933|168765672|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
84507322|NCT02337933|168765673|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
84507323|NCT02337933|168765674|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
84507324|NCT02337933|168765675|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84507325|NCT02337933|168765676|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84507326|NCT02337933|168765677|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.224
84507327|NCT02337933|168765678|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
84507328|NCT02337933|168765679|OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
84507329|NCT02337933|168765680|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.999
84654427|NCT02628938|169045329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.02
84654428|NCT00843856|169045342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
84654429|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.36
84507330|NCT03093454|168765681|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed effects models were used to investigate HADS scores (total, anxiety, and depression), sleep scores, and pain scores. Variables for time point (preoperative/Post-op Day 1/final Post-op Day) \& arm were analyzed. Adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons used the Scheffe method. Analyses were conducted based on the intent to treat principle. P-values\<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Each time point, the mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval has been plotted.|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Lavender group compared to control group||||0.05
84654430|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654431|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654432|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654433|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654434|NCT03855228|169045344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
84507331|NCT02173704|168765704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||100|97.2|
84507332|NCT02173704|168765704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|single binomial proportion|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|85.8|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain NZ98/25 was 94%.||85.8|71.4|
84507333|NCT02173704|168765706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|99.98|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis H44/76 strain: The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective is that the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 one month after the third dose of the Bexsero® vaccine was ≤ 0.70. Assuming the results for the three strains are independent, the power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objectives to demonstrate sufficiency of response (for all three strains was 92%.||99.98|95.7|
84507334|NCT02173704|168765706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.82|||Exact test for binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||99.82|94.7|
84507335|NCT02173704|168765706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|97.4|||Exact test for binomial proportions|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain NZ98/254 was 99%.||97.4|88.7|
84507336|NCT02584140|168765738|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P-Value for Week 4 was \<0.001; The P-Value for Week 12 was 0.005; The P-Value for Week 24 was 0.029; The P-Value for Week 36 was 0.008; The P-Value for Week 48 was 0.03.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84507337|NCT00620763|168765747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis of variance tested for treatment and feeding sequence effects.||16 subjects required to detect a difference in Calcium 47 absorption of 2 percentage points with 90% power, alpha = 0.05||||0.02
84507338|NCT00729859|168765775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.035|||paired t-test|||p value for the difference = 0.28||0.035|0.005|0.28
84507339|NCT01111110|168765789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided|two sample effect size must be halved to account for mean difference estimates twice the effect size|See 4 Puff result|(Comparison of period 2 minus period 1) results Point and interval estimates are halved because this estimates twice the effect size.||41.7|3.8|0.026
84507340|NCT01111110|168765790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|41.0||The effect size is half the difference between the means as (A-B)-(B-A)=2A-2B|t-test, 2 sided|Must take half the mean difference to estimate effect size|No comments|Study intended to get more subjects, but PI's review committee had to deal with candidate deadlines and a high rate of screen failures and allowed her to test seven subjects. Primary concern was the research experience, not the study questions. There was no bias in failing to meet accrual objectives thanks to the blinding.||41.0|6.0|0.018
84507341|NCT01111110|168765791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size=half the mean diff|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided||You kicked this out on another trial, but note that the period 2-Period 1 differences between the orderings estimate twice the effect size. The effect sizes herein take this into account.|Null hypothesis is that the Treatment order is independent of the dependent variable based on Period 2 minus Period 1||41.7|7.7|0.013
84507342|NCT00662025|168765795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|43.0||||||||43.0|19.2|
84507343|NCT00662025|168765796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|39.7||||||||39.7|16.6|
84507344|NCT00662025|168765797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|63.6||||||||63.6|37.9|
84507345|NCT00662025|168765798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.1||||||||65.1|39.4|
84654435|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.35
84507346|NCT01700621|168765812|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of -10% was chosen as the maximal absolute reduction in proportion seroprotection allowed in the concomitant measles-rubella and rotavirus vaccine group as compared to the measles-rubella vaccine alone group.|Seroconversion proportion difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-6.9|
84507347|NCT01288859|168765832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The results from LC-MS/MS analysis of parent polyphenols were analyzed and expressed as the absolute changes from the baseline to reduce possible effects of inter-subject fasting variability|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84507348|NCT01288859|168765833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows (version15). By the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures the subjective time curves for all measured compounds were compared and tested for the effect of treatment and of time as factors. For all tests, following a significant main effect in the ANOVA, individual means were compared using the Bonferroni test (p \< 0.05). Results were considered significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.01
84507349|NCT01288859|168765834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84507350|NCT00290745|168765864|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||0.07
84507351|NCT00290745|168765865|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||<0.001
84507352|NCT00290745|168765868|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.538
84507353|NCT00290745|168765869|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84507354|NCT00290745|168765870|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
84507355|NCT00290745|168765871|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84507356|NCT00290745|168765872|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
84507357|NCT02300025|168765972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.2|143.4|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between test and reference treatments obtained from mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The least squares (LS) means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||143.4|59.2|
84507358|NCT02300025|168765972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|132.1|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||132.1|54.6|
84654436|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654437|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84507359|NCT02300025|168765972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.1|60.7|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||60.7|25.1|
84507360|NCT02300025|168765974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.0|186.0|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||186.0|52.0|
84507361|NCT02300025|168765974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.0|193.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||193.2|54.0|
84654438|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.03
84654439|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654440|NCT03855228|169045345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
84654441|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.77
84654442|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654443|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654444|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654445|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654446|NCT03855228|169045346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.45
84654447|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.99
84654448|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654449|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654450|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654451|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654452|NCT03855228|169045347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.08
84654453|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.85
84654454|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654455|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654456|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654457|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654458|NCT03855228|169045348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.17
84654459|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.88
84654460|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654461|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654462|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654463|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654464|NCT03855228|169045349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.22
84654465|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.65
84654466|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654467|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654468|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654469|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654470|NCT03855228|169045350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.92
84654471|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.95
84654472|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
84654473|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654474|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
84654475|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
84654476|NCT03855228|169045351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.58
84654477|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84654478|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654479|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654480|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654481|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654482|NCT03855228|169045352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84654483|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84654484|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654485|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654486|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654487|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84654488|NCT03855228|169045353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
84654489|NCT03104543|169045359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.45|0.67|.05
84654490|NCT03104543|169045362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.47|.05
84654491|NCT01972568|169045371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.72|||Logistic regression model|||||2.72|0.89|0.1208
84654492|NCT01972568|169045379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|7.61|||Logistic regression model|||||7.61|1.44|0.0048
84654493|NCT01972568|169045380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.46|||Logistic regression model|||||3.46|1.11|0.0202
84654494|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0323
84654495|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
84507362|NCT02300025|168765974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|80.5|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||80.5|22.5|
84654496|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8622
84654497|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654498|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0074
84654499|NCT01681472|169045447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
84654500|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1480
84654501|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
84507363|NCT02300025|168765975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|160.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||160.6|59.3|
84507364|NCT02300025|168765975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.6|169.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||169.6|62.6|
84507365|NCT02300025|168765975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.4|116.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||116.2|40.4|
84507366|NCT00626925|168765981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84507367|NCT00626925|168765982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84507368|NCT00626925|168765984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84507369|NCT00626925|168765985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84507370|NCT00626925|168765986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84507371|NCT00626925|168765987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84507372|NCT00626925|168765988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84507373|NCT00780026|168765989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||||||P value for Bacterial infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.841
84507374|NCT00780026|168765989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||P-value for fungal infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.298
84507375|NCT00780026|168765989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||P value for transplant incision wound|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
84507376|NCT00780026|168765989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||||||P value for viral infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.505
84507377|NCT00780026|168765990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
84507378|NCT00780026|168765991|EQUIVALENCE|If the p-value for the means is \> 0.05 between the groups then they will be deemed equivalent.||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
84507379|NCT00780026|168765993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
84507380|NCT00780026|168765994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P value for bile leak|Chi-squared|||||||0.826
84507381|NCT00780026|168765994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||This is the p value for Biliary Stricture|Chi-squared|||||||0.137
84507382|NCT00780026|168765995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
84507383|NCT01816477|168766036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84507384|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0872|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.0872
84507385|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6751|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.6751
84507386|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.1203
84507387|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 4.||||0.3582
84507388|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5||||0.0625
84507389|NCT01816477|168766037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.0484
84507390|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6465|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.6465
84507391|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9233|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.9233
84507392|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5788|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.5788
84507393|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1036|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 4.||||0.1036
84507394|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5314|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5.||||0.5314
84507395|NCT01816477|168766038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.7166
84507396|NCT01166568|168766068|SUPERIORITY||binomial distribution|0.75||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.75|||the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||"The PSI procedure is defined as successful if 75% of subjects achieve the first primary endpoint or second primary endpoint. The corresponding statistical hypotheses are as follows:~H0 (null hypothesis): p1 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p1 \> 0.75, Where, p1 is the probability of subjects achieving the first primary endpoint. H0 (null hypothesis): p2 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p2 \> 0.75, Where, p2 is the probability of subjects achieving the second primary endpoint."|||0.75|0.025
84507397|NCT03335371|168766076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.39|<0.0001
84507398|NCT01832090|168766088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84507399|NCT01832090|168766089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84507400|NCT01832090|168766090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84507401|NCT01832090|168766091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84507402|NCT01832090|168766092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84507403|NCT01832090|168766093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84507404|NCT01832090|168766096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84507405|NCT01832090|168766097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84507406|NCT00249821|168766101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.001
84507407|NCT00249821|168766102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.012
84507408|NCT00249821|168766102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
84507409|NCT00249821|168766103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.022
84507410|NCT00249821|168766103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
84507411|NCT00249821|168766104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.029
84507412|NCT00249821|168766105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.972
84507413|NCT00249821|168766106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.058
84507414|NCT00249821|168766106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.026
84507415|NCT00249821|168766107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.793
84507416|NCT00249821|168766107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.055
84507417|NCT00926289|168766116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-6.4|-10.6|<0.0001
84507418|NCT00926289|168766117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
84507419|NCT00926289|168766118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-4.7|-8.8|<0.0001
84507420|NCT00926289|168766119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
84507421|NCT00926289|168766120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.74|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.21|1.74|<0.0001
84507422|NCT00926289|168766121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.12|1.70|<0.0001
84507423|NCT00926289|168766122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.6|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.01|1.60|<0.0001
84507424|NCT00926289|168766123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.46|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.73|1.46|<0.0001
84507425|NCT00926289|168766124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.48|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.76|1.48|<0.0001
84654502|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
84654503|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
84654504|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0019
84507426|NCT00926289|168766125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005||95.0|1.28|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline and fixed effect country||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.37|1.28|0.0005
84654505|NCT01681472|169045448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
84507427|NCT00926289|168766126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.76|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (SBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.26|1.76|<0.0001
84654506|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
84654507|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0538
84507428|NCT00926289|168766127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.78|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (DBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.29|1.78|<0.0001
84507429|NCT00926289|168766128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||4.04|1.70|<0.0001
84507430|NCT00926289|168766129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.57|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.16|1.57|<0.0001
84507431|NCT00926289|168766130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren test stratified for country|||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||||<0.0001
84507432|NCT00319956|168766131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84507433|NCT01202747|168766140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0005
84507434|NCT03977584|168766174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00993||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.0068|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: GTP1 PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + Interactive Voice or Web Response System (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score.||0.0068|-0.0327|0.1953
84654508|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5244
84654509|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
84681577|NCT02219932|169100174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.178||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||0.178|0.030|
84681578|NCT02219932|169100174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||1.70|1.06|
84681579|NCT02219932|169100175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||2.07|1.04|0.030
84681580|NCT02219932|169100175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.175||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||0.175|0.009|
84681581|NCT02219932|169100175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||1.51|0.99|
84681582|NCT02219932|169100176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.925|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-1.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.50|-5.13|< 0.001
84681583|NCT02219932|169100177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.95|-0.13|0.141
84681584|NCT02219932|169100178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.86|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||1.86|-0.38|0.197
84681585|NCT02890381|169100220|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|86.0||||||||86|35|
84681586|NCT02890381|169100220|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.0|100.0||||||||100|61|
84681587|NCT02890381|169100221|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|65.0||||||||65|14|
84681588|NCT02890381|169100221|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|85.0||||||||85|15|
84681589|NCT02890381|169100226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since the sample sizes are unequal, at the suggestion of the DSMB statistician, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the proportions of \>=4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
84681590|NCT02890381|169100227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.73
84681591|NCT03825380|169100254|NON_INFERIORITY|"Primary tested:Non-inferiority of T4032 to Lumigan® on the change from baseline in IOP using a MMRM. 3 independent models will be performed, one for each time point (8:00, 10:00~\& 16:00). The 95% CI for treatment effect (difference T4032 - Lumigan) will be estimated at Wk 12. NI will be achieved if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups (T4032 - Lumigan) is lower than the margin of +1.5 mmHg for each of the 3 time points 8:00, 10:00 \& 16:00."|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.62|0.453
84681592|NCT01581281|169100269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.48||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 (= 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for amitriptyline relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.48|0.34|0.2636
84507435|NCT05328375|168766177|OTHER||Mean|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.62||||||The estimate is based on the number of participants enrolled per month over the 11-month recruitment period of the trial. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.62|
84507436|NCT05328375|168766178|OTHER||Mean|0.87|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.66||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by THCR participants. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.66|
84507437|NCT05328375|168766179|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Telehealth-enhanced Hybrid CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
84507438|NCT05328375|168766179|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Traditional CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
84507439|NCT05328375|168766180|OTHER||Mean|0.69|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.4||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by participants in the Traditional CR arm. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.40|
84507440|NCT05328375|168766181|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||Adequate feasibility was defined as a mean score ≥4 across four post-program items. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was calculated.||||0.55|
84507441|NCT00101582|168766201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|4.1764||||0.041||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed as having WHO grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||Sample size calculations were based on the number of participants needed to detect, with 90% power and 5% type 1 error rate, at least a 25% difference in the incidence of severe OM between the treatment groups. A 25% absolute reduction in the incidence of severe OM from the placebo group was considered by investigators as clinically meaningful in this clinical setting.||||0.0410
84507442|NCT00101582|168766202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|5.8002||||0.016||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0160
84507443|NCT00101582|168766202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To protect the overall type 1 error, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple statistical testing of the secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.1122
84507444|NCT00101582|168766203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6603||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|0.9592|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).|Hazard ratio of palifermin over placebo based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.9592|0.4546|0.0261
84507445|NCT00101582|168766203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Stratified Log-Rank test|||||||0.1566
84507446|NCT00101582|168766204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.9715||||0.0463||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed to have the event.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0463
84507447|NCT00101582|168766204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2314
84507448|NCT00101582|168766205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.2548||||0.0712||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0712
84507449|NCT00101582|168766205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2849||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2849
84507450|NCT00101582|168766206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|1.3901||||0.2384||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.2384
84507451|NCT00101582|168766206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
84654510|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0313
84654511|NCT01681472|169045449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4777
84507452|NCT00101582|168766207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9039||||0.3417||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.3417
84507453|NCT00101582|168766207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
84507454|NCT00101582|168766208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0027||||0.9587||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.9587
84507455|NCT00101582|168766208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9587
84507456|NCT01919190|168766209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.8
84507457|NCT01919190|168766210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0456
84507458|NCT02146430|168766215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||Difference of means|||||0.12|-0.61|0.1870
84681593|NCT01581281|169100269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.39|1.68||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.68|0.39|0.4821
84681594|NCT01581281|169100269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|1.59||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to amitriptyline. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.59|0.49|0.6107
84681595|NCT01581281|169100270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.95|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||5.95|-6.64|0.9137
84681596|NCT01581281|169100270|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.84||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.49|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.49|-11.16|0.1331
84681597|NCT01581281|169100270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.87|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||9.87|-0.88|0.1011
84681598|NCT01581281|169100271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.59|1.15||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.15|-2.59|0.3553
84681599|NCT01581281|169100271|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.52|1.24||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.24|-2.52|0.4143
84681600|NCT01581281|169100271|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.68|1.52||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.52|-1.68|0.9038
84681601|NCT01581281|169100272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.05|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.05|0.85|0.1557
84507459|NCT02146430|168766215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Difference of means|||||0.05|-0.67|0.0944
84507460|NCT02146430|168766215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Difference of means|||||0.09|-0.64|0.1391
84507461|NCT02146430|168766215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3|||Difference of means|||||0.30|-0.43|0.7338
84507462|NCT02146430|168766215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.34|||Difference of means|||||0.34|-0.40|0.8705
84507463|NCT02146430|168766217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.28|||Difference of means|||||-0.28|-6.52|0.0326
84507464|NCT02146430|168766217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.84|||Difference of means|||||1.84|-4.40|0.4220
84507465|NCT02146430|168766217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.615||0.9659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.23|||Difference of means|||||3.23|-3.10|0.9659
84507466|NCT02146430|168766217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|5.28|||Difference of means|||||5.28|-1.03|0.1867
84507467|NCT02146430|168766217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.67|||Difference of means|||||6.67|0.27|0.0333
84507468|NCT02146430|168766219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.9|0.2474
84507469|NCT02146430|168766219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3347
84654512|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2716
84507470|NCT02146430|168766219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.3|0.3999
84681602|NCT01581281|169100272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.62|0.95|0.0754
84507471|NCT02146430|168766219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8435
84507472|NCT02146430|168766219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.0|0.0446
84654513|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0124
84654514|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
84507473|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.5|-0.5|0.9775
84507474|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6500
84507475|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6546
84507476|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6692
84507477|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6737
84507478|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3888
84507479|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9200
84507480|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.4|0.7061
84507481|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.3|0.3337
84507482|NCT02146430|168766220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|-0.2|0.2139
84507483|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4933||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|5.126|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||5.126|-0.733|0.1416
84507484|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.679|3.176|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.176|-2.679|0.8677
84507485|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4959||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|2.036|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.036|-3.834|0.5481
84507486|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4875||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.866|0.971|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.971|-4.866|0.1906
84507487|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4883||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.015|-0.175|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.175|-6.015|0.0378
84507488|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6865||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|2.011|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.011|-0.683|0.3337
84507489|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.152|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.152|-1.540|0.7778
84507490|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6879||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|1.262|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.262|-1.437|0.8991
84507491|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6833||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.198|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.483|-2.198|0.2098
84681603|NCT01581281|169100272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||1.62|0.49|0.7611
84507492|NCT02146430|168766221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6842||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.093|0.591|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.591|-2.093|0.2725
84507493|NCT02146430|168766222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0243|0.0279|||ANCOVA|||||0.0279|-0.0243|0.8923
84507494|NCT02146430|168766222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01327||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0281|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.0240|-0.0281|0.8749
84507495|NCT02146430|168766222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01332||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.0170|-0.0353|0.4932
84507496|NCT02146430|168766222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01323||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0298|0.0221|||ANCOVA|||||0.0221|-0.0298|0.7688
84507497|NCT02146430|168766222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0151|||ANCOVA|||||0.0151|-0.0369|0.4099
84507498|NCT02146430|168766223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.88|0.0009
84507499|NCT02146430|168766223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.96|0.0001
84507500|NCT02146430|168766223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.17|<0.0001
84507501|NCT02146430|168766223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.40|0.6408
84507502|NCT02146430|168766223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.62|0.0786
84507503|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.7|0.0541
84681604|NCT01581281|169100273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3038|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.3038
84507504|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.4|0.7771
84507505|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5488
84507506|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0987
84507507|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1840
84681605|NCT01581281|169100273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||1.000
84681606|NCT01581281|169100273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.2139
84681607|NCT02522715|169100331|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||two-sided exact binomial test|||One-sample binomial test with null hypothesis that the percentage of participants with PSA response 1 is equal to 25%.||||<0.01
84507508|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.6|0.1903
84507509|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.4|0.5787
84507510|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.5535
84507511|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.2|0.4476
84507512|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.4737
84507513|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.6|0.0814
84681608|NCT01808313|169100339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.53|64.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||64.66|42.53|<0.001
84681609|NCT01808313|169100340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80.00|48.72|<0.001
84681610|NCT01808313|169100342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 12||||<0.001
84507514|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3069
84507515|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.3916
84507516|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.2|0.4667
84507517|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3744
84507518|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.2959
84507519|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9119
84507520|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9399
84507521|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.2455
84507522|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3311
84507523|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.069|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.069|-0.577|0.1233
84507524|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.250|-0.394|0.6610
84507525|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1649||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.225|-0.422|0.5514
84507526|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.503|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.503|-0.140|0.2673
84507527|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.478|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.478|-0.167|0.3439
84507528|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||7.4|-2.1|0.2708
84507529|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.9|-3.5|0.6285
84507530|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 150 mg BID||4.5|-5.0|0.9177
84507531|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.2|-6.2|0.5334
84507532|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.8|-7.6|0.2261
84507533|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.42|-7.32|0.0281
84507534|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||2.03|-4.87|0.4190
84507535|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.85|-5.06|0.3622
84507536|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.88|-0.99|0.1623
84507537|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.753||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.7|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.70|-1.18|0.1978
84507538|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.0867
84507539|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6993
84507540|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8702
84507541|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.1826
84507542|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1206
84507543|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0211
84507544|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.6|0.4963
84507545|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.3031
84507546|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1019
84507547|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.2010
84507548|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.9|0.0331
84507549|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.7478
84507550|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6940
84507551|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.0|0.0690
84507552|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0816
84507553|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1174
84507554|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9250
84507555|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8555
84507556|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0956
84507557|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1659
84507558|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0468
84507559|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1083
84507560|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0505
84507561|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.6993
84507562|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9781
84507563|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0154
84507564|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.9|0.0731
84507565|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0259
84654515|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
84654516|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0039
84507566|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5243
84507567|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.4|0.8488
84507568|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2746
84507569|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9349
84507570|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.3|0.5164
84507571|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.2|0.2382
84507572|NCT02146430|168766225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0807
84507573|NCT02146430|168766226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.091|0.0601
84507574|NCT02146430|168766226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8299
84654517|NCT01681472|169045450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0454
84654518|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0092
84654519|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8303
84681611|NCT01808313|169100342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 24||||0.003
84507575|NCT02146430|168766226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.096|0.0347
84507576|NCT02146430|168766226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.086|||ANCOVA|||||0.086|-0.007|0.0951
84507577|NCT02146430|168766226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8199
84507578|NCT01893905|168766227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0307|||||||Pocock approach|||||||<0.0307
84507579|NCT03093324|168766243|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.542||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.754|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.754|0.390|0.0003
84507580|NCT03093324|168766244|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.760|0.356|0.0007
84507581|NCT03093324|168766245|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.714||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.921|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.921|0.554|0.009
84681612|NCT01808313|169100343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.519|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 12|||0.519|0.366|<0.001
84507582|NCT03093324|168766246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.555||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.862|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.862|0.357|0.009
84507583|NCT03093324|168766247|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.696||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.972|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.972|0.499|0.033
84507584|NCT03093324|168766248|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.662||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.031|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.031|0.425|0.068
84507585|NCT03093324|168766249|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.713||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.217|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.217|0.417|0.215
84507586|NCT03093324|168766250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Nausea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.0|-0.6|0.043
84507587|NCT03093324|168766250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Vomiting: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
84654520|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
84654521|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
84654522|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3184
84654523|NCT01681472|169045451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
84654524|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
84654525|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
84654526|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0428
84654527|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0003
84654528|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4309
84654529|NCT01681472|169045452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
84654530|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
84654531|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
84654532|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654533|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654534|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
84654535|NCT01681472|169045453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
84654536|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
84654537|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
84654538|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654539|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
84654540|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
84654541|NCT01681472|169045454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0338
84654542|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654543|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654544|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654545|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654546|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654547|NCT01681472|169045455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654548|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654549|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654550|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654551|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654552|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
84654553|NCT01681472|169045456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654554|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
84654555|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
84654556|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0166
84681613|NCT01808313|169100343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.453|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 24|||0.453|0.303|<0.001
84654557|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
84654558|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.9581
84654559|NCT01681472|169045457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
84654560|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654561|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654562|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654563|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654564|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654565|NCT01681472|169045458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654566|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654567|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654568|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0022
84654569|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654570|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654571|NCT01681472|169045459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654572|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654573|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654574|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654575|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654576|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
84654577|NCT01681472|169045460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654578|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
84654579|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
84654580|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654581|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2725
84654582|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1893
84654583|NCT01681472|169045461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84681614|NCT03301051|169100387|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - attack rate in vaccinated participants \[ARV\]/attack rate in unvaccinated participants \[ARU\]) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|48.6|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).|||48.6|17.6|
84654584|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654585|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654586|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654587|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
84681615|NCT03301051|169100388|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|38.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|27.6|
84654588|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
84681616|NCT03301051|169100389|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|48.5|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.5|14.9|
84681617|NCT03301051|169100390|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|25.1|
84507588|NCT03093324|168766250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Upper Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
84654589|NCT01681472|169045462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654590|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
84654591|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654592|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0021
84654593|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654594|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
84654595|NCT01681472|169045463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654596|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654597|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654598|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84681618|NCT03301051|169100391|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||11.3|0.8|
84654599|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654600|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
84654601|NCT01681472|169045464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84681619|NCT01359735|169100415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
84681620|NCT01359735|169100415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 13|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
84654602|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
84654603|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
84681621|NCT01359735|169100416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Over weeks 1 through 4 or Week 4?|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84681622|NCT01359735|169100417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0594
84681623|NCT01359735|169100418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|ONE_SIDED|||||3 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1354
84681624|NCT01359735|169100418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||12 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5000
84654604|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84681625|NCT01359735|169100419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 3 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0841
84681626|NCT01359735|169100419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1780
84681627|NCT01358526|169100424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||A gate-keeping strategy and a Bonferroni-Holm method was used to control the family-wise (primary and secondary efficacy analysis) error rate at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of pain data using a pattern mixture model framework||||0.77|0.13|0.0055
84681628|NCT01358526|169100425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the treatment comparison estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis with effect for treatment, time (weeks 4, 8, 12), treatment by time interaction, and prerandomization value. Subject is a random effect.|||9.8|0.9|0.0191
84654605|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1551
84654606|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1563
84654607|NCT01681472|169045465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654608|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654609|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654610|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654611|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
84681629|NCT01358526|169100426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||"The proportion of subjects responding much improved and very much improved was summarized by treatment group and compared between groups using an exact test"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
84654612|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
84654613|NCT01681472|169045466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
84654614|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||1.0000
84654615|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654616|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
84654617|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654618|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0005
84654619|NCT01681472|169045467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654620|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0056
84507589|NCT03093324|168766250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Lower Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.4|0.403
84654621|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654622|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
84654623|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654624|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
84681630|NCT01358526|169100427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 30%||||0.0006
84654625|NCT01681472|169045468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84681631|NCT01358526|169100428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 50%||||0.0018
84681632|NCT02298192|169100469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.|Treatment Contrast|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.||0.28|-0.04|0.012
84681633|NCT00240487|169100530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome variable is the mean PaO2/FiO2 in each group after 8 hours of study participation to determine whether timing of treatment with nitric oxide impacts outcome (immediate treatment versus delayed treatment).|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratios between the two groups will help to determine whether order of therapy (immediate treatment with nitric oxide versus delayed treatment with nitric oxide) impacts outcomes.||||>0.05
84681634|NCT02621931|169100531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.15||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-1.15|-2.46|<0.0001
84681635|NCT02621931|169100531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.45||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||-1.45|-2.76|<0.0001
84681636|NCT02621931|169100533|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.97||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-2.48|<0.0001
84681637|NCT02621931|169100533|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.09||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-2.61|<0.0001
84654626|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1796
84654627|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3243
84654628|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0263
84654629|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
84681638|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/placebo/placebo to Placebo||||<0.0001
84681639|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/225/225 to Placebo||||<0.0001
84681640|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
84681641|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
84681642|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
84681643|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
84681644|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
84654630|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2041
84654631|NCT01681472|169045469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0061
84654632|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84681645|NCT02621931|169100534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
84681646|NCT02621931|169100535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84681647|NCT02621931|169100535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84654633|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654634|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654635|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654636|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654637|NCT01681472|169045470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654638|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
84654639|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654640|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0227
84654641|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654642|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0933
84654643|NCT01681472|169045471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654644|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
84654645|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654646|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
84654647|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654648|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0043
84654649|NCT01681472|169045472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654650|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654651|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654652|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84681648|NCT02621931|169100536|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.73||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.73|-2.95|<0.0001
84654653|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84507590|NCT03093324|168766250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Diarrhea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.6|0.261
84654654|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654655|NCT01681472|169045473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654656|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654657|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654658|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654659|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0668
84654660|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0502
84654661|NCT01681472|169045474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
84654662|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0011
84654663|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654664|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654665|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654666|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.6691
84507591|NCT00992407|168766289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Personal and Social Performance (PSP) Scale Score at Week 52||6.3|-7.5|0.8595
84507592|NCT00992407|168766290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Score at Week 52||12.2|-9.6|0.8118
84507593|NCT00992407|168766299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.8|||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline in Psychosocial Well-being Index (PWI) Score at Week 52||24.8|-4.8|0.1768
84507594|NCT00992407|168766300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|12.2|||Student's t-test|||||12.2|-12.8|0.9569
84507595|NCT00992407|168766301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-5.5|0.5294
84507596|NCT02396381|168766330|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|1.1|5.09|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of HDL-C for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||5.09|1.10|<0.001
84507597|NCT02396381|168766331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.717|-0.123|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of WBC for THS-use is lower than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≥ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \< 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||-0.123|-0.717|0.001
84507598|NCT02396381|168766332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.28||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|96.875|0.145|2.42|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of FEV1 for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||2.42|0.145|0.008
84654667|NCT01681472|169045475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654668|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
84654669|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84507599|NCT02396381|168766333|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|2.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.426|6.04|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of sICAM-1 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||6.04|-0.426|0.030
84507600|NCT02396381|168766334|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|4.74||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-7.5|15.6|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 11-DTX-B2 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||15.6|-7.5|0.193
84654670|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0640
84654671|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654672|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1213
84654673|NCT01681472|169045476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654674|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1791
84654675|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4945
84654676|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
84654677|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5990
84654678|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0303
84654679|NCT01681472|169045477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0107
84654680|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654681|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654682|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
84654683|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0125
84654684|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0017
84681649|NCT02621931|169100537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84681650|NCT02621931|169100537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84681651|NCT02621931|169100538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||0.0004
84681652|NCT02621931|169100538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
84681653|NCT00920426|169100546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.547|-1.632||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.632|-2.547|<0.001
84681654|NCT00920426|169100572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-1.436||ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.436|-2.173|<0.001
84681655|NCT00920426|169100573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84681656|NCT01292603|169100584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the ratio of Ctrough was used. The non-inferiority limit corresponds to a maximal 20 percent (%) loss in Ctrough which is considered acceptable given the high variability and range of Ctrough data, with an 80% power and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.269|1.852|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.852|1.269|
84681657|NCT01292603|169100585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.242|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.242|0.979|
84681658|NCT01292603|169100586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.792|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||0.792|0.653|
84681659|NCT01292603|169100587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|14.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.215|19.755|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||19.755|11.215|
84681660|NCT01292603|169100588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.139|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.139|0.895|
84681661|NCT02479412|169100689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05697||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08626|0.1401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||0.1401|-0.08626|0.6379
84681662|NCT02479412|169100689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05663||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03645|0.1885|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs.PBO||0.1885|-0.03645|0.1827
84681663|NCT02479412|169100689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05679||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03494|0.2606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2606|0.03494|0.0108
84681664|NCT02479412|169100690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||1.528|-11.24|0.1342
84681665|NCT02479412|169100690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.075|-16.75|0.0016
84681666|NCT02479412|169100690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-8.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-8.319|-21.18|<0.0001
84681667|NCT02479412|169100691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.139||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.06|-3.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||-3.642|-24.06|0.0084
84681668|NCT02479412|169100691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-4.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.149|-24.37|0.0062
84681669|NCT02479412|169100691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-9.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-9.689|-30.10|0.0002
84681670|NCT02479412|169100692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05856||0.6036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08579|0.1468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.1468|-0.08579|0.6036
84681671|NCT02479412|169100692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05869||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09912|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1340|-0.09912|0.7670
84681672|NCT02479412|169100692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05874||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03943|0.2728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2728|0.03943|0.0093
84681673|NCT02479412|169100693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05377||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1415|0.07213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.07213|-0.1415|0.5207
84681674|NCT02479412|169100693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05336||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07778|0.1342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1342|-0.07778|0.5983
84681675|NCT02479412|169100693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05371||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04501|0.1684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1684|-0.04501|0.2538
84681676|NCT02479412|169100694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05743||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1367|0.09144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.09144|-0.1367|0.6945
84681677|NCT02479412|169100694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05755||0.9957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1146|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1140|-0.1146|0.9957
84681678|NCT02479412|169100694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05774||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04637|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1830|-0.04637|0.2398
84654685|NCT01681472|169045478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5286
84654686|NCT01681472|169045479|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.21666||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.6063
84654687|NCT01681472|169045479|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.54039||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.2105
84654688|NCT01681472|169045479|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27618||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5079
84654689|NCT01681472|169045479|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68223||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.0913
84654690|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.38298||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.3964
84654691|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27018||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.5175
84654692|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.02188||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.9590
84654693|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.45404||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3061
84654694|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34905||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3967
84654695|NCT01681472|169045480|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.07937||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.8518
84654696|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.73743||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0586
84654697|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.44757||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.2661
84654698|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.03292||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.9506
84681679|NCT02479412|169100695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.877||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|22.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||22.01|-1.335|0.0819
84654699|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.09033||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8315
84654700|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.76502||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in adjacent mucosa||||0.0451
84654701|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34496||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.4027
84654702|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.66295||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.1513
84654703|NCT01681472|169045481|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.36854||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3690
84654704|NCT01681472|169045482|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23512||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5751
84654705|NCT01681472|169045482|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.02576||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.9672
84654706|NCT01681472|169045482|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68778||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0594
84654707|NCT01681472|169045482|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11512||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8281
84654708|NCT01681472|169045483|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||pearson|||||||0.0451
84654709|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.42972||||0.3359|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.3359
84654710|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.75404||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.0307
84654711|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.7073||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.1160
84654712|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.47193||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.2377
84654713|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88128||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0087
84654714|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58502||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.1277
84654715|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.89976||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0146
84654716|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11497||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.7863
84681680|NCT02479412|169100695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.427|16.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||16.93|-6.427|0.3741
84681681|NCT02479412|169100695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7481|24.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||24.29|0.7481|0.0374
84654717|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.97624||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0002
84654718|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88682||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0033
84654719|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.64743||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.1645
84681682|NCT02479412|169100696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.039|26.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||26.43|5.039|0.0044
84681683|NCT02479412|169100696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.419||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.534|25.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||25.06|3.534|0.0098
84681684|NCT02479412|169100696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.459||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.068|30.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||30.75|9.068|0.0004
84681685|NCT02479412|169100697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7189|0.03179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.03179|-0.7189|0.0723
84681686|NCT02479412|169100697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8631|-0.1073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||-0.1073|-0.8631|0.0124
84681687|NCT02479412|169100697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|-0.4224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4224|-1.183|<0.0001
84681688|NCT02479412|169100698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5159|-0.09836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09836|-0.5159|0.0044
84681689|NCT02479412|169100698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3927|0.02789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.02789|-0.3927|0.0883
84681690|NCT02479412|169100698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.2205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.2205|-0.6397|<0.0001
84681691|NCT02479412|169100699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09139||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.01638|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.01638|-0.3466|0.0741
84681692|NCT02479412|169100699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09204||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2736|0.09201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.09201|-0.2736|0.3265
84681693|NCT02479412|169100699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09176||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|-0.07092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.07092|-0.4354|0.0070
84681694|NCT02479412|169100700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7414|-0.09563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09563|-0.7414|0.0116
84681695|NCT02479412|169100700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1628||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5027|0.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1438|-0.5027|0.2732
84681696|NCT02479412|169100700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.091|-0.4411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4411|-1.091|<0.0001
84681697|NCT02479412|169100701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04982||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2057|-0.007755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.007755|-0.2057|0.0349
84681698|NCT02479412|169100701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05015||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.01756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.01756|-0.1817|0.1052
84681699|NCT02479412|169100701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05044||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3028|-0.1025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.1025|-0.3028|0.0001
84681700|NCT02479412|169100702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08779|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||1.258|0.08779|0.0247
84681701|NCT02479412|169100702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2965||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1607|1.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||1.017|-0.1607|0.1521
84681702|NCT02479412|169100702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2987||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3483|1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||1.535|0.3483|0.0022
84681703|NCT02479412|169100706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|272.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.43|312.05|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||312.05|237.43|<0.0001
84681704|NCT02479412|169100706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|676.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|580.91|786.95|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||786.95|580.91|<0.0001
84681705|NCT02479412|169100707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|337.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|290.8|392.43|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||392.43|290.80|<0.0001
84681706|NCT02479412|169100707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|964.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|816.13|1140.13|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||1140.13|816.13|<0.0001
84681707|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681708|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681709|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
84681710|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681711|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681712|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681713|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681714|NCT05585307|169100783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681715|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681716|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681717|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681718|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84654720|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.17664||||0.6756|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.6756
84654721|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.94364||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0014
84654722|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.43194||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2852
84654723|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58419||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2234
84654724|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.9584||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0002
84654725|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.38987||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.3873
84654726|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.25891||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.5358
84654727|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.777||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.0691
84507601|NCT02396381|168766335|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|6.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.216|13.3|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 8-epi-PGF2α will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||13.3|-0.216|0.018
84654728|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.00322||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.9940
84654729|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.93711||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0018
84654730|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.46883||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.2413
84654731|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.09737||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.8544
84654732|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.78928||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0199
84654733|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.82963||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0209
84654734|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.16724||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.6922
84654735|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.14436||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.7850
84654736|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74757||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0330
84654737|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.32113||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.4825
84654738|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.3716||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.3647
84654739|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.20955||||0.6903|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.6903
84654740|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74459||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.0341
84654741|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.50966||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.2426
84654742|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.67853||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.0643
84654743|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.05531||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.9171
84654744|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.59183||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.1222
84654745|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.8104||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0271
84654746|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.86266||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0058
84654747|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.71666||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1090
84654748|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.55508||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1533
84654749|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.318||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.4870
84654750|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23312||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.5785
84654751|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.0245||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.9632
84681719|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681720|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84654752|NCT01681472|169045484|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.64565||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.0838
84654753|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.7|
84654754|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-5.13|-0.79||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-0.79|-5.13|
84654755|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53||||||90.0|-7.7|-3.36||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-3.36|-7.70|
84654756|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||||90.0|-1.77|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||2.57|-1.77|
84681721|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84507602|NCT02396381|168766336|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|33.7|51.9|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of Total NNAL will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||51.9|33.7|<0.001
84507603|NCT02396381|168766337|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|24.5|39.0|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis will test if the mean level of COHb for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||39|24.5|<0.001
84507604|NCT03197064|168766338|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.35
84681722|NCT05585307|169100784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84681723|NCT02647359|169100804|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.76||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.914|43.434||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age and baseline Maximum Reading Speed (both eyes) as covariates, and treatment as a factor.||43.434|-21.914|0.4868
84681724|NCT04642638|169100815|OTHER||Difference in median|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% confidence interval (CI).|||6.70|0.00|
84681725|NCT04642638|169100815|OTHER||Difference in median|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.8|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||17.80|3.30|
84681726|NCT04642638|169100815|OTHER||Difference in median|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||0.00|-10.00|
84681727|NCT04642638|169100816|OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.632|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||3.632|1.720|
84681728|NCT04642638|169100816|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.7|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||5.700|2.638|
84681729|NCT04642638|169100816|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.893|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons|||0.893|0.512|
84681730|NCT02415400|169100846|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin = 1.2|||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value for NI test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 1) Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
84681731|NCT02415400|169100846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
84681732|NCT02415400|169100847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.23|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||2.23|1.58|<0.0001
84507605|NCT03197064|168766338|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.47
84507606|NCT03197064|168766338|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.066
84681733|NCT02415400|169100848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
84681734|NCT02415400|169100849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||0.94|0.75|0.0033
84681735|NCT02415400|169100850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||1.20|0.96|0.2219
84681736|NCT02415400|169100851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.13|0.75|0.4370
84681737|NCT02415400|169100852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.07|0.70|0.1742
84507607|NCT03197064|168766339|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.72
84507608|NCT03197064|168766339|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.72
84654757|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||||90.0|-3.54|0.8||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||0.80|-3.54|
84654758|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||||90.0|-1.16|3.18||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.18|-1.16|
84654759|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||||90.0|-2.81|1.53||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||1.53|-2.81|
84654760|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||||90.0|0.32|4.66||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||4.66|0.32|
84654761|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||||90.0|-3.95|0.39||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||0.39|-3.95|
84654762|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||||90.0|-9.68|-5.34||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-5.34|-9.68|
84654763|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47||||||90.0|1.3|5.64||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||5.64|1.30|
84654764|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||||90.0|-1.04|3.3||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||3.30|-1.04|
84654765|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.70|
84654766|NCT00795145|169045496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||||90.0|-0.37|3.97||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.97|-0.37|
84654767|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||||90.0|1.1|5.44||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||5.44|1.10|
84654768|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|4.66|9.0||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||9.00|4.66|
84654769|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.27||||||90.0|8.1|12.44||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||12.44|8.10|
84654770|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84||||||90.0|7.67|12.01||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||12.01|7.67|
84654771|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||||90.0|7.23|11.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||11.58|7.23|
84715128|NCT04508309|169176884|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.344|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.344|0.933|
84715129|NCT04508309|169176885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.635|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.635|1.070|
84715130|NCT03621371|169176903|OTHER||F-test|9.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84654772|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||||90.0|4.87|9.22||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||9.22|4.87|
84654773|NCT00795145|169045497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||||90.0|4.35|8.69||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||8.69|4.35|
84654774|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||90.0|-5.54|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||2.57|-5.54|
84654775|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45||||||90.0|-11.51|-3.4||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-3.40|-11.51|
84654776|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||||90.0|-9.81|-1.7||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-1.70|-9.81|
84654777|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||||90.0|-4.97|3.13||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||3.13|-4.97|
84654778|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64||||||90.0|-9.69|-1.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||-1.58|-9.69|
84654779|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||||90.0|-6.34|1.77||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||1.77|-6.34|
84654780|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||||90.0|-4.64|3.47||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.47|-4.64|
84654781|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||||90.0|-7.54|0.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||0.57|-7.54|
84654782|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19||||||90.0|-16.24|-8.13||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-8.13|-16.24|
84654783|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.39||||||90.0|-18.44|-10.33||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-10.33|-18.44|
84654784|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||||90.0|-6.24|1.87||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||1.87|-6.24|
84715131|NCT05875467|169176945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
84715132|NCT05875467|169176946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.928
84715133|NCT05875467|169176947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.022
84715134|NCT05875467|169176948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84715135|NCT05764525|169176968|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares mean|6.938||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|11.731|||ANOVA|||||11.731|2.145|0.0047
84715136|NCT03334630|169176971|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control composite SAE freedom rate of 93.5%, 226 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -6.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0779||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.24% = 0.0324|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.0779|-0.0132|<0.0001
84654785|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||||90.0|-2.95|5.15||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||5.15|-2.95|
84654786|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||||90.0|-3.94|4.17||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||4.17|-3.94|
84654787|NCT00795145|169045498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||||90.0|-1.37|6.73||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||6.73|-1.37|
84681738|NCT02270450|169100853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|"A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of good days between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management."||||0.50
84654788|NCT01696071|169045509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.038|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 QD - Tio R2.5 BID|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.034|-0.038|
84654789|NCT01696071|169045510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||95.0|-0.032|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.052|-0.032|
84654790|NCT01696071|169045511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.05|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.022|-0.050|
84507609|NCT03197064|168766339|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.78
84654791|NCT01696071|169045512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.051|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.023|-0.051|
84654792|NCT01696071|169045513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||95.0|-0.06|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.068|-0.060|
84654793|NCT01696071|169045514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.035|-0.044|
84654794|NCT01696071|169045515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.048|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.042|-0.048|
84654795|NCT01696071|169045516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.047|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.034|-0.047|
84654796|NCT01696071|169045517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.07|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.032|-0.070|
84654797|NCT01696071|169045518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.03|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.111|-0.030|
84654798|NCT01696071|169045519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.658||||95.0|-8.651|5.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||5.873|-8.651|
84654799|NCT06934993|169045537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
84654800|NCT06934993|169045538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In all cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
84654801|NCT06934993|169045538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
84654802|NCT06934993|169045538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
84654803|NCT06934993|169045539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
84654804|NCT06934993|169045539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
84654805|NCT06934993|169045540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.04
84507610|NCT03197064|168766340|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.93
84507611|NCT03197064|168766340|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.39
84654806|NCT06934993|169045540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.679
84654807|NCT06934993|169045540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.011
84654808|NCT05147428|169045541|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||Log Rank|||For the primary analysis, we combined all three targeted medication classes (antipsychotics, sedative/hypnotics, or strong anticholinergics). We calculated Kaplan-Meier curves and performed log-rank testing, and estimated hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazards modeling, censoring at death or disenrollment from the health plan, or at the end of the 6-month study observation period, whichever came first. The index date for the survival analysis was the end of the 3-month blackout period.||1.04|0.94|0.76
84654809|NCT05147428|169045542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.33
84654810|NCT05147428|169045543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.55
84654811|NCT05147428|169045544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.47
84654812|NCT05147428|169045545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
84654813|NCT05147428|169045547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.19
84654814|NCT05147428|169045548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.46
84654815|NCT05147428|169045549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.79
84654816|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|93.78||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||93.78|76.77|
84654817|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.22|105.79||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||105.79|88.22|
84654818|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.59|99.25||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.25|85.59|
84654819|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|98.39||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.39|82.03|
84654820|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|104.9||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||104.90|90.53|
84654821|NCT02400333|169045610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.83|103.74||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||103.74|90.83|
84654822|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.33|99.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.99|90.33|
84654823|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.94|101.21||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||101.21|89.94|
84654824|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|98.98||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.98|90.53|
84654825|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.56|90.94|
84654826|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.87|100.33||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.33|91.87|
84654827|NCT02400333|169045611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.08|100.17||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.17|93.08|
84654828|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.27|99.89||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.89|90.27|
84654829|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.81|100.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.99|89.81|
84654830|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26|98.73||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.73|90.26|
84654831|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.36|98.42||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.42|91.36|
84654832|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.78|99.82||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.82|91.78|
84654833|NCT02400333|169045612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.26|99.87||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.87|93.26|
84507612|NCT03197064|168766340|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.08
84654834|NCT02785432|169045623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84654835|NCT02785432|169045624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84654836|NCT02785432|169045625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84654837|NCT02785432|169045626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84654838|NCT00283400|169045637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc comparison of outcomes in dosage tier 1 vs dosage tier 2.||||14.1|0.65|<0.05
84654839|NCT01292746|169045638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 sided t-test for correlated samples.||||||<0.05
84654840|NCT00680017|169045656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 primary efficacy endpoint comparison."|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The null hypothesis was that percent change in triglycerides (TG) from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in TG from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 98% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in TG.||||<0.001
84654841|NCT00680017|169045657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 secondary endpoint comparison."|ANCOVA|P-value obtained from an ANCOVA with corresponding baseline value as the covariate and an effect for treatment group.||The null hypothesis was that percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 82% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in HDL-C.||||<0.001
84654842|NCT01153347|169045676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.24||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.24|-2.96|1.000
84654843|NCT01153347|169045676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.57|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.57|-2.67|1.000
84654844|NCT01153347|169045676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.04|-2.26|1.000
84654845|NCT01153347|169045677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.60|0.64|0.967
84654846|NCT01153347|169045677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.43|0.57|0.670
84507613|NCT03197064|168766341|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.42
84654847|NCT01153347|169045677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.38|0.54|0.544
84654848|NCT01153347|169045678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.53|0.55|0.730
84654849|NCT01153347|169045678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.53|0.671
84654850|NCT01153347|169045678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.29|0.45|0.308
84654851|NCT01153347|169045679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.15|0.42|0.905
84681739|NCT02270450|169100854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the length of the initial hospital stay between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.64
84681740|NCT02270450|169100855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares NG tube use vs no NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.60
84654852|NCT01153347|169045679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.14|0.41|0.864
84654853|NCT01153347|169045679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.25|0.43|0.958
84654854|NCT01153347|169045680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.73|0.48|0.778
84654855|NCT01153347|169045680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.24|0.66|0.532
84654856|NCT01153347|169045680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.64|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.64|0.44|0.633
84654857|NCT01153347|169045681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.31|0.46|0.949
84654858|NCT01153347|169045681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.40|0.72|0.253
84654859|NCT01153347|169045681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.08|0.37|0.763
84654860|NCT01153347|169045682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.55|-2.51|0.207
84654861|NCT01153347|169045682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.91|-2.16|0.427
84654862|NCT01153347|169045682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-1.96|0.591
84654863|NCT01153347|169045683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.551||95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.551
84654864|NCT01153347|169045683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.17|-0.36|0.487
84654865|NCT01153347|169045683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.23|0.780
84654866|NCT01153347|169045684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.53|0.62|0.908
84654867|NCT01153347|169045684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.67|0.67|0.803
84654868|NCT01153347|169045684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.03|0.41|0.066
84654869|NCT01153347|169045685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|0.442|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.442|-2.091|0.202
84654870|NCT01153347|169045685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|1.055|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.055|-1.487|0.738
84507614|NCT03197064|168766341|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.37
84654871|NCT01153347|169045685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|0.767|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.767|-1.787|0.433
84654872|NCT01153347|169045686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.18|0.097
84654873|NCT01153347|169045686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.11|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-1.29|0.882
84654874|NCT01153347|169045686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.23|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.23|-0.19|0.100
84654875|NCT01153347|169045687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.69|0.303
84654876|NCT01153347|169045687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.65|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.65|-1.26|0.793
84654877|NCT01153347|169045687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-1.70|0.762
84654878|NCT01153347|169045688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.92|-2.65|0.339
84654879|NCT01153347|169045688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.89|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.89|-2.70|0.321
84654880|NCT01153347|169045688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.43|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.43|-2.20|0.680
84654881|NCT01153347|169045689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.58|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.58|-2.23|0.737
84654882|NCT01153347|169045689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.33|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.33|-2.52|0.547
84654883|NCT01153347|169045689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.01|-1.89|0.953
84507615|NCT03197064|168766341|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.49
84507616|NCT03197064|168766342|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.386
84507617|NCT03197064|168766342|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.388
84507618|NCT03197064|168766342|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.247
84654884|NCT01153347|169045690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|0.864||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.864|-2.069|1.000
84654885|NCT01153347|169045690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|0.96||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.960|-2.004|1.000
84654886|NCT01153347|169045690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|1.896||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.896|-1.095|1.000
84654887|NCT01153347|169045691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.59|-0.56|0.953
84654888|NCT01153347|169045691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.64|0.868
84654889|NCT01153347|169045691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.66|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.66|-0.50|0.792
84654890|NCT01153347|169045692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.48|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.48|-0.54|0.915
84507619|NCT01884025|168766369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-Value: 0.55||Change in total BADS score.||||0.59
84507620|NCT01884025|168766369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.03||Change in Activation Subscale||||0.98
84507621|NCT01884025|168766369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"DF: 18~1 Value: -0.04"||Change in Avoidance/Rumination Subscale||||0.96
84507622|NCT01884025|168766369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.31||Change in Work/School Impairment Subscale||||0.21
84654891|NCT01153347|169045692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.51|0.972
84654892|NCT01153347|169045692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.84|-0.21|0.237
84654893|NCT01153347|169045693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.87|0.213
84654894|NCT01153347|169045693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.28|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.28|-0.80|0.343
84654895|NCT01153347|169045693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.55|0.971
84654896|NCT01153347|169045694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.224|5.431|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||5.431|-1.224|0.215
84654897|NCT01153347|169045694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|4.062|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.062|-2.624|0.673
84681741|NCT02270450|169100856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of days of NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.47
84507623|NCT01884025|168766369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.99||Change in Social Impairment Subscale||||0.34
84654898|NCT01153347|169045694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|1.494|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.494|-5.248|0.275
84654899|NCT01153347|169045695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.11|-0.28|0.412
84654900|NCT01153347|169045695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.19|0.928
84654901|NCT01153347|169045695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.033
84654902|NCT01153347|169045696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.28|-0.10|0.353
84654903|NCT01153347|169045696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.23|-0.16|0.721
84654904|NCT01153347|169045696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.666
84654905|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0459|0.0329||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0329|-0.0459|0.747
84654906|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0529|0.027||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0270|-0.0529|0.524
84654907|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0543|0.0267||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0267|-0.0543|0.502
84654908|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.00|-2.10|0.345
84654909|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||5.56|-2.65|0.486
84654910|NCT01153347|169045697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.94||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.94|-5.39|0.564
84654911|NCT01153347|169045698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.59|-4.48|0.350
84654912|NCT01153347|169045698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.73|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-4.41|0.393
84654913|NCT01153347|169045698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.62|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.62|-2.59|0.745
84654914|NCT05096221|169045727|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.74|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.74|-0.45|0.2441
84654915|NCT05096221|169045728|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Re-randomization test|||||||< 0.0001
84654916|NCT05096221|169045729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.23|-1.06|0.0025
84654917|NCT05096221|169045730|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0048
84654918|NCT05096221|169045731|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|1.7|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.70|-8.28|0.1942
84654919|NCT05096221|169045732|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.01|-0.71|0.0412
84654920|NCT05096221|169045733|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|0.00|0.0402
84654921|NCT05096221|169045734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4272
84654922|NCT05096221|169045735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.17|-0.24|0.7324
84654923|NCT05096221|169045736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.06|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.06|-0.67|0.6554
84654924|NCT02478632|169045743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.27|0.014
84654925|NCT02478632|169045744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|0.07|0.039
84654926|NCT02478632|169045747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated the difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip T-scores|||0.16|0.02|0.016
84654927|NCT02478632|169045747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.15||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip Z-score.|||0.15|0.01|0.026
84654928|NCT02478632|169045747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR for lumbar spine T-score.|||0.23|0.00|0.049
84654929|NCT02478632|169045747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in lumbar spine Z-score.|||0.27|0.03|0.013
84654930|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.81|||||The analysis refers to INSTI and total hip.|||4.81|-3.51|
84654931|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.81|||||The analysis refers to NNRTI and total hip.|||2.81|0.39|
84654932|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.38|||||this analysis refers to PI and total hip|||3.38|-1.39|
84654933|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.03|||||this analysis refers to INSTI and lumbar spine.|||7.03|0.67|
84654934|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.76|||||this analysis refers to NNRTI and lumbar spine|||2.76|-0.26|
84654935|NCT02478632|169045750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.77|||||this analysis refers to PI and lumbar spine|||3.77|-3.00|
84654936|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.30|-0.26|
84507624|NCT01884025|168766370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.33||||||0.75
84654937|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.19|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.19|0.03|
84654938|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.24|-0.09|
84654939|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.37|-0.25|
84654940|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.18|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.18|0.02|
84654941|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.21|-0.14|
84654942|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.71|0.01|
84654943|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.25|-0.03|
84654944|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.33|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.33|-0.30|
84654945|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.74|0.03|
84654946|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.26|-0.02|
84654947|NCT02478632|169045751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.34|-0.26|
84654948|NCT04678661|169045756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for covariates of age, race, baseline BMI, and baseline hemoglobin A1c.||||||.207
84654949|NCT04678661|169045757|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent t-test||||.011
84654950|NCT04678661|169045758|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
84654951|NCT04678661|169045759|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.579
84654952|NCT04678661|169045760|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84654953|NCT04678661|169045761|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.269
84654954|NCT04678661|169045764|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84654955|NCT04678661|169045765|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84654956|NCT04678661|169045766|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.647
84681742|NCT02270450|169100857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for nausea severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.001
84654957|NCT04645953|169045786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7024|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance value of ≤ 0.05.||||0.7024
84654958|NCT04645953|169045786|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. Patients summarized by actual treatment received. Formal statistical tests (ANOVA, when performed) were 2-sided t-tests with a significance value of 0.05.||||||0.2051|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2051
84654959|NCT04645953|169045787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
84654960|NCT04645953|169045787|SUPERIORITY|Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
84507625|NCT01884025|168766371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||Change in overall physical activity frequency were compared between the two groups.||||0.72
84654961|NCT04645953|169045788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8299||||||Prior Episode Duration 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8299
84654962|NCT04645953|169045788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2346||||||Prior Episode Duration 3 mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2346
84654963|NCT04645953|169045788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
84654964|NCT04645953|169045788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 3mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
84654965|NCT04645953|169045789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3847
84654966|NCT04645953|169045789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1785|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1785
84654967|NCT04645953|169045790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9732|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9732
84654968|NCT04645953|169045790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1471
84654969|NCT04645953|169045791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1337|||||||ANOVA|||The RINVR is an 8-part questionnaire with each item scored from 0-4, for a total scoring range of 0-32. A lower score indicates less distress related to nausea, vomiting, and retching. The data shown is collected within the first 24 hours after the first at-home dose.||||0.1337
84654970|NCT04645953|169045791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7224|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7224
84654971|NCT04645953|169045792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their abdominal pain, nausea, and anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
84507626|NCT01884025|168766371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.39||Change in moderate physical activity frequency between the two groups.||||0.70
84507627|NCT01884025|168766372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.77||Change in the physical health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
84654972|NCT04645953|169045792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
84654973|NCT04645953|169045793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9664
84654974|NCT04645953|169045793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7919
84654975|NCT01773733|169045839|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84654976|NCT03345914|169045871|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|27.97||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kilograms (kg) or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||27.97|8.28|= 0.0004
84654977|NCT03345914|169045871|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|31.45||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||31.45|11.36|< 0.0001
84654978|NCT03345914|169045872|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.95|51.82||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||51.82|28.95|< 0.0001
84654979|NCT03345914|169045872|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.54|54.15||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||54.15|31.54|< 0.0001
84654980|NCT03345914|169045873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-23.24||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.24|-36.33|< 0.0001
84654981|NCT03345914|169045873|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.06|-26.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.82|-40.06|< 0.0001
84654982|NCT03345914|169045874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.76|-23.26||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.26|-38.76|< 0.0001
84507628|NCT01884025|168766372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.76||Change in the mental health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
84507629|NCT01884025|168766373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||||||0.72
84507630|NCT01884025|168766374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.15||||||0.88
84507631|NCT01884025|168766375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.83||||||.08
84507632|NCT01884025|168766376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Chi Squared 1.98|Chi-squared|||||||.16
84654983|NCT03345914|169045874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.47|-20.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-20.82|-36.47|< 0.0001
84654984|NCT03345914|169045875|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|57.42||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||57.42|35.3|< 0.0001
84654985|NCT03345914|169045875|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.88|50.51||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.51|27.88|< 0.0001
84654986|NCT03345914|169045876|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.47|56.61||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||56.61|35.47|< 0.0001
84654987|NCT03345914|169045876|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.86|49.21||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||49.21|27.86|< 0.0001
84654988|NCT03345914|169045877|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.68|50.72||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.72|28.68|< 0.0001
84681743|NCT02270450|169100857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for vomiting severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.008
84507633|NCT01884025|168766377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||t value: .19|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
84507634|NCT01884025|168766378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||t value: .54|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
84507635|NCT01884025|168766379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||t value: -1.17|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.26
84681744|NCT02270450|169100857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for bloating severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.04
84681745|NCT02270450|169100857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for pain severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.01
84507636|NCT01884025|168766380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||t value: 1.85|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
84654989|NCT03345914|169045877|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.77|58.01||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||58.01|37.77|< 0.0001
84654990|NCT03345914|169045878|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|32.38||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||32.38|13.65|< 0.0001
84654991|NCT03345914|169045878|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|44.37||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||44.37|24.6|< 0.0001
84654992|NCT03345914|169045879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|3.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|4.624||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.624|2.097|< 0.0001
84654993|NCT03345914|169045879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.957|4.36||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.36|1.957|< 0.0001
84654994|NCT03345914|169045880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|3.182||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||3.182|1.631|< 0.0001
84654995|NCT03345914|169045880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.908||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.908|1.481|< 0.0001
84507637|NCT02059993|168766393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to assess a minimum reduction of 5 ± 5 mm Hg in systolic BPafter CPAP treatment, assuming an alpha error of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.||||<0.05
84507638|NCT02059993|168766394|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84507639|NCT02655237|168766396|NON_INFERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between Relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group (Relugolix 40 mg group - leuprorelin group), using Farrington and Manning (FM) method. If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was greater or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, then the non-inferiority of Relugolix 40 mg to leuprorelin was concluded.|Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.098|8.346|||Farrington and Manning (FM)||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||8.346|-10.098|0.0013
84507640|NCT02655237|168766397|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.953|44.134|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||44.134|20.953|
84654996|NCT03345914|169045881|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.272|-13.161||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-13.161|-22.272|< 0.0001
84654997|NCT03345914|169045881|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.479|-14.289||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-14.289|-23.479|< 0.0001
84654998|NCT03345914|169045882|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-24.48||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-24.48|-36.3|< 0.0001
84654999|NCT03345914|169045882|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.57|-26.59||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.59|-38.57|< 0.0001
84655000|NCT03345914|169045883|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-2.99||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.99|-5.62|< 0.0001
84655001|NCT03345914|169045883|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.89||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.89|-5.57|< 0.0001
84681746|NCT02270450|169100857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for constipation severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.007
84681747|NCT02270450|169100858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares ability to eat between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.52
84507641|NCT02655237|168766398|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.337|-2.883|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-2.883|-18.337|
84655002|NCT03345914|169045884|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-6.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.31|-9.96|< 0.0001
84655003|NCT03345914|169045884|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.43||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.43|-10.13|< 0.0001
84655004|NCT03345914|169045885|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.984|-1.831||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.831|-2.984|< 0.0001
84655005|NCT03345914|169045885|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|-1.599||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.599|-2.754|< 0.0001
84655006|NCT03345914|169045886|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|-2.796||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.796|-5.434|< 0.0001
84655007|NCT03345914|169045886|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.298|-2.657||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.657|-5.298|< 0.0001
84655008|NCT03345914|169045887|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.37|||=|0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.779|-0.962||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.962|-5.779|= 0.0061
84681748|NCT02270450|169100859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by pathway (randomized vs Patient Choice) was used to estimate the effect of treatment assignment (surgery vs non-surgical management) on overall survival.||1.09|0.45|0.12
84507642|NCT02655237|168766399|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.418|-5.118|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-5.118|-21.418|
84655009|NCT03345914|169045887|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.02|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.414|-0.629||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.629|-5.414|= 0.0133
84655010|NCT03345914|169045888|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.734|-2.272||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.272|-6.734|< 0.0001
84655011|NCT03345914|169045888|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.641|-3.207||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-3.207|-7.641|< 0.0001
84655012|NCT03345914|169045889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-4.8|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|2.87||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.87|-12.49|= 0.222
84655013|NCT03345914|169045889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-7.3|||=|0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-0.03||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.03|-14.51|= 0.0508
84655014|NCT03345914|169045892|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.96||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level||-1.96|-9.49|= 0.003
84655015|NCT03345914|169045892|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level|Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||||-1.31|-8.8|= 0.0082
84655016|NCT02527161|169045955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84655017|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Pain||||<0.0001
84507643|NCT02655237|168766400|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-12.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.778|-4.33|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-4.330|-19.778|
84655018|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Pain||||0.0013
84655019|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3316|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Pain||||0.3316
84655020|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Pain||||0.3366
84655021|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9826|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Pain||||0.9826
84655022|NCT02527161|169045956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9276|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Pain||||0.9276
84655023|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Symptoms||||<0.0001
84655024|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.0736
84655025|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4675|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.4675
84655026|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.0229
84655027|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9968|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.9968
84655028|NCT02527161|169045957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7761|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.7761
84655029|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS ADL||||<0.0001
84655030|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS ADL||||0.0212
84655031|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7173|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS ADL||||0.7173
84655032|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1834|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.1834
84655033|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9957|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS ADL||||0.9957
84655034|NCT02527161|169045958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.9999
84655035|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS S\&R||||<0.0001
84655036|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS S\&R||||0.0522
84655037|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS S\&R||||0.1696
84655038|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS S\&R||||0.6942
84655039|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
84655040|NCT02527161|169045959|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
84655041|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS QoL||||<0.0001
84655042|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS QoL||||0.0135
84655043|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS QoL||||0.0829
84655044|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS QoL||||0.1729
84655045|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9687|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS QoL||||0.9687
84655046|NCT02527161|169045960|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS QoL||||>0.9999
84655047|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
84655048|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
84655049|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 PCS||||0.8189
84655050|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9845|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 PCS||||0.9845
84655051|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 PCS||||0.7500
84655052|NCT02527161|169045961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 PCS||||0.1376
84655053|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 week VAS Rest||||<0.0001
84655054|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Rest||||0.0031
84655055|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Rest||||0.2990
84655056|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9832|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Rest||||0.9832
84655057|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9991|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Rest||||0.9991
84655058|NCT02527161|169045962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Rest||||>0.9999
84655059|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks VAS Mob||||<0.0001
84655060|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Mob||||0.0062
84655061|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Mob||||0.3730
84655062|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8499|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Mob||||0.8499
84655063|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Mob||||>0.9999
84655064|NCT02527161|169045963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9958|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Mob||||0.9958
84655065|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3493|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 MCS||||0.3493
84655066|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 MCS||||0.4800
84655067|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
84655068|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
84655069|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
84655070|NCT02527161|169045964|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
84655071|NCT02527161|169045965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KSS Pain||||<0.0001
84655072|NCT02527161|169045965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9465|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Pain||||0.9465
84655073|NCT02527161|169045965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Pain||||0.1215
84655074|NCT02527161|169045965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Pain||||0.9912
84655075|NCT02527161|169045965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8952|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Pain||||0.8952
84655076|NCT02527161|169045966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Function||||<0.0001
84655077|NCT02527161|169045966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Function||||0.0266
84655078|NCT02527161|169045966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Function||||0.9880
84681749|NCT01968213|169100867|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.451|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.451|0.295|<0.0001
84655079|NCT02527161|169045966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Function||||0.9699
84655080|NCT02527161|169045966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8575|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 years KSS Function||||0.8575
84655081|NCT02527161|169045967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.8581
84655082|NCT02527161|169045967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7664|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.7664
84655083|NCT02527161|169045967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7022|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.7022
84655084|NCT02527161|169045967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KSS Range of Motion||||>0.9999
84655085|NCT02527161|169045967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2943|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.2943
84655086|NCT02527161|169045968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year Forgotten Joint Score||||0.0161
84655087|NCT02527161|169045968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year Forgotten Joint Score||||<0.0001
84655088|NCT02218320|169045971|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84655089|NCT02609828|169045974|SUPERIORITY||Differences in least square (LS) mean|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.04|-1.52|0.0381
84655090|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.00|-0.72|0.0497
84655091|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.16|0.0092
84655092|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.11|-1.37|0.0218
84655093|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.58|0.0154
84655094|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.36|0.1289
84655095|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.43|0.2110
84655096|NCT02609828|169045975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.49|0.2049
84655097|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-0.73|0.1103
84655098|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.19|-1.26|0.0084
84655099|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4:ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.10|-1.39|0.0236
84655100|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.59|0.0155
84655101|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.00|-1.52|0.0505
84655102|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.08|-1.52|0.0761
84681750|NCT01968213|169100868|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.354|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.45|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.450|0.278|<0.0001
84655103|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.21|-1.70|0.1263
84681751|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0011|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for all patients||||0.0011
84681752|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for all patients||||<0.0001
84681753|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
84681754|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-44.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
84681755|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1524|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for non-hyperfilterers||||0.1524
84681756|NCT01392560|169100875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7585|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for non-filterers||||0.7585
84655104|NCT02609828|169045976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.76|0.1051
84655105|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.47|-1.47|0.3003
84655106|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.35|-2.03|0.1603
84681757|NCT02081846|169100876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.047
84681758|NCT02081846|169100877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
84681759|NCT02081846|169100878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.82
84681760|NCT02081846|169100879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
84681761|NCT02081846|169100880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
84655107|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.53|-2.13|0.2298
84655108|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.97|-1.93|0.5054
84655109|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.77||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||1.01|-2.10|0.4793
84655110|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.83|-1.83|0.4496
84681762|NCT02081846|169100881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
84681763|NCT02081846|169100882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.12
84681764|NCT00295750|169100910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|1.9||||||97.5|-1.8|5.7||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.7|-1.8|
84681765|NCT00295750|169100910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|0.9||||||97.5|-3.2|5.0||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.0|-3.2|
84681766|NCT00295750|169100911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84681767|NCT00295750|169100911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84681768|NCT00295750|169100912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84681769|NCT00295750|169100912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84681770|NCT00295750|169100914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
84655111|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.36|-2.77|0.1263
84655112|NCT02609828|169045977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.44|-2.54|0.1620
84655113|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.04|-2.17|0.0575
84655114|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.70|-3.22|0.0031
84655115|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.06|-2.82|0.0410
84681771|NCT00295750|169100914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
84681772|NCT00295750|169100914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
84681773|NCT00295750|169100914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
84681774|NCT00295750|169100915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.8||||||95.0|79.8|90.1|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.1|79.8|
84681775|NCT00295750|169100915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|91.1||||||95.0|85.9|94.5|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||94.5|85.9|
84681776|NCT00295750|169100915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.9||||||95.0|79.9|90.2|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.2|79.9|
84681777|NCT02512575|169100971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.887||||||||0.887|0.807|
84681778|NCT02512575|169100974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|0.991||||||||0.991|0.869|
84681779|NCT02512575|169100975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.978||||||||0.978|0.856|
84681780|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11||||||||1.11|0.960|
84681781|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.08||||||||1.08|0.929|
84681782|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.14||||||||1.14|0.987|
84681783|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.13||||||||1.13|0.983|
84681784|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.15||||||||1.15|0.995|
84681785|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.25||||||||1.25|1.09|
84655116|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.68|-2.44|0.2598
84681786|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.24||||||||1.24|1.07|
84681787|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.29||||||||1.29|1.11|
84681788|NCT02512575|169100976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27||||||||1.27|1.11|
84681789|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.26||||||||1.26|0.872|
84681790|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.26||||||||1.26|0.874|
84507644|NCT02655237|168766400|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.916|6.819|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.819|-11.916|
84681791|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|1.1||||||||1.10|0.745|
84681792|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.1||||||||1.10|0.762|
84681793|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.728|1.05||||||||1.05|0.728|
84681794|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|1.03||||||||1.03|0.716|
84681795|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.21||||||||1.21|0.842|
84655117|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.85|-2.38|0.3426
84655118|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.26|-2.65|0.1034
84681796|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.22||||||||1.22|0.846|
84681797|NCT02512575|169100977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.572|0.825||||||||0.825|0.572|
84681798|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.12||||||||1.12|0.861|
84681799|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.961||||||90.0|0.846|1.09||||||||1.09|0.846|
84681800|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.07||||||||1.07|0.829|
84681801|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|0.979||||||||0.979|0.757|
84681802|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|0.964||||||||0.964|0.745|
84681803|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.05||||||||1.05|0.815|
84681804|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.03||||||||1.03|0.798|
84681805|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.02||||||||1.02|0.784|
84681806|NCT02512575|169100978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.691||||||90.0|0.608|0.785||||||||0.785|0.608|
84681807|NCT03858803|169100995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681808|NCT03858803|169100996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681809|NCT03858803|169100997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681810|NCT03858803|169100998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681811|NCT03858803|169100999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84655119|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.21|-3.60|0.0290
84655120|NCT02609828|169045978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-3.31|0.0600
84655121|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.18|0.41|0.8054
84655122|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.98|0.22|0.9292
84655123|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9565|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9565
84655124|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.36|0.81|0.1429
84655125|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.014||95.0|1.4|19.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.31|1.40|0.0140
84655126|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9450
84655127|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9489
84655128|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.39|0.78|0.1932
84655129|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.74|1.15|0.0254
84655130|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||24.16|1.03|0.0455
84655131|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
84655132|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.72|0.90|0.0969
84655133|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||11.74|1.58|0.0043
84655134|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|26.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||26.75|1.13|0.0352
84655135|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
84655136|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.52|0.83|0.1471
84681812|NCT03858803|169101000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681813|NCT03858803|169101001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681814|NCT03858803|169101002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681815|NCT03858803|169101003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681816|NCT03858803|169101004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84655137|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.22|1.04|0.0405
84681817|NCT03858803|169101005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
84681818|NCT00435370|169101017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84655138|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||12.83|0.80|0.0993
84655139|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||43.64|0.51|0.1726
84681819|NCT03387852|169101057|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.423|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.88|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 300 mg vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||0.88|0.203|=0.0214
84655140|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.74|0.91|0.0918
84655141|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.82|0.94|0.0704
84655142|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.01|0.56|0.3569
84655143|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.79|0.44|0.3062
84655144|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.85|0.88|0.1058
84655145|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.14|0.79|0.1571
84655146|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.24|0.65|0.2454
84655147|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.46|0.24|0.8867
84655148|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.21|0.95|0.0689
84655149|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.44|0.98|0.0568
84655150|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.46|0.78|0.1268
84655151|NCT02609828|169045981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.00|0.25|0.7971
84681820|NCT03387852|169101057|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.52|||=|0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.057|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 + Dupilumab vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||1.057|0.256|=0.0709
84681821|NCT02194621|169101060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
84681822|NCT02194621|169101061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
84681823|NCT02194621|169101062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
84681824|NCT02194621|169101063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.002
84681825|NCT02474927|169101148|OTHER|Descriptive (Pre-Post)||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.36
84681826|NCT02474927|169101149|OTHER|Descriptive (pre-post)||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.16
84507645|NCT02655237|168766400|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.141|12.529|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||12.529|-3.141|
84681827|NCT00866840|169101159|OTHER|||||||||||||||||No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|||
84681828|NCT02625623|169101184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.41|0.88|0.8078
84681829|NCT02625623|169101185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.21|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||2.21|1.36|1.0000
84681830|NCT02625623|169101187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The treatment arms were compared by 1-sided CMH test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||||0.8764
84681831|NCT02352948|169101213|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.93|0.42|
84507646|NCT02655237|168766400|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.433|10.605|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||10.605|-3.433|
84507647|NCT02655237|168766400|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.319|11.245|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||11.245|-3.319|
84655152|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.70|0.43|0.6658
84655153|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|31.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||31.35|0.30|0.3443
84655154|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9527
84655155|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.50|0.92|0.0757
84655156|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|22.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||22.42|0.91|0.0659
84655157|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9380
84655158|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
84655159|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.59|0.89|0.0914
84655160|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.61|1.08|0.0359
84655161|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9538
84655162|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
84655163|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.80|1.22|0.0143
84655164|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|13.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.74|1.28|0.0176
84655165|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|18.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||18.06|0.69|0.1298
84655166|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
84655167|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.67|0.99|0.0527
84655168|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.12|1.02|0.0457
84655169|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|19.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.76|0.77|0.0994
84655170|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.86|0.07|0.6977
84655171|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.75|0.82|0.1460
84655172|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.01|0.92|0.0742
84655173|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.91|0.42|0.5565
84655174|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.5623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||10.35|0.28|0.5623
84655175|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.47|1.27|0.0116
84655176|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.70|0.96|0.0615
84655177|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.80|0.59|0.3316
84655178|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.33|0.19|0.9946
84507648|NCT02655237|168766401|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.786|-9.509|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-9.509|-20.786|
84507649|NCT02655237|168766401|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.291|-3.246|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||-3.246|-17.291|
84507650|NCT02655237|168766401|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.996|5.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.209|-6.996|
84507651|NCT02655237|168766401|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.964|5.076|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||5.076|-6.964|
84507652|NCT02655237|168766401|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.206|7.935|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||7.935|-6.206|
84655179|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.76|1.33|0.0083
84681832|NCT02352948|169101213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.05|0.61|0.109
84655180|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.88|1.00|0.0513
84655181|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.58|0.71|0.1528
84655182|NCT02609828|169045982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|9.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.65|0.21|0.7251
84681833|NCT02352948|169101214|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.04|0.49|
84681834|NCT02352948|169101214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.01|0.59|0.056
84507653|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.381|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||0.381|0.015|
84507654|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.333|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||0.333|-0.135|
84507655|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.323|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||0.323|-0.189|
84507656|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.251|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||0.251|-0.275|
84507657|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.18|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||0.180|-0.386|
84507658|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||0.209|-0.385|
84655183|NCT02609828|169045983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.19|-0.28|0.7045
84655184|NCT02609828|169045983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0402
84655185|NCT02609828|169045983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.02|-0.67|0.0637
84655186|NCT02609828|169045983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.20|-0.53|0.3804
84655187|NCT02609828|169045983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.27|-0.47|0.5894
84655188|NCT02609828|169045984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||1.69|0.09|0.2033
84655189|NCT02609828|169045984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.41|0.41|0.7627
84655190|NCT02609828|169045984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.43|0.44|0.6894
84655191|NCT02609828|169045984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.83|0.47|0.5905
84655192|NCT02609828|169045984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.35|0.38|0.8354
84681835|NCT02352948|169101215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.30|0.74|0.885
84655193|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Frequency Composite Score: Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.38|-0.49|0.8069
84655194|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.7127
84655195|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.23|-0.57|0.3933
84655196|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.71|0.5869
84655197|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.21|-1.05|0.1814
84655198|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.46|-0.14|0.2822
84655199|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.23|0.5795
84655200|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.22|-0.42|0.5486
84655201|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.24|0.3692
84655202|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.30|0.4724
84655203|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.64|-0.30|0.4770
84507659|NCT02655237|168766402|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|-0.199|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow up (up to Week 28)||-0.199|-0.787|
84507660|NCT02655237|168766403|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.174|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 6 to 12||0.174|-0.032|
84507661|NCT02655237|168766403|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.197|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2 to 6||0.197|-0.089|
84507662|NCT02655237|168766403|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.086|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 18 to 24||0.086|-0.060|
84507663|NCT02655237|168766403|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.099|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|For 6 Weeks Before the Final Dose (up to Week 24)||0.099|-0.063|
84507664|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.43|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||1.43|-6.39|
84655204|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.38|0.9791
84655205|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.74|-0.27|0.3574
84655206|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.42|-0.77|0.5607
84655207|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.47|-0.68|0.7143
84655208|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.45|-0.28|0.6381
84655209|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.25|0.7181
84655210|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.31|-0.38|0.8378
84655211|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.52|0.7950
84655212|NCT02609828|169045987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.62|0.6719
84655213|NCT02096731|169045999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.37|0.92|
84655214|NCT02096731|169046000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.10|0.69|
84655215|NCT02096731|169046001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.3|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.30|1.03|
84655216|NCT02096731|169046002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.36|0.81|
84655217|NCT02096731|169046003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.50|1.23|
84655218|NCT01751178|169046027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.041||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.041|-0.081|<0.0001
84681836|NCT02352948|169101215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||1.11|0.56|0.153
84681837|NCT02352948|169101216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The z-test statistic is the ratio of log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance is estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||||0.063
84681838|NCT02352948|169101217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.12|0.68|0.282
84681839|NCT02352948|169101217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||0.92|0.49|0.011
84681840|NCT02352948|169101218|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.1|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||10.10|1.61|
84681841|NCT02352948|169101218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||5.94|1.10|0.037
84681842|NCT02352948|169101218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.89|0.51|0.923
84681843|NCT02352948|169101218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.61|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||8.61|0.91|0.109
84681844|NCT02352948|169101222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.85|0.49|0.002
84681845|NCT05054816|169101370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections.||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
84681846|NCT05054816|169101371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
84681847|NCT05054816|169101372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
84681848|NCT05054816|169101373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between two conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
84507665|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-1.31|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||-1.31|-6.68|
84507666|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.36|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||2.36|-1.99|
84655219|NCT01751178|169046027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.050|-0.090|<0.0001
84655220|NCT01751178|169046028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
84655221|NCT01751178|169046028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.06|-0.11|<0.0001
84507667|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.28|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||3.28|-0.68|
84655222|NCT01751178|169046029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.62||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque scores.||-0.62|-0.98|<0.0001
84655223|NCT01751178|169046029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adusted Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.68||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque Scores.||-0.68|-1.04|<0.0001
84655224|NCT01751178|169046030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.69||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two treatments.||-0.69|-1.07|<0.0001
84655225|NCT01751178|169046030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.78||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.78|-1.16|<0.0001
84507668|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.32|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||2.32|-1.80|
84681849|NCT05054816|169101374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
84681850|NCT04098939|169101378|EQUIVALENCE|Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|1.04|0.26|<0.05
84681851|NCT02985866|169101389|SUPERIORITY|The first co-primary end point was superiority of CLC over SAP in terms of CGM-measured time below 70 mg/dL. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
84681852|NCT02985866|169101390|NON_INFERIORITY|The second co-primary end point was noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 180 mg/dL, with a noninferiority limit of 5%. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
84681853|NCT02985866|169101391|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681854|NCT02985866|169101392|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681855|NCT02985866|169101393|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681856|NCT02985866|169101394|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681857|NCT02985866|169101395|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681858|NCT02985866|169101396|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84681859|NCT02985866|169101397|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
84714581|NCT04103580|169174926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.150
84714582|NCT04103580|169174926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.635
84655226|NCT03285984|169046033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.15||From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group, period and subject (random effect), and subject-level baseline and period-level baseline|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||-0.15|-0.27|<.0001
84655227|NCT02149719|169046139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84655228|NCT02805972|169046150|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference across the Naloxone and placebo conditions.~The alternative hypothesis is that the cortisol value would be higher in the Naloxone condition than in the placebo condition."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61||If the Winsorized value is excluded from analyses altogether, the P value is .012|t-test, 2 sided|Cortisol was log transformed for the statistical test, and the reported mean difference was exponentiated back to the original units of nmol/L below.||We compared cortisol values at 55 minutes, within person, across conditions. We Winsorized one participant's values for the placebo visit where values were between 2-4x above the 99th percentile value in the data and then log-transformed the data.||1.61|0.98|.067
84655229|NCT00939640|169046155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs|||||||.17
84655230|NCT00939640|169046156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests|||||||.02
84655231|NCT00939640|169046161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
84655232|NCT00939640|169046162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
84655233|NCT00806351|169046241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
84655234|NCT00806351|169046242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
84655235|NCT00806351|169046243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|63.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||63.9|-97.5|
84655236|NCT00806351|169046244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|55.0||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.0|-97.5|
84655237|NCT00806351|169046249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.6|31.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||31.9|-90.6|
84655238|NCT00306189|169046255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.76|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.24|5.76|<0.0001
84655239|NCT00306189|169046255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|4.1|<0.0001
84655240|NCT00306189|169046255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.06|7.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.49|5.06|<0.0001
84655241|NCT00087607|169046256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.35|0.978
84655242|NCT00087607|169046257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 4: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.58|-0.03|0.080
84655243|NCT00087607|169046257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 8: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.27|0.688
84655244|NCT00087607|169046261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as the only factor in the model.||||0.304
84655245|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.1||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.5|-8.6|0.2814
84655246|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.3||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.6|-18.9|0.0214
84655247|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.7||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.0|-20.3|0.0315
84655248|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-7.4||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.6|-17.4|0.1467
84655249|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.8||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|3.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.2|-16.9|0.1823
84655250|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.1||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||8.0|-12.1|0.6871
84655251|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.4||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||9.5|-10.4|0.9295
84655252|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.6|0.6593
84681860|NCT03561090|169101475|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.055||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.281|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.281|-0.172|0.6346
84681861|NCT03561090|169101476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.035||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.221|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.221|-0.151|0.7101
84681862|NCT03561090|169101477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|3.7|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||3.7|-14.7|
84681863|NCT03561090|169101477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.17|0.56|0.2531
84681864|NCT03561090|169101478|SUPERIORITY||Proportion ratio|0.938||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.382||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Proportion Ratio (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI: Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.382|0.636|0.7445
84507669|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.52|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.52|-1.48|
84681865|NCT03561090|169101478|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Difference in Proportion Ratio|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.074|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI).|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.074|-0.103|
84681866|NCT04386096|169101506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84681867|NCT04386096|169101508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.30
84681868|NCT04386096|169101508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.71
84681869|NCT04386096|169101509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.29
84681870|NCT04386096|169101509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.19
84681871|NCT04386096|169101510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84681872|NCT04386096|169101511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84681873|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Seek||||0.10
84681874|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Express||||0.51
84681875|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Seek||||0.84
84681876|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Express||||0.93
84681877|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Joint/Options||||0.43
84507670|NCT02655237|168766404|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||5.77|1.08|
84681878|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Seek||||0.94
84681879|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Express||||0.79
84681880|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Seek||||0.61
84681881|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Express||||0.10
84681882|NCT04386096|169101513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Joint/Options||||0.98
84681883|NCT04402866|169101516|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.142||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.846|||Van Elteren test||Common Odds Ratio (TD-0903 vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% Wald confidence interval (CI) were obtained from the proportional odds regression model of RFD adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.||1.846|0.706|0.6137
84681884|NCT04402866|169101517|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.95|20.92|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||20.92|-21.95|0.962
84681885|NCT04402866|169101518|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.922|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 7||1.922|0.692|0.5918
84655253|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.7|0.6637
84655254|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2760
84655255|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2779
84655256|NCT00087607|169046263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.8||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.4|-6.8|0.5697
84655257|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.5|-1.4|0.9940
84655258|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.5||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-3.2|0.7133
84655259|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.6||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||0.5|-7.8|0.0864
84655260|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.1||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.8|-10.0|0.1713
84655261|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.6||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-11.4|0.1888
84655262|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.4|-14.7|0.1080
84655263|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.5||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.2|-13.1|0.3099
84655264|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.4||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.6|-12.4|0.4595
84655265|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.0||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.4|-15.4|0.2144
84655266|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|4.3|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.3|-15.1|0.2779
84655267|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.7||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||7.1|-12.6|0.5876
84655268|NCT00087607|169046264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.8||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.1|-14.7|0.3399
84655269|NCT00087607|169046269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|The P-value is determined from a repeated measures analysis with terms for treatment group, baseline, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction.||Week 1: The treatment groups were compared using repeated measures analysis||||0.024
84655270|NCT00087607|169046269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 8: The treatment groups were compared using Repeated measures analysis||||<0.001
84655271|NCT02015754|169046279|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Differences of p-value \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||Multivariate Cox-regression analysis to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival from baseline characteristics. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals calculated as measure of association.||||0.004
84655272|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGF immediately post treatment||||||0.6257|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6257
84655273|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGF at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.4143|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4143
84655274|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGFR1 immediately post treatment.||||||0.583|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.583
84655275|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGFR1 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.0012|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.0012
84655276|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGFR2 immediately post treatment.||||||0.1353|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1353
84655277|NCT02015754|169046286|OTHER|VEGFR2 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.2163|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2163
84655278|NCT00289783|169046309|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
84655279|NCT00289783|169046309|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
84681886|NCT04402866|169101518|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.105||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.878|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 14|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|1.878|0.651|0.6978
84714583|NCT03852472|169175027|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|-8.4||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.4||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|-18.7|0.1321
84507671|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.34|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.34|-1.66|
84507672|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.77|-0.37|
84655280|NCT00289783|169046309|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.26|0.8|
84655281|NCT00289783|169046310|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.62|0.93|
84655282|NCT00289783|169046310|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.29|0.74|
84655283|NCT00289783|169046310|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.04|0.6|
84655284|NCT00289783|169046311|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||2.27|1.14|
84655285|NCT00289783|169046311|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.97||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.97|0.99|
84714584|NCT03852472|169175027|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|4.3||||0.4503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.5||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|-6.9|0.4503
84714585|NCT03852472|169175028|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||2.9|-1.7|0.5784
84714586|NCT03852472|169175028|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2253
84714587|NCT02675777|169175073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84714588|NCT02675777|169175074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84714589|NCT04324359|169175080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on the normal approximation test for differences between proportions.||||||<0.001
84714590|NCT04324359|169175081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Other: z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.066
84714591|NCT04324359|169175082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.716
84507673|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.61|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||3.61|-1.84|
84714592|NCT04324359|169175083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.528
84714593|NCT04324359|169175084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.766
84655286|NCT00289783|169046311|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.21|0.62|
84655287|NCT00289783|169046312|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenC (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||13.8|10.4|
84655288|NCT00289783|169046312|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values)|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.4||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||1.4|1.4|
84655289|NCT00289783|169046313|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenY (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||13.8|10.2|
84655290|NCT00289783|169046313|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values).|GMT ratio|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|21.1||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||21.1|21.1|
84655291|NCT00289783|169046317|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 150 mIU/mL, in initially seronegative subjects (\<150 mIU/mL), for anti-measles antibody is ≥-5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.06||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||3.06|-2.56|
84655292|NCT00289783|169046318|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority)|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.57||||||To demonstrate that, following a fourth dose, the immune response to Hib polysaccharide (PRP) in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of Menhibrix vaccine and a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine coadministered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines was non-inferior to the corresponding immune response in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of ActHIB vaccine and a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines.||3.57|-1.78|
84655293|NCT00289783|169046319|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with a seroconversion ≥28 ED50, in subjects with initial anti-mumps antibody \< 28 ED50, for anti-mumps antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.98||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M--M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||0.98|-2.16|
84655294|NCT00289783|169046320|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroresponse ≥10 IU/ml, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 4 IU/ml), for anti-rubella antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.73||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||1.73|-0.57|
84655295|NCT00289783|169046321|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 1:5 dilution, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 1:5), for anti-varicella antibody is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.56||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with M-M-R II vaccine in terms of immunogenicity to varicella as measured by fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen (FAMA).||1.56|-0.78|
84655296|NCT01594281|169046402|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-5.4|0.0344
84655297|NCT01594281|169046402|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-3.8|0.3809
84655298|NCT01594281|169046402|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-1.0|0.2113
84655299|NCT01594281|169046403|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.2|0.0081
84655300|NCT01594281|169046403|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-2.0|0.7494
84655301|NCT01594281|169046403|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|0.4|0.0175
84655302|NCT01594281|169046404|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.0|0.0495
84655303|NCT01594281|169046404|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-2.5|0.2767
84655304|NCT01594281|169046404|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-7.9|0.3641
84655305|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.749|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||2.749|0.080|0.4019
84655306|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|5.471|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.471|0.614|0.2772
84655307|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.622|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||3.622|0.55|0.4731
84655308|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.068|0.155|0.065
84655309|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|4.361|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||4.361|0.229|1.000
84655310|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.314||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|3.173|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||3.173|0.031|0.3261
84655311|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|4.253|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||4.253|0.104|0.6680
84655312|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.842||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.283|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||9.283|0.870|0.0838
84655313|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.729|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.729|0.263|0.4116
84655314|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.977|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.977|0.195|0.4197
84681887|NCT04402866|169101518|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.388|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 21|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|2.388|0.702|0.3990
84655315|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
84655316|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|17.127|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||17.127|0.062|0.9839
84655317|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.858|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||6.858|0.294|0.6630
84655318|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|5.444||P-value was calculated as a point estimate.|Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.444|0.441|0.4941
84655319|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.477||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.231|0.185|0.1259
84655320|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.773||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.913|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||4.913|0.640|0.2710
84655321|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
84655322|NCT01594281|169046405|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.282||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|33.171|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||33.171|0.325|0.3140
84655323|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.026|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||3.026|0.327|0.9918
84655324|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.607||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.765|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.765|0.209|0.3595
84655325|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.830|0.204|0.3787
84655326|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.9097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|6.806|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||6.806|0.116|0.9097
84655327|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.341||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.925|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.925|0.060|0.2230
84655328|NCT01594281|169046406|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.383||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|2.177|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||2.177|0.068|0.2792
84655329|NCT01594281|169046407|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-19.3|||ANCOVA|||||-19.3|-62.1|0.0003
84714594|NCT04324359|169175085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.619
84714595|NCT04898673|169175086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-6.08|<0.001
84714596|NCT04898673|169175087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.51|||ANOVA|||||3.51|-2.31|0.670
84714597|NCT04898673|169175088|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.50|-7.00|0.026
84714598|NCT04898673|169175089|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-4.02|0.411
84714599|NCT05778695|169175090|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.02||0.875|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.875
84714600|NCT05778695|169175090|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.166||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.026|12.026||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.026|-16.026|0.739
84714601|NCT05778695|169175091|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84714602|NCT06182033|169175220|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.84
84714603|NCT06182033|169175221|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.727
84714604|NCT06182033|169175222|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the assertiveness subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.205
84655330|NCT01594281|169046407|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-44.2|0.0357
84655331|NCT01594281|169046407|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|17.8||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|39.3|||ANCOVA|||||39.3|-3.7|0.1034
84655332|NCT01594281|169046408|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.1|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-81.1|0.0007
84655333|NCT01594281|169046408|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-58.4|0.0542
84655334|NCT01594281|169046408|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|22.8||||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|52.3|||ANCOVA|||||52.3|-6.7|0.1288
84655335|NCT01673867|169046427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.92|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank||HR = Nivolumab over docetaxel|||0.89|0.59|0.0015
84655336|NCT03166735|169046450|OTHER||Predicted mean daily dose in mg|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||non-linear regression||The model fit used power of mean variance estimates (POM) to account for heterogeneity.|D10: Estimated dose reaching \<=10% activity the first time.||||
84655337|NCT03166735|169046452|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0212||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0212
84655338|NCT03166735|169046453|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.127||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1270
84655339|NCT03166735|169046454|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.3324||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.3324
84655340|NCT03166735|169046455|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.129||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1290
84655341|NCT03166735|169046456|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0042||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0042
84655342|NCT03166735|169046457|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0728||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0728
84655343|NCT01543958|169046458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.87
84655344|NCT01543958|169046459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.62
84655345|NCT01803204|169046546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||GEE|||||||1.00
84655346|NCT01803204|169046547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effects Model|||||||<0.01
84655347|NCT01803204|169046548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effect Model|||||||0.81
84655348|NCT04613375|169046549|OTHER||Adjusted VE|16.91||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|44.52|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.|||44.52|-24.43|0.3685
84655349|NCT04613375|169046550|OTHER||Adjusted VE|49.27||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|76.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||76.37|-8.9|0.0817
84655350|NCT04613375|169046550|OTHER||Adjusted VE|4.72||||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|39.87|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||39.87|-50.96|0.8367
84655351|NCT04613375|169046550|OTHER||Adjusted VE|12.02||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|59.59|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||59.59|-91.53|0.7469
84655352|NCT04613375|169046556|OTHER||Adjusted VE|25.96||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|52.42|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|||52.42|-15.21|0.1827
84655353|NCT04613375|169046557|OTHER||Adjusted VE|68.86||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|89.0|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||89|11.86|0.028
84655354|NCT04613375|169046557|OTHER||Adjusted VE|7.97||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|43.43|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||43.43|-49.73|0.738
84655355|NCT04613375|169046557|OTHER||Adjusted VE|30.06||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.86|71.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||71.37|-70.86|0.4327
84655356|NCT01172522|169046581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||P values above 0.05 is considered statistically insignificant in this study.|||||=1
84655357|NCT01350492|169046582|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.939||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.680
84655358|NCT01350492|169046583|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mulitvariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.854
84507674|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.79|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||2.79|-2.61|
84507675|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.41|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||3.41|-1.74|
84655359|NCT01350492|169046584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.0002
84655360|NCT01350492|169046585|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.857||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.41
84655361|NCT01350492|169046586|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.828||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.16
84655362|NCT01350492|169046587|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.919||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.66
84681888|NCT04402866|169101518|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|2.299|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 28||2.299|0.605|0.6445
84507676|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.71|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.71|-2.07|
84507677|NCT02655237|168766405|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.09|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||1.09|-3.96|
84655363|NCT02319837|169046588|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.607||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.05.|Log Rank|||||0.607|0.296|<0.0001
84507678|NCT03679741|168766413|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 point difference between the test and control lenses with respect to overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||5.8|-1.9|
84655364|NCT02319837|169046589|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.631||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|0.871||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.871|0.456|0.0049
84655365|NCT02319837|169046590|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.141||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.033|<0.0001
84655366|NCT02319837|169046590|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.486||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.486|0.226|<0.0001
84655367|NCT02319837|169046591|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.488||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.488|0.263|<0.0001
84655368|NCT02319837|169046591|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|0.709||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.709|0.411|<0.0001
84655369|NCT02319837|169046593|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.690|0.284|0.0002
84655370|NCT02319837|169046593|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.920|0.409|0.0171
84655371|NCT02319837|169046594|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.0||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|20.7|<0.0001
84655372|NCT02319837|169046594|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|13.0|<0.0001
84655373|NCT02319837|169046595|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.5||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|15.2||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|-0.2|0.0439
84655374|NCT02319837|169046595|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-12.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-6.1||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.1|-19.8|0.0004
84655375|NCT02319837|169046596|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.8||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|1.7|0.0089
84655376|NCT02319837|169046596|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-5.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.6|-9.4|0.0326
84655377|NCT02319837|169046597|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.834|||Log Rank|||||0.834|0.577|<0.0001
84655378|NCT02319837|169046597|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|1.984|||Log Rank|||||1.984|1.381|<0.0001
84655379|NCT02319837|169046598|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.157|||Log Rank|||||0.157|0.051|<0.0001
84655380|NCT02319837|169046599|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.427|<0.0001
84655381|NCT02319837|169046599|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.488|<0.0001
84655382|NCT02319837|169046600|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.261||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.548|||Log Rank|||||0.548|0.125|0.0001
84655383|NCT02319837|169046600|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.226|0.0057
84655384|NCT02319837|169046601|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.894|0.4321
84655385|NCT02319837|169046601|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.904|0.3702
84655386|NCT02319837|169046602|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.357|||Log Rank|||||1.357|0.954|0.1567
84507679|NCT03679741|168766414|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|6.62|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects mode|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||6.62|2.27|
84507680|NCT03679741|168766415|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0074|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|-0.008|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effects|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the low luminance high contrast lighting condition.||-0.008|-0.037|
84655387|NCT02319837|169046602|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.168||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.981|0.0855
84655388|NCT00702689|169046622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.011
84655389|NCT00702689|169046624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
84655390|NCT00702689|169046625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84655391|NCT03993132|169046627|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.91|
84655392|NCT03993132|169046628|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.13|1.01|
84655393|NCT03993132|169046629|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.08|0.84|
84655394|NCT03993132|169046630|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.96|
84655395|NCT03993132|169046631|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.83|0.61|
84655396|NCT03993132|169046632|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.91|0.76|
84655397|NCT03993132|169046633|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
84681889|NCT04402866|169101519|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.06||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.63||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline age group (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||14.63|-4.50|0.3005
84681890|NCT03667053|169101520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test stratified by injection site and age group.||||<0.001
84655398|NCT03993132|169046634|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
84655399|NCT03993132|169046635|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
84655400|NCT03993132|169046636|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
84655401|NCT03993132|169046637|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.18|0.83|
84655402|NCT03993132|169046638|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.16|0.97|
84655403|NCT03993132|169046639|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.06|0.72|
84655404|NCT03993132|169046640|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.10|0.88|
84655405|NCT02993757|169046653|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.45||||||Antigen HPV-6||1.45|0.664|
84655406|NCT02993757|169046653|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.03||||||Antigen HPV-11||1.03|0.626|
84655407|NCT02993757|169046653|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.09||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.09|0.608|
84655408|NCT02993757|169046653|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.05||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.05|0.603|
84655409|NCT02993757|169046654|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.7||||||Serotype 1||1.70|0.574|
84655410|NCT02993757|169046654|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22||||||Serotype 2||1.22|0.500|
84655411|NCT02993757|169046654|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.23||||||Serotype 3||1.23|0.568|
84655412|NCT02993757|169046654|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.4||||||Serotype 4||1.40|0.813|
84655413|NCT01611155|169046668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84655414|NCT01611155|169046669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor subscale||||0.53
84655415|NCT01611155|169046669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||autonomic subscale||||0.89
84655416|NCT02229383|169046674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.54|-0.94|<0.001
84507681|NCT03679741|168766415|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|-0.02|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effect|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the high illumination low contrast lighting condition.||-0.020|-0.049|
84655417|NCT02229383|169046675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.85|-2.19|<0.001
84655418|NCT02229383|169046676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-16.45|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use (yes vs. no) as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.45|-39.07|<0.001
84655419|NCT02229383|169046677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
84655420|NCT02229383|169046678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.2|-4.1|0.074
84655421|NCT02229383|169046679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
84655422|NCT02229383|169046680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.4|-4.0|0.110
84655423|NCT05248867|169046685|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|59.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|63.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||63.9|54.7|<0.0001
84655424|NCT05248867|169046686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|65.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.4|54.9|<0.0001
84655425|NCT05248867|169046687|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|71.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.5|76.2||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.2|66.5|<0.0001
84507682|NCT03679741|168766416|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 90%|Mean Percentage of eyes|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|100.0|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|for correlated binary data||It was calculated that 65 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100.0|99.0|
84655426|NCT05248867|169046692|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.4|77.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||77.6|67.4|<0.0001
84655427|NCT05248867|169046693|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||49.3|34.5|<0.0001
84655428|NCT05248867|169046694|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|69.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|75.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||75.3|63.7|<0.0001
84655429|NCT05248867|169046695|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.0|51.3|<0.0001
84655430|NCT05248867|169046696|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|35.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||35.1|25.2|<0.0001
84655431|NCT05248867|169046697|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|40.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||40.9|30.5|<0.0001
84655432|NCT05248867|169046698|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||60.0|45.2|<0.0001
84655433|NCT05248867|169046699|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|66.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||66.1|51.1|<0.0001
84655434|NCT05248867|169046700|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.6|34.4|<0.0001
84655435|NCT05248867|169046701|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|76.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.3|63.7|<0.0001
84655436|NCT05248867|169046709|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|55.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||55.4|42.2|<0.0001
84655437|NCT05248867|169046710|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|50.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.4|38.0|<0.0001
84655438|NCT05263895|169046738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric means|90.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.85|102.65||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||102.65|79.85|
84655439|NCT05263895|169046738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|116.53||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.53|90.65|
84655440|NCT05263895|169046738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.03|161.69||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||161.69|118.03|
84655441|NCT05263895|169046738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|35.2||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||35.20|25.70|
84655442|NCT05263895|169046739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.46|103.51||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||103.51|80.46|
84655443|NCT05263895|169046739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.36|116.26||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.26|90.36|
84655444|NCT05263895|169046739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|136.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|160.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||160.27|117.09|
84655445|NCT05263895|169046739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|34.83||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||34.83|25.45|
84655446|NCT05263895|169046740|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|110.05||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||110.05|80.77|
84655447|NCT05263895|169046740|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.04|126.76||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||126.76|93.04|
84655448|NCT05263895|169046740|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|264.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|232.32|300.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||300.27|232.32|
84655449|NCT05263895|169046740|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.01|165.45||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||165.45|128.01|
84655450|NCT05764408|169046746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35||||||||1.35|0.49|
84655451|NCT05764408|169046747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.86||||||||1.86|0.39|
84655452|NCT05764408|169046748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84655453|NCT05764408|169046750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84655454|NCT05764408|169046751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.12||||||||16.12|0.07|
84681891|NCT03667053|169101521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Assessed at 30 minutes. Note that p-value was 0.0005 at 10 minutes and \<0.0001 at 15 and 20 minutes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group and injection site. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0073
84681892|NCT03667053|169101522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was \<0.0001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30, 20, 15, and 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84681893|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-3.0|
84681894|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-2.1|
84681895|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-1.4|
84681896|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-6.2|
84681897|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.3|
84507683|NCT03679741|168766417|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority cumulative odds ratio margin of 2 was used. This margin corresponds to no more than a 5% difference between the Test and Control lenses assuming the Control reference rate does not exceed 5%. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial hierarchical||Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 50 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods.||0.008|-0.004|
84655455|NCT00967668|169046754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables||All participants were included in outcomes analyses using intention-to-treat principles. A linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables was used.This statistical approach allows the use of data from all participants as long as the dependent variable is available for at least one time point. Each subject was included as a random intercept to adjust for within-person correlations.||||<0.05
84655456|NCT01709513|169046760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-24.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-24.2|-36.6|<0.0001
84655457|NCT01709513|169046761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-29.5|-40.7|<0.0001
84681898|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-0.7|
84655458|NCT01709513|169046762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.9|<0.0001
84655459|NCT01709513|169046763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-28.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.2|-38.0|<0.0001
84681899|NCT00515502|169101537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.7|-0.1|
84681900|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-2.47|
84681901|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.57|
84681902|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.26|-0.35|
84681903|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-4.11|
84681904|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.33|-1.44|
84681905|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|0.24|
84681906|NCT00515502|169101538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.02|0.34|
84507684|NCT03679741|168766418|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.1|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||8.1|3.1|
84655460|NCT01709513|169046764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-29.8|<0.0001
84655461|NCT01709513|169046765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-24.4|-32.1|<0.0001
84655462|NCT01709513|169046766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-20.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.8|-30.4|<0.0001
84655463|NCT01709513|169046767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-25.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.8|-33.9|<0.0001
84655464|NCT01709513|169046768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.0|-24.7|<0.0001
84655465|NCT01709513|169046769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-28.7|<0.0001
84655466|NCT01709513|169046770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-21.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.5|-29.9|<0.0001
84655467|NCT01709513|169046771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-17.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.7|-24.5|<0.0001
84655468|NCT01709513|169046772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||55.2|6.9|<0.0001
84655469|NCT01709513|169046773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|71.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.9|8.6|<0.0001
84655470|NCT01709513|169046774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|3022.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||3022.1|11.1|<0.0001
84655471|NCT01709513|169046775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|4759.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a LOCF approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||4759.3|16.5|<0.0001
84655472|NCT01709513|169046776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-11.8|-25.5|<0.0001
84655473|NCT01709513|169046777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.6|-3.8|=0.6997
84655474|NCT01034631|169046788|OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6625
84655475|NCT01890473|169046814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.01||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale (using log (Cmax) without a formal test.||1.01|0.815|
84655476|NCT01890473|169046815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.05||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log (AUC (0-T) without a formal test.||1.05|0.843|
84655477|NCT01890473|169046816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.07||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log AUC(INF) without a formal test.||1.07|0.888|
84655478|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using statistical analysis system (SAS) mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.95|-1.82|0.5330
84655479|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.85|-4.13|0.9532
84681907|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-5.0|
84681908|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-7.6|
84655480|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 12 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||6.18|-1.11|0.2493
84655481|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.59|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 2 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||1.60|-7.59|0.2801
84655482|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|3.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.39|-3.77|0.9288
84655483|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 6 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.58|-2.62|0.6459
84655484|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.48|0.63|0.0527
84655485|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|7.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.52|-0.95|0.1998
84655486|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 12 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||2.53|-4.22|0.6765
84655487|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 4 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.33|-2.35|0.6221
84655488|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 6 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.74|-1.11|0.3000
84655489|NCT00934089|169046846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.37|-3.85|0.9103
84655490|NCT00934089|169046848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|59.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.69|79.7|||Fisher Exact|||Photophobia: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||79.70|38.69|<0.001
84655491|NCT00934089|169046848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.56||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|7.68|||Fisher Exact|||Iritis: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||7.68|-14.80|0.612
84655492|NCT00934089|169046850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.42||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-127.05|22.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||22.22|-127.05|0.2450
84655493|NCT00934089|169046850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.51||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.89|90.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||90.91|-21.89|0.3068
84655494|NCT00934089|169046850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.69|101.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||101.67|-19.69|0.2632
84655495|NCT00934089|169046850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.84|47.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||47.64|-60.84|0.8373
84655496|NCT01945281|169046855|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|27.7|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||27.7|-24.3|
84655497|NCT01945281|169046856|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|22.6|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||22.6|-30.2|
84681909|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-2.2|
84655498|NCT00926328|169046866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84655499|NCT00926328|169046867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84655500|NCT02165215|169046892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|7.7||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-4.2|0.1942
84681910|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.7|
84507685|NCT03679741|168766419|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.5|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||5.5|-0.6|
84655501|NCT02165215|169046893|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|14.6||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|33.15||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.15|-5.55|0.1524
84655502|NCT02165215|169046894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|8.7||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|20.21||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.21|-3.26|0.1466
84655503|NCT02165215|169046895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|10.9||||0.3083||95.0|-9.72|30.49||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.49|-9.72|0.3083
84655504|NCT02165215|169046896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|14.4||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|26.28||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.28|1.84|0.0235
84655505|NCT02165215|169046897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|12.8||||0.0293||95.0|1.13|23.89||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.89|1.13|0.0293
84655506|NCT02165215|169046898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|19.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|33.11||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.11|5.16|0.0075
84655507|NCT02165215|169046899|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
84655508|NCT02165215|169046900|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
84655509|NCT02165215|169046901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.4|-5.3|0.0266
84655510|NCT02165215|169046902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.2|-2.2|0.0175
84655511|NCT02165215|169046903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.8||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||10.8|-6.6|0.6331
84655512|NCT01948947|169046924|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Week Post-Treatment||||<0.0001
84655513|NCT01948947|169046924|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Month Post-Treatment||||<0.001
84655514|NCT01948947|169046925|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Week post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84655515|NCT01948947|169046925|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84655516|NCT01948947|169046926|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84681911|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-7.7|
84655517|NCT01948947|169046926|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change in Baseline to 1-month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84655518|NCT01948947|169046927|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.033
84655519|NCT03535844|169046929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.49
84655520|NCT03535844|169046929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test (Week 0 and Week 16)||||||0.5672
84655521|NCT03535844|169046929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.788
84655522|NCT03535844|169046930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.67
84655523|NCT03535844|169046930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.8203
84655524|NCT03535844|169046930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.3882
84655525|NCT03535844|169046931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.08
84655526|NCT03535844|169046932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.7162
84655527|NCT03535844|169046932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||0.07
84655528|NCT03535844|169046932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||<0.05
84655529|NCT03535844|169046933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||<0.05
84655530|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change triglyceride values||||||0.4855
84655531|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change total cholesterol values||||||0.1393
84655532|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change LDL cholesterol values||||||0.2221
84655533|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change HDL cholesterol values||||||0.078
84655534|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||<0.05
84655535|NCT03535844|169046934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||0.7261
84655536|NCT03535844|169046935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of systolic blood pressure change values||||||0.1951
84655537|NCT03535844|169046935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of diastolic blood pressure change values||||||0.916
84655538|NCT03535844|169046936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of malondialdehyde change values||||||0.9882
84655539|NCT03535844|169046937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4408|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of body fat % change values||||||0.4408
84655540|NCT03535844|169046938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.1487
84655541|NCT03535844|169046939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9135
84655542|NCT03535844|169046940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.5859
84655543|NCT03535844|169046941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9379
84655544|NCT03535844|169046942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of change values||||||0.9717
84655545|NCT03535844|169046945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.7052
84655546|NCT03535844|169046945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations||||||0.07
84655547|NCT03535844|169046945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84655548|NCT03535844|169046946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9426||||||Independent t-test of change values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9426
84655549|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: All cases.|Wilcoxon Test||The relative difference between groups is based on the change from baseline values to the values collected at each of the three time points.|Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) in prostate cancers upon injection of Eovist. Subgroup analysis of CER in (i) Advanced Disease and (ii) Localized Disease||||0.0008
84655550|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.42||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Advanced Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.0039
84655551|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.475||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Local Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.084
84655552|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.25
84681912|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-11.2|
84655553|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.1602
84655554|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.29||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0078
84655555|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0039
84655556|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0046
84655557|NCT01867424|169046974|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0017
84655558|NCT01867424|169046976|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.137||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5665|0.3511|||Nonparametric Spearman correlation|The calculation of Spearman correlation is between baseline PSA and CER at 20 minutes post Eovist injection.||Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) with Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 20-minute timepoint.||0.3511|-0.5665|0.5761
84655559|NCT01867424|169046976|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.257||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6549|0.2526|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 40 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2526|-0.6549|0.3033
84655560|NCT01867424|169046976|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.2861||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6634|0.2071|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 60 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2071|-0.6634|0.2351
84655561|NCT01867424|169046976|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.47||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.111
84655562|NCT01867424|169046976|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.775||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.7738
84655563|NCT03416946|169046997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Post-op HKA angle|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
84655564|NCT02983825|169047016|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric matched-pairs||||||0.02|||||||Sign test|||"Within subject repeat analysis; V/Q mismatch (measured as degree of right shift in kPa) baseline vs best CPAP"||||0.02
84655565|NCT01776840|169047018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.59|0.011
84655566|NCT04457336|169047045|OTHER|Assessment of dose response for change from baseline in log 17-OHP after 12 weeks on double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment (Week 18). Results were obtained by using a repeated measures random coefficient mixed-effects model and are reported as the -2loglikelihood results for both the full (including interaction terms) and reduced (excluding interaction terms) models.||||||0.8051||||||Dose response p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|The result for the -2loglikelihood full model was -580.2550766 log(ng/dL) and -583.2846546 log(ng/dL) for the reduced model.||||||0.8051
84681913|NCT00515502|169101539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-5.9|
84681914|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|-6.23|
84681915|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.56|
84681916|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|6.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.07|-3.82|
84681917|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.69|-5.07|
84681918|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.38|-7.84|
84681919|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-7.97|
84655567|NCT01064310|169047112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|49.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.0|61.5||The p value indicates the difference in preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib treatment|Prescotts test||The estimated value indicates the difference in the percentage of participants who preferred pazopanib versus sunitinib. This difference is adjusted for sequence.|||61.5|37.0|<0.001
84655568|NCT03128411|169047151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||z-test, 1-sided|||With a sample size of 60 participants, study was powered at \>82% to test null hypothesis: true MMR rate at 12 months (48 weeks) is 25% versus alternative hypothesis: true MMR rate is 40% with one-sided alpha of 5%.||||<0.0001
84655569|NCT00345839|169047188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||p-value\<0.044 considered significant|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.112
84655570|NCT00345839|169047188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.02|0.85|
84655571|NCT00345839|169047189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.249
84655572|NCT00345839|169047189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.04|0.85|
84681920|NCT00515502|169101540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.02|-6.39|
84681921|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-5.1|
84681922|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-4.6|
84681923|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-0.0|
84681924|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.9|
84655573|NCT00345839|169047190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.800
84655574|NCT00345839|169047190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.19|0.79|
84655575|NCT00345839|169047191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.283
84655576|NCT00345839|169047191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.18|0.58|
84655577|NCT00345839|169047192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.034
84655578|NCT00345839|169047192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.99|0.68|
84655579|NCT00345839|169047193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.190
84655580|NCT00345839|169047193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.72|
84655581|NCT00345839|169047194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.277
84655582|NCT00345839|169047194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.80|
84655583|NCT00345839|169047195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.607
84681925|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-3.5|
84681926|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.1|-3.5|
84681927|NCT00515502|169101541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.4|1.0|
84655584|NCT00345839|169047195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.40|0.82|
84655585|NCT00345839|169047196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.218
84655586|NCT00345839|169047196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.75|
84655587|NCT00345839|169047197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||<0.001
84655588|NCT00345839|169047197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.54|0.36|
84655589|NCT01960400|169047213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||"The statistical signifiance level : p\<0.05. After treatment (T1) Pain severity p=0.065~Sub-scale:~* Present pain p=0.046\*~* Average pain p=0.381~* Most intense pain p=0.064~* Least intense pain p=0.142"|ANOVA|To assess the effectiveness of interventions (inter-group differences), a mixed-model ANOVA (time X group interaction) was used.||For the severity of pain, the calculations have revealed that only this pain now had an acceptable statistical power, of 77.1% after treatment (T1).||||0.065
84655590|NCT01960400|169047214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.049
84655591|NCT01960400|169047215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.035
84655592|NCT01960400|169047216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.046
84655593|NCT05544734|169047217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2).|||1.25|-1.85|0.69
84655594|NCT05544734|169047218|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|11.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6).|||11.85|-7.25|0.62
84655595|NCT01258582|169047279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the acceptance rates|-0.022||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.023|||Chi-squared|The difference in the acceptance rates was estimated along with 95% confidence intervals and tested using the chi-square test.||Sample size was chosen to detect a 10% difference in acceptance rates between two testing modality arms (90% power, 0.05 level of significance).||0.023|-0.067|0.34
84655596|NCT01227434|169047280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Compared to historical estimates of PFS-6 months. With 30 patients, there would be 90% power to detect an improvement in the PFS-6 months rate from 10% (historical estimate) to 30% based on a one-sided exact test with alpha=0.1.||||0.10
84655597|NCT03486223|169047282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-subject comparison of GSK2256294 versus placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 16 per group was estimated to have 86% power to detect a within-subject difference of 3.76 (80% of the above difference) or larger (with an SD for the within-subject difference of 4.6) in insulin sensitivity.||||0.71
84655598|NCT00590720|169047343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.40
84655599|NCT00590720|169047344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||<0.01
84655600|NCT00590720|169047345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.53
84655601|NCT00590720|169047346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.22
84655602|NCT00590720|169047347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.16
84655603|NCT00590720|169047348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.52
84655604|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.48, partial n2=0.061, observed power=0.639||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Total Score on PCITS at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||=0.03
84655605|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.03
84655606|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.534
84655607|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.145, partial n2=0.056, observed power=0.593.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.047
84655608|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.056
84655609|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.267
84655610|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.440, partial n2=0.060, observed power=0.634||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Socio-Emotional Growth Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.036
84655611|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.036
84655612|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||1.00
84655613|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.409||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Sensitivity to Cues Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.665
84655614|NCT01056653|169047366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.313||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Response to Distress Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.732
84655615|NCT01056653|169047367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.49||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.61
84655616|NCT01056653|169047367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.96||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Child Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.38
84655617|NCT01056653|169047368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.24.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Evaluation Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.11
84681928|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-5.08|
84681929|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.53|
84655618|NCT01056653|169047368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=0.379||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Centrality Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.686
84655619|NCT01056653|169047368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.158||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Life Change Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.121
84655620|NCT01847274|169047369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.41||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.410|0.173|<0.0001
84655621|NCT01847274|169047370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.586||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.586|0.243|<0.0001
84655622|NCT01847274|169047371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.607||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.607|0.338|<0.0001
84655623|NCT01847274|169047372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.783||Two-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.783|0.412|0.0005
84655624|NCT01847274|169047373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.74||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.740|0.454|<0.0001
84655625|NCT01847274|169047374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.561||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.561|0.268|<0.0001
84655626|NCT01847274|169047375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.727||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.727|0.428|<0.0001
84655627|NCT01847274|169047376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.968||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.968|0.500|0.0302
84655628|NCT01847274|169047377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.022||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.022|0.627|0.0748
84655629|NCT01847274|169047378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.198||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.198|0.606|0.3580
84681930|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-0.46|
84681931|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-6.13|
84681932|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.07|-2.38|
84681933|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-1.22|
84681934|NCT00515502|169101542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.867|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.25|1.81|
84681935|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.21|-9.82|
84681936|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.09|-4.70|
84681937|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.98|-10.06|
84681938|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.50|-13.84|
84681939|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-6.65|
84655630|NCT01847274|169047379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.369||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.369|0.813|0.6868
84655631|NCT01847274|169047380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.878||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.878|0.451|0.0061
84681940|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-2.35|
84681941|NCT00515502|169101543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|14.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.85|-7.59|
84655632|NCT01847274|169047381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.077||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.077|0.654|0.1674
84681942|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.961|4.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.365|-4.961|
84681943|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2776|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.495|5.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.627|-3.495|
84681944|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0952|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.247|4.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.122|-8.247|
84681945|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1891|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|6.726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.726|-6.003|
84681946|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.873|5.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.554|-6.873|
84681947|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|7.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.473|-6.064|
84655633|NCT01847274|169047398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.7969
84655634|NCT01847274|169047398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8794|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.8794
84655635|NCT01847274|169047399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.2399
84655636|NCT01847274|169047399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4584|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4584
84655637|NCT01847274|169047400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8566
84681948|NCT00515502|169101544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|5.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.993|-10.84|
84681949|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|-4.98|
84681950|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.34|-3.65|
84681951|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.49|
84681952|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.296|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.24|-6.89|
84681953|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.94|-6.13|
84681954|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-5.34|
84681955|NCT00515502|169101545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.32|-8.97|
84681956|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.492|5.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.419|-2.492|
84681957|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.647|4.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.144|-3.647|
84681958|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.687|2.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.396|-7.687|
84681959|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.671|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.840|-2.671|
84681960|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.308|4.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.067|-6.308|
84681961|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.952|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.280|-7.952|
84681962|NCT00515502|169101546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|1.504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.504|-11.96|
84655638|NCT01847274|169047400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4705|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4705
84655639|NCT01847274|169047401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8521
84655640|NCT01847274|169047401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9923|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9923
84655641|NCT01847274|169047402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9997|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9997
84655642|NCT01847274|169047402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3518|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.3518
84507686|NCT03679741|168766420|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.459|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||2.82|1.00|
84507687|NCT02456532|168766426|OTHER|analyses of variance comparing the three treatment gropus|||||=|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.05
84507688|NCT02456532|168766427|OTHER|ANOVA|||||=|0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.643
84655643|NCT01847274|169047403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9367|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9367
84655644|NCT01847274|169047403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2502
84655645|NCT01847274|169047404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5037|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5037
84655646|NCT01847274|169047404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.1640
84655647|NCT01847274|169047405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9599|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9599
84655648|NCT01847274|169047405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2470
84655649|NCT01847274|169047406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5921
84655650|NCT01847274|169047406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7459|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.7459
84655651|NCT01847274|169047407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|||||||0.0259
84655652|NCT01847274|169047407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2798|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2798
84655653|NCT01847274|169047414|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.216||||||||1.216|0.997|
84507689|NCT02750761|168766444|OTHER|Bioavailability: Geometric least squares mean ratio between the Oral Group's and IV Group's dose normalized AUC from time zero to infinity.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||||The Oral Group represented the numerator in the bioavailability ratio, and the IV Group represented the denominator.|||1.35|0.93|
84507690|NCT00266409|168766470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1143||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.1143
84507691|NCT00266409|168766470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4544||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.4544
84655654|NCT01847274|169047415|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.166||||||||1.166|0.978|
84655655|NCT01847274|169047416|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|0.886||||||||0.886|0.695|
84655656|NCT01081678|169047426|OTHER|||||||0.1983|||||||F-test|The p-value is based on F-test of multi-linear contrasts at Week 6 through Week 20.||The primary analysis was based on a test for linear trend in dose response at weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20. To account for multiple comparisons over time points, the primary analysis used a size α = 0.05 F-test with 4 degrees of freedom for the contrasts at Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20.||||0.1983
84655657|NCT01619423|169047447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5||0.31
84655658|NCT01619423|169047447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16||0.15
84655659|NCT01619423|169047447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.14||0.16
84655660|NCT05673889|169047449|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.56|221.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||221.79|166.56|
84681963|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.7|
84681964|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.9|
84681965|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-13.5|
84681966|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-11.8|
84655661|NCT05673889|169047450|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|197.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.32|220.66|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||220.66|177.32|
84655662|NCT01517711|169047469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286||||||P value is for overall post-randomization CAPS score|ANOVA|||Women were excluded from analysis because of the small sample size and unequal distribution across groups.||||0.286
84655663|NCT01517711|169047470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.10
84655664|NCT01517711|169047471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis is for sleep only (men)||||=0.03
84655665|NCT03733470|169047473|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84655666|NCT01786668|169047474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.3|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||30.3|5.0|
84655667|NCT01786668|169047474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|37.7|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||37.7|8.4|
84655668|NCT01786668|169047474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|43.4|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||43.4|10.7|
84655669|NCT01786668|169047475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||29.90|-8.41|0.271
84681967|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-6.1|
84681968|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5|-6.1|
84655670|NCT01786668|169047475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|56.83|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||56.83|22.35|<0.001
84655671|NCT01786668|169047475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|33.69|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||33.69|-4.50|0.134
84655672|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||31.04|-5.17|0.162
84655673|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||22.92|-12.44|0.561
84655674|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||24.97|-10.65|0.430
84655675|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
84655676|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|41.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||41.13|3.74|0.019
84655677|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
84655678|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|33.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.66|-4.55|0.135
84655679|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|46.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||46.36|9.68|0.003
84655680|NCT01786668|169047476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||29.90|-8.48|0.274
84655681|NCT01786668|169047477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-3.11|0.427
84655682|NCT01786668|169047477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.58|0.039
84655683|NCT01786668|169047477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-4.97|0.016
84655684|NCT01786668|169047478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.517||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-5.99|0.050
84681969|NCT00515502|169101547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-10.9|
84681970|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-3.6|
84681971|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.0|
84681972|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-3.9|
84681973|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.6|
84681974|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-3.3|
84681975|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-2.0|
84681976|NCT00515502|169101548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-4.1|
84681977|NCT01043432|169101571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regressions were utilized to model the outcomes of interest as a function of SA, TBI group, and the interaction between the two groups.||||>.05
84681978|NCT01362140|169101586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants with at least~1 RBC transfusion from week 5 to the EOTP was lower in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if the incidence of RBC transfusion in the darbepoetin alfa group was lower and had a p-value \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Chi-square test."||||0.008
84681979|NCT01362140|169101587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The overall 2-sided CMH test with IPSS score as stratification factor.||If the primary hypothesis was confirmed, the secondary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants achieving an IWG erythroid response during the 24-week double-blind treatment period was greater in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if erythroid response was higher in the darbepoetin alfa group and the p-value was \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the IPSS as a stratification factor.||||0.017
84681980|NCT02491671|169101602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.219||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.583|||Chi-squared|||||1.583|0.891|0.171
84655685|NCT01786668|169047478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-8.42|<0.001
84655686|NCT01786668|169047478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-3.46|||ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-9.48|<0.001
84681981|NCT02491671|169101603|SUPERIORITY||z|0.288|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test Unadjusted variance 274999.00 Adjustment for ties --21069.78 Adjusted variance 253929.22 z = 0.288; Prob \> \|z\| = 0.7735"|||||>0.05
84507692|NCT00266409|168766471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0173
84507693|NCT00266409|168766471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0516||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0516
84655687|NCT01786668|169047479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-1.66|0.221
84655688|NCT01786668|169047479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.83|<0.001
84655689|NCT01786668|169047479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-2.75|0.001
84655690|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
84655691|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
84655692|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|15.95|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||15.95|-12.71|0.824
84655693|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|29.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||29.01|-2.69|0.104
84655694|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|33.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.20|0.81|0.040
84655695|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||20.40|-9.46|0.473
84655696|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|18.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||18.76|-15.97|0.875
84655697|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
84655698|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|27.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.01|-8.84|0.320
84655699|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.99|5.41|0.010
84655700|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|43.93|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||43.93|9.16|0.003
84655701|NCT01786668|169047480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|35.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||35.99|1.72|0.031
84655702|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|28.86|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||28.86|1.61|0.028
84681982|NCT02491671|169101604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.351||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.879|||Chi-squared|||||1.879|0.657|0 .307
84714605|NCT06182033|169175222|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||This analysis focused specifically on the behavior control subscale. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.034
84507694|NCT00266409|168766472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0361
84681983|NCT00535730|169101606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis of VZV antibody titers is 92%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the VZV antibody GMT ratio\[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>0.67.||||||0.244||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the VZV antibody responses at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to that in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly||||0.244
84507695|NCT00266409|168766472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0366
84681984|NCT00535730|169101608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|The one-sided p-value for testing acceptability for GMFR is computed based on t-test. CI is computed based on the t distribution||The hypothesis was that ZOSTAVAX™ elicits an acceptable VZV antibody response when administered concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23.||||<0.001
84681985|NCT00535730|169101609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||"The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody response to serotype 3 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who~receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly."||||<0.001
84681986|NCT00535730|169101610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 14 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
84681987|NCT00535730|169101611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 19A at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
84681988|NCT00535730|169101612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 22F at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
84681989|NCT00936858|169101613|OTHER||6 month PFS probability|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We will declare the trial a success after observing 7 or more patients with PFS within 6 months. The study will have alpha = 0.092 and power =0.970, assuming a 6 month PFS probability of 0.12 for the null and a PFS probability of 0.35 as the alternative hypothesis.||||
84681990|NCT05525494|169101617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
84681991|NCT05525494|169101617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received text (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
84681992|NCT05525494|169101617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder/recall messages (portal and text) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
84681993|NCT05525494|169101617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received a tailored reminder/recall messages based on their responses to a pre-commitment questionnaire (any type) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
84681994|NCT00584727|169101619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere by having more eyes see 20/20||||<0.0001
84681995|NCT00584727|169101620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1334||||95.0|0.3625|0.7155|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus etafilcon A sphere.|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||0.7155|0.3625|
84507696|NCT00266409|168766473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7390
84655703|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||17.47|-6.23|0.353
84507697|NCT00266409|168766473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6735||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6735
84507698|NCT00266409|168766474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4261
84655704|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|26.64|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.64|-0.02|0.050
84655705|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|24.39|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||24.39|-1.62|0.086
84655706|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|37.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||37.48|8.37|0.002
84655707|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||35.36|6.65|0.004
84655708|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|25.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||25.13|-2.43|0.106
84655709|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.79|48.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.22|16.79|<0.001
84655710|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|33.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.81|4.27|0.012
84655711|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|18.19|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||18.19|-11.10|0.635
84655712|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.45|51.18|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||51.18|17.45|<0.001
84681996|NCT00584727|169101621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Aletrnative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees.||||0.2161
84507699|NCT00266409|168766474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0231||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0231
84681997|NCT00584727|169101622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees||||0.1328
84507700|NCT00266409|168766475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
84655713|NCT01786668|169047481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|39.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.34|6.21|0.007
84655714|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.08|-0.46|0.175
84655715|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.24|-0.77|<0.001
84655716|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
84655717|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.15|-0.70|0.003
84655718|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
84655719|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.31|-0.86|<0.001
84655720|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.04|-0.66|0.026
84655721|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.32|-0.94|<0.001
84655722|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.27|-0.90|<0.001
84507701|NCT00266409|168766475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2187
84681998|NCT00584727|169101623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1393||||95.0|0.1529|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric.||0.4890|0.1529|
84507702|NCT00266409|168766476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1456||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1456
84655723|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.21|-0.89|0.002
84681999|NCT00584727|169101624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||||<0.0001
84682000|NCT04773587|169101670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|4.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.647|1.881|<0.0001
84682001|NCT04773587|169101671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.359|1.640|<0.0001
84682002|NCT04773587|169101672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.186|3.319|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||3.319|1.186|0.0089
84682003|NCT04773587|169101673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.457|1.450|0.0016
84682004|NCT04773587|169101674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|12.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 1||12.511|1.161|0.0159
84507703|NCT00266409|168766476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3618||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3618
84655724|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
84655725|NCT01786668|169047482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.35|-1.03|<0.001
84682005|NCT04773587|169101675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.102|4.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.795|2.102|<0.0001
84682006|NCT04773587|169101676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.843|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study stie and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||3.843|1.707|<0.0001
84682007|NCT04773587|169101677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.926|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||7.926|2.310|<0.0001
84682008|NCT04773587|169101678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.815|229.388|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||229.388|2.815|<0.0001
84682009|NCT04773587|169101679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.217|5.911|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.911|2.217|<0.0001
84507704|NCT00266409|168766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3535
84655726|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|26.89|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.89|-4.41|0.159
84655727|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.54|49.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||49.24|15.54|<0.001
84655728|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|41.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||41.36|8.04|0.004
84682010|NCT04773587|169101680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.705|7.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||7.007|1.705|0.0002
84507705|NCT00266409|168766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5660
84655729|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||39.99|5.41|0.010
84655730|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|55.38|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||55.38|20.79|<0.001
84655731|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|49.73|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||49.73|14.90|<0.001
84655732|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|33.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.22|-3.58|0.114
84655733|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
84655734|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
84655735|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|42.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||42.76|6.18|0.009
84655736|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.09|53.94|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||53.94|18.09|<0.001
84655737|NCT01786668|169047483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|46.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||46.55|10.09|0.002
84655738|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
84655739|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
84655740|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
84655741|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
84655742|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
84655743|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|21.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||21.24|-2.24|0.113
84655744|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|13.65|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||13.65|-10.18|0.775
84655745|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|31.68|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.68|2.56|0.021
84655746|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.34|-0.79|0.064
84655747|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||21.36|-6.42|0.292
84655748|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|25.78|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||25.78|-3.16|0.125
84655749|NCT01786668|169047484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|27.96|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||27.96|-1.49|0.078
84655750|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
84655751|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
84655752|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
84655753|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||5.29|-5.37|0.989
84655754|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||11.20|-3.58|0.313
84655755|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||13.91|-2.45|0.170
84655756|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||11.20|-3.58|0.313
84655757|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||5.29|-5.37|0.989
84655758|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|16.52|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||16.52|-1.22|0.091
84655759|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
84655760|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
84655761|NCT01786668|169047485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|19.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||19.81|-4.73|0.228
84507706|NCT00266409|168766478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3414||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3414
84507707|NCT00266409|168766478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7344
84682011|NCT00622167|169101690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||0.0|||||Not done|||Plaque characteristics including plaque cross-sectional diameter, area measurements, plaque volume, and plaque morphology would be compared between IBIVUS, DSCT and angiography.||||0
84507708|NCT00266409|168766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1197||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1197
84655762|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.58|-0.64|0.926
84655763|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.50|-0.72|0.718
84655764|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.79|-0.43|0.570
84655765|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.38|-0.97|0.384
84655766|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.34|-1.00|0.334
84655767|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.43|-0.92|0.474
84655768|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.46|-1.04|0.445
84655769|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.23|-1.27|0.174
84655770|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.28|-1.23|0.217
84655771|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.12|-1.69|0.024
84507709|NCT00266409|168766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4416||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4416
84507710|NCT00266409|168766480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0350
84655772|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.24|-1.81|0.010
84655773|NCT01786668|169047486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.04|-1.62|0.038
84682012|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||2.8|-2.9|
84682013|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.5||||||95.0|0.4|6.6||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.6|0.4|
84682014|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.6|9.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||9.7|4.6|
84655774|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|9.08|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||9.08|-17.38|0.539
84655775|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||20.40|-9.46|0.473
84655776|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
84655777|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
84655778|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|17.59|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||17.59|-14.57|0.854
84655779|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
84655780|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
84655781|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||22.92|-12.44|0.561
84655782|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.04|-5.17|0.162
84655783|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|40.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||40.49|4.76|0.013
84655784|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
84655785|NCT01786668|169047487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
84682015|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.6||||||95.0|0.4|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.4|
84655786|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.16|-0.92|0.164
84655787|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.95|0.129
84655788|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.42|-0.66|0.660
84655789|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.25|-0.92|0.256
84655790|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.00|-1.17|0.048
84655791|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.29|-0.88|0.318
84655792|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.47|-0.92|0.522
84655793|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.00|-1.38|0.050
84655794|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.36|-1.03|0.337
84655795|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.27|-1.20|0.214
84682016|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.4|10.0||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||10.0|4.4|
84507711|NCT00266409|168766480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4205||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.4205
84507712|NCT00266409|168766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2645||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.2645
84655796|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.22|-1.69|0.011
84655797|NCT01786668|169047488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-1.55|0.031
84682017|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.7||||||95.0|0.6|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.6|
84655798|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.21|-0.21|0.982
84655799|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.06|-0.36|0.151
84655800|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.07|-0.34|0.205
84655801|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.22|-0.25|0.898
84655802|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.13|-0.34|0.370
84507713|NCT00266409|168766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5369
84507714|NCT00266409|168766482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9988||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9988
84655803|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.11|-0.36|0.288
84655804|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.11|-0.42|0.242
84655805|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.06|-0.48|0.120
84655806|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.03|-0.56|0.031
84655807|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.14|-0.48|0.280
84655808|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.05|-0.57|0.099
84682018|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.4||||||95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||2.9|-2.1|
84682019|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||1.9|-2.7|
84655809|NCT01786668|169047489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-0.70|0.014
84655810|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.71|-0.81|0.895
84655811|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.07|-1.59|0.033
84655812|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.02|-1.55|0.044
84655813|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.55|-1.07|0.530
84507715|NCT00266409|168766482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7729||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7729
84655814|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.16|-1.46|0.114
84655815|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.38|-1.25|0.297
84655816|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.40|-1.06|0.377
84507716|NCT00266409|168766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7338||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7338
84655817|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.31|-1.77|0.006
84655818|NCT01786668|169047490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.17|-1.64|0.017
84655819|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.71|-0.92|0.800
84655820|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||1.47|-0.16|0.113
84655821|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.05|-1.59|0.064
84655822|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.71|-0.74|0.972
84655823|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||1.01|-0.44|0.440
84655824|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.35|-1.10|0.311
84655825|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.82|-1.66|0.501
84655826|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.86|-1.63|0.543
84655827|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.57|-1.93|0.287
84655828|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.14|-0.91|0.820
84655829|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.22|-0.83|0.711
84655830|NCT01786668|169047492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.61|-1.45|0.424
84655831|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.46|-0.34|0.785
84655832|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.51|-0.30|0.605
84655833|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.68|0.175
84655834|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.62|-0.29|0.482
84655835|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.70|0.288
84714606|NCT06182033|169175222|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the Task Orientation subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.099
84507717|NCT00266409|168766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0897||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0897
84507718|NCT00266409|168766484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6501||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6501
84507719|NCT00266409|168766484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8196||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8196
84507720|NCT00266409|168766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6404
84507721|NCT00266409|168766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8263
84655836|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.71|0.278
84655837|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.88|-0.12|0.134
84655838|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.72|-0.29|0.397
84655839|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.52|-0.50|0.964
84507722|NCT00266409|168766486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6946||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6946
84655840|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.91|-0.15|0.155
84655841|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.72|-0.34|0.491
84655842|NCT01786668|169047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.36|-0.71|0.515
84655843|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.24|1.06|0.006
84655844|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.37|1.23|0.004
84655845|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.98|1.74|0.001
84655846|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.857||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||3.33|-4.00|0.857
84655847|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|5.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.37|-1.91|0.350
84655848|NCT01786668|169047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.00|-2.40|0.490
84655849|NCT01786668|169047495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.17|-0.02|0.125
84655850|NCT01786668|169047495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.03|0.207
84655851|NCT01786668|169047495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.013
84507723|NCT00266409|168766486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9629||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9629
84507724|NCT00266409|168766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8617
84507725|NCT00266409|168766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7555
84507726|NCT00266409|168766488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5836||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5836
84507727|NCT00266409|168766488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9096||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9096
84655852|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||4.15|-0.71|0.163
84655853|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.50|-2.36|0.955
84655854|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.71|-2.17|0.826
84655855|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||4.14|-1.07|0.246
84655856|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.318||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||3.56|-1.64|0.467
84655857|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||2.70|-2.53|0.948
84655858|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.61|-1.23|0.255
84655859|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.87|-0.96|0.187
84655860|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.29|-1.62|0.373
84655861|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||4.90|-1.58|0.313
84655862|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.642||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.19|0.71|0.017
84655863|NCT01786668|169047496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.78|1.23|0.007
84655864|NCT03570697|169047522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|37.7|||ANCOVA|||||37.7|4.7|0.015
84655865|NCT03570697|169047523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|37.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|73.31|||ANCOVA|||||73.31|1.63|0.041
84655866|NCT03570697|169047524|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|52.35|||ANCOVA|||||52.35|12.67|0.003
84655867|NCT03570697|169047525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-49.6|0.032
84655868|NCT03570697|169047526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|1.1|0.036
84655869|NCT03570697|169047527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-50.5|0.005
84655870|NCT03570697|169047528|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4.04|0.003
84655871|NCT03948581|169047533|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.0675||||||||1.0675|0.9011|
84655872|NCT03948581|169047534|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9223|1.0801||||||||1.0801|0.9223|
84655873|NCT03948581|169047535|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9401|1.0719||||||||1.0719|0.9401|
84655874|NCT03068455|169047539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.04|0.78|
84655875|NCT03068455|169047540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.14|0.75|
84655876|NCT03068455|169047541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.32|0.80|
84655877|NCT03068455|169047542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.73|0.85|
84655878|NCT03068455|169047543|SUPERIORITY|\< 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||1.14|0.73|
84655879|NCT03068455|169047543|SUPERIORITY|\>= 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.18|0.76|
84655880|NCT03068455|169047543|SUPERIORITY|\>= 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.34|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.34|0.71|
84655881|NCT03068455|169047543|SUPERIORITY|\< 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.10|0.77|
84655882|NCT03068455|169047543|SUPERIORITY|Non-quantifiable Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.51|0.38|
84655883|NCT05338216|169047565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.63||||0.021||95.0|4.37|36.24||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Compliance would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||36.24|4.37|0.021
84655884|NCT05338216|169047566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.34||||0.027||95.0|0.78|32.77||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Completion would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||32.77|0.78|0.027
84507728|NCT00266409|168766489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0002
84655885|NCT02498132|169047574|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a normal distribution, identity link function, and exchangeable correlation matrix was used to examine the interaction between time and treatment condition on BDI-II depressive symptoms adjusting for the main effects of baseline depressive symptoms, time, and treatment condition.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
84655886|NCT00692341|169047587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.2|159.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||159.56|49.20|
84655887|NCT00692341|169047587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|127.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|229.91||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.91|70.90|
84655888|NCT00692341|169047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.92|153.75||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||153.75|39.92|
84655889|NCT00692341|169047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|195.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|383.18||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||383.18|99.49|
84682020|NCT01680328|169101729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|9.0||||||95.0|6.7|11.3||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. The mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen was calculated as the least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen.||11.3|6.7|
84655890|NCT00692341|169047589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|157.82||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||157.82|38.68|
84655891|NCT00692341|169047589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|198.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|401.74||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||401.74|98.47|
84714607|NCT06182033|169175222|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis used peer social skills subscale as the outcome in the model. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.209
84714608|NCT06182033|169175223|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.82
84714609|NCT06182033|169175224|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustments in light of small sample size to reduce error likelihood.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.67
84655892|NCT00692341|169047594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|73.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|145.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.56|37.40|
84655893|NCT00692341|169047594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.58|183.02||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||183.02|55.58|
84655894|NCT00692341|169047595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.75|186.79||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||186.79|44.75|
84655895|NCT00692341|169047595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.14|95.03||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.03|27.14|
84655896|NCT00692341|169047596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.53|206.22||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||206.22|51.53|
84655897|NCT00692341|169047596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.41|139.73||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||139.73|41.41|
84655898|NCT00692341|169047597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|109.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.54|223.47||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||223.47|53.54|
84682021|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.4|0.5|
84714610|NCT06182033|169175225|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood to account for the small sample size.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.024
84714611|NCT06182033|169175226|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.013
84714612|NCT03701763|169175281|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|11.2|<0.0001
84714613|NCT03701763|169175282|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.9|17.8|<0.0001
84714614|NCT03701763|169175283|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|25.6|<0.0001
84714615|NCT03701763|169175284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.93|-18.0|||ANCOVA|||||-18.00|-35.93|<0.0001
84714616|NCT03701763|169175285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-34.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-22.55|||ANCOVA|||||-22.55|-46.99|< 0.0001
84714617|NCT03701763|169175286|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|4.1||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.0|-9.8|0.5616
84714618|NCT03701763|169175287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.9|0.0009
84714619|NCT03365882|169175333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.43|0.44
84714620|NCT03365882|169175335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
84714621|NCT04828005|169175337|NON_INFERIORITY|Alternative hypothesis: Nalmefene reversal not less than 80% naloxone reversal|||||<|0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0009
84714622|NCT00085735|169175382|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis of comparing LDCSI vs. SDCSI, a one-sided 80% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by RT group (IFRT vs. PFRT)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, LDCSI would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0||1.9||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-7 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed to have power of 0.80 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate due to the use of LDCSI compared to SDCSI.||1.9||
84682022|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.2|3.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.5|1.2|
84682023|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.4|3.0||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.0|1.4|
84682024|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.8|1.4|
84682025|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.6||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.6|1.4|
84682026|NCT01680328|169101730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.7|1.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.5|0.7|
84682027|NCT01680328|169101731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.8|0.7|
84682028|NCT01680328|169101731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.6|1.2||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.2|0.6|
84682029|NCT01680328|169101732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||||95.0|2.4|5.5|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain in the thighs - i.e. a worse condition.||5.5|2.4|
84682030|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
84682031|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.6|-0.8|
84682032|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
84655899|NCT00692341|169047597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|368.49||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||368.49|105.23|
84655900|NCT00692341|169047598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|111.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.35|229.37||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.37|54.35|
84655901|NCT00692341|169047598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|200.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.68|377.2||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||377.20|106.68|
84682033|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
84655902|NCT00692341|169047599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.22|195.99||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||195.99|58.22|
84655903|NCT00692341|169047599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|128.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.62|219.25||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||219.25|75.62|
84655904|NCT02284516|169047622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|11.28||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||||11.28|3.04|=0.0007
84655905|NCT02284516|169047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.792|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|11.37||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 14||11.37|4.33|<0.0001
84655906|NCT02284516|169047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|13.2||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 42||13.20|5.44|<0.0001
84655907|NCT04203498|169047634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914|=|0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.08|||Linear mixed model repeated measures|||Week 9 to 12 (primary outcome statistics)||1.08|-2.54|=0.4263
84655908|NCT01235689|169047651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg or ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
84655909|NCT01235689|169047652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.014
84655910|NCT01235689|169047653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.006
84655911|NCT01235689|169047654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
84655912|NCT01235689|169047655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.299
84655913|NCT01235689|169047656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.728
84655914|NCT01235689|169047657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.067
84655915|NCT01235689|169047658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model included factors for treatment group, screening smoking status (yes or no), and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg), and Baseline values as covariate.||||0.4|-3.2|0.116
84655916|NCT01235689|169047660|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.442||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Regression, Cox|||||0.8|0.2|0.012
84655917|NCT01235689|169047661|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|1.1|0.008
84655918|NCT01235689|169047662|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.337||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|1.0|0.052
84655919|NCT01235689|169047665|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.5|0.501
84655920|NCT01235689|169047666|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.785||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.4|0.459
84655921|NCT01235689|169047673|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.423||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.6|0.1|0.212
84655922|NCT00578383|169047686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||5.8|0.5|0.009
84682034|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
84655923|NCT00578383|169047687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||1.9|0.2|0.006
84655924|NCT00578383|169047688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (POSITIVE SCALE).||6.9|1.3|0.001
84682035|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.7|
84682036|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.3|
84682037|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.0||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.0|-0.4|
84682038|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.3|-0.1|
84682039|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||||95.0|1.0|3.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||3.5|1.0|
84682040|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.4||||||95.0|0.2|2.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.6|0.2|
84682041|NCT01680328|169101733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
84682042|NCT01680328|169101734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3||||||95.0|-0.9|1.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||1.5|-0.9|
84682043|NCT01680328|169101734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
84682044|NCT01680328|169101734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||||95.0|0.3|2.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.8|0.3|
84682045|NCT01680328|169101734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.9||||||95.0|3.7|6.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||6.1|3.7|
84682046|NCT01680328|169101734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7||||||95.0|0.5|2.9||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.9|0.5|
84682047|NCT04370054|169101753|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.91||One-sided p-value is reported.|Generalized linear model (GLM)||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-0.91|-6.06|=0.0040
84682048|NCT04370054|169101754|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086||||||One-sided p-value is reported.|One-sided exact binomial proportion test|||||||=0.0086
84655925|NCT00578383|169047689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.1|-1.1|0.15
84655926|NCT00578383|169047690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.2||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||6.2|-1.2|0.09
84655927|NCT00578383|169047691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||9.6|-3.3|0.19
84655928|NCT00578383|169047692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by a visual analog scale.||2.1|-0.6|0.15
84655929|NCT00578383|169047693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||3.6|-0.4|0.04
84655930|NCT00578383|169047694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.2||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||9.2|0.8|0.004
84655931|NCT00578383|169047695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||5.8|1.3|0.30
84655932|NCT00578383|169047696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||6.8|-4.1|0.52
84655933|NCT00578383|169047697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1||95.0|-1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.8|-1.3|0.10
84655934|NCT00005044|169047705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39|||Log Rank||Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Assuming 40% of deaths in the 8-wk arm from prostate cancer (PC) and that 8-yr DSS would be 79%, 270 PC deaths were required to detect a 33% hazard reduction in the 28-wk arm with 90% power using the log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Under assumed failure rates, 1,540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years were expected to provide the requisite events. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate and 3 interim analyses.||1.39|0.48|0.45
84655935|NCT00005044|169047706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|With 1540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years, determined for the primary endpoint, there would be 90% power to detect a 22% reduction in the hazard of all cause deaths in the 28-week arm, with 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate.||1.15|0.79|0.62
84507729|NCT00266409|168766489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0006
84507730|NCT00266409|168766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint, CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0255
84507731|NCT00266409|168766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0065
84507732|NCT00266409|168766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0370
84507733|NCT00266409|168766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9569||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.9569
84507734|NCT00266409|168766492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0978
84507735|NCT00266409|168766492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7096||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.7096
84507736|NCT00266409|168766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0001
84507737|NCT00266409|168766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0003
84655936|NCT00005044|169047707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|Significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.08|0.85|0.47
84507738|NCT00266409|168766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0025
84507739|NCT00266409|168766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0101
84507740|NCT00266409|168766495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0095
84507741|NCT00266409|168766495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0390
84507742|NCT00266409|168766496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0160
84655937|NCT00005044|169047708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.05|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Locoregional progression||1.05|0.40|0.07
84655938|NCT00005044|169047708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Distant metastasis||1.66|0.68|0.80
84655939|NCT00005044|169047709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Protocol definition||1.17|0.89|0.74
84655940|NCT00005044|169047709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Phoenix definition||1.19|0.79|0.77
84655941|NCT00005044|169047710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.30|0.64|0.62
84655942|NCT00181155|169047715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.007||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.007
84682049|NCT04370054|169101755|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.45||One-sided p-value is reported.|Repeated measures GLM||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-2.45|-5.57|<0.0001
84682050|NCT04370054|169101756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.47|108.89||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference = (PF-07055480 AIR - FVIII Prophylaxis AIR).|||108.89|-139.47|<0.0001
84682051|NCT04370054|169101758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4076.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4728.3|-3423.8||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference (FVIII Consumption post-IP Infusion - FVIII Consumption during FVIII Prophylaxis).|||-3423.8|-4728.3|<0.0001
84682052|NCT00785291|169101886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.45||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.45|1.00|0.054
84682053|NCT00785291|169101886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.87||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.87|1.28|<0.0001
84682054|NCT00785291|169101890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.47|0.92|0.20
84682055|NCT00785291|169101890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.61|1.01|0.038
84507743|NCT00266409|168766496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1024
84655943|NCT00181155|169047716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.02
84655944|NCT02572401|169047717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.21|.59|<.05
84682056|NCT05183022|169101908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
84682057|NCT03912259|169101922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|32.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs. IGA=4).||||32.65|11.37|<.0001
84682058|NCT00386880|169101969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||During the acute migraine attack, 90% of allodynic subjects and 75% of subjects without allodynia had phonophobia.||||0.59
84682059|NCT05098054|169101971|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares mean(GLSM) Ratio|214.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|446.45|||||"Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||446.45|103.47|
84682060|NCT05098054|169101971|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|145.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.18|273.98|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||273.98|77.18|
84682061|NCT05098054|169101972|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|299.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.75|801.17|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||801.17|111.75|
84682062|NCT05098054|169101972|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.02|220.26|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||220.26|77.02|
84655945|NCT02572401|169047717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.42|0.69|<.05
84655946|NCT02572401|169047717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.49|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.49|.35|<.05
84655947|NCT02572401|169047718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.18|0.92|<.05
84655948|NCT02572401|169047718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.16|0.90|<.05
84655949|NCT02572401|169047718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.42|0.86|<.05
84655950|NCT02572401|169047719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.24|0.89|<.05
84655951|NCT02572401|169047719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.|The numerator is the treatment.|1.30|0.94|<.05
84655952|NCT02572401|169047719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.47|0.76|<.05
84655953|NCT02572401|169047720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.48|0.73|<.05
84655954|NCT02572401|169047720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.45|0.71|<.05
84655955|NCT02572401|169047720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.08|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||2.08|.50|<.05
84655956|NCT02572401|169047721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||0.080|-0.078|<.05
84682063|NCT05098054|169101973|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|316.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.68|849.97|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||849.97|117.68|
84682064|NCT05098054|169101973|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|135.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|200.57|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||200.57|91.22|
84507744|NCT00266409|168766497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0761
84507745|NCT00266409|168766497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0376
84507746|NCT00266409|168766498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1196
84507747|NCT00266409|168766498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint.CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0029
84655957|NCT02572401|169047721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.076|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||0.076|-0.082|<.05
84655958|NCT02572401|169047721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.149|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.||The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||0.149|-0.167|<.05
84655959|NCT01090492|169047740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.44|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.44|-0.21|0.6513
84655960|NCT01090492|169047740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.99|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.38|-0.99|0.0057
84655961|NCT01090492|169047740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.08|-0.80|0.1157
84655962|NCT01090492|169047740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.25|-0.56|0.6286
84655963|NCT01090492|169047741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.43|2.68|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||2.68|-2.43|0.9504
84655964|NCT01090492|169047741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|1.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.03|-3.74|0.4651
84655965|NCT01090492|169047741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|1.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.73|-2.92|0.7423
84655966|NCT01090492|169047741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|0.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.73|-4.55|0.3524
84682065|NCT01618162|169101991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Superiority of IDegLira versus placebo therapy would be concluded if the 95% CI for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lied entirely below 0%; implying that the two-sided p-value calculated by the ANCOVA model for testing the hypothesis of no difference between treatments was less than 5%.||-0.87|-1.18|< 0.001
84682066|NCT04794803|169101998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02164|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.02164
84507748|NCT00266409|168766499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6323||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.6323
84507749|NCT00266409|168766499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5533||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.5533
84507750|NCT00266409|168766500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1705
84507751|NCT00266409|168766500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.3196
84507752|NCT00266409|168766501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0419
84507753|NCT00266409|168766501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2541||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.2541
84507754|NCT00266409|168766502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0677
84507755|NCT00266409|168766502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0273
84655967|NCT01090492|169047742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|7.03|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||7.03|-4.61|0.7900
84655968|NCT01090492|169047742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.17||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.61|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.73|-11.61|0.1463
84655969|NCT01090492|169047742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.29|-4.44|0.1446
84655970|NCT01090492|169047742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.45|1.26|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.26|-3.45|0.5497
84655971|NCT01090492|169047743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.52|-0.21|0.5909
84507756|NCT00266409|168766503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5153
84507757|NCT00266409|168766503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0122
84655972|NCT01090492|169047743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.43|-1.12|0.0053
84682067|NCT04794803|169101998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.20043|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: Supplemental oxygen requirement based on PaO2/FiO2||||= 0.20043
84507758|NCT00266409|168766504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4648||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4648
84507759|NCT00266409|168766504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5502||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5502
84507760|NCT00266409|168766505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9093
84682068|NCT04794803|169101998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.30215|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first invasive mechanical ventilation||||= 0.30215
84682069|NCT04794803|169101998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first admission to ICU||||0.56370
84507761|NCT00266409|168766505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1354
84507762|NCT00266409|168766506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7434
84655973|NCT01090492|169047743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.10|-0.67|0.3462
84655974|NCT01090492|169047743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.88|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.01|-0.88|0.1940
84655975|NCT01768286|169047749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84655976|NCT01768286|169047749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84655977|NCT01768286|169047749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84655978|NCT01768286|169047749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84655979|NCT00365508|169047814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||Chi-square was used to examine the relationship between treatment arm and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 6-months.||||.05
84682070|NCT04794803|169101998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.00132|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first use of a rescue medication for any reason||||= 0.00132
84682071|NCT04794803|169101999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at week 1||||0.731
84682072|NCT04794803|169101999|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||1.000
84682073|NCT04794803|169101999|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
84507763|NCT00266409|168766506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1148
84507764|NCT00266409|168766507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9346||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9346
84507765|NCT00266409|168766507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2709||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2709
84507766|NCT00266409|168766508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
84507767|NCT00266409|168766508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2513||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2513
84655980|NCT01218113|169047830|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.553|1.162|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.162|0.553|
84655981|NCT01218113|169047830|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.184|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.816|1.717|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.717|0.816|
84682074|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at baseline||||0.353
84682075|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 1||||0.401
84682076|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 2||||0.066
84682077|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 1||||0.102
84682078|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||0.314
84682079|NCT04794803|169102000|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
84655982|NCT01218113|169047831|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.257|0.065|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.065|-0.257|
84655983|NCT01218113|169047831|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.088|0.235|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.235|-0.088|
84655984|NCT00745823|169047893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.83|-10.7|0.044
84507768|NCT00266409|168766509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
84655985|NCT00745823|169047894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-1.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-1.06|-9.29|0.011
84655986|NCT00745823|169047895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.6|-5.0|
84655987|NCT00745823|169047896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-1.3|
84682080|NCT04794803|169102001|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||>0.999
84682081|NCT04794803|169102001|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||>0.999
84682082|NCT04794803|169102001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.050
84507769|NCT00266409|168766509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5461||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
84655988|NCT00745823|169047897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.40|-7.29|
84655989|NCT01206660|169047910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84655990|NCT01206660|169047911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84655991|NCT01206660|169047912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84655992|NCT01633853|169047913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline both in group Vitamin D2.||||0.117
84655993|NCT01633853|169047913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||0.309
84655994|NCT01633853|169047913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.554
84655995|NCT01633853|169047914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
84655996|NCT01633853|169047914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||<0.001
84655997|NCT01633853|169047914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.001, t=-14.982.|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH) Vitamin D at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||<0.001
84655998|NCT01633853|169047915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square value=0.099|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
84655999|NCT01633853|169047916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
84507770|NCT00266409|168766510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0722||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0722
84507771|NCT00266409|168766510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4639||95.0||||P-values based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4639
84656000|NCT01633853|169047916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||<0.001
84656001|NCT01633853|169047916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|||||t=0.394|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.694
84656002|NCT01633853|169047917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||0.179
84656003|NCT01633853|169047917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||0.106
84656004|NCT01633853|169047917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.736|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.463
84656005|NCT01513343|169047938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multinomial logistic regression examined program effects on child BMI categories, controlling for child sex, age (months), \& BMI z-score at pretest.||||||<0.05
84656006|NCT01513343|169047939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||To control for type I errors, the critical P values for each assessment were determined with the unweighted Bonferroni method, dividing the critical value of P \< 0.05 by the number of comparisons conducted for a given assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84682083|NCT04794803|169102001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0227
84682084|NCT04794803|169102002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 1||||0.122
84507772|NCT00266409|168766511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0075
84656007|NCT02417831|169047944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|105.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.81|112.08|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||112.08|99.81|
84656008|NCT02417831|169047945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.71|105.23|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.23|97.71|
84656009|NCT02417831|169047946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|105.17|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.17|97.81|
84656010|NCT01001377|169047951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.113|||||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab : cetuximab. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for panitumumab relative to cetuximab.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).||1.113|0.839|
84656011|NCT01001377|169047951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall survival non-inferiority hypothesis based on an asymptotic normal score was tested at a 1-sided 2.5% significance level. A value \< -1.96 indicates non-inferiority at a significance level of 1-sided 0.025.|Normal score|-3.19||||0.0007||||||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic|Asymptotic standard normal test|||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic based on the logarithm of the hazard ratio was used to test the hypothesis that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab for overall survival (ie, that panitumumab retains at least 50% of the overall survival benefit of cetuximab relative to best supportive care).||||0.0007
84656012|NCT01001377|169047953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||||Common treatment odds ratio stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|||1.58|0.83|
84656013|NCT01001377|169047957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.0605|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||0.0605|-0.0353|
84656014|NCT01001377|169047958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9331|1.5841|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||1.5841|-4.9331|
84682085|NCT04794803|169102002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 2||||0.985
84682086|NCT04794803|169102002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 1||||0.857
84682087|NCT04794803|169102002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT||||0.436
84656015|NCT01001377|169047959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3267|4.401|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.4010|-2.3267|
84656016|NCT01001377|169047960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0269|4.1941|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.1941|-3.0269|
84656017|NCT01001377|169047961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0093|5.6098|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||5.6098|-6.0093|
84656018|NCT00964860|169047963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%. Units on the MGI Scale.|||||0.001
84656019|NCT00964860|169047964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||||0.004
84656020|NCT03727230|169047972|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In this study, a single-arm clinical trial was conducted. The summarized alloanti-D rate (203/720, 28.2%; 95% CI, 19%-32%) in truly RhD-negative patients with similar mixed diseases after RhD+ RBC transfusion reported in the meta-analysis (Ji YL, et al. Vox Sang 2022; 117: 633-40) was used as the control for comparison with alloanti-D rate identified in Asian-type DEL patients after RhD+ RBC transfusion in the clinical trial.||||< 0.001
84656021|NCT04377620|169047981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.028|0.201|0.0292
84656022|NCT04377620|169047981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.023|0.171|0.0280
84656023|NCT00724932|169047998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.1||Testing was performed using a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level. There was only one primary comparison, therefore no adjustment for multiplicity was required.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||4.1|2.8|<0.0001
84656024|NCT00724932|169047999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||2.8|2.1|<0.0001
84656025|NCT00724932|169048007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||3.4|2.5|<0.0001
84656026|NCT00289991|169048032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true success rate of 50% in voriconazole (Vori) treatment (Tx) group and 45% in itraconazole (Itra) Tx group, sample size of 232 subjects per group=90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Vori to Itra using pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Sample has at least 80% power to demonstrate superiority of Vori over Itra if true success rates for Vori and Itra are 57% and 44% respectively. Based on this, up to 500 subjects were to be enrolled to obtain 464 eligible subjects.|percent difference adjusted proportions|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.1|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using Fleiss method|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."||25.1|7.7|
84682088|NCT04794803|169102002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At EOS||||0.350
84682089|NCT04794803|169102003|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.596
84682090|NCT04794803|169102003|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.667
84682091|NCT04794803|169102003|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.037
84682092|NCT04794803|169102003|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.293||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.293
84656027|NCT00289991|169048033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."|percent difference adjusted proportions|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.2|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using the Fleiss method.|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|||24.2|6.6|
84656028|NCT00289991|169048035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-0.4||||0.7114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 100; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.5|-2.2|0.7114
84656029|NCT00289991|169048035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion: percent|-0.3||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result).|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.9|-2.5|0.7759
84656030|NCT00289991|169048036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||6.9|-6.3|
84656031|NCT00289991|169048037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mann-Whitney test used to investigate the null hypothesis that the times to discontinuation of study medication in each treatment group come from the same distribution.||||0.0026
84656032|NCT00289991|169048038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-4.8||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.4|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent % confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 365; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||3.4|-13.0|0.2487
84656033|NCT00289991|169048040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-8.8||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.3|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||0.3|-17.8|0.0570
84656034|NCT01606007|169048082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.37||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-0.81|<0.0001
84656035|NCT01606007|169048082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.48|0.0166
84656036|NCT01606007|169048083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-34.3||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||-34.3|-53.7|<0.0001
84656037|NCT01606007|169048083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.923||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|0.5||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance testing stops at the endpoint where p-value\>0.05.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||0.5|-18.8|0.0639
84656038|NCT01606007|169048084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-15.9|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-15.9|-31.6|
84656039|NCT01606007|169048084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.7|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||1.7|-13.8|
84682093|NCT04794803|169102004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening and|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.539
84682094|NCT04794803|169102004|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||1.000
84682095|NCT04794803|169102004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.102
84682096|NCT04794803|169102004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.119
84682097|NCT04794803|169102004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||0.515
84682098|NCT04794803|169102005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.366
84682099|NCT04794803|169102005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.489
84682100|NCT04794803|169102005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.486
84682101|NCT04794803|169102006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.790
84656040|NCT01606007|169048085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.5|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||31.5|14.7|
84656041|NCT01606007|169048085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.1|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||28.1|10.1|
84656042|NCT01606007|169048086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3451|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.37|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-1.37|-2.73|
84656043|NCT03758066|169048091|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value reported for quality of life measured between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.03
84656044|NCT03758066|169048092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.02
84656045|NCT03758066|169048092|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between 6- and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||||||.02
84656046|NCT00332163|169048094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-14.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-14|-51|
84656047|NCT00332163|169048095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-3.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-3|-42|
84656048|NCT00332163|169048096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (pre-emptive vs. reactive), stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
84656049|NCT00332163|169048098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
84656050|NCT00332163|169048099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||7|-16|
84656051|NCT00332163|169048100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||10|-10|
84656052|NCT00332163|169048101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||17|-9|
84656053|NCT00332163|169048102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||18|-21|
84656054|NCT00332163|169048103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.0|0.9|
84682102|NCT04794803|169102006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.961
84656055|NCT00332163|169048104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.5|0.6|
84656056|NCT00332163|169048105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.1|0.7|
84656057|NCT00332163|169048106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||||Hazard ratio is estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.6|0.6|
84656058|NCT02340975|169048114|OTHER|Comparison|Mean Difference (Net)|11.1||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Fisher Exact|||||23.0|-0.7|0.2376
84656059|NCT02340975|169048114|OTHER|Comparison|Median Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|22.4|||Fisher Exact|||||22.4|-16.8|1.0000
84682103|NCT04794803|169102006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.619
84682104|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
84682105|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||1.000
84682106|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.678
84682107|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||1.000
84507773|NCT00266409|168766511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1641
84656060|NCT00959764|169048171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assumed placebo-adjusted effect for both active treatment groups (% increase in BMD)was 1.56% and that the placebo adjusted effect for the rsCT tablets must be at least 0.5 times the placebo adjusted effect for the calcitonin nasal spray (active control treatment group). The null hypothesis to be tested was:~\[Mean(oral) - Mean(placebo)\] - 0.5 x \[Mean(nasal) - Mean(placebo)\] \< 0. Reference Pigeot, et al. 2003"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.45||The P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA|||The overall analysis across groups was an Analysis of Covariance where the study was powered to 80% with an assumption of a standard deviation of 2.5% and a two-sided 5% level of significance. For each treatment group, the BMD at 48 weeks was compared with the BMD at baseline and a % increase was calculated (baseline = 0%). This difference was subjected to the t-test. Two-sided P-value is less than or equal to 0.05 and was not adjusted as multiple comparisons were not done.||1.45|0.08|0.002
84656061|NCT00959764|169048172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.99||0.0006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANCOVA|95% confidence interval not calculated||Same as for Primary Outcome||||0.0006
84656062|NCT00959764|169048173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.53||0.0012||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA||oral calcitonin vs placebo|Same as Primary Outcome||||0.0012
84656063|NCT00389597|169048178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportion test with 10% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.0021|||||||Farrington Manning|||1 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.||||0.0021
84656064|NCT00389597|169048178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportioned test with a 10% non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington-Manning|||"2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.~2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<= 0 (not superior) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm-pc \>0 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group."||||<0.0001
84656065|NCT02762578|169048179|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Non-inferiority with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c (%) to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30.~Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
84656066|NCT02762578|169048179|SUPERIORITY|"If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the IDegAsp group over the BIAsp 30 group was to be investigated.~Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval, which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
84656067|NCT02762578|169048180|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (Provided that non-inferiority was confirmed for the primary endpoint)~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero."|Treatment Contrast|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline FPG as covariates.||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
84656068|NCT02762578|169048181|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: Superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 was confirmed for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.53||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate.||0.87|0.33|0.0112
84682108|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
84682109|NCT04794803|169102007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||1.000
84682110|NCT04794803|169102008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.696
84682111|NCT04794803|169102008|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||>0.999
84682112|NCT04794803|169102008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.596
84507774|NCT00266409|168766512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0932
84682113|NCT04794803|169102009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
84682114|NCT04794803|169102009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 1||||1.000
84656069|NCT02762578|169048182|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.77|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate||0.77|0.42|0.0002
84656070|NCT02762578|169048183|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero"|Treatment contrast|0.61||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||ANCOVA|Two-sided p-value for testing difference||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, age and baseline response as covariate.||1.08|0.15|0.0092
84656071|NCT02762578|169048184|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 6: Superiority with respect to subjects achieving HbA1c \< 7% at end of trial without confirmed hypoglycaemia for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the odds ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely above one."|Treatment Ratio|2.22||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.35||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|Regression, Logistic|||The endpoint was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link, including treatment, sex and anti-diabetic treatment at screening as fixed effects, and age and HbA1c as covariates.||3.35|1.47|0.0002
84656072|NCT02935842|169048227|OTHER|||||||||||||||||First Reliable Change (RC), Reliable Change Index (RCI) were calculated on every individual score. Further, ANOVAs and t-tests were administered in order to verify differences between groups or interventions. Significance levels were set at p \< .05.|Reliable Change / Reliable Change Index according to Jacobson \& Truax (1991). There, on the basis of every individual score, the change in performance (i.e. BL-4Weeks/ BL-6Months) has been calculated and is reported with level of significance as well as effect size.|||
84656073|NCT02935842|169048227|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84656074|NCT02935842|169048231|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84656075|NCT02935842|169048233|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84656076|NCT03344796|169048239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84656077|NCT03344796|169048240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84656078|NCT03344796|169048241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84682115|NCT04794803|169102009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 2||||1.000
84656079|NCT03344796|169048242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Knowledge of sun protection score at baseline compared with score after completion of the arm. The hypothesis is that the focus group, usability test and structured interviews arms will not have significant change in knowledge. It is expected that cohort studies 1 and 2 will have significant change in knowledge of sun protection.||||< 0.1
84656080|NCT00758836|169048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|32.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomial distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||32.2|16.7|<0.001
84656081|NCT00758836|169048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|35.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||35.8|19.6|<0.001
84656082|NCT00758836|169048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|28.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||28.2|12.6|<0.001
84656083|NCT00758836|169048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion differenece|4.2||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|13.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||13.3|-5.0|0.449
84656084|NCT00758836|169048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||17.1|-1.8|0.182
84656085|NCT00758836|169048266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|49.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||49.0|31.9|<0.001
84656086|NCT00758836|169048266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.5|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||48.5|30.5|<0.001
84656087|NCT00758836|169048266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|14.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.9|-2.9|0.265
84656088|NCT00758836|169048266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.2||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.5|-4.2|0.362
84656089|NCT00758836|169048266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.3|43.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||43.4|25.3|<0.001
84656090|NCT03187197|169048313|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||0.0001
84656091|NCT03187197|169048313|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
84656092|NCT03187197|169048313|OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||0.0031
84656093|NCT03187197|169048313|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
84656094|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.7879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.7879
84656095|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.6110
84656096|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.0832
84656097|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.6488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.6488
84656098|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience after PSM.||||0.1301
84656099|NCT03187197|169048314|OTHER|||||||0.1257|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction after PSM.||||0.1257
84656100|NCT01637935|169048318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.92|1.31||||||Fully adjusted refers to inclusion of all potential confounders in the statistical model from the 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder cancer, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and the interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and year of cohort entry.||1.31|0.92|
84656101|NCT01637935|169048318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||||95.0|0.89|1.26||||||Fully adjusted adding the proteinuria testing variable.||1.26|0.89|
84656102|NCT01637935|169048319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||||95.0|0.71|1.12||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \<4.5 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.12|0.71|
84682116|NCT04794803|169102009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||week 1||||1.000
84682117|NCT04794803|169102009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
84656103|NCT01637935|169048319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||||95.0|0.93|1.59||||||Time since starting pioglitazone 4.5-8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.59|0.93|
84656104|NCT01637935|169048319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.83|1.75||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \>8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.75|0.83|
84682118|NCT04794803|169102011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.760
84682119|NCT04794803|169102011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.394
84682120|NCT04794803|169102011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.141
84682121|NCT04794803|169102011|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
84682122|NCT04794803|169102012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.500
84682123|NCT04794803|169102012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1||||0.112
84682124|NCT04794803|169102012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.277
84682125|NCT04794803|169102012|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
84682126|NCT04794803|169102013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.2027
84682127|NCT04794803|169102013|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||1.0000
84682128|NCT04794803|169102013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4469||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1 vs baseline||||0.4469
84682129|NCT04794803|169102013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2466||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.2466
84682130|NCT04794803|169102013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.1752
84682131|NCT04794803|169102014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.6441
84682132|NCT04794803|169102014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3529
84682133|NCT04794803|169102014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.3581
84682134|NCT04794803|169102014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1666||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.1666
84682135|NCT04794803|169102014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0851
84682136|NCT04794803|169102015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.3359
84682137|NCT04794803|169102015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3136
84682138|NCT04794803|169102015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.0441
84682139|NCT04794803|169102015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0965||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0965
84682140|NCT04794803|169102015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0519||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0519
84682141|NCT04794803|169102016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.470
84682142|NCT04794803|169102016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.425
84682143|NCT04794803|169102016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.086
84682144|NCT04794803|169102016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.600
84682145|NCT04794803|169102016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.717
84682146|NCT01426191|169102018|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84682147|NCT01426191|169102019|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84682148|NCT04149405|169102020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84682149|NCT04149405|169102021|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84682150|NCT04149405|169102022|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84682151|NCT04149405|169102023|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84656105|NCT01637935|169048320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||Duration of therapy \<1.5 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.68|
84656106|NCT01637935|169048320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.8|1.33||||||Duration of therapy 1.5-4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.33|0.80|
84656107|NCT01637935|169048320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||||95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Duration of therapy \>4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.54|0.87|
84656108|NCT01637935|169048321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.69|1.16||||||Cumulative dose 1-14000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.69|
84656109|NCT01637935|169048321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.85|1.42||||||Cumulative dose 14001-40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.42|0.85|
84656110|NCT01637935|169048321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.79|1.44||||||Cumulative dose \>40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.44|0.79|
84656111|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). The upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.53||
84682152|NCT00845663|169102054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|101.33||||||90.0|92.84|110.58|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor has been used as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||110.58|92.84|
84682153|NCT00845663|169102055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125% bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.7||||||90.0|89.06|107.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||107.19|89.06|
84682154|NCT00845663|169102056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.54||||||90.0|87.33|108.94|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as a basis for calculation of estimated value and the confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||108.94|87.33|
84656112|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis repeated but excluded data from participants (n=35) who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-defined protocol window (16 +/- 1 week).||0.53||
84682155|NCT04307004|169102077|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure when attended - mean systolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended).|||1.1|0.5|< 0.0001
84682156|NCT04307004|169102077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure when attended - mean diastolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended)|||0.7|0.3|< 0.0001
84682157|NCT04307004|169102078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.5|-3.0|< 0.0001
84682158|NCT04307004|169102078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.4|-2.5|< 0.0001
84682159|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - Attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - Left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.32|< 0.001
84682160|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure measurements and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.60|0.24|< 0.001
84682161|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.56|0.33|< 0.001
84682162|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.19|< 0.001
84682163|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.74|0.47|< 0.001
84682164|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|0.25|< 0.001
84507775|NCT00266409|168766512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
84682165|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with HBPM data and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.44|0.19|< 0.001
84656113|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.54|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=15) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=7).||0.54||
84656114|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.56|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates for age and visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analysis, all participants with 16-week exams were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the exam was completed within the pre-specified analysis window (14 to \<20 weeks after randomization).||0.56||
84656115|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16-weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from enrolled participants who were subsequently found to be ineligible for the study (n=7).||0.53||
84656116|NCT02200211|169048323|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 week, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from participants who received alternative treatment for at least 1 week during study follow-up (n=4).||0.55||
84656117|NCT02200211|169048323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive estimate values favor the patching treatment group.|Analysis of covariance included baseline age and visual acuity as adjustment covariates. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). For this post hoc analysis, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis.||0.58|0.04|
84656118|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 16 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.3|-5.7|0.082
84656119|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-specified 16 +/- 1 week protocol window (n=10 participants).||0.5|-5.9|
84507776|NCT00266409|168766513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7896||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7896
84507777|NCT00266409|168766513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9651||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9651
84507778|NCT00266409|168766514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8280
84507779|NCT00266409|168766514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0936||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0936
84656120|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.3|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants later found to be ineligible for the study (n=2).||0.3|-5.9|
84656121|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=3) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=2).||1.2|-5.0|
84656122|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside the analysis window (n=2, range:14 to 28 weeks post randomization).||0.5|-5.5|
84656123|NCT02200211|169048325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.4|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included prior amblyopia treatment as an adjustment covariate (in addition to baseline visual acuity) in the model.||0.4|-5.7|
84656124|NCT02200211|169048329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (treated as a continuous covariate).||13|-4|
84656125|NCT02200211|169048329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|2.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (binocular treatment - patching) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (≥ 10 letters) from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||2|-31|
84656126|NCT02200211|169048330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as having amblyopia resolution at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (20/40, 20/50 or worse).||5|-1|
84656127|NCT02200211|169048331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||For testing the interaction term, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described above in the Statistical Analysis Overview section.||A linear mixed model was used to compare the rate of amblyopic-eye visual acuity improvement between the treatment groups. The ANCOVA model included an interaction term with treatment group and time to compare the change in visual acuity over follow-up by treatment group, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. If the interaction term was not statistically significant (p\>0.05), no further comparisons would be performed.||||0.83
84656128|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (gender and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described in the Statistical Analysis Overview.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and gender, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.83
84656129|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (race/ethnicity status and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Four participants (1 binocular treatment group, 3 patching group) were excluded from the analysis due to unknown/not reported race/ethnicity status.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and race/ethnicity status (White/non-Hispanic, Non-White or Hispanic), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.54
84656130|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (age and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and age at baseline (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline visual acuity.||||0.80
84656131|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline age.||||0.99
84656132|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (prior amblyopia treatment and treatment group) was 0.05|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and prior amblyopia treatment (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.87
84656133|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline stereoacuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline stereoacuity (nil, better than nil), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.33
84682166|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index|beta coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on HBPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|0.05|0.01
84656134|NCT02200211|169048332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (presence of a near heterotropia at baseline and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and presence of a near heterotropia (measured by SPCT) at baseline (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.23
84656135|NCT02200211|169048337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.66
84656136|NCT02200211|169048337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.83
84656137|NCT02200211|169048338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.19
84656138|NCT02200211|169048338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.69
84656139|NCT02200211|169048344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) in mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks. Positive values favor the binocular treatment group.|The treatment group difference in the change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (logMAR lines) was evaluated in an analysis of covariance model, adjusted for baseline fellow-eye visual acuity.||0.30|0.02|
84682167|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.59|0.32|< 0.001
84682168|NCT04307004|169102080|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.16|< 0.001
84656140|NCT02200211|169048345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) of the adjusted mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||1.3|-1.1|
84656141|NCT02200211|169048346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.32
84656142|NCT02200211|169048346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.68
84656143|NCT02200211|169048347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.17
84656144|NCT02200211|169048347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.48
84656145|NCT02200211|169048347|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
84656146|NCT02200211|169048347|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
84656147|NCT02200211|169048348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.05
84656148|NCT02200211|169048348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.02
84656149|NCT02200211|169048348|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
84656150|NCT02200211|169048348|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
84656151|NCT00381485|169048351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84656152|NCT00381485|169048351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84682169|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.08|-0.47|0.17
84682170|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.15|-0.70|0.20
84682171|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.02|-0.55|0.07
84682172|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended diastolic blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.06|-0.80|0.09
84682173|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.31|-0.29|0.94
84507780|NCT00266409|168766515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3539||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3539
84656153|NCT02955602|169048370|OTHER||||||=|0.2242|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 5 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment.||||= 0.2242
84656154|NCT02955602|169048370|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0021
84656155|NCT02955602|169048370|OTHER||||||=|0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 5 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0024
84656156|NCT01144286|169048460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate (%)|80.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Significance level was set to α of 0.05 if the primary endpoint was significant, hierarchical testing was to be performed on the primary endpoint (each active dose X placebo). No other adjustment was made for testing multiple secondary outcomes.|Regression, Logistic|||"Primary analysis is the dose response at TOC based on the global therapeutic cure. Dose response will be tested using a logistic regression using linear coefficient for the treatment effect(Wald chi-square).~Assuming that the response rate is 80% for 600 mg, 75% for the 300 mg, 65% for 150 mg and 50% for the placebo group, a sample size of 45 subjects in each group will have 90% power to detect a linear dose response using a 0.05 two-sided test of trend based on the logistic model."||||0.0630
84656157|NCT05275400|169048485|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013||||||||0.013|-0.191|
84726382|NCT00901459|169204631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.43||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=14|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (Frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz sfg condition (active).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||2.43|0.51|0.014
84726383|NCT00901459|169204631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 1Hz sfg condition (active)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the location control condition.||1.22|-0.64|0.49
84726384|NCT00901459|169204631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the location control rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||1.39|0.52|0.09
84656158|NCT05275400|169048486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.191|0.088
84656159|NCT05275400|169048487|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||Negative binomial model|||||1.74|0.62|0.897
84656160|NCT05275400|169048488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-1.88|0.722
84656161|NCT05275400|169048489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-4.01|0.605
84656162|NCT05275400|169048490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.97|-50.10|0.003
84656163|NCT05275400|169048491|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56|||Negative binomial model|||||1.56|0.83|0.430
84656164|NCT05275400|169048492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.071||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.38|0.756
84656165|NCT05275400|169048493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|0.02|0.021
84656166|NCT05275400|169048494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-3.37|0.417
84656167|NCT05275400|169048495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||4.59|1.71|<0.001
84656168|NCT05275400|169048495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.07|2.05|<0.001
84656169|NCT05275400|169048495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 78||4.94|1.75|<0.001
84656170|NCT02585960|169048499|SUPERIORITY||Gaussian Statistic estimate|1.96||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|3.958|||Chi-squared||Approximately Gaussian Statistic is obtained by taking the square root of the Chi-squared test with continuity adjustment.|The proportion of participants with an ABR of 0 during the second 6-month period on BAX 855 prophylaxis, was compared between the 2 prophylaxis arms using a chi-square test with continuity correction at a 2-sided 5% level of significance.||3.958|-0.038|0.0545
84656171|NCT02849678|169048537|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.148
84656172|NCT02849678|169048539|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.636
84656173|NCT02849678|169048541|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.193||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
84656174|NCT02849678|169048541|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.635||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in PACU versus at 24 hours versus 48 hours|ANOVA|||||||0.635
84656175|NCT02849678|169048542|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|Local Anesthetic Consumption through para-vertebral catheters in PACU vs. at 24 hours vs. 48 hours||||||0.063
84656176|NCT00282984|169048557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.13|8.86||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, used step-down procedure to analyze primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 thru 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the Long Term Quit Rate (LTQR) thru Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected \& clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Week 9 - 12 of trtmt based on response rates \& corresponding 95% OR confidence interval (CI) from A30510285 \& A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpoint (endpt) between (b/w) var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (OR of at least 3.04), and 84% power for 2 key secondary endpts.||8.86|4.13|<0.0001
84656177|NCT00282984|169048558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.97|5.18||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpts. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of treatment group \& center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of trtmt were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04) \& a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||5.18|1.97|<0.0001
84656178|NCT00282984|169048559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.82|4.38||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful varenicline (var) \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of treatment were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w varenicline \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04), and a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||4.38|1.82|<0.0001
84656179|NCT00282984|169048560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.17|8.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 analysis||8.56|4.17|<0.0001
84656180|NCT00282984|169048561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.03|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||24 Week analysis||4.23|2.03|<0.0001
84656181|NCT00282984|169048562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0003||95.0|1.34|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||52 Week analysis||2.77|1.34|0.0003
84656182|NCT00282984|169048563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0001||95.0|1.41|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.41|0.0001
84656183|NCT00282984|169048564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.51|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.93|2.51|<0.0001
84656184|NCT00282984|169048566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.58|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.58|<0.0001
84656185|NCT02774954|169048580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84656186|NCT02774954|169048581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84656187|NCT02168361|169048582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is no difference between two regimens in SVR-12.||||.02
84656188|NCT02516046|169048597|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86||||||Inter-reader agreement analysis using Fleiss' kappa. The hypothesis tested was that the observed kappa values were ≥0.64 and the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs were ≥0.55 for the inter-reader agreement among readers.||0.86|0.74|
84656189|NCT04665856|169048659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.97||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.43|0.0348
84656190|NCT04665856|169048660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.56|0.6105
84656191|NCT04665856|169048661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.49|0.1044
84656192|NCT04665856|169048662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.64|0.9363
84656193|NCT04665856|169048663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|22.55||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|39.03|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||39.03|4.12|0.0136
84656194|NCT04665856|169048664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|17.37||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|33.6|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||33.60|-0.22|0.0493
84656195|NCT04665856|169048667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.09||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|26.81|||Z-test|||6 Months||26.81|-10.62|0.3968
84656196|NCT04665856|169048667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 12|17.45||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|32.21|||Z-test|||12 Months||32.21|2.69|0.0205
84656197|NCT04665856|169048668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.18||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|25.82|||Z-test|||6 Months||25.82|-9.46|0.3633
84682174|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|-0.21|0.31
84507781|NCT00266409|168766515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4672||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4672
84656198|NCT04665856|169048668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month12|13.36||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.51|||Z-test|||12 Months||27.51|-0.79|0.0642
84656199|NCT04665856|169048669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|20.47||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|38.5|||Z-test|||12 Months||38.50|2.43|0.0261
84682175|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.26|-0.28|0.94
84656200|NCT04665856|169048669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-0.5||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|17.79|||Z-test|||24 Months||17.79|-18.79|0.9572
84656201|NCT04665856|169048670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|13.88||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|31.12|||Z-test|||12 Months||31.12|-3.36|0.1145
84656202|NCT04665856|169048670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-2.54||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|14.75|||Z-test|||24 Months||14.75|-19.83|0.7734
84656203|NCT03386448|169048679|SUPERIORITY|Student test was performed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84656204|NCT03338010|169048680|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
84656205|NCT03338010|169048681|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
84656206|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||4.8|-2.8|0.602
84507782|NCT00266409|168766516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2550
84656207|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||4.4|-11.8|0.373
84656208|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||3.7|-10.3|0.351
84656209|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||12.8|-3.1|0.230
84656210|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||8.5|-6.7|0.819
84656211|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Evening Meal Glucose||10.9|-6.2|0.588
84656212|NCT03338010|169048682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||9.5|-6.7|0.732
84656213|NCT03338010|169048683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.846
84656214|NCT03338010|169048684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
84656215|NCT03338010|169048685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||2.42|-1.78|0.767
84656216|NCT03338010|169048685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.3|-2.5|0.781
84656217|NCT03338010|169048686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
84656218|NCT03338010|169048687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
84656219|NCT03338010|169048688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84656220|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||1.82|-3.72|0.500
84656221|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.99||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||-0.36|-7.62|0.031
84656222|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||0.95|-4.53|0.200
84656223|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Glycemic Control Transformed Score||2.88|-2.92|0.988
84656224|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||1.51|-4.41|0.337
84656225|NCT03338010|169048689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITSQ Overall Total||0.92|-4.26|0.205
84656226|NCT03338010|169048690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
84656227|NCT03338010|169048691|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.19||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.92|0.74|0.143
84656228|NCT03338010|169048691|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.22||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.23|0.67|0.945
84656229|NCT01211730|169048692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.709
84507783|NCT00266409|168766516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3125
84656230|NCT01211730|169048693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
84507784|NCT00266409|168766517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3174||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3174
84656231|NCT01211730|169048694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0046
84656232|NCT01211730|169048695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
84656233|NCT01211730|169048696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
84656234|NCT01211730|169048697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
84656235|NCT00293033|169048706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|The SPID was analyzed using a mixed model of repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, pooled site, and a random effect for subjects.|Onsolis minus placebo|||16.18|3.31|0.004
84656236|NCT00293033|169048707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|-0.40|0.440
84656237|NCT00293033|169048708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-0.44|0.179
84656238|NCT00293033|169048709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|0.04|0.047
84507785|NCT00266409|168766517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9427
84507786|NCT00266409|168766518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3252||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3252
84656239|NCT00293033|169048710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.86|8.50|<0.001
84656240|NCT00293033|169048711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|48.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.12|15.85|<0.001
84656241|NCT00293033|169048712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.517
84656242|NCT00293033|169048713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
84656243|NCT00293033|169048714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.223
84656244|NCT00293033|169048715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
84656245|NCT00293033|169048716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84507787|NCT00266409|168766518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6090
84507788|NCT00266409|168766519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1247
84656246|NCT00293033|169048717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84656247|NCT00293033|169048718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
84656248|NCT00293033|169048719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.113
84656249|NCT00293033|169048720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.192
84656250|NCT00293033|169048721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84656251|NCT00293033|169048722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84656252|NCT00293033|169048723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84656253|NCT00293033|169048724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84656254|NCT00293033|169048725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
84656255|NCT00293033|169048726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
84656256|NCT00293033|169048727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84656257|NCT00293033|169048728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84656258|NCT00293033|169048729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84656259|NCT00293033|169048730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84656260|NCT00293033|169048731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84656261|NCT00293033|169048732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84656262|NCT00293033|169048733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
84656263|NCT00293033|169048734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
84656264|NCT00293033|169048735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
84656265|NCT00293033|169048736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84656266|NCT00293033|169048737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.963
84656267|NCT00293033|169048738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84656268|NCT00293033|169048739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84656269|NCT00293033|169048740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84656270|NCT00293033|169048741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
84656271|NCT00293033|169048742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84656272|NCT00293033|169048743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84656273|NCT00293033|169048744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84656274|NCT00293033|169048745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84656275|NCT00293033|169048746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84656276|NCT00293033|169048747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
84656277|NCT00293033|169048748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84656278|NCT00293033|169048749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
84656279|NCT00293033|169048750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84656280|NCT00293033|169048751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84656281|NCT00293033|169048752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.01|0.92|0.023
84656282|NCT00293033|169048753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|34.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.04|5.63|0.009
84656283|NCT00293033|169048754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|58.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.20|8.32|0.012
84656284|NCT00293033|169048755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.46||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|83.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.08|10.69|0.015
84656285|NCT03583697|169048757|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.53||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in least squares (LS) means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.53|-0.02|
84656286|NCT03583697|169048757|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.54||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.54|0.07|
84656287|NCT03583697|169048758|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.56||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.56|-0.02|
84656288|NCT03583697|169048758|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.66||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.66|0.26|
84656289|NCT03583697|169048759|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.54||||||||1.54|0.02|
84656290|NCT03583697|169048759|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.59||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.59|0.24|
84656291|NCT03583697|169048760|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.04|-0.17|
84656292|NCT03583697|169048760|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.03|-0.15|
84656293|NCT00453063|169048811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84656294|NCT00453063|169048812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.304
84656295|NCT00453063|169048813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84656296|NCT00453063|169048814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84656297|NCT00453063|169048815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.356
84656298|NCT00114530|169048816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed 4 pre-specified futility analyses that included an ability to stop for efficacy with p\<0.0001, leaving alpha equal to 0.0496 for the primary ITT analysis of the GRCS at 54 months post-randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84656299|NCT00114530|169048817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84656300|NCT00114530|169048818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84656301|NCT00114530|169048819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84656302|NCT00114530|169048820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.059
84656303|NCT00114530|169048820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.06
84656304|NCT00114530|169048821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.021
84656305|NCT00114530|169048821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.03
84656306|NCT00114530|169048822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
84656307|NCT00114530|169048823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
84656308|NCT00114530|169048824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84656309|NCT00114530|169048825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84656310|NCT00114530|169048826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84656311|NCT00114530|169048827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84656312|NCT00114530|169048828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.28
84656313|NCT00114530|169048828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.05
84656314|NCT00114530|169048829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.19
84656315|NCT00114530|169048829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.02
84656316|NCT00114530|169048830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
84656317|NCT00114530|169048831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
84656318|NCT00114530|169048832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
84656319|NCT00114530|169048832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
84656320|NCT00114530|169048833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
84656321|NCT00114530|169048833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.002
84682176|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.36|-0.40|0.93
84682177|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|-0.21|0.54
84682178|NCT04307004|169102081|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.68|-0.16|0.23
84682179|NCT02395042|169102097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.142
84682180|NCT02395042|169102097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.319
84682181|NCT02395042|169102098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.024
84682182|NCT02395042|169102098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.137
84682183|NCT01972841|169102103|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.49|0.072
84682184|NCT01972841|169102103|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.44|0.033
84507789|NCT00266409|168766519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8430
84682185|NCT01972841|169102103|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA||Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.58|0.001
84682186|NCT01972841|169102103|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.47|0.052
84656322|NCT00114530|169048834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.001
84656323|NCT00114530|169048834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.02
84656324|NCT00114530|169048834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.05
84656325|NCT00114530|169048834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.1
84656326|NCT00114530|169048835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
84656327|NCT00114530|169048835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.003
84656328|NCT00114530|169048835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
84656329|NCT00114530|169048835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.07
84656330|NCT00114530|169048836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.08
84656331|NCT00114530|169048836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.9
84656332|NCT00114530|169048837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.1
84656333|NCT00114530|169048837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.6
84656334|NCT00114530|169048838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
84656335|NCT00114530|169048838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.3
84656336|NCT00114530|169048839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.03
84656337|NCT00114530|169048839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.5
84656338|NCT00114530|169048840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.002
84656339|NCT00114530|169048840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.05
84656340|NCT00114530|169048841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
84656341|NCT00114530|169048841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
84656342|NCT00114530|169048842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.42
84656343|NCT00114530|169048842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.048
84656344|NCT00114530|169048842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.51
84656345|NCT00114530|169048843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.46
84656346|NCT00114530|169048843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.042
84656347|NCT00114530|169048843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.15
84656348|NCT00114530|169048844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
84656349|NCT00114530|169048845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
84656350|NCT00114530|169048846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84656351|NCT00114530|169048847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84656352|NCT00114530|169048848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84656353|NCT00114530|169048849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84656354|NCT00114530|169048850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84656355|NCT00114530|169048851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84656356|NCT00114530|169048852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||<0.001
84656357|NCT00114530|169048852|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.61, Probably related = 0.57, Definitely related = 0.52|||||
84656358|NCT00114530|169048852|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.17, Probably related = 0.09, Definitely related = 0.04|||||
84656359|NCT00114530|169048854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||0.7
84656360|NCT00114530|169048854|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.76|||||
84656361|NCT00114530|169048854|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.80|||||
84656362|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|95.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||95.05|11.12|< 0.001
84656363|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656364|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|41.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.3|6.72|< 0.001
84656365|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656366|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|25.84||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.84|4.79|< 0.001
84656367|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656368|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|49.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.27|7.81|< 0.001
84656369|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656370|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|12.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.3|2.95|< 0.001
84656371|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656372|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|22.34||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.34|4.79|< 0.001
84656373|NCT01817530|169048870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656374|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|641.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||641.22|38.04|< 0.001
84656375|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656376|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|206.88||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||206.88|21.1|< 0.001
84656377|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656378|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|156.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||156.09|17.42|< 0.001
84656379|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656380|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.45|61.96||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.96|10.45|< 0.001
84656381|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84507790|NCT00266409|168766520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1031
84507791|NCT00266409|168766520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0543
84507792|NCT00266409|168766521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0508||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0508
84507793|NCT00266409|168766521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0871||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0871
84656382|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|21.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.25|4.38|< 0.001
84656383|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656384|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|36.67||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||36.67|7.13|< 0.001
84656385|NCT01817530|169048871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656386|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.93|584.85||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||584.85|25.93|< 0.001
84656387|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656388|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.59|121.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||121.03|13.59|< 0.001
84656389|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656390|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|48.58||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.58|7.44|< 0.001
84656391|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656392|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.29|55.77||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||55.77|9.29|< 0.001
84656393|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656394|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|24.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.27|4.88|< 0.001
84656395|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656396|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|21.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.22|4.46|< 0.001
84656397|NCT01817530|169048872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656398|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|71.32||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||71.32|8.57|< 0.001
84656399|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656400|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|45.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||45.05|6.57|< 0.001
84656401|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656402|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|19.92||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||19.92|3.79|< 0.001
84656403|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656404|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|49.02||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.02|7.11|< 0.001
84656405|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656406|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.04|2.43|< 0.001
84656407|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656408|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|26.79|||Regression, Logistic|P value is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||26.79|5.17|< 0.001
84656409|NCT01817530|169048873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656410|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|98.83||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||98.83|10.02|< 0.001
84656411|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656412|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|35.91||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||35.91|5.77|< 0.001
84656413|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656414|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|22.8||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.8|4.23|< 0.001
84656415|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656416|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|41.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.26|6.66|< 0.001
84656417|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656418|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|14.68||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.68|3.36|< 0.001
84656419|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656420|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|23.76||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.76|4.85|< 0.001
84656421|NCT01817530|169048874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84656422|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84682187|NCT01972841|169102104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.57|0.040
84715137|NCT03334630|169176972|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control primary effectiveness rate of 65%, 229 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -12.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.109||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.4% = 0.034|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.109|-0.042|<0.0001
84656423|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656424|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656425|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656426|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656427|NCT01817530|169048875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656428|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656429|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656430|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656431|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656432|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656433|NCT01817530|169048876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84656434|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-6.28|0.007
84656435|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.46||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-3.44|0.132
84656436|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.0||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.00|-1.71|0.876
84656437|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-3.92|0.055
84656438|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|-1.52|0.898
84656439|NCT01817530|169048877|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.17||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.17|-2.05|0.59
84656440|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.42||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.64|0.001
84656441|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.42|< 0.001
84656442|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
84656443|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.12||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-1.04|0.118
84656444|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
84656445|NCT01817530|169048878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.51|< 0.001
84656446|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.79|0.004
84656447|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.4|0.314
84656448|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.12|0.307
84656449|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.58|0.106
84656450|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.36|0.424
84656451|NCT01817530|169048879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.35||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.18|0.528
84656452|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|0.80|< 0.001
84656453|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|0.78|< 0.001
84656454|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.33|< 0.001
84656455|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.65|< 0.001
84656456|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.16||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.29|< 0.001
84656457|NCT01817530|169048880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.4|< 0.001
84656458|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656459|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656460|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.018
84656461|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656462|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656463|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.021
84656464|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656465|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656466|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.032
84656467|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656468|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.007
84656469|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.495
84656470|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656471|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656472|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.015
84656473|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656474|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
84656475|NCT01817530|169048881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.329
84656476|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656477|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656478|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.036
84656479|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656480|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656481|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.040
84656482|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656483|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
84656484|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.098
84656485|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656486|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.014
84656487|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.409
84656488|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656489|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656490|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.094
84656491|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656492|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
84656493|NCT01817530|169048882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.393
84656494|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656495|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656496|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656497|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656498|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656499|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656500|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656501|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656502|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656503|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656504|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656505|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656506|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656507|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656508|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656509|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656510|NCT01817530|169048883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656511|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656512|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656513|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.020
84656514|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656515|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.002
84656516|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.061
84656517|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656518|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.004
84656519|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.085
84656520|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656521|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.012
84656522|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.049
84656523|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656524|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656525|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.056
84656526|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656527|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.005
84656528|NCT01817530|169048884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.088
84656529|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656530|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656531|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.188
84656532|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656533|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.001
84656534|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.104
84656535|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656536|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.021
84656537|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.859
84656538|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656539|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.006
84656540|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.015
84656541|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656542|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.007
84656543|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.722
84656544|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656545|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84507794|NCT00266409|168766522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8318
84656546|NCT01817530|169048885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.032
84656547|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656548|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656549|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.041
84656550|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656551|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84656552|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.008
84656553|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656554|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656555|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
84507795|NCT00266409|168766522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5375
84656556|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656557|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
84656558|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
84656559|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656560|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656561|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.004
84656562|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656563|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
84656564|NCT01817530|169048886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.002
84656565|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|3.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||3.59|-6.65|0.556
84656566|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|4.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||4.09|-6.33|0.672
84507796|NCT00266409|168766523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
84656567|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|8.36||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||8.36|-2.39|0.274
84656568|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.23||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.23|-5.26|0.223
84656569|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.22|-5.38|0.215
84656570|NCT01817530|169048887|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|1.87||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.87|-4.75|0.392
84656571|NCT00679432|169048892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.4|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Asacol and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Asacol versus budesonide MMX.||13.4|-1.8|0.1393
84507797|NCT00266409|168766523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0422
84507798|NCT00266409|168766524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1164||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1164
84656572|NCT00679432|169048892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|18.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||18.7|2.2|0.0143
84656573|NCT00679432|169048892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.1|-2.7|0.2200
84656574|NCT00679432|169048893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|17.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||17.0|-5.5|0.3146
84656575|NCT00679432|169048893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||19.9|-2.8|0.1420
84656576|NCT00679432|169048893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|9.1||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||20.4|-2.3|0.1189
84656577|NCT00679432|169048894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Asacol and placebo groups is shown here.||11.8|-11.8|0.9991
84656578|NCT01558271|169048895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide greater than 99% power to demonstrate superiority of LY2189265 to placebo. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and placebo being 0.8%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||-1.35|-1.79|<0.001
84726591|NCT00850993|169204925|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-2.63|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||-0.3|-4.97|=0.028
84726592|NCT00872339|169204986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84726593|NCT00872339|169204988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84726594|NCT00091572|169205013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2663||95.0|0.8|1.06|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (progressions/deaths) = 401. Dacarbazine events (progressions/deaths) = 398.|||1.06|0.80|0.2663
84726595|NCT00091572|169205014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9999||95.0|0.86|1.17|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (deaths) = 320. Dacarbazine events (deaths) = 325.|||1.17|0.86|0.9999
84507799|NCT00266409|168766524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1935
84507800|NCT00266409|168766525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1244||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1244
84656579|NCT01558271|169048895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Liraglutide. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to liraglutide.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide \>90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to liraglutide by a margin of 0.4%. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and Liraglutide being 0%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||0.07|-0.27|0.248
84656580|NCT01558271|169048896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.39|0.040
84656581|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
84656582|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.608
84656583|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
84656584|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.844
84656585|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.112
84656586|NCT01558271|169048897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.103
84656587|NCT01558271|169048898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.31|-33.11||Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.11|-47.31|<0.001
84656588|NCT01558271|169048898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.||||5.96|-4.82|0.835
84656589|NCT01558271|169048898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.1||Treatment comparison for FBG at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-7.65|0.553
84656590|NCT01558271|169048900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.||||1.23|-0.02|0.057
84656591|NCT01558271|169048900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.14|0.168
84656592|NCT01558271|169048900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||Treatment comparison for body weight at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-0.64|0.911
84656593|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.48||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.48|-12.20|0.723
84656594|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.91||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||7.91|-7.92|0.998
84656595|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.83||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|9.38||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||9.38|-7.72|0.848
84656596|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|3.42||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||3.42|-9.48|0.357
84656597|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.36||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.36|-10.35|0.533
84656598|NCT01558271|169048901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|5.25||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.25|-7.32|0.747
84656599|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|35.07||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||35.07|21.63|<0.001
84656600|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.24||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||8.24|-2.09|0.242
84656601|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|30.4||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||30.40|19.25|<0.001
84656602|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|6.13||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.32|0.376
84656603|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.54||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.54|-2.72|0.417
84656604|NCT01558271|169048902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|5.29||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.29|-3.83|0.753
84656605|NCT01558271|169048903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84656606|NCT01558271|169048903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84656607|NCT01558271|169048903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84726596|NCT00091572|169205015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0718||95.0|0.97|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Temozolomide numerator (responders) = 55. Dacarbazine numerator (responders) = 37.|||2.12|0.97|0.0718
84726597|NCT00267774|169205018|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided value of P\<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84726598|NCT03677986|169205026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.14|||GEE|||||4.14|.21|0.914
84726599|NCT00635609|169205046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.765
84726600|NCT00635609|169205047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.290
84726601|NCT00635609|169205048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.033
84726602|NCT04520256|169205055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84726603|NCT04520256|169205056|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.27||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-.54|0.693
84726604|NCT04520256|169205056|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.09||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.01|0.900
84726605|NCT04520256|169205056|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.06|0.960
84726606|NCT04520256|169205056|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.44||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.01|0.113
84726607|NCT04520256|169205056|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.92||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.01|0.187
84726608|NCT04520256|169205057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84726609|NCT04520256|169205058|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.12||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.56|0|.999
84726610|NCT04520256|169205058|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.15||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|0|.999
84726611|NCT04520256|169205058|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.52|0|.999
84726612|NCT04520256|169205058|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|0|.999
84726613|NCT04520256|169205058|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.1||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.47|0|.999
84726328|NCT00896389|169204587|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84507801|NCT00266409|168766525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6182
84507802|NCT00266409|168766526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4589
84507803|NCT00266409|168766526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
84656608|NCT00873912|169048934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on similar fever rate with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), the study would provide at least 98% power to rule out a rate increase of 5 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 1.0%. Power would be lower if the true difference was different from zero.|rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.3|||score statistic|||The percentage of subjects with fever was compared between the two treatment groups based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points which corresponded to the following hypotheses: - H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points, - HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.||1.3|-7.9|
84656609|NCT01466153|169048939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4475
84656610|NCT01466153|169048943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3206
84656611|NCT01466153|169048944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3130
84656612|NCT01466153|169048946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9527|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9527
84656613|NCT01918774|169049035|OTHER|Pre-post analysis comparing weeks worked in the 6 months preceding baseline and the 6 month study follow-up.|||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold of significance was p\<.05|within groups t-test|||||||<.001
84656614|NCT01135420|169049048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
84656615|NCT00980057|169049126|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 12%.||||||0.0002|||||||Farrington-Manning test of two ind. prop|||||||0.0002
84656616|NCT00980057|169049127|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified minimum objective performance criteria was 0.82|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84656617|NCT00980057|169049129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84656618|NCT00980057|169049130|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 15|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84656619|NCT00980057|169049131|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
84656620|NCT00980057|169049132|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.3|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84656621|NCT00980057|169049133|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 30||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0002
84656622|NCT00980057|169049134|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5.1||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
84656623|NCT02139228|169049154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.76|||ANOVA|||||0.76|0.36|
84656624|NCT02139228|169049155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.2|||Clopper-Pearson|||||-4.2|-18.6|
84656625|NCT00706823|169049163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84656626|NCT00706823|169049164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84656627|NCT00706823|169049166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84656628|NCT00706823|169049168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|58.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.6|1.1|0.03
84656629|NCT00592384|169049169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|see above||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
84656630|NCT00592384|169049182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
84656631|NCT02499783|169049194|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|||41.7|19.2|<0.001
84656632|NCT02499783|169049195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference Compared to 30%|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|42.4|||One Sample Exact Test|The one sample Exact test was performed by comparing it to the clinically meaningful remission rate of 30%.||||42.4|26.2|< 0.001
84656633|NCT02499783|169049196|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
84656634|NCT02499783|169049200|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
84507804|NCT00266409|168766527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4450
84507805|NCT00266409|168766527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2924||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2924
84507806|NCT00266409|168766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2184
84656635|NCT02499783|169049201|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
84656636|NCT02499783|169049202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.0||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||37.0|18.2|< 0.001
84656637|NCT02499783|169049204|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||32.1|7.1|0.002
84656638|NCT02499783|169049206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-385.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-598.81|-171.5||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-171.50|-598.81|< 0.001
84656639|NCT02499783|169049207|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.8||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||15.8|3.9|0.001
84656640|NCT02499783|169049209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 2||28.6|8.2|< 0.001
84656641|NCT02499783|169049209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 4||41.7|19.2|< 0.001
84656642|NCT02499783|169049211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|30.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 2||30.2|12.6|< 0.001
84656643|NCT02499783|169049211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 4||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
84656644|NCT02499783|169049213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|34.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 2||34.6|8.7|0.001
84656645|NCT02499783|169049213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 4||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
84656646|NCT02499783|169049215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|43.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 2||43.2|19.6|< 0.001
84507807|NCT00266409|168766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1281
84507808|NCT00266409|168766529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6602||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.6602
84507809|NCT00266409|168766530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5544
84507810|NCT00266409|168766531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9269||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9269
84507811|NCT00266409|168766532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5271||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5271
84507812|NCT00266409|168766533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1447||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.1447
84507813|NCT00266409|168766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9375||95.0||||P-value from a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9375
84507814|NCT00266409|168766535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9883
84507815|NCT00266409|168766536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.3093
84507816|NCT00266409|168766537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5824||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5824
84507817|NCT00266409|168766538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.044
84507818|NCT00266409|168766538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6587||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.6587
84507819|NCT04128007|168766542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|32.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|S-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||32.32|6.64|<0.0001
84507820|NCT04128007|168766543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|21.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|B-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||21.18|3.65|<0.0001
84507821|NCT04128007|168766544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|7.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.71|2.14|<0.0001
84656647|NCT02499783|169049215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 4||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
84507822|NCT04128007|168766544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|9.78||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||9.78|2.93|<0.0001
84507823|NCT04128007|168766544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|18.89||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.89|5.02|<0.0001
84507824|NCT04128007|168766545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 4 Change from Baseline||-11.8|-27.4|<0.0001
84507825|NCT04128007|168766545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 8 Change from Baseline||-19.5|-35.5|<0.0001
84507826|NCT04128007|168766546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|5.616||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Log Rank||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Time to PSSI-50 Hazard Ratio||5.616|2.764|<0.0001
84507827|NCT04128007|168766547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|18.61||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.61|4.81|<0.0001
84507828|NCT04128007|168766548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|139.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||139.77|8.49|<0.0001
84507829|NCT00814320|168766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.025|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.046||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||For SC Administration of IGIV, 10%, with rHuPH20 after ramp-up, only||0.046||<0.0001
84656648|NCT02499783|169049217|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.39|-27.3||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 2||-27.30|-59.39|< 0.001
84656649|NCT02499783|169049217|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|-49.06||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 4||-49.06|-84.20|< 0.001
84507830|NCT00491504|168766656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as effect and Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.625
84656650|NCT02499783|169049219|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.183|-8.659||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 2||-8.659|-19.183|< 0.001
84656651|NCT02499783|169049219|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.844|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.206|-12.483||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 4||-12.483|-21.206|< 0.001
84656652|NCT00730405|169049229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656653|NCT00730405|169049229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656654|NCT00730405|169049229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656655|NCT00730405|169049229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656656|NCT00730405|169049230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656657|NCT00730405|169049230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656658|NCT00730405|169049230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84507831|NCT01488578|168766666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84507832|NCT01488578|168766669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.032
84507833|NCT01488578|168766670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84507834|NCT01488578|168766671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84656659|NCT00730405|169049230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656660|NCT00730405|169049231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656661|NCT00730405|169049231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656662|NCT00730405|169049231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656663|NCT00730405|169049231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656664|NCT00730405|169049232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656665|NCT00730405|169049232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656666|NCT00730405|169049232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656667|NCT00730405|169049232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656668|NCT00730405|169049233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84656669|NCT00730405|169049233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84656670|NCT00730405|169049233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84656671|NCT00730405|169049233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84656672|NCT00730405|169049234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656673|NCT00730405|169049234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656674|NCT00730405|169049234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656675|NCT00730405|169049234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84656676|NCT00963937|169049236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|8.04||Multiplicity was not considered because the primary analysis included a single statistical comparison.|Chi-squared||Percent difference = sumatriptan pooled group minus the placebo group|||8.04|-23.02|0.345
84656677|NCT01323959|169049265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.6|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|"The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, 1 month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.~Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing."||99.6|89|
84656678|NCT01323959|169049265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|99.1|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||99.1|87.8|
84656679|NCT01323959|169049265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|100.0|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||100|94.8|
84656680|NCT01323959|169049267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|97.4|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to dose in study NCT01277705. Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing.||97.4|82.4|
84656681|NCT01323959|169049267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.3|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||88.3|67.9|
84656682|NCT01323959|169049267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|91.8|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||91.8|73.3|
84656683|NCT02021773|169049285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.937||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|-1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.21|-44.28|0.0386
84656684|NCT02021773|169049285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.88|-8.95||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.95|-51.88|0.0057
84656685|NCT00622284|169049308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. Superiority testing was not part of the pre-specified Week 52 confirmatory analysis.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0005||97.5|0.13|0.31||Due to multiple testing of the primary endpoints at weeks 52 and 104 a Bonferroni correction was applied and 97.5% confidence intervals produced. This 1-sided p-value for non-inferiority should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.31|0.13|0.0005
84656686|NCT00622284|169049309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. However, superiority testing is only applicable if the Linagliptin decrease is greater than that in Glimepiride.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0004||97.5|0.09|0.3||This 1-sided p-value should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125 for non-inferiority. Due to the pre-specified hierarchial approach, further confirmatory analysis on the Week24 endpoints is only applicable if superiority is already met.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.30|0.09|0.0004
84656687|NCT00622284|169049310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001||97.5|-2.91|-2.09||This Week52 key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (2-sided threshold of 0.025 to allow for multiple testing within a visit) if the Week52 primary hypothesis was rejected.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.09|-2.91|<0.0001
84656688|NCT00622284|169049311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||97.5|-3.17|-2.19||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.19|-3.17|<0.0001
84656689|NCT00622284|169049312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (comparing to a 2-sided threshold of 0.025) if the Week52 body weight change from baseline was confirmatory.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
84656690|NCT00622284|169049313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
84656691|NCT00622284|169049314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001||95.0|3.51|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.16|3.51|<0.0001
84656692|NCT00622284|169049315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0012||95.0|2.51|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.25|2.51|0.0012
84656693|NCT00622284|169049316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.0004||95.0|0.482|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.811|0.482|0.0004
84656694|NCT00622284|169049317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.003||95.0|0.494|0.866|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.866|0.494|0.0030
84656695|NCT00622284|169049318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.648||||0.0025||95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.859|0.489|0.0025
84656696|NCT00622284|169049319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.689||||0.024||95.0|0.498|0.952|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.952|0.498|0.0240
84656697|NCT00622284|169049320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0018||95.0|0.56|0.875|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.875|0.560|0.0018
84656698|NCT00622284|169049321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0918||95.0|-21.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||1.59|-21.07|0.0918
84656699|NCT00457301|169049337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.05
84656700|NCT00457301|169049338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjuusting for baseline HADS anxiety scores||||0.34
84656701|NCT00457301|169049338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjusting for baseline HADS depression scores.||||0.55
84656702|NCT00457301|169049339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84656703|NCT00457301|169049340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.46
84656704|NCT03137537|169049460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84656705|NCT03137537|169049461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84656706|NCT01552694|169049464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted p-value compares the change (week 8 - baseline) for plasma hsCRP between the 2 groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84656707|NCT01552694|169049465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84656708|NCT01552694|169049466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84656709|NCT00191139|169049474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|40.6||||||95.0|23.8|56.8|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||56.8|23.8|
84656710|NCT00191139|169049474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|55.7||||||95.0|36.8|70.9|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||70.9|36.8|
84656711|NCT00191139|169049475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|75.0||||||95.0|56.6|88.5|||normal approximation|||||88.5|56.6|
84656712|NCT00191139|169049475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|84.4||||||95.0|67.2|94.7|||Normal approximation|||||94.7|67.2|
84656713|NCT00191139|169049476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
84656714|NCT00191139|169049477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
84656715|NCT02465515|169049479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by testing the hypothesis that the observed hazard ratio is significantly different from the null margin of 1.3 (a one-sided p \<0.025 for such a test with result in appropriate direction being equivalent to the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio being less than 1.3)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9||One-sided p-value based on Wald test of hazard ratio (HR) \>=1.3 versus HR \<1.3.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||0.90|0.68|<0.0001
84656716|NCT02465515|169049479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test|||||||<0.001
84656717|NCT02465515|169049480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.69|<0.001
84656718|NCT02465515|169049481|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||1.19|0.73|0.578
84656719|NCT02465515|169049482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.61|0.003
84656720|NCT02465515|169049483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.14|0.66|0.300
84656721|NCT02465515|169049484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.04|0.70|0.113
84656722|NCT02465515|169049485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.53|0.33|<0.001
84656723|NCT02465515|169049486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.99|0.51|0.043
84656724|NCT02465515|169049487|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 8||||||<0.001
84656725|NCT02465515|169049487|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 16||||||<0.001
84656726|NCT02465515|169049487|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 24||||||<0.001
84656727|NCT02465515|169049487|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Final assessment||||||<0.001
84656728|NCT02465515|169049488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.01|0.43|0.055
84656729|NCT02465515|169049489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.58||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.58|-0.69|<0.001
84656730|NCT02465515|169049489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.45||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.45|-0.58|<0.001
84656731|NCT02465515|169049490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body Weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.49|-0.83|<0.001
84656732|NCT02465515|169049490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.6||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.60|-1.06|<0.001
84656733|NCT02465515|169049491|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.93||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||2.93|1.85|<0.001
84656734|NCT02465515|169049491|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.01||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||3.01|1.66|<0.001
84656735|NCT02465515|169049492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||2.07|0.87|<0.001
84507835|NCT01488578|168766672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84656736|NCT02465515|169049492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.31||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||1.31|-0.26|0.192
84507836|NCT01488578|168766673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit TEST|||||||<0.001
84656737|NCT02465515|169049493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.16|0.79|0.644
84656738|NCT02465515|169049497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.39||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||-0.39|-1.84|0.003
84507837|NCT01488578|168766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.006
84507838|NCT01488578|168766676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84507839|NCT01488578|168766677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.015
84507840|NCT01488578|168766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84507841|NCT01488578|168766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84656739|NCT02465515|169049497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16.|||0.41|-1.26|0.315
84656740|NCT03846804|169049502|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84656741|NCT00824720|169049510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.9737|||||||ANCOVA||Mean difference was calculated as high dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis was that the high dose was different from the placebo.||||0.9737
84656742|NCT00824720|169049510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.4711|||||||ANCOVA||The mean difference was calculated as low dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis is that the low dose was different from placebo.||||0.4711
84507842|NCT02308111|168766681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.51||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.68|0.954
84656743|NCT02610725|169049514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom.|Means were analyzed in (pre-post) format. A negative mean here indicates an increase in positive affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes positive affect analysis.||-0.46|-3.73|0.013
84656744|NCT02610725|169049514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.02|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom|Means were analyzed in a (pre-post) format. A positive mean indicates a decrease in negative affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes negative affect analysis.||8.02|4.10|<0.001
84656745|NCT00743483|169049521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2179
84656746|NCT01703039|169049587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84507843|NCT02308111|168766682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.61|0.304
84656747|NCT01703039|169049588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84656748|NCT01703039|169049589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
84656749|NCT01703039|169049590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
84656750|NCT01703039|169049591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84656751|NCT00147446|169049594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two smaple test statistics|2.09||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that treatment with stress management produced a significant reduction in cumulative Gd+ lesions compared to the control condition during the treatment period||||0.04
84656752|NCT00147446|169049594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.55|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving stress management remained free of Gd+ lesions during the treatment, compared to those receiving the control condition.||6.55|1.17|0.02
84656753|NCT00147446|169049595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two sample test statistics|2.84||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that participants receiving SMT-MS showed a significant reduction in cumulative new T2 lesions, compared to those receiving the control condition during the treatment period.||||0.005
84656754|NCT00147446|169049595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving SMT-MS remained free of new T2 lesions during the treatment, compared to control condition participants.||6.81|1.38|0.006
84656755|NCT02302807|169049596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.63|0.4134
84656756|NCT02302807|169049596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
84656757|NCT02302807|169049596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||||0.99|0.73|
84656758|NCT01980940|169049607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.03|6.42|||ANOVA|||The geometric least squares mean ratio (GLSMR) and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||6.42|4.03|
84656759|NCT01980940|169049607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.05|8.81|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||8.81|6.05|
84656760|NCT01980940|169049607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.55|0.38|
84656761|NCT01980940|169049607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.83|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.83|0.51|
84656762|NCT01980940|169049609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.77|18.18|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||18.18|4.77|
84656763|NCT01980940|169049609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.39|10.32|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||10.32|6.39|
84656764|NCT01980940|169049609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.57|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.57|0.39|
84656765|NCT01980940|169049609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.79|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.79|0.21|
84656766|NCT01980940|169049610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.57||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.6|8.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||8.9|-63.6|0.2113
84507844|NCT02308111|168766683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.69|0.898
84507845|NCT02308111|168766684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
84656767|NCT01980940|169049610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.7|10.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||10.3|-55.7|0.2548
84656768|NCT01980940|169049610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.94||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|12.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||12.0|-54.9|0.2880
84507846|NCT02308111|168766685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.78||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||2.78|0.57|0.568
84507847|NCT02308111|168766686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.07|0.59|0.769
84507848|NCT02308111|168766687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.67|0.42|0.599
84507849|NCT02308111|168766688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.43||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.43|0.18|0.745
84656769|NCT01980940|169049610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.52||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.4|15.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||15.1|-50.4|0.3709
84656770|NCT01980940|169049610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.81||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.5|16.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||16.0|-50.5|0.3883
84656771|NCT01980940|169049611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.7|1.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||1.6|-29.7|0.1383
84656772|NCT01980940|169049611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|4.2|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.2|-24.9|0.2380
84656773|NCT01980940|169049611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|4.8|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.8|-23.9|0.2691
84656774|NCT01980940|169049611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|5.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||5.6|-21.8|0.3246
84507850|NCT02308111|168766689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.44||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.44|0.43|0.437
84507851|NCT02308111|168766690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.24||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.24|0.37|0.838
84507852|NCT02308111|168766691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.04||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||4.04|0.26|0.980
84507853|NCT02308111|168766692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.83|0.58|0.933
84507854|NCT02308111|168766693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.34|0.53|0.468
84507855|NCT02308111|168766694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.41|0.13|0.178
84507856|NCT02308111|168766694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.13|0.190
84507857|NCT02308111|168766695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.54||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.54|0.05|0.443
84507858|NCT00745251|168766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0084|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.84|||ANCOVA|||||-4.84||0.0084
84507859|NCT00745251|168766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-9.37|0.0006
84507860|NCT02928848|168766857|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-week) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in overall language ability, as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), that endures over time.||||0.14
84507861|NCT02928848|168766858|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-weeks) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in naming ability, as measured by the naming subtest of the WAB, that endures over time.||||.02
84507862|NCT01463683|168766873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Incidence of seroprotection with V232-2XP SC is non-inferior to V232-1XP SC if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference is greater than -10%|Difference in percentage of participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.6|1.9|
84507863|NCT01463683|168766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||11.9|-2.0|0.162
84507864|NCT01463683|168766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||21.6|1.1|0.028
84507865|NCT01463683|168766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.0||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||16.8|-4.0|0.246
84507866|NCT01463683|168766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.4|-3.8|0.659
84507867|NCT01463683|168766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.6||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.2|-7.7|0.459
84507868|NCT01463683|168766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.0|-7.1|0.686
84507869|NCT00976664|168766944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0007
84656775|NCT01980940|169049611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|6.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||6.6|-20.9|0.3881
84656776|NCT01980940|169049612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.25||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.8|62.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.3|-166.8|0.4477
84656777|NCT01980940|169049612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.6|76.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||76.1|-143.6|0.6084
84656778|NCT01980940|169049612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.25||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-144.7|74.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||74.4|-144.7|0.5926
84656779|NCT01980940|169049612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.49||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-147.2|62.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.6|-147.2|0.5022
84656780|NCT01980940|169049612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.7||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-149.0|64.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||64.9|-149.0|0.5125
84656781|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2632|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 2 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.2632
84656782|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4703|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 4 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.4703
84507870|NCT00976664|168766944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.3913
84656783|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 7 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.5507
84656784|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3992|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 11 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3992
84656785|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6626|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 14 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.6626
84656786|NCT01980940|169049613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.315|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of post-trial PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3150
84656787|NCT02761252|169049685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3429||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8693|0.4813|||ANCOVA|||||0.4813|-0.8693|0.5721
84656788|NCT02761252|169049686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4489||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0379|-0.2725|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2725|-2.0379|0.0105
84656789|NCT02761252|169049687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2009||0.4885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5342|0.2557|||ANCOVA|||||0.2557|-0.5342|0.4885
84656790|NCT02761252|169049688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1504||0.81032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3319|0.2596|||ANCOVA|||||0.2596|-0.3319|0.81032
84656791|NCT02761252|169049689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9322||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9969|2.6688|||ANOVA|||||2.6688|-0.9969|0.3704
84656792|NCT02761252|169049690|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5735||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8968|4.2228|||ANOVA|||||4.2228|-5.8968|0.7452
84507871|NCT00976664|168766945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.002
84682188|NCT01972841|169102104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.11||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.67|0.006
84682189|NCT01972841|169102104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.76|0.001
84682190|NCT01972841|169102104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.84|<0.001
84682191|NCT01972841|169102105|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|10.0||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.00|-2.29|0.219
84682192|NCT01972841|169102105|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|14.89||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||14.89|2.61|0.005
84682193|NCT01972841|169102105|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|27.68||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||27.68|15.35|<0.001
84682194|NCT01972841|169102105|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.58|23.9||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||23.90|11.58|<0.001
84682195|NCT01972841|169102106|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|-2.27|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.27|-6.98|<0.001
84507872|NCT00976664|168766945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0336
84507873|NCT02688400|168766946|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of Diacerein versus Celecoxib was assessed by computing the difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2) in WOMAC Pain subscale score after 182 days of treatment between Diacerein and Celecoxib treatment groups from a MMRM.~Assuming that:~* Non inferiority margin of 10 points for the absolute change in WOMAC Pain Subscale Score (scale 0-100)~* SD of 26 in the two treatment groups,~* Type I error: α = 0.025 (one-sided condition) and power equal to 90%"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.18||MMRM. Non-inferiority claim:Diacerein to be non-inferior to Celecoxib if upper bound of the the difference in the adjusted mean change was inferior to 5 cm on the PPS.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.18||<0.025
84507874|NCT02688400|168766947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84507875|NCT02688400|168766948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84507876|NCT02688400|168766949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84656793|NCT02342327|169049700|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||||||Hazard ratio for time to lapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.22|0.55|
84656794|NCT02342327|169049701|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06||||||Hazard ratio for time to relapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.06|0.42|
84656795|NCT00717197|169049717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|43.7||||||||43.7|7.46|
84656796|NCT03003390|169049724|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probabilities|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Using informative priors of B(1, 1) on the enoxaparin arm and B(18, 82) on the usual care arm, the risks of CADVT were 0.32 (95% CrI: 0.16, 0.51) in the enoxaparin arm and 0.25 (95% CrI: 0.18, 0.33) in the usual care arm. The posterior probability that the absolute difference in the risk of CADVT was lower by 0.06 in the enoxaparin arm was 9.1%. Using minimally informative priors, the risk ratio of CADVT with enoxaparin was 0.55 (95% CrI: 0.24, 1.11).|||
84656797|NCT03003390|169049725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||0.22
84656798|NCT03003390|169049726|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84656799|NCT03003390|169049727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84656800|NCT03003390|169049728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84507877|NCT02688400|168766950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84507878|NCT02688400|168766951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84507879|NCT02688400|168766952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84507880|NCT02688400|168766953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84656801|NCT03003390|169049729|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84656802|NCT03003390|169049731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84507881|NCT02688400|168766954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84507882|NCT00108732|168767073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.3|75.3||||||||75.3|48.3|
84656803|NCT03000439|169049765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633|||=|0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.354||1-sided p-value is provided.|Unstratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as covariate. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard ratio in favor of Tofacitinib 5 mg BID to Placebo.|||1.354|0.296|= 0.1171
84656804|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 4||13.6|-12.2|
84656805|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|11.3|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 8||11.3|-27.9|
84507883|NCT00108732|168767074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|7.2||||||||7.2|0|
84507884|NCT00108732|168767075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|0.45||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the difference between day 4 PSA and day 15 PSA.||||||0.003
84507885|NCT00108732|168767076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|-0.04||||0.02||95.0||||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference between pre and post-treatment PSA slopes assessed by multiple PSA values on natural log scale using a piecewise linear model with a common knot point at the date of registration.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
84656806|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|11.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 12||11.6|-33.2|
84656807|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|9.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 16||9.8|-37.2|
84656808|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 20||11.5|-37.9|
84656809|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 24||11.5|-37.9|
84656810|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|15.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 28||15.6|-34.5|
84656811|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 32||11.5|-39.5|
84682196|NCT01972841|169102106|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-3.44|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.44|-8.17|<0.001
84682197|NCT01972841|169102106|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.76|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.76|-9.50|<0.001
84682198|NCT01972841|169102106|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-3.74|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.74|-8.46|<0.001
84656812|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 36||16.7|-35.5|
84656813|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 40||16.7|-35.5|
84656814|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 44||11.8|-41.8|
84656815|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 48||11.8|-41.8|
84656816|NCT03000439|169049766|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 52||11.8|-41.8|
84656817|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
84656818|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.37|21.36|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 8||21.36|-18.37|
84656819|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
84656820|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
84656821|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
84656822|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
84656823|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
84682199|NCT01972841|169102107|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.52|-0.03|0.077
84656824|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
84656825|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
84656826|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
84656827|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
84656828|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
84656829|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
84656830|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
84682200|NCT01972841|169102107|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.55|0.00|0.050
84682201|NCT01972841|169102107|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.008
84682202|NCT01972841|169102107|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.007
84682203|NCT01972841|169102108|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.04|0.72|0.135
84682204|NCT01972841|169102108|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.09|0.75|0.282
84682205|NCT01972841|169102108|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
84682206|NCT01972841|169102108|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.06|0.73|0.172
84682207|NCT01972841|169102109|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.offset variable.||-0.01|-3.27|0.074
84682208|NCT01972841|169102109|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.3|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-2.96|0.025
84656831|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|25.17|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 8||25.17|-15.72|
84656832|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
84656833|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|37.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 16||37.48|-10.76|
84682209|NCT01972841|169102109|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.73|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.73|-4.00|<0.001
84682210|NCT01972841|169102109|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.05|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-3.23|0.024
84682211|NCT01972841|169102113|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.76|-0.39|0.520
84682212|NCT01972841|169102113|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.34|-0.82|0.413
84682213|NCT01972841|169102113|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.50|0.002
84682214|NCT01972841|169102113|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffrence|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.02|-1.13|0.060
84682215|NCT01972841|169102114|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.04|0.70|0.110
84682216|NCT01972841|169102114|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.10|0.73|0.288
84656834|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|44.14|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 20||44.14|-5.20|
84656835|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
84507886|NCT01901055|168767094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||F-test statistics for group X time = 4.27|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|Statistical analyses were revised from the original protocol for reporting results at 24 week because unable to recruit an adequate sample size at this time point of participants originally on CPAP for 24 weeks and those who were in the original sham-CPAP group who crossed over to CPAP and completed 24 weeks of treatment.||0.04|-0.68|0.017
84656836|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
84656837|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
84656838|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
84656839|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
84656840|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
84656841|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
84656842|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
84682217|NCT01972841|169102114|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.79|0.53|<0.001
84682218|NCT01972841|169102114|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.68|0.084
84656843|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|10.49|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 4||10.49|-38.14|
84656844|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|13.15|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 8||13.15|-32.28|
84656845|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|24.24|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 12||24.24|-24.70|
84656846|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|31.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 16||31.06|-19.31|
84656847|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|44.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 20||44.06|-5.81|
84656848|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.55|27.47|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 24||27.47|-23.55|
84656849|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER|The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|40.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 28||40.46|-10.05|
84656850|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 32||37.56|-12.91|
84507887|NCT01901055|168767095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|5.09||F test statistics for group X time = 1.20|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||5.09|-38.66|0.307
84656851|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
84656852|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 40||37.56|-12.91|
84656853|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
84656854|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
84656855|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
84656856|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.09|4.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 4||4.46|-44.09|
84656857|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|5.63|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 8||5.63|-40.19|
84656858|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 20||14.45|-29.66|
84656859|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|9.77|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 12||9.77|-37.19|
84682219|NCT01972841|169102115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.09|0.114
84507888|NCT01901055|168767096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.35||F test statistics for group X time = 0.31|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-0.85|0.732
84656860|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|18.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 16||18.61|-26.67|
84656861|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 32||5.83|-35.32|
84656862|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 24||17.26|-26.02|
84656863|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 28||12.99|-28.89|
84656864|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 36||16.83|-30.65|
84656865|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|19.78|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 40||19.78|-27.16|
84656866|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 44||22.68|-23.60|
84656867|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 48||22.68|-23.60|
84656868|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 52||22.68|-23.60|
84656869|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.45|0.05|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 4||0.05|-42.45|
84656870|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.98|1.34|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 8||1.34|-37.98|
84656871|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 12||8.61|-31.65|
84656872|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 16||12.99|-28.89|
84656873|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
84656874|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|18.37|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 24||18.37|-21.36|
84656875|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 28||11.32|-27.91|
84656876|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 32||4.10|-34.29|
84656877|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 36||8.61|-31.65|
84682220|NCT01972841|169102115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.10|0.034
84682221|NCT01972841|169102115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.12|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-4.09|<0.001
84682222|NCT01972841|169102115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.71|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.71|-3.70|0.012
84682223|NCT01972841|169102116|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.46|0.134
84682224|NCT01972841|169102116|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.043
84656878|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 40||14.45|-29.66|
84656879|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 44||17.26|-26.02|
84656880|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 48||21.43|-23.04|
84656881|NCT03000439|169049769|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 52||21.43|-23.04|
84656882|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|7.75|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.75|-23.42|
84656883|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|24.08|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||24.08|-13.94|
84656884|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|23.04|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.04|-21.43|
84656885|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
84656886|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
84656887|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
84656888|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
84682225|NCT01972841|169102116|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffeence|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.59|<0.001
84507889|NCT01901055|168767097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|8.92||F test statistics for group X time = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||8.92|-1.62|0.919
84507890|NCT01901055|168767098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.96||F-test statistics for group X time = 2.12|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.96|-1.18|0.125
84507891|NCT01901055|168767099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|529.1||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-936.1|1137.5||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.45|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1137.50|-936.10|0.639
84656889|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
84656890|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
84656891|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
84656892|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
84656893|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
84656894|NCT03000439|169049777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
84656895|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.38||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.38|-2.40|
84656896|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|4.12||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.12|-2.25|
84682226|NCT01972841|169102116|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.019|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.54|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50mg ) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.54|0.019
84507892|NCT01901055|168767100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.35||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.78|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-1.61|0.461
84656897|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.06||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.06|-4.54|
84656898|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.28||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.99|
84656899|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.94||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-3.12|
84656900|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.06||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.46|
84656901|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|5.29||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.29|-7.85|
84656902|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.93||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-1.98|
84656903|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.35||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.35|-1.86|
84656904|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.63||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.63|-2.18|
84656905|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.56||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.56|-3.22|
84656906|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.3||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.76|
84507893|NCT01901055|168767101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|10.86||F-test statistics for group X time= 0.25|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||10.86|-4.78|0.776
84656907|NCT03000439|169049783|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.93||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.93|-3.43|
84656908|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.61||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.61|-1.80|
84656909|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|4.86||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.86|-0.64|
84656910|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.21||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.21|-4.25|
84656911|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.09||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.09|-4.32|
84682227|NCT01972841|169102117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.69|0.074
84656912|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.98||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.98|-3.04|
84682228|NCT01972841|169102117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.82|0.014
84682229|NCT01972841|169102117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-1.01|<0.001
84682230|NCT01972841|169102117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.51|-1.24|<0.001
84656913|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.97||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.97|-1.29|
84656914|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|5.72||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.72|-5.89|
84656915|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.41||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.41|-3.79|
84656916|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.19||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-1.89|
84656917|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.58||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.58|-3.63|
84656918|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.49||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-5.67|
84656919|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.19||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-2.82|
84656920|NCT03000439|169049784|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.36||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.36|-3.27|
84656921|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.79||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.79|-0.08|
84656922|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.40|0.25|
84656923|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.66||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.79|
84656924|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-0.70|
84682231|NCT01972841|169102118|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.96|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.96|0.81|0.006
84656925|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.64||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.43|
84656926|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.81||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.06|
84682232|NCT01972841|169102118|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.88|0.74|<0.001
84656927|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.06||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.64|
84656928|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.04|
84656929|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.09|
84656930|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.28|-0.23|
84656931|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.83||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.83|-1.20|
84656932|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.91||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.91|-0.49|
84656933|NCT03000439|169049797|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.92||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.92|-0.80|
84656934|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.0||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.00|-0.43|
84656935|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.08||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-0.06|
84656936|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.64||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.64|-1.13|
84656937|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.68|
84656938|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.58|
84656939|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.68||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.68|-0.03|
84656940|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.08||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-2.42|
84656941|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.14|
84656942|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.15|
84656943|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.49||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.14|
84656944|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.96||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.96|-1.28|
84656945|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.16||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.43|
84656946|NCT03000439|169049798|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.3||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.82|
84656947|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.5||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.07|
84656948|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.15|
84656949|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.28|-0.17|
84656950|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.36||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.16|
84656951|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.38||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.01|
84656952|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.12|
84656953|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.31|-0.18|
84656954|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.06|
84507894|NCT01901055|168767102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.89||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.98|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.89|-1.24|0.378
84682233|NCT01972841|169102118|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.00|0.84|0.049
84682234|NCT01972841|169102118|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.94|0.79|0.001
84656955|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.14|
84656956|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.06|
84507895|NCT01901055|168767103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|17.56||F-test statistics for group X time = 1.57|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||17.56|-11.19|0.213
84656957|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
84507896|NCT01901055|168767104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.28||F-test statistics for group X time = 5.66|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.28|-1.27|0.005
84656958|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.20|
84656959|NCT03000439|169049799|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.24|
84656960|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.24|-0.10|
84656961|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.19|
84656962|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.16|-0.19|
84656963|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.20|
84656964|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.02|
84656965|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.09|
84656966|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.34|-0.16|
84656967|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.36||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.05|
84507897|NCT01569451|168767129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0493
84656968|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.10|
84656969|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.39||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.06|
84656970|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
84656971|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-0.18|
84656972|NCT03000439|169049800|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.55||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.55|-0.23|
84656973|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.4||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.40|-0.97|
84656974|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.84||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.84|-0.68|
84656975|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.16||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.16|-0.77|
84656976|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.18||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.18|-1.30|
84682235|NCT01972841|169102119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-1.28|0.073
84682236|NCT01972841|169102119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.48|-1.83|0.001
84682237|NCT01972841|169102119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.18|0.140
84682238|NCT01972841|169102119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.54|-1.88|<0.001
84682239|NCT01972841|169102120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.065
84682240|NCT01972841|169102120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
84682241|NCT01972841|169102120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.02|-0.18|0.100
84682242|NCT01972841|169102120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
84682243|NCT01972841|169102121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.27|0.80|0.938
84507898|NCT01569451|168767130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|||||||Peto|||||||0.0268
84507899|NCT01569451|168767131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0189
84507900|NCT01569451|168767132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3167|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3167
84656977|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.82|-0.29|
84682244|NCT01972841|169102121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.25|0.79|0.967
84682245|NCT01972841|169102121|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.92|0.58|0.008
84656978|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|
84656979|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.13||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.13|-2.05|
84656980|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.18|
84656981|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.88||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.26|
84656982|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.99||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.99|-0.43|
84656983|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.03||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.45|
84656984|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.08||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.08|-0.63|
84656985|NCT03000439|169049801|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.57||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.66|
84656986|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.47||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.73|
84656987|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.59||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.59|-0.81|
84656988|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.95||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-0.54|
84656989|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.90|
84656990|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.13||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.13|-0.46|
84656991|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.63|
84656992|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.15||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-2.34|
84656993|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.4||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.26|
84656994|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.26||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.30|
84656995|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.43||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.53|
84656996|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.46||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.56|
84682246|NCT01972841|169102121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.64|0.069
84507901|NCT01569451|168767133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0940
84656997|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.69||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.74|
84656998|NCT03000439|169049802|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.32|-0.91|
84656999|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.92||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|0.09|
84507902|NCT01569451|168767134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3507
84657000|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.22||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.40|
84657001|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.53||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.47|
84657002|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.16||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.63|
84657003|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.33|
84657004|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.20|-0.10|
84657005|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.33||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.93|
84657006|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.42||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.42|-0.17|
84657007|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.98||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.98|-0.02|
84657008|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.58||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.30|
84657009|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.85||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.85|-0.40|
84657010|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.88||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.36|
84657011|NCT03000439|169049803|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.09|-0.87|
84657012|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.67|-0.77|
84682247|NCT01972841|169102122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.64|-1.73|0.958
84682248|NCT01972841|169102122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.11|-2.27|0.500
84682249|NCT01972841|169102122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-3.62|0.028
84682250|NCT01972841|169102122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|-3.13|0.108
84682251|NCT01972841|169102123|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.25|0.993
84657013|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.53||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.37|
84657014|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.3||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.06|
84657015|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.27|
84657016|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.52||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.83|
84657017|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.71||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.61|
84657018|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.25||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.25|-1.45|
84657019|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.23||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.23|-0.61|
84657020|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.71||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.34|
84657021|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.46||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.46|-0.74|
84657022|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.56|-0.75|
84657023|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.81||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|-0.68|
84657024|NCT03000439|169049804|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.94||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-1.10|
84657025|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|11.66||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||11.66|-14.59|
84657026|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|5.17||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.17|-19.62|
84657027|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|6.14||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||6.14|-19.36|
84657028|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.27||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.27|-20.28|
84507903|NCT01569451|168767135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84657029|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|2.62||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.62|-10.53|
84682252|NCT01972841|169102123|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.19|-0.30|0.650
84657030|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|5.21||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.21|-8.09|
84657031|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|8.03||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.03|-16.67|
84657032|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|8.25||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.25|-13.97|
84657033|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|2.73||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.73|-24.63|
84657034|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|8.18||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.18|-16.74|
84657035|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.43||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.43|-15.20|
84657036|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.92||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.92|-12.60|
84657037|NCT03000439|169049805|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.48||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.48|-5.16|
84657038|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.19||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.19|-16.30|
84507904|NCT01569451|168767136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.4904
84657039|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|0.77||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.77|-21.68|
84657040|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|2.03||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.03|-23.75|
84657041|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-0.46||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.46|-25.83|
84657042|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|-0.47||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-13.56|
84657043|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.95||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-11.00|
84657044|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|3.54||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.54|-22.24|
84657045|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|4.83||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.83|-18.34|
84657046|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-30.36|
84657047|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.03||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.03|-21.00|
84657048|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-3.31||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-3.31|-17.67|
84507905|NCT01569451|168767137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4073
84657049|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|1.67||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.67|-13.53|
84657050|NCT03000439|169049806|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.24||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.24|-6.37|
84657051|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.22||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.20|
84657052|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.85||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.85|-0.20|
84657053|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.27||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-0.65|
84657054|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.41||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.41|-0.26|
84657055|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.1||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.10|-0.78|
84657056|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.18|
84657057|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.27||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-1.43|
84657058|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.5||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.65|
84657059|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.63|-0.51|
84657060|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.47||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.55|
84657061|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.5||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.82|
84657062|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.22||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.51|
84657063|NCT03000439|169049807|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.88||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.05|
84507906|NCT01569451|168767138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8677
84507907|NCT01569451|168767139|OTHER|Mean difference between treatment groups.||||||0.3974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3974
84657064|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.3||||||DB at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.32|
84657065|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.61||||||DB at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.64|
84657066|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||DB at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.07|-1.02|
84657067|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.14||||||DB at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.69|
84657068|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.22||||||DB at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.05|
84657069|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16||||||DB at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.60|
84657070|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
84657071|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
84657072|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.73||||||DB at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.73|-0.58|
84657073|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||||||DB at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.65|-0.53|
84657074|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||||||DB at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.87|
84657075|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.54||||||DB at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.54|-1.13|
84657076|NCT03000439|169049808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.11||||||DB at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.11|-1.00|
84682253|NCT01972841|169102123|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.52|0.035
84657077|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|20.36||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||20.36|-8.35|
84657078|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|18.14||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.14|-12.43|
84657079|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|7.4||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.40|-15.78|
84657080|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.06|41.68||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||41.68|-37.06|
84657081|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|6.43||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.43|-17.37|
84657082|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|34.57||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||34.57|-20.92|
84682254|NCT01972841|169102123|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.08|-0.43|0.169
84682255|NCT01972841|169102124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.003
84682256|NCT01972841|169102124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.004
84682257|NCT01972841|169102124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.95|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.29|<0.001
84682258|NCT01972841|169102124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.10|0.004
84682259|NCT01972841|169102125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.50|1.01|0.039
84682260|NCT01972841|169102125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.59|1.07|0.009
84682261|NCT01972841|169102125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.77|1.19|<0.001
84682262|NCT01972841|169102125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.84|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate||1.84|1.23|<0.001
84682263|NCT01972841|169102126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.64|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.64|1.07|0.011
84682264|NCT01972841|169102126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.14|0.002
84657083|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|6.5||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.50|-18.95|
84657084|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|11.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.24|68.42||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||68.42|-46.24|
84657085|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|11.06||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||11.06|-13.97|
84657086|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|62.41||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||62.41|-28.01|
84657087|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|2.93||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-13.24|
84657088|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|3.06||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.06|-33.12|
84657089|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|6.29||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.29|-16.92|
84657090|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.35|5.87||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.87|-20.35|
84657091|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|15.07||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.07|-6.18|
84657092|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|9.45||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.45|-24.37|
84657093|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|9.13||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.13|-9.14|
84657094|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.87|18.7||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.70|-33.87|
84657095|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|14.77||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||14.77|-4.81|
84657096|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|18.28||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.28|-20.31|
84657097|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.33||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.40|
84657098|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.65||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.65|-0.68|
84657099|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|15.1||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.10|-10.59|
84682265|NCT01972841|169102126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.06|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.06|1.32|<0.001
84682266|NCT01972841|169102126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.07|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.33|<0.001
84682267|NCT01972841|169102127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
84682268|NCT01972841|169102127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.54|<0.001
84682269|NCT01972841|169102127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
84682270|NCT01972841|169102127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
84682271|NCT01972841|169102129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|1.69|<0.001
84682272|NCT01972841|169102129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.29|2.03|<0.001
84682273|NCT01972841|169102129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|7.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.15|2.88|<0.001
84682274|NCT01972841|169102129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.43|1.17|0.002
84682275|NCT01972841|169102130|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.65|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.65|1.60|0.001
84507908|NCT00635154|168767140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|1.8||||||95.0|0.5|10.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses to Anakinra alone was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||10|0.5|
84507909|NCT01399736|168767147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.55|||Chi-squared|||||0.55|0.22|<0.001
84682276|NCT01972841|169102130|SUPERIORITY||Lest squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.40|2.34|<0.001
84507910|NCT01399736|168767148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.56|||Chi-squared|||||2.56|0.25|0.70
84657100|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-25.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.96|10.82||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||10.82|-60.96|
84682277|NCT01972841|169102130|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|3.55|<0.001
84657101|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|17.29||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||17.29|-13.55|
84682278|NCT01972841|169102130|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|1.27|0.003
84682279|NCT01972841|169102131|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.63|1.84|0.001
84682280|NCT01972841|169102131|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.22|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|2.42|<0.001
84507911|NCT01399736|168767149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.25|1.00
84507912|NCT01399736|168767150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.22|0.10
84682281|NCT01972841|169102131|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|7.75|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.75|2.93|<0.001
84682282|NCT01972841|169102131|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.81|2.01|<0.001
84507913|NCT01399736|168767151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.22|0.29
84507914|NCT01399736|168767152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|0.24|<0.001
84657102|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|30.53||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||30.53|-48.91|
84657103|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.9||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.90|-12.84|
84507915|NCT01399736|168767153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|0.29|0.80
84657104|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|13.75||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||13.75|-32.35|
84657105|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.81||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.81|-14.84|
84657106|NCT03000439|169049811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.03|38.18||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||38.18|-79.03|
84657107|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.54|-1.02|
84657108|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.57||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.49|
84657109|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.9||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.90|-1.01|
84682283|NCT01972841|169102132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.85|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.85|1.98|<0.001
84682284|NCT01972841|169102132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.86|1.98|<0.001
84507916|NCT00948675|168767185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.176
84682285|NCT01972841|169102132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.32|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.32|2.42|<0.001
84657110|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.58||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.49|
84657111|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.45||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.45|-0.98|
84657112|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.51|
84657113|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.03||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-1.87|
84657114|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.88||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.53|
84507917|NCT00948675|168767186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.610
84507918|NCT00948675|168767187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.615
84507919|NCT00948675|168767188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.414||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.414
84657115|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.36|
84657116|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.55|
84682286|NCT01972841|169102132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.72|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.72|0.84|0.008
84682287|NCT01972841|169102133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.21|0.33|0.022
84682288|NCT01972841|169102133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.19|0.31|0.023
84682289|NCT01972841|169102133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.74|0.85|0.005
84682290|NCT01972841|169102133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.89|-0.99|0.337
84682291|NCT01972841|169102146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.69|1.02|0.035
84682292|NCT01972841|169102146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.81|1.09|0.009
84682293|NCT01972841|169102146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.93|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.93|1.16|0.002
84682294|NCT01972841|169102146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.73|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.73|1.04|0.023
84682295|NCT01972841|169102147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.69|0.88|0.224
84682296|NCT01972841|169102147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.96|1.02|0.037
84682297|NCT01972841|169102147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.67|1.47|<0.001
84682298|NCT01972841|169102147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.26|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.26|1.21|0.002
84682299|NCT01972841|169102148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.72|0.97|0.077
84682300|NCT01972841|169102148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.87|0.321
84682301|NCT01972841|169102148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.53|1.46|<0.001
84682302|NCT01972841|169102148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.88|0.294
84657117|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.39||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-1.01|
84657118|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.92||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|-1.45|
84657119|NCT03000439|169049814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.87|
84657120|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-30.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-6.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-6.94|-53.43|
84657121|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|0.42|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||0.42|-47.19|
84657122|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.99|23.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.76|-23.99|
84657123|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|30.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||30.56|-17.20|
84657124|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|36.19|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||36.19|-9.92|
84657125|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||24.70|-24.24|
84657126|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|27.66|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||27.66|-20.75|
84657127|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|28.28|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||28.28|-16.29|
84657128|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
84657129|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.39|-13.88|
84657130|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||44.67|-3.43|
84657131|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||44.67|-3.43|
84657132|NCT03000439|169049823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|41.82|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||41.82|-7.03|
84657133|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-26.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-2.81|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-2.81|-50.42|
84657134|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|3.59|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||3.59|-43.91|
84657135|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|14.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||14.72|-34.31|
84657136|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||24.70|-24.24|
84657137|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||34.39|-13.88|
84657138|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||21.68|-27.67|
84657139|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||21.68|-27.67|
84657140|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||16.83|-30.65|
84657141|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
84657142|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|31.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||31.48|-17.43|
84657143|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||42.52|-7.03|
84657144|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|39.55|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||39.55|-10.52|
84657145|NCT03000439|169049824|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||42.52|-7.03|
84657146|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.10|-34.29|
84657147|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||4.65|-29.08|
84657148|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||7.10|-25.07|
84657149|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||21.23|-12.01|
84657150|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||21.23|-12.01|
84657151|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||7.10|-25.07|
84657152|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
84657153|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
84657154|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||11.87|-22.70|
84657155|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
84657156|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||16.48|-20.16|
84657157|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||9.38|-26.66|
84657158|NCT03000439|169049825|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
84657159|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.65|-29.08|
84657160|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||5.83|-35.32|
84657161|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||11.32|-27.91|
84657162|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|20.93|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||20.93|-17.48|
84657163|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
84657164|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||11.87|-22.70|
84657165|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
84657166|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
84657167|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||9.38|-26.66|
84657168|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
84657169|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
84682303|NCT01972841|169102149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.53|0.89|0.251
84657170|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||11.32|-27.91|
84657171|NCT03000439|169049826|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
84657172|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.10|-25.07|
84657173|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-2.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||-2.76|-35.25|
84657174|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.98|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||2.10|-32.98|
84657175|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.22|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||2.10|-27.22|
84657176|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||7.10|-25.07|
84657177|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||4.65|-29.08|
84657178|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||9.38|-26.66|
84682304|NCT01972841|169102149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.64|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.64|0.95|0.107
84507920|NCT00948675|168767189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.575
84657179|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||9.38|-26.66|
84657180|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||16.48|-20.16|
84657181|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||15.72|-25.17|
84657182|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
84657183|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||15.72|-25.17|
84657184|NCT03000439|169049829|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||22.68|-18.53|
84657185|NCT02370160|169049837|OTHER||||||||||||||||||In Phase I: There were 9 subjects treated on dose level 1 (60 µg/kg/dose). There were 6 subjects treated on Dose level 2 (80 µg/kg/dose). There were four DLT events happened in Phase I. One was treated on dose level 1 and the other three were treated on dose level 2. Therefore the MTD was dose level 1.|||
84657186|NCT01581931|169049847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.63|101.94|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||101.94|93.63|
84657187|NCT01581931|169049850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|102.07|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||102.07|93.64|
84682305|NCT01972841|169102149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.07|1.23|<0.001
84682306|NCT01972841|169102149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.85|1.08|0.012
84507921|NCT03552757|168767226|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-5.15|||ANCOVA|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-5.15|-7.28|<0.0001
84657188|NCT01581931|169049851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|98.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|103.21|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||103.21|94.55|
84657189|NCT00709761|169049923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|40.7|66.0|||||The estimation parameter represents the percentage of participants experiencing either a CR or a PR.|||66.0|40.7|
84657190|NCT03600818|169049929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.0|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|31.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||31.82|4.15|=0.0193
84657191|NCT03600818|169049930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. If the primary endpoint reaches statistical significance then the secondary endpoint for total cumulative CS dose was tested next.||||<0.0001
84657192|NCT00044083|169049978|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis effect on placebo|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657193|NCT00044083|169049978|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Drug Effect on Patients|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
84657194|NCT00044083|169049979|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis Effect on Placebo in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657195|NCT00044083|169049979|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Diagnosis Effect of Placebo in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.014
84657196|NCT00044083|169049980|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect across both groups in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.05
84657197|NCT00044083|169049980|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Drug Effect across both groups in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.32
84657198|NCT00044083|169049981|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84657199|NCT00044083|169049981|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
84657200|NCT00044083|169049982|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84657201|NCT00044083|169049982|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
84657202|NCT00044083|169049983|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in right DLPFC||||||<0.0001
84657203|NCT00044083|169049983|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in left DLPFC||||||0.167
84657204|NCT00044083|169049984|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||Drug by Genotype Effect in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.189
84657205|NCT00044083|169049984|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Drug Effect on Val/Val Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.041
84657206|NCT00044083|169049984|OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Drug Effect on Val/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.718
84657207|NCT00044083|169049984|OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Drug Effect of Met/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.469
84657208|NCT00044083|169049985|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Drug Effect on Positive Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
84657209|NCT00044083|169049985|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Drug Effect on Negative Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4
84657210|NCT00044083|169049985|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Drug Effect on General Pathology for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
84657211|NCT02621060|169050000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84657212|NCT02621060|169050001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
84657213|NCT02621060|169050002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
84657214|NCT02621060|169050003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84657215|NCT02621060|169050004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
84657216|NCT02621060|169050005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84657217|NCT02621060|169050007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
84657218|NCT02621060|169050008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84657219|NCT02621060|169050009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84657220|NCT02621060|169050010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
84657221|NCT02621060|169050011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84657222|NCT02621060|169050012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84657223|NCT02621060|169050013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84657224|NCT02621060|169050014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84657225|NCT02621060|169050015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
84657226|NCT02621060|169050016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84657227|NCT02621060|169050017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84657228|NCT02621060|169050018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
84657229|NCT02621060|169050019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.472
84657230|NCT02621060|169050020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
84657231|NCT02621060|169050021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.637
84657232|NCT02228460|169050024|OTHER|||||||0.3173||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|McNemar Test|||A McNemar test was used to test the treatment effect based on paired pre-treatment and post-treatment (Week 26) frequencies of skin GL-3 score grouped into the categories (0 to \<2; 2 to 3).||||0.3173
84657233|NCT02228460|169050025|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the mean change from Baseline to Week 26 in skin GL-3 score.||||0.625
84657234|NCT01010061|169050052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
84657235|NCT01010061|169050054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.27|0.14|<0.0001
84657236|NCT01010061|169050057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||55.5|34.7|< 0.0001
84657237|NCT01010061|169050058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.26|0.15|<0.0001
84657238|NCT01010061|169050059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||Log Rank, Stratified|||||0.94|0.49|0.0196
84657239|NCT01010061|169050060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.28|0.13|<0.0001
84657240|NCT01010061|169050062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
84657241|NCT03066804|169050071|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8362|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7987|0.8754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.8754|0.7987|<0.0001
84657242|NCT03066804|169050072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4985||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5267|3.52297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52297|-8.5267|0.4164
84657243|NCT03066804|169050073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5231||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9258|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9720|-0.9258|0.4791
84657244|NCT03066804|169050074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8993||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6461|1.2518|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.2518|0.6461|0.5294
84657245|NCT03066804|169050075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8287|1.476|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.4760|0.8287|0.4938
84657246|NCT03066804|169050076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9798||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|1.182|||Proportional cumulative odds model|||||1.1820|0.8122|0.8314
84657247|NCT03066804|169050077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.637||95.0|-0.8093|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-0.8093|0.6370
84657248|NCT00740831|169050078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.3||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in A minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||-9.3|
84657249|NCT00740831|169050078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in B minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||0.4|
84657250|NCT00740831|169050079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.181||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.181|-0.003|
84657251|NCT00740831|169050079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.14||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.14|-0.043|
84657252|NCT00740831|169050080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
84657253|NCT00740831|169050080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
84657254|NCT00740831|169050081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
84657255|NCT00740831|169050081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
84657256|NCT00555971|169050086|EQUIVALENCE|This was a statistical analysis to address the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment and placebo groups.||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
84657257|NCT03470441|169050088|OTHER||||||||||||||descriptive||||As little data exists on the incidence of arrhythmias that occur over an extended period of time following AMI, descriptive analysis of the primary endpoints (Arrhythmias of Interest at 48 hours and 14 days for overall and anterior infarcts) was appropriate in this study due to the absence of an externally validated benchmark which would normally serve as the basis for hypothesis testing of FDY-5301's effect on arrhythmias.|||
84657258|NCT03470441|169050093|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.15|-10.8|3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||3.1|-10.8|0.32
84657259|NCT03470441|169050095|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-20.2|12.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test Comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (low, intermediate, and high) combined into one group.||12.10|-20.2|0.46
84507922|NCT03552757|168767226|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-6.58|||MMRM|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-6.58|-8.56|<0.0001
84507923|NCT03552757|168767227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||6.64|3.58|<0.0001
84507924|NCT03552757|168767227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|11.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a MMRM with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||11.97|6.31|<0.0001
84657260|NCT03470441|169050101|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.11|-3.6|10.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||10.6|-3.6|0.25
84657261|NCT03470441|169050103|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-7.0|16.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||16.9|-7|0.31
84657262|NCT03982368|169050107|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.93||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.32|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||3.32|-1.47|0.078
84657263|NCT03982368|169050107|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.31||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.7|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.70|-0.08|0.066
84657264|NCT03982368|169050108|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-0.70|0.032
84657265|NCT03982368|169050108|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.86|||ANOVA|||||4.86|0.02|0.029
84657266|NCT03982368|169050109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.534
84657267|NCT03982368|169050109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
84657268|NCT03982368|169050110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
84657269|NCT03982368|169050110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.564
84657270|NCT03982368|169050112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.810
84657271|NCT03982368|169050112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.733
84682307|NCT01972841|169102150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.67|1.01|0.044
84657272|NCT03982368|169050113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.13|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.13|-0.19|0.025
84657273|NCT03982368|169050113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.68||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.83|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||2.83|-1.48|0.243
84657274|NCT03982368|169050114|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.54|||ANOVA|||||4.54|0.28|0.007
84657275|NCT03982368|169050114|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.71||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.85|||ANOVA|||||2.85|-1.43|0.230
84657276|NCT03982368|169050115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.16||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.8|||ANOVA|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) was used for imputing missing data in the Full analysis set at Week 4.||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.80|-3.11|0.799
84657277|NCT03982368|169050115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.59|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||1.59|-2.30|0.715
84657278|NCT03982368|169050116|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.54||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.31|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.31|-3.40|0.831
84657279|NCT03982368|169050116|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.66|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||1.66|-2.07|0.750
84657280|NCT03982368|169050117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.75|||ANOVA|||||1.75|0.17|0.004
84657281|NCT03982368|169050117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|-0.51|0.217
84657282|NCT03982368|169050118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.92||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.10|0.007
84657283|NCT03982368|169050118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.54|0.225
84657284|NCT03982368|169050119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.680
84657285|NCT03982368|169050119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
84657286|NCT03982368|169050120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
84657287|NCT03982368|169050120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
84657288|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|12.0|0.289
84657289|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|24.0|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.0|15.4|0.032
84657290|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change to baseline to week 8||20.8|11.9|0.095
84657291|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.5||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||18.8|10.1|0.282
84657292|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.4|10.6|0.169
84657293|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.7|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.7|11.1|0.129
84657294|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.4|9.7|0.111
84657295|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.3|9.7|0.107
84657296|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.3||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||18.9|9.7|0.827
84657297|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|20.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|11.8|0.688
84657298|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||20.0|11.4|0.324
84657299|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|17.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||17.1|8.7|0.949
84657300|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.1|11.4|0.927
84657301|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||18.8|10.8|0.776
84657302|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.1|11.4|0.418
84657303|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||19.0|10.6|0.613
84657304|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|23.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.2|8.3|0.721
84657305|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.6||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|13.1|0.558
84657306|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|25.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.3|11.5|0.809
84657307|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.4||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.4|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||26.4|12.4|0.651
84657308|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||23.3|9.5|0.769
84657309|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||28.3|14.3|0.454
84657310|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||25.0|11.6|0.564
84657311|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|27.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||27.8|14.1|0.250
84657312|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.9||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||32.2|15.6|0.853
84657313|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|11.9|0.393
84657314|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|35.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||35.6|20.2|0.010
84657315|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||25.4|11.1|0.395
84657316|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||32.4|17.1|0.068
84657317|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.3||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|26.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||26.4|12.2|0.400
84657318|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.0|18.1|0.021
84657319|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||30.0|16.1|0.056
84657320|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.2||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||20.7|7.6|0.981
84657321|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.0||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.9|11.1|0.525
84657322|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|16.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||16.0|2.9|0.356
84657323|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||12.4|0.7|0.771
84657324|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|8.7||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.5|2.0|0.926
84657325|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.9||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||13.9|1.9|0.778
84657326|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||||0.984
84657327|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.4||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||13.1|1.6|0.514
84657328|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.6||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-12.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-12.8|-20.4|0.985
84657329|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.8||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.0|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.0|-21.5|0.646
84657330|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-16.9|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-16.9|-24.5|0.007
84657331|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-12.5|-19.9|0.305
84657332|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.4|-22.7|0.015
84657333|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-14.4|-21.5|0.039
84657334|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.0|||ANOVA|||||-16.0|-23.3|0.001
84657335|NCT03982368|169050121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-15.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-15.3|-22.4|0.002
84657336|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||21.4|12.2|0.241
84657337|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|24.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.4|15.1|0.040
84657338|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||21.4|12.3|0.097
84657339|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|19.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||19.9|10.7|0.238
84657340|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||20.9|12.0|0.070
84657341|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||21.1|12.3|0.058
84657342|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|18.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.1|9.3|0.128
84657343|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||20.3|11.6|0.024
84657344|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.1|10.4|0.865
84657345|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.3||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|22.2|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|12.4|0.662
84657346|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||21.1|12.2|0.266
84657347|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.9||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.3|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||18.3|9.4|0.824
84657348|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||19.0|10.6|0.883
84657349|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|20.4|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.4|12.1|0.516
84657350|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY|Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16|Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|21.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||21.0|12.1|0.407
84657351|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.9|12.0|0.422
84657352|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.9||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.8|8.1|0.615
84657353|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|29.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||29.2|13.3|0.626
84657354|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.6|11.1|0.968
84657355|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.4|||ANOVA|||||27.4|12.8|0.689
84657356|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||22.7|8.5|0.528
84657357|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.1|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||30.1|15.8|0.368
84657358|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.7||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||24.7|10.7|0.764
84657359|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|22.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|29.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||29.6|15.5|0.184
84657360|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|34.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||34.2|16.5|0.909
84657361|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||30.0|12.2|0.428
84657362|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||37.9|21.6|0.008
84657363|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||29.2|13.5|0.222
84657364|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|33.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||33.4|17.2|0.082
84657365|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|31.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||31.1|15.6|0.154
84657366|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|33.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.6|18.0|0.030
84657367|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||32.1|17.1|0.046
84657368|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|8.6|0.861
84657369|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||21.7|9.0|0.865
84657370|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|17.3|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||17.3|3.6|0.278
84657371|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||13.5|0.9|0.689
84657372|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||16.2|2.1|0.993
84657373|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.2||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.7|2.8|0.989
84657374|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||17.0|3.7|0.976
84657375|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||15.1|2.9|0.778
84657376|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.3||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-13.3|-21.2|0.964
84657377|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.7||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-14.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.7|-22.7|0.581
84657378|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-17.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-17.5|-25.2|0.006
84657379|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-13.7|-21.4|0.175
84657380|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-15.6|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.6|-23.1|0.016
84657381|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-16.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-16.1|-23.5|0.010
84657382|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-16.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-16.8|-24.3|0.000
84657383|NCT03982368|169050122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-17.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-17.1|-24.6|0.000
84682308|NCT01972841|169102150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.84|1.11|0.006
84682309|NCT01972841|169102150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.9|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.90|1.13|0.004
84682310|NCT01972841|169102150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.08|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.08|1.23|<0.001
84682311|NCT01972841|169102151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.92|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.92|1.13|0.004
84682312|NCT01972841|169102151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.11|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.11|1.24|<0.001
84657384|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.302
84657385|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.224
84657386|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
84657387|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.885
84657388|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.035
84657389|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.698
84657390|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.016
84657391|NCT03982368|169050123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.706
84657392|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.210
84657393|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at weeek 4||||0.260
84657394|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
84657395|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.734
84657396|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.050
84657397|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.985
84657398|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.018
84657399|NCT03982368|169050124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.580
84657400|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-1.0|0.282
84657401|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||6.0|1.7|0.497
84657402|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.8|0.5|0.734
84657403|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.3|0.1|0.963
84657404|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.7|0.854
84657405|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.8|0.881
84682313|NCT01972841|169102151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.22|0.001
84657406|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||5.7|0.3|0.632
84657407|NCT03982368|169050125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.0|1.7|0.220
84657408|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-0.9|0.296
84657409|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||5.7|1.5|0.570
84657410|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.9|0.5|0.754
84657411|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.3||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.5|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.5|0.0|0.972
84657412|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.4|0.793
84657413|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.5|0.766
84657414|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||6.0|0.6|0.458
84657415|NCT03982368|169050126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.3|2.0|0.147
84657416|NCT03768414|169050139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.72|0.41
84657417|NCT02571777|169050165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.099|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.099|0.031|<0.001
84657418|NCT02571777|169050165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.111|||MMRM|||||0.111|0.041|<0.001
84657419|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.094|-0.066|0.729
84657420|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.006|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.006|-0.165|0.034
84657421|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0409||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.010|-0.151|0.085
84657422|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.005|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.005|-0.164|0.038
84657423|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.023|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.023|-0.140|0.157
84657424|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.040|-0.202|0.003
84657425|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.072|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.072|-0.092|0.814
84657426|NCT02571777|169050166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.090|-0.073|0.845
84657427|NCT02571777|169050167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.154|||MMRM|||||0.154|0.085|<0.001
84657428|NCT02571777|169050167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.133|||MMRM|||||0.133|0.064|<0.001
84657429|NCT02571777|169050168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.120|0.051|<0.001
84657430|NCT02571777|169050168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.18|||MMRM|||||0.180|0.111|<0.001
84657431|NCT02571777|169050168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.096|||MMRM|||||0.096|0.027|<0.001
84657432|NCT02571777|169050168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||MMRM|||||0.122|0.052|<0.001
84657433|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.116|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.116|0.030|<0.001
84657434|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.181|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.181|0.096|<0.001
84657435|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.082|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.082|-0.004|0.074
84657436|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.150|0.065|<0.001
84657437|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.099|0.014|0.010
84657438|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.145|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.145|0.059|<0.001
84657439|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.007|0.022
84657440|NCT02571777|169050169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.142|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.142|0.056|<0.001
84657441|NCT02571777|169050170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.145|||MMRM|||||0.145|0.045|<0.001
84657442|NCT02571777|169050170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.198|||MMRM|||||0.198|0.097|<0.001
84657443|NCT02571777|169050170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.099|||MMRM|||||0.099|-0.001|0.057
84657444|NCT02571777|169050170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.107|||MMRM|||||0.107|0.006|0.029
84657445|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|23.3|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||23.3|13.2|<0.001
84657446|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|40.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||40.3|30.2|<0.001
84657447|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|20.0|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||20.0|9.8|<0.001
84657448|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|33.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||33.1|22.9|<0.001
84682314|NCT01972841|169102151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.04|1.21|0.001
84682315|NCT01972841|169102152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.78|0.98|0.065
84682316|NCT01972841|169102152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.27|1.24|0.001
84682317|NCT01972841|169102152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.36|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.36|1.32|<0.001
84682318|NCT01972841|169102152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.04|1.12|0.007
84682319|NCT01972841|169102153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.87|1.11|0.007
84682320|NCT01972841|169102153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.17|1.28|<0.001
84682321|NCT01972841|169102153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
84657449|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|21.7|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||21.7|11.8|<0.001
84657450|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||34.1|24.2|<0.001
84657451|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||19.1|9.1|<0.001
84657452|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||29.3|19.3|<0.001
84657453|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||24.1|13.4|<0.001
84657454|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|40.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||40.1|29.5|<0.001
84657455|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|20.9|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||20.9|10.2|<0.001
84657456|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|33.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||33.8|23.2|<0.001
84657457|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|22.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||22.8|12.3|<0.001
84657458|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.7|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||34.7|24.2|<0.001
84657459|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|20.2|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||20.2|9.7|<0.001
84657460|NCT02571777|169050171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|31.0|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||31.0|20.5|<0.001
84657461|NCT02571777|169050172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||LMM|||||3.8|-3.3|0.907
84657462|NCT02571777|169050172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.0|||LMM|||||7.0|-0.1|0.055
84682322|NCT01972841|169102153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.19|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.19|1.29|<0.001
84682323|NCT01972841|169102154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.45|0.87|0.381
84682324|NCT01972841|169102154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.70|1.01|0.040
84682325|NCT01972841|169102154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.0|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.00|1.21|0.001
84682326|NCT01972841|169102154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.03|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.03|1.21|0.001
84657463|NCT02571777|169050172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||LMM|||||3.6|-3.6|0.997
84657464|NCT02571777|169050172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.5|0.606
84657465|NCT02571777|169050173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||LMM|||||4.2|-2.8|0.712
84657466|NCT02571777|169050173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.2|||LMM|||||7.2|0.2|0.038
84657467|NCT02571777|169050173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||LMM|||||3.4|-3.7|0.943
84657468|NCT02571777|169050173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.4|0.612
84657469|NCT02571777|169050174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-3.3|0.809
84657470|NCT02571777|169050174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||LMM|||||4.0|-1.9|0.467
84657471|NCT02571777|169050174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||LMM|||||4.5|-1.5|0.318
84657472|NCT02571777|169050174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.7|||LMM|||||3.7|-2.3|0.640
84657473|NCT02571777|169050175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2|||LMM|||||3.2|-4.0|0.814
84657474|NCT02571777|169050175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.4|||LMM|||||7.4|0.2|0.036
84657475|NCT02571777|169050175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||LMM|||||6.7|-0.6|0.098
84657476|NCT02571777|169050175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.5|||LMM|||||6.5|-0.7|0.118
84657477|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
84657478|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
84657479|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
84657480|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
84657481|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
84657482|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
84657483|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
84657484|NCT02571777|169050176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
84657485|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.20|0.70|0.535
84682327|NCT01972841|169102155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.095
84657486|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.93|0.151
84657487|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.48|0.86|0.380
84657488|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.92|0.172
84657489|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.47|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.47|0.83|0.510
84657490|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.86|1.06|0.017
84657491|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.38|0.79|0.744
84657492|NCT02571777|169050177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.29|0.75|0.922
84657493|NCT02571777|169050178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.27|0.371
84657494|NCT02571777|169050178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.37|0.996
84657495|NCT02571777|169050178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.47|||Regression, Cox|||||4.47|0.80|0.145
84657496|NCT02571777|169050178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.43|||Regression, Cox|||||4.43|0.80|0.150
84657497|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.15|0.77|0.523
84657498|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
84657499|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.164
84657500|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.92|0.63|0.005
84657501|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.16|0.72|0.476
84657502|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.54|<0.001
84657503|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.70|0.243
84657504|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.97|0.63|0.027
84657505|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.79|0.497
84657506|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.60|<0.001
84657507|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.73|0.126
84657508|NCT02571777|169050179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.61|<0.001
84657509|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.68|0.120
84682328|NCT01972841|169102155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.62|0.98|0.073
84657510|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.52|<0.001
84657511|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Generalized linear modeñ|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.71|0.170
84657512|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.99|0.66|0.041
84657513|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.00|0.61|0.050
84682329|NCT01972841|169102155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.13|1.29|<0.001
84657514|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.73|0.45|<0.001
84657515|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.17|0.74|0.531
84657516|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Linear generalized model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.05|0.67|0.117
84657517|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.96|0.66|0.016
84657518|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.50|<0.001
84657519|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.161
84657520|NCT02571777|169050180|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
84657521|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.183
84657522|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84682330|NCT01972841|169102155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.63|0.98|0.067
84682331|NCT01972841|169102156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.52|0.91|0.210
84657523|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.155
84657524|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.007
84657525|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.172
84657526|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84657527|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.241
84657528|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.033
84657529|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.095
84657530|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84657531|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.090
84657532|NCT02571777|169050181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84657533|NCT02571777|169050183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||||1.96|0.12|0.314
84657534|NCT02571777|169050183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.08|0.055
84657535|NCT02571777|169050183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.25|0.306
84657536|NCT02571777|169050183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|0.30|0.566
84657537|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
84657538|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
84657539|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LMM|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
84657540|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
84657541|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LMM|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
84657542|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
84657543|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
84657544|NCT02571777|169050185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
84657545|NCT02571777|169050186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.118|||MMRM|||||0.118|-0.078|0.690
84657546|NCT02571777|169050186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.038|0.232
84657547|NCT02571777|169050186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.045|||MMRM|||||0.045|-0.153|0.285
84657548|NCT02571777|169050186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0505||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.049|||MMRM|||||0.049|-0.150|0.319
84682332|NCT01972841|169102156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.13|0.004
84682333|NCT01972841|169102156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.06|1.23|<0.001
84657549|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.101|0.036|<0.001
84682334|NCT01972841|169102156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.05|1.23|<0.001
84657550|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.177|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.177|0.113|<0.001
84657551|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.066|0.000|0.049
84657552|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.129|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.129|0.064|<0.001
84657553|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.022|0.002
84657554|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.153|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.153|0.081|<0.001
84507925|NCT04543136|168767277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|94.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||94.5|-4.5|0.074
84507926|NCT04543136|168767277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|109.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||109.1|8.5|0.022
84657555|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.086|0.013|0.007
84657556|NCT02571777|169050187|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.123|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.123|0.051|<0.001
84657557|NCT03706079|169050189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||||||||0.51|0.35|
84657558|NCT03706079|169050189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||||0.96|0.38|
84657559|NCT00329238|169050192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.0137||95.0|0.78|2.64||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was chosen to be 2.85.|Regression, Cox|HR within cohort estimated by Cox regr. with treatment and baseline stratific. factor. Overall HR calc. by pooling with inverse variance weighting.|HR for time to first recurrent VTE or VTE death.|||2.64|0.78|0.0137
84657560|NCT00329238|169050192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was then compared with 1 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.2424
84657561|NCT00329238|169050193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|1.25||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was chosen to be 2.80.|Regression, Cox|Risk difference for time to first recurrent VTE/VTE death is calculated based on weighted KM estimates across the cohorts via meta-analysis approach.||||1.25|-0.50|<0.0001
84507927|NCT04543136|168767277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|36.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||36.6|-64.2|0.587
84657562|NCT00329238|169050193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference was then compared with 0 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.4013
84657563|NCT00329238|169050194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4732||95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death.|||1.84|0.75|0.4732
84657564|NCT00329238|169050195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8876||95.0|-1.11|1.28|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death at month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.28|-1.11|0.8876
84657565|NCT00329238|169050196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4548||95.0|0.64|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||2.71|0.64|0.4548
84657566|NCT00329238|169050197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.6563||95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.00|-0.63|0.6563
84657567|NCT00329238|169050198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.1925||95.0|0.7|5.98|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||5.98|0.70|0.1925
84657568|NCT00329238|169050199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.3723||95.0|-0.32|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier||Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE at Month 18|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.32|0.3723
84657569|NCT00329238|169050200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9921||95.0|0.06|16.22|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to deaths related to VTE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||16.22|0.06|0.9921
84657570|NCT00329238|169050201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.9204||95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to deaths related to VTE at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.23|-0.20|0.9204
84657571|NCT00329238|169050202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7405||95.0|0.47|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to all deaths|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.72|0.47|0.7405
84657572|NCT00329238|169050203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9622||95.0|-0.89|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to all deaths at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.89|0.9622
84657573|NCT00329238|169050204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0577||95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||1.02|0.27|0.0577
84657574|NCT00329238|169050204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||0.83|0.61|<0.0001
84657575|NCT00801632|169050207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|94.7|||||Clopper-Pearson used to derive confidence interval|||94.7|14.7|
84657576|NCT00801632|169050209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a paired t-test comparing baseline creatinine level with the level at study completion/participant termination.|t-test, 2 sided|The test describes whether the average of the difference is different from zero.||||||0.215
84682335|NCT01972841|169102157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.46|0.88|0.335
84657577|NCT03652012|169050216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|106.85||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference (Healthy Controls - MCI).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure."||106.85|1.54|0.044
84682336|NCT01972841|169102157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.81|1.09|0.009
84682337|NCT01972841|169102157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.02|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.02|1.21|0.001
84682338|NCT01972841|169102157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.21|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.21|1.33|<0.001
84682339|NCT01972841|169102158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.43|0.86|0.416
84682340|NCT01972841|169102158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.105
84682341|NCT01972841|169102158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.16|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.16|1.28|<0.001
84682342|NCT01972841|169102158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.87|1.12|0.005
84682343|NCT01869491|169102187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.31|<0.0001
84682344|NCT01869491|169102188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.29|0.0004
84682345|NCT01869491|169102189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.32|0.0001
84682346|NCT01869491|169102190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.32|0.0004
84507928|NCT04543136|168767278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|104.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||104.4|5.3|0.030
84682347|NCT01869491|169102191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84682348|NCT01869491|169102192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
84682349|NCT01869491|169102193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0503
84682350|NCT01270347|169102195|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from Baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted was \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.86||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|4.39|||ANCOVA||Estimates were determined from an analysis of covariance model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), and age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), and Baseline FEV1 (\< 55%, . 55%).|||4.39|-0.66|0.1481
84682351|NCT01270347|169102196|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|4.968||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|10.59|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), \& baseline as a covariate.|||10.590|-0.653|0.0830
84682352|NCT01270347|169102197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|3.411|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, the interaction between treatment group and visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline as a covariate.|||3.411|-0.272|0.0945
84682353|NCT01270347|169102200|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Sputum Density is \> -4%|LSMean difference|0.44||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.88|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||0.88|-0.01|0.0530
84682354|NCT01270347|169102202|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Respiratory Domain of the CFQ-R is \> -4%|LSMean difference|3.19||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.32|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline value.|||6.32|0.05|0.0463
84682355|NCT04818346|169102204|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-8.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-8.32|-34.49|0.0015
84682356|NCT04818346|169102204|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-6.51|||MMRM|||||-6.51|-33.63|0.0040
84682357|NCT04818346|169102204|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-4.64|||MMRM|||||-4.64|-31.40|0.0086
84682358|NCT04818346|169102205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|220.998|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||220.998|0.398|0.3574
84682359|NCT04818346|169102205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|273.479|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||273.479|0.573|0.1992
84682360|NCT04818346|169102205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|126.386|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||126.386|0.103|0.9913
84682361|NCT02273141|169102230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|8.22||||0.038|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-0.50|0.038
84657578|NCT03652012|169050216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|57.47||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference in slope of the stimulus-response curve by muscle contraction condition (Active - Rest).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.~The results presented here reflect the main effect of Condition on the slope of the stimulus-response curve."||57.47|-51.87|0.912
84657579|NCT03652012|169050217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|45.54|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mean cortical silent period (CSP; units = milliseconds) in the CN group minus mean CSP in the MCI group. Positive values indicate a longer cortical silent period in the control group.|||45.54|-4.33|0.1021
84657580|NCT03652012|169050218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.529|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.529|-0.113|0.19
84657581|NCT03652012|169050219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0078||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.51|0.97
84657582|NCT01288235|169050220|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||||||||22.3|8.3|
84657583|NCT01288235|169050220|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.9||||||||28.9|12.7|
84657584|NCT01288235|169050221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||4.9|-2.6|0.543
84657585|NCT01288235|169050222|OTHER||3-Year Local Disease Control Probability|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.1|94.9||||||||94.9|83.1|
84657586|NCT01288235|169050222|OTHER||5-Year Local Disease Control Probability|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|91.9||||||||91.9|78.2|
84657587|NCT01288235|169050222|OTHER||3-Year Distant Disease Control|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|99.2||||||||99.2|92.1|
84657588|NCT01288235|169050222|OTHER||5-Year Distant Disease Control|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|98.1||||||||98.1|89.4|
84657589|NCT01288235|169050223|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.5||||||||19.5|6.6|
84657590|NCT01288235|169050223|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.3||||||||24.3|9.8|
84657591|NCT01288235|169050224|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
84657592|NCT01288235|169050224|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
84657593|NCT01203098|169050237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.6||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||4.6|-7.2|
84657594|NCT01203098|169050237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.8||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||6.8|-4.6|
84682362|NCT02273141|169102231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|3.2||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.56|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-5.56|0.027
84657595|NCT03385564|169050250|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-5.68||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.192|22.825|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||22.825|-34.192|0.7957
84657596|NCT03385564|169050250|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-9.37||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.178|12.44|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||12.440|-31.178|0.5811
84657597|NCT03385564|169050250|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|1.97||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.534|21.48|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||21.480|-17.534|0.8972
84657598|NCT03385564|169050251|OTHER||Difference|-9.14||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.83|17.02|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||17.02|-32.83|0.8250
84657599|NCT03385564|169050251|OTHER||Difference|-21.23||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.44|0.51|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||0.51|-39.44|0.2562
84657600|NCT03385564|169050251|OTHER||Difference|-2.0||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.45|16.62|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||16.62|-20.45|0.9632
84657601|NCT03385564|169050252|OTHER||Difference|-2.86||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|21.1|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||21.10|-28.58|0.9275
84657602|NCT03385564|169050252|OTHER||Difference|-10.0||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.9|10.64|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||10.64|-29.90|0.6064
84657603|NCT03385564|169050252|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.37|18.07|||||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||18.07|-18.37|
84657604|NCT03385564|169050253|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.53|29.6|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||29.60|-20.53|0.9119
84657605|NCT03385564|169050253|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.58|24.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||24.31|-16.58|0.8510
84657606|NCT03385564|169050253|OTHER||Difference|16.43||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.53|34.73|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||34.73|-3.53|0.3498
84657607|NCT03385564|169050254|OTHER||Difference|5.43||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.19|23.57|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.57|-10.19|0.7921
84657608|NCT03385564|169050256|OTHER||Difference|32.0||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.28|44.74|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||44.74|10.28|0.1016
84657609|NCT03385564|169050256|OTHER||Difference|-3.71||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.79|15.29|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||15.29|-23.79|0.8323
84657610|NCT03385564|169050256|OTHER||Difference|7.0||||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|23.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.31|-10.50|0.6247
84657611|NCT03087643|169050261|OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0492
84657612|NCT03087643|169050262|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0283
84657613|NCT03087643|169050263|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0321
84657614|NCT03087643|169050264|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0451
84657615|NCT03087643|169050265|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
84657616|NCT00113022|169050266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.867||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.565|51.006||The test reported here examines the main effect for placebo versus drug.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive value indicates greater depression in the active treatment group compared to placebo.|Per protocol, a linear mixed model with a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used. Baseline was included as a covariate. Drug and visit were main effects with an interaction between them included.||51.006|-46.565|.919
84657617|NCT04997304|169050300|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0019
84657618|NCT04997304|169050300|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0020
84657619|NCT04997304|169050301|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0008
84657620|NCT04997304|169050301|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0003
84657621|NCT04997304|169050302|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.04
84657622|NCT04997304|169050302|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0965|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0965
84657623|NCT04249583|169050348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
84657624|NCT03311724|169050350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
84657625|NCT03311724|169050350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
84682363|NCT02273141|169102232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|11.12||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.12|-6.35|0.154
84657626|NCT03311724|169050350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
84657627|NCT03311724|169050351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|338.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||338.97|9.43|<0.001
84657628|NCT03311724|169050351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|183.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|22.0|<0.001
84657629|NCT03311724|169050351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|157.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|21.63|<0.001
84657630|NCT03311724|169050352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.3|-70.6|<0.001
84657631|NCT03311724|169050352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-80.7|<0.001
84657632|NCT03311724|169050352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.2|-84.6|<0.001
84657633|NCT03311724|169050353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-7.1|<0.001
84657634|NCT03311724|169050353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-7.2|<0.001
84657635|NCT03311724|169050353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-7.5|<0.001
84657636|NCT03311724|169050354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.7|0.075
84657637|NCT03311724|169050354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.065
84657638|NCT03311724|169050354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.9|0.065
84657639|NCT04666051|169050360|SUPERIORITY|Data from both groups has been collected compared to verify significant statistical difference||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
84657640|NCT02957305|169050361|NON_INFERIORITY|400µg of misoprostol yields a 96% cervical dilation \> 8 mm. We considered 86% of the 200 µg misoprostol group as the minimal acceptable percentage. The non-inferiority margin was determined by 24.46.|treatment difference|25.0||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5||The null hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg ≥ percentage of dilation with 200µg + 25% Alternative hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg - 25% \< percentage of dilation with 200µg|difference between proportions|difference between percentages and 95% confidence interval||If there is a true difference in favour of the standard treatment of 10% (96% vs 86%), then 184 patients are required to be 95% sure that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) will exclude a difference in favour of the standard group of more than 25%||97.5||0.025
84657641|NCT02957305|169050361|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined by ⅓ of the difference between the 400µg effect (96.7%), compared to the 200 µg dose (23.3%), i.e. 73.4 / 3 = 24.46%|Difference between proportions|0.1146||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.192|||Chi-squared||The difference between both groups was 11.5% (95%CI = 3.7% to 19.2%)|||0.192|0.037|0.004
84657642|NCT02957305|169050363|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.9
84657643|NCT00674700|169050364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||main effects = treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.0066
84657644|NCT00674700|169050364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||main effects= treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84657645|NCT00674700|169050365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0086
84657646|NCT00674700|169050365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0095
84657647|NCT01749137|169050380|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.04|-2.27|0.059
84657648|NCT01749137|169050381|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.14|||MMRM|||||0.14|-2.48|0.079
84657649|NCT01749137|169050382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site and the stratification factor severely obese (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.513
84657650|NCT01749137|169050390|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.98|||MMRM|||||0.98|-2.50|0.387
84657651|NCT01749137|169050391|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84657652|NCT00621985|169050392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.0||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A t-test was performed comparing the mean long transformed area under the curve of 17-hydroxyprogesterone between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone arms. The percent difference in mean log AUC was calculated as:~(Mean log AUC on dexamethasone - Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone)/Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone"||||0.09
84657653|NCT01397084|169050396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
84726329|NCT00896389|169204588|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84657654|NCT03130257|169050400|EQUIVALENCE|The study planned for a sample size of 510 and 80% protocol completion, resulting in sample size 136 per group. With this sample size, the least detectable difference (LDD) is 4.1 mmHg systolic BP (SBP) and 2.8 mmHg diastolic BP (DBP) between any two groups (assuming Standard Deviation 12.1 and 8.3 for SBP and DBP respectively). Actual sample sizes completing protocol were 142, 149, and 111 for Clinic, Home, and Kiosk groups respectively, resulting in LDD of at least 4.3 for SBP and 3.0 for DBP.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression models to estimate the mean difference in BP between diagnostic measurement and daytime average 24-hr BP for each randomization group. Models were estimated using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors, and adjusted for age, sex, BMI, education, and baseline systolic and diastolic BP. Separate models estimated mean differences (diagnostic protocol - 24-hr BP) between groups for systolic and diastolic BP.||||<0.05
84657655|NCT01751867|169050401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|29.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|47.5|||Exact binomial proportion test||ORR % = Number of participants who achieved response divided by total ITT participants|Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||47.5|15.1|0.003
84657656|NCT01751867|169050401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|35.3|||Exact binomial proportion test|||Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||35.3|17.2|<0.001
84657657|NCT02064894|169050431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.81
84657658|NCT03095066|169050456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.7||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||2.4|-5.8|0.405
84657659|NCT03095066|169050457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|13.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||13.9|-15.3|0.921
84657660|NCT03095066|169050458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.3|-1.7|0.150
84657661|NCT03095066|169050458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.7|-4.3|0.921
84657662|NCT03095066|169050459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.9|-1.3|0.702
84657663|NCT03095066|169050459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||7.6|-3.6|0.469
84657664|NCT03095066|169050460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.3||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.0|-3.5|0.267
84657665|NCT03095066|169050460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.8|-8.0|0.609
84657666|NCT03095066|169050461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.7|-2.4|0.743
84657667|NCT03095066|169050461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.1||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||6.1|-3.8|0.575
84657668|NCT03095066|169050462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.664
84657669|NCT03095066|169050462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.273
84657670|NCT03095066|169050463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.1|-0.9|0.159
84657671|NCT03095066|169050463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||1.1|-1.5|0.745
84657672|NCT03095066|169050464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.2|-0.5|0.268
84657673|NCT03095066|169050464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.2|-1.2|0.147
84657674|NCT03095066|169050465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.655
84657675|NCT03095066|169050465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.9|-1.2|0.734
84657676|NCT03766581|169050466|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.10|0.87|
84657677|NCT03766581|169050466|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.15|0.83|
84657678|NCT03766581|169050466|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.16|0.76|
84657679|NCT03766581|169050466|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.18|0.73|
84657680|NCT03766581|169050466|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 200 mg BID over Placebo||1.31|0.69|
84657681|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.49|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.49|0.46|
84657682|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.30|0.36|
84657683|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.33|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.33|0.39|
84657684|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.25|0.33|
84682364|NCT02273141|169102233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.91||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.91|-5.56|0.212
84657685|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 200 mg BID||2.25|0.87|
84657686|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.42|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg QD over Placebo||7.42|0.83|
84657687|NCT03766581|169050488|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.96|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg QD over Placebo||6.96|0.15|
84657688|NCT03716024|169050489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|26.0|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.0|1.3|
84657689|NCT03716024|169050490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.4|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||11.4|-1.7|
84657690|NCT03716024|169050491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.7|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.7|0.9|
84657691|NCT03716024|169050492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.0||||||||14.0|-5.3|
84657692|NCT01112865|169050514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|||||Binomial test against the null hypothesis|binomial test|||Null hypothesis: percentage of participants preferring Genotropin Mark VII injection pen = 50%||||0.6858
84657693|NCT02197247|169050516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|27.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|30.29|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUCtau) and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||30.29|24.36|
84657694|NCT02197247|169050517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.5|23.83|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both AUCtau and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||23.83|19.50|
84657695|NCT02197247|169050518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|107.03|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||107.03|85.27|
84657696|NCT02197247|169050519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.08|24.72|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||24.72|19.08|
84682365|NCT02273141|169102234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|4.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|13.1||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||13.10|-4.36|0.064
84682366|NCT02273141|169102235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|2.95||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.51||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.51|-5.96|0.278
84657697|NCT02197247|169050519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.17|101.07|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||101.07|77.17|
84657698|NCT02197247|169050520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.74|151.96|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||151.96|127.74|
84657699|NCT02197247|169050520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|110.29|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.29|92.04|
84657700|NCT02197247|169050522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|106.45|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||106.45|86.37|
84657701|NCT02197247|169050523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|18.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|21.19|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||21.19|16.61|
84657702|NCT02197247|169050523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|90.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.34|102.27|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||102.27|79.34|
84657703|NCT02197247|169050524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.14|141.44|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||141.44|119.14|
84657704|NCT02197247|169050524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|110.19|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.19|92.15|
84657705|NCT03851705|169050536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|25.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||25.83|-29.19|0.9047
84657706|NCT03851705|169050537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.47||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.11|83.05||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||83.05|-70.11|0.8685
84657707|NCT03851705|169050538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|8.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.1|-32.2|0.2347
84657708|NCT03851705|169050538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|29.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||29.2|-19.9|0.7058
84657709|NCT03851705|169050538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||14.1|-25.5|0.5653
84657710|NCT03851705|169050540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|33.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.6|-73.3|0.4589
84657711|NCT03851705|169050540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.5956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|84.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||84.3|-48.8|0.5956
84657712|NCT03851705|169050540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|47.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||47.7|-62.7|0.7861
84657713|NCT03851705|169050542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|-45.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-45.1|-80.1|<.0001
84657714|NCT03851705|169050542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.5|-37.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-37.8|-83.5|<.0001
84657715|NCT03851705|169050542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.4|-64.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-64.2|-120.4|<.0001
84657716|NCT03851705|169050544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-420.7|-212.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-212.6|-420.7|<.0001
84657717|NCT03851705|169050544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-304.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-408.0|-200.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-200.8|-408.0|<.0001
84657718|NCT03851705|169050544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-390.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-504.5|-276.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||-276.3|-504.5|<.0001
84657719|NCT03851705|169050546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.2|-23.9|0.3299
84657720|NCT03851705|169050546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|22.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||22.2|-16.7|0.7778
84657721|NCT03851705|169050546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||12.3|-19.2|0.6613
84657722|NCT03851705|169050547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.4911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|36.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||36.0|-74.0|0.4911
84657723|NCT03851705|169050547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|79.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||79.4|-57.2|0.7461
84657724|NCT03851705|169050547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|51.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||51.1|-62.8|0.8370
84657725|NCT03851705|169050550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|4.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.2|-29.5|0.1371
84657726|NCT03851705|169050550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||15.5|-22.6|0.7100
84657727|NCT03851705|169050550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|6.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||6.6|-27.2|0.2278
84657728|NCT03851705|169050552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|10.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||10.9|-49.7|0.2044
84657729|NCT03851705|169050552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|30.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||30.4|-39.9|0.7875
84657730|NCT03851705|169050552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|15.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||15.7|-47.3|0.3193
84657731|NCT03851705|169050554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|8.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.8|-29.0|0.2877
84657732|NCT03851705|169050554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|25.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||25.7|-19.7|0.7944
84657733|NCT03851705|169050554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|13.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.3|-23.4|0.5803
84657734|NCT03851705|169050556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.6|35.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||35.3|-73.6|0.4848
84657735|NCT03851705|169050556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|80.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||80.3|-56.0|0.7220
84657736|NCT03851705|169050556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.6|49.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||49.5|-63.6|0.8036
84657737|NCT03851705|169050564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||11.7|-6.8|0.6028
84657738|NCT03851705|169050564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||14.0|-11.5|0.8428
84657739|NCT03851705|169050564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|13.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.4|-6.6|0.4946
84657740|NCT03851705|169050566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.4|-4.0|0.9237
84657741|NCT03851705|169050566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||4.5|-6.5|0.7177
84657742|NCT03851705|169050566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.4|-2.9|0.5416
84657743|NCT03851705|169050568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||5.2|-3.2|0.6497
84657744|NCT03851705|169050568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||2.6|-7.9|0.3209
84657745|NCT03851705|169050568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.7|-6.3|0.9294
84657746|NCT03851705|169050570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|33.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.4|-10.8|0.3105
84657747|NCT03851705|169050570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||10.5|-33.3|0.3018
84657748|NCT03851705|169050570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|31.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||31.6|-27.0|0.8755
84657749|NCT03851705|169050572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||7.6|-11.5|0.6848
84657750|NCT03851705|169050572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.6|-18.5|0.4075
84657751|NCT03851705|169050572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||7.8|-13.4|0.5998
84657752|NCT03851705|169050574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||6.5|-8.4|0.7958
84657753|NCT03851705|169050574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.4|-12.7|0.6003
84657754|NCT03851705|169050574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.8|-11.0|0.5352
84657755|NCT03851705|169050576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.0|-21.8|0.1716
84657756|NCT03851705|169050576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||8.2|-46.2|0.1671
84657757|NCT03851705|169050576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||4.7|-24.2|0.1808
84657758|NCT03851705|169050578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|9.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||9.1|-28.3|0.3077
84657759|NCT03851705|169050578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||11.2|-30.1|0.3628
84657760|NCT03851705|169050578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|10.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||10.8|-23.2|0.4669
84657761|NCT03851705|169050584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|16.27|||ANCOVA|||||16.27|-24.88|0.6814
84682367|NCT04313881|169102248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.312||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.312|0.585|0.5218
84682368|NCT04313881|169102249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.528||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.528|0.947|0.1299
84507929|NCT04543136|168767278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|111.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||111.2|12.5|0.015
84657762|NCT03851705|169050585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|23.51|||ANCOVA|||||23.51|-27.70|0.8725
84657763|NCT03851705|169050586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|20.72|||ANCOVA|||||20.72|-22.30|0.9425
84657764|NCT03851705|169050587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.2|
84657765|NCT01964430|169050591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.063|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN).|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN-).|||1.063|0.729|0.1824
84507930|NCT04543136|168767278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|42.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||42.5|-56.5|0.780
84657766|NCT01964430|169050592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.957|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus. R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus. LN-)|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus|||0.957|0.691|0.0128
84657767|NCT02083783|169050623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|11.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference in SKAMP-C scores from baseline to 4 hours postdose.||11.6|-17.9|<0.0001
84657768|NCT02083783|169050624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|50.6|||ANCOVA|||p-value for comparison between change from baseline in placebo vs active treatment||50.6|27.3|<0.0001
84657769|NCT04545385|169050654|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|4.071|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment, baseline FEV1, weight, age group, and gender.||4.071|0.545|0.7817
84657770|NCT00668707|169050694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis conducted was an adjusted logistic regression (adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, smoking history). Results were presented as a relative risk. Based on an estimated 30% outcome rate of recurrence or mortality in the control arm, 294 participants per arm provided 80% power to detect a relative risk of one third at an alpha of 0.05. We inflated this sample size to 346 per arm to account for 15% lost to follow-up.||1.22|0.83|0.94
84682369|NCT04313881|169102251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.155||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.584|0.2563
84657771|NCT00668707|169050695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Analysis for the LC-13 scale.||3.7|-1.3|0.36
84657772|NCT00668707|169050695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Symptom Scale.||3.3|-2.5|0.80
84657773|NCT00668707|169050695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Functional Scale.||2.7|-4.1|0.69
84657774|NCT00668707|169050695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Global Scale.||0.9|-8.5|0.11
84657775|NCT00668707|169050696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||0.9|-7.2|0.13
84657776|NCT00668707|169050697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep Adequacy Analysis.||1.9|-10.0|0.18
84657777|NCT00668707|169050697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep problems index II analysis.||4.8|-2.0|0.41
84657778|NCT00668707|169050701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84657779|NCT00668707|169050702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Log Rank|||DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.07|0.85|0.41
84657780|NCT00668707|169050702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those with stage I or II cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.11|0.85|0.66
84657781|NCT00668707|169050702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those participants who had stage III or IV cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||0.92|0.61|0.004
84657782|NCT00668707|169050703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|4.56|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of melatonin changes||4.56|-3.21|0.95
84657783|NCT00668707|169050703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|7.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of placebo changes||7.42|-0.15|0.02
84657784|NCT00668707|169050704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84657785|NCT00668707|169050705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis compares the mean ratios of 6 month cytotoxicity and baseline cytotoxicity between arms.||||0.34
84657786|NCT00418457|169050718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.74|0.84
84657787|NCT00418457|169050719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||GEE|||||1.17|0.85|0.70
84657788|NCT00418457|169050720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||GEE|||||1.28|0.75|0.81
84657789|NCT00418457|169050721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.63|0.96
84657790|NCT00418457|169050722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.043
84657791|NCT00826943|169050787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
84657792|NCT00826943|169050787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
84682370|NCT04313881|169102253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.212||95% CI for transfusion independence rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method. 2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.212|0.427|0.2191
84682371|NCT04313881|169102254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.285||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.285|0.746|0.8788
84682372|NCT04313881|169102255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.96||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.960|0.203|0.0375
84682373|NCT04313881|169102256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.426||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||1.426|0.629|0.7950
84682374|NCT04313881|169102257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.343||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.343|0.522|0.4610
84682375|NCT04313881|169102258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.297||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.297|0.802|0.8720
84682376|NCT04313881|169102259|SUPERIORITY|2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.605||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.857||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.857|0.428|0.0048
84682377|NCT00688636|169102299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0005
84682378|NCT01572727|169102304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||||||||1.68|0.82|
84682379|NCT04053764|169102312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.14||||||||7.14|0.53|
84682380|NCT04053764|169102314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.31||||||||2.31|0.23|
84682381|NCT04053764|169102315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.02||||||PCR Improvement||3.02|0.29|
84682382|NCT04053764|169102315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||Stable PCR||3.20|0.18|
84682383|NCT04053764|169102316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.65||||||From baseline to 3 months||4.65|-5.53|
84682384|NCT04053764|169102316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.4||||||From baseline to 6 months||11.40|-2.02|
84682385|NCT04053764|169102316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.68||||||From baseline to 9 months||11.68|-3.58|
84682386|NCT04053764|169102316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|13.67||||||From baseline to 12 months||13.67|-3.28|
84682387|NCT04053764|169102319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.21||||||||1.21|0.09|
84682388|NCT02195986|169102348|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the primary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the primary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|-0.0062|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.1084||||||The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT -PR \< -.20 or PT -PR \> .20 versus HA : -.20 ≤ PT -PR ≤ .20 Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PR = cure rate of reference treatment.||0.1084|-0.1209|
84682389|NCT02195986|169102349|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.3766|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2743|0.479|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4790|0.2743|<0.0001
84682390|NCT02195986|169102349|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.3542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.4514|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4514|0.2570|<0.0001
84682391|NCT02195986|169102350|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the secondary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the secondary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0687|0.1686||||||||0.1686|-0.0687|
84682392|NCT02195986|169102351|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.1387||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.3054|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.3054|-0.0280|0.1092
84682393|NCT02195986|169102351|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.1196||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0491|0.2883|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.2883|-0.0491|0.1805
84682394|NCT00395876|169102397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6||||0.0002||95.0|18.4|54.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|18.4|0.0002
84682395|NCT00395876|169102398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.1385||95.0|-3.1|25.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|-3.1|0.1385
84682396|NCT00395876|169102399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0093||95.0|7.1|42.6||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.6|7.1|0.0093
84682397|NCT02251990|169102471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was based on a one-sided asymptotic test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.0125 was considered supportive of a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>73%.|one-sided asymptotic test|||A one-sided Wald test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITG was ≤ the historical reference rate of 73%. The historical reference SVR rate for treatment-naive genotype 1 predominantly Asian participants treated with pegylated interferon/ribavirin was derived from 2 studies (PMCID: PMC417, PMCID: PMC3644280) after adjusting for an expected improved safety profile related to an interferon-free regimen.||||<0.001
84682398|NCT02251990|169102472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.6|-10.6|
84682399|NCT02251990|169102473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.9||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||0.9|-4.2|
84682400|NCT03265600|169102476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Unadjusted bivariate logistic regression|||||||0.006
84682401|NCT03265600|169102477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.25||||||0.19
84682402|NCT03265600|169102478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.36||||||0.12
84682403|NCT03265600|169102479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.34||||||0.08
84682404|NCT03265600|169102480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.57||||||<0.001
84682405|NCT03265600|169102481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.41||||||0.03
84682406|NCT03265600|169102482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.15||||||0.31
84682407|NCT03265600|169102483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.22||||||0.26
84682408|NCT03265600|169102484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.58||||||<0.001
84682409|NCT03265600|169102485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.75||||||<0.001
84682410|NCT01962493|169102513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Analysis based on square root transformation. Results back transformed for interpretation.|ANCOVA|Results were obtained from ANCOVA model with Site, Treatment, Treatment X Site, Smoking Status as fixed effects and baseline MLSI as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment. A negative difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between treatment groups||0.10|-0.51|0.1313
84682411|NCT02314624|169102537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Depression subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.734
84682412|NCT02314624|169102537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Anxiety subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.27
84657793|NCT00826943|169050787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.45
84657794|NCT00826943|169050788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< .05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
84657795|NCT00826943|169050788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
84657796|NCT00826943|169050788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.52
84657797|NCT00826943|169050789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
84657798|NCT00826943|169050789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
84657799|NCT00826943|169050789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.42
84657800|NCT00650260|169050832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
84657801|NCT00650260|169050833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
84657802|NCT00650260|169050836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84657803|NCT03307967|169050880|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum||||||.07
84657804|NCT03307967|169050881|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum Test||||||.98
84657805|NCT02065375|169050882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-1.2||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|18.9|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||18.9|-21.3|0.4543
84657806|NCT02065375|169050882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|8.2||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|29.8|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||29.8|-13.5|0.2297
84657807|NCT02065375|169050883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-21.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|0.0|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||0.00|-43.1|.0280
84657808|NCT02065375|169050883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-24.0||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.2|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||-2.2|-45.8|0.0192
84657809|NCT03268954|169050884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.238|||Log Rank|P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|IPSS-R indicates the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System.||1.238|0.757|=0.557
84657810|NCT03268954|169050885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.113||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival (OS)||1.113|0.709|=0.152
84657811|NCT03268954|169050890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS Participants||1.630|0.660|=0.562
84657812|NCT03268954|169050890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|33.773||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR CMML Participants||33.773|0.068|=0.603
84657813|NCT03268954|169050890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.61||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML/MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS/CMML Participants||1.610|0.663|=0.558
84657814|NCT03268954|169050891|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.18|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|4.83||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With Complete Remission (CR) and CR+Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||4.83|-13.18|=0.374
84657815|NCT03268954|169050896|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.67|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|4.39||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR||4.39|-13.72|=0.329
84657816|NCT03268954|169050897|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-0.44|||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|9.15||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR2||9.15|-10.03|=0.891
84657817|NCT03268954|169050898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.146|||Log Rank|P-value was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of CR||1.146|0.402|=0.072
84682413|NCT02314624|169102537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Stress subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.75
84682414|NCT02314624|169102537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Suicide subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.812
84682415|NCT02314624|169102538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.036
84682416|NCT02314624|169102539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.664
84682417|NCT02314624|169102540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.764
84682418|NCT02314624|169102541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.440
84682419|NCT02314624|169102542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.09
84657818|NCT03268954|169050899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846|||=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.339||P-value comparing duration of CR+CRi between treatment groups was based on 1-sided unstratified log-rank.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Complete Remission + Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||2.339|0.306|=0.373
84682420|NCT02314624|169102543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.19
84507931|NCT04543136|168767279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-37.9|0.281
84507932|NCT04543136|168767279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|31.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.7|-18.3|0.597
84657819|NCT03268954|169050900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.458||P-value comparing duration of PR or better response between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response (OR)||1.458|0.542|=0.320
84657820|NCT03268954|169050901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796|||=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.231||P-value comparing duration of overall response 2 between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response 2 (OR2)||1.231|0.514|=0.151
84657821|NCT03268954|169050902|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|3.27|||=|0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.55||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBC-transfusion Independence||15.55|-9.02|=0.573
84657822|NCT03268954|169050902|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-3.43|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|18.97||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||18.97|-25.84|=0.477
84657823|NCT03268954|169050903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231|||=|0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.119||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence||2.119|0.715|=0.774
84657824|NCT03268954|169050903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|4.147||P-value comparing duration of platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Platelet Transfusion Independence||4.147|0.567|=0.801
84657825|NCT03268954|169050903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.614||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Transfusion Independence||1.614|0.580|=0.450
84657826|NCT03268954|169050904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.234||P-value comparing time to first CR or PR or CRi (low-blast AML) between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to First Complete Remission (CR) or Partial Remission (PR) or Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||1.234|0.628|=0.228
84657827|NCT03268954|169050905|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.46|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|5.44||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With HI||5.44|-16.36|=0.320
84657828|NCT03268954|169050906|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.58||||||Number of Participants With at Least 1 Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HR MDS, CMML or Low-blast AML||5.58|-0.30|
84657829|NCT03268954|169050907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.067||P-value was obtained from a stratified 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML, with treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to Progressive Disease (PD), Relapse after CR (Low-blast AML), Relapse After CR or PR (HR MDS/CMML), or Death||1.067|0.689|=0.084
84657830|NCT03268954|169050909|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-2.85|||=|0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|13.75||P-value for HR MDS/CMML was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR: HR MDS/CMML Participants||13.75|-19.44|=0.683
84657831|NCT03268954|169050909|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|2.36|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|25.12||P-value for Low-blast AML was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR: Low-blast AML Participants||25.12|-20.39|=0.840
84657832|NCT03268954|169050910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.263||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors (IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.263|0.608|=0.240
84682421|NCT02314624|169102544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.15
84682422|NCT02314624|169102545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
84682423|NCT02314624|169102546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.14
84682424|NCT02314624|169102547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.22
84682425|NCT02314624|169102548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
84682426|NCT02314624|169102549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.001
84682427|NCT02314624|169102550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.99
84682428|NCT03595579|169102551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84682429|NCT03595579|169102552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84682430|NCT03148470|169102587|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||This p-value refers to the effect of stimulation (cTBS vs iTBS).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.932
84682431|NCT03148470|169102588|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.642
84682432|NCT00713648|169102589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean (Lambda)|0.048||||||95.0|0.0094|0.2501|||Poisson model (log-link)|The estimated rate was adjusted for age and overdispersion which was estimated by Pearson's chi-square statistic divided by its degrees of freedom.|Mean (Lambda) refer to the estimate of the annualised bleeding rate|||0.2501|0.0094|
84507933|NCT04543136|168767279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|5.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||5.0|-45.1|0.116
84682433|NCT00464815|169102609|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.87||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenA vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup A (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.87|1.63|
84682434|NCT00464815|169102609|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.18||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenC vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup C (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||4.18|-1.65|
84682435|NCT00464815|169102609|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|14.14||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenW-135 vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup W-135 (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.14|4.78|
84682436|NCT00464815|169102609|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|21.37||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenY vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup Y (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||21.37|9.89|
84682437|NCT00464815|169102610|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of the percentages of subjects with any Grade 3 general symptom was lower than or equal to (≤) the pre-defined clinical limit of 3.0.|Risk Ratio (RR)|4.02||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|24.6|||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ vaccine versus Mencevax™ vaccine in terms of incidence of any Grade 3 general (solicited and unsolicited) symptom, the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio between Nimenrix and Mencevax groups (Nimenrix over Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptom within 4 days after vaccination was computed for the safety analysis in study MenACWY-TT-036.||24.6|0.68|0.1456
84682438|NCT02633800|169102625|OTHER|Both Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis did not adjust stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9291||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4856|1.7778||Unstratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||Heregulin-high population - Patritumab vs Placebo||1.7778|0.4856|0.8342
84682439|NCT00000392|169102639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
84682440|NCT02071173|169102658|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 87%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.0|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 87%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 87%|||97.0|
84682441|NCT02071173|169102659|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 85%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|96.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 85%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 85%|||93.8|
84682442|NCT02071173|169102660|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|94.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|92.0|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||92.0|
84682443|NCT02071173|169102661|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|91.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.2|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||88.2|
84682444|NCT02071173|169102662|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.5|||||||Ho: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 93%, Ha: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 93%|||97.5|
84682445|NCT02071173|169102663|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 94%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||Ho: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 94%, Ha: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 94%|||98.8|
84682446|NCT02071173|169102664|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 1.5 Volts. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.58||||||Ho: The 3-month mean PCT ≥ 1.5 Volts, Ha: The 3-month mean PCT \< 1.5 Volts||0.58||
84507934|NCT04543136|168767280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|27.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||27.9|-21.2|0.787
84682447|NCT02071173|169102665|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|17.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||16.7|
84682448|NCT02071173|169102666|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|16.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|15.1|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||15.1|
84682449|NCT02071173|169102667|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|776.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|753.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||753|
84682450|NCT02071173|169102668|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|805.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|763.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||763|
84682451|NCT02071173|169102669|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 4.5 seconds. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|3.14|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||||||Ho: The mean detection time ≥ 4.5 seconds, Ha: The mean detection time \< 4.5 seconds||3.20||
84682452|NCT02071173|169102670|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 5 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|18.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.2|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 5 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 5 mV|||6.2|
84682453|NCT02071173|169102671|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|468.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|463.0|472.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||472|463|
84657833|NCT03268954|169050911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.178||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors(IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,intermediate) and treatment as factor in model.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.178|0.580|=0.145
84657834|NCT03268954|169050912|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.14|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.95|3.68||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for HR MDS/CMML||3.68|-13.95|=0.261
84657835|NCT03268954|169050912|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|22.36|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|41.49||P-value was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for Low-blast AML||41.49|3.22|=0.026
84657836|NCT03156543|169050952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was based on the participants who were positive for C. acnes.||||0.004
84657837|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-95.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657838|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657839|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-129.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657840|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-165.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657841|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-167.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84682454|NCT02071173|169102672|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|702.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|659.0|744.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||744|659|
84657842|NCT01758432|169050998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-135.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657843|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|85559.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
84657844|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|105508.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657845|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|182753.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657846|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|193684.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657847|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|178055.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657848|NCT01758432|169050999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|169709.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657849|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657850|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84682455|NCT02071173|169102673|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.4|||||||Ho: Percent of successful conversion ≤ 93%, Ha: Percent of successful conversion \> 93%|||98.4|
84657851|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657852|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657853|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-7.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657854|NCT01758432|169051000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84657855|NCT02577510|169051029|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21 statistical software (IBM, Armonk, New York). For continuous data, normality was fi rst assessed with the Lilliefors test and then analyzed using a paired t test. Data that did not have a normal distribution, as well as ordinal data, was analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed ranks or McNemar's test. All P values presented were 2-sided and values inferior to 0.05 were considered signifi cant||||0.05
84657856|NCT04592874|169051050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.15|-1.49|0.7975
84657857|NCT04592874|169051050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.98|-1.61|0.6341
84657858|NCT04592874|169051050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.43|-1.18|0.8489
84657859|NCT04592874|169051051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.01|-2.81|0.7417
84657860|NCT04592874|169051051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.67|-4.16|0.1559
84682456|NCT01654549|169102679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84682457|NCT01654549|169102679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84507935|NCT04543136|168767280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|31.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.3|-17.6|0.576
84682458|NCT01654549|169102679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
84657861|NCT04592874|169051051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.11|-2.78|0.7850
84657862|NCT04592874|169051052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.28|-5.58|0.7934
84657863|NCT04592874|169051052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.32|-4.84|0.9259
84657864|NCT04592874|169051052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.87|-4.04|0.7147
84657865|NCT04592874|169051053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.09|-3.14|0.6403
84657866|NCT04592874|169051053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.51|-2.71|0.5016
84657867|NCT04592874|169051053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||7.08|-1.21|0.1631
84657868|NCT04592874|169051054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||3.51|-4.57|0.7945
84657869|NCT04592874|169051054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.25|-3.92|0.9371
84657870|NCT04592874|169051054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.64|-3.58|0.7991
84657871|NCT04592874|169051055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.11|-0.17|0.6458
84657872|NCT04592874|169051055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.21|-0.06|0.2779
84657873|NCT04592874|169051055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.18|-0.10|0.5355
84657874|NCT01976338|169051056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84657875|NCT03897465|169051073|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0||Upper Limit= +Infinity|||||Descriptive analysis of the primary endpoint was provided on per protocol population. The overall difference LomatuellPro (LP) - UrgoTul (UT) of the % of patients meeting main efficacy criterion was calculated with 95% bilateral confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of the 95% CI did not exceed the -10% value of pre-specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority had to be accepted. As a sensitivity analysis, the same analysis was performed on mITT (modified Intention-to-treat) population.|||-10|
84657876|NCT00621582|169051075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparing results of post-treatment global assessment by patient with that of pre-treatment||||0.01
84657877|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.63|0.15
84657878|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-4.98|0.08
84657879|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.43|0.15
84657880|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.67
84657881|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|0.002|0.77
84657882|NCT03617185|169051079|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.69
84657883|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.79||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-2.77|0.27
84657884|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.53|-2.71|0.18
84657885|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.48||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.48|-0.82|0.21
84657886|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.66
84657887|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.02|0.25
84657888|NCT03617185|169051080|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.13|0.09
84657889|NCT03617185|169051081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.85||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.85|-3.72|0.97
84657890|NCT03617185|169051081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.31|-7.32|0.03
84657891|NCT03617185|169051081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-5.18|0.38
84657892|NCT03617185|169051082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84657893|NCT03617185|169051082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84657894|NCT03617185|169051082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84657895|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|4.86||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.86|-4.26|0.89
84657896|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.76|-4.64|0.83
84657897|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-4.27|0.82
84657898|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.21||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.11|0.51
84657899|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.04||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.11|0.60
84657900|NCT03617185|169051083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.17|0.99
84657901|NCT03617185|169051084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84682459|NCT01654549|169102679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
84657902|NCT03617185|169051084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84657903|NCT03617185|169051084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84657904|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.17||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.17|-2.12|0.98
84657905|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.56|-2.26|0.71
84657906|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-2.10|0.92
84657907|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference of slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
84657908|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.06|0.66
84657909|NCT03617185|169051085|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.66
84657910|NCT03617185|169051086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84657911|NCT03617185|169051086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84657912|NCT03617185|169051086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84657913|NCT03617185|169051087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84657914|NCT03617185|169051087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84657915|NCT03617185|169051087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84657916|NCT03617185|169051088|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84657917|NCT03617185|169051088|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84682460|NCT01654549|169102679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84657918|NCT03617185|169051088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
84657919|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.50|-0.40|0.83
84657920|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.21|-0.62|0.33
84682461|NCT00529399|169102752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.98
84657921|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.49|-0.36|0.75
84657922|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural peak latency (ms)||0.23|-0.49|0.45
84657923|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||0.08|-0.57|0.13
84507936|NCT04543136|168767280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|21.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.0|-28.1|0.775
84657924|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||-0.03|-0.79|0.03
84657925|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|1.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.01|-0.002|0.05
84657926|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.03|-0.07|0.08
84657927|NCT03617185|169051089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.7||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||0.70|-0.27|0.38
84657928|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.48
84657929|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.31
84657930|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.23
84657931|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.65
84657932|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
84657933|NCT03617185|169051090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
84657934|NCT03617185|169051091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.82
84657935|NCT03617185|169051091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.26
84657936|NCT03617185|169051091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.62
84657937|NCT03617185|169051092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.82
84657938|NCT03617185|169051092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.27
84657939|NCT03617185|169051092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.52
84657940|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.32
84657941|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.43
84657942|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.48
84657943|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.75
84657944|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.09
84657945|NCT03617185|169051093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.03
84657946|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.129|-0.16|0.79
84657947|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.2|0.46
84657948|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.26|0.24
84657949|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.01|0.98
84657950|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.002||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.004|0.49
84657951|NCT03617185|169051094|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.002|0.17
84657952|NCT03617185|169051095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.01|0.07
84657953|NCT03617185|169051095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.11|0.72
84657954|NCT03617185|169051095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.06|0.33
84657955|NCT03617185|169051096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.11|0.46
84657956|NCT03617185|169051096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.04|0.15
84657957|NCT03617185|169051096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.06|0.20
84657958|NCT03617185|169051097|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|10.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.07
84657959|NCT03617185|169051097|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|3.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.34
84657960|NCT03617185|169051097|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|2.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.42
84657961|NCT03617185|169051097|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|9.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.77
84657962|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.35|-1.5|0.21
84657963|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.80|-0.98|0.85
84657964|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||1.50|-0.58|0.37
84507937|NCT04543136|168767281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.52||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.52|-0.70|0.766
84657965|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.02|0.99|0.78
84657966|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.01|0.98|0.53
84657967|NCT03617185|169051098|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.00|0.96|0.08
84657968|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84507938|NCT04543136|168767281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.06|-1.30|0.032
84507939|NCT04543136|168767281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.21||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.21|-0.03|0.063
84507940|NCT04543136|168767282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.12|0.213
84507941|NCT04543136|168767282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-0.16|0.291
84657969|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84682462|NCT00529399|169102752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.51
84682463|NCT02486328|169102779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84682464|NCT02486328|169102780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84682465|NCT02486328|169102781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84682466|NCT02486328|169102782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84682467|NCT02486328|169102783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84682468|NCT02486328|169102784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84682469|NCT06242444|169102785|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||13.28|3.42|0.0012
84682470|NCT06242444|169102786|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|43.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||43.76|30.90|<.0001
84507942|NCT04543136|168767282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-0.31|0.868
84682471|NCT06242444|169102787|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|8.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.87|-0.97|0.1138
84682472|NCT06242444|169102789|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.64|-4.21|0.4930
84682473|NCT06242444|169102793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||9.32|-0.52|0.0789
84682474|NCT06242444|169102793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||7.81|-1.82|0.2178
84682475|NCT06242444|169102794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|41.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||41.54|28.69|<.0001
84682476|NCT06242444|169102794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|33.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||33.21|21.14|<.0001
84682477|NCT06242444|169102795|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.97|1.53|<.0001
84682478|NCT06242444|169102795|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.78|1.42|<.0001
84682479|NCT06242444|169102796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.362|0.252|<.0001
84682480|NCT06242444|169102796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0257|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.293|0.190|<.0001
84682481|NCT03317977|169102801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84682482|NCT02046980|169102806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.02839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.31|1.58|0.02839
84682483|NCT02046980|169102806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.67|1.25|0.0366
84682484|NCT01483924|169102812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The difference in change in PASI score from baseline to Week 12 was compared all active treatment groups and the placebo group||||0.9048
84682485|NCT01483924|169102813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.1975
84682486|NCT01483924|169102814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6349
84682487|NCT01483924|169102815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6212
84507943|NCT04543136|168767283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.55|-0.35|0.661
84682488|NCT00567242|169102880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0709|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Intention Group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since this is a repeated measures t test, the data are presented as the mean and standard deviation for for the post-treatment laterality index minus the pre-treatment laterality index."||-0.0709||<.05
84682489|NCT00567242|169102880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3546|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Control Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal lateral indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Control group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since the analysis to test these hypotheses is a repeated-measures t-test, the mean and standard deviation are given for post-treatment laterality index minus pre-treatment laterality index."||0.3546||<.05
84682490|NCT00567242|169102881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.81||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||-1.81|<.05
84682491|NCT00567242|169102882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||0.26|<.05
84682492|NCT03336619|169102886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3765|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis used a Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3765
84682493|NCT03336619|169102887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.6331
84682494|NCT03336619|169102888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7382|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7382
84507944|NCT04543136|168767283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.17|-0.75|0.218
84507945|NCT04543136|168767283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.85|-0.08|0.100
84682495|NCT03336619|169102889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3236|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset to enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3236
84682496|NCT03336619|169102890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.0483
84682497|NCT01316926|169102938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8556|0.99|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||0.9900|0.8556|
84682498|NCT01316926|169102939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.0467|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0467|0.8460|
84682499|NCT01316926|169102940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9333|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8502|1.0246|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratios between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0246|0.8502|
84682500|NCT00765193|169102943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.01||95.0|2.12|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcomes were the calculation of the absolute and relative risks of missing a skin cancer when TBSE is not performed, as well as the number of patients needed to examine by TBSE to find a skin cancer. The secondary outcome was to assess the magnitude of false-positive results obtained by TBSE||2.62|2.12|<0.01
84682501|NCT00710424|169102958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated treatment effect|-0.12||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.36|-0.60|0.634
84682502|NCT00710424|169102959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.153||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.61|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean neuropathic pain scale scale score at the end of treatment was to be compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.61|-3.87|0.865
84657970|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84657971|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.96|0.18
84657972|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.96|0.52
84657973|NCT03617185|169051099|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.97|0.87
84657974|NCT03617185|169051100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84657975|NCT03617185|169051100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84507946|NCT04543136|168767284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.80|0.701
84657976|NCT03617185|169051100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84657977|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|-1.2|-1.2|2.67||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.67|-1.2|0.44
84657978|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.1||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.10|-2.16|0.97
84657979|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.58|-1.78|0.71
84657980|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.99
84657981|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.88
84657982|NCT03617185|169051101|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.00|0.97|0.09
84657983|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.45||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.41|0.78
84657984|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.95||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.95|-3.14|0.63
84657985|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|-1.55|0.43
84657986|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.98|0.43
84657987|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.83
84657988|NCT03617185|169051102|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.94|<0.01
84657989|NCT03617185|169051103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.59|-6.68|0.84
84507947|NCT04543136|168767284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.96|0.438
84507948|NCT04543136|168767284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.83||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.83|-0.55|0.689
84507949|NCT04543136|168767285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-0.92|0.309
84657990|NCT03617185|169051103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|12.97||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.97|-7.57|0.48
84657991|NCT03617185|169051103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|3.18||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-4.94|0.64
84657992|NCT03617185|169051104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84657993|NCT03617185|169051104|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84657994|NCT03617185|169051104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84657995|NCT03617185|169051104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84657996|NCT03617185|169051105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.44||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||0.44|-5.66|0.09
84657997|NCT03617185|169051105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.41||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||2.41|-4.36|0.56
84657998|NCT03617185|169051105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||1.05|-4.5|0.21
84657999|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84658000|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84658001|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84658002|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.46
84658003|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.47
84658004|NCT03617185|169051106|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.003||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.04|0.91
84658005|NCT03617185|169051107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.65|-0.53|0.83
84658006|NCT03617185|169051107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.78||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.78|-0.76|0.97
84658007|NCT03617185|169051107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.54|-0.73|0.76
84658008|NCT03617185|169051108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84658009|NCT03617185|169051108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84682503|NCT00710424|169102960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.45||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean sleep quality numerical rating scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.15|-1.04|0.139
84658010|NCT03617185|169051108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
84658011|NCT03617185|169051108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84658012|NCT03617185|169051109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84658013|NCT03617185|169051109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84658014|NCT03617185|169051109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84658015|NCT03617185|169051109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84658016|NCT03617185|169051110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84658017|NCT03617185|169051110|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84658018|NCT03617185|169051110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84658019|NCT03617185|169051110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84658020|NCT03617185|169051111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|2.36||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.36|-6.37|0.36
84507950|NCT04543136|168767285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.10|0.109
84682504|NCT00710424|169102961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.981|||Regression, Logistic|||In the analysis of Subject Global Impression of Change, the two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated centre group as a factor.||1.981|0.855|0.219
84682505|NCT00710424|169102962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.05||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean brief pain inventory (short form) composite score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.42|-0.51|0.841
84682506|NCT00710424|169102963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in weighted health state index score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline symptom score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.06|0.523
84682507|NCT00710424|169102964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments. A negative difference in adjusted means indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.||0.24|-0.59|0.410
84658021|NCT03617185|169051111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.71||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.71|1.31|<0.01
84658022|NCT03617185|169051111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.62||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|16.63||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.63|-5.37|0.30
84658023|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||7.58|-1.30|0.16
84658024|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.88||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.88|-2.05|0.33
84658025|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.59|-2.72|0.49
84658026|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.35
84507951|NCT04543136|168767285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.79|-0.43|0.555
84682508|NCT00710424|169102967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||The numbers of responders were to be analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio.||1.370|0.537|0.521
84682509|NCT01986881|169102968|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.848|1.114||Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.114|0.848|<0.001
84682510|NCT01986881|169102968|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.887|1.211|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.211|0.887|0.002
84682511|NCT01986881|169102968|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.773|1.065|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.065|0.773|<0.001
84682512|NCT01986881|169102970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.51||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|cLDA Model|||||-0.51|-0.78|<0.001
84682513|NCT01986881|169102970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.44||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.44|-0.71|<0.001
84682514|NCT01986881|169102972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||0.16|-0.60|0.247
84682515|NCT01986881|169102972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.35||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||0.02|-0.72|0.063
84507952|NCT04543136|168767286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.31|-0.35|0.896
84682516|NCT01986881|169102974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
84682517|NCT01986881|169102974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.43||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||-0.43|-0.89|<0.001
84682518|NCT01986881|169102975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.034|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.034|0.750|0.108
84682519|NCT01986881|169102975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.725|1.057|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.057|0.725|0.150
84507953|NCT04543136|168767286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.16|-0.49|0.320
84682520|NCT01986881|169102975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.735|1.068|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.068|0.735|0.188
84682521|NCT01986881|169102976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.767|1.113|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.113|0.767|0.385
84682522|NCT01986881|169102976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.739|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.139|0.739|0.417
84682523|NCT01986881|169102976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.154|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.154|0.750|0.494
84682524|NCT01986881|169102977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.63|1.036|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.036|0.630|0.081
84682525|NCT01986881|169102977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.638|1.137|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|"Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.~Renal"||||1.137|0.638|0.258
84682526|NCT01986881|169102977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.568|1.028|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.028|0.568|0.065
84682527|NCT01986881|169102978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.038||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.038|0.823|0.183
84682528|NCT01986881|169102978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.086|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.086|0.831|0.450
84682529|NCT01986881|169102978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.029|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.029|0.785|0.123
84682530|NCT01986881|169102979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.259|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.259|0.861|0.676
84682531|NCT01986881|169102979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.451|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.451|0.949|0.139
84682532|NCT01986881|169102979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.141|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.141|0.727|0.416
84682533|NCT01986881|169102980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.365||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|||1.365|0.820|0.663
84682534|NCT01986881|169102980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.505||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.505|0.845|0.415
84682535|NCT01986881|169102980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.334||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.334|0.736|0.953
84682536|NCT01986881|169102981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.902||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.902|0.539|0.006
84682537|NCT01986881|169102981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.932|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.932|0.502|0.016
84682538|NCT01986881|169102981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.964|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.964|0.524|0.028
84682539|NCT01986881|169102982|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.081||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.081|0.797|0.340
84682540|NCT01986881|169102982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.117|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.117|0.784|0.463
84682541|NCT01986881|169102982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.1|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.100|0.771|0.363
84682542|NCT01986881|169102983|SUPERIORITY|Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach includes confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.131||||||||1.131|0.898|
84682543|NCT01986881|169102983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.219||||||||1.219|0.937|
84682544|NCT01986881|169102983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.085||||||||1.085|0.828|
84682545|NCT01986881|169102984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.945||||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between randomization date and the on-study censor date.||0.945|0.716|
84682546|NCT01986881|169102984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.935|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||0.935|0.673|
84682547|NCT01986881|169102984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.001|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||1.001|0.725|
84682548|NCT01986881|169102985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.46|||cLDA Model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.46|-0.55|<0.001
84682549|NCT01986881|169102985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.44|||cLDA model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-0.53|<0.001
84682550|NCT01986881|169102986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.43|-0.54|<0.001
84682551|NCT01986881|169102986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.45|-0.55|<0.001
84682552|NCT01986881|169102987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo|||-0.30|-0.45|<0.001
84682553|NCT01986881|169102987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.32||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo.||||-0.32|-0.46|<0.001
84507954|NCT04543136|168767286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-0.19|0.390
84682554|NCT01986881|169102989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-0.21|-0.41|0.001
84507955|NCT04543136|168767287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.51|0.802
84507956|NCT04543136|168767287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.05|-0.85|0.082
84507957|NCT04543136|168767287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.11|0.137
84507958|NCT04543136|168767288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.46|-0.89|0.525
84507959|NCT04543136|168767288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.24|0.098
84507960|NCT04543136|168767288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|-0.33|0.306
84682555|NCT01986881|169102989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA model|||||-0.26|-0.46|<0.001
84682556|NCT01986881|169103004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-17.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|-15.63|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.63|-19.49|<0.001
84682557|NCT01986881|169103004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-13.17|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-13.17|-17.03|<0.001
84682558|NCT01986881|169103011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
84682559|NCT01986881|169103011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
84682560|NCT01986881|169103012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
84682561|NCT01986881|169103012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
84507961|NCT00386009|168767290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.068
84682562|NCT01986881|169103020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.1|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-3.45|<0.001
84682563|NCT01986881|169103020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.21|<0.001
84682564|NCT01986881|169103021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|-3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-2.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.45|-3.85|<0.001
84682565|NCT01986881|169103021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.89|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.89|-3.28|<0.001
84682566|NCT01986881|169103022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.57|<0.001
84682567|NCT01986881|169103022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-1.85|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.85|-3.56|<0.001
84682568|NCT01986881|169103024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.52|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.52|-3.68|<0.001
84682569|NCT01986881|169103024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.71|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.71|-3.87|<0.001
84682570|NCT01986881|169103027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.56|-1.37|<0.001
84682571|NCT01986881|169103027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Means Squares|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.47|-1.28|<0.001
84682572|NCT01986881|169103028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.39|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.39|-1.22|<0.001
84682573|NCT01986881|169103028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.41|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.41|-1.24|<0.001
84682574|NCT01986881|169103029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.16|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.19|0.010
84682575|NCT01986881|169103029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.20|-1.22|0.006
84682576|NCT01986881|169103031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.1||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.10|-1.46|0.024
84682577|NCT01986881|169103031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.13|-1.48|0.020
84682578|NCT01986881|169103034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.77|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.77|-2.07|<0.001
84682579|NCT01986881|169103034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.47|-1.78|<0.001
84682580|NCT01986881|169103035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.24|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.24|-2.67|<0.001
84682581|NCT01986881|169103035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.86|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-2.28|<0.001
84682582|NCT01986881|169103036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.22|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.22|-2.83|<0.001
84682583|NCT01986881|169103036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
84682584|NCT01986881|169103038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-2.1|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-2.97|<0.001
84507962|NCT00386009|168767291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.626
84507963|NCT00386009|168767292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
84507964|NCT00386009|168767293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.837
84682585|NCT01986881|169103038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.68|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.68|-2.52|<0.001
84682586|NCT01986881|169103041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.15|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.15|-2.41|
84682587|NCT01986881|169103041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.56|-1.82|
84682588|NCT01986881|169103042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.18|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.18|-1.58|
84682589|NCT01986881|169103042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.91|
84682590|NCT01986881|169103043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.08|-0.59|
84682591|NCT01986881|169103043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.95|0.28|
84682592|NCT01986881|169103045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.66|0.31|
84682593|NCT01986881|169103045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.84|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.84|0.49|
84682594|NCT01986881|169103069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|0.9|-2.8|
84507965|NCT00386009|168767294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.400
84507966|NCT00386009|168767295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.864
84682595|NCT01986881|169103069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|2.1|-1.6|
84682596|NCT01986881|169103070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.4|-5.8|
84682597|NCT01986881|169103070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|5.4|-9.2|
84682598|NCT01986881|169103071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.4|-17.7|
84682599|NCT01986881|169103071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-1.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|-1.2|-37.5|
84682600|NCT01986881|169103072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|20.5|||||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.5|-5.1|
84682601|NCT01986881|169103072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|14.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|14.2|-12.3|
84682602|NCT01986881|169103074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|3.0|-2.9|
84507967|NCT00386009|168767296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.340
84507968|NCT00386009|168767297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
84507969|NCT00386009|168767298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
84682603|NCT01986881|169103074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|1.6|-4.0|
84682604|NCT01986881|169103077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.84|-17.96|||CLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-17.96|-32.84|<0.001
84682605|NCT01986881|169103077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-11.68|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-11.68|-26.80|<0.001
84682606|NCT01986881|169103078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.13|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.37|<0.001
84682607|NCT01986881|169103078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.13|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.12|<0.001
84682608|NCT01986881|169103079|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||3.83|1.61|<0.001
84682609|NCT01986881|169103079|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.12|1.64|<0.001
84682610|NCT01986881|169103080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.3|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.30|-4.35|0.025
84658027|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.10
84507970|NCT00386009|168767299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.427
84658028|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|9.82||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.82|-3.34|0.32
84658029|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|9.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.37|-4.57|0.49
84658030|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|9.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.56|-3.03|0.30
84658031|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.38||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||6.38|-5.40|0.86
84658032|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.24|-5.39|0.88
84658033|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|6.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.31|-5.14|0.83
84658034|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|4.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||4.76|-6.02|0.81
84658035|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.57||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||1.57|-12.1|0.12
84658036|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.84||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||5.84|-9.53|0.63
84658037|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||4.05|-9.80|0.40
84658038|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.73||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||5.73|-3.63|0.65
84658039|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|7.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||7.54|-2.17|0.27
84658040|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||4.65|-4.10|0.90
84682611|NCT01986881|169103080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-0.82|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.82|-4.94|0.006
84507971|NCT00386009|168767300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
84682612|NCT01986881|169103081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.38||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.81|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.81|-1.56|0.533
84682613|NCT01986881|169103081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.6|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.60|-1.81|0.326
84682614|NCT01986881|169103084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-12.22||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.03|2.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.06|-27.03|0.105
84682615|NCT01986881|169103084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-13.53||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.0|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.00|-28.06|0.068
84658041|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.17|-0.21|0.85
84658042|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.09|-0.29|0.28
84682616|NCT01986881|169103085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.75|-1.79|0.418
84682617|NCT01986881|169103085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.07||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.18|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.18|-2.32|0.092
84682618|NCT01986881|169103086|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.48||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.17|0.52|0.460
84682619|NCT01986881|169103086|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.62||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.35|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.35|0.61|0.335
84682620|NCT01986881|169103087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.73||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.45|-2.00|0.255
84682621|NCT01986881|169103087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.81||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.48|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.48|-1.85|0.235
84682622|NCT01986881|169103088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.98||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.86|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.86|-0.91|0.178
84682623|NCT01986881|169103088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|4.58|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.58|-1.11|0.230
84507972|NCT00386009|168767301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.090
84682624|NCT01986881|169103089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-31.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.68|-22.07|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-22.07|-40.68|<0.001
84682625|NCT01986881|169103089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-30.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-20.72|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-20.72|-40.23|<0.001
84682626|NCT01986881|169103090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.24|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.24|-2.65|<0.001
84682627|NCT01986881|169103090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.84|-2.30|<0.001
84682628|NCT01986881|169103091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||8.42|2.00|<0.001
84682629|NCT01986881|169103091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|12.49|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||12.49|2.86|<0.001
84682630|NCT01986881|169103092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.85||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.30|-4.00|0.597
84507973|NCT00386009|168767302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
84682631|NCT01986881|169103092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.73|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.73|-4.87|0.351
84682632|NCT01986881|169103093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.68||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.25|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.25|-2.60|0.490
84682633|NCT01986881|169103093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.96|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.96|-2.07|0.958
84682634|NCT01466985|169103108|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.37|||<|0.001||90.0|-1.6|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.60|<0.001
84682635|NCT01466985|169103108|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|LS mean difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.51|<0.001
84507974|NCT00386009|168767305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84658043|NCT03617185|169051112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.19|-0.18|0.99
84658044|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.49|-0.87|0.57
84658045|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.28|-0.81|0.33
84658046|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.23|-1.00|0.22
84658047|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.81||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.81|-0.23|0.27
84658048|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.37|-0.69|0.54
84658049|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.53|-0.57|0.93
84658050|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.74|-0.46|0.64
84658051|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.27|-0.70|0.37
84658052|NCT03617185|169051113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.69|-0.59|0.88
84658053|NCT00864383|169051120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference in proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|10.5|||||Adjusted difference from control in proportion of unfavorable outcome - percentage points|||10.5|1.7|
84658054|NCT00864383|169051120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference from control|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.7|16.1|||||Adjusted difference from control in rate of unfavorable outcome- percentage points|||16.1|6.7|
84658055|NCT02899793|169051153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||Subgroup difference in ORRs||||0.024
84658056|NCT01146834|169051164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Chi-squared|||Arm B was initially closed due to low accrual, and Arms D and E were also closed due to no accrual. Arms A and C also had very low accrual. Therefore, the comparison of the primary outcome between Arms A and C is for exploratory purposes only.||0.28|-0.32|0.90
84658057|NCT01146834|169051166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.68|0.25
84658058|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Researched options for labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
84658059|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet better explained options for pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
84658060|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet should be given before onset labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
84658061|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet information helped to reduce anxiety|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
84658062|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Information corrected any misconception|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||0.0002
84658063|NCT02557555|169051230|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Written information should always be available|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
84658064|NCT04967443|169051235|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|108.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.43|96.14|
84682636|NCT01258608|169103114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.737||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.737||0.7382
84682637|NCT01258608|169103115|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.3156|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.288||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.288||0.3156
84682638|NCT01258608|169103116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.6121|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.346||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.346||0.6121
84682639|NCT01258608|169103117|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6925|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.43||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.430||0.6925
84682640|NCT01258608|169103118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.3088|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.191||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.191||0.3088
84682641|NCT01258608|169103119|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.4||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|26.6||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-16.8|0.5458
84682642|NCT01258608|169103120|OTHER||Response rate difference|6.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.2||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.2|-13.4|0.3479
84507975|NCT00585780|168767310|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing HDD% among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.55||This is for the apriori hypothesis of significant AWX Treatment X Time effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Simple effects were conducted to assess source of the interaction.||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.55|0.1|0.016
84682643|NCT01258608|169103121|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-20.7||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|1.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||1.8|-40.8|0.0198
84682644|NCT01258608|169103122|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-5.8||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|13.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||13.8|-25.4|0.6558
84682645|NCT04250727|169103150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
84682646|NCT02943408|169103156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
84682647|NCT02943408|169103157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.99
84682648|NCT02943408|169103158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
84682649|NCT02943408|169103159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.85
84682650|NCT02943408|169103160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
84682651|NCT02943408|169103161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
84682652|NCT02943408|169103162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
84682653|NCT02943408|169103163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
84682654|NCT02943408|169103164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.92
84682655|NCT02943408|169103165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
84682656|NCT02943408|169103166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.35
84682657|NCT01106833|169103168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 6 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.63
84682658|NCT01106833|169103168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 24 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.44
84682659|NCT01106833|169103169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of overall survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.205
84507976|NCT00585780|168767311|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing percent of drinking days (DD%) among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92||This is for apriori hypothesized significant AW X Treatment X Post-full dose time interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.92|0.28|0.002
84682660|NCT01106833|169103170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of progression-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.141
84682661|NCT01106833|169103171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of failure-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.775
84682662|NCT01106833|169103172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without relapse was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the rate of relapse during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.396
84682663|NCT01106833|169103173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without initiation of secondary therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of initiation of secondary immunosuppressive therapy for chronic GVHD during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.219
84682664|NCT01106833|169103174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.706
84682665|NCT01106833|169103175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.127
84682666|NCT01106833|169103175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.562
84682667|NCT01106833|169103175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.129
84682668|NCT01106833|169103176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.586
84682669|NCT01106833|169103176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.140
84682670|NCT01106833|169103177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.582
84682671|NCT01106833|169103177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.208
84682672|NCT01106833|169103177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.431
84682673|NCT01106833|169103178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.147
84682674|NCT01106833|169103178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.863
84682675|NCT01106833|169103179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.620
84682676|NCT01106833|169103179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.258
84507977|NCT01199601|168767359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Information provided for crude analysis results; adjustment for significant baseline differences between groups did not change results substantially.||Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||1.23|1.02|<0.05
84658065|NCT04967443|169051235|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.68|111.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||111.44|98.68|
84658066|NCT04967443|169051235|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|109.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.55|99.58|
84658067|NCT04967443|169051236|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|113.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|126.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||126.34|102.79|
84658068|NCT04967443|169051236|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|126.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.32|140.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||140.70|114.32|
84658069|NCT04967443|169051236|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|118.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.46|130.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||130.94|106.46|
84658070|NCT04967443|169051237|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|107.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||107.27|94.92|
84658071|NCT04967443|169051237|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.97|108.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.57|95.97|
84658072|NCT04967443|169051237|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|109.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.23|99.09|
84682677|NCT01106833|169103179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.036
84682678|NCT01106833|169103179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.369
84682679|NCT01106833|169103180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.450
84682680|NCT01106833|169103180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.301
84682681|NCT01106833|169103180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.750
84507978|NCT01199601|168767360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear|Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||||1.18|1.02|<0.05
84682682|NCT01106833|169103180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.444
84682683|NCT01106833|169103181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.238
84682684|NCT01106833|169103181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.546
84682685|NCT01106833|169103181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.756
84682686|NCT01106833|169103181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.554
84682687|NCT01106833|169103182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.685
84682688|NCT01106833|169103182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.105
84682689|NCT01106833|169103182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.039
84682690|NCT01106833|169103182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.278
84682691|NCT01106833|169103182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.804
84682692|NCT01106833|169103183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.631||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.631
84682693|NCT01106833|169103183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.759
84682694|NCT01106833|169103183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.391
84682695|NCT01106833|169103183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.222
84682696|NCT01106833|169103183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.527
84682697|NCT01106833|169103184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.763
84682698|NCT01106833|169103184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.133
84682699|NCT01106833|169103184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.953
84682700|NCT01106833|169103184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.398
84682701|NCT01106833|169103184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.309
84682702|NCT00886340|169103186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||controlled for site, income, race/ethnicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||pilot test, used 20% of sample required for a full test of the hypothesis||||0.08
84682703|NCT04953390|169103202|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84682704|NCT04953390|169103203|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
84682705|NCT04953390|169103204|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84682706|NCT04953390|169103205|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test done on DIR2 and DIR3 results only, as the conditions were equal for these two settings. DIR1 was tested in a different condition.||All three DIR settings were tested, but only the DIR2 and DIR3 were compared in t-test. This is because DIR1 mic setting was tested in a different condition (i.e. softer noise).||||.14
84682707|NCT04953390|169103208|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
84682708|NCT03035292|169103212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||This value of \<0.05 is the calculated p value where the a priori threshold for statistical significance is considered to be p=0.05.|McNemar|||Sample size was based on a cataract prevalence of 20% in the enriched population and a predicted difference of 15% sensitivity and specificity between tests.||||<0.05
84682709|NCT03035292|169103214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The calculated p value was \<0.05. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Evidence of superiority of intervention 2 over intervention 1 requires a significant difference in specificity of the intervention 1 and 2 between ethnicity groups.||||<0.05
84682710|NCT00686166|169103224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomal test|||||||0.18
84682711|NCT02131272|169103229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered fulfilled if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between detemir and NPH was below or equal to 0.4%. The sample size was set to ensure 80% power for the full analysis set (FAS). However, efficacy conclusions cannot be drawn from the analysis due to low number of subjects included in the trial.|Least squares mean difference|0.17||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.09||p value is reported for 1 sided test|Mixed Models Analysis|||HbA1c measurements were analysed with a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit, age group, prior antidiabetic therapy and interaction between prior antidiabetic therapy and age group as fixed factors and the HbA1c baseline value as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates were also included in the model.||1.09|-0.74|0.3075
84682712|NCT04162769|169103242|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.605|=|0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.228|2.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.674|-23.228|=0.1198
84682713|NCT04162769|169103242|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.515|=|0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.544|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.002|-21.544|=0.1783
84682714|NCT04162769|169103243|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|=|0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|18.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.11|-18.52|=0.9826
84682715|NCT04162769|169103243|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|32.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.21|-6.12|=0.1891
84682716|NCT04162769|169103244|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38|=|0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|16.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.64|-12.29|=0.7694
84682717|NCT04162769|169103244|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.00|0.79|=0.0450
84682718|NCT04162769|169103245|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.295|=|0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.406|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.352|-28.406|=0.0558
84682719|NCT04162769|169103245|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.134|=|0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.737|3.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||3.397|-24.737|=0.1363
84682720|NCT04162769|169103246|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|=|0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.41|-18.00|=0.7143
84658073|NCT04502693|169051299|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- Risk Ratio (RR) = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE (Vaccine Effectiveness)|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.9|84.4||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 3-dose (0,2,6-months) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||84.4|81.9|
84658074|NCT04502693|169051299|OTHER|"Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_ 6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%.~VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage."|VE|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|80.4|83.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,6-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||83.1|80.4|
84658075|NCT04502693|169051300|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|77.2|80.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,2-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||80.1|77.2|
84658076|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.10|0.84|
84658077|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.75|
84658078|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.78|
84658079|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.11|0.76|
84658080|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.41|0.97|
84658081|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.54||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.54|1.05|
84658082|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
84658083|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
84682721|NCT04162769|169103246|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09|=|0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|26.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.87|-16.62|=0.6488
84682722|NCT04162769|169103247|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|=|0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.80|-11.27|=0.3981
84682723|NCT04162769|169103247|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.17|=|0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|35.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.15|-4.72|=0.1410
84658084|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.86|
84658085|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.01|0.73|
84658086|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.71|
84658087|NCT04502693|169051303|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.82|
84658088|NCT04502693|169051304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|19.01|||Difference in percentage of participants|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup A at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||19.01|5.88|
84658089|NCT04502693|169051304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.14|56.3||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup C at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||56.30|38.14|
84658090|NCT04502693|169051304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|35.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|44.49||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup W at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||44.49|26.88|
84658091|NCT04502693|169051304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.38|35.81||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||35.81|19.38|
84658092|NCT04502693|169051305|OTHER|Effectiveness of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the ABCWY and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in ABCWY\_Pooled group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|79.2||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by enc-hSBA at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||79.2|76.6|
84658093|NCT04502693|169051306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY to rMenB+OMV NZ is demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution is above -5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.03||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine (0,6-months schedule) compared to the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine (0,2-months) in terms of percentage of samples with bactericidal serum activity using enc-hSBA against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains.||0.03|-1.25|
84682724|NCT04162769|169103248|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||23.38|-6.61|=0.2690
84682725|NCT04162769|169103248|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09|=|0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|18.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.25|-9.56|=0.5428
84682726|NCT04162769|169103249|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.721|=|0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.089|12.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||12.466|-18.089|=0.7163
84507979|NCT01199601|168767361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|The crude analysis result is provided as the odds ratio did not change substantially when adjusted for possible confounders.||||1.25|1.01|0.05
84658094|NCT00602797|169051337|OTHER|An interim analysis was conducted after 10 patients were accrued. Since response rate seen at the first interim analysis was superior to that seen with standard of care, a new monitoring rule was approved. Toxicity monitoring would occur after 19 patients. If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated. This will provide 84% power to detect 40% toxicity.|Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated.|Adverse events will be graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0).||||
84658095|NCT03736447|169051339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|84.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||84.5|50.0|<0.0001
84658096|NCT03736447|169051340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.4|||Farrington-Manning test|||||81.4|47.0|<0.0001
84658097|NCT03736447|169051341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|73.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||73.5|39.8|<0.0001
84658098|NCT03547583|169051347|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-0.52|||=|0.8008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|4.13|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||4.13|-5.17|= 0.8008
84658099|NCT03547583|169051347|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.46|||=|0.4722|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.02|3.1|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||3.10|-6.02|= 0.4722
84658100|NCT03547583|169051348|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.81|||=|0.8054|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|14.67|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||14.67|-18.30|= 0.8054
84658101|NCT03547583|169051348|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-5.49|||=|0.4502|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.77|10.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||10.80|-21.77|= 0.4502
84658102|NCT01600638|169051354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84658103|NCT01600638|169051355|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.7823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.951||||||||0.951|0.614|
84658104|NCT03338998|169051358|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|1.05||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|1.535|||ANCOVA|||||1.535|0.717|0.585
84658105|NCT02657915|169051363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||=|0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|-14.56|=0.165
84658106|NCT03329573|169051395|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.115||||||||1.115|1.006|
84658107|NCT03329573|169051396|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.047||||||||1.047|0.947|
84658108|NCT03329573|169051397|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12||||||||1.120|1.010|
84658109|NCT03329573|169051398|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.044||||||||1.044|0.949|
84682727|NCT04162769|169103249|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.602|=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.284|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.805|-28.284|=0.0840
84682728|NCT02163733|169103259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|118.6|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least squares geometric mean ratio (LSGMR) Fed = 7847, Fasted = 7399.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||118.60|94.82|
84682729|NCT02163733|169103260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%|Geometric mean ratio|92.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|105.68|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LSGMR Fed = 208.0, Fasted = 224.3.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||105.68|81.40|
84682730|NCT02163733|169103268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|81.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.86|113.83|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 497.6, Fasted = 613.2.|AZ5104||113.83|57.86|
84682731|NCT02163733|169103268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|88.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.21|119.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 235.0, Fasted = 266.4.|AZ7550||119.32|65.21|
84682732|NCT02163733|169103269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|76.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.31|106.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 9.163, Fasted = 11.95.|AZ5104||106.32|55.31|
84682733|NCT02163733|169103269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|82.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.99|112.74|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 4.236, Fasted = 5.109.|AZ7550||112.74|60.99|
84682734|NCT04124926|169103328|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in EE rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|12.23||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.23|4.49|<0.0001
84682735|NCT04124926|169103329|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.53||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||15.53|1.80|<0.0001
84682736|NCT04124926|169103329|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|14.09||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.09|0.21|<0.0001
84682737|NCT04124926|169103329|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0136||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0136
84682738|NCT04124926|169103329|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0436||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0436
84682739|NCT04124926|169103330|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.03|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||7.03|-1.60|
84682740|NCT04124926|169103331|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|17.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.43||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.43|7.44|0.0008
84507980|NCT02607800|168767362|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 was greater than -5%. If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -5% (ie, the noninferiority null hypothesis was rejected), a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was to be used to test for the superiority of SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks over SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at a significance level of 0.05.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||-0.4|-6.0|
84682741|NCT04124926|169103332|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|2.3||||0.4392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.04||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in sustained resolution rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||8.04|-3.50|0.4392
84682742|NCT04124926|169103333|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.84|27.58||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.58|11.84|<0.0001
84682743|NCT04124926|169103334|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|6.1||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|11.6||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.60|0.53|0.0348
84682744|NCT04124926|169103335|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|15.7||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.44||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||28.44|2.50|0.0196
84682745|NCT04124926|169103335|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|13.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.14||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||26.14|0.02|0.0490
84682746|NCT04124926|169103336|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|6.72|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.72|-2.63|
84682747|NCT04124926|169103336|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.84|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.84|-2.27|
84682748|NCT02167074|169103344|OTHER|The chi-square test (with Yates' correction when appropriate) or the Fisher exact test was used to compare the two needle types|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84507981|NCT01656889|168767368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the chi-squared proportion of wounds closed in each group.||||||0.5896
84507982|NCT01656889|168767369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||.3675
84682749|NCT02013622|169103348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 16 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
84682750|NCT02013622|169103349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
84682751|NCT02013622|169103350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
84682752|NCT02013622|169103353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0003
84682753|NCT02013622|169103354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0002
84682754|NCT02013622|169103355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0177
84658110|NCT03329573|169051399|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.101||||||||1.101|0.952|
84658111|NCT03329573|169051400|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.074||||||||1.074|0.968|
84658112|NCT02166905|169051451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.2|||Log Rank||Reference=arm 1|||1.2|0.1|0.177
84658113|NCT02617628|169051457|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio for relapse versus non-relapse for the AR group relative to the BR group was analyzed, as well as the corresponding odds ratio for unknown relative to non-relapse.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.27|||Regression, Logistic||Threshold for significance was set at p\<.05|Based on Lee et al. we estimated a 23-33% group difference in relapse by month 3. Power estimates calculated this estimate with a 2-sided alpha of .05 and a baseline sample size of 100 per group resulted in 80% power to detect a difference of approximately 20% (OR = 2.4) between groups assuming a rate of 50% in the control condition and 10% and 20% attrition by 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For the 86 participants randomized and released, with 80% power; and odds ratio of 3.5.||4.27|0.57|0.38
84658114|NCT02617628|169051458|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.74486||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||We used Cox proportional hazards regression model to compare the groups on time to reincarceration.||||0.01
84658115|NCT05405309|169051499|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was estimated after the first 5 patients were treated at Original DL1 (camonsertib 40mg daily and olaparib 100mg BID dosing 2 days per week, at 28 day cycles)~After the first 5 patients were treated, it was determined that this dosing strategy may not be appropriate for R/R CLL patients and reduced dosing frequency may be necessary to increase the safety of the combination therapy. The protocol and DLs were amended, and sought to enroll an additional 18 patients.~Before the enrollment of 18 additional participants and MTD determination, the study was terminated due to sponsor de-activation of all programs associated with camonsertib."|||
84658116|NCT05438888|169051505|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.798|||Log Rank|||||0.798|0.711|<0.001
84658117|NCT05438888|169051506|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.622|<0.001
84658118|NCT05438888|169051507|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.714|||Log Rank|||||0.714|0.570|<0.001
84658119|NCT05438888|169051508|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.922|||Log Rank|||||0.922|0.791|<0.001
84507983|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 01||||0.6426
84507984|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3843|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 02||||.3843
84507985|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 03||||0.2792
84507986|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 04||||0.1502
84658120|NCT05438888|169051509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.715|||Log Rank|||||0.715|0.570|<0.001
84658121|NCT05438888|169051510|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.934|||Log Rank|||||0.934|0.807|<0.001
84658122|NCT05438888|169051511|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.830|0.503|<0.001
84658123|NCT03820986|169051531|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.98|0.67|0.0176
84658124|NCT03820986|169051532|SUPERIORITY|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.97|0.9521
84658125|NCT03820986|169051537|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.69||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.27||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|cLDA model||Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-0.27|-7.10|0.0345
84658126|NCT03820986|169051538|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-2.45|||cLDA model|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a cLDA model with PF as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-2.45|-8.53|0.0004
84658127|NCT03820986|169051539|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.0|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown) No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.00|1.25|0.0001
84658128|NCT03820986|169051540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.5|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown). No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.50|1.52|.0001
84658129|NCT02513394|169051550|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank||This two sided p value was stratified by (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs no) and age (\<=50 vs \>50).|||1.14|0.81|0.65
84658130|NCT02513394|169051551|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||||||||1.19|0.82|
84658131|NCT02513394|169051552|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.28||||||||1.28|0.87|
84682755|NCT02013622|169103356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 effectiveness||||<0.0001
84682756|NCT02013622|169103356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 side effects||||0.0031
84682757|NCT02013622|169103356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 convenience||||0.0005
84682758|NCT02013622|169103356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 global satisfaction||||<0.0001
84682759|NCT02013622|169103357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (go cues)||||0.5133
84682760|NCT02013622|169103357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (no-go cues)||||0.3774
84682761|NCT02013622|169103358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (go cues)||||0.8897
84507987|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 05||||0.3823
84507988|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 06||||0.5528
84507989|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02913|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 07||||.02913
84682762|NCT02013622|169103358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (no-go cues)||||0.3401
84507990|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 08||||0.3896
84507991|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 09||||0.3989
84507992|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 10||||0.8682
84682763|NCT02013622|169103359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DDT||||0.4265
84682764|NCT02013622|169103360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Delay Discounting Task k value||||0.2923
84682765|NCT02013622|169103360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Probability Discounting Task h value||||0.9416
84682766|NCT02013622|169103361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DRT||||0.1815
84682767|NCT02013622|169103362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for food||||0.6648
84682768|NCT02013622|169103362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for money||||0.9812
84682769|NCT02013622|169103364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0306
84682770|NCT03712891|169103380|OTHER|t-test||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84682771|NCT02701985|169103381|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|4.27||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|29.08|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 3 point reduction from baseline in ESSDAI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||29.08|-20.55|0.7955
84682772|NCT02701985|169103382|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.14||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|26.19|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 1 point reduction from baseline in ESSPRI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% CI are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||26.19|-23.92|0.9877
84682773|NCT02701985|169103383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.13||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.78|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||1.78|-2.04|0.8905
84507993|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 11||||0.8083
84507994|NCT01656889|168767370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 12||||0.6687
84507995|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.3601
84507996|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.9398
84507997|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.905
84682774|NCT02701985|169103384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.64|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.64|-1.08|0.6077
84682775|NCT02701985|169103385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.06||||0.2846||95.0|-5.87|1.75|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||1.75|-5.87|0.2846
84682776|NCT02701985|169103386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.33||||0.8134||95.0|-2.43|3.08|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||3.08|-2.43|0.8134
84682777|NCT02701985|169103390|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.4266||95.0|-1.3|3.03|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||3.03|-1.30|0.4266
84682778|NCT02701985|169103391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6429||95.0|-0.21|0.34|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.34|-0.21|0.6429
84682779|NCT04009291|169103401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.2635
84507998|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 04||||0.4471
84658132|NCT02513394|169051553|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||||||||1.78|0.98|
84658133|NCT02513394|169051554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||||||||1.23|0.57|
84658134|NCT04487730|169051555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional connectivity within the orbital prefrontal cortex (OFC; specifically between lateral and medial OFC), significantly changed over time.||||0.6249
84658135|NCT04487730|169051556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8176||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.525
84658136|NCT04487730|169051557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6503||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.844
84658137|NCT02891850|169051592|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the satisfactory clinical response rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|5.06|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||5.060|1.526|0.0007
84658138|NCT02891850|169051593|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of 6MWD in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||40.10|5.03|0.0542
84658139|NCT02891850|169051594|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of NT-proBNP in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.65||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426.18|86.88|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||86.88|-426.18|0.1067
84658140|NCT02891850|169051595|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change from baseline in WHO FC in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||-0.11|-0.42|0.0007
84682780|NCT04009291|169103401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.6999
84682781|NCT04009291|169103401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1394
84682782|NCT04009291|169103402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1281
84682783|NCT04009291|169103402|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||> 0.9999
84682784|NCT04009291|169103402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.0604
84682785|NCT02085408|169103403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio : clofarabine/(daunorubicin \& cytarabine)|||1.30|0.94|
84507999|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.3004
84508000|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1815
84508001|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.399
84508002|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.8027
84658141|NCT02891850|169051596|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the clinical worsening rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.725|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||0.725|0.013|0.0047
84658142|NCT02674529|169051597|OTHER|This was a mechanistic trial and non-inferiority or equivalence analysis were not performed.|regression coefficient|-1.29864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Drug (antidepressant vs. placebo) prediction of changes in mood as measured by the MADRS scores.||||||0.58
84658143|NCT02674529|169051597|OTHER||r|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation|Change in MADRS after 8 weeks correlation with brain responses during the baseline fMRI task.||||||0.05
84658144|NCT02674529|169051598|OTHER|This is a mechanistic trial, we did not perform non-inferiority or equivalence analysis.|regression coefficient|-1.4328918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8
84658145|NCT02674529|169051599|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The resulting voxel-wise parametric maps are thresholded with height and extent values generated by Monte Carlo simulations with 3dClustSim to protect against overall type I error at p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||At the group-level, a random-effects analysis determines the main effects of the regressors of interest (e.g., high vs. low expectancy) resulting in statistical parametric maps (t or F statistics). To control for potential confounders, sex and depression severity will be entered as covariates in statistical models.||||<0.05
84682786|NCT02085408|169103404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.94
84508003|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.4913
84508004|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5227
84508005|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.7032
84658146|NCT01651195|169051600|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that, with a power of 85% and at a significance level of 0.05 (Power 0.85, ß=0.14990 and α=0.05), we needed 467 conscripts per group to show a 17% difference between the groups. Each conscript was randomly allocated to the probiotic or the control group according to a computer generated, 8-blocked randomization list.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||||"Result variables were analyzed according to intention to treat (ITT) principle. Missing data was handled by statistic modeling. Data on symptom diaries were calculated as follows: the incidence and duration of individual infection symptoms and respiratory episodes were analyzed between the intervention groups using time to event analysis (cox model for hazard) and duration analysis (gamma regression model). The results are expressed as a hazard ratio (incidence rate ratio) of symptoms and the mean duration of symptoms (days) with 95% confidence intervals or standard deviations. The sums of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms were calculated with gamma regression analysis."|||< 0.05
84658147|NCT01651195|169051601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
84658148|NCT01651195|169051602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
84658149|NCT01651195|169051603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
84658150|NCT01509950|169051645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84658151|NCT04115839|169051656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio)DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.6|4.3|0.022
84658152|NCT04115839|169051656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|25.0||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||25.0|-20.5|0.89
84658153|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||9.9|-21.6|0.39
84658154|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|14.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||14.5|-19.7|0.65
84658155|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.9||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|-19.4|-19.4|21.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||21.3|-19.4|0.86
84658156|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.1|-22.0|0.70
84658157|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|32.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||32.3|-7.5|0.15
84658158|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||27.7|-10.1|0.30
84658159|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|45.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.2|-0.7|0.035
84508006|NCT01656889|168767372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9366
84508007|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.9853
84508008|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.7083
84508009|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.6744
84508010|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2891
84508011|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9923|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.9923
84508012|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1775
84508013|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.499
84508014|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.4423
84508015|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.5138
84508016|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3409
84508017|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.6358
84508018|NCT01656889|168767373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6753
84508019|NCT01656889|168767374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||< 0.05
84508020|NCT02974153|168767380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.45|<0.0001
84508021|NCT02974153|168767380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.88|<0.0001
84508022|NCT02974153|168767381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|12.0|<0.0001
84508023|NCT02974153|168767381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.8|0.0001
84658160|NCT04115839|169051659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|33.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.5|-9.3|0.22
84658161|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.8|-2.8|
84658162|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
84658163|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.2|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||12.2|-5.9|
84658164|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||2.9|-2.9|
84658165|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||11.9|-5.8|
84658166|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.7|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||16.7|-5.0|
84658167|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.6|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||11.6|-11.4|
84658168|NCT04115839|169051661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.1|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||16.1|-10.0|
84658169|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.24
84658170|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.22
84658171|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.43
84658172|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.70
84658173|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0|-2|0.10
84658174|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||1|-1|0.90
84658175|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.88
84658176|NCT04115839|169051669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.89
84658177|NCT04115839|169051673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||16.5|-15.9|
84658178|NCT04115839|169051673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|32.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.3|-7.1|
84508024|NCT02974153|168767382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|15.0|<0.0001
84508025|NCT02974153|168767382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
84508026|NCT02974153|168767383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|14.9|<0.0001
84682787|NCT01506193|169103450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.78||||||"Immune response for anti-measles antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-measles seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.78|-1.82|
84682788|NCT01506193|169103450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.67||||||"Immune response for anti-mumps antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-mumps seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||6.67|-3.04|
84682789|NCT01506193|169103450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.29||||||"Immune response for anti-rubella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-rubella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.29|-1.23|
84682790|NCT01506193|169103450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||"Immune response for anti-varicella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-varicella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.03|-1.87|
84682791|NCT01506193|169103451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroresponse for rSBA-MenC was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroprotection rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|2.24||||||"Immune response for rSBA-MenC antibodies~Non-inferiority of Meningitec® conjugate vaccine co-administered with Priorix-Tetra™ compared to Meningitec® conjugate vaccine alone with respect to rabbit complement serum bactericidal assay (rSBA-MenC) antibody seroprotection rates (SPRs) at Day 42 after vaccination."||2.24|-3.39|
84682792|NCT00184548|169103534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||Two-sided significance level 5%|Regression, Logistic|||Test for Odds ratio=1, corresponding to a null hypothesis of no difference in mortality for patients who died between groups for Blunt Trauma. Odds-ratio is adjusted for baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury (P/F \> 200). Missing covariates are imputed by the mean value.||||0.934
84682793|NCT00184548|169103534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.589||95.0|0.64|2.17||Two-sided significance level 5%|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Treatment groups are compared using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as factor and adjusting for age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score(GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.17|0.64|0.589
84682794|NCT00184548|169103536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means|0.9||||0.308||95.0|-0.83|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.63|-0.83|0.308
84682795|NCT00184548|169103538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|1.0||||0.038||95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|0.038
84508027|NCT02974153|168767383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|11.1|<0.0001
84508028|NCT02974153|168767384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84508029|NCT02974153|168767384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84508030|NCT02974153|168767385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.88|<0.0001
84508031|NCT02974153|168767385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.66|<0.0001
84508032|NCT02974153|168767386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
84508033|NCT02974153|168767386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.76|0.0010
84508034|NCT02974153|168767387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-7.77|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-7.77|-14.22|<0.0001
84508035|NCT02974153|168767387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-5.05|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-5.05|-11.48|<0.0001
84508036|NCT02114307|168767416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84508037|NCT02114307|168767417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0023
84508038|NCT02114307|168767417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0815
84508039|NCT02114307|168767418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.127
84682796|NCT00184548|169103539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.175||||0.384||95.0|0.817|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.690|0.817|0.384
84682797|NCT00184548|169103540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|2.0||||0.03||95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|0|0.030
84682798|NCT00160680|169103541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||=|0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.96|=0.667
84682799|NCT00985725|169103555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-12.7|0.0009
84508040|NCT03387033|168767420|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.005
84508041|NCT03387033|168767421|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
84508042|NCT03387033|168767422|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
84508043|NCT00601484|168767423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.203|-0.51||||||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.510|-2.203|
84508044|NCT00601484|168767424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.363|0.011||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.011|-1.363|
84508045|NCT00601484|168767424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.969|-0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.297|-1.969|
84658179|NCT04115839|169051673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|50.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||50.2|3.0|
84658180|NCT04115839|169051673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.4|-4.1|
84658181|NCT04115839|169051675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.5|-5.6|
84658182|NCT04115839|169051675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
84658183|NCT04115839|169051675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.8|-2.0|
84658184|NCT04115839|169051675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
84658185|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|36.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||36.3|-5.5|0.098
84658186|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.0|-21.1|0.40
84658187|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|34.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.3|-12.6|0.26
84658188|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|32.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.2|-14.6|0.39
84658189|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|46.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.9|-6.9|0.088
84658190|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-7.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.9|-32.9|0.49
84658191|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|54.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.2|2.4|0.019
84658192|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|28.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.4|-22.5|0.85
84658193|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|52.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||52.3|-0.4|0.036
84682800|NCT00985725|169103556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.7|0.0465
84508046|NCT00601484|168767424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.09||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.090|-1.790|
84682801|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral recognition index||-0.9|-9.4|0.0181
84682802|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit subscale||-0.7|-7.7|0.0204
84682803|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Shift subscale||-1.4|-9.8|0.0090
84508047|NCT00601484|168767424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.356|0.457||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.457|-1.356|
84508048|NCT00601484|168767425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.727|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.954|2.601||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.601|-19.954|
84508049|NCT00601484|168767425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.948|-3.523||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.523|-31.948|
84508050|NCT00601484|168767425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.347|-6.971||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.971|-34.347|
84682804|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control subscale||0.4|-7.9|0.0793
84682805|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor subscale||0.6|-7.0|0.1014
84682806|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition index||-4.3|-13.7|0.0002
84682807|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Initiate subscale||-4.2|-12.9|0.0002
84682808|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Working memory subscale||-4.5|-13.7|0.0001
84682809|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize subscale||-3.1|-11.9|0.0010
84658194|NCT04115839|169051677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.8|-19.7|0.60
84658195|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|19.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.8|-7.8|0.31
84658196|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.5|-11.1|0.48
84658197|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.2|-14.1|0.70
84658198|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||3.6|-20.7|0.17
84658199|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|25.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||25.6|-12.5|0.34
84658200|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.4|-16.9|0.98
84658201|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.7||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|42.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.5|-5.1|0.071
84682810|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor subscale||-0.3|-9.4|0.0357
84682811|NCT00985725|169103557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials subscale||-2.8|-11.1|0.0012
84682812|NCT00985725|169103562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-10.9|0.1731
84682813|NCT02216123|169103570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.161|4.982|||||Confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on the Newcombe method. Percent treatment difference (TQ+CQ-PQ+CQ) has been presented.|||4.982|-4.161|
84508051|NCT00601484|168767425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.612|2.452||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.452|-29.612|
84658202|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|10.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||10.1|-27.7|0.27
84658203|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|62.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.0|19.5|0.002
84658204|NCT04115839|169051679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|32.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-2.3|0.082
84658205|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.5|-5.6|
84658206|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||2.9|-2.9|
84658207|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.0|-5.4|
84658208|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
84658209|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||29.5|-4.2|
84658210|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||5.7|-11.6|
84658211|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|36.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||36.3|0.2|
84658212|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
84682814|NCT02216123|169103572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||||95.0|0.577|1.678|||||Hazards ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.678|0.577|
84682815|NCT02216123|169103573|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.503|||||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio\<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.503|0.442|
84658213|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.0|-2.0|
84658214|NCT04115839|169051681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
84658215|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||29.4|-10.4|
84658216|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|26.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.7|-12.5|
84658217|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|43.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||43.8|-3.8|
84658218|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|29.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||29.3|-16.3|
84658219|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|44.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||44.5|-8.8|
84508052|NCT00601484|168767425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.807|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.58|7.08||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.080|-22.580|
84508053|NCT00601484|168767426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.768|0.65||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.650|-1.768|
84658220|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||28.8|-22.9|
84658221|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|50.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||50.6|-0.5|
84658222|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||39.9|-10.5|
84658223|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
84658224|NCT04115839|169051697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|32.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-20.5|
84658225|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||23.9|-6.0|
84658226|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|15.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||15.9|-9.4|
84658227|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||26.2|-14.7|
84658228|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|12.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||12.4|-23.4|
84658229|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|24.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.1|-21.5|
84658230|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|22.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.2|-22.2|
84508054|NCT00601484|168767426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.723|0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.297|-2.723|
84658231|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||43.9|-0.8|
84658232|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|42.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.6|-1.4|
84658233|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|42.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.7|-7.7|
84658234|NCT04115839|169051699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||26.3|-20.2|
84658235|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|27.8||||||Week 2||27.8|-9.2|
84658236|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|21.0||||||Week 2||21.0|-13.5|
84658237|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|28.2||||||Week 4||28.2|-16.8|
84658238|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|19.0||||||Week 4||19.0|-23.7|
84658239|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|31.8||||||Week 8||31.8|-21.1|
84658240|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.3||||||Week 8||19.3|-31.0|
84658241|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|45.3||||||Week 12||45.3|-7.0|
84658242|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|34.6||||||Week 12||34.6|-16.9|
84658243|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6||||||Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
84658244|NCT04115839|169051702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|29.5||||||Week 16||29.5|-23.4|
84658245|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.4||||||Week 2||5.4|-11.0|
84658246|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.1||||||Week 2||11.1|-10.6|
84658247|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-15.2|
84658248|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||||||Week 4||4.9|-16.3|
84658249|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|17.5||||||Week 8||17.5|-16.4|
84658250|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||||||Week 8||8.2|-19.9|
84508055|NCT00601484|168767426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.311|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.682|0.752||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.752|-3.682|
84508056|NCT00601484|168767426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.198||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.198|-1.110|
84508057|NCT00601484|168767426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.904|0.922||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.922|-2.904|
84658251|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|28.7||||||Week 12||28.7|-4.3|
84658252|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6||||||Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
84658253|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.4||||||Week 16||30.4|-4.2|
84658254|NCT04115839|169051704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.7||||||Week 16||28.7|-4.5|
84658255|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|40.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||40.7|-3.8|
84658256|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|28.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||28.2|-13.5|
84658257|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.4|-8.5|
84658258|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|40.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.3|-9.4|
84658259|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|45.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.0|-7.5|
84658260|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|20.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||20.7|-32.5|
84658261|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|65.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||65.2|15.8|
84658262|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|49.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||49.5|-2.5|
84658263|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|46.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||46.9|-6.8|
84658264|NCT04115839|169051707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|33.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.1|-21.0|
84658265|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|31.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||31.0|-31.0|
84658266|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||56.7|-12.8|
84658267|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|46.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.5|-37.9|
84658268|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|46.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.3|-35.4|
84658269|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-25.6|
84658270|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|26.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||26.8|-53.7|
84658271|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|71.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.2|-14.1|
84658272|NCT04115839|169051711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||39.9|-40.8|
84658273|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|34.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.7|-21.3|0.55
84658274|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|39.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.3|-17.4|0.24
84508058|NCT00601484|168767427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.65|4.826||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.826|-13.650|
84658275|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|35.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-22.6|0.47
84658276|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|39.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||39.6|-18.6|0.25
84658277|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|58.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||58.3|-21.1|0.44
84658278|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||30.8|-38.4|0.68
84658279|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|62.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.2|-19.4|0.33
84658280|NCT04115839|169051713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|38.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.1|-33.9|0.98
84658281|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|24.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||24.5|-24.5|
84658282|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|22.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.4|-23.9|
84658283|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|37.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||37.4|-10.8|
84658284|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
84658285|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||17.1|-46.6|
84658286|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|15.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.2|-46.3|
84658287|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||55.8|-13.0|
84658288|NCT04115839|169051715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.5|-22.3|
84658289|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||6.7|-6.7|
84658290|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|23.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||23.3|-11.6|
84658291|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.2|-12.9|
84658292|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
84658293|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||6.9|-6.9|
84658294|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||23.6|-11.8|
84658295|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||7.1|-7.1|
84658296|NCT04115839|169051717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||23.6|-11.8|
84658297|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.04|-0.22|0.19
84658298|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.12|-0.15|0.84
84658299|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.07|-0.22|0.30
84658300|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.16|-0.14|0.89
84658301|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.01|-0.37|0.064
84658302|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.20|-0.17|0.88
84658303|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.43|0.023
84658304|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.75
84658305|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.10|-0.51|0.005
84658306|NCT04115839|169051725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.14||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.14|-0.27|0.54
84658307|NCT04115839|169051727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||4.5|-1.9|0.43
84658308|NCT04115839|169051727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.81
84658309|NCT04115839|169051727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|0.2|0.040
84658310|NCT04115839|169051727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.1|-3.4|0.58
84658311|NCT04115839|169051731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.1|-1.2|0.40
84658312|NCT04115839|169051731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.4|-1.0|0.28
84658313|NCT04115839|169051731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.7||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.7|0.9|0.011
84658314|NCT04115839|169051731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||5.0|-0.7|0.14
84658315|NCT02820753|169051748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.51|0.01|0.04
84658316|NCT02820753|169051749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.15|-0.08|0.53
84658317|NCT02820753|169051750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.48||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.48|-1.16|0.41
84658318|NCT02820753|169051751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.06||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal ) - Enhanced Usual Care|||5.06|-1.39|0.27
84658319|NCT02820753|169051752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.23||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.23|-0.68|0.33
84658320|NCT00790023|169051753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.32|0.57|<0.0001
84682816|NCT05159622|169103603|EQUIVALENCE|A net effect of 6 fluid oz/day (SD=1) was hypothesized among adult parents, assuming two sided alpha=0.05, power = 80%, and a minimum sample size of 60 adults.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. P-value of the interaction between treatment group and change in beverage consumption (fl oz/day).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84682817|NCT05159622|169103604|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84682818|NCT05159622|169103605|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome and therefore statistical power was not based on a hypothesis of this outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84682819|NCT05159622|169103606|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome as for infants/toddlers based on parent-report|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84682820|NCT05159622|169103607|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84682821|NCT03252587|169103636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.5|0.0006
84682822|NCT03252587|169103636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.4|1.0|0.0210
84682823|NCT03252587|169103636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||2.9|0.8|0.0781
84682824|NCT03252587|169103637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||4.8|1.4|0.0011
84682825|NCT03252587|169103637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0434
84682826|NCT03252587|169103637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0439
84682827|NCT03252587|169103638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.4|0.0012
84682828|NCT03252587|169103638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.0|0.8|0.0795
84682829|NCT03252587|169103638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.2|0.9|0.0673
84682830|NCT03252587|169103639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||8.5|1.9|0.0002
84682831|NCT03252587|169103639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||4.5|0.9|0.0371
84682832|NCT03252587|169103639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.1|0.0168
84682833|NCT03252587|169103640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||43.0|2.5|0.0006
84682834|NCT03252587|169103640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|22.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||22.0|1.5|0.0058
84682835|NCT03252587|169103640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||31.0|2.2|0.0009
84682836|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-4.4|0.0131
84682837|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.8|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||1.8|-2.3|0.4156
84682838|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-4.5|0.0151
84682839|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.4|-2.2|0.0029
84682840|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.2|-1.6|0.0516
84682841|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||0.0|-1.8|0.0298
84658321|NCT00790023|169051753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.70|<0.0001
84658322|NCT00790023|169051754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.25|0.50|<0.0001
84658323|NCT00790023|169051754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.37|0.63|<0.0001
84658324|NCT00790023|169051755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.95|0.28|0.0004
84658325|NCT00790023|169051755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.94|0.27|0.0005
84658326|NCT00618072|169051792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.181
84658327|NCT00618072|169051792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.026
84658328|NCT00618072|169051792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.063
84658329|NCT00618072|169051793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.049
84658330|NCT00618072|169051793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.002
84658331|NCT00618072|169051793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.032
84658332|NCT00618072|169051794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.142
84658333|NCT00618072|169051794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
84658334|NCT00618072|169051794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.013
84658335|NCT00618072|169051795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.052
84658336|NCT00618072|169051795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.143
84658337|NCT00618072|169051795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.005
84658338|NCT00618072|169051796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.265
84658339|NCT00618072|169051796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.001
84658340|NCT00618072|169051796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.389
84658341|NCT00618072|169051797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.025
84658342|NCT00618072|169051797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.162
84658343|NCT00618072|169051797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.562
84658344|NCT00618072|169051798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.016
84508059|NCT00601484|168767427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.493|3.192||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.192|-20.493|
84658345|NCT00618072|169051798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.03
84508060|NCT00601484|168767427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.089|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.775|7.343||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.343|-26.775|
84508061|NCT00601484|168767427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.95|16.465||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.465|-8.950|
84658346|NCT00618072|169051798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.150
84658347|NCT00618072|169051799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.648
84658348|NCT00618072|169051799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.094
84658349|NCT00618072|169051799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
84658350|NCT00618072|169051800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.092
84658351|NCT00618072|169051800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.730
84658352|NCT00618072|169051800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||<0.001
84658353|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 3|Geometric Mean Titers Ratio (GMT Ratio)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.97|0.72|
84658354|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 6A|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.66|
84658355|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 7F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.63|
84658356|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 8|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.82|0.61|
84658357|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 9N|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.79|0.57|
84658358|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 10A|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
84658359|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 11A|GMT Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.75|0.54|
84508062|NCT00601484|168767427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.299|4.851||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.851|-22.299|
84508063|NCT00601484|168767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.776|1.265||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.265|-0.776|
84508064|NCT00601484|168767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.044||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.044|-1.220|
84658360|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 12F|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.62|
84658361|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15A|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.60|
84658362|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15C|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.58|
84682842|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.5|-2.0|0.0010
84682843|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.1|-1.5|0.0343
84682844|NCT03252587|169103641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-1.9|0.0050
84682845|NCT01640808|169103674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.124||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05. Adjustment of multiplicity considering interim analysis is conducted by the Lan DeMets' method of α consumption function.|Log Rank|||||1.124|0.720|0.351
84682846|NCT01640808|169103675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.085||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.706|0.222
84682847|NCT01640808|169103676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.108||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.108|0.703|0.279
84682848|NCT03998618|169103682|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.25|-0.01|.018
84682849|NCT03998618|169103683|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.11||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.24|-0.02|.037
84682850|NCT03998618|169103684|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.07||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.20|-0.06|.355
84682851|NCT03998618|169103685|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value for study group x time interaction for physical quality of life. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.21|-0.04|.167
84682852|NCT03998618|169103685|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for social/family quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.03|.105
84682853|NCT03998618|169103685|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for emotional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.04|.142
84682854|NCT03998618|169103685|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||P-value for study group x time interaction for functional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.26|0.01|.006
84508065|NCT00601484|168767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.124|2.269||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.269|-1.124|
84508066|NCT00601484|168767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.441|1.988||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.988|-1.441|
84682855|NCT02308748|169103686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.3|-25.2|0.025
84682856|NCT02308748|169103686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.1||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.1|-25.2|0.025
84682857|NCT02308748|169103686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-18.3|-28.0|0.025
84682858|NCT02308748|169103686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-15.5||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-15.5|-25.5|0.025
84682859|NCT02308748|169103687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-1|0.025
84682860|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.69 to 1.38. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.28 to 1.36.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with overall neurocognitive performance at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of 14 individual neuropsychological measures assessing attention, processing speed, visuospatial skills, language, memory, executive function and motor skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.001
84508067|NCT00601484|168767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.307|2.283||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.283|-0.307|
84682861|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.96 to 1.89. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.89 to 1.77.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with processing speed at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing speed of cognitive information processing, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.005
84658363|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 16F|GMT Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.81|0.59|
84658364|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 17F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.62|
84658365|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 19A|GMT Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.65|
84658366|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 20A|GMT Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.63|
84658367|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 22F|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
84658368|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23A|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.96|0.63|
84658369|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23B|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.72|0.44|
84658370|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 24F|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.61|
84658371|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 31|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.83|0.56|
84658372|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 33F|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||1.01|0.70|
84658373|NCT05526716|169051830|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 35B|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of serotypes is \>0.50.||0.89|0.67|
84658374|NCT05526716|169051831|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H1N1|GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.97|0.70|
84658375|NCT05526716|169051831|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H3N2|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.93|0.67|
84658376|NCT05526716|169051831|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Victoria|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.95|0.70|
84658377|NCT05526716|169051831|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Yamagata|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||1.00|0.78|
84658378|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 3|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02||||||||1.02|0.80|
84658379|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 6A|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11||||||||1.11|0.79|
84658380|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 7F|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|0.67|
84658381|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 8|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||||0.95|0.70|
84658382|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 9N|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||||1.05|0.75|
84658383|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 10A|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||||0.94|0.67|
84658384|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 11A|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
84658385|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 12F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||||1.01|0.69|
84658386|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 15A|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
84658387|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 15C|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
84658388|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 16F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||||0.99|0.70|
84658389|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 17F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
84658390|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 19A|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||||0.93|0.71|
84658391|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 20A|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||||0.97|0.70|
84658392|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 22F|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.10|0.80|
84658393|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 23A|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||||||||1.03|0.70|
84658394|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 23B|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||||1.02|0.72|
84658395|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 24F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
84658396|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 31|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
84658397|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 33F|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||||||||0.94|0.69|
84682862|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 2.44. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.82 to 2.00.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with attention at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing attentional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||< 0.01
84682863|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.76 to 0.95. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.18 to 0.84.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with executive function at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing working memory, set shifting, mental flexibility and problem solving, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.07
84682864|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 1.94. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.83 to 2.11.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with language at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal fluency and naming skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.09
84682865|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.00 to 1.68. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.33 to 1.90.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with memory at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||.72
84682866|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.04 to 2.51. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.21 to 2.24.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with visuospatial skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing visuospatial and visuoconstructional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.65
84682867|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -4.04 to 1.33. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.24 to 2.37.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with motor skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing fine motor speed and dexterity, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.79
84682868|NCT00675766|169103688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's exact test with 1 degree of freedom.||Fisher's exact test compared the frequency of older and younger HIV+ adults who converted from neurocognitively intact to neurocognitively impaired on memory over a one year time period. We hypothesized that the older group would exhibit a greater proportion of individuals who declined during this interim.||||.044
84682869|NCT01988779|169103694|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.505
84682870|NCT01988779|169103696|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.390
84682871|NCT01988779|169103697|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
84682872|NCT00377403|169103699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significnace was p less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for disease severity at baseline||We used analysis of variance, controlling for disease severity at baseline to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference between study groups at this point in time.||||0.83
84682873|NCT00417079|169103701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A 2-sided significance level of 0.0452 was used for the final analysis based on an interim analysis performed after 307 events with an adjusted significance level of 0.016 based on the O'Brien-Fleming type 1 error spending function.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed by using a log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status (0-1 versus 2)||The study required an estimated sample size of 720 patients (360 per arm) in order to detect a 25% reduction in the hazard ratio for death in the cabazitaxel group relative to the mitoxantrone group with 90% power. The final analysis was planned for when 511 deaths had occurred.||||<0.0001
84682874|NCT00417079|169103702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84682875|NCT00417079|169103703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0005
84682876|NCT00417079|169103704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
84682877|NCT00417079|169103705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.90|0.63|0.0010
84682878|NCT00417079|169103706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84682879|NCT00417079|169103707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||1.19|0.69|0.5192
84682880|NCT00417079|169103708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6286||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6286
84682881|NCT01022762|169103721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was less than 0.4%. This corresponds to a one-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% of the hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||||95.0|-0.115|0.143||The p-value corresponds to one-sided hypotheses of superiority with a significance level of 2.5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was with treatment, centre as explanatory variables and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.|If non-inferiority of repaglinide alone was shown, a test for superiority would be performed based on FAS. Superiority of repaglinide alone over gliclazide alone would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.|H0: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \>= 0.4%. H1: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 85%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.143|-0.115|
84682882|NCT00827918|169103739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.8|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||5.8|-7.0|0.8590
84682883|NCT00827918|169103739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.1|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||3.1|-11.7|0.2534
84682884|NCT00827918|169103742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.64|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||2.64|0.62|0.4976
84682885|NCT00827918|169103742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.09|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||5.09|0.95|0.0653
84682886|NCT00827918|169103743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8199
84682887|NCT00827918|169103743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9486
84682888|NCT00827918|169103744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.9937
84682889|NCT00827918|169103744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.9|-3.6|0.2406
84682890|NCT00827918|169103745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.2|-2.0|0.5953
84682891|NCT00827918|169103745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|0.8567
84682892|NCT02979262|169103746|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Repeated Measures GLM|Time 2 at 16 weeks||||||>.10
84682893|NCT02979262|169103747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
84682894|NCT02979262|169103748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
84682895|NCT02979262|169103749|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
84682896|NCT02979262|169103750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
84682897|NCT02979262|169103751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
84682898|NCT01565707|169103762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||"The following hypotheses were tested at the 2-sided significance level 0.05:~* H0: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension~* H1: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is not the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension"||24.0|0.2|0.046
84682899|NCT01565707|169103762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|27.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||27.4|-36.7|
84682900|NCT01565707|169103763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|59.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||59.5|4.3|0.024
84682901|NCT01565707|169103763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|41.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||41.9|-76.5|
84682902|NCT01565707|169103764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-0.3|0.763
84658398|NCT05526716|169051832|OTHER|Serotype 35B|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
84658399|NCT04182763|169051856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wald test after neg binomial regression|Chi-squared with 3 d.f.||Mean counts of events per person were calculated from a negative binomial regression model with categorical coefficients for active dose levels, controlling for the baseline number of prescriptions. A joint test of the null hypothesis that the three regression parameters representing active treatment = 0 was done.||||0.50
84658400|NCT04182763|169051861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after mixed-effects GLM with log link, random subject intercept, treatment, PKAN type, and time (1 mo vs 3d).||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 1 month + 3 days after first dose. Adjusted for PKAN type (classical or atypical), because randomization was stratified on type, and time point.||||0.105
84508068|NCT00601484|168767429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.05|5.76||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.76|-9.05|
84508069|NCT00601484|168767429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.65|4.24||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.24|-12.65|
84508070|NCT00601484|168767429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.96|7.9||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||7.90|-8.96|
84508071|NCT00601484|168767429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.57|8.28||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||8.28|-11.57|
84508072|NCT00601484|168767429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|13.02||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||13.02|-6.82|
84508073|NCT00601484|168767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.414|0.983||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.983|-2.414|
84508074|NCT00601484|168767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.548|2.384||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.384|-1.548|
84508075|NCT00601484|168767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|2.693||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.693|-0.075|
84508076|NCT00601484|168767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.178|1.512||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.512|-2.178|
84658401|NCT04182763|169051861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after GLM with log link, treatment, and PKAN type.||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 6 months after first dose. PKAN type (classical or atypical) was included because randomization was stratified on type. The study hypothesis was that expression levels would not vary significantly at this time point.||||0.55
84658402|NCT03984994|169051862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.27
84658403|NCT03984994|169051863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.22
84658404|NCT03984994|169051864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|251.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.21
84658405|NCT03984994|169051865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.28
84658406|NCT02535312|169051889|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
84658407|NCT02535312|169051890|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84658408|NCT00378378|169051895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from basline||||0.258
84658409|NCT00378378|169051895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.735
84658410|NCT00378378|169051895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.194
84682903|NCT01565707|169103764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.0|-0.8|
84682904|NCT01565707|169103765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.5|0.402
84682905|NCT01565707|169103765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.5|
84682906|NCT01565707|169103766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2|0.0|0.630
84682907|NCT01565707|169103766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate..|||0.2|-0.2|
84682908|NCT01565707|169103767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.0|0.563
84682909|NCT01565707|169103767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.9|-1.6|
84682910|NCT01565707|169103768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.9|0.770
84682911|NCT01565707|169103768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.3|-0.4|
84682912|NCT01565707|169103769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.303
84682913|NCT01565707|169103769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.1|-0.9|
84682914|NCT01565707|169103770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-0.8|0.640
84682915|NCT01565707|169103770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.4|-0.9|
84682916|NCT01565707|169103771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-0.3|0.846
84682917|NCT01565707|169103771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.5|-1.0|
84682918|NCT01565707|169103772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.8|-1.4|
84682919|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
84682920|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-2.0||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: 30 days post-injection 2||-2.00|-28.4|
84682921|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
84682922|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: 30 days post-injection 2||8.75|-15.0|
84682923|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|11.1||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||11.1|-9.09|
84682924|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.81||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: 30 days post-injection 2||3.81|-15.6|
84682925|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.49||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.49|-10.9|
84682926|NCT00617344|169103785|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|43.2||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: 30 days post-injection 2||43.2|18.2|
84508077|NCT00601484|168767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.038|4.112||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.112|0.038|
84508078|NCT00601484|168767431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.33|18.68||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||18.68|-33.33|
84508079|NCT00601484|168767431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.12|41.18||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||41.18|-14.12|
84658411|NCT00378378|169051896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint||||0.361
84508080|NCT00601484|168767431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|19.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|38.1||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||38.10|0.00|
84658412|NCT00378378|169051896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.603
84658413|NCT00378378|169051896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.193
84658414|NCT00407797|169051897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
84658415|NCT00407797|169051898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84658416|NCT00407797|169051899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
84658417|NCT00407797|169051900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<= 6 seizures during Baseline period.||||<.0001
84658418|NCT00407797|169051900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \> 6 seizures during Baseline Period.||||<.0001
84658419|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0552
84658420|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0350
84658421|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.6743
84658422|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4736|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.4736
84658423|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8173
84658424|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.9092
84658425|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1091
84658426|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0944
84658427|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8928
84658428|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7669|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.7669
84658429|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1698
84658430|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problem Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0898
84658431|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0465
84658432|NCT00407797|169051906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0316
84658433|NCT00407797|169051907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.2187
84658434|NCT00407797|169051907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1905
84658435|NCT00407797|169051908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
84658436|NCT00407797|169051908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
84658437|NCT00407797|169051908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0799
84658438|NCT00407797|169051908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0846
84658439|NCT04950998|169051927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|604.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2560.36||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-813.815|2021.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2021.95|-813.815|0.376
84658440|NCT04950998|169051928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|172.168||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.36|60.324|||t-test, 2 sided|||||60.324|-130.36|.444
84658441|NCT05973981|169051931|OTHER||Slope|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.63|||||Adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.63|-0.25|
84658442|NCT05973981|169051931|OTHER||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.46|-0.41|
84682927|NCT00833638|169103804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 2.5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of subjects achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.086
84682928|NCT00833638|169103804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.006
84508081|NCT00601484|168767431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.95|32.73||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||32.73|-30.95|
84508082|NCT00601484|168767431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|34.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.57|70.0||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||70.00|-4.57|
84508083|NCT00601484|168767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|0.61||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.610|-0.529|
84682929|NCT00833638|169103804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.019
84682930|NCT00833638|169103804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.022
84682931|NCT00833638|169103804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.573
84682932|NCT00833638|169103805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.34||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||18.34|5.72|<0.001
84508084|NCT00601484|168767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.077|0.043||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.043|-1.077|
84508085|NCT00601484|168767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.835|0.396||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.396|-0.835|
84508086|NCT00601484|168767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.718|0.273||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.273|-0.718|
84508087|NCT00601484|168767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.044|0.445||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.445|-1.044|
84682933|NCT00833638|169103805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|19.12||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||19.12|6.48|<0.001
84682934|NCT00833638|169103806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|22.29||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.29|8.51|<0.001
84682935|NCT00833638|169103806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.31||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||27.31|13.50|<0.001
84682936|NCT00833638|169103807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|21.71||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.71|6.83|<0.001
84682937|NCT00833638|169103807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.07|28.01||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||28.01|13.07|<0.001
84682938|NCT00833638|169103808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|22.06||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.06|6.42|<0.001
84682939|NCT00833638|169103808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.94|29.67||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||29.67|13.94|<0.001
84682940|NCT00833638|169103809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|21.55||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.55|6.30|<0.001
84658443|NCT00601458|169051943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.7||||0.005||97.8|-73.6|-8.0||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-8.0|-73.6|0.005
84682941|NCT00833638|169103809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|26.75||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||26.75|11.40|<0.001
84682942|NCT00833638|169103810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.301
84682943|NCT00833638|169103810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.046
84682944|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84658444|NCT00601458|169051943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.4||||0.0001||97.8|-81.7|-34.6||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (naproxen - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-34.6|-81.7|0.0001
84682945|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682946|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682947|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682948|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682949|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682950|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
84682951|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.001
84682952|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
84682953|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
84508088|NCT00601484|168767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.56|5.37||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.37|-27.56|
84508089|NCT00601484|168767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-22.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.39|0.0||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-56.39|
84682954|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
84682955|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.009
84682956|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.038
84682957|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682958|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682959|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682960|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84508090|NCT00601484|168767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.44|0.0||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-40.44|
84508091|NCT00601484|168767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-14.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.71|0.0||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-50.71|
84508092|NCT00601484|168767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-8.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.87|4.64||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.64|-36.87|
84508093|NCT00601484|168767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.852|26.044||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||26.044|-15.852|
84682961|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682962|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682963|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682964|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682965|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84508094|NCT00601484|168767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.216|25.764||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||25.764|-17.216|
84682966|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682967|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682968|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.003
84682969|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.008
84682970|NCT00833638|169103811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.246
84682971|NCT00833638|169103812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.05|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received placebo in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving placebo) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682972|NCT00833638|169103813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 2.5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682973|NCT00833638|169103814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalfil 5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84682974|NCT00833638|169103815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of successful intercourse attempts exist in participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period and did not respond to treatment when comparing their percentage of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
84508095|NCT00601484|168767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.741|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.917|20.307||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.307|-25.917|
84508096|NCT00601484|168767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.626|20.162||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.162|-21.626|
84682975|NCT04184791|169103836|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance (LM-ANOVA) model was used to determine the effect of L-Dopa, frequency, the interaction of levodopa and frequency, and the interaction of frequency and contact pairs on gait parameters. The fixed effects were L-Dopa condition (ON vs. OFF), stimulation frequency (LFS;60 Hz vs. HFS;180 Hz), contact pairs \[1-(R)/1-(L); 2-(R)/2-(L); 3-(R)/3-(L); 4-(R)/4-(L)\], and assistive device (presence vs. absence) and the patient effect was considered random.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84682976|NCT01669122|169103867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
84682977|NCT01669122|169103867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
84682978|NCT01669122|169103867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.97|0.91|
84682979|NCT01669122|169103868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.02|0.93|
84682980|NCT01669122|169103868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.03||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.03|0.94|
84682981|NCT01669122|169103868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.88|
84682982|NCT01669122|169103869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
84682983|NCT01669122|169103869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
84682984|NCT01669122|169103869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.90|
84682985|NCT01669122|169103870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.2208
84508097|NCT00601484|168767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.858|34.868||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||34.868|-13.858|
84682986|NCT01669122|169103870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.25|-0.25|0.5695
84682987|NCT01669122|169103870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.0063
84682988|NCT02959996|169103873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84682989|NCT02959996|169103874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
84682990|NCT02959996|169103875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84682991|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|Inequality test.||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||0.45
84682992|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||<0.001
84682993|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.88
84682994|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
84682995|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.21
84682996|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
84682997|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.77
84682998|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.004
84682999|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.08
84683000|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.38
84683001|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.49
84683002|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.156
84683003|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.125
84683004|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84683005|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.72
84683006|NCT02962908|169103902|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.34
84683007|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
84683008|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.030
84683009|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.87
84683010|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.075
84683011|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.076
84683012|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||<0.001
84683013|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
84508098|NCT00601484|168767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.049|15.316||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.316|-8.049|
84683014|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
84508099|NCT00601484|168767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.353|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.153|15.533||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.533|-9.153|
84683015|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
84683016|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
84683017|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
84683018|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
84683019|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.21
84683020|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.48
84683021|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
84683022|NCT02962908|169103903|OTHER|inequality||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.23
84683023|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
84683024|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
84683025|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.23
84683026|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.056
84683027|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.74
84683028|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
84683029|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
84683030|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.010
84683031|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.096
84683032|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180.Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.049
84683033|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.91
84683034|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.39
84683035|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.94
84683036|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
84683037|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.044
84683038|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.98
84683039|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.48
84683040|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.28|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.28
84683041|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.7|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.70
84683042|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.175|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.175
84683043|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.24|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.24
84683044|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
84683045|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.023|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.023
84683046|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.015|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.015
84683047|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.81|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.81
84683048|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
84683049|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.3|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.30
84683050|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.105|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.105
84683051|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.38
84683052|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.44|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.44
84683053|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.58|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.58
84683054|NCT02962908|169103904|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.43|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.43
84683055|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.25
84683056|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.0
84683057|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL-2 at day 42||||1.00
84683058|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||1.00
84683059|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||<0.001
84683060|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||<0.001
84683061|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 42||||<0.001
84683062|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||0.31
84683063|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.48
84683064|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
84683065|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||1.00
84683066|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||0.59
84683067|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||<0.001
84683068|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||0.013
84683069|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||<0.001
84683070|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
84508100|NCT00601484|168767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.651|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.806|11.932||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.932|-13.806|
84683071|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
84683072|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
84683073|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.00
84683074|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.29
84683075|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
84683076|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||1.00
84683077|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
84683078|NCT02962908|169103905|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
84683079|NCT02962908|169103906|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.59
84683080|NCT02962908|169103906|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.001
84683081|NCT02962908|169103906|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.61
84683082|NCT02962908|169103906|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
84683083|NCT02962908|169103907|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||0.113
84683084|NCT02962908|169103907|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||<0.001
84683085|NCT02962908|169103907|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||0.399
84683086|NCT02962908|169103907|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||<0.001
84683087|NCT02962908|169103909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42 post-vaccination.||||<0.001
84683088|NCT02962908|169103909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42.||||<0.001
84508101|NCT00601484|168767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.543|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.901|19.486||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||19.486|-5.901|
84508102|NCT00601484|168767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.221|18.765||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||18.765|-9.221|
84683089|NCT02962908|169103909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
84683090|NCT02962908|169103909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
84683091|NCT02962908|169103912|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.662
84683092|NCT02962908|169103912|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.168
84683093|NCT02962908|169103913|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||The study was not powered to detected statistical significant differences in this outcome.|||>0.05
84683094|NCT02962908|169103913|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Study not powered to detect statistically significant differences|||>0.05
84683095|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison in the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
84683096|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.578
84683097|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
84683098|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.200
84683099|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.658
84683100|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.640
84683101|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.127
84683102|NCT02962908|169103914|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.201
84683103|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.85
84683104|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.042
84683105|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.69
84683106|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.198
84683107|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.092|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.092
84683108|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 42||||<0.001
84683109|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 180||||0.27
84683110|NCT02962908|169103915|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparisons between groups on day 180||||<0.001
84683111|NCT00234065|169103938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% CI limit for the HR of cilostazol to aspirin was 1.33 (4/3) or lower , cilostazol would be non-inferior to aspirin.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.743||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.981||The log-rank test was used to verify the superiority of CLZ to ASA only if non-inferiority was verified. The adjusted significance level for the superiority test of the endpoint was set at 0.0471 (two-tailed) according to the O'Brien-Fleming method.|Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Number of Patients With First Occurrence of Stroke||0.981|0.564|0.0357
84683112|NCT00234065|169103939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.88||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.200|0.645|0.4189
84683113|NCT00234065|169103940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.194|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.194|0.675|0.4582
84683114|NCT00234065|169103941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.313|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||2.313|0.497|0.8600
84683115|NCT00234065|169103942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.994|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.994|0.643|0.0437
84683116|NCT00234065|169103943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.711|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.711|0.296|0.0004
84683117|NCT00126438|169103944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.73||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.73|0.18|0.001
84683118|NCT00126438|169103944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.18|0.001
84683119|NCT00126438|169103944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.17|0.001
84683120|NCT01420848|169103945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||It was used the Post Hoc and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups.||||0.006
84683121|NCT01420848|169103945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||The statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.~It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days)."||||0.023
84683122|NCT01420848|169103946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||After ANOVA it was performed Post Hoc Test and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA)of the medium difference among the groups in the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)||||0.012
84683123|NCT01420848|169103946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||After ANOVA, the Post Hoc Test was done and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the medium difference among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days).~Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)."||||0.005
84683124|NCT00127608|169103959|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean viral load between samples stored in liquid and samples stored dry was compared.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for all 2 by 2 comparisons.|The Geometric Mean Ratio of the viral load was calculated for dry over liquid storage condition.|||||<0.0001
84683125|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle fluid)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4451||||0.0038||95.0|-0.769|-0.1213|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1213|-0.7690|0.0038
84683126|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle swab)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.432||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7605|-0.1035|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1035|-0.7605|0.0060
84683127|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Vesicle fluid minus Vesicle swab)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00132||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3171|0.3435|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||0.3435|-0.3171|0.9952
84683128|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)|Geometric mean ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.76|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)||0.76|0.17|
84683129|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)||0.79|0.17|
84683130|NCT00127608|169103960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)||2.21|0.48|
84683131|NCT05520138|169103961|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.16|1.04|
84683132|NCT05520138|169103962|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.27|1.06|
84683133|NCT05520138|169103963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.10|0.99|
84683134|NCT05520138|169103964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.22|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.22|1.06|
84683135|NCT01329029|169103965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.002||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.002|0.753|0.0529
84683136|NCT01329029|169103966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.073|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment by time interaction.||||0.073|0.038|<0.0001
84683137|NCT01329029|169103967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0889||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|0.952|||Generalized Linear Regression|Analyzed using a negative binomial regression model excluding a correction for overdispersion.|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||0.952|0.601|0.0175
84683138|NCT01329029|169103968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0771||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.078||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate COPD Exacerbations||1.078|0.775|0.2875
84683139|NCT01329029|169103968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.933||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Mild, Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations||0.933|0.675|0.0050
84683140|NCT01329029|169103968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0605||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.982||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|COPD Exacerbations treated with Glucocorticosteroids and/or Antibiotics||0.982|0.744|0.0262
84508103|NCT00601484|168767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|-0.182||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.182|-1.546|
84508104|NCT00601484|168767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.196|-0.57||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.570|-2.196|
84508105|NCT00601484|168767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|-0.388||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.388|-2.204|
84683141|NCT01329029|169103968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0528||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.947||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations and/or treated with Antibiotics||0.947|0.739|0.0047
84683142|NCT01329029|169103968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.96||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Generalized Linear Regression|Negative binomial regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates)|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Leading to Hospitalisation||0.960|0.604|0.0209
84683143|NCT01329029|169103970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.031||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.031|0.815|0.1461
84683144|NCT01329029|169103971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0842||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.974||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment|||0.974|0.641|0.0270
84683145|NCT01329029|169103972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.027||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.027|0.546|0.0731
84683146|NCT01329029|169103973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NNTB|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0||||||||31|4|
84683147|NCT01329029|169103976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.124||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and restricted maximum likelihood (REML).||||0.124|0.061|<0.0001
84508106|NCT00601484|168767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.032|-0.172||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.172|-2.032|
84683148|NCT01329029|169103977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.038||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.038|0.013|<0.0001
84508107|NCT00601484|168767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.878|-0.152||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.152|-1.878|
84683149|NCT01329029|169103978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.12||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.120|0.069|<0.0001
84683150|NCT01329029|169103980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0941||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|-0.098||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||-0.098|-0.467|0.0027
84683151|NCT01329029|169103981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.071||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||0.071|-0.101|0.7392
84683152|NCT01329029|169103984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2175||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.142||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.142|-0.711|0.1909
84683153|NCT01329029|169103986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3468||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.99||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.990|0.528|0.9414
84683154|NCT01329029|169103987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5765||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|3.075|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||3.075|0.378|0.8876
84683155|NCT01329029|169103988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.845|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.845|1.268|<0.0001
84683156|NCT01329029|169103989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2691||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.484||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.484|0.326|0.3477
84683157|NCT01329029|169103991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3832||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.167||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||2.167|0.542|0.8208
84683158|NCT01329029|169103993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.162||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.162|0.821|0.7943
84683159|NCT01751126|169104013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.27||ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|0.26|0.007
84683160|NCT01751126|169104013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).||||1.18|0.16|0.010
84683161|NCT00447057|169104042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.897|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with 1-sided alpha of 0.20||||0.897|0.438|0.0047
84683162|NCT00447057|169104043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3909|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3909
84683163|NCT00447057|169104044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1808
84683164|NCT00447057|169104045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.887||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.887|0.457|0.0034
84683165|NCT00447057|169104046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.981||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.981|0.465|0.0190
84683166|NCT00440531|169104049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|75.7||||||95.0|68.0|82.2||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||82.20|68|
84683167|NCT00440531|169104049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|68.0||||||95.0|59.8|75.5||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||75.50|59.80|
84683168|NCT00440531|169104050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single-Group Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|77.0|89.6||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) for ENGERIX-B™ at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||89.60|77|
84683169|NCT00677833|169104094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ACPR (PCR corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|-2.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of Azithromycin/Chloroquine (AZ-CQ) at Day 28 is less than that of Artemether/Lumefantrine (AL); Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-2.18|-16.02|
84683170|NCT00677833|169104095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.05|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is less than that of AL; Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-0.05|-12.10|
84683171|NCT00677833|169104096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
84683172|NCT00677833|169104096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-1.32|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-1.32|-12.15|
84683173|NCT00677833|169104096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-0.75|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-0.75|-12.82|
84683174|NCT00677833|169104096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.76|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||0.76|-14.59|
84683175|NCT00677833|169104096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-0.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-0.18|-17.08|
84683176|NCT00677833|169104097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.14|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||1.14|-8.40|
84683177|NCT00677833|169104097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|3.04|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||3.04|-10.79|
84683178|NCT00677833|169104097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|2.22|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||2.22|-13.55|
84683179|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
84683180|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-0.88|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-0.88|-14.54|
84683181|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|-3.94|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-3.94|-26.24|
84683182|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-21.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.14|-9.39|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-9.39|-34.14|
84508108|NCT00601484|168767437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.757|-2.718||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-2.718|-29.757|
84683183|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|-5.43|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-5.43|-31.05|
84508109|NCT00601484|168767437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.846|-11.075||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-11.075|-44.846|
84508110|NCT00601484|168767437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-25.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.508|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.079|-6.369||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.369|-45.079|
84508111|NCT00601484|168767437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.017|0.902||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.902|-40.017|
84508112|NCT00601484|168767437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.633|-3.171||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.171|-40.633|
84508113|NCT00601484|168767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.942|-0.057||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.057|-2.942|
84508114|NCT00601484|168767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.458|-0.705||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.705|-3.458|
84683184|NCT00677833|169104098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-5.65|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-5.65|-31.33|
84683185|NCT00677833|169104099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||1.25|-10.60|
84683186|NCT00677833|169104099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-1.92|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-1.92|-24.21|
84683187|NCT00677833|169104099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-19.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-7.08|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-7.08|-32.16|
84683188|NCT00677833|169104099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-3.33|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-3.33|-29.42|
84683189|NCT00677833|169104099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-16.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-3.83|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)- (AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the Greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-3.83|-30.04|
84683190|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-0.75|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.75|-11.02|
84683191|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.95|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.95|-13.14|
84683192|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-1.6|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-1.60|-13.61|
84683193|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-2.87|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.87|-15.64|
84683194|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-0.97|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-0.97|-14.45|
84508115|NCT00601484|168767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.265|-0.004||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.004|-4.265|
84508116|NCT00601484|168767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.029|1.124||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.124|-4.029|
84508117|NCT00601484|168767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.293|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.419|-0.063||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.063|-4.419|
84683195|NCT00677833|169104106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|-1.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-1.60|-15.43|
84683196|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.74|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.74|-18.27|
84683197|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-1.55|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.55|-19.23|
84683198|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-4.04|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-4.04|-21.45|
84683199|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-2.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.60|-19.62|
84683200|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-1.71|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-1.71|-18.97|
84683201|NCT00677833|169104107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|-2.28|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-2.28|-20.14|
84508118|NCT00601484|168767439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|11.32||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||11.32|-27.32|
84683202|NCT00677833|169104108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.2564
84683203|NCT00677833|169104109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||<0.0001
84683204|NCT00677833|169104112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.0006
84683205|NCT02184611|169104122|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.194||Analysis was performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, Baseline, smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.194|0.113|<0.001
84683206|NCT02184611|169104123|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Analysis performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, BDI focal score, smoking status, country, Day, Day by BDI focal score and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||UMEC versus Placebo.||1.5|0.3|0.004
84683207|NCT02184611|169104124|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 min and 5 min pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status and country.|ANCOVA|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.147|0.103|<0.001
84683208|NCT02184611|169104133|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-4.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.58||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.58|-7.21|0.002
84683209|NCT02184611|169104133|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.57||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.57|-7.61|0.003
84683210|NCT02184611|169104133|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-3.03||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|0.1||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 168, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.10|-6.15|0.058
84683211|NCT02184611|169104134|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-1.49||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.17||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.17|-2.81|0.027
84683212|NCT02184611|169104134|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.68||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.68|-3.51|0.004
84683213|NCT02184611|169104134|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.86||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 128, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.86|-2.22|0.386
84683214|NCT04493216|169104137|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|5.7|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 100 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||5.7|-24.0|
84683215|NCT04493216|169104137|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.6|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 150 mg+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||11.6|-13.5|
84683216|NCT04493216|169104137|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|0.3|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 200 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||0.3|-31.2|
84683217|NCT00993655|169104159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||Assume that the 9-month PD rate in IV arm (Arm 1) will be 40% (based on experience with data from NCIC CTG OV.16 and that of NCRI UK). The target sample size of 200 will enable the detection of a 19% difference between Arms 1 and 3 in 9 month progression disease rate post randomization with 80% power at two-sided 0.05 level.||||0.065
84683218|NCT00993655|169104160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.75|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||1.75|0.85|0.27
84683219|NCT00993655|169104161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.13|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||2.13|0.74|0.40
84683220|NCT03318523|169104167|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.3||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.888|4.287|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.287|-4.888|0.8976
84683221|NCT03318523|169104167|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.5||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.312|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.312|-3.310|0.7960
84683222|NCT03318523|169104167|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.08||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|3.956|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||3.956|-3.805|0.9695
84683223|NCT03318523|169104168|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.28||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.035|4.483|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||4.483|-5.035|0.9093
84683224|NCT03318523|169104168|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|1.55||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|5.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||5.440|-2.336|0.4327
84683225|NCT03318523|169104168|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.17||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.051|3.719|||Mixed Model with repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||3.719|-4.051|0.9330
84683226|NCT03318523|169104170|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.41||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.013|5.825|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.825|-5.013|0.8828
84683227|NCT03318523|169104170|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.84||||0.7019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.458|5.128|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure|||||5.128|-3.458|0.7019
84683228|NCT03318523|169104170|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.99||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.323|5.301|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.301|-3.323|0.6519
84683229|NCT03318523|169104172|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.851|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||0.794|-1.851|0.4327
84683230|NCT03318523|169104172|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.13||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.225|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.225|-0.965|0.8155
84683231|NCT03318523|169104172|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.22||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|1.334|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.334|-0.899|0.7015
84683232|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-1.03||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.276|0.213|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||0.213|-2.276|0.1038
84683233|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.09||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|1.103|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.103|-0.933|0.8689
84683234|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.01||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.003|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.003|-1.026|0.9820
84683235|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.26||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.563|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.040|-1.563|0.6930
84683236|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.03||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|1.001|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.001|-1.053|0.9606
84683237|NCT03318523|169104173|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.24||||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||0.794|-1.269|0.6512
84683238|NCT03318523|169104174|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.44||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.889|1.007|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.007|-1.889|0.5497
84683239|NCT03318523|169104174|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.197|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.197|-1.200|0.9980
84683240|NCT03318523|169104174|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.070|-1.374|0.8069
84683241|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.21||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.372|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.372|-1.786|0.7968
84683242|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.53||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|1.827|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.827|-0.766|0.4211
84683243|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|1.143|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.143|-1.448|0.8166
84683244|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.240|-2.310|0.5535
84683245|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|1.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.922|-0.881|0.4654
84658445|NCT00601458|169051944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.004||95.0|0.183|2.95||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||2.95|0.183|0.004
84658446|NCT00601458|169051944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|6.72||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||6.72|1.77|<0.001
84658447|NCT00370032|169051945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.131||95.0|-18.4|2.157|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.157|-18.4|0.131
84658448|NCT00370032|169051945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.131||95.0|-21.2|2.997|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.997|-21.2|0.131
84658449|NCT00518986|169051948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study drug was fixed factor and corresponding baseline value was a covariate.||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.3043
84658450|NCT00518986|169051949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|P-value for comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.0120
84658451|NCT00518986|169051950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Nominal p-value is presented, but statistical significance cannot be claimed. As a key secondary variable significance could be claimed only if treatment effect was significant for both primary efficacy variables.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline as covariate.||||0.0027
84658452|NCT00518986|169051951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
84658453|NCT00518986|169051952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3145|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3145
84658454|NCT00518986|169051953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2196
84658455|NCT00518986|169051954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017||||||P-value is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.2017
84658456|NCT00518986|169051955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0032
84658457|NCT00518986|169051956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0207
84658458|NCT00518986|169051957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529||||||P-value was generated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0529
84658459|NCT00518986|169051958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
84658460|NCT00518986|169051959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
84658461|NCT00518986|169051960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1072
84658462|NCT00518986|169051961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0355
84658463|NCT00518986|169051962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0591
84658464|NCT00518986|169051963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0025
84658465|NCT00518986|169051964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0794||||||P-value for treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0794
84658466|NCT00518986|169051965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0888||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0888
84658467|NCT00518986|169051966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0433
84658468|NCT00518986|169051967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0105
84658469|NCT00518986|169051968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0523|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0523
84683246|NCT03318523|169104175|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.36||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|1.763|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.763|-1.051|0.6184
84683247|NCT03318523|169104176|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.59||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.742|3.925|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.925|-2.742|0.7274
84683248|NCT03318523|169104176|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.66||||0.6385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|3.411|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.411|-2.094|0.6385
84683249|NCT03318523|169104176|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.1||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.718|2.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||2.910|-2.718|0.9467
84683250|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.85||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|4.114|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||4.114|-2.423|0.6112
84683251|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.86||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.806|3.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||3.520|-1.806|0.5270
84683252|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.06||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.608|2.719|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||2.719|-2.608|0.9673
84683253|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.65||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.274|4.569|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||4.569|-3.274|0.7455
84683254|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.1||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|2.997|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||2.997|-3.192|0.9506
84683255|NCT03318523|169104177|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.69||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.422|3.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||3.794|-2.422|0.6643
84683256|NCT03318523|169104178|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.005||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0548|0.0438|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0438|-0.0548|0.8274
84683257|NCT03318523|169104178|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0323|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0323|-0.0504|0.6671
84683258|NCT03318523|169104178|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.033||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0751|0.0098|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0098|-0.0751|0.1313
84683259|NCT03318523|169104179|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0562|0.0382|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0382|-0.0562|0.7079
84683260|NCT03318523|169104179|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0392|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0392|-0.0400|0.9835
84683261|NCT03318523|169104179|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.027||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0682|0.0134|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0134|-0.0682|0.1869
84683262|NCT03318523|169104180|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.008||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0456|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0456|-0.0625|0.7585
84683263|NCT03318523|169104180|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.006||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0391|0.052|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0520|-0.0391|0.7808
84683264|NCT03318523|169104180|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.022||||0.3532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.0248|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0248|-0.0691|0.3532
84683265|NCT02858050|169104182|OTHER|||||||0.548306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.548306
84683266|NCT03232983|169104183|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.07|0.992|
84683267|NCT03232983|169104183|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.04|0.962|
84683268|NCT03232983|169104184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.20|1.00|
84683269|NCT03232983|169104184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|1.04|
84683270|NCT00483184|169104196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Results were expressed as mean or number. Normal distributed data among the treatment groups were compared by One-way ANOVA test, non-normal distributed data were compared by Kruskal Wallis test, and then Bonferroni post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Differences from baseline within treatment groups were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA test for normal distributed data, Freidman test for non-normal distributed data.||||0.404
84683271|NCT01992380|169104198|OTHER||ICC|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.988|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.988|0.935|
84683272|NCT01992380|169104199|OTHER||ICC|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|0.986|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.986|0.926|
84683273|NCT01515410|169104213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.86||||0.0471||95.0|-13.62|-0.09||This p-value indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|No subjects early-terminated from the study.||"Percent OFF Time (%)"||-0.09|-13.62|0.0471
84683274|NCT00989768|169104222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||In this study the null hypothesis was that BoNT-A1 had the same effect (halus)than the BoNT-A2.||||<0.0001
84683275|NCT00989768|169104223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84683276|NCT00989768|169104224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84683277|NCT00989768|169104225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84683278|NCT02192502|169104226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means is 1.15.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||generalized linear model|This analysis used linear mixed model with repeated measurements with an unstructured correlation structure.||Assuming that NGAL values follow a log normal distribution as in previous studies with a coefficient of variation of 25%, we need 52 patients per group to have 90% power at the 0.025 significance level to be able to claim non-inferiority of HES to albumin using a non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means of 1.15. After Adjusting for the interim monitoring and five potential dropouts and five pilot patients (which were not included in the analyses), we planned to enroll 140 patients||1.44|0.57|0.15
84683279|NCT02192502|169104227|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.1|||Chi-squared|||||12.1|0.64|0.92
84683280|NCT02192502|169104228|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority delta was 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||0.95|0.21|0.002
84683281|NCT02192502|169104229|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||2.10|0.45|0.31
84683282|NCT02192502|169104230|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta was 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|<0.001
84683283|NCT04575467|169104246|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-2.37|||Paired t-test|||||-2.37|-7.17|<0.01
84683284|NCT04575467|169104246|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-2.73|||Paired t-test|||||-2.73|-6.97|<0.01
84683285|NCT04575467|169104246|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.01|||Paired t-test|||||-0.01|-5.95|<0.05
84683286|NCT04575467|169104247|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-114.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.99|-56.81|||Paired t-test|||||-56.81|-171.99|<0.01
84683287|NCT04575467|169104247|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-155.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.1|-87.3|||Paired t-test|||||-87.30|-223.10|<0.01
84683288|NCT04575467|169104247|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-119.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.86|-0.47|||Paired t-test|||||-0.47|-237.86|<0.05
84683289|NCT01994954|169104248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A two-sided P-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as a statistically significant result.|t-test, 2 sided|||The trial was designed to have 97% power at a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 25% intervention effect with respect to the primary outcome. this was done using an independent sample t-test. P-value was calculated, and a p-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as statistically significant result.||||<0.03
84683290|NCT01994954|169104249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculations were based on the primary analysis (t-test comparing changes). A sample size of 130 would have given 80% power, with 0.05 two sided type 1 error rate, to detect a 20% absolute difference in emotional role limitation on the PedsQL v2.0, which we considered to be statistically significant.||||0.38
84683291|NCT00449176|169104253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.001
84683292|NCT01967732|169104298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.69|95.63|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||95.63|62.69|
84683293|NCT01967732|169104299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.52|90.14|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||90.14|61.52|
84683294|NCT00452387|169104301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test of association of PSA and imaging response tests the null hypothesis that the proportion of cases exhibiting PSA response is the same for patients with and without a favorable imaging response. A 2x2 table was constructed based on the number of the patients in imaging response (favorable and unfavorable) and PSA response (\>50% reduction and \<=50% reduction). The Fisher's exact test was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.55
84683295|NCT04403698|169104304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (CTX-I) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||<0.01
84683296|NCT04403698|169104305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (PINP) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||0.05
84683297|NCT04403698|169104306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups at week 48||||0.042
84683298|NCT04403698|169104307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups.||||0.042
84683299|NCT00977665|169104310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.603||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.677|2.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures model|Fixed effects: categorical week in trial by treatment interaction, center, and baseline UMSARS score.||||2.470|-3.677|0.6984
84683300|NCT00977665|169104319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|2.186||||||||2.186|0.646|
84683301|NCT01181050|169104324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.9334||95.0|-0.54|0.5|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.50|-0.54|0.9334
84683302|NCT01181050|169104325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.8293||95.0|-0.46|0.58|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.58|-0.46|0.8293
84683303|NCT01181050|169104326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8867||95.0|-0.65|0.56|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.56|-0.65|0.8867
84683304|NCT01018394|169104327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.1||A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||The percentage of participants who reduced tobacco use by greater or equal to 50% from baseline was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.||5.1|0.7|0.108
84683305|NCT00683644|169104334|OTHER|The observed power in THQ for zinc is 0.16, and that for placebo is 0.06.|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84683306|NCT00683644|169104335|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.89
84683307|NCT00683644|169104335|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.36
84683308|NCT00683644|169104336|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.64
84683309|NCT00683644|169104336|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.93
84683310|NCT04322682|169104337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|0.081
84683311|NCT04322682|169104338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.19|0.291
84683312|NCT04322682|169104339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.60|0.077
84683313|NCT04322682|169104340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.25|0.080
84683314|NCT04322682|169104341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99||P-Value is for the comparison of the treatment group within patients with Covid-19 confirmed by PCR.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic-regression model including the treatment group, the PCR-confirmed Covid-19 subgroup factor (yes/no) and their interaction was performed.||||0.99|0.57|0.042
84683315|NCT02238379|169104356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.003
84683316|NCT02238379|169104356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.034
84683317|NCT02238379|169104356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
84683318|NCT02238379|169104356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Spray Type by Face Type Interaction|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
84683319|NCT02238379|169104356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.22||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||LPP Analysis||||>.22
84683320|NCT02238379|169104357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.14||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||>.14
84683321|NCT02238379|169104357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.17||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||P300 Analysis||||>.17
84683322|NCT02238379|169104357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.27||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||LPP Analysis||||>.27
84683323|NCT02238379|169104358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.006
84683324|NCT02238379|169104358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.01
84683325|NCT02238379|169104359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Spray|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.03
84683326|NCT02238379|169104359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.008
84683327|NCT02238379|169104360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
84683328|NCT02238379|169104362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
84683329|NCT02238379|169104363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
84683330|NCT02238379|169104364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
84683331|NCT00605280|169104402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.3||Adjusted for glycolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values not carried forward for missing post-baseline data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.30|1.32|0.0047
84683332|NCT00605280|169104403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||2.53|0.85|0.1904
84683333|NCT00605280|169104404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.34|0.74|0.2466
84683334|NCT00605280|169104405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.26|0.86|0.1388
84683335|NCT00605280|169104406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.99|0.07|0.0468
84683336|NCT00605280|169104407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|11.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||11.55|0.73|0.1124
84683337|NCT00605280|169104408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||1.42|0.16|0.1788
84683338|NCT00605280|169104409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||18.06|1.45|0.0048
84683339|NCT00605280|169104410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||6.54|1.25|0.0040
84683340|NCT00605280|169104411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|4.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.29|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post baseline data.||||7.29|1.85|0.0011
84683341|NCT00605280|169104412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.74|0.24|0.0023
84683342|NCT00605280|169104413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.69|0.23|0.0008
84683343|NCT01302119|169104414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84683344|NCT01302119|169104415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84683345|NCT01302119|169104416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84683346|NCT01302119|169104417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84683347|NCT01662882|169104418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0253
84683348|NCT01662882|169104418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0004
84683349|NCT01662882|169104418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.4184
84683350|NCT01662882|169104418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0008
84683351|NCT01662882|169104419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||0.0039
84683352|NCT01662882|169104419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0357
84683353|NCT01662882|169104419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0010
84683354|NCT01662882|169104419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2118||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.2118
84683355|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.18|0.2968
84683356|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.64|0.1860
84683357|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.03|0.0027
84683358|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.62|0.2766
84683359|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
84683360|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.96|0.0032
84683361|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.72|0.0786
84683362|NCT00518115|169104424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.99|0.0022
84683363|NCT02235493|169104442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in MPOMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total MPOMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median MPOMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.0625
84683364|NCT02235493|169104443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in POMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total POMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median POMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.1250
84683365|NCT01055769|169104444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.11|102.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.75|93.11|
84683366|NCT01055769|169104445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|113.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.26|122.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||122.75|105.26|
84683367|NCT01055769|169104446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.63||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.63|92.92|
84683368|NCT01212770|169104464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use and and ≥ 3% body surface area (BSA) psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|The percentage of participants with an ACR20 response was compared using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test. The Hochberg procedure was used to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level. The results were considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||31.6|13.0|<0.0001
84683369|NCT01212770|169104464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||18.6|1.1|0.0295
84683370|NCT01212770|169104465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.034|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.034|-0.220|0.0073
84683371|NCT01212770|169104465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.066||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||0.027|-0.158|0.1619
84683372|NCT01212770|169104466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.3|6.7|0.0007
84683373|NCT01212770|169104466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.5||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|2.7|0.0110
84683374|NCT01212770|169104467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.042|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.042|-0.236|0.0050
84683375|NCT01212770|169104467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.084||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.012|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.012|-0.181|0.0860
84683376|NCT01212770|169104468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.95|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||3.95|0.69|0.0053
84683377|NCT01212770|169104468|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|1.15||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.77|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||2.77|-0.48|0.1658
84683378|NCT01212770|169104469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||35.3|15.5|<0.0001
84683379|NCT01212770|169104469|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.4||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||20.0|0.8|0.0372
84683380|NCT01212770|169104470|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||24.8|4.5|0.0062
84683381|NCT01212770|169104470|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||23.1|3.0|0.0134
84683382|NCT01212770|169104471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-2.9|-12.8|0.0021
84683383|NCT01212770|169104471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||1.3|-8.6|0.1482
84683384|NCT01212770|169104472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5349
84683385|NCT01212770|169104472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.7|0.8231
84683386|NCT01212770|169104473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-1.7|0.0720
84683387|NCT01212770|169104473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.3|0.3641
84683388|NCT01212770|169104474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-2.53|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.53|-7.34|0.0001
84683389|NCT01212770|169104474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.56|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.56|-4.27|0.1325
84683390|NCT01212770|169104475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.70|0.0001
84683391|NCT01212770|169104475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.04|-0.50|0.0237
84683392|NCT01212770|169104476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.30|0.77|0.0049
84683393|NCT01212770|169104476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.44|-1.09|0.4505
84683394|NCT01212770|169104477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.94|0.74|0.0043
84683395|NCT01212770|169104477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.67||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.27|0.07|0.0404
84683396|NCT01212770|169104478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|11.5|< 0.0001
84683397|NCT01212770|169104478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.0|-0.5|0.0661
84683398|NCT01212770|169104479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.7|3.8|0.0099
84683399|NCT01212770|169104479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.8||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.4|0.1|0.0515
84683400|NCT01212770|169104480|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.7|-11.4|0.0080
84508119|NCT00601484|168767439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.04|4.37||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||4.37|-42.04|
84683401|NCT01212770|169104480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-8.6|0.1218
84683402|NCT01212770|169104481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.3|0.2761
84683403|NCT01212770|169104481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.1|0.5012
84683404|NCT01212770|169104482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.9|0.0399
84683405|NCT01212770|169104482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.3|0.4413
84683406|NCT01212770|169104483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.82|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.82|-7.73|< 0.0001
84683407|NCT01212770|169104483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.19|-5.11|0.0349
84683408|NCT01212770|169104484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.72|0.0001
84508120|NCT00601484|168767439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.58|0.67||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||0.67|-51.58|
84683409|NCT01212770|169104484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.54|0.0147
84683410|NCT01212770|169104485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.24|0.64|0.0078
84683411|NCT01212770|169104485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.19||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.98|-0.61|0.1936
84683412|NCT01212770|169104486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.0|-10.9|0.7585
84683413|NCT01212770|169104486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.7|-17.4|0.5808
84683414|NCT01212770|169104487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD useinvolvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline..|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.0|-3.1|0.1303
84683415|NCT01212770|169104487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.5||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.2|-8.3|0.3610
84508121|NCT00601484|168767439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.71|17.33||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||17.33|-41.71|
84683416|NCT01212770|169104488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.6|12.4|< 0.0001
84658470|NCT00518986|169051969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0289
84658471|NCT00518986|169051970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1272
84658472|NCT00518986|169051971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0349
84658473|NCT00518986|169051972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0094
84658474|NCT00518986|169051973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0754
84658475|NCT00518986|169051974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0105
84658476|NCT00518986|169051975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2888
84658477|NCT00518986|169051976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0130
84658478|NCT00518986|169051977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0354
84658479|NCT00518986|169051978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7 after baseline||||0.3854
84658480|NCT00518986|169051979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were defined as subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0145
84658481|NCT00518986|169051980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were patients with worst fatigue scores \< 7||||0.6475
84658482|NCT00518986|169051981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0118
84658483|NCT00518986|169051982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3483||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from the Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with a worst fatigue score of \< 7||||0.3483
84658484|NCT00518986|169051983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0879|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0879
84658485|NCT00518986|169051984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0277
84658486|NCT00518986|169051985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1245|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1245
84508122|NCT00601484|168767439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-21.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.76|7.92||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||7.92|-54.76|
84508123|NCT00601484|168767440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|-0.04||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.040|-0.591|
84508124|NCT00601484|168767440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.02||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.020|-0.734|
84683417|NCT01212770|169104488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.9|1.2|0.0309
84683418|NCT01212770|169104489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-9.1|0.5731
84683419|NCT01212770|169104489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.0||||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.6|-12.6|0.8876
84683420|NCT01212770|169104490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.9|-2.5|0.1172
84683421|NCT01212770|169104490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.2||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.6|-8.2|0.3695
84683422|NCT01212770|169104491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.1|13.0|< 0.0001
84683423|NCT01212770|169104491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|2.7|0.0123
84508125|NCT00601484|168767440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|-0.015||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.015|-0.724|
84683424|NCT01212770|169104492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||13.5|0.0|0.0520
84683425|NCT01212770|169104492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.2||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.6|-2.2|0.2052
84683426|NCT01212770|169104493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.2||||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-2.4|0.5154
84683427|NCT01212770|169104493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-1.5|0.2527
84683428|NCT01212770|169104494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.1|1.6|0.0180
84683429|NCT01212770|169104494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-0.6|0.0807
84683430|NCT01212770|169104495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.8||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-2.6|0.4230
84683431|NCT01212770|169104495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.6|-3.5|0.7870
84683432|NCT01212770|169104496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.1||||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-14.8|0.4707
84683433|NCT01212770|169104496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.4||||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||5.7|-16.6|0.3547
84683434|NCT01212770|169104497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-8.6|0.4175
84683435|NCT01212770|169104497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-9.1|0.4370
84683436|NCT01212770|169104498|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-12.1|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-12.1|0.9463
84508126|NCT00601484|168767440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.806|-0.005||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.005|-0.806|
84508127|NCT00601484|168767440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.223||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.223|-0.470|
84683437|NCT01212770|169104498|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-7.7||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.8|-19.3|0.2032
84683438|NCT01212770|169104499|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.4|-5.8|0.2321
84683439|NCT01212770|169104499|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.6||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.3|-6.2|0.2520
84683440|NCT00829387|169104523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.69|||Linear mixed model|||||0.69|-1.47|0.47
84683441|NCT00829387|169104524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.47|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||0.47|-1.15|0.40
84683442|NCT00829387|169104525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|2.32|||Linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline||2.32|-7.02|0.31
84683443|NCT00829387|169104526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.06|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks comparison||1.06|-1.03|0.98
84683444|NCT00829387|169104527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.07|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||-0.07|-1.76|0.03
84683445|NCT00829387|169104528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.55|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||1.55|-9.86|0.15
84683446|NCT00707031|169104545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between lixisenatide and exenatide on mITT population was \<=0.4%.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.297||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), BMI (\<30, \>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||To detect that upper confidence limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval for least square (LS) mean difference between the 2 arms do not exceed 0.4% HbA1c, 300 patients per group would provide 96% power assuming a standard deviation of 1.3 and true difference in HbA1c between the 2 arms as 0.||0.297|0.033|
84683447|NCT00541450|169104558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.002
84683448|NCT00541450|169104559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.001
84683449|NCT00541450|169104560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||||95.0|-0.37|0.05|||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.05|-0.37|
84683450|NCT00541450|169104562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.030
84683451|NCT01951625|169104600|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.122|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test at the significance level of 5 percent (%). Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the pooled treatment group and the placebo group is difference of means on the log scale.||0.07|-0.32|= 0.1506
84683452|NCT01951625|169104600|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.2494|||=|0.0483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0|-0.5|= 0.0483
84683453|NCT01951625|169104600|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0731|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.16|-0.31|= 0.3042
84508128|NCT00601484|168767441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.468|-1.209||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-1.209|-29.468|
84683454|NCT01951625|169104600|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0396|||=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.18|-0.26|= 0.3841
84683455|NCT01951625|169104600|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.0151|||=|0.5444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only.||0.24|-0.21|= 0.5444
84683456|NCT05540522|169104649|OTHER||RVE|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|53.9||||||||53.9|7.4|
84683457|NCT05540522|169104650|OTHER||RVE|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|23.8||||||||23.8|-47.2|
84683458|NCT05540522|169104671|OTHER||GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.38||||||A/H3N2||1.38|1.10|
84683459|NCT05540522|169104671|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39||||||A/H1N1||1.39|1.10|
84683460|NCT05540522|169104671|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||B/Yamagata||0.80|0.67|
84683461|NCT05540522|169104671|OTHER||GMR|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.35||||||B/Victoria||0.35|0.26|
84683462|NCT05540522|169104672|OTHER||GMR|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.84||||||A/H3N2||1.84|1.47|
84683463|NCT05540522|169104672|OTHER||GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92||||||A/H1N1||1.92|1.51|
84683464|NCT05540522|169104672|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||||||B/Yamagata||1.14|0.95|
84683465|NCT05540522|169104672|OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69||||||B/Victoria||0.69|0.54|
84683466|NCT05540522|169104673|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|16.4||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||16.4|6.4|
84683467|NCT05540522|169104673|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.6||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||18.6|8.6|
84683468|NCT05540522|169104673|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-11.2||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.2|-19.5|
84683469|NCT05540522|169104673|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-36.1||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-36.1|-44.7|
84683470|NCT05540522|169104674|OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|26.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||26.5|16.7|
84683471|NCT05540522|169104674|OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|30.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||30.4|20.9|
84683472|NCT05540522|169104674|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-4.8|
84683473|NCT05540522|169104674|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-18.5||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-18.5|-26.7|
84683474|NCT05540522|169104675|OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.07||||||A/H3N2||2.07|1.78|
84683475|NCT05540522|169104675|OTHER||GMR|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|1.82||||||A/H1N1||1.82|1.55|
84683476|NCT05540522|169104675|OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94||||||B/Yamagata||0.94|0.82|
84683477|NCT05540522|169104675|OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63||||||B/Victoria||0.63|0.53|
84683478|NCT05540522|169104676|OTHER||GMR|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|2.54||||||A/H3N2||2.54|2.23|
84683479|NCT05540522|169104676|OTHER||GMR|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.54||||||A/H1N1||2.54|2.22|
84683480|NCT05540522|169104676|OTHER||GMR|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.43||||||B/Yamagata||1.43|1.29|
84683481|NCT05540522|169104676|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81||||||B/Victoria||0.81|0.71|
84683482|NCT05540522|169104677|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|29.9||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.9|23.7|
84683483|NCT05540522|169104677|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|29.8||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.8|23.9|
84683484|NCT05540522|169104677|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-6.6|
84683485|NCT05540522|169104677|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-16.6||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-16.6|-21.9|
84683486|NCT05540522|169104678|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|40.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||40.5|35.2|
84683487|NCT05540522|169104678|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|47.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||47.4|42.4|
84683488|NCT05540522|169104678|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.8||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||12.8|8.5|
84683489|NCT05540522|169104678|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-11.3||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.3|-16.3|
84683490|NCT05338333|169104729|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction, period, sequence, and habitual lens stratum) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID210464 minus AOHG MF.|||0.00||
84508129|NCT00601484|168767441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.102|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.608|1.665||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.665|-35.608|
84508130|NCT00601484|168767441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.358|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.476|-0.613||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.613|-35.476|
84508131|NCT00601484|168767441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.418|3.46||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.460|-42.418|
84683491|NCT04951336|169104730|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84683492|NCT04951336|169104731|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84683493|NCT04951336|169104732|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
84683494|NCT04951336|169104733|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.68||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.359
84683495|NCT04951336|169104734|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||Differences were considered statistically significant for p-values \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,150)=6.374. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"The LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
84508132|NCT00601484|168767441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.174|7.849||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.849|-26.174|
84508133|NCT00601484|168767442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.394|0.03||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.030|-1.394|
84508134|NCT00601484|168767442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.149|0.468||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.468|-1.149|
84683496|NCT04951336|169104735|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,157)=4.286. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
84683497|NCT04951336|169104736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,325)=1.898. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||0.060
84683498|NCT04951336|169104737|SUPERIORITY|LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,309)=1.156. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||||||0.326
84683499|NCT00506493|169104754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportions|42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5|30.0|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||30.0|<0.01
84683500|NCT00506493|169104755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||binomial proportions|6.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.9|||Fisher Exact|||||14.9||<0.0001
84683501|NCT04171102|169104758|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84683502|NCT01712009|169104759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|4.1|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|||4.1|-16.7|
84683503|NCT01712009|169104759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.3|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|||6.3|-14.5|
84683504|NCT01712009|169104759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.4|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|||12.4|-8.0|
84683505|NCT01712009|169104760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.0|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||6.0|-14.4|
84683506|NCT01712009|169104760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.8|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cyces||7.8|-12.5|
84683507|NCT01712009|169104760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.0|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Dfference across all treatment cycles||12.0|-8.3|
84683508|NCT01712009|169104761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||3.2|-6.5|
84683509|NCT01712009|169104761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all cycles||3.6|-6.1|
84683510|NCT01712009|169104761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.9|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all cycles||4.9|-4.1|
84683511|NCT01712009|169104762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.0|-0.7|0.0881
84683512|NCT01712009|169104762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-0.7|0.0443
84683513|NCT01712009|169104762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.3|-0.4|0.8007
84683514|NCT01712009|169104763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-1.1|0.1466
84683515|NCT01712009|169104763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-1.3|0.0411
84683516|NCT01712009|169104763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.5|-0.8|0.5689
84683517|NCT01712009|169104764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0775||95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-3.0|0.0775
84683518|NCT01712009|169104764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.1|-3.1|0.0329
84683519|NCT01712009|169104764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment groups||1.2|-1.7|0.7572
84683520|NCT00857207|169104771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|dependent variable: post-treatment outcome; independent variables:pre-treatment measurement and group indicator.||Linear regression of change of cTOL time to first move in GMT versus BHW group||||0.0004
84683521|NCT00857207|169104771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||total time will significantly improve 10 weeks from post||||0.012
84683522|NCT00857207|169104771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to first move will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline to indicate better planning||||0.98
84683523|NCT00857207|169104772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.42||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired T-test, Behavioral Regulation Index will improve at week 10 from baseline||||0.15
84683524|NCT00857207|169104772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test of Metacognitive Index, MI will improve at 10 weeks compared to baseline.||||0.24
84683525|NCT00857207|169104773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||optimal moves will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline||||0.30
84683526|NCT03073148|169104786|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3577
84683527|NCT03073148|169104786|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.9917|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.9917
84683528|NCT03073148|169104787|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3239|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3239
84683529|NCT03073148|169104787|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.8343|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.8343
84683530|NCT03073148|169104788|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.4134|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.4134
84683531|NCT03073148|169104788|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1192|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1192
84683532|NCT03073148|169104790|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1753||||||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1753
84683533|NCT03073148|169104790|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1843|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1843
84683534|NCT03073148|169104791|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.0765|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.0765
84683535|NCT03073148|169104791|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1520
84683536|NCT00428090|169104816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.8|0.074
84683537|NCT00428090|169104816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.0|-3.0|0.338
84683538|NCT00428090|169104816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-3.5|0.602
84683539|NCT00428090|169104817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.7|0.131
84683540|NCT00428090|169104817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.8|-2.4|0.315
84683541|NCT00428090|169104817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-3.5|0.105
84683542|NCT00428090|169104818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
84683543|NCT00428090|169104818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
84683544|NCT00428090|169104818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.4|-3.1|0.131
84683545|NCT00428090|169104819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.3|0.663
84683546|NCT00428090|169104819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.891
84683547|NCT00428090|169104819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|||0.3|-0.7|0.414
84683548|NCT00428090|169104820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.3|-0.3|0.913
84683549|NCT00428090|169104820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.276
84683550|NCT00428090|169104820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.025
84683551|NCT00428090|169104821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
84683552|NCT00428090|169104821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
84683553|NCT00428090|169104821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
84683554|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-2.0|0.116
84683555|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.9|0.816
84683556|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
84683557|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.3|-1.1|0.839
84683558|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.0|-0.3|0.165
84683559|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.4|0.073
84683560|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
84683561|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
84683562|NCT00428090|169104822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-3.1|0.131
84683563|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.3|0.133
84683564|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.2|0.958
84683565|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.5|0.085
84683566|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.4|0.102
84683567|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.3|0.380
84683568|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.7|0.006
84683569|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
84683570|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
84683571|NCT00428090|169104823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
84683572|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.5|-1.6|0.957
84683573|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-1.4|0.693
84683574|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.7|-2.2|0.798
84683575|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.7|0.958
84683576|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-2.1|0.998
84683577|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.639||95.0|-1.7|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-1.7|0.639
84683578|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.1|0.797
84683579|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.9|0.942
84683580|NCT00428090|169104824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-4.8|0.213
84683581|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.3|-2.1|0.919
84683582|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.4|-1.5|0.649
84683583|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.1|0.279
84683584|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.8|0.498
84683585|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.7|0.489
84683586|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.0|0.5|0.024
84683587|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||4.2|-1.6|0.385
84683588|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-3.0|0.944
84683589|NCT00428090|169104825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.5|-0.4|0.078
84683590|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-0.8|0.635
84683591|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-0.2|0.194
84683592|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-1.3|0.325
84683593|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.1|0.109
84683594|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|0.1|0.032
84508135|NCT00601484|168767442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.443|0.156||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.156|-1.443|
84508136|NCT00601484|168767442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.046|0.931||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.931|-1.046|
84508137|NCT00601484|168767442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.876|0.592||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.592|-1.876|
84508138|NCT00601484|168767443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-34.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.879|4.375||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.375|-72.879|
84683595|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.7|0.189
84683596|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.1|0.288
84683597|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.819
84683598|NCT00428090|169104826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.5|0.306
84683599|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.199
84683600|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.08|-0.01|0.094
84683601|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.09|-0.02|0.187
84683602|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.134
84683603|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.05|-0.05|0.958
84683604|NCT00428090|169104827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.03|0.374
84683605|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-4.6|0.493
84683606|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.7|-3.2|0.883
84683607|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-9.3|0.130
84683608|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|-6.6|0.198
84683609|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.6|-5.9|0.441
84683610|NCT00428090|169104828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||5.1|-5.8|0.898
84683611|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-2.1|0.027
84683612|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.6|0.278
84683613|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.2|0.993
84683614|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.0|0.196
84683615|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-1.9|0.353
84683616|NCT00428090|169104830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.9|-2.2|0.427
84683617|NCT00428090|169104831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.7|0.886
84683618|NCT00428090|169104831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.710
84683619|NCT00428090|169104831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|0.1|0.030
84683620|NCT00428090|169104832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.0|0.139
84683621|NCT00428090|169104832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.1|0.846
84683622|NCT00428090|169104832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.1|0.864
84683623|NCT00361140|169104843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
84508139|NCT00601484|168767443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-30.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.23|13.285||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||13.285|-75.230|
84683624|NCT00361140|169104844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|42.48|||Gray|Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141-1154.||Sample size: dependent on dose escalation. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is reached, a total of 30 patients will be accrued to that level. If maximally tolerated AUC is level 1, a total of 30 patients will be treated on this level using tacrolimus and methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis. This will provide 95% confidence intervals for 100-day non-relapse mortality and non-fatal toxicities with ½ widths not exceeding 0.18. Hazard ratios were calculated per the method of Gray (reference given)||42.48|0.92|.07
84683625|NCT05090709|169104861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683626|NCT05090709|169104861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683627|NCT05090709|169104866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683628|NCT05090709|169104866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683629|NCT05090709|169104871|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683630|NCT05090709|169104871|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683631|NCT05090709|169104876|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683632|NCT05090709|169104876|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683633|NCT05090709|169104878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683634|NCT05090709|169104878|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683635|NCT05090709|169104883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683636|NCT05090709|169104883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
84683637|NCT05090709|169104888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84508140|NCT00601484|168767443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-37.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.62|16.265||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.265|-90.620|
84683638|NCT05090709|169104888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683639|NCT05090709|169104893|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683640|NCT05090709|169104893|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683641|NCT05090709|169104898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683642|NCT05090709|169104898|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683643|NCT05090709|169104903|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683644|NCT05090709|169104903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683645|NCT05090709|169104908|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683646|NCT05090709|169104908|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
84683647|NCT05090709|169104913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84683648|NCT05090709|169104913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
84508141|NCT00601484|168767443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.604|86.142||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||86.142|-74.604|
84508142|NCT00601484|168767443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.862|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-164.142|121.438||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||121.438|-164.142|
84683649|NCT00863655|169104919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.35|<0.0001
84683650|NCT02548455|169104931|EQUIVALENCE|Freedom from left ventricular lead-related complications through 3 months was estimated to be 96.0% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 92.6% based on the Promote Q IDE study (NCT00990665), and 98.3% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 97.7% based on data from the Quadripolar Post-Approval study (NCT01555619).|Kaplan-Meier Estimate|85.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"The hypothesis for the endpoint is:~H0: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) ≤ 85% H1: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) \> 85%~A total of 85 subjects were required to have at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level at three months (91 days) post-implant or attempted implant. After accounting for 9% attrition, the required sample size was 94 subjects."||||0.05
84683651|NCT01627327|169104936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.022||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.012|0.201
84683652|NCT01137474|169104940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9251||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.24||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis. With 253 patients per group, there is \>80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 mm Hg at alpha=0.05, assuming a common SD of 14 mm Hg.||-1.24|-4.87|0.0010
84683653|NCT01137474|169104941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.33||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in the double-blind treatment period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. With 253 subjects per group, there is \>98% power to detect a difference of 0.4% at a=0.05, assuming a common SD of 1.1%.||-0.33|-0.59|<0.0001
84683654|NCT01137474|169104942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0091||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-0.91||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|ANCOVA|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||-0.91|-4.88|0.0043
84683655|NCT01137474|169104943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5811||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.14||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis.||0.14|-2.15|0.0843
84508143|NCT00601484|168767446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.562|0.081||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.081|-2.562|
84683656|NCT01137474|169104944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||0.73|-1.96|
84683657|NCT01137474|169104945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction.||-0.18|-0.46|
84683658|NCT03901326|169104946|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of ICA without obstructive CAD or intervention within 90 days||||0.05
84683659|NCT03901326|169104946|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of patients underwent revascularization||||<0.001
84683660|NCT03901326|169104947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.30|0.59|0.80
84683661|NCT03901326|169104948|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84683662|NCT03901326|169104949|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84683663|NCT01692782|169104961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 4 mg and 8 mg SEP 225289 groups were compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||
84683664|NCT01692782|169104961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-values of SEP 225289 4 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.||The 4 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.076
84683665|NCT01692782|169104961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value of SEP 225289 8 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 8 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.019
84683666|NCT02161133|169104967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.712
84683667|NCT02161133|169104968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84683668|NCT02161133|169104969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
84508144|NCT00601484|168767446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.782|0.535||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.535|-2.782|
84683669|NCT02161133|169104970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
84683670|NCT02161133|169104971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.382
84683671|NCT02161133|169104972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.703|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.703
84683672|NCT02161133|169104973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
84683673|NCT02161133|169104974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84683674|NCT03945188|169104975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.88|26.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.63|12.88|<0.001
84683675|NCT03945188|169104976|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
84683676|NCT03945188|169104977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.03|29.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.32|13.03|<0.001
84683677|NCT03945188|169104978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.99|34.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.39|18.99|<0.001
84683678|NCT03945188|169104979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.46|33.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.63|15.46|<0.001
84683679|NCT03945188|169104980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.17|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.60|16.17|<0.001
84683680|NCT03945188|169104981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.78|22.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.98|10.78|<0.001
84683681|NCT03945188|169104982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.39|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|11.39|<0.001
84683682|NCT03945188|169104983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
84683683|NCT03945188|169104984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|21.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.03|10.66|<0.001
84683684|NCT03945188|169104985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.02|18.51|<0.001
84683685|NCT03945188|169104986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|34.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.07|15.79|<0.001
84683686|NCT03945188|169104987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|34.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.84|17.48|<0.001
84683687|NCT03945188|169104988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|16.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.14|6.49|<0.001
84683688|NCT03945188|169104989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|15.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.73|4.73|<0.001
84683689|NCT03945188|169104990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.79|26.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.98|13.79|<0.001
84683690|NCT03945188|169104991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.38|4.93|<0.001
84683691|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.49|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.95|0.02|=0.049
84683692|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|22.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.74|7.32|<0.001
84683693|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.06|25.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.63|8.06|<0.001
84683694|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|30.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.61|12.71|<0.001
84683695|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|32.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.51|14.98|<0.001
84683696|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|30.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||30.24|11.83|<0.001
84683697|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.08|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||34.56|17.08|<0.001
84683698|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||32.14|14.80|<0.001
84683699|NCT03945188|169104992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.92|34.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||34.82|17.92|<0.001
84683700|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.59|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||7.30|-0.11|=0.057
84683701|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.88|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.90|1.86|=0.007
84683702|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.20|4.09|=0.001
84683703|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|22.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||22.83|9.89|<0.001
84683704|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|21.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.52|9.23|<0.001
84683705|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|23.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.75|11.85|<0.001
84683706|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|21.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||21.04|7.45|<0.001
84683707|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.25|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||25.81|14.25|<0.001
84683708|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.91|21.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||21.35|8.91|<0.001
84683709|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|22.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||22.87|12.16|<0.001
84683710|NCT03945188|169104993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.75|25.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||25.98|13.75|<0.001
84683711|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.83|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||14.68|-5.01|=0.336
84683712|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|27.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.15|7.06|<0.001
84683713|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|30.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.19|10.15|<0.001
84683714|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|33.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||33.43|13.45|<0.001
84683715|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.67|34.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.83|15.67|<0.001
84683716|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.77|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||38.64|19.77|<0.001
84683717|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|35.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.69|16.47|<0.001
84683718|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.02|19.35|<0.001
84683719|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.55|19.30|<0.001
84683720|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.55|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||38.64|20.55|<0.001
84683721|NCT03945188|169104994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.18|35.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||35.68|17.18|<0.001
84683722|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.93|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|15.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||15.81|-3.96|=0.240
84683723|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|27.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.53|7.48|<0.001
84683724|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.94|10.92|<0.001
84683725|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.10|14.15|<0.001
84683726|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|34.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.13|14.89|<0.001
84683727|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.13|39.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||39.01|20.13|<0.001
84683728|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|36.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||36.02|16.88|<0.001
84683729|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|38.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.68|20.01|<0.001
84683730|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|37.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.95|19.71|<0.001
84683731|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.97|39.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||39.03|20.97|<0.001
84683732|NCT03945188|169104995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||36.07|17.60|<0.001
84683733|NCT03945188|169104996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.90|10.20|<0.001
84683734|NCT03945188|169104997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|45.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.28|18.45|<0.001
84683735|NCT00423176|169105004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.14|0.25|||||For days 1-29|||0.25|-1.14|
84683736|NCT00423176|169105004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||||95.0|-1.65|0.0|||||For follow-up days 30-43|||0.00|-1.65|
84683737|NCT00423176|169105005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-0.5|18.2|||||Change from baseline to endpoint|||18.2|-0.5|
84683738|NCT05554237|169105006|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.67|93.29|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only)|||93.29|74.67|
84683739|NCT05554237|169105008|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|92.23|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.23|87.24|
84683740|NCT05554237|169105011|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.47|92.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.41|87.47|
84683741|NCT05554237|169105031|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|128.5|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||128.50|84.94|
84683742|NCT05554237|169105031|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.37|140.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||140.58|119.37|
84683743|NCT05554237|169105031|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.08|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||116.08|88.68|
84508145|NCT00601484|168767446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.036|0.819||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.819|-3.036|
84683744|NCT05554237|169105031|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|101.59|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||101.59|74.48|
84683745|NCT05554237|169105033|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.67|117.8|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||117.80|88.67|
84683746|NCT05554237|169105033|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.84|149.36|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||149.36|119.84|
84683747|NCT05554237|169105033|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|110.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||110.10|90.70|
84683748|NCT05554237|169105033|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|105.63|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||105.63|75.27|
84683749|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.37|112.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||112.02|78.37|
84683750|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|144.76|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||144.76|88.31|
84683751|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.06||||||90.0|92.77|123.54|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||123.54|92.77|
84683752|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|80.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|95.27|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||95.27|68.32|
84683753|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|116.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||116.02|69.70|
84683754|NCT05554237|169105039|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.08|113.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.41|84.08|
84683755|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|115.87|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||115.87|90.37|
84683756|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61|138.0|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||138.00|100.61|
84683757|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.12|128.98|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.98|104.12|
84683758|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|85.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|103.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||103.32|70.37|
84683759|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|121.06|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||121.06|78.83|
84683760|NCT05554237|169105040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|111.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||111.58|94.80|
84683761|NCT05554237|169105055|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.64|128.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.39|86.64|
84683762|NCT05554237|169105055|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.24||||||90.0|51.81|347.81|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||347.81|51.81|
84683763|NCT05554237|169105055|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|91.17||||||90.0|79.54|104.51|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||104.51|79.54|
84683764|NCT05554237|169105055|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.46|185.9|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||185.90|71.46|
84683765|NCT05554237|169105057|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|114.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|130.43|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||130.43|101.10|
84683766|NCT05554237|169105057|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|140.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|189.34|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||189.34|104.17|
84683767|NCT05554237|169105057|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46||||||90.0|90.79|113.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.39|90.79|
84683768|NCT05554237|169105057|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|123.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.67|||||Model is a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||137.67|110.25|
84683769|NCT01570829|169105086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0352
84683770|NCT01570829|169105087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84683771|NCT01570829|169105088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84683772|NCT01570829|169105089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Breslow-Day test p-value is 0.98||||||0.0001
84683773|NCT01570829|169105090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84683774|NCT01570829|169105091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84683775|NCT01570829|169105092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with waist circumference data.||||0.67
84683776|NCT01570829|169105092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with hip circumference data.||||0.26
84683777|NCT01570829|169105093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Physical Health domain data.||||0.40
84683778|NCT01570829|169105093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Mental Health domain data.||||0.34
84683779|NCT02275065|169105111|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683780|NCT02275065|169105111|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683781|NCT02275065|169105111|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683782|NCT02275065|169105111|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683783|NCT02275065|169105114|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683784|NCT02275065|169105114|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683785|NCT02275065|169105114|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683786|NCT02275065|169105114|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683787|NCT02275065|169105115|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683788|NCT02275065|169105115|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683789|NCT02275065|169105115|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683790|NCT02275065|169105115|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84683791|NCT01569438|169105148|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.2||one-sided|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||0.2|-1.6|0.0734
84683792|NCT01569438|169105149|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|1.8||one-sided|Mixed Model With Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||1.8|-3.9|0.2726
84683793|NCT01569438|169105150|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.1||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||1.1|-1.7|0.3603
84683794|NCT01569438|169105151|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.6||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||0.6|-3.5|0.1183
84683795|NCT00736645|169105154|OTHER|||||||0.5137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5137
84683796|NCT00736645|169105154|OTHER|||||||0.8994|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8994
84683797|NCT00736645|169105154|OTHER|||||||0.3463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3463
84683798|NCT00736645|169105155|OTHER|||||||0.2609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2609
84683799|NCT00736645|169105155|OTHER|||||||0.7504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7504
84683800|NCT00736645|169105155|OTHER|||||||0.9727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9727
84683801|NCT01201057|169105172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
84683802|NCT01201057|169105173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84683803|NCT01201057|169105174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
84683804|NCT03240692|169105192|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and frontal Default Mode Network (fDMN) functional connectivity||||0.036
84683805|NCT03240692|169105192|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and medial Default Mode Network (mDMN) functional connectivity||||0.008
84683806|NCT03240692|169105192|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and left Default Mode Network (lDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.06
84683807|NCT03240692|169105192|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and right Default Mode Network (rDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.017
84683808|NCT02300220|169105194|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.676|||Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Cox's proportional hazard model with pre-specified adjustment for patient's self-reported history of exacerbations over the previous year and with stratification for study centre. The onset of exacerbation will be monitored up to 90 days or at patient withdrawal.||1.676|0.684|0.764
84683809|NCT02300220|169105195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.703
84683810|NCT02300220|169105197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
84683811|NCT04891419|169105201|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|91.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.9||P-value is based on the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||95.9|83.7|<.0001
84683812|NCT04891419|169105202|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|59.9||P-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis||95% CI estimated using mixed effects model.|||59.9|49.2|<.0001
84683813|NCT04891419|169105203|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|48.0||95% CI and p-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.0|37.6|<.0001
84683814|NCT04891419|169105204|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|93.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.1|97.2||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||97.2|86.1|<.0001
84683815|NCT04891419|169105205|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.9|96.5||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||96.5|84.9|<.0001
84683816|NCT01311674|169105255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84683817|NCT01311674|169105256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84683818|NCT01311674|169105257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
84683819|NCT01311674|169105258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
84683820|NCT01311674|169105259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.27
84683821|NCT03969719|169105272|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.44||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.37|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-22.37|0.0696
84683822|NCT03969719|169105272|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.64||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.18|-3.89|||ANCOVA|||||-3.89|-24.18|0.0288
84683823|NCT03969719|169105273|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.36|0.6336
84683824|NCT03969719|169105273|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.52|0.1266
84683825|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.87
84683826|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.78
84683827|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.67
84683828|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.52
84683829|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.39
84683830|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.26
84683831|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.31
84683832|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.22
84683833|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.14
84683834|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.09
84683835|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.05
84683836|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.03
84683837|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.85
84683838|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.79
84683839|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.71
84683840|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.61
84683841|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.51
84683842|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.41
84683843|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.47
84508146|NCT00601484|168767446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.534|1.221||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.221|-1.534|
84683844|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.36
84683845|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.26
84683846|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.19
84683847|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.13
84683848|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.09
84683849|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.78
84683850|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.69
84683851|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.59
84683852|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.50
84683853|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.39
84683854|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.30
84683855|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.68
84683856|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.59
84683857|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.50
84683858|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.40
84683859|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.30
84683860|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.22
84683861|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.41
84683862|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.32
84683863|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.24
84683864|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.16
84683865|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.11
84683866|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.07
84683867|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.41
84683868|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.32
84683869|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.25
84683870|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.18
84683871|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.12
84683872|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.07
84683873|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.45
84508147|NCT00601484|168767446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.398|1.32||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.320|-2.398|
84508148|NCT00601484|168767447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.718|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.25|0.277||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.277|-22.250|
84683874|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.37
84683875|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.30
84683876|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.22
84683877|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.17
84683878|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.12
84683879|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.72
84683880|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.65
84683881|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.57
84683882|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.48
84683883|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.39
84683884|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.30
84683885|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.76
84683886|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.71
84683887|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.65
84683888|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.59
84683889|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.53
84683890|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.46
84683891|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.68
84683892|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.61
84508149|NCT00601484|168767447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.001|6.132||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||6.132|-23.001|
84683893|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.55
84683894|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.46
84683895|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.40
84683896|NCT02130193|169105302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.33
84683897|NCT02130193|169105306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.013
84683898|NCT02130193|169105306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.006
84683899|NCT02130193|169105306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.003
84683900|NCT02130193|169105306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.001
84683901|NCT02130193|169105306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|<0.001
84683902|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.17|-2.81|0.60
84683903|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.37||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.37|-3.11|0.65
84683904|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.45|-4.43|0.83
84683905|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.90|-4.07|0.78
84508150|NCT00601484|168767447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.737|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.602|8.327||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.327|-24.602|
84508151|NCT00601484|168767447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.406|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.948|11.04||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.040|-13.948|
84683906|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.28|-3.82|0.73
84683907|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.26|-4.01|0.72
84508152|NCT00601484|168767447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.352|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.884|8.234||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.234|-23.884|
84683908|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.09|-4.15|0.73
84683909|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.76||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.76|-4.71|0.81
84683910|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.22||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.22|-4.66|0.76
84683911|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.99||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.99|-5.66|0.91
84683912|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|2.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.13|-4.73|0.71
84683913|NCT02130193|169105307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|2.04||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.04|-4.77|0.78
84683914|NCT02130193|169105311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.278
84683915|NCT02130193|169105311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.138
84683916|NCT02130193|169105311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.05
84683917|NCT02130193|169105311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.011
84683918|NCT02130193|169105311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.002
84508153|NCT00601484|168767448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|15.007||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||15.007|1.709|
84508154|NCT00601484|168767448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|9.795||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||9.795|0.756|
84683919|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.62
84683920|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.64
84683921|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.81
84683922|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.77
84683923|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.71
84683924|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.70
84683925|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.74
84683926|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.79
84683927|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.77
84683928|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.90
84683929|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.66
84683930|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.74
84683931|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.43
84683932|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.45
84683933|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.67
84683934|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.62
84683935|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.55
84683936|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.55
84683937|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.59
84508155|NCT03504852|168767469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|27.98||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||27.98|7.45|0.0003
84683938|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.65
84683939|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.63
84683940|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.81
84683941|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.52
84683942|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.60
84683943|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.24
84683944|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.28
84683945|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.50
84683946|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.43
84683947|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.37
84683948|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.38
84683949|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.43
84683950|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.51
84683951|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.50
84683952|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.70
84683953|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.38
84683954|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.45
84683955|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.11
84683956|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.15
84683957|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.32
84683958|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.28
84683959|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.23
84683960|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.24
84683961|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.29
84683962|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.36
84683963|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.35
84683964|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.57
84683965|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.25
84508156|NCT03504852|168767469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.78||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|1.44|0.0003
84683966|NCT02130193|169105312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.32
84683967|NCT02130193|169105313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.477
84683968|NCT02130193|169105313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.343
84683969|NCT02130193|169105313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.221
84683970|NCT02130193|169105313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.116
84683971|NCT02130193|169105313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.052
84683972|NCT02130193|169105314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.212
84683973|NCT02130193|169105314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.111
84683974|NCT02130193|169105314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.049
84683975|NCT02130193|169105314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.012
84683976|NCT02130193|169105314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.001
84683977|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.64
84683978|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.75
84683979|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.77
84683980|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.74
84683981|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.67
84683982|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.69
84683983|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.72
84683984|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.71
84683985|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.66
84683986|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.84
84683987|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.65
84683988|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.71
84683989|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.13
84683990|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.27
84683991|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.31
84683992|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.29
84683993|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.23
84683994|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.26
84683995|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.28
84683996|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.29
84508157|NCT03504852|168767470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.28||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|18.2||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||18.20|-1.65|0.0498
84683997|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.23
84683998|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.45
84683999|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.24
84684000|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.28
84684001|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.26
84508158|NCT03504852|168767470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.47||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.92|0.0498
84508159|NCT03482713|168767513|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.93|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.93|-0.34|
84508160|NCT03482713|168767514|OTHER||Difference least squares mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.88|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.88|-0.35|
84508161|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.009273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.009273
84508162|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.000271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.18|0.000271
84508163|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.000257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.10|0.000257
84684002|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.41
84684003|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.46
84684004|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.43
84684005|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.36
84684006|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.39
84684007|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.42
84684008|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.42
84684009|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.35
84684010|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.58
84684011|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.36
84684012|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.41
84508164|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.013378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.23|0.013378
84508165|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.000318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.52|0.11|0.000318
84508166|NCT04634409|168767515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.140563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.09|0.140563
84508167|NCT04634409|168767516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.000835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.12|0.000835
84508168|NCT04634409|168767517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.097231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.28|0.097231
84508169|NCT04634409|168767517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.13236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.30|0.132360
84508170|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|15.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.57|0.02|0.769
84508171|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|0.01|0.494
84508172|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|0.02|0.671
84508173|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.27|0.02|0.663
84508174|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.76|0.02|0.680
84508175|NCT04634409|168767523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|67.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.88|0.09|0.584
84684013|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.66
84684014|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.66
84684015|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.91
84684016|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.79
84684017|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.84
84684018|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.81
84684019|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.76
84684020|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.84
84684021|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.83
84684022|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.94
84684023|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.84
84684024|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.81
84684025|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.01
84684026|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.02
84684027|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.15
84684028|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.05
84508176|NCT04634409|168767525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.06|0.17|0.979
84684029|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.08
84684030|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.08
84508177|NCT04634409|168767525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|0.27|0.675
84508178|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.17|0.009
84508179|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.06|0.002
84508180|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.72|0.263
84508181|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.41||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.87|0.083
84508182|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.35|<0.001
84508183|NCT04634409|168767528|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.52|0.149
84684031|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.06
84684032|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.14
84684033|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.14
84684034|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.29
84508184|NCT04634409|168767529|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
84508185|NCT04634409|168767530|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.70|0.606
84508186|NCT04634409|168767530|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.93|0.170
84684035|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.15
84684036|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.13
84508187|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.53|0.890
84508188|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.89|0.141
84508189|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.67|0.603
84508190|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.00|0.048
84508191|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.69|0.533
84508192|NCT04634409|168767536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.40|0.869
84508193|NCT04634409|168767537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.72|0.374
84508194|NCT04634409|168767538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.13|0.015
84508195|NCT04634409|168767538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.78|0.317
84508196|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.94|0.082
84508197|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.11|0.018
84508198|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.09|0.021
84508199|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.16|0.011
84508200|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.60|1.30|0.003
84508201|NCT04634409|168767541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.48|0.52|0.546
84508202|NCT04634409|168767542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.60|0.888
84508203|NCT04634409|168767543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|1.13|0.014
84508204|NCT04634409|168767543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.98|0.057
84658487|NCT00518986|169051986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0305
84684037|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.06
84684038|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.09
84684039|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.37
84684040|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.18
84658488|NCT00518986|169051987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0129
84658489|NCT00518986|169051988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0308
84658490|NCT00518986|169051989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0679
84658491|NCT00518986|169051990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0153
84658492|NCT00518986|169051991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0296
84658493|NCT00518986|169051992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0107
84658494|NCT00518986|169051993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as patients with a total score on FOSQ \> 17.9||||0.0100
84658495|NCT00518986|169051994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0||||P-value for treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0854
84658496|NCT00518986|169051995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score \> 17.9||||0.0027
84658497|NCT00518986|169051996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects who had a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0189
84658498|NCT00518986|169051997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with total score \> 17.9||||0.0240
84658499|NCT00518986|169051998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3320
84658500|NCT00518986|169051999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8930
84658501|NCT00518986|169052000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1774
84658502|NCT00518986|169052001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1000
84684041|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.24
84684042|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.24
84684043|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.19
84684044|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.32
84684045|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.32
84684046|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.52
84684047|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.33
84684048|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.29
84684049|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.43
84684050|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.29
84684051|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.70
84684052|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.71
84684053|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.61
84684054|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.48
84684055|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.58
84684056|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.83
84684057|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.74
84684058|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.89
84684059|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.59
84684060|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.77
84684061|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.01
84684062|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.01
84684063|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.09
84684064|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.09
84684065|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.05
84684066|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.02
84684067|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.04
84684068|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.22
84684069|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.14
84684070|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.36
84684071|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.07
84684072|NCT02130193|169105317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.17
84714623|NCT00085735|169175382|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis comparing IFRT vs. PFRT, a one-sided 94% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by age group and RT group (LDCSI vs. SDCSI)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, IFRT would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|94.0||1.3||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-21 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review as per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed with power of 0.94 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate and power of 0.65 to detect a 5% reduction in cure rate, due to the use of IFRT compared to PFRT.||1.3||
84658503|NCT00518986|169052002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2428
84658504|NCT00518986|169052003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1816||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1816
84658505|NCT00518986|169052004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1627||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1627
84658506|NCT00518986|169052005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0018
84658507|NCT00518986|169052006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
84658508|NCT00518986|169052007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0126
84658509|NCT02446483|169052034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|101.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|107.15||||||||107.15|95.81|
84658510|NCT02446483|169052035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|105.28||||||Comparison of T- rabeprazole 20 mg and R- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-t.||105.28|92.54|
84658511|NCT02446483|169052035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.81|104.71||||||Comparison of Treatment A- rabeprazole 20 mg and Treatment B- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-infinity.||104.71|91.81|
84658512|NCT02446483|169052036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0029
84658513|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.5||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-58.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-58.00|-78.00|0.0275
84658514|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-44.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-44.00|-65.00|0.025
84658515|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-32.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-47.00|0.0136
84658516|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-62.00|0.0136
84658517|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-38.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-38.00|-70.00|0.025
84658518|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-66.0||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-61.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.00|-68.00|0.0119
84658519|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-15.5||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|17.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||17.00|-38.00|0.2667
84658520|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-68.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-59.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-59.00|-74.00|0.0238
84658521|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-56.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-39.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.00|-65.00|0.0007
84658522|NCT03310021|169052042|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-35.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-24.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-24.00|-53.00|0.0121
84658523|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-80.0||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-83.00|0.0256
84658524|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-67.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-67.00|-97.00|0.025
84658525|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-37.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|5.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||5.00|-66.00|0.074
84658526|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-10.5||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|10.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||10.00|-59.00|0.1066
84658527|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.00|-87.00|0.0219
84658528|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-78.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-74.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-74.0|-83.00|0.0262
84658529|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-50.0||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|0.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||0.00|-65.00|0.0412
84658530|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-89.5||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-93.00|0.0269
84658531|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|-69.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-69.00|-86.00|0.0026
84658532|NCT03310021|169052043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.0||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-57.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-57.00|-76.00|0.0181
84658533|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.06||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.99|-71.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.96|-92.99|0.0282
84658534|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-69.15||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.91|-48.64|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.64|-96.91|0.0282
84658535|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-57.39||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.07|-40.03|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-40.03|-72.07|0.0085
84658536|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.96||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-25.5|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-25.50|-80.42|0.0085
84658537|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-100.25||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|-84.48|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-84.48|-133.08|0.0282
84658538|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.87||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.36|-65.74|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.74|-86.36|0.0282
84658539|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.02||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.54|-39.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.17|-89.54|0.0085
84658540|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-91.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.88|-60.83|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-60.83|-128.88|0.0282
84658541|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.49||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.05|-65.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.96|-91.05|0.0034
84658542|NCT03310021|169052044|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-58.47||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.86|-46.12|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-46.12|-110.86|0.0189
84658543|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.39||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.48|-52.62|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-52.62|-66.48|0.0282
84658544|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.26||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-26.94|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-26.94|-70.34|0.0282
84658545|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|-29.76|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-29.76|-46.14|0.0085
84658546|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.82||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-20.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-20.46|-55.81|0.0085
84658547|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.67||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.82|-43.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-43.78|-75.82|0.0282
84658548|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-67.63||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-61.99|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.99|-77.40|0.0282
84658549|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-40.33||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.77|-11.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-11.17|-59.77|0.0085
84658550|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.18||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.02|-48.14|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.14|-101.02|0.0282
84658551|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.63||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.14|-41.19|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-41.19|-59.14|0.0027
84658552|NCT03310021|169052045|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-38.14||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-15.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-15.37|-65.78|0.0189
84658553|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|965.09||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.48|1377.35|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1377.35|474.48|0.0282
84658554|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1127.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|769.46|1575.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1575.02|769.46|0.0282
84658555|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|574.89||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|307.65|1175.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1175.28|307.65|0.0085
84658556|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|715.34||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|535.38|836.4|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||836.40|535.38|0.0085
84658557|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1141.17||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|964.03|1736.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1736.78|964.03|0.0282
84658558|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1198.83||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|988.82|1670.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1670.30|988.82|0.0282
84658559|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|721.21||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.92|1108.92|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1108.92|585.92|0.0085
84658560|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1204.62||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1001.72|1471.45|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1471.45|1001.72|0.0282
84658561|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1180.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|857.21|1296.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1296.02|857.21|0.0027
84658562|NCT03310021|169052046|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|976.59||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.99|1498.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1498.37|585.99|0.0189
84658563|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|826.9||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|505.4|1362.11|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1362.11|505.40|0.0282
84658564|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1125.7||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|873.87|1552.77|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1552.77|873.87|0.0282
84508205|NCT01521559|168767570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|40.1||P-value was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; Difference and confidence interval were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline BCVA (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|||40.1|13.0|0.0003
84658565|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|538.84||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|291.2|1077.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1077.46|291.20|0.0085
84658566|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|687.57||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|500.92|902.73|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||902.73|500.92|0.0085
84658567|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1012.45||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|859.08|1352.05|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1352.05|859.08|0.0282
84658568|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1057.27||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|818.96|1634.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1634.30|818.96|0.0282
84684073|NCT04128293|169105366|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7585|1.0152|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-infinity).|||1.0152|0.7585|
84658569|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|630.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|421.78|1124.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1124.28|421.78|0.0085
84658570|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|925.84||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|663.74|1216.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1216.28|663.74|0.0282
84658571|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|871.11||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|631.67|1051.06|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1051.06|631.67|0.0027
84658572|NCT03310021|169052047|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|874.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|637.25|1412.21|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1412.21|637.25|0.0189
84658573|NCT02002091|169052052|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.706
84658574|NCT02002091|169052053|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.346
84658575|NCT02002091|169052054|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
84658576|NCT02002091|169052055|OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.968
84658577|NCT02002091|169052056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance for P-Value is \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84658578|NCT02002091|169052057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.988
84658579|NCT02002091|169052058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
84658580|NCT02002091|169052060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.917
84658581|NCT02002091|169052061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.816|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.816
84658582|NCT02002091|169052062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical significance : p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84658583|NCT02002091|169052064|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The threshold of statistical difference is P-value \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.025
84658584|NCT02002091|169052067|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||the threshold for statistical significance used is P-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
84658585|NCT03396367|169052094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.302||Condition (referent = education control).|Latent Growth Curve||Variable:|||1.302|-.558|.433
84658586|NCT03396367|169052094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.017||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Communication Compentence|||.087|-.121|.749
84658587|NCT03396367|169052094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Communication Competence by Condition|||.087|-.121|.302
84658588|NCT03396367|169052094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.027||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.236|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Relationship Satisfaction|||.236|-.182|.799
84658589|NCT03396367|169052094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.211||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.092|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Relationship Satisfaction by Condition|||.092|-.514|.173
84684074|NCT04128293|169105368|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7778|1.0239|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-t).|||1.0239|0.7778|
84508206|NCT01521559|168767571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group. P-value, Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||14.0|7.1|<0.0001
84684075|NCT04128293|169105370|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8594|1.0404|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of Cmax.|||1.0404|0.8594|
84658590|NCT03396367|169052095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.427||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.04||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.04|-.186|.172
84658591|NCT03396367|169052095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.281||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.061||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.061|-.623|.054
84658592|NCT03396367|169052095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.125||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.26||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.260|-.011|.036
84658593|NCT03396367|169052096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.245||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|1.403||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.403|-.913|.679
84658594|NCT03396367|169052096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.301||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.938|1.336||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.336|-1.938|.359
84658595|NCT03396367|169052096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.048||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.593|-.496|.431
84658596|NCT03396367|169052097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.251||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.814|1.311||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.311|-3.814|.326
84658597|NCT03396367|169052097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.246||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|1.875||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.875|-1.383|.384
84658598|NCT03396367|169052097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.856||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.659||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.659|.052|.019
84658599|NCT00004978|169052117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value is 2-sided using an alpha of .05.|Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio is from unadjusted proportional hazards regression model.|HR is for rIL-2 vs control.|||1.16|0.75|.55
84658600|NCT00004978|169052118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.74|.62
84658601|NCT00004978|169052119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.69|.42
84684076|NCT04128293|169105373|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.533||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The median difference and the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the median difference was estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||2.0000|-1.0000|0.4252
84508207|NCT01521559|168767572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-148.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.8|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||-117.4|-179.8|<0.0001
84658602|NCT00004978|169052120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.73|.41
84658603|NCT00004978|169052121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.0|174.0|||||treatment difference (rIL2 - no rIL2) estimated from a longitudinal model that considers CD4+ measured at followup visits|||174|145|
84658604|NCT00004978|169052123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio (rIL-2 vs. no rIL-2) for first change in antiretroviral treatment.||||1.00|0.88|.07
84658605|NCT00004978|169052124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.41|||Regression, Cox||HR (IL-2 vs control) for first grade 4 event, ITT analysis.|||1.41|1.07|.003
84658606|NCT00004978|169052125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
84658607|NCT00004978|169052126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.76|.74
84684077|NCT04128293|169105373|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|5.25||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median difference and the 90% confidence interval of the median difference were estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||5.2500|-0.7500|0.3125
84684078|NCT05616962|169105421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||0.473
84684079|NCT05616962|169105422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03199|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.03199
84658608|NCT01652703|169052131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.51|-62.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-62.71|-74.51|<0.001
84684080|NCT05616962|169105423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate||||||0.408
84684081|NCT05616962|169105424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84658609|NCT01652703|169052131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.84|-46.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-46.86|-58.84|<0.001
84658610|NCT01652703|169052131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.23|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-57.66|-70.23|<0.001
84658611|NCT01652703|169052131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.51|-51.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.81|-64.51|<0.001
84658612|NCT01652703|169052132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-96.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|-86.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-86.5|-106.0|<0.001
84658613|NCT01652703|169052132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-65.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-65.5|-85.4|<0.001
84658614|NCT01652703|169052132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-88.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-79.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-79.0|-97.4|<0.001
84658615|NCT01652703|169052132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-71.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.4|-90.0|<0.001
84684082|NCT05616962|169105425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84714624|NCT01824875|169175402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||1.07|0.46|
84714625|NCT01824875|169175403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84714626|NCT05349500|169175436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-20.1|0.019
84714627|NCT05349500|169175437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-14.1|0.286
84714628|NCT05349500|169175438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-4.0|0.046
84714629|NCT05349500|169175439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-3.8|0.128
84714630|NCT05349500|169175440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-14.3|0.031
84714631|NCT05349500|169175441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-8.8|0.564
84714632|NCT05349500|169175442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.349
84714633|NCT05349500|169175443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.303
84714634|NCT05349500|169175444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.1|0.507
84714635|NCT05349500|169175445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.2|0.729
84714636|NCT05349500|169175446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.421
84714637|NCT05349500|169175447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.648
84714638|NCT05349500|169175448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|0.3|0.034
84714639|NCT05349500|169175449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.315
84684083|NCT05616962|169105426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684084|NCT05616962|169105427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684085|NCT05616962|169105428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684086|NCT05616962|169105429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684087|NCT05616962|169105430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684088|NCT05616962|169105431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684089|NCT05616962|169105432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684090|NCT05616962|169105433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684091|NCT05616962|169105434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684092|NCT05616962|169105435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684093|NCT05616962|169105436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684094|NCT05616962|169105437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
84684095|NCT05616962|169105439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00463|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00463
84684096|NCT05616962|169105440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23077|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.23077
84684097|NCT05616962|169105441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00849|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00849
84684098|NCT03014674|169105471|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.11|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.11|0.98|
84684099|NCT03014674|169105471|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.12|0.99|
84658616|NCT01652703|169052133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1945.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.64|42232.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||42232.63|89.64|<0.001
84658617|NCT01652703|169052133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.74|5360.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||5360.92|14.74|<0.001
84658618|NCT01652703|169052133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|536.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.37|10143.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||10143.40|28.37|<0.001
84658619|NCT01652703|169052133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|595.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.11|11402.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||11402.67|31.11|<0.001
84658620|NCT01652703|169052134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-57.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.27|-67.85|<0.001
84658621|NCT01652703|169052134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.08||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.08|-54.83|<0.001
84658622|NCT01652703|169052134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|-52.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.22|-63.93|<0.001
84658623|NCT01652703|169052134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.46|-47.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.63|-59.46|<0.001
84684100|NCT03014674|169105472|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t)|Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.15|1.01|
84714640|NCT05349500|169175450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.2|-21.5|0.444
84714641|NCT05349500|169175451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|49.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.2|-30.6|0.638
84714642|NCT05349500|169175452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-13.4|0.688
84714643|NCT05349500|169175453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.5|0.709
84714644|NCT05349500|169175454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.3|0.089
84714645|NCT05349500|169175455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.8|-1.0|0.066
84714646|NCT02359890|169175478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with events|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.5|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval.|||6.5|0.7|
84714647|NCT02359890|169175480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of patient with acute success|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval|||98.6|92.0|
84714648|NCT05260112|169175484|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714649|NCT05260112|169175485|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714650|NCT05260112|169175486|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714651|NCT05260112|169175487|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714652|NCT05260112|169175488|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84714653|NCT05260112|169175489|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84714654|NCT03133546|169175546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||significance level: 5%|Regression, Cox|Univariate Cox for PFS with treatment effect only|The HR for Osimertinib plus Bevacizumab versus Osimertinib alone is provided.|"Assumption: Median PFS with osimertinib 11 months Target: Detect a 36% improvement in PFS (HR=0.64, corresponding to an increase in median PFS to 17.2 months) under osimertinib and bevacizumab (80% power, at one-sided significant level of 5%)~126 events required"||1.37|0.68|0.84
84714655|NCT03532282|169175552|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.15||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.001
84714656|NCT03532282|169175553|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.01
84714657|NCT03532282|169175554|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.0006
84714658|NCT03532282|169175555|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.05
84714659|NCT05399459|169175577|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.8|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||26.8|12.0|<0.0001
84658624|NCT01652703|169052135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.67|-55.72||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.67|<0.001
84658625|NCT01652703|169052135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.70|-51.80|<0.001
84658626|NCT01652703|169052135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|-47.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.97|-58.91|<0.001
84658627|NCT01652703|169052135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-41.85||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.85|-52.90|<0.001
84658628|NCT01652703|169052136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|-11.26||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.26|-57.71|0.004
84658629|NCT01652703|169052136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-0.68||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-0.68|-47.83|0.044
84658630|NCT01652703|169052136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-11.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.32|-48.32|0.002
84658631|NCT01652703|169052136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-2.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.22|-39.41|0.028
84658632|NCT01652703|169052137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.21|-41.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.76|-52.21|<0.001
84658633|NCT01652703|169052137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-31.91||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.91|-42.52|<0.001
84658634|NCT01652703|169052137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-41.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.00|-52.32|<0.001
84658635|NCT01652703|169052137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.02|-39.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.58|-51.02|<0.001
84658636|NCT01652703|169052138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.14|-55.56||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.56|-67.14|<0.001
84658637|NCT01652703|169052138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.41|-41.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.65|-53.41|<0.001
84658638|NCT01652703|169052138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.73|-51.77||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.77|-63.73|<0.001
84658639|NCT01652703|169052138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.27|-46.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.18|-58.27|<0.001
84658640|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .38, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.54
84658641|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=39.97, df = 1/228||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
84714660|NCT05399459|169175578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||30.9|14.5|<0.0001
84714661|NCT05399459|169175579|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|14.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||23.6|5.9|0.0011
84658642|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 8.12, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.005
84658643|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 28.96, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
84658644|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 6.23, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.02
84658645|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 4.18, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
84658646|NCT02155608|169052141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
84658647|NCT02155608|169052142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Chi-squared|Group: F = 8.75, df = 1/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.003
84658648|NCT02155608|169052142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|Time: F = 1.69, df = 3/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.17
84658649|NCT02155608|169052142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|Group: Chi-square = .53, df = 1.||Phase 1b: Assessed effects of group on categorical measure CGI-I from at Visit 5 compared to baseline.||||.46
84658650|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F=.01; df =1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.91
84658651|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=13.03; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.0004
84658652|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .83; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.37
84658653|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Time2: F = 7.45, df = 1/209.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.007
84658654|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .19, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.67
84658655|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .17, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.68
84658656|NCT02155608|169052143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.05, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.16
84658657|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
84658658|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.12, df = .15||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.15
84658659|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .21, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
84658660|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .20, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.66
84658661|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .50, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.48
84658662|NCT02155608|169052144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.81
84658663|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .02, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.89
84658664|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.28, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.14
84658665|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = .81.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.80
84658666|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.93
84658667|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.22, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
84658668|NCT02155608|169052145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.23, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.28
84658669|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01; df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
84658670|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.62, df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.11
84658671|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .71; df = .40.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.40
84658672|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .48. df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.49
84658673|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.87, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.18
84658674|NCT02155608|169052146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .13, df = 1/38.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.72
84658675|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F =.25, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.62
84508208|NCT01521559|168767573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||5.5|-0.3|0.0833
84658676|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 3.58, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.06
84658677|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.90, df 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.09
84658678|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.36, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.06
84658679|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.20, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
84658680|NCT02155608|169052147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .66, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.42
84658681|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 0.29, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.29
84658682|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.83, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
84658683|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.03, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.31
84658684|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.69
84658685|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .98, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.33
84658686|NCT02155608|169052148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .88, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.35
84658687|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.21
84658688|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.18, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
84684101|NCT03014674|169105472|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t).|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.12|0.97|
84684102|NCT03014674|169105472|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.13|1.00|
84684103|NCT03014674|169105472|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.09|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.09|0.95|
84684104|NCT00514943|169105490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.188|8.202||P-value obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance of target lesions.|ANCOVA|Receipt of prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance for target lesions are covariates|Mean difference calculated is actually the adjusted mean difference.|||8.202|-11.188|0.7606
84684105|NCT00514943|169105503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.387|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.387|0.640|0.764
84684106|NCT00514943|169105504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.212|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.212|0.434|0.219
84684107|NCT00514943|169105505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.608|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.608|0.708|0.758
84684108|NCT00833560|169105562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|85.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.5|88.8|||Two - sided binomial test|||||88.8|81.5|<0.0001
84684109|NCT00833560|169105563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|87.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.6|91.0|||Two-sided binomial test|||||91.0|83.6|<0.0001
84684110|NCT00414817|169105572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.03|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value based on linear regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|Estimated adherence was approximately 2 percentage points higher for intervention group than for usual care group.|In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable to reflect the fact that our adherence measure becomes more accurate and reliable with longer follow-up. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above. Also, sensitivity analyses that included daily oral steroid users and those with fewer than 3 months of follow-up yielded similar results to those presented here.||.030|.006|.002
84684111|NCT00414817|169105573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline adherence.||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||0.04|-0.23|0.175
84684112|NCT00414817|169105574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06||2-tailed p-value based on overdispersed Poisson regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|overdispersed Poisson regression|||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||1.06|0.96|0.852
84684113|NCT03382782|169105576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (3, 172)||||||.025
84684114|NCT03382782|169105577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.243||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.784
84684115|NCT03382782|169105577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.810
84684116|NCT03382782|169105578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.174
84684117|NCT03382782|169105578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.286
84684118|NCT03382782|169105579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.261
84684119|NCT03382782|169105579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.912
84684120|NCT03382782|169105581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 172||||||0.11
84684121|NCT03382782|169105582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean systolic blood pressure||||0.09
84684122|NCT03382782|169105582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean diastolic blood pressure||||0.05
84684123|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY|Intention-to-treat analyses. General Health subscale.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||||||0.121
84684124|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses. General Health subscale.||||0.193
84684125|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.835
84684126|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.513
84684127|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.097
84684128|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.184
84684129|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.347
84684130|NCT03382782|169105584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.549
84684131|NCT03382782|169105585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = 2,182||Intention-to-treat analyses||||.855
84684132|NCT03382782|169105585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.915|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.915
84684133|NCT03382782|169105587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.508
84684134|NCT03382782|169105587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.198
84684135|NCT01316510|169105589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome (percentage of bifidobacteria in the final stool specimen)||||<0.01
84684136|NCT01316510|169105590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary outcome (length of hospital stay) for all 24 infants (this included two infants with intestinal atresia, both in the placebo group)||||0.44
84684137|NCT01644734|169105603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change in the total CAT score between baseline and after 3 months.||||<0.001
84684138|NCT02450331|169105604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081|||Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|0.2446
84684139|NCT02450331|169105605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.109|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on PDL1 status, tumor stage after resection, and nodal status.||1.109|0.726|0.3172
84684140|NCT02450331|169105606|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.626|0.2235
84684141|NCT02450331|169105607|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.134|||Log Rank|||||1.134|0.743|0.4291
84684142|NCT02450331|169105608|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.070|0.722|0.1994
84684143|NCT02606903|169105626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|110.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|125.44|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and body mass index (BMI) group as fixed effects||125.44|96.80|
84684144|NCT02606903|169105627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.354|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|117.76|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||117.76|85.15|
84684145|NCT02606903|169105628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.137|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.13|122.29|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||122.29|82.13|
84684146|NCT02157779|169105630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-1.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Method used: Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the HLM analyses.||-1.01|-10.32|.017
84684147|NCT02157779|169105631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|0.06|-0.33|0.19
84684148|NCT02157779|169105632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|-0.09|-0.75|.011
84684149|NCT02157779|169105633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the analyses.||0.11|-0.63|0.16
84508209|NCT00395226|168767597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.62||The a priori significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA used group as a factor and baseline rosacea severity score as a covariate.|The effect of zinc sulfate treatment on rosacea severity score was estimated with baseline rosacea severity score included in the regression model|"The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that the zinc sulfate arm is superior to placebo arm."||1.62|-0.47|0.2840
84508210|NCT03238677|168767606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of biofeedback at 10 weeks||3.1|-23.2|.132
84508211|NCT03238677|168767606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of Practice Distribution at 10 weeks||-1.5|-25.9|.028
84508212|NCT03238677|168767606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect comparing telepractice vs face-to-face treatment||5.0|-24.9|.187
84508213|NCT03238677|168767606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.22||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction of biofeedback and practice distribution at 10 weeks|η2 =.054|46.3|-5.8|.125
84658689|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 6.89, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.01
84658690|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F= 2.16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
84658691|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.15, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
84658692|NCT02155608|169052149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
84658693|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.94
84658694|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.76
84508214|NCT03522948|168767615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-0.71||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject t-test||||.03
84508215|NCT03522948|168767616|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||d = -0.51|||0.23
84508216|NCT03522948|168767617|SUPERIORITY||t-test|1.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||GSAB self-efficacy||2.41|-0.69|<.05
84508217|NCT03522948|168767618|SUPERIORITY||t-test|2.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of GSAB self-efficacy subscale for condom use||3.41|0.31|<.05
84508218|NCT01807871|168767651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84508219|NCT01807871|168767653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of number of participants who reported removing the nicotine patch due to a side effect||||0.24
84508220|NCT03019965|168767668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02|||Chi-squared||||The efficacy of the maneuver was evaluated by calculating the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat.|1.02|0.87|0.156
84508221|NCT03019965|168767669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.98||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|28.45|||Chi-squared|||||28.45|0.31|0.722
84508222|NCT01915732|168767696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-7.4|0.002
84508223|NCT01915732|168767697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-7.3|<0.001
84508224|NCT01915732|168767698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
84658695|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .75, df =1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.39
84658696|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.06, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.09
84658697|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
84658698|NCT02155608|169052150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.55, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.22
84658699|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .22, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
84658700|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.19
84658701|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.22
84684150|NCT02157779|169105634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment), 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the statistical analyses.||-1.09|-22.20|.031
84508225|NCT01915732|168767699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
84508226|NCT01915732|168767700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.1|-1.8|0.077
84508227|NCT01915732|168767700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.1|-5.7|0.004
84508228|NCT01915732|168767701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.1|-2.0|0.028
84508229|NCT01915732|168767701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.2|-5.5|0.002
84658702|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.95, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
84658703|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.96
84658704|NCT02155608|169052151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .01, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.92
84658705|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .07, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.79
84658706|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.10, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.30
84658707|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 4.61, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.03
84658708|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 2.24, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.14
84658709|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .05, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.82
84658710|NCT02155608|169052152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 3.35, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.07
84658711|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .36, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.55
84658712|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.34
84658713|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/52||Phase 1 a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interaction to test for treatment effects.||||.81
84658714|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .05, df = 1/59||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.83
84508230|NCT01915732|168767702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.00|-0.06|0.080
84508231|NCT01915732|168767702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.02|-0.12|0.004
84508232|NCT01915732|168767702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statisticial data for the category=Total.|||-0.02|-0.09|0.003
84508233|NCT01915732|168767703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.00|-0.07|0.025
84658715|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.52, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.04
84658716|NCT02155608|169052153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
84508234|NCT01915732|168767703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
84684151|NCT02157779|169105635|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 12 (end of treatment), 3 month, and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the statistical analysis.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|2.60|0.51|0.004
84714662|NCT05399459|169175580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||27.4|10.1|<0.0001
84508235|NCT01915732|168767703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=Total.|||-0.03|-0.10|<0.001
84508236|NCT01915732|168767704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84714663|NCT05399459|169175581|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||40.3|23.2|<0.0001
84714664|NCT05399459|169175582|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|-19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-11.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||-11.6|-27.8|<0.0001
84714665|NCT05399459|169175583|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|41.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||41.6|24.7|<0.0001
84714666|NCT05399459|169175584|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|10.1||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|21.1||P-value \> 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||21.1|-0.9|0.0707
84714667|NCT05651308|169175596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08|||Chi-squared||Risk difference = Intervention proportion minus control proportion.|||0.08|-0.03|0.37
84714668|NCT05445427|169175627|SUPERIORITY|Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
84714669|NCT05445427|169175628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used with the baseline value used as the covariate.||||||0.292
84714670|NCT06074172|169175641|OTHER|Linear Mixed Models were done with a compound symmetry covariance structure. This infers that the variances (pooled within-group) and covariances (across subjects) of all of the repeated measures are homogenous.||||||0.008||||||In the Bonferroni corrected Linear Mixed Model for PI Ratio, the p-value for the following interaction was reported: Treatment\*Age.|Linear Mixed Model|"Linear Mixed Model analyses:~1. Factor: Treatment group~2. Covariates: Age, Sex, CBD Use history, and Urine THC~3. Interactions"||||||0.008
84714671|NCT03020199|169175645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|48.3|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression model with treatment as an explanatory variable and subset of significant covariates (including Baseline PASI score, age, BMI and their interaction terms with treatment) selected using forward selection method.|Week 52 PASI 90||48.3|5.9|<0.0001
84714672|NCT03020199|169175646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic||Exact logistic regression method for Treatment group comparison, without using any covariates.|Week 104 PASI 90||2.1|0.3|0.6530
84714673|NCT05583578|169175648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84714674|NCT05583578|169175648|OTHER||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes greater than (d = 0.80) were considered large.|Post-intervention changes in walking speed||||
84714675|NCT05583578|169175649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84714676|NCT05583578|169175649|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.79 were considered moderate, anything ≥0.80 were considered large.|||||
84714677|NCT04447469|169175682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|8.615||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||8.615|0.555|0.2598
84714678|NCT04447469|169175682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.414||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|9.957||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||9.957|0.653|0.1610
84714679|NCT04447469|169175682|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.091||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|7.144||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.144|0.612|0.2448
84714680|NCT04447469|169175682|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.749||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|9.993||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.993|0.756|0.1378
84508237|NCT01915732|168767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84684152|NCT02157779|169105636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|3.07||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.||3.07|-7.37|0.416
84684153|NCT02157779|169105637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-1.5||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the analyses.||-1.50|-25.94|0.028
84684154|NCT02157779|169105638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|GLM Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of means grouped by sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12||All randomized participants with at least one DAR completed in each time frame (sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) were included in the analyses. The mean DAR scores for sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 were calculated and used as outcome variables in the GLM repeated measures ANOVA.||||0.13
84684155|NCT02157779|169105639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|-0.063||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 4, week 8, week 12 (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analyses.||-0.063|-1.578|0.030
84684156|NCT02157779|169105640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|-0.011||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.011|-0.158|0.021
84684157|NCT02157779|169105641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.073||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the HLM analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.073|-0.283|0.246
84684158|NCT02157779|169105642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log 10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness.||-0.01|-0.27|0.036
84684159|NCT02157779|169105643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.1614||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.1614|-0.213|0.786
84684160|NCT02157779|169105644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Threshold for significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.13|-0.18|0.744
84684161|NCT02157779|169105645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.038|-0.663||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||-0.663|-3.038|0.002
84684162|NCT02157779|169105646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|0.524||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.524|-2.518|0.186
84508238|NCT01325207|168767706|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was determined to be 80mg IT every two weeks. This is based on no DLTs being seeing in Cohorts 1-4 with lower doses and 1 DLT out of 7 patients observed at 80mg IT in Cohort 5.|||
84508239|NCT00698685|168767713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||actuarial probability of engraftment|70.0||||||95.0|||||||Actuarial probability of engraftment at day +100 is calculated according to the product-limit estimate method.|||||
84684163|NCT02157779|169105647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|3.09||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||3.09|-0.560|0.164
84684164|NCT02157779|169105648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.92||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||2.92|-0.26|0.100
84684165|NCT02157779|169105649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.27||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.||"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI, indicating less symptomatic distress.|0.27|-12.85|0.060
84684166|NCT02157779|169105650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.271||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.083|-0.458||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.458|-6.083|0.023
84684167|NCT02157779|169105651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.82||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.82|-3.39|0.23
84684168|NCT01175850|169105657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|Z-test of two proportions was used to compare treatment groups for all randomized subjects.||||||<0.001
84684169|NCT01175850|169105658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84684170|NCT01175850|169105659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84684171|NCT01175850|169105660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
84684172|NCT01175850|169105661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84684173|NCT01175850|169105662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84508240|NCT00449150|168767747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.198||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-1.38|0.7424
84684174|NCT01175850|169105663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.859
84684175|NCT01175850|169105664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84684176|NCT01175850|169105665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
84684177|NCT01175850|169105666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84684178|NCT01175850|169105667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
84684179|NCT01175850|169105668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84684180|NCT01175850|169105669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84684181|NCT01175850|169105670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
84684182|NCT01175850|169105671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.590
84684183|NCT01175850|169105672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
84684184|NCT01175850|169105673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
84684185|NCT01175850|169105674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
84684186|NCT01175850|169105675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
84684187|NCT01814371|169105686|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.757|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.757
84684188|NCT01814371|169105687|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84508241|NCT00449150|168767747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|0.055||||0.926||95.0|-1.1|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|-1.10|0.926
84508242|NCT00449150|168767747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.252||||0.6699||95.0|-1.41|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|-1.41|0.6699
84658717|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.21
84658718|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .74, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.39
84658719|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 1.88, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.18
84658720|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.56; df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.22
84658721|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.72, df = 1/12.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.21
84658722|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
84658723|NCT02155608|169052154|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .87, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
84658724|NCT02728050|169052175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Participants on study receiving CLAGM-S were compared to a historical cohort of newly diagnosed AML/high-risk MDS patients treated with CLAG-M alone, matched for mitoxantrone dose, age, and TRM score.~Number of participants in historical cohort = 71. Number of participants in historical cohort who achieved MRD-negative CR = 55 (77.46%)"||||0.48
84658725|NCT05426902|169052186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
84658726|NCT05426902|169052187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.6
84658727|NCT05426902|169052188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.2
84658728|NCT05426902|169052189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
84658729|NCT05426902|169052190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.4
84658730|NCT05426902|169052195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I feel good about my medical visit at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
84658731|NCT05426902|169052195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist gave me his/her full attention at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
84658732|NCT05426902|169052195|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I was able to say everything I wanted to say to my rheumatologist at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
84658733|NCT05426902|169052197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist and I agreed on how active my lupus was today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
84658734|NCT05426902|169052197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I understand the care recommendations that my doctor or provider gave me today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
84658735|NCT05426902|169052198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Follow-Up||||0.02
84658736|NCT05426902|169052199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke meets my approval at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
84658737|NCT05426902|169052199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke is appealing to me at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
84658738|NCT05426902|169052199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I like SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.5
84658739|NCT05426902|169052199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I welcome SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.6
84658740|NCT05426902|169052200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems fitting at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
84658741|NCT05426902|169052200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems suitable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
84658742|NCT05426902|169052200|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems applicable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
84658743|NCT05426902|169052200|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems like a good match at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
84658744|NCT05426902|169052201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems implementable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
84658745|NCT05426902|169052201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems possible at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
84658746|NCT05426902|169052201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems doable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.4
84658747|NCT05426902|169052201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems easy to use at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
84658748|NCT01438957|169052244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
84658749|NCT01438957|169052244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.003
84658750|NCT01438957|169052244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.086
84658751|NCT01438957|169052244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-extension test|Stratified by the anesthesia type||Dose-response relationship is assessed using Mantel-extension test. In this analysis, dose of placebo group is hypothesized as 0 microg/kg. Dose-response relationship among Dexmedetomidine 4 dose groups excluding placebo group is also assessed using Mantel-extension test.||||<0.001
84658752|NCT01438957|169052245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
84658753|NCT01438957|169052245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
84658754|NCT01438957|169052245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
84658755|NCT01438957|169052245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.329
84658756|NCT01438957|169052246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
84658757|NCT01438957|169052246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
84658758|NCT01438957|169052246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
84658759|NCT01438957|169052246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.371
84658760|NCT01438957|169052247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
84658761|NCT01438957|169052247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.001
84658762|NCT01438957|169052247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.212
84658763|NCT01438957|169052248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.869
84658764|NCT01438957|169052249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
84658765|NCT01438957|169052250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
84658766|NCT01438957|169052251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
84658767|NCT01438957|169052251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.002
84658768|NCT01438957|169052251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.116
84684189|NCT01814371|169105688|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
84684190|NCT01814371|169105689|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84684191|NCT01814371|169105690|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
84684192|NCT01814371|169105691|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84684193|NCT01814371|169105692|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84684194|NCT01814371|169105693|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
84684195|NCT01814371|169105694|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84684196|NCT01814371|169105695|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84684197|NCT01814371|169105696|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84684198|NCT01814371|169105697|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of before and after decolonization protocol.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
84684199|NCT01814371|169105699|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.381|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.381
84684200|NCT01814371|169105700|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
84684201|NCT04341116|169105713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||||27|-6.5|.28
84684202|NCT00868439|169105719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84684203|NCT00868439|169105720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.027
84684204|NCT00868439|169105721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.101
84684205|NCT00868439|169105722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84684206|NCT00868439|169105723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.136
84684207|NCT00868439|169105724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.015
84684208|NCT04109703|169105725|OTHER|The hypothesis is that the high level pulsed heat group will show statistically more pain relief than the low level steady heat group.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level.||Demographic and clinical characteristics were tabulated by randomization group. The primary outcome was change in pain score from baseline to 30 minutes after treatment ended. Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level. Unadjusted comparisons are also presented. Change in pain scores at each other post baseline time point were similarly analyzed.||||<0.05
84684209|NCT00338884|169105727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|44.8|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||44.8|26.7|
84684210|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5581
84684211|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7635
84684212|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8366
84684213|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0278
84684214|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1988
84684215|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2898
84684216|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3567
84684217|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4547
84684218|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
84684219|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3259
84684220|NCT00338884|169105733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
84684221|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7154
84684222|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6263
84684223|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9608
84658769|NCT01438957|169052252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.088
84658770|NCT01438957|169052253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.085
84658771|NCT01438957|169052254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.005
84658772|NCT01438957|169052254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.014
84658773|NCT01438957|169052254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.055
84658774|NCT01438957|169052255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.737
84658775|NCT01438957|169052256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.11
84658776|NCT01438957|169052257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.567
84684224|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0300
84684225|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0927
84684226|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2873
84684227|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3018
84684228|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4161
84684229|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3069
84684230|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2920
84684231|NCT00338884|169105734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2409
84684232|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
84684233|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6251
84684234|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1639
84684235|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2782|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2782
84684236|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8627
84684237|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4620
84684238|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7575
84684239|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3566
84684240|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
84684241|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8758
84684242|NCT00338884|169105736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
84684243|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
84684244|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8555
84684245|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2259
84684246|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2074
84684247|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4779
84684248|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3628
84684249|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5460
84684250|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3637
84684251|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2229
84684252|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9759
84684253|NCT00338884|169105737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
84684254|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
84684255|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9625
84658777|NCT01438957|169052258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.044
84658778|NCT01438957|169052258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.234
84658779|NCT01438957|169052259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.729
84658780|NCT01438957|169052260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.082
84658781|NCT01438957|169052261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.451
84658782|NCT01438957|169052262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.873
84658783|NCT01438957|169052263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.374
84658784|NCT00777608|169052277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.2|0.231
84658785|NCT00777608|169052278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.008|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 2|||-0.008|-0.3|0.041
84658786|NCT00777608|169052278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.06|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 8|||0.06|-0.3|0.143
84658787|NCT00777608|169052278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||0.09|-0.2|0.226
84658788|NCT00777608|169052279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 4|||2.2|-1.2|0.324
84658789|NCT00777608|169052279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.1|||ANOVA|||||3.1|-1.5|0.285
84658790|NCT00777608|169052279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||1.9|-2.6|0.401
84658791|NCT01539538|169052313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of - 15% for lower boundary of 95% confidence interval|difference in proportion|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|22.11|||one-sided, z-test|||||22.11|3.69|<0.001
84658792|NCT01539538|169052313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84658793|NCT02864498|169052374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.5570
84658794|NCT02864498|169052374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8774|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.8774
84658795|NCT03250845|169052388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion time Ha: Multigam 10% infusion time is significantly shorter than Multigam 5%||||<0.0001
84658796|NCT03250845|169052389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in hospitalisation time between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Hospitalisation time with Multigam 10% infusion is significantly shorter than with Multigam 5%||||<0.0005
84658797|NCT03250845|169052391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in number of nursing actions per patient between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Number of nursing actions per patient is smaller with Multigam 10% infusion||||0.03
84658798|NCT00730132|169052416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||Significance of the differences in the number of patients per group who achieved goal TC levels on Visit 2.||||0.007
84684256|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
84684257|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0513
84684258|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4051
84658799|NCT00730132|169052417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Chi square, continuity corrected. Asymptotic significance.|McNemar|||Significance of paired changes in the number of patients who achieved LDL-C target levels on Visit 2, for each treatment group comparison||||<0.001
84658800|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.757|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30606||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC levels from Baseline at Visit 2||||
84658801|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.662||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
84658802|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8181|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.03545||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
84658803|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.80928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48621||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.307|0.6884|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||.6884|-6.3070|.143
84658804|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56351||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4298|-2.0664|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimbe||-2.0664|-9.4298|.001
84658805|NCT00730132|169052418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38286||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1948|0.3171|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.3171|-6.1948|.086
84658806|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.8174|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85205||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
84658807|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2488|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.78727||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
84658808|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0665|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5901||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
84658809|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01009||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1604|3.2977|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||3.2977|-6.1604|.756
84684259|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2548
84684260|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5091
84658810|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97821||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9072|-0.591|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimibe||-.5910|-9.9072|.023
84658811|NCT00730132|169052419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88425||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2523|0.6169|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.6169|-8.2523|.107
84658812|NCT02296320|169052428|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|31.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|56.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The key efficacy analyses were based on 5000 mg MEDI4893 and placebo. Participants who received 2000 mg MEDI4893 were summarized descriptively.||56.8|-7.5|0.166
84658813|NCT01930123|169052472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.98||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84658814|NCT01930123|169052473|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mild fibrosis vs. advanced fibrosis||||0.006
84658815|NCT01930123|169052474|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
84658816|NCT01269463|169052509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84658817|NCT01269463|169052510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84658818|NCT01125605|169052512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit 1) and last observation was exploratively analysed||||0.0033
84684261|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3133
84684262|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9278
84684263|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4070
84684264|NCT00338884|169105739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2703
84684265|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
84684266|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8286
84684267|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6867
84684268|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0450
84684269|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1740
84684270|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2703
84684271|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3659
84684272|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3391
84684273|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9800
84684274|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3350
84684275|NCT00338884|169105740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
84684276|NCT00338884|169105743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0680
84684277|NCT00338884|169105744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1159
84684278|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
84684279|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5879
84684280|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4757|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4757
84684281|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1933
84684282|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4187
84684283|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3795
84684284|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||1.0000
84684285|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6333
84684286|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8679
84684287|NCT00338884|169105746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5920
84684288|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6939
84684289|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5871
84684290|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4572
84684291|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1120
84684292|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4896
84684293|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2369
84684294|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6709
84684295|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6382
84684296|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8481
84684297|NCT00338884|169105747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
84684298|NCT00338884|169105749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0292
84684299|NCT00338884|169105750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1087
84684300|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3386
84684301|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1949
84684302|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7037
84684303|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5748
84684304|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7470
84684305|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4703
84684306|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8162
84684307|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5465
84684308|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3495
84684309|NCT00338884|169105752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6397
84684310|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4632
84684311|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1701
84658819|NCT01125605|169052512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit1) and last observation by duration of treatment||||0.0002
84658820|NCT01125605|169052513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0014
84658821|NCT01125605|169052514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0125
84658822|NCT01125605|169052515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0006
84658823|NCT01125605|169052516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0016
84658824|NCT01125605|169052517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
84658825|NCT01125605|169052519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
84658826|NCT04518306|169052552|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.176|-4.486||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-4.486|-10.176|<0.0001
84658827|NCT04518306|169052552|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.305|-5.151||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-5.151|-11.305|<0.0001
84658828|NCT04518306|169052553|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.649|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.281|-4.681||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-4.681|-11.281|<0.0001
84658829|NCT04518306|169052553|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.588|5.449||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||5.449|-13.588|<0.0001
84658830|NCT04518306|169052554|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.413|-1.597||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-1.597|-6.413|0.0015
84658831|NCT04518306|169052554|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.595||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.595|-7.130|<0.0001
84658832|NCT04518306|169052555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.811|42.45|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||42.450|11.811|0.0002
84658833|NCT04518306|169052555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.199|47.186|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||47.186|17.199|<0.0001
84658834|NCT04518306|169052556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|26.385||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set.||26.385|6.070|<0.0001
84658835|NCT04518306|169052556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.237|36.646||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set||36.646|15.237|<0.0001
84658836|NCT04518306|169052557|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.978|-2.013||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.013|-5.978|0.0002
84658837|NCT04518306|169052557|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.328|-3.694||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-3.694|-7.328|<0.0001
84658838|NCT04518306|169052558|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-3.287||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-3.287|-10.300|0.0003
84658839|NCT04518306|169052558|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.403|-5.082||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-5.082|-12.403|<0.0001
84658840|NCT04518306|169052559|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.004||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.865|-1.847||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-1.847|-5.865|0.0003
84658841|NCT04518306|169052559|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.915|-2.932||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-2.932|-7.915|<0.0001
84658842|NCT04518306|169052560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.541|48.549||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||48.549|19.541|<0.0001
84684312|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8204
84684313|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5162
84684314|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9437
84684315|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4013
84684316|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9595
84684317|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6249
84684318|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
84684319|NCT00338884|169105753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8263
84684320|NCT03871595|169105756|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|103.83|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||103.83|95.36|
84684321|NCT03871595|169105757|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|70.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.67|78.44|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||78.44|62.67|
84684322|NCT03871595|169105758|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.64|104.11|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||104.11|95.64|
84684323|NCT05072080|169105780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|97.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||97.5|95.0|<0.0001
84684324|NCT05072080|169105782|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|206.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.0|232.0||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||232|183|<0.0001
84684325|NCT05072080|169105784|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.14|0.85|
84684326|NCT05072080|169105784|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.12|0.84|
84684327|NCT05072080|169105784|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.10|0.82|
84684328|NCT05072080|169105786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|96.8||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||96.8|94.3|<0.0001
84684329|NCT05072080|169105786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|85.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||85.6|81.7|<0.0001
84684330|NCT05072080|169105786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|48.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 8||48.1|43.8|<0.0001
84684331|NCT05072080|169105788|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 8||14|11|<0.0001
84684332|NCT05072080|169105788|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.0|162.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||162|128|<0.0001
84684333|NCT05072080|169105788|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|46.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||46|37|<0.0001
84684334|NCT05072080|169105790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 8||||<0.0001
84684335|NCT05072080|169105790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
84684336|NCT05072080|169105790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
84684337|NCT05072080|169105790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
84684338|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|91.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 8||91.9|88.7|<0.0001
84684339|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|99.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||99.3|97.2|<0.0001
84684340|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|98.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||98.5|95.8|<0.0001
84684341|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|97.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||97.9|94.8|<0.0001
84658843|NCT04518306|169052560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.218|43.093||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||43.093|14.218|<0.0001
84658844|NCT04518306|169052561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|28.424||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||28.424|3.637|0.0030
84658845|NCT04518306|169052561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|33.665||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||33.665|8.720|<0.0001
84658846|NCT04518306|169052562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|2.76|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.760|-9.830|
84658847|NCT04518306|169052562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|9.774|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.774|-5.276|
84658848|NCT04518306|169052563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|1.662|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||1.662|-12.171|
84658849|NCT04518306|169052563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.585|4.049||||||||4.049|-10.585|
84658850|NCT04518306|169052564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.115|9.352|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.352|-4.115|
84658851|NCT04518306|169052564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|11.2||||||||11.200|-2.779|
84658852|NCT04518306|169052565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.012|9.35|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.350|-4.012|
84658853|NCT04518306|169052565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.364|5.278|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.278|-6.364|
84658854|NCT04518306|169052566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.928|5.573|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||5.573|-10.928|
84658855|NCT04518306|169052566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|9.53|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.53|1.38|
84658856|NCT04518306|169052567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.492|7.954|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||7.954|-6.492|
84658857|NCT04518306|169052567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.171|9.704|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.704|-5.171|
84658858|NCT04518306|169052568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.324|5.548|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.548|-6.324|
84658859|NCT04518306|169052568|SUPERIORITY||number of participants at 95% CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.05|||||For this particular parameter we have used number of participants at 95% CI computed from Clopper-Pearson method as no risk difference was found between the Triple ½ (GMRx2) vs placebo|||3.05|0.00|
84658860|NCT04518306|169052569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.778|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.778|-9.684|
84658861|NCT04518306|169052569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.59|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||2.590|-9.684|
84658862|NCT04518306|169052570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.722|12.959|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.959|-6.722|
84658863|NCT04518306|169052570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.158|12.133|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.133|-7.158|
84658864|NCT04518306|169052571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.585|8.916||||||||8.916|-8.585|
84658865|NCT04518306|169052571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.077|5.161||||||||5.161|-11.077|
84658866|NCT04518306|169052572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.664|8.366|||GEE procedure|||||8.366|-17.664|<0.0001
84658867|NCT04518306|169052572|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|17.981|||GEE procedure|||||17.981|-9.040|<0.0001
84658868|NCT02801331|169052573|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A chi squared test of proportions was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.6||||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||.60
84658869|NCT02801331|169052574|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing cumulative morphine dose was performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom =58 for cohort analyzed that received morphine treatment.||||||.62
84658870|NCT02801331|169052575|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants who completed hospitalization at study site (n=181).||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 179 based on number of infants who completed hospitalization at study site.||||||0.29
84658871|NCT02801331|169052576|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants (n=121)||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 119 based on number of infants who did not receive morphine treatment.||||||0.55
84658872|NCT02801331|169052577|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among treated infants, n=60||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.36
84658873|NCT02801331|169052578|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A t test of means was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.56
84658874|NCT02801331|169052579|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life infant started treatment as performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.25
84658875|NCT02443987|169052583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
84658876|NCT02443987|169052584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84658877|NCT02443987|169052585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84684342|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|66.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 8||66.7|62.5|<0.0001
84684343|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.3|98.4|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||98.4|96.3|<0.0001
84684344|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.1|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||98.1|95.5|<0.0001
84684345|NCT05072080|169105792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|92.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||92.7|89.4|<0.0001
84684346|NCT04322604|169105794|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|70.1|<0.0001
84684347|NCT04322604|169105795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|1.5||||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-1.6|0.3427
84684348|NCT04322604|169105796|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-34.2|||ANCOVA|||||-34.2|-48.1|<0.0001
84684349|NCT04322604|169105797|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.8|||Fisher Exact|||||88.8|71.7|<0.0001
84684350|NCT04322604|169105798|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|52.2|||Fisher Exact|||||52.2|25.4|<0.0001
84684351|NCT04322604|169105799|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|7.0||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.3549
84684352|NCT04322604|169105800|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|8.3||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|22.7|||Fisher Exact|||||22.7|-6.3|0.2262
84684353|NCT04322604|169105801|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|5.0||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Percent Change from Baseline||16.0|-6.1|0.3812
84684354|NCT01292239|169105845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|40.56||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||40.56|14.38|<0.0001
84684355|NCT01292239|169105846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|45.4||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||45.40|19.75|<0.0001
84684356|NCT01693068|169105869|OTHER|A log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (using the interactive voice response system \[IVRS\] value) will tested the null hypothesis of no difference between the Pimasertib (first line) and the Dacarbazine treatment groups at the 5% level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Stratified Log Rank Test||The Hazard Ratio is obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazards model based on dacarbazine and pimasertib only stratified by baseline ECOG Performance Status.|||0.83|0.42|0.0022
84684357|NCT00579280|169105880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84684358|NCT00579280|169105881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84684359|NCT00579280|169105882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684360|NCT00579280|169105883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
84684361|NCT00579280|169105884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684362|NCT00579280|169105885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684363|NCT00579280|169105886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Differences in response (70% or greater improvement) and remission (50% or greater improvement) rates between the groups.||||||<0.05
84684364|NCT00579280|169105887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684365|NCT00579280|169105888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684366|NCT00579280|169105889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684367|NCT00579280|169105890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84684368|NCT00295022|169105896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-4.35|<0.001
84684369|NCT00295022|169105896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-2.04|=0.001
84684370|NCT00295022|169105896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.43|<0.001
84684371|NCT01239030|169105927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0046
84684372|NCT01371851|169105960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0529||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was applied to urine data obtained at all time points during weeks 1-8.||||0.05
84684373|NCT00450411|169105961|OTHER|||||||||||||||||It was projected that ≤10% of patients would experience late treatment-related GI/GU AEs under the protocol treatment (alternative hypothesis). A rate of ≥20% was considered unacceptable (null hypothesis). With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, it was estimated that 87 analyzable patients were required to detect the above-mentioned effect size with an 85% statistical power using Fleming's multiple testing procedure with two interim analyses and one final analysis.|Stopping Rules for a Late GI/GU Adverse Event: For 44 patients, if ≤2 then reject H0, if ≥8 then reject HA; for 73 patients, if ≤7 then reject H0, if ≥10 then reject HA; for 87 patients, if ≤10 then reject H0, if ≥11 then reject HA.|||
84684374|NCT05725317|169105969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance visual acuity was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID220365 minus LID006961. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
84684375|NCT01194570|169105974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|29.337||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|51.456||P-value from a ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL 25-Foot Timed Walk (25-FTW), Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates (back-transformed) based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-baseline(BL)/BL) = log(BL 25-FTW) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL 25-FTW)\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = -(OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.||51.456|-1.618|0.0404
84684376|NCT01194570|169105975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.924||P-value is from ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL T2 lesion volume, Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Estimates (back-transformed) are based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-BL/BL) = log(BL T2 lesion volume) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL T2 lesion volume)\*Week.||0.924|0.876|< 0.0001
84684377|NCT01194570|169105976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|17.475||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.206|29.251|||MMRM||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Percentage Change = Brain Volume at Week 24 + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Brain Volume at Week 24\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as - Relative change = - (OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using Bootstrap method.||29.251|3.206|0.0206
84684378|NCT01194570|169105977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|1.802|||MMRM||Difference in adjusted mean was calculated as Ocrelizumab SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score - Placebo SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change = Baseline PCS Score + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Baseline PCS Score\*Week.||1.802|-1.048|0.6034
84684379|NCT00876915|169105980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.89|||stratified Cox|||||1.890|0.235|0.4795
84684380|NCT00876915|169105981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.019||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|131.632|||stratified Cox|||||131.632|1.236|0.0252
84684381|NCT02673398|169105995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Patients with higher risk scores were more likely to require a dose reduction. The lack of significance is most likely due to the small sample size.|Student's t-test was used to assess if geriatric risk score differed depending on whether or not a participant had a dose reduction (mean difference log2 risk = no dose modification - dose modification).||0.01|-0.82|0.05
84684382|NCT02673398|169105995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to assess whether log2 geriatric toxicity risk score was a risk factor for the number of course completed.||||0.39
84684383|NCT02673398|169105996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The older the participant the lower the steady state value.|Least squares regression was used to assess the relationship between steady state neratinib concentration and age||||0.03
84684384|NCT02673398|169105996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geriatric risk score was not predictive of steady state concentration.|Least squares regression was used to determine if geriatric toxicity risk score at baseline was predictive of steady state neratinib concentration.||||0.57
84684385|NCT01111123|169105997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CI of 95%|Log Rank|||Probabilities of PGA not worsening were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method with a comparison between treatment group survival curves evaluated by the log-rank test statistic. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for worsening of PGA (equivalent to a relative risk adjusted for follow-up time) and a corresponding 95-percent confidence interval.||||<0.05
84684386|NCT01111123|169105998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Secondary outcomes, including subject self-assessment and signs of psoriasis ratings, were analyzed as continuous dependent variables in these statistical models. Mixed modeling analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the relationships between psoriasis symptoms over time in the placebo and steroid treatment groups||||<0.05
84684387|NCT04333420|169105999|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-16.4||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|20.3|||Linear repeated measures model|||||20.3|-53.2|0.3677
84684388|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.056|||Regression, Cox|including stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by site; 61 patients from sites with no events (no death) or from single patient sites with death factually make no contribution to the analysis outcome.||1.056|0.502|0.0941
84684389|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.955|||Regression, Cox|Without stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) without stratification by site; Post-hoc analysis||0.955|0.476|0.0266
84684390|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.648||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Including random effect for site (frailty model)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including random effect for site (frailty model); Post-hoc analysis||0.929|0.453|0.0181
84684391|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.873|||Regression, Cox|Including stratification by country||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by country; Post-hoc analysis||0.873|0.430|0.0067
84508243|NCT06331156|168767749|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is greater than or equal to (\>=) -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.76|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||3.76|-3.14|
84684392|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation of missing values|Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the Confidence Interval are given in percent|Sensitivity analysis; 369 patients were included in this analysis including the patient that was randomized in error and not treated. Missing values were imputed by multiple imputation.||-1.2|-20.8|0.0293
84684393|NCT04333420|169106000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||Log Rank|||Post-hoc analysis||||0.0407
84684394|NCT04333420|169106001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|4.135|||Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + BSC)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death)||4.135|0.103|0.6494
84684395|NCT04333420|169106005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.039|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 60-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death); Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||1.039|0.519|0.0815
84508244|NCT06331156|168767749|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.3|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.30|-3.86|
84658878|NCT02443987|169052586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84658879|NCT01638546|169052608|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The study will be performed as a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized Phase II in patients with relapsed sensitive or refractory SCLC. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to one of two treatment arms: ABT-888 and temozolomide as the investigational arm, versus placebo and temozolomide as the control arm. The randomization will be stratified by center and by type or relapse (sensitive vs. refractory). The primary objective is to compare the two treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, expressed as Progression Free Survival (PFS) at 4 months post-randomization. PFS will be calculated as proportion of patients alive and without evidence of disease at 4 months after randomization.|||
84658880|NCT05231954|169052621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|1.08|0.006
84658881|NCT05231954|169052621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.65|0.081
84658882|NCT05231954|169052622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.05||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.05|1.01|0.044
84658883|NCT05231954|169052622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.69|0.919
84658884|NCT00844831|169052646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84658885|NCT00844831|169052648|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9
84658886|NCT00540514|169052660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.313||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.1|1.082|1.593||Statistical significance defined as P-value \< 0.049.|Chi-squared||Response rate ratio = PA/PT. A response rate ratio \> 1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin arm of the study.|The null hypothesis is that the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen response rate (PA) is equal to that of the paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin regimen (PT). Superiority of albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin will be established if the lower bound of the 95.1% CI of the response rate ratio is \> 1.0.||1.593|1.082|0.005
84658887|NCT00540514|169052661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.767|1.06||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.060|0.767|0.214
84658888|NCT00540514|169052662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.797|1.066||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.066|0.797|0.271
84658889|NCT00540514|169052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.074||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.210|0.953|0.239
84658890|NCT00540514|169052664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.244||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma or Non squamous cell carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.244|0.652|0.551
84658891|NCT00540514|169052667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.302||95.0|||||Univariate Cox regression|||SPARC correlation with overall survival for the overall SPARC population.||||0.302
84658892|NCT00540514|169052668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||A nonsignificant interaction P-value (ie, p-value ≥ 0.100) indicates the treatment regimen effect was consistent within a prognostic factor.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with effects for treatment regimen, prognostic factor (histology), and treatment regimen by prognostic factor interaction.||||||0.036
84658893|NCT03291808|169052673|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.35
84658894|NCT01315678|169052700|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||Regression, Cox|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||2.13|1.07|0.0286
84658895|NCT01315678|169052701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.76|0.6031
84658896|NCT01315678|169052702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44|0.49|0.4861
84658897|NCT00869349|169052710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||0.0|-1.1|0.04
84658898|NCT00869349|169052711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||-0.8|-5.6|0.01
84658899|NCT00869349|169052712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||3.1|0.5|0.01
84684396|NCT04333420|169106006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.352||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.762|17.465|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 15||17.465|-2.762|0.1553
84684397|NCT04333420|169106006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.078||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.968|18.125|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 28||18.125|-1.968|0.1181
84684398|NCT04333420|169106007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.081||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.949|2.787|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients developing acute kidney failure; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|||2.787|-6.949|0.4105
84684399|NCT04333420|169106008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.978||p-value refers to hazard ratio from cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model for first renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||||0.978|0.297|0.0422
84658900|NCT00429273|169052713|OTHER|Test for differences in treatment outcomes between three different tx|F-Value for variance component|18.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses are based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) modelling the effects of the medication when calibrated to optimal dosage and controlling for time effects and within-subject effects. The design is a combined within-between subject design, where each participant is exposed to, and provides information about multiple tx modalities.||||<.01
84658901|NCT01233258|169052740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as only 1 primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation: Assumption 5 bleeds per year on prophylactic treatment, 15 on on-demand treatment; 2-sided alpha 5% and 90% power.||||0.0001
84658902|NCT01233258|169052741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as this is not primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
84658903|NCT01233258|169052742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
84658904|NCT01233258|169052743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 10%|Median Difference (Net)|-0.0001||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|||No multiplicity adjustment as not primary endpoint.|Exact Permutation Test for paired sample||Confidence interval calculated with exact Hodges- Lehmann estimates for CS/EP minus CS/ADJ|Null hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is less than the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. Alternative hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is greater than or equal to the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. No power calculation since this is not the primary comparison.|||-0.0490|0.0001
84658905|NCT01049308|169052747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Descriptive data to describe prevalence of cognitive impairment in outpatient veterans with chronic heart failure||||
84658906|NCT03845985|169052749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.838
84658907|NCT03845985|169052750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.620
84658908|NCT03845985|169052751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.713
84658909|NCT03845985|169052752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.509
84658910|NCT03845985|169052753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.491
84658911|NCT03845985|169052754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.715
84658912|NCT03845985|169052755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.665
84658913|NCT03845985|169052756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
84658914|NCT03845985|169052757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Risk and Aggression/Liquid Courage/Sociability Subscale||||.610
84658915|NCT03845985|169052757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Self-Perception/Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment Subscale||||.658
84658916|NCT03845985|169052757|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Sexuality Subscale||||1.000
84658917|NCT03845985|169052757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Tension Reduction Subscale||||.007
84658918|NCT03845985|169052758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.407
84658919|NCT03845985|169052759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.893
84658920|NCT03845985|169052760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.709
84658921|NCT03334539|169052774|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.12|0.3378
84658922|NCT03334539|169052774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.10|0.2883
84658923|NCT03334539|169052774|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.9293
84684400|NCT02623322|169106069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
84684401|NCT02623322|169106069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
84684402|NCT02623322|169106070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
84658924|NCT03334539|169052775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1473
84658925|NCT03334539|169052775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2321
84658926|NCT03334539|169052775|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.8217
84658927|NCT04974697|169052826|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test superiority for myope.||65.4|50.9|
84658928|NCT04974697|169052826|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test superiority for hyperope.||62.8|47.2|
84658929|NCT04974697|169052827|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|-0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 42 subjects were required to test superiority for distance (4m).||-0.091|-0.167|
84658930|NCT04974697|169052827|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Least-square Mean|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 7 subjects were required to test superiority for intermediate (64 cm).||-0.008|-0.084|
84658931|NCT04974697|169052827|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Least-square Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 36 subjects were required to test superiority for near (40 cm).||0.105|0.029|
84658932|NCT04974697|169052828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|3.1|
84658933|NCT04974697|169052828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.2|-1.2|
84658934|NCT04974697|169052829|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|0.0|
84658935|NCT04974697|169052829|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.3|-4.7|
84658936|NCT04974697|169052830|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.4|5.0|
84658937|NCT04974697|169052830|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.3|2.8|
84658938|NCT03302234|169052856|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|||1.37|0.85|0.74156
84684403|NCT02623322|169106070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
84658939|NCT03302234|169052857|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||1.30|0.86|0.71720
84658940|NCT03302234|169052858|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1||||0.50644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||8.1|-8.2|0.50644
84658941|NCT03302234|169052860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9815||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7386|1.3042|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|||1.3042|0.7386|0.9112
84658942|NCT03302234|169052863|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.12|||cLDA Model|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) Model|Based on a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors (ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, \& predominant tumor histology) as covariates.|||3.12|-3.96|0.8151
84658943|NCT02795832|169052873|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.441||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Observed case||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
84658944|NCT02795832|169052873|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.964||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|18.36||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputations||18.36|-24.39|0.4082
84658945|NCT02795832|169052873|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.138||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.65|4.11||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Last observation carried forward||4.11|-40.65|0.0878
84658946|NCT02795832|169052873|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.748||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-5.66||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Worst case imputation||-5.66|-69.53|0.0275
84658947|NCT02795832|169052874|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.72||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.85|5.51||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 5||5.51|-28.85|0.1284
84658948|NCT02795832|169052874|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.95||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|10.95||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 8||10.95|-22.85|0.2765
84658949|NCT02795832|169052874|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.01||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.08|11.06||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 10||11.06|-23.08|0.2765
84658950|NCT02795832|169052874|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
84658951|NCT02795832|169052875|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|10.75||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI 50||10.75|0.28|0.4789
84658952|NCT02795832|169052875|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|999.0||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI-75||999|0.24|0.3000
84658953|NCT02795832|169052876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|19.2||Results for the ZPL-5212372 and placebo groups are estimated adjusted LS means from the fitted model.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|The p-value tests if the residuals are normally distributed.||||19.20|0.01|0.500
84684404|NCT02623322|169106074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.37|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.37|0.62|0.7858
84658954|NCT02795832|169052877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.16|||Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||2.16|-2.02|0.5233
84658955|NCT02795832|169052878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|13.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||13.26|0.45|0.2455
84658956|NCT02795832|169052879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.521||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.09||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||5.09|-10.40|0.2812
84658957|NCT00256750|169052900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.1|9.0||||||||9.0|-1.1|
84658958|NCT00256750|169052900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.5|8.1|||||If the lower bound of the CI (belatacept-CsA) was \> -10%, then the corresponding belatacept regimen was considered non-inferior to CsA.|||8.1|-2.5|
84658959|NCT00256750|169052901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-33.3|-13.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-13.7|-33.3|<.0001
84658960|NCT00256750|169052901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-32.6|-12.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-12.9|-32.6|<.0001
84658961|NCT00256750|169052902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|3.3|17.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||17.1|3.3|
84658962|NCT00256750|169052902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens. The 20% non-inferiority margin was not met in the belatacept MI group.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|22.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||22.2|7.5|
84658963|NCT00256750|169052903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.3|18.7||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||18.7|7.3|<0.0001
84658964|NCT00256750|169052903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.9|20.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||20.4|8.9|<0.0001
84658965|NCT00256750|169052903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|11.5|23.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||23.4|11.5|<0.0001
84658966|NCT00256750|169052903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.5|20.5||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||20.5|8.5|<0.0001
84658967|NCT00256750|169052904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-8.5||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-17.9|0.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||0.9|-17.9|0.0581
84658968|NCT00256750|169052904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-23.2|-5.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||-5.0|-23.2|0.0010
84658969|NCT00256750|169052909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-14.6|-3.3|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-3.3|-14.6|
84684405|NCT02623322|169106074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.36|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.36|0.59|0.5170
84658970|NCT00256750|169052909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-16.1|-5.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-5.1|-16.1|
84658971|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.3|20.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.3|10.3|
84658972|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.1|20.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.1|10.1|
84658973|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.1|12.0|
84658974|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.3|12.0|
84658975|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|15.4|27.4|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||27.4|15.4|
84658976|NCT00256750|169052913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|14.8|26.9|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||26.9|14.8|
84658977|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.7||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.6|0.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||0.5|-12.6|0.0687
84658978|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.2|4.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||4.4|-10.2|0.4825
84658979|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.1||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.3|1.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||1.5|-12.3|0.1267
84658980|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.8|5.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||5.4|-9.8|0.6405
84658981|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-4.6||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.0|2.5|||Chi-squared|Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.||Month 36||2.5|-12.0|0.2043
84658982|NCT00256750|169052915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-8.8|7.1||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 36||7.1|-8.8|0.9481
84658983|NCT00256750|169052916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.31|0.74|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.74|0.31|0.0002
84658984|NCT00256750|169052916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.38|0.92|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.92|0.38|0.0092
84658985|NCT00256750|169052917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-67.6|43.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||43.2|-67.6|
84658986|NCT00256750|169052917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-72.3|52.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||52.2|-72.3|
84658987|NCT00256750|169052918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.51|5.23|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||5.23|-7.51|
84658988|NCT00256750|169052918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.01|4.15|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||4.15|-9.01|
84658989|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.4|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 12||-3.3|-11.4|
84658990|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.1|-2.0||||||Systolic, Month 12||-2.0|-10.1|
84658991|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.8|-0.7||||||Diastolic, Month 12||-0.7|-5.8|
84658992|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.1|0.0||||||Diastolic, Month 12||0.0|-5.1|
84658993|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.2|-0.6||||||Systolic, Month 24||-0.6|-9.2|
84658994|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.9|-1.1||||||Systolic, Month 24||-1.1|-9.9|
84658995|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.4|0.5||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.5|-4.4|
84658996|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|0.1||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.1|-5.0|
84658997|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.0|-1.6||||||Systolic, Month 36||-1.6|-10.0|
84658998|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.7|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 36||-3.3|-11.7|
84658999|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.4|-0.4||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.4|-5.4|
84659000|NCT00256750|169052919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.0|-0.9||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.9|-6.0|
84659001|NCT00256750|169052920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|17.1|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||17.1|-2.9|
84659002|NCT00256750|169052920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.6|12.9|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||12.9|-6.6|
84659003|NCT00256750|169052921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.79|16.71|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||16.71|-2.79|
84659004|NCT00256750|169052921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.86|13.35|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||13.35|-5.86|
84659005|NCT00256750|169052926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-21.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-21.4|
84659006|NCT00256750|169052926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-19.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-19.9|
84659007|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|5.0|18.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||18.2|5.0|
84659008|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|9.6|23.8|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||23.8|9.6|
84659009|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.2|15.4|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used|Month 24||15.4|1.2|
84659010|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|23.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 24||23.0|7.5|
84659011|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.6|15.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||15.0|0.6|
84659012|NCT00256750|169052928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.0|22.6|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||22.6|7.0|
84659013|NCT00256750|169052930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
84659014|NCT00256750|169052930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
84659015|NCT00256750|169052934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.5|5.3||||||Month 12||5.3|-6.5|
84659016|NCT00256750|169052934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.9|4.8||||||||4.8|-6.9|
84659017|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.6|-1.6|0.6573
84659018|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.4|0.1198
84659019|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.2|-0.1|0.0672
84659020|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.6|0.2|0.0257
84684406|NCT02623322|169106074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||0.89|0.45|0.0312
84684407|NCT02623322|169106074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.04|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||1.04|0.53|0.2044
84684408|NCT03563716|169106081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.14|||||95% CI for odds ratio was constructed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||6.14|1.07|
84684409|NCT03563716|169106082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||0.90|0.37|
84684410|NCT03775200|169106089|OTHER|For this primary analysis, a sample size of 216 randomised participants (72:72:72) will provide 90% power at the alpha = 0.05 level to detect a 6-point difference in average MADRS total score between the optimal therapeutic dose of COMP360 and COMP360 1 mg, assuming the common standard deviation (SD) is 11.0.|Least Mean Square Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - missing not at random (MNAR) and missing at random (MAR) imputation for missing data.|LSM difference of COMP360 25 mg compared to COMP360 1 mg.|The primary analysis was the comparison between COMP360 (25 mg or 10 mg) versus COMP360 1 mg. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg. The alternative hypothesis was that were was a difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg.||-2.9|-10.2|<0.05
84684411|NCT03775200|169106090|OTHER||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - MNAR and MAR imputation for missing data.||Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint using the per-protocol analysis set.||-1.8|-9.4|<0.05
84684412|NCT04605978|169106091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|5.49|||||Missing data and data post intercurrent event were imputed for the statistical analysis as specified in the statistical analysis plan.|||5.49|-0.61|
84684413|NCT03813238|169106099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS mean of the change in MDCRS part II total score from baseline to Week 15 was compared (TEV-50717 arm versus placebo) using a 1-sided test for superiority at a nominal significance level of α=0.025.||1.19|-3.49|0.335
84684414|NCT01786512|169106165|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0176|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0176|0.0047|0.0007
84684415|NCT01786512|169106165|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|0.0315|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0315|0.0184|<0.0001
84684416|NCT01786512|169106166|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.65|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||7.65|1.50|0.0036
84684417|NCT01786512|169106166|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.72|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||6.72|0.53|0.0217
84684418|NCT01786512|169106167|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.035|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.035|-0.194|0.1732
84659021|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.9|-1.2|0.4146
84684419|NCT01786512|169106167|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.062|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.062|-0.295|0.0027
84684420|NCT01786512|169106168|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.033|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.033|-0.166|0.1899
84684421|NCT01786512|169106168|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|-0.028|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.028|-0.231|0.0128
84684422|NCT01786512|169106169|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.79|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.79|-3.47|0.2177
84684423|NCT01786512|169106169|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.81|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.81|-5.12|0.0070
84684424|NCT01786512|169106170|OTHER||Treatment difference|-822.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.0||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1516.0|-127.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-127|-1516|0.0205
84684425|NCT01786512|169106170|OTHER||Treatment difference|-970.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.0||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.0|-268.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-268|-1672|0.0069
84684426|NCT00605293|169106173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4778
84684427|NCT03581981|169106179|SUPERIORITY|see statistical plan|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-10.7|0.33
84684428|NCT03581981|169106180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
84684429|NCT03581981|169106181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
84684430|NCT03581981|169106182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-3.6|0.99
84684431|NCT03581981|169106183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.3|0.52
84684432|NCT03581981|169106184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.4|0.50
84684433|NCT03581981|169106185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84684434|NCT03581981|169106186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84684435|NCT03581981|169106187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84684436|NCT03581981|169106188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84684437|NCT03581981|169106189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
84684438|NCT03581981|169106190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
84684439|NCT02080871|169106191|OTHER|This was a single-arm study designed to compare the primary outcome result to a performance goal based on published literature. The null hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of study device is at least 17%. The alternate hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of the study device is less than 17%.|||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||The sample size obtains over 90% power to statistically show the probability that a subject will experience an MAE with use of the study device is less than 17% when 12% or less of the subjects are lost to follow up prior to 9 months.||||<0.001
84684440|NCT03384173|169106288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84684441|NCT03384173|169106289|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.37|-0.07|0.17
84684442|NCT03384173|169106290|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.33|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.33|-0.11|0.32
84684443|NCT03384173|169106292|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 30-39.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is Secondary analysis #4, baseline values before caffeine dose.||||<0.01
84684444|NCT03384173|169106293|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.001
84684445|NCT03384173|169106294|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U non parametric t test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup \>60% ' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary outcome #4, baseline caffeine values by subgroup||||<0.01
84684446|NCT03384173|169106295|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.0001
84684447|NCT03384173|169106296|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non-parametric t-test|||||<|0.05||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary Outcome #4, baseline before dose of caffeine.||||<0.05
84684448|NCT00420199|169106314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of erosion score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||0.76|-1.77|
84684449|NCT00420199|169106315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score method between abatacept and placebo at Day 113 based on a nonparametric analysis of covariance model. Baseline and changes from baseline of the total wrist synovitis scores were ranked, and the model included the rank score for change from baseline as the dependent variable with treatment group as a main effect and the rank score for baseline as an additional covariate.||||0.103
84684450|NCT00420199|169106317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of Edema/Osteitis score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-0.96|-6.00|
84684451|NCT00420199|169106320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of RAMRIS score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-1.42|-8.00|
84684452|NCT00420199|169106334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score method between ABA and PLA at Day 113 based on a parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). The model included the score change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment group as a main effect and baseline score as an additional covariate.||||0.078
84684453|NCT00716092|169106351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.0|-11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) was to be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-11.9|-28.0|<0.0001
84684454|NCT00716092|169106352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|12.4|23.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) will be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||23.9|12.4|<0.0001
84684455|NCT00716092|169106353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0283||95.0|-20.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-1.2|-20.4|0.0283
84684456|NCT00716092|169106354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-147.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-66.0|-147.0|<0.0001
84684457|NCT00716092|169106355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.1274||95.0|-1.7|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-1.7|0.1274
84684458|NCT00716092|169106356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.313||95.0|-2.7|8.2|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||8.2|-2.7|0.3130
84684459|NCT00716092|169106357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2281||95.0|-3.3|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-3.3|0.2281
84684460|NCT00716092|169106358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.223||95.0|-14.0|59.5|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||59.5|-14.0|0.2230
84684461|NCT02219048|169106361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2243|0.0805|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 1||0.0805|-0.2243|
84684462|NCT02219048|169106361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2362|0.0523|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 2||0.0523|-0.2362|
84684463|NCT02219048|169106361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2536|0.0274|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 3||0.0274|-0.2536|
84684464|NCT02219048|169106361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1971|0.0812|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 4||0.0812|-0.1971|
84508245|NCT06331156|168767749|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.99|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at Month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus Staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.99|-2.63|
84714681|NCT04447469|169175683|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.231||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.12||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.120|0.715|0.4534
84714682|NCT04447469|169175683|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.097||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.891||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.891|0.636|0.7414
84714683|NCT04447469|169175684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|4.884|||Fisher Exact|||||4.884|0.198|1.0000
84714684|NCT04447469|169175684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.417|||Fisher Exact|||||6.417|0.260|1.0000
84714685|NCT04447469|169175685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|15.6|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - placebo.|||15.6|-45.6|
84714686|NCT04447469|169175685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|0.9|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - Placebo .|||0.9|-56.4|
84714687|NCT04447469|169175686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.6229
84714688|NCT04447469|169175686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5526||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.5526
84714689|NCT04447469|169175687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.46||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.46|0.71|0.9426
84714690|NCT04447469|169175687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.57||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.57|0.78|0.6838
84714691|NCT04447469|169175688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.328|||Fisher Exact|||||1.328|0.023|0.0905
84714692|NCT04447469|169175688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.431||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.815|||Fisher Exact|||||1.815|0.087|0.2247
84714693|NCT04447469|169175688|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.191||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|1.114||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.114|0.033|0.0623
84714694|NCT04447469|169175688|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.368||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.583||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.583|0.085|0.1957
84714695|NCT04447469|169175689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.09||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||3.09|0.80|0.3766
84714696|NCT04447469|169175689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.16||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||2.16|0.51|0.9209
84714697|NCT04447469|169175690|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.645||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.222||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.222|0.340|0.1772
84714698|NCT04447469|169175690|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.029||||0.9269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.881||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.881|0.563|0.9269
84714699|NCT04447469|169175691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.49|0.66|0.9578
84714700|NCT04447469|169175691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.70|0.76|0.5274
84714701|NCT04447469|169175692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.15||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|||1.15|0.36|0.1336
84714702|NCT04447469|169175692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.72||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata ( age, and ARDS status).|||1.72|0.59|0.9767
84714703|NCT04447469|169175693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||3.71|0.55|
84684465|NCT02219048|169106361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0742|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2081|0.0406|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Over Week 1 to 4||0.0406|-0.2081|
84684466|NCT02219048|169106364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.106|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Averaged Over Week 1 to 4||0.106|-0.285|
84684467|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.003|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|22.794|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 1||22.794|-10.760|
84684468|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.926|27.108|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 2||27.108|-13.926|
84684469|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.644|20.552|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 3||20.552|-18.644|
84684470|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.069|17.333|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 4||17.333|-26.069|
84508246|NCT02978326|168767761|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.5||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.5|-6.9|0.0028
84684471|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.323|19.92|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||19.920|-15.323|
84684472|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.961|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.248|19.519|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 1||19.519|-17.248|
84684473|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.956|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.871|19.54|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 2||19.540|-13.871|
84684474|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.933|11.185|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 3||11.185|-27.933|
84684475|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.245|22.356|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 4||22.356|-23.245|
84684476|NCT02219048|169106366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.317|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.52|16.096|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||16.096|-18.520|
84684477|NCT02436330|169106369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0615||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1344|0.0115||We checked the distribution of bmiz changes between baseline and 6 months, and there is one subject from control group had bigger changes than others. After excluding this subject, the results are still similar with previous.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0115|-0.1344|0.0967
84684478|NCT02436330|169106370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0775||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1485|-0.00652|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00652|-0.1485|0.0335
84684479|NCT02436330|169106371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-5.2|0.991
84684480|NCT02436330|169106372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11|-9|0.851
84684481|NCT02436330|169106373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-11.7|0.501
84684482|NCT02436330|169106374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2971||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0224|0.5718|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5718|0.0224|0.035
84684483|NCT02436330|169106375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9464||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4954|0.6025|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6025|-2.4954|0.2207
84684484|NCT02436330|169106376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0491||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6407|1.5425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5425|-3.6407|0.4164
84684485|NCT02436330|169106377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2433.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18579.7|23447.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23447.2|-18579.7|0.812
84684486|NCT02436330|169106378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2837||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3037|0.8711|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8711|-0.3037|0.3326
84684487|NCT02436330|169106379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2995||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2051|0.8041|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8041|-0.2051|0.1856
84684488|NCT02436330|169106380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-247.9||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-531.7|35.8686|||t-test, 2 sided|||||35.8686|-531.7|0.0849
84684489|NCT02436330|169106381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2048||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3835|1.974|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9740|-10.3835|0.176
84684490|NCT02436330|169106382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.2151||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|13.457|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.457|0.973|0.0247
84684491|NCT02436330|169106383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8169||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4147|0.7808|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7808|-2.4147|0.2764
84684492|NCT02436330|169106384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7958||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|-0.3566|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3566|-1.2350|0.0008
84684493|NCT02436330|169106385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7024||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9377|4.3425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3425|-2.9377|0.6974
84684494|NCT02436330|169106387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2122
84684495|NCT02436330|169106388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.61||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|-1.15|0.1265
84684496|NCT02436330|169106389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3671
84684497|NCT02436330|169106390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4892
84684498|NCT00781391|169106398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|0.985||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||.985|.632|<.0001
84684499|NCT00781391|169106398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.314||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||1.314|.874|.0055
84684500|NCT00781391|169106399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.719|1.029|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.029|.719|<.0001
84684501|NCT00781391|169106399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.955|1.336|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.336|.955|.0074
84684502|NCT00781391|169106400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.634|0.989|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||.989|.634|<.0001
84684503|NCT00781391|169106400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.878|1.32|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.32|.878|.0064
84659022|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.4|-1.7|0.7327
84659023|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.8||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.8|0.4|0.0144
84659024|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||4.5|1.1|0.0015
84659025|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.8|0.2340
84659026|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.6|-1.7|0.6635
84659027|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.5|0.1|0.0417
84659028|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||4.4|0.9|0.0026
84659029|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.1|-0.3|0.0953
84659030|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||3.7|-0.8|0.1961
84659031|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.9|0.3|0.0191
84659032|NCT00256750|169052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.5|-0.1|0.0684
84659033|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||ANOVA|Domain Score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||3.9|-0.2|0.0714
84659034|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1|||ANOVA|Domain score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||4.1|-0.0|0.0536
84659035|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||2.2|-1.6|0.7543
84659036|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||3.0|-0.8|0.2499
84659037|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.2||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||2.3|-1.9|0.8332
84659038|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||3.4|-0.9|0.2523
84659039|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.7|-0.8|0.3018
84659040|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.6||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.3|-1.2|0.5437
84659041|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||3.6|-0.9|0.2370
84659042|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||4.5|-0.1|0.0588
84659043|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Physical, Month 6||4.0|-0.0|0.0502
84659044|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 6||5.6|1.5|0.0007
84659045|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.4|-1.8|0.7637
84659046|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.5|-1.7|0.7006
84659047|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||3.4|-0.4|0.1222
84659048|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||4.1|0.2|0.0289
84659049|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||3.8|-0.1|0.0571
84659050|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||4.9|0.9|0.0042
84659051|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||3.7|0.1|0.0423
84659052|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||4.1|0.4|0.0174
84659053|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||3.0|-1.1|0.3630
84659054|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||ANOVA|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||2.6|-1.6|0.6319
84659055|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||3.7|-0.0|0.0503
84659056|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||2.8|-0.9|0.3291
84659057|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||3.1|-1.2|0.3860
84684504|NCT00781391|169106401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.032|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.032|.720|<.0001
84684505|NCT00781391|169106401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.958|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.34|.958|.0084
84684506|NCT00781391|169106402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.709|1.068|||Log Rank|||The superiority analysis included the ITT analysis set||1.068|.709|.081
84684507|NCT00781391|169106403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.959|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.959|.786|.0053
84684508|NCT00781391|169106404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.972|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.972|.806|.0109
84684509|NCT00781391|169106405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.981|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.981|.823|.0168
84684510|NCT00781391|169106406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.914|||Regression, Cox|||All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period||.914|.707|.0009
84684511|NCT00781391|169106406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.548|||Regression, Cox|||"All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period.~The HR, two-sided CI, and p-value for pairwise comparisons versus Warfarin are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized CHADS2 score and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor"||.548|.406|<.0001
84684512|NCT00781391|169106406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, high dose vs. warfarin||.918|.800|<.0001
84684513|NCT00781391|169106406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.666|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, low dose vs. warfarin||.666|.575|<.0001
84684514|NCT00995501|169106419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2|0.45|0.86
84684515|NCT00995501|169106419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2|0.45|0.87
84684516|NCT00995501|169106419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.49|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with light anesthesia vs. 4 arms with deep anesthesia||2.2|0.49|0.90
84684517|NCT00995501|169106420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.37|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2.3|0.37|0.8
84684518|NCT00995501|169106420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.43|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2.7|0.43|0.84
84684519|NCT00995501|169106420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.42|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.7|0.42|0.87
84684520|NCT04575051|169106440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in the adjusted means for the Consult model and HearCARE model.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve satisfaction with social participation.||1.96|-1.10|0.58
84684521|NCT04575051|169106441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated parameter represents the difference between the adjusted means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve hearing related quality of life.||1.10|-1.13|0.95
84684522|NCT04575051|169106442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value represents the difference in the means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|||1.14|-1.20|0.96
84684523|NCT04575051|169106443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Estimated Value is the difference between the means of the Consult and HearCARE models.|||0.48|-0.07|0.13
84684524|NCT00818753|169106491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.08|12.76||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 110mg BID vs Heparin||12.76|0.08|
84684525|NCT00818753|169106491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||||95.0|0.13|16.82||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 150mg BID vs Heparin||16.82|0.13|
84714704|NCT04447469|169175693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.54|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||4.54|0.78|
84714705|NCT02714257|169175694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.14|0.74|0.43
84684526|NCT02459574|169106526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.25||Bonferonni corrected alpha of 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy|Primary Analysis - AVATAR-AF vs Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy||0.250|0.097|<0.0001
84684527|NCT02459574|169106526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.154||Bonferonni corrected alpha 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Conventional Ablation|Secondary analysis of Primary Outcome measure - AVATAR-AF vs Conventional Ablation||2.154|0.639|0.6061
84684528|NCT01624948|169106544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
84684529|NCT01624948|169106546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in p70S6 kinase phosphorylation as measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) between those patients who reached the primary endpoint and those who did not||||0.67
84684530|NCT01624948|169106547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84684531|NCT01624948|169106549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
84684532|NCT02249819|169106550|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean change from baseline in naming accuracy in the anodal vs. sham tDCS conditions Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change of naming accuracy between anodal and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.694||||||The wilcoxon sign-ranked test was performed for this crossover design study in which subjects underwent measures across 2 study conditions (paired samples: mean change in anodal vs. sham condition). A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|wilcoxon sign-ranked test|Western Aphasia Battery used as a screening tool on admission only, to characterize level of severity. It was NOT an outcome measure.||||||0.694
84684533|NCT00558428|169106564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-2.38|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.38|-4.90|<0.0001
84684534|NCT00558428|169106564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.18|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-3.66|-6.18|<0.0001
84684535|NCT00558428|169106564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.66|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-0.14|-2.66|
84684536|NCT00558428|169106564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-3.93|-1.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-1.43|-3.93|
84684537|NCT05224050|169106584|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in the DASS-21 total score from baseline to 2-weeks post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.54||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|2.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the mean for the DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and at 2-weeks post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session|||2.89|-6.98|0.40
84684538|NCT05224050|169106584|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 2-weeks post-quit and 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.98|-6.84|0.26
84684539|NCT05224050|169106584|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.71||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 1-month post-quit and 3-month follow up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow up session.|||0.71|-6.21|0.11
84684540|NCT05224050|169106587|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.88|17.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Date. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=22 participants who attended their Quit Date session.|||17.53|9.88|<0.001
84684541|NCT05224050|169106587|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 participants who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session.|||1.06|-0.83|0.80
84684542|NCT05224050|169106587|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 2-weeks post-quit to 1=month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.45|-1.41|0.97
84684543|NCT05224050|169106587|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow-up session.|||-0.17|-4.17|0.04
84684544|NCT00420992|169106592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: P=0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment as factor and baseline pain score as covariate.||Null hypothesis: mean change from baseline is the same for ALO-01 and placebo.||||0.0445
84684545|NCT03786952|169106617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.453
84684546|NCT03786952|169106618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.931
84659058|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.0||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||2.3|-2.2|0.9672
84659059|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.1|0.1|0.0392
84659060|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.5|0.5|0.0151
84659061|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.3978
84659062|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||3.5|-0.4|0.1263
84659063|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.2|0.4|0.0160
84659064|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.5|0.7|0.0075
84659065|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6990
84659066|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||3.5|-0.6|0.1608
84659067|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.0|0.3|0.0214
84659068|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.00886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.4|0.6|0.00886
84659069|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||3.3|-0.9|0.2555
84659070|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||2.9|-1.4|0.4804
84659071|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||4.2|0.2|0.0276
84659072|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||3.5|-0.4|0.1285
84659073|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.9|-0.5|0.1352
84659074|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.5|-1.0|0.2663
84659075|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||4.5|0.5|0.0164
84659076|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||5.9|1.9|0.0002
84659077|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||3.3|-0.7|0.1914
84659078|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6882
84659079|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||4.0|-0.0|0.0547
84659080|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||3.8|-0.3|0.0992
84684547|NCT03786952|169106619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
84684548|NCT03786952|169106620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
84659081|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||4.4|0.2|0.0339
84659082|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||3.1|-1.1|0.3572
84659083|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.2|0.3|0.0211
84659084|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.0|0.0|0.0450
84659085|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.7|-0.7|0.1710
84659086|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.6|-0.9|0.2484
84659087|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||3.2|-0.6|0.1836
84659088|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||2.9|-1.0|0.3303
84659089|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.8|0.2|0.0299
84659090|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.2|-0.4|0.1141
84659091|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.7|0.0087
84659092|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.6|0.0128
84659093|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||3.5|-0.5|0.1369
84659094|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||2.5|-1.5|0.6331
84659095|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.3|0.1|0.0361
84659096|NCT00256750|169052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.2|-0.0|0.0525
84659097|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.015|-0.032|<0.0001
84659098|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|-0.011||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.011|-0.028|<0.0001
84659099|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.014||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.014|-0.031|<0.0001
84659100|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.017|-0.035|<0.0001
84659101|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.016|-0.032|<0.0001
84659102|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|-0.012||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.012|-0.029|<0.0001
84659103|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.017|-0.034|<0.0001
84659104|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.016|-0.034|<0.0001
84684549|NCT03786952|169106621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
84684550|NCT03786952|169106622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.998
84684551|NCT03786952|169106623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84684552|NCT03786952|169106624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
84684553|NCT03786952|169106625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.519
84684554|NCT03786952|169106626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84684555|NCT03786952|169106627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.457
84684556|NCT03786952|169106628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.415
84684557|NCT03786952|169106629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
84684558|NCT03786952|169106630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.981
84684559|NCT03786952|169106631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.627
84684560|NCT03786952|169106632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.901
84684561|NCT03786952|169106633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
84684562|NCT03786952|169106634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.252
84684563|NCT03492281|169106677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
84684564|NCT03492281|169106677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.6|=0.0988
84684565|NCT03492281|169106678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
84684566|NCT03492281|169106678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.7|=0.0123
84684567|NCT03492281|169106679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-1.1|=0.0020
84684568|NCT03492281|169106679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.9|=0.0648
84684569|NCT03492281|169106680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||23.4|9.7|<0.0001
84684570|NCT03492281|169106680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.4|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||16.7|2.1|=0.0120
84684571|NCT03492281|169106681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.3|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.1|0.4|=0.0360
84684572|NCT03492281|169106681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9|||=|0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||7.8|-4.1|=0.5447
84684573|NCT03492281|169106682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.8|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.7|0.9|=0.0235
84684574|NCT03492281|169106682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||10.0|-2.5|=0.2400
84684575|NCT03492281|169106683|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
84684576|NCT03492281|169106683|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.8|=0.0074
84684577|NCT03492281|169106684|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||6.0|1.2|=0.0039
84684578|NCT03492281|169106684|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||5.7|0.5|=0.0210
84684579|NCT03492281|169106685|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||28.1|14.3|<0.0001
84684580|NCT03492281|169106685|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||20.7|5.9|<0.001
84684581|NCT03492281|169106686|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
84684582|NCT03492281|169106686|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1|||MMRM|||||5.1|0.6|=0.0114
84684583|NCT03492281|169106687|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-4.6|-9.2|<0.0001
84684584|NCT03492281|169106687|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.2||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-2.2|-7.1|<0.001
84684585|NCT03492281|169106688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|18.1||CMH=Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.1|6.7|<0.0001
84684586|NCT03492281|169106688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.9|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.8|0.9|=0.0236
84684587|NCT03492281|169106689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.6|4.7|<0.001
84684588|NCT03492281|169106689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.9|4.2|=0.0022
84684589|NCT03492281|169106690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84684590|NCT03492281|169106690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.2|=0.0055
84684591|NCT03492281|169106691|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
84684592|NCT03492281|169106691|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84684593|NCT03624504|169106692|OTHER|Assume expected performance to be 94%. The Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) is set at 83% (same performance threshold in FDA approved global study). Assumes 0.05 significance level, 2-sided, 80% power and 10% study attrition.|Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|97.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|99.4||The threshold for significance was 0.05.|z test, 1-sided||The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||99.4|90.6|0.0021
84684594|NCT00951483|169106697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-2.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that C-reactive protein (CRP) is no different between the experimental and healthy control cohorts at 12 weeks.||||.001
84684595|NCT00951483|169106698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-D-7 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-D-7 score.||||<.001
84684596|NCT00951483|169106699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.627|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-17 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-17 score.||||<.001
84684597|NCT00951483|169106700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-21 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-21 score.||||<.001
84684598|NCT00951483|169106701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-A score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-A score.||||<.001
84684599|NCT00951483|169106702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline BDI score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) BDI score.||||<.001
84684600|NCT00951483|169106703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-3.911|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline PSS-14 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) PSS-14 score.||||<.001
84714706|NCT02714257|169175695|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Negative Binomial||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.28|0.89|0.50
84714707|NCT02714257|169175696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.72|0.30
84714708|NCT02714257|169175697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.92|0.16|<0.01
84684601|NCT03565887|169106704|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoints were tested sequentially. The Day 1 Hour 6 time point was tested first and if P\<0.05, the Day 14 Hour 2 time point was tested at a significance level of 0.05. If the Day 1 Hour 6 endpoint is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) but Day 14 Hour 2 was not statistically significant (at the 0.05 level), the study will still be considered positive.|||||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|ANCOVA|2 sided t-test with treatment as fixed factor and baseline as covariate.||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0001
84684602|NCT03565887|169106705|SUPERIORITY|If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|||||<|0.0151|||||||ANCOVA|||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0151
84684603|NCT03364751|169106706|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.196|-0.060|0.297
84684604|NCT03364751|169106706|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.064||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.146|-0.273|0.550
84684605|NCT03364751|169106707|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.171|-0.084|0.502
84684606|NCT03364751|169106707|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.189|-0.229|0.851
84684607|NCT03364751|169106708|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.224|-0.085|0.376
84684608|NCT03364751|169106708|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.025||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and DualUse||0.279|-0.229|0.848
84684609|NCT03364751|169106708|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.247|-0.064|0.246
84684610|NCT03364751|169106708|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.150|-0.359|0.417
84684611|NCT02413580|169106728|OTHER|The hypothesis test is to test the null hypothesis: H0: μd = 0 versus alternative hypothesis Ha: μd ≠ 0 where μd is the mean change from Baseline to Day 14. The Shapiro-Wilk test is used to test the normality. If the assumptions for parametric test are met, a paired t-test (comparison between the pre- and post-treatment) is used to test for the treatment effect. Otherwise, a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon signed rank test) is used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.957|-4.787|||Paired t-test|||||-4.787|-7.957|<0.001
84684612|NCT01215292|169106765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect 20% difference in ITT|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84684613|NCT01215292|169106766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84684614|NCT01215292|169106767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84684615|NCT00689221|169106768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.291||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.291|0.808|0.8623
84684616|NCT01812655|169106783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|45.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = PD group - VR group|||45.0|2.4|0.029
84684617|NCT01812655|169106783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = VR group - SC group|||28.9|-9.5|0.32
84684618|NCT01812655|169106784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.223||||0.26||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.26
84684619|NCT01812655|169106784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.119||||0.59||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.59
84684620|NCT01812655|169106784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.059||||0.6||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||.60
84684621|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||semipartial correlation|-0.276||||0.15||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.15
84684622|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.347||||0.18||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.18
84684623|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.21||||0.054||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.054
84684624|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.102||||0.61||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.61
84684625|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.622||||0.007||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.007
84684626|NCT01812655|169106785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.217||||0.045||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.045
84684627|NCT02363946|169106794|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370||||
84684628|NCT02363946|169106794|OTHER||beta estimate|1.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.218|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.218|1.128|
84684629|NCT02363946|169106794|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
84684630|NCT02363946|169106794|OTHER||beta estimate|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.153|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.153|1.054|
84684631|NCT02363946|169106796|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370||||
84684632|NCT02363946|169106796|OTHER||beta estimate|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.112|
84684633|NCT02363946|169106796|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
84684634|NCT02363946|169106796|OTHER||beta estimate|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.215|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.215|1.080|
84684635|NCT02363946|169106797|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370||||
84684636|NCT02363946|169106797|OTHER||beta estimate|1.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.110|
84684637|NCT02363946|169106797|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
84684638|NCT02363946|169106797|OTHER||beta estimate|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|1.245|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.95|1.245|1.081|
84684639|NCT00765388|169106817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.96
84684640|NCT00765388|169106819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.92
84684641|NCT00765388|169106821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||0.0|||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.40
84684642|NCT00765388|169106822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.64
84684643|NCT00765388|169106823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.55
84684644|NCT00765388|169106824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.48
84684645|NCT03923933|169106831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|anova repeated measures||||||<0.001
84684646|NCT03923933|169106832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||||||0.006
84684647|NCT03923933|169106833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
84659105|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
84659106|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|-0.007||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.007|-0.024|<0.0001
84659107|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.015|-0.031|<0.0001
84659108|NCT00256750|169052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
84659109|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-1.2|0.4498
84659110|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.1|0.0584
84659111|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-0.5|0.1595
84659112|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.3|0.0|0.0457
84659113|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.6|0.1729
84659114|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.4209
84659115|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.0|0.0526
84659116|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.9|0.6|0.0077
84659117|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.1849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.6|0.1849
84659118|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.8|-1.3|0.4633
84684648|NCT03923933|169106834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84684649|NCT03923933|169106836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
84684650|NCT03923933|169106837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
84684651|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested the association between exposure to the intervention and the incidence of ACP billing in the pre- and post-intervention periods using a mixed effects logistic regression model, adjusting for time, patient and hospital covariates.||1.06|0.88|0.41
84684652|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Overall effect allowing effect heterogeneity across steps \<0.001 Interaction effect \<0.001|Step 1 cohort|||1.19|0.89|0.74
84684653|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 2 cohort|1.36|0.98|0.09
84684654|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 3 cohort|1.33|0.97|0.11
84684655|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Step 4 cohort|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.||0.76|0.57|<0.001
84684656|NCT04557930|169106858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 5 cohort|1.19|0.89|0.49
84684657|NCT01297959|169106869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.39
84684658|NCT01297959|169106870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.34
84684659|NCT00251745|169106958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84659119|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.0|-0.3|0.0971
84659120|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.8|0.5|0.0102
84659121|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.5|0.4|0.0186
84659122|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.0|-0.2|0.0775
84659123|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.3|-0.2|0.0768
84659124|NCT00256750|169052939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||2.9|-0.6|0.1876
84684660|NCT00251745|169106958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84684661|NCT00251745|169106958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
84684662|NCT00251745|169106960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
84714709|NCT02714257|169175698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.27|0.85|0.73
84714710|NCT02714257|169175699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.62|-0.18|0.27
84684663|NCT00251745|169106960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84684664|NCT00251745|169106960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
84684665|NCT00636649|169106966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-TASK||||0.993
84684666|NCT00636649|169106966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-EMOT||||0.185
84684667|NCT00636649|169106966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-DIS||||0.196
84684668|NCT00636649|169106966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-AVD||||0.759
84684669|NCT00636649|169106966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-SOC||||0.396
84684670|NCT00636649|169106967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.579
84684671|NCT00636649|169106968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-RES||||0.225
84684672|NCT00636649|169106968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-DIS||||0.498
84684673|NCT00636649|169106968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-HUN||||0.724
84684674|NCT04508699|169106976|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.36
84684675|NCT04508699|169106977|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84684676|NCT04508699|169106978|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84684677|NCT04508699|169106979|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84684678|NCT04508699|169106980|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84684679|NCT04508699|169106981|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
84684680|NCT04508699|169106982|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
84684681|NCT04508699|169106983|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
84684682|NCT01321554|169107000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.14|0.31||||||||0.31|0.14|
84684683|NCT02178059|169107019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.03|96.02|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||96.02|81.03|
84684684|NCT02178059|169107020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.17|-0.17|0.8052
84684685|NCT02178059|169107024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|98.58|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||98.58|84.82|
84684686|NCT02570126|169107103|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for the Varilrix HSA-free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (VAR\_HSA\_F minus VAR) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 0-14 days after Dose 1 was to be equal to or below 5%|Difference in percentage between groups|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.08|||||Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettinen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=2.5%|Non-inferiority of Varilrix HSA-free vaccine to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 15-days (Days 0-14) after Dose 1 (VAR\_HSA\_F Group minus VAR Group)||1.08|-3.72|
84684687|NCT00677235|169107131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.449
84684688|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.247|2.159|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=12.514||Age of mother bearing, \<=30 years vs \>30 years||2.159|1.247|<0.001
84684689|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.793||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.01|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.529||Household register, local vs nonlocal||1.010|0.622|0.060
84684690|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.369||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.672|32.479|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.524||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||32.479|1.672|0.006
84684691|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|11.843|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.671||Mother's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||11.843|1.001|0.102
84684692|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.064||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|10.067|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.984||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs postgraduate or above||10.067|0.933|0.159
84684693|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.321||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.589|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.191||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||7.589|0.710|0.662
84659125|NCT00256750|169052941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.3|10.1||||||Month 24||10.1|-1.3|
84659126|NCT00256750|169052941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.2|9.6||||||Month 24||9.6|-2.2|
84659127|NCT00256750|169052941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|9.8||||||Month 36||9.8|-2.9|
84659128|NCT00256750|169052941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.8|10.0||||||||10.0|-2.8|
84659129|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8||||||Month 12||12.8|-1.0|
84659130|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||||||Month 12||18.9|4.2|
84659131|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||||||Month 24||9.1|-5.5|
84659132|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.6||||||Month 24||17.6|1.9|
84659133|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.4||||||Month 36||8.4|-6.6|
84659134|NCT00256750|169052942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.4||||||Month 36||16.4|0.4|
84659135|NCT04659161|169052945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-5.2|-13.9|<0.0001
84659136|NCT04659161|169052946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
84659137|NCT04659161|169052947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0055
84659138|NCT04659161|169052948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||0.0022
84659139|NCT04659161|169052949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
84659140|NCT04659161|169052950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
84659141|NCT02197130|169052952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|3.49|||MMRM|MMRM: A linear mixed-effect repeated measures model||||3.49|-0.45|0.2033
84659142|NCT02197130|169052952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||MMRM|||||1.50|-2.20|0.7549
84659143|NCT02197130|169052964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 13||2.39|0.69|0.0030
84659144|NCT02197130|169052964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|1.17|||MMRM|||Week 13||1.17|-0.45|0.4656
84659145|NCT02197130|169052964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.02|||MMRM|||Week 26||2.02|0.39|0.0149
84659146|NCT02197130|169052964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.86|-0.66|0.8233
84659147|NCT02197130|169052966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.60|0.11|0.0181
84659148|NCT02197130|169052966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.28|-0.18|0.7133
84659149|NCT02197130|169052966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.39|-0.15|0.4657
84659150|NCT02197130|169052966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.28|-0.22|0.8339
84659151|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1110
84659152|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.64||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.56||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.56|-1.28|0.2704
84684694|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|4.277|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=13.525||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||4.277|0.399|<0.001
84684695|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.217||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|6.831|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.095||Family monthly income per capita, \<=600 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||6.831|0.719|0.043
84684696|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|5.906|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=6.549||Family monthly income per capita, 600 to 1999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.906|0.739|0.010
84684697|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|5.583|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.313||Family monthly income per capita, 2000 to 4999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.583|0.704|0.021
84684698|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|3.267|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.824||Family monthly income per capita, 5000 to 7999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||3.267|0.344|0.364
84684699|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.347|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.838||||3.347|0.100|0.175
84684700|NCT00952367|169107148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.666|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=25.960||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.666|0.400|<0.001
84684701|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.255||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|1.044|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.610||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||1.044|0.062|0.057
84684702|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.981|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.228||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.981|0.451|0.040
84684703|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.844|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.074||Feeding manners within 6 months, pure breast feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.844|0.758|0.044
84684704|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.191|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.316||Feeding manners within 6 months, mixed feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.191|0.420|0.038
84684705|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.229||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|2130.5|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.438||Father's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||2130.500|3.993|0.006
84684706|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.671||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|40.608|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.079||Father's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||40.608|0.537|0.778
84684707|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|35.956|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.096||Father's education level, junior high school vs postgraduate or above||35.956|0.649|0.756
84684708|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.513||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|26.03|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.807||Father's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||26.030|0.474|0.179
84684709|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.029||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|22.292|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.131||Father's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||22.292|0.412|0.077
84684710|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.0|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.648||Living space per capita, continuous variables||1.000|0.968|0.056
84684711|NCT00952367|169107149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.018|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.432||Vaccination history of Hib, no vs yes||1.018|0.522|0.064
84684712|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.871|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.538||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||0.871|0.221|0.019
84684713|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.703|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=21.938||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.703|0.423|<0.001
84684714|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.137||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|9.652|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.341||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs graduate or above||9.652|0.473|0.559
84684715|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|5.394|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.238||Mother's education level, elementary school vs graduate or above||5.394|0.596|0.626
84684716|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.972||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.562|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.691||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs graduate or above||5.562|0.699|0.193
84684717|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|5.353|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.081||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||5.353|0.679|0.298
84684718|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.233||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.464|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.395||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||3.464|0.439|0.122
84684719|NCT00952367|169107150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.855|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=10.233||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.855|0.520|0.001
84684720|NCT03574597|169107161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial period. The outcome measure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor. Participants without events of interest were censored at the end of their in-trial period.||0.89|0.72|< 0.0001
84684721|NCT04085328|169107259|NON_INFERIORITY|Predefined margin of 0.05 for noninferiority|Difference in proportion|-0.0154|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0015|||Generalized linear model|Proportion of events was analyzed using a generalized linear model, with a logit link function, accounting for within-subject correlation.|Difference in proportion = LID015385 minus Biofinity.|||-0.0015||
84684722|NCT04496219|169107266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to instillation adherence||||0.97
84684723|NCT04496219|169107266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to missed visits.||||0.17
84684724|NCT04496219|169107267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5638|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Constipation Symptoms.||||0.5638
84684725|NCT04496219|169107267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1753|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Diarrhea Symptoms.||||0.1753
84684726|NCT04496219|169107267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Urinary Symptoms.||||0.2062
84684727|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8092|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Global Health.||||0.8092
84684728|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5492|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Physical Function.||||0.5492
84684729|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6464|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Emotional Function.||||0.6464
84684730|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Social Function.||||0.586
84684731|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8999|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Fatigue Symptoms.||||0.8999
84684732|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2007|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Pain Symptoms.||||0.2007
84684733|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9921|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Malaise Symptoms.||||0.9921
84684734|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5723|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Role Function.||||0.5723
84684735|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Cognitive Function.||||0.812
84684736|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Nausea Symptoms.||||0.96
84684737|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Dyspnoea Symptoms.||||0.1062
84684738|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Insomnia Symptoms.||||0.3259
84684739|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Appetite Loss Symptoms.||||0.9664
84684740|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Finances.||||0.4564
84684741|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1036|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intravesical Symptoms.||||0.1036
84684742|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Worries.||||0.1789
84684743|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Bloating Symptoms.||||0.5186
84684744|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Sexual Function.||||0.0757
84684745|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Male Sex Problems.||||0.1174
84684746|NCT04496219|169107268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intimacy.||||0.3129
84684747|NCT00419263|169107270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|P-value is based on the treatment parameter from the Cox Regression Model including treatment, current smoking behavior, and geographic region.||||||0.377
84684748|NCT00419263|169107271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
84684749|NCT00419263|169107272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.537
84684750|NCT00419263|169107273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84684751|NCT00419263|169107274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84684752|NCT00419263|169107275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
84684753|NCT00419263|169107276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
84684754|NCT02342886|169107277|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|23.89|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||23.89|-4.13|
84684755|NCT02342886|169107278|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|15.4|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||15.40|-2.15|
84684756|NCT03015402|169107286|SUPERIORITY|Pre-randomization characteristics of 2 groups will be presented using the median (IQR) or frequency tables at each study sequence. The difference of mPAP during submax exercise compared between placebo and nitrite at 10 weeks (i.e. week 10 RHC of placebo vs week 10 RHC of nitrite) using parametric PK-cross analysis (i.e. ANOVA to determine the sequence, period, carryover, \& treatment effects). Post-exercise values before \& after crossover will be compared between 2 groups using similar approach.||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
84684757|NCT01995461|169107314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0252
84684758|NCT01995461|169107315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0154
84684759|NCT01995461|169107316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.1349
84684760|NCT00540124|169107318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
84684761|NCT00540124|169107318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.186
84684762|NCT00540124|169107319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
84684763|NCT00540124|169107319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
84684764|NCT00540124|169107319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
84684765|NCT00540124|169107319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.112
84684766|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
84684767|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84684768|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
84684769|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
84684770|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.207
84684771|NCT00540124|169107320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.581
84684772|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
84684773|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
84684774|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
84684775|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
84684776|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.169
84684777|NCT00540124|169107321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
84684778|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.206
84684779|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
84684780|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.892
84684781|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.593
84684782|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.887
84684783|NCT00540124|169107322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
84684784|NCT00540124|169107323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
84684785|NCT00540124|169107323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.415
84684786|NCT00540124|169107324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.176
84684787|NCT00540124|169107324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.921
84684788|NCT00540124|169107325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
84684789|NCT00540124|169107325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.304
84684790|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.254
84684791|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.359
84684792|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.098
84684793|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.632
84684794|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.102
84684795|NCT00540124|169107326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.348
84684796|NCT00540124|169107327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.208
84684797|NCT00540124|169107327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.985
84684798|NCT00540124|169107328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.385
84684799|NCT00540124|169107328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.595
84684800|NCT00540124|169107328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.704
84684801|NCT00540124|169107328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.439
84684802|NCT00540124|169107329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.838
84684803|NCT00540124|169107329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
84684804|NCT00540124|169107329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
84684805|NCT00540124|169107329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.257
84684806|NCT00540124|169107330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.709
84684807|NCT00540124|169107330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.494
84684808|NCT01163097|169107336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of the treatments was assessed using the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio for Ki67. The lower bound of the CI needed to be greater than 0.70 and the upper bound needed to be below 1.43 for the treatments to be considered equivalent.|Geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|0.982|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to estimate the treatment effect and the Schuirmann's two one-sided test was used to test for statistical equivalence.||H0: mean ratio\<0.7 or mean ratio\>1.43; H1: 0.7\< mean ratio \<1.43 Sample size calculation assumed change in Ki67 expression following palifermin administration would not be affected by co-administration of heparin. With n=26 (13 + 13), an approx. 80% probability that the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means of Ki67 for palifermin when co-administered with heparin compared to palifermin alone would fall in the interval (0.7, 1.43). This assumed a Coefficient of Variation (CV) for Ki67 of 31%.||0.982|0.759|
84684809|NCT01163097|169107338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.885|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 20% increase (or 17% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of amylase would be 14% (as observed in other study)||0.885|0.614|
84684810|NCT01163097|169107339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.645|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 70% increase (or 41% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of lipase would be 49% (as observed in other study)||0.645|0.216|
84714711|NCT02714257|169175700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.34|-0.13|0.37
84714712|NCT02714257|169175701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.38|-0.10|0.26
84714713|NCT02714257|169175702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.22|-0.09|0.39
84714714|NCT04248725|169175734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models were adjusted for sex, baseline severity, and disability condition.||||||0.004
84508247|NCT02978326|168767762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 3||-0.3|-5.1|0.0252
84684811|NCT01163097|169107340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.231|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 140% increase with 13 and 6 subjects (respectively) when Treatment B was compared to Treatment C; assuming that the coefficient of variation of the protein/creatinine ratio would be 67% (Ginsberg et al 1983)||1.231|0.768|
84684812|NCT01163097|169107341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684813|NCT01163097|169107342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684814|NCT01163097|169107343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684815|NCT01163097|169107344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684816|NCT01163097|169107345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4123||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4123
84684817|NCT01163097|169107346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9944||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9944
84684818|NCT01163097|169107347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684819|NCT01163097|169107348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84684820|NCT02510144|169107371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side vs the non-treated side||||0.68
84684821|NCT02510144|169107371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side versus the non-treated side||||<0.01
84684822|NCT01939548|169107375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.409||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|6.21||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||6.21|0.01|0.1991
84684823|NCT01939548|169107375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.85|5.45||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||5.45|-0.85|0.3488
84684824|NCT01939548|169107376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|1.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.67|-2.13|0.8786
84684825|NCT01939548|169107376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|0.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.79|-3.08|0.4483
84508248|NCT02978326|168767762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 8||-0.8|-6.0|0.0106
84684826|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|1.85||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.85|-0.23|0.3201
84684827|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|1.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.90|-0.19|0.2961
84714715|NCT04248725|169175735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.30|<0.001
84714716|NCT04248725|169175736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.61|0.29
84714717|NCT03656510|169175762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382|0.185||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.185|-1.382|
84714718|NCT03656510|169175762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.418||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.418|-1.190|
84714719|NCT03656510|169175762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.674|-0.25||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.250|-4.674|
84659153|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.09||||0.9516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.98||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.98|-3.17|0.9516
84659154|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.73||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.0489
84659155|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.9785
84659156|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.13||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.11||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.11|-3.37|0.9379
84659157|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.07||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.47||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.47|-3.33|0.9678
84659158|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.2||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.10|-1.70|0.8373
84659159|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.417|7.32|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 12 vs Baseline across all participants||7.320|5.417|< 0.0001
84659160|NCT02615145|169052973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.936|11.362|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 48 vs Baseline across all participants||11.362|8.936|< 0.0001
84659161|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EOT||||0.5751
84659162|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.29||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.23||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||9.23|-4.66|0.5176
84659163|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.324||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.64||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||7.64|-7.00|0.9308
84659164|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.96||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|2.13||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||2.13|-6.06|0.3462
84659165|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 Weeks after EoT||||0.7016
84659166|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.61||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|3.49||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.49|-8.71|0.4002
84659167|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.33||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.08||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||4.08|-8.74|0.4750
84659168|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.282||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.77||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.77|-3.21|0.8740
84659169|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7211||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||||0.7211
84659170|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.67||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.39||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.39|-12.7|0.4256
84659171|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||6.54|-12.6|0.5347
84684828|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.35|-0.57|0.6015
84684829|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.77|1.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.19|-0.77|0.7787
84684830|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|3.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||3.29|-0.02|0.2068
84684831|NCT01939548|169107377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|2.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.69|-0.73|0.4611
84684832|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|0.19|0.1083
84684833|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.84|0.27|0.0869
84684834|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.64|-0.84|0.8601
84684835|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.20|-1.33|0.3454
84684836|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.79|-0.24|0.3273
84684837|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|-0.35|0.3963
84684838|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.78|-0.50|0.4713
84684839|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|2.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.36|0.06|0.1787
84684840|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.90|-0.20|0.4123
84684841|NCT01939548|169107378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.13|-1.01|0.3202
84684842|NCT01939548|169107379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.19|-0.11|0.7399
84684843|NCT01939548|169107379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.29|-0.02|0.2747
84684844|NCT01939548|169107380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.31|-0.17|0.7219
84684845|NCT01939548|169107380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.23|-0.26|0.9315
84684846|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Burden was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0007
84684847|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Physical was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
84684848|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Mental was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
84684849|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fear was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
84684850|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Desire was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0973
84659172|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.654||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|5.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.54|-4.23|0.7920
84659173|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.355|7.935|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference from 0||Baseline to EOT across all participants||7.935|3.355|< 0.0001
84659174|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.113|12.299|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||Baseline vs 12 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.299|8.113|< 0.0001
84659175|NCT02615145|169052978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.259|12.992|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||baseline vs 48 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.992|7.259|< 0.0001
84659176|NCT02615145|169052979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3869
84659177|NCT02615145|169052979|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.89||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.79||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-5.57|0.3125
84659178|NCT02615145|169052979|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.65||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|1.18||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-6.48|0.1741
84659179|NCT02615145|169052979|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.42||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.94|0.4941
84659180|NCT02615145|169052979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.096|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference vs 0||Change from Baseline to Final visit across all participants||1.096|-1.271|0.8842
84659181|NCT04404361|169053005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5).||||13.53|-10.55|0.8516
84659182|NCT04404361|169053006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7494|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7494
84659183|NCT04404361|169053007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||3.58|0.46|0.6323
84659184|NCT04404361|169053008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test Stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||4.96|0.31|0.7541
84659185|NCT04404361|169053009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53||"log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS"|Log Rank|"stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)"|estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)|||1.53|0.79|0.5666
84659186|NCT04404361|169053011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|12.93|||Chi-squared|||||12.93|0.47|0.2722
84659187|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
84659188|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.001
84659189|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
84659190|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.01
84659191|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||0.13
84659192|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
84659193|NCT02881554|169053021|OTHER|Non-parametric|Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Spearman rank correlation|||Null hypothesis = no monotonic association between the baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores. Spearman rank correlation was performed to assess association between baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores.||||0.002
84659194|NCT01411774|169053052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p \< .05 was the threshold of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for the outcomes used linear mixed-effects models, with treatment group as the between-participant factor and time as the within group factor||||||.95
84684851|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Duration was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.1772
84684852|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Food Selection was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0062
84684853|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Sleep was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
84684854|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fatigue was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
84684855|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Social was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.2125
84684856|NCT00205348|169107422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Communication was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0332
84684857|NCT00374322|169107423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||The p-value was calculated from a stratified log-rank test, stratifying for hormone receptor status, time since initial diagnosis, and lymph node involvement.|Log Rank||Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (HR) was calcuated using the pike estimator.|||1.08|0.77|0.286
84684858|NCT00182754|169107439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
84684859|NCT02085252|169107464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||A 2-sided significance level of 5% was used. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the two treatment strategies.||||0.0318
84684860|NCT00981084|169107507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .19
84684861|NCT00981084|169107507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .0005
84684862|NCT00981084|169107507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .21
84684863|NCT00981084|169107507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .10
84684864|NCT00981084|169107508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the CPT, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.33
84684865|NCT00981084|169107509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Stroop, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.37
84684866|NCT00981084|169107510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Word Generation, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.53
84684867|NCT02291679|169107511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.2||P-value is obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||5.20|1.76|< 0.0001
84684868|NCT02291679|169107512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.176||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.176|0.505|< 0.0001
84714720|NCT03656510|169175762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.645|-0.114||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.114|-4.645|
84714721|NCT05312008|169175827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.6
84684869|NCT02291679|169107513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.438||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.438|0.636|< 0.0001
84684870|NCT02291679|169107514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.806||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.806|0.450|< 0.0001
84684871|NCT02291679|169107515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|-0.21||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.210|-0.449|< 0.0001
84684872|NCT02291679|169107516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.87||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|||4.87|1.47|0.0008
84684873|NCT02291679|169107517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.2||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||4.20|1.58|< 0.0001
84684874|NCT02291679|169107518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.26||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||3.26|1.42|0.0002
84684875|NCT02291679|169107519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.17||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||2.17|1.03|0.0342
84684876|NCT02291679|169107520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.09||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.090|-0.548|0.0063
84684877|NCT02291679|169107521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.178||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.036||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.036|-0.391|0.1028
84684878|NCT02291679|169107522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.8||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||4.80|1.61|0.0001
84684879|NCT02048072|169107523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84684880|NCT01112579|169107524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.9|||ANCOVA|||||14.9|-2.0|0.3
84684881|NCT01112579|169107525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-845.8|633.6|||ANCOVA|||||633.6|-845.8|0.79
84684882|NCT01112579|169107526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-1.6|0.93
84684883|NCT00902694|169107528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-2.6|
84684884|NCT00902694|169107528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.2||||||18 month intervention versus control||-1.2|-5.1|
84684885|NCT00902694|169107530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-3.6|
84684886|NCT00902694|169107530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.3||||||18 month intervention versus control||0.3|-4.1|
84684887|NCT00902694|169107531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||6 month systolic intervention versus control||2.4|-3.2|
84684888|NCT00902694|169107531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||6 month diastolic intervention versus control||2.1|-1.6|
84684889|NCT00902694|169107531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8||||||18 month systolic intervention versus control||4.8|-1.6|
84684890|NCT00902694|169107531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4||||||18 month diastolic intervention versus control||3.4|-0.9|
84684891|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.1||||||6 month total chol intervention versus control||4.1|-9.9|
84684892|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.4||||||18 month total chol intervention versus control||4.4|-14.9|
84684893|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.1||||||6 month LDL chol intervention versus control||5.1|-7.5|
84684894|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||||||18 month LDL chol intervention versus control||3.9|-13.1|
84684895|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7||||||6 month HDL chol intervention versus control||1.7|-2.9|
84684896|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||||||18 month HDL intervention versus control||3.1|-1.8|
84714722|NCT05312008|169175828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.6
84714723|NCT05312008|169175829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<1
84714724|NCT05312008|169175830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.04
84714725|NCT05312008|169175831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.5
84714726|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||P=0.04 however was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.9|0.1|0.12
84714727|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.58||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs control meal||0.4|-1.5|0.23
84714728|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL vs control meal||1.2|-0.7|0.62
84714729|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Above is adjusted p value using Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP||2.5|0.7|0.003
84714730|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||1.7|-0.1|0.08
84714731|NCT05698875|169175832|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.2|-1.7|0.12
84714732|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.8|-0.1|0.08
84714733|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs control meal||0.2|-1.7|0.13
84714734|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.2|0.68
84714735|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.7|<0.01
84714736|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 p value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||2.0|0.2|0.06
84714737|NCT05698875|169175833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance - P\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.4|-1.4|0.29
84714738|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.8|<0.01
84714739|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.4|0.59
84714740|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.86
84714741|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||3.3|1.2|<0.001
84714742|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||3.1|1.1|<0.001
84714743|NCT05698875|169175834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.9|-1.2|0.79
84714744|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||8|-25|0.31
84714745|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P adjusted using Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-8|-41|0.03
84714746|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||29.5|-4.1|0.14
84714747|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|31.7||A priori threshold P \<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||31.7|3.1|0.34
84714748|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-4.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted P value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-4.7|-33.3|0.07
84714749|NCT05698875|169175835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-21.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||-21.8|-51.0|<0.001
84714750|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|294.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||294|7|0.25
84714751|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|38.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||38|-256|0.15
84714752|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|117.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||117|-177|0.69
84684897|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.4||||||6 month TRIG intervention versus control||12.4|-23.5|
84684898|NCT00902694|169107532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|23.9||||||18 month TRIG intervention versus control||23.9|-27.0|
84684899|NCT04154787|169107548|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios on Day 169|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.37||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.08||Calculated at one-sided 10% level from a lower-tailed test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.90|0.2670
84659195|NCT00056316|169053055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
84659196|NCT00056316|169053056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
84659197|NCT04617509|169053057|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric means|1.4514|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.111|1.4514||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.4514|1.1110|
84659198|NCT04617509|169053057|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.5497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3977|0.7597||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.7597|0.3977|
84659199|NCT04617509|169053058|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.3441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0953|1.6495||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6495|1.0953|
84659200|NCT04617509|169053058|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.9083||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.9083|0.5910|
84659201|NCT04617509|169053059|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.6904||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6904|1.1120|
84659202|NCT04617509|169053059|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5728|0.8759||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.8759|0.5728|
84659203|NCT03633695|169053069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.140|-0.214|<.0001
84659204|NCT03633695|169053070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|-0.158||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.158|-0.223|<.0001
84659205|NCT03633695|169053071|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL Group is inferior to the Control Group by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL group is inferior to the Control Group by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.007||<.0001
84659206|NCT03633695|169053072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|-0.163||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eye (IC-8 IOL Group) - Fellow Eye (IC-8 IOL Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes is greater (i.e., worse) than or equal to that for the fellow eyes. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 IOL eyes is less (i.e., better) than that for the fellow eyes.||-0.163|-0.198|<.0001
84659207|NCT03633695|169053073|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference in depth of focus \[IC-8™ IOL Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group)\]|||||
84659208|NCT03633695|169053074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.082||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eyes (IC-8 Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8 Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.082||<.0001
84659209|NCT03633695|169053082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.12 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to the Astigmatism Group 1 by 0.12 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to Astigmatism Group 1 by less than 0.12 logMAR.||||<.0001
84659210|NCT03808493|169053105|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the least square means (LS-Means) between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0211|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0752|0.0329||||||||0.0329|-0.0752|
84659211|NCT03808493|169053105|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0778|0.0815||||||||0.0815|-0.0778|
84659212|NCT03808493|169053106|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1404|0.0008||||||||0.0008|-0.1404|
84684900|NCT04154787|169107551|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted geometric mean ratios|0.81||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 15||1.42|0.47|0.4598
84684901|NCT04154787|169107551|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.3||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.61||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 169||2.61|0.65|0.4528
84684902|NCT03053050|169107559|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.0|-8.3|0.4941
84684903|NCT03053050|169107559|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.0|-6.6|0.9321
84684904|NCT03053050|169107561|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.9||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.9|-10.8|0.2593
84684905|NCT03053050|169107561|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.9||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.1||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.1|-7.9|0.8080
84684906|NCT03053050|169107563|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.0||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.8||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.7|0.5636
84684907|NCT03053050|169107563|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.9||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.9|-8.6|0.5915
84684908|NCT03053050|169107565|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.2|-8.5|0.2455
84684909|NCT03053050|169107565|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.3||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.3|-9.3|0.1371
84684910|NCT03355326|169107576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
84684911|NCT03355326|169107577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.900
84684912|NCT03355326|169107578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
84684913|NCT03355326|169107579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.967
84684914|NCT03355326|169107580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84684915|NCT03355326|169107581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84684916|NCT03355326|169107582|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84684917|NCT00175825|169107595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|9.8|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||24.0|-7.2|=0.240
84684918|NCT00175825|169107595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.9|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|28.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||28.2|-0.8|=0.062
84684919|NCT00175825|169107595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|22.1|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||34.3|7.6|=0.004
84684920|NCT04098406|169107596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|27.3|||MMRM|||||27.3|-11.9|0.4304
84684921|NCT04098406|169107597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|19.7|||MMRM|||||19.7|-12.4|0.6519
84684922|NCT04098406|169107598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|94.0|||MMRM|||||94.0|-56.4|0.6158
84684923|NCT04098406|169107603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||MMRM|||||3.6|-1.6|0.4249
84684924|NCT04098406|169107604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0350
84684925|NCT04098406|169107606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|23.9|||ANCOVA|||||23.9|-5.8|0.2237
84684926|NCT04098406|169107607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.103|0.0125
84684927|NCT04098406|169107609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||MMRM|||||1.6|0.2|0.0177
84684928|NCT01490502|169107616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
84684929|NCT01490502|169107616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.67|0.57
84684930|NCT01490502|169107617|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Andersen Gill model for recurrent events|||||||0.07
84684931|NCT01490502|169107618|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.45|||Negative Binomial Model|||||3.45|0.94|0.07
84684932|NCT01490502|169107619|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Negative Binomial Model|||||2.46|0.88|0.14
84684933|NCT01490502|169107620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
84508249|NCT02978326|168767762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 21||-0.3|-6.0|0.0321
84659213|NCT03808493|169053106|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1658|0.0036||||||||0.0036|-0.1658|
84659214|NCT03808493|169053107|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0731|0.0333||||||||0.0333|-0.0731|
84659215|NCT03808493|169053107|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.083||||||||0.0830|-0.0760|
84659216|NCT03808493|169053108|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.1902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0199|0.3605||||||||0.3605|0.0199|
84659217|NCT03808493|169053108|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.2142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0558|0.3725||||||||0.3725|0.0558|
84659218|NCT03808493|169053109|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0022|0.0599||||||||0.0599|0.0022|
84659219|NCT03808493|169053109|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003|0.0616||||||||0.0616|-0.0003|
84659220|NCT03808493|169053110|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0209|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0112|0.053||||||||0.0530|-0.0112|
84659221|NCT03808493|169053110|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0508|0.0238||||||||0.0238|-0.0508|
84659222|NCT01806545|169053135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.11||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.025||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.025|-0.242|0.1197
84659223|NCT01806545|169053136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.08||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.045|-0.204|0.1962
84659224|NCT01806545|169053137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.090
84659225|NCT01806545|169053138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.193
84659226|NCT01806545|169053139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.231
84659227|NCT01806545|169053140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.158
84659228|NCT01806545|169053141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.213|0.423||||||Treatment difference at week 12||0.423|-2.213|
84659229|NCT01806545|169053141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.791|1.327||||||Treatment difference at week 26||1.327|-1.791|
84659230|NCT01806545|169053142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.2||||||Analysis of week 12||0.200|-0.273|
84659231|NCT01806545|169053142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.318||||||Analysis of week 26||0.318|-0.165|
84659232|NCT01806545|169053143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.404||||||Analysis of week 12||0.404|-0.096|
84659233|NCT01806545|169053143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.565|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|1.152||||||Analysis of week 26||1.152|-0.023|
84659234|NCT00133952|169053161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||||2.67|0.15|0.724
84659235|NCT00133952|169053162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|9.8|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||9.8|-16.5|0.616
84659236|NCT00133952|169053163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.44|0.68|0.971
84659237|NCT00133952|169053165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.6|0.344
84659238|NCT00133952|169053166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.663
84659239|NCT00133952|169053167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.37|0.203
84659240|NCT00133952|169053169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.92|0.46|0.749
84684934|NCT01490502|169107621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rate of change in MSFC Z-score over time was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in the MSFC Z-score between treatment arms.||||0.20
84684935|NCT01490502|169107622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in 2.5% low-contrast acuity was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in low-contrast acuity between treatment arms.||||0.67
84684936|NCT01490502|169107623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in quality of life was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in health-related quality of life between treatment arms.||||0.21
84684937|NCT01490502|169107624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84684938|NCT01490502|169107625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84684939|NCT04186780|169107633|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group in total cholesterol.|||||0.59
84684940|NCT04186780|169107634|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group.|||||0.8284
84684941|NCT04186780|169107635|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group compared to the intervention group.|||||0.0058
84684942|NCT04186780|169107636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Reduced difference in TBARS in the placebo group compared to the intervention group at T66.|||||0.0384
84684943|NCT04186780|169107637|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between placebo group and intervention group of T66.|||||0.0352
84684944|NCT00772590|169107648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84684945|NCT02066402|169107649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. Predefined margin for non-inferiority is -10%.|Difference of responder rate|-4.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-11.2|0.2027
84684946|NCT02066402|169107650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-8.3|
84684947|NCT02066402|169107651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.2||||||||3.2|-7.4|
84684948|NCT02066402|169107652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1||||||||4.1|-8.6|
84684949|NCT02066402|169107653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-8.4|
84684950|NCT00152464|169107660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.338|||Regression, Cox|||||1.338|0.750|=0.991
84684951|NCT04493931|169107670|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.184||||||||1.184|0.753|
84684952|NCT04493931|169107671|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.742|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.742|-0.750|
84684953|NCT04493931|169107672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.249||||||||1.249|0.959|
84684954|NCT04493931|169107673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.059|1.265||||||||1.265|1.059|
84684955|NCT04493931|169107674|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.062|1.264||||||||1.264|1.062|
84684956|NCT04493931|169107675|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.84||||||||0.840|0.635|
84684957|NCT04493931|169107676|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
84684958|NCT04493931|169107677|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.492|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate|||0.492|-1.000|
84684959|NCT04493931|169107678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.525||||||||0.525|0.433|
84684960|NCT04493931|169107679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.435|0.526||||||||0.526|0.435|
84684961|NCT04493931|169107680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.845||||||||1.845|1.274|
84684962|NCT04493931|169107681|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
84684963|NCT04493931|169107682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.233|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.233|-1.000|
84684964|NCT04493931|169107683|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.085|1.363||||||||1.363|1.085|
84684965|NCT04493931|169107684|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.278||||||||1.278|0.983|
84684966|NCT04493931|169107685|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.046|1.475||||||||1.475|1.046|
84684967|NCT04493931|169107686|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
84684968|NCT04493931|169107687|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.8|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.800|-0.250|
84684969|NCT04493931|169107688|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.622|2.278||||||||2.278|1.622|
84684970|NCT04493931|169107689|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.619|2.234||||||||2.234|1.619|
84684971|NCT04493931|169107713|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.051|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.34||||||||1.340|0.824|
84684972|NCT04493931|169107714|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.250|0.000|
84684973|NCT04493931|169107715|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||1.250|-0.500|
84684974|NCT04493931|169107716|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.212||||||||1.212|0.987|
84684975|NCT04493931|169107717|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.209||||||||1.209|0.991|
84684976|NCT04493931|169107720|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.250|
84684977|NCT04493931|169107723|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.214|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.473||||||||1.473|1.000|
84684978|NCT04493931|169107724|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.27||||||||1.270|0.948|
84684979|NCT04493931|169107725|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.221||||||||1.221|0.939|
84684980|NCT04493931|169107726|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.292||||||||1.292|0.930|
84684981|NCT04493931|169107740|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.565||||||||0.565|0.441|
84684982|NCT04493931|169107741|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.521||||||||0.521|0.370|
84684983|NCT04493931|169107742|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.372|0.516||||||||0.516|0.372|
84684984|NCT04493931|169107743|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.129||||||||1.129|0.950|
84684985|NCT04493931|169107767|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.304|2.363||||||||2.363|1.304|
84684986|NCT04493931|169107768|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.902||||||||0.902|0.769|
84684987|NCT04493931|169107769|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.85||||||||0.850|0.653|
84684988|NCT04493931|169107770|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.782|1.018||||||||1.018|0.782|
84684989|NCT04493931|169107771|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.528||||||||1.528|0.876|
84684990|NCT04493931|169107772|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.283||||||||1.283|1.016|
84684991|NCT04493931|169107773|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.521|0.699||||||||0.699|0.521|
84684992|NCT04493931|169107774|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.526|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.448|0.618||||||||0.618|0.448|
84684993|NCT00430248|169107827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of febuxostat 40 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage|3.1||||||95.0|-1.9|8.1||||||The primary comparison was between febuxostat 40 mg and allopurinol treatment groups.||8.1|-1.9|
84684994|NCT00430248|169107827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||The test for superiority was performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
84684995|NCT00430248|169107827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||<|0.001||95.0|20.1|29.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||29.8|20.1|<0.001
84684996|NCT00430248|169107827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.9|||<|0.001||95.0|17.0|26.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||26.8|17.0|<0.001
84684997|NCT00430248|169107828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
84684998|NCT00430248|169107828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84684999|NCT00430248|169107828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685000|NCT00430248|169107829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84685001|NCT00430248|169107829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685002|NCT00430248|169107829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685003|NCT00430248|169107830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.578
84685004|NCT00430248|169107830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685005|NCT00430248|169107830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685006|NCT00430248|169107831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
84685007|NCT00430248|169107831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685008|NCT00430248|169107831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685009|NCT00430248|169107832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
84685010|NCT00430248|169107832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685011|NCT00430248|169107832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685012|NCT00430248|169107833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.428
84685013|NCT00430248|169107833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685014|NCT00430248|169107833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685015|NCT00430248|169107834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
84685016|NCT00430248|169107834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685017|NCT00430248|169107834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685018|NCT00430248|169107835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
84685019|NCT00430248|169107835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685020|NCT00430248|169107835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685021|NCT00430248|169107836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
84685022|NCT00430248|169107836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685023|NCT00430248|169107836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685024|NCT00430248|169107837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.520
84685025|NCT00430248|169107837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685026|NCT00430248|169107837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685027|NCT00430248|169107838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.195
84685028|NCT00430248|169107838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685029|NCT00430248|169107838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685030|NCT00430248|169107839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.196
84685031|NCT00430248|169107839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685032|NCT00430248|169107839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84685033|NCT00430248|169107840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.079
84685034|NCT00430248|169107840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685035|NCT00430248|169107840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685036|NCT00430248|169107841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.685
84685037|NCT00430248|169107841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685038|NCT00430248|169107841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685039|NCT00430248|169107842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.153
84685040|NCT00430248|169107842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685041|NCT00430248|169107842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685042|NCT00430248|169107843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.050
84685043|NCT00430248|169107843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685044|NCT00430248|169107843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685045|NCT00917579|169107844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34||||||90.0|91.33|99.52|||ANOVA|Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||99.52|91.33|
84685046|NCT00917579|169107845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both the AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUC last calculated value.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|91.07|100.76|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.76|91.07|
84685047|NCT00917579|169107846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.41||||||90.0|83.39|100.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.20|83.39|
84685048|NCT00831779|169107872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4685||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|36.1||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||36.10|5.75|0.0059
84685049|NCT00831779|169107873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4984||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|57.48||Secondary endpoint was tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||57.48|-1.22|0.0598
84685050|NCT04020341|169107874|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the Z-statistic boundary (2.065).|Adjusted Difference in Percent|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 3.5554.|12.1|-3.6|
84685051|NCT04020341|169107874|SUPERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.019 p-value boundary.|Adjusted difference of Percent|4.3||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||12.1|-3.6|0.1445
84685052|NCT04683926|169107917|OTHER||AUC(0-36) Estimate (β1)|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
84685053|NCT04683926|169107917|OTHER||AUC(inf) Estimate (β1)|1.0223|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
84685054|NCT04683926|169107917|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|AUC(0-inf) fed/fasted ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.12||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.12|1.05|
84685055|NCT04683926|169107918|OTHER||Cmax Estimate (β1)|0.9899|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
84685056|NCT04683926|169107918|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|Cmax 90% fed/fasted ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.28||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.28|1.08|
84685057|NCT05120115|169107939|EQUIVALENCE|Examined differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|ANOVA|||||||0.05
84685058|NCT05120115|169107940|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84685059|NCT05120115|169107941|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84685060|NCT01113502|169107942|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|300.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84685061|NCT01970982|169107953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|28.95||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||28.95|18.41|<0.001
84685062|NCT01970982|169107954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|52.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|61.17||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||61.17|45.67|<0.001
84685063|NCT01970982|169107955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|15.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.09|18.78||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||18.78|13.09|<0.001
84714753|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.0|401.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||401|126|<0.001
84714754|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|329.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||329|56|0.02
84714755|NCT05698875|169175836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|69.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||69|-211|0.32
84714756|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||10.4|3.3|<0.01
84714757|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||7.2|-0.2|0.06
84714758|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||3.9|-3.3|0.86
84685064|NCT01970982|169107956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|50.08||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||50.08|44.30|<0.001
84685065|NCT01984684|169107975|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in responder rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.0|
84685066|NCT01984684|169107976|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response of signs and symptoms of infection (cure only) was performed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification for the ITT analysis set.|Difference in Cure Rates|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.6|
84685067|NCT01984684|169107977|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response (cure only) at the Late Follow-up Visit was assessed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification.|Difference in Cure Rates|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.1||||||||3.1|-9.3|
84685068|NCT03923959|169108010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|1.834|||Regression, Logistic||||A two-sample proportion test was also completed; the test utilized an α \< 0.049 to account for the O'Brien-Fleming adjustment. The p-value for the two-sample proportion test was 0.966.|1.834|0.5597|0.966
84685069|NCT03923959|169108011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.183
84685070|NCT03923959|169108012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.729
84685071|NCT03923959|169108013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.655
84685072|NCT03923959|169108014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7832||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7832
84685073|NCT05711641|169108031|OTHER|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
84685074|NCT05711641|169108032|OTHER|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
84685075|NCT05711641|169108033|OTHER|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
84685076|NCT00762450|169108051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|paired t-tests||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84685077|NCT03905330|169108052|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3691|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.845|-0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between maralixibat and placebo treatment groups in the mean change in the average ItchRO(Obs) severity score between baseline and Weeks 15-26||-0.334|-1.845|= 0.0063
84685078|NCT03905330|169108053|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-186.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.9501|=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.454|-79.992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-79.992|-293.454|= 0.0013
84685079|NCT03905330|169108054|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.727|-0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.674|-1.727|< 0.0001
84685080|NCT03905330|169108055|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-160.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1827|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.836|-99.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.970|-220.836|< 0.0001
84685081|NCT03905330|169108056|OTHER||||||=|0.0736|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0736
84685082|NCT03905330|169108057|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.041|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0410
84685083|NCT03905330|169108058|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0023
84685084|NCT03905330|169108059|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0004
84685085|NCT01596582|169108066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
84685086|NCT01596582|169108067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84685087|NCT01596582|169108068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84685088|NCT01596582|169108069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84685089|NCT01596582|169108070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84685090|NCT01596582|169108071|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value for each comparison was non-significanct.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84685091|NCT01596582|169108072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84685092|NCT01596582|169108073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84685093|NCT01596582|169108074|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84685094|NCT01596582|169108075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
84685095|NCT00101933|169108081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Since a treatment-by-visit interaction remains in the final model, the results were analyzed by visit. The results shown are for the last month in the blinded phase (month 3-4).|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0017
84685096|NCT00101933|169108083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate per 1000 years of stimulation|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.79|||No statistical test||The rate is calculated per 1000 subject years of follow-up based on 406 subject years of stimulation. The confidence interval is the 95% Poisson confidence interval. Per protocol, only definite and probable SUDEP were included in the calculation.|||17.79|0.60|
84685097|NCT00101933|169108084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test. The numbers presented in this analysis are the number of subjects who were responders based on a responder definition including all subjects with 50% or greater improvement in total seizure count.||||0.830
84685098|NCT00101933|169108085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.105
84685099|NCT00101933|169108086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
84685100|NCT00101933|169108087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84685101|NCT00101933|169108088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387||95.0||||Since a visit-by-treatment interaction did not remain in the final model, the results shown are for the entire blinded phase.|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0387
84685102|NCT00101933|169108089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Numbers provided indicate the percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency of each participant's most severe seizures. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.||||0.047
84685103|NCT02460692|169108132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||This is the primary comparison.||||0.78
84685104|NCT02460692|169108132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is the secondary comparison.||||0.070
84685105|NCT02460692|169108132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is an exploratory comparison||||0.044
84685106|NCT02460692|169108133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.27
84685107|NCT02460692|169108133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.96
84685108|NCT02460692|169108133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.30
84685109|NCT02460692|169108134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.44
84685110|NCT02460692|169108134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.53
84685111|NCT02460692|169108134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.18
84685112|NCT02460692|169108135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
84685113|NCT02460692|169108135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.94
84685114|NCT02460692|169108135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The average change of learning score at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||.90
84685115|NCT02460692|169108136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.93
84685116|NCT02460692|169108136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.92
84685117|NCT02460692|169108136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.85
84685118|NCT02460692|169108137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The average change in Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.89
84685119|NCT02460692|169108137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.13
84685120|NCT02460692|169108137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.14
84685121|NCT02460692|169108138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.10
84685122|NCT02460692|169108138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.67
84685123|NCT02460692|169108138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.25
84685124|NCT02460692|169108139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.84
84685125|NCT02460692|169108139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.91
84685126|NCT02460692|169108139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.75
84685127|NCT02460692|169108140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
84685128|NCT02460692|169108140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.080
84685129|NCT02460692|169108140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84685130|NCT02460692|169108141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.60
84685131|NCT02460692|169108141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.40
84685132|NCT02460692|169108141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.72
84685133|NCT02460692|169108142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.19
84685134|NCT02460692|169108142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.70
84685135|NCT02460692|169108142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.36
84685136|NCT02460692|169108143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.14
84685137|NCT02460692|169108143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.60
84685138|NCT02460692|169108143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.34
84685139|NCT02460692|169108144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.34
84685140|NCT02460692|169108144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.007
84685141|NCT02460692|169108144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.055
84685142|NCT02460692|169108145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.69
84685143|NCT02460692|169108145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.79
84685144|NCT02460692|169108145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.97
84508250|NCT02978326|168767762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 45||-1.4|-6.7|0.0027
84685145|NCT02460692|169108146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
84685146|NCT02460692|169108146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
84685147|NCT02460692|169108146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84685148|NCT02460692|169108147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.084
84685149|NCT02460692|169108147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.98
84685150|NCT02460692|169108147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.085
84685151|NCT02460692|169108148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
84685152|NCT02460692|169108148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.78
84685153|NCT02460692|169108148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.99
84685154|NCT02170025|169108174|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|6.0||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 0.5 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 14. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||6.0|-8.7|
84685155|NCT02170025|169108174|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|2.4||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 1.0 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 28. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||2.4|-12.4|
84685156|NCT01077830|169108176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death (any cause) reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death (any cause) in the Placebo arm|||2.09|0.84|
84685157|NCT01077830|169108177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.06|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death from cancer reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death from cancer in the Placebo arm|||6.06|0.30|
84685158|NCT01077830|169108178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.11|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of new cancers reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of newly diagnosed cancers in the the Placebo arm|||1.11|0.27|
84685159|NCT01337674|169108180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.42|5.98|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||5.98|-8.42|
84685160|NCT01337674|169108180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|9.49|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||9.49|-4.92|
84685161|NCT01337674|169108180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|8.62|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||8.62|-5.31|
84714759|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||6.48|0.24|0.11
84685162|NCT01337674|169108180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.88|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||5.88|-8.06|
84685163|NCT01337674|169108181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|6.75|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||6.75|-2.85|
84685164|NCT01337674|169108181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.71|-1.11|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||-1.11|-10.71|
84685165|NCT01337674|169108181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.47|-1.03|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||-1.03|-11.47|
84685166|NCT01337674|169108181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|3.65|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||3.65|-6.79|
84685167|NCT00949884|169108194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline DBP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change in seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to end of treatment. Sample size of 900, this study had 90% power to detect a true difference in mean change from baseline in mean trough SDBP of 2.0 mmHg for Combined Olmesartan vs Losartan.||-1.3|-3.8|<0.0001
84685168|NCT00949884|169108195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.0001
84685169|NCT00949884|169108196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.9|-5.8|0.0001
84685170|NCT00949884|169108197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure value as a covariate.||||-1.5|-3.8|<0.0001
84685171|NCT00949884|169108199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.2|-2.0|0.1121
84685172|NCT00949884|169108199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.1|-2.0|0.0783
84685173|NCT00949884|169108200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.7|-2.9|0.2312
84685174|NCT00949884|169108200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.3|-3.2|0.0979
84685175|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685176|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||0.0001
84685177|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685178|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685179|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685180|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685181|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.2755
84685182|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.1646
84685183|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685184|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685185|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685186|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685187|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0010
84685188|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0011
84685189|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685190|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685191|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0005
84685192|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0004
84685193|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0023
84685194|NCT00949884|169108201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0012
84685195|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685196|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685197|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0009
84685198|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0007
84685199|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0347
84685200|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0280
84685201|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0519
84685202|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0605
84685203|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0001
84685204|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0003
84685205|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0070
84685206|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0066
84685207|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0061
84685208|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0096
84685209|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685210|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
84685211|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0047
84685212|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0063
84685213|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0589
84685214|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0594
84685215|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0476
84685216|NCT00949884|169108202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0657
84685217|NCT00949884|169108203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3250
84685218|NCT00949884|169108203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3491
84685219|NCT00949884|169108203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.7|-3.2|0.2085
84685220|NCT00949884|169108203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.8|-3.0|0.2542
84685221|NCT00949884|169108204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.5|-6.6|0.0209
84685222|NCT00949884|169108204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.6|-6.6|0.0186
84685223|NCT00949884|169108204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.5|0.0175
84685224|NCT00949884|169108204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.4|0.0177
84685225|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.7|-5.2|0.3104
84685226|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.9|0.3653
84685227|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.5|-4.1|0.1197
84685228|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1654
84685229|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.9|-4.4|0.4362
84685230|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.5|0.4039
84685231|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.2|-3.1|0.3929
84685232|NCT00949884|169108205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.3|-3.0|0.4259
84685233|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.2|-6.8|0.0396
84685234|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.3|-6.8|0.0345
84685235|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.8|0.0324
84685236|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.7|0.0363
84685237|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.5|0.0988
84685238|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.5|-6.4|0.0926
84685239|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.5|0.0900
84685240|NCT00949884|169108206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.4|0.0942
84685241|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-5.4|0.3229
84685242|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||2.0|-5.1|0.3863
84685243|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.6|-4.5|0.1277
84685244|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-4.3|0.1799
84685245|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-5.1|0.2708
84685246|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.6|-5.0|0.3133
84685247|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1621
84685248|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-3.7|0.2314
84685249|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2461
84685250|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2558
84685251|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.8|0.1700
84685252|NCT00949884|169108207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-3.7|0.2011
84685253|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-7.0|0.1895
84685254|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-6.5|0.2701
84685255|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-5.2|0.1328
84685256|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-4.9|0.1778
84685257|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.2|-7.3|0.0620
84685258|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.9|0.1011
84685259|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.4|-5.6|0.0249
84685260|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.0|-5.2|0.0497
84685261|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.1|-7.1|0.0552
84685262|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.3|-6.8|0.0767
84685263|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.3|-5.3|0.0279
84685264|NCT00949884|169108208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.1|-5.0|0.0434
84685265|NCT00949884|169108209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Diastolic blood pressure||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
84685266|NCT00949884|169108209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Systolic blood pressure||-4.7|-12.5|<0.0001
84685267|NCT03896009|169108231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84685268|NCT03896009|169108232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84685269|NCT00437645|169108233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for non-inferiority of valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg to amlodipine 10 mg alone with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-3.00|
84685270|NCT00662857|169108238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.141|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.141|0.846|
84685271|NCT00662857|169108239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.099|0.823|
84685272|NCT00662857|169108240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3531|||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3531
84685273|NCT00662857|169108241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.366|0.578|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge of TI to 10 U sc insulin lispro.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||0.578|0.366|
84685274|NCT04149925|169108268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significant when p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84685275|NCT02586025|169108274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.45||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|28.01||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.01|6.89|0.0014
84685276|NCT02586025|169108275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|28.83||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.83|7.89|0.0008
84685277|NCT02586025|169108276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.15||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.15|7.60|0.0010
84685278|NCT02586025|169108277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|29.51||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.51|8.14|0.0006
84685279|NCT02586025|169108279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.4||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|19.69||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||19.69|1.12|0.0125
84685280|NCT02586025|169108280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for EFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.89|0.32|0.0140
84685281|NCT02586025|169108280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-8.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.32|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||-2.32|-14.00|0.0062
84685282|NCT02586025|169108280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-9.17||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-0.29|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.29|-18.05|0.0429
84685283|NCT02586025|169108280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-11.1||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-1.24|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 5 Years||-1.24|-20.95|0.0274
84685284|NCT02586025|169108281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for DFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.88|0.30|0.0140
84685285|NCT02586025|169108281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-5.47||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|0.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||0.21|-11.15|0.0592
84685286|NCT02586025|169108281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-9.0||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|-0.3|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.30|-17.69|0.0426
84685287|NCT02586025|169108281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-10.97||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|-1.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||-1.21|-20.73|0.0276
84714760|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||9.8|3.6|<0.001
84714761|NCT05698875|169175837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||6.5|0.2|0.13
84714762|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-13.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meal||-13.6|-55.9|0.01
84714763|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|19.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||19.9|-23.6|0.87
84714764|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|17.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||17.0|-26.4|0.67
84714765|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-12.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||-12.2|-54.4|0.01
84714766|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-10.4|-52.4|0.01
84685288|NCT02586025|169108282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.19|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for OS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||1.19|0.23|0.1181
84685289|NCT02586025|169108282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|0.46||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.36|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||1.36|-0.44|0.3162
84685290|NCT02586025|169108282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-6.02||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|0.08|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||0.08|-12.11|0.0529
84685291|NCT02586025|169108282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-3.89||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.9|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||2.90|-10.69|0.2616
84685292|NCT02586025|169108288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.93|||||Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||0.93|-1.62|
84685293|NCT02713711|169108290|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.3262|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.3262
84685294|NCT02713711|169108290|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.01
84685295|NCT02713711|169108290|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.0646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.0646
84685296|NCT02713711|169108290|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||<0.001
84685297|NCT02713711|169108290|SUPERIORITY|Two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intergroup analysis.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84685298|NCT02713711|169108291|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2080
84685299|NCT02713711|169108291|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.0136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0136
84685300|NCT02713711|169108291|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.2987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2987
84685301|NCT02713711|169108291|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.8347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8347
84685302|NCT02713711|169108291|SUPERIORITY|two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test (intergroup analysis)||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84685303|NCT00998400|169108300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.030
84685304|NCT00998400|169108301|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685305|NCT00998400|169108302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685306|NCT00998400|169108303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||>0.05
84685307|NCT00998400|169108304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685308|NCT00998400|169108305|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685309|NCT00998400|169108306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.013
84685310|NCT00998400|169108307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685311|NCT00998400|169108308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685312|NCT00998400|169108309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685313|NCT00998400|169108310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685314|NCT00998400|169108311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
84685315|NCT03675451|169108325|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||0.99|0.74|
84685316|NCT03675451|169108326|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||1.00|0.66|
84714767|NCT05698875|169175838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|23.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||23.4|-19.7|0.87
84714768|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||65|2|0.04
84714769|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|30.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||30|-17|0.56
84714770|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||32|8|0.22
84685317|NCT00415610|169108412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The repeated measure analysis of the hourly average SBP was calculated with and without adjusting for baseline NIHSS and age.|repeated measure|Adjusted for initial deficit severity of using baseline NIHSS instead of GCS to better discriminate among patients with GCS score \> 8.||The hourly average (of maximum and minimum) SBP measurements were graphed with box-and-whiskers plot. In addition, a repeated measures analysis of the 25 average SBP (baseline and subsequent 24 hourly measures) was conducted with a mixed effects model (assuming autoregressive covariance structure in SAS version 9.1 PROC MIXED) to determine statistically the effect of treatment intensity (tier) on the average SBP over the 24 hrs with and without adjustment for baseline NIHSS score and age.||||< 0.01
84508251|NCT02978326|168767763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.6||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 3||3.60|0.89|0.1004
84685318|NCT00415610|169108413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Observed average SBP change at 2 hrs after treatment initiation between subjects who did or did not have neurologic deterioration within 24 hrs.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|Mean decrease measured for subjects with neurological deterioration and subjects without neurological deterioration.||Done as a surrogate to evaluate the relationship between early SBP reduction and safety events.||||< .5
84685319|NCT05072457|169108542|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"MANOVA analysis with independent variable being the intervention condition (type of microphone used) and dependent variable being the performance on lateralization task.~Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in lateralization test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group."||||<.05
84685320|NCT05072457|169108543|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Independent variable: intervention condition (type of microphone used), Dependent variable: performance on spatial hearing task. Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in spatial hearing test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group.||||>.05
84685321|NCT03466086|169108593|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.59||Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is greater than 0.|Multivariate Bayesian Model|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||2.59|-2.35|
84685322|NCT03466086|169108594|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is less than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.951|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.37|||Multivariate Bayesian Analysis|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|3.37|-0.40|
84508252|NCT02978326|168767763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.45||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 8||4.45|1.20|0.0127
84685323|NCT00162370|169108603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis evaluated is that the scores are not associated with outcome. Of the two measures, wall motion index is considered to be the primary endpoint measure. The cardiac event rate will be summarized by categorical levels of wall motion index score and the difference in wall motion index score.||||0.014
84685324|NCT00162370|169108604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0001
84685325|NCT00774579|169108615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84685326|NCT00774579|169108616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84685327|NCT01499082|169108617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.107||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.107|-0.112|
84685328|NCT01499082|169108618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.93|0.67|0.0045
84685329|NCT01499082|169108619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.254|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycemia was significant.||0.254|-0.383|0.6909
84685330|NCT01499082|169108628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.298||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.298|-0.189|
84685331|NCT01786967|169108629|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study to provide preliminary data to inform future sample size estimates for a larger more definitive trial|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there will be no difference in treatment benefit scale between the two groups||1.71|0.53|1.0
84685332|NCT01786967|169108630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of moderate to severe adverse events.||.95|.76|1.0
84685333|NCT05380947|169108631|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|183.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 39.7%|||183.6|99.7|
84685334|NCT05380947|169108631|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|81.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.8%|||81.6|67.6|
84685335|NCT05380947|169108631|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|110.0|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.8%|||110.0|85.8|
84685336|NCT05380947|169108632|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|139.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|221.3|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 62.3%|||221.3|87.7|
84685337|NCT05380947|169108632|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.5|70.8|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 31.0%|||70.8|40.5|
84685338|NCT05380947|169108632|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|113.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 30.5%|||113.2|66.8|
84685339|NCT05380947|169108633|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|129.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|173.4|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) =36.6%|||173.4|96.2|
84714771|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|67.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||67|10|0.01
84685340|NCT05380947|169108633|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.6|81.7|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%|||81.7|68.6|
84685341|NCT05380947|169108633|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|110.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%|||110.2|85.3|
84685342|NCT01563536|169108644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Maximal Decrease)|-1.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.13||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline log10 HCV RNA values as a covariate and with an effect for treatment arm.||||-0.13|-2.81|0.035
84685343|NCT00538590|169108650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.95
84685344|NCT00538590|169108652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||1.00
84685345|NCT00538590|169108653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.40
84685346|NCT00538590|169108654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.91
84685347|NCT02816138|169108694|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|For change in depression severity (MADRS) over time, we used a linear mixed effects model with autoregressive of order 1 (AR(1)) temporal process.||||||<0.001
84685348|NCT02816138|169108695|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.761
84685349|NCT02816138|169108696|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.084
84685350|NCT02816138|169108697|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.073
84685351|NCT02816138|169108698|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.002
84685352|NCT02816138|169108699|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
84685353|NCT02816138|169108700|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.049
84685354|NCT02816138|169108701|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.502
84685355|NCT02816138|169108702|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.049
84685356|NCT02816138|169108703|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.068
84685357|NCT02276222|169108726|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01012||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|0.0283|||ANCOVA|||||0.0283|-0.0114|0.4041
84685358|NCT04102579|169108727|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-1.95||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|Results were analyzed using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The model included the screening period baseline TMC as a covariate, and treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. Participant was included as a random effect.||-1.95|-4.37|<0.0001
84685359|NCT04102579|169108728|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|29.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|45.37||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||45.37|10.77|0.0007
84685360|NCT04102579|169108729|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|26.31||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|43.74||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||43.74|6.32|0.0062
84685361|NCT04102579|169108730|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|4.31||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|LS mean was based on the MMRM model which included corresponding baseline value of the Neuro-QoL Upper Extremity Function T-score as a covariate; treatment group, visit, baseline-by-visit interaction, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect.||4.31|-1.46|0.3304
84685362|NCT05899686|169108732|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as ANOVA p\<0.05||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Maximum percent change from baseline (light transmittance) during 60 heart beats after the tetanic stimulus were compared between the three stimulus locations using ANOVA||||0.65
84685363|NCT00572195|169108733|OTHER||Wilson score interval|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|81.9|||||The value is for all serious adverse events, regardless of device relation.||95% confidence interval estimated using the Wilson score interval|81.9|71.1|
84685364|NCT00572195|169108734|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||For all 6-month periods, from 6 months through 9 years post-implant, p \<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
84685365|NCT00572195|169108736|OTHER||GEE estimated intercept|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|49.2|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||49.2|46.8|<0.0001
84685366|NCT00572195|169108736|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||0.1|-0.2|0.6729
84685367|NCT02532179|169108777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.29||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.29|2.09|<0.001
84685368|NCT02532179|169108778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.25||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|2.77|<0.001
84685369|NCT02532179|169108779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.06||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|3.87|<0.001
84714772|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|62.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||62|4|0.03
84685370|NCT00789815|169108796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A preliminary study was performed to determine the sample size before this trial. 15 and 15 patients undergoing FB received BIS-guided propofol sedation and clinical-judged midazolam sedation, respectively. The incidences of hypoxemia were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively. The selected sample size of 225 in each group will yield 90% power for detecting a clinically meaningful difference of 0.13 at the 5.0% level of significance. To allow for 10% missing data, we recruited 250 patients per group.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypoxemia occured during FB with BIS-guided propofol infusion is higher than that with clinical-judged midazolam administration.~Power calculation is described below."||||0.05
84685371|NCT00789815|169108797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypotension during FB in patients of study group is higher than that in the control group.||||0.05
84685372|NCT00789815|169108798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84685373|NCT00789815|169108799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84685374|NCT00789815|169108800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84685375|NCT00789815|169108801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the global tolerance of patients in study is worse than that in the control group.||||0.05
84685376|NCT00789815|169108802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84685377|NCT00789815|169108803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84685378|NCT04676425|169108811|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.01|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||2.01|0.70|
84685379|NCT04676425|169108812|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.74|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||1.74|0.86|
84685380|NCT04958785|169108818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|1.409|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.409|0.147|0.1617
84685381|NCT04958785|169108820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|10.938|||||Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using chi-square test.|||10.938|0.379|
84685382|NCT01224925|169108828|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|842.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|693.0|991.0|||Log Rank|||The power calculation was based on the intention to show a 30% difference in success rates. The following parameters were used (binomial scale): type I error: 5%; expected success rate in the CH group: 55% (based on Barthel et al. 2000); minimal difference between success rates not to be overlooked: 30%; type II error: 5%. The calculations revealed the need for 64 subjects in each group. After adding 20% for eventual drop-outs, we planned to recruit 160 subjects in one year.||991|693|<0.01
84685383|NCT01224925|169108828|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|1201.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1068.0|1335.0|||Log Rank|||||1335|1068|<0.01
84685384|NCT01224925|169108829|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84685385|NCT02293395|169108841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.5|0.8|0.584
84685386|NCT01023568|169108852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Glidescope - direct laryngoscopy|||26|7|>0.99
84685387|NCT01023568|169108852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Truview PCD - direct laryngoscopy|||28|6|>0.99
84685388|NCT01023568|169108853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
84685389|NCT01023568|169108854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||2|1|> 0.99
84685390|NCT01023568|169108854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||0|0|0.18
84685391|NCT01023568|169108855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84685392|NCT01023568|169108856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84685393|NCT00224770|169108857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.324|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=14.8, 95% upper limit=25.1; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||16.2||0.324
84685394|NCT00224770|169108857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.633|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=7.1, 95% upper limit=29.7; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||11.2||0.633
84714773|NCT05698875|169175839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||18|-29|0.63
84714774|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||53|10|0.16
84685395|NCT00224770|169108858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.174|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=6.9; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of procedure-related mortality within 7 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of procedure-related mortality than the medical arm.||11.7||0.174
84685396|NCT00224770|169108859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.437|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=5.4; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.437
84685397|NCT00224770|169108859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.750
84685398|NCT00224770|169108860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.409|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||9.6||0.409
84685399|NCT00224770|169108860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||2.2||0.750
84685400|NCT00224770|169108861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.468
84685401|NCT00224770|169108861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.294
84685402|NCT00224770|169108862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.395
84685403|NCT00224770|169108862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.175
84685404|NCT00224770|169108863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
84685405|NCT00224770|169108863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
84685406|NCT00224770|169108864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||<0.0001
84685407|NCT00224770|169108864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||0.791
84685408|NCT00224770|169108865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.189|ONE_SIDED|95.0||26.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=34.6, 95% upper limit=46.9; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||26.6||0.189
84685409|NCT00224770|169108865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.156|ONE_SIDED|95.0||43.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=42.9, 95% upper limit=67.5; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||43.7||0.156
84685410|NCT01106430|169108866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||95.0|||||Peto-Peto-Prentice Wilcoxon Test|||||||=0.001
84685411|NCT01106430|169108867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.7|7.5|0.001
84685412|NCT01106430|169108868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-9.3|<0.001
84685413|NCT01106430|169108869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.17|0.046
84685414|NCT00297115|169108875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|75.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||75|41|<0.0001
84685415|NCT00297115|169108876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.935||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.935|0.710|0.0035
84685416|NCT00297115|169108877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|79.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||79|44|<0.0001
84685417|NCT00297115|169108878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|2.137||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 772 in the roflumilast group, n= 796 in the placebo group).|||2.137|0.689|0.5028
84685418|NCT00297115|169108879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|1.0593||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9356|1.1994||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.1994|0.9356|0.3627
84685419|NCT00297115|169108880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.489||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.489|0.082|0.0059
84685420|NCT02472652|169108883|OTHER||change in prolactin|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84685421|NCT05131165|169108930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.056
84685422|NCT05131165|169108930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.062
84685423|NCT05131165|169108931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.364
84685424|NCT05131165|169108931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.409
84685425|NCT05131165|169108932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.158
84685426|NCT05131165|169108932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.017
84685427|NCT05131165|169108933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.654||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.654
84714775|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|46.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||46|5|0.11
84714776|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||45|8|0.15
84714777|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||71|16|<0.01
84714778|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||21|-36|0.60
84685428|NCT05131165|169108933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.035
84685429|NCT05131165|169108935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5468
84685430|NCT05131165|169108935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5255
84685431|NCT02298361|169108955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||1.93|1.60|
84685432|NCT02298361|169108955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.72|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||2.72|1.91|
84685433|NCT02298361|169108956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.94|0.53|
84685434|NCT02298361|169108956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.67|0.45|
84685435|NCT04570436|169108982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of diazepam, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 = 15"|||26.2|<0.0001
84685436|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.3581|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.7||0.3581
84685437|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.3051|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.3||0.3051
84685438|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2179|ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||13.5||0.2179
84685439|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.3|<0.0001
84685440|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.7|<0.0001
84685441|NCT04570436|169108982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|17.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||17.4|<0.0001
84685442|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|325.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.38||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|90.0|138.2||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||138.2|0.0023
84685443|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-82.7|363.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.7|-82.7|0.2157
84685444|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.25||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.3|379.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||379.1|-68.3|0.1720
84685445|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|435.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||435.5|-11.0|0.0622
84685446|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-185.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.04||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-409.0|37.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.94|-409|0.1031
84685447|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-170.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.97||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-394.0|52.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.71|-394|0.1334
84685448|NCT04570436|169108984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-114.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.59||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-338.0|110.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.8|-338|0.3189
84685449|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.362|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|46.89||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||46.89|<0.0001
84685450|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.348||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|27.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.74|6.61|0.0016
84685451|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.79|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.96|10.79|0.0001
84685452|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.92|33.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.07|11.92|<0.0001
84685453|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|-28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.1|-49.1|<0.0001
84685454|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.9|-44.9|<0.0001
84685455|NCT04570436|169108985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.8|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-43.8|<0.0001
84685456|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|234.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.174|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|171.7||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||171.7|<0.0001
84685457|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|141.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||141.5|-8.86|0.0834
84685458|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.128||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.75|174.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||174.4|23.75|0.0103
84685459|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.05|172.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.4|22.05|0.0116
84685460|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-244.0|-93.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.4|-244|<0.0001
84685461|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.036||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-211.0|-60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.7|-211|0.0005
84685462|NCT04570436|169108987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.243||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.0|-62.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-62.2|-213|0.0004
84685463|NCT01274182|169109036|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.210|1.010|
84685464|NCT01274182|169109036|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.108|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.108|0.925|
84685465|NCT01274182|169109036|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.208|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.208|0.989|
84714779|NCT05698875|169175840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|51.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||51|6|0.02
84714780|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||2.4|0.8|<0.001
84714781|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs Control meal glucose excursion at 30 minutes||1.2|-0.5|0.38
84714782|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||0.5|-1.1|0.47
84685466|NCT01274182|169109037|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.184|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.184|0.979|
84685467|NCT01274182|169109037|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.244|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.244|1.027|
84685468|NCT01274182|169109037|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.167|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.167|0.946|
84685469|NCT01274182|169109038|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.004|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.004|0.974|
84685470|NCT01274182|169109038|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.04|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.040|1.003|
84685471|NCT01274182|169109038|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.05|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.050|1.016|
84685472|NCT01274182|169109039|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6.~LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.24|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 - LS mean of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.240|-0.397|
84685473|NCT01274182|169109039|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6. LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.462|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 Part I - LS mean of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.462|-0.328|
84714783|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs HGLP meal||2.0|0.5|0.01
84714784|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs MGL meals||2.6|1.1|<0.001
84714785|NCT05698875|169175841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs MGL meals||1.4|0.1|0.09
84714786|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.7|<0.001
84714787|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.87
84714788|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.7|-1.5|0.48
84685474|NCT01274182|169109040|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|23.08|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 - response rate of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||23.08|-3.54|
84685475|NCT01274182|169109040|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|13.6|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 Part I - response rate of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||13.60|-14.74|
84685476|NCT00117676|169109051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 200 subjects in the tenofovir DF group and 100 subjects in the adefovir dipivoxil group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was inferior to the adefovir dipivoxil treatment (difference in proportions was less than -0.100) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|33.8||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≥ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|||A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) was used to evaluate the difference (tenofovir DF - adefovir dipivoxil) in the proportion of complete responders between treatment groups.||33.8|13.2|<0.001
84685477|NCT00117676|169109052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|39.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||39.2|21.3|<0.001
84685478|NCT00117676|169109053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.0||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment arm differences.|Z-test|||||8.0|-5.2|0.672
84685479|NCT00117676|169109058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Confidence interval stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||14.9|-4.5|0.293
84685480|NCT00117676|169109064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.5||Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum. Analysis set included only randomized and treated participants with baseline ALT \> ULN (biochemically evaluable analysis set).|Z-test|P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.||||8.5|-10.2|0.859
84685481|NCT00117676|169109065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).||||15.3|-5.5|0.359
84685482|NCT03292146|169109103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84685483|NCT03292146|169109104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84685484|NCT03292146|169109105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.06
84685485|NCT03292146|169109105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.01
84685486|NCT02954354|169109106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-17.8||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||The primary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms was a comparison of baloxavir with placebo in all participants in the intention-to-treat infection population. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||-17.8|-35.8|<0.0001
84685487|NCT02954354|169109106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||<0.0001
84685488|NCT02954354|169109107|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||A secondary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms, consisting of a comparison between the 20 to 64 years of age stratum of the baloxavir group and the oseltamivir group, was conducted if statistical significance was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain the overall Type I error.||6.6|-6.6|0.7560
84685489|NCT02954354|169109107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3761||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.3761
84685490|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84685491|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685492|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
84685493|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
84685494|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4767||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.4767
84508253|NCT02978326|168767763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.16||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 15||5.16|1.34|0.0049
84685495|NCT02954354|169109108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3353
84685496|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84685497|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685498|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0852
84685499|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0063
84508254|NCT02978326|168767763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.64||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 21||3.64|0.94|0.0763
84685500|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6187||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.6187
84685501|NCT02954354|169109109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8637||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|||Day 9||||0.8637
84685502|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6145||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.6145
84685503|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2505||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.2505
84685504|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4190
84685505|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0095
84685506|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7393||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.7393
84685507|NCT02954354|169109110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0049
84508255|NCT02978326|168767763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.6||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 45||4.60|1.13|0.0216
84685508|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2266||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.2266
84685509|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1379||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.1379
84685510|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.5479
84685511|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0241
84685512|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0898
84685513|NCT02954354|169109111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2548||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.2548
84685514|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84685515|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685516|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0008
84685517|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0132
84508256|NCT02978326|168767764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|12.23||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 3||12.23|1.24|0.0200
84685518|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9307||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9307
84685519|NCT02954354|169109112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1677||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.1677
84508257|NCT02978326|168767764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.13||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 8||4.13|0.89|0.0990
84659241|NCT05048784|169053177|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and confidence intervals (Cls) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the natural-log (In) scale.|||1.040|0.980|
84659242|NCT05048784|169053178|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.055|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.055|0.967|
84659243|NCT05048784|169053179|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.065|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.065|0.977|
84659244|NCT05048784|169053181|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.199|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.199|0.836|
84659245|NCT05048784|169053182|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.447|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.745|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.745|1.200|
84659246|NCT05048784|169053183|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.236|1.783|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.783|1.236|
84659247|NCT01603056|169053184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
84659248|NCT01603056|169053185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.627
84685520|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84659249|NCT01603056|169053186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84659250|NCT01603056|169053187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.641
84659251|NCT01603056|169053188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.818
84659252|NCT01603056|169053189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
84659253|NCT01603056|169053190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.497
84659254|NCT01603056|169053191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
84659255|NCT01603056|169053192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
84659256|NCT01603056|169053193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465
84659257|NCT01603056|169053194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
84659258|NCT01603056|169053195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.719
84659259|NCT02270957|169053196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84659260|NCT02270957|169053197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.587
84659261|NCT02270957|169053198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||None of the endpoints were met in any pre-specified unbiased Full Analysis Set analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
84659262|NCT01246401|169053201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.431
84659263|NCT01246401|169053202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.087
84659264|NCT01246401|169053204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Wilcoxon one sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84659265|NCT01246401|169053209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03962|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03962
84685521|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685522|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.8010
84685523|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.9451
84685524|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2256||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.2256
84685525|NCT02954354|169109113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3332||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3332
84685526|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84685527|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685528|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
84685529|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
84508258|NCT02978326|168767764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.17||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 15||5.17|1.24|0.0110
84685530|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0010
84685531|NCT02954354|169109114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0002
84685532|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
84685533|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
84685534|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4148||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4148
84685535|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0338
84685536|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9619
84685537|NCT02954354|169109115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8491||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.8491
84685538|NCT02954354|169109116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
84685539|NCT02954354|169109117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0313
84685540|NCT02954354|169109118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
84714789|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.1|1.0|<0.001
84685541|NCT02954354|169109119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.2424
84685542|NCT02954354|169109120|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-48.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-48.0|-72.0|<0.0001
84685543|NCT02954354|169109121|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-24.0|-72.0|<0.0001
84685544|NCT02954354|169109122|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|0.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||0.0|-120.0|0.0020
84685545|NCT02954354|169109123|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||24.0|-48.0|0.0102
84685546|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.5973
84685547|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.0010
84508259|NCT02978326|168767764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.19||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 21||3.19|0.79|0.1982
84685548|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
84685549|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
84685550|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
84685551|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.0115
84685552|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.1298
84685553|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.1170
84685554|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.0757
84685555|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9453||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.9453
84685556|NCT02954354|169109124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8657||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.8657
84685557|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.0458
84685558|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7565||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.7565
84685559|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.3297
84714790|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.4|1.3|<0.001
84685560|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||0.4442
84685561|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.6029
84685562|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9881||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.9881
84685563|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9257||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.9257
84685564|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5317||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.5317
84685565|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2144
84685566|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.0413
84685567|NCT02954354|169109125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.0409
84685568|NCT02954354|169109126|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
84685569|NCT02954354|169109127|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.4194||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4194
84685570|NCT02954354|169109128|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
84685571|NCT02954354|169109129|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.4856||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4856
84685572|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.7|-0.5|0.7173
84685573|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||-0.4|-1.7|0.0009
84685574|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||-1.1|-2.4|<0.0001
84685575|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
84685576|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
84659266|NCT03462082|169053211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.326~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.163
84659267|NCT03462082|169053211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.749~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.749
84659268|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.155~\*MDS-UPDRS (total) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.031
84659269|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS total for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.778
84659270|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.157~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.039
84659271|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.451
84659272|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.333~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.111
84659273|NCT03462082|169053212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.030~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.005
84659274|NCT03462082|169053213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.984
84659275|NCT03462082|169053213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.067
84659276|NCT03462082|169053214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.440
84659277|NCT03462082|169053214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.051
84714791|NCT05698875|169175842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||0.7|-1.4|0.53
84714792|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.7|-0.03|0.06
84714793|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.3|-2.5|0.13
84714794|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.82
84714795|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.7|1.1|<0.01
84685577|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||-0.5|-1.5|0.0001
84685578|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.2|-0.8|0.1979
84685579|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.1|-0.8|0.1079
84685580|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.3|-0.6|0.5805
84685581|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.5|-0.4|0.8057
84685582|NCT02954354|169109130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.6|0.9525
84685583|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.4091
84685584|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.3073
84685585|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||0.3|-0.8|0.3465
84685586|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||0.7|-0.3|0.4285
84685587|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||0.6|-0.4|0.6703
84685588|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7187
84685589|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.7|-0.1|0.1350
84685590|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7046
84685591|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.6|-0.2|0.2765
84685592|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.8|0.0|0.0274
84508260|NCT02978326|168767764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 45||5.03|1.26|0.0091
84508261|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.7|-6.9|0.3832
84685593|NCT02954354|169109131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.3|0.6001
84685594|NCT02954354|169109132|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-11.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-11.9|-21.1|<0.0001
84685595|NCT02954354|169109133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.9225
84685596|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.7866
84685597|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||<0.0001
84685598|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
84685599|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
84685600|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
84685601|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.7044
84685602|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8512||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.8512
84685603|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.8783
84685604|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8291||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.8291
84685605|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
84685606|NCT02954354|169109134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9312||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.9312
84685607|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.2953
84685608|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.5414
84685609|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.2079
84685610|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||48 hours||||0.7771
84685611|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.0215
84685612|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||96 hours||||0.8033
84659278|NCT03462082|169053215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.945
84659279|NCT03462082|169053215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.024
84659280|NCT03462082|169053216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.097
84659281|NCT03462082|169053216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.750
84659282|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.128
84659283|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.117
84659284|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.145
84659285|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.056
84659286|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.151
84508262|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.2|-10.5|0.0415
84659287|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.129
84685613|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4157||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.4157
84714796|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.9|0.2|0.08
84714797|NCT05698875|169175843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.5|0.21
84714798|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.2|-0.7|0.31
84714799|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.1|-3.0|0.05
84714800|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.5|-1.5|0.97
84714801|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.6|1.0|<0.01
84714802|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.2|0.6|0.27
84714803|NCT05698875|169175844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with p value|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.0|0.1|0.12
84714804|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.83
84714805|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.2|-2.9|0.09
84714806|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.6|0.78
84714807|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.7|0.1|0.11
84714808|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGL meals||1.1|-1.5|0.82
84714809|NCT05698875|169175845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.6|-0.1|0.06
84714810|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.3|-1.1|0.85
84714811|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.04|-2.4|0.06
84714812|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.3|0.90
84714813|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.3|0.05
84714814|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||1.5|-0.8|0.55
84714815|NCT05698875|169175846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.1|0.08
84714816|NCT05239455|169175868|OTHER|The FDA requires one-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the population proportion of success is greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75%. Allows for low recoveries (\<75%) in 2/20 or 3/24 volunteers.|95% Confidence Interval|88.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|72.81||||||A one-sided confidence interval for the proportion of successes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson exact method for a 95% confidence interval.|The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Proportion of successes greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75% was calculated.||72.81|
84685614|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5908||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||144 hours||||0.5908
84685615|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2975||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2975
84685616|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
84685617|NCT02954354|169109135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5573||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.m|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.5573
84685618|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.06|-0.24|0.2557
84714817|NCT05239455|169175869|OTHER|The FDA criteria requires LR-RBC mean 24-hour recovery ≥ 75% with standard deviation (SD) ≤ 9%||||||||||||||||The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Mean and standard deviation were calculated.|||
84714818|NCT03785964|169175893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.55|||Log Rank|p-value was from a one-sided stratified log-rank test with placebo as reference.||Hazard ratio was estimated from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using the exact method for ties, stratified by tumor location. Placebo was the reference treatment.||0.55|0.15|< 0.001
84714819|NCT03785964|169175894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association stratified by tumor location. Placebo was reference treatment.||||< 0.001
84714820|NCT03785964|169175895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline Brief Pain Inventory Short Form score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 31 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
84714821|NCT03785964|169175896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline DEsmoid Tumor Symptom Scale score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 32 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
84714822|NCT03785964|169175897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 39 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
84714823|NCT03785964|169175898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 27 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||0.006
84714824|NCT03785964|169175899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
84685619|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.22|-0.46|<0.0001
84685620|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.29||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.29|-0.52|<0.0001
84685621|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.27||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.27|-0.48|<0.0001
84685622|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.13|-0.31|<0.0001
84685623|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Dfference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.06|-0.13|0.4484
84685624|NCT02954354|169109136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||0.11|-0.07|0.5963
84685625|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.24|-0.02|0.0937
84685626|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.05|0.3343
84685627|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.10|-0.09|0.9258
84685628|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.06|-0.10|0.6574
84508263|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||0.2|-10.5|0.0606
84508264|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.6|-12.1|0.0318
84685629|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.07|-0.09|0.8520
84685630|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.11|-0.05|0.4532
84685631|NCT02954354|169109137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.13|-0.02|0.1570
84685632|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.0001
84685633|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.0||||0.0298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.0298
84685634|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.8||||0.0297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.0297
84685635|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7||||0.0027||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal Congestion||||0.0027
84685636|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.9||||0.0003||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||Feverishness or chills||||0.0003
84685637|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.1||||0.0094||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.0094
84685638|NCT02954354|169109138|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.3||||0.0007||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.0007
84685639|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.8||||0.6623||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.6623
84685640|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.8||||0.8184||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.8184
84685641|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.9989||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.9989
84685642|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.3706||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal congestion||||0.3706
84685643|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.9973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Feverishness or chills||||0.9973
84685644|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.676||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.6760
84685645|NCT02954354|169109139|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.2||||0.4241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.4241
84685646|NCT02954354|169109140|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-39.5||||0.0563|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0563
84685647|NCT02954354|169109141|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6||||0.7176||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.7176
84685648|NCT02954354|169109142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6728||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.6728
84685649|NCT02954354|169109143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2217
84685650|NCT01422408|169109194|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.|||||<|0.001||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||<0.001
84685651|NCT01422408|169109194|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equation) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||0.36|0|0.001
84685652|NCT01422408|169109195|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.002||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||0.002
84685653|NCT01422408|169109195|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.09||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equations) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||1.09|0|0.062
84685654|NCT01422408|169109196|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.001
84685655|NCT01422408|169109197|OTHER|2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.002
84685656|NCT01422408|169109199|OTHER|||||||0.1029||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1029
84685657|NCT01422408|169109200|OTHER|||||||0.2678||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2678
84685658|NCT01422408|169109201|OTHER|||||||0.2472||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2472
84685659|NCT01422408|169109202|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
84685660|NCT01422408|169109203|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
84685661|NCT01422408|169109204|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
84685662|NCT01422408|169109205|OTHER|||||||0.6587||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6587
84685663|NCT01422408|169109206|OTHER|||||||0.8772||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8772
84685664|NCT01422408|169109207|OTHER|||||||0.7395||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7395
84685665|NCT01422408|169109208|OTHER|||||||0.9618||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9618
84685666|NCT01422408|169109209|OTHER|||||||0.5113||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.5113
84685667|NCT01422408|169109210|OTHER|||||||0.8833||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8833
84685668|NCT01422408|169109211|OTHER|||||||0.7983||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7983
84685669|NCT01422408|169109212|OTHER|||||||0.4937||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.4937
84685670|NCT01422408|169109213|OTHER|||||||0.9106||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9106
84685671|NCT01422408|169109214|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
84685672|NCT01422408|169109215|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
84685673|NCT01422408|169109216|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
84685674|NCT01422408|169109217|OTHER|||||||0.08531||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.08531
84685675|NCT01422408|169109218|OTHER|||||||0.2011||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2011
84685676|NCT01422408|169109219|OTHER|||||||0.1187||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1187
84685677|NCT02963974|169109227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed CNC Word scores from 3 months through 24 months to evaluate change over time with device use. Scores were converted to Rau prior to analysis.||||< 0.001
84685678|NCT02963974|169109227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyzed pre-op to 3 month post activation CNC Word scores to test superiority of cochlear implant use to pre-operative hearing aid use.||||< 0.001
84685679|NCT02963974|169109229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. This was a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores at 12 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
84685680|NCT02963974|169109230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores across all time points (6, 12, and 24 months post activation) to evaluate the impact of time, device use (CI off vs on), and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
84685681|NCT02963974|169109234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01911||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed overall RMS error at 3, 9, 18, and 24 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and time on localization.||||0.01911
84685682|NCT02963974|169109235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Speech subtest.||||< 0.001
84685683|NCT02963974|169109235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Spatial subtest.||||0.001
84685684|NCT02963974|169109235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Qualities subtest.||||< 0.001
84685685|NCT02963974|169109236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores over time.||||< 0.001
84685686|NCT02963974|169109237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: General Fatigue Subtest||||0.1009
84685687|NCT02963974|169109237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Sleep Fatigue Subtest||||0.109
84685688|NCT02963974|169109237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1733||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Cognitive Fatigue Subtest||||0.1733
84508265|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.4|-13.0|0.0047
84508266|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||-2.1|-12.0|0.0053
84508267|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.1|-12.1|0.0181
84685689|NCT00810264|169109244|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, non-inferiority test comparing a binomial proportion (overall SAEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with a non-inferiority delta of 5%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
84508268|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-4.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-4.2|-15.3|0.0007
84508269|NCT02978326|168767765|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.5|-11.5|0.0332
84508270|NCT02978326|168767765|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.5|-13.5|0.0048
84685690|NCT00567190|169109278|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
84685691|NCT00567190|169109278|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (unstratified)|Unstratified|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.76|0.52|<0.0001
84685692|NCT00567190|169109279|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|End-of-Study OS Analysis: This end-of-study OS analysis is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
84685693|NCT00567190|169109279|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Event-Driven Final OS Analysis: This final OS analysis was event-driven and planned to take place after a total of 385 deaths had occurred. It is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.84|0.56|0.0002
84685694|NCT00567190|169109279|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Second Interim OS Analysis: For this second interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.||0.84|0.52|0.0008
84685695|NCT00567190|169109279|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing pertuzumab with placebo arms.|First Interim OS Analysis: For this first interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.||0.88|0.47|0.0050
84685696|NCT00567190|169109280|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|PFS by Investigator - Stratified||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
84685697|NCT00567190|169109281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|10.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Difference in the objective response rates between arms is calculated as Pertuzumab arm minus Placebo arm. The 95% CI was calculated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference in Objective Response (CR + PR) Between Arms||17.5|4.2|0.0011
84685698|NCT00567190|169109281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||||||Odds Ratio for Objective Response (CR + PR)||2.54|1.26|
84685699|NCT00567190|169109282|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||||||||0.85|0.51|
84685700|NCT00567190|169109283|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Log Rank (stratified)||Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|||1.16|0.81|0.7161
84508271|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.0|-10.3|0.1840
84685701|NCT00567190|169109292|OTHER|||||||0.7174|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Wilcoxon Test of Maximum Decrease in LVEF From BL||||0.7174
84685702|NCT00313820|169109302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.578||95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain score as covariate.||Modelled Results: Endpoint Mean Pain Score Pregabalin vs Placebo||0.4|-0.7|0.578
84685703|NCT00313820|169109302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results: Treatment by country interaction||||0.294
84685704|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.161||95.0|-0.8|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.8|0.161
84685705|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.062||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results||0.0|-1.0|0.062
84685706|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.024||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.024
84685707|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.026||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.026
84685708|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.105||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.9|0.105
84685709|NCT00313820|169109303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.592||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.592
84508272|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.1|-13.2|0.0462
84508273|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.6|-14.9|0.0150
84508274|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-1.0|-15.0|0.0245
84508275|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-2.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.8|-16.0|0.0054
84508276|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||0.9|-10.1|0.0972
84685710|NCT00313820|169109304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Responders||||0.087
84685711|NCT00313820|169109305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Responders||||0.622
84508277|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.4|-13.1|0.0155
84685712|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.0|0.027
84685713|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.038||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Modelled Results||-0.0|-1.0|0.038
84685714|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004||95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
84685715|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005||95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.1|0.005
84685716|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.078||95.0|-0.9|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; Modelled Results||0.0|-0.9|0.078
84685717|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.663||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.663
84685718|NCT00313820|169109306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.627||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Endpoint \[Week 12 or ET\]; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.627
84685719|NCT00313820|169109307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.741||95.0|-7.0|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||5.0|-7.0|0.741
84685720|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.216||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Burning Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-1.0|0.216
84685721|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.76||95.0|-0.4|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.6|-0.4|0.760
84685722|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.36||95.0|-0.7|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) general linear model with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.3|-0.7|0.360
84685723|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239||95.0|-0.8|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-0.8|0.239
84685724|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.118||95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||P/D Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.1|-1.0|0.118
84685725|NCT00313820|169109308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.138||95.0|-6.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total Score Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.9|-6.5|0.138
84685726|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.086||95.0|-10.3|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance; Modelled Results||0.7|-10.3|0.086
84685727|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.039||95.0|0.4|15.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Snoring score; Modelled Results||15.1|0.4|0.039
84685728|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.169||95.0|-9.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Awaken SOB or headache; Modelled Results||1.6|-9.1|0.169
84685729|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03||95.0|0.0|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity; Modelled Results||0.7|0.0|0.030
84685730|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.013||95.0|1.8|15.4||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy; Modelled Results||15.4|1.8|0.013
84508278|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.5|-13.4|0.0149
84508279|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.9|-13.3|0.0250
84508280|NCT02978326|168767765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-3.6|-15.3|0.0017
84508281|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.5|0.1569
84685731|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.399||95.0|-2.8|7.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Somnolence; Modelled Results||7.1|-2.8|0.399
84685732|NCT00313820|169109309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.049||95.0|-8.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall sleep problems index; Modelled Results||-0.0|-8.4|0.049
84685733|NCT00313820|169109310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.201||95.0|0.8|2.9||Estimated from a logistic regression model with treatment and the baseline assessment as factors.|Regression, Logistic||Standard error of the mean = standard error of the odds ratio.|Modelled Results||2.9|0.8|0.201
84685734|NCT00313820|169109311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.015||95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Anxiety score; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.8|0.015
84685735|NCT00313820|169109311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6||95.0|-0.6|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Depression score; Modelled Results||1.0|-0.6|0.600
84508282|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0376
84685736|NCT00313820|169109312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.566||95.0|-0.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.1|0.566
84685737|NCT00313820|169109313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.22||95.0|-1.8|7.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and coutntry as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||7.9|-1.8|0.220
84685738|NCT00313820|169109314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.144||95.0|-0.5|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treament and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.5|0.144
84685739|NCT00313820|169109315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.049||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
84685740|NCT00251862|169109323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|8.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|14.2|||Chi-squared|||Sample size and power considerations focused on a two-group comparison of the DA alone versus control study arms for the primary outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test completion at 12 months. Based on crude estimates of baseline test completion rates, we calculated that a target sample of 275 subjects per arm provided greater than 80% power of detecting a 54% vs. 40% difference at the P\<0.05 level.||14.2|-2.2|0.046
84685741|NCT00251862|169109323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|6.0||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|0.2|0.153
84685742|NCT00251862|169109324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons: DA+YDR vs. Control, P\<0.001; DA alone vs. Control, P\<0.001|ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared on cumulative pre-test and post-test knowledge through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
84685743|NCT00251862|169109325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
84685744|NCT00251862|169109326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
84508283|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.6|0.1035
84508284|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.2|-0.9|0.0037
84508285|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.8|0.0061
84508286|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.4|0.7878
84685745|NCT02453685|169109327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference at week 32|0.18||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||"'Treatment difference' refers to BIAsp 30 minus Basal-bolus"|Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measurements including treatment, region, and strata as fixed effects, HbA1c at baseline as covariate, interactions between all fixed effects and visit and using an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.36|0.01|0.0435
84508287|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0498
84508288|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1719
84685746|NCT00416182|169109337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84685747|NCT00416182|169109338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
84685748|NCT00416182|169109339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84685749|NCT00416182|169109340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P \<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
84685750|NCT00838682|169109359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84685751|NCT00838682|169109360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84685752|NCT00838682|169109361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84685753|NCT00838682|169109362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84685754|NCT00838682|169109363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84685755|NCT00838682|169109364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84685756|NCT00990964|169109365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.951||||||||.951|.929|
84685757|NCT00990964|169109366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|0.98||||||||.980|.965|
84685758|NCT03315143|169109394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.88|0.63|<0.001
84685759|NCT03315143|169109395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.82|0.55|<0.001
84685760|NCT03315143|169109396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.12|0.73|=0.35
84685761|NCT03315143|169109397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.63|
84685762|NCT03315143|169109398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.89|0.65|
84685763|NCT03315143|169109399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.08|0.46|
84685764|NCT03315143|169109400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.18|0.83|
84685765|NCT03315143|169109401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.91|0.65|
84685766|NCT02563002|169109427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.79|0.45|0.0001
84685767|NCT02563002|169109428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.03|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.03|0.53|0.0359
84685768|NCT02563002|169109429|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|22.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||22.6|1.0|0.0159
84685769|NCT02799784|169109497|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg versus TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter then UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg was to be considered non-inferior to TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.080|0.026|<0.001
84685770|NCT03387579|169109498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
84685771|NCT03387579|169109498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
84685772|NCT03387579|169109498|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84685773|NCT03387579|169109499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.471
84685774|NCT03387579|169109500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.525
84685775|NCT03387579|169109501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.753
84685776|NCT03387579|169109502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
84685777|NCT03387579|169109503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.127
84685778|NCT03387579|169109504|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84685779|NCT03387579|169109505|SUPERIORITY||estimate|8.553||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.249|||||0.046
84685780|NCT03387579|169109505|SUPERIORITY||estimate|7.023||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.376|||||0.040
84685781|NCT03387579|169109505|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-1.53||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% Historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.231|||||0.718
84685782|NCT03387579|169109506|SUPERIORITY||estimate|13.436||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.440|||||0.003
84685783|NCT03387579|169109506|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.936||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.553|||||0.270
84685784|NCT03387579|169109506|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-9.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.416|||||0.034
84685785|NCT03387579|169109507|SUPERIORITY||estimate|42.674||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 15.216|||||0.006
84685786|NCT03387579|169109507|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.117||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.771|||||0.305
84685787|NCT03387579|169109507|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-31.557|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 67.673|||||<0.001
84685788|NCT03387579|169109508|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.593||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.848|||||0.835
84685789|NCT03387579|169109508|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.522||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.050|||||0.799
84685790|NCT03387579|169109508|SUPERIORITY||estimate|0.714||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.758|||||0.714
84685791|NCT03387579|169109509|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.162||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|standard error 12.626|||||0.379
84685792|NCT03387579|169109509|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.853||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.615|||||0.717
84685793|NCT03387579|169109509|SUPERIORITY|Intralipid 20% historic versus intralipid 20% reduction|estimate|-7.31||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 13.025|||||0.576
84685794|NCT03387579|169109510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
84685795|NCT03387579|169109510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
84685796|NCT03387579|169109511|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84685797|NCT03387579|169109511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.640
84685798|NCT03387579|169109511|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84685799|NCT03387579|169109512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.211
84685800|NCT03387579|169109513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
84685801|NCT03387579|169109514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
84685802|NCT03387579|169109515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.774
84685803|NCT03387579|169109516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
84685804|NCT03387579|169109517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
84685805|NCT00952822|169109535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.052||||||90.0|-0.117|0.012||||||||0.012|-0.117|
84685806|NCT00952822|169109536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.016||||||90.0|-0.076|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.076|
84685807|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.90|0.83|0.2840
84685808|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||2.01|0.86|0.2008
84659288|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.698
84659289|NCT03462082|169053217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.779
84685809|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.74|0.78|0.4552
84659290|NCT03462082|169053218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.874
84659291|NCT03462082|169053218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.976
84659292|NCT03462082|169053218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.859
84659293|NCT03462082|169053218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.860
84659294|NCT03462082|169053219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.480~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.040
84659295|NCT03462082|169053219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.883
84659296|NCT03462082|169053219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.781~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.071
84659297|NCT03462082|169053219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.327
84685810|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.71|0.75|0.5579
84685811|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.61|0.72|0.7214
84685812|NCT01755702|169109547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.45|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.45|0.62|0.8192
84685813|NCT03882879|169109580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84685814|NCT03882879|169109581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84685815|NCT03882879|169109582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Between-group two-sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84685816|NCT03882879|169109583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84685817|NCT03882879|169109584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84685818|NCT01250990|169109585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||p value is for comparison between changes in reverse cholesterol transport in niacin versus placebo groups after 12 weeks of treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot study to assess the effects of niacin on reverse cholesterol transport. The null hypothesis is that niacin has no effect on reverse cholesterol transport.||||0.8
84685819|NCT03039023|169109586|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.2||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.20
84685820|NCT03039023|169109586|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685821|NCT03039023|169109586|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685822|NCT03039023|169109586|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685823|NCT03039023|169109586|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.27||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.27
84685824|NCT03039023|169109587|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.10
84685825|NCT03039023|169109587|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.0002||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0002
84685826|NCT03039023|169109587|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
84685827|NCT03039023|169109587|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.006||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.006
84685828|NCT03039023|169109587|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.79||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.79
84685829|NCT03039023|169109588|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.28||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.28
84685830|NCT03039023|169109588|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685831|NCT03039023|169109588|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685832|NCT03039023|169109588|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685833|NCT03039023|169109588|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.11||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
84685834|NCT03039023|169109589|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.005||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.005
84685835|NCT03039023|169109589|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
84508289|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.7|0.0161
84659298|NCT03462082|169053220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.487
84659299|NCT03462082|169053220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.861
84659300|NCT03462082|169053220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.411
84659301|NCT03462082|169053220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.997
84659302|NCT03462082|169053221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.388
84659303|NCT03462082|169053221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.684
84659304|NCT03462082|169053222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.850
84659305|NCT03462082|169053222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.712
84659306|NCT03462082|169053223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.501
84659307|NCT03462082|169053223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.216
84659308|NCT03462082|169053224|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Non-adjusted P-Values were \>0.05 and Holm-adjusted P-Values were 1.00 for all comparisons, except for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Delayed Recall. For this test, the non-adjusted P-Value was 0.04 and the Holm-adjusted P-Value was 0.44.|Friedman test|Using ranks for repeated measures (3 conditions)||||||>0.05
84659309|NCT00919724|169053225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1||||||Comparison between HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected groups. Comparison adjusted for age, gender, race, height, and brachial artery baseline diameter.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
84659310|NCT01391559|169053226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84659311|NCT00166114|169053227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square test was performed comparing actual vs. expected non- and partial response or response to either escitalopram or desipramine treatment.||||.918
84659312|NCT03266107|169053247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84659313|NCT03266107|169053248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84659314|NCT03266107|169053251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84659315|NCT02548650|169053264|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis that the mean aggregation between dual and triple therapy is not equal to 0 and a common standard deviation of 13%, a sample size of 28 patients per group with a valid primary end point time point allowed for the 95% confidence interval (CI) to stay within ± 10% with a 80% power and a two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||The primary end point of our study was the comparison of CAT-induced MPA measured by LTA between triple (vorapaxar plus DAPT) and dual (vorapaxar plus clopidogrel) therapy. We hypothesized that dual therapy would be non-inferior to triple therapy after 30±5 days of treatment||21|3|>0.05
84685836|NCT03039023|169109589|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
84685837|NCT03039023|169109589|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.009||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.009
84659316|NCT02128113|169053267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|26.95||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension (pooled) - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4529
84659317|NCT02128113|169053267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|64.31||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.1276
84659318|NCT02128113|169053267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-11.08||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.7996
84659319|NCT02128113|169053268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.55||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.36|-26.75|0.0647
84659320|NCT02128113|169053268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|-1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-1.96|-28.34|0.0517
84659321|NCT02128113|169053269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-0.11||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||8.68|-8.91|0.9258
84659322|NCT02128113|169053269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-3.03||||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||6.21|-12.27|0.6547
84659323|NCT02128113|169053270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.56||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.28|-26.84|0.0657
84659324|NCT02128113|169053270|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|||-1.88|-28.42|0.0526
84659325|NCT02128113|169053271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|10.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||10.87|-10.87|0.8771
84659326|NCT02128113|169053271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|1.35||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|12.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||12.02|-9.32|0.8248
84659327|NCT02128113|169053272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|27.21||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4686
84659328|NCT02128113|169053272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|49.99||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.2636
84659329|NCT02128113|169053272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.9691
84659330|NCT00299104|169053273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0016
84659331|NCT00299104|169053273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status||||0.1824
84659332|NCT00299104|169053273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0004
84659333|NCT00299104|169053274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0004
84659334|NCT00299104|169053274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1194||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.1194
84659335|NCT00299104|169053274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0001
84659336|NCT00299104|169053275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.3803||95.0|-0.05|0.13||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.13|-0.05|0.3803
84659337|NCT00299104|169053275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0309||95.0|0.01|0.18||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.18|0.01|0.0309
84659338|NCT00299104|169053276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3752||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||0.3752
84659339|NCT00299104|169053276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate verus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and Baseline RF status.||||0.0081
84659340|NCT00299104|169053277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5939||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups.||||0.5939
84659341|NCT00299104|169053277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5478||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.5478
84659342|NCT00299104|169053277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3096||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.3096
84659343|NCT00299104|169053282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
84659344|NCT00299104|169053282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
84659345|NCT00299104|169053292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate stratified for region and RF status.||||<0.0001
84659346|NCT00299104|169053292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
84659347|NCT00299104|169053298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Week 104: Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status.||||<0.0001
84659348|NCT00299104|169053302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
84659349|NCT00299104|169053302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
84659350|NCT01370356|169053435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|12.53||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Assuming true CA rate of 6.9% for placebo and 17.2% for varenicline (odds ratio ≥ 2.8), a study randomizing 1404 participants (1:1 ratio) has ≥90% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Analysis was done using a logistic regression model; treatment effect as explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including treatment-by-center interaction.||12.53|6.09|<0.0001
84659351|NCT01370356|169053436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|7.61||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||7.61|4.21|<0.0001
84659352|NCT01370356|169053437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.5||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||5.50|2.94|<0.0001
84659353|NCT01370356|169053438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|12.51||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 12. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||12.51|6.03|<0.0001
84685838|NCT03039023|169109589|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
84685839|NCT03039023|169109590|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.93||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.93
84685840|NCT03039023|169109590|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
84685841|NCT03039023|169109590|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.003||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.003
84685842|NCT03039023|169109590|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
84685843|NCT03039023|169109590|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.99||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.99
84685844|NCT03039023|169109591|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
84685845|NCT03039023|169109591|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84685846|NCT03039023|169109591|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
84508290|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0191
84685847|NCT03039023|169109591|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.001
84685848|NCT03039023|169109591|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
84685849|NCT03701399|169109596|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country, baseline score as a covariate|All SCA participants||0.34|-0.47|0.7581
84685850|NCT03701399|169109596|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country.|SCA3 genotype participants||-0.01|-1.11|0.0450
84685851|NCT03440372|169109607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.70|1.19|0.0049
84685852|NCT03440372|169109608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.43|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.43|1.09|0.0179
84685853|NCT03440372|169109609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||1.93|0.83|0.2720
84685854|NCT03440372|169109610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.15|1.07|0.0193
84685855|NCT03440372|169109611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
84685856|NCT03440372|169109612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
84685857|NCT03440372|169109613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.77|0.73|0.2978
84685858|NCT03440372|169109614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.72|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.72|0.82|0.1895
84685859|NCT03440372|169109615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.97|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.97|1.00|0.0452
84685860|NCT03440372|169109616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.14|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.14|1.08|0.0173
84685861|NCT03440372|169109617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.20|0.97|0.0670
84685862|NCT03440372|169109618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.16|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.16|0.95|0.0835
84685863|NCT00448448|169109619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|The success rate was adjusted for the propensity score (probability of receiving a brace) and the duration of follow-up.||||3.46|1.08|<0.0267
84685864|NCT03945292|169109625|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.18|-56.45||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|NAFLD=non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NSH=non-alcoholic steatohepatitis||||-56.45|-77.18|< 0.0001
84685865|NCT03945292|169109625|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.72|-79.34||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-79.34|-100.72|< 0.0001
84685866|NCT03945292|169109625|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.21|-86.94||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-86.94|-108.21|< 0.0001
84685867|NCT03945292|169109629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-129.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.409||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.52|-53.11||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-205.52|0.0021
84685868|NCT03945292|169109629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-124.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.207||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.9|-46.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-46.15|-201.9|0.0035
84685869|NCT03945292|169109629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-140.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.906||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.27|-75.89||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-75.89|-205.27|0.0002
84685870|NCT03945292|169109631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.291||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.53|-55.6||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-55.6|-140.53|0.0001
84685871|NCT03945292|169109631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.81|-64.32||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-64.32|-154.81|< 0.0001
84685872|NCT03945292|169109631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-118.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.95|-82.12||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-82.12|-153.95|< 0.0001
84685873|NCT03945292|169109633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-180.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.087||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.77|-25.64||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-25.64|-335.77|0.0247
84685874|NCT03945292|169109633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-163.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.513||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.65|-9.93||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-9.93|-317.65|0.0382
84685875|NCT03945292|169109633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-193.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.089||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-325.25|-61.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-61.15|-325.25|0.0064
84508291|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.2|0.2537
84685876|NCT02684006|169109653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.79||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.790|0.475|0.0001
84685877|NCT02684006|169109654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.057||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.057|0.701|0.1509
84685878|NCT02684006|169109655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.84||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.840|0.563|0.0002
84685879|NCT02684006|169109656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.039||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.039|0.749|0.1338
84685880|NCT02684006|169109665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.768||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.768|0.565|<.0001
84685881|NCT02684006|169109666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.754||||||||0.754|0.551|
84685882|NCT00514735|169109724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||In order to maintain the overall level of significance at the α=0.025 level after a planned interim analysis using α=0.003, this test will actually be performed using an adjusted α=0.0245 at the completion of the study.|Chi-squared|||"H0: Pa ≤ Pm Ha: Pa \> Pm~where Pa is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||<0.0001
84685883|NCT00514735|169109725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||An exact, one-sample binomial test was conducted at a one-sided α=0.025 level of significance.|Fisher Exact|||"H0: Pa ≥ 0.16 Ha: Pa \< 0.16~where Pa is the proportion of acute safety failures in the ablation management arm."||||0.1427
84685884|NCT00514735|169109726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This objective was not statistically powered. The non-inferiority chronic safety margin was 0.06.||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0: Pa ≥ Pm + 0.06 Ha: Pa \< Pm + 0.06~where Pa is the proportion of failed subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of failed subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||0.0033
84685885|NCT00514735|169109728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.35
84685886|NCT00514735|169109729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.06
84685887|NCT00514735|169109730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84685888|NCT00514735|169109731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
84685889|NCT05417620|169109732|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.31||Threshold for significance: 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||"This statistical analysis is done at the district level where counts of initiations in intervention districts are compared to standard of care districts. In the measure type we report rate = average counts of PrEP initiations per number of study months."||3.31|0.44|0.707
84685890|NCT04672941|169109769|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the CAT score at each visit. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-4.89|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) total CAT Score estimates.|||-4.89|-5.67|
84685891|NCT04672941|169109770|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with CAT response \>= 10 as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.745|8.987|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit.|||8.987|5.745|< 0.001
84685892|NCT04672941|169109771|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was EQ-VAS score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|12.6|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, mean change from Baseline (3 months - baseline) of EQ-VAS based on non-responder imputation.|||12.60|11.00|
84685893|NCT04672941|169109772|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with mobility as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.14|3.90|< 0.001
84685894|NCT04672941|169109773|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with self-care as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|2.96|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||2.96|2.35|< 0.001
84685895|NCT04672941|169109774|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with usual activities as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.12|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.12|3.89|< 0.001
84685896|NCT04672941|169109775|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with pain/discomfort as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.85|3.00|< 0.001
84685897|NCT04672941|169109776|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with anxiety/depression as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|3.73|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.73|2.95|< 0.001
84508292|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.2|0.0018
84685898|NCT04672941|169109782|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the mMRC score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) of mMRC based on non-responder imputation.|||-0.51|-0.60|
84685899|NCT02038894|169109786|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study for evaluating respiratory complications with intubated and insufflated techniques found a difference in the incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%, a power analysis was determined. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference. We elected to do an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||Threshold for significance \<0.05 Comparing SPO2 \<95%|Mean equality test|||||0.14|0|<0.0001
84685900|NCT02038894|169109786|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study found an incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference when conducting a two- sided test at a significance level of a = 0.05.We did an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications. Based on the results of that interim analysis, recruitment was discontinued|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.27||p\<0.05. Sp02\<85%|Mean equality test||Odds ratios were calculated to the respiratory complications comparing the different groups and by regrouping by the differences in airway management (IS + IP vs NA) and by the medication used for anesthesia maintenance (IS vs IP + NA)|||0.27|0|0.0001
84685901|NCT02038894|169109787|NON_INFERIORITY|No previous data was available to calculate a power calculation for the secondary outcome.||||||0.901||||||Threshold of Significance|Mean equality test|||Total OR Time||||0.901
84508293|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.2|0.2878
84508294|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.2594
84508295|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.0086
84508296|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.6|0.0424
84685902|NCT04274894|169109795|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis for the primary safety analysis is:~H0: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT ≥ 3 mmHg Vs. H1: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT \< 3 mmHg"|LS Mean Change from Baseline to EOT|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.13||||||The primary endpoint of change from Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) in average 24-hour SBP was evaluated using a linear regression model with change in average 24-hour SBP from Baseline to EOT as the dependent variable, centralized baseline average 24-hour SBP, ongoing medical history of hypertension, and pooled study center as covariates in the per protocol population.||3.13|0.63|
84659354|NCT01370356|169053438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|5.98||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 24. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||5.98|3.51|<0.0001
84659355|NCT01370356|169053438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.44||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 52. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||3.44|2.05|<0.0001
84659356|NCT01370356|169053439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.47||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||3.47|2.05|<0.0001
84659357|NCT00545662|169053513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression estimated global OR. GEE accounted for correlations of the scales. Models adjusted for site \& injury severity.|The odds in the citicoline group were compared to the odds in the placebo group.|"Null hypothesis: The placebo and citicoline groups do not differ at 90-days on the Core Battery~Power:~1. Two sided type I error of 0.05~2. 85% power~3. Expected OR=1.40 for the global statistic~4. Response rate in the control group~5. Correlations among the nine measures were accounted for. Response rates for the whole sample were a weighted average of the rates provided by TBI severity.~1240 participants were required to detect an OR \>= 1.4 for the global statistic."||1.14|0.83|0.76
84659358|NCT00583778|169053515|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using STATA 10 SE.Categorical variables were described using frequencies and relative frequencies. Distribution of continuous variables were evaluated for normality using the Shapiro-Walk test and graphically using histograms and box plots. Because most data were non-parametric, they were described using the median and 25th and 75th percentiles (interquartile range) and then compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.|This study was designed to detect an absolute difference of 12 % in change of FEV-1percent predicted, with a standard deviation of 25% based on data provided to us from previous studies conducted by Sepracor. Based on this assumption, we sought to enter 76 patients in each group to have an 80% power to detect a 12 % absolute difference in charge of FEV-1 percent predicted over time at an alpha of 0.05. This accounted for a potential 10% dropout rate after randomization.|||< 0.05
84659359|NCT03292588|169053519|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations in the first year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.96|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted relative rate of exacerbations in the first year.||||0.96|0.56|0.027
84659360|NCT03292588|169053520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 12.||Week 12||0.24|-0.81|0.290
84659361|NCT03292588|169053520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 24.||Week 24||0.55|-0.69|0.820
84659362|NCT03292588|169053520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 36.||Week 36||0.09|-1.11|0.096
84659363|NCT03292588|169053520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 48.||Week 48||0.52|-0.65|0.831
84659364|NCT03292588|169053520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 52.||Week 52||0.64|-0.60|0.947
84685903|NCT02279043|169109796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.88|0.16|0.89
84685904|NCT02279043|169109797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84685905|NCT02279043|169109798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84685906|NCT02279043|169109798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.11|0.08|0.02
84685907|NCT02279043|169109799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84685908|NCT02279043|169109800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84685909|NCT02279043|169109801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.75|0.34
84685910|NCT02279043|169109802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.49|0.99
84685911|NCT02279043|169109803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.95|0.08
84685912|NCT02279043|169109804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|1.05|0.03
84685913|NCT02279043|169109804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||0.97|0.04|0.03
84685914|NCT02279043|169109805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.42|<0.01
84508297|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0207
84685915|NCT02279043|169109805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.35|0.33|<0.01
84685916|NCT02279043|169109806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.93
84685917|NCT02279043|169109807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.68
84685918|NCT02279043|169109808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.08|0.33
84685919|NCT04450108|169109859|SUPERIORITY|The change of FeNO values will be estimated in ANCOVA with baseline values as the covariable and will be reported as percent change together with the 95%-confidence interval.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Since the effect size of the change (mean change / standard deviation) is on the order of 1 (resulting in N=10 and 13 for power = 80% and 90%, respectively) and therefore large, the sample size is not determined by the primary objective but by the necessity to achieve representative data of FeNO measurement data over all age groups, measurement ranges (\<, ≥ cut off) and sites. Thus, 120 subjects will be recruited.||||<0.001
84685920|NCT01031810|169109860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|19.86|||paired t-test 2 sided|||Compare the mean differences between baseline (week00) and week12 hamd17 summary scores||19.86|3.25|0.012
84685921|NCT01024608|169109866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
84685922|NCT01024608|169109867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
84685923|NCT01024608|169109868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.48||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.005
84685924|NCT01024608|169109869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
84685925|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685926|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685927|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685928|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||< 0.001
84685929|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685930|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.||||||0.126|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||0.126
84685931|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685932|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84508298|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0010
84508299|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.0871
84685933|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685934|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685935|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685936|NCT04295005|169109891|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
84685937|NCT00608582|169109894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.028||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Post-hoc paired t-tests were performed.||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 Mo. Post rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.028
84685938|NCT00608582|169109894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<.05 considered significant; Pairwise comparisons not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment.||||<0.05
84685939|NCT00608582|169109894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.237||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 Mo. after last Sham rTMS treatment.||||<0.237
84685940|NCT00608582|169109895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||0.414
84685941|NCT00608582|169109895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.822||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.822
84685942|NCT00608582|169109895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.835||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.835
84685943|NCT03938454|169109907|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|45.98||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|65.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% percent reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||65.36|23.50|0.0676
84685944|NCT03938454|169109913|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|50.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.94|67.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||67.36|27.94|0.0259
84685945|NCT01787097|169109932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84685946|NCT02597907|169109958|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84685947|NCT00944658|169109991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.139
84685948|NCT00944658|169109992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
84685949|NCT00944658|169109993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|Rank Ancova||||||0.108
84685950|NCT01255592|169109995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.59|0.17|0.004
84685951|NCT01255592|169109996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.84|0.49|0.008
84685952|NCT01255592|169109997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.298||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|12.33|||ANCOVA|||The 24-hour sputum weight on Visit 4 was compared between groups using ANCOVA (additive model) with treatment and inhaled corticosteroids/P. aeruginosa infection as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||12.33|1.22|0.047
84685953|NCT01255592|169109998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.26|-0.05|0.284
84685954|NCT01255592|169109999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.929
84685955|NCT01255592|169110000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.10|-0.11|0.966
84685956|NCT01255592|169110001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.17|-0.13|0.791
84508300|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.2|-0.4|0.5680
84508301|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.6|0.0143
84685957|NCT01255592|169110002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model used TDI as the response variable with treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and BDI as covariates.||0.6|-1.6|0.433
84685958|NCT01255592|169110003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.81|14.13|||ANCOVA|||Morning PEF: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||14.13|-12.81|0.935
84685959|NCT01255592|169110003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.02|15.64|||ANCOVA|||Evening PEF: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||15.64|-9.02|0.654
84685960|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Describe your breathing: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.36|-0.09|0.329
84508302|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.6|0.0063
84685961|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||How often do you cough?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.27|-0.16|0.664
84685962|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Night time symptom score: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.54|-0.04|0.152
84685963|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||What color is your sputum?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.05|-0.80|0.150
84685964|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The amount of sputum you produced: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.35|-0.06|0.248
84685965|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Type of sputum: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||-0.04|-0.45|0.053
84685966|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|||How do you feel?: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.179
84508303|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0042
84659365|NCT03292588|169053521|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze Physician Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as primary exposure but was also adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Physician Global Assessment Tool||1.64|0.62|0.974
84659366|NCT03292588|169053522|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze the Patient Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as the primary exposure but was adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient Global Assessment Tool||1.24|0.42|0.238
84685967|NCT01255592|169110004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Number of puffs of inhalers: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.68|-0.75|0.942
84659367|NCT03292588|169053523|SUPERIORITY|A generalized mixed model as described in section 8.3.1 was used to analyze each spirometry and impulse oscillometry parameter, separately, at each visit where the lung function was collected.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 12||0.013|-0.023|0.591
84659368|NCT03292588|169053523|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.011||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 24||0.008|-0.031|0.265
84659369|NCT03292588|169053523|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 36||0.033|-0.012|0.345
84659370|NCT03292588|169053523|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.013||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 48||0.036|-0.009|0.248
84659371|NCT03292588|169053523|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 52||0.020|-0.023|0.864
84659372|NCT03292588|169053524|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 12||3.0|-3.8|0.816
84659373|NCT03292588|169053524|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 24||0.6|-7.4|0.095
84659374|NCT03292588|169053524|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 36||5.5|-2.4|0.444
84659375|NCT03292588|169053524|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 48||4.6|-3.3|0.751
84659376|NCT03292588|169053524|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 52||1.3|-6.5|0.184
84659377|NCT03292588|169053525|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Did not meet FDA-approved dosing||1.31|0.55|0.458
84659378|NCT03292588|169053526|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||Regression, Negative Binomial|||Fit FDA-approved dosing||0.95|0.47|0.025
84685968|NCT01255592|169110005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.374||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.32|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.00|-7.32|0.625
84659379|NCT03292588|169053527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3587
84685969|NCT01255592|169110005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Symptom domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.74|-10.49|0.151
84685970|NCT01255592|169110005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.524||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.91|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Activity domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.28|-8.91|0.773
84685971|NCT01255592|169110005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Impact domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.07|-6.84|0.920
84685972|NCT01255592|169110006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.69||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.14|0.42|0.220
84685973|NCT01255592|169110007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.54|3.05|<0.001
84685974|NCT01255592|169110008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.26|0.68|0.670
84685975|NCT01255592|169110009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.99||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.27|0.78|0.968
84685976|NCT01255592|169110010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.43||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.24|0.91|0.193
84508304|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.6|0.0137
84685977|NCT01255592|169110011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.79|2.19|<0.001
84685978|NCT01255592|169110012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.02||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.48|0.71|0.917
84685979|NCT01255592|169110013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.17||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.08|0.03|0.111
84685980|NCT01255592|169110014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.33||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.26|0.79|0.367
84685981|NCT01255592|169110015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.54||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.40|0.98|0.112
84685982|NCT01255592|169110016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.05||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.12|0.98|0.241
84685983|NCT01255592|169110017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||7.23|4.18|<0.001
84685984|NCT01255592|169110018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.16||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.47|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.47|0.92|0.281
84685985|NCT01255592|169110019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.91|1.28|0.001
84685986|NCT01255592|169110020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|6.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|8.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||8.35|4.42|<0.001
84685987|NCT03928028|169110055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.507
84685988|NCT03928028|169110055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.017
84685989|NCT03928028|169110055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.139
84685990|NCT03928028|169110056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compare mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+CRTp||||.389
84685991|NCT03928028|169110056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.447
84685992|NCT03928028|169110056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||<.001
84685993|NCT03928028|169110057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.778
84685994|NCT03928028|169110057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.297
84685995|NCT03928028|169110057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.062
84685996|NCT03928028|169110058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.069
84685997|NCT03928028|169110058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.323
84685998|NCT03928028|169110058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.225
84685999|NCT03928028|169110059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.196
84686000|NCT03928028|169110059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.812
84686001|NCT03928028|169110059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.499
84686002|NCT03928028|169110060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.446
84686003|NCT03928028|169110060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.647
84686004|NCT03928028|169110060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.765
84686005|NCT03928028|169110061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.425
84686006|NCT03928028|169110061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.630
84686007|NCT03928028|169110061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.854
84686008|NCT02802501|169110063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.693|||Cox Proportional Hazard||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.693|0.285|<0.001
84686009|NCT02802501|169110064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|2.875|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \>1 then there are higher chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to Primaquine+DHA-PQP.|||2.875|1.031|
84686010|NCT02802501|169110065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.431|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Primaquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.431|0.155|
84686011|NCT02802501|169110066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.686|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.686|0.273|
84686012|NCT04525547|169110087|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8170
84686013|NCT04525547|169110088|OTHER|||||||0.6533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6533
84508305|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0099
84686014|NCT02052310|169110135|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.287|0.079|0.0005
84686015|NCT02052310|169110136|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI was analyzed from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||7.7|-0.7|
84686016|NCT02052310|169110137|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||8.7|-0.1|
84686017|NCT02052310|169110138|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in LS means of change from baseline Hb averaged over Weeks 28 to 52 lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.296|0.032|0.0148
84686018|NCT02052310|169110139|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|-18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.448|-15.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-15.232|-21.448|<0.0001
84686019|NCT02052310|169110140|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.217|-0.171|0.8178
84686020|NCT02052310|169110141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00028||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||||0.00028
84686021|NCT02052310|169110142|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.016|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (\<= 8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||2.016|0.791|0.3284
84686022|NCT01804816|169110177|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
84686023|NCT01804816|169110178|EQUIVALENCE|a = 0.05||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on results from prior small clinical trials we estimate the need for 20 patients enrolled to reach 80% statistical power.||||0.005
84686024|NCT01804816|169110178|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84686025|NCT01804816|169110178|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
84686026|NCT01804816|169110179|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
84686027|NCT03086330|169110180|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-1.24|-1.61|<0.0001
84686028|NCT03086330|169110181|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-2.93|-4.70|<0.0001
84686029|NCT02182973|169110238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84686030|NCT02182973|169110239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875
84686031|NCT02182973|169110240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
84686032|NCT01123382|169110251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Group X time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|we included a random intercept for each individual participant. We used a first-order antedependent covariance structure.||To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 2 points2 on the BPI-SF3 with an anticipated standard deviation for each mean of 2.5, estimated from a prior study, with an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, for five waves of data, a sample size of 10 participants per group was necessary. With anticipated dropouts, a sample size of at least 12 participants per group was required.||||0.04
84686033|NCT01123382|169110252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.059|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
84508306|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0507
84686034|NCT01123382|169110253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||||||group x time interaction 0.543|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.543
84686035|NCT01123382|169110254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84686036|NCT01123382|169110255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time 0.61|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84686037|NCT01123382|169110256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||group x time interaction 0.398|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
84686038|NCT01123382|169110257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||group x time interaction 0.46|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84686039|NCT01123382|169110258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||group x time interaction 0.59|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84686040|NCT01123382|169110259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||group x time interaction 0.69|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84686041|NCT02740049|169110260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0002
84686042|NCT02740049|169110261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3994||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.3994
84686043|NCT02740049|169110262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical difference is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0104
84686044|NCT02274857|169110268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2179
84686045|NCT02274857|169110269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2782|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2782
84686046|NCT02274857|169110270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7266
84686047|NCT02274857|169110271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3522
84686048|NCT00834106|169110273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.7|91.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||91.1|43.7|
84686049|NCT00834106|169110274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|96.7|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||96.7|38.3|
84686050|NCT00834106|169110275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|100.0|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||100|32.3|0.0072
84686051|NCT00834106|169110281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|97.4|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||97.4|79.8|
84686052|NCT00834106|169110282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|99.2|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||99.2|72.9|
84686053|NCT04393441|169110357|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction,Baseline total staining stratum(TSS),and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.27|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Total Staining Score at Day 90: The null hypothesis was that 011516X tear formulation was to be considered noninferior to Systane Ultra MD if the upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.3 units.||2.27|0.01|0.0475
84686054|NCT04393441|169110358|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. The p-value for treatment differences is reported for reference.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.32||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|34.14|||MMRM|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Baseline TSS, and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.||||34.14|-30.03|0.9001
84686055|NCT02953938|169110391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|-1.49|0.3680
84686056|NCT02953938|169110392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.042||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-12.67|0.0349
84686057|NCT02953938|169110393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.051||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||ANOVA|||||0.158|-0.045|0.2707
84686058|NCT02953938|169110395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.32||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.65|85.28|||ANOVA|||||85.28|-62.65|0.7602
84686059|NCT03848403|169110396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-21.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.48|-26.90|<0.0001
84686060|NCT03848403|169110396|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-21.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|-15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.88|-26.39|<0.0001
84686061|NCT03848403|169110396|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.55||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|-4.65|0.8341
84686062|NCT02638948|169110448|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|4.9||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|20.1||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.1|-10.2|0.5224
84686063|NCT02638948|169110448|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|11.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|27.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-3.6|0.1360
84686064|NCT02638948|169110448|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|20.7||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.7|-20.5|0.9922
84686065|NCT02638948|169110449|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||16.5|-16.0|1.0000
84686066|NCT02638948|169110449|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|5.6||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|21.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||21.9|-10.5|0.2058
84686067|NCT02638948|169110449|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||22.2|-22.5|1.0000
84686068|NCT05007392|169110468|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|35.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|44.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P value based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline SUA level and baseline body mass index (BMI) level.|The difference of percentage and stratified 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||44.37|27.36|<0.001
84686069|NCT05007392|169110469|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -10% in the analysis.|Difference of percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|14.17|||||The difference of percentage and stratified 95% CI was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||14.17|-3.69|
84686070|NCT02459262|169110491|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures: In-transformed antibody concentrations as dependent variable; dose level, time, presence of adjuvant and dose\*time interaction as fixed effects; subjects as random effects||||||0.0193||||||Adjuvant effect at Day 85, the primary immunological endpoint|ANOVA|Adjuvant effect, with higher antibody concentration values after all dose levels of vaccine was significant at all time points (D29, D43, D57, Day 85)||The objectives for Part A were to evaluate the effect of adjuvant and to inform the selection of dose levels for Part B. The study was not powered for inter-group comparisons.||||0.0193
84508307|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0205
84686071|NCT02459262|169110492|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84686072|NCT02459262|169110493|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84686073|NCT01904864|169110495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear||Change at 12 weeks compared|||1.6|0.4|<0.001
84686074|NCT02347657|169110541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|4.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||4.8|3.1|<0.0001
84686075|NCT02347657|169110542|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|8.3|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||8.3|5.3|<0.0001
84686076|NCT02347657|169110543|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.88|0.48|0.0054
84686077|NCT02347657|169110544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.19|-0.08|0.4127
84686078|NCT02093663|169110563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.88|||Uncorrected Chi-squared Test|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||9.88|1.04|0.039
84686079|NCT02093663|169110564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.34||P-value were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-value s were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.34|0.42|0.981
84686080|NCT02093663|169110565|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||100.0|-19.3|0.400
84686081|NCT02093663|169110566|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was based on a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate.||100.0|-19.3|0.333
84686082|NCT02093663|169110567|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|-5.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.4||P-value is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm as a factor and baseline DUCS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.4|-13.1|0.168
84686083|NCT02093663|169110568|OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|50.6||P-value was based on a continuity-corrected chi-squared test. PUCAI Score was compared between treatment arms using a continuity corrected chi-squared test. Expected cell counts are very low (\< 5), then Fisher's Exact Test is alternative method.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||50.6|-1.6|0.131
84686084|NCT02093663|169110569|OTHER||Difference in Proportions Percentage|-6.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|12.3||P-value is based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||12.3|-25.3|0.539
84686085|NCT02093663|169110570|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.2||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|3.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||3.6|-36.0|0.129
84686086|NCT02093663|169110571|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|3.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.4||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm and with prior response status.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||7.4|-1.4|0.182
84686087|NCT02093663|169110572|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|11.0||P-value was based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status. Participants with remission (PUCAI \<10) at double-blind maintenance phase at Week 26 was compared between treatment arms using a CMH test stratifying by Week 8 responder status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||11.0|-29.1|0.194
84686088|NCT00508404|169110573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.45|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||4.45|1.02|
84686089|NCT00508404|169110574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.93|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.93|0.88|
84686090|NCT00508404|169110575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.89|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.89|0.30|
84686091|NCT00508404|169110576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.614|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.614|0.130|
84686092|NCT00508404|169110577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.721|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||2.721|0.990|
84659380|NCT03761277|169053542|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the non-inferiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and the upper 97.5% confidence limit are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1||< 0.001
84659381|NCT03761277|169053542|SUPERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the superiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and 95% confidence interval are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1|-22.7|< 0.001
84659382|NCT00759031|169053545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84686093|NCT00508404|169110578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.464|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.703|||||Hazard ratio presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.703|0.306|
84686094|NCT00508404|169110579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.618|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.618|0.252|
84686095|NCT00508404|169110580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.43|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.430|0.400|
84686096|NCT00508404|169110581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.002|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.002|0.503|
84686097|NCT00508404|169110583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in rates|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|19.08||||||||19.08|-4.01|
84686098|NCT01301391|169110593|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||H0:p≤ 25% vs H1:p\> 25% with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 50% (median PFS of 3 months), alpha=0.05 and beta=0.10, 30 evaluable patients are required for a single stage trial. If at the end of the trial 12 or more out of 30 evaluable patients are alive and progression-free at 3 months since the treatment start date, the null hypothesis are rejected. A Fleming multiple-testing procedure is applied. If \>=4 successes out of the first 15 patients are observed, accrual will continue up to 30.||0.74|0.33|<0.001
84686099|NCT02629991|169110600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.059
84686100|NCT02629991|169110601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.088
84686101|NCT02629991|169110602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.027
84686102|NCT02629991|169110603|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.16|||||||Mixed effects model|||||||0.16
84686103|NCT02629991|169110604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.69
84686104|NCT02629991|169110605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.034
84686105|NCT02629991|169110606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.009
84686106|NCT02629991|169110607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.033
84686107|NCT02629991|169110608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.78
84686108|NCT02629991|169110609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.53
84686109|NCT00677352|169110667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sertraline was concluded to be non-inferior to paroxetine when the upper limit of the CI fell below the non-inferiority margin of 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the intergroup difference (sertraline group - paroxetine group) of the mean reduction in the PAS total score at each dose during the treatment phase was calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and baseline PAS total score as a covariate.||1.6|-2.5|
84686110|NCT00677352|169110673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0062
84686111|NCT01814748|169110674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.12||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||0.49|-0.26|0.535
84686112|NCT01814748|169110675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.0||||||||13.0|-13.8|
84686113|NCT01814748|169110676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-2.0||||||||||||||||||
84508308|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1409
84686114|NCT01814748|169110677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|24.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||24.4|-16.1|0.685
84508309|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY|MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.5|0.2021
84659383|NCT00543140|169053546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed as only one hypothesis was tested in this study. The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Exact Binomial method|||The primary analysis used a one-sided binomial exact test method by Clopper and Pearson to determine if the rate of reoperations observed in Years 4 and 5 (combined) of the study was significantly less than 8%. The null hypothesis was that the reoperation rate was greater than or equal to 8%.||||0.6919
84659384|NCT00309387|169053570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.68|0.03
84659385|NCT02483520|169053585|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.03||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||2.08|-2.02|.977
84659386|NCT02483520|169053586|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.22||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-2.09|.812
84686115|NCT01814748|169110678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|9.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||9.7|-17.1|0.586
84686116|NCT01814748|169110679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|13.1|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||13.1|-14.0|
84686117|NCT01814748|169110680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.5|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||15.5|-7.4|
84686118|NCT03088267|169110698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||||-2.17|-14.94|0.0118
84686119|NCT03088267|169110699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|42.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 30 minutes post-dose||42.50|-4.94|0.1128
84686120|NCT03088267|169110699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.91|87.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 3 hours postdose||87.75|32.91|0.0003
84686121|NCT01895972|169110700|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reduction from baseline in IOP was significant at all post-baseline assessment time points through Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||comparison vs. baseline||||<0.001
84686122|NCT02782169|169110702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84686123|NCT00724152|169110730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: The Cognitive Behavioral Therapy group would not demonstrate decreased distress at post-treatment as compared to the Tinnitus Education group on the primary outcome measure (THI) between pre-treatment and post-treatment.||||<0.05
84686124|NCT00386022|169110732|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH as a function of dose in young or old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||LH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84686125|NCT00386022|169110732|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.03||||||LH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the LH and FSH responses to graded doses of GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women||||<0.03
84686126|NCT00386022|169110732|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH as a function of dose in younger or older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||FSH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84686127|NCT00386022|169110732|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH between young and old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.005||||||FSH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
84686128|NCT00386022|169110733|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.01||||||LH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measured ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84686129|NCT00386022|169110733|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.0001||||||FSH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84686130|NCT00386022|169110733|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH|||||<|0.02||||||FSH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
84686131|NCT00386022|169110733|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH|||||=|0.4||||||LH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||=0.4
84686132|NCT03371082|169110734|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of the lower and upper equivalence margin were -11.3 and 11.3, respectively.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|6.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||6.5|-5.4|
84686133|NCT03266770|169110744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|-1.07|0.83
84686134|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4.||5.2|-10.4|0.517
84686135|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||6.5|-8.9|0.763
84686136|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.3|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||13.3|-2.3|0.164
84686137|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||10.5|-9.2|0.900
84686138|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||8.4|-11.1|0.788
84686139|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||11.8|-8.2|0.722
84686140|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||4.9|-18.2|0.260
84686141|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||6.8|-16.1|0.422
84686142|NCT01218126|169110784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|8.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||8.2|-15.1|0.564
84686143|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|38.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||38|-39|0.968
84686144|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|31.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||31|-45|0.715
84686145|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||66|-10|0.152
84686146|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||40|-45|0.922
84686147|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-34|0.694
84686148|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|79.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||79|-6.3|0.094
84686149|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||58|-26|0.456
84686150|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||61|-22|0.355
84686151|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|91.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||91|6.7|0.023
84686152|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|65.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||65|-21|0.320
84686153|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||67|-19|0.267
84686154|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||67|-20|0.289
84686155|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|49.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||49|-37|0.786
84686156|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||76|-10|0.134
84508310|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0117
84686157|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||74|-15|0.191
84686158|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|46.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||46|-38|0.852
84686159|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|60.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||60|-24|0.397
84686160|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||58|-28|0.494
84686161|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||40|-31|0.807
84686162|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||51|-20|0.386
84686163|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||67|-4.8|0.089
84686164|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|43.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||43|-45|0.958
84686165|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-37|0.766
84686166|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|87.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||87|-1.7|0.060
84686167|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|35.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||35|-53|0.678
84686168|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|54.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||54|-33|0.636
84686169|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|83.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||83|-6.5|0.094
84686170|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|37.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||37|-49|0.772
84686171|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||61|-24|0.387
84686172|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.0||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|69.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||69|-18|0.243
84686173|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|25.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||25|-62|0.398
84686174|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||70|-16|0.214
84686175|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||58|-30|0.526
84686176|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|34.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||34|-53|0.671
84686177|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|64.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||64|-23|0.355
84508311|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.2|-0.4|0.5511
84686178|NCT01218126|169110785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||50|-38|0.781
84686179|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|93.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||93|-66|0.742
84686180|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|48.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||48|-109|0.446
84686181|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|137.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||137|-22|0.157
84686182|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||74|-93|0.826
84686183|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.773||95.0|-95.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||70|-95|0.773
84686184|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|131.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||131|-38|0.277
84686185|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.0||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|132.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||132|-43|0.319
84686186|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||103|-71|0.716
84686187|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-14|0.098
84686188|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||100|-80|0.832
84686189|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|114.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||114|-64|0.579
84686190|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|133.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||133|-49|0.369
84686191|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||58|-121|0.487
84686192|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|95.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||95|-82|0.887
84686193|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|123.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||123|-59|0.486
84686194|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0||||0.604||95.0|-113.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||66|-113|0.604
84686195|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|82.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||82|-97|0.872
84686196|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|134.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||134|-48|0.355
84686197|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|80.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||80|-65|0.839
84686198|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|84.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||84|-60|0.741
84686199|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|143.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||143|-1.8|0.056
84686200|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|57.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||57|-107|0.554
84508312|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.5|0.4949
84686201|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||51|-110|0.472
84686202|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|149.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||149|-16|0.116
84686203|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||76|-98|0.805
84686204|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||100|-73|0.763
84686205|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-13|0.096
84686206|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|56.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||56|-118|0.485
84686207|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||103|-69|0.704
84686208|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|159.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||159|-16|0.108
84686209|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.0||||0.147||95.0|-151.0|23.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||23|-151|0.147
84686210|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|75.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||75|-98|0.792
84686211|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.0||||0.275||95.0|-39.0|138.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||138|-39|0.275
84686212|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.0|59.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||59|-115|0.530
84686213|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|96.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||96|-77|0.827
84686214|NCT01218126|169110786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.0||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|124.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||124|-53|0.434
84686215|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||2.2|-3.3|0.686
84686216|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||4.2|-1.2|0.279
84686217|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.9|-4.6|0.193
84686218|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||3.5|-2.7|0.803
84686219|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||5.0|-1.2|0.229
84686220|NCT01218126|169110787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.8|-4.5|0.390
84686221|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.01|0.91|0.157
84686222|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||0.95|0.86|0.000
84686223|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.96|0.86|0.000
84686224|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.072||95.0|0.9|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.00|0.90|0.072
84686225|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.95|0.85|0.000
84686226|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.83|0.000
84686227|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.05|0.93|0.728
84686228|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.97|0.86|0.002
84686229|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.95|0.84|0.001
84508313|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0203
84686230|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.07|0.95|0.823
84508314|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.2076
84686231|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.02|0.90|0.153
84686232|NCT01218126|169110789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.01|0.90|0.126
84686233|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.12|0.68|0.291
84686234|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||1.00|0.61|0.046
84686235|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.94|0.57|0.014
84686236|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.32|0.82|0.755
84686237|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.97|0.60|0.029
84686238|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.58|0.015
84686239|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.17|0.71|0.468
84686240|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.011||95.0|0.57|0.93|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.93|0.57|0.011
84686241|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.82|0.50|0.000
84686242|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.22|0.74|0.696
84686243|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.04|0.64|0.099
84508315|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.8|0.0362
84686244|NCT01218126|169110790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.11|0.67|0.256
84508316|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.1|0.3589
84686245|NCT01218126|169110791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 2.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Losmapimod 2.5 mg versus Placebo||1.54|0.64|0.989
84686246|NCT01218126|169110791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.915||95.0|0.64|1.5|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 7.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg||1.50|0.64|0.915
84508317|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.2|0.6991
84659387|NCT02483520|169053589|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-1.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-4.64|.343
84659388|NCT02483520|169053590|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-4.79||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||-1.08|-8.51|.012
84659389|NCT02483520|169053591|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.77||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.47|0.07|.033
84659390|NCT02483520|169053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.211
84659391|NCT02483520|169053594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||<.001
84659392|NCT02483520|169053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.476
84659393|NCT02483520|169053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.005
84659394|NCT02483520|169053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.677
84659395|NCT02483520|169053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.020
84659396|NCT02483520|169053597|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.62||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||0.94|-2.18|.432
84659397|NCT02483520|169053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.255
84659398|NCT01104493|169053601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points This corresponded to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6|||score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (Monovalent vaccine minus Placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points.||2.6|-5.2|
84659399|NCT00208091|169053608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.06
84659400|NCT00208091|169053609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.23
84659401|NCT01599234|169053616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.23||||0.22||95.0|-0.59|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The initial model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as a covariate and treatment group, centre group, ambulatory status at baseline and previous use of cannabis as main effects. Interactions between the main effects were investigated, and if they had little influence then they were dropped from the model. These tests were performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect.||0.14|-0.59|0.220
84659402|NCT01599234|169053617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.341||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.167|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.167|0.830|0.231
84659403|NCT01599234|169053618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.16||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.61|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.61|-1.94|0.857
84659404|NCT01599234|169053619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.07||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||0.40|-0.55|0.734
84659405|NCT01599234|169053621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.0|-2.0|0.624
84659406|NCT01599234|169053622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were to be compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model was to incorporate ambulatory status at baseline and centre group.||1.849|0.842|0.270
84659407|NCT01599234|169053623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.15||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.64|-1.95|0.867
84659408|NCT01599234|169053624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.373|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.373|0.622|0.569
84659409|NCT02033694|169053639|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm is the only independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years is the outcome. The null hypothesis tested by the Wald test that the regression coefficient in a proportional hazards regression model is significantly different from 0. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mmI is a risk factor for NC-MACE.||1.35|1.09|0.0004
84686247|NCT01218126|169110791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.74||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 15 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg||1.18|0.47|0.210
84686248|NCT02134587|169110798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
84686249|NCT02134587|169110799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84686250|NCT01515748|169110820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.049.|Stratified Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison was stratified based on site and TNM classification (T4/N-, T2/N+, T3-4/N+).||||0.0152
84686251|NCT00803452|169110847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84686252|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear Mixed Models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
84686253|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
84686254|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Linar mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
84686255|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.035
84686256|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.038
84686257|NCT05878197|169110887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.9|1.000
84686258|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.107
84686259|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
84686260|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER|||||||0.639||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
84686261|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.731
84686262|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.217
84686263|NCT05878197|169110888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.9|0.253
84508318|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.2|-0.2|0.9655
84686264|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
84686265|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER|||||||0.449||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
84686266|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER|||||||0.786||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.786
84686267|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.2|0.099
84686268|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-8.3|0.074
84686269|NCT05878197|169110889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.2||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-6.7|0.472
84686270|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER|||||||0.115||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
84686271|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER|||||||0.516||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.516
84686272|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
84686273|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-12.2|0.025
84686274|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-6.4|0.794
84686275|NCT05878197|169110890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-7.7|0.760
84686276|NCT04922554|169110959|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|14.15||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.2182
84686277|NCT04922554|169110960|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|22.15||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.0460
84686278|NCT04922554|169110969|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.52||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-6.01|0.8240
84686279|NCT04922554|169110970|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.1||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|13.2||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.20|-3.03|0.2149
84686280|NCT04922554|169110971|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|8.3||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|18.88||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||18.88|-2.31|0.1230
84686281|NCT04922554|169110972|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.5||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.43||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||12.43|-1.41|0.1168
84659410|NCT02033694|169053639|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm in the coronary artery segment is the measure of exposure and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome. This analysis was performed with adjustment for the potential clustering effect within patient utilizing the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW) methodology. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mm is a risk factor NC-MACE.||1.60|1.30|<0.0001
84659411|NCT02033694|169053640|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.22|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years as the outcome.||3.22|1.48|<0.0001
84659412|NCT02033694|169053640|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.45|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 in the coronary artery segment as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome.||7.45|2.39|<0.0001
84659413|NCT03143894|169053658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84659414|NCT03143894|169053659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84659415|NCT03143894|169053660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84659416|NCT02442869|169053669|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|15.35|||Chi-squared|Df (1)|NNT = 5.59|Due to the large number of zeroes in the Suicidal Ideation (SI)-Current Subscale of the SSI at post (over a third of the participants reported no SI at the end of treatment), a zero-altered model was utilized which divided the outcome into (1) the probability of any SI and (2) the intensity of SI when non-zero, as done in other studies. This analysis tested the difference between the CAMS and TAU arms based on number of participants reporting no SI post Stage 1 treatment.||15.35|-2.41|0.19
84659417|NCT02442869|169053670|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
84659418|NCT02442869|169053671|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses. We determined that with a sample size of 62 clients, the outcome analyses had at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.80 (Ahn etal., 2001)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(60) = 2.15||||1.05|0.04|0.035
84659419|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7096|26.6553|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||26.6553|-15.7096|
84659420|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.784|20.5888|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||20.5888|-21.7840|
84659421|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3489|33.1602|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||33.1602|-9.3489|
84686282|NCT04922554|169110973|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|13.66||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.66|-0.66|0.0743
84686283|NCT04922554|169110974|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|7.1||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.23||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||15.23|-1.13|0.0899
84686284|NCT04922554|169110975|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.59||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.59|-7.60|0.9019
84686285|NCT04922554|169110976|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|21.89||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||21.89|5.43|0.0015
84686286|NCT04922554|169110977|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.9||||0.8269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|9.05||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of Omadacycline and Placebo for activity score has been presented.|||9.05|-7.26|0.8269
84508319|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.8699
84508320|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.3715
84659422|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9957|24.3384|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.3384|-16.9957|
84508321|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.4|0.0670
84686287|NCT04922554|169110977|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|7.35||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for impact score has been presented|||7.35|-7.74|0.9584
84686288|NCT04922554|169110977|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|2.92||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for symptom score has been presented.|||2.92|-12.88|0.2123
84686289|NCT04922554|169110977|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.99||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for total score has been presented.|||5.99|-7.58|0.8161
84686290|NCT04922554|169110978|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-2.38||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||-2.38|-8.95|0.0010
84686291|NCT04922554|169110979|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|39.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.66|62.56|||Fisher Exact|||||62.56|16.66|0.0020
84686292|NCT04922554|169110980|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|15.41||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|39.93|||Fisher Exact|||||39.93|-9.10|0.3051
84686293|NCT04922554|169110981|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.3552|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3552
84686294|NCT04922554|169110982|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0753|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0753
84686295|NCT04922554|169110984|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.87|||Chi-squared|||||11.87|1.24|0.0168
84686296|NCT04922554|169110985|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0233|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0233
84686297|NCT04922554|169110986|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0349|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0349
84686298|NCT01345630|169110987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the analysis of the primary endpoint conducted at Week 48, the alternative hypothesis was to test for non-inferiority of MVC+DRV/r to FTC/TDF+DRV/r with a non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|-4.24||||||The difference in the percentages between the maraviroc and the emtricitabine/tenofovir treatment arms and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was provided using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method over the two assays and the screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (\>=100,000 copies/mL or \<100,000 copies/mL). The sample size was chosen to yield a power of ≥90%. The 95% CIs and mean difference (final values) are presented as percentages above.||-4.24|-14.83|
84686299|NCT01345630|169110995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1343|-0.0157||||||The difference in proportions of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the \[MVC+DRV/r\] and the \[FTC/TDF+DRV/r\] treatment arms, with two-sided 95% confidence interval, is shown for those patients who were R5 by genotype (including all who were originally randomized to ESTA and were R5 by genotype upon retesting), via the maximum likelihood (ML) method.||-0.0157|-0.1343|
84686300|NCT01345630|169111000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Results were from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||23.6|-24.4|0.9750
84686301|NCT01345630|169111001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
84686302|NCT01345630|169111002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|127.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|178.8|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||178.8|76.5|<0.0001
84686303|NCT01345630|169111003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||3.1|1.1|<0.0001
84686304|NCT01345630|169111004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-0.07|-0.15|<0.0001
84508322|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.5|0.0104
84686305|NCT01345630|169111005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.861||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-658.181|809.903|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||809.903|-658.181|0.8379
84686306|NCT01345630|169111006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.094|-0.033|0.3376
84686307|NCT01345630|169111007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.023|0.004|0.0043
84686308|NCT01345630|169111008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.022|-0.005|0.2273
84686309|NCT01345630|169111009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.018|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.018|-0.007|0.4188
84686310|NCT01345630|169111010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.94|-5.17|0.1722
84686311|NCT01345630|169111011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.78||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.34|-35.23|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||-35.23|-218.34|0.0071
84686312|NCT03092375|169111019|OTHER|Study is not intended to be powered|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|5.12|||||Excludes re-infection and death|The difference in the percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure (Defined as increase of \>1 log10 IU/mL above nadir during treatment, or HCV RNA \>= 15 IU/mL at end of treatment with at least 6 weeks of treatment between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.||5.12|-9.48|
84508323|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
84686313|NCT03092375|169111020|OTHER|The difference in the percentage of subjects with post-treatment relapse between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|5.49||||||||5.49|-10.49|
84686314|NCT03092375|169111021|OTHER|Difference in percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure between Arms C and D will be summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|22.08||||||||22.08|-3.03|
84686315|NCT03092375|169111022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|10.22||||||Excludes re-infection and death||10.22|-13.85|
84686316|NCT03092375|169111023|OTHER|Study was not powered to compare efficacy|Logistic Regression Contrast Estimate|-0.812||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.947|0.323|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Comparison of Arm Pair A/C versus B/D overall on mITT population|||0.323|-1.947|0.161
84686317|NCT03092375|169111023|OTHER|Study is not powered to compare efficacy of 12 wks vs 16 weeks of treatment|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|1.076|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Difference in proportion of SVR12 rates for 12 vs 16 weeks on mITT Comparing Cirrhotic subjects versus non-cirrhotic subjects.|||1.076|-1.239|0.890
84508324|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.3|0.3157
84686318|NCT03092375|169111023|OTHER|Study is not powered|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.977||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.694|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of 12 weeks vs 16 weeks in Genotype 1b vs non-1b||2.694|-0.740|0.265
84686319|NCT00605202|169111034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value of the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis applies to the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms||||0.007
84686320|NCT01493687|169111056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84686321|NCT01493687|169111057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.13|||ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-10.12|<0.001
84686322|NCT01493687|169111058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84659423|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2069|37.4425|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||37.4425|-28.2069|
84659424|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0405|39.8527|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||39.8527|-17.0405|
84659425|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0153|31.5504|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||31.5504|-21.0153|
84659426|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7517|24.7608|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.7608|-23.7517|
84659427|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.246|33.7161|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||33.7161|-3.2460|
84659428|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3243|8.9224|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.9224|-21.3243|
84659429|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8137|1.1513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||1.1513|-26.8137|
84659430|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6557|13.1191|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||13.1191|-16.6557|
84659431|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1045|-11.3579|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||-11.3579|-45.1045|
84659432|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5021|11.3014|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||11.3014|-23.5021|
84659433|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2721|8.2918|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.2918|-25.2721|
84659434|NCT01218204|169053779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0247|6.6498|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||6.6498|-26.0247|
84659435|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9323|3.202|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||3.2020|-47.9323|
84659436|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1027|25.3126|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||25.3126|-38.1027|
84659437|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5492|1.8605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||1.8605|-45.5492|
84659438|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0846|13.3024|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||13.3024|-45.0846|
84659439|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2281|15.1569|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||15.1569|-27.2281|
84659440|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2901|32.6057|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||32.6057|-24.2901|
84659441|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4767|1.906|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||1.9060|-40.4767|
84659442|NCT01218204|169053780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3842|-12.5064|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-12.5064|-48.3842|
84508325|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0077
84686323|NCT05067439|169111059|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|288.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|240.56|346.73||||||Omeprazole 10 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + omeprazole 10 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||346.73|240.56|
84686324|NCT05067439|169111060|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|139.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.98|159.74||||||Caffeine 100 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinfCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||159.74|121.98|
84686325|NCT05067439|169111061|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.45|117.17||||||Efavirenz 50 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + efavirenz 50 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClastCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||117.17|103.45|
84686326|NCT02323646|169111070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
84686327|NCT02323646|169111070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
84686328|NCT02323646|169111071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0237
84686329|NCT02323646|169111071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
84686330|NCT02323646|169111072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0145
84686331|NCT02323646|169111072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0662
84686332|NCT02323646|169111072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0061
84508326|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.8|0.0078
84659443|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5469|14.7495|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||14.7495|-4.5469|
84659444|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5937|21.9532|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Fo HDLc||21.9532|2.5937|
84659445|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.955|38.7102|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||38.7102|18.9550|
84659446|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5562|12.9578|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||12.9578|-5.5562|
84686333|NCT02323646|169111072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0296
84686334|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2642
84686335|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4383|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.4383
84686336|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5333|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5333
84686337|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8791
84686338|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3666
84686339|NCT02323646|169111073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3450
84686340|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0473
84686341|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0191
84686342|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0749
84686343|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0233
84686344|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7569|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7569
84686345|NCT02323646|169111074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5399
84508327|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0372
84686346|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1683
84686347|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2560
84686348|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4997|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.4997
84686349|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.1334
84686350|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.0323
84686351|NCT02323646|169111075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
84686352|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.6356
84686353|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9539
84686354|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5219
84686355|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.2678
84686356|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3086
84686357|NCT02323646|169111076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
84686358|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8393
84686359|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1361
84686360|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0382
84686361|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6273|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.6273
84686362|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8237|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.8237
84686363|NCT02323646|169111077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.1370
84686364|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7949|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.7949
84686365|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1928
84686366|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||1.0000
84686367|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3920
84686368|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5410
84686369|NCT02323646|169111078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4602
84686370|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9536|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9536
84686371|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1355|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1355
84686372|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9396
84686373|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9102|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9102
84686374|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6266|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6266
84686375|NCT02323646|169111079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.9302
84686376|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8170
84686377|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8177
84686378|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3167
84686379|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5503
84686380|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6929
84686381|NCT02323646|169111080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7260
84508328|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0244
84686382|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.3896
84686383|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1358|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1358
84686384|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.7903
84686385|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8206
84686386|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7891
84686387|NCT02323646|169111081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4010
84686388|NCT02323646|169111082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0294
84686389|NCT02323646|169111082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1934
84686390|NCT02323646|169111082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0442
84686391|NCT02323646|169111082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8314
84686392|NCT04791761|169111089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores before medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.8
84686393|NCT04791761|169111089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores after medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.7
84686394|NCT04791761|169111090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care post-operatively between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.2
84686395|NCT00180479|169111108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation for endpoint of in-segment LL at 240 days is based on these assumptions: one-tailed non-inferiority= (δ)=0.025, Power=99%, Randomization ratio 2:1, True mean in-seg. LL is assumed to be 0.24 mm in both arms.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary endpoint analyzed for intent-to-treat \& per-treatment evaluable pop. Hypothesis test based on per-subject analysis of intent-to-treat pop. using analysis lesion. The null hypothesis evaluated using non-inferiority test with asymptotic test statistic.||||<0.0001
84508329|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.0993
84686396|NCT00180479|169111109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 89% statistical power based on major secondary endpoint to prove non-inferiority of XIENCE® V to TAXUS®, non-inferiority delta=5.5%, true TVF rate 9.4% in both arms with overall 5% alpha (one-sided), assuming 1% subject dropout rate.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority Z statistic. Non-inferiority was defined as a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and a difference in TVF rate of no more than 5.5%.||||<0.0001
84686397|NCT05168579|169111153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.6|2.76|<0.001
84686398|NCT00105235|169111155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||.423|.086|
84686399|NCT00105235|169111156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0|
84686400|NCT00105235|169111158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0.04|
84686401|NCT00105235|169111159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.2|0.01|
84686402|NCT02416492|169111160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||||0.0401
84686403|NCT02416492|169111161|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||0.3|-1.7|0.1655
84686404|NCT02416492|169111162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.7||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||8.3|-2.9|0.3398
84686405|NCT02416492|169111163|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|37.1||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||37.1|-42.2|0.8974
84686406|NCT02416492|169111164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|4.8||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.80|-5.77|0.8534
84686407|NCT02416492|169111164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.41||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.6||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.60|-3.78|0.8443
84686408|NCT01197508|169111170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.79||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.79|-0.53|1.000
84686409|NCT01197508|169111170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.13|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.13|-1.22|1.000
84686410|NCT01197508|169111170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.22|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-1.21|1.000
84686411|NCT01197508|169111171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.12|0.45|0.144
84686412|NCT01197508|169111171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.17|0.47|0.203
84686413|NCT01197508|169111171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.82|0.32|0.005
84686414|NCT01197508|169111172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.45|0.54|0.636
84686415|NCT01197508|169111172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.20|0.44|0.215
84686416|NCT01197508|169111172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.35|0.034
84686417|NCT01197508|169111173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.99|0.36|0.711
84508330|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.7|0.0185
84508331|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2471
84686418|NCT01197508|169111173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.85|0.34|0.594
84686419|NCT01197508|169111173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.65|0.50|0.749
84686420|NCT01197508|169111174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.28|0.037
84686421|NCT01197508|169111174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.25|0.38|0.222
84686422|NCT01197508|169111174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.98|0.28|0.042
84686423|NCT01197508|169111175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.27|0.48|0.913
84686424|NCT01197508|169111175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.01|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.01|0.42|0.841
84686425|NCT01197508|169111175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.39|0.26|0.239
84686426|NCT01197508|169111176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.481|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.481|-0.288|0.120
84686427|NCT01197508|169111176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|2.354|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.354|-0.452|0.184
84686428|NCT01197508|169111176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|3.484|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.484|0.692|0.003
84686429|NCT01197508|169111177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.131||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.42|-0.05|0.131
84686430|NCT01197508|169111177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.17|0.551
84686431|NCT01197508|169111177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.30|-0.19|0.645
84686432|NCT01197508|169111178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.99|0.38|0.046
84686433|NCT01197508|169111178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.00|0.38|0.051
84686434|NCT01197508|169111178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.98|0.37|0.040
84686435|NCT01197508|169111179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.03|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.03|-0.58|0.273
84686436|NCT01197508|169111179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.00|-0.65|0.315
84686437|NCT01197508|169111179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.51|-0.13|0.078
84686438|NCT01197508|169111180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.19|-0.68|0.590
84686439|NCT01197508|169111180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.14|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.14|-0.74|0.679
84686440|NCT01197508|169111180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.53|-0.35|0.215
84686441|NCT01197508|169111181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.01|0.052
84686442|NCT01197508|169111181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.30|-1.11|0.874
84686443|NCT01197508|169111181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.19|0.099
84686444|NCT01197508|169111182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.95|-0.77|0.394
84686445|NCT01197508|169111182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.63|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.63|-1.11|0.712
84686446|NCT01197508|169111182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.41|0.167
84686447|NCT01197508|169111183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|0.02|0.046
84686448|NCT01197508|169111183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.79|-1.17|0.681
84686449|NCT01197508|169111183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.84|-0.19|0.087
84686450|NCT01197508|169111184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|2.427||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.427|-0.464|1.000
84686451|NCT01197508|169111184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.188||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.188|-0.740|1.000
84508332|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.1076
84508333|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.4|0.2782
84686452|NCT01197508|169111184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|2.346||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.346|-0.649|1.000
84686453|NCT01197508|169111185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.61|-0.54|0.914
84508334|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.4646
84508335|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.5|0.1600
84686454|NCT01197508|169111185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.81|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.81|-0.36|0.446
84508336|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0474
84508337|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0446
84508338|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0093
84686455|NCT01197508|169111185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.75|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.75|-0.47|0.656
84686456|NCT01197508|169111186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.82|-0.21|0.248
84686457|NCT01197508|169111186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.7|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.70|-0.34|0.498
84686458|NCT01197508|169111186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.32|0.441
84686459|NCT01197508|169111187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
84686460|NCT01197508|169111187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.30|0.402
84686461|NCT01197508|169111187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.88|-0.18|0.197
84686462|NCT01197508|169111188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.697|1.756|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.756|-4.697|0.371
84686463|NCT01197508|169111188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.597|1.967|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.967|-4.597|0.432
84686464|NCT01197508|169111188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.992|0.573|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.573|-5.992|0.105
84686465|NCT01197508|169111189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.09|-0.29|0.312
84686466|NCT01197508|169111189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.18|0.885
84686467|NCT01197508|169111189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.067
84686468|NCT01197508|169111190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.05|-0.33|0.152
84659447|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.612|33.281|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||33.2810|8.6120|
84659448|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9675|22.0898|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.0898|-0.9675|
84659449|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2902|22.5351|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.5351|-0.2902|
84659450|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7527|31.6262|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||31.6262|9.7527|
84659451|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.775|9.6768|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||9.6768|-18.7750|
84659452|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4549|3.7803|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||3.7803|-24.4549|
84659453|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0144|-6.619|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.6190|-36.0144|
84659454|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.271|-6.0755|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.0755|-34.2710|
84659455|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3385|-8.1558|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-8.1558|-49.3385|
84659456|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3049|-0.9514|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-0.9514|-23.3049|
84659457|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1364|-4.4589|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-4.4589|-27.1364|
84659458|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3413|-11.2372|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-11.2372|-32.3413|
84659459|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.446|-2.4169|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-2.4169|-38.4460|
84659460|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1603|-4.513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-4.5130|-39.1603|
84659461|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3394|-24.2717|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-24.2717|-52.3394|
84659462|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.502|2.491|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||2.4910|-33.5020|
84659463|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.296|-3.2667|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-3.2667|-40.2960|
84659464|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3519|-4.4911|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-4.4911|-38.3519|
84659465|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.465|-29.2561|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-29.2561|-63.4650|
84659466|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7854|-38.9007|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-38.9007|-70.7854|
84659467|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7561|2.2448|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||2.2448|-21.7561|
84659468|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7497|-2.2787|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-2.2787|-25.7497|
84659469|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8454|-15.5045|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-15.5045|-39.8454|
84659470|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6057|-9.269|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-9.2690|-32.6057|
84686469|NCT01197508|169111190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.02|-0.37|0.078
84686470|NCT01197508|169111190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.41|0.033
84686471|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0465|0.0245||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0245|-0.0465|0.543
84508339|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.2998
84686472|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0361||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0361|-0.0360|0.998
84686473|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0432|0.0308||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0308|-0.0432|0.743
84686474|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.56|-6.10|0.244
84686475|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.18||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.18|-5.59|0.389
84686476|NCT01197508|169111191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.16||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.16|-6.79|0.165
84508340|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0545
84659471|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0346|-14.3696|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-14.3696|-29.0346|
84659472|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0636|-3.2961|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-3.2961|-23.0636|
84659473|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.942|-12.3605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-12.3605|-31.9420|
84659474|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2874|-17.6092|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-17.6092|-36.2874|
84659475|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8484|4.04|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||4.0400|-11.8484|
84659476|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.346|1.4722|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||1.4722|-14.3460|
84659477|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3923|-2.196|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-2.1960|-18.3923|
84659478|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7688|-4.3609|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-4.3609|-19.7688|
84659479|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9778|-1.9039|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-1.9039|-13.9778|
84659480|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9023|-0.866|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-0.8660|-15.9023|
84659481|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1404|-8.2592|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-8.2592|-23.1404|
84659482|NCT01218204|169053781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8395|-9.6161||||||For Cholesterol||-9.6161|-23.8395|
84659483|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6276|2.3814|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||2.3814|-26.6276|
84659484|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9419|-7.3181|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-7.3181|-35.9419|
84659485|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3924|-26.6205|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-26.6205|-56.3924|
84659486|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2554|-13.8263|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-13.8263|-42.2554|
84659487|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5654|-12.4042|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-12.4042|-51.5654|
84659488|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8358|-5.2472|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-5.2472|-34.8358|
84659489|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6155|-7.1913|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-7.1913|-36.6155|
84659490|NCT01218204|169053782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.722|-21.7485|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-21.7485|-49.7220|
84659491|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0123|0.1942|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1942|-1.0123|
84659492|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9063|0.3141|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.3141|-0.9063|
84659493|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4125|-0.2098|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.2098|-1.4125|
84659494|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9831|0.1394|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1394|-0.9831|
84659495|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6009|-0.1669|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.1669|-0.6009|
84659496|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1657|-0.1302|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.1302|-1.1657|
84659497|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2804|-0.2844|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.2844|-1.2804|
84659498|NCT01218204|169053783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3652|-0.4026|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.4026|-1.3652|
84659499|NCT00489541|169053795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||A superiority test of TAXUX Element vs bare metal (BMS) Express historical control. The null hypothesis that the true difference in means (TAXUS Element - BMS Express) is equal to zero was tested against the two-sided alternative that the true difference in means is different from zero. A sample size of 224 patients in the TAXUS Element group (190 after 15% attrition due to angiographic follow-up) provided 85% power.||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
84659500|NCT00489541|169053796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month TLR rate|7.34|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single-sample binomial test to compare the observed TLF rate in PERSEUS SV to the pre-specified performance goal (19.5%). The normal approximation of the test statistic was used. The null hypothesis that the true TAXUS Element TLF rate is greater than or equal to the performance goal was tested against the one-sided alternative that the true rate is less than the performance goal. A sample size of 224 patients (accounting for 5% attrition to follow-up) provided 80% power.||10.8||<0.0001
84659501|NCT01191801|169053845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.0305|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one sided P-Value|Unstratified Log Rank|Since the sample size was increased, the primary analysis used the weighted statistic proposed by Cui, Hung, and Wang (Cui 1999).||||||0.0305
84659502|NCT01191801|169053846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84686477|NCT03286751|169111205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.974|0.5495
84686478|NCT03286751|169111205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02||||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.986|0.2236
84686479|NCT03286751|169111205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|0.997|0.0727
84659503|NCT01191801|169053849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84659504|NCT01191801|169053850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one-sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84659505|NCT01191801|169053851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
84659506|NCT02042183|169053899|OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency (\<1.5 or ≥1.5)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1609
84659507|NCT01192516|169053903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, pain level, and body mass index at baseline.||||||.85
84659508|NCT01192516|169053906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index.||||||.06
84659509|NCT01192516|169053909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and pain at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.36
84659510|NCT02321800|169053914|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of noninferiority was 20%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment groups was greater than -20%. If the noninferiority inference based on the 20% margin was concluded successfully, noninferiority inference based on the 15% margin was performed.|Treatment Difference|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|28.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||28.92|8.23|
84659511|NCT02321800|169053915|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|7.79||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.79|-6.48|
84659512|NCT02321800|169053916|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|4.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||4.92|-3.48|
84659513|NCT02321800|169053917|OTHER||Treatment Difference|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|25.92||||||||25.92|4.69|
84659514|NCT02321800|169053918|OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.92|27.58||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||27.58|6.92|
84659515|NCT02321800|169053919|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|7.39||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.39|-4.83|
84659516|NCT02321800|169053920|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.25||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||5.25|-3.04|
84659517|NCT02321800|169053921|OTHER||Treatment Difference|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.63||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||24.63|3.21|
84659518|NCT02321800|169053926|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.44||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||9.44|-4.66|
84659519|NCT02321800|169053927|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|6.05||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||6.05|-6.57|
84659520|NCT02321800|169053928|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.29||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||1.29|-3.42|
84659521|NCT02321800|169053929|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|18.41||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||18.41|-0.37|
84686480|NCT03286751|169111206|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.97||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.87|0.5749
84686481|NCT03286751|169111206|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1578
84686482|NCT03286751|169111206|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1351
84659522|NCT03366337|169054045|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.13|6.5|<0.0001
84659523|NCT03366337|169054045|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.25|4.75|<0.0001
84659524|NCT03366337|169054045|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2792||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||10.16|0.76|0.0247
84659525|NCT03366337|169054045|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.216||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.55|3.11|0.0030
84659526|NCT01217801|169054056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|93.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.15|98.63|||Regression, Linear|||Linear mixed effect model, log transformed AUC, LSMeans for treatment Film and Tablet, the difference between the LSMeans and 90%CI calculated and transformed to geometric means, ratio estimates and 90%CI||98.63|89.15|0.05
84659527|NCT01146418|169054061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.0|-6.5|
84659528|NCT01146418|169054062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.4|-5.7|
84659529|NCT03926169|169054063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|6.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.8|22.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.8|-10.8|0.422
84659530|NCT03926169|169054063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|1.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.4|18.1||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.1|-15.4|0.858
84659531|NCT03926169|169054064|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-3.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|15.9||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-21.8|0.725
84659532|NCT03926169|169054064|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|8.8||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|27.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-10.3|0.301
84659533|NCT03926169|169054065|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|3.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.5|21.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-14.5|0.650
84659534|NCT03926169|169054065|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|12.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|31.3||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|-6.7|0.147
84659535|NCT03926169|169054066|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|8.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-21.8|0.342
84659536|NCT03926169|169054066|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-10.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.3|4.2||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|-25.3|0.108
84659537|NCT03926169|169054067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.179|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|0.9||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.9|-3.5|0.179
84659538|NCT03926169|169054067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|0.6||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.6|-3.8|0.105
84659539|NCT03926169|169054068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3385||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.646|0.883||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.883|-0.646|0.727
84659540|NCT03926169|169054068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3273||0.963|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.755|0.724||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.724|-0.755|0.963
84659541|NCT03926169|169054069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.886|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.622|0.706||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.706|-0.622|0.886
84659542|NCT03926169|169054069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.409|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.408|0.879||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.879|-0.408|0.409
84659543|NCT03926169|169054070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.434|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.977|0.473||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.473|-0.977|0.434
84659544|NCT03926169|169054070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3123||0.813|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.631||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.631|-0.779|0.813
84659545|NCT03789474|169054071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
84659546|NCT03789474|169054072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
84659547|NCT03789474|169054073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
84659548|NCT03789474|169054074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.038
84659549|NCT03789474|169054075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.072
84659550|NCT03789474|169054076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.189
84659551|NCT03789474|169054077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.358
84659552|NCT03789474|169054078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.406
84659553|NCT03789474|169054079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.256
84659554|NCT03789474|169054080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
84659555|NCT03789474|169054081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.316
84659556|NCT03789474|169054082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.971
84659557|NCT03789474|169054083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
84659558|NCT03789474|169054084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
84659559|NCT03789474|169054085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.704
84659560|NCT03789474|169054086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
84659561|NCT03789474|169054087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.708
84659562|NCT03789474|169054088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.711
84659563|NCT03789474|169054089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.956
84659564|NCT03789474|169054090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.139
84659565|NCT03789474|169054091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
84659566|NCT03789474|169054092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
84659567|NCT03789474|169054093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
84659568|NCT03789474|169054094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.380
84659569|NCT03789474|169054095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.914
84659570|NCT03789474|169054096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.915
84659571|NCT03789474|169054097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.087
84659572|NCT03789474|169054098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
84659573|NCT03789474|169054099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.207
84659574|NCT03789474|169054100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
84659575|NCT03789474|169054101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.021
84659576|NCT03789474|169054102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84659577|NCT03789474|169054103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
84659578|NCT03789474|169054104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
84659579|NCT03789474|169054105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
84659580|NCT03789474|169054106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
84659581|NCT03789474|169054107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84659582|NCT03789474|169054108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84659583|NCT03789474|169054109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.020
84659584|NCT03789474|169054110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84659585|NCT03789474|169054111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
84659586|NCT03789474|169054112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.746
84659587|NCT03789474|169054113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
84659588|NCT03789474|169054114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84659589|NCT03789474|169054115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
84659590|NCT03789474|169054116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
84659591|NCT04523220|169054139|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.21||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.21|0.28|= 0.222
84659592|NCT04523220|169054139|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.42||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.42|0.36|= 0.427
84659593|NCT04523220|169054140|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.64||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.64|0.98|= 0.128
84659594|NCT04523220|169054140|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.61||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.61|0.96|= 0.166
84659595|NCT03727347|169054176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the improvement (decrease) in rTNSS mean score, from baseline to 12 weeks, would exceed 1 point||||||<0.0001
84659596|NCT02320669|169054182|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.432|||Regression, Cox|||||1.432|.82|<.05
84659597|NCT00006237|169054184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
84659598|NCT00006237|169054185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
84659599|NCT04492618|169054222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84659600|NCT02111772|169054256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.049
84659601|NCT02111772|169054257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
84659602|NCT00869206|169054266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the published data on the effect of a standard of dosing schedule of \> zoledronic acid compared to placebo, we choose ∆= 7%, πT= 42%, and πS= 35%. With a total of 1230 eligible patients (615 per arm), the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis using a one-sided test is at most 0.05 (Type I error α) when θ≥ 7% and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (the power) is at least 82% when θ≤0|||||<=|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<=.05
84659603|NCT00869206|169054267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00962||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SREs, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, race, BSA, and baseline performance status||||||0.68
84659604|NCT00869206|169054268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SRE, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, BSA, race, and baseline performance status||||||0.64
84659605|NCT00869206|169054270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.10
84659606|NCT03521934|169054300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.85|0.52|< 0.001
84659607|NCT03521934|169054301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.49|< 0.001
84659608|NCT03521934|169054302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.22|0.58|= 0.36
84659609|NCT03521934|169054303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.92|0.56|
84659610|NCT03521934|169054304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.86|0.54|
84659611|NCT03521934|169054305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.14|0.59|
84659612|NCT03521934|169054306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0||||||The change from baseline to Month 4 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups as factor and baseline KCCQ-12 score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7|1.3|
84659613|NCT03521934|169054307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.98||||||Rate of decline in eGFR observed over time was analyzed by MMRM with absolute change in eGFR from baseline as the outcome, a random effect for intercept, and fixed effects for treatment, baseline value, and time.||0.98|-1.3|
84659614|NCT01425281|169054328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Angiographic vasomotion reactivity following nitrate administration, the test was analyzable for 388 paired lesions (Absorb arm \[258 lesions\] vs Xience arm \[130 lesions\]).||||0.49
84659615|NCT01425281|169054329|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test with non-inferiority margin of 0.140mm||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Follow-up angiographic analysis was available for 298 lesions in the Absorb arm and 151 lesions in the Xience arm.||||0.78
84659616|NCT00769392|169054438|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of injection discomfort using mean pain scores for all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study.||||0.28
84659617|NCT00769392|169054439|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of discomfort of all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study using mean pain scores.||||0.17
84659618|NCT01025752|169054458|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.8||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.80) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||0.80|-0.67|0.007
84686483|NCT01972529|169111225|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion versus (vs) placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||58.1|27.2|<0.0001
84686484|NCT01972529|169111225|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||68.2|31.6|<0.0001
84686485|NCT01972529|169111226|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|75.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||75.8|53.6|<0.0001
84686486|NCT01972529|169111226|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage vs placebo|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|83.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||83.4|51.6|<0.0001
84686487|NCT01972529|169111227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|32.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||32.5|22.5|<0.0001
84686488|NCT01972529|169111227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|41.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||41.5|25.5|<0.0001
84686489|NCT00939874|169111230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686490|NCT00330174|169111232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking outcomes were analyzed using multiple linear regression, controlling for site and baseline drinking level. Drinking and psychiatric symptoms assessed over time were examined using repeated measures (intercept only) mixed linear models (PROC MIXED in SAS). Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). All tests were two-tailed and p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.64
84686491|NCT01032733|169111236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||This trial represented a pilot study, which was designed to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the intervention; therefore, a power analysis was not conducted. The statistical analyses consisted of descriptive and intent-to-treat (ITT) modeling procedures.||||<0.05
84686492|NCT01032733|169111237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84659619|NCT01025752|169054458|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.49) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|3 month post-baseline time point||0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
84659620|NCT01025752|169054458|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.71||The non-inferiority margin is 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.71) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|6 month post- baseline time point.||0.71|-0.86|0.004
84659621|NCT01025752|169054459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.09|-0.74|0.12
84659622|NCT01025752|169054459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.18|-0.87|0.20
84659623|NCT01025752|169054459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.52|-0.57|0.93
84659624|NCT01025752|169054460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||1.29|-2.29|0.58
84659625|NCT01025752|169054460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point||0.41|-3.46|0.12
84659626|NCT01025752|169054460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point||1.20|-2.42|0.51
84659627|NCT01025752|169054461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.87|-2.30|0.83
84659628|NCT01025752|169054461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.98|-1.68|0.42
84659629|NCT01025752|169054461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.24|-3.40|0.68
84659630|NCT01025752|169054462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||4.16|-1.66|0.40
84659631|NCT01025752|169054462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.58|-2.82|0.81
84659632|NCT01025752|169054462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||5.82|-0.96|0.16
84659633|NCT01025752|169054463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks time point). (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.80|-2.32|0.85
84659634|NCT01025752|169054463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.73|-4.27|0.40
84659635|NCT01025752|169054463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.83|-4.30|0.68
84659636|NCT01025752|169054464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.40|-2.28|0.17
84686493|NCT01032733|169111238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84686494|NCT01032733|169111239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84508341|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2177
84659637|NCT01025752|169054464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.16|-1.39|0.86
84659638|NCT01025752|169054464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.97|-1.22|0.64
84659639|NCT01537393|169054465|NON_INFERIORITY|The two treatment groups will be declared equivalent if the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of 4%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.4|||||||The bootstrap re-sampling technique were used to account for potentially correlated data from donors who donated both corneas in this study and potentially correlated data from 2 study eyes of the same study participant. The technique will sample with replacement from the observed dataset. Confidence intervals will be calculated using the bias-corrected and accelerated method. The number of bootstraps will be 100,000.|5.4||
84659640|NCT01537393|169054465|OTHER|Confounding and treatment interactions were assessed in Cox proportional hazards regression models|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio||||2.71|1.09|0.02
84508342|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.4|0.2300
84686495|NCT01032733|169111240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84686496|NCT03477279|169111260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||7.3|-5.6|
84686497|NCT03477279|169111261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.0|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||14.0|-0.8|
84686498|NCT03477279|169111262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|21.7|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||21.7|-1.7|
84686499|NCT03477279|169111263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.3|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||32.3|0.9|
84686500|NCT03477279|169111264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|31.8||||||||31.8|-1.6|
84686501|NCT03477279|169111265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|8.5|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||8.5|-13.2|
84686502|NCT03477279|169111266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.7|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||10.7|-10.0|
84686503|NCT03477279|169111267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9||||||||13.9|1.7|
84508343|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0001
84686504|NCT02277990|169111268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.36|0.98||The 0.05 critical value for assessing the primary endpoint was adjusted to 0.0488, to account for a planned interim analysis.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression was stratified according to device type (pacemaker or CRT-P vs. ICD or CRT-D).||||0.98|0.36|0.0406
84686505|NCT02277990|169111269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.47|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.47|0.0248
84686506|NCT02277990|169111270|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority test was performed on the as-treated cohort, per the statistical analysis plan. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was 1.33 (i.e., the hazard ratio for complications in the envelope group vs. the control group must be significantly lower than 1.33).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.77|<0.01
84686507|NCT02277990|169111271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.4|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.40|0.0402
84686508|NCT06060457|169111296|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.686||||||RSV-A: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.686|0.570|
84686509|NCT06060457|169111296|OTHER||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.697||||||RSV-B: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.697|0.584|
84686510|NCT01860703|169111315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|5.01||||||||5.01|1.02|
84686511|NCT01860703|169111321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|7.19||||||||7.19|3.26|
84686512|NCT01860703|169111324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|15.75||||||||15.75|11.10|
84686513|NCT02532556|169111326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84686514|NCT02532556|169111327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
84686515|NCT00696410|169111329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.068
84686516|NCT00696410|169111329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.022
84686517|NCT00696410|169111330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.71
84686518|NCT00696410|169111330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.33
84686519|NCT00696410|169111331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.69
84686520|NCT00696410|169111331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.004
84686521|NCT00696410|169111332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.48
84686522|NCT00696410|169111332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.39
84686523|NCT00696410|169111333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.92
84686524|NCT00696410|169111333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.22
84686525|NCT03184792|169111336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|6.6|<0.000
84686526|NCT03184792|169111336|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.0|3.7|0.010
84686527|NCT03184792|169111337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84659641|NCT01537393|169054466|OTHER|The primary analysis to assess the effect of PT on 3 year ECD was conducted with a mixed linear model adjusting for baseline ECD, corneal diagnosis, and potential confounders, including storage solution, preparation by eye bank vs surgeon, and accounting for correlated data from participants with 2 study eyes or 2 corneas from the same donor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|138.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline ECD, diagnosis, storage solution, preparation by eye bank/surgeon, participants with 2 study eyes/ 2 corneas from the same donor||||138|8|0.03
84659642|NCT01697566|169054467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Weight||||0.006
84659643|NCT01697566|169054467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fat Mass||||<0.001
84659644|NCT01697566|169054469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84659645|NCT01447433|169054472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.58|-0.70|0.441
84659646|NCT01447433|169054473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Fat Mass||1.70|0.05|0.038
84659647|NCT01447433|169054473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Lean Mass||0.07|-1.06|0.082
84659648|NCT01447433|169054473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Visceral Fat Mass||0.32|0.03|0.018
84659649|NCT01447433|169054474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.09|0.10|0.031
84659650|NCT01447433|169054475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.29|1.15|0.016
84659651|NCT01447433|169054476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waist Circumference||4.58|-2.31|0.508
84659652|NCT01447433|169054476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal Circumference||2.98|-5.42|0.560
84659653|NCT01447433|169054476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hip Circumference||2.70|-0.74|0.255
84659654|NCT01447433|169054477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure||5.3|-12.9|0.404
84659655|NCT01447433|169054477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||7.41|-5.52|0.768
84659656|NCT01447433|169054478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TC||0.20|-0.36|0.565
84659657|NCT01447433|169054478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||TG||0.39|-0.24|0.636
84659658|NCT01447433|169054478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||HDL||0.06|-0.58|0.112
84659659|NCT01447433|169054478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||LDL||0.05|-0.11|0.647
84659660|NCT01447433|169054479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.10|0.260
84659661|NCT01447433|169054480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|-2.44|0.598
84659662|NCT01447433|169054481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.0||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|278.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||278.7|-81.6|0.275
84659663|NCT00036270|169054482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 2.75 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 2.75 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, 2 adjustments made: first, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used for the primary endpoint. Second, level of significant was 0.0012 for interim analysis."||1.03|0.77|0.118
84686528|NCT01971723|169111361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Groups were compared against each other at the two different time points and against themselves at the same time points.||This statistical analysis is for the squat one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||.38
84686529|NCT01971723|169111361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the bench press one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||0.0001
84686530|NCT01971723|169111361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the deadlift one repetition maximum measures, only.||||.3
84686531|NCT01971723|169111361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis compares the outcomes of the total weight lifted.||||0.0001
84686532|NCT01971723|169111362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686533|NCT01971723|169111363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical measurement is for cholesterol measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686534|NCT01971723|169111363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for glucose measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686535|NCT01971723|169111363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for HDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686536|NCT01971723|169111363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for LDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686537|NCT01971723|169111363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis for the triglyceride measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686538|NCT01971723|169111364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686539|NCT01971723|169111365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686540|NCT01971723|169111366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686541|NCT01971723|169111367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686542|NCT01971723|169111368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686543|NCT01971723|169111369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84686544|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for deadlift volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686545|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for auxiliary squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686546|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686547|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for bench volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686548|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total squat volume measures, only.||||>.05
84686549|NCT01971723|169111370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total weight lifted volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
84686550|NCT01971723|169111371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686551|NCT01971723|169111372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84686552|NCT01971723|169111373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84686553|NCT01165775|169111387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2155|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2155
84686554|NCT03421808|169111399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||For categorical clinical remission data we performed a chi-square test on the IIT and completer sample using Graph-Pad Prism.||||0.6
84686555|NCT06916468|169111407|OTHER||Proportion|86.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|Comparing preference to 50/50 baseline||||||<0.001
84686556|NCT06916468|169111408|OTHER||Proportion|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Proportion|Out of the 53 participants , what proportion preferred the device without the cotton dampener on majority of anatomical sites||||||<0.001
84686557|NCT01984697|169111427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.53|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.53|1.83|<0.001
84686558|NCT01984697|169111427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.36|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.36|1.73|<0.001
84686559|NCT01984697|169111427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.11|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.11|2.93|<0.001
84686560|NCT01984697|169111428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.8|<0.001
84686561|NCT01984697|169111428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
84686562|NCT01984697|169111428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
84686563|NCT01984697|169111429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.82|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.82|2.03|<0.001
84686564|NCT01984697|169111429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.88|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.88|2.09|<0.001
84686565|NCT01984697|169111429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|5.94|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.94|4.32|<0.001
84686566|NCT01984697|169111430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.14|<0.001
84686567|NCT01984697|169111430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.15|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.15|2.29|<0.001
84686568|NCT01984697|169111430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|5.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.37|3.84|<0.001
84686569|NCT01984697|169111431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.96|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.96|2.05|<0.001
84686570|NCT01984697|169111431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.92|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.92|2.04|<0.001
84686571|NCT01984697|169111431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.06|<0.001
84686572|NCT01984697|169111432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.10|<0.001
84686573|NCT01984697|169111432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.12|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.12|2.20|<0.001
84686574|NCT01984697|169111432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.08|<0.001
84686575|NCT01984697|169111433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.50|<0.001
84686576|NCT01984697|169111433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.55|<0.001
84686577|NCT01984697|169111433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|7.43|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||7.43|5.36|<0.001
84659664|NCT00036270|169054483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 5 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used."||1.08|0.88|0.604
84659665|NCT00036270|169054484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in OS between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.14|0.89|0.951
84659666|NCT00036270|169054486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in time to relapse between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.06|0.83|0.293
84659667|NCT04518293|169054490|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).|LS Means Difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.774|-4.107|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LS means (LSM) difference (95% CI) in home seated SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.107|-6.774|<.0001
84659668|NCT04518293|169054490|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.723|-1.251|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.251|-3.723|<.0001
84659669|NCT04518293|169054490|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.758|-3.091|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.091|-5.758|<.0001
84659670|NCT04518293|169054491|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|-3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 between dual-TA arms.||-3.902|-7.307|<.0001
84659671|NCT04518293|169054491|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.718|-1.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.933|-6.718|0.0005
84659672|NCT04518293|169054491|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.984|-4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-4.680|-7.984|<.0001
84659673|NCT04518293|169054492|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.703|-3.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-3.317|-6.703|<.0001
84659674|NCT04518293|169054492|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.700|-5.293|0.0002
84659675|NCT04518293|169054492|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.965|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.251|-3.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.444|-7.251|<.0001
84659676|NCT04518293|169054493|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.692|-2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.757|-4.692|<.0001
84659677|NCT04518293|169054493|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.897|-2.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-2.128|-4.897|<.0001
84659678|NCT04518293|169054493|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.812|-3.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.189|-5.812|<.0001
84659679|NCT04518293|169054494|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.392|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-1.469|-3.392|<.0001
84659680|NCT04518293|169054494|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.371|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.201|-3.371|<.0001
84659681|NCT04518293|169054494|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|-2.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.664|-4.882|<.0001
84659682|NCT04518293|169054495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|19.487|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.487|5.630|0.0003
84659683|NCT04518293|169054495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.392|20.394|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||20.394|6.392|0.0001
84659684|NCT04518293|169054495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.812|28.013|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||28.013|13.812|<.0001
84659685|NCT04518293|169054496|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.31||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.044|17.535|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||17.535|3.044|0.0044
84659686|NCT04518293|169054496|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.08||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|15.373|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.373|0.804|0.0262
84659687|NCT04518293|169054496|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.201|25.746|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.746|11.201|<.0001
84659688|NCT04518293|169054497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.707|22.837|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.837|9.707|<.0001
84659689|NCT04518293|169054497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.03||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.982|18.658|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||18.658|4.982|0.0004
84659690|NCT04518293|169054497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.412|24.432|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.432|11.412|<.0001
84659691|NCT04518293|169054498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.45||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|16.433|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||16.433|3.993|0.0007
84659692|NCT04518293|169054498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.337|15.058|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.058|2.337|0.0046
84659693|NCT04518293|169054498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.792|18.073|||Wald test|||||18.073|5.792|<.0001
84659694|NCT04518293|169054499|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|-5.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.144|-7.086|<.0001
84659695|NCT04518293|169054499|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.932|-4.060|<.0001
84659696|NCT04518293|169054499|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.274|-3.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.912|-6.274|<.0001
84659697|NCT04518293|169054500|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.069|-2.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.632|-4.069|<.0001
84659698|NCT04518293|169054500|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.200|-2.998|<.0001
84659699|NCT04518293|169054500|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.617|-2.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.649|-4.617|<.0001
84659700|NCT04518293|169054501|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.137|-2.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.908|-4.137|<.0001
84659701|NCT04518293|169054501|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|-1.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.376|-2.803|<.0001
84659702|NCT04518293|169054501|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.446|-2.713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.713|-4.446|<.0001
84659703|NCT04518293|169054502|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.983|-4.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.169|-6.983|<.0001
84659704|NCT04518293|169054502|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|-0.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-0.607|-3.218|0.0043
84659705|NCT04518293|169054502|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.214|-2.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.274|-5.214|<.0001
84659706|NCT04518293|169054503|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.324|-5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.168|-7.324|<.0001
84659707|NCT04518293|169054503|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.941|-1.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.507|-3.941|<.0001
84659708|NCT04518293|169054503|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.489|-3.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.368|-5.489|<.0001
84659709|NCT04518293|169054504|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.749|21.824|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||21.824|7.749|<.0001
84659710|NCT04518293|169054504|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.46||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.501|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.501|1.580|0.0146
84659711|NCT04518293|169054504|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.953|23.171|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||23.171|8.953|<.0001
84659712|NCT04518293|169054505|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.778|25.226|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.226|10.778|<.0001
84659713|NCT04518293|169054505|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.64||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|13.926|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||13.926|-0.613|0.0674
84659714|NCT04518293|169054505|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.839|25.392|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.392|10.839|<.0001
84659715|NCT04518293|169054506|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.902|24.286|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.286|9.902|<.0001
84659716|NCT04518293|169054506|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.632|19.293|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.293|4.632|0.0010
84659717|NCT04518293|169054506|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.622|29.796|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||29.796|15.622|<.0001
84659718|NCT04518293|169054507|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.579|25.124|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.124|11.579|<.0001
84659719|NCT04518293|169054507|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.22||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.963|19.123|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.123|4.963|0.0005
84659720|NCT04518293|169054507|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|22.914|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.914|9.060|<.0001
84659721|NCT04518293|169054508|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.529|2.768||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.768|-1.529|
84659722|NCT04518293|169054508|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
84659723|NCT04518293|169054508|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
84659724|NCT04518293|169054514|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|7.116||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||7.116|0.494|
84659725|NCT04518293|169054514|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.927|4.02||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.020|-3.927|
84659726|NCT04518293|169054514|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|6.764||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||6.764|-0.070|
84659727|NCT04518293|169054515|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.136||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.136|-0.500|
84659728|NCT04518293|169054515|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
84659729|NCT04518293|169054515|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|3.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.633|-2.855|
84659730|NCT04518293|169054516|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|3.129||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.129|-3.911|
84659731|NCT04518293|169054516|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.744||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.744|-4.519|
84659732|NCT04518293|169054516|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.228|3.647||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.647|-3.228|
84659733|NCT04518293|169054517|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.993|2.816||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.816|-3.993|
84659734|NCT04518293|169054517|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
84659735|NCT04518293|169054517|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.596|2.44||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.440|-4.596|
84659736|NCT04518293|169054518|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|9.222||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.222|4.196|
84659737|NCT04518293|169054518|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.883|5.257||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||5.257|-1.883|
84659738|NCT04518293|169054518|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.979|-1.6||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-1.600|-10.979|
84659739|NCT04518293|169054519|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|5.632||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.632|0.123|
84659740|NCT04518293|169054519|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|4.134||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.134|-2.245|
84659741|NCT04518293|169054519|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.968|0.819||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||0.819|-6.968|
84659742|NCT04518293|169054520|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.231|-0.863|
84659743|NCT04518293|169054520|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.231|-0.897|
84659744|NCT04518293|169054520|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|1.913||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.913|-1.494|
84659745|NCT04518293|169054521|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.931|1.149||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.149|-1.931|
84659746|NCT04518293|169054521|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|1.143||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.143|-1.979|
84659747|NCT04518293|169054521|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.453||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.453|-1.374|
84659748|NCT04518293|169054522|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|2.087||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.087|-2.014|
84659749|NCT04518293|169054522|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
84659750|NCT04518293|169054522|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
84659751|NCT04518293|169054523|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|1.385||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.385|-2.501|
84659752|NCT04518293|169054523|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|1.108||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.108|-3.078|
84659753|NCT04518293|169054523|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.37||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.370|-2.571|
84659754|NCT04518293|169054524|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.422|15.138||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||15.138|5.422|
84659755|NCT04518293|169054524|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|8.49||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||8.490|-2.776|
84659756|NCT04518293|169054524|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.807|4.174||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||4.174|-7.807|
84659757|NCT04518293|169054525|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|9.867||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.867|0.531|
84659758|NCT04518293|169054525|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|9.397||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||9.397|-0.136|
84659759|NCT04518293|169054525|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.299|3.567||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.567|-7.299|
84659760|NCT04518293|169054526|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.825|3.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.019|-3.825|0.9677
84659761|NCT04518293|169054526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.35||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.125|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.125|-6.550|0.1952
84659762|NCT04518293|169054526|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.642|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.642|-4.428|0.7453
84659763|NCT04518293|169054527|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12||||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.657|3.222|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.222|-3.657|0.9415
84686578|NCT01984697|169111434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.03|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.03|1.38|<0.001
84686579|NCT01984697|169111434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.99|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.99|1.37|<0.001
84508344|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0151
84686580|NCT01984697|169111434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.37|1.61|<0.001
84686581|NCT01984697|169111435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.87|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.87|1.36|<0.001
84686582|NCT01984697|169111435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.05|1.51|<0.001
84686583|NCT01984697|169111435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.61|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.61|2.64|<0.001
84686584|NCT01984697|169111436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.01|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.01|2.15|<0.001
84686585|NCT01984697|169111436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.16|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.16|2.30|<0.001
84686586|NCT01984697|169111436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|5.86|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.86|4.23|<0.001
84686587|NCT01984697|169111437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
84686588|NCT01984697|169111437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
84686589|NCT01984697|169111437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
84686590|NCT01984697|169111438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
84686591|NCT01984697|169111438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
84686592|NCT01984697|169111438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
84686593|NCT01984697|169111439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
84686594|NCT01984697|169111439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
84686595|NCT01984697|169111439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
84686596|NCT01984697|169111440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.8|-1.7|<0.001
84686597|NCT01984697|169111440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84686598|NCT01984697|169111440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84686599|NCT01984697|169111441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
84508345|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0502
84659764|NCT04518293|169054527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|1.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.019|-6.799|0.1719
84686600|NCT01984697|169111441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.0|<0.001
84686601|NCT01984697|169111441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.1|<0.001
84659765|NCT04518293|169054527|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.16||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|1.326|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.326|-6.380|0.2342
84659766|NCT04518293|169054528|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.87||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.316|3.215|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.215|-9.316|0.3548
84659767|NCT04518293|169054528|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.94||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.356|6.8|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||6.800|-5.356|0.7529
84659768|NCT04518293|169054528|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.32||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.791|3.772|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.772|-8.791|0.4563
84659769|NCT04518293|169054529|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.063|5.859|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.859|-6.063|0.9691
84659770|NCT04518293|169054529|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.59||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.018|2.462|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.462|-10.018|0.2454
84659771|NCT04518293|169054529|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.33||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.583|5.488|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||5.488|-6.583|0.9130
84659772|NCT02010775|169054544|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LS) Mean Difference|-3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-2.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-2.19|-5.58|< 0.001
84659773|NCT02010775|169054544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-4.62|-8.02|<0.001
84659774|NCT02010775|169054544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-5.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-5.22|-8.56|<0.001
84659775|NCT02010775|169054544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-6.00|-9.35|<0.001
84659776|NCT02010775|169054545|OTHER||Percentage Difference|31.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||53.3|9.8|0.008
84659777|NCT02010775|169054545|OTHER||Percentage Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||67.8|28.6|< 0.001
84659778|NCT02010775|169054545|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|< 0.001
84659779|NCT02010775|169054545|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|<0.001
84659780|NCT00843024|169054549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 10 mg/Naproxen 60 mg minus placebo|||0.30|0.09|0.003
84659781|NCT00843024|169054549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.26||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 30 mg/Naproxen180 mg minus placebo|||0.26|0.07|0.003
84659782|NCT00843024|169054549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 85 mg/Naproxen 500 mg minus placebo|||0.22|0.05|0.003
84659783|NCT01372462|169054588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||The primary endpoint was difference in endurance between nasal cannula oxygen and NIOV+O2. Assuming 153 sec clinically important difference, 183 sec SD, and α=0.05, a sample size of 15 yielded 85% power.||||<0.05
84659784|NCT01372462|169054588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84659785|NCT01372462|169054588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84659786|NCT01372462|169054589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||||< 0.05
84659787|NCT01372462|169054589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84659788|NCT01372462|169054589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84659789|NCT01372462|169054590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests|ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests||Per protocol||||<0.05
84659790|NCT01372462|169054590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84659791|NCT01372462|169054590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84508346|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.3|0.3659
84508347|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.3|0.6003
84686602|NCT01984697|169111442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
84686603|NCT01984697|169111442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
84686604|NCT01984697|169111442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.6|0.7|<0.001
84686605|NCT01984697|169111443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
84686606|NCT01984697|169111443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84686607|NCT01984697|169111443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84508348|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.5|0.0785
84508349|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.3668
84686608|NCT01984697|169111444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84686609|NCT01984697|169111444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
84686610|NCT01984697|169111444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.1|<0.001
84686611|NCT03810534|169111452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.62
84686612|NCT03810534|169111453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.31
84686613|NCT03810534|169111454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.93
84686614|NCT03810534|169111455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.60
84686615|NCT03810534|169111456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.53
84686616|NCT03810534|169111457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.83
84686617|NCT03810534|169111458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.75
84686618|NCT03810534|169111459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.50
84686619|NCT03810534|169111460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.48
84686620|NCT03810534|169111461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.22
84508350|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.4|0.1827
84686621|NCT03810534|169111462|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.88
84686622|NCT03810534|169111463|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
84508351|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.1327
84686623|NCT00949715|169111464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||HO: Pacing at selective RV sites (mid-septum or apex) has no different impact on the change in LVEF after 24 months follow-up. With 12% SD and 80 subjects in groups will have 90% power to detect an absolute difference in LVEF of 6.2% at 24 months follow-up at an alpha level of 0.05.||10.8|-2.7|0.2352
84686624|NCT00949715|169111465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Packing at selective RV sites (mid-Septum or apex) has no different impact on LVEF change from 2 weeks to 24 months.||5.5|-7.6|0.7405
84686625|NCT00949715|169111466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Pacing at selective sites (RVS or RVA) has no different impact on LV end systolic volume||2.4|-25.1|0.1051
84686626|NCT00949715|169111467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.9835||95.0||||Adjusting for age and gender|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank Sum||Ho: The AT/AF burden in the RVS group is the same as the RVA group.||||0.9835
84686627|NCT00861614|169111516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.96|0.71|0.0127
84686628|NCT00861614|169111518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.82|0.61|
84686629|NCT00861614|169111520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.0|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||4.00|0.02|
84686630|NCT05050578|169111530|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID18869 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
84686631|NCT04082442|169111542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
84686632|NCT04082442|169111543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
84686633|NCT01783418|169111546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline and Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.613
84686634|NCT01783418|169111547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.957
84686635|NCT01783418|169111548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||.256
84686636|NCT01783418|169111549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.97
84659792|NCT00279305|169054626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.348|||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||0.348|-0.0699|0.05
84686637|NCT01783418|169111550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention||||0.241
84686638|NCT01783418|169111551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.358
84686639|NCT01783418|169111552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.95
84659793|NCT02846779|169054688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||||||||1.03|0.75|
84659794|NCT02846779|169054688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||||1.06|0.77|
84659795|NCT02846779|169054689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.34|
84686640|NCT00089141|169111553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.22||95.0|0.7|3.7||P values are 2 sided and are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|Regression, Cox|Analysis for all endpoints was stratified by number of affected organs and type of conditioning regimen.|For all analyses, MMF arm in numerator, and placebo arm in denominator. Hazard ratio estimate includes 3 efficacy success events that occurred after two years in the placebo arm.|||3.7|0.7|.22
84686641|NCT00089141|169111554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.03||95.0|1.1|2.6|||Regression, Cox|Statistical analysis did not count treatment continuing beyond 2 years as efficacy failure (n = 2 in each arm).||||2.6|1.1|.03
84686642|NCT00089141|169111555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.55||95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|.55
84686643|NCT00089141|169111556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.48||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Cox|||||6.0|0.4|.48
84686644|NCT00089141|169111557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.17||95.0|0.8|3.9|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for risk category||||3.9|0.8|.17
84686645|NCT00089141|169111558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.41||95.0|0.5|5.0|||Regression, Cox|||||5.0|0.5|.41
84686646|NCT00089141|169111559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.14||95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.9|.14
84659796|NCT02846779|169054689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.43|
84659797|NCT02846779|169054690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
84659798|NCT02846779|169054690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06||||||||1.06|0.92|
84686647|NCT00089141|169111560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99||||0.1||95.0|0.9|4.3|||Regression, Cox|||||4.3|0.9|.10
84686648|NCT00089141|169111561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.34||95.0|0.08|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|.08|.34
84686649|NCT00089141|169111562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.28||95.0|0.7|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.7|.28
84686650|NCT00508261|169111563|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.71||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, at month 1.||4.71|-0.33|
84659799|NCT02846779|169054691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||||||||1.02|0.97|
84659800|NCT02846779|169054691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||||1.00|0.96|
84659801|NCT02846779|169054692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.53||||||||1.53|1.24|
84659802|NCT02846779|169054692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||||1.07|0.85|
84659803|NCT02846779|169054693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.41||||||||1.41|1.06|
84659804|NCT02846779|169054693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||||||||1.32|0.99|
84659805|NCT01753856|169054698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659806|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84659807|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84659808|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
84659809|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84659810|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
84659811|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
84659812|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84659813|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84659814|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84659815|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84686651|NCT00508261|169111563|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.24||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C, at month 1.||6.24|0.73|
84686652|NCT00508261|169111563|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.64||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W-135, at month 1.||4.64|-0.36|
84686653|NCT00508261|169111563|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.18||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup Y, at month 1.||6.18|0.71|
84686654|NCT00508261|169111564|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PT (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertussis toxoid (PT), at month 1.||1.12|0.83|
84659816|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84659817|NCT01753856|169054699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84659818|NCT01753856|169054700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659819|NCT01753856|169054700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659820|NCT01753856|169054700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659821|NCT01753856|169054701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659822|NCT01753856|169054701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659823|NCT01753856|169054701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659824|NCT01753856|169054701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659825|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
84659826|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
84659827|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84659828|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84659829|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
84659830|NCT01753856|169054702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
84659831|NCT01753856|169054704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659832|NCT01753856|169054704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659833|NCT01753856|169054704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
84659834|NCT01753856|169054705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659835|NCT01753856|169054705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
84659836|NCT01753856|169054705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659837|NCT01753856|169054705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.850
84659838|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
84659839|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in the CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659840|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659841|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659842|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659843|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659844|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.931
84659845|NCT01753856|169054706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.549
84659846|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659847|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659848|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659849|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659850|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659851|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659852|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659853|NCT01753856|169054707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659854|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659855|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659856|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659857|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659858|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659859|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659860|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659861|NCT01753856|169054708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
84659862|NCT01753856|169054709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659863|NCT01753856|169054709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659864|NCT01753856|169054709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659865|NCT01753856|169054710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659866|NCT01753856|169054710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659867|NCT01753856|169054710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659868|NCT01753856|169054711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659869|NCT01753856|169054711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659870|NCT01753856|169054711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659871|NCT01753856|169054712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659872|NCT01753856|169054712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659873|NCT01753856|169054712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659874|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659875|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659876|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659877|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659878|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659879|NCT01753856|169054713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659880|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84659881|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659882|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
84659883|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84659884|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659885|NCT01753856|169054714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659886|NCT01753856|169054715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659887|NCT01753856|169054716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659888|NCT01753856|169054716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659889|NCT01753856|169054716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659890|NCT01753856|169054717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659891|NCT01753856|169054717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659892|NCT01753856|169054717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659893|NCT01753856|169054718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of DLs in the CC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659894|NCT01753856|169054718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in EC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.004
84659895|NCT01753856|169054718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in IC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84659896|NCT01753856|169054718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in the PC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.850
84659897|NCT01753856|169054719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659898|NCT01753856|169054719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84659899|NCT01753856|169054719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
84659900|NCT01753856|169054720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659901|NCT01753856|169054720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659902|NCT01753856|169054720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84659903|NCT00887978|169054721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.0|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 1:1 between UT-15C SR and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 266 subjects would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a 30 meter between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline in distance traversed during the 6-Minute Walk, assuming a standard deviation of 75 meters. A total sample size of approximately 300 subjects was determined to account for discontinuations during the enrollment period.||22.0|-2.0|0.089
84659904|NCT00887978|169054722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84686655|NCT00508261|169111564|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-FHA (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), at month 1.||1.13|0.85|
84659905|NCT00887978|169054723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) Estimate|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-1.0|0.22
84659906|NCT00887978|169054724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for the 26 UT-15C subjects and 17 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 16.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.43
84659907|NCT00887978|169054726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||1.0|0.0|0.30
84659908|NCT00887978|169054729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|14.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|0.0|0.058
84659909|NCT00887978|169054730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|15.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|||||29.0|-1.0|0.054
84659910|NCT00887978|169054732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|-16.0|0.674
84659911|NCT00887978|169054733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|28.0||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.0|||ANCOVA|||||59.0|1.0|0.059
84659912|NCT00887978|169054734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|10.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|-10.0|0.22
84659913|NCT00887978|169054735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|-23.0|0.99
84659914|NCT00887978|169054736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||0.84||95.0|-25.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|-25.0|0.84
84659915|NCT02700815|169054751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.06|-1.15|0.0303
84659916|NCT02700815|169054751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.60|-0.18|0.2886
84659917|NCT02700815|169054751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
84659918|NCT02700815|169054752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.07|-0.80|0.0956
84659919|NCT02700815|169054752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.61|-0.01|0.0564
84659920|NCT02700815|169054752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.25|-0.87|0.0004
84659921|NCT02700815|169054753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.04|-0.97|0.0347
84659922|NCT02700815|169054753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.65|-0.02|0.0622
84659923|NCT02700815|169054753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.35|-1.01|<0.0001
84659924|NCT02700815|169054754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.882||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.21|1.10|0.0202
84659925|NCT02700815|169054754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.09|0.49|0.1206
84659926|NCT02700815|169054754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.629||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||2.39|1.11|0.0122
84659927|NCT02700815|169054755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.729||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.09|0.97|0.0643
84659928|NCT02700815|169054755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.22|0.57|0.3479
84659929|NCT02700815|169054755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.125||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.22|1.40|0.0004
84659930|NCT02700815|169054756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.44|-1.67|0.0008
84659931|NCT02700815|169054756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.64|-0.24|0.3726
84659932|NCT02700815|169054756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.68|-1.56|<0.0001
84659933|NCT02700815|169054757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.53|-1.78|0.8810
84659934|NCT02700815|169054757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.49|-0.87|0.6094
84659935|NCT02700815|169054757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.95|-0.42|0.2047
84659936|NCT02700815|169054758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||4.27|-0.98|0.2193
84659937|NCT02700815|169054758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||2.15|-1.58|0.7672
84659938|NCT02700815|169054758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||3.88|0.15|0.0339
84659939|NCT00040937|169054773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||4-yr survival (%)|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kaplan and Meier|||The study was designed to have 82% power for detecting a 50% improvement in survival from a median of 4 years, as observed in SWOG S9321.||74|55|
84659940|NCT02324569|169054801|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.826|-0.443|||ANCOVA|||||-0.443|-0.826|<0.0001
84659941|NCT02016560|169054811|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.581||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|2.581||A p-value of \<0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted for baseline age, American National Adult Reading Test (ANART) score, and baseline CDR-SB score.||The specific hypothesis tested was that the hazard of progressing to the clinically meaningful event (defined as CDR-SB value change of at least 1 within 18 months) will be significantly greater for subjects with flortaucipir scans rated by majority interpretation as predicted to progress (Advanced AD scan pattern), as compared to subjects with scans rated as not predicted to progress (Moderate or Not AD scan pattern).||2.581|0.968|0.067
84659942|NCT02016560|169054812|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and Older Cognitively Healthy within amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
84659943|NCT02016560|169054812|OTHER|||||||0.0622||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between MCI and Older Cognitively Healthy within the amyloid positive group.||||0.0622
84659944|NCT02016560|169054812|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and MCI within the amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
84659945|NCT02016560|169054813|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid positive subjects only.||||<0.0001
84659946|NCT02016560|169054813|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero||||||0.7851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid negative subjects only.||||0.7851
84659947|NCT02016560|169054814|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The hypothesis tested was that, of the 5 independent imaging physicians, at least 3 will have the lower bounds of 2-sided 95% confidence intervals ≥50%, for both sensitivity and specificity.|||
84659948|NCT02016560|169054815|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.0925||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson|||Pearson's correlation coefficient||||0.4361
84659949|NCT00911820|169054821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
84659950|NCT00911820|169054823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
84659951|NCT00911820|169054824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.721
84659952|NCT00279591|169054882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84659953|NCT00903695|169054890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8133||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio = 0.06, t-test = -0.25."||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.8133
84659954|NCT00903695|169054891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||a priori threshold for statistical sginficance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio=1.22, t-test=1.1"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.31
84659955|NCT00903695|169054892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.5, t-test = -1.23"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.27
84659956|NCT00903695|169054893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.7, t-test = 1.3"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.24
84659957|NCT00903695|169054894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 0.15, t-test = 0.39"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.71
84659958|NCT00903695|169054895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 2.25, ttest = -1.5"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.18
84659959|NCT00903695|169054896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.06, t-test = -1.03"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.34
84659960|NCT02495168|169054947|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|111.9|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||111.9|92.7|
84659961|NCT02495168|169054948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673|2.996||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||2.996|1.673|<0.0001
84659962|NCT02495168|169054948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.939|3.273||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||3.273|1.939|<0.0001
84659963|NCT02495168|169054949|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|114.5|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% CI for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||114.5|87.0|
84659964|NCT02495168|169054950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.226||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||0.226|0.093|<0.0001
84659965|NCT02495168|169054950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.229||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||0.229|0.099|<0.0001
84659966|NCT03454997|169054995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.1||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across both groups||7.1|3.9|
84659967|NCT03454997|169054995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||||||between groups differences of change between baseline and 6 months||1.1|-2.3|
84659968|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||leading behavioral weight loss group baseline to 6 months comparison||0.4|-1.4|
84659969|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||leading behavioral weight loss group between group comparison of change||1.0|-2.0|
84659970|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||completing weight ins baseline to 6 month comparison||0.2|-1.4|
84659971|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||||||completing weigh ins between groups comparison of change||0.5|-2.5|
84659972|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||managing a group session baseline to 6 months comparison||0.3|-1.2|
84659973|NCT03454997|169054996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||||||managing a group session between groups comparison of change||1.1|-2.0|
84659974|NCT03454997|169054997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||comparison between baseline and 6 months across groups||2.9|-2.0|
84659975|NCT03454997|169054997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.8||||||between groups comparison of change post training to 6 months||0.8|-9.1|
84659976|NCT03454997|169054998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across both groups||0.3|-6.9|
84659977|NCT03454997|169054998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.8||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||1.8|-11.4|
84659978|NCT03454997|169054999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||Comparison of Baseline \& 6 Months across both groups||1.1|-0.4|
84659979|NCT03454997|169054999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||||||Between Groups Differences of Change between Baseline \& 6 Months||0.2|-2.0|
84659980|NCT03454997|169055000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||3.3|-4.5|
84659981|NCT03454997|169055000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across groups||0.2|-3.1|
84659982|NCT03454997|169055001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.6||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across groups||-1.6|-6.1|
84659983|NCT03454997|169055001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|6.9||||||between groups differences of change between baseline to 6 months||6.9|-20.2|
84659984|NCT01111149|169055003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
84659985|NCT01111149|169055003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
84659986|NCT01111149|169055003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
84659987|NCT01111149|169055003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
84659988|NCT01111149|169055004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for 50% Reduction in Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659989|NCT01111149|169055004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659990|NCT01111149|169055004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Serum Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659991|NCT01111149|169055004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Urine Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659992|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Composite (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659993|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Global (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659994|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Affective Flattening (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659995|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Alogia (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659996|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Avolition (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659997|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Anhedonia (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659998|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Attention (Week 12)||||>0.05
84659999|NCT01111149|169055005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Inappropriate Affect at Week 12||||>0.05
84660000|NCT01111149|169055006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT % Omissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
84686656|NCT00508261|169111564|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PRN (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertactin (PRN), at month 1.||1.1|0.78|
84686657|NCT00508261|169111565|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-HBs antibody concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.6||||||||4.6|-1.47|
84686658|NCT00508261|169111566|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations (ELISA) ≥1.0 μg/mL is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.45|
84686659|NCT01242748|169111592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Degarelix was considered to be non-inferior to goserelin with regard to the hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.106|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with time to PSA PFS failure as dependent and treatment as independent variables and adjusted for baseline PSA category, prostate cancer stage, weight and geographical region. Degarelix was to be considered non-inferior to goserelin if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.||1.106|0.542|0.1589
84686660|NCT01242748|169111593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.070|0.574|0.1244
84686661|NCT01242748|169111594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.263||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.263|0.580|
84686662|NCT01242748|169111595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.511||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.739|7.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||7.090|1.739|0.0005
84686663|NCT01242748|169111596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.108|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.108|0.493|0.143
84686664|NCT01242748|169111597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.368|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.368|0.259|0.2212
84686665|NCT00840801|169111600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A stratified score test was used to test the non-inferiority with a margin of -10% at 2.5% type I error (one-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||Stratified score test|||Non-inferiority Test on Seropositive Response Rate||||<0.001
84686666|NCT00335452|169111615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|6.1||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||16.6|-5.8|0.3037
84686667|NCT00335452|169111616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model including terms for ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI).||||||0.012
84686668|NCT00335452|169111617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|3.1||||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (ASA high dose versus ASA low dose) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for Clopidogrel treatment regimen.|||14.0|-9.2|0.6047
84686669|NCT00335452|169111618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|-6.5||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||9.9|-26.0|0.4579
84686670|NCT00335452|169111618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|17.6||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|30.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||30.5|2.2|0.0262
84686671|NCT00335452|169111618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Chi-squared|Interaction chi-squared test of the Cox proportional hazards model.||||||0.0355
84686672|NCT00335452|169111619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|14.7||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|26.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) Log-rank test. No adjustment was made.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||26.3|1.2|0.0332
84686673|NCT00335452|169111620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model including a term for Clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg).||||||0.945
84660001|NCT01111149|169055006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT% commissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660002|NCT01111149|169055006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for perseveration % (week 12)||||>0.05
84660003|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Anxiety at week 12||||>0.05
84660004|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dizziness at week 12||||>0.05
84660005|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Mania at week 12||||>0.05
84660006|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for abnormal dreams at week 12||||>0.05
84660007|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Abdominal Pain at week 12||||>0.05
84660008|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Headache at week 12||||>0.05
84660009|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Insomnia at week 12||||>0.05
84660010|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Nausea at week 12||||>0.05
84660011|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Psychosis at week 12||||>0.05
84660012|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dry Mouth at week 12||||>0.05
84660013|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Chest Pain at Week 12||||>0.05
84660014|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irregular Heart Beat at week 12||||>0.05
84660015|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Weakness/Fainting at week 12||||>0.05
84660016|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Diarrhea at week 12||||>0.05
84660017|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Vomiting at week 12||||>0.05
84660018|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Constipation at week 12||||>0.05
84660019|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Confusion at week 12||||>0.05
84660020|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irritability at week 12||||>0.05
84660021|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for drooling at week 12||||>0.05
84660022|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Cold Sweats at week 12||||>0.05
84660023|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Blurred Vision at week 12||||>0.05
84660024|NCT01111149|169055007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Leg Pain/Cramps||||>0.05
84660025|NCT01111149|169055008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for FTND (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660026|NCT01111149|169055008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 24 Hour Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660027|NCT01111149|169055008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 7 day total (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660028|NCT01111149|169055008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS Resistance (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660029|NCT01111149|169055009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Beck Depression Inventory (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660030|NCT01111149|169055010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAS (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660031|NCT01111149|169055010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS items 1-3 (week 12)||||>0.05
84660032|NCT01111149|169055010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS item 4 (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660033|NCT01111149|169055011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for systolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660034|NCT01111149|169055011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for diastolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660035|NCT01111149|169055012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Weight (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660036|NCT01111149|169055013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660037|NCT01111149|169055014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660038|NCT01111149|169055015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Pulse (Week 12)||||>0.05
84686674|NCT00335452|169111621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|32.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|45.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||45.8|16.2|0.0004
84686675|NCT02943941|169111622|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.429
84660039|NCT01111149|169055016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicidal Ideation (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660040|NCT01111149|169055016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicide Attempts (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660041|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Composite Score - Week 12||||>0.05
84660042|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Global - Week 12||||>0.05
84660043|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Hallucinations - Week 12||||>0.05
84660044|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Delusions - Week 12||||>0.05
84660045|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for SAPS Bizarre Behavior - Week 12||||>0.05
84660046|NCT01111149|169055017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Thought Disorder - Week 12||||>0.05
84660047|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Total - Week 12||||>0.05
84660048|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Positive Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
84660049|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Negative Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
84660050|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Mania Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
84660051|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Disorientation Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
84660052|NCT01111149|169055018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Depression Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
84660053|NCT01111149|169055019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Hit Reaction Time - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660054|NCT01111149|169055020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Variability of Standard Error - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660055|NCT01111149|169055021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Detectibility (d') of Continuous Performance Test (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660056|NCT01111149|169055022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Response Style Indicator (Beta) for CPT (week 12)||||>0.05
84660057|NCT01111149|169055023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660058|NCT01111149|169055023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for WISDM Cognition (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660059|NCT01111149|169055023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Craving (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660060|NCT01111149|169055024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Urge to Smoke (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660061|NCT01111149|169055024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Strong Urge (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660062|NCT01111149|169055025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660063|NCT01111149|169055025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Severity Index (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660064|NCT01111149|169055025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for AIMS Global Score (Week 12)||||>0.05
84660065|NCT02221947|169055029|OTHER||mean Tmax(h)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.206|Bryostatin plasma concentration: mean Tmax (h)||||
84660066|NCT02221947|169055029|OTHER||mean (h*ng/mL)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.330|Bryostatin plasma concentration AUC0-last (h\*ng/mL)||||
84660067|NCT04677374|169055030|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
84660068|NCT04677374|169055030|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.259
84660069|NCT04677374|169055030|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
84660070|NCT04677374|169055031|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93||||||||4.93|1.01|
84660071|NCT04677374|169055031|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.0||||||||4.00|0.69|
84660072|NCT04677374|169055031|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.36||||||||5.36|1.00|
84660073|NCT03765918|169055045|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|12.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||12.8|6.7|<0.00001
84660074|NCT03765918|169055046|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|13.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|9.7|<0.00001
84660075|NCT03765918|169055047|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.8|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||13.3|7.0|<0.00001
84660076|NCT03765918|169055048|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.3|1.5|0.0006
84660077|NCT03765918|169055049|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||7.6|2.1|0.0011
84660078|NCT03765918|169055050|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.6|1.6|0.0006
84660079|NCT03765918|169055057|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.29||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.2||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.20|-4.78|0.4671
84660080|NCT03765918|169055058|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.21|-7.27|0.1606
84660081|NCT03765918|169055059|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.41||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.15||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.15|-4.96|0.4374
84660082|NCT03765918|169055060|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.39||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|4.13||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.13|-3.35|0.8379
84660083|NCT03765918|169055061|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.07||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.07|-4.84|0.8643
84660084|NCT03765918|169055062|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.54||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.54|-4.12|0.8813
84686676|NCT02943941|169111623|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Pressure during coughing versus normal breathing initially measured at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
84660085|NCT03765918|169055069|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.34||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.45|-2.76|0.8287
84660086|NCT03765918|169055070|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.53||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.18|-3.12|0.7761
84660087|NCT03765918|169055071|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.84||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.84|-2.54|0.6880
84660088|NCT03765918|169055072|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.45||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|1.83||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.83|-4.73|0.3858
84660089|NCT03765918|169055073|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.45||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.62||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.62|-6.53|0.2370
84660090|NCT03765918|169055074|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.67||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.67|-5.20|0.3138
84660091|NCT03765918|169055081|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.28||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.05|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.48|-8.05|0.1763
84660092|NCT03765918|169055082|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.18||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.59||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.59|-6.95|0.6882
84660093|NCT03765918|169055083|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.52||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.35|-7.39|0.3103
84660094|NCT03765918|169055084|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.48||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|4.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.45|-5.41|0.8475
84660095|NCT03765918|169055085|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.42||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.51||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.51|-6.36|0.8881
84660096|NCT03765918|169055086|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.78||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.78|-5.22|0.9307
84660097|NCT03765918|169055093|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|1.3||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.85||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.85|-3.25|0.5752
84660098|NCT03765918|169055094|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.98||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.34||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.34|-4.38|0.7196
84660099|NCT03765918|169055095|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.74||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.37|-3.88|0.7522
84660100|NCT03765918|169055096|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.82|-5.30|0.9255
84660101|NCT03765918|169055097|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|8.6||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||8.60|-4.15|0.4926
84660102|NCT03765918|169055098|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.99||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|6.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.21|-4.23|0.7087
84686677|NCT02943941|169111624|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84686678|NCT02736825|169111625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 15% between two independent percentages using the z-test with unpooled variance||||||0.367|||||||Z-test|||||||0.3670
84686679|NCT02901626|169111644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||||||||1.20|0.83|
84686680|NCT02901626|169111645|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||||8|-4|
84686681|NCT02901626|169111646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.06|
84686682|NCT02901626|169111647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.71||||||||1.71|0.92|
84686683|NCT02901626|169111648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55||||||||1.55|0.93|
84686684|NCT02901626|169111649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||||||||1.45|0.93|
84686685|NCT02901626|169111650|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.82||||||||1.82|0.92|
84686686|NCT02901626|169111651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
84686687|NCT02901626|169111652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.39||||||||2.39|0.61|
84686688|NCT02901626|169111653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31||||||||1.31|0.79|
84686689|NCT02901626|169111654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.04||||||||2.04|0.55|
84686690|NCT02901626|169111655|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
84686691|NCT02901626|169111656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||||||||1.94|0.95|
84686692|NCT02901626|169111657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||||||||2.11|1.00|
84686693|NCT02901626|169111658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||||1.18|0.88|
84686694|NCT02901626|169111659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|12.0||||||||12|-12|
84686695|NCT02901626|169111660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
84686696|NCT02901626|169111661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0||||||||14|-12|
84686697|NCT02901626|169111662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.7||||||||15.7|0.06|
84686698|NCT02901626|169111663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.65||||||||2.65|0.25|
84686699|NCT02901626|169111664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.9||||||||1.90|0.17|
84686700|NCT02901626|169111665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.96||||||||1.96|0.68|
84686701|NCT02901626|169111666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||||||||1.27|0.71|
84686702|NCT02901626|169111667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||||1.41|0.37|
84686703|NCT02901626|169111668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.37||||||||3.37|0.39|
84686704|NCT02901626|169111669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.29||||||||1.29|0.78|
84686705|NCT02901626|169111670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
84686706|NCT02901626|169111671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.57||||||||12.57|0.48|
84686707|NCT02901626|169111672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.58||||||||1.58|0.27|
84686708|NCT02901626|169111673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97||||||||0.97|0.47|
84686709|NCT02901626|169111674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.66||||||||2.66|0.09|
84686710|NCT02901626|169111675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||||||||1.37|0.81|
84686711|NCT02901626|169111676|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
84686712|NCT02901626|169111677|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|36.0||||||||36|-16|
84686713|NCT02940574|169111704|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|||||<|0.08||||||Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|Mixed Models Analysis|(F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))||||||<0.08
84686714|NCT05674890|169111739|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||0.297
84686715|NCT05674890|169111740|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
84686716|NCT05674890|169111741|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
84686717|NCT04810221|169111768|OTHER|Paired T-test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Paired T-test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.54|-0.17|0.31
84686718|NCT04810221|169111769|OTHER|Paired T test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.75|||Paired T test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.75|-0.24|0.32
84686719|NCT00246337|169111800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis. Overall power =85%||||0.015
84686720|NCT00246337|169111801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
84686721|NCT00246337|169111802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
84686722|NCT00246337|169111803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
84686723|NCT03525548|169111811|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.6|7.4|<0.0001
84686724|NCT03525548|169111812|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-40.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.1|-50.1|<0.0001
84686725|NCT03525548|169111813|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|11.8|<0.0001
84686726|NCT01226511|169111816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-4.03|<0.001
84686727|NCT05614089|169111850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.43
84686728|NCT05614089|169111850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.008
84686729|NCT05614089|169111851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.71
84686730|NCT05614089|169111851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||12-month||||0.64
84686731|NCT05614089|169111852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month||||0.54
84686732|NCT05614089|169111852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.07
84686733|NCT05614089|169111853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||6-month||||0.58
84686734|NCT05614089|169111853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||12-month||||0.21
84686735|NCT05614089|169111854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||6-month||||0.70
84686736|NCT05614089|169111854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||12-month||||0.02
84686737|NCT05614089|169111855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||6-month||||0.81
84686738|NCT05614089|169111855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||12-month||||0.29
84686739|NCT05614089|169111856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.98
84686740|NCT05614089|169111856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.61
84686741|NCT05614089|169111857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.83
84508352|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.4|0.0993
84660103|NCT03765918|169055105|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.75||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.14|-6.65|0.1654
84660104|NCT03765918|169055106|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.26||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.8||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.80|-4.29|0.9117
84660105|NCT03765918|169055107|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.22||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.82|-6.25|0.2808
84660106|NCT03765918|169055108|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.77||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.08|-6.62|0.1577
84660107|NCT03765918|169055109|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.97||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.97|-7.59|0.2485
84660108|NCT03765918|169055110|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.96||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||0.96|-7.03|0.1364
84660109|NCT03765918|169055116|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.92|0.58|0.00411
84660110|NCT03765918|169055117|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.88|0.49|0.00217
84660111|NCT03765918|169055118|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.89|0.55|0.00140
84660112|NCT01774604|169055150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.33
84660113|NCT01774604|169055151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84660114|NCT01774604|169055152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84660115|NCT01774604|169055153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84660116|NCT01774604|169055154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
84660117|NCT01774604|169055155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
84660118|NCT01774604|169055156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84660119|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.11||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Age was treated as a continuous variable in years.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one year increase in age on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean±standard deviation) for age were 75.7±7.9 years among patients with AF, and 69.4±10.0 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that age did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.11|1.05|< 0.001
84660120|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. BMI was treated as a continuous variable.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one unit increase in BMI on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) for BMI were 31.0 ± 6.6 among patients with AF, and 31.2 ± 6.4 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that body mass index (BMI) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.08|1.01|0.02
84660121|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of being male on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that gender did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient for being male in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.61|0.77|0.56
84660122|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.59||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having diabetes on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that diabetes did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.59|0.74|0.66
84660123|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having heart failure on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that heart failure did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.69|0.69|0.73
84660124|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.6||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having hypertension on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that hypertension did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||2.60|0.58|0.58
84660125|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having renal impairment on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that renal impairment did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.32|0.64|0.65
84660126|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having COPD on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.20|0.45|0.22
84660127|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a prior stroke (more than one year pre-device implant) on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that prior stroke more than one year pre-device implant did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.38|0.54|0.53
84660128|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having coronary artery disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that coronary artery disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.15|0.53|0.21
84660129|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having sleep apnea on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that sleep apnea did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.17|0.45|0.19
84686742|NCT05614089|169111857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.09
84686743|NCT05614089|169111858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||6-month||||0.95
84660130|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.14||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a family history of AF on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that family history of AF did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||5.14|0.76|0.16
84660131|NCT01727297|169055178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.43||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having vascular disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that vascular disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.43|0.56|0.63
84660132|NCT00299975|169055221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
84660133|NCT00299975|169055222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
84660134|NCT00299975|169055223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660135|NCT00299975|169055224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660136|NCT00299975|169055225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between three treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
84660137|NCT00299975|169055226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660138|NCT00299975|169055227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660139|NCT00299975|169055228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660140|NCT00299975|169055229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660141|NCT00299975|169055230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660142|NCT00299975|169055231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84660143|NCT00299975|169055233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84660144|NCT00299975|169055234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84660145|NCT00299975|169055235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84660146|NCT00299975|169055236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84660147|NCT04380116|169055241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|||||||.366
84660148|NCT01197560|169055343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.079
84660149|NCT01197560|169055343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to GCB Subtype; row 2||||0.279
84660150|NCT01197560|169055343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to non-GCB Sub-type; row 3||||0.179
84660151|NCT01197560|169055344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants||||0.091
84660152|NCT01197560|169055345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
84660153|NCT01197560|169055346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.160
84660154|NCT01197560|169055347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.529
84660155|NCT01197560|169055348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.972
84660156|NCT01197560|169055349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
84660157|NCT01197560|169055350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.211
84660158|NCT02216591|169055366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was significant, F(1,16) = 7.76, p = 0.013.||||||.013
84660159|NCT02216591|169055367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = 1.29, p = 0.274||||||.274
84660160|NCT02216591|169055368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = .72, p = 0.410||||||.410
84660161|NCT02854631|169055372|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||1.00
84660162|NCT02854631|169055373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.061
84660163|NCT02854631|169055374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.060
84660164|NCT02854631|169055375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84660165|NCT02854631|169055391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used to explore differences between groups in the percentage of participants with response/non-response.||||||0.30
84660166|NCT01179568|169055410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants. With 10% of 440 target enrollment lost to follow-up we had a power of 76-83% to detect predicted between-group difference in response (CGT with PLA, 40%; CGT with CIT, 60%; CIT 40%; and PLA 20%)||1.81|0.82|<0.05
84660167|NCT01179568|169055410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT at week 20 (aim 2) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.17|0.88|<0.05
84660168|NCT01179568|169055410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs CIT at week 20 (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.46|1|<0.05
84660169|NCT01179568|169055411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
84660170|NCT01179568|169055412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.53
84660171|NCT01179568|169055412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84660172|NCT01179568|169055413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.59
84660173|NCT01179568|169055414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.40
84660174|NCT01179568|169055414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.005
84660175|NCT01414010|169055422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Statistical analysis was performed using a variety of computer packages including XLstat, NCSS 2007, R and NCSS 2010"||||<0.05
84660176|NCT00357968|169055423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|48.38|||ANCOVA|||||48.38|38.04|<0.0001
84660177|NCT00357968|169055424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.26|10.6|<0.0001
84660178|NCT00357968|169055425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.35|51.15|||ANCOVA|||||51.15|38.35|<0.0001
84660179|NCT00357968|169055430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84660180|NCT00357968|169055431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0629
84660181|NCT00357968|169055432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1827
84660182|NCT00357968|169055433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-47.4|||ANCOVA|||||-47.4|-61.2|<0.0001
84660183|NCT00357968|169055434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|-54.0|||ANCOVA|||||-54.0|-67.1|<0.0001
84660184|NCT00357968|169055435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-49.2|||ANCOVA|||||-49.2|-63.2|<0.0001
84660185|NCT00357968|169055436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-25.7|<0.0001
84660186|NCT00357968|169055437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|-2.95|0.7058
84660187|NCT00357968|169055438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.82|||ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.48|0.4029
84660188|NCT00357968|169055439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.06|0.7893
84660189|NCT00357968|169055440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.25|0.4528
84660190|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .57||Relief of breathlessness||||.91
84660191|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.56||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.31
84660192|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value=.32||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.96
84660193|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 8.09||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.04
84660194|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.41||Improve your physical well-being||||.70
84660195|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.81||Relief of breathlessness||||.01
84660196|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.41||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.49
84660197|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .44||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.93
84660198|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.87||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.60
84660199|NCT02970422|169055441|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.61||Improve your physical well-being||||.31
84660200|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.31||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.73
84660201|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.28||To prevent the development of COPD||||.23
84660202|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.51||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.14
84660203|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.28||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.52
84660204|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.88||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.11
84660205|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.57||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.14
84660206|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.29||To prevent the development of COPD||||.73
84660207|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.64||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.20
84660208|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.02||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.17
84660209|NCT02970422|169055442|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value= 9.97||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.02
84660210|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi squared value= 17.20||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.05
84660211|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.56||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.87
84660212|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 6.85||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.65
84660213|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.00||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.35
84660214|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 18.75||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.03
84660215|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 35.52||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.00
84660216|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.23||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.33
84660217|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 23.94||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.00
84660218|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 22.80||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.01
84660219|NCT02970422|169055443|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 20.43||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.02
84660220|NCT02970422|169055444|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric led to equal variance (levene's test) which couldn't be assumed, independent samples were taken (Kruskal-Wallis)|||F(3,144)=137.82|||.00
84660221|NCT02970422|169055445|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|Factorial ANOVA used because variance could be assumed|||F(3,144)=55.89 Partial ETA squared (effect size)=0.54|||.000
84660222|NCT02970422|169055446|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=7.61|||.00
84660223|NCT02970422|169055447|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=1.21|||.31
84660224|NCT02970422|169055448|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric independent sample Kruskal-Wallis test (failed variance assumed|||F(3,139)=8.09|||.04
84660225|NCT02970422|169055449|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,143)=8.01|||.00
84660226|NCT02142959|169055451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment grp \& wk of visit; covariates of site, smoking status \& surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation.||Comparison of omaveloxolone lotion pooled (0.5% and 3%) versus vehicle lotion||0.0|-0.2|0.237
84660227|NCT02142959|169055451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 0.5% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.0|-0.2|>0.05
84660228|NCT02142959|169055451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 3% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.1|-0.1|>0.05
84660229|NCT02899988|169055503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|41.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.9|16.9|0.009
84660230|NCT02899988|169055503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|72.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.3|45.3|<0.001
84660231|NCT02899988|169055503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|79.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.6|53.7|<0.001
84660232|NCT02899988|169055504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.7|5.7|0.039
84660233|NCT02899988|169055504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
84660234|NCT02899988|169055504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
84660235|NCT02899988|169055505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|89.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.97|5.62|<0.001
84660236|NCT02899988|169055505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.0|62.1|<0.001
84660237|NCT02899988|169055505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|83.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.7|57.6|<0.001
84660238|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||25.7|5.7|0.041
84660239|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.007
84660240|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.008
84660241|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||49.1|21.5|<0.001
84660242|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|81.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||81.7|55.6|<0.001
84660243|NCT02899988|169055506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||80.0|53.4|<0.001
84660244|NCT02899988|169055507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660245|NCT02899988|169055507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660246|NCT02899988|169055507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660247|NCT02899988|169055508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660248|NCT02899988|169055508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660249|NCT02899988|169055508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660250|NCT02899988|169055509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660251|NCT02899988|169055509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660252|NCT02899988|169055509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84660253|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.009
84660254|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.002
84660255|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.087
84660256|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
84660257|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
84660258|NCT02899988|169055510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
84660259|NCT01577329|169055513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This is a calculated P value and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||This is a calculated P value comparing two groups at baseline and follow-up||||0.05
84660260|NCT01750242|169055551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% of leads|86.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|73.7|||||||A 95% lower confidence bound was calculated on the percentage of leads where an overlap existed. A subject may have 1 or 2 leads included in the analysis.|||73.7|
84660261|NCT01750242|169055552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-18.4||||||Summary statistics on the UPDRS III score. A higher score is more motor dysfunction.||-18.4|-26.5|
84660262|NCT03167411|169055555|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of Cmax when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|125.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.45|150.24|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||150.24|104.45|
84660263|NCT03167411|169055558|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of AUC0-inf when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|137.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.28|154.75|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||154.75|122.28|
84660264|NCT00420927|169055620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Chi-squared|P value is from Pearson's chi-square test.||||||0.023
84660265|NCT00420927|169055621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.082
84660266|NCT00420927|169055622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.280
84660267|NCT00420927|169055622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
84660268|NCT00420927|169055623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
84660269|NCT00420927|169055623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
84660270|NCT00420927|169055624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
84660271|NCT00420927|169055624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.063
84660272|NCT00420927|169055625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.395
84660273|NCT00420927|169055625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.640
84660274|NCT00420927|169055626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.159
84660275|NCT00420927|169055626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.217
84660276|NCT00420927|169055627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
84660277|NCT00420927|169055627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.043
84660278|NCT00420927|169055628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.004
84660279|NCT00420927|169055628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.049
84660280|NCT00420927|169055629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.240
84660281|NCT00420927|169055629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.271
84660282|NCT00420927|169055630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.230
84660283|NCT00420927|169055630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.550
84660284|NCT00420927|169055631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.301
84660285|NCT00420927|169055631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.188
84660286|NCT00420927|169055632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.314
84660287|NCT00420927|169055632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.235
84660288|NCT00420927|169055633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.030
84660289|NCT00420927|169055633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.403
84660290|NCT00420927|169055634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.036
84660291|NCT00420927|169055634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.349
84660292|NCT00420927|169055635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.037
84660293|NCT00420927|169055635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||<0.001
84660294|NCT00420927|169055636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
84660295|NCT00420927|169055636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.241
84660296|NCT00420927|169055637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
84660297|NCT00420927|169055637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
84660298|NCT00420927|169055638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.074
84660299|NCT00420927|169055638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
84660300|NCT00320411|169055643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.2||||||95.0|8.6|29.4||||||||29.4|8.6|
84660301|NCT00320411|169055645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.3||||||95.0|20.0|44.7||||||||44.7|20.0|
84660302|NCT00320411|169055646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.8||||||95.0|11.6|34.0||||||||34.0|11.6|
84660303|NCT01115101|169055661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|VAS score at 24h were defined as primary endpoint because of the expectation of the maximal effect at this time. Testing for differences of continuous variables between the study groups at baseline was accomplished by the 2-sample t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Test selection was based on evaluating the variables for normal distribution employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||"The sample size of n=120 was computed to detect a difference in VAS score at 24h of 1.2 (30% reduction) at a power of 80%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~Because measurements were made several times on the same patients within in two independent groups, GLM Repeated Measurement procedure was applied to test null hypotheses about the effects of both the between-subject factor (study group) and the within-subject factor (time)."||||<0.05
84660304|NCT02454296|169055683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84660305|NCT02454296|169055684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84660306|NCT02454296|169055685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84660307|NCT00729651|169055737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.08|0.00|<0.0001
84660308|NCT00729651|169055738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Least squares mean is mean of serum PTH percentage changes adjusted serum PTH level at baseline.||||||0.0091
84660309|NCT00729651|169055739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.01|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|It was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.04|0.01|<0.0001
84660310|NCT01218243|169055741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|2.67|< 0.01
84660311|NCT01218243|169055742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|16.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.44|-9.76|>0.05
84660312|NCT01218243|169055743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|||||1.78|-1.41|> 0.05
84660313|NCT01218243|169055744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.05|||ANCOVA|||||5.05|1.36|< 0.01
84660314|NCT01218243|169055745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|2.07|<0.01
84660315|NCT00291577|169055756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.89||||||90.0|80.34|121.73|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no statistical hypothesis testing was done since the primary purpose was to assess the tolerability of the combination of SU011248 with docetaxel.||121.73|80.34|
84660316|NCT00291577|169055756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.96||||||90.0|59.76|112.41|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||112.41|59.76|
84660317|NCT00291577|169055756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.81||||||90.0|80.44|118.94|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||118.94|80.44|
84660318|NCT00291577|169055757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.23||||||90.0|82.75|123.83|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3||123.83|82.75|
84660319|NCT00291577|169055757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.72||||||90.0|62.4|107.04|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||107.04|62.40|
84660320|NCT00291577|169055757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.0||||||90.0|82.95|120.56|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||120.56|82.95|
84660321|NCT00291577|169055761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.18||||||90.0|78.73|124.95|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||124.95|78.73|
84660322|NCT00291577|169055762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.98||||||90.0|78.73|114.58|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.58|78.73|
84660323|NCT00291577|169055764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|73.7||||||95.0|48.8|90.9|||||Two-sided Confidence Interval (CI) (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Overall confirmed objective response rate (CR + PR)||90.9|48.8|
84660324|NCT00291577|169055765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7|||||Two-sided CI (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Clinical Benefit Rate (CR + PR + SD \> = 24 weeks)||98.7|66.9|
84660325|NCT00291577|169055767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.57||||||90.0|79.9|114.32|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.32|79.90|
84660326|NCT00291577|169055768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|112.39||||||90.0|81.05|155.85|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||155.85|81.05|
84660327|NCT00291577|169055769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|79.82|114.96|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.96|79.82|
84660328|NCT03473977|169055771|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84660329|NCT03473977|169055772|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
84660330|NCT03473977|169055773|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84660331|NCT03473977|169055774|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84660332|NCT03473977|169055775|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
84660333|NCT03473977|169055776|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
84660334|NCT03473977|169055777|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain Score Comparison||||0.78
84660335|NCT03473977|169055777|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-pain score comparison||||0.34
84660336|NCT03473977|169055777|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction score comparison||||0.66
84660337|NCT03129100|169055780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|9.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.35|2.03|<0.001
84660338|NCT03129100|169055781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|11.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.03|1.66|0.003
84660339|NCT03129100|169055781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.02|1.77|0.001
84660340|NCT03129100|169055783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.41|1.78|0.001
84660341|NCT03129100|169055783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|11.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.31|1.88|<0.001
84660342|NCT03129100|169055784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|12.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.69|2.11|<0.001
84660343|NCT03129100|169055784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.47|2.20|<0.001
84660344|NCT03129100|169055785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.17|1.90|<0.001
84660345|NCT03129100|169055785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|8.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.09|1.56|0.003
84660346|NCT03129100|169055786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|11.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.72|2.07|<0.001
84660347|NCT03129100|169055786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.57|0.003
84660348|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
84660349|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.0|-2.9|<0.001
84660350|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
84660351|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
84660352|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.72|-2.39|<0.001
84660353|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.59|-2.20|<0.001
84660354|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-1.28|-3.05|<0.001
84660355|NCT03129100|169055787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-0.95|-2.66|<0.001
84660356|NCT03129100|169055788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|13.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.35|2.13|<0.001
84660357|NCT03129100|169055788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.45|1.75|0.001
84660358|NCT03129100|169055789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9586|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.729|-3.987|||ANCOVA|||||-3.987|-11.729|<0.001
84660359|NCT03129100|169055789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.655|-2.304|||ANCOVA|||||-2.304|-9.655|0.002
84660360|NCT03129100|169055790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.40|0.062
84660361|NCT03129100|169055790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
84660362|NCT03129100|169055791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.56|0.757
84660363|NCT03129100|169055791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.77|0.670
84660364|NCT03129100|169055792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.07|0.236
84660365|NCT03129100|169055792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.92|0.373
84660366|NCT03129100|169055793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.98|0.885
84660367|NCT03129100|169055793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.95|0.735
84660368|NCT03129100|169055794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.53|0.294
84660369|NCT03129100|169055794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.54|0.164
84660370|NCT03129100|169055795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-4.3|0.063
84660371|NCT03129100|169055795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.3|0.211
84660372|NCT03129100|169055796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.7|0.334
84660373|NCT03129100|169055796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|0.168
84660374|NCT03129100|169055798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.5|0.100
84660375|NCT03129100|169055798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.5|0.047
84660376|NCT03129100|169055799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-1.83|0.068
84660377|NCT03129100|169055799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.40|0.307
84660378|NCT03129100|169055800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4684||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3011|5.5053|||ANCOVA|||||5.5053|-0.3011|0.079
84660379|NCT03129100|169055800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3978||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3541|5.1734|||ANCOVA|||||5.1734|-0.3541|0.087
84660380|NCT03129100|169055801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4864|3.1605|||ANCOVA|||||3.1605|-1.4864|0.477
84660381|NCT03129100|169055801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1192||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|4.5138|||ANCOVA|||||4.5138|0.0880|0.042
84660382|NCT03129100|169055802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-2.02|0.058
84660383|NCT03129100|169055802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-1.71|0.147
84660384|NCT03129100|169055803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0334||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0329|0.1164|||ANCOVA|||||0.1164|-0.0329|0.213
84660385|NCT03129100|169055803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0319||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0324|0.1101|||ANCOVA|||||0.1101|-0.0324|0.225
84660386|NCT03129100|169055804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.95|-19.28|0.017
84686744|NCT05614089|169111858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||12-month||||0.73
84686745|NCT05614089|169111859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||6-month||||0.81
84686746|NCT05614089|169111859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||12-month||||0.44
84686747|NCT05614089|169111860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||6-month||||0.04
84686748|NCT05614089|169111860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||12-month||||0.10
84686749|NCT05701995|169111870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.6|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||23.6|2.5|0.0001
84686750|NCT05701995|169111870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|30.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||30.4|2.4|0.0003
84686751|NCT05701995|169111871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||4.4|1.2|0.0107
84686752|NCT05701995|169111871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||4.7|1.2|0.0175
84686753|NCT05701995|169111872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.2|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set||-1.2|-2.9|<0.0001
84686754|NCT05701995|169111872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
84686755|NCT05701995|169111873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||17.4|2.0|0.0004
84686756|NCT00715429|169111880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||||||Daily cramp rate at baseline\& on treatment, were calculated as % of each subjects total # of cramps, for comparison among subjects. Change in % cramp rates from baseline to treatment was computed for each subject in vit D and placebo groups.|t-test, 2 sided|T test was used to compare the change in % cramp rate from baseline to treatment for each subject in each treatment group.||||||0.27
84686757|NCT00406133|169111882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age 8-14 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||The study was to test whether the use of CGM will lower A1c at 26 weeks. The estimated sample size was 110 for each age group, which will provide 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups in each of the age groups assuming a population difference of 0.5%, a two-tailed test with type I error rate of 5%, standard deviation of the 6 month HbA1c values of 0.9, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.58.||||0.29
84686758|NCT00406133|169111882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value for age 15-24 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||0.52
84686759|NCT00406133|169111882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age \>=25 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||<0.001
84686760|NCT00406133|169111883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value was for the comparison of RT-CGM group and Control group.|ANCOVA|Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||A sample size of 120 subjects was planned to have 90% power to detect a difference in this outcome between treatment groups, assuming a population difference of 29 min/day, standard deviation of the 26-week values of 59 min/day, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.66, an α=0.05, and no more than 15% losses to follow-up.||||0.16
84686761|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
84686762|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84686763|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84686764|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
84686765|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.48
84686766|NCT00406133|169111884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||1.0
84686767|NCT00406133|169111885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.53
84686768|NCT00406133|169111885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
84686769|NCT00406133|169111885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84686770|NCT00406133|169111886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.58
84686771|NCT00406133|169111886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.85
84686772|NCT00406133|169111886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.002
84686773|NCT00406133|169111887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.18
84686774|NCT00406133|169111887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for the baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.44
84686775|NCT00406133|169111887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||<0.001
84686776|NCT00406133|169111888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.29
84686777|NCT00406133|169111888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
84686778|NCT00406133|169111888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.41
84686779|NCT00406133|169111889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.50
84686780|NCT00406133|169111889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.99
84686781|NCT00406133|169111889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.10
84686782|NCT00406133|169111890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.66
84686783|NCT00406133|169111890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.48
84686784|NCT00406133|169111890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.07
84686785|NCT00406133|169111891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center.||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center).||||<0.001
84686786|NCT00406133|169111892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, clinical center and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||<0.001
84686787|NCT00406133|169111893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.03
84686788|NCT00406133|169111894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.04
84508353|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.6|0.0002
84660387|NCT03129100|169055804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.199||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|1.16|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||1.16|-15.44|0.091
84660388|NCT03129100|169055805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.7|0.531
84660389|NCT03129100|169055805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.4|0.743
84660390|NCT02984709|169055835|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.47||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.47|-0.81|0.593
84660391|NCT02984709|169055836|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.99||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||2.99|-5.27|0.581
84660392|NCT02984709|169055837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.34||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.34|-1.52|0.206
84660393|NCT02984709|169055838|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-2.494||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|5.13||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Child-reported family conflict||5.13|-10.11|0.511
84660394|NCT02984709|169055838|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-3.354||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|1.73||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Parent-reported family conflict||1.73|-8.44|0.190
84660395|NCT02984709|169055839|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.396||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.36||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||5.36|-4.57|0.873
84660396|NCT02984709|169055840|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|2.996||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|14.56||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||14.56|-8.57|0.603
84660397|NCT01362205|169055868|OTHER|||||||0.2454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2454
84660398|NCT02207244|169055879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
84660399|NCT02207244|169055880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
84686789|NCT00406133|169111894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P-value for the 15-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
84660400|NCT02207244|169055881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
84660401|NCT02207244|169055882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
84660402|NCT02207244|169055883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
84660403|NCT02207244|169055884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||p value is based on the log-rank test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660404|NCT02207244|169055885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84686790|NCT00406133|169111894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value for the \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
84686791|NCT00406133|169111895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value for 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.24
84686792|NCT00406133|169111895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.98
84686793|NCT00406133|169111895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
84660405|NCT02207244|169055886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.2|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.2|10.0|< 0.001
84660406|NCT02207244|169055886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660407|NCT02207244|169055887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|30.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||30.4|16.0|< 0.001
84660408|NCT02207244|169055887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660409|NCT02207244|169055888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10%|Difference in percentage|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|24.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||24.4|11.4|< 0.001
84686794|NCT00406133|169111896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.005
84686795|NCT00406133|169111897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.05
84686796|NCT00406133|169111898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.39
84686797|NCT00406133|169111899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84660410|NCT02207244|169055888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660411|NCT02207244|169055889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660412|NCT02207244|169055890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84686798|NCT00406133|169111900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatment differences|408148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176644.0|3475108.0||||||"ICER = Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio is defined as the mean difference in costs between the treatment groups divided by the mean difference in QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) between the treatment groups:~(mean cost\[CGM\] - mean cost \[control\]) / (mean QALY\[CGM\] - mean QALY\[SMBG\]).~Units are dollars per QALY."||3475108|-176644|
84686799|NCT00406133|169111901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.009
84660413|NCT02207244|169055891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84660414|NCT02837783|169055939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.283
84660415|NCT03200860|169055949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84660416|NCT03200860|169055950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84660417|NCT03200860|169055951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84660418|NCT03200860|169055952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84660419|NCT03200860|169055953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.31
84660420|NCT03200860|169055954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
84660421|NCT04774328|169055966|OTHER|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-39.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.818||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.97|74.4|||ANOVA|||||74.40|-152.97|0.4812
84660422|NCT04774328|169055967|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.232||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.29|-24.87|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after coughing."||-24.87|-291.29|0.0222
84660423|NCT04774328|169055967|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.19||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.61|34.53|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure for after sitting up."||34.53|-144.61|0.2158
84660424|NCT04774328|169055967|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.532||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.93|9.48|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after ambulation."||9.48|-166.93|0.0777
84660425|NCT04774328|169055968|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7245||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.764|17.014|||ANOVA|||Entry applies to OC 0-96 hours.||17.014|-35.764|0.4690
84660426|NCT04774328|169055968|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.5059||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.208|21.958|||ANOVA|||Applies to OC 0 - Day 8.||21.958|-38.208|0.5811
84660427|NCT02634320|169056018|OTHER|Statistical test is to confirm the change from baseline is statistically different from 0.||||||0.078||||||Change from baseline at last on-treatment visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
84660428|NCT03919799|169056038|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||5.82|0.19|0.9472
84660429|NCT03919799|169056038|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.35|0.07|0.3078
84660430|NCT03919799|169056039|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis used rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|6.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||6.42|-6.51|0.9889
84660431|NCT03919799|169056039|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis using rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-4.18||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.23|-10.59|0.1916
84660432|NCT03919799|169056041|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||3.6|-4.7|0.7710
84660433|NCT03919799|169056041|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.8|0.5|0.0308
84660434|NCT03919799|169056042|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||7.7|-4.9|0.6533
84660435|NCT03919799|169056042|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||5.0|-8.1|0.6338
84660436|NCT03919799|169056043|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.6||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||31.8|-2.5|0.0916
84660437|NCT03919799|169056043|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.6||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.6|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.6|-25.7|0.3146
84660438|NCT03919799|169056044|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.0||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||12.8|-32.8|0.3753
84660439|NCT03919799|169056044|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|22.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||22.1|-23.5|0.9481
84660440|NCT03919799|169056045|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.036||||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||0.320|-0.392|0.8387
84660441|NCT03919799|169056045|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.039||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||0.395|-0.317|0.8234
84686800|NCT00406133|169111901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
84686801|NCT00406133|169111901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84686802|NCT00406133|169111902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.18
84686803|NCT00406133|169111902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.84
84686804|NCT00406133|169111902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for \>=25 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
84686805|NCT00406133|169111903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.01
84686806|NCT00406133|169111903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||P-value for 14-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.80
84686807|NCT00406133|169111903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value for \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
84686808|NCT00406133|169111904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for the 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||A post-hoc defined binary outcome of 26-week glycated hemoglobin \<7.0% with no severe hypoglycemic events was analyzed in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.02
84686809|NCT00406133|169111904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
84686810|NCT00406133|169111904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
84686811|NCT00406133|169111905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
84686812|NCT00406133|169111906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||0.002
84686813|NCT00406133|169111907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
84686814|NCT03063294|169111973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||||"The difference in difference equals the follow-up minus baseline change in Hassles scale results for the toolkit plus coaching clinics, minus the follow-up minus baseline change in the Hassles scale results for the toolkit only clinics."|"Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to obtain predicted mean Hassles scale scores for the toolkit only clinics and toolkit plus coaching clinics at baseline and follow-up, adjusting for study design and characteristics of survey respondents. The difference-in-difference was then computed as described below, under method of estimation. Bootstrap resampling was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals around the predicted means and the difference-in-difference."||0.50|-0.47|
84686815|NCT02276066|169111997|OTHER|We performed a delta analysis, by graphing the difference between the two measurements, we wanted to visually assess the degree of agreement or discrepancy between the two methods. We were looking to evaluate the consistency, accuracy, or bias between different measurement techniques.|||||<|0.05|||||||Delta analysis|||||||<0.05
84686816|NCT03386032|169112005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means.||Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.||||<0.05
84686817|NCT03386032|169112006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means. Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left miss||"Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.~Significance level: 0.05 (2-sided)"||||<0.05
84686818|NCT03662074|169112024|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The pre-specified analysis plan as per the protocol is to proceed to the second stage of recruitment for additional participants if the response proportion exceeds the historical control of 10%.|||
84686819|NCT02231177|169112051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.27|0.99|
84686820|NCT02231177|169112052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.22|1.01|
84686821|NCT02231177|169112053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.06|0.91|
84686822|NCT02231177|169112054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.13|0.98|
84686823|NCT02231177|169112055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||0.98|0.83|
84686824|NCT02231177|169112056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.07|0.87|
84686825|NCT02231177|169112057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.12|0.93|
84686826|NCT02231177|169112058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.00|0.84|
84686827|NCT02231177|169112059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.77|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.77|0.98|
84686828|NCT02231177|169112060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.24|0.79|
84660442|NCT03919799|169056046|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.009||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.413|16.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||16.395|-22.413|0.7535
84660443|NCT03919799|169056046|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.015||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.419|-1.611||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||-1.611|-40.419|0.0348
84660444|NCT03919799|169056047|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.566||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.621|87.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||87.512|3.621|0.0343
84660445|NCT03919799|169056047|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.984||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|19.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||19.962|-63.930|0.2922
84660446|NCT03919799|169056048|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.757||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.933|37.419||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||37.419|-70.933|0.5320
84660447|NCT03919799|169056048|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.02||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.156|58.196||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||58.196|-50.156|0.8804
84660448|NCT03919799|169056049|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.522||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.837|95.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||95.880|-80.837|0.8628
84660449|NCT03919799|169056049|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-42.442||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.242|43.359|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||43.359|-128.242|0.3196
84660450|NCT04600921|169056113|SUPERIORITY|The parameters required to calculate sample size were the expected rate of VT/VF episodes/year in the placebo group, the minimal VT/VF rate ratio to be detected in the ertugliflozin group compared with the placebo group, the average follow-up of treatment duration, the negative binomial dispersion parameter, type 1 error probability, and the desired power.|Rate Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61||The yearly rate ratio was adjusted for baseline number of sVT/VF episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|A prespecified sensitivity analysis was done to mitigate the effect of outliers by using the robust estimation approaches for negative binomial model.|Ertugliflozin is the numerator and the placebo is the denominator.|We compared the rate of sVT/VF episodes between experimental arms after 52 weeks.The initial sample calculation was based on the mathematical formula provided by Zhu and Lakkis for comparing event rates of two negative binomial distributiuons. To detect a 30% reduction in VT/VF episode rates in the ertugliflozin group compared to placebo group, with 80% power and an alpha level of 0.05, accounting for 5% drop out in each group, a total sample size of 402 was estimated to be required.||0.61|0.04|<0.001
84660451|NCT04600921|169056114|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.97||||||The number of incident nsVT episodes were analyzed using a beta binomial model.||0.97|0.12|
84660452|NCT04600921|169056115|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.81||||||The number of appropriate ICD therapies were analyzed by using beta binomial model.||1.81|0.13|
84660453|NCT04600921|169056116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||The change in NTproBNP levels was analyzed by using a multiple linear regression model.||0.69|-0.35|>0.05
84660454|NCT04600921|169056117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.13||||||The change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 52 was analyzed by multiple linear regression model.||3.13|-1.69|
84660455|NCT04600921|169056118|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7||||||||1.7|0.2|
84660456|NCT01852110|169056145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.37|-1.00|0.7623
84686829|NCT00409682|169112074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.29||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|23.71||There is no adjustment for multiple comparison on the primary outcome measure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose group.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The P value is from the CMH test adjusted for infliximab use and response status at Week 4. The primary analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) using the non-responder (NRI) imputation method.||23.71|-3.14|0.075
84686830|NCT00409682|169112075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|22.97||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% CIs for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||22.97|-2.62|0.100
84686831|NCT00409682|169112076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.72||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|24.89||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||24.89|-3.45|0.073
84686832|NCT00409682|169112077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|27.04||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||27.04|-0.01|0.038
84686833|NCT00409682|169112078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.66||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|"Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 26, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% CI for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.~The P value is from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for the baseline value, and the strata (response status at Week 4 and prior infliximab experience)."||1.66|-9.86|0.161
84686834|NCT00409682|169112079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|4.88|||ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 52, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.||4.88|-6.88|0.735
84686835|NCT00252538|169112115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||All statistics employed Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0. Analysis of variances were used to compare viral responses in genotypes of interest, employing Scheffe's post-hoc analyses. Repeated-measure mixed-effect analyses were used to compare changes in subjective symptoms over time, including age, gender, and self identified race as covariates. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses examining time until MDD development were compared using theMantel-Cox log rank test.||||>0.05
84686836|NCT04710927|169112119|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84686837|NCT04710927|169112119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84686838|NCT00118716|169112122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6||LS Mean Difference, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for maximal percent change in FEV1 following exercise challenge at Week 4.||5.6|0.5|0.021
84686839|NCT00118716|169112123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for post-dose FEV1 AUC Day 1.||0.58|0.24|<0.001
84508354|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0056
84686840|NCT00118716|169112124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.6||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for AM PEF||17.6|-1.5|0.097
84686841|NCT00118716|169112125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID PM PEF.||12.1|-4.8|0.396
84686842|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 2||0.43|-0.08|0.168
84686843|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 4.||0.40|-0.18|0.465
84686844|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Endpoint.||0.42|-0.10|0.222
84686845|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 2.||0.09|-0.29|0.294
84686846|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 4.||0.19|-0.24|0.828
84686847|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Endpoint.||0.22|-0.19|0.903
84686848|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 2.||0.14|-0.30|0.464
84686849|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 4.||0.17|-0.32|0.551
84686850|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Endpoint.||0.18|-0.30|0.633
84686851|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 2.||0.15|-0.22|0.700
84686852|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 4.||0.20|-0.23|0.860
84686853|NCT00118716|169112128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Endpoint.||0.21|-0.19|0.919
84686854|NCT00855062|169112129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||"The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes of U NP Sum between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.~The sample size calculation showed that 100 (50 participants in each group) were required to detect the clinically meaningful difference of 0.5 with 85% power, 0.05 Type I error, two-sample and two-sided test."||0.460|-0.512|0.370
84686855|NCT00855062|169112131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.062||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of participants feeling better in the minocycline group after 24 week treatment is the same as the one in the placebo group."||0.062|0.043|0.613
84686856|NCT00855062|169112132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.661
84686857|NCT00855062|169112133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the 48-week survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.941
84508355|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
84660457|NCT01852110|169056149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||2.54|-2.42|0.9604
84660458|NCT01852110|169056150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.22|-0.01|0.0829
84660459|NCT00410046|169056155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Admissions to hospital||||1.0
84660460|NCT00410046|169056155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions||||0.23
84660461|NCT00410046|169056155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|||||||Fisher Exact|||Physiotherapist visits||||0.567
84660462|NCT00410046|169056155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Out-patient physician visit||||0.475
84686858|NCT00855062|169112134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.23|43.45||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||43.45|-27.23|0.647
84660463|NCT00410046|169056156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA, baseline was a covariate.||Inpatient hospitalization days per patient||||0.628
84660464|NCT00410046|169056156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions per patient||||0.045
84660465|NCT00410046|169056156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANCOVA|||Physiotherapist visits per patient||||0.361
84660466|NCT00410046|169056156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||Out-patient physician visit per patient||||0.816
84660467|NCT00410046|169056157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis completed for patients with sick leave during the past 12 months||||1.00
84660468|NCT00410046|169056158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.906
84660469|NCT00410046|169056163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743||||||Comparison of Hospitalization 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Hospitalization during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.743
84660470|NCT00410046|169056163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Comparison of Therapeutic warm bath 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Therapeutic warm bath during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.362
84660471|NCT00410046|169056163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Comparison of Visit to physiotherapist 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Visit to physiotherapist during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84660472|NCT00410046|169056163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Comparison of Out-patient physician 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Out-patient physician during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
84508356|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.3|0.1305
84660473|NCT00410046|169056164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||Comparison of Sick leave 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Sick leave during 48 weeks of treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
84660474|NCT00875212|169056181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measure anova|The median value of each parameter (pH baseline, minimal pH) was obtained and these values were compared between each group|The study was based on the use of dentifrices for daily oral hygiene in a crossover design. The null hyphothesis was no difference between pH values of the groups. The statistical analysis was by repeated measurements ANOVA.||||0.001
84660475|NCT00875212|169056181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated-measurements ANOVA||The comparison was based on mean and median values of plaque pH in different moments of cariogenic challenge. The null hypothesis was that no diference between the groups wil be found. The test hypothesis was that the experimental dentifrice of CaGP-F would provide a better control of plaque pH after 14 days of use.||||0.001
84660476|NCT00875212|169056182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measurements ANOVA|The difference of pH values between groups was above 1.0 unit.|The groups were compared by repeated measurements anova. There was no power calculation, but a pilot study to check the minimal number necessary of subjects in order to find a signifcant difference between interventions.||||0.01
84660477|NCT01752907|169056183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment difference = bone pain DVD - general education DVD|There was no statistical hypothesis testing for this study. The clinical hypothesis was that a difference in mean maximum pain of 0.5 (scale 0 to 10) in favor of bone pain education would be a clinically relevant difference.||1.0|-0.4|0.3479
84660478|NCT02990910|169056218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test was used to compare the count data,p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
84660479|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.158||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 2. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.158
84660480|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.025||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 3. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.025
84660481|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.007||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 4. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.007
84660482|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.061||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 5. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.061
84660483|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.107||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 6. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.107
84660484|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.237||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 7. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.237
84660485|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.497||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 8. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.497
84660486|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.704||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 9. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.704
84660487|NCT02989194|169056234|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.585||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 10. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.585
84660488|NCT02989194|169056245|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to assess the difference between the VIS410 total and placebo treatment groups from nasopharyngeal swabs based on the TCID50.||||0.083
84660489|NCT02989194|169056246|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.169||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.169
84508357|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.2|0.6638
84660490|NCT02989194|169056247|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive Statistics. Statistical comparisons were performed using log rank test.||||||0.028||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level, unless specifically stated otherwise. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference. All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|||0.028
84660491|NCT02989194|169056249|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive Statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.173||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time, 25th percentile and 75th percentile.||All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.173
84660492|NCT01549860|169056250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.024
84660493|NCT01549860|169056252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||The MIST+SOC subjects decreased in their reported mean pain scores and reduced from a median of 3.0 to 0.6 cm after four weeks of study treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0126
84660494|NCT04180488|169056278|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.23||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-1.84||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.84|-6.63|0.0005
84660495|NCT04180488|169056278|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.07||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.043 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.07|-5.68|0.0449
84660496|NCT04180488|169056278|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.43||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.43|-4.65|0.0184
84660497|NCT04180488|169056279|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-8.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-3.9||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-3.90|-13.16|0.0003
84660498|NCT04180488|169056279|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.65||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-0.65||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.65|-8.65|0.0226
84660499|NCT04180488|169056280|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.98||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.98|-6.78|0.0003
84660500|NCT04180488|169056280|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.19|-4.15|0.0316
84660501|NCT04180488|169056281|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.413||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|7.299||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed on association between responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7\<28,\>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline and region.||7.299|1.596|0.0014
84660502|NCT04180488|169056281|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.507||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|5.107||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||5.107|1.231|0.0109
84660503|NCT04180488|169056282|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.301|6.234||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.234|1.301|0.0075
84660504|NCT04180488|169056282|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.137||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|7.176||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.176|1.371|0.0045
84660505|NCT04180488|169056283|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.173|7.209||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.209|1.173|0.0199
84660506|NCT04180488|169056283|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.677||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|6.359||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.359|1.127|0.0187
84660507|NCT04180488|169056284|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.34||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||2.34|-0.48|0.1940
84660508|NCT04180488|169056285|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.13|-4.60|0.0377
84660509|NCT04180488|169056286|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-5.02||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-0.72||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.72|-9.32|0.0223
84660510|NCT04180488|169056287|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|6.061||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.061|1.154|0.0215
84660511|NCT04180488|169056288|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|3.923||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||3.923|0.893|0.0971
84660512|NCT00616200|169056327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Sickness Impact Profile scores improved.||||.001
84660513|NCT02692716|169056343|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Non-inferiority of oral semaglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was strictly below 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first event adjudication committee (EAC) confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|< 0.0001
84660514|NCT02692716|169056343|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value from test of no difference from 1 (superiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|= 0.1749
84660515|NCT02692716|169056344|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed expanded cardiovascular outcome was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.10|0.61|= 0.1827
84660516|NCT02692716|169056345|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed cardiovascular death (including undetermined cause of death) was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.92|0.27|= 0.0261
84660517|NCT02692716|169056345|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.90|0.73|= 0.5044
84686859|NCT00855062|169112135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.51||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|74.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 48-week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||74.60|-59.07|0.813
84686860|NCT00855062|169112136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.764||95.0|0.26|6.34||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|"The model was not adjusted for any covariate (due to small number of being better in both groups."||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of being better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group."||6.34|0.26|0.764
84686861|NCT00855062|169112137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|The chi-square score was 0.024 and the degree of freedom was 1.||The null hypothesis is that the median log10-transformed HIV RNA viral loads in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.766
84686862|NCT00855062|169112138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.78||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CES-D and MSK scores.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CES-D score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||3.78|-3.40|0.915
84686863|NCT00530062|169112141|OTHER||Difference in adjusted mean|0.946||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|4.185||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using the mixed-effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of center, sequence, treatment group and period, and random effect of the participant within sequence.||4.185|-2.293|0.5595
84686864|NCT02634788|169112170|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.82|110.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||110.04|53.82|<0.0001
84686865|NCT02634788|169112170|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.099||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|63.93|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.93|8.43|0.0108
84686866|NCT02634788|169112170|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|63.05|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.05|7.86|0.0120
84686867|NCT00855595|169112214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0903|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0903
84686868|NCT01069354|169112340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686869|NCT01069354|169112341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Binomial proportion, two-sided Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||91 (90.1%) of 101 subjects had a ≥ 2.0 cm lower VAS Score in treatment versus control NLF at Time 0||||<0.0001
84686870|NCT01069354|169112342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686871|NCT01069354|169112343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686872|NCT01069354|169112344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686873|NCT01069354|169112345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84686874|NCT01069354|169112346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5663
84686875|NCT01069354|169112347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3197||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3197
84686876|NCT01591382|169112350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
84686877|NCT01591382|169112351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4102||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4102
84686878|NCT01591382|169112352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1085
84686879|NCT01591382|169112353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7480
84686880|NCT02521285|169112386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
84686881|NCT02521285|169112386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
84686882|NCT02521285|169112387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
84686883|NCT02521285|169112388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.382
84686884|NCT02521285|169112388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84686885|NCT02521285|169112389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84686886|NCT02521285|169112389|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84686887|NCT02521285|169112390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.234
84686888|NCT02521285|169112390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
84686889|NCT02521285|169112391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
84686890|NCT02521285|169112391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
84686891|NCT02521285|169112399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
84686892|NCT02521285|169112400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms||||0.397
84686893|NCT02521285|169112400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in arms.||||0.983
84686894|NCT02521285|169112401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
84686895|NCT02521285|169112401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
84686896|NCT02521285|169112402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
84686897|NCT02521285|169112402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
84686898|NCT02521285|169112403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.281
84686899|NCT02521285|169112403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
84686900|NCT02521285|169112404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84686901|NCT02521285|169112404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
84686902|NCT02521285|169112405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
84686903|NCT02521285|169112405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.432
84686904|NCT02521285|169112406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
84686905|NCT02521285|169112406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
84686906|NCT02521285|169112407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
84686907|NCT02521285|169112407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
84686908|NCT02521285|169112410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
84686909|NCT02521285|169112411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
84686910|NCT02521285|169112411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
84686911|NCT02521285|169112412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
84686912|NCT02521285|169112412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
84686913|NCT02521285|169112413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
84686914|NCT02521285|169112413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84686915|NCT01542957|169112418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-3.35|0.60
84686916|NCT01542957|169112419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.25|-0.71|0.21
84686917|NCT01542957|169112420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.84
84686918|NCT03933826|169112437|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment estimate (ATE)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4||We tested the hypothesis that the average treatment effect (ATE) is different from zero. This was the only hypothesis test in our primary manuscript, and so no adjustment for multiple comparisons is necessary.|TMLE|TMLE stands for targeted maximum likelihood estimation|The causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with radical cystectomy versus with bladder-sparing therapy. A positive value indicates greater physical functioning associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.4|-0.6|<0.05
84686919|NCT03933826|169112440|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater urinary health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.9|-0.5|
84686920|NCT03933826|169112443|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater sexual health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-9.0|-14.7|
84686921|NCT03933826|169112446|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates worse bowel health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-0.3|-2.5|
84686922|NCT03933826|169112449|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater financial health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.6|0.2|
84686923|NCT03933826|169112452|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.6|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates lower anxiety associated with radical cystectomy.|-1.6|-3.1|
84686924|NCT03933826|169112455|SUPERIORITY|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates less depression associated with radical cystectomy.|-0.3|-1.8|
84686925|NCT03933826|169112458|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater quality of life associated with radical cystectomy.|0.04|0.01|
84686926|NCT03933826|169112461|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.59|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \> 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a greater chance of surviving without recurrence than those who choose BST.|||1.59|1.33|
84686927|NCT03933826|169112464|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without metastasis than those who choose BST.|||1.03|0.94|
84686928|NCT03933826|169112467|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without cancer progression than those who choose BST.|||0.88|0.73|
84686929|NCT03933826|169112470|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving cancer than those who choose BST.|||1.01|0.96|
84686930|NCT03933826|169112473|SUPERIORITY|Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.08|||||A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose radical cystectomy have a lower chance of surviving than those who choose bladder-sparing therapy.|||2.08|0.38|
84686931|NCT04506775|169112487|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.|Mean Error|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.||||||||
84686932|NCT04506775|169112488|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|Mean Error|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||
84686933|NCT01648348|169112502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.73|0.57
84686934|NCT01648348|169112503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84686935|NCT01648348|169112504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.66|0.82
84686936|NCT01648348|169112506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84686937|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Future uncertainty symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.55
84686938|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual disorder symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.16
84686939|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor dysfunction symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.99
84686940|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication deficit symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.75
84686941|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headaches symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.17
84686942|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizures symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.90
84686943|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Drowsiness symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.82
84686944|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Itchy skin symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.15
84686945|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hair loss symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.77
84686946|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Weakness of legs symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.10
84686947|NCT01648348|169112507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bladder control symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.65
84686948|NCT01648348|169112508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||proportion test|||||||0.83
84686949|NCT01338025|169112525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
84686950|NCT03188055|169112529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84686951|NCT03188055|169112530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
84686952|NCT03188055|169112531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84686953|NCT03188055|169112532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
84686954|NCT03188055|169112533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.892
84686955|NCT03188055|169112534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Using an a priori statistical significance of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of concordance status by intervention status (outcome by predictor).||||> . 99
84686956|NCT03188055|169112535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.188
84686957|NCT03188055|169112536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84686958|NCT03188055|169112538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
84686959|NCT03188055|169112539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84686960|NCT03017079|169112541|NON_INFERIORITY|a:0.05;β：0.01 P=.046||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P=.046||||0.05
84508358|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.2|0.4341
84686961|NCT03017079|169112542|NON_INFERIORITY|a 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84686962|NCT03017079|169112543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
84686963|NCT03017079|169112545|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the rule of a=0.05, P\<0.05 means that the hypothesis was true|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
84686964|NCT00847405|169112564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.64||||||90.0|95.93|111.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.97|95.93|
84686965|NCT00847405|169112565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.81||||||90.0|97.95|107.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.91|97.95|
84686966|NCT00847405|169112566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.25||||||90.0|98.35|108.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.41|98.35|
84686967|NCT02305381|169112593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.50|-2.01|< 0.0001
84686968|NCT02305381|169112593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.10|-1.61|< 0.0001
84686969|NCT01564368|169112605|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve (AUC)|0.53||||0.484|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.61||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC1 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.61||0.484
84686970|NCT01564368|169112605|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.6||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.68||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC2 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.68||0.017
84686971|NCT01564368|169112605|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.61||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.69||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) is considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC3 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.69||0.013
84686972|NCT01564368|169112606|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV1 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
84686973|NCT01564368|169112606|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.63|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.71||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV2 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.71||<0.001
84686974|NCT01564368|169112606|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV3 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
84686975|NCT01564368|169112607|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was used.||||||0.032|||||||z-test|||AUC (optimized) = AUC (ΔADC)||||0.032
84686976|NCT02313909|169112649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Stroke + Systemic embolism: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.33|0.87|0.51884
84686977|NCT02313909|169112650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: ISTH major bleeding events: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.39|1.68|0.00002
84660518|NCT02692716|169056345|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.57||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.57|0.35|= 0.4350
84660519|NCT02692716|169056345|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||=|0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.01||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed unstable angina pectoris requiring hospitalisation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||4.01|0.60|= 0.3605
84660520|NCT02692716|169056345|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.55||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed hospitalisation for heart failure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.55|0.48|= 0.6227
84660521|NCT02692716|169056346|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.05|0.56|= 0.0952
84660522|NCT02692716|169056347|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the on-treatment observation period. Time from first dose of trial product to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their on-treatment observation period.||1.66|0.66|0.8583
84660523|NCT02692716|169056348|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.56|0.37|0.4485
84660524|NCT02692716|169056349|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.84|0.31|0.0078
84660525|NCT02692716|169056350|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from date of first dose of trial product to date of end of treatment visit. Time from first dose to first AE leading to permanent trial product discontinuation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the date of their end of treatment visit or at their end of study date, whichever came first.||2.30|1.42|<0.0001
84686978|NCT02313909|169112651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.56922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.87|0.56922
84686979|NCT02313909|169112652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.22078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.81|||Log Rank|||Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.81|0.87|0.22078
84686980|NCT02313909|169112653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.34|0.87|0.47970
84686981|NCT02313909|169112653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.78738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 2: Ischemic stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.83|0.78738
84686982|NCT02313909|169112653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.14822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.28|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 3: Disabling stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.28|0.88|0.14822
84686983|NCT02313909|169112653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.14051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 4:CV death: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.52|0.87|0.14051
84686984|NCT02313909|169112653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.34284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 5: Myocardial infarction: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.38|0.39|0.34284
84686985|NCT02313909|169112654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34||||0.00443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.29|1.28|0.00443
84686986|NCT02313909|169112655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.00451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.0|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.00|1.13|0.00451
84686987|NCT02313909|169112656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.04409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.02|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.02|1.00|0.04409
84686988|NCT00643123|169112659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84686989|NCT02623855|169112673|SUPERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that park prescriptions with group visits would have a superior result than park prescriptions alone.||||||0.6099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study is powered for our primary outcome, caregiver stress as measured by the 10-item perceived stress s score (PSS10). Normative data from population samples show a mean PSS10 score of 13.2 points with a standard deviation of 6.35 points and a within-subject correlation coefficient of 0.77 over 2 weeks.We powered the study to detect a three point difference in the change of the PSS10. This effect size is consistent with other estimates of a clinically significant change.||||0.6099
84686990|NCT02623855|169112675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0085
84686991|NCT02623855|169112677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1749
84508359|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.1|0.9085
84660526|NCT00856284|169056367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.059||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||0.059||
84660527|NCT00856284|169056367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.003||||||||0.003||
84660528|NCT00856284|169056373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||-0.006||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||-0.006||
84660529|NCT00856284|169056373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.035||||||||0.035||
84660530|NCT01635101|169056374|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-91.0|67.3|||ANOVA|||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means||67.3|-91.0|0.736
84660531|NCT01635101|169056374|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-75.9|78.7|||ANOVA|||LS Mean Difference||78.7|-75.9|0.967
84660532|NCT01327885|169056380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.954||The P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|Statistical analysis was designed to detect superiority of Arm A (eribulin) over Arm B (dacarbazine). OS was compared between the two treatment arms using a two-sided stratified log-rank test at a nominal significance level of 0.0455 (adjusted for the interim analysis). This was the primary analysis that was performed when the target number of events (\~353 deaths) was observed.||0.954|0.618|=0.0169
84660533|NCT01327885|169056381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.085||P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test, as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|The PFS and PFS rate at 3, 6, and 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) product-limit method and Greenwood Formula. PFS was compared between the treatment arms using two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.085|0.710|=0.2287
84660534|NCT01327885|169056382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||The P-value was calculated using the stratified CMH method, the stratified factors included histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of the odds ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.9|0.8|0.253
84660535|NCT01327885|169056383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||The P-value was calculated using the CMH method. The stratified factors were histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Odds Ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of Odds Ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified CMH chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.4|0.7|=0.741
84660536|NCT03232801|169056384|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|4.86||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
84660537|NCT03232801|169056385|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|0.45||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
84660538|NCT01059825|169056402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.25|-0.65|0.002
84660539|NCT01059825|169056402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.49|-0.89|0.000
84660540|NCT01059825|169056402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.42||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.42|-0.82|0.000
84660541|NCT01059825|169056402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.52||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.52|-0.93|0.000
84660542|NCT01059825|169056402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|-0.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-0.97|0.000
84660543|NCT01059825|169056403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.13||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|-0.03||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.03|-0.24|0.049
84660544|NCT01059825|169056403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|-0.18||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.18|-0.39|0.000
84660545|NCT01059825|169056403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.32|0.004
84660546|NCT01059825|169056403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.06|-0.27|0.020
84660547|NCT01059825|169056403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.15||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.15|-0.36|0.001
84660548|NCT01059825|169056404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.23||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-0.50|0.000
84660549|NCT01059825|169056404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|-0.32||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.32|-0.59|0.000
84660550|NCT01059825|169056404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
84660551|NCT01059825|169056404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.22||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.22|-0.49|0.000
84508360|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.1820
84508361|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.1|0.1593
84686992|NCT01446666|169112681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||The HCC detection rate was defined as the number of patients with HCC detected by a given modality divided by the total number of patients with HCC detected by all modalities and by follow-up dynamic CT scan. The HCC detection rates from ultrasonography and MRI were compared.||||<0.01
84686993|NCT01446666|169112682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
84686994|NCT01446666|169112683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
84686995|NCT01446666|169112684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.004
84686996|NCT01376323|169112697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.13|
84686997|NCT01376323|169112697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.37|
84686998|NCT01376323|169112697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||||||||0.23|-0.49|
84686999|NCT01376323|169112697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.66|
84508362|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.1|0.6555
84687000|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|0.543|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.543|-1.645|
84687001|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.382|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.472|0.708|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.708|-1.472|
84687002|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|0.516|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.516|-1.696|
84687003|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|0.48|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.480|-1.669|
84687004|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.113|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.113|-0.042|
84687005|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.081|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.081|-0.073|
84687006|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.099|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.099|-0.058|
84687007|NCT01376323|169112698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.007|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||-0.007|-0.160|
84687008|NCT01376323|169112700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.79|
84687009|NCT01376323|169112700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.90|
84687010|NCT01376323|169112700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.90|
84687011|NCT01376323|169112700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.27|
84687012|NCT01376323|169112701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|53.16||||||||53.16|-48.62|
84687013|NCT01376323|169112701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|42.7||||||||42.70|-58.04|
84687014|NCT01376323|169112701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|24.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|75.92||||||||75.92|-27.75|
84687015|NCT01376323|169112701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|48.53||||||||48.53|-52.72|
84687016|NCT01376323|169112703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|16.2||||||||16.20|-19.36|
84687017|NCT01376323|169112703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.81||||||||2.81|-33.00|
84687018|NCT01376323|169112703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|4.23||||||||4.23|-32.41|
84687019|NCT01376323|169112703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-36.55|
84687020|NCT04681729|169112705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed on the association between the ice cube provocation test result and intervention group, stratified by region and background H1-antihistamine regular/daily use (Yes or No). Threshold of significance at 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the family-wise type-I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.01.||2.56|0.41|0.9492
84660552|NCT01059825|169056404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
84660553|NCT01059825|169056405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.47||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.64|0.000
84660554|NCT01059825|169056405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.49|-0.83|0.000
84508363|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.1|0.0170
84508364|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.1|0.0188
84660555|NCT01059825|169056405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.45||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.45|-0.80|0.000
84660556|NCT01059825|169056405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.47||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.47|-0.82|0.000
84660557|NCT01059825|169056405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|-0.5||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.50|-0.84|0.000
84660558|NCT01059825|169056407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.75|-0.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.75|0.007
84660559|NCT01059825|169056407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.35|-1.14||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.14|-2.35|0.000
84660560|NCT01059825|169056407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|-1.54||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.54|-2.76|0.000
84660561|NCT01059825|169056407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.52|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.52|0.000
84660562|NCT01059825|169056407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|1.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.06|-0.15|0.833
84660563|NCT01059825|169056408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.42||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.73|0.043
84660564|NCT01059825|169056408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|-0.81||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.81|-1.44|0.000
84687021|NCT02436811|169112722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A stepwise forward selection model was used. All independent variables with P\<0.20 in the univariate analysis were selected and those which were significant (P\<0.05) were kept in the final model. The level of significance was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|||Univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions with robust variance were obtained to estimate the rate ratios (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals. Two Poisson regression models were generated, using the knowledge score 15 minutes after the intervention (post-test) and 4 weeks after the interventions (follow-up test) as dependent variables.||||<0.001
84687022|NCT03595332|169112723|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis tests whether for both groups combined, the baseline to 10-week follow-up BMI percentile scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9846||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|3.067||This test compares baseline to 10-week post-test for both groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the BMI Percentile score would not be different from zero. A p-value of 0.05 was used as a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of 222 children nested within 150 families and 4 schools.||||3.067|-0.793|0.248
84687023|NCT03595332|169112724|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested whether BMI Percentile score change among overweight participants (BMI equal or greater than 85th percentile at baseline) significantly changed from baseline to follow-up (was significantly different from zero). This was a subset analysis among the highest risk participants in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.541||The p-value threshold was 0.05 for all comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of children within schools and families.|A negative parameter suggests a decreased BMI Percentile.|||-0.541|-5.806|0.018
84687024|NCT03595332|169112725|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested the difference in BMI percentile between baseline and 1-year follow-up among participants in the immediate intervention group to test the null hypothesis that no change occurred.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.922|3.648||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Regression, Linear|Analysis included Generalized Estimating Equations with linear response variable, accounting for nested data structure.||||3.648|-2.922|0.829
84687025|NCT03595332|169112726|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis test whether for both groups combined, Baseline to 10-week change in reported intention of physical activity was significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.534||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data were made.|A positive parameter would suggest an increase in intentions to be physically active.|||0.534|0.034|0.026
84687026|NCT02227875|169112727|NON_INFERIORITY|Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.218||||||||0.218|-0.098|
84687027|NCT02657317|169112736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-3.7|||GLMM|||To detect a medium effect (d = 0.50) at 2-sided α = 0.05, 50 participants were needed in each study arm (total N = 100). We anticipated 30% attrition in each arm. Data for the primary aim were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models adjusting for baseline levels of prognostic variable and using random intercepts at the level of participants. The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat.||-3.7|-14.4|.001
84687028|NCT02856113|169112737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3677|=|0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.831||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|||0.831|-0.627|=0.782
84687029|NCT02856113|169112738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2635|=|0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.476||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.476|-0.567|=0.863
84508365|NCT02978326|168767766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.2|0.0726
84508366|NCT02978326|168767767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 3||0.4|-6.5|0.0791
84508367|NCT02978326|168767767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|1.86|-7.7|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 8||-0.3|-7.7|0.0322
84508368|NCT02978326|168767767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 15||-0.8|-8.3|0.0180
84508369|NCT02978326|168767767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 21||-0.5|-8.1|0.0271
84687030|NCT02856113|169112738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3123|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.622||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 18||0.622|-0.614|=0.990
84687031|NCT02856113|169112738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3664|=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.316||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 39||0.316|-1.139|=0.264
84687032|NCT02856113|169112738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.483|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4165|=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.314|0.348||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 52||0.348|-1.314|=0.250
84687033|NCT03494166|169112749|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm variable in the mixed model, reflecting average difference of group means over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.25||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of symptom severity index, adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC (average over time).|"The null hypothesis was that the means in two arms were equal, the alternative hypothesis was that the means were not equal.~We planned to randomize 224 survivors in approximately 3:1 ratio in the first randomization; power was 0.92 to detect the adjusted d=0.54 in the comparison of the SMSH and SMSH+TIPC in the first randomization. The planned number of 224 was exceeded because more survivors than planned were determined to have high need for symptom management."||1.25|-3.90|.31
84687034|NCT03494166|169112750|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the variable reflecting trial arm from the second randomization in the mixed model. This parameter reflected average difference between means of two groups over time (weeks 5-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.55||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 9 repeated measures of symptom severity index (weeks 5-13), adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The required sample size was 60 per group for .80 power or greater in two-tailed tests at the 0.05 level of significance using the effect size of Cohen's d=0.54 (adjusted for baseline and repeated measures). The actual sample size was smaller (61 total) due to the higher than planned rate of response to the SMSH alone by week 4.||4.55|-8.91|.52
84687035|NCT03494166|169112751|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the first randomization variable in the linear regression model.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear||The mean of group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.81|-2.63|.71
84508370|NCT02978326|168767767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 45||-2.2|-9.4|0.0018
84508371|NCT02978326|168767768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.81||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 3||2.81|0.70|0.3372
84508372|NCT02978326|168767768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.47||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 8||3.47|0.91|0.0935
84508373|NCT02978326|168767768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.28||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 15||4.28|1.09|0.0276
84660565|NCT01059825|169056408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.22|-0.59||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-1.22|0.000
84660566|NCT01059825|169056408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|-0.55||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.18|0.000
84508374|NCT02978326|168767768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.54||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment: Baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 21||3.54|0.91|0.0920
84660567|NCT01059825|169056408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.76||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.76|0.14|0.967
84660568|NCT01059825|169056409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|-0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.36|-1.17|0.008
84660569|NCT01059825|169056409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.73|-0.91||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.91|-1.73|0.000
84660570|NCT01059825|169056409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.65|-0.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.83|-1.65|0.000
84660571|NCT01059825|169056409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|-0.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward..||||-0.67|-1.49|0.000
84660572|NCT01059825|169056409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.86||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.86|0.04|0.922
84660573|NCT01059825|169056410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.51|-0.56||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-1.51|0.003
84660574|NCT01059825|169056410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.09|-2.04|0.000
84660575|NCT01059825|169056410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.21||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.21|-2.16|0.000
84660576|NCT01059825|169056410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.26|0.000
84660577|NCT01059825|169056410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.24||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.71|-0.24|0.741
84660578|NCT01059825|169056412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.13||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.92|0.65||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.65|-4.92|0.163
84660579|NCT01059825|169056412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|-0.68||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.68|-6.28|0.056
84660580|NCT01059825|169056412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-0.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.05|-5.70|0.096
84660581|NCT01059825|169056412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.21|-0.53||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.53|-6.21|0.064
84660582|NCT01059825|169056412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|2.26||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.26|-3.33|0.403
84660583|NCT01059825|169056413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.17||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.17|-2.91|0.425
84660584|NCT01059825|169056413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.81||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.23||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-5.38|0.082
84660585|NCT01059825|169056413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.21||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.21|-2.92|0.430
84660586|NCT01059825|169056413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.89|-6.05|0.043
84660587|NCT01059825|169056413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.01||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.55|3.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.58|-1.55|0.694
84660588|NCT01059825|169056414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|1.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.05|-3.81|0.234
84660589|NCT01059825|169056414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.03|-0.14||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.14|-5.03|0.087
84660590|NCT01059825|169056414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.86||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|-0.4||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.40|-5.33|0.068
84660591|NCT01059825|169056414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.77||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.25|1.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.71|-3.25|0.346
84660592|NCT01059825|169056414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.21|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-3.21|0.346
84660593|NCT01059825|169056415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.87|1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.67|-3.87|0.306
84660594|NCT01059825|169056415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.41||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|0.37||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.37|-5.19|0.133
84660595|NCT01059825|169056415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.42|0.2||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.20|-5.42|0.117
84660596|NCT01059825|169056415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.87||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.69|-0.04||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.04|-5.69|0.097
84660597|NCT01059825|169056415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.78|0.79||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.79|-4.78|0.179
84660598|NCT01059825|169056417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.93||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.62|-0.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.24|-3.62|0.072
84660599|NCT01059825|169056417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-3.51|0.086
84660600|NCT01059825|169056417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.71|-2.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-2.27|-5.71|0.002
84660601|NCT01059825|169056417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.37|-0.92||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.92|-4.37|0.025
84660602|NCT01059825|169056417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.88||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|2.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.58|-0.82|0.746
84660603|NCT01059825|169056418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.9||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.90|-2.27|0.289
84660604|NCT01059825|169056418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.31|0.91||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.91|-2.31|0.288
84660605|NCT01059825|169056418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.41||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.19|-3.01|0.130
84660606|NCT01059825|169056418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.44||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|-0.84||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.84|-4.05|0.026
84660607|NCT01059825|169056418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.49||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|3.08||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.08|-0.11|0.883
84660608|NCT01059825|169056419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.67||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.07|-0.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.27|-3.07|0.063
84660609|NCT01059825|169056419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.29||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.88|-3.69|0.019
84660610|NCT01059825|169056419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.43|-0.59||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-3.43|0.035
84660611|NCT01059825|169056419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.73|0.12||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.12|-2.73|0.121
84660612|NCT01059825|169056419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.29||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.13|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-1.13|0.602
84660613|NCT01059825|169056420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.86|-0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.54|-3.86|0.045
84660614|NCT01059825|169056420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.49||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.16|0.18||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.18|-3.16|0.126
84660615|NCT01059825|169056420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.72|-1.34||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.34|-4.72|0.011
84660616|NCT01059825|169056420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.99||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-3.69|0.066
84660617|NCT01059825|169056420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.15|1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.19|-2.15|0.357
84660618|NCT01059825|169056422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.29|-13.69||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.69|-28.29|0.000
84660619|NCT01059825|169056422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.17|-18.47||P-value is one-sided.P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-18.47|-33.17|0.000
84660620|NCT01059825|169056422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.64|-26.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-26.83|-41.64|0.000
84660621|NCT01059825|169056422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.49|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.49|0.000
84660622|NCT01059825|169056422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.39|-12.72||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.72|-27.39|0.000
84660623|NCT01059825|169056423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|-13.34||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.34|-28.58|0.000
84660624|NCT01059825|169056423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-21.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.27|-13.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.86|-29.27|0.000
84660625|NCT01059825|169056423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.2|-24.88||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.88|-40.20|0.000
84660626|NCT01059825|169056423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.05|-14.61||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-14.61|-30.05|0.000
84660627|NCT01059825|169056423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.19|-12.96||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.96|-28.19|0.000
84687036|NCT03494166|169112752|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the second randomization variable in linear regression model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|The model included the adjustment for baseline value of the outcome.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||5.01|-6.53|.79
84687037|NCT01058304|169112791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis compares study Arm 1 and Arm 2 at 24-week follow-up, with 12-week data also included in the response trajectory.~The hypothesis being tested is that group-based PT (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement WOMAC scores compared to individual PT (Arm 2)"||0.538|-5.87|0.1024
84687038|NCT01058304|169112791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in greater improvements in WOMAC scores at 24-week follow-up (12 weeks after the end of the group program) when compared to usual PT care (Arm 2).||2.04|-4.64|0.444
84687039|NCT01058304|169112792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis compares Arms 1 and 2 at 12-week follow-up. The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement in SPPB scores compared with the individual PT program (Arm 2).||0.238|-0.463|0.527
84687040|NCT02755597|169112793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.913|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.913|0.471|=0.012
84687041|NCT02755597|169112794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
84687042|NCT02755597|169112796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.753|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.753|0.343|<0.001
84687043|NCT02755597|169112801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191|||=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||1.770|0.802|=0.385
84687044|NCT02755597|169112802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.805|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.805|0.405|=0.001
84687045|NCT02755597|169112803|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||=0.019
84687046|NCT02755597|169112804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
84687047|NCT02496767|169112805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9365||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|5.503|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||5.503|-2.089|0.3782
84687048|NCT02496767|169112805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0245||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|4.583|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.583|-3.359|0.7625
84687049|NCT02496767|169112805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1081||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.711|4.566|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.566|-3.711|0.8394
84687050|NCT02496767|169112806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.12|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.12|-0.50|0.4521
84687051|NCT02496767|169112806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.68|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.68|-1.00|0.7120
84687052|NCT02496767|169112806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.53|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.53|-1.19|0.4510
84687053|NCT02496767|169112807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0351|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0351|-0.0374|0.9505
84687054|NCT02496767|169112807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0317|0.045|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0450|-0.0317|0.7336
84687055|NCT02496767|169112807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0088||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0303|0.0479|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0479|-0.0303|0.6593
84687056|NCT02496767|169112808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.141|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.141|0.587|0.2369
84687057|NCT02496767|169112808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.372|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.372|0.711|0.9420
84687058|NCT02496767|169112808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.304|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.304|0.668|0.6853
84687059|NCT02496767|169112809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.627|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.627|0.698|0.7667
84687060|NCT02496767|169112809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.419|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.419|0.577|0.6619
84687061|NCT02496767|169112809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.386|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.386|0.561|0.5856
84687062|NCT02496767|169112810|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.17|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||2.17|-2.17|0.9991
84687063|NCT02496767|169112810|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.43|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.43|-3.04|0.4808
84687064|NCT02496767|169112810|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.69|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.69|-2.89|0.6082
84687065|NCT02496767|169112811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.206|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.206|0.500|0.2602
84687066|NCT02496767|169112811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.662|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.662|0.720|0.6748
84687067|NCT02496767|169112811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.443|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.443|0.609|0.7694
84687068|NCT00166296|169112812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|2.141|||Fisher Exact|||||2.141|0.075|0.441
84687069|NCT00166296|169112813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84687070|NCT00166296|169112814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.443||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
84687071|NCT00166296|169112815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.930
84660628|NCT01059825|169056424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.16|-15.01||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.01|-29.16|0.000
84660629|NCT01059825|169056424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.06|-20.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-20.83|-35.06|0.000
84660630|NCT01059825|169056424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-33.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.29|-25.95||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-25.95|-40.29|0.000
84660631|NCT01059825|169056424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.02|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.02|0.000
84660632|NCT01059825|169056424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-23.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.28|-16.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-16.07|-30.28|0.000
84660633|NCT01059825|169056425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.87|-15.27||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.27|-28.87|0.000
84660634|NCT01059825|169056425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.35|-21.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-21.67|-35.35|0.000
84660635|NCT01059825|169056425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.3|-28.51||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-28.51|-42.30|0.000
84660636|NCT01059825|169056425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.76|-27.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-27.86|-41.76|0.000
84660637|NCT01059825|169056425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.58|-15.92||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.92|-29.58|0.000
84660638|NCT00106392|169056430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-Values were not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A group sequential design using the O'Brien and Fleming stopping rule will require 58 evaluable patients per group to detect a 5-point difference in the Erectile Function domain of the IIEF with a power of 80% and an overall significance level of 5%.||||0.111
84660639|NCT00106392|169056431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
84660640|NCT00106392|169056432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.790
84660641|NCT00106392|169056433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.099
84660642|NCT00106392|169056434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
84660643|NCT00106392|169056435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.879
84660644|NCT00411645|169056453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.92||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|||1.920|0.424|0.789
84660645|NCT00411645|169056454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.721||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.008||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||1.008|0.515|0.056
84660646|NCT00411645|169056454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.375|0.697|0.904
84660647|NCT00411645|169056454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.161||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.161|0.606|0.289
84687072|NCT03138733|169112869|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -15%, the non-inferiority of ceftobiprole to daptomycin therapy was to be concluded.|Adjusted proportion difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.1||||||The observed difference in percentage of responders at PTE (ceftobiprole group minus the daptomycin group) were determined and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference was computed, with adjustment for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights were used for the stratum weight in the calculation of the CI||11.1|-7.1|
84687073|NCT03138733|169112870|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.5|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||9.5|-8.3|
84687074|NCT03138733|169112871|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.0|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||13|-2.9|
84687075|NCT03138733|169112872|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||5.2|-6.2|
84687076|NCT03138733|169112873|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||4.8|-4.6|
84687077|NCT04058353|169113064|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|2.2|<0.0001
84687078|NCT04058353|169113065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-20.1|-26.1|<0.0001
84687079|NCT04058353|169113067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|12.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.1|5.3|<0.0001
84687080|NCT01951638|169113071|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.137|||=|0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.31|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups BAY1021189 (2.5mg, 2.5 to 5mg, 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the comparison groups is difference of means on the log scale.||0.31|-0.04|= 0.8991
84687081|NCT01951638|169113071|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.076|||=|0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.33|-0.18|= 0.7194
84687082|NCT01951638|169113071|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.156|||=|0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.12|= 0.8653
84687083|NCT01951638|169113071|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.171|||=|0.9041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.09|= 0.9041
84687084|NCT01951638|169113071|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.052|||=|0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.3|-0.2|= 0.6572
84687085|NCT01951638|169113072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.629|||=|0.8156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|4.62|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means.||4.62|-1.36|= 0.8156
84687086|NCT01951638|169113072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.707|||=|0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|5.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.8|-2.39|= 0.7945
84687087|NCT01951638|169113072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.109|||=|0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|7.23|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||7.23|-3.01|= 0.7917
84687088|NCT01951638|169113072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||=|0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|5.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.26|-2.82|= 0.7241
84687089|NCT01951638|169113072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.198|||=|0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|4.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||4.63|-2.23|= 0.7546
84687090|NCT01349920|169113086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 6||||0.071
84687091|NCT01349920|169113086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 22||||0.381
84687092|NCT01782742|169113140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-0.13|0.22
84687093|NCT01782742|169113141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.428|-4.428|0.57
84687094|NCT01782742|169113142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.625||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.029|6.279|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.279|-5.029|0.83
84687095|NCT01782742|169113143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
84687096|NCT01782742|169113144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.674|8.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.924|-9.674|0.94
84687097|NCT01782742|169113145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.563||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.975|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.100|-1.975|0.18
84687098|NCT01782742|169113153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.021|-0.010|0.46
84687099|NCT01782742|169113154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.040|-0.020|0.53
84687100|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.118||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.118|-0.086|0.8530
84687101|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7558||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.7558
84687102|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.08||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.080|-0.119|0.7920
84687103|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6991||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.6991
84687104|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.128||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.128|-0.071|0.8530
84687105|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5736||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.5736
84687106|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.235||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.235|0.027|0.0639
84687107|NCT00514683|169113157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.0136
84687108|NCT00514683|169113158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|4.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.01|-1.15|0.2774
84687109|NCT00514683|169113158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.68|-1.48|0.4014
84687110|NCT00514683|169113158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.46|0.26|0.0314
84687111|NCT00514683|169113158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|7.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.56|2.37|0.0002
84687112|NCT00514683|169113159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.05|0.3644
84687113|NCT00514683|169113159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.06|0.4525
84687114|NCT00514683|169113159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.18|0.00|0.0471
84687115|NCT00514683|169113159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.26|0.08|0.0004
84687116|NCT00514683|169113160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.26|-2.43|0.5920
84687117|NCT00514683|169113160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.20|-2.49|0.6155
84687118|NCT00514683|169113160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.43|0.0271
84687119|NCT00514683|169113160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|8.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.83|2.11|0.0015
84687120|NCT00514683|169113161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.31||ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|ANCOVA||Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.31|-2.34|0.5601
84687121|NCT00514683|169113161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.13|-2.53|0.6366
84687122|NCT00514683|169113161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.49|0.0246
84687123|NCT00514683|169113161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.78|2.10|0.0015
84687124|NCT00514683|169113162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.637|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.637|0.506|0.7543
84687125|NCT00514683|169113162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.045|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.045|0.631|0.6704
84687126|NCT00514683|169113162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.657||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|1.189|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.189|0.363|0.1649
84687127|NCT00514683|169113162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.415||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.757|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.757|0.227|0.0041
84687128|NCT00514683|169113163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.102|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.102|0.526|0.5882
84687129|NCT00514683|169113163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.081|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.081|0.078|0.0653
84687130|NCT00514683|169113163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|1.154|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.154|0.106|0.0847
84687131|NCT00514683|169113163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.271|1.977|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.977|0.271|0.5383
84687132|NCT00514683|169113164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.39|-0.51|0.3658
84687133|NCT00514683|169113164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.27|-0.61|0.4956
84687134|NCT00514683|169113164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.31|0.41|0.0051
84687135|NCT00514683|169113164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.07|0.17|0.0211
84687136|NCT00514683|169113165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.428||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.184|0.155|0.1021
84687137|NCT00514683|169113165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.773|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.773|0.262|0.4318
84687138|NCT00514683|169113165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.412||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.161|0.146|0.0934
84687139|NCT00514683|169113165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.313||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.903|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.903|0.108|0.0317
84687140|NCT00514683|169113166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.51|-5.66|0.6443
84687141|NCT00514683|169113166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.18|-5.80|0.5656
84687142|NCT00514683|169113166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|4.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.64|-4.18|0.9181
84687143|NCT00514683|169113166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|5.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.63|-3.77|0.6970
84687144|NCT00514683|169113167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.96|-4.84|0.9811
84687145|NCT00514683|169113167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.75|-3.74|0.6772
84687146|NCT00514683|169113167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.09|-4.27|0.8631
84687147|NCT00514683|169113167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|6.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||6.31|-3.62|0.5942
84687148|NCT00514683|169113168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.19|-0.62|0.2716
84687149|NCT00514683|169113168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.56|-1.18|0.7871
84687150|NCT00514683|169113168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.24|-1.46|0.8721
84508375|NCT02978326|168767768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.51||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 45||3.51|0.88|0.1109
84660648|NCT00411645|169056454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.239||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.239|0.640|0.493
84660649|NCT00411645|169056455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
84660650|NCT00411645|169056455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted hazard ratio|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||The p-value from Wald Chi-Square test for treatment effect.|Wald Chi-squared||Maribavir versus placebo; based on Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) + transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity) + treatment.|||1.06|0.65|0.130
84508376|NCT02978326|168767769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 3||-0.6|-5.7|0.0169
84660651|NCT00411645|169056456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.542
84660652|NCT00411645|169056456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.637
84660653|NCT00411645|169056456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||||0.825
84660654|NCT00411645|169056457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.946||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||0.946|0.474|0.022
84660655|NCT00411645|169056457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.247||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.247|0.617|0.468
84660656|NCT00411645|169056457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.075||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.075|0.555|0.125
84687151|NCT00514683|169113168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.31|-1.58|0.8523
84687152|NCT00514683|169113169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.175|0.549|0.7997
84660657|NCT00411645|169056457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.731||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.026||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.026|0.521|0.069
84660658|NCT00411645|169056457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|2.508||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of EC-confirmed disease||2.508|0.332|0.860
84660659|NCT00411645|169056458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.835||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.693||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||1.693|0.411|0.617
84660660|NCT00411645|169056459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.457||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||1.457|0.754|0.7808
84660661|NCT00411645|169056459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.479||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.479|0.771|0.6946
84660662|NCT00411645|169056460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||2.375|0.592|0.6304
84660663|NCT00411645|169056460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.066||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.066|0.495|0.1019
84660664|NCT05425745|169056620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-30.39|||ANCOVA|||||-30.39|-42.22|<.0001
84660665|NCT05425745|169056621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.79|-30.78|||ANCOVA|||||-30.78|-44.79|<.0001
84660666|NCT05425745|169056622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.14|-31.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-31.76|-51.14|<.0001
84660667|NCT05425745|169056623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|-20.2||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.20|-28.58|<.0001
84660668|NCT05425745|169056624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.38|-19.25||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.25|-29.38|<.0001
84660669|NCT05425745|169056625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-19.67||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.67|-31.88|<.0001
84660670|NCT05425745|169056626|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-34.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.661|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-29.24||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-29.24|-39.67|<.0001
84660671|NCT05425745|169056627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.36|-26.65||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.65|-39.36|<.0001
84660672|NCT05425745|169056628|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.38|-28.58||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.58|-46.38|<.0001
84660673|NCT05425745|169056629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|138.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.42|150.9||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||150.90|126.42|<.0001
84660674|NCT05425745|169056630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|131.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.27|144.13||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||144.13|118.27|<.0001
84660675|NCT05425745|169056631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|121.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.333|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.02|135.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||135.76|107.02|<.0001
84687153|NCT00514683|169113169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|1.797|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.797|0.467|0.7989
84687154|NCT00514683|169113169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.508|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.508|0.403|0.4596
84687155|NCT00514683|169113169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.665||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.341|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.341|0.330|0.2548
84687156|NCT00514683|169113170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.122|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.122|0.521|0.8887
84687157|NCT00514683|169113170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.410|0.613|0.5758
84687158|NCT00514683|169113170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.949|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.949|0.506|0.9829
84687159|NCT00514683|169113170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.985|0.476|0.9375
84687160|NCT00514683|169113171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1456||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.385|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.385|-0.188|0.4998
84687161|NCT00514683|169113171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.120|-0.430|0.2679
84687162|NCT00514683|169113171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.195|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.195|-0.355|0.5678
84687163|NCT00514683|169113171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.164|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.164|-0.406|0.4053
84508377|NCT02978326|168767769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 8||-1.8|-7.0|0.0010
84687164|NCT00514683|169113172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.892||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.710|0.465|0.7307
84687165|NCT00514683|169113172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.317||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.458|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.458|0.706|0.3869
84687166|NCT00514683|169113172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.741|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.741|0.498|0.8237
84687167|NCT00514683|169113172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.676||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|3.202|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.202|0.878|0.1177
84687168|NCT00514683|169113173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|22.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||22.37|-44.86|0.5111
84687169|NCT00514683|169113173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.234||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.11|18.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||18.76|-45.11|0.4176
84687170|NCT00514683|169113173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.506||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|31.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||31.34|-33.60|0.9454
84660676|NCT05425745|169056632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-26.0||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.00|-65.88|<.0001
84660677|NCT05425745|169056633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.924||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.13|22.53||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||22.53|-131.13|0.1648
84660678|NCT00524368|169056640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/rtv once daily and DRV/rtv twice daily exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/rtv q.d. versus the DRV/rtv b.i.d. therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.092|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline viral load (log10) as covariate.|Difference in proportion of response DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 70% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 306 participants were required per treatment arm to establish noninferiority of darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir (rtv) once daily versus DRV/rtv twice daily with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 90% power.||0.092|-0.054|<0.001
84660679|NCT00524368|169056641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of this 95% 2-sided CI of the difference between DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. exceeded -12%, noninferiority of DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. could be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.075|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate.|Difference in proportion of response between 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. minus DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.075|-0.060|<0.001
84660680|NCT00524368|169056642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.182|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference between least square means between the DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. treatment groups at Week 48.|||0.182|-0.188|0.977
84660681|NCT00524368|169056643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.191|||Cox proportional hazards|Including treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate||||1.191|0.824|0.917
84660682|NCT00524368|169056644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Including baseline log10 viral load as covariate||||1.279|0.699|0.716
84660683|NCT00524368|169056645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.115|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference in least square means between the 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.115|-0.169|0.711
84660684|NCT00524368|169056646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|14.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline CD4 count and baseline viral load (log10) as covariates.|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||14.20|-26.09|0.562
84660685|NCT00524368|169056647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.06|||ANCOVA|Including factors for treatment, and baseline log10 plasma viral load and baseline FAHI score as covariates|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||4.06|-2.97|0.761
84660686|NCT03758274|169056670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.746
84660687|NCT03758274|169056671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.247
84660688|NCT03758274|169056672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
84660689|NCT00842712|169056695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.048|||Log Rank|||PFS Time: Independent read||1.048|0.492|0.0845
84660690|NCT00842712|169056696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.286|||Log Rank|||||1.286|0.642|0.5912
84660691|NCT00842712|169056697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.171|||Log Rank|||||1.171|0.564|0.2648
84660692|NCT02715076|169056700|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mixed-effects model|||||||<0.05
84660693|NCT02785354|169056704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI ) (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.51|<0.0001
84660694|NCT02785354|169056704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.92|0.75|0.0006
84660695|NCT02785354|169056705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.46|<0.0001
84660696|NCT02785354|169056705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.79|0.58|<0.0001
84687171|NCT00514683|169113173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.98||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.08|39.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||39.72|-27.08|0.7101
84660697|NCT02785354|169056706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.88|0.63|0.0007
84660698|NCT02785354|169056706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.14|0.85|0.8341
84660699|NCT02785354|169056707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.95|0.65|0.0147
84660700|NCT02785354|169056707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.00|0.71|0.0501
84660701|NCT02785354|169056708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
84660702|NCT02785354|169056708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.84|0.71|<0.0001
84660703|NCT02785354|169056709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.76|0.66|<0.0001
84660704|NCT02785354|169056709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.89|0.79|<0.0001
84660705|NCT02310568|169056711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.9|-2.8|0.784
84660706|NCT02310568|169056711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||5.8|-0.6|0.184
84687172|NCT00514683|169113174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2271||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.502|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.502|-0.392|0.8090
84687173|NCT00514683|169113174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.242|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.242|-0.606|0.3995
84687174|NCT00514683|169113174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2193||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.464|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.464|-0.399|0.8822
84687175|NCT00514683|169113174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2257||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.303|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.303|-0.584|0.5338
84687176|NCT00514683|169113175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3272||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.755|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.755|-0.532|0.7329
84687177|NCT00514683|169113175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3109||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.533|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.533|-0.690|0.8009
84687178|NCT00514683|169113175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3159||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.472|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.472|-0.771|0.6358
84687179|NCT00514683|169113175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3252||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.307|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.307|-0.973|0.3064
84687180|NCT00514683|169113176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.906|0.540|0.9646
84508378|NCT02978326|168767769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 15||-1.1|-6.7|0.0063
84687181|NCT00514683|169113176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.844|0.536|0.9850
84687182|NCT00514683|169113176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.089|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.089|0.604|0.7136
84687183|NCT00514683|169113176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.551||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.906|0.828|0.1705
84687184|NCT00514683|169113177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.01|-2.69|0.0479
84687185|NCT00514683|169113177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.09|-2.58|0.0685
84687186|NCT00514683|169113177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.43|-3.12|0.0099
84508379|NCT02978326|168767769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 21||-0.8|-6.2|0.0119
84687187|NCT00514683|169113177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.32|-3.01|0.0152
84687188|NCT00514683|169113178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.64|-5.22|0.7250
84687189|NCT00514683|169113178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.07|-7.63|0.1389
84687190|NCT00514683|169113178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.39|-8.35|0.0741
84687191|NCT00514683|169113178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.262||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-1.67|-10.57|0.0071
84687192|NCT00514683|169113179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|3.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.20|-9.32|0.3370
84687193|NCT00514683|169113179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.81|-10.49|0.1659
84687194|NCT00514683|169113179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.138||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.05|-10.29|0.1897
84687195|NCT00514683|169113179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.184||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-3.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-3.34|-15.86|0.0028
84687196|NCT00514683|169113180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.58|-5.59|0.8458
84687197|NCT00514683|169113180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.51|-7.48|0.3286
84687198|NCT00514683|169113180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.59|-8.43|0.1799
84687199|NCT00514683|169113180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.76|-9.46|0.0948
84687200|NCT00514683|169113181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.484||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.79|-4.98|0.9708
84687201|NCT00514683|169113181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.85|-8.74|0.1069
84687202|NCT00514683|169113181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.34|-9.31|0.0682
84687203|NCT00514683|169113181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.494||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-2.26|-12.06|0.0043
84687204|NCT00514683|169113182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.31|0.72|0.2698
84687205|NCT00514683|169113182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.01|0.90|0.0891
84687206|NCT00514683|169113182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||5.66|1.29|0.0069
84687207|NCT00514683|169113182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.61|1.05|0.0341
84687208|NCT00514683|169113183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.222|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.222|-0.178|0.8288
84687209|NCT00514683|169113183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.332|-0.051|0.1506
84687210|NCT00514683|169113183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0977||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.351|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.351|-0.034|0.1059
84687211|NCT00514683|169113183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1008||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.556|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.556|0.160|0.0004
84687212|NCT00514683|169113184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.115|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.115|-0.153|0.7789
84687213|NCT00514683|169113184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0652||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.194|-0.063|0.3149
84508380|NCT02978326|168767769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 45||-2.4|-7.5|0.0002
84687214|NCT00514683|169113184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.153|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.153|-0.104|0.7062
84687215|NCT00514683|169113184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.255|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.255|-0.010|0.0703
84687216|NCT00514683|169113185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.236|-0.111|0.4792
84687217|NCT00514683|169113185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.268|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.268|-0.062|0.2221
84687218|NCT00514683|169113185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.287|-0.044|0.1510
84687219|NCT00514683|169113185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.509|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.509|0.165|0.0001
84687220|NCT00514683|169113186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0609||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.217|-0.023|0.1129
84687221|NCT00514683|169113186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0584||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.199|-0.031|0.1498
84687222|NCT00514683|169113186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0585||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.224|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.224|-0.006|0.0632
84687223|NCT00514683|169113186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0604||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.320|0.083|0.0009
84687224|NCT00514683|169113187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0676||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.100|-0.165|0.6306
84687225|NCT00514683|169113187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.106|-0.149|0.7426
84687226|NCT00514683|169113187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0651||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.121|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.121|-0.134|0.9209
84687227|NCT00514683|169113187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.152|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.152|-0.112|0.7701
84687228|NCT00514683|169113188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.93|0.36|0.6671
84687229|NCT00514683|169113188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.84||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.84|0.34|0.5926
84687230|NCT00514683|169113188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.27|0.18|0.1381
84687231|NCT00514683|169113188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.70|0.03|0.0150
84687232|NCT00514683|169113189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|2.336|||Negative binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||2.336|0.347|0.8282
84687233|NCT00514683|169113189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.938|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.938|0.278|0.5326
84687234|NCT00514683|169113189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.438|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.438|0.167|0.1944
84687235|NCT00514683|169113189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.882|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||0.882|0.056|0.0324
84687236|NCT00514683|169113190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.765|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.765|0.326|0.5206
84687237|NCT00514683|169113190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.952|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.952|0.362|0.6862
84687238|NCT00514683|169113190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.384|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.384|0.193|0.1891
84687239|NCT00514683|169113190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.711|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.711|0.035|0.0161
84687240|NCT00514683|169113191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.072|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.072|0.448|0.7449
84687241|NCT00514683|169113191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.209|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.209|0.083|0.0925
84687242|NCT00514683|169113191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.911|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.911|0.040|0.0379
84687243|NCT00514683|169113191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.225||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|1.065|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.065|0.048|0.0600
84687244|NCT00514683|169113192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.563|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.563|0.713|0.7883
84687245|NCT00514683|169113192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.419|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.419|0.646|0.8293
84687246|NCT00514683|169113192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.216|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.216|0.534|0.3030
84687247|NCT00514683|169113192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.369|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.369|0.605|0.6505
84687248|NCT02487498|169113194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023|||Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||-0.0023|-0.0342|0.415
84687249|NCT02487498|169113195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023||||||||-0.0023|-0.0342|
84687250|NCT02487498|169113196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0313|0.0131||||||||0.0131|-0.0313|
84687251|NCT02487498|169113197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0258||||||||0.0258|-0.0086|
84687252|NCT00676130|169113203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|-9.3|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The study was powered to detect a difference in cure rate of 98% in the intervention group vs. 85% in the control group, with 2-sided alpha 0.05. This would yield a number needed to treat of 7.7 for intervention vs. control, and required 144 subjects to achieve 80% power. No data were analyzed until study completion.||15|-9.3|<0.05
84687253|NCT00676130|169113204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3|||Chi-squared|||We assessed the rate of progression to abscess in the two groups.||6.3|-6.5|<0.05
84508381|NCT02978326|168767770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.53||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 3||3.53|0.87|0.1145
84660707|NCT02310568|169056711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||1.6|-5.7|0.360
84687254|NCT02228967|169113217|OTHER||||||=|0.274||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.274
84687255|NCT02228967|169113218|OTHER||||||=|0.083|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.083
84687256|NCT02228967|169113219|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.028
84687257|NCT02228967|169113220|OTHER||||||=|0.708|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.708
84687258|NCT02228967|169113221|OTHER||||||=|0.197||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tets (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.197
84687259|NCT02228967|169113222|OTHER||||||=|0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.023
84687260|NCT02228967|169113223|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||<0.001
84687261|NCT02228967|169113224|OTHER||||||=|0.348||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||=0.348
84687262|NCT02228967|169113225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.091
84687263|NCT02228967|169113226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.278|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||.278
84687264|NCT02228967|169113227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.029
84687265|NCT02228967|169113228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.897
84687266|NCT02228967|169113229|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.15
84687267|NCT02228967|169113230|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.20
84687268|NCT02228967|169113231|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.38
84687269|NCT02228967|169113232|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05||||||0.48|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.48
84687270|NCT02228967|169113233|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.09
84687271|NCT02228967|169113234|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.08
84687272|NCT02228967|169113235|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.11
84687273|NCT02228967|169113236|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.84
84687274|NCT00520975|169113237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
84687275|NCT00520975|169113238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.61|0.75
84508382|NCT02978326|168767770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.3||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 8||3.30|0.89|0.1069
84508383|NCT02978326|168767770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.27||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 15||5.27|1.36|0.0045
84687276|NCT01181726|169113248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.22|116.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.25|94.22|
84687277|NCT01181726|169113249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.91|101.02|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.02|93.91|
84687278|NCT01181726|169113250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.30|94.05|
84687279|NCT01181726|169113251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.06|92.21|
84687280|NCT01181726|169113252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|99.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.39|91.21|
84687281|NCT01181726|169113253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.51|91.18|
84687282|NCT01181726|169113254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.00|92.21|
84687283|NCT01181726|169113255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.38|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.38|91.18|
84687284|NCT01181726|169113256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|91.17|
84687285|NCT01181726|169113257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|102.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.61|93.44|
84687286|NCT01181726|169113258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.92|101.78|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.78|93.92|
84687287|NCT01181726|169113259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|105.3|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||105.30|94.42|
84687288|NCT01181726|169113260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.71|103.87|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.87|94.71|
84687289|NCT01181726|169113261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|101.21|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.21|94.55|
84687290|NCT01181726|169113262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|101.6|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.60|94.54|
84687291|NCT01181726|169113263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.22|102.74|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.74|93.22|
84687292|NCT01181726|169113264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|102.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.46|93.66|
84687293|NCT01181726|169113265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|104.11|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.11|94.17|
84687294|NCT01181726|169113266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|104.1|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.10|94.39|
84687295|NCT01181726|169113267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|101.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.56|94.03|
84508384|NCT02978326|168767770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.93||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 21||3.93|1.03|0.0421
84660708|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.0|-3.2|0.708
84660709|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-5.2|0.646
84660710|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-1.6|0.352
84660711|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|7.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.3|-3.1|0.495
84660712|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-2.7|0.422
84660713|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|4.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.2|-5.0|0.889
84660714|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.324||90.0|-2.0|7.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.4|-2.0|0.324
84660715|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|4.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.9|-4.5|0.939
84660716|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|6.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||6.7|-1.7|0.308
84660717|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-6.0|0.846
84660718|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-9.8|0.449
84660719|NCT02310568|169056713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||9.9|-2.3|0.295
84660720|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-4.0|0.514
84660721|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.0|-4.5|0.302
84660722|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.8|-2.6|0.736
84687296|NCT01181726|169113268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.11|102.02|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.02|94.11|
84687297|NCT04998604|169113269|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the type-I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analysis. Testing was performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05.||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
84687298|NCT04998604|169113270|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.7|6.3|<0.001
84687299|NCT04998604|169113271|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
84687300|NCT04998604|169113272|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
84687301|NCT04998604|169113273|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.33|-2.15|<0.001
84687302|NCT05383417|169113283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
84687303|NCT05383417|169113284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.18
84687304|NCT05383417|169113285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 2||||||0.007
84687305|NCT05383417|169113285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
84687306|NCT05383417|169113286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.03
84687307|NCT05383417|169113286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
84687308|NCT05383417|169113287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.04
84687309|NCT05383417|169113288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day2||||||0.02
84687310|NCT05383417|169113289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84687311|NCT05383417|169113290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84687312|NCT05383417|169113291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84687313|NCT05383417|169113292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84687314|NCT05383417|169113293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84687315|NCT05383417|169113294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84687316|NCT02466646|169113295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
84687317|NCT02466646|169113296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was P=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84687318|NCT02466646|169113297|OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.229
84687319|NCT02466646|169113298|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.280
84687320|NCT02466646|169113299|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||||||0.712
84687321|NCT02466646|169113300|OTHER|||||||0.674||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.674
84687322|NCT02466646|169113301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84687323|NCT02466646|169113302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.373
84687324|NCT02466646|169113303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.528
84687325|NCT02466646|169113304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
84687326|NCT02466646|169113305|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.051
84687327|NCT02466646|169113306|OTHER|||||||0.647||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.647
84687328|NCT03261271|169113316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6489
84687329|NCT03261271|169113317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
84687330|NCT03261271|169113318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84687331|NCT03261271|169113319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84687332|NCT03261271|169113320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from Baseline to Study End.||||0.09
84687333|NCT03261271|169113320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from baseline to pre-surgery.||||0.04
84687334|NCT02696564|169113331|SUPERIORITY|We will estimate a 95% confidence interval for the losartan vs placebo mean difference, using the regression estimate and the t-distribution; we will reject the null that losartan is equivalent to placebo if the 95% interval excludes 0.0.||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.||||||0.133
84687335|NCT02696564|169113332|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.762||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.762
84687336|NCT02696564|169113333|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.834||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.834
84687337|NCT02696564|169113334|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.783||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.783
84687338|NCT02696564|169113335|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.053||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.053
84687339|NCT02696564|169113336|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.016||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84687340|NCT02696564|169113337|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.065||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
84687341|NCT02696564|169113338|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.293||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
84687342|NCT02696564|169113339|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.356||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.356
84687343|NCT02696564|169113340|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.009||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84660723|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||7.8|-5.6|0.775
84660724|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.5|-9.4|0.553
84660725|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|9.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||9.3|-2.2|0.299
84687344|NCT02696564|169113341|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.8||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|18.77|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of mild exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||18.77|0.03|0.892
84687345|NCT02696564|169113341|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.91||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.97|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of moderate exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||14.97|0.05|0.946
84687346|NCT02696564|169113341|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.36||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|6.51|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of severe exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||6.51|0.02|0.487
84687347|NCT04067401|169113366|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.01|-.29|.062
84687348|NCT04067401|169113367|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.09|-.39|.001
84687349|NCT04067401|169113368|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.34|.027
84687350|NCT04067401|169113369|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.08|-.41|.002
84687351|NCT04067401|169113370|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.01||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.11|-.12|.821
84687352|NCT04067401|169113371|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.31|.024
84687353|NCT04067401|169113372|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.18||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.29|.04|.012
84687354|NCT04067401|169113373|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.35||Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.35|.05|.010
84508385|NCT02978326|168767770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 45||4.03|0.99|0.0541
84687355|NCT00106184|169113384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|No confidence intervals as no parameters were estimated.||Proportional hazards model||||=0.74
84687356|NCT00106184|169113385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Difference in baseline muscle enzymes therefore tested the difference in the proportions adjusting for the baseline values.||||||>0.90
84687357|NCT00106184|169113386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.90
84687358|NCT01889186|169113391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||The ORR for ABT-199 was tested to reject the null hypothesis of ORR = 40%. If the null hypothesis is rejected and the ORR is higher than 40%, then ABT-199 has been shown to have an ORR significantly higher than 40%.The p-value is from the exact binomial distribution comparing ABT-199 ORR to the 40% historical control rate.||||<0.001
84687359|NCT02110901|169113404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.61|0.254
84687360|NCT02110901|169113405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.43|0.048
84687361|NCT02110901|169113406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.109
84687362|NCT02110901|169113407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84687363|NCT04711603|169113408|SUPERIORITY||Placebo difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.42|||MMRM|||||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
84687364|NCT04252742|169113431|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-4.46||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-4.46|-11.45|< 0.001
84687365|NCT04252742|169113432|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.92||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.92|-10.80|< 0.001
84687366|NCT04252742|169113433|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.87||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.87|-10.34|< 0.001
84687367|NCT04252742|169113434|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.34||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.34|-10.76|< 0.001
84687368|NCT04252742|169113435|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.27||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.27|-10.37|< 0.001
84687369|NCT04252742|169113436|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.22|-1.92|0.013
84687370|NCT04252742|169113437|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.11|-0.85|0.011
84687371|NCT03937219|169113464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.57|0.0131
84687372|NCT01800968|169113469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3087|||||||Rank score|||||||0.3087
84687373|NCT01800968|169113470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1549
84687374|NCT01800968|169113471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1932
84687375|NCT01800968|169113472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9535|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9535
84687376|NCT01800968|169113473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8548|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8548
84687377|NCT01800968|169113474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4266|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4266
84687378|NCT01800968|169113475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1705
84687379|NCT01800968|169113476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1309|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1309
84687380|NCT01800968|169113477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7920
84687381|NCT01800968|169113478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7026|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7026
84687382|NCT01800968|169113479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2662|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2662
84687383|NCT01800968|169113480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6395|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6395
84687384|NCT01800968|169113481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8218|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8218
84687385|NCT01800968|169113482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
84687386|NCT01800968|169113483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8088|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8088
84687387|NCT01800968|169113484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7764
84687388|NCT01800968|169113485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1701
84687389|NCT01800968|169113486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6532|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6532
84687390|NCT01800968|169113487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033|||||||Rank score|||||||0.2033
84687391|NCT02220894|169113547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.86|0.58|0.0003
84687392|NCT02220894|169113548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.91|0.65|0.0012
84687393|NCT02220894|169113549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.93|0.71|0.0013
84687394|NCT02220894|169113550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.69|0.0260
84687395|NCT02220894|169113551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.10|0.80|0.2134
84687396|NCT02220894|169113552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.19|0.93|0.7964
84687397|NCT02220894|169113553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|7.0||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous).|||14.6|-0.6|0.0353
84687398|NCT02220894|169113554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|4.6||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||10.9|-1.7|0.0744
84687399|NCT02220894|169113555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|0.6||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||5.4|-4.2|0.4060
84687400|NCT00394355|169113579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.261
84687401|NCT00394355|169113579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.644
84687402|NCT00394355|169113580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.359
84687403|NCT00394355|169113580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.390
84687404|NCT00394355|169113581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.169
84687405|NCT00394355|169113581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.526|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.526
84687406|NCT00394355|169113582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||<0.001
84687407|NCT00394355|169113582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||0.023
84687408|NCT02612064|169113584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.072|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||0.072|-0.442|0.1575
84687409|NCT00079001|169113587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority and futility analysis were conducted for time to first SRE. Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain overall significance level of α = .05 while conducting interim analyses on time to first SRE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.174||Because of early termination, conditional power was performed under the alternative hypothesis. This is the probability that zoledronic acid is superior to placebo, given time to first SRE data at interim analysis under alternative hypothesis.|Log Rank||Patients randomly assigned to zoledronic acid were compared with patients assigned to placebo|The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio is less than 0.77. With a target of 470 SREs, log-rank statistic had 88% power to detect a 23% decrease in hazard of SRE (equivalent to an increase in median time to SRE from 30 months to 39 months), assuming a one-sided type I error rate of .05.||1.174|0|0.385
84687410|NCT00079001|169113588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.12|0.70|0.29
84687411|NCT00079001|169113589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.07|0.74|0.22
84687412|NCT00985010|169113605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|||||||Chi-squared||The difference is between the percentage of deaths (males versus females) after six months in the patients with hepatic encephalophathy.|Clinical evolution was reported as percentage (still alive or death after six months of follow up).||||0.05
84687413|NCT00985010|169113606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The difference is between manganese levels of women minus manganese levels of men.|Laboratory results were expressed in means and standard deviations. Between group comparisons (female versus male values) were made with the Mann-Whitney U test using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 10 (SPSS Inc., North Carolina, USA).||||0.05
84687414|NCT00316173|169113609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with CR+PR|30.9||||||95.0|18.7|43.1||||||||43.1|18.7|
84687415|NCT00685945|169113657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of bradykinin on net t-PA release was determined using general linear model-repeated measures ANOVA in which the between-subject variable was gender, and the within-subjects variables were drug (control, +L-NMMA, +L-NMMA plus isosorbide, or +L-NMMA plus sildenafil) and dose of bradykinin.||||0.04
84687416|NCT00685945|169113658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
84687417|NCT03183388|169113660|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare Least Square (LS) estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero. The best-fitting model was chosen based on information criteria.|Endpoint minus Baseline|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.93|-4.14|0.0001
84687418|NCT03183388|169113661|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|-6.97|0.60
84687419|NCT03183388|169113662|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero.|Endpoint minus Baseline|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.146|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.146|0.074|0.0001
84687420|NCT03183388|169113663|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.157|-0.095|0.58
84687421|NCT00201864|169113705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9102
84687422|NCT00071721|169113707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.958||||0.88||95.0|||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||||0.88
84687423|NCT00803101|169113757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.8||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % participants with effective hemostasis||The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||25.8|2.8|
84687424|NCT00803101|169113758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|56.4||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|Newcombe-Wilson score method|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % pts with rapid decrease of the INR.||The analysis of rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with INR ≤ 1.3 at 30 minutes after the end of infusion.||56.4|31.9|
84687425|NCT01529008|169113767|SUPERIORITY||Proportion treatment responder Differenc|-0.08||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||Fisher Exact||"Percentage of treatment responders in PREOB® group is 60.9% ((14/23)\*100), compared with 69.2% ((18/26)\*100) in Placebo.~Difference in percentage is -8.3 Difference in treatment responders proportion: PREOB® (0.609) - Placebo (0.692) = -0.08"|||0.18|-0.35|0.539
84687426|NCT00332332|169113768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.5||||||95.0|67.2|79.1||||||||79.1|67.2|
84687427|NCT03091673|169113773|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was computed using a t-test to determine if change in plasma glucose from baseline to 30 minutes was zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84687428|NCT02790073|169113778|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84687429|NCT02790073|169113779|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84687430|NCT02790073|169113780|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84687431|NCT00331344|169113803|OTHER||Dose Level VIa|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose level VIa (mitoxantrone hydrochloride 12 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes, ixabepilone 30mg/m2 IV over 3 hours on day 1, pegfilgrastim 6mg SC on day 2, oral prednisone twice daily on days 1-21) was determined to be MTD, based on 1 event of DLT at VIa.|Cohorts of 3 patients will be enrolled at each dose level; if 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is observed then the cohort will be expanded to 6 patients. If a second DLT is observed, the previous dose level will be considered the MTD. If all observed DLT are due to neuropathy (specific to ixabepilone), then we would consider the previous dose level of Ixabepilone the MTD for that drug, and escalate mitoxantrone hydrochloride as described above to a maximum dose of 12 mg/m\^2.||||
84687432|NCT01342458|169113805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sample size was calculated based on pain WOMAC score and was accomplished using a moderate effect size (f=0.30). Standard deviation estimates were taken from our previous study. A sample size of 56 patients was needed to provide 80% power for detecting a moderate effect difference between the highest and lowest group pain means, with an alpha level of 0.05, a statistical design of F test of repeated measures (between and within effects), and assuming a 10% loss to follow-up.||||0.006
84687433|NCT01342458|169113805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc newman keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687434|NCT01342458|169113805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687435|NCT01342458|169113805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||0.001
84687436|NCT01342458|169113805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687437|NCT01342458|169113806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.015
84687438|NCT01342458|169113806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687439|NCT01342458|169113806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687440|NCT01342458|169113806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687441|NCT01342458|169113806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687442|NCT01342458|169113807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
84687443|NCT01342458|169113807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687444|NCT01342458|169113807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687445|NCT01342458|169113807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687446|NCT01342458|169113807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687447|NCT01342458|169113808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
84687448|NCT01342458|169113808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687449|NCT01342458|169113808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||0.019
84687450|NCT01342458|169113808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687451|NCT01342458|169113808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687452|NCT01342458|169113809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.019
84687453|NCT01342458|169113809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687454|NCT01342458|169113809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687455|NCT01342458|169113809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
84687456|NCT01342458|169113809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
84687457|NCT01342458|169113810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.425
84687458|NCT01342458|169113811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.443
84687459|NCT01342458|169113812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in paracetamol intake at 6-month.||||<0.001
84687460|NCT05805657|169113899|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
84687461|NCT05805657|169113899|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|2.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.52
84687462|NCT05805657|169113899|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.02
84687463|NCT05805657|169113899|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-6.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.04
84687464|NCT05805657|169113899|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.001
84687465|NCT05805657|169113901|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep- related impairment from pre to post.||||0.001
84687466|NCT05805657|169113901|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.36||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||0.72
84687467|NCT05805657|169113901|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.30
84687468|NCT05805657|169113901|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.79||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.78
84687469|NCT05805657|169113901|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-4.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.15
84687470|NCT05805657|169113902|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||0.09
84687471|NCT05805657|169113902|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.05||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep health from pre to post.||||0.11
84687472|NCT05805657|169113902|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.59
84687473|NCT05805657|169113902|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.72||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep health.||||0.14
84687474|NCT05805657|169113902|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.06
84687475|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.002
84687476|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.83|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.83|-3.57|0.002
84687477|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-1.08|-4.44|0.001
84687478|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.84||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.78
84687479|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.49
84687480|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.27
84687481|NCT05805657|169113903|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-2.07||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.09
84687482|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.002
84687483|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.36|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.36|-3.54|0.02
84687484|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.38|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.38|-2.87|0.01
84687485|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.79||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.56
84687486|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.34
84687487|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
84687488|NCT05805657|169113904|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
84687489|NCT00511875|169113952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
84687490|NCT00511875|169113953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.33
84687491|NCT00511875|169113953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean field sensitivity||||.16
84687492|NCT00511875|169113954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.02
84687493|NCT00511875|169113954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mean FDP sensitivity||||.3
84687494|NCT00511875|169113955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
84687495|NCT00511875|169113956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.46
84687496|NCT00511875|169113957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
84687497|NCT00511875|169113958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
84687498|NCT00511875|169113959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
84687499|NCT00511875|169113960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.62
84687500|NCT02618616|169113961|OTHER||least square difference|8.7||||0.8495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|8.4|||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-389 Least square (LS) mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA of PASI at Week 12|||8.4|0.8495
84687501|NCT02618616|169113962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-50||1.16|0.27|0.9058
84687502|NCT02618616|169113962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-75||2.25|0.4|0.5422
84687503|NCT03764072|169113971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2107||||||Dose response Model - Linear|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.2107
84687504|NCT03764072|169113971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||Dose response Model - Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0766
84687505|NCT03764072|169113971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989||||||Dose response Model - Logistic|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0989
84687506|NCT03764072|169113971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0927||||||Dose-response Model - Sigmoid Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0927
84687507|NCT03764072|169113973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3162
84687508|NCT03764072|169113973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4613
84687509|NCT03764072|169113973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4095|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4095
84687510|NCT03764072|169113973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
84687511|NCT03764072|169113973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9843
84687512|NCT03764072|169113974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8714
84687513|NCT03764072|169113974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5815
84687514|NCT03764072|169113974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4308
84508386|NCT02978326|168767771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.38||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 3||7.38|1.09|0.0326
84687515|NCT03764072|169113974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4434
84508387|NCT02978326|168767771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.79||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 8||2.79|0.68|0.3749
84687516|NCT03764072|169113974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8550
84687517|NCT03764072|169113975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6870
84687518|NCT03764072|169113975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1515
84687519|NCT03764072|169113975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6030
84687520|NCT03764072|169113975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1361
84687521|NCT03764072|169113975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5640
84687522|NCT03764072|169113976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.67|||Regression, Cox|||||2.67|0.60|0.5405
84687523|NCT03764072|169113976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|0.49|0.9011
84687524|NCT03764072|169113976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||||2.26|0.48|0.9127
84687525|NCT03764072|169113976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.56|||Regression, Cox|||||2.56|0.60|0.5619
84687526|NCT03764072|169113976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||||2.79|0.50|0.7090
84687527|NCT03764072|169113977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.72|||Regression, Cox|||||2.72|0.61|0.5141
84687528|NCT03764072|169113977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.12|||Regression, Cox|||||2.12|0.45|0.9614
84687529|NCT03764072|169113977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.46|0.9756
84687530|NCT03764072|169113977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.57|||Regression, Cox|||||2.57|0.60|0.5582
84687531|NCT03764072|169113977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.71|||Regression, Cox|||||2.71|0.49|0.7543
84687532|NCT00696384|169114020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-9.78|<0.001
84687533|NCT00696384|169114021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|-9.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-9.29|-15.47|<0.001
84687534|NCT01678131|169114026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Percentage Probability|100.0||||||||||||||The posterior percentage probability of the true success rate of the FNA procedure for the 3 combined treatment groups (n=29) was determined by a Bayesian calculation, using a Jeffrey's prior distribution (i.e. Beta \[0.5,0.5\]) on the true success rate. Neither P-values, nor confidence intervals are estimated in this analysis. The primary hypothesis was met if the posterior percentage probability was \> 80% that the true success rate is at least 60%.||||
84687535|NCT05361655|169114044|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.65|<0.0001
84687536|NCT05361655|169114045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.76|0.62|<0.0001
84687537|NCT05361655|169114047|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||score test|||||||<0.0001
84687538|NCT05361655|169114050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.72|0.60|<0.0001
84687539|NCT05361655|169114051|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.62|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.62|0.51|<0.0001
84687540|NCT05361655|169114052|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
84687541|NCT05361655|169114053|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
84687542|NCT07069764|169114067|OTHER|"This study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial. It was powered (80% power, α = 0.05) to detect clinically significant differences in pain reduction between 635 nm and 980 nm diode lasers, based on prior LLLT studies in TMD. Sample size was calculated before recruitment."|Effect size (Kendall's W and r)|0.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test|Non-parametric tests were used due to non-normal data distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). Effect size measures were also reported.||"The study was designed to compare the effects of 635 nm and 980 nm low-level laser therapy on pain and jaw function. Statistical analysis methods are described below."|"Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Non-parametric tests were applied. Friedman test for within-group comparisons, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Kendall's W (within groups) and r (between groups)."|0.79|0.68|0.05
84687543|NCT04425902|169114074|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.94|
84687544|NCT04425902|169114075|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.95|
84687545|NCT04425902|169114076|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.08|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.08|0.83|
84508388|NCT02978326|168767771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.92||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 15||4.92|1.26|0.0087
84687546|NCT04425902|169114079|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
84687547|NCT04425902|169114080|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
84687548|NCT04425902|169114081|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.69|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.69|0.72|
84687549|NCT04425902|169114084|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.2|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.20|0.97|
84687550|NCT04425902|169114085|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.21|0.98|
84687551|NCT04425902|169114086|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.17|0.92|
84687552|NCT04425902|169114089|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.88|
84687553|NCT04425902|169114090|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.89|
84687554|NCT04425902|169114091|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.93|
84687555|NCT04425902|169114094|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.75|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.75|0.72|
84687556|NCT04425902|169114095|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.73|0.54|
84687557|NCT04425902|169114096|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.78|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.78|0.73|
84687558|NCT04425902|169114099|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.11|0.80|
84687559|NCT04425902|169114100|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.79|
84687560|NCT04425902|169114101|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.12|0.73|
84687561|NCT04425902|169114104|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.94|
84687562|NCT04425902|169114105|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.92|
84687563|NCT04425902|169114106|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.63|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.63|0.96|
84687564|NCT04425902|169114109|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.03|0.52|
84687565|NCT04425902|169114110|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.82|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||0.82|0.45|
84687566|NCT04425902|169114111|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.14|0.54|
84687567|NCT04425902|169114217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.71|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.71|0.49|
84687568|NCT04425902|169114218|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.16|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.16|0.74|
84687569|NCT04425902|169114219|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.72|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.72|0.43|
84687570|NCT04425902|169114222|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
84687571|NCT04425902|169114223|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
84687572|NCT04425902|169114224|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.73|
84687573|NCT04425902|169114227|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.3|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.30|0.93|
84687574|NCT04425902|169114228|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.83|
84687575|NCT04425902|169114229|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.44|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.44|0.88|
84687576|NCT04425902|169114232|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.75|
84687577|NCT04425902|169114233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.76|
84687578|NCT04425902|169114234|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.65|
84687579|NCT01544998|169114261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.26
84687580|NCT01544998|169114262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.90
84687581|NCT01544998|169114263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.003
84687582|NCT01544998|169114264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.14
84687583|NCT01544998|169114265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
84687584|NCT01544998|169114266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
84687585|NCT01264380|169114274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.6||||||The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||7.60|2.83|
84687586|NCT01264380|169114275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.99|8.55||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||8.55|2.99|
84687587|NCT01264380|169114276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|3.32||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma Cmax geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||3.32|1.81|
84687588|NCT03474107|169114291|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.702||||0.00142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.886||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P-value of overall survival is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.00679 based on the number of observed deaths.|Stratified Log rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.886|0.556|0.00142
84687589|NCT03474107|169114292|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.615|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.748||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P value of PFS is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.02189 based on the number of observed PFS events.|Stratified Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.748|0.505|<0.00001
84687590|NCT03474107|169114293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84687591|NCT03474107|169114294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84687592|NCT01932697|169114305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.01
84687593|NCT01932697|169114306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84687594|NCT01932697|169114307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84687595|NCT01932697|169114308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84687596|NCT01337986|169114328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Per protocol Analysis||||0.84
84687597|NCT01337986|169114328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in EDTRS between Visits 2 and 3.||||.29
84687598|NCT01337986|169114330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity with dalfampridine vs placebo.||||.64
84687599|NCT01337986|169114330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis for period effect: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity for those who started on dalfampridine and crossed over to placebo, compared to those who started on placebo and crossed over to dalfampridine.||||0.11
84687600|NCT01337986|169114331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.93
84687601|NCT01337986|169114332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.34
84508389|NCT02978326|168767771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.31||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 21||4.31|1.10|0.0257
84687602|NCT01337986|169114334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||Probability of being in the lowest quartile for Visual Field Index deficits.|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio for Visual Field Index|||2.10|1.02|0.04
84687603|NCT01337986|169114335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.94
84687604|NCT01337986|169114336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84687605|NCT01337986|169114337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
84687606|NCT00141739|169114342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.001
84687607|NCT02287584|169114348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.6||adjusted p value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||Using Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||-1.6|-9.6|0.007
84687608|NCT02287584|169114348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.4||adjusted p-value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-14.4|<0.001
84687609|NCT01892345|169114373|OTHER|Treatment Effect|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.197|||Stratified Log-Rank Test||HR based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Confidence interval = Wald confidence interval. HR for eculizumab compared with placebo represented a 94.2% reduction in the risk of relapse, 95% Wald confidence interval (80.3%, 98.3%).|||0.197|0.017|<0.0001
84687610|NCT01257880|169114387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the null hypothesis that basilar artery vasomotor reactivity was equivalent between the two groups.||||0.39
84687611|NCT01064297|169114451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.2||||||95.0|1.6|3.1|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.1|1.6|
84687612|NCT01064297|169114451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|4.2||||||95.0|1.4|11.0|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||11.0|1.4|
84687613|NCT01064297|169114451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.4||||||95.0|1.7|3.3|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.3|1.7|
84687614|NCT01064297|169114452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|10.7||||||95.0|6.4|17.0||||||||17.0|6.4|
84687615|NCT01064297|169114452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|9.3||||||95.0|5.5|15.2|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||15.2|5.5|
84687616|NCT01064297|169114453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.5|5.0||||||||5.0|1.5|
84687617|NCT01064297|169114453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.6|4.9|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||4.9|1.6|
84687618|NCT01091948|169114457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Intubations accomplished with another device due to difficulty with assigned device and those took \>180 s were considered as failed intubations.||||||0.19
84687619|NCT01091948|169114458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean intubation difficulty score was tested after logarithmic transformation, and then back transformed for the estimated treatment effect.|||1.35|0.58|0.58
84687620|NCT01091948|169114459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.95|0.15
84687621|NCT01091948|169114460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|0.28|0.57
84687622|NCT01091948|169114461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.09|0.93|0.79
84687623|NCT01091948|169114462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|proportional odds logistic regression model||||2.76|0.45|0.82
84687624|NCT00755040|169114469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84687625|NCT00558064|169114476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy|||6.23|3.98|<0.0001
84687626|NCT03152084|169114495|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.21||||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.542|9.12||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.120|-19.542|0.4462
84687627|NCT03152084|169114496|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.69||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.817|32.195||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.195|-24.817|0.7842
84687628|NCT03152084|169114496|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-16.72||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.109|0.664||Follow-up vs End of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.664|-34.109|0.0581
84687629|NCT03152084|169114497|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|344.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|272.785|416.905||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||416.905|272.785|<0.0001
84687630|NCT03152084|169114498|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|311.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.528|398.064||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.064|224.528|<0.0001
84687631|NCT03152084|169114499|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-203.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.983|-170.162||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||-170.162|-235.983|<0.0001
84687632|NCT03152084|169114500|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.2658||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5459|-1.9856||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9856|-8.5459|0.0047
84687633|NCT03152084|169114501|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-7.0987||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0379|-4.1595||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1595|-10.0379|0.0003
84687634|NCT03152084|169114502|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.7287||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9894|3.4468||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||3.4468|-1.9894|0.5592
84687635|NCT03152084|169114503|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.0315||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7274|0.7904||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7904|-0.7274|0.9288
84687636|NCT03152084|169114504|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.4318||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0761|0.2125||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2125|-1.0761|0.1659
84687637|NCT03152084|169114505|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.4755||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0963|0.8548||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.8548|0.0963|0.0190
84687638|NCT03152084|169114506|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.6713||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1914|-0.1511||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1511|-1.1914|0.0157
84687639|NCT03152084|169114507|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.0324||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4631|0.3984||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3984|-0.4631|0.8700
84687640|NCT03152084|169114508|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.1718||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.4795||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.4795|-0.1358|0.2446
84687641|NCT03152084|169114509|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-2.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.299|-0.902||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.902|-3.299|0.0023
84687642|NCT03152084|169114509|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|-1.256||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.256|-1.929|<0.0001
84687643|NCT03152084|169114509|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.88||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.215|5.553||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||5.553|2.215|0.0002
84687644|NCT05559866|169114570|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores from the proximal stomach, mid-stomach and distal stomach in the control and treatment groups were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean difference in durability scores for the control and treatment groups.||.74|.31|<0.01
84687645|NCT05559866|169114571|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0000013||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.125|19.125|||ANCOVA|||||19.125|19.125|1.00
84687646|NCT05559866|169114572|OTHER|Variance||||||0.757||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.757
84687647|NCT05559866|169114573|OTHER|Variance||||||0.271||||||Alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.271
84687648|NCT05559866|169114574|OTHER|Variance||||||0.29||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.29
84687649|NCT05559866|169114575|OTHER|Variance||||||0.72||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.72
84687650|NCT05559866|169114576|OTHER|Variance||||||0.41||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.41
84687651|NCT05559866|169114577|OTHER|Variance||||||0.53||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.53
84687652|NCT05559866|169114578|OTHER|Variance||||||0.91||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.91
84687653|NCT05559866|169114579|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square: 1.043478||||||0.307
84687654|NCT05559866|169114580|OTHER|Association|||||||||||||||||Unable to perform Chi-Square test as data in both categorical sets was identical - there is no variation to test.|||
84687655|NCT03750006|169114581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|paired T-test||||||0.0238
84687656|NCT03750006|169114582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3029
84687657|NCT03750006|169114583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1713
84687658|NCT03750006|169114584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1261
84687659|NCT03750006|169114585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1367
84687660|NCT03750006|169114586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0111
84687661|NCT03750006|169114587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0219
84687662|NCT03750006|169114588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 considered significant.||||||0.3660
84687663|NCT03750006|169114591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1563
84687664|NCT03750006|169114592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0110
84687665|NCT03750006|169114593|OTHER|||||||0.3282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3282
84687666|NCT03750006|169114594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5244
84687667|NCT03750006|169114595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5718
84687668|NCT00811382|169114612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84687669|NCT01373931|169114635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.05|0.907|
84687670|NCT01373931|169114635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||0.991|0.842|
84687671|NCT01373931|169114636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for ethinyl estradiol.||||0.51|-0.73|
84687672|NCT01373931|169114636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for norelgestromin.||||0.50|-0.50|
84687673|NCT01373931|169114637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07||||||90.0|1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.15|1.00|
84687674|NCT01373931|169114637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0||||||90.0|0.944|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||1.07|0.944|
84687675|NCT01147822|169114640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0184|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7658|1.3542|||||The HR was estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR was adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase.|||1.3542|0.7658|
84687676|NCT01147822|169114641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.441|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared with Sunitinib.|||1.441|0.808|0.604
84687677|NCT00261495|169114650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.011||95.0|-0.27|0.84||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|LS mean difference has been presented, which was calculated as hydromorphone minus oxycodone.|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.84|-0.27|0.011
84687678|NCT00261495|169114651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.706||95.0|-0.32|0.47||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure was stopped here, subsequent tests were exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.47|-0.32|0.706
84687679|NCT00261495|169114652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|0.29||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.29|-0.53|<0.001
84687680|NCT00261495|169114653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.065||95.0|-5.94|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.19|-5.94|0.065
84687681|NCT00261495|169114654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.348||95.0|-0.62|0.22||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.22|-0.62|0.348
84687682|NCT00261495|169114655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.616||95.0|-0.54|0.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.32|-0.54|0.616
84687683|NCT00261495|169114656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Hierarchical testing procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared statistic stratified for country was used.||"Null hypothesis: There is no association between study medication and dose escalation.~Alternative hypothesis: There is an association between study medication and dose escalation."||||0.249
84687684|NCT00261495|169114657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.05||95.0|0.0|0.84||0.05 two-sided testing, exploratory comparison|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.84|-0.00|0.050
84687685|NCT00261495|169114658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.105||95.0|-0.06|0.67||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-0.06|0.105
84687686|NCT00261495|169114659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.058||95.0|-0.01|0.79||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.79|-0.01|0.058
84687687|NCT00261495|169114660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.59||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hdromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.59|-0.13|0.210
84687688|NCT00261495|169114661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.941||95.0|-4.87|4.52||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.52|-4.87|0.941
84687689|NCT00261495|169114662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.073||95.0|-0.03|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.03|0.073
84687690|NCT00261495|169114663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.431||95.0|-0.52|0.22||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.22|-0.52|0.431
84687691|NCT00261495|169114664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.835||95.0|-0.4|0.33||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.33|-0.40|0.835
84687692|NCT00261495|169114665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.837||95.0|-5.36|4.35||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.35|-5.36|0.837
84687693|NCT00261495|169114666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.832||95.0|-0.38|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.38|0.832
84687694|NCT00261495|169114667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.143||95.0|-0.1|0.71||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.71|-0.10|0.143
84687695|NCT00261495|169114668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.345||95.0|-0.23|0.64||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.64|-0.23|0.345
84687696|NCT00261495|169114669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.552||95.0|-0.33|0.61||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.61|-0.33|0.552
84687697|NCT00261495|169114670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.042||95.0|0.02|0.93||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.93|0.02|0.042
84687698|NCT00261495|169114671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.171||95.0|-0.14|0.81||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.81|-0.14|0.171
84687699|NCT00261495|169114672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.475||95.0|-0.31|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.31|0.475
84687700|NCT00261495|169114673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.359||95.0|-0.26|0.72||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.72|-0.26|0.359
84508390|NCT02978326|168767771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.09||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 45||4.09|1.06|0.0339
84687701|NCT00261495|169114674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.611||95.0|-0.52|0.3||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.30|-0.52|0.611
84687702|NCT00261495|169114675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.526||95.0|-0.6|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.60|0.526
84687703|NCT00261495|169114676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.769||95.0|-0.49|0.36||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.36|-0.49|0.769
84687704|NCT00261495|169114677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.843||95.0|-0.4|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.40|0.843
84687705|NCT00261495|169114678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.45|0.44||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.44|-0.45|0.977
84687706|NCT00261495|169114679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.47|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.47|0.977
84687707|NCT00261495|169114680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.902||95.0|-0.51|0.45||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.45|-0.51|0.902
84687708|NCT00261495|169114682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.36||||0.169||95.0|-5.74|1.02||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.02|-5.74|0.169
84687709|NCT00261495|169114683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.245||95.0|-5.09|1.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.31|-5.09|0.245
84687710|NCT00261495|169114684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||0.071||95.0|-5.51|0.23||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.23|-5.51|0.071
84687711|NCT00261495|169114685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.297||95.0|-5.85|1.8||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.80|-5.85|0.297
84687712|NCT00261495|169114686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.205||95.0|-1.32|6.14||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.14|-1.32|0.205
84687713|NCT00261495|169114687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.35||||0.107||95.0|-7.43|0.73||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.73|-7.43|0.107
84687714|NCT00261495|169114688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.475||95.0|-2.8|6.0||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.00|-2.80|0.475
84687715|NCT00261495|169114689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16||||0.02||95.0|-7.67|-0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||-0.65|-7.67|0.020
84687716|NCT00261495|169114690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88||95.0|-0.3|0.26||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.30|0.880
84687717|NCT00261495|169114691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.320
84687718|NCT00261495|169114696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.575
84687719|NCT00261495|169114697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.807
84687720|NCT00261495|169114698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.118||95.0|-5.88|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-5.88|0.118
84687721|NCT00261495|169114699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.956||95.0|-3.08|2.91|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.91|-3.08|0.956
84687722|NCT00261495|169114700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.299||95.0|-0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.08|0.299
84687723|NCT00261495|169114701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.471||95.0|-4.2|1.95|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxymorphone|Exploratory comparison||1.95|-4.20|0.471
84687724|NCT00261495|169114702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.025||95.0|0.48|7.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.19|0.48|0.025
84687725|NCT00261495|169114703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.556||95.0|-5.61|10.42|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||10.42|-5.61|0.556
84687726|NCT00261495|169114704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12||||0.551||95.0|-9.11|4.88|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.88|-9.11|0.551
84687727|NCT00261495|169114705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.207||95.0|-7.63|1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.66|-7.63|0.207
84687728|NCT00261495|169114706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||0.123||95.0|-5.6|0.68|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.68|-5.60|0.123
84687729|NCT00261495|169114707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.27|2.48|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.48|-4.27|0.602
84687730|NCT00261495|169114708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.647||95.0|-2.14|3.44|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||3.44|-2.14|0.647
84687731|NCT00261495|169114709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.627||95.0|-0.17|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.10|-0.17|0.627
84687732|NCT00261495|169114710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.414||95.0|-4.45|1.84|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.84|-4.45|0.414
84687733|NCT00261495|169114711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.05||||0.01||95.0|0.94|7.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.16|0.94|0.010
84687734|NCT00261495|169114712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.955||95.0|-7.2|7.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.62|-7.20|0.955
84687735|NCT00261495|169114713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.669||95.0|-4.72|7.34|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.34|-4.72|0.669
84687736|NCT00261495|169114714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.595||95.0|-3.15|5.49|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||5.49|-3.15|0.595
84687737|NCT00261495|169114715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.543||95.0|-3.98|2.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.10|-3.98|0.543
84687738|NCT03243422|169114735|SUPERIORITY||change in Standard Deviation|0.002||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-level linear mixed effects model with an unstructured covariance matrix from the baseline and the year 3 in-person neurocognitive assessment||||0.081|-0.077|0.96
84687739|NCT03243422|169114736|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.079||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.187||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|-0.029|0.15
84687740|NCT03243422|169114737|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.078||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.078|-0.118|0.69
84687741|NCT03243422|169114738|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.104||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.104|-0.070|0.70
84687742|NCT03243422|169114739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Regression, Cox|Discrete-time interval model||||1.33|0.61|0.59
84687743|NCT03243422|169114740|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.191||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was restricted to ARIC participants who were enrolled in ACHIEVE||0.360|0.022|0.027
84687744|NCT03243422|169114741|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.151|0.18
84687745|NCT02173054|169114755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had erythema among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84687746|NCT02173054|169114755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had dryness among 3 groups|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
84687747|NCT02173054|169114755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had scaling among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
84687748|NCT02173054|169114755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had stinging among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.571
84687749|NCT02173054|169114755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had pruritus among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.449
84687750|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.059
84687751|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.697
84687752|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.028
84687753|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
84687754|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.755
84687755|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.003
84687756|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.205
84687757|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.576
84687758|NCT02173054|169114756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.160
84687759|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.078
84687760|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.167
84687761|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group|Paired t-test|||||||0.134
84687762|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.978
84687763|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.273
84687764|NCT02173054|169114757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.735
84687765|NCT02173054|169114758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0002
84687766|NCT02173054|169114758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.007
84687767|NCT02173054|169114758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.123
84687768|NCT02173054|169114759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.005
84687769|NCT02173054|169114759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.606
84687770|NCT02173054|169114759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
84687771|NCT02798211|169114770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||7.45|1.65|0.0011
84687772|NCT02798211|169114770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||4.15|0.89|0.0961
84687773|NCT02798211|169114771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.68|0.22|0.3330
84687774|NCT02798211|169114771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.14|0.0841
84687775|NCT02798211|169114772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.30|0.21|0.1618
84687776|NCT02798211|169114772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.19|0.0898
84687777|NCT02798211|169114773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.75|0.09|0.0125
84687778|NCT02798211|169114773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.70|0.09|0.0086
84687779|NCT02798211|169114774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.92|0.13|0.0338
84687780|NCT02798211|169114774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.93|0.14|0.0359
84687781|NCT02798211|169114775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|21.88|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||21.88|1.81|0.0038
84687782|NCT02798211|169114775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|16.77|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.77|1.36|0.0149
84687783|NCT02798211|169114776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|10.5||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|81.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||81.30|1.36|0.0243
84687784|NCT02798211|169114776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||43.64|0.67|0.1120
84687785|NCT02798211|169114777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||24.16|3.73|<0.0001
84687786|NCT02798211|169114777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit - in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.24|2.51|0.0001
84687787|NCT02798211|169114778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|30.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||30.45|3.19|<.0001
84687788|NCT02798211|169114778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.21|1.68|0.0043
84687789|NCT02798211|169114779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|14.38||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|111.53|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI100 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||111.53|1.86|0.0107
84687790|NCT02798211|169114779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|77.9|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PAS100 response by in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||77.90|1.24|0.0307
84687791|NCT02798211|169114780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.203"|-0.65|-1.45|<.0001
84687792|NCT02798211|169114780|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Treatment Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|"LS Mean of Treatment Difference~0.207"|-0.43|-1.24|<.0001
84687793|NCT02798211|169114781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.21||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.081"|-0.05|-0.37|0.0107
84687794|NCT02798211|169114781|SUPERIORITY|secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by visit - in treatment period 1 (LOCF)|||"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~-0.083"|0.03|-0.30|0.1109
84687795|NCT00659984|169114815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.2||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|13.9|||Cochran Armitage Trend Test|||||13.9|-3.4|0.363
84687796|NCT04026165|169114826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.81|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcr from treatment-specific Baselines at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for treatment-specific Baseline eGFRcr, pre-run-in urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||2.81|-0.41|0.1439
84687797|NCT04026165|169114827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|11.4||p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors= pre-run-in eGFRcr stratum, pre-run-in UACR category and concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% exact CI based on the Santner-Snell method was presented for the difference in proportions between SEL and placebo arms.|||11.4|-10.9|0.8353
84687798|NCT04026165|169114828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Stratified Log-Rank|P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by randomization stratification factors and were reported only for outcomes with more than 10 events, and have at least 1 event in each treatment arm.|||2.72|0.81|0.2010
84687799|NCT04026165|169114830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.86|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcys from pre-run-in Baseline at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for pre-run-in Baseline eGFRcys, pre-run-in UACR category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||1.86|-0.97|0.5399
84687800|NCT01059630|169114832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.40|<0.0001
84687801|NCT01059630|169114834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.45|<0.0001
84687802|NCT01059630|169114835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|0.98||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.58|0.9298
84687803|NCT01059630|169114836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|-0.9||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|6.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.64|-8.44|0.7857
84687804|NCT01059630|169114841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|2.24||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.69|-7.20|0.8347
84687805|NCT01059630|169114842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|8.55||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.32|-0.22|0.0466
84687806|NCT01059630|169114843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.61||||||||0.61|0.31|
84687807|NCT01059630|169114844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.67||||||||0.67|0.39|
84687808|NCT01059630|169114845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||||||||0.45|0.04|
84687809|NCT01059630|169114846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.81||||||||0.81|0.29|
84687810|NCT01059630|169114847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.44|0.0001
84687811|NCT01059630|169114849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0810
84687812|NCT03170375|169114864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.28
84687813|NCT03170375|169114865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline left ventricular mass index||||||0.60
84687814|NCT03170375|169114866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline global left ventricular longitudinal strain||||||0.27
84687815|NCT03170375|169114867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.03
84687816|NCT03170375|169114871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.47
84687817|NCT03170375|169114872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equation|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.28
84687818|NCT03170375|169114873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.43
84687819|NCT03170375|169114874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84687820|NCT03170375|169114875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84687821|NCT01287611|169114922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84687822|NCT01287611|169114923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84687823|NCT04074590|169114927|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate is better than placebo: Prob (diff\>0)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.314
84687824|NCT04074590|169114927|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate \>15% over placebo: Prob (diff\>0.15)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.037
84687825|NCT03299686|169114930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.043||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.029|0.082||Probability CJM112 better than placebo|Bayesian linear repeated measures model||||Lower limit and upper limit represents the Credibility Interval from the Bayesian analysis.|0.082|-0.029|0.7374
84687826|NCT03299686|169114931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434||0.263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.939|2.766||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.766|-0.939|0.263
84687827|NCT03299686|169114932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|-0.04||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.41|0.061
84687828|NCT03299686|169114933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.06||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.40|0.040
84687829|NCT02709005|169114936|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction. The statistical informational goal for the study of 90 participants eligible in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) efficacy population was an ad-hoc sample size determined by logistical considerations, as there was insufficient pilot data upon which to base more formal sample size calculations.||0.08|-0.26|0.420
84687830|NCT02709005|169114937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants Experiencing Solicited Events between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with solicited urogenital AEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.33|-0.06|0.200
84687831|NCT02709005|169114938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No SAEs were reported; therefore the Fisher's Exact Test was not performed.||||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with related SAEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||||
84687832|NCT02709005|169114939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.08|-0.13|>0.999
84687833|NCT02709005|169114940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||-0.01|-0.24|0.035
84687834|NCT02709005|169114945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.14|-0.18|>0.999
84687835|NCT03720938|169114951|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 26 children per group was needed with the assumption of Cohen's d = 0.8, the alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%.||||||0.001||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.001
84687836|NCT03720938|169114951|OTHER|||||||0.0002535||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.0002535
84687837|NCT03720938|169114951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000397||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.000397
84687838|NCT03720938|169114952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The outcome of weight z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z scores.||||0.005
84687839|NCT03720938|169114952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z score.||||0.002
84687840|NCT03720938|169114952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00386||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality. Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom correction method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||||0.00386
84687841|NCT03720938|169114953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.000
84687842|NCT03720938|169114953|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.06e-06||||||"Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.~Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes, baseline value and age."|Linear mixed effects model|Satterthwaite's correction method for denominator degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000306
84687843|NCT03720938|169114953|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-06||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000367
84687844|NCT03720938|169114954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of body mass index z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index z score at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.000
84687845|NCT03720938|169114954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001402||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.0001402
84687846|NCT03720938|169114954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body index z score.||||0.000235
84687847|NCT03720938|169114955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||The outcomes of fat ratio was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the fat ratio at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.259
84687848|NCT03720938|169114955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.220
84687849|NCT03720938|169114955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.250006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.250006
84687850|NCT03720938|169114956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.000
84687851|NCT03720938|169114956|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||||||1.196e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.00001196
84687852|NCT03720938|169114956|SUPERIORITY||||||‬|2.82e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.0000282‬
84687853|NCT03720938|169114957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the visual reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.000
84687854|NCT03720938|169114957|SUPERIORITY|||||||9e-08||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.00000009
84687855|NCT03720938|169114957|SUPERIORITY|||||||55||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||000000055
84687856|NCT03720938|169114958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.000
84687857|NCT03720938|169114958|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.633e-05||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.00001633
84687858|NCT03720938|169114958|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.0000367
84687859|NCT03720938|169114959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.008
84687860|NCT03720938|169114959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006
84687861|NCT03720938|169114959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006602||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006602
84687862|NCT03720938|169114960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615648||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for sports competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.615648
84687863|NCT03720938|169114960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.608
84687864|NCT03720938|169114960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.60938||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.60938
84687865|NCT03720938|169114961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for physical condition competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.094
84687866|NCT03720938|169114961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.085
84687867|NCT03720938|169114961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08818||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.08818
84687868|NCT03720938|169114962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058102||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for strength competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.058102
84687869|NCT03720938|169114962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.051
84687870|NCT03720938|169114962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.0534
84687871|NCT03720938|169114963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638505||||||The outcome of self-perception for body attractiveness was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for body attractiveness at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.638505
84687872|NCT03720938|169114963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.632
84687873|NCT03720938|169114963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.63280
84687874|NCT03720938|169114964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007061||||||The outcome of self-perception of global physical self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global physical self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.007061
84687875|NCT03720938|169114964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.005
84687876|NCT03720938|169114964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00603||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.00603
84687877|NCT03720938|169114965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002879||||||The outcome of self-perception for global self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002879
84687878|NCT03720938|169114965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002
84687879|NCT03720938|169114965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00238||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.00238
84687880|NCT03720938|169114966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||Tested the significance of gender between genders|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Enjoyment scale of physical activity sports in intervention group between male and female genders"||||0.194
84687881|NCT03720938|169114967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the Active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from sports category.||||0.809
84687882|NCT03720938|169114968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from balance category.||||0.843
84687883|NCT03720938|169114969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from aerobic category.||||0.247
84687884|NCT03720938|169114970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from training category.||||0.543
84687885|NCT03532308|169114971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||This is for the effect of treatment with time, risk stratification and treatment\*time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84687886|NCT00499863|169114977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between MTS and placebo.||||< 0.001
84687887|NCT00499863|169114978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84687888|NCT00499863|169114979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84687889|NCT00499863|169114980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84687890|NCT00499863|169114981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.288
84687891|NCT00571701|169115011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84687892|NCT00571701|169115012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84687893|NCT00571701|169115013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.3||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.3
84687894|NCT00571701|169115014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84687895|NCT00571701|169115015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.5
84687896|NCT00571701|169115016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.56
84687897|NCT01462162|169115022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.006
84687898|NCT01462162|169115022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.000
84687899|NCT01462162|169115022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
84687900|NCT01462162|169115023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.023
84687901|NCT01462162|169115023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.007
84687902|NCT01462162|169115023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
84687903|NCT01462162|169115024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687904|NCT01462162|169115024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687905|NCT01462162|169115025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687906|NCT01462162|169115025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687907|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 12||||0.003
84687908|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 24||||0.006
84660726|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.1|0.994
84660727|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-0.9|0.870
84660728|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.3|0.885
84660729|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.7|-3.5|0.834
84660730|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-5.1|0.281
84660731|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|4.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.1|-0.9|0.272
84660732|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.4|-2.1|0.249
84660733|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.6|-2.9|0.016
84660734|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.285|TWO_SIDED|0.285|-0.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.3|-0.5|0.285
84660735|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.8|-3.1|0.635
84687909|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 12||||0.791
84687910|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 24||||0.847
84660736|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-4.4|0.217
84660737|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.6|-1.2|0.399
84660738|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.5|-1.5|0.429
84660739|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.3|-1.7|0.260
84660740|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.3|-1.0|0.799
84660741|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.5|-1.7|0.738
84660742|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.5||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-2.7|0.691
84660743|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.9|-1.0|0.417
84660744|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.7|-3.7|0.998
84660745|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-5.8|0.353
84660746|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||5.4|-1.3|0.296
84687911|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in swollen joint count Week 12||||0.182
84687912|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in swollen joint count Week 24||||0.022
84687913|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in morning stiffness Week 12||||0.163
84687914|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in morning stiffness Week 24||||0.115
84687915|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in degree of pain Week 12||||0.037
84687916|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in degree of pain Week 24||||0.044
84687917|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in sleepiness at Week 12||||0.003
84687918|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in sleepiness at Week 24||||0.001
84687919|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in depression Week 12||||<0.001
84687920|NCT01462162|169115026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in depression at Week 24||||<0.001
84687921|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.678
84687922|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.348
84687923|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.679
84687924|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.556
84687925|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.692
84687926|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.771
84687927|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.878
84687928|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.139
84687929|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.249
84687930|NCT01462162|169115027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.610
84687931|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.257
84687932|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.487
84687933|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.644
84687934|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.498
84687935|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.650
84687936|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Cox|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.750
84687937|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.936
84687938|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.075
84687939|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.098
84687940|NCT01462162|169115028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.090
84687941|NCT01462162|169115029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.077
84687942|NCT01462162|169115029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.961
84687943|NCT01462162|169115030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687944|NCT01462162|169115030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687945|NCT01462162|169115031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687946|NCT01462162|169115031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687947|NCT01462162|169115032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687948|NCT01462162|169115032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687949|NCT01462162|169115033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687950|NCT01462162|169115033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687951|NCT01462162|169115034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687952|NCT01462162|169115034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687953|NCT01462162|169115035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687954|NCT01462162|169115035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84508391|NCT02129348|168767782|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Lithium will significantly reduce agitation/aggression compared to placebo. In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.7|-1.4|0.53
84508392|NCT02129348|168767783|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were computed.|Change in both NPI core score (≥30% versus \<30%) and CGI behavior change (1 or 2 versus ≥3) were required for response; these two measures were then analyzed separately. A x² test was used to identify whether there was a change in NPI core scores and CGI scores from baseline to week 12.||6.13|0.73|0.26
84687955|NCT01462162|169115036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.172
84687956|NCT01462162|169115036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.05
84687957|NCT01462162|169115037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.162
84687958|NCT01462162|169115037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84687959|NCT01462162|169115038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687960|NCT01462162|169115038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
84687961|NCT01462162|169115039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687962|NCT01462162|169115039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
84687963|NCT01462162|169115040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
84687964|NCT01462162|169115040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
84508393|NCT02129348|168767784|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|1.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.04||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||CGI behavior change scores were categorized into responders versus non-responders (1 or 2 versus ≥3) using the last variable observation for drop-outs. A x² test was used to identify the percentage of participants in each group, lithium versus placebo, that improved from baseline to week 12.||5.04|0.64|0.25
84687965|NCT03485911|169115044|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|48.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||48.7|4.6|0.024
84687966|NCT03485911|169115044|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|59.5|||negative binomial regression model|||||59.5|23.0|<0.001
84687967|NCT03485911|169115046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|4.53|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||4.53|-10.08|0.453
84687968|NCT03485911|169115046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|2.43|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||2.43|-12.23|0.188
84687969|NCT03485911|169115047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.008|-0.117|0.025
84687970|NCT03485911|169115047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.078||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of number and proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.023|-0.133|0.006
84687971|NCT03485911|169115048|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.4||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.3|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||49.3|4.3|0.026
84687972|NCT03485911|169115048|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|46.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|61.5|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||61.5|25.6|<0.001
84687973|NCT04037436|169115083|OTHER|GEE|GEE|1.65||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.73|||GEE|To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||7.73|-4.44|0.05
84687974|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0066||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0066
84687975|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0005
84687976|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
84687977|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.555|-2.305|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-2.305|-5.555|
84687978|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.104|-1.837|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.837|-5.104|
84687979|NCT01674621|169115094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|-1.193|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.193|-4.519|
84687980|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0547
84687981|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0056
84687982|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0018
84687983|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.864|-0.672|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.672|-2.864|
84687984|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.522|-0.318|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.318|-2.522|
84687985|NCT01674621|169115095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.368|-0.126|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.126|-2.368|
84687986|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9493||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9493
84687987|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9806||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9806
84687988|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5191||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.5191
84687989|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|1.04|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.040|-2.168|
84687990|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|1.15|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.150|-2.115|
84687991|NCT01674621|169115096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|2.139|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.139|-1.106|
84687992|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2549||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2549
84687993|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9115||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9115
84687994|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2390
84687995|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.501|-3.79|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-3.790|-40.501|
84687996|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|6.372|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||6.372|-30.543|
84687997|NCT01674621|169115097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.614|-4.041|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-4.041|-41.614|
84687998|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1632
84687999|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9834
84688000|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2179||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2179
84688001|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.557|-6.525|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-6.525|-48.557|
84688002|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.835|2.43|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.430|-39.835|
84688003|NCT01674621|169115098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.424|-5.405|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-5.405|-48.424|
84688004|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||1.0000
84688005|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1200
84688006|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9998||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9998
84688007|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.926|-50.886|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-50.886|-96.926|
84688008|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.019|-39.725|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-39.725|-86.019|
84688009|NCT01674621|169115099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.927|-49.807|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.807|-96.927|
84688010|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8569||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.8569
84688011|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6091||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6091
84688012|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9999
84688013|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.966|-63.831|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-63.831|-156.966|
84688014|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.94|-49.29|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.290|-142.940|
84688015|NCT01674621|169115100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.079|-56.758|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-56.758|-152.079|
84688016|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3483||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.3483
84688017|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6839||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6839
84688018|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1067||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1067
84688019|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.748|-11.694|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-11.694|-75.748|
84688020|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.665|-7.257|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-7.257|-71.665|
84688021|NCT01674621|169115101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.113|-16.555|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-16.555|-82.113|
84688022|NCT01148862|169115108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.2||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84688023|NCT01148862|169115109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84688024|NCT04270747|169115138|OTHER|A pre-specified similarity margin of (-3, 3) ETDRS letters was used to demonstrate clinical similarity for the mean change from Baseline in BCVA at Week 8.|Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||1.3|-1.1|
84688025|NCT04270747|169115139|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.2|-5.2|
84688026|NCT04270747|169115139|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.8|-6.2|
84688027|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||1.2|-1.3|
84688028|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|0.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.7|-2.3|
84688029|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.2|-1.9|
84688030|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.1|-1.3|
84688031|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.5|-3.1|
84688032|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||1.4|-2.3|
84688033|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||0.8|-3.2|
84688034|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-3.4|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.5|-3.4|
84688035|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||0.0|-3.0|
84688036|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||-0.2|-3.6|
84688037|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.5|-2.1|
84688038|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.0|-1.9|
84688039|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.2|-4.0|
84688040|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||2.2|-2.2|
84688041|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||1.7|-2.9|
84688042|NCT04270747|169115140|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.1|-3.5|
84688043|NCT04270747|169115141|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.1|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 10 letters of vision at Week 8.||3.1|-9.8|
84688044|NCT04270747|169115142|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|2.5|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||2.5|-13.6|
84688045|NCT04270747|169115142|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|4.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||4.2|-14.4|
84688046|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.638|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.638|-0.734|
84688047|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.431|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.367|1.229|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.229|-0.367|
84688048|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.625|1.019|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||1.019|-0.625|
84688049|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.561|0.872|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.872|-0.561|
84688050|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.682|0.891|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.891|-0.682|
84688051|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.667|1.158|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.158|-0.667|
84688052|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.065|0.834|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||0.834|-1.065|
84688053|NCT04270747|169115143|OTHER||Difference between means|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.186|1.479|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.479|-0.186|
84688054|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|17.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||17.9|-5.6|
84688055|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|13.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||13.5|-11.0|
84688056|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|16.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||16.6|-12.9|
84688057|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|14.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||14.4|-14.1|
84688058|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|12.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||12.9|-15.3|
84688059|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||14.1|-13.7|
84688060|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|21.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||21.4|-7.4|
84688061|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-9.3|12.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||12.5|-9.3|
84688062|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|20.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||20.0|-7.4|
84688063|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|9.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||9.1|-19.3|
84688064|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|13.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||13.3|-20.9|
84688065|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.6|10.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||10.6|-22.6|
84688066|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||9.3|-23.3|
84688067|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.8|9.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||9.8|-22.8|
84688068|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|16.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||16.2|-17.3|
84688069|NCT04270747|169115144|OTHER||Difference between means|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|15.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||15.0|-10.5|
84688070|NCT00532155|169115192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.174|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||1.174|0.868|0.8985
84688071|NCT00532155|169115193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.819||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.937|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|||0.937|0.716|0.0035
84688072|NCT02134925|169115197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84688073|NCT02134925|169115202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84688074|NCT00462280|169115240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84508394|NCT02129348|168767785|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||5.1|-1.1|0.21
84688075|NCT04843930|169115266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 261.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.54
84688076|NCT04843930|169115267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 239.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis."||||0.04
84688077|NCT04843930|169115268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 229.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.79
84508395|NCT02129348|168767786|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.4|-2.6|0.91
84508396|NCT02129348|168767787|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= -0.02 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.4|-1.5|0.94
84660747|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.5|-1.8|0.841
84660748|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-2.6|0.332
84660749|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.2|-0.6|0.359
84660750|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-2.1|0.347
84660751|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.4|-3.2|0.041
84660752|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.4|-0.4|0.212
84660753|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.2|-1.2|0.954
84688078|NCT04843930|169115269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 269.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.45
84688079|NCT04843930|169115270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 236.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.02
84688080|NCT04843930|169115271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 257.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.96
84688081|NCT04843930|169115272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 262.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
84688082|NCT04843930|169115273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 227.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.60
84688083|NCT04843930|169115274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 89.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.06
84688084|NCT04843930|169115275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 73.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
84688085|NCT00947661|169115276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of covariance included treatment, site, and intraocular pressure group as a covariate. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups in estimated mean change from baseline lease square means was computed for each time point. Non-inferiority of SPARC drug relative to Reference was established if: 95% confidence interval included 0, the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5, and upper limit of 95% CI was \<1 at most (at least 7 of 12) time point.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84688086|NCT00856167|169115309|SUPERIORITY||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression coefficient of TCM indicator variable, with change in CFP as the outcome, and controlling for start of treatment values: CFP, depression, gender, age, site|Regression, Linear|||Participants were allocated to one of the two treatments in order to balance baseline CFP, a depression score, age, gender, and site (Tucson or Portland).|"Since some participants could appear in both the 1st and 2nd period, the regression included random effects to account for correlation between measures on the same person.~In the 1st period, participants could either be allocated to TCM or SC, or if their pain scores were below 5, simply assigned to continuing self-care. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups. In the 2nd period, those allocated or assigned to SC in the 1st period could be allocated to TCM or SC, or again assigned to continuing SC if their pain scores were too low. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups."|||0.020
84688087|NCT00939731|169115339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|101.09||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.09|84.84|
84688088|NCT00939731|169115342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|100.68||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.68|84.86|
84688089|NCT00939731|169115343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|98.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|108.48||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CI for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.48|90.18|
84688090|NCT01392300|169115346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84688091|NCT01392300|169115347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|0.1|0.003
84688092|NCT01392300|169115348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.52|2.43|<0.001
84688093|NCT01392300|169115349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|1.56|<0.001
84688094|NCT01392300|169115350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.33|0.004
84660754|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-1.8|0.407
84660755|NCT02310568|169056715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-0.6|0.412
84660756|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.7|-2.2|0.856
84660757|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.9|-1.7|0.647
84660758|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.3|-3.0|0.817
84688095|NCT01392300|169115351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.57|1.76|<0.001
84688096|NCT01392300|169115352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.34|1.10|0.021
84688097|NCT01392300|169115353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.05|1.32|0.006
84688098|NCT01392300|169115354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.72|2.06|<0.001
84688099|NCT01392300|169115355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|1.40|0.002
84688100|NCT01392300|169115356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|0.90|0.102
84688101|NCT01392300|169115357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|1.67|<0.001
84688102|NCT01392300|169115358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.37|0.002
84688103|NCT01392300|169115359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.69|0.95|0.069
84688104|NCT01392300|169115360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.034
84688105|NCT01392300|169115361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.82|0.169
84688106|NCT01392300|169115362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.49|0.920
84688107|NCT01392300|169115363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.91|1.83|<0.001
84688108|NCT01392300|169115364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.28|0.007
84688109|NCT01392300|169115365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.15|0.018
84688110|NCT01392300|169115366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84688111|NCT01392300|169115367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.011
84688112|NCT01392300|169115368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.032
84688113|NCT01392300|169115369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
84688114|NCT01392300|169115370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|<0.001
84688115|NCT01392300|169115371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.029
84688116|NCT01392300|169115372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84660759|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.2|-3.8|0.670
84660760|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.5|-2.3|0.736
84660761|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.0|-4.7|0.496
84660762|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.8|-1.9|0.575
84660763|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||4.3|-1.2|0.362
84660764|NCT02310568|169056716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.6|-3.7|0.771
84660765|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.26|0.45|
84660766|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.54|0.23|
84660767|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.32|0.69|
84660768|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||5.78|0.27|
84660769|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|24.51|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||24.51|0.19|
84660770|NCT02310568|169056717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.09|0.16|
84660771|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.801
84660772|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.5|0.416
84660773|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.634
84660774|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.470
84688117|NCT01392300|169115373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.019
84688118|NCT01392300|169115374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.137
84688119|NCT01392300|169115375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.013
84688120|NCT01392300|169115376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.131
84688121|NCT01392300|169115377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.714
84688122|NCT01392300|169115378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84688123|NCT01392300|169115379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.008
84688124|NCT01392300|169115380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.062
84688125|NCT01392300|169115381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
84688126|NCT01392300|169115382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.076
84688127|NCT01392300|169115383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.416
84688128|NCT01392300|169115384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84688129|NCT01392300|169115385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.175
84688130|NCT01392300|169115386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.140
84688131|NCT01392300|169115387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
84688132|NCT01392300|169115388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.018
84688133|NCT01392300|169115389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.105
84688134|NCT01392300|169115390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.016
84688135|NCT01392300|169115391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.014
84688136|NCT01392300|169115392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.220
84508397|NCT02129348|168767788|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||0.8|-0.4|0.63
84688137|NCT01392300|169115393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.429
84688138|NCT01392300|169115394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.884
84688139|NCT01392300|169115395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.844
84688140|NCT05056870|169115396|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.081|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.081|-0.113|
84688141|NCT05056870|169115397|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 0.|Mean Difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|33.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||33.3|22.6|
84688142|NCT05056870|169115398|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.008|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.008|-0.032|
84688143|NCT05056870|169115399|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 1.|Mean Ratio|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.11|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Mean Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||5.11|1.73|
84688144|NCT00755222|169115400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84688145|NCT00755222|169115401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
84688146|NCT00755222|169115402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
84688147|NCT00755222|169115403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
84688148|NCT00755222|169115404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.095
84688149|NCT02243202|169115432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.001
84688150|NCT02243202|169115432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.1|0.142
84688151|NCT02243202|169115432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-5.2|-8.6|<0.001
84688152|NCT02243202|169115433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.14|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||10.14|1.70|0.002
84688153|NCT02243202|169115433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.06|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||3.06|0.41|0.825
84688154|NCT02243202|169115433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|25.05|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||25.05|4.15|<0.001
84688155|NCT02243202|169115434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-2.1|0.456
84688156|NCT02243202|169115434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||3.1|-3.9|0.827
84688157|NCT02243202|169115434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.8|-7.7|0.015
84688158|NCT02243202|169115435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-5.3|<0.001
84688159|NCT02243202|169115435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-3.1|0.153
84688160|NCT02243202|169115435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-8.5|-4.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.9|-8.5|<0.001
84688161|NCT04382924|169115447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.0001|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.025
84688162|NCT01083654|169115461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.20|.262
84688163|NCT01114204|169115462|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the large sample assumption. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for testing the difference between treatment groups was -15%.|Treatment Difference|2.58||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|9.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - iron sucrose) was expressed as a percentage.|"Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only.~Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information."||9.06|-3.89|0.2833
84688164|NCT00991341|169115470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to the change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.17, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.26|-0.60|0.44
84688165|NCT00991341|169115471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to all-cause mortality, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is the reference category.|||1.43|0.48|0.50
84688166|NCT00991341|169115472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to 28-day change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.32; positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.17|-0.82|0.20
84688167|NCT00991341|169115473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.018||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.069|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.069|-0.033|0.50
84688168|NCT00991341|169115474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.035|-0.090|0.40
84688169|NCT00991341|169115475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.023|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.023|-0.059|0.41
84688170|NCT00991341|169115476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.75
84688171|NCT00991341|169115477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in creatinine, adjusting for the baseline creatinine value.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline creatinine, the difference in the means was -0.02, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.05|-0.08|0.62
84688172|NCT00991341|169115478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.98||The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in troponin-I, adjusting for the baseline troponin-I value.|ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline troponin-I, the change in troponin-I values was 1.9 ng/mL higher in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|Troponin-I values recorded as 'too low to detect' were recoded as 0 since the median value of the minimum quantitative troponin-I value obtained among all participating sites was 0.01.||5.98|-2.11|0.35
84688173|NCT00991341|169115479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
84688174|NCT00991341|169115480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline bilirubin, the change in bilirubin values was 0.65 mg/dL lower in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|||-0.41|-0.89|<0.01
84688175|NCT00991341|169115482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25||The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative bowel movement, adjusting for baseline MODS.|Regression, Cox||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.25|0.98|0.11
84688176|NCT00991341|169115483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative solid food, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.22|0.96|0.22
84688177|NCT00991341|169115484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.0|||Kruskal-Wallis||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.00|-0.59|0.71
84688178|NCT00991341|169115485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.027|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.027|-0.057|0.53
84688179|NCT02401464|169115486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|Least Squares (LS) mean difference (ln)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.001||||||Based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.001|0.927|
84688180|NCT02401464|169115487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1)90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.933||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||0.933|0.880|
84688181|NCT02401464|169115488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.011||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.011|0.958|
84688182|NCT02401464|169115489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.022||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.022|0.938|
84688183|NCT00215540|169115495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.476
84688184|NCT00215540|169115495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.208
84688185|NCT00215540|169115496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.500
84688186|NCT00215540|169115496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.146
84688187|NCT00215540|169115497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
84688188|NCT00215540|169115497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
84688189|NCT00215540|169115497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.944
84688190|NCT00215540|169115498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.476
84688191|NCT00215540|169115498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.208
84688192|NCT00215540|169115498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.046
84688193|NCT00215540|169115499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.285
84688194|NCT00215540|169115499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.229
84688195|NCT00215540|169115499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.030
84688196|NCT00215540|169115500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.483
84688197|NCT00215540|169115500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.123
84688198|NCT00215540|169115500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.006
84688199|NCT00215540|169115501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.843
84688200|NCT00215540|169115501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.543
84688201|NCT00215540|169115501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.537
84688202|NCT00215540|169115502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.813
84688203|NCT00215540|169115502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.449
84688204|NCT00215540|169115502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.275
84688205|NCT00215540|169115503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
84688206|NCT00215540|169115503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
84688207|NCT00215540|169115504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.311
84688208|NCT00215540|169115504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.516
84688209|NCT00215540|169115504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.094
84688210|NCT03010462|169115505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.62
84688211|NCT03010462|169115506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84688212|NCT03010462|169115507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84688213|NCT03010462|169115508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84688214|NCT03010462|169115509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84688215|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.41|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 2|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.41|-0.93|0.6803
84688216|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.6|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 3|Day 0, 1 Minute. Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.60|-0.82|0.5206
84688217|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.606|TWO_SIDED|395.0|-0.86|1.46|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.46|-0.86|0.6060
84688218|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.27|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 3|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.27|-0.98|0.7935
84688219|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.15|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.15|-1.03|0.9140
84688220|NCT02007434|169115546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.04|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 3 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.04|-1.21|0.8754
84688221|NCT01355458|169115564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
84688222|NCT00691132|169115570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||% difference between Placebo and PEITC periods in the ratio of \[pyridine-D4\]Hydroxy acid : \[pyridine-D4\] total NNAL||-1.2|-13.8|0.023
84688223|NCT00691132|169115571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.005
84688224|NCT00691132|169115573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.017
84688225|NCT00691132|169115574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
84688226|NCT00691132|169115574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
84688227|NCT00691132|169115574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
84688228|NCT04766086|169115584|OTHER||Risk difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.8|
84688229|NCT04766086|169115585|OTHER||GMR|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.736||||||GMR for Anti-PT Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.736|0.405|
84688230|NCT04766086|169115585|OTHER||GMR|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.707||||||GMR for Anti-FHA Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.707|0.455|
84688231|NCT04766086|169115585|OTHER||GMR|0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.766||||||GMR for Anti-PRN Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.766|0.451|
84688232|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.089||||||GMR for serotype Ia: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.089|0.380|
84688233|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|2.901||||||GMR for serotype Ib: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.901|0.455|
84688234|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|1.032||||||95.0|0.551|1.931||||||GMR for serotype II: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.931|0.551|
84688235|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.329||||||GMR for serotype III: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.329|0.303|
84688236|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|1.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|2.58||||||GMR for serotype IV: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.580|0.842|
84688237|NCT04766086|169115586|OTHER||GMR|0.559|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|1.349||||||GMR for serotype V: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.349|0.232|
84688238|NCT03541044|169115638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.91|
84688239|NCT03541044|169115639|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC(0-inf) fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.89|
84688240|NCT03541044|169115640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.98|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||0.98|0.82|
84688241|NCT00860067|169115645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.18|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H1N1: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.18|1.01|
84688242|NCT00860067|169115645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H3N2: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.14|0.96|
84660775|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.5|0.683
84688243|NCT00860067|169115645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Yamagata).|Ratio of geometric mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.25|0.97|
84688244|NCT00860067|169115645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Victoria) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Victoria).|Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals were calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.82|
84688245|NCT00560612|169115675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7054
84688246|NCT00560612|169115676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4583
84688247|NCT00560612|169115677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7443
84688248|NCT00560612|169115678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
84688249|NCT01060553|169115679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for mcs||||.15
84688250|NCT01060553|169115679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for pcs||||.28
84688251|NCT01060553|169115680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep duration||||.34
84688252|NCT01060553|169115680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep disturbance||||.001
84688253|NCT01060553|169115680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep latency||||.015
84688254|NCT01498822|169115686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis of this study aimed to demonstrate that LEV was noninferior to OXC with respect to the treatment failure rate in the Per Protocol Set. The noninferiority margin was 15 %.|Absolut difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-1.2|||Wald methodology||"Absolute difference in treatment failure rates of LEV versus OXC is defined as Treatment Failure Rate LEV minus Treatment Failure Rate OXC."|||-1.2|-20.2|
84688255|NCT04581200|169115690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-1.63|0.61
84688256|NCT04581200|169115691|OTHER|This is an exploratory pilot trial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.66|0.89
84688257|NCT04581200|169115692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.30|-2.58|0.81
84688258|NCT04581200|169115693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.98|0.75
84688259|NCT04581200|169115694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.57|0.45
84688260|NCT04581200|169115695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.13|0.98
84688261|NCT04581200|169115696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84688262|NCT04581200|169115697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
84688263|NCT03131960|169115700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
84688264|NCT03131960|169115701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA||||0.0077
84688265|NCT03131960|169115702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0098
84688266|NCT03131960|169115703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84688267|NCT01625923|169115705|OTHER|T-test comparing GCSI-DD scores before/after intervention||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
84688268|NCT01859793|169115723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary and secondary outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected. A priori sample size calculation demonstrated our study design has 80% power to detect a 1.5% absolute increase in FMD% with 30 subjects completing the entire study protocol at α=0.05.||||<0.05
84688269|NCT01859793|169115724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
84688270|NCT01859793|169115725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
84688271|NCT03815019|169115735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.2218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the megestrol group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
84688272|NCT03815019|169115735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.1544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the placebo group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
84688273|NCT03815019|169115737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7846, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688274|NCT03815019|169115738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7025, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688275|NCT03815019|169115739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.6764, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688276|NCT03815019|169115740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7649, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688277|NCT03815019|169115741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.9487, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688278|NCT03815019|169115742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7669, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688279|NCT03815019|169115743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.5883, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688280|NCT03815019|169115744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.4749, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84508398|NCT02129348|168767789|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|3.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= 0.44 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||8.4|-2.1|0.24
84688281|NCT03815019|169115745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.8781, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
84688282|NCT02332590|169115829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|-0.793||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-ESR score as a continuous covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control overall alpha error rate at 0.05 level and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.793|-1.361|<0.0001
84688283|NCT02332590|169115830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.536|9.389||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||9.389|2.536|<0.0001
84688284|NCT02332590|169115831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.289|3.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||3.028|1.289|0.0017
84688285|NCT02332590|169115832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||4.020|1.300|0.0036
84688286|NCT02332590|169115833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.773||Threshold for significance 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||2.773|1.168|0.0074
84688287|NCT02332590|169115834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.059||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline HAQ-DI score as a continuous covariate.||-0.059|-0.305|0.0037
84688288|NCT02332590|169115835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|4.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline SF-36 PCS score as a continuous covariate.||4.153|1.147|0.0006
84688289|NCT02332590|169115836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.768||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|3.674||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline FACIT-F score as a continuous covariate.||3.674|-0.137|0.0689
84688290|NCT00279201|169115882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA, baseline value as covariate. Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + thiazolidinedione (TZD) use + Sulfonylurea (sulfo) use.||||||0.005
84688291|NCT00279201|169115883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by country, thiazolidinedione (TZD) use, sulfo use.||||||0.040
84688292|NCT00279201|169115884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
84688293|NCT00279201|169115884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
84688294|NCT00279201|169115885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.005
84688295|NCT00279201|169115886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.002
84688296|NCT00279201|169115886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688297|NCT00279201|169115886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.174
84688298|NCT00279201|169115887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.416
84688299|NCT00279201|169115887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688300|NCT00279201|169115887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.003
84688301|NCT00279201|169115887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
84688302|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.179
84688303|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688304|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.700
84688305|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for AM 2-hour postprandial blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.016
84688306|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.971
84688307|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Midday premeal blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688308|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour postprandial BG|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.759
84688309|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value Midday 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.514
84688310|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening pre-meal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.321
84688311|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Evening pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.161
84688312|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening 2hour postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.297
84688313|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value Evening 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688314|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3 AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.199
84688315|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.693
84688316|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.021
84688317|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688318|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.567
84688319|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
84688320|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.994
84688321|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688322|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.436
84688323|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688324|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all 2hour PP BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.628
84688325|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688326|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.677
84688327|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688328|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.364
84688329|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.055
84688330|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.165
84688331|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688332|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all BG values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.464
84688333|NCT00279201|169115888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.305
84688334|NCT00279201|169115889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.003
84688335|NCT00279201|169115890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688336|NCT00279201|169115890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688337|NCT00279201|169115890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 18|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688338|NCT00279201|169115890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688339|NCT00279201|169115890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688340|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.497
84688341|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688342|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688343|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 18.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688344|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688345|NCT00279201|169115891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.0001
84688346|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.016
84688347|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.037
84688348|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.834
84688349|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.585
84688350|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.241
84688351|NCT00279201|169115892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes overall. Initiation phase and maintenance phase are included.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.080
84688352|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.009
84688353|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.420
84688354|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.165
84688355|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.167
84688356|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.006
84688357|NCT00279201|169115893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688358|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688359|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688360|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688361|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688362|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688363|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688364|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688365|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688366|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688367|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 18.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.001
84688368|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688369|NCT00279201|169115894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
84688370|NCT00279201|169115895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688371|NCT00279201|169115896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688372|NCT00279201|169115897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688373|NCT00279201|169115898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688374|NCT00279201|169115899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688375|NCT00279201|169115900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688376|NCT00279201|169115901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Pre Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688377|NCT00279201|169115901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Post Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688378|NCT00279201|169115901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Average of All Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688379|NCT00279201|169115901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Fasting Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688380|NCT00279201|169115902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
84688381|NCT00279201|169115902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for TZD/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
84660776|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.775
84660777|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.848
84660778|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-0.2|0.490
84660779|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.433
84660780|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.4|0.796
84660781|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.624
84660782|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.844
84660783|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.0|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.7|0.743
84660784|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.3|0.356
84660785|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-0.2|0.180
84660786|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-0.6|0.589
84660787|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.8|0.873
84660788|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.667|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.6|0.667
84660789|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.5|0.548
84688382|NCT00279201|169115902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.969
84688383|NCT00279201|169115902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value is for Patients with 3 drugs (Sulfonylurea/TZD/Metformin).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.225
84688384|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Week 0.|ANOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
84688385|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.004
84688386|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.657
84688387|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.595
84688388|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value for Week 48.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.142
84688389|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||95.0||||P-value for Week 60.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.551
84688390|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.779
84688391|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.175
84688392|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Week 96.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.018
84688393|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.047
84688394|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.027
84688395|NCT00279201|169115903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
84688396|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.218
84688397|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688398|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour (hr) postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.897
84688399|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2-hour postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.138
84688400|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.867
84688401|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday premeal blood.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.031
84688402|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.792
84688403|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.510
84688404|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.535
84688405|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.517
84688406|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.869
84688407|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688408|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.164
84688409|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint 3AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.234
84688410|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.175
84688411|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688412|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.589
84688413|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
84688414|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.674
84688415|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688416|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.201
84688417|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688418|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.956
84688419|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.019
84688420|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.445
84688421|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all premeal.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.371
84688422|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.848
84688423|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.002
84688424|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.281
84688425|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688426|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all blood glucose values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.588
84688427|NCT00279201|169115904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.217
84688428|NCT00279201|169115905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.300
84688429|NCT00279201|169115906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.134
84688430|NCT00279201|169115906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.089
84688431|NCT00279201|169115906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.235
84688432|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688433|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 36.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688434|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 48.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688435|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 60.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688436|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 72.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688437|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 84.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688438|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 96.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688439|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 108|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688440|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 120.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||0.002
84688441|NCT00279201|169115907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688442|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.128
84688443|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688444|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688445|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688446|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688447|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688448|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688449|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688450|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688451|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||0.002
84688452|NCT00279201|169115908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
84688453|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688454|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688455|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688456|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688457|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688458|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688459|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688460|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688461|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688462|NCT00279201|169115909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
84688463|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.370
84688464|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-Value for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.006
84688465|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.397
84688466|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.253
84688467|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.893
84688468|NCT00279201|169115910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.391
84688469|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.497
84688470|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.071
84688471|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.065
84688472|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.021
84688473|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.200
84688474|NCT00279201|169115911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.208
84688475|NCT00279201|169115912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use and sulfo use.||||||0.004
84688476|NCT00279201|169115913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline at Week 0.|ANOVA|ANOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
84688477|NCT00279201|169115913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-Value is for Change from baseline to endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
84688478|NCT00279201|169115913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Change Week 24 to Week 120 endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.020
84688479|NCT00279201|169115914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.036
84688480|NCT00279201|169115915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.708
84688481|NCT00279201|169115916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||0.028
84688482|NCT00279201|169115917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.738
84688483|NCT00279201|169115918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
84688484|NCT00279201|169115919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.043
84688485|NCT00279201|169115920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
84688486|NCT00279201|169115921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.032
84688487|NCT00279201|169115922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.037
84688488|NCT00279201|169115922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.025
84688489|NCT00279201|169115922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.132
84688490|NCT00279201|169115922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.849
84688491|NCT00279201|169115923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.006
84688492|NCT00279201|169115923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.048
84688493|NCT00279201|169115923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.258
84688494|NCT00279201|169115923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.848
84688495|NCT00279201|169115924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.004
84688496|NCT00279201|169115925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.553
84688497|NCT00279201|169115926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all post meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.010
84688498|NCT00279201|169115926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.035
84688499|NCT00279201|169115927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of post-meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.516
84688500|NCT00279201|169115927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.425
84688501|NCT00279201|169115928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
84688502|NCT00279201|169115928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
84688503|NCT00279201|169115928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
84688504|NCT00279201|169115928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
84688505|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
84688506|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
84688507|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
84688508|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
84688509|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84688510|NCT00279201|169115929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84688511|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.241
84688512|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.305
84688513|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.842
84688514|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.917
84688515|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.648
84688516|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.613
84688517|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.813
84688518|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.953
84688519|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.933
84688520|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.348
84688521|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.625
84688522|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.573
84660790|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-1.0|0.567
84660791|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.2|0.208
84660792|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.2|0.858
84660793|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-1.7|0.329
84660794|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.4|0.272
84660795|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.6|0.946
84660796|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.3|-0.8|0.407
84660797|NCT02310568|169056718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.8|-0.3|0.436
84660798|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.1|-0.6|0.325
84688523|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.711
84688524|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.372
84688525|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.516
84688526|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.639
84688527|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.131
84688528|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.530
84688529|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.578
84688530|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.004
84688531|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.951
84688532|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.580
84688533|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.071
84688534|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.081
84688535|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||<0.001
84688536|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.542
84688537|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.003
84688538|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.105
84688539|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.487
84508399|NCT02129348|168767790|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.01|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.8|-1.7|0.96
84688540|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.491
84688541|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.127
84688542|NCT00279201|169115930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.861
84688543|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.745
84688544|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.467
84688545|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
84688546|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
84688547|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
84688548|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
84688549|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
84688550|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
84688551|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
84688552|NCT00279201|169115931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
84688553|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.467
84688554|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
84688555|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
84688556|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
84688557|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
84508400|NCT02129348|168767791|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.35|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||6.6|-2.3|0.35
84508401|NCT01937364|168767828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7275|-0.0206||One-sided p-value|z-statistic with pooled estimate||RD = Baclofen - Placebo|||-0.0206|-0.7275|0.0334
84688558|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.745
84688559|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
84688560|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
84688561|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
84688562|NCT00279201|169115932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
84688563|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.837
84508402|NCT01937364|168767829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 24 hours||||0.3744
84508403|NCT01937364|168767829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 48 hours||||0.7616
84508404|NCT01937364|168767829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 72 hours||||0.1393
84688564|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.205
84688565|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.704
84688566|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.610
84688567|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.352
84688568|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.636
84688569|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.880
84688570|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.904
84688571|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.859
84688572|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.654
84688573|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.566
84688574|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.926
84688575|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.902
84688576|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.766
84688577|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.449
84688578|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.797
84688579|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.438
84688580|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.602
84688581|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.493
84688582|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.335
84688583|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.398
84688584|NCT00279201|169115933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.903
84688585|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
84688586|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
84688587|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.188
84688588|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.226
84688589|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.855
84688590|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes at endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.250
84688591|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.123
84688592|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.166
84688593|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.273
84688594|NCT00279201|169115934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.039
84688595|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.623
84688596|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
84688597|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.730
84688598|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.445
84688599|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
84688600|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.590
84688601|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.657
84688602|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.108
84688603|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
84688604|NCT00279201|169115935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.178
84688605|NCT00279201|169115936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.917
84688606|NCT00279201|169115936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.754
84688607|NCT00279201|169115936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.420
84688608|NCT00279201|169115936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.514
84688609|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
84688610|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.566
84688611|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.812
84688612|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
84688613|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
84688614|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.179
84688615|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.377
84688616|NCT00279201|169115937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
84688617|NCT02202434|169115938|NON_INFERIORITY|10.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.0027|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.32|||Farrington-Manning|||||8.32||0.0027
84688618|NCT02202434|169115939|NON_INFERIORITY|9.5% Non-Inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|-10.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.41|||Farrington-Manning|||||-4.41||<0.0001
84508405|NCT01937364|168767830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Baclofen - Placebo; Peak Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84688619|NCT02202434|169115939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-10.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority analysis was only to be run if the non-inferiority analysis was met.~Superiority analysis was run on Intent to Treat Population."||-4.0|-16.3|0.0006
84688620|NCT02202434|169115940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.6|||Chi-squared|||||-2.6|-9.6|<0.0001
84688621|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|14.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.251|32.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 1||32.262|6.251|<0.001
84688622|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.828|66.156|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 2||66.156|15.828|<0.001
84688623|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|55.772|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.646|121.287|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 4||121.287|25.646|<0.001
84688624|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|48.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.341|120.798|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 6||120.798|19.341|<0.001
84688625|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|34.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|87.629|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 8||87.629|13.690|<0.001
84688626|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|23.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.579|63.005|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 12||63.005|8.579|<0.001
84688627|NCT02799472|169116064|OTHER||Ratio|1.233||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|2.048|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, 12-Week FU||2.048|0.742|0.401
84688628|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.032|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 1||1.032|0.861|0.193
84508406|NCT01937364|168767830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baclofen - Placebo; Total Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose||||0.80
84688629|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|1.028||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.362|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 2||1.362|0.776|0.842
84688630|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.743||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.093|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 4||1.093|0.505|0.127
84688631|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.762||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.095|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 6||1.095|0.531|0.137
84508407|NCT04799158|168767831|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.84|35.55|||Fisher Exact|||||35.55|21.84|<0.0001
84508408|NCT04799158|168767831|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.28|40.23|||Fisher Exact|||||40.23|26.28|<0.0001
84508409|NCT04799158|168767831|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|49.42|||Fisher Exact|||||49.42|35.92|<0.0001
84508410|NCT04799158|168767832|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|37.09|||Fisher Exact|||||37.09|23.41|<0.0001
84508411|NCT04799158|168767832|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|31.05|||Fisher Exact|||||31.05|16.67|<0.0001
84508412|NCT04799158|168767832|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|44.35|||Fisher Exact|||||44.35|31.00|<0.0001
84508413|NCT04799158|168767833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1771
84688632|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.886||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.259|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 8||1.259|0.623|0.488
84688633|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.793||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 12||1.290|0.488|0.338
84688634|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.859||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.502|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, 12-Week FU||1.502|0.491|0.582
84688635|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.999||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 1||1.427|0.699|0.996
84688636|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.944||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.346|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 2||1.346|0.662|0.745
84688637|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|1.017||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.593|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 4||1.593|0.649|0.939
84688638|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.617|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 6||1.617|0.595|0.937
84688639|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|1.067||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.727|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 8||1.727|0.659|0.787
84688640|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|1.267||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.086|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 12||2.086|0.769|0.342
84688641|NCT02799472|169116065|OTHER||Ratio|1.748||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|2.838|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, 12-Week FU||2.838|1.076|0.026
84688642|NCT02799472|169116066|OTHER||Ratio|0.774||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, Week 12||2.290|0.261|0.632
84688643|NCT02799472|169116066|OTHER||Ratio|1.176||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|2.663|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, 12-Week FU||2.663|0.519|0.685
84688644|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.692||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.074|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 1||1.074|0.445|0.097
84688645|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.713||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 2||1.249|0.407|0.229
84688646|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.608||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.012|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 4||1.012|0.365|0.055
84688647|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.755||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 6||1.309|0.435|0.307
84688648|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.557||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.894|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 8||0.894|0.348|0.017
84688649|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.52||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.922|||Repeated measures analysis|||||0.922|0.294|0.026
84688650|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.636|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, 12-Week FU||1.636|0.548|0.839
84688651|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.764||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 1||1.100|0.530|0.142
84688652|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.39|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 2||1.390|0.726|0.976
84688653|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.236||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.778|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 4||1.778|0.859|0.244
84688654|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.237||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.83|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 6||1.830|0.836|0.278
84688655|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.118||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.92|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 8||1.920|0.651|0.677
84688656|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.165||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.369|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 12||2.369|0.573|0.661
84688657|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|3.007|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, 12-Week FU||3.007|0.832|0.154
84688658|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.903||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.729|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 1||1.729|0.471|0.751
84688659|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.413|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 2||1.413|0.367|0.330
84508414|NCT04799158|168767833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1551
84688660|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.512|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 4||1.512|0.447|0.519
84688661|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.659||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|1.167|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 6||1.167|0.372|0.147
84688662|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.684||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.18|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 8||1.180|0.396|0.166
84508415|NCT04799158|168767833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0094
84508416|NCT04799158|168767834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3395
84508417|NCT04799158|168767834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4882
84508418|NCT04799158|168767834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0722
84508419|NCT04799158|168767835|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-3.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|16.52|||Fisher Exact|||||16.52|-24.41|0.8300
84688663|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.221||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|2.031|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 12||2.031|0.734|0.432
84508420|NCT04799158|168767835|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|1.4|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|22.16|||Fisher Exact|||||22.16|-19.28|>0.9999
84508421|NCT04799158|168767835|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.3|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|22.88|||Fisher Exact|||||22.88|-18.22|>0.9999
84508422|NCT04799158|168767836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4684|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4684
84508423|NCT04799158|168767836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6560
84508424|NCT04799158|168767836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6324|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6324
84508425|NCT04799158|168767837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9896
84508426|NCT04799158|168767837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6916|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6916
84688664|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.602||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.423|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, 12-Week FU||3.423|0.750|0.216
84688665|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.926||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.042|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 1||1.042|0.823|0.195
84688666|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.984||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.168|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 2||1.168|0.829|0.851
84688667|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.956||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.158|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 4||1.158|0.790|0.637
84688668|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.225|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 6||1.225|0.833|0.915
84688669|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.857||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.064|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 8||1.064|0.690|0.157
84688670|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|0.849||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.059|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 12||1.059|0.681|0.142
84688671|NCT02799472|169116067|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.378|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, 12-Week FU||1.378|0.745|0.929
84688672|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.887||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.231|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 1||1.231|0.640|0.463
84688673|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.352|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 2||1.352|0.672|0.782
84688674|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.132||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.69|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 4||1.690|0.759|0.533
84688675|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.149||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.694|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 6||1.694|0.779|0.473
84688676|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.687|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 8||1.687|0.733|0.608
84688677|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 12||1.645|0.613|0.985
84688678|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.386||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|2.057|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, 12-Week FU||2.057|0.934|0.102
84688679|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.915||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.071|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 1||1.071|0.781|0.259
84688680|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.959||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.137|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 2||1.137|0.809|0.621
84688681|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.914||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 4||1.110|0.752|0.354
84688682|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.444|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 6||1.444|0.443|0.448
84688683|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.16||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.653|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 8||1.653|0.813|0.402
84688684|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|0.951||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.301|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 12||1.301|0.695|0.745
84660799|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.3|0.996
84660800|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.377
84660801|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-0.7|0.291
84688685|NCT02799472|169116068|OTHER||Ratio|1.226||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.796|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, 12-Week FU||1.796|0.837|0.279
84688686|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.098||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.606|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 1||1.606|0.750|0.621
84508427|NCT04799158|168767837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9316|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9316
84508428|NCT00936975|168767838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7644|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE||GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|This was an exploratory study and no a priori assumptions were employed.||||<0.001
84660802|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.4|0.925
84660803|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.390
84660804|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.7|0.502
84660805|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.348
84660806|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-1.0|0.160
84660807|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.5|0.965
84660808|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.389
84660809|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.8|0.433
84660810|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-0.9|0.940
84660811|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-1.0|0.757
84660812|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-0.7|0.836
84660813|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.9|0.827
84660814|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.6|0.507
84660815|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.632
84508429|NCT00936975|168767839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|the difference in Patlak flux in tumor bone between baseline and 12 weeks, accounting for the fact that each participant could contribute more than one tumor bone.||||0.1945
84508430|NCT00936975|168767840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.32
84508431|NCT00936975|168767840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6943|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: No difference in uptake b/w normal \& tumor bones||||<0.001
84508432|NCT00936975|168767841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.16
84660816|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.5|0.442
84688687|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|2.388|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 2||2.388|1.046|0.031
84688688|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.222||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.827|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 4||1.827|0.817|0.317
84688689|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.302||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.81|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 6||1.810|0.936|0.113
84688690|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|2.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 8||2.645|0.795|0.217
84688691|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.266||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.75|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 12||1.750|0.916|0.147
84688692|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.996||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.499|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, 12-Week FU||1.499|0.662|0.985
84688693|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.892||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.56|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 1||1.560|0.511|0.681
84688694|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.669|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 2||1.669|0.454|0.668
84688695|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.12||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|2.101|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 4||2.101|0.597|0.717
84688696|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.661||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.31|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 6||1.310|0.333|0.227
84688697|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.817||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.437|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 8||1.437|0.464|0.471
84688698|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.816||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.597|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 12||1.597|0.417|0.541
84688699|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.602|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, 12-Week FU||1.602|0.422|0.544
84688700|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.051||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 1||1.233|0.895|0.537
84688701|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 2||1.173|0.906|0.635
84688702|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.012||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 4||1.165|0.879|0.866
84688703|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 6||1.139|0.842|0.780
84688704|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.113||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.32|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 8||1.320|0.938|0.212
84688705|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.102||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 12||1.300|0.934|0.242
84688706|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.267|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, 12-Week FU||1.267|0.870|0.597
84688707|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.795||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|0.997|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 1||0.997|0.634|0.047
84688708|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.883||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 2||1.165|0.668|0.367
84688709|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.784||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.102|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 4||1.102|0.558|0.155
84688710|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.638||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.855|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 6||0.855|0.477|0.004
84688711|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.799||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 8||1.080|0.591|0.140
84688712|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.891||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 12||1.228|0.647|0.470
84688713|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.869||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.217|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, 12-Week FU||1.217|0.621|0.401
84688714|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.296|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 1||1.296|0.742|0.887
84688715|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.97||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.263|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 2||1.263|0.744|0.814
84688716|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.969||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 4||1.233|0.762|0.794
84688717|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.919||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.213|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 6||1.213|0.696|0.539
84688718|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.221|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 8||1.221|0.719|0.623
84688719|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.913||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 12||1.173|0.711|0.467
84688720|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.778||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.061|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, 12-Week FU||1.061|0.570|0.108
84688721|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.175|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 1||1.175|0.868|0.897
84688722|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.218|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 2||1.218|0.884|0.644
84688723|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 4||1.139|0.780|0.530
84688724|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.882||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.063|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 6||1.063|0.733|0.182
84688725|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|10.0|0.779|1.182|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 8||1.182|0.779|0.691
84688726|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.214|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 12||1.214|0.790|0.843
84688727|NCT02799472|169116069|OTHER||Ratio|1.075||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.351|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, 12-Week FU||1.351|0.855|0.524
84688728|NCT02799472|169116070|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.123|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 1||1.123|0.809|0.558
84688729|NCT02799472|169116070|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.12|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 4||1.120|0.801|0.515
84688730|NCT02799472|169116070|OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.222|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 12||1.222|0.895|0.565
84688731|NCT02799472|169116070|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, 12-Week FU||1.249|0.822|0.897
84688732|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 1||1.354|0.794|0.786
84688733|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.818||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.109|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 4||1.109|0.603|0.188
84688734|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.763||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.087|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 12||1.087|0.536|0.129
84688735|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.709||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.006|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, 12-Week FU||1.006|0.499|0.054
84688736|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.119||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.45|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 1||1.450|0.863|0.383
84688737|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.89||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.271|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 4||1.271|0.623|0.510
84688738|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.952||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 12||1.262|0.718|0.724
84688739|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.958||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.443|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, 12-Week FU||1.443|0.635|0.831
84688740|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 1||1.328|0.882|0.437
84688741|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.234|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 4||1.234|0.711|0.632
84688742|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.088||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.336|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 12||1.336|0.885|0.413
84688743|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.062||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.316|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, 12-Week FU||1.316|0.858|0.567
84688744|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.069||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.338|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 1||1.338|0.855|0.547
84688745|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.223|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 4||1.223|0.673|0.512
84688746|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 12||1.328|0.853|0.573
84688747|NCT02799472|169116071|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.300|0.818|0.789
84688748|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.128|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 1||0.128|-0.056|0.428
84688749|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.113|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 4||0.113|-0.159|0.733
84688750|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.115|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 12||0.115|-0.076|0.677
84688751|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.151|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, 12-Week FU||0.151|-0.084|0.569
84688752|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.469|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 1||0.469|-0.263|0.569
84688753|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 4||0.354|-0.668|0.534
84688754|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.498|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 12||0.498|-0.323|0.668
84688755|NCT02799472|169116072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.484|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, 12-Week FU||0.484|-0.526|0.934
84688756|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.412|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 1||1.412|0.876|0.369
84688757|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|0.941||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 4||1.228|0.721|0.641
84688758|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.024||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.303|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 12||1.303|0.804|0.844
84688759|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.427|0.821|0.558
84688760|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.111||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.402|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 1||1.402|0.880|0.363
84688761|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|0.957||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.265|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 4||1.265|0.724|0.751
84688762|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.076||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.37|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 12||1.370|0.846|0.537
84688763|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.032||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.335|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, 12-Week FU||1.335|0.797|0.806
84688764|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.101||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 1||1.391|0.872|0.405
84688765|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.232|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 4||1.232|0.668|0.519
84688766|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.036||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.291|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 12||1.291|0.831|0.748
84688767|NCT02799472|169116073|OTHER||Ratio|1.049||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.356|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, 12-Week FU||1.356|0.811|0.704
84688768|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|26.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||26.1|-13.1|0.501
84688769|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||18.0|-21.6|0.852
84688770|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|29.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||29.0|-16.4|0.572
84688771|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|34.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||34.1|-13.0|0.363
84688772|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||17.0|-13.0|0.788
84688773|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|14.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||14.4|-18.8|0.786
84688774|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|11.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||11.2|-25.4|0.433
84688775|NCT02799472|169116074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||18.0|-9.8|0.550
84688776|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|46.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||46.1|-16.9|0.350
84688777|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|52.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||52.0|-35.3|0.697
84688778|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|36.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||36.8|-135.2|0.249
84688779|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.1||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|8.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||8.3|-68.6|0.119
84688780|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||22.4|-9.3|0.403
84688781|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|35.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||35.2|-39.4|0.910
84688782|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|30.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||30.1|-43.1|0.718
84688783|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|23.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||23.0|-34.4|0.687
84508433|NCT00936975|168767842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.53
84688784|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.0||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.8|137.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||137.7|-249.8|0.559
84688785|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|197.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||197.0|-93.9|0.470
84688786|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-141.5||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-829.2|546.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||546.3|-829.2|0.675
84688787|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-137.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.0|18.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||18.2|-294.0|0.080
84688788|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|61.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||61.3|-60.5|0.989
84688789|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|59.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||59.6|-94.3|0.634
84688790|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.2|513.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||513.9|-395.2|0.789
84688791|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.5|41.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||41.0|-135.5|0.249
84688792|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3682.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2511.9|9876.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 1||9876.5|-2511.9|0.234
84688793|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-547.6||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7612.6|6517.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 4||6517.3|-7612.6|0.875
84688794|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1106.0||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10706.0|8494.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 12||8494.1|-10706.0|0.815
84688795|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3631.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9738.9|2476.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, 12-Week FU||2476.8|-9738.9|0.230
84688796|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-515.6||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2021.4|990.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 1||990.1|-2021.4|0.489
84688797|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2001.7|1602.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 4||1602.0|-2001.7|0.822
84688798|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.5||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2136.7|1629.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 12||1629.7|-2136.7|0.784
84688799|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|225.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1633.1|2083.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2083.2|-1633.1|0.804
84688800|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|162.7||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-754.5|1079.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 1||1079.9|-754.5|0.719
84688801|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-183.5||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.4|950.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 4||950.3|-1317.4|0.742
84688802|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1507.5|970.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 12||970.5|-1507.5|0.658
84688803|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-197.6||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1499.3|1104.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||1104.2|-1499.3|0.755
84688804|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1150.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1250.0|3550.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 1||3550.0|-1250.0|0.333
84688805|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4269.2|3733.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 4||3733.3|-4269.2|0.891
84688806|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1347.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7073.1|4378.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 12||4378.3|-7073.1|0.633
84688807|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1688.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5864.1|2486.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2486.2|-5864.1|0.410
84688808|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3276.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1786.0|8339.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 1||8339.6|-1786.0|0.196
84688809|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-447.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7285.5|6390.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 4||6390.8|-7285.5|0.894
84688810|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1435.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4101.4|6972.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 12||6972.0|-4101.4|0.600
84688811|NCT02799472|169116075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1210.2||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5213.1|2792.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||2792.7|-5213.1|0.534
84688812|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2756.3||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2953.7|8466.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 1||8466.3|-2953.7|0.328
84688813|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-487.5||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8003.7|7028.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 4||7028.6|-8003.7|0.895
84688814|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12001.0|11446.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 12||11446.2|-12001.0|0.961
84688815|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-311.6||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11960.5|11337.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, 12-Week FU||11337.4|-11960.5|0.956
84688816|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6866.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4230.7|17964.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 1||17964.6|-4230.7|0.212
84688817|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8359.6||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5533.3|22252.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 4||22252.5|-5533.3|0.227
84688818|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22683.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44298.5|-1068.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 12||-1068.8|-44298.5|0.040
84688819|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3757.2||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27146.0|19631.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, 12-Week FU||19631.6|-27146.0|0.741
84688820|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22417.0||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116677.8|71843.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 1||71843.8|-116677.8|0.628
84508434|NCT00936975|168767842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: influx(Ki) is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.1095
84688821|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27659.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28567.8|83887.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 4||83887.1|-28567.8|0.321
84688822|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16182.9||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70377.0|102742.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 12||102742.9|-70377.0|0.704
84688823|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-63419.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170364.9|43526.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, 12-Week FU||43526.1|-170364.9|0.232
84688824|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6913.6||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22588.4|8761.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 1||8761.1|-22588.4|0.366
84688825|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2231.6||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10976.8|6513.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 4||6513.6|-10976.8|0.603
84688826|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10179.1||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21827.4|1469.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 12||1469.2|-21827.4|0.084
84688827|NCT02799472|169116076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20744.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38771.8|-2716.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, 12-Week FU||-2716.5|-38771.8|0.026
84688828|NCT02799472|169116077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.3|804.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 1||804.6|-448.3|0.564
84688829|NCT02799472|169116077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|540.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.7|1416.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1416.5|-335.7|0.216
84688830|NCT02799472|169116077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-252.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1326.0|820.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||820.8|-1326.0|0.629
84508435|NCT00936975|168767843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 bones in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.0033
84688831|NCT02799472|169116077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.2|1045.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1045.5|-962.2|0.932
84688832|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||2.23|-2.32|0.547
84688833|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.51|-4.77|0.948
84688834|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.45|-5.02|0.949
84688835|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||2.23|-2.32|0.453
84688836|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.51|-4.77|0.052
84688837|NCT02799472|169116085|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.45|-5.02|0.051
84688838|NCT02799472|169116086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.3|-0.2|0.940
84688839|NCT02799472|169116086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|0.521
84688840|NCT02799472|169116086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1.8|-4.4|0.396
84688841|NCT02799472|169116087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1.2|-1.1|0.945
84688842|NCT02799472|169116087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.7|-1.5|0.475
84688843|NCT02799472|169116087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.1|-2.0|0.086
84688844|NCT02799472|169116088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|211.4||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2589.2|3012.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||3012.0|-2589.2|0.874
84688845|NCT02799472|169116088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-504.8||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3730.4|2720.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2720.9|-3730.4|0.749
84688846|NCT02799472|169116088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1536.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4884.2|1812.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1812.1|-4884.2|0.352
84688847|NCT02799472|169116089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0128||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.038|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0380|-0.0123|0.291
84688848|NCT02799472|169116089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0036||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|0.0118|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0118|-0.0046|0.375
84688849|NCT02799472|169116089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0049|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0049|-0.0028|0.588
84688850|NCT02799472|169116090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0002||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0033|0.0029|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0029|-0.0033|0.915
84688851|NCT02799472|169116090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0021|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0021|-0.0028|0.771
84688852|NCT02799472|169116090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0058|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0058|-0.0048|0.850
84688853|NCT02801669|169116091|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.339||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.608|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.||This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of composite event of stroke and SEE between treatment groups.||0.608|0.188|0.0003
84688854|NCT02801669|169116092|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.57|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of stroke between treatment groups.||0.570|0.157|
84688855|NCT02801669|169116092|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|2.011|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of SEE between treatment groups.||2.011|0.126|
84688856|NCT02801669|169116092|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.585|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke between treatment groups.||0.585|0.160|
84688857|NCT02801669|169116092|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.624|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke/SEE between treatment groups.||0.624|0.193|
84688858|NCT00615264|169116102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.2851
84688859|NCT00615264|169116103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.7690
84688860|NCT02884414|169116114|OTHER|Paired Student's t-test.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84688861|NCT01982435|169116115|OTHER|Measures were summarized using means, range and standard error of the means (SEM).|||||<|0.05||||||Two-sided paired t-tests and two-sided unpaired t-tests were respectively conducted to analyze efficacy endpoints between study initiation to end, and between monthly and TAE injection regimens.|t-test, 2 sided|||All analyses were performed with a significance level of 0.05 being assumed for all tests.||||<0.05
84688862|NCT00871403|169116127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios is estimated using a Pike estimator. The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||1.28|0.43|0.2647
84688863|NCT00871403|169116130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference in response|-12.0||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|7.2|||Binomial asymptotic||The estimated value is the percent difference in the response rate comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||7.2|-30.6|0.2113
84688864|NCT00985985|169116139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center)|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||1.92|0.78|0.3851
84688865|NCT00985985|169116139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center).|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||3.32|0.99|0.0565
84688866|NCT01856712|169116147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.98||||||||9.98|0.35|
84688867|NCT00509236|169116152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||||<0.001
84688868|NCT00509236|169116153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|-4.8||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.6||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent).|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.6|-15.7|0.336
84688869|NCT00509236|169116154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|16.5||||||||16.5|-10.9|
84688870|NCT00509236|169116155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-15.3|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-15.3|-38.0|<0.001
84688871|NCT00509236|169116155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-19.9|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-19.9|-42.6|<0.001
84688872|NCT00509236|169116155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.7||||||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||20.7|-11.5|
84688873|NCT00509236|169116156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||0.49|-0.18|
84688874|NCT02255032|169116180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.148||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.7|-72.2||The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison between the Baseline and Month 2 values for the 4 mg treatment group. No adjustments for multiplicity were necessary.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||"A paired t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the change between Baseline and Month 2.~A sample size of 16 subjects would have 80% power to detect a difference of 75, assuming a standard deviation of 100, using a paired t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level."||-72.2|-256.7|0.0017
84688875|NCT02037438|169116181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.687|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.687
84688876|NCT02037438|169116182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Linear Regression with Fixed Effects for Providers and Baseline Covariate||||||0.989
84688877|NCT02037438|169116183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.417
84688878|NCT02037438|169116184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.468
84688879|NCT02037438|169116185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.003
84688880|NCT00125593|169116226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.74|0.0021
84688881|NCT00125593|169116227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.77|0.0012
84688882|NCT00125593|169116228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.75|0.001
84688883|NCT00125593|169116229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.11|0.76|0.37
84688884|NCT00125593|169116230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.60|0.01
84688885|NCT00125593|169116231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.68|0.0036
84688886|NCT00125593|169116232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.05|0.89|0.41
84688887|NCT04146896|169116233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
84688888|NCT04146896|169116234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.684
84688889|NCT04146896|169116235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
84688890|NCT04146896|169116236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.483
84688891|NCT04146896|169116237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.199
84688892|NCT04146896|169116238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.273
84688893|NCT04146896|169116239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.668
84688894|NCT01597505|169116240|NON_INFERIORITY|Surotomycin minus Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be non-inferior to vancomycin the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in percentage of participants||1.9|-11.0|
84688895|NCT01597505|169116241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test p-value||||0.832
84688896|NCT01597505|169116242|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.1|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||7.1|-8.8|
84688897|NCT01597505|169116246|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.3|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||8.3|-7.2|
84688898|NCT01597505|169116247|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-10.0|
84688899|NCT01597505|169116248|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.431||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.431
84688900|NCT01597505|169116249|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.011
84508436|NCT00936975|168767843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0097||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|H0: Change Patlak Flux from TP1 to TP2 is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.0670
84688901|NCT01597505|169116250|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|14.8|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||14.8|-10.7|
84688902|NCT01597505|169116251|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-7.8|
84688903|NCT01597505|169116252|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|30.7|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||30.7|-2.7|
84688904|NCT01597505|169116253|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.7|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||12.7|-4.2|
84688905|NCT04203537|169116264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
84688906|NCT04203537|169116265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84688907|NCT04203537|169116265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0026
84688908|NCT02583763|169116319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample T test were used to analyse normally distributed data.||||>0.05
84660817|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.643
84660818|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.2|0.188
84688909|NCT02583763|169116320|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value was stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84688910|NCT02583763|169116321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Significance value was set to p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84688911|NCT01313286|169116341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.16|1.00|
84688912|NCT01313286|169116342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.31|1.07|
84688913|NCT02552238|169116353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0067
84508437|NCT00936975|168767843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|32.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6956||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations||Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: %Change in Patlak Flux between timepoint 1 and 2 is the same for Normal and Tumor bones||||0.0278
84688914|NCT02552238|169116353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
84688915|NCT01986101|169116357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.0||Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-1.0|-4.9|0.007
84688916|NCT01986101|169116357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1||Hochberg-adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.1|-4.0|0.057
84688917|NCT01986101|169116358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.15|-0.65|0.002
84688918|NCT01986101|169116358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.05|-0.56|0.019
84688919|NCT01986101|169116359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.1|-3.6|0.037
84688920|NCT01986101|169116359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.9|0.223
84688921|NCT01986101|169116360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
84688922|NCT01986101|169116360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-1.01|0.075
84688923|NCT01986101|169116361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.016
84688924|NCT01986101|169116361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.1|0.294
84688925|NCT02036645|169116363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.04|0.82|
84688926|NCT02036645|169116363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.30|0.71|
84688927|NCT02036645|169116364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||0.98|0.81|
84688928|NCT02036645|169116364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.27|0.65|
84688929|NCT01061333|169116388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|16.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.74|21.69||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.69|10.74|<0.0001
84688930|NCT01061333|169116388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|21.02||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.02|10.00|0.0001
84688931|NCT01061333|169116388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|8.49||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|15.2||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||15.20|1.78|0.0432
84688932|NCT01061333|169116389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.27||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.54||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.54|1.05|0.0430
84688933|NCT01061333|169116389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.72||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.72|1.15|0.0100
84688934|NCT01061333|169116389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.67||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.67|1.01|0.0860
84688935|NCT01061333|169116390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
84688936|NCT01061333|169116390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
84688937|NCT01061333|169116390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.87||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.69|0.2679
84688938|NCT01061333|169116391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.9||||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.59||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.59|0.51|0.7622
84688939|NCT01061333|169116391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.94||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated on log scale||||1.65|0.53|0.8468
84688940|NCT01061333|169116391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.91||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.26||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.26|0.65|0.6140
84688941|NCT01061333|169116392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.8||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.80|0.57|0.0006
84688942|NCT01061333|169116392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.94||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.94|0.67|0.0291
84688943|NCT01061333|169116392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.92||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.77|0.3738
84688944|NCT01061333|169116393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.7501||90.0|0.88|1.2||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.20|0.88|0.7501
84688945|NCT01061333|169116393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.25||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.25|0.81|0.9410
84688946|NCT01061333|169116393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.89||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.01|0.79|0.1165
84688947|NCT01061333|169116394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.41||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.41|0.76|0.8616
84688948|NCT01061333|169116394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.06||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.45||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.45|0.77|0.7512
84688949|NCT01061333|169116394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.37||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.37|0.72|0.9723
84688950|NCT01061333|169116395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.3||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.82|0.92|0.1983
84688951|NCT01061333|169116395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.57||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.42||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||2.42|1.02|0.0872
84688952|NCT01061333|169116395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.22||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.62||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.62|0.91|0.2499
84508438|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.78|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.78|1.13|
84508439|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.52|0.93|
84688953|NCT04858802|169116396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.08||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|The null hypothesis was that there would no difference in FSO cross-sectional area between treatment and control sides at Day 45.||8.6|-0.2|0.059
84688954|NCT04858802|169116397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.98||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||4.5|-1.5|0.328
84688955|NCT04858802|169116397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.64||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.2|-5.7|0.063
84688956|NCT04858802|169116398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|430.8||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|149.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||149.4|-47.5|0.306
84688957|NCT04858802|169116398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|413.22||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.5|67.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||67.6|-122.5|0.567
84688958|NCT04858802|169116399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||0.9|0.0|0.031
84688959|NCT04858802|169116399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.5|0.943
84688960|NCT04858802|169116400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 45||0.2|-0.3|0.715
84688961|NCT04858802|169116400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 180||0.4|0.0|0.129
84688962|NCT04858802|169116401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 21||3.60|0.28|1.00
84688963|NCT04858802|169116401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.73||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45||1.73|0.36|0.453
84508440|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.98|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||2.98|0.78|
84508441|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.89|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||2.89|0.74|
84688964|NCT04858802|169116401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 90||1.61|0.31|0.219
84688965|NCT04858802|169116401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 180||1.61|0.31|0.289
84688966|NCT04858802|169116402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.12||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|Day 180||4.8|-4.9|0.971
84688967|NCT04858802|169116403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|0.1|-0.1|1.00
84688968|NCT04858802|169116403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|0.0|0.288
84508442|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.14|||||Undadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||22.14|0.18|
84508443|NCT01055223|168767860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|15.5|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.50|0.12|
84688969|NCT04858802|169116404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.225
84688970|NCT04858802|169116404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|-0.2|0.388
84688971|NCT04858802|169116405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.537
84688972|NCT04858802|169116405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.010
84688973|NCT04858802|169116405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.003
84688974|NCT04858802|169116405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
84688975|NCT04858802|169116406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||7.9|-12.8|0.634
84688976|NCT04858802|169116406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.04||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-15.2|0.048
84688977|NCT04858802|169116406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.79||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.9|-14.7|0.028
84688978|NCT04858802|169116406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.99||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.3|-13.2|0.041
84688979|NCT04858802|169116407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.063
84688980|NCT04858802|169116407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-0.4|0.015
84688981|NCT04858802|169116407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
84688982|NCT04858802|169116407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||0.0|-0.4|0.034
84688983|NCT04858802|169116408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.830
84688984|NCT04858802|169116408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.829
84508444|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.89|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.89|1.05|
84688985|NCT04858802|169116408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.3|0.132
84688986|NCT04858802|169116408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.3|0.310
84688987|NCT04858802|169116409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.666
84688988|NCT04858802|169116409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.497
84688989|NCT04858802|169116409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.2|0.235
84688990|NCT04858802|169116409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.1|0.677
84688991|NCT04858802|169116410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 21||0.6|-0.7|0.868
84688992|NCT04858802|169116410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 45||0.7|-0.5|0.823
84688993|NCT04858802|169116410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.26||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 90||0.5|-0.5|1.00
84688994|NCT04858802|169116410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 180||0.2|-0.8|0.188
84688995|NCT04858802|169116414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.12||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|||11.7|0.8|0.025
84688996|NCT04858802|169116415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||7.8|0.2|0.04
84688997|NCT04858802|169116415|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.02||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.6|-7.5|0.09
84660819|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.4|0.701
84660820|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.8|0.271
84660821|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.6|0.445
84660822|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.8|0.714
84660823|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.4|-0.8|0.515
84660824|NCT02310568|169056719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.7|-0.5|0.778
84660825|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-2.1|0.562
84660826|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-1.9|0.708
84660827|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.9|0.852
84660828|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-3.0|0.347
84660829|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.2|0.759
84660830|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.9|0.574
84660831|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-2.1|0.831
84660832|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.4|0.705
84688998|NCT04858802|169116416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|460.18||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|199.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||199.8|-76.7|0.375
84688999|NCT04858802|169116416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|434.64||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.1|80.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||80.2|-184.1|0.432
84689000|NCT04858802|169116417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||1.4|0.1|0.023
84689001|NCT04858802|169116417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.8|0.646
84689002|NCT02026232|169116418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84689003|NCT02714868|169116421|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For goal attainment, we calculated independent t-tests to compare GAS t-scores across groups at outcome. Lowest score is 0, highest score is 100. 100 is highest goal attainment.||||.05
84689004|NCT03315936|169116517|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (T/R) %|110.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.73|120.79|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually 12 subjects were analyzed||120.79|100.73|
84689005|NCT03315936|169116518|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|121.38|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||121.38|101.20|
84689006|NCT03315936|169116519|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.74|135.96|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 28.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||135.96|89.74|
84689007|NCT02424591|169116552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84689008|NCT02424591|169116553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84689009|NCT02424591|169116554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84689010|NCT00818363|169116559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.47|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||0.47|-1.74|0.303
84689011|NCT00818363|169116560|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.25||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|9.55|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||9.55|-30.04|0.303
84689012|NCT00770432|169116566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0595||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for study site (the smallest study sites were pooled according to a pre-specified rule).||||||0.0595
84689013|NCT01453348|169116567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HAV + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HAV)|Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The Analysis of variance (ANCOVA) model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the ratio of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||1.32|0.6|
84689014|NCT01453348|169116567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HBsAg + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HBsAg)|Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccines group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of ELISA GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||2.37|0.59|
84689015|NCT00633919|169116572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.85
84689016|NCT00633919|169116573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.52
84689017|NCT00633919|169116574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
84689018|NCT00633919|169116575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.0486
84689019|NCT00633919|169116576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
84689020|NCT01991821|169116589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||The complete response of the primary efficacy analysis occurred in 95 patients (56.2%; 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 48.4 - 63.8%) in the APD421 group and 83 patients (46.6%; 95% CI 39.1- 54.2%) in the placebo group|Chi-squared, Corrected|Pearson square test with Yates's continuity correction and with the two- sided significance level of 5%||The primary efficacy analysis was a complete response which is defined as protection from PONV1, which was absence of any episode of emesis, significant nausea or use of rescue medication with the first 24 hours post-operatively.||||0.093
84689021|NCT01991821|169116590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.059
84689022|NCT01991821|169116591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.053
84689023|NCT01991821|169116592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.26
84689024|NCT01991821|169116593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
84689025|NCT01991821|169116594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.079
84689026|NCT01991821|169116595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.096
84689027|NCT03592277|169116599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.344
84689028|NCT03592277|169116600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.526
84689029|NCT03592277|169116601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
84508445|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.65|0.88|
84689030|NCT03592277|169116602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.660
84689031|NCT03592277|169116603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
84689032|NCT03592277|169116604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
84689033|NCT00861601|169116632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0104
84689034|NCT00861601|169116632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0057
84689035|NCT00861601|169116632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0808
84689036|NCT00861601|169116633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0116
84689037|NCT00861601|169116633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0066
84689038|NCT00861601|169116633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0846
84689039|NCT00895622|169116706|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.87|||Z test|||"The Kappa (κ) coefficient was used to assess the measure of agreement between the reviewers. κ can be interpreted as follows (κ / Agreement):~\< 0 / Less than chance agreement; 0.01-0.20 / Slight agreement; 0.21-0.40 / Fair agreement; 0.41-0.60 / Moderate agreement; 0.61-0.80 / Substantial agreement; 0.81-0.99 / Almost perfect agreement.~The asymptotic test of the null hypothesis: κ=0 will be performed using the Z-statistic to determine the strength of agreement."||0.87|0.71|<0.0001
84689040|NCT03324880|169116709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score.|-0.15|-0.90|=0.003
84689041|NCT03324880|169116710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|15.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue total score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACIT-Fatigue total score.|15.9|5.1|<0.001
84689042|NCT03324880|169116711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9219|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|8.072||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 PCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 PCS score.|8.072|0.413|=0.015
84689043|NCT03324880|169116712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact subscale score.|-0.10|-0.55|=0.002
84689044|NCT03324880|169116713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact on Sleep|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.04|-0.53|=0.013
84689045|NCT03324880|169116713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Exercise|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.11|-0.61|=0.003
84689046|NCT03324880|169116713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Complete Work|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.12|-0.61|=0.002
84689047|NCT03324880|169116713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact Family Relationships|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.13|-0.61|=0.002
84689048|NCT03324880|169116714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD anxiety item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD anxiety item score.|-0.15|-0.96|=0.004
84689049|NCT03324880|169116715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score.|-0.14|-0.93|=0.004
84689050|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Cramps|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.99|=0.006
84689051|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Tingling|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.96|=0.007
84689052|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.02|-0.94|=0.020
84508446|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||3.60|0.69|
84660833|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.7|0.600
84660834|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-2.3|0.848
84689053|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.18||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Spasms|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.18|-1.05|=0.003
84689054|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.07||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Feelings of Heaviness|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|0.07|-0.83|=0.050
84689055|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Physical Fatigue|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.10|-1.01|=0.008
84689056|NCT03324880|169116716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Brain Fog|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.14|-0.87|=0.004
84689057|NCT03324880|169116718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.43||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score.|-0.43|-1.37|<0.001
84689058|NCT03324880|169116719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
84689059|NCT03324880|169116720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
84689060|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1376|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.951|11.469||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Bodily Pain|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|11.469|2.951|=0.001
84689061|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0542|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.452|9.638||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-General Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.638|1.452|=0.004
84689062|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.292|12.423||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Mental Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.423|3.292|<0.001
84689063|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|4.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1123|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|8.763||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Physical Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.763|0.345|=0.017
84689064|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3186|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Emotional|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|13.040|3.800|<0.001
84689065|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2489|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|8.711||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Physical|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.711|-0.251|=0.032
84689066|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6658|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.502|9.121||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Social Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.121|-1.502|=0.079
84689067|NCT03324880|169116721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.253|12.63||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Vitality|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.630|3.253|=0.001
84689068|NCT03324880|169116722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.788|12.811||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 MCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 MCS score.|12.811|3.788|<0.001
84689069|NCT03324880|169116723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.578|=|0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|22.6||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Work Time Missed Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|22.60|-16.33|=0.627
84689070|NCT03324880|169116723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.7||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Impairment While Working Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|0.7|-29.9|=0.031
84689071|NCT03324880|169116723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.146|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-2.39||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-2.39|-27.42|=0.011
84689072|NCT03324880|169116723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-1.5||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Activity Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-1.5|-24.5|=0.014
84689073|NCT03324880|169116724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in PGI-S score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline PGI-S score.|-0.1|-1.0|=0.010
84689074|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Detection||0.05|-0.03|=0.516
84689075|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||=|0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Identification||0.06|-0.02|=0.275
84689076|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Card Learning||0.07|-0.05|=0.777
84689077|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Back (ONB)||0.05|-0.04|=0.831
84689078|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.93|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.85|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Groton Maze Learning (GML)||20.85|-1.00|=0.075
84689079|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.57|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.27|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List (ISL)||1.27|-2.41|=0.545
84689080|NCT03324880|169116726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List Test Delayed Recall (ISRL)||1.56|-0.45|=0.283
84689081|NCT03324880|169116727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Detection (DET)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.582
84689082|NCT03324880|169116727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Identification (IDN)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.492
84689083|NCT03324880|169116727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Card Learning (OCL)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.06|-0.03|=0.506
84689084|NCT03324880|169116727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Back Test|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.438
84689085|NCT03324880|169116728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.83||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in 24-hour urine calcium excretion as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline 24-Hour urine calcium excretion.|3.83|0.36|=0.991
84689086|NCT03324880|169116729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.097||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in serum phosphate as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline serum phosphate.|-0.097|-0.254|<0.001
84689087|NCT03324880|169116730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654|=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.22||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||From a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in active vitamin D supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline active vitamin D supplement dose.|13.22|-5.06|=0.810
84689088|NCT03324880|169116731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-331.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.56|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.6|-67.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in elemental calcium supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline elemental calcium supplement dose.|-67.9|-594.6|=0.007
84689089|NCT03324880|169116734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|22.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.83|28.84||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|28.84|15.83|<0.001
84508447|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||3.81|0.70|
84689090|NCT03324880|169116735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|785.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|559.6|1011.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|1011.3|559.6|<0.001
84689091|NCT03324880|169116736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|56.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.33|68.53||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Osteocalcin|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|68.53|44.33|<0.001
84689092|NCT03324880|169116736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|226.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.425|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.17|292.98||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Procollagen 1 N-Terminal Propeptide|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|292.98|160.17|<0.001
84689093|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.71|1.3||||||||1.3|0.71|
84689094|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.6|1.09||||||||1.09|0.6|
84689095|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
84689096|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.49|1.29||||||||1.29|0.49|
84689097|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
84689098|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.85|2.06||||||||2.06|0.85|
84689099|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.66|2.07||||||||2.07|0.66|
84508448|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84508449|NCT01055223|168767861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84689100|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.78||||||||1.78|0.63|
84689101|NCT01412801|169116775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.52|1.58||||||||1.58|0.52|
84508450|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||1.79|0.92|
84689102|NCT01987817|169116813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||||79|35|<0.0001
84689103|NCT01987817|169116814|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5184|1.3065||The p-value is based on the F-test for treatment effect adjusted for MTD from baseline (log10 mg). The p-value and confidence intervals are based on the normality assumption.|ANCOVA|Least squares means and 95% CIs based on ANCOVA model of change from baseline in MTD at Exit DBPCFC (terms for treatment \& MTD at baseline (log10 mg).||MTD for the baseline and Exit DBPCFC are transformed back to log10 scale before calculations. A value of 0.3 mg is substituted for subjects who could not tolerate the lowest DBPCFC dose before log10 transformation.||1.3065|0.5184|<0.0001
84689104|NCT01576718|169116823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0604
84689105|NCT01576718|169116823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.072||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.149||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 400 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.149|-0.004|0.0637
84689106|NCT01576718|169116823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.133||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 200 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.133|-0.022|0.1585
84689107|NCT01576718|169116823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.048||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.124||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 100 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.124|-0.029|0.2221
84689108|NCT01576718|169116823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.006|||=|0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.083||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 50 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.083|-0.070|=0.8694
84689109|NCT01576718|169116824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1512
84689110|NCT01576718|169116824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.36||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.83|0.2361
84689111|NCT01576718|169116824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.78||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|20.15|||Regression, Linear|Significance at the 0.05 level||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.15|-4.59|0.2169
84689112|NCT01576718|169116824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|19.26||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.26|-5.07|0.2523
84689113|NCT01576718|169116824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|8.23||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|20.45||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.45|-3.98|0.1858
84689114|NCT01576718|169116825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2879||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2879
84689115|NCT01576718|169116825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.56||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.45|0.2166
84689116|NCT01576718|169116825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.03||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|16.23||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||16.23|-8.17|0.5167
84689117|NCT01576718|169116825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.99||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|15.05||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||15.05|-9.06|0.6258
84689118|NCT01576718|169116825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.39||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|12.39||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||12.39|-11.60|0.9487
84689119|NCT01576718|169116826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0341
84508451|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.45|0.71|
84689120|NCT01576718|169116826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0340
84689121|NCT01576718|169116826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0058
84689122|NCT01576718|169116826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0018
84689123|NCT01576718|169116826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1006||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.1006
84689124|NCT01576718|169116827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.88116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|12.91||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||12.91|-11.12|0.88116
84689125|NCT01576718|169116827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.98||||0.05977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|0.68||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||0.68|-22.64|0.05977
84689126|NCT01576718|169116827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.90426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|11.54||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||11.54|-13.02|0.90426
84689127|NCT01576718|169116827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|7.82||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||7.82|-16.57|0.47310
84689128|NCT01576718|169116834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.019|||=|0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.096||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.096|-0.057|=0.6161
84689129|NCT01576718|169116834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.004||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.08||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.080|-0.973|0.9245
84689130|NCT01576718|169116834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.008||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.068||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.068|-0.083|0.8434
84689131|NCT01576718|169116834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.047||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.029||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.029|-0.122|0.2241
84689132|NCT01576718|169116834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.053||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.025||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.025|-0.130|0.1822
84689133|NCT01576718|169116835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.56||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|6.29||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.29|-17.42|0.3568
84689134|NCT01576718|169116835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.68||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|6.32||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.32|-17.67|0.3531
84689135|NCT01576718|169116835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-6.58||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|5.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||5.19|-18.35|0.2724
84689136|NCT01576718|169116835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.11|||=|0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|6.72||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.72|-16.95|=0.3964
84689137|NCT01576718|169116835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-13.45||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.57|-1.33||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.33|-25.57|0.0296
84689138|NCT01576718|169116836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.69||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|11.22||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||11.22|-12.59|0.9101
84689139|NCT01576718|169116836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.51||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.57||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||7.57|-16.6|0.4634
84689140|NCT01576718|169116836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.88||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|6.05||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.05|-17.8|0.3333
84689141|NCT01576718|169116836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-8.19||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.06|3.69||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.69|-20.06|0.1763
84689142|NCT01576718|169116836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-9.05||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.19|-21.3|0.1469
84689143|NCT01874145|169116837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.743||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.743|0.338|0.0006
84689144|NCT01874145|169116839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.742||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.742|0.337|0.0006
84689145|NCT01874145|169116840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.438|0.322||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|ANCOVA|In addition to treatment group, month (categorical), treatment-by-month interaction and score at baseline were used as covariates.|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group vs. GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|"To control for type 1 errors, secondary variables were analyzed only if analysis of the primary variable was statistically significant. Gate-keeping procedures offered further control with this hierarchy:~1. the rate of ISRs~2. change from baseline to month 4 (change - M4) in MSIS-20 physical wellbeing~3. change - M4 in MSIS-20 psychological wellbeing~4. change - M4 in TSQM-9 convenience~5. change - M4 in TSQM-9 overall satisfaction"||0.322|-4.438|0.0897
84689146|NCT01742364|169116862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.475
84689147|NCT01742364|169116862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.187
84689148|NCT01742364|169116864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
84689149|NCT01742364|169116865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.325
84689150|NCT01742364|169116866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84689151|NCT01742364|169116866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.130
84689152|NCT01742364|169116867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84689153|NCT01742364|169116867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84689154|NCT02439749|169116895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84689155|NCT02439749|169116899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84689156|NCT02439749|169116900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
84689157|NCT02439749|169116901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
84689158|NCT02439749|169116902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p=\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84689159|NCT00916032|169116915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.103
84689160|NCT00916032|169116916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.162
84689161|NCT03881696|169117014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.853|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1274|111.2144||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0001 at the interim analysis OR p \< 0.05 at the final analysis. Gatekeeping and multiple testing strategies were performed to ensure the overall family-wise error rate was ≤ 5%.|Fisher Exact||The odds ratio (OR) represents the odds of success among subjects randomized to omalizumab (numerator) compared to the odds of success among subjects randomized to placebo (denominator, reference group).|The null hypothesis is that the odds of 'success' (defined as consumption of a single dose of ≥600 mg of peanut protein without dose-limiting symptoms during the DBPCFC at the end of Stage 1) in omalizumab and placebo for omalizumab arms are equal. Participants missing the blinded OFC to peanut at the end of Stage 1 will be considered a 'failure' for the primary efficacy endpoint.||111.2144|9.1274|<0.00001
84689162|NCT05690776|169117111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.0|||paired t-test|||||15.0|9.2|<0.0001
84689163|NCT05690776|169117112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||paired t-test|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
84689164|NCT05690776|169117114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|24.5|||paired t-test|||||24.5|16.9|<0.0001
84689165|NCT02207725|169117140|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.39|-66.28|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-66.28|-78.39|<0.0001
84689166|NCT02207725|169117140|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-55.17|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-55.17|-64.10|<0.0001
84689167|NCT02207725|169117141|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-77.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.98|-74.04|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-74.04|-79.98|<0.0001
84689168|NCT02207725|169117143|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-5.42|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-5.42|-8.86|<0.0001
84689169|NCT02207725|169117143|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-3.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-1.25|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-1.25|-5.66|0.0002
84689170|NCT02207725|169117144|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1227.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|984.01|1456.38|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1456.38|984.01|<0.0001
84689171|NCT02207725|169117144|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|999.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.5|1200.53|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1200.53|819.50|<0.0001
84689172|NCT01966003|169117147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was demonstrated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio in objective response rate between ABP 215 and bevacizumab with an equivalence margin of (0.67, 1.5).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The risk ratio (ABP 215/Bevacizumab) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (region, sex, and ECOG performance status).||1.09|0.80|
84508452|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.90|0.10|
84689173|NCT01966003|169117147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.26|3.45||||||Risk difference (ABP 215 - Bevacizumab) and 90% CI were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||3.45|-9.26|
84689174|NCT01966003|169117149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29||||||The hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.29|0.83|
84689175|NCT01966003|169117152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.61||||||Hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab, based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.61|0.75|
84689176|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.10|-.15|=.66
84689177|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.07|-.17|=.41
84689178|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.18|-.07|=.43
84689179|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.17|-.07|=.47
84689180|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.20|-.01|=.065
84689181|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.15|-.05|=.34
84689182|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.26|.06|=.003
84689183|NCT00674570|169117153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.22|.02|.02
84689184|NCT00674570|169117153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction Retention (first 2 trials) First trials were selected as a test of extinction retention, since repeated presentations of the CS without a UCS were expected to result in additional fear extinction.||.30|.05|=.006
84689185|NCT00674570|169117153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction retention||.28|.04|=.01
84689186|NCT00548132|169117159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was calculated based on the assumption that only 85% of eligible patients will consent to the study.|The standard of care is the numerator and the intervention group is the denominator|The null hypothesis is that the Bloostream infection per 1000 catheter days will be similar in both groups. In 2004, 6122 catheter days occurred in by both ICUs. If 15% of these were excluded, then 5203 catheter days/year will be eligible for analysis. The difference in infection rates will reach statistical significance at 12 months with a P-value of 0.04. At 24 months, the P-value will be more significant at 0.006.||0.90|0.24|0.05
84689187|NCT01187914|169117161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.48||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
84508453|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.54|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.54|0.08|
84689188|NCT02110732|169117162|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84689189|NCT02110732|169117163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Comparisons between groups were by Levene's test for equality of variances. A P-level \<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed with SPSS v.19 and NCSS.|||< 0.05
84689190|NCT02110732|169117164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
84689191|NCT02948959|169117189|SUPERIORITY|To control the type-I error rate for the analysis of outcome measure, a hierarchical testing procedure was applied at a 2-sided 5% significant level. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.562||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.562|0.222|<0.0001
84689192|NCT02948959|169117190|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.605||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.605|0.274|<0.0001
84689193|NCT02948959|169117191|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.32||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.88||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||8.88|1.76|0.0036
84689194|NCT02948959|169117192|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.27||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by visit interaction as covariates.||8.27|2.14|0.0009
84689195|NCT02948959|169117193|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.26||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.26|-0.66|<0.0001
84689196|NCT02948959|169117194|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
84689197|NCT02948959|169117195|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-16.59||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-16.59|-24.60|<0.0001
84689198|NCT02948959|169117196|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|-14.63||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-14.63|-21.05|<0.0001
84689199|NCT03802864|169117326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84689200|NCT03802864|169117327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84689201|NCT03802864|169117328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84689202|NCT03802864|169117329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
84689203|NCT03802864|169117330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
84508454|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.93|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||21.93|0.18|
84689204|NCT03802864|169117331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84689205|NCT03802864|169117332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84689206|NCT01641926|169117333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (hepatitis B Virus \[HBV\] genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||11.6|-8.4|
84689207|NCT01641926|169117334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|14.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||14.3|-20.2|
84689208|NCT01641926|169117335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||12.3|-7.2|
84689209|NCT01641926|169117336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||13.6|-9.5|
84689210|NCT01641926|169117336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|27.1||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||27.1|-7.2|
84689211|NCT01641926|169117337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.2||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||9.2|-7.4|
84689212|NCT00708435|169117338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with hemostasis.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||19.9|-5.8|
84689213|NCT00708435|169117339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in the decrease of INR (%)|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|The analysis of the percentage of participants who had a rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.||65.9|39.4|
84689214|NCT01691521|169117349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.72|0.40|<0.001
84689215|NCT01691521|169117349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 100 mg SC arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.35|<0.001
84689216|NCT03338621|169117395|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|2.17|<0.001
84689217|NCT01725386|169117411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|||||||0.895
84689218|NCT00879996|169117413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9134||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4156|2.007|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Methadone and buprenorphine treatment do not differ in treatment retention.||2.007|0.4156|0.77
84689219|NCT00879996|169117414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: Methadone treatment is as effective as buprenorphine treatment in reducing pain.||||<0.043
84689220|NCT00879996|169117415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||null-hypothesis: methadone and buprenorphine treatment are equally effective in reducing self-reported functioning at 6 months.||||<0.665
84689221|NCT00879996|169117416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: methadone or buprenorphine treatment equally reduce illicit drug use.||||<0.039
84689222|NCT02413463|169117463|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square test||||||0.18||||||This is the calculated p-value for the success rate in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|Chi-squared|||An estimation of sample size was performed considering a study power of 0.8 with an alpha error of 0.05 aiming to detect a difference of 5 Δ in the postoperative angle disparity between the 2 groups, assuming a postoperative standard deviation of 6 Δ. Based on this estimation, a total of 24 eyes were found to be adequate in each group, and considering a 25% dropout during the follow-up, recruitment of 30 study subjects in each group was targeted||||0.18
84689223|NCT02413463|169117464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation with spectacles for distance in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (First row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84689224|NCT02413463|169117465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation without spectacles for near in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (Second row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84689225|NCT02413463|169117466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle disparity in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84689226|NCT02413463|169117467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is the calculated p-value for the intraoperative time in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84689227|NCT05375955|169117487|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||29.4|-4.1|0.0711
84689228|NCT05375955|169117487|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|26.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||26.8|-6.1|0.1290
84689229|NCT05375955|169117488|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
84689230|NCT05375955|169117488|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|47.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||47.5|7.7|0.0028
84689231|NCT05375955|169117488|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|56.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||56.4|14.7|0.0003
84689232|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.7|-10.2|0.5701
84689233|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
84689234|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||23.7|-2.0|0.0532
84689235|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
84689236|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||15.7|-14.4|0.5123
84689237|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
84689238|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
84689239|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||19.8|-13.0|0.3967
84689240|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
84689241|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|15.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||15.3|-17.7|0.5461
84689242|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
84689243|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||22.1|-11.0|0.2754
84689244|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.3|-4.8|0.0977
84689245|NCT05375955|169117489|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||33.2|-2.8|0.0542
84689246|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
84689247|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
84689248|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689249|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689250|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
84689251|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689252|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689253|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||30.3|2.6|0.0129
84689254|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.9|8.0|0.0024
84689255|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||38.9|8.0|0.0024
84689256|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|40.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||40.1|9.5|0.0018
84689257|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|51.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||51.8|17.8|0.0001
84689258|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|32.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.5|-0.1|0.0259
84689259|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||40.4|6.3|0.0038
84689260|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|12.2|0.0007
84689261|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||41.2|2.1|0.0146
84689262|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||38.9|1.0|0.0205
84689263|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|59.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||59.3|17.1|0.0002
84689264|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||32.6|-7.8|0.1245
84689265|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.5|-9.1|0.1431
84689266|NCT05375955|169117490|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|56.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.8|12.2|0.0007
84689267|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
84689268|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
84689269|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
84689270|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.5|-3.9|0.1118
84689271|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
84689272|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||17.6|-11.4|0.3857
84689273|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
84689274|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
84689275|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|25.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||25.3|-4.4|0.1119
84689276|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||16.7|-10.7|0.3755
84689277|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
84689278|NCT05375955|169117491|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||18.6|-12.7|0.3928
84689279|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
84689280|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
84689281|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
84689282|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
84689283|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
84689284|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689285|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
84689286|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
84689287|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689288|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689289|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
84689290|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
84689291|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689292|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
84689293|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
84689294|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|26.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||26.4|-6.6|0.1256
84689295|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|7.0|0.0038
84689296|NCT05375955|169117492|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|52.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||52.6|12.8|0.0007
84689297|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
84508455|NCT01055223|168767862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|12.36|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||12.36|0.09|
84689298|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
84689299|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||15.5|-9.2|0.3585
84689300|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||22.1|-5.3|0.1290
84689301|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
84689302|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
84689303|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
84689304|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|28.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||28.8|-3.8|0.0658
84689305|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
84689306|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
84689307|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
84689308|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
84689309|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||25.7|-9.5|0.2736
84689310|NCT05375955|169117493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.0|-5.6|0.1119
84689311|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
84689312|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
84689313|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
84689314|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
84689315|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
84689316|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689317|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
84689318|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
84689319|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689320|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
84689321|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
84689322|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
84689323|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
84689324|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
84689325|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
84689326|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
84689327|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|5.4|0.0056
84689328|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|50.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||50.5|9.7|0.0017
84689329|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||21.6|-14.9|0.3929
84689330|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|47.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||47.7|7.0|0.0040
84689331|NCT05375955|169117494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|53.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||53.7|10.4|0.0012
84689332|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-8.5|0.3255
84689333|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||8.3|-13.3|0.7181
84689334|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||34.3|7.0|0.0022
84689335|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|31.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||31.1|3.7|0.0064
84689336|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||31.5|-3.4|0.0659
84689337|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|38.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.5|0.9|0.0189
84689338|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
84508456|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.88|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.88|0.80|
84689339|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
84689340|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
84689341|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|32.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.7|-7.9|0.1353
84689342|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||25.7|-12.8|0.2791
84689343|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
84689344|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|30.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.6|-7.3|0.1295
84689345|NCT05375955|169117497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|40.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.2|0.1|0.0247
84689346|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.5|-21.9|0.7278
84689347|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||28.2|-11.5|0.2548
84689348|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|21.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||21.9|-17.5|0.5162
84689349|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|30.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||30.7|-11.4|0.1663
84689350|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||38.3|-4.2|0.0605
84689351|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|41.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||41.6|-5.4|0.0592
84689352|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|37.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||37.4|-8.6|0.1246
84689353|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|39.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||39.7|-7.3|0.0789
84689354|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|43.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||43.7|-6.4|0.0889
84689355|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|50.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||50.7|4.2|0.0097
84689356|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||43.6|-0.8|0.0294
84689357|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|62.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||62.2|10.9|0.0018
84689358|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
84689359|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|32.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.4|-17.3|0.2890
84689360|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|62.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||62.0|5.1|0.0103
84689361|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|-7.8|0.1088
84689362|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|36.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||36.2|-14.0|0.2719
84689363|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||56.6|0.4|0.0227
84689364|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
84689365|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|40.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.6|-10.6|0.1246
84689366|NCT05375955|169117498|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.6|0.4|0.0227
84689367|NCT05454410|169117506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||-0.7|-9.6|
84689368|NCT05454410|169117506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|2.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||2.1|-7.0|
84689369|NCT05454410|169117506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|5.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||5.1|-4.0|
84689370|NCT05454410|169117512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242||||||P-value for the selected model best representing the underlying DR (the lowest p-value out of the 6 candidate models), adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Multiple contrast test|||MCP-Mod was used to check if there was a DR relationship between the change from baseline to 24 hours in MADRS total score and the doses received. The Least squares means under the primary estimand were used to test the null hypothesis of a flat DR relationship at a one-sided significance level of 5% against the alternative hypothesis of a non-flat DR curve. Six candidate DR curves were used to derive the optimal model contrasts for the multiple contrast tests. A monotone DR was assumed.||||0.0242
84689371|NCT01320943|169117548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Log-rank test statistic was used to compare the time to HBsAg loss between the two treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||||0.022
84689372|NCT03489057|169117575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
84689373|NCT03489057|169117589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
84689374|NCT05076149|169117597|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI)|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.9|-0.5|< 0.0001
84689375|NCT05076149|169117598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.8|||=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.7|=0.0034
84689376|NCT05076149|169117599|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.16|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.16|1.55|< 0.0001
84689377|NCT05076149|169117600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
84689378|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.169|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in least-square (LS) means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.169|0.858|
84689379|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.215|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.215|0.900|
84689380|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.232|0.886|
84689381|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.261|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.261|0.905|
84689382|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.336|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.336|0.953|
84689383|NCT05096208|169117601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.262|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.262|0.884|
84689384|NCT00975221|169117627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic|39.866|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84508457|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.57|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.57|0.62|
84689385|NCT00975221|169117628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH statistic|40.953|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84689386|NCT00975221|169117629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|-10.88|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-10.88|-16.23|<0.001
84689387|NCT00975221|169117630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.01|-11.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-11.57|-34.01|<0.001
84689388|NCT00856934|169117631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84689389|NCT00856934|169117632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84689390|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
84689391|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1038
84689392|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0588
84689393|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.4802
84689394|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0147
84689395|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1181
84689396|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
84689397|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0006
84689398|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0004
84689399|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.3371
84689400|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
84689401|NCT01250119|169117659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0001
84689402|NCT02670538|169117668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.4|-4.6|0.0417
84689403|NCT02670538|169117668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.4|-3.9|0.1051
84689404|NCT02670538|169117669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0417
84689405|NCT02670538|169117669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1370
84689406|NCT01213043|169117671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin was: \[0.80, 1.25\]|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.88|||ANOVA|||Dose proportionality was analysed using an ANOVA model for the natural log-transformed AUC0-7days with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. The treatment dose of 60 mg/kg was the reference treatment and 120 mg/kg was the test treatment. PK parameters in individual subjects for each treatment dose were dose normalized to 60mg/kg based on the actual dose administered at Week 8 or Week 18 (i.e., (AUC0-7days/Actual Dose in mg/kg)\*60mg/kg).||0.88|0.83|<0.0001
84689407|NCT01175148|169117702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The study used a minimax Simon two-stage design to test the null hypothesis Ho: P \> 0.35 versus the alternative H1: \< 0.15, where P is the probability of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at day + 100.||||<0.05
84689408|NCT01010477|169117716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||threshold for statistical significance: p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test (2-sided)||||0.632
84689409|NCT01559454|169117718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4167||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7519|79.5852|||t-test, 2 sided|||||79.5852|-8.7519|0.097
84689410|NCT01559454|169117719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0713|1.8248|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8248|0.0713|1.00
84689411|NCT01559454|169117720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55075||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37051|51.34968|||t-test, 2 sided|||||51.34968|-20.37051|0.348
84689412|NCT01559454|169117721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.5833||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9653|87.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||87.1320|-7.9653|0.088
84689413|NCT01559454|169117722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1499||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3965|27.0632|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.0632|-30.3965|0.895
84689414|NCT01559454|169117723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|2.8352|||Fisher Exact|||||2.8352|0.127|0.6999
84689415|NCT02150837|169117733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within group comparison (for each group) using a non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing repeated measures in a single sample.||||||<0.0001
84689416|NCT01350141|169117827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-21.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.385||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-4.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-4.77|-38.85|0.0137
84689417|NCT01350141|169117827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.62|-29.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-29.22|-63.62|<0.0001
84689418|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.825||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|169.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||169.74|0.36|0.1900
84689419|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.518||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1512.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1512.10|3.48|0.0057
84689420|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|175.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||175.63|3.49|0.0013
84689421|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.326||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|426.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||426.01|5.26|0.0006
84689422|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.635||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|14.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||14.73|0.18|0.6611
84689423|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.486||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|98.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.61|1.84|0.0104
84689424|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|33.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||33.89|1.22|0.0282
84689425|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.257||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|98.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.42|2.36|0.0042
84689426|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.967||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|79.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||79.24|0.11|0.5164
84689427|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.36||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|422.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||422.94|1.08|0.0445
84689428|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.157||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|49.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||49.37|1.35|0.0223
84689429|NCT01350141|169117828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.587||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|90.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||90.40|2.04|0.0070
84689430|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.647||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|142.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||142.04|0.22|0.2928
84689431|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|591.174||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|29922.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||29922.99|11.68|0.0014
84689432|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.468||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|26.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||26.88|0.45|0.2339
84689433|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.442||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|181.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||181.11|3.03|0.0025
84689434|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.502||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|192.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||192.32|0.38|0.1786
84689435|NCT01350141|169117829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.185||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|1107.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1107.57|2.37|0.0121
84689436|NCT01588990|169117845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.101
84689437|NCT01588990|169117857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.052
84689438|NCT01588990|169117858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.797
84689439|NCT01588990|169117859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.188
84689440|NCT01588990|169117860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.016
84689441|NCT02367716|169117870|OTHER|The mean change in QRS duration between Baseline and 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84689442|NCT01473381|169117871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.84||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.84|-4.30|0.0073
84508458|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84689443|NCT01473381|169117871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.06||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.06|-4.57|0.0034
84689444|NCT01473381|169117871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.0||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.00|-4.48|0.0020
84689445|NCT01473381|169117872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.13||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.13|-0.58|0.0073
84689446|NCT01473381|169117872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.10|-0.55|0.0097
84689447|NCT01473381|169117872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.12|-0.57|0.0025
84689448|NCT01473381|169117873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||10.9|-3.9|0.3563
84689449|NCT01473381|169117873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||14.6|-0.4|0.1611
84689450|NCT01473381|169117873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||12.2|-2.7|0.2672
84689451|NCT03587142|169117916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45||Nominal P value. Power was determined at a level of P=0.05.|ANCOVA|Multiple imputation using regression and 50 datasets to estimate the outcome for the 18/96 (19%) randomized patients without the f4 visit data.||Primary outcome analysis uses a difference of differences analysis between Buspirone compared to the Placebo arm in which the adjusted mean difference of differences, Wald 95% Confidence interval and 2-sided P values are determined from a Wald Chi-Square test. Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Negative change indicates symptom improvement.||0.45|-0.68|0.69
84689452|NCT03587142|169117916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.39||P value is nominal; no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analysis of change from a baseline in ES/PPF (Early Satiety/Postprandial Fullness subscore) using all completers: 39 participants in Buspirone arm, 39 participants in placebo arm.||0.39|-0.65|0.62
84689453|NCT03587142|169117916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.38||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analyses: change in ES/PPF in treatment adherent patients: 23 participants in Buspirone arm, 29 patients in placebo arm.||0.38|-0.89|0.62
84689454|NCT03587142|169117917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.5||Nominal P value reported. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||The mean difference of differences (DoD) between Buspirone and Placebo, 95% confidence interval and P (2-sided) were derived from an ANCOVA, regressing an indicator for treatment group on fullness severity score, adjusting for the baseline value of fullness severity score.||0.50|-0.69|0.76
84689455|NCT03587142|169117918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.47|-0.76|0.64
84689456|NCT03587142|169117919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5||P values are nominal; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.79|0.66
84689457|NCT03587142|169117920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (s-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.75|0.70
84689458|NCT03587142|169117921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.27||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.66|0.40
84689459|NCT03587142|169117921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.21||Nominal P value without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni threshold for level of significance is \<0.002.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, 95% C.I. and P (two-sided) from a logistic regression of the binary outcome on treatment group for symptomatic improvement in GCSI.||GCSI symptomatic improvement of 1+ points in total GCSI symptom score defined as change in GCSI total score at week 4 from baseline being a decrease of 1 or more points. This is a binary variable where 1=1+ reduction in change in GCSI total score, 0=change in GCSI total score from baseline at 4-weeks is \< 1.0.||3.21|0.53|0.56
84689460|NCT03587142|169117922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.48||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Squares test.||0.48|-0.58|0.86
84689461|NCT03587142|169117923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.53||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald-Chi Square test.||0.53|-0.64|0.85
84689462|NCT03587142|169117924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||0.47|-0.76|0.65
84689463|NCT03587142|169117925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.16||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.16|-0.99|0.16
84689464|NCT03587142|169117926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||P values are nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||-0.08|-1.23|0.03
84689465|NCT03587142|169117927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.77||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.77|-0.44|0.59
84689466|NCT03587142|169117928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.88||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.88|-0.39|0.46
84689467|NCT03587142|169117929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.59||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.59|-0.42|0.73
84689468|NCT03587142|169117930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.27||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.55|0.50
84689469|NCT03587142|169117931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.79|-0.15|0.18
84689470|NCT03587142|169117932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.51||P value is nominal: no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference from differences (DoD) from the baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P value (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||2.51|-0.49|0.19
84689471|NCT03587142|169117933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni P-value threshold for the level of significance is \<=0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS depression score.||3.38|0.33|0.02
84689472|NCT03587142|169117934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.54||P values are nominal; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS anxiety total score. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||2.54|-1.02|0.40
84689473|NCT03587142|169117935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||P value is nominal with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni level of significance threshold is \<=0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of PAGI-QOL total score.||0.15|-0.57|0.25
84689474|NCT03587142|169117936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald-Chi-Square test.||2.24|-6.20|0.36
84689475|NCT03587142|169117937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|0.76||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.76|-4.91|0.15
84689476|NCT03587142|169117938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|10.25||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported. P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||10.25|-7.51|0.76
84689477|NCT03587142|169117939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Nominal P values; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change in IMD from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and the baseline value of IMD. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.01|-0.12|0.10
84689478|NCT03587142|169117940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.51||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.4|56.4||Nominal P values; no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of teh outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||56.4|-99.4|0.29
84689479|NCT03587142|169117941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.95||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to week 4 on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported: P (2-sided) determined from Wald Chi-Square test.||0.95|-0.78|0.84
84689480|NCT03587142|169117942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.03||P value is nominal|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||5.03|-17.90|0.27
84689481|NCT03587142|169117943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.89||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||4.89|-6.93|0.74
84689482|NCT03587142|169117944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANCOVA|P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance \<0.002||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.08|-0.01|0.18
84689483|NCT03587142|169117945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|19.64||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||19.64|-20.42|0.97
84660835|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-0.6|0.237
84689484|NCT03587142|169117946|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.82||P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates are computed by treatment arm by dividing the total adverse events over 4-weeks by the number of patient-months of follow-up to 4-weeks. Event rates are compared by treatment arm using an exact poisson regression for event rates.||2.82|0.57|0.64
84689485|NCT03587142|169117947|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.95||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||P values are nominal.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact test was used for comparisons of events by treatment by severity grade. One patient in the Buspirone arm had 2 AEs during the trial; for analysis by severity grade the maximum severity grade was used.|An exact poisson regression stratified by severity level was used to compute the incident rate ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals for adverse events by severity level.|2.62|0.35|0.54
84689486|NCT03587142|169117948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value is nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84689487|NCT03587142|169117949|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.36||P-values are nominal.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates were computed by dividing the number of hospitalizations over 4-weeks by the number of person-years. An exact poisson regression was used to compare events by treatment group.||40.36|0|1.00
84689488|NCT03587142|169117950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Nominal P value.|Binomial probability test|2-sided test with probability of success=0||||||0.52
84689489|NCT01737684|169117956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|0.96|
84689490|NCT01737684|169117959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|0.88|
84689491|NCT01480596|169117999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.40|-5.08|0.256
84689492|NCT01480596|169118000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.082||95.0|0.87|19.02|||exact methods|||||19.02|0.87|0.082
84689493|NCT01480596|169118001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.827||95.0|0.05|4.35|||exact methods|||||4.35|0.05|0.827
84689494|NCT01480596|169118002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.10|0.62|0.184
84689495|NCT01480596|169118004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.80|-4.20|0.175
84689496|NCT01480596|169118004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.28|-3.89|0.310
84689497|NCT01480596|169118004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.30|-4.88|0.081
84689498|NCT01480596|169118005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||3.07|-2.97|0.972
84689499|NCT01480596|169118006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.48|||exact methods|||||5.48|0.26|1.000
84689500|NCT01480596|169118007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89|||exact methods|||||2.89|0.03|0.530
84689501|NCT01480596|169118008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.46|0.64|0.175
84689502|NCT01480596|169118010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.53|-3.56|0.423
84689503|NCT01480596|169118010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.361||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.80|-2.76|0.986
84689504|NCT01480596|169118010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.65|-3.21|0.848
84689505|NCT01480596|169118016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 12. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||0.93|-1.94|0.483
84689506|NCT01480596|169118016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 24. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||1.40|-2.03|0.711
84689507|NCT01480596|169118017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||-0.20|-3.30|0.028
84689508|NCT01480596|169118017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.55|-2.10|0.756
84689509|NCT01480596|169118017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.59|-2.12|0.775
84660836|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-4.0|0.224
84660837|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.8|-1.9|0.747
84660838|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28). Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-2.8|0.764
84660839|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-1.3|0.487
84660840|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-2.1|0.744
84660841|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.1|-1.1|0.340
84660842|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-3.3|0.477
84660843|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-1.5|0.482
84660844|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-3.1|0.719
84660845|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.0|-0.7|0.245
84689510|NCT04503096|169118019|OTHER|To monitor safety, paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment differences in global cognition (i.e., MoCA z-scores).||||||0.725|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.725
84689511|NCT04503096|169118023|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using HAM-D raw scores.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.605
84689512|NCT04503096|169118024|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using GDS raw scores.||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
84689513|NCT04503096|169118025|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in cognition using Fluid Cognition Composite Scores.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
84689514|NCT00988221|169118054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Placebo|-22.3||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
84689515|NCT00988221|169118054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Tocilizumab|-32.4||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
84689516|NCT00988221|169118054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-2.7||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||-2.7|-17.6|0.0076
84689517|NCT00988221|169118055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|18.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|32.0||1.000 is used here as the test was considered as not significant due to the break in the hierarchical testing chain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||The analysis used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||32|5|1.000
84689518|NCT00909480|169118088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3003||||||95.0|0.1427|0.458|||ANCOVA|Full analysis set, Model adjusted for: HbA1c at baseline, previous oral anti-diabetic treatment and country.||||0.4580|0.1427|
84689519|NCT02481375|169118102|OTHER||Marginal means|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Marginal means (95% CI) of ferritin concentrations at 12-weeks using a generalized mixed-effects model with adjustments for baseline values and village clusters||||<0.05
84689520|NCT05436912|169118118|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|168.9||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|465.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||465.3|61.3|0.3601
84689521|NCT05436912|169118118|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.2||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.0|368.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||368.9|23.0|0.9146
84689522|NCT05436912|169118118|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|119.6||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.4|329.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||329.3|43.4|0.7478
84689523|NCT05436912|169118120|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.1||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.8|74.8|0.4279
84689524|NCT05436912|169118120|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.4||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.4|183.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.9|46.4|0.8341
84689525|NCT05436912|169118120|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.1||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.1|0.1159
84689526|NCT05436912|169118121|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.0||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.4|74.8|0.4289
84689527|NCT05436912|169118121|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.3||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.5|183.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.3|46.5|0.8322
84689528|NCT05436912|169118121|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.6||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.6|0.1131
84689529|NCT04750655|169118172|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Used the Kruskal-Wallis (nonparametric one-way ANOVA), comparing all 3 arms. Note that for each individual, a single number (normalized read) is obtained.||||1
84689530|NCT02118337|169118190|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-23.8||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-72.8|0.5494
84689531|NCT02118337|169118190|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-7.1||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|20.0|||Fisher Exact|||||20.0|-33.6|0.5130
84689532|NCT05807919|169118240|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84689533|NCT05807919|169118241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
84689534|NCT05807919|169118242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84508459|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84508460|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84689535|NCT05807919|169118243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84689536|NCT05807919|169118244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
84689537|NCT05807919|169118245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84689538|NCT03635489|169118254|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||Regression, Cox|||||0.53|0.17|<.0001
84660846|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.4|-2.3|0.586
84660847|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-4.8|0.440
84660848|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-0.5|0.159
84660849|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.6|0.720
84660850|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.9|-2.0|0.991
84660851|NCT02310568|169056722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.5|0.704
84660852|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.9|0.539
84660853|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.7|0.439
84660854|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-1.6|0.914
84660855|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.3|0.892
84660856|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-0.8|0.463
84660857|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-2.1|0.611
84660858|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.4|-0.6|0.321
84660859|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-0.5|0.294
84660860|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-1.7|0.987
84660861|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.2|0.599
84689539|NCT03635489|169118254|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.20|<.0001
84689540|NCT03635489|169118255|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21||||||||1.21|0.30|
84689541|NCT00361439|169118279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.02
84689542|NCT00361439|169118280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.023
84689543|NCT00361439|169118281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.002
84689544|NCT00361439|169118282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.010
84689545|NCT00717314|169118306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
84689546|NCT00717314|169118309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison at Baseline||||0.374
84689547|NCT00717314|169118309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.685
84689548|NCT00717314|169118309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.722
84689549|NCT00717314|169118309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.432
84689550|NCT00717314|169118310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.342|5.561||||||||5.561|-5.342|
84508461|NCT01055223|168767863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates|||0.00|0.00|
84689551|NCT00717314|169118311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.616
84689552|NCT00717314|169118311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.334
84689553|NCT00717314|169118311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.267
84689554|NCT00717314|169118311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||0.764
84689555|NCT00717314|169118312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
84689556|NCT02821819|169118334|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.8|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs and a standard deviation (SD) of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|"Since the number of collected eggs constitutes the main outcome of the study, the sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs with an standard deviation of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).~Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant."|||0.8
84689557|NCT02821819|169118334|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.||||0.8
84689558|NCT02821819|169118335|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant.|Median Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84689559|NCT00658138|169118336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis was no difference between adhesives tested at one year. Restorations were scored using USPHS subjective clinical criteria.||||0.05
84689560|NCT00658138|169118336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|percentage of Alpha values||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is adhesives are not different in clinical performance at one year||||>0.05
84689561|NCT03857230|169118366|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline AUC0-192 were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|99.79|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparison of the obtained results comprised the calculation of parametric bilateral 90 % CIs for the ratios of the corresponding mean values of the pharmacokinetic parameters of the study and comparator drug. The equivalence of the pharmacokinetics of the drug products will be proven if the limits of the evaluated CIs for the ratios of the mean values are in the range of 80.00-125.00%.||99.79|87.25|0.05
84689562|NCT03857230|169118367|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|93.33|||ANOVA|||||93.33|82.85|0.05
84689563|NCT01806584|169118371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.138
84689564|NCT01806584|169118372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.312
84689565|NCT01806584|169118373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.093
84689566|NCT01806584|169118374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|1.402||||||||1.402|-0.942|
84689567|NCT01265030|169118405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.04|-2.54|0.63
84689568|NCT01265030|169118405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.19|-6.08|0.31
84689569|NCT01265030|169118406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference in pain score at week 1 and before surgery||0.411|-.286|0.68
84689570|NCT00840996|169118428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.4||Test for superiority adjusted for 2 primary comparisons (2 outcomes)|Mixed Models Analysis|Llinear mixed-effects accounts for correlation exhibited by the repeated pain measurements on a given patient (spatial power correlation structure).||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||-0.40|-1.23|<0.001
84689571|NCT00840996|169118429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: ratio of the geometric means not more than 1.3 greater (mean mg IV morphine equivalent not more than 30% greater ) than that of the other group|the ratio of the geometric means|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||Noninferiority hypotheses were evaluated against a one-sided significance criterion of 0.025 \[adjusting for testing in both directions: lidocaine vs. control and vs. control vs. lidocaine \]|Regression, Linear|Log-linear regression model was used; 0.1 mg added before taking the logarithm to accommodate the 2 patients who received 0 mg opioids.||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||1.21|0.65|0.011
84689572|NCT00840996|169118430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.84|0.049
84689573|NCT00840996|169118431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea - POD 2||1.09|0.77|0.31
84689574|NCT00840996|169118431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting - POD 2||1.14|0.94|0.44
84689575|NCT00840996|169118432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.4|0.15
84689576|NCT00840996|169118433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.0|||Regression, Linear|||||10|2.3|0.002
84689577|NCT00840996|169118434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.9|0.3|0.04
84689578|NCT04022889|169118435|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||6.2|-3.5|
84508462|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|19.45|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||19.45|1.53|
84689579|NCT04022889|169118435|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||4.8|-6.4|
84689580|NCT04022889|169118435|OTHER|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||8.7|-5.0|
84689581|NCT04022889|169118435|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||2.6|-2.5|
84689582|NCT04022889|169118436|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.4|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||39.4|18.5|
84689583|NCT04022889|169118436|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|41.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||41.6|9.5|
84508463|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.86|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.86|0.64|
84508464|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84689584|NCT04022889|169118436|EQUIVALENCE|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||15.8|-12.7|
84689585|NCT04022889|169118436|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|37.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||37.8|21.8|
84689586|NCT03285295|169118498|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
84689587|NCT03285295|169118499|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.15|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.15|
84689588|NCT03285295|169118500|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.95|100.0|||Binomial Distribution|||||100.00|99.95|
84689589|NCT03285295|169118501|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.48|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.48|
84689590|NCT03285295|169118502|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.86|99.95|||Binomial Distribution|||||99.95|99.86|
84689591|NCT03285295|169118503|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
84689592|NCT03285295|169118504|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.87|99.96|||Binomial Exact|||||99.96|99.87|
84689593|NCT03285295|169118505|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.72|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.72|
84689594|NCT03285295|169118506|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|99.94|||Binomial Exact|||||99.94|99.84|
84689595|NCT03285295|169118507|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
84689596|NCT03285295|169118508|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.94|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.94|
84689597|NCT03285295|169118509|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.85|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|98.85|
84689598|NCT03285295|169118514|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.98|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|95.98|
84508465|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84689599|NCT03285295|169118516|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.75|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|92.75|
84689600|NCT03285295|169118517|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
84689601|NCT03285295|169118518|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|99.84|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||99.84|95.20|
84689602|NCT00981474|169118534|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.121|||Chi-squared|||||1.121|.82|.752
84689603|NCT00981474|169118535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||.93|.32|.053
84689604|NCT00981474|169118536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.454||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|.18|.149
84689605|NCT00981474|169118537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|.30|.144
84689606|NCT00981474|169118538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.724||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|.37|.439
84689607|NCT00981474|169118539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.872||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|.69|.311
84689608|NCT00981474|169118540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.18|.005|.103
84689609|NCT00981474|169118541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.102||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|.81|.608
84689610|NCT00981474|169118542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.564||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.97|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.97|.16|.541
84689611|NCT00981474|169118543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to small number of events.||||1.18|.05|.103
84689612|NCT00981474|169118544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.409||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|.15|.129
84689613|NCT02991482|169118555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
84689614|NCT02887989|169118562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6570
84689615|NCT02887989|169118563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6339
84689616|NCT03502616|169118661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|38.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||38.28|15.89|<0.0001
84689617|NCT03502616|169118662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.09|18.26|<0.0001
84689618|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||27.50|9.06|0.0001
84689619|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|42.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.06|20.64|<0.0001
84689620|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|43.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||43.17|21.32|<0.0001
84689621|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.63|45.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.58|23.63|<0.0001
84689622|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|15.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.22|-7.92|0.5360
84689623|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|14.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.87|-7.22|0.4971
84689624|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.66|-9.49|0.7792
84689625|NCT03502616|169118669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|16.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.58|-6.15|0.3685
84689626|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|12.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.37|-0.13|0.0548
84689627|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.56|15.30|<0.0001
84689628|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.66|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.47|19.66|<0.0001
84689629|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.02|21.34|<0.0001
84689630|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.01|-5.43|0.2926
84689631|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.06|-5.32|0.2856
84508466|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84689632|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|19.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||19.54|-3.87|0.1894
84689633|NCT03502616|169118670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|17.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||17.43|-6.24|0.3544
84689634|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.57|-0.85|<0.0001
84689635|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.07|<0.0001
84689636|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.87|-1.25|<0.0001
84689637|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.90|-1.28|<0.0001
84689638|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.79|-1.16|<0.0001
84689639|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.40|0.0623
84689640|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.39|0.0836
84689641|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-0.47|0.0205
84689642|NCT03502616|169118671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.42|0.0614
84689643|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.15|<0.0001
84689644|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.68|-1.16|<0.0001
84689645|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-1.40|<0.0001
84689646|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.19|<0.0001
84689647|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.72|-1.20|<0.0001
84689648|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.20|0.4731
84689649|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.11|-0.26|0.4055
84689650|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.34|0.2648
84689651|NCT03502616|169118672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.25|0.5558
84689652|NCT03502616|169118673|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-1.01|-3.03|0.0001
84689653|NCT03502616|169118673|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-2.38|0.0270
84689654|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.88|0.56|0.0088
84689655|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.85|1.15|0.0016
84689656|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|6.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||6.23|2.69|<0.0001
84689657|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, General Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.78|1.70|<0.0001
84689658|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.098||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Vitality: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.94|-0.38|0.1065
84689659|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.05|0.88|0.0055
84689660|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.61|-0.46|0.1084
84689661|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.29|-1.13|0.3379
84689662|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.02|2.09|<0.0001
84689663|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.61|-0.95|0.2529
84689664|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.76|-1.04|0.3744
84689665|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.50|-0.77|0.2091
84689666|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.38|-0.14|0.0654
84689667|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, General Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.12|-0.69|0.2100
84689668|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Vitality: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.90|0.6568
84689669|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.88|0.2288
84689670|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.32|-1.61|0.4955
84689671|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.71|0.5888
84689672|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.18|-0.35|0.1150
84689673|NCT03502616|169118674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.00|-1.56|0.5347
84689674|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.06|-0.48|0.1513
84689675|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.56|-0.45|0.1279
84689676|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.90|1.75|0.0003
84508467|NCT01055223|168767864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84508468|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|80.35|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||80.35|0.66|
84689677|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.84|0.79|0.0102
84689678|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.26|2.20|0.0003
84689679|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|-2.64|0.8950
84689680|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.71|-3.67|0.4732
84689681|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.72|0.6359
84689682|NCT03502616|169118675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.35|-3.54|0.6894
84689683|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.24|-0.46|0.1410
84689684|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.95|0.61|0.0122
84689685|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.79|0.86|0.0085
84689686|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.416||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.15|0.57|0.0184
84689687|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.91|1.47|0.0026
84689688|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.35|0.46|0.0236
84689689|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.70|0.63|0.0182
84508469|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|96.47|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosponates.|||96.47|0.03|
84508470|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84689690|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.545||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.90|0.81|0.0133
84689691|NCT03502616|169118676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.52|0.45|0.0245
84689692|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.32|0.30|0.0018
84689693|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.47|0.0005
84689694|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.79|0.59|0.0001
84689695|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.17|1.09|<0.0001
84689696|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.55|1.20|<0.0001
84689697|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.26|0.0075
84689698|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.21|0.1489
84689699|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.04|0.0609
84689700|NCT03502616|169118677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.15|-0.54|0.4822
84689701|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.63|0.12|0.0047
84689702|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.77|0.26|0.0001
84689703|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.78|0.19|0.0012
84508471|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84660862|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.6|-0.7|0.322
84660863|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.4|0.704
84660864|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.7|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-2.0|0.804
84660865|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-3.2|0.559
84660866|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.4|-1.0|0.369
84660867|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-1.1|0.313
84660868|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.6|-1.8|0.560
84660869|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-1.8|0.635
84660870|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.8|-1.8|0.538
84660871|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.9|-2.7|0.942
84660872|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-1.7|0.555
84660873|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-4.1|0.728
84660874|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-5.2|0.362
84660875|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-2.0|0.538
84660876|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.949|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.8|-2.0|0.949
84689704|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|0.20|0.0008
84689705|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.24|0.0004
84689706|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.05|0.0918
84689707|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.61|-0.10|0.1600
84689708|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.30|0.6776
84689709|NCT03502616|169118678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.25|0.5646
84689710|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.26|0.7291
84689711|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.78|0.0257
84689712|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.31|0.0002
84689713|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
84689714|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.17|-1.02|0.0062
84689715|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.13|-1.13|0.0140
84689716|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0035
84689717|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.97|0.0645
84689718|NCT03502616|169118679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.05|0.0341
84689719|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.33|0.0001
84689720|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-0.47|<0.0001
84689721|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.31|-0.61|<0.0001
84689722|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.32|-0.62|<0.0001
84689723|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.37|-0.67|<0.0001
84689724|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.12|||LS mean difference|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.12|-0.46|0.0008
84689725|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0116
84689726|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.37|0.0416
84689727|NCT03502616|169118680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.34|0.0915
84689728|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.24|1.46|<0.0001
84689729|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.10|2.11|<0.0001
84689730|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.20|3.65|<0.0001
84689731|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.86|3.15|<0.0001
84689732|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.42|1.44|0.0008
84508472|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
84508473|NCT01055223|168767865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
84508474|NCT00329602|168767875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.039
84689733|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.68|-0.52|0.1390
84689734|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.67|-1.36|0.5217
84689735|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.54|-0.51|0.1415
84689736|NCT03502616|169118681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.128||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.41|-0.03|0.0533
84689737|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.94|0.55|0.0005
84689738|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.95|<0.0001
84689739|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|1.35|<0.0001
84689740|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.11|<0.0001
84689741|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.67|0.0007
84689742|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.33|0.2018
84689743|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.13|-0.70|0.6432
84689744|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.31|-0.54|0.4092
84689745|NCT03502616|169118682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.81|-0.18|0.1070
84689746|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.46|0.78|0.0002
84508475|NCT00329602|168767875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for Week 26.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.023
84689747|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.00|<0.0001
84660877|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.5|-2.3|0.708
84660878|NCT02310568|169056723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.2|-1.5|0.752
84660879|NCT02310568|169056724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||2.45|0.37|
84660880|NCT02310568|169056724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|6.88|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||6.88|0.39|
84660881|NCT02310568|169056724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||1.49|0.23|
84660882|NCT03975790|169056732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4695|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4695
84660883|NCT03975790|169056732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7644
84660884|NCT03975790|169056732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8316|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8316
84660885|NCT03975790|169056733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
84660886|NCT03975790|169056733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8021
84660887|NCT03975790|169056733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8376
84660888|NCT03975790|169056734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||t-test|||||||0.2864
84660889|NCT03975790|169056734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test|||||||0.1583
84660890|NCT03975790|169056734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4546|||||||t-test|||||||0.4546
84660891|NCT03975790|169056735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test|||||||0.0280
84660892|NCT03975790|169056735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test|||||||0.0106
84660893|NCT03975790|169056735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||t-test|||||||0.7293
84660894|NCT03975790|169056736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9215
84660895|NCT03975790|169056736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6078
84660896|NCT03975790|169056736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6258
84660897|NCT03975790|169056737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3586|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3586
84660898|NCT03975790|169056737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5117|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5117
84660899|NCT03975790|169056738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5372|||||||t-test|||||||0.5372
84660900|NCT03975790|169056738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155|||||||t-test|||||||0.6155
84660901|NCT03975790|169056738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9696|||||||t-test|||||||0.9696
84660902|NCT03975790|169056739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2514|||||||t-test|||||||0.2514
84660903|NCT03975790|169056739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9851|||||||t-test|||||||0.9851
84660904|NCT03975790|169056739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||t-test|||||||0.4309
84660905|NCT03975790|169056740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6033|||||||t-test|||||||0.6033
84660906|NCT03975790|169056740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test|||||||0.3480
84660907|NCT03975790|169056740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||t-test|||||||0.5375
84660908|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0345
84660909|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2316|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.2316
84660910|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.7349
84660911|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0774
84660912|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.4228
84660913|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0583
84660914|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9683
84660915|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.8877
84660916|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9228
84660917|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.7661
84660918|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3034|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3034
84660919|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.2765
84660920|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8652|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.8652
84660921|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2243|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.2243
84660922|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3449
84660923|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.3529
84660924|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1012|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1012
84660925|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4123
84660926|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.2742
84660927|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.1009
84660928|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.0318
84660929|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4808|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.4808
84660930|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0778|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.0778
84660931|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.2871
84660932|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7356|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7356
84660933|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4975
84660934|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
84660935|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3559
84660936|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7725|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7725
84660937|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3875
84660938|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.0225
84660939|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4427|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4427
84660940|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4094
84660941|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8775|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.8775
84660942|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3525|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3525
84660943|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.4724
84660944|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7170
84660945|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.2909
84660946|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5057|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.5057
84660947|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2613|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.2613
84660948|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9901|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.9901
84660949|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.4768
84660950|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0219
84660951|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5172|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.5172
84660952|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0278
84660953|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6103|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6103
84660954|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.1682
84660955|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.3654
84660956|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7637
84660957|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8693|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.8693
84660958|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7349
84660959|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7324|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.7324
84660960|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.4182
84660961|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6200
84660962|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6064|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6064
84660963|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6360
84660964|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.9445
84660965|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8135
84660966|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6705|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.6705
84660967|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8331|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8331
84660968|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4158|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.4158
84660969|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.6360
84660970|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.3336
84660971|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6402|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.6402
84660972|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8068|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.8068
84660973|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5983|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.5983
84660974|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.9759
84660975|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1360
84660976|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1815|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1815
84660977|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.2731
84660978|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8327|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.8327
84660979|NCT03975790|169056741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.3420
84660980|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.0590
84660981|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.7055
84660982|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.3088
84660983|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0036
84660984|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3772|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3772
84660985|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3000
84660986|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.7354
84660987|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.1435
84660988|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2876|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.2876
84660989|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.2848
84660990|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.1830
84660991|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.6453
84660992|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
84660993|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
84660994|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3422|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3422
84660995|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3465|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3465
84660996|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.4953
84660997|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9796|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.9796
84660998|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4187|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4187
84660999|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1510
84661000|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.0751
84661001|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7577|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.7577
84661002|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.8020
84661003|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9879|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.9879
84661004|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1717|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.1717
84661005|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3065|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.3065
84661006|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.9920
84661007|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4626
84661008|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.8922
84661009|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
84661010|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8212|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.8212
84661011|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.5732
84661012|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7319
84661013|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9272|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.9272
84661014|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1441|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1441
84661015|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1859
84661016|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3109
84661017|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3313
84661018|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.1279
84661019|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7575|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7575
84661020|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1583
84661021|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1569|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1569
84661022|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0745
84661023|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0933
84661024|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.7910
84661025|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6755
84661026|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.4183
84661027|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6749|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6749
84661028|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6626|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6626
84661029|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5766|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.5766
84661030|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.8376
84661031|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.2857
84661032|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.9560
84661033|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.4384
84661034|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6082|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6082
84661035|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.3374
84661036|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.5984
84661037|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8568|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.8568
84661038|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7698
84661039|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7089
84661040|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.3446
84661041|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.0815
84661042|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.4020
84661043|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4246|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.4246
84661044|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8118|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.8118
84661045|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.7454
84661046|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.3559
84661047|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7698
84661048|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7323
84661049|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5935|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.5935
84661050|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.3928
84661051|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.7089
84661052|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8746|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.8746
84661053|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3835|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.3835
84661054|NCT03975790|169056742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.4992
84661055|NCT03975790|169056743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2336|||||||t-test|||||||0.2336
84661056|NCT03975790|169056743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||t-test|||||||0.2109
84661057|NCT03975790|169056743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0691|||||||t-test|||||||0.0691
84661058|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9758|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9758
84661059|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9978
84661060|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9861
84661061|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5744|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5744
84661062|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8542
84661063|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8363
84661064|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0473
84661065|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0327
84661066|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5348|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5348
84661067|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6934|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6934
84661068|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6017|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6017
84661069|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.4768
84661070|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2315
84661071|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2588
84661072|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8576
84661073|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5909|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.5909
84661074|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0570
84661075|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0408
84661076|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.6465
84661077|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5654|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.5654
84661078|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.8371
84661079|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9654|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.9654
84661080|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1013
84661081|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1580
84661082|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1663
84661083|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6563|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.6563
84661084|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
84661085|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4166|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.4166
84661086|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.0636
84661087|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3137|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.3137
84661088|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4568|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4568
84661089|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.5785
84661090|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9541|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9541
84661091|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.1956
84689748|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.34|2.18|<0.0001
84689749|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.15|1.93|<0.0001
84689750|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.09|0.65|0.0028
84689751|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.23|-0.28|0.1289
84689752|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.66|-0.77|0.4698
84689753|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.32|-0.06|0.0616
84689754|NCT03502616|169118683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.71|0.03|0.0455
84689755|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.52|-1.25|<0.0001
84689756|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.65|<0.0001
84689757|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.26|-2.17|<0.0001
84689758|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.23|-2.20|<0.0001
84689759|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.05|-2.07|<0.0001
84689760|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.11|0.0483
84661092|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3633|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3633
84661093|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.9481
84661094|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3653|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.3653
84661095|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.9255
84661096|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.5137
84661097|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6338
84661098|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6329
84661099|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9228
84661100|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8433|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.8433
84661101|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1175|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1175
84661102|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1215
84661103|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9007
84661104|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8789
84661105|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8305
84661106|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0694|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.0694
84661107|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.8606
84661108|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3363|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.3363
84661109|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3319|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.3319
84661110|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.5615
84661111|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8898|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8898
84661112|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.3670
84661113|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8155|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.8155
84661114|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7091
84661115|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9769|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.9769
84661116|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5032
84661117|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5631
84661118|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.4426
84661119|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5734|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5734
84661120|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.3071
84661121|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1608|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1608
84661122|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4092|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.4092
84661123|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1215
84661124|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7279
84661125|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7703|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7703
84661126|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6254|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.6254
84661127|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1615
84661128|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.5050
84661129|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1592|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1592
84661130|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6088
84661131|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4713|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.4713
84661132|NCT03975790|169056744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.3399
84661133|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.2349
84661134|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3956|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.3956
84661135|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5500
84661136|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.7131
84661137|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.9420
84661138|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0571|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0571
84661139|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0490
84661140|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5631
84661141|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2198|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.2198
84661142|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.3850
84661143|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.1165
84661144|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.4291
84661145|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.3850
84661146|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8143
84661147|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7272|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.7272
84661148|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0501
84661149|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0500
84661150|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3116|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.3116
84661151|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.4882
84661152|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9505|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.9505
84661153|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4080
84661154|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.7644
84661155|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4146|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4146
84661156|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1348|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1348
84661157|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5948|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5948
84661158|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
84661159|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1033|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.1033
84661160|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.2117
84661161|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.9920
84661162|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
84661163|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
84661164|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4384
84661165|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.0162
84661166|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3239
84661167|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4837|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.4837
84661168|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7183|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.7183
84661169|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.2667
84661170|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.4510
84661171|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7993|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.7993
84661172|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9896
84661173|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.8576
84661174|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.9373
84661175|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1253
84661176|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1851
84661177|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8697|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8697
84661178|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9719
84661179|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9380
84661180|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.1079
84661181|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.2588
84661182|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.9358
84661183|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.1984
84661184|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8542
84661185|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2973|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.2973
84661186|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1046|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.1046
84661187|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7961|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7961
84661188|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.2140
84661189|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8578
84661190|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.7131
84661191|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8421|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8421
84661192|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.7637
84661193|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6355|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.6355
84661194|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5425|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5425
84661195|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.0410
84661196|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8251|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.8251
84661197|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.2871
84661198|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1174
84661199|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9702|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.9702
84661200|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.3109
84661201|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6744|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6744
84661202|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8121|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.8121
84661203|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.9451
84661204|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.1660
84661205|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9549|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.9549
84661206|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3104|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.3104
84661207|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.0489
84661208|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.1515
84661209|NCT03975790|169056745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.9481
84508476|NCT01497938|168767898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used for sample size calculation. sample size is based on two-sample t test with one-sided type 1 error of 2.5%. Assuming a same mean of change in A1C for the treatment arm and control arm and a common standard deviation of 1% for both treatment groups, it showed that a total of 200 subjects will provide over 80% power to detect the non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15||
84508477|NCT01497938|168767899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-588.0|||<|0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.025
84661210|NCT03975790|169056746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2178
84661211|NCT03975790|169056746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5237
84661212|NCT03975790|169056746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7964
84661213|NCT03975790|169056747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9085
84661214|NCT03975790|169056747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6283
84661215|NCT03975790|169056747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7293
84661216|NCT03975790|169056748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9392|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9392
84661217|NCT03975790|169056748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3063
84661218|NCT03975790|169056748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3467
84661219|NCT03975790|169056749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7977
84661220|NCT03975790|169056749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5241|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5241
84661221|NCT03975790|169056749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4702
84661222|NCT03975790|169056750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1461|||||||t-test|||||||0.1461
84661223|NCT03975790|169056750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1411|||||||t-test|||||||0.1411
84661224|NCT03975790|169056750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201|||||||t-test|||||||0.4201
84661225|NCT03975790|169056751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||t-test|||||||0.3955
84661226|NCT03975790|169056751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||t-test|||||||0.6356
84661227|NCT03975790|169056751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3833|||||||t-test|||||||0.3833
84661228|NCT03975790|169056752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3292|||||||t-test|||||||0.3292
84661229|NCT03975790|169056752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2959|||||||t-test|||||||0.2959
84661230|NCT03975790|169056752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||t-test|||||||0.6962
84661231|NCT03975790|169056753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||t-test|||||||0.8138
84661232|NCT03975790|169056753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test|||||||0.0070
84661233|NCT03975790|169056753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0358|||||||t-test|||||||0.0358
84661234|NCT03975790|169056754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8453|||||||t-test|||||||0.8453
84661235|NCT03975790|169056754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4806|||||||t-test|||||||0.4806
84661236|NCT03975790|169056754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4809|||||||t-test|||||||0.4809
84661237|NCT03975790|169056755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3076|||||||t-test|||||||0.3076
84661238|NCT03975790|169056755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2509|||||||t-test|||||||0.2509
84661239|NCT03975790|169056755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||t-test|||||||0.7827
84661240|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4261|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.4261
84661241|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5247|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.5247
84661242|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2809|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.2809
84661243|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1153
84661244|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1344
84661245|NCT03975790|169056756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8229|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8229
84661246|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7816|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7816
84661247|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7124|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7124
84661248|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.6148
84661249|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.4876
84661250|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7826|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.7826
84661251|NCT03975790|169056757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8337|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8337
84661252|NCT03975790|169056758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1344
84661253|NCT03975790|169056758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0095
84661254|NCT03975790|169056758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1406
84661255|NCT03975790|169056759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9379
84661256|NCT03975790|169056759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3025
84661257|NCT03975790|169056759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3388|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3388
84661258|NCT03975790|169056760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8205|||||||t-test|||||||0.8205
84661259|NCT03975790|169056760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||t-test|||||||0.0467
84661260|NCT03975790|169056760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1083|||||||t-test|||||||0.1083
84661261|NCT03975790|169056761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8899|||||||t-test|||||||0.8899
84661262|NCT03975790|169056761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6183|||||||t-test|||||||0.6183
84661263|NCT03975790|169056761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6496|||||||t-test|||||||0.6496
84661264|NCT03975790|169056762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5027|||||||t-test|||||||0.5027
84661265|NCT03975790|169056762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||t-test|||||||0.2375
84661266|NCT03975790|169056762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5577|||||||t-test|||||||0.5577
84661267|NCT03975790|169056763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6908|||||||t-test|||||||0.6908
84661268|NCT03975790|169056763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||t-test|||||||0.0859
84661269|NCT03975790|169056763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764|||||||t-test|||||||0.2764
84661270|NCT03975790|169056764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1906|||||||t-test|||||||0.1906
84661271|NCT03975790|169056764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8744|||||||t-test|||||||0.8744
84661272|NCT03975790|169056764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||t-test|||||||0.3295
84661273|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0056
84661274|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4222
84661275|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0041
84661276|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2277|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2277
84661277|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2812
84661278|NCT03975790|169056765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.0772
84661279|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.2930
84661280|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4390
84661281|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.1530
84661282|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.9439
84661283|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4477|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4477
84661284|NCT03975790|169056766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4519
84661285|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.9829
84661286|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8021
84661287|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8376
84661288|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5927|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5927
84661289|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5202|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5202
84661290|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.8517
84661291|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||8.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||8.33
84661292|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7483|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.7483
84661293|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9713|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.9713
84661294|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9148|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.9148
84661295|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7248|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.7248
84661296|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.8200
84661297|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9657
84661298|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9255
84661299|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9575
84661300|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9410
84661301|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9146
84661302|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9641|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9641
84661303|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2596
84661304|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2228|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2228
84661305|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.7824
84661306|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4184
84661307|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4371
84661308|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2074|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.2074
84661309|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.7850
84661310|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1288|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.1288
84661311|NCT03975790|169056767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.2839
84661312|NCT03975790|169056768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2242
84661313|NCT03975790|169056768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
84661314|NCT03975790|169056768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0557
84661315|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5944|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.5944
84661316|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.9255
84661317|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.7824
84661318|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3975
84661319|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0552|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.0552
84661320|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3914
84661321|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.2036
84661322|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.1336
84661323|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.7095
84661324|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.2241
84661325|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.0024
84661326|NCT03975790|169056769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1204|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.1204
84661327|NCT03975790|169056770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
84661328|NCT03975790|169056770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
84661329|NCT03975790|169056770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
84661330|NCT03975790|169056771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2036
84661331|NCT03975790|169056771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1336
84661332|NCT03975790|169056771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7095
84661333|NCT03975790|169056773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
84661334|NCT03975790|169056773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
84661335|NCT03975790|169056773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
84661336|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.0309
84508478|NCT00365352|168767900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0015||95.0|-5.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was adjusted for Baseline value, treatment pooled sites, and treatment by pool site interaction.|||-1.3|-5.6|0.0015
84661337|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.9978
84661338|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.2629
84661339|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.0225
84661340|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4456|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.4456
84661341|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5065|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.5065
84661342|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6617|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.6617
84661343|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7309|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.7309
84661344|NCT03975790|169056774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.9861
84661345|NCT03975790|169056775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0880
84661346|NCT03975790|169056775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84661347|NCT03975790|169056775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0065
84661348|NCT03975790|169056776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5157
84661349|NCT03975790|169056776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1231
84661350|NCT03975790|169056776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2109
84661351|NCT03975790|169056777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
84661352|NCT03975790|169056777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
84661353|NCT03975790|169056777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
84661354|NCT03975790|169056778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0654
84661355|NCT03975790|169056778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7315
84661356|NCT03975790|169056778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1897|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1897
84661357|NCT03975790|169056779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5146
84661358|NCT03975790|169056779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7121|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7121
84661359|NCT03975790|169056779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4434
84661360|NCT03975790|169056780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8966
84661361|NCT03975790|169056780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2105
84661362|NCT03975790|169056780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
84661363|NCT03975790|169056782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3610
84661364|NCT03975790|169056782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4519
84661365|NCT03975790|169056782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9612
84508479|NCT00365352|168767901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.287||||0.0001||95.0|2.338|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used with treatment and pooled center as explanatory factors.||||7.861|2.338|0.0001
84661366|NCT03975790|169056783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8135
84661367|NCT03975790|169056783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5910
84661368|NCT03975790|169056783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
84661369|NCT03975790|169056784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5970
84661370|NCT03975790|169056784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7055
84661371|NCT03975790|169056785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5435|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5435
84661372|NCT03975790|169056785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6790
84661373|NCT03975790|169056785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9676
84661374|NCT03975790|169056786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8035
84661375|NCT03975790|169056786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4184
84661376|NCT03975790|169056786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3950
84661377|NCT03975790|169056788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7871
84661378|NCT03975790|169056788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0722
84661379|NCT03975790|169056788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1810
84661380|NCT03975790|169056789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1984
84661381|NCT03975790|169056789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2043
84661382|NCT03975790|169056789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0439|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0439
84661383|NCT03975790|169056790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1702
84661384|NCT03975790|169056790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5926
84661385|NCT03975790|169056790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3088
84661386|NCT03975790|169056791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9141
84661387|NCT03975790|169056791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7623
84661388|NCT03975790|169056791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8517
84661389|NCT03975790|169056792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1208
84661390|NCT03975790|169056792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
84661391|NCT03975790|169056792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
84661392|NCT03975790|169056793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8698|||||||t-test|||||||0.8698
84661393|NCT03975790|169056793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||t-test|||||||0.7391
84661394|NCT03975790|169056793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7043|||||||t-test|||||||0.7043
84661395|NCT03975790|169056794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536|||||||t-test|||||||0.0536
84661396|NCT03975790|169056794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9313|||||||t-test|||||||0.9313
84661397|NCT03975790|169056794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test|||||||0.3740
84661398|NCT03975790|169056795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6963|||||||t-test|||||||0.6963
84661399|NCT03975790|169056795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9816|||||||t-test|||||||0.9816
84661400|NCT03975790|169056795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8349|||||||t-test|||||||0.8349
84661401|NCT03975790|169056796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
84661402|NCT03975790|169056796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||t-test|||||||0.9431
84661403|NCT03975790|169056796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||t-test|||||||0.2964
84661404|NCT03975790|169056797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2614|||||||t-test|||||||0.2614
84661405|NCT03975790|169056797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test|||||||0.0014
84661406|NCT03975790|169056797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||t-test|||||||0.0535
84661407|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.0051
84661408|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3041|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.3041
84661409|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.4432
84661410|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8641|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.8641
84661411|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0435
84661412|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.1530
84661413|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1188|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1188
84661414|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.6807
84689761|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0357
84689762|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.00|-1.09|0.0508
84689763|NCT03502616|169118684|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-1.08|0.0614
84689764|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.53|-1.26|<0.0001
84689765|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.92|-1.75|<0.0001
84689766|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.41|<0.0001
84689767|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
84689768|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.14|-2.10|<0.0001
84689769|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.03|0.0492
84689770|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.22|-0.82|0.2614
84689771|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.04|-1.03|0.0722
84689772|NCT03502616|169118685|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.15|-1.24|0.0121
84689773|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.51|-1.33|<0.0001
84689774|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-2.02|<0.0001
84689775|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.50|<0.0001
84689776|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.50|-2.50|<0.0001
84689777|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.32|-2.35|<0.0001
84689778|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-1.02|0.0785
84689779|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.82|0.3047
84689780|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-1.02|0.1009
84689781|NCT03502616|169118686|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.05|-1.08|0.0764
84689782|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.73|0.0089
84689783|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.12|<0.0001
84689784|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.50|<0.0001
84689785|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.88|-1.71|<0.0001
84689786|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.66|<0.0001
84689787|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.81|0.1686
84508480|NCT00097695|168767927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS was used to calculate statistical significance between p- vs icatibant group and placebo group.||||||0.142
84661415|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1772
84661416|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6104|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6104
84661417|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9564|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.9564
84661418|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.7688
84661419|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5685|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5685
84661420|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5122|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5122
84661421|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4321|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4321
84661422|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7892|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.7892
84661423|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2874
84661424|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2662|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2662
84661425|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3091|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.3091
84661426|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5783|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.5783
84661427|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4021|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4021
84661428|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7670
84661429|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6978
84661430|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6328
84661431|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0541
84661432|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.6999
84661433|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.3590
84661434|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.9360
84661435|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6260
84661436|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7797|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.7797
84661437|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0934|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.0934
84661438|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3960
84661439|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4292|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.4292
84661440|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.8540
84661441|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9600
84661442|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9374
84661443|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6674
84661444|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0776
84661445|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.3350
84661446|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8461
84661447|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8111|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8111
84661448|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.7267
84661449|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2453|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.2453
84661450|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5889|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.5889
84661451|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4162|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.4162
84661452|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.0307
84661453|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.1147
84661454|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.9481
84661455|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4455|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.4455
84661456|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.9445
84661457|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6191|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.6191
84661458|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.0805
84661459|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7037|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.7037
84661460|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4288|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.4288
84661461|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3731|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.3731
84661462|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4803|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.4803
84661463|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.5831
84661464|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0944|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.0944
84661465|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.8800
84661466|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4949|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.4949
84661467|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.6373
84661468|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.0497
84661469|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1695|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.1695
84508481|NCT00097695|168767928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to onset is calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS is used.||||||< 0.001
84661470|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.6373
84661471|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.7866
84661472|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.7643
84661473|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2307|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.2307
84661474|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6712|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.6712
84661475|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6953|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6953
84661476|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.3675
84661477|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.8027
84661478|NCT03975790|169056798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4817|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.4817
84661479|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0063
84661480|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0162
84661481|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8715|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.8715
84661482|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2799
84661483|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0126
84661484|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2126
84661485|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7004|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.7004
84661486|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1476
84661487|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.2057
84661488|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2905|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.2905
84661489|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8273|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.8273
84661490|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6270
84661491|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.3256
84661492|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5631
84661493|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4491|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4491
84661494|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2009
84661495|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.3011
84661496|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2065
84661497|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.6098
84661498|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2586|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.2586
84661499|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4074|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4074
84661500|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.0345
84661501|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4377|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.4377
84661502|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7191|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7191
84661503|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0199
84661504|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.1032
84661505|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.9040
84661506|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.0316
84661507|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6748|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6748
84661508|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2679|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.2679
84661509|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.5010
84661510|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3228
84661511|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.7881
84661512|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.0876
84661513|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1226|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.1226
84661514|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9753|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9753
84661515|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0336
84661516|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2551|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.2551
84661517|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6189|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6189
84661518|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7051|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7051
84661519|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9775|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.9775
84661520|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7643
84508482|NCT00097695|168767929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS used.||||||= 0.079
84661521|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.2953
84661522|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6257|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.6257
84661523|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4753|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.4753
84661524|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0926
84661525|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0013
84661526|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0065
84661527|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2212|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.2212
84661528|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9688|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.9688
84661529|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.5647
84661530|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.0023
84661531|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.1142
84661532|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.3842
84661533|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.9097
84661534|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3885
84661535|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3834|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3834
84661536|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.3075
84661537|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.9075
84661538|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5993|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.5993
84661539|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.0775
84661540|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1536|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.1536
84661541|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8553|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.8553
84661542|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6295|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.6295
84661543|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0551|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.0551
84661544|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2215|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.2215
84661545|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.1948
84661546|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6621|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6621
84661547|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6629|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6629
84661548|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5699
84661549|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7105|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.7105
84661550|NCT03975790|169056799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5965|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5965
84661551|NCT02289690|169056801|OTHER||RP2D for veliparib in mg BID for 14 days|240.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The RP2D for veliparib was determined to be 240 mg BID for 14 days with carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL\*min) on Day 1 and etoposide (100 mg/m²) on Days 1 to 3 during 21-day cycles for 4 cycles.|A primary objective of Phase 1 was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for veliparib combined with carboplatin and etoposide. The RP2D was determined by the rate of DLTs and overall tolerability of veliparib plus carboplatin and etoposide.||||
84661552|NCT02289690|169056817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.503|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"The primary efficacy analysis in the Phase 2 portion of the study was the comparison of PFS among participants who received veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A) vs. placebo in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm C).~Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p-value ≤ 0.2"||0.880|0.503|0.059
84661553|NCT02289690|169056817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.288|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.288|0.744|0.924
84689788|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.21|-0.72|0.2800
84689789|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.86|0.1135
84689790|NCT03502616|169118687|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.20|-0.77|0.2496
84689791|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.0001
84689792|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.07|-1.89|<0.0001
84689793|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.16|-2.06|<0.0001
84689794|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.34|<0.0001
84689795|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.25|-2.18|<0.0001
84689796|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-0.99|0.0385
84689797|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-1.00|0.0463
84689798|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-1.15|0.0126
84689799|NCT03502616|169118688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.09|0.0372
84689800|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.52|6.68|0.0001
84508483|NCT02683187|168768008|EQUIVALENCE|Insulin secretion, determined by insulin or C-peptide values in the 10 minutes after arginine infusion will be compared as a repeated measure for each subject in a 2 x 2 analysis of sitagliptin/placebo and Exendin-9/saline.|Median Difference (Final Values)|371.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
84508484|NCT00862979|168768013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
84689801|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.80|19.78|<0.0001
84689802|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|42.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.78|23.84|<0.0001
84689803|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|46.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||46.07|26.67|<0.0001
84689804|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|45.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.63|27.05|<0.0001
84508485|NCT00862979|168768014|OTHER|difference||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 6 to Month 9||||0.203
84508486|NCT00862979|168768014|OTHER|difference||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 9 to Month 18||||0.002
84508487|NCT00862979|168768016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-8.3|-19.6|<.0001
84508488|NCT00862979|168768016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 18||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
84508489|NCT00862979|168768018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84508490|NCT01027143|168768019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84689805|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.35|-6.14|0.3498
84689806|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|9.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.15|-13.96|0.6835
84689807|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.98|-13.47|0.7704
84689808|NCT03502616|169118689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.53|-12.80|0.8492
84689809|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|5.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||5.43|-0.95|0.1692
84689810|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.46|0.46|0.0289
84689811|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.09|0.95|0.0199
84689812|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|18.81|||Difference in percentage|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.81|5.26|0.0005
84689813|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.80|5.29|0.0005
84689814|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.83|1.24|0.0253
84689815|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|17.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.24|-1.38|0.0950
84689816|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|16.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.73|-2.31|0.1377
84689817|NCT03502616|169118690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.30|-3.94|0.2472
84689818|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.41|-1.05|<0.0001
84689819|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.91|-1.65|<0.0001
84508491|NCT04908748|168768060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-32.2|< 0.0001
84689820|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
84689821|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.24|-2.11|<0.0001
84689822|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.00|-1.88|<0.0001
84689823|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-0.86|0.0880
84689824|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.88|0.0921
84689825|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.94|0.0597
84689826|NCT03502616|169118691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-0.99|0.0492
84689827|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|14.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.77|1.86|0.0116
84689828|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|31.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.49|13.99|<0.0001
84689829|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.66|19.09|<0.0001
84689830|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.28|41.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.58|22.28|<0.0001
84689831|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|35.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||35.75|14.82|<0.0001
84689832|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|22.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.23|-0.80|0.0683
84689833|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||21.70|-1.59|0.0906
84689834|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|24.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||24.66|1.39|0.0282
84689835|NCT03502616|169118692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|22.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.49|-0.96|0.0719
84689836|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.48|42.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.11|23.48|<0.0001
84689837|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.37|50.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||50.70|30.37|<0.0001
84689838|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|55.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.41|35.03|<0.0001
84689839|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.97|55.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.49|34.97|<0.0001
84689840|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.73|52.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||52.88|31.73|<0.0001
84689841|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|16.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.42|-6.51|0.3967
84689842|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|15.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.46|-6.78|0.4442
84689843|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|17.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.97|-5.22|0.2810
84689844|NCT03502616|169118693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.20|-6.12|0.3514
84689845|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|3.46|0.0013
84689846|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|23.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||23.36|9.13|<0.0001
84689847|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||28.20|12.41|<0.0001
84689848|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.46|31.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.08|14.46|<0.0001
84689849|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||34.10|16.47|<0.0001
84689850|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|20.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.43|-1.61|0.0941
84689851|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|-9.17|0.6727
84689852|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|18.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.98|-4.39|0.2213
84689853|NCT03502616|169118694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|15.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.98|-6.58|0.4137
84689854|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||3.24|-1.73|0.5518
84689855|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||7.47|-0.04|0.0524
84689856|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.73|0.77|0.0216
84689857|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|16.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.17|4.80|0.0003
84689858|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|11.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.33|2.05|0.0047
84689859|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.88|-6.74|0.7883
84689860|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||13.48|-3.78|0.2708
84689861|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|9.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.36|-8.48|0.9226
84689862|NCT03502616|169118695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.13|-6.44|0.6630
84689863|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.47|0.0099
84689864|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.08|-1.40|0.0275
84689865|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.41|0.0420
84689866|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.16|-1.22|0.1309
84689867|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.78|0.5566
84689868|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.68|0.4497
84689869|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.43|0.9272
84689870|NCT03502616|169118696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.85|0.2539
84689871|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.58|0.4379
84689872|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.39|-0.73|0.5340
84689873|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.10|0.9148
84689874|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.5409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|-1.43|0.5409
84689875|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.65|-1.78|0.3555
84689876|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.436||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.36|0.2485
84689877|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.63|-0.11|0.0866
84689878|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.01|-0.42|0.4101
84689879|NCT03502616|169118697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.94|0.07|0.0237
84689880|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|0.10|0.0043
84689881|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.56|0.09|0.0072
84689882|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.05|0.1101
84689883|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.58|0.06|0.0147
84689884|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.53|-0.11|0.2032
84689885|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.34|0.9345
84689886|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.27|-0.47|0.5968
84689887|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.26|0.7047
84689888|NCT03502616|169118698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.27|0.8070
84689889|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mobility: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0030
84689890|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Self-Care: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.10|-0.11|0.8970
84689891|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.03|-0.20|0.1437
84689892|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.09|-0.27|<0.0001
84689893|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.11|-0.13|0.8445
84689894|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.19|0.3473
84689895|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.12|-0.12|0.9834
84689896|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.11|0.7364
84689897|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.13|0.8075
84689898|NCT03502616|169118699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.17|-0.09|0.5461
84689899|NCT03502616|169118700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|14.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||14.70|5.52|<0.0001
84689900|NCT03502616|169118700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.337||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.24|-1.97|0.2608
84689901|NCT03502616|169118701|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||2.09|-11.15|0.1784
84689902|NCT03502616|169118701|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.72|-7.34|0.3651
84689903|NCT03502616|169118702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.884|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.19|-18.59|<0.0001
84689904|NCT03502616|169118702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.318||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.21|-8.92|0.4788
84508492|NCT02433665|168768076|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point for this study was a comparison between fixed-dose and customized-dose contrast material injection CT protocols for vascular and parenchymal enhancement by using a noninferiority approach. The limit of noninferiority was set at 0.1 before the initiation of the study on the basis of a similar study that examined contrast media dose optimization for CT angiography examinations.|Odds Ratio, log|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.38|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84689905|NCT03502616|169118703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.52|-20.18|<0.0001
84661554|NCT02289690|169056818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.432||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.092|1.879|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.879|1.092|0.088
84661555|NCT02289690|169056818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.104|1.931|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.931|1.104|0.083
84661556|NCT02289690|169056819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||3.2|1.1|0.115
84661557|NCT02289690|169056819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.3|0.5|0.604
84661558|NCT01170754|169056821|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between the two groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84661559|NCT01170754|169056822|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
84661560|NCT01170754|169056823|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
84661561|NCT01170754|169056824|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.87
84661562|NCT01170754|169056825|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84661563|NCT01170754|169056826|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
84661564|NCT01170754|169056827|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
84661565|NCT01170754|169056828|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
84661566|NCT01170754|169056829|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
84661567|NCT01170754|169056830|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.92
84661568|NCT01170754|169056831|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
84661569|NCT01170754|169056832|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score.||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
84661570|NCT03247530|169056869|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-2.6|-8.9|0.0004
84661571|NCT03247530|169056869|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-3.8|-10.0|<0.0001
84661572|NCT03247530|169056870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0020
84661573|NCT03247530|169056870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
84689906|NCT03502616|169118703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.613||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.74|-11.56|0.2244
84689907|NCT03502616|169118704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-8.50|-18.30|<0.0001
84689908|NCT03502616|169118704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.88|-13.32|0.0095
84689909|NCT02917265|169118710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84689910|NCT03885011|169118718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|2.949|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis relates to Day 8 up to when pilocarpine HCl 0.2% either in CSF-1-FDC or as pilocarpine alone was administered for one week.||2.949|0.413|0.8445
84689911|NCT03885011|169118718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.958|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.958|0.684|0.2660
84689912|NCT03885011|169118719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.646|8.154|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.154|1.646|0.0015
84689913|NCT03885011|169118719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.745||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|10.786|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.786|2.088|0.0002
84689914|NCT03885011|169118720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1145
84689915|NCT03885011|169118720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0616
84689916|NCT03885011|169118721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
84689917|NCT03885011|169118721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84689918|NCT03107377|169118725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.81||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-0.61|||Chi-squared|||||-0.61|-9.02|0.0256
84689919|NCT03107377|169118726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-0.23|||Chi-squared|||||-0.23|-4.84|0.0316
84689920|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
84689921|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||1.0000
84689922|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6278|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||.6278
84689923|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6404|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=40% adherence||||.6404
84689924|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||.5008
84689925|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1818|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||.1818
84689926|NCT03107377|169118730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||0.0012
84689927|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
84689928|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||0.4375
84689929|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4444|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||0.4444
84689930|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1836|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||0.1836
84689931|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5006|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||0.5006
84689932|NCT03107377|169118731|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||1.000
84689933|NCT05652036|169118768|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NPS score pre- and post-procedure||||0.21
84689934|NCT05652036|169118769|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder symptom bother before and after treatment||||.07
84689935|NCT05652036|169118769|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder HRQL mean before and after treatment||||0.16
84689936|NCT05652036|169118770|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||Participant rated procedural satisfaction assessed 30-days post-procedure.||||0.21
84689937|NCT05652036|169118771|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as very much improved after treatment||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
84508493|NCT00757601|168768078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 AUC (0-∞).~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) of the fed state divided by the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.03||||||95.0|||||Mixed-Effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
84508494|NCT00757601|168768079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 Cmax.~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean Cmax of the fed state divided by the geometric mean Cmax fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.14||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean Cmax for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
84508495|NCT01860976|168768084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of Difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|8.7|<0.001
84689938|NCT05652036|169118771|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as much improved after treatment||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84689939|NCT05652036|169118771|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as minimally improved after treatment||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84689940|NCT05652036|169118771|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as no difference after treatment||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84689941|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of urinary retention observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84689942|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of urinary tract infection observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84689943|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of bleeding requiring evaluation observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84689944|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of hematuria observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84689945|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of bladder pain observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84689946|NCT05652036|169118772|OTHER|Rates of ER department evaluations observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84689947|NCT02237508|169118773|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|138.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.09|149.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.39|129.09|<0.001
84689948|NCT02237508|169118773|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|136.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.13|147.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||147.04|126.13|<0.001
84689949|NCT02237508|169118774|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|119.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.4|131.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||131.03|109.40|0.001
84689950|NCT02237508|169118774|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|129.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.33|143.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.20|117.33|<0.001
84689951|NCT02237508|169118775|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|218.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.02|245.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||245.24|194.02|<0.001
84508496|NCT00571428|168768143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||||90.0|-0.015|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, predose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.037|-0.015|
84689952|NCT02237508|169118775|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|200.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.3|231.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||231.01|174.30|<0.001
84689953|NCT02237508|169118776|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|126.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|137.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.32|115.93|<0.001
84689954|NCT02237508|169118776|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|117.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.05|128.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||128.05|107.05|0.004
84689955|NCT05458024|169118795|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84689956|NCT05458024|169118796|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-1.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were adjusted for sex, baseline pain, and baseline vitamin D levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84689957|NCT02277743|169118869|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|35.17||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||35.17|20.18|< 0.0001
84689958|NCT02277743|169118869|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.47|34.44||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.44|19.47|< 0.0001
84689959|NCT02277743|169118870|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.58|44.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||44.63|28.58|< 0.0001
84689960|NCT02277743|169118870|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|45.77||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||45.77|29.70|< 0.0001
84689961|NCT02277743|169118871|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|36.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.52|20.64|< 0.0001
84689962|NCT02277743|169118871|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.94|36.13||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.13|19.94|< 0.0001
84689963|NCT02277743|169118872|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.36|37.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||37.88|21.36|< 0.0001
84689964|NCT02277743|169118872|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.08|42.84||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||42.84|26.08|< 0.0001
84508497|NCT00571428|168768144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||||90.0|0.035|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.090|0.035|
84689965|NCT02277743|169118873|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.26|-17.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-17.52|-32.26|< 0.0001
84689966|NCT02277743|169118873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-15.33||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-15.33|-30.33|< 0.0001
84689967|NCT02277743|169118874|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|15.71||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||15.71|3.95|0.0012
84689968|NCT02277743|169118874|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|23.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||23.93|10.57|< 0.0001
84689969|NCT02277743|169118875|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.68|1.49|0.0097
84689970|NCT02277743|169118875|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.2||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.86||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.86|1.45|0.0094
84689971|NCT02277743|169118876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.236|-1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.260|-2.236|< 0.0001
84689972|NCT02277743|169118876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.189|-1.186||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.186|-2.189|< 0.0001
84689973|NCT02277743|169118877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.35|-26.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.88|-42.35|< 0.0001
84689974|NCT02277743|169118877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.17|-26.56||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.56|-42.17|< 0.0001
84689975|NCT02277743|169118878|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.91|52.48||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||52.48|35.91|< 0.0001
84689976|NCT02277743|169118878|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|44.96||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||44.96|27.90|< 0.0001
84689977|NCT02277743|169118879|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|35.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||35.29|20.96|< 0.0001
84689978|NCT02277743|169118879|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|32.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||32.68|18.51|< 0.0001
84689979|NCT02277743|169118880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.487|-13.353||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-13.353|-22.487|< 0.0001
84689980|NCT02277743|169118880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.125|-14.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-14.650|-23.125|< 0.0001
84689981|NCT02277743|169118881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-21.54||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-21.54|-35.79|< 0.0001
84689982|NCT02277743|169118881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.09|-20.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-20.87|-35.09|< 0.0001
84689983|NCT02277743|169118882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.80|-5.16|< 0.0001
84689984|NCT02277743|169118882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.49|-4.87|< 0.0001
84689985|NCT02277743|169118883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-5.01||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.01|-8.02|< 0.0001
84689986|NCT02277743|169118883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-4.32|-7.44|< 0.0001
84689987|NCT02277743|169118884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-0.95|-3.44|0.0006
84689988|NCT02277743|169118884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.03|-3.46|0.0003
84661574|NCT03247530|169056871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-6.5|0.0003
84661575|NCT03247530|169056871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.6|0.0002
84661576|NCT03247530|169056872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.24|0.0019
84661577|NCT03247530|169056872|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.26|0.0020
84661578|NCT03247530|169056873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.6|4.3|0.0063
84661579|NCT03247530|169056873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.6|11.3|<0.0001
84661580|NCT03247530|169056874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-4.5|0.9974
84661581|NCT03247530|169056874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-6.1|0.4557
84661582|NCT03247530|169056875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.2|-4.6|0.0006
84661583|NCT03247530|169056875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.9|-5.2|<0.0001
84661584|NCT03247530|169056875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.9|-4.1|0.0026
84661585|NCT03247530|169056875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.7|-4.8|<0.0001
84661586|NCT03247530|169056876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.2|0.1292
84661587|NCT03247530|169056876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.3447
84689989|NCT02277743|169118885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-18.91||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.91|-35.04|< 0.0001
84661588|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.0005
84661589|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0212
84661590|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0115
84661591|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0027
84661592|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0066
84661593|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0065
84661594|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5826|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.5826
84661595|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0099
84661596|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0225
84661597|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0008
84661598|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0020
84661599|NCT03247530|169056877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0002
84661600|NCT03950167|169056878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661601|NCT03950167|169056878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|Since this is the first study comparing both CCK levels and GB functions in patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and healthy pregnant women, a power analysis was not feasible.||||0.05
84661602|NCT03950167|169056879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB wall thickness: Hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661603|NCT03950167|169056879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB wall thickness: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661604|NCT03950167|169056880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661605|NCT03950167|169056880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661606|NCT03950167|169056881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661607|NCT03950167|169056881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
84661608|NCT02533427|169056882|OTHER||% Geometric Least Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio|107.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.19|111.69|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||111.69|103.19|
84661609|NCT02533427|169056883|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|124.5|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||124.50|106.49|
84661610|NCT02533427|169056884|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|105.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.95|114.66|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||114.66|96.95|
84661611|NCT02533427|169056885|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|248.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.11|1870.81|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||1870.81|33.11|
84661612|NCT02533427|169056886|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|107.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|118.65|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||118.65|97.78|
84661613|NCT02533427|169056887|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|122.37|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||122.37|108.12|
84661614|NCT02533427|169056888|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.1|138.12|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||138.12|106.10|
84661615|NCT02533427|169056889|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|112.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|144.14|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||144.14|87.19|
84661616|NCT02533427|169056890|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|114.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.4|121.39|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||121.39|107.40|
84661617|NCT02533427|169056891|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.85|133.44|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||133.44|110.85|
84661618|NCT02533427|169056892|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|92.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|104.45|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||104.45|82.55|
84661619|NCT02509156|169056916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|6.11|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||6.11|-4.52|0.746
84689990|NCT02277743|169118885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-18.12||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.12|-33.06|< 0.0001
84689991|NCT02277743|169118886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-11.90|-21.08|< 0.0001
84689992|NCT02277743|169118886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-10.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-10.50|-19.62|< 0.0001
84689993|NCT01622010|169118899|EQUIVALENCE|P value 0.05 used||||||0.487|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.487
84689994|NCT01622010|169118901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|a non-inferiority margin calculation was not performed for this study prior to its start.||||||0.628|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Standard care is better than standard care with video enhancement.||||0.628
84689995|NCT01622010|169118902|EQUIVALENCE|P Value 0.05 used||||||0.647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.647
84689996|NCT03976466|169118903|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.168|||Chi-squared, Corrected||For the Relative risk the control Study group was the numerator and control group denominator. In the 2X2 contingency table the rows correspond to groups and columns for the presence or abscence of periprosthetic infection.|"H0.- There is no significant difference in the incidence of periprosthetic infection in patients with non-modifiable risk factors and prophylactic application of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate compared with patients without prophylactic treatment with calcium sulfate.~The presence of periprosthetic infection in both groups was evaluated by chi2 and Lambda tests for dichotomous nominal and qualitative variables with longitudinal direction and relative risk factor test."||0.168|0.015|<0.05
84689997|NCT03976466|169118904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test of t was performed for the variable length of hospital stay, finding a significant difference with a p value \< 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Lenght of stay was the variable that compares both groups and was a continous variable (t-test).||||<0.01
84689998|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Morning Stiffness \> 1 Hour: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.010
84689999|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis or Deformity of 3 or More Joint Areas: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690000|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis/Deformity of Hand/Joint: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.363
84690001|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Symmetry: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690002|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nodules: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690003|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid Factor Positive: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.605
84690004|NCT01557322|169118928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Erosions on Hand or Feet X-Ray: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.038
84690005|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Sicca Syndrome: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690006|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Serosal Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.024
84690007|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Eye Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.257
84690008|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Systemic Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.026
84690009|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nailfold Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.725
84690010|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary Fibrosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.220
84690011|NCT01557322|169118929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Other: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.620
84690012|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Knee Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690013|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Hip Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690014|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Shoulder Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690015|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Elbow Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690016|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Wrist/Hand/Ankle/Foot Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.001
84690017|NCT01557322|169118930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Neck Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690018|NCT01557322|169118931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||P-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690019|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||High Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.381
84690020|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Angina: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.006
84690021|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Heart Attack: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.215
84690022|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Stroke: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.117
84690023|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Epilepsy: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
84690024|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.542
84690025|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chronic Bronchitis/Emphysema: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.027
84690026|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Peptic Ulcer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.566
84690027|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.003
84690028|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.526
84690029|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Tuberculosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.802
84690030|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Demyelination: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
84690031|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.385
84690032|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperthyroidism: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.048
84690033|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Depression: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.308
84690034|NCT01557322|169118932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cancer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.033
84690035|NCT01557322|169118933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.188
84690036|NCT01557322|169118934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.016
84690037|NCT01557322|169118934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.369
84690038|NCT01557322|169118935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690039|NCT01557322|169118935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change at Month 60: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.3746
84690040|NCT01557322|169118936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690041|NCT01557322|169118937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690042|NCT01557322|169118938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.154
84690043|NCT01557322|169118939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.108
84690044|NCT01557322|169118940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.199
84690045|NCT01557322|169118941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690046|NCT01557322|169118942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690047|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690048|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.313
84690049|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
84690050|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.066
84690051|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.099
84690052|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Sulphasalazine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690053|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690054|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690055|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690056|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690057|NCT01557322|169118944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
84690058|NCT01557322|169118945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690059|NCT01557322|169118946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline PCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
84690060|NCT01557322|169118946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline MCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.886
84690061|NCT01557322|169118946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.680
84690062|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0233
84690063|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5103
84690064|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9990
84690065|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6495
84690066|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
84690067|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1085
84690068|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0472
84690069|NCT01557322|169118956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4804
84690070|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
84690071|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0774
84690072|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
84690073|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5552
84690074|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
84690075|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
84690076|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
84690077|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
84690078|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6301
84690079|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
84690080|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
84690081|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7253
84690082|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7336
84690083|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Leukaemia, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0044
84690084|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4175
84690085|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3886
84690086|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5102
84690087|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9855
84690088|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4955
84690089|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5404
84690090|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3581
84690091|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4932
84690092|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4818|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4818
84690093|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3224
84690094|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5003
84690095|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1134
84690096|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3488
84690097|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1870
84690098|NCT01557322|169118957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4270
84690099|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5817
84690100|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.2595
84690101|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5642|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5642
84690102|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0034
84690103|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7137
84690104|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9630
84690105|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7353
84690106|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
84690107|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4532
84690108|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4238
84690109|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1218
84690110|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4124
84690111|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6356
84690112|NCT01557322|169118958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5491|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5491
84690113|NCT01557322|169118959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
84690114|NCT01557322|169118960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline HAQ-DI score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
84690115|NCT01557322|169118961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline PCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.2558
84690116|NCT01557322|169118961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||MCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline MCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.4908
84690117|NCT01557322|169118961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline vitality score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.8379
84690118|NCT02247336|169118963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||A priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|Using alpha=0.05, 80% power, and a risk-appropriate screening referral rate for the delayed arm ranging from 60% to 70%, n = 250 participants with a completed a family health history assessment per arm with 40 providers was needed to detect differences between arms in appropriate referral ranging from 12% to 13.2%. Sample size calculations accounted for provider clustering using an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.02 to adjust variance for a Z-test of the difference of two proportions.||1.2|0.4|0.16
84690119|NCT02247336|169118964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.2||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|||1.2|.04|0.23
84690120|NCT00733499|169119020|OTHER|||||||0.9478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9478
84690121|NCT00733499|169119021|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5490
84690122|NCT00733499|169119022|OTHER|||||||0.5312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5312
84690123|NCT00733499|169119023|OTHER|||||||0.3549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3549
84690124|NCT00733499|169119024|OTHER|||||||0.0513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0513
84690125|NCT00733499|169119025|OTHER|||||||0.0629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0629
84690126|NCT00733499|169119026|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0327
84690127|NCT00733499|169119027|OTHER|||||||0.0883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0883
84690128|NCT00733499|169119028|OTHER|||||||0.6801|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6801
84690129|NCT00733499|169119029|OTHER|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4779
84690130|NCT00733499|169119030|OTHER|||||||0.8007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8007
84690131|NCT00733499|169119031|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3317
84690132|NCT00733499|169119032|OTHER|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
84690133|NCT00733499|169119033|OTHER|||||||0.2116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2116
84690134|NCT00733499|169119034|OTHER|||||||0.4776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4776
84690135|NCT00733499|169119036|OTHER|||||||0.2935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2935
84690136|NCT00733499|169119037|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
84690137|NCT00733499|169119038|OTHER|||||||0.6896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6896
84690138|NCT00733499|169119039|OTHER|||||||0.1076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1076
84690139|NCT00733499|169119040|OTHER|||||||0.9042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9042
84690140|NCT00733499|169119041|OTHER|||||||0.9637|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9637
84690141|NCT00733499|169119042|OTHER|||||||0.0485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0485
84690142|NCT00733499|169119043|OTHER|||||||0.9813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9813
84690143|NCT00733980|169119047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2479||||0.703||80.0|-0.5887|1.0846|||Mixed-Model Repeated-Measure analysis|||||1.0846|-0.5887|0.703
84690144|NCT00733980|169119048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0169||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5231|0.4893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 1||0.4893|-0.5231|0.966
84690145|NCT00733980|169119048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4299||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2063|1.0661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.0661|-0.2063|0.386
84690146|NCT00733980|169119048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2203|1.6624|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.6624|0.2203|0.095
84690147|NCT00733980|169119049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9495||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0185|1.9175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.9175|-0.0185|0.209
84690148|NCT00733980|169119049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7638||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4243|1.9519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.9519|-0.4243|0.409
84690149|NCT00733980|169119049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5363||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1485|2.9241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9241|0.1485|0.156
84690150|NCT00733980|169119049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6327||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9135|2.1789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.1789|-0.9135|0.599
84690151|NCT00733980|169119050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9866||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8876|-0.0856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||-0.0856|-3.8876|0.181
84690152|NCT00733980|169119050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2538||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.5922|2.0846|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.0846|-2.5922|0.889
84690153|NCT00733980|169119050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3242||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.8165|2.1681|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 3||2.1681|-2.8165|0.867
84690154|NCT00733980|169119050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8107||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1036|3.7251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||3.7251|-2.1036|0.721
84690155|NCT00733980|169119050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6273||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8337|2.5791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.5791|-3.8337|0.801
84690156|NCT00733980|169119051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.644||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2498|1.5378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.5378|-0.2498|0.355
84690157|NCT00733980|169119051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0524||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1194|2.2243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.2243|-0.1194|0.249
84690158|NCT00733980|169119051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6473||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3078|2.9868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9868|0.3078|0.116
84690159|NCT00733980|169119051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7283||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8353|2.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.2920|-0.8353|0.550
84690160|NCT00733980|169119055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6359||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3378|1.1968|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.1968|0.3378|0.3588
84690161|NCT00733980|169119055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7347||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4554|1.1853|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.1853|0.4554|0.4088
84690162|NCT00733980|169119055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Logistic Model|0.9211||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5863|1.4471|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6/ Early withdrawal||1.4471|0.5863|0.8156
84690163|NCT00733980|169119056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4466||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3986|8.2917|||ANCOVA|||||8.2917|-1.3986|0.361
84690164|NCT00733980|169119057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1167||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6387|1.8722|||ANCOVA|||||1.8722|-1.6387|0.932
84690165|NCT02404389|169119071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12|||Posterior mean|||||0.12|-0.12|0.515
84690166|NCT02404389|169119071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.13|||posterior mean|||||0.13|-0.12|0.517
84508498|NCT00571428|168768145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||||90.0|-0.079|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.008|-0.079|
84508499|NCT00571428|168768146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||90.0|-0.086|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.026|-0.086|
84508500|NCT00571428|168768151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.694||||||90.0|0.525|2.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||2.862|0.525|
84508501|NCT00571428|168768152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||||90.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect||||0.090|0.015|
84508502|NCT02566135|168768168|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4628||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6401|3.3428|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Chi square test was applied to see weather there is a statistical significant difference between group I and group C for attempt for supraglottic airway insertion.||3.3428|0.6401|0.5033
84508503|NCT02566135|168768169|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8972|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4858|1.6569|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We had applied chi square to see the statistical significant difference between group I and group C for number of attempt for ventilating bougie insertion.||1.6569|0.4858|>0.05
84690167|NCT00335257|169119077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves.These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.90; 3) VTE incidence rate of 9/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2. Furthermore, a study of this size would exclude a threefold risk of ATE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP(24d) vs. Non-DRSP is higher or equal to 2||1.3|0.5|
84690168|NCT03926065|169119092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1260
84690169|NCT03926065|169119092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
84508504|NCT02566135|168768170|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
84690170|NCT03926065|169119092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.0992
84690171|NCT03926065|169119093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5502|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.5502
84508505|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at base line among the group I and group C.||||0.44
84508506|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute is measured following Dexmedetomidine injection among the group I and group C.||||0.58
84508507|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following induction of anaesthesia among the group I and group C.||||0.16
84508508|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following supraglottic airway insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.22
84508509|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following ventilating bougie insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.059
84508510|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER||||||>|0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at endotracheal intubation among the group I and group C.||||>0.33
84508511|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 3 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.63
84508512|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 5 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.29
84508513|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 7 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.18
84508514|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 10 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.98
84690172|NCT03926065|169119093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0072
84508515|NCT02566135|168768171|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 15 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.49
84508516|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.24
84690173|NCT03926065|169119094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1030
84690174|NCT03926065|169119094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0178
84690175|NCT03926065|169119094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.2410
84690176|NCT03926065|169119095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.0012
84690177|NCT03926065|169119095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
84690178|NCT00431184|169119115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84690179|NCT00431184|169119116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84508517|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.11
84508518|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction os anaesthesia between group I and group C.||||0.07
84690180|NCT02387216|169119117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.350|0.813|0.2302
84690181|NCT02387216|169119118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.122|||Log Rank|||||2.122|0.673|0.5436
84690182|NCT02387216|169119119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0455
84690183|NCT02387216|169119120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2726
84690184|NCT01187329|169119141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.87|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-2.87|0.11
84690185|NCT01187329|169119142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.01|-0.3|0.007
84690186|NCT01187329|169119143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.6|0.57
84690187|NCT01187329|169119144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.45
84690188|NCT01216163|169119159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|17.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|22.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference(Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent(%) confidence interval(CI):based on LS means from Analysis of Variance(ANOVA).Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:Ibuprofen sodium(IBU Na) versus(vs) Placebo(PBO), IBU Na vs Acetaminophen(APAP), APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||22.27|13.08|<0.001
84508519|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.85
84690189|NCT01216163|169119159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.96||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.72|1.21|0.010
84690190|NCT01216163|169119159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.12|17.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.30|8.12|<0.001
84690191|NCT01216163|169119160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|27.36||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||27.36|5.13|<0.001
84690192|NCT01216163|169119160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1.60|0.81|0.468
84690193|NCT01216163|169119160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.17||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.17|4.50|<0.001
84690194|NCT01216163|169119161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|14.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|32.8||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||32.80|6.02|<0.001
84690195|NCT01216163|169119161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.68|0.84|0.323
84508520|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.055
84508521|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at ETT insertion time between group I and group C.||||0.71
84690196|NCT01216163|169119161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|27.59||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||27.59|5.06|<0.001
84690197|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
84690198|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.04|0.101
84690199|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|0.03|0.029
84508522|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.20
84508523|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.86
84508524|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.68
84508525|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.98
84508526|NCT02566135|168768172|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
84508527|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.34
84508528|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.27
84508529|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction of anaesrthesia between group I and group C.||||0.22
84508530|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.96
84508531|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.71
84508532|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared the time of endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.55
84508533|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
84508534|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
84508535|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.76
84508536|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.69
84508537|NCT02566135|168768173|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.81
84508538|NCT02566135|168768174|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We had compared time of insertion for supraglottic airway between group I and group C.||||<0.0001
84508539|NCT02566135|168768175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84508540|NCT00865709|168768176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.231||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PFS events would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing the null hypothesis H0: HR ≥ 1 versus the alternative hypothesis H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all subjects who were randomized to treatment.||1.231|0.635|0.2309
84508541|NCT00865709|168768178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.174||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PDs would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing H0: HR ≥ 1 versus H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all subjects who were randomized).||1.174|0.586|0.1437
84508542|NCT00865709|168768179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||1-sided p-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of subjects achieving overall response (CR or PR), when confirmation of response was not required, was estimated with a 95% confidence interval for each treatment group. The treatment groups were compared with respect to overall response rate using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||0.023
84508543|NCT00429923|168768181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0014
84508544|NCT00662129|168768195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84508545|NCT00966953|168768211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84508546|NCT01734772|168768215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|149.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.6||0.9456||90.0|124.388|179.383||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||179.383|124.388|0.9456
84508547|NCT01734772|168768215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|126.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.5481||90.0|107.363|148.967||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||148.967|107.363|0.5481
84508548|NCT01734772|168768215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|127.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.5665||90.0|108.047|149.295||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.295|108.047|0.5665
84508549|NCT01734772|168768216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|164.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.9||0.9841||90.0|133.945|202.619||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||202.619|133.945|0.9841
84508550|NCT01734772|168768216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|128.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.6003||90.0|106.37|155.495||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||155.495|106.370|0.6003
84508551|NCT01734772|168768216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|gMean Ratio|123.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.4656||90.0|102.695|149.288||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.288|102.695|0.4656
84508552|NCT02099461|168768230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.15||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.441|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.441|-0.136|0.2966
84690200|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.87|1.01|<0.001
84690201|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.11|0.178
84690202|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|0.77|<0.001
84690203|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.49|1.64|<0.001
84690204|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.09|0.014
84690205|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.06|1.21|<0.001
84690206|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.70|1.79|<0.001
84690207|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.74|-0.01|0.055
84690208|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.34|1.43|<0.001
84690209|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.83|1.80|<0.001
84690210|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.93|0.08|0.019
84690211|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.29|<0.001
84690212|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.66|1.53|<0.001
84690213|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.05|0.13|0.013
84690214|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.95|<0.001
84508553|NCT02099461|168768230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.13|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.130|-0.447|0.2769
84690215|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.56|1.39|<0.001
84690216|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.10|0.15|0.010
84690217|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.93|0.77|<0.001
84690218|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.14|0.95|<0.001
84690219|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.91|-0.06|0.088
84690220|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.71|0.52|<0.001
84690221|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.85|<0.001
84690222|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|-0.02|0.061
84690223|NCT01216163|169119162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.38|0.002
84690224|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.49|0.13|<0.001
84690225|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.21|-0.08|0.387
84690226|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.07|0.007
84690227|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.15|0.64|<0.001
84508554|NCT02099461|168768230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.09||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.191|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.191|-0.373|0.5238
84508555|NCT02099461|168768230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.098|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 60 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.098|-0.720|0.1343
84661620|NCT02509156|169056917|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.024
84661621|NCT02509156|169056918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.26|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in global strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.26|-2.68|0.328
84661622|NCT02509156|169056919|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.261
84690228|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.04|0.019
84690229|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.90|0.38|<0.001
84690230|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|1.01|<0.001
84690231|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.57|0.09|0.006
84690232|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.68|<0.001
84690233|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.74|1.12|<0.001
84690234|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|0.07|0.014
84690235|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.42|0.80|<0.001
84690236|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.78|1.09|<0.001
84690237|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|0.03|0.030
84690238|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.46|0.78|<0.001
84690239|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.91|<0.001
84690240|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.73|0.12|0.007
84690241|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|0.49|<0.001
84690242|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.89|<0.001
84508556|NCT02099461|168768230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.161|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 120 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.161|-0.646|0.2345
84508557|NCT00720122|168768237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00653||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0081|0.0193|||Paired t-test|||A paired t-test was performed. The null hypothesis was that bone density would decrease over 6 months in females with anorexia nervosa, as observed in life course studies.||0.0193|-0.0081|0.40
84661623|NCT02509156|169056920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.35|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in regional strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.35|-4.51|0.071
84661624|NCT02509156|169056921|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.689
84661625|NCT02509156|169056922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|14.45|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||14.45|-12.33|0.935
84661626|NCT02509156|169056923|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.325
84661627|NCT02509156|169056924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|13.08|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||13.08|-11.75|0.919
84661628|NCT02509156|169056925|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.183
84661629|NCT02509156|169056926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.15|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LV sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||0.15|0.003|0.124
84661630|NCT02509156|169056927|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.|There was a significant treatment and time interaction (p=0.024), so we report a slope for each treatment arm.|||
84661631|NCT02509156|169056928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.74|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in scar percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.74|-3.05|0.993
84661632|NCT02509156|169056929|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.151
84661633|NCT02509156|169056930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.96||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|81.89|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in distance walked was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||81.89|-5.84|0.056
84661634|NCT02509156|169056931|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.583
84661635|NCT02509156|169056932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|4.84|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||4.84|-30.49|0.048
84661636|NCT02509156|169056933|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.0002
84661637|NCT02509156|169056934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-315.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|295.0||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-947.5|315.8|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in NT-proBNP was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||315.80|-947.50|0.199
84661638|NCT02509156|169056935|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-23.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|202.08||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported. Log transformation used for the regression. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||||0.229
84661639|NCT04649060|169056973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.184|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.650|0.052|=0.0032
84661640|NCT04649060|169056974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
84661641|NCT04649060|169056975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|6.693|||Log Rank|||||6.693|0.026|0.525
84661642|NCT04649060|169056977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0997|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0997
84661643|NCT04649060|169056978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.111||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.013|0.016
84690243|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.76|0.15|0.004
84690244|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.44|<0.001
84690245|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|0.54|<0.001
84690246|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.04|0.084
84690247|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|0.27|0.001
84690248|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.32|0.54|<0.001
84690249|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.06|0.020
84690250|NCT01216163|169119163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.94|0.17|0.005
84690251|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.28|0.40|<0.001
84690252|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.63|-0.10|0.148
84690253|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.02|0.13|0.011
84690254|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.99|1.68|<0.001
84690255|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|-0.04|0.071
84508558|NCT02275364|168768248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.32|18.25||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||18.25|12.32|<0.0001
84661644|NCT04649060|169056980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.846|||Log Rank|||||0.846|0.063|0.0187
84661645|NCT04649060|169056981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.224||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.047|0.0384
84661646|NCT04649060|169056982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.569|||Log Rank|||||2.569|0.086|0.3721
84661647|NCT02602496|169056983|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9942||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9942
84661648|NCT02602496|169056983|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0062
84661649|NCT02602496|169056983|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6843|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6843
84661650|NCT02602496|169056984|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.5096||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.5096
84661651|NCT02602496|169056984|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2276|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2276
84661652|NCT02602496|169056984|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0006
84661653|NCT02602496|169056985|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9708||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9708
84661654|NCT02602496|169056985|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.1642|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.1642
84661655|NCT02602496|169056985|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6043|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6043
84661656|NCT02602496|169056986|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0868||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.0868
84661657|NCT02602496|169056986|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0083|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0083
84661658|NCT02602496|169056986|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0151|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0151
84661659|NCT02602496|169056987|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9255||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9255
84661660|NCT02602496|169056987|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0454|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0454
84661661|NCT02602496|169056987|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.292|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2920
84661662|NCT02602496|169056988|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2252||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.2252
84661663|NCT02602496|169056988|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.4715|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.4715
84661664|NCT02602496|169056988|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.7157|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.7157
84661665|NCT02602496|169056989|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8323||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.8323
84661666|NCT02602496|169056989|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8927|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.8927
84661667|NCT02602496|169056989|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.3173|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.3173
84661668|NCT02602496|169056990|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.27||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age and gender|ANOVA|||||||0.27
84661669|NCT05025241|169057006|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||<0.0001
84661670|NCT05025241|169057007|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0003
84661671|NCT05025241|169057008|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
84661672|NCT05025241|169057009|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0005
84661673|NCT05025241|169057010|OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0647
84690256|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.50|1.19|<0.001
84690257|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.06|2.67|<0.001
84690258|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.33|0.20|0.008
84690259|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.91|<0.001
84690260|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.43|2.92|<0.001
84690261|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.30|0.07|0.028
84690262|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.74|2.24|<0.001
84690263|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|2.90|<0.001
84690264|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.51|0.13|0.020
84690265|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.77|2.09|<0.001
84690266|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|4.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.30|2.46|<0.001
84690267|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.76|0.26|0.009
84690268|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.46|<0.001
84690269|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.19|2.30|<0.001
84690270|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.85|0.31|0.006
84690271|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.10|1.22|<0.001
84690272|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.43|1.51|<0.001
84690273|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.49|-0.09|0.080
84690274|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.73|0.81|<0.001
84690275|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.37|1.41|<0.001
84690276|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.05|0.037
84690277|NCT01216163|169119164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.52|0.57|0.002
84508559|NCT02275364|168768249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|4.57||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||4.57|-6.43|0.7366
84690278|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.88|1.88|<0.001
84690279|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|0.15|0.007
84690280|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.32|<0.001
84690281|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.49|2.85|<0.001
84690282|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.31|0.004
84690283|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.51|1.87|<0.001
84690284|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|8.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||8.64|4.96|<0.001
84690285|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.59|0.59|0.007
84690286|NCT01216163|169119165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.54|2.87|<0.001
84690287|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.57|3.05|<0.001
84690288|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.38|0.14|0.016
84690289|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.80|2.29|<0.001
84690290|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|7.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.15|4.66|<0.001
84690291|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.37|0.33|0.010
84690292|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.80|3.31|<0.001
84690293|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.70|8.05|<0.001
84661674|NCT05025241|169057011|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0984|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0984
84690294|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|0.57|0.015
84690295|NCT01216163|169119166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||10.83|5.18|<0.001
84690296|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|7.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.43|4.96|<0.001
84690297|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.33|0.32|0.010
84690298|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|6.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.10|3.63|<0.001
84690299|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|11.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.61|7.54|<0.001
84661675|NCT05025241|169057012|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
84661676|NCT05025241|169057013|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0191
84661677|NCT05025241|169057014|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
84661678|NCT05025241|169057015|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1710
84661679|NCT05025241|169057016|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0066|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0066
84661680|NCT05025241|169057017|OTHER|change form baseline||||||0.1094|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1094
84661681|NCT05025241|169057018|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
84661682|NCT05025241|169057019|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0326
84661683|NCT01985867|169057026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.5|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||1.5|0.24|0.399
84661684|NCT01985867|169057027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.6|0.589
84661685|NCT01985867|169057028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|0.5|0.005
84661686|NCT01985867|169057029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.659
84661687|NCT01985867|169057030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.790
84661688|NCT01985867|169057031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.698
84661689|NCT01985867|169057032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||6.2|0.9|0.120
84661690|NCT01985867|169057033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
84661691|NCT01985867|169057034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.6|0.612
84661692|NCT01985867|169057035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|0.0|0.004
84661693|NCT01985867|169057036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.708
84661694|NCT01985867|169057037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-1.0|0.522
84661695|NCT01985867|169057038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|0.0|0.185
84661696|NCT01985867|169057039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.973
84661697|NCT01985867|169057040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.642
84661698|NCT02397785|169057047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 52 participants (26 in each arm) was sufficient to detect a 30% reduction in the VAS score (⍺ = 0.05, β = 0.80) from baseline to 12 weeks using paired t-tests, assuming average pain of 80-90 on the VAS and 10% drop-out. Because stratified randomization was performed on the basis of levator ani muscle spasm, there was an imbalance between the size of the sham and active groups, and 58 subjects were ultimately recruited with approval from the Institutional Review Board.||||0.8979
84661699|NCT02397785|169057048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9338|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9338
84661700|NCT02397785|169057049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Sign test|||||||0.1568
84661701|NCT02397785|169057050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Sign test|||||||0.3817
84661702|NCT02397785|169057051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2860
84661703|NCT02397785|169057052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2884|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2884
84661704|NCT02397785|169057053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0855
84661705|NCT02397785|169057054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0287|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0287
84661706|NCT02397785|169057055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2887
84661707|NCT02397785|169057056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9954
84661708|NCT02397785|169057057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0574
84661709|NCT02397785|169057058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||Sign test|||||||0.7827
84661710|NCT02397785|169057059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2114|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2114
84690300|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.00|0.67|0.006
84508560|NCT02275364|168768250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1533.74||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|794.16|2273.32||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2273.32|794.16|0.0004
84508561|NCT02275364|168768251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.14||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2.14|-3.06|0.7278
84661711|NCT02397785|169057060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4986|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4986
84508562|NCT02275364|168768252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|191.72||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.62|462.06||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||462.06|-78.62|0.1639
84661712|NCT02397785|169057061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4610
84661713|NCT02397785|169057062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2556|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2556
84661714|NCT02397785|169057063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0723
84661715|NCT02397785|169057064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7456
84661716|NCT02397785|169057065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1380
84661717|NCT02397785|169057066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3155
84661718|NCT02557646|169057067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cumulative dose of ribavirin \>90%: the relationship between cumulative dose and SVR response in participants in whom the cumulative dose of ribavirin exceeded 90% was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0437
84661719|NCT02557646|169057069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.6859
84661720|NCT02557646|169057070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and sustained virological response (SVR) was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.3740
84661721|NCT02557646|169057071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0263
84661722|NCT02557646|169057072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and sustained virological (SVR) response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0475
84661723|NCT02557646|169057078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the cumulative dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.1499
84661724|NCT02557646|169057079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.5885
84661725|NCT02557646|169057080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0062
84661726|NCT02268084|169057092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that the active treatment group does not differ from the sham group in changes in the PCL-M total scores.||||.007
84661727|NCT02268084|169057093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.326
84661728|NCT04786990|169057137|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661729|NCT04786990|169057137|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661730|NCT04786990|169057138|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661731|NCT04786990|169057138|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661732|NCT04786990|169057140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661733|NCT04786990|169057140|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0002
84661734|NCT04786990|169057141|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661735|NCT04786990|169057141|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated for the comparison between time points for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed. There is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661736|NCT04786990|169057142|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0685
84661737|NCT04786990|169057142|OTHER|||||||0.2575||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.2575
84508563|NCT02275364|168768253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||0.07|-0.03|0.4621
84661738|NCT04786990|169057143|OTHER|||||||0.0832||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0832
84661739|NCT04786990|169057143|OTHER|||||||0.3715||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.3715
84661740|NCT04786990|169057144|OTHER|||||||0.0042||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0042
84661741|NCT04786990|169057144|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0019
84661742|NCT04786990|169057145|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661743|NCT04786990|169057145|OTHER|||||||0.0025||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0025
84661744|NCT04786990|169057146|OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0161
84661745|NCT04786990|169057146|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0122
84661746|NCT04786990|169057147|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661747|NCT04786990|169057147|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661748|NCT04786990|169057148|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0002
84661749|NCT04786990|169057148|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661750|NCT04786990|169057149|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661751|NCT04786990|169057149|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661752|NCT04786990|169057150|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
84661753|NCT04786990|169057151|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
84661754|NCT04786990|169057152|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0016
84661755|NCT04786990|169057153|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.8900
84661756|NCT04786990|169057154|OTHER|||||||0.3269||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3269
84661757|NCT04786990|169057155|OTHER|||||||0.5085||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5085
84661758|NCT04786990|169057156|OTHER|||||||0.3484||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3484
84508564|NCT01200394|168768311|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.843||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.975||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than 0% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio and corresponding 95% credible intervals were calculated.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic blood pressure (BP) as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||0.975|0.728|0.9889
84661759|NCT04786990|169057157|OTHER|||||||0.4385||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.4385
84661760|NCT04786990|169057158|OTHER|||||||0.5073||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5073
84661761|NCT04786990|169057159|OTHER|||||||0.9119||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.9119
84661762|NCT04786990|169057160|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0140
84661763|NCT04786990|169057161|OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.1542
84661764|NCT04786990|169057162|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0086
84661765|NCT04786990|169057163|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661766|NCT04786990|169057163|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661767|NCT04786990|169057164|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84661768|NCT04786990|169057164|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84661769|NCT04786990|169057165|OTHER|||||||0.5582||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 4; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5582
84661770|NCT04786990|169057166|OTHER|||||||0.5061||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 8; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5061
84661771|NCT00923247|169057179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1, day 1 vs. cycle 3, day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib Cmax (normalized to dose).||||0.019
84661772|NCT00923247|169057180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib AUCinf (normalized to dose).||||0.052
84661773|NCT00923247|169057181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib half-life.||||0.440
84661774|NCT00923247|169057182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib clearance.||||0.016
84661775|NCT00923247|169057183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase I portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib volume of distribution.||||0.010
84661776|NCT01782222|169057185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.50|-2.42|0.977
84661777|NCT01782222|169057185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.18|-2.61|0.859
84661778|NCT01782222|169057186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-2.28|-12.30|0.005
84661779|NCT01782222|169057186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.21|-10.90|0.015
84661780|NCT01782222|169057187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-8.17|0.200
84661781|NCT01782222|169057187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.10|-8.19|0.239
84661782|NCT01782222|169057188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||4.31|-8.48|0.519
84661783|NCT01782222|169057188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.17|-11.29|0.111
84661784|NCT01782222|169057189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.15|-7.39|0.060
84661785|NCT01782222|169057189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-0.30|-7.46|0.034
84661786|NCT01782222|169057190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-1.16|0.334
84661787|NCT01782222|169057190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.77|-0.74|0.968
84661788|NCT01782222|169057191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.66|-2.34|0.899
84661789|NCT01782222|169057191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.03|-2.68|0.785
84661790|NCT01782222|169057192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.01|-8.91|0.014
84661791|NCT01782222|169057192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|-1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.03|-8.63|0.013
84661792|NCT03791489|169057221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84661793|NCT03791489|169057222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
84661794|NCT00646776|169057270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.188|1.835|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.835|1.188|
84661795|NCT00646776|169057271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.025|3.06|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||3.060|2.025|
84661796|NCT00646776|169057272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.402|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.052|1.867|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.867|1.052|
84661797|NCT00646776|169057273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.098|||ANOVA|||||1.098|0.817|
84661798|NCT00646776|169057274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.745||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5569|0.9967|||ANOVA|||||0.9967|0.5569|0.0963
84661799|NCT00646776|169057275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.015|||ANOVA|||||1.015|0.723|
84661800|NCT00646776|169057278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.809|||ANOVA|||||0.809|0.538|
84690301|NCT01216163|169119167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|9.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.28|5.21|<0.001
84661801|NCT00646776|169057279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.986|||ANOVA|||||0.986|0.430|
84661802|NCT00646776|169057280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.563|0.862|||ANOVA|||||0.862|0.563|
84661803|NCT00646776|169057286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|10.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.135|14.61|||ANOVA|||||14.610|8.135|
84661804|NCT00646776|169057287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|7.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.133|9.833|||ANCOVA|||||9.833|6.133|
84661805|NCT00646776|169057288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|11.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.147|16.095|||ANOVA|||||16.095|8.147|
84661806|NCT00646776|169057289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.783|2.691|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||2.691|1.783|
84661807|NCT01482884|169057326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.5||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants responding on tralokinumab is less than or equal to the proportion of participants responding on placebo.||22.5|-13.0|0.4062
84661808|NCT01482884|169057327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|Mayo score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment and glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as factors in the model.||||0.65|-1.63|0.3937
84661809|NCT01482884|169057328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|28.3||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.3|-4.0|0.1043
84661810|NCT01482884|169057329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.1||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.1|0.7|0.0326
84661811|NCT01482884|169057331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||ANCOVA|Modified Riley score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment as factors in the model.||||0.91|-0.41|0.4490
84661812|NCT02044393|169057337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.371|87.959|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment (in plasma)||87.959|62.371|
84661813|NCT02044393|169057337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.04|95.56|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||95.56|78.04|
84661814|NCT02044393|169057338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|95.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.195|108.537|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in plasma)||108.537|84.195|
84661815|NCT02044393|169057338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|93.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.142|101.57|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in whole blood)||101.570|86.142|
84661816|NCT02044393|169057339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.946|89.035|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in plasma)||89.035|62.946|
84661817|NCT02044393|169057339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|88.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|98.95|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||98.95|78.60|
84661818|NCT02144233|169057369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84661819|NCT00482612|169057391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84661820|NCT00482612|169057391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84661821|NCT00482612|169057391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84661822|NCT00482612|169057392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0014
84661823|NCT00482612|169057392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0135
84661824|NCT00482612|169057392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84661825|NCT03654651|169057405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.7|
84661826|NCT03654651|169057405|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.7|
84661827|NCT03654651|169057405|OTHER|Change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.2|
84661828|NCT03654651|169057406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-4.8|
84661829|NCT03654651|169057406|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
84661830|NCT03654651|169057406|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
84661831|NCT03654651|169057407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.2|
84661832|NCT03654651|169057407|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|
84661833|NCT03654651|169057407|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.1|
84661834|NCT03654651|169057408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP||4.6|-3.1|
84661835|NCT03654651|169057408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP||2.9|-2.1|
84661836|NCT03654651|169057408|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||3.3|-2.5|
84661837|NCT03654651|169057408|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-3.1|
84661838|NCT03654651|169057408|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2.5|-1.5|
84661839|NCT03654651|169057408|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2|-2|
84661840|NCT03654651|169057409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP||4.4|-2.4|
84661841|NCT03654651|169057409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP||3.3|-1.7|
84661842|NCT03654651|169057409|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||3.1|-1.9|
84661843|NCT03654651|169057409|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||2.1|-2.9|
84661844|NCT03654651|169057409|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-1.5|
84508565|NCT01200394|168768311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|||||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than or equal to 20% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic BP as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||||0.2402
84508566|NCT01200394|168768312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8759||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7727|0.9927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9927|0.7727|0.0382
84508567|NCT01200394|168768312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8311||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7208|0.9584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9584|0.7208|0.0112
84508568|NCT01200394|168768312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8816||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7427|1.0465|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0465|0.7427|0.1490
84508569|NCT01200394|168768313|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8565||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.9847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9847|0.7450|0.0297
84661845|NCT03654651|169057409|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||1.6|-2.4|
84661846|NCT03654651|169057410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.1|
84661847|NCT03654651|169057410|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|0.1|
84661848|NCT03654651|169057410|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|
84661849|NCT03654651|169057411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.9|
84661850|NCT03654651|169057411|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-3.7|
84661851|NCT03654651|169057411|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-4.0|
84661852|NCT03654651|169057412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-1.4|
84661853|NCT03654651|169057412|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-2.1|
84661854|NCT03654651|169057412|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-6.8|
84661855|NCT03654651|169057413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.3|
84661856|NCT03654651|169057413|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|
84661857|NCT03654651|169057413|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.6|
84661858|NCT03654651|169057414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.2|-3.8|
84661859|NCT03654651|169057414|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-4.9|
84661860|NCT03654651|169057414|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-7.8|
84661861|NCT03654651|169057415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-18.3|
84661862|NCT03654651|169057415|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-29.1|
84661863|NCT03654651|169057415|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-17.1|
84661864|NCT03654651|169057416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|
84661865|NCT03654651|169057416|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.1|
84661866|NCT03654651|169057416|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.5|
84661867|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.44||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||2.44|-1.20|
84661868|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|4.73||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||4.73|1.05|
84661869|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.95||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||3.95|0.28|
84661870|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
84661871|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 5.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
84661872|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.32||||||Comparison at 6.0 hours postdose.||5.32|1.64|
84661873|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.97||||||Comparison at 8.0 hours postdose.||3.97|0.27|
84508570|NCT01200394|168768313|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8524||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7376|0.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9850|0.7376|0.0305
84690302|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|29.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||29.84|12.99|<0.001
84690303|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.58||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|13.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.70|-10.54|0.799
84690304|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|28.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||28.72|11.45|0.001
84690305|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|53.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.92|63.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.53|42.92|<0.001
84690306|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.98||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|11.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.70|-17.67|0.695
84508571|NCT01200394|168768313|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7937||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6717|0.9378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9378|0.6717|0.0068
84661874|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|3.51||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||3.51|-0.17|
84661875|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|3.59||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||3.59|-1.57|
84661876|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|7.57||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||7.57|2.40|
84661877|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.71|8.86||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||8.86|3.71|
84661878|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|8.93||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||8.93|3.78|
84661879|NCT01606436|169057433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|7.31||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||7.31|2.11|
84661880|NCT04294472|169057439|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.1866|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1866
84661881|NCT04294472|169057439|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.2627|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2627
84661882|NCT04294472|169057440|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.0639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0639
84661883|NCT04294472|169057440|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.0508|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0508
84661884|NCT03552198|169057494|OTHER|||||||0.964|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline measures, tested for differences between intervention and control groups in preventative behaviours at 4 weeks||We predicted that the groups receiving the alternative format of air quality notifications would report greater frequency of behaviour change at 4 weeks compared to the groups receiving the usual format.||||.964
84661885|NCT03552198|169057495|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|χ2(1)=4.11, V=0.229||We predicted that more respondents in the intervention groups (i.e. receiving alternative health advice) would consider making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time compared to the control groups||||0.043
84661886|NCT03552198|169057496|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We predicted that the alternative health advice would lead to greater actual behaviour change compared to the usual format||||>0.05
84661887|NCT03552198|169057497|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline intentions, tested for differences between groups in intentions in relation to an high-air-pollution scenario at 4 weeks||We predicted that the alternative format would lead to stronger intentions to adhere to recommendations associated with an hypothetical high air pollution episode compared to the usual format.||||>0.05
84690307|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|57.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.53|67.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.60|46.53|<0.001
84661888|NCT02289417|169057499|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.2||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of oral (PO) corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.6|3.4|0.0142
84690308|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|70.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.28|80.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.88|60.28|<0.001
84690309|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.99||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|21.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.84|-5.85|0.261
84690310|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|73.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.99|51.78|<0.001
84690311|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.77|78.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.71|53.77|<0.001
84690312|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.38||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|17.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.64|-8.89|0.522
84690313|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.06|74.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.80|49.06|<0.001
84690314|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.61|79.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.09|53.61|<0.001
84690315|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|18.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.44|-7.53|0.415
84661889|NCT02289417|169057499|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.7||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method|||22.0|-6.9|0.2689
84661890|NCT02289417|169057500|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.5|-3.6|0.1224
84661891|NCT02289417|169057500|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.4||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.0|1.1|0.0401
84661892|NCT02289417|169057501|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|5.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||16.7|-5.7|0.2472
84661893|NCT02289417|169057501|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.1||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||14.6|-7.5|0.4628
84661894|NCT02289417|169057502|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|47.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.4|13.8|0.0005
84661895|NCT02289417|169057502|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.7||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.5|-14.4|0.6878
84661896|NCT02289417|169057503|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|11.5||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||26.1|-4.1|0.1388
84508572|NCT01200394|168768313|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8634||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.0368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0368|0.7190|0.1151
84661897|NCT02289417|169057503|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|13.5||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.7||Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||27.7|-1.6|0.0788
84661898|NCT02289417|169057504|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|24.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||40.1|7.5|0.0046
84661899|NCT02289417|169057504|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|6.0||||0.4476||95.0|-9.8|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.6|-9.8|0.4476
84661900|NCT02289417|169057505|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.7||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.5|-1.4|0.0755
84661901|NCT02289417|169057505|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.4|1.5|0.0370
84661902|NCT02289417|169057506|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.4|-3.3|0.1167
84661903|NCT02289417|169057506|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|18.1||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||34.9|-0.3|0.0534
84661904|NCT02289417|169057507|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.6||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.3|-1.5|0.0758
84661905|NCT02289417|169057507|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.5|14.9|0.0004
84661906|NCT02725710|169057512|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
84661907|NCT01691781|169057539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.049
84661908|NCT01691781|169057539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants (without primary hyperparathyroidism).||||0.80
84661909|NCT01691781|169057540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This p-value reflects the comparison of means among the primary hyperparathyroidism group only.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.22
84661910|NCT01691781|169057540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||This p-value reflects the mean difference in 24h aldosterone excretion rate among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.86
84661911|NCT01691781|169057541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the primary hyperparathyroidism group.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.48
84661912|NCT01691781|169057541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.80
84690316|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.65|74.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.19|47.65|<0.001
84690317|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|65.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.18|78.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.46|52.18|<0.001
84690318|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.21||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|16.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.81|-8.39|0.519
84690319|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690320|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690321|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690322|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690323|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690324|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690325|NCT01216163|169119168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690326|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|36.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.93|15.87|<0.001
84690327|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.53||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.91|-9.85|0.602
84690328|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|22.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|33.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.05|12.39|0.001
84508573|NCT01200394|168768314|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9816||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9434|1.0214|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0214|0.9434|0.3585
84508574|NCT01200394|168768314|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9939||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9577|1.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0315|0.9577|0.7475
84690329|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.61|72.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.12|48.61|<0.001
84690330|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.25||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|16.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.59|-12.10|0.761
84690331|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|70.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||70.05|46.59|<0.001
84690332|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|67.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.91|80.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.12|54.91|<0.001
84690333|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.42||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|18.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.18|-7.34|0.410
84690334|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.96|75.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.29|48.96|<0.001
84690335|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|68.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.11|81.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.16|56.11|<0.001
84690336|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690337|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|63.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.32|76.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.35|50.32|<0.001
84690338|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690339|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690340|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690341|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690342|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690343|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690344|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690345|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690346|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690347|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690348|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690349|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690350|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
84690351|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
84690352|NCT01216163|169119169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
84690353|NCT01216163|169119170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
84690354|NCT01216163|169119170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.28|0.45|0.303
84690355|NCT01216163|169119170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.28|0.10|<0.001
84690356|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-24.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.80|-55.39|<0.001
84690357|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.12||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.28|-4.52|0.958
84661913|NCT03978520|169057542|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.8|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||27.1|-1.6|=0.081
84661914|NCT03978520|169057542|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||31.9|1.8|=0.028
84661915|NCT03978520|169057542|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||11.4|-20.8|=0.566
84661916|NCT03978520|169057543|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.3|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||32.6|3.9|=0.013
84661917|NCT03978520|169057543|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.1|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||33.2|3.0|=0.018
84661918|NCT03978520|169057543|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.2|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||15.2|-17.6|=0.882
84690358|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-24.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.87|-55.51|<0.001
84690359|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-48.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.99|-77.81|<0.001
84690360|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|1.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.57|-15.91|0.108
84690361|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-41.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-41.09|-71.68|<0.001
84690362|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-71.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|-57.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.93|-84.09|<0.001
84690363|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|1.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.16|-20.18|0.083
84690364|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|-46.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.87|-75.40|<0.001
84690365|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|-52.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-52.66|-80.08|<0.001
84690366|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-11.03||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.21|-23.37|0.079
84690367|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|-40.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.85|-70.12|<0.001
84690368|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-57.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|-42.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.77|-71.90|<0.001
84690369|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.73||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|5.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.63|-21.08|0.263
84690370|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.74|-35.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-35.12|-64.74|<0.001
84508575|NCT01200394|168768314|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9866||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9488|1.0259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0259|0.9488|0.4972
84508576|NCT01200394|168768314|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0024||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9588|1.0481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0481|0.9588|0.9146
84690371|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.62|-37.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-37.88|-67.62|<0.001
84690372|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.51||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|8.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.25|-19.27|0.439
84690373|NCT01216163|169119171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.62|-32.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-32.83|-62.62|<0.001
84690374|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.17|-3.59|0.294
84690375|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.21||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.58|-1.16|0.458
84690376|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.81||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.06|1.57|0.073
84690377|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.96||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.85|-4.94|0.583
84690378|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.81||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.49|0.14|0.137
84508577|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.84|-7.94|<0.0001
84690379|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.81|32.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.91|14.81|<0.001
84690380|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.45||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.33|-3.43|0.165
84690381|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|15.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|23.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.26|7.66|0.006
84690382|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|39.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.05|19.78|<0.001
84690383|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.61||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|17.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.99|-8.78|0.497
84690384|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|34.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.46|15.81|<0.001
84690385|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|31.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|43.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||43.53|20.03|<0.001
84690386|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.7||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|20.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.79|-7.38|0.349
84690387|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|36.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.94|13.73|<0.001
84690388|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.47|49.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.81|25.47|<0.001
84690389|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|23.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.42|-5.72|0.233
84690390|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|40.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||40.75|17.17|<0.001
84690391|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.87|51.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.60|25.87|<0.001
84690392|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
84690393|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.71|41.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.66|16.71|<0.001
84690394|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|36.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|49.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.88|23.22|<0.001
84508578|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.04|-5.38|<0.0001
84690395|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
84690396|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
84690397|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.36|51.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.07|24.36|<0.001
84690398|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.97||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|25.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.61|-3.67|0.144
84690399|NCT01216163|169119172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
84690400|NCT01216163|169119173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.96|0.78|<0.001
84690401|NCT01216163|169119173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.45|0.05|0.020
84690402|NCT01216163|169119173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.91|0.63|<0.001
84690403|NCT01552954|169119175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||for albuminuria changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences with two-tailed P\<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
84690404|NCT01552954|169119175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84690405|NCT01552954|169119175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks in intensive education group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84690406|NCT01552954|169119176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||for hemoglobin changes from week 0 at week 16 (week 0 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
84690407|NCT01552954|169119177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||for changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84690408|NCT01552954|169119178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||for sBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84690409|NCT01552954|169119178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|||||for dBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
84690410|NCT00576732|169119185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-3.52||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|"A step-down testing procedure was employed with the risperidone high dose versus placebo comparison tested first. If this comparison was significant the risperidone low dose versus placebo comparison would be performed.~A clinically relevant difference in the change from baseline on the ABC Irritability subscale was assumed to be 6 with a standard deviation of 8. To achieve 80% power with Type I error rate of 5%, 93 subjects were required."||-3.52|-12.19|<0.001
84690411|NCT00576732|169119185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.27||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||1.27|-7.36|0.164
84690412|NCT00576732|169119186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.004
84508579|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.72|-6.46|<0.0001
84508580|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4056||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.24|-3.29|0.7093
84661919|NCT03978520|169057544|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.7|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||29.4|0.0|=0.049
84661920|NCT03978520|169057544|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||30.1|-2.2|=0.091
84661921|NCT03978520|169057544|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-6.3|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||9.9|-22.5|=0.447
84661922|NCT03978520|169057545|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.7|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||28.9|4.5|=0.007
84661923|NCT03978520|169057545|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo||44.0|18.1|<0.001
84508581|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9089||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.20|-1.39|0.6564
84690413|NCT00576732|169119186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.817
84690414|NCT00576732|169119187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value.|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.33|-1.02|<0.001
84690415|NCT00576732|169119187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||0.29|-0.39|0.769
84690416|NCT00576732|169119188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||<0.001
84690417|NCT00576732|169119188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.985
84690418|NCT02296190|169119204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher's exact test to compare the conversion rate between the MSP-2017 groups and the placebo group.||||<0.05
84690419|NCT02087501|169119217|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6|||||The CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||11.6|0|
84690420|NCT02087501|169119217|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||||||||11.6|0|
84690421|NCT02087501|169119218|OTHER||Sample proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0|||||CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||100|88.4|
84690422|NCT02087501|169119219|OTHER||Sample proportion|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|92.0||||||||92|61|
84690423|NCT00094328|169119222|OTHER|One sample t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (cm/year) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.48|-4.72|0.278
84690424|NCT00094328|169119223|OTHER|One sample t-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (SD units) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.00|-1.15|0.882
84690425|NCT03682705|169119231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|-0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) analysis was conducted, testing the superiority of the combination of upadacitinib 15 mg and elsubrutinib 60 mg compared to placebo at Week 12. Data collected after a participant discontinued study drug was considered as missing. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline DAS28 (CRP) measurement.||-0.85|-2.03|<0.001
84690426|NCT01483937|169119253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.533
84690427|NCT00402337|169119299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0337
84690428|NCT00402337|169119299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0010
84690429|NCT00402337|169119299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
84690430|NCT00402337|169119299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
84690431|NCT01301274|169119388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|beta error 20%, alfa error 5%, diminished 2 mEq/L between groups||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84690432|NCT01301274|169119389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||without adjust|Chi-squared|||||||0.081
84690433|NCT01301274|169119390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
84690434|NCT01301274|169119391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.129
84690435|NCT04064242|169119407|OTHER|A Bayesian model for repeated measurements including data collected at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 was applied to compare FVC between CMK389 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|0.6|||Bayesian analysis|Posterior probability that treatment is better than placebo.|80% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||0.60|-3.56|0.1804
84690436|NCT04064242|169119413|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.02|-0.09|0.783
84690437|NCT04064242|169119414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|0.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.68|-1.05|0.608
84508582|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0334||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.87|-2.20|0.8763
84690438|NCT04064242|169119415|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.126||0.479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.35|17.76|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||17.76|-16.35|0.479
84690439|NCT00445679|169119427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.37||||||||6.37|-12.62|
84690440|NCT00445679|169119427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.25||||||||10.25|-8.50|
84690441|NCT00445679|169119427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|7.33||||||||7.33|-11.68|
84690442|NCT00445679|169119428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.714
84690443|NCT00445679|169119428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.653
84690444|NCT00445679|169119428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.881
84690445|NCT00445679|169119429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.450
84690446|NCT00445679|169119429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.452
84690447|NCT00445679|169119429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.850
84690448|NCT01353222|169119442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.918|||From a stratified log-rank test, stratif||Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata. Hazard ratio with control as reference.|||1.918|0.679|0.6188
84690449|NCT00909428|169119474|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.803||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change from baseline maximal tolerated cystometric capacity following 30 days of treatment with daily 10mg solifenacin succinate.||||.005
84690450|NCT03021668|169119475|EQUIVALENCE|Chi2 test was performed to analyze difference in rates of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) between the two groups||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84690451|NCT03021668|169119476|EQUIVALENCE|Students' T-test was used to evaluate any difference in length of stay between the two groups.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84690452|NCT01933880|169119481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Signed Rank Sum Test|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0387
84690453|NCT01933880|169119482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 1 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
84690454|NCT01933880|169119483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 2 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0001
84690455|NCT01933880|169119484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 3 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
84690456|NCT01933880|169119485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 7 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
84690457|NCT01933880|169119486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
84690458|NCT00510458|169119510|OTHER|It is expected that the mean linear wear rate is not more than 0.08 mm per year or 0.05 mm per year superior to the reference control, which was 0.13 mm per year. The reference control was determined from the control group within the Post-approval Study of the ABC and Trident® Systems (NCT00960206).|mean linear wear rate at 5 yrs|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0107|0.0267||||||||.0267|-0.0107|
84690459|NCT00510458|169119511|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84690460|NCT00510458|169119512|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS pain score compared to the post-operative HHS pain score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84690461|NCT00510458|169119513|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS ROM compared to the post-operative HHS ROM at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84690462|NCT00510458|169119514|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Physical component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Physical component score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84690463|NCT00510458|169119514|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 1 year is statistically significant.||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
84690464|NCT00510458|169119514|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 3 years is statistically significant.||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4974
84690465|NCT00510458|169119514|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6770
84690466|NCT00510458|169119515|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 1 year and 3 years is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84690467|NCT00510458|169119515|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
84690468|NCT00045435|169119572|OTHER||Percent|47.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||69.0|||||The criterion for stopping was not met.|The study was to be stopped after 20 patients if the upper bound of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval for relapse-free survival was \<35%.||69||
84690469|NCT00045435|169119573|OTHER||percent|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0|1.0||||||The stopping criterion was not met.|The study was to be stopped if the lower bound of a 1-sided 80% confidence interval for NRM was greater than 15%|||1|
84690470|NCT02172625|169119604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
84690471|NCT02172625|169119605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
84690472|NCT02172625|169119609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
84690473|NCT03315130|169119610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.1|-4.5|=0.0941
84690474|NCT03315130|169119610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-5.1|=0.0538
84690475|NCT03315130|169119611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|-0.5||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.5|-3.9|=0.0470
84690476|NCT03315130|169119611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-4.0|=0.0392
84690477|NCT03315130|169119612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|-2.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-2.1|-8.4|=0.0170
84690478|NCT03315130|169119612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-6.9|=0.0624
84690479|NCT03315130|169119613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|0.9||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||0.9|-4.9|=0.1866
84690480|NCT03315130|169119613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.0391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.0|-1.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-1.1|-7.0|=0.0391
84690481|NCT03315130|169119617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.249|-77.946||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-77.946|-87.249|<0.0001
84690482|NCT03315130|169119617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-95.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-100.794|-90.585||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-90.585|-100.794|<0.0001
84690483|NCT03315130|169119618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|47.839|72.408||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||72.408|47.839|<0.0001
84690484|NCT03315130|169119618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|57.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.269|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|44.955|69.197||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||69.197|44.955|<0.0001
84690485|NCT02707692|169119623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-988.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2996.3|1020.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||1020.3|-2996.3|0.32
84690486|NCT02707692|169119623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-405.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.7|389.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||389.7|-1199.7|0.31
84690487|NCT00552786|169119648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two-sided|ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
84690488|NCT00552786|169119649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at 3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
84508583|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4926||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.46|-3.42|0.7491
84508584|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9235||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.35|-2.29|0.6141
84508585|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0582||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.42|-2.75|0.5281
84508586|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8764||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||4.50|-2.90|0.6695
84690489|NCT03549234|169119656|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB (paravertebral block) using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that 1) analgesia would be noninferior in the recovery room as measured on a Numeric Rating Scale with ESPB (erector spinae plane block), and 2) opioid consumption would be noninferior in the operating and recovery rooms with ESPB. We simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 2 (0-3). The sample size of 50 per group provided 81% power to detect noninferiority in pain.||||0.0011
84690490|NCT03549234|169119657|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0043
84690491|NCT01590771|169119670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Robust regression|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.44||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|||-0.44|-0.77|<0.001
84690492|NCT01590771|169119671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-20.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-20.4|-45.4|<0.001
84690493|NCT01590771|169119672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-10.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline FPG value.|Robust regression|||||-10.2|-23.3|<0.001
84690494|NCT01590771|169119673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.2||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.63|<0.001
84690495|NCT01590771|169119674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.07|<0.001
84690496|NCT01590771|169119675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-13.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|Robust regression|||||-13.2|-41.2|<0.001
84690497|NCT01590771|169119676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-18.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-56.9|<0.001
84690498|NCT01590771|169119677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-7.8||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.8|-25.3|<0.001
84690499|NCT01590771|169119678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-7.1||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.1|-26.9|<0.001
84690500|NCT02019563|169119681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.49|.08|.15
84690501|NCT02019563|169119682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.89|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.89|.19|.38
84690502|NCT02019563|169119683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.51
84690503|NCT02019563|169119684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.64
84690504|NCT02019563|169119685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value represents the survival rate from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis from 6 to 36 months.|Log Rank|||||||.11
84508587|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.49|-2.74|0.5607
84690505|NCT01015807|169119701|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||We estimated that 25 subjects per group would allow us to detect a reduction of this area from 7.5 cm2 in our placebo group to 3.5 cm2 in the CloTAP group, with SD = 5 cm2 in both groups, owing to improved overall analgesia and reduced pain sensitization in women allocated to receive a TAP block with clonidine (2-tailed \[alpha\] = 0.05, 80% power). To allow for failed TAP blocks and/or exclusions of cases, we included 30 patients per group (n = 90)||||0.48
84690506|NCT02687412|169119715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
84690507|NCT02687412|169119716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4041.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1831.042||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7672.301|-411.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-411.065|-7672.301|0.029
84690508|NCT02687412|169119717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.3739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4198||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6414|33.1065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||33.1065|7.6414|0.002
84690509|NCT02687412|169119718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
84690510|NCT02687412|169119719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
84690511|NCT02687412|169119720|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84690512|NCT02687412|169119721|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84690513|NCT02687412|169119722|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84690514|NCT02687412|169119723|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84690515|NCT02687412|169119724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.10046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1915||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4819|0.2817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2817|-0.4819|0.601
84690516|NCT02687412|169119725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|317.79||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.0|794.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||794|-465|0.605
84690517|NCT03239873|169119731|NON_INFERIORITY|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-2.7|<0.001
84690518|NCT03239873|169119731|OTHER|Acceptability|Antibody Response Rate|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|99.6|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||99.6|95.9|<0.001
84690519|NCT03239873|169119732|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority of the GMT corresponds to the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[VARIVAX® PE34 process/VARIVAX® 2016 commercial product\] being \>0.67.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.1|0.9|<0.001
84690520|NCT03239873|169119733|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 1||7.1|-3.1|0.436
84690521|NCT03239873|169119733|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 2||7.5|-1.6|0.204
84508588|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2722||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.23|-2.78|0.8297
84690522|NCT03239873|169119734|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||0.4|-3.5|0.102
84690523|NCT03239873|169119734|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Rubella-like rash||1.9|-0.9|0.317
84690524|NCT03239873|169119734|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.241||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||4.0|-1.0|0.241
84690525|NCT03239873|169119734|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||0.9|-1.9|0.318
84690526|NCT03239873|169119735|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||3.4|-0.7|0.170
84690527|NCT03239873|169119735|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||1.4|-2.2|0.576
84690528|NCT03239873|169119735|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||2.0|-1.0|0.312
84690529|NCT03239873|169119736|OTHER||Difference of Percentage|-1.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||4.0|-5.9|0.696
84690530|NCT03239873|169119736|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||6.2|-4.7|0.796
84690531|NCT03239873|169119736|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7||||0.111||95.0|-6.2|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||0.7|-6.2|0.111
84690532|NCT03239873|169119737|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||6.4|-6.9|0.931
84690533|NCT03239873|169119737|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.6||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||3.4|-6.6|0.523
84690534|NCT03239873|169119737|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||6.9|-2.9|0.415
84690535|NCT03239873|169119738|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.7|-3.4|
84690536|NCT03239873|169119739|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||2.6|-2.5|
84690537|NCT03239873|169119740|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.8|-6.1|
84690538|NCT03239873|169119741|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.2|-4.7|
84690539|NCT03239873|169119746|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
84690540|NCT03239873|169119747|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
84690541|NCT03239873|169119750|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||10.3|-4.6|
84690542|NCT00708526|169119763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A Bonferroni correction was used.||We compared times for discharge criteria after general anesthesia with and without the QED.||||>0.05
84690543|NCT00708526|169119764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The effect of the use of hypercapnia and increased ventilation on the time to recovery events was compared using multivariate analysis of variance with the Hotelling's two sample T2.-test and the two-tailed unpaired t-test; individual comparisons were by Bonferroni adjusted two tailed unpaired t-tests. The data was tested for normality before identifying statistical significance.||||0.039
84690544|NCT01703702|169119773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.38|||Chi-squared|||||2.38|1.22|0.002
84690545|NCT01703702|169119774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.84|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline ADAS-Cog score, study arm, Alzheimer's treatment, country, and interaction between study arm and Alzheimer's treatment.||||0.84|-1.54|0.568
84690546|NCT01703702|169119775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|96.12|||Chi-squared|||||96.12|20|<0.001
84690547|NCT01703702|169119776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.95|22.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), physician/practice type, country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-)||Comparison of change in diagnostic confidence at follow-up (3 months)||22.43|18.95|<0.001
84690548|NCT01703702|169119777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.92|0.144
84690549|NCT01703702|169119778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.53|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline scale, Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-).||||3.53|-3.20|0.925
84690550|NCT01703702|169119779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Major Diagnostic Tests||1.54|0.70|0.857
84690551|NCT01703702|169119779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.81|||Chi-squared|||Alzheimer's/Cognitive Medication||2.81|1.36|<0.001
84690552|NCT01703702|169119779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.64|||Chi-squared|||Neuropsychological Tests||2.64|0.97|0.063
84690553|NCT01703702|169119779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Physician Follow-up for Re-evaluation||1.70|0.69|0.741
84690554|NCT01703702|169119779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Chi-squared|||Specialist Referral||2.08|1.01|0.046
84690555|NCT00462670|169119805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.60|-1.58|<0.0001
84690556|NCT00462670|169119806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-2.54|<0.0001
84690557|NCT02002884|169119807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Extended and Revised (GMFCS-E\&R) level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||-0.04|-0.4|= 0.017
84690558|NCT02002884|169119807|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.07|||=|0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||0.15|-0.29|= 0.546
84690559|NCT02002884|169119808|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|0.09|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, pooled site and pretreatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.28|-0.1|= 0.34
84690560|NCT02002884|169119808|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.12|||=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.11|-0.36|= 0.297
84690561|NCT02966002|169119822|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84690562|NCT02966002|169119823|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84690563|NCT02966002|169119824|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84690564|NCT02966002|169119825|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84690565|NCT01454830|169119889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement, hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.20
84690566|NCT01454830|169119890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.90
84690567|NCT01454830|169119891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.89
84690568|NCT01454830|169119892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: % TST; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Exploratory outcome of PAP use defined within the sleep period, TST (total sleep time).||||0.78
84690569|NCT01616771|169119910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
84508589|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7065||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||3.87|-2.85|0.7644
84661924|NCT03978520|169057545|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.7|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||1.0|-28.4|=0.068
84661925|NCT03978520|169057546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|=|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.23|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.23|-0.84|=0.710
84508590|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9917||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.61|-1.30|0.5123
84690570|NCT01616771|169119911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
84690571|NCT02091739|169119924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square (LS) means estimates of an mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units versus (v) Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.03|-0.15|= 0.004
84690572|NCT02091739|169119924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.04|-0.08|= 0.542
84690573|NCT02091739|169119925|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.94|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.94|0.22|= 0.002
84690574|NCT02091739|169119925|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.71|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.71|-0.01|= 0.055
84690575|NCT00868699|169119930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
84690576|NCT00868699|169119930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
84690577|NCT00868699|169119931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
84690578|NCT00868699|169119931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
84690579|NCT00868699|169119932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.003|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||0.003
84690580|NCT00868699|169119932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
84690581|NCT01905046|169119935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.62|||Chi-squared|||||2.62|0.36|0.951
84690582|NCT01395823|169119965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84690583|NCT03300570|169119966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84690584|NCT00116272|169119969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.35|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||7.35|1.04|
84690585|NCT00116272|169119970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.52|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||5.52|1.02|
84690586|NCT00116272|169119971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. No adjusted estimate was computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||2.01|0.70|
84690587|NCT00116272|169119973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), and maternal height.|||1.12|0.20|
84690588|NCT00116272|169119974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.98|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for preeclampsia|||2.98|0.86|
84690589|NCT00116272|169119975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for referral source (not collapsed), vitamin use (not collapsed), preeclampsia, and asthma because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||0.26|-0.65|
84690590|NCT00116272|169119976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|21.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|126.91|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for asthma, RA2 severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||126.91|-83.32|
84690591|NCT00116272|169119977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of preeclampsia and asthma.|||0.63|-0.44|
84690592|NCT00116272|169119978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for maternal age (categorical).|||0.26|-0.43|
84690593|NCT00116272|169119979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.05|0.22|
84690594|NCT00116272|169119980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.68|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||1.68|0.31|
84690595|NCT00116272|169119981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.57|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.57|0.40|
84690596|NCT00116272|169119982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|7.99|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, vitamin use, primary disease, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, PsO disease severity score at intake \& 32 weeks, disease severity imputation indicators|||7.99|-7.59|
84690597|NCT00116272|169119983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|8.81|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, maternal age (categorical), and referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other).|||8.81|-5.76|
84690598|NCT00116272|169119984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|6.65|||||Computed using linear regression. Directly adjusted for infant sex and other autoimmune diseases because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||6.65|-6.12|
84690599|NCT00116272|169119985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.62|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator.|||1.62|0.37|
84690600|NCT00116272|169119986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.14|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of country (U.S., Canada), primary disease, and maternal height.|||3.14|0.43|
84690601|NCT00116272|169119987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.65|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||2.65|0.29|
84690602|NCT00116272|169119988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.02|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||4.02|0.47|
84690603|NCT00116272|169119990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||1.69|0.65|
84690604|NCT00682643|169120009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.395
84690605|NCT00682643|169120010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.342
84690606|NCT00085202|169120027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8001
84690607|NCT00085202|169120027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5195
84508591|NCT01200394|168768315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1355||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.70|-1.77|0.6838
84690608|NCT00085202|169120027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7696||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7696
84690609|NCT00085202|169120028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0206
84690610|NCT00085202|169120030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change over time||||0.6231
84690611|NCT00085202|169120030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.5720
84690612|NCT03238300|169120038|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used||"With 31 participants, the study has 99% power to detect such effects on glutamate levels (calculated based on d =1.13 \[reported in Schmaal et al., 2012\], α = 0.05, two-tailed).~We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline metabolite levels and brain tissue composition \[GM:BM = GM/(GM+WM)\], cannabis use (days), and alcohol use disorder status (Yes/No) were included as covariates."||0.22|0.00|>0.05
84690613|NCT03238300|169120039|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo) for all ROIs.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used for all models.||Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages. We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline reactivity levels for each ROI, cannabis use (days), and an alcohol use covariate (quantity, frequency, AUD status, or AUD severity - depending on which best fit the model) were included as covariates. ROIs included were (left and right hemisphere): amygdala, caudate, insula, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.||||>0.05
84690614|NCT02081950|169120040|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|93.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|100.16||||||||100.16|87.56|
84690615|NCT02081950|169120041|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|100.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|105.42||||||||105.42|95.74|
84690616|NCT02081950|169120042|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|106.24||||||||106.24|96.32|
84690617|NCT02081950|169120043|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.49|101.73||||||||101.73|88.49|
84690618|NCT02081950|169120044|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|97.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.93|104.91||||||||104.91|89.93|
84690619|NCT02081950|169120045|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.61|123.91||||||||123.91|95.61|
84690620|NCT02081950|169120056|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|109.0||||||||109.0|96.31|
84690621|NCT02081950|169120057|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|116.11||||||||116.11|79.11|
84690622|NCT02081950|169120059|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|99.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.69|103.54||||||||103.54|95.69|
84690623|NCT02081950|169120063|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|98.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|101.51||||||||101.51|95.31|
84690624|NCT02081950|169120064|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|111.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|124.2||||||||124.2|99.73|
84690625|NCT02081950|169120067|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|104.57||||||||104.57|93.16|
84690626|NCT02081950|169120068|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|103.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|113.2||||||||113.2|94.5|
84690627|NCT02081950|169120069|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|92.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.58|107.16||||||||107.16|80.58|
84690628|NCT00110890|169120087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||13.36|5.72|<0.001
84690629|NCT00110890|169120088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.38|14.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||14.19|5.38|<0.001
84690630|NCT00110890|169120089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.0|4.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||4.84|2.00|<0.001
84690631|NCT00110890|169120090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|4.65|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||10.34|4.65|<0.001
84690632|NCT00110890|169120091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.002||95.0|1.26|2.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||2.81|1.26|0.002
84690633|NCT04512066|169120092|OTHER||treatment effect|0.6||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.78|-4.58|0.849
84690634|NCT04512066|169120092|OTHER||treatment effect|-2.83||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.96|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-7.96|0.362
84690635|NCT04512066|169120092|OTHER||treatment effect|-10.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|-5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.43|-15.46|0.001
84690636|NCT00116844|169120116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
84690637|NCT00116844|169120117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
84690638|NCT00116844|169120118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||<0.001
84690639|NCT00116844|169120119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.800
84690640|NCT00116844|169120120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.229
84690641|NCT00116844|169120121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||0.0331
84690642|NCT00524030|169120122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||Null hypothesis (H0): Exit rate greater than or equal to (≥)74%||||<0.001
84690643|NCT00524030|169120122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exite rate ≥68%||||<0.001
84690644|NCT00524030|169120123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥74%||||<0.001
84690645|NCT00524030|169120123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥68%||||0.001
84690646|NCT01486758|169120155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
84690647|NCT01486758|169120159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
84690648|NCT02608489|169120163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.221
84690649|NCT02608489|169120163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.015
84690650|NCT02608489|169120164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.256
84690651|NCT02608489|169120164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at Postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.025
84690652|NCT02608489|169120165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.080
84690653|NCT02608489|169120165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.021
84690654|NCT02608489|169120166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||<0.001
84690655|NCT02608489|169120166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||<0.001
84690656|NCT02608489|169120166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||<0.001
84690657|NCT02608489|169120167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.045
84690658|NCT02608489|169120168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.001
84690659|NCT02608489|169120168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||0.002
84690660|NCT02608489|169120168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||0.034
84690661|NCT02608489|169120169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.151
84690662|NCT01411501|169120171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.352
84690663|NCT01411501|169120172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.968
84690664|NCT01411501|169120173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.841
84690665|NCT01411501|169120174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84690666|NCT01411501|169120175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.198
84690667|NCT01411501|169120176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
84690668|NCT02254408|169120195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.040
84690669|NCT02254408|169120196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.18|0.22|0.11
84690670|NCT02254408|169120196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
84690671|NCT02254408|169120197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.28|0.98
84690672|NCT02254408|169120197|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84690673|NCT03980184|169120204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84690674|NCT03980184|169120205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
84690675|NCT03980184|169120206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
84690676|NCT03980184|169120208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84690677|NCT03980184|169120209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.647
84690678|NCT03980184|169120210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
84690679|NCT01077362|169120227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690680|NCT01077362|169120227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690681|NCT01077362|169120227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690682|NCT01077362|169120228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
84690683|NCT01077362|169120228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690684|NCT01077362|169120228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690685|NCT01077362|169120229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690686|NCT01077362|169120229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690687|NCT01077362|169120229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690688|NCT01077362|169120230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.018
84690689|NCT01077362|169120230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690690|NCT01077362|169120230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
84690691|NCT01077362|169120231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
84690692|NCT01077362|169120231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690693|NCT01077362|169120231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
84690694|NCT01077362|169120232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.171
84690695|NCT01077362|169120232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.060
84690696|NCT01077362|169120232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.094
84690697|NCT02294630|169120235|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
84690698|NCT03097861|169120254|OTHER|Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect|||||=|0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0020
84690699|NCT03097861|169120254|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect||||<0.0001
84690700|NCT02247804|169120262|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
84690701|NCT02247804|169120262|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
84690702|NCT02247804|169120262|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
84690703|NCT02247804|169120262|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
84690704|NCT02247804|169120263|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
84690705|NCT02247804|169120263|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
84690706|NCT02247804|169120264|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057||95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
84690707|NCT02247804|169120264|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031||95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
84690708|NCT02247804|169120265|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547||95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
84690709|NCT02247804|169120265|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107||95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
84690710|NCT02247804|169120266|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086||95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
84690711|NCT02247804|169120266|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
84690712|NCT02247804|169120267|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295||95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
84690713|NCT02247804|169120267|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
84690714|NCT02247804|169120268|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464||95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
84508592|NCT01200394|168768317|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9282||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7297|1.1807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.1807|0.7297|0.5422
84690715|NCT02247804|169120268|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383||95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
84690716|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
84690717|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
84690718|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
84690719|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
84690720|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
84690721|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
84690722|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
84690723|NCT02247804|169120269|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
84690724|NCT00152009|169120296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0006
84690725|NCT00152009|169120296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0005
84508593|NCT01200394|168768317|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7998||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6402|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9990|0.6402|0.0490
84690726|NCT00152009|169120296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84690727|NCT00152009|169120297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.025
84690728|NCT00152009|169120297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.035
84690729|NCT00152009|169120297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84690730|NCT00152009|169120298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84690731|NCT00152009|169120298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84690732|NCT00152009|169120298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
84690733|NCT00152009|169120299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84690734|NCT00152009|169120299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
84690735|NCT00152009|169120299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84690736|NCT00152009|169120300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84690737|NCT00152009|169120300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0013
84690738|NCT00152009|169120300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84690739|NCT00152009|169120301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1438||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1438
84690740|NCT00152009|169120301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1426
84690741|NCT00152009|169120301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.0191
84690742|NCT00393523|169120322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||95.2|92.1|97.1||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.1|92.1|<0.001
84690743|NCT00393523|169120322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||97.6|91.6|97.3||Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024). Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012.|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.3|91.6|<0.001
84690744|NCT00393523|169120322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|91.6||||0.19||95.2|88.0|94.4||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||94.4|88.0|0.19
84690745|NCT00393523|169120323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection Rate (SPR)|97.3||||||95.0|95.0|98.8|||||"Exact binomial confidence interval~Seroprotection Rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL"|The purpose of the secondary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate SPR in subjects who received a primary vaccination series of ENGERIX-B™ and a booster dose of modified process hepatitis B vaccine. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the SPR to exceed 90%.||98.8|95.0|
84690746|NCT00098254|169120408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0027
84690747|NCT00098254|169120410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.33
84690748|NCT00098254|169120411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.042
84690749|NCT00098254|169120412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.028
84690750|NCT02224482|169120419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.9634
84690751|NCT02224482|169120420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.5214
84690752|NCT02224482|169120421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.4875
84690753|NCT02224482|169120422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7938|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7938
84690754|NCT02224482|169120423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.6765
84690755|NCT02224482|169120424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7061
84690756|NCT02224482|169120425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7593
84690757|NCT00744263|169120426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.2|21.82|62.49|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1 - (proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||62.49|21.82|0.0006
84690758|NCT00744263|169120427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.2|14.21|65.31|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||65.31|14.21|0.0067
84690759|NCT00744263|169120428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|75.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.43|90.78|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||90.78|41.43|0.0005
84690760|NCT00744263|169120431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.979
84690761|NCT00744263|169120432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.455
84690762|NCT01121172|169120436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non parametric test||||||0.001
84690763|NCT01121172|169120437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test of frequency distribution amng obese study group and HapMap-CEU polymorphism distribution||||||0.232
84690764|NCT01975220|169120533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.275|102.751|||ANOVA||Adjusted geometric mean (GM) ratio(%) was calculated as GM of 'High dose, fasted:1 FDC tablet' divided by GM of 'High dose, fasted:3 single tablets'.The 'standard deviation' is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV (%)).|||102.751|97.275|<0.0001
84690765|NCT01975220|169120533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.857|100.436|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.436|93.857|<0.0001
84690766|NCT01975220|169120533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.28|103.18|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.18|98.28|<0.0001
84690767|NCT01975220|169120534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|94.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|108.88|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||108.88|82.29|0.0256
84690768|NCT01975220|169120534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|103.26|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.26|96.25|<0.0001
84690769|NCT01975220|169120534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|112.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||112.27|88.65|0.0020
84690770|NCT01975220|169120535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|102.719|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||102.719|97.555|<0.0001
84690771|NCT01975220|169120535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.622|100.531|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.531|93.622|<0.0001
84690772|NCT01975220|169120535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|103.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.27|98.36|<0.0001
84690773|NCT01975220|169120536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|109.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.892|119.1|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||119.100|99.892|0.0072
84690774|NCT01975220|169120536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|92.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.781|98.428|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||98.428|86.781|0.0004
84690775|NCT01975220|169120536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.6|114.942|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||114.942|96.600|0.0014
84690776|NCT01975220|169120537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.8||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.337|112.079|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||112.079|83.337|0.0198
84690777|NCT01975220|169120537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|110.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.809|116.926|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||116.926|103.809|0.0007
84690778|NCT01975220|169120537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.942|109.734|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||109.734|86.942|0.0037
84690779|NCT01975220|169120538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.42|110.44|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||110.44|82.42|0.0254
84690780|NCT01975220|169120538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|103.17|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.17|96.21|<0.0001
84690781|NCT01975220|169120538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.7|113.86|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||113.86|89.70|0.0029
84690782|NCT01657266|169120587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pearson´s Chi-square test|||||||1.00
84690783|NCT03573908|169120599|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.433|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) mean difference (linaclotide - placebo)|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.433|-0.998|< 0.0001
84690784|NCT03573908|169120600|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman Estimated Median Threshold|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value comparing change from baseline distributions by treatment using the Wilcoxon rank sum test 2-sided.|95% confidence interval (CI) for Hodges-Lehmann estimated median threshold was generated by Moses confidence limits method.|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.35|-0.88|< 0.0001
84690785|NCT03573908|169120601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|24.4|||||95% confidence intervals for difference in responder rate are obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|9.9|
84690786|NCT03573908|169120601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.12||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||3.12|1.55|< 0.0001
84690787|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|-0.515||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.515|-1.219|< 0.0001
84690788|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062|-0.376||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 10. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.376|-1.062|< 0.0001
84690789|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.665||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|-0.322||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.322|-1.007|0.0002
84690790|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.831|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.151|-0.511||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 6. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.511|-1.151|< 0.0001
84690791|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|-0.383||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.383|-0.982|< 0.0001
84690792|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|-0.368||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 2. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.368|-0.888|< 0.0001
84690793|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.228||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 1. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.228|-0.641|< 0.0001
84690794|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.398||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 3. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.398|-0.969|< 0.0001
84690795|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|-0.46||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 5. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.460|-1.076|< 0.0001
84690796|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.086|-0.431||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 7. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.431|-1.086|< 0.0001
84690797|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|-0.363||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 9. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.363|-1.043|< 0.0001
84690798|NCT03573908|169120602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.498||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 11. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.498|-1.189|< 0.0001
84690799|NCT04006925|169120603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||-2.0|-41.0|0.03
84690800|NCT04006925|169120603|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-21.5|0.11
84690801|NCT04006925|169120603|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|11.3||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||11.3|-32.0|0.27
84690802|NCT04006925|169120604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.0|0.02
84690803|NCT04006925|169120604|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.0|-1.0|0.83
84690804|NCT04006925|169120604|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.5|0.09
84690805|NCT04006925|169120605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.08
84690806|NCT04006925|169120606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.18
84690807|NCT04006925|169120607|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-7.0|0.26
84690808|NCT04006925|169120607|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-3.5|0.43
84690809|NCT04006925|169120607|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.0|-4.0|0.65
84690810|NCT04006925|169120608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.7||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.7|-15.2|0.23
84690811|NCT04006925|169120608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||4.5|-4.6|0.95
84690812|NCT04006925|169120608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.1||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Paired T-test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.1|-16.2|0.22
84690813|NCT00186498|169120612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Test of within subjects contrast: CVLT Long Delay Free Recall Time 1 (baseline) vs Time 2 (30 days): Placebo (F 4.093) p= 0.071; Memantine (F 35.042) p=0.006|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84690814|NCT03469284|169120613|OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0034
84690815|NCT03469284|169120614|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
84690816|NCT03469284|169120616|OTHER|||||||0.9182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9182
84690817|NCT03469284|169120617|OTHER|||||||0.1046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1046
84690818|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.94|0.188
84690819|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.84|<0.001
84690820|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-1.85|<0.001
84690821|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-2.44|<0.001
84690822|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.42|<0.001
84690823|NCT04867785|169120648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.43|<0.001
84690824|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.52|<0.001
84690825|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.34|0.935
84690826|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.39|0.668
84690827|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
84690828|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.95|0.056
84690829|NCT04867785|169120649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.93|<0.001
84690830|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.85|0.448
84690831|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.60|0.001
84690832|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.59|-1.80|<0.001
84690833|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.41|<0.001
84690834|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.27|<0.001
84690835|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.39|<0.001
84690836|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.35|<0.001
84690837|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.41|0.796
84690838|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.61|0.548
84690839|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.19|<0.001
84690840|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
84690841|NCT04867785|169120650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.16|<0.001
84690842|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.04|0.121
84690843|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.13|0.002
84690844|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.68|0.28|<0.001
84690845|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.87|0.53|<0.001
84690846|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.39|<0.001
84690847|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
84690848|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.39|0.030
84690849|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.24|-0.22|0.938
84690850|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|-0.07|0.209
84690851|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.18|<0.001
84690852|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.48|0.03|0.024
84690853|NCT04867785|169120651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
84690854|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|-0.06|0.169
84690855|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.15|0.001
84690856|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.14|0.002
84690857|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.39|<0.001
84690858|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.34|<0.001
84690859|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.76|0.38|<0.001
84690860|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
84690861|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.25|-0.22|0.898
84690862|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.23|-0.24|0.968
84690863|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.42|0.02|0.033
84690864|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|-0.04|0.099
84690865|NCT04867785|169120652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.39|0.01|0.044
84690866|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.48|-20.73|0.823
84690867|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.29|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.10|-47.29|0.165
84690868|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-33.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-13.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.04|-53.56|0.001
84690869|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.77|-41.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.22|-69.77|<0.001
84690870|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-29.22||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.84|-5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.59|-52.84|0.015
84690871|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-54.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|-39.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.59|-69.63|<0.001
84690872|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|33.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|48.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.82|18.26|<0.001
84690873|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|16.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|42.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.39|-10.25|0.231
84690874|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.37||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|21.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.01|-16.28|0.804
84690875|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.65|-31.01|<0.001
84690876|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.45||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|29.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.65|-16.75|0.586
84690877|NCT04867785|169120653|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.96|-30.93|0.002
84690878|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|24.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.07|-24.57|0.984
84690879|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.2||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|29.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.03|-37.44|0.804
84690880|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.47||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.91|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.98|-51.91|0.167
84690881|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.09|-27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.59|-76.09|<0.001
84690882|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.94||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.94|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.06|-57.94|0.168
84690883|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-50.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.94|-26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.22|-74.94|<0.001
84690884|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|10.02||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.60|-11.55|0.362
84690885|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|36.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.48|-24.34|0.696
84690886|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.99|-39.38|0.436
84690887|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-41.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.89|-20.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.25|-62.89|<0.001
84690888|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.67||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.75|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.42|-46.75|0.418
84690889|NCT04867785|169120654|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-19.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.85|-60.77|<0.001
84690890|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.49||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-2.07|0.540
84690891|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.13|-6.69|<0.001
84690892|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.09|-9.47|<0.001
84690893|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|-8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.03|-12.24|<0.001
84690894|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.06|-15.06|<0.001
84690895|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.73|-13.24|<0.001
84690896|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-2.75|0.135
84690897|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.86|-7.36|<0.001
84690898|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.77|-10.19|<0.001
84690899|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.77|-12.89|<0.001
84690900|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|-9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.77|-15.74|<0.001
84690901|NCT04867785|169120655|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.47|-13.90|<0.001
84690902|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|-2.18|0.979
84690903|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-7.32|0.018
84690904|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-10.46|<0.001
84690905|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.66|-16.74|<0.001
84690906|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.18|-16.50|<0.001
84690907|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.71|-17.10|<0.001
84690908|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.45|0.213
84690909|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.97|-8.66|0.002
84690910|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.04|-11.76|<0.001
84690911|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.01|-18.00|<0.001
84690912|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|-10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.54|-17.77|<0.001
84690913|NCT04867785|169120656|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-12.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.07|-18.36|<0.001
84690914|NCT00708721|169120663|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on cytopenias observed at day 10 (Phase 1 trial only), and the Phase II dose was determined to be 1 mg per day for 7 consecutive days given on a 28 day cycle.|||||
84690915|NCT04105972|169120682|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||20.1|11.7|< 0.0001
84690916|NCT04105972|169120683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|12.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.1|8.2|<0.0001
84690917|NCT04105972|169120684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.3||||||||-39.3|-46.2|
84690918|NCT01200030|169120690|OTHER|The effect size of the intervention was adopted from a mate-analysis . The showed an average effect size of 0.59 in improving the motor control of limbs in people with stroke. A sample size for each group was set at 11 . Presuming that there would be a drop-out rate of 10% during the course of study, an extra 1 subject was recruited in each group. the sample size was 36. The statistical significance was set at 5% (alpha \< 0.05) with power equal to 80%|||||<|0.001||||||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons have been conducted. Please refer to subsequent data analyses.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) score among the three groups.||||<0.001
84690919|NCT01200030|169120690|OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and placebo stimulation with exercises group. Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups.||||1.00
84690920|NCT01200030|169120690|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.002
84690921|NCT01200030|169120690|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of placebo stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.003
84690922|NCT01200030|169120691|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in reaching distance between the three groups.||||0.055
84690923|NCT02265224|169120694|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|89.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|94.12|82.82|97.4||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.40|82.82|0.0136
84690924|NCT02265224|169120695|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|90.79||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|94.12|85.25|96.69|||ANOVA|p value for treatment effect||||96.69|85.25|0.0047
84690925|NCT02265224|169120696|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|91.86||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|94.12|86.45|97.61||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.61|86.45|0.0095
84690926|NCT02265224|169120697|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.||||||0.505|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.5050
84690927|NCT03810313|169120701|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered to be established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is \> -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-5.2|0.173
84690928|NCT00872430|169120717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84690929|NCT00872430|169120718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All data were collected and entered before the opening of the codes of blinding of researchers. We used t test for paired samples and test for repeated measures linear regression for variables with more than two measures.With an improvement of 40% in the tea group and of 20% in the placebo group, with a power (1-ß) of 80% and a alpha error 0.05, it was necessary to include 32 points of comparison, which would be achieved with at least 16 patients, since it's a crossover study.||||<0.001
84690930|NCT02567825|169120747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Generalized linear model|The p-value is adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2-year follow-up period.||1.12|0.84|0.66
84690931|NCT02567825|169120748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment..||1.01|0.67|
84690932|NCT02567825|169120748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment.||1.33|0.86|
84690933|NCT02567825|169120748|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalized linear models|||Null hypothesis: There is no interaction between comparison group (Surgical Management, Non-Surgical Management) and risk group (children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment, children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment).||||0.08
84690934|NCT02567825|169120749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study with 0, 1 or 2, 3 or 4, greater than or equal to 5 episodes of AOM.~."||||0.48
84690935|NCT02567825|169120750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||0.92|0.58|
84690936|NCT02567825|169120751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to the first episode of AOM.||0.90|0.52|
84690937|NCT02567825|169120752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes categorized as probably severe.||1.09|0.76|
84690938|NCT02567825|169120753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||||||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes presenting with tympanic membrane bulging rather than otorrhea|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|0.44|0.26|
84690939|NCT02567825|169120754|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.82|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience tube otorrhea. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||7.82|2.60|
84690940|NCT02567825|169120755|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-5.1|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience AOM symptoms with an intact TM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-5.10|-7.55|
84690941|NCT02567825|169120756|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children receive systemic antimicrobials for AOM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-2.18|-6.82|
84690942|NCT02567825|169120757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||1.03|0.44|
84690943|NCT02567825|169120758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||1.22|0.51|
84690944|NCT02567825|169120759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom tube otorrhea was reported.||3.48|1.91|
84690945|NCT02567825|169120760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children with no pathogens at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.24|0.74|
84690946|NCT02567825|169120760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive only for at least 1 penicillin-susceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.72|0.83|
84690947|NCT02567825|169120760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive for at least 1 penicillin nonsusceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.29|0.94|
84690948|NCT02567825|169120761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes of AOM at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.55|0.84|
84690949|NCT02567825|169120762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of routine non-illness visits at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.41|0.84|
84690950|NCT02567825|169120763|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was ITT. The participants are randomized children with at least one episode of AOM late during the respiratory season at which a nasopharyngeal or throat culture is obtained.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.95|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|||1.95|0.69|
84690951|NCT02567825|169120764|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean parental satisfaction score||0.56|-0.06|
84690952|NCT02567825|169120765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating at least one health care encounter since the previous study visit.||1.18|0.98|
84690953|NCT02567825|169120766|SUPERIORITY|Reports for which the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating a parent missed work due to child's illness.||1.41|0.88|
84690954|NCT02567825|169120767|SUPERIORITY|Reports indicating the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating the need for special childcare arrangements due to child's illness.||1.48|0.89|
84690955|NCT02567825|169120768|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey score||0.02|-0.13|
84690956|NCT02567825|169120768|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey--children's overall QOL score.||0.24|-0.13|
84690957|NCT02567825|169120769|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.47|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire score.||1.47|-1.55|
84690958|NCT02567825|169120769|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire--caregiver's overall QOL score.||0.20|-0.14|
84690959|NCT01872910|169120788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||20.0|-2.1|
84690960|NCT01872910|169120788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-23.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||-23.2|-45.7|
84690961|NCT01872910|169120788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||54.9|32.7|
84690962|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||0.2|-2.9|
84690963|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||6.0|2.9|
84690964|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||-4.3|-7.4|
84690965|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||0.2|-5.2|
84690966|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||9.8|4.4|
84690967|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-6.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||-6.9|-12.2|
84690968|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-0.1|-7.9|
84690969|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||13.0|5.3|
84690970|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-9.3|-16.9|
84690971|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||0.5|-13.2|
84690972|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||19.2|6.6|
84690973|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-13.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||-13.5|-25.9|
84690974|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-2.0|-30.8|
84690975|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||37.2|9.0|
84690976|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-25.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-25.3|-53.2|
84690977|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||1.6|-1.5|
84690978|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||2.4|-2.9|
84690979|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||3.1|-4.7|
84690980|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||4.1|-8.3|
84690981|NCT01872910|169120789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|7.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||7.6|-21.4|
84690982|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||14.5|-4.2|
84690983|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-22.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||-22.4|-41.5|
84690984|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||46.5|27.8|
84690985|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||17.6|-2.9|
84690986|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-24.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||-24.6|-45.6|
84690987|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|52.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||52.7|32.1|
84690988|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||23.0|-1.0|
84690989|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-20.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||-20.3|-45.1|
84690990|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||55.5|31.3|
84690991|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||26.2|-1.6|
84690992|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-16.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||-16.0|-44.0|
84690993|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|56.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||56.5|28.6|
84690994|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|12.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||12.9|-9.7|
84690995|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|16.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||16.8|-9.8|
84690996|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 8 h.|||19.0|-9.9|
84690997|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|21.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||21.1|-9.2|
84690998|NCT01872910|169120790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||24.2|-8.4|
84690999|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.9|-0.6|
84691000|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||-1.7|-4.1|
84691001|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||4.8|2.3|
84691002|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||3.2|-0.9|
84691003|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||-2.7|-6.8|
84691004|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||8.0|3.8|
84691005|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||4.8|-1.0|
84691006|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||-3.3|-9.0|
84691007|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||10.9|5.1|
84691008|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||8.1|-1.3|
84691009|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||-3.5|-12.9|
84691010|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||16.5|7.0|
84691011|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||18.3|-2.6|
84691012|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-3.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||-3.6|-24.7|
84691013|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||32.2|11.5|
84691014|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.0|-1.6|
84691015|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||2.1|-2.2|
84691016|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||3.3|-2.9|
84691017|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||5.7|-3.9|
84691018|NCT01872910|169120791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||15.0|-6.8|
84691019|NCT01872910|169120792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.46|||||Hazard ratio (HR) of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.46|0.99|
84691020|NCT01872910|169120792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.72|0.16|
84691021|NCT01872910|169120792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|11.16|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||11.16|2.69|
84691022|NCT01872910|169120792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.59|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||2.59|0.57|
84508594|NCT01200394|168768317|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0435||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8211|1.3262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.3262|0.8211|0.7264
84691023|NCT01872910|169120793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||1.47|0.41|
84691024|NCT01872910|169120793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.88|1.19|
84691025|NCT01872910|169120793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.67|0.19|
84691026|NCT01872910|169120794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.88|0.12|
84691027|NCT01872910|169120794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|8.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||8.47|2.04|
84691028|NCT01872910|169120794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.21|0.03|
84691029|NCT03469349|169120808|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.083||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|49.02|||MMRM|||Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||49.02|9.35|0.0041
84691030|NCT03469349|169120809|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.814||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|31.24|||MMRM|||Week 2: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||31.24|0.49|0.0431
84691031|NCT03469349|169120809|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|35.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|60.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||60.05|10.96|0.0047
84691032|NCT03469349|169120810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||MMRM|||Week 2: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0227
84691033|NCT03469349|169120810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||MMRM|||Week 12: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0007
84691034|NCT03469349|169120810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||MMRM|||Week 24: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0023
84691035|NCT03469349|169120811|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9592||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||||0.9592
84691036|NCT03469349|169120811|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.5823||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||||0.5823
84691037|NCT03469349|169120812|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9424||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9424
84691038|NCT03469349|169120813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3758|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.3758
84691039|NCT03469349|169120813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1412
84691040|NCT03469349|169120813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1009
84691041|NCT03469349|169120813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0015
84691042|NCT05266963|169120824|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a paired samples Wilcoxon test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon matched-pairs||||||0.43
84691043|NCT05266963|169120825|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a standard two-tailed t test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84691044|NCT04091360|169120830|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.281|||ANCOVA|||||1.281|1.163|<0.0001
84691045|NCT04091360|169120830|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|1.263|||ANCOVA|||||1.263|1.146|<0.0001
84691046|NCT04091360|169120830|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.195|||ANCOVA|||||1.195|1.085|<0.0001
84691047|NCT04091360|169120831|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|1.151|<0.0001
84691048|NCT04091360|169120831|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.146||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.054|0.0022
84691049|NCT04091360|169120831|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.102||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.202|||ANCOVA|||||1.202|1.010|0.0295
84691050|NCT04091360|169120831|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.129||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.032|0.0098
84691051|NCT04091360|169120831|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.028||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|0.939|0.54
84691052|NCT04091360|169120832|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|1.319|||ANCOVA|||||1.319|1.142|<0.0001
84691053|NCT04091360|169120832|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.155||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|1.24|||ANCOVA|||||1.240|1.075|0.0002
84691054|NCT04091360|169120832|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.1||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.184|||ANCOVA|||||1.184|1.022|0.0129
84691055|NCT04091360|169120832|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.201|||ANCOVA|||||1.201|1.030|0.0079
84691056|NCT04091360|169120832|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.033||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|0.957|0.39
84691057|NCT04091360|169120833|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.204|||ANCOVA|||||1.204|1.073|<0.0001
84691058|NCT04091360|169120833|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.091||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.155|||ANCOVA|||||1.155|1.030|0.0041
84691059|NCT04091360|169120833|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.019||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.081|||ANCOVA|||||1.081|0.960|0.53
84691060|NCT04091360|169120841|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.270|1.153|<0.0001
84691061|NCT04091360|169120841|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.252|||ANCOVA|||||1.252|1.136|<0.0001
84691062|NCT04091360|169120841|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.179|||ANCOVA|||||1.179|1.071|<0.0001
84691063|NCT04091360|169120842|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.194|||ANCOVA|||||1.194|1.087|<0.0001
84691064|NCT04091360|169120842|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.197|||ANCOVA|||||1.197|1.089|<0.0001
84691065|NCT04091360|169120842|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.132|||ANCOVA|||||1.132|1.031|0.0018
84691066|NCT04091360|169120843|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.140|1.022|0.0066
84691067|NCT04091360|169120843|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.074||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.134|||ANCOVA|||||1.134|1.017|0.0115
84691068|NCT04091360|169120843|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.037||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|0.982|0.18
84691069|NCT04091360|169120844|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|1.203|||ANCOVA|||||1.203|1.122|<0.0001
84691070|NCT04091360|169120844|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.111|<0.0001
84691071|NCT04091360|169120844|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.152|||ANCOVA|||||1.152|1.074|<0.0001
84691072|NCT04091360|169120845|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.157|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|1.196|||ANCOVA|||||1.196|1.119|<0.0001
84691073|NCT04091360|169120845|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.186|||ANCOVA|||||1.186|1.110|<0.0001
84691074|NCT04091360|169120845|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.142|||ANCOVA|||||1.142|1.068|<0.0001
84691075|NCT04091360|169120846|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.059|<0.0001
84691076|NCT04091360|169120846|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.150|1.072|<0.0001
84691077|NCT04091360|169120846|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.07||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.033|1.109|||ANCOVA|||||1.109|1.033|0.0003
84691078|NCT04091360|169120847|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.47
84691079|NCT04091360|169120847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.0059
84691080|NCT01107743|169120869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between male and female in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.812
84691081|NCT01107743|169120870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84691082|NCT01107743|169120871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypetension and without Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84691083|NCT01107743|169120872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.112
84691084|NCT01107743|169120873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Angina Pectoris and without Angina Pectoris in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.093
84691085|NCT01107743|169120874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypercholesterolemia and without Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84691086|NCT01107743|169120875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.839
84691087|NCT01107743|169120876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Familial Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Familial Hypercholesterolemia and without Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84691088|NCT01107743|169120877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic Dysfunction and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84691089|NCT01107743|169120878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal Dysfunction and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.644
84691090|NCT01107743|169120879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Complications and without Complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.155
84691091|NCT01107743|169120880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant Drugs and without Concomitant Drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.305
84691092|NCT01107743|169120881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.234
84691093|NCT01107743|169120882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.439
84691094|NCT01107743|169120883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the participants of responders."||||=0.761
84691095|NCT01107743|169120884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
84691096|NCT01107743|169120885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.310
84691097|NCT01107743|169120886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.251|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.251
84691098|NCT01107743|169120887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.756|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.756
84691099|NCT01107743|169120888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.706
84691100|NCT01107743|169120889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.192
84691101|NCT01107743|169120890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris Severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 in the participants of responders."||||=0.005
84691102|NCT01107743|169120891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
84691103|NCT01107743|169120892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.596
84691104|NCT01107743|169120893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
84691105|NCT01107743|169120894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
84691106|NCT01107743|169120895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.518
84691107|NCT01107743|169120896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.645
84691108|NCT01107743|169120897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the participants of responders."||||=0.130
84691109|NCT01107743|169120898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.185
84691110|NCT01107743|169120899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.714
84691111|NCT01107743|169120900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.835
84691112|NCT01107743|169120901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
84691113|NCT00308737|169120902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of TI + Usual Care to Usual Care only|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FEV1 as a covariate||0.060|0.014|
84691114|NCT00308737|169120903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the FEV1 change from Baseline for the TI group is no greater than 50 mL/year above the change in the usual care treatment group. Assuming SD of 100 mL/y, 80% power, and 5% (1-tailed) significance level, it was determined that 50 subjects were required for each of the diabetes treatment groups. Final sample size was selected for the incidence of a \>= 15% decrease in FEV1 end point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.057|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment site, diabetes type, and baseline FEV1||0.057|0.016|
84691115|NCT00308737|169120904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FVC as a covariate||0.061|0.008|
84691116|NCT00308737|169120905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.031|-0.042|
84691117|NCT00308737|169120906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.574|-0.037|
84691118|NCT00308737|169120907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3432|1.2219|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.2219|0.3432|
84691119|NCT00308737|169120908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.2431|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||2.2431|0.2510|
84691120|NCT00308737|169120909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6703|1.1958|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.1958|0.6703|
84691121|NCT00308737|169120910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.8509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6722|1.077|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.0770|0.6722|
84691122|NCT00308737|169120912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test||||0.112
84691123|NCT00308737|169120913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the difference in incidence of a decrease of ≥ 15% in FEV1 between the treatment groups not be greater than 5% for TI when compared with the usual care treatment group. Assuming an incidence rate of 15% for FEV1 and a noninferiority criterion of a 5% difference in incidence between the treatment groups, approximately 625 subjects per group were required for 80% power and an alpha of 5% (1 tailed).|Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.4767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5578|-0.3956|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||-0.3956|-4.5578|
84691124|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
84691125|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
84691126|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
84691127|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
84691128|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
84691129|NCT01225822|169120919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
84691130|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
84691131|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
84691132|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
84691133|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
84508595|NCT01200394|168768317|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1154||||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8761|1.4201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.4201|0.8761|0.3733
84508596|NCT00663871|168768334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.27|0.59
84508597|NCT00663871|168768335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.24|0.21
84691134|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
84691135|NCT01225822|169120920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
84691136|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.334||||0.0373||95.0|0.199|0.938|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.938|0.199|0.0373
84508598|NCT00663871|168768336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Negative Affect scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||1.50|0.69|0.92
84508599|NCT00663871|168768337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.44||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-1.21|0.86
84508600|NCT00663871|168768338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.94||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-1.57|0.63
84691137|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.6659||95.0|0.374|1.875|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.875|0.374|0.6659
84691138|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.1882||95.0|0.183|1.397|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.397|0.183|0.1882
84691139|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.5566||95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.66|0.39|0.5566
84691140|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.3253||95.0|0.307|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.48|0.307|0.3253
84691141|NCT01225822|169120921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0114||95.0|0.097|0.744|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.744|0.097|0.0114
84691142|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.332||||0.036||95.0|0.118|0.931|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.931|0.118|0.036
84691143|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||0.3884||95.0|0.293|1.611|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.611|0.293|0.3884
84691144|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.616||||0.3674||95.0|0.215|1.766|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.766|0.215|0.3674
84508601|NCT00663871|168768339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.61||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.25|0.50
84691145|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.809||||0.5663||95.0|0.393|1.668|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.668|0.393|0.5663
84691146|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.1678||95.0|0.242|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.28|0.242|0.1678
84691147|NCT01225822|169120922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0113||95.0|0.097|0.743|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.743|0.097|0.0113
84691148|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.818||||0.0077||95.0|2.077|120.474|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||120.474|2.077|0.0077
84691149|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.907||||0.0062||95.0|2.229|128.238|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||128.238|2.229|0.0062
84691150|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.7192||95.0|0.567|2.276|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||2.276|0.567|0.7192
84691151|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.121||||0.0472||95.0|0.015|0.974|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||0.974|0.015|0.0472
84691152|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.1043||95.0|0.862|4.868|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.868|0.862|0.1043
84691153|NCT01225822|169120923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.917||||0.1448||95.0|0.799|4.597|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.597|0.799|0.1448
84691154|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.871||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.221|128.142|||Regression, Logistic|||||128.142|2.221|0.0063
84691155|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.338||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.983|167.268|||Regression, Logistic|||||167.268|2.983|0.0025
84691156|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.750|0.483|0.7973
84508602|NCT00663871|168768340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.88||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.23|0.25
84691157|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.068||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.522|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.522|0.009|0.0097
84691158|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.058|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.058|0.758|0.2375
84691159|NCT01225822|169120925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.403|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.403|0.550|0.7104
84691160|NCT01003639|169120973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|0|0.05
84691161|NCT01515189|169120977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.70|0.0400
84691162|NCT01515189|169120978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.76|0.1548
84691163|NCT01515189|169120984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg. Based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model for subset of participants with brain metastases.|||1.04|0.49|
84691164|NCT04078035|169120985|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00088||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.86
84691165|NCT04078035|169120986|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00067||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.74
84691166|NCT04078035|169120987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0019||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.52
84691167|NCT04078035|169120988|SUPERIORITY|Results present the condition (stress/control) by time\^2 interactions.|Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||||||<.001
84691168|NCT04078035|169120989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 66.4, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time2 and condition||||<.001
84691169|NCT04078035|169120990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0002|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||<.001
84691170|NCT04078035|169120991|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0013||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.005
84691171|NCT04078035|169120992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.92
84691172|NCT04078035|169120993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
84691173|NCT04078035|169120994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 15.64, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||0.002
84691174|NCT04078035|169120995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results \_condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.008
84691175|NCT04078035|169120996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0014||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.83
84691176|NCT04078035|169120997|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.03
84691177|NCT04078035|169120998|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00012||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.51
84691178|NCT04078035|169120999|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0026||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
84508603|NCT00663871|168768341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.92||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-1.83|0.52
84691179|NCT04078035|169121000|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.49
84691180|NCT04078035|169121001|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0044||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.002
84691181|NCT03500640|169121010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
84691182|NCT03500640|169121011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
84691183|NCT03500640|169121012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
84691184|NCT03500640|169121013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.349
84691185|NCT03500640|169121014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
84691186|NCT03500640|169121015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
84691187|NCT03500640|169121016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
84691188|NCT03500640|169121017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.637
84691189|NCT03500640|169121018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
84691190|NCT03500640|169121019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84691191|NCT03500640|169121020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
84691192|NCT03500640|169121021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
84691193|NCT03500640|169121022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081
84691194|NCT03500640|169121023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
84691195|NCT03500640|169121024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
84691196|NCT03500640|169121025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.801
84691197|NCT03500640|169121026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
84691198|NCT03500640|169121027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
84691199|NCT03500640|169121028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
84691200|NCT03500640|169121029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.594
84691201|NCT03500640|169121030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
84691202|NCT03500640|169121031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
84691203|NCT03500640|169121032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.288
84691204|NCT03500640|169121033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
84691205|NCT03500640|169121034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
84691206|NCT03500640|169121035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||0.421
84661926|NCT03978520|169057546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.1|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.10|-1.05|=0.963
84508604|NCT00663871|168768342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.24||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Type A personality scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||2.24|0.67|0.52
84661927|NCT03978520|169057546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.25|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.25|-0.90|=0.754
84661928|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.06|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.39|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.39|-1.74|=0.002
84661929|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.69|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.03|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.03|-1.41|=0.059
84661930|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.37|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.27|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.27|-1.01|=0.252
84661931|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.17|-0.37|=0.467
84661932|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.26|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.02|-0.49|=0.033
84661933|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.15|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.37|-0.06|=0.156
84661934|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.16|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.44|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.44|-1.89|=0.002
84661935|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.95|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.19|-1.70|=0.014
84661936|NCT03978520|169057547|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.22|||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.46|-0.89|=0.526
84661937|NCT00580606|169057611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|77.6||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's Statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 5,000 mg of peanut powder or at least a 10-fold increase in the amount of peanut powder compared to their baseline OFC was compared using Barnard's Statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||77.6|22.2|<0.001
84661938|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
84661939|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
84661940|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
84508605|NCT00663871|168768343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.68
84661941|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
84661942|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
84661943|NCT04216329|169057659|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
84661944|NCT04216329|169057661|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
84661945|NCT04216329|169057661|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
84661946|NCT04216329|169057661|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
84661947|NCT03918447|169057667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|3.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline eGFR as a covariate, and treatment group as fixed effects.||3.19|-1.25|=0.3886
84661948|NCT03918447|169057669|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.47|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model used baseline eGFR as a covariate, and the following fixed factors: treatment group, time (Week 1 to 100, excluding Week 52), and the interaction between treatment and time. Within-participant errors are modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.47|6.41|<0.0001
84661949|NCT01405456|169057726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Insulin Stimulated Glucose Uptake measured during euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure from baseline to 6 months||||0.71
84661950|NCT01405456|169057727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Visceral Adipose Tissue area as measured by magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen from baseline to 6 months||||0.42
84661951|NCT01405456|169057728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Liver Fat (Intrahepatic Lipid) as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.51
84661952|NCT01405456|169057729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Intramyocellular Lipid of calf muscles as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
84661953|NCT01405456|169057730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Flow Mediated Vasodilation (maximum percentage) from baseline to 6 months||||0.44
84661954|NCT01405456|169057731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean serum measurements of Potassium||||0.07
84661955|NCT01405456|169057732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 6 months||||0.70
84661956|NCT01405456|169057733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in C-Reactive Protein from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
84661957|NCT01405456|169057734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.37
84661958|NCT01405456|169057735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Adiponectin from baseline to 6 months||||0.78
84661959|NCT01405456|169057736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in IL-6 from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
84661960|NCT01405456|169057737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in MCP-1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
84661961|NCT01774968|169057743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 325 participants were to be randomized (in a 1:1 ratio of U-500R insulin TID:BID) and 260 were to complete the study (with a 20% dropout rate). The 260 completers would provide a 66.4% chance to show equivalence of TID and BID algorithms, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of TID, 2.5% chance to superiority of TID, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of BID, and 2.5% chance to show superiority of BID, assuming a difference in HbA1c change of 0% and a standard deviation of 1.1%.||0.12|-0.33|0.3709
84661962|NCT05353985|169057758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017|||=|0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.197||P-value was based on a MMRM analysis with treatment group, week, treatment-by-week interaction, \& the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects \& baseline CDSD GI symptom severity scores as covariates, and participant as a random effect.|MMRM|||||0.197|-0.162|=0.847
84661963|NCT05353985|169057759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.181||P-value was based on a ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline Vh:Cd as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.181|-0.481|<0.001
84661964|NCT04847557|169057766|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.6|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||10.6|3.3|<0.001
84661965|NCT04847557|169057767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Heart Failure Outcomes||0.95|0.41|0.026
84661966|NCT04847557|169057768|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|26.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||26.7|9.9|<0.001
84691207|NCT03500640|169121036|SUPERIORITY|The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
84691208|NCT03500640|169121037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
84691209|NCT03500640|169121038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
84691210|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.8|134.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||134.9|-284.8|0.4788
84691211|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.1||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|328.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||328.9|-80.6|0.2309
84691212|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-185.1||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.8|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||19.7|-389.8|0.0758
84691213|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|130.4||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|335.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||335.1|-74.4|0.2084
84691214|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|132.6||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|322.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 1||322.6|-57.4|0.1684
84691215|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-90.4||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-364.7|184.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||184.0|-364.7|0.5122
84691216|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.5||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.7|170.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||170.7|-321.7|0.5417
84691217|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.4||||0.6511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.2|185.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||185.3|-294.2|0.6511
84691218|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.7||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.1|318.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||318.5|-189.1|0.6117
84691219|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.7||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-329.3|129.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 2||129.9|-329.3|0.3882
84691220|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.5||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-477.5|226.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||226.5|-477.5|0.4781
84691221|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.9||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-593.7|37.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||37.9|-593.7|0.0834
84691222|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|121.7||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|429.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||429.3|-185.8|0.4313
84691223|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.5||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.1|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||252.0|-399.1|0.6528
84691224|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.5||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-542.9|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH effect||46.0|-542.9|0.0966
84691225|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.2||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||252.0|-187.6|0.7704
84691226|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|165.3||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|362.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||362.5|-32.0|0.0988
84691227|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-153.4||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||38.7|-345.5|0.1153
84691228|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|208.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||208.0|-198.7|0.9636
84691229|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|119.8||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|303.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH morning||303.8|-64.1|0.1972
84691230|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-207.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-414.6|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||-0.5|-414.6|0.0495
84691231|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.4|193.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||193.4|-210.4|0.9333
84691232|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-317.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-519.6|-115.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||-115.8|-519.6|0.0025
84691233|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.9823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.1|199.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||199.6|-204.1|0.9823
84691234|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.0|283.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||283.7|-265.0|0.9460
84691235|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.2||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.0|270.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||270.4|-222.0|0.8445
84691236|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.3||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.5|285.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||285.0|-194.5|0.7069
84508606|NCT00663871|168768344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.41|0.16
84508607|NCT00663871|168768345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.24|0.59
84661967|NCT04847557|169057769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-10.38|||ANCOVA|||||-10.38|-12.85|<0.001
84661968|NCT04847557|169057770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-22.17|||ANCOVA|||||-22.17|-45.60|<0.001
84661969|NCT04847557|169057771|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.28|||||The win ratio was reported as the measure of treatment effect based on the principle that each participant is compared with every other participant within each stratum in a pair-wise manner that proceeds in a hierarchical fashion.|||2.28|1.17|
84661970|NCT04847557|169057772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4||||||||3.40|1.53|
84661971|NCT04847557|169057773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.452||||||||2.452|0.633|
84661972|NCT04847557|169057774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.85||||||||0.850|0.342|
84661973|NCT04847557|169057775|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14||||||||1.14|0.46|
84661974|NCT04847557|169057776|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05||||||||1.05|0.37|
84661975|NCT01325584|169057778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
84661976|NCT01325584|169057780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.53
84661977|NCT01325584|169057781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
84661978|NCT03010254|169057782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.097||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.097|-0.180|<0.001
84661979|NCT03010254|169057784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.059|||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF).The 1-sided 97.5% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.059||
84661980|NCT03010254|169057785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.048||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.048|-0.133|<0.001
84661981|NCT03010254|169057786|OTHER||Mean difference in depth of focus|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Mean difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
84661982|NCT03010254|169057787|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0551|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|Without glare|||-0.287|
84661983|NCT03010254|169057787|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|With glare|||-0.287|
84661984|NCT03010254|169057788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.77|31.04|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||31.04|8.77|
84661985|NCT03010254|169057789|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|35.06|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||35.06|7.92|
84661986|NCT00848081|169057790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||1-sided test|Fisher Exact|||The p-value is from a one-sided Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. A total of 142 subjects per treatment arm would provide 91% power to detect the difference between a Group 1 proportion of 0.03 and a Group 2 proportion of 0.13.||||0.403
84661987|NCT00848081|169057792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANCOVA|||The LS mean, standard error, 2-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value for the difference between placebo and tadalafil 5 mg are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.130
84661988|NCT00848081|169057793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANOVA|The p-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data.||||||0.258
84661989|NCT00848081|169057794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|P-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data; p-value is on change from baseline.||||||0.828
84661990|NCT02064868|169057796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98||One-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||0.98|0.51|0.0172
84661991|NCT02064868|169057797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||Two-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.02|0.61|0.0634
84661992|NCT02064868|169057798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84661993|NCT02064868|169057799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84661994|NCT02064868|169057800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1392|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1392
84661995|NCT02064868|169057802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5||||0.3115
84661996|NCT02064868|169057802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||||0.1236
84661997|NCT02057406|169057821|SUPERIORITY|The EPA/DHA arm versus placebo at Week 12.||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.74
84661998|NCT02057406|169057821|SUPERIORITY|High EPA group versus placebo group at Week 12.||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.45
84661999|NCT02057406|169057822|SUPERIORITY|Active supplements (2:1 EPA/DHA and High EPA combined) versus placebo at Week 12.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||<0.0001
84662000|NCT02057406|169057822|SUPERIORITY|2:1 EPA/DHA versus High EPA at Week 12.||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.12
84662001|NCT02782780|169057823|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.01||||||Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84662002|NCT02782780|169057823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(92.3)=4.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||||||<0.001
84662003|NCT02782780|169057824|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001||||||test of treatment effect: t(94.7)=6.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84662004|NCT02782780|169057824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(94)=6.67|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||To compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBT-I group, planned contrasts following the mixed models were used.||||<0.001
84662005|NCT02782780|169057825|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(104)=3.40||||||<0.001
84662006|NCT02782780|169057825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.6)=4.37|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
84662007|NCT02782780|169057826|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(99.9)=2.09||||||<0.05
84662008|NCT02782780|169057826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(92.1)=2.56||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||<0.01
84662009|NCT02782780|169057827|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||=|0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(110)=-0.41||||||=0.991
84508608|NCT00663871|168768346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.06|0.35
84508609|NCT00663871|168768347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.18|0.74
84508610|NCT00663871|168768348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.27|0.28
84508611|NCT00663871|168768349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.39|-0.09|0.76
84508612|NCT00663871|168768350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.30|-0.18|0.62
84508613|NCT00663871|168768351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.26|-0.21|0.42
84508614|NCT00663871|168768352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized mean difference|-0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|Repeated Measures MANOVA||||0.18|-0.30|0.54
84508615|NCT01835145|168768369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||A one-sided chi-squared test for a difference in PFS4 rates will be used to test for a difference between arms.||||0.70
84508616|NCT00582309|168768376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Original Power Analysis: The expected differences in mean blood glucose concentration between groups are \> 30 mg/dL. Assuming two-tailed alpha of .05, a standard deviation of approximately 40, and a one-to-one allocation and no subject attrition, fifty patients per treatment group (150 total) will be sufficient to achieve 90% power for group mean comparisons allowing for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All results obtained by ANOVA are verified by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Statistical significance will be judged by P-values \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Demographic and baseline measurements are reported as either means and standard deviations or as frequency and percentages. These and the outcome measures are compared among the three groups by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for means or by Fisher's Exact test for frequencies as appropriate. If there is an overall significant difference, the post hoc multiple comparisons will be done by Fisher's least significant difference method.||||<0.05
84662010|NCT02782780|169057827|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.8)=0.94|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||=0.41
84662011|NCT02782780|169057828|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(83.7)=2.51||||||<0.05
84662012|NCT02782780|169057828|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(90.9)=0.27||||||=0.49
84662013|NCT02782780|169057829|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(105)=4.55||||||<0.01
84662014|NCT02782780|169057829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.3)=3.23||||||<0.01
84662015|NCT02782780|169057830|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.37||||||<0.001
84662016|NCT02782780|169057830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: (92.1)=3.64|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
84662017|NCT02782780|169057831|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(99.2)=5.45||||||<0.001
84662018|NCT02782780|169057831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(93.4)=6.06|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
84662019|NCT02782780|169057832|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(76.9)=-4.20||||||<0.001
84662020|NCT02782780|169057832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(33.1)=6.52|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
84662021|NCT02782780|169057833|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.6)=4.33||||||<0.001
84508617|NCT03384745|168768391|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 25 (48.1% \[34.0-62.4\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 30mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
84508618|NCT03384745|168768391|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 44 (84.6% \[71.9-93.1\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 60mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
84508619|NCT03384745|168768391|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the M1095 120mg normal load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
84691237|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|164.4||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|418.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||418.2|-89.4|0.1998
84691238|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|123.0||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|474.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||474.9|-229.0|0.4871
84691239|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.4||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.2|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||286.4|-345.2|0.8527
84691240|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|370.2||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|677.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||677.8|62.6|0.0192
84691241|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|174.9||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.6|500.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||500.5|-150.6|0.2865
84691242|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.6||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|132.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||132.2|-307.5|0.4279
84691243|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.4||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.8|242.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||242.7|-151.8|0.6464
84691244|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-273.3||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|-81.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||-81.2|-465.4|0.0061
84691245|NCT01036022|169121057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.2||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.5|88.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||88.1|-318.5|0.2614
84691246|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.0|0.7559
84691247|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||3.2|-0.4|0.1238
84691248|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.3|0.6302
84691249|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.8|-0.8|0.2777
84691250|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.8|-1.4|0.8069
84691251|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.6|0.7699
84691252|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.8|-1.1|0.3869
84662022|NCT02782780|169057833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(34.4)=4.75||||||<0.001
84662023|NCT02782780|169057834|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.1)=3.91||||||<0.001
84691253|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.4|0.6695
84691254|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.4|0.5152
84691255|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.1|-2.4|0.4507
84691256|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.3|-1.9|0.8707
84691257|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.1|-0.9|0.2915
84691258|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.7|-2.4|0.7251
84691259|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.3|0.4556
84691260|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.4|-2.3|0.6620
84691261|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.1|0.2844
84691262|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.0|0.2799
84691263|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.6|-1.9|0.7655
84691264|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.2|0.3332
84691265|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.4|-1.6|0.6985
84691266|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.7|-1.3|0.3256
84691267|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.9|0.6500
84691268|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||2.7|-2.3|0.8758
84691269|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.1|0.7298
84691270|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 SCCAI score||1.6|-2.8|0.5963
84691271|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6498
84691272|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.0|0.7061
84662024|NCT02782780|169057834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month in CBTi group: t(34.5)=4.39||||||<0.001
84662025|NCT03562481|169057835|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.|F statistic|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.||||||0.38
84662026|NCT03562481|169057836|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as a non-statistically significant difference.|F statistic|1.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 and accounting for sequence and period effects.||||0.28
84662027|NCT03562481|169057837|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the cross-over ANOVA.|F statistic|11.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is adjusted for period and sequence effects and is statistically significant at the p\<0.05 level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 adjusting for perio and sequence effects.||||0.003
84662028|NCT03562481|169057838|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Z score|-0.996||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.33
84662029|NCT03562481|169057839|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the chi square test.|Chi-square test|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84662030|NCT03562481|169057840|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1||||0.65
84662031|NCT03562481|169057841|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry or marginal homogeneity (Stuart-Maxwell) implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.71
84662032|NCT03562481|169057842|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.32
84662033|NCT03562481|169057843|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on the statistical significance of the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.29||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.26
84662034|NCT03454581|169057861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84662035|NCT03454581|169057862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84662036|NCT03454581|169057863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84662037|NCT03454581|169057864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.05
84662038|NCT03454581|169057865|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.01
84662039|NCT03454581|169057866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84662040|NCT03454581|169057867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84662041|NCT03454581|169057868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84662042|NCT03395886|169057873|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Chi-squared|||Summary statistics are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared between groups by Chi-square test.||||0.831
84662043|NCT03395886|169057874|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||||||0.800
84662044|NCT02557698|169057890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0=Intervention and control groups do not differ with respect to the TEWL forearm at visit 3 H1=The TEWL on the forearm at visit 3 differs between the groups||-0.8|-3.1|0.002
84662045|NCT02557698|169057891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-3.5|<0.001
84662046|NCT02557698|169057892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-3.2|0.024
84662047|NCT02557698|169057893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.017
84662048|NCT02557698|169057894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.964
84662049|NCT02557698|169057895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|0.5|0.025
84662050|NCT02557698|169057896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.5|0.458
84662051|NCT02557698|169057897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-3.5|0.066
84662052|NCT02557698|169057898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-13.7|0.171
84662053|NCT02557698|169057899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-15.3|0.059
84691273|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||2.3|-2.7|0.8549
84691274|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6533
84691275|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 SCCAI score||1.4|-3.1|0.4378
84691276|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.3|-2.2|0.5917
84691277|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.9|-0.5|0.1764
84691278|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.0|-1.5|0.7914
84691279|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.5|-0.9|0.3578
84691280|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.0|0.3247
84691281|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.4|-0.4|0.1153
84691282|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.7|0.7995
84691283|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.6|0.1786
84691284|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.5|0.5824
84691285|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.5|-0.5|0.1392
84691286|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.1|-2.0|0.9665
84691287|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.9|0.2455
84691288|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.4|0.4644
84691289|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.4|0.4567
84691290|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.2|-2.3|0.9594
84508620|NCT03384745|168768391|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 45 (88.2% \[76.1-95.6\], p\<0.0001) of 51 participants in the M1095 120mg augmented load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
84691291|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.5|0.5122
84691292|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||4.3|-0.7|0.1493
84691293|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.6|-1.3|0.3478
84691294|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.2|-1.7|0.5238
84691295|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.4|0.4091
84691296|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||4.0|-1.1|0.2604
84691297|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.8|-1.1|0.2809
84691298|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.8|0.6038
84691299|NCT01036022|169121059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.9|-1.1|0.2511
84691300|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.39|0.24|
84691301|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.92||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.92|0.21|
84691302|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.48|0.26|
84691303|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.68|0.27|
84691304|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.81|0.23|
84691305|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.73|0.26|
84508621|NCT03384745|168768391|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the secukinumab 300mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
84508622|NCT02708277|168768402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
84508623|NCT02708277|168768403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
84691306|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.68|0.18|
84691307|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.18||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.18|0.21|
84508624|NCT02708277|168768404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
84508625|NCT02708277|168768405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84691308|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.03|0.19|
84691309|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.9||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.90|0.22|
84508626|NCT00455533|168768456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8921||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8921
84508627|NCT00455533|168768456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.60|0.8966
84508628|NCT00455533|168768456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in pCR|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7|||||The difference in pCR rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.7|-7.9|
84508629|NCT00455533|168768459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6186||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6186
84508630|NCT00455533|168768459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.56|0.5806
84508631|NCT00455533|168768459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|6.0|||||The difference in pCR/RCB-I rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.0|-11|
84508632|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 (209993\_at)||||0.4115
84508633|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.1629
84691310|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.09||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||4.09|0.28|
84691311|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.43||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.43|0.23|
84691312|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.18|
84691313|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.17|
84691314|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.32||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||1.32|0.15|
84691315|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||5.04|0.33|
84691316|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.02|0.20|
84691317|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||3.23|0.29|
84691318|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.72||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||4.72|0.39|
84691319|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.42||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.42|0.28|
84691320|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.66||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.66|0.14|
84691321|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||4.38|0.35|
84691322|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.47|0.20|
84691323|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.46|0.11|
84691324|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.15|
84508634|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5074
84508635|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.5530
84508636|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1845||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1845
84662054|NCT02557698|169057900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.400
84662055|NCT02557698|169057901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.100
84662056|NCT02557698|169057902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84662057|NCT02557698|169057903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
84662058|NCT02557698|169057904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
84662059|NCT02557698|169057905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
84662060|NCT02557698|169057906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.259
84662061|NCT02557698|169057907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
84662062|NCT02557698|169057908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
84662063|NCT02557698|169057909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
84662064|NCT02557698|169057910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.831
84662065|NCT02557698|169057911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
84662066|NCT02557698|169057912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.4|-0.3|0.07
84662067|NCT02557698|169057913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.7|0.4|0.029
84662068|NCT02557698|169057914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-1.8|0.325
84662069|NCT02557698|169057915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.6|0.365
84662070|NCT02557698|169057916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-8.5|0.143
84662071|NCT02557698|169057917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-6.5|0.662
84662072|NCT02557698|169057918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.4|0.326
84662073|NCT02557698|169057919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.687
84662074|NCT01737944|169057932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A - SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B - SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|100.31||||||||100.31|92.33|
84662075|NCT01737944|169057932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.56||||||||105.56|97.17|
84662076|NCT01737944|169057933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.32|100.28||||||||100.28|92.32|
84662077|NCT01737944|169057933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.06|105.4||||||||105.40|97.06|
84691325|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||3.39|0.13|
84691326|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.84|0.11|
84691327|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.09|
84508637|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3538||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.3538
84508638|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9751||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9751
84691328|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.99||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.99|0.19|
84691329|NCT01036022|169121062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.49||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.49|0.21|
84691330|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.38|0.42|
84508639|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.8874
84508640|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.6907
84508641|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8052||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.8052
84508642|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.5031
84508643|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7588||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.7588
84508644|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.1542
84508645|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0235
84508646|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3612||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.3612
84508647|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1840
84508648|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0942
84508649|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5327||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.5327
84508650|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8847
84508651|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8947||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8947
84508652|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4085||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.4085
84691331|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.65|0.50|
84691332|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.47|0.45|
84691333|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.59|0.44|
84691334|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.28||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.28|0.50|
84691335|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.19||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.19|0.26|
84691336|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.63||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.63|0.22|
84691337|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.0||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.00|0.12|
84691338|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.77||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.77|0.31|
84691339|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.87||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.87|0.26|
84691340|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.84|0.15|
84691341|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.87||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.87|0.32|
84691342|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.56||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.56|0.17|
84691343|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.46|0.45|
84691344|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.01||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.01|0.14|
84691345|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.15|0.10|
84691346|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.03|0.23|
84691347|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.68|0.19|
84691348|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.7||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.70|0.38|
84691349|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.89|0.26|
84691350|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.07||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.07|0.27|
84691351|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.73|0.46|
84691352|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.02|0.11|
84691353|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.73|0.36|
84691354|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.33|0.29|
84691355|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||6.59|0.31|
84691356|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|9.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||9.04|0.54|
84691357|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.48|0.11|
84691358|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||5.91|0.46|
84691359|NCT01036022|169121063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.62||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.62|0.27|
84691360|NCT01508013|169121078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
84691361|NCT01508013|169121079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84691362|NCT01508013|169121080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
84691363|NCT01279343|169121108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-5.9|0.03
84691364|NCT01279343|169121109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of vaginal delivery between groups.||1.23|.80|0.96
84691365|NCT01279343|169121109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.9|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean deliveries were compared between the groups.||1.90|0.57|0.90
84691366|NCT04534114|169121118|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Log Rank|||||4.68|0.19|0.944
84691367|NCT04534114|169121118|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.95||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Log Rank|||||4.72|0.19|0.953
84691368|NCT04534114|169121118|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.63||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.10|0.605
84691369|NCT04534114|169121119|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.45||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.08|||Log Rank|||||6.08|0.34|0.612
84691370|NCT04534114|169121119|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.66|||Log Rank|||||5.66|0.28|0.757
84691371|NCT04534114|169121119|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.91||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.52|||Log Rank|||||4.52|0.18|0.909
84691372|NCT03287414|169121126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.115|0.241||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.241|-0.115|0.3248
84691373|NCT03287414|169121127|OTHER|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.868
84691374|NCT03287414|169121129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||PFS1||6.3|1.1|0.921
84691375|NCT03287414|169121129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||PFS2||5.6|0.9|0.863
84691376|NCT03287414|169121130|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||FVC||5.6|0.9|0.863
84508653|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.1119
84508654|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0250
84691377|NCT03287414|169121130|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||DLCO||2.0|0.4|0.457
84691378|NCT03287414|169121130|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|0.6|||Log Rank|||6MWD||0.6|0.1|0.019
84691379|NCT03287414|169121131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|2.0|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 1||2.0|0.6|0.611
84691380|NCT03287414|169121131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.9|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 2||1.9|0.6|0.549
84691381|NCT03287414|169121132|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3109||0.7576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.615|0.774||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.774|-2.615|0.7576
84691382|NCT03287414|169121133|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|32.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.8632||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.572|112.015||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||112.015|-47.572|0.3018
84691383|NCT03287414|169121134|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|29.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.0143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.22|106.553||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||106.553|-48.220|0.3140
84691384|NCT03287414|169121135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the mean|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5422||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.219|3.759||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||3.759|-0.219|0.1269
84691385|NCT01087996|169121138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84691386|NCT01087996|169121139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
84691387|NCT01087996|169121140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84691388|NCT01087996|169121141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84691389|NCT01087996|169121142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84691390|NCT01087996|169121143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84691391|NCT01087996|169121144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.87
84691392|NCT01087996|169121145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.84
84691393|NCT01087996|169121146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
84691394|NCT01008475|169121150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
84691395|NCT01008475|169121150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||||||||1.61|0.77|
84691396|NCT01008475|169121151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||||||||1.28|0.54|
84691397|NCT01008475|169121151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||||||||1.25|0.52|
84691398|NCT01008475|169121152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
84691399|NCT01008475|169121152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
84691400|NCT01008475|169121154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||||||||1.34|0.67|
84691401|NCT01008475|169121154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||||||||1.48|0.74|
84691402|NCT00971750|169121162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
84691403|NCT00971750|169121164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84508655|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3569||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.3569
84508656|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4103||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.4103
84691404|NCT01316770|169121175|SUPERIORITY|The standard deviation (SD) of the change in salivary flow was assumed to be 0.0168 for the placebo and 0.0906 for the dexamethasone parotid. The within-subject correlation between two glands was assumed to be 0.15. A total of 16 patients would be required to have 80% power to detect a one-sided 40% increase in dexamethasone-irrigated parotid glands compared with the saline irrigated parotid glands with respect to change in salivary flow from Day 0 to Day 56.||||||0.236||||||No corrections were made for multiple comparisons because there was only one primary hypothesis.|one-sided Paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis included all time points but it failed to converge. Therefore, an alternative analysis was performed using a paired t-test. Because the Satterthwaite correction \[that was specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the mixed model\] is not available for the paired t-test, it was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates, as these measures were appropriate for the model used.||||0.236
84691405|NCT01316770|169121176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.662
84691406|NCT01316770|169121177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.607
84691407|NCT01316770|169121178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.586
84691408|NCT01316770|169121192|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.500
84691409|NCT01316770|169121192|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
84691410|NCT01316770|169121192|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.500
84691411|NCT01316770|169121192|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
84691412|NCT01316770|169121194|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
84691413|NCT01316770|169121194|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
84691414|NCT01316770|169121195|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
84691415|NCT01316770|169121195|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
84691416|NCT01316770|169121195|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
84691417|NCT01316770|169121195|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
84691418|NCT01316770|169121198|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.250
84691419|NCT01316770|169121198|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
84691420|NCT01316770|169121198|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
84508657|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1490
84691421|NCT01316770|169121198|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
84508658|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.5590
84508659|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4796||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.4796
84691422|NCT01316770|169121199|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
84508660|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2794||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2794
84508661|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1646
84508662|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0782
84508663|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.1407
84508664|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2369
84508665|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.7756
84662078|NCT01737944|169057934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.93|106.47||||||||106.47|87.93|
84662079|NCT01737944|169057934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|89.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.61|98.78||||||||98.78|81.61|
84662080|NCT05620563|169057935|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.87|-0.28|
84662081|NCT05620563|169057936|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-1.13|
84662082|NCT05620563|169057937|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.99|
84662083|NCT05620563|169057938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.69|-3.82|
84662084|NCT05620563|169057939|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.51|-0.33|
84662085|NCT05620563|169057940|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.35|
84662086|NCT05620563|169057941|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.99|-5.70|
84662087|NCT05620563|169057942|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.39|
84662088|NCT05620563|169057943|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.48|166.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||166.06|-115.48|
84662089|NCT05620563|169057944|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
84662090|NCT03590041|169057956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in Patient-Driven SMAs would have greater reductions in Diabetes Distress than those in Standardized SMAs. We expected seeing an effect size of a .6 unit decrease (.30) in Standardized SMAs and 1.2 unit decrease (.60) in Patient-Driven SMAs. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.04
84662091|NCT03590041|169057957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in the Patient-Driven condition would have a greater reduction in HbA1c than patients in the Standardized condition. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.82
84662092|NCT02692703|169057958|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared with the historical rate for the current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV or SOF + DCV + RBV) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 86% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96%, 90 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the regimen to the historical rate for current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV OR SOF + DCV + RBV) (94%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|95.3|
84662093|NCT04626297|169057961|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|11.2||||||||11.2|-10.2|
84662094|NCT04626297|169057962|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|22.0||||||||22.0|2.5|
84662095|NCT04626297|169057963|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.2|10.3|<0.001
84662096|NCT04626297|169057964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38|12.6|<0.001
84662097|NCT04626297|169057965|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|9.0|<0.001
84662098|NCT04626297|169057966|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-3.8|0.138
84662099|NCT04626297|169057967|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) included treatment, baseline value, visit, the interaction of the baseline value-by-visit, the interaction of treatment by-visit, geographic region, age group, baseline IGA score as fixed factors.|||-3.39|-13.04|<0.001
84662100|NCT04626297|169057968|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.001658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001658
84691423|NCT01316770|169121199|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||0.625
84691424|NCT01316770|169121199|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.5000
84691425|NCT01316770|169121199|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
84691426|NCT01755143|169121229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.7|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication-free rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \<90%.|||97.7|<0.0001
84691427|NCT01755143|169121230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
84691428|NCT01755143|169121231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||4.1|-5.4|<0.0001
84691429|NCT01755143|169121232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-3.2|<0.0001
84691430|NCT01755143|169121233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9|||exact test of binomial proportions|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
84691431|NCT01755143|169121234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.8||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.8|0.0004
84691432|NCT02969525|169121259|OTHER||Correlation statistic|4.6|||=|0.031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.~The 160 loading dose arm was not considered in the dose-response because this is a mixed dose and the test is examining linear dose response."||||=0.031
84691433|NCT02969525|169121259|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|15.23||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||15.23|1.13|=0.032
84691434|NCT02969525|169121259|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.74||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||28.74|2.28|=0.001
84508666|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2623||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2623
84691435|NCT02969525|169121259|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|34.26||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||34.26|2.73|<0.001
84691436|NCT02969525|169121259|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.68||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.68|1.00|=0.051
84691437|NCT02969525|169121260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||12.39|1.73|=0.002
84691438|NCT02969525|169121260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|30.95||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||30.95|3.91|<0.001
84691439|NCT02969525|169121260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.84||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||16.84|2.31|<0.001
84691440|NCT02969525|169121260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|11.35||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.35|1.59|=0.004
84691441|NCT02969525|169121261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||=|0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.31||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.31|0.50|=0.279
84691442|NCT02969525|169121261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.88||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||17.88|0.92|=0.065
84691443|NCT02969525|169121261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|31.28||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||31.28|1.77|=0.006
84691444|NCT02969525|169121261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|13.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.39|0.63|=0.172
84691445|NCT03445065|169121286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm, centre, and type of diabetes as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.4|0.341
84691446|NCT03445065|169121287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.03892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.1|-3.1|0.03892
84691447|NCT03445065|169121291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||10.9|-0.1|0.056
84691448|NCT03445065|169121291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||8.4|1.0|0.01255
84508667|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.3147
84691449|NCT03445065|169121292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>250mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-1.1|-9.9|0.015
84691450|NCT03445065|169121292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.50266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||2.0|-4.0|0.50266
84691451|NCT03445065|169121293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>180mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.6|-10.9|0.080
84691452|NCT03445065|169121293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.10637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-7.3|0.10637
84691453|NCT03445065|169121294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-1.2|0.671
84691454|NCT03445065|169121294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.12935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.5|-4.1|0.12935
84508668|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2885||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.2885
84691455|NCT03445065|169121295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.6|0.693
84508669|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7187||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.7187
84691456|NCT03445065|169121296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.9|-6.7|0.753
84691457|NCT03445065|169121296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.84307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effect, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.8|-4.6|0.84307
84508670|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.6017
84508671|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.4500
84508672|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0952||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0952
84691458|NCT03445065|169121297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-4.8|0.653
84691459|NCT03445065|169121297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.07261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.8|-0.2|0.07261
84691460|NCT03445065|169121298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.4|-4.9|0.685
84691461|NCT03445065|169121298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.19785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.8|-1.6|0.19785
84691462|NCT03445065|169121299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.549
84691463|NCT03445065|169121299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.3|-6.3|0.03180
84691464|NCT03445065|169121300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-0.6|0.859
84508673|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7069||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.7069
84508674|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.4767
84508675|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6191||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6191
84691465|NCT03445065|169121300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.01124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.6|-4.5|0.01124
84691466|NCT03445065|169121301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1585|-0.018||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Enabled (D90-120) group.|||-0.018|-1.1585|0.045
84691467|NCT03445065|169121302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|3.682||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Switch to Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Control (D90-120) group.|||3.682|-2.741|0.763
84691468|NCT03445065|169121303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-0.4|0.140
84691469|NCT03445065|169121303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.6|-2.6|0.64110
84691470|NCT03445065|169121304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.1|-1.1|0.339
84691471|NCT03445065|169121304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.57677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.7|-3.0|0.57677
84691472|NCT03445065|169121305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.2|-0.3|0.558
84691473|NCT03445065|169121305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.3|0.408
84691474|NCT03445065|169121306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.2|0.616
84691475|NCT03535337|169121328|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.59|0.28|0.03
84691476|NCT03535337|169121329|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-1.32|0.82
84508676|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.5276
84508677|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.3323
84691477|NCT01598298|169121330|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use)|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for the stratification factors.||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
84691478|NCT01598298|169121331|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.57|<0.0001
84691479|NCT01598298|169121332|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient fro treatment term|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of pain interference scores at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.35|<0.0001
84691480|NCT02341287|169121358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.74||Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by actigraph.|t-test, 2 sided|||||25.74|2.29|.023
84691481|NCT02341287|169121359|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by sleep log.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.91|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.73|3.29|<0.014
84691482|NCT00584701|169121364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dfiference in exon expression|1.5|||<|0.001||||||"Expression difference \>\|1.5\| with p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA|Between-group gene expression profiles compared between high versus low responders, controlling for age, gender and batch.||||||<.001
84691483|NCT01161472|169121366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.0077|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0077|-0.0647|0.1198
84691484|NCT01161472|169121366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0551|0.0145|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0145|-0.0551|0.2459
84691485|NCT01161472|169121368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0268|0.0194|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0194|-0.0268|0.7502
84691486|NCT01161472|169121368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0325|0.0154|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0154|-0.0325|0.4785
84691487|NCT01161472|169121370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0569|0.0498|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0498|-0.0569|0.8944
84691488|NCT01161472|169121370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0263||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0738|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0738|-0.0320|0.4308
84691489|NCT01161472|169121372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4945||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4729|28.7987|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||28.7987|-21.4729|0.7707
84691490|NCT01161472|169121372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4482||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9634|5.1215|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||5.1215|-44.9634|0.1162
84691491|NCT01161472|169121374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8707||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8297|9.8433|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||9.8433|-9.8297|0.9989
84691492|NCT01161472|169121374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0346||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7926|8.5425|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||8.5425|-11.7926|0.7485
84691493|NCT01161472|169121376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8243||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3788|1.9157|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.9157|-1.3788|0.7458
84691494|NCT01161472|169121376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8277||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7202|1.588|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.5880|-1.7202|0.9366
84691495|NCT02914184|169121377|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.44|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_B groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.44|0.79|
84691496|NCT02914184|169121377|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.19|0.65|
84691497|NCT02914184|169121377|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_B and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.11|0.61|
84508678|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1025
84508679|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1715
84508680|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.1070
84508681|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2751
84508682|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0276
84691498|NCT02914184|169121378|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in SCR for antibodies to rota virus at month 2-4 between the Liq\_Pool group and Lyo Control group should be ≥ -10%.|SCR difference at Month 2-4|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|2.63||||||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool group compared to Lyo Control group in terms of difference in % of subjects with anti-RV IgA titer ≥ specified cut off with its 2-sided 95% CI in initially seronegative subjects||2.63|-7.15|
84508683|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1689||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1689
84508684|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0769||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0769
84508685|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1058
84508686|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6406||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.6406
84691499|NCT02914184|169121380|NON_INFERIORITY|LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between the Liq\_Pool Group and Control group should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool Group as compared to Lyo Control group in terms of the GMC ratio calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects||1.33|0.82|
84508687|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.1733
84508688|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2631
84508689|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.2170
84691500|NCT00798174|169121387|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the azygos coil does not reduce the DFT. (A reduced DFT is superiority).||||||0.103||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the DFT using the azygos coil vs. the standard configuration.~Paired t-test (two-tailed), used due to construction of study with DFT determined in both configurations in each patient, yields p=0.103"||||0.103
84691501|NCT03349268|169121405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.23
84691502|NCT03820323|169121406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||Modified Poisson regression|||||1.03|0.94|0.55
84691503|NCT03820323|169121407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Modified Poission regression|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
84691504|NCT02912468|169121412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.07|<0.0001
84691505|NCT02912468|169121413|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.69|-2.43|<0.0001
84691506|NCT02912468|169121414|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 24 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-6.53|-8.35|<.0001
84691507|NCT02912468|169121415|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.17|-3.04|<.0001
84691508|NCT02912468|169121416|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.34|8.79|<.0001
84691509|NCT02912468|169121417|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.93|-1.31|<.0001
84691510|NCT02912468|169121418|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-17.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.06|-25.17|<.0001
84691511|NCT00692406|169121452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0023|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691512|NCT00692406|169121453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1167|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691513|NCT00692406|169121454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0253|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84508690|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0868||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0868
84508691|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1117
84508692|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4943||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 (208601\_s\_at)||||0.4943
84508693|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.5190
84508694|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7350
84508695|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.3820
84508696|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.9290
84691514|NCT00692406|169121455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1432|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691515|NCT00692406|169121456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0489|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84508697|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.0699
84508698|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3515||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.3515
84508699|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2128
84508700|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.1275
84508701|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2158
84508702|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0266
84508703|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.3636
84508704|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9479||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.9479
84508705|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.3753
84691516|NCT00692406|169121457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0096|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691517|NCT00692406|169121458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0372|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691518|NCT00692406|169121459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
84691519|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.38||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression||The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.|The primary analysis is a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a random slope \& intercept model. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& baseline FVC (mL), age and height as well as the treatment-by time \& baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time \& intercept.Within-patient errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix||79.01|2.88|0.0350
84691520|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.13||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|83.83|||random coefficient regression|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"This is a sensitivity analysis (SA) on primary endpoint including only on-trt measurements of FVC \[mL\]. The random coefficient model was used. The analysis included fixed, categorical effects of trt, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& bl. FVC (mL), age, height, trt -by time \& bl.-by-time interactions. Random effects included for patient response for both time \& intercept.~Within-patient errors were modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||83.83|2.44|0.0378
84691521|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|66.22|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 1, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from corresponding trt group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines.The imputation model was similar to statistical model of PA.||66.22|-6.22|0.1046
84691522|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|69.06|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 2, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from pl. group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had a wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with a wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA||69.06|-3.19|0.0740
84691523|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.86||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|69.75|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 3, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all pts in the pl. group who were included in the PA. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all placebo patients included in the primary analysis with the most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA.||69.75|-2.03|0.0644
84691524|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, the fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC (mL), and the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept.||79.01|2.88|0.0351
84691525|NCT02597933|169121460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.98||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|79.04|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status (Positive / Negative), gender and mycophenolate mofetil /sodium background therapy use (Yes / No), fixed continuous effects of time, age , height and baseline FVC (mL), the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept||79.04|2.92|0.0349
84691526|NCT02597933|169121461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53|||MMRM|||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used. The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||0.53|-0.94|0.5785
84691527|NCT02597933|169121462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.12|||MMRM|The MMRM model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||4.12|-0.73|0.1711
84691528|NCT02597933|169121463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|1.15|0.09|2.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"Based on a random coefficient regression with fixed categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC \[% pred\], \& including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effect was included for patient specific intercept \& time.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix."||2.21|0.09|0.0331
84691529|NCT02597933|169121464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.51||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.09|84.73|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||84.73|8.09|0.0177
84691530|NCT02597933|169121465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||10.21|-22.77|0.4547
84691531|NCT02597933|169121466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Based on Cox's regression model (Wald test), stratified by ATA status.||||2.84|0.47|0.7535
84691532|NCT02597933|169121467|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between both treatment groups was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. CRISS score at Week 52 was transformed into 100 binary responder endpoints using multiple imputation. These were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by ATA status OR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) as obtained from all 100 imputations were combined using Rubin´s rule.|Missing values were imputed using worst case, i.e. considered having disease progression.|1.88|0.57|0.9115
84691533|NCT02597933|169121468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.06|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.06|-1.94|0.5668
84508706|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5477||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5477
84508707|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.4760
84508708|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3314
84691534|NCT02597933|169121469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.09|-0.16|0.5914
84691535|NCT02597933|169121470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.099|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.099|-0.035|0.3447
84691536|NCT02597933|169121471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.79|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.79|-0.51|0.2727
84691537|NCT01097915|169121488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84691538|NCT01097915|169121489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.004
84691539|NCT01097915|169121490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.048|||||||ANCOVA|the three factors of the Stunkard and Messick Questionnaire were considered as covariates.||||||<0.048
84691540|NCT01097915|169121491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84691541|NCT01097915|169121492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
84691542|NCT01097915|169121493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
84691543|NCT02307513|169121519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.59|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with AUC W0-12 as the response variables; treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the number of oral ulcers at baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = Apremilast - Placebo|The AUC W0-12 for oral ulcer counts was compared between the placebo treatment group and the apremilast 30 BID treatment group using a 2-tailed parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test at the 0.05 significance level.||-54.60|-130.59|<0.0001
84691544|NCT02307513|169121520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-16.8|-32.8|<0.0001
84691545|NCT02307513|169121521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-7.67|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-7.67|-16.20|<0.0001
84691546|NCT02307513|169121522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.0|0.0335
84691547|NCT02307513|169121523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
84691548|NCT02307513|169121524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
84691549|NCT02307513|169121525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||34.6|15.5|<0.0001
84691550|NCT02307513|169121526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.692|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors.|||3.405|1.692|<0.0001
84691551|NCT02307513|169121527|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
84691552|NCT02307513|169121528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.4|-4.5|0.0003
84691553|NCT02307513|169121529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|28.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of sex with the CMH weights.|||60.4|-3.6|0.1100
84691554|NCT02307513|169121530|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|17.5||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test, adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||30.7|4.2|0.0204
84691555|NCT02307513|169121531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.915|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors|||0.915|0.408|0.0112
84691556|NCT02307513|169121532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex and region as factors and the baseline ulcers number as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.0683
84508709|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1005||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1005
84691557|NCT02307513|169121533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.4|0.5944
84691558|NCT02307513|169121534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.5||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|16.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||16.7|-27.6|0.6182
84691559|NCT05952297|169121550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||mixed model|linear mixed model, time x condition effect||||||.88
84691560|NCT02100722|169121551|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||A sample of 712 patients per group (1424 for the entire trial) would be required in order to achieve 90% power to claim noninferiority||2.2|1.1|0.35
84691561|NCT02100722|169121554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3||||||||4.3|0.7|
84691562|NCT02100722|169121555|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing MI.|||2.5|0.9|
84691563|NCT02100722|169121556|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4||||||||2.4|0.3|
84691564|NCT02100722|169121557|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing repeat revascularization.|||2.3|0.9|
84691565|NCT02100722|169121558|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84691566|NCT02100722|169121559|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.04
84691567|NCT02100722|169121560|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84691568|NCT02100722|169121563|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84691569|NCT02541383|169121572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.12|1.21|0.0010
84691570|NCT02541383|169121573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Log Rank|||||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
84691571|NCT02541383|169121574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.52|<0.0001
84691572|NCT01535274|169121579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||P-values represent comparison of successive set points within anesthetic type (i.e.: Set Point 1 compared to Set Point 2, Set Point 2 compared to Set Point 3, etc.). This P-value was determined for each of set points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.||||<0.001
84691573|NCT01407354|169121596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
84691574|NCT01407354|169121596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|threshold p value for statistical significance=0.05||||||0.024
84691575|NCT00405639|169121603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84691576|NCT00405639|169121604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84691577|NCT00405639|169121605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84691578|NCT00405639|169121606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84691579|NCT00612534|169121607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.194||95.0|-5.32|25.83|||ANCOVA|||||25.83|-5.32|0.194
84691580|NCT00612534|169121607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|24.11|||ANCOVA|||||24.11|-6.78|0.268
84691581|NCT00612534|169121607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|36.56|||ANCOVA|||||36.56|3.54|0.018
84691582|NCT01960530|169121619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.69|66.1||||||Evaluation of Cmax||66.10|54.69|
84691583|NCT01960530|169121619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.92|117.76||||||||117.76|96.92|
84691584|NCT01960530|169121624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.23|95.52||||||||95.52|79.23|
84691585|NCT01960530|169121624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.72|99.04||||||||99.04|81.72|
84691586|NCT02395133|169121630|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-14.83|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-7.33|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-7.33|-22.34|= 0.0001
84691587|NCT02395133|169121630|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-17.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|-10.34|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-10.34|-25.33|< 0.0001
84691588|NCT02395133|169121630|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-21.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.36|-14.87|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-14.87|-28.36|<0.0001
84691589|NCT02395133|169121631|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|24.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|39.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||39.29|9.70|= 0.0040
84691590|NCT02395133|169121631|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.0|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|42.58||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||42.58|13.32|= 0.0004
84691591|NCT02395133|169121631|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|53.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||53.52|28.93|<0.0001
84691592|NCT02395133|169121632|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|38.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||38.00|4.86|= 0.0130
84691593|NCT02395133|169121632|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.5|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|49.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||49.72|17.38|= 0.0003
84691594|NCT02395133|169121632|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|55.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||55.76|28.36|<0.0001
84691595|NCT02395133|169121633|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.5|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|32.91||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||32.91|4.14|= 0.0209
84691596|NCT02395133|169121633|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|29.7|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|44.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||44.42|14.89|= 0.0007
84691597|NCT02395133|169121633|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|51.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||51.95|27.42|<0.0001
84508710|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1180
84691598|NCT02395133|169121634|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.21|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||0.32|-29.21|0.1048
84691599|NCT02395133|169121634|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-20.6|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-5.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-5.89|-35.32|= 0.0107
84691600|NCT02395133|169121634|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-23.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-23.74|-48.40|<0.0001
84691601|NCT00069784|169121671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.022||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.114||For the analysis of the two coprimary efficacy outcomes, the overall Type 1 error was partitioned. The first coprimary outcome was tested at 4.4%, whereas the second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (weighted Hochberg procedure).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|The total required number of first coprimary outcomes (2200) assumed that a hazard reduction of 14-16% was clinically significant and controlled the overall experiment-wise Type 1 error at 5% with a power of 80% for each outcome. The total number of participants needed to achieve this number of events within the planned enrollment and treatment periods was ultimately estimated to be 12 500 based on the CURE and HOPE study databases.||1.114|0.937|0.6273
84691602|NCT00069784|169121672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.038||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.109||The second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (see above additional information for the first coprimary outcome).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|See above additional details provided for the analysis of the first coprimary outcome.||1.109|0.972|0.2692
84691603|NCT00069784|169121673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.076|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.076|0.899|
84691604|NCT00069784|169121674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.047|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.047|0.900|
84691605|NCT00069784|169121675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test method stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA or placebo) and previous cardiovascular event (yes or no).|||0.91|0.58|
84691606|NCT04466215|169121678|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||One-tail test of directional hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictor was drug plasma concentration. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||.065
84691607|NCT01555164|169121682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.11||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||P-value from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.4% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||0.10|-0.31|0.306
84691608|NCT00926003|169121685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ART at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.02
84691609|NCT00926003|169121686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ARV at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.18
84508711|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1580
84691610|NCT01672853|169121701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.6|-2.3|
84691611|NCT01672853|169121701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||||||A MMRM with an unstructured variancecovariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||3.0|-1.0|
84691612|NCT00474929|169121717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose Level 1 was chosen as the MTD due to PI concerns about adverse events and frequent dose reductions seen on later cycles at dose level 2. For the best interest of the patients, dose level 1 was chosen as the MTD and the dose level for Phase II.|The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients (at least 2 of a maximum of 6 new patients).||||
84691613|NCT03029247|169121721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.47||p-value for the difference between treatment groups were presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||8.47|-8.80|0.9694
84691614|NCT03029247|169121722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|7.83||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||7.83|-10.46|0.7745
84691615|NCT03029247|169121722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.71|-5.62|0.2910
84691616|NCT03029247|169121722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.07||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||4.07|-8.88|0.4611
84691617|NCT03029247|169121723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|1.24||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.24|-7.14|0.1648
84691618|NCT03029247|169121724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.42||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.75|234.92||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||234.92|-261.75|0.9142
84691619|NCT03029247|169121724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.21|45.8||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||45.80|-189.21|0.2266
84691620|NCT03029247|169121724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.24||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.99|115.51||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||115.51|-223.99|0.5246
84691621|NCT03029247|169121725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.4||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.15|29.34||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||29.34|-178.15|0.1563
84691622|NCT03029247|169121726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.1||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||2.10|-6.23|0.3247
84691623|NCT03029247|169121726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.74||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.74|-8.76|0.4235
84691624|NCT03029247|169121727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.14||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.14|-3.41|0.9353
84691625|NCT03029247|169121728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-144.97||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.71|109.76||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||109.76|-399.71|0.2573
84691626|NCT03029247|169121728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-117.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.26|-2.72||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||-2.72|-232.26|0.0450
84508712|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.4385
84691627|NCT03029247|169121728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-131.94||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-306.24|42.36||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||42.36|-306.24|0.1341
84691628|NCT03029247|169121729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-97.67||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.05|23.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||23.71|-219.05|0.1119
84691629|NCT01993017|169121780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A 2-step gatekeeping test procedure was used. An omnibus F test using ANOVA comparing the 3 groups was first performed. Pairwise comparisons using a 2-sided t test at 5% nominal significance were planned only if the omnibus F test had a P value \<.05.|ANOVA|||We determined that a sample size per group of 500, assuming 5% loss to follow-up, would yield 80% power for a 2-sided t test at the 5% level. These calculations were based on an assumed SD for QALYs of 0.17, expected prevalence of screening-detected depression of 20%, and assumed net improvement in QALYs of 0.155 over 18 months for individuals with depression who received treatment for depression in the Screen, Notify, and Treat group.||||0.98
84691630|NCT01976364|169121793|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0513|0.1022||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1022|-0.0513|
84691631|NCT01976364|169121794|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.313||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.313|-0.131|
84691632|NCT01976364|169121828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.1163||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1163|-0.0192|
84691633|NCT01976364|169121828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0372|0.1021||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1021|-0.0372|
84691634|NCT01976364|169121828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0941|0.0825||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0825|-0.0941|
84691635|NCT01976364|169121828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0734|0.0927||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0927|-0.0734|
84691636|NCT01976364|169121829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.227||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.227|-0.163|
84691637|NCT01976364|169121829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.219||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.219|-0.266|
84691638|NCT01976364|169121829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.470|-0.045|
84691639|NCT01976364|169121829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.188||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.188|-0.309|
84691640|NCT01976364|169121830|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|9.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||9.48|-9.76|
84691641|NCT01976364|169121830|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|3.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||3.77|-12.91|
84691642|NCT01976364|169121830|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||2.87|-14.26|
84691643|NCT01976364|169121830|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|6.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||6.87|-11.59|
84691644|NCT01976364|169121830|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-2.14||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||-2.14|-18.16|
84691645|NCT01976364|169121831|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.1|
84691646|NCT01976364|169121831|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.1|
84691647|NCT01976364|169121831|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|0.0|
84691648|NCT01976364|169121831|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|0.1|
84691649|NCT01976364|169121831|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.1|
84691650|NCT01976364|169121832|OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|19.21||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.21|-58.06|
84691651|NCT01976364|169121832|OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.58|23.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||23.37|-83.58|
84691652|NCT01976364|169121832|OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.35|34.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||34.69|-83.35|
84691653|NCT01976364|169121832|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.87|37.58||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||37.58|-60.87|
84691654|NCT01976364|169121832|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|63.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||63.77|-49.73|
84691655|NCT01976364|169121834|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
84691656|NCT01976364|169121834|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
84691657|NCT01976364|169121834|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
84508713|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7324||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.7324
84691658|NCT01976364|169121834|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
84691659|NCT01976364|169121834|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
84691660|NCT01976364|169121835|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
84691661|NCT01976364|169121835|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
84691662|NCT01976364|169121835|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.1|
84691663|NCT01976364|169121835|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.6|
84691664|NCT01976364|169121835|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-0.6|
84691665|NCT01976364|169121837|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|38.98||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||38.98|-15.65|
84691666|NCT01976364|169121837|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|30.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|60.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||60.20|0.64|
84691667|NCT01976364|169121837|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|62.62||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||62.62|-3.46|
84691668|NCT01976364|169121837|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|24.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|53.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||53.47|-5.14|
84691669|NCT01976364|169121837|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|50.12||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||50.12|-15.96|
84691670|NCT01976364|169121838|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|19.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.60|-9.61|
84691671|NCT01976364|169121838|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|18.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.50|-10.74|
84691672|NCT01976364|169121838|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.45||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.45|-11.80|
84691673|NCT01976364|169121838|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|18.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.52|-10.58|
84691674|NCT01976364|169121838|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|17.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.37|-11.63|
84691675|NCT01976364|169121839|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.5|
84691676|NCT01976364|169121839|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-1.6|
84691677|NCT01976364|169121839|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-1.0|
84691678|NCT01976364|169121839|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.9|-0.9|
84691679|NCT01976364|169121839|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.7|
84691680|NCT01976364|169121840|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.3|
84691681|NCT01976364|169121840|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.6|
84691682|NCT01976364|169121840|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.4|
84691683|NCT01976364|169121840|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.3|
84691684|NCT01976364|169121840|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.3|-0.5|
84691685|NCT01976364|169121841|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.02||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.02|-2.51|
84691686|NCT01976364|169121841|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.18|-2.64|
84691687|NCT01976364|169121841|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.20|-2.26|
84691688|NCT01976364|169121841|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-1.46|
84691689|NCT01976364|169121841|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.01||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.01|-3.25|
84691690|NCT01976364|169121842|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|1.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.52|-5.58|
84691691|NCT01976364|169121842|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.84|-4.69|
84691692|NCT01976364|169121842|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|6.06||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.06|-3.48|
84691693|NCT01976364|169121842|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.32|-4.03|
84691694|NCT01976364|169121842|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.38|-4.64|
84691695|NCT01976364|169121843|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.74||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-4.96|
84691696|NCT01976364|169121843|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|2.65||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-5.11|
84691697|NCT01976364|169121843|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.69|-3.78|
84691698|NCT01976364|169121843|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|6.93||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.93|-2.92|
84691699|NCT01976364|169121843|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.35|-4.03|
84691700|NCT01976364|169121844|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1444|1.8374||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.8374|-2.1444|
84691701|NCT01976364|169121844|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9054|0.7735||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7735|-1.9054|
84691702|NCT01976364|169121844|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0053|1.4071||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.4071|-3.0053|
84691703|NCT01976364|169121844|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5767|1.7018||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7018|-1.5767|
84691704|NCT01976364|169121844|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3672|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8107|2.545||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5450|-1.8107|
84691705|NCT01976364|169121845|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.51||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-0.85|
84508714|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2657||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.2657
84691706|NCT01976364|169121845|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-1.04|
84691707|NCT01976364|169121845|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.55||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.55|-2.09|
84691708|NCT01976364|169121845|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.91||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|-2.44|
84691709|NCT01976364|169121845|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.00|-0.96|
84691710|NCT01976364|169121846|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.29||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.29|-2.22|
84691711|NCT01976364|169121846|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.92|-2.65|
84691712|NCT01976364|169121846|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.36|-2.68|
84691713|NCT01976364|169121846|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.83||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.83|-1.31|
84691714|NCT01976364|169121846|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.01|
84691715|NCT01976364|169121847|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.09|
84691716|NCT01976364|169121847|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-1.39|
84691717|NCT01976364|169121847|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-2.15|
84691718|NCT01976364|169121847|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.13||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.13|-1.49|
84691719|NCT01976364|169121847|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.86||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.86|-1.89|
84691720|NCT01976364|169121848|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.05||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.08|
84691721|NCT01976364|169121848|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.99||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-0.49|
84691722|NCT01976364|169121848|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.31|-0.91|
84691723|NCT01976364|169121848|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.96||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.96|-1.57|
84691724|NCT01976364|169121848|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|3.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.52|-0.06|
84691725|NCT01976364|169121849|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.42||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.42|-1.01|
84691726|NCT01976364|169121849|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.18|-1.49|
84691727|NCT01976364|169121849|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.70|
84691728|NCT01976364|169121849|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-3.99|
84691729|NCT01976364|169121849|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-2.30|
84691730|NCT01976364|169121850|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.69|-2.05|
84691731|NCT01976364|169121850|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-2.57|
84691732|NCT01976364|169121850|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.56||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.17|
84508715|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.5637
84691733|NCT01976364|169121850|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-1.54|
84691734|NCT01976364|169121850|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.46|
84691735|NCT01976364|169121851|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.35|-2.06|
84691736|NCT01976364|169121851|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.79||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.79|-2.51|
84691737|NCT01976364|169121851|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.23||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.23|-3.66|
84691738|NCT01976364|169121851|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-2.25|
84691739|NCT01976364|169121851|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-0.82|
84691740|NCT01976364|169121852|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.82||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.27|
84691741|NCT01976364|169121852|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.71||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.71|-2.46|
84691742|NCT01976364|169121852|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-2.72|
84691743|NCT01976364|169121852|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.36|-1.81|
84691744|NCT01976364|169121852|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.58|
84691745|NCT01976364|169121853|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.32|-3.67|
84691746|NCT01976364|169121853|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.63|-2.86|
84691747|NCT01976364|169121853|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|2.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.09|-2.27|
84691748|NCT01976364|169121853|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.95|-1.49|
84691749|NCT01976364|169121853|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-3.10|
84691750|NCT01976364|169121854|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|2.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.81|-0.95|
84691751|NCT01976364|169121854|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.95|-1.72|
84691752|NCT01976364|169121854|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.90|-2.40|
84691753|NCT01976364|169121854|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.07||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.07|-0.93|
84691754|NCT01976364|169121854|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.38|-1.62|
84508716|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4473||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.4473
84508717|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3292||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3292
84691755|NCT01976364|169121855|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5|-0.9|
84508718|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.2054
84508719|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5226||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.5226
84508720|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.1720
84691756|NCT01976364|169121855|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.2|-1.1|
84691757|NCT01976364|169121855|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-2.4|
84691758|NCT01976364|169121855|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.9|-0.8|
84508721|NCT00455533|168768460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.3346
84508722|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5604||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5604
84691759|NCT01976364|169121855|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.6|-1.1|
84691760|NCT01976364|169121856|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-0.4|
84691761|NCT01976364|169121856|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-1.0|
84691762|NCT01976364|169121856|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-1.6|
84508723|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.2715
84508724|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5268||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5268
84508725|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6058
84691763|NCT01976364|169121856|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
84691764|NCT01976364|169121856|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
84691765|NCT01976364|169121857|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-0.6|
84691766|NCT01976364|169121857|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7|-0.3|
84691767|NCT01976364|169121857|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-1.0|
84691768|NCT01976364|169121857|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.3|0.0|
84691769|NCT01976364|169121857|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.9|-0.3|
84691770|NCT01976364|169121858|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691771|NCT01976364|169121858|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691772|NCT01976364|169121858|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691773|NCT01976364|169121858|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691774|NCT01976364|169121858|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
84691775|NCT01976364|169121859|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|0.0|
84691776|NCT01976364|169121859|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
84691777|NCT01976364|169121859|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
84691778|NCT01976364|169121859|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691779|NCT01976364|169121859|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691780|NCT01976364|169121860|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691781|NCT01976364|169121860|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691782|NCT01976364|169121860|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
84691783|NCT01976364|169121860|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691784|NCT01976364|169121860|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691785|NCT01976364|169121861|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691786|NCT01976364|169121861|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691787|NCT01976364|169121861|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
84691788|NCT01976364|169121861|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691789|NCT01976364|169121861|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
84691790|NCT01976364|169121862|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
84691791|NCT01976364|169121862|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
84691792|NCT01976364|169121862|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
84691793|NCT01976364|169121862|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.3|
84508726|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1918||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1918
84508727|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6712
84691794|NCT01976364|169121862|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.2|
84691795|NCT01976364|169121863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.4|-6.2|
84691796|NCT01976364|169121863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-5.8|
84691797|NCT01976364|169121863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.4|-10.2|
84691798|NCT01976364|169121863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-7.3|
84691799|NCT01976364|169121863|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-9.9|
84691800|NCT00999661|169121937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.12|<|0.0001||95.0|36.6|43.1||One-sample t-test for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.1|36.6|<0.0001
84691801|NCT00999661|169121938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.79|<|0.0001||95.0|34.0|39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.2|34.0|<0.0001
84691802|NCT00999661|169121939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.233|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.65|-7.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.29|-8.65|<0.0001
84691803|NCT00917267|169121940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly to exenatide twice daily concluded if upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for treatment difference is \<0; noninferiority concluded if upper limit is \<0.4%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects. Power: 306 patients per treatment group provides approximately 98% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.14|-0.49|<.001
84508728|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9195||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9195
84508729|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.7021
84508730|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.3910
84691804|NCT00917267|169121941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||0.003
84691805|NCT00917267|169121942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
84691806|NCT00917267|169121943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-10.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-10.83|-22.50|<.001
84691807|NCT00917267|169121944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.25|0.39|<.001
84691808|NCT00917267|169121945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline TC, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.71|-6.33|0.609
84691809|NCT00917267|169121946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.38|-0.65|0.476
84691810|NCT00917267|169121947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TG data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.06|0.93|0.807
84691811|NCT00312858|169121956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference of seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|3.8||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.||3.8|-1.4|<0.001
84691812|NCT00312858|169121957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.013||95.0|-9.3|-1.4||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided multiplicity-adjusted α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2 for participants with initial serostatus \<1.25 gpELISA units/mL||-1.4|-9.3|0.013
84508731|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2909||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2909
84691813|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 4||1.3|0.9|<0.001
84691814|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 6B||1.2|0.8|<0.001
84691815|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 9V||1.0|0.8|<0.001
84508732|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3336||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.3336
84691816|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 14||1.2|0.9|<0.001
84691817|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 18C||1.3|0.9|<0.001
84691818|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 19F||1.2|0.9|<0.001
84691819|NCT00312858|169121958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 23F||1.3|1.0|<0.001
84691820|NCT02318719|169122004|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square mean|-0.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg/day at Week 14||-0.07|-0.74|0.0170
84691821|NCT02318719|169122004|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.47||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day at Week 14||-0.14|-0.81|0.0058
84691822|NCT02318719|169122004|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day at Week 14||-0.44|-1.10|<0.0001
84691823|NCT00252590|169122006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
84691824|NCT00423293|169122020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value comparing to a rate of 78% (the historical rate was updated after the study design).|Chi-squared|||The RT+ 5-FU + Mitomycin-C arm on previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 9811 \[NCT00003596\] had a 77% rate of \>= grade 2 GI and GU adverse events. The null hypothesis for this study design was a 15% reduction for that rate. Fifty-four evaluable patients provides 80% power to detect a 15% reduction, using a one-sided chi-squared test with a type I error rate of 0.05. (With 52 patients, the power is reduced to 78%.)||||0.50
84691825|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GI grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 73%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.5
84691826|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GU grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 20%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.18
84691827|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with hematologic grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 85%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.032
84691828|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with skin grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 83%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.10
84691829|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 98%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.12
84691830|NCT00423293|169122022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 3+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 87%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.23
84691831|NCT02632786|169122063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.55|0.3190
84508733|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2360
84508734|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0281
84691832|NCT02632786|169122064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-3.37|0.5563
84691833|NCT02632786|169122065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|23.0|||ANCOVA|||||23.00|-11.50|0.8992
84691834|NCT02632786|169122066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|0.60|0.3529
84691835|NCT02632786|169122067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.2|0.7570
84691836|NCT02632786|169122068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-71.97||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.72|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-150.72|0.0729
84691837|NCT02632786|169122069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4142
84691838|NCT04250337|169122070|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|5.1|0.011
84691839|NCT04250337|169122071|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.8|12.1|<.001
84691840|NCT04250337|169122072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|6.1|0.008
84691841|NCT04250337|169122073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.373||0.017263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-27.7|0.017263
84691842|NCT04250337|169122074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.1|4.3|0.017
84691843|NCT04250337|169122075|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|7.1|0.007
84691844|NCT04250337|169122076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.074||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-33.6|0.000003
84691845|NCT04250337|169122077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|-7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.49|-17.07|<0.001
84691846|NCT04250337|169122078|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.8|-4.9|0.454
84691847|NCT04250337|169122079|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.81||0.117607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-45.4|0.117607
84691848|NCT04250337|169122080|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.025293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.025293
84691849|NCT04250337|169122081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|3.8|0.022
84691850|NCT04250337|169122082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.7|-7.3|0.764
84691851|NCT04250337|169122083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-2.9|0.498
84691852|NCT04250337|169122084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|5.3|0.014
84691853|NCT04250337|169122085|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-8.0|0.818
84691854|NCT04250337|169122086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|-3.1|0.499
84691855|NCT04250337|169122087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.104||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|17.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.36|-2.78|0.155
84691856|NCT04250337|169122089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.37|-9.01|||ANCOVA|||||-9.01|-26.37|<0.001
84691857|NCT04250337|169122090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.001031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-5.3|0.001031
84691858|NCT04250337|169122091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|0.1|0.036
84691859|NCT04250337|169122092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index UK||0.16|0.06|<0.001
84691860|NCT04250337|169122092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index US||0.11|0.04|<0.001
84691861|NCT04250337|169122093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.386||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|8.32|||ANCOVA|||||8.32|-1.08|0.131
84691862|NCT04250337|169122094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-6.26|<0.001
84691863|NCT04250337|169122095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.407||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-3.58|0.571
84691864|NCT04250337|169122096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|-2.40|0.882
84691865|NCT04250337|169122097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|-1.56|0.171
84691866|NCT04250337|169122098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|-1.03|0.109
84691867|NCT04250337|169122099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.922
84691868|NCT04250337|169122100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.22|0.001
84691869|NCT00136812|169122101|OTHER|We used all available observations in a GEE analysis and did not impute missing data or drop observations.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.14||P-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|generalized estimating equation model|||To test the primary hypothesis, we ran a generalized estimating equation model with logit link function (PROC GENMOD in SAS version 9.2), to examine abstinence versus smoking status at the 3- through 18-month follow-ups by condition.||8.14|1.22|0.018
84691870|NCT02006420|169122102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin thickness of the forearm.||||0.005
84691871|NCT02006420|169122102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin stiffness of the thigh||||0.71
84691872|NCT02006420|169122103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.002
84691873|NCT02006420|169122103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.007
84691874|NCT02006420|169122104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the forearm.||||0.002
84691875|NCT02006420|169122104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the thigh||||0.007
84691876|NCT02006420|169122106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||<.0001
84691877|NCT02006420|169122106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||<0.0001
84691878|NCT02006420|169122108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.01
84691879|NCT02006420|169122108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.10
84691880|NCT02951351|169122109|NON_INFERIORITY|By non-inferiority analysis, proparacaine was inferior to povidone iodine with a 5% margin for non-inferiority. To detect non-inferiority with one positive culture in the proparacaine group, 45 patients would be required in the proparacaine group with a 5% margin.||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84691881|NCT02951351|169122110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84691882|NCT02951351|169122111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84691883|NCT02951351|169122112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84691884|NCT02951351|169122113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84691885|NCT02951351|169122114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84691886|NCT02951351|169122115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84691887|NCT02951351|169122116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84691888|NCT00474175|169122117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|16.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|25.7||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 20% was significantly (p less than or equal to \[=\<\] 0.05) more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and its associated confidence interval (C.I.) was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||25.7|7.2|<0.001
84691889|NCT00474175|169122117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|9.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.3||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 10% was significantly (p=\<0.05) more effective than placebo provided that benzocaine 20% was more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||19.3|0.3|0.038
84691890|NCT00474175|169122117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|6.72||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Dose response was considered established if the percentage of responders between the 20% and 10% was greater than or equal to 5%.||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||13.3|0.2|0.047
84691891|NCT00474175|169122118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Hazard Ratio (HR) of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.64|1.55|<0.001
84691892|NCT00474175|169122118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.12||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.12|1.26|<0.001
84691893|NCT00474175|169122118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.51|1.02|0.030
84691894|NCT00474175|169122119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.66|1.57|<0.001
84691895|NCT00474175|169122119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.25|1.34|<0.001
84691896|NCT00474175|169122119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.43|0.97|0.100
84691897|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|0.03|0.035
84691898|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.14|0.173
84691899|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.20|0.358
84691900|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.72|-0.23|0.135
84691901|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.48||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.46|-0.49|0.332
84691902|NCT00474175|169122121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.06||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.06|-0.53|0.517
84691903|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.35|0.50|<0.001
84691904|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.97||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.97|0.13|0.011
84691905|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.72|0.03|0.031
84691906|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.23||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.23|0.33|<0.001
84691907|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.94||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.94|0.04|0.031
84691908|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.07|0.119
84691909|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.25|0.28|0.002
84691910|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|-0.02|0.061
84691911|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.70|-0.09|0.131
84691912|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.52||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.03||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.03|0.01|0.044
84691913|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.43||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.08|0.099
84691914|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.51|-0.32|0.647
84691915|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.11|0.08|0.023
84691916|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.47||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.98||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.98|-0.04|0.072
84691917|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.13||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.29|0.551
84691918|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.54||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.08|0.01|0.047
84691919|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.81|-0.26|0.316
84691920|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.71||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.71|-0.17|0.224
84691921|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.01||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.01|-0.09|0.099
84691922|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.92|-0.18|0.186
84691923|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.54||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.54|-0.35|0.684
84691924|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.34|0.452
84691925|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.75|-0.35|0.479
84691926|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.955
84691927|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.79|-0.36|0.465
84691928|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.992
84691929|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.68||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.68|-0.26|0.376
84691930|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.36||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.22|0.229
84691931|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.41|0.581
84691932|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.19||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.28|0.422
84691933|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.26|0.271
84691934|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.73|-0.43|0.612
84691935|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.465
84691936|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.27|0.290
84691937|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.83||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.83|-0.34|0.412
84691938|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.07||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.41|0.769
84691939|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.43|0.610
84691940|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.39|0.511
84691941|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.43|-0.52|0.859
84691942|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.84||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.84|-0.33|0.386
84691943|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.41|0.563
84691944|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
84691945|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.69||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.69|-0.48|0.725
84691946|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.64|-0.52|0.839
84508735|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0434
84508736|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0283
84508737|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0151
84691947|NCT00474175|169122123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.52|-0.43|0.855
84691948|NCT00474175|169122124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|0.01|0.035
84691949|NCT00474175|169122124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|-0.00|0.039
84691950|NCT00474175|169122124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Benzocaine 10%) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.13|-0.15|0.944
84691951|NCT01003184|169122135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.73|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight as main factors.||"Primary objective: to test hypothesis that the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤7.0% with weight loss (≥1.0 kg) after exenatide QW is superior to insulin detemir.~Sample size estimation: based on the test for difference in percentage between Exenatide QW and insulin detemir. Assuming: common drop-out rate 20%, response rate at endpoint 50% in the exenatide QW group and 25% in the insulin detemir group; 5% significance. 214 patients will provide 90% power to detect a difference."||13.73|3.17|<.0001
84691952|NCT01003184|169122136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes the independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight.||||13.70|3.64|<.0001
84691953|NCT01003184|169122137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
84691954|NCT01003184|169122138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-2.71|-4.63|<.0001
84691955|NCT01003184|169122139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.18|1.00|0.0497
84691956|NCT01003184|169122140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.96|1.24|0.0074
84691957|NCT01003184|169122141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||11.35|2.10|0.0002
84691958|NCT01003184|169122142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.61|-0.41|0.6993
84508738|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1999||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1999
84508739|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0146
84691959|NCT01003184|169122143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-1.07|-8.37|0.0116
84691960|NCT01003184|169122144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||1.88|-2.77|0.7034
84691961|NCT01003184|169122145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.03|-0.32|0.1061
84691962|NCT01003184|169122146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.02|-0.05|0.4638
84691963|NCT01003184|169122147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.28|-0.14|0.4967
84691964|NCT01003184|169122148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.72|||Poisson regression|||The number of episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a poisson model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||1.72|0.19|0.3247
84691965|NCT03245255|169122205|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84691966|NCT01022073|169122209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is based on the completers. We are working on the imputation methods to account for the missing data and will revise results later.||||||0.808
84691967|NCT01373450|169122245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.98|0.77|0.024
84691968|NCT01373450|169122246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.004
84691969|NCT01373450|169122247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.019|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.019|0.008|<0.001
84691970|NCT01373450|169122248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98||||||||0.98|0.72|
84691971|NCT01373450|169122249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.003
84691972|NCT01373450|169122249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.74|0.45|<0.001
84691973|NCT01373450|169122249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.16|0.85|0.473
84508740|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.1185
84691974|NCT01373450|169122249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.00|0.56|0.049
84691975|NCT01373450|169122250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.015|<0.001
84691976|NCT01373450|169122250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.038|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.038|0.021|<0.001
84691977|NCT01373450|169122250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.012|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.012|0.002|0.0163
84691978|NCT01373450|169122250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.006|0.0056
84691979|NCT03621202|169122278|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS sensitivity was 100%.|||
84691980|NCT03621202|169122279|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS specificity was 75%.|||
84691981|NCT00697190|169122280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senoflicon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.04|-0.29|
84691982|NCT00697190|169122281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.06|-0.10|
84691983|NCT00697190|169122282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.10|-0.23|
84691984|NCT00697190|169122283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.04|-0.25|
84691985|NCT00697190|169122284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.07|-0.16|
84508741|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8705||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8705
84508742|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.0284
84508743|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0399||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0399
84508744|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0136
84508745|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0576
84508746|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2245||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.2245
84508747|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1388||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1388
84508748|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.0692
84508749|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1058
84508750|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2688
84508751|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.0192
84508752|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0033
84508753|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2053||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2053
84508754|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0032
84508755|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6783||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.6783
84508756|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.1630
84508757|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2944||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2944
84508758|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3727||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.3727
84508759|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8796||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8796
84508760|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8344
84691986|NCT00697190|169122285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.14|-0.25|
84691987|NCT00697190|169122286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.32|0.04|
84691988|NCT00697190|169122287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.08|-0.26|
84691989|NCT00697190|169122288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||97.5|0.02|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.33|0.02|
84691990|NCT00697190|169122289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||0.26|-0.27|
84691991|NCT00697190|169122290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.08|-0.34|
84691992|NCT00697190|169122291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.15|-0.54|
84691993|NCT00697190|169122292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.14|-0.12|
84691994|NCT00697190|169122293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.05|-0.23|
84691995|NCT00697190|169122294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.02|-0.20|
84691996|NCT01871558|169122310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.139
84691997|NCT01709305|169122326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|0.02|0.36||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.36|0.02|
84691998|NCT01709305|169122326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.15|0.21||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.21|-0.15|
84691999|NCT01709305|169122326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.23|0.14||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.14|-0.23|
84692000|NCT01709305|169122328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-6.1|-11.1|<0.001
84692001|NCT01709305|169122328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-2.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.3|-6.1|0.072
84692002|NCT01709305|169122328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-2.5|-8.3|<0.001
84692003|NCT01709305|169122329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
84692004|NCT01709305|169122329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
84692005|NCT01709305|169122329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
84692006|NCT01709305|169122330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.998
84692007|NCT01709305|169122330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.5|-1.0|0.319
84692008|NCT01709305|169122330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.999
84692009|NCT01709305|169122331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.651
84692010|NCT01709305|169122331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.660
84692011|NCT01709305|169122331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.6|-0.8|0.480
84692012|NCT01709305|169122332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
84692013|NCT01709305|169122332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
84692014|NCT01709305|169122332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
84692015|NCT03518658|169122333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|37.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||37.0|32.4|<0.001
84692016|NCT03518658|169122333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|41.9||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||41.9|34.8|<0.001
84692017|NCT00649389|169122335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692018|NCT00649389|169122335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692019|NCT00649389|169122335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692020|NCT00649389|169122336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
84692021|NCT00649389|169122336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
84692022|NCT00649389|169122336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
84692023|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692024|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692025|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||0.0001
84692026|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692027|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692028|NCT00649389|169122337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692029|NCT00649389|169122338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692030|NCT00649389|169122338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692031|NCT00649389|169122338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
84692032|NCT02444988|169122352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.77|<0.05
84692033|NCT02444988|169122353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.73|<0.05
84692034|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for used (injected/snorted/smoked) heroin in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|0.80|0.05
84692035|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) powder cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.76|1.12|0.01
84692036|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected and/or snorted) crack cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|1.00|0.05
84508761|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2700
84692037|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) methamphetamine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.98|0.35|0.03
84692038|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for poly-substance use in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.59|1.11|<0.01
84692039|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Heavy drinking (\>14 and \>21 drinks/week for women and men respectively) in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||12.28|3.84|<0.01
84692040|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Drank until blacked out in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||6.50|2.02|<0.01
84692041|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Injected daily, past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.93|0.33|0.04
84692042|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of injected partners \>= 5 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.40|1.37|<0.01
84692043|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days||1.97|0.81|0.19
84692044|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratio with 95 % confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days||2.55|1.01|<0.01
84692045|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days||5.27|1.79|<0.01
84692046|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Shared cooker/spook to prepare drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as risk factor for risk behaviors||3.32|1.34|<0.01
84692047|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having used Backloaded Syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95 % confidence interval for travel as a risk factor for risk behaviors||2.95|1.19|<0.01
84692048|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|"Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having done Someone's rinse in the past 30 days"|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behavior in past 30 days||2.10|0.83|0.13
84692049|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of sexual partners \>=2 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||3.49|1.40|<0.01
84692050|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Traded sex for money or drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||1.85|0.45|0.86
84692051|NCT00244374|169122372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for condom use \>90% (if sexually active)|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for engaging in risk behavior during the past 30 days||2.02|0.59|0.73
84692052|NCT02105636|169122376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92||Log-rank Test stratified by prior treatment with cetuximab (yes, no) as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS). For OS the boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0227.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model for distribution of OS in each randomized arm.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (Cetuximab, Methotrexate, or Docetaxel)||0.92|0.53|0.0101
84692053|NCT02105636|169122377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||||Number of responders (CR +PR) over number of participants|||1.10|0.68|
84692054|NCT02105636|169122378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||||Stratum adjusted difference in response rates (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method of weighting.|||13.6|1.5|
84692055|NCT02105636|169122378|SUPERIORITY||CMH Estimate of Common Odds Ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.82|||||Stratified by Prior Cetuximab (yes, no) as recorded in the IVRS. Stratum adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) using Mantel-Haenszel Method.|||5.82|1.07|
84692056|NCT02105636|169122379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice therapy.|||0.85|0.54|
84692057|NCT03661996|169122388|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.108|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.108|1.019|
84692058|NCT03661996|169122388|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.001|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.001|0.919|
84692059|NCT03661996|169122388|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.057|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.057|0.970|
84692060|NCT03661996|169122388|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|0.972|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.972|0.892|
84692061|NCT03661996|169122389|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|17.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||19.90|14.40|<0.0001
84692062|NCT03661996|169122389|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.692|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||28.03|12.79|<0.0001
84692063|NCT03661996|169122389|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|21.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||21.66|18.44|<0.0001
84692064|NCT03661996|169122389|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|20.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||20.38|16.41|<0.0001
84692065|NCT03661996|169122390|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.54|25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.37|19.54|<0.0001
84692066|NCT03661996|169122390|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|33.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||33.42|14.38|<0.0001
84692067|NCT03661996|169122390|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|27.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.32|23.92|<0.0001
84692068|NCT03661996|169122390|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|24.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||24.17|20.03|<0.0001
84692069|NCT03661996|169122391|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|24.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||24.5|17.6|<0.0001
84692070|NCT03661996|169122391|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||37.8|12.7|0.0003
84692071|NCT03661996|169122391|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||27.88|23.82|<0.0001
84692072|NCT03661996|169122391|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.91|25.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||25.78|20.91|<0.0001
84692073|NCT03661996|169122392|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|23.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.78|17.94|<0.0001
84692074|NCT03661996|169122392|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.24|35.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||35.09|16.24|<0.0001
84692075|NCT03661996|169122392|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.88|27.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.26|23.88|<0.0001
84692076|NCT03661996|169122392|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.02|27.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.37|24.02|<0.0001
84692077|NCT03661996|169122393|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.74|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.60|20.74|<0.0001
84508762|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2624||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2624
84508763|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0830
84692078|NCT03661996|169122393|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|33.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.15|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||45.07|21.15|<0.0001
84692079|NCT03661996|169122393|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|30.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||30.23|25.38|<0.0001
84692080|NCT03661996|169122393|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|27.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.94|21.66|<0.0001
84692081|NCT03661996|169122394|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.898|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|25.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.84|18.37|<0.0001
84692082|NCT03661996|169122394|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|29.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.66|3.84|<0.0001
84692083|NCT03661996|169122394|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.43|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.60|19.43|<0.0001
84692084|NCT03661996|169122394|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||22.09|16.72|<0.0001
84692085|NCT03661996|169122395|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.10|-3.86|<0.0001
84692086|NCT03661996|169122395|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-2.67|-4.38|<0.0001
84692087|NCT03661996|169122395|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.79|-4.25|<0.0001
84692088|NCT03661996|169122395|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.48|-3.96|<0.0001
84692089|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.01||||||Equivalence of group|ANOVA|||||||0.010
84692090|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.004||||||augment with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84692091|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.017||||||augment with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.017
84692092|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.650
84692093|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||augmentation versus switch|ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.003
84692094|NCT02960763|169122409|SUPERIORITY|For those who proceed to Step 2, analogous repeated measures 2\*2\*2 ANOVA will be used with a significance level of .05 for the time\*treatment group comparison.||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.385
84692095|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Group effect|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.038
84692096|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||augmentation with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.021
84692097|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||augmentation with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.027
84692098|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934||||||Augmentation with aripiprazole v augmentation with bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.934
84692099|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||augmentation versus switch|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.011
84692100|NCT02960763|169122410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.500
84692101|NCT02960763|169122411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Cox models time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.164
84692102|NCT02960763|169122411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.103
84692103|NCT02960763|169122411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.127
84692104|NCT02960763|169122411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Cox models to examine time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.524
84692105|NCT01863043|169122423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84692106|NCT01863043|169122424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84692107|NCT01863043|169122425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84692108|NCT01863043|169122426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84692109|NCT01863043|169122427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84692110|NCT01863043|169122428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84692111|NCT01863043|169122429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.59
84692112|NCT01863043|169122430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.64
84692113|NCT01863043|169122431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.95
84692114|NCT01863043|169122432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84692115|NCT01863043|169122433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.23
84692116|NCT01863043|169122434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84692117|NCT01863043|169122435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.01
84692118|NCT01863043|169122436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84692119|NCT01863043|169122437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84692120|NCT01863043|169122439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84692121|NCT01863043|169122440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84692122|NCT01863043|169122441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
84692123|NCT01863043|169122442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84692124|NCT01863043|169122443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
84692125|NCT01863043|169122444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.97
84692126|NCT01863043|169122445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84692127|NCT01863043|169122446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84692128|NCT01863043|169122447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84692129|NCT01863043|169122448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84692130|NCT01863043|169122449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84692131|NCT01863043|169122450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84692132|NCT01863043|169122451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84692133|NCT01863043|169122452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.888
84692134|NCT01863043|169122453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.694
84692135|NCT01863043|169122454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.248
84692136|NCT01863043|169122455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.694
84692137|NCT01863043|169122456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.195
84508764|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0849
84508765|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6578||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6578
84508766|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0396
84508767|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1657
84508768|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.0675
84508769|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1071||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1071
84508770|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0142
84692138|NCT03377790|169122457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84692139|NCT03377790|169122458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0067
84508771|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2465||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2465
84508772|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0031
84508773|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1231||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1231
84508774|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0849
84692140|NCT03377790|169122459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0152
84692141|NCT03377790|169122460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0302
84692142|NCT03377790|169122461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between Tx arms are compared using an ANCOVA with treatment as the independent factor and baseline CDLQI composite score as the covariate.||||||0.5921
84692143|NCT03377790|169122462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
84692144|NCT03377790|169122463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
84692145|NCT03377790|169122464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
84692146|NCT03377790|169122465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
84692147|NCT03377790|169122466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0520
84692148|NCT01928225|169122467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||1.6|.87|.29
84692149|NCT01928225|169122468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Chi-squared|||||1.95|.85|.22
84692150|NCT02674490|169122470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Regression, Linear|The primary analysis was adjusted for aphasia type (Anomia, Broca, or other type), baseline aphasia severity (AQ), and age.||Sample Size Determination If sample size in each group is 20, we will have 89% power to detect a difference in means of 23 (the difference between A-tDCS mean change in accuracy of 33 and a sham mean change in accuracy of 10) assuming that the SD of change for both groups is 22.2 using a two group t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.54
84692151|NCT01678820|169122536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.19||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.52|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.52|-0.14|0.267
84508775|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.2740
84692152|NCT01678820|169122537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.3|-10.2|
84692153|NCT01678820|169122537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||5.8|-14.7|
84692154|NCT01678820|169122539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.28|-0.95|<0.001
84692155|NCT01678820|169122540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|20.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||20.6|-17.1|0.856
84692156|NCT01678820|169122540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.6|-47.9|0.002
84692157|NCT01678820|169122541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-15.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.6|-35.6|<0.001
84692158|NCT01678820|169122541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|15.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||15.2|-4.5|0.286
84692159|NCT01678820|169122542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.0|-24.2|<0.001
84692160|NCT01678820|169122542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||6.0|-6.0|0.990
84692161|NCT01678820|169122543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.2|-28.3|<0.001
84508776|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2383
84508777|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.0644
84692162|NCT01678820|169122543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.9||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||10.7|-5.0|0.469
84692163|NCT01678820|169122544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-16.3|-32.6|<0.001
84508778|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2866||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2866
84508779|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1259
84692164|NCT01678820|169122544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.3||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-7.7|0.937
84692165|NCT01678820|169122545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-15.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|1.2|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||1.2|-32.2|0.068
84692166|NCT01678820|169122545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-10.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|13.0|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||13.0|-33.6|0.365
84692167|NCT01678820|169122546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.8|-4.8|0.857
84692168|NCT01678820|169122546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.4||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.6|-4.8|0.879
84692169|NCT01678820|169122547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-9.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-9.7|-51.0|0.004
84692170|NCT01678820|169122547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-15.3||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.1|-35.8|0.141
84692171|NCT01678820|169122548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|12.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple impuattions.|||12.9|-12.2|
84692172|NCT01678820|169122548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.|||24.0|0.7|
84692173|NCT01381874|169122549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.603|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.603|0.816|0.437
84692174|NCT01381874|169122549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.32|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.320|0.695|0.794
84692175|NCT01381874|169122550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.896|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.896|0.608|0.807
84692176|NCT01381874|169122550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|2.036|||stratified log-rank test|||||2.036|0.688|0.542
84692177|NCT01381874|169122551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|3.878|||Fisher Exact|||||3.878|0.213|1.000
84692178|NCT01381874|169122551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.909||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|6.026|||Fisher Exact|||||6.026|0.605|0.366
84692179|NCT01381874|169122552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.757||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|2.175|||Chi-squared|||||2.175|0.264|0.603
84692180|NCT01381874|169122552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.926|||Chi-squared|||||3.926|0.816|0.137
84692181|NCT00058019|169122560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84692182|NCT00058019|169122561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84692183|NCT00058019|169122563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.695
84692184|NCT00058019|169122564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
84692185|NCT00985543|169122569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results are considered statistically significant at p\<0.05 or when 90% confidence intervals do not cross the value 1. No adjustments are made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||maximum likelihood regression|||Dosing regimens lopinavir/ritonavir 200/150mg BID (Phase 2) and lopinavir/ritonavir 200/50mg BID (Phase 3) will be considered equivalent to lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg BID (Phase 1) if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean AUC0-12h ratio and maximum concentration (Cmax) ratio lie between 0.80 and 1.25.||||<0.05
84692186|NCT02693834|169122584|OTHER|Paired t test||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In order to test the difference in gait endurance,between the two AFO conditions at baseline, a paired t-test was analyzed||||.293
84692187|NCT02693834|169122585|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.077||||||The above value was the interaction between the type of AFO and practice time.|repeated measures ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA was calculated to find the differences in gait endurance between the type of AFO and practice time.||||0.077
84692188|NCT02693834|169122585|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.046||||||main effect of the type of AFO: F(1, 19) = 4.58, ηp2= .194|repeated measures ANOVA|||The main effect of type of AFO||||.046
84692189|NCT02693834|169122585|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||main effect of practice: F(1, 19) = 43.94, ηp2 = .698|repeated measures ANOVA|||Main effect of practice||||<.001
84692190|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|paired t test||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for self selected velocity||||.688
84692191|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.397||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at the self selected velocity F(1, 19)= 0.75, ηp2 = .038|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.397
84692192|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.95||||||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at SSV: F(1, 19) = 0.004, ηp2 =.00|Repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.950
84692193|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.111||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at self selected velocity F(1, 19) = 2.79, ηp2 = .128|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of practice on gait symmetry at Self selected velocity||||.111
84692194|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for fast paced velocity||||.260
84692195|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.113||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at fast paced velocity FPV F(1, 19) = 2.76,, ηp2 = .127|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA||||.113
84692196|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.918||||||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.001|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.918
84692197|NCT02693834|169122586|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.077||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 3.50, ηp2 = .155|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.077
84692198|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.209||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.69, ηp2 = .082|Repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.209
84692199|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.32||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.05, ηp2 = .05|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.32
84692200|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.001||||||Main effect of practice on gait velocity at self selected velocity:F(1, 19) = 14.38, ηp2 = .431|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.001
84692201|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.28||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at fast paced velocity: F( 1, 19) = 1.24, ηp2 = .61|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.280
84692202|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.072||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity:FPV F(1, 19) = 3.63, ηp2 =.16|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed for self selected velocity||||.072
84692203|NCT02693834|169122587|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity for fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 23.73, ηp2 = .555|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed for fast paced velocity||||<.001
84692204|NCT03662997|169122609|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
84692205|NCT03662997|169122609|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.56||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.56
84692206|NCT03662997|169122609|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.010
84692207|NCT03662997|169122609|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.25||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.25
84692208|NCT03662997|169122610|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular; End of Weeks 1 and 3.|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
84692209|NCT03662997|169122610|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer; End of Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups|||0.010
84692210|NCT03662997|169122618|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during first the week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, first week of treatment|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
84692211|NCT03662997|169122618|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during the first week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer, first week of treatment.|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
84692212|NCT00007475|169122619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with reduced proteinuria|0.6363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0698|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3079|0.8907||Exact binomial test of proportion of participants exhibiting reduction in proteinuria (see definition below), under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Exact binomial test|Tested under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Proportion event definition: exhibiting reduction in proteinuria post-cyclophosphamide (complete- \[urine protein {UP} \<0.3\] or or partial-remission \[between 0.3 \& 2.0, inclusive\], limited response \[UP between 2.0 \& 3.5\] yet no relapse \[UP 3.5+\]).|No groups compared, yet null hypothesis: pooled proportion = 0, tested using counts pooled across baseline FPF assay-availability groups (7 across 3 arms) excluding 4 non-completers (yielding 7/11 with event below). Given the modest group-specific sample sizes and tendency for zero outcomes to be observed in a group, we employ exact binomial 95% confidence intervals using the method of Clopper and Pearson (1934; calculated along with corresponding tests using Michael Fay's exactci package in R).||0.8907|0.3079|<0.0001
84692213|NCT00152971|169122628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.8||||0.0234||95.0|0.8|10.8||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.8|0.8|0.0234
84692214|NCT00152971|169122628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.4||||0.0009||95.0|3.4|13.3||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.3|3.4|0.0009
84692215|NCT00152971|169122629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.2||||0.2139||95.0|-0.7|3.0|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.0|-0.7|0.2139
84692216|NCT00152971|169122629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3628||95.0|-0.9|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.9|0.3628
84692217|NCT00152971|169122630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.9||||0.2309||95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.6|0.2309
84692218|NCT00152971|169122630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.5||||0.0602||95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.2|-0.1|0.0602
84692219|NCT00152971|169122631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.9||||0.0194||95.0|1.0|10.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.9|1.0|0.0194
84692220|NCT00152971|169122631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.9||||0.0004||95.0|4.0|13.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.9|4.0|0.0004
84692221|NCT00152971|169122632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5774
84692222|NCT00152971|169122632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84692223|NCT00152971|169122633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.7724
84692224|NCT00152971|169122633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0308
84508780|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0718||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0718
84692225|NCT00152971|169122634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4968
84692226|NCT00152971|169122634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
84692227|NCT00152971|169122636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1416||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1416
84692228|NCT00152971|169122636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0942
84692229|NCT04765735|169122813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during CL compared to OL period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test|||||||<0.001
84692230|NCT01807650|169122814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0232||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments."||||=0.0232
84692231|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|9.4||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|2.7|=0.0005
84692232|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|3.0|=0.0002
84692233|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.3|=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.3||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.0|=0.0028
84692234|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.3||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.5|=0.0009
84692235|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.6||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||8.6|2.6|=0.0003
84692236|NCT01807650|169122818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.1|=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||6.4|0.7|=0.0145
84692237|NCT01103960|169122829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.007||95.0|0.6082|3.7681||This was the first step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was \<0.05 so this test was considered confirmatory. Proceeding to the next step was allowed, testing the same endpoint in the subgroup of Chinese patients.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.7681|0.6082|0.007
84692238|NCT01103960|169122830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9015||0.034||95.0|0.1443|3.6947||This was the second step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was again \<0.05 so this test was also considered confirmatory.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.6947|0.1443|0.034
84692239|NCT01103960|169122831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1217|<|0.001||95.0|2.2807|6.695|||ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||6.6950|2.2807|<0.001
84692240|NCT02294474|169122839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure: if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested and demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog\>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.067|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit (Week 12, Week 26) and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.067|-0.215|
84692241|NCT05473000|169122872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
84692242|NCT02714205|169122874|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.58|-1.66|0.34
84692243|NCT02714205|169122875|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|0.51||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||7.18|-6.15|0.88
84692244|NCT02714205|169122876|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.48|-0.88|0.57
84692245|NCT02714205|169122877|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.63|-0.8|0.81
84692246|NCT02714205|169122878|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||1.23|-0.38|0.3
84692247|NCT02714205|169122879|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||2.32|-1.52|0.68
84692248|NCT02714205|169122880|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.23|-1.89|0.12
84692249|NCT02714205|169122881|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-1.41||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.99|-3.81|0.25
84692250|NCT05879198|169122884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.473
84692251|NCT05879198|169122885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.469
84692252|NCT05879198|169122886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.155
84692253|NCT05879198|169122887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.346
84692254|NCT05879198|169122889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-positive scale scores.||||.075
84692255|NCT05879198|169122889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-negative scale scores.||||.320
84692256|NCT05879198|169122889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-positive scale scores.||||.049
84692257|NCT05879198|169122889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-negative scale scores.||||.089
84692258|NCT01693692|169122899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1683|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2||0.1683
84508781|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.3170
84692259|NCT01693692|169122899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0277|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0277
84692260|NCT01693692|169122900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.2637|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5||0.2637
84692261|NCT01693692|169122900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0097|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7||0.0097
84692262|NCT01693692|169122901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0639|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0||0.0639
84692263|NCT01693692|169122901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0070
84692264|NCT02906683|169122923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.7|-20.1|0.329
84692265|NCT02906683|169122923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.2|-20.9|0.285
84692266|NCT02906683|169122925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||1.5|-24.1|0.082
84692267|NCT02906683|169122925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||0.4|-24.7|0.057
84692268|NCT02906683|169122927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-3.0|-32.2|0.019
84692269|NCT02906683|169122927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-2.3|-31.5|0.023
84692270|NCT02906683|169122929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||3.2|-25.9|0.125
84692271|NCT02906683|169122929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||5.9|-25.1|0.221
84692272|NCT00663117|169122940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The percentage of subjects achieving a 70-point drop in CDAI score in naltrexone treated subjects was the percentage acheiving the same drop in the placebo controls|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of those achieving a response with a 70-point decline in CDAI score was compared between naltrexone and placebo treated subjects using the Fisher's exact test. Analysis was performed with the intent-to-treat criteria. Clinical significance was accepted if the difference met 95% confidence (p\<0.05).||||0.009
84692273|NCT00663117|169122942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of patients having a 5-point decline in the endoscopic inflammation score||||0.008
84692274|NCT00663117|169122943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.048
84692275|NCT01158378|169122944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%||||||0.0049|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||0.0049
84692276|NCT01158378|169122945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
84692277|NCT01158378|169122945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0297
84692278|NCT01158378|169122946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
84692279|NCT01158378|169122946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0561|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0561
84692280|NCT03017235|169123034|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for the difference between treatments (NaP/MC Oral Solution minus PREPOPIK) was pre-specified at -8% (absolute). If NI was demonstrated for both the primary efficacy endpoint and the secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon, and if the lower bound of the CI was above 0%, then superiority was declared for the primary endpoint. Thus, the pre-specified superiority analysis was conducted at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Difference in percentage|6.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.9||The above p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)|Lower limit of 95% CI \> 0% for the primary efficacy endpoint combined with outcome of secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon allowed for superiority analysis.|10.9|1.8|0.0067
84692281|NCT03017235|169123035|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.0||The p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||8.0|1.1|0.0099
84692282|NCT03017235|169123036|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.7||The above p-value was tested for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||4.7|-0.9|0.1781
84692283|NCT03017235|169123037|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|3.5||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7||The above p-value was for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC-PREPOPIK®)||6.7|0.2|0.0391
84692284|NCT00437125|169123097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|8.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.3||||||||13.3||
84692285|NCT00437125|169123098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5553||95.0||||p-value is for total UDPRS score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total UDPRS score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5553
84692286|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for psychic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total psychic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84508782|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7844||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7844
84692287|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for neurological subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total neurological subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84692288|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||p-value is for autonomic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total autonomic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0014
84508783|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.4688
84508784|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8553||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.8553
84508785|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6926||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.6926
84692289|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5586||95.0||||p-value is for other subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total other subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5586
84692290|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by paticipant. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by paticipant subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0848
84692291|NCT00437125|169123099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by doctor. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by doctor subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0263
84692292|NCT00437125|169123100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 4 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 4-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84692293|NCT00437125|169123100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 8 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 8-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84692294|NCT00437125|169123100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 12 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84692295|NCT00437125|169123101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for the HAMD-17 total score. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the HAMD-17 total score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
84692296|NCT00437125|169123102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale score from baseline to end of week 12 of treatment.||||<0.0001
84692297|NCT00437125|169123104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for BDI score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between baseline and post-baseline in BDI scores||||<0.0001
84692298|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||p-value is for VAS overall pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS overall pain scores.||||0.0027
84692299|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value is for VAS Headaches score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS headaches scores.||||0.0002
84692300|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS back ache score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS back ache scores.||||<0.0001
84692301|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS shoulder pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS shoulder pain score.||||<0.0001
84692302|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS interference score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS interference score.||||<0.0001
84692303|NCT00437125|169123105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS pain while awake score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS pain while awake score.||||<0.0001
84692304|NCT00437125|169123106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for PDQ-39 total score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in PDQ-39 total score.||||<0.0001
84508786|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2222||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.2222
84692305|NCT02248961|169123113|OTHER|It was calculated that at least 140 patients (70 patients per group) must be enrolled into the study to achieve 80% power. With regard to 20% of patients withdrawn prematurely or data not suitable for analysis, it was necessary to include at least 176 patients (88 per group) into the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.39|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is a decrease in SBP on the background treatment with Kanarb (fimasartan), that is at least 5.5 mmHg lower compared to Cozaar® (losartan).~Test of the hypotheses was performed using mixed linear models, where the site effect was considered a random effect, and the treatment group effect was considered a fixed effect. Baseline SBP on the study arm was included into the model as a covariate (a fixed effect) in all cases."||1.47||=0.390
84692306|NCT02248961|169123114|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.018
84692307|NCT02248961|169123115|OTHER||||||=|0.579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.579
84692308|NCT02248961|169123116|OTHER||||||=|0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.466
84692309|NCT02248961|169123117|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.118
84692310|NCT02248961|169123118|OTHER||||||=|0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.662
84692311|NCT02248961|169123119|OTHER||||||=|0.143|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||=0.143
84692312|NCT01288781|169123120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
84692313|NCT01288781|169123121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.63
84692314|NCT01288781|169123122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.20
84508787|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4676||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.4676
84692315|NCT01288781|169123123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||<0.01
84692316|NCT01288781|169123123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Step down Holm Bonferroni correction was applied|t-test, 2 sided|||Post hoc follow up test. T test between acetazolamide and placebo on data at 24 hr time point.||||<0.01
84692317|NCT01288781|169123124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
84692318|NCT01288781|169123125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
84692319|NCT01288781|169123126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
84692320|NCT02791490|169123133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.23|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.59|<0.001
84692321|NCT02791490|169123134|OTHER|95% CI|Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||7.4|-10.8|
84692322|NCT02791490|169123136|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||2.5|1.2|0.002
84692323|NCT02791490|169123137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.6|-20.2|0.002
84692324|NCT01189890|169123140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum, age stratum, and baseline HbA1C.||||0.34|0.03|
84692325|NCT01189890|169123141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Incidence|-3.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum and age stratum.||||-1.2|-7.5|0.009
84692326|NCT01189890|169123144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline FPG.||||12.7|0.7|
84692327|NCT01189890|169123145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.9|0.6|
84692328|NCT01189890|169123146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.7|0.3|
84508788|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2036
84692329|NCT01189890|169123147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline body weight.||||-0.2|-1.3|0.011
84692330|NCT00077636|169123160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.76|0.46|<.0001
84692331|NCT00077636|169123161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the analysis based on the standard population, end of treatment virological response was equivalent in the two treatment arms (94% in the 16-week arm and 92% in the 24-week arm).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country.||||2.03|0.86|0.1941
84692332|NCT00077636|169123162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.82|0.52|0.0003
84692333|NCT01966796|169123168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The incidence of MDR pathogens (6.7%, 25.5%, 36.9% and 44.6% in PSI II, III, IV, and V, respectively, p=0.002) and mortality rate (0, 5.9%, 12.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, p\<0.001) increased with increasing PSI||||0.002
84692334|NCT01118455|169123260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.507
84692335|NCT01118455|169123260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
84692336|NCT01118455|169123260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.168
84692337|NCT01118455|169123260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.620
84692338|NCT01118455|169123261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.727
84692339|NCT01118455|169123261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
84692340|NCT01118455|169123261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
84692341|NCT01118455|169123261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84692342|NCT01118455|169123262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.448
84692343|NCT01118455|169123262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
84692344|NCT01118455|169123262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
84692345|NCT01118455|169123262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
84692346|NCT01118455|169123263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
84692347|NCT01118455|169123263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
84692348|NCT01118455|169123263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
84692349|NCT01118455|169123263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.654
84692350|NCT01118455|169123264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.691
84692351|NCT01118455|169123264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
84692352|NCT01118455|169123264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
84692353|NCT01118455|169123264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.295
84692354|NCT01987596|169123290|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
84692355|NCT01987596|169123291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||two-period crossover design analysis||||<0.0001
84692356|NCT01987596|169123292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||2 treatment, 2 periiod cross-over analysis||||<0.0001
84692357|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.08|0.68|
84692358|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
84692359|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.99|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.99|0.62|
84692360|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.13|0.71|
84692361|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.11|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.11|0.69|
84692362|NCT00569803|169123299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
84692363|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.10|0.69|
84692364|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
84692365|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.00|0.62|
84692366|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.14|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.14|0.71|
84692367|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.12|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.12|0.69|
84692368|NCT00569803|169123300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
84692369|NCT00569803|169123306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(0-T) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
84508789|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4197||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.4197
84692370|NCT00569803|169123306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(INF) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
84692371|NCT01355419|169123318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A power analysis conducted prior to the study predicted that a sample of 144 patients would provide an 80% power to detect a mean difference in sleep time of 40 minutes, assuming a standard deviation of 85 minutes and using a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.05
84692372|NCT01355419|169123319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.||||<0.05
84692373|NCT00791921|169123329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, comparison between the CDP870 200 mg group and the placebo group was performed.||||<0.05
84692374|NCT00791921|169123330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
84692375|NCT01763788|169123357|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.656||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.926|||Stratified Log Rank|||||0.926|0.465|0.0161
84692376|NCT03560258|169123378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.137
84692377|NCT03560258|169123378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.014
84692378|NCT03560258|169123378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
84692379|NCT03560258|169123380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
84692380|NCT03560258|169123380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
84692381|NCT03560258|169123380|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||1.00
84692382|NCT03560258|169123381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
84692383|NCT03560258|169123381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.037
84692384|NCT03560258|169123381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
84692385|NCT03560258|169123382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.303
84692386|NCT03560258|169123382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.457
84692387|NCT03560258|169123382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
84692388|NCT03560258|169123383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD8 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.755
84692389|NCT03560258|169123383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
84692390|NCT03560258|169123383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
84692391|NCT01460160|169123384|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|16.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|29.8||Superiority test versus AIEOP-BFM 2000|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - AIEOP-BFM 2000)|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in AIEOP-BFM 2000 historical control||29.8|3.9|0.032
84692392|NCT01460160|169123384|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 5%. One-sided type I error rate of 0.05|Estimate of difference|6.91||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|17.2||Superiority test versus EsPhALL|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - EsPhALL) Test if lower confidence limit is above -5%|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate for all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. continuous imatinib plus chemotherapy in the Amended EsPhALL Trial Historical Control||17.2|-3.3|0.271
84692393|NCT01460160|169123384|SUPERIORITY|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in COG AALL0031 historical control|Estimate of difference|-10.75||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|1.2|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - COG AALL0031)|||1.2|-22.7|0.157
84508790|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.0776
84692394|NCT02006121|169123422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0047
84692395|NCT02006121|169123423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0022
84508791|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4076||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.4076
84692396|NCT02006121|169123424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84692397|NCT02006121|169123425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84692398|NCT02006121|169123426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84692399|NCT02354859|169123427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is adjusted for baseline FEV1 % predicted strata (\<50% of predicted, between 50% and 70% of predicted, and \>70% of predicted).|||22.4|-11.2|0.811
84692400|NCT02354859|169123428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE inicidence|3.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||16.6|-10.6|0.807
84692401|NCT02354859|169123429|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||0.93|0.71|0.002
84692402|NCT02354859|169123429|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.03|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||2.03|0.39|0.783
84692403|NCT02354859|169123430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline FEV1 (liters), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||7.77|-3.66|0.479
84692404|NCT02354859|169123431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 28 and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline Pa density (log10 (CFU)), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||0.01|-1.49|0.054
84692405|NCT02354859|169123432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline CFRSD-CRISS score, treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||8.53|-0.06|0.053
84692406|NCT05408468|169123528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.731||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.731 One week 1.894|||||0.387
84692407|NCT05408468|169123528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.048 One week 2.122|||||0.387
84692408|NCT05408468|169123529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.693||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.693 One week 1.840|||||0.062
84692409|NCT05408468|169123529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.003 One week 2.069|||||0.062
84692410|NCT05408468|169123531|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.369
84692411|NCT05408468|169123532|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
84692412|NCT04424290|169123595|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0558|0.0089|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0089|-0.0558|
84692413|NCT04424290|169123596|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.11|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1100|-0.0670|
84692414|NCT04424290|169123597|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0412|0.0195|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0195|-0.0412|
84692415|NCT04424290|169123598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1477|0.1021|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1021|-0.1477|
84692416|NCT04424290|169123599|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.5|-8.1|
84692417|NCT04424290|169123600|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.2|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.2|-7.3|
84692418|NCT04424290|169123601|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.0|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.0|-9.6|
84692419|NCT04424290|169123602|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.1|-7.3|
84692420|NCT04424290|169123603|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-8.7|
84692421|NCT04424290|169123604|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.4|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.4|-4.9|
84508792|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0629
84508793|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2547
84508794|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.7125
84692422|NCT04424290|169123605|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.9|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.9|-2.7|
84692423|NCT04424290|169123606|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|16.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.5|-1.2|
84692424|NCT04424290|169123607|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.8|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||29.8|-2.3|
84692425|NCT04424290|169123608|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||14.5|-0.9|
84692426|NCT01017120|169123669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692427|NCT01017120|169123669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692428|NCT01017120|169123669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692429|NCT01017120|169123670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||36.9|27.4|<0.001
84508795|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6001||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.6001
84692430|NCT01017120|169123670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|22.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||22.1|14.2|
84692431|NCT01017120|169123671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||32.2|23.1|<0.001
84692432|NCT01017120|169123671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|16.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||16.7|9.8|
84692433|NCT03154359|169123750|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.197
84692434|NCT03154359|169123750|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.562
84692435|NCT03154359|169123751|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.558
84692436|NCT03154359|169123752|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
84692437|NCT03154359|169123753|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.495
84692438|NCT03154359|169123753|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.955
84692439|NCT03154359|169123754|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991
84692440|NCT03154359|169123755|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
84692441|NCT03154359|169123756|OTHER|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.456
84692442|NCT03154359|169123756|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.822
84692443|NCT03154359|169123757|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
84692444|NCT03154359|169123758|OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
84692445|NCT03154359|169123759|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
84508796|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5398||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5398
84692446|NCT03154359|169123760|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
84692447|NCT00574990|169123768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between roles and communication event content were assessed by Chi squared|Chi-squared|||Descriptive counts and chi squared were done on the observation data.||||0.01
84692448|NCT01965158|169123795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|21.3||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||21.3|4.8|0.0020
84508797|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3970
84692449|NCT01965158|169123796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.83|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.83|0.77|<0.0001
84692450|NCT01965158|169123797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.63|1.60|<0.0001
84692451|NCT01965158|169123798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.48|0.54|<0.0001
84692452|NCT01965158|169123799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.12|0.34|0.0003
84692453|NCT04542226|169123800|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measures was used to compare with baseline.||||||<0.0000001
84692454|NCT00919893|169123813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Cernilton compared to placebo induces a better or the same outcome of symptomatic improvement in the pain domain of symptomatic Pelvic Pain Syndrome verified by the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).~Power calculation: A power of 1-beta=0.8 was calculated."||||<0.05
84692455|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|10.75|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||10.75|-12.68|
84508798|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5085||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.5085
84508799|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1213
84692456|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|4.72|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.72|-12.92|
84692457|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|18.19|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||18.19|-5.78|
84692458|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|4.27|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.27|-13.79|
84692459|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|5.06|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.06|-3.89|
84692460|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|-1.65|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-1.65|-11.62|
84692461|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.68|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.68|-3.73|
84692462|NCT00453479|169123817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.05|-5.57|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-5.57|-16.05|
84692463|NCT00453479|169123818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.745|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|10.1|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||10.10|-5.58|
84692464|NCT00453479|169123818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.785|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.54|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||10.54|-5.30|
84692465|NCT00453479|169123818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|8.48|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||8.48|-8.17|
84692466|NCT00453479|169123818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|2.97|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.97|-13.86|
84692467|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.87|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||6.87|-12.43|
84692468|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|6.31|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||6.31|-10.07|
84692469|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|12.88|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||12.88|-6.87|
84692470|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|4.89|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.89|-11.88|
84692471|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|3.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||3.54|-4.09|
84692472|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|0.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||0.54|-8.32|
84508800|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.0999
84692473|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.26|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||2.26|-5.76|
84692474|NCT00453479|169123819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-4.73|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-4.73|-14.04|
84692475|NCT00453479|169123820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.79|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||5.79|-5.52|
84692476|NCT00453479|169123820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.28|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||8.28|-3.50|
84692477|NCT00453479|169123820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|3.34|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||3.34|-8.67|
84692478|NCT00453479|169123820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.41|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.41|-10.10|
84692479|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|21.49|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||21.49|-12.66|
84692480|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|23.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||23.17|-5.13|
84692481|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|28.38|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||28.38|-7.24|
84692482|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|31.26|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||31.26|1.74|
84692483|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|20.78|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||20.78|-16.51|
84692484|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.298|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.38|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||23.38|1.20|
84692485|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|36.85|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||36.85|-1.53|
84692486|NCT00453479|169123822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|33.73|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||33.73|10.90|
84692487|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|20.57|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||20.57|-1.46|
84692488|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|20.74|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||20.74|-3.97|
84692489|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|22.96|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||22.96|-0.02|
84692490|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|28.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||28.17|2.39|
84692491|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|18.0|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||18.00|-1.35|
84692492|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|19.72|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||19.72|-2.21|
84508801|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1201||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1201
84508802|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1172
84692493|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.759|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|26.79|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||26.79|6.87|
84508803|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6596||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.6596
84508804|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3289||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3289
84692494|NCT00453479|169123823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|31.75|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||31.75|9.17|
84692495|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.328|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.328|-0.035|
84692496|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0944|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.357|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.357|-0.015|
84692497|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.228|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.228|-0.107|
84692498|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.386|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.386|-0.085|
84692499|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.343|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.343|-0.094|
84692500|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.404|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.404|-0.077|
84692501|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.444|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.444|0.027|
84692502|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.483|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.483|-0.026|
84692503|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.353|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.353|-0.163|
84692504|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.418|-0.072|
84692505|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.501|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.501|-0.090|
84692506|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.502|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.502|-0.062|
84692507|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.506|-0.093|
84692508|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.397|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.397|0.015|
84508805|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3657||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3657
84692509|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.525|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.525|0.133|
84692510|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0895|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.443|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.443|0.090|
84692511|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1258|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.568|0.072|
84692512|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.402|-0.058|
84692513|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.407|-0.099|
84692514|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1113|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.475|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.475|0.036|
84692515|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.564|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.564|0.027|
84692516|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.474|-0.069|
84692517|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.465|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.465|-0.051|
84692518|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1579|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.591|-0.032|
84692519|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1506|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.490|-0.104|
84692520|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.495|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.495|-0.136|
84692521|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.537|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.537|-0.263|
84692522|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.518|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.518|-0.257|
84692523|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.338|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.338|-0.414|
84692524|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.457|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.457|-0.337|
84692525|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.572|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.572|-0.343|
84692526|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.507|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.507|-0.277|
84692527|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.914|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||0.914|-0.190|
84692528|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.8|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.800|-0.263|
84692529|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2648|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.543|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.543|-0.501|
84692530|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2606|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.691|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.691|-0.337|
84508806|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0275
84508807|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3946||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3946
84692531|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.795|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.795|-0.263|
84692532|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.943|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.943|-0.209|
84692533|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.768|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.768|-0.283|
84692534|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.567|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.567|-0.263|
84692535|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.723|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.723|-0.081|
84692536|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.701|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.701|-0.079|
84692537|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.76|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.760|-0.064|
84692538|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.72|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.720|-0.230|
84692539|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.569|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.569|-0.245|
84508808|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0074
84508809|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2341||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2341
84508810|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0933||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.0933
84508811|NCT00455533|168768461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2016
84692540|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|1.108|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||1.108|-0.038|
84692541|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.175|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||1.175|0.072|
84692542|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|1.0|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||1.000|-0.083|
84692543|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.997|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.997|-0.069|
84692544|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.994|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.994|-0.104|
84692545|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.882|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.882|-0.314|
84692546|NCT00453479|169123824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.929|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.929|-0.162|
84692547|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3333|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|9.21|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||9.210|-4.743|
84692548|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.664|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||22.664|-11.200|
84692549|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|5.507|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||5.507|-8.051|
84692550|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|17.443|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||17.443|-15.470|
84692551|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.468|9.936|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||9.936|-4.468|
84692552|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.372|10.938|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||10.938|-1.372|
84692553|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.003|5.854|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||5.854|-8.003|
84692554|NCT00453479|169123829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.353|7.49|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||7.490|-4.353|
84692555|NCT00453479|169123833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.601|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.601|0.811|
84692556|NCT00453479|169123833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.52|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.520|0.739|
84692557|NCT00453479|169123834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|2.122|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.122|0.934|
84692558|NCT00453479|169123834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.838|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.838|0.770|
84692559|NCT00453479|169123834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2269|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.457|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.457|0.658|
84692560|NCT00453479|169123834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.568|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.568|0.674|
84692561|NCT00453479|169123836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|3.213|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||3.213|2.033|
84692562|NCT00453479|169123836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.095|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.095|1.290|
84692563|NCT01580098|169123840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84692564|NCT01580098|169123841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Blood pressure: diastolic||||0.182
84692565|NCT03029780|169123848|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-12.3|
84508812|NCT00455533|168768462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.017|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.017|-0.27|
84508813|NCT00455533|168768462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.197|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker STatus||0.197|-0.064|
84508814|NCT00455533|168768462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|0.046|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.046|-0.152|
84508815|NCT00455533|168768462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.37|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.37|-0.13|
84508816|NCT00455533|168768463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.258|0.22|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto/Negative Biomarker Status||0.22|-0.258|
84692566|NCT03029780|169123848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.30|
84692567|NCT03029780|169123849|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
84508817|NCT00455533|168768463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference (bootstrap method)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.137|0.155|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.155|-0.137|
84692568|NCT03029780|169123850|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|24.8||||||||24.8|-13.3|
84692569|NCT03029780|169123850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|0.58|
84692570|NCT03029780|169123851|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.5||||||||25.5|-10.1|
84692571|NCT03029780|169123851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.24|0.62|
84692572|NCT01622543|169123887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Log Rank|||||2.53|1.00|0.046
84692573|NCT01622543|169123888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84692574|NCT01622543|169123889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.55|0.96|0.06
84692575|NCT01622543|169123890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.78|0.36
84692576|NCT00759772|169123910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.01
84692577|NCT02761629|169123922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.7||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|26.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% confidence interval was from the binomial distribution for response rate.|||26.6|-0.01|0.0536
84692578|NCT02761629|169123925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0175
84692579|NCT00936221|169123934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.28||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox model adjusting for treatment, WHO performance status, LDH, M status and tumour sub-type.||If the true hazard ratio (HR) is 0.57, 58 deaths provides at least 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for OS, assuming a 1-sided 10% significance level.||1.28|0.67|0.3873
84692580|NCT04362137|169123949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.73|0.48|0.769
84692581|NCT04362137|169123951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.46|0.55|0.647
84692582|NCT04362137|169123951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.92|0.52|0.997
84692583|NCT04362137|169123952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.87|0.51|0.946
84692584|NCT04362137|169123952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.79|0.35|0.573
84692585|NCT04362137|169123953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.83|0.31|0.532
84692586|NCT04362137|169123953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||3.49|0.40|0.764
84692587|NCT04362137|169123954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.37|0.90|0.330
84692588|NCT04362137|169123955|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||0.25|-0.31|0.831
84692589|NCT04362137|169123955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29||0.38|-0.23|0.624
84692590|NCT04362137|169123956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.57|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||5.57|0.20|0.944
84692591|NCT04362137|169123956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.11|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.11|0.35|0.775
84692592|NCT04362137|169123957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||2.21|0.45|0.987
84692593|NCT04362137|169123958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.28|0.84|0.738
84692594|NCT04362137|169123959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.23|0.84|0.869
84692595|NCT04362137|169123962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.63|0.23|0.325
84692596|NCT04362137|169123962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.4||P-value was not estimable because \>97% patients fall into one category (responders) in both groups, and very few patients fall into the other one (non-responders), which made the logistic regression model fail to converge even with Firth's correction|Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.40|0.25|
84692597|NCT03556358|169123995|EQUIVALENCE|"Two one-sided hypothesis tests were performed for pCR in order to show that TX05 is equivalent to Herceptin:~* TEST 1: H0a: θ1 / θ2 \> 1.325 vs. H1a: θ1 / θ2 \< 1.325~* TEST 2: H0b: θ1 / θ2 \< 0.755 vs. H1b: θ1 / θ2 \> 0.755~Where θ1 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to TX05 group, θ2 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to Herceptin. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% CI of the risk ratio is completely contained within the pre-defined interval \[0.755, 1.325\]."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9185|1.2659||||||||1.2659|0.9185|
84692598|NCT01065350|169124001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|26.15||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||26.15|2.07|<0.001
84692599|NCT01065350|169124001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.75||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.75|1.21|<0.01
84692600|NCT01065350|169124001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.55||A p value of \< 0.005 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups||4.55|0.52|0.39
84692601|NCT01065350|169124002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.92||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||14.92|1.54|<0.01
84692602|NCT01065350|169124002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.29||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||6.29|0.91|0.05
84692603|NCT01065350|169124002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.19||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.19|0.68|0.11
84692604|NCT01065350|169124003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.64||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||31.64|1.98|<0.001
84692605|NCT01065350|169124003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.65||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||7.65|1.07|0.02
84692606|NCT01065350|169124003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.97||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.97|0.51|0.33
84692607|NCT01065350|169124004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.1|0.19
84692608|NCT01065350|169124004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.3|0.6
84692609|NCT01065350|169124005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.1|0.26
84692610|NCT01065350|169124005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.2|0.71
84692611|NCT01065350|169124006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.7|-2.9|0.61
84508818|NCT00455533|168768463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.053|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.053|-0.167|
84508819|NCT00455533|168768463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.227|0.309|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.309|-0.227|
84692612|NCT01065350|169124006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.1|-4.8|0.22
84692613|NCT01065350|169124007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||20.0|7.5|<0.001
84508820|NCT00455533|168768464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.482|-0.094|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.094|-0.482|
84508821|NCT00455533|168768464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (boostrap method)|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.073|0.291|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.291|-0.073|
84692614|NCT01065350|169124007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.017
84692615|NCT01065350|169124008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.5|2.7|<0.01
84692616|NCT01065350|169124008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.042
84692617|NCT01065350|169124009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.9|4.8|<0.001
84692618|NCT01065350|169124009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.3|1.4|0.013
84692619|NCT01065350|169124010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|199.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||199.1|28.1|<0.01
84692620|NCT01065350|169124010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|195.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||195.3|-21.7|0.12
84692621|NCT01065350|169124011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|331.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||331.3|33.8|0.017
84692622|NCT01065350|169124011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|315.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||315.5|-58.1|0.17
84692623|NCT01065350|169124012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume (SV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.4|0.5|0.029
84692624|NCT01065350|169124012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.7|-0.0|0.051
84692625|NCT01065350|169124013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||4.7|0.3|0.027
84692626|NCT01065350|169124013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.2|-0.0|0.052
84692627|NCT01065350|169124014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.4|0.44
84692628|NCT01065350|169124014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.6|0.37
84692629|NCT02875834|169124018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results derived from a mixed effects model of log-transformed S-K levels. Fixed effects are: treatment group; visit; treatment-by-visit interaction; baseline S-K values (OLP and RTP); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses. Patient is a random effect. p-values given are for differences of LSMEANS. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement.||0.933|0.876|<0.001
84692630|NCT02875834|169124018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.850|0.797|<0.001
84692631|NCT02875834|169124023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6866|14.9782|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group comparisons were made using a logistic regression model containing the following covariates: treatment group; both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase); baseline eGFR (during 48-hour open-label initial phase); age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years); country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||14.9782|2.6866|<0.001
84692632|NCT02875834|169124023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.1876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1591|46.2054|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.2054|7.1591|<0.001
84692633|NCT02875834|169124025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.318|10.214|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||10.214|4.318|<0.001
84508822|NCT00455533|168768464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.236|0.067|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.067|-0.236|
84692634|NCT02875834|169124025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.118|15.04|||Regression, Linear|||||15.040|9.118|<0.001
84692635|NCT02875834|169124028|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2954|0.6631|||Regression, Cox|||Results derived from a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the following covariates: treatment group, both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase), baseline eGFR, age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years), country, baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney, disease heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||0.6631|0.2954|<0.001
84508823|NCT00455533|168768464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootsrap method)|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.218|0.469|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.469|-0.218|
84692636|NCT02875834|169124028|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2508|||Regression, Cox|||||0.2508|0.0992|<0.001
84692637|NCT05200936|169124032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7145||||||p-value is 1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7145
84692638|NCT05200936|169124033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9613
84692639|NCT00405353|169124052|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regressions were used to determine slopes of brain volume changes. Statistical software package SAS was used to perform the analysis.||Percent change in brain volume against time scatter plot with a Loess regression curve was produced and a first-degree spline model was developed. This model fitted line pieces for pre-treatment and early treatment periods (month -6 to month 3) and treatment response period (months 3-12), and these pieces were joined together to achieve continuity. Slopes of these lines were estimated and compared. A random intercept was set in the model to allow the difference among subjects.||||<0.05
84692640|NCT00345384|169124067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Precentage Difference|41.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The percentage in opioid use by the dexmedetomidine group in comparison to the placebo for the period of time on study drug is calculated as follows: numerator = 29, denominator = 49.|||||0.03
84692641|NCT00345384|169124067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|35.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||A measure of opioid use, weighted for total time on study drug. This is examined by a comparison of the dexmedetomidine group to the placebo group: numerator = 35, denominator = 54.|||||0.04
84692642|NCT00345384|169124068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value reported in this table corresponds with the 6 to 16 hour time frame.||||0.02
84692643|NCT00365378|169124072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|94.3||||||95.0|87.8|97.7|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.7|87.8|
84692644|NCT00365378|169124073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||100.0|84.0|
84692645|NCT01421589|169124105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate regression analyses was performed to assess the relationship between change in skeletal muscle IGF-1 mRNA expression after 12 weeks treatment with rhGH and change in ViPCr.||||0.02
84692646|NCT01421589|169124106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84692647|NCT01421589|169124107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84692648|NCT01421589|169124108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84692649|NCT01421589|169124109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84508824|NCT01048333|168768488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|1.31|0.002
84508825|NCT01048333|168768488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.534||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|12.02|||Regression, Cox|||||12.02|3.55|0.001
84692650|NCT01421589|169124110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84692651|NCT01421589|169124111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84692652|NCT04548531|169124180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|0.41|<.001
84692653|NCT04548531|169124181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|35.0|||Chi-squared|||||35|7|0.003
84692654|NCT04548531|169124182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Chi-squared|||We tested for a clear preference for screening, if a patient chose a colonoscopy or a stool-based test vs. the other response options.||16|-10|.75
84692655|NCT04548531|169124183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chi-squared|||We categorized for likelihood to follow through with screening. We reported on results from patients who indicated 'Very Likely' on their response option vs. the other options (likely, unsure, unlikely, very unlikely)||26|-3|0.14
84692656|NCT04548531|169124184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Assessed how many patients completed any colorectal cancer screening test within 6-months after randomization.||18|6|<.001
84692657|NCT00737061|169124196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.9|100.0||||||1-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||100|97.9|
84692658|NCT00737061|169124196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.6|99.5||||||2-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||99.5|97.6|
84692659|NCT00737061|169124206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|97.2|100.0||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"1-sided Confidence Interval.~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||100|97.2|
84692660|NCT00737061|169124206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|96.9|99.1||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"2-sided Confidence Interval~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||99.1|96.9|
84692661|NCT06173570|169124223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-26.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-26.93|-43.61|< 0.001
84692662|NCT06173570|169124223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.31|-29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-29.51|-46.31|< 0.001
84692663|NCT06173570|169124223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|-36.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-36.86|-53.47|< 0.001
84692664|NCT06173570|169124223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.03|-42.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-42.37|-59.03|< 0.001
84692665|NCT06173570|169124224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|-25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-25.37|-42.34|< 0.001
84692666|NCT06173570|169124224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-28.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-28.17|-45.30|< 0.001
84692667|NCT06173570|169124224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-35.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.41|-52.31|< 0.001
84692668|NCT06173570|169124224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-41.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-41.25|-58.35|< 0.001
84692669|NCT06173570|169124225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-16.18|-26.27|< 0.001
84508826|NCT01048333|168768488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.127||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.52|||Regression, Cox|||||5.52|1.77|0.001
84508827|NCT01396044|168768490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84508828|NCT01396044|168768491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
84692670|NCT06173570|169124225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-17.30|-27.48|< 0.001
84692671|NCT06173570|169124225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-22.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.11|-32.16|< 0.001
84692672|NCT06173570|169124225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-24.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-24.31|-34.40|< 0.001
84692673|NCT06173570|169124226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.81|-7.87|0.111
84692674|NCT06173570|169124226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.74|-3.98|0.864
84692675|NCT06173570|169124226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.63|-5.99|0.445
84692676|NCT06173570|169124226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.34|-3.32|0.648
84692677|NCT06173570|169124227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.97|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.96|-17.97|0.266
84692678|NCT06173570|169124227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-18.17|0.256
84692679|NCT06173570|169124227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||3.69|-18.95|0.186
84508829|NCT01396044|168768492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84508830|NCT01396044|168768493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84508831|NCT01396044|168768494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84508832|NCT01396044|168768496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84692680|NCT06173570|169124227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||1.43|-21.44|0.086
84692681|NCT06173570|169124228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.12|-38.63|< 0.001
84692682|NCT06173570|169124228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-25.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-25.08|-41.71|< 0.001
84692683|NCT06173570|169124228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-30.43|-46.90|< 0.001
84692684|NCT06173570|169124228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-36.94|-53.43|< 0.001
84692685|NCT06173570|169124229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.06||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-16.96|0.276
84692686|NCT06173570|169124229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||7.73|-14.08|0.568
84692687|NCT06173570|169124229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.75|-15.71|0.363
84692688|NCT06173570|169124229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.11|-17.57|0.223
84692689|NCT06173570|169124230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.79||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.98|-6.56|0.146
84692690|NCT06173570|169124230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.56|-4.98|0.530
84692691|NCT06173570|169124230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.87|-4.56|0.654
84692692|NCT06173570|169124230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.00|-2.48|0.509
84508833|NCT03008460|168768505|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference was higher than -15%.|Adjusted treatment difference|-7.61||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.45|3.24||P-value for non-inferiority was estimated from the adjusted treatment difference.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a logistic regression model, including treatment and country as covariates.||3.24|-18.45|0.0907
84508834|NCT03008460|168768506|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||-0.01|-0.36|0.0428
84692693|NCT06173570|169124231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.08|-20.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-20.93|-33.08|< 0.001
84692694|NCT06173570|169124231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.20|-34.42|< 0.001
84692695|NCT06173570|169124231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.27|-31.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-31.23|-43.27|< 0.001
84692696|NCT06173570|169124231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.92|-33.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-33.83|-45.92|< 0.001
84692697|NCT06173570|169124232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|-14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-14.84|-25.09|< 0.001
84692698|NCT06173570|169124232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-16.35|-26.73|< 0.001
84692699|NCT06173570|169124232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.37|-21.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-21.18|-31.37|< 0.001
84692700|NCT06173570|169124232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-23.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-23.48|-33.80|< 0.001
84692701|NCT06173570|169124233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.99|-6.62|0.292
84692702|NCT06173570|169124233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.86|-3.76|0.802
84692703|NCT06173570|169124233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.32|-5.21|0.664
84692704|NCT06173570|169124233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.82|-2.74|0.481
84692705|NCT06173570|169124234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.03|-17.50|0.278
84692706|NCT06173570|169124234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.45|-18.19|0.234
84692707|NCT06173570|169124234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.78|-18.41|0.196
84692708|NCT06173570|169124234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.41|-21.14|0.086
84692709|NCT06173570|169124235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.16|-20.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.81|-37.16|<0.001
84692710|NCT06173570|169124235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.54|-24.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-24.02|-40.54|<0.001
84692711|NCT06173570|169124235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.82|-29.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-29.44|-45.82|<0.001
84692712|NCT06173570|169124235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.47|-35.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.94|-52.47|<0.001
84692713|NCT06173570|169124236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.93||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.71|-16.57|0.275
84692714|NCT06173570|169124236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|6.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||6.51|-14.63|0.451
84692715|NCT06173570|169124236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.47|-15.41|0.351
84692716|NCT06173570|169124236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.29|-16.92|0.243
84692717|NCT06173570|169124237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.48|-5.08|0.501
84692718|NCT06173570|169124237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.89|-4.74|0.634
84692719|NCT06173570|169124237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.70|-3.74|0.990
84692720|NCT06173570|169124237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.50|-2.03|0.366
84692721|NCT06173570|169124238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.08|-19.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-19.51|-32.08|<0.001
84692722|NCT06173570|169124238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|-20.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.62|-33.33|<0.001
84692723|NCT06173570|169124238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-30.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-30.08|-42.50|<0.001
84692724|NCT06173570|169124238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-32.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-32.99|-45.61|<0.001
84692725|NCT01844115|169124243|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.68|||MMRM|||||-0.68|-3.72|0.0048
84692726|NCT01844115|169124244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.26|||MMRM|||||-0.26|-3.52|0.0236
84692727|NCT00366301|169124245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change in Log CRP|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted models included terms for baseline HbA1c and weight and change in weight at each time point.||As hsCRP was measured at both 6 and 14 weeks, linear mixed models conditioning on baseline hsCRP and adjusting for treatment stratum were constructed with the dependent variable being change in lnCRP. The means at each time point were estimated from a repeated-measures model incorporating all 3 time points. The interventions were assessed by fitting terms corresponding to study drug and treatment arm assignment.||||<0.05
84692728|NCT01108510|169124257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.2% confidence interval (CI) (COBI group - RTV group) was \> -12%.|Difference in percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-7.4|3.0|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|700 planned subjects had 95% power to evaluate noninferiority assuming a response rate of 79.5% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 12%.||3.0|-7.4|
84692729|NCT01108510|169124258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.7|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.7|-7.6|
84508835|NCT03008460|168768507|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.07||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12|||ANOVA|||"Left colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.12|-0.25|0.4676
84692730|NCT01108510|169124259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.5|-8.7|
84508836|NCT03008460|168768507|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.09||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANOVA|||"Transverse colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.08|-0.25|0.3076
84508837|NCT03008460|168768507|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.24||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANOVA|||"Right colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||-0.05|-0.44|0.0155
84692731|NCT01108510|169124260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|6.3|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||6.3|-22.2|
84692732|NCT01108510|169124261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|18.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||18|-28|0.67
84692733|NCT01108510|169124262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-10.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|19.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||19|-38|0.51
84692734|NCT01108510|169124263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|10.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||10|-54|0.18
84692735|NCT01108510|169124264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|67.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||67|-55|0.84
84508838|NCT03008460|168768507|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.07|||ANOVA|||"Global score:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.07|-0.79|0.0975
84508839|NCT03008460|168768508|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.3847||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||2.4|0.8|0.2428
84692736|NCT03125941|169124290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Chi-squared|||||2.05|0.49|1
84692737|NCT03125941|169124291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
84508840|NCT03008460|168768509|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|24.0219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|45.9|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||45.9|12.6|<0.0001
84508841|NCT03008460|168768510|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.0022||||0.9257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||1.1|1.0|0.9257
84692738|NCT03125941|169124292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
84692739|NCT03125941|169124295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
84692740|NCT03125941|169124296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
84692741|NCT03125941|169124298|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.193||||||a priori threshold, bonferroni corrected 0.0125|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.193
84692742|NCT03125941|169124299|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
84692743|NCT03125941|169124300|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.136
84692744|NCT03125941|169124301|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significans was 0.00125 due to multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||>0.003
84692745|NCT03125941|169124302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|1.07|0.030
84692746|NCT00406419|169124323|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|11|< 0.0001
84692747|NCT00406419|169124323|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.8|14.1|< 0.0001
84692748|NCT00406419|169124324|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|23.7|< 0.0001
84692749|NCT00406419|169124324|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|41.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.5|27.4|< 0.0001
84692750|NCT02340520|169124351|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84692751|NCT02340520|169124352|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.1
84692752|NCT01121484|169124353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||||0.004
84692753|NCT01121484|169124354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CGI-I analyzed as a categorical variable by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores, controlling for the effect of region; p-value obtained from the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Score Differences.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84692754|NCT01121484|169124355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84692755|NCT01121484|169124356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84692756|NCT01121484|169124357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
84692757|NCT01121484|169124358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692758|NCT00930943|169124372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||The a priori sample-size estimation for a power of 80% with alpha = 0.05 was based on the primary-outcome measure, the rapid visual information processing (RVP) sensitivity (A') score. Using a repeated-measure ANOVA for the food effect (fed versus fasting) and assuming an effect size of f =0.26 generated a required sample size of 32 participants. However, only 30 subjects completed both testing visits, generating a power of 78.2%.|(F\[1,28\] = 22.71; η2 = 0.45)|||<0.001
84692759|NCT00930943|169124372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested food x time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA||||F\[1,28\]=6.88; η2=0.20|||0.01
84692760|NCT00930943|169124372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||repeated-measure ANOVA testing food effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692761|NCT00930943|169124373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 14.05; η2 = 0.33)|||<0.001
84692762|NCT00930943|169124373|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time post dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692763|NCT00930943|169124374|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM percentage of correct hits"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692764|NCT00930943|169124375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 31.26; η2 = 0.53)|||<0.001
84692765|NCT00930943|169124375|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692766|NCT00930943|169124376|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM total errors"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692767|NCT00930943|169124377|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM strategy score"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84692768|NCT04524598|169124400|SUPERIORITY||t|-1.911||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction. Group and Week were entered as fixed factors. Spark version, and assessment completion days since baseline were included as fixed factors to control for effects of app version and differences in time between completion of successive weekly assessments.||||0.06
84692769|NCT04524598|169124400|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.546||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a Per Protocol approach that included participants who completed the PHQ at baseline and each week. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction.||||0.01
84692770|NCT04524598|169124403|SUPERIORITY||F|1.46||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on GAD-7 scores to compare the change in anxiety symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.23
84692771|NCT04524598|169124403|SUPERIORITY||F|2.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS - General Health Score to compare the change in general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.11
84692772|NCT04524598|169124404|SUPERIORITY||F|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Time x Group) on the MFQ to compare the change in parent report of depressive symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.33
84692773|NCT04524598|169124404|SUPERIORITY||F|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS Parent Proxy - General Health Score to compare the change in parent reported general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.90
84692774|NCT02066896|169124408|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05
84692775|NCT05067933|169124425|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.953
84692776|NCT05067933|169124426|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.500
84508842|NCT03008460|168768512|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.93||||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.47|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.47|-3.32|0.4459
84692777|NCT05067933|169124427|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.912
84692778|NCT05067933|169124428|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.678
84692779|NCT05067933|169124429|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.257
84692780|NCT05067933|169124430|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.748
84692781|NCT05067933|169124431|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.946
84692782|NCT05067933|169124434|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.356
84692783|NCT05067933|169124435|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.267
84692784|NCT01302938|169124448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.6||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.6|-3.9|
84692785|NCT01302938|169124449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|106.6||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||106.6|-47.8|
84692786|NCT01302938|169124449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|111.4||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||111.4|-55.4|
84508843|NCT03008460|168768513|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.03|0.40|<0.0001
84692787|NCT01302938|169124449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|110.3||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||110.3|-24.2|
84692788|NCT01302938|169124450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.67||||||Change at Week 1: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI).||1.67|-0.67|
84692789|NCT01302938|169124450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.83||||||Change at Week 4: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.83|-1.00|
84692790|NCT01302938|169124450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||||||Change at Week 12: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.00|-3.00|
84692791|NCT01302938|169124451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-1.3|
84692792|NCT01302938|169124451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-2.2|
84692793|NCT01302938|169124454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.9|-0.8|
84692794|NCT01302938|169124454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-3.7|
84692795|NCT01302938|169124454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.4|-6.3|
84692796|NCT01302938|169124457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.2||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||13.2|-33.2|
84692797|NCT01302938|169124458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|30.3||||||Change at Week 12; Coping Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||30.3|-6.9|
84692798|NCT01302938|169124458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|32.7||||||Change at Week 12; Concern Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||32.7|-16.7|
84692799|NCT01302938|169124458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|33.8||||||Change at Week 12; Sleep Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||33.8|-13.3|
84692800|NCT01302938|169124458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|29.0||||||Change at Week 12; Total HRQL Score: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||29.0|-11.0|
84692801|NCT01302938|169124459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||||||Change at Week 12; Social Subscale: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||20.00|-20.00|
84692802|NCT04921969|169124484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.951|13.315||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.315|1.951|0.0001
84692803|NCT04921969|169124484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.429|30.042||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||30.042|4.429|<0.0001
84692804|NCT04921969|169124485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.268||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.268|0.610|0.4198
84692805|NCT04921969|169124485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|4.174||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.174|0.779|0.1685
84692806|NCT01811563|169124527|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.661
84692807|NCT01811563|169124527|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time independent of implant|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84692808|NCT01811563|169124527|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.270
84692809|NCT01811563|169124528|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.856|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for implant, LQ-YBT Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.856
84692810|NCT01811563|169124528|EQUIVALENCE|Time independent of implant, Baseline to 52 Weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84508844|NCT03008460|168768514|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.22||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.05|||ANOVA|||"Dose 1:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||4.05|-1.60|0.3945
84692811|NCT01811563|169124528|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by Time interaction, Baseline to 52 Weeks between Zimmer and Stryker||||||0.822|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.822
84508845|NCT03008460|168768514|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|6.38||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|11.12|||ANOVA|||"Dose 2:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||11.12|1.65|0.0085
84508846|NCT03008460|168768514|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|7.48||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.5|||ANOVA|||"Global:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||12.50|2.46|0.0036
84692812|NCT01811563|169124529|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||||||.158
84692813|NCT01811563|169124529|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84692814|NCT01811563|169124529|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction of time by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.365
84692815|NCT01811563|169124531|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.416|||||||ANOVA|||||||.416
84692816|NCT01811563|169124531|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84692817|NCT01811563|169124531|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by time interaction, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.917
84692818|NCT01811563|169124533|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.830
84692819|NCT01811563|169124533|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by time, baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84692820|NCT01811563|169124533|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
84692821|NCT01811563|169124534|EQUIVALENCE|Between implants at 6 weeks||||||0.319|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.319
84692822|NCT01087723|169124538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Chi-squared|||||0.82|0.43|0.0014
84692823|NCT00806624|169124547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.4||||||||9.4|-16.2|
84692824|NCT00806624|169124547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.5||||||||4.5|-22.4|
84692825|NCT00806624|169124547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|8.2||||||||8.2|-19.3|
84692826|NCT00708305|169124584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9762||95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments in comparison. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance levels.||0.20|-0.21|0.9762
84692827|NCT00708305|169124585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
84692828|NCT00708305|169124585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
84692829|NCT00708305|169124585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
84692830|NCT00708305|169124585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
84692831|NCT00708305|169124585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.16|0.74|<0.0001
84692832|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.72|0.12|0.0151
84692833|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.36||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.36|0.69|<0.0001
84692834|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||4.05|2.06|<0.0001
84692835|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.27|0.41|<0.0001
84692836|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.74|1.50|<0.0001
84692837|NCT00708305|169124586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.73|<0.0001
84692838|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.47|-0.22|0.5545
84692839|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.71||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.71|0.15|0.0003
84692840|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.56|0.58|<0.0001
84692841|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signal Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.68|0.15|<0.0001
84692842|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.58|<0.0001
84692843|NCT00708305|169124587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
84508847|NCT03008460|168768517|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|1.05||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.69|0.41|0.0015
84692844|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.08|-0.13|0.6865
84508848|NCT00955747|168768518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All tests will be two-tailed. Unless specified otherwise, p-values less than or equal to O.050, when rounded to four decimal places,will be considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
84692845|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.12|-0.02|0.1756
84692846|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.38|0.16|<0.0001
84692847|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.22|0.04|0.0023
84692848|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
84692849|NCT00708305|169124588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.25|0.12|<0.0001
84692850|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.00|-0.08|0.0783
84692851|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.00|0.0531
84692852|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.14|0.07|<0.0001
84692853|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.15|0.03|0.0005
84692854|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
84692855|NCT00708305|169124589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.10|0.04|<0.0001
84692856|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.01|-0.03|0.4309
84692857|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.00|0.0726
84692858|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
84692859|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.01|0.0107
84692860|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.03|<0.0001
84692861|NCT00708305|169124590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.01|0.0012
84692862|NCT04711460|169124591|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||||0.003
84692863|NCT04711460|169124591|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05. No power analysis was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.009|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.009
84692864|NCT04711460|169124591|SUPERIORITY|The Tukey Kramer Post Hoc Test q value = 0.05 threshold|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Tukey Kramer Post-Hoc|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||<0.05
84508849|NCT02260492|168768519|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence test compares the Test/Reference with confidence bounds set at standard 80-125%.~Superiority test compares Test with Placebo (p\<0.05) Superiority test compares Reference with Placebo (p\<0.05) (p\<0.05)"|Test/Reference|1.0799|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||"Primary analyses were conducted on BL subtracted values (pre-dose - post-dose). The two one-sided tests method of interval analysis is standard for bioequivalence testing and employs 2 sets of one-sided hypotheses as follows, performed at the 5% alpha level:~H01: uT-uR \< -0.20 uR vs. Ha1: -0.20 uR \</= uT- uR (the lower tail) and H02: uT-uR \>0.25 uR vs. Ha2: uT- uR \</=0.25 uR (the upper tail) When uT is the LSM SOLIS, uR is the LSM of ADVAIR DISKUS"|"Day 1 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.004 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.012"|1.25|.8|<0.05
84692865|NCT04711460|169124591|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.003
84692866|NCT04711460|169124591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07||0.454|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.454
84692867|NCT04711460|169124592|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.194||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.002
84692868|NCT04711460|169124592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.09||0.054|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.054
84692869|NCT04711460|169124592|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.019|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.019
84692870|NCT04711460|169124592|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.04||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.101
84692871|NCT00192023|169124598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to Week 8 Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to Week 8=score at Week 8+treatment+site+treatment-by-site interaction. If treatment-by-site interaction isn't significant it will be removed from model.|ANCOVA|||Using an estimate of the common standard deviation of 13 points, the planned sample size will give about 80% power to detect a difference between the groups of 8 points on the SNAP-IV. The sample size was determined using a two-sided test with p=0.05, and assumes that up to 10% of patients will discontinue the study without providing post-baseline efficacy data in Study Period III.||||<0.001
84692872|NCT00192023|169124599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692873|NCT00192023|169124600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84692874|NCT00192023|169124601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.836
84692875|NCT00192023|169124602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.870
84692876|NCT00192023|169124603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84692877|NCT00192023|169124603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84508850|NCT02260492|168768520|EQUIVALENCE|Standard bioequivalence 90% confidence bounds set at 0.8-1.25.|Test/Reference|1.0475|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANOVA|||Same as the Day 1 analyses|"Week 4 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.019 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.035"|1.25|.8|<0.05
84692878|NCT00192023|169124603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84692879|NCT00192023|169124603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84692880|NCT00192023|169124604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
84692881|NCT00192023|169124605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84692882|NCT00192023|169124605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
84692883|NCT00192023|169124605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
84692884|NCT00192023|169124605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
84692885|NCT00114634|169124608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
84692886|NCT02572817|169124614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.65|0.54
84692887|NCT02572817|169124615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.45|0.66
84692888|NCT02572817|169124616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.5|0.87
84692889|NCT02572817|169124617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.65|0.49
84692890|NCT02572817|169124618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.55|0.83
84692891|NCT02572817|169124619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.56|0.65|0.47
84692892|NCT02572817|169124620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84692893|NCT02572817|169124621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.21|0.64
84692894|NCT02572817|169124622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
84692895|NCT02572817|169124623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 7||2.71|0.65|0.43
84692896|NCT02572817|169124623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 14||2.48|0.5|0.79
84692897|NCT02572817|169124623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 28||4.12|0.66|0.29
84692898|NCT02572817|169124624|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||0|-2|0.2
84692899|NCT02572817|169124624|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||1|-1|0.66
84692900|NCT02572817|169124625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 3||||0.18
84692901|NCT02572817|169124625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 7||||0.61
84508851|NCT00996736|168768522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is less than 1.5 lines logMAR acuity. (Adjusted three-month visual acuity confidence bounds for the difference between the voriconazole and natamycin groups which meet or exceed 0.15 logMAR units would not permit noninferiority to be declared.) Note that this design also allows declaration of superiority (2-sided alpha of 0.05, corrected for an interim analysis).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.006
84692902|NCT02572817|169124626|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.68
84692903|NCT02572817|169124627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|11.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.01|0.23|0.98
84692904|NCT02572817|169124628|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-6|0.37
84692905|NCT02572817|169124629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84692906|NCT02572817|169124630|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-3.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-14|0.22
84692907|NCT02572817|169124631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|9.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|0.08|1
84692908|NCT02572817|169124633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.05|0.24
84692909|NCT02572817|169124635|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84692910|NCT02572817|169124636|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 3||0|-1|0.06
84692911|NCT02572817|169124636|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 7||0|-1|0.13
84692912|NCT02572817|169124637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 3||||0.36
84692913|NCT02572817|169124637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 7||||0.15
84692914|NCT02572817|169124638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.87|0.12
84692915|NCT02572817|169124639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.13|0.23
84692916|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.4
84692917|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.109
84692918|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.779
84692919|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.262
84692920|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.150
84692921|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.726
84692922|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.055
84692923|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
84692924|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.844
84692925|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945||||||df=7|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
84692926|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383||||||Alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
84692927|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Mean change in osmolarity from baseline. H0: No change (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant change (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
84692928|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.672
84692929|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.107
84692930|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.64
84692931|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=14||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.040
84508852|NCT03708211|168768539|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.9359|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8084|1.0835||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.0835|0.8084|
84692932|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.20
84692933|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df-=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.150
84692934|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.730
84692935|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
84692936|NCT01614847|169124650|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
84692937|NCT00249496|169124652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||8.69|1.60|.004
84692938|NCT00249496|169124654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.43|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.43|0.26|=0.57
84692939|NCT00249496|169124656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)||The Odds Ratio and Confidence Intervals could not be calculated because one of the groups was at 0.|||0|0|0.046
84692940|NCT02441946|169124658|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.28|0.13|<0.001
84692941|NCT02441946|169124658|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.38|0.17|<0.001
84692942|NCT00545363|169124692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8989|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant satisfaction between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.8989
84692943|NCT00545363|169124693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.453|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant perception between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.453
84692944|NCT00545363|169124694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4917|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the effect of adherence (Yes/No) on percent change from baseline in CTX between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.4917
84692945|NCT05064735|169124709|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|-8.63|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||-8.63|-12.34|<0.0001
84692946|NCT05064735|169124710|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline WOMAC pain score as covariate.||-8.30|-19.98|<0.0001
84692947|NCT01396395|169124734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.581|||poisson regression: Non-calibration mode|||||0.581|0.435|<0.0001
84692948|NCT01396395|169124734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||=|0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.84|||Poisson regression: Calibration model|||||0.840|0.301|=0.0086
84692949|NCT03691948|169124754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||ANOVA|||||||.531
84692950|NCT03691948|169124755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
84692951|NCT01370005|169124756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.52||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.52|-0.72|<0.0001
84692952|NCT01370005|169124756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.55||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.55|-0.75|<0.0001
84692953|NCT01370005|169124757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-2.09||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.09|-4.78|<0.0001
84692954|NCT01370005|169124757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.83||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.83|-5.50|<0.0001
84692955|NCT01370005|169124758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.56||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.56|-2.15|0.0008
84508853|NCT03708211|168768540|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8992|1.1201||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1201|0.8992|
84692956|NCT01370005|169124758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.93||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.93|-2.51|<0.0001
84692957|NCT01370005|169124759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.18|3.51|<0.0001
84692958|NCT01370005|169124759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.75|3.70|<0.0001
84692959|NCT01370005|169124760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-18.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-18.60|-28.91|<0.0001
84508854|NCT03708211|168768541|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9033|1.1227||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1227|0.9033|
84692960|NCT01370005|169124760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-25.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-25.08|-35.32|<0.0001
84692961|NCT01370005|169124761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.13|-1.85|<0.0001
84692962|NCT01370005|169124761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.62|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.62|-2.33|<0.0001
84692963|NCT01370005|169124762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|-2.52|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, N of antihypertensive medications, baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-2.52|-5.37|<0.0001
84692964|NCT01370005|169124762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.36|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-3.36|-6.20|<0.0001
84692965|NCT01370005|169124763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.69|-2.42|0.0004
84508855|NCT00770315|168768557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-1.98|0.2192
84508856|NCT00770315|168768557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.36|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.36|-2.80|0.0113
84508857|NCT00770315|168768557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.79|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.79|-3.30|0.0015
84508858|NCT00770315|168768558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.13|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.13|-1.88|0.0878
84508859|NCT00770315|168768558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.28|-2.29|0.0125
84508860|NCT00770315|168768558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.88|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.88|-2.95|0.0003
84692966|NCT01370005|169124763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.12|-2.84|<0.0001
84692967|NCT01370005|169124764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.91|-4.09|0.0021
84692968|NCT01370005|169124764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.32|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.32|-4.48|0.0003
84692969|NCT01370005|169124765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||0.03|-1.93|0.0566
84692970|NCT01370005|169124765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.18|-2.12|0.0208
84692971|NCT01370005|169124766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.98|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.98|-5.86|<0.0001
84692972|NCT01370005|169124766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-2.87|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-2.87|-6.73|<0.0001
84692973|NCT01370005|169124767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.84|-3.01|0.0005
84692974|NCT01370005|169124767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.82|-2.97|0.0006
84508861|NCT00770315|168768559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-0.96|0.4781
84692975|NCT01370005|169124768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||4.45|1.39|0.0021
84692976|NCT01370005|169124768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||3.96|1.22|0.0088
84692977|NCT00856661|169124812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if alive, or 6, if otherwise = death||All patients who were treated and had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included.||2.64|0.79|0.2290
84692978|NCT00856661|169124813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.59|0.9401
84692979|NCT00856661|169124814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||All patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS and with a baseline NIHSS score of 8 to 24. If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if the patient was known to be alive, or 6, if otherwise = dead.||2.18|0.68|0.5076
84692980|NCT00856661|169124815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||all patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included||1.75|0.72|0.6146
84692981|NCT02120664|169124817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R squared|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||
84692982|NCT02120664|169124818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84692983|NCT02120664|169124818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84692984|NCT02306122|169124822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
84508862|NCT00770315|168768559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.21|-1.21|0.1695
84508863|NCT00770315|168768559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.21|-1.67|0.0118
84692985|NCT02306122|169124822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
84692986|NCT02306122|169124822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
84692987|NCT02306122|169124823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
84692988|NCT02306122|169124823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
84692989|NCT02306122|169124823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
84692990|NCT02306122|169124824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
84692991|NCT02306122|169124824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
84692992|NCT02306122|169124825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the choice arm|||||<0.01
84692993|NCT01351025|169124826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 IL-6||||0.94
84692994|NCT01351025|169124827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sun test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD4+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD4)||||0.495
84692995|NCT01351025|169124828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 D-dimer||||0.704
84692996|NCT01351025|169124829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD8+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD8+)||||0.508
84692997|NCT00180713|169124845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
84508864|NCT00770315|168768560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-0.93|0.2622
84508865|NCT00770315|168768560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.20|-0.99|0.1914
84508866|NCT00770315|168768560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.35|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.35|-1.57|0.0021
84508867|NCT00770315|168768561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-1.26|0.1900
84508868|NCT00770315|168768561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.84|0.0053
84692998|NCT00180713|169124846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.86
84692999|NCT00180713|169124847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.4
84693000|NCT00180713|169124848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
84693001|NCT00180713|169124849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84693002|NCT05295732|169124858|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|-18.4|0.39
84693003|NCT00550550|169124891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.66|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.66|-2.60|=0.001
84693004|NCT00550550|169124892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.45|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.45|-1.95|=0.005
84693005|NCT00550550|169124893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.03|-0.88|=0.066
84693006|NCT00550550|169124894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.03|-0.60|=0.042
84693007|NCT02459093|169124911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.37|0.04
84693008|NCT02459093|169124912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.36|0.05
84693009|NCT02090634|169124921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Cliff's d = 0.01; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to ARV medications.||||0.95
84693010|NCT02090634|169124921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Cliff's d = -0.13; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to PSY medications.||||0.43
84693011|NCT02090634|169124922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Cliff's d = 0.37; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for ARV medications.||||0.02
84693012|NCT02090634|169124922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Cliff's d = 0.14; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for PSY medications.||||0.42
84693013|NCT02736968|169124926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of resolution of diarrhea by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.12|-0.12|>0.999
84693014|NCT02736968|169124927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of parasitological response by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.34|-0.34|>0.999
84693015|NCT02736968|169124932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between treatment arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.142
84693016|NCT02041923|169124946|EQUIVALENCE|A t-test was conducted to evaluate equivalency.|Mean Difference (Net)|46.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693017|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.9||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||3.9|-3.8|
84693018|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.7|-7.1|
84693019|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.1||||||95.0|-13.4|5.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||5.1|-13.4|
84693020|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.3||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-3.2|
84508869|NCT00770315|168768561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.89|0.0058
84508870|NCT04256421|168768562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> upper limit of normal \[ULN\] vs. \</= ULN) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0 vs. 1).||1.38|0.89|0.3504
84508871|NCT04256421|168768563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.44|0.90|0.2859
84508872|NCT04256421|168768564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.31|0.89|0.4440
84508873|NCT04256421|168768565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.35|0.88|0.4205
84508874|NCT04256421|168768566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.8||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|15.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||15.99|-2.57|0.1418
84508875|NCT04256421|168768567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|5.19||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|13.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||13.61|-3.33|0.2191
84508876|NCT04256421|168768572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.74||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.13|||Z-test|||Month 12||6.13|-13.60|0.4580
84508877|NCT04256421|168768572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.12||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.55|||Z-test|||Month 24||1.55|-17.80|0.0999
84508878|NCT04256421|168768573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.02||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|5.88|||Z-test|||Month 12||5.88|-11.92|0.5059
84508879|NCT04256421|168768573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-5.29||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|3.65|||Z-test|||Month 24||3.65|-14.23|0.2458
84508880|NCT04256421|168768574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.48|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.48|0.68|0.9819
84508881|NCT04256421|168768575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.55|0.81|0.5122
84508882|NCT04256421|168768576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.79|0.81|0.3614
84508883|NCT04256421|168768577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.84|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.84|0.90|0.1681
84693021|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 17 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.1|-4.5|
84693022|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
84693023|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
84693024|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|4.8||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.8|-7.9|
84693025|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
84693026|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.1||||||95.0|-10.0|3.4||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 15 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.4|-10.0|
84693027|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-0.5|7.6||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 2.2 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.6|-0.5|
84693028|NCT00384059|169124965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.0||||||95.0|-4.1|6.5||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||6.5|-4.1|
84693029|NCT00384059|169124966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.3||||||95.0|-19.7|8.8||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.8|-19.7|
84693030|NCT00384059|169124966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.0|8.1||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.1|-8.0|
84693031|NCT00384059|169124967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.5|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-3.5|
84693032|NCT00384059|169124967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|2.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||2.8|-5.3|
84693033|NCT00384059|169124968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.68|
84693034|NCT00384059|169124969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.54|1.08||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.54|
84693035|NCT00384059|169124970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.82|1.16||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.82|
84693036|NCT00384059|169124970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.83|1.17||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.83|
84693037|NCT00384059|169124970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.26||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.26|0.80|
84693038|NCT00384059|169124970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.23||||||For Pertussis FIM the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.81|
84693039|NCT00384059|169124971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.83|1.53||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.53|0.83|
84693040|NCT00384059|169124976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration|0.85||||||95.0|0.48|1.49||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.49|0.48|
84693041|NCT00381641|169124982|SUPERIORITY|"Null (historical) response rate for iodine refractory subgroup is 10%. Power=90% for 30% alternative.~Null (historical) response rate for metastatic medullary subgroup is 5%. Power=88% for 25% alternative."|||||<|0.1||||||"For iodine refractory subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 6 or more responses were observed.~For metastatic medullary subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 3 or more responses were observed."|Simon, two-stage design|||Note. The objective was not to compare the two arms (subgroups), but to compare each with historical data.||||<0.10
84693042|NCT01946243|169124992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0029
84693043|NCT01946243|169124993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.7||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||2.7|
84693044|NCT01946243|169124994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.112||||||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.112|0.018|
84693045|NCT01946243|169124995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.8||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||0.8|
84693046|NCT01946243|169124996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.07||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.125|||Monte Carlo test|||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% CI greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.125|0.007|0.0280
84693047|NCT01946243|169124997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0025
84693048|NCT04249336|169125001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
84693049|NCT04249336|169125001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold P\<0.05|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693050|NCT04249336|169125001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693051|NCT04249336|169125002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
84693052|NCT04249336|169125002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693053|NCT04249336|169125002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693054|NCT04249336|169125003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
84693055|NCT04249336|169125003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693056|NCT04249336|169125003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
84693057|NCT01242176|169125004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|105.37|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.37|98.10|
84693058|NCT01242176|169125005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|109.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||109.68|90.18|
84693059|NCT01242176|169125006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|105.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.48|98.26|
84693060|NCT00871351|169125007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.8|||Hochberg's method|||||-5.8|-15.4|<0.0001
84693061|NCT00871351|169125007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-21.2|||Hochberg's method|||||-21.2|-31.8|<0.0001
84693062|NCT00871351|169125008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.0003
84693063|NCT00871351|169125008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||<0.0001
84693064|NCT02291289|169125016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.50|= 0.872
84693065|NCT02291289|169125016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.77|= 0.666
84693066|NCT02291289|169125016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||Log Rank|||||2.29|0.90|= 0.128
84693067|NCT02291289|169125017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.39|= 0.276
84693068|NCT02291289|169125017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.64|= 0.076
84693069|NCT02291289|169125017|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.157
84693070|NCT02291289|169125017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.73|= 0.415
84693071|NCT02291289|169125019|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.064
84693072|NCT02291289|169125019|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.658
84693073|NCT02291289|169125019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.093
84693074|NCT02291289|169125020|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.125
84693075|NCT02291289|169125020|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.739
84693076|NCT02291289|169125020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.362
84693077|NCT02291289|169125022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.421
84693078|NCT02291289|169125022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.495|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.495
84693079|NCT02291289|169125022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.357
84693080|NCT02223065|169125133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.975||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.915|0.4950
84693081|NCT02223065|169125134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.993||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.06|||ANOVA|||||1.060|0.932|0.8650
84693082|NCT02223065|169125135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.022||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.054|||ANOVA|||||1.054|0.991|0.2344
84693083|NCT02223065|169125136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.016||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.993|0.2458
84693084|NCT02223065|169125137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.024||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.993|0.1947
84693085|NCT02223065|169125138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.013||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.992|0.3191
84693086|NCT02524054|169125142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a paired t-test comparing the treatment effect of furosemide to the treatment effect of saline in each individual.||||0.35
84693087|NCT02524054|169125143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84693088|NCT03959592|169125211|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.14
84693089|NCT03959592|169125212|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.423
84693090|NCT03959592|169125215|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.985
84693091|NCT03959592|169125216|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.545
84693092|NCT01586338|169125218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84693093|NCT01586338|169125218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84693094|NCT01544491|169125248|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.6|6.8|||Log Rank|||at 12 months||6.8|-6.6|0.9712
84693095|NCT01544491|169125248|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.7|||Log Rank|||36 months||7.7|-7.3|0.9634
84693096|NCT01544491|169125249|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||at 12 months||11.8|-1.8|0.3455
84693097|NCT01544491|169125249|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.5|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||36 months||7.2|-5.5|0.8642
84693098|NCT01234649|169125308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures design||||<0.04
84693099|NCT01234649|169125309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<.005
84693100|NCT01234649|169125310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.011
84693101|NCT01234649|169125311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Nested repeated measures design||||>0.05
84693102|NCT01234649|169125312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.03
84693103|NCT01234649|169125313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693104|NCT01234649|169125314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.048
84693105|NCT01234649|169125315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
84693106|NCT01234649|169125316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.047
84693107|NCT01234649|169125317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.023
84693108|NCT01234649|169125318|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693109|NCT01234649|169125319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||0.042
84693110|NCT01234649|169125320|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693111|NCT01234649|169125321|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693112|NCT01234649|169125322|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693113|NCT01234649|169125323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.046
84693114|NCT01234649|169125324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.049
84693115|NCT01234649|169125325|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693116|NCT01234649|169125326|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693117|NCT01234649|169125327|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693118|NCT01234649|169125328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693119|NCT01234649|169125329|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
84693120|NCT03904693|169125366|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
84693121|NCT03904693|169125366|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.64|<0.0001
84693122|NCT03904693|169125367|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.04|||=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|49.08|||ANCOVA|||||49.08|-17.0|=0.3802
84693123|NCT03904693|169125367|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.37|||=|0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|51.59|||ANCOVA|||||51.59|-0.93|=0.0591
84693124|NCT04654468|169125372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired McNemar|||Percentage of participants who achieved TA from baseline through Week 25 were compared with the percentage of participants who reported TA within 24 weeks prior to screening.||||<.0001
84693125|NCT02301156|169125450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0463
84693126|NCT02301156|169125451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0159
84693127|NCT02301156|169125452|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.39|49.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated using CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|95% Confidence Interval (CI) was estimated using Clopper-Pearson method based on the binomial distribution.|||49.88|21.39|<0.0001
84693128|NCT02301156|169125453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.113|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.113|0.295|0.0961
84693129|NCT02301156|169125454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.234|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.234|0.263|0.1486
84693130|NCT02301156|169125455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.163||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.399|3.344|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||3.344|1.399|0.0004
84693131|NCT04195880|169125457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||negative-binomial regression coefficient|||We assumed the average monthly pre-intervention hospitalization rates of intervention and control CLCs were equal, so only average monthly post-intervention hospitalization rates might diverge. Each CLC had its own start month and contributed 18 months pre-intervention and 18 months post-intervention. Hospitalizations rates were modeled using a multilevel negative-binomial regression because it allows for over-dispersion, which is commonly observed with medical events such as a count.||||<.05
84693132|NCT03757234|169125467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.9|-12.4|
84693133|NCT03757234|169125467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|5.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.3|-34.8|
84693134|NCT03757234|169125467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|8.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.2|-30.6|
84693135|NCT03757234|169125467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|11.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.8|-22.4|
84693136|NCT03757234|169125468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-23.6|
84693137|NCT03757234|169125468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|-6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-6.0|-71.3|
84693138|NCT03757234|169125468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|15.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||15.1|-40.8|
84693139|NCT03757234|169125468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.1|-62.6|
84693140|NCT01152294|169125472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||7.96|1.02|0.01
84693141|NCT00610701|169125474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84693142|NCT01744860|169125475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa coefficient|0.8611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8125|0.9097||||||"Kappa coefficient was used to compare the concordance between INCa Molecular Genetics Laboratory in-house methods and Cobas 4800 Mutation Test."||0.9097|0.8125|
84693143|NCT02023879|169125520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-56.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|-49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/up to 150 mg Q2W was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-49.9|-62.9|<0.0001
84693144|NCT02023879|169125521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-53.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-53.8|-65.6|<0.0001
84693145|NCT02023879|169125522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-38.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.1|-51.8|<0.0001
84693146|NCT02023879|169125523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-41.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.9|-54.8|<0.0001
84693147|NCT02023879|169125524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-61.1|<0.0001
84693148|NCT02023879|169125525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|-53.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.4|-63.8|<0.0001
84693149|NCT02023879|169125526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.4|<0.0001
84693150|NCT02023879|169125527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.3|-42.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.8|-54.3|<0.0001
84693151|NCT02023879|169125528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-54.9|<0.0001
84693152|NCT02023879|169125529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.4|-57.1|<0.0001
84693153|NCT02023879|169125530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.8|-39.8|<0.0001
84693154|NCT02023879|169125531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.1|-44.3|<0.0001
84693155|NCT02023879|169125532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.8|-43.9|<0.0001
84693156|NCT02023879|169125533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-30.9|<0.0001
84693157|NCT02023879|169125534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|279.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|2690.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2690.1|29.1|<0.0001
84693158|NCT02023879|169125535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|354.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|3479.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3479.5|36.2|<0.0001
84693159|NCT02023879|169125536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|20.0|<0.0001
84693160|NCT02023879|169125537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|22.2|<0.0001
84693161|NCT02023879|169125538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-9.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-9.4|-29.8|0.0002
84693162|NCT02023879|169125539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.9||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.2|-17.1|0.0892
84693163|NCT00874432|169125550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CBPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.685
84693164|NCT00874432|169125550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CRPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.739
84693165|NCT00874432|169125550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CFPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.471
84693166|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.685
84693167|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.869
84693168|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CRPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.709
84693169|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.340
84693170|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.730
84693171|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.204
84693172|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.963
84693173|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.991
84693174|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.176
84693175|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.402
84693176|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.586
84693177|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.455
84693178|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.418
84693179|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.091
84693180|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.034
84693181|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.921
84693182|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.887
84693183|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.759
84693184|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.851
84693185|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.733
84693186|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.902
84693187|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.414
84693188|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.942
84693189|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.990
84693190|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.273
84693191|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.516
84693192|NCT00874432|169125551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.102
84693193|NCT02708433|169125585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.57|-0.49|0.74
84693194|NCT02708433|169125586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.52|-0.89|0.5
84693195|NCT01518946|169125594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|521.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.2|917.7|||ANOVA|||||917.7|124.2|0.0131
84693196|NCT03918239|169125604|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.181|||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.181|0.986|
84662101|NCT02254486|169057986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|0.14||||0.528|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.15|||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-8.15|0.528
84693197|NCT03918239|169125605|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.179||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.179|0.987|
84693198|NCT03918239|169125606|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.044|1.281||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.281|1.044|
84693199|NCT03390036|169125622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8106
84693200|NCT03390036|169125623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3007
84693201|NCT03390036|169125624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6354
84693202|NCT03390036|169125625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5754
84693203|NCT03390036|169125626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4759
84693204|NCT03390036|169125627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5596|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5596
84693205|NCT03390036|169125628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4551
84693206|NCT03390036|169125629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7931
84693207|NCT00358215|169125630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none)|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.13|0.90|0.871
84693208|NCT00358215|169125631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.19|0.92|0.512
84693209|NCT00358215|169125632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.14|0.89|0.922
84693210|NCT00358215|169125633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||3.75|0.65|0.005
84693211|NCT00358215|169125634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||4.05|0.53|0.011
84693212|NCT01984424|169125637|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.31|-33.28|||Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.28|-42.31|<0.0001
84693213|NCT01984424|169125638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|-31.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-31.08|-41.07|<0.0001
84693214|NCT01984424|169125639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-84.7|<0.0001
84693215|NCT01984424|169125640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-62.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-62.2|-81.3|<0.0001
84693216|NCT01984424|169125641|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|36.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.7|19.1|<0.0001
84693217|NCT01984424|169125642|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.1|17.7|<0.0001
84693218|NCT01984424|169125643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-23.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.27|-29.95|<0.0001
84693219|NCT01984424|169125644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.67|-21.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.48|-28.67|<0.0001
84693220|NCT01984424|169125645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-28.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.99|-37.12|<0.0001
84693221|NCT01984424|169125646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|-16.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.76|-35.44|<0.0001
84693222|NCT01984424|169125647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-29.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.58|-38.15|<0.0001
84693223|NCT01984424|169125648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.35|-27.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.16|-36.35|<0.0001
84693224|NCT01984424|169125649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.06|-25.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.77|-34.06|<0.0001
84693225|NCT01984424|169125650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.58|-22.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.82|-31.58|<0.0001
84693226|NCT01984424|169125651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.59|-29.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.67|-38.59|<0.0001
84693227|NCT01984424|169125652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|-27.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.32|-36.64|<0.0001
84693228|NCT01984424|169125653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.65|-14.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.51|-27.65|<0.0001
84693229|NCT01984424|169125654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.05|-28.42|<0.0001
84693230|NCT01984424|169125655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|4.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||4.87|-13.74|0.37
84693231|NCT01984424|169125656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.01|-13.64|0.37
84693232|NCT01984424|169125657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.22|2.15|0.0083
84693233|NCT01984424|169125658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|8.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.98|0.02|0.0083
84693234|NCT01984424|169125659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|2.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.94|-12.25|0.37
84693235|NCT01984424|169125660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|7.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.98|-10.45|0.37
84693236|NCT01089556|169125661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.192||||0.37||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
84693237|NCT01089556|169125662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.614|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84693238|NCT01089556|169125663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.991||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
84693239|NCT01089556|169125664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.233|1.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.662|1.233|<0.001
84693240|NCT01089556|169125665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.052||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.253|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.253|0.884|0.565
84693241|NCT01089556|169125666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.467|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|1.771|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.771|1.214|<0.001
84693242|NCT01089556|169125667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.550|0.980|0.068
84693243|NCT01089556|169125668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.125|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.456|1.125|<0.001
84693244|NCT01089556|169125669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.985||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.151|0.842|0.843
84693245|NCT01089556|169125670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84693246|NCT01089556|169125671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.475||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
84693247|NCT01089556|169125672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.758|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84693248|NCT01089556|169125673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.933||||0.289||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.289
84693249|NCT01089556|169125674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
84693250|NCT01089556|169125675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.78||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
84693251|NCT01089556|169125676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84693252|NCT01089556|169125676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.423||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
84693253|NCT01089556|169125677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.615||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.049
84693254|NCT01089556|169125677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
84693255|NCT01089556|169125682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.343|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84693256|NCT01089556|169125683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
84693257|NCT01089556|169125684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
84693258|NCT01089556|169125684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.843||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
84693259|NCT01089556|169125685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.329||||0.354||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.354
84693260|NCT01089556|169125685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.997||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.997
84693261|NCT01089556|169125686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.317|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84693262|NCT01089556|169125687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.942||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.332
84693263|NCT01089556|169125688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.618
84693264|NCT01089556|169125689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.571
84693265|NCT01089556|169125690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
84693266|NCT01089556|169125691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84693267|NCT01702428|169125692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||0.58|-1.69|
84693268|NCT01702428|169125692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.98|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.98|-0.35|
84693269|NCT01702428|169125692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.50|-0.98|
84693270|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
84693271|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.90|
84693272|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
84693273|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
84693274|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.95|
84693275|NCT01702428|169125693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
84693276|NCT01702428|169125694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.09|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.09|-1.05|
84693277|NCT01702428|169125694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.81|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.81|-0.50|
84693278|NCT01702428|169125694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.79|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.79|-0.53|
84693279|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.00|0.87|
84693280|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.97|
84693281|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.00|
84693282|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.19|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.19|1.04|
84693283|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.03|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.03|0.90|
84693284|NCT01702428|169125695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.96|0.84|
84693285|NCT01702428|169125696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||1.58|-1.3|
84693286|NCT01702428|169125696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.86|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.86|-1.86|
84693287|NCT01702428|169125696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.74|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.74|-2.02|
84693288|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||"Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.~."||1.15|1.01|
84693289|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.94|
84693290|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
84693291|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
84693292|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.93|
84693293|NCT01702428|169125697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.01|
84693294|NCT01702428|169125698|NON_INFERIORITY|The Lower Limit (LL) of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.25|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.25|-0.68|
84693295|NCT01702428|169125699|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.93|
84693296|NCT01702428|169125700|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.96|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.96|-0.1|
84693297|NCT01702428|169125701|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.99|
84693298|NCT01702428|169125702|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.15|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration at Day 42.||-0.15|-2.00|
84693299|NCT01702428|169125703|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.92|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.92|0.83|
84693300|NCT01702428|169125704|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (pooled INV\_MMR Group minus pooled COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-10% for antibodies to VZV.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.29|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|In US sub-cohort: Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-VZV antibody concentration at Day 42.||4.29|-1.31|
84693301|NCT01702428|169125705|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to VZV.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to VZV virus at Day 42.||1.08|0.95|
84693302|NCT01702428|169125707|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) was ≥0.5 for antibodies to HAV virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to HAV virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.86|
84693303|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 1 antibody at Day 42.||1.05|0.85|
84693304|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 3 antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.91|
84693305|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 4 antibody at Day 42.||0.98|0.79|
84693306|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 5 antibody at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
84693307|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6A antibody at Day 42.||1.11|0.92|
84693308|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6B antibody at Day 42.||1.09|0.89|
84693309|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 7F antibody at Day 42.||1.03|0.86|
84508884|NCT02841709|168768592|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
84508885|NCT02841709|168768592|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||4.0|-14.7|0.258
84508886|NCT02841709|168768592|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||-9.0|-27.8|<0.001
84693310|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 9V antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.90|
84693311|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 14 antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.81|
84693312|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 18C antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.84|
84693313|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19A antibody at Day 42.||1.07|0.87|
84693314|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.87|
84693315|NCT01702428|169125708|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 23F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.85|
84508887|NCT02841709|168768592|OTHER||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-22.2|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-22.2|-40.9|<0.001
84693316|NCT01275196|169125776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This trial was powered to detect an odds ratio of at least 2.333 which corresponds, for example, to increases of 18% (from 22% to 40%) and increases of 20% (from 30% to 50%).||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84693317|NCT01027364|169125830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 95% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.24|0.11|<0.001
84693318|NCT01027364|169125830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations.||0.20|0.08|<0.001
84693319|NCT01461993|169125838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.72|0.94||||||HPV-6||0.94|0.72|
84693320|NCT01461993|169125838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.91||||||HPV-11||0.91|0.74|
84693321|NCT01461993|169125838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||||||HPV-16||0.88|0.68|
84693322|NCT01461993|169125838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81||||||HPV-18||0.81|0.62|
84693323|NCT01461993|169125839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||PMB80 \[A22\]||1.00|0.85|
84693324|NCT01461993|169125839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]||1.01|0.84|
84693325|NCT00680056|169125850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.0||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference= Formoterol plus Tiotropium minus Formoterol plus Placebo(Tiotropium)|It was calculated a total sample size of a 2x2 cross-over design as 24 for a two-sided t-test achieves 85% power to infer that the mean difference is not zero, the actual mean difference is 20, the standard deviation of the differences is 15, and the significance level is 0.05||||0.038
84693326|NCT00680056|169125851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.054||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference=Arm 2 minus Arm 1|||||0.054
84693327|NCT01304082|169125852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7535||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||0.7535
84693328|NCT01304082|169125853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
84693329|NCT01304082|169125854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
84693330|NCT01304082|169125855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
84693331|NCT02733042|169125856|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm B, ibrutinib 420 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for CLL/SLL participants and ibrutinib 560 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for MCL participants.|||
84693332|NCT02733042|169125856|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm C the RP2D was confirmed as rituximab 375 mg/m² + bendamustine 70 mg/m².|||
84693333|NCT03688711|169125878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests stratified by injection site.||||<0.0001
84693334|NCT03688711|169125879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 30 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0012
84693335|NCT03688711|169125879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 20 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693336|NCT03688711|169125879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 15 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693337|NCT03688711|169125879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 10 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0006
84693338|NCT03688711|169125880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693339|NCT03688711|169125880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 20 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693340|NCT03688711|169125880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 15 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693341|NCT03688711|169125880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84693342|NCT03688711|169125881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor, analogous to that used for the primary endpoint analysis. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests. Subjects whose time to first plasma glucose concentration ≥70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was not met within 45 minutes post-dosing were censored, at the time of the last valid plasma glucose measurement up to 45 minutes.||||<0.0001
84693343|NCT03688711|169125882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as factor and the baseline of the dependent variable plasma glucose as a covariate.||6.05|2.71|<0.0001
84693344|NCT03169881|169125975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.64||The mean difference in Bayley-III cognitive scores between treatment groups was adjusted for center, gestational age group, and familial clustering.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference in cognitive score for the Darbepoetin minus Placebo treatment groups.|Null hypothesis: Weekly administration of Darbepoetin during the neonatal period will not impact neurocognitive outcomes at 22-26 months compared to Placebo in premature infants 23 to 28 weeks gestation.||2.64|-3.09|0.88
84693345|NCT03012061|169126018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.2595|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus placebo|||0.2595|0.0920|<0.001
84693346|NCT03012061|169126018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1008|0.2675|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo|||0.2675|0.1008|<0.001
84693347|NCT03012061|169126019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2789||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|ANCOVA||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2789|0.1000|<0.001
84693348|NCT03012061|169126019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|0.2866|||ANCOVA||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2866|0.1086|<0.001
84693349|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||3.7|-0.2|0.083
84693350|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||1.7|-2.7|0.636
84693351|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||3.9|-0.4|0.115
84693352|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||2.9|-1.0|0.336
84693353|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||2.5|-1.9|0.787
84693354|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||2.7|-1.6|0.625
84693355|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 4|||2.3|-0.7|0.309
84508888|NCT02841709|168768592|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-38.5|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-38.5|-57.2|<0.001
84693356|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 12|||1.1|-2.1|0.521
84693357|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.2|0.0|0.047
84693358|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 4|||1.8|-1.3|0.779
84693359|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 12|||2.6|-0.6|0.204
84693360|NCT03012061|169126022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.1|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.1|-0.1|0.066
84693361|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, Week 4|||3.2|-0.7|0.195
84693362|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||2.3|-1.0|0.457
84693363|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||3.2|-1.0|0.300
84693364|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 4|||3.3|-0.5|0.140
84693365|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||3.3|0.0|0.045
84693366|NCT03012061|169126023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||5.5|1.3|0.002
84693367|NCT01233609|169126043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-150.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 830|Right eye and Left Eye within each of the 2 treatment groups (Placebo and Valproic Acid) were combined to estimate the difference|||||0.035
84693368|NCT01233609|169126044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
84693369|NCT01233609|169126045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
84693370|NCT01233609|169126046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
84693371|NCT01861457|169126066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84508889|NCT01739790|168768602|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84508890|NCT02581345|168768603|EQUIVALENCE|Per Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the equivalence testing was made using 90% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 18%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.072||||||||0.072|-0.043|
84693372|NCT01861457|169126067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84693373|NCT01567865|169126073|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|9.66||||||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||9.66|-5.97|
84714825|NCT03785964|169175900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
84714826|NCT02151981|169175910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||0.41|0.23|<0.001
84693374|NCT01567865|169126073|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||4.98|-9.92|<0.05
84693375|NCT01567865|169126073|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|3.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||3.31|-11.94|<0.05
84693376|NCT01567865|169126073|NON_INFERIORITY|The new GMP facility lots will be considered non-inferior (i.e., equivalent) to the existing facility lot if the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypothesis: reference lot vs. Lot 1, 2, and 3 combined do differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. The power of the study to test non-inferiority of the combined new lots compared to the reference lot dropped from 99% to 87%."||3.1|-9.74|<0.05
84693377|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.95|-0.39||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.39|-0.95|<0.0001
84693378|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.44||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.44|-1.01|<0.0001
84693379|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0055||95.0|-0.68|-0.12||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.12|-0.68|0.0055
84693380|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.46|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Placebo vs. Linagliptin 10 mg~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)."||-0.46|-0.99|<0.0001
84693381|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.48|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.48|-1.02|<0.0001
84693382|NCT00309608|169126098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0049||95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.12|-0.66|0.0049
84693383|NCT00309608|169126099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.575||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|145.781|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo||145.781|2.367|0.0054
84508891|NCT02581345|168768603|EQUIVALENCE|Per European Medicines Agency (EMA), the equivalence testing was made using 95% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 15%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.082||||||||0.082|-0.054|
84508892|NCT02581345|168768604|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale was calculated using stratified Newcombe method.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.048|
84693384|NCT00309608|169126099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.715||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.439|95.351|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo||95.351|1.439|0.0214
84693385|NCT00309608|169126099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.776||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|102.895|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||102.895|1.586|0.0167
84693386|NCT00309608|169126099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|242.028|||Regression, Logistic|||Glimepiride vs. Placebo||242.028|4.063|0.0010
84693387|NCT00309608|169126100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-41.4|-17.5|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 10mg vs. Placebo||-17.5|-41.4|<0.0001
84693388|NCT00309608|169126100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.8|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo||-22.8|-47.0|<0.0001
84693389|NCT00309608|169126100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.0022||95.0|-31.0|-6.87|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||-6.87|-31.0|0.0022
84693390|NCT00214903|169126139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE, region, and HRT user status.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||1.3|0.5|
84693391|NCT00214903|169126140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, family history of fatal ATE, region, and smoking.|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||0.8|0.3|
84693392|NCT01807221|169126155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||2.3|-14.9|0.8771
84693393|NCT01807221|169126155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|4.0|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||4|-13.4|0.7945
84693394|NCT01807221|169126155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|8.8|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||8.8|-8.5|0.5
84693395|NCT01807221|169126155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.2|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||10.2|-7.1|0.4225
84662102|NCT02254486|169057987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|6.58||||0.059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.69|||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and with 1-sided p-value \<0.025; the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-1.69|0.059
84662103|NCT02254486|169057988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-3.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|5.28||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||5.28|-11.36|0.863
84662104|NCT02254486|169057989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.66||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.660
84693396|NCT01807221|169126155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|5.7|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||5.7|-11.7|0.6865
84693397|NCT06017999|169126167|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-153.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.8|-132.91|||ANCOVA|||||-132.91|-173.80|<0.0001
84662105|NCT02254486|169057990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.953||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - Trisulfate Solution rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.953
84662106|NCT02254486|169057991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formal hierarchical testing of this key secondary endpoints was not performed due to the results of the non-inferiority analysis.||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchichally in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit (CL) for difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of Trisulate Solution. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||||0.781
84662107|NCT00010374|169058028|OTHER|Performance goal of 35%|Exact two-sided binomial test|96.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.5|||Exact two-sided binomial test|||||99.5|87.0|<0.001
84662108|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|7.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||7.70|-3.48|
84662109|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|11.07||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||11.07|-0.41|
84508893|NCT02581345|168768605|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.061|
84662110|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|8.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 1.||8.33|-3.35|
84662111|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|5.36||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||5.36|-6.11|
84662112|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.29|-1.57|
84662113|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|10.65||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.65|-1.45|
84662114|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|1.93||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.93|-10.44|
84662115|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.32||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||6.32|-7.22|
84662116|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 7.||5.33|-8.25|
84662117|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|6.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||6.29|-5.98|
84662118|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.08||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||15.08|1.52|
84662119|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|10.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 8.||10.50|-2.85|
84662120|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|4.97||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||4.97|-7.16|
84662121|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|13.66||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||13.66|-0.11|
84662122|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|10.15||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 14.||10.15|-3.58|
84662123|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|5.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||5.40|-7.64|
84693398|NCT06017999|169126168|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-131.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.13|-110.16|||ANCOVA|||||-110.16|-153.13|<0.0001
84662124|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|10.89||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||10.89|-3.71|
84662125|NCT00372112|169058036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|9.18||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 15.||9.18|-4.96|
84662126|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||12.0|-7.7|
84662127|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|13.1||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||13.1|-7.2|
84662128|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||10.1|-10.2|
84662129|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.4|-6.1|
84662130|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|14.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||14.3|-2.8|
84662131|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.1|-6.9|
84662132|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||6.2|-16.1|
84662133|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|10.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||10.2|-14.0|
84508894|NCT02581345|168768605|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.069|
84508895|NCT02581345|168768608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.149||||||||0.149|0.010|
84508896|NCT02581345|168768608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are:\[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.004|
84508897|NCT02122796|168768640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
84508898|NCT02122796|168768641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
84508899|NCT02122796|168768643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
84508900|NCT00234078|168768644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.385
84508901|NCT00234078|168768645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.601
84508902|NCT00234078|168768646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
84508903|NCT00234078|168768646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84508904|NCT00234078|168768646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
84508905|NCT00234078|168768647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84508906|NCT00234078|168768647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84508907|NCT00234078|168768647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84508908|NCT03471078|168768648|OTHER|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested between avatrombopag and placebo using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel 2-sided test at α=0.05, adjusting for the number of eligible chemotherapy agents as collected in IWRS (1 or ≥2 permissible chemotherapy agents).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-21.7|0.7186
84508909|NCT03471078|168768649|OTHER|||||||0.8372|||||||Van Elteren Test|||||||0.8372
84508910|NCT03068273|168768671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1460
84508911|NCT03068273|168768671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84508912|NCT03068273|168768671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.331|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84508913|NCT03068273|168768672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
84508914|NCT03068273|168768673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.775||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0404
84508915|NCT03068273|168768674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2680
84508916|NCT03068273|168768675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.839||0.0403|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0403
84508917|NCT00797108|168768713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|55.3||||||Two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||55.3|-4.0|
84508918|NCT00797108|168768713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.1|57.9||||||Two-sided 80% CI for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||57.9|-13.1|
84508919|NCT02362594|168768728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.43|0.74||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.74|0.43|<0.0001
84508920|NCT02362594|168768729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms (PD-L1-positive participants) was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.69|0.42|<0.0001
84508921|NCT03365375|168768769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84508922|NCT02483975|168768781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.0505||||||||1.0505|0.8040|
84508923|NCT02483975|168768782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8096|1.062||||||||1.0620|0.8096|
84508924|NCT02483975|168768783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||||1.06|0.81|
84508925|NCT02483975|168768784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||||1.03|0.61|
84508926|NCT02483975|168768785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||||1.07|0.72|
84508927|NCT00818883|168768786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.9||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.9|-8.3|<0.001
84662134|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||7.5|-17.1|
84508928|NCT00818883|168768786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.5|-2.5||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.5|-7.5|<0.001
84508929|NCT00818883|168768787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.2||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.2|-5.2|<0.001
84508930|NCT00818883|168768787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.3|-4.1|<0.001
84508931|NCT00818883|168768788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-4.2|-10.5|<0.001
84508932|NCT00818883|168768788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.7|-6.8|0.001
84508933|NCT00818883|168768789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.3|-6.3|<0.001
84508934|NCT00818883|168768789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-0.7|-4.2|0.006
84508935|NCT00818883|168768790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-3.2|-8.4|<0.001
84508936|NCT00818883|168768790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.0|-6.4|<0.001
84508937|NCT00818883|168768791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.1|-5.5|<0.001
84508938|NCT00818883|168768791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.1|-4.1|<0.001
84508939|NCT03879239|168768823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM1 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0011
84508940|NCT03879239|168768823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM2 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0085
84508941|NCT03179345|168768829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.016|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within Sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.016|-0.266|0.0275
84508942|NCT03179345|168768829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
84662135|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.9||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||10.9|-4.1|
84662136|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||19.0|2.6|
84662137|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.4||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||11.4|-5.2|
84662138|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|2.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||2.7|-17.0|
84662139|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.8||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||16.8|-6.0|
84662140|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.0||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||8.0|-13.8|
84662141|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||8.3|-7.8|
84662142|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|15.6||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||15.6|-2.1|
84662143|NCT00372112|169058038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.3||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||13.3|-4.5|
84662144|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.2293|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2293|-0.0031|
84662145|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|0.2771|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2771|0.0408|
84662146|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0375|0.1903|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.1903|-0.0375|
84662147|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0178|0.3305|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3305|0.0178|
84662148|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3365|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3365|0.0060|
84662149|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0233|0.2987|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.2987|-0.0233|
84662150|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.3046|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3046|-0.0266|
84662151|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0177|0.3635|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3635|0.0177|
84662152|NCT00372112|169058053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0686|0.2599|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.2599|-0.0686|
84662153|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.608|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.608|-0.590|
84662154|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.829|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.829|-0.354|
84662155|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.654|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.654|-0.469|
84662156|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|0.988|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.988|-0.591|
84662157|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|1.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.418|-0.152|
84714827|NCT02151981|169175911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|8.48|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for ethnicity (Asian/non-Asian)|odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.48|3.47|<0.001
84662158|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.797|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.797|-0.667|
84662159|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|0.67|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.670|-0.476|
84662160|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.024|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.024|-0.208|
84662161|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.631|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.631|-0.471|
84714828|NCT02151981|169175912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Expected (DoR)|6.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.57|||formulae provided in Ellis S et al 2008|Treatments compared by calculating the ratio of the Expected (DoR) using the Log Normal probability distribution for DOR in responding patients||||9.57|4.04|<0.001
84508943|NCT03179345|168768830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.024|-0.227|0.1103
84508944|NCT03179345|168768830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
84508945|NCT03179345|168768831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9946
84508946|NCT03179345|168768831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.04|-0.01|0.1673
84508947|NCT03179345|168768831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.03|-0.02|0.6208
84508948|NCT03179345|168768832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.8|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||4.80|-5.59|0.8799
84508949|NCT03179345|168768832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.45|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||5.45|-4.97|0.9277
84508950|NCT03179345|168768832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.73||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|1.49|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.49|-8.94|0.1587
84662162|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.149|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.149|-0.660|
84508951|NCT03179345|168768833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.03|0.7111
84508952|NCT03179345|168768833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9048
84508953|NCT03179345|168768833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.01|-0.03|0.3262
84508954|NCT03179345|168768834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.26|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.26|-2.18|0.5950
84508955|NCT03179345|168768834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.06|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.06|-1.40|0.7057
84508956|NCT03179345|168768834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.10|-1.36|0.6741
84508957|NCT03179345|168768835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0070
84508958|NCT03179345|168768835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.05|-0.02|0.5183
84508959|NCT03179345|168768835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.05|0.5084
84508960|NCT03179345|168768836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.124|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.124|-0.104|0.1026
84508961|NCT03179345|168768836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.523|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.523|-0.711|0.7634
84508962|NCT03179345|168768836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|1.127|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.127|-0.107|0.1041
84508963|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|-0.051|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||-0.051|-0.521|0.0177
84508964|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.222|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.222|-0.536|0.4120
84508965|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.27|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.270|-0.362|0.7724
84508966|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.18|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.180|-0.423|0.4255
84508967|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.262|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in activities||0.262|-0.229|0.8925
84508968|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.063|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.063|-0.487|0.1293
84508969|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.014|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.014|-0.266|0.0304
84508970|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.217|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.217|-0.384|0.5811
84508971|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.024|-0.220|0.1144
84508972|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.135|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.135|-0.352|0.3774
84508973|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.727|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.727|-0.613|0.8658
84508974|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.216|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.216|-0.179|0.8543
84508975|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.231|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.231|-0.537|0.4294
84508976|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.357|0.132|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.132|-0.357|0.3613
84662163|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|1.766|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.766|-0.174|
84662164|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.030|-0.742|
84662165|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|0.669|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.669|-0.556|
84662166|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.491|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.491|-0.767|
84662167|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|0.391|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.391|-0.765|
84662168|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.806|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.806|-0.619|
84662169|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.105|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.105|-0.390|
84662170|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.877|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.877|-0.522|
84662171|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.001|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.001|-0.586|
84662172|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.085|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.085|-0.657|
84662173|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.133|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.133|-0.440|
84662174|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.247|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.247|-0.679|
84662175|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.074|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.074|-0.998|
84662176|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.416|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.416|-0.452|
84662177|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.095|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.095|-0.878|
84662178|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.135|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.135|-0.990|
84662179|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.196|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.196|-0.575|
84662180|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.385|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.385|-0.235|
84508977|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.212|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.212|-0.305|0.7201
84662181|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.073|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.073|-0.623|
84662182|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.418|-0.213|
84662183|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.042|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.042|-0.640|
84662184|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.079|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.079|-0.621|
84662185|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.243|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.243|-0.432|
84662186|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.505|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.505|-0.158|
84662187|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.143|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.143|-0.535|
84662188|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.475|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.475|-0.198|
84662189|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.90|-1.18|
84662190|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||1.30|-0.72|
84662191|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.8|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.80|-1.15|
84662192|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.44|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.44|-0.64|
84662193|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.70|-0.32|
84662194|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.20|-0.74|
84662195|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.01|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.01|-1.11|
84662196|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.62|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.62|-0.57|
84662197|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.15|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.15|-0.89|
84662198|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.50|-0.98|
84662199|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.14|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||2.14|-0.42|
84662200|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.54|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.54|-0.90|
84662201|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.30|-1.20|
84662202|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||2.03|-0.53|
84662203|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.23|-1.23|
84662204|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.23|-0.78|
84662205|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.89|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.89|-0.21|
84662206|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.48|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.48|-0.50|
84662207|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.09|-0.47|
84662208|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.04|-0.49|
84662209|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.07|-0.46|
84662210|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.27|-0.47|
84662211|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.03|-0.73|
84662212|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.34|-0.37|
84662213|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.97|
84662214|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.98|
84662215|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.08|-0.76|
84662216|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.33|-0.26|
84662217|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||-0.10|-0.70|
84662218|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.34|-0.26|
84662219|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.12|-0.42|
84662220|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.04|-0.51|
84662221|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.21|-0.34|
84662222|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.35|-0.25|
84662223|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||-0.05|-0.66|
84662224|NCT00372112|169058058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.34|-0.26|
84662225|NCT02756689|169058083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84662226|NCT02756689|169058084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84662227|NCT02756689|169058085|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.8|0.09
84662228|NCT02756689|169058086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84662229|NCT02756689|169058087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.4|||Chi-squared|||||11.4|0.9|0.06
84662230|NCT02756689|169058088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|0.2|0.74
84662231|NCT02756689|169058089|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84662232|NCT02756689|169058090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84662233|NCT02756689|169058091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84662234|NCT02756689|169058092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84662235|NCT02756689|169058093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84662236|NCT02756689|169058094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.2|>0.99
84662237|NCT02756689|169058095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.3|0.43
84662238|NCT02756689|169058096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.3|0.1|0.09
84662239|NCT02756689|169058097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.1|0.68
84662240|NCT02756689|169058098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|0.3|0.73
84662241|NCT02756689|169058099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84662242|NCT02756689|169058100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||||15.4|0.1|>0.99
84662243|NCT02756689|169058101|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84662244|NCT02756689|169058102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84662245|NCT02756689|169058103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.03|0.37
84662246|NCT02756689|169058104|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84662247|NCT02756689|169058105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.05|0.62
84662248|NCT02756689|169058106|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|0.3|>0.99
84662249|NCT02756689|169058107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.234
84662250|NCT02756689|169058108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84662251|NCT02756689|169058109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84662252|NCT02756689|169058110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84662253|NCT02756689|169058111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84662254|NCT02756689|169058112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84662255|NCT02756689|169058113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84662256|NCT02756689|169058114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84662257|NCT02756689|169058115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84662258|NCT02756689|169058116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
84662259|NCT02756689|169058117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84662260|NCT02756689|169058118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84662261|NCT02756689|169058119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84662262|NCT02756689|169058120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84662263|NCT02756689|169058121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84662264|NCT02756689|169058122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84662265|NCT02756689|169058123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84662266|NCT01574326|169058124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline to Week 2 in serum phosphorus, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline phosphorus and screening BSA as covariates and fixed effect for treatment. No center effect was included in the model. The estimate of the treatment difference (Sevelamer Carbonate - Placebo) and its 95% CI were presented. Significance was to be declared if the p-value was ≤0.05.||-0.37|-1.44|0.001
84662267|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||||90.0|-0.041|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.041|
84662268|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.04|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.003|-0.040|
84714829|NCT02151981|169175913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.84|||Regression, Logistic||odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.84|2.64|<0.001
84662269|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.038|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.001|-0.038|
84662270|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.058|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.058|
84662271|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.065|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.065|
84662272|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.043|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.043|
84662273|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.066|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.066|
84662274|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.058|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.009|-0.058|
84662275|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.039|0.009|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.009|-0.039|
84662276|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.027|0.017|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.017|-0.027|
84662277|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.037|0.012|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.012|-0.037|
84662278|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.014|-0.076|
84508978|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|0.023|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.023|-0.448|0.0767
84508979|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.165|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.165|-0.597|0.2618
84662279|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.013|-0.076|
84662280|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.071|
84662281|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.074|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.074|
84662282|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.088|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.025|-0.088|
84662283|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.071|
84662284|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||90.0|-0.079|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.079|
84662285|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.055|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.016|-0.055|
84662286|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.079|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.079|
84508980|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.269|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.269|-0.366|0.7633
84508981|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.105|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.105|-0.502|0.1968
84508982|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.197|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.197|-0.296|0.6891
84508983|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.106|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.106|-0.447|0.2229
84508984|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.054|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||0.054|-0.197|0.2591
84508985|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.246|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.246|-0.359|0.7099
84508986|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.092|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.092|-0.154|0.6215
84508987|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.187|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.187|-0.302|0.6422
84508988|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|0.19|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.190|-1.157|0.1574
84508989|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.282|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.282|-0.115|0.4039
84508990|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.076|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.076|-0.695|0.1145
84508991|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.119|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.119|-0.372|0.3083
84508992|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.0776|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.0776|-0.443|0.1638
84508993|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.157|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.157|-0.314|0.5101
84508994|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.149|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.149|-0.614|0.2285
84508995|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.436|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.436|-0.200|0.4612
84508996|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.402|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.402|-0.205|0.5190
84508997|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.223|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.223|-0.271|0.8479
84662287|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.091|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.091|
84662288|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.081|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.081|
84662289|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.073|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.073|
84662290|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.121|-0.038|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.038|-0.121|
84662291|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||||90.0|-0.124|0.003|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.003|-0.124|
84662292|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.098|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.033|-0.098|
84662293|NCT00137046|169058143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.085|
84662294|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||||90.0|-0.06|0.122|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.122|-0.060|
84508998|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.238|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.238|-0.316|0.7808
84662295|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||||90.0|0.033|0.239|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.239|0.033|
84662296|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||||90.0|0.0|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.000|
84662297|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.141|0.374|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.374|0.141|
84662298|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.04|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.273|0.040|
84662299|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||||90.0|0.065|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.300|0.065|
84662300|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||||90.0|0.06|0.319|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.319|0.060|
84662301|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||||90.0|0.19|0.443|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.443|0.190|
84662302|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||||90.0|-0.037|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.037|
84662303|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.103|0.145|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.145|-0.103|
84662304|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||90.0|-0.023|0.248|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.248|-0.023|
84662305|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.126|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.419|0.126|
84662306|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|0.219|0.507|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.507|0.219|
84662307|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.128|0.428|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.428|0.128|
84508999|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.045|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.045|-0.296|0.0083
84509000|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.201|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.201|-0.404|0.5068
84509001|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.055|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.055|-0.191|0.2725
84509002|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.284|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.284|-0.206|0.7498
84509003|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.826|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.826|-0.522|0.6554
84509004|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.28|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.280|-0.116|0.4143
84509005|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|0.33|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.330|-0.441|0.7761
84509006|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.251|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.251|-0.241|0.9697
84509007|NCT03179345|168768837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.174|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Motivation|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|0.174|-0.346|0.5118
84509008|NCT03179345|168768838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|0.947|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.947|-1.178|0.8293
84509009|NCT03179345|168768838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
84509010|NCT03179345|168768839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|0.581|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.581|-1.556|0.3666
84509011|NCT03179345|168768839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
84509012|NCT01966042|168768864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test (n=13)|||||||< 0.001
84509013|NCT00625807|168768869|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||Cohen's d = 0.5|ANOVA|||ANOVA for group by time interaction||||> 0.1
84509014|NCT00625807|168768870|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.103
84509015|NCT00625807|168768871|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change pre to week 8||||.022
84509016|NCT00625807|168768871|OTHER|within group change from pre to week 8|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84509017|NCT00625807|168768872|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.015
84509018|NCT00625807|168768872|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.53
84509019|NCT00625807|168768873|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.06
84509020|NCT00625807|168768873|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to post||||<.001
84509021|NCT03267264|168768874|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.7||||||||24.7|10.3|
84509022|NCT03267264|168768875|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|44.3||||||||44.3|16.8|
84662308|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.144|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.442|0.144|
84662309|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|0.058|0.369|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.369|0.058|
84662310|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||||90.0|0.101|0.386|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.386|0.101|
84662311|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|0.079|0.376|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.376|0.079|
84662312|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.079|0.372|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.372|0.079|
84662313|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||||90.0|0.055|0.368|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.368|0.055|
84662314|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||||90.0|0.18|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.483|0.180|
84662315|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||||90.0|0.302|0.622|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.622|0.302|
84714830|NCT02151981|169175914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-21.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-15.52|||ANCOVA|Covariates for ethnicity (Asian, non-Asian) and the baseline sum of diameters of target lesions|LS Mean: Osimertinib -46.93, Chemo -25.3 A difference in LS means \<0 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||-15.52|-27.71|<0.001
84662316|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||||90.0|0.221|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.600|0.221|
84662317|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||||90.0|0.183|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.718|0.183|
84662318|NCT00137046|169058145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.174|0.237|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.237|-0.174|
84662319|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||||90.0|-25.24|-4.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.39|-25.24|
84662320|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||||90.0|-35.16|-14.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.51|-35.16|
84714831|NCT02151981|169175915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.13|0.67|0.277
84714832|NCT02151981|169175916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favors Osimertinib 80mg|||0.28|0.16|<0.001
84714833|NCT02151981|169175917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.11|0.69|<0.001
84714834|NCT01574274|169175948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84714835|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 4 NSAA Level||||0.07
84714836|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 11 NSAA Level||||0.29
84714837|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 18 NSAA Level||||0.0002
84714838|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 25 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
84714839|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 7 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
84714840|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 13 NSAA Level||||0.87
84714841|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19 NSAA Level||||0.83
84714842|NCT01574274|169175949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 25 NSAA Level||||0.94
84714843|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.03|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||1.03|-3.60|0.27
84714844|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.04|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.04|-2.53|0.83
84714845|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.01||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.28|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.28|-4.30|0.08
84714846|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.65|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.65|-3.77|0.16
84714847|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.54|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.54|-3.84|0.14
84714848|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||-0.17|-4.47|0.04
84509023|NCT03267264|168768875|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|37.1||||||||37.1|4.1|
84509024|NCT03267264|168768875|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|overal mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.5||||||||19.5|-7.2|
84509025|NCT03267264|168768875|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|26.7||||||||26.7|-1.1|
84509026|NCT03267264|168768876|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall mean|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.7||||||Overall Comfort||24.7|11.3|
84509027|NCT03267264|168768876|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|21.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||21.8|9.9|
84509028|NCT03267264|168768876|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.1||||||Injection Pain||22.1|8.9|
84509029|NCT03267264|168768876|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.7||||||Ease of Use||25.7|13.8|
84509030|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.7||||||Overall Comfort||40.7|14.9|
84509031|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|31.6||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick injury||31.6|8.9|
84509032|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.8||||||Injection Pain||28.8|3.4|
84509033|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|42.1||||||Ease of Use||42.1|19.3|
84662321|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||||90.0|-37.56|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.75|-37.56|
84662322|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||||90.0|-30.56|-8.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-8.36|-30.56|
84714849|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.74|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.74|0.17|0.04
84509034|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|36.1||||||Overall Comfort||36.1|5.3|
84509035|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|32.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick||32.8|6|
84509036|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|33.7||||||Injection Pain||33.7|3.6|
84509037|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9||||||Ease of Use||31.9|4.9|
84509038|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|20.9||||||Overall Comfort||20.9|-4.0|
84509039|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle stick injury||23.8|1.9|
84509040|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.4||||||Injection Pain||19.4|-5.3|
84509041|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.8||||||Ease of Use||28.8|6.7|
84509042|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.1||||||Overall Comfort||28.1|2.1|
84509043|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.4||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||22.4|-0.5|
84662323|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||||90.0|-50.93|-29.0|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-29.00|-50.93|
84509044|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|33.1||||||Injection Pain||33.1|7.4|
84509045|NCT03267264|168768877|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|23.5||||||Eae of Use||23.5|0.5|
84509046|NCT01984242|168768905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.69|0.9819
84509047|NCT01984242|168768905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.71|||Log Rank|||||1.71|0.82|0.3580
84509048|NCT01984242|168768907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0952||95.0|0.38|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.38|0.0952
84509049|NCT01984242|168768907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.67|||Log Rank|||||1.67|0.63|0.9172
84509050|NCT01984242|168768909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.26|0.0153
84509051|NCT01984242|168768909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.48|0.5545
84509052|NCT01984242|168768911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.28|0.0086
84509053|NCT01984242|168768911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7675||95.0|0.56|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.7675
84509054|NCT01984242|168768913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1973||95.0|0.44|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.44|0.1973
84509055|NCT01984242|168768913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.65|0.7738
84509056|NCT01984242|168768915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.083||95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.43|0.0830
84509057|NCT01984242|168768915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.70|0.7141
84509058|NCT01984242|168768917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2541||95.0|0.59|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.59|0.2541
84509059|NCT01984242|168768917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.86|0.3103
84509060|NCT01984242|168768919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.37|0.0351
84509061|NCT01984242|168768919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9769||95.0|0.64|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.64|0.9769
84509062|NCT01984242|168768920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.97||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|16.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.62|-10.68|0.6492
84509063|NCT01984242|168768920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.47||||0.5433||95.0|-16.63|9.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.69|-16.63|0.5433
84509064|NCT01984242|168768921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|38.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.94|-0.28|0.0141
84509065|NCT01984242|168768921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.11||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.24|-17.02|0.8719
84509066|NCT01984242|168768922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.98||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.00|-12.04|0.8068
84509067|NCT01984242|168768922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.37||||0.1321||95.0|-22.61|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.87|-22.61|0.1321
84509068|NCT01984242|168768923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|39.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.44|-0.10|0.0199
84509069|NCT01984242|168768923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.41||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|-20.50|0.7836
84509070|NCT01984242|168768924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.96||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|18.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.15|-10.23|0.6231
84509071|NCT01984242|168768924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.42||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|-21.86|0.1816
84509072|NCT01984242|168768925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|41.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.89|2.11|0.0111
84509073|NCT01984242|168768925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.22||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|16.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.19|-20.63|0.8209
84509074|NCT01984242|168768927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0863||95.0|0.5|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.50|0.0863
84509075|NCT01984242|168768927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.77|0.5922
84509076|NCT01984242|168768929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0021||95.0|0.25|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.25|0.0021
84509077|NCT01984242|168768929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.56|0.6566
84509078|NCT01984242|168768937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.80|0.2867
84509079|NCT01984242|168768937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8039||95.0|0.65|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.65|0.8039
84509080|NCT01984242|168768939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.47|0.7879
84509081|NCT01984242|168768939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.52|0.9065
84509082|NCT03740165|168768985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.83|0.53|0.0002
84714850|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.48|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.48|-1.14|0.32
84509083|NCT03740165|168768985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.19|0.77|0.3339
84662324|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||||90.0|-27.65|-4.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.51|-27.65|
84662325|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||||90.0|-24.69|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-2.39|-24.69|
84662326|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||||90.0|-30.88|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-6.84|-30.88|
84662327|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12||||90.0|-9.83|16.96|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin.Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||16.96|-9.83|
84662328|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||||90.0|-31.32|-4.27|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.27|-31.32|
84662329|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||||90.0|-33.44|-7.99|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-7.99|-33.44|
84662330|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||||90.0|-11.06|14.66|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||14.66|-11.06|
84662331|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||||90.0|-23.61|6.17|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||6.17|-23.61|
84662332|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||90.0|-29.28|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-3.40|-29.28|
84662333|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||||90.0|-26.6|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||0.63|-26.60|
84662334|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||90.0|-24.39|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.94|-24.39|
84693399|NCT01757665|169126172|SUPERIORITY||percent of patients|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.7|||||Upper 95% CI was calculated by the method of Clopper and Pearson, using the Beta distribution with parameters x + 1 and n - x where x is the number of SVD events by POD 390 and n is the number of subjects followed at the 1 year assessment.|The null hypothesis is that the rate of structural valve deterioration at one year is greater than 1%. The alternative hypothesis is that this rate is less than 1%.||0.7||
84693400|NCT02564055|169126206|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||45.5|-2.4|
84509084|NCT03740165|168768986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.84|0.61|<0.0001
84662335|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||||90.0|-43.19|-14.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.09|-43.19|
84662336|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||||90.0|-23.69|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.71|-23.69|
84662337|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||||90.0|-24.04|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.00|-24.04|
84662338|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||||90.0|-24.71|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.92|-24.71|
84662339|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||||90.0|-21.42|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||9.09|-21.42|
84662340|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||||90.0|-20.98|10.21|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||10.21|-20.98|
84662341|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||||90.0|-38.43|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||7.26|-38.43|
84693401|NCT02564055|169126206|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||32.0|-18.3|
84509085|NCT03740165|168768986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.18|0.87|0.5527
84509086|NCT03740165|168768987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4314
84509087|NCT03740165|168768987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.72|0.3107
84509088|NCT03740165|168768988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.25|0.87|0.6716
84509089|NCT03740165|168768988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.89|0.7448
84509090|NCT03740165|168768989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.86|0.50|0.0012
84509091|NCT03740165|168768989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4366
84509092|NCT03740165|168768990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.89|0.61|0.0008
84509093|NCT03740165|168768990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.88|0.7174
84509094|NCT03740165|168768991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.00|0.62|0.0228
84509095|NCT03740165|168768991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.77|0.3935
84662342|NCT00137046|169058148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||||90.0|-15.79|21.46|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||21.46|-15.79|
84693402|NCT02564055|169126206|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|38.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||38.7|-11.2|
84509096|NCT03740165|168768992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.03|0.74|0.0573
84509097|NCT03740165|168768992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7234
84693403|NCT02564055|169126206|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|21.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||21.6|-29.3|
84509098|NCT03740165|168768993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.26||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.97|-2.44|0.8481
84662343|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.846|-0.199|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.199|-0.846|
84693404|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|43.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||43.1|-2.7|
84509099|NCT03740165|168768993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.1||||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||1.66|-3.87|0.4335
84509100|NCT03740165|168768994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.14||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.44|-2.15|0.9024
84509101|NCT03740165|168768994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.31|-2.47|0.9478
84509102|NCT03740165|168768995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.17|0.73|0.2644
84509103|NCT03740165|168768995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.14|0.71|0.1953
84509104|NCT03740165|168768996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5188
84662344|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-1.541|-0.685|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.685|-1.541|
84662345|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.836|-0.882|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.882|-1.836|
84662346|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||||90.0|-1.702|-0.666|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.666|-1.702|
84693405|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||47.5|3.3|
84509105|NCT03740165|168768996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5091
84509106|NCT03740165|168768997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
84509107|NCT03740165|168768997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.70|0.0981
84509108|NCT03740165|168768998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.80|0.59|<0.0001
84509109|NCT03740165|168768998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.06|0.79|0.1206
84509110|NCT03740165|168768999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0316||95.0|0.63|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.01|0.63|0.0316
84509111|NCT03740165|168768999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4441||95.0|0.78|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.24|0.78|0.4441
84509112|NCT03740165|168769000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0853||95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.05|0.76|0.0853
84509113|NCT03740165|168769000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7165||95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7165
84509114|NCT03740165|168769001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.71|0.1029
84509115|NCT03740165|168769001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.36|0.90|0.8231
84509116|NCT03740165|168769002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0442||95.0|0.76|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.02|0.76|0.0442
84693406|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|24.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||24.5|-19.5|
84662347|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||||90.0|-1.984|-0.869|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.869|-1.984|
84662348|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||||90.0|-2.35|-1.084|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.084|-2.350|
84662349|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||||90.0|-1.95|-0.596|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.596|-1.950|
84662350|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||||90.0|-1.792|-0.346|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.346|-1.792|
84662351|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||||90.0|-1.475|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.096|-1.475|
84662352|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||||90.0|-1.114|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.224|-1.114|
84662353|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-1.133|1.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||1.025|-1.133|
84662354|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.438|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.235|-2.438|
84662355|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||||90.0|-2.356|-0.568|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.568|-2.356|
84662356|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||||90.0|-2.316|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.454|-2.316|
84662357|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||||90.0|-1.877|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.034|-1.877|
84662358|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||||90.0|-1.97|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.030|-1.970|
84662359|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||||90.0|-2.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.121|-2.041|
84662360|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.77|-0.565|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.565|-2.770|
84662361|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||||90.0|-3.013|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.730|-3.013|
84662362|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||||90.0|-3.084|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.690|-3.084|
84662363|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||||90.0|-4.264|-1.324|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.324|-4.264|
84662364|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||||90.0|-5.088|-1.485|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.485|-5.088|
84662365|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.857||||90.0|-2.901|-0.071|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.071|-2.901|
84662366|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||||90.0|-5.382|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.880|-5.382|
84662367|NCT00137046|169058149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||||90.0|-2.918|-0.055|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.055|-2.918|
84509117|NCT03740165|168769002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.9565||95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.31|0.98|0.9565
84509118|NCT03740165|168769003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.4||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||11.5|-1.9|0.0644
84509119|NCT03740165|168769004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.7||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No) and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||7.3|-0.3|0.0318
84509120|NCT03049618|168769012|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84509121|NCT03049618|168769013|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
84509122|NCT03049618|168769014|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
84693407|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.5|
84509123|NCT03049618|168769015|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84509124|NCT03049618|168769017|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84509125|NCT03049618|168769018|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84509126|NCT03049618|168769019|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84509127|NCT03049618|168769020|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
84509128|NCT03049618|168769022|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84509129|NCT03049618|168769023|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84662368|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||||90.0|-0.981|-0.506|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.506|-0.981|
84509130|NCT03049618|168769024|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84662369|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||||90.0|-1.073|-0.522|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.522|-1.073|
84693408|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|44.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||44.6|-0.3|
84509131|NCT03049618|168769025|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.96
84509132|NCT06052566|168769050|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.54||||||||1.54|0.61|
84693409|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||57.6|14.7|
84693410|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|27.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||27.8|-18.0|
84662370|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||||90.0|-0.949|-0.384|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.384|-0.949|
84662371|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||||90.0|-1.123|-0.528|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.528|-1.123|
84662372|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||||90.0|-0.923|-0.296|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.296|-0.923|
84662373|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.91|-0.245|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.245|-0.910|
84662374|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-0.962|-0.263|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.263|-0.962|
84662375|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.736|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.034|-0.736|
84662376|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||||90.0|-0.197|0.497|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.497|-0.197|
84662377|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.16|0.492|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.492|-0.160|
84662378|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||||90.0|-0.274|0.411|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.411|-0.274|
84509133|NCT06052566|168769050|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.71||||||||1.71|0.63|
84662379|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||||90.0|-0.876|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-0.876|
84509134|NCT06052566|168769051|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.65||||||||1.65|0.60|
84509135|NCT06052566|168769051|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||||||||1.65|0.53|
84509136|NCT06052566|168769052|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.21||||||||1.21|0.44|
84662380|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.986|-0.172|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.172|-0.986|
84662381|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||||90.0|-0.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.040|-0.880|
84662382|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||||90.0|-0.822|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.053|-0.822|
84662383|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||||90.0|-1.372|-0.487|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.487|-1.372|
84509137|NCT06052566|168769052|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.53||||||||1.53|0.47|
84509138|NCT02579096|168769086|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority bound of 8% was established during the trial design; a one-sided alpha level was set at 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sided null hypothesis posited that allopurinol was inferior to febuxostat. The proportions of participants with ≥ 1 gout flare during phase 3 were compared between the two treatments.||-1.2||<0.001
84509139|NCT02097121|168769087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.203|1.243|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||1.243|-3.203|= 0.3802
84509140|NCT02097121|168769087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154|=|0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|2.712|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||2.712|-1.921|= 0.733
84509141|NCT02097121|168769088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|3.713|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||3.713|-2.082|= 0.5743
84509142|NCT02097121|168769088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455|=|0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|5.078|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||5.078|-0.769|= 0.1451
84509143|NCT02097121|168769089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.205|2.551|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.551|-3.205|= 0.8206
84509144|NCT02097121|168769089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|2.95|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.95|-2.807|= 0.9604
84509145|NCT02097121|168769091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.175|=|0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.207|79.873|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||79.873|-9.207|= 0.1174
84509146|NCT02097121|168769091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.722|=|0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.536|81.76|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||81.76|-13.536|= 0.1567
84509147|NCT02097121|168769092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|=|0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.553|6.909|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||6.909|-9.553|= 0.7481
84693411|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|39.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.0|-6.4|
84509148|NCT02097121|168769092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|=|0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|10.498|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||10.498|-6.799|= 0.6691
84509149|NCT02097121|168769093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343|=|0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.661|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.661|-0.721|= 0.9297
84509150|NCT02097121|168769093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|=|0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.022|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented.||0.413|-1.022|= 0.3976
84509151|NCT02097121|168769094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|=|0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.904|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.904|-0.311|= 0.3309
84509152|NCT02097121|168769094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|=|0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|1.024|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||1.024|-0.245|= 0.2235
84509153|NCT02097121|168769095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|=|0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.67|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.67|-0.434|= 0.6689
84509154|NCT02097121|168769095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|=|0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.729|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.729|-0.431|= 0.6076
84509155|NCT02097121|168769096|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|15.5|||=|0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|46.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||46.19|-18.94|= 0.6092
84509156|NCT02097121|168769096|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|17.6|||=|0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||48.9|-16.2|= 0.4824
84509157|NCT02739984|168769103|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.16|-60.12|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-60.12|-68.16|<0.0001
84509158|NCT02739984|168769104|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.56|-48.71|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.71|-57.56|<0.0001
84509159|NCT02739984|168769105|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-62.2|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-62.2|-72.1|<0.0001
84509160|NCT02739984|168769106|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-50.5|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-50.5|-61.0|<0.0001
84693412|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|60.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||60.0|16.0|
84662384|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||||90.0|-1.296|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.351|-1.296|
84662385|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||||90.0|-0.965|-0.084|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.084|-0.965|
84662386|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||||90.0|-1.104|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.191|-1.104|
84662387|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||||90.0|-1.34|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.367|-1.340|
84662388|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||||90.0|-0.89|0.111|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.111|-0.890|
84662389|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||||90.0|-1.119|-0.153|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.153|-1.119|
84662390|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.0|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-1.000|
84662391|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||||90.0|-1.315|-0.173|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.173|-1.315|
84662392|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||||90.0|-2.42|-0.335|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.335|-2.420|
84662393|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-1.183|-0.258|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.258|-1.183|
84662394|NCT00137046|169058158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||||90.0|-0.594|0.472|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.472|-0.594|
84662395|NCT01288469|169058165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.62|-46.03||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Throughout the ANCOVA model, the Alirocumab + atorvastatin 80 mg group was compared to the placebo + atorvastatin 80 mg group using appropriate contrast and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was provided.||-46.03|-65.62|<0.0001
84662396|NCT00110149|169058186|OTHER|As the study was not able to be completed the simple number of patients per outcome is listed.|||||||||||||||||The trial was to measure the response rate and EFS of patients but the manufacturer of the investigational agent closed and sold the agent to a new company so the trial was not able to be completed.|||
84662397|NCT03334448|169058188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.957||||||||0.957|0.818|
84662398|NCT03334448|169058189|SUPERIORITY||Ration of Lease Square Means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09||||||||1.09|0.83|
84662399|NCT01767155|169058190|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||75.1|63.6|
84662400|NCT01767155|169058190|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|52.0||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||52.0|39.5|
84662401|NCT01767155|169058190|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|77.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||77.3|66.0|
84662402|NCT01767155|169058190|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|44.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|50.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||50.7|38.2|
84662403|NCT01767155|169058190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided||A Cox model with treatment effects was used to estimate the hazard ratio and perform hypothesis testing. The estimated hazard ratio and the 95% CI of the hazard ratio were presented.||1.30|0.87|0.5441
84662404|NCT01767155|169058191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided test||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test. The odds ratio and 95% CI of the odds ratio were presented.||1.45|0.52|0.5907
84662405|NCT01767155|169058192|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|53.6||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months.||53.6|39.5|
84662406|NCT01767155|169058192|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.4||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||27.4|14.6|
84662407|NCT01767155|169058192|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|54.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||54.7|40.0|
84662408|NCT01767155|169058192|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||19.3|6.9|
84662409|NCT01767155|169058192|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.11|||Log Rank|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a log rank test.||1.11|0.71|0.3089
84662410|NCT01767155|169058193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test.||1.52|0.76|0.6924
84662411|NCT00371137|169058203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||>0.001
84662412|NCT00371137|169058203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 4.5g||||<0.001
84662413|NCT00371137|169058203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 6.0g||||0.015
84662414|NCT05355805|169058275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.075||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.3055
84662415|NCT05355805|169058275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.427||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.6192
84662416|NCT05355805|169058278|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.229||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.1606
84662417|NCT05355805|169058278|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.5116
84693413|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|52.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||52.1|7.8|
84693414|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|48.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||48.4|2.3|
84662418|NCT05355805|169058279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.019||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.0514
84662419|NCT05355805|169058279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.764||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.3322
84662420|NCT05355805|169058280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.3258
84662421|NCT05355805|169058280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.775||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.4068
84662422|NCT05355805|169058281|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.661||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error will be used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.3329
84662423|NCT05355805|169058281|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.574||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.5882
84662424|NCT05355805|169058282|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.995||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.5422
84662425|NCT05355805|169058282|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.77||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.6569
84662426|NCT05355805|169058283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.951||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.4031
84662427|NCT05355805|169058283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.959||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.0327
84662428|NCT04493281|169058315|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
84662429|NCT04493281|169058316|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-inf for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||||1.04|0.92|
84662430|NCT04493281|169058317|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.36||||||||1.36|1.09|
84662431|NCT00589914|169058341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5 points in the change in PANSS total score i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) had to be greater than -5 to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||No p-value to report.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors treatment, country and baseline score. Weighted approach used to account for interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.||Null hypothesis: Difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) for the mean change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score (LOCF) was less than or equal to -5 (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Sample size: SD of 20 for the change in PANSS total score, a true difference between treatment groups of 0.1 in favor of RISPERDAL CONSTA, 2-sided significance level of 5%, and 80% power. A sample size reestimation was performed when 60% of the data was available.||2.38|-1.62|
84662432|NCT00589914|169058342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||0.17|-0.07|
84662433|NCT00589914|169058343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.69||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||1.69|-1.22|
84662434|NCT01830699|169058359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For details of power calculation, see above. Using a minimal clinical importance of -9.1, the null hypothesis was a mean difference less than -9.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.004
84662435|NCT01830699|169058360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See details above regarding effect size, power, etc.||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.044
84662436|NCT03315208|169058363|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared statistic value|0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|df=1||||||0.63
84693415|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|40.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||40.5|-5.3|
84693416|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|44.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.7|-2.3|
84693417|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.6|12.1|
84693418|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|49.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||49.0|1.7|
84693419|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|46.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||46.1|-1.5|
84662437|NCT03315208|169058364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.29
84662438|NCT03315208|169058365|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.50
84662439|NCT03315208|169058366|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. BSI scores were binarized (0 and \>=1) for this analysis due to the non-normal distribution of this outcome.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.45
84662440|NCT03315208|169058368|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.76
84662441|NCT03315208|169058369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.07||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. Due to the non-normal distribution of the Craving Scale, scores on this measure were binarized (\< 15 and \>= 15) for this analysis.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.21
84662442|NCT03315208|169058370|SUPERIORITY||t statistic|0.29||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the non-normal distribution of the PDA variable, this variable was treated as binary (\<50% and \>=50%) for mixed models; however, due to the small numbers of participants (\< 5) in certain cells of treatment condition (UP versus TAU) by time point, we ran into issues with convergence of linear mixed models. Thus, here we report the results from an independent samples t-test of means (percentage of past 30 days abstinent) at post-treatment (UP versus TAU).||||0.77
84662443|NCT00982592|169058384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.70|0.874
84662444|NCT00982592|169058386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.83|0.253
84693420|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||42.3|-6.0|
84693421|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||25.0|-25.0|
84693422|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||55.0|6.9|
84693423|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|16.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||16.1|-34.6|
84693424|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|45.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||45.3|-3.1|
84693425|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|31.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||31.5|-19.5|
84693426|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|41.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.9|-8.4|
84693427|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|33.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.1|-17.8|
84693428|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||33.9|-15.5|
84662445|NCT01669915|169058389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.31
84662446|NCT01669915|169058389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 fatty acids active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.003|-0.02|0.14
84662447|NCT01669915|169058390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.03|-0.01|0.49
84662448|NCT01669915|169058390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
84662449|NCT01669915|169058391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.23
84662450|NCT01669915|169058391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization)||0.02|-0.01|0.68
84662451|NCT01669915|169058392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.09|-0.04|0.46
84662452|NCT01669915|169058392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.04|-0.17|0.003
84662453|NCT00356369|169058397|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than (\>) -15%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenA antibodies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|23.5||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||23.5|3.52|
84662454|NCT00356369|169058397|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenC antibodies|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|11.36||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.36|-1.03|
84693429|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|30.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||30.5|-19.7|
84693430|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.0|
84693431|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||25.0|-26.0|
84693432|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
84662455|NCT00356369|169058397|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in%for rSBA-MenW-135 antibody|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|11.49||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.49|-0.07|
84662456|NCT00356369|169058397|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenY antibodies|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||16.17|1.72|
84662457|NCT00356369|169058398|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference between MenACWY- TT and (minus) MenACWY in the incidence of Grade 3 systemic symptoms was below 5%.|Difference in % Grade 3 general symptoms|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.09||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the MenACWY-TT conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine in terms of the incidence of any Grade 3 systemic symptom within 4 days after vaccination.||3.09|-1.64|
84662458|NCT02408315|169058447|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates obtained from Kaplan-Meier method and results of Log-rank test. P-value for non-inferiority hypothesis based on Cox proportional hazards model (H0: HR ≤ 0.74 vs. HA: HR \> .74), p-value \< .05 provides evidence to reject inferiority and conclude BM is non-inferior to VM.||||||0.663|||||||Cox proportional|||||||0.663
84662459|NCT00673465|169058458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.4||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|9.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||9.7|-18.5|0.5269
84662460|NCT00673465|169058458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-39.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-39.8|-68.1|<0.0001
84662461|NCT00673465|169058462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.81||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|14.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||14.5|-20.1|0.7410
84662462|NCT00673465|169058462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-46.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-46.2|-80.9|<0.0001
84662463|NCT00673465|169058464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-3.59||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||3.6|-10.8|0.3146
84662464|NCT00673465|169058464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-19.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-19.4|-33.8|<0.0001
84662465|NCT02648178|169058487|OTHER|We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, by week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol), Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO (Carbon Monoxide) level,by week and their interactions.||||||||||||We tested whether there were significant associations between cigarette smoking and e-cigarette smoking, as well as whether there were significant associations between biomarkers mentioned above with CO level.||We provided estimated values of coefficients from model and their 95% confidence intervals.|||We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL, Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO level, week and their interactions.|||
84662466|NCT02205814|169058495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||||||<0.05
84693433|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
84662467|NCT02205814|169058496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||All secondary efficacy variables were analysed on the ITT population only. Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure. The continuous secondary efficacy variables were analysed over time and were treated in the same way as the primary efficacy variable with respective output.||||<0.05
84662468|NCT00143403|169058521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.67|1.2|||||HR: Irinotecan+5-FU/FA / 5-FU/FA|||1.20|0.67|
84662469|NCT00143403|169058521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.468
84662470|NCT01860651|169058525|OTHER||mean difference over time|-0.002||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.001|||Mixed Effect Model|||"Statistical analysis of Medical adherence in study Medication adm. at home were analysed using a Mixed Effect Model (MEM). The MEM model included a random patient effect and a fixed effect interaction between group and time, to evaluate difference between the groups over time."||0.001|-0.005|0.22
84662471|NCT00748033|169058602|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0650
84662472|NCT00748033|169058603|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.2487
84662473|NCT00748033|169058604|OTHER|||||||0.7288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.7288
84662474|NCT00748033|169058605|OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0045
84662475|NCT00748033|169058606|OTHER|||||||0.4561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at insertion.||||0.4561
84662476|NCT00748033|169058607|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at withdrawal.||||0.1797
84662477|NCT00748033|169058608|OTHER|||||||0.5171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.5171
84662478|NCT00748033|169058609|OTHER|||||||0.7105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.7105
84662479|NCT00748033|169058610|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
84662480|NCT00748033|169058611|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0346
84662481|NCT00748033|169058612|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
84662482|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||2.08|1.34|
84662483|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||2.13|1.29|
84662484|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.33|0.83|
84662485|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||1.89|1.22|
84662486|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||1.84|1.11|
84662487|NCT01018186|169058625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.38|0.87|
84662488|NCT01018186|169058626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|1.34|<0.001
84662489|NCT01018186|169058626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||ANCOVA|||||1.89|1.22|<0.001
84509161|NCT02739984|168769107|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-52.85|-60.28|<0.0001
84662490|NCT01018186|169058627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||ANCOVA|||||2.13|1.29|<0.001
84662491|NCT01018186|169058627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||ANCOVA|||||1.84|1.11|0.006
84662492|NCT01018186|169058628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.83|0.674
84662493|NCT01018186|169058628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.09||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||ANCOVA|||||1.38|0.87|0.444
84662494|NCT00064844|169058698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||chi square|7.25|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|df = 1, N = 96||||||<0.01
84662495|NCT02421315|169058704|OTHER|a t-test comparing groups in a specific region-of-interest (ROI); the insula|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that compared to HC, children and adolescents with OCD would have increased activation in subcortical structures (insula, and putamen) comprising a right hemisphere dorsal frontostriatal circuit.||0.224|-0.004|0.0585
84662496|NCT02421315|169058705|SUPERIORITY|We selected 'arbitrary units' as the unit of measure here because we are looking at connectivity strengths|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49512921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06553315||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p\<.05 with 20,000 permutations was used."|t-test, 1 sided||Direction of the comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the FC-strength indices between 352 regions. Edge-wise functional connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 352 nodes and 123,904 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox. We hypothesized that youth with OCD would show altered FC between task-control circuit regions.||||.037
84662497|NCT02421315|169058705|OTHER||Slope|-0.521|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Separate cross-lagged panel models were computed in the OCD group for the three functional connections that differed significantly across groups at baseline (see Statistical Analysis 1). These models were constructed using IBM SPSS Amos (v.23) to test for directional relationships between OCD symptoms and FC pre- to post-treatment in the OCD patients. CY-BOCS total scores at each time point were used as the OCD symptoms measure.||||<.05
84662498|NCT02421315|169058706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.218|0.0018|0.0464
84662499|NCT02421315|169058707|SUPERIORITY|only participants were assigned to groups (OCD, HC) and we measured streamline count in these participants to index structural connectivity|Slope|-102.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p=.025 with 10,000 permutations was used."|Regression, Linear||Direction of comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the structural connectivity indices (streamline count) between 164 regions. Edge-wise structural connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 164 nodes and 26,896 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox.||||<0.025
84662500|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-59.46|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662501|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-62.73|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662502|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-48.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662503|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-50.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662504|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-22.67|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662505|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-33.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662506|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-20.4|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662507|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-31.08|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84509162|NCT02739984|168769108|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-42.15|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-42.15|-50.42|<0.0001
84662508|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-64.74|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662509|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.26|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662510|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-27.85|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662511|NCT04853225|169058774|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-28.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662512|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-87.47|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662513|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-83.25|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662514|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662515|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.41|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662516|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.1|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662517|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-73.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662518|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-45.44|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662519|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-79.49|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662520|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-74.39|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662521|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-63.04|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662522|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-25.59|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662523|NCT04853225|169058775|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-38.69|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
84662524|NCT00850564|169058776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 2 week mean overnight growth hormone||||<0.005
84509163|NCT02739984|168769109|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-48.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.85|-56.10|<0.0001
84662525|NCT00850564|169058777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose uptake (M) between baseline and 2 week visits.||||0.61
84662526|NCT00534430|169058780|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments.||Log-rank test. (Mantel-Haenszel test). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing.||||>0.05
84662527|NCT00534430|169058781|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Gray's Test|No adjustments.||Gray's estimate. (Fine and Gray). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing||||>0.05
84662528|NCT01404325|169058782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84662529|NCT01075204|169058815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0|||||Chi-squared|9 degrees of freedom.||Logistic regression: Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients (all the nine variables are considered together).||||0.334
84662530|NCT01986855|169058833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|0.807
84662531|NCT01986855|169058833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.15||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.06|-0.35|0.155
84662532|NCT01986855|169058834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||12.1|-4.8|
84662533|NCT01986855|169058834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||2.3|-16.3|
84662534|NCT01986855|169058835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||9.0|-2.7|
84662535|NCT01986855|169058835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||3.7|-6.5|
84662536|NCT01986855|169058836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.23|-0.28|0.828
84662537|NCT01986855|169058836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.17|-0.35|0.496
84662538|NCT01986855|169058837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.96||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.96|-2.57|<0.001
84662539|NCT01986855|169058837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.02||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.02|-2.66|<0.001
84662540|NCT01986855|169058838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.42||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.29||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.29|-5.13|0.451
84662541|NCT01986855|169058838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.46||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|0.31||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.31|-7.24|0.072
84662542|NCT01986855|169058839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-6.81||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.47|5.85||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.85|-19.47|0.291
84662543|NCT01986855|169058839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-15.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-2.53||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.53|-28.50|0.019
84662544|NCT01986855|169058840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.56||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.56|0.53|0.713
84662545|NCT01986855|169058840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.55||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.55|0.44|0.890
84662546|NCT00711711|169058857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.51
84662547|NCT00711711|169058858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.58
84662548|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
84662549|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
84662550|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
84509164|NCT02739984|168769110|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-38.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.11|-46.13|<0.0001
84662551|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
84662552|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
84662553|NCT00720434|169058873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
84662554|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1565|0.8785||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.8785|0.1565|
84662555|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.969||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9690|0.2330|
84662556|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0871|0.9191||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9191|0.0871|
84662557|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
84662558|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125||||||95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
84662559|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
84662560|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1836|0.6931||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6931|-0.1836|
84662561|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1732|0.7797||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.7797|-0.1732|
84662562|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
84662563|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2934|0.5917||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5917|-0.2934|
84662564|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
84662565|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5144|0.388||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3880|-0.5144|
84662566|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3728|0.5414||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5414|-0.3728|
84662567|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
84509165|NCT02739984|168769111|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-38.22|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.22|-43.90|<0.0001
84509166|NCT02739984|168769112|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-30.6|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-30.60|-36.87|<0.0001
84509167|NCT02739984|168769113|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||83.5|70.0|<0.0001
84509168|NCT02739984|168769114|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|69.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|75.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||75.7|60.4|<0.0001
84509169|NCT02739984|168769115|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|87.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||87.4|77.7|<0.0001
84509170|NCT02739984|168769116|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|70.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||70.3|57.7|<0.0001
84509171|NCT02739984|168769117|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-32.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-32.90|-48.11|<0.0001
84693434|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|71.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||71.0|-19.2|
84662568|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
84662569|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025||||||95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
84662570|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
84662571|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
84693435|NCT02564055|169126214|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
84662572|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662573|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662574|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662575|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662576|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662577|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662578|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662579|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662580|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662581|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662582|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
84662583|NCT00720434|169058874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
84662584|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
84662585|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
84693436|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-18.3|
84693437|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-17.1|
84693438|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|22.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||22.7|-24.0|
84693439|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||33.9|-12.0|
84693440|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||51.0|6.8|
84693441|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||26.6|-19.4|
84693442|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|39.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.5|-6.0|
84693443|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|39.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||39.4|-7.1|
84693444|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|61.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||61.2|19.2|
84662586|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
84662587|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
84662588|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
84662589|NCT00720434|169058877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
84662590|NCT02425046|169058878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||||||0.67
84662591|NCT02425046|169058879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||null hypothesis - there will be no difference between the groups.||||0.735
84662592|NCT02425046|169058880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis that there would be no difference in change in FNPA scores between the two groups over 12 months.||||0.599
84662593|NCT02425046|169058881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis: Change in MVPA from baseline to 12 months will not be different between target children in the two groups.||||0.583
84662594|NCT02425046|169058882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference between the two arms in change in sugar sweetened beverage intake over 12 months.||||0.312
84662595|NCT02425046|169058883|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|75.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|165.0|||Linear quantile mixed model|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because of non-normal distribution that could not be transformed.|Comparison of the intervention target adult change in reported physical activity compared to the control group.|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because because of non-normal distribution that could not be remedied by transformation.||165|-15|0.10
84662596|NCT02425046|169058884|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|-2.54||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention arm in comparison to the control arm.|||0.07|-5.14|0.057
84662597|NCT02425046|169058885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.874
84662598|NCT02425046|169058886|SUPERIORITY||% difference in change between arms|7.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Screen time was log transformed to normalized the distribution. Results have been back transformed from log 10 scale.|% change in screen time of the intervention arm compared to the control arm.|||23|-7|0.31
84662599|NCT02425046|169058887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.516
84662600|NCT01571427|169058888|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.25
84662601|NCT01571427|169058888|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample (CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 combined). Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.25
84662602|NCT01571427|169058888|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: AMONG CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34 .||||0.85
84662603|NCT01571427|169058889|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.02
84693445|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.9|
84662604|NCT01571427|169058889|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant based on the Bonferroni multiple comparison adjusted P value of P\<0.004.|Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.003
84662605|NCT01571427|169058889|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34||||0.65
84662606|NCT01571427|169058890|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.98
84662607|NCT01571427|169058890|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: Among CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.96
84662608|NCT01571427|169058890|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: Among CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.83
84662609|NCT01571427|169058891|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.68
84662610|NCT01571427|169058891|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.69
84662611|NCT01571427|169058891|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.86
84662612|NCT01571427|169058892|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.92
84662613|NCT01571427|169058892|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.92
84662614|NCT01571427|169058892|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.94
84662615|NCT01571427|169058893|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.46
84693446|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|38.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||38.3|-7.3|
84509172|NCT02739984|168769118|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-25.53|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-25.53|-39.58|<0.0001
84662616|NCT01571427|169058893|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.61
84662617|NCT01571427|169058893|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.80
84662618|NCT01571427|169058894|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.72
84662619|NCT01571427|169058894|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.84
84662620|NCT01571427|169058894|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
84662621|NCT01571427|169058895|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.38
84662622|NCT01571427|169058895|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.39
84662623|NCT01571427|169058895|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.59
84662624|NCT01571427|169058896|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.03
84662625|NCT01571427|169058896|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.24
84662626|NCT01571427|169058896|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.04
84693447|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||36.5|-11.3|
84693448|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|52.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||52.8|6.1|
84693449|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|44.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.9|-3.0|
84662627|NCT01571427|169058897|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.65
84662628|NCT01571427|169058897|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.64
84662629|NCT01571427|169058897|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.42
84662630|NCT01571427|169058898|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.45
84662631|NCT01571427|169058898|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.93
84662632|NCT01571427|169058898|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
84662633|NCT01571427|169058899|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.30
84662634|NCT01571427|169058899|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.75
84509173|NCT02739984|168769119|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-12.54|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-12.54|-25.95|<0.0001
84509174|NCT02739984|168769120|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.8|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-5.80|-21.60|<0.0001
84662635|NCT01571427|169058899|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.12
84662636|NCT00267046|169058903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fine and Gray method.|||||||<0.001
84662637|NCT01077856|169058931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.00|0.89|
84662638|NCT01077856|169058931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.77|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||4.77|0.00|
84662639|NCT01077856|169058931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.02|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.02|0.00|
84662640|NCT01979016|169058936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-46.2|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-46.2|-92.5|< 0.0001
84662641|NCT01979016|169058937|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.0|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.82|55.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||55.25|18.82|= 0.0006
84662642|NCT01979016|169058938|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||68.30|28.00|< 0.0001
84662643|NCT01979016|169058939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-1.52|-3.80|< 0.0001
84662644|NCT01979016|169058940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.08|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.31|-24.85|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-24.85|-71.31|= 0.0001
84662645|NCT01979016|169058941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-14.0|-29.0|<0.0001
84662646|NCT01979016|169058942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-21.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-21.1|-41.5|< 0.0001
84662647|NCT01979016|169058943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by MMRM model.||-31.3|-62.0|< 0.0001
84662648|NCT01979016|169058944|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.38|77.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||77.73|33.38|< 0.0001
84662649|NCT01979016|169058944|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|51.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|74.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||74.12|29.59|= 0.0001
84662650|NCT01979016|169058944|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|51.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||51.11|15.55|= 0.0011
84662651|NCT01979016|169058945|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||69.3|27.0|= 0.0002
84662652|NCT01979016|169058945|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.1|||=|0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||23.0|-0.7|= 0.0792
84662653|NCT01979016|169058945|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|7.4|||=|0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||17.3|-2.5|= 0.1573
84662654|NCT01979016|169058946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-6.6|-14.3|< 0.0001
84662655|NCT01979016|169058947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-28.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-28.5|-63.9|< 0.0001
84662656|NCT01979016|169058949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||||-2.39|-5.02|< 0.0001
84662657|NCT01124422|169058977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|13.0||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, Oxycon stratum, and baseline value|ANCOVA|||||13.0|-68.2|0.181
84662658|NCT01442493|169058996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84662659|NCT01442493|169058997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84662660|NCT01442493|169058998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84662661|NCT01442493|169058999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84662662|NCT01442493|169059000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84662663|NCT01442493|169059001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84662664|NCT01442493|169059002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84662665|NCT00759954|169059030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|97.19|||<|0.05||90.0|91.31|103.45|||ANOVA|||||103.45|91.31|<0.05
84662666|NCT00759954|169059032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|95.82|||<|0.05||90.0|92.93|98.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance for the log-transformed AUC. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC(Test)/AUC(Ref) is provided.||||98.80|92.93|< 0.05
84662667|NCT00759954|169059033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|98.1|||<|0.05||90.0|94.2|102.1|||ANOVA|||||102.1|94.2|< 0.05
84662668|NCT01741701|169059073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84662669|NCT01741701|169059074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups from baseline to 4 months||||0.51
84662670|NCT01741701|169059075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||0.97
84662671|NCT01741701|169059076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||.77
84662672|NCT01741701|169059077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.90
84662673|NCT01741701|169059078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.95
84662674|NCT01285310|169059113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|7.0|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|Significance testing was done using the following closed procedure; if the overall test among treatments is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, pair-wise comparisons (30 mg versus PBO, and 20 mg versus PBO, using a 0.05 two-sided significance level) will be performed||7.0|-27.1|0.3134
84662675|NCT01285310|169059113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.8|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||13.8|-16.2|0.8721
84662676|NCT01285310|169059114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662677|NCT01285310|169059114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662678|NCT01285310|169059115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||||||||||||||
84662679|NCT01285310|169059115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||||||||||||||
84662680|NCT01285310|169059116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84509175|NCT02739984|168769121|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|12.64|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||12.64|6.95|<0.0001
84662681|NCT01285310|169059116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662682|NCT01285310|169059117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662683|NCT01285310|169059117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662684|NCT01285310|169059118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84662685|NCT01285310|169059118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84662686|NCT01285310|169059119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||||||||||||||||
84662687|NCT01285310|169059119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||||||||||||||||
84662688|NCT01285310|169059120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84662689|NCT01285310|169059120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84662690|NCT01285310|169059121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662691|NCT01285310|169059121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662692|NCT01285310|169059122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662693|NCT01285310|169059122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.26||||||||||||||||||
84662694|NCT01285310|169059123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-35.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662695|NCT01285310|169059123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-38.37|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662696|NCT01285310|169059124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.35|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662697|NCT01285310|169059124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662698|NCT01285310|169059125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662699|NCT01285310|169059125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.84|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662700|NCT01285310|169059126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.93|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662701|NCT01285310|169059126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662702|NCT01285310|169059127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662703|NCT01285310|169059127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|58.05||||||||||||||||||
84662704|NCT01285310|169059128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662705|NCT01285310|169059128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-16.19|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662706|NCT01285310|169059129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662707|NCT01285310|169059129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662708|NCT01285310|169059130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
84662709|NCT01285310|169059130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||||||||||||||||
84662710|NCT01285310|169059131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
84662711|NCT01285310|169059131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||||||||||||||||
84662712|NCT01285310|169059132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||||||||||||||||
84662713|NCT01285310|169059132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||||||||||||||||
84662714|NCT01285310|169059133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||||||||||||||||
84662715|NCT01285310|169059133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||||||||||||||||
84662716|NCT01285310|169059134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||||||||||||||||
84662717|NCT01285310|169059134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||||||||||||||
84662718|NCT01285310|169059135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||||||||||||||||
84662719|NCT01285310|169059135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||||||||||||||||
84662720|NCT01285310|169059136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84662721|NCT01285310|169059136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84662722|NCT01285310|169059137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84509176|NCT02739984|168769122|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|10.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||10.56|4.19|<0.0001
84662723|NCT01285310|169059137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662724|NCT01285310|169059138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84693450|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|34.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||34.7|-13.5|
84662725|NCT01285310|169059138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
84662726|NCT01285310|169059139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-4.3||||||||||||||||||
84662727|NCT01285310|169059139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.6||||||||||||||||||
84662728|NCT01285310|169059140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662729|NCT01285310|169059140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662730|NCT01285310|169059141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662731|NCT01285310|169059141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662732|NCT01285310|169059142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662733|NCT01285310|169059142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-7.02|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662734|NCT01285310|169059143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662735|NCT01285310|169059143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-37.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662736|NCT01285310|169059144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662737|NCT01285310|169059144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-12.5|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662738|NCT01285310|169059145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.85|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662739|NCT01285310|169059145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.8|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662740|NCT01285310|169059146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662741|NCT01285310|169059146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.72|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662742|NCT01285310|169059147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|8.29|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662743|NCT01285310|169059147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|67.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84662744|NCT01285310|169059148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|12.05|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84693451|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|49.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||49.9|2.5|
84662745|NCT01285310|169059148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
84509177|NCT02739984|168769123|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.91|-11.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-11.21|-22.91|<0.0001
84509178|NCT02739984|168769124|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|-6.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-6.56|-20.09|<0.0001
84509179|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||||Day 7|||-0.1|-1.2|
84509180|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7|||||Day 15|||-0.7|-2.0|
84509181|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.7|||||Day 29|||-1.7|-3.2|
84509182|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||||Day 43|||-2.1|-3.7|
84509183|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.4|||||Day 57|||-2.4|-4.0|
84509184|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.9|||||Day 85|||-2.9|-4.7|
84509185|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.5|||||Day 113|||-3.5|-5.4|
84509186|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.8|||||Day 141|||-3.8|-5.8|
84509187|NCT00767325|168769145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.9|||||Day 169|||-3.9|-5.8|
84509188|NCT03968224|168769175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84509189|NCT03968224|168769176|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84509190|NCT03968224|168769177|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84509191|NCT03968224|168769178|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84509192|NCT02207231|168769182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84509193|NCT02207231|168769183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84509194|NCT02207231|168769184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
84509195|NCT02207231|168769184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
84509196|NCT02207231|168769185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
84509197|NCT02207231|168769185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
84509198|NCT02207231|168769186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
84509199|NCT02207231|168769186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
84509200|NCT02207231|168769187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84509201|NCT02207231|168769188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.7|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||25.7|12.9|< 0.001
84509202|NCT02207231|168769188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84509203|NCT02207231|168769189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|31.0|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||31.0|17.0|< 0.001
84509204|NCT02207231|168769189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84509205|NCT02207231|168769190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Difference in percentage|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|23.8|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.8|12.4|< 0.001
84509206|NCT02207231|168769190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84509207|NCT02207231|168769191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84509208|NCT02207231|168769192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84662746|NCT01285310|169059149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662747|NCT01285310|169059149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
84662748|NCT01285310|169059150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||||||||||||||||
84662749|NCT01285310|169059150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||||||||||||||||
84662750|NCT01285310|169059151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||||||||||||||||
84662751|NCT01285310|169059151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||||||||||||||
84662752|NCT01285310|169059152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||||||||||||||||
84662753|NCT01285310|169059152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||||||||||||||||
84662754|NCT03530098|169059186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.14|0.04
84662755|NCT03530098|169059187|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.001
84662756|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||49.8|16.1|
84662757|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|43.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||43.5|9.6|
84662758|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|48.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||48.5|14.8|
84509209|NCT02207231|168769193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
84662759|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|29.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||29.6|-8.7|
84662760|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|23.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||23.2|-15.3|
84662761|NCT00555321|169059208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|28.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||28.4|-9.8|
84662762|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.7|-12.9|
84662763|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|8.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.5|-13.6|
84662764|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||1.5|-23.8|
84662765|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||||
84662766|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|11.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||11.3|-12.1|
84662767|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.1|-22.9|
84662768|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-12.9|
84662769|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.4|-18.1|
84662770|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-9.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-9.5|-38.9|
84662771|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||14.4|-9.9|
84662772|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||10.7|-15.5|
84662773|NCT00555321|169059209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.1|-35.5|
84509210|NCT00502775|168769204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.6||Symptom scores were grouped in 3 families: nasal, ocular, instantaneous. Within each family, results of hypothesis tests were adjusted using Hochberg's method.|ANCOVA|No other strata or covariates, other than investigator, were defined.|Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Fexofenadine|The primary efficacy measure, mean change from baseline over the two-week treatment period in NSS compared between fluticasone furoate and fexofenadine, was assessed at a significance level of α=0.05. If the null hypothesis of this comparison was rejected, then the secondary measures were subject to hypothesis testing. The study was powered at 90%.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.001
84509211|NCT00502775|168769204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Placebo|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84509212|NCT00502775|168769204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.374||95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fexofenadine - Mean Change in Placebo|||0.5|-0.2|0.374
84662774|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-14.5|
84662775|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||8.8|-25.7|
84662776|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||17.5|-13.2|
84662777|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||13.1|-18.1|
84662778|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|6.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||6.2|-29.4|
84662779|NCT00555321|169059210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-16.9|
84511695|NCT00440557|168775182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||||95.0|-0.38|0.037||This comparison between QW and TIW was performed prior to comparing Q2W with TIW in the statistical analysis 2 according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment (tX) through Week 22 in the QW group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||0.037|-0.380|
84662780|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|50.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||50.6|15.8|
84662781|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||46.3|11.4|
84662782|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|51.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||51.5|16.9|
84662783|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|31.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||31.6|-7.1|
84662784|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|27.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||27.2|-11.5|
84662785|NCT00555321|169059211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|32.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||32.6|-5.9|
84662786|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|36.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.8|-5.8|
84662787|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||38.0|-6.0|
84662788|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|26.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.8|-16.6|
84662789|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|36.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.1|-10.8|
84662790|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|37.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||37.3|-10.9|
84662791|NCT00555321|169059212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|26.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.0|-21.8|
84662792|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|43.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||43.3|-6.7|
84662793|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|25.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||25.5|-21.6|
84662794|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|28.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||28.7|-20.1|
84662795|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||32.1|-21.2|
84662796|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|14.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||14.2|-36.0|
84662797|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|17.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.3|-34.6|
84662798|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|35.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||35.1|-18.8|
84662799|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|6.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.3|-46.3|
84662800|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|5.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.2|-48.2|
84662801|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|48.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||48.4|-5.2|
84662802|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.8|-32.9|
84662803|NCT00555321|169059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|18.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||18.7|-34.8|
84662804|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|26.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||26.3|-42.4|
84662805|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|19.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.0|-49.2|
84662806|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-19.8|-81.6|
84662807|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-55.9|
84662808|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-62.6|
84662809|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|-33.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-33.1|-94.0|
84662810|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|34.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||34.3|-32.6|
84662811|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|20.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||20.6|-47.4|
84662812|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|0.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||0.5|-72.6|
84662813|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|31.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||31.1|-41.1|
84662814|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||16.9|-55.9|
84662815|NCT00555321|169059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-3.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||-3.5|-81.9|
84662816|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||6.0|-21.2|
84662817|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||5.3|-18.2|
84662818|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-14.9|
84662819|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||7.1|-25.1|
84662820|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-15.6|
84662821|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||3.9|-12.7|
84662822|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
84662823|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.3|-18.2|
84662824|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-14.9|
84662825|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
84662826|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-15.6|
84662827|NCT00555321|169059250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||3.9|-12.7|
84662828|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-25.6|
84662829|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||22.3|-11.7|
84662830|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|15.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||15.2|-20.1|
84509213|NCT00655642|168769220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the aforementioned values, we calculated a sample size for each treatment arm of 131 patients. We increased this sample estimate to 150 per treatment arm (total of 600 patients) to account for anticipated study attrition. Based on an unplanned interim conditional power futility analysis done at 30% information fraction, the decision was made to end the trial early.The futility analysis found the observed differences were far less than what was deemed clinically important.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.16||||||Being aware of the multiple comparison issues, we deliberately chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|We computed the effect of the 3 treatments relative to ondansetron.|Change in VAS score was calculated as (VAS 30 min - VAS baseline). We calculated the differences in median VAS reductions for each arm relative to ondansetron.|The null hypothesis is that ondanestron is not more effective in reducing nausea than metoclopramide, promethazine or isotonic normal saline. The sample size was chosen to detect a 12-mm difference in VAS improvement between ondanestron and any other treatment arm (assuming a SD of 25mm) at 90% power and 0.01 alpha significance level. We chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.||||0.16
84509214|NCT02016300|168769221|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.162
84509215|NCT02016300|168769221|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.094
84509216|NCT02016300|168769221|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.043
84509217|NCT02016300|168769222|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.387
84509218|NCT02016300|168769222|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.340
84509219|NCT02016300|168769222|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.179
84509220|NCT02016300|168769223|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.729
84509221|NCT02016300|168769223|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.958
84509222|NCT02016300|168769223|OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.634
84509223|NCT02016300|168769224|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.733
84509224|NCT02016300|168769224|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.666
84662831|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|12.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||12.5|-24.0|
84509225|NCT02016300|168769224|OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.854
84509226|NCT02016300|168769225|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.774
84509227|NCT02016300|168769225|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.414
84509228|NCT02016300|168769226|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.064
84509229|NCT02016300|168769226|OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.276
84509230|NCT02016300|168769227|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.020
84509231|NCT02016300|168769227|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.091
84509232|NCT01545076|168769232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-24.6|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-6.21|||Fisher Exact|||||-6.21|-40.7|=0.007
84509233|NCT01545076|168769232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-12.2|-46.0|<0.001
84509234|NCT01545076|168769233|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|=0.005
84509235|NCT01545076|168769233|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|<0.001
84509236|NCT01545076|168769234|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||14|2|=0.004
84509237|NCT01545076|168769234|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||11.7|0.7|=0.014
84509238|NCT01545076|168769235|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.003
84509239|NCT01545076|168769235|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.002
84509240|NCT01545076|168769236|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|0|=0.03
84509241|NCT01545076|168769236|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|2|<0.001
84509242|NCT01546987|168769257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that seventy events with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 70% power (at one-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 40% reduction in the assumed rate control arm rate of is 0.08/year.||1.48|0.47|0.55
84509243|NCT01546987|168769258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.055 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 28% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 33% reduction in failure rate.||1.31|0.38|0.27
84509244|NCT01546987|168769259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.4|||Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|||3.40|1.54|<0.001
84509245|NCT01546987|168769260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.33|0.99
84662832|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||24.2|-10.5|
84662833|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|17.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.6|-18.5|
84662834|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-23.3|
84662835|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.5|-27.4|
84662836|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-2.7|-37.5|
84662837|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|19.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.7|-15.5|
84662838|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-19.4|
84662839|NCT00555321|169059251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|7.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.9|-29.3|
84662840|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|36.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||36.0|-6.3|
84509246|NCT01546987|168769261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.75||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.02 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 32% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 50% reduction in failure rate.||1.75|0.29|0.48
84662841|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-23.4|
84662842|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.0|-23.4|
84662843|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|23.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||23.4|-22.0|
84662844|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-0.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-0.1|-38.6|
84662845|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-1.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-1.8|-39.1|
84509247|NCT01546987|168769262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|||1.63|0.45|0.65
84662846|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|34.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||34.0|-8.7|
84662847|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-25.2|
84662848|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.7|-26.3|
84662849|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|21.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12.||21.1|-24.5|
84662850|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-1.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-1.9|-40.5|
84662851|NCT00555321|169059258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-4.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.3|-41.8|
84662852|NCT03235154|169059288|OTHER|There was no comparator arm in this small single arm study||||||||||||No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants||||This was a single arm intervention study with a very small number of participants. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are provided.|No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants|||
84662853|NCT01683383|169059299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted Wald estimation|||||||<0.001
84662854|NCT01683383|169059300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84662855|NCT01683383|169059302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84662856|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.46|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||6.46|2.55|
84693452|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.7|-9.0|
84693453|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|52.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||52.3|3.7|
84693454|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|30.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||30.9|-20.1|
84509248|NCT01546987|168769264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.76
84693455|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|33.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.8|-16.2|
84693456|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.3|-13.4|
84509249|NCT01546987|168769265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Bowel domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.44
84693457|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|50.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||50.5|0.7|
84693458|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||25.6|-25.6|
84693459|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|27.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||27.6|-22.6|
84693460|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||31.7|-18.7|
84693461|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.5|
84509250|NCT01546987|168769265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Urinary domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.13
84662857|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.56|1.42|
84662858|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.19|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||7.19|2.8|
84662859|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.96|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.96|1.56|
84662860|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|8.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|12.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||12|5.52|
84693462|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|35.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||35.8|-14.9|
84693463|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
84693464|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
84693465|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|57.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||57.9|-32.2|
84693466|NCT02564055|169126215|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
84693467|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|32.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.5|-45.8|
84693468|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|52.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||52.6|-25.7|
84693469|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|32.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.6|-46.0|
84693470|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|48.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||48.8|-32.2|
84693471|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|14.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||14.8|-60.8|
84693472|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||63.0|-13.7|
84693473|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|6.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||6.1|-67.4|
84693474|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||40.7|-40.7|
84693475|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
84693476|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|43.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|74.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||74.6|2.7|
84693477|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
84693478|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
84693479|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|57.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.1|-25.1|
84693480|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|78.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||78.7|4.8|
84693481|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|30.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||30.2|-51.3|
84693482|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
84693483|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|48.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||48.5|-35.4|
84693484|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|47.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||47.1|-35.8|
84693485|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|31.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||31.2|-54.0|
84693486|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|22.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||22.4|-65.3|
84693487|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
84693488|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|47.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||47.3|-37.8|
84693489|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|37.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.6|-47.9|
84693490|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|41.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.5|-48.3|
84693491|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
84693492|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||49.2|-35.0|
84693493|NCT02564055|169126222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.3|-46.0|
84693494|NCT00479037|169126293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|360.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|256.5|494.3||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||494.3|256.5|<0.0001
84509251|NCT01546987|168769265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Sexual domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.50
84509252|NCT01546987|168769265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Hormonal domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.96
84662861|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.15|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.15|2.94|
84662862|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|11.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||11|5.36|
84662863|NCT00996307|169059305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratios of GMTs|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.02|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.02|2.86|
84662864|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.65||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22||5.65|2.37|
84662865|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.4||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||3.4|1.43|
84662866|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.86||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||6.86|2.85|
84662867|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.13||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||4.13|1.72|
84662868|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.54|
84662869|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|6.42||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines||6.42|3.23|
84662870|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.3|
84662871|NCT00996307|169059305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.19||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||6.19|3.09|
84662872|NCT02850965|169059314|EQUIVALENCE|Protocol defined margins are: \[-18.0%, +18.0%\] for Week 16, 95% confidence interval. Between-imputation variance is zero. Confidence interval is based on one imputed set.|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|8.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|8.7|-14.4|
84509253|NCT01546987|168769276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.89|||Log Rank||Reference arm = ADT + RT arm|||0.89|0.29|0.0104
84509254|NCT05381948|168769283|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.199||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.24|-2.48|0.919
84509255|NCT05381948|168769283|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.02|||MMRM|||||2.02|-2.63|0.795
84662873|NCT02850965|169059315|OTHER|Missing PASI 75 at Week 24 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.6|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 24)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|12.6|-8.5|
84662874|NCT02850965|169059316|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Difference of Least Squares Means (LSM)= LSM of (BI 695501 - Humira)|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed based on the following model: PASI percentage improvement from baseline at Week 16= Treatment + Baseline PASI +Prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||6.0|-2.7|
84662875|NCT02850965|169059317|OTHER|Missing sPGA at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in sPGA <= 1 Response Rate|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.1|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in sPGA \<= 1 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|19.1|-4.8|
84714851|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.5|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.50|-0.08|0.06
84693495|NCT00479037|169126294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|127.1||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||127.1|63.8|<0.0001
84693496|NCT00479037|169126295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|191.8||P-value corresponding to the tests of treatment effect was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||191.8|94.8|<0.0001
84693497|NCT02500979|169126296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-5.2|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-5.2|-37.8|0.0118
84693498|NCT02500979|169126297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-7.897||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.356|-3.438|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-3.438|-12.356|0.0013
84693499|NCT02500979|169126298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-5.277||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.175|-1.378|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.378|-9.175|0.0091
84693500|NCT02500979|169126299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-4.435||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.445|-1.424|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.424|-7.445|0.0057
84693501|NCT02500979|169126300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-28733.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4163.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37326.0|-20139.0|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-20139|-37326|<0.0001
84693502|NCT02500979|169126301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.418||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.099|-3.737|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-3.737|-53.099|0.0258
84693503|NCT02500979|169126303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (Pramlintide/Placebo)|1.31||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.70|1.01|0.0456
84693504|NCT02500979|169126304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|0.951||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.011|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.011|0.896|0.1015
84693505|NCT02500979|169126306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|1.085||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.307|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.307|0.901|0.3730
84693506|NCT01613027|169126311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 6||||<0.001
84693507|NCT01613027|169126311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 12||||<0.001
84693508|NCT04267614|169126332|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693509|NCT04267614|169126333|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693510|NCT04267614|169126334|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693511|NCT04267614|169126335|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693512|NCT01088529|169126376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.432||||0.2148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|2.386|||Chi-squared|||||2.386|0.859|0.2148
84693513|NCT01088529|169126377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.477||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.205|1.109|||Fisher Exact|||||1.109|0.205|0.1796
84693514|NCT01088529|169126378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|6.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.701|15.753|||Chi-squared|||||15.753|2.701|<0.0001
84693515|NCT04159415|169126412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||2.3|-1.9|
84693516|NCT04159415|169126413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|97.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||97.5|-21.3|
84693517|NCT04159415|169126414|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|56.9|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from ANCOVA model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||56.9|-56.9|
84693518|NCT04159415|169126415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|103.2|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from robust regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||103.2|-67.6|
84693519|NCT00337662|169126441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Between-group p-values for each baseline to post-baseline visit were the same, p\<0.001.|Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84693520|NCT00337662|169126442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 3 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.266
84693521|NCT00337662|169126442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 4 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.884
84693522|NCT00337662|169126442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 6 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.151
84693523|NCT00337662|169126442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 8 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.216
84693524|NCT00337662|169126442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 12 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.020
84693525|NCT00337662|169126443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84693526|NCT00337662|169126444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.604
84693527|NCT00337662|169126445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84693528|NCT00337662|169126446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
84693529|NCT00337662|169126447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.474
84693530|NCT00337662|169126448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
84693531|NCT00337662|169126448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.125
84693532|NCT00337662|169126449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||All comparisons between EO-RIS and NEO-RIS and between NEO-RIS and NEO-OLZ had p-values greater than 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84693533|NCT00337662|169126450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.355
84693534|NCT00337662|169126450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.244
84693535|NCT00337662|169126451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.998
84693536|NCT00337662|169126451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.505
84693537|NCT00337662|169126452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.266
84693538|NCT00337662|169126452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.015
84693539|NCT00337662|169126453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.140
84693540|NCT00337662|169126453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
84693541|NCT00337662|169126454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.254
84693542|NCT00337662|169126454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.||||||0.299
84693543|NCT00337662|169126455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.291
84693544|NCT00337662|169126455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.259
84693545|NCT00337662|169126456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.209
84693546|NCT00337662|169126456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.411
84693547|NCT00337662|169126457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.544
84693548|NCT00337662|169126457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.386
84693549|NCT00337662|169126458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
84693550|NCT00337662|169126458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.143
84693551|NCT01263106|169126461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.05|
84693552|NCT01263106|169126462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.92|
84693553|NCT01263106|169126463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-3.00|0.8008
84693554|NCT00882921|169126466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.873||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|11.296|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ vs Ab-||11.296|0.731|0.1309
84693555|NCT00882921|169126466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.082||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|7.706|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ (age adjusted) vs Ab- (age adjusted)||7.706|0.563|0.2718
84693556|NCT05027074|169126475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.26|0.60|0.470
84693557|NCT05027074|169126475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.19|0.57|
84693558|NCT05027074|169126476|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.21|0.68|
84693559|NCT05027074|169126476|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.23|0.70|
84693560|NCT05027074|169126478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.62||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.62|1.07|0.022
84693561|NCT05027074|169126478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.00|0.800|0.311
84693562|NCT02322814|169126497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.247||95.0|0.43|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.43|0.2470
84693563|NCT02322814|169126499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5912||95.0|0.65|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.65|0.5912
84693564|NCT00445601|169126548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.48|0.01
84693565|NCT00445601|169126549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.18|0.23
84693566|NCT01649596|169126553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|10.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84693567|NCT01649596|169126554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|48.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A t-test for percents was used to compare the number of participants (%) from each group reporting satisfaction (somewhat and highly satisfied).||||||<0.05
84693568|NCT02771210|169126573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|0.87|0.136
84693569|NCT04397523|169126588|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.00000|ANOVA|df 2||||||0.05
84693570|NCT04397523|169126593|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Chi- square = 24.98174, p = 0.00000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Overall survival between the three WHO score groups 3, 4 and 5||||0.05
84693571|NCT04397523|169126593|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Correlation of mortality versus WHO disease progression score of patients||||0.05
84693572|NCT04397523|169126593|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p = 0.000|Chi-squared|df = 1||Correlation of mortality versus stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)||||0.05
84693573|NCT02694640|169126594|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered to detect significant between-group differences in mean min/week MVPA at follow-up.|effect size|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made|Regression, Linear||Effect size refers to between-group difference at follow-up.|A series of longitudinal mixed effects models with subject-specific intercepts were used to examine between-group differences in mean min/week of self reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||<.05
84693574|NCT02694640|169126595|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
84693575|NCT00267111|169126633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that topical amethocaine gel 4% would reduce the pain from IM injection. The sample size was based on the pain scores obtained from a previous study that compared pain response during IM injection. To achieve a clinically significant reduction in pain scores by 20% between groups with 80% power and an alpha value of \< 0.05, we estimated sample size of 49 neonates in each group. A total of 110 neonates were enrolled to account for possible dropouts and missing data.||||< 0.05
84693576|NCT00267111|169126634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that parents and nurses will report lower pain scores as assessed by visual analogue scale in topical amethocaine gel 4% compared to placebo group. This was a secondary outcome and no power calculation was performed.||||<0.05
84693577|NCT02354963|169126639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
84693578|NCT02354963|169126640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
84693579|NCT02354963|169126641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84693580|NCT02354963|169126642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
84693581|NCT02354963|169126643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
84693582|NCT02354963|169126644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
84693583|NCT02354963|169126645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
84693584|NCT02354963|169126646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
84693585|NCT02354963|169126647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
84693586|NCT02354963|169126648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.05|||Chi-squared|||||3.05|0.04|0.512
84693587|NCT00988351|169126660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.55 (mean hours of APAP arm no lower than 0.55 hours below CPAP arm)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.26||level of significance \<0.05, Power = 0.80|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-.35|= 0.27
84693588|NCT00988351|169126661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average of \>=1/2 hour per night) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-1.3|= 0.65
84693589|NCT00988351|169126662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.1||\< 0.05 criteria for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour per nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-0.73|=0.33
84693590|NCT00988351|169126663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>= 1/2 hour of nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.29|-1.12|=0.49
84693591|NCT00988351|169126664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.09||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||participants using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour of use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||0.09|-1.92|=0.07
84693592|NCT00183456|169126665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.63|0.13|<0.01
84693593|NCT00183456|169126666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.89|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.89|1.22|0.05
84693594|NCT00183456|169126667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.84|0.16|0.05
84693595|NCT00183456|169126668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.64|1.41|0.01
84693596|NCT00183456|169126669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.68|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.68|0.09|0.01
84693597|NCT00183456|169126670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.87|0.25|0.05
84693598|NCT00183456|169126671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.77|0.21|0.01
84693599|NCT00183456|169126672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.79|0.14|0.05
84693600|NCT00183456|169126673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.64|0.14|0.01
84693601|NCT00183456|169126674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.65|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||4.65|1.25|0.01
84693602|NCT03662360|169126724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations in scores (T3 - T1) regarding the two interest groups of patients (control and treated).||||<0.001
84693603|NCT03662360|169126725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations scores in T3 and T1, concerning the distress of the professional caregivers in the two intereste groups of patients||||<0.01
84693604|NCT02058290|169126777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84693605|NCT02058290|169126778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2612
84693606|NCT02058290|169126779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
84693607|NCT02262260|169126812|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in BCVA at month 12 from the baseline visit were determined for both treatment groups, and a comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test."||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84693608|NCT02262260|169126813|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in Central Retinal Thickness determined with Optical Coherence Tomography for both eyes were calculated for both groups and were compared using the Mann Whitney u test."||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
84693609|NCT02262260|169126816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
84693610|NCT02262260|169126817|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
84693611|NCT02262260|169126818|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.466
84693612|NCT01794117|169126821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.033
84693613|NCT00405704|169126822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84693614|NCT00405704|169126823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
84693615|NCT00405704|169126824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.37
84693616|NCT00405704|169126825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.94
84693617|NCT00405704|169126826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
84693618|NCT00405704|169126827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
84693619|NCT00405704|169126828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84693620|NCT00405704|169126829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84693621|NCT02696902|169126830|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|-23.7||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.8|16.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||||16.8|-83.8|0.491
84693622|NCT05569954|169126863|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||0.7|-4.0|
84693623|NCT05569954|169126863|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.7|-1.2|
84509256|NCT00520741|168769320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.355|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the lower bound of the 95 % prediction interval for the historical-control of 0.653; hereafter referred to as the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.355|0.246|
84662876|NCT02850965|169059318|OTHER|Missing DLQI at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in DLQI Response Rate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in DLQI (0, 1) Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|11.3|-11.7|
84662877|NCT00001723|169059320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84662878|NCT00536198|169059329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.21
84662879|NCT00536198|169059329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662880|NCT00536198|169059329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.06
84662881|NCT00536198|169059329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||3.75|0.01|0.049
84662882|NCT00536198|169059330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.54
84662883|NCT00536198|169059330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662884|NCT00536198|169059330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.02
84662885|NCT00536198|169059330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||8.31|1.97|0.0015
84662886|NCT00536198|169059331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.46
84662887|NCT00536198|169059331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.0001
84662888|NCT00536198|169059331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.69
84662889|NCT00536198|169059331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from Cycle 1 to end point between active vs. placebo||1.26|0.83|0.84
84662890|NCT00536198|169059332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
84662891|NCT00536198|169059332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662892|NCT00536198|169059332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.28
84662893|NCT00536198|169059332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.19|0.30|0.056
84662894|NCT00536198|169059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.30
84662895|NCT00536198|169059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.01
84662896|NCT00536198|169059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
84662897|NCT00536198|169059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.35|0.92|0.06
84662898|NCT00536198|169059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.80
84662899|NCT00536198|169059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662900|NCT00536198|169059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.43
84509257|NCT00520741|168769322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.378|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.378|0.268|
84509258|NCT03702621|168769334|OTHER|P values are from mixed model least squares (LS) means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.54
84509259|NCT03702621|168769335|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84509260|NCT03702621|168769336|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.98||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.98
84662901|NCT00536198|169059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||1.45|0.85|0.61
84662902|NCT00536198|169059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.83
84662903|NCT00536198|169059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662904|NCT00536198|169059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.02
84662905|NCT00536198|169059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.25|0.96|0.169
84662906|NCT00536198|169059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.37
84662907|NCT00536198|169059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662908|NCT00536198|169059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
84662909|NCT00536198|169059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.28|0.91|0.13
84662910|NCT00536198|169059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.31
84662911|NCT00536198|169059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662912|NCT00536198|169059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.46
84662913|NCT00536198|169059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.23|0.96|0.94
84662914|NCT00536198|169059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||<0.001
84662915|NCT00536198|169059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
84662916|NCT00536198|169059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.01
84662917|NCT00536198|169059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.41|1.05|0.027
84662918|NCT00536198|169059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
84662919|NCT00536198|169059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.001
84662920|NCT00536198|169059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference between active and placebo groups at end-point only||1.02|0.30|0.056
84662921|NCT02643082|169059349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|1.65|<0.0001
84662922|NCT02643082|169059350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.26|<0.0001
84662923|NCT02643082|169059351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.25|<0.0001
84662924|NCT02643082|169059352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.92|1.67|<0.0001
84662925|NCT02643082|169059353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Between Treatments|0.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.569|0.318|<0.0001
84662926|NCT02643082|169059354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.82|<0.0001
84662927|NCT01324999|169059360|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline to week 24.||||0.68
84662928|NCT01324999|169059361|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84662929|NCT01324999|169059362|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84662930|NCT01324999|169059363|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.19
84662931|NCT01324999|169059364|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Baseline to week 24.||||0.68
84662932|NCT01324999|169059365|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.92
84662933|NCT01324999|169059366|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline to week 24||||0.44
84662934|NCT00060008|169059382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84662935|NCT00560859|169059399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of change from baseline|2.0||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
84693624|NCT05569954|169126863|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||2.7|-1.6|
84693625|NCT05569954|169126864|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||4.6|-2.9|
84693626|NCT05569954|169126864|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.7||||||95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Headache: estimated difference in percent||5.1|-1.8|
84693627|NCT05569954|169126864|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.7||||||95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.7|-3.1|
84693628|NCT05569954|169126864|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.5|0.9|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||0.9|-1.5|
84693629|NCT05569954|169126865|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.0||||||95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Vaccine-Related Serious Adverse Events||0.5|-0.5|
84693630|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.23|0.96|<0.001
84693631|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.68||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.68|1.29|<0.001
84693632|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.04|<0.001
84693633|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.26||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.26|1.00|<0.001
84693634|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.77|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.77|1.37|<0.001
84693635|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001||95.0|1.82|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||2.31|1.82|<0.001
84693636|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.90|1.40|<0.001
84693637|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23GMT Ratio||2.31|1.77|<0.001
84693638|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.6|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.60|1.26|<0.001
84693639|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.88|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.88|1.46|<0.001
84693640|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.75|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.75|1.34|<0.001
84693641|NCT05569954|169126866|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.04|0.76|<0.001
84693642|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.84|<0.001
84693643|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.33||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.33|3.99|<0.001
84693644|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.92|||<|0.001||95.0|2.5|3.42||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.42|2.50|<0.001
84693645|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.09||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.09|3.99|<0.001
84693646|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|6.85||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.85|4.81|<0.001
84509261|NCT03702621|168769337|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.94||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.94
84509262|NCT03702621|168769338|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||0.86
84509263|NCT03702621|168769339|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||1.0
84509264|NCT03702621|168769340|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84509265|NCT03702621|168769341|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84509266|NCT03702621|168769342|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
84509267|NCT03702621|168769343|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84509268|NCT03702621|168769344|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84693647|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.46|20.03||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||20.03|13.46|<0.001
84693648|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.97|<0.001
84693649|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|11.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|13.91||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||13.91|10.16|<0.001
84693650|NCT05569954|169126866|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|6.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.87|5.54|<0.001
84693651|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|31.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||31.0|20.9|<0.001
84693652|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|44.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||44.8|33.6|<0.001
84693653|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|11.7||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|15.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||15.9|7.5|0.214
84693654|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|47.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.8|37.8|<0.001
84693655|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|29.6|41.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V16 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.8|29.6|<0.001
84693656|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|47.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.0|37.6|<0.001
84693657|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|30.6|41.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.0|30.6|<0.001
84693658|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|60.5||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||60.5|51.5|<0.001
84693659|NCT05569954|169126867|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|58.7|||<|0.001||95.0|54.6|62.7||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||62.7|54.6|<0.001
84693660|NCT05569954|169126868|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."||||||0.093||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 6C||||0.093
84693661|NCT05569954|169126868|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
84693662|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.25|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.25|1.04|
84693663|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
84509269|NCT03702621|168769345|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84509270|NCT00067236|168769381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Changes from baseline in efficacy parameters at Day 90.||||0.4239
84693664|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.31|1.04|
84693665|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.76|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.76|1.37|
84693666|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.31|1.79|
84693667|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.46|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.46|1.97|
84509271|NCT03194464|168769382|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established at p \<.05 (non-adjusted).|ANOVA|||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by less affected hand exercise to task-failure and to determine the time course and recovery of this effect.||||0.15
84693668|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.3|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.30|1.72|
84693669|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|2.7|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.70|2.12|
84693670|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.67||||||Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio|V116/PPSV23|1.67|1.32|
84693671|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
84693672|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.02|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.02|1.55|
84693673|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.37|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.37|1.08|
84693674|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.35|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||4.35|3.29|
84693675|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|10.09|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.09|7.89|
84693676|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|3.92|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||3.92|3.01|
84693677|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|9.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|10.97|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.97|8.83|
84693678|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.61|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||8.61|6.68|
84693679|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|5.38|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||5.38|4.26|
84693680|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|21.19||||||95.0|18.98|23.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||23.65|18.98|
84693681|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||9.65|7.82|
84693682|NCT05569954|169126870|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|17.07|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||17.07|14.13|
84693683|NCT00654940|169126890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||||80.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of pregabalin - placebo: mixed effects analysis of covariance model fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect, and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||-0.41|-1.21|
84693684|NCT00654940|169126891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.493||||80.0|-3.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|||Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory treatment comparison: Pregabalin - Placebo. Total score was analyzed using a mixed effect analysis of covariance model based on the full analysis set (FAS), accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||2.78|-3.82|
84693685|NCT00654940|169126892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29000.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17000.0||||80.0|6100.0|51000.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference in least squares means Pregabalin-Placebo. Model of day (8 am to 8 pm) total activity score at end of treatment. Mixed effects analysis of covariance model was fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||51000|6100|
84693686|NCT00802737|169126893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.50|0.07|
84693687|NCT00802737|169126893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.52|0.02|
84714852|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.45||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.73|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.73|-1.84|0.70
84714853|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.1|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.10|-1.31|0.42
84714854|NCT01037881|169176070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.81||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|3.0|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.00|-1.38|0.47
84714855|NCT04563546|169176091|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84714856|NCT04563546|169176092|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
84509272|NCT03194464|168769383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Statistical Significance established as p \<.05|ANOVA|Repeated-Measures ANOVA||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by repeated sessions of less affected hand exercise to task-failure. Pre-exercise SICI was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.83
84693688|NCT00802737|169126893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||1.00|0.03|
84693689|NCT03677128|169126906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84693690|NCT03677128|169126906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84693691|NCT00619476|169126927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.23||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.23|-1.40|0.013
84693692|NCT00619476|169126927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.07||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.07|-1.33|0.029
84693693|NCT00619476|169126927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.45||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.45|-1.68|0.002
84693694|NCT01625910|169126946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21||||||Baseline data by group assignment status (intervention or control) using means of the calculated BMI z-scores (U.S. CDC-2000 growth charts) implemented by applying the published LMS (shape, median, and scale) age- and sex/gender-specific parameters. Because of random assignment of a reasonably large number of children, an unadjusted analysis of change in outcomes between intervention and control groups is presented as well as the covariate-adjusted analysis of differences in changes.||0.21|-0.10|
84693695|NCT01625910|169126947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.4||||||unadjusted net difference between groups||0.40|-0.74|
84693696|NCT02959138|169126999|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio (geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio) and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|143.47||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% confidence interval of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||143.47|86.94|
84509273|NCT03194464|168769384|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.204
84693697|NCT02959138|169126999|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.47|146.02||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||146.02|78.47|
84693698|NCT02959138|169127000|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.92|144.12||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||144.12|86.92|
84693699|NCT02959138|169127000|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.63|145.65||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||145.65|79.63|
84693700|NCT02959138|169127001|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.42|127.79||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||127.79|81.42|
84693701|NCT02959138|169127001|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.14|113.13||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||113.13|68.14|
84714857|NCT04563546|169176093|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84714858|NCT04413708|169176171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.17|||Fisher Exact|||||5.17|0.50|0.41
84509274|NCT03194464|168769385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||statistical significance was established a priori at p \<.05|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA comparing Session8 vs. Session1 performance||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if motor dexterity, as measured by the BBT, was improved by repeated sessions of non-paretic hand exercise to task-failure. BBT performance was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.004
84509275|NCT02606500|168769424|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
84693702|NCT01327547|169127048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.002||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0417|0.0376|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by hepatitis B virus (HBV) status and usage of protease inhibitor (PI) regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.0376|-0.0417|0.4598
84693703|NCT01327547|169127049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0653|0.0319|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between MVC and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0319|-0.0653|
84693704|NCT01327547|169127049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0805|0.0452|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between maraviroc and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0452|-0.0805|
84693705|NCT01327547|169127054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1484|0.1185|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 48 data presented here.||0.1185|-0.1484|
84693706|NCT01327547|169127054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1784|0.1274|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 96 data presented here.||0.1274|-0.1784|
84693707|NCT01327547|169127054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2421|0.0761|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 144 data presented here.||0.0761|-0.2421|
84693708|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-41.12||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.72|10.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at week 48. Results are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||10.49|-92.72|0.1174
84693709|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-21.96||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.05|59.12|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||59.12|-103.05|0.5930
84693710|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-48.26||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.93|3.41|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||3.41|-99.93|0.0669
84693711|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-65.28||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.07|30.5|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||30.50|-161.07|0.1799
84714859|NCT04413708|169176172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.61|1.0
84714860|NCT03974178|169176176|OTHER|"The minimal sample size to get a possible rejection of H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) in favour of H1 (pdeath \<8.5%) was 34 evaluable patients with stage 2 r-HAT.~The hypothesis was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level."|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0488
84714861|NCT03974178|169176177|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0405
84714862|NCT03974178|169176178|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.94||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|13.21||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||13.21|0.15|0.0730
84693712|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-27.71||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.71|35.29|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||35.29|-90.71|0.3859
84693713|NCT01327547|169127055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-31.86||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.93|75.21|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||75.21|-138.93|0.5571
84693714|NCT01327547|169127056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-56.06||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.2|-10.92|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||-10.92|-101.20|0.0153
84693715|NCT01327547|169127056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-44.93||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|7.87|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||7.87|-97.72|0.0947
84693716|NCT01327547|169127056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-29.75||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.74|34.24|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||34.24|-93.74|0.3595
84693717|NCT01327547|169127057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.53||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|4.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||4.05|-9.11|0.4476
84693718|NCT01327547|169127057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.67||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.96|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.96|-0.61|0.3012
84693719|NCT01327547|169127057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.92||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.17|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||3.17|-1.33|0.4196
84693720|NCT01327547|169127058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|49.26||Not specifed.|ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||49.26|-48.66|0.9904
84693721|NCT01327547|169127058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|10.87||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|84.18|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||84.18|-62.44|0.7697
84509276|NCT02606500|168769425|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5
84693722|NCT01327547|169127058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-24.49||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.21|63.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||63.23|-112.21|0.5816
84693723|NCT01327547|169127059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|498.04||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.33|1613.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1613.41|-617.33|0.3786
84693724|NCT01327547|169127059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|348.7||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-539.61|1237.01|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1237.01|-539.61|0.4388
84509277|NCT02606500|168769426|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3
84509278|NCT02606500|168769427|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
84693725|NCT01327547|169127059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-173.57||||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2060.81|1713.68|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1713.68|-2060.81|0.8559
84693726|NCT01327547|169127060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 48 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.28|-0.22|0.8024
84693727|NCT01327547|169127060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 96 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.43|-0.12|0.2660
84509279|NCT02606500|168769428|NON_INFERIORITY|We presumed Elonva 150 mcg in obese and normal weighing women yields comparable biochemical pregnancy rates.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4
84693728|NCT01327547|169127060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.15||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 144 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.41|-0.12|0.2855
84693729|NCT01327547|169127061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.23|-0.93|0.7778
84693730|NCT01327547|169127061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.10|-0.10|0.9991
84693731|NCT01327547|169127061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.02||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.11|-0.16|0.7275
84693732|NCT01327547|169127062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.30|-0.15|0.5201
84693733|NCT01327547|169127062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.13|-0.28|0.4657
84693734|NCT01327547|169127062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.20|-0.25|0.8087
84693735|NCT01327547|169127063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.63|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.63|-4.31|0.1417
84693736|NCT01327547|169127063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.14|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.14|-4.01|0.2679
84693737|NCT01327547|169127063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.48||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.49|-3.45|0.1366
84693738|NCT00900627|169127089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||||||||||Dosing started at 160mg. Based on the data seen, 240mg with 33% patients with DLTs, 120mg with 50% patients with DLTs, 80mg with 33% of patients with DLTs and 40mg with 0% patients with DLTs, 40mg was deemed the maximum tolerated dose.|A tolerated dose was defined as one where ≤25% of the patients experienced a DLT. If a dose was tolerated, an increased dose was to be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. A non-tolerated dose was defined as one where \>25% of the patients experience a DLT. If a dose was non tolerated, a decreased/intermediate dose could be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. The maximum tolerated dose was determined as the maximum dose level that was defined as tolerated.||||
84509280|NCT00721409|168769438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.488||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.748||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors per randomization and Part.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Stratified analysis was presented above.||0.748|0.319|0.0004
84693739|NCT00900627|169127090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||1.52|0.76|0.679
84693740|NCT00900627|169127091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.75||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Logistic Regression|Logistic reg. model with terms for treatment, prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The odds Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a odds ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||3.75|1.09|0.026
84693741|NCT00900627|169127092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.01||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox proportional hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||2.01|0.67|0.607
84509281|NCT00721409|168769438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
84693742|NCT01744496|169127108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.34|-1.87|0.172
84693743|NCT01744496|169127110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.46|-15.56|0.038
84693744|NCT01744496|169127111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.73|-2.76|0.247
84693745|NCT01744496|169127112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.70|-1.85|0.371
84693746|NCT01744496|169127113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||3.13|-8.76|0.346
84693747|NCT00672958|169127180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.01||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value for change from baseline in HAMD-24 at Week 6 \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-D24 as a covariate.||Change from Baseline in HAM-D24 total score at Week 6 was tested at significance level 0.05. To control for multiplicity, subsequent endpoints were to be tested in a sequential testing procedure at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint in a sequence was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints in that sequence.||1.01|-2.48|0.407
84693748|NCT00672958|169127181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 1.||1.10|-0.97|0.901
84693749|NCT00672958|169127181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.59|-1.07|0.701
84693750|NCT00672958|169127181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.76|-2.11|0.356
84693751|NCT00672958|169127181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 4||1.19|-1.85|0.670
84693752|NCT00672958|169127181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 5||0.79|-2.52|0.304
84693753|NCT00119262|169127208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84693754|NCT00119262|169127209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
84693755|NCT01009047|169127218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.76||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.76|-3.46|0.935
84509282|NCT00721409|168769438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.853||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.853|0.303|0.0046
84693756|NCT01009047|169127219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|4.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||4.00|-4.68|0.877
84693757|NCT01009047|169127220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.59||Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.55|0.341
84693758|NCT01009047|169127220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.53||Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.06|0.723
84509283|NCT00721409|168769451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.294||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by Part (α = 0.10).|Log Rank|||Stratified analysis was presented above. Hazard ratio was assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||1.294|0.623|0.2812
84693759|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||||||Change at Day 56: Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.351
84693760|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||||||Change at Day 182:Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
84509284|NCT00721409|168769451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.527||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.527|0.458|0.2803
84693761|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.965||||||Change at Day 56: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.965
84509285|NCT00721409|168769451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.480|0.590|0.3875
84509286|NCT00721409|168769452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.97||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||2.97|0.76|0.1347
84509287|NCT00721409|168769452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.84||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.84|0.74|0.0849
84693762|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||||||Change at Day 182: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.766
84693763|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||||||Change at Day 56: Uncontrolled hostility/ excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.984
84693764|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||||||Change at Day 182: Uncontrolled Hositility/ Excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.985
84693765|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||Change at Day 56: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
84693766|NCT01009047|169127221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||||||Change at Day 182: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.745
84693767|NCT01009047|169127223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||||||Generalized Cochran- Mantel- Haenszel test for row mean score differences controlling for country was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.296
84693768|NCT01009047|169127224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Change at Day 56: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
84509288|NCT00721409|168769452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.76||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||2.76|0.48|0.4515
84509289|NCT00721409|168769453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.08||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||4.08|0.91|0.0471
84509290|NCT00721409|168769453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.66||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||8.66|0.65|0.1180
84509291|NCT00721409|168769453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||4.54|0.65|0.1631
84509292|NCT00721409|168769455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.98||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||6.98|1.48|0.0009
84509293|NCT00721409|168769455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.9||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||13.90|1.30|0.0065
84693769|NCT01009047|169127224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||||||Change at Day 182: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.914
84693770|NCT01009047|169127225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.67||Change at Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups(paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||2.67|-2.34|0.895
84693771|NCT01009047|169127225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.89||Change at Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|-2.64|0.705
84693772|NCT01009047|169127226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||Day 56: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.119
84693773|NCT01009047|169127226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||||||Day 182: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.444
84693774|NCT01751113|169127246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.219|1.100|<0.001
84693775|NCT01751113|169127246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.355|1.224|<0.001
84693776|NCT01751113|169127247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.902|0.812|<0.001
84693777|NCT01751113|169127247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.816|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.816|0.735|<0.001
84693778|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.263|1.104|<0.001
84693779|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.303|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.393|1.219|<0.001
84693780|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.175|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.099|1.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.257|1.099|<0.001
84693781|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.432|1.253|<0.001
84693782|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.231|1.076|<0.001
84693783|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.217|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.391|1.217|<0.001
84693784|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.141|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.220|1.067|<0.001
84693785|NCT01751113|169127248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|1.325|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.325|1.159|<0.001
84693786|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.846|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.905|0.792|<0.001
84693787|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.819|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.819|0.717|<0.001
84509294|NCT00721409|168769455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.7||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.70|0.89|0.0442
84693788|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.909|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.909|0.795|<0.001
84693789|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.746|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.798|0.698|<0.001
84693790|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.928|0.812|<0.001
84509295|NCT00721409|168769456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|0.601||1-sided p-value is from the stratified log-rank test (α =0.10).|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI. Hazard ratio was based on assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||0.601|0.265|<0.0001
84693791|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.822|0.719|<0.001
84509296|NCT00721409|168769456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
84509297|NCT00721409|168769456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.822||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.822|0.288|0.0030
84693792|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.877|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.938|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.938|0.820|<0.001
84693793|NCT01751113|169127249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.865|0.757|<0.001
84693794|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.198|0.116|<0.001
84693795|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.159|0.077|<0.001
84693796|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.082||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.133|0.031|0.002
84693797|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.186|0.084|<0.001
84693798|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|0.004|0.035
84693799|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.114|0.015|0.011
84693800|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.107||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.028|-0.187|0.009
84693801|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.102||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.023|-0.180|0.012
84693802|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.013||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.040|-0.066|0.632
84693803|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.014||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.038|-0.067|0.596
84693804|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.065||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.007|-0.123|0.028
84693805|NCT01751113|169127250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.075||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.018|-0.133|0.010
84509298|NCT00721409|168769457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.0|-0.7|0.6900
84693806|NCT01751113|169127251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.032|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.023|<0.001
84693807|NCT01751113|169127251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.017|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.026|0.008|<0.001
84693808|NCT01751113|169127252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.835|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.905|0.770|<0.001
84693809|NCT01751113|169127252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.803|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.869|0.741|<0.001
84693810|NCT01751113|169127253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.301|1.108|<0.001
84693811|NCT01751113|169127253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.352|1.153|<0.001
84693812|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.236|0.086|<0.001
84693813|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.103||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.178|0.028|0.008
84693814|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.104||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.209|0.000|0.051
84693815|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.148||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.253|0.043|0.006
84693816|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|-0.120|0.890
84693817|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.103|-0.118|0.890
84693818|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.103|-0.355|<0.001
84693819|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.189||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.064|-0.314|0.003
84693820|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.101||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.002|-0.204|0.055
84509299|NCT00721409|168769457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.2|-1.8|0.7125
84693821|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.105||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||-0.003|-0.206|0.044
84693822|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.092||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.013|-0.197|0.085
84693823|NCT01751113|169127254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.091||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.012|-0.195|0.083
84693824|NCT01751113|169127255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.027|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.014|<0.001
84693825|NCT01751113|169127255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.008||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.021|-0.005|0.223
84693826|NCT02471404|169127283|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% CI of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.2986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2986|0.0294|
84693827|NCT02471404|169127283|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3443|-0.0825||(superiority)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0825|-0.3443|0.001
84693828|NCT02471404|169127284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.97|-6.45|<0.001
84693829|NCT02471404|169127284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.56|-6.21|<0.001
84693830|NCT02471404|169127285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-5.93|<0.001
84693831|NCT02471404|169127285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.29|-5.52|<0.001
84693832|NCT02471404|169127286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.43|0.374
84693833|NCT02471404|169127286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.88|<0.001
84693834|NCT02471404|169127287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|0.67|0.777
84693835|NCT02471404|169127287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||||0.57|0.23|<0.001
84693836|NCT00305864|169127302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Log Rank|One-sided||A one-sided one-sample log-rank test at significance level of 0.10 was predicted to have 85% power to detect a survival difference against the historical control (13.7 vs. 18.5 months) with 60 deaths.||||0.27
84693837|NCT03881059|169127327|SUPERIORITY||Slope Coefficient of Dose|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|0.05|<0.001
84693838|NCT02065570|169127363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|0.3||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.8|-8.1|0.939
84693839|NCT02065570|169127364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.7|-5.3|0.462
84693840|NCT02065570|169127366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.6||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||12.8|-3.6|0.269
84693841|NCT02065570|169127367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.7|-5.1|0.610
84693842|NCT02065570|169127368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||19.6|2.9|0.008
84693843|NCT02065570|169127369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.0||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||18.2|-6.2|0.336
84693844|NCT02065570|169127370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.5||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-6.1|0.694
84693845|NCT02065570|169127371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.8||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.3|205.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||205.9|-192.3|0.946
84509300|NCT00721409|168769457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.5|-0.6|0.4012
84509301|NCT00721409|168769458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.3|-0.5|0.3346
84509302|NCT00721409|168769458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.9|-1.0|0.5630
84509303|NCT00721409|168769458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.6|-0.7|0.4427
84693846|NCT02065570|169127372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.0||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-3.5|0.293
84509304|NCT00810368|168769474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||2-tailed paired Student's t-tests between Week 0 and Week 12 responses (above) were anticipated to show significant benefits with carnosine treatment but no change with placebo. There were no corrections for multiple comparisons in the reported data.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Description of Power Calculation: The planned sample size completing each arm was based on individual incremental improvements in the primary outcomes of : A) CFS Severity Scores (Baraniuk et al., Annals Allergy Astma Immunol, 1998), B) Instantaneous Fatigue (Kim et al. Journal of Rehab Res Dev, 2010), and C) increased accuracy of 4/35 letters for 2 back working memory task (Owen, Human Brain Mapping, 2005).||||0.30
84509305|NCT00810368|168769474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84509306|NCT00810368|168769475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Fisher's Exact Test, we determined whether there was a significant difference in the number of participants complaining of IBS symptoms.|Fisher Exact|2 by 2 Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.018
84693847|NCT02065570|169127373|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.6|-2.7|0.304
84693848|NCT02065570|169127374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-0.7|0.092
84693849|NCT02065570|169127375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||10.2|-2.9|0.278
84693850|NCT02065570|169127376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-4.1|0.353
84693851|NCT02065570|169127377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.0||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||16.0|1.8|0.015
84693852|NCT02065570|169127378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.1|-4.4|0.394
84693853|NCT02065570|169127379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||11.2|-4.0|0.349
84693854|NCT02065570|169127380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|15.3||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||15.3|-0.1|0.054
84693855|NCT05033080|169127435|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI).|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.7|< 0.0001
84693856|NCT05033080|169127436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-6.3|-10.5|< 0.0001
84693857|NCT05033080|169127437|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.15|1.55|< 0.0001
84693858|NCT05033080|169127438|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
84693859|NCT03560245|169127441|EQUIVALENCE|"The change from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score was summarized descriptively and compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline SIB total score.~If the normality assumption was not met, a non-parametric method or a rank-ANCOVA analysis (i.e., an ANCOVA analysis on rank-transformed data) was to be used."||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3730
84693860|NCT04834362|169127519|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
84693861|NCT04834362|169127520|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84693862|NCT04834362|169127521|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
84693863|NCT04834362|169127522|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.729
84693864|NCT02555371|169127523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.86|0.45|0.004
84693865|NCT02555371|169127524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 12 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
84693866|NCT02555371|169127524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 24 has been presented.|||0.20|0.12|<0.001
84509307|NCT00810368|168769476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0018
84509308|NCT00810368|168769476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84509309|NCT00810368|168769478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84509310|NCT00810368|168769479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84509311|NCT00810368|168769480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84693867|NCT02555371|169127524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 36 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
84693868|NCT02555371|169127524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 52 has been presented.|||0.20|0.13|<0.001
84693869|NCT02555371|169127525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.88|0.49|0.005
84693870|NCT02555371|169127526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||3.51|0.50|0.570
84693871|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.43|0.99|
84693872|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.21|0.84|
84693873|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.51|0.93|
84693874|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.06|0.66|
84693875|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.64|0.97|
84693876|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.07|0.63|
84693877|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.24|0.89|
84693878|NCT01755689|169127577|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.12|0.80|
84693879|NCT01755689|169127578|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.15|0.81|
84693880|NCT01755689|169127578|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.29|0.92|
84693881|NCT01755689|169127578|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.43|1.01|
84693882|NCT01755689|169127578|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.41|1.00|
84693883|NCT01755689|169127579|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-D the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.81||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-D titers.||0.81|-6.90|
84693884|NCT01755689|169127579|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-T the LL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.08||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-T titers.||1.08|-2.23|
84693885|NCT01755689|169127580|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PRN the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PRN titers.||1.87|1.25|
84693886|NCT01755689|169127580|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-FHA the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-FHA titers.||1.93|1.42|
84509312|NCT01024738|168769544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84693887|NCT01755689|169127580|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PT the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PT titers.||1.61|1.20|
84693888|NCT00883103|169127657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84693889|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.0341|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0341
84693890|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0636
84693891|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.0487|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.0487
84693892|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.3498|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.3498
84693893|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.0096
84693894|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.1374|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.1374
84693895|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.0065
84693896|NCT02001974|169127665|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.1470
84693897|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0015
84693898|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0176
84693899|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.0048
84693900|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.2083
84693901|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.0111
84693902|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.1441|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.1441
84509313|NCT03499964|168769582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.0001
84509314|NCT03499964|168769584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84509315|NCT01047345|168769594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.2|0.5|0.026
84693903|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.0283
84693904|NCT02001974|169127666|OTHER|||||||0.1331|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.1331
84693905|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0097
84693906|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0354
84693907|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.0200
84693908|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.2134|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2134
84693909|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0235
84693910|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0964
84693911|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0314|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0314
84693912|NCT02001974|169127667|OTHER|||||||0.0773|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0773
84693913|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.1016|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.1016
84693914|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.2001|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.2001
84693915|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.0802|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.0802
84693916|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.4728|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.4728
84693917|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0355
84693918|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1709
84693919|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.0685|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.0685
84693920|NCT02001974|169127668|OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.3189
84693921|NCT02001974|169127669|OTHER|||||||0.2375|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2375
84693922|NCT02001974|169127669|OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.3608
84693923|NCT02001974|169127669|OTHER|||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0442
84693924|NCT02001974|169127669|OTHER|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1067
84693925|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0134
84693926|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.0799|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0799
84693927|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.0241
84693928|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.01384|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.01384
84693929|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0091
84693930|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.5687|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.5687
84693931|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0058
84693932|NCT02001974|169127675|OTHER|||||||0.3667|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.3667
84693933|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0029
84693934|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0349
84693935|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.0119
84693936|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.2100
84693937|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.0165|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.0165
84693938|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.1496
84693939|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.0321
84693940|NCT02001974|169127676|OTHER|||||||0.1404|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.1404
84693941|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0081
84693942|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0640
84693943|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.0397|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.0397
84693944|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.1898|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.1898
84693945|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.0250
84693946|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.1605
84693947|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.0786|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.0786
84693948|NCT02001974|169127677|OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.2652
84693949|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.1335|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.1335
84693950|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.2658|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.2658
84693951|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.1063|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1063
84693952|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.4959|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.4959
84693953|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0452
84693954|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.2223
84693955|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0737
84693956|NCT02001974|169127678|OTHER|||||||0.2804|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day21||||0.2804
84693957|NCT02001974|169127679|OTHER|||||||0.1449|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1449
84693958|NCT02001974|169127679|OTHER|||||||0.1338|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1338
84693959|NCT02001974|169127679|OTHER|||||||0.0633|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0633
84693960|NCT02001974|169127679|OTHER|||||||0.6939|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.6939
84693961|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693962|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693963|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693964|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84693965|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84693966|NCT01380990|169127697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84693967|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693968|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693969|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693970|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84693971|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84693972|NCT01380990|169127698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84509316|NCT01047345|168769595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.8|-2.8|
84693973|NCT01380990|169127703|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study subjects group."||||= 0.002
84509317|NCT01047345|168769596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.9|-1.5|
84509318|NCT01047345|168769597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-1.7|
84509319|NCT01047345|168769598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|13.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.1|7.5|
84693974|NCT01380990|169127703|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MMRM Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects group."||||< 0.001
84693975|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
84693976|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||48.25|-22.41|
84693977|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|34.23||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||34.23|-28.10|
84693978|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
84509320|NCT01047345|168769599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of participants seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 31||100.0|98.9|<0.001
84509321|NCT01047345|168769599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 33||100.0|98.9|<0.001
84509322|NCT01047345|168769599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|98.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|99.2||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 45||99.2|96.7|<0.001
84693979|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.01|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||48.25|-10.01|
84693980|NCT01380990|169127708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|33.87||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||33.87|-12.91|
84693981|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.645
84693982|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.299
84693983|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.2
84693984|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.028
84693985|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.259|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.259
84693986|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.044
84693987|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|61.97||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||61.97|-32.05|
84693988|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|65.87||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||65.87|-10.72|
84693989|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|54.59||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||54.59|-15.24|
84693990|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.54||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||63.54|-13.70|
84693991|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|68.45||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||68.45|2.29|
84693992|NCT01380990|169127709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|28.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|56.36||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||56.36|2.04|
84693993|NCT00579982|169127716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84693994|NCT02593032|169127732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the calculated p-value, not a threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84693995|NCT04844918|169127767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.5|-18.7|<0.001
84693996|NCT04844918|169127767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-23.6|<0.001
84693997|NCT04844918|169127768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|119.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|492.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||492.67|29.06|<0.001
84693998|NCT04844918|169127768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.03|654.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||654.53|36.03|<0.001
84693999|NCT04844918|169127769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.62|68.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.28|8.62|<0.001
84694000|NCT04844918|169127769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|110.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.89|13.21|<0.001
84694001|NCT04844918|169127770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|-11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.09|-18.91|<0.001
84509323|NCT01047345|168769599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 52||100.0|98.6|<0.001
84509324|NCT01047345|168769599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 58||100.0|98.9|<0.001
84662936|NCT01897402|169059434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||||Serogroup A|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-7.9|
84662937|NCT01897402|169059434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.6|||||Serogroup C|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||2.6|-14.6|
84662938|NCT01897402|169059434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.9|||||Serogroup Y|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||7.9|-9.9|
84662939|NCT01897402|169059434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.1|||||Serogroup W-135|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-8.5|
84662940|NCT01648205|169059437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||11.0|-14.1|0.7958
84662941|NCT01648205|169059438|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|26.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||26.2|-9.5|0.3369
84662942|NCT01958008|169059440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0636|1.4713|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint Cmax,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.4713|1.0636|
84662943|NCT01958008|169059441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0519|1.3759|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint AUC tau,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.3759|1.0519|
84662944|NCT01428453|169059446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|92.0|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-42 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||92.0|-12.4|0.133
84662945|NCT01428453|169059446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-250.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|265.66||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.9|271.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-40 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||271.2|-771.9|0.829
84662946|NCT01428453|169059447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.036|||||The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Ratio Abeta1-42/Abeta1-40 and Age.|||0.036|-0.003|
84662947|NCT01428453|169059448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.4||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.5|30.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF tau and Age.|Comparison of CSF tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||30.3|-144.5|0.902
84662948|NCT01428453|169059448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF P-tau and Age.|Comparison of P-tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||1.8|-7.9|0.892
84694002|NCT04844918|169127770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.05|-16.56|<0.001
84662949|NCT01428453|169059449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.167||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.313||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.313|0.021|0.026
84662950|NCT01428453|169059450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Albumin Quotient and Age.||||0.26|-0.74|0.828
84662951|NCT01428453|169059451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||1.2|-3.9|
84662952|NCT01428453|169059451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||||95.0|-10.2|12.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||12.2|-10.2|
84662953|NCT01428453|169059452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.01|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||0.010|-0.016|
84694003|NCT04844918|169127771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-41.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.77|-69.74|<0.001
84662954|NCT01428453|169059454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.057|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||"The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.~placebo."|||0.057|-0.191|
84694004|NCT04844918|169127771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-51.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.43|-78.20|<0.001
84694005|NCT04844918|169127772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.7|-50.0|<0.001
84694006|NCT04844918|169127772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.9|-52.7|<0.001
84694007|NCT04844918|169127773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-35.7|||ANCOVA|||||-35.7|-53.0|<0.001
84694008|NCT04844918|169127773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-41.9|||ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.8|<0.001
84694009|NCT04844918|169127774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|89.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.14|7.25|<0.001
84694010|NCT04844918|169127774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.73|392.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||392.24|12.73|<0.001
84694011|NCT04844918|169127775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|30.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.20|2.86|<0.001
84694012|NCT04844918|169127775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|51.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.37|4.78|<0.001
84694013|NCT04844918|169127776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|80.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.88|9.35|<0.001
84694014|NCT04844918|169127776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|120.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||120.57|13.27|<0.001
84694015|NCT04844918|169127777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|185.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.39|745.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||745.16|46.39|<0.001
84694016|NCT04844918|169127777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|318.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.49|1357.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1357.79|74.49|<0.001
84694017|NCT04844918|169127778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.64|538.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||538.74|18.64|<0.001
84694018|NCT04844918|169127778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|286.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.68|1622.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1622.06|50.68|<0.001
84694019|NCT04844918|169127779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-16.8|<0.001
84694020|NCT04844918|169127779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.0|-21.6|<0.001
84694021|NCT04844918|169127780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-6.1|<0.001
84694022|NCT04844918|169127780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-8.0|<0.001
84694023|NCT04844918|169127781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-42.9|<0.001
84694024|NCT04844918|169127781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-47.8|<0.001
84694025|NCT04844918|169127782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.9|-32.6|<0.001
84694026|NCT04844918|169127782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-26.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.2|-36.7|<0.001
84694027|NCT04844918|169127783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.16|0.004
84694028|NCT04844918|169127783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.15|0.006
84694029|NCT04844918|169127784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|188.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||188.55|4.31|<0.001
84694030|NCT04844918|169127784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|383.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||383.88|8.68|<0.001
84694031|NCT04844918|169127785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-13.8|<0.001
84694032|NCT04844918|169127785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.0|-17.7|<0.001
84694033|NCT04844918|169127786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
84694034|NCT04844918|169127786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-0.77|<0.001
84694035|NCT04844918|169127787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.74|
84694036|NCT04844918|169127787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.81||||||||-2.81|-6.29|
84694037|NCT04844918|169127788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-17.0|<0.001
84694038|NCT04844918|169127788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.7|<0.001
84694039|NCT04844918|169127789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-9.3|<0.001
84694040|NCT04844918|169127789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-9.7|<0.001
84694041|NCT04844918|169127790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.2|0.022
84694042|NCT04844918|169127790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|1.1|<0.001
84694043|NCT04844918|169127791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.7|7.4|<0.001
84694044|NCT04844918|169127791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|5.4|<0.001
84694045|NCT04844918|169127792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|0.00|0.099
84694046|NCT04844918|169127792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.236
84694047|NCT01558674|169127794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.0|-59.1|||Linear mixed effect model||8-mg MK-7145 LS Mean minus Furosemide LS Mean|||-59.1|-138.0|
84694048|NCT01558674|169127796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.22|||Mixed Linear Effects Model||GMR = Geometric mean (GM) MK-7145 8 mg divided by GM Furosemide|||1.22|0.99|
84694049|NCT00981825|169127808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84694050|NCT02743793|169127809|OTHER|No test was performed.|Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|87.9|||||Percent of participants that remained tolerant during study participation.|||87.9|21.3|
84694051|NCT03912220|169127876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84694052|NCT03912220|169127877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84694053|NCT01850082|169127883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.47
84694054|NCT01850082|169127884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.821
84694055|NCT01850082|169127885|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84694056|NCT01850082|169127886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.724|0.517
84694057|NCT02138747|169127893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-0.93||p-value based on the ANOVA model|ANOVA|||Tolerability score was analyzed using the ANOVA model (Model #1), with sequence group, study period, period-by-sequence interaction, gender and treatment group as factors, and subject-within-sequence as a random term. p-value based on the ANOVA model. Difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference =tolterodine ER -mirabegron). A negative difference indicates better reported tolerability with mirabegron than with tolterodine ER.||-0.93|-4.86|0.004
84694058|NCT02138747|169127894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P value was obtained using Mainland-Gart test to compare the proportion of preference for each treatment group. The denominator excluded patients with No Preference.|Mainland-Gart|||Participants who selected Mirabegron or Tolterodine ER were included in the denominator and participants with No Preference were excluded. Comparison was between Mirabegron vs Tolterodine ER.||||0.77
84694059|NCT02138747|169127903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.49||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.49|-0.39|0.971
84694060|NCT02138747|169127904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.5||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.50|-0.28|0.211
84694061|NCT02559609|169128058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1||||.028
84694062|NCT02559609|169128059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1)||||.027
84694063|NCT02559609|169128060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) was compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.66
84694064|NCT02559609|169128061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.89
84694065|NCT02559609|169128062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.58
84694066|NCT02559609|169128063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1.||||.024
84694067|NCT02049710|169128082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||||||Summation scores are reported across 3 items measured on a 5-point scale from 1(not at all sure)to5(very sure), which loaded together on a principal components analysis of the baseline data.The summation score thus represents a theoretical range from 3 to 15.The 3 items were as follows:Indicate How Sure You are that You Would be Able to Perform Each of the Following:a)Get the money needed to buy condoms b)Walk into a store\&buy condoms c)Find a place to get condoms for free(Cronbach alpha-0.72)||15|3|
84694068|NCT02609659|169128116|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the 3-DAA + RBV 600 mg treatment group as compared with the historical rate for 3-DAA + weight-based RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 92% to achieve noninferiority.|percentage of participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.4||||||||95.4|83.7|
84694069|NCT00962585|169128151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model (Analysis of covariance): Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.~The ANCOVA procedure was used to test the following hypotheses:~H0: μ1 = μp versus HA: μ1 ≠ μp where μ1 and μp denote the mean frequency of MSVS (at Week 4 in case of primary efficacy endpoint), adjusted for Baseline MSVS values, in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively."||||0.5730
84694070|NCT00962585|169128151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|12.32|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.32|-10.06|>0.05
84694071|NCT00962585|169128151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|6.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|17.84|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||17.84|-3.87|>0.05
84694072|NCT00962585|169128151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.04|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.04|-10.16|>0.05
84509325|NCT00282256|168769629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for AUC0-24 was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|112.1|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||112.1|90.8|
84509326|NCT00282256|168769631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for Cmin was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|102.2|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||102.2|82.6|
84509327|NCT01890915|168769655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms secondary to spinal cord injury, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have a significant rise in core temperature after exposure to warm ambient temperatures, while control subjects were hypothesized to maintain constant core temperature.~Percent change in core temperature of subjects in each group were compared to determine if they were significantly different from baseline to warm exposure."||||0.0001
84694073|NCT00962585|169128152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model: Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7~1-week period = remaining days of the period since the last visit (i.e. period following first 7 days, as per CRF)"||||0.7364
84694074|NCT00962585|169128152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.19|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|12.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.01|-12.38|>0.05
84694075|NCT00962585|169128152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|4.77|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|16.48|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||16.48|-6.94|>0.05
84694076|NCT00962585|169128152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.63|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|10.15|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||10.15|-13.41|>0.05
84694077|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1 and 2.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|"Mixed Model: MSVS = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.||||0.1217
84694078|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-3.77|||>|0.05||95.0|-12.69|5.16|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||5.16|-12.69|>0.05
84694079|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|9.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||18.60|0.79|<0.05
84509328|NCT01890915|168769656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would demonstrate a change in cognitive performance after heat exposure if they had demonstrated a significant increase in core body temperature - as was hypothesized in our primary hypothesis. Cognitive performance was measured, in part, by Interference T-scores derived from the Stroop Color and Word Test.||||0.006
84509329|NCT01890915|168769657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have diminished increases in sweat rate in comparison to controls after heat exposure.||||0.015
84509330|NCT03312257|168769659|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.21|-0.14|0.70
84509331|NCT03312257|168769660|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.002|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.002|-0.16|0.054
84509332|NCT00982553|168769661|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||||1.00|0.62|
84509333|NCT00982553|168769662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86||||||||1.86|0.73|
84509334|NCT00982553|168769663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||||1.18|0.87|
84694080|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|10.36|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||10.36|-7.73|>0.05
84694081|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.7|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|4.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||4.96|-18.36|>0.05
84694082|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|15.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||15.14|-8.01|>0.05
84694083|NCT00962585|169128153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.91|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|12.58|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||12.58|-10.77|>0.05
84509335|NCT00982553|168769664|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.85||||||||1.85|0.36|
84509336|NCT00235456|168769665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.38|0.04
84509337|NCT00235456|168769666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84509338|NCT00235456|168769667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84509339|NCT00235456|168769668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84509340|NCT00235456|168769669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84509341|NCT00235456|168769670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84509342|NCT01089647|168769672|OTHER||||||=|0.946|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons at follow-up were made using a stepwise multivariable logistic model.||||=0.946
84694084|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1, 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: Severity of VMS = Baseline (severity of VMS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Severity of VMS per week at each protocol visits = (Sum of scores of Mild, Moderate, Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7, where severity of vasomotor symptoms are scored as: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe.||||0.1609
84694085|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.34|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|13.73|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||13.73|-26.41|>0.05
84694086|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|25.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|45.69|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||45.69|5.64|<0.05
84694087|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|2.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|22.39|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||22.39|-18.21|>0.05
84694088|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-16.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|11.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||11.01|-43.29|>0.05
84694089|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|8.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|35.65|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||35.65|-18.19|>0.05
84694090|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|26.5|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||26.50|-27.80|>0.05
84694091|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|25.3|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.30|-28.68|>0.05
84694092|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|16.15|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|42.71|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||42.71|-10.40|>0.05
84694093|NCT00962585|169128154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|25.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.60|-28.18|>0.05
84694094|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal pH) = Baseline (Vaginal pH) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.2211
84694095|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.21|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.12|-0.53|>0.05
84694096|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.09|-0.55|>0.05
84694097|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.35|-0.28|>0.05
84694098|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.02|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.02|-0.54|>0.05
84694099|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.14|-0.40|>0.05
84694100|NCT00962585|169128155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.03|-0.51|>0.05
84509343|NCT01626079|168769682|NON_INFERIORITY|Two thousand (2000) simulations were performed to calculate sample size and power for the primary safety endpoint. Assuming 22% mortality and 7.5% attrition at 12 months, a total of 305 subjects in the Device group will provide \> 95% power to reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided significance level of 5%.|Kaplan Meier|0.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.948||||Z test Using Kaplan Meier Survival|P-value calculated from Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estimate together with Greenwood method estimated variance|||||0.948|<0.0001
84694101|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal Maturation Index) = Baseline (Vaginal Maturation Index) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Vaginal maturation index = 0.2 x (% parabasal cells) + 0.6 x(% intermediate cells) + 1.0 x (% superficial cells)||||0.6375
84694102|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|6.42|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.42|-9.57|>0.05
84694103|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.46|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.46|-9.63|>0.05
84509344|NCT01626079|168769715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Joint Fraility Model|||||0.96|0.60|<0.02
84509345|NCT01626079|168769716|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.04|||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Analysis|||||2.04|1.29|<0.0001
84509346|NCT05665595|168770071|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8|||||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma risk-based stage (IIB/IIC/clinical IIB and IIC/IIIA/IIIB vs IIIC/IIID/IV) and region of enrollment (Asia vs ROW).|||1.80|0.87|
84694104|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.47|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.47|-9.66|>0.05
84694105|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|6.11|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||6.11|-6.73|>0.05
84694106|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|0.07|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.07|-12.36|>0.05
84694107|NCT00962585|169128156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|3.28|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||3.28|-9.05|>0.05
84694108|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Estradiol) = Baseline (Estradiol) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.0681
84509347|NCT05771428|168770074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.83|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.83|-1.87|0.9819
84694109|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|35.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|68.9|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||68.90|1.75|>0.05
84694110|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|36.34|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||36.34|-29.12|>0.05
84694111|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-4.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.39|28.23|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||28.23|-37.39|>0.05
84694112|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|22.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|67.8|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||67.80|-23.56|>0.05
84694113|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|7.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|52.29|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||52.29|-36.70|>0.05
84694114|NCT00962585|169128157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-22.74|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|21.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||21.96|-67.44|>0.05
84694115|NCT00962585|169128161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0475
84694116|NCT00962585|169128161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0258
84694117|NCT00962585|169128161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0281
84694118|NCT00962585|169128161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.0645
84694119|NCT00962585|169128162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0097
84694120|NCT00962585|169128163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.4352
84694121|NCT00962585|169128163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.2600
84694122|NCT00962585|169128163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.7037
84694123|NCT00962585|169128163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.7155
84694124|NCT00962585|169128164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0381
84694125|NCT02254421|169128165|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.57||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values and stratification factors.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.62|0.94
84694126|NCT02254421|169128166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with stratification factors as covariates.|Negative binomial|||||||0.84
84694127|NCT02254421|169128167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
84694128|NCT02254421|169128168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value was calculated from the CMH test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.19
84694129|NCT00179010|169128198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.854
84694130|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
84694131|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84694132|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||0.0002
84694133|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84694134|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84694135|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84694136|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84509348|NCT05771428|168770074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.42|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.42|-2.25|0.6545
84509349|NCT05771428|168770074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.08|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||2.08|-1.58|0.7860
84694137|NCT03748979|169128204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
84694138|NCT03268590|169128232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84694139|NCT03268590|169128233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84694140|NCT03268590|169128234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84694141|NCT05462652|169128266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-3.68|<0.001
84694142|NCT05462652|169128267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Chi-squared|||"Missing values imputed with multiple imputation.~P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test."||31.0|9.1|<0.001
84694143|NCT05462652|169128268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions z-test|15.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.6|||Chi-squared|||P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||25.6|5.3|0.003
84694144|NCT05462652|169128269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.4|||Chi-squared|||Missing values imputed with multiple imputation. P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||36.4|13.0|<0.001
84694145|NCT00600743|169128282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.4||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t test following ANOVA for difference between drug and placebo - There were 3 doses, and the value reported is for the highest and only effective dose|t-test, 2 sided|The overall error term was used to compare differences between placebo and drug||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.007
84509350|NCT00076102|168770112|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||The reported F statistic and p-value are representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Adaptive Behavior.|ANOVA|||F=5.45 under the null hypothesis||||0.0301
84694146|NCT00600743|169128283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t-test after ANOVA with repeated measures on placebo minus drug (within groups) between binge and normal instructions (between groups)|t-test, 2 sided|This was part of an overall ANOVA (SAS proc mixed) with all four groups (3 doses eat normally. 4 ng dose, binge eat) and the error term had 76 df.||Each group was compared separately in an overall ANOVA with all dose groups included. The results are presented for the groups which received 4 mg dose and instructions to eat normally (normal group) or to binge eat (binge group). The test is the interaction between drug and group i.e. drug effect difference (placebo minus drug) in fullness between the group instructed to binge and the group instructed to eat normally.||||.033
84694147|NCT00600743|169128284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.134|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is based on ANOVA with all groups and conditions and is a planned comparison|ANOVA||df = 53. 26 Used proc GLMMIX in SAS 9.4.|Tests the difference between drug and placebo for group = binge instructions||||<.014
84694148|NCT03537261|169128285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.1|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||13.1|-1.4|0.11
84694149|NCT03537261|169128286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||3.0|-7.4|0.40
84694150|NCT03537261|169128287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||4.2|-2.9|0.72
84694151|NCT01177813|169128288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.57||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.57|-0.90|<0.0001
84694152|NCT01177813|169128288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|-0.69||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.69|-1.01|<0.0001
84694153|NCT01177813|169128289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.38||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.38|-2.48|<0.0001
84694154|NCT01177813|169128289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.60|-2.70|<0.0001
84694155|NCT01177813|169128290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic Blood Pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-5.2|0.0231
84694156|NCT01177813|169128290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|-0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||-0.9|-6.0|0.0028
84509351|NCT00076102|168770112|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Emotional Functioning.|ANOVA|||F = 6.56 under the null hypothesis||||0.0186
84509352|NCT00076102|168770112|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Medical/Physical Status.|ANOVA|||F=11.23 under the null hypothesis||||0.0032
84509353|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.6263|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.25 under the null hypothesis||||0.6263
84509354|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.3625|||||||ANOVA|||F= 0.87 under the null hypothesis||||0.3625
84509355|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.5877|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.31 under the null hypothesis||||0.5877
84662955|NCT01428453|169059454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.267||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Overall Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Overall Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The probability (effect size) for change from Baseline in CogState battery overall composite score \>0 is presented.|A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo. Comparison of overall composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24.|||0.267|0.010|0.982
84662956|NCT01428453|169059455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.13|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 12. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.130|-0.257|
84662957|NCT01428453|169059455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.269|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.269|-0.130|
84662958|NCT01804075|169059467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84662959|NCT02927080|169059498|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the TA muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|15.92|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||15.92|3.17|0.0138
84662960|NCT02927080|169059498|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the BB muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.75|23.02|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||23.02|9.75|<0.0001
84662961|NCT02927080|169059500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the TA group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||-0.59|-4.86|0.0359
84662962|NCT02927080|169059500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the BB group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||0.99|-3.49|0.3582
84662963|NCT02927080|169059501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.97|1.41|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in 6 Minute Walk Test (MWT) distance from baseline||1.41|-11.97|0.1945
84662964|NCT02927080|169059501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|12.86|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete a 10 meter walk/run||12.86|-3.48|0.3451
84662965|NCT02927080|169059501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.47|10.37|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete 4-stair climb (ascend)||10.37|-9.47|0.9402
84662966|NCT02927080|169059502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.78|60.46|||ANCOVA|||||60.46|11.78|0.0183
84662967|NCT02927080|169059503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|0.09|0.0895
84662968|NCT02927080|169059504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.459||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.67|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for TA group part 2; compared to Placebo||3.70|-7.67|0.5661
84662969|NCT02927080|169059504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|5.84|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for BB group part 2; compared to Placebo||5.84|-6.06|0.9760
84662970|NCT02670083|169059520|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.86|
84662971|NCT02670083|169059521|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.87||||||||1.87|-2.39|
84662972|NCT02670083|169059522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.88||||||||1.88|-2.08|
84662973|NCT02670083|169059523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.10|
84662974|NCT02670083|169059524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.29||||||||1.29|-0.62|
84662975|NCT02670083|169059525|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|5.18||||||||5.18|-1.43|
84662976|NCT02670083|169059526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.79||||||||3.79|-1.35|
84662977|NCT02670083|169059528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.9||||||||0.90|-1.95|
84662978|NCT02670083|169059529|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.6||||||||1.60|-0.81|
84662979|NCT02670083|169059530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.86||||||||10.86|-13.64|
84662980|NCT02670083|169059531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.27||||||||6.27|-2.64|
84662981|NCT02670083|169059532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.32||||||||5.32|-3.45|
84662982|NCT02670083|169059538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.24|
84662983|NCT02670083|169059539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.17||||||||1.17|-3.72|
84662984|NCT02670083|169059540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.89||||||||0.89|-0.10|
84694157|NCT01177813|169128290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.9|-2.1|0.3987
84694158|NCT01177813|169128290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-3.0|0.0296
84694159|NCT02368002|169128292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||2 df re-random\*time interaction tested if baseline to 6M or 18M PCM and ABT weight changes differed; primary hypothesis tests were 2 planned contrasts estimating baseline to 6M (H1a, expected neg) and 18M (H1b, expected pos) PCM vs. ABT weight change|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, TRA timing, sex, weight loss rate.||H1 predicted that suboptimal responders re-randomized to PCM would lose more weight at 6m (H1a) while those re-randomized to ABT would lose more weight at 18m (H1b). A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed re-randomization, measurement time, the re-randomization by measurement time interaction and covariate parameters.|The primary hypothesis tests were two planned contrasts that estimated weight change from baseline to 6M and 18M relative to baseline in PCM relative to ABT. A mixed linear model predicted weight changes between baseline and post-baseline for suboptimal responders, and this model included two a priori simple effects tests resulting in two mean differences, confidence intervals, and p-values. H1a: -2.7 lbs; 95% CI: -5.8, 0.5; p=0.09. H1b: -1.0 lbs; 95% CI: -4.2, 2.2; p=0.53|||0.25
84694160|NCT02368002|169128293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, sex, TRA result (PCM, ABT, responder, pre-TRA quit).||Hypothesis 2 predicted that among all participants, those randomized to Early TRA would lose more weight at 6 and 18 months than those randomized to Late TRA. A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed treatment response assessment timing and covariate parameters.||2.3|-2.4|0.96
84694161|NCT03192215|169128303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.64|0.99
84694162|NCT03192215|169128304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.59|0.72
84694163|NCT03192215|169128305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.76|0.67
84694164|NCT03192215|169128306|SUPERIORITY||Difference of annual rate.|-0.011||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|-0.003|||Exact Binomial Test|||||-0.003|-0.018|.02
84694165|NCT03192215|169128307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||||3.52|0.29|0.98
84694166|NCT03192215|169128308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.63|0.35
84694167|NCT02731313|169128309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90||||||0.7436|||||||Kappa-test p-value, 2 sided|||Rationale for the determination of the number of samples:The following hypotheses were considered: two-sided risk alpha = 5%, power (1 - beta) = 90%, a success rate (rate of positive HER-2 status) = 17%, null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90. 359 samples would allow determining a first estimate of the 0.90 coefficient of correlation kappa. The total number of samples, which had to be included in this study was 395, considering a 10% rate of non-evaluable samples.||||0.7436
84694168|NCT00924469|169128341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.61||||0.0216||90.0|0.429|0.865||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.865|0.429|0.0216
84694169|NCT00924469|169128342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.43||||0.1423||90.0|0.956|2.145||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 24||2.145|0.956|0.1423
84694170|NCT00924469|169128342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.82||||0.6639||90.0|0.386|1.746||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 24||1.746|0.386|0.6639
84694171|NCT00924469|169128343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.239|0.418||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.418|0.239|<0.0001
84694172|NCT00924469|169128343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.5061||90.0|0.828|1.554||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.554|0.828|0.5061
84694173|NCT00924469|169128343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.017|0.05||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.050|0.017|<0.0001
84694174|NCT00924469|169128343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.79||||0.5767||90.0|0.398|1.581||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for DHEA concentration at Week 24||1.581|0.398|0.5767
84694175|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.097|0.207||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.207|0.097|<0.0001
84694176|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.4364||90.0|0.571|1.225||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 24||1.225|0.571|0.4364
84694177|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.75||||0.1515||90.0|0.54|1.044||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for serum DHT concentration at Week 12||1.044|0.540|0.1515
84694178|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.3965||90.0|0.589|1.188||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for serum DHT concentration at Week 24||1.188|0.589|0.3965
84694179|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42||||0.0003||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 5 for serum Androsterone concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|0.0003
84694180|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2494||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 6 for serum androsterone concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2494
84694181|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.023|0.073||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 7 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.073|0.023|<0.0001
84694182|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.24||||0.5144||90.0|0.717|2.137||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 8 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 24||2.137|0.717|0.5144
84694183|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.055|0.189||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 9 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 12||0.189|0.055|<0.0001
84694184|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.55||||0.1329||90.0|0.286|1.06||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 10 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 24||1.060|0.286|0.1329
84694185|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.01|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.008|0.028||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 11 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 12||0.028|0.008|<0.0001
84509356|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.2767|||||||ANOVA|||F=1.27 under the null hypothesis||||0.2767
84509357|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.8466|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.04 under the null hypothesis||||0.8466
84509358|NCT00076102|168770113|OTHER|||||||0.6774|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.18 under the null hypothesis||||0.6774
84694186|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.2||||0.7061||90.0|0.53|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 12 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 24||2.730|0.530|0.7061
84694187|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 13 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|<0.0001
84509359|NCT02270736|168770138|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||MMRM|||Least square mean (LS-Mean) is from a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.03|-0.1|= 0.0012
84509360|NCT02270736|168770139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM|||LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline Modified Teacher Drooling Scale (mTDS) score as covariate.||0.53|0.02|= 0.032
84662985|NCT02564042|169059567|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||76.6|25.9|
84662986|NCT02564042|169059567|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
84662987|NCT02564042|169059567|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
84662988|NCT02564042|169059567|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
84662989|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented|||26.6|-21.0|
84662990|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3||||||95.0|-20.5|32.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||32.4|-20.5|
84662991|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|39.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||39.1|-9.6|
84662992|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|29.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||29.9|-23.6|
84662993|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|28.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||28.1|-22.2|
84662994|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|52.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||52.4|-0.5|
84662995|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|49.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||49.3|-0.4|
84662996|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|35.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||35.7|-18.4|
84662997|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||31.7|-19.7|
84662998|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|68.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||68.4|16.6|
84662999|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
84663000|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|57.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||57.2|3.5|
84663001|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|58.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||58.7|6.3|
84663002|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
84663003|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
84663004|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|56.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||56.1|1.0|
84663005|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|65.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||65.0|12.7|
84663006|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
84509361|NCT02270736|168770141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.05|-0.12|<0.0001
84509362|NCT02270736|168770141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.06|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.06|-0.14|<0.0001
84509363|NCT02270736|168770142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.63|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.63|0.17|=0.0008
84663007|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|80.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||80.1|33.2|
84663008|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|56.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||56.5|0.2|
84663009|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|66.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||66.5|14.4|
84663010|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|74.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||74.4|23.2|
84663011|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||74.0|24.4|
84663012|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
84663013|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|48.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|71.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||71.1|19.7|
84663014|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
84663015|NCT02564042|169059568|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
84663016|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|21.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||21.9|-28.8|
84663017|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|25.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||25.1|-25.4|
84663018|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|35.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||35.3|-17.5|
84663019|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented .|||33.3|-15.4|
84663020|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|36.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented .|||36.1|-17.1|
84663021|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||31.0|-19.3|
84663022|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|36.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||36.7|-18.2|
84663023|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|43.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||43.6|-6.9|
84663024|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|38.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||38.9|-15.1|
84663025|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|37.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||37.4|-13.6|
84663026|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|66.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||66.0|13.8|
84663027|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
84663028|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|58.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented .|||58.2|4.8|
84663029|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|63.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||63.9|12.8|
84663030|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||76.6|25.9|
84663031|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
84663032|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
84663033|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
84663034|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||74.0|22.0|
84663035|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|81.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||81.0|34.6|
84663036|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||51.0|-6.1|
84663037|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|61.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||61.6|7.8|
84694188|NCT00924469|169128344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2673||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 14 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2673
84694189|NCT00924469|169128345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|25.533|||<|0.0001||90.0|4.989|130.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for PSA response at Week 12||130.680|4.989|<0.0001
84694190|NCT00924469|169128345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.131||||0.2319||90.0|0.956|1.337|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 2 for PSA response at Week 24||1.337|0.956|0.2319
84694191|NCT00924469|169128346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|2.744||||0.3427||90.0|1.018|5.015|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for CR at Week 24||5.015|1.018|0.3427
84694192|NCT00924469|169128349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.17|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.098|0.289||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 12||0.289|0.098|<0.0001
84694193|NCT04147260|169128353|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.20|-0.03|
84694194|NCT04147260|169128353|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.16|-0.07|
84694195|NCT04147260|169128353|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.14|0.572
84694196|NCT04147260|169128353|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.07|0.315
84694197|NCT04147260|169128353|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.05|-0.18|0.286
84694198|NCT04147260|169128353|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.31|0.00|0.057
84694199|NCT04147260|169128354|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.49|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.49|-0.02|
84694200|NCT04147260|169128354|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.20|
84694201|NCT04147260|169128354|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.31|-0.72|<0.001
84694202|NCT04147260|169128354|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.8||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.80|0.24|<0.001
84694203|NCT04147260|169128354|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.09||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.09|-0.62|0.010
84694204|NCT04147260|169128354|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.93||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.93|0.24|0.001
84663038|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|75.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||75.6|24.7|
84663039|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|75.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||75.5|25.8|
84663040|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||55.0|-0.3|
84663041|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|60.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||60.2|6.5|
84663042|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
84663043|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
84663044|NCT02564042|169059577|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|80.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||80.6|-35.7|
84663045|NCT02289898|169059623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy (investigator-assessed Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival) of placebo/placebo arm to the pooled demcizumab arm (i.e., placebo/placebo arm to demcizumab/placebo and demcizumab/demcizumab arms) in subjects with first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.||1.375|0.630|=0.7158
84663046|NCT05081011|169059637|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Log Rank|||||||0.006
84663047|NCT05081011|169059638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|57.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||57.4|8.0|0.01
84663048|NCT05081011|169059639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||-0.4|-6.8|0.03
84663049|NCT05081011|169059640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.8|||Welch 2-sample method|||||2.8|-0.03|0.06
84663050|NCT05081011|169059641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.5|||Welch 2-sample method|||||3.5|-1.6|0.46
84663051|NCT05081011|169059642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.91|||2-sample test|2-sample test for equality of proportions with Yates continuity correction|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.||0.91|0.21|0.005
84663052|NCT05081011|169059643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-30.1|||Welch 2-sample method|||||-30.1|-107.1|0.001
84663053|NCT01156311|169059667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.17|<0.0001
84663054|NCT01156311|169059667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.83|0.0124
84663055|NCT01156311|169059668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0010
84663056|NCT01156311|169059668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||0.00|-1.25|0.0339
84663057|NCT06133348|169059672|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||Paired t-Test|||||5.8|0.9|0.0089
84663058|NCT06133348|169059673|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.8|||Paired t-Test|||||18.8|2|0.0169
84663059|NCT06133348|169059674|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|0.5|0.0162
84663060|NCT06133348|169059675|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1|||Paired t-Test|||||6.1|0.7|0.0144
84663061|NCT06133348|169059676|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.5|||Paired t-Test|||||5.5|0.4|0.0264
84663062|NCT06133348|169059677|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Paired t-Test|||||1.6|-0.3|0.1622
84663063|NCT06133348|169059678|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.4|0.1506
84663064|NCT06133348|169059679|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.4|||Paired t-Test|||||5.4|1.5|0.0012
84663065|NCT06133348|169059680|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Paired t-Test|||||2|0.5|0.0021
84509364|NCT02270736|168770142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.66|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.66|0.14|=0.0026
84509365|NCT00262600|168770147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.74|1.1||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 110 mg to warfarin||1.10|0.74|<.0001
84509366|NCT00262600|168770147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.52|0.81||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 150 mg to warfarin||0.81|0.52|<.0001
84509367|NCT00262600|168770148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.2206||95.0|0.83|1.04||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.04|0.83|0.2206
84509368|NCT00262600|168770148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.0015||95.0|0.74|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.93|0.74|0.0015
84509369|NCT00262600|168770149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.7508||95.0|0.87|1.11||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.11|0.87|0.7508
84509370|NCT00262600|168770149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.0093||95.0|0.74|0.96||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.96|0.74|0.0093
84694205|NCT04147260|169128355|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.1|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.10|-0.05|
84694206|NCT04147260|169128355|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.08|0.998
84694207|NCT04147260|169128355|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.13|-0.08|0.618
84509371|NCT00262600|168770150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0026||95.0|0.7|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||0.93|0.70|0.0026
84509372|NCT00262600|168770150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.3146||95.0|0.81|1.07||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||1.07|0.81|0.3146
84509373|NCT00262600|168770151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.45||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.45|0.19|<0.0001
84694208|NCT04147260|169128355|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.23|-0.10|
84509374|NCT00262600|168770151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.60|0.28|<0.0001
84509375|NCT02674334|168770166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.82||P-values were not adjusted for multiple inferences|ANOVA|Continuous responses were tested using RCB ANOVA.||||2.82|-.49|0.165
84509376|NCT02660242|168770182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model w/ repeated measures to account for correlation from cross-over design and multiple measures, adjusting for baseline glucose and period.||The mini-dose glucagon (MDG) condition was compared with each of the conditions. In the event that exercise was terminated early due to glucose \<70 mg/dL and the participant was treated for hypoglycemia (or if participant was treated for hypoglycemia during early recovery \[prior to the meal\]), the nadir glucose value was carried forward through the end of early recovery.||||<0.001
84509377|NCT02660242|168770183|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.99
84509378|NCT02660242|168770184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.15
84509379|NCT02660242|168770185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.99
84509380|NCT02660242|168770186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.43
84509381|NCT02660242|168770187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.16
84509382|NCT02660242|168770188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.69
84509383|NCT02660242|168770189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.67
84509384|NCT02660242|168770190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.84
84509385|NCT02660242|168770191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.63
84509386|NCT02660242|168770192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.24
84509387|NCT02660242|168770193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.26
84509388|NCT04087395|168770200|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided paired student t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84509389|NCT02796664|168770210|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.462|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and cerebral ischemic events including ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. The number of participants who suffered ischemic stroke and the number of paticipants who suffered transient ischemic attack were analyzed together to test the null hypothesis in two by two table.||||0.462
84509390|NCT02796664|168770211|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and modified Rankin Scale at follow-up.||||0.34
84509391|NCT02796664|168770212|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in steno-occlusive lesion.||||0.13
84509392|NCT02796664|168770212|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in collateral vessel.||||0.17
84509393|NCT02796664|168770213|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and periventricular white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.74
84509394|NCT02796664|168770213|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and deep white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.95
84694209|NCT04147260|169128355|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.10|0.451
84694210|NCT04147260|169128355|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.22|-0.22|1.000
84694211|NCT04147260|169128356|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.36|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.36|-0.15|
84694212|NCT04147260|169128356|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.16|0.446
84694213|NCT04147260|169128356|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.35||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.35|-0.34|0.972
84694214|NCT04147260|169128356|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.60|-0.02|
84694215|NCT04147260|169128356|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.56||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.56|-0.04|0.091
84694216|NCT04147260|169128356|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.38|0.880
84694217|NCT04147260|169128357|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||-0.01|-0.15|
84694218|NCT04147260|169128357|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.06|-0.09|0.757
84694219|NCT04147260|169128357|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.03|-0.17|0.158
84509395|NCT02796664|168770214|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and parenchymal ischemic lesions at follow-up.||||0.23
84509396|NCT02796664|168770215|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and drug compliance at follow-up.||||0.79
84509397|NCT00995553|168770223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Working Memory Index||||.06
84509398|NCT00995553|168770223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Attention Index||||.09
84509399|NCT00995553|168770224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
84509400|NCT02465567|168770238|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
84509401|NCT02465567|168770238|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0027
84509402|NCT02465567|168770238|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
84509403|NCT02465567|168770238|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0020
84694220|NCT04147260|169128357|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.12|
84694221|NCT04147260|169128357|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.25|-0.09|0.330
84694222|NCT04147260|169128357|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.19||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.19|-0.26|0.754
84694223|NCT04147260|169128358|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.52|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.52|0.09|
84694224|NCT04147260|169128358|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.38||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.38|-0.06|0.151
84694225|NCT04147260|169128358|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.15|0.319
84694226|NCT04147260|169128358|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.42|-0.04|
84694227|NCT04147260|169128358|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.09|0.246
84694228|NCT04147260|169128358|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.25|0.704
84694229|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.929||0.692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.92|7.99||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.99|-11.92|0.692
84694230|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.048||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.14|6.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||6.21|-10.14|0.630
84694231|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.07|11.07||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.07|-11.07|1.000
84694232|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.55|7.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.66|-10.55|0.751
84509404|NCT02465567|168770239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.959|||Regression, Cox|||||0.959|0.807|0.0035
84509405|NCT02465567|168770239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.814|0.057
84509406|NCT02465567|168770239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.944|||Regression, Cox|||||0.944|0.794|0.0011
84509407|NCT02465567|168770239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.951|||Regression, Cox|||||0.951|0.801|0.0019
84694233|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|9.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.52|-6.17|0.669
84694234|NCT04147260|169128359|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.123||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.44|7.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.21|-13.44|0.546
84694235|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.385||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|10.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.54|-35.44|0.281
84694236|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.02|2.74||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.74|-35.02|0.092
84509408|NCT02465567|168770240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.34|-0.68|<0.0001
84509409|NCT02465567|168770240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.20|-0.54|<0.0001
84509410|NCT02465567|168770240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-0.53|<0.0001
84509411|NCT02465567|168770240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.05|-0.39|0.0127
84509412|NCT02465567|168770241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.539|1.199|<0.0001
84509413|NCT02465567|168770241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.410|1.100|0.0005
84509414|NCT02465567|168770241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.454|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.454|1.133|<0.0004
84509415|NCT02465567|168770241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.177||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.333|1.039|0.0103
84509416|NCT02465567|168770242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.870|0.340|0.0111
84509417|NCT02465567|168770242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.296|||Regression, Cox|||||1.296|0.472|0.3401
84509418|NCT02465567|168770242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.201|||Regression, Cox|||||1.201|0.518|0.2690
84509419|NCT02465567|168770242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.796|||Regression, Cox|||||1.796|0.716|0.5918
84509420|NCT02465567|168770243|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.03|0.69|0.6552
84509421|NCT02465567|168770243|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.97|0.66|0.0221
84509422|NCT02465567|168770243|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.08|0.72|0.2157
84663066|NCT06133348|169059681|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Paired t-Test|||||2.4|0.6|0.0027
84509423|NCT02465567|168770243|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.01|0.69|0.0647
84509424|NCT01807637|168770311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84509425|NCT01807637|168770312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84509426|NCT01807637|168770313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
84663067|NCT06133348|169059682|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.697|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|0.0|0.0494
84663068|NCT06133348|169059683|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Paired t-Test|||||2.3|-1.1|0.4707
84663069|NCT06133348|169059684|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.7|||Paired t-Test|||||-0.7|-4.3|0.0082
84663070|NCT06133348|169059685|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-2.7|0.1327
84663071|NCT06133348|169059686|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6|||Paired t-Test|||||0.6|-2.9|0.2046
84509427|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.060|<0.001
84509428|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.077|<0.001
84509429|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.162|0.027|0.006
84509430|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|0.074|<0.001
84509431|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.259|0.113|<0.001
84509432|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.151|0.008|0.030
84509433|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.204|0.064|<0.001
84509434|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.242|0.101|<0.001
84509435|NCT00950807|168770314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.173|0.037|0.003
84509436|NCT06179108|168770319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0009
84509437|NCT06179108|168770319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0022
84509438|NCT06179108|168770319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||.0017
84509439|NCT06179108|168770320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0008
84663072|NCT06133348|169059687|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|-2.8|0.5252
84663073|NCT06133348|169059688|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Paired t-Test|||||2.9|-1.3|0.4569
84663074|NCT06133348|169059689|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.8||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|29.0|||Paired t-Test|||||29.0|-4.7|0.1497
84663075|NCT06133348|169059690|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.5||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|43.7|||Paired t-Test|||||43.7|-10.4|0.2163
84663076|NCT06133348|169059691|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.7|||Paired t-Test|||||7.7|-0.6|0.0915
84663077|NCT06133348|169059692|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.9|||Paired t-Test|||||16.9|-6.3|0.3573
84663078|NCT06133348|169059693|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Paired t-Test|||||1.1|-2.8|0.3741
84663079|NCT06133348|169059694|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Paired t-Test|||||1.0|-0.6|0.6187
84663080|NCT06133348|169059695|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||Paired t-Test|||||0.1|-0.04|0.3572
84663081|NCT06133348|169059696|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|-0.5|0.1080
84663082|NCT06133348|169059697|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.6|0.2088
84663083|NCT06133348|169059700|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Paired t-Test|||||0.2|-0.1|0.7333
84663084|NCT06133348|169059701|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Paired t-Test|||||1.3|-0.8|0.6382
84663085|NCT06133348|169059702|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4771
84663086|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||0.1 mg vs. placebo|-7.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.00|-11.1|0.003
84663087|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|-1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.96|||ANOVA|||||2.96|-5.42|0.310
84663088|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||0.5 mg vs. placebo|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|4.06|||ANOVA|||||4.06|-4.05|0.498
84663089|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|-5.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.74|-1.63|||ANOVA|||||-1.63|-9.74|0.012
84663090|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-3.97||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.16|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-8.16|0.059
84663091|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|2.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|6.54|||ANOVA|||||6.54|-2.09|0.191
84663092|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|1.24||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|6.15|||ANOVA|||||6.15|-3.67|0.333
84509440|NCT06179108|168770320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0048
84509441|NCT06179108|168770320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0026
84509442|NCT01041781|168770366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.367|||Log Rank|||||1.367|0.853|0.5346
84509443|NCT01041781|168770370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0049
84509444|NCT01041781|168770371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0131
84509445|NCT01041781|168770372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0322
84509446|NCT05065502|168770387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.206||Significance level is set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Between-arm difference at 13-18 months post-baseline, controlling for rates 1-6 months pre-baseline|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs of post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for use in pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), averaged across three studies.||0.206|-0.728|0.273
84509447|NCT05065502|168770388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0245|0.0272||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.0272|-0.0245|
84509448|NCT05065502|168770389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|69.3|||||Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period.|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in medication costs from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||69.3|-23.3|
84509449|NCT05065502|168770390|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.599|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.122||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of medication note reviews from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).|"Medication reviews per 1,000 patients (outcome multiplied by 1,000).~Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period."|-0.122|-1.080|
84509450|NCT05065502|168770391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09073|0.01561||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of inappropriate use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18)||0.01561|-0.09073|
84509451|NCT05065502|168770392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.2||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||1.20|-1.44|
84509452|NCT05065502|168770393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of of high-risk DOAC use attributable to chronic kidney disease for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), ), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.42|-0.83|
84509453|NCT05065502|168770394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.72||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to weight for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.72|-0.08|
84509454|NCT05065502|168770395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to mis-dosing for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.33|-0.70|
84509455|NCT05065502|168770396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02415|0.04429||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of CBTI receipt for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6)||0.04429|-0.02415|
84509456|NCT05065502|168770399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21014|0.04275||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.04275|-0.21014|
84509457|NCT05065502|168770400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.42||||||||0.420|-0.216|
84509458|NCT05065502|168770401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.477||||||||0.477|-0.555|
84509459|NCT05065502|168770402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.452||||||||0.452|-0.250|
84509460|NCT05065502|168770403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.339|
84509461|NCT00918567|168770417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p \< .10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey-Kramer adjustments for post-hoc differences of least squares comparisons||||||<.05
84509462|NCT00918567|168770418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also examined marginal effects, defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509463|NCT00918567|168770419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509464|NCT00918567|168770420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also estimated marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509465|NCT00918567|168770421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509466|NCT00918567|168770422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84509467|NCT00918567|168770423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509468|NCT00918567|168770424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84509469|NCT00918567|168770425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509470|NCT00918567|168770426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effect (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509471|NCT00918567|168770427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84509472|NCT00661999|168770435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.39
84509473|NCT00661999|168770435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.73
84509474|NCT00661999|168770437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.7250
84509475|NCT00661999|168770437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.8700
84509476|NCT00661999|168770438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.6639
84509477|NCT00661999|168770438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.5660
84509478|NCT00661999|168770439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.1124
84509479|NCT00661999|168770439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.2051
84509480|NCT00661999|168770440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
84663093|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-1.43||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.63|||ANOVA|||||3.63|-6.50|0.314
84663094|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-9.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-14.2|0.001
84663095|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|-6.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|-1.51|||ANOVA|||||-1.51|-11.4|0.017
84663096|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-5.02|||ANOVA|||||-5.02|-14.9|0.001
84663097|NCT01025791|169059706|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-4.17|||ANOVA|||||-4.17|-13.8|0.002
84663098|NCT01025791|169059711|OTHER||GMR (Fed/Fasted)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.92||||||||0.92|0.86|
84663099|NCT01025791|169059712|OTHER||GMR (Fed/fasted)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
84663100|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||0.1 mg vs placebo|-0.53||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.92|2.86|||ANOVA|||||2.86|-3.92|0.396
84663101|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|2.33||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|5.83|||ANOVA|||||5.83|-1.17|0.1329
84663102|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||0.5mg vs. placebo|-2.96||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|0.43|||ANOVA|||||0.43|-6.35|0.0741
84663103|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|10.47|||ANOVA|||||10.47|3.69|<0.001
84663104|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|4.39||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|7.09|||ANOVA|||||7.09|0.89|0.0211
84663105|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|0.85||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.79|6.48|||ANOVA|||||6.48|-4.79|0.399
84663106|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|4.54||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|11.02|||ANOVA|||||11.02|-1.94|0.100
84663107|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|10.06|||ANOVA|||||10.06|-3.29|0.195
84663108|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|9.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|16.58|||ANOVA|||||16.58|1.74|0.022
84663109|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|5.74||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|13.16|||ANOVA|||||13.16|-1.68|0.098
84663110|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|10.9|||ANOVA|||||10.90|-3.94|0.214
84663111|NCT01025791|169059713|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|4.24||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|11.52|||ANOVA|||||11.52|-3.03|0.163
84509481|NCT00661999|168770442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.61
84663112|NCT00514540|169059714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Stoppage of trial early if 1) probability of response with the frontline treatment DC in the 1st 2 courses is unacceptably low compared to a target of 30% Pr(p1\*p2 \> .30\|data) \< 0.005, or 2) risk of a SAE is unacceptably high Pr(m \> m\* \|data) \< 0.001"|Bayesian probability model|Operating Characteristics of futility monitoring rule 1 \& safety monitoring rule 2 applied simultaneously for frontline treatment DC in courses 1 \& 2.||Disease status evaluated at the end of course 1 \& the end of course 2. Primary outcomes are response, defined as the absence of disease progression, and the time to a serious adverse event (SAE), defined as grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or death. Bayesian probability model \& decision rules used to monitor patient outcomes.||||< 0.005
84663113|NCT00533845|169059793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0022
84663114|NCT00345254|169059794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84663115|NCT00563381|169059813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.77|<0.0001
84663116|NCT00563381|169059814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|0.82|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium vs. Salmeterol||0.82|0.66|<0.0001
84663117|NCT00563381|169059815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0002||95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|0.85|0.0002
84663118|NCT00563381|169059816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0017||95.0|0.83|0.96|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.96|0.83|0.0017
84663119|NCT00563381|169059817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.61|<0.0001
84663120|NCT00563381|169059818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0005||95.0|0.66|0.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.89|0.66|0.0005
84663121|NCT00563381|169059819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0242||95.0|0.78|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|0.78|0.0242
84663122|NCT00563381|169059820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0406||95.0|0.82|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.00|0.82|0.0406
84663123|NCT00563381|169059821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.91|0.78|<0.0001
84663124|NCT00563381|169059822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
84663125|NCT00563381|169059823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.92|0.78|<0.0001
84663126|NCT00563381|169059824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.86|0.68|<0.0001
84663127|NCT00563381|169059825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.76|0.9|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdispersion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.76|<0.0001
84663128|NCT00563381|169059826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0036||95.0|0.84|0.97|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.97|0.84|0.0036
84663129|NCT00563381|169059827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.73|0.88|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.88|0.73|<0.0001
84663130|NCT00563381|169059828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.6||||0.1035||95.0|-3.53|0.33|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MMRM) (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.33|-3.53|0.1035
84663131|NCT00563381|169059829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.06||||0.0369||95.0|-3.99|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MRMM)(fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week).||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.12|-3.99|0.0369
84663132|NCT00563381|169059830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.07||||0.0362||95.0|-4.0|-0.13|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.13|-4.00|0.0362
84663133|NCT00563381|169059831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.88||||0.0573||95.0|-3.82|0.06|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.06|-3.82|0.0573
84663134|NCT00563381|169059832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2641||95.0|-3.04|0.83|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.83|-3.04|0.2641
84663135|NCT00563381|169059833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.01||||0.3068||95.0|-2.95|0.93|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.93|-2.95|0.3068
84663136|NCT00563381|169059834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.78||||0.4299||95.0|-2.72|1.16|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.16|-2.72|0.4299
84663137|NCT00563381|169059835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.48||||0.6277||95.0|-2.42|1.46|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.46|-2.42|0.6277
84663138|NCT00563381|169059836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.85||||0.3931||95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.10|-2.80|0.3931
84663139|NCT00563381|169059837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.97||||0.3297||95.0|-2.92|0.98|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|-2.92|0.3297
84663140|NCT00563381|169059838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.3||||0.1904||95.0|-3.25|0.65|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.65|-3.25|0.1904
84663141|NCT00563381|169059839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.99||||0.3172||95.0|-2.94|0.95|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|-2.94|0.3172
84663142|NCT00563381|169059840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.67||||0.5017||95.0|-2.62|1.28|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.28|-2.62|0.5017
84663143|NCT00563381|169059841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.23||||0.2174||95.0|-3.18|0.72|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.72|-3.18|0.2174
84663144|NCT00563381|169059842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2682||95.0|-3.05|0.85|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|-3.05|0.2682
84663145|NCT00563381|169059843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.59||||0.552||95.0|-2.55|1.36|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.36|-2.55|0.5520
84663146|NCT01911689|169059844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the Control group and AP group.||||<0.01
84663147|NCT01911689|169059845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the edematous AP and necrotizing AP||||0.05
84663148|NCT01911689|169059846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in the T2\* value between the mild, moderate, and severe AP groups according to the MRSI score.||||<0.01
84663149|NCT01911689|169059846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value in the mild and moderate AP according to MRSI||||0.0111
84663150|NCT01911689|169059846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the mild and severe AP||||0.002
84663151|NCT01911689|169059846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the moderate and severe AP according to MRSI||||0.071
84663152|NCT01911689|169059847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.629
84663153|NCT04044716|169059851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|age, joint involved in surgery, sex, baseline pain||||||.048
84509482|NCT00661999|168770442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.44
84663154|NCT04044716|169059852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline pain||||||0.29
84663155|NCT04044716|169059853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline morphine milligram equivalents (MME)||||||0.64
84663156|NCT04044716|169059854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline MME, and time in hospital||||||0.86
84663157|NCT04044716|169059855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||adjusted for age, type of surgery (joint), and sex|ANCOVA|||||||0.661
84663158|NCT02730455|169059871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, United States of America \[USA\]) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.07|0.38|0.086
84663159|NCT02730455|169059871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||0.95|0.34|0.031
84663160|NCT02730455|169059872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.28|0.35|0.222
84663161|NCT02730455|169059872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.06|0.28|0.073
84663162|NCT02730455|169059873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.08|0.29|0.085
84663163|NCT02730455|169059873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.04|0.28|0.067
84663164|NCT02730455|169059874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|1.64|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.64|-16.97|0.106
84663165|NCT02730455|169059874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|3.27|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.27|-15.43|0.202
84663166|NCT02730455|169059875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.99|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.99|-2.64|0.780
84663167|NCT02730455|169059875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.73|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.73|-2.89|0.622
84663168|NCT02730455|169059876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.40|-1.10|0.315
84663169|NCT02730455|169059876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.56|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.56|-2.96|0.542
84663170|NCT02730455|169059879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||"mRS: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome.~Dose levels are log transformed."||||0.028
84663171|NCT02730455|169059879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||BI: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome. Dose levels are log transformed.||||0.049
84663172|NCT02480439|169059891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8747|1.0668|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0668|0.8747|
84509483|NCT00661999|168770443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.62
84663173|NCT02480439|169059891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9223|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8352|1.0185|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0185|0.8352|
84694237|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.662||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.88|29.27||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||29.27|-21.88|0.772
84509484|NCT00661999|168770443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.30
84663174|NCT02480439|169059892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.0477|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0477|0.9540|
84663175|NCT02480439|169059892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0149|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9685|1.0636|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0636|0.9685|
84663176|NCT02480439|169059893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9541|1.0464|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0464|0.9541|
84663177|NCT02480439|169059893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0612|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0612|0.9676|
84663178|NCT02326025|169059900|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.13|||||Log(PK) is participant and treatment and random error, where participant is fitted as a random effect.|||1.13|0.964|
84663179|NCT02326025|169059900|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.957|1.11||||||||1.11|0.957|
84663180|NCT02326025|169059901|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.16||||||||1.16|0.770|
84663181|NCT02326025|169059901|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.33||||||||1.33|0.801|
84663182|NCT01867021|169059908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.06|||ANCOVA|Not applicable(NA)||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||2.06|1.66|
84663183|NCT01867021|169059908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||1.64|1.38|
84663184|NCT01867021|169059908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||1.08|0.93|
84663185|NCT01867021|169059909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||11.5|5.6|
84663186|NCT01867021|169059909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||16.1|10.1|
84663187|NCT01867021|169059909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||2.3|-5|
84663188|NCT03178903|169059933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.678||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Covarying for baseline depressive symptoms and MVPA.||||||.87
84663189|NCT01209260|169059934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size of 72 was targeted to achieve 80% power to detect a 5-minute reduction in transseptal access procedure time (assuming a standard deviation of 7.5 minutes), using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, with the primary analysis done on an intention-to-treat basis.||||0.005
84663190|NCT01209260|169059936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84663191|NCT01209260|169059937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84663192|NCT02423577|169059983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.98|0.1436
84663193|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.154||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates at specific time points (1 year and 2 years post randomization). The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.154|0.562|0.2368
84694238|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.255||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.93|18.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.50|-34.93|0.539
84694239|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.424||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.74|18.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.31|-27.74|0.682
84694240|NCT04147260|169128360|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.03||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|26.79||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||26.79|-33.79|0.817
84694241|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.327||0.891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.49|10.02||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.02|-11.49|0.891
84694242|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.42|5.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.25|-12.42|0.417
84694243|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|14.82||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.82|-9.11|0.633
84694244|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|15.62||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||15.62|-2.05|0.129
84694245|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.33|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-5.33|0.548
84694246|NCT04147260|169128361|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.51|14.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.52|-5.51|0.370
84694247|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.379||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|11.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.66|-30.26|0.375
84694248|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.524||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|5.73||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.73|-28.70|0.185
84694249|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.544||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.12|25.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||25.50|-21.12|0.851
84694250|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.405||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.59|-7.69||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-7.69|-45.59|0.007
84694251|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.106||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.34|1.33||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||1.33|-31.34|0.071
84694252|NCT04147260|169128362|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.664||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.13|9.86||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.86|-33.13|0.281
84694253|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.69|8.0||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.00|-13.69|0.599
84694254|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-7.92|0.824
84694255|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.973||0.525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|8.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.23|-15.90|0.525
84694256|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.867||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.84|5.84||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.84|-21.84|0.250
84694257|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|17.12||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||17.12|-6.74|0.386
84509485|NCT00661999|168770444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.19
84509486|NCT00661999|168770444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.17
84694258|NCT04147260|169128363|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.88|2.51||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.51|-28.88|0.097
84694259|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.842||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.83|14.81||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.81|-12.83|0.885
84694260|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.55|40.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||40.25|17.55|<0.001
84694261|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.28|-12.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-12.54|-43.28|<0.001
84694262|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.041||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.33|-3.92||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-3.92|-36.33|0.016
84694263|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.931||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.53|32.46||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||32.46|4.53|0.011
84694264|NCT04147260|169128364|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-20.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-20.25|-57.00|<0.001
84694265|NCT01651936|169128371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.52||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.50|-1.54|0.308
84694266|NCT01651936|169128372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|-0.26||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.01|-23.52|0.91
84694267|NCT01651936|169128374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|8.46||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|27.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.32|-10.40|0.468
84694268|NCT01651936|169128376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
84694269|NCT02204293|169128385|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.||||||0.1811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1811
84694270|NCT02204293|169128400|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|19.9||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|51.3|||Fisher Exact|||||51.3|-15.0|0.3175
84694271|NCT02204293|169128401|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|31.7||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|61.8|||Fisher Exact|||||61.8|-2.9|0.0922
84509487|NCT00661999|168770445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.73
84694272|NCT02204293|169128402|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.0||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|61.1|||Fisher Exact|||||61.1|-1.5|0.0858
84694273|NCT02204293|169128403|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|-0.7|0.075
84694274|NCT02204293|169128404|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
84694275|NCT02204293|169128405|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|29.2|||Fisher Exact|||||29.2|-18.8|1
84694276|NCT02204293|169128406|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|24.8||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-ESR Response||54.2|-8.0|0.1642
84694277|NCT02204293|169128406|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|25.2||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|55.1|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-CRP Response||55.1|-9.1|0.1756
84694278|NCT02204293|169128407|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|35.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) LDA||35.0|-27.7|1
84694279|NCT02204293|169128407|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|26.5||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|56.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) LDA||56.0|-6.6|0.1642
84694280|NCT02204293|169128408|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|21.6||||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|49.9|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) remission||49.9|-8.1|0.2285
84694281|NCT02204293|169128408|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|27.1||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|54.6|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) Remission||54.6|-4.6|0.1212
84694282|NCT02204293|169128408|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||Extended Remission||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
84694283|NCT00614198|169128415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori p threshold set for stage 1 (baseline - 8m; p\<0.01) or (baseline - 12 months, p\<0.05) in order to progress to stage 2 (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months).|Mixed Models Analysis|||1st stage analysis (baseline-8m or 12m) used a repeated measures model for all assessment measures. Model included baseline, age, time and time\*treatment interaction. Results informed 2nd stage (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months). 2nd stage analysis based on various statistical scenarios (baseline vs 12 months on intervention, 12 months of no intervention vs 12 on intervention, baseline vs 24 months on intervention). No ADOS assessments were used at 12 months because of risk of practice effects.||||<0.01
84694284|NCT01994720|169128459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||In order to address the issue of multiple testing, a hierarchical test sequence will be used. Tested at 4.98% level.|Regression, Cox|||Composite of stroke/MI/death||1.01|0.78|0.0670
84694285|NCT01994720|169128460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||If the treatment effect on the primary efficacy variable is significant at the 4.98% level, the secondary efficacy variable will be tested in a confirmatory sense. Otherwise it will be tested in an exploratory manner.|Regression, Cox|||Ischemic stroke||1.00|0.76|0.0462
84694286|NCT01994720|169128461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.79|0.0928
84694287|NCT01994720|169128462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.78|0.0771
84694288|NCT01994720|169128463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||||1.67|0.83|0.3641
84694289|NCT01994720|169128464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.75|0.4828
84694290|NCT01994720|169128465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.67|0.5457
84694291|NCT01994720|169128466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.85|0.1393
84694292|NCT01994720|169128467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.75|0.0342
84694293|NCT01994720|169128468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.06|||Regression, Cox|||||2.06|0.55|0.8557
84694294|NCT01994720|169128469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.77|0.2126
84694295|NCT01994720|169128475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||PLATO Major bleeding||1.34|0.52|0.4511
84694296|NCT01994720|169128476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.53|<0.0001
84509488|NCT00661999|168770445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.83
84694297|NCT02216422|169128477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|90.4|
84694298|NCT04793464|169128484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.26
84694299|NCT04793464|169128485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Ratio of Means||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.02
84694300|NCT04793464|169128486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.68
84694301|NCT04793464|169128487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
84694302|NCT04793464|169128488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.77
84694303|NCT04793464|169128489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.66
84694304|NCT04793464|169128490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
84694305|NCT04793464|169128491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||0.017
84694306|NCT01374802|169128570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|131.13|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||131.13|101.36|
84694307|NCT01374802|169128571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|87.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.609|112.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||112.630|68.609|
84694308|NCT01374802|169128572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|128.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.724|142.489|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||142.489|115.724|
84694309|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||-0.6|-31.2|0.362
84694310|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.3|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.3|-24.8|0.729
84694311|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-7.1|-25.8|0.173
84694312|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-8.5|-21.3|0.185
84694313|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs placebo||-16.3|-46.9|0.020
84694314|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-14.5|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-14.5|-50.6|0.030
84694315|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-0.4|-26.3|0.456
84694316|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|4.4|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||4.4|-19.5|0.966
84694317|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.2|-21.4|0.275
84694318|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-5.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.9|-17.6|0.304
84694319|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) FAS|LS Mean change|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-9.8|-24.5|0.057
84694320|NCT02855164|169128579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B + C) FAS|LS Mean change|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-15.6|-30.5|0.003
84694321|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.0|-22.9|0.722
84694322|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||9.5|-14.0|0.468
84694323|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||-1.0|-16.7|0.774
84694324|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||4.9|-6.0|0.136
84694325|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-8.2|-23.9|0.145
84694326|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-6.4|-24.2|0.236
84694327|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||4.4|-18.7|0.788
84694328|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|11.0|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||11.0|-10.2|0.413
84694329|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||1.0|-13.4|0.833
84694330|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||7.3|-3.2|0.068
84694331|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||6.5|-6.6|0.269
84509489|NCT00661999|168770446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3852
84694332|NCT02855164|169128580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||2.9|-10.5|0.777
84694333|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.174||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.66|4.7|||ANCOVA|||10 microgramsof Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||4.70|-19.66|0.853
84509490|NCT00661999|168770446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0663
84694334|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||-2.91|-25.24|0.232
84694335|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-7.64|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.64|-22.45|0.077
84694336|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline|LS Mean change|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-7.44|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.44|-17.23|0.141
84694337|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.58|-20.92|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-20.92|-41.58|<0.001
84694338|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-39.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.37|-29.71|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-29.71|-49.37|<0.001
84694339|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.88|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||2.88|-19.06|0.872
84694340|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.198||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-3.91|-24.36|0.465
84694341|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.078||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-8.29|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.29|-21.75|0.228
84694342|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|-8.08|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.08|-17.04|0.370
84694343|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-18.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.517||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-12.91|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-12.91|-24.51|0.029
84694344|NCT02855164|169128581|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|-28.64|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-28.64|-40.13|<0.001
84509491|NCT00661999|168770446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3220
84509492|NCT00661999|168770447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1826
84509493|NCT00661999|168770447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0113
84694345|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.59|-2.99|0.010
84694346|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.34|-1.90|0.237
84694347|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.31|-1.80|0.037
84694348|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.65|-1.65|0.007
84694349|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.14|-7.05|0.053
84694350|NCT02855164|169128582|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-3.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.91|-7.87|0.013
84694351|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.23|-1.05|0.006
84694352|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.09|-0.67|0.177
84694353|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.10|-0.61|0.032
84694354|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.25|-0.59|0.003
84694355|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.24|-2.51|0.015
84694356|NCT02855164|169128583|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.46|-2.75|0.004
84694357|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.03|0.530
84694358|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.857
84694359|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.02|0.262
84694360|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.01|0.00|0.323
84694361|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.100
84694362|NCT02855164|169128584|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.03|0.693
84694363|NCT02855164|169128596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.223|-0.214|1.0000
84694364|NCT02855164|169128596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
84694365|NCT02855164|169128597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.246|-0.191|0.8070
84694366|NCT02855164|169128597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.052||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.273|-0.173|0.6233
84694367|NCT02855164|169128598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.233|-0.214|1.0000
84694368|NCT02855164|169128598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
84509494|NCT00661999|168770447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0||||Test Comparison for week 16 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3358
84694369|NCT02855164|169128599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.252|-0.184|0.7028
84694370|NCT02855164|169128599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.129||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.345|-0.098|0.1713
84694371|NCT02855164|169128600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (FDA, EMA) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.278|-0.168|0.2033
84694372|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694373|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694374|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694375|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.491
84694376|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
84694377|NCT00383240|169128630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84694378|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
84694379|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694380|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694381|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694382|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694383|NCT00383240|169128631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
84694384|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
84694385|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694386|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694387|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84509495|NCT00661999|168770448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9022||95.0||||Test comparison for Baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9022
84509496|NCT00661999|168770448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
84694388|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694389|NCT00383240|169128633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.738
84694390|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-Value for endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
84694391|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694392|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694393|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84694394|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84694395|NCT00383240|169128634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.601
84694396|NCT02044458|169128646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
84694397|NCT02044458|169128647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
84694398|NCT02044458|169128648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
84694399|NCT02802020|169128657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"We hypothesized that pain reduction (as defined in Study endpoints above) would be achieved in a performance goal of at least 53% of patients receiving the study SEMS. Assuming an observed pain reduction rate of 75% and using an exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, 43 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%."||||0.999
84694400|NCT02802020|169128658|SUPERIORITY|we hypothesized that the proportion of patients reporting one or more related SAE(s) would be below a performance goal of 32%. Assuming an observed SAE rate of 15% and using an exact test with one-sided alpha of 0.025, 57 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%.||||||0.513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.513
84694401|NCT01474512|169128664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694402|NCT01474512|169128664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694403|NCT01474512|169128665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694404|NCT01474512|169128665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694405|NCT01474512|169128666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
84694406|NCT01474512|169128666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
84694407|NCT01474512|169128667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694408|NCT01474512|169128667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694409|NCT01474512|169128667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
84694410|NCT01474512|169128667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
84694411|NCT01474512|169128668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694412|NCT01474512|169128668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694413|NCT01474512|169128669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694414|NCT01474512|169128669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694415|NCT01474512|169128670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694416|NCT01474512|169128670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694417|NCT01474512|169128671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694418|NCT01474512|169128671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694419|NCT01474512|169128672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694420|NCT01474512|169128672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694421|NCT01474512|169128673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694422|NCT01474512|169128673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694423|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for Absenteeism.||||||<0.001
84694424|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for absenteeism.||||||0.003
84509497|NCT00661999|168770448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0022
84509498|NCT00661999|168770449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1137
84694425|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
84694426|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
84694427|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
84694428|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
84694429|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
84694430|NCT01474512|169128674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
84694431|NCT01474512|169128675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84694432|NCT01474512|169128675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84694433|NCT01474512|169128676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
84694434|NCT01474512|169128676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
84694435|NCT01474512|169128676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
84694436|NCT01474512|169128676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
84694437|NCT01474512|169128677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694438|NCT01474512|169128677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84694439|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694440|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694441|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694442|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694443|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI100|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694444|NCT01474512|169128678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value if for PPASI100.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
84694445|NCT01154036|169128687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.7||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-8.7|-16.6|<0.001
84509499|NCT00661999|168770449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8042||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8042
84694446|NCT01154036|169128687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimate|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.4||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.4|-12.9|<0.001
84694447|NCT01154036|169128688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-5.1||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.1|-15.9|<0.001
84694448|NCT01154036|169128688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.5||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.5|-13.6|<0.001
84694449|NCT01154036|169128689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.89|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.89|1.62|<0.001
84694450|NCT01154036|169128689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||2.67|1.17|0.007
84694451|NCT01154036|169128690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.73|||Logistic regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||4.73|1.55|<0.001
84694452|NCT01154036|169128690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.63|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.63|1.56|<0.001
84509500|NCT00661999|168770449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2016
84509501|NCT00661999|168770450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1139||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1139
84509502|NCT00661999|168770450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0424
84694453|NCT01154036|169128691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|19.62|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||19.62|4.56|<0.001
84694454|NCT01154036|169128691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.82|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||6.82|2.23|<0.001
84694455|NCT01154036|169128692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|211.83|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||211.83|3.64|0.001
84694456|NCT01154036|169128692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|17.56|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||17.56|2.85|<0.001
84694457|NCT01154036|169128693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.4|-9.7|<0.001
84694458|NCT01154036|169128693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-8.3|<0.001
84694459|NCT01154036|169128694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.0|-10.7|<0.001
84694460|NCT01154036|169128694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-10.2|<0.001
84694461|NCT01154036|169128695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-2.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||3.5|-7.8|0.466
84694462|NCT01154036|169128695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-4.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||0.5|-10.3|0.081
84694463|NCT01154036|169128696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-2.8||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.7|-10.2|0.466
84694464|NCT01154036|169128696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squarres Means|-7.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||-1.6|-12.6|0.011
84694465|NCT01154036|169128697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M--estimates|1.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||4.0|-0.5|0.133
84694466|NCT01154036|169128697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.6|-2.7|0.610
84694467|NCT01154036|169128698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||2.1|-4.2|0.520
84509503|NCT00661999|168770450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2025||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2025
84509504|NCT05905783|168770499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|2.2|0.0183
84694468|NCT01154036|169128698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.7||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.7|-3.1|0.567
84694469|NCT01154036|169128699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.8|-8.8|0.003
84694470|NCT01154036|169128699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.0|-7.7|0.011
84694471|NCT01154036|169128700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.5|-9.2|0.079
84694472|NCT01154036|169128700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.1|-11.4|<0.001
84694473|NCT01154036|169128701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|1.6||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.8|-0.6|0.156
84694474|NCT01154036|169128701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.2|-2.9|0.425
84694475|NCT01154036|169128702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|0.5||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.6|-2.5|0.739
84694476|NCT01154036|169128702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.3|-3.3|0.410
84694477|NCT01154036|169128703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.6|-13.6|<0.001
84694478|NCT01154036|169128703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-4.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.3|-10.9|<0.001
84694479|NCT01154036|169128704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-14.0|<0.001
84694480|NCT01154036|169128704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.2|-13.5|0.001
84694481|NCT01154036|169128705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
84694482|NCT01154036|169128705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.9|-7.8|0.001
84509505|NCT05905783|168770500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.7|0.0007
84509506|NCT05905783|168770501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|6.1|0.0008
84694483|NCT01154036|169128706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.8|-11.0|<0.001
84694484|NCT01154036|169128706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
84694485|NCT01154036|169128707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-9.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-9.3|-18.1|<0.001
84694486|NCT01154036|169128707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.6|-11.9|<0.001
84694487|NCT01154036|169128708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-15.8|<0.001
84694488|NCT01154036|169128708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.5|<0.001
84694489|NCT01154036|169128709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.5|-10.0|<0.001
84694490|NCT01154036|169128709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-3.5||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.0|-7.1|0.052
84694491|NCT01154036|169128710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-0.8|-10.8|0.024
84694492|NCT01154036|169128710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.3|-9.9|0.002
84694493|NCT01154036|169128711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-6.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.4|-14.9|<0.001
84694494|NCT01154036|169128711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.2|-10.2|0.002
84694495|NCT01154036|169128712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.9|-14.8|<0.001
84509507|NCT05905783|168770502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|0.2|0.0462
84509508|NCT05905783|168770503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|-14.3|0.6285
84509509|NCT05905783|168770504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.88|-3.44|0.0011
84694496|NCT01154036|169128712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.6|<0.001
84509510|NCT05905783|168770505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.7|9.6|0.0013
84509511|NCT05905783|168770506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.6|2.1|0.0245
84694497|NCT01154036|169128713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-3.9||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||11.1|-18.9|0.613
84694498|NCT01154036|169128713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-1.5||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||12.6|-15.7|0.831
84694499|NCT01154036|169128714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||6.4|-32.6|0.187
84509512|NCT01508936|168770532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference|0.3007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|||||The interaction was tested at the significance level 0.10 using the FAS|Regression, Linear||Active - Placebo|The primary analysis was the linear regression model with model effects including treatment (reslizumab or placebo), blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count. A significant treatment by baseline eosinophil interaction would indicate that treatment difference varies by the baseline eosinophil count.||||0.2407
84509513|NCT01508936|168770533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.158||Statistical significance level is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|treatment, blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count as fixed effects.|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.158|-0.006|0.0697
84663194|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.228||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.228|0.609|0.4134
84663195|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.355||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.355|0.643|0.7166
84694500|NCT01154036|169128714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|4.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.4|-27.7|0.153
84694501|NCT04076020|169128715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Results presented from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with PDC as the dependent variable.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) at 12 months. A sample size of 119 in each study arm enabled us to detect a minimum difference in PDC of 11.7% with 85% power (assuming a standard deviation=30%). Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.99
84694502|NCT04076020|169128715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) analyzed as a binary variable with optimal adherence determined as ≥0.80) variables using logistic regression and adjustment for trial stratification factors. Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||<0.05
84694503|NCT04076020|169128716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Difference in self-reported adherence reported across baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-month visits using generalized estimating equations and adjusted for trial stratification factors.||||<0.05
84694504|NCT03230864|169128723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The mean changes from randomization in PANNS total score was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model will include the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed covariates of baseline scores and baseline scores-by-visit interaction. An unstructured (co)variance structure will be used to model the within-patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||11.65|-0.70|0.0809
84694505|NCT00432679|169128728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||Change from Baseline in HbA1c = Treatment+ Baseline HbA1c+ Gender+ body mass index (BMI)|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
84694506|NCT00432679|169128729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.1|||Unpaired t-test|||||-12.1|-32.1|<0.001
84694507|NCT00432679|169128730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8102||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|2.319|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.319|-0.883|0.377
84694508|NCT00432679|169128731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.094||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|2.09|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.09|-6.18|0.330
84694509|NCT00432679|169128732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.925|||Unpaired t-test|||||0.925|-0.945|0.983
84694510|NCT00432679|169128733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.556||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|15.248|||Unpaired t-test|||||15.248|1.191|0.022
84694511|NCT00432679|169128734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|9.91|||Unpaired t-test|||||9.91|6.52|<0.001
84694512|NCT00432679|169128735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.35|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of leptin.|||1.35|-0.05|0.069
84694513|NCT00432679|169128735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-888.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.96||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2477.7|700.1|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of hs-CRP|||700.1|-2477.7|0.271
84694514|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, decrease by 0.7%|||54.1|27.1|
84694515|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.8|||||Comparison of HbA1c, fell below 6.5%|||13.8|-0.3|
84694516|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, satisfied either 1 or 2|||54.1|27.1|
84694517|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|36.6|||||Comparison of FPG, decrease of 30 milligrams per decilliter|||36.6|9.5|
84694518|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|18.9|||||Comparison of FPG, fell below 126 milligrams per deciliter|||18.9|-5.1|
84694519|NCT00432679|169128736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|35.3|||||Comparison of FPG, satisfied either 1 or 2|||35.3|5.6|
84694520|NCT03220737|169128741|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
84694521|NCT03220737|169128742|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
84694522|NCT03220737|169128743|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
84694523|NCT03220737|169128744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|2.4|7.1|||||Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions|||7.1|2.4|
84694524|NCT03220737|169128745|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-0.3|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.3|
84694525|NCT03220737|169128746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-1.1|6.4||||||||6.4|-1.1|
84694526|NCT03220737|169128747|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694527|NCT03220737|169128748|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694528|NCT03220737|169128749|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694529|NCT03220737|169128753|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84509514|NCT01508936|168770534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0762||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.027||significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Fixed effects for treatment, hx of asthma exacerbation, sex, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit; covariates for height and baseline value|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.027|-0.273|0.1072
84509515|NCT02518685|168770562|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|8.81|||multiple imputations|||||8.81|4.54|<0.0001
84694530|NCT03220737|169128754|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694531|NCT01284140|169128791|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|The null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was not rejected for the Usual Care group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Usual Care group.||||0.37
84694532|NCT01284140|169128791|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|This result suggests that the best-fit values for amplitude and phase are different between Day 1 and Day 3 in the Sleep Promotion group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Sleep promotion group.||||0.0074
84694533|NCT01284140|169128792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84694534|NCT01284140|169128793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. This resulted in 4 separate best-fit curves. The model parameter of amplitude was derived from the best-fit curves.||||0.03
84694535|NCT01225835|169128912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84694536|NCT01225835|169128912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \< 39 years||||0.015
84694537|NCT01225835|169128912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \>= 39 years||||0.027
84694538|NCT01225835|169128914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84694539|NCT01225835|169128915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84694540|NCT01225835|169128916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
84694541|NCT01225835|169128917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Level of significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84694542|NCT01225835|169128918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84694543|NCT01225835|169128920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
84694544|NCT01225835|169128921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.871
84694545|NCT01225835|169128922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84694546|NCT01225835|169128923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
84694547|NCT01225835|169128924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
84694548|NCT01225835|169128925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
84694549|NCT01225835|169128926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
84694550|NCT01225835|169128927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
84694551|NCT01225835|169128928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84694552|NCT02293837|169128949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52; Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 mAUC.||||0.277
84694553|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.499
84694554|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.267
84694555|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.226
84694556|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.758
84694557|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.341
84694558|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
84694559|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.689
84694560|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.400
84694561|NCT02293837|169128950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
84694562|NCT02293837|169128951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.679
84694563|NCT02293837|169128951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.373
84694564|NCT02293837|169128951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.395
84694565|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.176
84694566|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.285
84694567|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.435
84694568|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.931
84694569|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.280
84694570|NCT02293837|169128952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.985
84694571|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.762
84694572|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.640
84694573|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.145
84694574|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.033
84694575|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline avg insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.591
84694576|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.810
84694577|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.178
84694578|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.430
84694579|NCT02293837|169128953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.149
84694580|NCT02293837|169128954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.103
84694581|NCT02293837|169128954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.452
84694582|NCT02293837|169128954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.091
84694583|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.154
84694584|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.193
84694585|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.397
84694586|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.125
84694587|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.705
84694588|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.378
84694589|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.035
84694590|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.262
84694591|NCT02293837|169128955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.338
84694592|NCT02293837|169128956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.493
84694593|NCT02293837|169128956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.659
84694594|NCT02293837|169128956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.407
84694595|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.634
84694596|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
84694597|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.329
84694598|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
84694599|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.847
84694600|NCT02293837|169128957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||0.858
84509516|NCT02518685|168770563|SUPERIORITY|Statistical success criterion for achieving the performance standard of (≥ 50%) of proportion of TPS subjects who have 5% or more TBL at the 12-Month Follow-up|Proportion of Subjects|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|74.3|||Wilson's Midpoint Estimate|||||74.3|59.3|<0.0001
84694601|NCT02293837|169128958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.296
84694602|NCT02293837|169128958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.145
84694603|NCT02293837|169128958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.027
84694604|NCT02293837|169128959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.547
84694605|NCT02293837|169128959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.551
84694606|NCT04779242|169128960|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in early clinical success rate between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.8|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||6.8|-3.0|
84694607|NCT04779242|169128961|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups.|Percentage difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.4|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||3.4|-6.9|
84694608|NCT04779242|169128962|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.0|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||2.0|-5.7|
84694609|NCT01757067|169128963|OTHER|The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||||||||||||||||The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||
84694610|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.27||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||0.04|-0.58|0.087
84694611|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.52|-1.15|<0.001
84694612|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.08|-0.69|0.014
84694613|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.99|<0.001
84694614|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.93||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.93|-1.55|<0.001
84694615|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.66||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.66|-1.28|<0.001
84694616|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.78||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.78|-1.39|<0.001
84694617|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.39|-1.01|<0.001
84694618|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
84694619|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.36||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.62|0.008
84694620|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.6||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.60|-1.13|<0.001
84694621|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.36||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.10|-0.63|0.007
84694622|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
84694623|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.99||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.99|-1.52|<0.001
84694624|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.63||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.63|-1.16|<0.001
84694625|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.74||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.74|-1.26|<0.001
84694626|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.37||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.90|<0.001
84694627|NCT01076088|169128964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.12|-0.65|0.004
84694628|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-18.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-3.29||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-3.29|-33.75|0.017
84694629|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-61.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.61|-46.07||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-46.07|-76.61|<0.001
84694630|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-31.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|-16.28||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-16.28|-46.49|<0.001
84694631|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-48.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-33.67||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-33.67|-64.21|<0.001
84694632|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-87.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.87|-72.27||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-72.27|-102.87|<0.001
84694633|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-69.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.41|-53.7||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-53.70|-84.41|<0.001
84694634|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-75.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.47|-59.87||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-59.87|-90.47|<0.001
84694635|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.99|-28.58||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-28.58|-58.99|<0.001
84694636|NCT01076088|169128965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-10.84||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-10.84|-41.62|<0.001
84694637|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.11||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|0.64||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||0.64|-16.86|0.069
84694638|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-25.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-17.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-17.04|-34.72|<0.001
84694639|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.72||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|3.0||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||3.00|-14.44|0.198
84694640|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-17.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-8.72||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-8.72|-26.33|<0.001
84694641|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-35.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.56|-27.06||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-27.06|-44.56|<0.001
84694642|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-19.0||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-19.00|-36.40|<0.001
84694643|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|-18.73||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-18.73|-36.18|<0.001
84694644|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.42|-13.04||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-13.04|-30.42|<0.001
84694645|NCT01076088|169128966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.93||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-1.14||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-1.14|-18.72|0.027
84509517|NCT00336024|168770564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||The CR rates between these two groups will be compared at a significance level of 0.1 using one-sided Chi-square test.||||0.35
84694646|NCT02571439|169128983|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84694647|NCT02571439|169128984|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84694648|NCT02571439|169128985|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
84694649|NCT02571439|169128986|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.46
84694650|NCT02571439|169128987|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
84694651|NCT02571439|169128988|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84694652|NCT02571439|169128989|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84694653|NCT02571439|169128990|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.87
84694654|NCT02571439|169128991|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84694655|NCT02571439|169128992|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.91
84694656|NCT01448044|169129000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|38.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.703|55.997||The pvalue was based on the CochranMantelHaenszel (CMH) test, stratified by IL28B host genotype, geography, and baseline cirrhosis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.997|21.703|<0.0001
84694657|NCT00507026|169129007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694658|NCT00507026|169129007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694659|NCT00507026|169129008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694660|NCT00507026|169129008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694661|NCT00507026|169129009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694662|NCT00507026|169129009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84509518|NCT00336024|168770566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using a one-sided log-rank test with a significance level 0.1.||||0.2
84694663|NCT00507026|169129010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694664|NCT00507026|169129010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694665|NCT00507026|169129011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694666|NCT00507026|169129011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84694667|NCT04230980|169129032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean NRS-11 score at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||-0.24|-2.02|0.01
84694668|NCT04230980|169129033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean number of opioid tablets taken at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||0.03|-0.13|0.19
84694669|NCT00318149|169129046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS25 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.7|1.16||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS25 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.16|0.7|
84694670|NCT00318149|169129046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS50 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.71|1.56||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS50 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.56|0.71|
84694671|NCT00318149|169129046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01B Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.38||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01B administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.38|0.79|
84694672|NCT00318149|169129046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01E Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.44||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01E administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.44|0.79|
84694673|NCT01952301|169129081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis of the study evaluated whether CM was not inferior to Control in the generation of KT width from baseline to 6 months. A paired t-test was used to test for non-inferiority, using a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 mm.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84694674|NCT03055832|169129102|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.56||||||||3.56|-3.82|
84694675|NCT03055832|169129103|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.97|
84694676|NCT03055832|169129104|OTHER|A formal hypothesis was not proposed for this endpoint and therefore a power calculation was not performed. A Fisher's Exact test was performed post hoc to determine if a significant difference existed between the two arms.||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84694677|NCT03055832|169129105|NON_INFERIORITY|A standard deviation of 14 was assumed based on pilot data and the non-inferiority delta was set to 7. The chosen sample size and alpha = 0.025 provides 80% power for this endpoint|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|2.59||||||All questions||2.59|-8.75|
84694678|NCT04285229|169129120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|21.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.76|2.68|<0.001
84694679|NCT04285229|169129121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|16.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.90|2.42|<0.001
84694680|NCT04285229|169129122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.31|0.006
84509519|NCT00336024|168770567|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The two groups will be compared for patterns of failure to detect a statistically significant difference using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
84694681|NCT04285229|169129123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.38|<0.001
84694682|NCT04285229|169129124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.04|<0.001
84694683|NCT04285229|169129125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.43|0.002
84694684|NCT04285229|169129126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-10.85|<0.001
84694685|NCT04285229|169129127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.17|1.07|0.001
84694686|NCT04285229|169129128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.79|-1.77|0.660
84694687|NCT04285229|169129129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.59|-15.91|<0.001
84694688|NCT04285229|169129130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.57|<0.001
84694689|NCT04285229|169129131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.54|0.086
84694690|NCT04285229|169129132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.71|<0.001
84694691|NCT01012973|169129137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value shows Eylea showed a higher BCVA total score compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested. In the database close after Week 24, basis for primary efficacy evaluation, 56 Sham / 96 Eylea subjects were considered as week 24 completers.||52.1|24.4|<.0001
84694692|NCT01012973|169129138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.7||As primary efficacy evaluation was significant, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusting for region and baseline BCVA category as fixed factors.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in BCVA letter score was to be tested first in this sequence.||18.7|10.8|<.0001
84694693|NCT01012973|169129139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) means|-239.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.31|-192.53||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in BCVA until week 24, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category, baseline central retinal thickness added as covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A negative value indicates Eylea showed a higher reduction in change in central retinal thickness until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in central retinal thickness between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy end points were to be tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in central retinal thickness was to be tested at second place in this sequence.||-192.53|-286.31|<.0001
84694694|NCT01012973|169129140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted Difference|-1.5||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in CRT until week 24, and this p-value was not below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did end with this evaluation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category.||Nullhypothesis of no difference in development of neovascularizations between Eylea and Sham group was tested. (Any neovascularization)||4.4|-7.4|0.5947
84694695|NCT01012973|169129141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.8|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||6.8|1.7|
84694696|NCT01012973|169129142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.09|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||0.09|-0.002|
84694697|NCT02341144|169129161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84694698|NCT02341144|169129162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84694699|NCT02341144|169129163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84694700|NCT02341144|169129164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84694701|NCT02341144|169129165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84694702|NCT03216902|169129167|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84694703|NCT03216902|169129167|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84694704|NCT03216902|169129167|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84694705|NCT03216902|169129167|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
84694706|NCT01857622|169129187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no statistical test||||26.8|-14.7|
84694707|NCT01857622|169129187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|25.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.2|-15.4|
84694708|NCT00064025|169129207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.701
84694709|NCT00064025|169129208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
84694710|NCT00064025|169129209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
84694711|NCT01370603|169129210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence was declared if the 97.5% expanded confidence interval for the mean difference between the fixed-dose combination and co-administration in percent change from baseline was contained within ±4%.|Difference in Least-squares means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.08% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||1.4|-1.9|
84694712|NCT01370603|169129211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.4|
84694713|NCT01370603|169129212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|
84694714|NCT01370603|169129213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|
84694715|NCT01370603|169129214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.9|
84694716|NCT01370603|169129215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|4.9|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.9|-4.9|
84694717|NCT00518713|169129217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0120
84694718|NCT00518713|169129217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0015
84694719|NCT00518713|169129217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694720|NCT00518713|169129218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0027
84694721|NCT00518713|169129218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694722|NCT00518713|169129218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694723|NCT00518713|169129219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1041
84694724|NCT00518713|169129219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2207
84694725|NCT00518713|169129219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0025
84694726|NCT00518713|169129220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1469
84694727|NCT00518713|169129220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0161
84694728|NCT00518713|169129220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0024
84694729|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1324
84694730|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0026
84694731|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0004
84694732|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.3383
84694733|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0159
84694734|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694735|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0279
84694736|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0010
84694737|NCT00518713|169129221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694738|NCT00518713|169129228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.7210
84694739|NCT00518713|169129228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2505||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2505
84509520|NCT00336024|168770568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||Difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using log-rank test.||||0.74
84509521|NCT00336024|168770569|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of acute hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
84509522|NCT00336024|168770575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of chronic hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||0.8
84694740|NCT00518713|169129228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0924||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0924
84694741|NCT00518713|169129229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0414
84694742|NCT00518713|169129229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0044
84694743|NCT00518713|169129229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
84694744|NCT01644474|169129241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-23.0|-40.2|<0.0001
84694745|NCT01644474|169129242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-21.2|-35.7|<0.0001
84694746|NCT01644474|169129243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.3|<0.0001
84694747|NCT01644474|169129244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-17.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.4|-33.5|<0.0001
84509523|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.27
84509524|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.07
84509525|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.2
84509526|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 1. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.4
84694748|NCT01644474|169129245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.7|-24.7|<0.0001
84694749|NCT01644474|169129246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-19.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.8|-31.5|<0.0001
84694750|NCT01644474|169129247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.4|<0.0001
84694751|NCT01644474|169129248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-13.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.5|-23.1|<0.0001
84694752|NCT01644474|169129249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|139.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||139.0|8.7|<0.0001
84694753|NCT01644474|169129250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|556.0||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||556.0|8.8|0.0001
84694754|NCT01644474|169129251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|-14.8|0.4013
84694755|NCT00050089|169129259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.165||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.585|||Log Rank||The comparison was Mega-ART (intensification) vs Standard-ART (standard).|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.585|0.856|0.69
84694756|NCT00050089|169129260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.275|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank analysis was performed.||1.275|0.674|0.49
84694757|NCT00050089|169129261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified Log-rank test was used to compare the four treatment||||0.87
84694758|NCT00050089|169129262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Log Rank||The comparison was Standard-ART (standard) vs Mega-ART (intensification)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison||1.35|0.75|0.92
84694759|NCT00050089|169129263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation) of ART|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.46|0.8|0.68
84694760|NCT01216293|169129274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.2|7.0|
84694761|NCT01216293|169129274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|30.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.4|6.7|
84694762|NCT01216293|169129275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|27.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.749|42.957|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||42.957|12.749|
84694763|NCT01216293|169129275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|22.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.357|35.714|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||35.714|8.357|
84694764|NCT01216293|169129276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|34.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||34.4|4.0|
84694765|NCT01216293|169129276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|28.3|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||28.3|-2.7|
84694766|NCT01216293|169129277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.78|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.78|0.40|
84694767|NCT01216293|169129277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.86|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.86|0.59|
84694768|NCT01682538|169129325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|0.81|
84694769|NCT01682538|169129326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.85|
84694770|NCT01682538|169129327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25).|Ratio of geometric means|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.96|
84694771|NCT01682538|169129328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.90|0.71|
84694772|NCT00777803|169129341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe confidence interval for proportions (paired data) was applied. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval of the difference in response rates between groups was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -15%.|difference of response rates|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Difference of response rates = response rate in IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) - response rate in OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®)|Null Hypothesis: Response rate of IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) minus the response rate of OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®) is lower or equal -15% (non-inferiority margin).||7.1|-3.2|
84694773|NCT00377741|169129357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for AUC(0-tau)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.55||||||||1.55|0.98|
84694774|NCT00377741|169129358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for Cmax|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||||||||1.42|0.88|
84694775|NCT01852162|169129362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with a general linear model, using the corresponding baseline PD value as a covariate, was used to evaluate the comparisons between dabigatran and placebo at 7 days.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a 20% relative difference in TRAP induced MPA between dabigatran and placebo with a common standard deviation of 10%, 13 patients with available data needed to be randomized to obtain a 95% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||||<0.05
84694776|NCT01500226|169129367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
84694777|NCT01500226|169129368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.6|0.9|0.143
84509527|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 2. The difference in the number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.38
84694778|NCT01500226|169129369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
84694779|NCT04212169|169129378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.981||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.67|16.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||16.22|-13.67|0.888
84694780|NCT04212169|169129378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.756||0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.36|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||22.10|-10.36|0.549
84694781|NCT04212169|169129378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.014||0.807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|9.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||9.95|-13.38|0.807
84694782|NCT04212169|169129380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|9.94|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||9.94|0.19|0.6396
84694783|NCT04212169|169129380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|6.38|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||6.38|0.03|0.9999
84694784|NCT04212169|169129380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|10.49|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||10.49|0.91|0.0935
84694785|NCT04212169|169129382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|119.65|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than one favour MEDI3506|||119.65|0.08|0.4450
84694786|NCT04212169|169129382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||28.0|0.0|0.9999
84694787|NCT04212169|169129382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|130.35|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||130.35|0.75|0.1132
84694788|NCT02819479|169129410|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 8.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF RADIATION NECROSIS: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.012
84694789|NCT02819479|169129410|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 3.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF CEREBRAL EDEMA: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.09
84694790|NCT02819479|169129411|OTHER||eta^2|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 2.74||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) TOTAL SCORES were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance)||||0.02
84694791|NCT02819479|169129412|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 3.17||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) DAYS OF HEADACHE were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.019
84694792|NCT02819479|169129413|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,35) = 3.96||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) MIDAS PAIN LEVEL data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.0006
84694793|NCT02819479|169129414|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5, 35) = 2.98||To explore durability of clinical response, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.02
84694794|NCT02819479|169129415|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,14) = 1.62||To explore durability of clinical response, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (KPS) data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.23
84694795|NCT02819479|169129416|OTHER||Pearson's r|-0.199||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Z = -0.889||Wilcoxon signed rank test (2-sided) was used to compare the total number of days on steroids in the 12 months prior versus the 12 months immediately following single dose IA Avastin (bevacizumab).||||0.374
84694796|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.153||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.451||DIGITS FORWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS FORWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.660
84694797|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.602||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 3.78||DIGITS BACKWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS BACKWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.100
84694798|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.532||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 2.847||NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.149
84694799|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.721||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 6.470||NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.041
84694800|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.566||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F (2,5) = 3.256||NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.124
84694801|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.042||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.110||NAMING: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NAMING variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.898
84694802|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.107||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.299||LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.754
84694803|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.751||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 7.556||LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.031
84694804|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.289||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.018||SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.426
84694805|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.361||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.412||SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.326
84694806|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.247||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.790
84694807|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.239||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.786||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.505
84509528|NCT00336024|168770576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.7
84663196|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||||0.386
84663197|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and disease risk (Low/Intermediate vs. High) for CRFS.||||0.461
84663198|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||Cox proportional hazards regression|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Age (\<=50 vs. \>50) for CRFS.||||0.115
84663199|NCT02345850|169059984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Disease (AML vs. ALL vs. MDS) for CRFS.||||0.227
84663200|NCT02345850|169059985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.744||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.8||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control.||2.800|1.086|0.0197
84663201|NCT02345850|169059985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.724||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control.||1.724|0.599|0.9525
84509529|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.08
84509530|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.9
84663202|NCT02345850|169059985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.774||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.877||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide.||2.877|1.093|0.0185
84663203|NCT02345850|169059985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.026
84663204|NCT02345850|169059986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Relapse-Free Survival between the treatment groups.||||0.029
84694808|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.636||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 4.362||DESIGN CONSTRUCTION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DESIGN CONSTRUCTION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.080
84694809|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.693||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 5.654||MAZES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the MAZES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.052
84694810|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.013||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.033||CATEGORIES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the CATEGORIES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.968
84694811|NCT02819479|169129417|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.261||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.884||WORD GENERATION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the WORD GENERATION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.469
84694812|NCT05454449|169129486|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84694813|NCT05454449|169129487|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84694814|NCT05454449|169129488|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
84694815|NCT05454449|169129489|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84694816|NCT05454449|169129490|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84694817|NCT05454449|169129491|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84694818|NCT05454449|169129492|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84694819|NCT01950273|169129534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) mean ratio|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.42|106.29|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||106.29|75.42|
84694820|NCT01950273|169129535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|94.6||||||90.0|85.04|105.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.23|85.04|
84694821|NCT01950273|169129536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|89.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|104.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||104.23|77.62|
84694822|NCT01950273|169129537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|105.42|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.42|90.45|
84694823|NCT01950273|169129538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|249.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.6|709.0|||||Mean difference calculated as BI 695500-Rituximab (MabThera®).|||709|-210.6|
84694824|NCT01950273|169129540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|11.1|||||Difference in ORR calculated as ORR (BI695500) - ORR (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||11.1|-29.4|
84694825|NCT01950273|169129541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|22.1|||||Difference in TEAE incidence calculated as BI695500 - TEAE incidence (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||22.1|-18.0|
84694826|NCT01254565|169129542|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-76.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.9|-50.0|||ANOVA|A rank analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-50.0|-86.9|<0.0001
84694827|NCT01254565|169129542|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-13.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-13.6|-59.8|0.0032
84694828|NCT01254565|169129543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694829|NCT01254565|169129543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
84694830|NCT01254565|169129544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84694831|NCT01254565|169129544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0730
84694832|NCT01254565|169129545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-8.4|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-8.4|-16.4|< 0.0001
84694833|NCT01254565|169129545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.0|-12.8|0.0235
84694834|NCT01254565|169129546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|5.7|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.7|-18.6|0.2255
84694835|NCT01254565|169129546|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-21.8||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.9|-29.8|0.1751
84694836|NCT01254565|169129547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-4.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-4.9|-26.8|0.0112
84509531|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
84509532|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.3
84663205|NCT02345850|169059986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the RFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.145
84663206|NCT02345850|169059987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Transplant-Related Mortality between the treatment groups.||||0.020
84663207|NCT02345850|169059987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the TRM hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.040
84663208|NCT02345850|169059988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2389||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant between the treatment groups.||||0.2389
84663209|NCT02345850|169059988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cohen's Kappa|||The null hypothesis is that there is no agreement between CRFS and immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant.||||<0.0001
84663210|NCT02345850|169059989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups.||||0.076
84663211|NCT02345850|169059989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.106
84663212|NCT02345850|169059990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Engraftment post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0764
84694837|NCT01254565|169129547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-1.6|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.6|-39.3|0.0554
84694838|NCT03123263|169129594|OTHER|Repeated measures one sided ANOVA was used to analyze changes in ejection fraction over time.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|F (2,98) =13.974||||||<0.0005
84509533|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.26
84509534|NCT00336024|168770577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
84663213|NCT02345850|169059991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet recovery post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0001
84663214|NCT02345850|169059993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Secondary graft failure post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.1478
84663215|NCT02345850|169059994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0026
84663216|NCT02345850|169059994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0369
84663217|NCT02345850|169059994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade II-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.002
84663218|NCT02345850|169059994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade III-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.046
84663219|NCT02345850|169059996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0024
84694839|NCT03249376|169129604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.83|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.83|-6.34|<0.0001
84694840|NCT03249376|169129605|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.51|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.51|-1.37|<0.0001
84694841|NCT03249376|169129606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.69|||ANCOVA|||||7.69|1.42|0.005
84694842|NCT02264574|169129634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.367|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.367|0.145|<0.0001
84694843|NCT02264574|169129635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.307|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.307|0.046|< 0.0001
84694844|NCT02264574|169129636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5253
84694845|NCT02264574|169129637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5465
84694846|NCT02264574|169129638|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.208||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.373|||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.373|1.062|0.0035
84694847|NCT02264574|169129639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.772|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.772|0.479|0.8057
84694848|NCT02264574|169129640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0835|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR Preferred Term~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.0835
84694849|NCT02264574|169129640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1944|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR By Customized SMQ~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.1944
84694850|NCT02264574|169129641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.0045
84694851|NCT02264574|169129642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.8590
84694852|NCT02264574|169129643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.282|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.282|0.102|< 0.0001
84694853|NCT02264574|169129644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
84694854|NCT02264574|169129645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1612
84694855|NCT02264574|169129646|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.125||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.25|||Chi-squared|||||1.250|1.013|0.0273
84694856|NCT02264574|169129647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.973|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.973|0.595|0.7934
84694857|NCT02264574|169129648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0050
84694858|NCT02264574|169129649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.389|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.389|0.162|< 0.0001
84694859|NCT03954158|169129668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.7|0.0071
84694860|NCT03954158|169129668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-3.3|0.0029
84694861|NCT03954158|169129668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|0.0250
84694862|NCT03954158|169129668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-3.3|0.0014
84694863|NCT03954158|169129669|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-2.0|
84694864|NCT03954158|169129669|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-2.1|
84694865|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-3.1|
84509535|NCT03311646|168770628|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.4||alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p-value: p=0.27|1.4|-1.27|0.92
84694866|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|
84694867|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.2|
84694868|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.8|
84509536|NCT03311646|168770629|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.66||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of cigarette per day during VLNC condition to cigarette per day during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.23|2.66|-0.41|0.15
84694869|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-1.5|
84509537|NCT03311646|168770630|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference=VLNC-NNC|Comparison of Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during VLNC condition to Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.95|4.60|1.77|<0.001
84509538|NCT03311646|168770631|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.5||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.94|2.5|-2.0|0.84
84694870|NCT03954158|169129670|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.2|
84694871|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-0.9|
84694872|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.9|
84694873|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-0.8|
84694874|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.8|
84694875|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.4|
84509539|NCT02906709|168770657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.66|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-0.66|-1.15|<0.001
84509540|NCT02906709|168770658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.8|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|21.8|-8.4|
84694876|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.3|
84694877|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-1.4|
84694878|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
84694879|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
84694880|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-1.4|
84694881|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.5|
84694882|NCT03954158|169129671|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
84694883|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.0|
84694884|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
84694885|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.7|-0.5|
84509541|NCT02906709|168770660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.4|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-12.8|
84694886|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
84694887|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-0.9|
84694888|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.9|
84694889|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.1|
84694890|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
84694891|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.4|-0.6|
84694892|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.9|
84694893|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
84694894|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.1|
84694895|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.1|
84694896|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.1|
84694897|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-0.6|
84694898|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
84694899|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
84694900|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.6|
84694901|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.0|
84694902|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
84694903|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.6|
84694904|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.4|
84694905|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
84694906|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.6|-0.7|
84694907|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.3|
84663220|NCT02345850|169059996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.005
84663221|NCT02345850|169059997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Chronic GVHD-free Survival post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.229
84663222|NCT02345850|169059999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Superiority - Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades II-III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0006
84694908|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
84694909|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
84694910|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.7|
84694911|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: MMRM included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.3|
84694912|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.7|
84694913|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.0|
84694914|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
84694915|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.9|
84694916|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.8|
84694917|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.0|
84694918|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.3|
84694919|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-1.9|
84694920|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.8|
84694921|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
84694922|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-2.2|
84694923|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.5|
84694924|NCT03954158|169129672|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.4|
84694925|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
84694926|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
84694927|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.5|
84694928|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.6|
84694929|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
84694930|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
84694931|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.1|
84694932|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.8|-0.8|
84694933|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.9|
84694934|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.2|
84694935|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
84694936|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.8|
84694937|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
84694938|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-0.9|
84694939|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
84694940|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.0|
84694941|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-1.0|
84694942|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.2|
84694943|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.3|
84694944|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.4|
84694945|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
84694946|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
84694947|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
84694948|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.2|
84694949|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.3|
84694950|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.6|-1.0|
84694951|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.8|
84694952|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.6|
84694953|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.4|
84694954|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
84694955|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.9|
84694956|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
84694957|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
84694958|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.5|
84694959|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
84694960|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.1|
84694961|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.4|
84694962|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
84509542|NCT02906709|168770662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-5.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-5.4|-24.5|0.002
84694963|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
84694964|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
84694965|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
84694966|NCT03954158|169129673|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
84694967|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.9|
84694968|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.6|
84694969|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
84694970|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
84694971|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.5|
84694972|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.6|
84694973|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.1|
84694974|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.5|
84694975|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-2.4|
84694976|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.2|
84694977|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-1.3|
84509543|NCT02906709|168770663|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|5.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.5|-0.7|0.065
84694978|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-1.7|
84694979|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
84694980|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.4|
84694981|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.7|
84694982|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.0|
84694983|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
84694984|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.9|
84694985|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
84694986|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.4|
84694987|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.9|
84694988|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
84694989|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.9|
84694990|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-2.4|
84694991|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
84694992|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.5|
84694993|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.6|
84694994|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
84694995|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.2|
84694996|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-2.2|
84694997|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.9|
84694998|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.4|
84694999|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.9|
84695000|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-2.5|
84695001|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.4|
84695002|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-3.0|
84695003|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.5|
84695004|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.8|
84695005|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-2.5|
84695006|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
84695007|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.2|
84695008|NCT03954158|169129674|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.8|
84695009|NCT02080520|169129683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
84695010|NCT02080520|169129684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
84695011|NCT02080520|169129685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84695012|NCT00390455|169129687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis then is that the hazard ratio of the two treatment arms is 1.0; the alternative hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of the control to the experimental regimen is 1.5 (0.67). The test of these hypotheses is one-sided (alpha = 0.025), and interim analyses will be used to stop for futility and superiority. Under these assumptions, there is at least 90% power to detect the stated difference in median PFS between the two treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Tests were stratified by prior tamoxifen therapy (yes/no) and bone disease only (yes/no).|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.82|0.37
84695013|NCT00684983|169129784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis of the primary endpoint, PFS, will be performed using Cox regression with treatment group as a single covariate.||1.89|0.58|.89
84695014|NCT00684983|169129785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|0.5|0.93
84695015|NCT00684983|169129786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|.53|.66
84695016|NCT00684983|169129788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|.09|.26
84695017|NCT01603940|169129806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.616
84695018|NCT01603940|169129807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
84695019|NCT01603940|169129808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
84695020|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori alpha level was \< 0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.02
84509544|NCT02906709|168770664|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|1.6||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|5.8|-4.7|0.334
84663223|NCT02345850|169059999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0145
84663224|NCT02392247|169060008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'.Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming Regression||Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG measurement as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements)||0.44|0.26|<0.001
84663225|NCT02392247|169060009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.4||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'. Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming regression|Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements )||3.4|2.9|<0.001
84663226|NCT01991067|169060013|OTHER|Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression model was applied accounting for group as well as age, body mass index, and gender as possible influence factors.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value of \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The calculation of the sample size was performed using nQuery 6.1. The primary endpoint was the outcome of the NT 4 weeks after the second vaccination. A Fisher exact tes was calculated to analyze the primary hypothesis on the difference in NT-titer response between patients and controls||||<0.001
84663227|NCT01991067|169060014|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was calculated to analyze antibody response by ELISA between patients and controls. To measure the Agreement between the NT and ELISA response, Cohens Kappa and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated||||0.02
84663228|NCT01991067|169060015|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For titer values the geometric mean was calculated and the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals were constructed by back-transfomration of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed results.~To investigate the difference in absolute titer values and geometric mean fold changes between time point and Groups, Wilcoxon tests were performed."||||<0.01
84663229|NCT02068443|169060027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.48|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin alone (Metformin QD - Alogliptin alone).|||-0.480|-0.821|
84663230|NCT02068443|169060027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD to Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.247|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID (Metformin QD - Metformin BID).|||0.247|-0.026|
84663231|NCT02771990|169060037|OTHER|Pilot study|z-score|3.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84663232|NCT02771990|169060038|OTHER|Pilot study||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
84663233|NCT02014597|169060040|OTHER|||||||0.0583||||||Scotopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0583
84663234|NCT02014597|169060040|OTHER|||||||0.1762||||||Photopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1762
84663235|NCT02014597|169060041|OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.183
84663236|NCT02014597|169060041|OTHER|||||||0.771||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.771
84663237|NCT02014597|169060041|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.492
84663238|NCT02014597|169060041|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.830
84663239|NCT00754624|169060054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.037|||Random coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FEV1 value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FEV1 data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FEV1 and time (in years) of FEV1 measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.037|-0.059|
84663240|NCT00754624|169060055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.043|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FVC value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FVC data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FVC and time (in years) of FVC measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.043|-0.072|
84509545|NCT02906709|168770665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|4.0|2.3|<0.001
84509546|NCT00977106|168770675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
84695021|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self-care functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.52
84695022|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
84695023|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility care giver assistance.~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.03
84695024|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||"Self-care caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||.006
84695025|NCT01115998|169129881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.45
84695026|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Adaptive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.92
84695027|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Cognitive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
84695028|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||90.0||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Communication total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.42
84695029|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Motor total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.57
84695030|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Personal-social total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.69
84695031|NCT01115998|169129882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"BID total score~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.28
84695032|NCT01115998|169129883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Reactive scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
84695033|NCT01115998|169129883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self Initiated Scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
84695034|NCT03699124|169129895|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.073||||||||1.073|0.816|
84695035|NCT03699124|169129895|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.287||||||||1.287|0.967|
84695036|NCT03699124|169129895|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.191||||||||1.191|0.915|
84695037|NCT00506285|169129912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||.001
84695038|NCT00506285|169129913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|mixed models analysis||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||F(1,47)=24.8, p=.001|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84695039|NCT02451930|169129976|OTHER|||||||0.4491|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4491
84695040|NCT03354637|169129997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|27.0||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||27.00|0.77|0.038
84695041|NCT03354637|169129997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.784||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.55||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||22.55|-3.90|0.166
84695042|NCT03354637|169129998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|19.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.17|-5.97|0.302
84695043|NCT03354637|169129998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.90|-9.44|0.616
84695044|NCT03354637|169129999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.074||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-1.26|0.125
84695045|NCT03354637|169129999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.107||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.36|-2.30|0.234
84695046|NCT03354637|169130000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.131||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-4.39|0.607
84695047|NCT03354637|169130000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.165||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-6.06|0.981
84695048|NCT03354637|169130001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|0.4|0.620
84695049|NCT03354637|169130001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|0.5|0.366
84695050|NCT03354637|169130002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.0|0.157
84695051|NCT03354637|169130002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|0.1|0.353
84695052|NCT03354637|169130003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
84695053|NCT03354637|169130003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
84695054|NCT03354637|169130004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|0.3|0.435
84695055|NCT03354637|169130004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.2|0.370
84695056|NCT03354637|169130005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
84695057|NCT03354637|169130005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
84695058|NCT03354637|169130006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
84695059|NCT03354637|169130006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
84695060|NCT03354637|169130007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.602
84695061|NCT03354637|169130007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
84695062|NCT03354637|169130008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
84695063|NCT03354637|169130008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
84695064|NCT03354637|169130010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
84695065|NCT03354637|169130010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
84695066|NCT03354637|169130012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
84695067|NCT03354637|169130012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
84695068|NCT03354637|169130013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
84695069|NCT03354637|169130013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
84663241|NCT00754624|169060056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.311|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|-0.168|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline DLCo value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed DLco data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline DLco and time (in years) of DLco measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.168|-0.454|
84663242|NCT01702454|169060104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.96|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Christchurch strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||12.96|6.21|
84695070|NCT04102540|169130023|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|57.39||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|163.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||163.7|-48.9|0.283
84695071|NCT04102540|169130023|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following the exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|60.83||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|151.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||151.2|-29.5|0.1823
84695072|NCT04102540|169130024|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-42.0||||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.8|255.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression||This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||255.8|-339.8|0.7795
84695073|NCT04102540|169130024|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-63.0||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.1|170.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|||Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.|This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|170.1|-296.1|0.5971
84695074|NCT04102540|169130025|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-Related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||3.0|1.2|<.0001
84695075|NCT04102540|169130025|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-related knowledge score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||2.8|1.2|<.0001
84695076|NCT04102540|169130027|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||0.7|-0.7|0.9879
84695077|NCT04102540|169130027|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||1.4|-0.2|0.1550
84695078|NCT04102540|169130028|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.52||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||4.52|0.30|0.8190
84695079|NCT04102540|169130028|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.43||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||1.43|0.07|0.1332
84695080|NCT04102540|169130029|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of good health at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 2 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||5.46|0.57|0.3160
84695081|NCT04102540|169130029|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of having good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of having good health at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.93||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 3 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||3.93|0.32|0.8609
84663243|NCT01702454|169060104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.02|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Victoria strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||4.02|1.81|
84663244|NCT01702454|169060104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|5.37|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Brisbane strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||5.37|2.89|
84663245|NCT01702454|169060104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|8.63|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Hub-Wuj strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||8.63|5.21|
84663246|NCT01702454|169060106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.87|52.84||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||52.84|35.87|
84663247|NCT01702454|169060106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|45.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.58|53.3||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||53.3|36.58|
84695082|NCT04102540|169130030|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|9.13||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||18.6|-0.3|0.0572
84509547|NCT00977106|168770676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||||||Between-group test (equal variances)|Student t-test|||Change at Week 1||||0.377
84695083|NCT04102540|169130030|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||25.1|1.1|0.0332
84695084|NCT00906503|169130035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|31.1||||||||31.1|0.06|
84695085|NCT01567163|169130039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio geometric least squares (LS) means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric LS means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of geometric LS means is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.10|0.84|
84695086|NCT01567163|169130041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric least squares means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.55|0.84|
84695087|NCT03405662|169130045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
84695088|NCT03405662|169130046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.29
84695089|NCT03405662|169130047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
84695090|NCT03405662|169130048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.23
84509548|NCT00977106|168770676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (unequal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.276
84509549|NCT00977106|168770678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (equal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.502
84509550|NCT00977106|168770680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Between placebo and TCZ groups test (Equal Variances) at week 4|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
84695091|NCT03405662|169130049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
84695092|NCT03405662|169130050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.13
84695093|NCT03405662|169130051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
84695094|NCT03405662|169130052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
84695095|NCT03405662|169130053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.86
84695096|NCT03405662|169130054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
84695097|NCT00581256|169130059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Perfusion Defect (PD) increase of greater than 5% for a 2.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.6
84695098|NCT00581256|169130059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||A PD increase of greater than 10% for a 1.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.46
84695099|NCT04827134|169130141|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8344|0.9282|||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9282|0.8344|
84695100|NCT04827134|169130141|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8168|0.9007|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9007|0.8168|
84695101|NCT04827134|169130141|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8316|0.9566|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9566|0.8316|
84695102|NCT04827134|169130142|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8744|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8293|0.9219|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9219|0.8293|
84695103|NCT04827134|169130142|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8567|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8159|0.8995|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8995|0.8159|
84695104|NCT04827134|169130142|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8202|0.9438|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9438|0.8202|
84695105|NCT04827134|169130143|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6598|0.7643|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7643|0.6598|
84695106|NCT04827134|169130143|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.4503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3976|0.51|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5100|0.3976|
84695107|NCT04827134|169130143|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.6373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5594|0.726|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7260|0.5594|
84695108|NCT04827134|169130144|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8834|0.9472|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9472|0.8834|
84695109|NCT04827134|169130144|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8847|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8303|0.9426|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9426|0.8303|
84695110|NCT04827134|169130145|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8862|0.9475|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9475|0.8862|
84695111|NCT04827134|169130145|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8251|0.9398|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9398|0.8251|
84695112|NCT04827134|169130146|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7284|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6576|0.8068|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8068|0.6576|
84695113|NCT04827134|169130146|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.5191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4535|0.5943|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5943|0.4535|
84695114|NCT03875911|169130232|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was used to analyze equivalence between arms||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
84695115|NCT03875911|169130233|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence calculated using ANOVA||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84695116|NCT03875911|169130234|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was assessed using ANOVA||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84509551|NCT00977106|168770682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.692
84509552|NCT00977106|168770682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.019
84509553|NCT00977106|168770683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.137
84695117|NCT03875911|169130235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
84695118|NCT03875911|169130236|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84695119|NCT03875911|169130237|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined using ANOVA||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
84695120|NCT02144519|169130238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.00|1.18|0.008
84695121|NCT02144519|169130239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.95|1.45|0.003
84695122|NCT05515679|169130251|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using a paired sample t-test (two tailed), we wished to examine whether there was an increase in Constructive Engagement and Pleasure and a reduction in Passive Engagement, Distracted Engagement, and Non-Engagement, from baseline to treatment. With an anticipated PWD sample of 24, and using means and standard deviations from the PI's previous studies, we calculated a power of 90% to detect effects (alpha = .05; one-tailed test). (3) PWD and staff report high satisfaction wi||.94|.51|<0.01
84695123|NCT05515679|169130252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.59|.017
84695124|NCT05515679|169130253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.43|.008
84695125|NCT05515679|169130254|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.30|0.053
84695126|NCT05515679|169130255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.79|.54|<.01
84695127|NCT05515679|169130256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.60|2.62|<.001
84695128|NCT05515679|169130257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.58|-1.55|<.001
84695129|NCT05515679|169130258|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|0.97|.022
84695130|NCT05515679|169130259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.44|-2.90|.551
84695131|NCT05515679|169130260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||37.2|17.7|<.001
84695132|NCT01556763|169130294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.10
84695133|NCT01556763|169130295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.07
84695134|NCT01556763|169130296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.02
84695135|NCT01556763|169130297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.008
84509554|NCT00977106|168770683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.043
84509555|NCT02419313|168770727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
84509556|NCT02419313|168770728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
84509557|NCT02419313|168770729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0105
84695136|NCT02258464|169130298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.745||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.504|1.102||The SSE-FS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that both treatment groups have the same SSE-FS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of SSE-FS time in radium-223 dichloride is different from the placebo group||1.102|0.504|0.3339
84695137|NCT02258464|169130299|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.888||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.576|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.370|0.576|0.7259
84695138|NCT02258464|169130300|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.932||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.513|1.693|||Log Rank|||||1.693|0.513|0.8785
84695139|NCT02258464|169130301|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.824||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.556|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.220|0.556|0.5240
84695140|NCT02258464|169130302|OTHER||Difference (Radium 223 - Placebo) %|11.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|-2.7|0.345
84509558|NCT00442936|168770741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.66|1.40|<0.001
84509559|NCT00442936|168770741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|6.0|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||6.00|2.42|<0.001
84509560|NCT00442936|168770742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.95|2.02|<0.001
84509561|NCT00442936|168770742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.79|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.79|2.47|<0.001
84509562|NCT00442936|168770743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.54|<0.001
84509563|NCT00442936|168770743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|1.89|<0.001
84695141|NCT02258464|169130303|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.968||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.657|1.425|||Log Rank|||||1.425|0.657|0.9128
84695142|NCT02258464|169130304|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|1.023||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.753|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.753|0.9227
84695143|NCT00932646|169130318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.139|<0.0001
84695144|NCT00932646|169130318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.140|<0.0001
84695145|NCT00932646|169130318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.124|<0.0001
84695146|NCT00932646|169130319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.114|<0.0001
84695147|NCT00932646|169130319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.116|<0.0001
84695148|NCT00932646|169130319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.125|<0.0001
84695149|NCT00932646|169130320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.149|<0.0001
84509564|NCT00442936|168770744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.82|1.49|<0.001
84695150|NCT00932646|169130320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
84695151|NCT00932646|169130320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
84695152|NCT00932646|169130321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.154|<0.0001
84695153|NCT00932646|169130321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.158|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.158|<0.0001
84695154|NCT00932646|169130321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.255|0.178|<0.0001
84695155|NCT00932646|169130322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003||95.0|0.045|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.045|0.0003
84695156|NCT00932646|169130322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.051|0.0001
84695157|NCT00932646|169130322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0026||95.0|0.028|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.132|0.028|0.0026
84695158|NCT00932646|169130323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.195|<0.0001
84695159|NCT00932646|169130323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.190|<0.0001
84695160|NCT00932646|169130323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.291|0.179|<0.0001
84695161|NCT00932646|169130324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.101|<0.0001
84695162|NCT00932646|169130324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.096|<0.0001
84695163|NCT00932646|169130324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.284|0.162|<0.0001
84695164|NCT00932646|169130325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.155|<0.0001
84695165|NCT00932646|169130325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.150|<0.0001
84695166|NCT00932646|169130325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.281|0.176|<0.0001
84695167|NCT00932646|169130326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.365|0.233|<0.0001
84695168|NCT00932646|169130326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.236|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.369|0.236|<0.0001
84695169|NCT00932646|169130326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.271|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.405|0.271|<0.0001
84695170|NCT00932646|169130327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0163||95.0|0.024|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.024|0.0163
84695171|NCT00932646|169130327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0118||95.0|0.031|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.031|0.0118
84695172|NCT00932646|169130327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0076||95.0|0.04|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.256|0.040|0.0076
84695173|NCT00932646|169130328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.082|<0.0001
84695174|NCT00932646|169130328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.084|<0.0001
84509565|NCT00442936|168770744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.25|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.25|1.73|<0.001
84695175|NCT00932646|169130328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.119|<0.0001
84695176|NCT00653263|169130330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for the continuous baseline characteristics.For data with 5 time points (baseline and weeks 1 through 4), hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point For data with 3 time points hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and wk 2, wk 2 and wk 4, as well as between baseline and wk 4.||||<0.05
84695177|NCT00653263|169130331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
84695178|NCT00653263|169130332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
84695179|NCT00322868|169130391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum white cell count||||||0.2772
84695180|NCT00322868|169130392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum neutrophil count||||||0.2467
84695181|NCT00322868|169130393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in sputum percent neutrophils||||||0.0288
84695182|NCT00322868|169130394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum active elastase||||||0.50
84695183|NCT00322868|169130395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum TNFα||||||0.62
84695184|NCT00322868|169130396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-1ß||||||0.50
84695185|NCT00322868|169130397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-6||||||0.55
84695186|NCT00322868|169130398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-8||||||0.75
84695187|NCT03615482|169130399|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Erythema||2.7|-4.5|0.617
84695188|NCT03615482|169130399|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Pain||2.6|-7.8|0.320
84695189|NCT03615482|169130399|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Swelling||2.0|-6.2|0.310
84695190|NCT03615482|169130400|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Arthralgia||1.2|-5.8|0.205
84695191|NCT03615482|169130400|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Fatigue||2.3|-8.0|0.273
84695192|NCT03615482|169130400|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Headache||2.6|-6.9|0.372
84695193|NCT03615482|169130400|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|2.4||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Myalgia||7.1|-2.4|0.329
84695194|NCT03615482|169130401|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.6|
84695195|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including all vaccinated participants.||Serotype 1||0.82|0.54|0.004
84695196|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3||1.09|0.81|<0.001
84695197|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4||1.01|0.69|<0.001
84695198|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5||0.98|0.64|<0.001
84695199|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A||1.00|0.71|<0.001
84695200|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B||1.04|0.74|<0.001
84695201|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F||0.99|0.75|<0.001
84695202|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V||1.15|0.86|<0.001
84695203|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14||1.08|0.77|<0.001
84695204|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.68|<0.001
84695205|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A||0.95|0.73|<0.001
84695206|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F||1.17|0.89|<0.001
84695207|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F||0.91|0.64|<0.001
84695208|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F||1.03|0.70|<0.001
84695209|NCT03615482|169130402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F||0.96|0.72|<0.001
84695210|NCT03615482|169130403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H1N1||1.25|0.94|<0.001
84695211|NCT03615482|169130403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H3N2||1.17|0.90|<0.001
84695212|NCT03615482|169130403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Victoria||1.08|0.86|<0.001
84695213|NCT03615482|169130403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Yamagata||1.13|0.90|<0.001
84695214|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.67|
84695215|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||Serotype 3||0.99|0.76|
84695216|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 4||0.91|0.68|
84695217|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 5||1.02|0.77|
84695218|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87||||||Serotype 6A||0.87|0.61|
84695219|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 6B||0.91|0.64|
84695220|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||||||Serotype 7F||1.01|0.76|
84695221|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 9V||1.03|0.79|
84695222|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 14||0.99|0.73|
84695223|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 18C||0.91|0.68|
84695224|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 19A||1.02|0.78|
84695225|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||||||Serotype 19F||1.03|0.77|
84695226|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 22F||0.89|0.65|
84695227|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 23F||0.98|0.70|
84695228|NCT03615482|169130404|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||||||Serotype 33F||0.99|0.75|
84695229|NCT02718417|169130450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.946||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.946|1.051|0.9890
84695230|NCT02718417|169130450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.565||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.565|0.832|0.7935
84695231|NCT02718417|169130451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.08||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.080|0.760|0.8848
84695232|NCT02718417|169130451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.111||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.111|0.776|0.8953
84695233|NCT02718417|169130452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.578||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.578|0.935|0.9278
84695234|NCT02718417|169130452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.189||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.189|0.688|0.2367
84695235|NCT01646320|169130497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0964|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.53||Tested at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.91|<0.0001
84695236|NCT01646320|169130498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-19.6|-35.4|<0.0001
84695237|NCT01646320|169130499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.493|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-24.7||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-24.7|-46.3|<0.0001
84695238|NCT01646320|169130500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.89||Secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.89|-2.12|<0.0001
84695239|NCT01646320|169130501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|34.4||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||34.4|16.7|<0.0001
84695240|NCT02892409|169130507|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.051|167.183||||||||167.183|66.051|
84695241|NCT02892409|169130508|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95% CI of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|LS Mean Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.137|130.569||||||||130.569|67.137|
84695242|NCT02971891|169130560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1789
84695243|NCT03226457|169130588|OTHER|Details of the power calculation are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739|||||=|0.005||||||(calculated)|ANCOVA|||"Details on the statistical analysis are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739~Analyses were performed on the primary and secondary measures comparing empagliflozin versus placebo and assessed by 2-way analysis of covariance correcting for treatment order, baseline value, and any percentage change in furosemide dose at the visit. Data for continuous outcome measures were assessed for normality before analysis."||||= 0.005
84695244|NCT01196104|169130610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study terminated early due to business reasons, results are not properly powered.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4901|0.3956|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate||0.3956|-0.4901|0.8283
84695245|NCT00594932|169130650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||superiority|4.0|||=|0.041||||||This was the primary endpoint therefore no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|Fisher Exact|||this is a categorical assessment. Prespecified. Fishers exact test. Significant is calculated as \< 0.05||||=0.041
84695246|NCT01183650|169130672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.32|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.32|0.84|
84695247|NCT01183650|169130672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.0|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.00|0.64|
84695248|NCT01183650|169130672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.64|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.64|1.05|
84695249|NCT01183650|169130672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.24|0.79|
84509566|NCT00442936|168770745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.39|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.39|1.25|<0.001
84695250|NCT01183650|169130673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means(Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.18|0.81|
84695251|NCT01183650|169130673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.97|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||0.97|0.67|
84695252|NCT01183650|169130673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.67|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.67|1.07|
84695253|NCT01183650|169130673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.29|0.83|
84695254|NCT01183650|169130674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese Participants||||||
84695255|NCT01183650|169130674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian Participants||||||
84695256|NCT01183650|169130674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.83||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese participants||||||
84695257|NCT01183650|169130674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.02||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian participants||||||
84695258|NCT05199233|169130687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
84695259|NCT05199233|169130688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
84695260|NCT00688259|169130695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
84695261|NCT00688259|169130696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.09
84695262|NCT00688259|169130697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.46
84695263|NCT00688259|169130698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.55
84695264|NCT00688259|169130699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
84695265|NCT00688259|169130700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
84695266|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|2.69||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||2.69|-1.23|
84695267|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|2.29||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||2.29|-1.32|
84695268|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|2.08||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.08|-1.76|
84695269|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|2.35||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.35|-1.09|
84695270|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|2.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.25|-1.88|
84695271|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||2.37|-1.47|
84695272|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|1.92||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||1.92|-1.99|
84695273|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|4.43||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||4.43|0.35|
84695274|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||2.12|-1.57|
84695275|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||3.37|-1.15|
84695276|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.14||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.14|-1.52|
84509567|NCT00442936|168770745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.13|1.13|0.006
84695277|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|6.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||6.78|2.84|
84695278|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|3.73||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||3.73|0.12|
84695279|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.12|-1.71|
84695280|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.15||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.15|-1.29|
84695281|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.53||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.53|-1.60|
84695282|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.81||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||0.81|-3.03|
84695283|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|0.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||0.78|-3.13|
84509568|NCT00442936|168770746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|1.47|0.002
84509569|NCT00442936|168770746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.51|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||10.51|3.15|<0.001
84509570|NCT00442936|168770747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.07|0.026
84509571|NCT00442936|168770747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|2.08|<0.001
84509572|NCT00442936|168770748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.47|1.13|0.021
84695284|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|0.71||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||0.71|-3.36|
84695285|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.0||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||1.00|-2.69|
84695286|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.32||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||0.32|-4.19|
84695287|NCT03657264|169130701|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|2.04||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.04|-1.62|
84695288|NCT03657264|169130702|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|6.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1 hour||6.66|2.58|
84695289|NCT03657264|169130702|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|11.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||11.66|7.14|
84695290|NCT03657264|169130702|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.92|13.17||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 2 hours||13.17|7.92|
84509573|NCT00442936|168770748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|9.76|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||9.76|2.78|<0.001
84695291|NCT03657264|169130702|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.7|12.95||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 3 hours||12.95|7.70|
84695292|NCT03657264|169130702|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.05|13.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 4 hours||13.25|8.05|
84509574|NCT02428699|168770760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.53|||ANCOVA|Subject as random effect,treatment and period as fixed effects,subject and period level baseline values for plasma total and free acids as covariates|Difference is test minus reference such that a positive difference favors the test treatment.|||7.53|2.79|<.0001
84509575|NCT04424407|168770786|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.008
84695293|NCT05126459|169130704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events during sedation.||||0.016
84695294|NCT05126459|169130705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events at 8 hours after sedation.||||0.211
84695295|NCT05126459|169130706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.374
84695296|NCT05126459|169130707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens.||||0.55
84695297|NCT05126459|169130708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens 8 hours after sedation.||||0.16
84695298|NCT05126459|169130709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens at 24 hours after sedation.||||0.012
84695299|NCT00065468|169130710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and Interferon Alfa (IFN)-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.97|0.63|0.0252
84695300|NCT00065468|169130710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||1.15|0.75|0.4902
84695301|NCT00065468|169130711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.74||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.91|0.60|0.0042
84695302|NCT00065468|169130711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.94|0.62|0.0107
84695303|NCT00065468|169130712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1361
84695304|NCT00065468|169130712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1062
84695305|NCT00065468|169130713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||<0.0001
84695306|NCT00065468|169130713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.0011
84695307|NCT00065468|169130715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
84695308|NCT00065468|169130715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.89|0.60|0.0020
84695309|NCT01058863|169130718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.42|0.88|<0.0001
84695310|NCT01058863|169130718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.24|0.70|<0.0001
84695311|NCT01058863|169130718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level..||1.35|0.81|<0.0001
84695312|NCT01058863|169130718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.15|0.61|<0.0001
84714863|NCT03974178|169176181|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0201
84714864|NCT03974178|169176182|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0158
84714865|NCT03974178|169176183|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.27||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|10.34||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||10.34|0.12|0.0253
84714866|NCT03899259|169176204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|22.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.17|2.79|<0.001
84714867|NCT03899259|169176204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|53.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.30|7.30|<0.001
84509576|NCT04424407|168770786|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.08
84509577|NCT04424407|168770786|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Anger \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.49
84714868|NCT03899259|169176205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-17.72|||ANCOVA|||||-17.72|-32.78|<0.001
84714869|NCT03899259|169176205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.33|-37.65|||ANCOVA|||||-37.65|-51.33|<0.001
84714870|NCT03899259|169176206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.60|1.58|0.005
84714871|NCT03899259|169176206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|35.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.44|4.72|<0.001
84714872|NCT03899259|169176207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.74|1.77|0.001
84714873|NCT03899259|169176207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|31.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.10|5.75|<0.001
84714874|NCT03899259|169176209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.91|0.076
84714875|NCT03899259|169176209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|4.12|<0.001
84714876|NCT03899259|169176210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|0.63|0.260
84714877|NCT03899259|169176210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|20.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.66|3.18|<0.001
84714878|NCT03899259|169176211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.40|1.25|0.017
84714879|NCT03899259|169176211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|27.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.25|4.32|<0.001
84714880|NCT03899259|169176212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|78.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||78.42|2.73|0.002
84714881|NCT03899259|169176212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.93|<0.001
84714882|NCT03899259|169176213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-6.91|0.129
84509578|NCT04424407|168770787|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
84509579|NCT04424407|168770787|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
84663248|NCT01702454|169060106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|37.86||||||95.0|28.83|46.26||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||46.26|28.83|
84695313|NCT01058863|169130719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.21|40.74||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.74|26.21|<0.0001
84695314|NCT01058863|169130719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.47|34.99||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||34.99|20.47|<0.001
84695315|NCT01058863|169130719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.84|40.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.35|25.84|<0.0001
84695316|NCT01058863|169130719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|32.85||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||32.85|18.36|<0.0001
84695317|NCT00918749|169130751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.568|3.372|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||A two group t-test with a 0.100 one-sided significance level would have 96% power to detect the difference between a risedronate 150 mg IRBB mean, µ1, of -46.000 and a risedronate 75 mg DRFB mean, µ2, of -29.900 (a difference in means of -16.100), assuming that the common SD was 28.000, with sample sizes of 60 per group, respectively. Estimates were based on Study 2005107 (35 mg DR once a week Phase 2 study). The sample size calculation was not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.372|-10.568|0.3946
84695318|NCT00918749|169130751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.241||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.208|-5.185|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-5.185|-19.208|0.0045
84695319|NCT00918749|169130752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.421|12.952|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.952|-3.421|0.3372
84695320|NCT00918749|169130752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.427|7.991|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.991|-8.427|0.9650
84695321|NCT00918749|169130753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.269||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|7.447|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.447|-6.670|0.9276
84695322|NCT00918749|169130753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.313||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.917|-3.657|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-3.657|-17.917|0.0133
84695323|NCT00918749|169130754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.813|29.868|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.868|-0.813|0.1192
84695324|NCT00918749|169130754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.343||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|29.659|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.659|-1.230|0.1298
84695325|NCT00918749|169130755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.093||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.956|11.193|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.193|-8.956|0.8546
84695326|NCT00918749|169130755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.126||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.522|2.737|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||2.737|-17.522|0.2291
84695327|NCT00918749|169130756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.046||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.452|20.462|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||20.462|-9.452|0.5436
84695328|NCT00918749|169130756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.959|14.132|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||14.132|-15.959|0.9201
84695329|NCT00918749|169130757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|9.807|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||9.807|-3.590|0.4440
84695330|NCT00918749|169130757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.063||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.874|11.559|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.559|-1.874|0.2349
84695331|NCT00918749|169130758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.189|12.12|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.120|-2.189|0.2527
84695332|NCT00918749|169130758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.301|12.153|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.153|-2.301|0.2613
84695333|NCT00918749|169130759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.609|8.148|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||8.148|-5.609|0.7606
84695334|NCT00918749|169130759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.744|4.095|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||4.095|-9.744|0.5006
84695335|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.064|-0.026|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.026|-0.064|
84695336|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.025|0.02|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.020|-0.025|
84695337|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.033|0.013|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.013|-0.033|
84695338|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.044|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||0.004|-0.044|
84695339|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.048|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.003|-0.048|
84695340|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||||90.0|-0.05|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.004|-0.050|
84695341|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.047|0.007|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.007|-0.047|
84695342|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.054|0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.002|-0.054|
84695343|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.021|0.034|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.034|-0.021|
84695344|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||90.0|-0.016|0.044|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.044|-0.016|
84695345|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.002|0.055|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.055|-0.002|
84695346|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.04|0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.032|-0.040|
84695347|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.07|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.004|-0.070|
84695348|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.077|-0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||-0.002|-0.077|
84695349|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.003|-0.075|
84695350|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.058|0.022|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.022|-0.058|
84695351|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.034|0.048|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.048|-0.034|
84695352|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.055|0.033|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.033|-0.055|
84695353|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.058|0.029|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.029|-0.058|
84695354|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.061|0.03|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.030|-0.061|
84695355|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.044|0.043|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.043|-0.044|
84695356|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.051|0.04|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.040|-0.051|
84695357|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.042|0.058|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.058|-0.042|
84695358|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||90.0|-0.03|0.077|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.077|-0.030|
84695359|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.042|0.035|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.035|-0.042|
84695360|NCT00136916|169130767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.023|0.062|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||0.062|-0.023|
84695361|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||||90.0|-0.215|-0.023|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M3||-0.023|-0.215|
84695362|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||||90.0|-0.133|0.087|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M6||0.087|-0.133|
84695363|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||||90.0|-0.104|0.124|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M9||0.124|-0.104|
84714883|NCT03899259|169176213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-7.75|0.020
84714884|NCT03899259|169176214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-12.68|0.026
84663249|NCT01702454|169060106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in percentages|56.0||||||95.0|48.32|63.04||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.04|48.32|
84714885|NCT03899259|169176214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.04|||ANCOVA|||||-8.04|-18.80|<0.001
84714886|NCT03899259|169176215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-9.65|0.103
84714887|NCT03899259|169176215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-13.10|<0.001
84714888|NCT03899259|169176216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.82|0.518
84714889|NCT03899259|169176216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.28|0.012
84714890|NCT03899259|169176217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.08|0.083
84714891|NCT03899259|169176217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.20|0.010
84663250|NCT01702454|169060108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|62.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.27|68.89||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains||68.89|55.27|
84663251|NCT01702454|169060108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.08|55.06||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||55.06|39.08|
84714892|NCT01152450|169176218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.196|0.102|<0.0001
84714893|NCT01152450|169176218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.205|0.111|<0.0001
84714894|NCT01152450|169176218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.038|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.056|-0.038|
84695364|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.033|0.214|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M12||0.214|-0.033|
84695365|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||||90.0|-0.081|0.185|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M15||0.185|-0.081|
84663252|NCT01702454|169060108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in SPR|56.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.44|63.43||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||63.43|49.44|
84695366|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|-0.054|0.234|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M18||0.234|-0.054|
84695367|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||||90.0|-0.073|0.208|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M21||0.208|-0.073|
84695368|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||||90.0|-0.058|0.257|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M24||0.257|-0.058|
84695369|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|-0.143|0.154|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M3||0.154|-0.143|
84695370|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|-0.119|0.19|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M6||0.190|-0.119|
84695371|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.2|0.161|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M1||0.161|-0.200|
84695372|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.101|0.263|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M3||0.263|-0.101|
84695373|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||||90.0|-0.038|0.32|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M6||0.320|-0.038|
84695374|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||||90.0|-0.041|0.342|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M9||0.342|-0.041|
84695375|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||||90.0|-0.09|0.298|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M12||0.298|-0.090|
84695376|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||||90.0|-0.132|0.279|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M15||0.279|-0.132|
84695377|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.111|0.284|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M18||0.284|-0.111|
84663253|NCT01702454|169060108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|56.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.41|63.49||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.49|49.41|
84663254|NCT00710710|169060141|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
84663255|NCT00710710|169060141|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
84663256|NCT00710710|169060141|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
84663257|NCT00710710|169060141|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
84663258|NCT00710710|169060144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.91|0.78|0.38
84663259|NCT00710710|169060145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.78|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.78|0.68|0.69
84663260|NCT00710710|169060146|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
84663261|NCT00710710|169060146|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
84663262|NCT00710710|169060146|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
84663263|NCT00710710|169060146|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
84695378|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.141|0.27|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M21||0.270|-0.141|
84695379|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||||90.0|-0.156|0.249|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M24||0.249|-0.156|
84695380|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.138|0.272|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M27||0.272|-0.138|
84695381|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||||90.0|-0.171|0.264|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M30||0.264|-0.171|
84695382|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.319||||90.0|-3.92|23.569|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M33||23.569|-3.920|
84695383|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||||90.0|-0.316|0.337|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M36||0.337|-0.316|
84695384|NCT00136916|169130773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||||90.0|-0.245|0.292|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext FU M3||0.292|-0.245|
84695385|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||||90.0|-19.07|-5.71|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M3||-5.710|-19.07|
84695386|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795||||90.0|-22.11|-6.312|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M6||-6.312|-22.11|
84695387|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||||90.0|-19.07|-2.852|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M12||-2.852|-19.07|
84695388|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.052||||90.0|-20.89|-4.232|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M24||-4.232|-20.89|
84509580|NCT04424407|168770788|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Negative \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
84695389|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.867||||90.0|-80.69|47.019|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M3||47.019|-80.69|
84695390|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.173||||90.0|-9.257|14.412|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M6||14.412|-9.257|
84695391|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||||90.0|-19.37|0.45|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M1||0.450|-19.37|
84695392|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.446||||90.0|-20.11|1.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M3||1.153|-20.11|
84695393|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.785||||90.0|-21.95|0.438|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M6||0.438|-21.95|
84695394|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.154||||90.0|-16.98|3.328|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M9||3.328|-16.98|
84695395|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||||90.0|-19.15|4.579|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M12||4.579|-19.15|
84695396|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.219||||90.0|-13.76|10.066|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M15||10.066|-13.76|
84695397|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||||90.0|-20.83|2.79|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M18||2.790|-20.83|
84695398|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.217||||90.0|-18.99|4.834|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M21||4.834|-18.99|
84695399|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.329||||90.0|-24.63|-0.429|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M24||-0.429|-24.63|
84695400|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.895||||90.0|-30.45|-7.685|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M27||-7.685|-30.45|
84663264|NCT03510884|169060153|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.0|-30.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per interactive voice response system (IVRS), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.7|-56.0|<0.0001
84663265|NCT03510884|169060153|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-21.2||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.2|-46.4|<0.0001
84663266|NCT03510884|169060154|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.3|-34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-34.7|-56.3|<0.0001
84663267|NCT03510884|169060154|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.7|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.2|-52.7|<0.0001
84663268|NCT03510884|169060155|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.5|-28.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-28.2|-47.5|<0.0001
84663269|NCT03510884|169060155|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.0|-19.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.4|-42.0|<0.0001
84663270|NCT03510884|169060156|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-29.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.1|-52.2|<0.0001
84663271|NCT03510884|169060156|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.1|-19.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.7|-44.1|<0.0001
84663272|NCT03510884|169060157|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.8|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.9|-39.8|<0.0001
84695401|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.223||||90.0|-15.15|8.705|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M30||8.705|-15.15|
84695402|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.625||||90.0|-21.09|4.107|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M33||4.107|-21.09|
84695403|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.906||||90.0|-36.66|-7.105|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M36||-7.105|-36.66|
84695404|NCT00136916|169130774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||||90.0|-19.16|9.812|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext FU M3||9.812|-19.16|
84695405|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||||90.0|-0.416|0.299|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M3||0.299|-0.416|
84695406|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||||90.0|-1.224|-0.246|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M6||-0.246|-1.224|
84695407|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.251|-0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M12||-0.032|-1.251|
84695408|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||||90.0|-2.12|-0.589|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M24||-0.589|-2.120|
84695409|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||||90.0|-2.086|-0.52|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M3||-0.520|-2.086|
84663273|NCT03510884|169060157|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-13.1|-33.5|<0.0001
84663274|NCT03510884|169060158|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.2|-29.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.6|-48.2|<0.0001
84695410|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||||90.0|-2.539|-0.575|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M6||-0.575|-2.539|
84695411|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||||90.0|-1.898|0.09|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M1||0.090|-1.898|
84695412|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||||90.0|-2.225|-0.334|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M3||-0.334|-2.225|
84695413|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||||90.0|-1.909|0.241|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M6||0.241|-1.909|
84695414|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-2.08|0.078|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M9||0.078|-2.080|
84695415|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676||||90.0|-2.431|-0.2|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M12||-0.200|-2.431|
84695416|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||||90.0|-2.661|-0.363|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M15||-0.363|-2.661|
84695417|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||||90.0|-2.824|0.198|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M18||0.198|-2.824|
84695418|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||||90.0|-3.891|-0.907|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M21||-0.907|-3.891|
84695419|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||||90.0|-2.867|-0.265|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M24||-0.265|-2.867|
84695420|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||||90.0|-4.439|-1.001|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M27||-1.001|-4.439|
84695421|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||||90.0|-2.755|-0.047|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M30||-0.047|-2.755|
84695422|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||||90.0|-3.781|-0.782|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M33||-0.782|-3.781|
84695423|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||||90.0|-4.932|-0.599|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M36||-0.599|-4.932|
84695424|NCT00136916|169130775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||||90.0|-3.12|-0.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext FU M3||-0.153|-3.120|
84695425|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.466|-0.037|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.037|-0.466|
84695426|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||||90.0|-0.323|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.134|-0.323|
84695427|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||||90.0|-0.158|0.325|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.325|-0.158|
84695428|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||||90.0|-0.524|-0.009|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||-0.009|-0.524|
84695429|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||||90.0|-0.453|0.091|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.091|-0.453|
84695430|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||||90.0|-0.427|0.145|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.145|-0.427|
84695431|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||||90.0|-0.445|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.134|-0.445|
84695432|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||||90.0|-0.193|0.431|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.431|-0.193|
84695433|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||||90.0|0.322|0.911|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.911|0.322|
84695434|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||||90.0|0.051|0.657|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.657|0.051|
84695435|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||||90.0|0.011|0.626|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.626|0.011|
84695436|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||||90.0|-0.227|0.5|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.500|-0.227|
84695437|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||||90.0|-0.289|0.485|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.485|-0.289|
84695438|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||||90.0|-0.576|0.172|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||0.172|-0.576|
84695439|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||||90.0|-0.18|0.669|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.669|-0.180|
84695440|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||||90.0|-0.284|0.535|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.535|-0.284|
84695441|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||||90.0|-0.395|0.441|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.441|-0.395|
84695442|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.262|0.554|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.554|-0.262|
84695443|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||||90.0|-0.138|0.78|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.780|-0.138|
84695444|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.419|0.506|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.506|-0.419|
84695445|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||||90.0|-0.279|0.659|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.659|-0.279|
84695446|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.579|0.346|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.346|-0.579|
84695447|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||||90.0|-0.189|0.714|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.714|-0.189|
84695448|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||||90.0|-0.37|0.904|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.904|-0.370|
84695449|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||||90.0|-0.003|0.802|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.802|-0.003|
84695450|NCT00136916|169130781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||||90.0|0.137|1.102|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||1.102|0.137|
84695451|NCT01991197|169130791|SUPERIORITY||U value|43.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
84695452|NCT01991197|169130794|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84695453|NCT01991197|169130797|SUPERIORITY||U|29.5||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
84695454|NCT03844321|169130832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1607|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.19|-0.24|.820
84695455|NCT03844321|169130832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1147|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.02|-0.18|.110
84695456|NCT03844321|169130833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.03||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df= 1726|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.07|.284
84695457|NCT03844321|169130833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1018|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.394
84695458|NCT03844321|169130834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1591|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.09|-0.04|.431
84695459|NCT03844321|169130834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1159|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.08|0.02|<.001
84695460|NCT03844321|169130835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.01||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1601|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.05|.399
84695461|NCT03844321|169130835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.02||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1171|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|0.00|.048
84695462|NCT03844321|169130836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1560|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.03|-0.06|.488
84695463|NCT03844321|169130836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1179|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.446
84695464|NCT03844321|169130837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.04||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1618|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.07|-0.16|.469
84695465|NCT03844321|169130837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.06||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1067|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores across both intervention conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|.033
84695466|NCT03844321|169130838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.046
84695467|NCT03844321|169130838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.275
84695468|NCT03844321|169130839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.977
84695469|NCT03844321|169130839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.341
84695470|NCT03844321|169130840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.885
84695471|NCT03844321|169130840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.319
84695472|NCT03844321|169130841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.838
84695473|NCT03844321|169130841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.890
84714895|NCT01152450|169176219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001||95.0|11.084|31.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||31.573|11.084|<0.0001
84714896|NCT01152450|169176219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225|<|0.0001||95.0|12.044|32.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||32.670|12.044|<0.0001
84714897|NCT01152450|169176219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.242||||95.0|-9.318|11.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||11.376|-9.318|
84714898|NCT01152450|169176220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.026|<|0.0001||95.0|20.001|39.839|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||39.839|20.001|<0.0001
84695474|NCT03844321|169130842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.425
84695475|NCT03844321|169130842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.733
84695476|NCT03844321|169130843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.582
84695477|NCT03844321|169130843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.666
84695478|NCT03844321|169130844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.355
84695479|NCT03844321|169130844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.361
84695480|NCT03844321|169130845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.640
84695481|NCT03844321|169130845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.396
84509581|NCT04424407|168770788|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Look Negative \> Decrease Negative amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
84695482|NCT03844321|169130846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.004
84714899|NCT01152450|169176220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.042|<|0.0001||95.0|18.707|38.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||38.606|18.707|<0.0001
84714900|NCT01152450|169176220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||||95.0|-11.243|8.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||8.716|-11.243|
84714901|NCT01152450|169176221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
84509582|NCT04424407|168770789|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
84695483|NCT03844321|169130846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.291
84695484|NCT03844321|169130847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.603
84695485|NCT03844321|169130847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.333
84695486|NCT03844321|169130848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.224
84695487|NCT03844321|169130848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.885
84695488|NCT03844321|169130849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.490
84695489|NCT03844321|169130849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.266
84714902|NCT01152450|169176221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.234|0.136|<0.0001
84714903|NCT01152450|169176221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||95.0|-0.033|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.065|-0.033|
84714904|NCT01152450|169176222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.181|0.077|<0.0001
84714905|NCT01152450|169176222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.079|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.183|0.079|<0.0001
84714906|NCT01152450|169176222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.05|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.054|-0.050|
84714907|NCT01152450|169176223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
84714908|NCT01152450|169176223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
84714909|NCT01152450|169176223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.048|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.047|-0.048|
84714910|NCT01152450|169176224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.170|0.053|0.0002
84509583|NCT04424407|168770789|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
84695490|NCT03844321|169130850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.928
84695491|NCT03844321|169130850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.307
84695492|NCT05822921|169130859|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.871
84695493|NCT05822921|169130860|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
84695494|NCT05822921|169130861|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
84695495|NCT00544544|169130863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84695496|NCT00544544|169130864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84695497|NCT00544544|169130865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
84695498|NCT00544544|169130866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84695499|NCT03277378|169130867|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level.||||||0.0003|||||||Farrington- Manning non-inferioirty test|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: AB - TB ≤ -15% H1: AB - TB \> -15% where AB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 1 (AB) TB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 2 (TB)"||||0.0003
84695500|NCT03277378|169130868|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: P ≤ 60% H1: P \> 60% where P= percentage of physician prefer anatomic placement over targeted placement.~The analysis population included physicians who have performed both placement procedures. The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level."||||0.2500
84695501|NCT02036515|169130890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
84695502|NCT02036515|169130890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
84695503|NCT02036515|169130891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.2||||||||5.2|-16.5|
84695504|NCT02036515|169130891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.1|
84695505|NCT02036515|169130892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6||||||||5.6|-4.4|
84695506|NCT02036515|169130892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.9|
84695507|NCT02036515|169130893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenc in least squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.76|-17.54|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-17.54|-32.76|<0.001
84695508|NCT02036515|169130893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.66|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-23.66|-38.90|<0.001
84695509|NCT02036515|169130894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.4|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.40|-2.65|<0.001
84695510|NCT02036515|169130894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.09|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.09|-2.35|<0.001
84695511|NCT02036515|169130895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||5.72|1.74|<0.001
84695512|NCT02036515|169130895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||8.02|2.44|<0.001
84695513|NCT02036515|169130896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.93||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.49|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.49|-5.36|0.019
84695514|NCT02036515|169130896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.5|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.50|-6.39|0.002
84695515|NCT02036515|169130897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.54||||||||-0.54|-0.98|
84695516|NCT02036515|169130897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61||||||||-0.61|-1.05|
84695517|NCT02036515|169130898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|-21.09||||||||-21.09|-36.44|
84695518|NCT02036515|169130898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.85||||||||-21.85|-37.30|
84695519|NCT02036515|169130899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.59||||||||-1.59|-3.43|
84695520|NCT02036515|169130899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.95||||||||-0.95|-2.81|
84695521|NCT02036515|169130900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.64||||||||6.64|1.98|
84695522|NCT02036515|169130900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.28||||||||7.28|2.22|
84695523|NCT02036515|169130901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|-2.15||||||||-2.15|-7.82|
84695524|NCT02036515|169130901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.07||||||||-2.07|-7.76|
84695525|NCT02036515|169130902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.97|
84695526|NCT02036515|169130902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.11|
84695527|NCT02036515|169130903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.84||||||||0.84|-2.82|
84695528|NCT02036515|169130903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.99||||||||0.99|-2.69|
84695529|NCT02036515|169130904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-9.4||||||||-9.4|-21.9|
84695530|NCT02036515|169130904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5||||||||-8.5|-21.3|
84695531|NCT02036515|169130905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-19.4||||||||-19.4|-38.3|
84695532|NCT02036515|169130905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-18.4||||||||-18.4|-37.5|
84695533|NCT02036515|169130909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|18.68||||||||18.68|6.83|
84695534|NCT02036515|169130909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.88||||||||17.88|5.94|
84695535|NCT02036515|169130910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.03||||||||19.03|6.54|
84695536|NCT02036515|169130910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.18||||||||19.18|6.54|
84695537|NCT02036515|169130912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.04|
84695538|NCT02036515|169130912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
84695539|NCT02036515|169130913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
84695540|NCT02036515|169130913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.07|
84714911|NCT01152450|169176224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.191|0.074|<0.0001
84509584|NCT04424407|168770789|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-pACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
84663275|NCT03510884|169060158|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.8|-22.7|||MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-22.7|-42.8|<0.0001
84663276|NCT03510884|169060159|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.8|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Non-HDL-C value and Baseline Non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-31.8|-53.8|<0.0001
84663277|NCT03510884|169060159|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.9|-27.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-27.0|-47.9|<0.0001
84714912|NCT01152450|169176224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||95.0|-0.037|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.080|-0.037|
84714913|NCT01152450|169176225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0515||95.0|0.0|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.136|0.000|0.0515
84714914|NCT01152450|169176225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1058||95.0|-0.012|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.124|-0.012|0.1058
84714915|NCT01152450|169176225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.08|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.057|-0.080|
84714916|NCT01152450|169176226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.177|0.073|<0.0001
84714917|NCT01152450|169176226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0002||95.0|0.048|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.152|0.048|0.0002
84714918|NCT01152450|169176226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.077|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.027|-0.077|
84714919|NCT01152450|169176227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0051||95.0|0.023|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.129|0.023|0.0051
84714920|NCT01152450|169176227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0123||95.0|0.015|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.120|0.015|0.0123
84714921|NCT01152450|169176227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.061|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.045|-0.061|
84714922|NCT01152450|169176228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0042||95.0|0.025|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.130|0.025|0.0042
84695541|NCT01671748|169130917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|18.6||ANCOVA was used to analyse differences between the NLFU+SOC and SOC arms of the primary endpoint, percentage change in wound area from baseline (week 5) to final visit (week 13). Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect a difference in the change in wound area of 20% between the two arms with a two sided significance level and power of 90%. A standard deviation of 17.5% came from published literature. A minimum of 17 patients in each arm was required.||18.6|-33.4|0.565
84695542|NCT01671748|169130918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in HRQoL from week 1 to week 13 (with week 1 HRQoL score as the covariate).||||0.490
84695543|NCT01671748|169130919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.08||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|1.06|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in pain score (VAS) from week 5 to week 13 (covariate was baseline pain score).||1.06|-19.23|0.078
84695544|NCT01671748|169130920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in number of infections were not normally distributed and differences between the arms were tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.346
84695545|NCT01671748|169130922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.||||2.9|-4.7|0.618
84695546|NCT04145349|169130930|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.25|1.69|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.864|1.69|0.25|
84695547|NCT05675709|169130955|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
84695548|NCT05675709|169130956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
84695549|NCT05675709|169130957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
84695550|NCT05108649|169130990|OTHER|We treated the exposure as a four-level categorical variable with control messaging + NNC cigarettes as the control condition.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA compared scale scores across the conditions.||||||0.0008
84695551|NCT05108649|169130991|OTHER|||||||0.9804|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9804
84695552|NCT05108649|169130992|OTHER|||||||0.6579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6579
84695553|NCT05108649|169130993|OTHER|||||||0.4208|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4208
84695554|NCT05108649|169130994|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.245
84695555|NCT05108649|169130995|OTHER|||||||0.6396|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6396
84695556|NCT05108649|169130996|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0235
84695557|NCT05108649|169130997|OTHER|||||||0.3564|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3564
84695558|NCT05108649|169130998|OTHER|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
84695559|NCT05108649|169130999|OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2304
84695560|NCT04675242|169131103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the proportion of study eyes with complete cure||15.3|-11.5|0.4434
84695561|NCT04675242|169131104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the change from baseline between treatment groups||2.1|-9.5|0.2105
84695562|NCT04675242|169131105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the mean change from baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5936
84695563|NCT00846742|169131111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of proportion of patients' complete response rate between HOD99 (NCT number: NCT00145600) and HOD08|Exact Binominal Test|||The proportion of patients' complete response rate was provided with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.0003
84695564|NCT00846742|169131116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.159|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure with a 1-year increase in age.|||1.159|0.810|0.732
84695565|NCT00846742|169131117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing males to females.|Male vs. Female, with Female as the reference level||0.000|0.000|<0.001
84695566|NCT00846742|169131118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|30101.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3329.573|272135.5|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Stage IIA to Stage IA.|Stage IIA vs. Stage IA, with Stage IA as the reference level||272135.500|3329.573|<0.001
84695567|NCT00846742|169131119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|34027.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4072.872|284291.6|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Classical (all combined) to Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma.|Classical (all combined) vs. Nodular lymphocyte predominant, with Nodular lymphocyte predominant as the reference level||284291.600|4072.872|<0.001
84695568|NCT00846742|169131120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.461
84695569|NCT00846742|169131120|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||1.000
84695570|NCT00846742|169131120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.836
84695571|NCT00846742|169131122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.384
84695572|NCT00846742|169131122|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||1.000
84695573|NCT00846742|169131122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.386
84695574|NCT00846742|169131123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS of patients treated without and with RT||||0.986
84695575|NCT02611830|169131220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.0||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.0|19.7|<0.001
84714923|NCT01152450|169176228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0747||95.0|-0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.005|0.0747
84509585|NCT04424407|168770789|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-sgACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
84663278|NCT03510884|169060160|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-41.3|-24.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-24.2|-41.3|<0.0001
84663279|NCT03510884|169060160|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.6|-20.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-20.2|-35.6|<0.0001
84663280|NCT03510884|169060161|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|77.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|960.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||960.0|6.3|=0.0001
84663281|NCT03510884|169060161|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|69.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||69.8|3.2|<0.0001
84663282|NCT03510884|169060162|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.0|174.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||174.8|4.0|<0.0001
84663283|NCT03510884|169060162|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.7|290.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||290.9|5.7|<0.0001
84695576|NCT02611830|169131221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|49.3||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|22.1|<0.001
84695577|NCT02611830|169131222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|50.9||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.9|21.2|<0.001
84695578|NCT02611830|169131223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|25.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||25.7|-6.6|0.076
84695579|NCT02611830|169131224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|43.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||43.7|-4.5|0.067
84695580|NCT02275533|169131225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.56||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.56|0.54|0.38
84695581|NCT02275533|169131226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.51||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.40|0.23
84695582|NCT02275533|169131228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84695583|NCT03500172|169131234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.455
84695584|NCT03500172|169131235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962||||||Statistical significance threshold: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.962
84695585|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for steady partner, living together vs. single.||0.99|0.61|<0.05
84695586|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.51||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for 5-9 new clients in the past month vs. 0 clients in the past month.||2.51|1.02|<0.05
84695587|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for use of marijuana in the past 30 days vs. no marijuana use in the past 30 days||1.57|1.09|<0.05
84695588|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.52||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those experiencing physical violence in the past 6 months vs. no experience of physical violence in the past 6 months.||1.52|1.01|<0.05
84695589|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those who have experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months vs. those who have not||2.00|1.31|<0.05
84695590|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.29||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral loads from 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline vs. \<50 copies/mL.||3.29|1.65|<0.05
84695591|NCT03500172|169131236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.36||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL vs. those with viral load less than 50 copies/mL.||3.36|1.82|<0.05
84695592|NCT03500172|169131237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.756
84695593|NCT03500172|169131238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.295
84695594|NCT03500172|169131239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.149
84695595|NCT03500172|169131240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.301
84695596|NCT03500172|169131243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.212
84695597|NCT04684914|169131290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
84695598|NCT04684914|169131290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
84695599|NCT04684914|169131291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
84695600|NCT04684914|169131291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
84695601|NCT04684914|169131292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4169
84695602|NCT04684914|169131292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5495
84695603|NCT02218203|169131298|OTHER|We report the interaction between the lidocaine dose response and dextromethorphan dose response. The type of statistical test was a linear regression model with Chi-square test.|Lidocaine dose*dextromethorphan dose|0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.0081|||Pearson's Chi-squared test||The estimated value is an estimated interaction term, and not a P-value.|We performed a lidocaine dose response clinical trial nested within a dextromethorphan clinical trial to evaluate a potential interaction between lidocaine dose and dextromethorphan dose (pain intensity; Gracely scale).||0.0081|0.0004|0.0322
84695604|NCT04471792|169131299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||P=0.380 comparing creatine vs. placebo|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for pre vs. post values and for the difference between creatine vs. placebo||||||0.38
84695605|NCT04471792|169131300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||p=0.883 when comparing effect of creatine to palcebo on rate/change in reperfusion slope|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA, pre vs. post differences and creatine vs. placebo differences were examined||||||0.883
84695606|NCT04471792|169131300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.883
84695607|NCT07083843|169131304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|5.36|||paired sample T-test.|Degree of freedom = 25||Data was analyzed using SPSS v22.0., Descriptive statistics will summarize baseline variables. Paired t-test will assess pre- vs. post - intervention scores within groups, and between-group differences will be compared, the null hypothesis states there is no difference between intervention and control groups. A two-tailed P\< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.||5.36|2.87|0.05
84714924|NCT01152450|169176228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.082|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.023|-0.082|
84714925|NCT01152450|169176232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.147|0.055|<0.0001
84509586|NCT04424407|168770789|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-vmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
84695608|NCT07083843|169131305|SUPERIORITY|A superiority analysis was performed to compare depression and anxiety scores between the intervention and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.192|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|3.238|||paired sample T-test.|degree of freedom= 25||data were processed and analyzed using the SPSS software, version 22.0. The descriptive statistics were calculated, including frequencies and percentages for categorical data, and means and standard deviations for numerical variables. A paired t-test was used to assess the change in the psychological level before and after the intervention program. All hypothesis testing was done at the 5% level of significance||3.238|0.986|0.05
84509587|NCT04424407|168770790|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in depression symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
84695609|NCT05089656|169131325|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.25|0.51|0.0074
84695610|NCT05089656|169131326|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means - difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.22|-0.33|0.1097
84695611|NCT05089656|169131327|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||2.71|0.34|0.0122
84695612|NCT05089656|169131328|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.12|-0.22|0.0873
84695613|NCT05089656|169131329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||4.57|0.90|0.0879
84695614|NCT05089656|169131330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||3.56|0.46|0.6448
84695615|NCT04191135|169131335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.33|0.72|0.4556
84695616|NCT04191135|169131336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.40|0.64|0.3903
84695617|NCT04191135|169131337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.43|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.43|0.59|
84695618|NCT04191135|169131338|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.76|0.53|
84695619|NCT04191135|169131339|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.48|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||1.48|0.33|
84695620|NCT04191135|169131340|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||2.37|0.28|
84695621|NCT04191135|169131341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.28||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|1.12|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||1.12|-7.69|0.1430
84695622|NCT04191135|169131342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.56|-4.89|0.9454
84695623|NCT04191135|169131343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.08||||0.4351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|7.31|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||7.31|-3.16|0.4351
84695624|NCT04191135|169131344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.93||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.06|-2.20|0.5588
84695625|NCT04191135|169131345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.28|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.28|-4.03|0.8408
84695626|NCT04191135|169131346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|8.95|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||8.95|-11.63|0.7950
84695627|NCT04191135|169131347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.82||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.62|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||11.62|-1.97|0.1597
84695628|NCT04191135|169131348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.52||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|12.49|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.49|-7.45|0.6138
84695629|NCT04191135|169131349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|3.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.83|-7.02|0.5567
84695630|NCT04191135|169131350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.56||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.32|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.32|-1.20|0.1050
84695631|NCT04191135|169131351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.00676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||2.71|1.16|0.00676
84695632|NCT04191135|169131352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.69|0.61|0.96425
84695633|NCT04191135|169131353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.71|0.69|0.74965
84695634|NCT04191135|169131354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.10502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.53|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||3.53|0.88|0.10502
84695635|NCT04191135|169131355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.0|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||3.00|0.57|0.50190
84695636|NCT04191135|169131356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.47384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.97|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||1.97|0.24|0.47384
84695637|NCT04191135|169131357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.81463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.38|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||2.38|0.33|0.81463
84695638|NCT04191135|169131358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.67255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.82|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||8.82|0.24|0.67255
84695639|NCT05220501|169131399|NON_INFERIORITY|The justification of the noninferiority margin is based on review of 11 studies reporting on the benefit of multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy over systematic biopsy. The differences between the multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy and systematic biopsy were tabulated and found to range from 5%to 18%. Panel selected 10% noninferiority and a 1-sided α of .025 as a reasonable threshold that would demonstrate clinically similar outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||Jeffreys interval|||||||<0.001
84695640|NCT05160025|169131402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent with correction (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) other-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84695641|NCT05160025|169131405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"rmANOVA p = 0.111~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||0.111
84695642|NCT05160025|169131408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.003) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84695643|NCT05160025|169131411|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"rmANOVA p \> 0.05 with a partial eta squared effect size = 0.073~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
84509588|NCT04424407|168770791|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep efficiency was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.002
84695644|NCT05160025|169131416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||"rmANOVA = 0.004~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.002) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84695645|NCT05160025|169131424|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
84695646|NCT05160025|169131425|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
84695647|NCT01268059|169131445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.205||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval ( CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|||4.5|1.1|0.027
84695648|NCT01268059|169131447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.487
84695649|NCT01268059|169131447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.386
84695650|NCT01268059|169131450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||7.4|1.2|
84695651|NCT01268059|169131450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||4.3|0.3|
84695652|NCT01268059|169131451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||2.4|0.7|
84695653|NCT01268059|169131451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||10.8|0.4|
84695654|NCT03660943|169131464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.27|-4.42|0.0833
84695655|NCT03660943|169131465|SUPERIORITY|The number of NPRS subjects differed from the WOMAC outcomes because of differences in missing data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.91|0.0935
84695656|NCT03660943|169131466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.23|-2.22|0.0163
84714926|NCT01152450|169176232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0004||95.0|0.038|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.130|0.038|0.0004
84714927|NCT01152450|169176232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.063|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.030|-0.063|
84714928|NCT01152450|169176233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|<|0.0001||95.0|22.167|38.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||38.317|22.167|<0.0001
84714929|NCT01152450|169176233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.089|<|0.0001||95.0|26.24|42.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||42.380|26.240|<0.0001
84714930|NCT01152450|169176233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||||95.0|-4.012|12.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||12.148|-4.012|
84714931|NCT01152450|169176234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769||0.6747||95.0|-1.195|1.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||1.841|-1.195|0.6747
84695657|NCT03660943|169131467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.03|-16.01|0.0509
84695658|NCT03850444|169131468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.38|
84695659|NCT03850444|169131469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.95|0.41|
84695660|NCT03850444|169131470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.94|0.45|
84695661|NCT03850444|169131471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.28|0.57|
84695662|NCT03850444|169131472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.39|0.70|
84695663|NCT03850444|169131473|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.35|0.74|
84695664|NCT03850444|169131474|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||31.6|1.8|
84695665|NCT03850444|169131475|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.7|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||23.7|-1.4|
84695666|NCT03850444|169131476|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.9|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||18.9|-3.0|
84695667|NCT02096081|169131504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. The hypothesis testing procedure to test the equivalence of the two products is as follows:~Ho (null): D ≤ -∆ OR D ≥ ∆ versus Ha (alternate): -∆ \< D \< ∆, where ∆ is the margin of equivalence = 0.15."|Difference in proportions of response|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then Ho is rejected in favor of Ha (i.e., equivalence of incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA can be concluded); otherwise, treatment equivalence cannot be concluded.|With assumptions of an alpha of 5%, an equivalence margin of 15% for each side, the real response rate expected as 90% for incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA at day 30 and a 1:1 allocation ratio, a total of 225 subjects were needed to achieve a statistical power of 90% in order to make an equivalence conclusion at day 30. Results are based on the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval. To account for exclusions from the PPS of about 10%, approximately 250 subjects were enrolled.||0.6|-7.5|
84695668|NCT02096081|169131505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||1.5|-12.1|
84695669|NCT02096081|169131506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.6|-10.6|
84695670|NCT02096081|169131507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|7.1|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||7.1|-17.4|
84695671|NCT02096081|169131508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.2|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||3.2|-8.5|
84695672|NCT02096081|169131509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.3|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||5.3|-11.0|
84695673|NCT02096081|169131510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.5|-12.4|
84695674|NCT02096081|169131511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|10.7|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||10.7|-14.4|
84695675|NCT04496167|169131605|OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|1.386||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.804|7.577||Considered significant if p-value is less than 0.05.|MMRM||"The model included treatment, visit and interaction of treatment, visit as fixed effects, Baseline as a covariate, and repeated measures with visit/participant.~Treatment difference: EN3835 - Placebo"|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was performed to estimate the change from Baseline treatment effect of the adapted ASES composite score in the affected shoulder comparing EN3835 to placebo treatment.||7.577|-4.804|0.659
84695676|NCT03088137|169131636|EQUIVALENCE|Study power of at least 80% at a significance level (alpha error) 5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/- 3.4 oocytes for the relevant population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.546|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.297||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.026|3.116|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.116|-2.026|0.002
84695677|NCT03088137|169131637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.709|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.067||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|2.824|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.824|-1.405|0.806
84695678|NCT03088137|169131638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.129||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.455|2.019|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.019|-2.455|0.617
84695679|NCT03088137|169131639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.723|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.723|-2.995|0.445
84695680|NCT03088137|169131640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.623
84695681|NCT03088137|169131641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.8||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|113.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||113.6|-83.9|0.488
84695682|NCT03088137|169131642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.416|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.416|-0.379|0.629
84695683|NCT03088137|169131643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.644
84695684|NCT03088137|169131646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|17.0|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||17.0|-21.0|0.833
84695685|NCT03088137|169131647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|11.9|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||11.9|-24.3|0.507
84695686|NCT00598481|169131649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||One-sided Poisson-regression|||||||0.005
84695687|NCT00598481|169131650|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.19||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 1 year post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.19|1.45|0.003
84695688|NCT00598481|169131650|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.25||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 2 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||11.25|2.63|<0.001
84695689|NCT00598481|169131650|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|13.64||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 3 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||13.64|3.08|<0.001
84695690|NCT01232556|169131731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||A one sided 0.025 level testing plan was specified with two interim analyses and final testing level at one-sided 0.023.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline Secondary International Prognostic Index (sIPI), and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Primary null hypothesis: Equality of survival distributions. Sample size sufficient to have power 0.96 for an experimental/control hazard ratio of 0.6.||1.44|0.82|0.708
84695691|NCT01232556|169131732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Second comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||1.19|0.72|0.271
84695692|NCT01232556|169131733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.843
84695693|NCT01232556|169131734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.714
84695694|NCT01232556|169131735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.25|||Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|DOR was not part of the formal hypothesis testing strategy.||1.25|0.47|0.142
84695695|NCT01232556|169131736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.06|-0.02|0.2892
84695696|NCT01232556|169131737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||7.74|-1.52|0.1879
84695697|NCT04033991|169131744|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695698|NCT04033991|169131744|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695699|NCT04033991|169131745|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695700|NCT04033991|169131745|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0068
84695701|NCT04033991|169131747|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695702|NCT04033991|169131747|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0004
84695703|NCT04033991|169131748|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695704|NCT04033991|169131748|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0014
84695705|NCT04033991|169131753|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695706|NCT04033991|169131753|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695707|NCT04033991|169131754|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
84695708|NCT04033991|169131754|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0094
84695709|NCT00577720|169131766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.964||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.964|1.091|
84695710|NCT00577720|169131766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.066||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.066|1.139|
84695711|NCT00577720|169131766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.177|2.086||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.086|1.177|
84695712|NCT00577720|169131766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.321||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.321|0.867|
84695713|NCT00577720|169131766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.267||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.267|0.824|
84695714|NCT00577720|169131767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.208|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.099||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.099|0.749|
84695715|NCT00577720|169131767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|2.003||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.003|0.665|
84695716|NCT00577720|169131767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|2.404||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.404|0.913|
84695717|NCT00577720|169131767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.752||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.752|0.797|
84695718|NCT00577720|169131767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.99||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.990|0.828|
84695719|NCT00577720|169131768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.316|2.993||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.993|0.316|
84695720|NCT00577720|169131768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|5.429||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||5.429|0.929|
84695721|NCT00577720|169131768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|4.718||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.718|0.801|
84695722|NCT00577720|169131768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.668|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|4.668||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.668|0.856|
84695723|NCT00577720|169131768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mgDRBB)|0.868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|1.488||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.488|0.504|
84695724|NCT04707391|169131776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.38|3.5||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.50|-4.38|
84695725|NCT04707391|169131776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.14|3.98||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.98|-4.14|
84695726|NCT04707391|169131776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.73|4.89||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups W at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||4.89|-2.73|
84695727|NCT04707391|169131776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.93|3.91||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.91|-3.93|
84695728|NCT04707391|169131777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in the 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.59|0.47||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||0.47|-5.59|
84695729|NCT04707391|169131777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.76|2.94||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.94|-2.76|
84714932|NCT01152450|169176234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.6159||95.0|-1.138|1.916|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||1.916|-1.138|0.6159
84714933|NCT01152450|169176234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||||95.0|-1.468|1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||1.599|-1.468|
84509589|NCT04424407|168770792|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in suicidal ideation score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
84714934|NCT01152450|169176235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.5906||95.0|-0.358|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.204|-0.358|0.5906
84714935|NCT01152450|169176235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2208||95.0|-0.458|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.106|-0.458|0.2208
84714936|NCT01152450|169176235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||||95.0|-0.382|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.184|-0.382|
84695730|NCT04707391|169131777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.41|3.25||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroupsW at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.25|-2.41|
84695731|NCT04707391|169131777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.62|2.09||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.09|-3.62|
84695732|NCT02923895|169131817|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.128||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.128|-1.500|<.0001
84695733|NCT01406717|169131829|OTHER||ANCOVA|0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31377|0.31418||||||||0.31418|-0.31377|
84695734|NCT01406717|169131830|OTHER||ANCOVA|5.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7565|18.5535||||||||18.5535|-6.7565|
84695735|NCT01406717|169131831|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84695736|NCT01406717|169131833|OTHER|||||||0.6318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6318
84695737|NCT01406717|169131834|OTHER|||||||0.4887|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4887
84695738|NCT01406717|169131835|OTHER|||||||0.3813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3813
84695739|NCT01406717|169131836|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9900
84695740|NCT01406717|169131837|OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
84695741|NCT01406717|169131838|OTHER|||||||0.6098|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.6098
84695742|NCT01406717|169131839|OTHER|||||||0.7324|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7324
84695743|NCT01406717|169131840|OTHER|||||||0.2984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2984
84695744|NCT02040090|169131841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We will reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 5% significance level, and conclude that Cp \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 90% binomial confidence interval (CI) exceeds0.1. A sample size of 53 in each group provides 80% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.031||||||The null hypothesis was that Cp ≤ -0.1.||0.031|-0.082|
84695745|NCT03257995|169131842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1861|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1293|0.2429|||ANOVA|||||0.2429|0.1293|<0.001
84695746|NCT03257995|169131842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0898|0.2029|||ANOVA|||||0.2029|0.0898|<0.001
84695747|NCT03257995|169131842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0942|0.0147|||ANOVA|||||0.0147|-0.0942|
84695748|NCT03257995|169131848|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.33|-0.83|0.823
84695749|NCT03257995|169131848|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-0.82|0.801
84695750|NCT03257995|169131848|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.73|-0.50|0.984
84695751|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1482|0.2872|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||0.2872|0.1482|<0.001
84695752|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.3417|||ANOVA|||15min||0.3417|0.2030|<0.001
84695753|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2036|0.3423|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3423|0.2036|<0.001
84695754|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1915|0.3302|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3302|0.1915|<0.001
84695755|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3188|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3188|0.1800|<0.001
84695756|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1578|0.2968|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.2968|0.1578|<0.001
84695757|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1697|0.3096|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3096|0.1697|<0.001
84695758|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1742|0.3144|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.3144|0.1742|<0.001
84695759|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1563|0.2997|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2997|0.1563|<0.001
84695760|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1237|0.2671|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2671|0.1237|<0.001
84695761|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1502|0.2889|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2889|0.1502|<0.001
84695762|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2684|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1988|0.338|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3380|0.1988|<0.001
84695763|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1879|0.3266|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3266|0.1879|<0.001
84695764|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1656|0.304|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3040|0.1656|<0.001
84695765|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1852|0.3239|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3239|0.1852|<0.001
84695766|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.3017|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.3017|0.1627|<0.001
84695767|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.302|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3020|0.1627|<0.001
84695768|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1359|0.2755|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2755|0.1359|<0.001
84695769|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0912|0.2337|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2337|0.0912|<0.001
84695770|NCT03257995|169131849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.2505|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2505|0.1080|<0.001
84509590|NCT04424407|168770793|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are uncorrected from ordinal logistic regression model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A significant p-value here means that treatment was associated with reduced odds of being in a higher risk category.||Analysis of change in suicidal risk was done by applying ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) testing the effect of treatment-time on the probability of being in a higher risk category. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.03
84509591|NCT04424407|168770799|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep onset latency (PSG) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.28
84695771|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<.001
84695772|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|10.6|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.6|6.4|<.001
84695773|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|10.7|||ANOVA|||at 30||10.7|6.5|<0.001
84695774|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.1|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||10.1|6.0|<0.001
84695775|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
84695776|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.1|5.0|<0.001
84695777|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
84695778|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
84695779|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||9.1|4.8|<0.001
84695780|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.6|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.6|4.2|<0.001
84695781|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<0.001
84695782|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.4|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.4|6.2|<0.001
84695783|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.2|||ANOVA|||at 30 min||10.2|6.0|<0.001
84695784|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||9.4|5.3|<0.001
84695785|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.9|5.7|<0.001
84695786|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
84695787|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.5|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.5|5.3|<0.001
84695788|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.4|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||8.4|4.2|<0.001
84695789|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||7.2|2.9|<0.001
84695790|NCT03257995|169131850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.0|3.7|<0.001
84695791|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1866|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2611|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2611|0.1121|<0.001
84695792|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1506|0.2992|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2992|0.1506|<0.001
84695793|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1661|0.3148|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3148|0.1661|<0.001
84695794|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.2817|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2817|0.1330|<0.001
84695795|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2545|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2545|0.1059|<0.001
84695796|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0876|0.2366|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2366|0.0876|<0.001
84695797|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1239|0.2742|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2742|0.1239|<0.001
84695798|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.2501|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2501|0.0994|<0.001
84695799|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1081|0.2631|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.2631|0.1081|<0.001
84695800|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0709|0.2259|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2259|0.0709|<0.001
84695801|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1386|0.2873|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2873|0.1386|<0.001
84695802|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1426|0.292|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2920|0.1426|<0.001
84695803|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1632|0.3118|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3118|0.1632|<0.001
84695804|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1272|0.2754|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2754|0.1272|<0.001
84695805|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1262|0.2749|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2749|0.1262|<0.001
84695806|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1201|0.2691|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2691|0.1201|<0.001
84695807|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1937|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.2684|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2684|0.1190|<0.001
84509592|NCT04424407|168770800|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in number of awakenings derived from PSG was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.33
84695808|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.2369|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2369|0.0870|<0.001
84695809|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.2018|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2018|0.0480|<0.001
84695810|NCT03257995|169131851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0777|0.2315|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2315|0.0777|<0.001
84695811|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.0|3.1|<0.001
84695812|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.9|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.9|4|<0.001
84695813|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|8.5|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.5|4.6|<0.001
84695814|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
84695815|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.7|||ANOVA|||2 hour||6.7|2.8|<0.001
84695816|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour||6.3|2.3|<0.001
84695817|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7|3|<0.001
84695818|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.5|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.5|2.5|<0.001
84695819|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||6.7|2.6|<0.001
84695820|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.2|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.2|2.0|<0.001
84695821|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
84695822|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
84695823|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|8.3|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.3|4.4|<0.001
84695824|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.5|3.5|<0.001
84695825|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||2 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
84695826|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour||7.0|3.1|<0.001
84695827|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7.0|3.0|<0.001
84695828|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.2|2.2|<0.001
84695829|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||5.0|1.0|0.004
84695830|NCT03257995|169131852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.1|2.1|<0.001
84695831|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0139|0.0359|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0359|0.0139|<.001
84695832|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.044|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0440|0.0220|<.001
84695833|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.0416|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0416|0.0197|<0.001
84695834|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0214|0.0434|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0434|0.0214|<0.001
84695835|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
84695836|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0215|0.0435|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0435|0.0215|<0.001
84695837|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0311|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.0422|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0422|0.0200|<0.001
84695838|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0248|0.047|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0470|0.0248|<0.001
84695839|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0211|0.044|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0440|0.0211|<0.001
84695840|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0187|0.0415|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0415|0.0187|<0.001
84695841|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0222|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.0332|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0332|0.0113|<0.001
84695842|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0344|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0234|0.0454|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0454|0.0234|<0.001
84509593|NCT04424407|168770801|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in wake after sleep onset (WASO) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.013
84695843|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0399|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0399|0.0180|<0.001
84695844|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0169|0.0387|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0387|0.0169|<0.001
84695845|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
84695846|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0168|0.0387|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0387|0.0168|<0.001
84695847|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0316|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0206|0.0426|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0426|0.0206|<0.001
84695848|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0175|0.0396|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0396|0.0175|<0.001
84695849|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0281|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0167|0.0394|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0394|0.0167|<0.001
84695850|NCT03257995|169131853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|0.0379|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0379|0.0152|<0.001
84695851|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2952|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2952|0.1059|<0.001
84695852|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2923|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3867|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3867|0.1979|<0.001
84695853|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2657|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1713|0.3601|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3601|0.1713|<0.001
84695854|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1808|0.3696|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3696|0.1808|<0.001
84695855|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875|0.3763|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3763|0.1875|<0.001
84695856|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1874|0.3766|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3766|0.1874|<0.001
84695857|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1585|0.3492|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3492|0.1585|<0.001
84695858|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1732|0.3643|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.3643|0.1732|<0.001
84695859|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2453|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1473|0.3434|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3434|0.1473|<0.001
84695860|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1862|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0882|0.2842|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2842|0.0882|<0.001
84695861|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1956|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1012|0.2899|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2899|0.1012|<0.001
84695862|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3875|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3875|0.1979|<0.001
84695863|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.3667|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3667|0.1780|<0.001
84695864|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2386|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1445|0.3328|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3328|0.1445|<0.001
84695865|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2986|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2042|0.393|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3930|0.2042|<0.001
84695866|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1715|0.3607|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3607|0.1715|<0.001
84695867|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1609|0.3506|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3506|0.1609|<0.001
84695868|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1036|0.2938|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2938|0.1036|<0.001
84695869|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2044|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1071|0.3017|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3017|0.1071|<0.001
84695870|NCT03257995|169131854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1023|0.297|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2970|0.1023|<0.001
84695871|NCT03257995|169131855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2476|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1857|0.3095|||ANOVA|||||0.3095|0.1857|<.001
84695872|NCT03257995|169131855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.3066|||ANOVA|||||0.3066|0.1830|<.001
84695873|NCT03257995|169131855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.059|||ANOVA|||||0.0590|-0.0647|
84695874|NCT03257995|169131856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.009
84695875|NCT03257995|169131856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.008
84695876|NCT03257995|169131857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|40.3|||ANOVA|||||40.3|25.6|<0.001
84695877|NCT03257995|169131857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|38.2|||ANOVA|||||38.2|23.5|<0.001
84695878|NCT01168674|169131887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The report is of the mean MADRS difference between ziprasidone versus placebo after linear mixed regression, correcting for confounding effects of order of treatment as well as other identified potential confounders.|Linear mixed effects regression model||||0.48
84509594|NCT04424407|168770802|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG TST was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.66
84695879|NCT02584855|169131889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695880|NCT02584855|169131890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-32.3||||||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment, geographic region, and cDMARD use at the time of double-blind randomization .||-32.3|-58.8|
84695881|NCT02584855|169131893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695882|NCT02584855|169131894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695883|NCT02584855|169131895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695884|NCT02584855|169131896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695885|NCT02584855|169131897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
84695886|NCT03786094|169131914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.85|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.85|0.4450
84695887|NCT03786094|169131915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.81|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.81|0.6158
84695888|NCT03786094|169131916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.66|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.77|0.66|0.6126
84695889|NCT02404493|169131954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695890|NCT02404493|169131954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.023
84695891|NCT02404493|169131954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|422.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.905||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.435|679.186||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||679.186|166.435|0.003
84695892|NCT02404493|169131955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695893|NCT02404493|169131955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.754
84714937|NCT01152450|169176236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9797||95.0|-0.163|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.159|-0.163|0.9797
84695894|NCT02404493|169131955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.21||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.23|92.373||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||92.373|12.230|0.013
84695895|NCT02404493|169131956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695896|NCT02404493|169131956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.271
84695897|NCT02404493|169131956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.046|268.854||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||268.854|67.046|0.002
84695898|NCT02404493|169131957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
84695899|NCT02404493|169131957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.260
84695900|NCT02404493|169131957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|221.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.674||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.254|432.68||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||432.680|11.254|0.040
84695901|NCT02404493|169131958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695902|NCT02404493|169131958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.220
84695903|NCT02404493|169131958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.461||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.712|337.291||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||337.291|50.712|0.011
84695904|NCT02404493|169131959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
84695905|NCT02404493|169131959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.060
84695906|NCT02404493|169131959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.567||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.266|302.063||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||302.063|-32.266|0.107
84695907|NCT02404493|169131960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.692
84695908|NCT02404493|169131960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.541
84695909|NCT02404493|169131960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.502||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.502|-0.250|0.492
84695910|NCT02404493|169131961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.017
84695911|NCT02404493|169131961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.223
84714938|NCT01152450|169176236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4518||95.0|-0.223|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.223|0.4518
84695912|NCT02404493|169131961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.331||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.331|-0.635|0.518
84695913|NCT02404493|169131962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.005
84695914|NCT02404493|169131962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.821
84695915|NCT02404493|169131962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.435|0.032||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.032|-1.435|0.060
84695916|NCT02404493|169131963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.007
84695917|NCT02404493|169131963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.051
84695918|NCT02404493|169131963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.375||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.375|-0.410|0.926
84695919|NCT02404493|169131964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.580
84695920|NCT02404493|169131964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.363
84695921|NCT02404493|169131964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.286||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.286|-0.531|0.539
84695922|NCT02404493|169131965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.055
84695923|NCT02404493|169131965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.076
84695924|NCT02404493|169131965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|0.449||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.449|-0.672|0.682
84695925|NCT02404493|169131966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
84695926|NCT02404493|169131966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.025
84695927|NCT02404493|169131966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.514||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.514|-0.509|0.991
84695928|NCT02404493|169131967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695929|NCT02404493|169131967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695930|NCT02404493|169131967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.6||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.600|-0.214|0.334
84695931|NCT02404493|169131968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.169
84695932|NCT02404493|169131968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.778|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-0.778|0.317
84695933|NCT02404493|169131969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695934|NCT02404493|169131969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.182
84695935|NCT02404493|169131969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.069||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.069|-0.931|0.027
84695936|NCT02404493|169131970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695937|NCT02404493|169131970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.080
84695938|NCT02404493|169131970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.574||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.574|-0.824|0.699
84695939|NCT02404493|169131971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695940|NCT02404493|169131971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.058
84695941|NCT02404493|169131971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.857||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.857|-0.607|0.711
84695942|NCT02404493|169131972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.006
84695943|NCT02404493|169131972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.012
84695944|NCT02404493|169131972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.424||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.424|-0.391|0.932
84695945|NCT02404493|169131973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
84695946|NCT02404493|169131973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84714939|NCT01152450|169176236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||95.0|-0.222|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.102|-0.222|
84695947|NCT02404493|169131973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.547||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.547|-0.410|0.767
84695948|NCT02404493|169131974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
84695949|NCT02404493|169131974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
84695950|NCT02404493|169131974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.37||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.370|-0.650|0.571
84695951|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4||||||Unmasked minus masked||1.4|-2.2|
84695952|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.5|-1.5|
84695953|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.2|-0.1|
84695954|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||3.5|0.2|
84695955|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.2|-3.3|
84695956|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.1|-1.9|
84695957|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Partial masked minus masked||2.7|-2.9|
84695958|NCT01155726|169132099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.9|-1.1|
84509595|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Delta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.96
84695959|NCT05305040|169132100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.09|0.5603
84695960|NCT02054247|169132103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
84695961|NCT02054247|169132104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
84695962|NCT02054247|169132105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.125
84695963|NCT02054247|169132106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
84695964|NCT01195675|169132107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.87|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.87|-0.69|
84695965|NCT01195675|169132108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.71|-0.38|
84695966|NCT01195675|169132109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.93|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.93|-1.23|
84695967|NCT01195675|169132110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.73|14.11|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, period, treatment sequence, baseline and subject within sequence.|Non-confirmatory testing. Mean difference = Moxifloxacin minus placebo.|||14.11|10.73|<0.0001
84695968|NCT01195675|169132111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|4.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||4.67|-0.34|
84695969|NCT01195675|169132112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|3.53|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||3.53|-0.35|
84695970|NCT01195675|169132113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|0.94|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.94|-1.39|
84695971|NCT02424344|169132117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.125||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.01|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by baseline and age as covariates, and treatment group, sex and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.010|-0.259|0.069
84695972|NCT05257837|169132140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84695973|NCT05257837|169132141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84695974|NCT05257837|169132142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
84695975|NCT05257837|169132144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.217
84695976|NCT05257837|169132145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.745
84695977|NCT03639675|169132147|OTHER||Mean change|-8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-4.4|||one-sample t-statistics|||||-4.4|-12.2|0.0004
84695978|NCT02459587|169132149|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person. VCL contacts with and without suicide ideation were combined, due to low counts.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.92||2-tailed P-value above was calculated from type III test.|Regression, Cox|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates.|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.218 (SEM=0.222)|||1.92|0.80|0.33
84695979|NCT02459587|169132150|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7||All tests of significance were 2-tailed. P-value above is type III. No covariates.|Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.660 (SEM=0.153)|||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
84695980|NCT02459587|169132151|SUPERIORITY|Two binary variables were derived from Treatment Services Review responses to identify any general mental health service utilization, one binary variable for Baseline and another for any outpatient mental health service utilization at any time point in the 1 year follow-up period. The Baseline variable was included as a main-effects covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|1.146||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.176|||Regression, Logistic|Bivariate logistic, adjusted for (1) if any general outpatient mental heath visits at baseline (0) otherwise||||2.176|0.604|0.66
84695981|NCT04731714|169132152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.0104
84695982|NCT04731714|169132153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.079
84695983|NCT04731714|169132154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.9222
84695984|NCT04731714|169132155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.7995
84695985|NCT04731714|169132156|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||rhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.3140
84509596|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Theta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
84695986|NCT04731714|169132156|OTHER|||||||0.239||||||arrhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.239
84695987|NCT04731714|169132160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8844|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.8844
84695988|NCT04731714|169132162|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||binomial|One-sided||||||0.73
84695989|NCT04004208|169132204|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 5%. Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.162||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.162|-0.08|
84695990|NCT04004208|169132205|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.046||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.046|-0.11|
84695991|NCT04004208|169132206|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.175||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.175|0.019|
84695992|NCT00839982|169132217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Hypothesis: achieving CR provides an overall longer survival.|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84695993|NCT01676220|169132228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.174||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.174|-0.090|
84695994|NCT01676220|169132229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan).||1.20|0.66|0.4536
84695995|NCT01676220|169132230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.605||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline preinjection SMPG value and baseline preinjection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.605|-0.275|
84695996|NCT04227340|169132251|OTHER|The count, percentage and confidence interval will be calculated for allogeneic HCT patients who receive PBM and develop Grade 3 mucositis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.356|||||Odds of grade 3 in Allogeneic group compared to historical rates. The study efficacy of mucositis reduction by 20% with an estimation of 51% developing grade 3 mucositis.|The count, percentage and confidence interval were calculated for allogeneic HCT participants who receive PBM and developed Grade 3 mucositis. Whether the percentage of the prospective sample is significantly different from the estimated rate of 71% was accessed.||0.356|0.091|
84695997|NCT04227340|169132252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcox Rank Sum|||||||0.03
84509597|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Alpha absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.11
84695998|NCT04227340|169132254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84695999|NCT04227340|169132256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84696000|NCT04227340|169132258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
84696001|NCT04227340|169132260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84696002|NCT01152554|169132284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.54|0.697
84696003|NCT01152554|169132285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.57|0.45|0.582
84696004|NCT03486899|169132294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.52|0.88|0.055
84696005|NCT03486899|169132294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|0.61|0.245
84696006|NCT03486899|169132294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.10|0.71|0.129
84696007|NCT03486899|169132295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
84696008|NCT03486899|169132295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
84696009|NCT03486899|169132295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.48|0.75|0.079
84696010|NCT03486899|169132296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.47|0.63|0.180
84696011|NCT03486899|169132296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.20|0.38|0.612
84696012|NCT03486899|169132296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.81|0.079
84696013|NCT03486899|169132297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.15|0.038
84696014|NCT03486899|169132297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.22|0.256
84696015|NCT03486899|169132297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.73|0.25|0.296
84696016|NCT03486899|169132298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
84696017|NCT03486899|169132298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
84696018|NCT03486899|169132298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
84696019|NCT03486899|169132299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
84696020|NCT03486899|169132299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
84696021|NCT03486899|169132299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
84696022|NCT03486899|169132300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.12|0.73|0.101
84696023|NCT03486899|169132300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.17|0.36|0.587
84696024|NCT03486899|169132300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
84696025|NCT03486899|169132301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
84696026|NCT03486899|169132301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
84696027|NCT03486899|169132301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
84696028|NCT03486899|169132302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.21|0.83|0.060
84696029|NCT03486899|169132302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.92|0.53|0.276
84696030|NCT03486899|169132302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
84696031|NCT03486899|169132303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.87|0.62|0.242
84696032|NCT03486899|169132303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.37|0.803
84696033|NCT03486899|169132303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.46|0.56|0.350
84696034|NCT01439711|169132304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84696035|NCT01439711|169132305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84696036|NCT02397460|169132316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects on Emax following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who were healthy or had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
84696037|NCT02397460|169132317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose. dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
84696038|NCT01767129|169132332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.02|48.23|||ANOVA|The standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The least squares (LS) mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.23|-215.02|0.1907
84696039|NCT01767129|169132333|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.28|27.42|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||27.42|-65.28|0.3880
84696040|NCT01767129|169132334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.9||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1022.79|1366.64|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||1366.64|-1022.79|0.7574
84714940|NCT01152450|169176237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4089||95.0|-0.207|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.085|-0.207|0.4089
84509598|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Sigma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.44
84696041|NCT01767129|169132335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.63|178.3|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||178.30|-80.63|0.4203
84696042|NCT01767129|169132336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part I||0.27|-2.41|0.1067
84696043|NCT01767129|169132336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.09|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part II||3.09|-2.64|0.8650
84696044|NCT01767129|169132336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part IV||0.27|-4.94|0.0745
84696045|NCT01767129|169132337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.24|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 1||0.24|-8.10|0.0625
84696046|NCT01767129|169132337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 2||1.07|-3.74|0.2474
84696047|NCT01767129|169132338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.01|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||3.01|-3.10|0.9764
84696048|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|6.36|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Mobility||6.36|-9.94|0.6359
84696049|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.87|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Activities of Daily Living||-1.87|-15.20|0.0167
84696050|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.56|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Emotional Well Being||1.56|-16.54|0.0959
84696051|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|8.83|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Stigma||8.83|-16.72|0.5108
84696052|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|1.42|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Social support||1.42|-21.06|0.0806
84696053|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|7.03|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Cognitive impairment (Cognitions)||7.03|-15.66|0.4205
84696054|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|1.53|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Communication||1.53|-13.63|0.1065
84696055|NCT01767129|169132339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.51|9.19|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Bodily discomfort||9.19|-19.51|0.4456
84696056|NCT01767129|169132340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||-1.07|-11.72|0.0233
84696057|NCT01767129|169132341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.31|||ANOVA|Change from Screening values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||0.31|-1.39|0.1930
84696058|NCT01767129|169132342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.01|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Dyskinesia||0.01|-2.17|0.0511
84696059|NCT01767129|169132342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.91|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Other symptoms||0.91|-0.70|0.7745
84696060|NCT01473420|169132351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||||||Least square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.24|-0.17|
84696061|NCT01473420|169132352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|9.82||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||9.82|-14.51|
84696062|NCT01473420|169132353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8338|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.8338
84696063|NCT01473420|169132354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6895|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.6895
84696064|NCT01473420|169132355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.9177
84696065|NCT00738530|169132379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.76|0.3360
84696066|NCT00738530|169132381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0004
84696067|NCT00738530|169132382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.62|0.0002
84696068|NCT00738530|169132384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.66|0.0023
84696069|NCT00738530|169132385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.6|||Chi-squared|||||26.6|13.2|<.0001
84696070|NCT01656759|169132388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84696071|NCT01656759|169132389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84696072|NCT01656759|169132391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84696073|NCT01607411|169132408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.58||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||7.58|3.60|<0.0001
84696074|NCT01607411|169132408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.35||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||6.35|2.37|<0.0001
84696075|NCT01607411|169132408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.16||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.15||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||5.15|1.17|0.0021
84663284|NCT03510884|169060163|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|52.7|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.5|804.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||804.3|3.5|=0.0011
84696076|NCT01607411|169132409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.23||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|3.22||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.22|-0.76|0.2225
84696077|NCT01607411|169132409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||4.43|0.44|0.0168
84696078|NCT01607411|169132409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.19||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.19|-0.79|0.2352
84696079|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|39.24||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.24|30.07|<0.0001
84696080|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|34.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.28|39.44||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.44|30.28|<0.0001
84696081|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|28.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|33.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||33.13|23.97|< 0.0001
84696082|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|4.38||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||4.38|-4.79|0.9292
84696083|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|10.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.69|1.52|0.0094
84696084|NCT01607411|169132410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.31||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.89||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.89|1.72|0.0073
84696085|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random factor|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.98|0.58|<0.0001
84696086|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.99|0.58|<0.0001
84696087|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.69|0.29|< 0.0001
84696088|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.20|-0.21|0.9631
84696089|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.49|0.09|0.0047
84696090|NCT01607411|169132411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.50|0.10|0.0040
84696091|NCT03990363|169132432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0648
84696092|NCT03990363|169132432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6296|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.6296
84696093|NCT03990363|169132432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0263
84696094|NCT01706965|169132447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA, controlling for baseline PANSS total||||.38
84696095|NCT01706965|169132448|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA, controlled for baseline MATRICS||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||.99
84663285|NCT03510884|169060163|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|43.1|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.7|498.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||498.6|3.7|=0.0006
84696096|NCT01563978|169132449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|2.93||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.45|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.45|0.40|0.023
84696097|NCT01563978|169132450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.03|2.04|<0.001
84696098|NCT01563978|169132451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.08|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime SBP (Day 28)||6.08|0.53|0.020
84696099|NCT01563978|169132451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.42|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime DBP (Day 28)||5.42|2.08|<0.001
84696100|NCT01563978|169132451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.07||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.11|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time SBP (Day 28)||5.11|-0.96|0.179
84696101|NCT01563978|169132451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.14|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time DBP (Day 28)||5.14|1.13|0.002
84696102|NCT01563978|169132452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.11||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.81|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake SBP (Day 28)||5.81|0.41|0.024
84696103|NCT01563978|169132452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.22|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake DBP (Day 28)||5.22|2.10|<0.001
84696104|NCT01563978|169132453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|1.99||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.2|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping SBP||5.20|-1.22|0.223
84696105|NCT01563978|169132453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.93|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping DBP||4.93|0.81|0.007
84663286|NCT03510884|169060164|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6||The percentage of participants reaching LDL-C level lower than 110 mg/dL was 0% in the placebo arm, as a result it was possible to derive the estimated odds-ratio, but the estimated confidence interval (CI) was very wide, with the upper limit estimated to Infinity, therefore upper limit of 97.5% CI was not available to report.|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Exact conditional logistic regression||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Odds ratios and confidence intervals estimated from exact conditional logistic regression model.|The LOCF approach followed by exact conditional logistic regression model. The exact conditional logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the quartiles of the Baseline LDL-C value.|||6.6|<0.0001
84663287|NCT03510884|169060164|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|104.8|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|2095.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||2095.9|5.2|=0.0005
84696106|NCT01563978|169132454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.69|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic SBP (Day 29)||5.69|-1.20|0.200
84696107|NCT01563978|169132454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.68|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic DBP (Day 29)||4.68|0.05|0.046
84696108|NCT01563978|169132455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home SBP (Week 4)||9.03|3.60|<0.001
84663288|NCT03510884|169060165|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|=|0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|-0.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-0.1|-30.3|=0.0237
84696109|NCT01563978|169132455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|6.25|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.25|2.91|<0.001
84663289|NCT03510884|169060165|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.4|-5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-5.4|-44.4|=0.0043
84663290|NCT03510884|169060166|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.4288|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.7|10.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||10.4|-21.7|=0.4288
84663291|NCT03510884|169060166|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.7|5.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||5.7|-32.7|=0.1148
84663292|NCT02282020|169060196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months)|An odds ratio \>1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.58|1.40|0.002
84663293|NCT02282020|169060197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.43|0.013
84663294|NCT02282020|169060198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.15|0.56|0.229
84663295|NCT02282020|169060199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.49|0.76|0.714
84663296|NCT02282020|169060200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.85|0.41|0.005
84663297|NCT02282020|169060201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.69||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.69|0.35|<0.001
84663298|NCT02282020|169060202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.05|0.53|0.089
84663299|NCT02282020|169060203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.29|0.14|<0.001
84663300|NCT02282020|169060206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes factors for patient, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline TOI score and baseline TOI score by visit interaction.||||5.5|-0.5|0.108
84663301|NCT02282020|169060207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.86||Estimated from an unadjusted logistic regression model|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||6.86|0.88|0.092
84663302|NCT02282020|169060208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.39||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.39|1.32|0.004
84663303|NCT02282020|169060209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.42|0.014
84663304|NCT02282020|169060210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.14|0.56|0.213
84663305|NCT02282020|169060211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.51||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.51|0.76|0.699
84663306|NCT02282020|169060212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.27||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.27|0.12|<0.001
84696110|NCT01563978|169132456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|10.16|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home SBP (Week 4)||10.16|4.29|<0.001
84663307|NCT02282020|169060213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.66||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.66|0.33|<0.001
84663308|NCT02282020|169060214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.01||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.01|0.51|0.055
84663309|NCT01500629|169060217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.33|-1.90|0.156
84663310|NCT01500629|169060218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.92|-1.49|0.625
84663311|NCT01500629|169060219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.67|-2.12|0.291
84663312|NCT01500629|169060220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.07|-1.21|0.899
84663313|NCT01500629|169060221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.701||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.701
84663314|NCT01500629|169060222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.108||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.108
84663315|NCT01500629|169060223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.253||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.253
84663316|NCT01500629|169060224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.287||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.287
84663317|NCT01500629|169060225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.409||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.409
84663318|NCT01500629|169060226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.092||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.092
84509599|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-1 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.68
84696111|NCT01563978|169132456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.59|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.59|2.90|<0.001
84663319|NCT01500629|169060227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.042||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.042
84663320|NCT01500629|169060228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.307||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.307
84663321|NCT01500629|169060229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.903||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.903
84663322|NCT01500629|169060230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.121||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.121
84663323|NCT01500629|169060231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.689||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.689
84663324|NCT01500629|169060232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.314||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.314
84663325|NCT01500629|169060233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.034||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.034
84663326|NCT01500629|169060234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.845||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.845
84663327|NCT01500629|169060235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.619||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.619
84663328|NCT01500629|169060236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.803
84663329|NCT01500629|169060237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.175||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.175
84663330|NCT01500629|169060238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.206
84663331|NCT01500629|169060239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.072||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.072
84714941|NCT01152450|169176237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.3185||95.0|-0.221|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.072|-0.221|0.3185
84714942|NCT01152450|169176237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||||95.0|-0.16|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.134|-0.160|
84714943|NCT01152450|169176238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9626||95.0|-0.059|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.062|-0.059|0.9626
84714944|NCT01152450|169176238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9102||95.0|-0.058|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.065|-0.058|0.9102
84696112|NCT01563978|169132458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08||Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)|ANCOVA|||Improvement from baseline at Day 29. Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any dose of background disease modifying antirheumatic drug increased or any other RA treatment initiated including DMARDs, anti-TNFs or other biologics, or receiving any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.08|0.40|<0.001
84663332|NCT01500629|169060240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.014||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||.0140
84663333|NCT01500629|169060241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.22|-0.24|0.907
84663334|NCT01500629|169060242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.18|-0.28|0.666
84663335|NCT01500629|169060243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.28|-0.29|0.972
84663336|NCT01500629|169060244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.59|-0.31|0.521
84663337|NCT01500629|169060245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.39|-0.15|0.376
84663338|NCT01500629|169060246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.30|-0.11|0.350
84663339|NCT01500629|169060247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.34|-0.36|0.947
84663340|NCT01500629|169060248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.19|-0.30|0.651
84663341|NCT01500629|169060253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.38|-1.30|0.261
84663342|NCT01500629|169060254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.51|0.481
84714945|NCT01152450|169176238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||95.0|-0.059|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.063|-0.059|
84714946|NCT05670587|169176240|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 4|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric Coefficient of variation (gCV) = 84.59%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 4.||1.18|0.76|
84714947|NCT05670587|169176240|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 8|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 115.62%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 8.||1.11|0.64|
84696113|NCT00556374|169132466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratification factors are hospital type, prior use of aromatase inhibitor, and baseline lumbar spine BMD.|From the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the independent variable and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer fracture-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|The efficacy clinical hypothesis is that denosumab, when administered subcutaneously at a dose of 60 mg every 6 months, will be considered efficacious in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving AIT if the rate of first clinical fracture in denosumab-treated patients is lower than that in placebo-treated patients. It is anticipated that denosumab will reduce the rate by 30% compared with placebo (ie, the true hazard ratio of denosumab compared with placebo is 0.70).||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
84696114|NCT00556374|169132467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.04|11.01||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||11.01|9.04|<0.0001
84696115|NCT00556374|169132468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|7.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|8.97||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||8.97|6.87|<0.0001
84696116|NCT00556374|169132469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|7.39||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||7.39|5.62|<0.0001
84696117|NCT00556374|169132470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.85|0.33|0.0088
84696118|NCT00556374|169132471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.84|0.34|0.0070
84696119|NCT00556374|169132472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratified by randomization strata (hospital type, use of aromatase inhibitor, baseline lumbar spine BMD).|From the Cox Proportional hazards model with treatment fitted as a covariate and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.66|0.0515
84696120|NCT00556374|169132473|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of BMFS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.997|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer bone metastases-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||0.997|0.654|
84696121|NCT00556374|169132474|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of OS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.013|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer overall survival time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.013|0.635|
84696122|NCT01053637|169132560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Pain at 5 minutes using Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale validated in the younger population. Using a 2-point difference in CHEOPS pain scale as a clinically significant change, 34 patients were required in the younger 2- to 7 group.|Fisher Exact|||Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, for children 2-7 years. This score ranks 6 categories: Cry, Facial expression, Verbal Response, Torso movement, Touch, and Leg movement. The scale varies by each category from 0-2 or 1-2 or 1-3; such that a minimum score is 4 (no pain) and a maximum score is 13 signifying greatest or worst pain.||||0.05
84696123|NCT01053637|169132561|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. Higher numbers indicated higher state anxiety. State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) scores pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. A lower STAIC score indicates less anxiety and a greater score indicates more anxiety based on Likert-type scales and analyzed using nonparametric testing.||||0.05
84696124|NCT02102464|169132563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.0|8.0|<0.0001
84696125|NCT02102464|169132564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.2|-10.2|<0.0001
84696126|NCT02102464|169132565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.4|2.5|<0.0001
84696127|NCT01778062|169132571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84696128|NCT00950937|169132575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696129|NCT00950937|169132575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696130|NCT00950937|169132575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696131|NCT00950937|169132576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696132|NCT00950937|169132576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696133|NCT00950937|169132576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696134|NCT00950937|169132577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696135|NCT00950937|169132577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696136|NCT00950937|169132577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696137|NCT00950937|169132578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696138|NCT00950937|169132578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696139|NCT00950937|169132578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696140|NCT00950937|169132579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696141|NCT00950937|169132579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696142|NCT00950937|169132579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696143|NCT00950937|169132580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
84696144|NCT00950937|169132580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696145|NCT00950937|169132580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
84696146|NCT00950937|169132581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was utilized to compare the two groups (HIV group and Control group)||||||<0.05
84696147|NCT01824472|169132582|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference compared across 3 groups|0.43||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||"Kruskal-Wallis test implemented as PROC NPAR1WAY in Statistical Analysis System (SAS v9.4) for a single groupwise comparison. The mean difference (baseline to follow-up) was determined for each group, and this was compared across all 3 groups."|||||0.8
84696148|NCT04039503|169132583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
84696149|NCT04039503|169132583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
84696150|NCT04039503|169132584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.52|<0.001
84696151|NCT04039503|169132585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-9.4|<0.001
84696152|NCT04039503|169132585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-11.5|<0.001
84696153|NCT04039503|169132585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-14.2|<0.001
84696154|NCT04039503|169132586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.23|93.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.70|15.23|<0.001
84696155|NCT04039503|169132586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.02|333.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.62|30.02|<0.001
84696156|NCT04039503|169132586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|110.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.83|16.92|<0.001
84696157|NCT04039503|169132587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-29.5|<0.001
84696158|NCT04039503|169132587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.0|-36.0|<0.001
84696159|NCT04039503|169132587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.6|-35.9|<0.001
84696160|NCT04039503|169132589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|38.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.93|7.55|<0.001
84696161|NCT04039503|169132589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.87|62.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.55|11.87|<0.001
84696162|NCT04039503|169132589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|193.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||193.44|32.76|<0.001
84696163|NCT04039503|169132590|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.8||||||||-22.8|-46.0|
84696164|NCT04039503|169132590|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.1||||||||-26.1|-48.3|
84696165|NCT04039503|169132590|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-49.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-39.4||||||||-39.4|-57.7|
84696166|NCT04039503|169132593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.00|3.93|<0.001
84696167|NCT04039503|169132593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.52|99.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.49|10.52|<0.001
84696168|NCT04039503|169132593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|173.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||173.26|18.27|<0.001
84696169|NCT01815736|169132594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|2.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.01|-0.3|5.6||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.01% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.6|-0.3|0.051
84696170|NCT01815736|169132594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.7|1.6|<0.001
84696171|NCT01815736|169132595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|2.459||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.459|1.697|<0.001
84696172|NCT01815736|169132595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.807|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|2.126||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.126|1.488|<0.001
84696173|NCT01815736|169132596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.551|2.39||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.390|1.551|<0.001
84696174|NCT01815736|169132596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.549|2.452||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.452|1.549|<0.001
84696175|NCT01815736|169132597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.03||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|NDA Data Cut||-0.03|-0.07|<0.001
84696176|NCT01815736|169132597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|All Participants||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
84696177|NCT01815736|169132598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NDA Data Cut||||<0.001
84696178|NCT01815736|169132598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All Participants||||<0.001
84696179|NCT01815736|169132599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||7.0|0.4|0.017
84696180|NCT01815736|169132600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.3|-1.7|0.29
84696181|NCT01815736|169132600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.3|0.1|0.031
84696182|NCT01815736|169132601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||9.0|1.6|0.003
84696183|NCT01815736|169132602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|26.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. FTC/TDF+3rd Agent) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut: Change at Week 48||26|-14|0.56
84696184|NCT01815736|169132602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|11.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|29.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs.SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|All Participants: Change at Week 48||29|-8|0.26
84696185|NCT01815736|169132603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|18.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|38.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|||38|-2|0.074
84696186|NCT00462644|169132663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84696187|NCT00462644|169132664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84696188|NCT00462644|169132665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84696189|NCT00462644|169132666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality was tested using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test.||||0.022
84696190|NCT00462644|169132667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84696191|NCT00462644|169132668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84696192|NCT03317379|169132672|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.17|.80
84696193|NCT03317379|169132672|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.10|.32
84696194|NCT03317379|169132673|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
84696195|NCT03317379|169132673|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-.07|0.28
84696196|NCT03317379|169132674|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.16||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|0.06|0.03
84696197|NCT03317379|169132674|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.27|0.09|0.02
84696198|NCT03317379|169132675|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.42||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.02|0.08
84696199|NCT03317379|169132675|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.04|0.12
84696200|NCT03317379|169132676|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.74||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.14|0.18
84696201|NCT03317379|169132676|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.62||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.30|0.50
84696202|NCT04445155|169132685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
84696203|NCT04445155|169132687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||"Null Hypothesis: The means of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The means of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.011
84696204|NCT04445155|169132688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
84663343|NCT01500629|169060255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.89|-0.85|0.961
84696205|NCT04445155|169132688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.008
84696206|NCT04445155|169132689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
84696207|NCT04445155|169132689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
84696208|NCT04445155|169132690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
84696209|NCT04445155|169132690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
84663344|NCT01500629|169060256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.57|0.546
84663345|NCT02618434|169060287|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|7.84|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.84|-8.96|0.9383
84696210|NCT01875861|169132694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.38||||||Because of data discontinuity, assumptions for time series analysis did not hold. Repeated measures regression models were developed to compare overall weight monitoring rates at baseline across the implementation phases.||1.38|1.02|
84696211|NCT01875861|169132695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.39||||||See comments about time series analysis for primary outcome measure. Repeated measures regression analysis of the likelihood of monitoring for each time period was conducted.||1.39|1.03|
84696212|NCT05516342|169132709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84696213|NCT05516342|169132710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84696214|NCT05516342|169132711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84696215|NCT05516342|169132712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84696216|NCT05516342|169132713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84696217|NCT05516342|169132714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84696218|NCT05516342|169132715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
84696219|NCT05516342|169132716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
84696220|NCT05516342|169132717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84696221|NCT01866475|169132718|NON_INFERIORITY|This study is designed to test the hypothesis that the IO device has no greater than a 4 percent infection rate. Equivalently, we define success as having at least a 96 percent infection free 48-hour placement.|||||||||||||||||The historical data for the device suggests an infection rate of 0.6 percent per 48 hours or a success rate of 99.4 percent. The formal objective in the design is to reject the one-sided null hypothesis that the success rate is no higher than 96 percent. The analysis will use the exact binomial test and will tolerate a Type I Error rate of 0.05 or less. If we assume a 99.4 percent success rate, the study will have 84 percent power with a sample size of 117 to reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected, we conclude that the infection rate is less than 4 percent.|||
84696222|NCT03862482|169132741|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 35 Brånemark® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.49|-1.22|<0.05
84696223|NCT03862482|169132741|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.64||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Swede-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.64|-1.35|<0.05
84696224|NCT03862482|169132741|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.41||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Screw-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-1.41|-2.13|<0.05
84696225|NCT04179461|169132748|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the CASI was captured at clinical visits. 3. A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.52||||||Change in CASI score from V1 to V3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The modified CASI score incorporates key asthma outcomes such as symptoms, healthcare utilization, and medication dose.||||0.52
84696226|NCT04179461|169132749|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.45||||||The change in ACT score from V1 to V2 (the period between V1 and V2).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
84714948|NCT05670587|169176240|OTHER||gMean ratio at Day 82|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 100.02%."|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Day 82.||1.29|0.75|
84714949|NCT03738852|169176245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.907
84714950|NCT01733316|169176251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Paired t-test testing the null hypothesis that the population average difference during the Cystagon® phase is equal to the population average difference during the RP103 phase.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||||||0.0048
84696227|NCT04179461|169132749|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.01||||||The change in ACT score from V1-V2 to V2-V3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84696228|NCT04179461|169132750|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data and the Bowker's test was used to compare categorical FEV1-FVC data. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.27||||||The Change in FEV1/FVC from Visit 1 to Visit 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84696229|NCT04179461|169132751|EQUIVALENCE|Intervention adherence and end of study adherence were each calculated based on the 30 days prior to end of intervention and V3, respectively, in order to assess a consistent timeframe. The paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted to compare controller inhaler adherence during baseline, adherence intervention, and end of study.||||||0.17||||||Change between baseline (V1) to end of study (V3)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84696230|NCT01438229|169132768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84696231|NCT03785340|169132798|SUPERIORITY|"The endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found:~1. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score~2. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores~3. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in SANDE score~4. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores"|Least squares mean difference|-0.844||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|4.134|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score; OCU-310 vs. Placebo|Four endpoints (two primary and two secondary) were to be tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found. The analysis of the four outcomes employed a repeated measures mixed model with mean change from baseline score at the stated time point as the response with baseline score as a covariate and treatment, visit, and their interaction as fixed effects. The least squares mean difference (OCU 310 - placebo) at the stated time point was tested.||4.134|-5.823|0.739
84696232|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was the that proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at one year were the same between the two groups.||1.07|0.95|0.79
84696233|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 183 days were the same between the two groups.||1.12|0.96|0.307
84696234|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 90 days were the same between the two groups.||1.16|0.95|0.375
84696235|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 42 days were the same between the two groups.||1.26|0.94|0.265
84696236|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among females were the same between the two groups.||1.15|0.97|0.237
84696237|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among males were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.89|0.487
84696238|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \<= 64 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.27|0.78|0.952
84696239|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among age 65 - 74 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.91|0.696
84509600|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-2 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.74
84696240|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age 75 - 84 yrs were the same between groups.||1.13|0.94|0.584
84696241|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \>= 85 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.87|0.911
84714951|NCT01674140|169176260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.77|0.52
84714952|NCT01674140|169176261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.75|0.84
84714953|NCT01674140|169176263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.74|0.32
84714954|NCT05139810|169176268|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.351|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used to account for potential over dispersion.||0.351|0.107|<0.001
84663346|NCT02618434|169060288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.33|0.0979
84663347|NCT02618434|169060288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.50|0.0502
84663348|NCT02618434|169060288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.18|-0.38|0.4769
84663349|NCT02618434|169060289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.41|0.0881
84663350|NCT02618434|169060289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.53|0.0522
84663351|NCT02618434|169060289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.10|-0.52|0.1766
84663352|NCT02618434|169060290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.72|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Physical Functioning Summary Score at Visit 6.||4.72|-1.64|0.3409
84663353|NCT02618434|169060290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Psychosocial Health Summary Score at Visit 6.||-0.33|-4.08|0.0215
84663354|NCT02618434|169060291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.89|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Score at Visit 6.||2.89|-5.00|0.5977
84663355|NCT02618434|169060291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.79|-1.39|0.8049
84663356|NCT02618434|169060291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.69|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.69|-1.47|0.8911
84663357|NCT02618434|169060291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.42|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||0.42|-2.93|0.1426
84663358|NCT02618434|169060292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.20|-0.33|0.6171
84663359|NCT02618434|169060292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.01|-0.55|0.0617
84663360|NCT02618434|169060292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.21|-0.47|0.4419
84509601|NCT04424407|168770803|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Gamma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.84
84696242|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC of 2-3 were the same between the two groups.||1.10|0.88|0.746
84696243|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score of 4-5 were the same between the two groups.||1.19|0.98|0.109
84696244|NCT03259373|169132818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score \>=6 were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.84|0.244
84696245|NCT03259373|169132819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.79|0.300
84696246|NCT03259373|169132820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.83|0.93|0.122
84696247|NCT03259373|169132821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.13|0.85|0.760
84696248|NCT03259373|169132822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.14|0.86|0.760
84696249|NCT03259373|169132823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.88|0.616
84696250|NCT03259373|169132824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.15|0.87|0.992
84696251|NCT03259373|169132825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.07|0.95|0.808
84696252|NCT03259373|169132826|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.853
84696253|NCT03259373|169132827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.06|0.82|0.303
84696254|NCT03259373|169132828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.16|0.91|0.649
84663361|NCT02618434|169060293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale at Visit 6.||-0.01|-0.32|0.0416
84663362|NCT02618434|169060293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.02|-0.33|0.0921
84663363|NCT02618434|169060293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Oppositional Defiant Disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.11|-0.26|0.4480
84663364|NCT02618434|169060293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Combined Scale score at Visit 6||-0.00|-0.31|0.0457
84663365|NCT02618434|169060294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 30% Responders.||1.93|0.58|0.8525
84696255|NCT03259373|169132829|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.587
84509602|NCT04424407|168770804|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in insomnia symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
84509603|NCT04424407|168770805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Mental Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
84663366|NCT02618434|169060294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 50% Responders.||1.51|0.52|0.6635
84663367|NCT01988103|169060295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|16.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|27.0|||Chi-squared|||||27.0|5.8|0.0032
84663368|NCT01988103|169060295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|10.1|0.0003
84663369|NCT01988103|169060296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|15.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|27.1|||Chi-squared|||||27.1|3.1|0.0165
84663370|NCT01988103|169060296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.3|||Chi-squared||Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||33.3|8.2|0.0020
84696256|NCT03259373|169132829|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.613
84696257|NCT03259373|169132829|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.515
84696258|NCT03259373|169132829|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.018
84696259|NCT03259373|169132829|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.956
84696260|NCT03259373|169132830|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.279
84696261|NCT03259373|169132830|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.143
84696262|NCT01923428|169132837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84696263|NCT02107443|169132843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84696264|NCT02107443|169132844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
84696265|NCT02107443|169132846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-values is for 4-6 weeks.|The above values are for 4-6 weeks.|||1.98|0.12|0.03
84663371|NCT01988103|169060297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-13.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-13.6|-44.5|0.0003
84663372|NCT01988103|169060297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-22.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-22.6|-53.4|<0.0001
84663373|NCT01988103|169060298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-14.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-14.0|-44.9|0.0002
84663374|NCT01988103|169060298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-24.1|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-24.1|-54.9|<0.0001
84663375|NCT01988103|169060299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.7||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|6.1|0.0057
84663376|NCT01988103|169060299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|42.9|||Chi-squared|||||42.9|15.4|<0.0001
84663377|NCT01988103|169060300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-6.7|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-6.7|-22.6|0.0003
84663378|NCT01988103|169060300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.9|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||-16.9|-32.7|<0.0001
84663379|NCT01988103|169060301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-0.3|-3.2|0.0204
84696266|NCT02107443|169132846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for is for 3 months.|The above values are for 3 months|||1.77|-0.11|.08
84696267|NCT02107443|169132846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for 6 months|The above values are for 6 months.|||1.59|-0.36|0.20
84696268|NCT00519636|169132860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP) compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP).||-0.3|-1.3|<0.001
84696269|NCT00519636|169132860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.014||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS) \& 2 (Placebo FP/FF) compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS)\& 2 (Placebo FP/FF).||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
84696270|NCT00519636|169132861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximate to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||||||<0.001
84696271|NCT03077620|169132966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.256||Poor sleepers compared to good sleepers with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is poor sleepers minus good sleepers.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.256|-0.017|0.05
84696272|NCT03077620|169132967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.087||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.087|-0.078|0.05
84696273|NCT03077620|169132967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.117||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.117|-0.051|0.05
84696274|NCT00550173|169133004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Overall; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||||0.003
84696275|NCT00550173|169133004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.81|0.40|0.002
84696276|NCT00550173|169133004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.85||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.85|0.39|0.005
84696277|NCT00550173|169133004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.99||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Secondary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||1.40|0.70|0.959
84696278|NCT00550173|169133005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||<0.001
84696279|NCT00550173|169133005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||4.09|1.07|0.031
84696280|NCT00550173|169133005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|18.48|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||18.48|3.19|<0.001
84696281|NCT00550173|169133005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.66|0.11|0.004
84696282|NCT00550173|169133006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.194
84696283|NCT00550173|169133006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.67|0.69|0.747
84696284|NCT00550173|169133006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.13|0.49|0.168
84696285|NCT00550173|169133006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.21|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.21|0.94|0.094
84696286|NCT00550173|169133008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.306
84696287|NCT00550173|169133008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||3.18|0.87|0.127
84696288|NCT00550173|169133008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.71|0.72|0.318
84696289|NCT00550173|169133008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.22|0.63|0.599
84696290|NCT00550173|169133009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.013
84696291|NCT00550173|169133009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.87|0.41|0.007
84696292|NCT00550173|169133009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.38|0.62|0.700
84696293|NCT00550173|169133009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.94|0.44|0.023
84696294|NCT00550173|169133010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.040
84696295|NCT00550173|169133010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.27|0.241
84696296|NCT00550173|169133010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.14|0.011
84696297|NCT00550173|169133010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.83|0.128
84696298|NCT02325713|169133031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.7|110.6||||||||110.6|83.7|
84696299|NCT02325713|169133031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|22.0||||||||22.0|15.3|
84696300|NCT02325713|169133031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|222.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.8|265.6||||||||265.6|186.8|
84696301|NCT02325713|169133031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|238.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.7|285.3||||||||285.3|198.7|
84696302|NCT02325713|169133031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|98.3||||||||98.3|68.5|
84696303|NCT00904150|169133109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of PR PROGINS polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.513
84696304|NCT00904150|169133110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 G594a polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.75
84696305|NCT00904150|169133111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.434||||0.002743||95.0|0.24|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of TNF genotype frequencies between groups||0.75|0.24|0.002743
84696306|NCT00904150|169133112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.02462||95.0|0.49|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of SYNE1 genotype frequencies between groups||0.95|0.49|0.02462
84696307|NCT00904150|169133113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 C325G polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.18
84696308|NCT00904150|169133114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84696309|NCT00904150|169133115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84696310|NCT05567952|169133116|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.705|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.093|-0.316|||MMRM|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction; an unstructured (co) variance structure was used.||-0.316|-1.093|= 0.0004
84696311|NCT05567952|169133117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.235|||=|0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.551|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (less than or equal to \[\<=6\] months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.551|0.983|= 0.0697
84696312|NCT05567952|169133118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.385|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (\<=6 months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.385|0.848|= 0.5202
84696313|NCT03280563|169133122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|21.14||||||||21.14|-21.14|
84696314|NCT03280563|169133122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|42.88||||||||42.88|-9.03|
84696315|NCT03280563|169133122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|50.09||||||||50.09|-36.76|
84696316|NCT03280563|169133122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|20.73||||||||20.73|-27.39|
84696317|NCT03280563|169133122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|39.34||||||||39.34|-6.71|
84696318|NCT03280563|169133123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.66||||||||1.66|0.50|
84696319|NCT03280563|169133123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2||||||||1.20|0.35|
84696320|NCT03280563|169133123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.48||||||||3.48|0.45|
84696321|NCT03280563|169133123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.23||||||||3.23|0.74|
84696322|NCT03280563|169133123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88||||||||0.88|0.28|
84696323|NCT03280563|169133125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
84509604|NCT04424407|168770805|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Physical Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.94
84509605|NCT04424407|168770806|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in anxiety symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
84509606|NCT02684578|168770808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects regression|||||||0.39
84663380|NCT01988103|169060301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-2.0|-4.9|<0.0001
84663381|NCT01988103|169060302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.53|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||3.53|-1.78|0.5149
84663382|NCT01988103|169060302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.5|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||4.50|-0.79|0.1693
84663383|NCT01493570|169060319|OTHER||Ratio CSF to Plasma in %|28.31||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.418|31.532||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA||Intra Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 17.50 .|Dose-adjusted CSF to plasma ratio for Cmax. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used with 'subject nested within treatment' considered as random effect.||31.532|25.418|1.0000
84663384|NCT02772081|169060328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||First Administration; Treatment comparison. Adjusted difference, its 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value are estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||17.1|-47.9|0.390
84663385|NCT02772081|169060334|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|23.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of standalone oxygen supplementation||23.8|-13.8|0.563
84663386|NCT02772081|169060334|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|21.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of NIV||21.7|-19.7|0.612
84663387|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.619||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.210|-1.447|0.137
84663388|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.268||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.140|-0.604|0.534
84663389|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|1.136|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.136|-0.597|0.530
84663390|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.641||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|1.389|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.389|-0.108|0.091
84663391|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.463||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.903|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.903|0.023|0.040
84663392|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.166||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.703|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.703|-0.371|0.532
84663393|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.674|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.674|-0.578|0.877
84663394|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.244||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.776|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.776|-0.289|0.356
84663395|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.303||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.841|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.841|-0.235|0.258
84696324|NCT03280563|169133125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
84696325|NCT03280563|169133125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.34||||||||9.34|0.55|
84696326|NCT03280563|169133125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.01||||||||2.01|0.28|
84696327|NCT03280563|169133125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||||1.46|0.35|
84696328|NCT03280563|169133126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|29.48||||||||29.48|-30.98|
84696329|NCT03280563|169133126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|46.23||||||||46.23|-10.84|
84696330|NCT03280563|169133126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|50.33||||||||50.33|-26.63|
84696331|NCT03280563|169133126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|37.95||||||||37.95|-16.96|
84696332|NCT03280563|169133127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.9||||||||7.90|0.15|
84696333|NCT03280563|169133127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.2||||||||4.20|0.15|
84696334|NCT03280563|169133127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.84||||||||3.84|0.15|
84696335|NCT02107274|169133188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696336|NCT02107274|169133188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696337|NCT02107274|169133189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696338|NCT02107274|169133189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p valu of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables"||||<0.01
84696339|NCT02107274|169133190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696340|NCT02107274|169133190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696341|NCT02107274|169133191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696342|NCT02107274|169133191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
84696343|NCT03531905|169133192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-45.8|<0.001
84696344|NCT03531905|169133192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||||-13.4|-25.7|<0.001
84696345|NCT03531905|169133192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
84696346|NCT03531905|169133193|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
84696347|NCT03531905|169133194|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.97|-17.67|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-17.67|-55.97|<0.001
84696348|NCT03531905|169133194|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.92|-9.62|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-9.62|-48.92|0.005
84696349|NCT03531905|169133194|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|13.76|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||13.76|-30.51|0.480
84696350|NCT03531905|169133195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-27.5|||ANCOVA|||||-27.5|-38.6|<0.001
84696351|NCT03531905|169133195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-20.8|<0.001
84696352|NCT03531905|169133195|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||||-12.4|-23.3|<0.001
84696353|NCT03531905|169133196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-31.7|<0.001
84696354|NCT03531905|169133196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9.0|-17.8|<0.001
84696355|NCT03531905|169133196|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-18.2|<0.001
84696356|NCT03531905|169133197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-32.6|<0.001
84696357|NCT03531905|169133197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-18.1|<0.001
84509607|NCT02684578|168770809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.97
84696358|NCT03531905|169133197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||||-9.1|-19.7|<0.001
84696359|NCT03531905|169133198|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|6.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||6.79|-14.55|0.457
84696360|NCT03531905|169133198|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-4.93|0.351
84696361|NCT03531905|169133198|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-17.92|0.068
84696362|NCT03531905|169133199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-10.1|0.007
84696363|NCT03531905|169133199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
84696364|NCT03531905|169133199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5|||ANCOVA|||||5.5|-2.8|0.517
84696365|NCT03531905|169133200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84696366|NCT03531905|169133200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
84696367|NCT03531905|169133200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84509608|NCT02684578|168770810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.12
84696368|NCT03531905|169133201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84696369|NCT03531905|169133201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84696370|NCT03531905|169133203|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-3.9|0.877
84696371|NCT03531905|169133203|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-2.8|0.669
84696372|NCT03531905|169133203|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.6|0.556
84696373|NCT03531905|169133204|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-6.7|0.589
84696374|NCT03531905|169133204|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-8.6|0.904
84696375|NCT03531905|169133204|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.2|||ANCOVA|||||11.2|-7.3|0.676
84696376|NCT03531905|169133206|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.95||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-43.4|0.258
84696377|NCT03531905|169133206|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|27.7|||ANCOVA|||||27.7|-26.8|0.972
84696378|NCT03531905|169133206|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.68||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|-43.3|0.235
84696379|NCT03251144|169133228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84696380|NCT04730947|169133243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
84696381|NCT04730947|169133244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84696382|NCT04730947|169133245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84696383|NCT04730947|169133246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84696384|NCT04730947|169133247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84696385|NCT04730947|169133248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84696386|NCT04730947|169133249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
84696387|NCT04730947|169133250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84696388|NCT04730947|169133251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
84696389|NCT01033643|169133254|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|2.36|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or geometric mean ratio (GMR) was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
84696390|NCT01033643|169133255|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.62|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
84696391|NCT01033643|169133257|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.9|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
84696392|NCT01033643|169133257|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
84696393|NCT01033643|169133258|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.91|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
84696394|NCT01033643|169133259|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
84696395|NCT01033643|169133266|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.53|1.2||||||||1.20|-9.53|
84696396|NCT01033643|169133266|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|10.97||||||||10.97|-1.41|
84696397|NCT01033643|169133266|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.37|1.42||||||||1.42|-8.37|
84696398|NCT01033643|169133266|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|8.42||||||||8.42|-1.37|
84696399|NCT01033643|169133267|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|7.36||||||||7.36|-6.91|
84696400|NCT01033643|169133267|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|5.47||||||||5.47|-8.79|
84696401|NCT01033643|169133267|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|9.25||||||||9.25|-5.02|
84696402|NCT01033643|169133267|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|6.94||||||||6.94|-9.41|
84696403|NCT01033643|169133268|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.29|7.79||||||||7.79|-9.29|
84696404|NCT01033643|169133268|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.32|6.86||||||||6.86|-14.32|
84696405|NCT01033643|169133268|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.88|9.2||||||||9.20|-7.88|
84696406|NCT01033643|169133268|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-9.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.54|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-19.54|
84696407|NCT01033643|169133269|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.36|7.32||||||||7.32|-9.36|
84696408|NCT01033643|169133269|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|8.22||||||||8.22|-12.47|
84696409|NCT01033643|169133269|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.87|7.81||||||||7.81|-8.87|
84696410|NCT01033643|169133269|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-10.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.83|-1.04||||||||-1.04|-19.83|
84696411|NCT01033643|169133270|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.04||||||||3.04|-6.50|
84696412|NCT01033643|169133270|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|0.54||||||||0.54|-9.00|
84696413|NCT01033643|169133270|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|3.72||||||||3.72|-5.82|
84696414|NCT01033643|169133270|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|7.46||||||||7.46|-3.46|
84696415|NCT01033643|169133271|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.37|1.64||||||||1.64|-9.37|
84696416|NCT01033643|169133271|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-14.03|
84696417|NCT01033643|169133271|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|4.18||||||||4.18|-6.83|
84696418|NCT01033643|169133271|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.45|3.96||||||||3.96|-8.45|
84696419|NCT01033643|169133272|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.43||||||||2.43|-7.92|
84696420|NCT01033643|169133272|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.09|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-13.09|
84696421|NCT01033643|169133272|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|4.44||||||||4.44|-5.91|
84696422|NCT01033643|169133272|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.64|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.64|
84696423|NCT01033643|169133273|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.87|0.47|
84696424|NCT01033643|169133273|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||0.87|0.26|
84696425|NCT01033643|169133273|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.79|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.79|0.51|
84696426|NCT00354029|169133285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84696427|NCT02033993|169133318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.23||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.68|0.31
84696428|NCT02033993|169133319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.70|0.40
84696429|NCT02033993|169133320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.59|0.76|0.28
84696430|NCT02033993|169133321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.46|0.54
84696431|NCT02059161|169133399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for declaring non-inferiority was for the upper bound of the 95% CI to lie below 0.4%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.19|-0.11|
84696432|NCT02059161|169133400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||4.0|-11.8|
84696433|NCT02059161|169133401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||10.1|-16.1|
84696434|NCT02059161|169133404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.14|-0.18|
84696435|NCT02059161|169133405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|1.16|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.16|-4.69|
84696436|NCT02059161|169133406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.06|
84696437|NCT02059161|169133407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||22.2|-3.0|
84696438|NCT02059161|169133408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-9.8|
84696439|NCT02059161|169133409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-12.8|
84696440|NCT02059161|169133411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.39|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.39|-4.92|
84696441|NCT02059161|169133412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.05|
84509609|NCT01193608|168770857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|113.53||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.3|397.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||397.35|-170.30|0.599
84696442|NCT02059161|169133413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.9|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.9|-19.7|
84696443|NCT02059161|169133415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.2|-8.9|
84696444|NCT02059161|169133416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|2.4|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||2.4|-18.6|
84696445|NCT02059161|169133417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C < 7.0%)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|8.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||8.1|-9.7|
84696446|NCT02059161|169133417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C <6.5%)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.6|
84696447|NCT02059161|169133418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 7.0%)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||9.1|-8.7|
84696448|NCT02059161|169133418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 6.5%)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||2.8|-11.5|
84696449|NCT02059161|169133419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.48|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.48|-2.33|
84696450|NCT02059161|169133420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.02|
84696451|NCT02059161|169133421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.69|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.69|-3.69|
84696452|NCT02059161|169133422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
84696453|NCT02059161|169133423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.04|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.04|-2.52|
84696454|NCT02059161|169133424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.03|
84696455|NCT02059161|169133425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.83|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.83|-3.34|
84696456|NCT02059161|169133426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
84696457|NCT02013687|169133442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84696458|NCT02013687|169133442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84696459|NCT02013687|169133443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84696460|NCT02013687|169133443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
84696461|NCT02013687|169133444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84696462|NCT02013687|169133444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84696463|NCT01782326|169133445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was designed to have \>95% power to rule out a 1.15-fold increase in the rate exacerbations for QVA149 vs. salmeterol/fluticasone.|Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear model||If the upper limit of the confidence interval was \<1.15 then non-inferiority of QVA149 compared to SFC could be claimed|||0.96|0.83|
84696464|NCT01782326|169133445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear method||If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority of QVA149A compared to SFC in reducing exacerbation rate could be claimed if the upper limit of the same CI was less than 1.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
84696465|NCT01782326|169133446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
84696466|NCT01782326|169133447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91|||Generalized linear model|||||0.91|0.75|<0.001
84696467|NCT01782326|169133448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||||0.86|0.70|<0.001
84696468|NCT01782326|169133453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.74|0.256
84696469|NCT01782326|169133454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.69|0.008
84696470|NCT01782326|169133455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.66|0.046
84696471|NCT01782326|169133456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.10|0.38|0.790
84696472|NCT04894903|169133494|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68||This is the calculated p-value. We used an alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline number of gaps||||0.68|0.30|<0.001
84696473|NCT04894903|169133496|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.20|0.29
84696474|NCT04894903|169133497|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.24|0.74
84696475|NCT04894903|169133498|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.60|0.88
84696476|NCT04894903|169133499|OTHER||beta coefficient|-1.24||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-3.19|0.21
84696477|NCT04894903|169133502|OTHER||beta coefficient|0.47||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.27|0.21
84696478|NCT02550873|169133512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||"The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions:~Normal distribution Homogeneity of variance the same in both arms, and for both types of patients Randomization ratio PRM-151:placebo = 2:1 Expected value for patients on pirfenidone or nintedanib = -1.5 Expected value for patients on no other treatment = -3 Expected value for patients on PRM-151 ≥ 0.75 Standard deviation = 5 75% of patients on a stable dose of pirfenidone or nintedanib α=0.10 two-sided Power = 80%"||3.5|1.1|0.0014
84696479|NCT02550873|169133513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|45.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||45.1|17.4|0.0002
84696480|NCT02550873|169133514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.98||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|214.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||214.7|-27.7|0.2032
84696481|NCT02550873|169133515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.33||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|108.8||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||108.8|-45.0|0.4927
84696482|NCT02550873|169133516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|4.3||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||4.3|-2.2|0.5835
84696483|NCT02550873|169133517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.28||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.3|213.5||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||213.5|-126.3|0.6707
84696484|NCT02550873|169133518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|1.9||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||1.9|-4.4|0.52
84696485|NCT02550873|169133519|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0001||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Pearson's correlation|||||||0.0001
84696486|NCT02550873|169133519|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0069|||||||Pearson's correlation|||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.||||0.0069
84696487|NCT02550873|169133520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4179||||||P-Value for decline in % Predicted FVC ≥ 5%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.4179
84696488|NCT02550873|169133520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||P-Value for decline in % predicted FVC ≥ 10%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.2184
84696489|NCT02550873|169133521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7773||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 100 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.7773
84696490|NCT02550873|169133521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5976||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 200 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.5976
84696491|NCT02550873|169133522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-Value for increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 5%. P-Value for an increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 10% not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.29
84696492|NCT02550873|169133523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508||||||P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 100 mL. P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 200 mL not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.0508
84696493|NCT02550873|169133524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6308||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.6308
84696494|NCT02550873|169133525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1846||||||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.1846
84696495|NCT02550873|169133526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||1.7|-2.6|0.7424
84696496|NCT02550873|169133536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|114.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.1||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.2|207.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||207.1|22.2|0.0416
84696497|NCT04320615|169133537|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||Van Elteren Test|||||0.0|-2.5|0.3600
84696498|NCT04320615|169133538|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.448||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|1.01|0.0443
84696499|NCT04320615|169133539|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.97|0.0820
84696500|NCT04320615|169133540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|1.02|0.0370
84696501|NCT04320615|169133541|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-6.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|-13.8|0.0996
84696502|NCT04320615|169133541|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-8.9||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0|-20.7|0.1355
84696503|NCT04320615|169133542|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.0|||Van Elteren test|||||13.0|-2.8|0.3202
84696504|NCT04320615|169133543|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-5.7||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2|-13.7|0.1514
84696505|NCT04320615|169133543|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-14.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.0|-28.6|0.0290
84696506|NCT04320615|169133544|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.9|||Van Elteren test|||||2.9|-15.0|0.0454
84696507|NCT04320615|169133545|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-2.0|0.0548
84696508|NCT04320615|169133546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1627
84696509|NCT04320615|169133547|OTHER||Weighted % difference|0.3||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.2|-7.6|0.9410
84696510|NCT04320615|169133548|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.307||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.72|||Log Rank|||||1.72|1.00|0.0528
84696511|NCT04320615|169133549|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-9.0|0.0477
84696512|NCT04213846|169133603|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.07|0.81|0.34
84696513|NCT04213846|169133603|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.30|0.91|0.37
84696514|NCT04213846|169133603|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.85|0.80
84696515|NCT04213846|169133604|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.88|0.75
84696516|NCT04213846|169133604|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.25|0.86|0.72
84696517|NCT04213846|169133604|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.21|0.85|0.91
84696518|NCT04213846|169133605|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||0.99|0.69|0.04
84696519|NCT04213846|169133605|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.77|0.84
84696520|NCT04213846|169133605|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.22|0.73|0.34
84696521|NCT04213846|169133606|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.16|0.82|0.78
84696522|NCT04213846|169133606|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.75|0.27
84696523|NCT04213846|169133606|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.84|0.95
84696524|NCT04213846|169133607|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear model was estimated using a sample of N=346.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a negative binomial error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.89|0.69
84696525|NCT00802841|169133618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3106
84696526|NCT05310084|169133700|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate-administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of concentrations (coadmin group-separate admin group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|||0.89|0.77|
84696527|NCT05310084|169133701|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Austria||1.04|0.77|
84509610|NCT01193608|168770859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|48.85||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|109.48|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||109.48|-11.79|0.297
84696528|NCT05310084|169133701|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Phuket||1.13|0.89|
84696529|NCT05310084|169133701|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H1N1 A/Victoria||1.09|0.83|
84696530|NCT05310084|169133701|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H3N2 A/Darwin||1.09|0.85|
84696531|NCT03527277|169133743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender||||3.5|-4.0|0.88
84696532|NCT03527277|169133744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||2.3|-3.7|0.65
84696533|NCT03527277|169133745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||3.4|-3.7|0.92
84696534|NCT03527277|169133746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.6|-3.3|0.81
84696535|NCT03527277|169133747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Effect of group with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
84696536|NCT03527277|169133748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-2.1|-4.7|<0.0001
84696537|NCT03527277|169133749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.31|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.31|-0.74|0.42
84696538|NCT03527277|169133750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.76|-0.23|0.28
84696539|NCT03527277|169133751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|24.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment of gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||24.7|-42.9|0.59
84696540|NCT03527277|169133752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.08|-0.21|0.35
84696541|NCT03527277|169133753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||0.59|-0.61|0.97
84696542|NCT03527277|169133754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, outcome at baseline and gender.||-5.4|-22.4|0.002
84696543|NCT03527277|169133755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||1.8|-17.6|0.11
84696544|NCT03527277|169133756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23340.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8284.0|38396.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||38396|8284|0.0032
84696545|NCT03527277|169133757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5558.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2680.0|8437.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||8437|2680|0.0003
84696546|NCT03527277|169133758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3824.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1611.0|6036.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline||||6036|1611|0.0012
84696547|NCT03527277|169133759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19522.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7353.0|31691.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||31691|7353|0.0023
84696548|NCT03527277|169133760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21881.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11307.0|32455.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||32455|11307|0.0001
84696549|NCT03527277|169133761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9666.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4808.0|14524.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||14524|4808|0.0002
84696550|NCT03527277|169133762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3413.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1456.0|5370.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5370|1456|0.0011
84696551|NCT03527277|169133763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|55.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||55.1|-32.0|0.59
84696552|NCT03527277|169133764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|147.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||147.9|1.3|0.046
84696553|NCT03527277|169133765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change in outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender.||1.3|-0.7|0.56
84696554|NCT03527277|169133766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.35|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.35|-1.94|0.17
84696555|NCT03527277|169133767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||3.0|-1.9|0.65
84696556|NCT03527277|169133768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.6|-0.5|0.88
84696557|NCT03527277|169133769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5.7|-4.4|0.81
84696558|NCT03527277|169133770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.9|-4.4|0.69
84509611|NCT01193608|168770861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|-15.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.54|23.02|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||23.02|-53.54|0.600
84696559|NCT03527277|169133771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.1|-1.0|0.10
84696560|NCT03527277|169133772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of Outcome with adjustment for outcome at baseline.||||1.2|-2.1|0.55
84696561|NCT02028884|169133783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by Baseline annualized relapse rate (ARR: 1, \> 1) and geographic region (Asia, EU/Other).||0.88|0.16|0.0184
84696562|NCT02028884|169133784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|13.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||13.033|-0.280|0.0602
84696563|NCT02028884|169133785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.752|0.574|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||0.574|-4.752|0.1224
84696564|NCT02403674|169133814|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|3.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.951|9.026|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.026|-1.951|
84696565|NCT02403674|169133815|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-22.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Dizziness difference||-22.5|-34.0|<0.001
84696566|NCT02403674|169133815|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-7.9||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Sleep disorders and disturbances difference||-7.9|-19.1|<0.001
84696567|NCT02403674|169133815|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-3.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.3||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Altered sensorium difference||-0.3|-7.6|0.033
84509612|NCT01193608|168770863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|1.23||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||4.35|-1.89|0.603
84696568|NCT02403674|169133816|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|10.042|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||10.042|-2.412|
84696569|NCT02403674|169133817|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.7|-1.5|
84696570|NCT02403674|169133818|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|9.593|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.593|-3.057|
84696571|NCT02403674|169133819|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA®) was a positive value.|Difference in mean %change from baseline|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.3|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||36.3|-16.1|
84696572|NCT02403674|169133820|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA) was a positive value|Diff in mean % change from baseline|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|48.2|||||The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|||48.2|-18.7|
84696573|NCT02403674|169133821|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.1|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-3.1|-13.0|
84696574|NCT02403674|169133822|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.5|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.5|-6.9|
84696575|NCT02403674|169133823|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Depression and suicide/self-injury difference||0.8|-5.9|<0.001
84696576|NCT02403674|169133823|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Psychosis and psychotic disorders difference||0.5|-2.5|<0.001
84509613|NCT00659607|168770895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
84509614|NCT00659607|168770896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2669
84509615|NCT00659607|168770897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9674|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9674
84509616|NCT00659607|168770898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9207|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9207
84509617|NCT00659607|168770899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8249
84509618|NCT00659607|168770900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
84696577|NCT02403674|169133824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-6.49|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-6.49|-13.53|<0.0001
84696578|NCT02403674|169133825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-17.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-13.16|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-13.16|-20.89|<0.0001
84696579|NCT02403674|169133826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-23.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.57|-19.32|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-19.32|-27.57|
84696580|NCT02403674|169133827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-35.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.1|-24.82|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-24.82|-47.10|
84696581|NCT02403674|169133828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-4.96|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-4.96|-7.97|
84509619|NCT00659607|168770902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.121|4.151|||Chi-squared||The estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based on the logistic regression analysis|||4.151|1.121|0.0003
84509620|NCT00659607|168770903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|6.776|||Chi-squared||The Estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based the logistic regression analysis|||6.776|1.642|<0.0001
84696582|NCT00826280|169133832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696583|NCT00826280|169133832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696584|NCT00826280|169133832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696585|NCT00826280|169133832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9328||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.9328
84696586|NCT00826280|169133833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0011
84696587|NCT00826280|169133833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0034||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0034
84696588|NCT00826280|169133833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696589|NCT00826280|169133833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5902||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5902
84509621|NCT00659607|168770904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0075
84696590|NCT00826280|169133834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0037
84696591|NCT00826280|169133834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0089
84696592|NCT00826280|169133834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0016
84696593|NCT00826280|169133834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5654||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5654
84696594|NCT00826280|169133835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696595|NCT00826280|169133835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696596|NCT00826280|169133835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
84696597|NCT00826280|169133835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4246||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||.4246
84696598|NCT03389893|169133912|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.131|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator.|||0.131|0.008|<0.001
84696599|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||0.80|0.09|0.019
84696600|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||1.51|0.09|0.165
84696601|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||0.27|0.02|<0.001
84696602|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||0.25|0.02|<0.001
84696603|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||0.55|0.05|0.004
84696604|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||1.80|0.08|0.216
84696605|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||1.13|0.05|0.071
84696606|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.85|0.13|0.022
84696607|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.76|0.08|0.015
84696608|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.41|0.04|<0.001
84696609|NCT03389893|169133913|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.58|0.04|0.006
84696610|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||2.82|0.23|0.724
84696611|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.27||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||0.89|0.08|0.033
84696612|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||1.10|0.12|0.073
84696613|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||2.29|0.23|0.579
84696614|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 28||0.53|0.05|0.003
84696615|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||1.81|0.15|0.297
84696616|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||2.12|0.11|0.326
84696617|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||2.42|0.11|0.401
84696618|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||2.40|0.28|0.705
84696619|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.08|0.25|0.538
84509622|NCT00659607|168770905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
84696620|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||3.34|0.25|0.892
84696621|NCT03389893|169133914|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.56|0.21|0.624
84509623|NCT00659607|168770906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0393
84509624|NCT00659607|168770907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0245
84696622|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference.)|Day 3, Lesional||-1.63|-17.44|0.019
84509625|NCT02899338|168770909|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using the analysis of variance (ANOVA)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|101.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.31|113.29|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Comparison AI versus PFS||113.29|91.31|
84509626|NCT02899338|168770910|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|106.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||106.43|94.17|
84663396|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.022||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.660|-0.616|0.945
84663397|NCT02772081|169060337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.075||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.436|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.436|-0.586|0.766
84663398|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.051||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.243|-0.141|0.590
84663399|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.107|-0.210|0.511
84663400|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.096|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.096|-0.196|0.488
84663401|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.019|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.019|-0.239|0.091
84663402|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.027|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.027|-0.076|0.344
84663403|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.033|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.033|-0.084|0.376
84663404|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.135|0.396
84663405|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.021|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.021|-0.074|0.268
84663406|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.037||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.014|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.014|-0.089|0.147
84663407|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.055|0.994
84663408|NCT02772081|169060338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.040|-0.048|0.853
84663409|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||1.7|-22.6|0.090
84663410|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.8|-6.4|0.917
84663411|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.6|-8.5|0.668
84663412|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||9.6|-1.5|0.149
84509627|NCT02899338|168770911|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|116.53|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||116.53|91.38|
84509628|NCT00486837|168770913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.197
84509629|NCT04817891|168770924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84509630|NCT04817891|168770925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p value for the Ventral Attention Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
84509631|NCT04817891|168770925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||p value for the Cingulo Opercular Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
84509632|NCT04817891|168770926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
84509633|NCT04817891|168770927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.168
84696623|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Lesional||9.32|-11.47|0.837
84663413|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.5|-1.9|0.318
84663414|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.7|-0.6|0.148
84663415|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||10.2|-3.6|0.333
84663416|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.0|-2.2|0.560
84696624|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Lesional||7.92|-6.98|0.900
84696625|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Lesional||1.82|-13.76|0.130
84696626|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Lesional||0.56|-14.76|0.069
84696627|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Lesional||-0.73|-15.25|0.032
84696628|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||7.28|-9.37|0.803
84696629|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Lesional||9.34|-9.02|0.972
84696630|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||6.12|-6.66|0.933
84696631|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||4.45|-8.10|0.563
84696632|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||0.73|-14.88|0.075
84696633|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||-2.48|-17.19|0.010
84696634|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 3, Non-lesional||6.23|-4.86|0.805
84696635|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Non-lesional||7.15|-2.44|0.329
84696636|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Non-lesional||5.60|-5.39|0.970
84696637|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Non-lesional||1.56|-8.18|0.180
84696638|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Non-lesional||1.94|-5.45|0.342
84696639|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Non-lesional||1.47|-5.81|0.234
84696640|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Non-lesional||2.07|-6.27|0.316
84696641|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Non-lesional||1.59|-5.37|0.276
84696642|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||1.06|-4.19|0.237
84696643|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||-0.77|-5.30|0.010
84696644|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||2.65|-3.57|0.770
84696645|NCT03389893|169133915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||0.56|-4.84|0.117
84696646|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.05||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|182.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||182.12|-12.02|0.085
84663417|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.3|-0.3|0.089
84663418|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.4|-0.5|0.115
84663419|NCT02772081|169060339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.3|-1.0|0.284
84663420|NCT02772081|169060340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure in first 72 hours of life.||8.2|-39.6|0.220
84663421|NCT02772081|169060340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|4.9||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure within 36 weeks PMA.||32.5|-22.8|0.741
84663422|NCT02772081|169060341|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|16.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV in first 28 days PNA.||16.3|-32.3|0.333
84663423|NCT02772081|169060341|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|33.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||33.5|-49.5|0.334
84663424|NCT02772081|169060342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-28.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.9|63.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation.||63.6|-120.9|0.596
84663425|NCT02772081|169060343|SUPERIORITY||CMH adjusted difference|-18.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|9.8||The percentage of neonates needing invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for gestational age (GA) group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life.||9.8|-47.0|0.219
84663426|NCT02772081|169060343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in first 28 days PNA||26.7|-33.5|0.826
84663427|NCT02772081|169060343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||26.7|-33.5|0.826
84663428|NCT02598076|169060353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84663429|NCT02598076|169060354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
84663430|NCT02598076|169060355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84663431|NCT02598076|169060356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
84663432|NCT02598076|169060357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84663433|NCT02959944|169060358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
84663434|NCT02959944|169060359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
84663435|NCT02959944|169060360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.324
84696647|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.91||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.13|105.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||105.32|-149.13|0.733
84696648|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.5||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.6|24.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||24.61|-189.60|0.129
84696649|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.11|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||2.89|-187.11|0.057
84696650|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.76||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.52|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||34.00|-131.52|0.242
84696651|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.24|41.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||41.49|-150.24|0.262
84696652|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.79|53.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||53.86|-99.79|0.546
84696653|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.34|42.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||42.75|-86.34|0.503
84696654|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.01|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-4.98|-123.01|0.034
84696655|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|66.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||66.04|-86.63|0.789
84696656|NCT03389893|169133916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.9||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.82|-17.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-17.98|-149.82|0.014
84696657|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||0.77|-0.92|0.860
84696658|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||0.41|-0.85|0.488
84696659|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||0.20|-1.30|0.144
84696660|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||0.30|-1.00|0.279
84696661|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||0.50|-1.09|0.461
84696662|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||0.30|-0.84|0.345
84696663|NCT03389893|169133917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||0.23|-0.77|0.275
84696664|NCT01925170|169133941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the two groups for all densities, significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||<0.001
84696665|NCT01925170|169133941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of two groups for all densities; significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||0.004
84696666|NCT01925170|169133942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
84696667|NCT01925170|169133942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.0001
84696668|NCT01925170|169133943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
84696669|NCT01925170|169133943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||0.004
84696670|NCT01925170|169133944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
84663436|NCT02959944|169060361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.281
84663437|NCT02959944|169060362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.275
84663438|NCT02959944|169060363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.216
84663439|NCT02959944|169060364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
84663440|NCT02959944|169060365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
84663441|NCT02959944|169060366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.124||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.256||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.256|-0.007|0.0659
84663442|NCT02959944|169060367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.125||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.261||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.261|-0.010|0.0708
84663443|NCT02959944|169060368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.059||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.08||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.080|-0.199|0.4064
84663444|NCT02959944|169060369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.049||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.091||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.091|-0.188|0.4955
84663445|NCT02959944|169060370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.949|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.949|0.507|
84663446|NCT02959944|169060371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.904|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.904|0.591|
84663447|NCT02959944|169060372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.076|||Regression, Cox|||||1.076|0.451|0.1010
84663448|NCT02959944|169060373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.068|||Regression, Cox|||||1.068|0.482|0.1004
84663449|NCT03070782|169060418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-12|-46|0.0032
84663450|NCT03070782|169060418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-41.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-41|-64|<.0001
84663451|NCT03070782|169060418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-62.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-62|-77|<.0001
84663452|NCT03070782|169060418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-43.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-43|-65|<.0001
84663453|NCT03070782|169060418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-78.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-72.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-72|-83|<.0001
84663454|NCT03070782|169060422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-6.0||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||9|-19|0.4407
84663455|NCT03070782|169060422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-13|-35|<.0001
84663456|NCT03070782|169060422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-26|0.0368
84663457|NCT03070782|169060422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-3|-28|0.0216
84663458|NCT03070782|169060422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-22.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-33|0.0012
84663459|NCT03070782|169060423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.0|1.2|0.0286
84663460|NCT03070782|169060423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|131.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.4|7.3|<.0001
84663461|NCT03070782|169060423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|122.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|627.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||627.4|24.0|<.0001
84663462|NCT03070782|169060423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|195.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||195.0|9.8|<.0001
84663463|NCT03070782|169060423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1124.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.3|11571.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11571|109.3|<.0001
84663464|NCT03070782|169060424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|155.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||155.3|0.3|0.2007
84663465|NCT03070782|169060424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.92||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|521.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||521.5|1.5|0.0258
84663466|NCT03070782|169060424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|113.92||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|2098.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2098.5|6.2|0.0014
84663467|NCT03070782|169060424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|59.85||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|1128.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1128.0|3.2|0.0063
84663468|NCT03070782|169060424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|6597.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6597.9|18.3|<.0001
84663469|NCT03070782|169060425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-4.0||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||5|-12|0.4022
84663470|NCT03070782|169060425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-23|<.0001
84663471|NCT03070782|169060425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-17|0.0323
84663472|NCT03070782|169060425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-18|0.0157
84663473|NCT03070782|169060425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-24|<.0001
84663474|NCT03070782|169060426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||21|-32|0.4956
84663475|NCT03070782|169060426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-14|-52|0.0027
84663476|NCT03070782|169060426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-38.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-38|-65|<.0001
84696671|NCT01925170|169133944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
84696672|NCT01925170|169133945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
84696673|NCT01925170|169133945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
84696674|NCT02916862|169133978|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were done for Aim 1, so the main analysis was done only between SCF and placebo. Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.53||We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.|ANCOVA|We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the primary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo (AIM 1), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.53|-2.12|0.377
84696675|NCT02916862|169133978|SUPERIORITY|Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.366|5.266|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF+calcium) vs placebo+calcium (AIM 2), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.266|-1.366|0.245
84696676|NCT02916862|169133979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.655||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|8.143|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in lumbar BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo, we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||8.143|-0.765|0.05
84696677|NCT02916862|169133979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.535||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|2.435|||ANCOVA|||||2.435|-7.680|0.05
84696678|NCT04770220|169134011|OTHER|"For the primary efficacy outcome of ADAS-Cog 13, this study has \>90% power to detect a 3.0-point difference between the active ALZ-801 treatment and the placebo in the CBL to Week 78. An increase in ADAS-Cog scores denotes cognitive worsening.~The primary analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS). The FAS included all study subjects who received at least one dose of the study drug and had at least one baseline assessment and any post baseline efficacy assessment."|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was two-sided at the α=0.05 significance level. Between-treatment group comparison (effect in ALZ-801 minus effect in placebo): LSM difference and p-value.|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The null hypothesis was change from baseline (CBL) of ADAS-Cog13 in the ALZ-801 arm was not different from the placebo arm. The alternative hypothesis was that the CBL of ADAS-Cog13 in ALZ-801 arm was different.~A Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model was used with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age group, disease severity based on baseline MMSE (≤ 26 vs. \> 26), concomitant AD medications, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline ADAS-Cog 13 values as covariates."||||0.6058
84696679|NCT04770220|169134013|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The A-IADL-W is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.9966
84696680|NCT04770220|169134014|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The CDR-SB is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.3090
84696681|NCT04770220|169134015|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.2763
84696682|NCT04770220|169134016|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.4484
84509634|NCT05630547|168770967|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio to Baseline|0.986||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.103|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed categorical effects of the treatment group, multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical subtype (relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis \[RRMS\], secondary progressive multiple sclerosis \[SPMS\], or primary progressive multiple sclerosis \[PPMS\]), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, log-transformed baseline sNfL levels and log-transformed baseline sNfL levels-by-visit interaction.||1.103|0.881|0.8042
84696683|NCT04770220|169134017|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|73.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.711||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo.|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0174
84696684|NCT04770220|169134018|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0020
84696685|NCT04770220|169134019|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0040
84696686|NCT04770220|169134020|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2821.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1366.533||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0400
84696687|NCT04770220|169134021|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1157.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|367.0||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0018
84696688|NCT04770220|169134022|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000111||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000432|0.00000037||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the DTI-MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline DTI-MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||0.00000037|-0.0000432|0.054
84696689|NCT04770220|169134023|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000829||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000391|-0.0000065||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||-0.0000065|-0.0000391|0.0064
84696690|NCT04770220|169134024|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00472||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001469|0.01876||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.01876|0.0001469|0.0465
84696691|NCT04770220|169134025|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0416
84696692|NCT04770220|169134026|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.3945
84696693|NCT04770220|169134027|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2682
84696694|NCT04770220|169134028|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2178
84696695|NCT04770220|169134029|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0533
84696696|NCT04770220|169134030|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.6854
84696697|NCT04770220|169134031|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0161
84696698|NCT04770220|169134032|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.8387
84696699|NCT04770220|169134033|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|1.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||1.845|-0.103|0.0795
84696700|NCT04770220|169134034|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.845|-1.070|0.8169
84696701|NCT04770220|169134035|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|108.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.46||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0042
84696702|NCT04770220|169134036|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.42||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1145
84696703|NCT04770220|169134037|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||< 0.0001
84696704|NCT04770220|169134038|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0985
84696705|NCT04770220|169134039|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0002
84696706|NCT04770220|169134040|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0699
84696707|NCT04770220|169134041|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3843.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1726.729||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0267
84696708|NCT04770220|169134042|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2164.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1457.282||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1386
84696709|NCT04770220|169134043|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1312.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|437.0||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0029
84696710|NCT04770220|169134044|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1057.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|386.0||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0065
84696711|NCT04770220|169134045|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.801||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0966
84696712|NCT04770220|169134046|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|137.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.257||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2200
84696713|NCT04770220|169134047|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|157.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.523||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1005
84696714|NCT04955626|169134048|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.5|98.3||||||2-Sided CI for Relative vaccine efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||98.3|89.5|
84696715|NCT04955626|169134049|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|97.9||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||97.9|88.5|
84696716|NCT04955626|169134050|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|63.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|73.5||||||2-Sided CI for Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||73.5|51.1|
84696717|NCT04955626|169134051|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|72.2||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||72.2|49.5|
84696718|NCT04955626|169134089|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.22||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||2.22|1.39|
84696719|NCT04955626|169134090|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||34.3|11.1|
84696720|NCT04955626|169134091|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.78||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.78|2.18|
84696721|NCT04955626|169134092|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.38||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.38|2.06|
84696722|NCT04955626|169134093|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||40.3|17.2|
84696723|NCT04955626|169134094|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|33.2||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||33.2|8.3|
84696724|NCT04955626|169134095|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|9.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|12.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||12.53|7.90|
84696725|NCT04955626|169134096|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||13.8|-3.0|
84696726|NCT04955626|169134103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.0||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||3.00|1.65|
84696727|NCT04955626|169134103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.16||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||4.16|2.38|
84696728|NCT04955626|169134103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.08|1.17|
84696729|NCT04955626|169134103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.68|1.45|
84696730|NCT04955626|169134104|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|29.7||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||29.7|9.3|
84696731|NCT04955626|169134104|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.5||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||38.5|19.4|
84696732|NCT04955626|169134104|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.9||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||24.9|4.0|
84696733|NCT04955626|169134104|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||21.4|0.1|
84696734|NCT04955626|169134112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.40|
84696735|NCT04955626|169134112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.43|0.93|
84696736|NCT04955626|169134112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.55||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.55|1.22|
84696737|NCT04955626|169134112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\]- BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.89|0.76|
84696738|NCT04955626|169134112|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.53|1.20|
84696739|NCT04955626|169134113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.42|0.40|
84696740|NCT04955626|169134113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.58|0.47|
84696741|NCT04955626|169134113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.95|0.57|
84696742|NCT04955626|169134113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.09|0.61|
84696743|NCT04955626|169134113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.50|0.73|
84696744|NCT04955626|169134114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.58|
84696745|NCT04955626|169134114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.93|0.77|
84509635|NCT00977470|168770970|EQUIVALENCE|All enrolled patients will be included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. Based on historical patients with EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib, we expect median progression-free survival on the erlotinib-alone arm to be approximately 9 months. This trial can detect a difference in proportions alive without progression at 9 months from 50% in the erlotinib arm to 77% in the erlotinib plus HCQ arm, using an alpha of 0.15 and power of 85%, using the two-sided Likelihood Ratio test.||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
84696746|NCT04955626|169134114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.71|
84696747|NCT04955626|169134114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.73|
84696748|NCT04955626|169134114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.37|0.94|
84696749|NCT04955626|169134115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.03|0.24|
84696750|NCT04955626|169134115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.76|0.90|
84696751|NCT04955626|169134115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.50|0.84|
84696752|NCT04955626|169134115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.59|0.85|
84696753|NCT04955626|169134115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.20|0.76|
84696754|NCT04955626|169134116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||0.95|0.26|
84696755|NCT04955626|169134116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.43|0.41|
84696756|NCT04955626|169134116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.52|
84696757|NCT04955626|169134116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.51|
84696758|NCT04955626|169134116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.34||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.34|0.38|
84696759|NCT04955626|169134117|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.37|0.38|
84696760|NCT04955626|169134117|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.21||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.21|0.65|
84696761|NCT04955626|169134117|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.02||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.02|0.88|
84696762|NCT04955626|169134117|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.39||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.39|0.68|
84696763|NCT04955626|169134117|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.67|0.76|
84696764|NCT04955626|169134118|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.25||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.25|0.21|
84696765|NCT04955626|169134118|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.88||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.88|0.88|
84696766|NCT04955626|169134118|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.06||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.06|1.24|
84696767|NCT04955626|169134118|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.62||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.62|0.64|
84696768|NCT04955626|169134118|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.67|0.64|
84696769|NCT04955626|169134119|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.09|0.25|
84696770|NCT04955626|169134119|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.49|
84696771|NCT04955626|169134119|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.68|0.63|
84696772|NCT04955626|169134119|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.59|0.38|
84696773|NCT04955626|169134119|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.36||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.36|0.32|
84696774|NCT04955626|169134120|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.76|0.32|
84509636|NCT02364557|168770986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.71|1.17||One-side significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = SOC arm|Assuming an increase in median PFS from 10.5 to 19 months (HR: 0.55), 69 events provide \>90% power to conclude superiority with 1-sided α = 0.15.||1.17|0.71|0.36
84696775|NCT04955626|169134120|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.85||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.85|0.74|
84696776|NCT04955626|169134120|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.91||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.91|0.92|
84696777|NCT04955626|169134120|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.33||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.33|0.43|
84696778|NCT04955626|169134120|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.39|
84696779|NCT04955626|169134121|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.12|0.31|
84696780|NCT04955626|169134121|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|14.07||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||14.07|1.49|
84509637|NCT02364557|168770989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level = SOC arm|||1.61|0.59|0.91
84696781|NCT04955626|169134121|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|22.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||22.76|2.34|
84696782|NCT04955626|169134121|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.1||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.10|0.72|
84696783|NCT04955626|169134121|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.03|0.41|
84696784|NCT04955626|169134122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.70|0.38|
84696785|NCT04955626|169134122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.20|0.76|
84696786|NCT04955626|169134122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.94||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.94|1.13|
84696787|NCT04955626|169134122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.75|0.68|
84696788|NCT04955626|169134122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.24||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.24|0.32|
84696789|NCT04955626|169134123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.12|0.44|
84696790|NCT04955626|169134123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|10.46||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||10.46|0.99|
84696791|NCT04955626|169134123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|21.27||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||21.27|1.96|
84696792|NCT04955626|169134123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||6.89|0.63|
84696793|NCT04955626|169134123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.17||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.17|0.28|
84696794|NCT04955626|169134148|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-358.6|100.0||||||||100.0|-358.6|
84696795|NCT04955626|169134149|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.5|100.0||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||100.0|-355.5|
84696796|NCT04955626|169134158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.20|0.82|
84509638|NCT02364557|168770991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = CTCs Absent|||2.02|0.54|0.90
84509639|NCT05097989|168771006|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.5|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-37.5|0.2422
84696797|NCT04955626|169134158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.58|1.07|
84509640|NCT05097989|168771006|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.0||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.3|74.4|||ANCOVA|||||74.4|-49.3|0.8701
84696798|NCT04060680|169134185|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) for the major complication free rate at 6 months is 0.79. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication through 182 days post implant exceeds 0.79, the primary safety objective will be met. The freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Major complication-free rate|92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|95.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|Kaplan-Meier method|||The primary safety objective is to demonstrate the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 6 months post-implant exceeds an OPC of 79%. H0: p ≤ 0.79 HA: p \> 0.79, where p denotes the 6-month (182 days) freedom from major EV ICD System/procedure-related complications rate.||95.0|89.0|<0.0001
84509641|NCT01822548|168771020|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model (GLM)||||||<0.05
84509642|NCT01822548|168771020|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.362|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.695|||ANOVA|adjustment for baseline value of EPC||||0.695|0.028|<0.05
84509643|NCT01822548|168771021|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.224|||ANOVA|||||0.224|-0.358|<0.05
84696799|NCT04060680|169134186|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified OPC for the EV ICD defibrillation testing success at implant is 0.88. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the proportion of EV ICD patients achieving defibrillation testing success at implant exceeds 0.88, the primary efficacy objective will be met. The primary efficacy objective will be evaluated using a one-proportion binomial exact test along with a two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence bound.|Proportion|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|99.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||The primary efficacy is to demonstrate the EV ICD defibrillation testing success rate at implant is greater than an OPC of 88%. H0: p ≤ 0.88 HA: p \> 0.88, where p denotes the probability of EV ICD defibrillation success at implant.||99.6|96.6|<0.0001
84696800|NCT02711826|169134191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
84696801|NCT02711826|169134192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.700
84696802|NCT02711826|169134193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
84696803|NCT00729690|169134219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4742||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For 1st 24 hours NRS AUC Pain scores||||0.4742
84696804|NCT00729690|169134220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.7596
84696805|NCT00729690|169134221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4321
84696806|NCT00729690|169134222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9361
84696807|NCT02320721|169134246|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.129||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||0.129|-0.092|
84696808|NCT02320721|169134247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Relative risk|1.01||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with randomization strata (screening HbA1c \[\<8.0%; ≥8.0%\], previous use of insulin \[naive, pre-treated\], use of sulfonylurea or meglitinides at screening \[yes, no\]), following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||1.153|0.890|0.8415
84696809|NCT03173248|169134258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69||P-value is calculated from the one-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox's proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region) with placebo + azacitidine as the denominator.|||0.69|0.16|0.0011
84696810|NCT03824535|169134325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis applies to the row 'Specificity' in the Outcome Measure data table.||||0.02
84696811|NCT03824535|169134326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84696812|NCT03824535|169134326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84696813|NCT03824535|169134326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84696814|NCT06403605|169134338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Adjusted p value in the mITT analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84696815|NCT06403605|169134338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted p value in the PP analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
84696816|NCT06403605|169134339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Adjusted p-value in the mITT population.|Log Rank|||||||0.049
84696817|NCT06403605|169134339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Adjusted p value in the PP population.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
84696818|NCT06403605|169134342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84696819|NCT02941146|169134441|OTHER||sucess proportion|64.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|87.2||||||||87.2|35.1|
84696820|NCT02331940|169134458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
84696821|NCT01450943|169134462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.712595||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9141|8.4839|||Fisher Exact|||||8.4839|0.9141|0.0517
84696822|NCT01450943|169134463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812339||||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2543|2.5224|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5224|0.2543|0.7974
84696823|NCT05153174|169134465|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
84696824|NCT05153174|169134466|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
84696825|NCT02886728|169134499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||15.6|3.6|<0.001
84696826|NCT02886728|169134499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||16.1|1.5|0.017
84509644|NCT01600495|168771034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84509645|NCT01600495|168771035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84696827|NCT02886728|169134499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||14.1|-0.7|0.058
84696828|NCT02886728|169134500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.27|<0.001
84696829|NCT02886728|169134500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.03|-0.23|0.009
84696830|NCT02886728|169134500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.20|0.032
84696831|NCT02886728|169134501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||31.7|18.3|<0.001
84696832|NCT02886728|169134501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.8|5.0|<0.001
84696833|NCT02886728|169134501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.6|5.0|<0.001
84696834|NCT02886728|169134502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.02|-0.61|0.068
84696835|NCT02886728|169134502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.10|-0.67|0.14
84509646|NCT01600495|168771037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||<0.01
84509647|NCT02719522|168771041|SUPERIORITY|The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%|||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%. Missing safety data for subjects who were lost to FU without any evidence of a major stroke/death were imputed in the analysis using multiple imputation. Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to completion and had experienced a major stroke or death were counted towards the primary safety endpoint as having experienced the event.||||<0.001
84509648|NCT01658943|168771110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84663477|NCT03070782|169060426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-8|-48|0.0114
84663478|NCT03070782|169060426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-49|-72|<.0001
84663479|NCT03070782|169060427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-19|-62|0.0020
84663480|NCT03070782|169060427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-46.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-46|-74|<.0001
84663481|NCT03070782|169060427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-73.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-73|-87|<.0001
84663482|NCT03070782|169060427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-78|<.0001
84663483|NCT03070782|169060427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-84.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-84|-93|<.0001
84663484|NCT02320149|169060431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-3.6|-6.7|< 0.0001
84663485|NCT02320149|169060432|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|15.72||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||15.72|6.39|< 0.0001
84663486|NCT02320149|169060433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-11.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-11.6|-21.9|< 0.0001
84663487|NCT02320149|169060434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-16.9|-8.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-8.0|-16.9|< 0.0001
84663488|NCT02320149|169060435|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-9.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-9.1|-17.5|< 0.0001
84663489|NCT02320149|169060436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-3.3|-11.1|0.0003
84663490|NCT02320149|169060437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.3|< 0.0001
84663491|NCT02320149|169060438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.9|-5.4|< 0.0001
84663492|NCT02320149|169060439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
84663493|NCT02320149|169060440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.8||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||10.8|-19.4|0.5786
84663494|NCT02320149|169060441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.6969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|11.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||11.4|-17.1|0.6969
84696836|NCT02886728|169134502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-0.94|0.006
84696837|NCT02886728|169134503|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.8|<0.001
84696838|NCT02886728|169134503|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.2|0.021
84696839|NCT02886728|169134503|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.5|0.24
84696840|NCT02886728|169134504|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.0|0.056
84696841|NCT02886728|169134504|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-0.3|0.10
84696842|NCT02886728|169134504|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-1.3|0.67
84696843|NCT02886728|169134505|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.27|-1.03|<0.001
84696844|NCT02886728|169134505|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-1.09|0.008
84509649|NCT00936390|168771124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 5-year overall survival rate from 90% (radiation alone arm) to 93.3% (radiation and androgen deprivation arm). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, this translates to a 34% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.66) in the yearly death rate. At least 218 deaths provide 85% power with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 85% power.||1.11|0.65|0.22
84696845|NCT02886728|169134505|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
84696846|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||31.7|19.3|<0.001
84696847|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||28.5|12.8|<0.001
84696848|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||30.8|15.1|<0.001
84696849|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||35.6|22.1|<0.001
84696850|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||30.7|13.6|<0.001
84696851|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|27.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.5|10.5|<0.001
84696852|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.8|10.8|<0.001
84696853|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.7|4.5|0.002
84696854|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.1|4.0|0.002
84696855|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.5|0.9|0.016
84696856|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.0|-2.7|0.18
84696857|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.6|0.3|0.030
84696858|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|6.7|<0.001
84696859|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.6|3.7|0.003
84696860|NCT02886728|169134506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.8|5.1|<0.001
84696861|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|13.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.9|6.2|<0.001
84696862|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||10.9|1.7|0.001
84696863|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||18.9|7.7|<0.001
84509650|NCT00936390|168771125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
84696864|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.4|14.5|<0.001
84696865|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.0|4.8|<0.001
84696866|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|23.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.2|9.4|<0.001
84696867|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||31.5|18.1|<0.001
84509651|NCT00936390|168771125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
84696868|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||24.5|7.7|<0.001
84696869|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|25.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.7|9.0|<0.001
84696870|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.8|8.9|<0.001
84696871|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||20.0|2.7|0.006
84696872|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.0|3.9|0.002
84696873|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||19.0|5.1|<0.001
84509652|NCT00936390|168771126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.9||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.90|0.22|0.020
84509653|NCT00936390|168771126|SUPERIORITY|Cumulative incidence model||||||0.021||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||||||0.021
84696874|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.7|0.090
84696875|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||18.6|1.4|0.014
84696876|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|7.0|<0.001
84696877|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|2.5|0.008
84696878|NCT02886728|169134507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||21.6|4.6|0.001
84696879|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||4.5|0.3|0.018
84696880|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||3.6|-1.2|0.17
84696881|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.8|0.3|0.004
84696882|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||13.1|5.2|<0.001
84696883|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||6.6|-1.7|0.18
84696884|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||12.6|2.5|<0.001
84696885|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.5|13.9|<0.001
84696886|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||21.1|6.6|<0.001
84696887|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.1|8.5|<0.001
84696888|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||24.4|11.2|<0.001
84696889|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.9|<0.001
84696890|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.2|5.8|<0.001
84696891|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||20.5|6.9|<0.001
84696892|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.3|-3.3|0.20
84696893|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.0|0.056
84696894|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||24.8|11.3|<0.001
84696895|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.6|1.9|0.010
84696896|NCT02886728|169134508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.8|7.0|<0.001
84696897|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
84696898|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.28|<0.001
84696899|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.24|<0.001
84696900|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.35|<0.001
84696901|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.06||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.06|-0.23|<0.001
84696902|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.29|<0.001
84696903|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.20|-0.35|<0.001
84696904|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
84696905|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
84696906|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.05||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.05|-0.22|0.002
84696907|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.17|0.23
84696908|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.16|0.24
84696909|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.25|<0.001
84696910|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.01|-0.20|0.077
84509654|NCT00936390|168771128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.57||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.57|0.11|<0.001
84509655|NCT00936390|168771128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
84509656|NCT00936390|168771129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.80|0.01|0.0073
84509657|NCT00936390|168771129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.007
84509658|NCT00936390|168771130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||1.20|0.70|0.52
84509659|NCT00936390|168771130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.56
84509660|NCT00936390|168771131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.95|0.41|0.025
84509661|NCT00936390|168771131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.025
84509662|NCT00936390|168771133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84696911|NCT02886728|169134509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.22|0.039
84696912|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
84696913|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
84696914|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
84696915|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-7.0|<0.001
84696916|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
84696917|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
84696918|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84696919|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84696920|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
84696921|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696922|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.005
84696923|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84509663|NCT00936390|168771134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is one-sided)|Gray's test||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|||1.53|0.89|0.13
84509664|NCT00936390|168771135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
84509665|NCT00936390|168771135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
84509666|NCT00936390|168771136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.38
84696924|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.063
84696925|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-1.0|0.64
84696926|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696927|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696928|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.095
84696929|NCT02886728|169134510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696930|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696931|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.002
84696932|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84696933|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
84696934|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84696935|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84509667|NCT00936390|168771136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.032
84509668|NCT00936390|168771136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.87
84509669|NCT00936390|168771136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.67
84509670|NCT00936390|168771137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.58
84509671|NCT00936390|168771137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||0.31
84509672|NCT00936390|168771137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.36
84509673|NCT00936390|168771137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.88
84509674|NCT00936390|168771138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
84509675|NCT00936390|168771138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
84509676|NCT00936390|168771138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||<0.001
84696936|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696937|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696938|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
84696939|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
84696940|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
84696941|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84696942|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|<0.001
84696943|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-1.0|0.12
84696944|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.019
84509677|NCT00936390|168771138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.18
84509678|NCT00936390|168771139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
84509679|NCT00936390|168771139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
84696945|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
84696946|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.032
84696947|NCT02886728|169134511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|<0.001
84509680|NCT00936390|168771139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.0014
84696948|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
84696949|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
84696950|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-10.0|<0.001
84696951|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-15.0|<0.001
84509681|NCT00936390|168771139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.90
84509682|NCT00936390|168771140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.046
84509683|NCT00936390|168771140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.82
84696952|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.001
84696953|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696954|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
84696955|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.009
84696956|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.003
84696957|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
84509684|NCT00936390|168771140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.82
84696958|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.11
84696959|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-8.0|0.066
84696960|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696961|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.40
84696962|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.24
84696963|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
84696964|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.17
84696965|NCT02886728|169134512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-10.0|0.008
84696966|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
84696967|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
84696968|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696969|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
84696970|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696971|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696972|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
84696973|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
84696974|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-8.0|0.001
84696975|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
84696976|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.007
84696977|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.046
84696978|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.002
84696979|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-4.0|0.44
84696980|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-5.0|0.21
84696981|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
84696982|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.029
84696983|NCT02886728|169134513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.010
84509685|NCT00936390|168771140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.79
84509686|NCT00539539|168771147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in cluster-specific rates of ROSC.||0.05|-0.04|0.96
84696984|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
84696985|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
84509687|NCT00539539|168771148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average difference in cluster-specific rates.||3.4|-4.9|0.71
84509688|NCT00539539|168771149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|By-cluster difference in outcome rates.||Average change in cluster-specific risk difference.||0.009|-0.039|0.21
84509689|NCT00539539|168771150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Difference in means, adjusted for cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in average CPR fraction.||3.4|0.4|0.016
84663495|NCT02320149|169060442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||20.7|-14.7|0.7377
84663496|NCT02320149|169060443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.4||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|18.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||18.1|-5.3|0.2861
84663497|NCT02320149|169060444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 12||-1.5|-6.3|0.0014
84663498|NCT02320149|169060445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-1.4|-5.5|0.0010
84663499|NCT02320149|169060446|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.1|-4.0|0.0371
84663500|NCT02320149|169060447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||1.0|-2.5|0.3806
84663501|NCT02237950|169060456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.015
84663502|NCT02237950|169060457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
84509690|NCT00539539|168771151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization by cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in means.||2.7|0.5|0.005
84509691|NCT00539539|168771152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.0|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average compression rate.||-3.0|-6.4|<0.001
84509692|NCT00539539|168771153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in the average rate.||-1.5|-5.2|<0.001
84663503|NCT02237950|169060458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
84663504|NCT02237950|169060459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
84663505|NCT02237950|169060460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
84663506|NCT02237950|169060461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.059
84663507|NCT02237950|169060462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
84663508|NCT00824512|169060555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment performed for this study and all statistical tests are two-sided at the 5% significance level.|Non parametric ANCOVA on the rank test|The baseline value was used as a covariate.||||||0.9133
84663509|NCT03789318|169060623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
84663510|NCT03789318|169060624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4980
84663511|NCT03789318|169060625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1958
84663512|NCT03789318|169060626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9546|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9546
84663513|NCT03789318|169060627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4434
84663514|NCT00412854|169060688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.39||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose primary vaccination course."||3.39|-1.68|
84696986|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
84509693|NCT00539539|168771154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average rate.||0.7|-0.5|0.73
84509694|NCT04947579|168771155|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|2.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||22.7|-18.2|0.829
84509695|NCT04947579|168771155|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|7.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||27.5|-13.8|0.512
84663515|NCT00412854|169060688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
84663516|NCT00412854|169060689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.18||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against PRP:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||6.18|0.15|
84663517|NCT00412854|169060690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PT:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
84663518|NCT00412854|169060690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against FHA:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
84663519|NCT00412854|169060690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.07||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PRN:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||5.07|-2.17|
84663520|NCT00558025|169060755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: -15 %, power: 80%|Risk Difference (RD)|-10.75||||||95.0|-20.51|1.48|||Wilson score interval|||Successfully switched patients||1.48|-20.51|
84663521|NCT00558025|169060755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.0803
84663522|NCT00558025|169060756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2061||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.6|-2.8|0.2061
84663523|NCT00558025|169060757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4694||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-0.8|0.4694
84663524|NCT00558025|169060758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.1804||95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-2.3|0.1804
84663525|NCT00558025|169060759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1623
84663526|NCT00558025|169060760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1299
84663527|NCT00558025|169060761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.6190
84696987|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
84696988|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696989|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
84696990|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
84696991|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.019
84696992|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.007
84696993|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
84696994|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.13
84696995|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-8.0|0.047
84696996|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
84696997|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.34
84696998|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-6.0|0.46
84696999|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
84697000|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-9.0|0.030
84697001|NCT02886728|169134514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-12.0|<0.001
84697002|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-8.85||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.85|-12.71|<0.001
84509696|NCT04947579|168771156|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|3.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||21.0|-14.9|0.725
84697003|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-6.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.39|-11.13|<0.001
84663528|NCT02288559|169060763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.435||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.162|0.707|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.707|0.162|0.0428
84663529|NCT02288559|169060763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.21||||0.3361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.491|0.071|||MMRM|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.071|-0.491|0.3361
84663530|NCT02135146|169060773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84663531|NCT02135146|169060773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84663532|NCT00333866|169060786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.23||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.15|-0.61|0.2361
84663533|NCT00333866|169060786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||-0.17|-0.94|0.0132
84663534|NCT00333866|169060786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.33||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.05|-0.72|0.1694
84663535|NCT00333866|169060787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0227
84663536|NCT00333866|169060787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0017
84663537|NCT00333866|169060787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0768
84663538|NCT00333866|169060788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.60|-1.42|<.0001
84663539|NCT00333866|169060788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.37|-1.20|0.0002
84663540|NCT00333866|169060788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.07|-0.89|0.0222
84663541|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
84663542|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
84663543|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84697004|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.29||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.29|-12.00|<0.001
84697005|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-8.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.19|-11.65|<0.001
84697006|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|-6.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.21|-10.47|<0.001
84697007|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-5.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.21|-9.45|<0.001
84697008|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-4.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.39|-7.56|<0.001
84697009|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.27|-6.14|<0.001
84697010|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.39|-6.29|<0.001
84697011|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.31||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.31|-7.24|<0.001
84697012|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.89|-5.68|0.007
84697013|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.20|-7.02|<0.001
84697014|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.53|-5.35|<0.001
84697015|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.09|-5.72|0.004
84697016|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.19|-4.44|0.072
84697017|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-3.24||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.24|-6.34|<0.001
84697018|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.13|-4.88|0.002
84697019|NCT02886728|169134515|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.89|-5.65|<0.001
84697020|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||26.7|12.8|<0.001
84697021|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|25.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||25.0|7.6|<0.001
84697022|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||20.4|3.0|0.004
84697023|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.2|11.7|<0.001
84697024|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|-1.6|0.083
84697025|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.1|6.4|<0.001
84697026|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||16.7|4.4|<0.001
84697027|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.6|-3.1|0.22
84697028|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.1|-3.6|0.25
84697029|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||8.9|-3.5|0.35
84697030|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||12.1|-2.9|0.20
84697031|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||10.6|-4.5|0.36
84697032|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||12.8|-0.2|0.043
84697033|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.2|1.6|0.015
84697034|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||14.4|-1.5|0.085
84697035|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||16.6|3.2|0.002
84697036|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|18.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.7|2.3|0.010
84697037|NCT02886728|169134516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||17.8|1.4|0.014
84697038|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
84663544|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
84663545|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84697039|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
84697040|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
84697041|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
84697042|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
84697043|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
84697044|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
84697045|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
84697046|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
84697047|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
84697048|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84697049|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84697050|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84697051|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-0.4|0.033
84697052|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
84697053|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
84697054|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
84697055|NCT02886728|169134517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
84697056|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||24.4|13.1|<0.001
84697057|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.6|4.7|<0.001
84697058|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|27.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.3|12.5|<0.001
84697059|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|33.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||33.9|20.5|<0.001
84697060|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||30.1|13.2|<0.001
84697061|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||27.9|11.1|<0.001
84697062|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||29.4|15.8|<0.001
84697063|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||25.2|8.1|<0.001
84697064|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.3|<0.001
84697065|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.2|14.6|<0.001
84697066|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|3.7|0.003
84697067|NCT02886728|169134518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||26.5|9.7|<0.001
84697068|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||9.1|3.4|<0.001
84697069|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.7|0.1|0.010
84697070|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.6|4.5|<0.001
84697071|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||16.1|7.4|<0.001
84697072|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|4.5|<0.001
84697073|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||20.8|8.6|<0.001
84697074|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|28.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||28.8|16.4|<0.001
84697075|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||22.5|7.1|<0.001
84697076|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.0|4.9|<0.001
84697077|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||25.1|11.4|<0.001
84697078|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||16.1|-0.8|0.056
84697079|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.4|0.5|0.023
84697080|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|28.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.7|15.1|<0.001
84697081|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.0|3.1|0.004
84697082|NCT02886728|169134519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.1|6.3|<0.001
84697083|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-7.3|<0.001
84697084|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-6.4|<0.001
84697085|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.7|<0.001
84697086|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
84697087|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
84697088|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.8|<0.001
84697089|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.3|<0.001
84697090|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-6.1|<0.001
84697091|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-6.8|<0.001
84697092|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
84697093|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.3|-4.3|<0.001
84697094|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.4|<0.001
84697095|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.001
84697096|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.8|-2.0|0.36
84697097|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-3.3|0.009
84509697|NCT04947579|168771156|SUPERIORITY||Stratfied difference|12.2||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||30.5|-7.2|0.219
84509698|NCT04947579|168771157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.16|-0.50|0.299
84509699|NCT04947579|168771157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.22|-0.45|0.488
84509700|NCT04947579|168771158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.79|-0.76|0.970
84663546|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
84663547|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.5|<.0001
84663548|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84663549|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.0|0.0005
84663550|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
84663551|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
84663552|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84663553|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
84697098|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-4.5|<0.001
84697099|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.1|-2.7|0.042
84697100|NCT02886728|169134522|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.7|<0.001
84697101|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.2|-8.5|<0.001
84697102|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
84697103|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.7|-8.8|<0.001
84697104|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.001
84697105|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-8.2|<0.001
84697106|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-8.5|<0.001
84509701|NCT04947579|168771158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.61|-0.95|0.668
84697107|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-8.0|<0.001
84697108|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.5|<0.001
84697109|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-7.4|<0.001
84509702|NCT04947579|168771159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.88|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.88|-0.77|0.890
84509703|NCT04947579|168771159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.08|-0.57|0.545
84663554|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
84663555|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
84663556|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
84663557|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
84663558|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
84663559|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
84663560|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
84663561|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0037
84663562|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
84663563|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.4|<.0001
84663564|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0031
84663565|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.5|<.0001
84509704|NCT04947579|168771160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.7|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||1.70|-2.26|0.778
84509705|NCT04947579|168771160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.03|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.03|-3.02|0.330
84509706|NCT04947579|168771161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.28|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||2.28|-3.93|0.600
84509707|NCT04947579|168771161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.87|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.87|-4.49|0.416
84663566|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84663567|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-0.9|0.0117
84663568|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
84663569|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
84663570|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0040
84663571|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.6|<.0001
84663572|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
84663573|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-1.0|0.0100
84663574|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.5|<.0001
84663575|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
84663576|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||0.0|-0.8|0.0690
84663577|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
84663578|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
84663579|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
84663580|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
84663581|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.3|<.0001
84663582|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.1|0.0036
84663583|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.5|<.0001
84663584|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
84697110|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-5.9|<0.001
84697111|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.6|<0.001
84697112|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.9|-4.9|<0.001
84697113|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-3.8|<0.001
84697114|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.6|-2.4|0.23
84697115|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-3.6|0.005
84697116|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.6|-5.0|<0.001
84697117|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-3.1|0.021
84697118|NCT02886728|169134523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.3|<0.001
84697119|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||12.9|2.2|0.006
84697120|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||11.6|-1.8|0.16
84697121|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.1|1.1|0.029
84697122|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.6|1.6|0.015
84697123|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||12.2|-3.9|0.33
84697124|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||17.9|2.5|0.013
84697125|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||7.6|-0.3|0.074
84697126|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||6.9|-3.1|0.49
84697127|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||8.9|-0.2|0.075
84697128|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||16.2|4.3|<0.001
84697129|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||15.2|0.7|0.045
84697130|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.0|-1.1|0.100
84697131|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||16.7|3.2|0.004
84697132|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.0|-2.9|0.25
84697133|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||15.0|-2.0|0.14
84697134|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||12.3|2.8|0.002
84509708|NCT04947579|168771162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.741||||95.0|-27.31|14.79||||||||14.79|-27.31|
84509709|NCT04947579|168771162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-36.57|
84509710|NCT04947579|168771162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|7.65||||||||7.65|-31.96|
84697135|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||13.6|2.9|0.008
84697136|NCT02886728|169134524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||8.9|-3.9|0.47
84697137|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.4|<0.001
84697138|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.7|0.001
84697139|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.3|<0.001
84697140|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.8|2.7|<0.001
84697141|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|0.5|0.008
84697142|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.023
84697143|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.6|0.003
84509711|NCT02130466|168771182|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||||Cox regression model|||0.74|0.29|
84697144|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.8|0.38
84697145|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.8|-1.0|0.59
84697146|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.6|<0.001
84697147|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.3|0.11
84509712|NCT02130466|168771189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||Cox regression model|||0.95|0.38|
84697148|NCT02886728|169134526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.17|0.071
84697149|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.6|<0.001
84697150|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.1|0.032
84697151|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.0|<0.001
84697152|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|0.2|0.023
84697153|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|-0.1|0.065
84697154|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.4|0.15
84697155|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.0|0.73
84697156|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.8|0.37
84663585|NCT00333866|169060789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.0|<.0001
84663586|NCT00333866|169060790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.95|0.71|0.5370
84663587|NCT00333866|169060790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.18|1.16|0.0109
84663588|NCT00333866|169060790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.68|0.61|0.9613
84663589|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.86|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-7.86|-17.56|<.0001
84663590|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|-8.38|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-8.38|-18.18|<.0001
84663591|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.33|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.33|-12.06|0.0038
84663592|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||10.61|1.19|0.0142
84663593|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.92||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.66|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.66|0.19|0.0414
84663594|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.95|-3.53|0.6165
84663595|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-4.05|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.05|-14.44|0.0005
84663596|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.17|-6.68|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-6.68|-17.17|<.0001
84663597|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-3.74|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.74|-14.16|0.0008
84663598|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.64|0.08|0.0127
84509713|NCT04529109|168771250|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Proportion|0.9998|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Bayesian Binary model||Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval.|||1.000|0.999|
84663599|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.79|0.22|0.0005
84663600|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Quality of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.07|0.1453
84509714|NCT04603937|168771251|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-6.65|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.81|-6.65|> 0.9999
84509715|NCT04603937|168771252|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
84697157|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.4|-1.7|0.83
84697158|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.1|0.073
84697159|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.2|0.090
84697160|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.2|-1.9|0.68
84697161|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.6|0.30
84697162|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-1.3|0.69
84663601|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.34||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.57|-0.88|0.1033
84663602|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|14.41|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||14.41|3.88|0.0007
84663603|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.56||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|7.81|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.81|-2.68|0.3370
84663604|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.01||||0.3308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.07|-2.05|0.3308
84663605|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.80|-3.39|0.7364
84663606|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.84|-3.31|0.7132
84663607|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||Overall sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.25|-10.54|0.0002
84697163|NCT02886728|169134528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.7|0.95
84697164|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.4|2.1|<0.001
84697165|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
84697166|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|1.3|<0.001
84697167|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.5|1.0|<0.001
84697168|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.13
84697169|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|0.1|0.032
84697170|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.028
84697171|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.15
84697172|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.3|-0.9|0.41
84697173|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.1|0.3|0.017
84697174|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.7|0.27
84697175|NCT02886728|169134530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.5|0.15
84697176|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|6.0|<0.001
84697177|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|1.0|0.006
84697178|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|3.0|<0.001
84697179|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|<0.001
84697180|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.089
84697181|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-1.0|0.18
84509716|NCT04603937|168771253|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-1.4|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||3.9|-1.4|<0.0001
84509717|NCT01611090|168771269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.286|||Log Rank|||||0.286|0.183|< 0.0001
84509718|NCT04533646|168771293|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Means testing||||comparison of means test was performed|||<0.01
84697182|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|1.0|0.003
84697183|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|0.0|0.049
84697184|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-4.0|0.84
84697185|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|2.0|<0.001
84697186|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.078
84697187|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-2.0|0.39
84697188|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.004
84697189|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-3.0|0.45
84697190|NCT02886728|169134533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-4.0|0.85
84697191|NCT01052662|169134584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00356|=|0.00874|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Z = -2.62209|We modeled the mean proportion of weekly opioid use using a mixed-effect linear regression approach to assess the treatment effect, the time effect and the interaction of time x treatment effect while adjusting for the baseline mean proportion of weekly opioid use with baseline COWS, Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric and legal composite scores as covariates.||||=0.00874
84697192|NCT01052662|169134585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
84697193|NCT01052662|169134586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|||||These results are using survival curve estimates to first positive urine toxicology for any opioid. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used to perform our survival event analyses.|Log Rank|||||||1.2
84697194|NCT01852955|169134601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
84697195|NCT01852955|169134602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.04
84697196|NCT01852955|169134603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
84697197|NCT01272011|169134610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-way RMANOVA Student-Newman-Keuls|||Daily acute and cumulative Pre vs Post comparisons||||<0.001
84697198|NCT01272011|169134611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of AF vs. Resistance||||<0.05
84697199|NCT01272011|169134611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of of Pressure vs. Resistance||||<0.05
84697200|NCT02240680|169134617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, daily basal insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment , week and treatment by week interaction linear covariates baseline HbA1c , baseline daily basal insulin and baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-0.46|-0.81|< 0.0001
84697201|NCT02240680|169134618|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For any hypoglycemia event accompanied by prespecified glucose value||2.491|0.861|0.1594
84697202|NCT02240680|169134618|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.188|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For glucose value \< 54mg/dL according American Diabetes Association definition of clinically significant hypoglycaemia||2.188|0.604|0.6720
84697203|NCT02240680|169134619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|10.206|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||10.206|2.468|< 0.0001
84697204|NCT02240680|169134620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.485|8.848|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||8.848|2.485|< 0.0001
84697205|NCT02240680|169134621|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.302|6.048|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||6.048|2.302|< 0.0001
84697206|NCT02240680|169134622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, FPG, daily insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline daily basal insulin, baseline FPG and baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-2.0|-21.0|0.0178
84697207|NCT01657032|169134623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between the study groups were considered significant when the P value was \<0.05.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
84697208|NCT03633903|169134634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This applies to the change from row 1 to row 3 (e.g., baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up timepoint pre TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84697209|NCT03633903|169134634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This is for the difference from row 1 to row 2 (baseline pre versus baseline post TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84697210|NCT03633903|169134634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~Comparing row 1 and row 4 (baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up post TSST-C)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84697211|NCT03633903|169134635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (CRP biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.39
84697212|NCT03633903|169134635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (IL-6 biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.95
84697213|NCT03633903|169134636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||the calculated p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (symptoms of anxiety/depression) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.08
84697214|NCT01670500|169134709|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.2|0.39|
84697215|NCT01670500|169134710|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.1|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.1|.5|
84697216|NCT04951479|169134718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of KOOS Pain score pre and 6 months post embolization||||0.00041
84663608|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.55|-11.94|<.0001
84663609|NCT00333866|169060791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.70|-8.02|0.0197
84663610|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.20|-0.54|0.3627
84663611|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.11|-0.63|0.1686
84663612|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.55|0.3468
84663613|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.49|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.71|0.7147
84663614|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0409
84663615|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.63|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.63|-0.56|0.9077
84663616|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.37|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.37|-0.64|0.5923
84663617|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.11|-1.12|0.0174
84663618|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.66|0.5408
84663619|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.4|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.40|-0.57|0.7236
84663620|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.22|-1.19|0.0045
84697217|NCT04951479|169134719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84697218|NCT04951479|169134720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84697219|NCT04951479|169134721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.00797
84697220|NCT02507219|169134723|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000055||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00011|0.00022|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is percent signal change per milligram of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the left amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.00022|-0.00011|0.512
84509719|NCT02585258|168771295|SUPERIORITY||mean difference over 2-years|-0.37|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.23||one-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis||placebo is reference. Negative difference is beneficial, means lower disease activity in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.23||<0.0001
84509720|NCT02585258|168771296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.04|||one-sided|GEE||prednisolone/placebo|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors|||1.04|0.02
84697221|NCT02507219|169134723|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00012||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is the percent signal change per mg of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the right amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.000067|-0.00030|0.221
84697222|NCT05397470|169134724|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.003||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.020|-0.014|0.7501
84697223|NCT02401529|169134747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
84697224|NCT02401529|169134748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
84697225|NCT02401529|169134749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
84697226|NCT02401529|169134750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84697227|NCT02401529|169134751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
84509721|NCT02585258|168771297|SUPERIORITY||mean differences over 2 years|-1.67||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.68||one-sided|Regression, Linear||placebo is reference. Negative difference means less damage progression in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.68||0.003
84663621|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5613||95.0|-0.63|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.63|0.5613
84663622|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.33|-0.60|0.5609
84663623|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.28|-1.22|0.0016
84663624|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.68|0.3692
84663625|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.73|0.3294
84663626|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.06|-1.05|0.0270
84697228|NCT02401529|169134752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
84663627|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.54|0.8432
84663628|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.98|0.0806
84663629|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.01|-1.06|0.0470
84663630|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.29|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-0.75|0.3845
84697229|NCT02401529|169134753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84697230|NCT02401529|169134754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
84697231|NCT02401529|169134755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
84697232|NCT02401529|169134756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
84697233|NCT00951561|169134783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation is performed in nQuery version 5.0 with the following stipulations: alpha is 0.05; response for both ibuprofen and Vipon is 85%; delta is 10%; no difference in response rates is expected between the two treatment arms, and power is 80%. This calculation is performed for an equivalence/non-inferiority primary analysis.|Difference in % of Uses from Mixed Model|-1.6|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84697234|NCT05176353|169134784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.86
84697235|NCT05176353|169134785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.05
84697236|NCT05176353|169134786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.59
84697237|NCT05176353|169134787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
84697238|NCT05176353|169134788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.20
84697239|NCT05176353|169134789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.03
84697240|NCT05176353|169134790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
84697241|NCT05176353|169134791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
84697242|NCT04365413|169134801|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84697243|NCT04365413|169134802|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84697244|NCT02037061|169134804|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84697245|NCT03019458|169134807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons but rather it is the priori threshold for statistical significance at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|We adjusted for baseline Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), MGH-Swallowing Screening Test (MGH-SST), and the Burkes-Fahn-Marsden Dysonia Scale (BFM).||||||0.084
84509722|NCT02848326|168771321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.37||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.93|0.0039
84697246|NCT00519779|169134836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value, visit, gender, SAD||||0.18|-0.18|0.97
84697247|NCT00519779|169134837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.011|-0.44|0.04
84697248|NCT00519779|169134838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.002|-0.15|0.06
84697249|NCT00519779|169134839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.30|0.04
84697250|NCT00519779|169134840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.33|0.08
84697251|NCT00519779|169134841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.26|0.93
84697252|NCT01561079|169134843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p values were not adjusted for multiplicity The a priori threshold = .05|Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The p-value was calculated||||||0.001
84697253|NCT01561079|169134844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||<.002
84697254|NCT01561079|169134845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||0.0001
84697255|NCT01561079|169134846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The reported p-value was calculated||||||.008
84697256|NCT01561079|169134847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.002
84697257|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|91.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||91.0|-41.0|0.456
84697258|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|74.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|143.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||143.4|6.0|0.033
84697259|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|30.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|88.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||88.0|-26.8|0.295
84697260|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|110.6||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||110.6|-21.8|0.188
84697261|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|38.8||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|96.5||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||96.5|-18.9|0.187
84697262|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|60.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg|||60.1|-77.8|0.801
84509723|NCT02848326|168771321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.27||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-1.55|0.0056
84697263|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|35.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|93.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||93.1|-22.7|0.233
84697264|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|69.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|114.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||114.4|24.5|0.003
84697265|NCT01323660|169134858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|65.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|111.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||111.3|20.3|0.005
84697266|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.203|0.086|<0.001
84697267|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.318|0.193|<0.001
84697268|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001||95.0|0.061|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.163|0.061|<0.001
84697269|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.157|0.041|<0.001
84697270|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.183|0.081|<0.001
84663631|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.60|-0.37|0.6326
84663632|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.27|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.27|-0.71|0.3740
84697271|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.006||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.067|-0.055|0.849
84663633|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.52|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.52|-0.45|0.8936
84663634|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.4743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.73|0.4743
84663635|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.10|-1.18|0.0192
84663636|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.71|0.5101
84663637|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.75|0.4617
84663638|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.42|-1.51|0.0006
84663639|NCT00333866|169060792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.88|0.2290
84697272|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.201|0.098|<0.001
84697273|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.202|<0.001
84697274|NCT01323660|169134859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.261|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.303|0.220|<0.001
84697275|NCT01276535|169134867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
84697276|NCT01276535|169134868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
84697277|NCT01106976|169134880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0012||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test. Hypothesis of significant cholinergic interval changes over the study interval period.||||0.0009
84697278|NCT05677867|169134882|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.08|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.08|92.92|
84663640|NCT00333866|169060793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.06|-4.95|0.4200
84663641|NCT00333866|169060793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.31|-9.38|0.0012
84663642|NCT00333866|169060793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.34|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.34|-4.68|0.5126
84663643|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.05|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.05|-4.07|0.7781
84663644|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|5.59|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.59|-1.62|0.2792
84663645|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.15|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.15|-3.00|0.7512
84697279|NCT05677867|169134883|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Adjusted Means|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.77|102.17|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.17|92.77|
84509724|NCT02848326|168771321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.06||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-1.35|0.0325
84509725|NCT02848326|168771321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.56||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.56|-2.21|0.0010
84697280|NCT05677867|169134884|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|110.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||110.18|81.40|
84697281|NCT01341080|169134902|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.15||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.61|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Efficacy was measured as a change on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) from baseline to the end of study after 8 weeks on drug. The BBS has a scale range of 0-56, with 56 indicating normal balance. To evaluate efficacy, repeated measures analysis of variance was run on BBS scores. The scale score was the dependent measure, time point (baseline or end of study) was the repeat measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significance was defined as alpha \<0.05.||4.61|-4.01|0.05
84697282|NCT01341080|169134903|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.53|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the FAB scores. Scale cores was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.53|-1.39|0.05
84697283|NCT01341080|169134904|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the MMSE scores. Scale score was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.40|-0.40|0.05
84697284|NCT03566680|169134908|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697285|NCT03566680|169134909|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697286|NCT03566680|169134910|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697287|NCT03566680|169134911|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84697288|NCT03566680|169134912|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84697289|NCT03566680|169134913|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84697290|NCT02724020|169134914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.36|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.36|0.75|=0.388
84697291|NCT02724020|169134914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.52|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.52|0.75|0.667
84697292|NCT02724020|169134916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.49|0.89|0.212
84697293|NCT02724020|169134916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.98|0.77|0.546
84697294|NCT02724020|169134917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.05|0.81|=0.156
84697295|NCT02724020|169134917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.79|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.79|0.72|0.667
84697296|NCT02724020|169134918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.22|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI were obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|As prespecified in the protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only.|As prespecified in protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only for this outcome measure.|2.22|0.08|
84697297|NCT02724020|169134919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.69|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.69|0.24|
84697298|NCT02724020|169134919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.21|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||2.21|0.28|
84697299|NCT02724020|169134920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.38|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.38|0.16|
84697300|NCT02724020|169134920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.80|0.20|
84697301|NCT02118714|169134955|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.7|41.6||||||||41.6|10.7|
84697302|NCT02118714|169134955|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|49.9||||||||49.9|6.8|
84697303|NCT02118714|169134956|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|28.4||||||||28.4|3.2|
84697304|NCT02118714|169134956|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4||||||||36.4|1.5|
84697305|NCT02954575|169134966|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.76||versus mean TABR \>29|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 29 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the TABR reported in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 58.1 BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the TABR was also analyzed.||2.76|1.64|<0.0001
84697306|NCT02954575|169134967|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.08||versus mean SABR \>19.1|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean SABR in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 19.1 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the SABR in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 38.2 spontaneous BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the SABR was also analyzed.||2.08|1.13|<0.0001
84697307|NCT02954575|169134968|OTHER||Generalized estimation equation|84.21||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|92.52|||Confirmatory data analysis|||"Confirmatory statistical testing tested the null hypotheses that the percentage of success is ≤70% (alternative hypothesis: percentage \>70%); the test procedure based on the generalized estimation equation took into account several BEs in one patient as correlated repeated measurements (alpha = 2.5%). Thus, π denotes the proportion of success and the following pair of hypotheses was tested:~H0: π ≤ 0.7 vs. H1: π \> 0.7"||92.52|72.13|0.0096
84697308|NCT02954575|169134974|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0346
84697309|NCT02954575|169134975|OTHER|||||||0.4244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4244
84697310|NCT02954575|169134977|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11||||||||16.11|0|
84697311|NCT03890120|169135017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-1.4||||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.3|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference of cilofexor and placebo,95% confidence interval(CI),and P value(1-sided)were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method,with baseline ursodeoxycholic acid(UDCA)use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||12.3|-15.2|0.4186
84697312|NCT03890120|169135022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-4.0||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM,95% CI and P-value(1-sided) were obtained by an analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with change at Week 96 as dependent variable,baseline value of outcome measure,baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||21|-28|0.3884
84697313|NCT03890120|169135023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1|-20|0.0390
84697314|NCT03890120|169135024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.4|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||6.4|-11.6|0.2845
84697315|NCT03890120|169135025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.1||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||13.5|-5.3|0.1978
84697316|NCT03890120|169135026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.9||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|21.2|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||21.2|-3.5|0.0797
84697317|NCT03890120|169135027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||3|-1|0.7275
84697318|NCT03890120|169135028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||0.14|-0.20|0.3636
84697319|NCT03890120|169135029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1.5|-2.2|0.3595
84697320|NCT04081298|169135053|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05. (feasibility assessment)|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.24
84697321|NCT04081298|169135054|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired t-test|||||||0.43
84697322|NCT04081298|169135055|EQUIVALENCE|McNemar's test evaluates equivalence between nominal groups. Power not calculated as this is a feasibility study with small sample size.||||||0.1|||||||McNemar|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.10
84697323|NCT04081298|169135056|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired-sample t-test|||||||0.20
84697324|NCT04081298|169135057|EQUIVALENCE|paired sample t-test (feasibility assessment)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired sample t-test|||||||0.71
84697325|NCT04081298|169135058|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.94|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.94
84697326|NCT04081298|169135059|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.03|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.03
84697327|NCT04081298|169135060|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.36|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.36
84697328|NCT00087490|169135079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||11.5|-3.0|0.249
84697329|NCT00087490|169135080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|3.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-1.7|0.168
84697330|NCT00087490|169135081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||14.2|0.1|0.048
84697331|NCT00087490|169135082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|10.3|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||10.3|-0.7|0.090
84697332|NCT00087490|169135083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|6.6||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.0|-1.9|0.127
84663646|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Physical role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.43|-3.39|0.6490
84663647|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5||||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|5.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.96|-2.96|0.5105
84663648|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|-4.04|0.8625
84663649|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|9.12|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.12|-1.39|0.1489
84663650|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.24||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.54|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||11.54|0.93|0.0213
84663651|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|9.02|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.02|-1.51|0.1620
84663652|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.85||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|7.65|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.65|-1.95|0.2446
84663653|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.01||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.85|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.85|0.16|0.0429
84663654|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.35||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.16|-1.46|0.1721
84663655|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.08||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.74|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.74|0.42|0.0291
84663656|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.93||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.62|2.23|0.0017
84663657|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.32||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.35|0.0763
84509726|NCT02848326|168771321|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.49||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.49|-2.09|0.0016
84509727|NCT02848326|168771322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-2.23|0.0014
84509728|NCT02848326|168771322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.55||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.55|-1.94|0.0005
84509729|NCT02848326|168771322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.24||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.24|-1.64|0.0087
84509730|NCT02848326|168771322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.41|-2.20|0.0044
84509731|NCT02848326|168771322|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.53||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.53|-2.26|0.0017
84509732|NCT02848326|168771323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.31||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measures with fixed factors(treatment group,visit), covariates(baseline migraine days), interactions(treatment group;baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.31|0.98|0.0617
84663658|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|6.11|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.11|-0.95|0.1524
84663659|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.36||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.93|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.93|1.80|0.0032
84663660|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.82||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.36|-0.72|0.1180
84663661|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.69|0.1081
84509733|NCT02848326|168771323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.08|1.02|0.0369
84509734|NCT02848326|168771323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.03||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.03|1.00|0.0512
84509735|NCT02848326|168771323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.91|1.15|0.0113
84509736|NCT02848326|168771323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.18||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measure|||||3.18|1.30|0.0019
84509737|NCT02848326|168771324|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.6||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.60|-1.99|0.0002
84509738|NCT02848326|168771324|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.87||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-2.01|<0.0001
84663662|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.99|1.22|0.0101
84663663|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.75||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.60|-3.10|0.7031
84663664|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.27||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.39|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.39|-1.86|0.4253
84509739|NCT02848326|168771324|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
84509740|NCT02848326|168771324|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.62||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.62|-2.08|0.0003
84509741|NCT02848326|168771324|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.52||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.52|-1.93|0.0007
84509742|NCT00414466|168771332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.802
84509743|NCT00414466|168771332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.874
84509744|NCT00414466|168771332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.899
84509745|NCT00414466|168771333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84509746|NCT00414466|168771333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84663665|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.89|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.89|-0.44|0.0910
84509747|NCT00414466|168771333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84509748|NCT00414466|168771334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
84663666|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.82||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.95|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.95|-1.30|0.2526
84509749|NCT00414466|168771334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84509750|NCT00414466|168771334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
84509751|NCT02086188|168771344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1911
84509752|NCT02086188|168771345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4271
84509753|NCT02086188|168771346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1723|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1723
84509754|NCT02086188|168771347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6340
84509755|NCT02086188|168771348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0091
84509756|NCT01494506|168771350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||1.28|0.77|0.9416
84509757|NCT01494506|168771350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||0.92|0.49|0.012
84509758|NCT01494506|168771351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.100
84663667|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|0.42|0.0195
84509759|NCT01494506|168771351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.41|<0.001
84509760|NCT01494506|168771352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0264||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.058|||Fisher Exact|||||0.058|-0.005|0.214
84663668|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.66||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.88|1.44|0.0013
84663669|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.34|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.34|-0.06|0.0568
84663670|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.27|-1.54|0.8529
84663671|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.96|-0.88|0.4564
84663672|NCT00333866|169060794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-1.28|0.8576
84663673|NCT00333866|169060795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.40|-1.98|0.7384
84663674|NCT00333866|169060795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-3.12|0.1044
84663675|NCT00333866|169060795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.83|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.83|-2.58|0.3137
84663676|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.09|-1.28|0.0900
84663677|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-1.20|0.1564
84663678|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.58|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.58|-0.80|0.7519
84663679|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.80|-0.50|0.6416
84663680|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-1.25|0.0778
84663681|NCT00333866|169060796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.44|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.87|0.5191
84663682|NCT00333866|169060797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|3.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.09|-5.97|0.5340
84663683|NCT00333866|169060797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.44||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.88|-12.00|0.0014
84663684|NCT00333866|169060797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.98|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.98|-7.09|0.2694
84663685|NCT00333866|169060798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|263.77||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.78|603.33|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment and center in the model.||603.33|-75.78|0.1277
84663686|NCT00333866|169060798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|47.89||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.2|389.02|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||389.02|-293.2|0.7829
84509761|NCT01494506|168771352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.12|||Fisher Exact|||||0.120|0.018|0.010
84509762|NCT01494506|168771353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test.||||1.03|0.65|0.1008
84509763|NCT01494506|168771353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||0.78|0.45|0.0002
84509764|NCT01494506|168771354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.82
84697333|NCT00087490|169135084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|16.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|24.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||24.2|9.0|0.000
84697334|NCT00087490|169135085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.4|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.4|-0.0|0.051
84663687|NCT00333866|169060798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.51||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.9|328.86|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||328.86|-351.9|0.9471
84697335|NCT00087490|169135086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|15.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.8|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||21.8|8.2|0.000
84697336|NCT00087490|169135089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.022
84697337|NCT00087490|169135090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.016
84697338|NCT00087490|169135091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
84697339|NCT00087490|169135092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
84697340|NCT00755755|169135107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|83.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||83.2|55.1|<0.001
84697341|NCT00755755|169135107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|84.0||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||84.0|56.2|<0.001
84663688|NCT06073119|169060799|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference (RRD), %|23.43||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|45.98||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg BID - placebo.|||45.98|-2.74|0.0874
84663689|NCT06073119|169060799|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|33.08||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|54.83||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg BID - placebo.|||54.83|5.71|0.0185
84663690|NCT06073119|169060799|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|38.02||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|58.84||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg QD - placebo.|||58.84|10.62|0.0077
84697342|NCT00755755|169135108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-8.2|-36.1|0.002
84697343|NCT00755755|169135108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-5.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-5.2|-33.0|0.006
84697344|NCT02300311|169135109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.849|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.454|-1.244||The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo).|"PID8 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 8 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours."||-1.244|-2.454|<0.0001
84509765|NCT01494506|168771354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
84509766|NCT01494506|168771355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84509767|NCT01494506|168771355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84697345|NCT02300311|169135110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|-0.851||The statistical model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|"PID4 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 4 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours."||-0.851|-1.832|<0.0001
84697346|NCT02300311|169135111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.712|-2.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using the fixed, categorical effects of treatment and country as well as the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|The difference of average pain intensity from pre-dose baseline on the last individual treatment day was analysed using ANCOVA.||-2.205|-3.712|<0.0001
84697347|NCT02300311|169135112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.342|24.199|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression models adjusting for the continuous covariate 'baseline PI' and the categorical variable 'country' was performed.|Odds ratio of (Finalgon® cream / placebo)|"For the analysis of the repeated multinomial efficacy endpoint 'patient assessment of efficacy' on the last individual treatment day, ordinal logistic regression models is used.~Only non-missing data is analysed in the statistical model."||24.199|5.342|<0.0001
84697348|NCT02444143|169135138|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84697349|NCT02444143|169135139|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84697350|NCT00483262|169135140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||>= grade 3 adverse event proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98|||||Estimated proportion of patients with a adverse event of grade 3 or higher.|Single Arm Study||.98|.72|
84697351|NCT00483262|169135140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||toxicity grade >=3 proportion|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.89|||||No comparison. Estimate the proportion of patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity.|Phase II toxicity||.89|.66|
84697352|NCT00483262|169135141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.28|||||Response of PR or better|Phase I part of this phase I/II study||.28|.02|
84697353|NCT00483262|169135141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.47|||||Response of PR or better|Phase II part of this phase I/II study.||0.47|0.21|
84697354|NCT02303574|169135198|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.391||||||||1.391|1.183|
84697355|NCT02303574|169135198|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|90.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|98.31||||||||98.31|83.72|
84697356|NCT02303574|169135199|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
84697357|NCT02303574|169135199|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
84697358|NCT02303574|169135199|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
84697359|NCT02303574|169135200|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9513|1.504||||||||1.504|0.9513|
84697360|NCT02303574|169135200|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
84697361|NCT02303574|169135200|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
84697362|NCT02303574|169135200|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
84697363|NCT02303574|169135201|OTHER||Slope|1.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|1.406||||||Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.||1.406|1.198|
84697364|NCT02303574|169135201|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|64.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.07|74.7||||||||74.70|55.07|
84697365|NCT02303574|169135202|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9285|1.385||||||||1.385|0.9285|
84697366|NCT00994279|169135244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that the two arms will not differ in retention at 14 weeks.||||.53
84697367|NCT00994279|169135245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that the two groups would not differ in fatigue at 10 weeks.||||.98
84697368|NCT01606189|169135246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.18|-0.98|0.005
84663691|NCT06073119|169060799|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|9.35||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|32.4||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg QD - placebo.|||32.40|-14.72|0.4576
84663692|NCT06073119|169060799|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|13.44||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|36.72||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 50 mg QD - placebo.|||36.72|-11.38|0.3051
84663693|NCT05185089|169060815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.62|0.989
84663694|NCT05185089|169060815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.16|0.054
84663695|NCT05185089|169060816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.52|0.872
84663696|NCT05185089|169060816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.14|0.041
84663697|NCT05185089|169060817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.61|0.991
84663698|NCT05185089|169060817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.97|0.215
84663699|NCT05185089|169060818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.73|0.639
84663700|NCT05185089|169060818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.00|0.092
84663701|NCT05185089|169060819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.17|0.650
84663702|NCT05185089|169060819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.41|0.010
84663703|NCT05185089|169060820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.44|0.856
84663704|NCT05185089|169060820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.87|0.036
84663705|NCT05185089|169060821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.73|0.678
84663706|NCT05185089|169060821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.16|0.025
84663707|NCT05185089|169060822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.22|0.633
84663708|NCT05185089|169060822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.02|0.063
84663709|NCT05185089|169060823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.44|0.732
84663710|NCT05185089|169060823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|0.01|0.044
84663711|NCT05185089|169060824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.19|0.318
84663712|NCT05185089|169060824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.05|0.030
84663713|NCT05185089|169060825|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.88|0.438
84663714|NCT05185089|169060825|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||ANCOVA|||||1.31|0.82|0.761
84663715|NCT05185089|169060826|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.88|0.449
84663716|NCT05185089|169060826|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.125||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.82|0.732
84663717|NCT05185089|169060827|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|0.84|0.400
84663718|NCT05185089|169060827|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|0.69|0.912
84663719|NCT05185089|169060828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.93|0.287
84663720|NCT05185089|169060828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.90|0.420
84663721|NCT05185089|169060829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.05|||ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.96|0.765
84663722|NCT05185089|169060829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||ANCOVA|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
84663723|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage (IIIC \[referral category\] versus (vs) M1a vs M1b vs M1c) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.001
84663724|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIC/M1a/M1b \[referral category\] vs M1c with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.196
84663725|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIc with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||||0.002
84663726|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|6.616|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1a (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||6.616|1.115|0.028
84509768|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.6388
84663727|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.291|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1b (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.291|0.168|0.142
84663728|NCT02663232|169060844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.928|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1c (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.928|0.351|0.653
84663729|NCT02663232|169060845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Family family history of melanoma (yes vs no) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.240
84663730|NCT02663232|169060846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of sun exposure yes vs no with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.719
84663731|NCT02663232|169060847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of primary tumor site (trunk \[referral category\] vs head and neck vs upper extremities vs lower extremities vs. visceral/mucosa) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.262
84663732|NCT02663232|169060848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of LDH (elevated \[referral category\] vs normal vs unknown) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.313
84663733|NCT02663232|169060849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of time since diagnosis of primary melanoma (continuous variable) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.291
84663734|NCT02663232|169060850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample source (primary tumor \[referral category\] vs metastases vs relapses) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.164
84697369|NCT01606189|169135246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.24|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.24|-1.03|0.002
84697370|NCT01606189|169135247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.04|-0.37|0.017
84697371|NCT01606189|169135247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
84697372|NCT01606189|169135248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.55||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.01|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.01|0.09|0.019
84697373|NCT01606189|169135248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.24|0.33|0.001
84697374|NCT01606189|169135249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.55||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.55|-3.64|0.146
84697375|NCT01606189|169135249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.10|-4.29|0.040
84697376|NCT01606189|169135250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.28||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|1.21|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.21|-15.78|0.092
84697377|NCT01606189|169135250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.99||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.57|-17.41|0.037
84697378|NCT01606189|169135251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1222.0||||0.328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.328
84697379|NCT01606189|169135251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1200.5||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.560
84697380|NCT01606189|169135252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.75||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|0.83|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.83|-4.32|0.181
84697381|NCT01606189|169135252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.43||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.98|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||2.98|-2.12|0.739
84697382|NCT01606189|169135253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.45|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.45|-4.01|0.015
84697383|NCT01606189|169135253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.21||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.56|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.56|-2.97|0.178
84697384|NCT01167023|169135260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.304||95.0||||Pain rate was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline pain intensity, treatment group, and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.304
84697385|NCT01167023|169135262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.051|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time, and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
84697386|NCT01167023|169135263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.244||95.0||||Average pain intensity was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline intensity, treatment group and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.244
84697387|NCT01167023|169135264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-128.3|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
84697388|NCT00410384|169135265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.19||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.19|1.08|0.0167
84697389|NCT00410384|169135265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.94|0.95|0.0889
84697390|NCT00410384|169135266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.87|0.92|0.1323
84697391|NCT00410384|169135266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.|||1.91|0.94|0.1050
84697392|NCT00410384|169135267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.32|1.15|0.0063
84697393|NCT00410384|169135267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.96|0.97|0.0740
84697394|NCT00410384|169135268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.7962
84697395|NCT00410384|169135268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9703|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.9703
84697396|NCT00410384|169135269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6583|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.6583
84697397|NCT00410384|169135269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3762|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.3762
84697398|NCT00410384|169135270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||2.74|0.65|0.4253
84697399|NCT00410384|169135270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||3.13|0.78|0.2081
84697400|NCT01345292|169135274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|14.5||If Sensodyne is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Sensodyne and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.50|8.37|<0.001
84697401|NCT01345292|169135274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|11.42||If Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.42|5.24|<0.001
84697402|NCT01345292|169135275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.65|1.45|<0.001
84697403|NCT01345292|169135275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.02|0.80|0.004
84697404|NCT01345292|169135276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.091||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.06|-6.19|0.324
84697405|NCT01345292|169135276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.31|-8.56|0.035
84697406|NCT01345292|169135277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-3.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.52|-13.6|<0.001
84697407|NCT01345292|169135277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.13|-15.2|<0.001
84697408|NCT01345292|169135278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.43|-9.38|0.032
84697409|NCT01345292|169135278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|1.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.09|-7.93|0.136
84697410|NCT01345292|169135279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.508|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.23|-16.1|<0.001
84697411|NCT01345292|169135279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.527|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.25|-15.2|<0.001
84697412|NCT01345292|169135280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.71|-5.22|0.533
84697413|NCT01345292|169135280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.69|-5.29|0.522
84697414|NCT01345292|169135281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.94|-13.1|<0.001
84697415|NCT01345292|169135281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.51|-10.8|0.010
84509769|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8445||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.8445
84509770|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.6388
84697416|NCT02373813|169135301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|33.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||33.9|7.6|0.004
84697417|NCT02373813|169135302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|40.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.5|7.9|0.006
84697418|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.48|0.58
84697419|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.31|-0.37|0.85
84697420|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.67|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.67|-5.89|0.12
84697421|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.16|-5.12|0.037
84697422|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.13|-4.80|0.063
84697423|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.01|-3.27|0.64
84697424|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.15|-3.09|0.031
84697425|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.35|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.35|-3.20|0.015
84697426|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.45|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.45|-2.55|0.58
84697427|NCT02373813|169135303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.17|-1.99|0.020
84697428|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.77|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.77|-5.68|0.13
84697429|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.06|-4.99|0.045
84697430|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.20|-4.75|0.071
84697431|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|2.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.00|-3.28|0.63
84697432|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-3.11|0.037
84697433|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.39|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.39|-3.30|0.013
84697434|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.53|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.53|-2.54|0.62
84697435|NCT02373813|169135304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.22|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.22|-2.02|0.015
84697436|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.26|-0.19|0.75
84697437|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.11|0.43
84697438|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.00|-0.91|0.049
84697439|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.04|-0.77|0.032
84697440|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.11|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.11|-0.58|0.18
84697441|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.51|-0.24|0.48
84697442|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.18|-0.51|0.35
84697443|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.12|-0.41|0.28
84697444|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.21|-0.44|0.48
84697445|NCT02373813|169135305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.24|-0.26|0.92
84697446|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.91|0.032
84697447|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.15|-0.78|0.005
84509771|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9435||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.9435
84697448|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.01|-0.63|0.058
84697449|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.38|-0.29|0.78
84697450|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.14|-0.49|0.27
84697451|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.03|-0.47|0.078
84509772|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.2654
84509773|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.7674
84509774|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.1628
84509775|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.6712
84697452|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.20|-0.43|0.47
84509776|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7738||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.7738
84697453|NCT02373813|169135306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.13|-0.33|0.39
84697454|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.15|-0.09|0.60
84697455|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.10|-0.10|0.97
84697456|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.01|-0.82|0.044
84697457|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.14|-0.76|0.004
84697458|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.66|0.009
84697459|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
84697460|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.00|-0.47|0.046
84697461|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-0.49|0.006
84509777|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.6712
84697462|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.10|-0.40|0.25
84697463|NCT02373813|169135307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.03|-0.37|0.021
84697464|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
84697465|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-0.72|0.005
84697466|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.15|-0.69|0.002
84697467|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
84697468|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
84697469|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-0.51|0.004
84697470|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.05|-0.43|0.12
84697471|NCT02373813|169135308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
84697472|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.02|-0.62|0.067
84697473|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.23|-0.41|0.59
84697474|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.13||95.0|-5.66|0.74|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.74|-5.66|0.13
84697475|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.09|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.09|-4.76|0.059
84697476|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.5|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.50|-4.95|0.017
84697477|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.15|-3.04|0.74
84697478|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-3.03|0.039
84697479|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.23|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.23|-3.10|0.023
84697480|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.52|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.52|-2.43|0.65
84697481|NCT02373813|169135309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.19|-1.94|0.017
84697482|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.18||95.0|-5.29|1.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||1.00|-5.29|0.18
84697483|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.16|-4.63|0.067
84697484|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.17|-4.62|0.035
84697485|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.23|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.23|-2.91|0.79
84697486|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.20|-2.75|0.090
84697487|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.17|-3.06|0.029
84697488|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.81|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.81|-2.15|0.86
84697489|NCT02373813|169135310|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.16|-1.88|0.021
84697490|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||6.6|-6.5|1.00
84697491|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||2.6|-10.4|0.38
84697492|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|40.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||40.0|9.0|0.007
84697493|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||27.6|0.4|0.063
84697494|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|39.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||39.8|6.7|0.012
84697495|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|31.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||31.5|4.1|0.018
84697496|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||35.9|2.1|0.044
84697497|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||33.2|5.8|0.010
84697498|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||42.5|8.9|0.005
84697499|NCT02373813|169135311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|35.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||35.2|7.9|0.004
84697500|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||27.6|-5.4|0.25
84697501|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||13.8|-12.5|1.00
84697502|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|14.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||14.9|-11.6|0.98
84697503|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|16.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||16.2|-6.2|0.48
84697504|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|25.7||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||25.7|-3.1|0.16
84663735|NCT02663232|169060851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample type (paraffin-embedded blocks \[referral category\] vs slides of paraffin blocks vs cytology slides) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.505
84663736|NCT02663232|169060852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of method of fixation (buffered formalin \[referral category\] vs other) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.701
84663737|NCT02663232|169060853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Berslow thickness (≤1 mm \[referral category\] vs 1.01-2 mm vs 2.01-4 mm vs 4 mm) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.683
84663738|NCT02663232|169060854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Ulceration (no \[referral category\] vs yes) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.615
84663739|NCT02663232|169060855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of presence of regression (Without regression \[referral category\] vs With regression) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.949
84663740|NCT02663232|169060856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Vascular invasion (Without vascular invasion \[referral category\] vs With vascular invasion) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.374
84663741|NCT01712490|169060897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.983|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 favors A+AVD arm.||0.983|0.603|0.035
84663742|NCT01712490|169060898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.184|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% CI are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of IPFP risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio \<1 favors A+AVD arm.||1.184|0.448|0.199
84663743|NCT01862874|169060954|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|85.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|97.3|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 group versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, then superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.3|52.7|<0.001
84663744|NCT01862874|169060955|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of maximum temperature ≥37.5°C|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.9|-3.5|0.256
84663745|NCT01862874|169060956|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site erythema|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site erythema||7.9|-2.1|0.251
84663746|NCT01862874|169060956|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site pain|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site pain||12.2|0.5|0.033
84697505|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||11.9|-9.0|0.94
84697506|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|27.0||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||27.0|-2.1|0.12
84697507|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||16.8|-5.2|0.40
84697508|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.4||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||20.4|-9.8|0.63
84697509|NCT02373813|169135312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||4.2|-18.0|0.31
84697510|NCT02373813|169135314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84509778|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.3408
84509779|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.6712
84697511|NCT02373813|169135314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84697512|NCT02373813|169135315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.31
84697513|NCT02373813|169135315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.51
84697514|NCT02373813|169135316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|-15.2|0.58
84697515|NCT02967016|169135317|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative Steps 6 h||||0.002
84697516|NCT02967016|169135317|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 12 h||||.0002
84697517|NCT02967016|169135317|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 24 h||||.0006
84697518|NCT02967016|169135317|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 36 h||||0.0006
84697519|NCT02967016|169135317|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 48 h||||0.03
84697520|NCT02967016|169135318|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 6 h||||0.06
84697521|NCT02967016|169135318|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 12 h||||.30
84697522|NCT02967016|169135318|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 24 h||||.002
84697523|NCT02967016|169135318|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 36 h||||0.003
84697524|NCT02967016|169135318|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest at 48 h||||.02
84697525|NCT02967016|169135319|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 6 h||||.43
84697526|NCT02967016|169135319|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 12 h||||.24
84697527|NCT02967016|169135319|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 24 h||||.012
84697528|NCT02967016|169135319|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 36 h||||<0.0001
84697529|NCT02967016|169135319|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 48 h||||.0005
84697530|NCT01161160|169135381|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence criteria were fulfilled if the 2-sided 95% confidence limits on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was within the interval 0.5 to 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.26||||||To demonstrate the immunological equivalence of HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Quebec (Arepanrix™) and HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Dresden (Pandemrix™), 21 days after vaccination.||1.26|0.73|
84697531|NCT04003974|169135459|OTHER|Mean DUX4 activity was derived for each participant at each time point (Baseline and post-Baseline) based on normalized gene expression values for the 6-gene panel. Changes from Baseline to post-Baseline were analyzed using an ANCOVA model.|Least square mean difference|0.4284||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0376|1.8945|||ANCOVA||Results are expressed as difference in Least-Squares (LS) means of the changes from Baseline to post-Baseline in DUX4 activity for each group, losmapimod and placebo.|||1.8945|-1.0376|0.5621
84697532|NCT02400307|169135478|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.8|108.1||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.10|48.80|
84697533|NCT02400307|169135479|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|124.04||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||124.04|79.49|
84697534|NCT02400307|169135480|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.54|108.07||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.07|48.54|
84697535|NCT02400307|169135481|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.24|123.74||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||123.74|79.24|
84697536|NCT02400307|169135482|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.56|108.3||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.30|59.56|
84697537|NCT02400307|169135483|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|137.85||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||137.85|87.46|
84697538|NCT03248440|169135486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.579
84697539|NCT03248440|169135487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.082
84697540|NCT02987829|169135500|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Determination of the maximum tolerated dose.|One dose limiting toxicity occurred at 320 mg daily of grade 3 QTc prolongation therefore the 280 mg dose was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose and selected as the phase 2 dose.|||
84663747|NCT01862874|169060956|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site swelling|Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site swelling||11.3|2.3|0.003
84663748|NCT01862874|169060957|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-5.2|
84663749|NCT01862874|169060958|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of vaccine-related systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.8|-4.1|
84663750|NCT01862874|169060959|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|86.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|97.4|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.4|55.2|<0.001
84663751|NCT01129960|169060967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3726|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.3726
84697541|NCT02531438|169135517|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||3.8|-7.1|
84697542|NCT02531438|169135518|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||7.4|-2.4|
84663752|NCT01129960|169060967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.8034
84663753|NCT01129960|169060967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1391|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.1391
84663754|NCT00071513|169061014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean changes in Short Moods and Feelings measure of depression was the unit of analysis.||||<0.05
84663755|NCT00071513|169061014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A secondary hypothesis of the study was that attachment to school and/or perceptions of school supportiveness would mediate the effect of the HSTS intervention on depressive symptoms.||||<0.01
84663756|NCT02622321|169061016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.277||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (less than \[\<\] 9 or greater than or equal to \[\>/=\] 9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.277|0.057|<0.0001
84663757|NCT02622321|169061017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.375||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.375|0.102|<0.0001
84663758|NCT02622321|169061018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.218||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.218|0.055|<0.0001
84663759|NCT02622321|169061019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.198||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.198|0.031|<0.0001
84663760|NCT02622321|169061020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.52||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.520|0.025|0.0050
84697543|NCT02531438|169135519|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||6.8|-1.7|
84663761|NCT02622321|169061021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.435||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.435|0.119|<0.0001
84697544|NCT01813422|169135523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline PAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-0.640|-1.375|< 0.0001
84663762|NCT02622321|169061022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.21||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.486||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.486|0.089|0.0003
84663763|NCT02622321|169061023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.154||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.154|0.037|<0.0001
84663764|NCT02622321|169061024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.05||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.227||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.227|0.009|0.0002
84663765|NCT02622321|169061028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|21.55||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|35.22||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm. Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA).||35.22|7.89|0.0029
84663766|NCT02622321|169061029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.01||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|22.45||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||22.45|5.56|0.0019
84663767|NCT02622321|169061030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.72||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-1.82||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-1.82|-17.62|0.0171
84663768|NCT02622321|169061031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-0.07|-0.25|0.0014
84663769|NCT00965718|169061054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||||||Global health status scores at baseline and final observation point were compared via a 2-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
84697545|NCT01813422|169135524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.247|-2.531|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline TAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-2.531|-7.247|< 0.0001
84663770|NCT02260921|169061077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-7.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-3.58||P-values are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||LS estimates are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|||-3.58|-11.48|0.0002
84663771|NCT01244425|169061086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood-ratio chi square test|||||||<0.001
84663772|NCT01244425|169061087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.001
84663773|NCT01244425|169061088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.028
84663774|NCT01244425|169061089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.017
84663775|NCT01244425|169061090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.293
84663776|NCT01244425|169061091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.237
84663777|NCT01244425|169061092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.808
84663778|NCT03194698|169061170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0312
84663779|NCT03194698|169061171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84663780|NCT03194698|169061172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84663781|NCT02480114|169061173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.549||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.827|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.827|0.364|0.004
84663782|NCT02480114|169061174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84663783|NCT02480114|169061175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.371|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.597|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.597|0.244|<0.001
84663784|NCT01031069|169061193|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-16 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.52||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.52|1.92|
84663785|NCT01031069|169061193|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-18 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|12.66||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|12.66|4.84|
84663786|NCT01031069|169061194|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-18 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, assessed following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|11.54|4.79|<0.0001
84663787|NCT01031069|169061194|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-16 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.11|1.83|<0.0001
84697546|NCT01813422|169135525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||23.5|10.3|< 0.0001
84697547|NCT01813422|169135526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|12.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||19.1|5.8|0.0002
84663788|NCT01031069|169061211|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-18 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|9.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||9.06|3.20|<0.0001
84697548|NCT00811187|169135527|SUPERIORITY|\[Not Specified\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Treatment pain difference= Lidocaine (0.97) - Placebo (3.00).|A sample size calculation and power analysis was conducted using PS Power and Sample Size Calculations 2.1.30 (Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN) to determine necessary sample size.||||<.001
84697549|NCT00558753|169135617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84697550|NCT00558753|169135618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|10.3||||0.0013||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||For 3 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0013
84697551|NCT00558753|169135618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|6.05||||0.0139|||||||Chi-squared|||For 6 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0139
84697552|NCT00558753|169135619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2||||0.0133||95.0||||Test of condition(Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with main effects and time by condition interaction.||Mixed model test of condition (Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.||||0.0133
84697553|NCT00558753|169135619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|1.04||||0.3097||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.3097
84697554|NCT00558753|169135619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.1||||0.0247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 2-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0247
84697555|NCT00558753|169135619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|3.11||||0.0786||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 3-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0786
84697556|NCT00558753|169135619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.04||||0.0254||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 30-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0254
84697557|NCT01449721|169135643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||2-sample z-test|z-test for differences in proportions||Null hypothesis: In patients with moderate severity sepsis, there is no change in the incidence of organ dysfunction within 72 hours associated with the use of an empiric fluid resuscitation algorithm.||||0.064
84697558|NCT03706690|169135673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.986|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (PD-L1 \<1% versus \[vs\] PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (concurrent \[c\]CRT vs sequential \[s\]CRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.986|0.578|0.038
84697559|NCT03706690|169135674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.166|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.166|0.656|0.346
84697560|NCT03706690|169135674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.162|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.162|0.663|0.346
84697561|NCT03706690|169135675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.966|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1\>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.966|0.575|0.026
84663789|NCT01031069|169061211|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-16 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|5.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||5.06|1.84|<0.0001
84663790|NCT01317160|169061229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Domeij-Arverud et al., Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:675-80.||||0.042
84663791|NCT01317160|169061229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|Age was adjusted for in the calculation.|Risk of VTE by routine care (numerator) divided by IPC treatment (denominator)|||6.32|1.25|<0.05
84663792|NCT01317160|169061231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
84663793|NCT01705288|169061268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.36
84663794|NCT01705288|169061269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.05
84663795|NCT01705288|169061270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84663796|NCT01134783|169061288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.707
84663797|NCT01134783|169061289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
84663798|NCT04346537|169061296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
84663799|NCT04346537|169061297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
84663800|NCT04346537|169061298|OTHER|Two-one sided t-tests (TOST) -- the 90% confidence interval was required to be contained with 300 and 1300 ohms.|||||<|0.001|||||||Two one-sided t-tests|||||||< 0.001
84663801|NCT01409564|169061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Repeated ANOVA|Uncorrected, Repeated ANOVA||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.14
84663802|NCT01409564|169061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
84663803|NCT01409564|169061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||<0.01
84663804|NCT01409564|169061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
84663805|NCT01409564|169061324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADAS-Cog scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.93
84663806|NCT01409564|169061325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of MMSE scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.15
84663807|NCT01409564|169061326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADCS-ADL scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.82
84663808|NCT01409564|169061327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of Summed CDR scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.79
84663809|NCT01409564|169061328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Distribution of Fazekas scale in two groups according to Chi-square test results.||||0.87
84663810|NCT00225251|169061329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84663811|NCT02664441|169061334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||0.6|-4.1|0.40
84663812|NCT02664441|169061335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||-0.4|-5.7|0.02
84663813|NCT02664441|169061336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Fat Intake||-2.7|-37.8|.032
84663814|NCT02664441|169061336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-430.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-761.0|-100.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Total Calorie Intake||-100|-761|.02
84663815|NCT02664441|169061337|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.08|0.97|0.19
84663816|NCT02664441|169061338|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for HDL Cholesterol||1.11|0.91|0.82
84697562|NCT03706690|169135677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.607|||Regression, Logistic|||For mITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.607|0.891|0.128
84697563|NCT03706690|169135677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.638|||Regression, Logistic|||For ITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.638|0.915|0.105
84697564|NCT03706690|169135680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.138|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.138|0.648|0.275
84697565|NCT03706690|169135680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.122|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.122|0.648|0.241
84697566|NCT03706690|169135681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.578|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.578|0.726|0.769
84697567|NCT03706690|169135681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.539|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.539|0.726|0.812
84697568|NCT04019561|169135703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|-5.02|0.439
84697569|NCT04019561|169135703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-8.54|0.006
84697570|NCT04019561|169135704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.508||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.191|6.174|||ANCOVA|||||6.174|-9.191|0.695
84697571|NCT04019561|169135704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.291||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.76|-1.822|||ANCOVA|||||-1.822|-16.760|0.016
84509780|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6766
84697572|NCT04019561|169135705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.74||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.174|18.695|||ANCOVA|||||18.695|-40.174|0.468
84697573|NCT04019561|169135705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.395||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-8.409|||ANCOVA|||||-8.409|-66.380|0.012
84697574|NCT04019561|169135706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|15.218|||ANCOVA|||||15.218|-2.698|0.166
84697575|NCT04019561|169135706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.537|9.035|||ANCOVA|||||9.035|-7.537|0.856
84697576|NCT04019561|169135707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.283||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.641|3.076|||ANCOVA|||||3.076|-9.641|0.302
84697577|NCT04019561|169135707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.821||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.316|2.675|||ANCOVA|||||2.675|-8.316|0.304
84697578|NCT04019561|169135708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.038||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.493|9.569|||ANCOVA|||||9.569|-7.493|0.808
84697579|NCT04019561|169135708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.106||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.043|9.255|||ANCOVA|||||9.255|-7.043|0.786
84697580|NCT04019561|169135709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.448||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|7.421|||ANCOVA|||||7.421|-0.524|0.087
84697581|NCT04019561|169135709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|3.312|||ANCOVA|||||3.312|-4.085|0.834
84697582|NCT04019561|169135710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.386||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|1.908|||ANCOVA|||||1.908|-2.681|0.735
84697583|NCT04019561|169135710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.091||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|1.044|||ANCOVA|||||1.044|-3.226|0.308
84697584|NCT04019561|169135711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.277||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.704|10.15|||ANCOVA|||||10.150|-48.704|0.195
84697585|NCT04019561|169135711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.328||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.674|5.019|||ANCOVA|||||5.019|-53.674|0.103
84697586|NCT04019561|169135712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.802|29.022|||ANCOVA|||||29.022|-49.802|0.600
84697587|NCT04019561|169135712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.086||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.163|46.336|||ANCOVA|||||46.336|-32.163|0.720
84663817|NCT02664441|169061338|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for Triglycerides||1.19|0.83|0.92
84663818|NCT02664441|169061339|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||0.92|0.41|0.03
84663819|NCT02664441|169061340|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.14|0.90|0.32
84697588|NCT04019561|169135713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.134|16.854|||ANCOVA|||||16.854|-35.134|0.485
84663820|NCT02664441|169061341|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|||1.10|0.81|0.69
84663821|NCT02664441|169061342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.7|-63.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||-63.1|-269.7|0.004
84663822|NCT02664441|169061343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-653.5|363.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||363.4|-653.5|0.58
84663823|NCT02664441|169061344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||2.1|-19.1|0.088
84663824|NCT04615923|169061358|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.207||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. Pridopidine slowed progression) was (0.5475). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.207|0.801|
84663825|NCT04615923|169061360|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.57|-0.75|0.78
84663826|NCT04615923|169061361|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.52|-0.33|0.6594
84697589|NCT04019561|169135713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.645||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.288|5.999|||ANCOVA|||||5.999|-45.288|0.131
84697590|NCT04019561|169135714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|1.754|||ANCOVA|||||1.754|-3.191|0.564
84697591|NCT04019561|169135714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.366||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.854|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-4.854|0.062
84697592|NCT04019561|169135715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.838|||ANCOVA|||||0.838|-1.007|0.856
84509781|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6712
84697593|NCT04019561|169135715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|-1.700|0.098
84509782|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.6388
84509783|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.7674
84509784|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4993||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.4993
84509785|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.6712
84697594|NCT00231179|169135759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes were established when the trial was first developed. For all power calculations, we set alpha = .05 and beta = .20 and specified 2-tailed tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.13||Bonferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared scores for verbal, performance, and full scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ).||2.13|0.31|0.59
84697595|NCT00231179|169135760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Please see earlier power calculation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84697596|NCT00231179|169135761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84697597|NCT00231179|169135762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84697598|NCT00231179|169135763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84697599|NCT01764386|169135779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||||-7.15|-9.88|<0.0001
84697600|NCT01764386|169135780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|116.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||116.3|16.6|<0.0001
84697601|NCT01764386|169135781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|76.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.7|6.0|<0.0001
84697602|NCT01764386|169135783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-7.24|||ANCOVA|||||-7.24|-10.07|<0.0001
84697603|NCT01764386|169135784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.50|-7.14|<0.0001
84697604|NCT01764386|169135785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-29.5|0.0019
84697605|NCT01764386|169135786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|5.73|||ANCOVA|||||5.73|-5.96|0.9686
84697606|NCT01764386|169135787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.06|||ANCOVA|||||6.06|1.99|0.0001
84697607|NCT01764386|169135788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-4.9|0.1706
84697608|NCT01764386|169135789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-2.6|0.7160
84697609|NCT01764386|169135790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.3|0.0913
84697610|NCT01764386|169135791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-7.2|0.0016
84697611|NCT01764386|169135792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-6.2|0.0004
84697612|NCT01764386|169135793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.7|0.0003
84697613|NCT01764386|169135794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||||-6.0|-9.8|<0.0001
84697614|NCT01764386|169135795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
84697615|NCT01764386|169135796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|21.36|||ANCOVA|||||21.36|13.45|<0.0001
84697616|NCT00495469|169135821|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.003||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.003
84697617|NCT00495469|169135821|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.047||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.047
84697618|NCT00495469|169135821|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.006||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.006
84663827|NCT04615923|169061362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.745||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.96|-3.89|0.7918
84663828|NCT04615923|169061363|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.84|-0.83|0.9903
84663829|NCT04615923|169061364|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using interval-censored survival analysis. This type of model accommodates interval censoring between ALSFRS-R assessments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Interval censored cox model adjusted for time since symptom onset, pre-baseline change in ALSFRS-R, baseline use of edaravone, riluzole, and neudexta||||1.27|0.69|
84663830|NCT04615923|169061365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.285||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.67|-8.23|0.5888
84663831|NCT04615923|169061366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9690
84663832|NCT02560584|169061367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for a single propor|||"The proportion of patients with malignancy detected only with BLC with Cysview was to be analyzed using an exact one-sided test for a single proportion based on the cumulative binomial distribution with a significance level of 2.5%.~Null hypothesis: Malignancy is detected with BL only in 0.5% or less of the patients"||||<0.0001
84663833|NCT02560584|169061369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for single proporti|||"The proportion of patients with one or more CIS lesions detected with BL and none with WL was to be evaluated using an exact binomial test for single proportion with a significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).~Null hypothesis: One or more CIS lesions are detected with BLC with Cysview and none with WL in less than or equal to 0.1% of the patients."||||<0.0001
84663834|NCT00715078|169061370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort B is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cohort B vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|ratio of geometric means (GeoMean)|1.046||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.168|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.168|0.936|0.5019
84663835|NCT00715078|169061370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort C is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cohort C vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|the ratio of geometric means|0.907||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.013|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.013|0.813|0.1443
84697619|NCT00495469|169135821|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.085||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.085
84697620|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.085
84509786|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.2654
84509787|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.6712
84663836|NCT01313767|169061377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% of the power, 0.45 of non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between the two groups was provided with 95% CI. If the upper limit of CI is no greater than 0.45 (non-inferiority margin), the study group was determined not inferior to the control group. Additionally, difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||0.40|-0.05|0.1347
84663837|NCT01313767|169061378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2591
84509788|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.7617
84509789|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.6712
84509790|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.9123
84697621|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.16||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.16|-0.95|0.006
84697622|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.084
84509791|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.6712
84697623|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.28|-1.05|0.001
84509792|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.7617
84509793|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.6712
84509794|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.1628
84697624|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.20|-0.97|0.003
84697625|NCT00495469|169135821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.20|-0.58|0.337
84697626|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.04|-1.67|0.039
84697627|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.23|-1.89|0.013
84697628|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.19||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.19|-1.46|0.131
84697629|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.13|-1.77|0.023
84697630|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.32|-1.95|0.007
84697631|NCT00495469|169135823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.32|-1.34|0.223
84697632|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-7.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-7.4|-40.9|0.005
84697633|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-17.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-17.4|-52.5|<0.001
84697634|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.9|0.001
84697635|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-19.5||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-19.5|-53.6|<0.001
84697636|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.3|0.001
84697637|NCT00495469|169135824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|3.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||3.4|-31.0|0.114
84509795|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.6712
84697638|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.06|0.27|0.757
84509796|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.6388
84697639|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.01|0.31|0.580
84697640|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||5.73|0.22|0.881
84697641|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.75|0.44|0.382
84697642|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.68||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.68|0.42|0.409
84509797|NCT01494506|168771356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7308||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.7308
84509798|NCT05216081|168771358|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|69.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|76.2||||||||76.2|61.5|
84663838|NCT01313767|169061378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3395
84663839|NCT01313767|169061379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0675
84663840|NCT01313767|169061379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0605
84663841|NCT01313767|169061379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0429
84663842|NCT01313767|169061380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6954
84663843|NCT01313767|169061380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6024
84663844|NCT01313767|169061380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.9316
84663845|NCT01313767|169061381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2284
84663846|NCT01313767|169061381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3221
84663847|NCT01313767|169061381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.5930
84663848|NCT01313767|169061382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1585
84509799|NCT05216081|168771359|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.8||||||||99.8|94.7|
84509800|NCT05216081|168771361|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|24.2||||||||24.2|10|
84663849|NCT01313767|169061382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0028||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.9596
84663850|NCT01313767|169061382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0304||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.6164
84663851|NCT01313767|169061383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1802
84663852|NCT01313767|169061383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1164||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1176
84663853|NCT01313767|169061383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1138||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1252
84663854|NCT01313767|169061384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.3431
84663855|NCT01313767|169061384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1097||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.1329
84663856|NCT01313767|169061384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0853||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.2611
84697643|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.29|0.24|0.795
84509801|NCT05216081|168771364|OTHER||Percentage who self-disclosed|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|78.6||||||||78.6|32.6|
84697644|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.95||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||3.95|0.36|0.765
84509802|NCT05216081|168771365|OTHER||Percentage substantiated by socialworker|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|89.8||||||||89.8|50.5|
84697645|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.09||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||9.09|0.82|0.100
84697646|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||4.30|0.38|0.687
84663857|NCT01313767|169061385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0654||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.4623
84663858|NCT01313767|169061385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1194||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.2007
84663859|NCT01313767|169061385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0172||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.8553
84663860|NCT01313767|169061386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6040
84663861|NCT01313767|169061386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3233
84663862|NCT01313767|169061386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4469
84663863|NCT01313767|169061387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1220
84663864|NCT01313767|169061387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1016
84663865|NCT01313767|169061387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2235
84663866|NCT01313767|169061388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5030
84663867|NCT01313767|169061388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6934|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6934
84663868|NCT01313767|169061388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9574
84663869|NCT01313767|169061389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
84663870|NCT01313767|169061389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
84663871|NCT01313767|169061389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4017
84663872|NCT01313767|169061390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.2346
84663873|NCT01313767|169061391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.9513
84663874|NCT01313767|169061392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8088
84663875|NCT01313767|169061392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3702
84663876|NCT01313767|169061392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1497
84663877|NCT01313767|169061393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9634
84663878|NCT01313767|169061393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7302
84663879|NCT01313767|169061393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7715
84663880|NCT01313767|169061394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9362
84663881|NCT01313767|169061394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.7998|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7998
84663882|NCT01313767|169061394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5436
84663883|NCT01313767|169061395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7014
84663884|NCT01313767|169061395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8884
84663885|NCT01313767|169061395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2840
84663886|NCT00157950|169061396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.8|93.6|
84663887|NCT00157950|169061397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|96.8|
84663888|NCT00157950|169061398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.2|
84663889|NCT00157950|169061399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.0|
84663890|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.22||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.22|-0.38|
84697647|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.52||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.52|0.50|0.409
84697648|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.15||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7%)||9.15|0.86|0.086
84697649|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.88||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.88|0.52|0.369
84697650|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.40|0.74|0.160
84697651|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||11.42|1.31|0.014
84697652|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.44||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.44|0.73|0.162
84697653|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.17||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||12.17|1.38|0.011
84697654|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|15.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||15.73|1.79|0.003
84697655|NCT00495469|169135825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.49||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||5.49|0.63|0.264
84697656|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||5.28|0.46|0.480
84697657|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|16.46||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.46|1.44|0.011
84697658|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.96||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.96|0.85|0.087
84697659|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.78||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.78|0.87|0.082
84509803|NCT00863746|168771366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9934||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|1.1735||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||1.1735|0.8409|0.4687
84697660|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||13.27|1.20|0.024
84697661|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.66|1.41|0.012
84697662|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.54||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||5.54|0.62|0.270
84697663|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.72||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.72|1.04|0.043
84697664|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.53||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.53|0.72|0.169
84697665|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.36|1.04|0.042
84697666|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||11.06|1.23|0.020
84697667|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.24|0.67|0.211
84697668|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||13.75|0.61|0.179
84697669|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|20.87||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||20.87|1.17|0.030
84697670|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.86||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||12.86|0.69|0.142
84697671|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|25.83||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||25.83|1.49|0.012
84697672|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|54.0||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||54.00|3.14|<0.001
84697673|NCT00495469|169135826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.99||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||27.99|1.56|0.010
84509804|NCT00863746|168771367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5139|0.7165||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.7165|0.5139|<0.0001
84663891|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.39|-0.20|
84663892|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.32||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.32|-0.28|
84663893|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.41|
84663894|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.44||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.32|
84663895|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.77||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.01|
84663896|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|-0.22|
84663897|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.07|0.24|
84663898|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.42||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.42|-0.37|
84663899|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.78||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.78|-0.00|
84663900|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.29|
84663901|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.45||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.45|0.59|
84663902|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.62||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.21|
84509805|NCT00863746|168771368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.2263|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1575|0.2952|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.2952|0.1575|<0.000001
84697674|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.59|-0.19|0.318
84697675|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.73|0.131
84697676|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.24|-0.54|0.452
84697677|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.36|-0.44|0.845
84697678|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.23|-0.58|0.393
84697679|NCT00495469|169135827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.03|-0.76|0.072
84697680|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.30|-0.40|0.767
84697681|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.27|-0.46|0.604
84697682|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.48||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.48|-0.23|0.483
84697683|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.37|-0.35|0.956
84697684|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.6||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.60|-0.12|0.185
84697685|NCT00495469|169135828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.39|-0.32|0.863
84697686|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|-0.46|0.348
84697687|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.31|-0.33|0.952
84697688|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.42|-0.21|0.523
84697689|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.34|0.889
84697690|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.56|-0.07|0.124
84697691|NCT00495469|169135829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.40|-0.22|0.581
84697692|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.05|0.518
84697693|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.11|-0.04|0.352
84697694|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|0.01|0.026
84697695|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.01|0.069
84697696|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.13|-0.02|0.154
84697697|NCT00495469|169135830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|0.03|0.005
84697698|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.58|0.143
84697699|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.46|0.495
84697700|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.52|0.261
84697701|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.20|-0.46|0.446
84697702|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.38|-0.29|0.783
84697703|NCT00495469|169135831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.21|-0.46|0.454
84697704|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.59|0.363
84697705|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.76|0.111
84697706|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.04|-0.77|0.080
84697707|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|-0.64|0.267
84697708|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.54|0.549
84697709|NCT00495469|169135832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.01|-0.81|0.056
84697710|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.66|-1.65|0.396
84697711|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.33||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.33|-2.70|0.013
84697712|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.26||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.26|-2.61|0.017
84697713|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.28|-2.61|0.015
84697714|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-2.26|0.069
84697715|NCT00495469|169135833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||2.20|-0.15|0.086
84697716|NCT03815916|169135859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3865||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the mean change in the average NAD+/NADH brain ratio from baseline to Week 12 using a partial volume coil 31P-MRS data on the Per Protocol Treatment Population. A paired t-test will be used to analyze the mean change from baseline.||||0.1077
84697717|NCT01207934|169135933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||ANOVA for reapeated measures was used to compare the three groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in glucose disposal between the three groups (placebo, low dose leptin, and high dose leptin). Power calculations were done showing that 6 subjects in each arm was enough to detect a 35% between group difference in glucose disposal at the 0.05 level with 80% power.||||>0.05
84697718|NCT01207934|169135934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T-tests compared pre and post-treatment values.||The null hypothesis is that treatment would not effect plasma leptin levels.||||<0.01
84697719|NCT01207934|169135934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that plasma leptin levels would be equal after treatment in the placebo and high-dose leptin groups.||||<0.01
84697720|NCT00335153|169135977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697721|NCT00335153|169135978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84697722|NCT00335153|169135979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697723|NCT00335153|169135980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697724|NCT00335153|169135981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
84697725|NCT00335153|169135982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697726|NCT00335153|169135983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697727|NCT00335153|169135984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697728|NCT00335153|169135985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697729|NCT00335153|169135986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697730|NCT00335153|169135987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697731|NCT00335153|169135988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697732|NCT00335153|169135989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697733|NCT00335153|169135990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697734|NCT00335153|169135991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
84697735|NCT00335153|169135992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697736|NCT00335153|169135993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697737|NCT00335153|169135994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84663903|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.76||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|-0.07|
84663904|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.72||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.11|
84663905|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.75||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.75|0.85|
84663906|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.04|
84663907|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.75||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.75|-0.10|
84663908|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.05|
84663909|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|2.15||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.15|1.22|
84663910|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.99||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.99|0.01|
84663911|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.03||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.05|
84663912|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.94||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.04|
84663913|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.31||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.31|1.26|
84697738|NCT00335153|169135995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697739|NCT00335153|169135996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84697740|NCT00335153|169135997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
84697741|NCT03688542|169136011|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = follow-up value; adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||1.0|-3.8|<0.05
84697742|NCT03688542|169136012|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.03|-0.39|<0.05
84697743|NCT03688542|169136013|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.025|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.025|-0.095|<0.05
84697744|NCT03688542|169136014|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.237|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||-0.040|-0.435|<0.05
84697745|NCT03688542|169136015|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|2.938|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||2.938|0.164|<0.05
84663914|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.11||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.06|
84663915|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.17||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.17|0.11|
84697746|NCT03688542|169136016|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||-4.0|-21.5|<0.05
84697747|NCT03688542|169136017|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.754|0.424|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||0.424|-0.754|<0.05
84697748|NCT03688542|169136018|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.6|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||7.6|-16.0|<0.05
84697749|NCT02478359|169136026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.92|0.33
84697750|NCT02478359|169136027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.77|0.88
84697751|NCT02478359|169136028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.89|0.53
84697752|NCT02478359|169136029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.88|0.73
84697753|NCT02478359|169136030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.93|0.21
84697754|NCT02478359|169136031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.93|0.26
84697755|NCT02478359|169136032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84697756|NCT02478359|169136033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84663916|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.15||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.15|0.11|
84663917|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.4||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.40|1.33|
84663918|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|1.05||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.05|-0.07|
84509806|NCT00863746|168771369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.039||||0.000876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0137|0.0642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.0642|0.0137|0.000876
84509807|NCT00863746|168771370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4526|0.6492||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.6492|0.4526|<0.0001
84509808|NCT00863746|168771371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3121||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3121
84509809|NCT00863746|168771372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2948||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2948
84663919|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.91||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.24|
84663920|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.98||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.98|-0.13|
84663921|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.17||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.17|1.05|
84663922|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|-0.74|
84663923|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.56||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.56|-0.86|
84663924|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.8||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.57|
84509810|NCT00863746|168771373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8344
84509811|NCT00863746|168771374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1438||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1438
84509812|NCT00863746|168771375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9228||||||p-value for treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9228
84509813|NCT00153803|168771392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.65|0.165
84509814|NCT00153803|168771393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.85|0.32
84509815|NCT03292653|168771398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||7.93|-5.4|0.736
84697757|NCT02478359|169136034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||adjusted p values|Regression, Logistic|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.34
84697758|NCT02478359|169136035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
84697759|NCT02478359|169136036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
84697760|NCT02478359|169136037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
84697761|NCT02478359|169136038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
84697762|NCT02478359|169136039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.87
84663925|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.58||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.58|0.22|
84663926|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.59||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.59|-0.93|
84663927|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.62||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.98|
84697763|NCT02478359|169136040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.70
84697764|NCT02478359|169136041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted P Values||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.35
84697765|NCT02478359|169136042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.09
84697766|NCT02478359|169136043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.82
84509816|NCT03292653|168771398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|5.18|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.18|-7.22|0.7694
84509817|NCT03292653|168771399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.01|-0.09|0.184
84509818|NCT03292653|168771399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.3397
84509819|NCT03292653|168771400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||-0.35|-33.79|0.094
84509820|NCT03292653|168771400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.65|3.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.46|-27.65|0.1878
84509821|NCT03292653|168771401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|5.8|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.8|-15.45|0.4269
84509822|NCT03292653|168771401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.24|3.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.52|-16.24|0.2684
84509823|NCT03292653|168771402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|847.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|576.98||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.46|1904.86|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1904.86|-210.46|0.1761
84509824|NCT03292653|168771402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|489.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|579.35||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-572.68|1551.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1551.34|-572.68|0.4202
84509825|NCT03292653|168771403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|13.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|28.53|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||28.53|-1.03|0.1242
84509826|NCT03292653|168771403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.49|13.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||13.30|-13.49|0.9903
84509827|NCT03292653|168771404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-150.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.09||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-353.57|51.78|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||51.78|-353.57|0.2121
84663928|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.45||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-1.05|
84509828|NCT03292653|168771404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.88||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-174.4|163.87|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||163.87|-174.4|0.9574
84509829|NCT01124149|168771446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|1.76|<0.001
84509830|NCT01124149|168771447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.44|<0.001
84509831|NCT01439165|168771485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Comparison of anti-tetanus seroprotection rate between the two groups||1.2|-0.4|
84509832|NCT01439165|168771485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Comparison of anti-diphtheria seroprotection rates between the two groups||2.1|-0.3|
84509833|NCT01439165|168771486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.7||||||Comparison of the anti-tetanus booster response rates between the two groups||-1.7|-12.0|
84509834|NCT01439165|168771486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||||||Comparison of the anti-diphteria booster response rates between the two groups||4.0|-5.4|
84509835|NCT01439165|168771487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||Comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid GMCs between Adacel and historical control groups||1.18|0.92|
84509836|NCT01439165|168771487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|6.05||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||6.05|4.51|
84697767|NCT02478359|169136044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.16
84697768|NCT02478359|169136045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.86
84697769|NCT02478359|169136046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84697770|NCT02478359|169136047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.82|0.69
84697771|NCT02478359|169136048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.35|0.11
84697772|NCT02478359|169136049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.65|0.21
84697773|NCT02478359|169136050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.84|0.60
84697774|NCT02478359|169136051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.66|0.63
84697775|NCT02478359|169136052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.68|0.80
84509837|NCT01439165|168771487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.51||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||3.51|2.46|
84509838|NCT01439165|168771487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||||||Comparison of the post-vaccination anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||2.60|1.84|
84697776|NCT02478359|169136053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.06
84697777|NCT02478359|169136054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.07
84697778|NCT02478359|169136055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.67
84697779|NCT02478359|169136056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.13
84509839|NCT01439165|168771488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|18.73||||||comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid booster response rates was performed between the Adacel and historical groups||18.73|13.27|
84509840|NCT01439165|168771488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.34||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA booster response rates between the Adacel and historical groups||-1.34|-7.23|
84509841|NCT01439165|168771488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-15.6||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-15.6|-21.7|
84697780|NCT02478359|169136057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.34
84697781|NCT02478359|169136058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.11
84697782|NCT02478359|169136059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariated included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.83
84697783|NCT01818700|169136060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||10|-10|<0.05
84697784|NCT00562965|169136068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|A 2-sided 5% significance level on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|To detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 with 85% power using a 2-sided log-rank test at the 5% significance level, it was planned that approximately 978 participants were needed to be randomized but due to premature termination only 29 participants were randomized.||1.02|0.04|0.0358
84697785|NCT00562965|169136069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
84697786|NCT00562965|169136070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|Stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was utilized.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|||1.81|0.05|0.1727
84697787|NCT00958009|169136076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean positive response|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>0.50.|||0.93|0.80|
84697788|NCT00848211|169136097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
84697789|NCT00848211|169136099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
84697790|NCT00083174|169136118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.7|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between two groups. The sample size estimate was based on an assumption of annual invasive breast cancer rate of 0.60% in the placebo group and 0.21% in exemestane group, a relative reduction of 65% with exemestane. To detect this with a two-sided 5% level and 90% power, a total of 38 cases of invasive breast cancer were required, projected to occur when 4560 women were randomly assigned in a 3-year period and then followed for an additional 1.2 years.||0.70|0.18|0.002
84697791|NCT00083174|169136119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.27|0.004
84697792|NCT00083174|169136120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.11|0.07
84697793|NCT03582137|169136125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8049||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8839|2.2741|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2741|-5.8839|0.3785
84697794|NCT03582137|169136129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4254||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4018|3.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5510|-12.4018|0.2712
84697795|NCT03582137|169136130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3133||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5414|5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1680|-4.5414|0.8974
84697796|NCT03582137|169136131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1505||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|0.5892|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5892|-0.2882|0.4643
84697797|NCT03582137|169136132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1188||||0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6019|0.3644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3644|-0.6019|0.6245
84697798|NCT03582137|169136138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3341||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5749|0.9068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9068|-1.5749|0.5921
84697799|NCT03582137|169136139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9352||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4372|4.3076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3076|-0.4372|0.1016
84697800|NCT03582137|169136140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.686||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3733|40.7452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.7452|-1.3733|0.0661
84697801|NCT03582137|169136141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2214||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9381|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-6.9381|0.0880
84697802|NCT03582137|169136142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9836||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2093|4.2421|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2421|-14.2093|0.2827
84663929|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.02||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.02|-0.47|
84697803|NCT03582137|169136143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.576||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3697|4.5216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5216|-3.3697|0.7703
84697804|NCT03582137|169136144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8834||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2172|0.4504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4504|-2.2172|0.1874
84697805|NCT03582137|169136147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2993||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5533|3.1519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1519|-0.5533|0.1646
84663930|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.11||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.15|
84663931|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.74||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.74|-0.27|
84663932|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.03|
84663933|NCT01529346|169061403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.67||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.67|-0.30|
84697806|NCT03582137|169136148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7519||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9082|0.4045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4045|-3.9082|0.1093
84697807|NCT03582137|169136149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3532||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6511|3.3576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3576|-0.6511|0.1819
84697808|NCT03582137|169136150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9667||||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6287|2.5621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5621|-0.6287|0.2282
84697809|NCT03582137|169136151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2614||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3002|0.7775|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7775|-1.3002|0.6167
84697810|NCT03582137|169136152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3067||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6765|3.2899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2899|-2.6765|0.8378
84663934|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.14||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.14|-0.19|
84663935|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.37||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.37|0.03|
84663936|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.10|
84663937|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.21|-0.16|
84663938|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.45||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.06|
84663939|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.7||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.70|0.19|
84663940|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|0.04|
84663941|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.87||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.87|0.32|
84663942|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.4||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.16|
84663943|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|0.12|
84663944|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.05|
84663945|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.01||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.01|0.40|
84663946|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.4||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.19|
84663947|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.49||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.49|-0.10|
84663948|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.43||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.43|-0.16|
84697811|NCT03582137|169136154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3237||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.8353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8353|-0.1880|0.2103
84697812|NCT03582137|169136155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3015|2.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2934|-3.3015|0.7197
84697813|NCT03582137|169136156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6158||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|5.4373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4373|-0.2058|0.0686
84697814|NCT03582137|169136157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7891||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8523|7.4304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4304|-1.8523|0.2339
84697815|NCT03582137|169136158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9536||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1655|7.0727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.0727|-5.1655|0.7557
84697816|NCT03582137|169136160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05126||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9086|1.0111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0111|-0.9086|0.9150
84697817|NCT03582137|169136161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6699||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3316|1.9918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9918|-3.3316|0.6164
84697818|NCT03582137|169136162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1358||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0028|0.7312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7312|-1.0028|0.7550
84697819|NCT03582137|169136163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09605||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6449|1.4528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4528|-1.6449|0.9016
84697820|NCT03582137|169136164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3217||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8584|6.2151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2151|-6.8584|0.9219
84697821|NCT03582137|169136165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02897||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02857|0.08651|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08651|-0.02857|0.3178
84697822|NCT03582137|169136170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2288||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|1.7825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7825|-1.3250|0.7693
84697823|NCT03582137|169136171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8121||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3743|1.7501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7501|-3.3743|0.5285
84697824|NCT03582137|169136172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02525||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7717|0.7212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7212|-0.7717|0.9463
84697825|NCT03582137|169136173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3042||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0817|0.4732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4732|-1.0817|0.4362
84697826|NCT03582137|169136174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06489||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5957|1.4659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4659|-1.5957|0.9327
84697827|NCT03582137|169136177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2763||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.4354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4354|-0.9880|0.4401
84697828|NCT03582137|169136178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8319||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6835|6.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.0197|-7.6835|0.8085
84697829|NCT03582137|169136180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02673||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2757|1.3292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3292|-1.2757|0.9674
84697830|NCT03582137|169136182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.92||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.51|11.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.68|-105.51|0.1128
84697831|NCT00162942|169136189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.858
84697832|NCT00162942|169136191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.813
84697833|NCT00162942|169136192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84697834|NCT00162942|169136193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.670
84697835|NCT00162942|169136194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.977
84697836|NCT00162942|169136195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
84697837|NCT00162942|169136196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
84697838|NCT00162942|169136197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0773
84697839|NCT00162942|169136198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.261
84697840|NCT00162942|169136199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
84697841|NCT00162942|169136200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
84697842|NCT00162942|169136201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
84697843|NCT00162942|169136202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.222
84697844|NCT00162942|169136203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
84697845|NCT00162942|169136204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
84697846|NCT00162942|169136205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
84697847|NCT00162942|169136206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0632
84697848|NCT00162942|169136206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0504
84697849|NCT00162942|169136207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8265
84697850|NCT00162942|169136208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0676
84697851|NCT00162942|169136208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0506
84697852|NCT00162942|169136209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8721||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8721
84697853|NCT00162942|169136210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0289
84697854|NCT00162942|169136211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8618
84697855|NCT01253200|169136212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Primary Safety Endpoint was evaluated using a one-sided, non-inferiority test for two binomial proportions at an alpha-level of 0.05. A 95% confidence interval based upon a score test of the difference of proportion of subjects in the Investigational and Control Groups free from a procedure-related complication seven days post-procedure was constructed. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.78||||||Note that analysis of the primary outcome was conducted for Randomized subjects only as prespecified in the study protocol. This is consistent analysis publicly available in the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED).||9.78||
84697856|NCT02049437|169136216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.83|0.90|0.07
84697857|NCT02049437|169136217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2036.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3490.32|-900.62|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-900.62|-3490.32|<0.001
84697858|NCT02049437|169136218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.65|-0.79|0.77
84697859|NCT00783718|169136219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary comparison of the Induction Phase was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level, with stratification according to the stratification factors (concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and previous exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator \[6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine\] use).||31.7|11.6|< 0.0001
84697860|NCT00783718|169136220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|37.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||37.2|14.9|< 0.0001
84697861|NCT00783718|169136220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||40.4|17.9|< 0.0001
84697862|NCT00783718|169136221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||18.3|4.7|0.0009
84697863|NCT00783718|169136222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0012||95.0|6.4|25.9||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||25.9|6.4|0.0012
84663949|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.06||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.06|0.41|
84663950|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.64||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|0.01|
84663951|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.62||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.01|
84663952|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.71||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.71|0.08|
84663953|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.61||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.61|0.92|
84663954|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.76||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|0.04|
84663955|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.69||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.69|-0.03|
84509842|NCT01439165|168771488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-16.0||||||Comparison of the anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-16.0|-22.3|
84509843|NCT00683020|168771501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.9|0.1|0.03
84663956|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.77||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.05|
84663957|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.68|0.92|
84509844|NCT00683020|168771502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.6|-0.9|0.23
84509845|NCT00683020|168771503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Days in comparison groups are not equal.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Negative Binomial Models|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.3|0.25
84509846|NCT00683020|168771504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportions in comparison groups are not equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.2|0.18
84697864|NCT00783718|169136223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|44.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||44.7|20.8|< 0.0001
84697865|NCT00783718|169136223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|40.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||40.3|16.7|< 0.0001
84697866|NCT00783718|169136224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.8||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||43.8|20.3|< 0.0001
84697867|NCT00783718|169136224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|48.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||48.3|24.4|< 0.0001
84509847|NCT00683020|168771505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.5|0.1|0.008
84509848|NCT00683020|168771506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.2|-0.2|0.87
84697868|NCT00783718|169136225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||20.5|3.1|0.0079
84714955|NCT05139810|169176268|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.45|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.777|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential overdispersion.||0.777|0.261|=0.004
84714956|NCT05139810|169176269|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.281|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.281|0.062|<0.001
84714957|NCT05139810|169176269|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.4|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.748|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.748|0.212|=0.004
84714958|NCT05139810|169176270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|59.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||59.36|2.34|=0.003
84714959|NCT05139810|169176270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||22.85|0.46|=0.240
84714960|NCT05139810|169176271|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.339|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.339|0.035|<0.001
84714961|NCT05139810|169176271|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.59|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.26|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||1.260|0.276|=0.173
84714962|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|310.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|8279.94|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||8279.94|11.63|<0.001
84714963|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|69.41|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||69.41|3.15|<0.001
84714964|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|164.87|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||164.87|7.32|<0.001
84714965|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.17|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|41.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||41.09|2.05|=0.004
84714966|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|86.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||86.42|3.36|<0.001
84509849|NCT00683020|168771507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.2|-2.1|0.49
84509850|NCT00683020|168771508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.6|-3.0|0.54
84509851|NCT00683020|168771509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.4|-0.4|0.11
84663958|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.95||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.95|0.16|
84663959|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.97||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.97|0.17|
84663960|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.03||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.24|
84663961|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.78||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.78|0.97|
84663962|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.92|0.08|
84663963|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.84||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.84|-0.03|
84663964|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.93||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.93|0.09|
84663965|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.59||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.59|0.75|
84663966|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.72||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.27|
84663967|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.65||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.65|-0.37|
84697869|NCT00783718|169136225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.4|6.2|0.0009
84697870|NCT00783718|169136226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|31.3||P-value based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||31.3|3.9|0.0120
84697871|NCT00783718|169136226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|46.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||46.2|16.6|< 0.0001
84697872|NCT01163149|169136230|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-302.05||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-626.4|-59.2||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||PLP Change from Baseline to Week 24||-59.20|-626.40|0.0285
84697873|NCT01163149|169136231|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-1.825||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.23||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group.|PPi Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.230|-3.210|0.0715
84697874|NCT01163149|169136233|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.91||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.78||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||1.780|-3.320|0.3301
84697875|NCT01163149|169136233|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|1.33||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.12||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||3.120|-1.360|0.3827
84697876|NCT01163149|169136233|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-77.1||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-917.44|-1.74||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.740|-917.440|0.0485
84697877|NCT01163149|169136234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0125||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.039||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0390|-0.0400|0.7357
84697878|NCT01163149|169136234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|0.0255||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.041||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0410|-0.0090|0.2439
84697879|NCT01163149|169136234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0315||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.012||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0120|-0.0590|0.1222
84697880|NCT01163149|169136235|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|44.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|114.0||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group|Week 24 Change from Baseline||114.0|-73.0|0.1303
84697881|NCT01027871|169136239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.17||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.52||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.52|-0.18|0.433
84697882|NCT01027871|169136240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.19||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.59|0.388
84509852|NCT00683020|168771510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.1|-0.6|0.13
84509853|NCT00683020|168771511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.1|-3.8|0.78
84509854|NCT00683020|168771512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.9|-0.6|0.13
84697883|NCT01027871|169136241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.03|-0.21|0.197
84697884|NCT01027871|169136242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.609
84697885|NCT01027871|169136242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.314
84697886|NCT01027871|169136243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.375
84509855|NCT02194998|168771548|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
84509856|NCT02194998|168771548|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
84509857|NCT02194998|168771548|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
84697887|NCT01027871|169136243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
84697888|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.43||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.92|0.144
84697889|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.20|-0.70|0.360
84697890|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.72|0.342
84697891|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.56|0.654
84697892|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.23||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.23|-0.73|0.387
84697893|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.21||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.21|-0.79|0.339
84697894|NCT01027871|169136244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.1||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.50|-0.30|0.676
84697895|NCT01027871|169136246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
84509858|NCT02194998|168771548|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
84697896|NCT01027871|169136247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.804
84697897|NCT01027871|169136249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.937||90.0|-0.16|0.14||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.14|-0.16|0.937
84697898|NCT01027871|169136249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.03||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.1||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.10|-0.16|0.687
84697899|NCT01027871|169136251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.07||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-0.87|0.159
84697900|NCT01027871|169136251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.29|-0.62|0.542
84697901|NCT01027871|169136252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.13||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.16|0.880
84697902|NCT01027871|169136252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.03|-0.32|0.045
84697903|NCT01027871|169136253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.273
84697904|NCT01027871|169136253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
84697905|NCT01027871|169136253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.879
84697906|NCT01027871|169136253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
84697907|NCT01027871|169136254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
84697908|NCT01027871|169136254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.569
84697909|NCT01027871|169136254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
84697910|NCT01027871|169136254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84697911|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.26||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.67||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.67|-0.16|0.305
84697912|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.14||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.26|-0.54|0.571
84697913|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.454||90.0|-0.85|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.85|0.454
84697914|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.26|-1.40|0.016
84697915|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.07||||0.838||90.0|-0.61|0.48||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.48|-0.61|0.838
84697916|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|-0.16||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.16|-1.22|0.033
84697917|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.95|0.229
84697918|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.27||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.27||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.27|-0.80|0.412
84697919|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.15||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.38||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.38|-0.68|0.642
84697920|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.16||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.36||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.36|-0.67|0.614
84697921|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-1.07|0.147
84697922|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.42||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.98|0.210
84697923|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.28||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.31||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.31|-0.86|0.438
84697924|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|-0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.13|-1.28|0.043
84697925|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.24||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.72||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.72|-0.23|0.403
84697926|NCT01027871|169136255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.75|0.314
84697927|NCT01027871|169136257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
84697928|NCT01027871|169136257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
84697929|NCT01027871|169136258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.561
84697930|NCT01027871|169136258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.518
84697931|NCT01027871|169136259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.20|0.938
84697932|NCT01027871|169136259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.18|0.972
84697933|NCT01027871|169136259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.16|0.927
84697934|NCT01027871|169136259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.1||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.25|0.293
84697935|NCT04640571|169136282|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin AUC value is larger after metformin than after placebo.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84697936|NCT04640571|169136283|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin Cmax value is larger after metformin than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697937|NCT04640571|169136284|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697938|NCT04640571|169136285|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697939|NCT04640571|169136286|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697940|NCT04640571|169136287|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697941|NCT04640571|169136288|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697942|NCT04640571|169136289|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697943|NCT04640571|169136290|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat AUC value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697944|NCT04640571|169136291|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat Cmax value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697945|NCT04640571|169136292|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697946|NCT04640571|169136293|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697947|NCT04640571|169136294|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697948|NCT04640571|169136295|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84697949|NCT04883346|169136310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 32 degrees of freedom (one participant did not have baseline DEXA data so could not be included.||||||<0.001
84697950|NCT04883346|169136311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom.||||||<0.001
84697951|NCT04883346|169136312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
84697952|NCT04883346|169136313|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
84697953|NCT04736056|169136318|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.66|0.73|
84697954|NCT04736056|169136318|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.51|0.61|
84697955|NCT04736056|169136319|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.71||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.71|-0.02|
84697956|NCT04736056|169136319|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.61||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.61|-0.12|
84697957|NCT04736056|169136320|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.18||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.18|0.38|
84697958|NCT04736056|169136320|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.87|0.11|
84697959|NCT04736056|169136321|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.58|-0.13|
84697960|NCT04736056|169136321|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.68|-0.05|
84697961|NCT04736056|169136322|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.68|-0.04|
84697962|NCT04736056|169136322|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.00|0.22|
84697963|NCT04736056|169136323|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.74||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.74|0.01|
84697964|NCT04736056|169136323|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.85||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.85|0.09|
84697965|NCT04736056|169136324|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.65||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.65|-0.07|
84697966|NCT04736056|169136324|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||||||||0.99|0.21|
84697967|NCT04736056|169136325|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.91||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.91|0.16|
84697968|NCT04736056|169136325|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.89|0.12|
84697969|NCT04736056|169136326|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.30|0.47|
84697970|NCT04736056|169136326|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.05||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.05|0.26|
84697971|NCT04736056|169136327|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.76|
84697972|NCT04736056|169136327|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.03|-0.71|
84697973|NCT04736056|169136328|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.35|-0.35|
84697974|NCT04736056|169136328|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.09|-0.64|
84697975|NCT04736056|169136329|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||||0.26|-0.45|
84697976|NCT04736056|169136329|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.45|-0.27|
84697977|NCT04736056|169136330|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.01|-0.71|
84697978|NCT04736056|169136330|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.08|-0.65|
84697979|NCT04736056|169136331|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.03|-0.70|
84697980|NCT04736056|169136331|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||-0.09|-0.85|
84697981|NCT04529538|169136340|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|1.838|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of Type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||1.838|0.252|
84697982|NCT04529538|169136341|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|6.833|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||6.833|0.232|
84697983|NCT04529538|169136341|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|6.528|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.528|0.603|
84697984|NCT04529538|169136342|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|3.828|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||3.828|0.639|
84697985|NCT04529538|169136343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.163|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||4.163|0.772|
84697986|NCT04529538|169136343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.34|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.340|0.994|
84697987|NCT04529538|169136344|OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|22.72|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-Group Seroconversion Rate (4-fold rise) in Neutralizing Antibody Titers||22.72|-27.67|>0.999
84697988|NCT04529538|169136345|OTHER||Rate Difference|-2.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|20.86|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||20.86|-20.47|>0.999
84697989|NCT04529538|169136345|OTHER||Rate Difference|8.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|30.57|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||30.57|-5.71|0.263
84697990|NCT04529538|169136346|OTHER||Rate Difference|14.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|40.45|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after vaccination||40.45|-8.30|0.224
84697991|NCT04529538|169136347|OTHER||Rate Difference|9.8||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|35.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||35.19|-7.29|0.275
84697992|NCT04529538|169136347|OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|44.93|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||44.93|-1.27|0.100
84697993|NCT03552978|169136369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df - 63||||||<.001
84697994|NCT03552978|169136370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 59||||||<.001
84697995|NCT03552978|169136374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.28||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 152.11||We examined total Cigarettes smoked in the past 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.39
84697996|NCT03552978|169136375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 140.87||We examined days of e-cigarette use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in e-cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.91
84697997|NCT03552978|169136376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3,199||We examined days of chewing tobacco use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in chewing tobacco use over time by treatment group.||||.66
84697998|NCT03552978|169136377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 102.04||We examined nicotine dependence using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in nicotine dependence over time by treatment group.||||.76
84697999|NCT03552978|169136378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.28
84698000|NCT03552978|169136378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.19
84698001|NCT03552978|169136379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 12||||.42
84698002|NCT03552978|169136379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 24||||.17
84698003|NCT03552978|169136380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 100.51||We examined days of changes in PTSD symptoms using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in PTSD symptoms over time by treatment group.||||.58
84698004|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.21|0.309
84698005|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.27|0.061
84698006|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.41|0.053
84698007|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
84698008|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.51|<0.001
84698009|NCT02624778|169136489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.46|<0.001
84698010|NCT04672460|169136496|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|105.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||111.70|99.00|
84698011|NCT04672460|169136497|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.05|149.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||149.27|125.05|
84698012|NCT04672460|169136498|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.82|94.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||94.58|81.82|
84698013|NCT04672460|169136499|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|58.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.55|65.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||65.84|51.55|
84698014|NCT03575962|169136507|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
84698015|NCT03575962|169136508|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1556|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.35||||||||1.35|0.99|
84698016|NCT02949271|169136527|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84698017|NCT02949271|169136528|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84698018|NCT02949271|169136530|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84698019|NCT02949271|169136531|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84698020|NCT02949271|169136532|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84698021|NCT02949271|169136533|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
84698022|NCT02949271|169136534|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84698023|NCT02949271|169136535|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84698024|NCT02949271|169136537|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84698025|NCT02092987|169136543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction term|||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis testing in changes in mean from baseline to follow-up were were conducted primarily with mixed models. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ANOVA.||||0.70
84698026|NCT02092987|169136544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||comparison of arms using mixed models|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84698027|NCT02092987|169136545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84698028|NCT02092987|169136546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84698029|NCT02092987|169136547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84698030|NCT02092987|169136548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84698031|NCT02092987|169136549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84698032|NCT03929302|169136551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84698033|NCT03929302|169136551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
84698034|NCT03929302|169136551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.642
84698035|NCT00180674|169136577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test|||||||0.043
84698036|NCT02851511|169136587|SUPERIORITY|tDCS vs. sham superiority with cognitive training will be tested based on the 320 participants who are assigned to the two cognitive training arms. The effects of tDCS on changes in NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Composite Score (NIHTB FCC) from baseline to 3-month follow-up are estimated by linear regression models, with missing outcomes predicted by regression models that include demographic and baseline characteristics.|Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.56||Formal statistical inference of the tDCS effect was based on the inverse-normal combination of two p-values, one from the Phase I data (N=42) and the other from the Phase II data (N=292).|Regression, Linear|||"Null hypothesis: The combination of cognitive training (12 weeks) and active stimulation (over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) will not lead to beneficial changes on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.~The study is designed to have at least 90% power to detect a difference of effect size 0.42 between cognitive training+tDCS and cognitive training+sham, using a normal inverse combination test at one-sided 0.025 level."||1.56|-0.91|<0.05
84698037|NCT00372567|169136607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.235|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||No hypothesis tested.||2.235|0.484|
84698038|NCT00372567|169136608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.41|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||12.41|0.640|
84698039|NCT00372567|169136610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|2.088|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.088|0.505|
84698040|NCT00372567|169136611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||13.0|0.4|
84698041|NCT00372567|169136614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|11.15|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||11.15|1.057|
84698042|NCT00372567|169136615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.3|0.1|
84698043|NCT00372567|169136616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||3.8|0.5|
84698044|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER|Estimation of diagnostic yield|Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 based on Final BI-RADS||0.042|0.020|
84698045|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.044|0.021|
84698046|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up and a completed biopsy procedure||0.042|0.020|
84698047|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.042|0.020|
84698048|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.043|0.021|
84698049|NCT00058058|169136658|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.043|0.021|
84698050|NCT00058058|169136659|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05004|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7567|0.9809||||||"Sensitivity estimate - estimates the P(T+\|D+) where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9809|0.7567|
84698051|NCT00058058|169136659|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.8782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8555|0.8985||||||"Specificity - estimates the P(T-\|D-) of MRI where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.8985|0.8555|
84698052|NCT00058058|169136659|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.2083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1452|0.2839||||||"PPV estimate - estimates the P(D+\|T+), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)."||0.2839|0.1452|
84698053|NCT00058058|169136659|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9894|0.9993||||||"B. NPV Analysis for ALL Cases in Analysis Set NPV estimate - estimates the P(D-\|T-), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9993|0.9894|
84698054|NCT00058058|169136659|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||B. Diagnostic Yield for ALL Cases in Analysis Set Diagnostic Yield - estimates the likelihood that the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis||0.044|0.021|
84698055|NCT00058058|169136660|OTHER||ROC analysis|0.9355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8956|0.9753|||||exact CI|ROC analysis - estimates the accuracy of MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram to detect cancer in the contralateral breast||0.9753|0.8956|
84698056|NCT01253980|169136731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.11|>0.50
84698057|NCT01700530|169136734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84698058|NCT04833855|169136754|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.4||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 210 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||4.4|-4.3|0.99
84698059|NCT04833855|169136754|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 420 mg SC Q2W - Placebo|||3.1|-5.4|0.60
84698060|NCT02806336|169136779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change in combined groups||||0.03
84698061|NCT02806336|169136780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84509859|NCT02194998|168771561|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
84509860|NCT02194998|168771561|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
84509861|NCT02194998|168771561|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
84509862|NCT02194998|168771561|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
84509863|NCT01458405|168771563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453||||||Repeated measures multivariable linear regression with Baseline as a covariate and unstructured covariance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.6453
84509864|NCT04276883|168771630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84509865|NCT04276883|168771630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84509866|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84698062|NCT02806336|169136781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84698063|NCT02806336|169136782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||change in functional gait analysis (FGA) in combined groups compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84698064|NCT02806336|169136783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84698065|NCT02806336|169136784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
84698066|NCT02806336|169136784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84698067|NCT02806336|169136785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84509867|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509868|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509869|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509870|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509871|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509872|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509873|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84509874|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0006
84698068|NCT03437668|169136827|SUPERIORITY|To test for a differential treatment effect, we fit a linear mixed with group, time, and a group by time interaction as the predictors and random intercepts to account for the correlations induced by the repeated measurements within subjects. Given the form of the trajectories and the small sample size, we chose to treat time as continuous to minimize the number of degrees of freedom and the risk of overfitting.|Slope|-0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the interaction of time and treatment group in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
84698069|NCT03714022|169136856|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.058|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.058|0.941|
84698070|NCT03714022|169136857|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.976|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.976|0.884|
84698071|NCT03714022|169136859|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.983|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.983|0.891|
84698072|NCT03714022|169136860|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.001|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.001|0.915|
84698073|NCT04438785|169136909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Apnea Hypopnea Index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||<0.001
84698074|NCT04438785|169136910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the O2 desaturation index (ODI) from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.003
84698075|NCT04438785|169136911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI tongue score from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
84698076|NCT04438785|169136912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.131||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI lip score from the baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
84509875|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0028
84698077|NCT04438785|169136913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the neck circumference from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
84698078|NCT04438785|169136914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the waist circumference from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
84509876|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0070
84698079|NCT04438785|169136915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.98|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the BMI from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.98
84698080|NCT04438785|169136916|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Epworth Sleepiness Scale from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
84663968|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.77||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|-0.23|
84663969|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.31||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.31|0.33|
84663970|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.89||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.89|-0.24|
84663971|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.94||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.25|
84663972|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.8||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.31|
84663973|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.19||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.19|0.08|
84663974|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.83||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.83|0.07|
84663975|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.44||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.36|
84663976|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.68||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|-0.07|
84663977|NCT01529346|169061404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.45||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.32|
84663978|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.71||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.71|0.43|
84663979|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.33||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.33|0.05|
84663980|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.99||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.99|0.69|
84663981|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.19|8.79||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||8.79|5.19|
84663982|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|17.63||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||17.63|1.97|
84663983|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|11.37||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.37|-4.28|
84663984|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|18.68||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||18.68|2.97|
84663985|NCT01529346|169061405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.82|30.97||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||30.97|13.82|
84663986|NCT01529346|169061406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|23.27||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||23.27|1.26|
84663987|NCT01529346|169061406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|15.18||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||15.18|-6.82|
84663988|NCT01529346|169061406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|23.61||||||||23.61|1.52|
84663989|NCT01529346|169061406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.51|44.61||||||||44.61|20.51|
84663990|NCT01529346|169061407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.6|
84698081|NCT04438785|169136917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate if the Pittsburgh sleep quality index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.22
84509877|NCT04276883|168771631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0092
84663991|NCT01529346|169061407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.9|
84663992|NCT01529346|169061407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.6|0.7|
84663993|NCT01529346|169061407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|1.0|
84663994|NCT01529346|169061408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||3.8|1.1|
84663995|NCT01529346|169061408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.9|1.4|
84663996|NCT01529346|169061408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.1|1.1|
84663997|NCT01529346|169061408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|9.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||9.9|2.8|
84663998|NCT01529346|169061409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.0|0.4|
84663999|NCT01529346|169061409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.2||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.2|0.5|
84664000|NCT01529346|169061409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.8|0.3|
84664001|NCT01529346|169061409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.6|0.2|
84664002|NCT02328755|169061489|OTHER|Single group|cumulative incidence|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).||0.58|0.24|
84664003|NCT02328755|169061490|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|75.0||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, data at 6 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|75|40|
84664004|NCT02328755|169061490|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|58.0||||||The analysis applies only to the 3rd row, data at 24 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|58|19|
84664005|NCT02328755|169061491|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|||
84664006|NCT02328755|169061492|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||GVHD proportion estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
84664007|NCT02328755|169061493|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Non-relapse mortality estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
84664008|NCT00799487|169061496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-20.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.2|-34.4|<0.0001
84664009|NCT00799487|169061497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-20.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.8|-35.1|<0.0001
84664010|NCT00799487|169061498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|6.6||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||6.6|3.4|<0.0001
84664011|NCT00799487|169061499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||5.8|3.2|<0.0001
84664012|NCT00799487|169061500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.0||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||12.0|6.9|<0.0001
84664013|NCT00799487|169061501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-2.74||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-2.74|-4.27|<0.0001
84509878|NCT00320112|168771632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||no differences between arms in baseline characteristics at \<0.1 level, further analyses adjusted for variables that could influence the outcome like insulin use, age, commodities. because no differences in results, unadjusted analyses are reported.|Regression, Linear|we used STATA 11's xtmixed command, which fits multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models, with clustering by assigned pairs.||||||0.004
84698082|NCT04873817|169136920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84698083|NCT00216320|169136922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84698084|NCT00924560|169136926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|91-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.20|-0.67|
84698085|NCT00924560|169136926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|28-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.61|-1.49|
84698086|NCT00924560|169136927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|-0.00|
84698087|NCT00924560|169136927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
84698088|NCT00924560|169136927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
84698089|NCT00924560|169136927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.01|-0.02|
84698090|NCT00924560|169136928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.42|-0.08|
84698091|NCT00924560|169136928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.18||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.18|-0.68|
84698092|NCT00924560|169136928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.24|-0.39|
84509879|NCT00320112|168771633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||this is a priori design|Regression, Linear|||||||.91
84698093|NCT00924560|169136928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.42|-1.05|
84698094|NCT00924560|169136929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
84698095|NCT00924560|169136929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
84698096|NCT00924560|169136929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
84698097|NCT00924560|169136929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
84698098|NCT00924560|169136930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.28|-0.03|
84698099|NCT00924560|169136930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.11|-0.20|
84509880|NCT00320112|168771634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
84509881|NCT00320112|168771635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84509882|NCT01199861|168771694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|41.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84698100|NCT00924560|169136930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.34|-0.01|
84698101|NCT00924560|169136930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.03|-0.32|
84698102|NCT00924560|169136931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
84698103|NCT00924560|169136931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
84698104|NCT00924560|169136931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
84698105|NCT00924560|169136931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
84698106|NCT00924560|169136932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.61||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||12.61|-23.57|
84698107|NCT00924560|169136932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.65|10.55||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.55|-25.65|
84698108|NCT00924560|169136932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|10.81||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.81|-34.99|
84698109|NCT00924560|169136932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|1.74||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||1.74|-44.08|
84698110|NCT00665561|169136950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.67||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude risk ratio (RR) and CI.||0.67|0.42|
84698111|NCT00665561|169136951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.88||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||5.88|0.12|
84698112|NCT00665561|169136952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.33||||||All Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.33|0.66|
84698113|NCT00665561|169136952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.31||||||AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.31|0.29|
84698114|NCT00665561|169136952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||||||Non-AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.58|0.71|
84698115|NCT00665561|169136953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.18|0.44|
84698116|NCT00665561|169136954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.59|0.51|
84698117|NCT00665561|169136955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.76|0.70|
84698118|NCT00665561|169136956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.93||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||4.93|0.25|
84698119|NCT00665561|169136957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.47||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.47|0.18|
84698120|NCT00665561|169136958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.08|0.57|
84698121|NCT00665561|169136959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||0.99|0.61|
84698122|NCT00665561|169136960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||||||All malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.33|0.64|
84698123|NCT00665561|169136960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52||||||AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.32|
84698124|NCT00665561|169136960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Non-AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.66|
84698125|NCT00665561|169136961|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.10|0.35|
84698126|NCT00665561|169136962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.59|
84509883|NCT01199861|168771694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-35.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84509884|NCT01199861|168771694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|44.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84664014|NCT00799487|169061502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-11.45||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.45|-23.72|<0.0001
84664015|NCT00799487|169061503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.29|-21.37||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-21.37|-39.29|<0.0001
84664016|NCT00799487|169061504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.12||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.12|-2.15|0.0297
84664017|NCT00799487|169061505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.15||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model. Finger Windows Forwards was the first non-significant p-value in the gatekeeper sequence.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing of additional endpoints in the sequence was still performed without any unqualified statements about the individual statistical significance.|Placebo minus Concerta|||0.15|-1.84|0.0955
84664018|NCT00799487|169061506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-7.23||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-7.23|-21.52|0.0002
84664019|NCT00799487|169061507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.17||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.17|-0.70|0.2335
84664020|NCT00799487|169061508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.65||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||1.65|-6.67|0.2321
84664021|NCT00799487|169061509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-1.4||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.40|-5.64|0.0015
84664022|NCT00799487|169061510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.38||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-1.33||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.33|-9.43|0.0101
84664023|NCT00799487|169061511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.34||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.34|-0.53|0.6642
84664024|NCT00799487|169061512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-11.71||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.71|-58.89|0.0040
84664025|NCT00799487|169061513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.03|-0.14|0.0012
84664026|NCT00799487|169061514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.02|-0.12|0.0051
84664027|NCT00799487|169061515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.02|-0.13|0.1768
84664028|NCT00799487|169061516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.09|0.4245
84664029|NCT00799487|169061517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.0||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.09|-0.09|0.9729
84664030|NCT00799487|169061518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.12|0.3486
84664031|NCT00799487|169061519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.01|-0.07|0.1466
84664032|NCT00799487|169061520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.08|-0.01|0.1368
84664033|NCT01084174|169061541|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|Analyzed by linear regression models using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures over time with robust standard errors||||||.003
84664034|NCT01084174|169061542|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84664035|NCT01084174|169061543|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84509885|NCT01199861|168771695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|38.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84664036|NCT01084174|169061544|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
84664037|NCT01084174|169061545|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
84664038|NCT01084174|169061546|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.007
84664039|NCT00708643|169061547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2863|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-3.0047|2.7153|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A will provide a lower level of limbal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||2.7153|-3.0047|
84698127|NCT00665561|169136963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.28|0.66|
84698128|NCT00665561|169136964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.66|0.6225
84698129|NCT02337361|169136965|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)(Diggle et al. 2002) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||
84698130|NCT02337361|169136965|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation|||
84664040|NCT00708643|169061548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7605|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.0804|1.8821|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides better comfort than the habitual lens by having a lower rating on the scale.||1.8821|-0.0804|
84664041|NCT00708643|169061549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7002|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2228|4.6564|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lowe level of upper lid margin staining than the habitual lens.||4.6564|0.2228|
84664042|NCT00708643|169061550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1873|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.2596|4.2599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|||4.2599|1.2596|
84664043|NCT00708643|169061551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3407|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.8625|5.0524|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lower level of tarsal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||5.0524|-0.8625|
84664044|NCT00708643|169061552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6975|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.241|4.0043|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides lower levels of corneal staining than the habitual lens.||4.0043|-0.2410|
84664045|NCT03103919|169061588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|1.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||1.41|-10.04|=0.134
84714967|NCT05139810|169176272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|48.52|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||48.52|1.56|=0.014
84714968|NCT05139810|169176273|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.234|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.234|0.030|<0.001
84714969|NCT05139810|169176273|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.33|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.706|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.706|0.155|=0.004
84714970|NCT05139810|169176275|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.673|-9.454|||Mixed model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-9.454|-27.673|<0.001
84714971|NCT05139810|169176275|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-13.65|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.024|-3.286|||MMRM|||||-3.286|-24.024|=0.010
84714972|NCT02606422|169176302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84714973|NCT04625465|169176323|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|0.042||||0.869|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.869
84664046|NCT03103919|169061589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||=|0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.44|=0.982
84664047|NCT03103919|169061590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.81|=0.566
84664048|NCT03103919|169061591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.35|-0.50|=0.720
84664049|NCT03103919|169061592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.53|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.53|-0.24|=0.443
84664050|NCT03103919|169061593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.57|-0.75|=0.777
84664051|NCT03103919|169061594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||=|0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.33|=0.947
84664052|NCT03103919|169061595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.26|-0.79|=0.306
84509886|NCT01199861|168771695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-28.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84509887|NCT01199861|168771695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|48.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
84698131|NCT02337361|169136966|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report weekly or more frequent drinking at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.01
84698132|NCT02337361|169136967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report drinking a maximum quantity of 5 or more drinks in a day at 6 month follow-up|||||<.05
84698133|NCT02337361|169136968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report any tobacco use at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.10
84698134|NCT02337361|169136969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report significant depression at 6 month follow-up|||||<.01
84509888|NCT00796822|168771720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was determined based on a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error. Using the results from our pilot trial, we conservatively estimated a predicted absolute change in FMD of 3.5% with PTX (assuming no change with placebo) and we assumed a common standard deviation of 2.6%. A sample size of 10 per group was estimated to provide at least 80% power to detect this effect size. Allowing for a 20% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 13 subjects per group.||3.28|-1.53|0.44
84698135|NCT02337361|169136970|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested DrinkWise's effects on changes in depression over time controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites.|||
84698136|NCT01641861|169136972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.3||||||||7.3|0.1|
84698137|NCT01641861|169136973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8||||||||12.8|0.9|
84698138|NCT01641861|169136975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84698139|NCT01641861|169136976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84698140|NCT01449929|169136986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and DRV+RTV at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - DRV+RTV) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority is established, superiority can be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the Baseline (BL) stratification factors: Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=100,000 c/mL vs \>100,000 c/mL) and Baseline background dual NRTI therapy (ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC).|||13.2|0.9|0.025
84698141|NCT01955382|169137007|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84509889|NCT00796822|168771721|SUPERIORITY|There was no formal power calculation for this outcome measure as the study was powered on the primary outcome measure.|Median Difference (Net)|149.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|151.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|281.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||281.9|16.4|0.03
84698142|NCT01207908|169137041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.1|-37.1|0.53
84698143|NCT01207908|169137042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.55|-3.78|<0.0001
84698144|NCT01207908|169137043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-1.26|0.53
84698145|NCT05458102|169137044|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|560.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|414.0|757.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||757|414|
84698146|NCT05458102|169137044|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|189.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||189|99.5|
84698147|NCT05458102|169137045|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|433.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|347.0|540.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||540|347|
84698148|NCT05458102|169137045|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.5|150.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||150|93.5|
84698149|NCT05458102|169137046|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|752.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|525.0|1080.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||1080|525|
84698150|NCT05458102|169137046|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|172.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||172|80.3|
84698151|NCT05458102|169137048|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.5|103.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||103|45.5|
84698152|NCT05458102|169137048|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.5|101.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||101|42.5|
84698153|NCT05458102|169137052|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|138.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||138|104|
84698154|NCT05458102|169137052|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|128.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||128|95.4|
84698155|NCT00367237|169137061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages of respondents|19.61||||0.021||95.0|3.27|35.95||Comparison of treatments (IFX + MTX versus MTX)|Chi-squared||Difference in percentages of respondents is (percentage of respondents in IFX+MTX group minus percentage of respondents in MTX group)|||35.95|3.27|0.0210
84698156|NCT00367237|169137061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.863||||||95.0||||||||||||
84698157|NCT00367237|169137061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.667||||||95.0||||||||||||
84698158|NCT02584790|169137106|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||2x2 table of: Row: 1. NBI suspicious pattern 2. NBI non-suspicious pattern Category: 1. with residual disease 2. without residual disease||||0.004
84698159|NCT04541186|169137118|SUPERIORITY||Median Percent Change Difference|-43.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.08|-30.31||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren test|Nonparametric analysis stratified by baseline TG level and background lipid therapy to test the treatment difference using pooled data.|The location shift and Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval were based on Hodges-Lehman estimation. Placebo group is the reference group, and the comparison was performed in pooled pegozafermin treatment group vs. placebo pooled.|||-30.31|-57.08|<0.001
84698160|NCT04541186|169137119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline TG level and lipid modifying therapy use.||||||<0.001
84698161|NCT04541186|169137120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.425||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|-5.07||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of non-HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-5.07|-30.67|0.007
84698162|NCT04541186|169137120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.888||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|-2.01||Significant level of 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of ApoB comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-2.01|-21.48|0.019
84698163|NCT04541186|169137120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.519||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|22.68||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of LDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||22.68|-19.21|0.870
84698164|NCT04541186|169137120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.182||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|31.7||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||31.70|-0.89|0.064
84698165|NCT04541186|169137121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren Test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.006
84698166|NCT04541186|169137121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Significant level of 0.05|van Elteren test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-TG comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.002
84698167|NCT04541186|169137122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of fasting plasma glucose comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.809
84698168|NCT04541186|169137122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of adiponectin comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||<0.001
84698169|NCT04541186|169137122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of body weight comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.973
84698170|NCT04541186|169137123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Significant level = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84698171|NCT03419780|169137160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84664053|NCT03103919|169061596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||=|0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.25|=0.819
84664054|NCT03103919|169061597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.41|-0.26|=0.663
84664055|NCT03103919|169061598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.11|-0.51|=0.197
84698172|NCT03419780|169137161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84698173|NCT03419780|169137162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84698174|NCT03419780|169137163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84698175|NCT03419780|169137164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84664056|NCT03103919|169061601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.66||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated as Control Group/Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care SS / Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device SS) calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|||5.66|0.23|=0.876
84664057|NCT00456547|169061728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjusted for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84664058|NCT00456547|169061729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84664059|NCT00456547|169061730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84664060|NCT00456547|169061731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84664061|NCT00667368|169061825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.1|||Two-sample test, Poisson||The risk difference reflects the treatment arm minus the control arm. The units are the number of positive tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea per 100 person-years.|||10.1|-12.0|0.754
84664062|NCT00667368|169061826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84664063|NCT02848651|169061905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.3502
84664064|NCT02848651|169061912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.40|0.1783
84664065|NCT02848651|169061912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.23|0.0358
84664066|NCT02848651|169061913|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|13.27||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.00|2.53|0.0326
84664067|NCT02848651|169061913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|30.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.82|45.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.62|14.82|<0.0001
84664068|NCT02848651|169061913|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|41.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.13|60.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.61|22.13|<0.0001
84664069|NCT00556712|169061927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.62|<0.0001
84664070|NCT00556712|169061931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.72|0.0097
84664071|NCT00556712|169061934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0050
84664072|NCT00556712|169061937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.51|0.1768
84664073|NCT00556712|169061940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.40|0.49|0.4797
84664074|NCT00556712|169061942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
84664075|NCT00556712|169061944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|10.3|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.3|2.7|0.0006
84664076|NCT00556712|169061946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Upgrade Rates|4.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||6.7|1.6|0.0007
84664077|NCT00556712|169061948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|9.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD rate.||16.4|3.1|0.0035
84664078|NCT00556712|169061948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|19.7|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD \> 12 weeks rate.||19.7|7.1|<0.0001
84664079|NCT00556712|169061950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.74|0.3787
84664080|NCT00556712|169061952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|< 0.0001
84698176|NCT03419780|169137165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84698177|NCT03419780|169137166|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84698178|NCT01072929|169137174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-0.92||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.92|-6.58|0.0097
84698179|NCT01072929|169137174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.16||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.16|-5.71|0.0385
84664081|NCT00556712|169061955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.87|0.5385
84664082|NCT00556712|169061958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.79|0.6530
84664083|NCT03653637|169061995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||Regression, Cox|This model adjusted for site and lifetime suicide attempt history.|The HR represents the PLF+TAU group compared to TAU.|||1.30|0.43|0.263
84664084|NCT03653637|169061998|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.72
84664085|NCT03653637|169061999|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.23
84698180|NCT03682536|169137243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8|2.0|<.0001
84698181|NCT03682536|169137244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|1.4|0.0003
84698182|NCT03682536|169137246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|1.8|<.0001
84698183|NCT03682536|169137248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|1.6|<.0001
84698184|NCT03682536|169137249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.864|||Log Rank||Calculated by Cox proportional hazard model|||0.864|0.330|0.0096
84698185|NCT03682536|169137253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|1.4|0.0007
84698186|NCT03682536|169137254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|1.6|<.0001
84698187|NCT04824131|169137265|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|6.7|0|
84698188|NCT04824131|169137266|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|74.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|74.7|47.0|
84664086|NCT03653637|169062000|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.04|0.58||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.58|-.04|.09
84664087|NCT03653637|169062001|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.76||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||2.76|-.42|.15
84698189|NCT04824131|169137269|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|98.8|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase|98.8|84.3|
84698190|NCT04824131|169137270|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who received at least one Injection who Completed All Scheduled Injections|100|93.3|
84698191|NCT04824131|169137271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|poisson model||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of sexual partners) using a poisson model.||0.06|-0.61|0.1093
84698192|NCT04824131|169137272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.14||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month|poisson model||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of episodes of vaginal sex without a condom) using a poisson model.||-0.14|-1.03|0.0093
84664088|NCT03653637|169062002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.91|-1.78|.52
84664089|NCT03653637|169062003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|188.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimation parameter statistic provided is the U value from the Mann-Whitney U test.|||||.83
84664090|NCT03653637|169062005|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.15|-.58|.24
84698193|NCT04824131|169137272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4036||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.44||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Regression, Logistic||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model binary outcomes (any episodes of anal sex without a condom) using a logistic model.||2.44|-3.06|0.8259
84698194|NCT04824131|169137273|OTHER||CI for Incidence rate, exact Poisson|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||||Person-years: 34.0||Incidence rate is calculated HIV infections per 100 person years. CI for Incidence rate is calculated using exact Poisson method|10.8|0.0|
84698195|NCT05489224|169137274|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined margin: -0.6 to 0.5|Treatment difference and 90% CI|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||||0.10|-0.30|
84698196|NCT03643965|169137283|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR at 9 months compared to baseline for Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.61|0.88|||MMRM model|||||0.88|0.61|0.0003
84698197|NCT03643965|169137284|OTHER|Time-weighted average of eGFR, Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.15|||robust regression|||||1.15|1.06|<0.0001
84698198|NCT03643965|169137285|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.03|0.0014
84698199|NCT03643965|169137286|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 12 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.01|0.0106
84698200|NCT03643965|169137287|OTHER|Ratio of UACR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||MMRM model|||||0.86|0.55|0.0005
84698201|NCT03643965|169137288|OTHER|Time to 30% reduction in eGFR comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with individual patient censoring weighting.||||0.75|0.26|0.0028
84698202|NCT03643965|169137289|OTHER|Time to receiving rescue medication comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.34|0.2647
84698203|NCT03643965|169137290|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||MMRM model|||||0.68|0.51|<0.0001
84698204|NCT03643965|169137291|OTHER|Ratio of UACR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.63|||MMRM model|||||0.63|0.45|<0.0001
84698205|NCT03643965|169137292|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.16|||robust regression|||||1.16|1.06|<0.0001
84698206|NCT03643965|169137293|OTHER|Proportion of patients without microhematuria, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.6|0.0001
84698207|NCT02820051|169137310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample was calculated with alpha 0.05, beta 0.20, standard deviation of 7.3,8 minimum PtcCO2 difference to detect of 5 mmHg, loss to follow-up estimated 0.20, and two-tails. According to the above, the sample size was 42 patients per group.|We tested normal distribution with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data are shown as means and standard deviations for variables with normal distribution and as medians and interquartile ranges for non-normal variables. We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05. The analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).|||0.281
84698208|NCT02820051|169137311|SUPERIORITY|We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84698209|NCT02820051|169137312|SUPERIORITY|T test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84698210|NCT01222247|169137392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Primary Outcome composite||0.97|0.66|0.02
84698211|NCT01222247|169137392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for CPAP or high-flow nasal cannula||0.95|0.63|0.01
84698212|NCT01222247|169137392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Fraction of inspired oxygen||1.12|0.53|0.17
84698213|NCT01222247|169137392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for mechanical ventilation||1.21|0.50|0.26
84698214|NCT01222247|169137393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Chi-squared|||||0.84|0.53|<0.001
84698215|NCT01222247|169137394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.66|0.003
84698216|NCT01222247|169137395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.65|0.36
84698217|NCT01222247|169137396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Chi-squared|||||0.87|0.53|0.002
84698218|NCT01222247|169137397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.55|0.57
84698219|NCT01222247|169137398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
84698220|NCT01222247|169137399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.17|0.10
84698221|NCT01222247|169137400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.37|0.03
84698222|NCT01222247|169137401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.66|0.004
84698223|NCT01222247|169137402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.68|||Chi-squared|||||2.68|0.25|0.74
84698224|NCT01222247|169137403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
84698225|NCT01222247|169137404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84698226|NCT01222247|169137405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.96|0.13
84698227|NCT01222247|169137406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84698228|NCT01222247|169137408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.93|||Chi-squared|||||1.93|0.33|0.62
84698229|NCT01222247|169137410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.66|0.40
84698230|NCT01222247|169137411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.87|||Chi-squared|||||1.87|1.37|<0.001
84664091|NCT03653637|169062006|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the verbal aggression subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.19|-.06|.28
84698231|NCT01222247|169137412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84698232|NCT01222247|169137413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.78|0.40
84698233|NCT01222247|169137414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|0.95|0.15
84698234|NCT01222247|169137415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.91|0.24
84698235|NCT01222247|169137416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for NICU stay of any duration||1.01|0.85|0.09
84698236|NCT01222247|169137416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for duration greater than or equal to 3 days||0.98|0.80|0.03
84698237|NCT01222247|169137417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84698238|NCT01222247|169137418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.07|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for chorioamnionitis||1.07|0.35|0.08
84664092|NCT03653637|169062006|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the physical aggression subscale."||.12|-.25|.48
84664093|NCT03653637|169062006|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the anger subscale."||.07|-.24|.30
84698239|NCT01222247|169137418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Postpartum Endometritis||1.95|0.49|0.96
84698240|NCT01222247|169137418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for cesarean delivery||1.15|0.93|0.56
84698241|NCT01222247|169137419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for interval from randomization to delivery||||0.57
84698242|NCT01222247|169137420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84698243|NCT02084082|169137421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|100.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.562|104.326|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.326|96.562|<0.0001
84698244|NCT02084082|169137421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (net)|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.712|101.089|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000 Fed/ L+M 1000 Fed)|||101.089|88.712|0.0004
84698245|NCT02084082|169137422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|108.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.054||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.022|117.989|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||117.989|99.022|0.0038
84698246|NCT02084082|169137422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.067|102.597|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||102.597|94.067|<0.0001
84698247|NCT02084082|169137423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|99.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.03|107.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.47|93.03|<0.0001
84698248|NCT02084082|169137423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||101.89|92.24|<0.0001
84698249|NCT02084082|169137424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.464|107.645|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.645|92.464|<0.0001
84698250|NCT02084082|169137424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|103.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.160|94.950|<0.0001
84698251|NCT02084082|169137425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.163|104.493|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.493|95.163|<0.0001
84698252|NCT02084082|169137425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.082|122.963|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||122.963|77.082|0.0778
84698253|NCT02084082|169137426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|106.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||106.35|92.37|<0.0001
84698254|NCT02084082|169137426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.34|103.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.27|93.34|<0.0001
84698255|NCT03298815|169137500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
84698256|NCT03298815|169137501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
84698257|NCT03298815|169137502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
84698258|NCT03298815|169137503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
84698259|NCT03298815|169137504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
84698260|NCT03298815|169137505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.00
84698261|NCT03298815|169137506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
84698262|NCT03298815|169137507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
84698263|NCT03298815|169137508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84698264|NCT03298815|169137509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
84698265|NCT03298815|169137510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
84698266|NCT03298815|169137511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84698267|NCT03298815|169137511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
84698268|NCT03298815|169137511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
84698269|NCT03298815|169137512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
84698270|NCT03298815|169137512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.000
84698271|NCT03298815|169137512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
84698272|NCT00935792|169137514|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimated maximum tolerated dose was 2.5mg of oral everolimus thrice weekly for 9 weeks and alemtuzumab subcutaneously thrice weekly for 8 weeks.|||
84698273|NCT02322775|169137520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.08||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.15||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was: H0: Change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (L) at Week 12 (benralizumab vs placebo)=0.||0.15|0|0.040
84698274|NCT02322775|169137521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|8.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|23.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.42|-5.74|0.233
84664094|NCT03653637|169062006|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the hostility subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.22|-.17|.82
84664095|NCT03653637|169062007|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.11|-.27|.41
84664096|NCT03653637|169062008|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.48|-.68|.67
84664097|NCT01346839|169062049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
84664098|NCT04203238|169062060|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84664099|NCT01199289|169062161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.311|0.5838
84664100|NCT01199289|169062161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.166|||ANCOVA|||||0.166|-0.316|0.5391
84664101|NCT01199289|169062161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.129|||ANCOVA|||||0.129|-0.355|0.3583
84664102|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.064|-0.157|0.4076
84664103|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.086|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.086|-0.130|0.6915
84664104|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.088|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.088|-0.126|0.7271
84664105|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.005||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.095|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.095|-0.086|0.9210
84664106|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.157|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.157|-0.017|0.1139
84664107|NCT01199289|169062162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.107|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.107|-0.066|0.6426
84664108|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.847||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.686|-2.009|||ANCOVA|||AM||-2.009|-31.686|0.0262
84664109|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.723||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.239|7.793|||ANCOVA|||AM||7.793|-21.239|0.3627
84664110|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.488||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.791|8.814|||ANCOVA|||AM||8.814|-19.791|0.4507
84664111|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.426||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.686|2.834|||ANCOVA|||PM||2.834|-23.686|0.1228
84664112|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.738||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.758|6.281|||ANCOVA|||PM||6.281|-19.758|0.3092
84664113|NCT01199289|169062163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.043||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.831|4.744|||ANCOVA|||PM||4.744|-20.831|0.2167
84664114|NCT01199289|169062164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.331||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.332|||ANCOVA|||||1.332|-0.670|0.5157
84664115|NCT01199289|169062164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.234||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.760|-1.229|0.6434
84664116|NCT01199289|169062164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|0.799|||ANCOVA|||||0.799|-1.196|0.6954
84664117|NCT01199289|169062165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.5577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.665|||ANCOVA|||||0.665|-1.231|0.5577
84664118|NCT01199289|169062165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.038||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.980|-0.904|0.9366
84664119|NCT01199289|169062165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.138||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|-0.808|0.7745
84664120|NCT01199289|169062166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.026||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.303|||ANCOVA|||||0.303|-0.251|0.8524
84664121|NCT01199289|169062166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.033||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.305|0.8139
84664122|NCT01199289|169062166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.276|||ANCOVA|||||0.276|-0.281|0.9881
84664123|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.141|0.1213
84664124|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.095|0.6643
84664125|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.036|||ANCOVA|With use of SABA||||0.036|-0.121|0.2879
84664126|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY|Without use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.074||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.001|||ANCOVA|||||0.001|-0.150|0.0546
84664127|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.071|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.071|-0.080|0.9078
84664128|NCT01199289|169062167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.040|-0.111|0.3616
84664129|NCT02723084|169062174|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2- sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the CI for the difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.1|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B)||12.1|-3.5|
84664130|NCT02801942|169062200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|9.21|||||The mean difference in circulating B lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||9.21|-4.59|
84664131|NCT02801942|169062200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.54|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.54|-1.46|
84698275|NCT02322775|169137522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|5.29||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|19.25||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|-8.67|0.456
84698276|NCT02322775|169137523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.13||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.35|0.266
84698277|NCT02322775|169137524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.91|0.200
84698278|NCT02322775|169137525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.08|0.380
84698279|NCT02322775|169137526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.04||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.39|0.114
84698280|NCT02322775|169137528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.21||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Total score||0.42|0|0.055
84698281|NCT02322775|169137528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.47||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Symptoms score||0.47|-0.01|0.063
84698282|NCT02322775|169137528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.2||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.41||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Activity limitation score||0.41|-0.01|0.061
84698283|NCT02322775|169137528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.45||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Emotional function score||0.45|-0.07|0.156
84698284|NCT02322775|169137528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Environmental stimuli score||0.44|-0.06|0.135
84698285|NCT00764868|169137564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
84698286|NCT00764868|169137566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
84698287|NCT00783692|169137575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|14.3||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||14.3|1.2|0.0206
84698288|NCT00783692|169137576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|15.0||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||15.0|-3.6|0.2322
84698289|NCT00783692|169137577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.5||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||27.5|7.3|0.0007
84698290|NCT00783692|169137577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.7||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||24.7|4.6|0.0042
84664132|NCT02801942|169062200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|0.86|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.86|-6.87|
84664133|NCT02801942|169062200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.482||||95.0|-11.86|6.84|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||6.84|-11.86|
84664134|NCT02801942|169062201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|8.98|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.98|-2.22|
84664135|NCT02801942|169062201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|20.91|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||20.91|-3.72|
84664136|NCT02801942|169062201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.38|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.38|-6.53|
84664137|NCT02801942|169062201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|2.71|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.71|-19.32|
84664138|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.75|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.75|-0.90|
84664139|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.19|-0.07|
84664140|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.84|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.84|-3.41|
84664141|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.13|-0.10|
84664142|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.31|-0.19|
84664143|NCT02801942|169062202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.96|-3.23|
84664144|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.23|||||The mean difference in B-cells in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) iLN has been presented.|||6.23|-3.14|
84664145|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||The mean difference in CD56bright sNK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.25|
84698291|NCT00783692|169137578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9288||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test on the CRP change from baseline values (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If at least 1 of the primary endpoints was significant, the sequential Hochberg procedure was to be used to test the secondary endpoint for significance at the 0.05% level.||||0.9288
84664146|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.52|-0.54|
84664147|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.10|-0.15|
84664148|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.21|
84664149|NCT02801942|169062203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-1.10|
84664150|NCT02801942|169062204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.8|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.80|-1.73|
84664151|NCT02801942|169062204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.16|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.16|-7.54|
84664152|NCT02801942|169062204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.95|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.95|-1.12|
84664153|NCT02801942|169062205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|18.6|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||18.60|-4.92|
84664154|NCT02801942|169062205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|9.0|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.00|-24.77|
84664155|NCT02801942|169062205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.73|-6.66|
84698292|NCT00783692|169137579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.0|2.8|0.0132
84698293|NCT00783692|169137579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|26.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||26.0|4.6|0.0053
84698294|NCT00783692|169137580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|28.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||28.7|3.0|0.0154
84698295|NCT00783692|169137580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||25.5|0.3|0.0450
84698296|NCT00783692|169137581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||16.0|-1.5|0.1036
84698297|NCT00783692|169137581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|10.2||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||10.2|-6.3|0.6413
84698298|NCT03005288|169137585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.48|-6.14|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-6.14|-8.48|<0.001
84698299|NCT03005288|169137586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.01|-4.37|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-4.37|-6.01|<0.001
84698300|NCT03005288|169137587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.42|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||-0.83|-1.42|<0.001
84698301|NCT03005288|169137587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.2|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 48||-0.41|-1.20|0.005
84698302|NCT03005288|169137591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.71|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.95|-1.71|<0.001
84698303|NCT03005288|169137591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.34|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-1.34|-2.48|<0.001
84698304|NCT03005288|169137592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|-2.31|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.31|-4.54|<0.001
84698305|NCT03005288|169137592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|-3.47|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-3.47|-6.74|<0.001
84698306|NCT03005288|169137593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|2.06|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||2.06|0.82|0.003
84698307|NCT03005288|169137593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.36|2.93|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||2.93|1.36|<0.001
84698308|NCT03005288|169137594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-2.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.92|-5.26|<0.001
84698309|NCT03005288|169137594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|-7.64|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-7.64|-11.3|<0.001
84698310|NCT03005288|169137595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.00|-0.03|0.062
84698311|NCT03005288|169137595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|-0.04|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-0.04|-0.08|<0.001
84698312|NCT03005288|169137596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.03|-0.28|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 12||-0.28|-1.03|0.028
84698313|NCT03005288|169137596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|-0.18|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 36||-0.18|-1.14|0.081
84698314|NCT00819234|169137606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons.||-1.54|-12.93|0.0135
84698315|NCT00819234|169137606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||-1.21|-11.89|0.0168
84698316|NCT00819234|169137606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||0.23|-11.27|0.0595
84698317|NCT04011033|169137626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.16|<0.001
84698318|NCT04011033|169137628|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.003
84698319|NCT04011033|169137629|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84698320|NCT04011033|169137631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.19|=0.001
84509890|NCT03587207|168771731|OTHER|rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S is to be declared statistically inferior if the 2-sided 80% CIs of the between group ratio of the GMT with rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D as control is lower than 1 at 1 month after last vaccination. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.1|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after last vaccination.||1.10|0.83|
84509891|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.20|0.84|
84664156|NCT02801942|169062206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|10.84|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.84|-8.17|
84509892|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.05||||||80.0|0.88|1.26|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.26|0.88|
84509893|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.64|
84664157|NCT02801942|169062206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|7.86|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.86|-11.57|
84664158|NCT02801942|169062207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|24.09|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||24.09|0.38|
84664159|NCT02801942|169062207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|3.78|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.78|-25.52|
84664160|NCT02801942|169062210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|14.99|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||14.99|-11.41|
84664161|NCT02801942|169062210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.91|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.91|-4.60|
84664162|NCT02801942|169062210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.26|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.26|-2.50|
84664163|NCT02801942|169062210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|5.89|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.89|-18.01|
84664164|NCT02801942|169062210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.6|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.60|-0.67|
84664165|NCT02801942|169062211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.73|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.73|-5.33|
84664166|NCT02801942|169062211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.41|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.41|-3.73|
84664167|NCT02801942|169062211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|3.96|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.96|-7.67|
84664168|NCT02801942|169062211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.342|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|13.87|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||13.87|-12.54|
84664169|NCT02801942|169062211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.36|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.36|-1.71|
84664170|NCT02801942|169062214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.16|-0.84|
84664171|NCT02801942|169062215|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|2.96|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.96|-15.37|
84664172|NCT02801942|169062216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.68|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.68|-1.61|
84664173|NCT02801942|169062216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|5.03|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.03|-8.12|
84664174|NCT02801942|169062216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|4.13|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.13|-4.59|
84664175|NCT02801942|169062216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|8.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.92|-7.08|
84664176|NCT02801942|169062216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.21|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.21|-0.40|
84664177|NCT02801942|169062217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||||95.0|-0.23|0.75|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.75|-0.23|
84664178|NCT02801942|169062217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.943|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.29|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.29|-10.20|
84664179|NCT02801942|169062217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.69|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells(Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.69|-5.38|
84664180|NCT02801942|169062217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.629|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|8.86|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.86|-10.47|
84664181|NCT02801942|169062217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.34|||||The mean difference in Stem cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.77|
84664182|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|0.25|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.25|-10.42|
84664183|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.07|-0.15|
84664184|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.88|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.88|-3.08|
84664185|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.05|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.05|-6.87|
84664186|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|5.0|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.00|-4.94|
84664187|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.32|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.32|-2.31|
84664188|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.55|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.55|-2.73|
84664189|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.64|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.64|-1.51|
84664190|NCT02801942|169062218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.05|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-1.05|
84664191|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|9.07|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.07|-5.99|
84664192|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.18|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.18|-2.43|
84664193|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.31|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.31|-2.49|
84664194|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.824|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.39|-9.39|
84664195|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.78|-1.29|
84664196|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.54|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.54|-0.73|
84664197|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.07|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.07|-2.12|
84664198|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|8.55|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.55|-2.45|
84664199|NCT02801942|169062219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-0.92|
84664200|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|1.05|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-10.71|
84664201|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.16|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.16|-2.82|
84664202|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||||95.0|-6.08|0.33|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.33|-6.08|
84664203|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.81|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.81|-0.20|
84664204|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.39|-2.99|
84664205|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|7.36|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.36|-0.59|
84664206|NCT02801942|169062220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.78|-4.11|
84664207|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.63|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-5.60|
84664208|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.26|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||-0.26|-7.93|
84664209|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.24|-4.34|
84664210|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.77|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.77|-4.51|
84664211|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.09|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.09|-5.02|
84664212|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|7.68|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.68|-6.52|
84664213|NCT02801942|169062221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.4|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.40|-2.21|
84664214|NCT02801942|169062222|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.65|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.65|-0.86|
84664215|NCT02801942|169062223|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.70|-2.18|
84664216|NCT02801942|169062224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.87|0.02|
84664217|NCT02801942|169062224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.38|-2.04|
84664218|NCT02801942|169062225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|6.27|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.27|-11.81|
84664219|NCT02801942|169062225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|4.44|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.44|-0.04|
84664220|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.32|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.32|-5.91|
84664221|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.28|
84664222|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|10.51|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.51|-2.08|
84664223|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.08|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.08|-3.03|
84664224|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.07|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.07|-12.80|
84664225|NCT02801942|169062226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.733|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|18.47|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||18.47|-1.27|
84664226|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||||95.0|-3.78|16.85|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||16.85|-3.78|
84664227|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|1.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.10|-18.17|
84664228|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.45|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.45|-3.23|
84664229|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|7.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.59|-0.98|
84664230|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|8.67|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.67|-8.23|
84664231|NCT02801942|169062227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.95|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||17.95|-1.32|
84664232|NCT02801942|169062228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|-0.94|
84664233|NCT02801942|169062228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.28|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.28|0.00|
84664234|NCT02801942|169062228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.11|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.11|-0.33|
84664235|NCT02801942|169062228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.47|-0.78|
84698321|NCT01394991|169137789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis was that the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa QW and the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa TIW would have similar incidence rate of participants with at least 1 clinically relevant and objectively confirmed TVE from randomization through Week 16.||0.016|-0.051|0.248
84664236|NCT02801942|169062229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.86|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.86|-0.30|
84664237|NCT02801942|169062229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|7.35|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.35|-12.45|
84698322|NCT01394991|169137789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.254||95.0|0.18|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.18|0.254
84698323|NCT01394991|169137790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.007|||Chi-squared|||||0.007|-0.065|0.08
84664238|NCT02801942|169062229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.14|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.14|-1.86|
84714974|NCT04625465|169176324|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|-0.32||||0.21|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.210
84714975|NCT05566639|169176342|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 10%|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE)|1.7||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|22.2|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards||rVE = 100 \* (1 - HR) % was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard (mRNA-1010 vs active comparator), where HR was the hazard ratio between mRNA-1010 vs the active comparator.|||22.2|-24.1|0.1715
84714976|NCT04731818|169176355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyzed by 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test|ANOVA|1 way repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.0001
84714977|NCT04753697|169176380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-2.97|0.0005
84714978|NCT04753697|169176381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||32.2|20.6|<0.0001
84714979|NCT04753697|169176382|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||25.5|11.3|<0.0001
84714980|NCT04753697|169176382|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.0||Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|10.1|<0.0001
84714981|NCT04753697|169176383|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|46.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status||||46.7|33.3|<0.0001
84714982|NCT04753697|169176384|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||33.6|17.8|<0.0001
84714983|NCT04753697|169176384|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||35.7|19.7|<0.0001
84714984|NCT04753697|169176385|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-3.55|0.0006
84714985|NCT04753697|169176385|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.0002||95.0|-3.78|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.20|-3.78|0.0002
84714986|NCT04753697|169176386|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
84714987|NCT04753697|169176387|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
84714988|NCT04753697|169176387|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-4.1|<0.0001
84714989|NCT04753697|169176388|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-19.51|||ANCOVA|||||-19.51|-25.50|<0.0001
84714990|NCT04753697|169176389|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-14.4|||ANCOVA|||||-14.40|-21.85|<0.0001
84714991|NCT04753697|169176389|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-15.53|||ANCOVA|||||-15.53|-22.90|<0.0001
84714992|NCT04753697|169176390|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||||-21.89|-28.92|<0.0001
84714993|NCT04753697|169176391|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-18.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-18.91|-25.17|<0.0001
84714994|NCT04753697|169176391|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-21.56|||ANCOVA|||||-21.56|-27.73|<0.0001
84714995|NCT04753697|169176392|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-6.40|0.0005
84714996|NCT04753697|169176393|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-7.14|0.0022
84714997|NCT04753697|169176393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||||-2.41|-8.00|0.0003
84714998|NCT04753697|169176394|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|16.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|27.2|||ANCOVA|||||27.2|6.7|0.0016
84714999|NCT05446168|169176422|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.03||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -4.05, df = 7||||-0.03|-0.12|0.005
84715000|NCT05446168|169176423|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.81||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|12.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.17, df = 11||||12.47|-3.81|0.27
84715001|NCT03257410|169176427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.501|19.156|||||Method=ANCOVA|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio-17H is \> 0 then superiority will be demonstrated.||19.156|10.501|
84715002|NCT03257410|169176428|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the mean estimated treatment difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio 17H is \> -0.1765 g/dL then non-inferiority can be claimed. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \> 0, then superiority may be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.069|||ANCOVA|||||0.069|-0.098|
84715003|NCT03257410|169176429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84509894|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.66|
84664239|NCT02801942|169062229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.58|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.58|0.90|
84698324|NCT01394991|169137791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model with covariates for treatment group and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.13|0.14|0.073
84664240|NCT02801942|169062230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.38|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.38|-2.23|
84698325|NCT01394991|169137792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.059||95.0|-0.083|0.005|||Chi-squared|||||0.005|-0.083|0.059
84698326|NCT01394991|169137793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.03|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model including covariates for treatment group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of a hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.03|0.21|0.054
84698327|NCT01394991|169137794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0041||||0.88||95.0|-0.0526|0.0608|||Chi-squared|||||0.0608|-0.0526|0.88
84698328|NCT01394991|169137795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.108|||Chi-squared|||||0.108|-0.056|0.514
84664241|NCT02801942|169062230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.10|
84698329|NCT01394991|169137796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.065|||Chi-squared|||||0.065|-0.071|0.920
84664242|NCT02801942|169062230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.07|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.07|-0.41|
84664243|NCT02801942|169062230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.92|-1.54|
84698330|NCT02427646|169137811|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
84698331|NCT02427646|169137812|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|a log-transformation ofthe RMS datasets was applied for statistical analysis||||||<0.05
84698332|NCT03824236|169137813|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (P-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|52.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between P-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||68|28|0.003
84698333|NCT03824236|169137813|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (NP-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|54.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|70.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between NP-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||70|29|0.002
84698334|NCT01290094|169137824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
84698335|NCT01290094|169137825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
84698336|NCT01290094|169137826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.001
84698337|NCT01290094|169137827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.056
84698338|NCT01290094|169137828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
84698339|NCT01290094|169137828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
84698340|NCT01290094|169137829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
84698341|NCT01290094|169137829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.027
84698342|NCT01871285|169137858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
84698343|NCT01871285|169137858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
84698344|NCT01871285|169137859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
84698345|NCT01871285|169137859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
84698346|NCT03253653|169137865|OTHER||z score|1.578||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.115
84698347|NCT03253653|169137866|OTHER||z|0.497||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||z||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.619
84698348|NCT03253653|169137867|OTHER||z|1.72||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.085
84698349|NCT03253653|169137868|OTHER||z|6.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||<0.001
84698350|NCT03253653|169137869|OTHER||z|-1.144||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in systolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.253
84698351|NCT03253653|169137870|OTHER||z|-1.004||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.315
84698352|NCT03253653|169137871|OTHER||z|3.089||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) was significantly different from the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.002
84698353|NCT03253653|169137872|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
84715004|NCT03257410|169176429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84715005|NCT03257410|169176430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84715006|NCT03257410|169176430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84715007|NCT03257410|169176431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84698354|NCT03253653|169137873|OTHER||z|-4.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
84698355|NCT03253653|169137874|OTHER||z|-2.569||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the 1-HOP metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||.010
84698356|NCT03253653|169137875|OTHER||z|-7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
84698357|NCT03253653|169137876|OTHER||z|-1.304||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.192
84698358|NCT03253653|169137877|OTHER||z|-2.136||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.033
84698359|NCT03253653|169137878|OTHER||z|-1.22||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.223
84698360|NCT03253653|169137879|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
84698361|NCT03253653|169137880|OTHER||z|-1.248||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.212
84698362|NCT03253653|169137881|OTHER||z|-2.721||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.007
84698363|NCT03253653|169137882|OTHER||z|2.778||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.006
84698364|NCT03253653|169137883|OTHER||z|-0.832||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of systolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.406
84698365|NCT03253653|169137884|OTHER||z|-1.467||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U ranksum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.142
84698366|NCT03253653|169137885|OTHER||z|-0.596||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.551
84698367|NCT03253653|169137886|OTHER||z|-0.787||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.431
84698368|NCT03253653|169137887|OTHER||z|-0.652||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.515
84698369|NCT03253653|169137888|OTHER||z|-2.394||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0. 017
84698370|NCT03253653|169137889|OTHER||z|-1.286||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.199
84698371|NCT03253653|169137890|OTHER||z|-3.091||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.002
84698372|NCT03253653|169137891|OTHER||z|0.13||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.896
84698373|NCT03253653|169137892|OTHER||z|-0.362||||0.717|TWO_SIDED||||||The Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.717
84698374|NCT03253653|169137893|OTHER||z|2.233||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.026
84698375|NCT03253653|169137894|OTHER||z|0.383||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.702
84698376|NCT03253653|169137895|OTHER||z|2.244||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.025
84698377|NCT05541497|169137897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.37||||||||3.37|0.68|
84509895|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.14|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||1.14|0.74|
84664244|NCT02801942|169062231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|6.63|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-0.62|
84698378|NCT05541497|169137898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.13||||||||3.13|0.59|
84698379|NCT04091672|169137899|NON_INFERIORITY|"The one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (97.5% CI) was calculated for the difference (Control-RECELL) in percentages of subjects with confirmed treatment area closure.~The calculation used the normal approximation taking correlation into account. In order for the null hypothesis to be rejected and the non-inferiority of RECELL to be established, the upper limit of the 97.5% CI had to be less than 10%."||||||0.005|||||||1-sided z-test of proportions|alpha=0.025||||||.005
84698380|NCT04091672|169137900|SUPERIORITY|A geometric mean ratio (GMR of ratios) 95% CI with a lower bound exceeding 1 would indicate superiority of RECELL over Control with respect to this endpoint.||||||0.001|||||||GMR of ratios|||||||0.001
84698381|NCT01796665|169137906|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|92.5|
84698382|NCT01796665|169137907|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|110.5|||Fieller's method|||||110.5|92.9|
84698383|NCT01796665|169137908|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.23|-1.13|||Fieller's method|||||-1.13|-13.23|
84698384|NCT01251614|169137976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||-3.7|-47.2|0.027
84698385|NCT01251614|169137977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-20.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||2.2|-42.2|0.083
84698386|NCT01251614|169137978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||12.3|-26.9|0.466
84698387|NCT01251614|169137979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.3|-29.1|0.056
84698388|NCT01251614|169137980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.7|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||4.70|-1.48|0.304
84698389|NCT01251614|169137981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.82|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.82|-14.94|0.005
84698390|NCT01251614|169137982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|4.0|||Chi-squared|||"The difference between the combined adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg + MTX groups versus the adalimumab 0.4 mg/kg group.~Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were to be 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank."||4.0|-60.6|0.113
84698391|NCT01251614|169137983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.17|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.17|0.66|0.343
84698392|NCT01251614|169137983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.21|0.71|0.276
84698393|NCT02857283|169138003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.46
84698394|NCT02857283|169138004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||ANOVA|Paired||||||0.0481
84698395|NCT02857283|169138005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0179
84698396|NCT02857283|169138006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.10
84698397|NCT02857283|169138007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.69
84698398|NCT02857283|169138008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.27
84698399|NCT02857283|169138009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.50
84698400|NCT02857283|169138010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.54
84698401|NCT02857283|169138011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.90
84698402|NCT02857283|169138013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
84698403|NCT02857283|169138014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.79
84698404|NCT02857283|169138015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
84698405|NCT00961805|169138041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||"Sample size was calculated by visual analogue scale for pain (alpha error of 5%, beta error of 20% and standard deviation of 2). The sample was determined to contain 30 patients in each group. Ten additional patients were added to compensate possible losses.~Analysis was intention to treat using the LOCF technique."||||<0.001
84698406|NCT00961805|169138042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84698407|NCT00961805|169138043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
84698408|NCT00961805|169138044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.146
84698409|NCT00961805|169138045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.131
84698410|NCT00961805|169138046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84698411|NCT00961805|169138047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.580
84698412|NCT00961805|169138048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.082
84698413|NCT00961805|169138049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.055
84698414|NCT00961805|169138050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
84698415|NCT00961805|169138051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
84698416|NCT00961805|169138052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.136
84698417|NCT00961805|169138053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
84698418|NCT03371108|169138065|EQUIVALENCE|The determination of equivalence was defined by the US-FDA as a confidence interval that was contained within the equivalence limits of +/- 10.7.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||3.5|-7.6|
84698419|NCT02790606|169138080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 88%, which was derived from safety event rates of PTA in published literature.~Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) at 30 days post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 88%. 109 treated subjects \[104 evaluable\] will give 99% power with one-sided type I error = 0.05."||||0.0021
84698420|NCT02790606|169138081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is compared to the PG (40%) and computed using the exact binomial test.|Exact binomial test|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 40%, which was derived from clinical literature as well as other pivotal and post-market studies of stent grafts at the graft-vein anastomosis of AV access patients dialyzing with an AV graft. 89% estimated power for primary endpoint.~Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 40%."||||<0.0001
84698421|NCT00790062|169138127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|0.63|0.670
84698422|NCT02680756|169138128|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-0.28|0.298
84698423|NCT02680756|169138129|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.341
84698424|NCT02374957|169138152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.26
84664245|NCT02801942|169062231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|7.21|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.21|-11.33|
84664246|NCT02801942|169062231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|17.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||17.13|-14.56|
84664247|NCT02801942|169062231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.92|0.36|
84664248|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|8.83|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.83|-4.24|
84664249|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|9.39|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.39|-0.47|
84664250|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|28.32|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||28.32|-5.24|
84664251|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|19.01|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||19.01|-7.73|
84664252|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|5.71|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.71|-8.46|
84664253|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|1.98|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.98|-5.54|
84664254|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|4.98|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.98|-21.58|
84664255|NCT02801942|169062232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.49|4.87|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.87|-21.49|
84664256|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.538|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|10.48|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.48|-0.54|
84698425|NCT02374957|169138153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.17
84664257|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.61|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.61|-8.37|
84664258|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.54|-0.26|
84664259|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.27|-0.37|
84664260|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.49|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.49|-1.27|
84664261|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.07|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.07|-0.33|
84664262|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) FNA method has been presented.|||0.13|-0.16|
84664263|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.12|-0.17|
84664264|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.47|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.47|-0.03|
84698426|NCT02374957|169138154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.027
84715008|NCT03257410|169176431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
84715009|NCT03257410|169176432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.583||0.0684|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||0.0684
84715010|NCT03257410|169176432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.937||0.0806|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||0.0806
84715011|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0347
84715012|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.0036
84715013|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.129
84715014|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.1149
84715015|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.0688
84715016|NCT03257410|169176437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.6097|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.6097
84715017|NCT03257410|169176438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1472
84715018|NCT03257410|169176438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.154||0.1207|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1207
84715019|NCT03257410|169176439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488||0.9775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9775
84715020|NCT03257410|169176439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.5538
84715021|NCT03257410|169176440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.1100
84715022|NCT03257410|169176440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.4607
84715023|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04454||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0791
84715024|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04302||0.9505|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.9505
84715025|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04271||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1521
84715026|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04652||0.2489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.2489
84715027|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05025||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.4936
84715028|NCT03257410|169176441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1497
84715029|NCT03257410|169176442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.9001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9001
84715030|NCT03257410|169176442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.372||0.3279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.3279
84715031|NCT03257410|169176443|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.6576|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6576
84715032|NCT03257410|169176444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0058
84715033|NCT03257410|169176445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
84715034|NCT03257410|169176446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0285
84715035|NCT03257410|169176447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9069|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9069
84715036|NCT03257410|169176448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8413
84715037|NCT03257410|169176449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0125
84715038|NCT03257410|169176450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.6891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6891
84715039|NCT03257410|169176451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.6043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6043
84715040|NCT03257410|169176452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5067
84715041|NCT03257410|169176453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0297
84715042|NCT03257410|169176454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.1325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1325
84715043|NCT03257410|169176455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2304
84715044|NCT03257410|169176456|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.846||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5785
84715045|NCT03257410|169176457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.918||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
84715046|NCT03257410|169176458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.314||0.0434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0434
84715047|NCT03257410|169176459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3281
84715048|NCT03257410|169176460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0463
84715049|NCT03257410|169176461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1925
84715050|NCT03257410|169176462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
84715051|NCT03257410|169176463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.5709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5709
84715052|NCT03257410|169176464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.217
84715053|NCT03257410|169176465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.2386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2386
84715054|NCT03257410|169176466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1769
84715055|NCT03257410|169176467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8102
84715056|NCT03257410|169176468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9672
84715057|NCT03257410|169176469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.623||0.2697|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2697
84715058|NCT03257410|169176472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7189
84715059|NCT03257410|169176473|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
84715060|NCT03257410|169176474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
84715061|NCT03257410|169176475|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0733
84715062|NCT03257410|169176476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467||0.5326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5326
84715063|NCT03257410|169176477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.3042|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3042
84715064|NCT03257410|169176478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.5534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5534
84715065|NCT03257410|169176479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.2958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2958
84715066|NCT03257410|169176480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0998|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0998
84715067|NCT03257410|169176481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9952
84715068|NCT03257410|169176482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.3063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3063
84715069|NCT03257410|169176483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.1098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1098
84715070|NCT03257410|169176484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.797||0.0766|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0766
84715071|NCT03257410|169176485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2886
84715072|NCT03257410|169176486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
84715073|NCT03257410|169176487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.5992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5992
84715074|NCT03257410|169176488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3836|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3836
84715075|NCT03257410|169176489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284||0.0769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0769
84715076|NCT03257410|169176490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84715077|NCT03257410|169176491|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.1825|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1825
84715078|NCT03257410|169176492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.0957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0957
84509896|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.27|0.78|
84664265|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.40|-0.59|
84509897|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.18|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.18|0.79|
84664266|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.6|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.60|-1.72|
84664267|NCT02801942|169062233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.82|-0.99|
84664268|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|30.15|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||30.15|-2.72|
84664269|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|16.78|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.78|-16.85|
84664270|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.586|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.98|-1.08|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||-1.08|-38.98|
84664271|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|32.65|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||32.65|-24.14|
84664272|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|5.26|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.26|-5.54|
84664273|NCT02801942|169062234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|6.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.73|-12.31|
84664274|NCT02801942|169062235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.673|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|25.08|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||25.08|-8.58|
84664275|NCT02801942|169062235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|29.26|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||29.26|3.17|
84664276|NCT02801942|169062235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|15.25|||||The mean difference in Plasmacytoid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||15.25|-31.03|
84664277|NCT02801942|169062235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.04|-1.66|||||The mean difference in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-1.66|-26.04|
84664278|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.561|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.82|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.82|-9.05|
84664279|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.16|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||11.16|-3.13|
84664280|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.82|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.82|-3.14|
84664281|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.71|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.71|-5.03|
84698427|NCT02374957|169138155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.014
84698428|NCT02374957|169138156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.82
84715079|NCT03257410|169176493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
84715080|NCT03257410|169176494|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.1824|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1824
84715081|NCT05256017|169176513|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-7.2|
84715082|NCT05256017|169176514|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs (by PT, for PTs reported in ≥1% of participants in either arm) from the investigational product administration (Day 1) to the Month 4 follow-up visit.||1.4|-4.1|
84715083|NCT05256017|169176515|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.6|-1.6|
84715084|NCT05256017|169176516|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.4|-3.2|
84715085|NCT05256017|169176517|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.6|-2.6|
84715086|NCT05256017|169176518|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.8|-2.2|
84715087|NCT05256017|169176519|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.7|-2.3|
84715088|NCT05256017|169176520|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||5.3|0.3|
84715089|NCT05256017|169176521|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.3|-2.4|
84715090|NCT05256017|169176522|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.3|-3.5|
84715091|NCT05256017|169176523|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.1||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported during hospitalization.||5.1|-3.7|
84715092|NCT05256017|169176523|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.9||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported after the hospitalization period.||0.9|-8.2|
84715093|NCT05256017|169176524|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.0||||||||0.0|-3.1|
84715094|NCT05256017|169176525|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||Of note, all AEs reported during this study were TEAEs.||3.7|-7.2|
84715095|NCT05256017|169176543|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.4|-2.1|
84715096|NCT05256017|169176544|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|21.1||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||21.1|-22.0|
84715097|NCT05256017|169176545|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.3||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.3|-3.6|
84715098|NCT05256017|169176546|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||0.4|-1.9|
84715099|NCT05256017|169176547|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|-6.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-6.6|-15.3|
84715100|NCT05256017|169176548|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-8.7||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.7|-14.4|
84715101|NCT05256017|169176549|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-8.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.6|-14.9|
84715102|NCT05256017|169176550|OTHER||Estimate|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|-7.85||||||Estimated ΔΔQTcF (in ms) computed from a concentration-response (C-R) model between dry blood spot concentration of acoziborole and changes from baseline in QTcF parameter||-7.85|-13.5|
84715103|NCT04119843|169176644|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.824|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.165|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.165|0.743|<0.001
84698429|NCT02374957|169138157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.61
84698430|NCT02374957|169138158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||"Null hypothesis: time to patency-failure (graft occlusion) is the same between treatment arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm differs from the other in durability of graft patency (two-sided test)."||||0.26
84698431|NCT02334306|169138187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||0.7|-3.6|0.262
84698432|NCT02334306|169138188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For plasma cell levels||1.64|0.52|0.820
84698433|NCT02334306|169138188|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.28|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For TFH cells||1.28|0.33|0.291
84698434|NCT02334306|169138189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For total plasma cells||1.18|0.65|0.440
84698435|NCT02334306|169138189|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For CD4/ICOS TFH cells||0.70|0.26|0.008
84698436|NCT02334306|169138189|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.59|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For PD-1/ICOS TFH cells||1.59|0.64|0.972
84698437|NCT02334306|169138191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||1.6|-0.8|0.574
84698438|NCT02334306|169138192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI \[3\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
84698439|NCT02334306|169138192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in precentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI\[4\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
84698440|NCT02390557|169138217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||we had a prior hypothesis that the survey intervention would be associated with a larger increase in perceived quality of health care compared with control from Wave 1 to Wave 2||||0.074
84698441|NCT02390557|169138217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We compared change in perception of quality of health care between Control v YES Health, wave 1 v Wave 2||||.069
84698442|NCT03635112|169138223|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.62|39.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||39.11|-40.62|0.970
84698443|NCT03635112|169138223|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|26.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||26.19|-52.46|0.510
84698444|NCT03635112|169138224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.135|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.135|-0.277|0.5102
84698445|NCT03635112|169138224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.02||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.218|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.218|-0.181|0.8591
84698446|NCT03635112|169138225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.13||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.061|-0.322|0.1805
84698447|NCT03635112|169138225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.01||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.184|-0.204|0.9215
84698448|NCT03635112|169138226|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.6|0.316
84698449|NCT03635112|169138226|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-3.2|0.988
84698450|NCT03635112|169138227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.11||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.059|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.059|-0.270|0.1828
84698451|NCT03635112|169138227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.06||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.244|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.244|-0.133|0.5785
84698452|NCT03635112|169138228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.095|-0.225|0.3776
84698453|NCT03635112|169138228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.04||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.111|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.111|-0.189|0.6063
84698454|NCT01950260|169138229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84698455|NCT01950260|169138230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
84698456|NCT01950260|169138231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
84698457|NCT03283553|169138234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.264
84698458|NCT03283553|169138235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.555
84698459|NCT03283553|169138236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.619
84698460|NCT03283553|169138237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.532
84698461|NCT03283553|169138238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.108
84698462|NCT03283553|169138239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.405
84698463|NCT03283553|169138240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.412
84698464|NCT03283553|169138241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.872
84698465|NCT03283553|169138242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who were registered during the 9-month follow up period.||||||<0.001
84698466|NCT03283553|169138243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||0.003
84698467|NCT03283553|169138244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||<0.001
84698468|NCT03283553|169138245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
84698469|NCT03283553|169138246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
84698470|NCT03686683|169138247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.74|0.78|0.4586
84698471|NCT00372060|169138252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline HbA1c.||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
84698472|NCT00372060|169138253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-10.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-10.0|-23.4|<0.001
84698473|NCT00372060|169138254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-49.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|<|0.001||95.0|-64.5|-33.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose.||||-33.9|-64.5|<0.001
84698474|NCT01579578|169138269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|20.81||two sided p value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including covariates for baseline tumour size, for the time from the baseline scan to randomisation and with a term for HER2 status.|the difference in LS means is estimated|60 patients had been considered to detect a -20% difference in the estimated average percentage change in tumour size at 8 weeks for AZD8931 plus paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel alone at a one-sided significance level of 10% with 90% power. This is based on a standard deviation of 30% for tumour data (on an absolute scale)||20.81|-30.81|0.688
84698475|NCT03432533|169138272|NON_INFERIORITY|Conclusions for the primary efficacy hypothesis of efficacy of self-administration of romosozumab by AI/Pen compared with HCP-administered romosozumab by PFS at lumbar spine BMD at Month 6 was made using a 1-sided test with type 1 error rate of 0.025 and noninferiority margin of -2.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.3|0.84
84698476|NCT01648283|169138277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84698477|NCT00916006|169138284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84698478|NCT00916006|169138285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84509898|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.19|0.69|
84664282|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|4.43|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.43|-8.65|
84664283|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.81|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.81|-8.00|
84664284|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|17.24|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||17.24|-10.21|
84664285|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|12.74|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||12.74|-17.10|
84698479|NCT05302791|169138295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||ANOVA|time x condition ANOVA||||||.609
84698480|NCT05302791|169138296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||.858
84698481|NCT05302791|169138297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||||||.633
84664286|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.58|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.58|-2.42|
84664287|NCT02801942|169062237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.35|-1.19|
84664288|NCT02801942|169062239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|0.78|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.78|-11.56|
84664289|NCT02801942|169062239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|8.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy FNA method has been presented.|||8.16|-22.22|
84664290|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.14|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.14|-0.36|
84664291|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.52|-0.25|
84664292|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|8.64|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.64|-9.02|
84664293|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|5.13|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.13|-12.57|
84664294|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|10.66|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.66|-6.16|
84664295|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|10.39|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.39|-6.27|
84664296|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|9.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.92|-14.09|
84664297|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|10.87|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.87|-9.91|
84664298|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.65|-0.67|
84664299|NCT02801942|169062240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.26|-1.10|
84664300|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.81|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||16.81|-2.80|
84664301|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|6.17|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.17|-14.02|
84664302|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.651|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.16|-2.69|
84664303|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.24|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.24|-3.21|
84664304|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.33|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.33|-2.78|
84664305|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.85|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.85|-2.75|
84664306|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|6.63|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.63|-8.56|
84664307|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-0.38|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-0.38|-11.69|
84664308|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.78|-1.98|
84664309|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.24|-1.07|
84664310|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.72|-0.85|
84698482|NCT05302791|169138298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||.076
84698483|NCT05302791|169138299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||.151
84664311|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.56|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.56|-0.80|
84664312|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|3.76|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.76|-2.71|
84664313|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.79|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|-2.95|
84664314|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|9.14|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.14|-4.84|
84664315|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|9.15|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.15|-1.25|
84664316|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.38|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.38|-1.28|
84664317|NCT02801942|169062241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.91|-0.93|
84664318|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.0|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.00|-7.40|
84664319|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.35|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.35|-4.90|
84664320|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.377|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|0.08|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.08|-9.89|
84664321|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.24|-6.82|
84664322|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.1|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.10|-2.67|
84664323|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.59|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.59|-7.20|
84664324|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.11|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.11|-5.98|
84664325|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.99|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.99|-4.59|
84664326|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.06|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.06|-6.99|
84664327|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.11|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.11|-4.05|
84664328|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|6.73|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.73|-11.23|
84664329|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|10.67|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.67|-3.84|
84664330|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.00|-3.30|
84698484|NCT05302791|169138300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||.385
84664331|NCT02801942|169062242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.72|-2.06|
84664332|NCT02801942|169062243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|3.19|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.19|-2.27|
84664333|NCT02801942|169062243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.36|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.36|-3.24|
84664334|NCT02801942|169062244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|9.58|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.58|-11.91|
84664335|NCT02801942|169062244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|7.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.10|-15.85|
84664336|NCT02801942|169062244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.59|-1.62|
84664337|NCT02801942|169062244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.88|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.88|-0.05|
84698485|NCT05302791|169138301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||ANOVA|||||||.665
84698486|NCT05302791|169138302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||.078
84698487|NCT05302791|169138303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANOVA|||||||.773
84698488|NCT05302791|169138304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||.118
84698489|NCT05302791|169138305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Time x condition ANOVA||||||<0.001
84698490|NCT05302791|169138306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||<0.001
84698491|NCT04447820|169138307|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3084|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.3084
84698492|NCT04447820|169138307|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.5930
84698493|NCT04447820|169138308|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9788|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9788
84698494|NCT04447820|169138308|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1314|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1314
84698495|NCT04447820|169138309|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.884|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.8840
84698496|NCT04447820|169138309|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1202|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.1202
84698497|NCT04447820|169138310|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9353|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9353
84698498|NCT04447820|169138310|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3099|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3099
84698499|NCT04447820|169138311|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2098|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2098
84509899|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
84509900|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA)strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.66|
84509901|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.97|0.65|
84698500|NCT04447820|169138311|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3688|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3688
84698501|NCT04447820|169138312|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.5647|||||||MMRM|||||||0.5647
84698502|NCT04447820|169138312|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.217|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2170
84698503|NCT04447820|169138313|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2562|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2562
84698504|NCT04447820|169138313|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.4268|||||||MMRM|||||||0.4268
84698505|NCT02487446|169138316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||p-value unadjusted|Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|0.139
84698506|NCT02487446|169138317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||||||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|
84698507|NCT02487446|169138318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0361|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0361|
84698508|NCT02487446|169138319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0108|0.0209||||||||0.0209|-0.0108|
84698509|NCT01823341|169138328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698510|NCT01823341|169138329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84698511|NCT01823341|169138329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84698512|NCT01823341|169138330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84509902|NCT03587207|168771732|NON_INFERIORITY|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.88|0.60|
84509903|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.69|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogrpoup A, one month after last vaccination.||0.69|0.45|
84698513|NCT01823341|169138330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84698514|NCT01823341|169138331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698515|NCT01823341|169138331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84698516|NCT01823341|169138332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84698517|NCT01823341|169138332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84698518|NCT01823341|169138333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84698519|NCT01823341|169138333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84698520|NCT01823341|169138334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698521|NCT01823341|169138334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84698522|NCT01823341|169138335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84698523|NCT01823341|169138335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84698524|NCT01823341|169138336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84698525|NCT01823341|169138336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84698526|NCT01823341|169138337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
84698527|NCT01823341|169138337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84509904|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.52|0.94|
84698528|NCT00689104|169138338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.09|-0.72|0.003
84698529|NCT00689104|169138338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||0.03|-0.61|0.010
84698530|NCT00689104|169138338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.21|-0.42|0.11
84698531|NCT00689104|169138339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.29||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.29|-0.90|<0.001
84698532|NCT00689104|169138339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.74|0.005
84698533|NCT00689104|169138339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.06|-0.55|0.11
84509905|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.29|0.87|
84664338|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.31|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||11.31|-1.60|
84664339|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|22.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||22.57|-6.15|
84664340|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.48|1.11|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.11|-23.48|
84698534|NCT00689104|169138340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.4||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.4|6.3|<0.001
84698535|NCT00689104|169138340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.7|7.7|<0.001
84698536|NCT00689104|169138340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|18.2||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||18.2|7.1|<0.001
84698537|NCT00689104|169138341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.71|0.002
84698538|NCT00689104|169138341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.71|0.002
84698539|NCT00689104|169138341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.35||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.03|-0.68|0.019
84698540|NCT00689104|169138342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.66|0.004
84698541|NCT00689104|169138342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.26|-0.79|<0.001
84698542|NCT00689104|169138342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.06|-0.60|0.016
84698543|NCT01125774|169138409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||2.1|-4.4|
84698544|NCT01125774|169138410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||0.8|-1.4|
84698545|NCT01125774|169138411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||1.6|-0.5|
84698546|NCT01125774|169138413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||α=0.0499|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|This measure tests the primary hypothesis, that telcagepant 140 mg is superior to placebo as measured by mean monthly headache days in participants with MRM or PMM||0.1|-1.1|0.130
84698547|NCT01125774|169138414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.4|-1.0|0.369
84698548|NCT01125774|169138415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84509906|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.55|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.55|0.90|
84698549|NCT01125774|169138416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84509907|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459(fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
84509908|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.75|
84698550|NCT01125774|169138417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.2|-0.4|0.393
84698551|NCT02081365|169138449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||3.55|.74|<0.05
84698552|NCT02081365|169138450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.57|.39|<0.05
84698553|NCT02081365|169138451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.85|.61|<0.05
84698554|NCT02081365|169138452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.64|.01|<0.05
84698555|NCT03230006|169138453|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.152||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to investigate treatment group differences in change in mean number of drinks consumed from baseline to post-treatment, as indicated by the Time by Treatment Condition interaction effect.|||||0.002
84698556|NCT03230006|169138453|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.342|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of time.|||||<.001
84509909|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.64|
84509910|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.58|
84698557|NCT03230006|169138453|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.018||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of treatment condition.|||||.309
84698558|NCT03230006|169138453|OTHER||F|38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||<.001
84698559|NCT03230006|169138453|OTHER||F|5.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||.030
84698560|NCT03230006|169138453|OTHER||F|1.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at baseline. For the UP, n=51; for the TC, n=24.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.016
84698561|NCT03230006|169138453|OTHER||F|7.78||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at post-treatment. For the UP, n=38; for the TC, n=21.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.007
84698562|NCT00901485|169138454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To test for non-inferiority, a sample size of 36 (18 patients completing both arms of the crossover) was calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 2.5% drop in the primary outcome, mean overnight oxygen saturation (SpO2), with a SD of 3% at a significance level of 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"We tested the hypothesis that iVAPS can ventilate a patient naive to NIV at least as effectively as standard PS.~Sleep and breathing parameters at the end of each treatment period were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The median difference between treatments with 95% confidence intervals was then compared by related-samples Hodges-Lehman test"||1.0|-0.2|0.13
84698563|NCT00901485|169138455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|PtcCO2 is compared as a secondary outcome resulting in CO2 elimination similar to that of standard PS ventilation (median difference (95% CI) of -0.04(- 0.03 to 0.4)kPa in mean overnight PtcCO2).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: that we tested the hypothesis that iVAPS, with automated selection of ventilator settings, was non-inferior to standard pressure support (PS) ventilation, with settings determined by an experienced healthcare professional, for controlling nocturnal hypoventilation in patients naïve to NIV.||0.4|-0.3|0.54
84698564|NCT00901485|169138456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-0.5|0.94
84698565|NCT00901485|169138457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.42
84698566|NCT00901485|169138458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82||95.0|-8.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|-8|0.82
84698567|NCT00901485|169138459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.44|0.27|0.0004
84698568|NCT00901485|169138460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-1.2|0.5
84698569|NCT00901485|169138461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-4.5|0.001
84698570|NCT00901485|169138462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|23.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||23|-54|0.47
84698571|NCT00901485|169138463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.2|-0.7|0.41
84698572|NCT00901485|169138464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-5|0.36
84698573|NCT00901485|169138465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
84698574|NCT00901485|169138466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
84698575|NCT00901485|169138467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-9|0.72
84698576|NCT00929305|169138472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84698577|NCT00929305|169138475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84698578|NCT05642000|169138476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.454|-0.079|
84698579|NCT01257503|169138494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in same participant||change in runny nose||||.86
84698580|NCT01257503|169138494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in sneeze||||.89
84698581|NCT01257503|169138494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in cough||||.45
84698582|NCT01257503|169138494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in congestion||||.82
84698583|NCT01257503|169138495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in irritability||||.61
84698584|NCT01257503|169138495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in lethargy||||.97
84698585|NCT01257503|169138495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in fussiness||||.79
84698586|NCT01257503|169138495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in appetite||||.81
84698587|NCT01257503|169138496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 1||||.16
84698588|NCT01257503|169138496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 2||||.70
84698589|NCT01257503|169138496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 3||||.77
84698590|NCT01257503|169138496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status at 7-10 day follow-up||||.41
84698591|NCT01257503|169138497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 1||||.10
84698592|NCT01257503|169138497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 2||||.28
84698593|NCT01257503|169138497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 3||||.26
84698594|NCT01257503|169138497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status at follow-up||||.88
84698595|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 1||||.02
84698596|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 2||||.01
84698597|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 2 assessment 1||||.25
84698598|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 2 assessment 2||||.15
84698599|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 1||||.88
84698600|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 2||||.35
84698601|NCT01257503|169138498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score at 7-10 day follow-up||||.36
84698602|NCT05349864|169138527|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|120.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.76|131.75||||||||131.75|109.76|
84698603|NCT05349864|169138528|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.91|137.95||||||||137.95|97.91|
84698604|NCT05349864|169138529|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|206.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.14|250.15||||||||250.15|171.14|
84698605|NCT05349864|169138530|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.36|161.19||||||||161.19|114.36|
84698606|NCT05349864|169138531|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.11|180.41||||||||180.41|106.11|
84698607|NCT05349864|169138532|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|236.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.12|294.38||||||||294.38|190.12|
84698608|NCT00984282|169138541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||stratified by age group (\< 60 years, \>= 60 years) and region (Europe, North-America, Asia)|Log Rank|||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified one-sided log rank test with an overall alpha of 0.01 stratified by age group and region. The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS times in the sorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to the Lehmann alternative, which is equivalent to the assumption of proportional hazards of the treatment arms.||||<0.0001
84698609|NCT00984282|169138541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.758|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.758|0.454|
84698610|NCT00984282|169138542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2892|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||0.2892
84698611|NCT00984282|169138542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.208|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||1.208|0.713|
84698612|NCT00984282|169138543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||<0.0001
84698613|NCT00984282|169138543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.724|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.724|0.429|
84698614|NCT00984282|169138544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of response rates|11.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of disease control rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||19.4|3.9|0.0015
84698615|NCT00984282|169138545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of response rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||16.5|7.0|<0.0001
84698616|NCT02359435|169138558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.016|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84698617|NCT05349084|169138589|EQUIVALENCE|A Fisher's exact test was performed to determine the association between coronary artery stenosis and PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) values during stress. The following myocardial segments were analyzed: left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCx), and right coronary artery (RCA). Coronary arteries were categorized as coronary arteries with a diameter stenosis ≥50% or \<50%. The MBF values during stress were categorized as normal or abnormal. Normal MBF is defined as \>1.8 mL/g/min.||||||0.2522||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2522
84698618|NCT05349084|169138590|OTHER|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation test|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028
84698619|NCT00293462|169138631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Two by two table was used. One cell had expected frequency test less than five, so Fisher's exact two-tailed test was used.||Fisher's exact two tailed test||||0.09
84698620|NCT00293462|169138632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Log rank, Breslow, Tarone-Ware test, but used mantel cox log rank for this analysis||Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curves used information from subjects who develop mucositis to the healing of the mucositis in three groups, Group GG, SS, and SG. In order to compare the three curves that were created, the Mantel-Haenszel log-rank statistic was used||||0.92
84698621|NCT00293462|169138633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0||||0.28 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||Multilevel regression was used.||||0.28
84698622|NCT00293462|169138634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||0.78 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.78
84698623|NCT00293462|169138635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||0.22 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.22
84698624|NCT01770860|169138673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with Treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84698625|NCT01770860|169138674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84698626|NCT01770860|169138675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84698627|NCT01770860|169138676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
84698628|NCT01770860|169138677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect||||||0.0476
84698629|NCT02341534|169138694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.21
84698630|NCT00714233|169138718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to analyze BMI at baseline and 24 weeks||||<0.05
84698631|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.98|0.0464
84698632|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0080
84698633|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.08|0.0159
84698634|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.89|0.2563
84509911|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9|4.47|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.47|2.90|
84698635|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-1.21|0.0239
84698636|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0280
84509912|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.28|5.31|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.31|3.28|
84509913|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.52|3.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.73|2.52|
84509914|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|2.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.65|1.53|
84509915|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
84509916|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.04|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.04|0.71|
84664341|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.14|2.37|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.37|-14.14|
84664342|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.84|-3.54|
84509917|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.24|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.24|0.82|
84664343|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.98|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||8.98|-3.84|
84698637|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.46|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.70|0.6904
84698638|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.83|0.4022
84698639|NCT00797225|169138740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.17|0.0451
84509918|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.73|
84509919|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup A-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.15|4.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.88|3.15|
84664344|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|9.12|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.12|-2.67|
84664345|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.21|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.21|0.55|
84664346|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|8.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.58|-11.49|
84698640|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.69|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.69|-2.56|0.0007
84698641|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.7|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.70|-2.56|0.0006
84698642|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-2.21|0.0073
84698643|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-2.28|0.0054
84698644|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-1.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-3.01|< 0.0001
84698645|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.79|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.79|-3.67|< 0.0001
84698646|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-1.89|0.0509
84698647|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.43|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.43|-2.33|0.0046
84698648|NCT00797225|169138741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.38|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.38|-3.26|< 0.0001
84698649|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.33|0.0453
84698650|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.31|0.0609
84698651|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.38|0.0069
84698652|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model]|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.32|0.0556
84664347|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|10.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.58|-6.81|
84664348|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|22.92|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||22.92|-2.01|
84664349|NCT02801942|169062245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|16.59|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.59|-4.24|
84664350|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.83|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.83|-0.08|
84664351|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.98|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.98|-0.61|
84664352|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.85|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||12.85|-14.66|
84664353|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|6.33|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.33|-14.71|
84664354|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.47|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.47|-2.73|
84664355|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.28|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.28|-1.45|
84664356|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.78|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.78|0.64|
84664357|NCT02801942|169062246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.79|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|0.75|
84664358|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.15|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.15|0.40|
84664359|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|7.17|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.17|-1.68|
84664360|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|14.48|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||14.48|-14.49|
84664361|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|4.43|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.43|-12.67|
84664362|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.13|-5.48|
84664363|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.84|-4.36|
84664364|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.84|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.84|0.54|
84664365|NCT02801942|169062247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.13|0.03|
84664366|NCT00127712|169062258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84664367|NCT00127712|169062259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84664368|NCT00127712|169062260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84664369|NCT00127712|169062261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84664370|NCT01969240|169062280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86||||||||0.86|0.46|
84664371|NCT01969240|169062281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The a-priori significance level was 0.05.||||||<0.013
84664372|NCT01969240|169062282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|11.5||||||||11.5|9.1|
84664373|NCT01969240|169062283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
84664374|NCT01969240|169062284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||||||<0.001
84664375|NCT01969240|169062285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-4.8|
84664376|NCT01969240|169062286|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-0.2|
84664377|NCT01067456|169062320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84664378|NCT01034462|169062327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.095||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.256|-0.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.935|-5.256|0.0051
84664379|NCT01034462|169062328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.070|-4.193|0.0010
84664380|NCT00227903|169062329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power||||0.88
84664381|NCT00227903|169062330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84664382|NCT00227903|169062331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power.||||0.88
84664383|NCT00227903|169062332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
84664384|NCT00227903|169062333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.36|0.79
84664385|NCT00227903|169062334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.42|0.79
84664386|NCT00227903|169062335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.34|0.88
84664387|NCT00227903|169062336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.57|0.88
84664388|NCT00227903|169062337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.32|0.50
84664389|NCT00227903|169062338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84664390|NCT00227903|169062339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84664391|NCT00227903|169062340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84664392|NCT00227903|169062341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
84664393|NCT00227903|169062342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.27|0.50
84664394|NCT00227903|169062343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.44|0.07
84664395|NCT00227903|169062344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.52|0.47|0.07
84664396|NCT00227903|169062345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.08|0.07
84664397|NCT00227903|169062346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.90|0.10|0.07
84664398|NCT00227903|169062347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|0.32|0.91
84664399|NCT00227903|169062348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.07|0.35|0.91
84664400|NCT00227903|169062349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|0.14|0.91
84664401|NCT00227903|169062350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.12|0.21|0.91
84664402|NCT00227903|169062351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|0.46|.04
84664403|NCT00227903|169062352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|0.35|0.04
84664404|NCT00227903|169062353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.04|0.04
84664405|NCT00227903|169062354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.04|0.04
84664406|NCT00227903|169062355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
84664407|NCT00227903|169062356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84664408|NCT04309656|169062373|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|85.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|90.75|||ANOVA|||||90.75|81.21|0.0001
84698653|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0387
84698654|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.44|0.0008
84698655|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.21|0.5879
84698656|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.20|0.6122
84698657|NCT00797225|169138742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0023
84698658|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.69|< 0.0001
84698659|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.27|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.73|< 0.0001
84698660|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.25|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.71|< 0.0001
84698661|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.23|-0.69|< 0.0001
84698662|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-0.87|< 0.0001
84698663|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.59|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.59|-1.04|< 0.0001
84698664|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.65|0.0005
84698665|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.29|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.29|-0.76|< 0.0001
84509920|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.3|5.34|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.34|3.30|
84509921|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6|3.87|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.87|2.60|
84509922|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.68|2.92|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.92|1.68|
84509923|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M14459- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.25|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.25|0.87|
84509924|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.59|
84664409|NCT04309656|169062373|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.99||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.65|104.62|||ANOVA|||||104.62|82.65|0.3001
84664410|NCT04309656|169062374|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|100.6||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|103.03|||ANOVA|||||103.03|98.23|0.6686
84664411|NCT04309656|169062374|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.7||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|99.1|||ANOVA|||||99.10|81.20|0.0745
84664412|NCT04309656|169062375|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|101.03||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|103.47|||ANOVA|||||103.47|98.65|0.4683
84664413|NCT04309656|169062375|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.63||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|99.05|||ANOVA|||||99.05|81.10|0.0734
84664414|NCT03720470|169062380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||31.4|14.7|<0.0001
84664415|NCT03720470|169062380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.5|26.1|<0.0001
84664416|NCT03720470|169062381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||41.6|22.2|<0.0001
84664417|NCT03720470|169062381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|52.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||52.7|33.7|<0.0001
84664418|NCT03720470|169062382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||26.3|9.5|0.0002
84664419|NCT03720470|169062382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.0|<.0001
84664420|NCT03720470|169062382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||13.4|-2.9|0.2084
84698666|NCT00797225|169138743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.56|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-1.02|< 0.0001
84698667|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0011
84698668|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0010
84698669|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.57|< 0.0001
84698670|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||-0.33|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|0.0007
84698671|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.62|< 0.0001
84509925|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.76|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.76|0.50|
84664421|NCT03720470|169062382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.7|13.5|<0.0001
84664422|NCT03720470|169062383|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.5|13.7|<0.0001
84664423|NCT03720470|169062383|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.3|<0.0001
84664424|NCT03720470|169062383|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||5.2|-12.2|
84664425|NCT03720470|169062383|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||18.5|0.4|
84664426|NCT03720470|169062384|OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||34.1|14.0|<0.0001
84664427|NCT03720470|169062384|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||39.8|20.3|<0.0001
84664428|NCT03720470|169062384|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||4.2|-9.6|
84664429|NCT03720470|169062384|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||9.6|-3.3|
84664430|NCT02056340|169062424|OTHER|||||||0.611||||||Threshold for significaance was p value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a linear mixed-effects model which accounted for all measurements taken and the time that those measurements were taken.||||0.611
84664431|NCT02056340|169062425|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P value reflects baseline to 72 hours between groups. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was at 72 hours for the self-reported influenza severity score.||||0.029
84664432|NCT00867009|169062449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|32.3|45.09||||||||45.09|32.30|
84664433|NCT00867009|169062450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median number of months|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.4|6.7||||||||6.70|4.40|
84664434|NCT00867009|169062451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|39.0|51.0||||||||51|39|
84664435|NCT00867009|169062452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|59.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|53.06|65.94||||||||65.94|53.06|
84664436|NCT02671422|169062459|OTHER||1 year-survival rate|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.894|||||Confidence interval is computed based on the LOGLOG method.|||0.894|0.000|
84664437|NCT04772755|169062460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
84664438|NCT04772755|169062461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8918|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8918
84664439|NCT04772755|169062462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6587
84664440|NCT04772755|169062463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
84664441|NCT04772755|169062464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
84664442|NCT04772755|169062465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0090
84664443|NCT04772755|169062466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0273
84664444|NCT04772755|169062467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0458
84664445|NCT04772755|169062468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0976
84664446|NCT00662363|169062473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||independent sample t test|||Primary outcome measures chosen were between group comparisons for change on Constipation Symptom Questionnaire ratings at exit from the study. The PAC-SYM is a symptom scale where higher numbers indicate more symptoms. Change from baseline to Day 7 was calculated and larger negative differences indicated greater improvement in constipation symptoms. The PAC-QOL is a quality of life scale where higher numbers indicate better quality of life. Change from baseline to 7 days was calculated.||||<0.05
84664447|NCT05838742|169062475|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.17|-0.23|
84509926|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.63|0.42|
84509927|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratios for comparison between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.62|2.51|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||2.51|1.62|
84664448|NCT05838742|169062475|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.95|-0.46|
84664449|NCT05838742|169062475|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.10|-0.31|
84664450|NCT05838742|169062475|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.80|-0.60|
84664451|NCT05119569|169062486|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.313||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.658|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.658|0.149|0.0022
84664452|NCT05119569|169062487|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.265||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.55|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.550|0.128|0.0004
84664453|NCT05119569|169062488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.005||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|13.078|||Logistic Regression Model|||||13.078|1.317|0.0117
84664454|NCT05119569|169062493|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|1.922|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.922|0.316|0.5889
84664455|NCT05119569|169062494|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.076||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.355|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.355|0.016|0.0011
84664456|NCT05119569|169062495|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.104||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.481|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.481|0.022|0.0038
84664457|NCT05119569|169062496|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.512||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|1.126|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.126|0.233|0.0958
84664458|NCT05119569|169062497|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.283|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.283|0.039|<0.0001
84664459|NCT05119569|169062498|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.053||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.233|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.233|0.012|0.0001
84664460|NCT03700671|169062508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A P-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for significance|ANOVA|||A sample size of 38 using G\*Power 3.1 software was calculated based on previously published data in which the mean difference between HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) was 3.2 ml.kg-1.min-1 with a pooled standard deviation of 3 ml.kg-1.min-1. Statistical significance was set at = 0.05 and power set to 0.95. To allow for 10% attrition 42 individuals were recruited to the study||||<0.01
84664461|NCT03700671|169062509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was used as a threshold for significance|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84664462|NCT03578367|169062519|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|33.1||||||||33.1|5.0|
84664463|NCT03578367|169062519|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|44.8||||||||44.8|12.4|
84664464|NCT03578367|169062520|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|30.3||||||||30.3|-1.7|
84664465|NCT03578367|169062520|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|41.7||||||||41.7|5.9|
84698672|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-0.73|< 0.0001
84698673|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.34|0.1319
84698674|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.42|0.0222
84509928|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.92|6.35|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||6.35|3.92|
84698675|NCT00797225|169138744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.66|< 0.0001
84698676|NCT02408965|169138764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84698677|NCT02408965|169138765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84698678|NCT02408965|169138766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84698679|NCT02408965|169138767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84698680|NCT02408965|169138768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84698681|NCT02408965|169138769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84698682|NCT02408965|169138770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84698683|NCT02408965|169138771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84698684|NCT02408965|169138772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84698685|NCT01112735|169138802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5621
84698686|NCT01112735|169138803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3595
84698687|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9417
84698688|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.5488
84698689|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.7107
84698690|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.8809
84698691|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.4598
84698692|NCT01112735|169138804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.3837
84698693|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9699
84698694|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.4709
84698695|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.1406
84698696|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.4291
84698697|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.2704
84698698|NCT01112735|169138805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.7564
84698699|NCT02783950|169138810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84698700|NCT02783950|169138811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Test p-value|||||||0.70
84698701|NCT04956692|169138825|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.98|1.1||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.02|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||1.10|0.98|<0.0001
84698702|NCT04956692|169138826|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.69|2.03||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.03|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||2.03|1.69|<0.0001
84698703|NCT01822821|169138856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was tested using a noninferiority margin of 1.15.|ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.06|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.06||0.08
84698704|NCT01822821|169138856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.10||0.28
84698705|NCT01822821|169138857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assessed whether IV acetaminophen is noninferior to placebo using a noninferiority margin of 1.0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.5||< 0.001
84698706|NCT01822821|169138857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.42|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.42||< 0.001
84509929|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.66|3.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.96|2.66|
84698707|NCT01822821|169138858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.34|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Relative risk of PONV in IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients estimated from a multivariable logistic regression model using the log link and adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.7|0.34|0.35
84509930|NCT03587207|168771732|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.81|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||3.12|1.81|
84698708|NCT01822821|169138859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 8 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.13
84698709|NCT01822821|169138859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 16 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.44
84698710|NCT01822821|169138859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 24 hours after surgery||0|0|0.38
84698711|NCT01822821|169138860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.52|3.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||3.20|0.52|0.46
84698712|NCT01822821|169138861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of ICU stay was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.74|0.38
84698713|NCT01822821|169138862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.94|0.12
84698714|NCT01822821|169138863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on ALT was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.9|0.31
84698715|NCT01822821|169138864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.8|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on AST was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.8|0.98
84698716|NCT01822821|169138865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.87|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on bilirubin was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.3|0.87|0.40
84698717|NCT04996069|169138884|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation performed.||||||0.45||||||p value threshold is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84698718|NCT00615433|169138887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Improvements in PANSS ratings are estimated from 2 prior studies of lurasidone. Assuming lurasidone differs from placebo in change from baseline in PANSS by 6.8 and 10.0 for 40 and 120 mg, respectively, and assuming a standard deviation of 19.1, then n=120 subjects per group provides approximately 97% power (at α=0.05, two-sided) to reject the null hypothesis of no difference from placebo for at least 1 dose. This calculation uses Bonferroni's procedure for controlling pairwise differences.||||<0.05
84698719|NCT00615433|169138888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84698720|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.4822||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0575|10.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14.||10.9069|0.0575|0.0479
84698721|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|4.7954||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9843|8.6064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6064|0.9843|0.0161
84698722|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|167.29||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.36|309.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||309.23|25.36|0.0237
84698723|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2761||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2424|6.6902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14||6.6902|-9.2424|0.7188
84698724|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.8955||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9026|8.6935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6935|-4.9026|0.5478
84698725|NCT04739423|169138889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.52||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.21|276.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||276.17|-291.21|0.9510
84698726|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.68||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.432|-0.066|0.0737
84698727|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||1.868|0.382|0.0033
84698728|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.72||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||2.840|0.600|0.0029
84698729|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.29||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|2.418|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.418|0.168|0.0247
84698730|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.69||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.732|0.653|0.0016
84698731|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.009|-1.127|0.9126
84698732|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.24||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||0.837|-1.317|0.6570
84509931|NCT03587207|168771736|OTHER|Between group ratio is calculated as GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S Group over GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group. 80% CI are obtained from Analysis of Covariance model fitted to pooled Serogroup B Strains. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after first vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
84698733|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.669|-1.787|0.9458
84698734|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.97||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|2.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.579|-0.642|0.2327
84698735|NCT04739423|169138891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.879|-1.208|0.4154
84698736|NCT04739423|169138892|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.956|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for Sleeping Heart Rate change from baseline across periods||6.160|3.956|<0.0001
84698737|NCT04739423|169138893|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV change from baseline across periods.||1.565|0.432|0.0017
84698738|NCT04739423|169138894|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-10.22||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.867|-3.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV root mean square of successive differences change from baseline across periods||-3.567|-16.867|0.0049
84698739|NCT05174065|169138895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of rounded PPPASI total score range (≤ 20/21 to 30/≥ 31) and focal infection status (yes/no) at baseline.|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors. The adjusted difference in proportion was the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata.|||46.5|18.7|<0.0001
84698740|NCT05174065|169138896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-3.69|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.69|-8.57|<0.0001
84509932|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.63|1.02|
84698741|NCT05174065|169138897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and baseline value as covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
84698742|NCT05174065|169138898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-0.6|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.9|0.0330
84698743|NCT05174065|169138899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-2.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-2.9|-18.6|0.0076
84698744|NCT05174065|169138900|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.4||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.0036
84698745|NCT02753530|169138915|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.24||Primary Estimand (Treatment Policy)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The baseline observation was the last observation recorded prior to the first dose of study medication. The change from baseline in IBMFRS total score was analyzed using a Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment interacting with visit and trial site as factors. Baseline IBMFRS total score interacting with visit was further included as covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||0.24|-2.23|0.1146
84698746|NCT01324882|169138970|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84698747|NCT04949399|169138972|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|37.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|23.5|<.0001
84698748|NCT04949399|169138973|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|47.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.7|32.0|<0.0001
84698749|NCT04949399|169138974|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|41.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|49.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.6|33.7|<0.0001
84698750|NCT04949399|169138977|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|54.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|62.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.8|46.8|<.0001
84698751|NCT04949399|169138978|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|30.5|<.0001
84698752|NCT04949399|169138979|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|52.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.5|36.8|<.0001
84698753|NCT04949399|169138980|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-6.7|<.0001
84698754|NCT04949399|169138983|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|38.1|54.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.2|38.1|<0.0001
84698755|NCT04949399|169138984|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|60.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.5|43.3|<0.0001
84698756|NCT04949399|169138985|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|49.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|31.3|<0.0001
84698757|NCT04949399|169138986|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|45.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|53.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|37.1|<0.0001
84698758|NCT04949399|169138987|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-6.8|<0.0001
84698759|NCT04949399|169138988|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.5||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-4.5|-6.7|<0.0001
84698760|NCT04949399|169138988|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.9||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.9|-6.0|<0.0001
84698761|NCT04949399|169138988|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
84698762|NCT01866917|169138996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.574
84698763|NCT01866917|169138997|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis performed using SPSS software, version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Data for quantitative variables reported as a median and interquartile range. The Mann Whitney and chi-square tests were used for the analysis of continuous and categorical variables.|Interquartile range (IQR)|3.0||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.|Chi-squared|||TAP has been demonstrated to have a potential role in reducing pain, post-operative opioid requirement, and time to hospital discharge after abdominal hysterectomies and cesarean sections.||||.825
84698764|NCT01140347|169139009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.046|||Log Rank||HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||1.046|0.717|0.1391
84698765|NCT01140347|169139010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.75|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.750|0.522|<0.0001
84698766|NCT01140347|169139011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for geographic region and etiology liver disease||||||<0.0001
84698767|NCT01140347|169139012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.722|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.722|0.487|<0.0001
84698768|NCT00587288|169139033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.01||The p-value for the treatment comparison is based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.76|0.0541
84698769|NCT00587288|169139034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.46||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|0.91|0.0848
84698770|NCT00587288|169139035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.392||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.088|0.0023
84698771|NCT00587288|169139036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.65||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||12.65|3.30|0.0010
84698772|NCT00587288|169139037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-125.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.885||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.81|-35.77||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline. The difference between reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg and placebo groups was from comparison of the least square means.|ANCOVA|||||-35.77|-214.81|0.0068
84698773|NCT00587288|169139038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.10|0.0833
84698774|NCT00587288|169139038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0809|||||||Log Rank|The p value for the treatment comparison was based on log rank test adjusting for stratification factor (ie, ACQ score ≤2 and \>2).||"Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to first CAE. (First quartile, median and third quartile survival times with 95% confidence intervals (ie, time to first CAE) could not be estimated since the proportion of patients experiencing CAE was too low. Therefore, the only number presented in regard to the Kaplan-Meier analysis is the p-value of the log-rank test, below. )"||||0.0809
84698775|NCT01743729|169139047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.03||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6186
84698776|NCT01743729|169139048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|12.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.70|8.51|<0.0001
84698777|NCT05074498|169139082|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.35||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.047|-0.741|0.0838
84698778|NCT01306331|169139122|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||The primary hypothesis test was performed using 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative pregnancy rates between the treatment arms. If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.||3.2|-2.2|
84698779|NCT01474538|169139222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was below 0.4%, lispro was declared non-inferior to aspart.|LS Mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.210|-0.002|
84698780|NCT01474538|169139223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-2.92|
84698781|NCT01474538|169139224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.522|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.522
84698782|NCT01474538|169139225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.58||||0.216|||||||Grizzle Model|||||||0.216
84698783|NCT01474538|169139226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Prescott test|||||||0.471
84698784|NCT02688621|169139227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to detect a 2.2-kg group weight loss difference between groups with a standard deviation of 5.8 kg,4,5 a 5% Type I error rate, and 80% power. To adjust for possible clustering effects in this nested design, the adjusted variance estimate was increased to 7.67, calculated using a conservative intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05.||||<.01
84698785|NCT01289119|169139242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.37|-0.78|<0.001
84698786|NCT01289119|169139242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.51||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin dose as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.51|-0.87|<0.001
84698787|NCT01289119|169139242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin therapy status and baseline pioglitazone dose as covariates.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.28|-0.75|<0.001
84698788|NCT01704846|169139254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.9|105.25|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.25|95.90|
84509933|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.75|
84509934|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.29|0.80|
84698789|NCT01704846|169139255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.57|110.98|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||110.98|95.57|
84698790|NCT01704846|169139256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|105.18|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.18|96.10|
84698791|NCT01704846|169139257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the adjusted mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Mean Ratio (%)|97.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|103.78|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||103.78|91.54|
84698792|NCT01704846|169139258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.51|102.2|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.20|98.51|
84698793|NCT01704846|169139259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|101.51|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||101.51|97.85|
84698794|NCT01704846|169139260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|102.34|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.34|98.10|
84698795|NCT00530335|169139262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698796|NCT00530335|169139262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698797|NCT00530335|169139262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactivity/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698798|NCT00530335|169139262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698799|NCT00530335|169139263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84509935|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.36|0.87|
84698800|NCT00530335|169139263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698801|NCT00530335|169139263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactive/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698802|NCT00530335|169139263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698803|NCT00530335|169139264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698804|NCT00530335|169139265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.749
84698805|NCT00530335|169139266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
84698806|NCT00530335|169139268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84698807|NCT00530335|169139268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84698808|NCT00530335|169139268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color-Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84698809|NCT01492309|169139296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.003
84698810|NCT01492309|169139297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.425
84698811|NCT01360840|169139298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39||||||||1.39|0.57|
84698812|NCT01360840|169139298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.26||||||||1.26|0.52|
84509936|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.58|
84698813|NCT01360840|169139299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.31||||||||2.31|0.52|
84698814|NCT01360840|169139299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15||||||||2.15|0.47|
84698815|NCT01360840|169139300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44||||||||1.44|0.58|
84698816|NCT01360840|169139300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.27||||||||1.27|0.52|
84698817|NCT02002819|169139314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.18|0.55
84698818|NCT02002819|169139315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.8|||ANOVA|||||6.8|-1.0|0.14
84698819|NCT02002819|169139316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-3.4|.43
84698820|NCT02002819|169139317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.63
84698821|NCT02002819|169139318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|-1.1|0.90
84698822|NCT02002819|169139319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.80
84698823|NCT02002819|169139320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-3.6|0.46
84698824|NCT02002819|169139321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.40
84698825|NCT02002819|169139322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.7|||ANOVA|||||14.7|0.2|0.046
84698826|NCT02002819|169139323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.7|||ANOVA|||||2.7|-7.8|.30
84698827|NCT02002819|169139324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|16.0|||Cohen f|||||16.0|-8.5|0.52
84698828|NCT02002819|169139325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.4|||ANOVA|||||2.4|-1.0|0.40
84698829|NCT02002819|169139326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.1|0.63
84698830|NCT02002819|169139328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.3|.15
84698831|NCT01363479|169139368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was rejected (and non inferiority of oral palonosetron 0.50 mg versus I.V. palonosetron 0.25 mg demonstrated), if the lower limit of the 2 sided 99% CI for the difference in proportion of patients with CR (risk difference) was greater (i.e., closer to zero) than 15%.Study had 90% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.74|9.17|||||The risk difference and the 99% CI calculation were performed using a 2 sided stratum adjusted Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including gender and region as strata.|||9.17|-2.74|
84698832|NCT01872611|169139380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||1.3|0.7|0.671
84698833|NCT01872611|169139381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.7|0.2|0.001
84698834|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score||5.52|1.35|0.005
84698835|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||9.03|2.20|<0.001
84698836|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||10.28|2.52|<0.001
84509937|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.62|
84509938|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
84509939|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.08|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.08|0.54|
84509940|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
84509941|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.9|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.90|0.58|
84698837|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-0.7|-13.2|<0.001
84509942|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.61|
84509943|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.07|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.07|0.68|
84698838|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-3.0|-15.5|<0.001
84509944|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.62|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||0.62|0.35|
84698839|NCT02696785|169139399|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-2.5|-15.2|<0.001
84698840|NCT02696785|169139400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.23|1.25|0.007
84698841|NCT02696785|169139400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.48|0.001
84698842|NCT02696785|169139400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.41|1.79|<0.001
84698843|NCT02696785|169139401|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.11|<0.001
84509945|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.65|0.91|
84698844|NCT02696785|169139401|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.25|<0.001
84698845|NCT02696785|169139401|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.18|<0.001
84698846|NCT02696785|169139402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.23|0.012
84509946|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.04|1.72|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.72|1.04|
84698847|NCT02696785|169139402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.70|1.82|<0.001
84698848|NCT02696785|169139402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|1.91|<0.001
84698849|NCT02696785|169139403|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.56|0.001
84698850|NCT02696785|169139403|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.83|<0.001
84698851|NCT02696785|169139403|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.86|<0.001
84698852|NCT02696785|169139404|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|34.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.68|1.67|0.009
84698853|NCT02696785|169139404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.83|1.75|0.007
84698854|NCT02696785|169139404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|24.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.49|1.07|0.041
84698855|NCT02696785|169139405|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.7|<0.001
84509947|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.38|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.38|0.70|
84698856|NCT02696785|169139405|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
84698857|NCT02696785|169139405|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
84698858|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.2574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0437||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2041|5.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||5.3106|1.2041|0.002
84698859|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9432|6.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.1608|1.9432|<0.001
84509948|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.32|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.32|0.83|
84698860|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2321|6.4186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.4186|2.2321|<0.001
84698861|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1718||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8732|2.7373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.7373|-1.8732|0.713
84509949|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.64|
84698862|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2028||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7387|2.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.9934|-1.7387|0.602
84698863|NCT02696785|169139406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1978||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9097|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.8030|-1.9097|0.709
84698864|NCT02696785|169139407|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.87|0.012
84698865|NCT02696785|169139407|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.95|0.010
84698866|NCT02696785|169139407|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
84698867|NCT02696785|169139408|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6724||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.885|-3.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.371|-13.885|0.001
84698868|NCT02696785|169139408|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7438||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|-1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.238|-12.033|0.016
84698869|NCT02696785|169139408|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7248||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.351|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-13.351|0.004
84698870|NCT02696785|169139409|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1143||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.142|-0.592|0.001
84698871|NCT02696785|169139409|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.655|-0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.189|-0.655|<0.001
84698872|NCT02696785|169139409|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1167||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.099|-0.558|0.005
84698873|NCT02696785|169139410|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.22|0.003
84698874|NCT02696785|169139410|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.00|0.051
84698875|NCT02696785|169139410|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.18|0.005
84698876|NCT02696785|169139411|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.30|0.039
84698877|NCT02696785|169139411|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.28|0.057
84698878|NCT02696785|169139411|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.31|0.042
84509950|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.69|
84698879|NCT02696785|169139412|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.7|<0.001
84698880|NCT02696785|169139412|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-6.5|<0.001
84698881|NCT02696785|169139412|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.8|<0.001
84698882|NCT02696785|169139413|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.4|0.317
84698883|NCT02696785|169139413|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.1|0.683
84698884|NCT02696785|169139413|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-1.3|0.500
84698885|NCT02696785|169139414|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.9|0.154
84698886|NCT02696785|169139414|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||-0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|-0.6
84698887|NCT02696785|169139414|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.398
84698888|NCT02696785|169139415|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.783
84698889|NCT02696785|169139415|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.550
84698890|NCT02696785|169139415|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.8|0.091
84698891|NCT02696785|169139417|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.027
84698892|NCT02696785|169139417|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
84698893|NCT02696785|169139417|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.3|0.035
84698894|NCT02696785|169139418|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.3|0.041
84698895|NCT02696785|169139418|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-2.1|0.125
84698896|NCT02696785|169139418|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.6|0.013
84698897|NCT02696785|169139419|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.082||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.12|-6.03|0.989
84698898|NCT02696785|169139419|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.146||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-3.71|0.429
84698899|NCT02696785|169139419|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-11.92|0.096
84698900|NCT02696785|169139423|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-2.6|0.166
84698901|NCT02696785|169139423|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-3.4|0.011
84698902|NCT02696785|169139423|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.6|0.182
84698903|NCT02696785|169139424|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.588|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.2|<0.001
84698904|NCT02696785|169139424|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-12.6|<0.001
84698905|NCT02696785|169139424|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
84698906|NCT01016353|169139428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
84698907|NCT04863898|169139429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-5.2|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-5.2|-7|
84698908|NCT04863898|169139433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||Calculated using a linear mixed effect regression model with random intercepts by individual Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||1.09|0.86|
84698909|NCT04863898|169139434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.6|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-3.6|-4.7|
84698910|NCT05780047|169139456|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84698911|NCT05780047|169139457|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired samples t-test|||Paired samples t-tests were run to compare whether EHL knowledge, attitudes and behavior changed after the intervention. EHL scores were expected to increase between pre and post testing.||||<0.05
84698912|NCT03194776|169139459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.74|||=|0.2612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.03|2.55||P-value of \<= 0.2 was considered significant.|two-sided test|||Statistical analysis was done by mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model analysis.||2.55|-38.03|= 0.2612
84698913|NCT02909101|169139495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.039
84698914|NCT02909101|169139496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.054
84698915|NCT02909101|169139497|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.744
84509951|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.19|0.76|
84698916|NCT02909101|169139498|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability in terms of helpfulness, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.719
84698917|NCT02909101|169139499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.337
84698918|NCT02909101|169139500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.025
84698919|NCT02909101|169139501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.133
84698920|NCT01677936|169139525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||=|0.024||||||Compared to snacks, raisins reduced percent post-prandial glucose levels by 23%, which met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.024
84698921|NCT01677936|169139526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||=|0.035||||||Compared with snacks, the 8.8 mmHg reduction with raisins met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
84698922|NCT00157014|169139551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4725
84698923|NCT00157014|169139562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8373
84509952|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M14459 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.64|
84698924|NCT01362491|169139565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Square (LS) mean difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||7.73|4.49|<0.001
84698925|NCT01362491|169139566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.65|0.88|0.253
84698926|NCT01362491|169139567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.14|2.69|<0.001
84698927|NCT01362491|169139567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|5.94||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||5.94|2.23|<0.001
84698928|NCT01362491|169139568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.64||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.64|2.87|<0.001
84698929|NCT01362491|169139568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||6.34|2.38|<0.001
84698930|NCT01362491|169139568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.66|0.88|0.247
84698931|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.92|<0.001
84698932|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.61|0.93|< 0.001
84509953|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|96217 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
84698933|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.29|0.943
84698934|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.62|0.89|<0.001
84509954|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.12|0.68|
84509955|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.10|0.70|
84698935|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.85|<0.001
84509956|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.71|
84509957|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.73|0.47|
84509958|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.89|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.89|0.54|
84698936|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.27|0.847
84698937|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.05|1.14|<0.001
84698938|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.13|1.22|<0.001
84698939|NCT01362491|169139569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - (Ibuprofen IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.29|-0.46|0.663
84698940|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.72|0.37|<0.001
84698941|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.33|<0.001
84698942|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.11|0.651
84698943|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.42|<0.001
84698944|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|0.46|<0.001
84698945|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.03||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.19|0.669
84698946|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
84698947|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.67|<0.001
84698948|NCT01362491|169139570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.396
84698949|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.30|1.30|<0.001
84698950|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.28|1.28|<0.001
84698951|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.43|-0.39|0.911
84698952|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.41|1.33|<0.001
84698953|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.42|1.34|<0.001
84698954|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.45|0.982
84698955|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.72|<0.001
84698956|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.33|1.90|<0.001
84698957|NCT01362491|169139571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.77|0.547
84698958|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
84698959|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
84698960|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.28|0.992
84698961|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.58|1.43|<0.001
84698962|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.68|1.53|<0.001
84698963|NCT01362491|169139572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.57|0.684
84698964|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.17|1.85|<0.001
84698965|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.83|<0.001
84698966|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.52|0.943
84698967|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|3.03|<0.001
84698968|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.24|3.09|<0.001
84698969|NCT01362491|169139573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.06||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.95|0.888
84698970|NCT01362491|169139574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|4.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.64|2.71|<0.001
84698971|NCT01362491|169139574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.63|2.68|<0.001
84698972|NCT01362491|169139574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.78|0.964
84698973|NCT01362491|169139574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|6.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|7.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.89|4.65|<0.001
84698974|NCT01362491|169139574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.16||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.17|-1.49|0.812
84698975|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.02||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|5.27|0.015
84698976|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.88|0.13|0.146
84698977|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.62||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|15.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.63|-0.38|0.064
84698978|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.96|72.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.21|44.96|<0.001
84698979|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|66.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||66.41|38.20|<0.001
84698980|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|20.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.07|-7.27|0.357
84698981|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|46.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|62.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.93|30.43|<0.001
84698982|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|47.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|63.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.83|31.35|<0.001
84698983|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
84698984|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
84698985|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
84698986|NCT01362491|169139575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
84698987|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|18.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|26.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.73|10.43|0.002
84698988|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.46|2.14|0.055
84698989|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.91||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.83|0.98|0.033
84698990|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.65|75.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.41|48.65|<0.001
84698991|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|59.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.69|73.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.19|45.69|<0.001
84698992|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.96||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|15.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.44|-9.52|0.642
84698993|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
84698994|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
84698995|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
84698996|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
84698997|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
84698998|NCT01362491|169139576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
84698999|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|9.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.55|-3.12|0.389
84699000|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.39|-3.69|0.490
84699001|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|7.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.41|-5.45|0.764
84699002|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.72|41.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.70|15.72|<0.001
84699003|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.19|42.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.56|16.19|<0.001
84699004|NCT01362491|169139579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.93||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|-15.22|0.898
84699005|NCT01996644|169139593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
84699006|NCT01454362|169139615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84699007|NCT01454362|169139616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84699008|NCT01454362|169139617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84699009|NCT01454362|169139618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84699010|NCT01454362|169139619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84699011|NCT01928940|169139642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84509959|NCT03587207|168771737|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.65|
84699012|NCT01928940|169139642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84699013|NCT01928940|169139647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84699014|NCT01928940|169139647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|82.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||82.2|11.8|0.0158
84699015|NCT01928940|169139648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84699016|NCT01928940|169139648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||88.2|11.8|0.0158
84699017|NCT01928940|169139651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84699018|NCT01928940|169139651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
84699019|NCT01352507|169139672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilson Score method|||Null hypothesis (H0): The proportion of participants who chose tadalafil over sildenafil is equal to 0.5 (p = 0.5), versus alternative hypothesis (H1): p is not equal to 0.5 (2-sided test).||||<0.001
84699020|NCT01352507|169139674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.11|0.793
84699021|NCT01352507|169139675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.37||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-1.35|0.988
84699022|NCT01352507|169139676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.01|0.102
84699023|NCT01352507|169139678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.19||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.22|0.861
84699024|NCT01352507|169139679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.19|0.495
84699025|NCT01352507|169139680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.18|0.917
84699026|NCT01352507|169139681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.04||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-1.58|0.391
84699027|NCT01352507|169139682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84509960|NCT00117949|168771758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84699028|NCT01352507|169139683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.19|<0.001
84699029|NCT01352507|169139684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-0.20|0.364
84699030|NCT01119703|169139685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-0.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||-0.7|-13.8|
84699031|NCT01119703|169139686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.9|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||20.9|10.6|
84509961|NCT00117949|168771758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|84.0||||||95.0|35.0|112.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response.||112|35|
84699032|NCT01119703|169139687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|32.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||32.4|19.6|
84699033|NCT01119703|169139688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|3.3||||||95.0|-2.8|8.5|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||8.5|-2.8|
84699034|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Hepatitis B||0.13|-0.2|0.66
84699035|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Cholera||0.25|-0.07|0.26
84699036|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Tetanus||0.53|0.26|<0.001
84699037|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Cholera||-0.01|-0.32|0.04
84699038|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.09||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Tetanus||0.08|-0.25|0.30
84699039|NCT01119703|169139689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.08||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Cholera versus Tetanus||0.24|-0.09|0.36
84699040|NCT01119703|169139690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||-2.7|-16.6|
84699041|NCT01119703|169139691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||29.7|14.0|
84699042|NCT01119703|169139692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|41.5|||||Crossvalidated;negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||41.5|28.7|
84699043|NCT01119703|169139693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||4.4|-7.8|
84699044|NCT04668144|169139694|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between groups and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group would allow for the 95%CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05. In line with previously reported investigations, 45 PRU was chosen for the noninferiority margin for the upper 95%CI limit of the difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|176.0||p-value was not calculated for noninferiority analysis|ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of our study was that in patients receiving concomitant administration of cangrelor and prasugrel (experimental arm), platelet inhibition as assessed by PRU would be noninferior to patients receiving prasugrel only (active control)||176|85|
84699045|NCT02775435|169139712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.7||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.45|<0.0001
84699046|NCT02775435|169139713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.49|0.0008
84715104|NCT04119843|169176644|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.043|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.043|0.552|<0.001
84509962|NCT00117949|168771758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|98.0||||||95.0|70.0|126.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||126|70|
84699047|NCT00614744|169139762|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that it does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Bayesian log binomial models|Bayesian log binomial models were used to analyze the primary outcome of death or moderate/severe disability.|In log binomial models used Normal (0, sd=0.35) neutral prior in the log RR scale. Estimation used Normal weakly informative priors. Reported posterior medians \& 95% credible intervals for the RR above instead of confidence intervals.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|"We fitted all Bayesian models via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC) using JAGS (version 3.4) and OpenBUGS (3.2.3) in R (version 3.2.5). For each analysis we ran 3 MCMC chains with starting values randomly drawn from the estimated parameters from a frequentist log binomial model. A burn-in of 1,000 iterations was used, with sampling from a further 10,000 iterations for each chain. To monitor convergence, trace plots and the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnostic (Rhat) were used for all parameters.~For all analyses, the trace plots show good mixing of the 3 chains with Rhat \< 1.01 for all parameters, indicating convergence."|1.29|0.59|
84699048|NCT00235495|169139778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||The generalized linear model with log link function is tested at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustment is made for baseline NIHSS and Thrombolysis stratum.|Adjusted risk ratio greater than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Albumin treatment group, while adjusted risk ratio less than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Saline treatment group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin and Saline treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (greater proportion of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin treatment arm).||1.10|0.84|
84699049|NCT00235495|169139779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.80|
84699050|NCT00235495|169139780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.66|
84509963|NCT00117949|168771758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|35.0||||||95.0|14.0|98.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||98|14|
84509964|NCT00117949|168771759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Participants not castrated were censored as of the days from dosing for the last available observation.||||||0.003
84699051|NCT00235495|169139781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.71|
84699052|NCT00235495|169139782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.82|
84699053|NCT00235495|169139783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.85|
84699054|NCT00235495|169139784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.87|
84699055|NCT00235495|169139785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.83|
84509965|NCT00117949|168771759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|3.0|7.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the median time to testosterone castration.||7|3|
84509966|NCT00117949|168771759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|3.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to testosterone castration.||3|1|
84509967|NCT00117949|168771760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||0|0|
84509968|NCT00117949|168771760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.7||||||95.0|22.0|63.4||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||63.4|22|
84699056|NCT00235495|169139786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.84|
84699057|NCT00235495|169139787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.84|
84699058|NCT00235495|169139788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|73098.0||||0.913||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.913
84699059|NCT00235495|169139789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|44853.5||||0.923||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.923
84699060|NCT00235495|169139790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.79|
84699061|NCT00235495|169139791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.47|
84699062|NCT00235495|169139792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.39|
84699063|NCT00235495|169139793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|0.98|
84699064|NCT00235495|169139794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|26.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.72|4.37|
84699065|NCT00235495|169139795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.12|1.09|
84699066|NCT00235495|169139796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.02|
84699067|NCT00235495|169139797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.68|
84699068|NCT00235495|169139798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|0.68|
84699069|NCT00235495|169139799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.74|
84699070|NCT05750745|169139826|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.02|-0.36|0.0871
84699071|NCT05750745|169139827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.548||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|13.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||13.20|-0.78|0.0972
84699072|NCT05750745|169139828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.41|-12.04|0.0671
84699073|NCT05750745|169139829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.01|-0.27|0.0673
84699074|NCT05750745|169139830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.446||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||7.20|-2.44|0.4050
84699075|NCT05750745|169139831|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.656||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||-0.41|-10.88|0.0346
84699076|NCT05750745|169139832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.19|-0.15|0.8256
84699077|NCT05750745|169139832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.30|-0.16|0.5314
84699078|NCT05750745|169139833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|3.3|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the Van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||3.30|-8.48|0.5575
84699079|NCT05750745|169139833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.308||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.37|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||7.37|-9.60|0.7717
84699080|NCT05750745|169139834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|7.12|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||7.12|-5.63|0.8180
84699081|NCT05750745|169139834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|11.28|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||11.28|-3.83|0.3322
84699082|NCT03568162|169139869|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit|LS Mean Difference|-20.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4781|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.944|5.439|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||5.439|-34.944|= 0.008
84699083|NCT03568162|169139869|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|-14.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6622|=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.552|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||0.674|-29.552|= 0.061
84699084|NCT03568162|169139869|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|3.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8864|=|0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|||18.698|-12.410|= 0.691
84699085|NCT03568162|169139869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.895|-4.503|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.||-4.503|-29.895|= 0.008
84699086|NCT02266329|169139914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.8||The significance of the study visit by treatment interaction with study visit coded as baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in headache (HA) frequency (1. Primary Outcome Measure) is based on linear mixed effects regression of outcome on study visit by treatment interaction with study participant as a random effect.||-0.8|-6.9|0.034
84699087|NCT03499600|169139938|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
84699088|NCT03499600|169139938|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver satisfaction with the intake.||||.68
84699089|NCT03499600|169139938|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
84699090|NCT03499600|169139938|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider satisfaction with the intake.||||<.05
84699091|NCT03499600|169139940|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on therapeutic alliance.||||.93
84509969|NCT00117949|168771760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|61.6||||||95.0|41.8|81.3||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||81.3|41.8|
84699092|NCT03499600|169139940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Tested the moderation effects of language of service reception and condition on therapeutic alliance.||||.90
84699093|NCT03499600|169139941|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery. Baseline ECBI score was included as a covariate for the treatment response analyses.||||||0.171|||||||Regression, Logistic|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A logistic regression tested condition effects on treatment response.||||.171
84699094|NCT03499600|169139941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Testes the effects of the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on treatment response.||||<.05
84699095|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on session attendance.||||.38
84509970|NCT00117949|168771760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6||||||95.0|15.8|55.5||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||55.5|15.8|
84699096|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on session attendance.||||.01
84699097|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on homework completion. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.56
84699098|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation effect of language of service delivery and condition on homework completion.||||<.01
84699099|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Logistic regressions tested condition effects on initial session attendance. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.40
84699100|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on initial session attendance.||||.01
84699101|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A Logistic regression tested condition effects on completion of first treatment module. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.03
84699102|NCT03499600|169139942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on completion of first treatment module.||||.03
84699103|NCT03499600|169139943|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on treatment satisfaction.||||.854
84699104|NCT03499600|169139944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested change in ECBI score from baseline to post treatment.||||.319
84699105|NCT01779375|169139965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
84699106|NCT01779375|169139966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.||||>0.05
84699107|NCT01779375|169139968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||>0.05
84699108|NCT00389519|169139971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||two-sided test|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||"Planned interim efficacy analysis: 80 placebo and 80 high-dose ramipril subjects provided 93% power, alpha=0.032, to detect 5 mmHg difference in primary outcome. SD of 8.5 mmHg assumed. Alpha of 0.032 required for the planned interim efficacy analysis.~If study continued: 450 total subjects would provide 90% power, alpha=0.027, to detect 3 mmHg difference between placebo and combined ramipril dose groups. Alpha of 0.027 required for the final analysis."||||0.044
84699109|NCT00389519|169139972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||two-sided, unadjusted|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||||||0.006
84699110|NCT03425539|169139976|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.42||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.23|||ANCOVA|||||1.23|-0.4|0.3189
84699111|NCT03425539|169139977|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|-873.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.53|-649.53|||ANCOVA|||||-649.53|-1097.53|<0.0001
84509971|NCT00117949|168771761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test.|||||||0.181
84699112|NCT03425539|169139978|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the terms value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.31||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|-0.53|0.4676
84699113|NCT03425539|169139979|OTHER||Win ratio|1.0||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89|||ANCOVA|||The p-value was derived from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value and stratified by sex and ERT treatment status.||1.89|0.57|0.8986
84699114|NCT00299702|169140014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Log Rank|Insufficient number of subjects who had an event for median estimation.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time to relapse||||0.684
84699115|NCT00299702|169140015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time in remission between the two treatment groups||||0.646
84699116|NCT02501629|169140117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.157||Significance at 0.05.|proportional odds model|factors for treatment group and randomization strata (age and OCS dose); baseline OCS dose and duration of OCS use prior to study were covariates.||The proportional odds ratio (reslizumab/placebo) was estimated from this model, representing the ratio of the odds of a patient outcome being in a higher OCS dose reduction category for reslizumab compared to placebo.||2.157|0.702|0.468
84699117|NCT02501629|169140118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|2.683||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.683|0.786|0.234
84699118|NCT02501629|169140119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.229||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.229|0.631|0.596
84699119|NCT02501629|169140120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.759||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.986|3.494|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Reslizumab - Placebo|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, age group, and OCS dose group, duration of OCS use and baseline value as covariates, and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for the repeated measures.||3.494|-38.986|0.101
84699120|NCT02501629|169140121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|2.562||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.562|0.722|0.341
84699121|NCT02501629|169140122|SUPERIORITY||CAE rate ratio|0.82||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors (OCS dose group), age, number of prior exacerbations, and an offset variable.|reslizumab vs placebo|||1.321|0.504|0.407
84699122|NCT02501629|169140123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.818||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||1.818|0.371|0.628
84699123|NCT02004613|169140126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.72|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial arrhythmias.||1.15|0.72|0.34
84699124|NCT02004613|169140127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.99|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||hypothesis: Dexmedetomidine may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium.||2.23|0.99|0.026
84699125|NCT02004613|169140128|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.84|0.14
84699126|NCT02004613|169140129|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.65|0.29
84699127|NCT00886613|169140133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa coefficient of agreement|0.85||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.99|||McNemar||The significance of the difference between the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 48 hours and the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 72 hours|||0.99|0.72|0.564
84699128|NCT00886613|169140135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.28|||Chi-squared||Statistical analysis for dose 2|||0.28|-0.17|0.343
84699129|NCT02072226|169140170|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Adjusted Risk Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|7.25||||||||7.25|-9.44|
84699130|NCT02072226|169140171|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.244||||||||1.244|0.527|
84699131|NCT02072226|169140172|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.393||||||||1.393|0.529|
84699132|NCT02072226|169140173|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.38||||||||7.38|0.75|
84699133|NCT02072226|169140174|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|10.07||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by site||10.07|-0.34|
84699134|NCT02072226|169140174|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|9.49||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by central reader||9.49|-1.23|
84509972|NCT00117949|168771761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.0||||||95.0|0.3|44.5||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||44.5|0.3|
84509973|NCT00117949|168771761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.8||||||95.0|48.9|87.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||87.4|48.9|
84509974|NCT00117949|168771761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.2||||||95.0|57.8|92.9||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||92.9|57.8|
84699135|NCT00810303|169140191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699136|NCT00810303|169140192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699137|NCT00810303|169140194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699138|NCT00810303|169140195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699139|NCT00810303|169140196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699140|NCT00810303|169140196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699141|NCT00810303|169140197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699142|NCT00810303|169140198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699143|NCT00810303|169140199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699144|NCT00810303|169140199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
84699145|NCT00810303|169140200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699146|NCT00810303|169140200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
84699147|NCT00810303|169140201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699148|NCT00810303|169140201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699149|NCT00810303|169140202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
84699150|NCT00810303|169140202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699151|NCT00810303|169140203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
84699152|NCT00810303|169140204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699153|NCT00810303|169140205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
84509975|NCT00117949|168771761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.2||||||95.0|32.8|74.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||74.4|32.8|
84509976|NCT00117949|168771762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.046
84509977|NCT00117949|168771762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
84509978|NCT00117949|168771762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
84509979|NCT00117949|168771762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|28.0||||||95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||41|14|
84509980|NCT00117949|168771763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.926
84509981|NCT00117949|168771763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|56.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||56|35|
84509982|NCT00117949|168771763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|84.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||84|35|
84699154|NCT00810303|169140205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
84699155|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 24 hrs||||0.181
84699156|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml||||.164
84699157|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M, 24 hrs||||.132
84699158|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||.066
84699159|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 24 hrs||||0.268
84699160|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml||||0.106
84699161|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.625
84699162|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml||||0.381
84699163|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 48 hrs||||0.549
84699164|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml, 48 hrs||||.838
84699165|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M||||0.245
84699166|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||0.417
84699167|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 48 hrs||||0.770
84699168|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.614
84699169|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristochetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.969
84699170|NCT01720043|169140206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.238
84699171|NCT02022462|169140212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change of z-scores.||||.073
84699172|NCT02022462|169140212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean z-score change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.066
84699173|NCT02022462|169140213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.983
84699174|NCT02022462|169140213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.95||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.533
84699175|NCT02022462|169140214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.731
84699176|NCT02022462|169140214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.211
84509983|NCT00117949|168771763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|100.0|||||The upper confidence interval limit could not be calculated. For technical reasons it has been entered as 100.|Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||100|35|
84699177|NCT02022462|169140215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.244
84699178|NCT02022462|169140215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.016
84699179|NCT02022462|169140216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.019
84699180|NCT02022462|169140216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.609
84699181|NCT02022462|169140217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.203
84699182|NCT02022462|169140217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.480
84699183|NCT02022462|169140218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
84699184|NCT02022462|169140218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.903|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.903
84699185|NCT02022462|169140219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.787||||0.433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.433
84699186|NCT02022462|169140219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.936|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.936
84699187|NCT02022462|169140220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change in z-scores of diet.||||.228
84699188|NCT02022462|169140220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.617
84699189|NCT02022462|169140221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.894
84699190|NCT02022462|169140221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.930
84699191|NCT02022462|169140222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.530
84699192|NCT02022462|169140222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.458
84699193|NCT02022462|169140223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
84699194|NCT02022462|169140223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.892
84699195|NCT02022462|169140224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.931
84699196|NCT02022462|169140224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.058
84699197|NCT02022462|169140225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.576
84699198|NCT02022462|169140225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.89||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.829
84699199|NCT02022462|169140226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.792
84699200|NCT02022462|169140226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.622
84699201|NCT02022462|169140227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.986||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.049
84699202|NCT02022462|169140227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.211
84699203|NCT01124162|169140228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.43|120.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.03|97.43|
84699204|NCT01124162|169140229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.93|98.57|
84699205|NCT01124162|169140230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.41|104.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.68|98.41|
84699206|NCT01124162|169140231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.24|106.06|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.06|98.24|
84699207|NCT01124162|169140232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|102.84|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.84|97.84|
84699208|NCT01124162|169140233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|102.69|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.69|97.87|
84699209|NCT03613129|169140268|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84699210|NCT03613129|169140268|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
84699211|NCT03613129|169140268|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84699212|NCT03613129|169140268|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.451
84699213|NCT03613129|169140268|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
84699214|NCT03613129|169140269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84699215|NCT03613129|169140269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
84699216|NCT03613129|169140269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84699217|NCT03613129|169140269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84699218|NCT03613129|169140269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
84699219|NCT03613129|169140270|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.587
84699220|NCT03613129|169140270|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
84699221|NCT03613129|169140270|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
84699222|NCT03613129|169140270|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
84699223|NCT03613129|169140270|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
84699224|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84699225|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
84699226|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84699227|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84699228|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84699229|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.093
84509984|NCT03676803|168771767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Firmicutes abundance between groups.||||0.033
84509985|NCT03676803|168771767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Bacteroidetes abundance between groups.||||0.097
84509986|NCT03676803|168771768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in mixed spices intervention group||||0.49
84699230|NCT00938340|169140271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84699231|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84699232|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84699233|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
84699234|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84699235|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84699236|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84699237|NCT00938340|169140272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0013
84699238|NCT00938340|169140273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||Main effect of treatment by timepoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84699239|NCT00938340|169140274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84699240|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84699241|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84699242|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84699243|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84699244|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84699245|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84699246|NCT00938340|169140275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84699247|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84699248|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84699249|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84699250|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84699251|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84509987|NCT03676803|168771768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in placebo group||||0.53
84699252|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84699253|NCT00938340|169140276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
84699254|NCT00938340|169140277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84699255|NCT00938340|169140278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84699256|NCT00938340|169140279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84699257|NCT00938340|169140280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84699258|NCT00938340|169140281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84699259|NCT00938340|169140282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
84699260|NCT00938340|169140283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84699261|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
84699262|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84699263|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84699264|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
84699265|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0087||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0087
84699266|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84699267|NCT00938340|169140284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
84699268|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84699269|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84699270|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
84699271|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
84699272|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
84699273|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84699274|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
84699275|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84699276|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
84699277|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84699278|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84699279|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84699280|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84699281|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84699282|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0089
84699283|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84699284|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84699285|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
84699286|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84699287|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84699288|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
84699289|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84699290|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84699291|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
84699292|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84699293|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
84699294|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84699295|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84699296|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
84699297|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0085
84699298|NCT00938340|169140285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
84699299|NCT02796092|169140286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming that both methods were equally effective, we did not use this primary outcome to calculate sample size. It was determined using our own retrospective data of patients from the year 2013, comparing the means of the procedure total time with both methods (41.20±4.66 vs 34.99±4.43 minutes). Ten patients in each group were considered enough to detect the above-mentioned differences with a α-error of 0.05 and 80% power, using a two-sided test.||||>0.999
84699300|NCT02796092|169140287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
84699301|NCT02796092|169140288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84699302|NCT02796092|169140289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84699303|NCT02796092|169140290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
84699304|NCT02796092|169140291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84699305|NCT02796092|169140292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84699306|NCT02796092|169140293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84699307|NCT02796092|169140294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84699308|NCT02796092|169140295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84699309|NCT02796092|169140296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84699310|NCT02796092|169140297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0499
84699311|NCT02796092|169140299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
84699312|NCT02534896|169140300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.018
84699313|NCT02534896|169140300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.007
84699314|NCT02534896|169140301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.028
84699315|NCT02534896|169140301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.003
84699316|NCT02534896|169140302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.960
84699317|NCT02534896|169140302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.339
84699318|NCT02534896|169140303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.573
84699319|NCT02534896|169140303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.374
84699320|NCT00711646|169140304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.517||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score as a covariate.||-0.004|-1.029|0.048
84699321|NCT00711646|169140305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Ashworth Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Ashworth Scale score as a covariate.||0.07|-0.29|0.218
84699322|NCT00711646|169140306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean spasm frequency score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline spasm frequency score as a covariate.||0.06|-0.39|0.141
84699323|NCT00711646|169140307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|10.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||10.07|-7.47|0.766
84699324|NCT00711646|169140308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|8.46||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|23.66|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||23.66|-6.74|0.349
84699325|NCT00711646|169140310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.86||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.78|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||7.78|-0.06|0.054
84699326|NCT01451814|169140342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.48|||Chi-squared|||||5.48|0.67|.22
84699327|NCT01451814|169140343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|22.1|||Chi-squared|||||22.1|0.84|.06
84509988|NCT00406848|168771769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in changes from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13 on the HAMD-17 Maier subscale between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.397
84699328|NCT01451814|169140344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.11|||Chi-squared|||||16.11|0.56|.18
84699329|NCT02467491|169140349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at baseline was compared with the SPPB scored after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.04
84699330|NCT02467491|169140350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention was compared with the SPPB score after 2 to 3 months from the completion of the physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.02
84699331|NCT03710564|169140359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Pairwise ANOVA|||||0.9|-2.1|0.4537
84699332|NCT00920686|169140388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6407|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6407
84509989|NCT00406848|168771770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.115
84699333|NCT03006341|169140397|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.81|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with bleeding history or predisposition as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
84699334|NCT03006341|169140399|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.02|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression model with serum creatinine as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
84699335|NCT03006341|169140401|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.04|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with duration of atrial fibrillation as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
84699336|NCT03006341|169140407|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.88|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with diabetes as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
84699337|NCT03006341|169140408|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.69|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with hyperlipidemia as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
84699338|NCT03006341|169140409|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.34|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with HAS-BLED score as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
84699339|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.3|||||RD is for retention 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||12.3|-4.3|
84699340|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.2|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||17.2|0.9|
84699341|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.1|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||9.1|1|
84699342|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||||RD is for transfer 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||1.6|-0.8|
84699343|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
84699344|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.7|-1.7|
84699345|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||RD is for death 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.2|-0.4|
84699346|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
84699347|NCT03101592|169140420|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.3|-0.3|
84699348|NCT00647348|169140425|OTHER|intention-to-treat analysis||||||0.003|||||||BBSI=brain boundary shift integral|||||||0.003
84699349|NCT00647348|169140426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.|ANCOVA|EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.||||||0.05
84699350|NCT03582956|169140458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
84699351|NCT03582956|169140459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607
84699352|NCT03582956|169140460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.466
84699353|NCT03582956|169140461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
84699354|NCT04807517|169140494|OTHER|Within-group test for 16-week change|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression||||||<0.001
84699355|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.62|-4.77|<0.0001
84699356|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-1.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.25|-3.81|0.0001
84699357|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.53|-4.13|<0.0001
84699358|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.49||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.49|-4.03|<0.0001
84699359|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference =12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.17|-3.95|0.0003
84699360|NCT04319094|169140515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of PHQ-9 over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.4375
84699361|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|6.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36 - Physical Functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.37|-3.15|0.51
84715105|NCT04119843|169176644|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.813|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.813|0.494|<0.001
84699362|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|11.21||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.21|-2.08|0.18
84699363|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.04|-4.89|0.63
84699364|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.91||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.91|-6.94|0.74
84699365|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|8.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.23|-6.82|0.85
84699366|NCT04319094|169140516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of physical functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.3988
84699367|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.79||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.79|-1.63|0.14
84699368|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|18.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.19|2.45|0.01
84699369|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|18.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.5|2.01|0.015
84699370|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|19.73|3.7|0.004
84699371|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|14.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|14.55|-3.09|0.2
84699372|NCT04319094|169140517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of social functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8037
84699373|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|22.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|22.37|2.67|0.0129
84699374|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|31.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|31.36|8.32|0.0008
84699375|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.92|30.06||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|30.06|5.92|0.0036
84699376|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|28.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|28.01|4.47|0.007
84699377|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|25.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|25.19|-0.68|0.065
84699378|NCT04319094|169140518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of emotional functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8810
84699379|NCT04319094|169140519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|F-test for overall significance|Degrees of freedom: 370||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the change in probability of ER use from baseline to post-intervention between PEERS and control participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|||0.031
84699380|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-2.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.18|-7.78|0.0005
84699381|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-3.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.69|-11.08|<0.0001
84699382|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.95|-11.3|<0.0001
84699383|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.7|-11.53|<0.0001
84699384|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-4.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.14|-12.37|<0.0001
84699385|NCT04319094|169140524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change of UCLA Loneliness score over time between control and PEERS participants||||0.6857
84699386|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.86|0.72|0.001
84699387|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.25|-0.39|0.18
84699388|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.45|-0.24|0.11
84699389|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.54|0.98|0.0006
84699390|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.95|1.01|0.001
84699391|NCT04319094|169140525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of GSES scores over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.1195
84699392|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.73|1.71|<0.0001
84699393|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.62|0.57|0.0123
84699394|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.63||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.63|0.63|0.01
84699395|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|6.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.04|2.32|<0.0001
84715106|NCT04119843|169176645|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.196|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.196|0.759|<0.001
84699396|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.44||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|5.44|0.83|0.0078
84699397|NCT04319094|169140526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change in adaptive coping over time between control and PEERS participants.||||0.1408
84699398|NCT00770211|169140553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed, if H0 was rejected at a given alpha of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value is ≤ 0.05. Power of 90%||0.56|0.40|<0.0001
84699399|NCT00318656|169140558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.064||95.0|-0.32|10.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||10.36|-0.32|0.064
84699400|NCT00318656|169140559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.923||95.0|-3.37|2.85||P value von elteren (adjusted on sex)|ANCOVA||Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||2.85|-3.37|0.923
84699401|NCT01446003|169140575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|4.56|||Linear mixed effect models|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval lies below the bound 5 mmHg, the hypothesis that change from baseline in ambulatory 24-hour mean SBP in participants with mild to moderate hypertension following 10 days of multiple dosing of MK-8457 is similar to placebo will be supported.||4.56|-0.52|
84699402|NCT01446003|169140576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.96|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||||2.96|0.19|
84699403|NCT01446003|169140577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|13.35|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||13.35|2.44|
84699404|NCT01446003|169140577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.68|3.81|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||3.81|-5.68|
84699405|NCT01446003|169140577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|9.71|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||9.71|0.81|
84699406|NCT01446003|169140577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|1.17|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||1.17|-4.55|
84699407|NCT02806895|169140599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0062
84699408|NCT02806895|169140600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0432
84699409|NCT02806895|169140601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0414
84699410|NCT02806895|169140602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
84699411|NCT02806895|169140603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1435
84699412|NCT02806895|169140604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1796
84699413|NCT02806895|169140605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1094|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1094
84699414|NCT02806895|169140606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4531
84699415|NCT02806895|169140607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3593
84699416|NCT02806895|169140608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6072|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6072
84699417|NCT02806895|169140609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
84699418|NCT02806895|169140610|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84699419|NCT02806895|169140611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84699420|NCT02806895|169140612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84699421|NCT02806895|169140613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4116
84699422|NCT02806895|169140614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1991|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1991
84699423|NCT02806895|169140615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0806
84699424|NCT02806895|169140616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9391|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9391
84699425|NCT02806895|169140617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2116
84699426|NCT02806895|169140618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1604
84699427|NCT02806895|169140619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2144
84699428|NCT02806895|169140620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0387
84699429|NCT02806895|169140621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3426
84699430|NCT02806895|169140622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1531
84699431|NCT02806895|169140623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5603|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5603
84699432|NCT02806895|169140624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4851
84699433|NCT02806895|169140625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0241
84699434|NCT02042443|169140626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.03|||Log Rank|||||4.03|1.01|0.05
84699435|NCT02735187|169140630|SUPERIORITY|A paired t-test was applied to test the primary hypothesis. In case the requirements for normality were not met, a non-parametric analysis (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was performed.||||||0.6469||||||A probability (P-Value) above 0.05 is considered not to be statistical significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6469
84699436|NCT00672256|169140694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
84699437|NCT00672256|169140695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
84699438|NCT00672256|169140696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
84699439|NCT00672256|169140697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
84699440|NCT01268891|169140711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance in showing a trend for this study is 0.10.|ANCOVA|||The power for this study, which is designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary outcome measure, is 72%.||0.23|-0.93|0.3257
84699441|NCT01268891|169140712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.65|0.0946
84699442|NCT01268891|169140713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.84|0.2258
84699443|NCT01268891|169140714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.29|0.1700
84699444|NCT00991276|169140715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.78|-18.42||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The least squares (LS) means and standard errors (SE) were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.42|-35.78|<0.0001
84699445|NCT00991276|169140715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|-18.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.32|-35.54|<0.0001
84509990|NCT00406848|168771770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
84699446|NCT00991276|169140715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|8.38||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.38|-8.72|0.9684
84699447|NCT00991276|169140716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.92||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.92|-5.44|<0.0001
84509991|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.773
84699448|NCT00991276|169140716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.01|-0.48|0.1541
84699449|NCT00991276|169140716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-3.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.21|-6.68|<0.0001
84699450|NCT00991276|169140717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|30.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|45.49||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||45.49|16.14|<0.0001
84699451|NCT00991276|169140717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|41.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||41.32|12.26|0.0004
84699452|NCT00991276|169140717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|18.41||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.41|-10.36|0.5807
84699453|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.54|-9.80|0.0076
84509992|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.084
84699454|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-6.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-6.21|-14.43|<0.0001
84699455|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|8.73||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.73|0.58|0.0257
84699456|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|34.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||34.67|10.74|0.0003
84699457|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-2.59||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.59|-26.35|0.0174
84699458|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|37.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|48.96||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||48.96|25.38|<0.0001
84699459|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|29.25||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||29.25|12.61|<0.0001
84699460|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.83|40.36||This analysis was step 4 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||40.36|23.83|<0.0001
84699461|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|-2.97||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.97|-19.37|0.0080
84699462|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|0.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.67|-10.61|0.0834
84509993|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||p-value is for Maier subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.059
84509994|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.488
84509995|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.048
84699463|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|24.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||24.19|12.99|<0.0001
84699464|NCT00991276|169140718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-18.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.01|-29.12|<0.0001
84699465|NCT00991276|169140719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.72||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.72|-4.63|0.0077
84699466|NCT00991276|169140719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-5.93||This analysis was step 5 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.93|-9.81|<0.0001
84699467|NCT00991276|169140719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|7.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.12|3.27|<0.0001
84699468|NCT00991276|169140720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-0.26||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.26|-10.44|0.0396
84509996|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.529
84509997|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.027
84509998|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.749
84699469|NCT00991276|169140720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|0.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.14|-9.95|0.0568
84699470|NCT00991276|169140720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|4.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.54|-5.44|0.8589
84699471|NCT00991276|169140721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-8.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.74|-20.26|<0.0001
84699472|NCT00991276|169140721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|17.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.04|5.65|0.0001
84699473|NCT00991276|169140721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-20.17||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.17|-31.51|<0.0001
84699474|NCT00991276|169140722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|-8.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.22|-20.84|<0.0001
84699475|NCT00991276|169140722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|20.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||20.67|8.18|<0.0001
84699476|NCT00991276|169140722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.16|-22.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-22.74|-35.16|<0.0001
84699477|NCT00991276|169140723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.80|-3.93|<0.0001
84699478|NCT00991276|169140723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-3.65||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.65|-5.76|<0.0001
84699479|NCT00991276|169140723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.89||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.89|0.79|0.0007
84699480|NCT00991276|169140724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.12|-5.02|0.0617
84699481|NCT00991276|169140724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-3.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.80|-8.91|<0.0001
84699482|NCT00991276|169140724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|6.44||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.44|1.37|0.0028
84699483|NCT00991276|169140725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.21|-1.17|0.0056
84699484|NCT00991276|169140725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.95|-1.90|<0.0001
84699485|NCT00991276|169140725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.21|0.26|0.0026
84699486|NCT00991276|169140726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.09|-8.10|<0.0001
84699487|NCT00991276|169140726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.07||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.07|-5.07|0.0029
84699488|NCT00991276|169140726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.04|-5.02|0.0032
84699489|NCT00991276|169140728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|25.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||25.95|-4.56|0.1677
84699490|NCT00991276|169140728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|-20.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.66|-50.88|<0.0001
84509999|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.296
84510000|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.984
84510001|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.930
84699491|NCT00991276|169140728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|61.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||61.48|31.45|<0.0001
84510002|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.934
84510003|NCT00406848|168771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.123
84510004|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.034
84699492|NCT00991276|169140729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.61||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.61|-17.07|0.1040
84510005|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain - Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.100
84699493|NCT00991276|169140729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.9325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.87|-9.67|0.9325
84699494|NCT00991276|169140729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.1175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.87|-16.54|0.1175
84510006|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.009
84510007|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.126
84510008|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84510009|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
84510010|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.016
84699495|NCT00991276|169140730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-15.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-15.18|-32.78|<0.0001
84699496|NCT00991276|169140730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-16.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-16.02|-33.46|<0.0001
84699497|NCT00991276|169140730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.43||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.43|-7.90|0.8622
84699498|NCT00991276|169140731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.40|-7.00|0.0800
84699499|NCT00991276|169140731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|1.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.39|-5.95|0.2209
84699500|NCT00991276|169140731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.63||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.63|-4.66|0.5815
84699501|NCT00991276|169140732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|43.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||43.42|22.02|<0.0001
84699502|NCT00991276|169140732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.22|36.49||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||36.49|15.22|<0.0001
84699503|NCT00991276|169140732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|17.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.42|-3.69|0.2005
84510011|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.058
84699504|NCT00991276|169140733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|9.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.02|4.57|<0.0001
84699505|NCT00991276|169140733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|7.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.45|3.02|<0.0001
84699506|NCT00991276|169140733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.75||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.75|-0.64|0.1622
84699507|NCT00991276|169140740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.47|-1.18|<0.0001
84699508|NCT00991276|169140740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.0001
84699509|NCT00991276|169140740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.48|-0.22|0.4677
84699510|NCT00991276|169140741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-14.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-14.80|-35.83|<0.0001
84699511|NCT00991276|169140741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-18.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.02|-38.89|<0.0001
84699512|NCT00991276|169140741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|13.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||13.40|-7.13|0.5461
84699513|NCT00991276|169140742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.45|0.63|<0.0001
84510012|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.011
84510013|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.060
84699514|NCT00991276|169140742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.46|0.65|<0.0001
84699515|NCT00991276|169140742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.39|-0.42|0.9403
84699516|NCT00991276|169140743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-1.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.14|-14.03|0.0215
84699517|NCT00991276|169140743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|8.29||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.29|-4.49|0.5569
84510014|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84699518|NCT00991276|169140743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|-3.16||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.16|-15.81|0.0036
84510015|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
84510016|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.019
84510017|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.040
84699519|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.27|-2.85|0.6947
84699520|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|2.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.02|-5.06|0.3980
84699521|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.76||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.76|-1.30|0.2144
84510018|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
84510019|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.014
84699522|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|22.08||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||22.08|6.25|0.0006
84699523|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.92||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.92|3.22|0.0061
84699524|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|10.93||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||10.93|-4.72|0.4342
84699525|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.66|-6.53|0.2420
84699526|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.02|-4.12|0.9810
84699527|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.67|-6.44|0.2468
84699528|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.09|-0.17|0.1496
84699529|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.55|-0.69|0.8184
84699530|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.15|-0.09|0.0918
84699531|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.99||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.99|-14.80|0.0001
84510020|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
84510021|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
84699532|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.67|-11.42|0.0089
84699533|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.51|-8.21|0.1746
84699534|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.32|-14.96|<0.0001
84699535|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.34||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.34|-9.91|0.0359
84699536|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-0.24||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.24|-9.78|0.0395
84699537|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|0.02|0.0278
84699538|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2||95.0|-0.04|0.2||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.20|-0.04|0.2000
84699539|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.06|0.3396
84699540|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-8.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.19|-20.93|<0.0001
84699541|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|0.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.22|-12.43|0.0584
84699542|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-2.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.15|-14.76|0.0090
84699543|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.82||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.82|-7.20|0.2405
84699544|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|3.77||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.77|-5.18|0.7565
84699545|NCT00991276|169140744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|2.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.47|-6.43|0.3792
84699546|NCT00991276|169140745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|8.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.55|1.98|0.0019
84699547|NCT00991276|169140745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|6.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.51|-0.01|0.0506
84699548|NCT00991276|169140745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.26||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.26|-1.24|0.2222
84699549|NCT03441984|169140753|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|1.8373|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented|||1.8373|1.5690|
84699550|NCT03441984|169140753|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2465|1.4647|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4647|1.2465|
84699551|NCT03441984|169140753|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2541|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1569|1.3595|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented|||1.3595|1.1569|
84699552|NCT03441984|169140754|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5685|1.8428|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8428|1.5685|
84699553|NCT03441984|169140754|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2475|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4650|1.2475|
84699554|NCT03441984|169140754|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2576|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1605|1.3629|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3629|1.1605|
84699555|NCT03441984|169140755|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5983|1.8904|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8904|1.5983|
84699556|NCT03441984|169140755|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2525|1.4798|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4798|1.2525|
84699557|NCT03441984|169140755|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1746|1.3878|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3878|1.1746|
84699558|NCT03441984|169140756|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0118|1.0704|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0704|1.0118|
84699559|NCT03441984|169140756|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9944|1.052|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0520|0.9944|
84699560|NCT03441984|169140756|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9893|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9893|
84699561|NCT03441984|169140757|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0121|1.0708|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0708|1.0121|
84699562|NCT03441984|169140757|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9948|1.0524|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0524|0.9948|
84699563|NCT03441984|169140757|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9892|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9892|
84699564|NCT03441984|169140758|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.1223|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.1223|0.9885|
84699565|NCT03441984|169140758|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9167|1.0405|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0405|0.9167|
84699566|NCT03441984|169140758|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0123|1.149|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1490|1.0123|
84699567|NCT03441984|169140759|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9536|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9536|
84699568|NCT03441984|169140759|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9039|0.9939|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9939|0.9039|
84699569|NCT03441984|169140759|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0061|1.1063|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1063|1.0061|
84699570|NCT03441984|169140760|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9525|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9525|
84699571|NCT03441984|169140760|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9432|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.9896|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9896|0.8990|
84699572|NCT03441984|169140760|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0099|1.1117|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1117|1.0099|
84699573|NCT03441984|169140761|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8677|1.0101|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0101|0.8677|
84699574|NCT03441984|169140761|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8416|0.9795|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9795|0.8416|
84699575|NCT03441984|169140761|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9558|1.1124|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1124|0.9558|
84699576|NCT03441984|169140762|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4649|1.8449|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8449|1.4649|
84699577|NCT03441984|169140762|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1315|1.425|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4250|1.1315|
84699578|NCT03441984|169140762|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1536|1.4529|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4529|1.1536|
84699579|NCT03441984|169140763|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4709|1.8685|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8685|1.4709|
84699580|NCT03441984|169140763|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1317|1.4375|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4375|1.1317|
84699581|NCT03441984|169140763|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1533|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4650|1.1533|
84699582|NCT03441984|169140764|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7585|2.2201|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||2.2201|1.7585|
84699583|NCT03441984|169140764|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1457|1.4465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4465|1.1457|
84699584|NCT03441984|169140764|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.7245|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.7245|1.3660|
84699585|NCT03441984|169140765|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.0389|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0389|0.9241|
84699586|NCT03441984|169140765|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9605|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9059|1.0185|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0185|0.9059|
84699587|NCT03441984|169140765|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9633|1.0802|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0802|0.9633|
84699588|NCT03441984|169140766|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9243|1.0457|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0457|0.9243|
84699589|NCT03441984|169140766|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9121|1.032|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0320|0.9121|
84699590|NCT03441984|169140766|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.0779|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0779|0.9527|
84699591|NCT03441984|169140767|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8196|1.0102|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0102|0.8196|
84699592|NCT03441984|169140767|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9198|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8285|1.0212|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0212|0.8285|
84699593|NCT03441984|169140767|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8911|1.0983|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0983|0.8911|
84699594|NCT03441984|169140773|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5131|1.8|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8000|1.5131|
84699595|NCT03441984|169140773|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2381|1.4722|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4722|1.2381|
84699596|NCT03441984|169140773|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.121|1.333|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3330|1.1210|
84699597|NCT03441984|169140782|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0251|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.2392|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2392|0.8480|
84699598|NCT03441984|169140782|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7592|1.1103|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1103|0.7592|
84699599|NCT03441984|169140782|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9376|1.3295|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) is presented|||1.3295|0.9376|
84699600|NCT03441984|169140790|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9904|1.1873|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1873|0.9904|
84699601|NCT03441984|169140790|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.2379|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2379|1.0334|
84699602|NCT03441984|169140790|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.0493|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0493|0.8760|
84699603|NCT03441984|169140798|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3678|1.7835|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.7835|1.3678|
84699604|NCT03441984|169140798|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.253|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0973|1.4307|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4307|1.0973|
84699605|NCT03441984|169140798|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2466|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0917|1.4234|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4234|1.0917|
84699606|NCT03441984|169140807|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.1549|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1549|0.9997|
84699607|NCT03441984|169140807|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9961|1.1507|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.1507|0.9961|
84699608|NCT03441984|169140807|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9338|1.0787|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0787|0.9338|
84699609|NCT03124108|169140878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-52.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-41.5|||ANCOVA|||||-41.5|-62.5|<0.001
84699610|NCT03124108|169140878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-32.1|||ANCOVA|||||-32.1|-55.7|<0.001
84699611|NCT01219855|169140931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z-test cmpared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.0001
84699612|NCT01219855|169140932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
84510022|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.015
84699613|NCT01219855|169140933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
84699614|NCT01219855|169140933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
84699615|NCT01219855|169140934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
84699616|NCT01219855|169140935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.05
84699617|NCT01219855|169140936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||The proportion of subjects achieving a ≥20% decrease in plasma iPTH at EOT was greater in the CTAP101 Capsules 60 and 90 μg groups compared to the corresponding placebo group.||||<0.001
84699618|NCT04939428|169140977|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-2.0|||=|0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.9|-5|= 0.0848
84699619|NCT04939428|169140978|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided.|Confidence Interval|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||2.0|-4.8|
84699620|NCT04939428|169140979|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided|Confidence Interval|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.0|-0.4|
84699621|NCT04939428|169140980|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-3.2|||=|0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||-0.1|-6.3|= 0.0205
84699622|NCT04939428|169140981|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Confidence Interval|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||1.0|-5.4|
84699623|NCT04939428|169140982|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals|Confidence Interval|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.8||||||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.8|-6.9|
84699624|NCT04939428|169140983|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||2.0|-22.7|
84699625|NCT05096117|169140984|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.178||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
84699626|NCT03184428|169141050|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman's rank-order correlation|Bonferroni adjustment in addition||||||<0.05
84699627|NCT00561574|169141053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699628|NCT00561574|169141053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699629|NCT00561574|169141054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699630|NCT00561574|169141054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699631|NCT00561574|169141055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699632|NCT00561574|169141055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699633|NCT00561574|169141056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3129||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3129
84699634|NCT00561574|169141056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3154||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3154
84699635|NCT00561574|169141057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699636|NCT00561574|169141057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699637|NCT00561574|169141058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699638|NCT00561574|169141058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699639|NCT00561574|169141059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84699640|NCT00561574|169141059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84699641|NCT00561574|169141060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0116
84699642|NCT00561574|169141060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
84699643|NCT03860077|169141064|SUPERIORITY|Average cigarettes per day was positively skewed, with a non-normal residual distribution in a mixed model analysis specifying a normal (Gaussian) outcome distribution. Therefore, this outcome was recoded to integers and modeled as a count with a negative binomial distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = 0.35.|These are results of a 2-group (VLNC \& NNC) x 2 repeated measures (Baseline \& Week 4) mixed effects model to test the effect of the randomization group (VLNC vs. NNC) on change in cigarette use and alternative tobacco product (ATP) use from Baseline to Week 4. Group (VLNC vs. NNC) is a fixed, between-subjects focal predictor. Timepoint (Baseline vs. Week 4) is a fixed, within-subjects repeated measure. Subject is a random effect, accounting for variability in Baseline cigarette and ATP use.||2.19|0.92|.111
84699644|NCT03860077|169141065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.34.|This outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.||4.75|.11|.721
84699645|NCT03860077|169141066|SUPERIORITY|Frequencies of non-combustible alternative product use (ATP) were bimodal with peaks at 0 (no use) and 7 (daily use). Therefore, this outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.56.|||3.99|.08|.564
84699646|NCT03860077|169141067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study cigarette outcome is modeled with a normal, Gaussian distribution. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group. Baseline in this analysis is average number of usual brand cigarettes at baseline, prior to randomization.||3.42|-2.92|.876
84699647|NCT03860077|169141068|SUPERIORITY|The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Slope|-2166.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1753.48||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5743.04|1409.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1409.47|-5743.04|.226
84699648|NCT00430677|169141130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.03||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.03|0.60|0.746
84699649|NCT00430677|169141130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.83|0.89|0.118
84699650|NCT00430677|169141133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.78|0.91|
84699651|NCT00430677|169141133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.77|0.91|
84699652|NCT00430677|169141139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|21.3||||||||21.3|0.68|
84699653|NCT00430677|169141139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.59||||||||1.59|0.49|
84699654|NCT00430677|169141141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.19|-0.13|
84699655|NCT00430677|169141141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.14|-0.18|
84699656|NCT00946192|169141193|OTHER|Least square means||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
84699657|NCT00946192|169141194|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84699658|NCT02014558|169141197|OTHER||Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.19||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||1.19|0.788|
84699659|NCT02014558|169141197|OTHER||Slope|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.43||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.43|1.00|
84699660|NCT02014558|169141198|OTHER||Slope|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|0.988||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||0.988|0.629|
84699661|NCT02014558|169141198|OTHER||Slope|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.41||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.41|1.02|
84699662|NCT02014558|169141236|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.82|240.48||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of least squares (LS) means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||240.48|49.82|
84699663|NCT02014558|169141237|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|149.9||||||90.0|74.88|300.06||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||300.06|74.88|
84699664|NCT02014558|169141238|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|179.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||179.25|69.54|
84699665|NCT02014558|169141239|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.41|210.52||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||210.52|72.41|
84699666|NCT02014558|169141244|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.29|117.26||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||117.26|75.29|
84699667|NCT02014558|169141245|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.6|112.12||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||112.12|74.60|
84699668|NCT02014558|169141246|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.19|128.7||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||128.70|74.19|
84699669|NCT02014558|169141249|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|106.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|132.81||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||132.81|85.28|
84699670|NCT02014558|169141251|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|83.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.53|151.39||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||151.39|46.53|
84699671|NCT02014558|169141253|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|82.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.25|170.48||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||170.48|40.25|
84510023|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.005
84699672|NCT05460663|169141267|EQUIVALENCE|Paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare changes at 12-week, 18-week, or 24-week follow-ups from the baseline scores for all measurements in each training modality separately and combined. Comparisons were made with participants who had data at both baseline and the follow-up. Difference-in-difference comparison of changes between two training modalities at each follow-up from the baseline were made to assess differences between CBT and in-person training.||||||0.083||||||The reported P-value is for differences between groups at 24-weeks post-intervention.The Benjamini \& Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for the false-discovery rate among all pairwise pre-post comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.083
84510024|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84510025|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84699673|NCT04159506|169141365|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||||||<0.05
84699674|NCT04159506|169141366|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
84699675|NCT04159506|169141367|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
84699676|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 1.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699677|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 14.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699678|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 31.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699679|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 10.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699680|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 18.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699681|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 26.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699682|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 34.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699683|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 42.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699684|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 50.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699685|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 58.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699686|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 70.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699687|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 82.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699688|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 94.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699689|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 106.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699690|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 118.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699691|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 130.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699692|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 142.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699693|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 154.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699694|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 166.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699695|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 178.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699696|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 190.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699697|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 202.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699698|NCT02449044|169141373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 214.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
84699699|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.4922
84699700|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.1054
84699701|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.7656
84699702|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.7084
84699703|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.5138
84699704|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.7175
84699705|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.3540
84699706|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0852
84699707|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.1923
84699708|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2335
84510026|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
84699709|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.1346
84699710|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.5237
84699711|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 118||||0.3476
84699712|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 130||||0.2488
84699713|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.1598
84699714|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 154||||0.2820
84699715|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.3743
84510027|NCT00406848|168771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
84699716|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.3600
84699717|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3101
84699718|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 202||||0.0269
84699719|NCT02449044|169141380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.0944
84699720|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.1739
84699721|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.6095
84699722|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6902
84699723|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.6340
84699724|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.3210
84699725|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.7787
84699726|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.2198
84699727|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.1926
84699728|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3109|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.3109
84699729|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.2269
84699730|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2749
84699731|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0702
84699732|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0412
84699733|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4448|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.4448
84699734|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6233
84699735|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.1001
84699736|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3739
84699737|NCT02449044|169141381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3334
84699738|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.2575
84699739|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.2715
84699740|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6860
84699741|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.0224
84699742|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.1871
84699743|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.0039
84699744|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.0325
84699745|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.0631
84699746|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0277
84699747|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.0128
84699748|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.0164
84699749|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0119
84699750|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0013
84699751|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.6691
84510028|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.005
84699752|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6923
84699753|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.9292
84699754|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.4401
84699755|NCT02449044|169141382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3609
84699756|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.023|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.023|-2.190|0.993
84699757|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.229|0.499
84699758|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|3.485|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.485|-0.729|0.578
84699759|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.552|0.629|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||0.629|-3.552|0.523
84699760|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.127|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.127|-2.7|0.471
84699761|NCT02501811|169141387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.59|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.590|-1.240|0.485
84699762|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|1.887|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.887|-2.406|0.942
84699763|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.815|2.975|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.975|-1.815|0.282
84699764|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.310|0.163
84699765|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|0.628|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.628|-2.471|0.175
84699766|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|1.254|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.254|-2.932|0.329
84699767|NCT02501811|169141388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|1.994|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.994|-1.829|0.752
84699768|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|1.927|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.927|-1.118|0.733
84699769|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|2.041|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.041|-1.248|0.735
84699770|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|1.767|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.767|-1.464|0.794
84699771|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.161|1.666|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.666|-1.161|0.951
84699772|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.441|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.441|0.962
84699773|NCT02501811|169141389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.793|1.303|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.303|-1.793|0.945
84699774|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.754|5.711|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.711|-9.754|0.602
84699775|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.609|4.044|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.044|-9.609|0.443
84699776|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|2.76|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.760|-11.011|0.348
84699777|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|9.968|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.968|-5.760|0.812
84699778|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.052|8.574|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.574|-7.052|0.900
84699779|NCT02501811|169141390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.321|5.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.635|-8.321|0.848
84699780|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.281|4.789|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.789|-7.281|0.659
84699781|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.621|3.71|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.710|-8.621|0.466
84699782|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.799|1.594|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.594|-10.799|0.293
84510029|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.204
84699783|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.795|9.508|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.508|-2.795|0.530
84699784|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|7.33|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||7.330|-4.910|0.761
84699785|NCT02501811|169141391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.426|4.132|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.132|-8.426|0.669
84699786|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.040|-0.048|0.989
84699787|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.033|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.033|-0.056|0.493
84699788|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.039|-0.053|0.926
84699789|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.047|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.047|-0.041|0.904
84699790|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.049|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.049|-0.035|0.476
84699791|NCT02501811|169141392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.048|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.048|-0.040|0.515
84699792|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.687|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.687|-1.770|0.569
84699793|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.792|0.767
84699794|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|0.921|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.921|-1.965|0.261
84699795|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|2.222|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.222|-1.261|0.587
84699796|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|2.014|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.014|-1.763|0.994
84699797|NCT02501811|169141393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|1.283|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.283|-1.993|0.639
84699798|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.437|3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.319|-2.437|0.992
84699799|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|2.643|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.643|-2.278|0.862
84699800|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.846|1.443|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.443|-3.846|0.217
84699801|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|4.611|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||4.611|-1.325|0.327
84699802|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|3.068|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.068|-2.551|0.859
84699803|NCT02501811|169141394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.952|1.184|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.184|-3.952|0.338
84699804|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|0.411|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.411|-2.456|0.157
84699805|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|0.859|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.859|-2.798|0.428
84699806|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.093|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.093|-0.83|0.382
84699807|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.255|-0.052|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.052|-3.255|0.056
84699808|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|1.885|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.885|-1.991|0.610
84699809|NCT02501811|169141395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|3.557|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.557|-0.356|0.195
84699810|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.537|56.687|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||56.687|-19.537|0.348
84699811|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.759|59.134|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||59.134|-12.759|0.230
84510030|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.078
84699812|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.21||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.974|34.361|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||34.361|-30.974|0.905
84699813|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.98||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.267|49.03|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||49.030|-15.267|0.335
84699814|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.106|30.88|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||30.880|-40.106|0.827
84699815|NCT02501811|169141396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.989|8.001|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.001|-50.989|0.163
84699816|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.915|-0.357|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.357|-18.915|0.023
84699817|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.871|-3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-3.319|-26.871|0.050
84699818|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.784|8.836|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.836|-14.784|0.119
84699819|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.087|4.762|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.762|-18.087|0.845
84699820|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.931|16.848|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||16.848|-5.931|0.976
84699821|NCT02501811|169141397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|25.578|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||25.578|-1.337|0.717
84699822|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1411.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|840.6||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3108.3|284.9|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||284.9|-3108.3|0.110
84699823|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-634.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|405.1||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1460.7|191.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||191.4|-1460.7|0.112
84699824|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-483.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.7||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1301.5|335.2|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||335.2|-1301.5|0.891
84699825|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-928.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|754.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.7|613.6|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||613.6|-2470.7|0.009
84699826|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|756.5||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2323.2|769.1|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||769.1|-2323.2|0.661
84699827|NCT02501811|169141398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.4|478.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||478.4|-175.4|0.015
84699828|NCT02501811|169141399|OTHER||slope of time|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported||||0.269
84699829|NCT02501811|169141400|OTHER||slope of time|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.361|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.361
84699830|NCT02501811|169141401|OTHER||slope of time|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.107|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.107
84699831|NCT02501811|169141402|OTHER||slope of time|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.095
84699832|NCT02501811|169141403|OTHER||slope of time|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.379
84699833|NCT02501811|169141404|OTHER||slope of time|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.401
84699834|NCT02501811|169141405|OTHER||slope of time|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.126
84699835|NCT02501811|169141406|OTHER||slope of time|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.139
84699836|NCT02501811|169141407|OTHER||slope of time|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.472|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.472
84699837|NCT02501811|169141408|OTHER||slope of time|6.544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.025
84699838|NCT02501811|169141409|OTHER||slope with interaction|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.037
84699839|NCT02501811|169141409|OTHER||slope with interaction|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.035
84699840|NCT02501811|169141410|OTHER||slope of time|84.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.81||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.092
84699841|NCT00662909|169141421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.66|0.026
84699842|NCT00662909|169141421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.18||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.18|-0.82|<0.001
84699843|NCT00662909|169141422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.98|0.001
84699844|NCT00662909|169141422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.33||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.33|-1.07|<0.001
84699845|NCT00662909|169141423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|17.9||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.9|4.4|0.001
84699846|NCT00662909|169141423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.7|4.2|0.002
84699847|NCT00662909|169141424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.15|-0.80|0.003
84699848|NCT00662909|169141424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.13||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.79|<0.001
84699849|NCT00662909|169141425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.77|0.022
84699850|NCT00662909|169141425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
84715107|NCT04119843|169176645|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.909|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.267|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.267|0.766|<0.001
84715108|NCT04119843|169176645|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.985|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.985|0.638|<0.001
84715109|NCT04119843|169176647|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.805|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.971|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||0.971|0.555|<0.001
84715110|NCT04119843|169176647|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.054|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.054|0.464|<0.001
84699851|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.016
84699852|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
84699853|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.012
84699854|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
84699855|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.500
84699856|NCT02162446|169141477|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
84699857|NCT02162446|169141479|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.250
84699858|NCT02162446|169141479|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
84699859|NCT02162446|169141479|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.688
84699860|NCT02162446|169141479|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.578
84699861|NCT02162446|169141480|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.027
84699862|NCT02162446|169141480|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
84699863|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.064
84699864|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.339
84699865|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.001
84699866|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.000
84699867|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
84699868|NCT02162446|169141481|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
84699869|NCT02162446|169141482|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.470
84699870|NCT02162446|169141482|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.233
84699871|NCT02162446|169141482|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
84699872|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
84699873|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
84699874|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.426
84699875|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.098
84699876|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
84699877|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
84699878|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
84699879|NCT02162446|169141483|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.469
84699880|NCT02162446|169141484|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.910
84699881|NCT02162446|169141484|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.039
84699882|NCT02162446|169141484|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
84699883|NCT02162446|169141484|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
84699884|NCT00762463|169141530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean difference calculated as LS mean change for Celecoxib 200 mg once daily minus LS mean change for Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<10 mm.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); factors: treatment group and study center; covariate: baseline Patient's Assessment of Global Pain Intensity score.||"Null hypothesis: Least Squares (LS) mean difference between Celecoxib 200 mg once daily versus Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily on change in Global Pain Intensity from baseline to Week 6 was at least 10 mm. Corresponding alternative hypothesis: This difference was \<10 mm.~For the non-inferiority test, power was 80% and significance level was 0.025 (1-sided)."||8.8|-2.2|0.0085
84699885|NCT00762463|169141532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||4.2|-5.6|0.7849
84699886|NCT00762463|169141532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.8|-2.6|0.3223
84699887|NCT00762463|169141534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.17|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.17|-0.15|0.8938
84699888|NCT00762463|169141534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.31|0.01|0.0426
84699889|NCT00762463|169141534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.29|-0.05|0.1502
84699890|NCT00762463|169141536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.1|-0.2|0.5945
84699891|NCT00762463|169141536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.3427
84699892|NCT00762463|169141536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.6522
84699893|NCT00762463|169141538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.3|0.9358
84699894|NCT00762463|169141538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.5916
84699895|NCT00762463|169141538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.7|-0.1|0.1790
84699896|NCT00762463|169141540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.6335
84699897|NCT00762463|169141540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.6|-0.2|0.2729
84699898|NCT00762463|169141540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.8|-0.1|0.1559
84699899|NCT00762463|169141543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.0|0.1111
84699900|NCT00762463|169141543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.9|-2.9|0.3574
84699901|NCT00762463|169141543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.4|0.1464
84699902|NCT00762463|169141545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||1.8|-1.7|0.9641
84699903|NCT00762463|169141545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7749
84699904|NCT00762463|169141545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7529
84699905|NCT00762463|169141547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.2|0.8780
84699906|NCT00762463|169141547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.1|0.2202
84699907|NCT00762463|169141547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.2|0.5340
84699908|NCT00762463|169141549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.9|-4.3|0.7003
84699909|NCT00762463|169141551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|2.94|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.94|-5.82|0.5183
84699910|NCT00531479|169141556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|1.51||P-value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||The 95% CI was based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the KM estimator.|All-cause mortality calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) product limit estimator on Day 42 (Week 6) within each stratum and weighted by the harmonic mean of the sample sizes in the strata. Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables were site of infection and host factors.||1.51|-18.99|0.0434
84699911|NCT00531479|169141557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.15||P-value for global response was to be reported only if Week 6 mortality was significant.|||95% confidence interval based on the difference in success rates using the normal approximation to the binoial distribution.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.15|-21.6|
84699912|NCT00531479|169141558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|5.56||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||5.56|-10.77|0.2611
84699913|NCT00531479|169141559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.18||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.09||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence intervalbased on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.09|-21.44|0.0383
84699914|NCT00531479|169141560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|3.42||P-Value based on a one-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||3.42|-15.9|0.1029
84699915|NCT00531479|169141561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio: hazard of death in the Voriconazole/Anidulafungin arm relative to the Voriconazole/Placebo arm, adjusted for host factor status and site of infection. Participants who died beyond Day 84 were censored.||1.04|0.46|0.083
84699916|NCT00531479|169141562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula.|Analysis based on Cox proportional hazards model. Participants who died beyond day 84 were censored.||1.16|0.40|0.164
84699917|NCT04358549|169141566|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0415
84699918|NCT04358549|169141567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.24||||||||2.240|0.190|
84699919|NCT04358549|169141568|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9879
84699920|NCT01107626|169141637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.12
84699921|NCT01107626|169141637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.28
84715111|NCT04119843|169176647|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.747|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.747|0.429|<0.001
84699922|NCT04310579|169141645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||2.5||0.22
84699923|NCT04310579|169141646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.6||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-0.6||0.01
84699924|NCT04310579|169141646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.8||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||2.8||0.28
84699925|NCT04310579|169141647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.3||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.3||<0.001
84715112|NCT04119843|169176648|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.166|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.166|0.726|<0.001
84699926|NCT04310579|169141647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.2||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||3.2||0.37
84699927|NCT04310579|169141648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||-2.5||0.005
84699928|NCT04310579|169141648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of midazolam compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of midazolam compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||3.7||0.37
84699929|NCT04310579|169141649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.9||<0.001
84699930|NCT04310579|169141649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.4||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of quetiapine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of quetiapine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||6.4||0.67
84699931|NCT04310579|169141651|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.96|0.33
84699932|NCT04310579|169141651|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.37||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.37|1.14|<0.001
84699933|NCT04310579|169141652|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.43||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.43|1.19|<0.001
84699934|NCT04310579|169141652|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.57||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.57|1.22|<0.001
84699935|NCT04310579|169141654|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.91|0.64
84699936|NCT04310579|169141654|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.15||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.15|0.98|0.24
84699937|NCT04310579|169141655|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.19||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.19|1.02|0.05
84699938|NCT04310579|169141655|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.36||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.36|1.19|<0.001
84699939|NCT01970943|169141688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6078||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84699940|NCT01970943|169141690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037786||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84699941|NCT02219490|169141691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84699942|NCT02219490|169141691|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
84699943|NCT02219490|169141692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84699944|NCT02219490|169141692|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
84699945|NCT02219490|169141693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84699946|NCT02219490|169141693|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
84699947|NCT02219490|169141694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
84699948|NCT02219490|169141694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
84699949|NCT02219490|169141695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
84699950|NCT02219490|169141695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
84699951|NCT02219490|169141696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84699952|NCT02219490|169141696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
84699953|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.37|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Final Treatment Visit~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||2.37|-0.37|0.151
84699954|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.4|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 12~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.4|-1.64|0.878
84699955|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.48|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 24~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.48|-2.33|=0.199
84699956|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 52~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.33|-4|0.021
84699957|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.71|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 104~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.71|-4.22|0.006
84699958|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.79|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 156~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.79|-4.38|0.005
84699959|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.59|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 208~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.59|-3.32|0.172
84699960|NCT02219490|169141697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.1|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 260~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.1|-3.35|0.322
84699961|NCT00335556|169141699|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|5.419||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage II-IV diffuse anaplastic Wilms' tumor on AREN0321 and NWTS-5 (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0199
84699962|NCT00335556|169141700|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.8814||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients with Stage I-IV malignant rhabdoid tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3478
84699963|NCT00335556|169141702|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.6216||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage I focal and diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0570
84699964|NCT03736785|169141722|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84699965|NCT03736785|169141722|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84699966|NCT03736785|169141722|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84699967|NCT03736785|169141723|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.11|
84699968|NCT03736785|169141723|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.10|
84699969|NCT02974010|169141730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||BDM LS difference overall|Mixed Models Analysis|BDM LS difference overall||||||.03
84699970|NCT00320489|169141736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.612
84699971|NCT00320489|169141737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||P-Value is for change from baseline at Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.649
84699972|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.744
84699973|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.653
84699974|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.640
84699975|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Physical.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.454
84699976|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Bodily Pain.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.135
84699977|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in General Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.229
84699978|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Vitality.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.594
84699979|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Social Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.256
84699980|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Emotional.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.775
84699981|NCT00320489|169141738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.781
84699982|NCT00320489|169141739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.465
84699983|NCT00320489|169141740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.581
84699984|NCT00320489|169141743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is type III p-value of ANOVA model: Total number of hospitalization days = Therapy.||||||0.020
84699985|NCT00320489|169141744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-5) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.583
84699986|NCT00320489|169141744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-4) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.747
84699987|NCT00320489|169141745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.371
84699988|NCT00320489|169141746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0||||P-value is fro change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.681
84699989|NCT00320489|169141747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for overall satisfaction with current medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.60
84699990|NCT00320489|169141747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for preference current/previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit||||||.258
84699991|NCT00320489|169141747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-value is for side effects - current vs previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.492
84699992|NCT00320489|169141748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.854
84699993|NCT00320489|169141749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.600
84699994|NCT00320489|169141750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.282
84699995|NCT00320489|169141751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.834
84699996|NCT00320489|169141751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.871
84699997|NCT00320489|169141751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.692
84699998|NCT00320489|169141751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.893
84699999|NCT00320489|169141752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.585
84700000|NCT00320489|169141753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
84700001|NCT00320489|169141754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.952
84700002|NCT00320489|169141756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = baseline, treatment, and investigator.||||||0.777
84700003|NCT00320489|169141757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.530
84700004|NCT00320489|169141758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.258
84700005|NCT00320489|169141758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for fasting total cholesterol.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.688
84700006|NCT00320489|169141758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||P-value is for fasting triglycerides.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.908
84700007|NCT00320489|169141759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.835
84700008|NCT00320489|169141760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for ALT.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.834
84700009|NCT00320489|169141760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value is for AST.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
84700010|NCT00320489|169141760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||P-value is for total bilirubin.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
84700011|NCT00320489|169141761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.885
84700012|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
84700013|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|34.2|||Fisher Exact|||||34.2|-8.2|0.2631
84700014|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.3||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|48.2|||Fisher Exact|||||48.2|1.8|0.0197
84700015|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.7||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|11.8|||Fisher Exact|||||11.8|-26.3|0.7186
84700016|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact|||||32.7|-5.5|0.2184
84700017|NCT03852433|169141786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-20.0||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-36.1|0.0283
84700018|NCT03852433|169141789|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44.0|6.0|0.0134
84700019|NCT03852433|169141790|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.1|||Fisher Exact|||||45.1|8.2|0.0049
84700020|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
84700021|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-22.8|1.0000
84700022|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|42.2|||Fisher Exact|||||42.2|-5.3|0.1265
84700023|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.0||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|5.4|||Fisher Exact|||||5.4|-35.3|0.1863
84700024|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||||38.2|1.0|0.0601
84700025|NCT03852433|169141791|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-14.0||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||||1.7|-29.9|0.1247
84700026|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.26|||MMRM|||||3.26|-0.14|0.0717
84700027|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|0.71|||MMRM|||||0.71|-4.39|0.1563
84700028|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|0.73|||MMRM|||||0.73|-4.33|0.1626
84700029|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.34||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-0.82|||MMRM|||||-0.82|-5.87|0.0099
84510031|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.147
84700030|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.81|||MMRM|||||1.81|-1.67|0.9384
84700031|NCT03852433|169141792|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-3.20|0.0875
84700032|NCT03852433|169141793|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-1.54|0.8645
84700033|NCT03852433|169141793|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.39|||MMRM|||||1.39|-2.06|0.7033
84700034|NCT03852433|169141793|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.23|||MMRM|||||1.23|-2.18|0.5806
84700035|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.68||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.39|||MMRM|||||0.39|-3.75|0.1103
84700036|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.05||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.77|||MMRM|||||0.77|-4.88|0.1533
84700037|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.22||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.53|||MMRM|||||0.53|-4.98|0.1129
84700038|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.58||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-3.34|0.6753
84700039|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.04|||MMRM|||||2.04|-2.28|0.9124
84700040|NCT03852433|169141794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.7|||MMRM|||||3.70|-0.59|0.1526
84700041|NCT00517933|169141800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84700042|NCT00517933|169141802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|37.3|||Regression, Linear|||||37.3|-3.9|0.11
84700043|NCT00517933|169141803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
84700044|NCT00517933|169141804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.25|0.006
84700045|NCT00517933|169141806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.05|0.70
84700046|NCT00517933|169141808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.1|0.04
84700047|NCT00517933|169141810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.81|0.16
84700048|NCT00517933|169141812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-7.3|0.01
84700049|NCT00517933|169141814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-10.6|0.02
84700050|NCT00517933|169141816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-7.2|0.04
84700051|NCT00517933|169141818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|-7.8|0.07
84700052|NCT00517933|169141820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||0.06|-0.01|0.18
84700053|NCT00517933|169141822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-2.8|0.37
84700054|NCT00517933|169141826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.0|||Regression, Linear|||||5.0|0.8|0.008
84700055|NCT00517933|169141828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-2.1|0.86
84700056|NCT04927975|169141833|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|6.97|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||6.97|-22.18|0.304
84700057|NCT04927975|169141833|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-21.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.02|-6.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-6.52|-36.02|0.005
84700058|NCT04927975|169141833|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-19.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-4.16|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.16|-35.04|0.013
84510032|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.007
84700059|NCT04927975|169141834|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||15.2|-1.3|0.100
84700060|NCT04927975|169141834|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|17.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||29.0|6.5|0.002
84700061|NCT04927975|169141834|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||21.9|1.4|0.026
84700062|NCT04927975|169141835|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.6||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||19.7|-6.6|0.327
84700063|NCT04927975|169141835|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|44.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.9|13.8|<0.001
84510033|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
84510034|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.124
84700064|NCT04927975|169141835|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|44.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.7|12.6|<0.001
84510035|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.231
84700065|NCT04927975|169141836|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.2|-3.9|0.340
84700066|NCT04927975|169141836|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.8||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.8|-4.3|0.358
84700067|NCT04927975|169141836|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|9.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||17.2|1.0|0.027
84700068|NCT04927975|169141837|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.96|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||1.96|-16.86|0.120
84700069|NCT04927975|169141837|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-10.84||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|-1.32|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-1.32|-20.37|0.026
84700070|NCT04927975|169141837|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-14.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-4.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.30|-24.24|0.005
84700071|NCT04927975|169141838|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||4.4|-8.3|0.545
84700072|NCT04927975|169141838|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||8.3|-4.5|0.565
84700073|NCT04927975|169141838|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||5.6|-7.8|0.754
84700074|NCT05550337|169141863|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.076||||||||1.076|0.927|
84700075|NCT05550337|169141864|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the non-inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|1.228||||||||1.228|1.017|
84700076|NCT02931396|169141937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.768
84700077|NCT02931396|169141938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84700078|NCT02931396|169141939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84700079|NCT02085356|169141959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84700080|NCT02085356|169141960|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84700081|NCT02085356|169141961|OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.605
84700082|NCT02085356|169141962|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Chi-squared|||Attendance records could not be retrieved for most participants. However, this analysis was still conducted among those participants who had data.||||0.902
84700083|NCT02085356|169141963|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
84700084|NCT02085356|169141963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
84700085|NCT00739102|169141964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion - 12-month patency rate|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.725||The observed rate of primary patency at 12 month was 66.5% (143/215) with a lower 95% confidence interval of 60.0%.|Agresti-Coull method||The 95% confidence intervals and the standard error were calculated using the Agresti-Coull method|The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.66 against Ha: P \> 0.66, where 0.66 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC). A sample size of 212 subjects was required to achieve 90% power to reject the 66% 12-months patency rate at a one-sided 2.5% significance level when the unknown true patency is at 76%.||0.725|0.6|0.437
84510036|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.006
84700086|NCT00739102|169141966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Death Rate (%)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.9||||||||4.9|0.7|
84700087|NCT00739102|169141967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Amputation Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
84700088|NCT00739102|169141968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
84700089|NCT00739102|169141969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|18.6||||||||18.6|9.5|
84700090|NCT00739102|169141970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stent Fracture Rate (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4||||||||4.4|0.3|
84700091|NCT00739102|169141971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|5.6||||||95.0||||||||||||
84700092|NCT00739102|169141972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary safety endpoint rate (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||Agresti-Coull method|||The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.88 against Ha: P \> 0.88, where 0.88 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC).||100|98.2|<0.001
84700093|NCT00739102|169141973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|8.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
84700094|NCT00739102|169141976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Major adverse event rate (%)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.5||||||||19.5|10.2|
84700095|NCT00646451|169141979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||"Outcome on study completers was assessed via ANOVA models using a 2 × 2 Latin-square crossover design including sequence, period, and treatment effects. A significant carryover effect was excluded. Analyses were performed using Stata IC version 10.0 for Windows.~Unfortunately the small sample size of our study limits the possibility of a meaningful post-hoc analysis targeted to these variables."|The Quest rates patient perception of health status as influenced by tremor across 5 domains, physical, psychosocial, communication, hobbies/leisure, and work/finance. HAM-A rates severity of anxiety symptomatology across 14 parameters. Scores of 14-17 correspond to mild anxiety, scores of 18-24 is moderate anxiety and 25-30 severe anxiety. HD-16 rates insomnia-related QoL across 5 domains: physical symptoms, energy \& motivation, concentration, interpersonal relations and psychological symptoms. These scales were scored per published guidelines.|||0.162
84700096|NCT01149681|169142064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2364|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.2364
84700097|NCT03107611|169142098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0817|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0817
84700098|NCT03107611|169142098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2874
84700099|NCT03107611|169142099|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: -0.20, +0.20|Difference in proportions|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.12|
84700100|NCT01720446|169142116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of semaglutide versus placebo was considered to be confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was below 1.8 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of: H0: HR ≥ 1.8 against Ha: HR \<1.8 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% for a two-sided test).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of non-inferiority with limit 1.8.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor. Assuming the same population MACE risk for the semaglutide and placebo groups (i.e., the population hazards ratio \[HR\] equals 1), a total minimum of 122 events were needed in order to have at least 90% power to ascertain that the upper two-sided 95% confidence limit for the HR was less than 1.8.||0.95|0.58|<0.0001
84700101|NCT01720446|169142116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of no difference.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|A post hoc analysis of superiority of semaglutide versus placebo was performed based on the pre-specified Cox proportional hazard analysis using the two-sided Wald test of no difference, with treatment (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.95|0.58|0.0167
84700102|NCT01720446|169142117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.89|0.62|0.0016
84700103|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.48|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for CV death was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.48|0.65|0.9181
84700104|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.08|0.51|0.1194
84700105|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.99|0.38|0.0438
84510037|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit||||||0.019
84700106|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for revascularisation was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.86|0.50|0.0027
84700107|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for 'unstable angina requiring hospitalisation' was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.44|0.47|0.4914
84700108|NCT01720446|169142118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placcbo|Analysis for hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.61|0.77|0.5735
84700109|NCT01720446|169142119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for all-cause death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.97|0.61|0.0292
84510038|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
84700110|NCT01720446|169142120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.52|-0.80|<0.0001
84700111|NCT01720446|169142120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.91|-1.19|<0.0001
84700112|NCT01720446|169142121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.38|-1.06|<0.0001
84700113|NCT01720446|169142121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.88|-1.56|<0.0001
84700114|NCT01720446|169142122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.44|-3.47|<0.0001
84700115|NCT01720446|169142122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.75|-4.78|<0.0001
84700116|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.00|0.95|0.0149
84510039|NCT00406848|168771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.036
84700117|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.01|0.97|0.2580
84700118|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.02|0.99|0.8106
84700119|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.06|1.02|<0.0001
84700120|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.96||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.99|0.93|0.0185
84700121|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|0.96|0.5996
84700122|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.01|0.93|0.1833
84700123|NCT01720446|169142123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.97|0.89|0.0009
84700124|NCT01720446|169142124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg / Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||0.89|0.68|0.0003
84700125|NCT01720446|169142124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg / Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
84700126|NCT01720446|169142125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.92|-0.83|0.9205
84700127|NCT01720446|169142125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|-0.74|0.7477
84700128|NCT01720446|169142125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.27||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.23|-2.77|0.0976
84700129|NCT01720446|169142125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.08|-4.09|0.0008
84700130|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.47|-0.48|0.3171
84510040|NCT00406848|168771774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||0.214
84700131|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.47||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.45|0.50|0.0031
84700132|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|0.06|0.0350
84700133|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.24|0.60|0.0007
84700134|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.13|-0.79|0.7277
84510041|NCT00406848|168771774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||.063
84700135|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.97||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.94|0.00|0.0489
84700136|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.61||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.53|-0.30|0.1860
84700137|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.31|0.48|0.0029
84700138|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.68||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.45|-0.09|0.0833
84700139|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.17|0.62|0.0004
84700140|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|-0.10|0.0799
84700141|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.40|0.60|0.0011
84700142|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.68|-0.63|0.3717
84700143|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.94||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.10|-0.22|0.1136
84700144|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.72||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.67|-0.24|0.1431
84700145|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.11|0.18|0.0197
84700146|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.93|-1.03|0.9223
84700147|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.13|0.15|0.0237
84700148|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.19|-0.53|0.4523
84700149|NCT01720446|169142129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.2||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.07|0.34|0.0064
84700150|NCT01720446|169142130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.04|0.95|0.7796
84700151|NCT01720446|169142130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.96|0.88|0.0003
84700152|NCT01720446|169142131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.98|1.07|<0.0001
84700153|NCT01720446|169142131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||3.43|1.52|<0.0001
84700154|NCT01020838|169142132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.774|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.894|||||Point estimate of sensitivity was calculated by the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for sensitivity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid positive according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for sensitivity in beta-amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for sensitivity:~H0,sens: sensitivity ≤ 0.6 vs. H1, sens: sensitivity \> 0.6 H0,sens was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.6"||0.894|0.654|
84700155|NCT01020838|169142132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.998|||||Point estimate of specificity was calculated using the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for specificity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid negative according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for specificity in amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for specificity:~H0,spec: specificity ≤ 0.8 vs. H1, spec: specificity \> 0.8 H0,spec was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.8"||0.998|0.886|
84700156|NCT01167426|169142138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean ranks|79.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference in mean ranks between Week 2 and Week 6|Comparison of Week 2 (20 mg/1.0 mL utilizing autoject 2 for glass syringe) to Week 6 (20 mg/0.5 mL utilizing the autoject 2 20 mg/0.5 mL).||||<0.0001
84700157|NCT01167426|169142139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Goodness-of-fit p-value comparing overall preference to expected frequencies of 33.3% in each category. That is, no preference across the full sample of patients in the study.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84700158|NCT02131324|169142152|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||||0.086|||||||ANOVA|||Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||0.086
84700159|NCT00742274|169142168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84700160|NCT01639443|169142179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of percentage of clinic capacity filled. We are powered to detect a 0.5 Standard Deviation (SD) difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||<0.0001
84700161|NCT01639443|169142180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level. Our null hypothesis is that the lag time between scheduling and appointment, measured in days, will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.3 SD difference in lag time (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 84%), accounting for the large sampling ratio (approximately 14:1).||||0.29
84700162|NCT01639443|169142181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||We would have only expected 2 patients to be bumped in the Experimental Group, and observed 0.|Fisher Exact|||We did not explicitly power this study to detect differences in the number of service bumps, but we can compare them using Fisher's Exact Test||||0.49
84700163|NCT01639443|169142182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level, but were hampered by a large sampling ratio (more than 50:1). Our null hypothesis is that the number of polyps detected will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.25 SD difference in polyp count per patient (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 80%).||||0.05
84700164|NCT01639443|169142183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of length of workday. We are powered to detect approximately 0.5 SD difference in workday length in hours (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.024
84700165|NCT01639443|169142184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of cost per day. We are powered to detect a 0.5 SD difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.11
84700166|NCT00601965|169142215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test = 32.67, df = 3||||||<.001
84700167|NCT00601965|169142216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Beta = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.11||||||0.01
84700168|NCT01649427|169142217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84700169|NCT02138916|169142223|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.15|0.8|0.6490
84700170|NCT02138916|169142223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.00|0.69|0.0525
84700171|NCT02138916|169142224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.86|0.5236
84700172|NCT02138916|169142224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.27|0.82|0.8812
84700173|NCT02138916|169142225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.048|-0.035|0.7550
84700174|NCT02138916|169142225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.062|-0.021|0.3285
84700175|NCT02138916|169142226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.865|-2.887|0.2906
84700176|NCT02138916|169142226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.136||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.251|-4.020|0.0264
84700177|NCT02138916|169142227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.70|-1.08|0.6782
84700178|NCT02138916|169142227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-1.70|0.0753
84700179|NCT02138916|169142228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.585||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.089|-1.260|0.0889
84700180|NCT02138916|169142228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.703||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.028|-1.378|0.0413
84700181|NCT02138916|169142229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.348||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.032|-0.728|0.0728
84510042|NCT00406848|168771775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.162
84510043|NCT00406848|168771775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.009
84700182|NCT02138916|169142229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.107|-0.868|0.0121
84700183|NCT02138916|169142230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.006|-0.077|0.0235
84700184|NCT02138916|169142230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.008|-0.080|0.0158
84700185|NCT02138916|169142234|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.89|0.4080
84700186|NCT02138916|169142234|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.21|0.80|0.8688
84510044|NCT00406848|168771776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.555
84510045|NCT00406848|168771776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||.785
84700187|NCT02138916|169142235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.22|0.66|0.4850
84700188|NCT02138916|169142235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.21|0.65|0.4489
84700189|NCT02138916|169142237|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.06||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.53|0.73|0.7733
84700190|NCT02138916|169142237|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89|||Nagative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.89|0.39|0.0114
84700191|NCT05822440|169142249|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|124.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.22|154.29||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||154.29|100.22|
84700192|NCT05822440|169142250|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|212.83||||||90.0|183.76|246.5||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||246.50|183.76|
84700193|NCT02387749|169142261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.005
84700194|NCT04888585|169142288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||31.0|11.5|<0.001
84700195|NCT04888585|169142288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|16.5|<0.001
84700196|NCT04888585|169142288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||48.1|27.4|<0.001
84700197|NCT04888585|169142288|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||32.6|13.8|<0.001
84700198|NCT04888585|169142289|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
84700199|NCT04888585|169142289|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.64|-1.38|<0.001
84700200|NCT04888585|169142289|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-1.05|-1.80|<0.001
84700201|NCT04888585|169142289|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
84700202|NCT04888585|169142290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.56||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.92|-8.21|0.014
84700203|NCT04888585|169142290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-4.31|-11.70|<0.001
84700204|NCT04888585|169142290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-11.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-7.73|-15.10|<0.001
84700205|NCT04888585|169142290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-1.69|-8.89|0.004
84700206|NCT04888585|169142291|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||37.3|12.1|<0.001
84700207|NCT04888585|169142291|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||42.9|17.4|<0.001
84510046|NCT00406848|168771777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.255
84700208|NCT04888585|169142291|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||57.4|33.5|<0.001
84700209|NCT04888585|169142291|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||37.3|11.9|<0.001
84700210|NCT04888585|169142292|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||12.4|0.6|0.031
84510047|NCT00406848|168771777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.038
84510048|NCT00406848|168771778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 remission (HAMD17 ≤ 7).|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.706
84510049|NCT00406848|168771778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission HAMD17 ≤ 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.694
84700211|NCT04888585|169142292|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||17.0|2.7|0.007
84700212|NCT04888585|169142292|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||18.2|3.6|0.004
84700213|NCT04888585|169142292|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.9||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||5.9|-4.0|0.709
84700214|NCT04888585|169142293|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||28.9|4.9|0.006
84700215|NCT04888585|169142293|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||38.1|13.5|<0.001
84700216|NCT04888585|169142293|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||44.2|18.9|<0.001
84700217|NCT04888585|169142293|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||35.4|11.0|<0.001
84700218|NCT04888585|169142294|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||26.2|2.0|0.022
84700219|NCT04888585|169142294|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||35.5|10.0|<0.001
84700220|NCT04888585|169142294|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||37.0|11.6|<0.001
84700221|NCT04888585|169142294|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.7|0.5|0.042
84700222|NCT04888585|169142295|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||14.6|-4.4|0.296
84700223|NCT04888585|169142295|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||30.2|8.7|<0.001
84700224|NCT04888585|169142295|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|14.3|<0.001
84700225|NCT04888585|169142295|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.5|3.8|0.007
84700226|NCT04888585|169142296|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||13.0|1.3|0.017
84700227|NCT04888585|169142296|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.0||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||6.8|-2.8|0.424
84700228|NCT04888585|169142296|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||7.5|-2.3|0.303
84700229|NCT04888585|169142296|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|1.3||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||5.4|-2.9|0.551
84700230|NCT04888585|169142297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.03|-0.33|0.022
84700231|NCT04888585|169142297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.41|0.001
84700232|NCT04888585|169142297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
84700233|NCT04888585|169142297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.007
84700234|NCT02929069|169142328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.52|0.52
84510050|NCT00406848|168771778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.864
84510051|NCT00406848|168771778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.817
84700235|NCT02081391|169142390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used SOAM as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 12 hours for any other reason than no further need of opioid analgesics or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||0|-0.09|0.0404
84700236|NCT02081391|169142391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used supplemental opioid analgesic medication (SOAM) as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 24 hours for any other reason than no further need of SOAM or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||-0.02|-0.18|0.0154
84700237|NCT00813488|169142418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2|||Mixed effects ANOVA crossover model|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.20|0.06|0.0004
84700238|NCT00813488|169142419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.05|-0.01|0.2242
84700239|NCT00813488|169142420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.11|0.01|0.0106
84700240|NCT00813488|169142421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID30 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.40|.21|<0.0001
84700241|NCT00813488|169142422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.37|0.18|<0.0001
84700242|NCT00813488|169142423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.27||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.27|0.08|0.0002
84700243|NCT00813488|169142430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
84510052|NCT00406848|168771779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.664
84700244|NCT00813488|169142431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|.55|<0.0001
84700245|NCT00813488|169142432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5575
84700246|NCT00813488|169142433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0981
84700247|NCT00813488|169142434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0443
84700248|NCT00813488|169142435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
84700249|NCT00813488|169142436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
84700250|NCT00813488|169142437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0018
84700251|NCT00813488|169142438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.58|0.9||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.90|0.58|<0.0001
84700252|NCT00813488|169142440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1464||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.3|0.6|0.7012
84700253|NCT00813488|169142441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0704||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.8|0.6545
84700254|NCT00813488|169142442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2544||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.0|0.0407
84510053|NCT00406848|168771779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.310
84700255|NCT00813488|169142443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5745||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.2|0.0007
84700256|NCT00813488|169142444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5828||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.4|1.0|0.0372
84700257|NCT00813488|169142445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3722||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.5|0.7|0.3099
84700258|NCT00813488|169142446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8434||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.5|.5|0.5777
84700259|NCT00813488|169142447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.6|0.9567
84700260|NCT00813488|169142448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1366||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.8|0.4253
84700261|NCT00813488|169142449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4269||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.1|0.0038
84700262|NCT00813488|169142450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5118||||0.0012||95.0|1.2|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.2|0.0012
84700263|NCT00813488|169142451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5826||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.2|1.1|0.0074
84510054|NCT00406848|168771781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model: Onset = Treatment + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.036
84700264|NCT00813488|169142452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.059||||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.6|0.8444
84510055|NCT00406848|168771782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.637
84700265|NCT00813488|169142453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
84700266|NCT00813488|169142454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.5|1.2|<0.0001
84700267|NCT00126113|169142469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
84700268|NCT00126113|169142470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis for main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84700269|NCT00126113|169142471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
84700270|NCT00126113|169142472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
84700271|NCT00836810|169142490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priory test for statistical significance was P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84700272|NCT00836810|169142490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84700273|NCT00836810|169142490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set as P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84700274|NCT00836810|169142491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05||||||<0.001
84700275|NCT00836810|169142491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84700276|NCT00836810|169142491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84700277|NCT00836810|169142492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84700278|NCT00836810|169142492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0906||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0906
84700279|NCT00836810|169142492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
84700280|NCT00836810|169142493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84700281|NCT00836810|169142493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84700282|NCT00836810|169142493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84700283|NCT00836810|169142494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84700284|NCT00836810|169142494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84700285|NCT00836810|169142494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84700286|NCT00836810|169142495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84700287|NCT00836810|169142495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84700288|NCT00836810|169142495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84700289|NCT05273801|169142510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician ask about RPE/HR during session||||0.73
84700290|NCT05273801|169142510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently education provided regarding HR/RPE during session||||0.05
84700291|NCT05273801|169142510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently HR/RPE target is mentioned in session||||0.007
84700292|NCT05273801|169142510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician modifies session/task to reach HR/RPE target||||0.005
84700293|NCT05273801|169142510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinicians monitor HR/RPE during session||||0.00001
84700294|NCT03068468|169142572|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||28-item:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on a mixed model for repeated measures model (MMRM), with change from baseline in 28-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline 28-item PSPRS, baseline 28-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.6|-2.0|0.8483
84700295|NCT03068468|169142572|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.28||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.94|||MMRM|||15-items:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in 15-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment groupby-time interaction, baseline 15-item PSPRS, baseline 15-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test(\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.94|-1.50|0.6503
84700296|NCT03068468|169142574|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|-1.0|0.6031
84700297|NCT03068468|169142575|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with CGI-C as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.7743
84700298|NCT03068468|169142576|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.038||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.112|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-cognitive composite battery as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.112|-0.036|0.3180
84700299|NCT03068468|169142577|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in RBANS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline RBANS , baseline RBANS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds and region.||1.4|-1.8|0.8270
84700300|NCT03068468|169142578|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||MMRM|||Physical scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-QoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.3|-3.6|0.9304
84700301|NCT03068468|169142578|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.7|||MMRM|||Mental scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.7|-2.8|0.7859
84700302|NCT03068468|169142578|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5|||MMRM|||Satisfaction With Your Life Today: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.5|-5.8|0.4297
84700303|NCT03068468|169142579|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.0||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in SEADL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for SEADL , baseline SEADL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||5.2|-1.1|0.2084
84510056|NCT00406848|168771782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
84510057|NCT00406848|168771782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.452
84700304|NCT03068468|169142580|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CGI-S as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.5701
84510058|NCT00406848|168771782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.193
84700305|NCT03068468|169142581|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Phonemic Fluency Test as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.8|-0.0|0.0517
84700306|NCT03068468|169142582|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Letter Number Sequence as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Letter Number Sequence, baseline Letter Number Sequence by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|0.0|0.0387
84700307|NCT03068468|169142583|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.9815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.3|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 1: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color trails Test 1 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 1, baseline Color Trails Test 1 by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||8.3|-8.1|0.9815
84700308|NCT03068468|169142583|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.6|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 2: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color Trails Test 2 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 2, baseline Color Trails Test 2 by time interaction, and region.||5.6|-5.7|0.9869
84700309|NCT03068468|169142584|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MoCA as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MoCA, baseline MoCA by time interaction,baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.2|-0.2|0.1763
84700310|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.021||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.726|0.684|||MMRM|||Ventricles Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.684|-0.726|0.9527
84700311|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.514||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.506|2.478|||MMRM|||Whole Brain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.478|-3.506|0.7357
84700312|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.004||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.014|||MMRM|||Midbrain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.014|-0.023|0.6439
84510059|NCT00406848|168771783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.121
84510060|NCT00406848|168771783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.038
84700313|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.04|||MMRM|||Pons Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.040|-0.039|0.9864
84700314|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.001||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.006|||MMRM|||Cerebellar Peduncle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.006|-0.004|0.7529
84700315|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.006||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.038|||MMRM|||Third Ventricle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.038|-0.025|0.6850
84700316|NCT03068468|169142586|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.041||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.598|||MMRM|||Frontal Lobe Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.598|-0.680|0.9000
84700317|NCT00959920|169142611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that patients for whom indwelling foley catheterization was employed will have their time to delivery interval reduced by 30 minutes.||||.42
84700318|NCT02715258|169142632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
84700319|NCT02715258|169142632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.15|-0.68|0.0021
84700320|NCT02715258|169142632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.30|-0.80|<0.0001
84700321|NCT02715258|169142632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.17||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.17|-0.64|0.0009
84700322|NCT02715258|169142633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.14||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|1.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) at Week 24||1.39|-5.66|0.2340
84510061|NCT00406848|168771784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
84700323|NCT02715258|169142633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.91||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|1.66||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) including observations obtained after rescue medication||1.66|-5.48|0.2937
84700324|NCT02715258|169142633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.72||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.32||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||2.32|-5.75|0.4030
84700325|NCT02715258|169142633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.09||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.23||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.41|0.2160
84700326|NCT02715258|169142634|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.79||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.21||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in body weight (kg) at Week 24 for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2||0.21|-1.80|0.1222
84700327|NCT02715258|169142634|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.65||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.35||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.35|-1.65|0.2014
84700328|NCT02715258|169142634|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.91||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.05||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||0.05|-1.88|0.0638
84700329|NCT02715258|169142634|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.69||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.24|-1.63|0.1456
84700330|NCT02715258|169142635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) over time across 24 weeks||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
84700331|NCT02715258|169142636|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.43||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.43|-0.79|<0.0001
84700332|NCT02715258|169142636|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.5||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.50|-0.92|<0.0001
84700333|NCT02715258|169142636|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
84700334|NCT02715258|169142636|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
84700335|NCT02715258|169142636|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) across 24 weeks||-0.39|-0.76|<0.0001
84700336|NCT02715258|169142637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|6.8||The logistic regression includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-Adjusted proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<7% across 24 weeks||6.80|1.69|0.0006
84700337|NCT00601640|169142679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
84700338|NCT01710514|169142681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative (Ha) by constructing two-sided 95%CI for the difference. The non-inferiority limit for the difference was pre-specified to -10.0% (absolute). If the lower limit of the two-sided 95%CI was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%) for both the FAS and per protocol set, the null hypothesis was to be rejected. In that case it would be claimed that the rate observed in this trial was non-inferior to the rate observed in the CS08 trial|Difference of % to historical control|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8||||||To verify sufficient supplementation of luteal hormone, the proportion of subjects with blood progesterone concentration ≥ 10 ng/mL on Day 5 was compared to the result from a historical control, trial CS08 (NCT number: 00884221). The corresponding proportion of subjects in trial CS08 was 99.8% (95%CI: 99.1;100.0, 631/632 subjects). The non-inferiority hypothesis tested for this primary endpoint was: H0: P(000072)-P(CS08) ≤ -10.0% against the alternative Ha: P(000072)-P(CS08) \> -10.0%.||1.8|-3.6|
84700339|NCT01467700|169142802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.518|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.9|3.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.9|0.518
84700340|NCT01467700|169142802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.979|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.4|5.7||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-0.4|0.979
84700341|NCT01467700|169142802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.7|3.0||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.7|0.400
84700342|NCT01467700|169142803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.5|9.9||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-0.5|0.017
84700343|NCT01467700|169142803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.361|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.5|6.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1|-4.5|0.361
84700344|NCT01467700|169142803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.6|12.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.1|0.6|0.002
84700345|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.282||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.344|3.875|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||3.875|1.344|0.002
84700346|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.977|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||4.977|1.621|<0.05
84700347|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.871||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.899|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.899|1.207|0.005
84700348|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.879||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.879|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.879|1.227|0.004
84700349|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.943||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|3.168|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||3.168|1.191|0.008
84700350|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.459||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.454|4.159|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||4.159|1.454|0.001
84700351|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.776||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|2.631|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.631|1.199|0.004
84700352|NCT01078246|169142811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|2.717|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.717|1.274|0.001
84510062|NCT00406848|168771784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.127
84510063|NCT00406848|168771785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
84700353|NCT01078246|169142812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.807||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.168|||Poisson regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.168|0.557|0.255
84700354|NCT01078246|169142812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.376|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.376|0.597|0.646
84700355|NCT01078246|169142812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.268||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.795|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.795|0.895|0.182
84700356|NCT01078246|169142812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.257||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.768|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.768|0.894|0.188
84700357|NCT01078246|169142813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.016||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.297|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.297|0.796|0.897
84700358|NCT01078246|169142813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.287||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.690|0.980|0.070
84700359|NCT01078246|169142813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.067||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.339|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.339|0.850|0.575
84700360|NCT01078246|169142813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.319|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.319|0.847|0.626
84700361|NCT01078246|169142815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.551|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.551|0.274|<0.0001
84700362|NCT01078246|169142815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.707|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.707|0.314|<0.05
84700363|NCT01078246|169142815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|2.47|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.470|1.102|0.015
84700364|NCT01078246|169142815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.622||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.425|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.425|1.085|0.018
84700365|NCT01078246|169142816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.517|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.517|0.370|0.423
84700366|NCT01078246|169142816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.208||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.612|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.612|0.559|0.631
84700367|NCT01078246|169142816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.845||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.561|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.561|0.458|0.592
84700368|NCT01078246|169142816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.850|0.565|0.943
84700369|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.708||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.08|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.080|0.464|0.109
84700370|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.296|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.296|0.486|0.356
84700371|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.556||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.37|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.370|1.022|0.039
84700372|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.361|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.361|1.036|0.033
84700373|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.437|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 1st treatment regimen.||||3.437|0.861|0.125
84700374|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.155|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 2nd treatment regimen.||||2.155|0.517|0.881
84700375|NCT01078246|169142817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.077||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|5.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 3rd+ treatment regimen.||||5.05|0.854|0.107
84510064|NCT00406848|168771785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for Pulse.|Fisher Exact|||Pulse||||1.00
84700376|NCT01018511|169142900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Overall power was 90% power for non-inferiority vs placebo for total IPSS. Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.73|0.11||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.11|-1.73|0.001
84700377|NCT01018511|169142900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|0.64||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.64|-1.22|0.028
84700378|NCT01018511|169142900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.048
84700379|NCT01018511|169142900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.483
84700380|NCT01018511|169142900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.9|-2.4|<0.001
84700381|NCT01018511|169142900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.3|-1.9|0.006
84700382|NCT01018511|169142900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. With a sample size of 274 participants per arm, the overall power to meet this outcome measure was 97% power for superiority vs placebo for total IPSS.||-0.0|-1.6|0.039
84700383|NCT01018511|169142901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|0.0||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.0|-2.9|0.025
84510065|NCT00406848|168771785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure|Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
84510066|NCT00406848|168771785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (gain)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.235
84700384|NCT01018511|169142901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|0.5||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.5|-2.3|0.162
84700385|NCT01018511|169142901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-2.5|-4.9|<0.001
84700386|NCT01018511|169142901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/9 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
84700387|NCT01018511|169142901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
84700388|NCT01018511|169142902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
84700389|NCT01018511|169142902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.6|0.223
84700390|NCT01018511|169142902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.8|-1.5|< 0.001
84700391|NCT01018511|169142902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
84700392|NCT01018511|169142902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
84510067|NCT00406848|168771785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (loss)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.813
84700393|NCT01018511|169142903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|16.6|< 0.001
84700394|NCT01018511|169142903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.8|16.6|< 0.001
84700395|NCT01018511|169142903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|33.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.9|21.0|< 0.001
84700396|NCT01018511|169142903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||34.1|21.1|< 0.001
84510068|NCT00406848|168771786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||p-value is for Sustained Hypertension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.668
84700397|NCT01018511|169142903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||10.9|-2.2|0.189
84700398|NCT01018511|169142904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.3|-0.2|0.053
84700399|NCT01018511|169142904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|-0.2|0.053
84510069|NCT00406848|168771786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||p-value is for Orthostatic Hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
84510070|NCT00406848|168771788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.003
84510071|NCT00406848|168771788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
84510072|NCT00406848|168771789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
84510073|NCT00406848|168771789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
84510074|NCT00406848|168771790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Erythrocyte Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.014
84510075|NCT00406848|168771791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Hemoglobin change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.019
84510076|NCT00406848|168771791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for Mean Cell Hemoglobin Concentration change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.048
84510077|NCT00406848|168771792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Chloride change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.040
84510078|NCT00406848|168771792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting Glucose change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.036
84510079|NCT00406848|168771793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84510080|NCT00406848|168771794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for QT Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.815
84510081|NCT00406848|168771794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0||||p-value is for QTcF Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.721
84510082|NCT00406848|168771794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p-value is for QTcB Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.376
84700400|NCT01018511|169142904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.0|4.1|0.012
84700401|NCT01018511|169142904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.4|4.1|0.012
84700402|NCT01018511|169142904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||18.7|-10.7|0.591
84700403|NCT01018511|169142905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.4|-0.6|0.616
84700404|NCT01018511|169142905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.7|0.319
84700405|NCT01018511|169142905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.6|-1.5|< 0.001
84700406|NCT01018511|169142905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
84700407|NCT01018511|169142905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|< 0.001
84700408|NCT01018511|169142906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.5|-0.3|0.591
84700409|NCT01018511|169142906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.1|0.102
84700410|NCT01018511|169142906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.6|0.204
84700411|NCT01018511|169142906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-0.4|0.936
84700412|NCT01018511|169142906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.8|0.081
84700413|NCT01018511|169142907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.3|0.511
84700414|NCT01018511|169142907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.2|0.182
84700415|NCT01018511|169142907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.6|0.552
84700416|NCT01018511|169142907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo||0.5|-0.4|0.891
84700417|NCT01018511|169142907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.8|0.215
84700418|NCT01018511|169142908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.2|0.383
84700419|NCT01018511|169142908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.1|0.402
84700420|NCT01018511|169142908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.0|-0.3|0.021
84700421|NCT01018511|169142908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.584
84700422|NCT01018511|169142908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.166
84700423|NCT01018511|169142909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.187
84700424|NCT01018511|169142909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.203
84700425|NCT01018511|169142909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.090
84700426|NCT01018511|169142909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.098
84700427|NCT01018511|169142909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.772
84700428|NCT01018511|169142910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.9|0.210
84700429|NCT01018511|169142910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.5|0.775
84700430|NCT01018511|169142910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-1.2|0.010
84700431|NCT01018511|169142910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.8|0.317
84700432|NCT01018511|169142910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.9|0.196
84700433|NCT01018511|169142911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.9|0.009
84700434|NCT01018511|169142911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.8|0.045
84700435|NCT01018511|169142911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.001
84700436|NCT01018511|169142911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.011
84700437|NCT01018511|169142911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares men difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.5|-1.3|< 0.001
84700438|NCT01018511|169142912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
84700439|NCT01018511|169142912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.4|0.021
84700440|NCT01018511|169142912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
84700441|NCT01018511|169142912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
84700442|NCT01018511|169142912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.139
84700443|NCT01018511|169142914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-4.3|0.068
84510083|NCT00406848|168771794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||p-value is for PR Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.065
84700444|NCT01018511|169142914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.4|-4.9|0.020
84700445|NCT01018511|169142914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-2.5|-6.9|< 0.001
84700446|NCT01018511|169142914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-3.1|-7.5|< 0.001
84700447|NCT01018511|169142914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-4.8|0.022
84700448|NCT01018511|169142915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.2|0.7|0.011
84700449|NCT01018511|169142915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.8|0.2|0.035
84700450|NCT01018511|169142915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||7.3|2.8|< 0.001
84510084|NCT00406848|168771794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.110
84510085|NCT00406848|168771795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤7 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
84700451|NCT01018511|169142915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.8|2.3|< 0.001
84700452|NCT01018511|169142915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.4|-0.2|0.068
84700453|NCT01018511|169142916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.7|0.5|0.013
84700454|NCT01018511|169142916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.3|0.1|0.043
84700455|NCT01018511|169142916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.5|2.4|< 0.001
84700456|NCT01018511|169142916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.1|1.9|< 0.001
84700457|NCT01018511|169142916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.9|-0.3|0.092
84700458|NCT01018511|169142917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.5|0.7|0.011
84700459|NCT01018511|169142917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.6|-1.2|0.314
84700460|NCT01018511|169142917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.9|1.2|0.003
84700461|NCT01018511|169142917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.1|-0.7|0.161
84700462|NCT01018511|169142917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.8|-1.9|0.708
84700463|NCT01018511|169142918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.3|0.1|0.043
84700464|NCT01018511|169142918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.0|-0.3|0.120
84700465|NCT01018511|169142918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.0|0.8|0.003
84700466|NCT01018511|169142918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||3.7|0.4|0.014
84700467|NCT01018511|169142918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.4|-0.9|0.384
84700468|NCT01018511|169142919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.4|0.8|0.004
84510086|NCT00406848|168771795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤10 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
84700469|NCT01018511|169142919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.8|0.1|0.035
84700470|NCT01018511|169142919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.8|2.2|< 0.001
84700471|NCT01018511|169142919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.1|1.5|< 0.001
84700472|NCT01018511|169142919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.2|-0.5|0.142
84700473|NCT01018511|169142920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.874
84700474|NCT01018511|169142920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.240
84700475|NCT01018511|169142920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.324
84700476|NCT01018511|169142920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.043
84700477|NCT01018511|169142920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.407
84700478|NCT01018511|169142927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
84700479|NCT01018511|169142927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
84700480|NCT01018511|169142927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700481|NCT01018511|169142927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700482|NCT01018511|169142927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.058
84510087|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.511
84700483|NCT01018511|169142928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.053
84700484|NCT01018511|169142928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.031
84700485|NCT01018511|169142928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700486|NCT01018511|169142928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700487|NCT01018511|169142928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.018
84700488|NCT01018511|169142929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.110
84700489|NCT01018511|169142929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.071
84700490|NCT01018511|169142929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700491|NCT01018511|169142929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
84700492|NCT01018511|169142929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.019
84700493|NCT02926937|169142946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.415|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.415|-0.975|<0.0001
84700494|NCT02926937|169142947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.565||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0166|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.1140|-1.0166|0.0141
84700495|NCT02926937|169142948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.346||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8853|0.1928|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups under Amendment 1 randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.1928|-0.8853|0.2081
84700496|NCT02926937|169142949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1876|-0.9234|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.9234|-2.1876|<0.0001
84510088|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.300
84700497|NCT02926937|169142950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.478|1.476|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using analysis ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.476|-8.478|0.1680
84700498|NCT02926937|169142951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.78||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.311|1.753|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.753|-3.311|0.5467
84700499|NCT02926937|169142952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|-0.518|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.518|-5.869|0.0193
84700500|NCT02926937|169142953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.404|-0.676|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.676|-2.404|0.0005
84700501|NCT02926937|169142954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.17||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.050|-2.281|0.0406
84700502|NCT02926937|169142955|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|21.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||21.02|4.18|0.0037
84700503|NCT02926937|169142956|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||30.00|8.39|0.0007
84700504|NCT02926937|169142957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.354|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.354|-0.989|<0.0001
84700505|NCT01249092|169143021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-26.4||This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with pentoxifylline would result in a statistically significant change from baseline in the level of alkaline phosphatase.|Paired t-test|||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out using SAS version 9.2 (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change in alkaline phosphatase from baseline. The efficacy of therapy was measured based on improvement in AP levels after therapy with PTX. AP levels at end of the study were compared with values at baseline by matched pairs t-test.||-26.4|-88.2|0.001
84700506|NCT01249092|169143022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|8.68||Hypothesis tested if TIMP-1 levels after therapy with pentoxifylline changed significantly from baseline from baseline.|Paired t-test.|||Change from baseline in TIMP-1 levels was assessed by paired-t test. Distribution the variable values was assessed using normal probability plots. Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change from baseline.||8.68|-24.14|0.5
84700507|NCT00151996|169143028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
84700508|NCT00151996|169143028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
84700509|NCT00151996|169143030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||<0.0001
84700510|NCT00151996|169143030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||0.0002
84700511|NCT00151996|169143032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.7004
84700512|NCT00151996|169143032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
84700513|NCT00151996|169143032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.9257
84700514|NCT00151996|169143032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
84700515|NCT02657629|169143033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84700516|NCT02175212|169143069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.15|||Regression, Cox|||||3.15|1.12|0.01
84700517|NCT02175212|169143070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Regression, Cox|||||3.85|1.23|0.01
84700518|NCT02175212|169143071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.68|||Regression, Cox|||||4.68|1.31|0.009
84700519|NCT00315120|169143094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|1.2|0.007
84700520|NCT00315120|169143099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.7|0.72
84700521|NCT05419557|169143120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|54.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.6|1.3|0.02
84700522|NCT05419557|169143121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.98||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|64.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.25|1.55|0.015
84700523|NCT04304534|169143167|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.052|||=|0.8439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.687|1.612|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.612|0.687|= 0.8439
84700524|NCT04304534|169143167|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.096|||=|0.7562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.781|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.781|0.674|= 0.7562
84700525|NCT04304534|169143167|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.008|||=|0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.614|1.656|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.656|0.614|= 0.978
84700526|NCT04304534|169143168|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.9158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|1.347|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Pooled Asundexian group versus Placebo group||1.347|0.713|= 0.9158
84700527|NCT04304534|169143168|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.5633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.577|1.302|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||1.302|0.577|= 0.5633
84700528|NCT04304534|169143168|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.587|1.306|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.306|0.587|= 0.584
84700529|NCT04304534|169143168|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202|||=|0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.747|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.747|0.828|= 0.417
84700530|NCT04304534|169143169|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.322|5.05||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||5.050|0.322|
84700531|NCT04304534|169143169|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.479|8.273||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||8.273|0.479|
84700532|NCT04304534|169143170|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.819||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg versus Placebo group||1.819|0.696|
84700533|NCT04304534|169143170|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.031||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.031|0.686|
84700534|NCT04304534|169143170|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|1.866||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.866|0.613|
84700535|NCT04304534|169143173|OTHER|For all-cause mortality there is no competing event.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.266|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.603|2.658|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||2.658|0.603|= 0.6016
84700536|NCT04304534|169143173|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.996|||=|0.9945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.414|2.401|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.401|0.414|= 0.9945
84700537|NCT04304534|169143173|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.506|||=|0.4085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|3.405|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.405|0.667|= 0.4085
84700538|NCT03055767|169143179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.038
84700539|NCT03055767|169143180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
84700540|NCT03055767|169143181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.148
84700541|NCT03055767|169143182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
84700542|NCT03055767|169143183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.002
84700543|NCT03055767|169143184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||McNemar|||||||0.82
84700544|NCT03055767|169143185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.006
84700545|NCT03055767|169143186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.039
84700546|NCT03055767|169143187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.016
84700547|NCT03055767|169143188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
84700548|NCT03055767|169143189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||<0.001
84700549|NCT03055767|169143190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.64
84700550|NCT02228408|169143195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||poisson|||||||0.04
84700551|NCT02228408|169143196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84700552|NCT02228408|169143197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84700553|NCT02228408|169143201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84700554|NCT01466881|169143218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided alpha level of 0.05||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in Aurora kinase A expression between responders and non-responders.||||0.2316
84700555|NCT00606580|169143219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||0.0001
84700556|NCT00606580|169143219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||<0.0001
84700557|NCT00606580|169143219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||H02: There is no difference in clinical cure between WR 279,396 and Paromomycin Alone. Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||0.871
84700558|NCT00606580|169143220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
84700559|NCT00606580|169143220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84700560|NCT00606580|169143220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.767
84700561|NCT00606580|169143221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Log Rank|Mantel-Cox (log-rank) grouped failure time test using proportion re-epithelialized at each of the scheduled assessments through Day 42 without relapse||||||0.330
84700562|NCT00606580|169143221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.275
84700563|NCT00606580|169143221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.830
84700564|NCT00606580|169143226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84700565|NCT00606580|169143226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84700566|NCT00606580|169143226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.725|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.725
84700567|NCT00606580|169143227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84700568|NCT00606580|169143227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84700569|NCT00606580|169143227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84700570|NCT00606580|169143228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84700571|NCT00606580|169143228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84700572|NCT00606580|169143228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.893|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.893
84700573|NCT00606580|169143229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84700574|NCT00606580|169143229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84700575|NCT00606580|169143229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.247|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.247
84700576|NCT00606580|169143230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.409
84700577|NCT00606580|169143230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.651
84700578|NCT00606580|169143230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.701
84700579|NCT01101165|169143231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|100.56|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||100.56|92.80|
84700580|NCT01101165|169143232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|97.24|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.24|92.42|
84700581|NCT01101165|169143233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|98.18|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||98.18|92.93|
84700582|NCT01444287|169143249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.0035||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0035
84700583|NCT01444287|169143249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control - Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
84700584|NCT01444287|169143249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.8957||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8957
84700585|NCT01444287|169143250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0031||0.0692||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0692
84700586|NCT01444287|169143250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.7301||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.7301
84700587|NCT01444287|169143250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.8055||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8055
84700588|NCT01444287|169143251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111||0.9127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9127
84700589|NCT01444287|169143251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
84700590|NCT01444287|169143251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0.1256||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.1256
84700591|NCT01444287|169143252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044||0.9892||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9892
84700592|NCT01444287|169143252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.0007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0007
84700593|NCT01444287|169143252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0030
84700594|NCT02427737|169143279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
84700595|NCT02427737|169143279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.3037
84700596|NCT02427737|169143279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.01
84700597|NCT02427737|169143280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
84700598|NCT02427737|169143280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.2010
84700599|NCT02427737|169143280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
84700600|NCT02427737|169143281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
84700601|NCT02427737|169143281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||"Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.~Chi-square analysis was used to assess equipment utilization at trained sites compared with untrained sites when stratifying by time (chi-square MH = 858.2)."|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly equipment utilization rate as compared to the baseline quarter Q4FY15 over time and at sites||||0.303
84700602|NCT02427737|169143281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
84700603|NCT02427737|169143282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test was used with time as a strata variable (rather than pooling all data together as in the regular chi-squared test). The CMH chi-squared value was 858.2, and the regular chi-squared value was 858.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.||||||<0.0001
84700604|NCT02427737|169143283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84700605|NCT02427737|169143285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.2357
84700606|NCT02427737|169143285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8523||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.8523
84700607|NCT02427737|169143285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5883||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done for this nonsignificant result since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1, which is not possible.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.5883
84700608|NCT02427737|169143286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.0195
84510089|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.922
84510090|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.190
84510091|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.850
84700609|NCT02427737|169143286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows compared to the baseline quarter||||0.276
84700610|NCT02427737|169143286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.2764
84700611|NCT02427737|169143287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.01
84700612|NCT02427737|169143287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9012||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for trained sites||||0.9012
84700613|NCT02427737|169143287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9065||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for untrained sites||||0.9065
84700614|NCT02427737|169143288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|CMH test with time as a strata variable was 28.7; chi-square value with pooling all data together was 28.6||Comparison among trained and untrained sites over time||||<0.0001
84510092|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.158
84700615|NCT02427737|169143293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84510093|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.099
84700616|NCT02427737|169143294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2396|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2396
84700617|NCT02427737|169143295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5267
84700618|NCT02427737|169143296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84700619|NCT02427737|169143297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84700620|NCT01456936|169143319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||||||An interaction between treatment and cohort was considered significant at 10% level. No multiplicity adjustments were utilized.|Regression, Linear|A generalized linear regression analysis based on the safety analysis set was used to evaluate incidence of NPS AE as the primary analysis.||The reduced (final) statistical model included treatment group, cohort and region, plus the 2-way interaction of treatment by cohort. Other interactions not included due to lack of significance. Region reduced to 2-level to address event sparseness issue.||||0.0652
84700621|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.15|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||-0.15|-2.40|
84700622|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.21|-1.37|
84700623|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.12|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.12|-1.54|
84700624|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.59|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model|Psychiatric cohort||3.59|-0.42|
84700625|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.81|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||3.81|-0.24|
84700626|NCT01456936|169143320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.26|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||2.26|-1.53|
84700627|NCT01456936|169143335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||5.00|3.20|<0.0001
84700628|NCT01456936|169143335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.85||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.85|1.80|<0.0001
84700629|NCT01456936|169143335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.90|1.83|<0.0001
84510094|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.141
84510095|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.379
84510096|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.858
84510097|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.591
84700630|NCT01456936|169143336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|4.11||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.11|2.56|<0.0001
84700631|NCT01456936|169143336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.39||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.39|1.46|<0.0001
84700632|NCT01456936|169143336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.55||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.55|1.56|<0.0001
84700633|NCT01456936|169143337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.24||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.24|3.07|<0.0001
84700634|NCT01456936|169143337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.45|1.75|<0.0001
84700635|NCT01456936|169143337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.82|<0.0001
84700636|NCT01456936|169143338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.83||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.83|2.33|<0.0001
84700637|NCT01456936|169143338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.59||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.59|1.54|<0.0001
84700638|NCT01456936|169143338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.51|<0.0001
84510098|NCT00406848|168771796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.242
84510099|NCT01355081|168771797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.467|0.413|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||0.413|-4.467|0.1031
84700639|NCT01456936|169143339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.29|1.90|<0.0001
84700640|NCT01456936|169143339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.36|1.33|<0.0001
84700641|NCT01456936|169143339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.20|1.24|<0.0001
84700642|NCT01456936|169143340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.30|2.28|<0.0001
84700643|NCT01456936|169143340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.29|1.56|<0.0001
84700644|NCT01456936|169143340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.19|1.49|<0.0001
84700645|NCT03095508|169143344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
84700646|NCT03095508|169143346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84700647|NCT03095508|169143347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
84700648|NCT03095508|169143348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
84510100|NCT01355081|168771797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.461|1.387|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||1.387|-3.461|0.4008
84510101|NCT01566409|168771806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The required sample size was based on a projected treatment success in the PEG group of 60%. With a power in excess of 80% and a critical level of significance of 0.05, 45 children were needed in each group to detect a 50% reduction in treatment effect in the placebo group, corresponding to 30% recovers without active maintenance treatment. Because of an expected drop-out rate of 25%, we aimed at including 115 children.||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.024
84700649|NCT03095508|169143349|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 14.5% absolute difference between percentages in group A and B|Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||p- value for superiority: 0.021|Fisher Exact|||p1=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm A p2=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm B Н0: p1 - p2 ≤ -0.145||0.24|0.03|0.00001
84700650|NCT00097253|169143409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Cortisol. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.83
84700651|NCT00097253|169143409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Epinephrine. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.16
84700652|NCT00097253|169143409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Norepinephrine. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline. Comparing timepoints 4 and 5 for pre versus post stressor, e.g. lemon versus water control; Citrus(5-4)-Water(5-4).||||0.017
84700653|NCT00097253|169143410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-6. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.10
84510102|NCT03309956|168771808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||||||0.23
84700654|NCT00097253|169143410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-10. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.50
84700655|NCT00097253|169143411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated-measures mixed effects models were used. Model was fit to the log-transformed data. Analysis applied to odor category, e.g. lavender / lemon / water.||||0.60
84700656|NCT00097253|169143412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The maximum DTH wheal of days 1-3 (24, 48, or 72 h) was used as the dependent variable for each subject at each visit. Visits for subjects with a maximum DTH wheal of 5mm or less were excluded. A repeated measures linear model was used to evaluate odor and placebo effects.||||0.014
84700657|NCT01879371|169143428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.334|110.431|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|"The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect.~The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested."||110.431|105.334|
84510103|NCT02768298|168771811|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.21|0.2327
84510104|NCT02768298|168771812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.68|0.6247
84700658|NCT01879371|169143428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.072|111.936|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.936|107.072|
84700659|NCT01879371|169143429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.874|105.776|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||105.776|93.874|
84510105|NCT02768298|168771813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.52|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||0.52|-2.98|0.1678
84510106|NCT02768298|168771813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.43|||ANCOVA|||3 months||2.43|-0.77|0.3052
84510107|NCT02768298|168771814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.32|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||4.32|-2.58|0.6181
84510108|NCT02768298|168771814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|7.48|||ANCOVA|||3 months||7.48|-0.93|0.1254
84510109|NCT02768298|168771815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Borg value dyspnea||0.33|-0.93|0.3432
84510110|NCT02768298|168771815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Borg value fatigue||0.65|-0.34|0.5319
84510111|NCT01210001|168771820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.27|-0.69|<0.0001
84700660|NCT01879371|169143429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|70.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.087|73.928|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||73.928|67.087|
84700661|NCT01879371|169143430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.05|109.004|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||109.004|104.050|
84700662|NCT01879371|169143430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.185|111.054|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.054|106.185|
84700663|NCT00580801|169143438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.54|1.78|||||Day 1: The least square (LS) means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.78|0.54|
84700664|NCT00580801|169143438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.33||||||90.0|1.03|1.72|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|1.03|
84700665|NCT00580801|169143439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.0||||||90.0|0.58|1.72|||||Day 1: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|0.58|
84700666|NCT00580801|169143439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.32||||||90.0|1.05|1.66|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.66|1.05|
84700667|NCT00580801|169143440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.43||||||90.0|1.02|2.02|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||2.02|1.02|
84700668|NCT00580801|169143441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.24||||||90.0|0.88|1.74|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.74|0.88|
84700669|NCT02595398|169143444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|31.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between country strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the country, i.e., US+Israel and India.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|A total sample size of 150 subjects in a 3:2 randomization had 90% power to detect a difference between treatments in the proportion of subjects showing improvement is 0.60 for treated and 0.34 for sham. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the CLS-TA arm over the sham arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by country.||45.9|15.5|<0.001
84700670|NCT01664104|169143567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700671|NCT01664104|169143567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700672|NCT01664104|169143568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700673|NCT01664104|169143568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
84700674|NCT01664104|169143569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.||||||<0.0001
84700675|NCT01664104|169143569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
84700676|NCT01664104|169143589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700677|NCT01664104|169143589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700678|NCT01664104|169143590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84700679|NCT01664104|169143590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84510112|NCT01210001|168771820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.82|-0.4||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
84700680|NCT01664104|169143591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|||||||t-test|P-value signifies CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6904
84700681|NCT01664104|169143591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6032|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6032
84700682|NCT01664104|169143591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6146|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6146
84700683|NCT01664104|169143592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.0018
84700684|NCT01664104|169143592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1617
84700685|NCT01664104|169143592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1296|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1296
84700686|NCT01664104|169143595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5332|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.5332
84700687|NCT01664104|169143596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6159|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.6159
84700688|NCT01664104|169143597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.2370
84700689|NCT01664104|169143597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8033|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-D1 (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.8033
84700690|NCT01664104|169143598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0306
84700691|NCT01664104|169143598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0749
84700692|NCT01664104|169143599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.4854
84700693|NCT01664104|169143599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||S|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.3250
84700694|NCT01664104|169143600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0011
84700695|NCT01664104|169143600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0013
84700696|NCT01664104|169143601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.5655
84700697|NCT01664104|169143601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3977|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.3977
84700698|NCT01664104|169143602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value obtained from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6.||||||0.0123
84700699|NCT01664104|169143602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value obtained from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6||||||0.0151
84700700|NCT01664104|169143603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9909|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.9909
84700701|NCT01664104|169143603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6482|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.6482
84700702|NCT01460342|169143606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
84700703|NCT01460342|169143607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
84700704|NCT01460342|169143607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.0|0.003
84700705|NCT01460342|169143608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.090
84700706|NCT01460342|169143608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.011
84700707|NCT01460342|169143608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
84700708|NCT01460342|169143609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.001
84700709|NCT01460342|169143609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
84700710|NCT01460342|169143609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.002
84510113|NCT01210001|168771821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.81|-15.15||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-15.15|-31.81|<0.0001
84700711|NCT01460342|169143610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.277
84700712|NCT01460342|169143610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.3|0.170
84700713|NCT01460342|169143610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.038
84700714|NCT01460342|169143611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84700715|NCT01460342|169143612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84700716|NCT01460342|169143613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.2|0.060
84700717|NCT02107014|169143614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.576
84700718|NCT02107014|169143615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84700719|NCT02107014|169143616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.008
84700720|NCT02107014|169143617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.015
84700721|NCT02107014|169143618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.007
84700722|NCT02107014|169143619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.016
84700723|NCT02107014|169143620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84700724|NCT02107014|169143621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.212
84700725|NCT02107014|169143624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84700726|NCT02107014|169143625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84700727|NCT02107014|169143626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84700728|NCT02107014|169143627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
84700729|NCT02107014|169143628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84700730|NCT02107014|169143629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84700731|NCT02107014|169143630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
84700732|NCT02107014|169143631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.088
84700733|NCT02107014|169143632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.478
84700734|NCT02107014|169143635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84700735|NCT02107014|169143636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
84700736|NCT02107014|169143637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84700737|NCT02107014|169143638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
84700738|NCT02107014|169143639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
84700739|NCT02107014|169143640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
84700740|NCT02107014|169143641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.558
84700741|NCT02107014|169143642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
84700742|NCT02107014|169143643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
84700743|NCT02107014|169143644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.248
84700744|NCT02107014|169143645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
84700745|NCT02107014|169143646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
84700746|NCT02107014|169143647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.962
84700747|NCT02107014|169143648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
84700748|NCT02107014|169143649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
84700749|NCT02107014|169143650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84700750|NCT02107014|169143651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
84700751|NCT02107014|169143652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84700752|NCT02107014|169143653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84700753|NCT02107014|169143654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
84700754|NCT02107014|169143655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84700755|NCT02107014|169143657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.508
84700756|NCT02107014|169143658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
84700757|NCT02107014|169143659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
84700758|NCT02107014|169143660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
84700759|NCT02107014|169143661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
84700760|NCT02107014|169143662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.080
84700761|NCT02107014|169143663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
84700762|NCT02107014|169143666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.945
84700763|NCT02107014|169143667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84700764|NCT02107014|169143668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.281
84510114|NCT01210001|168771821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.73|-20.19||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-20.19|-36.73|<0.0001
84700765|NCT02107014|169143669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
84700766|NCT02107014|169143670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
84700767|NCT02107014|169143671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
84700768|NCT02107014|169143672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
84700769|NCT02107014|169143673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
84700770|NCT02107014|169143676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
84700771|NCT02107014|169143677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84700772|NCT02107014|169143678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84700773|NCT03727854|169143714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
84700774|NCT03727854|169143715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.971
84700775|NCT03727854|169143716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.608
84700776|NCT03727854|169143717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
84700777|NCT03727854|169143718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
84700778|NCT03727854|169143719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
84700779|NCT03727854|169143720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
84700780|NCT03727854|169143721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
84700781|NCT03727854|169143722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
84700782|NCT01081145|169143723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in treatment failures|-15.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-4.5|-26.6|0.006
84700783|NCT01081145|169143724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84700784|NCT01081145|169143725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-3.48||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-3.48|-9.01|<0.001
84700785|NCT01081145|169143726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percent of subjects|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.5||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|6.6|0.001
84700786|NCT01081145|169143727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.02||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.14|0.118
84700787|NCT01081145|169143730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84700788|NCT01081145|169143734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84700789|NCT01606124|169143769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5631
84700790|NCT01606124|169143770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1439
84700791|NCT05298111|169143825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84700792|NCT05298111|169143826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
84700793|NCT05298111|169143827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||< 0.001
84700794|NCT05298111|169143828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||0.001
84700795|NCT05298111|169143829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.894
84700796|NCT05298111|169143830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.629
84700797|NCT05298111|169143831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.653
84700798|NCT05298111|169143832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.624
84700799|NCT05298111|169143833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.414
84700800|NCT05298111|169143834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.105
84700801|NCT02380742|169143835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.02
84700802|NCT02380742|169143836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for investigator training and pessary type.||||.03
84700803|NCT02380742|169143837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain and patient age.||||.03
84700804|NCT02380742|169143838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at insertion were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.09
84700805|NCT02628093|169143845|OTHER|Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required.||||||0.214||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables and the primary outcome were compared between groups (THUNDERBEAT and LigaSure) by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and the chi-square test/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, as appropriate. All p-values are two-sided with statistical significance evaluated at the 0.05 alpha level.||||0.214
84700806|NCT02628093|169143846|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||compared between groups by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.007
84700807|NCT02628093|169143850|OTHER|||||||1||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84700808|NCT02814643|169143852|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.35|0.56|
84700809|NCT02814643|169143852|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.71|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.71|0.82|
84700810|NCT02814643|169143852|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.29|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.29|0.67|
84700811|NCT02814643|169143852|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.19|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.19|0.54|
84700812|NCT02814643|169143853|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.31|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.31|0.76|
84700813|NCT02814643|169143853|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.77|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.77|0.93|
84700814|NCT02814643|169143853|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.79|1.34|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.34|0.79|
84700815|NCT02814643|169143853|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.26||||||90.0|0.93|1.7|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.70|0.93|
84700816|NCT02263508|169143862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.04|0.71|0.13
84700817|NCT02263508|169143863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.21|0.77|0.77
84700818|NCT02263508|169143871|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||3.07|1.15|0.012
84700819|NCT02263508|169143872|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.34|0.82|0.14
84700820|NCT02263508|169143873|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.63|0.47
84700821|NCT02263508|169143874|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.79|0.97|0.081
84700822|NCT02263508|169143876|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.90|1.02|0.039
84700823|NCT02263508|169143878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.75|0.94|0.11
84700824|NCT02263508|169143879|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.96|1.06|0.020
84700825|NCT02263508|169143881|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||2.17|1.16|0.004
84700826|NCT02263508|169143883|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.85|0.99|0.058
84700827|NCT02263508|169143884|OTHER||Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures include the fixed and categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, the fixed and continuous covariates of baseline HRQL score, randomization stratification factors (stage of disease and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy per IVRS) and baseline PD-L1 status (positive and not positive). Random subject effect was modeled using within subject-error correlation structure.||2.05|-1.67|0.84
84700828|NCT01280591|169143886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.8|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-106.8|0.0002
84700829|NCT01280591|169143887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84700830|NCT01280591|169143888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|112.7|||ANCOVA|||||112.7|28.1|0.0001
84700831|NCT01280591|169143889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.7|||ANCOVA|||||19.7|3.7|0.0007
84700832|NCT01280591|169143890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84700833|NCT01280591|169143891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
84700834|NCT01280591|169143892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0321
84700835|NCT01280591|169143893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
84700836|NCT01280591|169143894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84700837|NCT01280591|169143895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84700838|NCT01280591|169143896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84700839|NCT01280591|169143897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84700840|NCT01280591|169143898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84700841|NCT01280591|169143899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
84700842|NCT01280591|169143900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
84700843|NCT01280591|169143901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84700844|NCT01280591|169143902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
84700845|NCT01280591|169143903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0047
84510115|NCT01210001|168771822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.64|-1.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-1.27|-2.64|<0.0001
84700846|NCT01280591|169143904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0053
84700847|NCT01280591|169143906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2734
84700848|NCT00930813|169143927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study required 100 subjects to provide 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference in late lumen loss of 15% of reference vessel diameter between treatment groups on the basis of a 2-sample Student t test with 2-sided alpha 0.05.||||0.016
84700849|NCT02145182|169143944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression results for the DGF composite, the effect of treatment adjusted for preservation type, donor type, and Irish score.|Calculated using the logistic regression model.|Analysis of DGF composite||1.33|0.49|0.3983
84700850|NCT00543725|169144015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|9.0||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||9.0|-1.6|<0.0001
84700851|NCT00543725|169144016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.9|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||9.6|-1.9|<0.0001
84700852|NCT00543725|169144017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|2.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|8.4||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||8.4|-3.6|<0.0001
84510116|NCT01210001|168771822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.49|-1.13||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-1.13|-2.49|<0.0001
84510117|NCT01210001|168771823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.21||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.21|-0.69|<0.0001
84510118|NCT01210001|168771823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.36||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.36|-0.83|<0.0001
84510119|NCT03900624|168771826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
84700853|NCT00543725|169144018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.6|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||7.0|-5.6|<0.0001
84700854|NCT00906698|169144033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|126.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.549|229.012|||ANOVA|||||229.012|69.549|
84700855|NCT00906698|169144034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.037|87.837|||ANOVA|||||87.837|65.037|
84700856|NCT00906698|169144035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|132.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.305|243.917|||ANOVA|||||243.917|72.305|
84700857|NCT00906698|169144036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.156|114.823|||ANOVA|||||114.823|61.156|
84700858|NCT00906698|169144039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.071|106.978|||ANOVA|||||106.978|76.071|
84700859|NCT00906698|169144040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.71|103.871|||ANOVA|||||103.871|56.710|
84510120|NCT03900624|168771827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
84510121|NCT03900624|168771828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
84700860|NCT00906698|169144041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.369|105.966|||ANOVA|||||105.966|66.369|
84700861|NCT00906698|169144042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|110.369|||ANOVA|||||110.369|60.470|
84700862|NCT03879642|169144048|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||
84700863|NCT03879642|169144049|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84700864|NCT02020018|169144062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84700865|NCT03404843|169144065|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.97
84700866|NCT03404843|169144065|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
84700867|NCT03404843|169144066|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
84700868|NCT03404843|169144066|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
84700869|NCT03404843|169144067|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.28
84700870|NCT03404843|169144067|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.37
84700871|NCT03404843|169144068|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.89
84700872|NCT03404843|169144068|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.30
84700873|NCT03404843|169144069|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.08
84700874|NCT03404843|169144069|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.05
84700875|NCT00567164|169144071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.356||0.0001||95.0|-16.3|-7.394|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.394|-16.3|0.0001
84700876|NCT04044664|169144094|OTHER|||||||0.1728|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||CAPS-5 Total Score||||0.1728
84700877|NCT04044664|169144094|OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Cognition and Mood sub-score||||0.0962
84700878|NCT04044664|169144094|OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Arousal and Reactivity sub-score||||0.0191
84700879|NCT04044664|169144100|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0452
84700880|NCT04044664|169144100|OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0614
84700881|NCT04044664|169144101|OTHER|||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 30% decrease from baseline||||0.0182
84700882|NCT04044664|169144101|OTHER|||||||0.0705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 50% decrease from baseline||||0.0705
84700883|NCT00478556|169144108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|62.0|||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test of proportion|tested if values were different from 50%||All individuals tasted both preparations and indicated preference. A binomial test of proportion was done to see if these values differed from 50%.||||<0.001
84700884|NCT00478556|169144109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess differences in bowel opacification score between the two groups.||||0.270
84700885|NCT00404079|169144202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was glucosamine sulfate is not superior to placebo to reduce pain and disability associated with chronic low back pain. Power calculation was based on a 3 point difference between the groups with the primary outcome. Data was analysed with linear mixed models||||0.05
84700886|NCT00404079|169144202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84700887|NCT01859312|169144208|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.021
84700888|NCT01859312|169144210|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.027
84700889|NCT01859312|169144212|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
84700890|NCT01859312|169144214|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.012
84510122|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.2|1.0||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-2.2|
84700891|NCT01859312|169144216|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.157
84700892|NCT01859312|169144218|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.015
84700893|NCT01859312|169144220|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
84700894|NCT01859312|169144222|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
84700895|NCT01859312|169144224|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
84700896|NCT01859312|169144226|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.043
84700897|NCT01859312|169144228|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.024
84700898|NCT01859312|169144230|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.031
84700899|NCT01859312|169144232|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.005
84700900|NCT01859312|169144234|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.004
84700901|NCT01859312|169144236|OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.524
84510123|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.0|3.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥16 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-4.0|
84700902|NCT01859312|169144238|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.|Comparison of hormone levels on conventional glucocorticoid therapy at baseline and following 6 months of CSHI.|||0.007
84700903|NCT01859312|169144240|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.084
84700904|NCT01859312|169144242|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.057
84700905|NCT01859312|169144244|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.103
84700906|NCT01859312|169144246|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.070
84700907|NCT00843193|169144258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.27|0.1955
84700908|NCT00843193|169144258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||-0.03|-0.34|0.0193
84700909|NCT00843193|169144258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.14|-0.23|0.6156
84700910|NCT00843193|169144258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 120 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.14|-0.31|0.4672
84700911|NCT00843193|169144261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.08|0.7693
84700912|NCT00843193|169144261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||0.09|-0.08|0.8987
84700913|NCT00843193|169144261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.05|-0.12|0.4231
84700914|NCT00843193|169144261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.00|-0.19|0.0537
84700915|NCT02057718|169144275|OTHER|Null hypothesis (H0): mean change from baseline to Week 13 is zero. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the 2 PFIC subgroups and overall; the change in the overall population is presented here.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.304|STANDARD_DEVIATION|160.9748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.35|35.742||||||This analysis shows the change from baseline to Week 13 in sBA levels for the overall Modified Intent-to-treat Population. Even though a comparison of PFIC1 vs PFIC2 (overall) is noted, the results are the change from baseline for all participants and is not comparative.||35.742|-82.35|
84700916|NCT02512042|169144284|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 (hours 0, before the morning drop) at the Day 14 visit should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.69|
84700917|NCT02512042|169144284|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/- 1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.43|
84700918|NCT02512042|169144284|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 14 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||||||||-0.09|-0.71|
84700919|NCT02512042|169144284|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.50|
84700920|NCT00952718|169144285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value for MIP was adjusted by linear regression model.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84700921|NCT00952718|169144285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||adjusted p for MEP by linear regression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.038
84510124|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.6|
84700922|NCT00952718|169144286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.063
84700923|NCT00952718|169144287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.269
84700924|NCT00482729|169144355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-0.43|-0.78|<0.001
84700925|NCT00482729|169144356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|2.69||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|||2.69|1.60|<0.001
84700926|NCT00482729|169144357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.4|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-9.0|-22.4|<0.001
84700927|NCT00482729|169144358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||||95.0|-0.67|-0.3|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C.|||-0.30|-0.67|
84700928|NCT00482729|169144359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||||95.0|1.63|2.73|||||This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 44 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group, based on a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C|||2.73|1.63|
84700929|NCT01729819|169144368|SUPERIORITY|The change in mean nocturnal voids from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, and treatments and visit (Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3) as factors, was considered for the analysis. Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. Missing values post-baseline were not imputed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal voids as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, treatment and visit as factors.|Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented. The trial was to be declared positive if a statistically significant (two-sided, p \< 0.05) positive effect for combining tolterodine and desmopressin compared to tolterodine monotherapy on the primary endpoint had been demonstrated.||0.08|-0.77|0.112
84700930|NCT01729819|169144369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|58.96|||ANCOVA|Change in mean time to first void as dependent variable and baseline mean time to first void as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented.||58.96|-22.96|0.385
84700931|NCT01729819|169144370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.16||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.46|13.14|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal volume as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal volume as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented||13.14|-141.46|0.103
84510125|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.6|
84700932|NCT01729819|169144371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.62||33% responder status as dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as covariate, treatment, and visit as factors.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. odds of being responder in combination group versus odds of being responder in tolterodine group) is presented. The proportion of responders during three months of treatment was analysed (i.e. the odds ratio of the odds of being a responder) longitudinally using Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) for a repeated logistic regression.||2.62|0.71|0.352
84700933|NCT01729819|169144372|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.443||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 1|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 1||||0.443
84700934|NCT01729819|169144372|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.086||||||Adjusted treatment difference in mean number of nocturnal voids (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2||||0.086
84700935|NCT01729819|169144372|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.055||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 3|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 3||||0.055
84700936|NCT01729819|169144372|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.106||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids for the duration of 3 months|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) for the duration of 3 months||||0.106
84700937|NCT01729819|169144373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.05|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented.Statistical analysis for from very tired to wide awake, how do you feel now"||1.05|-0.20|0.178
84700938|NCT01729819|169144373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.94|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate how refreshed you feel now"||0.94|-0.26|0.257
84700939|NCT01729819|169144373|SUPERIORITY|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|Longitudinal analysis of covariance on change from baseline with baseline as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate the quality of your sleep last night"||0.88|-0.32|0.360
84700940|NCT01803646|169144408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.51|0.32
84700941|NCT01803646|169144409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4|0.63
84700942|NCT01803646|169144410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for air conduction||||0.821
84700943|NCT01803646|169144410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for bone conduction||||1.0
84700944|NCT00420316|169144434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|34.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-348.7|88.9|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RV GE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||88.9|-348.7|0.691
84700945|NCT00420316|169144435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|50.7||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3769.6|99.4|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who have received placebo.||99.4|-3769.6|0.551
84700946|NCT00420316|169144437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|100.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1822.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of serotype G1. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||100|-1822.5|0.33
84700947|NCT00420316|169144438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-97.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9610.8|80.5|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||80.5|-9610.8|1
84700948|NCT00420316|169144439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.7|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||98.7|0|1
84700949|NCT00420316|169144440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-23.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|54.8|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe gastroenteritis (GE) was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||54.8|-287.7|0.817
84700950|NCT02281318|169144443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-4.9|-10.5|<0.001
84700951|NCT02281318|169144444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|192.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||192|47|0.001
84700952|NCT02281318|169144445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.55|<0.001
84700953|NCT02281318|169144446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
84700954|NCT00812877|169144467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.66||A clustered permutation test with 10,000 random permutations based on the log rank test statistic was used for the primary treatment comparison to account for censoring and to ensure proper test size given the number of practices.|Log Rank||A confirmatory analysis, adjusted for patient, dentist, and tooth characteristics, and follow-up time, was performed using marginal proportional hazards regression with robust standard error estimates accounting for clustering by practice.|||4.66|1.19|.046
84700955|NCT00558363|169144477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||Comparing 24-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox Proportional Hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.50|0.23|<0.001
84700956|NCT00558363|169144487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 57% versus 28%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
84700957|NCT00558363|169144488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.45||Comparing 12-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.45|0.14|<0.001
84700958|NCT00558363|169144489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 35% versus 10%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
84700959|NCT03102710|169144502|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for lidocaine before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 0.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.2, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.8.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on placebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with placebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.03
84700960|NCT03102710|169144502|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for capsaicin before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2. In addition, we added the STAI state and trait anxiety scores as covariates when assessing the modulation effects of tDCS on the nocebo effect, as previous studies have suggested that anxiety level could affect nocebo hyperalgesia.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 1.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.0, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.3.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on nocebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with nocebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.04
84700961|NCT01368406|169144503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|t test for independent samples||||1.13|-0.65|0.055
84700962|NCT01368406|169144503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.83|0.13|0.055
84700963|NCT00667693|169144519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||||0.55|0.23|<0.001
84700964|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used.||Anti-HPV Type 6||1.21|1.02|<0.001
84700965|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 11||1.19|1.00|<0.001
84700966|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 16||1.30|1.10|<0.001
84700967|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.31|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 18||1.31|1.08|<0.001
84700968|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 31||1.37|1.13|<0.001
84700969|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 33||1.30|1.10|<0.001
84700970|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.41|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.41|1.14|<0.001
84700971|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.26|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 52||1.26|1.05|<0.001
84700972|NCT01651949|169144525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 58||1.36|1.14|<0.001
84700973|NCT01651949|169144526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Erythema||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
84700974|NCT01651949|169144526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-15.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Pain||-15.7|-22.5|<0.001
84700975|NCT01651949|169144526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-13.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Swelling||-13.7|-20.8|<0.001
84700976|NCT01651949|169144527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of maximum body temperature \>=37.8° C reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Elevated Body Temperature||0.2|-3.4|0.091
84700977|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 6||0.9|-0.7|<0.001
84700978|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 11||0.8|-0.3|<0.001
84700979|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 16||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
84700980|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 18||0.8|-0.4|<0.001
84700981|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 31||0.5|-0.4|<0.001
84700982|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 33||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
84700983|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
84700984|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 52||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
84700985|NCT01651949|169144528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 58||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
84700986|NCT00678795|169144531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint, the change in the number of incontinence episodes per day, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of incontinence episodes per day as a covariate.||0.26|-0.47|0.569
84700987|NCT00678795|169144532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of urgency episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of urgency episodes per day as a covariate.||0.07|-1.58|0.071
84700988|NCT00678795|169144533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of nocturia episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of nocturia episodes per day as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.50|0.010
84700989|NCT00678795|169144534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.41|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of incontinence pads used per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of number of incontinence pads used per day as a covariate.||0.41|-0.57|0.74
84700990|NCT00678795|169144535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|9.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the I-QOL score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline I-QOL score as a covariate.||9.46|-1.65|0.166
84510126|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.0|2.9||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥31 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.9|-5.0|
84510127|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.4||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.5|
84700991|NCT00678795|169144536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||-0.51|-1.82|0.001
84700992|NCT00678795|169144537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|25.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.37|40.42|||Fisher Exact|||For Patient Global Impression of Change, the proportions of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||40.42|10.37|0.002
84700993|NCT00678795|169144538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of voids per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of voids per day as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.47|0.007
84700994|NCT00434018|169144549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84700995|NCT01689519|169144556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||0.68|0.39|0.0001
84700996|NCT01689519|169144556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||0.72|0.46|<0.0001
84700997|NCT01689519|169144556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
84700998|NCT01689519|169144557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||1.00|0.42|0.0463
84700999|NCT01689519|169144557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Analysis 16 January 2015||0.87|0.49|0.0034
84701000|NCT01689519|169144557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Final Analysis 28 August 2015||0.90|0.55|0.0050
84701001|NCT01689519|169144558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|31.58|||Chi-squared|||Primary Analysis: 9 May 2014||31.58|14.13|<0.0001
84701002|NCT01689519|169144558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.3|||Chi-squared|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||28.3|11.0|<0.0001
84701003|NCT01689519|169144558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|28.7|||Chi-squared|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||28.70|11.40|<0.0001
84701004|NCT02982213|169144567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
84701005|NCT02982213|169144571|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 5 per group to achieve 80% power to detect a change in the log odds ration of 1.0 at a .05 significance level using a two sided Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.001
84701006|NCT01549652|169144572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Students' t-tests for paired samples with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for crossover treatment arms (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||For the purposes of our post-hoc power calculation we considered a 30% treatment effect clinically significant. Based on the mean observed OOWS score during withdrawal during the placebo session and the variance of that mean score and assuming a paired data analysis and an alpha of 0.05, we found that we had 80% power to detect a treatment effect as low as 25% reduction in OOWS.||||0.87
84701007|NCT01549652|169144573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84701008|NCT01549652|169144574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
84701009|NCT01549652|169144575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
84701010|NCT01549652|169144576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84701011|NCT01549652|169144577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84701012|NCT01549652|169144578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Students' t-test for paired samples were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for treatment groups (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||We aimed for a 20% change in OOWS score to show the treatment effect with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05, yielding a target of 23 patients per treatment group.||||0.6
84701013|NCT01549652|169144579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84701014|NCT01549652|169144580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
84701015|NCT01549652|169144581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
84701016|NCT01549652|169144582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84701017|NCT01549652|169144583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84701018|NCT03068611|169144589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.90
84701019|NCT03068611|169144590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.54
84701020|NCT03068611|169144591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed transformed due to positive skewness||||||.36
84701021|NCT03068611|169144592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed to correct positive skewness||||||.92
84701022|NCT01335932|169144598|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0001
84701023|NCT01335932|169144599|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84701024|NCT01335932|169144605|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84701025|NCT01335932|169144606|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
84701026|NCT01335932|169144607|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84701027|NCT01335932|169144608|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84701028|NCT01335932|169144609|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84701029|NCT01335932|169144610|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84701030|NCT01335932|169144611|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84701031|NCT01335932|169144612|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84701032|NCT01335932|169144613|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84701033|NCT01335932|169144614|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84701034|NCT01335932|169144615|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84701035|NCT01335932|169144616|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84701036|NCT01335932|169144617|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84701037|NCT01335932|169144618|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84701038|NCT01335932|169144619|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84701039|NCT01335932|169144620|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84701040|NCT01335932|169144621|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84701041|NCT01335932|169144622|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84701042|NCT01335932|169144623|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84701043|NCT01335932|169144624|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84701044|NCT01335932|169144625|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84701045|NCT01335932|169144626|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84701046|NCT01335932|169144627|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84701047|NCT01335932|169144628|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84701048|NCT01335932|169144629|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84701049|NCT01335932|169144630|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84701050|NCT00835380|169144667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.0||||||95.0|89.0|99.0||||||||99|89|
84701051|NCT03247543|169144669|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.9|-10.0|0.0038
84701052|NCT03247543|169144669|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-9.9|0.0063
84701053|NCT03247543|169144670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0028
84701054|NCT03247543|169144670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0099
84701055|NCT03247543|169144671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.5|0.0064
84701056|NCT03247543|169144671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.0917
84701057|NCT03247543|169144672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.0651
84701058|NCT03247543|169144672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.1680
84701059|NCT03247543|169144673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.1|-2.9|0.1316
84701060|NCT03247543|169144673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.9|2.0|0.0276
84701061|NCT03247543|169144674|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-8.7|0.2128
84701062|NCT03247543|169144674|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-11.3|0.0409
84701063|NCT03247543|169144675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.2|-5.4|0.0020
84701064|NCT03247543|169144675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.0|-5.3|0.0039
84701065|NCT03247543|169144675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.7|-4.8|0.0087
84701066|NCT03247543|169144675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.3|-4.6|0.0248
84701067|NCT03247543|169144676|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.3|0.7003
84701068|NCT03247543|169144676|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.9|0.1602
84701069|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0236|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0236
84701070|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0505
84701071|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.1225
84701072|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.0254
84701073|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.0261
84701074|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0037
84701075|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.0385
84701076|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0956|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0956
84701077|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0962
84701078|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0744
84701079|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.0218
84701080|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.1150
84701081|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.1086
84701082|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0082|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0082
84701083|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2326|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.2326
84701084|NCT03247543|169144677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0883|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0883
84701085|NCT01097343|169144678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||A sample of size of 50 patients for the cross-over study was chosen because it provided 80% power to detect a decrease in the rate of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR, defined as \>230 PRU) from 75% to 46% with high dose clopidogrel, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||=0.02
84701086|NCT00964119|169144679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-value \< .05 is the computed p-value for this measurement.|t-test, 2 sided|||PI and lead author left the institution before publishing data. Study has been closed and data files archived.||||<.05
84510128|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.8|1.0||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥40 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-7.8|
84510129|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.6|5.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.0|-3.6|
84701087|NCT02059980|169144680|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants rnadomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||= 0.56
84701088|NCT02059980|169144681|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||=.98
84510130|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-9.1|2.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||2.4|-9.1|
84510131|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-8.2|9.5||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||9.5|-8.2|
84701089|NCT01726023|169144698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI; corresponding to a 97.5% 1 sided lower bound) was greater than -12.5% for the primary outcome variable.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.97||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff ≤ -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|units for RD are %|The Primary objective of this study was to assess the non inferiority (based on a 12.5% margin) of CAZ AVI plus metronidazole compared to meropenem alone with respect to clinical cure at the TOC visit in patients who were CE.||4.97|-5.53|<0.001
84701090|NCT01726023|169144731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|0.5||||0.773|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.773
84701091|NCT01726023|169144732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|1.0||||0.598|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.598
84701092|NCT05824351|169144811|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|-0.2571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided lower t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||<0.0001
84701093|NCT05824351|169144811|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided upper t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||0.0003
84701094|NCT03722446|169144840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84701095|NCT03722446|169144841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01020
84701096|NCT03722446|169144842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84701097|NCT03722446|169144843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
84510132|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|1.6||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.6|-1.8|
84701098|NCT03722446|169144844|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84701099|NCT03722446|169144845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84701100|NCT00635817|169144852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.099
84701101|NCT00635817|169144852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.074
84701102|NCT00635817|169144852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.026
84701103|NCT00635817|169144852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.102
84701104|NCT00635817|169144853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.008
84701105|NCT00635817|169144853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.002
84701106|NCT00635817|169144853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.347
84701107|NCT00635817|169144853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.150
84701108|NCT01875250|169144871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.74
84701109|NCT01090024|169144939|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|1.313|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.313|-1.147|0.4473
84701110|NCT01090024|169144939|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.903|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.903|-0.563|0.1426
84701111|NCT01090024|169144939|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|1.486|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.486|-0.924|0.3231
84701112|NCT01090024|169144940|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.068|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.068|-0.180|0.1879
84701113|NCT01090024|169144940|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.098|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.098|-0.151|0.3384
84701114|NCT01090024|169144940|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.029|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.029|-0.214|0.0670
84701115|NCT03720990|169144956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84701116|NCT01549314|169144965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.77
84701117|NCT01549314|169144965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.82
84701118|NCT01549314|169144966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.64
84701119|NCT01549314|169144966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.78
84701120|NCT01549314|169144967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.86
84701121|NCT01549314|169144967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.99
84701122|NCT00516503|169144987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84701123|NCT00516503|169144988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84510133|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.5||||||95.0|-8.3|0.8||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||0.8|-8.3|
84510134|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.9|7.1||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||7.1|-3.9|
84701124|NCT00516503|169144989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84701125|NCT02987543|169144998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|379.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||379.18|4.18|<0.0001
84701126|NCT02987543|169144999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||||0.63|0.38|<0.0001
84701127|NCT02987543|169145000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.22|0.0192
84701128|NCT02987543|169145001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.50|0.0175
84701129|NCT02987543|169145002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.25|<0.0001
84701130|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.69||||||"Abdomen 10 minutes~Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.69|-0.44|
84701131|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.49||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.49|1.36|
84701132|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.36|-0.73|
84701133|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.78||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.78|1.69|
84701134|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.31||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.31|-0.90|
84701135|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.22||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.22|1.98|
84701136|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.57||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.57|-0.61|
84701137|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.93||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.93|1.72|
84701138|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.22||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.22|-0.91|
84701139|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.01||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.01|1.88|
84701140|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.24||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.24|-0.85|
84701141|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.95|1.87|
84701142|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.40|-0.67|
84701143|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.80|1.70|
84701144|NCT03224299|169145003|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.48||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.48|-0.56|
84701145|NCT03224299|169145003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.68||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.68|1.62|
84701146|NCT00309452|169145015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for hospitalization rates, adjusted for pretreatment hospitalization||||0.018
84701147|NCT00309452|169145019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for vocational engagement, adjusted for pretreatment vocational engagement||||0.002
84701148|NCT00771667|169145026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.005
84701149|NCT00771667|169145026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.057
84701150|NCT00771667|169145026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.021
84701151|NCT00771667|169145027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.682
84701152|NCT00771667|169145027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.206
84701153|NCT00771667|169145027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.196
84701154|NCT00771667|169145028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.008
84701155|NCT00771667|169145028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
84701156|NCT00771667|169145028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.035
84701157|NCT00771667|169145029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
84701158|NCT00771667|169145029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.007
84701159|NCT00771667|169145029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.006
84701160|NCT00771667|169145030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.074
84701161|NCT00771667|169145030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.081
84701162|NCT00771667|169145030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.105
84701163|NCT00771667|169145031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Testing for Week-22 clinical remission was performed if the comparison of 6-mg/kg ustekinumab with placebo was positive for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test chi-square test, stratified by IV induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||0.029
84701164|NCT00771667|169145032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||<0.001
84701165|NCT03265210|169145067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Baseline||1.95|-4.95|0.39
84701166|NCT03265210|169145067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|-0.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|6 weeks||-0.39|-7.19|0.03
84701167|NCT03265210|169145067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|9 weeks||2.26|-5.38|0.42
84701168|NCT03265210|169145067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|12 weeks||0.28|-7.02|0.07
84701169|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, Baseline||0.33|-1.81|0.17
84701170|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 6 weeks||0.44|-1.68|0.25
84701171|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 9 weeks||0.17|-2.29|0.09
84701172|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 12 weeks||0.01|-2.19|0.05
84701173|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, Baseline||-0.48|-5.90|0.02
84701174|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 6 weeks||-1.54|-7.06|0.003
84701175|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-3.05|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 9 weeks||-3.05|-8.85|0.0001
84701176|NCT03265210|169145068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 12 weeks||-1.24|-7.46|0.007
84701177|NCT03265210|169145069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1||1.69|0.53|0.0003
84701178|NCT03265210|169145069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2||0.83|0.21|0.001
84701179|NCT03265210|169145069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 3||1.56|0.36|0.002
84701180|NCT00286741|169145098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84701181|NCT00286741|169145099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84701182|NCT03383887|169145101|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84701183|NCT03383887|169145102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
84510135|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||1.7|-2.3|
84701184|NCT00300456|169145103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84701185|NCT00300456|169145103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84701186|NCT00300456|169145104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84701187|NCT00300456|169145104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84701188|NCT00300456|169145105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84701189|NCT00300456|169145105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84701190|NCT01806714|169145113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||clustered stratified Proportional Hazard||We determined hazard ratios using a clustered stratified Cox model with the Efron method to handle tied events and the Huber/White variance estimator that clustered on primary care provider and stratified on practice.|||1.6|1.0|<0.04
84701191|NCT02155829|169145116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.442
84701192|NCT02155829|169145117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.994
84701193|NCT02155829|169145118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.684
84701194|NCT02155829|169145119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.913
84701195|NCT02155829|169145120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.746
84701196|NCT02155829|169145121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.057
84701197|NCT02155829|169145122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.0496
84701198|NCT00816829|169145155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.048
84701199|NCT00816829|169145156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.203
84701200|NCT00816829|169145157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups was performed using Wilcoxon Test on data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.007
84701201|NCT00816829|169145158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.199
84701202|NCT00816829|169145159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.114
84701203|NCT00816829|169145160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.533
84701204|NCT00816829|169145161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.521
84701205|NCT00816829|169145162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.333
84701206|NCT00816829|169145163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.264
84701207|NCT00816829|169145164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.401
84701208|NCT02908620|169145176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|8.69|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||8.69|-3.06|0.322
84510136|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.0|2.8||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.8|-5.0|
84701209|NCT02908620|169145177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|2.99|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||2.99|-20.38|0.134
84701210|NCT02908620|169145178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|14.62|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||14.62|-6.48|0.442
84701211|NCT02908620|169145179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|16.9|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||16.90|-3.27|0.172
84701212|NCT04548622|169145186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84701213|NCT04548622|169145187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84701214|NCT04548622|169145188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84701215|NCT00470626|169145239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Successful Retrieval|0.9||||||95.0|||||||Probability of successful retrieval is from Kaplan-Meier analysis.|||||
84701216|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between genders: women and men.||1.22|0.45|0.235
84701217|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between Age: \<= 55 years and \> 55 years||1.22|0.55|0.331
84701218|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.23|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.23|1.00|0.050
84701219|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between participants without erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and participants with erosive RA||2.46|0.88|0.144
84701220|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between DAS-28 score: \<= 5.1 and DAS-28 \>5.1||2.65|1.14|0.010
84701221|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.1|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between ESR: \<= 28 mm/h and \> 28 mm/h||2.10|0.92|0.119
84701222|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.13|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between number of participants without anemia and number of participants with anemia||2.13|0.81|0.265
84701223|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between dose of corticosteroids: \<= 5 mg and \> 5 mg||1.71|0.77|0.511
84701224|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HAQ score: \<= 1.5 and \> 1.5||2.00|0.90|0.153
84701225|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.31|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: fatigue \<= 66 and \> 66||3.31|1.45|<0.001
84701226|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.08|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: pain \<= 66 and \> 66||3.08|1.35|<0.001
84701227|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.75|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<=30 score and 30 - 59 score||2.75|0.86|0.261
84701228|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and 59 - 77||2.05|0.67|0.261
84701229|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.89|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and \> 77||2.89|0.95|0.261
84701230|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.14|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: global assessment score: \<= 67 and \> 67||3.14|1.38|<0.001
84701231|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.47|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between SF36 vitality score: \> 33 and \<= 33||3.47|1.50|< 0.001
84701232|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.93|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Doubtful case)||1.93|0.60|0.399
84701233|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Certain case)||1.26|0.48|0.399
84701234|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Doubtful case)||1.81|0.65|0.858
84701235|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Certain case)||1.52|0.57|0.858
84701236|NCT01185522|169145262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.58|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.58|1.03|0.036
84701237|NCT01185522|169145263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.28|1.05|0.004
84701238|NCT01185522|169145263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.27|1.03|0.013
84701239|NCT01185522|169145264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: Tender joint||1.05|0.99|0.253
84510137|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|2.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.9|-1.6|
84701240|NCT01185522|169145264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.09|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor : Swollen joint||1.09|1.01|0.021
84701241|NCT02962674|169145276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses associated with this objective was written as:~H0: μ ΔIPSS ≤ 6.5 points HA: μ ΔIPSS \> 6.5 points where μ ΔIPSS was the true underlying value of mean ΔIPSS following a treatment at the 3-month follow-up visit and 6.5 points was an objective performance goal (OPG). The objective was met at a given time point by rejecting the null hypothesis in a one-sided t-test at the 5% significance level."||||0.004
84701242|NCT03686813|169145293|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
84701243|NCT03686813|169145294|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
84701244|NCT03686813|169145295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||>0.999
84701245|NCT03686813|169145296|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
84701246|NCT03686813|169145297|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||McNemar|||||||0.29
84701247|NCT01227278|169145298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||Van Elteren Test|Day 1 to 393: Van Elteren test was used to compare the two arms.|95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio was based on normal approximation assuming rate with Poisson distribution.|||1.58|0.67|0.941
84701248|NCT03546907|169145314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.808||||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.065|||Negative binomial regression model|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial regression model with total number of events occurring during observation duration as response variable, treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, number of severe COPD exacerbations experienced in previous year(0 vs. 1+) at baseline, smoking history(current vs. former smoker), post-BD FEV1 percent(%) predicted (less than\[\<\] 50% vs greater than equal\[\>=\]50%) at baseline as covariates, and log-transformed observation duration as offset variable.||1.065|0.613|0.1296
84701249|NCT02469064|169145358|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Mann Whitneey||Univariate analysis of the probability of extubation was performed using Kaplan-Meir survival analysis and the logrank test.The multivariate analysis was performed by cox regression, a simple model was performed and a final model.|||1.20|0.55|0.84
84701250|NCT02469064|169145359|OTHER||Slope|0.46||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.78|||t-test, 2 sided||The slope shows the difference between the means of the change in the MIP of the group that received the experimental treatment and the group that received the conventional treatment|||4.78|-3.75|0.48
84701251|NCT01120275|169145364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month PFS|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||||||6-month progression free survival (PFS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.22|0.02|
84510138|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
84701252|NCT01120275|169145365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year OS|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66||||||1-year overall survival (OS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.66|0.32|
84701253|NCT01156116|169145384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.03
84701254|NCT01156116|169145385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.04
84701255|NCT01156116|169145386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.009
84701256|NCT01156116|169145387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||<0.001
84701257|NCT04511650|169145411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease severity.||Pooled Razuprotafib comparison to Placebo. All results are summarized descriptively by treatment arm and expressed as proportions, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between response rates, and p-values.||||0.4795
84701258|NCT04059237|169145422|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84701259|NCT04059237|169145423|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
84701260|NCT04059237|169145424|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84701261|NCT04059237|169145425|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.10
84701262|NCT04059237|169145426|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||.01
84701263|NCT04059237|169145427|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.59
84701264|NCT04059237|169145428|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84701265|NCT04059237|169145429|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.52
84701266|NCT04059237|169145430|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.08
84701267|NCT01972152|169145446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis.||||||0.24
84510139|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.7||||||95.0|-7.3|1.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥21 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.8|-7.3|
84510140|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
84510141|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
84510142|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.3|4.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥162 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.1|-4.3|
84510143|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
84701268|NCT01972152|169145447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
84701269|NCT01972152|169145447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84701270|NCT01972152|169145448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
84701271|NCT01972152|169145449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84701272|NCT01972152|169145450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
84701273|NCT01972152|169145450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84701274|NCT01972152|169145451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||0.16
84701275|NCT01972152|169145452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
84701276|NCT01972152|169145452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
84701277|NCT01972152|169145453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
84701278|NCT01972152|169145453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84701279|NCT01972152|169145454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84701280|NCT01972152|169145454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84701281|NCT01194258|169145473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was set at 0.40.|LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were planned to be enrolled to allow approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods. Assuming a dropout rate of ≤20%, an intra-participant correlation of 0.80, a standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have \>90% power to show that either Lispro-PH20 or Aspart-PH20 (each tested separately) was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.05|-0.12|0.3876
84701282|NCT03495713|169145495|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis only based limited enrollments.|||
84701283|NCT03593070|169145503|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for the MM-CGI from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701284|NCT03593070|169145504|OTHER||Slope|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.105||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in total scores for the CESD from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).||||0.001
84701285|NCT03593070|169145505|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.514|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.102||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701286|NCT03593070|169145506|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total positive state of mind scale (PSOMS) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.653|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.093||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701287|NCT03593070|169145507|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in conflict scores (based on FPCR) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.609|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701288|NCT03593070|169145508|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for satisfaction with care measure (FPCT) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.731|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701289|NCT03593070|169145509|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total Family Knowledge of Alzheimer's Test (FKAT) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.687|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.084||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84701290|NCT03593070|169145510|OTHER||Slope|0.527|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in caregiver sense of loss, guilt, and role captivity scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT). This measure uses 51 items of the FPCR measure.||||0.001
84701291|NCT00414206|169145543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84701292|NCT03612804|169145544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with random intercept for provider and main effect term for study site.|Proactive care arm represents numerator of odds ratio, unstructured care arm represents denominator of odds ratio.|||1.64|0.67|0.83
84701293|NCT00392678|169145597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84701294|NCT01543685|169145604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|441.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.1|696.5|||ANCOVA|||||696.5|187.1|<0.001
84701295|NCT01543685|169145604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|260.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.3||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|516.3|||ANCOVA|||||516.3|4.1|0.046
84701296|NCT01543685|169145604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|312.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|568.9|||ANCOVA|||||568.9|56.6|0.017
84701297|NCT01543685|169145604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|211.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|466.2|||ANCOVA|||||466.2|-43.1|0.103
84701298|NCT01543685|169145605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84701299|NCT01543685|169145605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84701300|NCT01543685|169145605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
84701301|NCT01543685|169145605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84510144|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-4.7|3.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥106 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.7|-4.7|
84701302|NCT01543685|169145606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84701303|NCT01543685|169145606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84701304|NCT01543685|169145606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84701305|NCT01543685|169145606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84701306|NCT01543685|169145607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84701307|NCT01543685|169145607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84701308|NCT01543685|169145607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84701309|NCT01543685|169145607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84701310|NCT01543685|169145608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84701311|NCT01543685|169145608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84701312|NCT01543685|169145608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
84701313|NCT01543685|169145608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
84701314|NCT01543685|169145609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84701315|NCT01543685|169145609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84701316|NCT01543685|169145609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84701317|NCT01543685|169145609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84701318|NCT01543685|169145610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84701319|NCT01543685|169145610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84701320|NCT01543685|169145610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84701321|NCT01543685|169145610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84701322|NCT01543685|169145611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84701323|NCT01543685|169145611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84701324|NCT01543685|169145611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84701325|NCT01543685|169145611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84701326|NCT01838551|169145612|SUPERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis of at most 20% UFC responders, 90 subjects in the ITT population would provide 90% power, with two-sided type 1 error of 0.05, assuming an observed response of 35%.||||||0.0154||||||One-sided p-value is based on a null hypothesis that true response proportion is ≤ 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Generalized Linear Model described above was used to generate the p-value.||The least squares mean (LSMEAN) estimate of the UFC response after 6 months of treatment in the Maintenance Phase alongside its 95% Wald CI is presented. Supportive to the 95% CI, the p-value corresponding to the null hypothesis that the response rate is ≤ 20% is presented (1-sided test).||||0.0154
84510145|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.0|2.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-3.0|
84510146|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-0.8|4.2||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated||4.2|-0.8|
84701327|NCT01391013|169145618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
84701328|NCT01391013|169145619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
84701329|NCT01391013|169145620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.31
84701330|NCT01391013|169145621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.37
84701331|NCT01391013|169145622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
84701332|NCT01391013|169145623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.02
84701333|NCT01391013|169145624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.12
84701334|NCT01391013|169145625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.71
84701335|NCT01391013|169145626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.83
84701336|NCT01391013|169145627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
84701337|NCT01391013|169145628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.76
84701338|NCT01391013|169145629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.56
84701339|NCT01391013|169145630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.11
84701340|NCT01391013|169145631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.18
84701341|NCT01391013|169145632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.03
84701342|NCT01391013|169145633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.04
84701343|NCT00708097|169145646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.98||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.97||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.97|-5.00|0.5757
84701344|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.14||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.14|-4.79|0.5387
84510147|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|4.0||||||95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||8.7|-0.4|
84701345|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|9.77||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.77|-4.18|0.4306
84701346|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.09|-18.06||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.06|-32.09|<0.0001
84701347|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|7.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.09|-6.71|0.9567
84701348|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.81||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|7.76||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.76|-6.14|0.8188
84701349|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|-20.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.08|-34.03|<0.0001
84701350|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|7.51||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.51|-6.28|0.8599
84701351|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.30|-34.20|<0.0001
84510148|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-2.3|
84701352|NCT00708097|169145647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-20.89||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.89|-34.84|<0.0001
84510149|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.3|
84701353|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|3.26||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.26|-6.15|0.5451
84701354|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.5||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.19||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.19|-1.20|0.1433
84701355|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|12.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.16|2.78|0.0020
84701356|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.79|28.25||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||28.25|18.79|<0.0001
84701357|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.94||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.59|0.29|0.0373
84701358|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|13.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.59|4.24|0.0002
84701359|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|24.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|29.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||29.66|20.27|<0.0001
84701360|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.98||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.61|-0.66|0.0925
84701361|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|15.35|<0.0001
84701362|NCT00708097|169145648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|20.74||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.74|11.36|<0.0001
84510150|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|3.8||||||95.0|-1.7|10.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||10.9|-1.7|
84701363|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.34|102.32||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||102.32|-106.34|0.9697
84701364|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|106.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|210.87||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||210.87|2.92|0.0440
84701365|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.92||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.96|264.88||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||264.88|56.96|0.0026
84701366|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|222.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.58|327.36||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||327.36|117.58|<0.0001
84701367|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|108.91||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|211.83||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||211.83|5.98|0.0382
84701368|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|162.93||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.68|266.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||266.18|59.68|0.0021
84701369|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|224.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.51|328.46||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||328.46|120.51|<0.0001
84701370|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|54.03||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|156.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||156.61|-48.56|0.3003
84701371|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.55||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|165.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||165.24|-42.14|0.2432
84510151|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
84510152|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
84510153|NCT00366899|168771851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
84701372|NCT00708097|169145649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|115.58||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.02|219.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||219.13|12.02|0.0289
84701373|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.47|294.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||294.66|-322.47|0.9293
84701374|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|575.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|268.24|883.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||883.17|268.24|0.0003
84701375|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|637.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|330.3|945.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||945.03|330.30|<0.0001
84701376|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1813.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1503.03|2123.54||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2123.54|1503.03|<0.0001
84701377|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|589.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|285.31|893.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||893.92|285.31|0.0002
84701378|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|651.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|346.44|956.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||956.70|346.44|<0.0001
84701379|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1827.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1519.78|2134.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2134.60|1519.78|<0.0001
84701380|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.96||||0.6874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.25|365.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||365.17|-241.25|0.6874
84510154|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.87|1.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.87|
84510155|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.92|1.16||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.92|
84510156|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.87|1.17||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.87|
84701381|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1237.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|931.46|1543.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1543.70|931.46|<0.0001
84510157|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.89|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.89|
84701382|NCT00708097|169145650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1175.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.15|1482.1||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1482.10|869.15|<0.0001
84701383|NCT03110458|169145708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8466|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8466
84701384|NCT03110458|169145709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9538
84701385|NCT03110458|169145710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3166
84701386|NCT03110458|169145711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
84701387|NCT03110458|169145714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5324
84701388|NCT00738699|169145715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy (intraperitoneal vs intravenous) and geographic region (North America, Europe, and other participating countries).|Log Rank||Stratified as described above.|||1.46|0.88|0.8360
84701389|NCT00738699|169145716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy and geographic region.|Log Rank||Stratified as described above|||1.48|0.83|0.7568
84701390|NCT00738699|169145717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.7||Compared the ratio of complete or partial responders in the two arms. Stratified by route of administration for first line therapy and geographic region as specified at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||(FAR + Paclitaxel) minus (Placebo + Paclitaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.7|-14.1|0.0399
84701391|NCT00549848|169145721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
84701392|NCT02174562|169145740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||0.05 was the a priori level of significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||PC-OT is the numerator, Enhanced Usual care is the denominator|Null hypothesis is that the Relative Risk of reduction of HbA1C \>=0.5 for PCOT vs EUC is 1.||1.75|0.84|0.31
84701393|NCT02174562|169145741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for comparison of least squares means for period 2 (months 4-6).||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the percentage of doses taken each month. Fixed effects were period (1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, 10-12 months), randomization group, randomization by period interaction, stratification group, age, and run-in percentage doses taken. The outcome was transformed using the arcsin-square root transformation prior to analysis. A first-order autoregressive correlation structure was assumed.||||0.87
84701394|NCT00414648|169145813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The model included the time since enrollment, the treatment assignment, and the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Mixed model with the use of the Kenward-Roger correction without imputation of missing data.||FEV1 slope||||<0.001
84701395|NCT00414648|169145814|OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.441
84701396|NCT00414648|169145815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
84701397|NCT00414648|169145816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.17
84701398|NCT00414648|169145817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.34
84701399|NCT00414648|169145818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.88
84701400|NCT00414648|169145819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
84701401|NCT01490580|169145820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|-21.0|0.38
84701402|NCT00383188|169145829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|23.664|||Chi-squared|||||23.664|-7.565|0.3131
84701403|NCT00383188|169145829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.602|26.224|||Chi-squared|||||26.224|-4.602|0.1719
84701404|NCT00383188|169145829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.123|27.799|||Chi-squared|||||27.799|-8.123|0.2783
84701405|NCT00383188|169145829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.566|27.404|||Chi-squared|||||27.404|-9.566|0.3381
84701406|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.733|10.845|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.845|-8.733|0.8619
84701407|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.176|17.651|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||17.651|-3.176|0.2546
84701408|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|27.115|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||27.115|0.921|0.0644
84701409|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.8304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.13|13.125|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||13.125|-10.13|0.8304
84701410|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|18.371|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.371|-6.150|0.4123
84701411|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.581|17.392|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||17.392|-6.581|0.4591
84701412|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.89|31.28|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||31.280|1.890|0.0585
84701413|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.21||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.522|30.829|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||30.829|0.522|0.0808
84510158|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.83|1.07||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.83|
84510159|NCT00366899|168771852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.07||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.82|
84510160|NCT00366899|168771855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC)/geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.72|1.27||||||For Hepatitis b the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.27|0.72|
84701414|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.684|17.398|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||17.398|-7.684|0.5240
84701415|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.172|27.588|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||27.588|2.172|0.0571
84701416|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.222|31.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||31.087|1.222|0.0712
84701417|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.956|35.99|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||35.990|4.956|0.0279
84701418|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.71|10.515|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||10.515|-14.71|0.7848
84701419|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|27.869|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||27.869|1.860|0.0632
84701420|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.237|24.893|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||24.893|-5.237|0.2783
84701421|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|32.135|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||32.135|0.703|0.0828
84701422|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.77|11.328|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||11.328|-16.77|0.7505
84701423|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|15.156|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||15.156|-12.30|0.8641
84701424|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.12|19.734|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||19.734|-13.12|0.7399
84701425|NCT00383188|169145830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|3.018|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||3.018|-27.98|0.1996
84701426|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.944|3.929|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.929|-0.944|0.2982
84701427|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|3.709|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.709|-0.892|0.3122
84701428|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.631|9.934|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||9.934|-0.631|0.0649
84701429|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|10.938|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.938|-0.681|0.0525
84701430|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|9.573|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||9.573|-0.681|0.1481
84701431|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.093|14.124|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||14.124|2.093|0.0292
84701432|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|18.186|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.186|1.839|0.0167
84510161|NCT00366899|168771855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.54|0.96||||||For Hepatitis b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.54|
84510162|NCT00366899|168771856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.75|1.3||||||or Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.75|
84510163|NCT00366899|168771856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.81|1.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.81|
84701433|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.269|20.029|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||20.029|2.269|0.0110
84701434|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.959|2.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||2.946|-7.959|0.4550
84510164|NCT00366899|168771857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.65|0.94||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.65|
84701435|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.271|15.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||15.946|0.271|0.0919
84701436|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.28|23.272|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||23.272|2.280|0.0264
84701437|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.308|22.881|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||22.881|1.308|0.0369
84701438|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.85|-1.482|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||-1.482|-16.85|0.0568
84701439|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.727|13.835|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||13.835|-5.727|0.4961
84701440|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.008|18.89|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||18.890|-5.008|0.3212
84701441|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|12.843|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||12.843|-9.870|0.8274
84701442|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.538|14.996|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||14.996|-4.538|0.3774
84701443|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.11||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|19.51|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||19.510|-0.591|0.1246
84701444|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.502|20.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||20.087|-3.502|0.2257
84701445|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.355|17.03|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||17.030|-6.355|0.4336
84701446|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|9.467|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||9.467|-13.61|0.7682
84701447|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|8.257|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||8.257|-13.97|0.6726
84701448|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.28|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||7.000|-18.28|0.4795
84701449|NCT00383188|169145831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.19|-6.137|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-6.137|-26.19|0.0276
84701450|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
84701451|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
84701452|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
84701453|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
84510165|NCT00366899|168771857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.67|
84510166|NCT00366899|168771857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.63|0.89||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.63|
84510167|NCT00366899|168771857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.25||||||95.0|0.88|1.79||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.79|0.88|
84510168|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.7|1.08||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.70|
84701454|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
84510169|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.74|1.22||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.74|
84510170|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.13||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.68|
84510171|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.86||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.55|
84510172|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.68|1.07||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.68|
84510173|NCT00366899|168771858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.51|0.83||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.83|0.51|
84510174|NCT02999178|168771871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|106.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|148.5||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Fixed effects: Treatment, HRCT fibrotic pattern, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions.~Random effects: time, intercept."|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||148.50|65.42|<.0001
84701455|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
84701456|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.423|5.968|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||5.968|-1.423|0.1928
84701457|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|6.56|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||6.560|-1.560|0.1719
84701458|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.138|3.334|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||3.334|-3.138|0.9603
84701459|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.559|0.856|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||0.856|-3.559|0.3157
84701460|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.162|12.096|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||12.096|-1.162|0.1125
84701461|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.434|9.732|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||9.732|-2.434|0.2455
84701462|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.057|1.847|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||1.847|-7.057|0.3452
84701463|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.333|5.333|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||5.333|-5.333|1.0000
84701464|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.417|16.036|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||16.036|-1.417|0.1267
84701465|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|14.612|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||14.612|-2.720|0.2069
84701466|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.6506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.871|8.553|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||8.553|-4.871|0.6506
84701467|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.075|9.48|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||9.480|-4.075|0.5125
84701468|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.4412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|12.023|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||12.023|-4.652|0.4412
84701469|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.006|10.195|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||10.195|-6.006|0.6566
84701470|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|2.247|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||2.247|-12.57|0.2634
84701471|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.63|4.916|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||4.916|-10.63|0.5460
84701472|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
84701473|NCT00383188|169145832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
84701474|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.624|-2.400|0.7053
84701475|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.291|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-3.291|0.1938
84701476|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.491|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.116|-4.491|0.0627
84701477|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|1.517|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.517|-3.218|0.4809
84701478|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.286|0.709|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.709|-3.286|0.2057
84701479|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.293|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.631|-3.293|0.1833
84701480|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|-0.459|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.459|-5.037|0.0187
84701481|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.695|1.005|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.005|-3.695|0.2615
84701482|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.761|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-3.761|0.0832
84701483|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.576|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-3.576|0.1066
84701484|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.695|-0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.118|-4.695|0.0394
84701485|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|0.995|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.995|-3.705|0.2580
84701486|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|1.238|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.238|-2.754|0.4560
84701487|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.982|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-3.982|0.0434
84701488|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.016|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.560|-4.016|0.1386
84701489|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.196|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.196|-3.503|0.3353
84701490|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.075|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.085|-4.075|0.0410
84701491|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.194|-0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.274|-4.194|0.0255
84701492|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.671|-0.097|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.097|-4.671|0.0410
84701493|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.196||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.438|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.438|-4.259|0.1106
84701494|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.307|1.805|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.805|-2.307|0.8107
84701495|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.726|2.269|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.269|-1.726|0.7895
84701496|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.060|-2.673|0.7996
84701497|NCT00383188|169145833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.235||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.610|-2.240|0.8811
84701498|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.427|1.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.053|-2.427|0.4385
84701499|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.624|-2.794|0.2131
84701500|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.419|-3.559|0.1216
84701501|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|1.378|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.378|-2.728|0.5190
84701502|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|0.264|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.264|-3.193|0.0967
84701503|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-2.721|0.2346
84701504|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.635|0.318|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.318|-3.635|0.1000
84701505|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.805|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.844|1.234|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.234|-2.844|0.4385
84701506|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.128|-3.327|0.0696
84701507|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.094|-3.294|0.0642
84701508|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.807|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.146|-3.807|0.0695
84701509|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.545|-2.532|0.6349
84701510|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.903|0.551|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.551|-2.903|0.1818
84701511|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|0.426|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.426|-2.961|0.1421
84701512|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|1.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.078|-2.874|0.3726
84701513|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|1.337|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.337|-2.739|0.4995
84701514|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.126|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.126|-3.327|0.0691
84701515|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.2083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.607|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.607|-2.778|0.2083
84701516|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.811|1.139|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.139|-2.811|0.4063
84701517|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.234|1.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.841|-2.234|0.8501
84701518|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.399|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.150|-1.399|0.6778
84701519|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.230|-1.214|0.5627
84701520|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.501|2.576|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.576|-1.501|0.6049
84701521|NCT00383188|169145834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|2.608|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.608|-1.587|0.6332
84701522|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.098||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|5.243|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.243|-10.85|0.4943
84701523|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-2.283|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.283|-18.09|0.0116
84701524|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-3.485|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.485|-21.98|0.0070
84701525|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.812||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-1.688|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.688|-20.58|0.0209
84701526|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.524|-15.40|0.0671
84701527|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|-2.632|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.632|-18.28|0.0089
84701528|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.657||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-4.959|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.959|-23.24|0.0025
84701529|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|1.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.496|-17.25|0.0994
84701530|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.926|5.999|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.999|-9.926|0.6284
84701531|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|-2.109|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.109|-17.76|0.0129
84701532|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.656||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|1.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.044|-17.24|0.0825
84701533|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.465|-11.28|0.6897
84701534|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.821|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.821|-6.100|0.6465
84701535|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.985||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-2.824|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.824|-18.47|0.0077
84701536|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.213|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.213|-17.07|0.0890
84701537|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.773||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.406|-15.33|0.2119
84701538|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|3.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.191|-12.72|0.2401
84701539|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.983||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-3.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.251|-18.89|0.0056
84701540|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|0.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.251|-18.02|0.0566
84701541|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.772||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.45|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.720|-19.45|0.0348
84701542|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.191||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|13.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.116|-3.336|0.2436
84701543|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.6616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.762|6.201|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.201|-9.762|0.6616
84701544|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.574|13.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.388|-5.574|0.4189
84701545|NCT00383188|169145835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.942||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.305|14.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.096|-5.305|0.3741
84701546|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|4.773|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.773|-10.77|0.4493
84701547|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.891||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.08|-6.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.807|-22.08|0.0002
84701548|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.661|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.661|-20.42|0.0109
84701549|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.651||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|1.765|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.765|-16.49|0.1137
84701550|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.697|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.697|-11.68|0.3086
84701551|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-0.799|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.799|-15.92|0.0303
84701552|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.489||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|-1.845|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.845|-19.47|0.0178
84701553|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|3.729|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.729|-14.38|0.2486
84701554|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.720|-10.65|0.4491
84701555|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-2.671|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.671|-17.79|0.0081
84701556|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.480|-18.10|0.0388
84701557|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|6.553|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.553|-11.55|0.5880
84701558|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.914||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|11.464|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.464|-3.904|0.3345
84701559|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.849||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-1.463|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.463|-16.58|0.0194
84701560|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|2.863|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.863|-14.76|0.1855
84701561|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.803|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.803|-14.30|0.2553
84701562|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|3.639|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.639|-11.72|0.3020
84701563|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.847||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|-2.715|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.715|-17.82|0.0078
84701564|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-17.33|0.0578
84701565|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|2.007|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.007|-16.09|0.1270
84701566|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.051||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.023|13.877|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.877|-2.023|0.1438
84701567|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|5.738|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.738|-9.696|0.6149
84701568|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|15.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.700|-2.610|0.1609
84510175|NCT02999178|168771872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.81|185.59||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Treatment, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects: time, intercept.|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||185.59|70.81|<.0001
84701569|NCT00383188|169145836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|15.961|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.961|-2.804|0.1691
84701570|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.341||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.967|5.149|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.149|-7.967|0.6733
84701571|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.274||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.797|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.797|-12.05|0.0859
84701572|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-2.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.259|-17.18|0.0107
84701573|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.002|-11.39|0.3463
84701574|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|1.316|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.316|-11.69|0.1178
84701575|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-0.737|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.737|-13.48|0.0288
84701576|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.772||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.340|-17.15|0.0100
84701577|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.164|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.164|-13.10|0.1600
84701578|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.101|-6.900|0.9040
84701579|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.524|-13.26|0.0339
84701580|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|-1.488|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.488|-16.29|0.0186
84701581|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.918|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.918|-10.35|0.4854
84701582|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.311||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.886|5.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.112|-7.886|0.6753
84701583|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|-4.724|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.724|-17.46|0.0007
84701584|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-2.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.134|-16.94|0.0116
84701585|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-0.691|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.691|-15.95|0.0326
84701586|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|2.872|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.872|-10.12|0.2738
84701587|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.243||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-3.412|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.412|-16.14|0.0026
84701588|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-1.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.941|-16.74|0.0134
84701589|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.886||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|2.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.101|-13.16|0.1553
84701590|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.444||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.878|6.641|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.641|-6.878|0.9726
84701591|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|7.928|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.928|-5.109|0.6714
84701592|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.058|8.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.351|-7.058|0.8693
84701593|NCT00383188|169145837|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.631|9.208|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.208|-6.631|0.7495
84701594|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.469||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-17.75|0.0447
84701595|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.345||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.65|-6.596|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.596|-23.65|0.0005
84701596|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-7.296|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-7.296|-26.84|0.0006
84701597|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.218||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-6.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.018|-26.49|0.0019
84701598|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|4.726|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.726|-12.41|0.3792
84701599|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|-1.031|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.031|-17.66|0.0276
84701600|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.128|-22.25|0.0093
84701601|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|0.271|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.271|-19.47|0.0566
84701602|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.764|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.370|-7.764|0.8540
84701603|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.950|-10.68|0.5770
84701604|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|3.232|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.232|-15.89|0.1942
84701605|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.376|11.364|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.364|-8.376|0.7665
84510176|NCT02999178|168771873|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||2.98|-0.31|0.1115
84510177|NCT02999178|168771874|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.74|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||3.74|-0.68|0.1747
84701606|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|11.858|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.858|-5.276|0.4512
84701607|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.409|8.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.220|-8.409|0.9822
84701608|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|4.414|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.414|-14.71|0.2910
84701609|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.042|12.698|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.698|-7.042|0.5741
84701610|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|11.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.674|-5.460|0.4768
84701611|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|6.058|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.058|-10.57|0.5945
84701612|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.953|10.171|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.171|-8.953|0.9006
84701613|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|19.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.094|-0.646|0.0670
84701614|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|17.379|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.379|-0.857|0.0757
84701615|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.329|14.043|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.043|-3.329|0.2265
84701616|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.178||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.517|11.801|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.801|-8.517|0.7512
84701617|NCT00383188|169145838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.557|13.332|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.332|-7.557|0.5876
84701618|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.101|-0.638|0.1540
84701619|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.242|-0.958|0.0011
84701620|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.105|-0.277|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.277|-1.105|0.0011
84701621|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-0.983|0.0115
84701622|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.053|-0.673|0.0940
84510178|NCT02999178|168771875|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.34|0.48|0.3948
84701623|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-0.811|0.0109
84701624|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.075|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.259|-1.075|0.0014
84701625|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.028|-0.867|0.0364
84701626|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.092|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.092|-0.634|0.1436
84701627|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.052|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.052|-0.757|0.0246
84701628|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.138|-0.954|0.0088
84701629|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.152|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.152|-0.686|0.2121
84701630|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.265|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.265|-0.461|0.5975
84701631|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.112|-0.817|0.0099
84701632|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.037|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.037|-0.853|0.0328
84701633|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.205|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.205|-0.633|0.3162
84701634|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.010|-0.716|0.0569
84701635|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.096|-0.801|0.0126
84701636|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.107|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.107|-0.923|0.0135
84701637|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.274|-0.564|0.4979
84701638|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.653|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.653|-0.111|0.1643
84701639|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.445|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.445|-0.282|0.6611
84701640|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.526|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.526|-0.333|0.6587
84701641|NCT00383188|169145839|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.592|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.592|-0.284|0.4903
84701642|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.057|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.057|-0.296|0.1857
84701643|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.103|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.103|-0.451|0.0019
84701644|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.042|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.042|-0.446|0.0178
84701645|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.110|-0.305|0.3547
84701646|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.040|-0.310|0.1301
84701647|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.017|-0.363|0.0313
84701648|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
84701649|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.156|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.156|-0.256|0.6318
84701650|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.120|-0.230|0.5388
84701651|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.016|-0.329|0.0755
84701652|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
84701653|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.134|-0.277|0.4948
84701654|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.235|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.235|-0.115|0.5022
84701655|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-0.363|0.0307
84701656|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.029|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.029|-0.372|0.0933
84510179|NCT02999178|168771876|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.24|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.24|0.36|0.1985
84701657|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-0.179|0.7967
84701658|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.141|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.141|-0.208|0.7059
84701659|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.041|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.041|-0.386|0.0154
84701660|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.065|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.065|-0.336|0.1836
84701661|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-0.128|0.4577
84701662|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.262|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.262|-0.098|0.3692
84701663|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.241|-0.111|0.4677
84701664|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.307|-0.107|0.3427
84701665|NCT00383188|169145841|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-0.077|0.2120
84701666|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.074|-1.248|0.0815
84701667|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.407|-1.707|0.0015
84701668|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.351|-1.863|0.0042
84701669|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-1.624|0.0348
84701670|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.095|0.1843
84701671|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.061|-1.225|0.0760
84701672|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.270|-1.769|0.0078
84701673|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|0.258|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.258|-1.292|0.1905
84701674|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.504|-0.801|0.6552
84701675|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.363|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.078|-1.363|0.0281
84701676|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.100|-1.599|0.0263
84701677|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.346|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.346|-1.204|0.2772
84701678|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|0.629|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.629|-0.676|0.9433
84701679|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-1.410|0.193
84701680|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.013|-1.512|0.461
84701681|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|0.521|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.521|-1.029|0.5200
84701682|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.476|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|0.177|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.177|-1.129|0.1526
84701683|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.738|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.453|-1.738|0.0009
84701684|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.273|0.227|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.227|-1.273|0.1711
84701685|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.338|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.338|0.1539
84701686|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.195|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.195|-1.219|0.1554
84701687|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.585|-0.193|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.193|-1.585|0.0124
84701688|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.723|0.0268
84701689|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.519|0.158|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.158|-1.519|0.1113
84701690|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.160|-1.240|0.1305
84701691|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.118|-1.261|0.1043
84701692|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-1.820|0.0131
84701693|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.340|-1.324|0.2459
84701694|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|0.479|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.479|-0.921|0.5360
84510180|NCT02999178|168771877|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.86|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.86|0.47|0.8544
84701695|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.225|-1.155|0.1858
84701696|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-1.624|0.0451
84510181|NCT02999178|168771878|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.47|0.32|0.3291
84701697|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.643|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.643|-1.021|0.6551
84510182|NCT02999178|168771881|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.85|0.49|0.0017
84701698|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.718|-0.682|0.9602
84701699|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.131|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.131|-1.510|0.0198
84701700|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|-0.145|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.145|-1.751|0.0208
84701701|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.400|-1.265|0.3077
84701702|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.490|-0.911|0.5550
84701703|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.485|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.485|0.0239
84701704|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.416|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.190|-1.416|0.1342
84701705|NCT00383188|169145842|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.465|-1.199|0.3868
84701706|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.357|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.941|-1.357|0.4693
84701707|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.044|-0.190|0.0743
84701708|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.668|6.723|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.723|1.668|0.0012
84701709|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|3.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.807|-1.335|0.3452
84510183|NCT02999178|168771882|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.89|0.45|0.0081
84510184|NCT02999178|168771883|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.96|0.52|
84701710|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.239|-1.050|0.3162
84701711|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|4.622|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.622|0.406|0.0195
84701712|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|5.285|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.285|0.239|0.0320
84701713|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.268|2.804|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.804|-2.268|0.8356
84510185|NCT02999178|168771884|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.94|0.43|
84701714|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.101|2.293|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.293|-4.101|0.5787
84701715|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|4.436|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.436|-1.854|0.4203
84701716|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.449|6.084|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.084|-1.449|0.2272
84701717|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.947||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|4.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.655|-2.998|0.6707
84701718|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.764|3.613|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.613|-2.764|0.7935
84701719|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.655|-0.605|0.1135
84701720|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.912||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|6.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.388|-1.128|0.1697
84701721|NCT00383188|169145843|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.561|5.981|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.981|-1.561|0.2500
84701722|NCT03368001|169145891|OTHER|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses. We accounted for any non-independence of observations due to cohort membership by obtaining cluster-robust standard errors using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR in Mplus) in tandem with the Type = Complex option available in Mplus, treating cohorts as clusters. All models were structurally saturated, so model fit was necessarily perfect.||||||0.039||||||IFM Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Population models were specified using parameter values derived from past research in tandem with minimal expected effect sizes for the effects of most interest. These models were used to generate 5000 samples for a given N, the models were fit to each sample, and the significance (or not) of key effects was noted. This process was repeated until the target power of at least .80 was reached indicating with 216 participants we would have .82 power.||||.039
84701723|NCT03368001|169145891|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.064|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.118||One-tailed significance test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Verbal Expressiveness at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The indirect effect of SENSE Theatre® vs. TTT through post-test IFM on follow-up Vocal Expressiveness. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.118|0.014|<0.05
84701724|NCT03368001|169145891|OTHER|The residual associated with the mediator was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.032|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.087||One-sided hypothesis test.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Rapport at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Quality of Rapport through posttest Incidental Face Memory. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag (pretest to posttest) and baseline mediator, and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag (pretest to follow-up) and baseline outcome.||0.087|0.002|<0.05
84701725|NCT03368001|169145891|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.059||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Social Anxiety at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Social Anxiety through posttest IFM. Adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.059|-0.015|>0.05
84701726|NCT03368001|169145891|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|-0.0002|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.054|0.061||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for SRS-2 Social Communication at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up SRS Communication. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.061|-0.054|>0.05
84701727|NCT03368001|169145892|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||SRS Communication Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||||||.490
84701728|NCT03368001|169145893|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test scores||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.704
84701729|NCT03368001|169145893|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values||||||0.406|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.406
84701730|NCT03368001|169145894|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Vocal Expressiveness Posttest.||||.217
84701731|NCT03368001|169145894|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Quality of Rapport Posttest.||||.448
84701732|NCT03368001|169145894|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Social Anxiety Posttest.||||.150
84510186|NCT02999178|168771885|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.68|0.36|
84701733|NCT03368001|169145895|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test values||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
84701734|NCT03368001|169145895|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.555
84701735|NCT01656304|169145896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.5||||||||.50|.20|
84701736|NCT04391309|169145902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.435
84701737|NCT04391309|169145903|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
84701738|NCT04391309|169145904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
84510187|NCT02999178|168771886|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.69|0.31|
84701739|NCT04391309|169145905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
84701740|NCT04391309|169145906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.702
84701741|NCT04391309|169145907|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
84701742|NCT04391309|169145908|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
84701743|NCT04391309|169145909|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the anlysis.||||1
84510188|NCT02999178|168771887|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.92|-6.14|
84701744|NCT04391309|169145910|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
84701745|NCT04391309|169145911|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
84701746|NCT04391309|169145912|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
84701747|NCT04391309|169145913|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
84701748|NCT05826431|169145917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||Study analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29. Frequencies and descriptive data were tabulated to describe the sample and quantify device use, satisfaction, and perceived impact. Qualitative responses regarding usability and feasibility were summarized based on the themes of the responses.||||0.153
84701749|NCT05826431|169145918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.103
84701750|NCT05826431|169145920|OTHER|Single group, frequencies, and descriptive data|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.083
84701751|NCT05826431|169145921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||441|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0441
84701752|NCT05826431|169145922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.095
84701753|NCT05826431|169145923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.487
84701754|NCT05826431|169145924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.483
84510189|NCT02999178|168771888|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.88|-7.48|
84701755|NCT05826431|169145925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.0483
84701756|NCT05826431|169145926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.123
84701757|NCT03028363|169145927|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.3430
84701758|NCT03028363|169145928|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.1260
84701759|NCT03028363|169145929|OTHER|||||||0.5247|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.5247
84701760|NCT00768651|169145936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size of 8 was determined to provide a 95% confidence interval expected width of 0.62 for the proportion of subjects who become insulin independent with treatment. Four of eight subjects (50%) would have to achieve insulin independence in order to reject the null hypothesis with 85% power and one sided alpha of 0.025. Statistical significance was set at 5%. Mean values were computed using Student's t-test while medians were compared using Wilcoxon's test.||||< 0.05
84701761|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.25|1.66|0.0010
84701762|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.85||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.85|4.35|<0.0001
84701763|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.16||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||16.16|3.10|<.0001
84701764|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701765|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701766|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0008|||||||MCP-Mod exponential -2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0008
84701767|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701768|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84510190|NCT02999178|168771889|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.53|-9.65|
84510191|NCT02999178|168771890|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-2.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.71|-11.86|
84701769|NCT04771273|169145961|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701770|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.28||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||12.28|2.46|<.0001
84701771|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|22.87||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||22.87|4.49|<.0001
84701772|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|10.91||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.91|2.18|0.0001
84701773|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0001|||||||MCPMod linear model fit|linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0001
84701774|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0115|||||||MCPMod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0115
84701775|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.2204|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.2204
84701776|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701777|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701778|NCT04771273|169145962|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701779|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.4||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.40|2.47|<.0001
84701780|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|20.51||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.51|4.36|<.0001
84701781|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|38.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||38.73|6.69|<.0001
84701782|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701783|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701784|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701785|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701786|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701787|NCT04771273|169145963|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701788|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||23.45|4.60|<.0001
84701789|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|27.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||27.45|5.30|<.0001
84701790|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.5||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||18.50|3.66|<.0001
84701791|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701792|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0031|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0031
84701793|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0925|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0925
84701794|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701795|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701796|NCT04771273|169145964|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
84701797|NCT04771273|169145965|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-6.6||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-6.60|-10.59|<.0001
84701798|NCT04771273|169145965|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.96|-8.86||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.86|-12.96|<.0001
84701799|NCT04771273|169145965|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-8.92||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.92|-13.23|<.0001
84701800|NCT04771273|169145966|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-7.03||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-7.03|-11.21|<.0001
84701801|NCT04771273|169145966|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-12.85|<.0001
84510192|NCT00090857|168771891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.15
84701802|NCT04771273|169145966|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-13.00|<.0001
84701803|NCT04771273|169145967|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-33.79||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-33.79|-53.49|<.0001
84701804|NCT04771273|169145967|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-45.42||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.42|-65.61|<.0001
84701805|NCT04771273|169145967|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-57.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-46.39||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-46.39|-67.66|<.0001
84701806|NCT04771273|169145968|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.74|-36.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-36.25|-56.74|<.0001
84701807|NCT04771273|169145968|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-44.98||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-44.98|-65.25|<.0001
84701808|NCT04771273|169145968|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.76|-45.77||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.77|-66.76|<.0001
84701809|NCT04771273|169145969|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.26||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||3.26|0.79|0.1894
84510193|NCT00090857|168771892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.70
84701810|NCT04771273|169145969|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.2||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.20|0.95|0.0685
84701811|NCT04771273|169145969|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.45|1.52|0.0028
84701812|NCT04771273|169145970|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.27||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.27|0.95|0.0663
84701813|NCT04771273|169145970|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.23||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.23|0.95|0.0672
84701814|NCT04771273|169145970|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.46||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.46|1.00|0.0512
84701815|NCT00556543|169145997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation performed.||||||0.19||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test with the null hypothesis that the proportion with adverse events was the same in both groups.||||0.190
84701816|NCT03772964|169146009|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity), were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA) comparisons of differences between sample groups.|R2|0.071435|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ADONISBeta Diversity|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity) were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA)|R2 values estimate the amount of variation explained by each variable.|Beta Diversity - Differences between Samples and Sample groups||||<0.01
84701817|NCT03772964|169146010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
84701818|NCT03772964|169146012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84701819|NCT03772964|169146013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
84701820|NCT01670110|169146038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84701821|NCT01670110|169146039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84701822|NCT01670110|169146040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84701823|NCT01670110|169146041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84701824|NCT01670110|169146042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84701825|NCT01670110|169146043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84701826|NCT01670110|169146044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84701827|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical functioning||||0.31
84701828|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical role||||0.48
84701829|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily pain||||0.89
84701830|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General health||||0.18
84701831|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||||0.28
84701832|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social functioning||||0.66
84701833|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role emotional||||0.43
84701834|NCT01670110|169146045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental health||||0.51
84701835|NCT05012644|169146083|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.241||||||||2.241|0.715|
84701836|NCT05012644|169146084|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.774||||||||2.774|0.819|
84701837|NCT01278862|169146085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in color match||||0.2423
84701838|NCT01278862|169146085|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||>0.999
84701839|NCT01278862|169146085|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in crown fracture||||>0.999
84701840|NCT01278862|169146085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in Proximal Contact - Mesial||||>0.999
84510194|NCT00090857|168771893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.03
84701841|NCT01278862|169146085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in proximal contact - distal||||>0.999
84701842|NCT01278862|169146086|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in gingival index||||>0.999
84701843|NCT01278862|169146086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in plaque index||||0.5240
84701844|NCT00798265|169146096|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0020
84701845|NCT00798265|169146096|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
84701846|NCT00798265|169146096|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0002
84701847|NCT00798265|169146096|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
84701848|NCT04341298|169146103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84701849|NCT04341298|169146104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84701850|NCT04341298|169146105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects with a pain score of 3 or less after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting mild or no symptoms after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.66
84701851|NCT04341298|169146106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.59
84701852|NCT04341298|169146107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.19
84701853|NCT04341298|169146108|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 4 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 4 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||1.0
84701854|NCT04341298|169146109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 2 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.021
84701855|NCT04341298|169146110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 4 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.019
84701856|NCT04341298|169146111|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 2 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028
84701857|NCT04341298|169146112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 4 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.46
84701858|NCT03425643|169146113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.72|0.48|<0.00001
84701859|NCT03425643|169146114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.93|0.56|0.00517
84701860|NCT03425643|169146115|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Percentage|19.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|24.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||24.7|13.9|<0.00001
84701861|NCT03425643|169146116|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Pertentage|14.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|10.1|<0.00001
84701862|NCT03425643|169146117|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|1.43||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.49|-1.64|0.3611
84701863|NCT03425643|169146118|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.02|-0.58|0.1197
84701864|NCT03538041|169146173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2815|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2815
84701865|NCT03538041|169146174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.2921
84701866|NCT03538041|169146175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.1267
84701867|NCT03538041|169146176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2676|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2676
84701868|NCT00726596|169146187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6789|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.6789
84701869|NCT00531518|169146201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis included adjstment for site and baseline sum psychotic symptom score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used regression discontinuity methods, in which the baseline sum scores were adjusted and centered to an equalize control and experimental conditions.||||.0034
84701870|NCT03670602|169146241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment influenced improvements in delay discounting across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate.||||0.0035
84510195|NCT00090857|168771894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.06
84510196|NCT00090857|168771895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
84510197|NCT00090857|168771896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84701871|NCT03670602|169146241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if delay discounting improved across all three timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
84701872|NCT03670602|169146242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced weight across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.85
84510198|NCT00090857|168771897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84510199|NCT00090857|168771898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
84510200|NCT00090857|168771899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
84510201|NCT00090857|168771900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
84510202|NCT00090857|168771901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.58
84510203|NCT00090857|168771902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
84510204|NCT05097326|168771903|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of total contractions||||0.44
84510205|NCT05097326|168771903|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of contractions per hour||||0.02
84510206|NCT05097326|168771904|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 hours after labor induction||||0.04
84510207|NCT05097326|168771904|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of uterine tachysystole of total labor duration||||0.17
84701873|NCT03670602|169146242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in weight, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
84701874|NCT03670602|169146243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in hBa1c across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.79
84701875|NCT03670602|169146243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if hBa1c changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
84701876|NCT03670602|169146244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced medication adherence across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.201
84701877|NCT03670602|169146244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||This is for the time effect, or if timepoint influenced medication adherence across all timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.315
84701878|NCT03670602|169146245|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||||0.345||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||||||0.345
84701879|NCT03670602|169146245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||This is for the time effect, or if percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.0003
84701880|NCT03670602|169146246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in calorie intake across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.007
84510208|NCT05097326|168771905|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84701881|NCT03670602|169146246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in calorie intake, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
84701882|NCT03670602|169146247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in working memory across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.774
84701883|NCT03670602|169146247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in working memory, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.019
84701884|NCT03670602|169146248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.650
84510209|NCT05097326|168771906|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84510210|NCT05097326|168771907|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at complete cervical dilation||||0.04
84510211|NCT05097326|168771908|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at postpartum transfer||||0.04
84510212|NCT05097326|168771909|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
84701885|NCT03670602|169146248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
84701886|NCT00864682|169146253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hypothesis: Lidocaine / propofol admixture would be superior to lidocaine pretreatment for attenuating propofol-induced injection pain. Sample size calculated to detect a difference of at least 2 VPS points; beta 0.8.||||<0.0001
84701887|NCT00864682|169146254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Fisher's exact test after chi-squared||||||<0.008
84701888|NCT00957658|169146256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 6%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Asymptotic WALD test|||Literature control = 96% with no aseptic loosening, intraop femoral fracture or thigh pain at 2 years||||<.0001
84701889|NCT00957658|169146259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Improvement from preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
84701890|NCT00957658|169146260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare Pre-op SF-12 Physical Score preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
84701891|NCT00957658|169146260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Score preop to 2 years||||<.0001
84701892|NCT00957658|169146260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare SF-12 Mental Score preop to 5 years||||.0004
84701893|NCT00957658|169146261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Compare LEAS score preop to 2 years and preop to 5 years||||<.0001
84701894|NCT00957658|169146264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare to historical control (n=94 hips): mean wear 5 years = 0.134 (0.078)||||<.0001
84701895|NCT00957658|169146265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||Compare Wrist DXA T-score preop to 5 years||||.0002
84701896|NCT01585038|169146266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.64|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.64|-1.56|0.30
84701897|NCT01585038|169146267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.30|-4.71|0.35
84701898|NCT01585038|169146268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.49|75.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||75.89|-62.49|0.41
84701899|NCT01585038|169146269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-194.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|-34.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-34.6|-353.7|0.02
84701900|NCT02957539|169146280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.7|1.6|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||1.6|-10.7|
84701901|NCT02957539|169146280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.1|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the non-financial arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1|-11.1|<0.025
84701902|NCT02957539|169146281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.8|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.8|-0.5|
84701903|NCT02957539|169146281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.5|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.5|-0.8|
84701904|NCT02957539|169146282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|1.4|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.4|-1.2|
84701905|NCT02957539|169146282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|1.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.8|-.9|
84701906|NCT02957539|169146283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|2.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.8|0.2|
84701907|NCT02957539|169146283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|2.3|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.3|0.0|
84701908|NCT02957539|169146284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.9|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.9|-0.4|
84510213|NCT05097326|168771910|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84701909|NCT02957539|169146284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.7|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.7|-0.6|
84701910|NCT02957539|169146285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|1.3|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.3|-0.2|
84701911|NCT02957539|169146285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|1.6|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.6|-0.3|
84701912|NCT02957539|169146286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.5|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||1.5|-0.5|
84701913|NCT02957539|169146286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.6|||||Incentive Group minus usual care|||1.6|-0.8|
84701914|NCT02957539|169146287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|2.6|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||2.6|-2.0|
84701915|NCT02957539|169146287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|2.9|||||Change in PHQ-9 from week baseline to week 16 in the non-financial incentive group minus the change from week baseline to week 16 in the no rewards group|||2.9|-1.5|
84701916|NCT02957539|169146288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|4.5|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||4.5|-1.7|
84701917|NCT02957539|169146288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|5.0|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||5.0|-0.7|
84701918|NCT02957539|169146289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|2.8|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||2.8|-4.9|
84701919|NCT02957539|169146289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|3.6|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||3.6|-2.9|
84701920|NCT02957539|169146290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|1.0|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1|-7.4|
84701921|NCT02957539|169146290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.7|-0.4|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||-0.4|-8.7|
84510214|NCT05097326|168771911|OTHER|||||||1||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84510215|NCT05097326|168771912|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84701922|NCT02957539|169146291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|10.7|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||10.7|-6|
84701923|NCT02957539|169146291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|4.1|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||4.1|-11.2|
84701924|NCT00208507|169146299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This was a non-inferiority test of the Harris Hip Score means at 24+ months with a 5 point non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.56||||ANCOVA|Preoperative Harris Hip score was included in the ANCOVA model as the only covariate.|||||-1.56|0.001
84701925|NCT04567888|169146303|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.95||Threshold for statistical significance set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.95|-1.88|<.001
84701926|NCT04567888|169146304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.3||Threshold for statistical significance was set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.30|-0.78|< .001
84701927|NCT04173572|169146308|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.09|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 10 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701928|NCT04173572|169146308|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.743|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 9 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701929|NCT04173572|169146309|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|22.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.938|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701930|NCT04173572|169146309|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.645|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701931|NCT04173572|169146310|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4213.837|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701932|NCT04173572|169146310|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-483.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2497.312|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701933|NCT04173572|169146311|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.229|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701934|NCT04173572|169146311|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.563|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.695|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701935|NCT04173572|169146312|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|-9.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.166|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701936|NCT04173572|169146312|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.664|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701937|NCT04173572|169146313|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.392|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.148|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 13 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701938|NCT04173572|169146313|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.401|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701939|NCT04173572|169146314|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701940|NCT04173572|169146314|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701941|NCT04173572|169146315|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701942|NCT04173572|169146315|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701943|NCT04173572|169146316|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.067|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701944|NCT04173572|169146316|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701945|NCT04173572|169146317|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84510216|NCT05097326|168771913|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||1 minute APGAR score||||0.17
84701946|NCT04173572|169146317|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.717|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701947|NCT04173572|169146318|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.737|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84701948|NCT04173572|169146318|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.288|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
84510217|NCT05097326|168771913|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||APGAR score at 5 minutes||||1
84510218|NCT05097326|168771914|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84701949|NCT02026258|169146325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on previous findings, it takes approximately 117 ± 46 days for complete alignment of the mandibular anterior teeth in subjects with severe crowding treated without extractions. For a clinically significant 40% faster alignment in the piezotome-corticision group compared to the control group at an alpha-level (p = 0.05) and desired power of 80%, a sample size of 28 subjects (14 per group) was required. Twenty subjects per group assuming an overall attrition rate of 28%.||||<0.05
84701950|NCT02026258|169146326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T0||||<0.05
84701951|NCT02026258|169146326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T1||||<0.05
84701952|NCT02026258|169146326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T2||||<0.05
84510219|NCT03480425|168771931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-2.4|<0.05
84701953|NCT02026258|169146326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T3||||<0.05
84701954|NCT02026258|169146327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ease of Procedure||||<0.05
84701955|NCT02026258|169146327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Satisfaction with procedure||||<0.05
84701956|NCT02026258|169146328|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Use of Medications||||||<0.05
84701957|NCT02026258|169146328|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Undergo procedure again||||<0.05
84701958|NCT02026258|169146328|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Recommend procedure to a friend||||<0.05
84701959|NCT01544062|169146373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.024
84701960|NCT01544062|169146373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84701961|NCT01544062|169146374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
84701962|NCT01544062|169146374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
84701963|NCT01544062|169146375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.724
84701964|NCT01544062|169146375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.510
84701965|NCT01544062|169146376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
84701966|NCT01544062|169146376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
84701967|NCT01544062|169146377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
84701968|NCT01544062|169146377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlling for age, sex and body mass index||||||0.509
84701969|NCT01544062|169146378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
84701970|NCT01544062|169146378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
84701971|NCT01544062|169146379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
84701972|NCT01544062|169146379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.927
84701973|NCT01544062|169146380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
84701974|NCT01544062|169146380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
84701975|NCT01544062|169146381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
84701976|NCT01544062|169146381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.475
84701977|NCT01544062|169146382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
84701978|NCT01544062|169146382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.905
84701979|NCT01544062|169146383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
84701980|NCT01544062|169146384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.580
84701981|NCT01544062|169146385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.619
84701982|NCT01544062|169146386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
84701983|NCT01544062|169146387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
84701984|NCT01544062|169146388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84701985|NCT01544062|169146389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
84701986|NCT01544062|169146390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84701987|NCT01544062|169146391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.492
84701988|NCT01544062|169146392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
84701989|NCT01544062|169146393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84701990|NCT01093534|169146421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.169||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.03||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and region and Baseline of least squares mean BWT as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in BWT in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Estimated as two-sided contrast with 95% confidence interval. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.5 mm, standard deviation=1.65, 314 and 157 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025)||0.030|-0.368|0.095
84701991|NCT01093534|169146422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test does not adjust for other factors.||The null hypothesis for the co-primary treatment comparison was that the mean free (neutralized) uNGF/Cr value in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of a contrast from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), because data was not normally distributed. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.74 pg/μmol, standard deviation=2.0, 220 and 110 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025).||||0.250
84701992|NCT00281918|169146454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
84701993|NCT00281918|169146455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
84701994|NCT00281918|169146456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0427
84701995|NCT00281918|169146457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7882||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7882
84701996|NCT00281918|169146458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
84701997|NCT00281918|169146459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.54|0.0010
84701998|NCT00281918|169146460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
84701999|NCT00281918|169146461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.52|0.0523
84702000|NCT00281918|169146462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.48|<.0001
84702001|NCT00281918|169146463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Chi-squared|||||3.28|1.62|<.0001
84702002|NCT00281918|169146464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.49|<.0001
84702003|NCT02124460|169146465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation was used for missing follow-up data.|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||0.03|-0.08|0.3928
84702004|NCT02124460|169146466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.33|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||2.33|-0.56|0.2306
84702005|NCT02124460|169146467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care.|||0.16|-0.02|.14
84510220|NCT01244126|168771932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA by ranks|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The primary outcome of the study was the maximum postoperative FLACC pain score.||||0.21
84510221|NCT01244126|168771933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA|0.34||||0.34||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskall Wallis test||||0.34
84510222|NCT05920161|168771934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
84510223|NCT05920161|168771934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.068
84510224|NCT05920161|168771935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.281
84510225|NCT05920161|168771935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.645
84702006|NCT02124460|169146468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||-0.19|-0.81|0.0016
84702007|NCT02124460|169146469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.62||Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.|Linear repeated measures|||||0.62|0.22|<.0001
84702008|NCT02124460|169146470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.53|-0.16|0.3043
84510226|NCT05920161|168771935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison||||0.245
84510227|NCT05920161|168771936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.143
84510228|NCT05920161|168771936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||above chance 0.5|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.797
84510229|NCT05920161|168771936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84510230|NCT05920161|168771937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A condition||||<0.0001
84702009|NCT02124460|169146471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.56|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.56|0.07|0.0113
84702010|NCT02124460|169146472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.03|-0.45|0.0792
84702011|NCT01199237|169146478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84702012|NCT03008915|169146483|OTHER|Paired t-test for participants with measures on both aspirin and placebo.||||||0.692|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between measures on aspirin and placebo.||||0.692
84702013|NCT00712166|169146487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|6.44||"The primary endpoint analysis was based on a two-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeper approach was established a priori to control the type 1 error rate, however, the primary endpoint was not met."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Denominator degrees of freedom computed with Satterthwaite approximation.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~At the 5% significance level (i.e., α = 0.05) using a two-sided significance test, a sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided at least 90% power to detect a 10 point difference between groups in the mean change from baseline at Day 28 in the CFQ-R RSS score, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 17.5."||6.44|-2.83|0.433
84702014|NCT00712166|169146488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|7.78||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||7.78|-1.04|0.133
84702015|NCT00712166|169146489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|4.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS and age group (\<18 years, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||4.76|-4.56|0.965
84702016|NCT00712166|169146490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47||||0.256||95.0|-1.81|6.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R Physical Function Domain score and age (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R physical functioning domain score at Day 28.||6.76|-1.81|0.256
84702017|NCT00712166|169146491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple usage was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||>0.999
84702018|NCT00712166|169146492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple hospitalizations was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in proportion of participants hospitalized.||||0.122
84702019|NCT00712166|169146495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.23||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline log10 CFU, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the log10 CFU at Day 28.||-0.23|-2.20|0.016
84702020|NCT00712166|169146496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.04||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FEV1 % predicted, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in % change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted at Day 28.||5.04|0.42|0.021
84702021|NCT00038103|169146548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|49.0||||||95.0|34.4|63.7|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||63.7|34.4|
84702022|NCT00038103|169146548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|47.1||||||95.0|32.9|61.5|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||61.5|32.9|
84702023|NCT00038103|169146549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|22.4||||||95.0|11.8|36.6|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||36.6|11.8|
84702024|NCT00038103|169146549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|23.5||||||95.0|12.8|37.5|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||37.5|12.8|
84702025|NCT01144182|169146556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, significance level was set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
84702026|NCT01144182|169146557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84702027|NCT01144182|169146558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84702028|NCT01144182|169146559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84702029|NCT01144182|169146560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84702030|NCT01144182|169146561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84702031|NCT01144182|169146562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84702032|NCT01144182|169146563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84510231|NCT05920161|168771937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||B condition||||<0.0001
84510232|NCT05920161|168771937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||X condition||||<0.0001
84510233|NCT05920161|168771938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.000
84510234|NCT05920161|168771938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
84702033|NCT01144182|169146564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84702034|NCT01144182|169146565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84702035|NCT01144182|169146566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84702036|NCT01144182|169146567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84702037|NCT01144182|169146568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84702038|NCT02317016|169146569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|171.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.94|202.53|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||202.53|145.94|
84702039|NCT02317016|169146570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|134.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.41|157.07|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed AUC values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both AUC and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||157.07|115.41|
84702040|NCT01942707|169146616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|179.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84702041|NCT01942707|169146617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84702042|NCT01942707|169146618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
84702043|NCT00954707|169146625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of TLF at 12-month (%)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|7.5||||||||7.5|5.5|
84510235|NCT05920161|168771939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.083
84510236|NCT05920161|168771939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.088
84702044|NCT00954707|169146626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of device success (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|98.4||||||||98.4|97.4|
84702045|NCT00954707|169146627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of lesion success (%)|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.6|99.9||||||||99.9|99.6|
84702046|NCT00954707|169146628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of procedure success (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|98.2||||||||98.2|97.0|
84702047|NCT00954707|169146629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TLR (%)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.13||||||||5.13|3.45|
84702048|NCT00954707|169146630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TVR (%)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|6.81||||||||6.81|4.87|
84702049|NCT00954707|169146631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Target vessel failure (%)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|9.09||||||||9.09|6.85|
84702050|NCT00954707|169146632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of MACE (%)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|8.55||||||||8.55|6.37|
84702051|NCT00954707|169146633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of protocol defined ST (%)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.38||||||||1.38|0.56|
84702052|NCT00954707|169146634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of ARC defined ST (%)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||||||||1.64|0.74|
84510237|NCT02424188|168771948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.4||||||||15.4|2.3|
84702053|NCT00954707|169146635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of major bleeding complications (%)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.85||||||||3.85|2.40|
84702054|NCT00954707|169146636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of cardiac death (%)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
84702055|NCT00954707|169146637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of non-cardiac death (%)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.12||||||||1.12|0.40|
84702056|NCT02525796|169146658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.84
84702057|NCT02525796|169146658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.54
84702058|NCT02525796|169146658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.58
84702059|NCT02525796|169146659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.82
84702060|NCT02525796|169146659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.21
84702061|NCT02525796|169146659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.12
84702062|NCT00955825|169146664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.126||||0.0003||95.0|-0.194|-0.058|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = - 28.24|||-0.058|-0.194|0.0003
84702063|NCT02729701|169146670|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change by paired two-sample non-parametric test||||0.017
84702064|NCT02729701|169146671|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||Test for within-group change via paired, two-sample non-parametric test||||0.043
84702065|NCT02729701|169146672|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change using paired two-sample non-parametric etst||||0.088
84510238|NCT02424188|168771949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|1.2|
84510239|NCT02424188|168771950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.5||||||6 month comparison||17.5|1.3|
84702066|NCT02503202|169146737|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot B)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.14|0.77|<0.001
84510240|NCT02424188|168771950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|48.6||||||12 month||48.6|2.4|
84510241|NCT02424188|168771952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||||||6 months||2.3|-1.7|
84510242|NCT02424188|168771952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.7||||||18 months||4.7|-1.5|
84702067|NCT02503202|169146737|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot C)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.09|0.71|<0.001
84702068|NCT02503202|169146737|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot B / Lot C)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.15|0.77|<0.001
84702069|NCT02503202|169146738|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||4.0|-1.5|0.368
84702070|NCT02503202|169146738|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-3.1|0.989
84702071|NCT02503202|169146738|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.5|-4.1|0.361
84702072|NCT02503202|169146738|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.3|-1.7|0.214
84702073|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site erythema||9.9|-1.6|0.160
84702074|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site erythema||6.0|-6.2|0.971
84702075|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site erythema||1.5|-10.0|0.151
84510243|NCT02424188|168771953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||||1.5|-0.6|
84510244|NCT02424188|168771955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-30.2|
84510245|NCT02753842|168771975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.26||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing fitted to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||2.26|0.52|<0.05
84702076|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site erythema||9.9|1.4|0.016
84702077|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site pain||1.6|-14.0|0.120
84702078|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-11.4|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site pain||4.4|-11.4|0.380
84702079|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site pain||10.4|-5.1|0.499
84702080|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|54.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|62.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site pain||62.3|46.2|<0.001
84702081|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site swelling||10.3|-2.2|0.202
84702082|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site swelling||6.1|-7.1|0.878
84702083|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site swelling||1.7|-10.9|0.154
84702084|NCT02503202|169146739|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site swelling||18.6|7.4|<0.001
84702085|NCT02503202|169146740|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||11.4|-2.1|0.176
84702086|NCT02503202|169146740|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||6.0|-8.2|0.769
84702087|NCT02503202|169146740|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.1|-12.5|0.100
84702088|NCT02503202|169146740|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|37.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||37.5|25.6|<0.001
84702089|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthralgia||4.1|-4.2|0.983
84702090|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.4|-5.1|0.699
84702091|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.5|-5.1|0.716
84702092|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthralgia||10.4|1.8|0.012
84702093|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthritis||4.4|-2.9|0.677
84702094|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthritis||5.4|-1.4|0.250
84702095|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthritis||4.5|-2.1|0.460
84702096|NCT02503202|169146741|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthritis||6.0|0.2|0.041
84702097|NCT02503202|169146742|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||1.9|-5.1|0.353
84702098|NCT02503202|169146742|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||2.5|-4.2|0.620
84702099|NCT02503202|169146742|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||4.5|-2.9|0.663
84702100|NCT02503202|169146742|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||5.7|-1.8|0.202
84702101|NCT02503202|169146743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||3.3|-1.6|0.483
84702102|NCT02503202|169146743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-2.2|0.746
84702103|NCT02503202|169146743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||2.0|-2.8|0.704
84702104|NCT02503202|169146743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.9|-1.3|0.151
84702105|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.929
84702106|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to 3||||<0.001
84702107|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
84702108|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.050
84702109|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.165
84702110|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.133
84702111|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.217
84702112|NCT01245439|169146772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702113|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.169
84702114|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702115|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.053
84702116|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.514
84702117|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.064
84702118|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.038
84702119|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.064
84702120|NCT01245439|169146775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702121|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.981
84702122|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702123|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.005
84702124|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.566
84702125|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.264
84702126|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.126
84702127|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.779
84702128|NCT01245439|169146776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||||||<0.001
84702129|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.410
84702130|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702131|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
84702132|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.021
84702133|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.003
84702134|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 6 to Visit7||||0.827
84702135|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.093
84702136|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702137|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.792
84702138|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702139|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
84702140|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.374
84702141|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.518
84702142|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.744
84702143|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.048
84702144|NCT01245439|169146777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702145|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702146|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
84702147|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.075
84702148|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.119
84702149|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.007
84702150|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.047
84702151|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702152|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702153|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
84702154|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.001
84702155|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.084
84702156|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.272
84702157|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.020
84702158|NCT01245439|169146778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702159|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702160|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
84702161|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.254
84702162|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.138
84702163|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.002
84702164|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.104
84702165|NCT01245439|169146779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
84702166|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
84702167|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
84702168|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.078
84702169|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.349
84702170|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.722
84702171|NCT01245439|169146780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.224
84702172|NCT03525119|169146785|NON_INFERIORITY|As per predefined criteria in protocol the non-inferiority was established only between group 1 and group 3. Non-inferiority of HAV+TDV to HAV was established if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.28||||||||4.28|-8.91|
84702173|NCT00982033|169146830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
84702174|NCT02613364|169146875|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the difference in mean change on the ISI between YOCAS©® and CBT-I is less than 1.15. Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS©® and CBT-I, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample of 168 subjects per group, we will have sufficient (80%) power to detect non-inferiority using a margin of 1.15 at p = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.37||The p-value shown above is from the Least Squares Mean between YOCAS - CBT-I from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is YOCAS - CBT-I|Constructed a 95% confidence interval on the mean change of ISI from baseline between the arms (YOCAS - CBT-I). If the lower bound of the interval is less than 1.5 then we conclude that YOCAS is non-inferior.||4.37|2.66|<.0001
84702175|NCT02613364|169146876|SUPERIORITY|Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS and health education, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample size of 168 evaluable subjects per group, we will have sufficient power to detect differences on the ISI of at least 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 (all larger than our 1.15 non-inferiority margin) at 80%, 90%, and 95% power, respectively|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.58||the comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.58|-2.23|0.0009
84702176|NCT02613364|169146877|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.04||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.04|-0.98|0.0700
84702177|NCT02613364|169146878|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.75||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||2.75|1.70|<.0001
84702178|NCT02613364|169146879|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|33.54||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||33.54|5.91|0.0052
84702179|NCT02613364|169146880|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|29.94||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.94|1.93|0.0258
84702180|NCT02613364|169146881|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.048||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|||0.048|-0.053|0.92
84702181|NCT02613364|169146882|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.098||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the CBT-I control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.098|-0.004|0.07
84702182|NCT02613364|169146883|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.44||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.44|0.09|0.04
84510246|NCT02753842|168771976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A single item assessed whether participants preferred fitted condoms or standard condoms at the end of the study (the item word viewed by participants used the blinded identifiers of each condom type).||1.38|0.92|>0.05
84510247|NCT02753842|168771978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.24|||logistic mixed effects model|||We assessed clinical condom failure for anal sex, comparing anal sex acts with fitted condoms to anal sex acts with standard condoms.||3.24|0.27|>0.05
84702183|NCT02613364|169146884|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.43||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||1.43|-2.97|0.49
84702184|NCT02613364|169146885|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.05|-0.13|0.43
84510248|NCT02753842|168771979|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing thin to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||1.94|0.18|<0.05
84702185|NCT02613364|169146886|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.11|-0.07|0.70
84702186|NCT02613364|169146887|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.5||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.50|-2.65|0.0041
84510249|NCT02564263|168772030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||0.96|0.63|0.00894
84702187|NCT02613364|169146888|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.81||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||3.81|1.61|<.0001
84702188|NCT02613364|169146889|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.36||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.36|-2.78|0.0108
84702189|NCT02613364|169146890|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|4.02||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.02|1.54|<.0001
84702190|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|3.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||3.17|-4.52|
84702191|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.94|4.38||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||4.38|-3.94|
84702192|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|3.19||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||3.19|-4.63|
84702193|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-9.4|10.99||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||10.99|-9.4|
84702194|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-2.7|4.71||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||4.71|-2.7|
84702195|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.05|3.82||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||3.82|-5.05|
84702196|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.68|3.15||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||3.15|-4.68|
84702197|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.04|3.85||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.85|-5.04|
84702198|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.6|3.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||3.14|-4.6|
84510250|NCT02564263|168772031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||0.94|0.52|0.00855
84510251|NCT02564263|168772032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||1.05|0.75|0.0531
84510252|NCT02564263|168772033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||1.31|0.94|0.287
84510253|NCT02564263|168772034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||11.2|1.7|0.0037
84510254|NCT02564263|168772035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||1.13|0.75|0.216
84510255|NCT02564263|168772036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||0.97|0.54|0.015
84510256|NCT02564263|168772037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||15.8|3.0|0.0022
84510257|NCT02564263|168772038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|15.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||24.7|6.2|0.0006
84510258|NCT01644500|168772041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
84510259|NCT01644500|168772041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
84702199|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.08||||||98.25|-7.66|8.1||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||8.1|-7.66|
84510260|NCT01644500|168772042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.8|4.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
84510261|NCT01644500|168772042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.3|1.0|<0.001
84510262|NCT01644500|168772042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.5|1.8|<0.001
84510263|NCT01644500|168772042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.5|1.1|0.192
84510264|NCT01644500|168772043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.15|<0.001
84510265|NCT01644500|168772043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.70|0.022
84510266|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
84510267|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.304
84510268|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.92||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.80|<0.001
84510269|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.99|0.015
84510270|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.10|<0.001
84510271|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.43|0.740
84510272|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.13||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.99|<0.001
84510273|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.39||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.24|<0.001
84702200|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||2.91|-4.52|
84702201|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.57|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 4.||2.91|-4.57|
84702202|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|2.92||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||2.92|-4.63|
84702203|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-12.02|7.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||7.22|-12.02|
84702204|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.34|3.48||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||3.48|-3.34|
84702205|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.66|2.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||2.32|-5.66|
84702206|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.08|4.12||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||4.12|-4.08|
84510274|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.00|<0.001
84510275|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.25||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.41|0.638
84510276|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.87||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-1.68|<0.001
84510277|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.85|0.030
84510278|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.82||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.56|<0.001
84702207|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.08|3.54||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.54|-5.08|
84702208|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.4|5.2||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||5.2|-3.4|
84702209|NCT01235949|169146894|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.3|11.04||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||11.04|-5.3|
84702210|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.29||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.29|0.71|
84702211|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.77|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.35|0.77|
84702212|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.41||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.41|0.8|
84702213|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.74||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.74|0.72|
84702214|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.79|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.35|0.79|
84702215|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.7|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.31|0.7|
84702216|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.4||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.4|0.71|
84702217|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.31|0.6|
84702218|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.87|1.75||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.75|0.87|
84702219|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.44|0.66|
84702220|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.67|1.21||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.21|0.67|
84702221|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.76|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.32|0.76|
84702222|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.14|0.66|
84702223|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.83|1.97||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.97|0.83|
84702224|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.31|0.8|
84702225|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.22|0.69|
84702226|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.68|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.32|0.68|
84702227|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.27|0.6|
84702228|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.44|0.72|
84702229|NCT01235949|169146895|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.58|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.27|0.58|
84702230|NCT01235949|169146896|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.28||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.28|0.69|
84702231|NCT01235949|169146896|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.64|1.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.17|0.64|
84702232|NCT00371566|169146925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93||0.394||95.0|-5.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis||The study was designed to provide evidence to support the null hypothesis: Delta equals 0% or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis: Delta does not equal 0%, where Delta was the difference in the true response rate for the two treatment groups.||2.19|-5.50|.394
84702233|NCT00972504|169146958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-1.2|
84702234|NCT00972504|169146958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.8|
84702235|NCT00972504|169146958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.9|
84702236|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||0.3|-0.0|
84510279|NCT01644500|168772044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.03|<0.001
84702237|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
84702238|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
84702239|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
84702240|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.6|
84702241|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.3|-0.6|
84702242|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
84702243|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
84702244|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
84702245|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
84510280|NCT01644500|168772045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
84510281|NCT01644500|168772045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
84510282|NCT01644500|168772045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.008
84702246|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK835726 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.4|
84702247|NCT00972504|169146959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and Cetirizine 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
84702248|NCT00972504|169146960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.212||||||||-0.212|-1.870|
84702249|NCT00972504|169146960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.584|-0.936||||||||-0.936|-2.584|
84702250|NCT00972504|169146960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.626|-1.957||||||||-1.957|-3.626|
84702251|NCT00972504|169146961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.28|
84702252|NCT00972504|169146961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.45||||||||-0.45|-1.65|
84702253|NCT00972504|169146961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||||95.0|-1.68|-0.46||||||||-0.46|-1.68|
84510283|NCT01644500|168772045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.006
84702254|NCT04246762|169146964|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|70.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.62|81.91|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.91|60.62|
84702255|NCT04246762|169146964|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.73|81.21|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.21|56.73|
84702256|NCT04246762|169146964|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|122.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.98|139.93|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||139.93|107.98|
84702257|NCT04246762|169146965|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-last))|90.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.72|95.13|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||95.13|86.72|
84702258|NCT04246762|169146966|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.46|78.92|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||78.92|59.46|
84702259|NCT04246762|169146966|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|84.27|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||84.27|64.18|
84510284|NCT01644500|168772046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84510285|NCT01644500|168772046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84702260|NCT04246762|169146966|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|105.09|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||105.09|91.36|
84702261|NCT04246762|169146966|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|110.39|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI. The sample size computation was based on results reported for sirukumab.||110.39|94.80|
84702262|NCT02878330|169146977|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|70.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|81.2|||Poisson regression|||||81.2|52.3|<0.0001
84702263|NCT02878330|169146978|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|78.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|90.3|||Poisson regression|||||90.3|51.9|0.0002
84702264|NCT02476890|169146984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.7|-0.6|0.9666
84510286|NCT01644500|168772047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|23.55|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2-%B||23.55|11.27|<0.001
84702265|NCT02476890|169146984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-1.1|0.5993
84702266|NCT02476890|169146984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.3|0.2823
84702267|NCT02476890|169146984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.4|0.4287
84510287|NCT01644500|168772047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.92||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.06|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2%B||14.06|1.78|0.012
84510288|NCT01644500|168772047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|21.06|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||21.06|11.81|<0.001
84702268|NCT02476890|169146985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||1.4|-0.3|0.1771
84702269|NCT02476890|169146985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.3|-0.7|0.5473
84702270|NCT02476890|169146985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.5|0.5169
84702271|NCT02476890|169146985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.4|0.4243
84702272|NCT02476890|169146986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||2.0|-0.2|0.1125
84702273|NCT02476890|169146986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.4|0.4|0.0029
84702274|NCT02476890|169146986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||2.4|0.7|0.0006
84702275|NCT02476890|169146986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||2.2|0.4|0.0067
84702276|NCT02476890|169146987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.5|0.2|< 0.0001
84702277|NCT02476890|169146987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-0.1|0.1798
84702278|NCT02476890|169146987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.5|0.1|0.0011
84702279|NCT02476890|169146987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.4|0.1|0.0023
84702280|NCT02476890|169146988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Severity VAS Analysis||-6.2|-29.8|0.0037
84702281|NCT02476890|169146989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Urge to Cough VAS Analysis||-7.0|-29.1|0.0020
84702282|NCT02476890|169146990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Frequency Analysis||-1.0|-6.2|0.0075
84702283|NCT02914522|169146998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1.||||19.5|2.1|0.0157
84702284|NCT02914522|169146998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.0|-4.3|0.3379
84702285|NCT02914522|169146998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||12.8|1.6|0.0103
84702286|NCT02914522|169146998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.5|-0.0|0.0645
84702287|NCT02914522|169146999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.9|16.0|< 0.0001
84702288|NCT02914522|169146999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.7|-0.0|0.0420
84702289|NCT02914522|169147000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||20.4|3.8|0.0053
84702290|NCT02914522|169147000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.2|-3.1|0.2295
84702291|NCT02914522|169147000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.7|-0.1|0.0393
84702292|NCT02914522|169147000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||6.6|-3.1|0.5308
84702293|NCT02914522|169147001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||14.3|2.9|0.0047
84510289|NCT01644500|168772047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|14.62|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||14.62|5.36|<0.001
84702294|NCT02914522|169147001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||6.8|-2.6|0.3495
84702295|NCT02914522|169147001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.1|-2.5|0.4269
84702296|NCT02914522|169147001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9987
84702297|NCT02914522|169147002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||28.2|9.9|<0.0001
84702298|NCT02914522|169147002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.8||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||16.2|-0.7|0.0672
84702299|NCT02914522|169147002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|11.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||18.6|4.2|0.0019
84702300|NCT02914522|169147002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||11.8|-1.4|0.1286
84702301|NCT02914522|169147003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||13.8|1.9|0.0105
84702302|NCT02914522|169147003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||9.6|-1.0|0.1062
84702303|NCT02914522|169147003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.6|-2.2|0.3084
84702304|NCT02914522|169147003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9109
84702305|NCT02914522|169147009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.0|16.0|<0.0001
84702306|NCT02914522|169147009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||19.5|-1.1|0.0658
84702307|NCT02914522|169147010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|5.3|0.0024
84702308|NCT02914522|169147010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.9||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||8.7|-7.0|0.7951
84702309|NCT02914522|169147011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|20.8||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||33.9|7.7|0.0055
84702310|NCT02914522|169147011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.2||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|-4.2|0.1265
84702311|NCT02914522|169147012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.5||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||17.1|1.8|0.0157
84702312|NCT02914522|169147012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.5||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||13.9|-2.9|0.1808
84702313|NCT02914522|169147013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.2|14.6|<0.0001
84702314|NCT02914522|169147013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.9||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||21.2|-1.3|0.0521
84702315|NCT02914522|169147014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||24.2|7.8|0.0005
84702316|NCT02914522|169147014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||12.6|-3.9|0.2946
84702317|NCT01264718|169147026|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings per child per year insured.|||||
84702318|NCT01264718|169147026|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings for each percent increase in children obtaining insurance per year.|||||
84702319|NCT01768676|169147030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in percentage of subjects with a \>/= 50% reduction from baseline to Week 26 in sperm concentration between treatment arms was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to account for the randomization stratification by baseline sperm concentration. If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|-4.29|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||-4.29|-21.56|
84702320|NCT01768676|169147031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|0.7|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0.7|-23.5|
84702321|NCT01768676|169147032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.3|-4.2|
84702322|NCT01768676|169147033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.1|-6.8|
84702323|NCT01768676|169147034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0|0|
84702324|NCT03693742|169147045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in uptake of F18-DCFPyL between the MSG and placebo groups.~A sample size of 10 achieves 100% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 5.0 (33%) with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 1.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a one-sided paired t-test. If the estimated standard deviation of differences is 5.0, a sample size of 10 achieves 90% power to detect a mean difference of 5.0 with an alpha of 0.05."||||<0.001
84702325|NCT02023125|169147049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.0|320.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and confidence intervals (CIs).||320|228|
84702326|NCT02023125|169147050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|132.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||132|103|
84510290|NCT01644500|168772048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|6.51|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||6.51|-5.83|0.913
84702327|NCT02023125|169147051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|292.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.0|329.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||329|258|
84702328|NCT02023125|169147052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|109|
84702329|NCT02023125|169147053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|377.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|303.0|468.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||468|303|
84702330|NCT02023125|169147054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|119.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||119|87.0|
84702331|NCT02023125|169147055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|328.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|276.0|389.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||389|276|
84702332|NCT02023125|169147056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|96.3|
84702333|NCT02023125|169147059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|306.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.0|348.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||348|269|
84702334|NCT02023125|169147060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|110|
84702335|NCT02023125|169147061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|349.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.0|422.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||422|288|
84702336|NCT02023125|169147062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|95.3|
84702337|NCT01867580|169147115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6770
84702338|NCT01867580|169147116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0202
84702339|NCT01867580|169147117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0142
84702340|NCT01304147|169147118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject crossover design||11.3|3.9|<0.001
84702341|NCT04411082|169147135|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84702342|NCT04411082|169147136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84702343|NCT04411082|169147137|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84702344|NCT04411082|169147138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.4839
84702345|NCT04411082|169147139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2065
84702346|NCT04411082|169147140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4839
84702347|NCT04411082|169147141|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84702348|NCT04411082|169147142|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84702349|NCT01198275|169147145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.666|||Kaplan Meyer analysis|The time to first AF recurrence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.|Hazard ratios between n-3 PUFA and Placebo together with confidence intervals were estimated using the Cox proportional regression model.|Give a relapse rate ranging from 40% to 60% on ACE-I/ARB and amiodarone therapy, considering the high risk of relapses in our study population we conservatively assumed a 50% relapse rate. We calculated that a total of 180 patients would yield 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of about 20% in AF recurrence with the addition of n-3 PUFAs at a log-rank test, with a significance level of 0.05.||0.666|0.292|< 0.05
84702350|NCT01616654|169147165|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.115||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|29.495|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||29.495|-3.266|0.096
84702351|NCT01616654|169147165|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction||33.036|-0.249|0.040
84702352|NCT01616654|169147165|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|10.273||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.923|26.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||26.470|-5.923|0.184
84702353|NCT01616654|169147165|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||33.036|-0.249|0.041
84702354|NCT01616654|169147166|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.74||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||1.48|-14.96|0.108
84702355|NCT01616654|169147166|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-7.88||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.34|-16.11|0.060
84702356|NCT01616654|169147166|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-8.11||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.13|-16.35|0.054
84702357|NCT01616654|169147166|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-12.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||-4.76|-21.18|0.002
84702358|NCT01616654|169147167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.067
84702359|NCT01616654|169147167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.054
84702360|NCT01616654|169147167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
84702361|NCT01616654|169147167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84702362|NCT00094809|169147191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.37|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||0.37|0.10|<0.0001
84702363|NCT00094809|169147192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-26.2|-9.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||-9.8|-26.2|<0.0001
84702364|NCT00094809|169147193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.0||||0.0646||95.0|-23.7|0.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||0.5|-23.7|0.0646
84702365|NCT00094809|169147194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0384||95.0|0.07|1.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.00|0.07|0.0384
84702366|NCT00094809|169147195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5514||95.0|0.26|2.04|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||2.04|0.26|0.5514
84702367|NCT00094809|169147197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.5||||0.5434||95.0|-14.8|7.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group) in the percentage of participants with a complete or partial response|||7.8|-14.8|0.5434
84702368|NCT00094809|169147198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.1||||||95.0|-28.1|4.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the difference in percent mortality for the pegfilgrastim group - placebo group. Median survival time was not reached for the pegfilgrastim group.|||4.0|-28.1|
84702369|NCT00094809|169147199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0457||95.0|0.05|1.09|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.09|0.05|0.0457
84702370|NCT00094809|169147200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3792||95.0|0.32|1.53|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||1.53|0.32|0.3792
84702371|NCT05372094|169147202|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed factor of program and random intercept of participant||||0.007
84702372|NCT05372094|169147202|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting OFF and noise reduction setting STRONG||||< 0.05
84702373|NCT05372094|169147202|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting STRONG and noise reduction setting WEAK||||<0.01
84702374|NCT05372094|169147202|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Follow up comparison between ratings of effort with OFF and WEAK"||||>.05
84702375|NCT05372094|169147203|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
84702376|NCT05372094|169147204|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done only between NR OFF and NR at a custom or preferred setting.||||0.145
84702377|NCT05372094|169147205|OTHER|||||||0.3018|||||||Exact Binomial test|||An exact binomial test was performed to evaluate if the majority of teens and pre-teens with mild to severe hearing loss preferred NR setting (i.e., either weak or strong) to the NR setting OFF.||||0.3018
84702378|NCT05372094|169147206|OTHER|||||||0.1796|||||||Exact Binomial test|||Exact binomial test was done to evaluate if the majority (\>50%) of teens and pre-teens prefer to use Tap Control to access Bluetooth streaming, compared to using the HA push button or phone controls.||||0.1796
84702379|NCT04897737|169147220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs.||2.82|1.19|<0.001
84702380|NCT04897737|169147221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|7.27|||Regression, Linear|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.|RD=49.1% (95% CI=32.8, 65.3), p\<0.001|7.27|2.08|<0.001
84702381|NCT01183780|169147233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.976|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed on stratified data.|The estimation was performed on stratified data.|||0.976|0.730|0.0219
84702382|NCT01183780|169147234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.903|||Log Rank|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|||0.903|0.697|0.0005
84702383|NCT01183780|169147235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6336
84702384|NCT00855465|169147273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 0m in case of death/clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group and region as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant.||||<0.0001
84702385|NCT00855465|169147273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.74|66.63||Additional analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||66.63|24.74|<0.0001
84510291|NCT01644500|168772048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.03|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||3.03|-9.30|0.318
84510292|NCT01644500|168772048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|3.49|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||3.49|-6.27|0.576
84510293|NCT01644500|168772048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||-1.89|-11.68|0.007
84702386|NCT00855465|169147273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84702387|NCT00855465|169147274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
84702388|NCT00855465|169147274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-246.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.33|-189.53||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-189.53|-303.33|<0.0001
84702389|NCT00855465|169147274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84702390|NCT00855465|169147275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
84702391|NCT00855465|169147275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-443.99||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-842.95|-45.03||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-45.03|-842.95|0.0293
84702392|NCT00855465|169147275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84702393|NCT00855465|169147276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0026
84702394|NCT00855465|169147277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.37||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|1.99||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region.|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region.|"Test for difference of occurence of Any event."||1.99|-8.72|0.1724
84702395|NCT00855465|169147278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0035
84702396|NCT00855465|169147279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||<0.0001
84702397|NCT00855465|169147279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|0.06|0.0002
84702398|NCT00855465|169147279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84702399|NCT00855465|169147280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg Dyspnea Score, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.1220
84702400|NCT00855465|169147280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-1.06||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-10.45|0.0165
84702401|NCT00855465|169147280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
84702402|NCT00855465|169147282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
84702403|NCT00855465|169147282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-3.16||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-3.16|-6.75|<0.0001
84702404|NCT00855465|169147282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0231|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0231
84702405|NCT00855465|169147283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||0.62|0.33|<0.0001
84510294|NCT01644500|168772051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
84510295|NCT01644500|168772051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.245
84510296|NCT01644500|168772051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
84702406|NCT00855465|169147283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84702407|NCT00855465|169147283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.1160
84510297|NCT01644500|168772051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.619
84702408|NCT04365400|169147318|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|8.24||||0.1148124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|18.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.19|-2.01|0.1148124
84702409|NCT04365400|169147318|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|-0.82||||0.8668467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|7.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.96|-10.16|0.8668467
84702410|NCT04365400|169147319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|0.02516||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26658|0.316897|||ANCOVA|||||0.316897|-0.26658|0.8658
84702411|NCT04365400|169147319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|-0.07333||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39012|0.243455|||ANCOVA|||||0.243455|-0.39012|0.6500
84702412|NCT02371746|169147337|SUPERIORITY||Change from baseline|30.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|36.6|||ANCOVA|||estimatCohort 1 all Groups: Non-study eye: TRAVANTAN Z Cohort 1 - Group 1: Study Eye: 28.2 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 2: Study Eye: 42.3 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 3: Study Eye: 42 .5 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 4: Study Eye: 85.0 ug travoprost||36.6|-1.8|<0.001
84702413|NCT01157182|169147351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.63|108.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.55|97.63|
84702414|NCT01157182|169147352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|101.76|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.76|95.15|
84510298|NCT01644500|168772052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84510299|NCT01644500|168772052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
84702415|NCT01157182|169147353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|102.26|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.26|95.33|
84510300|NCT01644500|168772055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84510301|NCT01644500|168772055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84510302|NCT01644500|168772056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84702416|NCT01157182|169147354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|96.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.55|88.64|
84702417|NCT01157182|169147355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|98.81|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.81|92.60|
84702418|NCT01157182|169147356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|98.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.91|92.62|
84702419|NCT01157182|169147357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|96.33|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||96.33|88.65|
84510303|NCT01644500|168772056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84510304|NCT03127137|168772094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
84510305|NCT03127137|168772095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.86||||||||2.86|.82|
84510306|NCT02319148|168772098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|105.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|120.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||120.34|92.11|
84510307|NCT02319148|168772098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.96|105.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.77|80.96|
84510308|NCT02319148|168772098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.86|132.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.92|101.86|
84510309|NCT02319148|168772099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.57|103.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||103.46|78.57|
84510310|NCT02319148|168772099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|122.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.07|92.70|
84510311|NCT02319148|168772099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||116.66|88.68|
84510312|NCT02319148|168772100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|104.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.94|79.49|
84702420|NCT01157182|169147358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.77|92.68|
84702421|NCT01157182|169147359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.88|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.88|92.68|
84702422|NCT01157182|169147360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.62|98.31|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.31|84.62|
84702423|NCT01157182|169147361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|89.04|
84702424|NCT01157182|169147362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|104.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.76|90.70|
84702425|NCT01157182|169147363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|98.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.81|89.78|
84702426|NCT01157182|169147364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.73|99.36|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.36|92.73|
84702427|NCT01157182|169147365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|100.96|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.96|93.62|
84702428|NCT01157182|169147366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.46|99.62|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.62|84.46|
84702429|NCT01157182|169147367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|103.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.14|88.37|
84702430|NCT01157182|169147368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.1|103.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.81|88.10|
84702431|NCT01157182|169147369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.56|98.98|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.98|89.56|
84702432|NCT01157182|169147370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|100.04|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.04|92.14|
84702433|NCT01157182|169147371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|100.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.93|92.75|
84702434|NCT02534350|169147372|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.43|0.72
84510313|NCT02319148|168772100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|122.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.91|93.10|
84702435|NCT02534350|169147373|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
84702436|NCT02534350|169147374|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.86
84702437|NCT02534350|169147375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.25||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|9.08|||ANCOVA|||||9.08|-15.58|0.60
84702438|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702439|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702440|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702441|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702442|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702443|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702444|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702445|NCT04673851|169147376|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702446|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702447|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702448|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702449|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702450|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702451|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702452|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702453|NCT04673851|169147377|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702454|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702455|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702456|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702457|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702458|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702459|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702460|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84510314|NCT02319148|168772100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.42|117.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.93|89.42|
84702461|NCT04673851|169147378|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702462|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702463|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84510315|NCT00048048|168772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.425|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ Week||1.425|0.534|
84510316|NCT00048048|168772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.307|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ 2Week||1.307|0.395|
84702464|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702465|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702466|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702467|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702468|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702469|NCT04673851|169147379|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702470|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702471|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702472|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84510317|NCT00048048|168772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.377|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X /3 Week||1.377|0.488|
84702473|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702474|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702475|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702476|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84510318|NCT01880073|168772126|OTHER||Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||||||||1.00|0.74|
84510319|NCT01880073|168772127|OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||||||||0.26|0.00|
84702477|NCT04673851|169147380|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702478|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702479|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702480|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702481|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702482|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702483|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702484|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702485|NCT04673851|169147381|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702486|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702487|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702488|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702489|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702490|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702491|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702492|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702493|NCT04673851|169147382|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
84702494|NCT03399370|169147433|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.86|-54.43||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-54.43|-60.86|<.0001
84702495|NCT03399370|169147434|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-51.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-51.33|-56.23|<0.0001
84702496|NCT03399370|169147435|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.37|-50.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.88|-57.37|<0.0001
84702497|NCT03399370|169147436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.75|-50.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.80|-55.75|<0.0001
84702498|NCT03399370|169147437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.25|-77.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-77.34|-89.25|<0.0001
84702499|NCT03399370|169147438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-30.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-30.97|-35.30|<0.0001
84702500|NCT03399370|169147439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-40.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.67|-45.50|<.0001
84702501|NCT03399370|169147440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.25|-44.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-44.47|-50.25|<0.0001
84702502|NCT01227707|169147468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||one sample binomial test|||||||1.00
84702503|NCT05819190|169147482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - FAS set||||0.0192
84702504|NCT05819190|169147483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - PP set||||0.0296
84702505|NCT05819190|169147484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0085
84702506|NCT05819190|169147485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0081
84702507|NCT05819190|169147486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
84702508|NCT05819190|169147487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0107
84702509|NCT05819190|169147488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
84702510|NCT05819190|169147489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||one sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.430
84702511|NCT05819190|169147490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.339
84702512|NCT05819190|169147491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.704
84702513|NCT05819190|169147492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.298
84702514|NCT05819190|169147493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.906
84702515|NCT05819190|169147494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.582
84702516|NCT05819190|169147495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.743
84702517|NCT05819190|169147496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.605
84702518|NCT05819190|169147497|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||1.000
84702519|NCT05819190|169147498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.988
84702520|NCT05819190|169147499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.483
84702521|NCT04495634|169147500|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84702522|NCT04495634|169147501|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84702523|NCT04495634|169147502|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84702524|NCT04495634|169147503|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84702525|NCT03105128|169147504|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
84702526|NCT03105128|169147504|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
84702527|NCT03105128|169147505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
84702528|NCT03105128|169147505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
84702529|NCT03105128|169147506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
84702530|NCT03105128|169147506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
84702531|NCT03105128|169147507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
84702532|NCT03105128|169147507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
84702533|NCT03105128|169147508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
84702534|NCT03105128|169147508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
84702535|NCT03105128|169147509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
84702536|NCT03105128|169147509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
84702537|NCT03105128|169147510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
84702538|NCT03105128|169147510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
84702539|NCT03105128|169147511|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
84702540|NCT03105128|169147511|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
84702541|NCT03105128|169147512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|1.5|0.015
84702542|NCT03105128|169147512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|2.3|0.007
84702543|NCT03105128|169147513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|18.5|<0.001
84702544|NCT03105128|169147513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|11.8|<0.001
84702545|NCT03105128|169147514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|15.7|<0.001
84702546|NCT03105128|169147514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|15.1|<0.001
84702547|NCT03105128|169147515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|12.4|<0.001
84702548|NCT03105128|169147515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|10.1|<0.001
84702549|NCT03105128|169147516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
84702550|NCT03105128|169147516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
84702551|NCT03105128|169147517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
84702552|NCT03105128|169147517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
84702553|NCT03105128|169147518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
84702554|NCT03105128|169147518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
84702555|NCT03105128|169147519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
84702556|NCT03105128|169147519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
84702557|NCT03105128|169147520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
84702558|NCT03105128|169147520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
84702559|NCT03105128|169147521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Chi-squared|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
84702560|NCT03105128|169147521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Chi-squared|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
84702561|NCT03105128|169147522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Chi-squared|||||39.7|-28.6|1.00
84702562|NCT03105128|169147522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|25.0|-25.7|39.6|||Chi-squared|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
84702563|NCT03105128|169147523|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
84702564|NCT03105128|169147523|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
84702565|NCT03105128|169147524|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
84702566|NCT03105128|169147524|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
84702567|NCT03105128|169147525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.4|<0.001
84702568|NCT03105128|169147525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|5.7|<0.001
84702569|NCT03105128|169147526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
84510320|NCT01604850|168772171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-10.3||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization stratification factor (ie, presence/absence of cirrhosis, genotype 2 or 3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 100 subjects in each group would provide over 97% power to detect at least 20% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed null rate of 25% using 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||-10.3|-34.4|< 0.001
84702570|NCT03105128|169147526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
84702571|NCT03105128|169147527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
84702572|NCT03105128|169147527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
84702573|NCT03105128|169147528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|27.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||27.1|14.3|<0.001
84702574|NCT03105128|169147528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||25.8|13.1|<0.001
84702575|NCT03105128|169147529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|16.8|<0.001
84702576|NCT03105128|169147529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.3|<0.001
84702577|NCT03105128|169147530|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
84702578|NCT03105128|169147530|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
84702579|NCT03105128|169147531|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
84702580|NCT03105128|169147531|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
84702581|NCT03105128|169147532|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
84702582|NCT03105128|169147532|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
84702583|NCT03105128|169147533|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
84702584|NCT03105128|169147533|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
84702585|NCT03105128|169147534|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
84702586|NCT03105128|169147534|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
84702587|NCT03105128|169147535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
84702588|NCT03105128|169147535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
84702589|NCT03105128|169147536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.7|-28.6|1.000
84702590|NCT03105128|169147536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|39.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
84702591|NCT03105128|169147537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.586||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|-1.282|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-1.282|-17.890|0.024
84702592|NCT03105128|169147537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.141||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-3.892|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.892|-20.390|0.004
84702593|NCT03105128|169147538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|4.313|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.313|1.512|<0.001
84702594|NCT03105128|169147538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.877|4.672|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.672|1.877|<0.001
84702595|NCT03254394|169147595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.85||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average AUC of cold pain score over 14 days of a chemotherapy cycle in the Control group is equal or lower than that of the experimental group. The comparison is for average AUC values over 7 cycles of chemotherapy per patient||20.85|-7.09|0.318
84702596|NCT03254394|169147595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|29.1||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Cold hypersensitivity counted as unpleasantness score for 14 days after cycle (AUC) in the Control group is less than that of the experimental group. The difference was calculated for the Cycle 6 visit.||29.10|-13.76|0.466
84510321|NCT01703832|168772177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1233||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.1233
84510322|NCT01703832|168772178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.5153
84510323|NCT00243932|168772190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0|||||futility (non-superiority)|||Null hypothesis: 2,700mg CoQ10 is at least 20% superior to placebo.||||0.14
84702597|NCT03254394|169147596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.338
84702598|NCT03254394|169147596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the cycle 6 (12 weeks) follow-up study visit.||||0.759
84510324|NCT01249664|168772212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.4||No adjustment on P value, this is for the primary efficacy analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including treatment groups and country (country designations) as fixed effects and baseline BCVA as a covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham.||17.4|10.8|<0.0001
84510325|NCT01249664|168772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|29.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|44.0||No adjustment on P value, since this test was only conducted formally under the primary efficacy evaluation was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method at level 5% weight-adjusted by country (country designations) was used to conduct the superiority test.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested.||44.0|14.4|0.0001
84702599|NCT03254394|169147597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C3 (6 weeks) study visit.||||0.581
84510326|NCT01249664|168772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|9.4|<0.0001
84702600|NCT03254394|169147597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C6 (12 weeks) study visit.||||0.962
84702601|NCT03254394|169147597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.365
84702602|NCT03254394|169147598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.68||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1771.0|1886.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is Oxaliplatin cumulative dose in the Control group is equal to or higher than that of the experimental group.||1886|-1771|0.730
84702603|NCT00536380|169147599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.721
84510327|NCT01249664|168772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|35.0|<0.001
84702604|NCT00387465|169147600|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was derived from the number of participants experiencing dose-limiting toxicities in the Phase I arms. The MTD was the dose at which ≤30% of patients experienced DLTs during cycle 1 up to a pre-specified maximal dose of 40 mg/m2 of azacitidine.|Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD of Azacitidine measured in mg/m\^2|||||
84702605|NCT03418324|169147611|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit.|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
84702606|NCT03418324|169147611|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two groups.||95.7|22.3|
84510328|NCT01249664|168772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.8|80.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.3|47.8|<0.001
84510329|NCT01249664|168772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|21.0||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|1.9|0.0308
84510330|NCT01249664|168772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|27.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|7.2|0.0075
84510331|NCT01249664|168772219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|61.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.6|23.7|<.0001
84702607|NCT03418324|169147614|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
84702608|NCT03418324|169147614|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||95.7|22.3|
84702609|NCT03418324|169147615|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||98.7|1.3|
84702610|NCT03418324|169147615|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||88.2|11.8|
84510332|NCT01249664|168772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-6.5||||0.1478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-15.2|0.1478
84510333|NCT01249664|168772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-11.0|-40.6|0.0006
84702611|NCT04520165|169147625|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
84510334|NCT01249664|168772222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-16.3|-48.1|<0.0001
84702612|NCT04520165|169147627|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
84702613|NCT04520165|169147628|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
84702614|NCT05147233|169147666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|44.9|||Wald test|||||44.9|21.5|<0.0001
84702615|NCT05147233|169147667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Wald test|||||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
84510335|NCT01249664|168772223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-5.3||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|-14.4|0.2446
84510336|NCT01249664|168772224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-21.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.0|-35.9|0.0035
84510337|NCT01249664|168772225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.1|-41.3|0.0012
84510338|NCT01249664|168772226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-108.9|<0.0001
84510339|NCT01249664|168772227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-29.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-60.4|0.0650
84510340|NCT01249664|168772228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.4808|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.3626|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3626|-0.5990|<0.0001
84510341|NCT01249664|168772229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1346||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0167|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0167|-0.2525|0.0256
84702616|NCT04517864|169147669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.097||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.097|-0.056|
84702617|NCT04517864|169147670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.07||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.070|-0.052|
84702618|NCT04517864|169147671|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.053||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.053|-0.065|
84702619|NCT04517864|169147673|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.088||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.088|-0.005|
84702620|NCT04517864|169147679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.03||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.030|-0.059|
84510342|NCT01249664|168772230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.0045||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0579|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.0490|-0.0579|0.8690
84510343|NCT01249664|168772231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|5.21||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.18|||ANCOVA|||||9.18|1.25|0.0104
84702621|NCT04517864|169147679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.012||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||-0.012|-0.107|
84702622|NCT04517864|169147681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.02||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.020|-0.076|
84702623|NCT04517864|169147681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.056||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||0.056|-0.049|
84702624|NCT01049503|169147705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by 2-way RM-ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Bonferroni's test."||||<0.05
84510344|NCT01249664|168772233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6648|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8056|-0.5239|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5239|-0.8056|<0.0001
84702625|NCT01049503|169147706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
84702626|NCT01049503|169147707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
84702627|NCT01049503|169147708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test."||||<0.05
84702628|NCT01049503|169147709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from fluorescence loss were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests.||||<0.05
84702629|NCT01049503|169147710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from lesion area were evaluated by ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test.||||<0.05
84702630|NCT01049503|169147711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
84702631|NCT02477670|169147751|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) Weighted Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) z-statistic. Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.17|-3.75|0.073
84702632|NCT02477670|169147752|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.29|-4.21|0.025
84702633|NCT02477670|169147753|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.24|-4.16|0.027
84702634|NCT02477670|169147754|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.3|-4.22|0.024
84702635|NCT02477670|169147755|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.64|-4.56|0.009
84702636|NCT02477670|169147756|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.57|-2.35|0.700
84702637|NCT02477670|169147757|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.93||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.03|-3.89|0.054
84702638|NCT02477670|169147758|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.35||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.61|-2.31|0.723
84702639|NCT02477670|169147759|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.85||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.11|-3.81|0.064
84702640|NCT02477670|169147760|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.64||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.32|-3.6|0.100
84702641|NCT02477670|169147761|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.1|-2.82|0.388
84702642|NCT02477670|169147762|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.9||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.06|-2.86|0.367
84702643|NCT02477670|169147763|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.76||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.2|-2.72|0.447
84702644|NCT02477670|169147764|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.27|-4.19|0.026
84702645|NCT02477670|169147765|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.62||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.34|-3.58|0.106
84702646|NCT02477670|169147766|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.78||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||3.74|-0.18|0.074
84702647|NCT02477670|169147767|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.79||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.17|-2.75|0.427
84702648|NCT02477670|169147768|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.91||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.05|||McNemar|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.05|-3.87|0.0566
84702649|NCT02477670|169147769|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.37||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.33|0.1700
84702650|NCT02477670|169147770|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.53||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.49|-1.43|0.595
84702651|NCT02477670|169147771|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|2.284||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|4.244|||ANCOVA|||||4.244|0.324|0.022
84702652|NCT02477670|169147772|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.17||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|-2.13|0.862
84702653|NCT02477670|169147773|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.149||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.109|0.811|||ANCOVA|||||0.811|-3.109|0.251
84702654|NCT02477670|169147774|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.159||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.119|0.801|||ANCOVA|||||0.801|-3.119|0.246
84702655|NCT02477670|169147775|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.231||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|2.191|||ANCOVA|||||2.191|-1.729|0.818
84702656|NCT02477670|169147776|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.04||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-2.00|0.968
84702657|NCT02477670|169147777|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.306||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.266|1.654|||ANCOVA|||||1.654|-2.266|0.760
84702658|NCT02477670|169147778|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.243||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|3.203|||ANCOVA|||||3.203|-0.717|0.214
84702659|NCT02477670|169147779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||SPCD 1 degree of freedom score test|||||||0.071
84702660|NCT02477670|169147780|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.951||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|2.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.911|-1.009|-0.06
84702661|NCT00970307|169147781|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|2.22||||||||2.22|-4.21|
84702662|NCT00970307|169147782|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|3.57||||||||3.57|-5.19|
84702663|NCT00545844|169147821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84702664|NCT00545844|169147822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84702665|NCT00545844|169147823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
84702666|NCT00545844|169147824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
84702667|NCT00545844|169147825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
84702668|NCT00964366|169147840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
84702669|NCT00964366|169147842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Dapsone versus Clindamycin/BPO gel.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||< 0.05
84702670|NCT00964366|169147843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84702671|NCT00964366|169147844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84702672|NCT02393716|169147852|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||7.2|||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a MAE within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||7.2||<0.001
84702673|NCT02393716|169147853|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|95.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|90.4||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||90.4|<0.001
84702674|NCT01924767|169147875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|43.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.52|69.269|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax (single dose) was analysed.||69.269|27.520|
84702675|NCT01924767|169147875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|31.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.193|80.011|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax,ss (Multiple dose) was analysed.||80.011|12.193|
84702676|NCT01924767|169147876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|49.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|73.776|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, single dose) was analysed.||73.776|33.490|
84702677|NCT01924767|169147876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|37.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.429|91.789|||Regression, Linear|||This was non confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, at steady state, day 9) was analysed.||91.789|15.429|
84702678|NCT01924767|169147887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37645.43||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11021.57|64269.3||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.||The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||64269.30|11021.57|0.0067
84702679|NCT01924767|169147887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82898.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55344.83|110451.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||110451.6|55344.83|<0.0001
84702680|NCT01924767|169147887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79982.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53087.22|106878.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||106878.6|53087.22|<0.0001
84702681|NCT01924767|169147887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91306.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64685.41|117928.5||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo was calculated|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||117928.5|64685.41|<0.0001
84702682|NCT01924767|169147888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.456||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|-0.369||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.369|-30.543|0.0449
84702683|NCT01924767|169147888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.467||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.085|-7.848||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-7.848|-39.085|0.0042
84702684|NCT01924767|169147888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.956||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.057|0.145||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||0.145|-30.057|0.0521
84702685|NCT01924767|169147888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-10.602||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.848|4.644||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.644|-25.848|0.1676
84702686|NCT01924767|169147889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.269||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.162|4.624||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.624|-19.162|0.2239
84702687|NCT01924767|169147889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.844||||0.0421||95.0|-25.205|-0.484||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.484|-25.205|0.0421
84702688|NCT01924767|169147889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.719||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.842|9.403||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||9.403|-14.842|0.6527
84702689|NCT01924767|169147889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.998||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.818|2.822||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||2.822|-20.818|0.1318
84702690|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.99|||Log Rank|||All participants: p-value was calculated using log-rank test.||3.99|1.55|<0.001
84702691|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.28|||Regression, Cox|||Monotherapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||7.28|1.57|0.002
84702692|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.68|||Regression, Cox|||Adjunct therapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||3.68|1.11|0.021
84702693|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.67|||Regression, Cox|||Psychotic Symptoms: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.67|1.70|<0.001
84702694|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.04|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Any Mood Symptoms):Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.04|1.70|<0.001
84702695|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.89|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Manic): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||9.89|1.32|0.012
84702696|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.98|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Depressive): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||6.98|1.39|0.006
84702697|NCT01193153|169147892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.78|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Mixed): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.78|0.65|0.238
84702698|NCT01193153|169147893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.95||P-value based on change from DB baseline in PSP score and was analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis of covariance based on observed data; within-participant repeated measures were modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean of the PSP total score between the two treatment groups.||5.95|0.68|0.014
84702699|NCT01193153|169147895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.15||Change at Endpoint (Week 64/LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||7.15|1.94|<0.001
84702700|NCT01678196|169147950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
84702701|NCT01678196|169147951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change from Time 1 scores (entered as covariate) to Time 2 Scores.||||||0.67
84702702|NCT01678196|169147952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA results include Time 1 scores as a covariate, thus reflecting change over time||||||0.743
84702703|NCT01678196|169147953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change for Time 1 values (entered as the covariate) to Time 2 values (entered as the DV)||||||<.001
84702704|NCT00470106|169148025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons because it is primary.|mixed model|same analysis as for secondary outcome variable.||||||<.001
84702705|NCT00470106|169148026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for significance was P \< .05|mixed model|Same as for the primary variable.||||||<.10
84702706|NCT01256034|169148027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84702707|NCT01184508|169148059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.05||The comparison between LY2300559 and placebo for the LS mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine attacks was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||-0.05|-2.02|0.085
84702708|NCT01184508|169148061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.75||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.27|11.76||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of photophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||11.76|-8.27|0.770
84702709|NCT01184508|169148061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|18.52||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of phonophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||18.52|-3.91|0.276
84702710|NCT01184508|169148061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.51|6.1||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of nausea.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||6.10|-11.51|0.606
84702711|NCT01184508|169148062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.57||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|0.34||The p-value is for the mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine days.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||0.34|-3.48|0.174
84702712|NCT01184508|169148065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.27||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|9.23||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ restrictive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||9.23|-9.76|0.963
84702713|NCT01184508|169148065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.17||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|4.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ preventive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||4.50|-8.85|0.591
84510345|NCT01345019|168772244|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-stage approach was used for the non-inferiority test. First, the fixed margin approach was used to ensure denosumab has an effect greater than placebo (ie, the non-inferiority margin M1, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval 1.28, is ruled out). Next, a synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserved at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid (HR \[95% CI\] of 1.48 \[1.28, 1.71\] for placebo vs zoledronic acid.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab|||1.14|0.85|0.010
84510346|NCT01345019|168772247|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|Based on a log rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.||||||0.82
84702714|NCT01184508|169148065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.58||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ emotional function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||10.58|-6.81|0.720
84702715|NCT01184508|169148066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.25||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.8||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MIBS-4 overall weighted score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment group, and baseline.||||0.80|-1.30|0.688
84510347|NCT01345019|168772248|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.|Rate ratio|1.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Andersen-Gill model|Based on an Andersen-Gill model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A rate ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.15|0.89|0.84
84702716|NCT01184508|169148068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants using breakthrough medication at Month 3.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.607
84702717|NCT05190419|169148117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-16.0||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-16.0|-54.7|<0.001
84702718|NCT05190419|169148117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-24.8||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-24.8|-63.1|<0.001
84702719|NCT05190419|169148117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-27.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-27.3|-65.6|<0.001
84702720|NCT04470193|169148130|SUPERIORITY|We approached 62 subjects to get a sample size of 50 participants, allowing up to 16% attrition, to estimate the proportions of patients satisfying dropout of 0.13 to within margins of error (half-widths of 90% Cis). The 50 evaluable subjects were used to estimate the SD of QoL, with a margin of error of ∼20%. The sample size also allowed us to provide provisional estimates of the effect size for the QoL outcome to within a margin of error of ±7.1 points, assuming a true SD of 15 points.|||||>|0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation model|||We used a generalized estimating equation model for repeated assessments, with a common unstructured residual covariance matrix to account for correlation in repeated measurements in the same patient, to compare QoL total score at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months between the groups. We hypothesized that MyChildCMC users would have better outcomes for the child (higher QoL, fewer ED and/or hospital use and hospital days) and parent (higher satisfaction with child's care).||||>0.05
84702721|NCT04470193|169148131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|0.58|0.882
84702722|NCT04470193|169148132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|0.39|<0.001
84702723|NCT04470193|169148133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|1.01|0.035
84702724|NCT02517307|169148147|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the effects of intralipid on Rd in controls subjects versus subjects with a FAOD by mixed-effect models. Factors were group (control or FAOD) treatment (glycerol or intralipid) and the interaction of those factors. The hypothesis was intralipid would decrease Rd in controls but not in subjects with an FAOD.||||0.136
84702725|NCT02517307|169148148|OTHER|We analyzed the data with a mixed model looking at the effect of group (control vs FAOD) and treatment (glycerol vs intralipid) and their interaction.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested if intralipid did not suppress endogenous glucose production or Ra as much as glycerol in controls compared to subjects with an FAOD.||||0.011
84702726|NCT03538054|169148165|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.065||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.146
84702727|NCT03538054|169148166|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.221||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.052
84702728|NCT00667745|169148168|SUPERIORITY||F value, main effect|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
84702729|NCT00667745|169148169|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.967
84702730|NCT00667745|169148170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84702731|NCT00667745|169148171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84702732|NCT00667745|169148172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Value shown above describes emergent suicidal ideation for participants with baseline MSSI = 0. P=.36 describes exacerbation of baseline suicidal ideation for those with baseline MSSI \> 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
84702733|NCT00605033|169148274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference greater than -0.15.|Proportion difference|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.034|||Binomial approximation|||||0.034|-0.142|
84702734|NCT02666742|169148275|SUPERIORITY|Continuous variables were compared by two-sample t-tests and categorical variables by chi-square test. All tests were two-tailed, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Bonferroni correction was not performed due to prespecified outcomes in the trial. Analyses were performed using GraphPad 6||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Due to lack of precedent robust clinical data, we performed exploratory study to evaluate safety and efficacy of DOAC vs. Aspirin (ASA) in patients undergoing left ventricular arrhythmia (LVA) ablation; therefore, sample size calculation was not undertaken.||||0.001
84702735|NCT01359371|169148307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bivariate relationships between a patient's participation in the program and smoking status were calculated.||||<.01
84702736|NCT01359371|169148308|OTHER|T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||||<|0.05||||||This was just a sample description, so there was not adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||<.05
84702737|NCT01359371|169148308|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.||||<.05
84702738|NCT01212757|169148311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||22.7|4.0|0.0060
84702739|NCT01212757|169148311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.2|9.1|0.0002
84702740|NCT01212757|169148312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.045|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.045|-0.236|0.0042
84702741|NCT01212757|169148312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.104||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|-0.009|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.009|-0.199|0.0320
84702742|NCT01212757|169148313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.2||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|0.5|0.0394
84702743|NCT01212757|169148313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|15.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.7|6.7|0.0009
84702744|NCT01212757|169148314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.020|-0.222|0.0191
84702745|NCT01212757|169148314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.020|-0.180|0.1179
84702746|NCT01212757|169148315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.92|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.92|0.28|0.0237
84702747|NCT01212757|169148315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.36||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|3.15|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.15|-0.44|0.1388
84702748|NCT01212757|169148316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.5|4.3|0.0065
84702749|NCT01212757|169148316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.2|4.1|0.0071
84702750|NCT01212757|169148317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-10.0|0.0648
84702751|NCT01212757|169148317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.4|-10.6|0.0347
84702752|NCT01212757|169148318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.2|0.3496
84702753|NCT01212757|169148318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.7|0.8874
84702754|NCT01212757|169148319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5438
84702755|NCT01212757|169148319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-0.4|0.3759
84702756|NCT01212757|169148320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.16|-5.86|0.0035
84702757|NCT01212757|169148320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.76|0.0002
84702758|NCT01212757|169148321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.18|-0.61|0.0004
84702759|NCT01212757|169148321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
84702760|NCT01212757|169148322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.06|0.19|0.0318
84702761|NCT01212757|169148322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.20|-1.65|0.7803
84702762|NCT01212757|169148323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.70|0.02|0.0473
84702763|NCT01212757|169148323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.53||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|3.35|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.35|-0.29|0.0997
84702764|NCT01212757|169148324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.8||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.5||The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.5|-1.9|0.1195
84702765|NCT01212757|169148324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.5|5.6|0.0026
84702766|NCT01212757|169148325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.5067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.4|-6.8|0.5067
84702767|NCT01212757|169148325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-3.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.6|-8.5|0.1762
84702768|NCT01212757|169148326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.2|0.2719
84702769|NCT01212757|169148326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7|-0.8|0.9727
84702770|NCT01212757|169148327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.0|0.3705
84702771|NCT01212757|169148327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.6|0.6777
84702772|NCT01212757|169148328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.14||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.76|-5.52|0.0097
84702773|NCT01212757|169148328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.16|-6.85|0.0002
84702774|NCT01212757|169148329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.15|-0.60|0.0011
84510348|NCT01345019|168772250|SUPERIORITY|If superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid was established for both time to first SRE and time to first and subsequent SRE, the additional secondary endpoint (overall survival) was to be tested at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|The survival function of time to death for each treatment group was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and the hazard ratio of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and its 2-sided 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors and including treatment groups, age, race group, geographic region, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline risk per cytogenetic based prognosis, and baseline ECOG as independent variables.||1.16|0.70|0.41
84702775|NCT01212757|169148329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.23|-0.68|0.0001
84702776|NCT01212757|169148330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.07|0.20|0.0303
84702777|NCT01212757|169148330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.16||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.08|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.08|-1.76|0.8704
84702778|NCT01212757|169148331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.6||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||17.2|-9.9|0.6022
84702779|NCT01212757|169148331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.3||||0.8462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||14.7|-12.1|0.8462
84702780|NCT01212757|169148332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.8||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-13.3|0.7337
84702781|NCT01212757|169148332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-12.7|0.6881
84702782|NCT01212757|169148333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|17.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|7.0|0.0014
84702783|NCT01212757|169148333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.5|11.7|0.0001
84702784|NCT01212757|169148334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.0|-6.8|0.3376
84702785|NCT01212757|169148334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.1||||0.3756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.4|-7.2|0.3756
84702786|NCT01212757|169148335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.2|-8.7|0.3959
84702787|NCT01212757|169148335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-8.7|0.3941
84702788|NCT01212757|169148336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.1||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.7|2.6|0.0142
84702789|NCT01212757|169148336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|20.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.3|10.8|0.0001
84702790|NCT01212757|169148337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.6||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-0.2|0.0589
84702791|NCT01212757|169148337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|3.4|0.0034
84702792|NCT01212757|169148338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||2.7|-1.5|0.5620
84702793|NCT01212757|169148338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-0.0|0.0570
84702794|NCT01212757|169148339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.6|-3.5|0.3629
84702795|NCT01212757|169148339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.4||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-1.5|0.1323
84702796|NCT01212757|169148340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.6||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.0|-4.3|0.7273
84702797|NCT01212757|169148340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.8|-2.0|0.2929
84702798|NCT01212757|169148341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.2||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.1|-13.5|0.7023
84702799|NCT01212757|169148341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.7|-5.9|0.3305
84702800|NCT01212757|169148342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.3||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.6|-16.0|0.9698
84702801|NCT01212757|169148342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.9||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.1|-14.3|0.8205
84702802|NCT01212757|169148343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.2||||0.8424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.3|-12.7|0.8424
84702803|NCT01212757|169148343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|-6.0|0.3395
84702804|NCT01212757|169148344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.1|-10.3|0.4811
84702805|NCT01212757|169148344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|-13.3|0.6965
84702806|NCT04493242|169148368|OTHER|log-rank test||||||0.1343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1343
84702807|NCT01499134|169148395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84702808|NCT01499134|169148396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
84702809|NCT01499134|169148397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is correct, confirmed with report from statistician.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84702810|NCT01499134|169148398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.363
84702811|NCT01499134|169148399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
84702812|NCT01499134|169148400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.476
84702813|NCT01499134|169148401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
84702814|NCT01499134|169148402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.595
84702815|NCT04035668|169148405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|||-1.01|-4.71|0.002
84702816|NCT04035668|169148405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.25|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|||1.25|-3.24|
84702817|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.3||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.30|-2.29|0.065
84702818|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.29||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||-0.29|-3.24|0.010
84702819|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.22||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||1.22|-2.17|0.289
84702820|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.59|-2.97|0.093
84702821|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|0.57||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.57|-2.84|0.094
84702822|NCT04035668|169148406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.28||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|-0.28|-3.71|0.012
84702823|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.84|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.84|-2.10|
84702824|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.69|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||1.69|-1.75|
84702825|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.21|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||2.21|-1.83|
84702826|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.01|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||1.01|-3.20|
84702827|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.60|-3.50|
84702828|NCT04035668|169148406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|0.95|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.95|-3.22|
84702829|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.62|-0.69|0.460
84702830|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||0.66|-0.82|0.418
84702831|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.7||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||0.70|-0.76|0.466
84702832|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.79|-0.67|0.560
84702833|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.99|-0.73|0.616
84702834|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|0.99|-0.81|0.581
84702835|NCT04035668|169148407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||0.96|-0.62|0.663
84702836|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.11|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.11|-1.35|
84702837|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.26|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||0.26|-1.42|
84702838|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.42|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||0.42|-1.31|
84702839|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||0.31|-1.44|
84702840|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.65|-1.39|
84702841|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.65|-1.39|
84702842|NCT04035668|169148407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||0.57|-1.37|
84702843|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.73|-6.18|0.940
84702844|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.74||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||4.74|-2.95|0.322
84702845|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||2.59|-5.32|0.753
84702846|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||1.66|-7.13|0.891
84702847|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||1.01|-8.77|0.941
84702848|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|6.79|-4.01|0.304
84702849|NCT04035668|169148408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||4.79|-6.89|0.640
84702850|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.07|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||6.07|-1.44|
84702851|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.18|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||5.18|-3.46|
84702852|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|4.83|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||4.83|-4.43|
84702853|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.78|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.78|-4.53|
84702854|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.82|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||6.82|-4.60|
84702855|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|12.04|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||12.04|-0.66|
84702856|NCT04035668|169148408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|10.59|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||10.59|-3.53|
84702857|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|7.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||7.96|-7.84|0.494
84702858|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.06||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||3.06|-10.81|0.866
84702859|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|5.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||5.73|-9.37|0.684
84702860|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|2.14||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||2.14|-10.93|0.908
84702861|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.26||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||8.26|-8.00|0.487
84702862|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|4.49||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|4.49|-10.61|0.790
84702863|NCT04035668|169148409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|9.88||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||9.88|-6.48|0.340
84702864|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|8.68|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||8.68|-9.06|
84702865|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|6.17|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||6.17|-9.59|
84702866|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|8.74|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||8.74|-9.34|
84702867|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|3.86|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||3.86|-11.74|
84702868|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.93|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||4.93|-14.34|
84702869|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|2.87|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||2.87|-15.44|
84702870|NCT04035668|169148409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|6.16|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||6.16|-14.01|
84702871|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.16||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||8.16|-6.75|0.575
84702872|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|5.27||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||5.27|-9.22|0.294
84702873|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.41||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||7.41|-8.40|0.450
84702874|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|14.78||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||14.78|-2.74|0.913
84702875|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|11.34||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||11.34|-6.16|0.722
84702876|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|5.24||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|5.24|-10.96|0.241
84702877|NCT04035668|169148410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|11.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||11.99|-6.09|0.742
84702878|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.91|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||7.91|-8.28|
84702879|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|7.58|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||7.58|-8.87|
84702880|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|9.48|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||9.48|-9.28|
84702881|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|5.9|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.90|-14.71|
84702882|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-1.77|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||-1.77|-22.47|
84702883|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.5|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||3.50|-16.00|
84702884|NCT04035668|169148410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|2.96|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||2.96|-19.16|
84702885|NCT02027558|169148435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.83|-4.58|<.001
84702886|NCT02027558|169148436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.02|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-2.49|-29.02|0.013
84702887|NCT02027558|169148437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-3.29|-37.63|0.019
84702888|NCT02027558|169148438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|16.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||16.44|4.53|0.001
84702889|NCT02027558|169148439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||6.83|1.87|0.001
84702890|NCT02027558|169148440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|-7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.55|-27.29|0.0007
84702891|NCT00831272|169148441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.32
84702892|NCT02694978|169148445|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 2.64% was used for the primary endpoint statistical analysis.|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||Wald|The p-value was calculated using the Wald large sample assumption.||"Statistical analysis was only performed on composite reaction data (that is, the Any TE moderate to severe hypersensitivity rxn row in the data table)."||0.61|-0.80|0.0001
84702893|NCT01811706|169148480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of T25FW between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
84702894|NCT01811706|169148481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SARA score between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
84702895|NCT01811706|169148482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Stride Length on BAG between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
84702896|NCT00807144|169148572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.26
84702897|NCT00807144|169148573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Log Rank|||Year 1||||0.48
84702898|NCT00807144|169148573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Year 2||||0.75
84702899|NCT02680457|169148575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.630
84702900|NCT02680457|169148576|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84702901|NCT02057692|169148606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3969||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.081|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a PROC MIXED procedure. Least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.081|-1.698|0.0321
84702902|NCT02057692|169148606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3503||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.192|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% CI for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||-0.192|-1.620|0.0145
84702903|NCT02057692|169148606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4431||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.863|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.863|-0.942|0.9298
84702904|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total score controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702905|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total vegetable component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702906|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 greens and beans component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
84702907|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
84702908|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.19
84702909|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole grain component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
84702910|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total dairy component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
84702911|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total protein foods component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702912|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||-0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 seafood and plant protein component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||-0.12
84702913|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 fatty acid component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702914|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 sodium component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702915|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 refined grains component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702916|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 added sugar component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
84702917|NCT03923491|169148611|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
84702918|NCT01192542|169148614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.|The mean difference is calculated as: Test lens - Control lens.|The alternative hypothesis is the monocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.003|-0.022|
84702919|NCT01192542|169148617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.||The alternative hypothesis is the binocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.018|-0.018|
84702920|NCT00355914|169148618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||compared baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
84702921|NCT00355914|169148619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
84702922|NCT02633358|169148620|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia need to have superiority in the survival rate after 90 days|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||P-value less than 0.05 means significant data|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.82|0.41|<0.001
84702923|NCT02633358|169148621|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia nee to have superiority in neurological outcome in the 90 days after enrollment.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||P value less than 0.05 means significant date|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.98|0.66|0.04
84702924|NCT02633358|169148622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84702925|NCT02633358|169148623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84702926|NCT02633358|169148624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less then 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84702927|NCT03823300|169148625|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||1.8|-1.7|
84702928|NCT03823300|169148626|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||1.3|-2.4|
84702929|NCT03823300|169148628|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.3|-8.3|
84702930|NCT03823300|169148628|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.7|-3.9|
84702931|NCT03823300|169148628|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.6|-6.6|
84702932|NCT03823300|169148628|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||9.3|-3.1|
84702933|NCT03823300|169148629|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||5.3|-7.7|
84702934|NCT03823300|169148634|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||1.3|-4.4|
84702935|NCT03823300|169148634|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||2.8|-4.5|
84702936|NCT03823300|169148634|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||7.3|-2.1|
84702937|NCT03823300|169148635|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.3|-2.6|
84702938|NCT03823300|169148639|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||5.1|-8.5|
84702939|NCT03823300|169148641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||12.9|-1.4|
84702940|NCT03823300|169148643|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||4.4|-3.6|
84702941|NCT03823300|169148651|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||2.1|-14.8|
84702942|NCT03823300|169148652|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|9.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.3|-6.6|
84702943|NCT03622580|169148669|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|
84702944|NCT03622580|169148669|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|
84702945|NCT03622580|169148669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.4|-2.8|0.4699
84702946|NCT03622580|169148669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.965|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|2.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.2|-2.1|0.9650
84511696|NCT00440557|168775182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||||95.0|-0.641|-0.221||Since the non-inferiority was declared in the statistical analysis 1, this comparison between Q2W and TIW was then performed according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 in the Q2W group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||-0.221|-0.641|
84702947|NCT03622580|169148669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|0.7967
84702948|NCT03622580|169148669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|0.3772
84702949|NCT03622580|169148670|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|
84702950|NCT03622580|169148670|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|
84702951|NCT03622580|169148670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|7.2||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.6|18.9||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||18.9|-4.6|0.1761
84702952|NCT03622580|169148670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|16.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|-6.7|0.3539
84702953|NCT03622580|169148670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|0.0237
84702954|NCT03622580|169148670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|0.1677
84702955|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.9|-10.0|
84702956|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
84702957|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.9|-8.6|
84702958|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.8|-7.4|
84702959|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.1|-9.1|
84702960|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-8.5|
84702961|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-4.6|
84702962|NCT03622580|169148673|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.5|-1.0|
84702963|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.5|-14.0|
84510349|NCT00860405|168772255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a coefficient of variation of 0.363 and a desired power of 90 % with a type I level of 2.5 %, N=11 patients per treatment group were needed. The power was calculated by means of the software SAS, version 9.1.3, PROC POWER. Nevertheless, more patients were required for the assessment of safety, therefore 2 × 30 patients were planned to be included in this study.|Ratio of LS-means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||Null hypothesis tested by calculating a 2-sided 95% CI for ratio of LS-means μVoluven/μHSA based on ANOVA incl.treatment+centre as effects. If 95% CI was within equivalence range(0.55, 1.82), significant equivalence was concluded (Type I error: 2.5%)|ANOVA|Primary endpoint specified + analysed for PP and ITT population. Confirmatory analysis based on PP population only, no adjustment for multiplicity.|Considered ratio: μVoluven/μHSA = LS-mean of Voluven®/LS-mean of HSA 5%|The aim of the study was to prove equivalence, i.e. H0: μVoluven/μHSA ≤ 0.55 or μVoluven/μHSA ≥ 1.82 H1: 0.55 \< μVoluven/μHSA \< 1.82 where μVoluven was the mean infused volume of Voluven® and μHSA was the mean infused volume of HSA 5%.||1.16|0.84|
84510350|NCT00497796|168772277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on the ICH guidance, the hypothesis of non-inferiority can be tested using a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval's (CI) upper bound comparing with the non-inferiority margin of 5% (0.05).|Rate difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.119|||||Rate difference is the rate of maribavir minus the rate of ganciclovir|||0.119|-0.038|
84510351|NCT00497796|168772277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.586||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|3.69||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.690|0.682|0.2754
84510352|NCT00497796|168772278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|3.02||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of the pp65 antigenemia assay||3.020|1.065|0.0283
84510353|NCT00497796|168772278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.338|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||3.900|1.338|0.0024
84510354|NCT00497796|168772278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.177||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.767||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||3.767|1.259|0.0053
84510355|NCT00497796|168772278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.377||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||2.377|0.811|0.2339
84510356|NCT00497796|168772279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.14|||Log Rank||Maribavir versus ganciclovir; Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe) + treatment.|Analysis of time to onset||3.14|1.62|<0.0001
84510357|NCT00497796|168772280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.0008
84510358|NCT00497796|168772280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.3742
84702964|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-7.0|
84510359|NCT00497796|168772281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
84510360|NCT00497796|168772282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.179|7.494||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||7.494|2.179|<0.0001
84510361|NCT00497796|168772282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|12.213||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||12.213|3.404|<0.0001
84510362|NCT00497796|168772282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.342|10.843||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||10.843|3.342|<0.0001
84511697|NCT00440557|168775183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-7.8||||||95.0|-17.2|1.7||||||||1.7|-17.2|
84511698|NCT00440557|168775183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-15.0||||||95.0|-25.0|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-25.0|
84510363|NCT00497796|168772282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.146|30.069||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||30.069|4.146|<0.0001
84702965|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||9.5|-9.5|
84702966|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.3|-7.1|
84702967|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.9|-11.9|
84702968|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.2|-14.6|
84702969|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-5.5|
84702970|NCT03622580|169148678|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.0|-3.0|
84702971|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-2.8|
84702972|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.5|-2.2|
84510364|NCT04526210|168772308|OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9415|1.0205||||||||1.0205|0.9415|
84702973|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-4.6|
84702974|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.2|
84702975|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-4.5|
84702976|NCT03622580|169148683|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.4|-2.6|
84702977|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.5|
84702978|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.1|
84702979|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-5.1|
84702980|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.6|-3.5|
84702981|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.8|-5.2|
84510365|NCT04526210|168772309|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9344|1.0244||||||||1.0244|0.9344|
84510366|NCT04526210|168772310|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9368|1.0269||||||||1.0269|0.9368|
84702982|NCT03622580|169148687|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.3|-4.1|
84702983|NCT03622580|169148691|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-12.6|
84702984|NCT03622580|169148691|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-5.9|
84511699|NCT00440557|168775184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.26||||||95.0|-0.564|0.043|||ANOVA|||||0.043|-0.564|
84511700|NCT00440557|168775184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.45||||||95.0|-0.755|-0.147|||ANOVA|||||-0.147|-0.755|
84702985|NCT03622580|169148691|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.5|-17.8|
84702986|NCT03622580|169148691|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||8.2|-9.9|
84702987|NCT03622580|169148694|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||3.8|-10.2|
84511701|NCT00440557|168775185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-9.5|
84511702|NCT00440557|168775185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.4|0.3||||||||0.3|-11.4|
84511703|NCT00440557|168775186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.7||||||95.0|-14.2|8.7||||||||8.7|-14.2|
84511704|NCT00440557|168775186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.9||||||95.0|-21.7|1.8||||||||1.8|-21.7|
84510367|NCT02777528|168772339|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.60, then the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 1-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.60 (i.e. 60%), derived from outcomes from a systematic review of hybrid TEVAR repair literature.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 50 patients."||||
84510368|NCT00890981|168772341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0766||95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms with treatment-by-time interaction||7.8|-0.4|0.0766
84510369|NCT00890981|168772342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1648||95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.6|0.1648
84510370|NCT00890981|168772343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0228||95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.7|0.1|0.0228
84510371|NCT00890981|168772344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.656||95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model includes linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.0|-2.5|0.6560
84510372|NCT00890981|168772345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0594||95.0|-0.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.7|-0.1|0.0594
84510373|NCT00890981|168772346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0032||95.0|0.9|4.3|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.3|0.9|0.0032
84510374|NCT00890981|168772347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2897||95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.2|-0.4|0.2897
84510375|NCT00890981|168772348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.0067||95.0|1.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||6.7|1.1|0.0067
84510376|NCT00890981|168772349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0184||95.0|0.4|3.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.8|0.4|0.0184
84510377|NCT00890981|168772350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.0911||95.0|-0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.3|0.0911
84510378|NCT00890981|168772351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0035||95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|0.7|0.0035
84510379|NCT00890981|168772352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.1||||0.0591||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0591
84511705|NCT00440557|168775187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.6||||||95.0|-9.6|14.8||||||||14.8|-9.6|
84511706|NCT00440557|168775187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.0||||||95.0|-15.0|9.0||||||||9.0|-15.0|
84510380|NCT00890981|168772353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.2||||0.0079||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0079
84702988|NCT03622580|169148694|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.2|-4.3|
84702989|NCT03622580|169148694|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.1|-12.6|
84702990|NCT03622580|169148694|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.4|-8.9|
84702991|NCT03622580|169148697|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-1.8|
84702992|NCT03622580|169148697|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.3|-2.2|
84702993|NCT03622580|169148697|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.6|-2.0|
84702994|NCT03622580|169148697|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-2.6|
84702995|NCT03622580|169148706|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
84702996|NCT03622580|169148706|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
84702997|NCT03622580|169148706|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.6|-1.9|
84702998|NCT03622580|169148706|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-1.5|
84702999|NCT03622580|169148707|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.2|-0.4|
84703000|NCT03622580|169148707|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
84703001|NCT03622580|169148707|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
84511707|NCT00440557|168775188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03||||||95.0|-0.21|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.270|-0.210|
84703002|NCT03622580|169148707|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
84703003|NCT03622580|169148714|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-24.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-24.7|-47.8|
84703004|NCT03622580|169148714|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-14.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.7|-37.7|
84703005|NCT03622580|169148714|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-18.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-18.6|-43.6|
84703006|NCT03622580|169148714|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-11.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-11.6|-36.2|
84703007|NCT03622580|169148717|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|23.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||23.1|8.9|
84703008|NCT03622580|169148717|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||20.0|5.4|
84703009|NCT03622580|169148717|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||23.2|7.3|
84703010|NCT03622580|169148717|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|20.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||20.6|4.4|
84511708|NCT00440557|168775188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.07||||||95.0|-0.315|0.166|||ANOVA|||||0.166|-0.315|
84511709|NCT00440557|168775189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.8||||||95.0|-16.0|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-16|
84511710|NCT00440557|168775189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-10.0||||||95.0|-18.0|-3.2||||||||-3.2|-18.0|
84510381|NCT00453362|168772354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||0.87|0.11|0.017
84510382|NCT00453362|168772356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.42||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have a prolonged PFS compared to FDG Progressive Disease.||1.42|0.06|0.076
84510383|NCT00453362|168772358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||0.73|0.04|0.008
84510384|NCT00453362|168772359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. Alternative hypothesis is that FLT responders would have prolonged PFS compared to FLT Progressive Disease.||||0.049
84510385|NCT00453362|168772360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||1.16|0.11|0.073
84511711|NCT01973348|168775196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 12 subjects per group has been shown to be effective for estimating within-group means and variances when little prior data is available.(Julius, 2005) Based on collected data from 34 subjects and effective size difference of 0.1, we reestimate this study as a noninferiority trial with continuous outcome and power calculated as approximately 80%.||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
84511712|NCT02870920|168775210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.54|0.07
84703011|NCT01930045|169148731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs geometric mean ratio (GMR) is not less than 0.4||0.52|0.31|0.507
84703012|NCT01930045|169148731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.38||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.49|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.49|0.30|0.624
84703013|NCT01930045|169148732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.05|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.05|0.63|
84703014|NCT01930045|169148732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.92|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||0.92|0.50|
84703015|NCT01930045|169148733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.1|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.10|0.55|
84703016|NCT01930045|169148733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.04|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.04|0.48|
84703017|NCT01930045|169148734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.65|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.65|0.39|
84511713|NCT02870920|168775211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.76|0.97
84703018|NCT01930045|169148734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.64|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.64|0.40|
84703019|NCT01930045|169148735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.18|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.18|0.64|
84703020|NCT01930045|169148735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.22|0.64|
84703021|NCT01930045|169148736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.4|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.40|0.58|
84703022|NCT01930045|169148736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.41|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.41|0.58|
84703023|NCT01087762|169148789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.4||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||32.4|6.3|=0.004
84703024|NCT01087762|169148789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|38.2||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.2|12.3|<0.001
84703025|NCT01087762|169148790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|50.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||50.0|25.4|<0.001
84703026|NCT01087762|169148790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|53.3||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||53.3|28.9|<0.001
84703027|NCT01087762|169148791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.01|-1.96|<0.001
84703028|NCT01087762|169148792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.38||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.38|-2.38|<0.001
84703029|NCT01087762|169148793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.12||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.12|-2.07|<0.001
84703030|NCT01087762|169148794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.5||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.50|-2.49|<0.001
84703031|NCT01087762|169148795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.60|<0.001
84703032|NCT01087762|169148796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.23|-0.66|<0.001
84703033|NCT03621761|169148816|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.774||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.3451
84703034|NCT03621761|169148816|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3094||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.4834
84703035|NCT03621761|169148817|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4077||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.2570
84703036|NCT03621761|169148817|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2452||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.5017
84703037|NCT03621761|169148818|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.095||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.154
84703038|NCT03621761|169148818|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.034||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.610
84703039|NCT03621761|169148819|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00427||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.4955
84703040|NCT03621761|169148819|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00948||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.1333
84703041|NCT03951649|169148824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84703042|NCT03951649|169148825|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||The p-value was calculated using a 2 sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
84703043|NCT03951649|169148826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
84703044|NCT03951649|169148827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84703045|NCT03951649|169148828|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value was calculated|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84511714|NCT02079766|168775216|OTHER|||||||0.2959||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|Fisher Exact|||Evaluated the association between the overall brain uptake and the study group||||0.2959
84703046|NCT03951649|169148829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84703047|NCT03951649|169148830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
84703048|NCT03951649|169148832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
84703049|NCT03951649|169148833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84703050|NCT03951649|169148834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.92
84703051|NCT03951649|169148835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84703052|NCT03951649|169148836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
84703053|NCT03951649|169148837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84703054|NCT00758602|169148838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6581||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.4||p-value, least squares (LS) mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI) based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.08|0.0813
84703055|NCT00758602|169148839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5977||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|10.58||p-value, LS mean difference, and 95% CI based on ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.58|-13.77|0.7949
84703056|NCT00758602|169148840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 6 months post-transplant||||0.6812
84703057|NCT00758602|169148840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 12 months post-transplant||||0.6812
84703058|NCT00758602|169148840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Death, 12 months post-transplant||||1.0000
84703059|NCT00758602|169148842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0000
84703060|NCT00758602|169148843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4586|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4586
84703061|NCT00758602|169148844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84703062|NCT05046132|169148847|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|6.17||||||"The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model.~The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at maximum concentration (Cmax) geometric mean of therapeutic dose (3 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods."||6.17|1.23|
84703063|NCT05046132|169148848|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|7.64||||||The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model. The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at Cmax geometric mean of therapeutic dose (7 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods.||7.64|1.70|
84510386|NCT00453362|168772363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.21||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Overall Survival between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Progressive Disease.||3.21|0.14|0.618
84510387|NCT00453362|168772364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.57||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||1.57|0.09|0.163
84511715|NCT02079766|168775217|OTHER|||||||0.5163||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|ANOVA|MMSE score as the response variable and flortaucipir uptake score (4 levels) as the fixed effect||Measured differences in clinical presentation using MMSE between subjects with no visual flortaucipir uptake, and those with mild uptake.||||0.5163
84703064|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.6||||||Pre-dose||5.6|-0.6|
84703065|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.1||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.0|
84703066|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.0||||||1 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.8|
84703067|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|5.1||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.8|
84703068|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.1||||||2 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.8|
84703069|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.9|
84703070|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7||||||3 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.4|
84703071|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.7||||||4 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.9|
84703072|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||5 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
84703073|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.3||||||6 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.8|
84703074|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.1||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.5|
84703075|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.3||||||8 hr Post dose||1.3|-4.5|
84703076|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||9 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
84703077|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.7||||||10 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.3|
84703078|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.9|
84703079|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.0||||||16 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.1|
84703080|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||3.8|-1.6|
84703081|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|4.5||||||Pre-dose||4.5|-1.7|
84703082|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.7||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.7|-1.4|
84703083|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||1 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
84703084|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||6.0|-0.9|
84703085|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.8||||||2 hr Post dose||4.8|-2.1|
84703086|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.9||||||2.5 hr Post dose||4.9|-1.4|
84703087|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.1||||||3 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.9|
84703088|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.2||||||4 hr Post dose||4.2|-1.4|
84703089|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|5.7||||||5 hr Post dose||5.7|-0.2|
84703090|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.5||||||6 hr Post dose||7.5|1.4|
84703091|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||||||7 hr Post dose||5.5|0.1|
84703092|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.0||||||8 hr Post dose||7.0|1.2|
84703093|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.3||||||9 hr Post dose||6.3|0.8|
84703094|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.8||||||10 hr Post dose||5.8|0.8|
84703095|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|5.5||||||12 hr Post dose||5.5|-0.3|
84703096|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.4||||||16 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.7|
84703097|NCT05046132|169148849|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.4||||||24 hr Post dose||4.4|-1.0|
84703098|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.4||||||Pre dose||3.4|-2.8|
84703099|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
84703100|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.4||||||1 hr Post dose||1.4|-4.7|
84703101|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
84703102|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.3|
84703103|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.7||||||2.5 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.1|
84703104|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|1.7||||||3 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.2|
84703105|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.5||||||4 hr Post dose||2.5|-3.6|
84703106|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-4.1|
84703107|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.5||||||6 hr Post dose||3.5|-2.7|
84703108|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.5|
84703109|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|0.8||||||8 hr Post dose||0.8|-5.2|
84703110|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||2.6|-4.3|
84703111|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|3.2||||||10 hr Post dose||3.2|-3.6|
84703112|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.0||||||12 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.5|
84703113|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|1.7||||||16 hr Post dose||1.7|-5.4|
84703114|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|6.3||||||24 hr Post dose||6.3|-1.2|
84703115|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|0.8||||||Pre-dose||0.8|-5.1|
84703116|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
84703117|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||1 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
84703118|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
84703119|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.8|
84703120|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
84703121|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.7||||||3 hr Post dose||3.7|-1.9|
84703122|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|3.7||||||4 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.2|
84703123|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.1||||||5 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.8|
84703124|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.0||||||6 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.9|
84703125|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||7 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
84703126|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||8 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.7|
84703127|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.0||||||9 hr Post dose||4.0|-2.7|
84703128|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.1||||||10 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.3|
84703129|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.8||||||12 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.5|
84703130|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0||||||16 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.8|
84703131|NCT05046132|169148850|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.0||||||24 hr Post dose||2.0|-5.1|
84703132|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.8||||||Pre dose||6.8|0.1|
84703133|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.6||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.6|-3.0|
84703134|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.9||||||1 hr Post dose||3.9|-4.1|
84703135|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||4.4|-2.7|
84703136|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|6.6||||||2 hr Post dose||6.6|-0.6|
84703137|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|7.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||7.4|-0.3|
84703138|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|8.1||||||3 hr Post dose||8.1|1.2|
84703139|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|8.9||||||4 hr Post dose||8.9|1.5|
84703140|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.8||||||5 hr Post dose||5.8|-1.7|
84703141|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.1||||||6 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.6|
84703142|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|5.7||||||7 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.1|
84703143|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|6.2||||||8 hr Post dose||6.2|-1.4|
84703144|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.8||||||9 hr Post dose||7.8|0.9|
84703145|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|7.4||||||10 hr Post dose||7.4|0.3|
84703146|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|2.7||||||12 hr Post dose||2.7|-4.2|
84703147|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|7.0||||||16 hr Post dose||7.0|0.1|
84703148|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|2.8||||||24 hr Post dose||2.8|-5.7|
84703149|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|5.6||||||Pre dose||5.6|-1.0|
84703150|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||2.2|-5.4|
84703151|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.3||||||1 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.8|
84703152|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|7.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||7.6|0.4|
84703153|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|10.0||||||2 hr Post dose||10.0|2.7|
84703154|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.2||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.2|2.6|
84703155|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|12.0||||||3 hr Post dose||12.0|5.0|
84703156|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|13.8||||||4 hr Post dose||13.8|6.4|
84703157|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|11.6||||||5 hr Post dose||11.6|4.1|
84703158|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.2||||||6 hr Post dose||11.2|4.4|
84703159|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|10.2||||||7 hr Post dose||10.2|3.4|
84703160|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.3||||||8 hr Post dose||8.3|0.6|
84703161|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|10.0||||||9 hr Post dose||10.0|3.1|
84703162|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|10.1||||||10 hr Post dose||10.1|3.0|
84703163|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|8.8||||||12 hr Post dose||8.8|1.8|
84703164|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|10.6||||||16 hr Post dose||10.6|3.7|
84703165|NCT05046132|169148851|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.5||||||24 hr Post dose||7.5|-1.0|
84703166|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|11.8||||||Pre dose||11.8|3.7|
84703167|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|9.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||9.8|3.3|
84703168|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
84703169|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
84703170|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|8.0||||||2 hr Post dose||8.0|-0.4|
84703171|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|10.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.4|1.8|
84703172|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|9.8||||||3 hr Post dose||9.8|1.7|
84703173|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|9.8||||||4 hr Post dose||9.8|2.5|
84703174|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|9.8||||||5 hr Post dose||9.8|1.6|
84703175|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|8.4||||||6 hr Post dose||8.4|1.1|
84703176|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.0||||||7 hr Post dose||7.0|-0.9|
84703177|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.8||||||8 hr Post dose||8.8|1.3|
84703178|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|10.6||||||9 hr Post dose||10.6|2.5|
84703179|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.3||||||10 hr Post dose||12.3|4.8|
84703180|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.4||||||12 hr Post dose||11.4|4.4|
84703181|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|8.9||||||16 hr Post dose||8.9|0.9|
84703182|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|12.0||||||24 hr Post dose||12.0|3.6|
84703183|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|6.0||||||Pre dose||6.0|-1.8|
84703184|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.2|-0.0|
84703185|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.7||||||1 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.9|
84703186|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||10.4|2.6|
84703187|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|9.3||||||2 hr Post dose||9.3|1.3|
84703188|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.0|15.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||15.1|7.0|
84703189|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.6||||||3 hr Post dose||13.6|5.9|
84703190|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|14.2||||||4 hr Post dose||14.2|7.2|
84703191|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|12.7||||||5 hr Post dose||12.7|4.9|
84703192|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|14.5||||||6 hr Post dose||14.5|7.5|
84703193|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|14.6||||||7 hr Post dose||14.6|7.1|
84703194|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|14.9||||||8 hr Post dose||14.9|7.6|
84703195|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.7||||||9 hr Post dose||13.7|5.9|
84703196|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|14.1||||||10 hr Post dose||14.1|6.9|
84703197|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|15.2||||||12 hr Post dose||15.2|8.4|
84703198|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|13.3||||||16 hr Post dose||13.3|5.6|
84703199|NCT05046132|169148852|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|14.9||||||24 hr Post dose||14.9|6.8|
84703200|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-2.2||||||Pre dose||-2.2|-8.4|
84703201|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|0.5||||||0.5 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.9|
84703202|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.7||||||1 hr Post dose||-0.7|-5.7|
84703203|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|1.9||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.9|-3.7|
84703204|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.2||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.2|-5.7|
84703205|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.5||||||2.5 hr Post dose||-1.5|-6.5|
84703206|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-1.3||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.3|-7.1|
84703207|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
84703208|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-3.7|
84703209|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.4||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.4|-6.3|
84703210|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.5|-6.0|
84703211|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.5||||||8 hr Post dose||1.5|-4.7|
84703212|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-1.2||||||9 hr Post dose||-1.2|-6.9|
84703213|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-1.0||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.0|-7.6|
84703214|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|-2.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-2.1|-8.7|
84703215|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||16 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
84703216|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-4.2||||||24 hr Post dose||-4.2|-10.1|
84703217|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.2||||||Pre dose||4.2|-2.0|
84703218|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|6.3||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.3|-0.1|
84703219|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.9||||||1 hr Post dose||4.9|-0.1|
84703220|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.8||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.8|0.2|
84703221|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.6||||||2 hr Post dose||4.6|-1.0|
84703222|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-1.9|
84703223|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||3 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
84703224|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|3.0||||||4 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.5|
84703225|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2||||||5 hr Post dose||3.2|-2.6|
84703226|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.1||||||6 hr Post dose||1.1|-4.8|
84703227|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.7||||||7 hr Post dose||1.7|-3.8|
84703228|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.6||||||8 hr Post dose||2.6|-3.6|
84703229|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|0.2||||||9 hr Post dose||0.2|-5.6|
84703230|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.2||||||10 hr Post dose||-0.2|-6.8|
84703231|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||0.1|-6.6|
84703232|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||16 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
84703233|NCT05046132|169148853|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||24 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
84703234|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.0||||||Pre dose||-3.0|-10.3|
84703235|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-4.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||-4.0|-10.5|
84703236|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-1.2||||||1 hr Post dose||-1.2|-8.8|
84703237|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-1.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.4|
84703238|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.6|
84703239|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|0.3||||||2.5 hr Post dose||0.3|-6.1|
84703240|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.5||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.5|-7.7|
84703241|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-3.8|-10.3|
84703242|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.6||||||5 hr Post dose||0.6|-6.9|
84703243|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.6||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.6|-7.8|
84703244|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-1.6||||||7 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.1|
84703245|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||8 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
84703246|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||-2.6|-9.3|
84703247|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
84703248|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-1.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.3|
84703249|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-2.0||||||16 hr Post dose||-2.0|-9.7|
84703250|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|-3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||-3.8|-12.5|
84703251|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|5.9||||||Pre dose||5.9|-1.2|
84703252|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.8|-4.5|
84703253|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|3.3||||||1 hr Post dose||3.3|-4.0|
84703254|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
84703255|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-4.0|
84703256|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.6||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-2.6|
84510388|NCT00453362|168772365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Progressive Disease.||3.16|0.04|0.327
84703257|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.3||||||3 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.7|
84703258|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|0.9||||||4 hr Post dose||0.9|-5.4|
84703259|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|4.6||||||5 hr Post dose||4.6|-2.5|
84703260|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.8||||||6 hr Post dose||2.8|-4.1|
84703261|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|1.3||||||7 hr Post dose||1.3|-5.0|
84703262|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.8||||||8 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.7|
84703263|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|3.1||||||9 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.4|
84703264|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.7||||||10 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.8|
84703265|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.1||||||12 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.9|
84703266|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|4.3||||||16 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.1|
84703267|NCT05046132|169148854|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.9||||||24 hr Post dose||5.9|-2.5|
84703268|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.2||||||Pre dose||1.2|-2.6|
84703269|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7||||||0.5 hr post dose||0.7|-2.6|
84703270|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.3||||||1 hr post dose||2.3|-1.1|
84703271|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.3||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.5|
84703272|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.4||||||2 hr post dose||2.4|-0.8|
84703273|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
84703274|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.0||||||3 hr post dose||2.0|-1.6|
84703275|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.3||||||4 hr post dose||2.3|-0.9|
84703276|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.1||||||5 hr post dose||2.1|-1.2|
84703277|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||6 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
84703278|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4||||||7 hr post dose||2.4|-0.6|
84703279|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.2||||||8 hr post dose||2.2|-1.0|
84703280|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
84703281|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.5|
84703282|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.0||||||12 hr post dose||3.0|-0.2|
84703283|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||16 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
84703284|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6||||||24 hr post dose||1.6|-2.1|
84703285|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.6||||||Pre dose||2.6|-1.2|
84703286|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
84703287|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2||||||1 hr post dose||2.2|-1.2|
84703288|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.1||||||1.5 hr post dose||2.1|-0.7|
84703289|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.2||||||2 hr post dose||2.2|-1.1|
84703290|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.5||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.5|-0.9|
84703291|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.1||||||3 hr post dose||2.1|-1.5|
84703292|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1||||||4 hr post dose||1.1|-2.1|
84703293|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.9||||||5 hr post dose||1.9|-1.5|
84703294|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.4||||||6 hr post dose||1.4|-1.7|
84703295|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4||||||7 hr post dose||1.4|-1.6|
84703296|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
84703297|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
84703298|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.4|
84703299|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.1||||||12 hr post dose||3.1|-0.1|
84703300|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.0||||||16 hr post dose||3.0|-0.7|
84703301|NCT05046132|169148855|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||24 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
84703302|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9||||||Pre dose||2.9|-1.3|
84703303|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.2||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.2|-1.8|
84703304|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.8||||||1 hr post dose||3.8|-1.4|
84703305|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.8|
84703306|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.3||||||2 hr post dose||0.3|-3.0|
84703307|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.1||||||2.5 hr post dose||3.1|-0.0|
84703308|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.5||||||3 hr post dose||1.5|-1.7|
84703309|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.9||||||4 hr post dose||2.9|-0.3|
84703310|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||5 hr post dose||2.0|-2.2|
84703311|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
84703312|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.7||||||7 hr post dose||2.7|-0.8|
84703313|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.3|
84703314|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.9||||||9 hr post dose||2.9|-0.7|
84703315|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.9||||||10 hr post dose||1.9|-1.4|
84703316|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.2||||||12 hr post dose||3.2|-0.6|
84703317|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||16 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
84703318|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.2||||||24 hr post dose||4.2|-1.0|
84703319|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Pre dose||1.7|-2.3|
84703320|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
84703321|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.2||||||1 hr post dose||1.2|-3.8|
84703322|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.7|
84703323|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||2 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
84703324|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
84703325|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.8||||||3 hr post dose||1.8|-1.3|
84703326|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.9||||||4 hr post dose||1.9|-1.2|
84703327|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.5||||||5 hr post dose||0.5|-3.5|
84703328|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.6|
84703329|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1||||||7 hr post dose||2.1|-1.3|
84703330|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.6||||||8 hr post dose||2.6|-0.0|
84703331|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.2||||||9 hr post dose||2.2|-1.3|
84703332|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||10 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
84703333|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5||||||12 hr post dose||1.5|-2.1|
84703334|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||16 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
84703335|NCT05046132|169148856|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.9||||||24 hr post dose||4.9|-0.2|
84703336|NCT03987451|169148864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratio between semaglutide and placebo adjusting for baseline diabetes was estimated along with exact 95% confidence interval based on conditioning on the marginal 2×2 tables.||1.24|0.06|0.0867
84703337|NCT00612586|169148924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956||||||One sided|Log Rank|||||||0.8956
84703338|NCT00612586|169148925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9865||||||One-sided|Log Rank|||||||0.9865
84703339|NCT00530842|169148945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|-0.001|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, treatment, and period and random term for subject within sequence.||||-0.001|-0.174|0.0482
84703340|NCT00530842|169148946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|27.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The confidence interval was determined by Hodges-Lehmann method.|||27.5|-9.5|0.3407
84703341|NCT00761930|169149048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84703342|NCT00761930|169149049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84703343|NCT00761930|169149050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84703344|NCT03257813|169149051|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.013||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84703345|NCT03257813|169149051|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.001||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84703346|NCT03257813|169149051|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.05||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
84703347|NCT03257813|169149052|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.823||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
84703348|NCT03257813|169149052|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.507||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.507
84703349|NCT03257813|169149052|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.495||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
84703350|NCT03257813|169149053|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
84703351|NCT03257813|169149054|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.001||||||Baseline|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84703352|NCT03257813|169149054|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.148||||||CrossOver|Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
84703353|NCT03257813|169149054|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.212||||||Final Visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
84703354|NCT03257813|169149055|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
84703355|NCT03257813|169149055|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
84703356|NCT03257813|169149055|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0||||||"Final Visit~No statistic will be calculated because Final Chemosis is a constant"|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
84703357|NCT03257813|169149056|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84703358|NCT03257813|169149056|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.391||||||Cross Over|Chi-squared|||||||0.391
84703359|NCT03257813|169149056|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.534||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.534
84703360|NCT03257813|169149057|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.023||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.023
84703361|NCT03257813|169149057|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84703362|NCT03257813|169149057|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.793||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.793
84703363|NCT03257813|169149058|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.825||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.825
84703364|NCT03257813|169149058|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84703365|NCT03257813|169149058|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.765
84703366|NCT03478696|169149059|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.041|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.041|-0.020|
84703367|NCT03478696|169149060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.049|0.002|0.037
84703368|NCT03478696|169149060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.089||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.089|0.036|<0.001
84703369|NCT03478696|169149060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.083||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.083|0.026|<0.001
84703370|NCT03478696|169149060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.082||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.082|0.021|0.001
84703371|NCT03478696|169149061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0098||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.023||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.023|-0.016|0.702
84703372|NCT03478696|169149062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.044||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.044|-0.011|0.244
84703373|NCT03615924|169149063|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.06||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.50|0.75|0.7597
84703374|NCT03615924|169149064|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.45|0.72|0.9037
84703375|NCT03615924|169149065|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.30|0.17|0.7136
84703376|NCT03615924|169149066|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.40|0.50|0.4970
84703377|NCT03615924|169149067|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.43||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.36|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||2.36|0.87|0.1636
84703378|NCT03615924|169149068|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.68||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.75|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.75|0.76|0.2011
84510389|NCT04885296|168772367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.0|-2.2|
84703379|NCT03615924|169149070|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of confidence interval was not calculable due to 0 events in Ticagrelor 15/30/45 mg bd reporting group.||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.|||0.00|0.9940
84510390|NCT04885296|168772368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||2.3|-4.0|
84703380|NCT03615924|169149071|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.77||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.58|0.38|0.4822
84703381|NCT00716144|169149081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.884
84703382|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
84703383|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.604
84703384|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.463
84703385|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 6||||0.042
84703386|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.034
84703387|NCT00716144|169149082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.019
84703388|NCT00716144|169149084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
84703389|NCT00716144|169149084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.673
84703390|NCT00716144|169149084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.550
84703391|NCT00716144|169149084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.721
84703392|NCT00716144|169149084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.030
84703393|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.34|-2.87|0.0133
84703394|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.98|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.98|-3.54|0.0006
84703395|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||-0.08|-3.06|0.0394
84703396|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.13|-3.16|0.0332
84703397|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.08|-3.71|0.0601
84703398|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.12|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.12|-3.94|0.0369
84703399|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.39|-3.73|0.1122
84703400|NCT00880048|169149085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|1.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||1.32|-2.85|0.4713
84703401|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||7.39|0.63|0.2232
84703402|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||10.2|0.97|0.0559
84703403|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||3.61|0.64|0.3395
84703404|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||3.50|0.59|0.4256
84703405|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.64|0.69|0.3790
84703406|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.86|0.76|0.2554
84703407|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.91|0.80|0.1961
84703408|NCT00880048|169149086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.25|0.58|0.6916
84703409|NCT00880048|169149087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.50|0.61
84703410|NCT00880048|169149087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.36|0.35
84703411|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.04|-1.34|0.0362
84703412|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.16|-1.46|0.0155
84703413|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.34|-1.27|0.2593
84703414|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-1.44|0.1407
84703415|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.34|-1.67|0.1933
84703416|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||0.27|-1.76|0.1500
84703417|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.02|-2.21|0.0550
84703418|NCT00880048|169149088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.61|-1.65|0.3627
84703419|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-2.11|0.0616
84703420|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-1.19|-3.36|<0.0001
84703421|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||-0.19|-2.68|0.0239
84703422|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.57|-3.12|0.0048
84703423|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||-0.18|-2.97|0.0270
84703424|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.44|-3.27|0.0103
84703425|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.00|-3.06|0.0497
84703426|NCT00880048|169149089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.17|-2.98|0.0794
84510391|NCT04885296|168772369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.7|-4.7|
84510392|NCT01882647|168772378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
84703427|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.19|-0.75|0.2400
84703428|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.28|-1.23|0.0020
84510393|NCT01882647|168772379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
84510394|NCT01882647|168772380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
84703429|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.36|-0.67|0.5605
84703430|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-0.86|0.2215
84703431|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.30|-1.01|0.2870
84703432|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.01|-1.33|0.0465
84703433|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.34|-0.99|0.3399
84510395|NCT01882647|168772381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.01
84510396|NCT02937701|168772384|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.96||||||For the primary analysis of ACR20, the response difference (RD) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimate and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of RD were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA).||15.96|2.67|
84703434|NCT00880048|169149090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.49|-0.86|0.5931
84703435|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||8.22|0.97|0.0562
84703436|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||6.73|0.73|0.1596
84703437|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||6.30|1.34|0.0067
84703438|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||4.36|0.85|0.1154
84703439|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.07|0.62|0.6895
84703440|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.41|0.72|0.3654
84703441|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.65|0.78|0.2408
84703442|NCT00880048|169149091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.60|0.74|0.3066
84703443|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-0.36|0.1472
84703444|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.06|-0.48|0.0107
84703445|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.01|-0.51|0.0603
84703446|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.07|-0.46|0.1458
84703447|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.05|-0.58|0.0941
84703448|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4|||0.04|-0.59|0.0880
84703449|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.03|-0.73|0.0313
84703450|NCT00880048|169149092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.15|-0.55|0.2639
84703451|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.06|-3.08|0.0421
84703452|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.78|-2.27|0.3394
84703453|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.25|-3.05|0.0963
84703454|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||-0.26|-3.62|0.0235
84703455|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||1.01|-2.54|0.3956
84703456|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.07|-2.53|0.4273
84703457|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.01|-2.89|0.3429
84703458|NCT00880048|169149093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.80|-3.18|0.2403
84703459|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mixed effects repeated measures model|22.52||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|49.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||49.61|-4.58|0.1030
84703460|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.21||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|60.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||60.65|5.76|0.0179
84703461|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.62||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|34.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||34.49|-19.25|0.5773
84703462|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|48.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||48.76|-5.97|0.1250
84703463|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.87||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|59.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||59.45|2.29|0.0344
84703464|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.52||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|65.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||65.32|7.72|0.0131
84703465|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|30.46|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||30.46|-26.10|0.8794
84703466|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|57.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||57.50|-0.69|0.0556
84703467|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-6.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-6.33|-41.46|0.0078
84703468|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-7.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-7.68|-43.30|0.0052
84703469|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.45||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.14|8.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||8.24|-33.14|0.2373
84703470|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|22.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||22.87|-19.38|0.8707
84703471|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|6.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo va GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||6.59|-32.43|0.1933
84703472|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.55||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|9.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||9.17|-30.26|0.2933
84703473|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.58||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-5.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.01|-52.15|0.0177
84703474|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.07||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-5.84|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.84|-54.29|0.0152
84703475|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.19||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-4.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-4.01|-30.36|0.0108
84703476|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.15||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-2.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-2.68|-29.61|0.0190
84703477|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|18.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||18.21|-14.43|0.8195
84703478|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.5327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|21.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||21.89|-11.35|0.5327
84703479|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|12.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||12.25|-17.24|0.7387
84703480|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.44||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|5.48|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||5.48|-24.35|0.2134
84703481|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.51||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|5.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||5.60|-34.61|0.1561
84703482|NCT00880048|169149094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|3.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||3.64|-37.84|0.1054
84703483|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.21|-0.94|0.0024
84703484|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.28|-0.47|0.6146
84703485|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.09|-0.59|0.1442
84703486|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||0.39|-0.30|0.8001
84703487|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.45|-0.55|0.8439
84703488|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||0.11|-0.91|0.1259
84703489|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||0.64|-0.24|0.3709
84703490|NCT00880048|169149095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.22|-0.70|0.2993
84703491|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.14|0.04|0.0344
84703492|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.27|0.17|0.0111
84703493|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||0.99|-0.15|0.1443
84703494|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||1.08|-0.07|0.0873
84703495|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.33|0.13|0.0170
84703496|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.02|-0.18|0.1675
84703497|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.23|-0.10|0.0956
84703498|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.00|-0.35|0.3503
84703499|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||0.88|-0.20|0.2147
84703500|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||1.17|0.09|0.0233
84703501|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||0.89|-0.22|0.2404
84703502|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||1.22|0.08|0.0247
84703503|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.29|0.08|0.0271
84703504|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.00|-0.22|0.2129
84703505|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.06|-0.31|0.2874
84703506|NCT00880048|169149096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.41|0.01|0.0472
84703507|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||7.09|0.13|0.9824
84703508|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||6.13|0.05|0.6227
84703509|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||5.07|0.20|0.9967
84703510|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||8.63|0.46|0.3550
84703511|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||6.49|0.85|0.1009
84703512|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||7.68|1.02|0.0455
84703513|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||5.32|1.00|0.0507
84703514|NCT00880048|169149097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||3.45|0.55|0.4962
84703515|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|3.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||3.10|-1.03|0.3241
84703516|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.55|-2.66|0.6020
84703517|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||4.99|-0.10|0.0594
84703518|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||3.50|-1.67|0.4828
84703519|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||3.18|-2.80|0.9008
84703520|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|2.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||2.32|-3.74|0.6428
84703521|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||2.70|-4.06|0.6911
84703522|NCT00880048|169149100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.67||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.80|-4.14|0.7026
84703523|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||0.29|-2.24|0.1301
84703524|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.73|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.73|-0.79|0.4644
84703525|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.80|-2.33|0.3382
84703526|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||2.51|-0.63|0.2410
84703527|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.79|-2.75|0.2768
84703528|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.83|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.83|-1.70|0.9434
84703529|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.40|-2.49|0.5796
84703530|NCT00880048|169149101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.66|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.66|-1.24|0.4753
84703531|NCT05328297|169149125|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|2.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.23|-2.84|=0.438
84703532|NCT04541303|169149158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||None specified|||||||.028
84703533|NCT03351075|169149162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.65||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The sample size was based on comparing the changes for the primary outcome measure (PDI-DLV) at 12 months after surgery. The calculation was based on comparing the values at 12 months. Assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 0.5, 87 participants per group were needed based on a two-sample pooled t-test of a mean ratio with lognormal data and α=0.05 to detect with 80% power a difference of 20% in PDI. To anticipate a drop-out ratio of 5%, a total of 184 subjects were needed.||2.65|-5.28|0.5163
84703534|NCT03351075|169149163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.33||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 4 months||2.33|-4.26|0.5655
84703535|NCT03351075|169149163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.51||P\<.05 was considered significant. No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 1.5 years||2.51|-4.64|0.5592
84703536|NCT03351075|169149164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.37||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 4 months||5.37|-9.84|0.5630
84703537|NCT03351075|169149164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.09||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 12 months||3.09|-11.68|0.2524
84703538|NCT03351075|169149164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.09|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 1.5 years||3.09|-12.69|0.2315
84703539|NCT03351075|169149165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.32||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 4 months.||3.32|-2.39|0.7494
84703540|NCT03351075|169149165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.58|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 12 months.||2.58|-3.09|0.8617
84703541|NCT03351075|169149165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 1.5 years||2.59|-3.16|0.8454
84703542|NCT03351075|169149166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.51|||multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||2.51|0.72|0.3463
84703543|NCT03351075|169149166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.66|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||1.66|0.451|0.6613
84703544|NCT03351075|169149166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||2.42|0.65|0.4908
84703545|NCT03351075|169149167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.69|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||1.69|-1.25|0.7708
84703546|NCT03351075|169149167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.81|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||1.81|-1.23|0.7060
84703547|NCT03351075|169149167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.42|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||1.42|-1.38|0.9806
84703548|NCT03351075|169149168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.4|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 4 months||1.40|0.08|0.0284
84703549|NCT03351075|169149168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1 year||0.73|-0.55|0.7776
84703550|NCT03351075|169149168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.01|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1.5 years||1.01|-0.39|0.3829
84703551|NCT03351075|169149169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 4 months||0.77|-0.16|0.1948
84703552|NCT03351075|169149169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.65|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1 year||0.65|-0.31|0.4937
84703553|NCT03351075|169149169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1.5 years||0.73|-0.27|0.3690
84703554|NCT03351075|169149170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.43|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 4 months||6.43|-1.94|0.2915
84703555|NCT03351075|169149170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.75|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1 year||2.75|-6.02|0.4632
84703556|NCT03351075|169149170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|1.63|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1,5 years||1.63|-7.94|0.1944
84703557|NCT03351075|169149171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-293.0||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1218.0|632.0|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 4 months||632|-1218|0.5332
84703558|NCT03351075|169149171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|839.0||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.0|1900.0|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 1 year||1900|-221|0.1201
84703559|NCT03351075|169149172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.233|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 4 months||1.233|0.561|0.3590
84703560|NCT03351075|169149172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.839||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.236|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1 year||1.236|0.570|0.3744
84703561|NCT03351075|169149172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.848||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.304|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1.5 years||1.304|0.522|0.4533
84703562|NCT03351075|169149173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.862||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.33|||MUltivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 4 months||1.330|0.558|0.5018
84703563|NCT03351075|169149173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.808||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.248|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1 year||1.248|0.522|0.3362
84703564|NCT03351075|169149173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.958||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.449|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1.5 years||1.449|0.633|0.8375
84703565|NCT03351075|169149174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 4 months||0.14|-0.78|0.1745
84703566|NCT03351075|169149174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.71|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1 year||0.71|-0.35|0.5025
84703567|NCT03351075|169149174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.05|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1,5 years||1.05|-0.14|0.1363
84703568|NCT03351075|169149175|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.184||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1 year||0.008|-0.358|0.074
84703569|NCT03351075|169149175|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.09||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.078|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1,5 years||0.078|-0.26|0.352
84703570|NCT03351075|169149176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.64|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||2.64|-2.17|0.8497
84703571|NCT03351075|169149176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||3.14|-1.52|0.4971
84703572|NCT03351075|169149176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||2.62|-1.72|0.6831
84703573|NCT03351075|169149177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.72|57.28|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||57.28|-47.72|0.8584
84703574|NCT03351075|169149177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.25||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.57|-3.93|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||-3.93|-110.57|0.0353
84703575|NCT03351075|169149177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|36.52|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||36.52|-76.72|0.4865
84703576|NCT03351075|169149178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 4 months||1.27|0.97|0.1278
84511716|NCT03117569|168775218|NON_INFERIORITY|A total of 375 participants (2:1 randomisation) were planned for enrolment and evaluation as ITT population. Under the assumption that SVR12 rate would be 96% in both arms, the study had 80% power to show non-inferiority of the simplified monitoring strategy with a lower confidence bound for SVR12 in the simplified monitoring arm greater than 90% or with a lower confidence bound for the difference (simplified arm minus standard arm) in SVR12 greater than -6%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-8.2|<0.05
84511717|NCT03018249|168775230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84511718|NCT03018249|168775231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|30.0||||||||30|-25|
84511719|NCT03018249|168775232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.3||||||||45.3|-16.7|
84511720|NCT00824265|168775275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.51|0.0032
84511721|NCT00824265|168775276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.59|0.1427
84703577|NCT03351075|169149178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1 year||1.30|0.95|0.1875
84703578|NCT03351075|169149178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1.5 years||1.23|0.89|0.5612
84703579|NCT03351075|169149179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.089||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 4 months||1.620|0.693|0.7902
84703580|NCT03351075|169149179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.934||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.443|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1 year||1.443|0.604|0.7578
84703581|NCT03351075|169149179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.504|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1.5 years||1.504|0.679|0.9600
84703582|NCT03351075|169149180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.068||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.639|||Multivariate linear model|multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 4 months||1.639|0.696|0.7619
84703583|NCT03351075|169149180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.087||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.673|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1 year||1.673|0.702|0.7169
84703584|NCT03351075|169149180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.987||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.525|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1.5 years||1.525|0.639|0.9535
84703585|NCT05219253|169149187|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between the HZ/su Group and Placebo Group for anti-gE antibody concentrations was equal to or above (\>=) 3.|GMC Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.09|27.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunogenicity of HZ/su vaccine compared to Placebo, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-Dose 2 of study intervention administration (Month 3).||27.82|14.09|
84703586|NCT03086369|169149199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.527|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.527|0.728|0.7902
84703587|NCT03086369|169149203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.764|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.764|0.806|0.3771
84703588|NCT03086369|169149206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.872|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).||||0.872|0.175|0.017
84703589|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.317|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Appetite loss||1.317|0.392|0.288
84703590|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.468|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Constipation||1.468|0.423|0.442
84703591|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.755|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Diarrhoea||1.755|0.612|0.883
84703592|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.636|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Dyspnoea||1.636|0.532|0.803
84703593|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.645|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Fatigue||1.645|0.675|0.805
84703594|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.464|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Financial difficulties||1.464|0.420|0.465
84703595|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.457||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|2.698|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Insomnia||2.698|0.787|0.231
84511722|NCT00824265|168775277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.85|0.4490
84703596|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.57|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Nausea and vomiting||1.570|0.532|0.748
84703597|NCT03086369|169149207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Pain||1.827|0.491|0.875
84703598|NCT02974634|169149214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||5.6|-3.5|0.06
84703599|NCT02974634|169149215|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.91||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||0.91|-0.24|0.68
84703600|NCT01124188|169149261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||||||||1.80|0.63|
84703601|NCT01124188|169149262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
84703602|NCT01124188|169149263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
84703603|NCT01324453|169149269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
84703604|NCT01324453|169149270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.81
84703605|NCT01324453|169149271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84703606|NCT01324453|169149272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84703607|NCT01324453|169149273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
84703608|NCT01324453|169149274|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.00
84703609|NCT01324453|169149275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
84703610|NCT01324453|169149276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
84703611|NCT00004124|169149302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.79|0.70
84703612|NCT00004124|169149303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.80|0.94
84703613|NCT03959241|169149341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.835||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of GRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.835|0.492|0.001
84703614|NCT03959241|169149342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.995
84703615|NCT03959241|169149342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.001
84703616|NCT03959241|169149342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.267||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups using a Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard of aGVHD||1.267|0.758|0.879
84703617|NCT03959241|169149342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.691||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV aGVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.691|0.215|0.001
84703618|NCT03959241|169149346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.005
84703619|NCT03959241|169149346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.813||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||0.813|0.381|0.002
84703620|NCT03959241|169149349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Immunosuppression-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.038
84703621|NCT03959241|169149350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Recovery between the treatment groups||||0.032
84703622|NCT03959241|169149351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 20,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
84703623|NCT03959241|169149351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 50,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
84703624|NCT03959241|169149352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Lymphocyte Recovery between the treatment groups||||<0.001
84511723|NCT00824265|168775278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.56|0.0878
84703625|NCT03959241|169149353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.919
84703626|NCT03959241|169149353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.198
84511724|NCT00824265|168775279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.0036
84703627|NCT03959241|169149354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.670
84703628|NCT03959241|169149354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.607
84703629|NCT03959241|169149355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups||||0.906
84510397|NCT02937701|168772384|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.92|||||Response Difference is based on a generalized linear model with actual stratification variables (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA) as covariates in the model.|A sensitivity analysis with the RD estimate and CIs for RD of ACR20 estimated using a generalized linear model with geographic region and prior biologic use for RA as covariates was also conducted.||15.92|2.67|
84510398|NCT02937701|168772384|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|7.184|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|13.62|||||The ACR core set includes tender joint count, swollen joint count, subject's global health assessment, investigator's global health assessment, subject's assessment of disease related pain, HAQ-DI, and CRP.|A post-hoc analysis was conducted to adjust for the impact of random imbalance in baseline demographic and disease characteristics between the 2 treatment groups. The MH estimate of RD and corresponding CIs were estimated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance method with stratification factors geographic region and prior biologic use, and adjustment for baseline covariates (ACR core set, age, use of oral corticosteroid, use of NSAID, body mass index categories, and methotrexate dose).||13.620|0.748|
84510399|NCT02937701|168772385|OTHER||Response Difference|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|14.81||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||14.81|1.15|
84510400|NCT02937701|168772385|OTHER||Response Difference|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|11.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.64|-1.80|
84510401|NCT02937701|168772385|OTHER||Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|12.87||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.87|-0.51|
84510402|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.26|11.73||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.73|-5.26|
84510403|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|17.97||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.97|-1.18|
84510404|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.61|11.7||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.70|-4.61|
84510405|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|13.4||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.40|-5.40|
84510406|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.34|9.4||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.40|-7.34|
84510407|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.86|12.34||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.34|-6.86|
84510408|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|-3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.27|5.17||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||5.17|-12.27|
84510409|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.89|11.08||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.08|-8.89|
84510410|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|3.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.29|-13.24|
84510411|NCT02937701|168772386|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.01|8.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.04|-11.01|
84511725|NCT00824265|168775280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants in the ITT population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.55|0.1143
84703630|NCT03959241|169149355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.515||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.515|0.641|0.947
84703631|NCT03959241|169149356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality between the treatment groups||||0.167
84703632|NCT03959241|169149356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.127||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.127|0.404|0.133
84510412|NCT02937701|168772387|OTHER||Response Difference|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|9.38||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.38|-0.56|
84703633|NCT03959241|169149360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grade 2 and 3 infections between the treatment groups||||0.018
84703634|NCT03959241|169149361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of CMV between the treatment groups||||0. 825
84703635|NCT03959241|169149362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.351
84703636|NCT03959241|169149362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.176||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.176|0.610|0.320
84703637|NCT03959241|169149363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Overall Survival between the treatment groups||||0.335
84703638|NCT03959241|169149363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.175||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Overall Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.175|0.541|0.252
84703639|NCT02311972|169149365|SUPERIORITY|Mean axillary admission temperature||||||0.7294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7294
84703640|NCT02311972|169149366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2360
84511726|NCT00824265|168775280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants who took anti-cancer therapies|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.48|0.0109
84703641|NCT02311972|169149367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84703642|NCT02311972|169149368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1089
84703643|NCT02311972|169149369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84703644|NCT02311972|169149370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4947
84703645|NCT02311972|169149371|SUPERIORITY|Infant 007|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84703646|NCT02311972|169149371|SUPERIORITY|Infant 010|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84703647|NCT02311972|169149371|SUPERIORITY|Infant 015|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84510413|NCT02937701|168772387|OTHER||Response Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|7.94||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.94|-4.71|
84703648|NCT02311972|169149371|SUPERIORITY|Infant 039|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84703649|NCT02311972|169149371|SUPERIORITY|Infant 040||||||0.3947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3947
84703650|NCT03557658|169149376|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|106.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.34|144.02|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group.||144.02|78.34|
84703651|NCT03557658|169149376|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|110.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.34|163.06|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||163.06|75.34|
84510414|NCT02937701|168772387|OTHER||Response Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|9.03||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.03|-4.45|
84510415|NCT02937701|168772387|OTHER||Response Difference|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|13.83||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.83|0.27|
84703652|NCT03557658|169149379|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|128.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|164.73|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||164.73|99.98|
84703653|NCT03557658|169149379|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|132.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|181.08|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||181.08|96.46|
84703654|NCT01194154|169149381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||4.78|-0.35|0.657
84703655|NCT01194154|169149382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.24||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.01|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||5.01|-0.54|0.709
84703656|NCT01901276|169149408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-individual differences in Shannon indices were tested using paired t tests (normally distributed data).||||0.71
84703657|NCT01596504|169149409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05: lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025:no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1.2 mg|Analysis was performed using linear fixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]) and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-7.77|<0.0001
84703658|NCT01596504|169149409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05:lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025: no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1. 8 mg|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]), and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-6.34|<0.0001
84703659|NCT02314117|169149426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.935||||||||0.935|0.607|
84703660|NCT02314117|169149427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.156||||||||1.156|0.801|
84703661|NCT02314117|169149428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.108||||||||1.108|0.774|
84703662|NCT02314117|169149431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.859||||||||0.859|0.569|
84703663|NCT02314117|169149432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.866||||||||0.866|0.499|
84703664|NCT02314117|169149433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.332||||||||1.332|0.770|
84703665|NCT02314117|169149435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||||1.580|0.790|
84703666|NCT05565391|169149444|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.47|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.47|1.54|<.0001
84703667|NCT05565391|169149444|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.67|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.67|1.52|<.0001
84703668|NCT05565391|169149445|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.9|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||2.90|1.69|<.0001
84703669|NCT05565391|169149446|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.15|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||3.15|1.01|0.0447
84703670|NCT05565391|169149447|OTHER|||||||0.4241|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.4241
84703671|NCT05565391|169149447|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0281
84703672|NCT05565391|169149448|OTHER|||||||0.7682|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.7682
84511727|NCT00824265|168775283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
84511728|NCT00824265|168775284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0166
84703673|NCT05565391|169149449|OTHER|||||||0.0326|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0326
84703674|NCT05565391|169149450|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.31|0.09|<.0001
84703675|NCT05565391|169149450|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.43|0.11|<.0001
84703676|NCT05565391|169149451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.22|0.06|<.0001
84703677|NCT05565391|169149452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Weighted Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.45|0.10|<.0001
84703678|NCT02716324|169149454|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.001||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.012|||GLS random-effects model|||Random effects models regressed VPRS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.012|-0.010|.871
84703679|NCT02716324|169149455|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.004|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed GAS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.004|-0.002|0.499
84703680|NCT02716324|169149456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.718
84703681|NCT02716324|169149456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.903
84703682|NCT02716324|169149456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any inpatient mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.915
84703683|NCT02716324|169149457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.310
84703684|NCT02716324|169149457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.251
84511729|NCT00324168|168775315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.068|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for enrollment BSCVA||||0.068|-0.085|0.82
84703685|NCT02716324|169149457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of inpatient mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||1.00
84703686|NCT02716324|169149458|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.662
84703687|NCT02716324|169149458|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.002|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.002|0.000|0.075
84703688|NCT02716324|169149459|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.707
84703689|NCT02716324|169149459|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
84703690|NCT02716324|169149460|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
84703691|NCT02716324|169149461|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Parent Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.873
84703692|NCT02716324|169149461|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.888
84703693|NCT02716324|169149462|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Family Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Family Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.679
84703694|NCT02716324|169149463|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.074||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.311|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Access Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.311|-0.164|0.495
84703695|NCT02716324|169149463|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.013||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.191|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Patient Family Centered Care Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.191|-0.217|0.885
84703696|NCT02716324|169149463|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.073||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.328|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Communication Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.328|-0.182|0.527
84703697|NCT02716324|169149463|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.136||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.41|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Understanding Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.410|-0.138|0.285
84703698|NCT04347954|169149495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.584|0.886||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.886|-1.584|
84703699|NCT04347954|169149495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|0.201||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.201|-2.318|
84703700|NCT04141917|169149514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.02||||||The number of influenza-positive tests was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model following a Poisson distribution with a log link and robust variance. The model is adjusted for calendar time and an exposure time variable based on shelter capacity. This model includes symptomatic individuals who tested throughout Year 1 of the study (November 15, 2019 - March 31, 2020).||5.02|0.35|
84703701|NCT02954848|169149522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The point estimate of the median difference between the treatment groups was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.600|0.000|0.0643
84703702|NCT02954848|169149523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
84703703|NCT02954848|169149524|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||0.0100|-0.2400|0.0826
84511730|NCT00324168|168775316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||||0.15|-0.09|0.40
84511731|NCT00324168|168775317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.07|0.873
84703704|NCT02954848|169149525|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||5.300|0.000|0.0478
84703705|NCT02954848|169149525|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||6.000|-6.100|0.8963
84703706|NCT02954848|169149525|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||10.700|0.000|0.0120
84703707|NCT02954848|169149525|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.000|-17.400|0.0871
84703708|NCT02954848|169149526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0025
84703709|NCT02954848|169149527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1059
84703710|NCT02954848|169149528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
84703711|NCT02954848|169149529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5393|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5393
84703712|NCT02954848|169149530|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||0.0000|-0.2100|0.0505
84703713|NCT02954848|169149530|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||0.1500|-0.1200|0.8138
84703714|NCT02954848|169149530|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||-0.0300|-0.2800|0.0129
84703715|NCT02954848|169149530|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.36|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.3600|-0.0100|0.0765
84703716|NCT02954848|169149531|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||15.300|-1.900|0.1490
84511732|NCT00324168|168775318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.76|0.44
84511733|NCT00324168|168775319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84703717|NCT02954848|169149531|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||10.700|-1.400|0.2146
84510416|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|7.62||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.62|-10.40|
84703718|NCT02954848|169149532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
84703719|NCT02954848|169149533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0153
84510417|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.28|13.67||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.67|-7.28|
84511734|NCT00324168|168775320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||0.05|-0.12|0.39
84703720|NCT02954848|169149534|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||0.0200|-0.4300|0.0757
84703721|NCT02954848|169149534|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||0.0900|-0.2200|0.3837
84703722|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.5|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||3.500|-5.000|0.6631
84703723|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.9|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||13.900|-7.100|0.5627
84703724|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||8.000|0.000|0.0042
84703725|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||6.400|-9.400|0.6452
84703726|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.8|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||17.800|0.000|0.0376
84703727|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|3.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||3.600|-35.700|0.1600
84703728|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||10.700|0.000|0.1032
84510418|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|15.48||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||15.48|-2.62|
84511735|NCT00324168|168775321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.78||95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.78
84703729|NCT02954848|169149535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved response||0.200|-14.300|0.2613
84703730|NCT02954848|169149536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9970
84511736|NCT00324168|168775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Nocardia spp||0.35|-.011|0.30
84703731|NCT02954848|169149537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0125
84703732|NCT02954848|169149538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
84703733|NCT02954848|169149539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7999|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7999
84703734|NCT02954848|169149540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
84703735|NCT02954848|169149541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5520
84703736|NCT02954848|169149542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0175
84703737|NCT02954848|169149543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7505
84703738|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||0.1600|-0.2300|0.7845
84703739|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.11||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||0.1700|-0.3300|0.4456
84703740|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||-0.0200|-0.2900|0.0200
84703741|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||0.2200|-0.1000|0.4673
84703742|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||-0.0700|-0.5300|0.0095
84703743|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||0.7100|-0.1600|0.1650
84703744|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||0.0700|-0.2400|0.2475
84703745|NCT02954848|169149544|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved||0.3200|-0.0900|0.2367
84703746|NCT02954848|169149545|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||14.300|-2.700|0.1885
84703747|NCT02954848|169149545|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|25.6||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||75.000|-19.200|0.2337
84703748|NCT02954848|169149546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0811
84703749|NCT02954848|169149547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0288
84703750|NCT02954848|169149548|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||0.0400|-0.4200|0.1488
84703751|NCT02954848|169149548|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.44||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.69|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||0.6900|-1.5700|0.3778
84703752|NCT02326649|169149549|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.47
84703753|NCT02326649|169149549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.528||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|18.417|||Regression, Linear|||Intercept for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||18.417|-5.295|0.255
84703754|NCT02326649|169149549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|1.395|||Regression, Linear|||Heart rate delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.395|-0.395|0.250
84703755|NCT02326649|169149549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.227|||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||0.227|-1.081|0.183
84510419|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|21.03||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||21.03|0.12|
84510420|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|9.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.59|-8.54|
84510421|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|13.39||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.39|-7.62|
84510422|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.11|7.93||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.93|-10.11|
84510423|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|16.54||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||16.54|-4.44|
84510424|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.39|3.71||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.71|-14.39|
84510425|NCT02937701|168772388|OTHER||Response Difference|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|13.37||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.37|-7.51|
84510426|NCT02937701|168772389|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|0.83||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||0.83|-5.84|
84510427|NCT02937701|168772389|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|2.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||2.64|-7.47|
84510428|NCT02937701|168772389|OTHER||Response Difference|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|10.91||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.91|-0.01|
84703756|NCT02326649|169149549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|1.526|||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.526|-0.411|0.238
84703757|NCT02950558|169149550|OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1269
84510429|NCT02937701|168772389|OTHER||Response Difference|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|10.34||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.34|-1.21|
84510430|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.12|8.02||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.02|-8.12|
84510431|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.39|9.28||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.28|-9.39|
84510432|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|9.51||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.51|-7.00|
84703758|NCT02950558|169149551|OTHER|||||||0.8808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8808
84703759|NCT02950558|169149552|OTHER|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0382
84703760|NCT02950558|169149553|OTHER|||||||0.4696|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4696
84703761|NCT02950558|169149554|OTHER|||||||0.1818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1818
84703762|NCT02194933|169149563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3992
84703763|NCT02194933|169149564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0053
84703764|NCT02194933|169149566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1559
84703765|NCT02194933|169149566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6201
84703766|NCT02194933|169149567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1642
84703767|NCT02194933|169149567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1873|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1873
84703768|NCT02194933|169149570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2061
84703769|NCT02194933|169149570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1778
84703770|NCT02194933|169149571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4138
84703771|NCT02194933|169149571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3375
84703772|NCT02194933|169149574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8437
84703773|NCT02194933|169149574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8318
84703774|NCT02194933|169149575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6697|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6697
84703775|NCT02194933|169149575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8829
84703776|NCT02194933|169149576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2301
84703777|NCT02194933|169149576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0599
84703778|NCT02194933|169149577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1595
84703779|NCT02194933|169149577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1211
84703780|NCT02194933|169149578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1322
84703781|NCT02194933|169149578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2113
84703782|NCT02194933|169149579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0578
84703783|NCT02194933|169149579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0588
84703784|NCT02194933|169149580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1666
84703785|NCT02194933|169149580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7670
84703786|NCT02194933|169149581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7178
84703787|NCT02194933|169149581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2336
84703788|NCT02194933|169149582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6558
84703789|NCT02194933|169149582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9058
84703790|NCT02194933|169149583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0078
84703791|NCT02194933|169149583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4272
84703792|NCT05382104|169149627|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.78|81.78|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||81.78|71.78|
84703793|NCT05382104|169149627|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|71.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.14|76.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||76.37|67.14|
84703794|NCT05382104|169149628|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.74|87.66|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||87.66|80.74|
84703795|NCT05382104|169149628|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|90.96|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||90.96|83.87|
84703796|NCT05382104|169149629|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|88.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||88.34|81.28|
84703797|NCT05382104|169149629|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|91.53|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||91.53|84.30|
84703798|NCT03506880|169149633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that drinking would increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up for those in the AC, but not for those in the SG and MADD conditions.||||>0.05
84703799|NCT03506880|169149634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was also hypothesized that teens in the SG and MADD conditions would report significantly more declining rides with impaired drivers than those in the AC group.||||<0.01
84703800|NCT03506880|169149635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that participants in the MADD and SG groups would be significantly less willing to ride in a car with an impaired driver than those in the AC group.||||>0.01
84703801|NCT02336438|169149636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.99
84703802|NCT02336438|169149637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.4922
84703803|NCT02336438|169149638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
84703804|NCT02336438|169149639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0156
84703805|NCT02336438|169149640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.020
84703806|NCT02336438|169149641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
84703807|NCT00857649|169149658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|4.21|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||4.21|-1.75|0.418
84703808|NCT00857649|169149659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.34|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||1.34|-2.30|0.603
84703809|NCT00857649|169149660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||0.31|-0.22|0.734
84703810|NCT00857649|169149661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||-0.32|-3.29|0.017
84703811|NCT00857649|169149662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.83|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||2.83|-1.03|0.360
84703812|NCT00367055|169149669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p value is for Total AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.376
84703813|NCT00367055|169149669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||p value is for Incremental AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.990
84703814|NCT01123083|169149684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||0.00|-0.17|0.051
84703815|NCT01123083|169149685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.18|0.022
84703816|NCT01123083|169149685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.03|-0.15|0.191
84703817|NCT01123083|169149687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.37|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||3.37|0.50|0.912
84703818|NCT01123083|169149687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.42|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||2.42|0.37|0.912
84510433|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|7.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|17.22||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.22|-2.39|
84510434|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.03|7.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.59|-9.03|
84510435|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.41|13.14||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.14|-6.41|
84510436|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.98|7.66||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.66|-8.98|
84510437|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|17.68||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.68|-2.13|
84510438|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.29|-6.81|
84510439|NCT02937701|168772390|OTHER||Response Difference|12.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|22.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||22.04|1.74|
84510440|NCT02937701|168772391|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.007||||||Week 2 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.007|-0.20|
84510441|NCT02937701|168772391|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.16||||||Week 6 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.16|-0.17|
84510442|NCT02937701|168772391|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.14||||||Week 14 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.14|-0.21|
84510443|NCT02937701|168772391|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.17||||||Week 22 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.17|-0.20|
84703819|NCT01123083|169149687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.52|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||4.52|0.54|0.412
84703820|NCT01123083|169149688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.02|-0.08|0.210
84510444|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.4||||||Week 30 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.40|-0.08|
84510445|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||||||Week 30 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.28|-0.27|
84510446|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Week 34 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.35|-0.12|
84510447|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.24||||||Week 34 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.30|
84511737|NCT00324168|168775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|-0.12|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Streptococcus pneumoniae||0.10|-0.12|0.86
84511738|NCT00324168|168775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||Moraxella spp||0.55|-0.34|0.65
84703821|NCT01123083|169149688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.02|-0.11|0.210
84703822|NCT01123083|169149688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.13|-0.05|0.402
84703823|NCT01123083|169149689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.16|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.16|-0.52|0.582
84703824|NCT01123083|169149689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.45|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.45|-0.46|0.987
84703825|NCT01123083|169149689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.59|-0.33|0.572
84703826|NCT01123083|169149692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.452
84703827|NCT01123083|169149692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.452
84703828|NCT01123083|169149693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.123
84703829|NCT01123083|169149693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.373
84703830|NCT00961636|169149694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by country||||||<0.001
84510448|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.3||||||Week 38 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.30|-0.18|
84510449|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 38 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.20|-0.36|
84703831|NCT00961636|169149695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Unconditional Miettinen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
84703832|NCT02945332|169149774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84703833|NCT02945332|169149775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
84703834|NCT02945332|169149776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
84703835|NCT02945332|169149777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.32||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84703836|NCT02945332|169149778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.36||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84703837|NCT02945332|169149779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
84703838|NCT01904071|169149812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84703839|NCT01904071|169149813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84703840|NCT01904071|169149814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.005
84703841|NCT01904071|169149815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84703842|NCT01904071|169149816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
84703843|NCT03262935|169149910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6401|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4885|0.8389||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of PFS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||0.8389|0.4885|=0.002
84703844|NCT03262935|169149911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.1145||P-value from stratified log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier estimate of median OS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of OS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||1.1145|0.676|=0.236
84703845|NCT03262935|169149912|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.732||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test including the randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata based on the baseline stratification factors) was used to compare the two treatment groups with respect to the ORR at two-sided 5% level of significance.||||=0.732
84703846|NCT03262935|169149913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.7703||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the HR of PFS, along with the 95% CI. The treatment groups were compared using the 2-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.7703|0.4666|<0.001
84703847|NCT03262935|169149914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||MMRM|||The change from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale transformed score was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) approach.||||0.473
84703848|NCT00186186|169149915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84703849|NCT00186186|169149916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84703850|NCT00922207|169149939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.46|0.6853
84703851|NCT00922207|169149939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.26|0.35|0.1977
84703852|NCT00922207|169149939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.39|0.2916
84703853|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.34||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.66|0.02|0.0353
84703854|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.52|-0.05|0.1114
84703855|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.21|-0.42|0.5150
84703856|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.89|0.34|<0.001
84703857|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-1.65|-2.19|<0.001
84703858|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-2.27|-2.81|<0.001
84703859|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||2.06|1.34|<0.001
84703860|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-0.15|-0.95|0.0071
84703861|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-1.90|-2.61|<0.001
84703862|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.08|1.16|<0.001
84703863|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.53|-0.56|0.9557
84703864|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.14|-2.15|<0.001
84703865|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.27|0.18|0.0094
84703866|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.11|-0.09|0.0943
84703867|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.35|-0.82|0.4354
84703868|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.98|-0.26|0.2509
84703869|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||1.31|0.02|0.0429
84703870|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.93|-0.34|0.3585
84703871|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.74|-0.65|0.9014
84703872|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.28|-0.13|0.1122
84703873|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.23|-0.20|0.1602
84510450|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.37||||||Week 46 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.37|-0.14|
84511739|NCT00324168|168775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Pseudomonas aeruginosa||0.13|-0.20|0.67
84511740|NCT00324168|168775323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||\<20/40||0.25|-0.08|0.33
84511741|NCT00324168|168775323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||20/40 to 20/800||0.11|-0.09|0.85
84511742|NCT00324168|168775323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Regression, Linear|||CF or worse||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
84510451|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Week 46 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.25|-0.34|
84510452|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24||||||Week 50 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.24|
84511743|NCT00324168|168775324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||\>0-33%||0.17|-0.05|0.31
84510453|NCT02937701|168772392|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.08||||||Week 50 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.08|-0.47|
84510454|NCT00755196|168772400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||0.23
84510455|NCT04084483|168772402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2175|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2175
84510456|NCT04084483|168772403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3852
84510457|NCT04084483|168772404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2980
84510458|NCT04084483|168772405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0634
84510459|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7388|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.7388
84703874|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.19|-1.17|0.1599
84703875|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.92|-0.45|0.5045
84703876|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||1.41|0.03|0.0412
84703877|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-1.24|0.1347
84703878|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.01|-0.41|0.4027
84703879|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.55|0.07|0.0311
84703880|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.35|-1.07|0.3183
84703881|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.22|-0.17|0.1371
84703882|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.60|0.21|0.0113
84703883|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.92|0.5608
84703884|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.88|-0.53|0.6323
84703885|NCT00922207|169149940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||1.11|-0.32|0.2752
84703886|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||9.71|0.26|0.6107
84703887|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.0788
84703888|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.1761
84510460|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.3717
84510461|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.3164
84703889|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||5.09|0.34|0.7044
84703890|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|46.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||46.76|0.61|0.0927
84703891|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|36.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||36.89|0.44|0.1858
84510462|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.1953
84703892|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||3.38|0.33|0.9385
84703893|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.77|0.43|0.5068
84703894|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.50|0.41|0.5544
84703895|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.31|0.26|0.6510
84703896|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.3192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||1.69|0.20|0.3192
84703897|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.03|0.29|0.5818
84703898|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.66|0.41|0.8796
84703899|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.52|0.27|0.3050
84703900|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.44|0.26|0.2414
84703901|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.22|0.50|0.8502
84703902|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.61|0.38|0.5000
84703903|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.53|0.36|0.3882
84703904|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.99|0.50|0.9584
84703905|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.35|0.2576
84703906|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.36|0.2362
84703907|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.90|0.49|0.9861
84703908|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.35|0.37|0.2919
84703909|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.38|0.38|0.2674
84703910|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.64|0.43|0.6148
84703911|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.08|0.30|0.0904
84703912|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.27|0.36|0.2073
84510463|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.4645
84703913|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.98|0.52|0.9980
84703914|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.40|0.39|0.3489
84703915|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.38|0.38|0.2847
84703916|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.62|0.44|0.5596
84703917|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.27|0.36|0.2112
84703918|NCT00922207|169149941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.48|0.43|0.4066
84703919|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6921
84703920|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.3939
84703921|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6818
84703922|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7582|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7582
84703923|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.5381
84703924|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7747
84703925|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.8034
84703926|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.6306
84703927|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.4574
84510464|NCT04084483|168772406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2135|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.2135
84703928|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5824
84703929|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.9321
84703930|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5263
84703931|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.2025
84703932|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.6702
84703933|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.0818
84510465|NCT04084483|168772407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5990
84703934|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6214
84703935|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6774|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6774
84510466|NCT04084483|168772407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2122|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2122
84510467|NCT04084483|168772408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9146
84510468|NCT04084483|168772408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8494|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8494
84510469|NCT04084483|168772409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4747|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4747
84703936|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.3154
84703937|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.2709
84703938|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.3804
84703939|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.7645
84703940|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.1820
84703941|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.7167
84703942|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.3104
84703943|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.0910
84703944|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.6094
84703945|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.2166
84703946|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9010
84703947|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9060
84703948|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.7268
84703949|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.5372
84703950|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.1588
84703951|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.4268
84703952|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.4389
84703953|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.6708
84703954|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.2145
84703955|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.8608
84703956|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0283
84703957|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0369
84703958|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.4606
84703959|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.0832
84703960|NCT00922207|169149943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.2655
84703961|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.43|-0.01|0.0649
84703962|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.33|-0.06|0.1867
84510470|NCT04084483|168772409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5619
84703963|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.15|-0.30|0.5003
84703964|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.05|-0.22|0.2259
84703965|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
84703966|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.04|-0.27|0.0085
84703967|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.18|-0.22|0.8160
84510471|NCT04084483|168772410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5985|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5985
84510472|NCT04084483|168772410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7626|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7626
84510473|NCT04084483|168772411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8330
84510474|NCT04084483|168772411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2777
84703968|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.12|-0.27|0.4393
84703969|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.11|-0.22|0.4890
84703970|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.30|-0.14|0.4656
84703971|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.31|-0.15|0.5016
84703972|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.22|-0.23|0.9582
84703973|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.36|-0.21|0.6214
84703974|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.39|-0.21|0.5493
84703975|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.32|-0.28|0.8881
84703976|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.27|-0.36|0.7912
84703977|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.46|-0.24|0.5427
84703978|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.49|-0.19|0.3788
84703979|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.26|-0.44|0.6172
84703980|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.50|-0.29|0.6002
84703981|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.56|-0.18|0.3101
84703982|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.20|-0.47|0.4256
84703983|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.36|-0.35|0.9762
84703984|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.47|-0.21|0.4504
84703985|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-0.42|0.4076
84703986|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.27|-0.37|0.7591
84703987|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.40|-0.25|0.6449
84703988|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.25|-0.36|0.7108
84703989|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.47|-0.22|0.4725
84703990|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.50|-0.13|0.2439
84703991|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.10|0.1862
84703992|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.43|-0.14|0.3057
84703993|NCT00922207|169149944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.29|-0.38|0.8002
84703994|NCT03299816|169149952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.17
84703995|NCT03299816|169149953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.36
84703996|NCT03299816|169149954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.33
84703997|NCT03299816|169149955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.61
84703998|NCT03299816|169149956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.73
84703999|NCT03299816|169149957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.75
84704000|NCT02311907|169149960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Generalized linear models (repeated measures analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]) will be used to compare the CIPN between GSH and placebo arms.||||0.21
84510475|NCT04084483|168772412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9829
84510476|NCT04084483|168772412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8675|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8675
84704001|NCT02311907|169149961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
84704002|NCT03515304|169149981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2497
84704003|NCT01215695|169150075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84704004|NCT01215695|169150076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84704005|NCT01215695|169150077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84704006|NCT01215695|169150078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84704007|NCT01215695|169150079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84704008|NCT01378065|169150102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84704009|NCT01378065|169150103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84704010|NCT01378065|169150104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84704011|NCT01378065|169150105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84704012|NCT01378065|169150106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.202
84704013|NCT01378065|169150107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84704014|NCT01378065|169150108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84704015|NCT01378065|169150109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
84704016|NCT01378065|169150110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 weeks.||||0.001
84704017|NCT01378065|169150111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 3 months.||||0.004
84704018|NCT01378065|169150112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 months.||||<.001
84704019|NCT01378065|169150113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 12 months.||||<.001
84704020|NCT00361283|169150114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|42.0||No confounders were controlled for as each person is his/her own control.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study in healthy volunteers was to compare levels at baseline to 16 weeks in ENA-78, a cytokine. The one sample t-test was used to obtain the result.||42|-264|0.15
84704021|NCT01579916|169150118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference greater than or equal to 5 percentage points. This corresponds to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||Score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (trivalent influenza virus vaccine minus placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points||0.6|-8.9|
84510477|NCT04084483|168772413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5836|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5836
84510478|NCT04084483|168772413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2352|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2352
84510479|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7367|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.7367
84704022|NCT03360396|169150133|OTHER|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||||||||||||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. SAP was updated to include descriptive statistics only. French sites remain open.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|||
84704023|NCT03360396|169150134|OTHER|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||||||||||||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|||
84704024|NCT00688519|169150137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.058
84704025|NCT00688519|169150137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Breslow-Day Test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.313
84704026|NCT00688519|169150138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.029
84704027|NCT00688519|169150139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.013
84704028|NCT00688519|169150140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.008
84704029|NCT00688519|169150141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.018
84704030|NCT00688519|169150142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.167
84704031|NCT00688519|169150142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.009
84704032|NCT00430300|169150161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0087||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.0774|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0774|-0.0943|0.0284
84704033|NCT00430300|169150161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0389||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.0471|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0471|-0.1299|0.0056
84704034|NCT00430300|169150161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.051||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1298|0.029|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0290|-0.1298|0.0009
84510480|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3865|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.3865
84510481|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8796|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.8796
84510482|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3515|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.3515
84510483|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.6338
84704035|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5849|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5849
84704036|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9737|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.9737
84704037|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.3870
84704038|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8612|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.8612
84704039|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.7499
84704040|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5134
84704041|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1244|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.1244
84704042|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.5300
84704043|NCT00430300|169150162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0550
84510484|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4685|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.4685
84704044|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7444|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.7444
84704045|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.9134
84704046|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6841|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6841
84704047|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.9283
84704048|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2991|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.2991
84704049|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7403|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.7403
84704050|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.3499
84704051|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2734|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2734
84704052|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5806|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.5806
84704053|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0540
84704054|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2616|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.2616
84510485|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4757|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.4757
84704055|NCT00430300|169150163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0724|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.02|0.0724
84510486|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8803|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.8803
84510487|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8529|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.8529
84704056|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9362|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.9362
84704057|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.9469
84704058|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9153|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.27||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.27|0.9153
84704059|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.36||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.36|0.9686
84704060|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1548
84704061|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7973|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.7973
84704062|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6348|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.6348
84704063|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.5742
84704064|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6719|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.6719
84704065|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0881|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.0881
84704066|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2772|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2772
84704067|NCT00430300|169150164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1363|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1363
84704068|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0938|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.03||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.03|0.0938
84704069|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2149|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2149
84704070|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1682|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1682
84704071|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4492|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.4492
84704072|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2539|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.2539
84704073|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8168|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.8168
84704074|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3248
84510488|NCT04084483|168772414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7713|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.7713
84510489|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.1380
84704075|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3148|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3148
84704076|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6563|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.6563
84704077|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1735|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1735
84704078|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1237|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1237
84704079|NCT00430300|169150165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6113|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.6113
84704080|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5549|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5549
84704081|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.988|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.9880
84704082|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8572|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.8572
84704083|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8402|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.8402
84704084|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6562|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.6562
84704085|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5632|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5632
84704086|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.637|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6370
84510490|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3334|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.3334
84510491|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.1008
84704087|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.4686
84704088|NCT00430300|169150166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6164|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.6164
84704089|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.9885|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.4|0.9885
84704090|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.5|0.8055
84510492|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.4582
84510493|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.1511
84704091|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9759|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.0|0.9759
84510494|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2555|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.2555
84510495|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.1546
84510496|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.0495
84704092|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4401|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.1|0.4401
84704093|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5957|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.4|0.5957
84704094|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8302|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.8302
84704095|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9657|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-3.1|0.9657
84510497|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5791|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.5791
84510498|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.0736
84510499|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.3666
84510500|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.0390
84510501|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.0655
84510502|NCT04084483|168772415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.1947
84510503|NCT04084483|168772416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9274
84704096|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6378|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.6378
84704097|NCT00430300|169150174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.899|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.2|0.8990
84704098|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8757|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8757
84704099|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6334|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6334
84704100|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5448|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.5448
84704101|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6986|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6986
84704102|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.3151
84704103|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.1802
84704104|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9102
84704105|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6391|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6391
84704106|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6838
84704107|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9648|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9648
84704108|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8961|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.8961
84704109|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9534|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.41|0.9534
84704110|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7726|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.45||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.45|0.7726
84704111|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5665|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.5665
84704112|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2684|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2684
84704113|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6485|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.39||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.39|0.6485
84510504|NCT04084483|168772416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0888
84510505|NCT04538170|168772425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance|Fisher Exact|||Preliminary work showed that approximately 25% of patients report phantom pain after orchidectomy. A difference of 20% between the GAC and ORC groups was considered relevant. Power was set to 80% and the significance level to 5%, resulting in a minimum of 40 women to be recruited, which was fulfilled.||||0.013
84510506|NCT01682083|168772434|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.58|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis, H0: λ = 1 or reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis, HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) of combination therapy relative to placebo.||0.58|0.39|< 0.0001
84510507|NCT01682083|168772435|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with dabrafenib + trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|the two-sided threshold for significance at this first interim analysis was p=0.000019||Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator.||0.79|0.42|0.006
84704114|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.4821
84510508|NCT01682083|168772436|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.65|0.40|
84704115|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2557|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2557
84704116|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9031|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.52||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.52|0.9031
84704117|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.8634
84510509|NCT01682083|168772437|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.57||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.57|0.39|
84510510|NCT00864097|168772438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.81|0.039
84510511|NCT00864097|168772438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.011
84510512|NCT00864097|168772438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
84704118|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6375|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6375
84704119|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.51||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.51|0.8775
84704120|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7191|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.7191
84704121|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.8677|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.44||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.44|0.8677
84704122|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.9838
84704123|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8106|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.8106
84704124|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.7750
84704125|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8082|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.8082
84704126|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7678|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7678
84510513|NCT00864097|168772439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.010
84510514|NCT00864097|168772439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.23|-1.03|0.002
84704127|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5373|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.5373
84704128|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9548
84704129|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9743
84704130|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8408|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.8408
84704131|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9887|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9887
84704132|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9918|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9918
84704133|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.46||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.46|0.9833
84704134|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9619
84704135|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9917|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.9917
84704136|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9376|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.9376
84704137|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9084|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9084
84704138|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7906
84704139|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8765|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8765
84704140|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8469
84510515|NCT00864097|168772439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.30|-1.10|<0.001
84510516|NCT00864097|168772440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.32|0.022
84510517|NCT00864097|168772440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.020
84704141|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9717|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9717
84704142|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.29||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.29|0.7591
84704143|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7141
84704144|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8104|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8104
84704145|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7664|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7664
84704146|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7888|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7888
84704147|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3930
84704148|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4785|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.4785
84704149|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6756|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6756
84704150|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2627|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2627
84704151|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2281|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2281
84704152|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7656|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7656
84704153|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2105|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2105
84704154|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2221|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2221
84704155|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4396|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.4396
84704156|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2243|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2243
84511744|NCT00324168|168775324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||\>33%-67%||0.14|-0.13|0.94
84510518|NCT00864097|168772440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
84510519|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.34|-0.32|0.957
84704157|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3597|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3597
84704158|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.203|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2030
84704159|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1207|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.07||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.07|0.1207
84704160|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1836|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1836
84704161|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2359|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.2359
84704162|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2861|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.2861
84704163|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2151
84704164|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3545|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.3545
84704165|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7102
84704166|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3883|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.3883
84704167|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2228|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2228
84704168|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6342|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6342
84704169|NCT00430300|169150175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.3141
84704170|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.27|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.2700
84704171|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1831|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.1831
84704172|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1796|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.1796
84704173|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8136|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.79||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.79|0.8136
84704174|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.6877
84704175|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.54||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.54|0.6382
84704176|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.766|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.87||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.87|0.7660
84704177|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7226|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.80|0.7226
84704178|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.65|0.6634
84510520|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.31|0.899
84704179|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.83||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.83|0.7598
84510521|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.72|0.06|0.022
84704180|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.59||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.59|0.5300
84704181|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.7054
84511745|NCT00324168|168775324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||\>67%-100%||0.01|-0.31|0.07
84704182|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8851|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.30|0.8851
84704183|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7575|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.05||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.05|0.7575
84704184|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4325|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.4325
84704185|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.8934|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.41|0.8934
84704186|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.82||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.82|0.5283
84704187|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.49|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.68||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.68|0.4900
84704188|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7465|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.20|0.7465
84704189|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5848|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.95||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.95|0.5848
84704190|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3178|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.53||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.53|0.3178
84704191|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8169|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.34|0.8169
84704192|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6727|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.08|0.6727
84704193|NCT00430300|169150176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.75||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.75|0.5014
84704194|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.7292|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-14.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-14.3|0.7292
84704195|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.2768|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-6.6|0.2768
84510522|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.00|-0.70|0.052
84704196|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3795|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-7.4|0.3795
84510523|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
84511746|NCT00324168|168775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||0-1.90 mm||0.20|-0.10|0.53
84704197|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7374|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.7|0.7374
84704198|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.7615|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.1|0.7615
84510524|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.13|-0.84|0.008
84510525|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.72|0.058
84704199|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.5811|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.4|0.5811
84704200|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.8939|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.8939
84704201|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.8117|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.6|0.8117
84704202|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.4393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.2|0.4393
84704203|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.7|0.8055
84704204|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.6767|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-20.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-20.2|0.6767
84704205|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.407|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.0|0.4070
84704206|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-34.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-34.7|0.9705
84704207|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.8249|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.6|0.8249
84704208|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.6|0.9345
84704209|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.7384|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.7384
84704210|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.5239|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.4|0.5239
84704211|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.417|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.7|0.4170
84704212|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.7695|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.8|0.7695
84704213|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.4566|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4566
84704214|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.3535|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.4|0.3535
84704215|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.8598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.7|0.8598
84704216|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.8005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.4|0.8005
84704217|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.3441|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.2|0.3441
84704218|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.4436|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-10.5|0.4436
84704219|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.7238|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.5|0.7238
84704220|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.1|0.5743
84704221|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.3|0.6190
84511747|NCT00324168|168775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||1.91-2.70 mm||0.16|-0.15|0.95
84704222|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9473|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.1|0.9473
84704223|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.8014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.8014
84704224|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7929|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.5|0.7929
84704225|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.9963|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-37.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-37.3|0.9963
84704226|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.7387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.1|0.7387
84704227|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.6286|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.8|0.6286
84704228|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9538|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.8|0.9538
84704229|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.5701|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.4|0.5701
84511748|NCT00324168|168775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||2.71-4.06 mm||0.18|-0.12|0.70
84704230|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.9242|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-31.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-31.3|0.9242
84704231|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.9876|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-38.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-38.8|0.9876
84704232|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.9802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.5|0.9802
84704233|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.5|0.5705
84704234|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.8063|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.1|0.8063
84704235|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.6667|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.1|0.6667
84704236|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.464|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.4|0.4640
84704237|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.8821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-29.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-29.3|0.8821
84704238|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.7591
84704239|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.4001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4001
84704240|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.8707|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.3|0.8707
84704241|NCT00430300|169150177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.4629|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.0|0.4629
84704242|NCT00430300|169150178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2023|2.0419||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in Statistical Analysis System (SAS), using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0419|0.2023|
84704243|NCT00430300|169150178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1505|2.0647||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0647|0.1505|
84510526|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|<0.001
84510527|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.38|-1.12|<0.001
84511749|NCT00324168|168775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||4.07-8.90 mm||0.01|-0.31|0.07
84511750|NCT04006171|168775361|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84704244|NCT00430300|169150178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.2879||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.2879|0.0830|
84704245|NCT00430300|169150179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|1.8204||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.8204|0.1790|
84704246|NCT00430300|169150179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1736|2.3715||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.3715|0.1736|
84704247|NCT00430300|169150179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1516|2.2777||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.2777|0.1516|
84704248|NCT01063517|169150188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.03|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.03|0.62|
84704249|NCT01063517|169150189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|1.08|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.08|0.51|
84704250|NCT01063517|169150190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.75|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.75|0.41|
84704251|NCT01063517|169150191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.56|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.56|0.22|
84704252|NCT04001829|169150222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
84704253|NCT04001829|169150223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84704254|NCT04001829|169150224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84704255|NCT04001829|169150225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84704256|NCT04001829|169150226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84704257|NCT04001829|169150227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84704258|NCT05011396|169150228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-10.5|0.0153
84704259|NCT05011396|169150229|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.1625||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.3119|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|||||0.3119|0.0132|0.0330
84704260|NCT00516386|169150287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|543.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.0|<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||We used paired t-tests to assess changes in levels of IGF-1 from baseline levels in girls with AN receiving rhIGF-1. Our hypothesis was that rhIGF-1 administration would be associated with a significant increase in IGF-1 levels.||||<0.05
84704261|NCT00516386|169150288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||We used a paired t-test to determine the change in P1NP from baseline to 7-10 days following administration of rhIGF-1||||<0.05
84704262|NCT02296424|169150311|EQUIVALENCE|nominal 2.5% two-sided significance level was expected to have 90% powe to detect a difference between the Null Hypothesis proportion of patients who remain at their dose level.||||||0.0001|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.0001
84704263|NCT01113931|169150316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
84704264|NCT01113931|169150319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
84704265|NCT01290224|169150328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided McNemar's test of the primary endpoint with 10 patients will have 86% power at 5% Type I error rate to detect a 60% difference in the percentage of at least 50% reduction in the scrambler and sham procedure, based on the assumption that the proportion of discordant pairs is at 70%.||||||0.763||95.0|||||McNemar|||McNemar's test was used to test for a difference between Scrambler and Sham procedure in their success rate.||||0.7630
84704266|NCT03684265|169150335|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|92.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.02|96.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-t. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||96.62|89.02|
84704267|NCT03684265|169150336|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|78.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.7|84.56|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for Cmax. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||84.56|73.70|
84704268|NCT03684265|169150337|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|97.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|101.72|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-∞. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||101.72|92.57|
84511751|NCT04006171|168775362|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Roc curve|||||||0.004
84511752|NCT04006171|168775363|OTHER|||||||0.171||||||p value for FSH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for FSH||||||0.171
84510528|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.91|0.007
84510529|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.41|-1.18|<0.001
84510530|NCT00864097|168772441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
84704269|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-1.||1.31|0.81|
84704270|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-3||1.16|0.8|
84704271|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-4||1.4|0.92|
84510531|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.25|0.754
84510532|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.25|-0.36|0.706
84704272|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.21|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-5||1.21|0.75|
84704273|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-6B||1.16|0.73|
84704274|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-7F||1.29|0.89|
84704275|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-9V||1.19|0.79|
84704276|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-14||1.18|0.81|
84510533|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.48|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.48|-0.13|0.266
84511753|NCT04006171|168775363|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p value for LH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for LH||||||0.176
84704277|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-18C||1.16|0.77|
84704278|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19A||1.4|0.95|
84704279|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19F||1.25|0.84|
84704280|NCT02045836|169150358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-23F||1.12|0.7|
84704281|NCT02045836|169150359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: UL of the 95% CI for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group had to be below 1.5|Adjusted GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations||1.11|0.93|
84704282|NCT02547922|169150397|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.031||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.713||The p-values presented are unadjusted and was compared with the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed, no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value was nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio \>1 favours placebo.|The model includes fixed effects for treatment group, visit, stratification factors, log-transformed 24-hour UPCR at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction. All data up to and including the date of discontinuation of study treatment were included in the analysis.||1.713|0.621|0.9052
84704283|NCT02547922|169150398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimates|-0.08||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|16.76||At Week 52, the p-values presented are unadjusted and will be compared to the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The statistical analysis represents the estimated percentage of responders. The responder/non-responder rates (percentages), the difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||16.76|-16.92|0.9929
84704284|NCT00102063|169150412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84704285|NCT00102063|169150412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84704286|NCT02498769|169150420|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.41|0.18
84704287|NCT02498769|169150421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.31|0.19
84704288|NCT02498769|169150422|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICU length of stay hours||||.16
84704289|NCT02498769|169150422|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital LOS||||.51
84704290|NCT02498769|169150423|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
84704291|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.74|-7.41|<.0001
84704292|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.16|-6.80|<.0001
84704293|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.89|-7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.28|-10.89|<.0001
84704294|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|-4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.39|-8.75|<.0001
84704295|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.56|-11.43|<.0001
84704296|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|-4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.78|-9.41|<.0001
84704297|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|-7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.08|-11.11|<.0001
84704298|NCT04707313|169150424|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.32|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.99|-9.32|<.0001
84704299|NCT04707313|169150425|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.66|-4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.63|-11.66|<.0001
84704300|NCT04707313|169150425|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.83|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.92|-11.83|<.0001
84704301|NCT04707313|169150425|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.15|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-9.47|-16.15|<.0001
84704302|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|19.3||||||||19.30|2.81|
84704303|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|16.53||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||16.53|2.62|
84704304|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.47|41.24||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||41.24|6.47|
84510534|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.12|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.12|-0.58|0.195
84511754|NCT04006171|168775364|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
84704305|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.39|37.66||||||||37.66|5.39|
84704306|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|30.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.35|80.2||||||||80.20|11.35|
84704307|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|33.53||||||||33.53|2.91|
84704308|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.28|71.95||||||||71.95|8.28|
84704309|NCT04707313|169150438|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.56|35.08||||||||35.08|4.56|
84704310|NCT04707313|169150439|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|33.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|366.64||||||||366.64|3.05|
84704311|NCT04707313|169150439|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|34.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|373.85||||||||373.85|3.10|
84704312|NCT04707313|169150439|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|127.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.55|1533.46||||||||1533.46|10.55|
84510535|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.36|-1.07|<0.001
84511755|NCT04006171|168775365|OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.795
84704313|NCT02739035|169150450|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement.||||||0.23||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.23
84704314|NCT02739035|169150451|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion (ROM) between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement. To detect this difference, a previous study's mean and standard deviation were referenced in order to predict the variation of results. 54 patients per arm were required to have 90% power with a two-sided t-test and a type I error rate of 5%. 130 patients were targeted for recruitment to account for up to a 20% dropout rate.||||||0.81||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.81
84704315|NCT00588770|169150525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The P value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified by choice of chemotherapy combination, performance status, weight loss in the last 6 months, and prior radiation of the head and neck.|Log Rank|||The study hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab will improve the median survival by 35% from 8.5 months (based on E1395 and E5397) to 11.5 months.||||0.22
84704316|NCT00546871|169150556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.067|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.134||||||||0.134||
84704317|NCT01713946|169150577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.2|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||4.20|1.16|0.008
84704318|NCT01713946|169150577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.32|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||7.32|2.10|<0.001
84704319|NCT01713946|169150578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.68|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||31.68|1.98|0.003
84704320|NCT01713946|169150578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|43.36|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||43.36|16.36|<0.001
84704321|NCT01713946|169150579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|55.73||||||||55.73|0.77|
84511756|NCT04006171|168775366|OTHER|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
84511757|NCT04006171|168775367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84704322|NCT01713946|169150579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|44.03||||||||44.03|0.57|
84511758|NCT04006171|168775368|OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
84704323|NCT01713946|169150580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.97||||||||2.97|1.05|
84704324|NCT01713946|169150580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.48||||||||6.48|2.25|
84704325|NCT01713946|169150582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.4|
84704326|NCT01713946|169150582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||||||||5.9|2.5|
84704327|NCT01713946|169150583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.07||||||||2.07|0.77|
84704328|NCT01713946|169150583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||||||||1.96|0.74|
84704329|NCT01713946|169150584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||||||||2.1|-4.4|
84704330|NCT01713946|169150584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||||4.3|-2.2|
84704331|NCT01713946|169150585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-10.5|
84704332|NCT01713946|169150585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.8|
84704333|NCT01713946|169150586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|12.3||||||||12.3|-17.9|
84704334|NCT01713946|169150586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|6.6||||||||6.6|-22.0|
84704335|NCT04036058|169150599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
84704336|NCT04036058|169150600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0435
84704337|NCT04036058|169150601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1158
84704338|NCT04036058|169150602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0898
84704339|NCT04036058|169150603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
84704340|NCT02878850|169150610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|12.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.75|-6.85|0.55
84704341|NCT02878850|169150611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|-12.48|0.92
84704342|NCT02878850|169150612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.53|||ANCOVA|||||2.53|-1.83|0.75
84704343|NCT02878850|169150613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.53|||ANCOVA|||||6.53|-2.64|0.40
84704344|NCT02878850|169150614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.94|||Chi-squared|||||2.94|1.36|<0.001
84704345|NCT02878850|169150615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.65|||Chi-squared|||||3.65|0.44|0.87
84704346|NCT02878850|169150616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.08|0.08
84704347|NCT02878850|169150617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.10|-16.84|0.35
84704348|NCT02878850|169150618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.87|-1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.87|-68.87|0.04
84704349|NCT01286272|169150620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.51|0.8457
84704350|NCT03622593|169150627|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|
84704351|NCT03622593|169150627|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|
84704352|NCT03622593|169150627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|3.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.0|-0.7|0.1718
84704353|NCT03622593|169150627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|2.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.4|-1.2|0.4602
84704354|NCT03622593|169150627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|0.0361
84704355|NCT03622593|169150627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.493|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|0.4930
84704356|NCT03622593|169150628|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|
84704357|NCT03622593|169150628|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|
84511759|NCT04006171|168775369|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84510536|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.78|0.019
84511760|NCT04006171|168775370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84511761|NCT04006171|168775371|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84704358|NCT03622593|169150628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.4||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.9|6.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.1|-16.9|0.3009
84704359|NCT03622593|169150628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-6.9||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|4.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||4.4|-18.3|0.1735
84704360|NCT03622593|169150628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|0.5757
84704361|NCT03622593|169150628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|0.4293
84704362|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
84704363|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-9.1|
84704364|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||13.4|-2.5|
84704365|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.8|-8.9|
84704366|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-2.7|
84704367|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.9|-7.3|
84704368|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-3.8|
84704369|NCT03622593|169150631|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.2|-4.9|
84704370|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.9|-8.5|
84704371|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-11.8|
84704372|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.4|-6.9|
84704373|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.1|-9.8|
84704374|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.5|-6.2|
84704375|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-8.3|
84704376|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-3.8|
84704377|NCT03622593|169150636|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-4.8|
84704378|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-1.6|
84704379|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-1.8|
84510537|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.08|-0.64|0.126
84511762|NCT04006171|168775372|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84510538|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
84704380|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-2.3|
84510539|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
84704381|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-2.4|
84704382|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-1.9|
84510540|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.007
84704383|NCT03622593|169150641|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.6|-1.5|
84704384|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.3|
84704385|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.0|
84510541|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.44|-1.21|<0.001
84704386|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.6|-2.7|
84704387|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.3|-2.9|
84704388|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.7|-2.0|
84704389|NCT03622593|169150645|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.4|-2.1|
84704390|NCT03622593|169150649|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||12.7|-3.1|
84704391|NCT03622593|169150649|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||6.2|-8.8|
84704392|NCT03622593|169150649|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||11.6|-6.5|
84704393|NCT03622593|169150649|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||7.4|-10.0|
84704394|NCT03622593|169150652|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||11.8|-2.4|
84704395|NCT03622593|169150652|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-4.1|
84704396|NCT03622593|169150652|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.4|-6.5|
84704397|NCT03622593|169150652|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.3|-6.0|
84704398|NCT03622593|169150655|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.5|-1.4|
84704399|NCT03622593|169150655|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.2|-1.6|
84704400|NCT03622593|169150655|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.1|-1.1|
84510542|NCT00864097|168772442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-1.02|0.001
84511763|NCT04006171|168775373|OTHER|||||||0.947||||||for serum glucose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for serum glucose||||||0.947
84511764|NCT04006171|168775373|OTHER|||||||0.906||||||for total cholesterol|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for total cholesterol||||||0.906
84704401|NCT03622593|169150655|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.4|-1.4|
84704402|NCT03622593|169150664|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.8|-1.0|
84704403|NCT03622593|169150664|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.0|
84704404|NCT03622593|169150664|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.8|-0.6|
84704405|NCT03622593|169150664|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.8|-0.4|
84704406|NCT03622593|169150665|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
84704407|NCT03622593|169150665|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
84704408|NCT03622593|169150665|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
84704409|NCT03622593|169150665|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
84704410|NCT03622593|169150672|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-14.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.0|-37.4|
84704411|NCT03622593|169150672|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-6.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-6.0|-29.2|
84704412|NCT03622593|169150672|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-7.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-7.0|-32.9|
84704413|NCT03622593|169150672|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-1.5||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-1.5|-27.1|
84704414|NCT03622593|169150675|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||18.9|5.7|
84704415|NCT03622593|169150675|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||14.9|1.5|
84704416|NCT03622593|169150675|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|1.6|
84704417|NCT03622593|169150675|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||13.6|-1.2|
84704418|NCT03593876|169150697|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess mean participant-therapist communication scores across intervention sessions. The mean and standard deviation of these scores was 3.00 (1.00). The a priori criterion for feasibility was a mean score of 2.0 or greater.|||
84704419|NCT03593876|169150698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change was Cohen's d(rm)=3.08.|||
84704420|NCT03593876|169150699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change, Cohen's d(rm)=1.70|||
84704421|NCT00432458|169150700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|Model was stratified by beta-2 microglobulin (high vs low), lytic bone lesions (present vs not) and bone marrow labeling index (high vs low)||||||0.02
84704422|NCT00432458|169150701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0048
84704423|NCT00432458|169150702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84511765|NCT04006171|168775373|OTHER|||||||0.428||||||for triglycerides|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for triglycerides||||||0.428
84511766|NCT04006171|168775374|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||for high density lipoprotein|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
84704424|NCT00854906|169150707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a pilot study. Therefore, no formal power analyses were performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|1.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||The paired T-test was used to compare mean KTBUT and mean FTBUT.||1.401|-0.069|0.074
84704425|NCT00854906|169150708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis will evaluate the association between OSDI with KTBUT.|Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.34||||0.093|ONE_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's KTBUT.||||0.093
84704426|NCT00854906|169150708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.26||||0.216|||||||Pearson's Correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's FTBUT.||||0.216
84704427|NCT00071799|169150709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||"A 95% CI range value of 'does not exist' is not accommodated in the results table, so all the 95% CI range values are offered here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.8 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0001
84704428|NCT00071799|169150709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.77|0.43|0.0002
84704429|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \< 65 years The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 7.1 months and high range of 15.6 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.4 and high range of 12.4 months."||||0.3973
84704430|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 65 years~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 34.7 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 16.4 months."||||<0.0001
84704431|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0707||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 75 years. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 1.7 months and high range of 15.0 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.1 and high range of 7.6 months."||||0.0707
84704432|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0042||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Male~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 10.8 and high range of 17.2 months."||||0.0042
84510543|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.05|-0.22|0.200
84510544|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.11|-0.15|0.754
84510545|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.18|-0.08|0.449
84511767|NCT04006171|168775374|OTHER|||||||0.504||||||for low density lipoprotein|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for low density lipoprotein||||||0.504
84704433|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0469||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Female~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 13.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.2 and high range of 17.6 months."||||0.0469
84704434|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 21.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.3 and high range of 21.9 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||FAB: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB). All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0056
84510546|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.27|0.062
84510547|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
84510548|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
84510549|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.31|0.032
84510550|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.19|-0.48|<0.001
84510551|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.16|-0.45|<0.001
84704435|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"FAB: RAEB in transformation~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 11.7 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.4 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0322
84704436|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB 1. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 6.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 1.8 and high range of 9.8 months."||||0.1679
84704437|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB-2~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 19.4 months."||||0.0692
84510552|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.30|0.038
84510553|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.37|0.003
84510554|NCT00864097|168772443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.016
84510555|NCT01014728|168772479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.937
84510556|NCT01014728|168772480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84510557|NCT01014728|168772481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
84704438|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: Other~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 11.1 and high range of 17.5 months."||||0.0017
84704439|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.7 and high range of 24.1 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||IPSS: Intermediate 2 All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.1030
84510558|NCT01050647|168772483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84510559|NCT01050647|168772484|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84510560|NCT01050647|168772485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84510561|NCT01050647|168772486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84510562|NCT01050647|168772487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84704440|NCT00071799|169150710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.0 and high range of 17.0 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification||IPSS: High All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0020
84704441|NCT00071799|169150711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.|Log Rank|||||||0.0025
84704442|NCT00071799|169150711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.87|0.53|0.0027
84704443|NCT00071799|169150712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2555||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||0.2555
84704444|NCT00071799|169150712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||1.15|0.60|0.2562
84704445|NCT00071799|169150713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
84704446|NCT00071799|169150714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||0.0005
84704447|NCT00071799|169150715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period||||1.000
84704448|NCT00071799|169150716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
84510563|NCT03661528|168772488|OTHER||Percentage proportion difference|13.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|4.6|0.0032
84510564|NCT03661528|168772489|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-185.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.93|-172.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis presented for ANCOVA based on ranks.||||-172.05|-199.93|<0.0001
84510565|NCT02724800|168772509|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 3.43|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.6||a priori|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-0.9|<0.05
84704449|NCT00071799|169150717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Overall (Complete + Partial Remission)||||0.0001
84704450|NCT00071799|169150717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Complete remission||||0.0150
84704451|NCT00071799|169150717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Partial Remission||||0.0094
84704452|NCT00071799|169150717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Stable Disease||||0.3297
84704453|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Any Improvement||||<0.0001
84704454|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Major||||<0.0001
84704455|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Minor||||0.6203
84704456|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Major||||0.0003
84704457|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7514||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Minor||||0.7514
84704458|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Major||||0.8695
84704459|NCT00071799|169150718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Minor||||0.1760
84704460|NCT00071799|169150719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0466
84704461|NCT00071799|169150719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.53|0.0474
84704462|NCT00071799|169150720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
84704463|NCT00071799|169150721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2|||exact binomial|||||1.20|0.35|0.1327
84704464|NCT00071799|169150723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84704465|NCT00071799|169150723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.70|0.35|<0.0001
84704466|NCT04147897|169150725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.28|||.06
84704467|NCT04147897|169150725|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.19|||.25
84704468|NCT04147897|169150726|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||0.37
84510566|NCT02724800|168772516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84704469|NCT04147897|169150726|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||.44
84704470|NCT04147897|169150727|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||.619
84704471|NCT04147897|169150727|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.26|||0.10
84704472|NCT04147897|169150728|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.32
84704473|NCT04147897|169150728|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|3.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.23|||0.16
84704474|NCT04147897|169150729|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.31
84510567|NCT02724800|168772519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84510568|NCT03561883|168772528|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.062||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.146|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.146|-0.270|0.5566
84704475|NCT04147897|169150729|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.17|||.28
84704476|NCT04147897|169150730|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.07|||.63
84704477|NCT04147897|169150730|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.9||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.12|||.46
84704478|NCT04147897|169150731|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||0.67
84704479|NCT04147897|169150731|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.10|||0.53
84704480|NCT03718767|169150786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.623
84704481|NCT03718767|169150786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.073
84704482|NCT05694065|169150791|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination ability of UFR was analyzed by ROC curve analysis using the DeLong method. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
84704483|NCT05694065|169150795|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination abilities of UFR and MLA were compared by ROC curves analysis using the DeLong method. A prespecified MLA cutoff value was applied based on the prior study. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
84704484|NCT00346333|169150796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||"Primary Analysis:Proc mixed of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over 4 years.~Power Calculation:240 patients were estimated to be needed to provide sufficient power (i.e. alpha=0.05;beta=0.10)to observe a statistically significant difference between mean change in the 2 groups on the HFA 30-2 total point score over a 4-year interval."||||0.66
84704485|NCT00346333|169150796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.52
84704486|NCT00346333|169150797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary Analysis: Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye. Each patient contributed 2, 1, or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.05
84704487|NCT00346333|169150797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.03
84704488|NCT00346333|169150798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary analysis:Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye.Each patient contributed 2,1,or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.24
84704489|NCT00346333|169150798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.20
84510569|NCT03561883|168772529|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.159|||MMRM|||Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.159|-0.176|0.9226
84510570|NCT03561883|168772530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.5|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||9.5|-6.9|
84704490|NCT00346333|169150799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over four years between the treatment groups.||||0.59
84704491|NCT00346333|169150800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over 4 years between the 2 groups.||||0.80
84704492|NCT03946670|169150891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||||0.769
84704493|NCT03946670|169150892|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.749||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.173|||Log Rank|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||1.173|0.479|0.1022
84704494|NCT03946670|169150893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.212|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.212|0.521|
84704495|NCT03946670|169150894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.205|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per Interactive Response Technology (IRT)|||1.205|0.542|
84704496|NCT03946670|169150895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.343|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.343|0.589|
84704497|NCT03946670|169150896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.440|0.570|
84704498|NCT03946670|169150898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.838|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.838|0.240|
84704499|NCT03946670|169150899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|2.601|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||2.601|0.588|
84511768|NCT04006171|168775375|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
84704500|NCT04001517|169150917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.345||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The positive value represents a better outcome with neflamapimod 40mg treatment vs. placebo.|This was an exploratory trial and no explicit a priori hypothesis was established and contained in the protocol. As such, no formal power calculations were conducted. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of neflamapimod on cognition, and accordingly the primary endpoint was change in combined z-score of the six tests in the NTB, analyzed by Linear Mixed Effects (LME) model for repeated measures.||0.345|0.001|0.049
84704501|NCT04001517|169150917|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups vs. placebo.|||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
84704502|NCT04001517|169150918|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod 40mg TID vs. placebo. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo utilizing mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. A negative value indicates improvement compared to placebo.|||-0.16|-0.96|0.007
84704503|NCT04001517|169150918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.06||Mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo. Negative values represents a better outcome with neflamapimod relative to placebo.|A secondary analysis was conducted comparing the combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.||-0.06|-0.83|0.023
84704504|NCT04001517|169150919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
84704505|NCT04001517|169150920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-3.61|0.15
84704506|NCT04001517|169150920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups (i.e., all neflamapimod) vs. placebo||2.34|-5.03|0.077
84704507|NCT04001517|169150921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change from baseline over course of study for NFMD 40mg TID vs. placebo.|||1.91|-1.27|>0.2
84704508|NCT04001517|169150922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference for the comparison of 40 mg TID vs. placebo is reported.|||-0.2|-2.6|0.024
84704509|NCT04001517|169150922|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-2.69|0.044
84704510|NCT03482011|169150954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.4|56.5|<0.001
84511769|NCT04006171|168775376|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.886
84704511|NCT03482011|169150955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|64.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.4|51.3|<0.001
84704512|NCT03482011|169150956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|11.6|<0.001
84704513|NCT03482011|169150957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|67.1|<0.001
84704514|NCT03482011|169150958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|26.0|<0.001
84704515|NCT03482011|169150959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|42.9|<0.001
84704516|NCT03482011|169150960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|14.5|<0.001
84704517|NCT03482011|169150961|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.4|42.8|<0.001
84704518|NCT03482011|169150962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|56.0|<0.001
84704519|NCT03482011|169150962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|77.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.0|54.9|<0.001
84704520|NCT03482011|169150963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-7.31|<0.001
84704521|NCT03482011|169150964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.39|-19.28|<0.001
84704522|NCT03482011|169150965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-10.37|<0.001
84704523|NCT03482011|169150966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.22|||ANCOVA|||||6.22|3.50|<0.001
84704524|NCT03482011|169150967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|6.23|||ANCOVA|||||6.23|3.33|<0.001
84704525|NCT03482011|169150968|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.2|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||72.9|63.2|<0.001
84704526|NCT03482011|169150969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Absenteeism||-0.06|-7.30|0.002
84704527|NCT03482011|169150969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-15.60|-24.89|<0.001
84704528|NCT03482011|169150969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|-15.62|||ANCOVA|||Overall Absenteeism and Presenteeism||-15.62|-26.56|<0.001
84704529|NCT03482011|169150969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-18.43|||ANCOVA|||Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-18.43|-27.39|<0.001
84511770|NCT02087904|168775406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.53||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.53|-3.13|0.834
84704530|NCT03482011|169150970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-3.08|0.004
84704531|NCT03482011|169150971|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|55.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.9|41.6|<0.001
84704532|NCT00468052|169150973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Null hypothesis is not significantly different from group D and F.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sixty subjects were required per group to determine that with Dex would decrease the incidence of severe EA after surgery by 50% with 80% power (0.05)in comparison with the control group.60 subjects were required by group to show the that intraoperative rescue fentanyl and rescue morphine in the PACU would be 50% lower in subjects receiving dex.||||.001
84704533|NCT00468052|169150973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment with Dex would reduce the incidence of severe agitation be 50% with an 80% power (alpha 0.05)||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis dexmedetomidine would be a safe and effective substitute to opiates in reducing pain and the incidence of severe EA||||.001
84704534|NCT00468052|169150974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84704535|NCT00468052|169150976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84704536|NCT00468052|169150977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84704537|NCT02709655|169150980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.36|-4.54|0.0937
84704538|NCT02709655|169150980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||1.11|-4.56|0.2336
84704539|NCT02709655|169150980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.37|-5.29|0.0879
84704540|NCT02709655|169150980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.04|-6.65|0.0531
84704541|NCT02459899|169151005|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.02|-0.53|0.07
84704542|NCT02459899|169151005|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
84704543|NCT02459899|169151005|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.65|0.006
84704544|NCT03165175|169151016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.72
84704545|NCT03165175|169151017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.598
84704546|NCT03165175|169151018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.954
84704547|NCT03165175|169151019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.167
84704548|NCT03165175|169151020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.022
84704549|NCT00762619|169151096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704550|NCT00762619|169151097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704551|NCT00762619|169151098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704552|NCT00762619|169151099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704553|NCT00762619|169151100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704554|NCT00762619|169151101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704555|NCT00762619|169151102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704556|NCT00762619|169151103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704557|NCT00762619|169151104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704558|NCT00762619|169151105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704559|NCT00762619|169151106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704560|NCT00762619|169151107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704561|NCT00762619|169151108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704562|NCT00762619|169151109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704563|NCT00762619|169151110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704564|NCT00762619|169151111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704565|NCT00762619|169151112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704566|NCT00762619|169151113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704567|NCT00762619|169151114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704568|NCT00762619|169151115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704569|NCT00762619|169151116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704570|NCT00762619|169151117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704571|NCT00762619|169151118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704572|NCT00762619|169151119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704573|NCT00762619|169151120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704574|NCT00762619|169151121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704575|NCT00762619|169151122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704576|NCT00762619|169151123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704577|NCT00762619|169151124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704578|NCT00762619|169151125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704579|NCT00762619|169151126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704580|NCT00762619|169151127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704581|NCT00762619|169151128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704582|NCT00762619|169151129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704583|NCT00762619|169151130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704584|NCT00762619|169151131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704585|NCT00762619|169151132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704586|NCT00762619|169151133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704587|NCT00762619|169151134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704588|NCT00762619|169151135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704589|NCT00762619|169151136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704590|NCT00762619|169151137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704591|NCT00762619|169151138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704592|NCT00762619|169151139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704593|NCT00762619|169151140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704594|NCT00762619|169151141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704595|NCT00762619|169151142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704596|NCT00762619|169151143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84510571|NCT03561883|168772530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.48|0.76|0.7424
84704597|NCT00762619|169151144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704598|NCT00762619|169151145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704599|NCT00762619|169151146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704600|NCT00762619|169151147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704601|NCT00762619|169151148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704602|NCT00762619|169151149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704603|NCT00762619|169151150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704604|NCT00762619|169151151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704605|NCT00762619|169151152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704606|NCT00762619|169151153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704607|NCT00762619|169151154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704608|NCT00762619|169151155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704609|NCT00762619|169151156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704610|NCT00762619|169151157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704611|NCT00762619|169151158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704612|NCT00762619|169151159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704613|NCT00762619|169151160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704614|NCT00762619|169151161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704615|NCT00762619|169151162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704616|NCT00762619|169151163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84704617|NCT01350804|169151164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|1.0|0.0458
84704618|NCT01350804|169151164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.1|0.0152
84704619|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Age covariate effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.2|-0.1|0.74
84704620|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Baseline COST effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84704621|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.002||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all cancer types (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Cancer type (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.002
84704622|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||"FACT-G7 effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.6|0.0|0.03
84704623|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|1.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Gender effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||3.7|-0.5|0.13
84704624|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.91||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all RACES (White, Black, other) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"RACE (White. Black Other) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.91
84704625|NCT03516942|169151176|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Neighborhood Deprivation (NDI) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Higher NDI = greater neighborhood deprivation"||0.3|-0.3|>0.99
84704626|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.4142||||||alpha=0.05|McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.4142
84704627|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.1797|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.1797
84704628|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.8415|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.8415
84704629|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.6831|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.6831
84704630|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
84511771|NCT02087904|168775406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-5.73|0.05
84704631|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0455|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0455
84704632|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
84704633|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0164|||||||McNemar|||3 Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0164
84704634|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|nomargin||||||0.0027|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0027
84704635|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0124|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0124
84704636|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 24 Months||||<.0001
84704637|NCT03516942|169151178|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0011|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0011
84704638|NCT03516942|169151184|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was assumed||||||0.017|||||||McNemar|||the McNemar test was used to compare the results assuming a null of no difference.||||0.017
84704639|NCT03215927|169151185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||4.26|-9.36|<0.05
84704640|NCT03215927|169151186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.77|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||2.77|0.16|<0.05
84704641|NCT03215927|169151187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|23.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||23.83|-8.80|<0.05
84704642|NCT03215927|169151188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.02|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||4.02|0.04|<0.05
84704643|NCT03779048|169151191|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.11||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests)||||||.24
84704644|NCT03779048|169151192|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|-0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and gastric emptying (acetaminophen test)||||||.34
84704645|NCT03779048|169151193|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and postprandial change in GLP-1||||||.78
84704646|NCT03779048|169151194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|1.1|.003
84704647|NCT03779048|169151195|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial hunger AUC and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
84704648|NCT03779048|169151196|OTHER|Correlation between baseline high energy density food reinforcer points earned and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
84704649|NCT03779048|169151197|OTHER|Regression results using baseline AUC for delay discounting to predict 4-week percent weight loss, controlling for participant age.|r2 change|0.033||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.033
84704650|NCT03779048|169151198|OTHER|Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.|r|0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Savory.|Regression, Linear|||||||.04
84704651|NCT03779048|169151198|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Savory.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included taughter in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.72
84704652|NCT03779048|169151198|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Sweet.|r|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.94
84704653|NCT03779048|169151198|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Sweet.|r|-0.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.09
84704654|NCT03779048|169151199|OTHER|Correlation between baseline fasting active ghrelin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.73
84704655|NCT03779048|169151200|OTHER||r|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline fasting leptin and 4-week percent weight loss.||||.25
84704656|NCT03779048|169151201|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial AUC for change in insulin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
84704657|NCT03779048|169151202|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial incremental AUC for PYY and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.82
84704658|NCT03779048|169151203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|1.1|.002
84704659|NCT03779048|169151208|SUPERIORITY|Difference between placebo- and phentermine-treated participants in change in delay discounting area under the curve from randomization to week 24 was calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for age.|F|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
84704660|NCT03779048|169151209|OTHER|Regression using the three Eating Inventory subscales (Cognitive restraint, disinhibition, hunger) to predict 4-week weight loss|r2|0.01||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||For full model including all 3 predictors|Regression, Linear|||||||.75
84704661|NCT03779048|169151210|OTHER|Correlation between baseline past-week appetite and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.09||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
84704662|NCT03779048|169151212|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores for Behavioral Inhibition (BIS) and Behavioral Activation fro Reward to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in.|r2|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84704663|NCT03779048|169151213|OTHER|Correlation between baseline BIS-15 total score and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.76
84704664|NCT02544152|169151262|OTHER||||||=|0.987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by sex and baseline stool consistency||||=0.9870
84704665|NCT00465816|169151294|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenA GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenA GMT of the Nimenrix + Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.22|0.8|
84704666|NCT00465816|169151294|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenC GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenC GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.21|0.68|
84704667|NCT00465816|169151294|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenW-135 GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenW-135 GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrixg roup compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.87|
84704668|NCT00465816|169151294|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenY GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenY GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.85|
84510572|NCT03561883|168772531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion Ratio|1.171||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.714||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.714|0.800|0.4164
84704669|NCT00465816|169151295|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.9||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates for hepatitis A (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||3.9|-1.19|
84704670|NCT00465816|169151296|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.92||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to the Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroprotection rates for hepatitis B (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||2.92|-2.64|
84704671|NCT03675581|169151329|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.83|110.67|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||110.67|92.83|
84704672|NCT03675581|169151330|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.48|101.58|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T = Test, R = Reference|||101.58|91.48|
84704673|NCT03675581|169151331|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|116.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.63|126.51|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||126.51|107.63|
84704674|NCT03675581|169151332|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|113.23|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||113.23|89.90|
84704675|NCT03675581|169151333|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|109.1|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||109.10|93.95|
84704676|NCT03675581|169151334|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|88.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.03|96.96|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||96.96|80.03|
84704677|NCT00773370|169151344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between slopes|8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.17|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||<0.25
84704678|NCT00773370|169151344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|14.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||<0.004
84704679|NCT00773370|169151344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.218
84704680|NCT00773370|169151345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.186|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.256||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.47
84704681|NCT00773370|169151345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.175||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.225
84704682|NCT00773370|169151345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.187||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.88
84704683|NCT00773370|169151346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.078||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.98
84704684|NCT00773370|169151346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.033|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.054||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.54
84704685|NCT00773370|169151346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.031|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.59
84704686|NCT00773370|169151347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.77||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope was used to compare the time course of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.||||.98
84704687|NCT00773370|169151347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.02
84704688|NCT00773370|169151347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.193|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.553||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.051
84704689|NCT01112670|169151348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84704690|NCT01112670|169151349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84704691|NCT01112670|169151350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
84704692|NCT01112670|169151351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
84704693|NCT01112670|169151352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84704694|NCT01112670|169151353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
84704695|NCT01112670|169151354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
84704696|NCT01112670|169151355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84704697|NCT01112670|169151356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84704698|NCT01112670|169151357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
84704699|NCT01112670|169151358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84704700|NCT01765543|169151359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.484|0.78||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.780|0.484|
84704701|NCT01765543|169151360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.469|0.759||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.759|0.469|
84704702|NCT01765543|169151361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.36||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||1.36|0.908|
84704703|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.61|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.61|1.27|
84704704|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.7|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.70|1.79|
84704705|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.88|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.88|1.88|
84704706|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.50|1.29|
84704707|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.05|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.05|1.57|
84704708|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.50|1.81|
84704709|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.87|0.54|
84704710|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.12|0.69|
84704711|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.06|0.66|
84704712|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.44|0.86|
84704713|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.54|0.93|
84704714|NCT04956575|169151378|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.55|0.93|
84704715|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||1.44|0.57|
84704716|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.0|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.00|0.78|
84704717|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.99|1.16|
84704718|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.21|0.91|
84704719|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.97|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.97|1.21|
84704720|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.14|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||4.14|1.68|
84704721|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.50|0.26|
84704722|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.64|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.64|0.33|
84704723|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.76|0.38|
84704724|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||0.90|0.43|
84704725|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.35|0.63|
84704726|NCT04956575|169151379|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.09|0.51|
84704727|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent difference|12.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.93|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||27.93|-2.00|
84704728|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent difference|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|39.89|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||39.89|11.18|
84704729|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.84|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||40.84|12.33|
84704730|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|25.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|40.13|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.13|9.82|
84704731|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|31.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|45.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||45.73|15.66|
84704732|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|38.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|52.3|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||52.30|22.98|
84704733|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.79|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||3.79|-24.83|
84704734|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|14.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||14.73|-14.91|
84704735|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|18.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||18.59|-11.19|
84704736|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.09|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||23.09|-6.72|
84704737|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|29.37|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||29.37|-0.74|
84704738|NCT04956575|169151382|OTHER||Percent Difference|19.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|33.22|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||33.22|3.22|
84704739|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|9.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|28.31|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||28.31|-10.62|
84704740|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|36.61|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||36.61|-1.81|
84704741|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|23.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|41.86|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||41.86|4.20|
84704742|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|20.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||20.60|-18.41|
84704743|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|22.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|40.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.60|2.09|
84704744|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|36.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|53.36|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||53.36|17.38|
84704745|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|-37.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.36|-20.45|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-20.45|-53.36|
84704746|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-26.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.66|-6.9|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-6.90|-43.66|
84704747|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|0.11|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.11|-37.95|
84704748|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|-4.26|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||-4.26|-41.09|
84704749|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|15.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of against Afluria Quadrivalent Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||15.59|-24.09|
84704750|NCT04956575|169151383|OTHER||Percent Difference|-8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|11.27|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||11.27|-28.13|
84704751|NCT00114101|169151389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This study was designed to have 80% power, with the use of the log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a hazard ratio of 1.4, assuming proportional hazards and an exponential time to event distribution. Under the assumed framework, 309 events were expected. The expected drop out rate before randomization was 15%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53||Participants were randomized with the use of a permuted-block design stratified by beta 2 microglobulin, prior use of thalidomide and prior use of lenalidomide. TTP was monitored with the use of a group sequential design for superiority and futility.|Log Rank|||||0.53|0.26|<0.001
84704752|NCT00114101|169151391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.26|0.70
84704753|NCT00114101|169151392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Fisher Exact|||||0.69|0.41|<0.001
84704754|NCT01188499|169151403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Primary objective of safety and tolerability measured by percent participants experiencing at least one adverse event. No formal statistics performed.|||||
84704755|NCT01188499|169151404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percent patients overall across all five arms demonstrating complete or partial response by RECIST. No formal statistics performed.|||||
84704756|NCT00424762|169151406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect at least 33% difference between groups||||>0.05
84704757|NCT00424762|169151407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect difference of at least 10% between groups||||0.26
84704758|NCT00424762|169151408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparative incidence||||0.03
84704759|NCT00723450|169151433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||95.0|||||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was performed where the stratification factor was the index mood state at Screen visit.||||||0.0717
84704760|NCT00189202|169151455|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 8% plus or minus 4.||||||0.28|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
84704761|NCT00189202|169151456|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.70
84704762|NCT02248480|169151519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84704763|NCT01582269|169151564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.6158|1.49|0.58|
84704764|NCT01582269|169151564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.2628|1.65|0.78|
84704765|NCT02582593|169151587|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||t = .581, only 1 comparison (2 groups) and thus multiple comparison correction not needed|t-test, 2 sided|||An independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Pre-post intervention change scores for the Active and Sham groups;. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.575
84704766|NCT02582593|169151588|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|1.06||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 1.574; only two comparisons, thus not necessary to adjust|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.160
84704767|NCT02582593|169151589|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||.424
84704768|NCT02582593|169151590|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-1.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment necessary, only 1 comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||0.099
84704769|NCT03785782|169151591|OTHER|||||||0.2988|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2988
84704770|NCT03785782|169151592|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.36
84704771|NCT03785782|169151593|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.43
84704772|NCT03785782|169151594|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
84704773|NCT03785782|169151595|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
84704774|NCT03785782|169151596|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
84704775|NCT03785782|169151597|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
84704776|NCT03785782|169151598|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
84704777|NCT03785782|169151599|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.34
84704778|NCT03785782|169151600|OTHER|||||||0.7465|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7465
84704779|NCT03785782|169151601|OTHER|||||||0.0466|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0466
84704780|NCT03785782|169151602|OTHER|||||||0.1567|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1567
84704781|NCT03785782|169151603|OTHER|||||||0.1837|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1837
84704782|NCT03785782|169151604|OTHER|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7447
84704783|NCT03785782|169151605|OTHER|||||||0.0739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0739
84704784|NCT03785782|169151606|OTHER|||||||0.9995|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9995
84704785|NCT00818454|169151607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84704786|NCT00818454|169151608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84704787|NCT00818454|169151609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.159
84704788|NCT00818454|169151610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8278|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.8278
84704789|NCT00818454|169151611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.5098
84704790|NCT00818454|169151612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6591|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6591
84704791|NCT00818454|169151613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3631|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.3631
84704792|NCT00818454|169151614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Enter additional comments here, if non-inferiority or equivalence analysis||||||0.6787|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6787
84704793|NCT00818454|169151615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0001
84704794|NCT00818454|169151616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0003
84704795|NCT01786564|169151677|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.075||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.023||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep duration and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.023|-.173|.13
84704796|NCT01786564|169151677|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis|Regression Coefficient|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted.||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep quality (sleep percentage) and oral disposition index was analyzed.||1.19|-0.95|.83
84704797|NCT01786564|169151677|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.05||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.66||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted||The cross-sectional association between amount of Stage 3 sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||0.66|-.166|.39
84704798|NCT01786564|169151677|OTHER|Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression Coefficient|-0.058||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.014||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted association.||The cross-sectional association between amount of REM sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.014|-.129|.11
84704799|NCT03034915|169151692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.089|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.089|0.043|<0.001
84704800|NCT03034915|169151692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.164|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.164|0.118|<0.001
84704801|NCT03034915|169151692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.098|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.098|0.051|<0.001
84704802|NCT03034915|169151693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.68|0.06|0.018
84704803|NCT03034915|169151693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.76|0.15|0.004
84704804|NCT03034915|169151693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24|||0.39|-0.23|0.610
84704805|NCT03034915|169151694|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.75|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 24|||1.75|1.17|<0.001
84704806|NCT03034915|169151694|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24|||1.81|1.21|<0.001
84704807|NCT03034915|169151694|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.27|0.84|0.755
84704808|NCT03034915|169151695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.11|-0.95|0.013
84704809|NCT03034915|169151695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24..|||-0.42|-1.25|<0.001
84704810|NCT03034915|169151695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24|||0.12|-0.72|0.159
84704811|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.05|-0.50|0.016
84704812|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.23|-0.68|<0.001
84704813|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.04|-0.41|0.115
84704814|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.05|-0.20|0.247
84704815|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.00|-0.25|0.042
84704816|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.18|0.391
84704817|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.04|-0.31|0.014
84704818|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comapring UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
84704819|NCT03034915|169151696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.20|0.340
84704820|NCT03034915|169151697|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||1.89|1.22|<0.001
84704821|NCT03034915|169151697|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.9|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.90|1.23|<0.001
84704822|NCT03034915|169151697|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.26|0.80|0.969
84704823|NCT03034915|169151698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.57|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.57|-1.07|0.709
84704824|NCT03034915|169151698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.39|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.39|-2.99|0.011
84704825|NCT03034915|169151698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.61|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.61|-3.27|0.004
84704826|NCT03034915|169151699|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.48|0.99|0.063
84510573|NCT03561883|168772531|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion|Difference in Proportion Ratio|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.123|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.123|-0.054|
84704827|NCT03034915|169151699|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.83|1.22|<0.001
84704828|NCT03034915|169151699|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.51|1.00|0.045
84511772|NCT02087904|168775406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.66|-4.00|0.415
84704829|NCT03034915|169151700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.6|-0.6|0.891
84704830|NCT03034915|169151700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.074
84704831|NCT03034915|169151700|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.107
84704832|NCT03034915|169151701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.65|1.11|0.003
84704833|NCT03034915|169151701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.50|1.01|0.037
84704834|NCT03034915|169151701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.11|0.75|0.363
84704835|NCT02138006|169151703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
84704836|NCT03861767|169151705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.97||||||Low dose groups collapsed and compared to placebo||1.97|0.67|
84704837|NCT03861767|169151705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||||||Intermediate dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.25|0.42|
84704838|NCT03861767|169151705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.84||||||High dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.84|0.61|
84510574|NCT02096718|168772537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.743|156.045|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||156.045|95.743|
84704839|NCT03861767|169151706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.03|0.52|0.92
84704840|NCT03861767|169151707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.00|0.52|0.80
84704841|NCT03861767|169151708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.11|0.49|0.65
84704842|NCT03861767|169151709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.62|0.73|0.23
84704843|NCT03861767|169151710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.86|0.71|0.31
84704844|NCT03861767|169151711|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.97
84704845|NCT03861767|169151712|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.30
84704846|NCT03861767|169151713|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.65
84704847|NCT03861767|169151715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.74|0.27
84511773|NCT02087904|168775407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.141||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.141|-0.021|0.145
84704848|NCT03861767|169151716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.44|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||7.44|1.19|0.01
84704849|NCT03861767|169151717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||5.30|1.34|<0.01
84704850|NCT03861767|169151718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed into one group and compared with placebo. Patients were compared whether they were discharged home or other.||1.56|0.52|0.72
84704851|NCT01254019|169151725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.334||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.645|35.312||Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||35.312|-14.645|0.415
84704852|NCT01254019|169151726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|2.88||Statistical significance (SS) was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||2.88|-3.95|0.757
84704853|NCT01254019|169151727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.095||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.095|-0.137|0.718
84704854|NCT01254019|169151728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.111||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.111|-0.129|0.881
84704855|NCT01254019|169151729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.115||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.097|3.866||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||3.866|-6.097|0.658
84704856|NCT01254019|169151730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.164||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.164|-0.082|0.513
84704857|NCT01254019|169151731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.965||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.446|5.516||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||5.516|-7.446|0.769
84704858|NCT01254019|169151734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4044.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5232.21|-2857.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||-2857.77|-5232.21|0.000
84704859|NCT01254019|169151740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0288||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0738||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI2 at Week 48||0.0738|-0.0161|0.207
84704860|NCT01254019|169151740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0048||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI3 at Week 48||0.0676|-0.0580|0.880
84704861|NCT03061474|169151749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6096|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6096
84704862|NCT03061474|169151759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.648
84704863|NCT03061474|169151760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6833
84704864|NCT03061474|169151761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4438
84704865|NCT03061474|169151762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7158|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7158
84704866|NCT03061474|169151763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93428359|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93428359
84704867|NCT03061474|169151764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9931|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9931
84704868|NCT03061474|169151765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3233
84704869|NCT03061474|169151766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1008
84704870|NCT03061474|169151767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
84704871|NCT01391130|169151770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2149||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7462|1.9779|||Log Rank|||||1.9779|0.7462|0.4318
84704872|NCT04303156|169151775|OTHER||GMR|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.88|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.88|1.68|
84704873|NCT04303156|169151776|OTHER||GMR|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.55|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.55|1.46|
84704874|NCT04303156|169151777|OTHER||GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.57|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.57|0.67|
84704875|NCT04303156|169151780|OTHER||GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.6|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.60|0.35|
84704876|NCT04303156|169151781|OTHER||GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.56|
84704877|NCT04303156|169151782|OTHER||GMR|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.14|1.03|
84704878|NCT04303156|169151783|OTHER||GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.93|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.93|0.98|
84704879|NCT04303156|169151784|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.39|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.39|0.64|
84704880|NCT04303156|169151786|OTHER||GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.35|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.35|0.69|
84704881|NCT04303156|169151787|OTHER||GMR|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|6.02|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|6.02|0.55|
84704882|NCT04303156|169151788|OTHER||GMR|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.8|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|4.80|1.51|
84704883|NCT00843882|169151828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84704884|NCT00843882|169151837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84704885|NCT05797155|169151843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month.||2.67|1.04|.036
84704886|NCT05797155|169151843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||1.72|0.72|.632
84704887|NCT05797155|169151844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the condition by time interaction).|This is a longitudinal analysis from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||.437
84704888|NCT05797155|169151845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.42|0.94|.088
84704889|NCT05797155|169151845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.07|0.64|.646
84704890|NCT05797155|169151846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.72|1.15|.010
84704891|NCT05797155|169151846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.11|0.89|.158
84704892|NCT00026312|169151847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6803||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1016
84704893|NCT00026312|169151848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6176||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1057
84704894|NCT00026312|169151851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The number of courses of therapy delivered or patients randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy and non-randomly assigned to Regimen B after halting of randomization, excluding patients with persistent disease, were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.0262
84704895|NCT00026312|169151852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.4471||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0634
84704896|NCT00026312|169151852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log-Rank Test Statistic|4.1362||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.042
84704897|NCT02445391|169151865|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for testing non-inferiority of platinum was defined as that the hazard ratio (HR) for platinum/capecitabine ≥ 1.154 (ie, HR of 1.154 was used as the non-inferiority margin). The alternative hypothesis was HR=0.754 for platinum/ capecitabine. The 4-year IDFS rate was expected to be 67% on capecitabine arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81|||||The 95% confidence interval provided above was the Jennison and Turnbull repeated confidence interval.|||1.81|0.62|
84704898|NCT05793112|169151884|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|57.57||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon range sum test|||||||0.154
84704899|NCT05793112|169151885|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
84704900|NCT05793112|169151886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.471|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.471
84704901|NCT05793112|169151887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 0 (Baseline)||||0.057
84704902|NCT05793112|169151887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.169
84704903|NCT05793112|169151887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.168
84704904|NCT05793112|169151887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.139
84704905|NCT05793112|169151887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.348
84704906|NCT03762668|169151908|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in VA was declared if the Upper Confidence Limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||mixed effects repeated measures model||test minus control|||0.01||
84704907|NCT05764161|169151913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||2.143|0.651|0.5859
84704908|NCT05764161|169151913|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|17.46||||||||17.46|-9.84|
84704909|NCT05764161|169151914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.683|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||3.683|0.938|0.0741
84704910|NCT05764161|169151914|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|23.23||||||||23.23|-0.93|
84704911|NCT05764161|169151915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.740|0.750|0.1493
84704912|NCT05764161|169151915|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|14.51||||||||14.51|-2.18|
84704913|NCT05764161|169151916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.193|0.0142
84704914|NCT05764161|169151916|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.01||||||||24.01|2.90|
84704915|NCT05764161|169151917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.897|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.897|1.060|0.0387
84704916|NCT05764161|169151917|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|18.0||||||||18.00|0.98|
84704917|NCT05764161|169151919|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.39|-1.35|0.0005
84704918|NCT05764161|169151919|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.45|-1.64|0.0007
84704919|NCT05764161|169151919|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.36|-1.81|0.0036
84704920|NCT05764161|169151919|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.09|-1.65|0.0287
84704921|NCT05764161|169151921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|2.468|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.468|1.288|0.0005
84704922|NCT05764161|169151922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.477||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.150|1.015|0.0399
84704923|NCT05764161|169151925|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.31|-1.29|0.0016
84704924|NCT05764161|169151925|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.24|-1.51|0.0071
84704925|NCT05764161|169151925|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.14|-1.60|0.0198
84704926|NCT05764161|169151925|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.20|-1.40|0.1384
84704927|NCT05764161|169151931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||0.14|-2.80|0.0759
84704928|NCT05764161|169151931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||0.41|-2.78|0.1447
84704929|NCT05764161|169151931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.91|-2.64|0.3395
84704930|NCT05764161|169151931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||1.19|-2.53|0.4794
84704931|NCT05764161|169151933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|7.57|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||7.57|-2.38|0.3053
84704932|NCT05764161|169151933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||6.95|-2.72|0.3893
84704933|NCT05764161|169151933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|7.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||7.50|-1.86|0.2357
84704934|NCT05764161|169151933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|6.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||6.47|-3.66|0.5839
84704935|NCT04589689|169152010|OTHER|||||||0.777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3 months.||||0.777
84704936|NCT04589689|169152010|OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month.||||0.247
84704937|NCT04589689|169152011|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.160
84704938|NCT04589689|169152011|OTHER|||||||0.275||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.275
84704939|NCT04589689|169152012|OTHER|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.509
84704940|NCT04589689|169152012|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.610
84704941|NCT04589689|169152013|OTHER|||||||0.807||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.807
84704942|NCT04589689|169152013|OTHER|||||||0.826||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.826
84704943|NCT04589689|169152014|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.076
84704944|NCT04589689|169152014|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.747
84704945|NCT04589689|169152015|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.154
84704946|NCT04589689|169152015|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.107
84704947|NCT04589689|169152016|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.445
84704948|NCT04589689|169152016|OTHER|||||||0.543||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.543
84704949|NCT04589689|169152017|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.157
84704950|NCT03260140|169152033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.24|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||-0.61|-3.24|0.001
84704951|NCT03260140|169152034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.49|-1.11|0.388
84704952|NCT03260140|169152035|SUPERIORITY||Sign test|1.76||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.66|||F test-ratio of 2 McNemar's Chi-Squares|||Group-specific McNemar's Chi-Square tests were applied to examine the change from baseline to follow-up in dichotomized IPAQ (\>=150 vs \<150) minutes of physical activity per week. To compare intervention vs. control at 12 months, we applied an F test. The intervention effect was an odds ratio of the ratios of discordant pairs in the intervention vs the control group.||3.66|0.85|0.308
84704953|NCT03260140|169152036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.24|-0.61|0.396
84704954|NCT03260140|169152037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.61|-1.02|0.657
84704955|NCT03260140|169152038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.68|-2.33|0.281
84704956|NCT03260140|169152039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rodgers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.23|-0.11|0.483
84704957|NCT03260140|169152040|SUPERIORITY||Mean percent change in HbA1c|0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average HbA1c at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis on log-transformed HbA1c comparing the average HbA1c between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.69|-2.57|0.985
84510575|NCT02096718|168772537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|149.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.266|213.671|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.671|105.266|
84704958|NCT03260140|169152041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.55|-1.99|0.806
84704959|NCT03260140|169152042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average DBP at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month DBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.05|-1.77|0.620
84704960|NCT03260140|169152043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SPB at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average SBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.28|-2.32|0.987
84704961|NCT00463788|169152044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|5.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Randomization strata: first- or second line according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).||||5.591|0.809|0.1109
84704962|NCT00463788|169152045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.969|||Log Rank|||||0.969|0.470|0.0324
84704963|NCT00463788|169152046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.561|0.3121
84704964|NCT00463788|169152047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.17|||Log Rank|||||2.170|0.262|0.5993
84704965|NCT00360698|169152049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.68||||0.0499||95.0|0.01|28.37|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of patients with Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) level \<7%. A sample size of 98 randomized (49/arm) patients would allow to demonstrate with 80% power that 40 % of patients in the Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group would achieve a HbA1c level \< 7 % compared to 15 % of patients in the Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group(5% alpha risk, 2-sided test).||28.37|0.01|0.0499
84704966|NCT00360698|169152051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of treatment.||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
84704967|NCT00360698|169152053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.987||0.0109||95.0|-22.83|-3.04||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline daily mean plasma glucose as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in daily mean plasma glucose at the end of treatment.||-3.04|-22.83|0.0109
84704968|NCT00360698|169152054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5762||95.0|-0.61|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline weight as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in weight at the end of treatment.||1.1|-0.61|0.5762
84704969|NCT00360698|169152057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.958
84704970|NCT00360698|169152058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.302
84704971|NCT00360698|169152059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the treatment period.||||0.192
84704972|NCT01755949|169152060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.038
84704973|NCT01755949|169152060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.98
84704974|NCT01755949|169152060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between placebo and colchicine levels at day 28||||0.072
84704975|NCT01755949|169152061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo vs colchicine||||0.08
84704976|NCT01063972|169152075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84704977|NCT01063972|169152076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
84704978|NCT01063972|169152077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84704979|NCT01063972|169152078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84704980|NCT03401112|169152099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0686
84704981|NCT03401112|169152099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0294
84704982|NCT03475316|169152103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.49|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the composite score pre and post intervention.||1.49|-1.14|
84704983|NCT03475316|169152104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|166.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-202.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.12|563.44|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Digit Symbol Substitution test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||563.44|-231.12|
84704984|NCT03475316|169152104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|80.4|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) and p-values are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Flanker interference test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||80.40|-31.20|
84704985|NCT03475316|169152104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|158.58|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Imagery of Walking-While Talking task at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||158.58|-42.14|
84704986|NCT03475316|169152105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.64|||||The Estimation Parameter is the difference in change at post from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the CHAMPS scores pre and post intervention.||6.64|-5.10|
84704987|NCT03475316|169152106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|26.14|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in gait speed pre and post intervention.||26.14|-11.60|
84704988|NCT03475316|169152107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.55|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in unipedal stance time pre and post intervention.||14.55|-13.40|
84704989|NCT03475316|169152109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.46|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the geriatric depression scale pre and post intervention.||3.46|-1.30|
84704990|NCT01152190|169152166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.121||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.121
84704991|NCT01152190|169152167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.226||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.226
84704992|NCT01152190|169152168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.208||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
84704993|NCT01152190|169152168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.066||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.066
84704994|NCT01152190|169152168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.195||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.195
84704995|NCT01152190|169152168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.625||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.625
84704996|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.439||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.439
84704997|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.86||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.860
84704998|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937||0.24||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.240
84704999|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.839||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.839
84705000|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.468||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.468
84705001|NCT01152190|169152169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.199||0.131||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.131
84705002|NCT02601170|169152211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84705003|NCT00385801|169152224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The effect of treatment on intensity of craving was assessed and the threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.03||Intensity of craving||||0.86
84705004|NCT05777785|169152269|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9789||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84705005|NCT05777785|169152271|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
84705006|NCT05777785|169152272|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
84705007|NCT00304031|169152292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||One-sided|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|This study was looking for a 20% reduction in hazard rate: null hypothesis (conventional arm): Median survival time (MST) = 14.0 mo.; alternative hypothesis (dose-dense arm): MST= 17.5 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 750 patients (647 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.20|0.88|0.63
84705008|NCT00304031|169152293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|||1.00|0.75|0.06
84705009|NCT00304031|169152294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.19|0.82|0.44
84705010|NCT00304031|169152294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.62|0.87|0.86
84705011|NCT00304031|169152295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.05|0.73|0.15
84705012|NCT00304031|169152295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.15|0.66|0.33
84705013|NCT00304031|169152296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
84705014|NCT00304031|169152297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level of 0.05||||||<0.001
84705015|NCT00304031|169152298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84705016|NCT00304031|169152299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
84705017|NCT00304031|169152300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84705018|NCT00304031|169152301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84705019|NCT00304031|169152302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84705020|NCT00304031|169152303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84705021|NCT00304031|169152304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
84705022|NCT00304031|169152305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84705023|NCT00304031|169152306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2184
84705024|NCT00304031|169152306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA class is reported here.||||0.0763
84705025|NCT00304031|169152306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.5235
84705026|NCT00304031|169152307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
84705027|NCT00304031|169152308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
84705028|NCT00304031|169152309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.0002
84705029|NCT00304031|169152310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.005
84705030|NCT00304031|169152311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.018
84705031|NCT00304031|169152312|SUPERIORITY|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||||||0.1702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI Symptom Severity Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.1702
84705032|NCT00304031|169152312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.8159
84705033|NCT00304031|169152312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.2174
84705034|NCT00304031|169152313|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. EORTC physical functioning is reported here.||||0.023
84705035|NCT00304031|169152313|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized HVLT-R recognition is reported here.||||0.043
84705036|NCT00304031|169152313|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized COWA is reported here.||||0.021
84705037|NCT00304031|169152314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2357
84705038|NCT00304031|169152314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.0147
84705039|NCT00304031|169152314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT Status is reported here.||||0.457
84705040|NCT00304031|169152315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.02
84705041|NCT00304031|169152316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.99
84705042|NCT00304031|169152317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.33
84705043|NCT02396316|169152364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean change|-4.9||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value were based on treatment difference of the LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stage of NVG for randomization as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate. The superiority of aflibercept injection to sham injection was to be established if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) is less than 0.||0.3|-10.2|0.0644
84705044|NCT02396316|169152365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MH adjusted difference|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|81.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The point estimate of the treatment difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) at Week 1 and its two-sided 95% confidence interval stratified by stage of NVG (as randomized) using Mantel-Haenszel weights.||81.2|37.0|
84705045|NCT02189252|169152415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|160.05||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.71|395.82||The closed sequential testing procedure stopped at this step as the P Value is greater than 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the first test in the fixed testing sequence.||395.82|64.71|0.2702
84705046|NCT02189252|169152415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|121.61||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.17|300.76||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the second test in the fixed testing sequence.||300.76|49.17|0.6367
84705047|NCT02189252|169152416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|193.91||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.61|377.47||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the third test in the fixed testing sequence.||377.47|99.61|0.0511
84705048|NCT02189252|169152416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|133.32||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.49|259.52||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the fourth test in the fixed testing sequence.||259.52|68.49|0.3543
84705049|NCT02189252|169152417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|259.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.75|560.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||560.99|119.75|0.0210
84705050|NCT02189252|169152417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|177.95||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.22|385.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||385.16|82.22|0.1256
84705051|NCT02189252|169152418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|298.91||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.32|543.74||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||543.74|164.32|0.0025
84705052|NCT02189252|169152418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|187.28||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.95|340.66||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||340.66|102.95|0.0418
84705053|NCT02189252|169152419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|79.36||||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|274.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||274.45|22.95|0.6833
84705054|NCT02189252|169152419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|69.39||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|239.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||239.98|20.07|0.5220
84705055|NCT02189252|169152420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.78||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.92|244.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||244.41|44.92|0.9034
84705056|NCT02189252|169152420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|80.58||||0.5782||95.0|34.55|187.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.95|34.55|0.5782
84705057|NCT02189252|169152421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|753.75||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.03|5071.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5071.6|112.03|0.0391
84705058|NCT02189252|169152421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.98||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|706.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||706.33|15.60|0.9578
84705059|NCT02189252|169152422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|376.64||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.55|1103.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1103.5|128.55|0.0186
84705060|NCT02189252|169152422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|131.74||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.97|386.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||386.00|44.97|0.5955
84705061|NCT00566735|169152424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||Independent t-test to assess differences between the placebo and galantamine groups in regard to pre- and post-ECT scores on the Delayed Memory Index (DMI).||||<0.05
84705062|NCT04603924|169152428|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement will be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median time-to-clinical improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves. In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
84705063|NCT04603924|169152429|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement were be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median number of days to a 2-point improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves.~In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
84705064|NCT02164240|169152438|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.7||descriptive statistics only||||Clinical benefit rate of at least 30% at 16 weeks for the entire, combined population, was considered worthy of further study.||24.7|0|
84705065|NCT02731755|169152443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between time points and treatments, calculated p value||||0.5
84705066|NCT02731755|169152444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach-iAUC||||0.04
84705067|NCT02731755|169152444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNP-IAUC||||0.007
84705068|NCT02731755|169152444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach - AUC||||0.02
84705069|NCT02731755|169152445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
84705070|NCT02731755|169152447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
84705071|NCT02139046|169152464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|30.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||30.9|20.4|<0.001
84705072|NCT02139046|169152464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|55.8||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||55.8|43.9|<0.001
84705073|NCT02139046|169152464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|10.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|17.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||17.0|3.5|0.001
84705074|NCT02139046|169152464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||15.9|-0.8|0.043
84705075|NCT02139046|169152465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||9.0|-4.9|0.503
84705076|NCT02139046|169152465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||13.0|-1.2|0.064
84705077|NCT02139046|169152465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||8.7|-5.1|0.561
84511774|NCT02087904|168775407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.056||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.11|0.52
84510576|NCT02096718|168772538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|101.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.931|140.309|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||140.309|72.931|
84705078|NCT02139046|169152465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.5||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||6.9|-8.0|0.869
84705079|NCT02139046|169152466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|53.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||53.6|41.6|<0.001
84705080|NCT02139046|169152466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|66.3||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||66.3|54.6|<0.001
84705081|NCT02139046|169152466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|16.1||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||16.1|-0.5|0.036
84511775|NCT02087904|168775407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.139||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|-0.023|0.159
84705082|NCT02139046|169152466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|3.3||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||11.6|-4.9|0.364
84510577|NCT02096718|168772538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|121.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|163.162|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||163.162|90.790|
84705083|NCT00779870|169152469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84705084|NCT00779870|169152469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84705085|NCT01040689|169152472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.145|<0.0001
84705086|NCT01040689|169152472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.167|<0.0001
84705087|NCT01040689|169152472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.133|<0.0001
84510578|NCT02096718|168772539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.141|155.928|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||155.928|96.141|
84705088|NCT01040689|169152473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.090|<0.0001
84511776|NCT02087904|168775408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|3.642||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.642|-3.193|0.897
84705089|NCT01040689|169152473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.136|<0.0001
84705090|NCT01040689|169152473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
84705091|NCT01040689|169152474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.121|<0.0001
84705092|NCT01040689|169152474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.155|<0.0001
84705093|NCT01040689|169152474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.110|<0.0001
84705094|NCT01040689|169152475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.147|<0.0001
84705095|NCT01040689|169152475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.178|<0.0001
84705096|NCT01040689|169152475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.097|<0.0001
84705097|NCT01040689|169152476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.170|<0.0001
84705098|NCT01040689|169152476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.179|<0.0001
84705099|NCT01040689|169152476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.146|<0.0001
84705100|NCT01040689|169152477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.177|<0.0001
84705101|NCT01040689|169152477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.203|<0.0001
84705102|NCT01040689|169152477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.125|<0.0001
84705103|NCT01040689|169152478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
84705104|NCT01040689|169152478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.189|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.189|<0.0001
84705105|NCT01040689|169152478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.156|<0.0001
84705106|NCT01040689|169152479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.170|0.096|<0.0001
84705107|NCT01040689|169152479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.110|<0.0001
84705108|NCT01040689|169152479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|0.060|<0.0001
84705109|NCT01040689|169152480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.216|<0.0001
84705110|NCT01040689|169152480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.237|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.237|<0.0001
84705111|NCT01040689|169152480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.210|<0.0001
84705112|NCT01040689|169152481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.131|<0.0001
84705113|NCT01040689|169152481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.187|<0.0001
84705114|NCT01040689|169152481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.118|<0.0001
84705115|NCT01040689|169152482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.301|0.178|<0.0001
84705116|NCT01040689|169152482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.216|<0.0001
84705117|NCT01040689|169152482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.168|<0.0001
84705118|NCT01040689|169152483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.207|<0.0001
84705119|NCT01040689|169152483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.251|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.251|<0.0001
84705120|NCT01040689|169152483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.153|<0.0001
84705121|NCT01040689|169152484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.246|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.246|<0.0001
84705122|NCT01040689|169152484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.247|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.247|<0.0001
84705123|NCT01040689|169152484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.231|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.231|<0.0001
84705124|NCT01040689|169152485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.378|0.222|<0.0001
84705125|NCT01040689|169152485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.220|<0.0001
84705126|NCT01040689|169152485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.217|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.217|<0.0001
84705127|NCT01040689|169152486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.115|<0.0001
84705128|NCT01040689|169152486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.143|<0.0001
84705129|NCT01040689|169152486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.059|0.0003
84705130|NCT03593213|169152501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||=|0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.29||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.29|0.25|=0.1576
84705131|NCT03593213|169152501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.45||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.45|0.26|=0.2066
84705132|NCT01068743|169152526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|104.84|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries. LS=Least Squares.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||104.84|98.17|
84705133|NCT01068743|169152526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|105.42|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf,respectively.||105.42|99.53|
84705134|NCT01068743|169152526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.23||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
84705135|NCT01068743|169152526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.94||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
84705136|NCT01068743|169152526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|52.71||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
84705137|NCT01068743|169152526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|53.99||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
84705138|NCT01068743|169152529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.68|110.88|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||110.88|94.68|
84705139|NCT01068743|169152529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|106.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.43|114.66|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||114.66|98.43|
84705140|NCT01068743|169152529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.73||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
84705141|NCT01068743|169152529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
84705142|NCT01068743|169152529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.33||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
84705143|NCT01068743|169152529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
84705144|NCT01068743|169152530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.26|107.18|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||107.18|97.26|
84705145|NCT01068743|169152530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.23|102.21|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.21|96.23|
84705146|NCT01068743|169152530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11998.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A.||||
84705147|NCT01068743|169152530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12250.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
84705148|NCT01068743|169152530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12036.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
84705149|NCT01068743|169152530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11937.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
84705150|NCT01068743|169152531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.41|109.5|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||109.5|90.41|
84705151|NCT01068743|169152531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|102.32|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.32|94.28|
84705152|NCT01068743|169152531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL|1724.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
84705153|NCT01068743|169152531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Means (ng/mL)|1715.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
84705154|NCT01068743|169152531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (ng/mL)|1581.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
84705155|NCT01068743|169152531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1553.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
84705156|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.07|104.9|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||104.90|98.07|
84705157|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.56|105.57|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.57|99.56|
84705158|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.15|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
84705159|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.83|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
84705160|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|50.89|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
84705161|NCT01068743|169152536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|52.17|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
84705162|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|105.68|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.68|95.40|
84705163|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|102.02|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.02|96.19|
84705164|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11827.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
84705165|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11875.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
84705166|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11845.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
84705167|NCT01068743|169152539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11734.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
84705168|NCT01667796|169152563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate generalized estimating equati|||||||0.001
84705169|NCT01667796|169152563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for adherence, body mass index, and oral contraceptive use|Generalized estimating equation|||||||0.008
84705170|NCT02755116|169152571|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted relative risk|0.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2|||log-binomial regression|||||1.20|0.48|0.003
84705171|NCT02200770|169152576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1496|0.4961|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4961|0.1496|<0.0001
84705172|NCT02200770|169152577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.352||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1755|0.7059|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7059|0.1755|0.0033
84510579|NCT02096718|168772539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|150.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.626|213.25|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.250|105.626|
84705173|NCT02200770|169152578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.096||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0254|2.2941|||ANCOVA|||||2.2941|-2.0254|0.9026
84510580|NCT01939197|168772573|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-inferiority of the percentage of participants in the GT1 Analysis Group in Part 2 achieving SVR12 compared to the historical SVR12 rate for sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (a non-inferiority threshold of the lower bound of the 95% CI of 74%).|||||||||||||||||"The historical SVR rate, as reported in the PHOTON-1 study, for sofosbuvir and RBV in HCV/HIV-1 coinfected adults is 76% (87/114) with a 95% confidence interval of (67%, 84%).~Reference: Sulkowski MS, Naggie S, Lalezari J, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C in patients with HIV coinfection. JAMA. 2014;312(4):353-61."|||
84705174|NCT02200770|169152579|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.566||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3866|0.8279|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.8279|0.3866|0.0034
84705175|NCT02200770|169152580|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.317||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1257|0.7972|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.7972|0.1257|0.0146
84705176|NCT01214824|169152601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison is HbA1c at 6 months versus Baseline||||0.014
84705177|NCT01214824|169152603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5304||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Comparison is masked phase 2 versus masked phase 1||||0.5304
84705178|NCT02476409|169152615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.094
84705179|NCT02476409|169152616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.166
84705180|NCT02476409|169152616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.491
84705181|NCT02476409|169152617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||P-value for Change in Dyspnea VAS - Baseline to Day 3 Tolvaptan versus placebo.||||0.543
84705182|NCT02476409|169152618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.050
84705183|NCT02476409|169152619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
84705184|NCT02476409|169152620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.034
84705185|NCT02476409|169152621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.643
84705186|NCT00468910|169152679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was powered to detect an attributable change in the aspirin group of 50% relative to baseline values - an approximate 50% increase in spectral slope.||||0.11
84705187|NCT00468910|169152680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84705188|NCT01391832|169152746|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 1-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-1.51|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||>0.05
84510581|NCT01939197|168772574|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84510582|NCT01939197|168772575|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The Fisher exact test was performed as prespecified on the SAP but the p-value couldn't be calculated because SVR12 rates in both arms were 100%, hence p-value appeared as not available."|||
84705189|NCT01391832|169152746|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 3-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
84705190|NCT01391832|169152746|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.01|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
84705191|NCT01391832|169152747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7101||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|1.422|-0.7548|2.088||It is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 58|mean change from baseline to 6-month follow-up, rTMS Active - rTMS Sham|Null hypothesis test of differences in N2 micro-volt change from baseline to 6-month followup.||2.088|-0.7548|.3422
84705192|NCT01391832|169152747|OTHER|The analysis examined correlations in change in N2 and PTSD symptoms.|Slope|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|Regression, Linear|||The analysis examined the association between change in PTSD symptoms from baseline to 6-month follow-up and the change in N2 amplitude to the threatening stimulus from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|Correlations for the individual groups were active rTMS r(28)=-.373 and sham rTMS r(32)=-.296.|||0.02
84705193|NCT01154985|169152748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||Proportion of responders in the EPA-E 1800 mg and 2700 mg groups compared to the proportion of responders in the placebo group compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test in the Efficacy Evaluable analysis set. P-value less than 5% 1-sided. A total sample size of 210 (70 per arm) was planned to give 80% power for detecting a positive dose-response slope among the 3 treatment arms at 12 months.||||0.57
84705194|NCT01154985|169152749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0137
84705195|NCT01154985|169152749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|29.1||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||29.1|3.4|
84705196|NCT01154985|169152749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0006
84705197|NCT01154985|169152749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.4||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||34.4|9.6|
84705198|NCT01154985|169152750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.1592
84705199|NCT01154985|169152750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||23.0|-3.8|
84510583|NCT02545998|168772587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
84510584|NCT02545998|168772588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84510585|NCT02545998|168772589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84510586|NCT02545998|168772590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
84510587|NCT02545998|168772591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
84510588|NCT02545998|168772592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Sign test|||||||0.264
84705200|NCT01154985|169152750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0153
84705201|NCT01154985|169152750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.9||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||28.9|3.1|
84705202|NCT00722046|169152787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.45|-3.68|0.6504
84705203|NCT00722046|169152787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.23|-3.20|0.5213
84705204|NCT00722046|169152787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|7.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.48|-2.94|0.4698
84705205|NCT00722046|169152787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.17|-2.71|0.5183
84705206|NCT00722046|169152787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.35|-3.65|0.7529
84705207|NCT00722046|169152789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.24|-13.38|0.4688
84705208|NCT00722046|169152789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.59|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||9.22|-9.59|0.9743
84705209|NCT00722046|169152789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.25|-8.57|0.8824
84705210|NCT00722046|169152789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.77|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.58|-13.77|0.4831
84705211|NCT00722046|169152789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.48|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.13|-9.48|0.9562
84510589|NCT01430741|168772602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in service intensity among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.04
84705212|NCT00925587|169152799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.5 g/dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.052|||||Darbepoetin alfa QM - Darbepoetin alfa Q2W|Power = 90% at sample size calculation||0.052|-0.427|
84705213|NCT00516321|169152863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|7.9||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.4||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||13.4|2.4|0.0064
84705214|NCT00373386|169152890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||compared with baseline||||0.644
84705215|NCT00373386|169152891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|paired||Compared with baseline||||0.018
84705216|NCT00373386|169152892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison to baseline||||0.04
84705217|NCT00373386|169152893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.004
84705218|NCT00373386|169152894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.804
84705219|NCT00373386|169152895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.095
84705220|NCT00373386|169152896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.648
84705221|NCT01925469|169152903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Differences in the median change in pain scores were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||An a priori sample size calculation determined at least 28 patients were needed to detect a clinically significant 13 mm difference in pain score (α=0.05, power =0.80) with a standard deviation of 12 mm. Intention to treat analysis was performed.||||0.43
84705222|NCT01925469|169152904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to assess differences in satisfaction scores by treatment group. Correlation between pain and satisfaction scores was assessed by Spearman's correlation coefficient.||||0.4
84705223|NCT01925469|169152905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
84705224|NCT01185561|169152906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in CES-D score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||13.76|4.03|.001
84705225|NCT01185561|169152907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|14.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.37|1.29|.02
84705226|NCT01185561|169152908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.31|2.64|.005
84705227|NCT01185561|169152909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anger Expression Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||8.24|-6.77|.85
84705228|NCT02252042|169152926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.01|0.67|0.03160
84705229|NCT02252042|169152927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Nominal p-value|Log Rank||Nominal HR. Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.98|0.65|0.01605
84705230|NCT02252042|169152928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.93|0.58|0.00493
84705231|NCT02252042|169152929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.32504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.16|0.79|0.32504
84705232|NCT02252042|169152930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a single covariate|||1.06|0.69|0.07736
84510590|NCT01430741|168772603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in alcohol dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.21
84705233|NCT02252042|169152931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|4.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||10.6|-1.2|0.0610
84705234|NCT02252042|169152932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||14.6|0.6|0.0171
84705235|NCT02252042|169152935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.12|0.70|0.14545
84705236|NCT02252042|169152936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.06|0.62|0.05851
84705237|NCT02252042|169152937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.65759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.27|0.86|0.65759
84705238|NCT02252042|169152938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.51982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.26|0.81|0.51982
84705239|NCT04532528|169152950|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.9701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9701
84705240|NCT04532528|169152951|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.7376|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.7376
84705241|NCT04532528|169152951|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1356|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.1356
84705242|NCT04532528|169152951|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.6800
84705243|NCT04532528|169152952|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5777|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.5777
84705244|NCT04532528|169152952|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3313
84705245|NCT04532528|169152952|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.5697|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.5697
84705246|NCT04532528|169152952|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.5135
84705247|NCT04532528|169152953|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.8509|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.8509
84705248|NCT04532528|169152953|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3302|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3302
84705249|NCT04532528|169152953|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.9005|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.9005
84705250|NCT04532528|169152953|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.2789|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.2789
84705251|NCT04532528|169152954|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 3 months only||||0.6670
84705252|NCT04532528|169152954|OTHER|||||||0.1285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 6 months only||||0.1285
84705253|NCT04532528|169152954|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.7151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 9 months only||||0.7151
84705254|NCT04532528|169152954|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested||||||0.803|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 12 months only||||0.8030
84705255|NCT02658240|169152958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 1.5 in pain scores in favor of patients undergoing SFICB procedure assuming a standard deviation of 2.5. With a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a total of 52 patients would be needed to have 80% power using a repeated measures ANOVA F test with 6 observations on each subject. Correlation on the repeat observations was assumed to be 0.5. Assuming a 14% loss to follow-up, 60 patients were enrolled at 1:1 ratio.||||0.05
84705256|NCT02658240|169152959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84705257|NCT02658240|169152960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
84705258|NCT02658240|169152961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
84705259|NCT03691428|169152962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84705260|NCT03691428|169152963|SUPERIORITY|A multivariate dyadic linear growth curve model was used to predict the trajectories of psychological well-being (Raudenbush, Brennan, \& Barnett, 1995).|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84705261|NCT03691428|169152964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84705262|NCT03691428|169152965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84705263|NCT03691428|169152966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84705264|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the control cases||||<0.0001
84705265|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
84705266|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.0004
84705267|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 months for Control cases.||||<0.0001
84705268|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement form preoperative to 6 months for Shapematch cases.||||<0.0001
84705269|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 months between both groups.||||0.3894
84705270|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Control cases||||<0.0001
84705271|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
84705272|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-values from repeated ANOVA with change from preoperative variable/scores as dependent variable.||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 12 months between both groups.||||0.4387
84705273|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 2 years between both groups.||||0.2610
84705274|NCT02527148|169152984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 5 years between both groups.||||0.8458
84705275|NCT02527148|169152985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare mean duration of surgery between both groups.||||0.10
84705276|NCT02527148|169152986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare wound length between both groups.||||0.05
84705277|NCT02527148|169152988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare average length of hospital stay between both groups.||||0.07
84705278|NCT02527148|169152989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline differences||||0.55
84705279|NCT02527148|169152989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of QALY between each instrument platform at 12-months||||0.23
84705280|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7240
84705281|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.7545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7545
84705282|NCT02527148|169152990|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.6921
84705283|NCT02527148|169152990|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.9601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.9601
84705284|NCT02527148|169152990|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0697
84705285|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0342
84705286|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.3487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 12 months between both groups.||||0.3487
84705287|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 1 year between both groups.||||0.2201
84705288|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 2 years between both groups.||||0.2291
84705289|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 2 years between both groups.||||0.6436
84705290|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.4344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 5 years between both groups.||||0.4344
84705291|NCT02527148|169152990|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.8732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 5 years between both groups.||||0.8732
84705292|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC preoperatively between both groups.||||0.911
84705293|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.588
84705294|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-months between both groups.||||0.030
84705295|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 1-year between both groups.||||0.131
84705296|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 2-years between both groups.||||0.347
84705297|NCT02527148|169152991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 5-years between both groups.||||0.341
84705298|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.452
84705299|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.201
84705300|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.741
84705301|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.794
84705302|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-months between both groups.||||0.232
84705303|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.513
84705304|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 1-year between both groups.||||0.180
84705305|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.864
84705306|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 2-year between both groups.||||0.223
84705307|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.355
84705308|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 5-year between both groups.||||0.314
84705309|NCT02527148|169152992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.914
84705310|NCT02527148|169152993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.523
84705311|NCT02527148|169152993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.932
84705312|NCT02527148|169152993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.934
84705313|NCT02527148|169152993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.566
84705314|NCT02527148|169152993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.263
84705315|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain preoperatively between both groups.||||0.3768
84705316|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function preoperatively between both groups.||||0.6425
84705317|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM preoperatively between both groups.||||0.5041
84705318|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.2230
84705319|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.8209
84705320|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.6958
84705321|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-months between both groups.||||0.0548
84705322|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-months between both groups.||||0.1958
84705323|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-months between both groups.||||0.2786
84705324|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 1-year between both groups.||||0.2399
84705325|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 1-year between both groups.||||0.4135
84705326|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 1-year between both groups.||||0.5278
84705327|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 2-year between both groups.||||0.2992
84705328|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5462
84705329|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5765
84705330|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 5-year between both groups.||||0.5493
84705331|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 5-year between both groups.||||0.1705
84705332|NCT02527148|169152994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 5-year between both groups.||||0.2918
84705333|NCT02527148|169152995|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal mechanical axis:hip knee ankle angle between both groups.||||0.6
84705334|NCT02527148|169152995|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle fem comp and mech axis femur between both groups.||||0.002
84705335|NCT02527148|169152995|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle tibial comp and mech axis tibia between both groups.||||<0.001
84705336|NCT02527148|169152995|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of sagital tibial component slope between both groups.||||<0.001
84705337|NCT02527148|169152995|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Fem comp rotation relative to surg epicond axis+=ER between both groups.||||<0.001
84705338|NCT04283552|169153021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wildoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 1.||||0.001
84705339|NCT04283552|169153021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||0.28
84705340|NCT04283552|169153022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.22
84705341|NCT04283552|169153022|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||>0.05
84705342|NCT04283552|169153023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.009
84705343|NCT04283552|169153023|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||>0.05
84705344|NCT04283552|169153024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
84705345|NCT04283552|169153024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
84705346|NCT04283552|169153025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
84705347|NCT04283552|169153025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
84705348|NCT04283552|169153028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 1 to PS-Late Reader 1.||||<0.001
84705349|NCT04283552|169153028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 2 and PS-Late Reader 2.||||<0.001
84705350|NCT04975308|169153039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.039|||Log Rank|||||1.039|0.724|0.1158
84705351|NCT04975308|169153040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.733|||Log Rank|||||0.733|0.441|<0.0001
84705352|NCT04975308|169153041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.821|||Log Rank|||||0.821|0.464|0.0008
84705353|NCT00442117|169153060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.196|2.049|||ANOVA|||||2.049|-4.196|0.4982
84705354|NCT00442117|169153061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7601||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.585|4.106|||ANOVA|||||4.106|-2.585|0.6544
84705355|NCT00442117|169153062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.704||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.528|2.115|||ANOVA|||||2.115|-5.528|0.3796
84705356|NCT00442117|169153063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|18.24|||ANOVA|||||18.240|-17.560|0.9622
84705357|NCT00357097|169153110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.6|-1.6|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Ropinirole minus Placebo. Used adjusted change from baseline.|||-1.6|-5.6|<0.001
84705358|NCT03505099|169153139|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|76.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.95|92.21|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 19 out of 81 participants (23.46%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved standing alone for at least 3 seconds.|92.21|50.95|<0.0001
84705359|NCT03505099|169153140|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|73.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.67|91.61|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 participants (26.09%) with 2 copies of SMN2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation.|91.61|44.67|<0.0001
84705360|NCT03505099|169153142|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|90.11|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 17 out of 81 participants (20.99%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved the ability to walk alone.|90.11|44.90|<0.0001
84705361|NCT03603717|169153143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84705362|NCT03603717|169153144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84705363|NCT03603717|169153145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84511777|NCT02087904|168775408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|2.377||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.377|-4.515|0.542
84705364|NCT03603717|169153146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84705365|NCT00732381|169153147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84705366|NCT00732381|169153148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84705367|NCT00457691|169153149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.095||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.344||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.344|0.892|0.8072
84705368|NCT00457691|169153150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.466||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.466|0.936|0.9163
84705369|NCT03073941|169153168|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-Inferiority analysis was performed once the 1 year OKS of the first 216 patients were collected. A one-sided T-test, 90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS was used and the analysis was based on the difference of average OKS between Persona and NexGen 1 year postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS||||||<0.05
84705370|NCT01149369|169153178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values, relative risk ratios, and 95% confidence limits (CI) for the primary ITT were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||Either 1) improvement in mean of available nausea VAS scores over 28-day treatment period compared to means of VAS during the 7-day baseline (BL) period being ≤ -25 mm, or 2) mean VAS after 28-days of treatment was \< 25 mm.||1.7|0.8|0.43
84705371|NCT01149369|169153179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.03
84705372|NCT01149369|169153180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.94
84705373|NCT01149369|169153181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.73
84705374|NCT01149369|169153182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
84705375|NCT01149369|169153183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.06
84705376|NCT01149369|169153184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.24
84705377|NCT01149369|169153185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.01
84510591|NCT01430741|168772603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in drug dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.07
84510592|NCT01430741|168772604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared mental health inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.14
84705378|NCT01149369|169153186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
84705379|NCT01149369|169153187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.51
84705380|NCT01149369|169153188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.12
84705381|NCT01149369|169153189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.02
84705382|NCT01149369|169153190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.17
84705383|NCT01149369|169153191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.2|||ANCOVA|||||12.2|-7.0|0.59
84705384|NCT01149369|169153192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|-5.9|0.61
84705385|NCT01149369|169153193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.23
84705386|NCT01149369|169153194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.97
84705387|NCT01149369|169153195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|24.2|||ANCOVA|||||24.2|-18.0|0.77
84705388|NCT01149369|169153196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.46
84705389|NCT01149369|169153197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.44
84705390|NCT01149369|169153198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.77
84705391|NCT01149369|169153199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.80
84705392|NCT01149369|169153200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.88
84705393|NCT01149369|169153201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-26.5|0.17
84705394|NCT01149369|169153202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.5|0.07
84705395|NCT01149369|169153203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.7|0.53
84705396|NCT01149369|169153204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.9|0.93
84705397|NCT01149369|169153205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.52
84705398|NCT01149369|169153206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.76
84705399|NCT01149369|169153207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.0|0.45
84705400|NCT01149369|169153208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|0.0|0.18
84705401|NCT01149369|169153209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0|-0.2|0.008
84705402|NCT01149369|169153210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.9|0.001
84510593|NCT01430741|168772604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared medical inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.19
84705403|NCT01149369|169153211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
84705404|NCT01149369|169153212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.13
84705405|NCT01149369|169153213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
84705406|NCT01149369|169153214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
84705407|NCT01149369|169153215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.007
84705408|NCT01149369|169153216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.005
84705409|NCT01149369|169153217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.001
84705410|NCT01149369|169153218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.3|0.003
84705411|NCT01149369|169153219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.03
84705412|NCT01149369|169153220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.16
84705413|NCT01149369|169153221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.05
84705414|NCT01149369|169153222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.72
84705415|NCT01149369|169153223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.001
84705416|NCT01149369|169153224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.04
84705417|NCT01149369|169153225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.14
84705418|NCT01149369|169153226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.07
84705419|NCT01149369|169153227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.19
84705420|NCT01149369|169153228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.9|0.04
84705421|NCT01149369|169153229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
84705422|NCT01149369|169153230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
84705423|NCT01149369|169153231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.09
84705424|NCT01149369|169153232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-7|0.17
84705425|NCT01149369|169153233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.1|0.009
84705426|NCT01149369|169153234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
84705427|NCT01149369|169153235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.10
84705428|NCT01149369|169153236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.13
84705429|NCT01149369|169153237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.98
84705430|NCT01149369|169153238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.007
84705431|NCT01149369|169153239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
84705432|NCT01149369|169153240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
84705433|NCT01149369|169153241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.28
84705434|NCT01149369|169153242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.05
84705435|NCT01149369|169153243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
84705436|NCT01149369|169153244|SUPERIORITY|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.1|0.53
84705437|NCT01149369|169153245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.3|0.38
84705438|NCT01149369|169153246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.7|0.09
84705439|NCT01149369|169153247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-5.2|0.28
84705440|NCT01149369|169153248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.30
84705441|NCT01149369|169153249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.5|28.1|||ANCOVA|||||28.1|-70.5|0.40
84705442|NCT01149369|169153250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-12.0|0.28
84705443|NCT01149369|169153251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-4.1|0.47
84705444|NCT01149369|169153252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-4.5|0.68
84705445|NCT01149369|169153253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-3.6|0.48
84705446|NCT01149369|169153254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-2.2|0.43
84705447|NCT01149369|169153255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-8.5|0.01
84510594|NCT01430741|168772605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in mental health emergency department visits among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.24
84510595|NCT01430741|168772606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.481|||||||Regression, Cox|||We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to estimate the extent and timing of negative housing exits over time and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the relationship between membership in the GTO group and risk of experiencing a negative housing exit, adjusting for a set of relevant covariates.||||=.481
84705448|NCT01149369|169153256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-3.4|0.57
84705449|NCT01149369|169153257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-2.6|0.34
84705450|NCT02755805|169153272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|"F(3,74)=4.37~P-values were calculated using mixed model analyses and controlled for stoke severity as a covariate."|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.007
84705451|NCT02755805|169153273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=2.55|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.09
84705452|NCT02755805|169153274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=7.83|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.002
84511778|NCT02087904|168775408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.916||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.916|-4.95|0.385
84705453|NCT02755805|169153275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at \<0.05|repeated measures fixed effects model|F(2,28)=3.61|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.04
84705454|NCT01636687|169153277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|67.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: IGA 0/1||67.7|36.6|<0.0001
84705455|NCT01636687|169153277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|73.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|83.9|||Fisher Exact|||Response Criterion: IGA 0/1||83.9|58.8|<0.0001
84705456|NCT01636687|169153277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|79.8|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||79.8|53.1|<0.0001
84705457|NCT01636687|169153277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|91.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||91.7|70.7|<0.0001
84705458|NCT01039688|169153314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.18||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0014
84705459|NCT01039688|169153314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|0.0004
84705460|NCT01039688|169153315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|19.82||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 and comparison of 5 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||19.82|6.81|<0.0001
84511779|NCT02087904|168775409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.096||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.249|0.384
84705461|NCT01039688|169153315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|31.99||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||31.99|18.51|<0.0001
84705462|NCT00475319|169153401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
84705463|NCT00475319|169153402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
84705464|NCT03520413|169153403|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-1.12|0.02
84510596|NCT03298451|168772625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0398) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0035
84705465|NCT03520413|169153404|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
84705466|NCT03520413|169153405|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|0.25|0.0002
84705467|NCT03520413|169153406|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.02
84705468|NCT03520413|169153407|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 6months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.24|0.39
84705469|NCT03520413|169153408|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-2.53|0.10
84705470|NCT00346151|169153409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|60.0||||||95.0|15.0|95.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion of participant's cumulative incidence of acute rejection at 24 weeks with 95% exact binomial confidence interval. Local biopsy reads were used in determining primary endpoint.||95|15|
84705471|NCT00346151|169153410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
84705472|NCT00346151|169153411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
84705473|NCT00346151|169153414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
84705474|NCT00346151|169153416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
84705475|NCT00346151|169153417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
84705476|NCT00346151|169153418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
84705477|NCT00346151|169153419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
84705478|NCT00346151|169153420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|47.8|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|47.8|
84705479|NCT00346151|169153421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
84705480|NCT00346151|169153422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
84705481|NCT00346151|169153423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|20.0||||||95.0|0.5|71.6|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||71.6|0.5|
84705482|NCT03698708|169153424|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84705483|NCT03698708|169153425|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84705484|NCT03698708|169153426|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84705485|NCT03698708|169153427|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84705486|NCT03698708|169153428|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
84705487|NCT03698708|169153429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|-10.07|
84705488|NCT00891930|169153460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0130
84705489|NCT02384070|169153473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Analysis of the variance was used and Chi-square test for categorical variables. A sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level and a power of 80%, assuming a 10% difference between groups.|ANOVA|||||||1
84705490|NCT02384070|169153473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The prior threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||1
84705491|NCT01852071|169153482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
84705492|NCT01852071|169153482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
84705493|NCT01852071|169153482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|25.13||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||25.13|-10.08|
84705494|NCT01852071|169153483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|64.86||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||64.86|11.21|
84705495|NCT01852071|169153483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
84705496|NCT01852071|169153483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|39.35||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||39.35|0.71|
84705497|NCT01852071|169153484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
84705498|NCT01852071|169153484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|41.28||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||41.28|-9.55|
84705499|NCT01852071|169153484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|31.22||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||31.22|-5.62|
84705500|NCT01852071|169153485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.71|76.96||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||76.96|22.71|
84705501|NCT01852071|169153485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|36.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|69.21||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||69.21|9.80|
84705502|NCT01852071|169153485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|65.23||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||65.23|22.78|
84705503|NCT01240330|169153493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|21.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||The femoral venous peak flow velocity (PFV) compared to the subject's own resting baseline PFV.||21.59|16.30|<0.0001
84705504|NCT02214160|169153520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Paired T-test|||||||0.0347
84705505|NCT02214160|169153521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0343
84705506|NCT02423798|169153537|OTHER||Mean|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84705507|NCT00275392|169153541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||0.026
84705508|NCT00275392|169153541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||<.001
84705509|NCT00275392|169153541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
84705510|NCT00275392|169153542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
84705511|NCT00275392|169153542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||.016
84705512|NCT00275392|169153542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
84705513|NCT00457743|169153577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||||The disease control rate, defined as the percentage of subjects confirmed with CR, PR, and SD \>=10 weeks on study according to RECIST.|||74.5|37.4|
84705514|NCT00457743|169153579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|3.8|30.7|||||The subjects confirmed with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||30.7|3.8|
84705515|NCT00457743|169153588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|40.0||||||95.0|22.7|59.4|||||The clinical benefit response (CBR) rate, defined as the percentage of the subjects confirmed with CR, PR, or SD\>=22 weeks on study according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||59.4|22.7|
84705516|NCT00392054|169153593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9||Cox regression analysis, stratified by clinical site, was performed and presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and a two-sided p-value testing of less than or equal to 0.05 (two-sided) for the Wald test.|Regression, Cox|||Event rates were plotted over time using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Only events occurring after the 90-day treatment period were included in the final analysis. Treatment groups were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.||0.90|0.35|0.0016
84705517|NCT00392054|169153595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.33|0.03
84705518|NCT00392054|169153596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.3|0.017
84705519|NCT00392054|169153597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4|0.28|<0.0001
84705520|NCT00392054|169153598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||||1.72|0.42|0.66
84705521|NCT02928224|169153614|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705522|NCT02928224|169153615|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705523|NCT02928224|169153616|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84705524|NCT02928224|169153625|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705525|NCT02928224|169153626|OTHER|||||||0.5958|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5958
84705526|NCT02928224|169153627|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705527|NCT02928224|169153628|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705528|NCT02928224|169153629|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705529|NCT02928224|169153630|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
84705530|NCT02928224|169153631|OTHER|||||||0.1004|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1004
84705531|NCT02928224|169153632|OTHER|||||||0.3724|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.3724
84705532|NCT02928224|169153633|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84705533|NCT02928224|169153634|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84705534|NCT02928224|169153635|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84705535|NCT02928224|169153636|OTHER|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1928
84705536|NCT02928224|169153637|OTHER|||||||0.0357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0357
84705537|NCT05323734|169153720|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.53||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|2.48|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistic is applied using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|The Hodges-Lehmann approach is applied for estimating 95% confidence interval.|||2.48|-32.04|0.0904
84705538|NCT05323734|169153721|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||||20.1|-6.4|0.3407
84705539|NCT05323734|169153722|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.70|0.46|0.7069
84705540|NCT05323734|169153723|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.72|0.42|0.6434
84705541|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|45.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||45.4|1.6|0.0061
84705542|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84705543|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|65.6|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||65.6|2.3|0.0005
84705544|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84705545|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|107.5|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||107.5|3.9|<0.0001
84705546|NCT05061693|169153724|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
84705547|NCT00958633|169153744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for time to any mood episode in the 52-week group relative to the 8-week group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval \[CI\], 0.43 to 1.10; P = 0.12 by log-rank test).|||1.10|0.43|0.12
84705548|NCT00958633|169153745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.08||||||Manic or Hypomanic events||6.08|.86|
84705549|NCT00958633|169153745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.75||||||Depressive Events||0.75|0.25|
84705550|NCT01499654|169153751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84705551|NCT01499654|169153751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84705552|NCT01499654|169153752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84705553|NCT01499654|169153752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84705554|NCT01499654|169153753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84705555|NCT01499654|169153753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84705556|NCT01499654|169153754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84705557|NCT01499654|169153754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84705558|NCT01420549|169153846|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority assessment was analyzed by the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the ratio of the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the R/E combination, compared to the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the S/E combination and the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the difference between the two means of the percentage variation of LDL-C in the treatments (\[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)R+E\] - \[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)S+E\].|Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Estimates for treatment effect and their 95% confidence intervals were exponentiated to produce estimates of percentage change.|Mean Percentage Change LDL- C (%)|Rosuvastatin + Ezetimibe versus Simvastatin + Ezetimibe||-3.70|-16.94|0.0013
84705559|NCT04250883|169153847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.54
84705560|NCT04250883|169153848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.97
84705561|NCT04250883|169153850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||At 12 days postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.64
84705562|NCT04250883|169153850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||At 3 months postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.38
84705563|NCT04250883|169153851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|For age||Count of patients with or without pain at 3 months postoperative||||0.84
84705564|NCT04250883|169153851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Number of Words Chosen||||0.89
84705565|NCT04250883|169153851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Pain Rating index||||0.98
84705566|NCT04250883|169153852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.9
84705567|NCT04250883|169153853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.68
84705568|NCT04250883|169153853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 6 hours||||0.91
84705569|NCT04250883|169153853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.73
84705570|NCT04250883|169153853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.77
84705571|NCT04250883|169153854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.63
84705572|NCT04250883|169153854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.19
84705573|NCT04250883|169153855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.89
84705574|NCT04250883|169153855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.49
84705575|NCT04250883|169153856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
84705576|NCT04250883|169153857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Of Total complications within 30 days postoperative||||0.92
84705577|NCT04250883|169153858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Time to maximal intensity||||0.098
84705578|NCT04250883|169153858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Angle from minimal to maximal intensity||||0.008
84705579|NCT04250883|169153858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Delta between minimal and maximal intensity||||0.042
84705580|NCT04250883|169153859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||postoperative day 1||||0.35
84705581|NCT04250883|169153859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||at postoperative day 12||||0.52
84705582|NCT04250883|169153860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||at postoperative day 1||||0.99
84705583|NCT04250883|169153860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 12||||0.30
84705584|NCT04250883|169153861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
84705585|NCT04250883|169153862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.3
84705586|NCT04250883|169153863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.33
84705587|NCT04250883|169153864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.018
84705588|NCT02763319|169153867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.351|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS). Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|||1.351|0.837|0.468
84705589|NCT02763319|169153868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.33|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System. Rituximab + bendamustine is the reference treatment group.|||1.330|0.586|0.568
84705590|NCT02763319|169153869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.779|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.779|0.812|
84705591|NCT02763319|169153870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|3.041|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.041|0.778|
84705592|NCT02763319|169153871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.745|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.745|0.938|
84705593|NCT02763319|169153872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.035|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|2.035|0.673|
84705594|NCT02763319|169153873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.452|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.452|0.875|
84705595|NCT02763319|169153874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.626|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.626|0.682|
84705596|NCT02763319|169153875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.985|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.985|0.829|
84705597|NCT02763319|169153876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|3.457|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.457|0.755|
84705598|NCT02763319|169153877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.416|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.416|0.831|
84705599|NCT02763319|169153878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.595|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.595|0.633|
84705600|NCT02763319|169153879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.244|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.244|0.794|
84705601|NCT02763319|169153880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.220|0.570|
84705602|NCT04040296|169153929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with the primary outcome within 14 days of randomization.|||3.8|-1.1|0.28
84705603|NCT04040296|169153930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|11.0|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of implemented recommendations with 24 hours of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||11|8.1|<.001
84705604|NCT04040296|169153931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with AKI progression within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.6|-1.6|.65
84705605|NCT04040296|169153932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received inpatient dialysis within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.8|-.7|.89
84705606|NCT04040296|169153933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with inpatient mortality within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.1|-1.5|.72
84705607|NCT04040296|169153934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received a kidney consult within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||4.1|-.3|.31
84705608|NCT04040296|169153935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects discharged to hospice care within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.4|-2.3|.17
84705609|NCT02918279|169154004|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.22||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations was imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Responses at week 56 were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, sex, region, baseline glycaemic category, stratification factor for Tanner stage and interaction between baseline glycaemic category and stratification factor for Tanner stage as fixed effects, baseline BMI SDS, age as covariates.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0022
84705610|NCT01641198|169154094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.01|-0.59|<0.05
84705611|NCT01641198|169154094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.69|0.09|<0.05
84705612|NCT01641198|169154094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.39||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.39|-0.98|<0.05
84705613|NCT01641198|169154095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.13||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.13|-0.47|<0.05
84705614|NCT01641198|169154095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.85|0.26|<0.05
84705615|NCT01641198|169154095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.43|-1.02|<0.05
84705616|NCT01641198|169154096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.59|-0.19|<0.05
84705617|NCT01641198|169154096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||1.22|0.45|<0.05
84705618|NCT01641198|169154096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.26||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI).||-0.26|-1.01|<0.05
84705619|NCT00666276|169154101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.712
84705620|NCT00666276|169154102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 65 and less than 65 in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.257
84705621|NCT00666276|169154103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic dysfunction and without Hepatic dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.082
84705622|NCT00666276|169154104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal dysfunction and without Renal dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.462
84705623|NCT00666276|169154105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Duration of drug administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 15 days and less than 15 days in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||<0.001
84705624|NCT00666276|169154106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Route of administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between oral, injection and switch in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.018
84705625|NCT00666276|169154107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Weight. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 40kg and less than 40kg in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.311
84705626|NCT00666276|169154108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant drug and without Concomitant drug in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.044
84705627|NCT00666276|169154109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Non-drug therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Non-drug therapies and without Non-drug therapies in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.008
84705628|NCT02594735|169154113|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84705629|NCT02594735|169154114|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84705630|NCT02594735|169154115|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84705631|NCT02594735|169154116|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84705632|NCT02594735|169154117|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84705633|NCT02594735|169154118|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.375
84705634|NCT02594735|169154119|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84705635|NCT02594735|169154120|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Sign test|Data was not normally distributed||||||0.044
84705636|NCT02594735|169154121|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84705637|NCT03844269|169154134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EEG data excluded if excessive noise (rejection of more than 30% of target trials due to voltage fluctuations greater than ± 100 μV deflections within an epoch) at the pre- or post-intervention assessment||||<0.05
84705638|NCT01075217|169154146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 1, i.e., pain was not assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.4|<0.0001
84705639|NCT01075217|169154146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 2, i.e., pain was assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-0.5|0.3244
84705640|NCT01075217|169154147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|0.5|0.0059
84705641|NCT00566527|169154178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.87||||||Measles difference||0.87|-2.82|
84705642|NCT00566527|169154178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.32||||||Mumps difference||1.32|-1.20|
84705643|NCT00566527|169154178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.03||||||Rubella difference||1.03|-1.55|
84705644|NCT00566527|169154178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.28|
84705645|NCT00566527|169154179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.87||||||Measles difference||-1.87|-6.44|
84705646|NCT00566527|169154179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.01||||||Mumps difference||1.01|-1.71|
84705647|NCT00566527|169154179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09||||||Rubella difference||1.09|-1.34|
84705648|NCT00566527|169154179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.83|
84705649|NCT00094575|169154231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR was estimated by comparing Endovascular repair arm vs the Open repair arm.|The primary outcome was long-term, all-cause mortality. The sample size would provide 80% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in mortality at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The primary comparison was the main effects of Endovascular repair vs Open repair of AAA.||1.22|0.77|0.81
84705650|NCT00094575|169154232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
84705651|NCT00094575|169154233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
84705652|NCT00094575|169154234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84705653|NCT00094575|169154235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
84705654|NCT00094575|169154236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note: Since this is measuring change over time since baseline, values could be below 0.||||0.58
84705655|NCT00094575|169154237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84705656|NCT00094575|169154238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
84705657|NCT05714696|169154239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
84705658|NCT05714696|169154240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
84705659|NCT05714696|169154241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
84705660|NCT05714696|169154242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
84705661|NCT05714696|169154243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.442
84705662|NCT05714696|169154245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.527
84705663|NCT05714696|169154246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.311
84705664|NCT05714696|169154247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
84705665|NCT05714696|169154248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.005
84705666|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the CRP Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.6497
84705667|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the IL-12/IL-23p40 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.4281
84705668|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of MCP-1 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3157
84705669|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p-value represents the probability that the difference between baseline and follow-up levels of GM-CSF Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.1463
84705670|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-1β Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.6091
84705671|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-6 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3011
84705672|NCT04090190|169154260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-8 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.5009
84705673|NCT00940537|169154269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||a priori threshhold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|this was a paired t-test||As there was no a priori reason for the level of IHTG to impact this measurement we compared the pre and post-prandial results for all subjects whose data were of sufficient quality (N=12). These results are comparing the two categories of fasting and post-prandial. Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in IHTG before and after a high fat, high carbohydrate meal.||||.097
84705674|NCT00940537|169154270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This p-value compares the low IHTG (\<5%) subjects to those with medium levels of IHTG (5 - 10%). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low and medium IHTG categories.||||0.006
84510597|NCT03298451|168772625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||0.92|0.66|
84705675|NCT00940537|169154270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low (\<5%) and high (\>10%) IHTG categories.||||<0.0001
84511780|NCT02087904|168775409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.324|0.095
84705676|NCT00940537|169154270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in T2 relaxation ratios for varying levels of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG). Thus the medium (5 - 10%) and high (\<10%) IHTG groups would not be statistically different with regard to average T2 ratio.||||.93
84705677|NCT00933400|169154279|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Percent Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7||||||Difference in AMI rate. NULL: equal rates of AMI in both Groups.||5.7|-5.6|
84705678|NCT00933400|169154280|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (rates)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2||||||Difference in Discharge rates. H0: equal rates of Discharge in both Groups.||32.2|21.4|
84705679|NCT00933400|169154280|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (percents)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||||exact procedures were used to estimate and compare rates of detection for significant coronary disease|Difference in diagnosis rate of Significant coronary disease at index visit. H0: equal rates in both Groups.||11.2|0.0|
84705680|NCT00933400|169154282|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|H0: no difference in Patient disposition (Discharge) rates between arms||32.2|21.4|
84705681|NCT00933400|169154284|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare all cause mortality between groups||5.2|-6.0|
84705682|NCT00933400|169154284|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.7|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Cardiac Death between groups||5.7|-5.5|
84510598|NCT03298451|168772626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-interiority for the comparison of arm Durva 1500 mg vs Sora 400 mg is declared if the upper limit of the two-sided alpha adjusted CI for HR is less than the NI margin of 1.08.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.67|0.73|1.03|||Regression, Cox||The 95.67% confidence interval were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||1.03|0.73|
84510599|NCT03298451|168772626|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested sequentially per protocol as non-inferiority was satisfied.||||||0.0674||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0433) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0674
84705683|NCT00933400|169154284|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.9|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare AMI between groups||5.9|-5.6|
84705684|NCT00933400|169154284|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare MACE between groups||6.0|-5.5|
84705685|NCT00933400|169154284|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Revascularization between groups||7.0|-4.4|
84705686|NCT02079844|169154291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7313||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|1.733||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.733|-1.269|0.753
84705687|NCT02079844|169154291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7417||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.389|1.655||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.655|-1.389|0.859
84705688|NCT02079844|169154292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2436||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|4.49||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.490|-0.614|0.131
84705689|NCT02079844|169154292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2545||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|4.951||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.951|-0.198|0.069
84705690|NCT02079844|169154293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.106||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.106|-0.739|0.671
84705691|NCT02079844|169154293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.193|0.571||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.571|-1.193|0.345
84705692|NCT02576574|169154343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.54|0.0070
84705693|NCT02576574|169154344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.52|0.0196
84705694|NCT02576574|169154345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.67|0.1032
84705695|NCT02576574|169154346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.59|0.0630
84705696|NCT02576574|169154347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.62|0.0147
84705697|NCT02576574|169154348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.67|0.1753
84705698|NCT02576574|169154349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.66|0.0257
84705699|NCT02576574|169154350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.66|0.0809
84705700|NCT02576574|169154351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.78|0.1294
84705701|NCT02576574|169154352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.79|0.2618
84705702|NCT02576574|169154353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.91|0.0640
84705703|NCT02576574|169154354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.07|0.73|0.2217
84705704|NCT02576574|169154355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.72|0.81|0.1912
84705705|NCT02576574|169154356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.64|0.4951
84705706|NCT01622868|169154409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||The study was designed to see if there is a signal in the 12-week CR rate with the addition of lapatinib to warrant a future phase III trial. Null hypothesis: the 12-week post-WBRT/SRS CR rate is ≤ 5%; alternative hypothesis: the addition of lapatinib will increase that CR rate to at least 20%. 114 eligible participants provide 86% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in CR rate at a significance level of 0.10, using a 1-sided Z-test for the difference of 2 proportions.||||0.97
84705707|NCT01622868|169154410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||||||0.78
84510600|NCT01347710|168772642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
84705708|NCT01622868|169154411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||4 weeks post-RT||||0.78
84705709|NCT01622868|169154411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||12 weeks post-RT||||0.97
84705710|NCT01622868|169154417|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|z-test|||||||1.00
84705711|NCT01622868|169154419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.62|0.67
84705712|NCT01308567|169154441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.16||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.16|0.819|0.7574
84510601|NCT01347710|168772643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients under going pharmacologic stress|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
84705713|NCT01308567|169154441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.197||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.197|0.85|0.9967
84705714|NCT01308567|169154442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.152|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.152|0.849|
84705715|NCT01308567|169154442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.236|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.236|0.913|
84705716|NCT01308567|169154443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.17|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.17|0.785|
84705717|NCT01308567|169154443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.118|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.118|0.75|
84705718|NCT01308567|169154445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.123|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.123|0.8|
84705719|NCT01308567|169154445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.238|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.238|0.886|
84705720|NCT01308567|169154447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.434|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.434|0.986|
84510602|NCT01347710|168772643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in females|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
84510603|NCT01347710|168772643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients with BMI \>/=30|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
84705721|NCT01308567|169154447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.435|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.435|0.985|
84705722|NCT01308567|169154449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.417|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.417|0.886|
84705723|NCT01308567|169154449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.288|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.288|0.798|
84705724|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0537||95.0||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
84705725|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0213
84705726|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84705727|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84705728|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84705729|NCT00774397|169154469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84705730|NCT00077675|169154500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 91% power to test telavancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 20%||||||0.5318|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval calculat|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.0527 to 0.1102 No estimated value Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5318
84705731|NCT04425863|169154503|OTHER|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-squared test is used to find out whether there is a statistically significant decrease in mortality rate when the IDEA treatment protocol is used in hospitalized patients in comparison with other treatments in the same hospital in the same period of time (3 out of 12 inpatients died)||||0.0246
84705732|NCT04425863|169154503|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol is compared by a chi-squared test against overall mortality rate in Argentina (the same region where the hospital is located). Data used for overall mortality in Argentina correspond to June 30th according to the website of the Ministry of Health of Argentina||||0.0475
84705733|NCT04425863|169154503|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was applied to compare the mortality rate of patients treated with IDEA protocol as compared with data published (26.84 %) in Bertsimas D, Lukin G, Mingardi L, Nohadani O, Orfanoudaki A, Stellato B et al. (2020), COVID-19 Mortality Risk Assessment: An International Multi-Center Study doi: 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148304||||0.0025
84705734|NCT01599793|169154517|EQUIVALENCE|Testing if the change of ktrans between 2 weeks and baseline = 0 (i.e testing if the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline =0)||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square means of ktrans at different time points (baseline, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks) are estimated by a linear mixed model. Comparison of means at different time points were performed. The primary result reported below is for the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline.||||0.0016
84705735|NCT01599793|169154519|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the bone scan response change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36853||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3291
84705736|NCT01599793|169154521|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the PSA change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|-0.41818||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2006
84705737|NCT01599793|169154523|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the Change in pain scale. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.17669||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5828
84705738|NCT03873337|169154614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 25||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
84705739|NCT03873337|169154614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at 3-months post target quit date (4 months after baseline assessment.||||0.002
84511781|NCT02087904|168775409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.314|0.106
84705740|NCT03873337|169154615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
84705741|NCT03873337|169154615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at 3-months post target quit date (4-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
84705742|NCT01574807|169154616|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple McNemar tests corrected with Step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.00
84705743|NCT02512965|169154617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.69||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factor at randomization.|||6.69|1.79|0.0002
84705744|NCT02512965|169154618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||4.85|1.35|0.0036
84705745|NCT02512965|169154619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.24|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Estimate adjusted for stratification factors at randopmization.|||1.24|0.46|0.26
84705746|NCT02512965|169154620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.4||2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.48|0.47
84705747|NCT01185782|169154637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The primary endpoint was to determine whether or not SJ-0021 is inferior to u-hFSH in inducing ovulation. The criterion for non-inferiority was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (= one-sided 97.5% CI) had to be greater than -15% for SJ-0021 to be considered not inferior to u-hFSH.)"|Delta|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.04|||Chi-squared|||||6.04|-13.05|
84705748|NCT01185782|169154638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.214
84705749|NCT01185782|169154639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84705750|NCT01185782|169154640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
84705751|NCT01185782|169154641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.852
84705752|NCT01185782|169154642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
84705753|NCT01185782|169154643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.560
84511782|NCT02087904|168775410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|8.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.08|-10.22|0.818
84705754|NCT01185782|169154644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.555
84705755|NCT01185782|169154645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.416
84705756|NCT02507752|169154649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||< 0.001
84705757|NCT02507752|169154649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||= 0.014
84705758|NCT02507752|169154651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.021
84705759|NCT02507752|169154651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
84705760|NCT02507752|169154652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.744
84705761|NCT02507752|169154652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.646
84705762|NCT02507752|169154653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705763|NCT02507752|169154653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705764|NCT02507752|169154654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705765|NCT02507752|169154654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705766|NCT02507752|169154655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705767|NCT02507752|169154655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705768|NCT02507752|169154656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705769|NCT02507752|169154656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705770|NCT02507752|169154657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.011
84705771|NCT02507752|169154657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
84705772|NCT02507752|169154658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705773|NCT02507752|169154658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705774|NCT02507752|169154659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
84705775|NCT02507752|169154659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
84705776|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.102
84705777|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
84705778|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
84705779|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705780|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
84705781|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
84705782|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.077
84510604|NCT01347710|168772644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients undergoing pharmacologic stress|Z test|z test for non inferiority for specificity||||||0.891
84705783|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.068
84705784|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.018
84705785|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.053
84705786|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
84705787|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
84705788|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.015
84705789|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.154
84705790|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.024
84705791|NCT02507752|169154660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.029
84705792|NCT01444417|169154663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0497||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.896|43.199|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of durable platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||43.199|1.896|0.0018
84705793|NCT01444417|169154664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.535|32.265|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of overall platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||32.265|2.535|0.0002
84705794|NCT01444417|169154665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|P-value from Analysis of Variance with main effects (treatment and age group) model after testing for non-significant interaction (p-value ≥ 0.10).||||||0.0004
84705795|NCT01444417|169154666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|2.391|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group||||2.391|0.277|0.7103
84705796|NCT00028093|169154672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the outcome between the two groups||||0.54
84705797|NCT00736853|169154674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.641|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank test with the target disease as the stratification factor||||0.641|0.221|0.0001
84705798|NCT03473340|169154697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17697507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.17697507
84705799|NCT03473340|169154698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77367872|||||||Welch Two Sample t-test|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.77367872
84705800|NCT03473340|169154699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68595748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.68595748
84705801|NCT03473340|169154700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00127634|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00127634
84705802|NCT03473340|169154701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.80904544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80904544
84705803|NCT02374463|169154806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||within group change was assessed||||<0.05
84705804|NCT02374463|169154807|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.08
84705805|NCT02374463|169154808|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6|||||||ANOVA|not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||||=0.6
84705806|NCT02374463|169154809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|exploratory aim prespecified.||||||0.84
84705807|NCT02374463|169154809|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4
84705808|NCT02374463|169154810|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.3
84705809|NCT02374463|169154811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84705810|NCT03538717|169154812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.113
84705811|NCT03538717|169154813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.228
84705812|NCT03538717|169154814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.020
84705813|NCT03538717|169154815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.138
84705814|NCT03538717|169154816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.524
84705815|NCT03538717|169154817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.265
84705816|NCT03538717|169154818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.035
84705817|NCT03538717|169154819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.123
84705818|NCT03538717|169154820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.327
84705819|NCT03538717|169154821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.419
84511783|NCT02087904|168775410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|1.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.69|-16.83|0.109
84705820|NCT03538717|169154822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.010
84705821|NCT03538717|169154823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||100% clear cells||||0.446
84705822|NCT03538717|169154823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||100% non-clear cells||||0.596
84705823|NCT03538717|169154823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Majority component of clear cells||||0.578
84705824|NCT03538717|169154823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Fisher Exact|||Majority component of non-clear cells||||0.706
84705825|NCT03538717|169154824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.074
84705826|NCT03538717|169154825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.070
84705827|NCT03538717|169154826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.091
84705828|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.046
84705829|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||CNS||||>0.999
84705830|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatic||||0.026
84705831|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary||||0.327
84705832|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Bone||||0.024
84705833|NCT03538717|169154827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Another site of metastasis||||0.045
84705834|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Chi-squared|||LDH level \>1.5\*ULN||||0.555
84705835|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Hgb levels \<=LLN||||<0.001
84705836|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||Corrected Ca levels \>10 mg/dL||||0.344
84705837|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil levels \>ULN||||>0.999
84705838|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||Platelet levels \>ULN||||0.795
84705839|NCT03538717|169154828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio \<=3||||0.184
84705840|NCT03538717|169154829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.235
84705841|NCT01424397|169154849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with FP alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
84705842|NCT01424397|169154849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.7127|||
84705843|NCT01424397|169154849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
84705844|NCT01424397|169154849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to FP alone using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.0160|||
84705845|NCT01424397|169154851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.54|102.15||||||Placebo versus FP 200 μg,Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM,0-4 hr||102.15|60.54|
84705846|NCT01424397|169154851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.548|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.7|25.05||||||Placebo versus FP 12 mg SB-705498 , Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||25.05|-39.7|
84510605|NCT01347710|168772644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in female patients|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.546
84705847|NCT01424397|169154851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.567|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|96.52||||||Placebo versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||96.52|48.28|
84705848|NCT01424397|169154851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.592|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|15.22||||||FP 200 μg versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||15.22|-33.1|
84705849|NCT01424397|169154852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-0.87|
84705850|NCT01424397|169154852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.30|
84705851|NCT01424397|169154852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.74|
84705852|NCT01424397|169154852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.06|
84705853|NCT01951170|169154868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Change in mTSS scores from baseline to Week 24.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.83
84705854|NCT01305252|169154888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84510606|NCT01347710|168772644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule BMI \>/=30|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.538
84705855|NCT01305252|169154888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84705856|NCT01305252|169154891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84705857|NCT01305252|169154891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84705858|NCT04723394|169154907|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|50.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|71.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||71.25|14.38|0.010
84705859|NCT04723394|169154908|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|49.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|69.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||69.79|14.72|0.009
84705860|NCT00253890|169154917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.7||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in sleep quality was assessed by calculating gain scores. We used a 2-sided t-test to report mean change.||||.05
84705861|NCT02765100|169154936|EQUIVALENCE|Unless specified otherwise, each of the statistical tests above will use a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot proof of concept study and does not require formal sample size calculations. High and low CRP groups will be compared on demographic, clinical and biological variables using two-sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for continuous variables (for nonparametric continuous variables, either Mann-Whitney tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used) and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.||||<0.05
84705862|NCT02652442|169154947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the off-axis distance of 3.5 cm and 7.0 cm.||||0.97
84705863|NCT02652442|169154947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation duration of 1 minute and 3 minutes.||||0.51
84705864|NCT02652442|169154947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation schedule of daily OAR and biweekly OAR for a total of 5 sessions.||||0.44
84705865|NCT01911169|169154967|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size of primary outcome was calculated||||
84705866|NCT01911169|169154967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This study was conducted to determine the effect size for in change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH) therapy. For change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH)D repletion, based on this effect size, to detect significant differences between 2 groups, assuming 1) normally distributed data, 2) the same effect size, 3) alpha= 0.05, and 4) a power of 0.8, 35 patients in each group would be required. Therefore, this was designed as a pilot to determine effect size.||||> 0.05
84705867|NCT00364013|169154969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.27||||0.0234||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5%.||||0.0234
84705868|NCT00364013|169154969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|2.28||||0.0227||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on first demonstrating a significant treatment effect in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0227
84705869|NCT00364013|169154970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.8||||0.0723||||||cP-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at a significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0723
84705870|NCT00364013|169154970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|1.83||||0.0678||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at an significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0678
84705871|NCT00364013|169154971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.87|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.87|0.98|0.0684
84705872|NCT00364013|169154971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.47|0.65|0.9822
84705873|NCT03740009|169154993|NON_INFERIORITY|For analyses the researchers used a paired T-test to compare baseline and post-treatment mean activation values across 3 regions of interest (ROIs): the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens.||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Ho\]: TSEC has no meaningful effect on activity within key nodes of the frontostriate in response to reward.||||0.53
84705874|NCT03740009|169154994|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis included MASQ-AD scores from all visits to characterize the change in scores from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed models of 3 week TSEC administration for MASQ-AD scores assessed at each study visit from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM||F value=13.26|\[Ho\] No change in depressive symptoms from baseline throughout 3 weeks of TSEC administration||||<0.001
84705875|NCT01061151|169154995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|-2.1|-0.4|||||The combination of Arm B and Arm C minus Arm A, based on a repeated confidence interval (Lan-DeMets approach with an O'Brien-Fleming type I error spending function to preserve an experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%).|Arm B and Arm C were combined and compared to Arm A. This comparison was an a priori planned comparison.||-0.4|-2.1|
84705876|NCT01061151|169154996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.008
84705877|NCT01061151|169154996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.77
84705878|NCT01061151|169154996|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||>0.99
84705879|NCT01061151|169154997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.30
84705880|NCT01061151|169154997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.64
84705881|NCT01061151|169154997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.06
84705882|NCT01061151|169154998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||<0.001
84705883|NCT01061151|169154998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.04
84705884|NCT01061151|169154998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.46
84705885|NCT01061151|169154999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.3|3.1|||||The confidence interval was based on a repeated confidence interval.|||3.1|0.3|
84705886|NCT01061151|169155000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
84705887|NCT01061151|169155001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.08|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Arm A relative to Arm B.|||2.08|0.14|0.37
84705888|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival||||0.16
84705889|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0156
84705890|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.31
84705891|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0022
84705892|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival||||0.13
84705893|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.44
84705894|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.24
84705895|NCT01061151|169155003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, group 2||||0.26
84705896|NCT03292913|169155053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, viral load suppression at baseline, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is viral load suppression. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.21|0.96|0.220
84705897|NCT03292913|169155054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is retention in care. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.15|0.94|0.481
84705898|NCT03292913|169155055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is a 6-month visit gap defined ashaving at least 189 days between two sequentially kept visits, post-randomization. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.03|0.72|0.093
84705899|NCT03950622|169155056|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-2.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||1.1|-5.8|0.175
84705900|NCT03950622|169155056|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||17.2|6.0|<0.001
84705901|NCT03950622|169155056|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||5.0|-2.4|0.488
84705902|NCT03950622|169155057|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||2.4|-2.8|0.888
84705903|NCT03950622|169155057|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||4.4|-4.2|0.960
84705904|NCT03950622|169155057|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.4||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||2.4|-5.1|0.469
84705905|NCT03950622|169155057|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||7.4|-0.4|0.082
84705906|NCT03950622|169155058|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.6|-0.6|
84705907|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.96|0.66|<0.001
84705908|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
84705909|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.80|0.57|<0.001
84705910|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.98|0.64|<0.001
84705911|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.19|0.84|<0.001
84705912|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.48|1.02|<0.001
84510607|NCT01347710|168772645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar (chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LAD||||||<0.001
84705913|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.90|0.68|<0.001
84705914|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V (Shared)||0.94|0.70|<0.001
84705915|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.64|<0.001
84705916|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.26|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.26|0.91|<0.001
84705917|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.93|0.70|<0.001
84705918|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.02|0.76|<0.001
84705919|NCT03950622|169155059|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.44|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.44|0.96|<0.001
84705920|NCT03950622|169155059|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|31.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.35|39.97|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||39.97|25.35|<0.001
84705921|NCT03950622|169155059|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|8.32|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||8.32|6.07|<0.001
84705922|NCT03950622|169155060|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1.|Percentage Point Difference|57.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|61.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||61.8|52.0|<0.001
84705923|NCT03950622|169155060|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1)|Percentage Point Difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|54.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||54.9|45.9|<0.001
84705924|NCT03950622|169155061|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 1.2.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
84705925|NCT03950622|169155062|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference(V114 - Prevnar 13™) between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination (Day 1) to 30 days postvaccination (Day 30) to be greater than 0.|Percentage Point Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 3 (Shared) ≥4-Fold Rise in OPA||16.9|6.0|<0.001
84705926|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
84705927|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.71||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.71|1.33|
84705928|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
84705929|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.96|0.70|
84705930|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.21|0.87|
84705931|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
84705932|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.89|0.66|
84705933|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.00|0.75|
84705934|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.65|
84705935|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.05|0.77|
84705936|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.97|0.73|
84705937|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.05|0.78|
84705938|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.28|0.92|
84705939|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.37|12.03||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||12.03|9.37|
84705940|NCT03950622|169155063|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|10.07||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||10.07|8.00|
84705941|NCT01199705|169155131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.39||||||||1.390||
84705942|NCT01199705|169155131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.953||||||||0.953||
84705943|NCT01199705|169155131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.914||||||||0.914||
84705944|NCT01199705|169155133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.204||||||||1.204||
84705945|NCT01199705|169155133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.834||||||||0.834||
84705946|NCT01199705|169155133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.802||||||||0.802||
84705947|NCT01415349|169155138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.966|
84705948|NCT01415349|169155139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.998|
84705949|NCT02918071|169155156|OTHER||percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|99.46|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12)|||99.46|92.63|
84705950|NCT02918071|169155156|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.41|99.05|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 16)|||99.05|91.41|
84705951|NCT02918071|169155156|OTHER||Percentage|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.86|96.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.98|86.86|
84705952|NCT02918071|169155157|OTHER||Percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.69|99.47|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 12)|||99.47|92.69|
84705953|NCT02918071|169155157|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.48|99.06|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 16)|||99.06|91.48|
84705954|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.00|0.00|
84705955|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.52|0.02|
84705956|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||4.59|0.02|
84705957|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.31|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||7.31|0.53|
84705958|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||8.52|0.94|
84705959|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.99|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.99|0.07|
84705960|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.07|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||6.07|1.21|
84705961|NCT02918071|169155158|OTHER||Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.85|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||2.85|0.69|
84705962|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.36 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.07||||||ANTI-1 serotype test :to demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.75|
84705963|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.77 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.66 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.77|1.14||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.77|
84705964|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 2.46 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.16 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.03||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.03|0.75|
84705965|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =0.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 0.47 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.71|1.23||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.71|
84705966|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=219 and Adjusted GMC =2.30 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 2.17 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.1||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.10|0.81|
84705967|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.56 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 1.40 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
84705968|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 4.22 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 4.06 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.15||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.15|0.81|
84705969|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =2.81 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.57 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.74|1.14||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.74|
84705970|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 3.70 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 3.68 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.23||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.81|
84705971|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 0.62 in the 11Pn Group and N= 199 and Adjusted GMC= 0.71 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.89|1.48||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.48|0.89|
84705972|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations/titres, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=217 and Adjusted GMC =1.61 in the 11Pn Group and N= 206 and Adjusted GMC= 2.75 for the Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|1.44|2.03||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.03|1.44|
84705973|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=207 and Adj. GMC =1.58 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.35 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.72|1.02||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.02|0.72|
84705974|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.94 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.66 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.7|1.05||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.05|0.70|
84705975|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =2.37 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.16 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.78|1.07||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.78|
84715113|NCT04119843|169176648|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.261|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.082|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.082|0.380|<0.001
84705976|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.56 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 0.47 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.84||||||95.8|0.64|1.11||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.11|0.64|
84705977|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =2.42 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 2.17 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
84705978|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.78 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 1.40 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.67|0.93||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||0.93|0.67|
84705979|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =4.48 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 4.10 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.77|1.09||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.09|0.77|
84705980|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =2.55 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.57 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.26||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.26|0.81|
84705981|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =3.29 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 3.67 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.9|1.38||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|0.90|
84705982|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.68 in 12Pn Group and N= 199 and Adj. GMC= 0.71 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI..|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.37||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.37|0.81|
84705983|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=210 and Adj. GMC =1.09 in 12Pn Group and N= 214 and Adj. GMC= 2.07 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.51|2.39||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.39|1.51|
84705984|NCT01616459|169155163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.19 in 12Pn Group and N= 206 and Adj. GMC= 2.76 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.94|2.77||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.77|1.94|
84705985|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-3.89|1.36||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.36|-3.89|
84705986|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.94|2.45||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.45|-4.94|
84510608|NCT01347710|168772645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LCX||||||<0.001
84705987|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.82|1.38||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|-2.82|
84705988|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-10.65|6.13||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||6.13|-10.65|
84705989|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.39|2.21||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.21|-2.39|
84705990|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.36|3.22||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.22|-2.36|
84705991|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.51|2.66||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.66|-1.51|
84705992|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.18|1.7||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.70|-4.18|
84510609|NCT01347710|168772645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; RCA||||||<0.001
84705993|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-5.64|-0.52||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||-0.52|-5.64|
84705994|NCT01616459|169155164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.84|10.25||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.25|-4.84|
84705995|NCT01616459|169155165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.46|3.66||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.66|-1.46|
84705996|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.44|2.22||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.22|-3.44|
84705997|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.03|3.86||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.86|-4.03|
84705998|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.37|2.3||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.30|-2.37|
84705999|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-12.94|3.6||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.60|-12.94|
84706000|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.93|3.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.06|-1.93|
84706001|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.72|2.64||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.64|-2.72|
84706002|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.94|1.9||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.90|-1.94|
84706003|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.72|2.52||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.52|-3.72|
84715114|NCT04119843|169176648|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.927|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.927|0.517|<0.001
84715115|NCT04752709|169176775|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84510610|NCT01347710|168772645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; Non-LAD||||||<0.001
84706004|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.38|2.1||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.10|-4.38|
84706005|NCT01616459|169155166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-5.07|10.06||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.06|-5.07|
84706006|NCT01616459|169155167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|7.22|16.49||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||16.49|7.22|
84706007|NCT01616459|169155167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.03|7.57||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||7.57|1.03|
84706008|NCT03394885|169155188|OTHER||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||||100|66|
84706009|NCT02515305|169155201|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|104.7||No p-value calculated, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval for the bioequivalence analysis|Fieller's method|||||104.7|94.6|
84706010|NCT02515305|169155202|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|109.3|||Fieller's method|||||109.3|96|
84706011|NCT01212991|169155212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.837||A 2-stage group sequential method (Lan DeMets OBF) assigned the level of significance for the pre-specified interim overall survival analysis (p\<0.015) based on overall 2-sided type I error rate of 0.049. Final results based upon interim analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \<1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.837|0.596|<0.0001
84706012|NCT01212991|169155213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.231||The assigned 2-sided type I error rate was 0.001 for the analysis of radiographic progression-free survival.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.231|0.149|<0.0001
84706013|NCT01212991|169155214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.844||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.01 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.844|0.610|<0.0001
84706014|NCT01212991|169155215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.349|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.303|0.403||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0125 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.403|0.303|<0.0001
84706015|NCT01212991|169155216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.195||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0167 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.195|0.147|<0.0001
84706016|NCT01212991|169155217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rates|74.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|71.45|77.57||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.025 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.57|71.45|<0.0001
84706017|NCT01212991|169155218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|53.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|48.53|59.17||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.05 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.17|48.53|<0.0001
84706018|NCT03949335|169155222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84706019|NCT03949335|169155223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84706020|NCT03949335|169155224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84706021|NCT03949335|169155225|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|-0.01||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||-0.010|-0.053|
84706022|NCT03949335|169155227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84706023|NCT01351272|169155228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||SPM two-sample t-test|||||||=0.09
84706024|NCT01351272|169155229|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.16
84706025|NCT01351272|169155230|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.09
84706026|NCT00801983|169155273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||GEE|||Subjects were compared across keyboard types - The percentage of subjects with MSD when using the alternative keyboard were compared to the % of subjects with MSD when they were using the typical keyboard||||>.05
84706027|NCT03149991|169155276|SUPERIORITY|The unstructured covariance matrix structure was used to model nesting of observations within persons. Non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. Least squares means estimates of the linear fixed effects model on SDQ change scores, adjusting for baseline covariates was used to test the primary hypothesis via contrast statements.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Because sample sizes per site varied substantially, we used the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom method.|degrees of freedom = 44.5; t=-0.74|SDQ total was primary outcome \& Day 14 primary endpoint. Change from baseline was calculated for each person at each follow-up. Change score was the dependent variable in a linear fixed effects model, where a (-)number = less severe depression. For group comparison, treatment was coded as 1 \& placebo as 0, thus a (-)value means treatment doing better. Fixed effects: group(brex v placebo), day(1-28), site(6 sites). All 2-\& 3-way interactions were included, as well as a priori defined covariates.||||0.46
84706028|NCT03149991|169155276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom = 41.3; t=2.07.|Secondary Aim: To evaluate the short-term effect of brexpiprazole, as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ), on Day 2. We used the same model as in Aim 1 to test this hypothesis.||||0.04
84706029|NCT03149991|169155276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom=38.2; t=0.10.|To evaluate the long-term effect of brexpiprazole as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) on Day 28. The same model as was used in Aim 1 was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.92
84706030|NCT03149991|169155277|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared test|0.51||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value was not adjusted, however there were adjustments when using a logistic regression in Statistical Analysis #2.|Chi-squared|||We used a Chi-squared test to assess differences between treatment and control in terms of percent of participants achieving a long-term sustained response, as measured by achieving a 50% or greater reduction on the MADRS on Day 28.||||0.47
84706031|NCT03149991|169155277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for a priori defined covariates also included in Aim 1.||Logistic regression was used to assess a difference in 50% reduction on the MADRS on Day 28 between groups.||6.44|0.52|0.35
84706032|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Because tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 41.0, t=2.13.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.04
84706033|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.35|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.73
84706034|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.8, t=-0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
84706035|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 40.3, t=1.94.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.06
84706036|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.22|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.83
84706037|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.0, t=-0.64|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.52
84706038|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 31.0, t=1.67|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.11
84706039|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=41.1, t=-0.03|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.98
84706040|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=46.0, t=-0.76|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.45
84706041|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=49.2, t=2.39;|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.02
84706042|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=56.8, t=1.85|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.07
84706043|NCT03149991|169155278|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=50.5, t=0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
84706044|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in terms of occurrence of abnormal ECGs.|Chi-squared test|0.28||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of abnormal ECGs out of total ECGs assessed.||||0.60
84706045|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.|Chi-squared test|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.||||0.33
84706046|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.|Chi-squared test|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.||||1.00
84706047|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.|Chi-squared test|0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.||||0.78
84706048|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.|Chi-squared test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.||||0.90
84706049|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.|Chi-squared test|0.63||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.||||0.43
84706050|NCT03149991|169155282|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.|Chi-squared test|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.||||0.76
84706051|NCT03149991|169155284|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number of participants reporting adverse events.|Chi-squared test|0.009||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of participants reporting adverse events.||||0.92
84706052|NCT03149991|169155285|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the groups in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.||||0.81
84706053|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared test|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) throughout the trial.||||0.51
84706054|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|2.85||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Screening.||||0.09
84706055|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.004||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Baseline.||||0.95
84706056|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.005||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 1.||||0.94
84706057|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 2.||||0.16
84706058|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 5.||||0.51
84706059|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 8.||||0.33
84706060|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 11.||||0.96
84706061|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 14.||||0.48
84706062|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 17.||||0.41
84706063|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 21.||||0.68
84706064|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 23.||||0.41
84706065|NCT03149991|169155286|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 28.||||0.41
84706066|NCT03122886|169155289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.37|||Log Rank|||||6.37|0.12|0.90
84706067|NCT03312907|169155290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||2.71|0.60|0.5342
84706068|NCT03312907|169155290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.54|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, and Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.54|0.32|
84706069|NCT03312907|169155291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||3.78|0.33|0.8582
84706070|NCT03312907|169155291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from model.|||1.70|0.17|
84706071|NCT03312907|169155292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||4.72|0.57|0.3613
84706072|NCT03312907|169155292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.09|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.09|0.19|
84706073|NCT03312907|169155298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.13|0.57|0.2150
84706074|NCT03312907|169155298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.63|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.63|1.03|
84706075|NCT03312907|169155299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.19|0.64|0.3757
84706076|NCT03312907|169155299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.49|0.71|
84706077|NCT03312907|169155300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.78|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.78|0.42|0.5127
84706078|NCT03312907|169155300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.10|0.23|
84706079|NCT03312907|169155301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.05|0.14|0.8436
84706080|NCT03312907|169155301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.14|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||3.14|0.09|
84706081|NCT03312907|169155308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|15.7|||Regression, Logistic|Week 52|Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab+ Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||15.70|0.15|0.7102
84706082|NCT03312907|169155308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.71|||||Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||10.71|0.10|
84706083|NCT03312907|169155308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|Week 104|Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||3.15|0.26|0.8641
84706084|NCT03312907|169155308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.64|||||Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||5.64|0.26|
84706085|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.203|-30.352|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-30.352|-42.203|<0.0001
84706086|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.739|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.418|-27.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-27.060|-38.418|<0.0001
84706087|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.081|-19.449|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-19.449|-31.081|<0.0001
84706088|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.398|1.321|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.321|-8.398|0.1504
84706089|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.207|-3.741|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-3.741|-11.207|0.0002
84706090|NCT01780298|169155417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.979|-6.046|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-6.046|-15.979|<0.0001
84706091|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.249|-22.973|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-22.973|-32.249|<0.0001
84706092|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.501|-19.604|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-19.604|-29.501|<0.0001
84706093|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.043|-9.17|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-9.170|-19.043|<0.0001
84706094|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.058||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.702|0.585|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.585|-6.702|0.0983
84706095|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.845|-7.047|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-7.047|-13.845|<0.0001
84706096|NCT01780298|169155418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.302|-9.707|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-9.707|-17.302|<0.0001
84706097|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.374|52.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||52.521|28.374|<0.0001
84706098|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|38.185|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||38.185|14.890|<0.0001
84706099|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.661||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.997|33.324|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||33.324|7.997|0.0018
84706100|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.91||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.534|22.286|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||22.286|5.534|0.0015
84706101|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.877||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|14.639|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||14.639|-2.886|0.1847
84706102|NCT01780298|169155419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.787||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.536|30.038|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||30.038|9.536|0.0003
84706103|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2979.725||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7560.258|1600.808|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1600.808|-7560.258|0.1981
84706104|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2317.131||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1224.786|5859.048|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||5859.048|-1224.786|0.1956
84706105|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2396.589||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.692|6160.87|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||6160.870|-1367.692|0.2077
84706106|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5296.856||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11930.19|1336.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1336.478|-11930.190|0.1154
84706107|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.458||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-736.151|577.234|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||577.234|-736.151|0.8095
84706108|NCT01780298|169155420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5376.314||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12030.714|1278.085|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1278.085|-12030.714|0.1113
84706109|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|7.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.521|4.510|<0.0001
84706110|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.379|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||6.310|3.379|<0.0001
84511784|NCT02087904|168775410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|5.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.76|-12.58|0.465
84706111|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|4.984|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||4.984|1.923|<0.0001
84706112|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.296|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||2.296|0.045|0.0418
84706113|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.391||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.686|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||2.686|0.096|0.0357
84706114|NCT01780298|169155421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||3.820|1.303|0.0001
84706115|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.633|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.964|45.302|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||45.302|33.964|<0.0001
84706116|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.761|41.822|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||41.822|29.761|<0.0001
84706117|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.445|34.888|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||34.888|23.445|<0.0001
84706118|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.842||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.536|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.536|0.147|0.0418
84706119|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.625||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.763|11.487|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||11.487|1.763|0.0084
84706120|NCT01780298|169155422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.888|15.045|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||15.045|5.888|<0.0001
84706121|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.203|0.654|<0.0001
84706122|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.141|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.141|0.609|<0.0001
84706123|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.912|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.912|0.386|<0.0001
84706124|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.231|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.231|-0.093|0.3985
84706125|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.414|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.414|0.026|0.0267
84706126|NCT01780298|169155423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.506|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.506|0.104|0.0036
84706127|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.179|1.949|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.949|1.179|<0.0001
84706128|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.658|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.658|0.924|<0.0001
84706129|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.421|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||1.421|0.724|<0.0001
84706130|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.521|0.031|0.0282
84706131|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.471|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.471|-0.057|0.1223
84706132|NCT01780298|169155424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.710|0.273|<0.0001
84706133|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.478|0.269|<0.0001
84706134|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.354|0.158|<0.0001
84706135|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.249|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.249|0.022|0.0199
84706136|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.218|0.015|0.0247
84706137|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.221|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.221|0.019|0.0204
84706138|NCT01780298|169155425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.347|0.127|<0.0001
84706139|NCT05286385|169155434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.29||||||||0.29|-6.29|
84706140|NCT05286385|169155435|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.44||||||||3.44|-8.04|
84706141|NCT05286385|169155436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.95|
84706142|NCT00232180|169155452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.741||Using an adaptation of Haybittle-Peto stopping criterion adjusting for two interim analyses, p-value for final primary analysis will be compared to alpha=0.049. No adjustment in alpha will be made on parameters/endpoints other than primary endpoint.|Cox proportional hazard model|||Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, time from electrocardiogram Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization (QRS) and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.741|0.535|<0.0001
84706143|NCT00232180|169155454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.757||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.757|0.552|<0.0001
84706144|NCT00232180|169155455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.932||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.932|0.622|0.0081
84706145|NCT00232180|169155456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.941||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.941|0.609|0.0120
84706146|NCT00232180|169155457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.876||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.876|0.673|<0.0001
84706147|NCT00232180|169155458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.702||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.702|0.473|<0.0001
84706148|NCT00232180|169155459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|0.849||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.849|0.664|<0.0001
84706149|NCT00232180|169155460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.701||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.701|0.475|<0.0001
84706150|NCT00232180|169155461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.694|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.806||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.806|0.598|<0.0001
84706151|NCT00232180|169155462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.064||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.064|0.839|0.2321
84706152|NCT00232180|169155463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.406||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.406|0.443|0.4213
84706153|NCT00232180|169155464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.424||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.424|0.694|0.9754
84706154|NCT00232180|169155465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.22||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.220|0.485|0.2652
84706155|NCT00232180|169155466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.578||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.578|0.366|0.9537
84706156|NCT00232180|169155467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|5.312||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||5.312|0.251|0.8539
84706157|NCT00232180|169155468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.585||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.91||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.910|0.376|0.0175
84511785|NCT02087904|168775411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|7.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-11.76|0.666
84706158|NCT00232180|169155469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.4||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.400|0.559|0.6009
84706159|NCT02748317|169155470|OTHER|1 group t-test no comparison group|||||=|0.219||||||P-value is not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.219
84706160|NCT00414544|169155472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was tested.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Confidence interval|The 90% lower confidence bound of the difference between CosmetaLife and Restylane were computed.|The confidence interval is built around the mean difference of the two reporting groups.|The a priori hypothesis for statistical analysis was based on predetermined clinical relevance being set to a difference score between CosmetaLife and Control (Restylane) of -0.5. This clinical relevance was set to -0.5 because the observation scale used is not accurate below 0.5 differences. That is CosmetaLife needed to be greater than 0.5 less than Control (Restylane) in the treatment difference scores to be considered inferior.||1.0|-2.0|
84706161|NCT03926039|169155558|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Both group of average difference (95% CI) in intervention group and control group||||0.05
84706162|NCT05082935|169155564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.104|||ANCOVA|||||0.104|-0.008|0.09
84706163|NCT05082935|169155565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.02
84706164|NCT05082935|169155566|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|-0.076||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.145|0.03
84706165|NCT05082935|169155567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.04|0.38
84706166|NCT05082935|169155568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.04|0.002
84706167|NCT01839331|169155579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84706168|NCT01839331|169155579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
84706169|NCT01839331|169155579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
84706170|NCT01839331|169155580|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0442
84706171|NCT01839331|169155581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.4133
84706172|NCT01839331|169155582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline PGA|ANOVA|||||||0.0122
84706173|NCT03752151|169155583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that the probability of meeting the endpoint (Atrioventricular synchrony \>70%) was the same in MARVEL 2 Monitor Mode and MARVEL 2 Adaptive Mode. A sample size of 35 participants with a predominant rhythm of 3rd degree atrioventricular block and normal sinus function provided \>90% power at a type I error rate of 0.05 assuming the proportion of patients meeting the endpoint in one mode, but not the other exceeded 50% and 90% of these pairs favored the Adaptive mode.||||<0.001
84706174|NCT03752151|169155584|SUPERIORITY||proportion expressed as a percentage|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that 87% or fewer participants will achieve the endpoint. The alternative hypothesis is that more than 87% of participants will achieve the endpoint. A sample size of 70 participants provides at least 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true rate of meeting the endpoint in the population is 98% at a type I error rate of 2.5%.||100|95.2|<0.001
84706175|NCT03752151|169155585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test since each participant had LVOT VTI measurements in MARVEL 2 Adaptive and Monitor modes||The null hypothesis is that the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Adaptive mode equals the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Monitor mode. A sample size of 35 participants with paired LVOT VTI measurements provides 89% power at a type I error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis assuming the true difference in LVOT VTI is 2.1 cm with a standard deviation of 3.8 cm.||2.7|0.7|0.002
84706176|NCT03074331|169155595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
84706177|NCT01546753|169155609|SUPERIORITY|The change from baseline OFC to week 38 OFC (primary outcome measure) was compared between the two groups using a Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84706178|NCT01546753|169155610|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes for the percentage of participants who reach the 5000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84706179|NCT01546753|169155611|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes including the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84706180|NCT01546753|169155612|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes such as the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the tree nut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84706181|NCT01546753|169155614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84706182|NCT04470375|169155633|OTHER|Paired samples pre-post t-test||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.137
84706183|NCT04470375|169155634|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre - post measure of group)||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
84706184|NCT04470375|169155635|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre post measure of group)||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.591
84706185|NCT01943799|169155688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.059|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.059|-0.061|0.976
84706186|NCT01943799|169155688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.053|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.053|-0.067|0.828
84706187|NCT01943799|169155688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.029||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.031|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.031|-0.089|0.343
84706188|NCT01395758|169155719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5017
84706189|NCT01395758|169155720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4356
84706190|NCT00696618|169155724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|multi-level|||Nine research participants provided the ability to detect an effect size of 1.25 standard deviation units relative to the mean with 80% power using two-sided, 5% alpha in a paired analysis. The Baseline condition (no intervention) was assigned a value of 1 and geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each intervention were calculated relative to baseline.||||<.05
84706191|NCT00696618|169155725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||multi-level|||||||<.05
84706192|NCT00696618|169155726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mulit-level analysis|||||||<.05
84706193|NCT05135000|169155754|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.6843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.2|0.6843
84706194|NCT05938413|169155834|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test to compare viral suppression rate between month 3 and baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84706195|NCT04922021|169155837|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided hypotheses were tested based on the pre-specified primary analysis for the primary estimand. The primary estimand used a hypothetical strategy evaluating the treatment difference as if all subjects adhered to the treatment regimen, i.e. they did not discontinue IMP permanently, did not initiate rescue treatment, or did not have more than one missed treatment dose related to COVID-19.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-4.1||The type I error rate of the two-sided hypothesis test was controlled at the 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in EASI = Treatment + Region + Baseline EASI. Missing values and data 'treated as missing' were imputed using MI assuming MAR.|Estimates of difference in LS-means and associated standard errors from the analyses were combined using Rubin's rule to provide the overall pooled estimate and associated standard error. LS-means was estimated using the observed margins for the FAS.|||-4.1|-19.6|0.003
84706196|NCT01285999|169155839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.21||p-value has not been adjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment.||H0: μt - μc = 0 H1: μt - μc ≠ 0 where μt and μc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss values for the subjects in the PROMUS Element test and TAXUS Liberté control treatment groups, respectively.||-0.21|-0.37|0.05
84706197|NCT04714320|169155877|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m\^2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.135
84706198|NCT04714320|169155877|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.867
84706199|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
84706200|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
84706201|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
84706202|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
84510611|NCT01347710|168772646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LAD||||||.379
84510612|NCT01347710|168772646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|Z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LCX||||||.358
84706203|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
84706204|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
84706205|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
84706206|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
84706207|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
84706208|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
84706209|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
84706210|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
84706211|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
84706212|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
84706213|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
84706214|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
84706215|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
84706216|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
84706217|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
84510613|NCT01347710|168772646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; RCA||||||.442
84706218|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.002
84706219|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
84706220|NCT04714320|169155879|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
84706221|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
84706222|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
84706223|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
84706224|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
84706225|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
84706226|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
84706227|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
84706228|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
84706229|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
84706230|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
84706231|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
84511786|NCT02087904|168775411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-18.95|0.065
84706232|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
84706233|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
84706234|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
84706235|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
84706236|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
84706237|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
84706238|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
84706239|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
84706240|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.005
84706241|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
84706242|NCT04714320|169155880|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
84706243|NCT04714320|169155881|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.094||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.094
84706244|NCT04714320|169155881|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.842||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.842
84706245|NCT04714320|169155881|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.066
84706246|NCT04714320|169155881|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.442
84706247|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.834||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.834
84706248|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.945||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.945
84706249|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.208||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.208
84706250|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.740
84706251|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.019
84706252|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.560
84706253|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.903
84706254|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.268||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.268
84706255|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.702||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.702
84706256|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.885||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.885
84706257|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.066
84706258|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.783
84706259|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.456||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.456
84511787|NCT02087904|168775411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|2.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.49|-16.84|0.145
84706260|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.102||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.102
84706261|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.668||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.668
84706262|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.454
84706263|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.044
84706264|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.704||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.704
84706265|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.878
84706266|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.681
84706267|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.199
84706268|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.602||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.602
84706269|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.135
84510614|NCT01347710|168772646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; non-LAD||||||.984
84706270|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.407
84706271|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.795||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.795
84706272|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.036||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.036
84706273|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.915||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.915
84706274|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.957||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.957
84706275|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.804||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.804
84706276|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.775
84706277|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.801||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.801
84706278|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.329||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.329
84706279|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.882||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.882
84706280|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.235||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.235
84706281|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.505||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.505
84706282|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.436||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.436
84706283|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.637||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.637
84510615|NCT01347710|168772647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of sensitivity for flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule; multivessel disease|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
84706284|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.254
84706285|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.848||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.848
84706286|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.240
84706287|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.382||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.382
84706288|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.935
84706289|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.278
84706290|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.211
84706291|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.562
84706292|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.250
84706293|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.114
84706294|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.550
84706295|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.423
84706296|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.422||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.422
84706297|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.073
84706298|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.278
84706299|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.338||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.338
84706300|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.969
84706301|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.489||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.489
84706302|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.156
84706303|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.389||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.389
84706304|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.775
84706305|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.437||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.437
84706306|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.618
84706307|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.079
84706308|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.349
84706309|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.58||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.580
84706310|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.106
84706311|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.955||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.955
84706312|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.134||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.134
84706313|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.933
84706314|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.502||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.502
84706315|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.653||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.653
84706316|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.816
84706317|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
84706318|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.765||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.765
84706319|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.009
84706320|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.578
84706321|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.725||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.725
84706322|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.287||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.287
84706323|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.705||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.705
84706324|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.975||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.975
84706325|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.118
84510616|NCT01347710|168772648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of specificity for comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI in detecting multivessel disease|z test|p-Value based on one-sided z test for non-inferiority||||||0.827
84706326|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.959||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.959
84706327|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.413
84706328|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.043
84706329|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.849
84706330|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.662
84706331|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.047||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.047
84706332|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.950
84706333|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.656||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.656
84706334|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.922||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.922
84706335|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.143||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.143
84706336|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.452||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.452
84706337|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.231||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.231
84706338|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.405||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.405
84706339|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.718||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.718
84706340|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.053
84706341|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.893||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.893
84706342|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.662
84706343|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.688||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.688
84706344|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.611||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.611
84706345|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.907||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.907
84510617|NCT01347710|168772649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality of excellent or good|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity||||||<0.001
84706346|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.699||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.699
84706347|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.802||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.802
84706348|NCT04714320|169155882|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.206||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.206
84706349|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.280
84706350|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.648
84706351|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.416||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.416
84510618|NCT01347710|168772650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study protocol number BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.945|ONE_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI|Z Test|one-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.945
84706352|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.900
84706353|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.627||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.627
84706354|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.921||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.921
84706355|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.464||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.464
84706356|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.458||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.458
84706357|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
84706358|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.629||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.629
84706359|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.242||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.242
84706360|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.29||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.290
84511788|NCT02087904|168775412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|7.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.59|-14.03|0.558
84706361|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.349
84706362|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.532||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.532
84706363|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.205
84706364|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.368||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.368
84706365|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.084||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.084
84706366|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.179
84706367|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.584
84706368|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.762||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.762
84706369|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.675||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.675
84706370|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.166||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.166
84706371|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.090
84706372|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.488||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.488
84706373|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.218||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.218
84706374|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.232||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.232
84706375|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.421
84511789|NCT02087904|168775412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|5.11||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.11|-16.77|0.295
84706376|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.815
84706377|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.711||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.711
84706378|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.514||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.514
84706379|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.479||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.479
84706380|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.292
84706381|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.528||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.528
84706382|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.946||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.946
84706383|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.552||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.552
84706384|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.598||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.598
84706385|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
84706386|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.614||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.614
84706387|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.933
84706388|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.803||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.803
84706389|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.686||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.686
84706390|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.752||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.752
84706391|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.106
84706392|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
84706393|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.323
84706394|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.991
84706395|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.973||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.973
84706396|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.230
84706397|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.792
84706398|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.744
84510619|NCT01347710|168772651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality excellent/good|z Test|p-Value based on on-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||0.954
84706399|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.925|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.925
84510620|NCT01347710|168772652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84706400|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.991
84706401|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.53|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.530
84706402|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.849
84706403|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.953||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.953
84706404|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.884||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.884
84706405|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.230
84510621|NCT01347710|168772653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|p-Values are from 2-sided McNemar's test of comparison in proportion of patients with definitely diagnositic certainty between PET and SPECT||||||<0.001
84706406|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.589||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.589
84706407|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.919||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.919
84706408|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.753||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.753
84706409|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.747||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.747
84706410|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.764||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.764
84706411|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.527
84706412|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.639||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.639
84706413|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.744
84706414|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.539
84706415|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.417||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.417
84706416|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.466
84706417|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.380
84706418|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.730
84706419|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.595||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.595
84706420|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.279||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.279
84706421|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.196
84706422|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.728||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.728
84706423|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.453||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.453
84706424|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.681
84706425|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.863
84706426|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.837||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.837
84706427|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.504
84706428|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.531||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.531
84510622|NCT04591626|168772656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.14|<0.001
84706429|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.600
84706430|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.830
84706431|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.209||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.209
84706432|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.809||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.809
84510623|NCT04591626|168772657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|22.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.28|5.35|<0.001
84706433|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.045
84706434|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.104
84706435|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.690
84706436|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.59||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.590
84706437|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.538
84706438|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.407
84706439|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.398||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.398
84706440|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.930
84706441|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.111||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.111
84706442|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.196
84706443|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.816
84706444|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.473||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.473
84706445|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.615||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.615
84706446|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.214
84706447|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.575
84706448|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.276
84706449|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.573||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.573
84706450|NCT04714320|169155883|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.706||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.706
84706451|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.853
84706452|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.542||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.542
84706453|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.430
84706454|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.587||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.587
84510624|NCT04591626|168772658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.77|<0.001
84706455|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.910
84706456|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.846||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.846
84510625|NCT04591626|168772659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.08|-20.57|<0.001
84706457|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||0.634
84706458|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.767||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.767
84706459|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.399||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.399
84706460|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.323
84706461|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.115||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.115
84706462|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.982||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.982
84706463|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.859||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.859
84706464|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.344||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.344
84706465|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.633||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.633
84706466|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.889||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.889
84706467|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.241||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.241
84706468|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.367
84706469|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.716||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.716
84706470|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.210
84706471|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.363
84510626|NCT04591626|168772660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using Logistic Regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
84510627|NCT04591626|168772661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.48|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model: Variable = Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||13.48|4.27|<0.001
84706472|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.193||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.193
84706473|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.135
84706474|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.867
84706475|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.761||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.761
84706476|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.618
84706477|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.363
84706478|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.125
84706479|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.435||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.435
84706480|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.413
84706481|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.658
84706482|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.275||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.275
84706483|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.578
84706484|NCT04714320|169155884|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.114
84706485|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.378||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.378
84706486|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.648
84706487|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.961||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.961
84706488|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.817||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.817
84706489|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.823||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.823
84706490|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.362||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.362
84706491|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.660
84706492|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.539
84706493|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.430
84706494|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.594||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.594
84706495|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.783
84706496|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.599||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.599
84706497|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.454
84706498|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.394
84706499|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.930
84706500|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.313
84706501|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.276
84706502|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.168
84706503|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.199
84706504|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.506
84706505|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.320
84706506|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.250
84706507|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.373||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.373
84706508|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.597
84706509|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.867
84706510|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.500
84706511|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.863
84706512|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.681
84706513|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.262||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.262
84706514|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.645
84706515|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.947||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.947
84706516|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.665||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.665
84706517|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.498
84706518|NCT04714320|169155885|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.173||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.173
84706519|NCT05930782|169155913|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of Cmax falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.32|113.02||||||||113.02|48.32|
84706520|NCT05930782|169155914|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratio (GMR)|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.46|100.71||||||||100.71|56.46|
84706521|NCT05930782|169155915|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.16|109.63||||||||109.63|68.16|
84706522|NCT05930782|169155916|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|77.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.49|101.39||||||||101.39|59.49|
84706523|NCT05930782|169155917|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.03|113.02|||||For AUC0-inf, the GMR and 90% CI values were unreliable as there was only 1 calculable value for the Test (Group 2) and 2 values for the Reference (Group 1) products.|||113.02|6.03|
84706524|NCT02566902|169155921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84706525|NCT02566902|169155922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84706526|NCT02566902|169155923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84706527|NCT02566902|169155924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
84706528|NCT02566902|169155925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84510628|NCT04591626|168772662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
84706529|NCT02566902|169155926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84706530|NCT04425629|169155935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|= 0.0006
84706531|NCT04425629|169155935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.56|< 0.0001
84706532|NCT04425629|169155936|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0024
84706533|NCT04425629|169155937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
84510629|NCT04591626|168772663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-33.0|<0.001
84706534|NCT04425629|169155943|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.1903
84706535|NCT04425629|169155943|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.8431
84706536|NCT04425629|169155999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.12||||||||16.12|0.06|
84706537|NCT04425629|169156000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13||||||||3.13|0.03|
84706538|NCT01102231|169156034|OTHER||Proportion difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.964||||||||0.964|0.846|
84706539|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||4.3|-32.1|0.1040
84706540|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-2.1|-38.3|0.0334
84706541|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.3|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-8.0|-43.3|0.0086
84706542|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.5|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-5.5|-41.5|0.0158
84510630|NCT04591626|168772664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-6.86|0.006
84706543|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||2.4|-24.3|0.0879
84510631|NCT01968382|168772670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3198
84510632|NCT01968382|168772673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8462|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8462
84706544|NCT03903822|169156037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-14.1|-40.7|0.0004
84706545|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|34.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.7|2.4|0.0244
84706546|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|38.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.6|4.8|0.0113
84706547|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|11.0|0.0018
84706548|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|49.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||49.9|13.7|0.0007
84706549|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.8|0.0289
84706550|NCT03903822|169156038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|29.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.6|-2.9|0.1145
84706551|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.01|-2.61|0.0488
84706552|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.07|-2.66|0.0413
84706553|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.32|-2.86|0.0200
84706554|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.58|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-1.08|-3.58|0.0011
84706555|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||0.10|-1.66|0.0727
84706556|NCT03903822|169156039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.77|-2.52|0.0010
84706557|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|16.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.4|-14.7|0.5246
84706558|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|19.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.9|-12.5|0.3906
84706559|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|30.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.6|-3.2|0.1193
84706560|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|45.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.5|8.8|0.0048
84706561|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|31.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.1|-2.0|0.0777
84706562|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|28.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.0|-4.3|0.1245
84706563|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-12.2|0.3322
84706564|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-0.3|0.0535
84706565|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.9|4.5|0.0159
84706566|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0008
84706567|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|1.5|0.0386
84706568|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|30.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.3|-6.4|0.1485
84706569|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-0.8|0.0620
84706570|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0089
84706571|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.5|54.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.7|17.5|0.0005
84706572|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0007
84510633|NCT02480764|168772734|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4512||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.782|0.918||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.918|-4.782|0.184
84706573|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|37.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.5|-2.0|0.0711
84706574|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|42.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||42.5|2.7|0.0266
84706575|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||23.1|-15.3|0.4173
84706576|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.1096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|-4.3|0.1096
84706577|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|6.1|0.0133
84706578|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|41.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.7|2.6|0.0304
84706579|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
84706580|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
84706581|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|20.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||20.4|-18.4|0.4966
84706582|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|30.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.1|-9.3|0.2753
84706583|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-4.2|0.1036
84706584|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|39.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||39.6|0.4|0.0457
84706585|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
84706586|NCT03903822|169156040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
84706587|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|14.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.9|-5.4|0.2450
84706588|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|14.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.0|-5.3|0.2575
84706589|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|5.7|0.0087
84706590|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|25.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.4|0.8|0.0392
84706591|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|11.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||11.2|-11.2|1.0000
84706592|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|22.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||22.5|-4.9|0.1528
84706593|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|15.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||15.2|-12.7|0.4989
84706594|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-13.6|0.5419
84706595|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
84706596|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|33.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.9|-0.4|0.0541
84706597|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.5|-12.0|0.3945
84706598|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|41.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.8|3.9|0.0201
84706599|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|-5.4|0.1372
84706600|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|19.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.1|-11.6|0.3924
84706601|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.4|0.0311
84706602|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.1|0.8|0.0392
84706603|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.4|-6.2|0.1541
84706604|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
84706605|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|-9.5|0.2835
84706606|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|27.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.8|-8.7|0.2700
84706607|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|36.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.2|-1.4|0.0662
84706608|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
84706609|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.2|0.0302
84706610|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
84706611|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|30.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.2|-6.5|0.1561
84706612|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-2.7|0.0753
84706613|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|5.7|0.0108
84706614|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
84706615|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-2.9|0.0775
84706616|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.4|3.4|0.0243
84706617|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|3.5|0.0234
84706618|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|29.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.3|-2.8|0.1134
84706619|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
84706620|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|29.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.8|-3.4|0.1029
84706621|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|17.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||17.9|-17.9|1.0000
84706622|NCT03903822|169156041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.6||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|3.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||3.5|-28.8|0.8972
84706623|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|13.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||13.3|-14.2|0.4781
84706624|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.2|-27.8|0.0522
84706625|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.4|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-3.7|-31.4|0.0187
84706626|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-6.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-6.6|-34.5|0.0080
84706627|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.5|-48.6|0.0401
84706628|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-1.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.9|-49.2|0.0379
84706629|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||26.3|-10.1|0.7678
84706630|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.94||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-4.7|-40.9|0.0193
84706631|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.5|-10.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2:MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.2|-46.5|0.0052
84510634|NCT02480764|168772734|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.502|-0.868||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.868|-6.502|0.010
84706632|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-5.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-5.5|-42.0|0.0164
84706633|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-47.8|0.0008
84706634|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-24.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-24.3|-57.0|<0.0001
84706635|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|23.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||23.9|-16.1|0.6269
84706636|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.87||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|-13.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-13.8|-53.1|0.0027
84706637|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.5|-19.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.2|-58.5|0.0007
84706638|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.9|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.9|0.0041
84706639|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.61||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.9|4.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||4.6|-33.9|0.1054
84706640|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.62||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.1|0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.5|-38.1|0.0542
84706641|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.12||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|25.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||25.9|-14.2|0.6847
84706642|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.3|-49.4|0.0062
84706643|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.6|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.6|0.0040
84706644|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|-11.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-11.0|-50.6|0.0054
84706645|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|3.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.9|-27.2|0.1076
84706646|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.6|-7.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-7.3|-38.6|0.0082
84706647|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.2|5.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||5.6|-41.2|0.1051
84706648|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|-15.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.0|-60.6|0.0034
84706649|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.8|-19.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.0|-64.8|0.0014
84706650|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.6|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-61.6|0.0030
84706651|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-2.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-2.4|-33.0|0.0289
84706652|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-18.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-18.4|-49.2|0.0002
84706653|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|22.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||22.0|-23.9|0.4739
84706654|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.2|-41.3|0.0789
84706655|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||8.9|-35.7|0.1611
84706656|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.7|-8.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-8.5|-54.7|0.0124
84706657|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.7|24.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||24.1|-34.7|0.3828
84706658|NCT03903822|169156042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|31.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||31.3|-27.9|0.5383
84706659|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|2.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||2.0|-16.1|0.8964
84706660|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|1.0|0.0391
84706661|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|10.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||10.8|-10.8|1.0000
84706662|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.0|-1.4|0.0708
84706663|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|4.7|0.0122
84706664|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|11.0|0.0016
84706665|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-9.8|0.3950
84706666|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|4.2|0.0173
84706667|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|1.4|0.0327
84510635|NCT02480764|168772735|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9455||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|0.397||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.397|-3.316|0.123
84510636|NCT02480764|168772735|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9354||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.659|-0.985||Change at 8 Week: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-4.659|0.003
84706668|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.6|13.2|0.0011
84706669|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|27.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.2|-5.0|0.1348
84706670|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|1.5|0.0328
84706671|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-1.8|0.0769
84706672|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|13.2|0.0005
84706673|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|53.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||53.1|22.1|<0.0001
84706674|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|51.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.8|19.7|0.0001
84706675|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|16.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.5|-16.5|1.0000
84510637|NCT02480764|168772736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.347||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.347|0.571|0.548
84510638|NCT02480764|168772736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2136||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.501||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.501|0.638|0.921
84706676|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.5|4.5|0.0173
84510639|NCT02480764|168772737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2805||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.759||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.759|0.607|0.904
84706677|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.9|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-19.9|0.5663
84706678|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||32.6|-3.8|0.1243
84706679|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|36.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.6|-0.5|0.0460
84706680|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|43.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.3|4.8|0.0130
84706681|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.4|-4.2|0.1194
84706682|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0097
84706683|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-21.0|0.5556
84706684|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-2.5|0.0761
84706685|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|37.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.6|-0.8|0.0583
84706686|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|33.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.7|-5.0|0.1245
84706687|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.5|0.0382
84706688|NCT03903822|169156043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|51.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.4|13.2|0.0011
84706689|NCT00311363|169156077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.353||||0.0158||95.0|0.2|0.8||Model included terms for treatment group, randomization IRLS score (Week 24), and pooled study site|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8|0.2|0.0158
84706690|NCT03811574|169156110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-5.43|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-5.43|-9.62|<.0001
84706691|NCT03811574|169156110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|-9.24|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.24|-12.88|<.0001
84706692|NCT03811574|169156111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|22.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||22.22|5.53|<.0001
84510640|NCT02480764|168772737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.823||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.823|0.633|0.790
84706693|NCT03811574|169156111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|41.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||41.86|11.27|<.0001
84706694|NCT02574455|169156170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.492||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.492|0.305|<0.0001
84510641|NCT02480764|168772738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1916||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.367||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.367|0.594|0.624
84706695|NCT02574455|169156171|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.517||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.517|0.330|<0.0001
84706696|NCT02574455|169156172|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.592||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.592|0.390|<0.0001
84706697|NCT02574455|169156173|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.625||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.625|0.422|<0.0001
84706698|NCT02574455|169156174|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|21.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by IRC Assessment||21.095|5.590|<0.0001
84706699|NCT02574455|169156174|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|13.341|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by Investigator Assessment||13.341|4.063|<0.0001
84706700|NCT02574455|169156177|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.107||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by IRC Assessment||1.107|0.150|0.0683
84706701|NCT02574455|169156177|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.435||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by Investigator Assessment||0.435|0.103|<0.0001
84706702|NCT02574455|169156178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.404||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by Investigator Assessment||0.404|0.248|<0.0001
84706703|NCT02574455|169156179|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.525||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by IRC Assessment||0.525|0.315|<0.0001
84706704|NCT02574455|169156180|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|14.437|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by IRC Assessment||14.437|5.055|<0.0001
84706705|NCT02574455|169156180|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|12.364|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by Investigator Assessment||12.364|4.540|<0.0001
84706706|NCT06243796|169156186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84706707|NCT06243796|169156187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84510642|NCT02480764|168772738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.674||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.674|0.726|0.647
84706708|NCT03631550|169156241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.018
84706709|NCT03631550|169156242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0466
84706710|NCT03631550|169156243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0677
84706711|NCT03631550|169156244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84706712|NCT03631550|169156245|OTHER|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
84706713|NCT03631550|169156246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
84706714|NCT03887650|169156247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.127
84706715|NCT03887650|169156248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.975
84706716|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||PACU pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.852
84706717|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||For (PACU-24) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.661
84706718|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||For (PACU-24 hr.) maximum pain score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.747
84706719|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||For (PACU-24 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.604
84706720|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||(24-48 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
84706721|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84706722|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84510643|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.284||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.284|0.537|0.404
84706723|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||(48-72 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
84706724|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||(48-72 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
84706725|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||(48-72 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
84706726|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||For (72-96 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.230
84706727|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||For (72-96 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
84706728|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||For (72-96 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
84706729|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||For (postoperative day 60) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.378
84706730|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||For (postoperative day 60) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
84706731|NCT03887650|169156249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||For (postoperative day 60) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.403
84706732|NCT03887650|169156250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.112
84706733|NCT03887650|169156251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||P-Value for POD4|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact for POD4||||||0.096
84706734|NCT03887650|169156251|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||For POD60|Chi-squared|Chi-squared for POD60||||||1.0
84706735|NCT03887650|169156252|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Any distress on PACU|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84706736|NCT03887650|169156252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947||||||Postoperative day 2|Chi-squared|||||||.947
84706737|NCT03887650|169156253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||Full sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.441
84706738|NCT03887650|169156253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||First sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.691
84706739|NCT03887650|169156254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
84706740|NCT03887650|169156255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Any movement|Fisher' Freeman Halton|||||||.011
84706741|NCT03887650|169156255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536||||||Full movement|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.536
84706742|NCT03887650|169156256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||MME 0-24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.648
84706743|NCT03887650|169156256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||MME24-48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.285
84706744|NCT03887650|169156256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||MME48-72|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
84706745|NCT03887650|169156256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367||||||MME 72-120|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.367
84706746|NCT04515641|169156266|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.96|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.96|0.58|
84706747|NCT04515641|169156267|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.98|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.98|0.58|
84706748|NCT04515641|169156268|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.14|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.38|
84510644|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.447||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.606|0.768
84706749|NCT04515641|169156275|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.00|0.57|
84706750|NCT04515641|169156276|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.03|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.03|0.58|
84706751|NCT04515641|169156277|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.46|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.46|0.63|
84706752|NCT04515641|169156278|OTHER||GMR|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.71|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.71|0.65|
84706753|NCT04515641|169156279|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.26|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.26|0.59|
84706754|NCT04515641|169156280|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.01|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.01|0.42|
84706755|NCT00716859|169156290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin, then non-inferiority concluded. If lower limit of 95% CI for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin and above zero, then superiority concluded. The difference and 95% CI of the difference in IOP reduction (Week 12) was computed from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline diagnosis as factors and baseline IOP as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.74||||||Null hypothesis: latanoprost inferior to timolol (0.5 percent \[%\] optionally 0.25% for participants younger than 3 years). Power calculation: assuming common standard deviation (7 mmHg), 110 participants have 84% power to demonstrate latanoprost not inferior to timolol within 3 mmHg margin, assuming latanoprost has 1 mmHg reduction more than timolol in mean change from baseline IOP.||3.74|-0.81|
84706756|NCT00716859|169156291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.02||||||||3.02|-1.66|
84706757|NCT00716859|169156292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.25||||||||4.25|-1.00|
84706758|NCT00716859|169156293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.67||||||||2.67|-1.10|
84706759|NCT00716859|169156298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline diagnosis (PCG vs non-PCG).||||||0.3315
84706760|NCT03546608|169156374|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|139.35||||||||139.35|64.75|
84706761|NCT03546608|169156374|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.93|128.98||||||||128.98|59.93|
84706762|NCT03546608|169156375|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.09|140.26||||||||140.26|64.09|
84510645|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2837||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.784||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.784|0.620|0.852
84706763|NCT03546608|169156375|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.94|129.0||||||||129.00|58.94|
84706764|NCT03546608|169156376|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.9|129.73||||||||129.73|80.90|
84706765|NCT03546608|169156376|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|71.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.08|89.93||||||||89.93|56.08|
84706766|NCT03546608|169156387|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.67|149.47|||||For MSC2571109|||149.47|45.67|
84706767|NCT03546608|169156387|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.5|247.12|||||For MSC2571109|||247.12|75.50|
84706768|NCT03546608|169156387|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|185.1|||||For MSC2571107|||185.10|54.53|
84706769|NCT03546608|169156387|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.28|174.07|||||For MSC2571107|||174.07|51.28|
84706770|NCT03546608|169156388|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.56|148.84|||||For MSC2571109|||148.84|45.56|
84706771|NCT03546608|169156388|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|137.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|248.54|||||For MSC2571109|||248.54|76.08|
84706772|NCT03546608|169156388|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.16|184.23|||||For MSC2571107|||184.23|55.16|
84706773|NCT03546608|169156388|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|96.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.63|175.78|||||For MSC2571107|||175.78|52.63|
84706774|NCT03546608|169156389|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.52|136.26|||||For MSC2571109|||136.26|62.52|
84706775|NCT03546608|169156389|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|169.48|||||For MSC2571109|||169.48|77.76|
84706776|NCT03546608|169156389|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|106.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.25|161.49|||||For MSC2571107|||161.49|70.25|
84706777|NCT03546608|169156389|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|72.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.87|110.04|||||For MSC2571107|||110.04|47.87|
84706778|NCT00130117|169156399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
84706779|NCT00130117|169156399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.049
84706780|NCT00130117|169156400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"p value reflects treatment of leptin for on-treatment, n=4"|ANOVA|||||||0.02
84706781|NCT03422276|169156408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t-test for independent samples, two-tailed, allocation ratio=1|Intervention mean minus control mean|It was calculated that 500 to 900 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have practically 100% power to detect an effect size of 0.5, and even a small sample size of 300 would have 80% power to detect a small effect size of 0.3 (800 to 900 would be 100% power).||||0.44
84706782|NCT03422276|169156409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84706783|NCT05165485|169156421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|14.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence, stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were approximated by the Kenward and Roger (1997) method.|Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|14|-61|0.22
84706784|NCT05165485|169156422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|20.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The OTE is defined as the average of the Day 30, Day 60, and Day 85 Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean differences. The null hypothesis was that the OTE Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|20|-38|
84706785|NCT05165485|169156423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|32.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|32|-29|
84510646|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2788||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.763||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.763|0.620|0.868
84510647|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2244||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.59||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.590|0.684|0.847
84510648|NCT02480764|168772739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2517||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.785||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.785|0.769|0.460
84510649|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3333||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|2.307||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.307|0.958|0.077
84706786|NCT05165485|169156424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|29.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|29|-40|
84706787|NCT05165485|169156425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|35.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FVC, screening FVC, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|35|-118|
84706788|NCT05165485|169156426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Logistic||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder Odds Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR was estimated by fitting a logistic regression model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|0.92|0.39|
84706789|NCT05165485|169156427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Cox||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium CompEx Event Hazard Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR was estimated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|1.45|0.69|
84706790|NCT03237481|169156437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-81.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.592|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.83|-37.02|||ANOVA|||||-37.02|-125.83|= 0.0004
84706791|NCT03237481|169156438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-72.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.32|-36.65|||ANOVA|||||-36.65|-108.32|< 0.0001
84706792|NCT03237481|169156439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0001
84706793|NCT03237481|169156440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||=|0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.218|||Fisher Exact|||||0.218|0.003|= 0.0486
84706794|NCT03237481|169156441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.024
84706795|NCT02597920|169156617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
84706796|NCT02597920|169156617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84706797|NCT02597920|169156617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
84706798|NCT02597920|169156617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84706799|NCT02597920|169156618|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 CDS||||0.0005
84706800|NCT02597920|169156618|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 CDS||||0.0002
84706801|NCT02597920|169156618|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 SDS||||0.0002
84706802|NCT02597920|169156618|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 SDS||||0.0004
84706803|NCT02597920|169156623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84706804|NCT02597920|169156623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84706805|NCT05489484|169156638|OTHER|Paired-sample t-test was used to assess the change in Constant-Murley Score from baseline to 3 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|16.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change from baseline in CMS at 3 months. Higher scores represent better shoulder function. Positive difference indicates clinical improvement.|Statistical analysis was performed on 23 participants with valid Constant-Murley Score (CMS) data at both baseline and 3-month follow-up.||16.00|3.63|0.001
84706806|NCT01266122|169156669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log(Incident Risk Ratio)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression||Intent to treat analysis||-.44|-1.47|<.001
84510650|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4229||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|2.951||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.951|1.241|0.003
84706807|NCT01266122|169156670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square statistic|1.39|||=|0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Intent to treat analysis.||||=.239
84706808|NCT03224390|169156707|SUPERIORITY||Instrumental variables estimate|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.85||||||||.85|-.03|
84706809|NCT00703820|169156709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.41||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0429 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using an exact, risk-group stratified, two-sided test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a Clofarabine+Cytarabine patient is MRD positive to the odds that a Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide and Clofarabine+Cytarabine result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 240 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage Haybittle-Peto group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect an odds ratio of 2.5. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.41|1.03|0.035
84706810|NCT00546754|169156727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.153
84706811|NCT00546754|169156728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
84706812|NCT00546754|169156729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
84706813|NCT00546754|169156730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
84706814|NCT00546754|169156731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.662||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
84706815|NCT00546754|169156732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
84706816|NCT00546754|169156733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84706817|NCT00546754|169156734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.935
84706818|NCT00546754|169156735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84706819|NCT00546754|169156736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
84706820|NCT00546754|169156737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
84706821|NCT00546754|169156738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.386
84706822|NCT00546754|169156739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
84706823|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 4 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
84706824|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.041
84706825|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.008
84706826|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
84706827|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.01
84706828|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
84706829|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.091
84706830|NCT00396084|169156740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.354
84706831|NCT00396084|169156744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.05
84706832|NCT00396084|169156744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against gatifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.01
84706833|NCT00396084|169156744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against moxifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.02
84510651|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3414||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.28||Clinic DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.280|0.893|0.137
84510652|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4816||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|3.22||Clinic DBP \<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.220|1.263|0.003
84706834|NCT00396084|169156744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against levofloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.14
84706835|NCT00396084|169156745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 2 to 7 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.51
84706836|NCT00396084|169156745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 4 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.16
84706837|NCT00396084|169156745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolone groups were pooled and compared to bactericidal activity of patients in the INH arm.||||0.036
84706838|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 3 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
84706839|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.023
84706840|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.018
84706841|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
84706842|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
84706843|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
84706844|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
84706845|NCT00396084|169156746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.004
84706846|NCT00396084|169156747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 3 treatments groups were compared.||||<0.01
84706847|NCT00396084|169156747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against Linezolid once daily using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||<0.01
84706848|NCT00396084|169156747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean EBA 0-2 of INH was compared to pooled Linezolid once daily and Linezolid twice daily results.||||<0.01
84706849|NCT00396084|169156750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values EBA Days 2-7 for the 3 treatment groups were compared.||||0.25
84706850|NCT00396084|169156750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 3 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.42
84706851|NCT00396084|169156750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for INH was compared to that of the pooled linezolid arms.||||0.14
84706852|NCT05113771|169156776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.3|||MMRM|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with imputation based on the missing at random (MAR) assumption was used.||||-1.3|-7.6|0.0056
84706853|NCT05113771|169156777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||MMRM|||||||0.0189
84706854|NCT05113771|169156778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0026
84706855|NCT00262730|169156815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|study design has 85% power to detect 25% deduction in hazard rate compared to EORTC Phase 3 results.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.8|>.1
84706856|NCT01503749|169156817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84706857|NCT02299375|169156857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted median|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73|||||Data presented above are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals. The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapimod/placebo is \<1 assuming noninformative priors is 0.44.The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapi|||1.73|0.63|
84706858|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.084||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.084|-0.031|0.371
84706859|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Repeated Measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.093|-0.024|0.244
84510653|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3407||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.276||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.276|0.891|0.140
84510654|NCT02480764|168772740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4136||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|2.797||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.797|1.118|0.015
84706860|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.119||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.119|-0.000|0.050
84706861|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.058|-0.063|0.942
84706862|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.114||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.114|-0.014|0.127
84706863|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.148|0.011|0.024
84706864|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.174||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.174|-0.003|0.057
84706865|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.191||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.191|-0.090|0.481
84706866|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.059||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 2|||0.059|-0.030|0.521
84706867|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.086||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 4|||0.086|-0.005|0.084
84706868|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 8|||0.090|-0.025|0.266
84706869|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.042||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 12|||0.042|-0.066|0.665
84706870|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 18|||0.090|-0.043|0.489
84706871|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 26|||0.170|0.028|0.007
84706872|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 39|||0.148|-0.039|0.248
84706873|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 52|||0.172|-0.087|0.506
84706874|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.134||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.134|-0.032|0.223
84706875|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.129||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.129|-0.037|0.276
84706876|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.173||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.173|-0.023|0.131
84706877|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.090|-0.084|0.949
84706878|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.163||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.163|-0.044|0.259
84706879|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.172|-0.027|0.152
84706880|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.114||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.241||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.241|-0.012|0.076
84706881|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.381||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.381|-0.038|0.107
84706882|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.097||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 2|||0.097|-0.046|0.484
84706883|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 4|||0.100|-0.027|0.256
84706884|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.128||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 8|||0.128|-0.025|0.184
84706885|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.074||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 12|||0.074|-0.077|0.970
84706886|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 18|||0.120|-0.070|0.608
84706887|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.175||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 26|||0.175|-0.007|0.071
84706888|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.141||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 39|||0.141|-0.085|0.622
84510655|NCT01868009|168772749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The response was analyzed and adjusted for study inhaler use sequence and preference question version. The method accounted for participants who indicated no preference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84510656|NCT00860028|168772773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84706889|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.291||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 52|||0.291|-0.086|0.277
84706890|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.15||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 2|||0.150|-0.038|0.241
84706891|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.14|||MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 4|||0.140|-0.049|0.348
84706892|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.169||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 8|||0.169|-0.024|0.138
84706893|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.087||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 12|||0.087|-0.111|0.813
84706894|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.177||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 18|||0.177|-0.032|0.172
84706895|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 26|||0.180|-0.045|0.242
84706896|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.228||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 39|||0.228|-0.063|0.267
84706897|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.309||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 52|||0.309|-0.143|0.471
84706898|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.132||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 2|||0.132|-0.043|0.315
84706899|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.126||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 4|||0.126|-0.018|0.143
84510657|NCT00860028|168772774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||General Linear Model|||||||0.06
84706900|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.16||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 8|||0.160|-0.017|0.111
84706901|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 12|||0.100|-0.075|0.783
84706902|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.167||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 18|||0.167|-0.049|0.283
84706903|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.267||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 26|||0.267|0.008|0.038
84706904|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 39|||0.180|-0.083|0.467
84706905|NCT02299375|169156860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.222||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 52|||0.222|-0.138|0.640
84510658|NCT00860028|168772775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84706906|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 2|||3.27|-2.08|0.661
84706907|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|5.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 6|||5.12|-0.24|0.074
84706908|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.46||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 8|||6.46|-1.43|0.210
84706909|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 12|||3.12|-3.40|0.933
84706910|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|5.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 18|||5.82|-0.43|0.091
84706911|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.56||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 26|||8.56|0.82|0.018
84706912|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 39|||7.29|-0.69|0.103
84706913|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 52|||7.82|-3.50|0.448
84706914|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.77||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 2|||3.77|-0.27|0.089
84706915|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 4|||3.84|-0.31|0.095
84706916|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.58||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 8|||4.58|-0.20|0.073
84706917|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.51||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 12|||2.51|-2.08|0.853
84510659|NCT01108094|168772786|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker from baseline to 1 month, for Cohort A1 (vismodegib-naive patients, n = 8).~Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post-itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.04
84706918|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 18|||4.17|-1.43|0.334
84706919|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.05||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 26|||6.05|0.61|0.017
84706920|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|6.59||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 39|||6.59|-0.34|0.077
84706921|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.38||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 52|||7.38|-2.70|0.355
84706922|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|5.55||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 2|||5.55|0.08|0.044
84706923|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.49||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 4|||5.49|0.25|0.032
84706924|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.01||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 8|||7.01|0.49|0.025
84706925|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 12|||3.29|-2.50|0.785
84706926|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|6.7||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 18|||6.70|-0.03|0.052
84706927|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 26|||6.92|0.14|0.041
84706928|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.25||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 39|||8.25|0.13|0.043
84706929|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|11.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 52|||11.92|-6.58|0.562
84706930|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||1.52|-1.09|0.746
84706931|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||1.79|-1.53|0.878
84706932|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.85||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.85|-1.15|0.644
84706933|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.28||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.28|-1.86|0.715
84706934|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||2.10|-1.62|0.803
84706935|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||3.27|-0.63|0.184
84706936|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||4.52|-0.42|0.102
84706937|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.73||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.73|-1.85|0.383
84706938|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.06||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||2.06|-1.20|0.607
84706939|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.08||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||2.08|-0.74|0.348
84706940|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.65||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.65|-1.32|0.826
84706941|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.21||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.21|-2.13|0.588
84706942|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.91||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||1.91|-1.08|0.585
84706943|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|10.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||10.12|-2.48|0.231
84706944|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|3.89||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||3.89|-0.99|0.240
84706945|NCT02299375|169156861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.84|-2.49|0.517
84706946|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.85||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 12|||2.85|-4.20|0.706
84706947|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 26|||5.36|-3.58|0.694
84706948|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.83||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|3.58||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 39|||3.58|-9.23|0.382
84510660|NCT01108094|168772786|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - Cohort A, vismodegib-naive (n = 8) vs control patients Unpaired analysis shows percent change between individual tumors from control patients and itraconazole treated patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.079
84706949|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.57||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 52|||7.57|-8.54|0.903
84706950|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.99||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 12|||2.99|-6.33|0.481
84706951|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.25||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 26|||6.25|-4.79|0.793
84706952|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.26||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 39|||5.26|-12.45|0.421
84706953|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.98||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|3.4||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 52|||3.40|-19.35|0.162
84510661|NCT01108094|168772786|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - control patients Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline and after 1 month in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month."||||0.652
84510662|NCT01108094|168772787|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percentage change in GLI1 messenger RNA (mRNA) expression Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Gli levels and the mean Gli level after 1 month of treatment."|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||0.028
84706954|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.78||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 12|||5.78|-3.31|0.592
84706955|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|6.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 26|||6.36|-4.31|0.704
84706956|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|5.5||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 39|||5.50|-10.32|0.546
84706957|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.84||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 52|||13.84|-5.06|0.350
84706958|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.37||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 12|||2.37|-5.75|0.411
84706959|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.97||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 26|||4.97|-5.67|0.896
84706960|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|5.3||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 39|||5.30|-9.73|0.559
84706961|NCT02299375|169156868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|9.6||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 52|||9.60|-12.19|0.809
84706962|NCT00704184|169156901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|86.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||86.7|40.3|<0.001
84706963|NCT00704184|169156901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||88.6|46.0|<0.001
84706964|NCT00704184|169156901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|82.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||82.7|32.8|<0.001
84706965|NCT00704184|169156901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|77.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|91.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||91.3|49.2|<0.001
84706966|NCT00704184|169156904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
84706967|NCT00704184|169156904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|33.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.2|-7.6|
84706968|NCT00704184|169156904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
84510663|NCT01108094|168772788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|30.0||||||Only tumors from 4 patients from cohort A (n = 42 BCCs) and all tumors from the 4 patients (n = 14 BCCs) in cohort B were observed for tumor size change. Percent change in tumor area from both cohorts (eight patients total with 57 tumors) was calculated only.||30|18.2|
84510664|NCT01108094|168772788|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Average tumor size reductions were compared between Cohort A1 and Cohort B.||||0.435
84706969|NCT00704184|169156904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.4|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||28.4|-16.5|
84706970|NCT00704184|169156905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
84706971|NCT00704184|169156905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.5|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||39.5|-2.2|
84706972|NCT00704184|169156905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
84706973|NCT00704184|169156905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|34.6|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||34.6|-11.4|
84706974|NCT00704184|169156906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LC) Means|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-1.8|-3.2|
84706975|NCT00704184|169156906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
84706976|NCT00704184|169156906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
84706977|NCT00704184|169156906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.3|
84706978|NCT01998984|169156924|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.97||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.74||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared participant in the vehicle group."||14.74|0.60|0.18
84706979|NCT01998984|169156924|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|3.51||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.41||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared subject in the vehicle group.~Type I error not controlled."||12.41|1.00|0.051
84706980|NCT01998984|169156924|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.68||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Mantel Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Type I error not controlled. Mantel-Haenszel estimators were used."||1.68|0.13|0.25
84706981|NCT01998984|169156925|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.51||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.51|0.32|<0.001
84706982|NCT01998984|169156925|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.45|0.29|<0.001
84706983|NCT01998984|169156925|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||1.14|0.70|0.36
84706984|NCT01998984|169156926|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|236.8||P value adjusted for analysis site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||236.8|4.39|<0.001
84706985|NCT01998984|169156926|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|25.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|187.4||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||187.4|3.39|0.002
84706986|NCT01998984|169156926|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.65||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||1.65|0.86|0.28
84706987|NCT04188379|169157036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.884||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|43.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.591|1.007|0.0316
84510665|NCT03290326|168772793|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of 40Hz tACS on EEG gamma-band spectral power. Power changes were expressed as percentage relative power variations, accordingly with the event-related synchronization/desynchronization (ERS/ERD) index.||||< 0.01
84510666|NCT05818137|168772809|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.6|-68.4|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-68.4|-129.6|
84706988|NCT04188379|169157037|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.000|0.000|0.0009
84706989|NCT04188379|169157038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|26.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.268|1.268|0.0108
84706990|NCT04188379|169157039|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.958||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.41|||Wald Test|||||1.41|0.651|0.8287
84510667|NCT05818137|168772812|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.5|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||55.5|27.8|
84510668|NCT05818137|168772814|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-24.8|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-24.8|-77.0|
84706991|NCT04188379|169157040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.354||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|22.865|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.865|1.0480|0.0265
84706992|NCT04928001|169157044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||60|0|.01
84706993|NCT01693120|169157045|SUPERIORITY||rate|1.6||||0.175|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that the procedure or device related stroke rate within 30-days of a Phased RF ablation procedure was 3.5% or greater. The alternative hypothesis was that this rate was less than 3.5%. A sample size of 300 subjects provided 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true stroke rate was 1.0% with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05||4.9||0.175
84706994|NCT01693120|169157046|OTHER|The goal of the analysis was to compute a two-sided 95% confidence interval around the 6-month effectiveness rate. There was no pre-specified hypothesis.|rate|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|62.1||||||||62.1|43.1|
84706995|NCT01693120|169157047|OTHER|There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.|rate|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|95.1||||||There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.||95.1|84.3|
84706996|NCT01693120|169157048|OTHER|There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test|rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.1||||||There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test||6.1|0|
84706997|NCT03112174|169157095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.85||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.850|0.465|0.0024
84706998|NCT03112174|169157101|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.658||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.218||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||2.218|1.240|0.0004
84706999|NCT03112174|169157102|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.101||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.247||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on CMH test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||1.247|0.973|0.1279
84707000|NCT03112174|169157103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bone marrow aspirate||||0.2028
84707001|NCT03112174|169157103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Fisher Exact|||Peripheral blood||||0.0014
84510669|NCT02252562|168772838|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized a potential 66% reduction from a baseline incidence of 0.16 on the basis of prior interventions, but we assumed for power considerations a more conservative reduction of 40% from a baseline incidence of 0.12 averaged across all patients in each arm. Assuming a 10% loss to follow-up, we required 1,600 patients per group for a power of 0.9 with a type 1 error of .05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||fixed effects univariable analysis|||||1.40|0.82|
84510670|NCT04099888|168772877|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
84707002|NCT03112174|169157104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.151||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.151|0.602|0.2669
84707003|NCT03112174|169157106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.792||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.792|0.369|0.0013
84707004|NCT03112174|169157121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.554||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.554|0.879|0.2861
84707005|NCT01164098|169157124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Using Natural Log Transformed Data||T-test of the natural logarithmic transformed data||||0.18
84707006|NCT01164098|169157125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of Natural Log Transformed Data.||||0.49
84707007|NCT01164098|169157126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.37
84707008|NCT00802464|169157127|OTHER||Fold increase|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.98||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||6.98|3.89|
84707009|NCT00802464|169157127|OTHER||Fold increase|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.4|3|
84707010|NCT00802464|169157127|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.58|1.07|
84707011|NCT00802464|169157128|OTHER||Fold increase|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.69||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.69|1.67|
84707012|NCT00802464|169157128|OTHER||Fold increase|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.07||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.07|1.28|
84707013|NCT00802464|169157128|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.56|1.09|
84707014|NCT00802464|169157129|OTHER||Fold increase|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|5.85||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.85|3.81|
84707015|NCT00802464|169157129|OTHER||Fold increase|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.17||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||4.17|2.72|
84511790|NCT02087904|168775412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|4.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.04|-17.63|0.218
84511791|NCT02087904|168775413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.28|-3.58|0.664
84707016|NCT00802464|169157129|OTHER||Fold increase|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.68||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.68|1.17|
84707017|NCT00802464|169157130|OTHER||Fold increase|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|36.0|2.64|3.9||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||3.9|2.64|
84707018|NCT00802464|169157130|OTHER||Fold increase|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.97||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.97|2.02|
84707019|NCT00802464|169157130|OTHER||Fold increase|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.54|1.12|
84707020|NCT02706717|169157155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.0|143.9|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||143.9|-246|0.60
84707021|NCT02706717|169157161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.17|-0.09|0.51
84707022|NCT02706717|169157162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance|"The estimation parameter is the percent difference between the geometric mean fold changes.~With d-dimer data log10 transformed, this is (exp(Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean) - 1)\*100."|||71.0|-3.6|0.09
84707023|NCT02706717|169157165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.5|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||28.2|-93.5|0.29
84510671|NCT04099888|168772878|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||OS was analyzed using the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis set, which included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and had a RECIST assessment at baseline. Kaplan Meier Curve (KM) analysis of OS was completed for the mITT population, but the number of events was too small to draw any conclusions.|The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
84707024|NCT02706717|169157166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.04|-0.08|0.41
84707025|NCT02706717|169157183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
84707026|NCT00444600|169157192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-32.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-32|-78|<0.001
84707027|NCT00444600|169157192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-26|-72|<0.001
84707028|NCT00444600|169157192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|-29.0||Confidence interval is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-29|-75|<0.001
84707029|NCT00444600|169157194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.5|3.2|<0.001
84707030|NCT00444600|169157194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.6|3.4|<0.001
84707031|NCT00444600|169157194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||3.7|-1.5|0.31
84707032|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|34.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement for sham+prompt laser at 1 year||34|13|
84707033|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||29|9|
84510672|NCT04099888|168772879|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||BOR is summarized by randomized treatment group using the mITT analysis set.|The BOR is the best response recorded from the start of the treatment until disease progression or until the last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression. If a patient received subsequent anti-cancer therapy prior to progression, then BOR was calculated up to the point of starting the anti-cancer therapy.|||
84707034|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||16|-4|
84707035|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.42||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.42|1.40|<0.001
84707036|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.21||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.21|1.27|<0.001
84707037|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.|Eyes were analyzed.|Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.66|0.88|0.16
84707038|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-5|-16|
84707039|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-4|-16|
84707040|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||9|-7|
84707041|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.65|0.09|<0.001
84707042|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.68||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.68|0.08|0.001
84707043|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.87|0.62|0.75
84707044|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between to study eyes.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||26|6|
84707045|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||22|4|
84707046|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||15|-2|
84707047|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||3.22|1.35|<0.001
84510673|NCT04099888|168772880|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The ORR is calculated as the proportion of patients who have at least one visit response with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Objective responses do not require confirmation in a randomized study. Data obtained up until progression, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression, will be included in the analysis of ORR. Data obtained up until progression or subsequent therapy, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression or subsequent therapy, will be included in the analysis of ORR.|||
84707048|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.87|1.25|<0.001
84707049|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.29|0.90|0.07
84707050|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-2|-11|
84707051|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-1|-10|
84707052|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||6|-6|
84707053|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.87|0.05|0.009
84707054|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.97|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.97|0.08|0.01
84707055|NCT00444600|169157195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.2|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.20|0.47|0.95
84707056|NCT00444600|169157196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.64||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.64|1.52|<0.001
84707057|NCT00444600|169157196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.13|1.13|0.001
84707058|NCT00444600|169157196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.36||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.36|1.31|<0.001
84707059|NCT00444600|169157206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.08
84707060|NCT00444600|169157206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
84707061|NCT00444600|169157207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.03
84707062|NCT00444600|169157207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
84707063|NCT00444600|169157211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.44||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.44|-1.01|<0.001
84707064|NCT00444600|169157211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.41||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.41|-0.96|<0.001
84707065|NCT00444600|169157211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
84707066|NCT05132478|169157213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.720
84707067|NCT05132478|169157214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
84707068|NCT05132478|169157215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.228
84707069|NCT05132478|169157215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Intervention||||0.176
84707070|NCT05132478|169157216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.410
84707071|NCT05132478|169157216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||ANOVA|||Post-Intervention||||0.351
84707072|NCT05132478|169157217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84707073|NCT05132478|169157218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84707074|NCT00106080|169157219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between groups after adjust|5.7||||0.03||||||No multiple comparisons, a priori threshold \< 0.05|GEE regression|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, clustering for provider.||Power calculation: With 60 providers in each group, maintaining the probability of a type I error of 0.05, power of 0.90, provider level mean QOC score of 54.5 and provider level standard deviation in QOC score of 12.0, the minimal detectable difference in QOC score would be 7.5.||||0.03
84707075|NCT03756571|169157247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
84707076|NCT03756571|169157248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84707077|NCT03756571|169157249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84707078|NCT03756571|169157250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84707079|NCT03756571|169157251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84707080|NCT03756571|169157252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84707081|NCT03756571|169157253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
84707082|NCT03756571|169157254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
84707083|NCT03756571|169157255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84707084|NCT03756571|169157256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84707085|NCT03756571|169157257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84707086|NCT03756571|169157258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
84707087|NCT03283371|169157273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean logarithmic difference|-0.16||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis is based on MMRM and adjusted for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures), structural etiology category (yes and no), visit, treatment and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used in the model.||0.31|-0.62|0.5053
84707088|NCT03283371|169157274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no).||6.85|0.64|0.2231
84707089|NCT03283371|169157277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on the logistic regression model with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no) are considered as covariates.||4.57|0.10|0.6854
84707090|NCT01985334|169157281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||linear mixed model|||||||0.0180
84707091|NCT01985334|169157282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] was inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~H0: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA \< -40 mL Ha: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] is non-inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~Ha: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA ≥ -40 mL"|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707092|NCT01985334|169157283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707093|NCT01985334|169157284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707094|NCT01985334|169157285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707095|NCT01985334|169157286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 0.6 points in TDI was adopted as boundary for non-inferiority|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84510674|NCT04099888|168772881|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The DoR was calculated only for those with a documented response of CR or PR and is defined as the time from the date of first documented tumor response until the first date of documented disease progression or death, whichever is earlier.|DoR is listed only. In Arm A, the duration of response was 169 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm A, the events were censored at 260 and 264 days, respectively. In Arm B, the duration of response was 85 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm B, the events were censored at 1 day due to the early termination of the study.|||
84510675|NCT04099888|168772882|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||DCR is reported and includes any patient with a best response of stable disease, PR or CR.|The DCR and associated exact 95% CI is summarized for the mITT population. This was repeated for DCR-6, defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR or SD at 6 months (recorded at least 24 weeks (+/-1 week) after randomization of study treatment and prior to any PD event).|||
84707096|NCT01985334|169157287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707097|NCT01985334|169157288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84707098|NCT01290341|169157297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification by site was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and Placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the Placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
84707099|NCT01796236|169157299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.12
84707100|NCT01796236|169157300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Combined Endpoint is calculated as the sum of the following four events from 3 weeks to 3 years:~Holgers Index \>=2. Any Overgrowth \>=2. Pain (scar/neuropathic) \>=3. Any numbness \>=2.~Each event is counted only once"||||0.45
84511792|NCT02087904|168775413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-5.67|0.075
84707101|NCT01796236|169157301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.0001
84707102|NCT01796236|169157302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 10||||0.020
84707103|NCT01796236|169157302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 3||||0.4
84707104|NCT01796236|169157302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 6||||1.00
84707105|NCT01796236|169157302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.97
84707106|NCT01796236|169157302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.00
84707107|NCT01796236|169157303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 12 Months||||0.40
84707108|NCT01796236|169157303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 36 Months||||0.14
84707109|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Day 10||||0.38
84510676|NCT04099888|168772883|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Change in tumor size in percentage was summarized for the subset of patients in the mITT analysis set who had measurable disease at baseline.|Tumor size is defined as the sum of the longest diameters (SoDs) of the RECIST 1.1 target lesions. Change in tumor size is defined as the best overall percentage change in tumor size from baseline. Percentage change in tumor size was determined for patients with measurable disease at baseline and was derived at each visit by the percentage change in the SoDs of target lesions compared to baseline.|||
84510677|NCT04099888|168772884|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety, including the incidence and characteristics of biliary/loco-regional tumour-related events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
84707110|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 3||||0.17
84707111|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 6||||0.37
84707112|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 12||||0.73
84707113|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 24||||0.47
84707114|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 12||||0.73
84707115|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 24||||0.37
84707116|NCT01796236|169157304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 36||||0.75
84707117|NCT01796236|169157305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 12 months||||<0.0001
84707118|NCT01796236|169157305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 36 months||||<0.0001
84707119|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Neuropathic pain||||0.74
84707120|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Scar pain||||0.36
84707121|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Neuropathic pain||||0.030
84707122|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Scar pain||||0.92
84707123|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Neuropathic pain||||0.15
84707124|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Scar pain||||0.38
84707125|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.015
84707126|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Scar pain||||0.72
84707127|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Neuropathic pain||||0.44
84707128|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Scar pain||||0.43
84707129|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.21
84510678|NCT04099888|168772885|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
84707130|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Scar pain||||0.97
84707131|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Neuropathic pain||||0.19
84707132|NCT01796236|169157306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Scar pain||||0.77
84707133|NCT01796236|169157307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain||||0.076
84707134|NCT01796236|169157307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain||||0.49
84707135|NCT01796236|169157308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.076
84707136|NCT01796236|169157308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.71
84707137|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Neuropathic pain||||0.52
84707138|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Scar pain||||0.44
84707139|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Neuropathic pain||||0.14
84707140|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Scar pain||||0.59
84707141|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Neuropathic pain||||0.17
84707142|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Scar pain||||0.44
84707143|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Neuropathic pain||||0.0087
84707144|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Scar pain||||0.84
84707145|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Neuropathic pain||||0.43
84707146|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Scar pain||||0.33
84707147|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Neuropathic pain||||0.21
84707148|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Scar pain||||0.82
84707149|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Neuropathic pain||||0.19
84707150|NCT01796236|169157309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Scar pain||||0.77
84707151|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Day 10 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.12
84707152|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.016
84707153|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 6 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.84
84707154|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.53
84707155|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.18
84707156|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.63
84707157|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.81
84707158|NCT01796236|169157310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||1.00
84707159|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Day 10||||0.0009
84707160|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 3||||0.0080
84510679|NCT04099888|168772889|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||As this study was terminated early, a reduced statistical analysis was conducted, and the HRQoL analyses were not conducted.|||
84707161|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 6||||0.46
84510680|NCT00023309|168772890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0294||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the treatment effect between the two groups||||0.0294
84510681|NCT00023309|168772891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0325
84707162|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 12||||0.45
84707163|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 24||||0.18
84707164|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 12||||0.017
84707165|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 24||||0.15
84510682|NCT00023309|168772892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0049
84510683|NCT00023309|168772893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0157
84510684|NCT00023309|168772894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0913||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0913
84707166|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 36||||0.32
84707167|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.74
84707168|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||<0.0001
84707169|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||0.041
84707170|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.0065
84707171|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0003
84707172|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.028
84707173|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.037
84707174|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.072
84707175|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||0.034
84707176|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||<0.0001
84707177|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.010
84707178|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0086
84707179|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.0021
84707180|NCT01796236|169157311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.0005
84707181|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.026
84707182|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.33
84707183|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vascularity (observer)||||0.094
84707184|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.30
84707185|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.23
84707186|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.48
84707187|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.0003
84707188|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.062
84707189|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (observer)||||0.11
84707190|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Relief (observer)||||0.0003
84707191|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Relief (observer)||||0.079
84707192|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Relief (observer)||||0.025
84707193|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.0020
84707194|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.14
84707195|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pliability (observer)||||0.0014
84707196|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.0001
84707197|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.023
84707198|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Surface Area (observer)||||0.045
84707199|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.0005
84707200|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.085
84707201|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (observer)||||0.030
84707202|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.0015
84707203|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.076
84707204|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.15
84707205|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Painful (patient)||||0.72
84707206|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Painful (patient)||||0.97
84707207|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Painful (patient)||||0.82
84707208|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Itching (patient)||||0.86
84707209|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Itching (patient)||||0.84
84707210|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Itching (patient)||||0.76
84707211|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Color (patient)||||0.41
84707212|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Color (patient)||||0.98
84707213|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Color (patient)||||0.76
84707214|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.43
84510685|NCT00891293|168772896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.01||0.9999||95.0|-2.8|9.4|||ANOVA||Difference Between Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111860/OM5X End-of-Treatment and Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111821/OM5XX End-of-Treatment|For the MITT analysis, the method of last observation carried forward (LOCF) was applied. The LOCF is the value of a previous non-baseline visit (post-enrollment) carried forward to the subsequent visit, if missing.||9.4|-2.8|0.9999
84707215|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.25
84707216|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Stiffness (patient)||||0.017
84707217|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.13
84707218|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.33
84707219|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (patient)||||0.65
84707220|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.18
84707221|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.38
84707222|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Irregularity (patient)||||0.080
84707223|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.28
84707224|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.44
84707225|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (patient)||||0.19
84707226|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.16
84707227|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.23
84707228|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.079
84707229|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.0018
84707230|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.053
84707231|NCT01796236|169157312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.068
84707232|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.90
84707233|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.43
84707234|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.23
84707235|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.019
84707236|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Vision (HUI3)||||0.079
84707237|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Vision (HUI3)||||0.96
84707238|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vision (HUI3)||||0.55
84707239|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vision (HUI3)||||0.64
84707240|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.76
84707241|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.059
84707242|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.38
84707243|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.14
84707244|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Speech (HUI3)||||0.73
84707245|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Speech (HUI3)||||0.65
84707246|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Speech (HUI3)||||1.00
84707247|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Speech (HUI3)||||0.35
84707248|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.50
84707249|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.40
84707250|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.21
84707251|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.0010
84707252|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.13
84707253|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.96
84707254|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.75
84707255|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.20
84510686|NCT00262964|168772942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in hepatic insulin sensitivity between normal and high IHTG subjects||||<0.019
84707256|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.95
84707257|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.31
84510687|NCT00262964|168772943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that VLDL-TG production would not differ between the two groups.||||<0.001
84510688|NCT00262964|168772944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity between groups.||||<0.001
84707258|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.15
84707259|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.19
84707260|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI3)||||0.41
84707261|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI3)||||0.30
84707262|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI3)||||0.42
84707263|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI3)||||0.040
84707264|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.99
84707265|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.88
84707266|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.32
84707267|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.0084
84707268|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.77
84707269|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.95
84707270|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.60
84707271|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.48
84707272|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.51
84707273|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.42
84707274|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.22
84707275|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.0018
84707276|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.30
84707277|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.52
84707278|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.47
84707279|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.18
84707280|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.82
84707281|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.41
84707282|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.14
84707283|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.25
84707284|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.59
84707285|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Self Care (HUI2)||||1.00
84707286|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.55
84707287|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.14
84510689|NCT00262964|168772945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity due to IHTG levels.||||<0.002
84707288|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI2)||||0.75
84707289|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI2)||||0.63
84707290|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI2)||||0.57
84511793|NCT02087904|168775413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-5.33|0.107
84707291|NCT01796236|169157313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI2)||||0.019
84707292|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.047
84707293|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.23
84707294|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.015
84707295|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.13
84707296|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Aided)||||0.041
84707297|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.071
84707298|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.75
84707299|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.32
84707300|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.24
84707301|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Unaided)||||0.24
84707302|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.12
84707303|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.19
84707304|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.055
84707305|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.24
84707306|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Benefit)||||0.042
84707307|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.19
84707308|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.99
84707309|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.24
84707310|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.73
84707311|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Aided)||||0.39
84707312|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.24
84707313|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.81
84707314|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.34
84707315|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.038
84707316|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Unaided)||||0.53
84707317|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.63
84707318|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.83
84707319|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.71
84707320|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.16
84707321|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Benefit)||||0.81
84707322|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.51
84707323|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.47
84707324|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.93
84707325|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.62
84707326|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Aided)||||0.63
84707327|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.18
84707328|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.76
84707329|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.17
84707330|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.29
84707331|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Unaided)||||0.40
84707332|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.29
84707333|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.90
84707334|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.24
84707335|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.45
84707336|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Benefit)||||0.37
84707337|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.84
84707338|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.57
84707339|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.71
84707340|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.99
84707341|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Aided)||||0.78
84707342|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.50
84707343|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.48
84707344|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.64
84707345|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.041
84707346|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Unaided)||||0.89
84707347|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.14
84707348|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.48
84707349|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.23
84707350|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.57
84707351|NCT01796236|169157314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Benefit)||||0.21
84707352|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sound Processor Usage: Week 6||||0.46
84707353|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 12||||0.75
84707354|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 24||||0.83
84707355|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 12||||0.52
84707356|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 24||||0.67
84707357|NCT01796236|169157315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 36||||0.71
84707358|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Baseline: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.91
84707359|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.70
84707360|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.95
84707361|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.22
84707362|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.19
84707363|NCT01796236|169157317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.45
84707364|NCT01796236|169157318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Loss of Implant (safety population)||||0.989
84707365|NCT00895531|169157320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84511794|NCT02087904|168775414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.08|-4.26|0.5
84707366|NCT01195883|169157321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||GEE model|||||1.23|0.65|0.51
84707367|NCT01195883|169157322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.81|0.42
84707368|NCT01195883|169157323|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.72|0.26
84707369|NCT01195883|169157324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||Chi-squared|||||2.58|0.69|0.40
84707370|NCT02528188|169157346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.39||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.68|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||4.68|0.58|0.0123
84707371|NCT02528188|169157346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.14|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||8.14|3.55|<0.0001
84707372|NCT02528188|169157347|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|23.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|37.7|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||37.7|9.3|0.0012
84707373|NCT02528188|169157347|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|74.9|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||74.9|38.4|<0.0001
84715116|NCT03819153|169176849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time from randomization to first composite renal event was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by use of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor (yes/no) at baseline. Based on the available number of events for analysis, the nominal significance level was updated to 0.01612 using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function. eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI formula.||0.88|0.66|0.0001
84715117|NCT00691002|169176871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus calcipotriol ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||1.74|0.94|0.11
84707374|NCT02528188|169157348|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0148
84707375|NCT02528188|169157348|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.36|0.1597
84707376|NCT02528188|169157349|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.52|0.0030
84707377|NCT02528188|169157349|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.40|0.0691
84707378|NCT02528188|169157350|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.11|0.3431
84707379|NCT02528188|169157350|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.09|0.6332
84707380|NCT02528188|169157351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.28|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||2.28|-0.75|0.4082
84707381|NCT02528188|169157351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.63|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||3.63|0.31|0.0238
84707382|NCT02528188|169157352|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.8||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.2|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||12.2|-2.6|0.2035
84707383|NCT02528188|169157352|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|27.0|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||27.0|6.8|0.0010
84510690|NCT00262964|168772946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate any difference between the two groups. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage would be the same before and after treatment for subjects receiving fenofibrate.||||.301
84707384|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|1.99||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.17|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly progressive OA Type 1 or 2||4.17|0.31|0.0248
84707385|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|7.54|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||7.54|3.16|<0.0001
84707386|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.79||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.92|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||3.92|0.16|0.0366
84707387|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|3.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.12|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||6.12|1.99|0.0001
84510691|NCT00262964|168772946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage for the NAFLD-niacin group at baseline and post-treatment would not change.||||.315
84707388|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.71|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||1.71|-0.76|0.6168
84707389|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.3||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.97|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||2.97|0.17|0.0388
84707390|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.51|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.51|-0.74|0.7245
84707391|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.52|-0.74|0.7182
84707392|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.9|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||1.90|-0.96|0.6824
84707393|NCT02528188|169157353|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.3||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.03|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||2.03|-0.86|0.5632
84707394|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|19.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|32.35|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||32.35|6.78|0.0027
84707395|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|51.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.47|68.5|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||68.50|34.47|<0.0001
84707396|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.58||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|29.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||29.76|5.39|0.0047
84707397|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.05|53.4|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||53.40|23.05|<0.0001
84707398|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.94||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||5.76|-1.89|0.3214
84707399|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|12.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|20.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||20.39|5.36|0.0008
84707400|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.9||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.96|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||7.96|-4.17|0.5394
84707401|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.98||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||9.39|-3.44|0.3636
84707402|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Poisson model for rate difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
84707403|NCT02528188|169157354|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
84707404|NCT02528188|169157355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Exact methods for risk difference|||||7.74|2.43|0.0002
84707405|NCT02528188|169157355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|12.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||12.52|6.73|<0.0001
84707406|NCT02528188|169157356|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.76|69.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Poisson model for rate difference|||||69.74|26.76|<0.0001
84707407|NCT02528188|169157356|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|95.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.25|121.42|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||121.42|70.25|<0.0001
84707408|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW width at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.15|0.0979
84707409|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
84707410|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.17|0.1162
84707411|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.22|0.0128
84707412|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.17|0.8885
84707413|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.6345
84707414|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.32|0.4406
84707415|NCT02528188|169157357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.19|0.7109
84707416|NCT02528188|169157358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.30|0.1020
84707417|NCT02528188|169157358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.0230
84707418|NCT02528188|169157358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.0645
84707419|NCT02528188|169157358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.26|0.5005
84707420|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.29|1.04|0.0358
84707421|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.12|1.37|0.0021
84707422|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.77|1.07|0.0301
84707423|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.85|1.45|0.0016
84707424|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||1.70|0.18|0.3002
84707425|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.89|0.39|0.8997
84707426|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.18|0.53|0.4559
84707427|NCT02528188|169157359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.54|0.20|0.5996
84707428|NCT02528188|169157360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.65|0.90|0.0714
84707429|NCT02528188|169157360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.84|0.91|0.0681
84707430|NCT02528188|169157360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.95|0.81|0.0967
84707431|NCT02528188|169157360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.90|0.81|0.0976
84707432|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.27|0.2212
84707433|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.10|0.4557
84707434|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.45|0.0029
84707435|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.50|0.0005
84707436|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.33|0.1273
84707437|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.57|<0.0001
84707438|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.31|0.6349
84707439|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.44|0.1339
84707440|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6237
84715118|NCT00691002|169176871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus hydrocortisone ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||2.45|1.31|<0.001
84510692|NCT00262964|168772947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||a Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 16 weeks on niacin in subjects with NAFLD.||||0.708
84510693|NCT00262964|168772947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 8 weeks on fenofibrate in subjects with NAFLD.||||.022
84707441|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.37|0.4224
84707442|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7526
84707443|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7328
84707444|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.33|0.5888
84707445|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.9345
84707446|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8782
84707447|NCT02528188|169157361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7076
84707448|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.37|0.0150
84707449|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.25|0.3286
84715119|NCT00691002|169176871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus ointment vehicle at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||4.04|1.80|<0.001
84707450|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0004
84707451|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.53|0.0001
84707452|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.37|0.0517
84707453|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.61|<0.0001
84707454|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.37|0.3621
84707455|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.47|0.0832
84707456|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4072
84707457|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3404
84707458|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.34|0.6344
84707459|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.35|0.5756
84510694|NCT00262964|168772948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.020
84510695|NCT00262964|168772948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that niacin would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.358
84707460|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.38|0.4394
84707461|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7747
84707462|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.32|0.7305
84707463|NCT02528188|169157363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7330
84707464|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2159
84707465|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2049
84707466|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.19|0.0002
84707467|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.21|<0.0001
84707468|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.08|0.7799
84707469|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.16|0.0061
84707470|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9718
84707471|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.14|0.3292
84707472|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9830
84707473|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.9137
84707474|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8784
84510696|NCT00262964|168772949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that fenofibrate would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||0.758
84510697|NCT00262964|168772949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that niacin would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||.023
84510698|NCT00262964|168772950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.024
84510699|NCT00262964|168772950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||<0.001
84510700|NCT00262964|168772951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. We compare the baseline and post-treatment results for adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in the subjects who received fenofibrate.||||.768
84707475|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9995
84707476|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.13|0.6648
84707477|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.09|0.7280
84707478|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.8856
84707479|NCT02528188|169157365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.05|0.2814
84707480|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.28|0.89|0.4691
84707481|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.13|0.79|0.5451
84707482|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.54|1.08|0.0059
84707483|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.55|1.08|0.0057
84707484|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.38|0.95|0.1584
84707485|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.006||95.0|1.08|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.58|1.08|0.0060
84510701|NCT00262964|168772951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the baseline and post-treatment adipose tissue insulin sensitivity results for subjects who received a 16 week course of niacin||||.019
84510702|NCT00262964|168772952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results in subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.318
84707486|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.46|0.96|0.1117
84707487|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.47|0.97|0.1004
84707488|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.25|0.87|0.6258
84707489|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.39|0.96|0.1154
84707490|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.22|0.86|0.8018
84707491|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.26|0.88|0.5697
84707492|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.20|0.84|0.9557
84707493|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.22|0.85|0.8553
84707494|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.20|0.84|0.9901
84707495|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.14|0.80|0.5870
84510703|NCT00262964|168772952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results for subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.025
84707496|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.22|0.85|0.8302
84707497|NCT02528188|169157367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.12|0.79|0.4823
84707498|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.33|0.92|0.2938
84707499|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.75|0.3146
84707500|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.58|0.98|0.0748
84707501|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.45|0.89|0.3000
84707502|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.74|0.86|0.2550
84707503|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.80|0.4780
84510704|NCT00262964|168772953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect hepatic insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.419
84707504|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.42|0.70|0.4006
84510705|NCT00262964|168772953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.018
84707505|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.54|0.74|0.3089
84707506|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.50|1.05|0.0114
84707507|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.03|0.0239
84707508|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.07|0.0079
84707509|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.08|0.0068
84707510|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.96|0.1037
84707511|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.12|0.0046
84707512|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.19|0.85|0.1971
84707513|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.52|1.00|0.0480
84707514|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.28|0.89|0.4744
84707515|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.45|1.02|0.0336
84510706|NCT02458469|168772960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
84510707|NCT02458469|168772960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.015
84510708|NCT02458469|168772960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.231
84510709|NCT02458469|168772961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
84510710|NCT03130699|168772975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment and language.||||0.95
84510711|NCT03130699|168772976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.37
84510712|NCT03130699|168772977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.26
84707516|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.44|1.00|0.0559
84707517|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.61|1.11|0.0021
84707518|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.59|1.00|0.0535
84707519|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.92|1.22|0.0003
84707520|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.70|0.72|0.6421
84707521|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.38|1.07|0.0207
84707522|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.39|0.95|0.1635
84707523|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.00|0.0529
84707524|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.37|0.96|0.1322
84707525|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.46|1.02|0.0262
84707526|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.22|0.83|0.9805
84510713|NCT03130699|168772978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.90
84510714|NCT03130699|168772979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.21
84707527|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.61|1.10|0.0033
84707528|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.69|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.69|0.92|0.1590
84510715|NCT03130699|168772980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.30
84510716|NCT03130699|168772981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.90
84510717|NCT03130699|168772982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.72
84510718|NCT03130699|168772983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.61
84510719|NCT03130699|168772984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.49
84510720|NCT03130699|168772985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.96
84707529|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||2.11|1.17|0.0024
84707530|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.20|0.83|0.9932
84707531|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4374
84707532|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4406
84707533|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4078
84707534|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.31|0.89|0.4071
84707535|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.50|1.03|0.0248
84707536|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.16|0.66|0.3641
84707537|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.53|0.89|0.2497
84707538|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8682
84707539|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.16|0.81|0.7317
84707540|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6493
84707541|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.17|0.82|0.7973
84510721|NCT03130699|168772986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.64
84707542|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.45|0.98|0.0757
84707543|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.47|0.99|0.0578
84707544|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.37|0.76|0.9010
84707545|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.74|0.99|0.0548
84510722|NCT03130699|168772987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.87
84707546|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7331
84707547|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.82|0.8632
84707548|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.25|0.88|0.6262
84707549|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.15|0.81|0.6817
84707550|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.24|0.85|0.7990
84707551|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.86|0.6786
84707552|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.78|0.8069
84707553|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.54|0.88|0.2951
84707554|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9093
84707555|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5032
84707556|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4382
84707557|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5638
84707558|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.27|0.86|0.6436
84707559|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7060
84707560|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.28|0.72|0.7729
84707561|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.42|0.81|0.6405
84707562|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9046
84707563|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.11|0.78|0.4491
84707564|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7429
84510723|NCT03130699|168772988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.58
84510724|NCT03130699|168772989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.25
84707565|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3467
84707566|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7624
84707567|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.18|0.80|0.7686
84707568|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.33|0.74|0.9384
84707569|NCT02528188|169157368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.77|0.8495
84707570|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.99|0.0651
84707571|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.84|0.9032
84707572|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.72|1.08|0.0100
84707573|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.42|0.88|0.3728
84707574|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0434
84707575|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0425
84707576|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.34|0.64|0.5442
84707577|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||3.45|1.05|0.0349
84707578|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.51|1.05|0.0108
84510725|NCT03130699|168772990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.11
84510726|NCT03130699|168772991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.76
84510727|NCT03130699|168772992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.05
84510728|NCT03130699|168772993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.63
84510729|NCT03130699|168772994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses is controlled for income.||||0.63
84707579|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.52|1.07|0.0080
84707580|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.83|1.22|<0.0001
84707581|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.85|1.24|<0.0001
84707582|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.11|0.0060
84707583|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.93|1.14|0.0031
84707584|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.88|1.08|0.0235
84707585|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||3.42|1.31|0.0021
84510730|NCT03130699|168772995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.002
84510731|NCT03130699|168772996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.008
84707586|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7613
84707587|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.43|1.00|0.0548
84510732|NCT03682900|168773010|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||A one tailed test was used, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group. The criterion for significance was p \<. 05.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||= .000
84707588|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.51|1.04|0.0196
84707589|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.75|1.20|<0.0001
84707590|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0077||95.0|1.09|1.77|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.77|1.09|0.0077
84707591|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||2.09|1.30|<0.0001
84707592|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.96|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.96|0.87|0.1942
84707593|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.43|1.11|0.0122
84707594|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.43|0.97|0.0977
84707595|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.98|0.0806
84707596|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.2097
84707597|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.49|1.05|0.0135
84707598|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.33|0.90|0.3571
84707599|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.63|1.11|0.0025
84707600|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.49|0.83|0.4658
84707601|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.09|0.0108
84707602|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8393
84707603|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.32|0.92|0.2977
84707604|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.1944
84707605|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.26|0.88|0.5714
84707606|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.36|0.92|0.2472
84707607|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.51|1.03|0.0235
84707608|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.51|0.85|0.4074
84707609|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.81|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.81|1.03|0.0296
84707610|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7607
84707611|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.86|0.7979
84707612|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.31|0.92|0.2964
84707613|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6950
84707614|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.38|0.93|0.1985
84707615|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.42|0.96|0.1239
84707616|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.58|0.88|0.2762
84707617|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.91|1.08|0.0121
84707618|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8443
84707619|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8472
84707620|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8980
84707621|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9385
84707622|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4261
84707623|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.30|0.88|0.5250
84707624|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6273
84707625|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.08|0.0132
84707626|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.83|0.9095
84707627|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5098
84707628|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4488
84707629|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9757
84707630|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.39|0.94|0.1843
84707631|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4356
84707632|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6342
84707633|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.73|0.97|0.0810
84707634|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.15|0.80|0.6527
84511795|NCT02087904|168775414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.05||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-5.39|0.186
84707635|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3857
84707636|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.06||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.27|0.89|0.5280
84707637|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5355
84707638|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.84|0.7732
84707639|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.23|0.82|0.9397
84707640|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.39|0.75|0.9044
84707641|NCT02528188|169157370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.57|0.86|0.3193
84707642|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1772
84707643|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.89|1.07|0.0154
84707644|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.81|1.08|0.0105
84707645|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||2.10|1.26|0.0002
84707646|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.43|0.87|0.4007
84707647|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.75|1.07|0.0116
84510733|NCT03682900|168773011|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition||||= .000
84707648|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.18|0.76|0.6279
84707649|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.35|0.87|0.4674
84707650|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.71|0.3135
84707651|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.30|0.83|0.7581
84510734|NCT03682900|168773012|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.044
84707652|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.73|0.4504
84707653|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.10|0.70|0.2629
84707654|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.75|0.6763
84707655|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.27|0.80|0.9456
84707656|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.76|0.7520
84707657|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.79|0.9981
84707658|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.17|0.74|0.5284
84707659|NCT02528188|169157372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.70|0.3220
84707660|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.1120
84707661|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.11|0.9686
84707662|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.25|0.1589
84707663|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4720
84510735|NCT03682900|168773013|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.033
84707664|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0320
84707665|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3336
84707666|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.47|0.0005
84707667|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
84707668|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.0001
84707669|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
84707670|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0115
84707671|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.0001
84707672|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|0.0002
84707673|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
84707674|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
84707675|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.0001
84707676|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0238
84707677|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.55|0.0011
84707678|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.51|0.0064
84707679|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0025
84707680|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.48|0.0589
84707681|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0180
84707682|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.47|0.0944
84707683|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.45|0.1198
84707684|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1837
84707685|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3170
84510736|NCT03682900|168773014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510737|NCT03682900|168773015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707686|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1873
84707687|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.33|0.5719
84707688|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.39|0.3571
84707689|NCT02528188|169157373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.25|0.9072
84707690|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|0.0004
84707691|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.40|0.0134
84707692|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.56|<0.0001
84707693|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.67|<0.0001
84707694|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.49|0.0031
84707695|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-0.82|<0.0001
84707696|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0425
84707697|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
84707698|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.40|0.2980
84510738|NCT03682900|168773016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707699|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0179
84707700|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.42|0.2328
84707701|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.49|0.1019
84707702|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4002
84707703|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.45|0.2149
84707704|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.43|0.2442
84707705|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.37|0.4609
84707706|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.8129
84707707|NCT02528188|169157375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.32|0.7883
84707708|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.0119
84707709|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3073
84707710|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0002
84510739|NCT03682900|168773017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707711|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.56|<0.0001
84707712|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0251
84707713|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
84707714|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.39|0.0625
84707715|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.54|0.0010
84707716|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.36|0.4005
84707717|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.50|0.0530
84707718|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.37|0.4074
84707719|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2629
84707720|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.5582
84707721|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.35|0.4907
84707722|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4043
84707723|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7663
84707724|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7415
84707725|NCT02528188|169157377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.24|0.8688
84707726|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.25|0.3622
84707727|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.09|0.3894
84707728|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0137
84707729|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.43|0.0106
84510740|NCT03682900|168773018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510741|NCT03682900|168773019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510742|NCT03682900|168773020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707730|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.23|0.7179
84707731|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.44|0.0120
84707732|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.28|0.5372
84707733|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.40|0.0899
84707734|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.30|0.7646
84707735|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2547
84510743|NCT03682900|168773021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707736|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8806
84707737|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8416
84707738|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.28|0.9981
84707739|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.21|0.6485
84707740|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8317
84707741|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.19|0.5819
84707742|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.31|-0.26|0.8538
84707743|NCT02528188|169157379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.10|0.1981
84707744|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.33|0.0846
84707745|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.18|0.9749
84707746|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.0076
84707747|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
84510744|NCT03682900|168773022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a gneral linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707748|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.27|0.4402
84510745|NCT03682900|168773023|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlayzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools within condition.||||<.001
84510746|NCT03682900|168773024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. Apriori, a p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed uisng a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510747|NCT03682900|168773025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is a priori considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510748|NCT03682900|168773026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510749|NCT03682900|168773027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510750|NCT03682900|168773028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear model mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510751|NCT03682900|168773029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84707749|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
84707750|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.38|0.1543
84510752|NCT03682900|168773030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schols and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510753|NCT03682900|168773031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
84510754|NCT06354270|168773032|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.85|-1.29|<0.0001
84510755|NCT06354270|168773033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.14|43.29|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||43.29|30.14|<0.0001
84510756|NCT06354270|168773034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
84510757|NCT06354270|168773035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|18.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||18.52|10.09|<0.0001
84510758|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-0.83|0.1960
84510759|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.28|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.28|-1.08|0.2287
84510760|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.22|-0.89|0.2350
84707751|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
84707752|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6445
84707753|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.47|0.1439
84707754|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.30|0.8402
84707755|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.38|0.4439
84707756|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.27|0.9376
84707757|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.33|0.7614
84707758|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.32|0.8081
84707759|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.25|0.8078
84707760|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.28|0.9705
84707761|NCT02528188|169157381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.21|0.5785
84707762|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.04|-0.87|0.4303
84707763|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.04|-1.90|0.5656
84707764|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.83|-1.78|0.9760
84707765|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.36|-1.30|0.5678
84707766|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.14|-2.77|0.6974
84707767|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|6.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.04|-0.75|0.1261
84707768|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.01|-4.96|0.4060
84707769|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.15|-3.84|0.8480
84707770|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.63|-4.00|0.9230
84707771|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.34|-5.36|0.4421
84707772|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||7.91|-1.70|0.2049
84707773|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|9.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.41|-0.05|0.0527
84707774|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.94|-5.21|0.3699
84707775|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-4.06|0.7945
84707776|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.83|-4.13|0.9410
84707777|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.59|-5.44|0.4860
84707778|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||8.20|-2.10|0.2448
84707779|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|10.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||10.04|-0.11|0.0551
84510761|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.21|-1.09|0.1818
84510762|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-1.25|0.1316
84707780|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.84|-3.26|0.2470
84707781|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-4.01|0.0570
84707782|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.12|-2.36|0.9170
84707783|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.4991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.46|-3.00|0.4991
84707784|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.52|-1.12|0.2377
84707785|NCT02528188|169157383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.08|0.43|0.0238
84510763|NCT06354270|168773036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.05|-1.60|0.0658
84510764|NCT06354270|168773037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|10.83|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||10.83|-8.45|0.8072
84510765|NCT06354270|168773037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|12.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||12.52|-11.96|0.9641
84707786|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.78|0.53|0.0142
84707787|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.78|2.56|<0.0001
84707788|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.99|-0.69|0.1371
84707789|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.14|-2.60|0.8524
84707790|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.09|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.09|-9.93|0.5253
84707791|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|9.62|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.62|-5.04|0.5381
84707792|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|20.54|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||20.54|-5.99|0.2694
84707793|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|3.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-21.80|0.1349
84707794|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.38|0.21|0.0264
84707795|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.65|0.50|0.0098
84707796|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.01|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.01|-0.31|0.0937
84707797|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.67|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.67|-0.70|0.1838
84510766|NCT06354270|168773038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.35|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.35|-0.63|0.2538
84707798|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.25|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.25|1.12|0.0025
84707799|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.60|1.51|0.0007
84707800|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.51|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.51|-0.62|0.1373
84707801|NCT02528188|169157391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.60|-2.59|0.9960
84707802|NCT02528188|169157393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0823
84707803|NCT02528188|169157393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0049
84510767|NCT06354270|168773038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.51|-2.15|0.7311
84707804|NCT02528188|169157393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0718
84707805|NCT02528188|169157393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1947
84707806|NCT02528188|169157394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0229
84707807|NCT02528188|169157394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0029
84707808|NCT02528188|169157394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0266
84707809|NCT02528188|169157394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1835|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1835
84707810|NCT02528188|169157395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.88|0.45|0.0076
84707811|NCT02528188|169157395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.94|0.48|0.0187
84707812|NCT02528188|169157396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0074
84707813|NCT02528188|169157396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0162
84707814|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.38|0.97|0.1136
84707815|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.29|0.90|0.3910
84707816|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.86|0.7691
84707817|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.05|0.73|0.1430
84707818|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.25|0.87|0.6454
84707819|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.00|0.70|0.0561
84510768|NCT06354270|168773039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|5.06|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.06|-3.51|0.7202
84510769|NCT06354270|168773039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.532||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|4.98|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||4.98|-5.06|0.9859
84707820|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.82|0.9056
84707821|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.09|0.75|0.2919
84707822|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.13|0.78|0.4976
84707823|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.08|0.75|0.2425
84707824|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9242
84707825|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.80|0.6621
84707826|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.83|0.9977
84707827|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.84|0.9762
84707828|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9718
84707829|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.85|0.8219
84707830|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.16|0.80|0.6936
84707831|NCT02528188|169157397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.88|0.5769
84707832|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.7746
84707833|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.8441
84510770|NCT06354270|168773040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.09|-2.00|0.5586
84707834|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.83|0.6580
84707835|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.06|0.78|0.2279
84707836|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.84|0.9986
84707837|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.02|0.72|0.0771
84707838|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.77|0.4485
84707839|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.09|0.74|0.2817
84707840|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5426
84707841|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5385
84707842|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.12|0.79|0.5041
84707843|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.78|0.4410
84707844|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7426
84707845|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7469
84707846|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.81|0.6784
84510771|NCT06354270|168773040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.75|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.75|-2.06|0.8730
84707847|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.21|0.85|0.8822
84707848|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.83|0.9119
84707849|NCT02528188|169157399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.26|0.89|0.5148
84707850|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.66|0.3348
84707851|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.66|0.3595
84707852|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.04|0.54|0.0854
84707853|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.96|0.50|0.0281
84707854|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.01|0.49|0.0595
84707855|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.83|0.40|0.0030
84707856|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.48|0.1389
84707857|NCT02528188|169157401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.03|0.45|0.0709
84707858|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6037
84510772|NCT06354270|168773041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.05|-3.43|0.6191
84707859|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1928
84707860|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7204
84707861|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7969
84707862|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7857
84707863|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6627|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6627
84707864|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9867|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.9867
84707865|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.8190
84707866|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7284
84707867|NCT02528188|169157410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1545|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1545
84707868|NCT00440011|169157432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.024
84707869|NCT00419341|169157435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of SCIG:IVIG treatment was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more. With 18 evaluable subjects, the power to show this non-inferiority was calculated to be 85% based on the assumptions of an intra-individual variability with a coefficient of variation (CV) = 25% and a GMR equal to or greater than 1.|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.055||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed by the CI of the GMR.|t-test, 2 sided|Based on log-transformed individual differences.|Geometric mean ratio SCIG:IVIG non-inferiority was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more|Individual sAUC values (standardized to a 7-day period) of the IV and adjusted SC sampling periods in each individual subject were log transformed and a parametric 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean of the individual differences was obtained. Back-transformation of the mean and its CI produced the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its respective 90% CI.||1.055|0.951|
84707870|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.98|2.54||||||SBP||2.54|-4.98|
84707871|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.53||||||SBP||2.53|-4.70|
84707872|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|2.22||||||SBP||2.22|-5.30|
84707873|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|2.1||||||SBP||2.10|-5.16|
84707874|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.74|0.07||||||SBP||0.07|-7.74|
84707875|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|2.18||||||DBP||2.18|-2.95|
84707876|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.69|1.48||||||DBP||1.48|-3.69|
84707877|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|1.85||||||DBP||1.85|-3.75|
84707878|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|1.1||||||DBP||1.10|-4.09|
84707879|NCT01849055|169157479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.2||||||DBP||0.20|-5.23|
84707880|NCT00475501|169157493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|18.0||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference is for subjects reveiving testosterone (groups T and T/F) vs. subjects not receiving testosterone (F and Placebo)|The studies was powered for 1-RM strength based on a 1.18-alpha increase reported in the literature||18.0|7.86|<0.001
84707881|NCT00475501|169157494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on grip strength. We employed 2x2 analysis to determine effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||1.31|0.16|0.015
84707882|NCT00475501|169157495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.43||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on lumbar spine bone mineral density. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects ot testosterone, finasteride and interaction||6.43|1.95|<0.001
84707883|NCT00475501|169157496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.064||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study is was not powered for score on Geriatric Depression Scale||-0.064|-1.41|0.037
84707884|NCT00475501|169157497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.04||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for 30-minute recall on Rey figure test||5.04|0.699|0.012
84707885|NCT00475501|169157498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.272||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.095|3.811||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Trials A test||3.811|-5.095|0.779
84707886|NCT00475501|169157499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|2.043||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Benton test||2.043|-0.869|0.433
84707887|NCT00475501|169157500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.18||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study was powered for hematocrit based on literature report that testosterone \> 2 alpha increase in hematocrit||5.18|3.07|<0.001
84707888|NCT00475501|169157501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2529||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|6.37||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for dietary protein intake||6.37|-0.353|0.6219
84707889|NCT00475501|169157502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.94||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was powered for prostate volume based on a literature report that testosterone increases prostate volume 1.85 alpha per year. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||8.94|1.73|0.0051
84510773|NCT06354270|168773041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.21|-3.41|0.9521
84510774|NCT06354270|168773042|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.26|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.26|-0.89|0.3887
84707890|NCT00475501|169157503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.434|1.698||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Lif Satisfaction A test||1.698|-3.434|0.196
84707891|NCT06336629|169157544|SUPERIORITY||two-sided|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84707892|NCT06336629|169157545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84707893|NCT06336629|169157546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
84510775|NCT06354270|168773042|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||2.84|-1.08|0.3730
84510776|NCT06354270|168773043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.46|-0.08|0.1591
84707894|NCT06336629|169157547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
84707895|NCT06336629|169157548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|P-value from Baseline at Week 16||||||0.037
84707896|NCT06336629|169157550|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
84707897|NCT06336629|169157551|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
84707898|NCT04043455|169157560|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.||0.62|-0.99|=0.650
84707899|NCT04043455|169157560|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.49|-1.12|=0.439
84707900|NCT04043455|169157560|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.24|-1.34|=0.172
84707901|NCT04043455|169157567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|2.331|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.331|-0.019|0.659
84707902|NCT04043455|169157567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.535|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.535|-0.040|0.557
84707903|NCT04043455|169157567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.245||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|2.462|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.462|0.027|0.541
84707904|NCT04043455|169157568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.234||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|2.468|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.468|-0.001|0.529
84707905|NCT04043455|169157568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|2.232|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.232|0.015|0.730
84707906|NCT04043455|169157568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.226||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|2.428|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.428|0.025|0.548
84707907|NCT04043455|169157569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.76|-14.61|0.696
84707908|NCT04043455|169157569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.222||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.00|-15.51|0.602
84707909|NCT04043455|169157569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.088||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||8.03|-15.95|0.516
84707910|NCT04043455|169157570|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.68|-0.53|0.804
84707911|NCT04043455|169157570|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.45|-0.76|0.618
84707912|NCT04043455|169157570|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.71|-0.47|0.687
84707913|NCT05505045|169157589|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.05||||||||1.05|-.16|
84707914|NCT05505045|169157590|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.03||||||||1.03|-.19|
84510777|NCT06354270|168773043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.42|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.42|-0.15|0.3429
84707915|NCT05505045|169157591|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.93||||||||0.93|-.30|
84707916|NCT05505045|169157592|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-1.04|
84707917|NCT05505045|169157597|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64||||||||.64|-.61|
84707918|NCT01643070|169157598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|6.501|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.501|0.346|0.719
84707919|NCT05540535|169157603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
84707920|NCT05540535|169157604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84707921|NCT05540535|169157605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
84707922|NCT05540535|169157606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84707923|NCT05540535|169157607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84707924|NCT05540535|169157608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84707925|NCT05540535|169157609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84707926|NCT05057897|169157641|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.01|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.01|0.18|
84707927|NCT05057897|169157642|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-30.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|3.69||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.69|-62.82|
84707928|NCT05057897|169157643|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.86|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.86|0.06|
84707929|NCT05057897|169157644|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|2.97||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||2.97|-59.07|
84707930|NCT05057897|169157645|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||0.80|0.12|
84707931|NCT05057897|169157646|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
84707932|NCT05057897|169157647|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.25|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||1.25|0.25|
84707933|NCT05057897|169157648|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
84707934|NCT04524390|169157649|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182||0.7419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.97|||MMRM|||||1.97|-2.76|0.7419
84707935|NCT04524390|169157650|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.398||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.86|25.05|||MMRM|||||25.05|-116.86|0.2002
84707936|NCT04524390|169157651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8412|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.8412
84707937|NCT04524390|169157652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||> 0.9999
84707938|NCT04524390|169157653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
84707939|NCT04524390|169157654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6236|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6236
84707940|NCT04524390|169157655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
84707941|NCT04524390|169157656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6659|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6659
84707942|NCT01631214|169157657|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
84707943|NCT01631214|169157657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.38|
84707944|NCT01631214|169157657|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.57||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||5.57|2.50|
84707945|NCT01631214|169157658|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)|||0.88|0.61|<0.001
84707946|NCT01631214|169157659|SUPERIORITY|If the 2 primary endpoints and the specified BMD secondary endpoints were all significant, the nonvertebral fracture at the primary analysis was evaluated based on a 1-sided test (overall α=0.025) determined by the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function that approximates a Pocock boundary, 0.0233 (1-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||The adjusted 2-sided p-value is reported.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.99|0.66|0.040
84707947|NCT01631214|169157660|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.76|0.56|<0.001
84707948|NCT01631214|169157661|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.37|<0.001
84707949|NCT01631214|169157661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.40|
84707950|NCT01631214|169157661|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.08||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||6.08|2.80|
84707951|NCT01631214|169157662|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.90|0.59|0.004
84707952|NCT01631214|169157663|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.92|0.42|0.015
84510778|NCT06354270|168773044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.20|-1.43|0.1360
84510779|NCT06354270|168773044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.4|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.40|-1.31|0.2914
84707953|NCT01631214|169157664|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.85|0.31|0.008
84707954|NCT01631214|169157664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.85|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.85|0.32|
84707955|NCT01631214|169157664|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.1||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||2.10|0.33|
84707956|NCT01631214|169157665|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.91|0.59|0.005
84707957|NCT01631214|169157666|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.02|0.64|0.074
84707958|NCT01631214|169157667|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.15|0.46|0.17
84707959|NCT01631214|169157668|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.71|0.24|<0.001
84707960|NCT01631214|169157669|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.96|0.54|0.027
84707961|NCT01631214|169157670|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.89|0.44|0.008
84707962|NCT01631214|169157670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.89|0.46|
84707963|NCT01631214|169157670|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.17||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||3.17|0.51|
84707964|NCT01631214|169157671|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.88|0.57|0.002
84707965|NCT01631214|169157672|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.54|0.057
84510780|NCT02809183|168773050|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Pooled Placebo treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.9|0.5547
84707966|NCT01631214|169157673|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.26|0.33|0.19
84707967|NCT01631214|169157674|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.52|0.053
84707968|NCT01631214|169157675|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.22|0.26|0.14
84707969|NCT01631214|169157676|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||8.57|7.58|<0.001
84707970|NCT01631214|169157677|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.10|3.42|<0.001
84707971|NCT01631214|169157678|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.14|3.40|<0.001
84707972|NCT01631214|169157679|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.31|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||9.09|8.31|<0.001
84707973|NCT01631214|169157680|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.60|3.03|<0.001
84707974|NCT01631214|169157681|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.54|2.90|<0.001
84707975|NCT01631214|169157682|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|7.89|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||7.89|6.84|<0.001
84707976|NCT01631214|169157683|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.02|3.29|<0.001
84707977|NCT01631214|169157684|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|3.97|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.97|3.18|<0.001
84707978|NCT01534494|169157744|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test for significance of change. t(8) = 3.477. P(2-sided) = 0.008||Single-group pre-post contrast||||0.008
84707979|NCT00431834|169157771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|37.7|||<|0.0041|ONE_SIDED|97.5|25.6|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percenter of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||25.6|<0.0041
84707980|NCT00431834|169157774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.1||The percent of subjects following treatment, p, who experience any of the MAEs during the first 30 days following surgery, or hospital discharge, whichever is longer will be less than 23.6%.|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: p ≥ 23.6% Ha: p \< 23.6%"||13.1||<0.0001
84707981|NCT03628885|169157779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.02
84707982|NCT03628885|169157779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.07||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||=.07
84707983|NCT03628885|169157779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05||||<.01
84707984|NCT01643616|169157780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|33.0|||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate without supplementation the difference between group US (94.9%) and group NS (61.9%) is 33%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||< 0.05
84707985|NCT01643616|169157781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1|||Log Rank|||We used the log-rank test to compare the onset times. The significance level was defined with p\<0.05.||31.1|13.6|< 0.05
84510781|NCT02809183|168773050|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.0||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID group = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID treatment group = 0 mEq/L.||4.0|2.4|< 0.0001
84707986|NCT01643616|169157782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.2||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate with supplementation the difference between group US (98.2%) and group NS (72%) is 26.2%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||0.05
84510782|NCT02809183|168773050|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8||The null hypothesis is the 3g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|2.2|< 0.0001
84707987|NCT02622568|169157783|NON_INFERIORITY|Veregen alone has efficacy compared to Veregen + cryotherapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison at week 12|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
84707988|NCT02622568|169157783|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison at week 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84707989|NCT04512482|169157784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||A power analysis determined that a sample size of forty-five (45) subjects would possess 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 between the intervention and control legs of the crossover design. With 43 total subjects the study had between 85 and 90% power.||||.044
84707990|NCT00324350|169157796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27||Analyses were by intention to treat. All analyses adjusted for baseline cardiovascular disease, assignment to blood pressure (BP) trial or lipid trial, assignment to intensive BP intervention in BP trial, and assignment to fibrate in lipid trial.|Regression, Cox|||The BONE ancillary study was designed to have 80% power to detect a relative reduction in risk of non-spine clinical fractures of 22-29%. This was based on an estimated total number of fractures between 259-494, calculated with the following assumptions: rate of clinical non-spine fracture among women in the standard glycemia therapy group between 15 and 25/1000 person yrs, fracture rates for men between 35-40% of the rates for women of the same age, and an avg follow-up time of 4.6 yrs.||1.27|0.86|0.678
84707991|NCT00324350|169157797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Number of participants with falls reported at each annual visit were compared by treatment assignment using a repeated-measures negative binomial model, with robust standard errors to account for clustering of the repeated outcomes within participants; the log of the length of the reporting period varied slightly and was included as an offset||1.43|0.84|0.490
84707992|NCT00324350|169157798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The rate of height loss did not differ between groups (p = 0.573). Height loss of \>2 cm during ACCORD was experienced by 678 (19.5%) participants in the intensive and 686 (19.6%) in the standard glycemia group (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88, 1.11).|Height loss was compared by treatment assignment using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes. The proportions losing \>2 cm of height during follow-up were compared using logistic models. Based on previous research by Siminoski et al., this degree of height loss is associated with incident vertebral fracture with 94% specificity but only 28% sensitivity.(Siminoski K, Jiang G, Adachi JD, et al. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:403-410)||1.11|0.88|0.854
84707993|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is reported for Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 6||1.61|0.92|
84707994|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.75|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 11||1.75|1.01|
84707995|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 16||1.82|1.02|
84707996|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 18||1.70|0.92|
84510783|NCT02809183|168773050|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.5||The null hypothesis is the 4.5g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.9|< 0.0001
84707997|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 31||1.61|0.91|
84707998|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 33||1.77|0.98|
84707999|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.93|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 45||1.93|1.01|
84708000|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 52||1.87|1.13|
84708001|NCT05119855|169157805|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 58||1.58|0.91|
84708002|NCT05119855|169157806|OTHER|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-SARS-CoV-2 concentrations and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4|||||GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio||1.40|0.99|
84708003|NCT02932579|169157813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84708004|NCT02932579|169157814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.21|||Fisher Exact|||||4.21|0.45|0.740
84510784|NCT02809183|168773051|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.5||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.3|< 0.0001
84708005|NCT04059042|169157815|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|39.0||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0051
84708006|NCT04059042|169157815|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|19.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84708007|NCT04059042|169157816|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|18.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84708008|NCT04059042|169157816|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|14.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84708009|NCT02549170|169157817|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-21.8|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-7.94|||Chi-squared|||||-7.94|-34.45|=0.0045
84708010|NCT02549170|169157819|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-16.9|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|0.69||The treatment groups were compared using a continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.69|-33.02|=0.0896
84708011|NCT02549170|169157820|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Survival Test|||||||=0.002
84708012|NCT02549170|169157821|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|5.2|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|0.5|=0.030
84708013|NCT00818246|169157876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
84708014|NCT00818246|169157877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84510785|NCT02809183|168773051|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.3||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|2.2|< 0.0001
84708015|NCT00818246|169157878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
84708016|NCT00914589|169157888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0482||||0.8648||95.0|0.6095|1.8029||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8029|0.6095|0.8648
84708017|NCT00914589|169157888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9871||||0.9634||95.0|0.5673|1.7176||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7176|0.5673|0.9634
84708018|NCT04247074|169157893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84510786|NCT02809183|168773051|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.0||The null hypothesis is the difference between the treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|2.9|< 0.0001
84708019|NCT04247074|169157894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84708020|NCT04247074|169157895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84708021|NCT04247074|169157896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84708022|NCT00174382|169157897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.182||95.0|-0.21|1.09||Baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.09|-0.21|0.182
84708023|NCT00174382|169157897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.067||95.0|-0.05|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.36|-0.05|0.067
84708024|NCT00174382|169157897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 LOCF Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||||0.085
84708025|NCT00174382|169157898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.218||95.0|-1.2|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-1.20|0.218
84708026|NCT00174382|169157898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.385||95.0|-6.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-6.03|0.385
84708027|NCT00174382|169157898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.228
84708028|NCT00174382|169157899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.404||95.0|-2.51|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.18|-2.51|0.404
84708029|NCT00174382|169157899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.826||95.0|-4.51|5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.64|-4.51|0.826
84708030|NCT00174382|169157899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
84708031|NCT00174382|169157900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.272||95.0|-1.42|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.99|-1.42|0.272
84708032|NCT00174382|169157900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.894||95.0|-4.21|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-4.21|0.894
84708033|NCT00174382|169157900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.906
84708034|NCT00174382|169157901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.719||95.0|-0.56|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.56|0.719
84708035|NCT00174382|169157901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.006||95.0|0.29|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.71|0.29|0.006
84708036|NCT00174382|169157901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84708037|NCT00174382|169157902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.368||95.0|-0.38|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-0.38|0.368
84708038|NCT00174382|169157902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03||95.0|0.07|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|0.07|0.030
84708039|NCT00174382|169157902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.060
84708040|NCT00174382|169157903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.516||95.0|-0.44|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.44|0.516
84708041|NCT00174382|169157903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.297||95.0|-0.97|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.97|0.297
84708042|NCT00174382|169157903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
84708043|NCT00174382|169157904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.02||95.0|0.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.13|0.020
84708044|NCT00174382|169157904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.018||95.0|0.16|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|0.16|0.018
84708045|NCT00174382|169157904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84708046|NCT00174382|169157905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.01||95.0|-1.93|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.93|0.010
84708047|NCT00174382|169157905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.018||95.0|-2.05|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.05|0.018
84708048|NCT00174382|169157905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
84708049|NCT00174382|169157906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.182||95.0|-2.06|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.06|0.182
84708050|NCT00174382|169157906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.114||95.0|-2.44|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-2.44|0.114
84708051|NCT00174382|169157906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
84708052|NCT02088853|169157922|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84708053|NCT02088853|169157923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84708054|NCT02088853|169157924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84708055|NCT03337399|169157925|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of stepped PC was established if the lower one-sided 95% confidence limit for the estimated difference in means was greater than the pre-specified margin of -4.5 points, which corresponds to the one-sided 5% significance level test against this margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.01||||Regression, Linear|||The difference in week 24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline FACT-L score.|||-.01|<0.05
84708056|NCT03337399|169157926|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -10%.|Estimated Proportions|-2.6|||<|0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Non-inferiority of stepped PC in the proportion reporting patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care at each patient's final follow-up assessment was evaluated using a binomial generalized linear model with identity link and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -10%.|||-10.4|<0.15
84708057|NCT03337399|169157927|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -7 days|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Among patients who died, non-inferiority of stepped PC in the mean length of stay in hospice was assessed using linear regression and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -7 days, based upon published quality metrics.|||-25.1|0.15
84708058|NCT03337399|169157928|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.8||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15|Regression, Linear|||The difference between groups in the mean number of outpatient PC visits per patient by week 24 was assessed using linear regression and a two-sided superiority test.||-1.8|-2.7|0.15
84708059|NCT00603954|169157932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.508
84708060|NCT00603954|169157932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 180||||0.02
84708061|NCT00603954|169157932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 365||||0.002
84708062|NCT00603954|169157933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 100||||0.09
84708063|NCT00603954|169157933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 40||||0.03
84708064|NCT00603954|169157933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 180||||0.01
84708065|NCT00603954|169157934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.0165
84708066|NCT00603954|169157934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mutivariate|||||||0.010
84708067|NCT00603954|169157934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.0495
84708068|NCT00603954|169157934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.001
84708069|NCT00603954|169157935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||19 of 49 Flu-TBI patients (39%) versus 25 of 45 TLI ATG patients (56%) had a least one episode of bacterial infection the first 100 days after transplantation (P = 0.15).||||0.15
84708070|NCT00603954|169157935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||For fungal infections, the figures were 3 of 45 (6%) and 7 of 45 (16%), respectively (P = 0.19)||||0.19
84708071|NCT00603954|169157935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among CMV-seropositive patients and/or donors, the 100-day cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation was 31% in Flu-TBI patients versus 47% in TLI-ATG patient||||0.12
84708072|NCT00603954|169157936|SUPERIORITY||Multivariate Cox models|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.7|||Cumulative incidence curves|||Four-year cumulative incidences of relapse/progression were 22% and 50% in Flu-TBI and TLI-ATG patients, respectively||4.7|1.1|0.017
84708073|NCT00603954|169157937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 0||||
84708074|NCT00603954|169157937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 3||||
84708075|NCT00603954|169157937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 10||||
84708076|NCT00603954|169157938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Cumulative incidence curve|||||||0.5
84708077|NCT00603954|169157939|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||4.1|1|0.14
84708078|NCT00603954|169157941|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.9
84708079|NCT00603954|169157942|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.96
84510787|NCT02809183|168773052|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Combined TRC101 treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|3.0|< 0.0001
84708080|NCT02708108|169157944|OTHER|Multivariable analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92||Reported as 1-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Multivariable model includes age, BMI category, cytogenetic risk, ethnicity, sex|||0.92|0.09|0.02
84708081|NCT01853748|169158006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84708082|NCT01853748|169158011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
84708083|NCT01853748|169158014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84510788|NCT02809183|168773053|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.4||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (Combined TRC101 - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|2.8|< 0.0001
84708084|NCT03088813|169158026|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Stratified log-rank test|From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|The associated HR and two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.37|0.90|0.3094
84708085|NCT03088813|169158030|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity|Stratified log-rank test||The associated HR and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.20|0.77|0.7053
84708086|NCT03088813|169158031|OTHER||Difference in ORR|22.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|30.61||ORR difference, 95% CI and P-value are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.61|13.97|<0.0001
84708087|NCT02217904|169158039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
84708088|NCT02217904|169158039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.32|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
84708089|NCT02217904|169158039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.57|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
84708090|NCT02217904|169158039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.28|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
84708091|NCT02217904|169158039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.18|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
84708092|NCT01903811|169158050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.37||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.370|0.821|0.384
84708093|NCT01903811|169158051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.841|1.571||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.571|0.841|0.284
84708094|NCT01903811|169158052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Compare the rate of confirmed PR or better between treatment arms.||||0.1130
84708095|NCT00402246|169158137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the time from a clinical event to a clinical decision for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||||<0.001
84708096|NCT00402246|169158138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.524|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.21||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple hospitalization events per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the CV hospitalization hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.21||0.524
84708097|NCT00402246|169158138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.325|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.43||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple ED visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the ED hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.43||0.325
84708098|NCT00402246|169158138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.31||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple unscheduled clinic visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rates of the CV unscheduled clinic or urgent care visits for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.31||0.099
84708099|NCT00402246|169158139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.56||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rate of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) taken for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||2.56||0.29
84708100|NCT00402246|169158142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|A GEE model was utilized to account for multiple events within same patient in estimating the probability of an AT/AF alert event being symptomatic.||||||
84708101|NCT00402246|169158144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the time from event onset to clinical decision for symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||1.0|-0.8|0.779
84708102|NCT00402246|169158145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is the time from event onset to clinical decision for both device events and symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
84708103|NCT00402246|169158146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis was rejected.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis was that the mean LOS per hospitalization visit for patients in the remote arm was equal to that for similar patients in the in-office arm.||0.9|0.7|0.002
84708104|NCT00402246|169158147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.761|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.737||||Binomial Exact Test|||3-month compliance rate|||0.737|
84708105|NCT00402246|169158147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.793||||Binomial Exact Test|||6-month compliance rate|||0.793|
84708106|NCT00402246|169158147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.792||||Binomial Exact Test|||9-month compliance rate|||0.792|
84708107|NCT00402246|169158147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.814|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.79||||Binomial Exact Test|||12-month compliance rate|||0.79|
84708108|NCT00402246|169158149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.217
84708109|NCT00402246|169158150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.154
84708110|NCT01808339|169158155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.152|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and Placebo (FF 100 µg AM minus Placebo).|||0.152|0.001|
84708111|NCT01808339|169158155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.029|0.18|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg PM and Placebo (FF 100 µg PM minus Placebo).|||0.180|0.029|
84708112|NCT01808339|169158155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.045|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and FF 100 µg PM (FF 100 µg AM minus FF 100 µg PM).|||0.045|-0.102|
84510789|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84708113|NCT04788641|169158188|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|77.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||77.24|65.44|
84708114|NCT04788641|169158188|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|110.1|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||110.1|96.11|
84708115|NCT04788641|169158189|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.64|71.13|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||71.13|55.64|
84510790|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84708116|NCT04788641|169158189|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|101.7|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.7|92.93|
84708117|NCT04788641|169158190|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|65.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.69|73.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||73.24|58.69|
84708118|NCT04788641|169158190|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|101.6|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.6|92.70|
84708119|NCT04788641|169158191|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|95.84|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||95.84|73.38|
84708120|NCT04788641|169158191|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.16|109.2|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||109.2|87.16|
84708121|NCT04788641|169158192|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|98.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|102.4|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||102.4|94.62|
84708122|NCT04788641|169158192|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|94.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.74|103.3|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||103.3|85.74|
84708123|NCT00093015|169158210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.41||95.0|0.94|1.17||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary cardiovascular composite endpoint was tested at the 0.04056 significance level at final analysis after accounting for 4 planned interim analyses (overall alpha = 0.048).|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.17|0.94|0.41
84708124|NCT00093015|169158211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.29||95.0|0.95|1.19||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary renal composite endpoint was tested at the 0.002 significance level at final analysis.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.19|0.95|0.29
84708125|NCT00093015|169158212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.48||95.0|0.92|1.21||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.21|0.92|0.48
84708126|NCT00093015|169158213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.61||95.0|0.88|1.25||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.25|0.88|0.61
84708127|NCT00093015|169158214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.73||95.0|0.75|1.23||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.23|0.75|0.73
84708128|NCT00093015|169158215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||2.68|1.38|<0.001
84708129|NCT00093015|169158216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.24||95.0|0.74|1.08||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.08|0.74|0.24
84510791|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0074||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
84510792|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0012||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0012
84708130|NCT00093015|169158217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.83||95.0|0.87|1.18||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.18|0.87|0.83
84708131|NCT00093015|169158218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.12||||0.54||95.0|-0.51|0.26||Nominal p-value is from the term treatment group\*visit in the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline eGFR and the stratification factors of proteinuria and CVD history.|Estimated difference in rate of decline in eGFR per year between darbepoetin alfa and placebo.|||0.26|-0.51|0.54
84708132|NCT00093015|169158219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.001||95.0|0.64|2.02||Nominal p-value is presented.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference (darbepoetin alfa - placebo)|||2.02|0.64|<0.001
84510793|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0032||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
84708133|NCT00093015|169158220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4||95.0|0.55|1.27||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.27|0.55|0.40
84708134|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|97.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|86|0.0526
84708135|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|0.0526
84708136|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0526
84510794|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0013||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
84510795|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84708137|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|84.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||84|53|<0.0001
84510796|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84708138|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|<0.0001
84708139|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||83|51|<0.0001
84708140|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
84708141|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|100.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|3|0.0043
84708142|NCT00520546|169158223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
84708143|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|69.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
84708144|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|44.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
84708145|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|71.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
84708146|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|42.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
84708147|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|61.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
84708148|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|60.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
84510797|NCT02809183|168773054|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0006||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0006
84510798|NCT02809183|168773055|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.2||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 6g TRC101 QD group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|2.7|<0.0001
84708149|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|30.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
84708150|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|48.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
84708151|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|40.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
84510799|NCT02809183|168773056|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.7||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|2.6|<0.0001
84708152|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|45.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
84708153|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708154|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|57.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708155|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708156|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708157|NCT00520546|169158224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708158|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708159|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708160|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|90.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708161|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708162|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708163|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|71.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
84708164|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|33.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
84708165|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|73.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
84510800|NCT02809183|168773057|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - 6g TRC101 QD) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.4214
84708166|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|31.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
84708167|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|60.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
84708168|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|96.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84510801|NCT02809183|168773058|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
84708169|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708170|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708171|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|92.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708172|NCT00520546|169158225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|88.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708173|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
84708174|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|69.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
84708175|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|86.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
84708176|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|43.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
84708177|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
84708178|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|59.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
84708179|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|46.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
84708180|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
84708181|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|38.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
84708182|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|54.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
84708183|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|86.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708184|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|76.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708185|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|83.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84510802|NCT02809183|168773058|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
84510803|NCT02809183|168773058|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
84510804|NCT02933866|168773063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2961
84708186|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|80.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708187|NCT00520546|169158226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
84708188|NCT00595790|169158228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of non-inferiority of IC51 1x12 mcg vs. IC51 2x6 mcg at Day 56 based on the difference (IC51 1x12 mcg - IC51 2x6 mcg) in SCRs in the PP population. Non-inferiority of IC51 1 x 12 mcg compared to IC51 2 x 6 mcg was accepted if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the adjusted for center SCR difference (IC51 1 x 12 mcg - IC51 2 x 6 mcg) was higher than the noninferiority margin at -10%.|||||>|0.99|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||>0.99
84708189|NCT03988023|169158232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||MMRM|||||||0.32
84708190|NCT03988023|169158233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||MMRM|||||||0.30
84708191|NCT00296036|169158252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.768
84708192|NCT02253537|169158282|EQUIVALENCE|2 x 2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|96.3||||||||96.3|62.1|
84708193|NCT03951805|169158283|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.76||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.8|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||5.80|-4.28|0.7675
84708194|NCT03951805|169158283|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|12.04|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||12.04|2.12|0.0051
84510805|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.85|0.531
84708195|NCT03951805|169158283|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.01||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|10.05|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||10.05|-0.04|0.0519
84708196|NCT03684044|169158292|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|25.9|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||25.9|-53.4|0.4666
84708197|NCT03684044|169158293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6326|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistic was stratified by region, NEWS2 at baseline (≤7, \>7), and time from symptom onset to study treatment (≤48 hours, \>48 hours)||||||0.6326
84708198|NCT03684044|169158294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|17.7|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||17.7|-50.9|0.3272
84708199|NCT03703336|169158321|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVIN and ROTAVIN-M1 groups were to be larger than 1/2, ROTAVIN was considered to be non-inferior to the licensed frozen formulation of the vaccine (ROTAVIN-M1).|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||Log10-transformed IgA concentrations were used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI for the mean difference between the arms using t-distribution. The mean difference and 95% CI were exponentiated to obtain the GMC ratio and corresponding 95% CI.|||1.86|1.02|
84708200|NCT03703336|169158323|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|15.87||||||||15.87|-3.57|
84708201|NCT03703336|169158324|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.09||||||Percentage Difference on Day 1||2.09|-2.40|
84708202|NCT03703336|169158324|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.23||||||Percentage Difference on Day 85||16.23|-3.19|
84708203|NCT04629950|169158336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
84708204|NCT04629950|169158336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
84708205|NCT04629950|169158337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.691
84708206|NCT04629950|169158337|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
84708207|NCT04629950|169158338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,||||||0.758
84708208|NCT04629950|169158338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Data represent change values.||||0.247
84708209|NCT04629950|169158339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.316
84510806|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.09|0.65|0.189
84510807|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.66|0.10|0.054
84510808|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.32|0.84|0.654
84708210|NCT04629950|169158339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data represent change values.||||0.605
84708211|NCT04629950|169158340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch||||0.192
84708212|NCT04629950|169158340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.392
84708213|NCT04629950|169158340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch||||0.347
84708214|NCT04629950|169158340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.572
84708215|NCT04629950|169158341|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
84708216|NCT04629950|169158342|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
84708217|NCT04629950|169158343|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
84708218|NCT04629950|169158344|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
84708219|NCT04629950|169158345|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
84708220|NCT04629950|169158346|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
84708221|NCT04629950|169158347|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||0.221
84708222|NCT04629950|169158347|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||0.286
84708223|NCT04629950|169158348|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||1
84708224|NCT04629950|169158348|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||1
84708225|NCT01198145|169158349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84708226|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus During RT||||0.23
84708227|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus after RT||||0.64
84708228|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain during RT.||||0.30
84708229|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain after RT||||0.02
84708230|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation during RT||||0.70
84708231|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation after RT||||0.63
84708232|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea during RT||||0.44
84708233|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea after RT||||0.48
84708234|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing rectal bleeding during RT||||0.38
84708235|NCT01198145|169158350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84708236|NCT01198145|169158351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II during RT.||||0.56
84708237|NCT01198145|169158351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II after RT.||||0.74
84708238|NCT03830866|169158357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.65|0.174
84708239|NCT03830866|169158358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.203
84708240|NCT03830866|169158360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.60|0.091
84708241|NCT03830866|169158361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.657|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.657|0.794|0.465
84708242|NCT03830866|169158362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.487|0.833|0.469
84708243|NCT00891436|169158375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was used for the data analysis||||>0.1
84708244|NCT00891436|169158375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test showed no different between the 2 groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.1
84708245|NCT02214550|169158376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.02
84708246|NCT02214550|169158376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8245||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.08
84708247|NCT02214550|169158376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8121||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates a time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.023
84510809|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.74|1.05|0.018
84510810|NCT04567342|168773086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.44|0.90|0.283
84708248|NCT02214550|169158377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time\*group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.2315
84708249|NCT02214550|169158377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3244||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.4097
84708250|NCT02214550|169158377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3283||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (continuous microgestin: D+COS-vs. PBS) interaction.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.6341
84708251|NCT02214550|169158378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.393|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The OCP vs No OCP contrast was estimated here:||||.393
84708252|NCT02214550|169158378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameters reported indicates time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The cyclic vs. continuous microgestin contrast was run here||||0.941
84708253|NCT02214550|169158378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin contrast was evaluated here||||0.005
84708254|NCT00567489|169158424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
84708255|NCT00567489|169158424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
84708256|NCT00567489|169158425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
84708257|NCT00567489|169158425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
84708258|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
84708259|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
84708260|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
84510811|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|2.62|1.42|<0.01
84510812|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.21|0.56|0.318
84510813|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|3.26|1.68|<0.01
84510814|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.36|0.85|0.535
84510815|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.5|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs Arm 2|3.50|1.82|<0.01
84510816|NCT04567342|168773087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|2.80|1.53|<0.01
84708261|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
84708262|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
84708263|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
84708264|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
84708265|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
84708266|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
84708267|NCT00567489|169158427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
84708268|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
84708269|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
84708270|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
84708271|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
84708272|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
84708273|NCT00567489|169158428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
84708274|NCT00567489|169158429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
84708275|NCT00567489|169158429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
84708276|NCT00567489|169158429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
84708277|NCT00567489|169158429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
84708278|NCT00567489|169158430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
84708279|NCT00567489|169158430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
84708280|NCT00567489|169158431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
84708281|NCT00567489|169158432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
84708282|NCT00567489|169158432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
84708283|NCT00567489|169158432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
84708284|NCT00567489|169158432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
84708285|NCT00567489|169158433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
84708286|NCT00567489|169158433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
84708287|NCT00567489|169158433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
84708288|NCT00567489|169158433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84708289|NCT00567489|169158434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
84708290|NCT00567489|169158434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
84708291|NCT00567489|169158435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
84708292|NCT00567489|169158435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
84708293|NCT00567489|169158436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
84708294|NCT00567489|169158436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
84708295|NCT00567489|169158437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
84708296|NCT00567489|169158438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
84708297|NCT00567489|169158438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
84708298|NCT00567489|169158438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
84708299|NCT00567489|169158438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
84510817|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.48|0.92|0.192
84708300|NCT00567489|169158439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
84510818|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.06|0.62|0.132
84708301|NCT00567489|169158439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
84708302|NCT00567489|169158440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
84708303|NCT00567489|169158440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
84708304|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
84708305|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
84708306|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
84708307|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
84708308|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
84708309|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
84708310|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
84708311|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
84510819|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.86|1.11|<0.01
84708312|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
84708313|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
84708314|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
84708315|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
84708316|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
84708317|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
84708318|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
84708319|NCT00567489|169158441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
84708320|NCT00567489|169158442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
84510820|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.16|0.73|0.462
84708321|NCT00567489|169158442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
84708322|NCT00567489|169158443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
84708323|NCT00567489|169158443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
84708324|NCT00567489|169158444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
84708325|NCT00567489|169158444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
84708326|NCT00567489|169158445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
84708327|NCT01061671|169158452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial regression|Adjustments of confidence intervals for between-participant variation (overdispersion).||||||0.54
84708328|NCT01061671|169158453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.34
84708329|NCT01061671|169158454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1461
84708330|NCT02570022|169158456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis corresponds to the visual analog scale and morphine equivalent data.|Our hypothesis was that in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, treatment with LB would lead to no significant differences in average daily pain scores. A power analysis was performed prior to the study to assess the primary hypothesis that a significant difference in average daily pain of 13mm on VAS will not be found between the INB and LB groups. With a power of 80% (beta level = 0.80, alpha level = 0.05), a sample size of 25 patients per group was obtained||||<0.05
84708331|NCT04992390|169158458|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression was performed with baseline measure and binary arm status included as fixed effect covariates. Various regression models for count data were compared to find the best fitting model. Visual exploratory data and model evaluation showed that the Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression model provided the best fit and was used as the model for the ITT analysis of the primary outcome.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||For more information on analysis models see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|See also Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.48|0.20|<= 0.001
84708332|NCT04992390|169158459|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the delayed intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (week 4) to post-intervention (week 8).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the comparator arm, where participants had delayed access to the intervention (i.e., delayed arm crossover), the number of intrusive memories in week 8 was compared to week 4. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|For full results see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.45|0.21|<= 0.001
84510821|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.72|1.01|0.039
84510822|NCT04567342|168773088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.84|0.570
84510823|NCT04646109|168773107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.43
84510824|NCT04646109|168773108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84708333|NCT04992390|169158459|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the immediate intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (run-in/screening week) to post-intervention (week 4).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the immediate intervention arm, where participants had immediate access to the intervention, the number of intrusive memories in Week 4 was compared to the run-in/screening week. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0||0.45|0.10|<0.001
84708334|NCT04992390|169158460|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.54||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How distressing were your intrusive memories?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.54|-3.72|<= 0.001
84708335|NCT04992390|169158460|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-2.15||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they disrupt your concentration?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-2.15|-4.28|<= 0.001
84708336|NCT04992390|169158460|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.95||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they interfere with what you were doing?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.95|-3.90|<= 0.001
84708337|NCT04992390|169158460|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.08||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your work functioning?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.08|-3.22|<= 0.001
84708338|NCT04992390|169158460|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your functioning in other areas of your life?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.51|-3.67|<= 0.001
84510825|NCT04646109|168773109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84708339|NCT04992390|169158463|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Total Score (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.53|-1.08|<= 0.001
84708340|NCT04992390|169158463|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.62||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.62|-1.27|<= 0.001
84708341|NCT04992390|169158463|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.42||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Avoidance Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.42|-1.09|<= 0.001
84510826|NCT04646109|168773110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84510827|NCT04646109|168773111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84510828|NCT04646109|168773112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84510829|NCT04646109|168773113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84510830|NCT04646109|168773116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84708342|NCT04992390|169158463|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Hyperarousal Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.44|-0.97|<= 0.001
84708343|NCT04992390|169158464|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) 4-item version (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.07|-3.52|<= 0.001
84708344|NCT04992390|169158465|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.2||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|8.20|2.56|<= 0.001
84708345|NCT04992390|169158466|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Generalised Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.17|-1.68|<=0.05
84708346|NCT04992390|169158467|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.19||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item version (PHQ-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.19|-1.23|> .05
84715120|NCT04508309|169176876|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.891|1.327|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.327|0.891|
84510831|NCT04646109|168773117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
84510832|NCT04646109|168773118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84510833|NCT04646109|168773119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84510834|NCT04646109|168773120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84510835|NCT04646109|168773121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
84510836|NCT04646109|168773122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84510837|NCT04646109|168773123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84510838|NCT04646109|168773124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84510839|NCT06176768|168773126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|0.3|0.316
84708347|NCT04992390|169158468|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.51|-8.48|<= 0.001
84708348|NCT04992390|169158469|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 12-item version (WHODAS 2.0) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.50|-15.06|<= 0.001
84708349|NCT04992390|169158470|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|20.04||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for 5-level European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 for EQ-5D-5L subscale comparisons and Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|20.04|4.61|<= 0.01
84708350|NCT04992390|169158471|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.71||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Engagement Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.71|0.20|<= 0.001
84708351|NCT04992390|169158471|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Burnout Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.34|-0.87|<= 0.001
84708352|NCT04992390|169158472|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for Sickness absence (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|3.51|0.64|> .05
84510840|NCT06176768|168773127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||3.60|-17.15|0.175
84708353|NCT04992390|169158473|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intention to leave job (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.49|-2.20|> .05
84708354|NCT04992390|169158474|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of days worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|1.07|0.60|>.05
84708355|NCT04992390|169158475|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.09||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of nights worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|2.09|0.57|<.05
84708356|NCT02975505|169158492|SUPERIORITY||beta|11.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|7.5|<0.05
84708357|NCT02975505|169158495|SUPERIORITY||beta|12.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|8|0.05
84708358|NCT04201834|169158511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
84708359|NCT04201834|169158512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.92
84708360|NCT04201834|169158513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.36
84708361|NCT04201834|169158514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.62
84708362|NCT04201834|169158517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.11
84708363|NCT04201834|169158518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.02
84708364|NCT04201834|169158520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.86
84708365|NCT04201834|169158521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
84708366|NCT04201834|169158522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.61
84708367|NCT04201834|169158523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.37
84708368|NCT04201834|169158524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.30
84708369|NCT04201834|169158525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.82
84708370|NCT03089125|169158526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||-0.05|-0.61|0.038
84708371|NCT03089125|169158527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||1.10|-2.20|>0.99
84708372|NCT03089125|169158528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||5.18|-1.98|0.380
84708373|NCT03089125|169158529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||0.82|-0.83|0.990
84708374|NCT03089125|169158530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-1.34|0.251
84708375|NCT03089125|169158531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||4.92|-7.90|0.647
84708376|NCT03089125|169158532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|5.71||ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||5.71|-2.45|0.431
84708377|NCT03089125|169158533|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.26|-0.38|0.710
84510841|NCT06176768|168773128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|2.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||2.35|-7.06|0.311
84708378|NCT03089125|169158534|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.38||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||2.16|-1.40|0.677
84708379|NCT03089125|169158535|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-1.95||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.97|-5.87|0.330
84708380|NCT03089125|169158536|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.73||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.59|-0.13|0.098
84708381|NCT03089125|169158537|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.08||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.93|-0.76|0.845
84510842|NCT01226797|168773130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5834||||0.6668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.51|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect|||3.51|0.10|0.6668
84510843|NCT01226797|168773131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1591||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.73|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.73|0.01|0.1550
84708382|NCT03089125|169158538|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.74||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||7.77|-6.33|0.837
84708383|NCT02980276|169158545|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|1.4||The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.|Risk difference||Units are %|The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.||1.4|-15.1|0.13
84708384|NCT02980276|169158546|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-4.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||-4.3|-21.2|0.004
84708385|NCT02980276|169158547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Median survival times could not be calculated; time to insulin initiation would be censored at delivery in \>50% of participants in treatment group.||||||0.001
84708386|NCT02980276|169158548|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio, log|0.61||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||0.86|0.43|0.005
84708387|NCT02980276|169158548|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||0.82|0.38|0.003
84708388|NCT02980276|169158549|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Unadjusted|||1.12|0.55|0.178
84708389|NCT02980276|169158549|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.07||Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||1.07|0.48|0.105
84708390|NCT02980276|169158550|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-9.3|0.17
84708391|NCT02980276|169158551|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference ratio to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.42|-1.99|0.003
84708392|NCT02980276|169158552|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.65|0.99
84708393|NCT02980276|169158553|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2|0.46|0.911
84708394|NCT02980276|169158554|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.44|0.519
84708395|NCT02980276|169158555|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.3|0.66
84708396|NCT02980276|169158556|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.85|0.8|0.367
84708397|NCT02980276|169158556|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.87|0.8|0.359
84708398|NCT02980276|169158557|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|12.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||12.9|-13.9|1.0
84708399|NCT02980276|169158558|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.39|0.56|0.603
84708400|NCT02980276|169158558|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.4|0.57|0.621
84708401|NCT02980276|169158559|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.76|0.45|0.739
84708402|NCT02980276|169158559|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.84|0.46|0.812
84708403|NCT02980276|169158560|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|Unadjusted||6.04|0.63|0.282
84708404|NCT02980276|169158560|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.38|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||7.38|0.7|0.196
84708405|NCT02980276|169158561|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted||||1.01|0.27|0.058
84708406|NCT02980276|169158561|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted||||1.02|0.27|0.061
84708407|NCT02980276|169158562|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.5|||Risk difference||Units are %|||2.5|-11.6|0.24
84708408|NCT02980276|169158562|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.81||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Units are %|||1.12|0.59|0.24
84708409|NCT02980276|169158563|EQUIVALENCE|Regression model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-113.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.0|-24.0|||Regression, Linear|P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.||||-24|-201|0.005
84708410|NCT02980276|169158564|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.82
84708411|NCT02980276|169158565|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.02
84708412|NCT02980276|169158566|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.5|0.72
84708413|NCT02980276|169158567|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.1|0.68
84708414|NCT02980276|169158568|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.8|||Regression, Logistic|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||-1.8|-12.6|0.02
84708415|NCT02980276|169158569|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.2|||Risk difference|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization|Units are %|||-3.2|-13.7|0.003
84708416|NCT02980276|169158570|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||Risk difference|Units are %. P value derived from model adjusting for the gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.3|-1|.012
84708417|NCT02980276|169158571|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Regression, Logistic||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.5|-0.4|0.13
84708418|NCT02980276|169158572|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.0|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||9|-2.9|0.38
84708419|NCT02980276|169158573|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||7.3|-2.0|0.33
84708420|NCT02980276|169158574|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.9|-2.4|0.42
84708421|NCT02980276|169158575|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||1.1|-0.4|>0.99
84708422|NCT02980276|169158576|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2|||Risk difference||Units are %|||4.2|-1.9|0.62
84708423|NCT02980276|169158577|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Risk difference||Units are %|||1|-1|>0.99
84708424|NCT02980276|169158578|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.6|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.6|-5.1|0.9
84708425|NCT02652260|169158623|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|4.65||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|24.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|24.85|-15.92|0.331
84708426|NCT02652260|169158624|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|2.51||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|2.51|-38.14|
84708427|NCT02652260|169158625|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|6.5|-10.5|
84708428|NCT02652260|169158626|OTHER||Estimated Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|11.3|-4.1|
84708429|NCT02652260|169158627|OTHER|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Difference in Percentage|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-23.8||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in percent response|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-23.8|-51.2|
84708430|NCT02652260|169158628|OTHER|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-10.1||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in score|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-10.1|-16.8|
84708431|NCT02652260|169158629|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.69|-2.35||||||Difference Estimate: LDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-2.35|-15.69|
84708432|NCT02652260|169158629|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-13.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|-6.35||||||Difference Estimate: Non-HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-6.35|-20.79|
84510844|NCT01226797|168773132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.45||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|58.69||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||58.69|-7.79|0.1259
84708433|NCT02652260|169158629|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-21.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.63|-13.21||||||Difference Estimate: Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-13.21|-29.63|
84708434|NCT02652260|169158629|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-4.6||||||Difference Estimate: HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-4.60|-11.76|
84708435|NCT02652260|169158629|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.52|-5.84||||||Difference Estimate: Triglyceride|ISG minus DSG|-5.84|-38.52|
84708436|NCT03990649|169158746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The p-values were estimated using a two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
84708437|NCT05773313|169158748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Food Insecurity||||>0.999
84708438|NCT05773313|169158748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Financial Insecurity||||0.250
84708439|NCT05773313|169158748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Isolation||||>0.999
84510845|NCT01226797|168773132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|41.66||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||41.66|-14.67|0.3297
84708440|NCT05773313|169158748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Inactivity||||>0.999
84708441|NCT05773313|169158748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Disability||||>0.999
84708442|NCT05773313|169158749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
84510846|NCT01226797|168773132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.17||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|51.39||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||51.39|-21.04|0.3925
84708443|NCT05773313|169158750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84708444|NCT05773313|169158751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
84510847|NCT01226797|168773132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|64.09||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||64.09|-14.85|0.2080
84708445|NCT05773313|169158752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
84708446|NCT03050814|169158753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.966|||Kaplan Meier|Kaplan-Meier curves and a two-tailed log-rank test||||2.966|0.380|0.91
84708447|NCT01443845|169158756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04|||negative binomial regression||p-values are based on a negative binomial regression with factors Treatment and LAMA use.|Rate ratio (Roflumilast/Placebo). A rate ratio \< 1 represents a favorable outcome for the test treatment.||1.04|0.81|0.1634
84708448|NCT01443845|169158756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Male||0.97|0.71|0.0195
84708449|NCT01443845|169158756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Female||1.35|0.91|0.3164
84708450|NCT01443845|169158756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||0.99|0.74|0.0385
84708451|NCT01443845|169158756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||1.32|0.84|0.6475
84708452|NCT01443845|169158757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||negative binomial regression|||||1.19|0.75|0.6354
84708453|NCT01443845|169158758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||negative binomial regression|||||1.02|0.8|0.0884
84708454|NCT01443845|169158759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.0664||The MMRM analysis is based on all postbaseline observed data using a mixed model with terms for treatment, baseline, visit, LAMA use, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.0664|0.04|< 0.0001
84708455|NCT01854385|169158766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.079
84708456|NCT01828554|169158813|OTHER|||||||0.4882||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the AUC from cycle 1 day 1 (based on ideal body weight) is equal to the AUC from cycle 1 day 9 (based on actual body weight) was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the AUCs are not equal. A linear mixed effect model with patient specific random effects was conducted||||0.4882
84510848|NCT01226797|168773134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.87||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|44.53||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||44.53|-0.78|0.0577
84708457|NCT01828554|169158814|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7497
84708458|NCT01381406|169158829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.93||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Logistic|||||0.930|0.641|0.007
84708459|NCT01381406|169158829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.18||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||1.180|0.328|0.146
84510849|NCT01226797|168773134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|30.3||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||30.30|-11.71|0.3669
84510850|NCT01226797|168773134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.09||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|38.8||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||38.80|-10.62|0.2482
84708460|NCT01381406|169158829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.949||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||0.949|0.646|0.013
84708461|NCT02020252|169158852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||This is for the receptivity sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and post-test scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.307
84708462|NCT02020252|169158852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||This is for the willingness sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.009
84708463|NCT02020252|169158852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for knowledge sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test.||||||<.001
84708464|NCT02020252|169158852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||This is for the positive attitudes sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.004
84708465|NCT02020252|169158852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This was for the self-efficacy sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||<.001
84708466|NCT01803555|169158919|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of BF Spiromax to Symbicort Turbohaler was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -15 L/min.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|-2.957||||0.3387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis included effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough AM PEF, gender, age, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction.||||3.11|-9.02|0.3387
84708467|NCT01551355|169158949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|6.16|||t-test, 2 sided|The intervention was evaluated using generalized estimating equation models, controlling for cluster effect, sex, age, weight, and education level.||||6.16|1.64|<.001
84708468|NCT01551355|169158950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|2.03|<.001
84708469|NCT01551355|169158951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|11.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.01|-0.29|=.06
84708470|NCT02409667|169158953|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical null-hypothesis to be rejected in the primary analysis was that the odds ratio of maintaining a PASI 90 response for patients with secukinumab 4-weekly dosing versus patients on secukinumab 6-weekly dosing exceeds the non-inferiority margin of 1+δ.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.44|0.1499
84708471|NCT02409667|169158954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.35|0.1013
84708472|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) estimate|-0.09||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.00|-0.18|0.0489
84708473|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.09||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.02|-0.19|0.1073
84708474|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.12|-0.37|0.0001
84708475|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
84510851|NCT01226797|168773134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|62.22||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||62.22|-3.84|0.0801
84708476|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
84708477|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.27|-0.70|0.0000
84708478|NCT02409667|169158957|SUPERIORITY||LSM mean|-0.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.81|0.0000
84510852|NCT01226797|168773142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.06||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|-8.44||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||-8.44|-35.67|0.0031
84510853|NCT01226797|168773142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.04||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||-7.04|-25.64|0.0015
84708479|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.99|-0.18|0.1740
84708480|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.79||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.50|0.08|0.0287
84708481|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.62||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||1.41|-0.16|0.1202
84708482|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||1.68|-0.19|0.1157
84708483|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.54||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.59|-0.52|0.3189
84708484|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.18|0.16|0.0240
84708485|NCT02409667|169158958|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.57|0.37|0.0090
84708486|NCT02409667|169158959|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
84708487|NCT02409667|169158960|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.42|||ANCOVA|||||2.42|-0.09|0.0675
84708488|NCT02409667|169158961|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.97||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||0.55|-2.48|0.2101
84708489|NCT02409667|169158961|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.67||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||0.59|-1.93|0.2971
84708490|NCT02409667|169158961|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||1.38|-2.59|0.5499
84708491|NCT02409667|169158961|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-1.08||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-2.28|0.0758
84708492|NCT02409667|169158962|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.2||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|4.11|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||4.11|-1.71|0.4156
84708493|NCT02409667|169158962|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.63||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||7.85|-6.59|0.8619
84708494|NCT02409667|169158962|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||10.61|-6.31|0.6139
84708495|NCT02409667|169158962|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.7||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|7.56|||ANCOVA|||Work productivity loss||7.56|-4.16|0.5674
84708496|NCT02409667|169158963|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.13||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.04|-0.30|0.1219
84708497|NCT02409667|169158963|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Itching||-0.18|-0.57|0.0001
84510854|NCT00577460|168773152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX ER versus Placebo||||0.0039
84708498|NCT02409667|169158963|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||-0.14|-0.48|0.0003
84708499|NCT02409667|169158964|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.17||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.92|-0.57|0.6457
84708500|NCT02409667|169158964|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.19||||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Itching||0.94|-0.56|0.6136
84708501|NCT02409667|169158964|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.39|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||1.39|0.12|0.0203
84708502|NCT02409667|169158965|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|2.22||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|0.77|0.0027
84708503|NCT02409667|169158966|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-2.31||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-6.55|0.2823
84708504|NCT02409667|169158967|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.01||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.02|-0.00|0.0861
84708505|NCT02409667|169158967|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.02||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.04|0.00|0.0117
84708506|NCT02409667|169158968|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.02||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.01|-0.05|0.1852
84708507|NCT02409667|169158968|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.03||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.02|-0.07|0.2203
84708508|NCT01255670|169159097|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84708509|NCT01255670|169159098|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||0.05
84708510|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
84708511|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
84708512|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|0.6546|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<0.6546
84708513|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
84708514|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|0.2262|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.2262
84708515|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
84708516|NCT03087708|169159123|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<1
84708517|NCT03087708|169159127|OTHER||||||<|0.68182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.68182
84708518|NCT03087708|169159127|OTHER||||||<|0.1091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.1091
84708519|NCT03087708|169159128|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.0
84708520|NCT03087708|169159128|OTHER||||||<|0.3339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3339
84708521|NCT03087708|169159129|OTHER||||||<|0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.5930
84708522|NCT03087708|169159129|OTHER||||||<|0.3105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3105
84708523|NCT03087708|169159130|OTHER|||||||0.6024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||0.6024
84708524|NCT03087708|169159130|OTHER||||||<|0.3116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||<0.3116
84708525|NCT03087708|169159130|OTHER||||||<|0.7712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<0.7712
84708526|NCT03087708|169159130|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<1.0
84708527|NCT03087708|169159131|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<1.0000
84708528|NCT03087708|169159131|OTHER||||||<|0.5758|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<0.5758
84708529|NCT03087708|169159131|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||<1.0000
84708530|NCT03087708|169159131|OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||0.5930
84708531|NCT01996605|169159136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||T|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA was performed on the single primary outcome datapoint comparing the three groups.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in area of hyperalgesia 105 minutes after study drug injection among the three groups.||||<0.05
84510855|NCT00577460|168773152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX IR versus Placebo||||0.0001
84510856|NCT00577460|168773155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5590
84708532|NCT01827787|169159151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Using a one sample binomial design, with 45 patients there was 90% power to detect a null hypothesis 30% overall response rate (historical control) versus an alternative hypothesis of 53% overall response rate assuming a two-sided 10% alpha.~Of note, cohort 2: TNBC did not fully accrue 45 patients so a testing was not done."||||0.42
84708533|NCT02769858|169159190|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84708534|NCT02769858|169159191|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
84708535|NCT02769858|169159192|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
84708536|NCT04870645|169159218|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Statistical Significance|||||||< 0.05
84708537|NCT05857644|169159262|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.94|139.59|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||139.59|50.94|
84708538|NCT05857644|169159262|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.91|150.45|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||150.45|54.91|
84708539|NCT05857644|169159262|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|157.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.81|291.49|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||291.49|84.81|
84708540|NCT05857644|169159263|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.24|137.11|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||137.11|49.24|
84708541|NCT05857644|169159263|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|130.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|218.3|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||218.30|78.40|
84708542|NCT05857644|169159263|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|385.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.92|721.77|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||721.77|205.92|
84708543|NCT05857644|169159264|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.53|136.28|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||136.28|50.53|
84708544|NCT05857644|169159264|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|215.99|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||215.99|80.09|
84708545|NCT05857644|169159264|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|392.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.57|719.85|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||719.85|213.57|
84708546|NCT04878354|169159288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||2.00|0.58|0.0004
84708547|NCT04878354|169159289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||1.35|0.34|0.0010
84708548|NCT04878354|169159290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.71|0.03|0.0354
84708549|NCT04878354|169159291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.50|-0.02|0.0734
84708550|NCT04878354|169159292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.28|0.45|<0.0001
84708551|NCT04878354|169159293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.82|0.26|0.0002
84708552|NCT04878354|169159294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.76|-0.11|0.1516
84510857|NCT00577460|168773155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1289
84708553|NCT04878354|169159295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.25|-0.24|0.9709
84708554|NCT04878354|169159296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.41|0.00|0.0499
84708555|NCT04878354|169159297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||2.18|0.73|<0.0001
84510858|NCT00577460|168773157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1073
84510859|NCT00577460|168773157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8694||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8694
84708556|NCT04878354|169159298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.83|0.13|0.0075
84708557|NCT04878354|169159299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.29|0.44|<0.0001
84708558|NCT04878354|169159300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.32|1.10|<0.0001
84708559|NCT04878354|169159301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ration is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.08|0.93|0.9124
84708560|NCT04878354|169159302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Generalised linear fixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.81|0.71|<0.0001
84708561|NCT04878354|169159303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.93|0.85|<0.0001
84708562|NCT04878354|169159304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.84|0.72|<0.0001
84708563|NCT04878354|169159305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.95|0.86|0.0001
84708564|NCT04878354|169159308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in an LME model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.29|0.07|0.0015
84510860|NCT00577460|168773158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0009
84708565|NCT04878354|169159309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.20|0.04|0.0032
84510861|NCT00577460|168773158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0573
84510862|NCT00577460|168773159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.6434
84708566|NCT04878354|169159310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.23|-0.21|0.9277
84708567|NCT04878354|169159311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.18|-0.19|0.9643
84708568|NCT04878354|169159312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.34|0.02|0.0287
84708569|NCT04878354|169159314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.58|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet/ odds tree SLIT-tablet)|"Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy.~The odds of having an improved treatment efficacy according to patient-rated global evaluation was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model with a logit link function. The model includes patient-rated global evaluation of treatment efficacy (improvement/no improvement) as the response variable and treatment, cohort and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effects. Observed p-value."||0.58|0.30|<0.0001
84708570|NCT04878354|169159315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.48|0.38|<0.0001
84708571|NCT04878354|169159315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.01|-0.09|0.1038
84708572|NCT04878354|169159316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.57|0.48|<0.0001
84708573|NCT04878354|169159316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.53|0.45|<0.0001
84708574|NCT04878354|169159317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.33|0.24|<0.0001
84708575|NCT04878354|169159317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.36|0.26|<0.0001
84708576|NCT03358875|169159321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.778||OS in the ITT population was tested at one-sided p value boundary of 0.0120.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.778|0.527|<0.0001
84708577|NCT03358875|169159322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.702||OS in the PD-L1 positive analysis set was tested at the one-sided p-value boundary of 0.025.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).||||0.702|0.407|<0.0001
84510863|NCT00577460|168773159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.2469
84708578|NCT03358875|169159323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.336|6.393|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, line of therapy, and PDL1 expression.||||6.393|2.336|<0.0001
84510864|NCT00577460|168773160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.9741
84510865|NCT00577460|168773160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.7620
84510866|NCT00577460|168773164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0831
84708579|NCT03358875|169159324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.721|17.379|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology and line of therapy.||||17.379|3.721|<0.0001
84708580|NCT03358875|169159325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.536|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.536|0.176|<0.0001
84510867|NCT00577460|168773164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0759
84510868|NCT00577460|168773165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1713
84510869|NCT00577460|168773165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0130
84708581|NCT03358875|169159326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.37|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.370|0.066|<0.0001
84708582|NCT03358875|169159327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|0.745|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.745|0.528|<0.0001
84708583|NCT03358875|169159328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.494|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.494|0.285|<0.0001
84708584|NCT03358875|169159329|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||9.07|2.38|0.0008
84708585|NCT03358875|169159330|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|-3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Coughing Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||-3.51|-13.02|0.0007
84708586|NCT03358875|169159330|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dyspnoea Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||0.11|-6.52|0.0579
84708587|NCT03358875|169159330|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Chest Pain Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||1.56|-6.05|0.2472
84708588|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.361
84708589|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
84708590|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708591|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus immediately after 16 week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708592|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708593|NCT03599648|169159333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708594|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Baseline versus immediately following 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
84708595|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Baseline versus 6-months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84708596|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708597|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708598|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84510870|NCT00577460|168773166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0015
84708599|NCT03599648|169159334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708600|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708601|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708602|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708603|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708604|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84708605|NCT03599648|169159335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
84510871|NCT00577460|168773166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0002
84510872|NCT00577460|168773167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8760
84510873|NCT00577460|168773167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5113
84708606|NCT03363854|169159336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.9||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their IGA value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||21.9|2.9|0.015
84510874|NCT00577460|168773168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0148
84708607|NCT03363854|169159337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|30.6||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||30.6|9.8|<0.001
84708608|NCT03363854|169159338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.6||This secondary endpoint was tested after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints, if these showed statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their Worst daily Pruritus NRS value at Week 16.||21.6|0.9|0.037
84708609|NCT03363854|169159339|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-6.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-6.6|-15.2|<0.001
84708610|NCT03363854|169159340|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after sequential testing of the primary endpoints and the first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
84708611|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|4.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||4.9|-11.9|0.41
84708612|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||-0.6|-13.3|0.033
84708613|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||1.2|-10.6|0.12
84708614|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||-0.2|-14.3|0.043
84708615|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||-3.4|-14.8|0.002
84708616|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
84708617|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-4.7|-15.8|<0.001
84708618|NCT03363854|169159342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-3.2|-14.1|0.002
84708619|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||11.0|-11.0|1.00
84708620|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||11.4|-9.1|0.83
84510875|NCT00577460|168773168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0201
84708621|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|8.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||8.5|-11.3|0.78
84708622|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||5.1|-14.8|0.34
84708623|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||4.6|-13.4|0.34
84510876|NCT03006978|168773201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
84510877|NCT03006978|168773202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
84708624|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||1.5|-13.9|0.11
84708625|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-1.2|-16.6|0.024
84708626|NCT03363854|169159343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-1.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-1.7|-17.3|0.017
84708627|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1 are reported below.||0.7|-0.5|0.64
84708628|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 2 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.26
84708629|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3 are reported below.||0.8|-0.4|0.46
84708630|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 4 are reported below.||1.0|-0.2|0.16
84708631|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5 are reported below.||1.1|-0.1|0.13
84708632|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 6 are reported below.||0.9|-0.3|0.38
84708633|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7 are reported below.||1.2|0.0|0.040
84708634|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 8 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.31
84510878|NCT03006978|168773203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
84708635|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9 are reported below.||1.6|0.4|0.001
84708636|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 10 are reported below.||1.3|0.1|0.026
84708637|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model]|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11 are reported below.||1.5|0.2|0.006
84708638|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 12 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.043
84708639|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13 are reported below.||1.4|0.2|0.010
84708640|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 14 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.037
84708641|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.045
84708642|NCT03363854|169159345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 16 are reported below.||1.1|-0.2|0.17
84708643|NCT03363854|169159346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||31.3|11.3|<0.001
84708644|NCT03363854|169159347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||20.7|2.1|0.022
84708645|NCT03363854|169159348|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurement model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-3.1|-7.7|<0.001
84708646|NCT03363854|169159349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Partcipants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||33.3|12.4|<0.001
84708647|NCT03363854|169159350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||19.0|3.2|0.012
84708648|NCT03363854|169159351|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-0.7|-1.7|<0.001
84708649|NCT03363854|169159352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their DLQI value at Week 16.||27.1|8.0|<0.001
84708650|NCT05687903|169159371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|19.57||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||19.57|7.74|=0.001
84708651|NCT05687903|169159371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|30.46||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||30.46|18.87|<0.001
84510879|NCT03006978|168773204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
84708652|NCT05687903|169159371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.81|32.35||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||32.35|20.81|<0.001
84708653|NCT05687903|169159371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|16.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.49|21.76||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||21.76|10.49|<0.001
84708654|NCT05687903|169159372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.32||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-3.32|-9.53|=0.004
84708655|NCT05687903|169159372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-8.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-8.16|-14.44|<0.001
84708656|NCT05687903|169159372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|-7.27||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-7.27|-13.35|<0.001
84708657|NCT05687903|169159372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-5.75||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-5.75|-11.84|<0.001
84708658|NCT05687903|169159373|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.48|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where incidence rate was exponentiated LS mean \& incidence rate ratio (IRR) was exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.93|0.25|=0.250
84708659|NCT05687903|169159373|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.36|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.79||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.79|0.16|=0.034
84510880|NCT03006978|168773205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
84708660|NCT05687903|169159373|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.28|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.60|0.13|=0.003
84708661|NCT05687903|169159373|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.67|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||1.29|0.35|=0.250
84708662|NCT02879448|169159380|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was developed based on reported rates for other devices. Therefore, the expected rate of the safety endpoint was assumed to be 15%. A non-inferiority margin of 5.8% represents a relative risk of 1.39.||||||0.0002|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p1(Amulet) - p1 (Watchman) ≥ Δ1~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< Δ1;~where Δ1 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the safety endpoint and p1 is the probability of a primary safety endpoint event."||||0.0002
84708663|NCT02879448|169159381|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman. The 18-month rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 4.2%. A non-inferiority margin of 3.2%, which represents a relative risk of 1.76, ensured that the rate observed was at most twice the rate expected with oral anticoagulant therapy.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) ≥ Δ2~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< Δ2;~where Δ2 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the effectiveness endpoint and p2 is the probability of a subject experiencing a primary effectiveness endpoint event."||||<0.0001
84511796|NCT02087904|168775414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-5.46|0.157
84511797|NCT02087904|168775415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.23|0.319
84708664|NCT02879448|169159382|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported closure rate for the Watchman device. The rate of device closure for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 95% (i.e., 5% had a residual jet \> 5mm). A non-inferiority margin of -3%, which represents a relative risk of 1.60, allows for trial to trial variability and implanter learning associated with implantation of a new device (Amulet).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington Manning test|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) ≤ -Δ3~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> -Δ3;~where Δ3 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin and p3 is the 45-day closure probability."||||<0.0001
84708665|NCT02879448|169159383|NON_INFERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p4(Amulet) - p4(Watchman) \< 4.5%"|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||<0.0001
84708666|NCT02879448|169159384|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p5(Amulet) - p5(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.3229|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.3229
84708667|NCT02879448|169159385|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.466|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.4660
84708668|NCT02879448|169159386|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.5017|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.5017
84708669|NCT02879448|169159387|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> 0"||||||0.0025|||||||Farrington Manning test|||||||0.0025
84708670|NCT02590432|169159442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg versus (vs) LINZESS® 290 μg||5.5|0.3|1.0000
84708671|NCT02590432|169159442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.1|0.1|0.0844
84708672|NCT02590432|169159442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.5|0.3|1.0000
84708673|NCT02590432|169159443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||5.1|0.3|1.0000
84708674|NCT02590432|169159443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.0|0.1|0.0799
84708675|NCT02590432|169159443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.2|0.3|0.7871
84708676|NCT02590432|169159445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.19|0.42|0.9930
84708677|NCT02590432|169159445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.89|0.11|0.0247
84708678|NCT02590432|169159445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.50|0.41|0.5149
84708679|NCT02590432|169159446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.18|0.39|0.9519
84708680|NCT02590432|169159446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.87|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.87|0.08|0.0234
84708681|NCT02590432|169159446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.47|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.47|0.39|0.4518
84708682|NCT02740231|169159471|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-9.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.21|3.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference - adjusted mean change|The primary endpoint is the WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale (subscale A): the individual changes in WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale Score between Baseline and Month 6 were calculated and compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline value, to the Reference group.||3.23|-22.21|0.141
84708683|NCT02740231|169159472|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference|||-0.66|-22.60|0.038
84708684|NCT02740231|169159473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-12.70|0.997
84708685|NCT02740231|169159474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|10.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.65|-16.52|0.972
84708686|NCT02740231|169159475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.96||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|7.94||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-22.28|0.599
84708687|NCT02740231|169159476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
84708688|NCT02740231|169159477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.76||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
84708689|NCT02740231|169159478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
84708690|NCT02740231|169159479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
84708691|NCT05052996|169159561|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||11.6|-6.8|
84708692|NCT05052996|169159562|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.6|-12.4|
84708693|NCT05052996|169159563|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.4|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||12.4|-8.6|
84708694|NCT05052996|169159564|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-68.0||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|91.0|||ANOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||91|-226|0.3859
84708695|NCT05052996|169159564|OTHER||difference in least squares means|13.0||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|82.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||82|-56|0.7085
84708696|NCT05052996|169159565|OTHER||difference in least squares means|33.0||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|103.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||103|-37|0.3477
84708697|NCT05052996|169159566|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-5.0||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|66.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||66|-76|0.8849
84708698|NCT00957242|169159591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.47|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified covariates in the model included an indicator variable for the treatment group and the DLCO measurement from the baseline assessment.|Warfarin vs. Placebo|The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a difference in 48-week event free rates of 70% for the warfarin group versus 50% for the placebo group. A total of at least 95 adjudicated primary endpoints were required to achieve 90% power with 2-sided, type I error rate of 0.05 and a 1:1 randomization ratio. These calculations yielded a requisite total sample size of 256.||2.47|0.70|0.27
84708699|NCT00957242|169159592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.03||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|17.54|||Cox Proportional|||||17.54|1.44|0.005
84708700|NCT00957242|169159593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.08||||0.083||95.0|-0.01|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.01|0.083
84708701|NCT00957242|169159594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.31|||Cox Proportional|||||4.31|0.99|0.054
84708702|NCT00957242|169159595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.56|||Cox Proportional|||||9.56|0.64|0.19
84708703|NCT00957242|169159596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.34|||Cox Proportional|||||12.34|0.41|0.35
84708704|NCT00957242|169159597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|16.1|||Cox Proportional|||||16.10|0.65|0.15
84708705|NCT00957242|169159598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.39|||Cox Proportional|||||3.39|0.24|0.88
84708706|NCT00957242|169159599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|10.88||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|71.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||71.34|-49.57|0.7222
84708707|NCT00957242|169159600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-1.78||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3048.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3048|-7.04|0.27
84511798|NCT02087904|168775415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.6|0.564
84708708|NCT00957242|169159601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.05||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1076.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1076|-1.67|0.957
84708709|NCT00957242|169159602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-0.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.84|0.009
84708710|NCT01736215|169159604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.343||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|2.261||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable endogenous EPO (EPO less than or equal to 45.2 and EPO greater than 45.3)|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.052|0.266
84708711|NCT01736215|169159605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.999||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable CRP (CRP less than or equal to 10.3 and CRP greater than 10.4)|Regression, Logistic|||||0.999|0.016|0.05
84708712|NCT01066026|169159612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|pilot study.|descritive variables|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0|||McNemar||50 was the percentage of hematomas expected for standard needle group.|||95|5|<0.0001
84708713|NCT03447249|169159616|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.7|12.4|<0.0001
84708714|NCT03447249|169159617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.7|12.6|<0.0001
84708715|NCT03447249|169159618|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.24|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.24|0.09|<0.0001
84708716|NCT03447249|169159619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-41.9|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-41.9|-47.2|<0.0001
84708717|NCT03447249|169159620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.2|<0.0001
84708718|NCT03447249|169159621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.31|0.91|<0.0001
84708719|NCT03447249|169159622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-40.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.5|-46.3|<0.0001
84708720|NCT03447249|169159623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||21.3|14.5|<0.0001
84708721|NCT03447249|169159625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.54||||||||0.54|0.24|
84708722|NCT03447249|169159626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
84708723|NCT02238483|169159638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.4|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|H0: Hazard Ratio (AZD7624/placebo) equals 1 vs. H1: Hazard Ratio does not equal 1.||2.40|0.81|0.2371
84708724|NCT02238483|169159639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.16|||regression, negative binomial||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.16|0.82|0.249
84708725|NCT02238483|169159640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.50|0.89|0.1261
84708726|NCT02238483|169159641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.21|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.21|0.88|0.157
84708727|NCT02238483|169159642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.76|||Regression, Cox|||||2.76|0.85|0.1529
84708728|NCT02238483|169159643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.52|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.52|0.89|0.129
84708729|NCT02238483|169159644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.01|0.43|0.8543
84708730|NCT02238483|169159645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.29|0.55|0.751
84708731|NCT02238483|169159646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||1.38|0.54|0.5381
84708732|NCT02238483|169159647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3|||regression, negative binomial|||||1.30|0.55|0.440
84511799|NCT02087904|168775415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.45|0.966
84708733|NCT02238483|169159648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Negative values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.85|-1.60|0.5474
84708734|NCT02238483|169159649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.6352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||4.29|-2.62|0.6352
84708735|NCT02238483|169159650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.10|-0.34|0.2694
84708736|NCT02238483|169159651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.07|-0.03|0.5144
84708737|NCT02238483|169159652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.05|-0.10|0.5416
84708738|NCT02238483|169159653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.02|0.00|0.1965
84708739|NCT00390299|169159654|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84708740|NCT00390299|169159654|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84708741|NCT00390299|169159658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.11|||Log Rank|||||4.11|0.67|0.28
84708742|NCT01172418|169159671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
84708743|NCT01172418|169159672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.37
84708744|NCT01172418|169159673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
84708745|NCT01172418|169159674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
84708746|NCT02692417|169159685|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
84708747|NCT02692417|169159685|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.225
84708748|NCT02692417|169159686|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
84708749|NCT02692417|169159686|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.046
84708750|NCT02692417|169159687|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
84708751|NCT02692417|169159687|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84708752|NCT00393484|169159692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in proportion along with its standard error and 90% confidence interval was computed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was great than -10%, noninferiority was established. Provided that noninferiority was established, a test for superiority was planned to check that the lower limit of the 90% CI was greater than zero.|Difference in proportion|25.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.48|36.86||There was no adjustment for the prior test of noninferiority because the test for superiority could succeed only if noninferiority was first established.|Chi-squared|||A sample size of 60 per group provides 80% power for testing superiority of entecavir compared to lamivudine, assuming a response rate of 62% for lamivudine and 83% for entecavir.||36.86|14.48|0.0006
84708753|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.45|34.66||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method used in the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||34.66|14.45|0.0003
84708754|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.62||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.85|22.38||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method as the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||22.38|4.85|0.0167
84708755|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|11.1|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 24 Weeks||11.10|-2.62|0.4467
84708756|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.87|36.36|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||36.36|15.87|0.0002
84708757|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.09||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|29.07|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||29.07|11.10|0.0009
84708758|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|25.5|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 48 Weeks||25.50|8.43|0.0029
84708759|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.02|46.51|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||46.51|24.02|<0.0001
84708760|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.07|39.97|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||39.97|18.07|<0.0001
84708761|NCT00393484|169159693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.71|34.95|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||34.95|13.71|0.0006
84708762|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariates of treatment and baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and Week 24.||||<0.0001
84708763|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 48.||||<0.0001
84708764|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at 96 Weeks.||||<0.0001
84708765|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 144.||||<0.0001
84708766|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 192.||||<0.0001
84708767|NCT00393484|169159694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 240.||||<0.0001
84708768|NCT00393484|169159696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.97||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.22|32.73|||Chi-squared||At 24 Weeks|||32.73|5.22|0.0278
84708769|NCT00393484|169159696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.65|39.03|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||39.03|13.65|0.0014
84708770|NCT00393484|169159696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.35|48.52|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||48.52|23.35|<0.0001
84708771|NCT00393484|169159702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.52|44.89|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||44.89|22.52|<0.0001
84708772|NCT00393484|169159702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.8|57.61|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||57.61|34.80|<0.0001
84708773|NCT00393484|169159702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|47.65|||Chi-squared||At 144 Weeks|||47.65|19.31|0.0003
84708774|NCT00393484|169159702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.17|58.11|||Chi-squared||At 192 Weeks|||58.11|31.17|<0.0001
84708775|NCT00393484|169159702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|52.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.54|64.93|||Chi-squared||At 240 Weeks|||64.93|39.54|<0.0001
84708776|NCT00393484|169159703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Viral rebound at 96 weeks||||<0.0001
84708777|NCT00879060|169159715|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||1.0
84708778|NCT00879060|169159715|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PIIINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.8
84708779|NCT00879060|169159715|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.aseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable ICTP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.3
84708780|NCT00879060|169159715|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
84708781|NCT00879060|169159716|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable peak oxygen consumption with exercise (peak VO2) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
84708782|NCT00879060|169159717|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
84708783|NCT00879060|169159718|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable Septal E/e' between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
84708784|NCT00879060|169159719|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable percentage of left ventricular mass (%LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
84708785|NCT00879060|169159720|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable maximum left ventricular wall thickness (Max LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.4
84708786|NCT00879060|169159721|OTHER||Absolute difference|5.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left ventricular end-diastolic (LVED) cavity size between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
84708787|NCT00879060|169159722|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left atrial dimension between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
84708788|NCT02178098|169159745|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-18.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-18.15|-30.33|<0.0001
84708789|NCT02178098|169159746|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.511||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.35|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.35|-4.62|0.2808
84708790|NCT02178098|169159747|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.15|-3.25|0.3461
84708791|NCT02178098|169159748|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.12|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.12|-5.74|0.1852
84708792|NCT02178098|169159749|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.253||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|1.03|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.03|-3.93|0.2481
84708793|NCT02178098|169159750|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.684||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.94|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.94|-3.72|0.8181
84708794|NCT02178098|169159751|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.71|-2.33|0.8817
84708795|NCT02178098|169159752|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||5.15|-2.09|0.4040
84708796|NCT02178098|169159753|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.11|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.11|-1.54|0.5061
84708797|NCT02178098|169159754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|-25.21|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||-25.21|-62.80|<0.0001
84708798|NCT02178098|169159755|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.70|-20.63|<0.0001
84708799|NCT02178098|169159756|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|-13.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.71|-24.09|<0.0001
84708800|NCT02178098|169159757|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-13.77|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.77|-23.62|<0.0001
84708801|NCT02178098|169159758|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.25||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|16.42|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||16.42|-6.78|0.3689
84708802|NCT02178098|169159759|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.59|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-3.59|-12.76|0.0006
84708803|NCT02178098|169159760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|24.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||24.02|-8.21|0.3093
84708804|NCT02382744|169159763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between proportions (%)|10.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9||One-sided P-value based on the lack of plausibility that additional nerve stimulation would worsen sensory blockade rates.|Fisher Exact|||We sought to detect an increase in the rate of complete absence of sensation to pinprick 30 min following ultrasound-guided subsartorial saphenous nerve blockade to 90% from an assumed baseline of 64% as extrapolated from our previous study (cf. Head SJ et al. 2015) at β = 0.2. The required minimum sample size at α = 0.05 (one-sided) was 30 patients in each group. To be conservative, we aimed to enroll a total of 80 patients.||31.9|-11.9|0.25
84708805|NCT02382744|169159764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.62
84708806|NCT02382744|169159765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
84708807|NCT02382744|169159766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.26
84708808|NCT02382744|169159767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|"To assess speed of onset, sensation to pinprick in the distribution of the saphenous nerve was assessed for each patient every 5 min until complete sensory loss was noted, or until 30 min had elapsed. To compare the two groups in speed of onset on the basis of these data, we constructed Kaplan-Meyer survival curves for the times to onset of sensory blockade and compared the underlying time-to-event data with the log-rank test."||1.31|0.38|0.12
84708809|NCT02382744|169159771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between means (s)|107.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|153.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||153|61|<0.0001
84708810|NCT02382744|169159774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|||0.93|0.37|0.02
84708811|NCT02382744|169159777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two arms, Patients with response to nerve stimulation and Patients with lack response to nerve stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.0057
84708812|NCT06546657|169159816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||Medium GI vs low GI breakfast meals||4.0|-0.6|0.14
84708813|NCT06546657|169159816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.5|||Linear Mixed Model|||Medium vs high GI breakfast meals||7.5|1.2|0.01
84708814|NCT06546657|169159816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||High GI vs low GI breakfast meals||0.7|-6.0|0.12
84708815|NCT06546657|169159817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1815||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Model|||High GI breakfast meals vs low and medium GI breakfast meals||||0.65
84708816|NCT06546657|169159818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.431||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||1.2|-0.3|0.25
84708817|NCT06546657|169159819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||44|0.6|0.04
84708818|NCT06546657|169159820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||Breakfast cereals meals vs added protein meals||2.1|0.4|0.01
84708819|NCT06546657|169159822|OTHER|Comparison of diurnal and nocturnal glucose variability (CV%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84708820|NCT01600014|169159824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.51||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||4.51|1.32|0.001
84708821|NCT01600014|169159824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.25||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and week of randomisation||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||5.25|1.07|0.013
84708822|NCT01600014|169159825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.62||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||17.62|1.10|0.016
84708823|NCT01600014|169159825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.47||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||6.47|0.78|0.10
84708824|NCT01600014|169159825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent cleared subjects|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|56.1|||||Estimation based on completers only.|Subjects randomised to vehicle were not included in the estimate of the overall clearance rate for the repeat-use regimen, from last treatment throught to Month 12. Instead, the subjects randomised to ingenol mebutate were given higher weights to reflect the hypothetical scenario where all randomised subjects were given active treatment during the repeat use cycle||56.1|44.0|
84708825|NCT01600014|169159826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.38||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) as the imputation method.|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.38|-1.38|<0.001
84708826|NCT01600014|169159826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.51||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.51|-1.52|<0.001
84708827|NCT01600014|169159826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||Formal statistical significance could not be established because of the closed test procedure where the first secondary endpoint tested (12 months clearance) did not reach statistical significance in the recurrent subgroup|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using BOCF as the imputation method, the difference in the adjusted mean AK count between the ingenol mebutate and vehicle groups|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||-0.19|-1.19|0.008
84708828|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk TNF levels at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and women with IBD. Our hypothesis was that women with IBD have higher TNF in milk due to the underlying inflammatory condition (IBD).||||0.89
84708829|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.024
84708830|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 levels (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.70
84708831|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk levels of MIP-1 beta (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.93
84708832|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 levels (one of the TNF dependent chemokines) at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.12
84708833|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Milk levels of TNF-dependent chemokine, MCP1, at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control and the 2 IBD subgroups. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MCP1. Nonparametric comparison of the 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test.||||0.12
84708834|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MIP-1beta. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.051
84708835|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including IP10. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.0046
84708836|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of milk TNF level at the MID LACTATION POINT between non-IBD control and IBD group. The same analytical framework as the early lactation, but this is based on data at the mid-lactation point (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.35
84708837|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. Hypothesis is the same as for the early lactation point. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.11
84708838|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT(13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.26
84708839|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MIP-1beta level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.15
84708840|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.31
84708841|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MCP-1 at the MID LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.21
84708842|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.12
84708843|NCT03397108|169159844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The same hypothesis as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.29
84708844|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5647|0.8303||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MCP1 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MCP1.||0.8303|0.5647|<0.0001
84708845|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5088|0.8042||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MIP-1beta to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MIP-1beta.||0.8042|0.5088|<0.0001
84708846|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4377|0.7693||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine IP10 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine IP10.||0.7693|0.4377|<0.0001
84708847|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3445|0.736||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MCP1 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.7360|0.3445|<0.0001
84708848|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6022|0.8562||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MIP-1beta to see of they are positively correlated.||0.8562|0.6022|<0.0001
84708849|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.32||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03869|0.552||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and IP10 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.5520|0.03869|0.0227
84708850|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2727|0.6975||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk TNF between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6975|0.2727|0.0001
84708851|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.4722||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2181|0.6664||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MCP1 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6664|0.2181|0.0005
84708852|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0802|0.5803||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MIP-1beta between early and mid-lactation points.||0.5803|0.0802|0.01
84708853|NCT03397108|169159844|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.7964||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|Spearman r = 0.66 (95%CI: 0.4670 - 0.7964). Number of XY pairs: 51||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk IP10 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.7964|0.4670|<0.0001
84511800|NCT02087904|168775416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.41|0.602
84511801|NCT02087904|168775416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.55|0.953
84708854|NCT03397108|169159845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 12 months of age. Animal data suggested that pups receiving milk with lower TNF and TNF-dependent chemokines showed enhanced cognitive development. Because there was no guiding information in humans regarding milk TNF level differences between women with and without IBD, our main goal was to measure milk TNF levels. The infant cognitive/language assessment, therefore, had to be designed as a pilot and exploratory in nature.||||0.12
84708855|NCT03397108|169159845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 12 months of age.||||0.56
84708856|NCT03397108|169159845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 18 months of age.||||0.16
84708857|NCT03397108|169159845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 18 months of age||||0.75
84708858|NCT03397108|169159845|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.2655||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.5307|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using pooled data of all participants at the early-lactation sample point, correlation between milk TNF levels and 12 month cognitive development was examined to investigate if they were inversely correlated.||0.5307|-0.047|0.0853
84708859|NCT03397108|169159845|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.3705||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07385|0.6921|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, correlation analysis between milk TNF at early lactation and 12 month language score was done to see if they were inversely correlated.||0.6921|-0.07385|0.090
84708860|NCT03397108|169159847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that the 2 groups are not different for their sampling time points in the early lactation period.||||0.97
84708861|NCT03397108|169159847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.96
84708862|NCT03397108|169159848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that there is no difference in the second sampling time points in the mid-lactation period between the groups.||||0.56
84708863|NCT03397108|169159848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
84708864|NCT04337372|169159850|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||F(2, 58) = 7.19|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.002
84708865|NCT04337372|169159850|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||F(1.78, 103.37) = 2.48|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.09
84511802|NCT02087904|168775416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.61|0.83
84708866|NCT04337372|169159850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||F(3.56, 103.37) = 2.55|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction between age and condition is reported here.||||<.05
84708867|NCT04337372|169159851|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.557||||||F(2,47) = .592|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.557
84708868|NCT04337372|169159851|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||F(2,47) = .767|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.470
84708869|NCT04337372|169159851|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.046||||||F(4,94) = 2.524|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each condition. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.046
84708870|NCT04337372|169159852|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.664||||||F(2,45) = .413|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.664
84708871|NCT04337372|169159852|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.768||||||F(2,45) = .266|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.768
84708872|NCT04337372|169159852|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2||||||F(4,90) = 1.531|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The interaction of age and condition is reported.||||=.200
84708873|NCT04337372|169159853|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||F(2, 57) = 4.11|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.022
84708874|NCT04337372|169159853|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||F(2, 114) = 5.69|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.004
84708875|NCT04337372|169159853|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||F(4, 114) = 1.64|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.168
84708876|NCT03494504|169159901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.84||||||||3.84|1.46|
84708877|NCT03494504|169159901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
84708878|NCT04869982|169159911|OTHER|VE was defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR was defined as the ratio of the incidence rates of the RZV Group over the Placebo Group. The VE of RZV against HZ was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 25%.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.82|100.0||All p-values reported were related to the null hypothesis test VE = 0.|Poisson|The CI for VE is derived from the exact CI from RR.||To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) of RZV against HZ, the analysis considered the exact inference on the relative risk adjusted for age strata conditionally to the total number of confirmed HZ cases observed and time at risk. This method computed an exact confidence interval (CI) around the rate ratio (ratio of the event rates in the RZV Group versus Placebo Group) and accounted for the sum of the time at risk of the participants within each group.||100|89.82|<0.0001
84708879|NCT01704079|169159943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84708880|NCT01704079|169159944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84708881|NCT01704079|169159945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84708882|NCT01704079|169159946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84708883|NCT06023082|169159947|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708884|NCT06023082|169159948|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708885|NCT06023082|169159949|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708886|NCT06023082|169159950|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708887|NCT06023082|169159951|OTHER|||||||0.4907||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.4907
84708888|NCT06023082|169159952|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708889|NCT06023082|169159953|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84511803|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.33|-4.91|0.804
84511804|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.63||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.63|-6.9|0.699
84708890|NCT06023082|169159954|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708891|NCT06023082|169159955|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
84708892|NCT06023082|169159956|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708893|NCT06023082|169159957|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708894|NCT06023082|169159958|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708895|NCT06023082|169159959|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84708896|NCT06023082|169159960|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84708897|NCT06023082|169159961|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708898|NCT06023082|169159962|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708899|NCT06023082|169159963|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708900|NCT06023082|169159964|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.||||<0.0001
84708901|NCT06023082|169159965|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 10 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708902|NCT06023082|169159966|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708903|NCT06023082|169159967|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708904|NCT06023082|169159968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708905|NCT06023082|169159969|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84708906|NCT05986565|169160008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.587
84708907|NCT05986565|169160009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.874
84708908|NCT05986565|169160010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.946
84708909|NCT05986565|169160011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24||||||0.267
84708910|NCT05986565|169160012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.187
84708911|NCT05986565|169160013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.765
84708912|NCT05986565|169160014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.060
84708913|NCT05986565|169160015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.608
84708914|NCT05986565|169160016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.638
84708915|NCT04500301|169160021|OTHER|No statistical test was performed.|Proportion|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.219|||||The Wald 95% confidence interval for the binomial proportion was estimated.|No hypothesis was tested with regard to the primary outcome. The study planned to enroll 80 eligible subjects such that at least 65 would be evaluable for the primary outcome and the width of the 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval for the proportion would be less than or equal to .25.||0.219|0.054|
84708916|NCT02554786|169160082|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean (LS Mean)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.176|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.176|0.088|<0.001
84708917|NCT02554786|169160082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.167|<0.001
84708918|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.091|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.091|-0.254|<0.001
84708919|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|-0.115|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.115|-0.278|<0.001
84708920|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.026|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.026|-0.136|0.186
84708921|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.127|||MMRM|||Week 4: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.127|-0.242|<0.001
84708922|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.044|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.044|-0.214|0.003
84708923|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0435|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.162|-0.333|<0.001
84708924|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.033|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.033|-0.136|0.232
84708925|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.128|||MMRM|||Week 12: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.128|-0.248|<0.001
84708926|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.086|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.086|-0.257|<0.001
84708927|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.162|-0.334|<0.001
84708928|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.031|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.031|-0.140|0.214
84708929|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.149|||MMRM|||Week 26: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.149|-0.270|<0.001
84708930|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.053|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.053|-0.229|0.002
84708931|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|-0.177|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.177|-0.354|<0.001
84708932|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0447||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.098|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.098|-0.078|0.824
84708933|NCT02554786|169160083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.141|||MMRM|||Week 52: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.141|-0.266|<0.001
84708934|NCT02554786|169160084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.183|||MMRM|||||0.183|0.090|<0.001
84708935|NCT02554786|169160084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.163|<0.001
84708936|NCT02554786|169160084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.094|||MMRM|||||0.094|0.002|0.04
84708937|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.170|0.094|<0.001
84708938|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.234|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.234|0.158|<0.001
84708939|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.073|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.073|-0.002|0.064
84708940|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.162|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.162|0.083|<0.001
84708941|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.224|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.224|0.144|<0.001
84708942|NCT02554786|169160085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.076|-0.002|0.063
84708943|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.164|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.164|0.119|<0.001
84708944|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.175|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.175|0.129|<0.001
84708945|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.078|0.032|<0.001
84708946|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.186|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.186|0.138|<0.001
84708947|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.198|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.198|0.150|<.001
84708948|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.068|||MMRM|||Day1: 15 minutes||0.068|0.02|<0.001
84708949|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.201|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.201|0.149|<0.001
84708950|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.211|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.211|0.159|<0.001
84708951|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.053|0.001|0.038
84708952|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.205|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1 hour||0.205|0.150|<0.001
84708953|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.232|0.177|<0.001
84708954|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.034|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.034|-0.021|0.632
84708955|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.226|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.226|0.151|<0.001
84708956|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.27|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.270|0.194|<0.001
84708957|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.091|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.091|0.016|0.005
84708958|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.232|0.156|<0.001
84708959|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.291|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.291|0.214|<0.001
84708960|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.08|0.005|0.026
84708961|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.229|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.229|0.152|<0.001
84708962|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.296|0.219|<0.001
84708963|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.075|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.075|-0.001|0.059
84708964|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.203|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.203|0.123|<0.001
84708965|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.271|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.271|0.191|<0.001
84708966|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.095|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5minutes||0.095|0.015|0.007
84708967|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.219|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.219|0.140|<0.001
84708968|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.292|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.292|0.211|<0.001
84708969|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.078|-0.001|0.057
84708970|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.227|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.227|0.147|<0.001
84708971|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0208|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.289|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.289|0.208|<0.001
84708972|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1hour||0.083|0.003|0.037
84708973|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.206|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.206|0.121|<0.001
84708974|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.286|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.286|0.200|<0.001
84708975|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.087|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.087|0.002|0.041
84708976|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.22|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.220|0.133|<0.001
84708977|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.303|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.303|0.215|<0.001
84708978|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.083|-0.003|0.071
84708979|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.223|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.223|0.137|<0.001
84708980|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.302|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.302|0.215|<0.001
84708981|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.082|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.082|-0.003|0.071
84708982|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.184|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.184|0.094|<0.001
84708983|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.294|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.294|0.205|<0.001
84708984|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.071|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.071|-0.018|0.244
84708985|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.200|0.110|<0.001
84708986|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.308|0.219|<0.001
84708987|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.076|-0.013|0.162
84708988|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.209|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.209|0.117|<0.001
84708989|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.308|0.216|<0.001
84708990|NCT02554786|169160086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.076|-0.014|0.182
84708991|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.133|0.040|<0.001
84708992|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.185|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.185|0.093|<0.001
84708993|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.044|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.044|-0.049|0.927
84708994|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.098|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.098|0.001|0.044
84708995|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.19|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.190|0.093|<0.001
84708996|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.065|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.065|-0.031|0.490
84708997|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.125|0.027|0.002
84708998|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.195|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.195|0.098|<0.001
84708999|NCT02554786|169160087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.085|-0.012|0.143
84709000|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.238|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.238|0.139|<0.001
84709001|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.259|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.259|0.161|<0.001
84709002|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.031|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.031|-0.067|0.475
84709003|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.296|0.161|<0.001
84709004|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.333|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.333|0.197|<0.001
84709005|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0343||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.151|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.151|0.016|0.015
84709006|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.285|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.285|0.145|<0.001
84709007|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0357|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.316|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.316|0.176|<0.001
84709008|NCT02554786|169160088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.122|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.122|-0.017|0.139
84709009|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|35.4|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||35.4|23.8|<0.001
84709010|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||38.1|26.4|<0.001
84709011|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||19.1|7.5|<0.001
84709012|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|30.3|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||30.3|19.3|<0.001
84709013|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|35.9|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||35.9|24.8|<0.001
84709014|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|14.2|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||14.2|3.1|0.002
84709015|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||34.8|22.7|<0.001
84709016|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|36.3|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||36.3|24.2|<0.001
84709017|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||19.8|7.7|<0.001
84709018|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|29.5|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||29.5|18.0|<0.001
84709019|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||34.8|23.3|<0.001
84709020|NCT02554786|169160089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.9|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||14.9|3.3|0.002
84709021|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.81|0.95|0.094
84709022|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.37|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||2.37|1.26|<0.001
84709023|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.46|0.76|0.746
84709024|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.87|0.96|0.088
84709025|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.17|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||3.17|1.58|<0.001
84709026|NCT02554786|169160090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.49|0.75|0.771
84709027|NCT02554786|169160091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||||10.2|1.3|0.012
84709028|NCT02554786|169160091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.6|||LMM|||||13.6|4.6|<0.001
84709029|NCT02554786|169160091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9|||LMM|||||7.9|-1.1|0.135
84709030|NCT02554786|169160092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.4|||LMM|||||9.4|0.6|0.026
84709031|NCT02554786|169160092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.5|||LMM|||||12.5|3.7|<0.001
84709032|NCT02554786|169160092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7|||LMM|||||7.7|-1.2|0.151
84709033|NCT02554786|169160093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||LMM|||||6.2|-0.6|0.104
84709034|NCT02554786|169160093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||LMM|||||7.3|0.5|0.024
84709035|NCT02554786|169160093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.3|||LMM|||||4.3|-2.5|0.588
84709036|NCT02554786|169160094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|10.7|||LMM|||||10.7|2.1|0.003
84709037|NCT02554786|169160094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.2|||LMM|||||13.2|4.6|<0.001
84709038|NCT02554786|169160094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.1|||LMM|||||9.1|0.5|0.029
84709039|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||LMM|||Week1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.05|-0.2|0.001
84709040|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.01|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.01|-0.16|0.035
84709041|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.261
84709042|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
84709043|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.03|-0.21|0.011
84709044|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.06|-0.13|0.425
84709045|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.15|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.15|-0.46|<0.001
84709046|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.03|-0.35|0.017
84709047|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.24|0.29
84709048|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
84709049|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.02|-0.17|0.019
84709050|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.226
84709051|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
84709052|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.05|-0.24|0.002
84709053|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.05|-0.14|0.384
84709054|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.12|-0.44|< 0.001
84709055|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.39|0.004
84709056|NCT02554786|169160095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||0.06|-0.25|0.245
84709057|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.72|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.39|<0.001
84709058|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.34|<0.001
84709059|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.59|0.209
84709060|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.81|0.36|0.003
84709061|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.63|0.3|<0.001
84709062|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.47|0.115
84709063|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.82|0.51|<0.001
84709064|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.38|<0.001
84709065|NCT02554786|169160096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.66|0.185
84709066|NCT02554786|169160097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.03|||Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.13|0.337
84709067|NCT02554786|169160097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.02|0.063
84709068|NCT02554786|169160097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|9.7|||Regression, Cox|||||9.7|0.27|0.599
84709069|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.89|0.48|0.008
84709070|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.64|0.35|<0.001
84709071|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.29|0.67|0.669
84709072|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.08|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.47|0.108
84709073|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.67|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.67|0.31|<0.001
84709074|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.37|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.37|0.58|0.597
84709075|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.87|0.52|0.002
84709076|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.59|0.36|<0.001
84709077|NCT02554786|169160098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.23|0.72|0.681
84709078|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84709079|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
84709080|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.059
84510881|NCT01395030|168773213|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Analysis was performed using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA version 19.0.24, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) implemented in GenePattern (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) by uploading expression array data to this cloud-computing genomics platform. The specific details of this statistical approach can be found in the following publicly available references:~Reich M, Liefeld T, Gould J, Lerner J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP. GenePattern 2.0 Nature Genetics 38 no. 5 (2006): pp500-501~Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP. Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. PNAS. 2005;102(43);15545-15550."|||
84709081|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||0.004
84510882|NCT01988922|168773216|OTHER|Differences between CYP2B6\*1/\*1, CYP2B6\*1/\*6, and CYP2B6\*6/\*6 genotypes for pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons (Sigmaplot 12.5; Systat Software, Inc, USA). Nonnormal data were log transformed for analysis but reported as the nontransformed results.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
84709082|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
84709083|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.025
84709084|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All(mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||0.002
84709085|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
84709086|NCT02554786|169160099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.074
84709087|NCT02554786|169160101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.03|0.222
84709088|NCT02554786|169160101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of CI could not be calculated due to low number of participants with asthma exacerbation.||Regression, Cox||||||0|0.992
84709089|NCT02554786|169160101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.01|||Regression, Cox|||||6.01|0.05|0.618
84709090|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.1|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||14.1|6.2|< 0.001
84709091|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||12.3|4.3|<0.001
84709092|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.0|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||8|0.1|0.045
84709093|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||13.6|5.7|<0.001
84709094|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|12.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||12.6|4.7|<0.001
84709095|NCT02554786|169160104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||8.3|0.3|0.034
84709096|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0462||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.237|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.237|0.056|0.002
84709097|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.214|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.214|0.032|0.008
84709098|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.135|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.135|-0.045|0.33
84709099|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.153|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.153|-0.044|0.28
84709100|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.217|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.217|0.019|0.02
84709101|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0501||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.125|-0.072|0.598
84709102|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.23|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.23|0.023|0.016
84709103|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.26|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.26|0.053|0.003
84709104|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0525||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.188|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.188|-0.017|0.103
84709105|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.178|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.178|-0.035|0.188
84709106|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.274|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.274|0.061|0.002
84709107|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.166|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.166|-0.045|0.258
84709108|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.187|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.187|-0.030|0.154
84709109|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.299|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.299|0.082|<0.001
84709110|NCT02554786|169160105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.148|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.148|-0.067|0.455
84709111|NCT02554786|169160106|NON_INFERIORITY|QMF 150/320 was considered non-inferior to S/F 50/500 if the lower bound of the 95% CI was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 mL and was considered superior if the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> 0. The p-value is for null-hypothesis testing.|LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.08|||MMRM|||||0.080|-0.007|0.101
84709112|NCT02395978|169160227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
84709113|NCT04583423|169160241|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||35.1|-13.4|0.3504
84709114|NCT04583423|169160241|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|32.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||32.1|-15.6|0.3730
84709115|NCT04583423|169160241|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|15.4||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|42.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||42.3|-8.5|0.1428
84709116|NCT04583423|169160244|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|36.4|||||Difference=LS Mean 50 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||36.4|1.7|
84709117|NCT04583423|169160244|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 100 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||35.8|2.2|
84709118|NCT04583423|169160244|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 300 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||42.8|9.5|
84709119|NCT04583423|169160245|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|30.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||30.3|-26.5|0.8978
84709120|NCT04583423|169160245|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|20.0||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|46.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||46.4|-10.6|0.1869
84709121|NCT04583423|169160245|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.5||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|38.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300 mg minus % Placebo|||38.5|-22.1|0.5636
84709122|NCT04583423|169160246|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|32.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||32.6|-28.6|0.9174
84510883|NCT04977336|168773239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3706
84510884|NCT04977336|168773239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5379
84510885|NCT04977336|168773239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3859
84510886|NCT04977336|168773239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0251
84510887|NCT04977336|168773240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2318
84510888|NCT04977336|168773240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7615
84510889|NCT04977336|168773240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3870
84510890|NCT04977336|168773240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0823
84510891|NCT04977336|168773241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9986
84510892|NCT04977336|168773241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4446
84510893|NCT04977336|168773241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5978
84510894|NCT04977336|168773241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0479
84510895|NCT04977336|168773242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9895
84510896|NCT04977336|168773242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2731
84510897|NCT04977336|168773242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6492|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6492
84510898|NCT04977336|168773242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5119
84510899|NCT04977336|168773243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3158
84709123|NCT04583423|169160246|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||47.1|-14.5|0.2720
84709124|NCT04583423|169160246|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference= % 300 mg minus % Placebo|||37.3|-26.7|0.7586
84709125|NCT03351699|169160247|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.53|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 78%.|||||
84709126|NCT03351699|169160247|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.73|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 95%.|||||
84709127|NCT03351699|169160247|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.52|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 75%.|||||
84709128|NCT03351699|169160247|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.75|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 96%.|||||
84709129|NCT00041938|169160330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||The primary null hypotheses was tested at two-tailed alpha=0.05. A Haybittle-Peto interim monitoring procedure was performed with stopping boundaries for the interim analyses corresponding to a nominal two-tailed P value of 0.001.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|The primary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite primary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. The original target sample size was 2860, providing 89% power for a log-rank test with two-sided alpha .05, assuming a hazard rate reduction of 17.82% in either group compared with the other, after adjustment for use of beta-blockers and allowance for discontinuation of therapy, dropout, and crossover. The final sample of 2305 patients yielded 69% power.||1.10|0.79|0.40
84709130|NCT00041938|169160331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||Secondary null hypothesis was tested at two-tailed alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Secondary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite secondary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. This was tested at prespecified alpha = 0.05 level, two-tailed.||1.23|0.93|0.33
84510900|NCT04977336|168773243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3247
84709131|NCT00041938|169160332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.82|0.33|0.005
84510901|NCT04977336|168773243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8424
84709132|NCT00041938|169160333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.35||95.0|0.43|11.66|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of death and ischemic stroke.||11.66|0.43|0.35
84709133|NCT00041938|169160334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.85|0.91
84709134|NCT00041938|169160335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to myocardial infarction, adjusting for competing risks of heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.64|0.58|0.93
84709135|NCT00041938|169160336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to heart failure hospitalization, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.47|0.998|0.053
84709136|NCT00041938|169160337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.96|0.32|0.03
84709137|NCT00041938|169160338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.88|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and death.||9.88|0.32|0.51
84709138|NCT00041938|169160339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83||95.0|0.81|1.3|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||||1.30|0.81|0.83
84709139|NCT00041938|169160340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.12|||Regression, Poisson||The warfarin arm represents the numerator and the aspirin arm represents the denominator of the rate ratio.|||3.12|1.36|<0.001
84709140|NCT00041938|169160341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.56|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|1.81|||Regression, Poisson||Warfarin group represents the numerator and aspirin group represents denominator of rate ratio.|||1.81|1.34|<0.001
84709141|NCT02538341|169160342|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p value,from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.0023
84709142|NCT02538341|169160343|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.31
84510902|NCT04977336|168773243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2312
84511805|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|7.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||7.14|-4.37|0.636
84511806|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||6.76|-4.91|0.756
84511807|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|0.42||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||0.42|-11.55|0.068
84709143|NCT00780234|169160361|OTHER||Regression model parameter (α1)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.89|||Regression, Linear|The estimates of treatment effect were adjusted for baseline histology values.||"The hypotheses tested were:~H0: α1 = 0 vs H1: α1 \~= 0"|The hypothesis test was a 2-sided t-test of the effect of group (i.e. the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo groups). The general form of the model is Y = α0 + α1GROUP + α2BASELINE. Y represents the 6-month value of the dependent variable (summary of the histology), GROUP represents a classification variable for the treatment group (1=pioglitazone, 2=placebo), BASELINE represents the value of the outcome measure at baseline, and α0, α1 and α2 represent the parameter estimates from the general linear model. The test of the difference between groups will be the formal test of significance of the α1 parameter.|0.89|-1.68|0.53
84709144|NCT02539225|169160372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.698
84709145|NCT02539225|169160373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.549
84709146|NCT02539225|169160374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.548
84709147|NCT02539225|169160375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.374||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.844|2.236|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.236|0.844|0.402
84709148|NCT02539225|169160376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.527||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|3.433|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.433|0.680|0.501
84709149|NCT00212134|169160384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84511808|NCT02087904|168775417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|4.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.58|-7.34|0.649
84709150|NCT00212134|169160385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84709151|NCT00212134|169160386|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
84709152|NCT00212134|169160387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84709153|NCT00212134|169160388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84709154|NCT00212134|169160389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT analyses comparing parents of children randomized to receive an IOL to those left aphakic.||||<0.05
84709155|NCT00212134|169160391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT comparison of mean PSI scores||||>0.05
84709156|NCT01553058|169160406|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.795|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.795
84709157|NCT01553058|169160406|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.647|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.647
84709158|NCT01553058|169160407|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.386|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.386
84709159|NCT01553058|169160407|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.280
84709160|NCT01553058|169160414|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
84709161|NCT01553058|169160414|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.496|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.496
84709162|NCT01553058|169160415|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.897|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.897
84709163|NCT01553058|169160415|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.467|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.467
84709164|NCT01553058|169160416|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.089|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.089
84709165|NCT01553058|169160416|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
84709166|NCT01553058|169160417|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.934|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.934
84709167|NCT01553058|169160417|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.679
84709168|NCT01553058|169160418|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
84709169|NCT01553058|169160418|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.655|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.655
84709170|NCT01553058|169160419|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.504|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.504
84709171|NCT01553058|169160419|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.695|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.695
84709172|NCT01553058|169160420|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84709173|NCT01553058|169160420|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.009
84709174|NCT01553058|169160421|OTHER|Difference of Differences|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84709175|NCT01553058|169160421|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.065|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.065
84709176|NCT01553058|169160422|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
84709177|NCT01553058|169160422|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
84709178|NCT01553058|169160423|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84709179|NCT01553058|169160423|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.628
84709180|NCT05028582|169160427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.9|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|S-IGA Success at Week 8||9.31|2.90|<0.0001
84709181|NCT05028582|169160428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|5.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|B-IGA Success at Week 8||5.73|1.75|<0.0001
84709182|NCT05028582|169160429|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.6|13.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||13.62|1.60|0.0005
84709183|NCT05028582|169160430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|9.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|SI-NRS Success at Week 4||9.55|2.01|<0.0001
84709184|NCT05028582|169160431|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.49|11.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||11.78|2.49|<0.0001
84709185|NCT05028582|169160432|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.02|-0.68|0.0164
84709186|NCT05028582|169160433|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.39|-1.12|<0.0001
84709187|NCT05028582|169160434|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in Weekly SI-NRS at Week 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.87|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.22|-0.87|0.0002
84709188|NCT05028582|169160435|OTHER|WI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||8.52|2.01|<0.0001
84709189|NCT05028582|169160436|SUPERIORITY|PASI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.73|10.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.75|2.73|<0.0001
84709190|NCT05028582|169160437|SUPERIORITY|PSD Aggregate Score Change at Week 8|LS Mean Difference|-5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.64|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|||-3.60|-6.64|<0.0001
84709191|NCT05028582|169160438|SUPERIORITY|PSD Itching Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|10.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.04|2.10|<0.0001
84709192|NCT05028582|169160439|SUPERIORITY|PSD Pain Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|5.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||5.68|1.83|<0.0001
84709193|NCT05028582|169160440|SUPERIORITY|PSD Scaling Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.28|9.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.08|2.28|<0.0001
84709194|NCT05028582|169160441|OTHER|PSD Total Score 0 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.39|7.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||7.68|1.39|0.0012
84709195|NCT05028582|169160442|SUPERIORITY|PSSI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.98|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.77|2.98|<0.0001
84709196|NCT05028582|169160443|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Clear at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.04|15.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||15.05|3.04|<0.0001
84709197|NCT05028582|169160444|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success Week 2|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|9.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.13|1.84|<0.0001
84709198|NCT05028582|169160445|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.62|8.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||8.84|2.62|<0.0001
84709199|NCT05028582|169160446|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in PASI Week 2|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.71|-0.85|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|||-0.85|-1.71|<0.0001
84709200|NCT02576509|169160447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0419|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the stratification factors as entered into the IVRS|Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model||95.81% CI ADJUSTED FOR MULTIPLICITY: (0.72 to 1.02)|1.02|0.71|0.0752
84709201|NCT02576509|169160448|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Difference of ORRs|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.7|||||Estimate of (Nivolumab - Sorafenib) is based on CMH method of weighting, stratified by stratification factors|||12.7|3.9|
84709202|NCT02576509|169160448|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.92|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Mantel-Haenszel estimator|||3.92|1.48|
84709203|NCT02576509|169160449|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.10|0.79|
84709204|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|PD-L1 \>= 1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.19|0.54|
84709205|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.03|0.48|
84709206|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.02|0.69|
84709207|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.17|0.81|
84709208|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.74|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||4.74|0.34|
84709209|NCT02576509|169160450|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.52|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||3.52|0.27|
84709210|NCT02576509|169160451|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|10.17|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI.|||10.17|1.41|
84709211|NCT02576509|169160451|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.45|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI|||3.45|1.10|
84709212|NCT03481660|169160459|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|<0.001
84709213|NCT03481660|169160460|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||2.6|-0.9|<0.001
84709214|NCT03481660|169160460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.164
84709215|NCT03481660|169160467|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1||||||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|
84709216|NCT03481660|169160467|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9||||||BCVA at Week 100||4.9|0.2|
84709217|NCT03481660|169160468|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 52||2.1|-0.6|
84709218|NCT03481660|169160468|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 100||2.6|-0.4|
84709219|NCT03481660|169160469|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 52||2.4|-0.9|
84709220|NCT03481660|169160469|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 52||2.5|-0.9|
84709221|NCT03481660|169160469|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 100||2.9|-0.5|
84709222|NCT03481660|169160469|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 100||3.0|-0.5|
84709223|NCT03481660|169160470|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3||||||BCVA over period Week 88 through Week 100||4.3|-0.1|
84709224|NCT03481660|169160471|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.9||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||8.9|-7.6|
84709225|NCT03481660|169160471|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.5||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||14.5|-3.9|
84709226|NCT03481660|169160472|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.7||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||14.7|-3.9|
84511809|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||5.14|-7.14|0.75
84709227|NCT03481660|169160472|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.4||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||19.4|-0.4|
84709228|NCT03481660|169160473|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|20.2||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||20.2|-0.4|
84709229|NCT03481660|169160473|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.5||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||23.5|3.3|
84709230|NCT03481660|169160474|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.9|-4.2|
84709231|NCT03481660|169160474|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.7||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-1.7|-10.8|
84709232|NCT03481660|169160475|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.4|-3.2|
84709233|NCT03481660|169160475|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.1||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-0.1|-8.4|
84709234|NCT03481660|169160476|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||1.6|-3.2|
84709235|NCT03481660|169160476|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||2.0|-4.8|
84709236|NCT03481660|169160477|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.0||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 52||12.0|-4.9|
84709237|NCT03481660|169160477|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.6||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 100||12.6|-5.4|
84709238|NCT03481660|169160479|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-10.2|||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||-10.2|-48.6|<0.003
84709239|NCT03481660|169160479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.001
84709240|NCT03481660|169160479|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-3.0||||||CSFT over period Week 88 through Week 100||-3.0|-43.5|
84709241|NCT03481660|169160480|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-9.0||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 52||-9.0|-45.8|
84709242|NCT03481660|169160480|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-7.5||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 100||-7.5|-44.0|
84709243|NCT03481660|169160481|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 52||25.9|5.7|
84709244|NCT03481660|169160481|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|24.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 100||24.9|4.2|
84709245|NCT03481660|169160482|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.1||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 52||2.1|-4.5|
84709246|NCT03481660|169160482|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 100||3.4|-3.4|
84709247|NCT03481660|169160483|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-9.2||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-9.2|-28.9|
84709248|NCT03481660|169160483|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.7||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.7|-26.3|
84510903|NCT01606306|168773269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Rank-ordered logistic regression (ROLR) was used to model the probability of best response for each treatment and bootstrapping was used to calculate confidence intervals.|rank-order logistic regression|ROLR is in the class of Discrete Choice models, which seek to estimate the probability that an individual responds best to a specific treatments.||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability to yield the best response as defined by the criteria defining the primary outcome. A sample size of 300 participants was selected to test the primary null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability (one-third) to yield the best response with statistical power of at least 0.90 if any one of the three treatments actually has probability of at least one-half to yield the best response.|The probabilistic construct of the Discrete Choice (DC) model does not reflect individual behavior that is intrinsically probabilistic, but rather population heterogeneity. DC models rely on stochastic assumptions to account for unobserved factors related to the treatments themselves and to characteristics of study participants. Specifically, that each treatment has an underlying utility that may differ from one individual to another. Mathematically, these utilities are represented by U\_t, where t denotes the treatment. Utility can be thought of as a latent variable quantifying treatment response where higher values indicate better response. The U\_t can be used to find the probability (P) of best response for each treatment by the following equation: P\_t = exp(U\_t) / \[exp(U\_A) + exp(U\_B) + exp(U\_C)\], where A, B, and C, denote the three study treatments. The primary analysis tested whether the three treatments have equal utility and, thus, equal probability of best response.|||<0.0001
84510904|NCT03629249|168773327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
84709249|NCT03481660|169160484|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-8.3||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-8.3|-28.5|
84709250|NCT03481660|169160484|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-5.9||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.9|-26.4|
84709251|NCT03481660|169160485|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-16.3||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 52||-16.3|-34.4|
84709252|NCT03481660|169160485|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-8.2||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 100||-8.2|-29.1|
84709253|NCT03481660|169160486|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||7.8|-5.6|
84709254|NCT03481660|169160486|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.8|-1.7|
84709255|NCT03481660|169160487|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.7||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||5.7|-7.1|
84709256|NCT03481660|169160487|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.0|-2.3|
84709257|NCT03481660|169160488|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||3.6|-1.0|
84709258|NCT03481660|169160488|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.9||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||6.9|-0.5|
84709259|NCT03481660|169160489|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||2.1|0.5|
84709260|NCT03481660|169160489|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||1.3|-2.6|
84709261|NCT03481660|169160490|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) of at least 61 by Week 100||1.9|-2.1|
84709262|NCT03398148|169160510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|17.0||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||17.0|2.2|0.0324
84709263|NCT03398148|169160510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|15.3||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||15.3|1.5|0.0460
84709264|NCT03398148|169160510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|15.6||P-value ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||15.6|1.7|0.0397
84709265|NCT03398148|169160511|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|18.0||Type I error rate control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Advanced Therapy-IR status (yes vs no), Baseline steroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo Score (≤ 7, \> 7).||||18.0|10.0|<0.0001
84709266|NCT03398148|169160512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|29.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||29.0|8.4|0.0028
84709267|NCT03398148|169160512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|16.7||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||16.7|0.1|0.0968
84709268|NCT03398148|169160512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|19.3||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||19.3|1.6|0.0512
84709269|NCT03398148|169160514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|36.7||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.7|11.0|0.0022
84709270|NCT03398148|169160514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|41.1||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||41.1|15.7|0.0002
84709271|NCT03398148|169160514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|46.9||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||46.9|20.7|<0.0001
84709272|NCT03398148|169160515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.2||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||22.9|-2.4|0.1842
84709273|NCT03398148|169160515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.9|36.4||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.4|9.9|0.0041
84709274|NCT03398148|169160515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.1||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||26.6|-0.4|0.1117
84709275|NCT03398148|169160516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|14.1||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.1|2.5|0.0192
84709276|NCT03398148|169160516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.8||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.1||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.1|0.4|0.0706
84709277|NCT03398148|169160516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|14.6||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.6|2.7|0.0170
84709278|NCT03398148|169160517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7737|||||||Chi-squared|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7737
84709279|NCT03398148|169160517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7432|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7432
84709280|NCT03398148|169160517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7172
84709281|NCT03398148|169160518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.7||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.0|0.4|0.0722
84709282|NCT03398148|169160518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||6.6|-0.4|0.1480
84709283|NCT03398148|169160518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|1.7||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||4.5|-1.0|0.3042
84709284|NCT03398148|169160519|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.94|-2.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-2.89|-9.94|0.0030
84709285|NCT03398148|169160519|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.67|-4.71||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.71|-11.67|0.0001
84709286|NCT03398148|169160519|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.27|-4.19||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.19|-11.27|0.0004
84709287|NCT03398148|169160520|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|28.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||28|6.61|0.0081
84709288|NCT03398148|169160520|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|30.79||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.79|9.74|0.0017
84709289|NCT03398148|169160520|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|30.67||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.67|9.22|0.0024
84510905|NCT03629249|168773327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.734
84709290|NCT03398148|169160521|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.208||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8429|3.2596|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||3.2596|-0.8429|0.3315
84709291|NCT03398148|169160521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.447||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4415|4.4519||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4519|0.4415|0.0451
84709292|NCT03398148|169160521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.392||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3498|4.4352||P-value ≤ 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4352|0.3498|0.0543
84709293|NCT03398148|169160522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.662||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|6.5402||P-value \<= 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||6.5402|0.7841|0.0367
84709294|NCT03398148|169160522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3656|7.0144||P-value \<= 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||7.0144|1.3656|0.0151
84709295|NCT03398148|169160522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.348||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5322|5.2281|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||5.2281|-0.5322|0.1795
84709296|NCT03398148|169160523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|7.06||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.06|0.75|0.0422
84709297|NCT03398148|169160523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|8.42||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||8.42|2.23|0.0049
84510906|NCT03629249|168773328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.665
84510907|NCT03629249|168773328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
84510908|NCT01475474|168773343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in ABL different from zero||||<0.001
84709298|NCT03398148|169160523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|7.8||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.80|1.50|0.0156
84709299|NCT03398148|169160524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Note: ITT1A includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug during Induction Period 1 from Sub-Study 1.||||1
84709300|NCT03398148|169160525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|34.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||34.8|22.3|<0.0001
84709301|NCT03398148|169160526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||29.4|19.3|<0.0001
84709302|NCT03398148|169160527|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.0||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||21.0|12.3|<0.0001
84709303|NCT03398148|169160528|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||10.2|4.2|<0.0001
84709304|NCT03398148|169160529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.1||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||28.1|15.6|<0.0001
84709305|NCT03398148|169160530|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||22.4|10.3|<0.0001
84709306|NCT03398148|169160531|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.3||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||15.3|3.4|0.0021
84709307|NCT03398148|169160532|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.7||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||7.7|3.5|<0.0001
84709308|NCT03398148|169160533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.97||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||5.97|3.13|<0.0001
84709309|NCT03398148|169160534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|23.25||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||23.25|13.38|<0.0001
84709310|NCT03398148|169160535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Chi-squared||95% CI for treatment differences is based on normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|||-2.2|-7.3|<0.0001
84709311|NCT03398148|169160536|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.5||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||30.5|17.9|<0.0001
84709312|NCT03398148|169160537|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|24.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||24.8|12.4|<0.0001
84709313|NCT03398148|169160538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3846|-0.8689||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.8689|-2.3846|<0.0001
84709314|NCT03398148|169160539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.981|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3285|-0.6326||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.6326|-1.3285|<0.0001
84709315|NCT02791230|169160546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6202||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4865|0.7906|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, Transthyretin (TTR) genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.7906|0.4865|0.0001
84709316|NCT02791230|169160549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|0.6133||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.8062|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.8062|0.4666|0.0005
84709317|NCT05769595|169160577|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|2.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is MK-2060/placebo|||2.82|2.24|
84709318|NCT03661359|169160578|OTHER|||||||0.727||||||correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)|pearson correlation|||Correlation between patient satisfaction and domains at risk.||||.727
84709319|NCT03661359|169160580|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2 tailed|pearson correlation|||correlation between physical quality of life and mental of life||||0.002
84709320|NCT03661359|169160582|OTHER|||||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||pearson correlation|||||||0.727
84709321|NCT04310735|169160583|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of interest.||||||0.13||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||0.13
84709322|NCT04310735|169160583|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of interest.||||||0.25||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.25
84709323|NCT04310735|169160584|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during smoking-related cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.80
84709324|NCT04310735|169160584|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during neutral cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.87||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.87
84709325|NCT03012841|169160592|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis test for the primary effectiveness objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of treatment success at 12 months (365 days) was greater than 40%, against the null hypothesis that it was less than or equal to 40%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|62.1|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||62.1|46.7|<0.001
84709326|NCT03012841|169160593|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis tested for the primary safety objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the proportion of subjects with primary safety events at 12 months (365 days) was less than 13%, against the null hypothesis that it was greater than or equal to 13%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.4|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.4|0.1|0.002
84709327|NCT03012841|169160594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|29.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in AFEQT composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||29.5|22.1|<0.001
84709328|NCT03012841|169160595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 physical composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.5|3.5|<0.001
84709329|NCT03012841|169160596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|6.6||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 mental composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.6|3.2|<0.001
84709330|NCT03398200|169160611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.89
84709331|NCT03398200|169160612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.03
84709332|NCT03398200|169160613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.35
84709333|NCT03398200|169160614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.77
84709334|NCT03398200|169160615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.50
84709335|NCT03398200|169160616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.76
84709336|NCT05644002|169160622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||13.21|-9.09|.71
84709337|NCT05644002|169160622|OTHER||t-statistic|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709338|NCT05644002|169160622|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709339|NCT05644002|169160623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|1.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.046|-.543|.530
84709340|NCT05644002|169160623|OTHER||t-statistic|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709341|NCT05644002|169160623|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709342|NCT05644002|169160624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.149|4.927||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.927|-3.149|.66
84709343|NCT05644002|169160624|OTHER||t-statistic|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709344|NCT05644002|169160624|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709345|NCT05644002|169160625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.698||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.443|4.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.046|-5.443|.77
84709346|NCT05644002|169160625|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709347|NCT05644002|169160625|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709348|NCT05644002|169160626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.009|5.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||5.300|-6.009|.90
84709349|NCT05644002|169160626|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709350|NCT05644002|169160626|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709351|NCT05644002|169160627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.601|0.105||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||.105|-1.601|.09
84709352|NCT05644002|169160627|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 65.261||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84510909|NCT01475474|168773344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in Wexner score||||<0.001
84510910|NCT01691248|168773375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.5||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.5|-5.1|0.2778
84709353|NCT05644002|169160627|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709354|NCT05644002|169160628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|1.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.031|-.663|.666
84709355|NCT05644002|169160628|OTHER||t-statistic|0.184|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709356|NCT05644002|169160628|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.099|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709357|NCT05644002|169160629|OTHER||β|0.026||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.507||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Coding: Control=0, PTBT=1.||A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress-induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia at step 1 of the model.||.507|-.358|.73
84709358|NCT05644002|169160629|OTHER||t-statistic|0.345|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|degrees freedom = (2, 73)|Condition (0=control; 1=PTBT)|A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrythmia at step 1 of the model.||||
84510911|NCT01691248|168773376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|0.6||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||8.2|-7.1|0.4420
84510912|NCT01691248|168773377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|1.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.2|-5.5|0.3091
84510913|NCT02863575|168773378|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) means difference|2.68||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|7.82|||ANCOVA|||||7.82|-2.46|0.306
84510914|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||2.20|-0.03|0.056
84510915|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|12.73|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||12.73|9.54|< 0.001
84510916|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|11.64|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||11.64|8.45|< 0.001
84510917|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.87|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||3.87|-0.72|0.177
84709359|NCT05644002|169160630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.543||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|-0.314||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \< .05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||-.314|-.772|.001
84709360|NCT05644002|169160630|OTHER||t-statistic|-4.739|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66.03||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709361|NCT05644002|169160630|OTHER||Hedge's g|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
84709362|NCT04605198|169160658|SUPERIORITY|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|||5.29|-6.46|.846
84709363|NCT04605198|169160659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.60|-4.36|.139
84709364|NCT04605198|169160660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.97|-1.21|.222
84709365|NCT04605198|169160661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-1.76||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed using a logit distribution. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified. Final models were random-intercept only.||0.73|-4.26|0.166
84709366|NCT04605198|169160662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||2.53|-3.57|.737
84709367|NCT04605198|169160663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2391.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4471.46|-312.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||-312.49|-4471.46|.024
84709368|NCT04065048|169160664|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
84709369|NCT04065048|169160665|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0093
84510918|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|27.32|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||27.32|20.76|< 0.001
84709370|NCT04065048|169160667|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2487
84709371|NCT02605837|169160668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.52|||<|0.001||95.0|0.433|0.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.591|0.433|<0.001
84709372|NCT02605837|169160669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.13||||0.024||95.0|0.016|0.243|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The CMH adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.243|0.016|0.024
84709373|NCT02605837|169160670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-3.92||||0.015||95.0|-7.073|-0.774|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ combined score as a continuous covariate.||-0.774|-7.073|0.015
84709374|NCT02605837|169160671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline. Total EREFS (endoscopy score) as a continuous covariate.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
84709375|NCT02605837|169160672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|169.74|||<|0.001||95.0|23.235|1239.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Peak eosinophil count (\<15/HPF) was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1239.979|23.235|<0.001
84709376|NCT02605837|169160672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.294|1610.749|||Firth logistic regression|||Peak eosinophil count (\<=1/HPF) was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1610.749|6.294|0.001
84709377|NCT02605837|169160673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-28.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-35.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of proximal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-21.8|-35.0|<0.001
84709378|NCT02605837|169160673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-30.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of mid eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-22.7|-38.1|<0.001
84709379|NCT02605837|169160673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-33.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-40.7|-25.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of distal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate||-25.5|-40.7|<0.001
84709380|NCT02605837|169160673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of maximum eosinophil count was from the ANCOVA model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak eosinophil count as a continuous covariate.||-38.8|-56.4|<0.001
84709381|NCT02605837|169160674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined grade TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.16|-0.22|<0.001
84709382|NCT02605837|169160674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined stage TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.2|-0.2|<0.001
84709383|NCT02605837|169160675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.333|||Regression, Logistic|||Dysphagia symptom response (binary response) at the final treatment period was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||2.333|0.866|0.164
84709384|NCT02605837|169160676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|1483.68|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response I at the final treatment period was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1483.680|5.687|0.001
84709385|NCT02605837|169160677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.836|991.858|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response II at the final treatment period was perfomed based on based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||991.858|3.836|0.004
84510919|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.18|25.75|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||25.75|19.18|< 0.001
84709386|NCT02605837|169160678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-6.41||||0.004||95.0|-10.757|-2.063|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ + Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-2.063|-10.757|0.004
84709387|NCT02605837|169160679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-2.46||||0.002||95.0|-4.018|-0.909|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-0.909|-4.018|0.002
84709388|NCT05952076|169160719|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.67|-0.44|0.6863
84709389|NCT05952076|169160720|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|109.3||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.76|478.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline weight (grams) and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||478.36|-259.76|0.5567
84709390|NCT05952076|169160721|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ, baseline age (days) and study intervention compliance. A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.66|-0.46|0.7275
84709391|NCT05332340|169160738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.683
84709392|NCT04143061|169160742|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.08||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||11.08|2.03|
84709393|NCT04143061|169160742|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|21.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|25.8||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||25.80|17.82|
84510920|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.39||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.06|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||6.06|-1.28|0.201
84709394|NCT04143061|169160742|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|14.89||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||14.89|7.43|
84709395|NCT04143061|169160742|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|14.47||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||14.47|7.86|
84709396|NCT04732494|169160768|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint ORR was tested at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||25.3|-5.4|0.2114
84709397|NCT04732494|169160769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.45|0.58|
84709398|NCT04732494|169160770|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||22.5|-9.2|
84709399|NCT04732494|169160771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.59|0.64|
84510921|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|39.55|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||39.55|29.06|< 0.001
84709400|NCT04732494|169160772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.61|0.71|
84510922|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|37.16|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||37.16|26.67|< 0.001
84510923|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|48.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||48.20|33.49|< 0.001
84510924|NCT02863575|168773379|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.81|45.52|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||45.52|30.81|< 0.001
84510925|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.5|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||1.50|-0.05|0.066
84510926|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|8.66|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||8.66|6.44|< 0.001
84510927|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|7.93|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||7.93|5.71|< 0.001
84709401|NCT04732494|169160775|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|19.9|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Investigator||19.9|-14.4|
84709402|NCT04732494|169160775|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|21.8|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.8|-11.7|
84709403|NCT04732494|169160776|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.4|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Investigator||20.4|-12.7|
84510928|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.14||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.74|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||2.74|-0.47|0.165
84510929|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|16.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.05|18.64|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||18.64|14.05|< 0.001
84709404|NCT04732494|169160776|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.0|-11.0|
84709405|NCT04732494|169160777|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.9||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.9|-8.4|
84510930|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.91|17.51|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||17.51|12.91|< 0.001
84510931|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.34|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||4.34|-0.78|0.172
84510932|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|23.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|27.03|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||27.03|19.71|< 0.001
84510933|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|21.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.93|25.25|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||25.25|17.93|< 0.001
84510934|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.1||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.67|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||5.67|-1.47|0.249
84510935|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|27.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|32.99|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||32.99|22.78|< 0.001
84510936|NCT02863575|168773380|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|30.89|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||30.89|20.68|< 0.001
84709406|NCT04732494|169160777|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-5.0|
84709407|NCT04732494|169160777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||3.7|-7.1|
84709408|NCT04732494|169160777|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.3|-10.3|
84709409|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.6|-21.5|
84709410|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|6.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-27.8|
84709411|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.6|-7.3|
84709412|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-0.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.3|-18.5|
84709413|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-6.7|
84709414|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.0||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.0|-11.8|
84709415|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.5||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||8.5|-7.0|
84709416|NCT04732494|169160778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.7|-12.3|
84709417|NCT02728557|169160780|OTHER|MLM models||||||0.016|||||||MLM|MLM||A model with two three-way interactions of time by treatment condition by attachment orientation (Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment anxiety, Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment avoidance) along the lower-level effects to predict differences in the slope of change in outcome. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.||||.016
84709418|NCT03416010|169160786|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no significant difference in Health Beliefs across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
84709419|NCT03416010|169160786|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the full intervention group, COPE-P, and the attention-control group, Preg+, in Health Beliefs, as measured by the Healthy Lifestyle Beliefs measure, at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth||||<0.001
84709420|NCT03416010|169160786|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||0.009
84709421|NCT03416010|169160787|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p \<0.01|two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no significant difference in anxiety across the 4 time points.||||<0.001
84709422|NCT03416010|169160787|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in anxiety at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1(immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth), and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
84709423|NCT03416010|169160787|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
84709424|NCT03416010|169160788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in health behaviors across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
84709425|NCT03416010|169160788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84709426|NCT03416010|169160788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
84709427|NCT03416010|169160789|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms across those 4 timepoints.||||<0.001
84709428|NCT03416010|169160789|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in depressive symptoms at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth.||||<0.001
84709429|NCT03416010|169160789|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
84709430|NCT03416010|169160790|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in stress across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
84709431|NCT03416010|169160790|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in stress, as measured by the GAD-7, at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1 (immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth) and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
84709432|NCT03416010|169160790|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
84709433|NCT02488863|169160825|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.0561|||||||ANOVA|||H0: mean(SPPB\_older\_pain) = mean(SPPB\_older\_no pain) = mean(SPPB\_younger)||||0.0561
84709434|NCT02015520|169160870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
84709435|NCT02015520|169160870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84709436|NCT02015520|169160870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84709437|NCT06459401|169160918|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.525|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.07|-0.01|0.131
84709438|NCT06459401|169160919|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.623|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.56|0.99|0.001
84709439|NCT06459401|169160920|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.89||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.923|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||5.89|0.75|0.017
84709440|NCT06459401|169160921|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.039||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.052|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.039|-0.034|0.874
84709441|NCT06459401|169160922|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.315|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.46|-1.18|0.345
84709442|NCT06459401|169160923|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.36||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.859|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.36|-3.90|0.024
84709443|NCT06459401|169160924|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.739|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.06|0.00|0.044
84709444|NCT06459401|169160925|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.5||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.928|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.50|0.32|0.017
84709445|NCT06459401|169160926|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.04||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.297|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.04|-1.67|0.372
84709446|NCT06459401|169160927|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.508|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.20|0.07|0.001
84709447|NCT06459401|169160928|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.746|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.39|0.09|0.043
84709448|NCT06459401|169160929|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.83||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.752|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||8.83|0.22|0.041
84709449|NCT06459401|169160930|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.983|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.21|0.03|0.013
84709450|NCT06459401|169160931|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.78||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.985|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.78|0.44|0.012
84709451|NCT06459401|169160932|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.11||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.779|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||9.11|0.39|0.036
84709452|NCT06459401|169160937|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.19||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.015|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||1.19|-1.24|0.962
84709453|NCT06459401|169160938|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.504|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.35|-0.06|0.146
84709454|NCT06459401|169160939|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.63||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.495|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.63|-0.66|0.152
84709455|NCT06459401|169160940|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.494|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.31|-0.06|0.153
84709456|NCT06459401|169160941|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.58||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.491|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.58|-0.67|0.155
84510937|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||0.71|0.01|0.044
84510938|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.09|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||4.09|3.09|< 0.001
84709457|NCT06459401|169160942|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.199|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.43|0.11|0.004
84709458|NCT06459401|169160943|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.962|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.56|-3.82|0.014
84709459|NCT06459401|169160944|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.312|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.66|-0.26|0.350
84709460|NCT06459401|169160945|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.02||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.706|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.02|-3.63|0.052
84709461|NCT06459401|169160946|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.416|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.39|-0.10|0.221
84709462|NCT01619410|169160947|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84709463|NCT04110054|169161001|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo (N = 102) vs S-600918 50 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg||||||0.9334||||||P-value was evaluated at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses of equality between the treatment and placebo effects were tested using a mixed model, containing treatment group, week, and interaction between treatment groups and week as fixed effects; participant as random effect; and region and the common logarithm of the frequency of coughs per hour at baseline as covariates. Covariance structure was given as unstructured.||||0.9334
84709464|NCT01000480|169161013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||P-value for H0 which compared the investigational regimen to historical data.|maximum likelihood estimate|||Null hypothesis (H0): 1-year PFS ≤45% and the alternative hypothesis (H1): 1-year PFS ≥60%, at a 2-sided alpha level of 5%, assuming that PFS time followed an exponential distribution.||||0.0645
84709465|NCT00262301|169161035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84709466|NCT00262301|169161036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
84709467|NCT03201562|169161038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.436||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.262|235.936|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||235.936|6.262|0.0009
84709468|NCT03201562|169161038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.893||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.936|229.31|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||229.310|5.936|0.0012
84709469|NCT03201562|169161038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.485|2.239|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect||||2.239|0.485|0.9298
84709470|NCT01976312|169161048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84709471|NCT03010631|169161057|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.782||||||||1.782|1.166|
84709472|NCT03010631|169161058|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.589||||||||2.589|1.615|
84709473|NCT03010631|169161059|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.168||||||||1.168|0.675|
84709474|NCT03010631|169161060|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.339|0.502||||||||0.502|0.339|
84709475|NCT00774852|169161088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.85
84709476|NCT00774852|169161089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.99
84709477|NCT00774852|169161090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
84709478|NCT00774852|169161090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.72
84709479|NCT00774852|169161091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
84709480|NCT00774852|169161096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
84709481|NCT00774852|169161097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
84709482|NCT00774852|169161099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.23
84709483|NCT00774852|169161099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.61
84709484|NCT00774852|169161099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
84709485|NCT00774852|169161099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
84510939|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.73|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||3.73|2.73|< 0.001
84510940|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.15|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||1.15|-0.27|0.224
84510941|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.71|6.68|< 0.001
84709486|NCT00774852|169161104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.79
84510942|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|8.27|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.27|6.23|< 0.001
84510943|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||1.75|-0.53|0.293
84510944|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.56|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||12.56|9.30|< 0.001
84709487|NCT00774852|169161104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.74
84709488|NCT00774852|169161105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Pneumococcal vaccines||||0.43
84709489|NCT00774852|169161105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Tetanus Toxoid vaccines||||0.99
84709490|NCT02807779|169161126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Power calculations were performed based on an expected reproducibility variance of 8% and an effect size of 7% was assumed based on data from pilot studies. It was estimated that 22 subjects/treatment assignment were needed to detect a 7% difference in PWV at a power level of 80%. Assigning a 20% attrition rate due to loss to follow up or index lesion revascularization, the goal enrollment was 27 subjects per arm.~No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis."||||0.22
84709491|NCT02807779|169161127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||0.64
84709492|NCT02807779|169161128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete MCP-1 data for analysis.||||0.95
84709493|NCT02807779|169161129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete CRP data for analysis.||||0.88
84709494|NCT02807779|169161131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.055
84709495|NCT02807779|169161132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.22
84709496|NCT02807779|169161133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.81
84709497|NCT03725722|169161161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with adjusted p-value of \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model selected: Sigmoid Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in EASI score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.0001
84709498|NCT03725722|169161161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.3||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.3|-5.0|<0.01
84709499|NCT03725722|169161161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.2||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.2|-4.8|<0.05
84709500|NCT03725722|169161161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-2.1|-5.8|<0.0001
84709501|NCT03725722|169161161|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.9||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-3.9|-7.5|<0.0001
84709502|NCT03725722|169161162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model: Linear model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the vIGA-AD response rate at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response.||||<0.0001
84709503|NCT03725722|169161162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.9||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||21.9|-5.6|>0.05
84510945|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.69|11.95|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||11.95|8.69|< 0.001
84510946|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.58||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.19|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||2.19|-1.03|0.476
84709504|NCT03725722|169161162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|34.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||34.6|3.9|<0.05
84709505|NCT03725722|169161162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|35.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||35.2|5.4|<0.05
84709506|NCT03725722|169161162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|54.3||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||54.3|22.3|<0.0001
84709507|NCT03725722|169161163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values were adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model:Emax model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between EASI75 at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response||||<0.0001
84709508|NCT03725722|169161163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|37.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||37.6|1.8|<0.05
84709509|NCT03725722|169161163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|41.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||41.2|5.8|<0.05
84709510|NCT03725722|169161163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|53.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||53.2|17.5|<0.0005
84709511|NCT03725722|169161163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|62.8||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||62.8|28.1|<0.0001
84510947|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|15.26|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||15.26|10.66|< 0.001
84709512|NCT03725722|169161164|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
84709513|NCT03725722|169161164|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||"vIGA-AD was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
84709514|NCT03725722|169161164|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||>0.05
84709515|NCT03725722|169161164|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD|||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||<0.001
84709516|NCT04038957|169161196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||A p-value of p\<0.05 will be considered as significant.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||To examine the primary outcome, the effects of SEP-363856 on the striatum, a repeated measures ANOVA model will be build using the baseline and on-treatment kicer values of each striatal subregion.||||0.0072
84709517|NCT05656911|169161197|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||||Posterior probability is 34.0%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||18.0|-29.0|
84709518|NCT05656911|169161198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|30.87||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||LS mean (%)|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||30.87|-8.26|0.257
84709519|NCT05656911|169161199|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|22.1|||||Posterior probability is 41.7%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||22.1|-27.0|
84709520|NCT05656911|169161200|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|13.4|||||Posterior probability is 31.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||13.4|-25.6|
84510948|NCT02863575|168773381|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|14.68|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||14.68|10.08|< 0.001
84510949|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.36|-0.35|0.975
84709521|NCT05656911|169161201|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|7.0|||||Posterior probability is 10.8%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||7.0|-34.1|
84709522|NCT05656911|169161202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|17.03||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||17.03|-2.92|0.166
84709523|NCT05656911|169161203|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|11.0|||||Posterior probability is 20.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||11.0|-30.4|
84709524|NCT05656911|169161205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.68||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|22.11||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||22.11|-8.75|0.396
84709525|NCT05075408|169161228|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|7.0||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.6|24.6||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo||24.6|-10.6|0.3696
84709526|NCT05075408|169161228|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.5||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|32.2||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 60 mg versus Placebo||32.2|-3.1|0.0686
84709527|NCT05075408|169161229|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.8|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||22.3|-13.8|0.5909
84709528|NCT05075408|169161229|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|12.9||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.5|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||31.4|-5.5|0.1112
84709529|NCT05075408|169161230|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.3|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.4|4.3|0.0034
84709530|NCT05075408|169161230|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.5|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||29.8|4.5|0.0025
84709531|NCT05075408|169161231|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|3.7||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.5|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||19.8|-12.5|0.5788
84709532|NCT05075408|169161231|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|16.5||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||33.9|-0.8|0.0303
84709533|NCT05075408|169161232|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|24.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.8|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||39.6|8.8|0.0006
84709534|NCT05075408|169161232|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|20.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||35.7|6.0|0.0021
84709535|NCT05075408|169161233|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||24.1|3.8|0.0028
84709536|NCT05075408|169161233|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|19.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.6|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.5|7.6|0.0003
84709537|NCT05107401|169161273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.30|-4.90|0.083
84510950|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.63|-0.40|0.654
84709538|NCT05107401|169161274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||-0.18|-1.16|0.032
84709539|NCT05107401|169161275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-0.72|0.48
84709540|NCT05107401|169161276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-1.49|0.48
84709541|NCT05107401|169161277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.51|-2.60|0.37
84709542|NCT05107401|169161278|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||The statistical values presented are the relative risk between study arms at the three-month follow-up.|We used a generalized linear model using a binomial distribution to examine whether the intervention was associated with increased HIV self-testing uptake in the follow-up period. The model was adjusted for history of HIV testing (pre-intervention testing and testing prior to the study), whether the participant had submitted content to the JasSpark contest, and if the participant had a main intimate partner (e.g., girlfriend/boyfriend, spouse).||1.32|0.98|0.099
84709543|NCT05107401|169161279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.58||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in females between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||-1.58|-8.59|0.012
84709544|NCT05107401|169161279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|5.42||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in males between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||5.42|-2.26|0.56
84510951|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.62|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.62|-0.40|0.670
84510952|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.04||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||0.63|-0.70|0.917
84510953|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.2|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.20|1.31|< 0.001
84709545|NCT03857620|169161280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||0.45|-0.85|0.53
84709546|NCT03857620|169161280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.81|-0.67|0.84
84709547|NCT03857620|169161280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.26|-1.21|0.19
84510954|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.24|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.24|1.35|< 0.001
84510955|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.42|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||1.42|0.04|0.039
84709548|NCT03857620|169161280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||1.29|-0.19|0.14
84709549|NCT03857620|169161281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||2.09|0.23|0.50
84510956|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.1|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||7.10|5.12|< 0.001
84510957|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||6.37|4.39|< 0.001
84709550|NCT03857620|169161281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.62|0.13|0.21
84709551|NCT03857620|169161281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||3.54|0.30|0.96
84709552|NCT03857620|169161281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.54|0.13|0.19
84510958|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||1.52|0.16|0.015
84709553|NCT02201108|169161283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.113||Threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|Stratified Log-Rank test|P-value derived from log-rank test with stratification of region and pubertal status.|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model with factors for treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomization as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.113|0.388|0.2949
84510959|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|8.33|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||8.33|6.39|< 0.001
84709554|NCT02201108|169161285|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.762||||||||0.762|0.343|
84709555|NCT02201108|169161286|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.983||||||||0.983|0.331|
84709556|NCT02201108|169161289|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.836||||||||0.836|0.296|
84709557|NCT02201108|169161303|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.296|||||Hazard ratio estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model using treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomisation as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.296|0.37|
84709558|NCT05215847|169161307|OTHER|Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||||||||||||||||Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||
84510960|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|7.49|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||7.49|5.55|< 0.001
84510961|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||1.30|-0.05|0.071
84510962|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|8.58|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||8.58|6.65|< 0.001
84709559|NCT03433339|169161345|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model considering all available data.||||||=0.040
84709560|NCT03830177|169161362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84709561|NCT03830177|169161363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84709562|NCT03830177|169161364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84709563|NCT03830177|169161365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84709564|NCT03830177|169161367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84709565|NCT04970407|169161369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.16||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|13.93|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||13.93|-16.25|0.8769
84709566|NCT04970407|169161369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.61||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|4.47|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, SE and 95% CI of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||4.47|-25.69|0.1620
84709567|NCT03289039|169161378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.12|||Log Rank|||||4.12|0.27|0.98
84709568|NCT03289039|169161379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.24|0.89
84709569|NCT04761302|169161390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
84709570|NCT04761302|169161390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.445
84709571|NCT04761302|169161391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84709572|NCT04761302|169161391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
84709573|NCT04761302|169161392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84709574|NCT04761302|169161392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.359
84709575|NCT04761302|169161393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
84709576|NCT04761302|169161393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
84709577|NCT04761302|169161394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84709578|NCT04761302|169161394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84709579|NCT04761302|169161395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84709580|NCT04761302|169161395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84709581|NCT04761302|169161396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84709582|NCT04761302|169161396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84709583|NCT04761302|169161397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84709584|NCT04761302|169161397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84709585|NCT04761302|169161398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
84709586|NCT04761302|169161398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
84709587|NCT05136404|169161409|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.937|
84709588|NCT05136404|169161409|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.968|
84709589|NCT05136404|169161410|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.953|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.953|
84709590|NCT05136404|169161410|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.982|
84709591|NCT05136404|169161411|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.972|
84709592|NCT05136404|169161411|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.992|
84709593|NCT05136404|169161412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.4728
84709594|NCT05136404|169161412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0142
84709595|NCT00632203|169161413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995|||||||2-sided Exact Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.6995
84709596|NCT02641912|169161420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure (LS) mean difference|0.63||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with factors for treatment and confirmed Sjögren's syndrome status stratification using Observed Margins option.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.10|0.17|0.0084
84709597|NCT04452318|169161452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.332|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.332|0.090|< 0.0001
84709598|NCT04452318|169161453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.966|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.966|0.298|= 0.0380
84709599|NCT04452318|169161455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.236|0.069|< 0.0001
84709600|NCT04452318|169161455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.728|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.728|0.228|= 0.0024
84709601|NCT04452318|169161456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709602|NCT04452318|169161457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709603|NCT04452318|169161457|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0010
84709604|NCT04452318|169161458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709605|NCT04452318|169161459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.456|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||0.456|0.208|< 0.0001
84709606|NCT04452318|169161461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.286|0.051|< 0.0001
84709607|NCT04452318|169161462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709608|NCT04452318|169161463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.370|0.020|= 0.0010
84709609|NCT04452318|169161464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709610|NCT04452318|169161467|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|-1.539|||ANOVA|||||-1.539|-2.707|< 0.0001
84709611|NCT04452318|169161468|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|-1.806|||ANOVA|||||-1.806|-3.161|< 0.0001
84709612|NCT04452318|169161469|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.196|-1.659|||ANOVA|||||-1.659|-3.196|< 0.0001
84709613|NCT04452318|169161470|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|-1.688|||ANOVA|||||-1.688|-3.194|< 0.0001
84709614|NCT04452318|169161473|OTHER||||||=|0.0621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0621
84709615|NCT04452318|169161474|OTHER||||||=|0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received'||||= 0.0038
84510963|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.96|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||7.96|6.03|< 0.001
84709616|NCT04452318|169161477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
84709617|NCT04452318|169161485|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0273|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0273
84709618|NCT04452318|169161486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.989|0.299|= 0.0460
84709619|NCT04452318|169161487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.070|0.207|= 0.0721
84709620|NCT04452318|169161488|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0260
84709621|NCT04452318|169161489|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0614|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0614
84709622|NCT04452318|169161490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|-0.795|||ANCOVA|||||-0.795|-2.127|< 0.0001
84709623|NCT04452318|169161491|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.300|-1.400|= 0.0026
84709624|NCT04452318|169161492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|-0.559|||ANCOVA|||||-0.559|-1.321|< 0.0001
84709625|NCT04452318|169161493|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-26.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.973|-14.117|||ANCOVA|||||-14.117|-37.973|< 0.0001
84709626|NCT04452318|169161494|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|-0.727|||ANCOVA|||||-0.727|-2.063|< 0.0001
84709627|NCT04452318|169161495|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0138
84709628|NCT04452318|169161496|OTHER||||||=|0.0292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0292
84709629|NCT04452318|169161497|OTHER||||||=|0.2466|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.2466
84709630|NCT04452318|169161498|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7861|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.7861
84709631|NCT04452318|169161499|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0842|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.0842
84510964|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.41||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.09|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||1.09|-0.28|0.243
84709632|NCT02376790|169161515|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.0||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||22.0|5.8|0.005
84709633|NCT02376790|169161515|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.3||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||17.3|1.0|0.029
84709634|NCT02376790|169161516|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|19.6||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||19.6|4.9|0.005
84709635|NCT02376790|169161516|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||18.9|4.2|0.005
84709636|NCT02376790|169161518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||23.0|6.4|<0.001
84709637|NCT02376790|169161518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|20.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||20.2|3.4|0.006
84709638|NCT02376790|169161519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.4|6.5|<0.001
84709639|NCT02376790|169161519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.7|6.7|<0.001
84510965|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|7.8|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.80|5.85|< 0.001
84510966|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|7.4|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.40|5.44|< 0.001
84510967|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||0.82|-0.65|0.823
84510968|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|7.14|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.14|5.02|< 0.001
84510969|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|7.05|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.05|4.94|< 0.001
84510970|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.31||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||1.11|-0.48|0.438
84510971|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|6.6|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.60|4.33|< 0.001
84709640|NCT02376790|169161528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
84709641|NCT02376790|169161528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.92|<0.001
84709642|NCT02376790|169161529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.68||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||1.68|-2.93|0.59
84709643|NCT02376790|169161529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.99||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||0.99|-3.63|0.26
84709644|NCT02376790|169161530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.38||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||1.38|-3.35|0.41
84709645|NCT02376790|169161530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.65||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||0.65|-4.09|0.15
84709646|NCT02376790|169161531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.07||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.07|-0.52|0.010
84709647|NCT02376790|169161531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
84709648|NCT02376790|169161532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.05|-0.15|0.34
84709649|NCT02376790|169161532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.12|0.67
84709650|NCT02376790|169161533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.51||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.51|0.37|0.015
84709651|NCT02376790|169161533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.28||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.28|0.13|0.033
84709652|NCT02376790|169161533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.63||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.63|-1.69|0.97
84709653|NCT02376790|169161533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.16||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.16|-2.16|0.56
84510972|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|6.29|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.29|4.01|< 0.001
84709654|NCT02376790|169161534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
84709655|NCT02376790|169161534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.88|0.10
84709656|NCT02376790|169161536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.23||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|79.36||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||79.36|-51.52|0.68
84709657|NCT02376790|169161536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.05||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.75|71.42||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||71.42|-58.75|0.85
84709658|NCT02376790|169161537|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.9||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||26.2|-0.4|0.057
84709659|NCT02376790|169161537|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|10.9||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|24.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||24.4|-2.5|0.12
84709660|NCT02376790|169161538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.98|-0.66|0.70
84709661|NCT02376790|169161538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.86||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.86|-0.79|0.93
84709662|NCT02376790|169161539|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||13.7|-7.3|0.55
84709663|NCT02376790|169161539|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||19.4|-1.9|0.11
84709664|NCT02376790|169161540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.87||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||17.87|0.85|0.031
84709665|NCT02376790|169161540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|11.54||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||11.54|-5.49|0.49
84709666|NCT02376790|169161541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|24.9||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||24.90|6.99|<0.001
84709667|NCT02376790|169161541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.83||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||15.83|-1.89|0.12
84709668|NCT02376790|169161546|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||20.8|2.0|0.019
84709669|NCT02376790|169161546|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||14.0|-5.6|0.40
84709670|NCT02376790|169161547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|33.3||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||33.3|6.8|0.004
84709671|NCT02376790|169161547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|17.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|30.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||30.2|4.0|0.012
84709672|NCT05450458|169161553|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for KOOS score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Change Baseline to month 6|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|Post hoc pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori significance level was set at 0.05|The value represents the intra-individual median KOOS improvement from baseline to month 6 after treatment. Changes were evaluated across time points within a single cohort.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve KOOS function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.23|0.15|<0.001
84715121|NCT04508309|169176876|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.455|2.176|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% CI was used.||2.176|1.455|
84510973|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||1.35|-0.35|0.250
84709673|NCT05450458|169161554|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for IKDC score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Baseline to Month 6|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|The overall p-value is unadjusted. The a priori significance level was set at 0.05 to robustly control the Type I error|This value represents the intra-individual median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months after treatment. The analysis was conducted within a single cohort without comparator arms.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve IKDC function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.24|0.12|0.01
84709674|NCT05450458|169161556|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month IKDC score|Baseline to month 6|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21||P-values from pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method to control for multiple testing. The global p-value from the Friedman test was not adjusted. An a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI (≥25). No comparator group was used. Confidence interval calculated via bootstrap (resampling with 1,000 iterations).|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function across time. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Changes across the four time points (baseline, 15 days, 3 months, and 6 months) were evaluated using the Friedman test. Pairwise comparisons were performed post hoc using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with Bonferroni correction at a 5% significance threshold.||0.21|0.14|0.001
84709675|NCT05450458|169161556|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month KOOS score|Baseline to Month 6|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|22.0||The p-values reported were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median KOOS improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI. CI calculated via bootstrap resampling (1,000 iterations). No comparator group was involved.|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function between baseline and six months. The study was designed with sufficient power to detect clinically meaningful improvements, with significance determined at a conventional level||22|13|<0.001
84709676|NCT00539734|169161589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing pre-operative data with postoperative data in terms of changes in amplitude height and implicit time.||||<0.05
84709677|NCT04048382|169161683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
84709678|NCT04048382|169161684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.49
84709679|NCT04048382|169161685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.91
84709680|NCT04048382|169161686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.65
84709681|NCT04048382|169161687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.17
84709682|NCT04048382|169161688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.19
84709683|NCT01037985|169161696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||1.9|-10.4|0.168
84709684|NCT01037985|169161697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||4.2|-3.5|0.858
84709685|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.6|0.003
84709686|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.1|0.067
84709687|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
84510974|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.02|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||6.02|3.58|< 0.001
84709688|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|0.002
84709689|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
84709690|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.1|0.214
84709691|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
84709692|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-2.2|-7.8|<0.001
84709693|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.5|0.673
84709694|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.1|-0.3|0.276
84709695|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.670
84709696|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.5|1.000
84709697|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.909
84709698|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.6|0.852
84709699|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.906
84709700|NCT01037985|169161698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.8|-2.8|0.768
84709701|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.4|0.773
84709702|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.4|-0.4|1.000
84709703|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-1.4|0.072
84709704|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.7|0.851
84709705|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.2|0.184
84709706|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.059
84709707|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-1.5|0.040
84709708|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-4.1|0.120
84709709|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-4.0|0.094
84709710|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.243
84709711|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.339
84709712|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.2|-0.3|0.250
84709713|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.3|0.164
84709714|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.8|1.000
84709715|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.928
84709716|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.865
84709717|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.0|-2.3|0.804
84709718|NCT01037985|169161699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||2.4|-2.6|0.937
84709719|NCT01259401|169161722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
84709720|NCT01259401|169161723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.061
84510975|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|5.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||5.52|3.08|< 0.001
84709721|NCT03683069|169161724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Linear|||adjusted to medication dose, sex, age, race||||0.823
84709722|NCT03683069|169161724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Regression, Linear|||diastolic bp adjusted for medication dose sex,age, race||||.8390
84709723|NCT03683069|169161725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0101
84709724|NCT03683069|169161726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
84709725|NCT03683069|169161727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.7022||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier using Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxo|||||||.09
84709726|NCT05307978|169161752|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|68.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.74|89.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed to the ln-transformed PK parameter and the independent variables.||||89.56|52.74|
84709727|NCT05307978|169161753|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|120.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.2|214.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||214.43|67.20|
84709728|NCT05307978|169161754|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|118.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.93|188.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||188.80|73.93|
84709729|NCT05307978|169161755|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|93.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.17|139.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||139.56|63.17|
84709730|NCT02380612|169161785|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84709731|NCT02721381|169161789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
84709732|NCT02721381|169161790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
84510976|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.01|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||1.01|-0.80|0.818
84510977|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.82|2.23|< 0.001
84510978|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.71|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.71|2.12|< 0.001
84709733|NCT02721381|169161791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
84709734|NCT02721381|169161792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
84709735|NCT02721381|169161793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
84709736|NCT02721381|169161794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.69
84709737|NCT02721381|169161795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.038
84709738|NCT02721381|169161796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.45
84709739|NCT02721381|169161797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.92
84709740|NCT02721381|169161798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.42
84709741|NCT02721381|169161799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.65
84709742|NCT02721381|169161800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||.001
84709743|NCT04840199|169161889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in mean change in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between arms).|||0.018|-0.080|0.20
84709744|NCT04840199|169161890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.172||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.438||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chan/Zhang exact test diff. proportions||An exact 95% confidence interval around the observed difference in proportions (and the associated p-value) was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests (Chan-Zhang method).|||0.438|-0.073|0.19
84709745|NCT04840199|169161892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||1.03|0.80|0.12
84709746|NCT04840199|169161892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.98|0.87|0.009
84709747|NCT04840199|169161892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||1.53|0.90|0.24
84709748|NCT04840199|169161895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0002||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0062|0.0066||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0066|-0.0062|0.95
84709749|NCT04840199|169161895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0007||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0019|0.0005||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0005|-0.0019|0.28
84510979|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||1.11|-0.74|0.698
84510980|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.34|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.34|1.69|< 0.001
84709750|NCT04840199|169161895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0056||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0006|0.0118||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0118|-0.0006|0.077
84709751|NCT04840199|169161896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0009||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0058||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0058|-0.0040|0.72
84510981|NCT02863575|168773382|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.16|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.16|1.51|< 0.001
84510982|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.16|-0.09|0.575
84510983|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.25|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.25|-0.11|0.426
84510984|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.22|-0.14|0.686
84510985|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||0.29|-0.15|0.543
84510986|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.12|0.49|< 0.001
84709752|NCT04840199|169161896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0009||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.0003||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0003|-0.0022|0.13
84709753|NCT04840199|169161896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0023||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0055||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0055|-0.0010|0.17
84709754|NCT04424927|169161925|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.04||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.52|-0.43|0.8543
84709755|NCT04424927|169161925|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.59|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.59|-0.37|0.6552
84709756|NCT04424927|169161925|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.53|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.53|-0.45|0.8705
84709757|NCT04424927|169161926|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.65|-0.42|0.6757
84709758|NCT04424927|169161926|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.29|-0.78|0.3645
84709759|NCT04424927|169161926|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.24|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.24|-0.84|0.2791
84709760|NCT04424927|169161927|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.42|-0.32|0.7829
84709761|NCT04424927|169161927|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.38|-0.36|0.9503
84709762|NCT04424927|169161927|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.22|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.22|-0.54|0.4107
84510987|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.05|0.42|< 0.001
84510988|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.24||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||0.46|0.01|0.038
84510989|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.33|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.33|1.69|< 0.001
84709763|NCT04424927|169161928|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.94||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.87|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||6.87|-3.00|0.4397
84709764|NCT04424927|169161928|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.72||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||1.15|-8.58|0.1337
84709765|NCT04424927|169161928|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||0.83|-9.11|0.1021
84709766|NCT05623345|169161951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0377|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
84709767|NCT05623345|169161951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84510990|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.09|1.46|< 0.001
84709768|NCT05623345|169161951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709769|NCT05623345|169161952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.14||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0483
84510991|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||0.47|0.03|0.024
84709770|NCT05623345|169161952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709771|NCT05623345|169161952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709772|NCT05623345|169161953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0883
84709773|NCT05623345|169161953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.2713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2713
84709774|NCT05623345|169161953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.8872|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8872
84709775|NCT05623345|169161954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.1654|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1654
84709776|NCT05623345|169161954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709777|NCT05623345|169161954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709778|NCT05623345|169161955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.85||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0106
84510992|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.64|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.64|2.02|< 0.001
84510993|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.39|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.39|1.77|< 0.001
84510994|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||0.40|-0.04|0.103
84709779|NCT05623345|169161955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709780|NCT05623345|169161955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
84709781|NCT05623345|169161956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.11||0.1147|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1147
84709782|NCT05623345|169161956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709783|NCT05623345|169161956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84709784|NCT05623345|169161957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.44|-0.22|0.514
84709785|NCT05623345|169161957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.04|-0.28|0.010
84709786|NCT05623345|169161957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
84510995|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.71|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.71|2.09|< 0.001
84510996|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.53|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.53|1.91|< 0.001
84510997|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||0.29|-0.13|0.448
84709787|NCT05384730|169161965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Light physical activity compared overtime||||0.10
84709788|NCT05384730|169161965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Moderate-vigorous physical activity compared overtime||||0.30
84709789|NCT05384730|169161965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Inactive/sedentary time compared overtime||||0.18
84709790|NCT05384730|169161966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84709791|NCT05384730|169161967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84709792|NCT05384730|169161968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
84709793|NCT05384730|169161969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing depression scores overtime||||0.03
84709794|NCT05384730|169161969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing anxiety scores overtime||||0.96
84709795|NCT05384730|169161970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84709796|NCT05384730|169161971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84709797|NCT05384730|169161972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||PASE analysis over time||||0.01
84709798|NCT03732820|169161973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.81|0.54|<0.0001
84709799|NCT03732820|169161974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided. Alpha spend for OS will not exceed 0.02135.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.00|0.67|0.0544
84709800|NCT03732820|169161975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.90|0.64|0.0025
84709801|NCT03732820|169161976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.50|0.75|0.7456
84709802|NCT03732820|169161977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.79|0.82|0.3099
84709803|NCT03732820|169161978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.22|0.55|0.3212
84709804|NCT03732820|169161979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.99|0.59|0.0534
84709805|NCT03144518|169161982|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.079||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.173||ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels||VAS-Valence Scores||.173|.014|.005
84709806|NCT03144518|169161982|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta-Squared|0.04||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention scores||VAS-Arousal Scores||.120|.000|.047
84709807|NCT03144518|169161982|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.196|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||Pictorial Scale||.196|.022|.002
84709808|NCT03144518|169161982|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.036|||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline levels||PANAS Positive Affect Scores||.036|.000|.697
84709809|NCT03144518|169161982|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.005||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.053|||ANCOVA|||PANAS Negative Affect Scores||.053|.000|.462
84709810|NCT03144518|169161985|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.001||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.031|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||||.031|.000|.806
84709811|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.006||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.055|||ANCOVA|Controlling for Pre-Vaccination levels||4 Weeks A/Hong-Kong||.055|.000|.438
84709812|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.004||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.051|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Hong-Kong 16 Weeks Post-Vaccination||.051|.000|.516
84709813|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.038|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 4 weeks post-vaccination||.038|.000|.671
84510998|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.47|1.86|< 0.001
84709814|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 16 weeks post-vaccination||.000|.000|.980
84709815|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.057|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 4 weeks post-vaccination||.057|.000|.409
84709816|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.008||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.062|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 16 weeks post-vaccination||.062|.000|.377
84709817|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.008|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Phuket 4 weeks post-vaccination||.008|.000|.892
84709818|NCT03144518|169161986|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.058|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||||.058|.000|.426
84709819|NCT01989455|169162006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent ratio|73.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.83|77.56||||||||77.56|68.83|
84709820|NCT02885636|169162009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84709821|NCT02885636|169162010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
84709822|NCT02885636|169162011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84709823|NCT02885636|169162012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84709824|NCT02885636|169162013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84709825|NCT02885636|169162014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84709826|NCT02885636|169162015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84709827|NCT02885636|169162016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84709828|NCT02885636|169162017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
84709829|NCT02885636|169162018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84709830|NCT02885636|169162019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84709831|NCT02885636|169162020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84709832|NCT02885636|169162021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84709833|NCT02885636|169162022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84709834|NCT02638337|169162044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||For the percentage of parabasal cells a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||-18.0|-25.7|<0.0001
84709835|NCT02638337|169162045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||9.1|5.2|<0.0001
84709836|NCT02638337|169162046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.59|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||-0.59|-0.84|<0.0001
84709837|NCT02638337|169162047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.06|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|For the MBS of vaginal dryness a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to fit a marginal proportional odds model to the longitudinal ordered categorical data, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline severity of dryness modeled as a covariate.||3.06|1.62|<0.0001
84709838|NCT02638337|169162049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-18.0|-25.2|<0.0001
84709839|NCT02638337|169162049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-18.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-18.1|-25.4|<0.0001
84709840|NCT02638337|169162050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||7.3|4.2|<0.0001
84709841|NCT02638337|169162050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||9.0|5.5|<0.0001
84709842|NCT02638337|169162051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.46|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.46|-0.69|<0.0001
84709843|NCT02638337|169162051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.51|-0.75|<0.0001
84709844|NCT02638337|169162052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.36|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.36|1.27|0.0005
84709845|NCT02638337|169162052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.74|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.74|1.47|<0.0001
84709846|NCT02638337|169162053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.43|0.55|0.6263
84709847|NCT02638337|169162053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||1.75|0.66|0.7869
84709848|NCT02638337|169162053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.64|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.64|0.65|0.8894
84709849|NCT02638337|169162054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.10|0.40|0.8369
84709850|NCT02638337|169162054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.95|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||3.95|0.58|0.3970
84709851|NCT02638337|169162054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.26|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||3.26|0.54|0.5391
84709852|NCT02638337|169162055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.4|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.40|1.13|0.0095
84709853|NCT02638337|169162055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.11|0.99|0.0542
84709854|NCT02638337|169162055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.88|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||2.88|1.35|0.0004
84709855|NCT02638337|169162056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.67|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.67|0.30|0.4336
84709856|NCT02638337|169162056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.08|0.37|0.7672
84510999|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.38|1.78|< 0.001
84709857|NCT02638337|169162056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.89|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.89|0.39|0.7101
84709858|NCT02638337|169162057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|16.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||16.12|11.85|<0.0001
84709859|NCT02638337|169162057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|16.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||16.96|12.50|<0.0001
84511000|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.23|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||0.23|-0.23|0.997
84511001|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
84511002|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
84511003|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.06||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||0.31|-0.19|0.656
84709860|NCT02638337|169162057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.55|17.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||17.28|12.55|<0.0001
84709861|NCT02638337|169162058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||<0.0001
84709862|NCT02638337|169162058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||<0.0001
84709863|NCT02638337|169162058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||<0.0001
84709864|NCT02638337|169162059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||3.0|2.0|<0.0001
84511004|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.09|1.36|< 0.001
84511005|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.03|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.03|1.31|< 0.001
84511006|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.16|0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||0.38|-0.16|0.425
84709865|NCT02638337|169162059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||3.4|2.4|<0.0001
84511007|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.9|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.90|1.12|< 0.001
84511008|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.79|1.01|< 0.001
84511009|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||0.26|-0.32|0.841
84709866|NCT02638337|169162059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.4|2.2|<0.0001
84709867|NCT02638337|169162060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
84709868|NCT02638337|169162060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
84709869|NCT02638337|169162060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
84709870|NCT02638337|169162061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.8|0.0118
84709871|NCT02638337|169162062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||1.20|-1.17|0.9748
84709872|NCT02638337|169162062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||1.56|-1.18|0.7865
84709873|NCT02638337|169162062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.09|0.08|0.0392
84511010|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.52|0.69|< 0.001
84709874|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Desire||0.34|-0.02|0.0752
84709875|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Arousal||0.49|-0.10|0.1867
84709876|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Lubrication||0.73|0.07|0.0161
84709877|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Orgasm||0.48|-0.16|0.3400
84511011|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.55|0.72|< 0.001
84511012|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.98||95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||0.30|-0.30|0.980
84709878|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Satisfaction||0.41|-0.10|0.2195
84709879|NCT02638337|169162063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Pain||0.80|0.11|0.0103
84709880|NCT02638337|169162064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||0.6|-0.4|0.7230
84709881|NCT02638337|169162064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||0.9|-0.1|0.1104
84709882|NCT02638337|169162064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||0.9|-0.2|0.2448
84709883|NCT02638337|169162065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4388.3||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15214.8|6438.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||6438.3|-15214.8|0.4263
84709884|NCT02638337|169162066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.027|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.027|-0.071|<0.0001
84709885|NCT02638337|169162067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.58|0.5159
84709886|NCT02638337|169162068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-1.39|0.0227
84709887|NCT02638337|169162069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.34|0.0003
84709888|NCT02638337|169162070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-4.3|-8.1|<0.0001
84709889|NCT02638337|169162071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.35|-2.35|0.0084
84709890|NCT02638337|169162072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.19|-2.92|<0.0001
84709891|NCT02638337|169162073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.89|-7.64|<0.0001
84709892|NCT02638337|169162074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9575
84709893|NCT02638337|169162075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8772|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.8772
84709894|NCT02638337|169162076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0007
84709895|NCT01340066|169162084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|80.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.92
84511013|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.36|0.50|< 0.001
84511014|NCT02863575|168773383|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.35|0.50|< 0.001
84709896|NCT03338816|169162125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||P=6.040E-09|Negative binomial regression model|||Negative binomial regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (prior hemin prophylaxis status and historical attack rates) as fixed effects and the logarithm of the follow-up time as an offset variable.||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
84709897|NCT02252172|169162191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|<0.0001
84709898|NCT02252172|169162192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|1.80|<0.0001
84709899|NCT02252172|169162193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|2.42|<0.0001
84709900|NCT02252172|169162194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.59|||Fisher Exact|||||5.59|2.55|<0.0001
84709901|NCT02252172|169162195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.24|2.09|<0.0001
84709902|NCT02252172|169162196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.86|1.85|<0.0001
84709903|NCT02252172|169162197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.55|<0.0001
84709904|NCT02252172|169162198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
84709905|NCT02252172|169162201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
84709906|NCT02252172|169162202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
84709907|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cycle 3 Day 1||5.2|-0.4|=0.0986
84709908|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||4.4|-1.4|=0.3042
84709909|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||4.9|-1.2|=0.2339
84511015|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.21|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.21|-0.27|0.808
84511016|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.39|-0.30|0.804
84709910|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||6.3|0.2|=0.0365
84709911|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|||=|0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9||Cycle 24 Day 1|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.9|-1.6|=0.3093
84709912|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|||=|0.3481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5|-1.8|=0.3481
84709913|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|||=|0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||4.6|-2.6|=0.5825
84709914|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.4|-1|=0.1566
84709915|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||5.7|-2.2|=0.3858
84709916|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.8|||=|0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.0|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-3.5|=0.7296
84709917|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||3.3|-6|=0.5793
84709918|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.5|-6.1|=0.7756
84709919|NCT02252172|169162203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||7.4|-6|=0.8458
84709920|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||4.5|-0.5|=0.1176
84709921|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|||=|0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||5.4|0.2|=0.0336
84709922|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.6|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||5.3|-0.2|=0.0653
84709923|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.8|||=|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||8.5|3|=0.0000
84709924|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.8|-0.9|=0.1805
84709925|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5.7|-0.3|=0.0783
84709926|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||5.5|-0.8|=0.1422
84709927|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.2|||=|0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.5|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.5|-0.1|=0.0575
84709928|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||4.5|-2.4|=0.5339
84709929|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|||=|0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-2.4|=0.5015
84709930|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||6.3|-1.7|=0.2512
84709931|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.1|-5.1|=0.8246
84709932|NCT02252172|169162204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||4.5|-7|=0.6640
84709933|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016|||=|0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||0.046|-0.015|=0.3069
84709934|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.019|||=|0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||0.05|-0.013|=0.2472
84709935|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||0.044|-0.021|=0.4972
84709936|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.029|||=|0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||0.062|-0.004|=0.0841
84709937|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.027|||=|0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||0.062|-0.008|=0.1296
84709938|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.033|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||0.07|-0.003|=0.0762
84709939|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||=|0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||0.052|-0.025|=0.4859
84709940|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||0.051|-0.029|=0.6031
84709941|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.051|||=|0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||0.093|0.009|=0.0178
84709942|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007|||=|0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||0.053|-0.038|=0.7460
84709943|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.037|||=|0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||0.086|-0.012|=0.1394
84709944|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||0.068|-0.045|=0.6982
84511017|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hr||0.42|-0.27|0.676
84511018|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||0.35|-0.55|0.654
84511019|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.1|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.10|0.81|< 0.001
84709945|NCT02252172|169162205|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069|||=|0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||0.14|-0.001|=0.0543
84709946|NCT01017146|169162255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84709947|NCT01017146|169162255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84709948|NCT01017146|169162255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84709949|NCT01017146|169162256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||40.5|30.7|<0.001
84709950|NCT01017146|169162256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|28.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||28.3|19.6|
84709951|NCT01017146|169162257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||33.5|24.2|<0.001
84709952|NCT01017146|169162257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|19.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||19.9|12.4|
84709953|NCT00976495|169162275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-2.49|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.49|-13.34|
84709954|NCT00976495|169162275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|-2.06|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.06|-12.87|
84709955|NCT00976495|169162276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.31|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||2.31|-7.11|
84709956|NCT00976495|169162276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.08|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||8.08|-1.55|
84709957|NCT00976495|169162277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.63|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||0.63|-9.38|
84709958|NCT00976495|169162277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.99|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.99|-4.18|
84511020|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.2|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.20|0.91|< 0.001
84709959|NCT00976495|169162278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.71|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.71|-5.39|
84709960|NCT00976495|169162278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.93|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||12.93|1.70|
84709961|NCT02272816|169162279|OTHER||Percentage|95.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||98.6||||||||98.6||
84709962|NCT02272816|169162280|OTHER||Percentage|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|59.9||||||||59.9|30.2|
84709963|NCT02272816|169162281|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0||||||||100|92.6|
84709964|NCT04154384|169162283|SUPERIORITY|A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 3 months follow-up.||||||0.035||||||A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 12 weeks follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84709965|NCT05321069|169162296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.89||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|83.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 9 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||83.33|6.44|0.0222
84709966|NCT05321069|169162296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.83||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.26|107.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 18 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||107.39|30.26|0.0005
84709967|NCT05321069|169162297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group, baseline antifibrotic therapy use, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (hemoglobin-corrected) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.22|0.69|0.5443
84709968|NCT05321069|169162297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, baseline antifibrotic therapy, age, baseline Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) percent predicted, and baseline Diffusing Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (corrected for haemoglobin) as covariates. p-values not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.31|0.75|0.9512
84709969|NCT05321069|169162298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.67|0.76|0.5583
84709970|NCT05321069|169162298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.65|0.75|0.5896
84709971|NCT05321069|169162299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.36|0.70|0.9038
84511021|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.97|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||0.97|0.01|0.045
84511022|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|4.78|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.78|3.41|< 0.001
84511023|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.29|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.29|2.92|< 0.001
84511024|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.06|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||1.06|0.11|0.015
84511025|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|5.71|||ANOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.71|4.35|< 0.001
84709972|NCT05321069|169162299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.56|0.82|0.4687
84511026|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|5.12|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.12|3.76|< 0.001
84709973|NCT05321069|169162300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.25|0.74|0.7695
84511027|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.91|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||0.91|-0.03|0.066
84511028|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|5.89|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.89|4.54|< 0.001
84709974|NCT05321069|169162300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.10|0.64|0.2068
84709975|NCT05321069|169162301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.41|0.69|0.9251
84709976|NCT05321069|169162301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.26|0.62|0.4988
84709977|NCT05321069|169162302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.76|0.60|0.9084
84709978|NCT05321069|169162302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.43|0.46|0.4682
84709979|NCT05321069|169162303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 9mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.19|-3.20|0.3697
84709980|NCT05321069|169162303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 18mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.57|-2.83|0.5734
84709981|NCT05321069|169162304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.77|-2.98|0.9442
84709982|NCT05321069|169162304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.28|-3.47|0.6862
84709983|NCT05321069|169162305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.63|-2.25|0.8759
84709984|NCT05321069|169162305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.87|-2.02|0.7320
84709985|NCT05321069|169162306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.22|0.13|0.0280
84709986|NCT05321069|169162306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.78|0.68|0.0013
84709987|NCT05321069|169162307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||4.19|0.79|0.0042
84709988|NCT05321069|169162307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||3.37|-0.02|0.0530
84709989|NCT02412748|169162310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.962
84511029|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|5.45|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.45|4.10|< 0.001
84709990|NCT02412748|169162311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.982
84709991|NCT02412748|169162312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.534
84511030|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.32||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||0.81|-0.16|0.186
84511031|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|5.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.35|3.98|< 0.001
84709992|NCT02412748|169162313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.730
84709993|NCT02412748|169162314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.927
84709994|NCT02412748|169162315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.841
84709995|NCT02412748|169162316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.722
84709996|NCT02412748|169162317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.715
84709997|NCT02412748|169162318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.900
84709998|NCT02412748|169162319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.271
84709999|NCT02412748|169162320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.987
84710000|NCT02412748|169162321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.967
84710001|NCT02412748|169162322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.693
84710002|NCT02412748|169162323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.557
84710003|NCT02412748|169162324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.681
84511032|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.03|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.03|3.65|< 0.001
84710004|NCT02412748|169162325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.389
84511033|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.6|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||0.60|-0.43|0.750
84710005|NCT02412748|169162326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.846
84511034|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.87|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.87|3.40|< 0.001
84511035|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.79|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.79|3.32|< 0.001
84511036|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.26||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||0.81|-0.30|0.361
84511037|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.53|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.53|2.95|< 0.001
84511038|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.27|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.27|2.69|< 0.001
84710006|NCT02412748|169162327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.871
84710007|NCT02412748|169162328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.986
84710008|NCT02412748|169162329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.791
84710009|NCT02412748|169162330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.583
84710010|NCT02412748|169162331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.851
84710011|NCT02891915|169162361|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from the first 5 days and at Outcome Assessment Visit #1 (OAV #1). It is based on adequate clinical response at OAV #1, solicited symptoms from first 5 days and number of days of antibiotics use for worsening pneumonia from the first 5 days of the study.|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.75||Missing DOOR values at OAV #1 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.75|0.63|<0.001
84710012|NCT02891915|169162362|SUPERIORITY|Testing whether Short course is superior to Standard course based on DOOR at OAV #2|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.69||Missing DOOR values at OAV #2 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value.||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower numerical value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.69|0.57|<0.001
84710013|NCT02730871|169162399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
84710014|NCT02730871|169162400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
84710015|NCT02730871|169162401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
84710016|NCT02730871|169162402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 9:00||-0.2|-2.5|0.022
84710017|NCT02730871|169162402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-1.9|-3.9|<0.001
84710018|NCT02730871|169162403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.1|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 09:00||-1.1|-11.2|0.018
84710019|NCT02730871|169162403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-8.6|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-8.6|-17.8|<0.001
84710020|NCT05368558|169162405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|23.1||||||||23.1|-4.0|
84710021|NCT05368558|169162405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.4||||||||-1.4|-28.7|
84710022|NCT05368558|169162406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.7|
84710023|NCT05368558|169162406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-1.7|
84710024|NCT05368558|169162407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5||||||||7.5|-2.5|
84710025|NCT05368558|169162407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-8.0|
84710026|NCT05368558|169162408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-8.9|
84710027|NCT05368558|169162408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.1||||||||-4.1|-18.5|
84710028|NCT05368558|169162409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||||7.5|-1.0|
84710029|NCT05368558|169162409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-8.9|
84710030|NCT05368558|169162410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-0.9|
84710031|NCT05368558|169162410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-10.2|
84710032|NCT04994509|169162418|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is from a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
84710033|NCT04994509|169162418|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
84710034|NCT04994509|169162418|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.20697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 03: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.20697
84710035|NCT04994509|169162418|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.58674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 04: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.58674
84710036|NCT04994509|169162419|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.101||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|||0.101|0.000|< 0.0001
84710037|NCT04994509|169162419|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.198||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|2.143||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from a Poisson model.|||2.143|0.669|0.72820
84710038|NCT04994509|169162419|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the LEN group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|-1.685|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|-0.939||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.939|-2.737|<0.0001
84710039|NCT04994509|169162419|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the F/TAF group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|0.333||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|1.367||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||1.367|-0.869|0.20900
84710040|NCT04994509|169162421|SUPERIORITY||Exact Odds Ratio|9.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|83.36||p-value is from exact conditional logistic regression model.|ExactConditionalLogisticRegressionModel||Exact odds ratio and and CI are from exact conditional logistic regression model.|||83.36|2.06|0.0006
84710041|NCT04402294|169162424|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.71||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.50
84710042|NCT04402294|169162425|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.975
84710043|NCT04402294|169162426|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|2.05||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.097
84710044|NCT04402294|169162427|OTHER|Parametric Inferential Statistical Test|Group mean difference|0.63||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.644
84511039|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||0.98|-0.20|0.195
84710045|NCT04402294|169162428|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.84||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), and stimulation days (1 to 3) as within-subject variables.||||0.439
84710046|NCT04402294|169162429|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.59||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||Optimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-3, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-3||||0.563
84710047|NCT05768373|169162448|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.0|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||4.0|-3.4|
84710048|NCT05768373|169162449|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||5.3|-2.6|
84710049|NCT05768373|169162450|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||6.7|-3.2|
84710050|NCT05768373|169162451|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.4|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||7.4|-3.0|
84710051|NCT05768373|169162452|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||8.2|-4.4|
84710052|NCT05478525|169162454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-35.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.35|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-15.75|-54.35|0.0007
84710053|NCT05478525|169162454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.14||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|-3.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-3.97|-42.32|0.0193
84710054|NCT05478525|169162454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.64||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-2.96|-40.33|0.0243
84710055|NCT05478525|169162456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-155.68||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.35|-16.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-16.01|-295.35|0.0298
84710056|NCT05478525|169162456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-143.74||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-282.92|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-4.55|-282.92|0.0433
84710057|NCT05478525|169162456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-178.33||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.16|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-29.50|-327.16|0.0201
84511040|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|4.13|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||4.13|2.44|< 0.001
84511041|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.74|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||3.74|2.06|< 0.001
84710058|NCT05478525|169162457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.07||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.94|25.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||25.81|-119.94|0.1992
84710059|NCT05478525|169162457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.32||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||3.61|-144.26|0.0617
84710060|NCT05478525|169162457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.22|36.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||36.53|-116.22|0.2981
84715122|NCT04508309|169176876|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.942|2.903|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.903|1.942|
84710061|NCT03821844|169162473|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effects: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Scale (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|4.03|-1.37|< 0.05
84710062|NCT03821844|169162474|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||"The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates, an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. The reference category for the multinomial model for each outcome is None. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction."|0.09|0.03|< 0.05
84710063|NCT03821844|169162475|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Interaction Effect|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, nursing home corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Score (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|0.08|-0.30|< 0.05
84710064|NCT03821844|169162476|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.00|-7.22|< 0.05
84710065|NCT03821844|169162477|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.06|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.06|-7.55|< 0.05
84710066|NCT03821844|169162478|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.76|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|2.76|-5.28|< 0.05
84710067|NCT03821844|169162480|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.7|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Multilevel regression with covariates' adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control nursing home on depressive symptoms.|0.70|-1.14|< 0.05
84715123|NCT04508309|169176877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.022|1.539|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.539|1.022|
84710068|NCT03821844|169162481|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the behaviors of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.02|-0.03|< 0.05
84710069|NCT03821844|169162482|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.07|0.02|< 0.05
84511042|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.76|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||0.76|-0.49|0.669
84511043|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.31|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.31|1.53|< 0.001
84710070|NCT03821844|169162483|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.03|< 0.05
84710071|NCT03821844|169162484|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.04|< 0.05
84710072|NCT03821844|169162485|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.03|-0.02|< 0.05
84710073|NCT03821844|169162486|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment vs. control NH had on the behaviors and moods of NH residents. The models were implemented separately for each mood. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction. We will refer to this estimand as the marginal interaction effect (MIE), which is sometimes known as the Difference in Differences estimand.|0.01|-0.05|< 0.05
84710074|NCT03913195|169162489|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8299|1.2049||H0: P1 is not different from P2.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between the 30-second IV push and the 15-minute IV infusion.||1.2049|0.8299|1.0
84710075|NCT03913195|169162490|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval (CI) are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|mean geometric ratio|1.0315||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9478|1.1226|||SAS PROC MIXED|||The log transform of the ratio of the geometric means of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for 30 second IV Push and 15 minute IV infusion is compared.||1.1226|0.9478|0.5389
84511044|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.18|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.18|1.40|< 0.001
84511045|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||0.82|-0.46|0.581
84511046|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||3.00|1.18|< 0.001
84511047|NCT02863575|168773384|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||2.82|1.00|< 0.001
84710076|NCT03913195|169162492|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between IM and IV infusion.||1.08|0.69|0.34
84710077|NCT03899961|169162493|SUPERIORITY|Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.09||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median regression model for the change f|||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval||1.09|-1.09|0.05
84710078|NCT03547908|169162497|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment groups, achieved 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. For the sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 91% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-380-1489 and GS-US-380-1490), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.5|10.8|||||The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI)s were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.8|-2.5|
84710079|NCT03547908|169162497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||||0.2113
84710080|NCT03547908|169162498|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants provided 81% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. This assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 88% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-320-0108 and GS-US-320-0110), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|5.9|27.3|||||||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|27.3|5.9|
84710081|NCT03547908|169162498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was from CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||||||0.0023
84710082|NCT03547908|169162499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||8.3|-8.9|0.9427
84710083|NCT03547908|169162500|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|24.0||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|58.0|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||58|-10|0.1701
84710084|NCT03547908|169162501|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|30.0||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|74.0||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||74|-14|0.1853
84710085|NCT03547908|169162502|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.59||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.67|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.67|-0.49|0.2839
84710086|NCT03547908|169162503|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.13||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.46||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.46|-1.20|0.8456
84710087|NCT03547908|169162504|SUPERIORITY|P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||13.4|-8.3|0.6367
84710088|NCT03547908|169162505|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated from CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||35.7|-1.5|0.0655
84710089|NCT03547908|169162506|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|||32.6|-4.3|0.1253
84710090|NCT03547908|169162507|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative)and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the percentages between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||15.0|-0.8|0.0591
84710091|NCT03547908|169162508|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.3||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|19.2||P value was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL). Statistically significant values are shown in bold.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||19.2|-0.7|0.0655
84710092|NCT00567398|169162525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
84710093|NCT00567398|169162525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
84511048|NCT02863575|168773385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.028
84511049|NCT02863575|168773385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84511050|NCT02863575|168773385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84710094|NCT00567398|169162526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
84710095|NCT00567398|169162526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
84511051|NCT02863575|168773386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.861
84511052|NCT02863575|168773386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84511053|NCT02863575|168773386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84511054|NCT02863575|168773387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.838
84511055|NCT02863575|168773387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84511056|NCT02863575|168773387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
84511057|NCT04349917|168773394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
84511058|NCT04349917|168773395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.579
84511059|NCT04349917|168773395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.034
84511060|NCT04349917|168773396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG regular task||||0.296
84511061|NCT04349917|168773396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG reward task||||0.169
84710096|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
84710097|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
84710098|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
84710099|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
84710100|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
84710101|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
84710102|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
84710103|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
84710104|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
84710105|NCT00567398|169162528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
84710106|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
84710107|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
84710108|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
84710109|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
84710110|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
84710111|NCT00567398|169162529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
84710112|NCT00567398|169162530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
84710113|NCT00567398|169162530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
84710114|NCT00567398|169162530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
84710115|NCT00567398|169162530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
84710116|NCT00567398|169162531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
84710117|NCT00567398|169162531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
84710118|NCT00567398|169162532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
84710119|NCT00567398|169162533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
84710120|NCT00567398|169162533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
84710121|NCT00567398|169162533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
84710122|NCT00567398|169162533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
84710123|NCT00567398|169162534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
84710124|NCT00567398|169162534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
84710125|NCT00567398|169162534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
84710126|NCT00567398|169162534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84710127|NCT00567398|169162535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
84710128|NCT00567398|169162535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
84710129|NCT00567398|169162536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
84710130|NCT00567398|169162536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
84710131|NCT00567398|169162537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
84710132|NCT00567398|169162537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
84710133|NCT00567398|169162538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
84710134|NCT00567398|169162539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
84710135|NCT00567398|169162539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
84710136|NCT00567398|169162539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
84710137|NCT00567398|169162539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
84710138|NCT00567398|169162540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
84710139|NCT00567398|169162540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
84710140|NCT00567398|169162541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
84710141|NCT00567398|169162541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
84710142|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
84710143|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
84710144|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
84710145|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
84710146|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
84710147|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
84710148|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
84710149|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
84710150|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
84710151|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
84710152|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
84710153|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
84710154|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
84710155|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
84710156|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
84710157|NCT00567398|169162542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
84710158|NCT00567398|169162543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
84710159|NCT00567398|169162543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
84710160|NCT00567398|169162544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
84710161|NCT00567398|169162544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
84710162|NCT00567398|169162545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
84710163|NCT00567398|169162545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
84710164|NCT00567398|169162546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
84710165|NCT03517553|169162547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.999
84710166|NCT03517553|169162547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
84710167|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.869
84710168|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.813
84710169|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
84710170|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
84710171|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.703
84710172|NCT03517553|169162548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.909
84710173|NCT05145257|169162592|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710174|NCT05145257|169162593|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710175|NCT05145257|169162594|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710176|NCT05145257|169162595|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710177|NCT05145257|169162596|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710178|NCT05145257|169162597|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710179|NCT05145257|169162598|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710180|NCT05145257|169162599|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710181|NCT05145257|169162600|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710182|NCT05145257|169162601|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710183|NCT05145257|169162602|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710184|NCT05145257|169162603|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710185|NCT05145257|169162604|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710186|NCT05145257|169162605|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84511062|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.118
84710187|NCT05145257|169162606|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710188|NCT05145257|169162607|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84710189|NCT03467542|169162660|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The total number evaluated, the percent, and the Clopper-Pearson two-sided 95% confidence limits on the percent.|||
84710190|NCT05568004|169162670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.|||Statistical analysis was conducted by a researcher using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. The Shapiro-Wilk test and histograms evaluated the data for normal distribution, and the Levene test confirmed homogeneous variances between groups (p \> 0.05). Continuous data following a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare independent continuous data between groups, while the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. Friedman two-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables, while the two-way mixed ANOVA was used to examine the changes between groups over time. Before the two-way mixed ANOVA, boxplot evaluation confirmed no outliers. Mauchly's sphericity test showed that the assumption of sphericity for two-way interaction was met. Tukey's correction was used for pairwise subgroup comparisons.|||0.001
84710191|NCT05568004|169162670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||0.001
84710192|NCT05568004|169162670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.166
84710193|NCT05568004|169162671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.074
84710194|NCT05568004|169162671|SUPERIORITY|A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.074
84710195|NCT05568004|169162671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.311
84710196|NCT05568004|169162672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.018
84710197|NCT05568004|169162672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.152
84710198|NCT05568004|169162672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.438
84511063|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.022
84511064|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.220
84511065|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.496
84511066|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.343
84710199|NCT05568004|169162673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.135
84710200|NCT05568004|169162673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.203
84710201|NCT05568004|169162673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.593
84710202|NCT05568004|169162674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
84710203|NCT05568004|169162674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.021
84710204|NCT05568004|169162674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.081
84511067|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward RT variability||||0.988
84511068|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.892
84710205|NCT05568004|169162675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||<0.001
84710206|NCT05568004|169162675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
84710207|NCT05568004|169162675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.747
84511069|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.473
84511070|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.409
84511071|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.351
84511072|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.238
84511073|NCT04349917|168773397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs Change in GNG reward RT Variability||||0.909
84511074|NCT04349917|168773398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.806
84511075|NCT04349917|168773398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.003
84511076|NCT04349917|168773399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.093
84511077|NCT04349917|168773399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
84710208|NCT05568004|169162676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
84710209|NCT05568004|169162676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
84710210|NCT05568004|169162676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.05
84710211|NCT01820260|169162686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||To account for multiple testing, the 4 pairwise tests with corresponding vehicle group were performed using Bonferroni method testing at a 1.25% significance level, securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5%|Fisher Exact|||Complete clearance of AKs at Week 8 was to be analysed by log binomial regression with factors treatment group, anatomical location (face/chest or scalp) and analysis site. Due to the low numbers of subjects obtaining complete clearance in the vehicle groups,the proposed model did not converge and Fisher's exact test was used instead to compare active treatments with the respective vehicle arm.||||0.0002
84710212|NCT01820260|169162686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|||||see comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comment in analysis 1||||0.0037
84710213|NCT01820260|169162686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|||||See comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comments in analysis 1||||0.0171
84710214|NCT01820260|169162686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
84710215|NCT01820260|169162687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||To account for multiple testing among the secondary endpoints, a hierarchical order of testing was determined, where the following evaluation was done separately for each of the four active groups: Provided the primary endpoint was significant at a 1.25% level, the comparison to vehicle in terms of reduction in AK count from baseline to week 8 was tested at a 1.25% level. Provided this test was significant, the second secondary endpoint,partial clearance, was tested(vs. vehicle) at a 1.25% level||||< 0.001
84710216|NCT01820260|169162687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
84710217|NCT01820260|169162687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment analysis 1||||< 0.001
84710218|NCT01820260|169162687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
84710219|NCT01820260|169162688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of partial clearance of AK's at Week 8 was done in the same way as for the primary outcome (endpoint)||||<0.001
84710220|NCT01820260|169162688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84710221|NCT01820260|169162688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84710222|NCT01820260|169162688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84710223|NCT00894543|169162710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
84710224|NCT00894543|169162714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
84710225|NCT00894543|169162715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
84511078|NCT04349917|168773400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.075
84710226|NCT02058108|169162724|OTHER|Missing assessment imputed using the closest available assessment|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.03|36.75|||Fisher Exact|||HBV DNA level of \<300 copies/mL (51 IU/mL) at Week 24|Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage|36.75|-37.03|1.0000
84710227|NCT02058108|169162726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.43||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|74.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|ALT levels at Week 24||74.60|-14.62|0.2984
84710228|NCT02058108|169162727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg loss at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
84710229|NCT02058108|169162727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg seroconversion at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
84710230|NCT02058108|169162728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|42.17|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBsAg loss at Week 24||42.17|-37.54|1.0000
84710231|NCT02058108|169162731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|41.83|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|Treatment emergent genotypic resistance at Week 24||41.83|-37.05|1.0000
84710232|NCT00448669|169162794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat cohort. Primary safety end points included the frequency of adverse clinical or laboratory events.||||0.003
84710233|NCT00448669|169162795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Efficacy|62.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|83.4|||Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end point was the difference in the rates of HIV infection between participants assigned to receive TDF-FTC and those assigned to receive placebo. The primary hypothesis was that TDF-FTC, as compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of HIV infection by at least 65%, with a predefined lower boundary for the 95% confidence interval of 10%.||83.4|21.5|0.03
84511079|NCT04349917|168773400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
84710234|NCT00448669|169162796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|In this univariate model with the analysis of number of condomless sex acts, our model estimates the odds of reporting no condomless sex acts.||"A logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of reporting zero condomless sex acts. The longitudinal dependent variable (number of condomless sex acts) was defined as:~Number of condomless vaginal sexual acts with both casual and main partners among those who reported having had at least one sexual partner in the previous 30 days."||1.28|1.05|0.004
84710235|NCT00448669|169162797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test was performed to test for differences between the treatment groups in terms of adherence based on pill count.||||0.79
84710236|NCT04349072|169162853|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|58.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.989|73.868|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.868|43.989|<0.0001
84710237|NCT04349072|169162854|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|41.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.481|57.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.662|24.481|<0.0001
84710238|NCT04349072|169162855|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|14.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||14.041|4.868|<0.0001
84511080|NCT05628675|168773412|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.96||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on MAAS||0.96|-0.33|
84511081|NCT05628675|168773412|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.42||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on MAAS||1.42|0.02|
84511082|NCT05628675|168773413|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.01||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on P-PRFQ||1.01|-0.29|
84511083|NCT05628675|168773413|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.17||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on P-PRFQ||1.17|-0.20|
84710239|NCT04349072|169162856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.421|0.266|<0.0001
84710240|NCT04349072|169162857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.700|0.406|<0.0001
84710241|NCT04349072|169162858|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|-37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||||-26.24|-48.08|<0.0001
84710242|NCT04950127|169162865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly Itch score (MIS), Visit\*Baseline MIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.28|-1.15|0.001
84710243|NCT04950127|169162866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Week, Week\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Weekly Itch score (WIS), Visit\*Baseline WIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.34|-1.07|<0.001
84710244|NCT04950127|169162867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.07||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly sleep score (MSS), Visit\*Baseline MSS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.07|-0.98|0.024
84511084|NCT05628675|168773414|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.21||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on EPDS||2.21|0.75|
84511085|NCT05628675|168773414|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.88||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on EPDS||2.88|1.28|
84511086|NCT02532764|168773446|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|12.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|26.35||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||26.35|-0.54|0.0592
84511087|NCT02532764|168773446|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|19.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|32.64||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||32.64|5.62|0.0074
84511088|NCT02532764|168773446|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|14.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|27.83||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||27.83|0.64|0.0408
84511089|NCT02532764|168773446|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|17.6||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||17.60|-10.69|0.6193
84511090|NCT02532764|168773448|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|23.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|44.04||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||44.04|2.29|0.0321
84511091|NCT02532764|168773448|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|46.96||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||46.96|7.64|0.0100
84511092|NCT02532764|168773448|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|38.64||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||38.64|1.68|0.0346
84511093|NCT02532764|168773448|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|30.16||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||30.16|-8.47|0.2485
84511094|NCT02532764|168773450|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.79||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariate||10.79|-2.30|0.1938
84511095|NCT02532764|168773450|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|9.29||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||9.29|-3.79|0.3943
84511096|NCT02532764|168773450|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.07||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||7.07|-6.01|0.8688
84511097|NCT02532764|168773450|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|6.39||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||6.39|-7.41|0.8813
84710245|NCT04950127|169162868|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|4.0||||0.539||95.0|-9.0|17.0||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and less than \[\<\]7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains Bile Acid Binding Resin \[BABR\], Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||17.0|-9.0|0.539
84710246|NCT04950127|169162869|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||27.0|0.0|0.043
84710247|NCT04950127|169162870|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||24.0|-0.0|0.058
84710248|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Cognitive|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.86||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.86|-0.34|0.176
84710249|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Emotional|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.89|-0.36|0.403
84511098|NCT02532764|168773452|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|19.25||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|1.13|0.0301
84511099|NCT02532764|168773452|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|16.37||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.37|-0.39|0.0601
84710250|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Fatigue|Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.67||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||3.67|-0.48|0.132
84710251|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Itch|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.18|-1.34|0.132
84710252|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Social|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.27||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.27|-1.57|0.836
84710253|NCT04950127|169162871|SUPERIORITY|Symptoms|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.34|-0.44|0.318
84710254|NCT04950127|169162872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.2||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PGI-S score, Visit\*Baseline PGI-S score interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.20|-0.55|<0.001
84710255|NCT04950127|169162873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.21|-0.76|<0.001
84710256|NCT04315181|169162880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=6.89, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
84710257|NCT04315181|169162881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.51, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
84710258|NCT04315181|169162882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.61, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.138
84710259|NCT04315181|169162883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=8.15, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
84710260|NCT04315181|169162884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.58, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.0002
84710261|NCT00522951|169162885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||||95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.29|-0.87|
84710262|NCT00522951|169162885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|-0.23|0.36|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.36|-0.23|
84710263|NCT00522951|169162885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.1|-0.5|
84511100|NCT02532764|168773452|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.41||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.41|-4.40|0.3580
84710264|NCT00522951|169162885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||||95.0|0.02|0.41|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.41|0.02|
84710265|NCT02713126|169162901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
84710266|NCT02713126|169162902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84710267|NCT02713126|169162903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
84710268|NCT02713126|169162904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
84710269|NCT02713126|169162905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.496
84710270|NCT00100698|169162906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-0.5|||repeated measures mixed effects ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-38|0.049
84710271|NCT05480943|169162932|OTHER|chi-square tested correlation between CRP and thiamine deficiency.||||||0.6097||||||P\<=0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||For the subset of 123 participants with both C-reactive protein level and plasma thiamine levels (125 had C-reactive protein results but 2 were missing plasma thiamine levels), we used Chi-Square to test for association between those who were thiamine deficient and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. A priori hypothesis was that inflammation would cause thiamine deficiency due to increased metabolic demands.||||0.6097
84710272|NCT01424670|169162942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562||||||For testing the null hypothesis, the distribution of the time to SCC within the 6-month Intensive Period were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the stratified modified Peto-Peto modification of Gehan's Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Modified Peto-Peto test|||Comparison of distributions of time to SCC using the MGIT culture system during the 6-month (26-week) Intensive Period.||||0.0562
84710273|NCT01424670|169162943|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.096||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 2 months.||1.352|0.889|0.3818
84710274|NCT01424670|169162943|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.017||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.115|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 6 months.||1.115|0.927|0.7131
84710275|NCT01424670|169162944|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.969||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.084|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 18.||1.084|0.866|0.5945
84511101|NCT02532764|168773452|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|11.55||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|-5.13|0.4224
84710276|NCT01424670|169162944|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.97||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.089|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 24.||1.089|0.864|0.6164
84710277|NCT01424670|169162944|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
84710278|NCT01424670|169162945|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.965||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.073|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportions with favorable treatment outcomes assessed by the Principal Investigator.||1.073|0.869|0.5269
84710279|NCT01424670|169162947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical comparison of mean AUC of change from Baseline.||1.3|-1.9|0.6986
84511102|NCT01475838|168773453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|6.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||13.7|0.4|0.025
84710280|NCT01424670|169162948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6825|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 1.||||0.6825
84710281|NCT01424670|169162948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 2.||||0.807
84710282|NCT01424670|169162948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 3.||||0.269
84710283|NCT01424670|169162948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2333|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 24.||||0.2333
84710284|NCT01424670|169162948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Month 6.||||0.9397
84710285|NCT01424670|169162949|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with treatment success at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
84710286|NCT00709098|169162979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean group difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.1|-7.0|<0.0001
84710287|NCT02119650|169162983|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.509|1.51|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test and stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS).||||1.51|0.509|0.7562
84710288|NCT02269475|169162988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.3|100.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||100.0|-1875.3|
84710289|NCT02269475|169162989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|43.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||43.0|7.4|
84710290|NCT01303445|169162993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.03||||||90.0|86.95|97.4||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||97.40|86.95|
84710291|NCT01303445|169162993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.3||||||90.0|87.76|97.08||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||97.08|87.76|
84710292|NCT01303445|169162994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|96.38||||||90.0|90.96|102.13||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||102.13|90.96|
84710293|NCT01303445|169162994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|97.03||||||95.0|93.26|100.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||100.95|93.26|
84710294|NCT01303445|169162995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.32|99.72||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.72|98.32|
84710295|NCT01303445|169162995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|98.42||||||90.0|97.66|99.18||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.18|97.66|
84710296|NCT01303445|169162996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|105.55||||||90.0|97.09|114.74||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||114.74|97.09|
84511103|NCT00771537|168773468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 1-sided message group accepted testing at a lower rate (79.4%) than those in the control group (87.4%).|||.96|.50|0.05
84710297|NCT01303445|169162996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|106.09||||||90.0|98.64|114.09||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||114.09|98.64|
84710298|NCT01303445|169162997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.38||||||90.0|98.8|99.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.95|98.80|
84710299|NCT01303445|169162997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.46|99.59||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.59|98.46|
84710300|NCT04924062|169162999|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.08|0.51|
84710301|NCT04924062|169163000|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.19|0.58|
84710302|NCT04924062|169163001|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|21.6|||||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||21.6|-7.5|
84511104|NCT00771537|168773468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided trivial group were no different in their acceptance rate of HIV testing (81.3%) than women in the control group (87.4%).|||1.04|.54|.10
84710303|NCT03611153|169163023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.040
84710304|NCT03611153|169163025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
84710305|NCT03611153|169163026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.805
84710306|NCT03611153|169163026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.148
84710307|NCT03611153|169163026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.090
84710308|NCT03611153|169163027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.786
84710309|NCT03611153|169163027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.796
84710310|NCT03611153|169163027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.703
84710311|NCT03611153|169163028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
84710312|NCT03611153|169163029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.669
84710313|NCT04899115|169163051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84710314|NCT04899115|169163052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used because data was not normal.||||||0.48
84710315|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
84710316|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.45
84511105|NCT00771537|168773468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided major group were no different in rates of accepting HIV testing (83.9%) than women in the control group (87.4%)|||1.30|.65|.63
84511106|NCT00771537|168773469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|2.56|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = (1,978)|There was no significant effect for the 1-sided message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-way Analysis of Variance||2.56|2.42|<.60
84710317|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived usefulness of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
84710318|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
84710319|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84710320|NCT03655132|169163078|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived usefulness of VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
84710321|NCT03655132|169163079|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for waitlist control group participants only (n=22).|Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
84710322|NCT03655132|169163079|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for VACT-CP group.||||.59
84710323|NCT03655132|169163080|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
84710324|NCT03655132|169163080|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
84710325|NCT03655132|169163081|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
84710326|NCT03655132|169163081|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
84710327|NCT03655132|169163082|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.64
84710328|NCT03655132|169163082|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.30
84710329|NCT03655132|169163083|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.75
84710330|NCT03655132|169163083|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.60
84511107|NCT00771537|168773469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|2.58|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,1028)|There was no significant effect for the 2-sided trivial message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.58|2.44|<.25
84511108|NCT00771537|168773469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.54|||ANOVA||There was no significant effect for the 2-sided major message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.54|2.40|<.91
84511109|NCT00262223|168773475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.6||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.23|||Generalized Estimating Equations|Negative binomial models with log link were applied to the alcohol consumption measure.||Between group analyses were conducted of time-by-treatment interaction that included the four study time points (baseline, end-of-treatment, 6-mos and 12-mos).||4.23|0.61|0.34
84710331|NCT05919082|169163085|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value are obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA. Wald CI was presented.|||1.99|1.01|0.0438
84710332|NCT05919082|169163086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.12|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.12|1.10|0.0108
84710333|NCT05919082|169163087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.19|1.07|0.0199
84710334|NCT02991534|169163179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.152|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.152|1.030|.003
84710335|NCT02991534|169163180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|0.976|0.91
84710336|NCT02991534|169163181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.165|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.165|.959|.265
84710337|NCT02991534|169163182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|1.002|0.015
84511810|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|3.6||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.6|-8.82|0.409
84710338|NCT00792636|169163228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-3.2|
84710339|NCT00792636|169163228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3|||||Diastolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.3|-2.2|
84710340|NCT00792636|169163228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.4|-3.4|
84710341|NCT00792636|169163228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.6|-2.0|
84710342|NCT00792636|169163229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8|||||Systolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.8|-3.4|
84710343|NCT00792636|169163229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-2.6|
84710344|NCT00792636|169163230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.4|-1.6|
84710345|NCT00792636|169163230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.2|
84710346|NCT00792636|169163231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.7|
84710347|NCT00792636|169163231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.5|-0.9|
84710348|NCT00792636|169163236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
84710349|NCT00792636|169163236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
84710350|NCT00792636|169163237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|0.6|
84710351|NCT00792636|169163237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||||||||2.2|0.7|
84710352|NCT00792636|169163238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.6||||||||13.6|0.1|
84710353|NCT00792636|169163238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.6||||||||25.6|0.3|
84710354|NCT00792636|169163239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||||3.7|0.5|
84710355|NCT00792636|169163239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2||||||||4.2|0.6|
84710356|NCT00792636|169163240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||||||||1.54|0.84|
84710357|NCT00792636|169163240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83||||||||1.83|1.01|
84710358|NCT00792636|169163241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||||||||1.21|0.65|
84710359|NCT00792636|169163241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||||||||1.60|0.88|
84710360|NCT01046136|169163243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value is from a logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and center||Investigator's End-of-Study Assessment NOTE: All assessments of efficacy were considered exploratory and were given equal consideration, and were carried out on both the MITT and PP populations. LOCF method was applied to missing post baseline measurements in analyses of the MITT population.||||0.0096
84710361|NCT01046136|169163245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from a Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the two treatment groups.||||||0.0293
84710362|NCT01095796|169163328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.6|8.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48 in the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the response rate in the Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla Group.||8.8|-1.6|
84710363|NCT00999167|169163336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression adjusting for country|||||||0.0354
84511110|NCT00262223|168773476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Parameter Estimate|-16.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.18|-1.13||A trend-level time-by-treatment interaction (p = .096) was probed for simple effects, which revealed a significantly greater reduction in CAPS scores at end-of-treatment in the SS+Sertraline group relative to the SS+Placebo group.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were utilized to model PTSD outcomes. This method is an extension of the generalized linear model that handles correlated data arising from repeated measurements, requires no parametric distribution assumption, and provides robust inference with respect to misspecification of the within-subject correlation. A temporal within-subjects autoregressive \[AR(1)\] correlation matrix was used to model participants across timepoints.||-1.13|-31.18|0.04
84511111|NCT00437658|168773482|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.7|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||12.7|-13.4|0.9630
84511112|NCT00437658|168773482|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-12.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.8|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||1.8|-26.7|0.1010
84511113|NCT00437658|168773483|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|9.5||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|24.2|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||24.2|-5.2|0.2048
84511114|NCT00437658|168773483|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|0.5||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.0|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||16.0|-15.1|0.9544
84710364|NCT00999167|169163337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0214
84710365|NCT00999167|169163338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.047
84710366|NCT00999167|169163339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and Day 56.||||0.0713
84710367|NCT00999167|169163339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and the Final Visit.||||0.2520
84710368|NCT00274469|169163340|NON_INFERIORITY|Study is powered basing on 20% deficiency in benefit rate for Fulvestrant compared to Anastrozole.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.302||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.38||Null hypothesis: Fulvestrant has no difference with Anastrozole|Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||2.380|0.717|0.386
84710369|NCT00274469|169163341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.874|||Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.874|0.556|0.947
84710370|NCT00274469|169163342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6266||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3929|0.9991|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.9991|0.3929|0.0496
84710371|NCT00274469|169163343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.00|0.54|0.05
84710372|NCT00274469|169163343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTTF controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.98|0.52|0.04
84710373|NCT00274469|169163344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.92|0.47|0.01
84710374|NCT00274469|169163344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTP (investigator assessed) controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.90|0.46|0.01
84710375|NCT00274469|169163345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.50|0.041
84511115|NCT00437658|168773486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-4.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.8|-6.2|< 0.0001
84710376|NCT00274469|169163345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of OS controlling for baseline covariates|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.08|0.54|0.126
84710377|NCT04238247|169163346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.876119||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193531|2.949084||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|We conducted logistic regression adjusted for randomization strata (recommended CRS and reason for eligibility).||We hypothesized the intervention group would have greater child passenger safety guideline adherence at 6 months compared with enhanced usual care group. In planning the trial, we assumed 75% of TCBD caregivers would be re-randomized. Baseline randomization was stratified by recommended CRS (rear-facing seat, forward-facing seat, booster seat) and reason for eligibility (not using the recommended CRS at baseline or planning a premature transition in the next 6 months).||2.949084|1.193531|0.006
84710378|NCT04238247|169163347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8686678||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4535589|1.663695||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is limited to the Phase 2 participants who were re-randomized at 6 months to test the hypothesis that the enhanced intervention (with booster MI session) would have greater guideline adherent child passenger safety behaviors at 12 month follow-up than the group that continued in the basic intervention (mHealth components).||1.663695|0.4535589|0.671
84710379|NCT04238247|169163347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.859599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.173121|14.82896|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.82896|3.173121|<0.001
84710380|NCT04238247|169163350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74029||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049169|2.886676||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.886676|1.049169|0.032
84710381|NCT04238247|169163351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112874||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735782|2.159233||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.159233|0.5735782|0.752
84710382|NCT04238247|169163351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.959981|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.321933|19.07362|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.07362|3.321933|<0.001
84710383|NCT03833167|169163352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.07243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||1.10|0.53|0.07243
84710384|NCT03833167|169163353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.48|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||2.48|0.87|
84710385|NCT03833167|169163354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|2.09||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||2.09|-8.91|0.2227
84710386|NCT03833167|169163355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.42||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||1.42|-7.19|0.1874
84511811|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|3.18||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.18|-9.24|0.338
84511116|NCT00437658|168773486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.5|-5.8|< 0.0001
84710387|NCT03811535|169163390|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Height velocity at week 52 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, gender, age group, region, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group by region interaction term as factors, and baseline height as covariate.||0.2|-1.1|
84710388|NCT03811535|169163391|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, region, GH peak group and gender by age group by region interaction terms as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||0.2|-1.1|
84511117|NCT00437658|168773486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-4.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.6|-6.0|< 0.0001
84710389|NCT02140645|169163419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.624|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710390|NCT02140645|169163420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistcs|0.597|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710391|NCT02140645|169163421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.0858|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710392|NCT02140645|169163422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.623|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710393|NCT02140645|169163423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.1753|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710394|NCT02140645|169163424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.699|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710395|NCT02140645|169163425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.683|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710396|NCT02140645|169163426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.757|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710397|NCT02140645|169163427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84511118|NCT00437658|168773487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.0|-5.1|<0.0001
84710398|NCT02140645|169163428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710399|NCT02140645|169163429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.733|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710400|NCT02140645|169163430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.827|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710401|NCT02140645|169163431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.801|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710402|NCT02140645|169163432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.836|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
84710403|NCT06647238|169163434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84710404|NCT02794480|169163449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||<0.001
84710405|NCT02794480|169163449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||0.007
84710406|NCT02794480|169163454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI||||2.42|<0.001
84710407|NCT02794480|169163454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI||||1.59|0.011
84710408|NCT02814838|169163455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.42|||Student's t test for unpaired samples|||Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.42|-0.14|0.3303
84710409|NCT02814838|169163456|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|0.0984||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2028|0.3995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FUP week 26||0.3995|-0.2028|0.517
84710410|NCT02814838|169163456|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0486||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4294|0.3322|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FUP week 52||0.3322|-0.4294|0.7999
84511119|NCT00437658|168773487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.0|<0.0001
84511120|NCT00437658|168773487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.1|< 0.0001
84710411|NCT02814838|169163457|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|12.0411||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3823|31.4644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||31.4644|-7.3823|0.2224
84710412|NCT02814838|169163457|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|8.4803||||0.3931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0935|28.0541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||28.0541|-11.0935|0.3931
84710413|NCT02814838|169163457|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.9502||||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5476|16.6473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||16.6473|-22.5476|0.7664
84710414|NCT02814838|169163458|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.048||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1257|0.0298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0298|-0.1257|0.2225
84710415|NCT02814838|169163458|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0369||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1596|0.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.0858|-0.1596|0.551
84710416|NCT02814838|169163458|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.063||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1712|0.0453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0453|-0.1712|0.2501
84710417|NCT02814838|169163459|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.1494||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7514|0.4526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FU week 13||0.4526|-0.7514|0.6252
84710418|NCT02814838|169163459|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2804||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8904|0.3297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 26||0.3297|-0.8904|0.366
84710419|NCT02814838|169163459|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2063||||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3992|0.8118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 52||0.8118|-0.3992|0.5026
84710420|NCT02814838|169163460|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0242||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0658|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0658|-0.0174|0.2527
84710421|NCT02814838|169163460|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0236||||0.2743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0188|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.066|-0.0188|0.2743
84511121|NCT00437658|168773488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
84710422|NCT02814838|169163460|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0059||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.0367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0367|-0.0485|0.7856
84710423|NCT02814838|169163461|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0253||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5986|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.548|-0.5986|0.9307
84710424|NCT02814838|169163461|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.7236||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2989|-0.1483|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||-0.1483|-1.2989|0.0139
84710425|NCT02814838|169163461|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.5979||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1775|-0.0184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||-0.0184|-1.1775|0.0432
84511122|NCT00437658|168773488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.6|< 0.0001
84511123|NCT00437658|168773488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.4|-1.9|< 0.0001
84511124|NCT00437658|168773489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
84710426|NCT02814838|169163463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1171|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.1171
84710427|NCT02814838|169163463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6586|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.6586
84710428|NCT02814838|169163463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.5056
84710429|NCT02814838|169163464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0779|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.0779
84710430|NCT02814838|169163464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.0248
84511125|NCT00437658|168773489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84511126|NCT00437658|168773489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.5|-1.1|< 0.0001
84710431|NCT02814838|169163464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4504|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.4504
84511127|NCT00437658|168773490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
84511128|NCT00437658|168773490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
84710432|NCT02814838|169163465|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.1402||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|0.4819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 13||0.4819|-0.2015|0.4163
84710433|NCT02814838|169163465|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.177||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2039|0.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||0.558|-0.2039|0.3575
84710434|NCT02814838|169163465|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.0451||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3948|0.4851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||0.4851|-0.3948|0.8386
84710435|NCT02814838|169163466|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||=|0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 13||0.75|-0.09|= 0.1114
84710436|NCT02814838|169163466|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.502|||=|0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 26||0.98|0.02|= 0.0411
84710437|NCT02814838|169163466|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||=|0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 52||0.82|-0.37|= 0.4506
84710438|NCT02814838|169163467|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3631||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 13 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.908|-0.1817|0.1847
84710439|NCT02814838|169163467|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6304||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0609|1.1998|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||1.1998|0.0609|0.031
84511129|NCT00437658|168773490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
84710440|NCT02814838|169163467|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1639||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5202|0.8479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.8479|-0.5202|0.6299
84710441|NCT02814838|169163468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13||||0.163
84710442|NCT02814838|169163468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||0.0074
84710443|NCT02814838|169163468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4437
84710444|NCT00593489|169163469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Poisson Regression|||The IPR was analyzed using Poisson regression with the intervention group as a class effect and the mean HbA1c at baseline as a covariate||1.24|0.8|0.96
84710445|NCT05048186|169163617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||we tested to see whether SDM Process scores were different between patients who received the Decision Aid Arm vs the control arm||0.236|-0.116|0.503
84710446|NCT00976937|169163626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|11.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 or \>=8.0%) and randomization strata of screening BMI (\<35 or \>=35 kg/m\^2) was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To demonstrate the superiority of lixisenatide over sitagliptin, 150 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% with a 2-sided test at the 5% significance level, assuming the percentage of patients defined as responders on HbA1c (\<7%) and weight (at least 5% loss) is 25% with lixisenatide and 10% with sitagliptin.||11.00|-1.84|0.1696
84710447|NCT03069313|169163644|OTHER|Paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84710448|NCT03069313|169163645|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84710449|NCT03069313|169163646|OTHER|This analysis is comparing SWB before and after treatment.||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
84511130|NCT00437658|168773491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
84511812|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|7.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||7.08|-5.59|0.817
84710450|NCT03069313|169163646|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing EWB before and after treatment.||||0.056
84710451|NCT03069313|169163646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing PWB before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
84710452|NCT03069313|169163646|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing FWB before and after treatment.||||0.09
84710453|NCT03069313|169163646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing ESS before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
84710454|NCT04218266|169163648|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.67||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in all bleeding||0.67|0.26|
84710455|NCT04218266|169163650|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
84710456|NCT04218266|169163651|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.83||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH minor bleeding||0.83|0.28|
84710457|NCT04218266|169163652|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97|||Other|||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH major bleeding or CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
84710458|NCT01227265|169163677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35|||cLDA|||||0.35|-0.72|0.4933
84710459|NCT01227265|169163677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.21|||cLDA|||||0.21|-0.86|0.2364
84710460|NCT01227265|169163678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|18.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.05|-4.17|0.244
84710461|NCT01227265|169163678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|17.61||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.61|-4.63|0.262
84710462|NCT01227265|169163679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.63|||cLDA|||||0.63|-0.47|0.776
84710463|NCT01227265|169163679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||cLDA|||||0.67|-0.44|0.683
84710464|NCT01227265|169163683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||cLDA|||||0.61|-0.92|0.6968
84710465|NCT01227265|169163683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.97|||cLDA|||||0.97|-0.57|0.6142
84710466|NCT04623775|169163684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.0||||||||3.0|-16.0|
84710467|NCT04623775|169163685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|0.94|
84710468|NCT04491968|169163726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||proportional hazard regression|||||.90|.37|.02
84710469|NCT04491968|169163727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.96|||proportional hazard regression|||||.96|.18|.04
84710470|NCT02396199|169163744|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|0.917||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.827|||One-sided test|Fisher Exact||Exact test, One-sided 95%, with lower limit (0.827)||||0.827|0.006
84710471|NCT04995484|169163764|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.43|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||2.43|0.95|
84710472|NCT04995484|169163765|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.42|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.42|0.84|
84710473|NCT04995484|169163766|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.26|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.26|0.76|
84710474|NCT03743636|169163771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.57||||0.0775|ONE_SIDED|90.0|1.77||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||1.77|0.0775
84710475|NCT03743636|169163772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.3762|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.24||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-11.24|0.3762
84710476|NCT03743636|169163773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.42||||0.0294|ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.31||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||7.31|0.0294
84710477|NCT03743636|169163774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.63||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|90.0|6.26||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||6.26|0.0336
84710478|NCT03743636|169163775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.562|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-16.51||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-16.51|0.5620
84710479|NCT03743636|169163776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93||||0.8797|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-29.15||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-29.15|0.8797
84710480|NCT03743636|169163777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24||||ANCOVA||||||0.24|0.0752
84710481|NCT03743636|169163778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA||||||-15.19|0.8703
84710482|NCT03743636|169163779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA||||||-2078|0.1402
84710483|NCT03743636|169163780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.1249|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.21||||ANCOVA||||||-0.21|0.1249
84710484|NCT03743636|169163781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.8039|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.62||||ANCOVA||||||-12.62|0.8039
84710485|NCT03743636|169163782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-842.0||||0.5352|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13125.0||||ANCOVA||||||-13125|0.5352
84710486|NCT03743636|169163783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.5777|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.46||||ANCOVA||||||-2.46|0.5777
84710487|NCT03743636|169163784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.69||||ANCOVA||||||-5.69|0.3662
84710488|NCT03743636|169163785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11837.0||||0.8866|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24396.0||||ANCOVA||||||-24396|0.8866
84710489|NCT03743636|169163786|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.25||||0.0153|ONE_SIDED|90.0|10.43|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 3-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||10.43|0.0153
84710490|NCT03743636|169163787|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.05||||0.1195|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.25||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 6-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||-1.25|0.1195
84710491|NCT03743636|169163788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||0.24|0.0752
84710492|NCT03743636|169163789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-15.19|0.8703
84710493|NCT03743636|169163790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-2078|0.1402
84710494|NCT03743636|169163791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA||||||-81.20|0.8401
84710495|NCT03743636|169163792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
84511131|NCT00437658|168773491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
84511132|NCT00437658|168773491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84511133|NCT00437658|168773492|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.0|< 0.0001
84511134|NCT00437658|168773492|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
84710496|NCT03743636|169163793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA||||||-4.47|0.2378
84710497|NCT03743636|169163794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.1589|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.86||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-1.86|0.1589
84710498|NCT03743636|169163794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
84710499|NCT03743636|169163795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.25||||0.3724|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-31.79||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-31.79|0.3724
84710500|NCT03743636|169163795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-81.20|0.8401
84710501|NCT03743636|169163796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.5558|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.52||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-9.52|0.5558
84710502|NCT03743636|169163796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-4.47|0.2378
84710503|NCT03743636|169163797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA||||||-8.97|0.7112
84710504|NCT03743636|169163798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA||||||-13.31|0.9449
84710505|NCT03743636|169163799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.5409|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.57||||ANCOVA||||||-6.57|0.5409
84710506|NCT03743636|169163800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35||||0.7814|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.89||||ANCOVA||||||-8.89|0.7814
84710507|NCT03743636|169163801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.5884|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.07||||ANCOVA||||||-7.07|0.5884
84710508|NCT03743636|169163802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||0.1787|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.6||||ANCOVA||||||-1.60|0.1787
84710509|NCT03743636|169163803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-8.97|0.7112
84710510|NCT03743636|169163804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-13.31|0.9449
84710511|NCT05485922|169163805|SUPERIORITY|Number of flow-stop episodes will be analysed, in a generalized linier mixed model, with subject included as a random component. Evidence of superior effect will be concluded, if the lower 95% confidence limit of the risk ratio between comparator and investigational device, is more than 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|0.05|<0.05
84710512|NCT05485922|169163806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|53.91||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||53.91|14.69|0.05
84710513|NCT05485922|169163807|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.44|0.05|0.05
84710514|NCT05485922|169163808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.69|-53.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The intra-catheter pressure at flow stop was analysed in a general linear mixed model with subject included as a random component.||-53.70|-137.69|0.05
84710515|NCT05485922|169163809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|13.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.51|-11.10|0.05
84710516|NCT05485922|169163810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, modelling the probability of a positive outcome. Evidence of effect in favour of the MHZC was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) of the odds ratio, O.R. was less than 1.||0.96|0.07|0.05
84710517|NCT05343390|169163829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.1|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||25.1|16.1|<0.001
84710518|NCT05343390|169163830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||16.4|5.9|<0.001
84511135|NCT00437658|168773492|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
84511136|NCT00437658|168773493|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-25.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-25.4|-39.2|< 0.0001
84511137|NCT00437658|168773493|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-26.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-26.4|-39.4|< 0.0001
84511138|NCT00437658|168773493|OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-28.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-28.6|-43.0|< 0.0001
84511139|NCT00437658|168773494|OTHER||Least squares mean|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-13.1||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-13.1|-23.3|< 0.0001
84511140|NCT00437658|168773494|OTHER||Least squares mean|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-18.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-18.5|-28.3|< 0.0001
84511141|NCT00437658|168773494|OTHER||Least squares mean|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-12.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-12.7|-23.1|< 0.0001
84511142|NCT03952143|168773506|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.07|0.321
84511143|NCT03952143|168773507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-21.9|<0.001
84710519|NCT05343390|169163831|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.60|0.93|0.14
84511144|NCT03952143|168773508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-12.6|||ANCOVA|||||-12.6|-30.9|<0.001
84511145|NCT03952143|168773509|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.86||||||||2.86|0.02|
84511146|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.66||||||For ≤30 minutes post meal||1.66|0.49|
84511147|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31||||||For ≤ 1 hour post meal||2.31|0.79|
84511148|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42||||||For \>1 to ≤2 hours post meal||2.42|1.06|
84511149|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.23||||||For ≤2 hours post meal||2.23|1.05|
84511150|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||For \>2 to ≤4 hours post meal||1.39|0.69|
84511151|NCT03952143|168773510|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.57||||||For ≤4 hours post meal||1.57|0.84|
84511152|NCT03952143|168773511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.53||||||||0.53|-1.10|
84511153|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2||||||For Morning Premeal||7.2|-2.8|
84511154|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0||||||For Morning 1-hour Postmeal||2.0|-12.6|
84511155|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.7||||||For Morning 2-hour Postmeal||1.7|-12.5|
84511156|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.1||||||For Midday Premeal||10.1|-1.8|
84511157|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.1||||||For Midday 1-hour Postmeal||8.1|-5.7|
84511158|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||||||For Midday 2-hour Postmeal||8.9|-5.1|
84710520|NCT05343390|169163832|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.71|1.10|0.006
84710521|NCT05343390|169163833|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||4.40|1.19|0.013
84710522|NCT05343390|169163834|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.92|1.10|0.01
84710523|NCT05343390|169163835|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.76|0.94|0.12
84710524|NCT02278562|169163838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.37
84710525|NCT02278562|169163838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933.||||0.955
84710526|NCT02742519|169163882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2121
84710527|NCT01872078|169163915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|87.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|129.47||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||129.47|58.52|
84710528|NCT01872078|169163915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.41|116.16||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||116.16|53.41|
84710529|NCT01872078|169163915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|47.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.73|70.36||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||70.36|32.73|
84710530|NCT01091168|169163935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided. Confidence intervals on the median were calculated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals were reported. A stratified Cox proportional model was performed to compare the two treatment arms taking into account the stratification factors (except centre) used at the time of randomisation.||1.25|0.86|0.673
84710531|NCT01091168|169163936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Log Rank|||The disease control rate (DCR) were compared in the ITT population and in the population evaluable for response between the 2 arms with a cochran Mantel Haenszel, stratified on WHO performance status at baseline, number of prior chemotherapy lines for the treatment of disease and disease measurability at Baseline.||||0.0424
84710532|NCT01091168|169163937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Log Rank|||PFS was compared between the 2 treatment arms by the log-rank test procedure with the 5 % significant level, stratified on the stratification factors (except study site) as specified at the time of randomisation. Os was analysed using Kaplan-Meir method and summarized with median and 95% CI of the median||1.12|0.8|0.4927
84710533|NCT03690206|169163983|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-2.28||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-3.83|0.0039
84710534|NCT03690206|169163983|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-0.91||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-2.52|0.2700
84710535|NCT03690206|169163984|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|26.6||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.9|4.3|0.0243
84710536|NCT03690206|169163984|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|5.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|-16.2|0.6255
84710537|NCT03690206|169163985|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|31.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.9|11.4|0.0043
84710538|NCT03690206|169163985|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|13.3||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|-5.4|0.1675
84710539|NCT03690206|169163987|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|14.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|2.5|0.0160
84710540|NCT03690206|169163987|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|11.2||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|0.7|0.0424
84710541|NCT02349412|169164029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|7.13|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.13|-0.67|0.104
84710542|NCT02349412|169164030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.77|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.77|-1.54|0.188
84710543|NCT02349412|169164031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.09|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Depression score||||2.09|-0.94|0.884
84710544|NCT02349412|169164032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Anxiety score||||-0.07|-1.54|0.033
84710545|NCT02349412|169164033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84710546|NCT04505774|169164041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6778
84710547|NCT04505774|169164041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6292
84710548|NCT04505774|169164041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6858
84710549|NCT04505774|169164041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1351
84710550|NCT04505774|169164042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1959|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1959
84710551|NCT04505774|169164042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9496
84710552|NCT04505774|169164042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9902
84710553|NCT04505774|169164042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0814
84710554|NCT04505774|169164043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84710555|NCT04505774|169164043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84710556|NCT04505774|169164043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84710557|NCT04505774|169164044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0577
84511159|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.6||||||For Evening Premeal||20.6|7.6|
84511160|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.1||||||For Evening 1-hour Postmeal||9.1|-5.1|
84710558|NCT04505774|169164044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5015
84710559|NCT04505774|169164044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5892
84710560|NCT04505774|169164044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1714
84710561|NCT04505774|169164045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0732
84710562|NCT04505774|169164045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9018
84710563|NCT04505774|169164045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5075
84710564|NCT04505774|169164045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1450
84710565|NCT04505774|169164046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8837
84710566|NCT04505774|169164046|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84710567|NCT04505774|169164046|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84710568|NCT04505774|169164046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5343
84710569|NCT04505774|169164047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6636
84710570|NCT04505774|169164047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5878
84710571|NCT04505774|169164047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7148
84710572|NCT04505774|169164047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1117
84710573|NCT04505774|169164048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6780
84710574|NCT04505774|169164048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6638
84710575|NCT04505774|169164048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7645
84710576|NCT04505774|169164048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0987
84710577|NCT04505774|169164049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4016
84710578|NCT04505774|169164049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5815
84710579|NCT04505774|169164049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.9085
84710580|NCT04505774|169164049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0820
84710581|NCT04505774|169164050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3135
84710582|NCT04505774|169164050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9581
84710583|NCT04505774|169164050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9661|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9661
84710584|NCT04505774|169164050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1073
84710585|NCT04505774|169164051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3575
84710586|NCT04505774|169164051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5910
84710587|NCT04505774|169164051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8670
84710588|NCT04505774|169164051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0645
84710589|NCT04788537|169164052|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model regression|Slope|-1.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope reported is for Time x Group Interaction|||||.006
84710590|NCT00739648|169164074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.39|||Regression, Linear|negative binomial regression model||||1.39|0.86|0.7282
84710591|NCT00739648|169164076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.9768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.66|-27.8|0.9768
84710592|NCT00739648|169164077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-24.9|0.9464
84710593|NCT04850807|169164109|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|6.0|-6.9|<0.05
84710594|NCT04850807|169164110|SUPERIORITY||Average Marginal Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.26|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.26|-0.06|<0.05
84710595|NCT04850807|169164111|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|10.2|-2.3|<0.05
84710596|NCT04850807|169164112|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Results are adjusted for baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~The model includes a random intercept for nursing home."|5.6|-8.5|<0.05
84710597|NCT04850807|169164113|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|0.1|-9.8|<0.05
84710598|NCT04850807|169164115|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.41|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI/PHQ-9 model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS/PHQ-9 model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.41|-1.03|<0.05
84710599|NCT05141903|169164144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||(Dose group \* Time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 369 F Value = 24.31||Dose Group 2 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
84710600|NCT05141903|169164144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 370 F value = 14.87||Dose Group 3 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
84710601|NCT05141903|169164144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose Group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 351 F value = 8.606||Dose Group 2 (with HMO) B. infantis levels compared to dose Group 3 (without HMO) with changes over time||||<0.0001
84710602|NCT05387447|169164159|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
84710603|NCT05387447|169164160|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
84710604|NCT05387447|169164162|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
84511161|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||||||For Evening 2-hour Postmeal||6.8|-7.3|
84511162|NCT03952143|168773512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1||||||For Bedtime||8.1|-4.7|
84511163|NCT03952143|168773513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.4||||||For Total Daily Insulin Dose||5.4|0.1|
84511164|NCT03952143|168773513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||For Daily Basal Insulin Dose||1.5|0.0|
84511165|NCT03952143|168773513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||||||For Daily Prandial Insulin Dose||4.5|-0.5|
84710605|NCT05387447|169164163|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
84710606|NCT02697136|169164212|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study. Using an assumed standard deviation of 4.5% and a 2:1 randomization scheme to maximize exposure to active drug, 16 completing patients in the CER-001 group and 8 in the placebo group (24 total completers for mITT) would yield 90% power to detect a difference from baseline versus placebo of 6.7%, using two-tailed testing with α=0.05.|Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.9|0.185
84710607|NCT02697136|169164213|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.4|0.217
84710608|NCT02697136|169164214|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.6|0.832
84710609|NCT04281485|169164263|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|=|0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|1.64|-1.46|=0.9116
84710610|NCT04281485|169164264|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|85.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|122.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||122.35|49.15|=0.0002
84511166|NCT03952143|168773514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.52|0.69|0.924
84511167|NCT03952143|168773514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.49|0.64|0.908
84710611|NCT04281485|169164265|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|51.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.43|71.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||71.49|31.43|<0.0001
84710612|NCT04281485|169164266|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Ratio of LS Means|0.64|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||||MMRM approach for log transformed data including visits through Week 52 where serum CK concentration was assessed with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction, and with additional fixed effects for natural log of baseline (continuous variable), screening age covariate (continuous variable), natural log of baseline by visit interaction, and screening age covariate by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.81|0.50|=0.0002
84710613|NCT04281485|169164267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||=|0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.62|||Binomial regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with logit link \& contains fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) \& screening age (continuous variable).|4.62|0.64|=0.2784
84710614|NCT04281485|169164268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||Binomial Regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with a logit link and contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).|1.28|0.63|=0.5437
84710615|NCT04281485|169164269|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|=|0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.083|-0.242|=0.3343
84710616|NCT04281485|169164270|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|=|0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.045|-0.052|=0.8826
84710617|NCT04281485|169164271|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|5.24|-1.22|=0.2190
84710618|NCT04281485|169164272|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|=|0.7096||95.0|-4.79|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|7.00|-4.79|=0.7096
84710619|NCT04093752|169164299|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority (NI) boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-1.29||||||||-1.29|-1.69|
84710620|NCT04093752|169164299|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.34||||||||-1.34|-1.74|
84710621|NCT04093752|169164300|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.09||||||||-1.09|-1.49|
84710622|NCT04093752|169164301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.6|-7.4|<0.001
84710623|NCT04093752|169164301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.6|-9.5|<0.001
84710624|NCT04093752|169164301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-9.6|<0.001
84710625|NCT04093752|169164302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|23.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.64|8.94|<0.001
84710626|NCT04093752|169164302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|49.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.49|16.72|<0.001
84710627|NCT04093752|169164302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.88|42.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.95|14.88|<0.001
84511168|NCT01866319|168773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.46|<0.00001
84710628|NCT04093752|169164303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|1327.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1327.81|5.13|0.002
84710629|NCT04093752|169164303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|1997.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||1997.01|7.79|<0.001
84710630|NCT04093752|169164303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|184.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|2950.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||2950.73|11.59|<0.001
84511169|NCT01866319|168773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.47|<0.00001
84710631|NCT04093752|169164304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-18.3|<0.001
84511170|NCT01866319|168773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.75869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||1.21|0.77|0.75869
84710632|NCT04093752|169164304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-26.1|<0.001
84710633|NCT04093752|169164304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-24.6|<0.001
84710634|NCT04093752|169164305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.3|-40.1|<0.001
84710635|NCT04093752|169164305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.6|-46.7|<0.001
84710636|NCT04093752|169164305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-47.9|<0.001
84710637|NCT04093752|169164306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|41.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.20|11.63|<0.001
84710638|NCT04093752|169164306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|83.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.50|22.96|<0.001
84710639|NCT04093752|169164306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.34|92.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.49|25.34|<0.001
84710640|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
84710641|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.43|-1.11|<0.001
84710642|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.36|-1.05|<0.001
84710643|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.18|-0.46|0.384
84710644|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.16|-0.49|0.307
84710645|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.11|-0.55|0.184
84710646|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.59|1.03|<0.001
84710647|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.41|0.84|<0.001
84710648|NCT04093752|169164307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.47|0.89|<0.001
84511171|NCT01866319|168773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.00052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.83|0.47|0.00052
84710649|NCT01101451|169164309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6976||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.192||the pre\_specified nominal significance level was 0.0451 (one sided).|Log Rank||The RFS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.192|0.408|0.0927
84710650|NCT01101451|169164310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.199|||||The OS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.199|0.286|
84710651|NCT00715884|169164359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null inferiority hypothesis was that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is equal or greater than the non-inferiority margin 5%. The alternative non-inferiority hypothesis for this study assumed that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval would be less than the non-inferiority margin 5%.|Difference between TLF rates|2.58|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.55||In the CYPHER® ELITE™ arm the TLF rate was 5.36% (23/429) compared with 2.78% (6/216) in the CYPHER® Bx VELOCITY® arm, a difference in rates of 2.58%, upper limit of 95% two sided confidence interval of 5.55%.||||Sample sizes of 1,061 from the ELITE™ group and 531 from the CYPHER® group were planned to achieve 90 percent power at a 2.5 percent significance level using an one-sided equivalence test, assuming a 10 percent TLF rate in each group and the maximum allowable rate difference between the groups being 5 percent. The total sample size was increased to 1,770 patients to account for an approximately 90 percent compliance to clinical follow-up.||5.55||
84710652|NCT00715884|169164360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.0|-1.3|0.549
84710653|NCT00715884|169164361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|9.2|<.001
84710654|NCT00715884|169164362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.7||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-2.2|0.724
84710655|NCT00715884|169164363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-3.5|0.407
84710656|NCT00715884|169164364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.11||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|4.48|||Fisher Exact|||||4.48|-0.84|0.203
84511172|NCT01866319|168773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.90|0.52|0.00358
84511173|NCT01866319|168773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.51319||95.0|0.67|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||1.22|0.67|0.51319
84710657|NCT00715884|169164365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.28|||Fisher Exact|||||5.28|-1.24|0.22
84710658|NCT00715884|169164366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.83||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|-1.28|0.166
84710659|NCT00715884|169164367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|5.85|||Fisher Exact|||||5.85|-1.35|0.200
84710660|NCT00715884|169164368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|11.56||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||||24.64|-3.73|0.140
84710661|NCT00715884|169164369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|5.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|10.83|||Fisher Exact|||||10.83|-2.03|0.170
84710662|NCT00715884|169164370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.43|||Fisher Exact|||||5.43|-5.61|1.0
84710663|NCT00715884|169164371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|1.63|||Fisher Exact|||||1.63|-1.92|1.0
84710664|NCT00715884|169164372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.49||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.91|||Fisher Exact|||||2.91|-2.73|0.801
84710665|NCT00715884|169164373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.92||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.60|-3.56|0.341
84710666|NCT00715884|169164374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||||1.28|-2.14|1.00
84511174|NCT01866319|168773518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|16.1||||0.00013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.5|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||24.5|7.8|0.00013
84511175|NCT01866319|168773518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|17.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|25.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||25.6|9.5|0.00002
84511176|NCT01866319|168773518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-1.1||||0.82636||95.0|-10.6|8.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||8.6|-10.6|0.82636
84511177|NCT02731157|168773519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
84511178|NCT00832377|168773678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 peak IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84511179|NCT00832377|168773679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 trough IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84511180|NCT00832377|168773680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 8-HR IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84511181|NCT03249584|168773685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An improvement from baseline to 3 months post radiofrequency ablation in worst pain score will be demonstrated with an outcome which is statistically lower than zero.||||<0.0001
84511182|NCT00765648|168773719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-0.6|||Chi-squared|||||-0.6|-18.0|0.04
84511183|NCT00765648|168773720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84511184|NCT00765648|168773721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84511185|NCT00765648|168773722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84511186|NCT00765648|168773723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84511187|NCT00765648|168773724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84511188|NCT01062256|168773725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.10|0.64|0.216
84511189|NCT01062256|168773725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.18|0.72|0.513
84511190|NCT01062256|168773725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.38|0.87|0.459
84511191|NCT01062256|168773726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.09|0.65|0.195
84511192|NCT01062256|168773726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.16|0.71|0.438
84511193|NCT01062256|168773726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.34|0.87|0.497
84511194|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.12|0.64|0.250
84511195|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.25|0.75|0.802
84511196|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.39|0.94|0.188
84710667|NCT00715884|169164375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.47||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.96|||Fisher Exact|||||1.96|-1.72|0.668
84710668|NCT03580369|169164410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|-5.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.428|-10.576|<.0001
84511197|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.04||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.04|0.58|0.091
84511198|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.19|0.69|0.465
84710669|NCT03580369|169164410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.169|2.513|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.513|-1.169|0.7628
84710670|NCT03580369|169164410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.522|-5.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.047|-10.522|<.0001
84710671|NCT03580369|169164410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|2.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.538|-1.118|0.7768
84710672|NCT03580369|169164412|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.667|12.095|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.095|2.667|<.0001
84710673|NCT03580369|169164412|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.180|0.598|0.8430
84710674|NCT03580369|169164412|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.734|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|12.207|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.207|2.694|<.0001
84710675|NCT03580369|169164412|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|0.848||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.188|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.188|0.605|0.8312
84710676|NCT03580369|169164413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.271|-1.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||-1.929|-4.271|<.0001
84710677|NCT03580369|169164413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.258|-0.419|0.8366
84710678|NCT03580369|169164413|SUPERIORITY|Adults|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.295|-1.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-1.966|-4.295|<.0001
84710679|NCT03580369|169164413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.222|-0.444|0.8201
84710680|NCT03580369|169164415|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.656|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||4.656|1.621|<.0001
84710681|NCT03580369|169164415|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.836||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.159|0.603|0.8586
84710682|NCT03580369|169164415|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.929|5.513|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||5.513|1.929|<.0001
84710683|NCT03580369|169164415|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.373|0.717|0.5190
84710684|NCT03580369|169164416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.48|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.480|1.183|<.0001
84710685|NCT03580369|169164416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.975||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.051|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.051|0.904|0.7469
84710686|NCT03580369|169164416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.54|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.540|1.230|<.0001
84710687|NCT03580369|169164416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.014||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.092|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.092|0.941|0.3586
84710688|NCT02910713|169164420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-9.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-9.40|-17.31|<0.0001
84710689|NCT02910713|169164421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-0.80|<0.0001
84710690|NCT05059262|169164564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|49.6||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on Interactive Response Technology (IRT).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT|||49.6|28.4|<0.0001
84511199|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.46|0.92|0.207
84511200|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.06|0.62|0.122
84511201|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.07|0.66|0.165
84511202|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.32|0.83|0.711
84710691|NCT05059262|169164565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|77.3||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||77.3|57.0|<0.0001
84710692|NCT05059262|169164566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.6||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.3||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.)+joint type (knee, ankle, or other)+the most impaired ROM baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.3|4.0|0.0077
84511813|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.43||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.43|-8.37|0.544
84710693|NCT05059262|169164567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+PROMIS-PF baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||5.2|1.4|0.0007
84710694|NCT05059262|169164568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+Worst Stiffness NRS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
84710695|NCT05059262|169164569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.4||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+VAS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||13.4|1.4|0.0155
84710696|NCT05059262|169164570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in responder rate|26.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||42.8|9.5|0.0056
84710697|NCT02549339|169164599|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.31|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||25.31|2.26|0.001
84710698|NCT02549339|169164600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.54|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.54|3.30|<0.001
84710699|NCT02549339|169164601|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|10.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.20|3.24|<0.001
84710700|NCT02549339|169164602|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.35||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.35|0.25|<0.001
84710701|NCT04838262|169164625|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
84710702|NCT04838262|169164625|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
84710703|NCT03526861|169164632|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.3|5.3|0.002
84710704|NCT03526861|169164632|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|26.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.6|8.4|<0.001
84710705|NCT03526861|169164633|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.0|12.0|<0.001
84710706|NCT03526861|169164633|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.6|12.4|<0.001
84511203|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.11|0.64|0.215
84710707|NCT03526861|169164634|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 2.5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|31.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.1|12.3|<0.001
84710708|NCT03526861|169164634|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|29.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||29.2|10.6|<0.001
84710709|NCT03526861|169164635|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-12.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-12.2|-27.1|<0.001
84710710|NCT03526861|169164635|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-10.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-10.4|-25.6|<0.001
84710711|NCT03526861|169164636|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.7|-4.5|0.007
84511814|NCT02087904|168775418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.86||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||3.86|-8.91|0.437
84710712|NCT03526861|169164636|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.1|-3.9|0.040
84511204|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.16|0.67|0.367
84710713|NCT03526861|169164639|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||50.2|26.8|<0.001
84710714|NCT03526861|169164639|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|44.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.1|20.6|<0.001
84710715|NCT03526861|169164640|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.2|5.2|0.002
84710716|NCT03526861|169164640|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||24.1|6.5|<0.001
84710717|NCT03526861|169164641|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.5|<0.001
84710718|NCT03526861|169164641|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.6|<0.001
84710719|NCT03526861|169164642|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|18.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||18.4|4.5|0.002
84710720|NCT03526861|169164642|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|23.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||23.3|7.8|<0.001
84710721|NCT03526861|169164643|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||36.3|16.1|<0.001
84511815|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|4.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.92|-9.31|0.545
84710722|NCT03526861|169164643|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|35.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||35.7|15.3|<0.001
84710723|NCT03526861|169164644|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
84710724|NCT03526861|169164644|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.3|-2.1|0.007
84710725|NCT03526861|169164645|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.0|9.7|<0.001
84710726|NCT03526861|169164645|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.7|10.9|<0.001
84710727|NCT03526861|169164646|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.6|-8.4|<0.001
84710728|NCT03526861|169164646|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-3.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.0|-7.9|<0.001
84710729|NCT04382898|169164656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1041
84710730|NCT04382898|169164662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.0541
84710731|NCT05956002|169164663|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.33|98.12|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2mg clinical IR tablet mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.12|91.33|
84710732|NCT05956002|169164663|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|98.34|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.34|91.69|
84710733|NCT05956002|169164663|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|88.92|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.92|82.90|
84710734|NCT05956002|169164663|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|96.84|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||96.84|89.76|
84710735|NCT05956002|169164664|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|97.89|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.89|90.97|
84710736|NCT05956002|169164664|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.41|98.2|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.20|91.41|
84710737|NCT05956002|169164664|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.43|88.55|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.55|82.43|
84710738|NCT05956002|169164664|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|97.1|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.10|89.61|
84710739|NCT05956002|169164665|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|99.22|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||99.22|90.38|
84710740|NCT05956002|169164665|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.59|97.04|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.04|88.59|
84710741|NCT05956002|169164665|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|91.31|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||91.31|83.35|
84710742|NCT05956002|169164665|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.24|97.17|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.17|88.24|
84710743|NCT05873751|169164720|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
84710744|NCT05873751|169164721|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
84710745|NCT05873751|169164722|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
84710746|NCT05873751|169164723|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
84710747|NCT02323321|169164726|OTHER|The primary hypothesis for this study is that the true (success) proportion of transplanted patients meeting the primary effectiveness endpoint, patient survival at day 30 post-transplantation and absence of severe PGD (left or right ventricle) in the first 24 hours post-transplantation, is greater than the Performance Goal value of 0.65.|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|94.4|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||94.4|78.4|<0.0001
84710748|NCT05198310|169164762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.01||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.13|0.0470
84710749|NCT05198310|169164762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.21||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.92|0.2124
84710750|NCT05198310|169164762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.13||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-1.28|0.1091
84710751|NCT05198310|169164763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||t-test|||||||0.0312
84710752|NCT05198310|169164763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test|||||||0.0338
84710753|NCT05198310|169164767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0333
84710754|NCT05198310|169164767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1905|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.1905
84710755|NCT05198310|169164767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.65|0.90|0.0716
84511205|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.35|0.82|0.687
84710756|NCT05198310|169164767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.67|0.50|0.4710
84710757|NCT05198310|169164767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|22.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.88|1.62|0.0057
84710758|NCT05198310|169164768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0762|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0762
84710759|NCT05198310|169164768|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.000
84710760|NCT05198310|169164768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.62|0.49|0.4172
84710761|NCT05198310|169164768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.45|0.55|0.3144
84710762|NCT05198310|169164768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.28|0.9560
84710763|NCT05198310|169164769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.4667
84710764|NCT05198310|169164769|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.0000
84710765|NCT05198310|169164769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.30|0.17|0.5789
84710766|NCT05198310|169164769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.10|0.62|0.0799
84710767|NCT05198310|169164769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.35|0.06|0.1034
84710768|NCT04970654|169164838|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was higher than the margin of -2.0 cm/year.|Treatment difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Hypothetical strategy estimand. Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group interaction term as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.3|-0.2|
84710769|NCT04757610|169164846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.284421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-3.10|0.284421
84710770|NCT04757610|169164846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.066678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.13|||MMRM|||||0.13|-3.90|0.066678
84710771|NCT03811366|169164851|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||significance when p\<0;05|generalized estimated equation|generalized estimated equation with normal distribution and logarithmic link function||||||<0.001
84710772|NCT03811366|169164854|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Recurrence or worsening of cells in anterior chamber in ERG-stable and ERG worsening group.||||0.054
84710773|NCT03811366|169164855|OTHER|||||||0.478||||||17 eyes presented dark dots fluctuation during follow up in stable ERG group when compared to 5 eyes in worsening ERG group.|generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with Poisson distribution and identity link function supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.478
84710774|NCT03811366|169164857|OTHER|9 (52.9%) eyes in ERG stable group x 4 (57.1%)eyes presented change in perivascular leakage during follow up (p=0.936).||||||0.936|||||||Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||Change in perivascular leakage in ERG-stable and ERG- worsening groups.||||0.936
84710775|NCT03811366|169164858|OTHER|||||||0.853||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||||||0.853
84710776|NCT03811366|169164859|OTHER|||||||0.272||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.272
84511206|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.32|0.67|0.730
84710777|NCT03811366|169164860|OTHER|||||||0.983||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation with bino|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.983
84710778|NCT05338086|169164869|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91||Mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD as a continuous covariate.||||0.91|-0.51|
84511207|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.39|0.74|0.923
84710779|NCT05338086|169164870|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms for treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD included as a continuous covariate.|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD results was pooled using Rubin's methods and presented with 95% CI.|||0.74|-0.69|
84710780|NCT05338086|169164873|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set mFAS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric LS mean ratios contained in acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%).|Ratio of Geometric means|99.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.99|108.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including log-transformed baseline sCTX as a continuous covariate with treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||108.52|91.99|
84710781|NCT05338086|169164874|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity with respect to PD was concluded if the 95% CI for the test (MB09) to reference (EU-Prolia) ratios of the geometric LS means was contained within the \[80.00%, 125.00%\] interval.|Ratio of Geometric means|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.31|102.02|||ANCOVA|||||102.02|96.31|
84710782|NCT05338086|169164875|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.83|109.71|||ANCOVA|Cmax was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||109.71|98.83|
84710783|NCT05338086|169164876|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|106.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|112.66|||ANCOVA|AUC0-6 months was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||112.66|99.84|
84710784|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.96|-83.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||"It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.~The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to Week 25 in the total WOMAC score."||-83.65|-274.96|0.00030
84710785|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~1\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
84710786|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~2\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group A (NOLTREX™) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
84710787|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-216.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.01||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.37|-21.25||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~3\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-21.25|-411.37|0.0233
84710788|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|142.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.89||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.63|355.22||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~4\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||355.22|-70.63|0.3082
84710789|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~5\) versus Group B (Placebo) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
84710790|NCT03897686|169164907|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~6\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
84710791|NCT03897686|169164908|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|S-means difference|-143.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.88||0.00267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.09|-50.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.||-50.69|-236.09|0.00267
84710792|NCT03897686|169164909|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-13.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.16786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.096|5.638||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 3 (week 6)||5.638|-32.096|0.16786
84511208|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.40|0.83|0.573
84511209|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.16|0.61|0.289
84511210|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.18|0.64|0.379
84511211|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.37|0.79|0.785
84710793|NCT03897686|169164909|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-26.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.00847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-6.93||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 4 (week 13)||-6.93|-46.46|0.00847
84710794|NCT03897686|169164909|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.29||0.00123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.31|-13.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-13.62|-54.31|0.00123
84710795|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.121||0.97733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|9.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 3||9.980|-10.271|0.97733
84710796|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.00693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-4.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 4||-4.04|-24.95|0.00693
84710797|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.00073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-6.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-6.92|-25.44|0.00073
84710798|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1||0.07725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.62|6.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 3||6.33|-120.62|0.07725
84710799|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-103.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.92||0.00279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.35|-36.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 4||-36.20|-170.35|0.00279
84710800|NCT03897686|169164910|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-133.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.26||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.03|-63.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 5||-63.55|-203.03|0.00023
84710801|NCT03897686|169164911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
84710802|NCT03897686|169164912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
84710803|NCT03897686|169164914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 3 (week 6).||||0.050
84710804|NCT03897686|169164914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 4 (week 13).||||0.004
84710805|NCT04052516|169164917|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszal test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.63|0.62|0.2991
84710806|NCT04052516|169164917|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.08|0.80|0.1386
84710807|NCT05386355|169164940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.35|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||5.35|0.59|
84710808|NCT05386355|169164941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||1.65|0.42|
84710809|NCT05386355|169164942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The analytical method was based on a linear mixed model adjusting for baseline SAGE vaccine hesitancy composite scores and random clinic effect.||||0.73|-1.19|0.638
84710810|NCT06143670|169164943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84710811|NCT06143670|169164944|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-14.1|-19.6|<0.0001
84710812|NCT06143670|169164945|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-13.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.1|-18.9|<0.0001
84710813|NCT06143670|169164945|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-15.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-15.3|-19.9|<0.0001
84710814|NCT06143670|169164946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.20|-0.35|<0.0001
84710815|NCT06143670|169164946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.26|<0.0001
84511212|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.60|0.194
84511213|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.62|0.212
84710816|NCT06143670|169164946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.22|-0.36|<0.0001
84710817|NCT06143670|169164947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.16|-0.28|<0.0001
84710818|NCT06143670|169164947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.10|-0.21|<0.0001
84710819|NCT06143670|169164947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.18|-0.30|<0.0001
84710820|NCT06143670|169164948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.10|-0.15|<0.0001
84710821|NCT06143670|169164948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.17|<0.0001
84710822|NCT06143670|169164948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.11|-0.16|<0.0001
84710823|NCT06143670|169164949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.53|-0.74|<0.0001
84710824|NCT06143670|169164949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.56|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.56|-0.74|<0.0001
84710825|NCT06143670|169164949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.58|-0.77|<0.0001
84710826|NCT04690673|169164950|EQUIVALENCE|Based on previous reports on the pharmacokinetics of oral paracetamol, the standard deviation of the within-subject difference in the Cmax for paracetamol was estimated to be 35% of the mean Cmax. Using this standard deviation, 10 participants were estimated to be sufficient, with a power of at least 80% (at 5% significance level). We recruited 12 volunteers to account for potential protocol violations or dropouts.|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the analysis was exploratory|t-test, 2 sided||Adhering|Highest paracetamol concentrations (Cmax) measured from capillary with the electrochemical method compared with measurements with mass-spectrometry.||1.13|0.94|0.05
84710827|NCT04173663|169164987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.27||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the parental empowerment scale.||||||.092
84710828|NCT04173663|169164988|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.62||||1.54e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.0000154
84710829|NCT04173663|169164989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.014
84710830|NCT04173663|169164990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||0.883
84710831|NCT04173663|169164991|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (6 month post intervention)||||.308
84710832|NCT04173663|169164991|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (12 month post intervention)||||.355
84710833|NCT04173663|169164992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.699
84710834|NCT04173663|169164992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.573
84511214|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.34|0.77|0.901
84511215|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.23|0.70|0.600
84511216|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.29|0.74|0.853
84511217|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.39|0.79|0.736
84511218|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.30|0.70|0.744
84511219|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.33|0.72|0.904
84511220|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.39|0.77|0.828
84511221|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.08|0.59|0.147
84511222|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.16|0.65|0.345
84511223|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.44|0.83|0.532
84511224|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.15|0.61|0.261
84511225|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.24|0.69|0.601
84511226|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.47|0.84|0.470
84511816|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|6.81||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.81|-7.65|0.909
84710835|NCT04173663|169164992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.430
84710836|NCT04173663|169164992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.391
84511227|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.32|0.71|0.834
84710837|NCT04173663|169164993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (6 month post intervention)||||.510
84710838|NCT04173663|169164993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (12 month post intervention)||||.296
84511817|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|3.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.25|-11.23|0.278
84710839|NCT04173663|169164994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.361
84710840|NCT04173663|169164995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (6 month post intervention)||||.810
84710841|NCT04173663|169164995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (12 month post intervention)||||.678
84710842|NCT04173663|169164996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site and cohort,||||||.924
84710843|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0105
84710844|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.03|-0.14|0.0134
84710845|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3495
84710846|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex right||0.04|-0.07|0.7008
84710847|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6635
84710848|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.07|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.07|-0.09|0.8792
84710849|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.02|-0.15|0.0419
84710850|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.01|-0.12|0.1658
84511818|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||5.92|-8.42|0.732
84511228|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.43|0.81|0.628
84511229|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.48|0.83|0.481
84710851|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6673
84710852|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % Change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.14|0.0778
84710853|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3258
84511230|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.37|0.65|0.749
84511231|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.35|0.70|0.857
84511232|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.41|0.76|0.847
84511233|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.09|0.54|0.146
84710854|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.04|-0.07|0.5954
84710855|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.04|-0.08|0.5911
84710856|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.08|-0.11|0.8283
84710857|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.01|-0.12|0.1797
84710858|NCT03854578|169165033|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.04|-0.08|0.5772
84710859|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0147
84710860|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.13|0.0480
84710861|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||-0.02|-0.12|0.0294
84710862|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||-0.02|-0.13|0.0359
84710863|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||-0.06|-0.19|0.0022
84710864|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.00|-0.15|0.1040
84511234|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.29|0.69|0.702
84710865|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.06|-0.18|0.0022
84511235|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.69|0.88|0.228
84710866|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||-0.02|-0.14|0.0331
84511236|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.09|0.51|0.130
84511237|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.21|0.60|0.371
84511238|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.58|0.82|0.430
84511239|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.13|0.51|0.177
84511240|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.28|0.64|0.580
84511241|NCT01062256|168773727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.7||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.70|0.84|0.333
84710867|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.02|-0.11|0.2149
84710868|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||0.05|-0.08|0.6896
84710869|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.06|0.4769
84710870|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.05|-0.07|0.7680
84710871|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.06|-0.08|0.7997
84710872|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.06|-0.08|0.8334
84710873|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.05|-0.07|0.7402
84710874|NCT03854578|169165034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.08|-0.06|0.8120
84710875|NCT04172441|169165045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-5.21||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with dasiglucagon = weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with placebo||-2.13|-8.29|0.0037
84710876|NCT04172441|169165046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-30.93||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.8|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: Total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with dasiglucagon = total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with placebo||-5.05|-56.80|0.0238
84511242|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.08|0.264
84511243|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.14|-0.20|0.737
84710877|NCT04549168|169165095|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.795||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.008||Data was analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM), and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR).|MMRM|||||1.008|0.627|0.0585
84710878|NCT04549168|169165096|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|9.81||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.81|4.39|<0.0001
84710879|NCT04549168|169165097|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-8.51||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-8.51|-27.16|0.0002
84710880|NCT04549168|169165098|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.776||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.93||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||0.930|0.647|0.0063
84710881|NCT04549168|169165099|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.49||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.39||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||8.39|0.59|0.0242
84710882|NCT04549168|169165100|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.36||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|4.22||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||4.22|-24.95|0.1625
84710883|NCT04549168|169165101|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.815||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.001||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||1.001|0.663|0.0515
84710884|NCT04549168|169165102|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|9.86||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.86|5.61|<0.0001
84710885|NCT04549168|169165103|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-21.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-14.35||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-14.35|-28.15|<0.0001
84710886|NCT04549168|169165105|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-1.25||Based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.45|0.0006
84710887|NCT04549168|169165106|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.78||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.70|0.0005
84710888|NCT04549168|169165108|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.65|0.03|0.0312
84710889|NCT04549168|169165108|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.32||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.76|-0.11|0.1460
84710890|NCT04549168|169165108|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.29||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.70|-0.12|0.1613
84710891|NCT04549168|169165108|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.65|-0.19|0.2852
84710892|NCT04204278|169165109|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84710893|NCT04204278|169165110|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-Value was calculated||||||<0.0001
84710894|NCT04204278|169165111|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84710895|NCT02662062|169165114|OTHER|This is a single arm study looking at a binary value with the hypothesis suggesting it falls within a certain range.||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis is that the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiation is not unsafe (percentage of the population experiencing unacceptable toxicity is not \>50%)|A Clopper-Pearson method was used to determine the unacceptable toxicity rate and a 95% confidence interval for this binary outcome measure.|||
84511244|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.01|-0.27|0.078
84511245|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.36|-0.04|0.125
84511246|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.24|-0.16|0.688
84710896|NCT02662062|169165115|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
84511247|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.05|-0.29|0.166
84511248|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.35|-0.09|0.233
84511249|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.19|-0.24|0.848
84511250|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.03|-0.33|0.093
84511251|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.34|-0.14|0.406
84511252|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.24|-0.24|0.991
84511253|NCT01062256|168773728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.09||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.09|-0.30|0.306
84710897|NCT02662062|169165116|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
84710898|NCT02662062|169165117|OTHER|Non comparative trial with a single arm|Kaplan Meier Estimate|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0||missing upper limit of 95% confidence interval on the survival estimate from Kaplan-Meier estimator due to small number events||||||||17|
84710899|NCT02662062|169165118|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate performed for a 12 month timepoint in a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|98.0||||||||98|72|
84710900|NCT02662062|169165119|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|94.0||||||||94|64|
84710901|NCT02662062|169165120|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate at a 12 month timepoint for a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|98.0||||||||98|68|
84710902|NCT02384317|169165187|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.77||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.6|128.7|||Random coefficients regression|||||128.7|-133.6|0.965
84710903|NCT04936035|169165201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-12.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|The adjusted 95% CI and p-value are based on Dunnett's test.|LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 300 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.|||-12.3|-21.2|<0.0001
84710904|NCT04936035|169165201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-10.6||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|The adjusted 95% CI and p-value are based on Dunnett's test.|LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 600 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.|||-10.6|-20.8|<0.0001
84710905|NCT04936035|169165202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-8.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-8.3|-15.7|<0.0001
84710906|NCT04936035|169165202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.8||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-4.8|-13.4|<0.0001
84710907|NCT04936035|169165203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.4||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.4|-18.9|<0.0001
84710908|NCT04936035|169165203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.5||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.5|-18.9|<0.0001
84710909|NCT04936035|169165204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-7.1||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
84511254|NCT01062256|168773729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|0.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.39|-0.09|0.254
84511255|NCT01062256|168773729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.01||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.23|-0.25|0.949
84511256|NCT01062256|168773729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.12||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.08|-0.32|0.256
84511257|NCT00669864|168773779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.414|-1.192||A significant mean HbA1c decrease was to be declared if H0 is rejected at a significance level of 2.5%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline ≥ 0% against the alternative hypothesis (H1): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline \< 0%. If H0 rejected at a significance level of 2.5%, declare a significant mean HbA1c decrease||-1.192|-1.414|<0.0001
84511258|NCT02016170|168773790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor 90 mg bid MD and prasugrel 10 mg qd MD and a common standard deviation of 60 PRU, a sample size of 24 patients per group allowed for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|5.0||||||||5|-41|
84511259|NCT02016170|168773791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0||||||||-4|-18|
84511260|NCT02672553|168773796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84511261|NCT02672553|168773797|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2077
84511262|NCT00970281|168773827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that included treatment and site as a factor.|ANOVA|||Sample size of at least 45 participants per group was necessary to verify decreases in PANSS-EC total score were significantly greater in olanzapine group than placebo group using a t-test with a power of 90% and a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.001
84511263|NCT00970281|168773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||This is the p-value for 0.25 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
84511264|NCT00970281|168773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.50 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84511265|NCT00970281|168773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84511266|NCT00970281|168773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84511267|NCT00970281|168773829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
84511268|NCT00970281|168773830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84511269|NCT00970281|168773831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.167
84511270|NCT00970281|168773831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
84511271|NCT00970281|168773831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84511272|NCT00970281|168773831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 2 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
84511273|NCT00970281|168773831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 24 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
84511274|NCT00970281|168773832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the p-value for Parkinsonism.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84511275|NCT00159965|168773833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|1.396|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Between-group seizure change. The primary hypothesis of this pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction by treatment, comparing placbo to sertraline. The alternative hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||1.396|-0.051|0.29
84511276|NCT00159965|168773833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|-0.073|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||-0.073|-1.139|0.03
84511277|NCT00159965|168773833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.571|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with placebo will not show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||0.571|-0.431|0.78
84511278|NCT00159965|168773834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511279|NCT00159965|168773835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511280|NCT00159965|168773836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511281|NCT00159965|168773837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511282|NCT00159965|168773838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511283|NCT00159965|168773839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511284|NCT00159965|168773840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511285|NCT00159965|168773841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511286|NCT00159965|168773842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84710910|NCT04936035|169165204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-5.3|-15.1|<0.0001
84710911|NCT04936035|169165205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.64||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||30.64|3.76|<0.0001
84710912|NCT04936035|169165205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|51.52||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||51.52|6.24|<0.0001
84710913|NCT04401800|169165215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
84511287|NCT00159965|168773843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511288|NCT00159965|168773844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84511289|NCT00159965|168773845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84710914|NCT04401800|169165217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||< 0.0001
84710915|NCT04401800|169165218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
84710916|NCT04401800|169165218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||< 0.0001
84710917|NCT04401800|169165219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
84710918|NCT04401800|169165219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||0.0002
84710919|NCT05767437|169165242|EQUIVALENCE|effect size of 0.02, α \< 0.05, power = 0.02|Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.79|59.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.05|-55.79|0.98
84710920|NCT05767437|169165243|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.00, α \< 0.05, power = 0.00|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.25|0.99
84710921|NCT05767437|169165244|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56 , α \< 0.05, power = 32.5|Mean Difference (Net)|6.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.71|-24.12|0.68
84710922|NCT05767437|169165245|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis population description: patients were randomly assigned to either Group A or Group B|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||an effect size of 0.24, α \< 0.05, power = 24.5||0.87|-0.48|0.56
84710923|NCT05767437|169165246|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56, α \< 0.05, power = 57.9|Mean Difference (Net)|-250.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.88|114.18||Interaction of Assessment and Group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||114.18|-614.88|0.42
84710924|NCT05767437|169165247|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.29, α \< 0.05, power = 88.9|Mean Difference (Net)|12.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|43.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.17|-18.67|0.45
84511290|NCT00159965|168773846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84710925|NCT05767437|169165248|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.18, α \< 0.05, power =6.5|mean rank (Z)|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.96||MAS of Biceps|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|-0.61|0.67
84710926|NCT05767437|169165249|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.39, α \< 0.05, power = 16.2|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|-19.38|0.38
84511291|NCT02003183|168773847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to the Amygdala.||||<0.02
84710927|NCT01772472|169165250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
84710928|NCT01772472|169165251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
84710929|NCT01772472|169165252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<.0001
84710930|NCT01772472|169165253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
84710931|NCT01772472|169165254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
84710932|NCT01772472|169165255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
84710933|NCT01772472|169165256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
84710934|NCT01772472|169165257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
84710935|NCT01772472|169165258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<.0001
84710936|NCT01772472|169165259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
84710937|NCT01772472|169165260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082||95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
84710938|NCT01772472|169165261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
84710939|NCT01772472|169165262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
84710940|NCT01772472|169165263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
84710941|NCT01772472|169165264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<.0001
84710942|NCT04391894|169165279|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.0|0.585
84710943|NCT04391894|169165279|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.01|0.107
84710944|NCT04391894|169165279|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.3|0.3|0.033
84511292|NCT03633721|168773890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.17
84710945|NCT04391894|169165280|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.8|0.605
84511293|NCT03633721|168773891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.18
84511294|NCT03633721|168773892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.72
84710946|NCT04391894|169165280|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.646
84710947|NCT04391894|169165280|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.847
84710948|NCT04391894|169165281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84710949|NCT04391894|169165281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
84710950|NCT04391894|169165281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84710951|NCT04391894|169165282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
84710952|NCT04391894|169165282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
84710953|NCT04391894|169165282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||||||||0.6|0.1|
84710954|NCT01889199|169165284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Only PCOS women were randomized to flutamide versus placebo; controls were not randomized A sample size of 11 per group (PCOS women versus controls) provided adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 1.25 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed). A sample size of 5 per group (flutamide-treated versus placebo-treated PCOS women) also gave adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 2 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed).||||0.004
84710955|NCT01889199|169165285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||
84710956|NCT01889199|169165287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.040
84710957|NCT01889199|169165288|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.034
84710958|NCT00446225|169165291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.27|0.0001
84710959|NCT00446225|169165293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.36|0.043
84710960|NCT00220740|169165355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the Responder rates in the ITT population. Treatment group differences were tested by a Chi-square test. Subjects who did not complete the 24 week Efficacy Period and entered Rescue treatment with the alternative treatment were counted as Nonresponders.||||<0.001
84710961|NCT00220740|169165356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.542
84710962|NCT00220740|169165357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Dominant hand||||<0.001
84710963|NCT00220740|169165357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant hand||||0.005
84710964|NCT04455035|169165440|OTHER|ttest||||||0.0088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0088
84710965|NCT04455035|169165441|OTHER|ttest||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00001
84710966|NCT05161715|169165503|OTHER|||||||0.425||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
84710967|NCT05161715|169165504|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84511819|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|2.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||2.69|-11.86|0.216
84710968|NCT05161715|169165505|OTHER|||||||0.0424||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
84511295|NCT01046253|168773931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|97.4|
84710969|NCT05161715|169165506|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84710970|NCT05161715|169165511|OTHER|||||||0.556||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.556
84710971|NCT03775109|169165512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|44.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|It is estimated that improvement of histological alcoholic steatohepatitis will occur in 40% of patients treated with placebo and 80% of patients treated with Canakinumab. A trial with 80% power to detect a difference at the P \< 0.05 threshold would require 23 patients in each arm, 46 in total. Assuming a drop-out rate of 10%, we will recruit 52 patients in total (26 patients per group).||44.5|-11.2|0.248
84710972|NCT03775109|169165513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
84710973|NCT03775109|169165514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|81.004||||||||81.004|0.121|
84710974|NCT03775109|169165515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|9.965||||||||9.965|0.357|
84710975|NCT03775109|169165518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Change in log-transformed serum bilirubin from baseline to day 28. 49 participants were included in this analysis.||||||0.270
84710976|NCT03775109|169165519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: MELD score at Day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline MELD score. 49 patients have data at Day 28 and baseline.||||||0.03490
84511820|NCT02087904|168775419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||-1.88|-16.42|0.014
84710977|NCT03775109|169165520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.558|16.624|||||Ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds) model. GAHS at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline GAHS measurement. 48 participants have GAHS data at baseline and day 28.|||16.624|1.558|
84710978|NCT03775109|169165521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: mDF score at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline mDF score.||Natural log transformation used for both baseline and day 28 measurements. 49 participants have mDF measurements at baseline and day 28.||||0.343
84710979|NCT03775109|169165522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|0.696|||||difference = canakinumab - placebo. natural log transformation used.|||0.696|-0.529|
84710980|NCT03775109|169165523|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84710981|NCT03775109|169165524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84710982|NCT03775109|169165525|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.424||||||||7.424|0.147|
84710983|NCT03775109|169165533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
84710984|NCT03775109|169165534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.127|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.127|-0.388|
84710985|NCT03775109|169165535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|23.219||||||||23.219|0.693|
84710986|NCT03775109|169165536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|38.043||||||||38.043|0.543|
84710987|NCT03775109|169165537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|6.558||||||||6.558|0.456|
84710988|NCT03775109|169165538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.397||||||||3.397|0.281|
84710989|NCT03775109|169165539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|2.479||||||||2.479|0.238|
84710990|NCT04402489|169165554|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|38.12|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - lower dose||38.12|-18.52|0.496
84710991|NCT04402489|169165554|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|51.09|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - higher dose||51.09|-5.68|0.116
84710992|NCT04402489|169165555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.44|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-0.44|-1.23|< 0.001
84710993|NCT04402489|169165555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.03|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-1.03|-1.83|< 0.001
84710994|NCT04402489|169165556|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.76||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||1.16|0.49|0.199
84710995|NCT04402489|169165556|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||0.84|0.36|0.006
84710996|NCT04402489|169165557|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.33|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.33|-0.62|0.55
84710997|NCT04402489|169165557|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.25|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.25|-0.72|0.343
84710998|NCT04402489|169165558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|2.007|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.007|0.323|0.642
84710999|NCT04402489|169165558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.598|0.431
84711000|NCT04402489|169165559|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.82|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.82|-0.08|0.072
84711001|NCT04402489|169165559|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.51|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.51|-0.4|0.252
84711002|NCT05418296|169165575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.46
84711003|NCT05418296|169165576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00314|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00314
84711004|NCT05418296|169165577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.066
84711005|NCT05418296|169165578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.085|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0850
84711006|NCT05418296|169165579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0716|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0716
84711007|NCT04419168|169165622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-1.30|.57
84711008|NCT04419168|169165623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.46|0.79
84711009|NCT04419168|169165624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-1.55|0.75
84711010|NCT04419168|169165625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|-0.60|0.31
84711011|NCT04419168|169165626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||1.99|-1.77|0.91
84711012|NCT04419168|169165626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.46|-0.03|0.05
84711013|NCT04419168|169165627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|-0.31|0.12
84711014|NCT04419168|169165628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0443|0.0395|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0395|-0.0443|0.91
84711015|NCT04419168|169165629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-1.61|0.68
84711016|NCT04419168|169165630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.46|0.75
84711017|NCT04419168|169165631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-2.56|0.14
84711018|NCT04419168|169165632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-1.69|0.75
84711019|NCT04419168|169165633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||2.71|-1.30|0.49
84711020|NCT04419168|169165633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.88|0.12|0.037
84711021|NCT04419168|169165634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.71|0.56|0.008
84711022|NCT04419168|169165635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-1.51|0.56
84711023|NCT04419168|169165636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0013||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0464|0.0437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0437|-0.0464|0.95
84711024|NCT04419168|169165637|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||1.48|0.83|0.49
84711025|NCT04419168|169165638|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.18|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.18|0.93|0.10
84711026|NCT04419168|169165639|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.03|0.85|0.22
84711027|NCT04640961|169165646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84711028|NCT04640961|169165647|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84711029|NCT04640961|169165648|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84711030|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to Reminder Control patients who were sent messages that did not disclose their risk status. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate vs. messages that do not disclose risk status; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||.054
84711031|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to No-Contact Control patients who were not sent messages. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||<.001
84711032|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups who received messages including risk reasons (High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to messages that mentioned patients' risk status but do not include reasons (High Risk Only). Null hypothesis: messages that include risk reasons do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to high-risk messages that do not include risk reasons; Alternative hypothesis: messages including risk reasons are more effective at increasing vaccination rates.||||.240
84711033|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: flu-shot messages that do not mention high-risk status do not increase vaccination relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: flu shot messages that do not mention high-risk status increase flu shots relative to no messages.||||.047
84711034|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records.||||.781
84711035|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.361
84711036|NCT05009251|169165671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.770
84711037|NCT05374837|169165695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9585||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4276|2.1485||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in control group at endline.|||2.1485|0.4276|0.145
84711038|NCT05374837|169165695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9669||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.1742||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in intervention group at endline.|||2.1742|0.43|0.145
84711039|NCT05374837|169165696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3084||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1977|0.481||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.481|0.1977|0.179
84711040|NCT05374837|169165696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2983|0.6431||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6431|0.2983|0.179
84711041|NCT05374837|169165702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.054
84711042|NCT05374837|169165703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84711043|NCT00676715|169165715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
84711044|NCT00676715|169165715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
84711045|NCT00676715|169165715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7496|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||0.7496
84711046|NCT00676715|169165716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0019
84711047|NCT00676715|169165716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0136|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0136
84711048|NCT00676715|169165716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1814|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.1814
84711049|NCT00676715|169165717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.6||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.34|0.27|0.1978
84711050|NCT00676715|169165717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.53||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22|||CMH chi-square test|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.22|0.23|0.1310
84711051|NCT00676715|169165717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.92||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||CMH chi-square tes|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.84|0.46|0.8206
84711052|NCT00676715|169165718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1391
84711053|NCT00676715|169165718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1596|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1596
84711054|NCT00676715|169165718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4740
84711055|NCT00676715|169165719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
84711056|NCT00676715|169165719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
84711057|NCT00676715|169165719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4985|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4985
84711058|NCT00676715|169165720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.0004
84711059|NCT00676715|169165720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
84711060|NCT00676715|169165720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2725|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.2725
84711061|NCT05249439|169165737|OTHER|Paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||I-SatPro starting weight Vs 52 week weight (kg)||||<0.0001
84711062|NCT00616967|169165746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Pathological complete response rate|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.402|||||The Estimation Parameter provided above is for overall pCR for both arms combined. We estimated pCR for each arm separately as well.|Patients were stratified by hormone receptor status and randomly assigned to either arm 1 or 2. This study was designed using Simon's two-stage design for each arm in parallel. Interim analysis of early stopping for futility was conducted for the first 32 patients (16 patients per arm) and the study proceeded as more than 2 patients achieved a pCR in each arm (31 patients per arm). This design had 80% power to detect a 25% pCR rate versus a null rate of 10% with a type I error rate of 0.10.||0.402|0.169|
84711063|NCT00616967|169165746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in placebo arm (arm 1)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.48||||||||0.48|0.142|
84711064|NCT00616967|169165746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in vorinostat arm (arm 2)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.446||||||||0.446|0.119|
84711065|NCT00616967|169165749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The estimates provided are based upon a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression adjusting for hormone receptor status. Patients with ≥50% reduction in SULmax were more likely to achieve a pCR.||22.7|1.3|0.023
84511821|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.66|-0.56|0.874
84711066|NCT02910583|169165758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|4.7||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.9||P-value is from Z test for the difference of two proportions based on Kaplan-Meier estimates with standard error of each arm computed using Greenwood's formula.|Z test||comparison: ibrutininb vs. placebo|||10.9|-1.6|0.1475
84711067|NCT02910583|169165759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided P-value from asymptotic test for the binomial proportion (CRR \<= 37% vs CRR \> 37%).|asymptotic test for binomial proportion|||||||< 0.0001
84711068|NCT04638829|169165808|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84711069|NCT04638829|169165809|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
84711070|NCT04638829|169165810|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84711071|NCT04638829|169165811|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711072|NCT04088630|169165816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Between group pairwise comparisons performed with Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with cardiac events up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups.||||0.0427
84711073|NCT04088630|169165817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with nosocomial infections up to 90 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.19
84711074|NCT04088630|169165818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with neurologic decline up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.30
84711075|NCT03381261|169165852|OTHER|While descriptive statistics were presented in the original mRNA units using median and interquartile range (25th, 75th), statistical group comparison and effect sizes were reported as the ratio of the geometric means.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711076|NCT05229120|169165860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.124|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||A single-sided paired-samples t-test comparing k-values at baseline to k-values at follow-up (approximately 4 weeks after baseline assessment) was examined. Given that k-values are typically skewed (and to be consistent with the existing literature) we used a log-k as our outcome variable.||||.124
84711077|NCT05229120|169165861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 14.||Changes in consideration of future consequences (parenting) was evaluated using one-sided paired samples t-tests.||||.219
84711078|NCT05229120|169165862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 5||Performed a one-sided paired samples t-test examining changes in both positive parenting.||||.50
84711079|NCT05229120|169165862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in negative parenting.||||.187
84711080|NCT05229120|169165863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental involvement using a paired-samples t-test.||||.498
84711081|NCT05229120|169165863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.301||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in positive parenting using paired samples t-tests||||.108
84711082|NCT05229120|169165863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental monitoring using a paired samples t-test||||.145
84711083|NCT05229120|169165863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.688||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in inconsistent parenting using a paired samples one-sided t-test||||.252
84511822|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.38|-0.86|0.451
84711084|NCT05229120|169165863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306||||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in corporal punishment using a paired samples one-tailed t-test||||.382
84711085|NCT03932682|169165872|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) for absolute vaccine efficacy (aVE) of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.98|21.55|56.02||||||||56.02|21.55|
84711086|NCT03932682|169165873|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided CI for aVE of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.19|65.11||||||||65.11|19.19|
84711087|NCT03932682|169165874|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|54.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.55|73.26||||||||73.26|22.55|
84711088|NCT03932682|169165875|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|50.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|63.77||||||||63.77|32.83|
84711089|NCT03932682|169165876|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||"The 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated with a lower limit of not estimable and an upper limit of 100."|||||
84711090|NCT04410042|169165897|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4000
84711091|NCT04410042|169165898|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4286|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4286
84711092|NCT04410042|169165899|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9307|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9307
84711093|NCT04410042|169165900|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.0714|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0714
84711094|NCT04410042|169165901|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9004|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9004
84711095|NCT03526874|169165929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84711096|NCT03526874|169165930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84711097|NCT03526874|169165931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0162
84711098|NCT03526874|169165932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
84711099|NCT03526874|169165933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0098
84711100|NCT03526874|169165934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.02
84711101|NCT03526874|169165935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.01
84711102|NCT03526874|169165936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0329
84711103|NCT03526874|169165937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.294
84711104|NCT03526874|169165938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
84711105|NCT03526874|169165939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.182
84711106|NCT03526874|169165940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.423
84711107|NCT03526874|169165941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
84711108|NCT03526874|169165942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
84711109|NCT03526874|169165943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
84711110|NCT03526874|169165944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
84711111|NCT02815813|169165994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
84711112|NCT02815813|169165995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
84711113|NCT00837369|169165999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compare the differences in sensitivity between myocardial perfusion and wall motion for detecting stenosis.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84711114|NCT00837369|169165999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Compare the sensitivity of myocardial perfusion in detecting stenosis within the first 4 minutes after regadenoson bolus injection to that of wall motion|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84711115|NCT05691452|169166016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.05||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|90.78||Generalized linear models generated estimated mean differences in the post-intervention values controlling for the baseline assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||90.78|-50.68|0.578
84711116|NCT05691452|169166017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|59.5|||Regression, Linear|||||59.5|-101.9|0.61
84711117|NCT05691452|169166018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.78|||Regression, Linear|||||8.78|-5.68|0.674
84711118|NCT05691452|169166019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-4.59|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.59|-38.5|.013
84711119|NCT05691452|169166020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|1.109|||Regression, Linear|||||1.109|-0.335|0.29
84711120|NCT05691452|169166021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.833|||Regression, Linear|||||0.833|-1.24|0.701
84711121|NCT05691452|169166022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.45||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.99|26.08|||Regression, Linear|||||26.08|-68.99|0.376
84711122|NCT05902793|169166024|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin is 20%|least square means difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.07|||||To establish non-inferiority the lower limit of the least square mean difference had to be \> -20%.|||16.07|-14.30|
84711123|NCT05902793|169166026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model had fixed effects of treatment arm, center and wound size||||||0.24
84511296|NCT01046253|168773932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|93.3|
84711124|NCT03328702|169166063|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated measures ANOVA, N=4|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total pharyngeal transit time with the use of CPAP||||<0.05
84711125|NCT04674358|169166088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.14||||||||4.14|1.67|
84711126|NCT03703700|169166092|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.50|1.01|0.042
84711127|NCT03703700|169166093|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
84711128|NCT03703700|169166094|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.609
84711129|NCT03703700|169166095|OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.528
84711130|NCT03703700|169166096|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
84711131|NCT03703700|169166097|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
84711132|NCT03703700|169166098|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
84711133|NCT03703700|169166099|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
84711134|NCT03703700|169166100|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
84711135|NCT03703700|169166101|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.178
84711136|NCT03703700|169166102|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
84711137|NCT03703700|169166103|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|1.01|0.035
84711138|NCT03703700|169166104|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|1.01|0.034
84711139|NCT03703700|169166105|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.45|||Chi-squared|||||1.45|1.03|0.022
84711140|NCT03703700|169166106|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.68|0.707
84711141|NCT03703700|169166107|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.878
84711142|NCT03703700|169166108|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.564
84711143|NCT03703700|169166108|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.417
84711144|NCT03703700|169166109|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.985
84711145|NCT03703700|169166109|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.157
84711146|NCT03703700|169166110|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.65|0.789
84511823|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.93|-0.31|0.331
84711147|NCT03703700|169166111|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.94|||Chi-squared|||||1.94|0.61|0.769
84711148|NCT03703700|169166112|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|0.04|0.590
84711149|NCT03703700|169166113|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.39|||Fisher Exact|||||10.39|0.40|0.465
84511824|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-0.73|0.932
84711150|NCT03988634|169166146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8546||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7307|0.9994|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: sac/val vs valsartan|||0.9994|0.7307|0.0492
84711151|NCT03988634|169166147|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.193||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.524|||unmatched pairwise win-ratio||A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of sacubitril/valsartan arm|||1.524|0.934|0.1578
84711152|NCT03988634|169166148|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8346||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5684|1.2255|||LWYY model||A rate ratio \< 1 indicates an effect in favor of LCZ696|||1.2255|0.5684|0.3563
84711153|NCT03988634|169166149|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6249||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2496|1.5649|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.5649|0.2496|0.3155
84711154|NCT03988634|169166150|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.9316||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7661|1.1329|||ANCOVA|||||1.1329|0.7661|0.4766
84711155|NCT03988634|169166151|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.91|0.76|<.0001
84711156|NCT03988634|169166151|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.89|0.74|<.0001
84711157|NCT05406921|169166155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This was a feasibility study and not powered to detect significant differences pre-/post-intervention.||||<0.05
84711158|NCT04299009|169166157|OTHER|multilevel linear models with Epworth sleepiness score scores as the dependent variable; treatment block (BLT vs sBLT) as a fixed effect; treatment sequence as a covariate; and participant intercept as a random effect.|regression coefficient|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.30|<0.05
84711159|NCT03958955|169166175|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
84711160|NCT03958955|169166178|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success (i.e. no lesion-specific treatment-related AEs) of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|||0.17|-0.02|0.5000
84711161|NCT03958955|169166179|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib vs vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
84711162|NCT03958955|169166180|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|0.22|-0.22|1.0000
84711163|NCT03958955|169166181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Erythema is scored as 0=absent, 1=pink, faint, 2=red, 3=dark red, purple/violaceous/crusted/haemorrhagic. P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5797
84711164|NCT03958955|169166182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7862||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||Total skin disease activity score is the sum of the scores for erythema, scaling/hyperkeratosis, and oedema/infiltration. Total skin disease activity score ranges from 0 to 7 with lower score indicating better state.||||0.7862
84711165|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Active Control message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Active Control message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
84711166|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Ease message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Ease message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
84711167|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Waiting for You message message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Waiting for You message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
84711168|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Rare message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Rare Message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
84711169|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Frequent message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Frequent message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.035
84711170|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Ease messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Ease messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.593
84711171|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Waiting for You messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.052
84711172|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.952
84711173|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.386
84711174|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.498
84711175|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Rare messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.935
84711176|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Frequent message messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.504
84511297|NCT01046253|168773933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|92.8|
84511298|NCT01054599|168773951|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84511299|NCT01054599|168773954|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
84511300|NCT00743197|168773955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|0|Other|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||0||||0||||
84511301|NCT01507051|168773988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|2.793|||<|0.0001||90.0|2.633|2.962|||ANOVA|||||2.962|2.633|<0.0001
84511302|NCT01507051|168773989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|6.151|||<|0.0001||90.0|5.598|6.759|||ANOVA|||||6.759|5.598|<0.0001
84511303|NCT01507051|168774016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.17||||0.5008||95.0|82.2|110.2|||ANOVA|||||110.2|82.20|0.5008
84511304|NCT01507051|168774017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|99.46||||0.9429||95.0|85.47|115.7|||ANOVA|||||115.7|85.47|0.9429
84511305|NCT01507051|168774018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|100.4||||0.9525||95.0|88.0|114.5|||ANOVA|||||114.5|88.00|0.9525
84711177|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.190
84711178|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Frequent and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.027
84511306|NCT01507051|168774019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.87||||0.4397||95.0|85.99|106.9|||ANOVA|||||106.9|85.99|0.4397
84511307|NCT00420303|168774042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47||||0.029||95.0|-32.93|-2.01|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate||Comparison of adjusted means||-2.01|-32.93|0.029
84511308|NCT00420303|168774043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.02||95.0|1.44|69.26|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||||69.26|1.44|0.02
84511309|NCT00420303|168774044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||||||0.007
84711179|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.854
84711180|NCT05493787|169166218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The reported p-value (2-tailed) is for the interaction term between message send date (November, December) and message (any message arm no message)|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are equally effective at promoting flu-shot self-scheduling. Alternative hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are differentially effective.~To test the alternative hypothesis, all message arms (Active control, Ease, Waiting for you, Protect yourself - rare, Protect yourself - frequent) were combined and compared with Passive control."||||.637
84711181|NCT05493423|169166278|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the difference between the rates of completed hemodialysis sessions for the test and control groups is less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior success rate). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the rates of successfully completed HD sessions for the test and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior success rate).||||||0.008|||||||Farrington-Manning|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||.008
84711182|NCT05493423|169166278|EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||0.002|||||||Equivalence Test with paired data|||||||.002
84711183|NCT05493423|169166279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
84711184|NCT05493423|169166280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84711185|NCT05493423|169166281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
84711186|NCT05493423|169166282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84711187|NCT05493423|169166283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
84711188|NCT05493423|169166284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
84711189|NCT05493423|169166285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
84711190|NCT05493423|169166286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to as 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
84711191|NCT05493423|169166287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84711192|NCT05493423|169166288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
84711193|NCT05493423|169166289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
84711194|NCT05493423|169166290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
84711195|NCT05493423|169166291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
84711196|NCT05493423|169166292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
84711197|NCT06074523|169166293|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing three conditions in a basic science experiment in healthy adults.|partial eta squared|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing Cued Suppression Task; Positive, Negative, and Neutral Cue condtions||||<.001
84711198|NCT06074523|169166294|EQUIVALENCE|P\<.05 criterion|cohen's d|0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing performance on target absent and target present trials||||.08
84711199|NCT06074523|169166295|OTHER||Slope|-0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5803|-0.1135|||correlation|||Relationship between Cued Attention Negative Cue Benefit (Neutral Cue RT- Negative Cue RT) and working memory capacity.||-0.1135|-0.5803|.007
84711200|NCT06074523|169166296|OTHER||Slope|-0.27||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5015|-0.002414|||correlation|||Correlation of Inattentive Traits subscale and learned suppression (difference in RT between target absent and target present trials)||-0.002414|-0.5015|.046
84711201|NCT04321031|169166371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.2|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||0.20|-0.02|
84711202|NCT04321031|169166371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.24|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.24|-0.03|
84711203|NCT04321031|169166371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.26|-0.03|
84711204|NCT04321031|169166371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.28|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.28|-0.04|
84711205|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|-0.04|
84711206|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.11|
84711207|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.07|
84711208|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|0.07|
84711209|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.12|
84711210|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.04|
84711211|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.08|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.08|
84711212|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.31||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.31|-0.03|
84711213|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.09|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|0.09|
84711214|NCT04321031|169166372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|-0.03|
84511310|NCT04455633|168774112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||MMRM model|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.18|-1.16|0.007
84711215|NCT04321031|169166373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-25.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.42|-2.57||||||||-2.57|-58.42|
84711216|NCT04321031|169166373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.41|-5.42||||||||-5.42|-69.41|
84711217|NCT04321031|169166373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-40.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.55|-7.32||||||||-7.32|-75.55|
84711218|NCT04321031|169166373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.72|-8.42||||||||-8.42|-81.72|
84711219|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.57|-9.57||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-9.57|-62.57|
84711220|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-43.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.37|-14.64||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-14.64|-62.37|
84711221|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-59.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.95|-36.55||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-36.55|-73.95|
84711222|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.72|-50.15||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.15|-79.72|
84711223|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-19.44||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-19.44|-69.53|
84711224|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-69.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.08|-50.07||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.07|-81.08|
84711225|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-34.02|-7.32||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-7.32|-34.02|
84711226|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.51|18.76||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||18.76|-48.51|
84711227|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-49.4|-23.95||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-23.95|-49.40|
84711228|NCT04321031|169166374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.41|2.37||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||2.37|-62.41|
84711229|NCT04321031|169166375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.32|0.09|
84711230|NCT04321031|169166375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.37|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.37|0.15|
84511311|NCT04455633|168774112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.05|||MMRM model|||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.05|-1.06|0.030
84711231|NCT04321031|169166375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.39|0.18|
84711232|NCT04321031|169166375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.42|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.42|0.19|
84711233|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.51||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.51|0.04|
84711234|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.13|
84711235|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.49||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.49|0.04|
84711236|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.75||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.75|0.26|
84711237|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.61||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.61|0.10|
84711238|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.72||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.72|0.20|
84711239|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.24|0.39||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.39|0.24|
84711240|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.48|0.12|
84711241|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.06|
84711242|NCT04321031|169166376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.06|
84711243|NCT04321031|169166377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.02|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.02|-0.16|
84711244|NCT04321031|169166377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.03|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.03|-0.20|
84711245|NCT04321031|169166377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.04|-0.23|
84711246|NCT04321031|169166377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.05|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.05|-0.26|
84711247|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.13||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.13|-0.21|
84711248|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.02||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.02|-0.25|
84711249|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.17|-0.17|
84511312|NCT04455633|168774113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|20.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||20.76|-1.55|0.091
84511313|NCT04455633|168774113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.95|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||9.40|-10.95|0.883
84711250|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.22||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.22|-0.15|
84711251|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.05||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||-0.05|-0.30|
84711252|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|-0.13|
84711253|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-0.03|0.12||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.12|-0.03|
84711254|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|-0.12|
84711255|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.17|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|0.17|
84711256|NCT04321031|169166378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.06|
84711257|NCT04321031|169166379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.08|-0.01|
84711258|NCT04321031|169166379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.09|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.09|-0.02|
84711259|NCT04321031|169166379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.11|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.11|-0.02|
84711260|NCT04321031|169166379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.12|-0.02|
84711261|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
84711262|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.29||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.29|-0.02|
84711263|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
84711264|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.57||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.57|0.01|
84711265|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.02|
84711266|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.01|
84711267|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.02|0.16||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.16|0.02|
84711268|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.04|
84711269|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.24||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.24|0.06|
84711270|NCT04321031|169166380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.44|-0.01|
84711271|NCT04321031|169166381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.31|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.31|0.05|
84511314|NCT04455633|168774114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.8||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|13.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||13.73|-4.11|0.289
84511315|NCT04455633|168774114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|7.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||7.16|-8.85|0.837
84711272|NCT04321031|169166381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.36|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.36|0.09|
84711273|NCT04321031|169166381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.38|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.38|0.10|
84511316|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.32|0.014
84711274|NCT04321031|169166381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.4|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.40|0.11|
84711275|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.36||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.36|-0.04|
84511317|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.13|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.13|-1.27|0.017
84711276|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.15|
84711277|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.46||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.46|0.06|
84711278|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.27|
84711279|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|-0.03|
84711280|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.18|
84711281|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.15|0.28||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.28|0.15|
84511318|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.33|0.015
84511319|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.27|0.020
84511320|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.27|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||-0.27|-1.48|0.005
84511321|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||0.11|-1.07|0.111
84511322|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.35|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.87|0.399
84711282|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|0.03|
84511323|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.36|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.36|-0.83|0.441
84711283|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.16|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|0.16|
84711284|NCT04321031|169166382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.03|
84711285|NCT03940963|169166421|NON_INFERIORITY|The visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 scale) pain score change from baseline value to 12 months was tested for non-inferiority of neurectomy with Axoguard Nerve Cap to standard neurectomy alone using closed testing procedures.||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84711286|NCT03940963|169166424|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.485||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
84711287|NCT03940963|169166425|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
84711288|NCT03940963|169166426|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
84711289|NCT03940963|169166427|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.544||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
84711290|NCT03940963|169166429|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84711291|NCT05671029|169166460|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: difference to placebo of change from baseline QTcF ≥ 10 ms.|Prediction @ mean max concentration|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.3|<0.05
84711292|NCT05592418|169166473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0288||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0397|3.0972|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.0972|-3.0397|0.9851
84711293|NCT05592418|169166474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9076||||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6279|1.8128|||ANCOVA|||||1.8128|-5.6279|0.3095
84711294|NCT05592418|169166475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6086||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4656|4.6829|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.6829|-3.4656|0.7663
84711295|NCT05592418|169166476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7749||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2463|70.7962|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||70.7962|-23.2463|0.3162
84711296|NCT05592418|169166477|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||P-value is from The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) stratified by stratification factors|Since all patients analyzed achieved MCID, there are no comparison results|||
84711297|NCT05592418|169166478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2342||||0.4232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2586|4.7901|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.7901|-11.2586|0.4232
84711298|NCT05592418|169166479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5161||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2356|3.2035|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.2035|-4.2356|0.7823
84711299|NCT05592418|169166481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2779||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5775|1.1333|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|||1.1333|-0.5775|0.5185
84711300|NCT05592418|169166482|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No patients were hospitalized.|||
84711301|NCT05592418|169166484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.389||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.892|444.6702|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|444.6702|-105.892|0.2175
84711302|NCT05592418|169166485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9984||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.021|33.0241|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|33.0241|-147.021|0.2086
84711303|NCT05592418|169166486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1733||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.3792|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|0.3792|-0.0327|0.0975
84711304|NCT05592418|169166488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7131||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4079|75.8341|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||75.8341|-34.4079|0.4545
84711305|NCT05592418|169166489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.1231||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6338|83.6123|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||83.6123|4.6338|0.0333
84711306|NCT03930342|169166510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|Used marginal standardization to estimate relative risk from logistic regression||Results here reflect analysis of the relative risk for AEP that is a combination of risk from baseline to the 3 month timepoint and risk between the 3 month timepoint and 6 month timepoint. This reflects changes in AEP risk across the course of exposure to the intervention (baseline to 3 month) and enduring change post-exposure (3 months to 6 months)||1.07|0.83|
84711307|NCT02520063|169166511|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was be estimated at the end of the study along with two-sided 95% exact CIs (Clopper-Pearson intervals).|||
84711308|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.3|-3.0|0.7636
84711309|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.9|-1.4|0.3040
84711310|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.7|-1.4|0.3090
84711311|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.4|-1.3|0.3694
84711312|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||MCPMod Linear model|No parameter assumptions required. Corresponding dose response is linear||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9158
84711313|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER|||||||0.8676|||||||MCPMod Exponential model|Assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly at higher doses||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.8676
84711314|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER|||||||0.9552|||||||MCPMod Emax1 model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to the assumed true median effective dose (ED50) = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9552
84511324|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.49|-0.87|0.575
84511325|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.61|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.61|-0.71|0.880
84511326|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.71|-0.73|0.978
84511825|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.37||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.37|-1.07|0.344
84711315|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER|||||||0.9619|||||||MCPMod Emax2 model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly with low doses, ED50 = 2.14 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9619
84711316|NCT04521478|169166522|OTHER|||||||0.9507|||||||MCPMod Sigmoid Emax model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, 90% 75 mg; corresponding to a more flexible model of the assumed true ED50 = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9507
84511327|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.65|0.877
84711317|NCT04521478|169166523|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9427||||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4709|1.8873|||Regression, Logistic||5 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.8873|0.4709|0.8889
84711318|NCT04521478|169166523|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6581||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3255|1.3307|||Regression, Logistic||25 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.3307|0.3255|0.3284
84711319|NCT04521478|169166523|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1026||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5757|2.1114|||Regression, Logistic||75 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||2.1114|0.5757|0.8048
84711320|NCT04521478|169166523|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0072||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5968|1.6999|||Regression, Logistic||125 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.6999|0.5968|0.9820
84711321|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.6|0.0|0.1013
84711322|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.6|-1.9|0.3596
84711323|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-5.2|0.6745
84711324|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.7|0.1870
84711325|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.1|0.1|0.0921
84711326|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.7395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.8|-3.2|0.7395
84711327|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-2.7|0.6296
84711328|NCT04521478|169166524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.9|0.7|0.0429
84711329|NCT04521478|169166525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.5|-0.3|0.6211
84711330|NCT04521478|169166525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.5158
84711331|NCT04521478|169166525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.4518
84711332|NCT04521478|169166525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.1|0.2347
84711333|NCT04521478|169166526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.6|-0.7|0.1723
84711334|NCT04521478|169166526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.5|0.3|0.0757
84511328|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.07|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.07|-1.32|0.079
84711335|NCT04521478|169166526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-3.0|0.6864
84711336|NCT04521478|169166526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.5|0.1585
84711337|NCT01180634|169166555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.84|0.96|0.0715
84711338|NCT01180634|169166556|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.41||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.6|||Repeared Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.60|0.21|0.0213
84711339|NCT01180634|169166557|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
84711340|NCT01180634|169166558|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.28||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates were determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), Baseline FEV1 (\<55%, ≥ 55%), and Baseline value.|||2.85|-2.30|0.8335
84711341|NCT01180634|169166559|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.31|0.53|0.0122
84511329|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.2|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.20|-1.16|0.163
84511330|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.73|0.875
84511331|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.69|0.914
84711342|NCT01180634|169166560|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.12|0.60|0.3000
84711343|NCT01180634|169166561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.04|0.47|0.8670
84711344|NCT04490915|169166574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.802|-10.243|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference of Crinecerfont - Placebo|||-10.243|-23.802|<0.0001
84711345|NCT06311084|169166590|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711346|NCT06311084|169166591|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84511332|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.12|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||1.12|-0.26|0.219
84711347|NCT06311084|169166592|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711348|NCT06311084|169166593|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711349|NCT06311084|169166594|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711350|NCT06311084|169166595|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711351|NCT06311084|169166596|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711352|NCT06311084|169166597|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711353|NCT06311084|169166598|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711354|NCT06311084|169166599|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711355|NCT06311084|169166600|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711356|NCT06311084|169166601|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711357|NCT06311084|169166602|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711358|NCT06311084|169166603|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711359|NCT06311084|169166604|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84711360|NCT04725240|169166605|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84711361|NCT04725240|169166606|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84711362|NCT04725240|169166607|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84711363|NCT04725240|169166608|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84711364|NCT02724878|169166640|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.0|42.0||||||A sample size of 60 would provide 95% power to distinguish the ORR rate of 25% from 10% (historical control) with 1-sided alpha of 0.07. The treatment would be considered effective if 10 or more responses are observed out of 60 patients.||42|25|
84511333|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.87|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||0.87|-0.47|0.551
84511334|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.3|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.30|-1.63|0.005
84711365|NCT03779204|169166660|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-5.0|0.18
84511335|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.39|-1.68|0.002
84711366|NCT03779204|169166661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-5.0|0.44
84511336|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.69|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.69|-0.73|0.955
84511337|NCT04455633|168774115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.59|-0.79|0.777
84511338|NCT04455633|168774117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
84711367|NCT03779204|169166662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|24.4|||ANCOVA|||||24.4|-9.7|.38
84511339|NCT04455633|168774117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||0.17|-0.48|0.351
84511340|NCT03765502|168774137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
84511341|NCT03765502|168774138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
84711368|NCT03779204|169166663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-3.3|0.76
84711369|NCT03779204|169166664|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
84511342|NCT00048568|168774144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|36.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response.|The study had a 99% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 between the 2 groups at the 5% level.||36.7|19.8|<0.001
84711370|NCT03779204|169166665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.4|0.12
84711371|NCT03779204|169166666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|-13.7|0.34
84711372|NCT03779204|169166668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-6.6|0.62
84511343|NCT00048568|168774145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|32.9||Based on the hierarchical testing procedure for the co-primary measures, the study had 98% power to detect 18% difference in HAQ response rate between the two arms at the 5% level.|Chi-squared, Corrected|This model includes treatment as the main factor and baseline value as a covariate.|Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving HAQ response at Day 365.|||32.9|15.9|<0.001
84511344|NCT00048568|168774146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Nonparametric ANCOVA|The rank of the change from baseline=dependent variable, treatment=the main factor, rank of baseline value as covariate.||||||0.029
84711373|NCT04258709|169166682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1200
84711374|NCT04258709|169166682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.593||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.9907|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for race, Iowa Infant Feeding Attitudes Score at baseline, infant gestational age, NICU admission, maternal age at enrollment, WIC enrollment at baseline, maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. This is an adjusted odds ratio.|||.9907|.352|.0474
84711375|NCT04258709|169166683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5201|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.5201
84711376|NCT04258709|169166683|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1399||||0.9178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5299|2.8098|||Regression, Linear|||||2.8098|-2.5299|.9178
84711377|NCT04258709|169166684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.8614
84711378|NCT04258709|169166684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0763||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6364|1.8216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8216|.6364|.7836
84711379|NCT04258709|169166685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9788
84711380|NCT04258709|169166685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0307||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.7067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7067|.603|.9119
84711381|NCT04258709|169166686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.2173
84711382|NCT04258709|169166687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.5209
84711383|NCT04258709|169166690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4258
84711384|NCT04258709|169166690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8882||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5523|1.4283|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4283|.5523|.6246
84711385|NCT04258709|169166691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5613|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5613
84711386|NCT04258709|169166691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4206|1.2178|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2178|.4206|.2173
84711387|NCT04258709|169166692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6291
84711388|NCT04258709|169166692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1955||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8745|1.3931|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3931|.8745|.5426
84711389|NCT04258709|169166693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9071
84711390|NCT04258709|169166693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0233||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7751|1.2084|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2084|.7751|.9328
84711391|NCT04258709|169166694|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.8213||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9161|3.5588|||Regression, Linear|||||3.5588|-1.9161|.5548
84711392|NCT04258709|169166695|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2412||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5771|4.0594|||Regression, Linear|||||4.0594|-1.5771|.3861
84711393|NCT04258709|169166696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.4779
84711394|NCT04258709|169166697|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84711395|NCT04258709|169166697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9508||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3669|2.4621|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4621|.3669|.9163
84711396|NCT04258709|169166698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1084||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4937|2.4882|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4882|.4937|.8031
84711397|NCT04258709|169166699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3882|3.3161|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3161|.3882|.8175
84711398|NCT04258709|169166700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6964||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2813|1.7241|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7241|.2813|.434
84711399|NCT04258709|169166701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2533||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6534|2.4041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4041|.6534|.4968
84711400|NCT04258709|169166702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0288||||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.6062|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6062|.659|.9005
84711401|NCT04258709|169166703|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4018||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2052|0.4015|||Regression, Linear|||||.4015|-3.2052|.127
84711402|NCT04258709|169166704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.8958||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9475|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||||.1559|-3.9475|.07
84711403|NCT04258709|169166705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.506||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|1.562|||Regression, Linear|||||1.562|-2.574|.6299
84711404|NCT04258709|169166706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7573||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4029|1.4138|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4138|.4029|.3835
84711405|NCT04258709|169166707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|1.4912|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4912|.409|.459
84711406|NCT04258709|169166708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9338||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.9039|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9039|.458|.8499
84711407|NCT02807636|169166725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||inverse normal combination|Log Rank|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||0.96|0.70|0.0073
84711408|NCT02807636|169166726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||one-sided, inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.0|0.73|0.0230
84711409|NCT02807636|169166727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Log Rank|one-sided||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.16|0.82|0.3968
84711410|NCT02807636|169166732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.01|0.73|0.0373
84711411|NCT02807636|169166733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.0||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|11.81|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||11.81|-1.82|0.1509
84711412|NCT02807636|169166734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.36||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|10.79|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||10.79|-4.08|0.3761
84711413|NCT02807636|169166735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.29||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-2.13|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||-2.13|-14.45|0.0083
84711414|NCT02807636|169166736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.00|0.64|0.0542
84711415|NCT02807636|169166737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||Strata are: PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.19|0.74|0.6139
84711416|NCT02807636|169166738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.32|0.86|0.5540
84711417|NCT02807636|169166739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.62|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.62|1.03|0.0241
84711418|NCT02807636|169166743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status and Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.69|1.19|1.0000
84711419|NCT03175029|169166749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.514|15.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the TAC-302 group||15.590|5.514|<0.001
84711420|NCT03175029|169166749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.676|7.023|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the Placebo group||7.023|-8.676|0.819
84711421|NCT03175029|169166749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.345|20.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BCI from baseline to Week 12||20.411|2.345|0.015
84711422|NCT03175029|169166750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.604|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|15.455|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the TAC-302 group||15.455|5.753|<0.001
84711423|NCT03175029|169166750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.926|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.121|11.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the Placebo group||11.973|-2.121|0.138
84711424|NCT03175029|169166750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.375|13.731|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean PIP1 from baseline to Week 12||13.731|-2.375|0.157
84711425|NCT03175029|169166751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.48||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||18.59|3.22|0.006
84711426|NCT03175029|169166751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.10|-6.27|0.570
84711427|NCT03175029|169166751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|20.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||20.95|-3.96|0.178
84511345|NCT00048568|168774150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|41.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response at Day 365.|||41.7|25.1|<0.001
84711428|NCT03175029|169166752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|27.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||27.69|9.13|<0.001
84711429|NCT03175029|169166752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|11.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.58|-5.81|0.489
84711430|NCT03175029|169166752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||29.58|1.48|0.031
84711431|NCT03175029|169166753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.26|35.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||35.88|11.26|<0.001
84711432|NCT03175029|169166753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.18||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||14.40|-10.19|0.708
84711433|NCT03175029|169166753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|39.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||39.98|2.96|0.025
84711434|NCT05034952|169166802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3914
84711435|NCT05034952|169166802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1266
84711436|NCT05034952|169166802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
84711437|NCT05034952|169166803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5476|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5476
84711438|NCT05034952|169166803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0825
84711439|NCT05034952|169166803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
84711440|NCT05034952|169166804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4712
84711441|NCT05034952|169166804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1635|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1635
84711442|NCT05034952|169166804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1158
84711443|NCT05034952|169166805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2882
84711444|NCT05034952|169166805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2344
84711445|NCT05034952|169166805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1724|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1724
84711446|NCT05034952|169166806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1343
84711447|NCT05034952|169166806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4501
84711448|NCT05034952|169166806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1009
84711449|NCT05862870|169166839|OTHER|Frequency count|exact count|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|20.0|20.0|||count|||Frequency count of patients retained in treatment.|Threshold for frequency count|20|20|.05
84711450|NCT02596126|169166939|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.6|< 0.025
84711451|NCT02596126|169166939|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711452|NCT02596126|169166940|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky-Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high (8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 6 months||1.2|1.06|< 0.005
84511346|NCT00048568|168774152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|31.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 169.|||31.1|15.0|<0.001
84511347|NCT00048568|168774153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 365.|||38.5|21.8|<0.001
84711453|NCT02596126|169166941|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - All-cause death||1.25|0.75|< 0.05
84711454|NCT02596126|169166942|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky- Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high(8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 24 months||1.25|1.1|< 0.005
84711455|NCT02596126|169166943|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 6 months||1.2|-1.8|< 0.05
84711456|NCT02596126|169166944|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 12 months||3|-0.1|< 0.05
84711457|NCT02596126|169166945|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 24 months||1.4|-1.7|< 0.05
84711458|NCT02596126|169166946|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 6 months||1|-0.7|< 0.05
84511348|NCT00048568|168774155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 70 response at Day 169.|||19.5|7.0|<0.001
84511349|NCT00048568|168774156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||29.8|15.6|<0.001
84511350|NCT00048568|168774158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving MCR.|||17.2|7.3|<0.001
84511351|NCT00048568|168774159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 169|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.91|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 169.|||-0.91|-1.38|<0.001
84511352|NCT00048568|168774159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 365|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 365.|||-1.16|-1.63|<0.001
84511353|NCT00048568|168774163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 169|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.57|2.64|<0.001
84511354|NCT00048568|168774163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 365|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.62|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.62|2.69|<0.001
84511355|NCT00048568|168774164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|5.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving extended MCR.|||9.0|2.4|0.002
84511826|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.97||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.97|-0.47|0.489
84511827|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.85||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.85|-0.42|0.498
84511828|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.49|-0.8|0.637
84511356|NCT03831048|168774290|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis of this endpoint will be performed using a linear probability model, with the following terms in the model: (1) treatment; and (2) the known donor and recipient risk factors listed above. Variables that make the model fail to converge will be dropped from the model. The test will be conducted at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.034||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Regression, Linear|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for the primary endpoint are as follows:~H0: pSOC - pDCD ≥ 0.20 vs. H1: pSOC - pDCD \< 0.20 where pDCD and pSOC represent the true survival proportions at the six months follow-up visit for DCD and SOC heart transplant patients, respectively."||0.034|-0.098|<0.0001
84511357|NCT03831048|168774291|OTHER|No hypothesis test.||||||||||||||||No null hypothesis test.|No statistical hypothesis testing. This endpoint will be summarized for the OCS Heart Population using counts and percentages and an exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage based on the binomial distribution. It will also be summarized for the modified OCS Heart Population, defined as the number of DCD hearts that were successfully transplanted after preservation and assessment on the OCS divided by the total number of DCD donor hearts that were instrumented on the OCS.|||
84511358|NCT01027780|168774292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Please note that this analysis tested the differences between groups following the intervention.|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.007
84511359|NCT01027780|168774293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Note that this is the p value for differences between groups immediately following the intervention|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.04
84511360|NCT01027780|168774294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Difference between groups following intervention|ANOVA|||||||.03
84711459|NCT02596126|169166947|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 12 months||1.6|-0.1|< 0.05
84511361|NCT03227445|168774306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|54.28|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||"There are three intercurrent events identified which could impact upon the estimand of interest:~* The participant could withdraw from randomised study device sequence and therefore withdraw from the study~* The participant could change their standard COPD maintenance medication device to one delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER; these subjects should have been withdrawn from the study according to the protocol.~* The participant could attend the visit without the device/s they were randomised to, in which case correct use cannot be assessed as described in the protocol.~Rescue Medication use and change to maintenance COPD medication which is not delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER are not considered intercurrent events"|54.28|1.97|<0.001
84511362|NCT03227445|168774308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
84511363|NCT03227445|168774313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||||3.45|<0.001
84511364|NCT03227445|168774314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Estimand: Composite)||||||<0.001
84511365|NCT03227445|168774315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
84711460|NCT02596126|169166948|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 24 months||1|-0.9|< 0.05
84511366|NCT03227445|168774316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Composite Estimand)||||||<0.001
84511367|NCT03227445|168774317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|24.55|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.|||24.55|2.08|<0.001
84511368|NCT01029353|168774332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates.||1.14|0.87|
84511369|NCT01029353|168774332|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Pre-specified threshold = 0.05|Robust Poisson regression|||A frequentist analysis. Using Robust Poisson regression with log link and center as repeated measure, and effect coding, test for an interaction between treatment (Initial Laparotomy/Initial Peritoneal Drain) and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-operative diagnosis as covariates.||||0.03
84511829|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.94||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.94|-0.35|0.367
84711461|NCT02596126|169166949|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 12 months||4.4|-0.2|< 0.05
84511830|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.51|0.67
84511370|NCT01029353|168774332|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.82, 1.11).|||
84511831|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.76|0.776
84711462|NCT02596126|169166950|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 24 months||2.4|-2.5|< 0.05
84511832|NCT02087904|168775420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.96||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.96|-0.37|0.387
84511371|NCT01029353|168774332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariate.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) covariates.||1.26|0.75|
84511372|NCT01029353|168774333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.45|0.69|
84711463|NCT02596126|169166951|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.54|< 0.025
84711464|NCT02596126|169166951|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711465|NCT02596126|169166952|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.47|< 0.025
84711466|NCT02596126|169166952|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711467|NCT02596126|169166953|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.48|< 0.025
84711468|NCT02596126|169166953|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711469|NCT02596126|169166954|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.39|< 0.025
84711470|NCT02596126|169166954|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711471|NCT02596126|169166955|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.57|< 0.025
84711472|NCT02596126|169166955|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
84711473|NCT02596126|169166956|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||4.79|1.38|< 0.05
84711474|NCT02596126|169166957|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||2.35|-12.73|< 0.05
84711475|NCT02596126|169166958|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|8.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.62|5.57|< 0.05
84511833|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.54||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.54|-0.86|0.661
84711476|NCT02596126|169166959|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||5.55|2.04|< 0.05
84711477|NCT02596126|169166960|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|6.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||6.94|3.59|< 0.05
84711478|NCT02596126|169166961|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|13.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||13.46|-4.35|< 0.05
84711479|NCT02596126|169166962|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|8.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.67|5.55|< 0.05
84711480|NCT02596126|169166963|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.27|4.93|< 0.05
84711481|NCT02596126|169166964|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - Non-cardiovascular death||2.07|0.97|< 0.05
84711482|NCT05529966|169166997|OTHER|||||||0.45490734||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45490734
84711483|NCT05529966|169166998|OTHER|||||||0.9237611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92376110
84711484|NCT05529966|169166999|OTHER|||||||0.94342221||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94342221
84711485|NCT05529966|169167000|OTHER|||||||0.38902793||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38902793
84711486|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.0042494||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of comfort score||||0.00424940
84711487|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.00223547||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.00223547
84711488|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||1.858e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.00001858
84711489|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.03003194||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.03003194
84711490|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||2.8e-07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.00000028
84511834|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.15||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.15|-1.26|0.122
84711491|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.00112148||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.00112148
84711492|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||951||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||00000951
84711493|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.03493564||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.03493564
84711494|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.12895248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.12895248
84711495|NCT05529966|169167001|OTHER|||||||0.00279611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.00279611
84711496|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.959638658||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Comfort score||||.959638658
84711497|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.213464715
84711498|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.213464715
84711499|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.155899777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.155899777
84711500|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.055960023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.055960023
84711501|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.000685499||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.000685499
84711502|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.004526118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||.004526118
84711503|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.299921137||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.299921137
84711504|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.368082084||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.368082084
84711505|NCT05529966|169167002|OTHER|||||||0.015036417||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.015036417
84711506|NCT02187003|169167008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI). A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.||1.22|0.77|0.7944
84711507|NCT02187003|169167009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.19|0.77|0.7156
84711508|NCT02187003|169167010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.88|-1.27|0.8520
84711509|NCT02187003|169167011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.26|0.82|0.8593
84711510|NCT02187003|169167012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P value was from ANCOVA model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.16|-0.13|0.9332
84711511|NCT02187003|169167013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.17||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|2.46|||Chan and Zhang|||P values and 95% CI for the difference in percentages were based on the exact method by Chan and Zhang.||2.46|-5.19|0.5349
84711512|NCT02187003|169167020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.336||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.024|2.968|||Chan and Zhang|||||2.968|-10.024|0.3020
84711513|NCT02187003|169167021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.203||||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|5.104|||Chan and Zhang|||||5.104|-2.379|0.5429
84711514|NCT02379156|169167028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in core body temperature (Tcore) from baseline (BL) values to after cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a Mixed Model ANOVA. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater decrease in Tcore when exposed to cool ambient temperature than control participants exposed to the same cool ambient temperature.||||<0.001
84711515|NCT02379156|169167028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in (Tcore) in the participants with tetraplegia from BL values to Cold, with and without a dose of 10 mg of midodrine (two separate visits), were analyzed using a Repeated Measures ANOVA .||||0.006
84711516|NCT02379156|169167029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using an independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores due to impaired cognitive function post cool ambient exposure.||||.042
84711517|NCT02379156|169167029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores than the same participants in the With drug condition."||||0.149
84711518|NCT02379156|169167030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA for the AB vs Tetra comparison. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller change in Tsk due to being in a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
84711519|NCT02379156|169167030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA for the within-group comparison of drug vs no drug in the tetraplegia group. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia with drug would have a larger decrease in Tsk due to enhanced peripheral vasoconstriction due to the drug's effects.||||<.001
84711520|NCT02379156|169167031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
84711521|NCT02379156|169167031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation."||||0.066
84711522|NCT02379156|169167032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in VO2 from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in VO2 consumption.||||0.127
84711523|NCT02379156|169167032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in VO2 consumption from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in VO2 consumption due to impaired vasoconstriction and greater heat loss compared to the With Drug condition, in response to cool ambient exposure."||||0.964
84711524|NCT04833777|169167049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711525|NCT04833777|169167050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711526|NCT04833777|169167051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711527|NCT04833777|169167052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84511835|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.47|-0.94|0.507
84711528|NCT04833777|169167053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84511836|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.74||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.74|-0.85|0.892
84711529|NCT04833777|169167054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711530|NCT04833777|169167055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711531|NCT04833777|169167056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84711532|NCT04833777|169167057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711533|NCT04833777|169167058|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711534|NCT04833777|169167059|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711535|NCT04833777|169167060|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711536|NCT04833777|169167061|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711537|NCT04833777|169167062|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711538|NCT04833777|169167064|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711539|NCT04833777|169167065|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84711540|NCT03648840|169167072|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-tailed, unpaired T-test||||<0.2
84711541|NCT05063994|169167074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef was declared if the 95% CI for the difference in biochemical response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above minus 15 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|48.9||One-sided non-inferiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.9|2.5|0.0003
84511373|NCT01029353|168774333|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|||||||||||||||||Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.69, 1.30).|||
84511374|NCT01029353|168774334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Estimate based on model fit using only data from study survivors.||1.34|0.78|
84511375|NCT01029353|168774334|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis among study survivors. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.99, 95% credible interval of (0.78, 1.25).|||
84511376|NCT01029353|168774335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.06|0.66|
84511377|NCT01029353|168774335|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.02).|||
84511378|NCT01029353|168774336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.18|0.89|
84511379|NCT01029353|168774336|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.98, 95% credible interval of (0.84, 1.15).|||
84711542|NCT05063994|169167075|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the dose response after 28 weeks of randomized treatment was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective.|Treatment Difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.3||One-sided superiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||47.3|3.3|0.012
84711543|NCT05063994|169167076|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef (with respect to the total daily dose after 28 weeks of randomized treatment) was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in means between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly below zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective, and superiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of dose response has been declared.|Treatment Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-2.5||One-sided superiority.|MMRM|||||-2.5|-9.2|0.0005
84711544|NCT03149315|169167092|SUPERIORITY|Values for grouped data were reported as mean ± SD and were calculated using Graphpad Prism 7 software (La Jolla, CA), which was also used for generating figures and for statistical analyses. Changes in skin test area (wheal and flare) were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.|||||<|0.0001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of skin test area between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Changes in skin test area at each time point were analyzed using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.||||||<0.0001
84711545|NCT03149315|169167093|SUPERIORITY|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs. A p value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|||||<|0.001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of BAT between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|ANOVA|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs.||||||<0.001
84711546|NCT03205800|169167126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
84711547|NCT03131648|169167147|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||13.1|4.1|0.002
84711548|NCT03131648|169167148|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||17.7|6.5|<0.001
84711549|NCT03131648|169167149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance.||15|4.4|0.002
84711550|NCT03131648|169167150|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.5||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after initiation of rescue medication were not included in the analysis.||-6.5|-14.4|<0.001
84711551|NCT03131648|169167151|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-0.8|-3.4|0.002
84711552|NCT03131648|169167152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|33.7||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||33.7|-21.8|0.68
84711553|NCT03131648|169167152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|18.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||18.0|-37.1|0.50
84711554|NCT03131648|169167153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|42.6||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||42.6|-0.2|0.056
84711555|NCT03131648|169167153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||32.0|-8.7|0.27
84711556|NCT03131648|169167156|SUPERIORITY|"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||26.8|13.3|<0.001
84711557|NCT03131648|169167157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|14.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||14.1|6.4|<0.001
84711558|NCT03131648|169167158|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-4.1|-8.8|<0.001
84711559|NCT03131648|169167159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered nonresponders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||8.9|2.5|0.007
84711560|NCT03131648|169167160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||19.6|8.6|<0.001
84711561|NCT03131648|169167161|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.4|-1.4|<0.001
84711562|NCT03131648|169167162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|21.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||21.3|9.2|<0.001
84711563|NCT03131648|169167163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.5||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||20.5|5.4|0.001
84711564|NCT04150718|169167167|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,35) =4.73||||||<0.05
84711565|NCT04150718|169167168|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,39) = 4.20||||||<0.05
84711566|NCT04150718|169167169|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA interaction, F(1,48) = 61.849||||||<0.001
84711567|NCT05324124|169167174|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.03||||||||1.03|0.876|
84711568|NCT05324124|169167175|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.04||||||||1.04|0.869|
84711569|NCT05324124|169167176|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.744|0.925||||||||0.925|0.744|
84711570|NCT02111798|169167181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.889
84711571|NCT02111798|169167182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.605
84711572|NCT03761537|169167183|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.7||This endpoint was the first endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.7|2.5|0.018
84711573|NCT03761537|169167184|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|21.4||This endpoint was the second endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||21.4|-2.0|0.106
84711574|NCT03761537|169167185|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.2||This was the third endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline SCORAD interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.2|-13.0|<0.001
84711575|NCT03761537|169167186|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||This was the fourth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline DLQI interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.4|-2.6|0.009
84711576|NCT03761537|169167187|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|26.3||This endpoint was the fifth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||26.3|4.8|0.005
84711577|NCT03761537|169167188|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.3||This endpoint was the sixth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.3|2.9|0.014
84711578|NCT03761537|169167189|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|19.2||This endpoint was the seventh endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|HaenszMantelel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||19.2|-4.6|0.228
84511380|NCT01029353|168774337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.31|0.64|
84511837|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.48||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.48|-1.12|0.433
84726330|NCT00896389|169204589|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84511838|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.76|-0.84|0.92
84511839|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.71|-0.68|0.957
84711579|NCT03761537|169167190|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.6||This endpoint was the eighth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline SCORAD in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.6|-13.2|<0.001
84711580|NCT03761537|169167191|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||This endpoint was the ninth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline DLQI in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.5|-2.7|0.005
84711581|NCT03761537|169167192|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.6||This endpoint was the tenth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.6|2.9|0.014
84711582|NCT02437318|169167195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.00065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||(one-sided)|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.50|0.00065
84711583|NCT03143153|169167228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.6|0.46|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.90|0.46|0.0010
84711584|NCT03143153|169167228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.84|0.49|0.0010
84711585|NCT03143153|169167228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.37|0.8||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.80|0.37|<0.0001
84711586|NCT03143153|169167228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
84511840|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.26||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.26|-1.13|0.222
84711587|NCT03143153|169167229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.73|1.43||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.43|0.73|0.8958
84711588|NCT03143153|169167229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.34|0.78|0.8958
84711589|NCT03143153|169167229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.46|0.92||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.92|0.46|0.0023
84711590|NCT03143153|169167229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.86|0.49|0.0023
84511841|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.25|-1.15|0.209
84511842|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.62|0.813
84711591|NCT03143153|169167230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||95.0|0.65|0.95||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.95|0.65|0.0110
84711592|NCT03143153|169167230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||98.2|0.62|0.98||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.98|0.62|0.0110
84511381|NCT01029353|168774337|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.86, 95% credible interval of (0.64, 1.16).|||
84711593|NCT03143153|169167230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021||99.1|0.58|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.96|0.58|0.0021
84711594|NCT03143153|169167230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.90|0.61|0.0021
84711595|NCT03143153|169167231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.52|1.04|
84711596|NCT03143153|169167231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.99|0.67|0.0355
84711597|NCT03143153|169167231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.64|1.04||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.04|0.64|0.0355
84711598|NCT05722704|169167260|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.986
84711599|NCT05722704|169167261|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.118
84711600|NCT05722704|169167262|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.225
84511382|NCT01029353|168774338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.69|
84711601|NCT05722704|169167263|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
84711602|NCT01566695|169167273|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|18.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|29.6||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||29.6|8.3|0.0005
84711603|NCT01566695|169167277|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|31.3||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel; Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||31.3|11.9|<0.0001
84711604|NCT01566695|169167278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4347|||||||Two-Sided Unstratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.4347
84711605|NCT01566695|169167280|SUPERIORITY|HI-E|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.7|-2.0|0.1467
84711606|NCT01566695|169167280|SUPERIORITY|≥ 1.5 g/dL Hemoglobin Increase|Rate Diffrence|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.9|8.8|0.0002
84511383|NCT01029353|168774338|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.92, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.25).|||
84711607|NCT01566695|169167280|SUPERIORITY|RBC Transfusion Reduction|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.6|-1.9|0.1431
84711608|NCT01566695|169167281|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.4|7.5|0.0007
84711609|NCT01566695|169167284|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||Log Rank||||Cox proportional hazards model with stratifies factors|1.49|0.79|0.6257
84711610|NCT01566695|169167290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.214
84711611|NCT01566695|169167291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.446
84711612|NCT01566695|169167292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.248
84711613|NCT01566695|169167293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.058
84711614|NCT01566695|169167294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.130
84711615|NCT01566695|169167295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.123
84711616|NCT01566695|169167296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.069
84711617|NCT01566695|169167297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.078
84711618|NCT01566695|169167298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.073
84711619|NCT01566695|169167299|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.77||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.30|0.54|0.560
84711620|NCT01566695|169167300|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.72||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.78|0.29|0.480
84711621|NCT01566695|169167301|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.67||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.65|0.76|0.197
84711622|NCT01566695|169167302|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|5.57|0.82|0.121
84711623|NCT01566695|169167303|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.30|0.93|0.075
84711624|NCT01566695|169167304|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.58||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.29|0.76|0.222
84711625|NCT01566695|169167305|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.83|0.71|0.249
84711626|NCT01566695|169167306|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.48|0.92|0.082
84711627|NCT01566695|169167307|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.86||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.34|0.79|0.153
84711628|NCT01566695|169167308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84711629|NCT01566695|169167309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
84711630|NCT01566695|169167310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
84711631|NCT01566695|169167311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.324
84711632|NCT01566695|169167312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.442
84711633|NCT01566695|169167313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
84711634|NCT01566695|169167314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.198
84711635|NCT01566695|169167315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.972
84711636|NCT01566695|169167316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
84711637|NCT01566695|169167317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
84711638|NCT01566695|169167318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.436
84711639|NCT01566695|169167319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
84711640|NCT04784559|169167348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.53||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors,|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.53|0.727|0.8751
84711641|NCT04784559|169167348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.96||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.96|0.960|0.0625
84711642|NCT04784559|169167349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.37||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.37|0.655|0.5945
84711643|NCT04784559|169167349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.7||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.70|0.827|0.3358
84711644|NCT04784559|169167350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.06||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||2.06|0.604|0.7252
84711645|NCT04784559|169167350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.11||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||3.11|0.920|0.0910
84711646|NCT03661840|169167359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.0||Unadjusted model comparing the mean difference (change from 12 weeks - baseline) in outcome by intervention group.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||39|-31|0.82
84711647|NCT03661840|169167360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.0||Unadjusted model comparing the change in outcome by intervention group|Regression, Linear|||||25|-0.7|0.06
84711648|NCT03661840|169167360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||||0.05
84711649|NCT04927065|169167367|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAB: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.0|2.0|
84511384|NCT01029353|168774339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.63|0.35|
84511843|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.17|-1.25|0.135
84511844|NCT02087904|168775421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.85|0.679
84711650|NCT04927065|169167367|OTHER||GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||2.3|1.7|
84711651|NCT04927065|169167368|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.9|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||8.9|4.5|
84711652|NCT04927065|169167368|OTHER||GMR|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.6|2.1|
84711653|NCT04927065|169167369|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||5.6|-3.1|
84711654|NCT04927065|169167369|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
84711655|NCT04927065|169167370|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.3|||||Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.3|-6.9|
84711656|NCT04927065|169167370|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.5|-9.6|
84711657|NCT04927065|169167371|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|21.6|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||21.6|4.1|
84711658|NCT04927065|169167371|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
84711659|NCT04927065|169167372|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.1|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||17.1|-11.4|
84711660|NCT04927065|169167372|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||7.3|-21.6|
84711661|NCT04927065|169167373|OTHER||GMR|1.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|2.073|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.073|1.523|
84711662|NCT04927065|169167374|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||3.0|-1.7|
84711663|NCT04927065|169167375|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||26.0|9.8|
84711664|NCT04927065|169167376|OTHER||GMR|1.744|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.492|2.04|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.040|1.492|
84711665|NCT04927065|169167376|OTHER||GMR|1.211|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.074|1.366|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.366|1.074|
84711666|NCT04927065|169167377|OTHER||GMR|1.676|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.396|2.013|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.013|1.396|
84711667|NCT04927065|169167377|OTHER||GMR|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.26|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.260|0.970|
84711668|NCT04927065|169167378|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|4.1|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||4.1|-1.1|
84711669|NCT04927065|169167379|OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.8|30.2|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||30.2|12.8|
84711670|NCT04927065|169167380|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||5.6|-1.9|
84711671|NCT04927065|169167381|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.4|28.7|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||28.7|12.4|
84711672|NCT04927065|169167382|OTHER||GMR|6.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.369|7.658|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||7.658|5.369|
84711673|NCT04927065|169167382|OTHER||GMR|1.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|2.265|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.265|1.708|
84711674|NCT04927065|169167383|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.4|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||17.4|6.9|
84711675|NCT04927065|169167383|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||||
84711676|NCT04927065|169167384|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|61.8|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||61.8|47.5|
84711677|NCT04927065|169167384|OTHER||Percentage Difference|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|45.9|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||45.9|29.3|
84711678|NCT04927065|169167393|OTHER||GMR|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.938|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||0.938|0.745|
84711679|NCT04927065|169167394|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
84711680|NCT04927065|169167395|OTHER||SRR Difference|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||-5.0|-21.2|
84711681|NCT04927065|169167396|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
84711682|NCT04927065|169167396|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||3.5|-1.6|
84711683|NCT04927065|169167396|OTHER||SRR Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.1|-2.3|
84711684|NCT04927065|169167396|OTHER||SRR Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.5|-5.3|
84711685|NCT04927065|169167397|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|20.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||20.1|1.7|
84711686|NCT04927065|169167397|OTHER||SRR Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|17.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.0|1.4|
84711687|NCT04927065|169167397|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.2|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.2|3.0|
84711688|NCT04927065|169167397|OTHER||SRR Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||13.6|-5.0|
84711689|NCT04927065|169167399|OTHER||GMR|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|2.249|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.249|1.469|
84711690|NCT04927065|169167401|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.5|-2.6|
84711691|NCT04927065|169167403|OTHER||SRR Difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|34.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||34.1|16.9|
84711692|NCT04927065|169167404|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||9.8|0.3|
84711693|NCT04927065|169167404|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.5|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||11.5|-0.3|
84711694|NCT04927065|169167405|OTHER||SRR Difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.3|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||22.3|6.7|
84711695|NCT04927065|169167405|OTHER||SRR Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||18.0|-2.1|
84711696|NCT04927065|169167406|OTHER||GMR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.155|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.155|1.243|
84711697|NCT04927065|169167406|OTHER||GMR|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.976|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.976|0.953|
84711698|NCT04927065|169167406|OTHER||GMR|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.537|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.537|1.051|
84711699|NCT04927065|169167406|OTHER||GMR|1.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.461|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.461|0.830|
84711700|NCT03924986|169167407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.73|0.38|
84711701|NCT03924986|169167408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07|||||||Arm B was the reference group, and the odds ratio between arms was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|3.07|1.11|
84711702|NCT03924986|169167410|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|||1.05|0.51|
84711703|NCT03924986|169167411|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.76|0.38|
84711704|NCT03562377|169167443|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.1|-11.3|
84711705|NCT03562377|169167444|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.8|-9.2|
84711706|NCT03562377|169167445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.6||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||22.6|0.2|0.049
84711707|NCT03562377|169167446|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|25.7||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||25.7|-0.2|0.057
84711708|NCT04831216|169167449|OTHER|||||||0.0107||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HbA1c from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0107
84711709|NCT04831216|169167450|OTHER|||||||0.7927||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in skin carotenoid levels from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.7927
84711710|NCT04831216|169167451|OTHER|||||||0.4651||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HEI score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.4651
84711711|NCT04831216|169167452|OTHER|||||||0.2439||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in BMI from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2439
84711712|NCT04831216|169167454|OTHER|||||||0.6794||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in DMSES scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.6794
84711713|NCT04831216|169167455|OTHER|||||||0.1043||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in oral health behavior from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Cumulative logit mixed effects model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Cumulative logit mixed effects model (using PROC GLIMMIX) for repeated measures used all available participant data. This model is specifically designed for ordinal outcomes. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.1043
84711714|NCT04831216|169167456|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in PAID-5 scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
84711715|NCT04831216|169167458|OTHER|||||||0.5332||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in number of visits to food pantries in the past 30 days from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.5332
84711716|NCT04831216|169167459|OTHER|||||||0.0468||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in ARMS-D scale scores from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0468
84711717|NCT04831216|169167462|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following general healthful diet from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
84711718|NCT04831216|169167463|OTHER|||||||0.0649||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following specific diet recommendations from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0649
84711719|NCT04831216|169167464|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week engaging in exercise from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0049
84711720|NCT04831216|169167465|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducted blood glucose testing from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0086
84711721|NCT04831216|169167466|OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducting food checks from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0243
84711722|NCT04831216|169167467|OTHER|||||||0.2861||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in smoking status (yes/no) from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2861
84711723|NCT04831216|169167468|OTHER|||||||0.9933||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week adhering to prescribed medications from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.9933
84711724|NCT03978871|169167485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<0.001
84711725|NCT03978871|169167486|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.023
84711726|NCT03978871|169167486|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.034
84711727|NCT03978871|169167487|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.0.5|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<.001
84711728|NCT03978871|169167487|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.002
84711729|NCT03978871|169167488|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.227|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.227
84711730|NCT03978871|169167489|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.272|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect for accuracy (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.272
84711731|NCT03978871|169167490|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.217
84711732|NCT03978871|169167490|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.458
84711733|NCT03978871|169167490|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.037
84711734|NCT03978871|169167490|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.107
84711735|NCT03978871|169167490|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation cognitive avoidance subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects test.||||0.369
84511385|NCT01029353|168774339|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.51, 95% credible interval of (0.37, 0.69).|||
84511386|NCT01029353|168774340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.36|1.04|
84511387|NCT01029353|168774340|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.45, 95% credible interval of (0.92, 2.31).|||
84511388|NCT01029353|168774341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.5|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||3.50|0.71|
84511389|NCT01029353|168774341|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.31, 95% credible interval of (0.66, 2.62).|||
84711736|NCT03978871|169167491|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.265||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -1.12||||||0.265
84711737|NCT03978871|169167492|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = -0.53||||||0.96
84711738|NCT03978871|169167493|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.76||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -.3047||||||0.76
84511390|NCT01029353|168774342|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A frequentist analysis.|This analysis used model identical to other by treatment analyses for binary outcome. RR estimated from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates. However, adjusted RR estimates could not be calculated due to the iteration limit being excessed in PROC GENMOD.|||
84511845|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.79|-0.76|0.978
84511846|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.82|-0.75|0.925
84711739|NCT03978871|169167494|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.998, p = .048||||||.048
84711740|NCT03978871|169167495|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.833
84511847|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.61||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.61|-0.96|0.659
84511848|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-1.1|0.633
84711741|NCT03978871|169167496|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) across self-reported affect on the SET task. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.321
84711742|NCT03978871|169167497|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) for fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.002
84711743|NCT03978871|169167497|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons included as a covariate.||||0.005
84711744|NCT03978871|169167498|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||.033
84711745|NCT03978871|169167499|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.403
84711746|NCT03978871|169167499|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.190
84711747|NCT03978871|169167500|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.784||||||degrees of freedom = 1.|ANOVA|||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.784
84711748|NCT03978871|169167500|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.586|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.586
84711749|NCT03978871|169167501|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.916
84711750|NCT03978871|169167501|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.343
84511849|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.56|-1.23|0.46
84711751|NCT03978871|169167502|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
84711752|NCT03978871|169167502|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lesson was included as a covariate.||||0.153
84711753|NCT03978871|169167503|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.566
84711754|NCT03978871|169167503|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
84711755|NCT03978871|169167503|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.266
84711756|NCT03978871|169167503|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.402
84511850|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.7|-1.1|0.663
84511851|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.59|-0.89|0.696
84711757|NCT03978871|169167504|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
84711758|NCT03978871|169167504|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
84711759|NCT03978871|169167504|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.583
84711760|NCT03978871|169167504|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.379|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.379
84711761|NCT03978871|169167504|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.246
84711762|NCT03978871|169167505|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative reframe \> negative immerse) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were then averaged to produce a single value each.A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control)||||||0.455||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = .75||||||0.455
84711763|NCT03978871|169167506|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were subsequently averaged to produce a single value per person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 0.80||||||0.43
84711764|NCT03978871|169167507|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Timeseries were averaged to produce a single value representing each ROI's mean activity. Values for each ROI were then averaged to produce a single value per person representing mean network activity. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = -1.057||||||0.29
84711765|NCT03978871|169167508|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = 0.148||||||0.88
84711766|NCT03978871|169167509|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.631||||||.11
84711767|NCT03978871|169167510|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Pearson correlations were calculated between each mean BOLD signal in the CON and each amygdala ROI to produce 24 connectivity values. These were averaged to produce a single value representing the strength of coupling of the CON network to the amygdala for each participant. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.92||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = 0.101||A two-sample t-test was conducted to compare average connectivity (between the amygdala and the CON network) during resting state between the mindset and control groups.||||0.92
84711768|NCT03978871|169167511|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||2.22e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Superior/Middle Temporal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000222
84711769|NCT03978871|169167511|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.17e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Temporal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000117
84711770|NCT03978871|169167511|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||"Reported result for cluster localized in the Anterior Cingulate/Medial Frontal Gyrus.~FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
84711771|NCT03978871|169167511|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.86e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000186
84711772|NCT03978871|169167511|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
84711773|NCT03978871|169167511|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.61e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Posterior Cingulate/Cingulate. FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000161
84711774|NCT03978871|169167511|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative reframe \> negative immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005.|||||>|0.001||||||pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 298 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.001
84711775|NCT03978871|169167512|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.560
84711776|NCT03978871|169167513|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.327
84511391|NCT01029353|168774342|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.16, 95% credible interval of (0.50, 2.65).|||
84711777|NCT03978871|169167514|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.439|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.439
84711778|NCT03978871|169167514|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.545
84711779|NCT03978871|169167515|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.740
84711780|NCT03964350|169167525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84711781|NCT04222660|169167526|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84711782|NCT04222660|169167527|OTHER||||||<|0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0025
84711783|NCT04222660|169167528|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711784|NCT04222660|169167529|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711785|NCT04222660|169167530|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711786|NCT04222660|169167531|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84711787|NCT04222660|169167532|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84711788|NCT04222660|169167533|OTHER||||||<|0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0017
84711789|NCT04222660|169167534|OTHER||||||<|0.0195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0195
84711790|NCT04501861|169167540|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.043|0.53
84711791|NCT04501861|169167540|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who with preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 52 and in vasopressin group is 40. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.016|-0.061|0.26
84711792|NCT04501861|169167540|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who without preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 31 and in vasopressin group is 29. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients without pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.043|-0.05|0.88
84711793|NCT04501861|169167541|EQUIVALENCE|Imbalanced confounders such as female, coronary artery disease, preoperative ejection fraction, surgery type, primary or repeat surgery, and bypass time were additionally adjusted. A different inverse probability of treatment weighting was fit for secondary analysis and a linear mixed regression model with random intercept to account for intra-week correlation to estimate the effect of norepinephrine on right ventricular free wall strain using the new obtained stabilized weights|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-6.0|0.37
84711794|NCT04501861|169167541|EQUIVALENCE|We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by considering patients who have preoperative pulmonary hypertension. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 34 and in vasopressin group is 28. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||RV free wall strain compare between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension;||2.8|-7.1|0.39
84711795|NCT04501861|169167541|EQUIVALENCE|We're going to explore the interaction between preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension status and treatment group by equivalence analysis. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 22 and in vasopressin group is 18.The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by separately considering patients who did not have preoperative pulmonary hypertension.~Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension."||4.6|-7.6|0.63
84711796|NCT01007591|169167578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|31.7|||ANOVA|Treatment comparison using an ANOVA model with age group and treatment as design variables.||||31.7|-43.7|0.75
84711797|NCT04083235|169167583|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.99|0.70|0.04
84511392|NCT01029353|168774343|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.20|0.34|
84711798|NCT04083235|169167584|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% CI was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
84511852|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.34||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.34|-1.16|0.278
84711799|NCT04083235|169167585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR, 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||1.69|0.95|0.11
84511393|NCT01029353|168774343|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.93, 95% credible interval of (0.45, 1.91).|||
84711800|NCT01426425|169167599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.948|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.83~Ha: PE \> 0.83~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at the 6-month follow-up and 0.83 (83%) is the pre-specified performance goal."||0.948|0.895|<0.0001
84711801|NCT01426425|169167600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Safety failure probability at 6 months|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.027|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic safety failure probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: Ps ≥ 0.07~Ha: Ps \< 0.07~Where Ps is the probability of a subject experiencing at least one safety event through 6 months with a 0.07 pre-specified performance goal."||0.027|0.004|<0.0001
84711802|NCT01426425|169167601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.985|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.80~Ha: PE \> 0.80~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at 6-month follow-up, and 0.80 is the pre-specified performance goal. As pre-defined in the study protocol, this hypothesis is tested if the primary effectiveness objective null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected."||0.985|0.950|<0.0001
84711803|NCT05285618|169167618|OTHER|A linear mixed model accounted for repeated measures ('subject\_id' as a random factor). No power calculation was performed, but the sample size (1,485 observations, 6 subjects) supports robust estimation.||||||0.002||||||P-values are unadjusted for multiple comparisons, as the analysis focused on a limited number of predictors. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model tested whether stimulation delay ('abs\_delay'), retinal distance ('dist\_ret'), and their interaction ('abs\_delay:dist\_ret') affect the number of elicited phosphenes ('num\_phosphenes').|We hypothesize that the parameter 'dist\_ret' may influence the number of phosphenes perceived ('num\_phosphenes'), while the roles of 'abs\_delay' and its interaction with 'dist\_ret' may be less pronounced. Further evaluation of these parameters will be conducted in the Results section|||0.002
84711804|NCT04556656|169167621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.54|0.1670
84711805|NCT04556656|169167622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.55|0.1598
84711806|NCT04556656|169167623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the MMRM, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable, while independent variables included treatment arm, baseline cUHDRS, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level. No imputation was performed on missing data.||0.18|-0.4|0.4544
84711807|NCT04556656|169167624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline cUHDRS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.76|0.15|0.0038
84711808|NCT04556656|169167624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39||0.80|0.09|0.0135
84711809|NCT04556656|169167624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52||0.79|0.03|0.0351
84711810|NCT04556656|169167624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.66|-0.12|0.1683
84711811|NCT04556656|169167624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78||0.58|-0.30|0.5315
84711812|NCT04556656|169167625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.406||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative change = improvement.|From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Finger Tapping IOI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Finger Tapping IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed.||-2.64|-39.66|0.0253
84711813|NCT04556656|169167625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.853||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.08|-33.71|0.1474
84711814|NCT04556656|169167625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.185||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.76|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-4.67|-44.76|0.0159
84711815|NCT04556656|169167625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||-2.45|-43.34|0.0283
84711816|NCT04556656|169167626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.999||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-16.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-16.37|-59.74|0.0007
84711817|NCT04556656|169167626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.547||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||4.53|-44.95|0.1087
84711818|NCT04556656|169167626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.541||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-1.16|-46.68|0.0395
84711819|NCT04556656|169167626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.587||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.08|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||4.61|-49.08|0.1038
84711820|NCT04556656|169167627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.78|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Pronation/Supination IOI Mean from BL was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, BL Pronation/Supination IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), treatment by categorical week interaction, conc. use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-4.98|-55.78|0.0193
84711821|NCT04556656|169167627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.17||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.69|13.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||13.02|-46.69|0.2680
84711822|NCT04556656|169167627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.829||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.97|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||6.4|-51.97|0.1255
84711823|NCT04556656|169167627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.777||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.72|12.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||12.28|-57.72|0.2024
84711824|NCT04556656|169167628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in UHDRS-TFC score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, Baseline UHDRS-TFC, region, categorical week, Baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.58|-0.13|0.2088
84711825|NCT04556656|169167628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||0.57|-0.17|0.2991
84711826|NCT04556656|169167628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||0.66|-0.15|0.2116
84711827|NCT04556656|169167628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.47|-0.38|0.8242
84711828|NCT04556656|169167628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||0.58|-0.33|0.5918
84711829|NCT04556656|169167629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SWR score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SWR, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||5.77|0.55|0.0178
84711830|NCT04556656|169167629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.518||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||5.88|-0.09|0.0576
84711831|NCT04556656|169167629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.99|0.11|0.0418
84711832|NCT04556656|169167629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719||0.1775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||5.71|-1.06|0.1775
84511394|NCT01029353|168774344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.42|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.42|0.37|
84711833|NCT04556656|169167629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.772||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||5.48|-1.50|0.2627
84511395|NCT01029353|168774344|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.75, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.16).|||
84711834|NCT04556656|169167630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.41|-0.4|0.1586
84711835|NCT04556656|169167630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.25|-0.51|0.2144
84711836|NCT04556656|169167630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.48|-1.65|0.9119
84711837|NCT04556656|169167630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.95|-1.38|0.7339
84711838|NCT04556656|169167630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.12|-1.27|0.6213
84711839|NCT04556656|169167631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.36|-1.71|0.8205
84711840|NCT04556656|169167631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.21|-3.0|0.4028
84511396|NCT01029353|168774345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.15|0.70|
84511853|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.4|-1.1|0.357
84711841|NCT04556656|169167631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.75|-2.4|0.7577
84711842|NCT04556656|169167631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.93|-2.64|0.7605
84711843|NCT04556656|169167631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||3.18|-2.05|0.6694
84711844|NCT03498651|169167632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||1.16|1.04|
84711845|NCT03498651|169167632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.20|-0.43|
84711846|NCT03498651|169167633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.57|-0.69|
84711847|NCT03498651|169167633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.26|
84711848|NCT03498651|169167634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.||"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|0.54|0.42|
84711849|NCT03498651|169167634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.23|
84711850|NCT03498651|169167635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.51|-0.60|
84711851|NCT03498651|169167635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.27|-0.23|
84711852|NCT03498651|169167636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.37|-0.46|
84711853|NCT03498651|169167636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.32|-0.23|
84711854|NCT03498651|169167637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.27|-0.39|
84711855|NCT03498651|169167637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.48|-0.14|
84711856|NCT05563246|169167649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.68|-35.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.14|-57.68|<.001
84711857|NCT05563246|169167649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.62|-78.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-78.13|-84.62|<.001
84511854|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.64|-0.87|0.761
84711858|NCT05563246|169167649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.03|-83.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.09|-88.03|<.001
84711859|NCT05563246|169167650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-28.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.27|-50.45|<.001
84711860|NCT05563246|169167650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-64.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-64.96|-74.23|<.001
84711861|NCT05563246|169167650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-63.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-63.81|-73.27|<.001
84711862|NCT05563246|169167651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|75.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.99|40.30|<.001
84711863|NCT05563246|169167651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|89.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.54|98.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.20|81.54|<.001
84711864|NCT05563246|169167651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|90.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|98.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.62|82.80|<.001
84711865|NCT05563246|169167652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|51.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.46|18.90|<.001
84711866|NCT05563246|169167652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|78.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|88.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.65|67.70|<.001
84511855|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.02|0.218
84711867|NCT05563246|169167652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.65|83.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.58|63.65|<.001
84711868|NCT05563246|169167653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.17|-18.84|0.110
84711869|NCT05563246|169167653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-20.92|0.004
84711870|NCT05563246|169167653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.84|-23.69|<.001
84711871|NCT05563246|169167654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|100.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||100.27|-8.63|0.131
84711872|NCT05563246|169167654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.70|-21.62|0.627
84711873|NCT05563246|169167654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.51|-31.89|0.701
84711874|NCT02167867|169167658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t=+7.76||||<0.0001
84711875|NCT03138512|169167664|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.6676||95.0|0.75|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.75|0.6676
84711876|NCT03138512|169167664|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.6556||95.0|0.67|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.67|0.6556
84711877|NCT03138512|169167665|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.2436||95.0|0.85|1.85|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part A||1.85|0.85|0.2436
84711878|NCT03138512|169167665|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36||||0.45||95.0|0.61|3.07|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part B||3.07|0.61|0.4500
84711879|NCT03138512|169167667|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67||||||||1.67|0.89|
84711880|NCT03138512|169167668|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||||95.0|0.33|1.68||||||||1.68|0.33|
84711881|NCT04382404|169167680|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.15|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Velpatasvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 449.39 (77.12).||1.15|0.63|
84711882|NCT04382404|169167681|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Sofosbuvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1226.16 (59.46).||1.60|0.88|
84711883|NCT04382404|169167682|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.67|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of GS-331007 in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1312.17 (32.55).||0.67|0.49|
84711884|NCT04382404|169167683|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Velpatasvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 3570.65 (72.04).||1.23|0.67|
84711885|NCT04382404|169167684|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.78||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1483.83 (66.43).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|1.78|1.06|
84511397|NCT01029353|168774345|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.91, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.27).|||
84711886|NCT04382404|169167685|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.71||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 15361.31 (22.35).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|0.71|0.55|
84711887|NCT04382404|169167686|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||||||The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|2.25|0.91|
84711888|NCT04382404|169167687|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.19|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||3.19|1.14|
84511398|NCT01029353|168774346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.44|
84511399|NCT01029353|168774346|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.49, 1.33).|||
84511400|NCT01029353|168774347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|0.75|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.75|-12.77|
84511401|NCT01029353|168774347|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -2.68, 95% credible interval of (-7.11, 1.83).|||
84511402|NCT01029353|168774348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-0.46|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||-0.46|-17.05|
84711889|NCT04382404|169167688|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||2.60|0.87|
84711890|NCT04382404|169167689|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.56|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.56|.50|
84711891|NCT04382404|169167690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.58|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.58|.49|
84711892|NCT04382404|169167691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.64|.48|
84711893|NCT03420833|169167714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84711894|NCT03420833|169167714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84711895|NCT03420833|169167717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84711896|NCT03420833|169167719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84711897|NCT03420833|169167719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84511403|NCT01029353|168774348|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -3.23, 95% credible interval of (-8.08, 1.68).|||
84711898|NCT05687916|169167723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.277|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|6.18||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||6.18|-6.67|=0.989
84711899|NCT05687916|169167723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.227|=|0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|8.72||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||8.72|-3.93|=0.916
84711900|NCT05687916|169167724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.92||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||2.92|-3.57|=0.989
84711901|NCT05687916|169167724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|=|0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.06||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.06|-6.18|=0.216
84711902|NCT01809691|169167764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.72|.080
84711903|NCT01809691|169167765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.51|<0.001
84711904|NCT03336333|169167775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.63||One-sided|Log Rank|||||0.63|0.28|<0.0001
84711905|NCT02243709|169167832|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84711906|NCT01748448|169167849|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.79|= 0.324
84711907|NCT02226276|169167855|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84711908|NCT02226276|169167856|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84711909|NCT02907099|169167867|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84711910|NCT02907099|169167868|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84711911|NCT03665597|169167893|OTHER|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio (GMR) = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.78||||||||0.78|0.68|
84711912|NCT03665597|169167893|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.74||||||||0.74|0.64|
84711913|NCT03665597|169167894|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.44||||||||0.44|0.36|
84711914|NCT03665597|169167894|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.41||||||||0.41|0.34|
84711915|NCT03519581|169167965|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test because the data was non-parametric.||||||0.76|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The target sample size for the study was 30 eyes, based on power calculations to achieve 80% power assuming 40% of sham-treated eyes will reach the vision loss threshold within 2 years, while SML treatment will reduce that value to 15%, using a 2:1 ratio for randomization (2 treatment : 1 sham).||||.76
84711916|NCT03519581|169167966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.16
84511404|NCT01029353|168774349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|22.27|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||22.27|-9.09|
84511405|NCT01029353|168774349|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was 1.65, 95% credible interval of (-3.97, 7.23).|||
84511406|NCT01029353|168774350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|7.91|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||7.91|-13.02|
84711917|NCT03519581|169167967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
84511407|NCT01029353|168774350|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -0.71, 95% credible interval of (-5.89, 4.48).|||
84711918|NCT03519581|169167968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
84711919|NCT03519581|169167969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
84711920|NCT03519581|169167970|SUPERIORITY|Two-tailed t-tests and mixed effects regression models||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
84711921|NCT05516147|169167971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.||||<.01
84711922|NCT05516147|169167972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||||<.01
84511408|NCT01029353|168774351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|2.63|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.63|-30.54|
84511409|NCT01029353|168774351|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -1.78, 95% credible interval of (-7.44, 3.87).|||
84511410|NCT01029353|168774352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.64|
84511411|NCT01029353|168774352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.31|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.31|0.95|
84511412|NCT01029353|168774352|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.81, 95% credible interval of (0.63, 1.00). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.09, 95% credible interval of (0.90, 1.33).|||
84511413|NCT01029353|168774353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.13|0.52|
84511414|NCT01029353|168774353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.06|0.79|
84511856|NCT02087904|168775422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.51|-1.02|0.513
84511415|NCT01029353|168774353|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.53, 1.20). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.18, 95% credible interval of (0.74, 1.87).|||
84711923|NCT05516147|169167973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||||0.06
84711924|NCT05516147|169167974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Non Engagement mean of 0.40 for standard programming.||||<.01
84711925|NCT05516147|169167976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline score vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.81
84711926|NCT05516147|169167977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.20
84711927|NCT05516147|169167978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.83
84711928|NCT05516147|169167979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.320
84711929|NCT01781468|169167986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9601
84511416|NCT01029353|168774354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.27|0.42|
84711930|NCT01781468|169167987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7877
84711931|NCT01781468|169167988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3272|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3272
84711932|NCT01781468|169167989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 4||||0.9122
84711933|NCT01781468|169167989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 8||||0.8559
84711934|NCT05071807|169168000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.33|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and BMI (kg/m2)||To detect a 1.2 percentage point (standard deviation 2.4; effect size 0.5) between-group difference in the change in FMD with 80% power (α=0.05), it was estimated that a sample size of 128 participants was needed (64 per group)||1.33|-1.17|
84711935|NCT05071807|169168001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.1|-12.3|
84711936|NCT05071807|169168002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||2.9|-0.8|
84711937|NCT05071807|169168003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.9|-30.0|
84711938|NCT05071807|169168004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-6.93|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Total LDL particle mean difference||-6.93|-144|
84711939|NCT05071807|169168004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|13.4|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||For Large LDL particle subclass||13.4|-69.3|
84711940|NCT05071807|169168005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.75|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||Results for total HDL particle count||0.75|-0.56|
84711941|NCT05071807|169168005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.8||||Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Small HDL particles||0.80|-0.75|
84711942|NCT05071807|169168005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Medium HDL||0.19|-0.85|
84711943|NCT05071807|169168006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.13|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results from brachial systolic blood pressure are reported below||3.13|-3.09|
84711944|NCT05071807|169168006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for Brachial Diastolic Blood pressure||2.07|-1.67|
84711945|NCT05071807|169168007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central systolic blood pressure||2.28|-3.24|
84711946|NCT05071807|169168007|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central diastolic blood pressure||2.10|-1.69|
84711947|NCT05071807|169168008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.24|-0.26|
84711948|NCT05071807|169168009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.95|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.95|-4.25|
84711949|NCT05071807|169168010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.0|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||3.0|-0.6|
84711950|NCT05071807|169168011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||1.6|-2.3|
84711951|NCT05071807|169168012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.1|0.0|
84711952|NCT05071807|169168013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.7||When a significant group by time point interaction was detected, post hoc testing was conducted and the Tukey-Kramer method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||13.7|5.0|
84711953|NCT05071807|169168014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-1.7|-14.5|
84711954|NCT05071807|169168015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|47.5|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results for medium subclass; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||47.5|-98.6|
84711955|NCT05071807|169168015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|95.5|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||Results for Small LDL particles; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||95.5|-91.8|
84711956|NCT05071807|169168016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.63|0.07|
84711957|NCT04072380|169168055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.024
84511417|NCT01029353|168774354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.45|0.85|
84511857|NCT02087904|168775423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.52|0.728
84511858|NCT02087904|168775423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.24||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.06|0.219
84711958|NCT04072380|169168056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.009
84711959|NCT04072380|169168057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.734
84711960|NCT04072380|169168058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84711961|NCT04072380|169168059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84711962|NCT01212029|169168086|OTHER|One sample t-tests of standardized regression coefficients of RMSSD predicting O2Hb during baseline||||||0.008||||||t-test was performed 16 times for 16 fNIRS channels. The reported p-value is an uncorrected value for channel 10.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant correlation between RMSSD and O2Hb levels during baseline||||0.008
84711963|NCT01212029|169168087|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Tukey method|||||||0.0105
84711964|NCT03400059|169168091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.49||"analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.~Group-sequential analysis using updated boundaries from interim analysis"|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-4.11|0.0132
84711965|NCT03400059|169168092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-1.04|-4.32|0.0014
84711966|NCT03400059|169168093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-0.73|-4.06|0.0048
84711967|NCT03400059|169168094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-1.20|-4.54|0.0008
84711968|NCT03400059|169168095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||0.06|-3.12|0.0598
84711969|NCT03400059|169168096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-0.17|-3.63|0.0310
84711970|NCT03400059|169168097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
84711971|NCT03400059|169168098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1615
84711972|NCT03400059|169168099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0798
84511418|NCT01029353|168774354|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Pre-operative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.76, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.18). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.08, 95% credible interval of (0.83, 1.42).|||
84511859|NCT02087904|168775423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.79|0.673
84711973|NCT03400059|169168100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1300
84711974|NCT03400059|169168101|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0660
84711975|NCT03400059|169168102|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0152
84711976|NCT05634226|169168109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
84711977|NCT05634226|169168110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84711978|NCT03281291|169168124|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|42.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus the Hazard Ratio (HR). HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||42.1|14.7|
84711979|NCT03281291|169168124|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|43.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||43.3|16.4|
84711980|NCT03281291|169168124|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||37.6|9.0|
84711981|NCT03281291|169168124|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|41.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||41.1|13.9|
84711982|NCT03281291|169168125|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.8|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||52.8|30.7|
84711983|NCT03281291|169168125|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|49.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||49.2|21.2|
84711984|NCT03281291|169168125|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|53.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 19, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||53.1|26.7|
84711985|NCT03281291|169168126|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|41.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||41.5|15.4|
84711986|NCT03281291|169168126|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||42.2|16.6|
84711987|NCT03281291|169168126|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.4|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||39.4|13.1|
84711988|NCT03281291|169168126|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|38.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||38.3|11.9|
84711989|NCT03281291|169168127|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|52.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||52.5|28.6|
84711990|NCT03281291|169168127|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||50.6|26.8|
84711991|NCT03281291|169168127|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|33.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|45.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||45.3|19.3|
84511860|NCT02087904|168775424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.73|0.984
84711992|NCT03281291|169168127|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|51.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 31, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||51.5|27.2|
84711993|NCT03281291|169168128|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-1.022|||Wald Test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.022|-1.979|
84711994|NCT03281291|169168128|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.061|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.061|-2.027|
84711995|NCT03281291|169168128|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.085|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.085|-2.065|
84711996|NCT03281291|169168128|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|-0.586|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-0.586|-1.635|
84511861|NCT02087904|168775424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.26|0.145
84711997|NCT03281291|169168129|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|-0.469|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||-0.469|-1.068|
84711998|NCT03281291|169168129|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.133|-0.439|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.439|-1.133|
84711999|NCT03281291|169168129|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|-0.959|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 19, for Fx017-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.959|-1.592|
84712000|NCT03281291|169168130|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.448|-1.924|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.924|-3.448|
84712001|NCT03281291|169168130|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.217|-1.686|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.686|-3.217|
84712002|NCT03281291|169168130|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|-1.824|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.824|-3.345|
84712003|NCT03281291|169168130|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.726|-1.067|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.067|-2.726|
84712004|NCT03281291|169168131|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|-1.015|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-20 group vs Control Group.||-1.015|-2.252|
84511419|NCT01029353|168774355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.05|0.47|
84511862|NCT02087904|168775424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.96|0.527
84712005|NCT03281291|169168131|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|-1.393|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-14 group vs Control Group.||-1.393|-2.601|
84712006|NCT03281291|169168131|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.399|-1.153|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.153|-2.399|
84712007|NCT03281291|169168131|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|-1.158|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 31, for Fx017-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.158|-2.527|
84712008|NCT02736409|169168132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.082|||Fisher Exact|||||0.082|-0.452|0.131
84712009|NCT03332017|169168187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was stratified by rituximab-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, and geographic region per interactive response technology.||||||0.0017
84712010|NCT03892616|169168261|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.3|115.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||115.3|82.3|
84712011|NCT03892616|169168261|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|217.4|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||217.4|154.0|
84511420|NCT01029353|168774355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.19|0.76|
84712012|NCT03892616|169168261|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.5|136.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||136.6|96.5|
84712013|NCT03892616|169168261|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.5|79.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||79.5|55.5|
84511421|NCT01029353|168774355|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.73, 95% credible interval of (0.52, 0.96). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.32).|||
84712014|NCT03892616|169168262|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.3|65.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.5|55.3|
84511422|NCT01029353|168774356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.06|0.61|
84712015|NCT03892616|169168262|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.6|78.0|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||78.0|65.6|
84712016|NCT03892616|169168262|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|177.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.8|194.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||194.3|162.8|
84712017|NCT03892616|169168262|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|152.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.5|167.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||167.7|139.5|
84712018|NCT03892616|169168263|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.4|65.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.7|55.4|
84712019|NCT03892616|169168263|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|77.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.6|65.2|
84511423|NCT01029353|168774356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.37|1.01|
84511863|NCT02087904|168775425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.87||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.71|0.836
84511864|NCT02087904|168775425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.94|0.738
84712020|NCT03892616|169168263|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|175.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.8|192.2|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||192.2|160.8|
84511424|NCT01029353|168774356|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.80, 95% credible interval of (0.61, 1.01). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.15, 95% credible interval of (0.94, 1.42).|||
84712021|NCT03892616|169168263|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|150.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|164.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||164.7|136.9|
84712022|NCT03892616|169168264|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|61.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||61.7|51.8|
84712023|NCT03892616|169168264|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|77.1|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.1|64.4|
84712024|NCT03892616|169168264|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|185.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.4|202.8|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||202.8|169.4|
84511425|NCT01029353|168774357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.01|0.46|
84712025|NCT03892616|169168264|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|158.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.3|173.9|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||173.9|144.3|
84511426|NCT01029353|168774357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.01|0.74|
84511427|NCT01029353|168774357|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.72, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.05). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.12, 95% credible interval of (0.71, 1.76).|||
84511428|NCT01029353|168774358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.51|
84511865|NCT02087904|168775425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.22|0.3
84511429|NCT01029353|168774358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.93|0.82|
84712026|NCT04229992|169168332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo."||||<0.05
84712027|NCT04229992|169168333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo"||||<0.05
84712028|NCT04169373|169168336|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.||34.9|17.9|<0.0001
84712029|NCT04169373|169168337|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|"Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.~Binary endpoints in Study 2 were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the main stratification factor of positivity for MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening hsCRP status (MRI-positive and hsCRP \> ULN vs MRI-positive and hsCRP ≤ ULN vs MRI-negative and hsCRP \> ULN)."||32.3|12.1|<0.0001
84712030|NCT04169373|169168337|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.5|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.5|1.7|
84712031|NCT04169373|169168338|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.85|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.85|-1.20|<0.0001
84712032|NCT04169373|169168339|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-2.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.33|-5.47|<0.0001
84712033|NCT04169373|169168340|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.8|18.0|<0.0001
84712034|NCT04169373|169168341|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|17.9|<0.0001
84712035|NCT04169373|169168342|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.8|6.0|<0.0001
84712036|NCT04169373|169168343|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.11|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.11|-1.96|<0.0001
84712037|NCT04169373|169168344|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.14|<0.0001
84712038|NCT04169373|169168345|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.8|26.2|<0.0001
84712039|NCT04169373|169168346|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.8|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.80|-1.55|<0.0001
84712040|NCT04169373|169168347|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.0|7.4|<0.0001
84511430|NCT01029353|168774358|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.77, 95% credible interval of (0.51, 1.14). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.17, 95% credible interval of (0.76, 1.81).|||
84511866|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.59|102.62||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||102.62|-101.59|0.992
84511431|NCT01029353|168774359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||0.89|0.31|
84712041|NCT04169373|169168348|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.24|-3.90|<0.0001
84712042|NCT04169373|169168349|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.47|<0.0001
84712043|NCT04169373|169168350|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.46|<0.0001
84712044|NCT04169373|169168351|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
84712045|NCT04169373|169168352|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.12||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.12|-4.50|<0.0001
84712046|NCT04169373|169168353|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.45|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.85|<0.0001
84712047|NCT04169373|169168354|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment, main stratification factor, treatment and stratification factor interaction and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.04|-4.08|<0.0001
84712048|NCT04169373|169168355|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.1|10.1|0.0001
84712049|NCT04169373|169168355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.2|1.6|
84712050|NCT04169373|169168356|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|8.8||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.2|2.5|0.0063
84712051|NCT04169373|169168356|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||7.0|1.3|
84511432|NCT01029353|168774359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.66|0.29|
84511867|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.95|111.1||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||111.10|-103.95|0.948
84712052|NCT04169373|169168357|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.41|-1.42|0.0004
84712053|NCT04169373|169168358|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.55|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.55|-1.68|0.0001
84712054|NCT04169373|169168359|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|14.2|<0.0001
84712055|NCT04169373|169168359|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.4|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.4|1.9|
84712056|NCT04169373|169168360|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.3|3.6|0.0035
84712057|NCT04169373|169168360|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.6|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.6|1.3|
84712058|NCT04169373|169168361|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.68|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.60|<0.0001
84712059|NCT04169373|169168362|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.21|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.21|-3.26|<0.0001
84712060|NCT04169373|169168363|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.00|-2.56|<0.0001
84712061|NCT04169373|169168364|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|12.2|<0.0001
84712062|NCT04169373|169168364|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.0|1.6|
84712063|NCT04169373|169168365|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factor MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.05|-0.25|0.1781
84511868|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.76|68.65||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||68.65|-134.76|0.523
84712064|NCT04169373|169168366|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0193
84712065|NCT04169373|169168367|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.9|9.3|0.0003
84712066|NCT04169373|169168368|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.17||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factors MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.17|-2.08|0.0206
84712067|NCT04169373|169168370|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|7.9|0.0004
84712068|NCT04169373|169168371|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.6||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|13.2|<0.0001
84712069|NCT04169373|169168372|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
84712070|NCT04610892|169168373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-8.3797||||0.065||90.0|-17.498|0.7387||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||0.7387|-17.4980|0.065
84712071|NCT04610892|169168373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|2.3915||||0.747||90.0|-3.5338|8.3167||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||8.3167|-3.5338|0.747
84712072|NCT04610892|169168373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.5766||||0.563||90.0|-5.4389|6.5921||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.5921|-5.4389|0.563
84712073|NCT04610892|169168373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.5204||||0.685||90.0|-3.6657|6.7064||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.7064|-3.6657|0.685
84712074|NCT04610892|169168374|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.12||||0.854||90.0|0.94|1.33||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.33|0.94|0.854
84712075|NCT04610892|169168374|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.06||||0.79||90.0|0.94|1.18||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.18|0.94|0.790
84712076|NCT04610892|169168374|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.0||||0.498||90.0|0.89|1.12||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.12|0.89|0.498
84712077|NCT04610892|169168374|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.03||||0.678||90.0|0.93|1.13||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.13|0.93|0.678
84712078|NCT04610892|169168375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.44||||0.99||90.0|-2.44|-0.43||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.43|-2.44|0.990
84712079|NCT04610892|169168375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.21||||0.697||90.0|-0.87|0.45||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.45|-0.87|0.697
84712080|NCT04610892|169168375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.42||||0.849||90.0|-1.08|0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.25|-1.08|0.849
84712081|NCT04610892|169168375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.811||90.0|-0.89|0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.27|-0.89|0.811
84712082|NCT04610892|169168376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-3.5||||0.972||90.0|-6.49|-0.5||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.50|-6.49|0.972
84712083|NCT04610892|169168376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.777||90.0|-3.49|1.3||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.30|-3.49|0.777
84712084|NCT04610892|169168376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.596||90.0|-2.54|1.89||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.89|-2.54|0.596
84712085|NCT04610892|169168376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.698||90.0|-2.64|1.38||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.38|-2.64|0.698
84712086|NCT04610892|169168377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.29||||0.981||90.0|-2.32|-0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.27|-2.32|0.981
84712087|NCT04610892|169168377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.974||90.0|-1.47|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-1.47|0.974
84511869|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.47|36.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||36.95|-28.47|0.799
84712088|NCT04610892|169168377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.86||||0.983||90.0|-1.53|-0.2||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.20|-1.53|0.983
84712089|NCT04610892|169168377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.83||||0.99||90.0|-1.42|-0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.25|-1.42|0.990
84712090|NCT04610892|169168378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.14||||0.959||90.0|-4.16|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-4.16|0.959
84712091|NCT04610892|169168378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.92||||0.998||90.0|-4.53|-1.31||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-1.31|-4.53|0.998
84712092|NCT04610892|169168378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.35||||0.939||90.0|-2.79|0.09||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.09|-2.79|0.939
84712093|NCT04610892|169168378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.94||||0.991||90.0|-3.27|-0.62||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.62|-3.27|0.991
84712094|NCT04610892|169168379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-16.137||||0.077||90.0|-34.7829|2.5089||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.5089|-34.7829|0.077
84712095|NCT04610892|169168379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.5927||||0.468||90.0|-12.7267|11.5413||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||11.5413|-12.7267|0.468
84712096|NCT04610892|169168379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.1767||||0.491||90.0|-12.4678|12.1144||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||12.1144|-12.4678|0.491
84712097|NCT04610892|169168379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.393||||0.476||90.0|-11.0022|10.2162||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||10.2162|-11.0022|0.476
84712098|NCT04610892|169168380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-4.3435||||0.136||90.0|-10.8637|2.1768||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.1768|-10.8637|0.136
84511433|NCT01029353|168774360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.57|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.57|0.58|
84712099|NCT04610892|169168380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.2369||||0.316||90.0|-5.4796|3.0059||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.0059|-5.4796|0.316
84712100|NCT04610892|169168380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.7015||||0.394||90.0|-5.0096|3.6065||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.6065|-5.0096|0.394
84712101|NCT04610892|169168380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.9799||||0.332||90.0|-4.6927|2.7329||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.7329|-4.6927|0.332
84712102|NCT05520190|169168390|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Attitude score - 1-month Attitude score / SD of average change|||||
84712103|NCT05520190|169168391|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Norm score - 1-month Norm score / SD of average change|||||
84511434|NCT01029353|168774360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.5|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.50|1.06|
84712104|NCT05520190|169168392|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Perceived Behavioral Control score - 1-month Perceived Behavioral Control score / SD of average change|||||
84712105|NCT05520190|169168393|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Intention score - 1-month Intention score / SD of average change|||||
84712106|NCT05520190|169168394|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinks per day - 1-month drinks per day / avg change in drinks per day|||||
84712107|NCT05520190|169168395|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinking days - 1-month drinking days / SD of avg change in drinking days|||||
84712108|NCT05520190|169168396|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline binge drinking days - 1-month binge drinking days / avg change in binge drinking days|||||
84712109|NCT05520190|169168397|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline depression - 1-month depression / SD of avg change in depression|||||
84712110|NCT05520190|169168398|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline anxiety - 1-month anxiety / SD avg change in anxiety|||||
84712111|NCT05520190|169168399|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline PTSD - 1-month PTSd / SD avg change in PTSD|||||
84712112|NCT05520190|169168400|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline insomnia - 1-month insomnia / SD avg change in insomnia|||||
84712113|NCT05520190|169168401|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Alcohol Screen - 1-month Alcohol Screen / SD avg change|||||
84712114|NCT05520190|169168402|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline behavioral beliefs - 1-month behavioral beliefs / avg change in behavioral beliefs|||||
84712115|NCT05520190|169168403|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline normative beliefs - 1-month normative beliefs / SD avg change in normative beliefs|||||
84712116|NCT05520190|169168404|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline control beliefs - 1-month control beliefs / SD avg change in control beliefs|||||
84511435|NCT01029353|168774361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.55|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||7.55|0.84|
84511436|NCT01029353|168774361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.88|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.88|0.38|
84511437|NCT01029353|168774362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.86|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.86|0.82|
84712117|NCT03683719|169168405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adjusted p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: IGA-CHE TS = Treatment + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the IGA-CHE response rate at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.001
84712118|NCT03683719|169168405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|26.24||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.24|0.34|>0.05
84712119|NCT03683719|169168405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|10.39||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||10.39|-10.44|>0.05
84712120|NCT03683719|169168405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|42.64||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||42.64|13.8|<0.001
84712121|NCT03683719|169168405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|44.67||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.67|14.56|<0.001
84712122|NCT03683719|169168406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adj. p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: Change = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||"The secondary endpoint Change from baseline to Week 16 in HECSI score was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline in HECSI score at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve."||||<0.0001
84712123|NCT03683719|169168406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-4.01||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-4.01|-22.82|<0.01
84712124|NCT03683719|169168406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-0.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-0.02|-19.04|<0.05
84511870|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.62|43.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||43.64|-25.62|0.609
84712125|NCT03683719|169168406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-11.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-11.02|-29.56|<0.0001
84712126|NCT03683719|169168406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|-6.36||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-6.36|-24.82|<0.01
84712127|NCT03683719|169168407|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.05||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.05
84712128|NCT03683719|169168407|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||>|0.1||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||>0.1
84712129|NCT03683719|169168407|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.0001
84511871|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.97|34.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||34.19|-30.97|0.923
84511872|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.88|54.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||54.08|-49.88|0.937
84712130|NCT03683719|169168407|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.01
84712131|NCT05081583|169168408|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.96||||||The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.||0.96|0.82|
84712132|NCT05081583|169168409|OTHER|The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.|Cmax ratio (geometric mean)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01||||||||1.01|0.85|
84712133|NCT05081583|169168410|OTHER||Half-life ratio (geometric mean)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||||1.07|0.93|
84712134|NCT05081583|169168411|OTHER||Renal clearance ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.12||||||||1.12|0.84|
84712135|NCT05081583|169168412|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.15||||||||1.15|0.81|
84712136|NCT03232138|169168413|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking.||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.41|0.03|0.452
84712137|NCT03232138|169168413|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.28|-0.04|0.452
84712138|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.738||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.738
84712139|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.78||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.780
84712140|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.733||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.733
84712141|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.751||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Strong-Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.751
84712142|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of Ki-67 positive nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.014
84712143|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.056|||||||Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Week intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.056
84712144|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.028|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.028
84712145|NCT03232138|169168414|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.004|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.004
84511873|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|58.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||58.95|-50.68|0.882
84712146|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.377||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.377
84712147|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.413||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.413
84511874|NCT02087904|168775426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.05|65.55||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||65.55|-38.05|0.602
84511438|NCT01029353|168774362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.2|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||3.20|0.42|
84712148|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. TUNEL positive (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.338||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.338
84712149|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.547
84712150|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.291||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.291
84511875|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.49|97.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||97.04|-180.49|0.554
84511876|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.86|146.31||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||146.31|-140.86|0.97
84511439|NCT01029353|168774363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||8.05|0.35|
84712151|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.552||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.552
84712152|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.205||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.205
84712153|NCT03232138|169168415|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.295
84712154|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.295
84712155|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.242||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.242
84712156|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.985||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.985
84712157|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.547
84712158|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.778||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.778
84712159|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.685||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.685
84712160|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.469||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.469
84712161|NCT03232138|169168416|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarke||||||0.052||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.052
84712162|NCT03232138|169168417|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. the objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RNA integrity number or RIN.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.82
84712163|NCT03232138|169168418|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be down-regulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated down-regulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-expressions are associated with lung cancer risk.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.50
84712164|NCT03232138|169168419|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
84726331|NCT00896389|169204590|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
84712165|NCT03232138|169168420|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated downregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-regulated expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.5
84712166|NCT03232138|169168421|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.012
84712167|NCT03232138|169168422|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in nasal epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis||Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.0045
84712168|NCT03232138|169168423|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
84712169|NCT03232138|169168424|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated downregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.27
84712170|NCT03232138|169168425|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.59||||||For severity by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
84712171|NCT03232138|169168425|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.131||||||For attribution by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
84712172|NCT03001414|169168426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.69||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|47.48|||ANOVA|Global test of difference between the arms analyzed as absolute change from baseline.||Due to sample size restriction, the primary analysis plan was modified to analyze change from baseline to each time point using repeated measures of ANOVA.||47.48|-20.08|0.42
84712173|NCT03001414|169168426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculation of raw change from baseline in meters using non-parametric Wilcoxon test.||||0.57
84712174|NCT03001414|169168426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Secondary analysis of primary outcome using non-parametric Wilcoxon test of percent change from baseline.||||||0.53
84712175|NCT03001414|169168427|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline calculated in meters using non-parametric analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of these arms is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.10
84712176|NCT03001414|169168428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The selected arm for this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.50
84712177|NCT03001414|169168429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change from baseline in meters at 6 and 12 months.||Selection of the arm for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.88
84712178|NCT03001414|169168430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.81
84712179|NCT03001414|169168431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.63
84712180|NCT03001414|169168432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84712181|NCT03001414|169168433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis represents the results for the Physical Component score of the questionnaire.||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.0
84712182|NCT03001414|169168433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.64
84712183|NCT03001414|169168434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the physical component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.40
84712184|NCT03001414|169168434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||This analysis represents the change in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|||0.23
84712185|NCT03850678|169168471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression speed experiment (instant, fast, slow).||||.774
84712186|NCT03850678|169168471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression channel conditions (4, 8, 16).||||<.001
84712187|NCT03850678|169168471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compared Q10 for those participants who completed the unaided and aided conditions.||||.167
84712188|NCT03850678|169168472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of number of compression channels (unaided, 4 channel, 16 channels)||||.741
84712189|NCT03850678|169168472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Due to Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, equal variances were not assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||Spatial Release from Masking, unaided.||||.062
84712190|NCT03850678|169168473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of score for the reading span (independent variable) to Q10 (dependent variable, 16 channel compression condition) for the participants who completed the compression channel experiment.||||.805
84712191|NCT04640298|169168478|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84712192|NCT04640298|169168479|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84712193|NCT04640298|169168480|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84712194|NCT01573442|169168492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4952
84712195|NCT01573442|169168493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2116
84712196|NCT01573442|169168494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6760
84712197|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 1||||0.029
84712198|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 2||||0.8214
84712199|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 3||||0.4952
84712200|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 4||||0.5232
84712201|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 5||||0.5522
84712202|NCT01573442|169168495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 6||||0.7005
84712203|NCT01573442|169168499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
84712204|NCT01573442|169168500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8761
84712205|NCT01573442|169168501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
84712206|NCT01573442|169168502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7077
84712207|NCT01573442|169168503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8748
84712208|NCT01573442|169168504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4335
84712209|NCT01573442|169168505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.286
84712210|NCT01573442|169168506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7694
84712211|NCT01573442|169168507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9609
84712212|NCT04166773|169168515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|24.44|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, Confidence Interval (CI), and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||24.44|2.27|<0.001
84712213|NCT04166773|169168515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|39.11|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||39.11|3.59|<0.001
84712214|NCT04166773|169168515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|67.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||67.25|5.73|<0.001
84712215|NCT04166773|169168516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||7.90|1.15|0.025
84712216|NCT04166773|169168516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors|||6.13|0.92|0.074
84712217|NCT04166773|169168516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||6.40|0.95|0.063
84712218|NCT04166773|169168517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||3.40|0.25|0.893
84712219|NCT04166773|169168517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||2.87|0.18|0.647
84712220|NCT04166773|169168517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||1.91|0.08|0.246
84712221|NCT04166773|169168518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|20.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||20.00|2.41|<0.001
84712222|NCT04166773|169168518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|32.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||32.61|3.36|<0.001
84712223|NCT04166773|169168518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|42.65|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||42.65|3.87|<0.001
84712224|NCT04166773|169168519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-12.04|<0.001
84712225|NCT04166773|169168519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.73|-11.93|<0.001
84712226|NCT04166773|169168519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.87|-13.17|<0.001
84712227|NCT04166773|169168520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.52|-14.32|<0.001
84712228|NCT04166773|169168520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.32|-17.05|<0.001
84712229|NCT04166773|169168520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-12.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.98|-20.71|<0.001
84712230|NCT04856163|169168585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
84712231|NCT04856163|169168586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||discrete-time survival model|||||||0.21
84712232|NCT04856163|169168587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
84712233|NCT04856163|169168588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
84712234|NCT03158714|169168607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.005
84712235|NCT03158714|169168607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.101
84712236|NCT03158714|169168608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
84712237|NCT03158714|169168608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
84712238|NCT03158714|169168609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.343||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.003
84712239|NCT03158714|169168609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.152
84712240|NCT02515773|169168610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84712241|NCT02515773|169168611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
84712242|NCT02515773|169168612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84712243|NCT02515773|169168613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
84712244|NCT03033576|169168628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.97||Pre-specified one-sided alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||The statistical design assumed exponential PFS with a median of 3.0 months on the ipilimumab group (null hypothesis). The study was powered to detect a change in median PFS to 6.0 months in the combination therapy group (corresponding to an HR of 0.50). A total of 84 participants (63 randomized to combination group and 21 to ipilimumab group) with 78 events (across both groups) would provide 89% power for a one-sided alpha of 10% using a log-rank test.||0.97|0.41|0.04
84712245|NCT03033576|169168631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.50|0.28
84712246|NCT05026320|169168667|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy hypothesis to be tested was the equality of tenderness (algometry) over the initial 72 hours (algometry AUC 0-72).||||||0.0221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0221
84712247|NCT02651428|169168737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.62||The threshold significance level at the interim and final statistical analyses for the primary efficacy endpoint was 0.0294.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the survival functions for CRBSI between the two treatments. Based on 80% power to detect a 55% reduction in the risk of CRBSI relative to the control treatment, a 1:1 randomization, a 2-sided log-rank test, one interim analysis using the method of Pocock, and an overall alpha of 0.05, it was determined that 56 CRBSIs would be needed. These are the results of the final analysis.||0.62|0.14|0.0006
84712248|NCT02651428|169168738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time until catheter removal for any reason between the two treatments.||1.29|0.90|0.4161
84726332|NCT03184519|169204591|SUPERIORITY||Area Under Curve|0.79||||0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
84712249|NCT05481216|169168740|OTHER|Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) will be calculated using a proportional Cox regression model. The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||||2.29|0.73|
84712250|NCT05481216|169168740|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.||2.29|0.73|
84712251|NCT05481216|169168744|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19.||||0.009
84712252|NCT05481216|169168765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||0.99|0.74|0.033
84712253|NCT05481216|169168766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||3.22|1.16|0.012
84712254|NCT05481216|169168767|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||1.02|0.95|0.458
84712255|NCT05481216|169168768|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||4.57|1.61|<0.001
84712256|NCT05481216|169168769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||2.25|1.34|<0.001
84712257|NCT04005716|169168770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test with ECOG performance status, and investigator chosen platinum as stratification factors.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|The null hypothesis stated that the overall survival in Arm A (Tislelizumab + Chemotherapy) is less than or equal to that in Arm B (the placebo group), while the alternative hypothesis posits that the overall survival in Arm A is greater than that in Arm B.||0.93|0.61|0.0040
84712258|NCT04005716|169168771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test p-value, stratified by ECOG performance status (1 vs 0) and type of platinum therapy (carboplatin vs cisplatin).|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|||0.78|0.52|<0.0001
84712259|NCT04005716|169168772|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96|||||Odds ratio was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimates and stratified by ECOG performance (1 vs 0) and platinum (Carboplatin vs Cisplatin)|||1.96|0.90|
84712260|NCT04005716|169168779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.33|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Score||1.330|0.642|
84712261|NCT04005716|169168779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.123|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Coughing Score||1.123|0.473|
84712262|NCT04005716|169168779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.057|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Chest Pain Score||1.057|0.485|
84712263|NCT01787383|169168860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84712264|NCT01787383|169168861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.34
84712265|NCT01787383|169168862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.088
84712266|NCT01787383|169168863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84712267|NCT01787383|169168864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84712268|NCT01787383|169168865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84712269|NCT01787383|169168866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84712270|NCT01787383|169168867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84712271|NCT05178316|169168871|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175|=|0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|-3.98|=0.8862
84712272|NCT05178316|169168871|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|=|0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.84|-4.32|=0.6832
84712273|NCT05178316|169168872|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|=|0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.55|=0.4522
84712274|NCT05178316|169168872|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|=|0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|=0.2032
84712275|NCT05178316|169168873|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.38|=0.7170
84511877|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.47|113.32||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||113.32|-165.47|0.713
84712276|NCT05178316|169168873|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|=|0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.43|=0.2423
84712277|NCT03770273|169168874|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7740
84712278|NCT03770273|169168876|OTHER|||||||0.1071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1071
84712279|NCT03770273|169168877|OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4904
84712280|NCT03770273|169168878|OTHER|||||||0.1399|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1399
84712281|NCT04533347|169168891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming an 85% clinical recovery rate in the TQ group and a 70% clinical recovery rate in the placebo group, sample sizes of 125 per treatment group were expected to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1879
84712282|NCT05521308|169168934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #2 and Same counts.||1.00|0.20|<0.001
84712283|NCT05521308|169168934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #2 preference counts per participant.||6.05|0.41|0.02
84712284|NCT05521308|169168934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #3 and Same counts.||1.00|0.18|<0.001
84712285|NCT05521308|169168934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #3 preference counts per participant.||3.55|-1.36|.54
84712286|NCT05521308|169168934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #2, Variation #3, and Same counts.||1.00|0|.231
84712287|NCT05521308|169168936|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of times they were rated as the same. -Indoor||||||.13
84712288|NCT05521308|169168936|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of time they were rated as the same. -Outdoor|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84712289|NCT05521308|169168936|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants that showed overall preference toward variation #4 vs. the standard curve vs. no preference. - Outdoors.||||0.04
84712290|NCT05521308|169168937|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANOVA|Initally this is to see if there is a differnce between Unaided, Aided #1 and Aided #2.||Standard Curve vs Variation #4||1.00|0.10|<0.001
84712291|NCT05521308|169168937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.35||Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Standard Curve vs Variation #4||||2.35|-2.83|0.855
84712292|NCT04760678|169168972|OTHER|Fisher's exact test||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
84712293|NCT03675282|169169008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.66
84712294|NCT03675282|169169008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.63
84712295|NCT03675282|169169008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.99
84712296|NCT03675282|169169008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.67
84712297|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
84712298|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
84712299|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)|paired t-test|||||||0.04
84712300|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
84712301|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.53
84712302|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.779||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.38
84712303|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.24
84712304|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.73
84712305|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.187||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.16
84712306|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.75
84712307|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.28
84712308|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.85
84712309|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.78
84712310|NCT03675282|169169009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.381||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.03
84712311|NCT03675282|169169010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.30
84712312|NCT03675282|169169010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
84712313|NCT03675282|169169010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.45
84712314|NCT03675282|169169010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.80
84712315|NCT05177848|169169043|OTHER|||||||0.9793||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on the rate of substitution~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 4.30, p = 0.64 Group: X2(1) 0.22, p = 0.64 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 1.15, p = 0.98"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9793
84712316|NCT05177848|169169044|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Q0 (derived intensity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 6.59, p = 0.36 Group: X2(1) = 0.07, p = 0.79 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 7.38, p = 0.29"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84712317|NCT05177848|169169044|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Alpha (demand elasticity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 0.0001, p = 1.00 Group: X2(1) = 0.00, p = 0.99 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 5.65, p = 0.46"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
84712318|NCT05486078|169169090|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Hip abduction strength was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The assumption of sphericity was tested and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. A p-value \< 0.001 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
84712319|NCT05486078|169169091|OTHER|McNemar Exact Test|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value derived from McNemar exact test comparing binary outcome (improved vs. unchanged). Statistical significance threshold set at p \< 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar Exact Test||MRI improvement was assessed using paired evaluation of inflammatory signs (edema) at baseline and Week 24. McNemar exact test was used for within-subject categorical comparison.||||< 0.0001
84712320|NCT05486078|169169092|OTHER|Friedman Test Within-group||||||0.992|||||||Friedman Test Within-group|||Analgesic use (units/week) was analyzed over time using the Friedman test for repeated measures. No significant variation across follow-up visits was found.||||0.992
84712321|NCT03649659|169169094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.54|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.||||6.48|2.54|<0.0001
84712322|NCT03649659|169169095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.84|8.05||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|2.84|<0.0001
84712323|NCT03649659|169169096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|3.59|9.51||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.51|3.59|<0.0001
84712324|NCT03649659|169169097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.25|3.54||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.25|0.8942
84511440|NCT01029353|168774363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.44|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.44|0.10|
84712325|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.02
84712326|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.22
84712327|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.017
84712328|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.98
84712329|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.014
84712330|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
84712331|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712332|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.156
84712333|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.541
84712334|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712335|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.10"|||
84712336|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
84712337|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.88"|||
84712338|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.6"|||
84712339|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A \*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
84712340|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.10"|||
84712341|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.45"|||
84712342|NCT04359108|169169133|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.02"|||
84712343|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.30
84712344|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
84712345|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712346|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.01
84712347|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.93
84511878|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|19.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||19.88|-70.12|0.272
84712348|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712349|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.27"|||
84712350|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
84712351|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.75"|||
84712352|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.60"|||
84712353|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
84511441|NCT01029353|168774364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||2.69|0.62|
84712354|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.72"|||
84712355|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.47"|||
84712356|NCT04359108|169169134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 3.81"|||
84712357|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|navigation system mode and test block as factors||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
84511879|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.63|57.8||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||57.8|-35.63|0.64
84712358|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712359|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||within-participant, 2 sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.037
84712360|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.34
84712361|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.10
84712362|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
84712363|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712364|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.67
84712365|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.23
84712366|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712367|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.79"|||
84712368|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.38"|||
84712369|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.24"|||
84712370|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.85"|||
84712371|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
84712372|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.18"|||
84712373|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.97"|||
84726333|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1571||95.0|-0.41|0.07||The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.07|-0.41|0.1571
84511880|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|33.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||33.38|-56.94|0.608
84712374|NCT04359108|169169135|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.23"|||
84712375|NCT04359108|169169136|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Single-factor test on navigation system mode||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
84712376|NCT04359108|169169136|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.17
84712377|NCT04359108|169169136|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712378|NCT04359108|169169136|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.33
84712379|NCT04359108|169169136|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
84712380|NCT04359108|169169137|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high resolution vision modes||||0.023
84712381|NCT04359108|169169137|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high field-of-view vision modes||||0.039
84712382|NCT04359108|169169137|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||ANOVA|2x2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Interaction between Resolution and Field-of-View: test for null hypothesis of no interaction||||.801
84511442|NCT01029353|168774364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.32|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.32|0.27|
84712383|NCT06393088|169169154|SUPERIORITY|It was calculated that 24 participants randomized 1:1 between 2 arms would have at least an 85% power to detect a difference in pain relief of 30 points as measured using a Visual Analog Device. The actual difference in the mean of the change in pain level, as measured using a Visual Analog Scale, between the two independent groups is 41.67. Results of the post trial calculation was a 95.7% power to detect the difference in pain relief using 29 randomized participants.|Mean Difference (Net)|41.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.15|61.67||The threshold is P-value \<.0.05 for statistical significance A bootstrap N=20,000 was used for all estimates|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~There is not a statistically significant difference in nociceptive musculoskeletal pain when using an IR REHAB device when compared with a sham (placebo) device as a therapy in an approved and standardized clinical protocol."||61.67|20.15|<0.01
84712384|NCT04176965|169169155|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in means between the 2 groups (FINEVISION HP - AcrySof SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0316|0.0592|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0592|0.0316|<0.0001
84712385|NCT04176965|169169156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84712386|NCT04176965|169169157|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FINEVISION HP compared to control in percentages of first operative eyes with secondary surgical interventions related to the optical properties of the IOL was evaluated using two-sided 90% Farrington method confidence intervals around the difference in percentages between the 2 groups. If the upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 1.4%, the FINEVISION HP IOL will be considered statistically non-inferior to the control IOL.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.36||||||||1.36|-0.76|
84712387|NCT04176965|169169162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84712388|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712389|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84511443|NCT01029353|168774365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.36|0.41|
84712390|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712391|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712392|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712393|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712394|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712395|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712396|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712397|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712398|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712399|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84511444|NCT01029353|168774365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.42|0.69|
84712400|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712401|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712402|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712403|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712404|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712405|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712406|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712407|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712408|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712409|NCT04176965|169169163|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
84712410|NCT03652688|169169173|SUPERIORITY||F|14.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The unit of analyses was the individual, nested within groups.||||<0.001
84712411|NCT03652688|169169174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.08
84712412|NCT03652688|169169175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.954
84712413|NCT03652688|169169176|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|4.436||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.035
84511881|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.88|39.3||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||39.3|-119.88|0.319
84712414|NCT03652688|169169177|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|2.615||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.106
84712415|NCT03652688|169169178|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|11.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84712416|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.72|121.74||||||"Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV.~Cmax"||121.74|91.72|
84712417|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|91.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.16|97.31||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||97.31|86.16|
84712418|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|92.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.97|111.73||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||111.73|75.97|
84712419|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|93.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|104.63||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||104.63|83.72|
84712420|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.38|134.47||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||134.47|114.38|
84712421|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.78|131.69||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Max||131.69|104.78|
84712422|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|139.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.71|150.67||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||150.67|128.71|
84712423|NCT05492318|169169223|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|141.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.36|163.88||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||163.88|122.36|
84712424|NCT05492318|169169224|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.77|89.33||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||89.33|60.77|
84712425|NCT05492318|169169224|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.94|85.5||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||85.50|57.94|
84712426|NCT05492318|169169224|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|65.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|79.98||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||79.98|53.33|
84712427|NCT05492318|169169224|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|62.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.86|75.95||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. Cmax||75.95|50.86|
84511445|NCT01029353|168774366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.45|0.04|
84511446|NCT01029353|168774366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.49|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.49|0.44|
84511882|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.05|106.91||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||106.91|-58.05|0.56
84511447|NCT01029353|168774367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.6|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.60|-14.10|
84712428|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric LS means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.49|103.35|
84712429|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|106.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.84|111.8||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.80|100.84|
84712430|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|121.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.56|126.12||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||126.12|117.56|
84712431|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|122.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.08|131.41||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||131.41|115.08|
84712432|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|137.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.09|147.43||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||147.43|128.09|
84511448|NCT01029353|168774367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|0.13|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.13|-15.84|
84712433|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|131.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.47|140.59||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||140.59|122.47|
84712434|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|157.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.49|168.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam. - AUC0-t||168.76|147.49|
84712435|NCT05492318|169169229|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|158.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.23|172.54||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: - AUC0-t||172.54|145.23|
84712436|NCT05492318|169169230|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.43|83.64||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics - AUC0-t||83.64|58.43|
84712437|NCT05492318|169169230|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.67|86.98||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||86.98|58.67|
84712438|NCT05492318|169169230|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.82|83.15||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||83.15|58.82|
84712439|NCT05492318|169169230|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.92|87.25||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||87.25|59.92|
84712440|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV: AUC0-inf||111.49|103.35|
84712441|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|112.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|118.46||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||118.46|106.21|
84712442|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.44|128.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||128.76|119.44|
84712443|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|134.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.15|142.96||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV. AUC0-inf||142.96|126.15|
84712444|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|138.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.05|149.18||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||149.18|129.05|
84712445|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER||GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geom|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.19|144.97||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||144.97|124.19|
84712446|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|162.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.13|175.28||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||175.28|151.13|
84712447|NCT05492318|169169231|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|161.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.8|175.82||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||175.82|147.80|
84712448|NCT05492318|169169232|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.83|83.2||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.20|58.83|
84712449|NCT05492318|169169232|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.08|86.88||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||86.88|59.08|
84712450|NCT05492318|169169232|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.64|83.03||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.03|59.64|
84511449|NCT01029353|168774368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|4.01|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.01|-27.15|
84712451|NCT05492318|169169232|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.79|88.75||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. AUC0-inf||88.75|60.79|
84712452|NCT04986501|169169242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84712453|NCT04986501|169169244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84712454|NCT05089734|169169247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.04|0.68|0.0534
84712455|NCT05089734|169169248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.77|0.1938
84712456|NCT05089734|169169249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-4.3||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.5||The 1-sided p-value is calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for randomization stratification factors of histology, and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-10.1|0.9255
84712457|NCT05089734|169169254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.91||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.61|0.0020
84712458|NCT05089734|169169255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.66|0.0125
84511450|NCT01029353|168774368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|2.2|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.20|-17.46|
84511451|NCT01029353|168774369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|26.83|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||26.83|-18.84|
84712459|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
84712460|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.7|-0.6|
84712461|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||1.9|-2.3|
84712462|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.5|-3.3|
84712463|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.8||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||0.8|-6.3|
84712464|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.5|-1.8|
84712465|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||-0.4|-5.4|
84712466|NCT05093829|169169256|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||4.8|-0.6|
84712467|NCT05093829|169169257|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7||||||For the 9-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup W is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.7|0.3|
84712468|NCT05093829|169169257|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|4.4||||||For the 15-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup Y is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.4|0.004|
84712469|NCT05093829|169169261|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.2||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||87.2|76.4|
84712470|NCT05093829|169169261|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|74.7||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||74.7|61.3|
84511452|NCT01029353|168774369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|31.38|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||31.38|-13.29|
84726334|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0016
84726335|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.18|-0.64|0.0006
84712471|NCT05093829|169169262|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
84712472|NCT05093829|169169262|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
84712473|NCT05093829|169169263|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.6|-10.5|
84712474|NCT05093829|169169263|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
84726336|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.20|-0.67|0.0003
84511883|NCT02087904|168775427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.97|51.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||51.82|-107.97|0.489
84712475|NCT05093829|169169264|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered yellow fever vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered yellow fever vaccine in eliciting seroprotective response to yellow fever if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||0.6|-4.2|
84712476|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
84712477|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.6|1.0|
84712478|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.6|0.4|
84712479|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.5|0.3|
84712480|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.6|
84712481|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||2.1|1.1|
84511453|NCT01029353|168774370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.62|18.36|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||18.36|-24.62|
84712482|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.0|0.6|
84712483|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
84712484|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1511.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1169.5|1952.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1952.4|1169.5|
84712485|NCT05093829|169169265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|767.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|553.2|1064.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1064.4|553.2|
84712486|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2756.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1976.3|3844.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3844.5|1976.3|
84712487|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2506.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1404.0|4476.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4476.1|1404.0|
84712488|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|709.8|1958.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1958.6|709.8|
84712489|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1096.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|513.4|2340.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2340.6|513.4|
84712490|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|288.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.6|392.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||392.0|212.6|
84712491|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|654.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|385.5|1111.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1111.0|385.5|
84712492|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|287.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.9|387.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||387.5|213.9|
84712493|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|834.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|496.7|1402.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1402.3|496.7|
84712494|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1068.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|683.3|1670.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1670.6|683.3|
84712495|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1933.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1224.7|3051.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3051.1|1224.7|
84712496|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|3163.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2247.5|4451.7|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4451.7|2247.5|
84712497|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1524.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|913.5|2543.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2543.0|913.5|
84712498|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|799.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|532.9|1199.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1199.4|532.9|
84712499|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1469.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|995.3|2168.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2168.8|995.3|
84712500|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|549.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|371.8|811.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||811.8|371.8|
84726337|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.44|-0.91|<0.0001
84712501|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|642.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.2|1335.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1335.9|309.2|
84712502|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2630.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2037.6|3394.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3394.6|2037.6|
84712503|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.4|1.2|
84712504|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1431.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|905.2|2262.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2262.9|905.2|
84712505|NCT05093829|169169267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.3|0.9|
84712506|NCT02671903|169169291|SUPERIORITY||Fixed Effect for Treatment|0.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in treatment effect taken from mixed-model output||0.73|-0.23|0.3
84712507|NCT02995434|169169330|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.3|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the reported daily pain experiences of participants during, or after exposure to VR immersive environments, overall and within four different VR immersive environments, compared to the equivalent applications experienced on a 2D computer screen.||-0.30|-3.86|
84712508|NCT02995434|169169330|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.37|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.37|-1.24|
84712509|NCT02995434|169169331|EQUIVALENCE|See section for primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.95|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.95|-1.59|
84511884|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.015|0.972
84712510|NCT02995434|169169331|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.08|-0.55|
84712511|NCT02995434|169169331|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.42|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.42|-2.64|
84712512|NCT02995434|169169331|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.48|-0.08|
84712513|NCT02995434|169169332|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.5|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.5|-0.71|
84712514|NCT02995434|169169332|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.89|-0.49|
84712515|NCT02995434|169169332|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.09|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.09|-1.19|
84712516|NCT02995434|169169332|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.57|-0.88|
84712517|NCT02995434|169169333|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.7|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.70|0.02|
84712518|NCT02995434|169169333|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.39|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.39|-0.42|
84712519|NCT02995434|169169333|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||6.08|1.02|
84712520|NCT02995434|169169333|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.69|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.69|0.68|
84712521|NCT02995434|169169334|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|0.98|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||0.98|-5.63|
84712522|NCT02995434|169169334|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-0.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||-0.48|-7.35|
84712523|NCT02995434|169169334|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.62|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.62|-4.11|
84511454|NCT01029353|168774370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|9.63|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||9.63|-14.42|
84511455|NCT01029353|168774371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|11.55|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.55|-48.41|
84712524|NCT02995434|169169334|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.41|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method.|||0.41|-6.10|
84712525|NCT03378570|169169365|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.945
84712526|NCT03378570|169169366|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.828
84712527|NCT03378570|169169367|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.252
84712528|NCT03378570|169169368|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||p value for response rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.505
84726338|NCT01183013|169204592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.66|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.66|-1.12|<0.0001
84712529|NCT03378570|169169368|OTHER|||||||0.888||||||p value for remission rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.888
84712530|NCT03378570|169169369|OTHER|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared|p value for response rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.994
84712531|NCT03378570|169169369|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|p value for remission rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.911
84712532|NCT03378570|169169370|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.778
84712533|NCT03378570|169169371|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||.951
84511456|NCT01029353|168774371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|8.06|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||8.06|-31.96|
84712534|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Positive Affect.||||.278
84712535|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, General Life Satisfaction.||||.024
84712536|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Meaning \& Purpose.||||.439
84712537|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Emotional Support.||||.025
84712538|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Instrumental Support.||||.007
84712539|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Friendship.||||.014
84712540|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Loneliness.||||.398
84511457|NCT00849901|168774378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
84511458|NCT03828734|168774390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.263
84511459|NCT03828734|168774391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-06|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.000001
84712541|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Rejection.||||.064
84712542|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Hostility.||||.368
84712543|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Self-Efficacy.||||.504
84712544|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Stress.||||.371
84712545|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Affect.||||.438
84712546|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Somatic Arousal.||||.096
84712547|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Sadness.||||.132
84712548|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Affect.||||.951
84511460|NCT03828734|168774392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
84712549|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Hostility.||||.852
84712550|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Physical Aggression.||||.083
84712551|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Negative Affect.||||.391
84712552|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Social Satisfaction.||||.014
84712553|NCT03378570|169169372|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Psychological Well Being.||||.109
84712554|NCT03378570|169169373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.875 Week 1 p = 0.084 Week 2 p = 0.277 Week 3 p = 0.686 Week 4 p = 0.369 Week 5 p = 0.806"||||||0.231
84712555|NCT03378570|169169374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Week 6-7 Follow-up p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~Evaluation p = 0.570 Week 2-3 Follow-up p = 0.063 Week 4-5 Follow-up p = 0.792"||||||0.963
84712556|NCT03378570|169169375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.772 Week 1 p = 0.194 Week 2 p = 0.127 Week 3 p = 0.196 Week 4 p = 0.079 Week 5 p = 0.187"||||||0.051
84712557|NCT03843151|169169381|OTHER||Ratio|192.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.19|211.89|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||211.89|175.19|
84511461|NCT01030965|168774408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.229|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.229|0.088|<0.001
84511462|NCT01030965|168774408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.238|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.238|0.099|<0.001
84712558|NCT03843151|169169382|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 21.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
84511463|NCT01030965|168774408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.220|0.080|<0.001
84511464|NCT01993875|168774420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
84511465|NCT01993875|168774421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
84712559|NCT03843151|169169383|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
84712560|NCT01999075|169169384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|ANCOVA||"The mean difference between the intervention and the control group in the change from baseline to 2 years was estimated.~Estimates presented here are based on multiple imputation of missing values."|||10.7|-6.9|0.68
84712561|NCT01999075|169169388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.18||||||Difference in change in peak cough flow (L/min) from baseline to 2 years, between conventional treatment and intervention group.||2.18|-1.92|
84712562|NCT01999075|169169389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84712563|NCT01999075|169169390|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
84511466|NCT01993875|168774422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
84712564|NCT01999075|169169391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84511467|NCT01993875|168774423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
84712565|NCT03056040|169169440|NON_INFERIORITY|A difference in percent change in LDH between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups at Day 183 along with a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Noninferiority margin (NIM) was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 15%.|Treatment Difference|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|0.42|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|Adjusting for a possible 10% dropout rate, a minimum of 192 participants were estimated to provide 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||0.42|-18.84|
84511468|NCT01993875|168774424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline straining score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
84511469|NCT01993875|168774425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline mean score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
84511470|NCT01402947|168774517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.100|0.933|
84511471|NCT01402947|168774518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.117|||ANOVA|||||1.117|0.893|
84511472|NCT02405195|168774528|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA throughout measurement period (before, during and after CPB).||||0.638
84511473|NCT02405195|168774529|OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.972
84511474|NCT02405195|168774530|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.001
84511885|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.017|0.929
84511475|NCT01706926|168774534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.31|-1.06|<0.001
84511476|NCT01706926|168774534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
84511477|NCT01706926|168774534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.84|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.84|-1.60|<0.001
84712566|NCT03056040|169169441|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 20%.|Treatment Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|8.89|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with BTH was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||8.89|-18.99|
84712567|NCT03056040|169169442|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM margin was -3.|Treatment Difference|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.15|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.15|-0.21|
84712568|NCT03056040|169169443|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.68|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants achieving transfusion avoidance was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug||15.68|-4.27|
84712569|NCT03056040|169169444|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|13.31|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with stabilized hemoglobin was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||13.31|-10.41|
84712570|NCT04650087|169169449|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.95||||||||1.95|0.44|
84712571|NCT04650087|169169450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31||||||||1.31|0.83|
84712572|NCT04650087|169169451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||||||||1.24|0.78|
84712573|NCT04650087|169169452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||||||||1.74|0.44|
84712574|NCT04650087|169169453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.12||||||||2.12|0.58|
84712575|NCT04650087|169169454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.42||||||||3.42|0.29|
84712576|NCT04650087|169169455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18||||||||3.18|0.03|
84712577|NCT04650087|169169456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.28||||||||2.28|0.34|
84712578|NCT04274764|169169463|OTHER|||||||0.7399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7399
84712579|NCT03210272|169169466|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|155.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.66|185.3|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 18.1|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||185.30|130.66|
84712580|NCT03210272|169169466|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|240.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.25|293.81|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||293.81|196.25|
84511478|NCT01706926|168774535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|40.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||40.3|11.5|<0.001
84511479|NCT01706926|168774535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|50.5|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||50.5|22.5|<0.001
84511480|NCT01706926|168774535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|62.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||62.3|35.2|<0.001
84511481|NCT01706926|168774542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|28.2|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||28.2|3.9|0.013
84511482|NCT01706926|168774542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||25.3|1.8|0.030
84511483|NCT01706926|168774542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|41.1|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||41.1|15.2|<0.001
84511484|NCT01706926|168774543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||16.9|0.4|0.079
84712581|NCT03210272|169169467|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|156.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.73|184.22|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 17.0|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||184.22|132.73|
84712582|NCT03210272|169169467|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|245.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.7|300.44|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||300.44|200.70|
84511485|NCT01706926|168774543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.9||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||14.6|-0.8|0.133
84712583|NCT03210272|169169468|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|158.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.25|220.56|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 34.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||220.56|114.25|
84511486|NCT01706926|168774543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||18.9|1.5|0.026
84511487|NCT01706926|168774544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|15.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|27.61|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||27.61|3.96|0.009
84511488|NCT01706926|168774544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|16.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.879||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|28.56|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.56|5.42|0.004
84712584|NCT03210272|169169468|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|246.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.37|297.89|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 26.2|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||297.89|203.37|
84511489|NCT01706926|168774544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|39.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||39.07|15.87|<0.001
84511490|NCT01706926|168774545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.8|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios greater than (\>) one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.80|2.56|<0.001
84511491|NCT01706926|168774545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.92|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.92|2.64|<0.001
84511886|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.01|-0.02|0.543
84712585|NCT00450658|169169476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing UGI (gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||15.9|3.0|0.0018
84712586|NCT00450658|169169477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||||14.4|1.9|0.0051
84712587|NCT00450658|169169478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||7.1|0.8|0.0017
84712588|NCT01084876|169169508|EQUIVALENCE|The therapeutic equivalence between CT-P6 and Herceptin is concluded if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference (CT-P6 - Herceptin) estimate in ORR ITRC review during the Main Study Treatment Period is entirely within the predefined equivalence margin of -0.15 to 0.15.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.036||||||||0.036|-0.143|
84712589|NCT05386758|169169585|OTHER||Gemetric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.64||||||||1.64|0.94|
84712590|NCT05386758|169169586|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.62||||||||1.62|0.90|
84712591|NCT01552473|169169647|OTHER|This is a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging analysis. We aimed to determine whether functional brain network connectivity was equivalent between the two intervention arms prior to the interventions beginning. This was computed in significant numbers of connections between the two groups.|pNBS|0.0001||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a p-value that is used in Network Based Statistics analysis for resting-state functional brain network data.|Network Based Statistics analysis|This is a type of statistical analysis used to test for group differences among functional connectivity levels between two or more groups.|This analysis evaluated monotonic changes from time point 1 (pre-intervention) to time points 2 (immediate post-intervention) and 3 (12 weeks post-intervention) that may have occurred between the SMART and BHW groups.|A network-based statistics analysis was carried out to determine brain connectivity differences observed at time points two (initial post-intervention testing phase) and three (the final post-intervention phase) occurring three months post-intervention.||||0.01
84712592|NCT03721952|169169814|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average depression score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average depression score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.764|-0.505|0.688
84511492|NCT01706926|168774545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|13.4|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||13.40|3.85|<0.001
84511493|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||26.1|6.0|0.004
84712593|NCT03721952|169169814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.510
84712594|NCT03721952|169169815|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average anxiety score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average anxiety score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.777|-0.491|0.658
84712595|NCT03721952|169169815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.268
84712596|NCT03721952|169169816|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control groups.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||-0.048|-0.353|0.010
84712597|NCT03721952|169169816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.175
84726339|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.4639||95.0|0.692|2.242|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.242|0.692|0.4639
84511494|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||22.1|3.3|0.014
84511495|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|23.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||23.9|4.2|0.007
84712598|NCT03721952|169169817|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.160|-0.203|0.817
84712599|NCT03721952|169169817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.949
84712600|NCT03721952|169169818|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average preparation score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average preparation score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.020|-0.919|0.060
84712601|NCT03721952|169169818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.701
84712602|NCT03721952|169169819|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.393||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.791|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average goal-concordant care \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average goal-concordant care, over 3 follow-up points for intervention group vs. control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.005|-0.791|0.053
84712603|NCT03721952|169169819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.039
84712604|NCT03721952|169169820|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.636||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||1.700|-0.425|0.239
84712605|NCT03721952|169169820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.170
84712606|NCT03721952|169169821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.169|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher proportion of readmissions \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower proportion of readmissions, for the intervention group vs. the control group|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.169|0.009|0.029
84712607|NCT03721952|169169822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|2.666|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||2.666|-0.511|0.183
84712608|NCT03721952|169169823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.518|7.892|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||7.892|-4.518|0.593
84712609|NCT03721952|169169824|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.987||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.367|18.097|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||18.097|-9.367|0.533
84712610|NCT03721952|169169825|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.032|3.173|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||3.173|-1.032|0.318
84712611|NCT03721952|169169826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.506||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.773|11.007|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||11.007|-2.773|0.241
84712612|NCT03721952|169169827|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.466||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.479|22.868|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||22.868|-6.479|0.273
84712613|NCT03721952|169169828|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0000009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000057|0.0000039|||other type of regression|Regression \[gamma family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000039|-0.0000057|0.710
84712614|NCT03721952|169169829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00000113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000215||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000003|0.0000053|||other type of regression|Regression \[inverse Gaussian family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control,1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000053|-0.0000030|0.599
84712615|NCT04541147|169169837|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the number of doses in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-2.9|0.16
84712616|NCT04541147|169169838|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the average pain score in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.8|0.56
84712617|NCT04541147|169169839|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the Number of participants with post-operative complications in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.36|||Fisher Exact|||||0.36|-0.22|1.00
84726340|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.746||||0.0546||95.0|0.989|3.083|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.083|0.989|0.0546
84726341|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.0254||95.0|1.083|3.345|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.345|1.083|0.0254
84712618|NCT03476460|169169840|NON_INFERIORITY|"We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable.~The non-inferiority of oral hydration would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between the groups was less than 5% (non-inferiority margin, indicated by the black dashed line)"|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.0|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two independent proportions was calculated according to Wilson's method.|Sample size was calculated to assess the non-inferiority of oral compared to intravenous hydration. We expected a primary outcome rate of 7% in the intravenous arm. We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable. Thus, 266 participants, 133 per arm, were required to ensure at least 80% power at a significance level of α = 2.5% (one-sided).||7.0|-4.8|
84712619|NCT03476460|169169841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||0.299
84712620|NCT03476460|169169842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||0.477
84712621|NCT03476460|169169843|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.042||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84712622|NCT03476460|169169844|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.121||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
84712623|NCT03476460|169169845|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.418||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
84712624|NCT03476460|169169846|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.901||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.901
84712625|NCT03476460|169169847|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.72||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
84712626|NCT03476460|169169848|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.688||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
84712627|NCT03476460|169169849|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.535||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
84712628|NCT03476460|169169850|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.338||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
84712629|NCT03476460|169169851|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.764||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
84712630|NCT03476460|169169852|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.458||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
84712631|NCT03476460|169169853|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.893||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893
84712632|NCT03476460|169169854|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.645||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
84712633|NCT04026555|169169857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.78|||Regression, Poisson|||IPTW Poisson regression was used to model the number of escalations per visit with an offset of the log transformed length of stay normalized per 1000 bed days. Treatment effect is expressed in terms of adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) per 1000 patient bed days.||1.78|1.16|< 0.001
84712634|NCT04026555|169169858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regres- sion models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||2.18|1.39|<0.001
84712635|NCT04026555|169169861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regression models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||0.99|0.58|0.045
84712636|NCT04026555|169169866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.98|0.14
84712637|NCT05480124|169169876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
84712638|NCT05480124|169169878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
84712639|NCT05480124|169169879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84712640|NCT05480124|169169880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
84712641|NCT05480124|169169881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
84712642|NCT03640312|169169901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18||Adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in Least Squared Means (LSM). Random participant effect, fixed baseline, study arm, and time effects.||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
84712643|NCT03640312|169169902|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
84712644|NCT03640312|169169903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11||Adjusted Least Squares Mean.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
84712645|NCT03640312|169169904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
84511496|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|36.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||36.6|12.7|<0.001
84511497|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.8|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||34.8|11.5|<0.001
84511498|NCT01706926|168774546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||45.6|20.7|<0.001
84511499|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-3.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.24|-8.12|<0.001
84511500|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.82|-8.60|<0.001
84712646|NCT03640312|169169905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (binomial distribution assumption with logit link).||||6.35|0.91|0.077
84712647|NCT03640312|169169906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||0.48|0.03|0.003
84712648|NCT03640312|169169907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, diastolic, study arm, and time effects.||2.69|0.24|0.710
84712649|NCT03640312|169169908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||1.98|0.21|0.437
84712650|NCT03640312|169169909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.59||Adjusted for baseline T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Physical Health T Score||0.59|-7.49|0.09
84712651|NCT03640312|169169909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.32||Adjusted for baseline mental health T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Mental Health T Score||4.32|-3.22|0.77
84712652|NCT03640312|169169910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.||1.182|-10.74|0.114
84712653|NCT03640312|169169911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.02|||Fisher Exact|||||0.02|-0.15|0.49
84712654|NCT03640312|169169912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Chi-squared|||||0.03|-0.33|0.21
84712655|NCT03640312|169169913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.41|0.18
84712656|NCT03640312|169169914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.24|0.56
84712657|NCT03640312|169169915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.19||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-1.61|0.12
84712658|NCT03640312|169169916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.99||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||The model estimated mean differences, adjusted for covariates, will not be equal to the raw mean differences observed.|||1.99|-1.84|0.94
84712659|NCT03640312|169169917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.55
84712660|NCT05603143|169169942|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
84712661|NCT05603143|169169946|OTHER|||||||0.3219|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3219
84712662|NCT05603143|169169947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.496||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.952|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||8.952|0.250|0.6568
84712663|NCT05603143|169169948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|28.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||28.740|0.311|0.3190
84712664|NCT05603143|169169949|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
84712665|NCT05603143|169169950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|2.112||P-value was based on stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factors as the strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||2.112|0.961|0.0859
84712666|NCT05603143|169169951|OTHER||Treatment Difference (vs Placebo)|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||MMRM||Least-squares mean (SE), 95% CI and P value were from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||-0.33|-0.83|< 0.0001
84712667|NCT00812461|169169967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-0.38|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.38|-3.07|0.012
84712668|NCT00812461|169169968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|0.73|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.73|-10.63|0.088
84712669|NCT00812461|169169969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.27|0.67|0.630
84712670|NCT00812461|169169970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
84712671|NCT00812461|169169971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-0.38|0.111
84712672|NCT00812461|169169972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.96||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 224 participants in the placebo group and 207 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|0.86|0.529
84511887|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.059||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.059|-0.043|0.752
84511501|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.59|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-4.59|-9.40|<0.001
84712673|NCT00812461|169169973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.92||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 222 participants in the placebo group and 205 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.00|0.84|0.049
84511502|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.922|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.45|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-3.45|-11.02|<0.001
84712674|NCT00667251|169169978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.648|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (IIT population)||1.648|1.133|0.0010
84712675|NCT00667251|169169978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.484||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|1.829|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.829|1.204|0.0002
84712676|NCT00667251|169169979|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1466|1.6422|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (IIT population)||1.6422|1.1466|
84712677|NCT00667251|169169979|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2251|1.8288|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.8288|1.2251|
84712678|NCT00667251|169169980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0246|1.8549|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (IIT population)||1.8549|1.0246|
84712679|NCT00667251|169169981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1181|2.2379|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (Central HER2+ population)||2.2379|1.1181|
84712680|NCT00667251|169169984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7271|1.6389|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (IIT population)||1.6389|0.7271|
84511503|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-4.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-4.74|-12.16|<0.001
84712681|NCT00667251|169169985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.6787|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (Central HER2+ population)||1.6787|0.7144|
84712682|NCT00667251|169169990|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.2586|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (IIT population)||1.2586|0.8090|
84712683|NCT00667251|169169991|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7544|1.2148|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (Central HER2+ population)||1.2148|0.7544|
84712684|NCT00667251|169169992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1479|1.9251|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (IIT population)||1.9251|1.1479|
84712685|NCT00667251|169169993|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1767|2.0666|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (Central HER2+ population)||2.0666|1.1767|
84712686|NCT02754882|169170006|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.737, 1.357\]|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.269|||||SB8 vs. Avastin|||1.269|0.975|
84712687|NCT04323137|169170038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis compared all groups that were informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm) to control patients who were not sent a message.~Null hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications does not increase flu vaccination rate; Alternative hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications increases flu vaccination rate"||||0.0035
84712688|NCT04323137|169170038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on medical records messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on medical records. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.613
84726342|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.804||||0.0009||95.0|1.524|5.159|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.159|1.524|0.0009
84726343|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.429|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.947|10.001|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.001|2.947|<0.0001
84511504|NCT01706926|168774547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-6.67|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-6.67|-14.17|<0.001
84511505|NCT01706926|168774548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-0.17|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.17|-15.72|0.045
84511506|NCT01706926|168774548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.48|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.48|-15.73|0.037
84712689|NCT04323137|169170038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||0.889
84712690|NCT04323137|169170038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.714
84712691|NCT04323137|169170039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the top 10% risk vs. top 3% risk contrast (analysis 2).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same risk level who were sent messages with a vague verbal (high risk) vs. specific numeric (top 10%) risk framing.~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.181
84712692|NCT04323137|169170039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the high risk vs. top 10% risk contrast (analysis 1).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same numeric risk phrasing are differentially affected due to different specific risk levels (3% vs. 10%).~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.301
84712693|NCT02120456|169170116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.58|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.58|0.34|<0.001
84712694|NCT02120456|169170116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.73|0.44|<0.001
84712695|NCT02120456|169170116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.26||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.6|||Negative binominal regression|||||1.60|0.99|0.058
84511507|NCT01706926|168774548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.899||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.65|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-3.65|-19.00|0.004
84712696|NCT02120456|169170117|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.73|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.73|0.30|0.94
84712697|NCT02120456|169170117|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.51|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.51|0.28|1.00
84712698|NCT02120456|169170117|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.89|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||2.89|0.31|0.93
84712699|NCT02120456|169170118|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.85|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.85|1.36|0.003
84712700|NCT02120456|169170118|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.74|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.74|1.35|0.004
84712701|NCT02120456|169170118|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||1.47|0.66|0.95
84712702|NCT03443323|169170143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84712703|NCT03443323|169170144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84712704|NCT03443323|169170145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84712705|NCT03443323|169170146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84712706|NCT03443323|169170147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.06||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.06
84712707|NCT03443323|169170148|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.0083||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.0083
84712708|NCT03443323|169170149|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84712709|NCT03443323|169170150|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
84712710|NCT05260684|169170245|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.65|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.65|1.05|0.02
84712711|NCT05260684|169170245|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.79|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.79|0.76|0.47
84712712|NCT05260684|169170246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.87|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.87|1.20|<0.001
84712713|NCT05260684|169170246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.82|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.82|0.79|0.40
84712714|NCT03064217|169170247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84712715|NCT05894577|169170317|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
84712716|NCT05894577|169170318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.07|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||7.07|0.14|
84712717|NCT05894577|169170321|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.84|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.84|0.45|
84712718|NCT05894577|169170322|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.29|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.29|0.50|
84712719|NCT05894577|169170323|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.49|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.49|0.16|
84712720|NCT05894577|169170324|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.96|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.96|0.33|
84712721|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.71|
84712722|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.75|
84712723|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.88|0.84|
84712724|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.60|0.65|
84712725|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.36|0.57|
84712726|NCT05894577|169170325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.0|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||2.00|0.69|
84712727|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.66|
84712728|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.63|
84712729|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.56|
84712730|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.45|0.73|
84712731|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.40|0.71|
84712732|NCT05894577|169170326|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.60|
84712733|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.70|
84712734|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.40|0.72|
84712735|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.55|
84511508|NCT01706926|168774549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|7.29|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.29|-8.99|0.837
84712736|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.62|
84712737|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.65|
84712738|NCT05894577|169170327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.48|
84712739|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.62|
84712740|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.38|0.65|
84511509|NCT01706926|168774549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.79|-10.18|0.589
84511510|NCT01706926|168774549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.083||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|2.55|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||2.55|-13.52|0.180
84712741|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.13|0.49|
84712742|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.55|0.67|
84712743|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.19|0.51|
84712744|NCT05894577|169170328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.49|
84712745|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.41|0.77|
84712746|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.69|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.69|0.82|
84712747|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.52|
84712748|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.43|0.65|
84712749|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.41|0.63|
84712750|NCT05894577|169170329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.19|0.44|
84712751|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.39|0.75|
84712752|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.76|
84712753|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.71|0.84|
84712754|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.71|0.76|
84712755|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.67|
84712756|NCT05894577|169170330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.59|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.59|0.62|
84712757|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.14|0.74|
84712758|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.79|
84712759|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.71|
84712760|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
84712761|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.29|0.84|
84712762|NCT05894577|169170331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.14|0.68|
84712763|NCT05894577|169170332|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.1|-0.6|
84712764|NCT05894577|169170333|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.75|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.75|-0.13|
84712765|NCT03241459|169170334|NON_INFERIORITY|15.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary patency rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|-3.7||||0.0029|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary effectiveness endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to efficacy endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-11.7|0.0029
84712766|NCT03241459|169170335|NON_INFERIORITY|10.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary safety endpoint rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary safety endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to safety endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-4.1|<.0001
84712767|NCT03241459|169170336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a p-value from a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||0.579
84712768|NCT03241459|169170337|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 100% success, therefore, Fisher's exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.00
84712769|NCT03241459|169170338|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.000
84712770|NCT03241459|169170339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
84712771|NCT03241459|169170340|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington and Manning test for noninferiority of proportions at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Difference in percentage|-1.9||||0.0059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||The objective is to assess whether the primary patency rate of subjects in the SurVeil DCB group is noninferior to that of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB group:|||-12.1|0.0059
84712772|NCT03241459|169170341|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 12 months.||||||0.699||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||0.699
84712773|NCT03241459|169170341|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 24 months.||||||1||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||1.0
84712774|NCT03241459|169170342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
84712775|NCT03241459|169170342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.447
84712776|NCT03241459|169170342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
84712777|NCT03241459|169170343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712778|NCT03241459|169170343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.823
84712779|NCT03241459|169170343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.454
84712780|NCT03241459|169170344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
84712781|NCT03241459|169170344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.860
84712782|NCT03241459|169170344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.390
84712783|NCT03241459|169170345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 6 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84712784|NCT03241459|169170345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 12 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84712785|NCT03241459|169170345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712786|NCT03241459|169170346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84712787|NCT03241459|169170346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
84712788|NCT03241459|169170347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
84712789|NCT03241459|169170347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.140
84511511|NCT01706926|168774550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.63|-2.20|<0.001
84712790|NCT03241459|169170347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
84712791|NCT03241459|169170347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
84712792|NCT03241459|169170348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
84712793|NCT03241459|169170348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
84712794|NCT03241459|169170348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
84712795|NCT03241459|169170348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
84712796|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.789
84712797|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84511512|NCT01706926|168774550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
84511513|NCT01706926|168774550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.79|-2.33|<0.001
84712798|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
84712799|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712800|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
84712801|NCT03241459|169170349|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712802|NCT03241459|169170350|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
84712803|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking distance score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.158
84712804|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking speed score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
84712805|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
84712806|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
84712807|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.580
84712808|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
84712809|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
84712810|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
84712811|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.837
84712812|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
84712813|NCT03241459|169170350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
84712814|NCT03241459|169170351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 12-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.237
84712815|NCT03241459|169170351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 24-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84712816|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.772
84712817|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
84712818|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
84712819|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.621
84712820|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.133
84712821|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.592
84712822|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
84712823|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
84712824|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.856
84712825|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.541
84712826|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
84712827|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.696
84712828|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.716
84712829|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
84712830|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.290
84712831|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.473
84712832|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
84712833|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
84712834|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.266
84712835|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
84712836|NCT03241459|169170352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months:Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
84712837|NCT03241459|169170353|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712838|NCT03241459|169170353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.903
84712839|NCT03241459|169170353|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712840|NCT03241459|169170354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 36-Months||||||0.913
84712841|NCT03241459|169170354|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||1.0
84712842|NCT03241459|169170354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.839
84712843|NCT03241459|169170355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84712844|NCT03241459|169170355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||0.5
84712845|NCT03241459|169170355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 60-Months||||||0.251
84712846|NCT03241459|169170356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.478
84712847|NCT03241459|169170356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
84712848|NCT03241459|169170356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
84712849|NCT02132936|169170368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of treatment success in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing PGA values."||4.46|1.46|<0.001
84712850|NCT02132936|169170369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of having PASI 75 in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data."||3.47|1.37|=0.001
84712851|NCT02132936|169170370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84712852|NCT02132936|169170371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||<0.001
84712853|NCT02132936|169170372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||=0.33
84712854|NCT01000961|169170461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority endpoint of the clinical trial would be achieved if the upper limit of the 95.8% CI of the difference between RP103 and Cystagon® was less than the a-priori 0.3 non-inferiority margin, which would correspond to an observed p-value less than or equal to 0.02104|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0785||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.0107|0.1464|||t-test, 1 sided||95.8% confidence interval was used instead of 95% to take into account a sample size re-estimation calculation that was performed after 20 patients were enrolled.|16-subject study will have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis of non-inferiority at the 0.025 level of significance with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3. Final analysis was performed at a nominal significance level of 0.02104.||0.1464|0.0107|0.0001
84712855|NCT01000961|169170462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67||||||||1.67|1.17|
84712856|NCT01000961|169170463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|150.0||||||||150|90|
84712857|NCT01000961|169170464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.39||||||||2.39|1.75|
84726344|NCT01183013|169204593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.614|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.187|17.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||17.821|5.187|<0.0001
84511514|NCT01706926|168774551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.14|-0.29|0.479
84511515|NCT01706926|168774551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.04|-0.37|0.124
84511516|NCT01706926|168774551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.05|-0.47|0.017
84511517|NCT01706926|168774552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.64||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.92|0.45|0.017
84511888|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.011||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.042|0.691
84712858|NCT04295798|169170532|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
84712859|NCT04295798|169170533|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
84712860|NCT04295798|169170534|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.04
84712861|NCT04295798|169170535|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.56
84712862|NCT04295798|169170536|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.07
84712863|NCT04295798|169170537|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.74
84712864|NCT04295798|169170538|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.33
84726345|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.126||||0.7359||95.0|0.565|2.243|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.243|0.565|0.7359
84726346|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.905||||0.0363||95.0|1.042|3.484|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.484|1.042|0.0363
84726347|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.4039||95.0|0.726|2.217|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.217|0.726|0.4039
84726348|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0345||95.0|1.06|4.649|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.649|1.060|0.0345
84726349|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.263|9.266|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||9.266|2.263|<0.0001
84726350|NCT01183013|169204594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.066|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.53|10.145|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.145|2.530|<0.0001
84726351|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.754||95.0|0.637|1.863|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.863|0.637|0.7540
84726352|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.707||||0.0506||95.0|0.999|2.918|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.918|0.999|0.0506
84726353|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.966||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|5.485|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.485|1.604|0.0005
84712865|NCT04295798|169170539|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.16
84726354|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0002||95.0|1.594|4.559|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.559|1.594|0.0002
84712866|NCT04295798|169170540|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.52
84712867|NCT04295798|169170541|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.01
84712868|NCT04295798|169170542|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention||||0.39
84712869|NCT04295798|169170543|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.18
84712870|NCT05364671|169170582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.04|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
84712871|NCT05364671|169170583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.005|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.0025
84712872|NCT05364671|169170585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.2607
84712873|NCT05364671|169170586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 6 row."||||0.7601
84712874|NCT05364671|169170586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7685|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 10 row."||||0.7685
84712875|NCT05364671|169170587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
84712876|NCT05364671|169170588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
84712877|NCT05364671|169170589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
84712878|NCT05364671|169170590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84712879|NCT05364671|169170591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.92
84712880|NCT05364671|169170592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.44
84712881|NCT05364671|169170593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SpO2 from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.90
84712882|NCT05364671|169170594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.30
84712883|NCT05364671|169170594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of DBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.94
84712884|NCT04709783|169170604|OTHER|One group pre-post test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
84712885|NCT04709783|169170605|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84712886|NCT04709783|169170606|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.07|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84712887|NCT04709783|169170607|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84712888|NCT05794243|169170615|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0741|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between geometric least square means (GLSMs).||0.228|0.0741|
84712889|NCT05794243|169170615|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.237|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.669|0.237|
84712890|NCT05794243|169170617|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.062|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.182|0.0620|
84712891|NCT05794243|169170617|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.569|0.206|
84511889|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.06|-0.041|0.71
84712892|NCT02761057|169170622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A proportional hazards model was used to compare the Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS.||0.97|0.37|0.019
84712893|NCT02761057|169170623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||The Chi-Square test will be used to compare RR between sunitinib and cabozantinib.||||0.10
84712894|NCT02761057|169170624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||Log Rank|||The log-rank test will be used to compare OS.||1.51|0.47|
84712895|NCT03637660|169170627|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.03||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|To assess the primary efficacy endpoint, the number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 6 and the 95% confidence interval were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis for the primary objective was that the difference in proportion of participants with serological responses between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%||0.03|-0.15|0.002
84712896|NCT03637660|169170635|EQUIVALENCE|The alternative hypothesis was that the two treatment groups were unequal.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value was calculated based on 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square test. Difference in proportion was reported with the Wilson 95% CI|Chi-squared|||The number and proportion of participants who were compliant to the treatment, receiving all assigned doses within the assigned visit windows. The null hypothesis was no difference between two treatment groups.||||< 0.001
84726355|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.017|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.348|6.873|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||6.873|2.348|<0.0001
84726356|NCT01183013|169204595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.521|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.63|15.681|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||15.681|4.630|<0.0001
84712897|NCT03637660|169170637|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.07||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.07|-0.17|0.022
84712898|NCT03637660|169170637|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.09||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.09|-0.22|0.037
84511518|NCT01706926|168774552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.66|0.32|<0.001
84712899|NCT03637660|169170638|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.04||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 12 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.04|-0.14|0.002
84712900|NCT03637660|169170639|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.05|-0.18|0.011
84715124|NCT04508309|169176877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.372|2.069|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.069|1.372|
84511519|NCT01706926|168774552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.63|0.31|<0.001
84511520|NCT01706926|168774553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.89|0.58|0.003
84511521|NCT01706926|168774553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.84|0.55|<0.001
84511522|NCT01706926|168774553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.75|0.49|<0.001
84511523|NCT01706926|168774554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
84511524|NCT01706926|168774554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.1|-2.9|1.000
84511525|NCT01706926|168774554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.8||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||9.2|-1.6|0.207
84712901|NCT03637660|169170639|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.03||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.11||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 amont participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.11|-0.18|0.064
84712902|NCT06132867|169170708|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment least square means (LSM) from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.98|97.74|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||97.74|86.98|
84712903|NCT06132867|169170709|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUClast.|GMR (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.48|104.16|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||104.16|88.48|
84712904|NCT06132867|169170710|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUCinf.|GMR (%)|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|103.42|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||103.42|88.81|
84712905|NCT03457142|169170734|OTHER|No formal test, a confidence interval estimate for the grade 3+ treatment related AE rate.|grade 3+ treatment related AE rate|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.54||||||||0.54|0.17|
84712906|NCT02921230|169170746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0077
84712907|NCT01926496|169170765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.99|0.80|0.03
84712908|NCT01926496|169170766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||1.03|0.87|0.18
84712909|NCT01926496|169170767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.84|0.52|<0.001
84712910|NCT00999804|169170807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of pCR|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||No comparison is required between the 24 weeks arm and 12 weeks arm. The study is designed as the 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design and required 20 or more responses in the first 55 evaluable patients.|"The study was planned to enroll 136 patients if the original cohort (n=90) was deemed successful. The 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design. The 12 weeks arm accrued as long as the 24 weeks arm is open.~The analysis of the first cohort indicated that 15 pCR were observed , which did not meet the required 20 or more responses. The accrual was closed early and the study has a total of 128 participants."||||
84712911|NCT00999804|169170808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of patients with AE|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||61 out of 85 patients (72%) in the 24-week arm had at least 1 adverse events.|This outcome is to establish the safety and tolerability of an extended regimen of lapatinib + trastuzumab, with or without endocrine therapy. No comparison between the 2 arms is required.||||
84712912|NCT00999804|169170809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of tpCR in 24 weeks arm|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the two arms is required.||||
84712913|NCT00999804|169170810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of CR+PR in 24 weeks arm|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the 2 arm is required for this study.||||
84712914|NCT05229146|169170811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = .913, df = 10||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses immediately following the intervention (approximately one week after baseline).||||.191
84511526|NCT01706926|168774555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
84712915|NCT05229146|169170811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = 1.92, df = 9||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses at two week follow-up (approximately four weeks after baseline).||||.043
84712916|NCT05229146|169170812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made. DF = 15.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is between future orientation subscale pre- and post-subscale scores.||||.319
84712917|NCT05229146|169170812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 15.||Comparison between immediate-orientation subscales.||||.488
84712918|NCT05229146|169170813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.438||||0.34|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a paired-samples one-sided t-test comparing positive parenting before the intervention to after the intervention.||||.34
84712919|NCT05229146|169170813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363||||0.362|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a one-sided paired-samples t-test to compare negative parenting before and after the intervention.||||.362
84712920|NCT05229146|169170814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the parental involvement subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||<.001
84712921|NCT05229146|169170814|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.137|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the positive parenting subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.137
84511527|NCT01706926|168774555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||6.9|-2.3|0.621
84712922|NCT05229146|169170814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.018|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the inconsistent discipline subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.018
84712923|NCT05229146|169170814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.015|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the use of corporal punishment subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.015
84712924|NCT05229146|169170814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.021|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the poor parental monitoring/supervision subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.021
84712925|NCT05229146|169170815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.878||||0.197|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in emotion regulation subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.197
84712926|NCT05229146|169170815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.857||||0.203|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in lability/negativity subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.203
84712927|NCT05717907|169170855|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84712928|NCT05590403|169170860|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is less than (\<) 1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.09|0.83|
84712929|NCT05590403|169170861|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|3.28|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||3.28|-8.54|
84712930|NCT05590403|169170862|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.02|0.79|
84712931|NCT05590403|169170863|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|2.53|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||2.53|-10.39|
84712932|NCT05590403|169170864|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.96|0.73|
84712933|NCT05590403|169170865|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-1.12|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.12|-12.26|
84712934|NCT05590403|169170866|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.91|0.71|
84712935|NCT05590403|169170867|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.09|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.09|-13.52|
84712936|NCT05908344|169170884|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design||||
84712937|NCT05908344|169170884|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712938|NCT05908344|169170884|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84511528|NCT01706926|168774555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||12.7|0.0|0.062
84511529|NCT01706926|168774556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.8|-0.4|0.245
84712939|NCT05908344|169170884|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712940|NCT05908344|169170885|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712941|NCT05908344|169170885|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712942|NCT05908344|169170885|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712943|NCT05908344|169170885|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712944|NCT05908344|169170886|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
84712945|NCT04717492|169170904|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to death, or first hospitalization or revascularization event was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.54|0.66|0.962
84712946|NCT04717492|169170906|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.92||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to CVD-related death or hospitalization/revascularization was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.92|0.65|0.694
84726357|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|5.42|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.42|-12.77|0.4275
84726358|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.6839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|7.02|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||7.02|-10.69|0.6839
84712947|NCT04717492|169170908|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.66||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to respiratory/COPD-related death or hospitalization was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.66|0.34|0.476
84712948|NCT04749615|169170952|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority Margin = (-Infinity, 1.28)||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.11
84712949|NCT04749615|169170953|NON_INFERIORITY|a noninferiority margin of 1.0 and 10% attrition|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||this is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84712950|NCT05746494|169170980|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84712951|NCT05746494|169170981|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.042|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.042
84712952|NCT05746494|169170982|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.980
84712953|NCT05746494|169170983|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.01|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.010
84712954|NCT05746494|169170984|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
84712955|NCT05746494|169170985|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
84712956|NCT05746494|169170986|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
84712957|NCT05746494|169170987|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84712958|NCT03194217|169170994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|-1.68|0.668
84712959|NCT03194217|169170994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-0.50|0.213
84712960|NCT03194217|169170994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.76|0.575
84712961|NCT02962895|169170995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.02|-1.52|0.5161
84712962|NCT02962895|169170995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.71|-2.80|0.6332
84712963|NCT02962895|169170995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.32|-4.15|0.0921
84712964|NCT02962895|169170997|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||1.13|-0.50|0.4457
84712965|NCT02962895|169170997|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||0.82|-0.79|0.301
84712966|NCT02962895|169170997|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.74|-0.86|0.8858
84712967|NCT02962895|169170999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||2.07|-5.93|0.3424
84712968|NCT02962895|169170999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.45|-6.58|0.2092
84712969|NCT02962895|169170999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.20|-3.58|0.8740
84712970|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.5768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||2.57|-4.61|0.5768
84712971|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.68||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.28|-2.93|0.7113
84712972|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.48|-2.49|0.5722
84712973|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||3.83|-1.59|0.4138
84712974|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||1.71|-3.72|0.4663
84712975|NCT02962895|169171001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||4.47|-0.79|0.1694
84712976|NCT02962895|169171003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.22|-11.56|0.2671
84712977|NCT02962895|169171003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||2.79|-11.78|0.2248
84712978|NCT02962895|169171003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||-1.20|-15.51|0.0224
84712979|NCT02962895|169171005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||12.00|-7.46|0.6457
84712980|NCT02962895|169171005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.26||||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|13.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||13.06|-6.55|0.5132
84712981|NCT02962895|169171005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.77||||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.68|-14.21|95
84712982|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.30|-0.08|0.2710
84712983|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.32|-0.05|0.1618
84511530|NCT01706926|168774556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.5|-1.1|1.000
84511531|NCT01706926|168774556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.3||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.7|-1.2|0.494
84511532|NCT01706926|168774557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||4.35|-1.99|0.463
84511890|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.02||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.02|-0.019|0.965
84712984|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.38|0.01|0.0374
84712985|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.09|-0.09|0.9559
84712986|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.08|-0.09|0.9290
84712987|NCT02962895|169171006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.07|-0.10|0.7276
84712988|NCT03134196|169171026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|0.5|
84712989|NCT03134196|169171027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||||0.99|0.56|
84712990|NCT03896789|169171099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5||The primary outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||"Null hypothesis: Assuming no difference between usual care (control) and PEGASUS (intervention).~We used 2011-2012 results from prior pilot work in Argentina (58.6% TBI guideline adherence) to determine a sample size of 432 eligible patients (216 per arm) for the planned parallel cluster RCT, which would have 80% power to detect a 18.7% higher ICU TBI guideline adherence rate with programme implementation, with a two-sided alpha of 5%, and an intraclass coefficient of 0.05."||3.5|-3.3|.95
84712991|NCT03896789|169171105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8||The outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||||13.8|1.9|.01
84712992|NCT06429319|169171106|SUPERIORITY||F value|5.919||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||No sample size calculation was performed. Maximum expected number of participants for OLE was 72 patients randomized to the NOLTREX™ group in the parent study (IA/PAAG-SI/OA/2019). A total of 65 patients entered the OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.004
84712993|NCT06429319|169171106|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.34||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.98|97.7||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||97.70|-172.98|0.783
84712994|NCT06429319|169171106|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|81.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.45||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|227.16|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||227.16|-63.28|0.370
84712995|NCT06429319|169171106|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|119.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.09|203.07||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||203.07|36.09|0.003
84712996|NCT06429319|169171106|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (visit 1 study 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.070
84712997|NCT06429319|169171110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (study 1 visit 1)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.030
84511533|NCT01706926|168774557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.574||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|5.37|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.37|-0.83|0.151
84511534|NCT01706926|168774557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.02|0.81|0.014
84511535|NCT00993187|168774560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
84511536|NCT00993187|168774563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-30.0|<0.001
84511537|NCT00993187|168774564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-23.0|<0.001
84511538|NCT00993187|168774565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.20|<0.001
84511539|NCT00993187|168774566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|41.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|51.0|||ANCOVA|||||51.0|30.0|<0.001
84712998|NCT06429319|169171110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (OLE visit 0)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.002
84712999|NCT06429319|169171110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA|||"visit 3~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.007
84713000|NCT06429319|169171110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"visit 5~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||<0.001
84713001|NCT06429319|169171111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups.~visit 3"||||<0.001
84713002|NCT06429319|169171111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
84713003|NCT06429319|169171112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 3~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||0.018
84713004|NCT06429319|169171112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
84713005|NCT06429319|169171115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.010
84713006|NCT06321809|169171135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses.||total scale score comparison||||0.24
84713007|NCT06321809|169171135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.001
84713008|NCT06321809|169171135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.03
84713009|NCT06321809|169171135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.003
84713010|NCT06321809|169171136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Weight comparison||||0.08
84713011|NCT06321809|169171137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||BMI Comparison||||0.13
84713012|NCT06321809|169171138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Waist Circumference Comparison||||0.63
84713013|NCT06321809|169171139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||LDL Cholesterol Comparison||||0.89
84713014|NCT05020249|169171146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713015|NCT05020249|169171147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713016|NCT05020249|169171148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
84713017|NCT05020249|169171149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
84713018|NCT05020249|169171150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713019|NCT05020249|169171151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713020|NCT05020249|169171152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713021|NCT05020249|169171153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84713022|NCT05020249|169171154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|81.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.216|803.544||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of scalp IGA response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||803.544|8.216|<0.001
84713023|NCT05020249|169171155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.353||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|105.443||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of DLQI total score response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||105.443|1.447|0.007
84713024|NCT05020249|169171156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.509|-58.379|||ANCOVA|||||-58.379|-102.509|<0.001
84713025|NCT05505292|169171161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84713026|NCT05505292|169171162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84713027|NCT05505292|169171163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84713028|NCT05505292|169171164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84713029|NCT05505292|169171165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84713030|NCT05505292|169171166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84713031|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1a Change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle||||0.62
84713032|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.53
84713033|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.66
84713034|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.81
84713035|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||>0.999
84713036|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.47
84713037|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 4 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.52
84713038|NCT05505292|169171167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 5 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.69
84713039|NCT03536754|169171168|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.6||≤ 0.1924|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|0.95|0.1924
84713040|NCT03536754|169171168|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.76||≤ 0.0612|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.76|1.04|0.0612
84713041|NCT03536754|169171168|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169||0.7653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.36||≤ 0.7653|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.36|0.81|0.7653
84713042|NCT03536754|169171168|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.48||≤ 0.1537|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.48|0.97|0.1537
84713043|NCT00686335|169171244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.2||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.|Other|As this was an explorative study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||-2.2|-13.5|
84713044|NCT03524612|169171245|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper Pearson test|||||||<0.0001
84713045|NCT04648033|169171305|OTHER||Probability of DLT at dose level 4|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.26||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.26|0.032|
84713046|NCT04318548|169171340|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M14459 (fHbp) strain was above (\>) 0.5|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.77|
84713047|NCT04318548|169171340|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against 96217 (NadA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.04|0.75|
84713048|NCT04318548|169171340|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against NZ98/254 (PorA) strain was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.12|0.76|
84726359|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|2.28|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.28|-15.29|0.1466
84713049|NCT04318548|169171340|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M13520 (NHBA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.73|
84511540|NCT02289963|168774575|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-63.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-55.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/ Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-55.2|-71.6|<0.0001
84511541|NCT02289963|168774576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-58.4||Threshold for significance was at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-58.4|-73.9|<0.0001
84511542|NCT02289963|168774577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-56.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.3|-68.8|<0.0001
84511543|NCT02289963|168774578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.2|-57.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.0|-69.2|<0.0001
84713050|NCT04318548|169171341|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men A serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men A, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.14|0.78|
84713051|NCT04318548|169171341|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men C serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men C, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.44|0.86|
84511544|NCT02289963|168774579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-39.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.7|-53.0|<0.0001
84726360|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-8.41|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-8.41|-26.35|0.0002
84713052|NCT04318548|169171341|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men W serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men W, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.21|0.82|
84713053|NCT04318548|169171341|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men Y serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men Y, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.27|0.84|
84713054|NCT04318548|169171343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M14459 (fHbp) strain at one month after the fisrt vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.64|
84713055|NCT04318548|169171343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis 96217 (NadA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.77|0.49|
84713056|NCT04318548|169171343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis NZ98/254 (PorA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.58|
84713057|NCT04318548|169171343|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M13520 (NHBA) at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.90|0.64|
84713058|NCT01333969|169171356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.02|||GEE|Regression analysis using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method to compare the changes over time in VAS scores at rest and with exercise||||-0.02|-1.40|.043
84713059|NCT01333969|169171357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
84713060|NCT01333969|169171358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.584||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.584
84713061|NCT01333969|169171359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.763||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.763
84713062|NCT01333969|169171360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Regression analyses based on the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method||||||.602
84713063|NCT01333969|169171361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8656||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8656
84713064|NCT01333969|169171362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8422||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8422
84713065|NCT01333969|169171363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
84713066|NCT01333969|169171364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
84713067|NCT05875142|169171395|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.0008
84713068|NCT05875142|169171395|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||5.03e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC.||||0.00000503
84713069|NCT05875142|169171396|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with T||||0.0176
84713070|NCT05875142|169171396|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing T with TMC.||||0.0056
84713071|NCT05875142|169171397|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.4066
84713072|NCT05875142|169171397|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4045|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC||||0.4045
84713073|NCT02677298|169171424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84713074|NCT02677298|169171425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84713075|NCT02677298|169171426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84713076|NCT02677298|169171427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
84713077|NCT02677298|169171427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
84511545|NCT02289963|168774580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.1|-55.3|<0.0001
84713078|NCT02677298|169171428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.084
84511546|NCT02289963|168774581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-44.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-58.4|<0.0001
84511547|NCT02289963|168774582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-47.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-60.6|<0.0001
84713079|NCT02677298|169171429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain change from baseline at week 4||||<0.001
84713080|NCT02677298|169171429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Functioning domain - Change from baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84713081|NCT02677298|169171429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score||||<0.001
84713082|NCT02677298|169171429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows Scale - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84713083|NCT02677298|169171429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
84713084|NCT02143726|169171488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33|||Log Rank|Stratified 1-sided log-rank test (stratified by ECOG performance status, prior systemic treatment for hürthle thyroid cancer, and treating site).||||1.33|0.23|0.0918
84713085|NCT02143726|169171490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.96|||Log Rank|||||4.96|0.53|0.3976
84713086|NCT03891667|169171569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|75.66||||||||75.66|.21|
84713087|NCT03891667|169171570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.47||||||||9.47|0.05|
84713088|NCT01963793|169171595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-7.12|0.58
84713089|NCT01160211|169171617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88||Pike estimate of the treatment hazard ratio, \<1 indicates a lower risk compared with trastuzumab + AI.|Log Rank|using a two-sided stratified log-rank test (based on stratification factors)||Null hypothesis H0: λ ≥ 1 or to reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) between Treatment Group A and Treatment Group B for progression-free survival.||0.88|0.45|0.0063
84713090|NCT01160211|169171619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79||||||||0.79|0.44|
84713091|NCT01160211|169171619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||||||||1.15|0.66|
84713092|NCT01160211|169171619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||||||||0.92|0.51|
84713093|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.36||||||FACT-B total score||2.36|-5.95|
84713094|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|0.29||||||FACT-B total score||0.29|-8.09|
84713095|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.92||||||FACT-G total score||1.92|-4.92|
84713096|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|0.34||||||FACT-G total score||0.34|-6.55|
84713097|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.25||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||0.25|-5.66|
84713098|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-0.64||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||-0.64|-6.59|
84713099|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.11||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.11|-2.82|
84713100|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.18||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.18|-2.90|
84713101|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.79||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||1.79|-1.01|
84713102|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.86||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||0.86|-1.96|
84713103|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.66||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.66|-0.57|
84713104|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.53||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.53|-0.72|
84713105|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.28||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||0.28|-2.26|
84713106|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.04||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||-0.04|-2.60|
84713107|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.95||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.95|-1.66|
84713108|NCT01160211|169171625|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.48||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.48|-2.14|
84713109|NCT03736720|169171630|OTHER|No statistical test.|Proportion|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.033|0.301|||||Estimated using Jeffrey's prior method.|||0.301|0.033|
84713110|NCT03736720|169171636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Sign test|two-sided test.||Comparing the pre-treatment and end of treatment QoL scores.||||0.289
84713111|NCT05119023|169171641|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language Severity and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.39
84713112|NCT05119023|169171641|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||<0.01
84713113|NCT05119023|169171641|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.95
84713114|NCT05119023|169171642|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.36||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.36
84713115|NCT05119023|169171642|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Pearson's correlation|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
84713116|NCT05119023|169171642|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule Based Learning||||0.32
84713117|NCT05119023|169171643|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.64||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.64
84713118|NCT05119023|169171643|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.01
84713119|NCT05119023|169171643|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.79
84713120|NCT05119023|169171644|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.90
84713121|NCT05119023|169171644|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
84713122|NCT05119023|169171644|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.24
84713123|NCT04806451|169171651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-267.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.313||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-403.427|-132.124|||ANCOVA|||||-132.124|-403.427|0.0002
84713124|NCT02561585|169171681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|11.65||t-test in a baseline adjusted linear model|t-test, 2 sided|t-test, 2 sided on a 5% level||||11.65|-12.05|0.97
84713125|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713126|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713127|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713128|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713129|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713130|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713131|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84713132|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
84713133|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84713134|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84713135|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713136|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713137|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713138|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713139|NCT00875277|169171695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
84713140|NCT04064164|169171739|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.004||||||Dear (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 8.4 df=1||||||.004
84713141|NCT04064164|169171739|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App. Significant associations indicated the human and app were accurately identifying true positives (1:1) or true negatives (0:0).|||||<|0.001||||||Sweet (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 20.20 df=1||||||<.001
84713142|NCT04064164|169171739|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.02||||||Girl (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 5.08, df=1||||||.02
84713143|NCT04064164|169171739|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.1||||||Honey (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 2.7, df= 1||||||.10
84713144|NCT04064164|169171739|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.85||||||Baby (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 12.2, df = 1||||||0.85
84713145|NCT02023866|169171767|OTHER|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Section I - Current Function Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.1875
84713146|NCT02023866|169171767|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section II - System Specific Involvement Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||1.0000
84713147|NCT02023866|169171767|OTHER|||||||0.0781|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section III - Current Clinical Assessment Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.0781
84713148|NCT02023866|169171767|OTHER|||||||0.2941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test||Section IV - Quality of Life Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.2941
84713149|NCT03839940|169171787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.9999
84713150|NCT03839940|169171788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3346
84713151|NCT03839940|169171804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.70361|||||||Fisher Exact|||Female Population.||||< 0.70361
84713152|NCT03839940|169171804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Male population.||||<0.4667
84713153|NCT03839940|169171805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Black or African American population||||<1.0
84713154|NCT03839940|169171805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White population||||<1.0
84713155|NCT03839940|169171806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Not Hispanic or Latino population.||||<1.0
84713156|NCT03839940|169171807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Female population.||||<0.1701
84713157|NCT03839940|169171807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Male population.||||<0.4811
84713158|NCT03839940|169171808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Black or African American Population||||<1.0
84713159|NCT03839940|169171808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||White Population||||<0.5029
84713160|NCT03839940|169171809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Not Hispanic or Latino Population||||<0.2950
84713161|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.011
84713162|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.008
84713163|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.662
84713164|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.41
84713165|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.164
84713166|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.183
84713167|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.506
84713168|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.119
84713169|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.510
84713170|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.168
84511548|NCT02289963|168774583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-30.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.1|-40.3|<0.0001
84511549|NCT02289963|168774584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-41.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.0|-51.2|<0.0001
84511550|NCT02289963|168774585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-46.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.1|-56.4|<0.0001
84511551|NCT02289963|168774586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-31.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||-31.9|-39.7|<0.0001
84511552|NCT02289963|168774587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|119.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||119.4|18.4|<0.0001
84713171|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.454
84713172|NCT02432404|169171813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.471
84713173|NCT01606215|169171825|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 data||||0.84
84713174|NCT01606215|169171825|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 data||||0.62
84713175|NCT01606215|169171825|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 data||||0.61
84713176|NCT01606215|169171828|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.77
84713177|NCT01606215|169171828|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.68
84713178|NCT01606215|169171828|OTHER|Week 24||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.48
84713179|NCT05851573|169171831|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||< .05
84713180|NCT05851573|169171832|OTHER||||||=|0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||= .775
84713181|NCT05851573|169171833|OTHER||||||=|0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .444
84713182|NCT05851573|169171834|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.959
84713183|NCT05851573|169171835|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.068
84713184|NCT05851573|169171836|OTHER||||||=|0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .119
84713185|NCT05851573|169171837|OTHER||||||=|0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .258
84713186|NCT05851573|169171838|OTHER||||||=|0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .593
84713187|NCT04114877|169171839|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
84713188|NCT04114877|169171840|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
84713189|NCT04114877|169171841|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
84713190|NCT04114877|169171842|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
84713191|NCT04114877|169171843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
84713192|NCT04473222|169171891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.026
84713193|NCT04473222|169171892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.032
84713194|NCT04473222|169171893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.010
84713195|NCT04473222|169171894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.161
84713196|NCT04473222|169171895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.006
84713197|NCT04473222|169171896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.045
84713198|NCT04473222|169171897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.685
84713199|NCT04473222|169171898|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.734
84713200|NCT04473222|169171899|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.019
84713201|NCT04473222|169171900|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.776
84713202|NCT01369355|169171951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.040
84713203|NCT01369355|169171951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.005
84713204|NCT01369355|169171952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.033
84713205|NCT01369355|169171952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.018
84713206|NCT01369355|169171953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.189
84713207|NCT01369355|169171953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.007
84713208|NCT01369355|169171954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.035
84713209|NCT01369355|169171954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.004
84713210|NCT01369355|169171955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.140
84713211|NCT01369355|169171955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.102
84713212|NCT02319759|169171964|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|25.3|<0.001
84713213|NCT02319759|169171965|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%) Difference|66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|78.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.4|53.8|<0.001
84713214|NCT02319759|169171966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.148|||MMRM|MMRM stands for Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures||||-0.148|-0.471|<0.001
84713215|NCT06424236|169172008|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean|-0.1166|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29505||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.0272|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.0272|-0.2060|0.0117
84713216|NCT06424236|169172008|OTHER||LS mean|-0.4648|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5971|-0.3326|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.3326|-0.5971|<0.0001
84713217|NCT06424236|169172008|OTHER||LS mean|-0.7062|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43787|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8821|-0.5303|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.5303|-0.8821|<0.0001
84713218|NCT06424236|169172009|SUPERIORITY|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||2.70|0.64|0.4535
84713219|NCT06424236|169172009|OTHER|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||1.86|0.74|0.4848
84713220|NCT06424236|169172010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||2.58|0.33|0.8855
84713221|NCT06424236|169172010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||1.69|0.30|0.4497
84713222|NCT06424236|169172011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with compound symmetry covariance matrix.||0.33|-0.46|0.760
84713223|NCT06424236|169172011|OTHER||LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-2.63|0.093
84713224|NCT06424236|169172012|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.44|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.43|0.989
84713225|NCT06424236|169172012|OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.86|0.714
84713226|NCT06424236|169172013|OTHER||LS mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.18|0.738
84713227|NCT06424236|169172013|OTHER||LS mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.66|-0.28|0.395
84713228|NCT06424236|169172014|OTHER||LS mean|-2.176|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9469|-1.4051|||MMRM|||Week 56: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.4051|-2.9469|<0.0001
84713229|NCT06424236|169172014|OTHER||LS mean|-4.8434|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78771|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8609|-3.826|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.8260|-5.8609|<0.0001
84713230|NCT06424236|169172014|OTHER||LS mean|-5.762|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.31129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9679|-4.5561|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-4.5561|-6.9679|<0.0001
84713231|NCT06424236|169172015|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with variance components covariance matrix.||0.09|0.00|0.055
84713232|NCT06424236|169172015|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.11|-0.02|0.188
84713233|NCT06424236|169172016|OTHER||LS mean|0.0067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0124||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0034|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0100|0.0034|0.0001
84713234|NCT06424236|169172016|OTHER||LS mean|0.0251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02262|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0189|0.0312|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0312|0.0189|<0.0001
84713235|NCT06424236|169172016|OTHER||LS mean|0.0357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0266|0.0447|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0447|0.0266|<0.0001
84713236|NCT06424236|169172017|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.12|0.644
84713237|NCT06424236|169172017|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.26|-0.18|0.745
84713238|NCT04213872|169172018|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCI 25.4 (14.2) 17.3 (10.5) \*-8.1 (3.7) .01~\*reduction in scores indicate improvement."||||.01
84713239|NCT04213872|169172019|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCA 16.0 (5.1) 19.2 (5.3) 3.2 (0.2) .03||||.03
84713240|NCT04213872|169172020|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogQOL 3.7 (3.8) 1.8 (2.2) \*-1.9 (1.6) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
84713241|NCT04213872|169172021|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogOth 1.5 (2.1) 0.2 (0.4) \*-1.3 (1.7) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
84713242|NCT04213872|169172022|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value WAIS-III Letter/Number 10.7 (3.2) 12.7 (2.8) 2.0 (0.4) .01||||.01
84713243|NCT04213872|169172023|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value~WAIS-III Digit Span Forward and Backward 19.2 (4.8) 19.7 (4.4) 0.5 (0.4) .60"||||.60
84713244|NCT04213872|169172024|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value PSQI 1.5 (0.8) 0.9 (0.7) \*-0.6 (0.1) .03~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.03
84713245|NCT04213872|169172025|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Anxiety 9.2 (7.7) 4.2 (3.7) \*-5.0 (4.0) .05~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.05
84713246|NCT04213872|169172026|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Depression 4.1 (4.9) 2.0 (3.0) \*-2.1 (1.9) .08~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.08
84713247|NCT04213872|169172027|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value BDNF 0.11 (0.9) 0.30 (0.7) 0.19 (0.2) .30~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.30
84713248|NCT04213872|169172028|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value NF-kB1 171.7 (25.4) 173.7 (21.6) 2.0 (3.8) .80~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.80
84713249|NCT04213872|169172029|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value TP53 12.3 (2.7) 13.1 (5.5) 0.8 (2.8) .61||||.61
84713250|NCT02677805|169172059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84713251|NCT02677805|169172060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
84713252|NCT02677805|169172061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
84713253|NCT02677805|169172062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
84713254|NCT02677805|169172062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
84713255|NCT02677805|169172063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.218
84713256|NCT02677805|169172064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84713257|NCT02677805|169172064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84713258|NCT02677805|169172064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
84713259|NCT02677805|169172064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
84713260|NCT02677805|169172064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
84713261|NCT04282148|169172102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estim|||||||<0.0001
84713262|NCT02876588|169172108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, and the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|.90|.60
84713263|NCT02876588|169172109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|.89|.68
84713264|NCT02876588|169172110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84713265|NCT04873401|169172111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.39|0.928
84713266|NCT04873401|169172112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.115|||Regression, Linear|||||0.115|-0.24|0.240
84713267|NCT04873401|169172113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.367
84713268|NCT04873401|169172114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.005
84713269|NCT03953508|169172204|OTHER|Analysis of covariance test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||>.05
84713270|NCT03953508|169172205|OTHER|T-test comparing differences, the null hypothesis is that the groups are equal|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84713271|NCT03953508|169172206|OTHER|Analysis of variance test comparing average breakpoint for menthol and non-menthol smokers|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
84713272|NCT03953508|169172207|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84713273|NCT03953508|169172208|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||>.05
84713274|NCT03953508|169172209|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
84713275|NCT03953508|169172210|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84713276|NCT03953508|169172211|OTHER|Fisher's exact test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
84713277|NCT03953508|169172212|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84713278|NCT03953508|169172213|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84713279|NCT02100813|169172215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.42|0.23|<0.001
84713280|NCT02100813|169172215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.33|0.18|<0.001
84713281|NCT02100813|169172215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79|||=|0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||1.04|0.59|=0.096
84713282|NCT02100813|169172216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.02|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|124.0|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||124|1.53|=0.007
84713283|NCT02100813|169172216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.82|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|154.5|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||154.5|1.99|=0.001
84713284|NCT02100813|169172216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.26|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.31|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.31|0.72|=0.43
84713285|NCT02100813|169172217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|51.66|||Log binomial regression|||||51.66|2.93|<0.001
84713286|NCT02100813|169172217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|9.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|56.4|||Log binomial regression|||||56.4|3.22|<0.001
84511553|NCT02289963|168774588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|210.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||210.8|23.3|<0.0001
84713287|NCT02100813|169172217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.09|||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Log binomial regression|||||1.49|0.81|=0.55
84713288|NCT05835336|169172226|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713289|NCT05835336|169172227|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84713290|NCT05835336|169172228|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84713291|NCT05835336|169172229|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84511554|NCT02289963|168774589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.883|-25.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.338|-41.883|<0.0001
84713292|NCT05835336|169172231|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84713293|NCT05835336|169172232|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.521
84713294|NCT04489771|169172233|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk categories (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan 200 mg minus Belzutifan 120 mg|||12.9|-14.0|0.5312
84713295|NCT04489771|169172234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.40|0.63|0.3861
84713296|NCT04489771|169172236|OTHER|One-sided nominal p-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Miettinen & Nurminen method|-6.3||||0.7832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-21.7|0.7832
84713297|NCT04489771|169172237|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.90|0.65|0.6448
84511555|NCT02289963|168774590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.4|2.6|0.0029
84511556|NCT02289963|168774591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.515||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|4.219||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.219|-13.250|0.3110
84511557|NCT03422653|168774652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.3|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.30|1.72|<0.001
84511558|NCT03422653|168774653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
84511559|NCT03422653|168774654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-8.0|<0.001
84511560|NCT03422653|168774655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.76|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.76|1.75|<0.001
84511561|NCT01101022|168774666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-15.9|<0.0001
84511562|NCT01101022|168774667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.7|||ANCOVA|||Performance and Daily Functioning||29.7|13.5|<0.0001
84511563|NCT01101022|168774667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Daily Interference||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
84511564|NCT01101022|168774667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Bother/Concern||20.7|6.3|0.0003
84511565|NCT01101022|168774667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.9|||ANCOVA|||Relationships/Communication||14.9|0.8|0.0302
84713298|NCT04509674|169172242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference regarding the risk of the endpoint in question between empagliflozin and placebo.~p\<=0.05 required for testing of subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.||1.06|0.76|0.2061
84726361|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-16.98|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-16.98|-34.77|<0.0001
84511566|NCT01101022|168774668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-1.9|-7.8|0.0016
84511567|NCT01101022|168774668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-0.2|-6.0|0.0355
84713299|NCT04509674|169172243|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.10|0.68|0.2423
84713300|NCT04509674|169172244|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.92||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.07|0.78|0.2867
84713301|NCT04509674|169172245|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7654|0.9978|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||0.9978|0.7654|0.0463
84726362|NCT01183013|169204597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.57|-24.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-24.89|-42.57|<0.0001
84713302|NCT04509674|169172246|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|1.06||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.35|0.83|0.6311
84713303|NCT04509674|169172247|OTHER|The statistical analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8124||95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.31|0.81|0.8124
84713304|NCT04059484|169172262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.4||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of visceral metastasis, prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and ECOG according to IRT.|Amcenestrant versus PCEM|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures was reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.4|0.789|0.6437
84713305|NCT03339713|169172281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Michigan strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.11|0.55|<.001
84713306|NCT03339713|169172281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Hong Kong strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.12|0.59|<.001
84726363|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.61||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.42|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-10.80|-62.42|0.0057
84726364|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.7021||95.0|-30.39|20.51|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||20.51|-30.39|0.7021
84726365|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|24.38|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||24.38|-27.95|0.8932
84726366|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|12.3|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||12.30|-43.60|0.2706
84726367|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.33||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.78|-7.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-7.89|-64.78|0.0126
84726368|NCT01183013|169204599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.16||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.23|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-6.08|-60.23|0.0167
84726369|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.649||||0.3052||95.0|0.284|1.482|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.482|0.284|0.3052
84726370|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.456||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.112|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.112|0.187|0.0844
84726371|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.443||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.365|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.365|0.143|0.1561
84726372|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.368||||0.0146||95.0|0.165|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.821|0.165|0.0146
84726373|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.238||||0.0009||95.0|0.102|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.557|0.102|0.0009
84713307|NCT03339713|169172281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Brisbane strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.34|0.77|<.001
84713308|NCT03339713|169172281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.36|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Phuket strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.36|0.76|<.001
84713309|NCT05403827|169172291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5019|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5019
84713310|NCT05403827|169172292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2028
84713311|NCT05403827|169172293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1914|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.1914
84713312|NCT05403827|169172294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2512|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2512
84713313|NCT05403827|169172295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7906|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.7906
84713314|NCT05403827|169172296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5343
84713315|NCT05403827|169172297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3757|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.3757
84713316|NCT01715285|169172298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.55|||Log Rank|||||0.550|0.394|<0.0001
84713317|NCT01715285|169172299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.775|||Log Rank|||||0.775|0.564|< 0.0001
84713318|NCT01987895|169172305|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||4.3|-7.2|
84713319|NCT01987895|169172305|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||3.2|-8.1|
84713320|NCT01987895|169172306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.0|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||1.0|-9.2|
84713321|NCT01987895|169172307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.8|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.8|-4.3|
84713322|NCT01987895|169172308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.80|0.6016
84713323|NCT01987895|169172309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.002||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.20|-0.20|0.9814
84713324|NCT01987895|169172309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.087||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.25|-0.07|0.2879
84713325|NCT01987895|169172309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the systemic / other symptoms domain scores||0.19|-0.09|0.4880
84713326|NCT01987895|169172310|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.9|-6.5|
84713327|NCT01987895|169172311|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.3|-6.2|
84713328|NCT01987895|169172312|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||10.7|-3.4|
84511568|NCT01101022|168774668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-2.7|-8.7|0.0003
84511569|NCT01101022|168774669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-4.0|-12.7|0.0002
84713329|NCT01987895|169172313|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||8.7|-6.5|
84713330|NCT04971681|169172372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.27
84713331|NCT04971681|169172373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
84713332|NCT03798093|169172374|SUPERIORITY||least squares|-0.112||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-29.3|0.08
84713333|NCT03097549|169172447|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of mean scores using a linear mixed model, incorporating baseline data and accounting for all available data. Sample size calculation: We anticipated ICIQ-UI SF improvements of 2.5 points in the treatment group and 0.9 points in the information group. Detecting this difference with 80% power, a two-sided test, and a significance level of P\<.05 would require a sample size of 49 in each group. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, we needed approximately 60 participants in each group.||-1.3|-4.8|0.001
84713334|NCT03097549|169172448|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-6.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-2.1|-10.5|0.004
84713335|NCT03097549|169172449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of urinary leakage episodes between the treatment app users and the information app users at follow-up.~ITT analysis. Missing data: 5 participants in the treatment group and 2 participants in the information group had a missing value at follow-up, and for those, the difference was set to 0 (ie, no change)."||||<0.001
84713336|NCT03097549|169172450|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
84511570|NCT01101022|168774669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-7.0|-16.3|<0.0001
84713337|NCT03097549|169172451|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.3|-2.8|0.016
84713338|NCT03097549|169172452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in usage between treatment group and information group at follow-up.||||0.01
84713339|NCT03097549|169172453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in improvement between the treatment group and the information group att follow-up.||||<0.001
84713340|NCT02301910|169172556|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation was carried out taking into account the power of 80%||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84713341|NCT01743807|169172573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84713342|NCT01814813|169172583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
84713343|NCT01814813|169172584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
84713344|NCT01814813|169172585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
84713345|NCT05089019|169172586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.81|0.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean||||0.976|0.810|
84713346|NCT05089019|169172587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.882|0.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.975|0.882|
84713347|NCT05089019|169172588|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.834|0.951|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.951|0.834|
84713348|NCT04770532|169172625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.37|<0.0001
84713349|NCT05457647|169172637|OTHER|The accuracy and precision of the theranostic imaging biomarkers, including both the riboflavin score and theranostic score, to predict CXL treatment outcome were determined by calculating the proportion of correctly classified eyes and the positive predictive value respectively.|Proportion|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The study set a minimum threshold of 85 for the the combined use of the theranostic imaging biomarkers' accuracy and precision in predicting the propensity of CXL to halt disease progression at 1 year in the study population.|Accuracy and precision of the combined use of theranostic imaging biomarkers generated by the UV-A device to predict the propensity of CXL in flattening the Kmax value at 12-months.||||
84713350|NCT05457647|169172638|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of Kmax value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713351|NCT05457647|169172639|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of ECD value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713352|NCT05457647|169172640|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of MSER value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713353|NCT05457647|169172641|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713354|NCT05457647|169172642|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of UDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713355|NCT05457647|169172643|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CCT value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84713356|NCT05457647|169172644|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively. Bonferroni correction was applied to analysis of exploratory outcome measures of stratification groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84713357|NCT04938492|169172645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
84713358|NCT04938492|169172646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.001
84713359|NCT04938492|169172647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.01
84713360|NCT04938492|169172648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
84713361|NCT03865498|169172658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.919|10.323||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for African American dementia caregiver networks.||10.323|4.919|< 0.0001
84713362|NCT03865498|169172658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.963|33.157||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||33.157|9.963|<0.0001
84713363|NCT03865498|169172658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.325||Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||There will be no significant differences in isolated macro-level network structure from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||1.325|0.787|0.924
84713364|NCT03865498|169172659|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.742|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.742|0.513|<0.0001
84713365|NCT03865498|169172659|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.189|1.631|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||1.631|1.189|<0.0001
84713366|NCT03865498|169172659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||There will be no significant differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.107|-0.186|0.600
84511571|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-4.1|-12.6|0.0001
84511572|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-2.5|-10.8|0.0018
84713367|NCT03994653|169172706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.12|||Fisher Exact|||"Fishers exact test, conducted at each month prior to diagnosis comparing total purchases of relevant products (pain and indigestion medication) compared with all purchases in both cases and controls.~Power calculation: we used a power calculation assuming the Fisher Exact Test to calculate the minimum group size to detect a difference in purchase proportions that we hypothesised with 80% statistical power."||4.12|2.07|<0.001
84511573|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||-1.5|-8.8|0.0056
84511574|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Sef-monitor||-4.1|-12.3|0.0001
84713368|NCT02547363|169172708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||<0.001
84713369|NCT02547363|169172709|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|62.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|451.08|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||451.08|8.68|<0.001
84713370|NCT02547363|169172710|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|59.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|415.35|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||415.35|8.44|<0.001
84713371|NCT02547363|169172711|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.32|||Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.23|<0.001
84713372|NCT03931174|169172712|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.81||CM Exposure is reported as the estimated proportion of providers delivering 10 or more CM sessions to at least one patient in a mixed model accounting for nesting.|Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||6.81|0.85|0.097
84713373|NCT03931174|169172713|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||1.32|0.11|0.02
84713374|NCT03931174|169172714|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the organization-level. Total number of organizations included in the analysis is 28 (14 ATTC, 14 E-ATTC).|Chi-square test statistic value|0.662||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||These analyses are unadjusted.||||0.430
84713375|NCT03931174|169172715|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||-0.08|-1.30|.034
84713376|NCT03931174|169172716|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.41|-0.82|0.27
84713377|NCT03931174|169172717|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.12||Means were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.12|-0.88|.011
84713378|NCT03931174|169172718|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||Means of leadership engagement scores were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.17|-0.75|.218
84713379|NCT05386030|169172719|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
84713380|NCT05386030|169172720|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
84715125|NCT04508309|169176877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.389|2.102|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.102|1.389|
84511575|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-5.4|-13.2|<0.0001
84511576|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-6.6|-16.0|<0.0001
84713381|NCT05228457|169172732|SUPERIORITY|13 participants were randomized to receive active TMS, and 13 were randomized to receive sham TMS. 1 participant from each group withdrew, resulting in their exclusion from the analysis. Therefore, 24 participants were randomized to active (n = 12) or sham (n = 12) aiTBS groups. The analysis examined MADRS scores measured at baseline and post-treatment. A priori hypotheses were that active aiTBS would demonstrate measurable differences in MADRS scores compared to the sham group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-9.56|||t-test, 2 sided||The primary outcome was the between-group (Active vs Sham) difference in MADRS scores at the end of the treatment period. Results, including mean scores, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and p-value for the between-group comparisons.|||-9.56|-19.94|<0.001
84713382|NCT05228457|169172733|SUPERIORITY||Z-transformed Pearson's r values|-0.014||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Z-transformed Pearson's r values of average voxel-wise connectivity within the DMN||||0.04
84713383|NCT04382664|169172734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.309|||Regression, Cox|||||1.309|0.694|0.845
84713384|NCT03161028|169172753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the model evaluating the primary outcome (change in T25FW), T25FW was transformed to walking speed by dividing 25 feet by the completion time in seconds (ft/sec). Any participants who were unable to complete the T25FW at any timepoint after baseline were assigned a value of 199 seconds, a statistical technique known as Winsorizing.||||0.51
84713385|NCT03161028|169172754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
84713386|NCT03161028|169172755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
84511577|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-6.4|-15.4|<0.0001
84713387|NCT03161028|169172756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
84713388|NCT03161028|169172757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
84713389|NCT03492216|169172764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for non-hazardous alcohol use, alcohol incentive groups compared to no alcohol incentive groups. logistic regression model adjusted for INH incentive arm, participant sex, and study site.|||12.5|2.7|0.0025
84713390|NCT03492216|169172765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for \>90% INH adherence, INH incentive group compared to no INH incentives. logistic regression model adjusted for alcohol incentive arm, participant sex and study site.|||6.5|-7.0|0.9435
84713391|NCT03492216|169172768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 2 (escalating incentives; EtG tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||1.9|-6.8|0.26
84713392|NCT03492216|169172768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.1|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 3 (escalating incentives; IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.1|-2.8|0.70
84713393|NCT03492216|169172768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 4 (escalating incentives; EtG and IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.5|-1.9|0.42
84713394|NCT01799265|169172776|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% upper limit of the prediction interval was calculated using the formula (μ ) ̂+t\_(k-2)\^α √((τ\^2 ) ̂+〖(SE) ̂(μ ̂ )〗\^2 ),where (μ ) ̂is the estimate average AHI across all studies, (τ\^2 ) ̂ is the between-study variation, t\_(k-2)\^α is the critical value for a t-distribution, k is the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and k-2 are the degrees of freedom for the t distribution. Meta-analyzed statistics to compute the prediction interval were (μ ) ̂=5.0, SE(μ ̂ )=0.9, and (τ\^2 ) ̂=8.0||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A p-value of .05 was used.||"Hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint was conducted using a one-sided test of non-inferiority with the following null and alternative hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 9.3:~H\_0:(ϕ\_m ) ̂≥6.9 H\_A:(ϕ\_m ) ̂\<6.9 where (ϕ\_m ) ̂ is the estimated AHI difference between Transcend Auto and REMstar Auto from the model described in 3.5.1."||||.05
84713395|NCT04342494|169172872|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PHQ-9 score via analysis of covariance.||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84713396|NCT04342494|169172873|EQUIVALENCE|Average mood score obtained from daily measurements analyzed via analysis of variance||||||0.0073|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0073
84713397|NCT04342494|169172874|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-PI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84713398|NCT04342494|169172875|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-NSI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
84713399|NCT04342494|169172876|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline GAD-7 score via analysis of covariance||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84713400|NCT05409183|169172885|OTHER||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|26.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.216||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.847|45.099|||ANCOVA|||||45.099|7.847|0.0032
84511578|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-4.7|-14.0|0.0001
84511579|NCT01101022|168774670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-5.3|-12.5|<0.0001
84511580|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
84511581|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-1.5|-8.0|0.0045
84713401|NCT04292223|169172913|OTHER|Comparison of the 16-week value with the baseline value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.3|8.8|<0.0001
84713402|NCT00753545|169172919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.49|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.49|0.25|<0.00001
84713403|NCT00753545|169172920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.95|0.55|0.02
84511582|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||1.5|-4.0|0.3605
84511583|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor||0.8|-5.1|0.1468
84511584|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-2.7|-8.3|0.0002
84713404|NCT00753545|169172924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-27.1||||0.03185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-2.4|||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||LS mean \< 0 favours olaparib||-2.4|-51.9|0.03185
84713405|NCT00753545|169172928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.47|0.25|<0.00001
84713406|NCT00753545|169172932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.71|0.88|0.22
84713407|NCT00753545|169172933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.56|0.75|0.67
84713408|NCT00753545|169172934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.64|0.83|0.38
84713409|NCT01098812|169173032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|25.0|||Primary study endpoint; therefore, no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The planned alpha level for testing was 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Toric IOL results for mean percent reduction in cyl compared to control results at 6 months. Null hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \<= to that of control eyes; alternate hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \> the control. There is 80% power to detect \>=31% difference in mean percent reduction in cylinder (postoperative refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder)/(target refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder) between IOL groups.|||25|<0.0001
84713410|NCT01098812|169173033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0009|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.03||P-value compared to alpha level adjusted for multiplicity of 0.0125.|t-test, 1 sided|||Used LogMAR values for visual acuity; The null hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is worse than or equal to that for control eyes; the alternate hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is better than that for control eyes. There is 80% power to detect \>=0.06 LogMAR difference in mean UCDVA between IOL groups.||-0.03||0.0009
84713411|NCT04908722|169173034|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.926|1.44||||||Group 1 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.440|0.926|
84713412|NCT04908722|169173034|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||||97.5|0.641|1.0||||||Group 5 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.00|0.641|
84713413|NCT04908722|169173034|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.844|1.356||||||Group 2 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.356|0.844|
84713414|NCT04908722|169173034|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.742|1.193||||||Group 4 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.193|0.742|
84511585|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
84713415|NCT04908722|169173034|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.648|1.007||||||Group 6 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.007|0.648|
84713416|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.992|3.207||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.207|1.992|
84713417|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.088|1.815||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.815|1.088|
84713418|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.408|2.265||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.265|1.408|
84713419|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.282||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.282|0.769|
84713420|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.829|3.007||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.007|1.829|
84713421|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.739||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.739|1.000|
84713422|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.697|2.841||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.841|1.697|
84511586|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-1.9|-7.9|0.0015
84511587|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-2.9|-9.7|0.0003
84511588|NCT01101022|168774671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-0.4|-5.9|0.0234
84713423|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.928|1.606||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.606|0.928|
84713424|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.348|2.148||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.148|1.348|
84713425|NCT04908722|169173035|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.736|1.217||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.217|0.736|
84713426|NCT03115476|169173177|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|||Relative difference between groups (ingenol disoxate vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.9|0.61|0.43
84713427|NCT03115476|169173178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62|||likelihood ratio test|||relative difference between treatment groups (ingenol disoxate gel vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.62|1.17|<0.01
84713428|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.28; gender effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and gender as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: gender (male, female)."||||0.2
84713429|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; age effect: p=0.001; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression with age and treatment sequence as factors||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: age (18-39 years, 40-59 years, ≥60 years)."||||=0.001
84713430|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; baseline disease severity effect: p=0.29; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and baseline disease severity as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: Baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, severe)."||||0.29
84713431|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.33; distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) effect: p=0.55; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: distribution phenotype (localised, widespread)."||||0.55
84713432|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.32; plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter): p=0.25; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and plaque size as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter)."||||0.25
84713433|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm) effect: p=0.41; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and skin thickness phenotype as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm)."||||0.41
84726374|NCT01183013|169204601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.0002||95.0|0.05|0.397|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.397|0.050|0.0002
84511589|NCT01101022|168774672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-14.9|<0.0001
84713434|NCT02310646|169173193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.30; onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age)."||||0.20
84713435|NCT02310646|169173194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"The total TPUQ score for the gel and the foam (mean score 29.9 vs. mean score 26.8; p=0.007).~Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05."|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the period difference (within subject difference between study treatments) between both treatment sequences.||Subjects in the analysis are 212 - full analysis set. All subjects received both study treatments. Total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25) superiority comparison gel versus foam.||||0.007
84713436|NCT02310646|169173195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison foam versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
84713437|NCT02310646|169173195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison gel versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
84713438|NCT00613106|169173207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4228
84511590|NCT01101022|168774675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84511591|NCT01101022|168774676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||Living with ADHD||12.7|5.4|<0.0001
84713439|NCT03313076|169173232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.63||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||0.63|-2.32|0.276
84713440|NCT03313076|169173232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.14||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||2.14|-0.71|0.336
84713441|NCT03313076|169173232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.9||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||-0.9|-3.76|0.004
84713442|NCT03313076|169173232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.09||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||2.09|-0.25|0.139
84713443|NCT05329220|169173382|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|1.57||P-value corresponds to Cohort 1 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 1 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||1.57|0.50|0.6350
84715126|NCT04508309|169176882|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.071|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||2.071|1.476|
84511592|NCT01101022|168774676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.5|||ANCOVA|||General Well-being||15.5|6.0|<0.0001
84511593|NCT01101022|168774677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Question 1||1.0|0.1|0.0184
84511594|NCT01101022|168774677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Question 4||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
84713444|NCT05329220|169173382|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.92|0.70|0.0002
84713445|NCT05329220|169173383|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|0.91||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron variant BA.4/BA.5|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.91|0.64|0.0008
84713446|NCT05329220|169173383|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.59|0.81||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron Variant XBB.1.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
84713447|NCT04204265|169173386|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84713448|NCT04204265|169173387|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84511595|NCT01101022|168774678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-9.0|0.0019
84511596|NCT01101022|168774679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Inattention/Memory Problems||-1.9|-8.2|0.0017
84713449|NCT04204265|169173388|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84713450|NCT02465268|169173391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Log Rank|||||2.16|0.77|0.196
84713451|NCT02465268|169173391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.70|0.99|0.196
84713452|NCT02465268|169173392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.60|0.354
84713453|NCT02465268|169173392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.33|||Log Rank|||||2.33|0.87|0.354
84713454|NCT02465268|169173393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
84713455|NCT02465268|169173393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
84713456|NCT02465268|169173393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
84713457|NCT02465268|169173395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
84713458|NCT02465268|169173395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
84713459|NCT02465268|169173395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
84713460|NCT02465268|169173396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
84713461|NCT02465268|169173396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
84713462|NCT02465268|169173396|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
84713463|NCT02465268|169173398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84713464|NCT02465268|169173398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84713465|NCT02465268|169173398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
84511597|NCT01101022|168774679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hyperactivity/Restlessness||-0.7|-7.5|0.0174
84713466|NCT03084536|169173463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
84713467|NCT03084536|169173464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
84713468|NCT03084536|169173465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.53
84713469|NCT03084536|169173466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
84713470|NCT03084536|169173467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
84713471|NCT03131154|169173483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.982|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||1.982|0.643|
84713472|NCT03131154|169173484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|6.939|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||6.939|0.989|
84511598|NCT01101022|168774679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Impulsivity/Emotional Liability||-1.1|-6.8|0.0063
84511599|NCT01101022|168774679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Problems with Self-concept||-1.3|-7.5|0.0059
84511600|NCT01101022|168774680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|33.6|||ANCOVA|||Life Productivity||33.6|8.4|0.0016
84511601|NCT01101022|168774680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.5|||ANCOVA|||Psychological Health||22.5|1.6|0.0242
84511602|NCT01101022|168774680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.8|||ANCOVA|||Life Outlook||20.8|4.2|0.0038
84511603|NCT01101022|168774680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Relationships||18.0|-3.4|0.1752
84511604|NCT01101022|168774680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||23.6|5.9|0.0015
84511605|NCT00485472|168774698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.36||||0.5438||95.0|-5.3|10.02|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||10.02|-5.30|0.5438
84511606|NCT00485472|168774699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.83||||0.2022||95.0|-2.62|12.28|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||12.28|-2.62|0.2022
84713473|NCT03959696|169173485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure|Mean difference is the Training + Notification arm minus the Notification only arm|The null hypothesis SDMP is equal in the two arms||.64|.08|.011
84713474|NCT03959696|169173486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|5.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure||The null hypothesis is that the two arms have the same knowledge score||5.55|-2.01|0.36
84713475|NCT03959696|169173487|SUPERIORITY|We will have 81% power to detect a difference of 14% in rates (e.g. decrease from 61% to 47%).||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||We will compare the percentages of patients who received their preferred screening in the 12 months after the visit across the two groups using logistic regression model with the GEE approach to adjust for clustering of patients within clinicians.||||0.47
84713476|NCT03959696|169173488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84713477|NCT03959696|169173489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was equal screening rate in both arms||18.0|0.9|0.032
84511607|NCT00485472|168774700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.665||95.0|-6.36|9.93|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||9.93|-6.36|0.6650
84511608|NCT00485472|168774701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.74||||0.3445||95.0|-11.65|33.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||33.13|-11.65|0.3445
84511609|NCT00485472|168774703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0418||95.0|0.245|0.974|||Likelihood ratio test|||Analysis of 'response' based on a likelihood ratio test with treatment and pooled site as factors.||0.974|0.245|0.0418
84511610|NCT01492361|168774707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||The 2-sided alpha level for the primary analysis was adjusted to 0.0437 from 0.05 to account for the two interim analyses based on a group sequential design with O'Brien-Fleming boundaries generated using the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region||||0.83|0.68|0.00000001
84511611|NCT01492361|168774708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||6e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.83|0.65|0.0000006
84511612|NCT01492361|168774709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.66|<0.0001
84713478|NCT03959696|169173490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
84713479|NCT05604508|169173524|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.553|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions|||1.553|0.347|
84713480|NCT05604508|169173524|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.947|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions.|||0.947|0.234|
84511613|NCT01492361|168774710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
84511614|NCT01492361|168774711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.78|0.55|<0.0001
84713481|NCT05604508|169173525|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|3.107|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||3.107|0.727|
84713482|NCT05604508|169173525|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.938|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||1.938|0.398|
84713483|NCT05604508|169173526|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.301|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.301|0.295|
84713484|NCT05604508|169173526|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.006|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco, baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.006|0.237|
84713485|NCT05604508|169173527|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.832|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.832|0.720|
84713486|NCT05604508|169173527|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|2.96|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.960|0.681|
84713487|NCT02547233|169173619|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|30.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|218.0|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||218.0|4.28|<0.001
84511615|NCT01492361|168774712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.98|0.66|0.0315
84713488|NCT02547233|169173620|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|12.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|31.78|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||31.78|4.73|<0.001
84713489|NCT02547233|169173621|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|10.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|23.97|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||23.97|4.43|<0.001
84713490|NCT02547233|169173622|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.37|0.25|<0.001
84713491|NCT05235750|169173623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline or T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline or T4) for the RSES, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.83
84713492|NCT05235750|169173623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|||||.91
84715127|NCT04508309|169176883|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.451|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.451|1.004|
84713493|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACT-G at scale, factor and item levels expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.45
84713494|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|||||.29
84713495|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.46
84511616|NCT01492361|168774713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.87|0.53|0.0018
84713496|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.79
84713497|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.05
84713498|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.03
84713499|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.82
84713500|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
84713501|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.56
84713502|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
84713503|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.58
84713504|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.34
84713505|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.27
84713506|NCT05235750|169173624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.62
84713507|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACIT-Sp-12 at scale and factor levels, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.76
84713508|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.19
84713509|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.35
84713510|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.99
84713511|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.46
84713512|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.24
84713513|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.55
84511617|NCT01492361|168774714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.93|0.55|0.0129
84713514|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.80
84713515|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.34
84713516|NCT05235750|169173625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.91
84713517|NCT05235750|169173626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for two subscales HADS-A and HADS-D respectively, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.14
84511618|NCT01492361|168774715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
84511619|NCT01492361|168774716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||1.02|0.74|0.0915
84713518|NCT05235750|169173626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|||||.14
84511620|NCT00365300|168774765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84511621|NCT00637299|168774780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84511622|NCT00637299|168774781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84511623|NCT00959660|168774782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
84511624|NCT00959660|168774782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
84713519|NCT05235750|169173626|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.32
84713520|NCT05235750|169173626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.20
84713521|NCT06019559|169173627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||||||0.0756
84511625|NCT00959660|168774783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.004
84713522|NCT06019559|169173627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|(MMRM) model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||For the primary endpoint of percentage change from baseline in body weight, a sample size of 150 participants (stratified by gender and randomized 1:1:1 into three treatment arms) provided \>95% power to detect a treatment difference of 4% weight reduction after 13 weeks of treatment with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 4% and 20% drop out.||||0.0008
84713523|NCT06019559|169173628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8366||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.8366
84713524|NCT06019559|169173628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1848||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1848
84713525|NCT06019559|169173629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0616
84713526|NCT06019559|169173629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
84713527|NCT03344094|169173747|OTHER|changes in subsets paired and unpaired t-tests, ANOVA||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84713528|NCT03808818|169173750|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22%|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.13||No correction for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||"For self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power. Subsequent analyses will use a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using with an estimated control rate of 31%.~The primary analysis will be performed from an intent-to-treat perspective. Chi-square tests will be used to compare the outcomes between treatment groups."||4.13|1.28|0.0046
84713529|NCT03808818|169173751|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 28%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.33|||Chi-squared|||7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 18% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 20%||3.33|1.04|0.035
84713530|NCT03808818|169173752|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 21% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%.||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||power calculations assumed a sample size of 140 in each arm and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%||||0.016
84713531|NCT03808818|169173754|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
84713532|NCT03808818|169173755|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
84713533|NCT03808818|169173767|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
84713534|NCT03808818|169173768|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
84713535|NCT03808818|169173769|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
84713536|NCT03808818|169173771|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
84713537|NCT03858634|169173772|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.68|2.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.17|-8.68|0.3980
84713538|NCT03858634|169173772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|1.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.09|-2.17|0.6653
84713539|NCT03858634|169173772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|-3.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-11.63|0.0711
84713540|NCT03858634|169173772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.7|-1.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-4.70|0.0186
84713541|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.52|16.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||16.84|-31.52|0.6533
84713542|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.16|12.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||12.69|-15.16|0.9077
84713543|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.18||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.73|1.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1.39|-123.73|0.2065
84713544|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.56|-1.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-1.07|-9.56|0.1133
84511626|NCT00959660|168774783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.43
84713545|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.29|18.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||18.98|-52.29|0.4997
84713546|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.83|15.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||15.59|-15.83|0.9919
84713547|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.56||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-143.03|-35.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-35.31|-143.03|0.0891
84713548|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.67|-2.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-2.12|-16.67|0.1029
84511627|NCT00959660|168774784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||<0.001
84713549|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.93||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.82|32.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.05|-75.82|0.5538
84713550|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.78||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.51|3.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||3.73|-27.51|0.3252
84713551|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.11|-29.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-29.52|-158.11|0.1106
84713552|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.48|-10.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-10.40|-29.48|0.0123
84713553|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.86||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.63|29.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.81|-87.63|0.4791
84713554|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.28|11.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||11.27|-22.28|0.6684
84713555|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.28||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-129.22|-30.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-30.13|-129.22|0.0937
84713556|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.21|-14.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-14.27|-40.21|0.0120
84713557|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.95||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.39|36.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||36.02|-101.39|0.4927
84713558|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.35|7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||7.49|-29.35|0.4409
84713559|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.58||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.96|-25.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-25.54|-155.96|0.1197
84713560|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.31||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.68|-18.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.92|-51.68|0.0102
84713561|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.77||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.97|30.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.02|-96.97|0.4515
84511628|NCT00959660|168774784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||0.001
84511629|NCT00959660|168774784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||<0.001
84511630|NCT00959660|168774784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||0.25
84511631|NCT00959660|168774785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||<0.001
84511632|NCT00959660|168774785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||0.26
84511633|NCT00959660|168774785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||<0.001
84511634|NCT00959660|168774785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||0.26
84713562|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.56||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.76|14.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||14.83|-23.76|0.7623
84511635|NCT01328093|168774800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||<0.001
84511636|NCT01328093|168774801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% increase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
84511637|NCT01328093|168774801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% decrease.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84511638|NCT01328093|168774802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.353||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.353
84713563|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.65|-23.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-23.29|-153.65|0.1247
84713564|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.91||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.59|-21.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-21.90|-53.59|0.0053
84713565|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.23||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.97|53.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||53.62|-87.97|0.7177
84713566|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.26|12.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||12.78|-25.26|0.6682
84713567|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.16||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.21|-40.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-40.24|-150.21|0.0823
84713568|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.38|-20.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.92|-55.38|0.0087
84511639|NCT01328093|168774803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.698||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.698
84713569|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
84713570|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
84713571|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
84713572|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
84713573|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.35||0.431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.98|25.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||25.81|-89.98|0.4310
84713574|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.22||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.38|13.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||13.12|-27.38|0.6452
84713575|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.02||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.04|-19.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-19.44|-159.04|0.1375
84713576|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.97|-20.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-20.15|-58.97|0.0143
84713577|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.4||0.5867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.7|37.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||37.52|-81.70|0.5867
84713578|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.99|25.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||25.27|-12.99|0.6745
84713579|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-85.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.99||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.18|-29.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-29.09|-142.18|0.1039
84713580|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.6|-22.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-22.36|-62.60|0.0116
84713581|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.55|38.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||38.26|-84.55|0.5807
84713582|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|28.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||28.80|-11.55|0.5765
84713583|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.36||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.7|-32.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-32.75|-139.70|0.0933
84511640|NCT01328093|168774804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.924||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.924
84511641|NCT01328093|168774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.045||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.045
84713584|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.29|-19.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-19.37|-59.29|0.0173
84511642|NCT01328093|168774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.032||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.032
84713585|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.36||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.04|35.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||35.62|-90.04|0.5293
84713586|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.73|19.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||19.49|-20.73|0.9676
84713587|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.27|-42.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-42.11|-130.27|0.0663
84713588|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.33||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.81|-17.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-17.02|-57.81|0.0252
84511643|NCT01328093|168774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.509||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.509
84511644|NCT01328093|168774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.040
84511645|NCT01328093|168774806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.601||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.601
84511646|NCT01328093|168774807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.322||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.322
84511647|NCT01328093|168774807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.099||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Non-Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.099
84713589|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.81||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.45|47.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||47.22|-86.45|0.6637
84511648|NCT01328093|168774807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.787||95.0||||P-value is for Outpatient (Non-Psych or Dentist) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.787
84713590|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.35||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.04|18.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||18.81|-22.04|0.9173
84713591|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.55||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.23|-46.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-46.10|-146.23|0.0685
84713592|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-60.91|-18.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-18.44|-60.91|0.0230
84713593|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.62||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.69|42.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||42.54|-80.69|0.6471
84713594|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.52||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.56|16.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||16.75|-24.56|0.8044
84713595|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.71||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.63|-45.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-45.37|-153.63|0.0741
84713596|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.89||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.0|-18.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-18.72|-61.00|0.0219
84713597|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.15||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.21|35.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||35.46|-86.21|0.5436
84713598|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.13||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.2|19.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||19.71|-23.20|0.9149
84713599|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.34||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.63|-47.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-47.05|-142.63|0.0646
84713600|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.89|-11.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-11.41|-56.89|0.0611
84713601|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.28||0.606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.68|40.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||40.71|-84.68|0.6060
84713602|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|15.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||15.18|-29.00|0.6823
84713603|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.56||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.02|-53.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-53.41|-146.02|0.0556
84713604|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.99||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.98|-10.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.76|-55.98|0.0652
84713605|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.45||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.14|41.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||41.62|-94.14|0.5714
84713606|NCT03858634|169173774|OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.82||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.93|11.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||11.83|-32.93|0.5386
84713607|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.41||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.35|-58.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-58.60|-139.35|0.0438
84713608|NCT03858634|169173774|OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.38|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-1.08|-53.38|0.1829
84511649|NCT01328093|168774808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.892||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.892
84511650|NCT01328093|168774809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.630
84511651|NCT01328093|168774810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.679||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.679
84511652|NCT01328093|168774811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.055||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.055
84713609|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.59||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.2|35.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||35.94|-87.20|0.5443
84713610|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.43||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.39|16.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.66|-32.39|0.6748
84713611|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.97||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.19|-64.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.19|-128.19|0.0297
84713612|NCT03858634|169173774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.8||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.33|-0.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-0.63|-53.33|0.1899
84713613|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.47||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.37|24.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||24.78|-55.37|0.5763
84713614|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.5214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|29.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||29.01|-9.86|0.5214
84713615|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.28||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-365.51|31.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||31.54|-365.51|0.2536
84713616|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.2|-3.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-3.44|-18.20|0.0670
84713617|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.98||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.43|24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||24.15|-90.43|0.4133
84713618|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|19.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||19.11|-21.83|0.9305
84713619|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-160.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.98||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-411.65|89.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||89.86|-411.65|0.3499
84713620|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.74|-1.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-1.33|-26.74|0.1588
84713621|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.19||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.26|17.0||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.00|-98.26|0.3319
84713622|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.39||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.59|32.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.80|-18.59|0.7179
84713623|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-193.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.17||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-405.34|17.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.67|-405.34|0.2261
84713624|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.75|-15.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-15.80|-44.75|0.0123
84713625|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.45||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.02|4.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.09|-112.02|0.2253
84713626|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|28.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||28.66|-16.14|0.7149
84713627|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-168.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|109.12||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-374.16|37.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||37.36|-374.16|0.2627
84713628|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-21.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-21.60|-51.87|0.0047
84713629|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.37|-3.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-3.88|-128.37|0.1803
84713630|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.62|29.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||29.35|-16.62|0.7174
84713631|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.47||0.2551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-358.51|31.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.72|-358.51|0.2551
84713632|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.36||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.58|-18.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.36|-48.58|0.0086
84713633|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.16||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.78|9.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.78|-121.78|0.2576
84713634|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.09||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.62|23.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||23.34|-24.62|0.9722
84713635|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-177.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.72||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-357.85|3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||3.13|-357.85|0.2051
84713636|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.98|-26.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-26.08|-57.98|0.0025
84511653|NCT01328093|168774812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.891||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.891
84511654|NCT01328093|168774814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
84511655|NCT01328093|168774814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Behavior.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
84511656|NCT04421508|168774816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6316
84713637|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.78||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.14|-10.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.50|-121.14|0.1465
84713638|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.54||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.13|28.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.37|-18.13|0.7734
84713639|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.45||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-340.37|-10.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.56|-340.37|0.1826
84511657|NCT04421508|168774816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|3.977||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model modelling the response using the covariates treatment, age, number of co-morbidities and baseline oxygem level|Regression, Logistic|||||3.977|0.567|0.4127
84511658|NCT04421508|168774824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6635
84511659|NCT03980483|168774826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.19|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||2.21|1.19|0.0023
84713640|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.4|-20.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.93|-57.40|0.0105
84713641|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.17||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.49|12.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.09|-119.49|0.2737
84511660|NCT03980483|168774826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.02|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||1.89|1.02|0.0362
84511891|NCT02087904|168775428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.019|-0.022|0.885
84511661|NCT03980483|168774826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.62|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.37|1.62|<0.0001
84511662|NCT03980483|168774826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.5|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.95|0.50|0.0230
84511663|NCT03980483|168774826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.82|0.43|0.0013
84713642|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.77||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.59|26.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||26.52|-20.59|0.8692
84713643|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.64||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-332.06|5.99||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||5.99|-332.06|0.2106
84713644|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.19|-26.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-26.14|-65.19|0.0060
84713645|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.12||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.44|-3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.13|-121.44|0.1831
84713646|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.39||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|43.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||43.30|-0.31|0.2061
84713647|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-161.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.75||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-326.83|4.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||4.12|-326.83|0.2073
84713648|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.19||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.62|-14.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-14.10|-54.62|0.0371
84713649|NCT03858634|169173776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.72||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.01|6.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||6.54|-117.01|0.2393
84511996|NCT01179048|168775919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test). If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was to be performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for non-inferiority (hazard ratio \>=1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Cox regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) (liraglutide/placebo) and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) including treatment group as factor. Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|<0.001
84511997|NCT01179048|168775919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for superiority (hazard ratio\>=1.0).|Regression, Cox|||If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was performed. Superiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.0 against Ha: HR \<1.0 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|0.005
84511998|NCT01179048|168775920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.962|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.962|0.807|
84511999|NCT01179048|168775921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.971|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.971|0.739|
84512000|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.934|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing cardiovascular death was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.934|0.656|
84512001|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal stroke was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.107|0.721|
84725686|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
84512002|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.031|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.031|0.747|
84512003|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.258|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for unstable angina pectoris was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.258|0.763|
84512004|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing coronary revascularisation was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.044|0.797|
84512005|NCT01179048|168775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.046|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.046|0.727|
84512006|NCT01179048|168775923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a first microvascular event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.969|0.730|
84512007|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a composite nephropathy event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.918|0.666|
84512008|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.905|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a new onset of persistant macroalbuminaria event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.905|0.602|
84512009|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.189|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing persistent doubling of serum creatinine was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.189|0.667|
84512010|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.244|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a need for continuous renal-replacement therapy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.244|0.607|
84512011|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|4.869|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing death due to renal disease was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||4.869|0.521|
84512012|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.519|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing composite retinopathy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.519|0.869|
84512013|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.546|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing treatment with photocoagulation or intravitreal agents was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.546|0.869|
84512014|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|30.847|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing development of diabetes-related blindness was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||30.847|0.004|
84512015|NCT01179048|168775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|2.502|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing vitreous haemorrhage was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||2.502|0.845|
84725687|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
84725688|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
84725689|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
84725690|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
84512016|NCT03203447|168775925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|3.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.6|-17.9|0.191
84512017|NCT00445003|168775931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.0||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparison|||9.0|2.2|<.001
84512018|NCT00445003|168775931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||10.1|3.2|<.001
84512019|NCT00445003|168775933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-6.0||Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-6|-64|<.01
84512020|NCT00445003|168775933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-71.0||adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-71|-128|<.001
84512021|NCT00445003|168775935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.5||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||7.5|-3.7|0.44
84512022|NCT00445003|168775935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||6.8|-4.4|0.63
84512023|NCT00445003|168775938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
84512024|NCT00445003|168775938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-1.3|-2.1|<.001
84512025|NCT00528606|168775939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing treatment groups, stratified by baseline severity group and joint type.||||<0.001
84512026|NCT01171690|168776000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Matched pairs t test|||Matched pairs||||0.01
84512027|NCT00259012|168776091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.087
84512028|NCT00259012|168776091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.019
84512029|NCT00259012|168776092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.255
84512030|NCT00259012|168776092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline.||||0.031
84512031|NCT00259012|168776093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.099
84512032|NCT00259012|168776093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.016
84512033|NCT00259012|168776094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.347
84512034|NCT00259012|168776094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.012
84512035|NCT00259012|168776095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.339
84512036|NCT00259012|168776095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.003
84512037|NCT00259012|168776096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.982
84512038|NCT00259012|168776096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.534
84512039|NCT00259012|168776097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.166
84512040|NCT00259012|168776097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.119
84512041|NCT00259012|168776098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.387
84512042|NCT00259012|168776098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.021
84512043|NCT02549092|168776106|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.98|11.55||P value is from the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with the model: change from Baseline=treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||11.55|-27.98|0.410
84512044|NCT02549092|168776107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|6.3||The P value is from the MMRM with the model: change from Baseline = treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||6.30|-3.16|0.509
84512045|NCT02549092|168776108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|3.34||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||3.34|-10.96|0.291
84512046|NCT02549092|168776109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.82||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-1.82|-2.84|< 0.001
84512047|NCT02549092|168776110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-0.81||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-0.81|-4.77|0.006
84512048|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.06||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Cardiovascular including falls||2.06|-1.89|0.933
84512049|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.74||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sleep/fatigue||5.74|-3.63|0.655
84512050|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Mood/cognition||5.48|-9.18|0.616
84512051|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.08||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Perceptual problems/hallucinations||2.08|-1.30|0.645
84512052|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.14||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Attention/memory||3.14|-5.03|0.645
84512053|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Gastrointestinal tract||0.09|-5.25|0.058
84512054|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|3.15||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Urinary||3.15|-5.52|0.588
84512055|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.33||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sexual function||1.33|-2.88|0.464
84512056|NCT02549092|168776111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Miscellaneous||2.23|-4.80|0.468
84512057|NCT02549092|168776112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.92||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Motor symptoms at night||1.92|-3.09|0.643
84512058|NCT02549092|168776112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.87||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|PD symptoms at night||1.87|-1.39|0.769
84512059|NCT02549092|168776112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.66||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Disturbed sleep||3.66|0.32|0.020
84725691|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
84725692|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
84512060|NCT02549092|168776113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.1||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part I score||1.10|-0.72|0.672
84512061|NCT02549092|168776113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.04||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part III score||2.04|-6.47|0.302
84512062|NCT02549092|168776113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part IV score||-0.48|-2.91|0.007
84512063|NCT02549092|168776114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.44||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||1.44|-4.52|0.307
84512064|NCT02549092|168776115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.84||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||0.84|-0.99|0.868
84512065|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|5.39||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Total score||5.39|-7.68|0.728
84512066|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.35||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Musculoskeletal pain score||1.35|-1.50|0.916
84512067|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.42||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Chronic pain score||1.42|-1.28|0.919
84512068|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.68||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Fluctuation related pain score||3.68|-2.42|0.680
84512069|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Nocturnal pain score||2.09|-2.83|0.767
84512070|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Orofacial pain score||0.90|-1.15|0.804
84715138|NCT03334630|169176973|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-14.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-14.6|-21.2|<0.0001
84512071|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Discoloration and edema score||-0.23|-3.38|0.025
84512072|NCT02549092|168776116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Radicular pain score||0.90|-0.99|0.930
84512073|NCT02549092|168776117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.87||ANCOVA model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||-1.87|-2.89|< 0.001
84512074|NCT03611608|168776146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|263.54|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|207.86||||t-test, 1 sided||||||207.86|<0.001
84512075|NCT01941030|168776163|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty reduction of calcium out of lumen gain.||||0.0220
84512076|NCT01941030|168776164|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty minimum lumen area stenosis.||||0.6228
84512077|NCT01941030|168776165|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.4528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty plaque area.||||0.4528
84512078|NCT01941030|168776166|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.3573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty dense calcium area.||||0.3573
84512079|NCT01941030|168776167|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty necrotic core area.||||0.6073
84512080|NCT01941030|168776168|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.2149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrous plaque area.||||0.2149
84512081|NCT01941030|168776169|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrofatty plaque area.||||0.0579
84512082|NCT01941030|168776170|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 600 mcg adenosine.||||0.076
84512083|NCT01941030|168776170|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 1200 mcg adenosine.||||0.205
84512084|NCT04166032|168776172|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
84512085|NCT02781727|168776177|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority comparison with a non-inferiority margin of 2 cm/year, followed by a test of superiority if non-inferiority is established.||||||0.0088||||||P-value is based on a test of superiority|ANCOVA with multiple imputation|two-sided||ANCOVA model with multiple imputation. For each imputed data set, an ANCOVA model with by visit AHV as the dependent variable; treatment and gender as factors; and baseline age, baseline peak GH levels (log transformed) at stimulation test, and baseline height SDS - average parental height SDS as covariates were fitted.||||0.0088
84512086|NCT00963482|168776226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.111||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to only two groups p\<.05, two-tailed|Chi-squared|||"H0: EG is equal in smoking quit rates compared to CG. H1: EG is superior in smoking quit rates compared to CG"||||=.111
84512087|NCT01136382|168776232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.7||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||19.7|7.5|<0.0001
84512088|NCT01136382|168776233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.11|0.02|0.0047
84512089|NCT01136382|168776234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||16.7|4.9|0.0004
84512090|NCT01136382|168776235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.08|0.00|0.0673
84512091|NCT01136382|168776236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.19|0.01|0.0216
84512092|NCT01136382|168776237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09||Analysis for change in daytime asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.31|0.0004
84512093|NCT01136382|168776237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||Analysis for change in total asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.55|0.0015
84512094|NCT01136382|168776238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.26|0.0079
84512095|NCT01136382|168776239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.1||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.1|-8.2|0.0095
84512096|NCT01136382|168776239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.7||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings with reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.7|-6.2|0.0007
84725693|NCT00113529|169203493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
84512097|NCT01136382|168776240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Analysis for change in daytime reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
84512098|NCT01136382|168776240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Analysis for change in total reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
84512099|NCT01136382|168776241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
84512100|NCT01136382|168776242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
84512101|NCT02653664|168776277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05|ANOVA|||Based on our prior work comparing similar interventions, assuming decreases in average pain intensity of 0.3 points (on a 0-10 scale) for ED, between 0.8 to 1.4 points for HYP, and between 0.6 to 1 for MM, with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.15 to 1, significance level of 0.05, and using ANOVA as the statistical method, we calculated that 80 participants per arm at immediate post-treatment would provide at least 80% power to detect between-groups differences as specified.||||.39
84512102|NCT02653664|168776278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05.|ANOVA|||||||.05
84512103|NCT02653664|168776279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p= .05|ANOVA|||||||<.001
84512104|NCT03247556|168776293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0082
84512105|NCT03247556|168776293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-7.3|0.0712
84512106|NCT03247556|168776294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0051
84512107|NCT03247556|168776294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||0.1|-0.6|0.0995
84512108|NCT03247556|168776295|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.3|0.1377
84512109|NCT03247556|168776295|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.7|0.3130
84512110|NCT03247556|168776296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.0698
84512111|NCT03247556|168776296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9756
84512112|NCT03247556|168776297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|29.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.3|1.3|0.0349
84512113|NCT03247556|168776297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.0|-0.9|0.0698
84512114|NCT03247556|168776298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.6|0.1259
84512115|NCT03247556|168776298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.8|0.7417
84512116|NCT03247556|168776299|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.0|-3.8|0.0484
84512117|NCT03247556|168776299|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||0.7|-3.1|0.2084
84512118|NCT03247556|168776299|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.0|-5.1|0.0042
84512119|NCT03247556|168776299|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||0.5|-3.6|0.1392
84512120|NCT03247556|168776300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.0|0.3810
84512121|NCT03247556|168776300|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.3|0.0432
84512122|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.1433
84512123|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0114
84512124|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0008
84512125|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0197
84512126|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0573
84512127|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0105
84512128|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0004
84512129|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.2573
84512130|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.1650
84512131|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0372
84512132|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1711|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.1711
84512133|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1428|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.1428
84512134|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2148|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.2148
84512135|NCT03247556|168776301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0662
84512136|NCT00358449|168776310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.44|0.04|0.865
84512137|NCT00358449|168776310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.01|0.190
84512138|NCT00358449|168776313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.560|-0.303|0.551
84512139|NCT00358449|168776313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.593||95.0|-0.331|0.572|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.572|-0.331|0.593
84512140|NCT00358449|168776313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.901|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.901|-0.232|0.239
84512141|NCT00358449|168776313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|0.823|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.823|-0.401|0.488
84512142|NCT00358449|168776314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.833|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.833|-0.121|0.139
84512143|NCT00358449|168776314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.371||||0.145||95.0|-0.133|0.874|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.874|-0.133|0.145
84512144|NCT00358449|168776314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.946|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.946|-0.080|0.095
84512145|NCT00358449|168776314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.343||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.899|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.899|-0.214|0.219
84512146|NCT00358449|168776315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|16.65|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||16.65|-13.47|0.832
84512147|NCT00358449|168776315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|19.84|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||19.84|-12.01|0.622
84512148|NCT00358449|168776315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.83||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|35.52|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||35.52|-11.86|0.317
84512149|NCT00358449|168776315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|41.11|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||41.11|-10.91|0.246
84512150|NCT00358449|168776316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.28||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|38.18|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||38.18|0.39|0.046
84512151|NCT00358449|168776316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|34.25|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||34.25|-5.83|0.160
84512152|NCT00358449|168776316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.69||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|37.48|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.48|-2.10|0.078
84512153|NCT00358449|168776316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|42.74|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||42.74|-0.51|0.055
84512154|NCT00358449|168776317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.873|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.873|-0.226|0.241
84512155|NCT00358449|168776317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.839|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.839|-0.320|0.371
84512156|NCT00358449|168776317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|1.023|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.023|-0.317|0.291
84512157|NCT00358449|168776317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|0.614|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.614|-0.965|0.653
84512158|NCT00358449|168776318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.06||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|32.13|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||32.13|-4.00|0.123
84512159|NCT00358449|168776318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|24.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||24.54|-13.29|0.551
84512160|NCT00358449|168776318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|37.7|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.70|-5.61|0.141
84512161|NCT00358449|168776318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.74|19.9|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||19.90|-30.74|0.666
84512162|NCT00358449|168776319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.4|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.400|-0.224|0.572
84512163|NCT00358449|168776319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.326|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.326|-0.350|0.942
84512164|NCT00358449|168776319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.197|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.197|-0.188|0.960
84512165|NCT00358449|168776319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.315|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.315|-0.105|0.317
84512166|NCT00358449|168776320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|4.12|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||4.12|-6.39|0.666
84512167|NCT00358449|168776320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.56|-7.87|0.450
84512168|NCT00358449|168776320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.81|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||2.81|-12.00|0.215
84512169|NCT00358449|168776320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|7.58|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||7.58|-8.61|0.898
84512170|NCT00358449|168776321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.294|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.294|-0.217|0.762
84512171|NCT00358449|168776321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.108|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.108|-0.426|0.235
84512172|NCT00358449|168776321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.436|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.436|-0.259|0.607
84512173|NCT00358449|168776321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.443|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.443|-0.308|0.716
84512174|NCT00358449|168776322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.545|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.545|-0.365|0.691
84512175|NCT00358449|168776322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.317|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.317|-0.639|0.500
84512176|NCT00358449|168776322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.849|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.849|-0.474|0.568
84512177|NCT00358449|168776322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.794|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.794|-0.643|0.832
84512178|NCT00358449|168776323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.76|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.76|-3.45|0.515
84512179|NCT00358449|168776323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.54|-1.74|0.496
84512180|NCT00358449|168776323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.72|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||3.72|-5.82|0.657
84512181|NCT00358449|168776323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|4.09|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.09|-6.11|0.691
84512182|NCT00358449|168776324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.704|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.704|-0.105|0.142
84512183|NCT00358449|168776324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.798|-0.090|0.115
84512184|NCT00358449|168776324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.683|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.683|-0.319|0.465
84512185|NCT00358449|168776324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.66|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.660|-0.417|0.649
84512186|NCT00358449|168776325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.782|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.782|-0.042|0.077
84512187|NCT00358449|168776325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.809|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.809|-0.097|0.120
84512188|NCT00358449|168776325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.906|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.906|-0.326|0.345
84512189|NCT00358449|168776325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.798|-0.541|0.700
84512190|NCT00358449|168776326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|5.22|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||5.22|-8.79|0.609
84512191|NCT00358449|168776326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|7.38|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||7.38|-8.55|0.882
84512192|NCT00358449|168776326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.47|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.47|-7.68|0.595
84512193|NCT00358449|168776326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|6.44|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||6.44|-7.34|0.895
84512194|NCT00358449|168776327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.513||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|1.055|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.055|-0.028|0.062
84512195|NCT00358449|168776327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.852|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.852|-0.369|0.425
84512196|NCT00358449|168776327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|1.516|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.516|-0.096|0.082
84512197|NCT00358449|168776327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|1.132|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.132|-0.631|0.564
84512198|NCT00358449|168776328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|26.67|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||26.67|-7.77|0.270
84512199|NCT00358449|168776328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|23.36|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||23.36|-15.11|0.664
84512200|NCT00358449|168776328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.81|34.94|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||34.94|-13.81|0.381
84512201|NCT00358449|168776328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|31.86|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||31.86|-20.87|0.672
84512202|NCT00358449|168776329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.400
84512203|NCT00358449|168776329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.111
84512204|NCT00358449|168776330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|34.4|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||34.4|-71.1|0.421
84512205|NCT00358449|168776330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|40.5|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||40.5|-44.6|0.633
84512206|NCT00358449|168776330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|45.7|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||45.7|-76.3|0.920
84512207|NCT00358449|168776330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|11.6|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||11.6|-79.2|0.105
84512208|NCT00358449|168776331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|15.41|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||15.41|-20.68|0.747
84512209|NCT00358449|168776331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|11.01|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||11.01|-24.41|0.352
84512210|NCT00358449|168776331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|11.2|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 24|||11.20|-29.69|0.525
84512211|NCT00358449|168776331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.79||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.21|-0.38|||Van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline at week 24|||-0.38|-35.21|0.071
84512212|NCT02589808|168776349|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kappa|||||||0.0005
84512213|NCT02334722|168776367|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7824
84512214|NCT01969747|168776378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|76.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|93.59|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 2.5 mg with Placebo||93.59|58.60|<0.0001
84512215|NCT01969747|168776378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|106.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.73|124.05|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 10 mg with Placebo||124.05|88.73|<0.0001
84512216|NCT01969747|168776378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|104.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.74|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 25 mg with Placebo||122.74|86.88|<0.0001
84512217|NCT04000815|168776379|OTHER||||||<|0.017||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.017
84512218|NCT04000815|168776380|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analysis|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and FSH and between serum CNP and LH using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
84512219|NCT04000815|168776381|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation|Spearman test was applied.||||||<0.05
84512220|NCT04000815|168776382|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analyses|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed for all subjects in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and E2 using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
84512221|NCT03988803|168776436|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.14|103.14|||ANOVA||Standard error of the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.14|87.14|
84512222|NCT03988803|168776437|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|108.18|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||108.18|91.22|
84512223|NCT03988803|168776438|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|103.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.99|107.52|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||107.52|99.99|
84512224|NCT03988803|168776439|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.66|112.45|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||112.45|102.66|
84512225|NCT00840099|168776451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of Means x 100|100.91||||||90.0|95.82|106.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.26|95.82|
84512226|NCT00840099|168776452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.79||||||90.0|100.69|104.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.94|100.69|
84512227|NCT00840099|168776453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.75||||||90.0|100.62|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.93|100.62|
84512228|NCT00840099|168776454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the Mean x 100|100.47||||||90.0|93.28|108.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.20|93.28|
84512229|NCT00840099|168776455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Ratio of the mean|104.15||||||90.0|96.35|112.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 80% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|96.35|
84512230|NCT00840099|168776456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.06||||||90.0|95.85|112.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.97|95.85|
84512231|NCT01212874|168776474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
84512232|NCT01212874|168776475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84512233|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Month 3|Results based on Mixed-Effect Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
84512234|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|0.1|
84512235|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
84512236|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
84512237|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
84512238|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
84512239|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
84512240|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
84512241|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
84512242|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
84512243|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
84512244|NCT04638153|168776489|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
84512245|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.2|-0.5|
84512246|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|0.2|
84512247|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.5|
84512248|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.6|
84512249|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.9|-0.4|
84725694|NCT01077284|169203503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84725695|NCT01077284|169203503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84512250|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-2.3|
84512251|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.8|
84512252|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-0.2|
84512253|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.5|
84512254|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-1.3|
84512255|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.8|-1.4|
84512256|NCT04638153|168776499|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-2.6|
84512257|NCT03553823|168776517|SUPERIORITY||Difference secukinumab vs guselkumab|20.0||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|50.3|||Fisher Exact|The statistical model was the Fisher's exact test for the difference in proportions.||"Proportion of subjects whose plaque achieves clear or almost clear status (TCS = 0-2)"||50.3|-13.3|0.1715
84512258|NCT03603314|168776518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3419
84512259|NCT03603314|168776518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5181
84512260|NCT03603314|168776519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3666
84512261|NCT03603314|168776519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5776|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5776
84512262|NCT03603314|168776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4094
84512263|NCT03603314|168776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4602
84512264|NCT03603314|168776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1269
84512265|NCT03603314|168776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2257|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.2257
84512266|NCT03603314|168776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3121
84512267|NCT03603314|168776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4965
84725696|NCT01077284|169203504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
84725697|NCT01077284|169203504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.348
84512268|NCT03603314|168776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.0976
84512269|NCT03603314|168776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1762
84512270|NCT01389102|168776524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84512271|NCT01389102|168776524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
84512272|NCT01389102|168776524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
84512273|NCT01389102|168776525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84512274|NCT01389102|168776525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0406
84512275|NCT01389102|168776525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84512276|NCT00050778|168776527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.545||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.545|0.110|0.0006
84512277|NCT00050778|168776527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.658||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.658|0.151|0.0021
84512278|NCT00050778|168776527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.515|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.515|0.152|<0.0001
84512279|NCT00050778|168776528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.552||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.552|0.196|<0.0001
84512280|NCT00050778|168776528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.431||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.431|0.126|<0.0001
84512281|NCT00050778|168776528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.441|||Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.441|0.176|<0.0001
84512282|NCT00050778|168776529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|62.64||||0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||0.0001
84512283|NCT00050778|168776529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|76.71|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
84512284|NCT00050778|168776529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|70.13|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
84512285|NCT00050778|168776530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0885|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0885
84512286|NCT00050778|168776530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0195
84512287|NCT00050778|168776530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0215
84512288|NCT00050778|168776531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3077|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3077
84512289|NCT00050778|168776531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3632
84512290|NCT00050778|168776531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.2758
84512291|NCT00813293|168776595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming the two trial arms were independent, the standard deviation was 0.5cm for both arms and a sample size of 16 evaluable patients (8 per arm), the study had an 84% power at a 5% (two-sided) significance level to detect 0.8cm difference in ablation zone size. In order to allow a 20% drop-out rate, a total of 20 subjects were accrued.||||.794
84512292|NCT00533273|168776600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
84512293|NCT00533273|168776601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
84512294|NCT00533273|168776602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84512295|NCT00533273|168776603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84512296|NCT00533273|168776605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
84512297|NCT00533273|168776606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
84512298|NCT00533273|168776607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84512299|NCT00533273|168776608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
84512300|NCT02794974|168776618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
84512301|NCT02794974|168776619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84512302|NCT02794974|168776620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|4.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|32.2|||Odds Ratio|||||32.2|0.63|0.209
84512303|NCT02794974|168776621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|12.77|||Odds Ratio|||||12.77|0.49|0.44
84512304|NCT02794974|168776622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|1.88||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.45|||Odds Ratio|||||9.45|0.37|0.695
84512305|NCT00454909|168776638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|19.18||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup A (hSBA-MenA) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||19.18|3.87|
84512306|NCT00454909|168776638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.4||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup C (hSBA-MenC) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||0.40|-5.08|
84512307|NCT00454909|168776638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|22.71||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 (hSBA-MenW -135) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||22.71|8.24|
84512308|NCT00454909|168776638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|20.1||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup Y (hSBA-MenY) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||20.10|7.90|
84512309|NCT01918800|168776667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for clinical significance was 7 point improvement.|paired t test|||||||.64
84512310|NCT01918800|168776668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|paired t test|||||||0.04
84512311|NCT01918800|168776669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Paired t test|||||||0.35
84512312|NCT01918800|168776670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The p value in this case is for the SF-36 Physical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84512313|NCT01918800|168776670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The p value in this case refers to the SF-36 Mental||||.09
84725698|NCT01077284|169203505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
84512314|NCT01918800|168776671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||This p value applies to the RAPA Cardiovascular|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
84512315|NCT01918800|168776671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p values is for the RAPA Strength||||0.4199
84512316|NCT01918800|168776671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
84512317|NCT01918800|168776672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84512318|NCT01918800|168776673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84512319|NCT01312922|168776780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.140|0.456|1.000
84512320|NCT01312922|168776780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.233|||Fisher Exact|||||2.233|0.476|1.000
84512321|NCT00515203|168776783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
84512322|NCT00515203|168776784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3651
84512323|NCT00515203|168776785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
84512324|NCT00515203|168776786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
84512325|NCT00515203|168776787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2098
84512326|NCT01874951|168776800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An initial power analysis at the time of protocol development suggested that with 6 patients in each treatment group, we could expect a 79% chance of achieving significance (2-sided p \< 0.05) if the true response rate to low-dose naltrexone (LDN) was 80% and the true placebo response rate was 20%.||||||0.55||||||Threshold of statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared value was 1.5.||Response rates were based on attaining a reduction in the HAM-D-17 scale of 50% or greater compared to baseline. We hypothesized that naltrexone would produce a significantly greater response rate than placebo.||||0.55
84539727|NCT00509795|168829386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.4|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI.||3.1|-4.4|
84725699|NCT01077284|169203505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.413
84512327|NCT02028715|168776827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96535||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3904|17.50042|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||17.50042|-6.39040|.356
84512328|NCT02028715|168776828|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98569||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49963|25.53599|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||25.53599|-2.49963|.105
84512329|NCT02028715|168776829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
84512330|NCT02028715|168776830|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||.643
84512331|NCT02028715|168776831|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||.217
84512332|NCT02028715|168776832|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.647|||||||ANOVA|||||||.647
84512333|NCT02028715|168776833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.695||||||||.695|-.587|
84512334|NCT01287013|168776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84512335|NCT01287013|168776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84512336|NCT01287013|168776836|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.04
84512337|NCT01287013|168776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84512338|NCT01287013|168776838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.67
84512339|NCT01710657|168776844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.6||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||47.6|30.5|<0.001
84512340|NCT01710657|168776844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|38.7||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||38.7|18.7|< 0.001
84512341|NCT02058498|168776855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84512342|NCT05327491|168776857|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.053||||||||1.053|0.880|
84512343|NCT05327491|168776858|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.033||||||||1.033|0.907|
84512344|NCT05327491|168776859|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.029||||||||1.029|0.908|
84512345|NCT02163837|168776868|SUPERIORITY|the study was exploratory, the number of patients included was not calculated|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||Mc Nemar symetry test for repeated measures and paired t-tests as appropriated||||<0.05
84512346|NCT01382719|168776888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.0|0.0|<0.05
84512347|NCT01382719|168776888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||Van Elteren|||||0.06|0.00|<0.05
84512348|NCT01382719|168776889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0496|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84512349|NCT01382719|168776890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0079|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.00|0.00|<0.05
84512350|NCT01382719|168776891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
84512351|NCT01382719|168776892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0013|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
84512352|NCT01382719|168776893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1161|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
84512353|NCT01382719|168776894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0133|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84512354|NCT00064753|168776897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.84|0.93
84512355|NCT00064753|168776898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.43||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.93|0.19
84512356|NCT00064753|168776899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.86|0.67
84512357|NCT00064753|168776900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.80|0.61
84512358|NCT00064753|168776901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.81|0.69|0.64
84512359|NCT00064753|168776902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.30|0.66
84512360|NCT00064753|168776903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.62|0.28
84512361|NCT00064753|168776904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.23|0.73|0.70
84512362|NCT00064753|168776905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.65|0.79|0.49
84512363|NCT00064753|168776906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.80|0.46|0.78
84512364|NCT00064753|168776907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.57|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.57|0.15|0.50
84512365|NCT00064753|168776908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.5|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||3.50|0.48|0.60
84512366|NCT00615069|168776934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of freedom from major adverse events through 1 year, 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs historical open surgical control Subjects.||||0.003
84512367|NCT00615069|168776935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|3.603||||||Estimation of Hazard ratio of the 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs original GORE EXCLUDER® AAA Endoprosthesis Subjects (original PMA subjects) using Cox Regression, not a powered analysis.||3.603|0.428|
84512368|NCT02996682|168776936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84512369|NCT02996682|168776936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
84512370|NCT02511782|168776955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84512371|NCT02511782|168776956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84512372|NCT00834756|168776957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.0||||||90.0|87.96|104.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.78|87.96|
84512373|NCT00834756|168776958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.63||||||90.0|92.34|105.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.35|92.34|
84512374|NCT00834756|168776959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.37||||||90.0|93.95|107.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.21|93.95|
84512375|NCT01472341|168776961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.24
84512376|NCT01472341|168776962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|PI/I ratio was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.001
84512377|NCT01472341|168776963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||<0.0001
84512378|NCT00986245|168777013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The UPDRS-part3 was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
84715139|NCT03334630|169176974|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-9.8|-13.9|<0.0001
84512379|NCT00986245|168777014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The Hoehn and Yahr stage was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
84512380|NCT00986245|168777015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Overall quality of sleep was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
84512381|NCT00986245|168777016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Nocturnal off-symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
84512382|NCT00986245|168777017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05||||||80% power|Sign test|||"The Early morning off symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
84512383|NCT00986245|168777018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Epworth sleep scale was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
84512384|NCT00986245|168777019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.05
84512385|NCT05093205|168777031|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|122.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.96|140.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||140.25|106.96|
84512386|NCT05093205|168777031|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|143.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.64|168.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||168.68|122.64|
84512387|NCT05093205|168777032|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|104.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|117.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||117.89|92.56|
84512388|NCT05093205|168777032|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|106.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||106.19|81.05|
84512389|NCT02567968|168777047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
84512390|NCT02597101|168777058|OTHER|REML mixed model|REML mixed model|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using REML mixed model analysis, differences between study arms resulting in a p\<0.05 would represent statistically-significant differences.|REML mixed model|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the improvement of insulin sensitivity by 40% or greater at 6 months compared to baseline, assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp method.||||<0.05
84512391|NCT03693430|168777067|SUPERIORITY|Week 104 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Missing observations were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved subjects of the same randomised treatment arm.|Treatment difference|-12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-9.77|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.77|-15.33|<.0001
84512392|NCT03693430|168777067|SUPERIORITY|All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.|Treatment difference|-16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|-13.45|||MMRM (Mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.45|-18.64|<0.0001
84512393|NCT03693430|168777068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||8.42|2.95|<0.0001
84512394|NCT03693430|168777068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|32.49|||MMRM|||Hypothetical estimand||32.49|10.04|<0.0001
84512395|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL5=RANTES||||0.000
84512396|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17A||||0.035
84512397|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL13||||0.911
84512398|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL6||||1.000
84512399|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL8||||0.934
84512400|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL13||||0.727
84512401|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL23||||0.179
84512402|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VLA4||||0.208
84512403|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL10=IP-10 (CXCR3 ligand)||||0.730
84512404|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL2=MCP-1||||0.725
84512405|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4||||0.057
84512406|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNF alpha||||0.724
84512407|NCT02373098|168777107|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL22||||0.662
84512408|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 abs||||0.256
84512409|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 abs||||0.587
84512410|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK abs||||0.300
84512411|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT abs||||0.096
84512412|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 abs||||0.270
84512413|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4CD25||||0.902
84512414|NCT02373098|168777108|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD4CD25||||0.283
84512415|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 %||||0.017
84512416|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 %||||0.300
84512417|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK %||||0.657
84512418|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT %||||0.439
84512419|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 %||||0.449
84512420|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.356
84512421|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.787
84512422|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.121
84512423|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.209
84512424|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IFNg+ (in CD4+)||||0.069
84512425|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL17+ (in CD4+)||||0.402
84512426|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IFNg+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
84512427|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL17+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
84512428|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IFNg+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.026
84478352|NCT03970824|168708146|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.08|102.5||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||102.50|86.08|
84512429|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.168
84512430|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL10+ (in CD4+)||||0.004
84512431|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL4+ (in CD4+)||||0.013
84512432|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4-CD8-IL4+ (in CD4-CD8-)||||0.171
84512433|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL10+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
84512434|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL4+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
84512435|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL10+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.007
84512436|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
84512437|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+TNFa+ (in CD4+)||||0.002
84512438|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL9+ (in CD4+)||||0.107
84512439|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+TNFa+ (in CD8+)||||0.000
84512440|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL9+ (in CD8+)||||0.022
84512441|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNFa+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
84512442|NCT02373098|168777111|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL9+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.127
84512443|NCT03252353|168777130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 58.16 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 19.42 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0079
84512444|NCT03252353|168777131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 77.66 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 30.40 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0007
84512445|NCT03252353|168777132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
84512446|NCT00855738|168777151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512447|NCT00855738|168777151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512448|NCT00855738|168777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512449|NCT00855738|168777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512450|NCT00855738|168777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512451|NCT00855738|168777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512452|NCT00855738|168777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0039
84512453|NCT00855738|168777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512454|NCT00855738|168777154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84512455|NCT00855738|168777165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.1797
84512456|NCT00855738|168777165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.0433
84512457|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.8284
84512458|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotions (mood): p-value versus baseline.||||0.6299
84512459|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily activities: p-value versus baseline.||||0.6162
84512460|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental function: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5609
84512461|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication effects (physical/ mental): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4635
84512462|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry about seizures (impact of seizures): p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
84512463|NCT00855738|168777166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall quality of life: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0258
84512464|NCT00855738|168777167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.7822
84512465|NCT00855738|168777167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4471
84512466|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep disturbance: p-value versus baseline.||||0.2452
84512467|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snoring: p-value verus baseline.||||1.0000
84512468|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Awake short of breath: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4253
84512469|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Quantity: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0572
84512470|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adequacy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0625
84512471|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Somnolence: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5540
84512472|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 6): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4204
84512473|NCT00855738|168777168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 9): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4869
84512474|NCT00855738|168777169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0863
84512475|NCT00855738|168777170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to a specialist because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0226
84512476|NCT00855738|168777170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to the emergency room because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0017
84512477|NCT00855738|168777171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value versus baseline.||||0.3141
84512478|NCT00855738|168777172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cessation of usual occupation: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0708
84512479|NCT00855738|168777172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Requirement of informal caregiver: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
84512480|NCT00855738|168777172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Required admission to ICU: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
84512481|NCT00323193|168777176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.720
84512482|NCT00323193|168777177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.710
84512483|NCT02268500|168777282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84512484|NCT02268500|168777283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
84512485|NCT02268500|168777284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84512486|NCT02268500|168777285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84512487|NCT02268500|168777286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84725700|NCT01077284|169203506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5535||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.5535
84725701|NCT01077284|169203506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.9400
84512488|NCT03929367|168777293|OTHER|Modeling of change of plasma oxytocin concentration over time using nonlinear canonical compartment model.|Bayesian information criterion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84512489|NCT03929367|168777304|SUPERIORITY|Light touch detection frequency was compared over time in comparison to baseline using a one way analysis of variance for repeated measures. A power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.89||||||No effect|ANOVA|||||||.89
84512490|NCT03929367|168777311|SUPERIORITY|Sustained heat score at the end of each 5 minute session was compared to baseline across time using a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
84725702|NCT00841321|169203524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||PASAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.1|-0.5|.1
84725703|NCT00841321|169203524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||Stroop Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline.Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
84512491|NCT01706536|168777330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04055||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|0.1966|||Least squares mean (SE)|In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used.||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.1966|0.0369|0.0043
84512492|NCT01706536|168777330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0479|0.2089||In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2089|0.0479|0.0019
84512493|NCT01706536|168777330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0667|0.2257||in order to control for Type 1 error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2257|0.0667|0.0004
84478353|NCT03970824|168708146|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|109.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||109.92|92.42|
84478354|NCT03970824|168708147|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|101.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|108.89||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||108.89|95.33|
84512494|NCT01706536|168777330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2548||in order to control for type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2548|0.0992|<0.0001
84539757|NCT03668808|168829514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) at 0600 local time at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84539758|NCT03668808|168829515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Liverpool Jet-Lag Questionnaire after 24 and 48 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward travel or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.01
84725704|NCT00841321|169203524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||COWAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.2|0.5
84512495|NCT00154102|168777343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.0|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The study was planned with 633 progression events, in order to provide 80% power to test the null hypothesis of no difference in PFS time between treatment groups, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 of cetuximab + chemotherapy (CTX) over CTX alone. Significance level was fixed at 5%. The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and Karnovsky Performance Scale (KPS):\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.000|0.728|0.0479
84512496|NCT00154102|168777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.867|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.867|0.558|0.0012
84512497|NCT00154102|168777345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.544|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.544|0.887|0.2648
84512498|NCT00154102|168777346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.995|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.995|0.774|0.0419
84512499|NCT00154102|168777347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.946|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.946|0.670|0.0093
84512500|NCT00154102|168777348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.284|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.284|0.834|0.7549
84715140|NCT03334630|169176983|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.||Since the previous secondary endpoint (Total fluoroscopy time) was non-significant, testing stopped and this secondary endpoint was not tested.|Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||3.1|-14.4|
84715141|NCT03334630|169176988|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||1.6|-1.9|0.8528
84715142|NCT05907174|169177035|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.023
84715143|NCT05093842|169177068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84715144|NCT05093842|169177069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84512501|NCT00154102|168777349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.77|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.77|1.12|0.0038
84715145|NCT05093842|169177070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84715146|NCT05093842|169177071|OTHER|Descriptive rates were calculated.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
84715147|NCT05093842|169177072|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
84715148|NCT05093842|169177073|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
84715149|NCT05093842|169177074|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
84715150|NCT03910478|169177075|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.948||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.053|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician-recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||2.053|0.438|0.8920
84715151|NCT03910478|169177076|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician -recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||1.450|0.301|0.3008
84715152|NCT03987022|169177098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.16
84715153|NCT03987022|169177099|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84715154|NCT03987022|169177100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
84715155|NCT03987022|169177101|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84715156|NCT03987022|169177102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
84715157|NCT03987022|169177103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
84715158|NCT03987022|169177104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84715159|NCT03987022|169177105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
84715160|NCT03987022|169177106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84725705|NCT00841321|169203524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5||95.0|-0.3|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||CVLT-II Delayed Recall Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.3|0.5
84725706|NCT00841321|169203524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||MANCOVA|MANCOVA||MANCOVA for all four cognitive tests at exit adjusting for baseline. Individual ANOVAs were to follow if the multivariate test was significant.||||0.19
84725707|NCT00841321|169203525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Perceived Deficits Questionnaire||4.7|-5.7|0.4
84512502|NCT00154102|168777350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.826|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||2.826|1.515|<0.0001
84512503|NCT00154102|168777351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.3475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.242|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.242|0.544|0.3475
84715161|NCT01456949|169177182|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|66.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|71.7|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||71.7|61.6|<0.001
84512504|NCT00154102|168777352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.26|0.67|0.6004
84715162|NCT01456949|169177183|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.5|1.1|<0.001
84715163|NCT01456949|169177184|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Freedom from MAFE's was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
84715164|NCT01456949|169177185|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Chronic treatment success was estimated at one and two years using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
84715165|NCT01658930|169177201|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of inferiority in the difference of 3 year pelvic recurrence rates between simple and radical hysterectomy group was 4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0162|0.0232|||||Difference between simple and radical hysterectomy groups.|||0.0232|-0.0162|
84715166|NCT01658930|169177202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.67|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||2.67|0.47|
84715167|NCT01658930|169177203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.4|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group of radical hysterectomy group.|||18.4|0.79|
84715168|NCT01658930|169177204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.45|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group to radical hysterectomy group.|||3.45|0.69|
84715169|NCT01658930|169177205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.14|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||3.14|0.38|
84512505|NCT00154102|168777354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|1.45|0.002
84512506|NCT02055963|168777365|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.98
84715170|NCT02723591|169177259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with DSA/IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant calculated panel reactivity antibody (cPRA) as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard variance components covariance type.||1.636|0.760|0.5777
84715171|NCT02723591|169177262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6618|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2x3 Exact Test of treatment by strength levels.||||0.6618
84715172|NCT02723591|169177267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||1.539|0.700|0.8518
84715173|NCT02723591|169177270|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||1.0000
84512507|NCT01297348|168777398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported for current users.||3.29|1.23|
84512508|NCT01297348|168777398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|22.8||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||22.80|0.39|
84512509|NCT01297348|168777398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.02||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for current users.||6.02|2.02|
84512510|NCT01297348|168777398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|27.47||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||27.47|0.34|
84715174|NCT02723591|169177271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.4750
84512511|NCT01297348|168777399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.67||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||2.67|0.85|
84512512|NCT01297348|168777399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.54||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||6.54|0.98|
84512513|NCT02495857|168777400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
84512514|NCT02495857|168777401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
84512515|NCT02495857|168777402|EQUIVALENCE|From baseline to week 26 visit, change in the WOMAC stiffness score was evaluated.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|8.49||||||||8.49|-13.61|
84512516|NCT01032083|168777425|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.80|-4.91|0.36
84512517|NCT01032083|168777426|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.0|||Regression, Linear|||||14|-9|0.68
84512518|NCT01376167|168777525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.404||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.404|0.222|<0.001
84512519|NCT01376167|168777525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.262|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.387||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.387|0.178|<0.001
84512520|NCT01376167|168777525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.382||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.382|0.152|<0.001
84512521|NCT01376167|168777525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.335||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.335|0.117|<0.001
84512522|NCT01376167|168777526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.376||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.376|0.195|<0.001
84512523|NCT01376167|168777526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.39||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.390|0.167|<0.001
84512524|NCT02193165|168777552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different. Significance will be determined by p\<0.5||||0.434
84540774|NCT03718832|168832717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.276579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.636162||0.1650343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9420086|5.495166||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||5.495166|-0.9420086|0.1650343
84715175|NCT02723591|169177272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.0939
84512525|NCT02193165|168777553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups determined by P\<0.05||||<0.001
84715176|NCT02723591|169177275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of eGFR \< 50 by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.240|0.915|0.1160
84512526|NCT02193165|168777554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups will be determined at P\<0.05||||<0.001
84512527|NCT02193165|168777555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Differences will be noted at P\<0.05. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different||||0.816
84512528|NCT02193165|168777556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
84512529|NCT02193165|168777557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
84512530|NCT04239872|168777558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00778||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09209|0.07653||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.07653|-0.09209|0.8412
84540464|NCT00535405|168831870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.76|7.24||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||7.24|2.76|<0.001
84512531|NCT04239872|168777559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06907||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3955|0.2573||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 12 pairs of data, DF=11|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.2573|-0.3955|0.6504
84725708|NCT00841321|169203525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.7||95.0|-3.2|4.8|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire||4.8|-3.2|0.7
84512532|NCT04239872|168777560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5307||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2372|0.8243||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8243|0.2372|0.0024
84715177|NCT02723591|169177276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of 5-point eGFR decline by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.120|0.693|0.4995
84715178|NCT02723591|169177294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6327|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6327
84512533|NCT04239872|168777561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5643||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2938|0.8348||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 9 pairs of data, DF=8|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8348|0.2938|0.0013
84715179|NCT02723591|169177295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9701
84715180|NCT02723591|169177296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3127|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.3127
84715181|NCT02723591|169177297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.0830
84512534|NCT04239872|168777562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1135||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2964|0.06929||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06929|-0.2964|0.2041
84715182|NCT02723591|169177298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6022|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6022
84715183|NCT02723591|169177299|SUPERIORITY|P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||||0.9249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9249
84715184|NCT02723591|169177300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9136
84715185|NCT02723591|169177301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8789
84715186|NCT02723591|169177302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5574|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5574
84715187|NCT02723591|169177303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8150
84715188|NCT02723591|169177304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5673|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5673
84715189|NCT04117347|169177325|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861723|0.1309519|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1309519|-0.0861723|
84715190|NCT04117347|169177325|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363877|0.1730965|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1730965|-0.0363877|
84715191|NCT04117347|169177325|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0676154|0.1545869|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1545869|-0.0676154|
84715192|NCT04117347|169177325|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0888691|0.1255146|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1255146|-0.0888691|
84715193|NCT03511664|169177327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.29|0.57|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.57|0.29|< 0.001
84715194|NCT03511664|169177328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||Primary OS Analysis||0.74|0.52|<0.001
84715195|NCT03511664|169177328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Cox PH model stratified by LDH (≤260 vs. \>260 IU/L), liver metastases (yes/no), ECOG score (0-1 vs. 2), and NAAD inclusion in best supportive care at randomization (yes/no). IRT data used for stratification|Final OS analysis||0.81|0.58|
84715196|NCT03511664|169177330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|103.24|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||103.24|6.05|< 0.001
84715197|NCT03511664|169177331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|10.55|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||10.55|3.18|< 0.001
84715198|NCT03511664|169177333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.62|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.62|0.40|< 0.001
84715199|NCT03511664|169177334|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.38|0.24|< 0.001
84715200|NCT03511664|169177336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.0|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||20.0|6.3|< 0.001
84715201|NCT03511664|169177337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|65.1|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||65.1|8.6|< 0.001
84715202|NCT04642820|169177368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
84715203|NCT06473662|169177376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0039
84715204|NCT06473662|169177377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0166
84715205|NCT06473662|169177379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0474
84715206|NCT02398656|169177380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||||||||1.04|0.88|
84725709|NCT00841321|169203525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4||95.0|-1.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Community Integration Questionnaire||0.8|-1.3|0.4
84715207|NCT05485779|169177392|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.17||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.27|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 30.4. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.27|1.07|0.6358
84512535|NCT04239872|168777563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.095|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7736|1.416||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.416|0.7736|<0.0001
84715208|NCT05485779|169177392|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.9. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|0.963|0.5506
84715209|NCT05485779|169177393|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.22|1.04|0.3653
84715210|NCT05485779|169177393|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 27.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|1.01|0.2933
84715211|NCT05485779|169177394|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.41|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 64.3. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.41|0.908|0.4600
84715212|NCT05485779|169177394|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.45|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 65.6. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.45|0.795|0.3157
84715213|NCT05485779|169177395|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.2||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.37|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.2. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.37|1.02|0.2350
84715214|NCT05485779|169177395|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.19||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 58.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.50|0.880|0.1632
84715215|NCT05485779|169177396|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.04|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 5.66. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.04|0.915|
84512536|NCT04239872|168777564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.825||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.825|1.112|<0.0001
84715216|NCT05485779|169177397|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|1.02|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 20.5. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.02|0.635|
84512537|NCT04239872|168777565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|2.017||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||2.017|1.081|<0.0001
84478355|NCT03970824|168708147|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.91|104.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||104.92|91.91|
84478356|NCT03970824|168708147|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|106.85||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.85|93.69|
84478357|NCT01488409|168708151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84512538|NCT04239872|168777566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.6||||0.5543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|353.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 6 pairs of data, DF=5|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||353.6|-584.8|0.5543
84478358|NCT01488409|168708152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84478359|NCT01488409|168708153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84478360|NCT01488409|168708154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84478361|NCT01488409|168708155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84540775|NCT03718832|168832717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.989458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359013||0.1442126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6843682|4.663284||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.663284|-0.6843682|0.1442126
84512539|NCT04239872|168777567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.328||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.814||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.814|0.8420|0.0003
84512540|NCT04239872|168777568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09023||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2613|0.08082||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.08082|-0.2613|0.2824
84512541|NCT04239872|168777569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6269||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3488|0.905||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.9050|0.3488|0.0002
84512542|NCT04239872|168777570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.122||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.122|0.6671|<0.0001
84540776|NCT03718832|168832717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.579811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739612||0.0335498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03574|-0.1238828||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.1238828|-3.03574|0.0335498
84512543|NCT04239872|168777571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|1.186||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.186|0.7597|<0.0001
84512544|NCT04239872|168777572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7758|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.19|0.7758|<0.0001
84512545|NCT04239872|168777573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6573|1.179||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.179|0.6573|<0.0001
84512546|NCT04239872|168777578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05652||||0.3283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1762|0.06829||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06829|-0.1762|0.3283
84512547|NCT04239872|168777579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3411||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1189|0.5633||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5633|0.1189|0.0058
84512548|NCT04239872|168777580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2976||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05266|0.5426||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5426|0.05266|0.0213
84512549|NCT04239872|168777581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.312||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07454|0.5495||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5495|0.07454|0.014
84512550|NCT04239872|168777582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2524||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09153|0.5962||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.5962|-0.09153|0.1393
84512551|NCT04239872|168777583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2921||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1414|0.4427||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.4427|0.1414|0.0009
84512552|NCT04239872|168777584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2433||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1195|0.3671||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.3671|0.1195|0.0008
84512553|NCT04239872|168777585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3306||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1356|0.7969||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.7969|-0.1356|0.1515
84512554|NCT04239872|168777586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04851||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02327|0.1203||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.1203|-0.02327|0.1712
84512555|NCT04239872|168777587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2789||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07934|0.6371||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.6371|-0.07934|0.1188
84512556|NCT04239872|168777588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7205|1.071||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.071|0.7205|<0.0001
84512557|NCT04239872|168777590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3199||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004686|0.6351||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.6351|0.004686|0.0475
84512558|NCT04239872|168777591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.46|73.3||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||73.30|27.46|0.0004
84512559|NCT01214850|168777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.737|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of virulent ST strain of N. meningitidis group B in 4CMenB group as compared to the control group at 1 month after receiving the 2nd rMenB+OMV NZ vaccination||1.737|0.809|0.3828
84512560|NCT01214850|168777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of combined N. meningitidis serogroups A, C, W, Y in the MenACWY-CRM group compared to Control group at 1 month after receiving 1 injection of MenACWY vaccine||1.273|0.555|
84512561|NCT00565448|168777644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Fisher's exact test was used to compare the CR proportions.|Fisher Exact|||There was no formal power calculation. A selection design was used to determine how many participants would be accrued to correctly select the treatment group with the best CR rate with 80% probability.||||1.0000
84512562|NCT03221374|168777702|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model to test the overall BCI learning between MBSR and control groups||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84512563|NCT03221374|168777702|EQUIVALENCE|This independent t-test will test if the two groups (MBSR, control) exhibit a statistically significant difference in terms of BCI performance from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between BCI performance improvement in MBSR cohort and control cohort.|||||0.024
84512564|NCT03221374|168777703|EQUIVALENCE|This WRS test will determine if the MBSR group breath counting accuracy was significantly greater than the postintervention levels of controls.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84512565|NCT03221374|168777704|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the FMI scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84512566|NCT03221374|168777704|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the MAAS scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84512567|NCT03221374|168777704|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the FMI score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84715217|NCT05485779|169177399|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.15||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.34|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 28.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.34|0.954|0.1558
84715218|NCT05485779|169177400|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.26|||Lack of Fit 2-sided model|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 24.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.26|0.946|0.5458
84715219|NCT05485779|169177401|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.941||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.28||Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Lack of fit 2-sided||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.602|0.4856
84715220|NCT05485779|169177402|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.28|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 45.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.666|0.1455
84715221|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.789|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.899|-152.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-152.678|-204.899|<.0001
84715222|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.184|-157.598|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-157.598|-211.184|<.0001
84715223|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.964|-149.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-149.237|-200.964|<.0001
84725710|NCT00379210|169203530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical tests are evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05 (corrected, when appropriate, for multiple comparisons). Analyses are performed on both response latency and accuracy on behavioral data. For latency analyses, mean response times for correct trials are calculated for each subject. Repeated-measures ANOVA are used for omnibus tests; paired t-tests are used for individual planned contrasts, with Bonferroni-corrected significance levels to maintain a .05 alpha level||||<0.01
84725711|NCT02991118|169203541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.951|-13.896|||ANCOVA|||||-13.896|-20.951|<0.001
84512568|NCT03221374|168777704|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the MAAS score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84512569|NCT00302952|168777716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||||||Adjustments were made for baseline ln(CRP), baseline DAS28-CRP score, race, methotrexate use, anti-TNF use, and disease duration.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group. Log transformed CRP was analyzed to meet the heterogeneity assumption for ANCOVA models.||||0.79
84715224|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-161.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.543|-135.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-135.609|-187.543|<.0001
84512570|NCT00302952|168777718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||Adjustments were made for baseline DAS28-CRP score.|ANCOVA|ANOVA was performed on participants with a DAS28-CRP score at Day 84.||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.91
84512571|NCT00302952|168777719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-11.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|14.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in percentages is calculated as Lovastatin - Placebo.|The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||14.0|-35.9|0.39
84512572|NCT00302952|168777720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum IgM RF by ELISA test result. In the ANCOVA model, baseline value was a covariate; therefore, an adjustment was performed.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.19
84512573|NCT00302952|168777721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum anti-CCP by ELISA|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.35
84512574|NCT02979353|168777761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge timepoint (average 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.017
84725712|NCT02991118|169203542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.418|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.504|-10.027|||ANCOVA|||||-10.027|-19.504|<0.001
84512575|NCT02979353|168777761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred on average 31 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
84725713|NCT02991118|169203543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-9.794|||ANCOVA|||||-9.794|-16.270|<0.001
84725714|NCT02991118|169203544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.599|-8.801|||ANCOVA|||||-8.801|-13.599|<0.001
84512576|NCT02979353|168777761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up After PAC Discharge (occurred, on average, 122 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
84512577|NCT02979353|168777762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.02
84512578|NCT02979353|168777762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 31 days after study enrollment).||||<0.00001
84512579|NCT02979353|168777762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to 90-Day Follow Up After PAC Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 122 after study enrollment).||||0.01
84512580|NCT03897088|168777772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512581|NCT03897088|168777781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512582|NCT03897088|168777782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512583|NCT03897088|168777783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512584|NCT03897088|168777784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512585|NCT03897088|168777785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512586|NCT03897088|168777786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
84512587|NCT03897088|168777787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
84512588|NCT03897088|168777788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
84512589|NCT03897088|168777789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-75||||<0.00001
84512590|NCT03897088|168777789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-90||||<0.00001
84512591|NCT03897088|168777789|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-100||||0.00004
84512592|NCT03897088|168777790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512593|NCT03897088|168777791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512594|NCT03897088|168777792|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
84512595|NCT03897088|168777793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Week 16|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
84512596|NCT03897088|168777794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
84512597|NCT03897088|168777795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
84512598|NCT04320849|168777812|OTHER||Slope|0.0675|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.106||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the extravenous region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.106||
84512599|NCT04320849|168777813|OTHER||Slope|0.199|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.397||||||"The following set of hypotheses will be used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the intracardiac region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.397||
84512600|NCT04320849|168777814|OTHER||Slope|-0.015|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0123||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the connector region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.0123||
84512601|NCT02227121|168777831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|92.86|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|70.3|||||||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination ≤ 65% Alternative Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination \> 65%|||70.3|
84512602|NCT01569152|168777858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of percentages|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.52|63.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.28|24.52|<0.001
84512603|NCT01569152|168777859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.43|-1.53|<0.001
84512604|NCT01569152|168777860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.62|<0.001
84512605|NCT01569152|168777861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.63||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|28.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.44|0.83|0.044
84715225|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-172.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.08|-153.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-153.886|-192.080|<.0001
84725715|NCT02991118|169203545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-9.907|||ANCOVA|||||-9.907|-16.130|<0.001
84725716|NCT02991118|169203546|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-8.733|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.238|-0.434|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-0.434|-17.238|<0.039
84725717|NCT02991118|169203549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|11.292|||ANCOVA|||||11.292|-1.504|0.134
84512606|NCT01569152|168777864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|52.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.13|11.29|0.004
84512607|NCT01569152|168777865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|49.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.63|8.90|0.007
84512608|NCT01569152|168777866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|18.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.84|0.67|0.039
84512609|NCT01569152|168777867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|22.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.21|2.18|0.018
84512610|NCT01569152|168777870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.75||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-0.52|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.52|-8.99|0.028
84512611|NCT01569152|168777871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|0.62|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.62|-5.91|0.110
84512612|NCT01569152|168777872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-10.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-4.15|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.15|-16.97|0.002
84512613|NCT01569152|168777875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-11.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-11.71|-29.98|<0.001
84512614|NCT01569152|168777876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-9.28|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-9.28|-29.69|<0.001
84512615|NCT01569152|168777877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-10.09|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-10.09|-31.29|<0.001
84512616|NCT01569152|168777878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.84|< 0.001
84512617|NCT01569152|168777879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.45|-2.73|0.007
84715226|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.585||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.572|21.401|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||21.401|-28.572|0.7781
84725718|NCT02991118|169203550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.369|-3.896|||ANCOVA|||||-3.896|-8.369|<0.001
84512618|NCT01569152|168777880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.9||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|4.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.74|-14.54|0.315
84512619|NCT01569152|168777882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.56|47.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.86|15.56|<0.001
84512620|NCT02801877|168777899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|Chi square= 4.1 on 3 degrees of freedom||Log-rank test of adherence, defined as time to last engagement with mobile application suite.||||0.3
84512621|NCT02801877|168777900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.19||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.90
84512622|NCT02801877|168777901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.73||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline GAD-7, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.53
84512623|NCT06358820|168777942|SUPERIORITY|\>0.15 g/dL change in albumin from baseline to month 6 was anticipated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|4.39||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|Outcome Measure were assessed at baseline and every month during the 6-month study.||4.39|3.15|<0.0125
84512624|NCT06358820|168777943|SUPERIORITY|\>60 mg/L change in prealbumin from baseline to month 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.77||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|56.87||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|||56.87|26.66|0.0125
84512625|NCT01811953|168777952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.531|105.653|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.653|99.531|<0.0001
84512626|NCT01811953|168777952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.879|103.059|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.059|94.879|<0.0001
84512627|NCT01811953|168777952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.728|109.386|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.386|102.728|<0.0001
84512628|NCT01811953|168777953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|96.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|101.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.26|91.25|<0.0001
84725719|NCT02991118|169203551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.314|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.813|-7.722|||ANCOVA|||||-7.722|-16.813|<0.001
84512629|NCT01811953|168777953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|106.62|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.62|92.56|<0.0001
84512630|NCT01811953|168777953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean difference|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|106.14|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.14|95.74|<0.0001
84512631|NCT01811953|168777954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.315|105.43|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.430|99.315|<0.0001
84512632|NCT01811953|168777954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.784|103.037|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.037|94.784|<0.0001
84512633|NCT01811953|168777954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|105.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.73|109.329|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.329|102.730|<0.0001
84725720|NCT02991118|169203552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-8.682|||ANCOVA|||||-8.682|-16.580|<0.001
84512634|NCT01811953|168777955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.255|108.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||108.351|96.255|<0.0001
84512635|NCT01811953|168777955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.863|118.353|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||118.353|95.863|0.0082
84725721|NCT02991118|169203553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.803|-6.037|||ANCOVA|||||-6.037|-13.803|<0.001
84725722|NCT02991118|169203554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.698|-7.848|||ANCOVA|||||-7.848|-13.698|<0.001
84725723|NCT02991118|169203555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.223|-5.493|||ANCOVA|||||-5.493|-11.223|<0.001
84725724|NCT02991118|169203556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.829|-8.175|||ANCOVA|||||-8.175|-17.829|<0.001
84725725|NCT02991118|169203557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.107|-6.047|||ANCOVA|||||-6.047|-13.107|<0.001
84512636|NCT01811953|168777955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|104.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.152|110.224|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||110.224|99.152|<0.0001
84512637|NCT01811953|168777956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.931|101.21|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.210|88.931|0.0001
84512638|NCT01811953|168777956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.339|103.935|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.935|92.339|<0.0001
84725726|NCT02991118|169203558|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|-10.034|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-10.034|-32.250|<0.001
84512639|NCT01811953|168777956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.166|109.082|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.082|97.166|<0.0001
84725727|NCT02991118|169203559|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.587||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.978|1.653|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||1.653|-16.978|0.102
84725728|NCT02991118|169203560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-9.878|||ANCOVA|||||-9.878|-20.260|<0.001
84512640|NCT01811953|168777957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|100.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||100.26|89.80|<0.0001
84715227|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.764||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.993|17.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||17.465|-32.993|0.5457
84715228|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.445|-129.961|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-129.961|-220.445|<.0001
84725729|NCT01214109|169203569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|82.62||||||90.0|74.45|91.69|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||91.69|74.45|
84512641|NCT01811953|168777957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|107.03|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||107.03|92.14|<0.0001
84512642|NCT01811953|168777957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|100.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.77|105.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.96|95.77|<0.0001
84512643|NCT03497897|168777989|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|Posterior geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.34|||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|90% credible intervals are reported on the geometric means ratio|||1.34|0.64|
84512644|NCT03497897|168777989|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<1)|0.637|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
84512645|NCT03497897|168777989|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<0.75)|0.171|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
84512646|NCT00723528|168777990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84512647|NCT00723528|168777991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sample t-test (using Holm's method)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84512648|NCT00723528|168778001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84512649|NCT02627924|168778003|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
84512650|NCT02627924|168778004|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
84512651|NCT02627924|168778006|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84512652|NCT02627924|168778006|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
84512653|NCT02627924|168778006|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||0.0001
84512654|NCT02627924|168778006|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
84512655|NCT02627924|168778007|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
84512656|NCT02627924|168778007|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
84512657|NCT02627924|168778008|OTHER|||||||0.0098|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||0.0098
84512658|NCT02627924|168778008|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||0.0015
84512659|NCT02627924|168778008|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
84512660|NCT02627924|168778008|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
84512661|NCT01993030|168778015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Growth of Granulation Tissue between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with healthy granulation tissue and the Participants with unhealthy granulation tissue category."||||0.49
84725730|NCT01214109|169203569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|96.17||||||90.0|69.33|133.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||133.42|69.33|
84512662|NCT01993030|168778016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Inflammatory Reaction between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with Inflammatory Reaction and the Participants without Inflammatory Reaction category."||||0.36
84512663|NCT01993030|168778017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the VAS score between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.11
84512664|NCT01993030|168778018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Exudation between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to No exudation and Little exudation category."||||0.11
84512665|NCT01993030|168778019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Time to Wound Healing between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.02
84512666|NCT01591785|168778036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84512667|NCT01591785|168778037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84512668|NCT01591785|168778038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0495
84512669|NCT01591785|168778039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
84512670|NCT01049334|168778048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-151.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.9|-24.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for statistical multiplicity were required.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline STPIS as a covariate.||||-24.0|-278.9|0.0201
84512671|NCT01049334|168778049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-9.9|-29.2|<.0001
84715229|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-176.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.672|-130.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-130.582|-222.672|<.0001
84715230|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-171.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.626|-126.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-126.404|-216.626|<.0001
84715231|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.27|-108.354|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-108.354|-199.270|<.0001
84715232|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-165.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.898|-134.541|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-134.541|-195.898|<.0001
84715233|NCT04800211|169177493|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.815||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.223|13.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.593|-59.223|0.2188
84715234|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-248.311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.423|-210.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-210.199|-286.423|<.0001
84512672|NCT01049334|168778050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-12.9|-31.7|<0.0001
84512673|NCT01049334|168778051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-181.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.7|-50.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-50.0|-313.7|0.0071
84715235|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-247.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.904|-214.241|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-214.241|-280.904|<.0001
84725731|NCT01214109|169203570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.01||||||90.0|80.76|95.92|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||95.92|80.76|
84512674|NCT01049334|168778052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
84512675|NCT01049334|168778053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-137.6||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.5|-6.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-6.8|-268.5|0.0393
84715236|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-245.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.945|-206.791|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.791|-284.945|<.0001
84715237|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-234.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.603|-198.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-198.282|-271.603|<.0001
84715238|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-244.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.269|-212.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-212.829|-275.269|<.0001
84715239|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-221.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-258.371|-184.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-184.398|-258.371|<.0001
84715240|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-233.626|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.113|-206.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.140|-261.113|<.0001
84725732|NCT01214109|169203570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.37||||||90.0|81.16|98.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.42|81.16|
84512676|NCT01049334|168778054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0459||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0459
84512677|NCT01049334|168778055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8383||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8383
84512678|NCT01049334|168778056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84512679|NCT01049334|168778057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84512680|NCT01049334|168778058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84512681|NCT01049334|168778059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-156.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.9|-4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|||||-4.6|-307.9|0.0435
84512682|NCT01049334|168778060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
84512683|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 2||0.1|-0.0|0.1448
84512684|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 4||0.3|-0.0|0.1538
84512685|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 6||0.5|-0.1|0.1407
84512686|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 8||0.7|-0.2|0.2906
84512687|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 10||0.8|-0.4|0.4758
84715241|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|26.266||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|63.661|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||63.661|-11.130|0.1672
84715242|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.051||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.881|-8.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-8.221|-71.881|0.0140
84715243|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.635||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.785|-4.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-4.484|-80.785|0.0288
84715244|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-274.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.428|-203.726|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-203.726|-345.428|<.0001
84725733|NCT01214109|169203571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.82||||||90.0|79.89|98.76|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.76|79.89|
84512688|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.6975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 12||0.9|-0.6|0.6975
84512689|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 14||0.9|-0.8|0.9370
84512690|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 16||0.9|-1.1|0.8493
84512691|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.3||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 18||0.9|-1.4|0.6732
84512692|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.4||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 20||0.9|-1.8|0.5414
84512693|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.6||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 22||0.9|-2.1|0.4313
84512694|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.8||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 24||0.9|-2.4|0.3501
84512695|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.0||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 26||0.8|-2.8|0.2679
84512696|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.2||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 28||0.7|-3.2|0.2137
84512697|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.5||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.6|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 30||0.6|-3.6|0.1715
84715245|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-207.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.198|-145.844|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-145.844|-269.198|<.0001
84715246|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.683|-130.784|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-130.784|-275.683|<.0001
84715247|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-261.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.647|-191.769|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-191.769|-330.647|<.0001
84715248|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.998|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.396|-144.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.599|-263.396|<.0001
84715249|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.092|-108.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-108.408|-249.092|<.0001
84512698|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.8||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 32||0.5|-4.1|0.1340
84512699|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 34||0.4|-4.5|0.1030
84512700|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.4||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 36||0.3|-5.0|0.0788
84512701|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 38||0.1|-5.5|0.0620
84512702|NCT01049334|168778061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-3.0||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 40||-0.0|-6.0|0.0476
84512703|NCT01049334|168778062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0273
84512704|NCT01049334|168778063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
84715250|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-190.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.134|-144.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.850|-237.134|<.0001
84725734|NCT01214109|169203571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|91.97||||||90.0|60.07|140.25|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||140.25|60.07|
84539759|NCT03668808|168829516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Sleep quantity measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
84512705|NCT03979079|168778066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3||Estimation was performed using a Bayesian approach. As such, p-values are not estimated.|Two-stage model.||||Two-stage model within a Bayesian framework to assess the role of the prostate-specific antigens profile on clinical failure while accounting for a secondary treatment prescribed by indication. Prostatespecific antigens modeled using a hierarchical piecewise linear trajectory with a random changepoint. Residual prostate-specific antigens variability was expressed as a function of prostate-specific antigens concentration. Covariates in the survival model included hormone therapy, baseline characteristics, and individual predictions of the prostate-specific antigens nadir and timing and prostate-specific antigens slopes before and after the nadir as provided by the longitudinal process.|0.30|0.14|
84539760|NCT03668808|168829517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Sleep efficiency measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
84715251|NCT04800211|169177494|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.483||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.096|28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||28.130|-77.096|0.3590
84715252|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.287|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|-1.992|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-1.992|-2.582|<.0001
84715253|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.722|-2.107|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.107|-2.722|<.0001
84715254|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.090|-2.673|<.0001
84715255|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.782|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.190|-2.782|<.0001
84725735|NCT01214109|169203572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.84||||||90.0|83.8|102.86|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||102.86|83.8|
84725736|NCT01214109|169203572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.05||||||90.0|84.88|106.43|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||106.43|84.88|
84715256|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.668|-2.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.233|-2.668|<.0001
84715257|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.466||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.747|0.185|0.0012
84715258|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.386|-0.187|0.4957
84715259|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|-2.239|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.239|-3.266|<.0001
84715260|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|-1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.986|-3.043|<.0001
84715261|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|-2.336|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.336|-3.359|<.0001
84725998|NCT00912964|169204166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
84715262|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.105|-2.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.066|-3.105|<.0001
84715263|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.901|-2.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.199|-2.901|<.0001
84715264|NCT04800211|169177495|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.071||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.489|-0.346|0.7372
84715265|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.710|-3.502|<.0001
84715266|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.414|-3.235|<.0001
84725737|NCT02312258|169203641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.381|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), International Staging System (ISS) stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus \[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) vs partial response (PR)).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus\[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.381|0.861|=0.473
84725999|NCT04447287|169204214|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|89.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|99.11||||||||99.11|81.21|
84539761|NCT02839772|168829518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.341, df=89.347||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function (SBF) in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.164|0.997|<0.001
84715267|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|-2.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.904|-3.553|<.0001
84715268|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.221|-2.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.457|-3.221|<.0001
84715269|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.070|-2.828|<.0001
84715270|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.328|-2.718|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.718|-3.328|<.0001
84715271|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.354|-2.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.897|-3.354|<.0001
84726000|NCT04447287|169204215|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.22|105.86||||||||105.86|80.22|
84512706|NCT01819597|168778067|OTHER|This is a phase II study design to determine the non-futility of proceeding to a phase III pivotal evaluation. The study group was planned to be compared to a propensity score matching (PSM) cohort from to the patients in the medical arms of the SAMMPRIS trial and to patients in the medical arm of COSS that had demonstrated angiographic intracranial atherosclerosis and occlusion.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.94||Pre-established α ≤ 0.10 for phase IIa|Regression, Cox|Alpha set at ≤ 0.1. for phase II study|ERSIAS/ Controls.|We derived the sample size required to power the trial to test the difference between two binomial event rates using the method of Farrington and Manning as implemented in R package gsDesign (Anderson, 2011). An estimated sample size of 52 patients will be necessary to detect a ∆ of 0.05, with a one-sided alpha of 0.10 and a beta of 0.10 - acceptable parameters for a non-definitive, non-futility study (Palesch et al., 2005, Levin, 2005).||0.94|0.14|0.08
84512707|NCT01171989|168778077|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.84||||||Difference in percentage anti-PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.84|-3.27|
84512708|NCT01171989|168778078|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.27|
84512709|NCT01171989|168778078|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.02|
84512710|NCT00627016|168778152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance for the comparison of the primary endpoint was determined at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84512711|NCT00627016|168778153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84512712|NCT00627016|168778154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84512713|NCT00377260|168778164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical treatment failures by the on-therapy visit.||||< .001
84715272|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.298|0.518|<.0001
84715273|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.679|0.902|<.0001
84715274|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.174||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.490|-0.142|0.2772
84715275|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.278|-4.750|<.0001
84715276|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.115|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.865|-3.365|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.365|-4.865|<.0001
84715277|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.005|-2.801|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.801|-4.005|<.0001
84726001|NCT04447287|169204216|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.71||||||||117.71|101.10|
84726002|NCT04447287|169204217|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|117.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|130.34||||||||130.34|106.41|
84726003|NCT04447287|169204218|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|92.55||||||||92.55|68.10|
84715278|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.020|-4.473|<.0001
84715279|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.461|-3.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.018|-4.461|<.0001
84725738|NCT02312258|169203643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.799|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTP between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.799|0.537|<0.001
84512714|NCT00377260|168778165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical failures by the end of therapy.||||< .001
84512715|NCT00377260|168778166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||.02
84512716|NCT00377260|168778167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children who develop worsening symptoms within the first 3 days of treatment.||||.24
84726004|NCT04447287|169204219|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.28|93.5||||||||93.50|59.28|
84726005|NCT00960206|169204255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.0832
84512717|NCT00377260|168778168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||A weighted regression model was used with weights equal to the number of days information regarding analgesic use was reported by the parents.|Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the average number of doses of analgesic medication administered by parents.||||.35
84512718|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with protocol-defined diarrhea.||||.04
84715280|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.610|-3.784|<.0001
84715281|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.678|-2.921|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.921|-3.678|<.0001
84715282|NCT04800211|169177496|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.226|-0.638|0.3480
84715283|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.481|-0.951|<0.0001
84715284|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.406|-0.966|<0.0001
84726006|NCT00960206|169204255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.1657
84512719|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with diaper dermatitis.||||<.01
84512720|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with oral thrush.||||.07
84512721|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with vomiting.||||>.99
84512722|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with rash.||||>.99
84512723|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with mastoiditis.||||.99
84512724|NCT00377260|168778169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with perforation of their tympanic membrane.||||.08
84512725|NCT00377260|168778170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.002
84512726|NCT00377260|168778170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||<.001
84512727|NCT00377260|168778170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.85
84512728|NCT00377260|168778170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||<.001
84512729|NCT00377260|168778170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.28
84512730|NCT00377260|168778171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||< .001
84512731|NCT00377260|168778172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.10
84512732|NCT00377260|168778172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||.03
84512733|NCT00377260|168778172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.96
84512734|NCT00377260|168778172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||.79
84512735|NCT00377260|168778172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.98
84715285|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.288|-0.755|<.0001
84715286|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.072|-0.612|0.0131
84715287|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-0.712|<.0001
84715288|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.007|-0.455|0.0435
84715289|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.111||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.371|-0.149|0.4012
84715290|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.485||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.895|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.895|0.0133
84726007|NCT00960206|169204256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3701|||||||Fisher Exact|||To compare the # of cases at 10 years for those that have a HHS ≥ 80 to those that have \< 80 for all three arms||||0.3701
84715291|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.797||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|-0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.317|-1.277|0.0002
84715292|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.699|0.2641
84715293|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.924|0.0639
84715294|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.305|-0.945|0.0001
84715295|NCT04800211|169177497|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.038|-0.725|0.0776
84715296|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.621||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|-0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.186|-1.055|0.0055
84715297|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.778||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-1.240|0.0011
84726008|NCT00960206|169204258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years satisfied with their total hip replacement for all three groups||||0.6011
84726009|NCT00960206|169204258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years for having pain in their hip for all three groups||||0.2060
84512736|NCT00377260|168778173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||.04
84715298|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.540|-1.260|<.0001
84715299|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.103|-0.938|0.0150
84725739|NCT02312258|169203644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.246|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS2 between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.246|0.777|=0.893
84512737|NCT00377260|168778174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the on-therapy visit.||||.03
84512738|NCT00377260|168778175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.006
84512739|NCT00377260|168778176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||The analysis was ITT. The number of participants equals the number of children for which at least one ear has an interpretable tympanogram at the follow-up visit.||||.04
84512740|NCT00377260|168778177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to primary care provider.||||.20
84512741|NCT00377260|168778178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to emergency room||||.90
84512742|NCT00377260|168778179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1.||||.14
84725740|NCT02312258|169203645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|0.957|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTNT between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.957|0.631|=0.018
84715300|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.074|-0.771|0.1048
84715301|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.507|-1.185|<.0001
84715302|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|-0.619|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.619|-1.127|<.0001
84715303|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.247||||0.2525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.671|-0.178|0.2525
84725919|NCT01922102|169203909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.6||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|"The following 2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure:~H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively."||7.6|3.5|<0.001
84512743|NCT00377260|168778180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1 on two consecutive occasions.||||.04
84512744|NCT00377260|168778181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the number of antibiotic prescriptions, exclusive of the blinded study medication.||||<.001
84512745|NCT00377260|168778182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported missing work, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.93
84512746|NCT00377260|168778183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported making special daycare arrangements, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.66
84512747|NCT00377260|168778184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the on-therapy visit.||||.71
84512748|NCT00377260|168778185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.04
84512749|NCT00377260|168778186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the follow-visit visit.||||.005
84512750|NCT00377260|168778187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the mean weighted average acute otitis media - severity of symptom (AOM-SOS) score (symptom burden), post-enrollment, over the first 7 days of therapy.||||.01
84512751|NCT00829530|168778188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.87||||||90.0|80.31|98.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.34|80.31|
84512752|NCT00829530|168778189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.96||||||90.0|89.77|100.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.45|89.77|
84512753|NCT00829530|168778190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.24||||||90.0|90.13|100.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.63|90.13|
84715304|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.527|-0.330|0.6503
84715305|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.239||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.588|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.588|-0.109|0.1759
84715306|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.867||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.674|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.060|-1.674|0.0293
84715307|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|-0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.038|-1.714|0.0362
84726010|NCT02470806|169204264|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise regression method - Primary efficacy analysis, difference between treatment groups in percentage change in wound area from baseline visit to end of 12-week treatment period for the PP population.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stepwise regression|||Percentage change in wound area from Baseline to end of 12-week treatment period (PP population - all wounds)||||0.001
84512754|NCT00829530|168778191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.85||||||90.0|91.95|106.27|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.27|91.95|
84512755|NCT00829530|168778192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.62||||||90.0|97.8|103.52|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.52|97.8|
84512756|NCT01391793|168778193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.16
84512757|NCT01391793|168778194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Test of equality - 2 Poisson parameters|The method used is a conditional test.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with severe renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.25
84512758|NCT01391793|168778195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the mean proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA scan taken across the 3 radiologists.||||0.07
84512759|NCT01015625|168778196|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.09|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter overall survival time for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery, Arm A) compared to systemic therapy only (Arm B) in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. Participants last known to be alive were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||3.09|1.01|0.042
84539762|NCT02839772|168829519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=4.871, df=189.789||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.367|1.002|<0.001
84540465|NCT00535405|168831870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026||95.0|1.07|2.94||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.94|1.07|0.026
84715308|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|-0.469|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.469|-1.809|<.0001
84715309|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.767||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.559|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.025|-1.559|0.0621
84715310|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.447||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.352|-1.246|0.5259
84715311|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.736|-0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.435|-1.736|<.0001
84715312|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|-0.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.693|-1.532|<.0001
84512760|NCT01015625|168778197|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.42|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to distant progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to distant progression. Distant progression is defined as detection of new lesions or progression of existing metastases in locations different then breast. Participants last known to be alive without a distant progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.42|0.87|0.147
84540466|NCT00535405|168831870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017||95.0|1.23|4.18||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.18|1.23|0.017
84512761|NCT01015625|168778198|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to local progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to local progression. Local progression is defined as recurrence in breast with localization mamma, chest wall or axilla. Participants last known to be alive, who did not experience a local progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.02|0.45|0.890
84512762|NCT00105196|168778223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.44|-2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size for the study was based on the primary outcome measure. The study was powered at 90% to detect a treatment difference between adjunctive aripiprazole and adjunctive placebo of 3.75, assuming a standard deviation of 10.5 and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The null-hypothesis was the lack of a treatment difference.||-2.02|-5.44|<0.001
84725920|NCT01922102|169203910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, if H01 and H02 were rejected: H03: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I ≤ -5 vs. HA3: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I \> -5.~Otherwise, H03 was not to be considered as rejected."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||Non-inferiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|||2.1|-1.3|<0.001
84715313|NCT04800211|169177498|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.427|-0.535|0.8248
84715314|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.821||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.369|4.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.273|1.369|0.0002
84715315|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||5.086|1.850|<.0001
84715316|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.245||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|3.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.679|0.812|0.0022
84715317|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|4.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.891|1.768|<.0001
84512763|NCT00105196|168778224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.075||95.0|-0.88|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||To protect the overall (primary and key secondary efficacy analysis) alpha level of 0.05, for this key secondary endpoint a hierarchical testing procedure was followed such that formal testing would take place conditional on the primary efficacy analysis showing a statistically significant difference.||0.04|-0.88|0.075
84715318|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|4.545|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.545|2.252|<.0001
84715319|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||2.633|-0.132|0.0761
84715320|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.778||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.286|0.269|0.0211
84715321|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.092|-0.951|0.3841
84715322|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.084|4.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.464|-1.084|0.3934
84715323|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.995||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.505|3.494|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.494|-1.505|0.7782
84725921|NCT01345253|169203930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement (C) levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.82|1.40|0.0001
84725922|NCT01345253|169203931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.83|1.41|0.0001
84512764|NCT00105196|168778225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.052||95.0|-1.06|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.06|0.052
84512765|NCT00105196|168778226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.037||95.0|-1.1|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.037
84512766|NCT00105196|168778227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.792||95.0|-0.67|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
84512767|NCT00105196|168778228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.32|1.31|<0.001
84512768|NCT00105196|168778229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.17|1.74||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA||aripiprazole/placebo|||1.74|1.17|<0.001
84512769|NCT00105196|168778230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission|1.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.80|1.36|<0.001
84512770|NCT00286754|168778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of SMI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. We expected that 54% of patients on BP-lowering therapy would be properly controlled with HEI and 43% with UC, whereas we expected SMI to increase this to 69% control in 6 months. BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons.||||0.001
84512771|NCT00286754|168778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
84512772|NCT00286754|168778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for SMI vs UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed as an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. The study was not powered to test comparisons between the 2 active intervention arms.||||0.009
84715324|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.552||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.274|-1.171|0.4576
84715325|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.621||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|3.466|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.466|-0.224|0.0849
84715326|NCT04800211|169177499|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.139||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|2.341|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.341|-2.064|0.9016
84715327|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.587||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|8.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.662|2.511|0.0004
84725923|NCT01345253|169203932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.74|1.13|0.0116
84725924|NCT01345253|169203933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0288|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0288
84725925|NCT01345253|169203934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||Regression, Cox|||||0.73|0.34|0.0004
84512773|NCT00286754|168778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84725926|NCT00476151|169203938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
84725927|NCT01767376|169203952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup A, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.48|0.97|
84512774|NCT00286754|168778248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|3e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||<0.000003
84512775|NCT00286754|168778248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.012
84512776|NCT00286754|168778248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.89
84512777|NCT00286754|168778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
84512778|NCT00286754|168778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84725741|NCT02312258|169203646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.47|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing Time to End of Next Line Therapy between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.470|0.839|=0.462
84715328|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.556||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.732|-0.620|0.1141
84715329|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.536||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|8.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.705|2.367|0.0007
84715330|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|9.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.577|3.680|<.0001
84715331|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.083||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|7.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.047|1.118|0.0072
84715332|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.688||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.691|7.686|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.686|1.691|0.0023
84715333|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.874|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.350|2.874|<.0001
84512779|NCT00286754|168778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
84715334|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.777||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.165|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.720|-2.165|0.6030
84715335|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.003||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.967|-1.960|0.5053
84715336|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.674||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.347|3.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.694|-2.347|0.6607
84715337|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.809||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|10.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.446|-0.827|0.1309
84715338|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.553||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.212|7.318|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.318|-4.212|0.9776
84512780|NCT00286754|168778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
84715339|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|10.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.663|-0.939|0.1422
84715340|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.851||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|11.396|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||11.396|0.307|0.0334
84715341|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.5622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|8.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.660|-2.501|0.5622
84715342|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.014||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|9.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.672|-1.643|0.2841
84715343|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|8.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.103|0.774|0.0178
84715344|NCT04800211|169177500|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.847||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|5.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.093|-3.398|0.6944
84725742|NCT02312258|169203647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.727|||||||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant.|1.727|0.968|
84512781|NCT00286754|168778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.318
84512782|NCT00286754|168778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
84512783|NCT00286754|168778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
84512784|NCT00286754|168778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84512785|NCT00286754|168778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.638
84512786|NCT00286754|168778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
84512787|NCT00286754|168778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.333
84512788|NCT00286754|168778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.581
84512789|NCT00286754|168778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.502
84512790|NCT00910663|168778255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.01||||||90.0|90.01|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|90.01|
84512791|NCT00910663|168778256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.81||||||90.0|100.23|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.45|100.23|
84512792|NCT00910663|168778257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.35||||||90.0|100.51|106.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.27|100.51|
84512793|NCT01844375|168778259|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
84715345|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.556||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.038|-12.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-12.075|-59.038|0.0031
84715346|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.35||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.818|-1.882|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.882|-60.818|0.0371
84715347|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-34.356||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.877|-10.834|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-10.834|-57.877|0.0043
84715348|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.096||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.375|10.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||10.183|-46.375|0.2091
84725743|NCT02312258|169203650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.796|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD+ at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.796|0.425|=0.001
84715349|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.723||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.473|-3.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.973|-45.473|0.0197
84715350|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.595||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|8.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||8.891|-36.080|0.2353
84715351|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.759||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.159|22.641|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||22.641|-32.159|0.7329
84715352|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.962||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.989|19.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||19.065|-62.989|0.5420
84715353|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.591||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.049|23.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||23.866|-77.049|0.5234
84715354|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.761||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.867|20.344|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||20.344|-61.867|0.5975
84715355|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.337||||0.9331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.853|36.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||36.179|-62.853|0.9331
84512794|NCT00678639|168778274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median cost difference|588.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|336.0|811.0|||Hodges-Lehmann (median cost difference)|Distribution-free 95% CIs calculated using the method of Moses.|Results favored a reduced cost in the OU-CMR group.|H0: The median costs are not different among the study groups. HA: The median cost is different among groups. Power calculation was based on detecting a mean cost difference of $2000. Data was found to be non-normally distributed and therefore nonparametric comparisons were implemented.||811|336|
84512795|NCT00678639|168778275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"H0: There is no difference in correct cardiovascular admission decisions among groups.~Ha: A difference exists among study groups. Sample size was based upon 47 analyzable participants per study arm were required to provide 88% power to detect a 30% difference in the outcome."||||<0.001
84512796|NCT03506386|168778291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical differences among eligible performed, eligible not performed and not eligible participants were estimated by Log Rank test.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
84512797|NCT01546545|168778293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was the first pilot and feasibility study. This data will be used to power future studies.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84512798|NCT01546545|168778294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was a pilot and feasibility study.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84512799|NCT00336479|168778298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.985||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.525|5.842|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, weight, race and baseline HCV RNA as factors||||5.842|1.525|0.0014
84512800|NCT00336479|168778298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|4.178|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.178|1.127|0.0204
84512801|NCT00336479|168778299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.586||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|5.025|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.025|1.331|0.0051
84512802|NCT00336479|168778299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.807|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.807|1.026|0.0418
84512803|NCT02008565|168778313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||significance assessed at type 1 error alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The models were adjusted for baseline Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) status and clinical site.||||||0.092
84512804|NCT00617305|168778329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|241.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.7|-160.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-160.2|-337.7|
84512805|NCT00617305|168778329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
84715356|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.964||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.637|13.709|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.709|-53.637|0.2444
84715357|NCT04800211|169177501|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.254||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.427|26.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||26.919|-53.427|0.5169
84715358|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.174||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|12.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||12.772|-93.120|0.1359
84726011|NCT00866619|169204270|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.6|60.4|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||60.4|50.6|<0.0001
84512806|NCT00617305|168778329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|235.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.8|-172.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-172.8|-334.8|
84512807|NCT00617305|168778329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
84512808|NCT00617305|168778330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.46||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-2.46|-8.29|
84512809|NCT00617305|168778330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
84512810|NCT00617305|168778330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-3.61||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-3.61|-9.51|
84512811|NCT00617305|168778330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
84512812|NCT00617305|168778331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.56|-1.69|
84512813|NCT00617305|168778331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
84512814|NCT00617305|168778331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.04||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.04|-2.07|
84512815|NCT00617305|168778331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
84512816|NCT00617305|168778332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.25|0.43|
84512817|NCT00617305|168778332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
84512818|NCT00617305|168778332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.15|0.41|
84512819|NCT00617305|168778332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
84512820|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||28.4|-3.9|
84512821|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|41.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||41.5|-26.0|
84512822|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|107.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512823|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|26.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||26.2|-2.7|
84512824|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|87.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||87.2|-32.0|
84512825|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|28.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||28.5|-1.4|
84512826|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|96.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||96.5|-91.5|
84512827|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512828|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|26.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||26.9|-2.1|
84512829|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|98.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||98.4|-59.6|
84512830|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|35.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||35.6|0.5|
84512831|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|37.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||37.5|-56.5|
84512832|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512833|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|31.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||31.1|-1.0|
84512834|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|72.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||72.1|-52.5|
84512835|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||30.1|-25.6|
84512836|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|114.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||114.2|-182.2|
84512837|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512838|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|24.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||24.8|-28.4|
84512839|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.6|101.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||101.0|-128.6|
84512840|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|44.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||44.2|-15.0|
84512841|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|126.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.4|151.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||151.9|-251.4|
84512842|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512843|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|37.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||37.3|-22.4|
84512844|NCT00617305|168778333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|121.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.3|124.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||124.5|-177.3|
84512845|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
84512846|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||3.1|-1.6|
84512847|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512848|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.1|-0.9|
84512849|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||2.3|-1.5|
84512850|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
84512851|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||5.3|-2.3|
84512852|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512853|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.2|-0.9|
84512854|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||3.9|-1.5|
84726416|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link||Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|5.68|0.05|0.58
84512855|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.2|-1.5|
84512856|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.6|-1.8|
84512857|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512858|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.3|-1.4|
84715359|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-71.725||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.961|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.490|-127.961|0.0129
84715360|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.308||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.293|37.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||37.678|-112.293|0.3262
84715361|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.012||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.468|30.444|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.444|-70.468|0.4343
84715362|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.657||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.481|8.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.167|-97.481|0.0967
84715363|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.974||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.915|41.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||41.966|-99.915|0.4198
84512859|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.4|-1.4|
84512860|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.2|
84512861|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-2.2|
84512862|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512863|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.2|-1.0|
84512864|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||3.0|-1.4|
84512865|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.4|
84512866|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.5|-4.5|
84512867|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512868|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.3|-1.3|
84512869|NCT00617305|168778334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||4.6|-3.0|
84512870|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.4|-2.7|
84512871|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||9.0|-6.5|
84512872|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512873|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.6|-2.3|
84512874|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||6.1|-4.9|
84512875|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||1.1|-2.7|
84512876|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||5.2|-7.7|
84512877|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84726417|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.91|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.91|0.27|0.02
84512878|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.9|-2.6|
84512879|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||3.0|-5.8|
84512880|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.7|-2.3|
84512881|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||6.6|-8.1|
84512882|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84725928|NCT01767376|169203952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup C between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.47|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup C, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.47|0.85|
84512883|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.5|-2.2|
84512884|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-5.8|
84512885|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||2.1|-2.8|
84512886|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||10.4|-11.4|
84512887|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512888|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||1.9|-2.7|
84512889|NCT00617305|168778335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.8|-8.0|
84512890|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512891|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512892|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512893|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
84512894|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512895|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512896|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512897|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
84512898|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512899|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512900|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512901|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
84512902|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512903|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512904|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512905|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
84512906|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512907|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512908|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512909|NCT00617305|168778337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
84512910|NCT03435081|168778357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.15|2.31|<0.001
84512911|NCT03435081|168778358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.83|1.08|0.033
84512912|NCT03435081|168778358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.68|2.40|<0.001
84512913|NCT03435081|168778359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.80|0.167
84512914|NCT03435081|168778360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.79|0.131
84512915|NCT03435081|168778360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.19|2.63|<0.001
84726418|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.86|0.06|0.03
84512916|NCT03435081|168778361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.54|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-26.54|0.077
84512917|NCT03435081|168778361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.875||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-6.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.75|-33.85|0.004
84512918|NCT03435081|168778362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|0.36|0.733
84512919|NCT03435081|168778362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.22|1.93|0.002
84512920|NCT03435081|168778363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.29|0.012
84512921|NCT03435081|168778363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.28|2.31|<0.001
84512922|NCT03435081|168778364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.75|0.433
84512923|NCT03435081|168778364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.12|0.029
84512924|NCT03435081|168778365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
84512925|NCT03435081|168778365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.22|0.002
84512926|NCT03435081|168778366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.90|0.105
84512927|NCT03435081|168778366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|2.02|<0.001
84512928|NCT03435081|168778367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.85|0.63|0.144
84512929|NCT03435081|168778367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|0.50|0.227
84512930|NCT03435081|168778368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-11.67|0.316
84512931|NCT03435081|168778368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.758||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-19.23|0.002
84512932|NCT03435081|168778369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|0.29|0.683
84512933|NCT03435081|168778369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.68|0.52|0.277
84512934|NCT03435081|168778370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-11.93|0.046
84512935|NCT03435081|168778370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-13.46|0.009
84512936|NCT03435081|168778371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.598
84512937|NCT03435081|168778371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.785
84512938|NCT03435081|168778372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.562||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.21|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-25.21|0.063
84512939|NCT03435081|168778372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.54|-9.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.17|-34.54|<0.001
84512940|NCT03435081|168778373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-4.93|0.217
84512941|NCT03435081|168778373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.487||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.84|-7.70|0.002
84512942|NCT03435081|168778374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.60|0.155
84512943|NCT03435081|168778374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.017
84725929|NCT01767376|169203952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup W-135 between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup W-135, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.32|0.86|
84512944|NCT03435081|168778375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||1.65|-0.58|0.345
84512945|NCT03435081|168778375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.55|-1.59|0.336
84512946|NCT03435081|168778375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||1.35|-0.48|0.353
84512947|NCT03435081|168778375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.45|-1.31|0.340
84512948|NCT03435081|168778376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-3.92|0.224
84512949|NCT03435081|168778376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.184||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-5.83|0.004
84512950|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.956||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||8.57|-15.30|0.575
84512951|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.664||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.30|-12.43|0.851
84512952|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.212||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-1.45|-22.05|0.026
84512953|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-5.91|-25.89|0.002
84512954|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.51|-25.18|0.041
84512955|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-4.34|-28.20|0.008
84512956|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.219||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-1.32|-17.95|0.023
84715364|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-33.141||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.475|19.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||19.193|-85.475|0.2121
84715365|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|15.799||||0.5445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.614|67.212|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||67.212|-35.614|0.5445
84715366|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.583||||0.9534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.951|55.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||55.116|-51.951|0.9534
84512957|NCT03435081|168778377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.115||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-5.17|-21.40|0.001
84512958|NCT03435081|168778378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.07|-0.03|0.482
84512959|NCT03435081|168778378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.10|0.00|0.043
84512960|NCT03435081|168778378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.09|-0.06|0.656
84512961|NCT03435081|168778378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.14|-0.00|0.057
84512962|NCT03435081|168778379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-6.45|0.609
84512963|NCT03435081|168778379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.41|-1.46|0.166
84512964|NCT03435081|168778380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|0.61|0.258
84512965|NCT03435081|168778380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.97|0.99|0.052
84512966|NCT00420238|168778381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-1.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Comparison of least squares means. Primary analysis: analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and BASDAI baseline as a covariate.||-1.51|-16.5|0.019
84715367|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.584||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.126|80.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||80.295|-65.126|0.8366
84512967|NCT00420238|168778382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.42|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||10.42|0.82|0.098
84512968|NCT00420238|168778382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.88|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.88|0.69|0.197
84512969|NCT00420238|168778382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.95|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.95|0.89|0.087
84725744|NCT02312258|169203650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.537|||=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|4.194|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD- at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|4.194|0.563|=0.398
84540777|NCT03718832|168832717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.764632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8545352||0.0398937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.447175|-0.0820899||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0820899|-3.447175|0.0398937
84512970|NCT00420238|168778382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.29|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||7.29|1.10|0.031
84512971|NCT00420238|168778383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.57|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.57|0.62|0.310
84512972|NCT00420238|168778383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||3.99|0.65|0.309
84726419|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.95|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.95|0.11|0.30
84512973|NCT00420238|168778383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.74|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.74|1.81|0.001
84512974|NCT00420238|168778383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.003||95.0|1.65|10.42|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||10.42|1.65|0.003
84540778|NCT03718832|168832718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6294078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4409795||0.1544491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.496923|0.238107||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.238107|-1.496923|0.1544491
84715368|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.973||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.862|42.916|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||42.916|-154.862|0.5437
84512975|NCT00420238|168778385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.94|0.57|0.259
84715369|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-73.308||||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.224|30.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.608|-177.224|0.2974
84715370|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.892||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.909|92.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||92.126|-181.909|0.9026
84715371|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.811||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.513|60.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||60.891|-132.513|0.8954
84715372|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.239||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.766|54.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||54.288|-146.766|0.7485
84725901|NCT01159600|169203843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|-1.28||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.28|-2.25|<0.0001
84512976|NCT00420238|168778385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.44||95.0|0.51|4.64|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.64|0.51|0.440
84540779|NCT03718832|168832718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6081765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451915||0.1793486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.497352|0.2809987||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2809987|-1.497352|0.1793486
84725930|NCT01767376|169203952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup Y between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.59|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup Y, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.59|1.02|
84512977|NCT00420238|168778385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.046||95.0|1.02|8.16|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||8.16|1.02|0.046
84512978|NCT00420238|168778385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.014||95.0|1.31|11.32|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.32|1.31|0.014
84512979|NCT00420238|168778387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.53|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||16.53|0.55|0.204
84726420|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.51|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.51|-1.17|0.80
84512980|NCT00420238|168778387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
84512981|NCT00420238|168778387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.121||95.0|0.71|19.69|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||19.69|0.71|0.121
84512982|NCT00420238|168778387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.058||95.0|0.96|11.8|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.80|0.96|0.058
84540780|NCT03718832|168832718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1731023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4024787||0.6674618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9653829|0.6191784||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6191784|-0.9653829|0.6674618
84512983|NCT00420238|168778389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.14|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||35.14|0.35|0.287
84512984|NCT00420238|168778389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.169||95.0|0.51|44.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||44.94|0.51|0.169
84512985|NCT00420238|168778389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
84512986|NCT00420238|168778389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
84512987|NCT00420238|168778391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-1.72|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.72|-18.19|0.018
84512988|NCT00420238|168778392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|1.33|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.33|-18.40|0.089
84726421|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.15|0.88|0.001
84512989|NCT00420238|168778392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.11||95.0|-17.89|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-17.89|0.110
84512990|NCT00420238|168778392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73||||0.004||95.0|-24.6|-4.86|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.86|-24.60|0.004
84725931|NCT01767376|169203953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|3.53||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||3.53|-7.88|
84512991|NCT00420238|168778392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.27||||0.065||95.0|-19.14|0.59|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.59|-19.14|0.065
84725745|NCT02312258|169203650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.173|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|86.649|||Log Rank|||OS for Participants with Known MRD Status (MRD- Status, MRD+ Status) at Study Entry|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|86.649|1.194|=0.012
84715373|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-36.559||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.77|96.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||96.653|-169.770|0.9578
84715374|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.725||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.208|47.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||47.757|-129.208|0.3635
84715375|NCT04800211|169177502|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.333||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.097|93.431|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||93.431|-110.097|0.8713
84715376|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.256||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.973|-52.539|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-52.539|-177.973|0.0003
84512992|NCT00420238|168778394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.28|-17.70|0.002
84726422|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.61|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.61|0.09|0.04
84512993|NCT00420238|168778395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|0.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.15|-16.81|0.054
84512994|NCT00420238|168778395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02||||0.011||95.0|-19.5|-2.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.54|-19.50|0.011
84512995|NCT00420238|168778395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.75||||0.003||95.0|-21.23|-4.27|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.27|-21.23|0.003
84512996|NCT00420238|168778395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.29|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.7|-6.82|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-6.82|-23.7|<0.001
84726423|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.25|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.25|-1.87|0.70
84512997|NCT00420238|168778397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-0.49|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.49|-18.69|0.039
84512998|NCT00420238|168778398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|4.57|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.57|-17.13|0.254
84512999|NCT00420238|168778398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.348||95.0|-16.02|5.68|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.68|-16.02|0.348
84513000|NCT00420238|168778398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.014||95.0|-24.57|-2.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.88|-24.57|0.014
84513001|NCT00420238|168778398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-30.54|-8.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-8.84|-30.54|<0.001
84513002|NCT00420238|168778400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.73|0.75|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.75|-17.73|0.071
84513003|NCT00420238|168778401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|7.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.17|-14.31|0.511
84513004|NCT00420238|168778401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57||||0.401||95.0|-15.31|6.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||6.17|-15.31|0.401
84513005|NCT00420238|168778401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45||||0.023||95.0|-23.19|-1.71|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-1.71|-23.19|0.023
84513006|NCT00420238|168778401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.25||||0.01||95.0|-24.99|-3.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.51|-24.99|0.010
84513007|NCT00420238|168778403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|1.53|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||1.53|-12.03|0.127
84513008|NCT00420238|168778404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|7.38|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.38|-8.23|0.914
84513009|NCT00420238|168778404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.544||95.0|-10.21|5.41|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.41|-10.21|0.544
84725932|NCT01767376|169203953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||1.26|-2.48|
84513010|NCT00420238|168778404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.039||95.0|-16.02|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.40|-16.02|0.039
84513011|NCT00420238|168778404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.004||95.0|-19.35|-3.73|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.73|-19.35|0.004
84513012|NCT00420238|168778407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-15.57|0.122
84513013|NCT00420238|168778407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.145||95.0|-15.16|2.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||2.26|-15.16|0.145
84725933|NCT01767376|169203954|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis (PT) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.89|0.66|
84513014|NCT00420238|168778407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.55||||0.005||95.0|-21.26|-3.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.84|-21.26|0.005
84513015|NCT00420238|168778407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95||||0.008||95.0|-20.66|-3.24|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.24|-20.66|0.008
84513016|NCT00420238|168778411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|1.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.96|-13.84|0.139
84513017|NCT00420238|168778412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|10.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||10.67|-8.88|0.857
84513018|NCT00420238|168778412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.304||95.0|-14.88|4.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.67|-14.88|0.304
84513019|NCT00420238|168778412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.047||95.0|-19.68|-0.13|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.13|-19.68|0.047
84513020|NCT00420238|168778412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.007||95.0|-23.43|-3.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.88|-23.43|0.007
84513021|NCT00420238|168778415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.06|0.003
84513022|NCT00420238|168778415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.05|0.006
84513023|NCT00420238|168778415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Expitatory Volume in 1 second: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.04|0.205
84513024|NCT00420238|168778416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis oaf covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.26|-4.93|0.030
84513025|NCT00420238|168778417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.035
84513026|NCT00420238|168778418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.19|-0.38|0.515
84513027|NCT00420238|168778418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.316||95.0|-0.43|0.14|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.14|-0.43|0.316
84513028|NCT00420238|168778418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.008||95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
84513029|NCT00420238|168778418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011||95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.08|-0.65|0.011
84513030|NCT00420238|168778430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.37|-0.22|0.613
84513031|NCT00420238|168778431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.47|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.47|-0.34|0.744
84513032|NCT00420238|168778431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.625||95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.30|-0.50|0.625
84715377|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-74.904||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.706|-1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.102|-148.706|0.0467
84715378|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-144.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.668|-81.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-81.402|-206.668|<.0001
84715379|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-62.755||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.221|7.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||7.710|-133.221|0.0807
84715380|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-68.83||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.753|-16.907|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-16.907|-120.753|0.0095
84715381|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.593||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.873|58.687|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||58.687|-61.873|0.9586
84715382|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.714|66.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||66.443|-71.714|0.9402
84513033|NCT00420238|168778431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.325||95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.60|-0.20|0.325
84513034|NCT00420238|168778431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.76||95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.46|-0.34|0.760
84513035|NCT00420238|168778433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|8.91|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||8.91|-18.35|0.490
84726424|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|9.2|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||9.20|-1.27|0.14
84513036|NCT00420238|168778433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.651||95.0|-16.73|10.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||10.54|-16.73|0.651
84513037|NCT00420238|168778433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.84||95.0|-15.12|12.34|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||12.34|-15.12|0.840
84513038|NCT00420238|168778433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.562||95.0|-17.81|9.77|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||9.77|-17.81|0.562
84513039|NCT00420238|168778435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-10.03|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with treatment as a factor and baseline vlue as a covariate.||-10.03|-19.44|<0.0001
84513040|NCT00420238|168778436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.58|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and atients as a random factor.||-6.58|-18.17|<0.0001
84513041|NCT00420238|168778436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.25|-11.65|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.65|-23.25|<0.0001
84513042|NCT00420238|168778436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.75|-11.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.15|-22.75|<0.0001
84513043|NCT00420238|168778436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.96|-12.36|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-12.36|-23.96|<0.0001
84513044|NCT00420238|168778438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.25|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.25|-18.23|<0.0001
84513045|NCT00420238|168778439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|-8.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.10|-20.55|<0.0001
84726425|NCT04454125|169204799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|9.73|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Scores.||9.73|-1.19|0.13
84513046|NCT00420238|168778439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.2|-8.76|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.76|-21.20|<0.0001
84513047|NCT00420238|168778439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.41|-8.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.96|-21.41|<0.0001
84513048|NCT00420238|168778439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.63|-8.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.19|-20.63|<0.0001
84513049|NCT00420238|168778442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.7|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.70|0.74|0.184
84513050|NCT00420238|168778442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.036||95.0|1.06|6.46|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.46|1.06|0.036
84513051|NCT00420238|168778442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001||95.0|1.89|13.03|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||13.03|1.89|0.001
84513052|NCT00420238|168778442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.065||95.0|0.95|5.96|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||5.96|0.95|0.065
84513053|NCT00420238|168778444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.74|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||12.74|1.64|0.004
84513054|NCT00420238|168778444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.054||95.0|0.99|6.12|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.12|0.99|0.054
84513055|NCT00420238|168778444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.27|17.31|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||17.31|2.27|<0.001
84725746|NCT02312258|169203652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|1.621|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.621|0.631|=0.963
84540781|NCT03718832|168832718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2208031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196435||0.5992113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047063|0.6054567||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6054567|-1.047063|0.5992113
84513056|NCT00420238|168778444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.025||95.0|1.14|7.27|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.27|1.14|0.025
84540782|NCT03718832|168832719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4824561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423027||0.2549037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349686|1.314598||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.314598|-0.349686|0.2549037
84539763|NCT02839772|168829520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.111, df=189.620||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.731|1.210|<0.001
84513057|NCT00048581|168778446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Weighted. Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%. ACR 20 RR at 6 mos for PLA was expected to be \~25%. A sample of 256 in the ABA arm and 128 in PLA arm will yield a 96% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|The first coprimary endpoint efficacy analysis tested for differences in ACR 20 response rate (RR) between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving placebo plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.1|20.6|<0.001
84513058|NCT00048581|168778447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Weighted Diff: Day 169 HAQ|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.2||If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for HAQ response was not undertaken. If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared HAQ response between groups (5% level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|All comparisons of changes from baseline and construction of confidence intervals for continuous measures were based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main factor and baseline value as covariate.|The two primary efficacy analyses tested first for differences in ACR 20 followed by testing HAQ response rates between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||34.2|13.8|<0.001
84540467|NCT00535405|168831871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|4.31|13.42||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.42|4.31|<0.001
84540783|NCT03718832|168832719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3545817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4230741||0.4025977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4777863|1.186949||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.186949|-0.4777863|0.4025977
84513059|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 20|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||20.0|4.6|0.001
84540784|NCT03718832|168832719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0102657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4695747||0.9825739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9346107|0.9140792||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9140792|-0.9346107|0.9825739
84540468|NCT00535405|168831871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.67||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.67|1.86|<0.001
84513060|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 50|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||5.5|-0.8|0.001
84540469|NCT00535405|168831871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|1.42|3.27||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||3.27|1.42|<0.001
84715383|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.663||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.33|-3.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-3.996|-223.330|0.0390
84715384|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-72.269||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.091|54.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||54.554|-199.091|0.4543
84715385|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-142.442||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.08|-32.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-32.805|-252.080|0.0051
84715386|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-60.12||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.286|64.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||64.046|-184.286|0.6061
84715387|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.194||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.672|18.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||18.284|-150.672|0.1242
84715388|NCT04800211|169177503|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.149||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.35|88.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||88.052|-112.350|0.8117
84725747|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.727|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.727|0.387|<0.001
84539764|NCT02839772|168829521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.846|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=3.154, df=189.580||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.846|0.656|0.002
84540470|NCT00535405|168831872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.71|13.38||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.38|2.71|<0.001
84513061|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 70|0.8||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||2.9|-1.3|0.784
84725934|NCT01767376|169203954|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.65|0.50|
84513062|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 20|14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.0|4.0|0.005
84725748|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.058|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.058|0.526|=0.098
84540471|NCT00535405|168831872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.069||95.0|0.96|2.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.60|0.96|0.069
84540472|NCT00535405|168831872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.90|1.10|0.039
84540473|NCT03076775|168831883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84513063|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 50|5.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||11.4|-0.2|0.06
84539765|NCT02839772|168829522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.042|-1.1078|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-4.236,df=165.310||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-1.1078|-3.042|<0.001
84513064|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 70|1.6||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||4.9|-1.8|0.473
84513065|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 20|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||32.8|11.3|<0.001
84513066|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 50|6.5||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.7|-0.6|0.076
84513067|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 70|5.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.4|0.7|0.019
84513068|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 20|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||38.7|17.4|<0.001
84513069|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 50|12.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||19.8|4.1|0.002
84513070|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 70|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.8|0.4|0.033
84513071|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 20|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||36.8|15.1|<0.001
84513072|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 50|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||21.9|6.6|<0.001
84540474|NCT03076775|168831884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84540475|NCT03076775|168831885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84540476|NCT03076775|168831886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84540477|NCT03076775|168831887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84540478|NCT03076775|168831888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
84540479|NCT03076775|168831889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84540480|NCT03076775|168831890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84540481|NCT03076775|168831891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84540482|NCT03076775|168831892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84513073|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 70|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.0|2.6|0.002
84540483|NCT00825786|168831926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.09|||Log Rank||group 2 vs. group 1 (sequential vs combined)|||1.09|0.46|0.14
84540484|NCT00825786|168831927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
84540485|NCT00825786|168831928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
84513074|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 20|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||46.5|24.6|<0.001
84513075|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 50|20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||29.5|12.2|<0.001
84540486|NCT00825786|168831929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.60
84540487|NCT00825786|168831930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
84540488|NCT00825786|168831931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84540489|NCT00825786|168831932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
84726426|NCT04454125|169204800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.55|-0.06|0.11
84715389|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.957||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.151|3.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.237|-227.151|0.0567
84715390|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-76.728||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.025|43.569|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.569|-197.025|0.2103
84715391|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-169.735||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.22|-51.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-51.251|-288.220|0.0052
84715392|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-52.505||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.721|57.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||57.711|-162.721|0.3490
84540490|NCT03091179|168831934|EQUIVALENCE|P value was calculated using the means and standard deviations for each of the patient characteristics.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84540491|NCT00770328|168831945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84715393|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.413||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.333|100.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||100.507|-123.333|0.8410
84715394|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-53.565||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.4|58.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||58.270|-165.400|0.3465
84715395|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.65||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.865|-28.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-28.435|-194.865|0.0087
84715396|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|63.944||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.678|177.565|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||177.565|-49.678|0.2688
84726427|NCT04454125|169204800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.88|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.88|0.20|0.002
84715397|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|151.222||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.114|265.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||265.330|37.114|0.0096
84715398|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|182.631||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.754|299.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||299.509|65.754|0.0023
84715399|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.901||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.865|39.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||39.063|-390.865|0.1612
84715400|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-227.95||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.725|-7.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-7.175|-448.725|0.0396
84715401|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-352.366||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.315|-131.418|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-131.418|-573.315|0.0002
84726428|NCT04454125|169204800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.75|-0.16|0.20
84540492|NCT00770328|168831946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0114
84725749|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.117|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.117|0.481|=0.147
84715402|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.449||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.445|94.547|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||94.547|-327.445|0.5616
84725750|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.602|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.602|0.502|=0.714
84540785|NCT03718832|168832719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0340184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4869778||0.9443607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9928399|0.9248032||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9248032|-0.9928399|0.9443607
84715403|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-162.635||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.57|50.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||50.299|-375.570|0.2176
84715404|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-236.196||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.334|-21.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-21.059|-451.334|0.0242
84715405|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-294.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-434.513|-154.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-154.050|-434.513|<.0001
84725751|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.601|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|3.601|0.850|=0.124
84539766|NCT02839772|168829523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.581|-0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.549, df=180.923||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.736|-2.581|<0.001
84726429|NCT04454125|169204801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.96|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||1.96|0.45|0.87
84715406|NCT04800211|169177504|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.17||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.521|43.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.180|-275.521|0.1524
84715407|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-32.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.375|-26.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-26.208|-39.375|<.0001
84715408|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.398|-18.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-18.443|-33.398|<.0001
84715409|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.99|-18.979|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-18.979|-31.990|<.0001
84715410|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.135|-19.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-19.663|-34.135|<.0001
84715411|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.716|-21.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-21.103|-31.716|<.0001
84715412|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.021||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.278|-0.763|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-0.763|-13.278|0.0280
84715413|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.902||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.881|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.077|-12.881|0.0972
84715414|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.189|-14.353|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-14.353|-37.189|<.0001
84715415|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.019||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.833|-7.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.205|-32.833|0.0005
84715416|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.463||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.825|-7.101|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-7.101|-29.825|0.0002
84715417|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.997||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.619|-8.375|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-8.375|-33.619|0.0002
84715418|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.061|-11.955|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-11.955|-29.061|<.0001
84725935|NCT01767376|169203954|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertactin (PRN), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.88|0.59|
84513076|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 70|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||16.0|4.4|<0.001
84715419|NCT04800211|169177505|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.978||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.216|11.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||11.172|-9.216|0.8504
84715420|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.957|-20.557|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-20.557|-41.957|<.0001
84715421|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.234|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-44.234|<.0001
84715422|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.971|-16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-16.053|-46.971|<.0001
84715423|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.522|-26.872|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-26.872|-47.522|<.0001
84539767|NCT02839772|168829524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|-0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.471, df=186.308||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.708|-2.574|0.001
84540786|NCT03718832|168832720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.160997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376773||2.52e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0868814|0.2351126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2351126|0.0868814|0.0000252
84715424|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-17.923|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-17.923|-44.960|<.0001
84539768|NCT02839772|168829525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.168|-0.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.565, df=186.739||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.911|-3.168|<0.001
84715425|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.597||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-13.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.853|-43.340|0.0002
84715426|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.943|-19.166|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-19.166|-40.943|<.0001
84715427|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.904||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.563|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.563|-16.370|0.2667
84715428|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|8.767||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|22.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||22.485|-4.950|0.2085
84715429|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|12.455||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|27.505|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||27.505|-2.595|0.1041
84725752|NCT02312258|169203656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||=|0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.627|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.627|0.448|=0.630
84513077|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.7|20.0|<0.001
84725753|NCT01697956|169203660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP nasal aerosol versus placebo was greater than 0.80.|ratio of BDP nasal aerosol to placebo|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||||||The standard deviation of the logarithmically transformed data on the change from baseline (expressed as a ratio) in 24-hr serum cortisol weighted mean is assumed to be 0.30. Using this standard deviation, 90 subjects (approximately 60 and 30 subjects in the BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo groups, respectively) will yield approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority between BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo, if there is no true difference between treatment groups.||1.03|0.81|
84715430|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.353||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.41|-5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-5.295|-45.410|0.0058
84715431|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-38.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.062|-12.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-12.197|-65.062|0.0010
84715432|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.967||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.443|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-72.443|0.0005
84513078|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 50|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.5|8.6|<0.001
84725936|NCT04239911|169203978|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.85|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of leaving their current job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||6.85|0.14|0.974
84726430|NCT04454125|169204801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|25.6|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||25.6|1.85|0.004
84715433|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.293||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.159|-11.428|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-11.428|-51.159|0.0003
84715434|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.209||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.941|-14.477|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-14.477|-65.941|0.0004
84715435|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-41.052||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.965|-13.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.138|-68.965|0.0011
84715436|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.902|-24.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-24.116|-60.902|<.0001
84725937|NCT04239911|169203978|EQUIVALENCE|A p\< 0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.72|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of searching for a new job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||7.72|0.08|0.846
84715437|NCT04800211|169177506|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.915||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.855|18.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||18.025|-23.855|0.7835
84540787|NCT03718832|168832720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1691707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0391132||2.04e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0922183|0.2461232||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2461232|0.0922183|0.0000204
84715438|NCT04800211|169177507|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.309|-1.228|0.0002
84715439|NCT04800211|169177507|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.972|-0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.068|-0.972|0.0175
84540788|NCT03718832|168832720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0028595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261733||0.9130816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0486635|0.0543825||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0543825|-0.0486635|0.9130816
84513079|NCT00048581|168778448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 70|8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||14.6|2.7|0.003
84513080|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 PCS|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.38|1.89|<0.001
84513081|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 MCS|2.57||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.67|0.47|0.017
84513082|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Physical Function|1.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.41|-0.01|0.052
84513083|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role-Physical|3.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.19|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.19|0.83|0.007
84715440|NCT04800211|169177508|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.408||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||4.705|0.110|0.0362
84715441|NCT04800211|169177508|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.692||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|3.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.953|-0.569|0.2142
84725754|NCT01964547|169203670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size is adequate to confirm the non-inferiority of Sativex with a clinical relevant reduction delta of 10%, assuming there is no difference between treatments in the actual change in cognition and also assuming a standard deviation for treatment difference of 10, using a one-tailed 2.5% significance level and power of 90%. Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the lower 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is greater than -10%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.41||||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate. The planned sample size was 120 participants(60 patients in the Sativex arm and 60 in the placebo arm).|||-6.41|
84513084|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Bodily Pain|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.47|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.47|3.77|<0.001
84513085|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: General Health|2.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.02|0.99|0.001
84513086|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Vitality|3.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.10|1.24|0.001
84513087|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Social Functioning|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.59|<0.001
84726431|NCT04454125|169204801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.9|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||32.9|1.62|0.01
84513088|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role Emotional|0.97||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.77|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.77|-1.82|0.494
84513089|NCT00048581|168778469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Mental Health|2.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.54|0.65|0.009
84715442|NCT04800211|169177509|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-39.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.396|-3.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.605|-75.396|0.0250
84715443|NCT04800211|169177509|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.896|32.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||32.016|-37.896|0.9997
84715444|NCT04800211|169177510|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-54.398||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.281|68.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||68.485|-177.281|0.6778
84513090|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 PCS|5.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|7.29|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.29|3.64|<0.001
84513091|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 MCS|3.04||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.17|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.17|0.91|0.005
84513092|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Physical Function|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.98|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.98|2.08|<0.001
84715445|NCT04800211|169177510|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.395||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.697|71.908|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||71.908|-168.697|0.7497
84715446|NCT04800211|169177511|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.01||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.447|-7.573|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.573|-32.447|0.0003
84725755|NCT01964547|169203671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is less than +5%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.33|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||2.33||
84715447|NCT04800211|169177511|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.837|-10.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-10.295|-34.837|<.0001
84715448|NCT04800211|169177512|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-179.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.708|-133.022|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-133.022|-225.708|<.0001
84513093|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role-Physical|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.35|||ANCOVA|||||7.35|3.10|<0.001
84715449|NCT04800211|169177512|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.93|-107.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-107.509|-198.930|<.0001
84715450|NCT04800211|169177513|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|-2.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.054|-3.084|<.0001
84715451|NCT04800211|169177513|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.092|-2.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.081|-3.092|<.0001
84725756|NCT01964547|169203672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||8.22|1.96|0.0001
84513094|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Bodily Pain|6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|8.11|||ANCOVA|||||8.11|4.37|<0.001
84513095|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 General Health|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.90|1.64|<0.001
84513096|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Vitality|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.76|<0.001
84540789|NCT03718832|168832720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0166325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271062||0.5400053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0367394|0.0700045||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0700045|-0.0367394|0.5400053
84725757|NCT01964547|169203673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.31|1.23|0.0142
84513097|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Social Functioning|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.12|2.71|<0.001
84513098|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role Emotional|3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.33|0.74|0.013
84513099|NCT00048581|168778471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Mental Health|2.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.60|0.79|0.006
84715452|NCT04800211|169177515|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.04|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.04|-0.19|0.0839
84715453|NCT04800211|169177515|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.66|0.53|0.0089
84715454|NCT04800211|169177516|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.66|-1.13|0.7101
84715455|NCT04800211|169177516|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.59|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.59|-1.12|0.7325
84513100|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: HAQ-DI|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.23|-0.44|<0.001
84540790|NCT03718832|168832721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0511555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016316||0.0018721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0190582|0.0832528||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0832528|0.0190582|0.0018721
84715456|NCT04800211|169177517|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.66|0.31|0.0136
84715457|NCT04800211|169177517|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.08|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.08|0.80|0.0009
84715458|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.870|-0.795|0.9294
84715459|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.277||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|1.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.142|-0.587|0.5290
84715460|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.321|-1.337|0.2291
84725758|NCT01964547|169203674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.21|1.51|0.0019
84513101|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Dressing and Grooming|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
84540791|NCT03718832|168832721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0433081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168497||0.0106231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0101555|0.0764607||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0764607|0.0101555|0.0106231
84725759|NCT01964547|169203675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.37|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||1.37|-6.09|0.212
84715461|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.525||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|1.361|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.361|-0.311|0.2179
84715462|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.401||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.016|-0.213|0.2002
84715463|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.509|-1.089|0.4760
84715464|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.699||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.113|-1.512|0.0914
84513102|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Arising|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
84540792|NCT03718832|168832721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0138256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171112||0.4197898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0198584|0.0475096||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0475096|-0.0198584|0.4197898
84715465|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.122|1.777|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.777|-1.122|0.9705
84715466|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.977||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.465|-0.512|0.3280
84715467|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.230|-1.667|0.9951
84715468|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.225||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|2.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.693|-0.244|0.1367
84715469|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.101||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|2.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.091|0.111|0.0294
84715470|NCT04800211|169177518|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.424|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.928|-1.424|0.6792
84513103|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Eating|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.30|-0.65|<0.001
84513104|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Walking|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.09|-0.44|0.003
84513105|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Hygiene|-0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.05|-0.39|0.010
84513106|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Reaching|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.25|-0.61|<0.001
84513107|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Gripping|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.15|-0.49|<0.001
84513108|NCT00048581|168778473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Activities|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
84513109|NCT03966365|168778540|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.706
84513110|NCT03966365|168778541|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
84513111|NCT03966365|168778542|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Green lissamine treatment groups||||0.081
84513112|NCT03966365|168778542|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.490
84513113|NCT03966365|168778543|OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
84513114|NCT03966365|168778544|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.031
84513115|NCT03966365|168778546|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.651
84513116|NCT04753437|168778547|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.81||||||||1.81|0.94|
84513117|NCT04753437|168778548|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.4||||||||1.40|0.82|
84725760|NCT01964547|169203678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|21.27|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and centre grouping as factors and baseline score as covariate.||21.27|-11.51|0.556
84513118|NCT03567174|168778552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|-0.697|0.125
84513119|NCT01124175|168778589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.84|123.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.06|101.84|
84513120|NCT01124175|168778590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|103.61|
84513121|NCT01124175|168778591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.32|108.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.07|103.32|
84513122|NCT01124175|168778592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|110.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.93|101.22|
84513123|NCT01124175|168778593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|105.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.28|100.90|
84725761|NCT01964547|169203678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-1.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using non-parametric methods as the distribution of data was non-normal.||0|-3|0.088
84725762|NCT01115309|169203681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84513124|NCT01124175|168778594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.41|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.34|100.41|
84513125|NCT02262377|168778625|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week average pain.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||Intention to Treat Analysis for average chronic pain.||1.15|0.92|0.68
84513126|NCT02262377|168778625|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Interference.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.88|0.36
84513127|NCT02262377|168778625|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Severity.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.16|0.86|0.996
84513128|NCT02262377|168778626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.37|0.99|0.054
84725763|NCT01115309|169203682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84725774|NCT02978716|169203701|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 2 vs Group 1.||0.63|0.15|0.0016
84725775|NCT02978716|169203721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.073||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.073|0.226|0.7048
84715471|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.638||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.137|-0.860|0.4012
84715472|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.163||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|3.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.983|0.343|0.0201
84715473|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|2.948|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.948|-0.528|0.1709
84725776|NCT02978716|169203721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3089||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.754||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline hemoglobin as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.754|0.447|0.7272
84513129|NCT02262377|168778627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.89|0.98
84513130|NCT02262377|168778628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.98|||Odds Ratio|||||0.98|0.18|
84513131|NCT02262377|168778629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Odds Ratio|||||1.14|0.90|
84513132|NCT01045096|168778630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||90.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An analysis of variance with covariates (ANCOVA) model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to Tmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.809
84725777|NCT02978716|169203722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6105||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|3.317||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||3.317|0.294|0.7048
84513133|NCT01045096|168778631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|2.183|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.183|0.660|
84513134|NCT01045096|168778631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.463|2.427|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.427|0.463|
84513135|NCT01045096|168778631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.579|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.493|
84513136|NCT01045096|168778632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.693|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.848|0.693|
84513137|NCT01045096|168778632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|2.276|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.276|0.584|
84513138|NCT01045096|168778632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.642|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.642|0.632|
84513139|NCT01045096|168778633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.692|1.636|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.636|0.692|
84513140|NCT01045096|168778633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|2.314|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.314|0.691|
84715474|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.593||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.035|0.150|0.0307
84715475|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.588||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|3.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.302|-0.126|0.0691
84715476|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.487||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.137|0.838|0.0034
84715477|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.849||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.075|0.622|0.0034
84725778|NCT02978716|169203722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4077||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|2.399||P-value: calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as stratification factors and baseline platelet count as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.399|0.116|0.4078
84513141|NCT01045096|168778633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.817|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.817|0.777|
84715478|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.178||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|1.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.299|-1.654|0.8123
84715479|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.226|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.267|-2.226|0.5879
84715480|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.596||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.304|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.111|-2.304|0.4910
84715481|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.816||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.967|3.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.599|-1.967|0.9673
84513142|NCT02883452|168778654|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of CT-P13 SC to CT-P13 IV was to be concluded if the lower bound of two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of geometric least square means was higher than 80%.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|1154.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|786.37|1694.0|||||The geometric lease square (LS) means, ratio of geometric LS means (CT-P13 SC 120/240 mg to CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg), and 2-sided 90% CI were obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary PK analysis was analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and current use of treatment with azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or methotrexate (MTX) (used or not used), disease (CD or UC), clinical response at Week 6 (responder or non-responder by Clinical Disease Activity Index \[CDAI\]-70 for CD or partial Mayo score for UC), body weight at Week 6 (\<80 kg or ≥80 kg) fitted as covariates.||1694.00|786.37|
84725779|NCT02978716|169203723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1902||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.15||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.150|0.362|0.7048
84725780|NCT02978716|169203723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.502||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.502|0.583|0.7835
84513143|NCT00667095|168778680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.024
84725781|NCT02978716|169203726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|2.067||The 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global family wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||2.067|0.475|0.7048
84513144|NCT00667095|168778680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.036
84513145|NCT00667095|168778681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.051
84513146|NCT00667095|168778681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.12
84513147|NCT00667095|168778682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.42
84513148|NCT00667095|168778682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.15
84513149|NCT00667095|168778683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month||||0.18
84513150|NCT00667095|168778683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.77
84513151|NCT00667095|168778684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to one month||||0.67
84513152|NCT00667095|168778684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.20
84513153|NCT00667095|168778685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and one month||||0.31
84513154|NCT00667095|168778685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and 3 months||||0.038
84513155|NCT01520909|168778686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|140.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The proportion of participants achieving platelet counts \>=50 Gi/L for those participants receiving eltrombopag versus placebo was compared.||Indicated significance at the 5% (two-sided) level of significance||140.93|2.29|<0.001
84513156|NCT01520909|168778687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|78.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized linear mixed model||||78.73|8.15|<0.001
84513157|NCT00830206|168778728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® Software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.62||||||90.0|94.84|111.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.05|94.84|
84513158|NCT00830206|168778729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.85||||||90.0|94.48|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|94.48|
84513159|NCT00830206|168778730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokimetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.92||||||90.0|95.18|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.14|95.18|
84513160|NCT02393417|168778733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5706||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0184|2.4223|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4223|1.0184|0.0329
84513161|NCT02393417|168778733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8926||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2722|2.8156|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8156|1.2722|0.0007
84513162|NCT02393417|168778733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7319||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1602|2.5854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.5854|1.1602|0.0052
84513163|NCT02393417|168778734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3828||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6191|3.0883|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0883|0.6191|0.4307
84513164|NCT02393417|168778734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.8908||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4169|5.8978|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8978|1.4169|0.0014
84513165|NCT02393417|168778734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9281|9.6975|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6975|0.9281|0.0451
84513166|NCT02393417|168778736|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7553||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4211|5.3419|||Regression, Cox|||||5.3419|1.4211|0.0027
84513167|NCT02393417|168778736|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.1516||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6148|6.1509|||Regression, Cox|||||6.1509|1.6148|0.0008
84513168|NCT02393417|168778736|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.3257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7263|6.407|||Regression, Cox|||||6.4070|1.7263|0.0003
84513169|NCT02393417|168778742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.001|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.001|0.997|0.4824
84513170|NCT02393417|168778742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.998|0.5007
84513171|NCT02393417|168778742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.999|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||0.999|0.987|0.0219
84513172|NCT02393417|168778742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.995|0.8267
84513173|NCT02393417|168778743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.015|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.015|0.915|0.1657
84513174|NCT02393417|168778743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.997|0.8168
84513175|NCT02393417|168778743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.993|0.4183
84513176|NCT02393417|168778743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.006|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.006|0.997|0.5572
84513177|NCT01643707|168778752|SUPERIORITY|A chi-square test was performed to determine a difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
84513178|NCT01643707|168778753|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84513179|NCT01643707|168778754|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001||||||This endpoint was covered in primary objective 2, so this analysis is the same as previously reported.|Chi-squared||||See Primary Objectives for additional details.|||<0.0001
84513180|NCT04112823|168778759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.0||||||||20|-6|
84513181|NCT04112823|168778760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|16.0||||||||16|-8|
84513182|NCT04112823|168778761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0||||||||14|-8|
84513183|NCT04112823|168778763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.3|
84513184|NCT04112823|168778764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.0||||||||18|-9|
84513185|NCT02728102|168778833|SUPERIORITY||difference in the proportions|2.9||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|14.6||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 is used to assess whether the vaccine appears promising relative to control.|Z test|||The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be described in the vaccine and no vaccine groups with 80% confidence intervals and compared between groups using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.||14.6|-8.8|0.3657
84513186|NCT02728102|168778833|EQUIVALENCE|The stratified odds ratio is estimated with 80% confidence intervals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|2.03||P-value is provided by Breslow-Day Test for Homogeneity of the Odds Ratios.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio estimate is for the Stratification. Stratum 1 is sCR/CR at Randomization. Stratum 2 is VGPR/PR/Stable Response at Randomization.|A secondary analysis stratified on disease response prior to randomization between arms will be conducted using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, and a stratified odds ratio along with 80% confidence intervals will be estimated.||2.03|0.70|0.7461
84513187|NCT02728102|168778833|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|7.2||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.4|20.6|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR/sCR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year post transplant.||20.6|-6.4|0.2429
84513188|NCT02728102|168778833|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|-1.6||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.6|12.4|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year post transplant.||12.4|-15.6|0.4397
84513189|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.9376
84513190|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4887||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.4887
84513191|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5176
84513192|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.2461
84725782|NCT02978716|169203726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2744||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.58||P-value was calculated using negative binomial method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.580|0.426|0.5541
84715482|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|5.968|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.968|-0.683|0.1787
84513193|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2530
84513194|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2213
84513195|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.4930
84513196|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6591||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.6591
84513197|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.6790
84513198|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3124||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.3124
84513199|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.7379
84513200|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.2379
84513201|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5353||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5353
84513202|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4417||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 12 months Post Transplant.||||0.4417
84513203|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 24 months Post Transplant.||||0.9450
84725783|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.97|0.62|
84513204|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1599||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1599
84725784|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.57|0.87|
84513205|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8984||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.8984
84513206|NCT02728102|168778834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1757
84513207|NCT02728102|168778835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.161
84513208|NCT02728102|168778836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.116
84513209|NCT02728102|168778836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
84513210|NCT02728102|168778836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
84513211|NCT02728102|168778838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.168
84513212|NCT02728102|168778839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.120
84513213|NCT02728102|168778839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
84513214|NCT02728102|168778839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
84513215|NCT02728102|168778840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.563
84513216|NCT02728102|168778841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.308
84513217|NCT02728102|168778841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.990
84513218|NCT02728102|168778841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.303
84513219|NCT02728102|168778843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients With Grade ≥ 3 Toxicities between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.189
84513220|NCT02728102|168778845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.82
84513221|NCT02728102|168778846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.21
84513222|NCT02728102|168778846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.40
84725785|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.07|0.73|
84513223|NCT02728102|168778846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.08
84513224|NCT02728102|168778847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients without Minimal Residual Disease between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms||||0.80
84725786|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.70|
84513225|NCT03834870|168778851|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.98|86.1||||||||86.10|81.98|
84513226|NCT03834870|168778852|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.4|99.6||||||||99.60|98.40|
84513227|NCT01544127|168778871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|"MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the presence of suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||1.12|0.31|.054
84513228|NCT01544127|168778871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.4||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI+TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.40|0.26|0.12
84513229|NCT01544127|168778871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.24||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.24|0.28|0.08
84513230|NCT01544127|168778872|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||"MI-SI + TAU vs. MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence/absence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the severity of suicidal ideation among participants with suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||||0.30
84513231|NCT01544127|168778872|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI vs. TAU Alone||||0.23
84513232|NCT01544127|168778872|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||||0.46
84513233|NCT01544127|168778873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.96|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.3|3.54||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||3.54|0.30|0.96
84513234|NCT01544127|168778873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.06||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||2.06|0.23|0.50
84513235|NCT01544127|168778874|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.88||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||4.88|0.59|0.31
84513236|NCT01544127|168778874|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.31||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||2.31|0.10|0.24
84513237|NCT01544127|168778874|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.43||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||"MI-SI-R + TAU vs. MI-SI + TAU~Because the impact of MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU were in different directions when compared to TAU Alone, they were compared. For this analysis, the null hypothesis was that the revisions did not change the impact of MI-SI + TAU."||1.43|0.06|0.10
84513238|NCT00234286|168778914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.76|1.09|.009
84513239|NCT00234286|168778915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
84513240|NCT00234286|168778916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.42|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.42|0.59|0.69
84513241|NCT00234286|168778917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.96|0.53|.03
84513242|NCT00234286|168778918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.16|0.38|0.15
84513243|NCT00234286|168778919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.62|0.67|0.86
84513244|NCT00234286|168778920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
84513245|NCT00234286|168778921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.36|1.17|0.01
84513246|NCT00234286|168778922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.35|0.73|0.36
84513247|NCT00234286|168778923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.77|1.08|0.01
84513248|NCT00234286|168778924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.30|0.70|0.76
84513249|NCT00234286|168778925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||5.44|1.41|.004
84513250|NCT00234286|168778926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|11.28|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||11.28|1.51|0.007
84513251|NCT00234286|168778927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||3.20|0.84|0.14
84513252|NCT00234286|168778928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.88|1.15|.003
84513253|NCT00234286|168778929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|9.7|||Generalized Estimation Equations|||||9.70|0.62|0.19
84513254|NCT02605395|168778930|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for Cmax to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.12|101.65||||||||101.65|90.12|
84513255|NCT02605395|168778931|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC(0-t) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|103.44||||||||103.44|90.02|
84513256|NCT02605395|168778932|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC (0 to infinity) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.06|105.17||||||||105.17|87.06|
84513257|NCT00696020|168778961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.076||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.076|-0.029|0.3791
84513258|NCT00696020|168778961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.085||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.085|-0.019|0.2133
84513259|NCT00696020|168778961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.110|0.004|0.0337
84513260|NCT00696020|168778962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.093||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.093|-0.010|0.1163
84715483|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.806||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|5.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.018|-1.406|0.5243
84715484|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|4.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.507|-0.966|0.3956
84715485|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.068||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.295|-1.160|0.3810
84715486|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.084||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|6.216|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||6.216|-0.049|0.0557
84725787|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.18|0.79|
84513261|NCT00696020|168778962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.111||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.111|0.009|0.0224
84513262|NCT00696020|168778962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.107||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.107|0.003|0.0380
84513263|NCT00696020|168778963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.094|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.094|-0.089|0.9573
84513264|NCT00696020|168778963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.009|0.0321
84513265|NCT00696020|168778963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.025|0.0125
84513266|NCT00696020|168778964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.145|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.145|0.026|0.0052
84513267|NCT00696020|168778964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|0.020|0.0086
84513268|NCT00696020|168778964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.185|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.185|0.066|<0.0001
84513269|NCT00696020|168778965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.225|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.225|0.006|0.0384
84513270|NCT00696020|168778965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.076|0.0009
84513271|NCT00696020|168778965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.130|<0.0001
84513272|NCT00696020|168778966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.057|35.657|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.657|9.057|0.0010
84513273|NCT00696020|168778966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.687||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.613|31.924|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||31.924|5.613|0.0053
84513274|NCT00696020|168778966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.805|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.565|40.343|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||40.343|13.565|<0.0001
84725788|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.71|
84513275|NCT00696020|168778967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.149|0.027|0.0048
84513276|NCT00696020|168778967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.025|0.0056
84513277|NCT00696020|168778967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.066|<0.0001
84513278|NCT00696020|168778968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.230|0.010|0.0332
84513279|NCT00696020|168778968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.074|0.0011
84513280|NCT00696020|168778968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.128|<0.0001
84513281|NCT00696020|168778969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.813||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.462|36.272|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||36.272|9.462|0.0009
84513282|NCT00696020|168778969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.739||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.484|33.002|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||33.002|6.484|0.0036
84725789|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.36|0.80|
84513283|NCT00696020|168778969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.298|41.287|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||41.287|14.298|<0.0001
84513284|NCT00696020|168778970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.152|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.152|0.023|0.0079
84513285|NCT00696020|168778970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.018|0.0120
84513286|NCT00696020|168778970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.080|<0.0001
84513287|NCT00696020|168778971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.249|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.249|0.013|0.0296
84513288|NCT00696020|168778971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.32|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.320|0.087|0.0007
84725790|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|329.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|242.98|446.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||446.67|242.98|
84513289|NCT00696020|168778971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.383|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.383|0.147|<0.0001
84513290|NCT00696020|168778972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.057||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.529|37.3|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||37.300|9.529|0.0010
84513291|NCT00696020|168778972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.981||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.961|32.43|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||32.430|4.961|0.0078
84513292|NCT00696020|168778972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.379|43.335|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||43.335|15.379|<0.0001
84513293|NCT00696020|168778974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|-0.049|0.3517
84513294|NCT00696020|168778974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.143|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.143|-0.046|0.3171
84513295|NCT00696020|168778974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.130|-0.060|0.4654
84513296|NCT00696020|168778975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.704||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.055|28.267|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||28.267|-2.055|0.0899
84513297|NCT00696020|168778975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.759||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.549|35.084|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.084|4.549|0.0111
84513298|NCT00696020|168778975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.458|34.329|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||34.329|3.458|0.0166
84513299|NCT00624065|168778988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.8822||95.0|0.63|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.63|0.8822
84513300|NCT01387022|168778990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84513301|NCT01387022|168778991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
84513302|NCT01387022|168778993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.267
84513303|NCT00819507|168779010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84513304|NCT00819507|168779011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84513305|NCT01536405|168779012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 10 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||6.8|1.8|<0.001
84513306|NCT01536405|168779012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|97.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.4|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>76%||98.4|95.6|<0.001
84513307|NCT01536405|168779013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||-0.6|-4.0|0.003
84513308|NCT01536405|168779013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|96.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|97.9|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||97.9|94.9|<0.001
84513309|NCT01536405|168779014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||2.8|-0.7|<0.001
84513310|NCT01536405|168779014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|99.1|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.1|96.8|<0.001
84513311|NCT01536405|168779015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||0.7|-1.8|<0.001
84513312|NCT01536405|168779015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.6|99.5|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.5|97.6|<0.001
84513313|NCT01536405|168779016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|1.1|<0.001
84513314|NCT01536405|168779017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.0|0.8|<0.001
84513315|NCT01536405|168779018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
84513316|NCT01536405|168779019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
84513317|NCT01536405|168779020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|-1.0|<0.001
84513318|NCT02726581|168779053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||||1.30|0.62|
84513319|NCT02726581|168779054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||||||||1.19|0.53|
84513320|NCT02726581|168779055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46||||||||1.46|0.39|
84513321|NCT02865850|168779058|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.53|
84513322|NCT02865850|168779059|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.761|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.761|0.536|=0.9950
84540793|NCT03718832|168832721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0179852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171811||0.2961479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0158442|0.0518147||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0518147|-0.0158442|0.2961479
84715487|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.445||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.490|0.400|0.0195
84540794|NCT03718832|168832722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4018522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001575||7.43e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2048311|0.5988733||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.5988733|0.2048311|0.0000743
84715488|NCT04800211|169177519|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.277||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.060|-3.615|0.2817
84715489|NCT05170841|169177520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.566
84715490|NCT05170841|169177521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
84715491|NCT05170841|169177522|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
84715492|NCT05170841|169177523|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
84715493|NCT05170841|169177524|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.031
84715494|NCT05170841|169177525|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
84715495|NCT05170841|169177526|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.011
84715496|NCT05170841|169177527|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.007
84715497|NCT05170841|169177528|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
84715498|NCT05170841|169177529|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
84715499|NCT05170841|169177530|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.022
84715500|NCT05170841|169177531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84715501|NCT05170841|169177532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84715502|NCT05170841|169177533|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
84715503|NCT05170841|169177534|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.01
84715504|NCT05170841|169177535|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.04
84715505|NCT05170841|169177536|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.016
84715506|NCT05170841|169177537|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
84715507|NCT05170841|169177538|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.042
84715508|NCT05170841|169177539|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.037
84715509|NCT05170841|169177540|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
84715510|NCT05170841|169177541|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
84513323|NCT02865850|168779059|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
84513324|NCT02865850|168779060|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.19|-0.34|
84715511|NCT05170841|169177542|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
84715512|NCT05170841|169177543|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
84715513|NCT05170841|169177544|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
84715514|NCT03806790|169177546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|49.16|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis on the Full Analysis Set (FAS)||49.16|0.68|0.120
84715515|NCT03806790|169177547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.6|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 1 (FAS)||4.60|1.36|0.004
84513325|NCT02865850|168779061|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.743|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.743|0.618|=0.8871
84715516|NCT03806790|169177547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.97|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 2 (FAS)||14.97|1.57|0.003
84715517|NCT03806790|169177548|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.59|||ANOVA|||FAS||-0.59|-1.64|<0.001
84715518|NCT03643744|169177550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
84715519|NCT03643744|169177550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.727
84715520|NCT03643744|169177551|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84715521|NCT06201559|169177553|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for Cmax following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for Cmax was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|110.91|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||110.91|86.79|
84715522|NCT06201559|169177554|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for AUC(0-t) following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for AUC(0-t) was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.86|109.73|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||109.73|86.86|
84715523|NCT02724969|169177593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.272
84715524|NCT02724969|169177594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.082
84715525|NCT02724969|169177595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.355
84715526|NCT02724969|169177596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.780
84715527|NCT02724969|169177597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.588
84715528|NCT02709161|169177652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84715529|NCT02709161|169177653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84715530|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.13519
84715531|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.8556
84715532|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.46943
84715533|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.0449
84513326|NCT02865850|168779061|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
84513327|NCT02865850|168779062|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||=|0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.771|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.771|0.670|=0.5210
84513328|NCT02865850|168779062|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
84513329|NCT02865850|168779063|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.666|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.666|0.452|=0.9527
84540795|NCT03718832|168832722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3643095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026922||0.0004471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16227|0.566349||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.566349|0.16227|0.0004471
84540796|NCT03718832|168832722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0006229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095781||0.9954683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2150785|0.2163243||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2163243|-0.2150785|0.9954683
84513330|NCT02865850|168779063|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
84513331|NCT02865850|168779064|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.555|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.555|0.388|=0.5115
84513332|NCT02865850|168779064|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
84513333|NCT00772941|168779076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84513334|NCT00772941|168779077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84715534|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.504
84715535|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.772193
84715536|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.5414
84715537|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.070
84513335|NCT00772941|168779078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84715538|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.546
84715539|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.756
84715540|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.700
84715541|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.397
84715542|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.093
84715543|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.323
84513336|NCT00772941|168779079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant drugs in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84513337|NCT00772941|168779080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant therapies. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant therapies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84513338|NCT00772941|168779081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Weight at Baseline and the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
84513339|NCT00772941|168779081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events across increasing levels of Weight at Baseline."||||<0.001
84513340|NCT00772941|168779082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Tobacco consumption per day and the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
84513341|NCT00772941|168779082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the efficacy of Varenicline across increasing levels of tobacco consumption per day."||||<0.001
84715544|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.182
84513342|NCT00772941|168779083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was prolonged administration after 12 weeks. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between administration prolonged after 12 weeks and administration not prolonged after 12 weeks in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
84513343|NCT00772941|168779084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antipsychotics as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without antipsychotics as a concomitant drug in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
84513344|NCT02255097|168779088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513345|NCT02255097|168779089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513346|NCT02255097|168779092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513347|NCT02255097|168779093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||0.0027
84513348|NCT02255097|168779094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513349|NCT02255097|168779095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513350|NCT02255097|168779096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
84513351|NCT02514122|168779106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Score was lower in the Ketamine group.|||1.9|0.29|0.009
84513352|NCT02514122|168779107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||.54|.18|<0.001
84513353|NCT03555305|168779147|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.04|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.04|0.886|
84513354|NCT03555305|168779148|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.02|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.02|0.874|
84715545|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.880
84513355|NCT02100228|168779266|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6425||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||0.6425|0.0000|0.0151
84513356|NCT02100228|168779268|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4905||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1046|2.0678||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||2.0678|0.1046|0.3378
84513357|NCT02100228|168779269|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3433|1.8916||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||1.8916|0.3433|0.6851
84513358|NCT02100228|168779270|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9841|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1866|53.9968||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||53.9968|0.1866|>0.9999
84715546|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.496
84513359|NCT01073657|168779283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|38.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38|14|0.0059
84513360|NCT00854100|168779287|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.4|0.746
84513361|NCT00854100|168779287|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-4.8|0.227
84513362|NCT00854100|168779288|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.918
84513363|NCT00854100|168779288|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.167
84715547|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.905
84478362|NCT00425100|168708164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.7||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of micturition episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-2.7|-3.2|<0.0001
84513364|NCT00834535|168779314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.83||||||90.0|93.98|108.17|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.17|93.98|
84513365|NCT00834535|168779315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.1||||||90.0|92.14|100.22|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.22|92.14|
84540797|NCT03718832|168832722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0161147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115322||0.8852268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2357129|0.2034834||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2034834|-0.2357129|0.8852268
84715548|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.692
84513366|NCT00834535|168779316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.57||||||90.0|92.8|100.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.49|92.8|
84513367|NCT03785548|168779322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|7.944|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=1.225||||7.944|-2.241|0.270
84513368|NCT03785548|168779323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.983|6.266|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=0.002||||6.266|-5.983|0.964
84513369|NCT01375660|168779332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84513370|NCT01375660|168779333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
84513371|NCT01375660|168779334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.389
84513372|NCT01375660|168779335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||P Value for Insulinogenic Index-30 = 0.34|ANOVA|||||||0.34
84513373|NCT01375660|168779336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84513374|NCT01375660|168779337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84513375|NCT01375660|168779338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.869
84513376|NCT01832259|168779339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.345
84513377|NCT01832259|168779341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.46
84513378|NCT00905346|168779344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|98.39||||||90.0|94.36|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.59|94.36|
84513379|NCT00905346|168779345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.92||||||90.0|99.88|106.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.05|99.88|
84513380|NCT00905346|168779346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.63||||||90.0|99.24|106.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.14|99.24|
84513381|NCT04605094|168779355|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in IGA responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on electronic case report form (eCRF) at screening (\>=12 to \<18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/microliters \[μL\]; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline value of IGA score."||0.71|-17.94|0.080
84513382|NCT04605094|168779356|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.15||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-75 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||6.36|-16.67|0.384
84715549|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.262
84715550|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.828
84715551|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.268
84540798|NCT03718832|168832723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9013876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4414753||0.0417413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0338441|1.768931||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.768931|0.0338441|0.0417413
84513383|NCT04605094|168779357|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-90 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||0.59|-16.94|0.078
84513384|NCT04605094|168779358|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.69||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in Peak Pruritus NRS~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline Peak Pruritus score."||10.32|-8.93|0.889
84513385|NCT02724462|168779359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|1.22|<.001
84513386|NCT02724462|168779360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|1.14|.001
84513387|NCT00909610|168779388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||111|92.3|
84513388|NCT00909610|168779389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|106.0||||||90.0|101.0|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|101|
84513389|NCT00909610|168779390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|101.0||||||90.0|91.9|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|91.9|
84513390|NCT00909610|168779391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|105.0||||||90.0|100.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|100|
84513391|NCT00909610|168779392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.5|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.5|
84513392|NCT00909610|168779393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117|103|
84513393|NCT00909610|168779394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
84513394|NCT00909610|168779395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
84513395|NCT03585790|168779396|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin acceptable mean difference (Single Vision - Multifocal) = -5 rating units (0-100 scale, 0 = optimal)||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \>= M vs. Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \< M. Alpha = 0.05, two sided beta = 0.80||||0.18
84715552|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.975
84513396|NCT00840866|168779460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.0|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|99|
84513397|NCT00840866|168779461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.9||||||90.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
84513398|NCT00840866|168779462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|98.5|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.5|
84513399|NCT02924883|168779502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3332||95.0|0.55|1.23|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test, was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.23|0.55|0.3332
84513400|NCT02924883|168779504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2934||95.0|0.42|1.3|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.30|0.42|0.2934
84513401|NCT02924883|168779506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.6099||95.0|0.52|3.03|||Log Rank|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by world region (Western Europe, U.S., Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0, IC 1/2/3).||||3.03|0.52|0.6099
84513402|NCT01054586|168779545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.1||||0.02||95.0|1.26|29.46||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for ART naïve. Not ART naïve is the reference group."|||29.46|1.26|0.02
84715553|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.499
84513403|NCT01054586|168779546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12||||0.05||95.0|1.03|16.5||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||16.50|1.03|0.05
84513404|NCT01054586|168779546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.68||95.0|0.16|16.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||16.27|0.16|0.68
84478363|NCT00425100|168708165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.0|-1.4||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency urinary incontinence per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
84513405|NCT01054586|168779547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.83||||0.17||95.0|0.65|12.36||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||12.36|0.65|0.17
84715554|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.750
84513406|NCT01054586|168779547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.85||95.0|0.12|13.33||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||13.33|0.12|0.85
84478364|NCT00425100|168708166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-4.5||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency episodes per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-4.5|-5.4|<0.0001
84715555|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.433
84715556|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
84478365|NCT00425100|168708168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2 sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478366|NCT00425100|168708169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478367|NCT00425100|168708170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478368|NCT00425100|168708171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478369|NCT00425100|168708173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84513407|NCT01054586|168779548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.2||||0.06||95.0|0.94|10.82||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||10.82|0.94|0.06
84513408|NCT01054586|168779548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.96||95.0|0.11|9.83||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||9.83|0.11|0.96
84513409|NCT01054586|168779549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.57||95.0|0.52|3.31||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.31|0.52|0.57
84513410|NCT01054586|168779549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.22||95.0|0.04|2.14||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.14|0.04|0.22
84513411|NCT01054586|168779549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.47||95.0|0.35|9.91||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.91|0.35|0.47
84513412|NCT01054586|168779550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.48||95.0|0.55|3.55||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.55|0.55|0.48
84513413|NCT01054586|168779550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.23||95.0|0.03|2.18||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.18|0.03|0.23
84715557|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
84513414|NCT01054586|168779550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.56||95.0|0.29|9.47||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.47|0.29|0.56
84513415|NCT01054586|168779552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.72||95.0|0.51|2.66||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||2.66|0.51|0.72
84715558|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.526
84513416|NCT01054586|168779552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.21||95.0|0.03|2.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.08|0.03|0.21
84513417|NCT01054586|168779552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26||||0.15||95.0|0.74|6.97|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.||6.97|0.74|0.15
84513418|NCT01054586|168779558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.77||||0.1||95.0|0.79|18.05|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||18.05|0.79|0.10
84513419|NCT01054586|168779559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.53||||0.02||95.0|1.16|5.54||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.54|1.16|0.02
84513420|NCT01054586|168779559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.17||||0.05||95.0|1.54|11.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||11.27|1.54|0.05
84513421|NCT01054586|168779559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.67||||0.06||95.0|0.97|13.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||13.90|0.97|0.06
84715559|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon singed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.816
84513422|NCT01054586|168779560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.68||||0.01||95.0|1.21|5.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.9|1.21|0.01
84715560|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.650
84513423|NCT01054586|168779560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.42||||0.0004||95.0|1.61|12.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||12.08|1.61|0.0004
84513424|NCT01054586|168779560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07||||0.11||95.0|0.78|12.03||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||12.03|0.78|0.11
84715561|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.095
84715562|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.618
84715563|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.340
84513425|NCT01054586|168779561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.03||95.0|1.06|4.15||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||4.15|1.06|0.03
84540799|NCT03718832|168832723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8939751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896126||0.0222222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1282798|1.65967||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.65967|0.1282798|0.0222222
84513426|NCT01054586|168779561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61||||0.05||95.0|1.48|8.81||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||8.81|1.48|0.05
84513427|NCT01054586|168779561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.1||95.0|0.85|6.32||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||6.32|0.85|0.10
84513428|NCT01054586|168779562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.12||||0.03||95.0|1.19|22.02|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||22.02|1.19|0.03
84513429|NCT01061866|168779584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p less than or equal to 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.02||||||p-value is non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Was adjusted the degrees of freedom for the averaged test of significance.|The frequency of seizures at the beginning of the study and after treatment with thalidomide was contrasted in the same group patients.|Power=0.02||||<0.02
84715564|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.150
84513430|NCT00102440|168779585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|32.0||||||97.5|23.1|41.3||||||||41.3|23.1|
84513431|NCT00102440|168779585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|41.0||||||97.5|31.5|49.5||||||||49.5|31.5|
84513432|NCT00102440|168779585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513433|NCT00102440|168779585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513434|NCT00102440|168779585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
84513435|NCT00102440|168779586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513436|NCT00102440|168779586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513437|NCT00102440|168779586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84513438|NCT00102440|168779587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513439|NCT00102440|168779587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513440|NCT00102440|168779587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
84513441|NCT00102440|168779588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513442|NCT00102440|168779588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513443|NCT00102440|168779588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.164
84513444|NCT00102440|168779589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84715565|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.361
84715566|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.428
84715567|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.834
84513445|NCT00102440|168779589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84715568|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.318
84715569|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.311
84715570|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.885
84715571|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.457
84715572|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.745
84478370|NCT00425100|168708175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478371|NCT00425100|168708176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478372|NCT00425100|168708177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478373|NCT00425100|168708178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84513446|NCT00102440|168779589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84513447|NCT00102440|168779590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84513448|NCT00102440|168779590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84513449|NCT00102440|168779590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
84513450|NCT00102440|168779591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84513451|NCT00102440|168779591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84513452|NCT00102440|168779591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84715573|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.757
84715574|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.562
84715575|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.828
84715576|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.005
84715577|NCT05167864|169177663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.437
84715578|NCT04028284|169177664|OTHER|Two-sided inferential test||||||0.02||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05 for the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84715579|NCT04028284|169177665|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84715580|NCT04028284|169177666|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84715581|NCT04028284|169177667|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84513453|NCT00102440|168779592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
84715582|NCT04028284|169177668|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84715583|NCT04028284|169177669|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84715584|NCT04028284|169177670|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84715585|NCT03125070|169177705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84715586|NCT03125070|169177706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84715587|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Female vs. Male||||0.27
84715588|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Age \<70 vs. \>=70||||0.88
84715589|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Race and ethnicity: white AND non-Hispanic versus any other combination of race and ethnicity (BIPOC)||||0.98
84715590|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Education: High school or less versus at least some college or vocational/technical program||||0.19
84715591|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Income: \<$100,000 annual versus \>=$100,000 annual||||0.24
84715592|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||PHQ score at baseline: no depression (\<10), mild depression (10-14), moderate depression (15-19), severe depression (\>=20)||||0.28
84715593|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||CTXD score at baseline \<0.9 (not distressed) or \>=0.9 (distressed)||||0.33
84715594|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Cardiometabolic Healthcare Utilization (HCU-C) score at baseline: \>.80 versus \<.80||||0.10
84715595|NCT03125070|169177707|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Secondary cancer screening healthcare utilization (HCU-SM) at baseline: \>=.80 versus \<.80||||0.31
84715596|NCT03125070|169177708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84715597|NCT03125070|169177709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
84715598|NCT05623228|169177713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||"Bonferroni correction p\<.05~F(1.25)=9.17 η=.254 (p\<.05)"|ANOVA|||||||.00
84715599|NCT05623228|169177713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Bonferroni correction p\<.05 F(2)=7.30 η=.213 (P\<.05)|ANOVA|||||||.00
84715600|NCT05623228|169177714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(2)=3.20, η=.106 Bonferroni Correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.04
84715601|NCT05623228|169177715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||F(1,06)=8,11, η2=.231 Bonferroni correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.00
84715602|NCT05623228|169177716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(1,19)=4,30, η2=.137 Bonferroni correction p\<0.5|ANOVA|||||||.04
84715603|NCT05623228|169177717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||t (38.70)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.00
84513454|NCT00102440|168779592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84513455|NCT00102440|168779592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84513456|NCT00102440|168779593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
84513457|NCT00102440|168779593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
84513458|NCT00102440|168779593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.619
84513459|NCT00102440|168779594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
84513460|NCT00102440|168779594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
84513461|NCT00102440|168779594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.246
84513462|NCT00102440|168779595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
84715604|NCT04231331|169177723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on our previous study, we assumed a common baseline mean EROA of 0.21 cm2 with a common standard deviation of 0.11 cm2. Given these assumptions, we calculated that a sample size of 204 patients randomly assigned to two groups, would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.05 cm2 in the EROA between the ertugliflozin and placebo groups, using a two-sided t test with an alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84513463|NCT00102440|168779595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
84513464|NCT00102440|168779595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.411
84513465|NCT00102440|168779596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.507
84513466|NCT00102440|168779596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
84513467|NCT00102440|168779596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.362
84513468|NCT00102440|168779597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.657
84513469|NCT00102440|168779597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
84513470|NCT00102440|168779597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.719
84513471|NCT00102440|168779598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84513472|NCT00102440|168779598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.229
84513473|NCT00102440|168779598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.266
84478374|NCT00425100|168708179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84513474|NCT02834663|168779643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-3.592||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients were evaluated for changes in BCVA of the treated eye, from the start of the study till 6 months, until trial completion. After administration of each injection, measurements of BCVA were compared to their respective baseline results. The paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA was performed for comparative analysis, as all showed normality.||-3.592|-13.928|<0.0001
84513475|NCT02834663|168779644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|110.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.919||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.79|137.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||137.210|82.790|0.0001
84513476|NCT02834663|168779645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.932||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.884|5.956||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.956|1.884|0.001
84513477|NCT02834663|168779646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.15|1.30|0.0001
84513478|NCT02834663|168779647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
84513479|NCT02834663|168779648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
84513480|NCT02834663|168779649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.795||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.795|-0.751|0.221
84513481|NCT03965091|168779651|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.60|-0.46|0.7963
84513482|NCT03965091|168779651|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.58|-0.48|0.8629
84513483|NCT02729714|168779682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84513484|NCT02729714|168779683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84513485|NCT02729714|168779684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84513486|NCT02729714|168779685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84513487|NCT02729714|168779686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84513488|NCT02729714|168779687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
84513489|NCT02729714|168779688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84513490|NCT04185909|168779698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
84513491|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.095
84513492|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84513493|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84513494|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84513495|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.440
84513496|NCT02601560|168779711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84540800|NCT03718832|168832723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0276596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7606961||0.9710103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467185|1.522504||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.522504|-1.467185|0.9710103
84715605|NCT01959607|169177823|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.94|126.11|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||126.11|84.94|
84715606|NCT01959607|169177824|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|96.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|109.07|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||109.07|85.10|
84715607|NCT03952338|169177841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|-4.07|0.97
84715608|NCT03952338|169177842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.44|-3.00|0.57
84715609|NCT03952338|169177843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-0.32|0.09
84715610|NCT03952338|169177844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-0.22|0.08
84715611|NCT03952338|169177845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.17|0.09
84715612|NCT03952338|169177846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-1.39|0.95
84715613|NCT03952338|169177847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.06|0.01
84715614|NCT03952338|169177848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.96|0.09|0.04
84715615|NCT03952338|169177849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.23|0.27|0.236
84715616|NCT03952338|169177850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.62|0.220
84715617|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.55|-0.37|0.70
84715618|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.69|-0.84|0.85
84715619|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY|Total fruits|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.29|0.29
84715620|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.26|-0.06|0.07
84715621|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.05|-1.16|0.92
84715622|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||0.89|-1.29|0.72
84715623|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.74|-0.12|0.15
84715624|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.71|-0.78|0.92
84715625|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||0.94|-1.47|0.67
84715626|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.84|-1.45|0.61
84715627|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||0.04|-2.34|0.06
84715628|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.57|-0.51|0.32
84715629|NCT03952338|169177851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.92|-0.56|0.63
84715630|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.50|-0.61|0.85
84715631|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.70|-0.88|0.82
84715632|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total fruits||0.93|-0.43|0.48
84715633|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.46|-0.04|0.06
84715634|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.84|-0.63|0.34
84715635|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||2.62|0.31|0.01
84715636|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.69|-0.27|0.39
84715637|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.70|-0.90|0.81
84715638|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||-0.04|-2.57|0.04
84715639|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.48|-1.86|0.25
84715640|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||1.40|-1.25|0.91
84715641|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.13|-0.98|0.89
84715642|NCT03952338|169177852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.97|-0.55|0.59
84513497|NCT01059903|168779743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8411|0.969|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9690|0.8411|
84513498|NCT01059903|168779744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0231|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0231|0.8833|
84715643|NCT03952338|169177853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.67||Marginal food insecurity|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||||0.67|0.03|0.01
84715644|NCT03952338|169177853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||1.82|0.17|0.34
84715645|NCT03952338|169177853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.76|0.03|0.02
84715646|NCT03952338|169177854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Marginal food insecurity||1.29|0.06|0.10
84715647|NCT03952338|169177854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||2.21|0.21|0.52
84715648|NCT03952338|169177854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.56|0.02|0.01
84715649|NCT03952338|169177855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||12.66|0.68|0.15
84715650|NCT03952338|169177855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||7.13|0.20|0.86
84715651|NCT03952338|169177856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||5.38|0.31|0.74
84715652|NCT03952338|169177856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||41.3|0.73|0.10
84715653|NCT03952338|169177857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.65|0.64
84715654|NCT03952338|169177858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-0.57|0.90
84715655|NCT03952338|169177859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|5.92||Males|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-14.05|0.43
84715656|NCT03952338|169177859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||4.66|-3.75|0.83
84715657|NCT03952338|169177860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.57||Age 18-59 years|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.57|-5.65|0.66
84715658|NCT03952338|169177860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|10.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Age 60+ years||10.93|-4.36|0.40
84715659|NCT03952338|169177861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|21.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Males||21.63|-9.13|0.43
84715660|NCT03952338|169177861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||5.41|-3.23|0.62
84715661|NCT03952338|169177862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||18-59 years||4.66|-4.76|0.99
84715662|NCT03952338|169177862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60+ years||12.80|-5.48|0.43
84715663|NCT05274074|169177894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|-3.4|0.57
84715664|NCT05274074|169177895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.5|0.53
84715665|NCT05274074|169177896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|-3.3|0.41
84715666|NCT05274074|169177897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-3.5|0.45
84715667|NCT05274074|169177898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|0.5|0.02
84715668|NCT05274074|169177899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||Regression, Linear|||||3.3|-4.9|0.69
84715669|NCT05194956|169177900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|13.15|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|P-values are calculated taking sequence and period effects into account.|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)||13.15|3.75|0.0006
84715670|NCT05194956|169177900|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1984
84715671|NCT05194956|169177900|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.7494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7494
84715672|NCT05194956|169177900|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects modelling|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.29|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.33|-21.29|0.001
84715673|NCT05194956|169177901|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|0.91||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.91|-7.71|0.1230
84715674|NCT05194956|169177901|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8423
84715675|NCT05194956|169177901|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9544|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9544
84478375|NCT00425100|168708180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478376|NCT00425100|168708182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
84478377|NCT02940626|168708216|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Wald Test on equality of proportions|||Subjects were analyzed for efficacy in the group to which they randomized. Sponsor defined outcomes were based on review of microbiology results from samples tested at the central lab. If sample was not sent to the central lab., determination was based on results from the local microbiology lab. In cases where both local \& central lab results were available, concordance was confirmed for S. aureus. Therefore, the analysis used local microbiology data in order to utilize a more complete dataset.||||.5470
84478378|NCT03488914|168708224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.56|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 3-months||||.56|-2.78|.19
84478379|NCT03488914|168708224|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression|-1.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.48|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 6-months||||.48|-3.78|.12
84478380|NCT03488914|168708224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 9-months||||2.07|-2.05|.99
84478381|NCT03488914|168708224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.78||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 12-months||||1.11|-2.67|.42
84478382|NCT03488914|168708224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.51|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 15-months||||.51|-2.69|.18
84478383|NCT03488914|168708225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.99|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3-months||||.99|-.86|.96
84478384|NCT03488914|168708225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.14|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6-months||||-.14|-2.25|.03
84478385|NCT03488914|168708225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.1|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9-months||||1.10|-.83|.79
84478386|NCT03488914|168708225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12-months||||1.11|-.99|.91
84478387|NCT03488914|168708225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.65|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 15-months||||.65|-1.50|.44
84478388|NCT03488914|168708226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.58|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3-months||||.58|-1.09|.54
84478389|NCT03488914|168708226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.46|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6-months||||1.46|-.70|.49
84478390|NCT03488914|168708226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9-months||||.66|-1.18|.59
84478391|NCT03488914|168708226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.37|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12-months||||1.37|-.86|.65
84478392|NCT03488914|168708226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.67|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 15-months||||.67|-1.40|.49
84478393|NCT03488914|168708227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|995.0|-1.07|0.34|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3-months||||.34|-1.07|.31
84478394|NCT03488914|168708227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.15|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6-months||||.15|-1.57|.10
84478395|NCT03488914|168708227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9-months||||.28|-1.34|.20
84478396|NCT03488914|168708227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12-months||||.64|-1.14|.58
84478397|NCT03488914|168708227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.47|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 15-months||||.47|-1.37|.34
84478398|NCT00507416|168708280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||||||The global difference among arms was based on the Wald test.|Wald test|||||||0.458
84478399|NCT01021813|168708311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any sleep paralysis AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group .||1.4|-1.1|
84478400|NCT01021813|168708312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any complex sleep-related behaviors AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.1|-1.3|0.482
84478401|NCT01021813|168708313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any falls AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.5|-3.9|0.508
84478402|NCT01021813|168708314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of AEs|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any suicidal ideation/behavior AEs considered an ECI between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
84478403|NCT01021813|168708315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
84478404|NCT01021813|168708316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any selected AEs associated with potential abuse between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.2|-3.8|0.767
84478405|NCT01021813|168708317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|-0.81||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.1|-5.1|0.567
84513499|NCT01059903|168779745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8437|0.9699|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9699|0.8437|
84513500|NCT02612337|168779807|SUPERIORITY|The target sample size for each was 160 randomized subjects: 80 in each treatment group stratified by gender. The sample size estimate was chosen to achieve more than 90% power with a significance level of 0.05 2-sided to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment difference for the primary endpoint of DVD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.907||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.339|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||1.339|0.615|0.623
84513501|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.91|0.60|0.005
84513502|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for scant discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||2.30|0.33|0.780
84513503|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.33||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for moderate discharge amount (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||5.33|0.75|0.164
84513504|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.17||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for large amount of discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multvariable logistic regression model.||5.17|0.23|0.919
84540801|NCT03718832|168832723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0377244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6523585||0.9539117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.244338|1.319787||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.319787|-1.244338|0.9539117
84715676|NCT05194956|169177902|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.12||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-0.12|-6.69|0.0439
84715677|NCT05194956|169177902|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.3878|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3878
84715678|NCT05194956|169177902|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9772|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9772
84715679|NCT05194956|169177903|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|17.79||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||17.79|1.50|0.0213
84715680|NCT05194956|169177903|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1583
84540802|NCT03718832|168832724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1045328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1417549||0.4612408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3830955|0.1740299||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1740299|-0.3830955|0.4612408
84715681|NCT05194956|169177903|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.4709|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4709
84715682|NCT05194956|169177904|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.46||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||9.46|1.09|0.0146
84715683|NCT05194956|169177904|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.5911|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5911
84715684|NCT05194956|169177904|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5825
84715685|NCT05194956|169177905|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|0.69||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-11.12|0.0817
84513505|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||3.30|1.00|0.051
84715686|NCT05194956|169177905|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0910
84715687|NCT05194956|169177905|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.2278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2278
84513506|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|22.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 1 or more new sex partners in the last 30 days (reference category is 0) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||22.74|0.86|0.076
84513507|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1||A priori threshold fors tatistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or sex for money, drugs, or other things (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||1.10|0.13|0.075
84540803|NCT03718832|168832724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0552724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181649||0.6401864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874987|0.176954||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.176954|-0.2874987|0.6401864
84513508|NCT00322465|168779822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for visit due to sexually transmitted disease contact (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||7.98|1.93|<0.001
84715688|NCT05194956|169177906|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.69|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-5.17|0.1347
84513509|NCT00322465|168779823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.66|0.06|0.009
84715689|NCT05194956|169177906|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9259
84513510|NCT00322465|168779823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.22||A priori threshold for statistical signficance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or for money, drugs, or other things(reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||6.22|0.92|0.074
84513511|NCT00322465|168779824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|No other independent variables were included in the model.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that the odds ratio is greater than or less than 1.||0.98|0.66|0.032
84513512|NCT04934722|168779862|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.34|0.24|
84513513|NCT04934722|168779863|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.01|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||6.01|0.30|
84513514|NCT04934722|168779864|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.63|0.50|
84513515|NCT04934722|168779866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|30.29|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||30.29|0.33|
84513516|NCT04934722|168779867|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.07|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||4.07|0.11|
84513517|NCT04934722|168779868|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.9|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.90|0.73|
84715690|NCT05194956|169177906|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.8225|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8225
84513518|NCT04934722|168779869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||7.34|0.42|
84513519|NCT04934722|168779870|OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.0|-12.6|
84513520|NCT04934722|168779871|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.7|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.7|-15.0|
84513521|NCT04934722|168779872|OTHER||Percent difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|27.1|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||27.1|-12.5|
84513522|NCT01149473|168779877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|98.1|
84540493|NCT00879086|168831966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-16.7|||=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|2.4||The two treatment groups were compared, controlling for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (less than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||2.4|-36.1|=0.0941
84513523|NCT01149473|168779878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|98.8|
84540804|NCT03718832|168832724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2761332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593125||0.2874913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7857084|0.2334419||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2334419|-0.7857084|0.2874913
84540494|NCT00879086|168831967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-18.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.3||Controlled for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||-0.3|-36.0|0.0492
84513524|NCT01149473|168779879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|98.6|
84513525|NCT01149473|168779880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|98.8|
84513526|NCT01149473|168779881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
84513527|NCT01149473|168779882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.7|
84513528|NCT00834249|168779885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84513529|NCT00834249|168779886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84513530|NCT00834249|168779887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.71||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84715691|NCT05194956|169177907|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Median Difference (Net)|-11.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-1.83||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-1.83|-20.47|0.0200
84513531|NCT00834249|168779888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|109.61||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
84540495|NCT02969044|168831977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.79|||ANCOVA|||||-3.79|-14.75|<0.001
84715692|NCT05194956|169177907|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9104
84513532|NCT00834249|168779889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.85||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational puposes only.|||||
84513533|NCT00834249|168779890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.38||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
84513534|NCT00829673|168779900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.82||||||90.0|100.24|115.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.98|100.24|
84513535|NCT00829673|168779901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.74||||||90.0|97.3|104.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.29|97.3|
84540496|NCT01330303|168832003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.89||||||90.0|94.91|109.39|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.39|94.91|
84513536|NCT00829673|168779902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.5||||||90.0|97.09|104.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.03|97.09|
84513537|NCT02246166|168779919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||0.83|-0.77|0.9473
84513538|NCT02246166|168779920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.86|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatme|||0.86|-1.23|0.7210
84513539|NCT02246166|168779921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.49|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.||||1.49|-1.07|0.7445
84513540|NCT02246166|168779922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.78|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate||||1.78|-1.32|0.7662
84513541|NCT02246166|168779923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||2.29|-1.18|0.5208
84513542|NCT02246166|168779924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||1.94|-1.71|0.8993
84513543|NCT00834743|168779934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.49||||||90.0|90.65|109.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.18|90.65|
84715693|NCT05194956|169177907|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5194|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5194
84513544|NCT00834743|168779935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|91.44|107.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.19|91.44|
84513545|NCT00834743|168779936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|90.57|108.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.32|90.57|
84513546|NCT02331394|168779949|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence assumes that the true mean difference between the paired samples is zero. Under this model, all observable differences are explained by random variation.Equality margins are:~Upper Equivalence Margin=1.5 Lower Equivalence Margin=-1.5"|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of repeated measures were made using paired sample t test, which compared subjects data at 2 different times: baseline and end of the study. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||<0.05
84513547|NCT02331394|168779952|SUPERIORITY|Pared t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the change in scores||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84513548|NCT01371786|168779953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-4.09||No formal statistical testing was conducted. Only descriptive statistics were calculated and presented.|||Difference calculated as Mometasone minus Ciclesonide|No formal null hypothesis was stated or tested.Descriptive statistics only were calculated and presented. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations. The sample size of 10 subjects was sufficient to provide approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% between the two treatment groups in the percentage of nasal deposition approximately 2 minutes post dose, assuming a two-sided test evaluated at a significance level of 0.05, with a SD of the difference of 23.17%.||-4.09|-21.76|
84513549|NCT00552669|168779962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We used One way annalysis of a variance for means and standard deviation.||||<0.05
84513550|NCT00552669|168779963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on our previous data the incidence of relevant clinical events was similar in both groups (ERACI III and ORAR II)||||0.05
84513551|NCT00552669|168779964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"power calculation 80% Hypothesis: No significant diferences between Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) between both groups.~All events will be recorded and an independent blind for groups clinical events committee will adjudicate each one."||||<0.05
84513552|NCT04459585|168779976|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.57|161.35|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||161.35|77.57|
84513553|NCT04459585|168779976|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|165.34|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||165.34|77.20|
84715694|NCT05194956|169177908|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.71|-15.75||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-15.75|-30.71|<0.00005
84715695|NCT05194956|169177908|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1369|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1369
84715696|NCT05194956|169177908|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3366
84513554|NCT04459585|168779977|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.51|157.97|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||157.97|78.51|
84513555|NCT04459585|168779977|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.35|159.51|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.51|77.35|
84513556|NCT04459585|168779978|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.38|160.79|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||160.79|79.38|
84513557|NCT04459585|168779978|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|159.68|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.68|76.77|
84513558|NCT02459951|168779998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||"refer to cylinder A (.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.059
84513559|NCT02459951|168779998|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio B|||||0.465|||||||Regression, Logistic|"refer to cylinder B(1 diameter)"||||||0.465
84513560|NCT02459951|168779998|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio C|||||0.022||||||"refer to cylinder C (1.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.022
84513561|NCT02459951|168779998|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio D|||||0.004||||||"refer to cylinder D (2 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
84513562|NCT02459951|168779998|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio E|||||0.002||||||"refer to cylinder E (2.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.002
84513563|NCT00252720|168780003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.312|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.312|0.800|0.8487
84513564|NCT02819323|168780043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84513565|NCT02819323|168780043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84513566|NCT02819323|168780043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
84513567|NCT02819323|168780043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
84513568|NCT01265056|168780119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84513569|NCT01265056|168780119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.04
84513570|NCT01265056|168780120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.8
84513571|NCT01265056|168780121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
84513572|NCT01416584|168780122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.83|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.83|0.40|0.60
84513573|NCT01416584|168780122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.73|0.32|0.88
84513574|NCT01416584|168780122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.46|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.46|0.36|0.64
84513575|NCT01416584|168780123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
84513576|NCT01416584|168780123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.57|0.34|0.39
84513577|NCT01416584|168780123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.26|1.53|0.10
84513578|NCT01416584|168780124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.38|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.38|0.36|0.02
84513579|NCT01416584|168780124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
84513580|NCT01416584|168780124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.66|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.66|0.20|0.85
84513581|NCT01416584|168780125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.35|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.35|0.34|0.01
84513582|NCT01416584|168780125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.44|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.44|0.39|0.03
84513583|NCT01416584|168780125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.69|0.42|0.63
84513584|NCT01416584|168780126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.40|0.39|0.01
84513585|NCT01416584|168780126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.55|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.55|0.36|0.37
84513586|NCT01416584|168780126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.00|0.28|0.05
84513587|NCT01985308|168780157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84513588|NCT00762307|168780214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|22.4||||||||22.4|14.9|
84513589|NCT00762307|168780216|OTHER||sucess percentage|91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
84513590|NCT00939003|168780221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84513591|NCT00939003|168780222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84513592|NCT00939003|168780223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84513593|NCT00939003|168780224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
84513594|NCT00939003|168780225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
84513595|NCT00939003|168780228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84513596|NCT00939003|168780229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.027
84513597|NCT00939003|168780230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
84513598|NCT00939003|168780231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
84513599|NCT00939003|168780232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
84513600|NCT03707912|168780242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84513601|NCT03707912|168780243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84513602|NCT03707912|168780244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84513603|NCT03707912|168780244|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.98|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.98
84513604|NCT03707912|168780245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84513605|NCT03707912|168780246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84513606|NCT03707912|168780246|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.75|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.75
84513607|NCT03707912|168780247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 comparison.||||0.89
84513608|NCT03707912|168780247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 comparison.||||0.75
84513609|NCT03707912|168780247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3 comparison.||||0.34
84513610|NCT03707912|168780248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
84513611|NCT02934347|168780249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Grades analysed were 1, 2 and then 3 and 4 combined because of low frequencies in the latter two grades|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared for trend||Null hypothesis: no difference in frequency of grade of glottic view between the supine and back-up positions||||>0.05
84513612|NCT02934347|168780250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||||||<0.01
84513613|NCT02934347|168780251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84513614|NCT02934347|168780252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84513615|NCT00486863|168780253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
84513616|NCT00486863|168780254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
84513617|NCT00486863|168780255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.926
84513618|NCT00486863|168780256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
84513619|NCT00486863|168780257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
84513620|NCT00486863|168780258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
84513621|NCT00486863|168780259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
84513622|NCT00486863|168780260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the cord blood.||||0.524
84715697|NCT05194956|169177909|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-120.0|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.54|-90.38|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-90.38|-149.54|<0.00005
84715698|NCT05194956|169177909|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8509|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8509
84513623|NCT00486863|168780260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the heel stick.||||0.070
84715699|NCT05194956|169177909|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0355
84715700|NCT01828099|169177935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.42|<0.001
84513624|NCT00486863|168780261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84513625|NCT00486863|168780266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.991
84513626|NCT00355797|168780277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|15.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint will compare the composite percent change in ADL performance for patients while their devices are programmed to CLS and accelerometer pacing modes, using the no rate adaptive pacing mode as the baseline. Null hypothesis: mean composite of percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is less than or equal to the mean composite of percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||15.11|3.24|0.004
84513627|NCT00355797|168780284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.74||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||3.33|-6.17|0.552
84513628|NCT00355797|168780284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.34||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device without rate adaptative pacing.||7.63|-3.80|0.505
84513629|NCT03612960|168780301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||||The mean percent change in BOLD signal used for this t-test was extracted from a brain cluster with significant group differences in changes in activation over time (voxel p\<.05, cluster p\<.05) identified using a whole-brain, voxel-wise two-way mixed effect ANOVA with FSL software.|0.43|0.14|<.001
84513630|NCT03612960|168780302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-17.24|.063
84513631|NCT03612960|168780303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|18.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.82|-21.57|0.890
84513632|NCT00272779|168780304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.1||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 48 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||7.1|-3.8|
84540805|NCT03718832|168832724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.155843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2092772||0.4568601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56713|0.2554439||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2554439|-0.56713|0.4568601
84478406|NCT01021813|168708317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|-2.4||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||1.6|-7.3|0.185
84478407|NCT01021813|168708317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|-0.78||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.9|-5.6|0.680
84478408|NCT01021813|168708317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Across Nights|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms across Nights 1, 2, and 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||6.4|-6.4|1.000
84478409|NCT01021813|168708318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|5.03||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.8|-5.8|0.365
84513633|NCT00272779|168780305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||8.1|-1.5|
84513634|NCT00272779|168780308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|3.1|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||3.1|-35.9|
84715701|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.69|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.69|0.40|<0.001
84539769|NCT02839772|168829526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.952||A cumulative logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald Chi squared=3.138, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of the stage of podoconiosis by group being more severe at the 4th visit."||0.952|-0.048|0.076
84715702|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.61|0.35|<0.001
84715703|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.48|0.28|<0.001
84715704|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.17|0.66|0.38
84715705|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.93|0.52|0.013
84715706|NCT01922050|169177985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.07|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.07|0.58|0.13
84715707|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.04|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.04|0.27|0.57
84715708|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.33||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.13|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||3.13|0.56|0.51
84715709|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.21|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.21|0.86|0.11
84715710|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.43|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.43|0.72|0.21
84715711|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.55||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.98|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||5.98|1.09|0.031
84715712|NCT01922050|169177986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.43||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.75|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.75|0.74|0.29
84715713|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.69||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.69|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.69|1.06|0.026
84715714|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.84|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.84|1.13|0.013
84715715|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.25|||Log binomial regression|||||3.25|1.35|<0.001
84715716|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||||1.47|0.76|0.73
84715717|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Log binomial regression|||||1.67|0.92|0.16
84540806|NCT03718832|168832725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0539315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0267347||0.0442418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0013953|0.1064678||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1064678|0.0013953|0.0442418
84715718|NCT01922050|169177987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.17||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||1.57|0.87|0.30
84715719|NCT04568434|169178075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.5|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.085|-17.921||ANCOVA model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-17.921|-69.085|=0.0009
84715720|NCT04568434|169178075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-22.37|||=|0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|2.463||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.463|-47.200|=0.0775
84715721|NCT04568434|169178076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.81|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.928|-13.692||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.692|-73.928|=0.0044
84715722|NCT04568434|169178076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.39|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.663|-28.119||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.119|-90.663|=0.0002
84715723|NCT04568434|169178077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.634|-48.32||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-48.320|-82.634|<0.0001
84715724|NCT04568434|169178077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.553|-52.837||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-52.837|-94.553|<0.0001
84715725|NCT04568434|169178077|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-77.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.938|-55.177||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-55.177|-98.938|<0.0001
84715726|NCT04568434|169178077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-81.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.656|-57.894||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-57.894|-104.656|<0.0001
84715727|NCT04568434|169178079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.29|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.612|16.041||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||16.041|-82.612|=0.1860
84715728|NCT04568434|169178079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-83.97|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.949|-30.982||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||-30.982|-136.949|=0.0019
84715729|NCT04568434|169178079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.9|||=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.254|47.459||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||47.459|-113.254|=0.4219
84715730|NCT04568434|169178079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-75.63|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.195|1.927||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||1.927|-153.195|=0.0560
84715731|NCT04568434|169178080|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.69|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.571|-0.801||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-0.801|-34.571|=0.0401
84715732|NCT04568434|169178080|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.2|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.484|-7.911||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-7.911|-40.484|=0.0036
84715733|NCT04568434|169178080|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.84|||=|0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-6.198||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-6.198|-53.490|=0.0134
84715734|NCT04568434|169178080|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.108|-16.292||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-16.292|-63.108|=0.0009
84715735|NCT04568434|169178081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.1|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.506||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.506|0.020|=0.0052
84540807|NCT03718832|168832725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0546574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272506||0.0454857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0011025|0.1082124||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1082124|0.0011025|0.0454857
84540497|NCT01330303|168832004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.91||||||90.0|95.0|109.33|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.33|95.00|
84539770|NCT02839772|168829527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.224||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.917||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used.|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=0.410, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of mossy changes being present in the lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit."||0.917|-0.469|0.527
84478410|NCT01021813|168708318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|8.72||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||19.2|-2.0|0.109
84478411|NCT01021813|168708318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|6.02||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||16.9|-5.1|0.287
84715736|NCT04568434|169178082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.12|||=|0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.656||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.656|0.022|=0.0144
84715737|NCT04568434|169178083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.709||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.709|0.028|=0.0174
84715738|NCT04568434|169178084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.16|||=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.85||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.850|0.031|=0.0314
84715739|NCT04568434|169178087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.669||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.669|0.029|=0.0137
84715740|NCT04568434|169178088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.2|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.986||Regression model:treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.986|0.040|=0.0480
84715741|NCT05469464|169178090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-18.2|0.505
84715742|NCT05469464|169178090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.3|||ANCOVA|||||12.3|-15.8|0.812
84715743|NCT05469464|169178090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-24.6|0.118
84715744|NCT04911296|169178263|OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
84715745|NCT04911296|169178264|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
84715746|NCT01236781|169178277|EQUIVALENCE|no margin is assumed.||||||0.46||||||1 degree of freedom;|McNemar|Exact test||"To account for the paired nature of the design, McNemar's test will be used to compare the call-back rates.~H0: assumes no difference between the tests (modalities)"||||0.46
84715747|NCT01236781|169178280|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin||||||0.2188||||||Due to the paired nature of the data an exact McNemar's Test is used|McNemar|Exact test||H0: no difference between the 2 modalities||||0.2188
84715748|NCT04587453|169178284|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Responders were considered those meeting an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||22.5|-11.2|
84715749|NCT04587453|169178285|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|33.0|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with 75% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||33.0|-2.9|
84715750|NCT04587453|169178286|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|2.3|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||2.3|-12.4|
84715751|NCT04587453|169178287|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||||ANCOVA. Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||0.5|-2.7|
84715752|NCT04587453|169178288|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least a reduction of 4 in the worst daily pruritus NRS score were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data at Week 16 were imputed as non-responders.||14.2|-21.7|
84715753|NCT04587453|169178289|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|33.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with a reduction of 90% in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||33.2|-3.0|
84715754|NCT04587453|169178290|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|20.3|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least 50% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||20.3|-9.0|
84539771|NCT02839772|168829528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|-0.411||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=8.304, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of participants having a bad odour emanating from their lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit. Bad odour results in a decease in quality of life."||-0.411|-2.161|0.031
84539772|NCT02839772|168829529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.514||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=7.745, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of wounds being present on the lower legs/feet of participants by group at the 4th visit."||3.514|0.610|0.005
84539773|NCT02839772|168829530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group ratio estimate|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.058|TWO_SIDED|0.058|-0.069|4.25||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used.|Generalized estimation equation|df=1|Those in the experimental group were expected to have fewer work days lost due to ADL.|"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds by group of having had fewer work days lost in the previous month at the 4th visit due to ADL."||4.250|-0.069|0.058
84715755|NCT04587453|169178291|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|6.3|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||6.3|-14.9|
84715756|NCT04587453|169178292|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.8|-0.7|
84539774|NCT02839772|168829531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was \< 0.001 at all time points.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|The correlation at the 1st visit was 0.252, at the 2nd 0.306, at the 3rd 0.291 and at the 4th 0.265.||The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.||||<0.001
84539775|NCT02839772|168829532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=185.386||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in leg circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.690|-0.113|0.158
84715757|NCT04587453|169178293|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 1 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.6|-0.9|
84715758|NCT04587453|169178294|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.9|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||-0.9|-5.6|
84715759|NCT05309291|169178331|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for λ FLC RR can be expressed as: Ho: μT-μR ≤ -3.783. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -3.783 where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|19.15|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the λ FLC RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||19.15|14.84|<0.0001
84715760|NCT05309291|169178332|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for ß2-MG RR can be expressed as Ho: μT-μR ≤ -7.848. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -7.848, where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the β2-MG RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||0.16|-2.54|<0.0001
84715761|NCT03221426|169178371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.01501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.98|0.67|0.01501
84715762|NCT03221426|169178372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|15.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)||||15.3|8.0|<0.00001
84715763|NCT03221426|169178373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||1.06|0.71|0.07503
84715764|NCT03221426|169178378|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification|||1.03|0.65|0.04125
84715765|NCT03221426|169178379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.04493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|||1.03|0.71|0.04493
84715766|NCT03221426|169178380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.00589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.95|0.67|0.00589
84715767|NCT03526887|169178401|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|19.1|||Log Rank|||||19.1|9.4|0.016
84715768|NCT04005794|169178420|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Social latency t = 3.215|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84715769|NCT04005794|169178421|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.213
84715770|NCT04005794|169178422|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84715771|NCT04005794|169178423|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84715772|NCT04005794|169178424|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84715773|NCT00104676|169178429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||To detect an absolute difference of 20% in progression-free survival at 3-years between Arm I and Unfav-Dose-Dense Arm II (46% versus 66%) with the possibility that 80 events (progressive disease and death) may be observed during this period, a total of 196 participants, 98 per group needed to be included, with an additional 25% of patients for a total of 260 participants required.||1.00|0.44|0.05
84715774|NCT00104676|169178430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||||1.31|0.46|0.34
84715775|NCT05622812|169178431|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|56.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||56.5|21.6|<0.001
84715776|NCT05622812|169178432|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|57.6||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||57.6|23.1|<0.001
84715777|NCT05622812|169178432|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||57.8|25.6|<0.001
84715778|NCT05622812|169178432|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|47.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||47.1|13.2|0.003
84715779|NCT05622812|169178433|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|99.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||100.0|97.1|<0.001
84715780|NCT05622812|169178433|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|98.2||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||98.2|76.9|<0.001
84715781|NCT05622812|169178433|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|92.4||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||92.4|68.6|<0.001
84715782|NCT05622812|169178433|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|85.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||85.5|61.9|<0.001
84715783|NCT05622812|169178434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|93.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.2|98.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||98.0|88.2|<0.001
84715784|NCT05622812|169178434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|94.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||94.3|81.4|<0.001
84715785|NCT05622812|169178434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|88.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||88.1|72.7|<0.001
84715786|NCT05622812|169178434|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|80.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||80.3|62.8|<0.001
84715787|NCT02589795|169178475|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of subjects with primary safety outcomes were compared in a pairwise manner between the three randomised groups, using Fisher's exact tests.||||>0.05
84715788|NCT02589795|169178476|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons||Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons to compare the levels of antigen-specific serum IgG in the three groups at Week 22.||||>0.05
84715789|NCT04909801|169178494|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9026
84715790|NCT04909801|169178495|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.5824
84715791|NCT04909801|169178496|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534||95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.5|0.3534
84715792|NCT04909801|169178497|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.6140
84715793|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.5|0.4996
84715794|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4490
84715795|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.5|0.8090
84715796|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.9||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||3.6|0.9|0.0739
84715797|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.4201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.6|0.7|0.4201
84715798|NCT04909801|169178499|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||2.0|0.6|0.7928
84715799|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.4|0.2701
84540808|NCT03718832|168832725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0076781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188378||0.683764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0293401|0.0446963||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0446963|-0.0293401|0.683764
84539776|NCT02839772|168829533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=169.916, t=3.550||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in foot circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.895|0.255|<0.001
84715800|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4863
84715801|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.9513
84715802|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.6|0.8536
84715803|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.6|0.9223
84715804|NCT04909801|169178500|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.6|0.9026
84715805|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.6|0.2|0.3411
84715806|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.3|0.4|0.2546
84715807|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.5|0.4558
84715808|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.6|0.9544
84715809|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.4|0.5|0.5450
84715810|NCT04909801|169178501|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.4|0.2227
84715811|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.3|0.3200
84715812|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.4992
84715813|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.8963
84715814|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.5|0.4544
84715815|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.6|0.8985
84715816|NCT04909801|169178502|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.5824
84715817|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||4.1|0.6|0.4152
84715818|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.5|0.6|0.5917
84715819|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.6|0.7|0.3348
84715820|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.4|0.3959
84715821|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.7|0.6225
84715822|NCT04909801|169178503|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.6140
84715823|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.4|0.8084
84539777|NCT02839772|168829534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-0.117, df=178.814||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Podoconiosis has a large effect on a person's quality of life. abnormal looking legs/feet, wounds and the related bad odour plus social isolation result in stigma and social isolation.."||1.002|-1.129|0.907
84539778|NCT01526655|168829535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Main effect over time p\<0.001; Interaction effect p=0.65. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.011
84715824|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.3|0.5|0.7470
84539779|NCT01526655|168829536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p 0.02.~Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-values): hsCRP time 4 p 0.02; hsCRP time 5 p \<0.001.|||0.03
84539780|NCT01526655|168829537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.0001.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): WBC time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||<0.01
84539781|NCT01526655|168829538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): IL-6 time 3 p \< 0.01.|||0.03
84513635|NCT00272779|168780330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 96 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||12.0|0.3|
84513636|NCT00272779|168780331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||10.6|-0.4|
84513637|NCT00272779|168780333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|0.9|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||0.9|-43.3|
84513638|NCT00272779|168780349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.507|1.142|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.142|0.507|
84715825|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.3|0.7|0.5233
84513639|NCT00272779|168780350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|2.121|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||2.121|1.005|
84513640|NCT00272779|168780351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.612|
84513641|NCT00272779|168780352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.181|0.439|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||0.439|0.181|
84513642|NCT00272779|168780353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.223|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.223|0.699|
84715826|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.5|0.7295
84513643|NCT00272779|168780354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.626|1.161|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.161|0.626|
84715827|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.6|0.7621
84513644|NCT00272779|168780355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.689|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.689|
84513645|NCT00272779|168780379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting non-HDL cholesterol (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0847
84513646|NCT00272779|168780380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
84539782|NCT01526655|168829539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): CK time 4 p \< 0.0001.|||0.03
84715828|NCT04909801|169178504|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.5|0.6861
84715829|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.2|0.5|0.3117
84715830|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.6120
84715831|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.3|0.5|0.4339
84513647|NCT00272779|168780381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_2265 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_2265 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
84513648|NCT00272779|168780382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_598 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_598 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0253
84513649|NCT00272779|168780383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the APOE\_C130R genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_C130R reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
84539783|NCT01526655|168829540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): cortisol time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||0.06
84539784|NCT01526655|168829541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84539785|NCT01526655|168829542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84715832|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.6|0.8|0.1963
84715833|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.3|0.8|0.3275
84715834|NCT04909801|169178505|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.6|0.9113
84540498|NCT01330303|168832005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.04||||||90.0|86.33|102.44|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||102.44|86.33|
84513650|NCT00272779|168780384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_734 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_734 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
84513651|NCT00272779|168780385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting PAI-1 (phenotype) and the APOE\_R176C genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_R176C reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1847
84513652|NCT00272779|168780386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis:There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-alpha (phenotype) and the IL6\_5309 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, wk48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (ie. an omnibus test on both marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with IL6\_5309 reported in Outcome Measure 16||||0.1833
84513653|NCT00272779|168780387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting TNF-alpha (phenotype) and the RS11030679 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1833
84539786|NCT01965860|168829613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"Prior to the study a power analysis was performed to calculate the number of participants required in each of the three groups. Previous work comparing OSATS derived scores in endovascular interventions shows a Cohen D of two. Using a of .05, a power of .80, and an expected dropout rate of 10%, the minimum number of surgical trainees required per group was seven.~Null hypothesis for primary outcome: no difference in technical performance during real life procedures between the three groups"||||0.001
84539787|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.003
84539788|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.001
84715835|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.4|0.1247
84715836|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.5656
84513654|NCT00272779|168780388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1694||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in SAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDC122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDC122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1694
84513655|NCT00272779|168780389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the BRUNOL\_1842 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with BRUNOL\_1842 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
84513656|NCT00272779|168780390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the RETN\_730 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_730 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
84715837|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.8970
84539789|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.228
84715838|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.7|0.9175
84513657|NCT00272779|168780391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDA122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDA122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1696
84539790|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.001
84513658|NCT02440711|168780392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at slow walking speed||||.18
84513659|NCT02440711|168780392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at comfortable walking speed||||.21
84513660|NCT02440711|168780392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at fast walking speed||||.16
84513661|NCT02440711|168780394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
84513662|NCT02440711|168780396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84539791|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.008
84513663|NCT02440711|168780398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
84513664|NCT02440711|168780400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
84539792|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.164
84513665|NCT02440711|168780402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step length results||||.14
84513666|NCT02440711|168780402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step length results||||<0.001
84513667|NCT02440711|168780404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step time results||||.61
84513668|NCT02440711|168780404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step time results||||.40
84513669|NCT02440711|168780406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
84513670|NCT02440711|168780408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84513671|NCT02440711|168780410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84513672|NCT02440711|168780412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84513673|NCT02440711|168780414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AR results||||0.002
84513674|NCT02440711|168780414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-FUN results||||<0.001
84513675|NCT02440711|168780414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AES results||||0.85
84513676|NCT03450057|168780422|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84513677|NCT03450057|168780423|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84513678|NCT03450057|168780424|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84513679|NCT03450057|168780425|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84539793|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
84513680|NCT03450057|168780426|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84513681|NCT03450057|168780427|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
84513682|NCT00829790|168780438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.49||||||90.0|109.25|119.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.98|109.25|
84513683|NCT00829790|168780439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|117.16||||||90.0|110.44|124.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||124.28|110.44|
84513684|NCT00829790|168780440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|116.7||||||90.0|109.89|123.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.92|109.89|
84513685|NCT00834418|168780486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.6|116.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116|99.6|
84513686|NCT00834418|168780487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|95.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|95.2|
84539794|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
84539795|NCT01965860|168829613|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.190
84715839|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.7|0.5996
84513687|NCT04567186|168780495|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.00 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.057|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Distance (4 meter)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.099|
84513688|NCT04567186|168780495|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold + 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.039|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Intermediate (64cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.039|-0.079|
84540809|NCT03718832|168832725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0053342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183059||0.7708852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0306419|0.0413103||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0413103|-0.0306419|0.7708852
84513689|NCT04567186|168780495|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.084|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Near (40cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.084|0.040|
84513690|NCT04567186|168780496|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower confidence limit of the least-square mean was above the threshold of 32 points.|Least-square Mean|55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.25|62.61|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||This study was powered to only test primary hypotheses.||62.61|49.25|
84513691|NCT04567186|168780496|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 5 points was used.|Least-square mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.893|-0.073|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|This study was powered for only the primary hypotheses.||-0.073|-5.893|
84715840|NCT04909801|169178506|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.3534
84715841|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.2|0.1641
84539796|NCT01895777|168829615|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 20%|Difference in Rates|-0.038|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.141|0.066||p-value for non-inferiority is actually \<0.0001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in rates (SOC - DE)|The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint used the randomised set, following the intention-to-treat principle, based on adjudication-confirmed data. Age group was used as stratification factor using a Mantel-Haenszel type weighted average of differences.||0.066|-0.141|= 0.0001
84715842|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.5905
84539797|NCT01895777|168829616|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.032|||Kaplan-Meier estimate||Kaplan-Meier estimate of rate difference.|Time-to event endpoint using Kaplan-Meier estimates based on adjudication-confirmed data. Due to the low event rate of major bleeding, age group stratification was not considered.||0.032|-0.032|
84513692|NCT00376623|168780500|OTHER|A one-sided exact binomial test with a 2.5 % significance level was used to detect the difference between BI 2536 and historical placebo with objective response rate = 0.9 % (two out of 211) with a 95 % confidence interval of 0.2 % to 3 %.||||||0.0548|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|Null hypothesis H0: p \<= 0.009 Alternative hypothesis HA: p \> 0.009||Efficacy of BI 2536 was evaluated by comparing the tumour response rate of the present trial with the tumour response rate published for patients with the same stage of disease treated with placebo. For this, treatment groups 'BI 2536 200 mg' and 'combination of treatment group 50 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3) and 60 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3)' were pooled together and compared to historical placebo.||||0.0548
84513693|NCT00376623|168780501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.55|0.67|0.92
84513694|NCT00376623|168780502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.78|0.7|0.65
84513695|NCT00376623|168780505|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.51|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.51|0.94|
84513696|NCT00376623|168780506|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||1.49|0.59|
84513697|NCT00376623|168780507|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.01|0.81|
84513698|NCT00904345|168780527|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84513699|NCT00904345|168780528|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84513700|NCT00904345|168780532|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
84513701|NCT03956862|168780567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||7.1|-7.6|0.9499
84513702|NCT03956862|168780568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.2|-1.8|0.6778
84513703|NCT03956862|168780569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.9|-0.7|0.7914
84513704|NCT03956862|168780570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.944||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.173|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.173|0.410|0.8916
84513705|NCT03956862|168780571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.459|-0.077|0.1635
84513706|NCT03956862|168780572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.632||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.544|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.544|-0.280|0.1742
84513707|NCT03956862|168780573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||3.4|-1.6|0.4851
84513708|NCT03956862|168780574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.178|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.178|0.136|0.3898
84513709|NCT01513174|168780601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.92|||Log Rank||||The initial hypothesis estimated that the median PFS for the gefitinib group would be 10 months, while the median PFS for the gefitinib/olaparib group would be 16 months, which implied a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.6.|1.92|1.00|0.124
84513710|NCT01513174|168780602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.845|||Log Rank|||||1.845|0.806|0.3455
84513711|NCT00850174|168780604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.48||||||90.0|88.98|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.00|88.98|
84513712|NCT00850174|168780605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.54||||||90.0|99.19|106.01|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.01|99.19|
84715843|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.7146
84513713|NCT00850174|168780606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.19||||||90.0|98.78|105.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.71|98.78|
84513714|NCT00850174|168780607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.77||||||90.0|97.03|104.65|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to Bioequivalence criteria.|||104.65|97.03|
84513715|NCT00850174|168780608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.75|102.18|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.18|97.75|
84513716|NCT00850174|168780609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.5|102.15|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.15|97.50|
84513717|NCT01363765|168780612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.87||NR were calculated using an aggregated database consisting of 896 strata for laboratory (n=14), study month (n=8), sex (n=2) and age group (n=4: \<15, 15-39, 40-59, and \>=60 years). Poisson regression modeling was used to analyze changes in TB TB NR|Clustered Avareged|Adjustment for municipality, age, sex, and baseline proportion of samples with a positive smear was by a population-averaged quasi-likelihood approach|"The numbers reported in the CONSORT flowchart refer to the diagnostic samples. NR were obtained crosslinking lab and notification databases, denominator was population/year."|cluster-averaged NNR=1.59 (CI95% 1.31-1.88) Absolute numbers informed in table do not allow calculation of notification rates; they are based on population size, not in total numbers and percentages||1.87|1.32|<0.01
84715844|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.7|0.7416
84715845|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.5|0.6|0.9026
84715846|NCT04909801|169178507|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.5|0.2605
84715847|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.3|0.1078
84513718|NCT01363765|168780612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed multi-level model, time-adjusted||Secondary analysis: Mixed multi-level model||1.92|1.51|<0.001
84513719|NCT01363765|168780613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|-84.07||||||95.0||||||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per case detected||||||
84513720|NCT01363765|168780614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.98||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR (notification rate ratio, not calculable from number shown, which are a proportion of tests. NRR calculated over a population/year denominator.|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||1.32|0.64|0.923
84513721|NCT01363765|168780615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||0.84|0.21|0.004
84513722|NCT02251886|168780622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Chi-squared|||||1.76|0.77|0.48
84715848|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.2|0.4|0.1855
84513723|NCT02251886|168780622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.69|1.00
84513724|NCT00836056|168780697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.75||||||90.0|91.5|104.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.42|91.50|
84715849|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.6|0.5223
84513725|NCT00836056|168780698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.77||||||90.0|91.4|102.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.46|91.40|
84513726|NCT00836056|168780699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.96||||||90.0|90.77|101.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.46|90.77|
84513727|NCT01790581|168780715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in balance scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for all three reach distances (Anterior, Posteriomedial, Posteriolateral) using a MANOVA.||||.904
84513728|NCT01790581|168780717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in disability scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for both disability scores (FAAM, FAAM-S) using a MANOVA.||||.5
84513729|NCT02779543|168780721|EQUIVALENCE|this trial compared the 2 devices to the polysomnography, which is the gold standard|Mean value|368.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
84513730|NCT02779543|168780722|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
84513731|NCT02779543|168780723|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|106.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
84513732|NCT02779543|168780724|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|74.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
84513733|NCT03880266|168780789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.60|-3.76|0.244
84478412|NCT01021813|168708318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|10.82||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|21.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||21.7|-0.3|0.057
84715850|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.3|0.5|0.4078
84715851|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.7|0.5238
84715852|NCT04909801|169178508|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.4740
84478413|NCT01021813|168708319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|4.46||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||14.5|-5.7|0.386
84513734|NCT03880266|168780789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.43|-0.65|0.168
84513735|NCT03880266|168780789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.72|-2.39|0.699
84513736|NCT03880266|168780789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-1.94|0.833
84513737|NCT03880266|168780790|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84715853|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.5|0.6565
84513738|NCT03880266|168780790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
84513739|NCT03880266|168780790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
84513740|NCT03880266|168780790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
84513741|NCT03880266|168780791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-206.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.9|38.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38.9|-451.9|0.093
84513742|NCT03880266|168780791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|144.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|366.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||366.7|-78.6|0.186
84513743|NCT03880266|168780791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-309.0|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-309.0|0.058
84513744|NCT03880266|168780791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.6||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.2|290.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||290.1|-611.2|0.186
84513745|NCT03880266|168780792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.62||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.42|11.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.17|-78.42|0.130
84513746|NCT03880266|168780792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.26||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.62|103.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||103.13|-54.62|0.518
84513747|NCT03880266|168780792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.14||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-78.32|0.061
84513748|NCT03880266|168780792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.4|49.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||49.72|-128.40|0.366
84513749|NCT03880266|168780793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
84513750|NCT03880266|168780793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.560
84513751|NCT03880266|168780793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84513752|NCT03880266|168780793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.290
84513753|NCT00467896|168780855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.55|60.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in inhalation-times rate from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||60.15|39.55|<0.0001
84513754|NCT03772522|168780856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.384||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.428
84513755|NCT03772522|168780856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.46||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.058
84513756|NCT03772522|168780856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-month post-intervention.||||0.095
84513757|NCT03772522|168780856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.005
84513758|NCT03772522|168780856|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.022
84513759|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.792||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the physical component of the CIS.||||0.002
84513760|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.047||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the psychological component of the CIS.||||0.923
84513761|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.18
84513762|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.388
84715854|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.1|0.6|0.7010
84513763|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.52||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.037
84513764|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.09||||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.688
84513765|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.038
84513766|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.956
84513767|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.32||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.197
84513768|NCT03772522|168780857|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.07||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.762
84513769|NCT03772522|168780858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.101||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.834
84513770|NCT03772522|168780858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.19||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.417
84513771|NCT03772522|168780858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.087
84513772|NCT03772522|168780858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.168
84715855|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.1|0.8|0.3683
84715856|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.7|0.6372
84513773|NCT03772522|168780858|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.133
84513774|NCT03772522|168780859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.161||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.026
84715857|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.8|0.2922
84715858|NCT04909801|169178509|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.7|0.8178
84715859|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.2|0.4|0.9599
84513775|NCT03772522|168780859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.014
84513776|NCT03772522|168780859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.29||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.217
84715860|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.7|0.5|0.7899
84715861|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.9|0.7|0.6305
84715862|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.0|0.8|0.3491
84513777|NCT03772522|168780859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.006
84513778|NCT03772522|168780859|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.53||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.039
84513779|NCT03818581|168780865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||SPCD analysis|||||||0.15
84513780|NCT01281501|168780895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the treatment with pantoprazole arm is not different in immediate relief of acute, severe dyspeptic pain compared with conventional arm.||7.4|-12.7|0.6
84513781|NCT02996591|168780917|OTHER||generalized estimating equations method|45.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.038
84513782|NCT02996591|168780917|OTHER|Bang blinding index|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang Blinding Index|95% confidence interval||||||<.001
84513783|NCT01980771|168780946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.43|1.03|0.04
84715863|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.7|0.4916
84513784|NCT00418561|168780993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.0737
84513785|NCT00418561|168780994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1115
84513786|NCT00418561|168780996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1268
84513787|NCT02322593|168781013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.039
84715864|NCT04909801|169178510|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.8|0.7|0.5697
84513788|NCT02322593|168781014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0045
84513789|NCT02322593|168781015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.70|0.011
84513790|NCT02322593|168781016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84513791|NCT02322593|168781017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
84513792|NCT04274686|168781020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.7|||Paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in percent air leakage||10.7|-7.0|0.667
84513793|NCT04274686|168781021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.9|||Paired t-test|||||2.90|-0.70|0.218
84715865|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|-0.0|0.0977
84513794|NCT04274686|168781022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Paired t-test|||||0.2|-0.5|0.455
84513795|NCT03020615|168781045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84513796|NCT03020615|168781048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitley), two-sided|||||||0.0005
84513797|NCT03020615|168781050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.011
84715866|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.5|-0.1|0.2889
84715867|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.3|0.7676
84715868|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.6157
84513798|NCT03020615|168781051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
84513799|NCT03020615|168781054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0009
84513800|NCT03020615|168781056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0004
84513801|NCT03020615|168781058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.75
84513802|NCT03020615|168781060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0013
84513803|NCT03020615|168781061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84513804|NCT00089661|168781077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.8|6.3|||ANCOVA|||||6.3|4.8|<0.0001
84513805|NCT02481830|168781101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.72|0.1144
84513806|NCT02481830|168781102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.66|||||Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin using Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.66|1.16|
84513807|NCT02481830|168781103|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin) using Mantel-Haenszel method|||1.24|0.49|
84513808|NCT02481830|168781104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.73|
84513809|NCT04627038|168781105|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.51|
84513810|NCT04627038|168781106|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.96|-0.07|
84513811|NCT04627038|168781107|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.72|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.72|-0.24|
84513812|NCT04627038|168781108|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.20|0.39|
84513813|NCT04627038|168781109|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.28|-0.48|
84513814|NCT04627038|168781110|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.32|
84513815|NCT04627038|168781111|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|13.56|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||13.56|-1.05|
84513816|NCT04627038|168781112|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.14|
84513817|NCT04627038|168781113|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.74|165.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||165.52|-166.74|
84513818|NCT04627038|168781114|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.06|-0.09|
84513819|NCT02129426|168781148|OTHER|t-test comparison of the two groups||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
84513820|NCT02129426|168781149|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.52
84513821|NCT01860521|168781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84715869|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.4|0.3904
84513822|NCT01860521|168781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84513823|NCT01860521|168781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84513824|NCT01860521|168781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
84513825|NCT00635492|168781162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Body Mass Index (BMI) - 1kg/m² higher||1.19|1.13|<0.0001
84513826|NCT00635492|168781163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Most recent HbA1c at baseline - 1% higher.||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
84513827|NCT00635492|168781164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Age - 1 year older||0.97|0.95|<0.0001
84513828|NCT00635492|168781165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Diabetes Health Profile - 18 (DHP-18) subscale disinhibited eating - Yes vs. No||1.10|1.01|0.0083
84513829|NCT00635492|168781166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Random blood glucose - 1 mmol/L higher||0.99|0.90|0.0141
84513830|NCT00635492|168781167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Blood glucose self-monitoring - 1 test/week more||0.99|0.96|0.0107
84513831|NCT00635492|168781168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Receipt of diet/exercise advice - Yes vs. No||2.46|1.13|0.0193
84513832|NCT00635492|168781169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||LDL cholesterol - 1 mmol/L higher at baseline||0.96|0.72|0.0138
84513833|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.177|||Regression, Cox|||HbA1c (%) at baseline||1.177|1.062|<0.0001
84513834|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|0.985|||Regression, Cox|||DHP barriers to activity subscale at baseline||0.985|0.937|0.001
84513835|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.532|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.698|3.777|||Regression, Cox|||Gastrointestinal symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||3.777|1.698|<0.001
84715870|NCT04909801|169178511|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.3|-0.4|0.8359
84513836|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.437|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: basal/bolus vs. long-acting only||0.630|0.303|<0.001
84715871|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.1|-2.3|0.7852
84715872|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.3|-2.0|0.6336
84715873|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.7|-3.5|0.4879
84513837|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.874|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: mixtures vs. long-acting only||0.874|0.523|0.003
84513838|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|1.718|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: other vs. long-acting only||1.718|0.175|0.303
84513839|NCT00635492|168781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.681|2.785|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: short-acting only vs. long-acting only||2.785|1.681|<0.001
84715874|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.2812
84715875|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1205
84478414|NCT01021813|168708319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|5.31||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.5|-5.0|0.311
84478415|NCT01021813|168708319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|4.96||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-5.5|0.351
84478416|NCT01021813|168708319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|4.58||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-6.3|0.409
84478417|NCT01021813|168708320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.0||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSTm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||29.0|16.4|<0.0001
84478418|NCT01021813|168708321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|-9.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.5||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSOm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||-4.5|-14.6|0.0002
84478419|NCT03571256|168708323|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.600
84478420|NCT00868452|168708334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84478421|NCT00868452|168708335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84478422|NCT00868452|168708336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84478423|NCT03418051|168708355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.824
84478424|NCT03418051|168708355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.426
84478425|NCT03418051|168708356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.722
84478426|NCT03418051|168708356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
84478427|NCT03418051|168708357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
84478428|NCT03418051|168708357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.845
84478429|NCT03418051|168708358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.138
84478430|NCT03418051|168708358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.523
84478431|NCT03418051|168708359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.069
84478432|NCT03418051|168708359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.413
84478433|NCT03418051|168708360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.604
84478434|NCT03418051|168708360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.499
84478435|NCT03418051|168708361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
84478436|NCT03418051|168708361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.853
84478437|NCT03418051|168708362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.142
84478438|NCT03418051|168708362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.167
84478439|NCT03418051|168708363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.849
84478440|NCT03418051|168708363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.993
84478441|NCT03418051|168708364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.535
84478442|NCT03418051|168708364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.569
84478443|NCT03418051|168708365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||A priori threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.405
84715876|NCT04909801|169178512|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
84715877|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.0|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.0|-1.6|0.4107
84715878|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.2|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.2|-2.1|0.6824
84478444|NCT03418051|168708365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.229
84478445|NCT03418051|168708366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
84478446|NCT03418051|168708366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.027
84478447|NCT03418051|168708367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.613
84478448|NCT03418051|168708368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.925
84478449|NCT03418051|168708369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.641
84715879|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.9|-3.4|0.5793
84478450|NCT03418051|168708369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
84478451|NCT03418051|168708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
84478452|NCT03418051|168708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
84478453|NCT03418051|168708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.233
84478454|NCT03418051|168708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.634
84715880|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.2|-4.2|0.2883
84715881|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1285
84715882|NCT04909801|169178513|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.2|-4.2|0.2815
84715883|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|0.1|0.0099
84478455|NCT03418051|168708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.233
84478456|NCT03418051|168708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.634
84478457|NCT03418051|168708373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.030
84478458|NCT03418051|168708373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.618
84478459|NCT03418051|168708374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.456
84478460|NCT03418051|168708374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.568
84478461|NCT03418051|168708375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.919
84478462|NCT03418051|168708375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
84478463|NCT03418051|168708376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.796
84478464|NCT03418051|168708376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
84478465|NCT03418051|168708377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.701
84478466|NCT03418051|168708377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.68
84478467|NCT03418051|168708378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.883
84478468|NCT03418051|168708378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.401
84478469|NCT03418051|168708379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.393
84478470|NCT03418051|168708379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.779
84478471|NCT03418051|168708380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.246
84478472|NCT03418051|168708380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.191
84478473|NCT03418051|168708381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.703
84478474|NCT03418051|168708381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.282
84478475|NCT03418051|168708382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.925
84478476|NCT03418051|168708382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.551
84478477|NCT03418051|168708383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.506
84478478|NCT03418051|168708383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||A priori threshold at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.753
84478479|NCT03418051|168708384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.777
84478480|NCT03418051|168708384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.475
84715884|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.4|-0.1|0.1519
84715885|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.1|0.2505
84715886|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.5248
84513840|NCT00635492|168781178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|2.053|||Regression, Cox|||GI symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||2.053|1.043|0.028
84478481|NCT03418051|168708385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
84513841|NCT00635492|168781178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.834|||Regression, Cox|||EQ-5D index value at baseline||0.834|0.432|0.002
84478482|NCT03418051|168708385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
84478483|NCT03418051|168708386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
84478484|NCT03418051|168708386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.830
84478485|NCT03418051|168708387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
84478486|NCT03418051|168708387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.492
84478487|NCT03418051|168708388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.820
84478488|NCT03418051|168708388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.526
84478489|NCT00493974|168708424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3876
84478490|NCT00493974|168708425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6413||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6413
84478491|NCT00493974|168708426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6433
84478492|NCT00493974|168708427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
84715887|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.3|0.1778
84715888|NCT04909801|169178518|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.2|-0.3|0.8510
84715889|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.5|-0.9|0.2319
84478493|NCT00493974|168708428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4957
84478494|NCT00493974|168708429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84478495|NCT00493974|168708430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
84715890|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.5|0.5572
84478496|NCT01861054|168708478|OTHER|||||||0.3149||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on ALDH+ cells by ALDEFLUOR assay||||0.3149
84478497|NCT01861054|168708478|OTHER|||||||0.8148||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on CD44+/CD24- by flow citometry||||0.8148
84478498|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho AKT Extent||||>0.9999
84478499|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-AKT Intensity||||>0.9999
84715891|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.1|-2.0|0.9366
84478500|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.2245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Extent||||0.2245
84478501|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.5785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Intensity||||0.5785
84715892|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.1508
84715893|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.6|0.0303
84478502|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Extent||||>0.9999
84478503|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Intensity||||0.3139
84478504|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Extent||||0.2120
84478505|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Intensity||||>0.9999
84478506|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
84478507|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
84478508|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
84478509|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
84478510|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Extent||||0.2265
84513842|NCT00467363|168781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||Only one outcome for primary outcome, so no adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons was done. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were done. Treatment groups were similar with respect to the assessed demographic and baseline characteristics||The study was designed to detect a 10% absolute difference in livebirth rate with 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%, on the assumption that participants taking placebo who achieved pregnancy would have a livebirth rate of 75%.||1.22|0.98|0.0984
84513843|NCT00467363|168781193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.02|.0165
84513844|NCT00467363|168781194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.01|.0329
84513845|NCT00467363|168781195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.78|||Fisher Exact|||||1.78|.64|.8902
84715894|NCT04909801|169178519|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.8|-3.3|0.2333
84513846|NCT00467363|168781196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Fisher Exact|||||1.55|.76|.6869
84513847|NCT00467363|168781197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.41|||Fisher Exact|||||2.41|.19|.7530
84513848|NCT00467363|168781198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.26|||Fisher Exact|||||7.26|.15|1.000
84513849|NCT00467363|168781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
84513850|NCT00467363|168781200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
84513851|NCT00467363|168781201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.76|||Fisher Exact|||||1.76|.67|.7943
84513852|NCT00467363|168781202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7802
84513853|NCT00467363|168781203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Fisher Exact|||||1.23|.42|.2603
84513854|NCT00467363|168781206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-0.8|0.77
84715895|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.2|-0.3|0.0938
84715896|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.6|0.6053
84715897|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.3|-1.9|0.8570
84715898|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.5|-3.0|0.1592
84478511|NCT01861054|168708479|OTHER|||||||0.2403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Intensity||||0.2403
84478512|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 1 Beta||||>0.9999
84478513|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER|||||||0.6945||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 6||||0.6945
84478514|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER|||||||0.9448||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 8||||0.9448
84478515|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER|||||||0.6292||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tumor Necrosis Factor - alpha||||0.6292
84478516|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER|||||||0.2354||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Granulocyte Macrophage Colony Stm Factor||||0.2354
84478517|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor||||>0.9999
84478518|NCT01861054|168708480|OTHER|||||||0.4719||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor||||0.4719
84478519|NCT01861054|168708481|OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Extent||||0.0951
84478520|NCT01861054|168708481|OTHER|||||||0.1643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Intensity||||0.1643
84478521|NCT01861054|168708482|OTHER|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Extent||||0.4183
84478522|NCT01861054|168708482|OTHER|||||||0.3702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Intensity||||0.3702
84478523|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lymphocyte in WBC||||0.6168
84478524|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total T cell in lymphocytes||||0.6168
84478525|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||B cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
84478526|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-helper cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
84478527|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CTL in lymphocytes||||0.1453
84478528|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NKT cell in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
84478529|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.7634||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADCC NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.7634
84478530|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.5487||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regulatory NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.5487
84715899|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.7|0.0319
84478531|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Exhausted NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
84478532|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD56-CD16+ NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
84715900|NCT04909801|169178520|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.7|-3.4|0.2059
84513855|NCT00982397|168781207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.9|99.0|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|The study was designed to include at least 1,131 patients with DR/CRT-D ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with 1% precision.||99.0|97.9|
84513856|NCT00982397|168781207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.1|98.5|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|This study was designed to include at least 610 patients with VR-ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with a precision of 2%.||98.5|96.1|
84513857|NCT00982397|168781208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison against a performance criterion of 10%.|Exact Binomial|||Using the one-sided one proportion Exact Test in PASS sample size software, a sample size of 76 subjects with 1-month follow-up was calculated to be required for the evaluation of this objective. To ensure adequate testing of the Protecta XT CRT-D device, the 76 subjects must have included at least 34 CRT-D subjects. Assuming an attrition rate of 10%, a sample size of 85 subjects enrolled was calculated to be required.||||<0.0001
84513858|NCT00982397|168781209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison of the observed proportion of successes against a protocol-specified performance criterion of 95%.|Confidence interval and hypothesis test|||P, the expected proportion of successes under the null hypothesis, was 95%. α, the Type I error rate, is 0.025. Power is 90%. Pa, the assumed true proportion of successes, is 99%. Based on the above assumptions, at least 173 subjects with a useable time to VF detection testing were required for this objective. Assuming a 5% rate for the potential non-adherence to the testing protocol, the required enrollment sample size was 183.||||<0.0001
84513859|NCT00982397|168781210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ho: p1 ≤ p2 - 0.05 Ha: p1 \> p2 - 0.05 Where p1 was the syncopal event free rate at one year post implant by programming VF NID 30/40 and p2 for NID = 18/24. If the null-hypothesis was rejected it was concluded that NID = 30/40 did not decrease the syncope free rate by more than 5% compared to NID = 18/24 and hence was non-inferior.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.7||P-Value is for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||The 90% Confidence Interval is for the difference (p1-p2), where p1=syncope free rate 30/40 arm and p2=syncope free rate 18/24 arm. Estimated value and confidence interval reflect percentages.|The expected syncopal event free rate was 0.984 in both programming groups. alpha, Type I error was 0.05. Power, 1-beta, was 80%. Non-inferiority margin 5% Based on the above assumptions and Farrington-Manning test, a total of 230 subjects was required. By further assuming 15% attrition rate and 5 % of crossover rate, a total of 300 subjects were needed.||2.7|-2.7|0.0013
84513860|NCT00578552|168781211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.77
84715901|NCT02505984|169178529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84715902|NCT02505984|169178529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
84715903|NCT02505984|169178529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
84715904|NCT02505984|169178529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84715905|NCT02505984|169178530|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9
84513861|NCT00578552|168781211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||1.00
84513862|NCT05169710|168781212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-9.64|0.1718
84513863|NCT05169710|168781212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.837||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.99|0.028600
84513864|NCT05169710|168781213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.72|0.7314
84513865|NCT05169710|168781213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.91|0.3169
84715906|NCT02505984|169178530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84715907|NCT02505984|169178531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84715908|NCT02505984|169178531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84513866|NCT05615935|168781221|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Using G\*Power 3.1, the required sample size for ANCOVA with two groups was estimated with a significance level of 0.05, statistical power of 0.80, and an effect size of 0.35, based on Cohen's guidelines for a medium-to-large effect commonly applied in behavioral research (Cohen, 1988). Assuming up to two covariates, a minimum of 67 participants was required. Accounting for a 10% attrition rate, the final target was set at 74 participants.||||<0.001
84513867|NCT05615935|168781222|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|4.58||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
84513868|NCT05615935|168781222|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84715909|NCT02505984|169178532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
84513869|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
84513870|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
84513871|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.3769|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3769
84539798|NCT01895777|168829622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.78||||||Any bleeding events was analysed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model and age group as the stratification factor. A pooling of age groups was performed as no events were observed in certain age group.||1.780|0.736|
84715910|NCT02505984|169178532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
84478533|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1451||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - IL-8||||0.1451
84478534|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - IL-8||||0.2779
84478535|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1444||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - IL-8||||0.1444
84478536|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - IL-8||||0.1453
84478537|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - IL-8||||0.9200
84715911|NCT02505984|169178532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84513872|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.3083|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3083
84513873|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.4975|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||0.4975
84513874|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||1.0000
84513875|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
84513876|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
84513877|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.1571
84513878|NCT04544787|168781228|OTHER|||||||0.296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.2960
84539799|NCT01895777|168829623|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|69990000.0||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|999999999.0|||Cox proportional hazard model||Upper Limit of the 90% confidence interval was not assessable|All-cause mortality was analyzed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model.||999999999|0.000|0.9976
84513879|NCT04544787|168781229|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2) control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.9|
84513880|NCT04544787|168781229|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.8|
84513881|NCT03273153|168781241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.88|0.2954
84513882|NCT01379664|168781306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.16|0.97|0.24
84513883|NCT01379664|168781307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by inverse propensity score||||0.19|-0.23|0.87
84513884|NCT01379664|168781308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by propensity score||||3.3|-4.7|0.74
84513885|NCT01424644|168781318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to diphtheria toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|17.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo||17|9|
84513886|NCT01424644|168781318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to tetanus toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+ Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||2|-2|
84513887|NCT01424644|168781319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PT antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the GMCs of the MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV group to the Placebo+Tdap + HPV group was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PT immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||1.14|0.89|
84513888|NCT01424644|168781319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to FHA antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio- Geometric mean conc|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.76|
84513889|NCT01424644|168781319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PRN antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.72|
84715912|NCT03687086|169178533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|1.03|.039
84513890|NCT03616106|168781323|OTHER||Slope|-15.103||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.574|154.369||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||154.369|-184.574|0.859
84513891|NCT03616106|168781324|OTHER||Slope|28.243||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.694|73.179||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||73.179|-16.694|0.213
84513892|NCT03616106|168781325|OTHER||Slope|58.993||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.713|112.274||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||112.274|5.713|0.031
84513893|NCT03616106|168781326|OTHER||Slope|-0.0651||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.01||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Viral load variables were log transformed for regression analyses.||0.010|-1.313|0.053
84539800|NCT02064296|168829632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain.||||0.3330
84513894|NCT03616106|168781327|OTHER||Slope|-1.601||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-0.442||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.442|-2.761|0.008
84513895|NCT03616106|168781328|OTHER||Slope|-2.674||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.934|-1.415||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.415|-3.934|0.000
84513896|NCT03616106|168781342|OTHER||Slope|2.172||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.895||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||2.895|1.448|0.000
84513897|NCT03616106|168781343|OTHER||Slope|2.872||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.643||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.643|2.100|0.000
84715913|NCT03687086|169178534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 Weeks vs. baseline)||||3.29|-0.52|0.155
84513898|NCT03616106|168781344|OTHER||Slope|3.166||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.487|3.846||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.846|2.487|0.000
84513899|NCT03616106|168781345|OTHER||Z Score|3.25||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0011
84513900|NCT03616106|168781346|OTHER||Z score|3.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0001
84513901|NCT03616106|168781347|OTHER||Z score|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.000
84513902|NCT03616106|168781348|OTHER||Slope|1.935||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.815||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The p-value threshold for statistical significance was, therefore, 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||2.815|1.055|0.000
84513903|NCT03616106|168781349|OTHER||Slope|2.123||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.062||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.062|1.184|0.000
84513904|NCT03616106|168781350|OTHER||Slope|2.552||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|3.492||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.492|1.612|0.000
84539801|NCT02064296|168829632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Healthy controls||||0.6474
84478538|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - US||||0.2779
84478539|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - US||||0.6164
84478540|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - US||||>0.9999
84478541|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2032||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - US||||0.2032
84513905|NCT03616106|168781351|OTHER||Z score|-1.57||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.1167
84513906|NCT03616106|168781352|OTHER||Z score|-2.91||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0036
84513907|NCT03616106|168781353|OTHER||Z score|-3.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0004
84513908|NCT02298322|168781365|OTHER||sucess proportion|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|95.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||95.1|86.2|<0.0001
84513909|NCT00440297|168781368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|48.5||||||95.0|38.4|58.7|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose among subjects who were seronegative at baseline||58.7|38.4|
84513910|NCT00440297|168781368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|57.7||||||95.0|47.9|67.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|||67.0|47.9|
84478542|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - US||||>0.9999
84513911|NCT00440297|168781369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|66.7||||||95.0|56.5|75.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||75.8|56.5|
84715914|NCT03687086|169178535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||2.20|-1.88|0.880
84715915|NCT03687086|169178536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
84715916|NCT03687086|169178537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.78|-0.96|0.843
84513912|NCT00440297|168781369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|69.2||||||95.0|59.4|77.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||77.9|59.4|
84513913|NCT02024932|168781394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geo-mean ratio|1.037||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.065|||ANCOVA|||||1.065|1.009|0.0164
84513914|NCT05472038|168781450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority based on GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 1.|Model-Based GMR|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.44||||||||3.44|2.45|
84513915|NCT05472038|168781451|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|26.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.59|33.95|||||Adjusted difference and 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category (\< median,\>= median) for difference in proportions. The median of baseline NT was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||33.95|19.59|
84513916|NCT05472038|168781452|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.16|0.83|
84539802|NCT02064296|168829632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain||||<0.0001
84539803|NCT02064296|168829632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Fibromyalgia patients||||0.0004
84715917|NCT03687086|169178538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|1.67|0.001
84715918|NCT03687086|169178539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.50|-1.14|0.443
84513917|NCT05472038|168781453|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-10%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.63|||||2-Sided CI based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category(\< median,\>= median)for difference in percentage(seroresponse rate).Median of baseline neutralizing titers was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||3.63|-9.68|
84513918|NCT05472038|168781458|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.56|1.22|
84513919|NCT03235739|168781473|SUPERIORITY|multiple imputation for longitudinal data was conducted to impute the missing data for the primary outcome. The final results were obtained from pooling results from 10 imputed complete case data set.|geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|0.32|0.84
84513920|NCT03235739|168781473|SUPERIORITY|A sensitivity analysis using complete case analysis|geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|0.26|0.73
84715919|NCT03687086|169178540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.58|-1.41|0.409
84513921|NCT03235739|168781474|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.63|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|0.63|0.91
84715920|NCT02038777|169178562|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||An exact test for a single proportion (1-sided significance level: 0.05) was used.|Exact test for a single proportion|||||||<.0001
84715921|NCT04299464|169178635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.432||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.291|1.428|||ANCOVA|||||1.428|-2.291|0.7650
84513922|NCT03235739|168781475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.98|6.8|||Chi-squared|||||6.80|0.98|0.012
84715922|NCT04299464|169178635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.4444||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|-2.250|0.7517
84715923|NCT04299464|169178644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.741||||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.631|6.114|||ANCOVA|||||6.114|-2.631|0.6082
84715924|NCT04299464|169178644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.715||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.204|2.774|||ANCOVA|||||2.774|-6.204|0.6228
84715925|NCT04299464|169178645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.983||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.957|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-5.957|0.1987
84715926|NCT04299464|169178645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.474||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.326|-1.622|||ANCOVA|||||-1.622|-7.326|0.0460
84513923|NCT03235739|168781476|SUPERIORITY||median of differences|-5.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-12.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-12|0.08
84513924|NCT02847650|168781477|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-8.6|0.0407
84513925|NCT02718326|168781534|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.5|45.2|<0.0001
84513926|NCT02718326|168781535|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|50.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|40.1|<0.0001
84513927|NCT02718326|168781535|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|73.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|55.8|< 0.0001
84513928|NCT02718326|168781536|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.9|-24.7|<0.0001
84513929|NCT02718326|168781536|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.1|-24.2|<0.0001
84513930|NCT02718326|168781537|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-26.2|= 0.0002
84513931|NCT02718326|168781537|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.4|-27.5|<0.0001
84513932|NCT02718326|168781540|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.5|-10.5|0.0096
84513933|NCT02718326|168781540|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.6|-10.5|0.0089
84513934|NCT02718326|168781541|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|0.8||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.60|-0.01|0.0529
84513935|NCT02718326|168781541|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|1.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.94|||ANOVA|||||1.94|0.33|0.0057
84513936|NCT05025345|168781547|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.011||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||0.011|-0.036|
84513937|NCT05025345|168781548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84513938|NCT00984022|168781566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The percentages achieving 30% or greater reduction in the surface area of the abscess were compared with Fisher's exact test.||||.0003
84513939|NCT00984022|168781567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Main effect for type of dressing.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA using 2 X 2 factorial design, with one between-subjects factor (Group) and one within-subjects factor (Time). Null hypothesis is: The type of dressing does not affect patient pain ratings.||||.043
84513940|NCT00984022|168781568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the percentage of individuals achieving a 30% or greater reduction in cellulitis surface area between the Iodoform and Aquacel groups.||||.847
84513941|NCT00573443|168781570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5312|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4939|0.5714|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-30/placebo = 1.||0.5714|0.4939|<0.0001
84513942|NCT00573443|168781570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4755|0.5477|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-20/placebo = 1.||0.5477|0.4755|<0.0001
84513943|NCT02647944|168781614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84513944|NCT02647944|168781615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84513945|NCT02647944|168781616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84513946|NCT02647944|168781617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
84513947|NCT02647944|168781618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.054
84715927|NCT04299464|169178646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.279||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.021|3.578|||ANCOVA|||||3.578|-1.021|0.4746
84513948|NCT02647944|168781619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84715928|NCT04299464|169178646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.697||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|4.94|||ANCOVA|||||4.940|0.453|0.1244
84513949|NCT02647944|168781620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84513950|NCT02647944|168781621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84513951|NCT02760368|168781626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.248|0.489|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q2w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.489|0.248|<0.0001
84513952|NCT02760368|168781626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.318|0.552|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.552|0.318|<0.0001
84513953|NCT02760368|168781627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.197|0.389|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in 64 q2w OKZ treatment groups respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between OKZ q2w treatment group and placebo.||0.389|0.197|<0.0001
84513954|NCT02760368|168781627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.352|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.251|0.449|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in 64 mg q4w OKZ treatment group respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between OKZ q4w treatment group and placebo.||0.449|0.251|<0.0001
84513955|NCT02760368|168781628|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-0.47|<0.0001
84715929|NCT03916276|169178670|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84513956|NCT02760368|168781628|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.49|<0.0001
84513957|NCT02760368|168781629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.239|0.45|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.450|0.239|<0.0001
84513958|NCT02760368|168781629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.409|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.296|0.509|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.509|0.296|<0.0001
84513959|NCT02760368|168781630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.084|||<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.032|0.151||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.032|<0.0002
84715930|NCT03916276|169178671|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715931|NCT03916276|169178672|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84513960|NCT02760368|168781630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.077|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.143||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.143|0.027|<0.0003
84715932|NCT03916276|169178673|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84513961|NCT02757105|168781643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.036
84513962|NCT02757105|168781644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.410
84513963|NCT02757105|168781645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.081
84513964|NCT02757105|168781646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.042
84513965|NCT02757105|168781647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
84513966|NCT02757105|168781648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
84478543|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.5250
84478544|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.6706||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.6706
84715933|NCT03916276|169178674|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84478545|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.8312||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.8312
84478546|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.3992
84513967|NCT02757105|168781649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|30.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||30.6|-7.7|0.278
84513968|NCT02757105|168781650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|32.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.5|-3.4|0.135
84513969|NCT00473330|168781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||34.8|13.8|<0.0001
84513970|NCT00473330|168781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|31.1||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.1|10.7|0.0002
84513971|NCT00473330|168781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.0|6.1|<0.0001
84513972|NCT00473330|168781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|6.2|<0.0001
84513973|NCT00473330|168781667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|35.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||35.4|13.4|<0.0001
84478547|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.2952
84478548|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.3992
84478549|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.2952
84478550|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.5250
84478551|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
84478552|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
84478553|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - US||||>0.9999
84513974|NCT00473330|168781667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|36.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||36.3|14.0|<0.0001
84513975|NCT00473330|168781668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|8.2||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|14.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||14.1|2.4|0.0086
84513976|NCT00473330|168781668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.6|2.0|0.0126
84513977|NCT00473330|168781669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||15.1|4.3|0.0005
84715934|NCT03916276|169178675|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715935|NCT03916276|169178676|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84478554|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - US||||0.3992
84539804|NCT02064296|168829633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Mock Laser Acupuncture pre-and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||0.0653
84715936|NCT03916276|169178677|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715937|NCT03916276|169178678|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715938|NCT03916276|169178679|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
84715939|NCT03916276|169178680|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715940|NCT03916276|169178681|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84513978|NCT00473330|168781669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||13.0|3.3|0.0011
84539805|NCT02064296|168829633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a P value for the change in Traditional Acupuncture, pre and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84539806|NCT02064296|168829634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.7399
84539807|NCT02064296|168829634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.6226
84513979|NCT00473330|168781670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-107.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.2|-66.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-66.6|-149.2|<0.0001
84715941|NCT03916276|169178682|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715942|NCT03916276|169178683|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715943|NCT03916276|169178684|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715944|NCT03916276|169178685|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84715945|NCT03916276|169178686|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84539808|NCT02064296|168829635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.6344
84715946|NCT05233800|169178710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|3.84|<0.05
84715947|NCT04487860|169178721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7905
84539809|NCT02064296|168829635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.7985
84539810|NCT01894087|168829638|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Numerator is Therapist-led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of outcome of overdose risk behavior sum score at 6 months, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.87|0.59|
84715948|NCT04487860|169178721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7372
84715949|NCT04487860|169178721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2989
84715950|NCT04487860|169178721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3328
84715951|NCT04487860|169178722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8989
84715952|NCT04487860|169178722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6768
84715953|NCT04487860|169178722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8209
84715954|NCT04487860|169178722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3106
84715955|NCT04487860|169178723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8593|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8593
84715956|NCT04487860|169178723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9594|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9594
84715957|NCT04487860|169178723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9041
84715958|NCT04487860|169178723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7147|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7147
84715959|NCT06122194|169178738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|112.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|135.22||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were expressed as percentages.||135.22|93.01|
84715960|NCT06122194|169178738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.79|225.35||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||225.35|155.79|
84715961|NCT06122194|169178738|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.4|185.21||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||185.21|127.40|
84715962|NCT06122194|169178739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|115.54||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||115.54|91.09|
84715963|NCT06122194|169178739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|141.17||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||141.17|110.81|
84715964|NCT06122194|169178739|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|121.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.65|136.43||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||136.43|108.65|
84539811|NCT01894087|168829639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Numerator is the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable linear regression of the outcome of standardized sum score of overdose symptom knowledge at 6 months follow-up, adjusted for baseline level of overdose symptom knowledge.||0.40|-0.20|
84715965|NCT05218096|169178750|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|15.0|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||15.0|-28.8|0.6797
84478555|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
84478556|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
84478557|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - US||||0.3992
84478558|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - US||||0.2952
84715966|NCT05218096|169178750|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.8|19.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||19.3|-34.8|0.7341
84715967|NCT03295721|169178804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-122.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.76|-80.34|||ANOVA|||||-80.34|-163.76|< 0.0001
84715968|NCT03295721|169178805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.777|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.07|-33.25|||ANOVA|||||-33.25|-107.07|= 0.0002
84715969|NCT03295721|169178806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84715970|NCT03295721|169178807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.177||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.265|||Fisher Exact|||||.265|.085|0.0001
84715971|NCT03295721|169178808|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0022
84715972|NCT01651403|169178809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||< 0.001
84715973|NCT01651403|169178809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test without adjusting for strata at baseline||||||< 0.001
84715974|NCT01651403|169178810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.935
84478559|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.2238
84478560|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.2238
84478561|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.1543
84478562|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.1547
84478563|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.1547
84478564|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.1547
84478565|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.4314||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.4314
84478566|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.3153
84478567|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.4700
84478568|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
84478569|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
84715975|NCT01651403|169178811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.001
84715976|NCT01651403|169178813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715977|NCT01651403|169178815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.002
84715978|NCT01651403|169178817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715979|NCT01651403|169178819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715980|NCT01651403|169178821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715981|NCT01651403|169178823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715982|NCT01651403|169178825|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||>0.999
84715983|NCT01651403|169178833|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
84715984|NCT01651403|169178834|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
84715985|NCT01651403|169178835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|two-sided superiority test||||||0.007
84715986|NCT01651403|169178837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
84715987|NCT04070573|169178913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.28
84715988|NCT04070573|169178914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.31
84715989|NCT04070573|169178915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.61
84715990|NCT04070573|169178918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84715991|NCT02844465|169178967|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 5 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Boston Naming Test score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) = mean difference in the Boston Naming Test score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
84715992|NCT02844465|169178968|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 15 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) = mean difference in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
84715993|NCT02844465|169178969|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the QOLIE-31 score will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) \> 0 Where M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
84715994|NCT02844465|169178970|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.||||||0.0004|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) \> 0 Where M (V- SF-36-MCS - BSL- SF-36-MCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire MCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||0.0004
84715995|NCT02844465|169178971|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It's hypothesized that the SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) \> 0 Where M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL- SF-36-PCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire PCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
84715996|NCT02844465|169178972|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are:~Null Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ \> 0 Where πV is the proportion of subjects treated with Visualase experiencing no seizures.~An exact 95% CI for the percentage of subjects who are seizure free will be calculated and its lower boundary compared to zero after subtraction of the historical open surgical resection percentage of 64% and the addition of the equivalence delta percentage of 10%."|Proportion of Participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|65.8||||||||65.8|46.2|
84715997|NCT04228042|169178979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84715998|NCT04228042|169178979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84715999|NCT04228042|169178979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84716000|NCT04228042|169178979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84716001|NCT05671653|169178997|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.25|98.38||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||98.38|80.25|
84716002|NCT05671653|169178997|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.21|88.76||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||88.76|55.21|
84716003|NCT05671653|169178998|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|57.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.27|83.29||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||83.29|39.27|
84716004|NCT05671653|169178998|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|44.94||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||44.94|19.60|
84716005|NCT05671653|169178999|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.97|131.85||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||131.85|108.97|
84716006|NCT05671653|169178999|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|185.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|318.44||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||318.44|108.00|
84716007|NCT05671653|169179000|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.09|111.93||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||111.93|95.09|
84716008|NCT05671653|169179000|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|135.06||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||135.06|60.24|
84716009|NCT05671653|169179001|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.97|107.87||||||Reference: Cohort 2: Midazolam 2 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 2: Semaglutide 2.4 mg QW + Midazolam 2 mg (Period 3).||107.87|79.97|
84716010|NCT05196919|169179054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.693||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|30.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||30.97|-22.57|1.00
84716011|NCT05196919|169179054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|33.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||33.03|-17.12|0.99
84716012|NCT05196919|169179055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.676||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||3.19|-15.49|0.1933
84716013|NCT05196919|169179055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.434||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||14.00|-3.73|0.2511
84716014|NCT04176601|169179111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.15||||||||7.15|1.49|
84716015|NCT04176601|169179112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.15||||||||8.15|1.26|
84716016|NCT04176601|169179113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|6.14||||||||6.14|1.59|
84716017|NCT04447040|169179129|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|31.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|42.07|||ANOVA|||||42.07|20.90|<0.001
84716018|NCT04447040|169179129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.02|51.75|||ANOVA|||||51.75|31.02|<0.001
84716019|NCT04447040|169179129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|46.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|57.27|||ANOVA|||||57.27|36.44|<0.001
84716020|NCT04447040|169179129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.57|64.51|||ANOVA|||||64.51|43.57|<0.001
84716021|NCT04447040|169179129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|59.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.468|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.16|70.68|||ANOVA|||||70.68|49.16|<0.001
84716022|NCT04447040|169179130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.542|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|48.54|||ANOVA|||||48.54|22.79|<0.001
84716023|NCT04447040|169179130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|49.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.407|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|61.65|||ANOVA|||||61.65|36.44|<0.001
84716024|NCT04447040|169179130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.97|66.31|||ANOVA|||||66.31|40.97|<0.001
84716025|NCT04447040|169179130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.19|73.67|||ANOVA|||||73.67|48.19|<0.001
84716026|NCT04447040|169179130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|67.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.49|80.67|||ANOVA|||||80.67|54.49|<0.001
84716027|NCT04447040|169179131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|18.63|||ANOVA|||||18.63|6.44|<0.001
84716028|NCT04447040|169179131|SUPERIORITY||LS MEAN Difference|17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|23.7|||ANOVA|||||23.70|11.76|<0.001
84716029|NCT04447040|169179131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|27.88|||ANOVA|||||27.88|15.89|<0.001
84716030|NCT04447040|169179131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|25.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.98|31.03|||ANOVA|||||31.03|18.98|<0.001
84716031|NCT04447040|169179131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.11|35.5|||ANOVA|||||35.50|23.11|<0.001
84716032|NCT04447040|169179132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84716033|NCT04447040|169179132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84716034|NCT04447040|169179132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84716035|NCT04447040|169179132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84716036|NCT04447040|169179132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84716037|NCT04447040|169179133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wald method|||||||0.014
84716038|NCT04447040|169179133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wald method|||||||0.002
84716039|NCT04447040|169179133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
84716040|NCT04447040|169179133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
84716041|NCT04447040|169179133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
84716042|NCT01208662|169179134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.91|||Log Rank|Observed Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided p-value)||||1.91|1.23|<0.001
84716043|NCT01208662|169179135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.55
84716044|NCT01208662|169179136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
84716045|NCT01208662|169179137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
84716046|NCT01208662|169179139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.29|1.21|2.27|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||2.27|1.21|<0.001
84716047|NCT01208662|169179140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.73|>0.99
84716048|NCT01208662|169179142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.29|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||1.65|0.73|0.99
84716049|NCT01208662|169179149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|0.30|
84716050|NCT01928394|169179194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||SCLC Arm N Expansion as compare to SCLC Arm N-I Dose Level 2- Expansion||4.26|1.06|0.0309
84716051|NCT03209973|169179195|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided p-value was based on exact test of BGB-A317 versus historical rate of 0.35|Exact Binomial Test|Comparison with historical control values||||||<0.0001
84716052|NCT02432261|169179236|SUPERIORITY|We did not statistically power this study.|difference of proportion of subjects|57.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||The difference of proportion = NES/Testosterone - Testosterone|||||0.003
84716053|NCT04359654|169179295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84716054|NCT04359654|169179296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84716055|NCT04359654|169179298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84716056|NCT04359654|169179299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported LS means are antilogs of the LS means estimated on the log scale.||||0.021
84716057|NCT04726371|169179322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of infections over follow-up.|Test of joint null hypothesis from model|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A Poisson GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline infection incidence, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and for intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||0.89
84716058|NCT04726371|169179323|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of scores over follow-up.|Wald test|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline fidelity score, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||>.99
84716059|NCT04726371|169179324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.84||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the combined population of residents with SMI and ID/DD. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.84|0.79|>.99
84716060|NCT04726371|169179325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the staff population. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.15|0.86|>.99
84513980|NCT00473330|168781670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.6|-78.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-78.5|-159.6|<0.0001
84716061|NCT05256654|169179363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (Triglycerides (TG) \<250 milligram per deciliter (mg/dL) or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||11.9|-15.5|0.691
84716062|NCT05256654|169179363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-3.9|-23.6|0.008
84716063|NCT05256654|169179363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.9|-18.3|0.140
84716064|NCT05256654|169179364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-43.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.1|-63.3|<.001
84716065|NCT05256654|169179364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-63.9|-74.8|<.001
84716066|NCT05256654|169179364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-72.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-72.0|-80.4|<.001
84716067|NCT05256654|169179365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||14.0|-14.6|0.854
84716068|NCT05256654|169179365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.4|-26.0|0.002
84716069|NCT05256654|169179365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.1|-21.9|0.033
84716070|NCT05256654|169179366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.2|-13.8|0.143
84716071|NCT05256654|169179366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-10.5|-22.0|<.001
84716072|NCT05256654|169179366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.2|-27.9|<.001
84716073|NCT05256654|169179367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||0.9|-21.1|0.068
84716074|NCT05256654|169179367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.6|-32.6|<.001
84716075|NCT05256654|169179367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-15.7|-31.1|<.001
84716076|NCT05256654|169179368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-25.1|-45.8|<.001
84716077|NCT05256654|169179368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.3|-56.4|<.001
84716078|NCT05256654|169179368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-45.9|-58.4|<.001
84716079|NCT05256654|169179369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-21.2|-52.2|<.001
84716080|NCT05256654|169179369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-43.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.8|-62.4|<.001
84716081|NCT05256654|169179369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|55.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||55.5|-70.3|<.001
84716082|NCT05256654|169179370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||8.5|-15.2|0.506
84716083|NCT05256654|169179370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.3|-27.2|<.001
84716084|NCT05256654|169179370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.0|-27.0|<.001
84716085|NCT05256654|169179371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||5.2|-11.2|0.428
84716086|NCT05256654|169179371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-2.3|-14.7|0.009
84716087|NCT05256654|169179371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.0|-18.0|<.001
84716088|NCT05256654|169179372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||23.7|-8.4|0.412
84716089|NCT05256654|169179372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.1|-19.7|0.104
84716090|NCT05256654|169179372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||6.7|-16.2|0.363
84716091|NCT05256654|169179373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.3|-22.2|0.101
84716092|NCT05256654|169179373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.0|-20.6|0.033
84716093|NCT05256654|169179373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-0.6|-20.3|0.040
84716094|NCT05256654|169179374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-13.6|-40.5|<.001
84716095|NCT05256654|169179374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-33.2|-50.5|<.001
84716096|NCT05256654|169179374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-35.9|-52.5|<.001
84716097|NCT05207982|169179389|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study utilized a multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling. Separate models were developed for each participant which include the daily weights from the baseline, treatment and follow-up phases. Given the nature of the data, we hypothesized different slopes for the baseline vs treatment phases. Overall weight change was a primary outcome measure.|Multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling.|||
84716098|NCT04089059|169179405|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression for comparison of incidence rate against performance goal (0.43)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||<0.0001
84716099|NCT04089059|169179408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HF Hospitalization events 6 months before implant vs 6 months after implant||||<0.0001
84716100|NCT04089059|169179409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the incidence rate of HF hospitalizations or emergency department / hospital outpatient IV diuretic visits of Former Control Arm versus Modified Intent to Treat Arm at 6 months post-implant/Subgroup Analysis||||||0.0697|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||0.0697
84716101|NCT04089059|169179412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.0952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0952
84716102|NCT04089059|169179412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0090
84716103|NCT04089059|169179412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84716104|NCT04089059|169179414|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of KCCQ at baseline and at 6 months||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0026
84716105|NCT04089059|169179415|OTHER|Test of difference in distribution of NYHA class from baseline (all patients were class III at baseline).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification is a system used to evaluate and classify the severity of heart failure based on symptoms, patient's physical activity, and quality of life. Its scale ranges from class 1 to 4 with class 1 indicating the least severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the best functionality) and class 4 indicating the most severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the poorest functionality), with higher classes indicating poorer functioning as relates to heart failure.||||<0.0001
84716106|NCT04089059|169179416|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of baseline 6MWT vs 6 month 6MWT.||||||0.1086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1086
84716107|NCT04089059|169179419|SUPERIORITY|Compare NTproBNP at baseline with 6 months||||||0.0628|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0628
84716108|NCT03728608|169179429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.92
84716109|NCT03728608|169179430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.65
84716110|NCT03728608|169179431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.96
84716111|NCT03728608|169179432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.77
84716112|NCT03728608|169179433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
84716113|NCT03728608|169179434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
84716114|NCT03728608|169179435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
84716115|NCT03728608|169179436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
84716116|NCT02800356|169179461|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.404
84716117|NCT02800356|169179462|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.232
84716118|NCT02800356|169179463|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.001
84716119|NCT02800356|169179466|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.267
84716120|NCT05565820|169179488|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 2.246 Cohen's d: .590|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 2 proportion of live lice - Nix Day 2 proportion of live lice|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.025
84716121|NCT05565820|169179488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05.|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z 2.469 Cohen's d .660|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 7 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 7 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.014
84716122|NCT05565820|169179488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 1.920 Cohen's d: .513|Vamousse Day 14 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 14 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of lice-free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.054
84716123|NCT05565820|169179489|SUPERIORITY|"To check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also performed.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1148||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.537||Alpha = .05 t: 2.567 df (adjusted, see comment below): 16.83 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.830 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .005 Cohen's d = 1.023|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.83|Direction of comparison: Vamousse prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O - Nix prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the mean proportion of decrease from Day 0 in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 2 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.537|.052|.020
84725791|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|40.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|54.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||54.97|30.27|
84716124|NCT05565820|169179489|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.543||Alpha = .05 t: .976 df: 54 Mann-Whitney Z: 3.021 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .003 Cohen's d = .294|t-test, 2 sided|Levine's test for violation of equality of variances nonsignificant; no df adjustment necessary.||"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 7 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on their mean change proportions."||.543|-.187|.334
84716125|NCT05565820|169179489|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Difference between proportions|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1034||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.454||Alpha = .05 t: 2.276 df(adjusted, see comment below): 16.2 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.478 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .013 Cohen's d = .947|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.2||"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 14 change proportion deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.454|.016|.037
84716126|NCT05828017|169179494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
84716127|NCT05828017|169179494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and the standard curve in terms of mean preference counts per participant.||||0.015
84716128|NCT05828017|169179495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
84716129|NCT05828017|169179495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.03569|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.03569
84716130|NCT05828017|169179496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.069
84716131|NCT05828017|169179496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.6976
84716132|NCT05828017|169179497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
84716133|NCT05828017|169179497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.0013
84478570|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
84716134|NCT05828017|169179498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.522
84716135|NCT05828017|169179498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.27
84716136|NCT05828017|169179499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.28
84716137|NCT05828017|169179499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.11
84716138|NCT05828017|169179500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.52
84716139|NCT05828017|169179500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.26
84716140|NCT05828017|169179501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.16
84716141|NCT05828017|169179501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.37
84716142|NCT05828017|169179502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.08
84716143|NCT05828017|169179502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.31
84716144|NCT05828017|169179503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.21
84716145|NCT05828017|169179503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.085
84716146|NCT05828017|169179504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.86
84716147|NCT05828017|169179504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||1
84716148|NCT05828017|169179505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.009
84716149|NCT05828017|169179505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.61
84478571|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
84478572|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
84478573|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.3153
84716150|NCT05828017|169179506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean SRT50 scores between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||1.00|0.11|<0.001
84716151|NCT05828017|169179506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in SRT 50 scores between the standard curve and variation #1.||1|0|0.357
84716152|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<0.01
84716153|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.94
84716154|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.94
84716155|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||0.017
84716156|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.02
84716157|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.006
84716158|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<.0001
84716159|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3||||0.08
84716160|NCT05828017|169179507|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||<0.001
84716161|NCT02361216|169179508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||AKclear100 at Week 8: full analysis set. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference at Week 8 in AKclear100 rates between ingenol mebutate gel 0.027% and vehicle gel. This hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative of a difference between the 2 treatment groups.||14|2.82|<0.001
84716162|NCT02361216|169179509|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.027% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||11.1|4.16|<0.001
84716163|NCT02361216|169179510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The pre-specified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.5|4.04|<0.001
84716164|NCT02361216|169179511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group, anatomical location stratum and pooled site as factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.24|<0.001
84716165|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.71
84716166|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.43
84716167|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.66|0.10|0.21
84716168|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.34||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP||3.34|0.51|0.57
84716169|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.97||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.97|0.44|0.77
84716170|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on time to actual suicide attempt||1.69|0.48|0.74
84716171|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.48||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the time to actual suicide attempt||1.48|0.42|0.45
84716172|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE||1.72|0.13|0.25
84716173|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.87||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.87|0.54|0.62
84716174|NCT03825588|169179512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.59||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.59|0.47|0.83
84716175|NCT03825588|169179513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events|We used standard univariate statistics to compare partici- pants' baseline sociodemographics and clinical characteris- tics by arm \[(ASAP vs No ASAP where comparison is 6 www.jaacap.org (ASAP+TAU) and (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) vs (TAU alone) and (BRITE+TAU); and BRITE vs No BRITE where comparison is (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) and (BRITE+TAU) vs (ASAP+TAU) and (TAU Alone)\], site, retention, pre- post-COVID and recruitment venue. We then tested for equality of the 2 cells (ASAP vs no ASAP, BRITE vs no BRITE) or 4 cells (ASAP+BRITE+TAU vs BRITE +TAU vs ASAP+TAU vs TAU Alone) without covariates on the rates of and time to suicidal behavior using the appropriate (t or F, c2, Kaplan-Meier, Cox models) test statistics. We then used mixed-effects regression models with arm (2 and 4 cells), time, and their interaction for continuous data. Presented percentages are based on all observed data.|||0.19
84716176|NCT03825588|169179513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events||||0.89
84716177|NCT03825588|169179513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.1||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare participants the 4 arms on the rate of suicidal events in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.10|0.11|0.08
84716178|NCT03825588|169179513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||False Discovery Rate q \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.55|0.51|0.74
84716179|NCT03825588|169179513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.69||False Discovery Rate q=0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||3.69|0.77|0.19
84716180|NCT05098158|169179524|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||<0.001
84716181|NCT05098158|169179525|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.003
84716182|NCT05098158|169179526|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.011
84716183|NCT05098158|169179527|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.168
84716184|NCT05098158|169179528|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.456
84716185|NCT05098158|169179529|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.517
84716186|NCT05098158|169179530|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.012
84716187|NCT05098158|169179531|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
84716188|NCT05098158|169179532|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest dat||||0.941
84478574|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1543
84716189|NCT05098158|169179533|OTHER|Descriptive statistics to report the percentage of offered telehealth sessions that were attended \[#attended/#offered = % attended\]|percentage|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84716190|NCT03916185|169179537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|32.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||32|-32|>0.99
84716191|NCT03916185|169179537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-15.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-46|0.53
84716192|NCT03916185|169179537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|52.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||52|-29|0.66
84478575|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Control||||0.1601
84478576|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.2368||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Test||||0.2368
84478577|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs unstimulated||||0.1605
84513981|NCT00473330|168781671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-3.0||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.7|-6.7|0.1590
84716193|NCT03916185|169179538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||20|-20|>0.99
84716194|NCT03916185|169179538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||13|-25|>0.99
84716195|NCT03916185|169179538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|34.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||34|-26|>0.99
84716196|NCT03916185|169179539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
84716197|NCT03916185|169179539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
84716198|NCT03916185|169179539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|41.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||41|-17|>0.99
84716199|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
84716200|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||79|22|<0.001
84716201|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|86.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||86|9|0.011
84716202|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|6.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|36.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||36|-25|>0.99
84540810|NCT03718832|168832726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436586||0.2245167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1388926|0.0326946||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0326946|-0.1388926|0.2245167
84716203|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||48|-31|>0.99
84716204|NCT03916185|169179540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|44.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||44|-38|>0.99
84716205|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|91.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||91|44|<0.001
84716206|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
84716207|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|85.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|97.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||97|42|<0.001
84716208|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||40|-17|0.66
84716209|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|30.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||30|-36|>0.99
84716210|NCT03916185|169179541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-24.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||20|-50|0.28
84716211|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716212|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716213|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716214|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84716215|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84716216|NCT03916185|169179542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84539812|NCT01894087|168829640|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of using opioids as prescribed). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to use opioids as prescribed, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.33|0.93|
84716217|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716218|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716219|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716220|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84716221|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84716222|NCT03916185|169179543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
84716223|NCT06415292|169179584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value reported here is the calculated p-value. The p-value theshold for significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84716224|NCT04778397|169179586|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.132||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.637|||Stratified log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.637|0.783|0.5070
84716225|NCT04778397|169179587|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.183||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.654|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.654|0.845|0.3237
84716226|NCT04778397|169179588|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.389||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.848|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value for comparing the event free survival functions from the two treatment groups was from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors: therapy appropriateness, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites).|1.848|1.043|0.0661
84716227|NCT04778397|169179589|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.506|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.506|0.123|
84513982|NCT00473330|168781671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-2.5||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||1.4|-6.5|0.2721
84716228|NCT04778397|169179590|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.559|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.559|0.009|
84716229|NCT04778397|169179591|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.428|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.428|0.108|
84716230|NCT01627574|169179604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.42|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.42|.056|>.05
84716231|NCT04685135|169179617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Log Rank|HR and CI are from stratified Cox proportional hazard model||||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
84716232|NCT04685135|169179619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.56|||Cochran Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|||||8.56|2.56|<0.0001
84716233|NCT04625725|169179706|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|76.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.05|89.96|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Primary Analysis||89.96|46.05|<0.001
84716234|NCT04625725|169179706|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|83.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.26|91.21|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Final Analysis||91.21|67.26|<0.001
84716235|NCT04625725|169179708|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|46.05|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||46.05|21.44|<0.001
84716236|NCT04625725|169179709|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|91.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.31|98.09|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||98.09|61.31|0.001
84716237|NCT04625725|169179710|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|52.43||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.61|82.13|||Poisson regression|||||82.13|-26.61|0.137
84716238|NCT01828112|169179714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.001
84716239|NCT05086796|169179762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|2.91|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and length of hospital stay in days.|2.91|1.51|
84716240|NCT05086796|169179763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.15|1.93|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who linked to follow-up OUD care by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|1.93|1.15|
84540811|NCT03718832|168832726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0815933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424438||0.0551913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1650069|0.0018204||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0018204|-0.1650069|0.0551913
84513983|NCT00473330|168781672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|21.1|<0.0001
84513984|NCT00473330|168781672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|31.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.7|16.7|<0.0001
84513985|NCT00473330|168781673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.4|<0.0001
84513986|NCT00473330|168781673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
84513987|NCT01975948|168781678|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and unemployment as covariates (p=.016), and non-completers (missing one or more points of follow up data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||One hundred evaluable patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a PHQ-9 between-group difference in mean change of 2 points, significance level (α) .05, a two-sided test, and a standard deviation of 5 points. An intra cluster correlation of 0.05 for patient outcomes was used (Murphey et al), and an average cluster size: 3 patients/practice resulted in compensatory increase to 110 patients per arm. Under the assumption that attrition would be 33 % we needed 166 patients per arm.||||.047
84716241|NCT05086796|169179764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.41|1.35|
84716242|NCT05086796|169179765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.39|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported any post-discharge MOUD utilization between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.39|1.23|
84716243|NCT05086796|169179766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.03|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported receiving any post-discharge outpatient medical care for their OUD between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|3.03|1.18|
84716244|NCT05086796|169179767|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.43|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable negative binomial regression with a log link function was used to compare opioid use-days between the two treatment arms by calculating the incident rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and baseline opioid use days.|2.43|0.64|
84716245|NCT05873556|169179779|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.27|0.74|0.83
84513988|NCT01975948|168781679|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Our calculations indicated that 50 physicians in each of the two groups will provide \>80% power to detect clinically significant reductions in stigma as assessed by OMS-HC change scores. Clinically meaningful was defined as a change of 3 points, derived on the basis of this being slightly better than what is usually seen in brief interventions.||||0.15
84716246|NCT05873556|169179779|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.83|0.61
84478578|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs fMLP||||0.4700
84478579|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.3392||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin unstimulated||||0.3392
84513989|NCT01975948|168781679|OTHER||Cohen'd|0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||OMS-HC analysis adjusted for practice size: P value applies to between group physicians reduction in one stigma domaine: preference for social distance|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Group Changes in subscale of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) measures three different dimensions of stigma: attitudes towards people with a mental illness (6 items); health care professionals' attitudes about disclosure of a mental illness/willingness to seek help for a mental illness (4 items), and preference for social distance (5 items). Items are rated on a 5-point scale. Mean scores can range from one to five with lower scores indicating less stigma.||||.03
84513990|NCT01975948|168781680|OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.993
84513991|NCT01975948|168781681|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84513992|NCT01975948|168781681|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence in managing mental illness and Stigma Score.||||.03
84513993|NCT01975948|168781682|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84513994|NCT01975948|168781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with non-program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.476
84513995|NCT01975948|168781683|SUPERIORITY||Cohen'd|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
84513996|NCT01975948|168781683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||We used the Spearman's correlation coefficient using the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.945
84513997|NCT01975948|168781684|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.742
84513998|NCT01975948|168781685|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.543
84513999|NCT01975948|168781686|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.009
84514000|NCT01975948|168781687|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.213
84514001|NCT02937870|168781688|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.66||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.47||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.47|-0.14|0.1770
84514002|NCT02937870|168781689|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.59||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.59|-0.98|0.8321
84514003|NCT02937870|168781690|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.87|-0.72|0.8566
84514004|NCT02937870|168781691|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.00|-1.58|0.0488
84514005|NCT02937870|168781692|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.66|0.06|0.0352
84514006|NCT00609674|168781703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84514007|NCT00244764|168781735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|34.7||||||95.0|28.4|40.9|||||The estimated value provided is the response rate.|||40.9|28.4|
84514008|NCT00244764|168781736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|42.0||||||95.0|29.0|54.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of the first 60 participants who had stable disease at Week 12, as assessed by the investigator.|||54|29|
84514009|NCT01001208|168781740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||<0.0001
84478580|NCT01861054|168708487|OTHER|||||||0.808||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin fMLP||||0.8080
84478581|NCT00405821|168708491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||P-value was adjusted to include multiple looks at data including an interim efficacy review at 50% and 75% accrual of person-years on study|Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline log10 viral load, baseline CD4 count, gender, and age||Intent-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models, adjusting for baseline log10 viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, gender and age to assess the risk of disease progression||0.99|0.58|<0.05
84478582|NCT00405821|168708492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.48||we included multiple GUD events per subject in the estimate of GUD incidence|rate ratio with 95% CI|||Null hypothesis is no difference by treatment arm in rate of GUD.||0.48|0.19|<0.05
84478583|NCT00405821|168708493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.463||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.194|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no difference in annual rate of change in log10 viral load by arm.||-0.194|-0.731|0.05
84478584|NCT02372097|168708497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed AUC(0-168) of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0344|0.0004||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-168) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0004|-0.0344|
84478585|NCT02372097|168708498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed Cmax of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|LS mean difference|-0.1292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2177|-0.0406||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the Cmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0406|-0.2177|
84478586|NCT02372097|168708499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.021||||||90.0|-0.0362|-0.0058||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-inf) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0058|-0.0362|
84716247|NCT05873556|169179780|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.72|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.72|0.79|0.45
84716248|NCT05873556|169179780|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.79|0.77|0.46
84716249|NCT05873556|169179781|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.77|0.62
84716250|NCT05873556|169179781|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.48|0.87|0.34
84716251|NCT05873556|169179782|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.54|0.76|0.66
84716252|NCT05873556|169179782|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.75|0.92
84716253|NCT04047602|169179783|EQUIVALENCE|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.|Binomial Proportion|0.083||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.385||The p-value reported is the one-sided p-value from the exact equivalence binomial test using an alpha value of 0.05.|Exact Binomial Test||The binomial proportion 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.||0.385|0.002|0.234
84716254|NCT04047602|169179786|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.285
84716255|NCT04047602|169179787|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
84478587|NCT02372097|168708500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1452|0.8952||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with Tmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.8952|-0.1452|
84716256|NCT04047602|169179788|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
84716257|NCT04047602|169179791|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.248
84716258|NCT04047602|169179792|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
84716259|NCT04047602|169179793|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
84478588|NCT02372097|168708501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.0168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0504|0.0169||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the MRT as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0169|-0.0504|
84716260|NCT04484428|169179825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.773
84478589|NCT02372097|168708502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0235|0.1963||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the λz as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.1963|0.0235|
84478590|NCT04962503|168708508|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Change from baseline to Day 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
84478591|NCT04962503|168708508|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Change from baseline to Day 9|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
84478592|NCT03788967|168708551|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in overall response was greater than -12.5%, non-inferiority was declared.|Risk Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.2||||||||3.2|-9.7|
84478593|NCT03788967|168708553|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-11.3|
84478594|NCT03788967|168708554|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.4||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||3.4|-0.1|
84478595|NCT03788967|168708554|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||2.8|-4|
84478596|NCT03788967|168708554|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||||||Statistical Analysis 3 (LFU)||2.6|-5.7|
84478597|NCT03788967|168708555|OTHER||Risk Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.3|
84478598|NCT03788967|168708556|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-3.8|
84478599|NCT03788967|168708557|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||||||||2.3|-3.3|
84478600|NCT03788967|168708558|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-0.2|
84478601|NCT03788967|168708559|OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.3|
84478602|NCT03788967|168708560|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.1|
84478603|NCT03788967|168708561|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.1||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||4.1|-0.8|
84478604|NCT03788967|168708561|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.9||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||1.9|-10.8|
84478605|NCT03788967|168708561|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.0||||||||5|-7.9|
84478606|NCT03788967|168708565|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.6|
84478607|NCT03788967|168708566|OTHER||Risk Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.7||||||||0.7|-12.4|
84716261|NCT04484428|169179826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.972
84716262|NCT04484428|169179827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.617
84716263|NCT04484428|169179828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.796
84716264|NCT04484428|169179829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.960
84716265|NCT04484428|169179830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
84478608|NCT03788967|168708567|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.5|
84478609|NCT03788967|168708571|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|4.1||||||Overall response for participants with AP||4.1|-13.5|
84478610|NCT03788967|168708571|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.7||||||Overall response in participants with cUTI||7.7|-11.0|
84478611|NCT03788967|168708572|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.9||||||||9.9|-7.2|
84478612|NCT03788967|168708572|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.8||||||≥65 to \<75 years||3.8|-20.6|
84478613|NCT03788967|168708572|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|8.7||||||≥75 years||8.7|-23.8|
84478614|NCT03788967|168708573|OTHER||Risk Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.5||||||Central and Eastern Europe||3.5|-9.6|
84478615|NCT03788967|168708574|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
84478616|NCT03788967|168708575|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.736
84478617|NCT04268303|168708583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84478618|NCT04268303|168708583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84478619|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84716266|NCT04484428|169179831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
84716267|NCT04484428|169179832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
84716268|NCT03673501|169179873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Log Rank|Strata: by intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.16|0.66|0.3598
84716269|NCT03673501|169179874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.33|0.82|0.7153
84716270|NCT03673501|169179875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.0333
84716271|NCT03673501|169179876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.2681
84716272|NCT03673501|169179877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.48|||Log Rank|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.48|0.75|0.7733
84716273|NCT03673501|169179878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib||||1.18|0.66|0.3928
84514010|NCT01001208|168781741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84716274|NCT04479761|169179958|OTHER|T test derived from a linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and healthy controls for the reported condition.|||||0.005
84716275|NCT04479761|169179959|OTHER|T tests derived from linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and the controls on the reported condition.|||||0.008
84716276|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|15.65|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||15.65|-10.66|0.75
84716277|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.76|-18.49|0.50
84716278|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.48|14.84|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||14.84|-11.48|0.83
84478620|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84478621|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84478622|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84478623|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84716279|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.91|6.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||6.15|-7.91|0.84
84716280|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|8.9|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||8.90|-5.13|0.66
84478624|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84478625|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
84478626|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0075
84478627|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0032
84478628|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.4097
84478629|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.0457
84478630|NCT04268303|168708584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.9720
84716281|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|7.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.68|-6.38|0.88
84716282|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-200.7|93.05|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.05|-200.70|0.54
84716283|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.51||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.01|105.98|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||105.98|-187.01|0.65
84716284|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-199.87|93.88|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.88|-199.87|0.55
84716285|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.85|8.56|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||8.56|-81.85|0.18
84716286|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.49||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.58|22.59|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||22.59|-67.58|0.41
84716287|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.06|11.34|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.34|-79.06|0.22
84716288|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-183.08|121.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||121.76|-183.08|0.74
84716289|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.77||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-250.79|53.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||53.25|-250.79|0.28
84716290|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-214.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-367.31|-62.48|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-62.48|-367.31|0.02
84716291|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.44|73.66|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||73.66|-81.44|0.93
84716292|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-268.37|-113.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||-113.67|-268.37|<.0001
84716293|NCT04183283|169179969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-329.79|-174.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: Entire Image||-174.68|-329.79|<.0001
84716294|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.28|8.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||8.15|-8.28|0.99
84716295|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.78|7.6|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.60|-8.78|0.91
84716296|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.69|10.74|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||10.74|-5.69|0.61
84716297|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.58|7.0|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.00|-9.58|0.80
84716298|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|9.72|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||9.72|-6.83|0.77
84716299|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|10.14|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||10.14|-6.45|0.71
84716300|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.27|16.51|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||16.51|-53.27|0.38
84716301|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.76|31.83|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||31.83|-37.76|0.89
84716302|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|24.77|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||24.77|-45.00|0.63
84716303|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.31||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.21|3.58|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||3.58|-26.21|0.21
84716304|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.04|11.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.67|-18.04|0.72
84716305|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.35|4.44|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||4.44|-25.35|0.25
84716306|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.71|37.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||37.25|-22.71|0.69
84716307|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|9.2|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||9.2|-50.60|0.25
84716308|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.77|-4.81|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-4.81|-64.77|0.06
84716309|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|35.42|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||35.42|-15.4|0.51
84716310|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.98|-28.29|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-28.29|-78.98|<0.001
84716311|NCT04183283|169179970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.91|-54.09|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-54.09|-104.91|<.0001
84716312|NCT05452460|169179980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in RT as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in RT as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
84716313|NCT05452460|169179981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in ACC the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in ACC as the covariate.||||||> .05
84716314|NCT05452460|169179982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in N2 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in N2 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
84716315|NCT05452460|169179983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in P3 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in P3 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
84716316|NCT05452460|169179984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in TTE the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in TTE as the covariate.|\[F(1, 52) = 13.35, p = .001, ηp2 = .211\]|||||< 0.01
84716317|NCT05452460|169179985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in VO2max Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in VO2max||||||> 0.05
84716318|NCT05452460|169179986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 3 (ASSESSMENT TIME) × 2 (Experiment Phase)||||||< 0.01
84716319|NCT05452460|169179987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The main effect of the Stroop block on accuracy showed a decrease from the first block to the fifth block.|ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 5 (BLOCK) × 2 (Phase)||||||< 0.01
84716320|NCT05452460|169179988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test mean score Covariate: Pre-test mean score||||||< 0.05
84716321|NCT05452460|169179989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed anger Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed anger||||||> 0.05
84716322|NCT05452460|169179990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
84716323|NCT05452460|169179991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed depression Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed depression||||||> 0.05
84716324|NCT05452460|169179992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed fatigue Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed fatigue||||||> 0.05
84514011|NCT01001208|168781742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84514012|NCT01001208|168781743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84514013|NCT01001208|168781744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84514014|NCT01001208|168781745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84514015|NCT01001208|168781746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0348
84514016|NCT01001208|168781747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
84716325|NCT05452460|169179993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
84716326|NCT05452460|169179994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
84716327|NCT03676192|169180003|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (-12.5, 12.5).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.83||||||Logistic regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||7.83|-7.02|
84716328|NCT03676192|169180003|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (0.7368, 1.3572).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8767|1.1719||||||Log-binomial regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||1.1719|0.8767|
84716329|NCT03676192|169180006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.10|0.77|
84716330|NCT03676192|169180007|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.19|0.77|
84716331|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Abnormal tissular architecture||||0.023
84514017|NCT01001208|168781748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
84514018|NCT01001208|168781749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
84716332|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell size||||0.01
84716333|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell shape||||0.01
84716334|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell fluorescence||||0.013
84716335|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Blood vessel dysplasia||||0.16
84716336|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Organized conjunctive fibers||||0.17
84716337|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Full chia seed sign||||0.049
84716338|NCT04731129|169180010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||General physician conclusion||||0.0041
84716339|NCT03386578|169180022|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.94||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative maternal adverse events was calculated between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and the PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Maternal participants in Cohort 2/Step 2 contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.94|0.89|
84716340|NCT03386578|169180023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5||||||Odds ratio comparing the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between the PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group.||1.50|0.52|
84716341|NCT03386578|169180023|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test the differences in the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between PrEP-exposed (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 2) groups.||||0.68
84514019|NCT01723397|168781756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.8
84716342|NCT03386578|169180024|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.38||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative infant AEs between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group was based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Cohort 2/Step 2 infants contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.38|0.70|
84716343|NCT03386578|169180025|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant whole-body bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.18
84716344|NCT03386578|169180026|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.39
84716345|NCT03386578|169180027|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.12
84716346|NCT03386578|169180028|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.70
84716347|NCT03386578|169180029|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.58
84716348|NCT03386578|169180030|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.08
84716349|NCT03386578|169180031|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1)||||0.52
84716350|NCT03386578|169180032|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.30
84716351|NCT03386578|169180033|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.06
84716352|NCT03386578|169180034|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84716353|NCT01868997|169180063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.293|23.825||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value are obtained from a logistic regression model with treatment and smoking status as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.825|3.293|< 0.001
84716354|NCT01868997|169180064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.221||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.561|17.375|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||17.375|4.561|0.001
84716355|NCT01868997|169180065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|-1.772|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.772|-2.843|< 0.001
84716356|NCT01868997|169180066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|-1.098|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.098|-2.073|< 0.001
84716357|NCT01868997|169180067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.827|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.549|21.773|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||21.773|6.549|< 0.001
84716358|NCT01868997|169180068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|13.901|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||13.901|-1.255|0.101
84716359|NCT01960452|169180069|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2791
84716360|NCT01960452|169180069|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
84716361|NCT01960452|169180070|OTHER|Group comparison, for both absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.1069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.1069
84514020|NCT00833937|168781777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|99.7||||||90.0|93.9|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|93.9|
84716362|NCT01960452|169180070|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
84716363|NCT01960452|169180071|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2918
84716364|NCT01960452|169180071|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.761
84716365|NCT03308877|169180088|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Covariates include education \& percent days abstinent at baseline.|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis 1: Affective psychopathy scores will moderate response to a BMI such that individuals with lower scores will benefit relative to controls, but individuals with higher psychopathy scores will not benefit from the intervention in terms of percent days abstinent.||||.07
84716366|NCT03308877|169180088|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Sensitivity analysis: proximal follow-up (3 months following BMI or SC)||||.02
84716367|NCT03308877|169180088|OTHER||B|0.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.156|||Regression, Linear|bias corrected bootstrap||Increased readiness to change will be associated with decreased substance use.||.156|.007|<.01
84716368|NCT03308877|169180089|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.74
84716369|NCT03308877|169180090|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
84725792|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|17.34|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||17.34|9.92|
84716370|NCT05163496|169180105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS score from the preparation 1 session to day 28 would be the same in both niacin and psilocybin groups. The alternative hypothesis was that the change in the psilocybin group would be greater than the change in the niacin group, with an assumed true effect size of 1.06 SD units based on findings in prior studies. With 15 participants per group, this study had 80% power to observe a statistically significant difference between groups.||||<.001
84716371|NCT03625115|169180129|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley cognitive scores between the groups.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84716372|NCT03625115|169180130|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|8.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who completed a multidisciplinary evaluation (referral completed).||||.004
84716373|NCT03625115|169180131|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|0.05||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who began early intervention services.||||.82
84716374|NCT03625115|169180132|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley language scores between the groups.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84716375|NCT03625115|169180134|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 1 between groups||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of factor 1 items from the parent engagement questionnaire. Factor 1 (Buy-in) I am open to getting EI for my child. EI can help my child. EI can teach me new ways to help my child.||||.858
84716376|NCT03625115|169180134|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 2 between groups||||||0.995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 2 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 2 (early intervention consequences):~EI could have negative consequences for my child. Getting EI for my child reflects negatively on me as a parent."||||.995
84716377|NCT03625115|169180134|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 3 between groups||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 3 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 3 (Knowledge/Self-Efficacy):~I know how to get EI for my child. I understand how the EI process works. If I have questions about EI, I know who to call. 12. I know my child's rights to EI under the law."||||.049
84716378|NCT03625115|169180135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression was run to determine if the intervention arm, adjusted for child sex, income, maternal education, and primary care site, was associated with the completion of early intervention referrals for families with an adverse childhood experience survey score of greater than 2.||3.21|1.09|.02
84716379|NCT03655028|169180245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The co-variate used in the analysis was the 6 minute walk distance at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84716380|NCT03655028|169180246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||The co-variant used to adjust the ANCOVA was the baseline step count/day.|ANCOVA|||||||.307
84716381|NCT03655028|169180247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||this comparison is made between distance walked during 6MW at 12 weeks and distance walked during 6MW at 24 weeks|ANCOVA|||||||0.106
84514021|NCT00833937|168781778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.8||||||90.0|92.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.6|
84514022|NCT00833937|168781779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9||||||90.0|92.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.7|
84716382|NCT03655028|169180248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline PCS score was used at the co-variate|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
84716383|NCT03655028|169180249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Covariate was baseline MCS score|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84716384|NCT03655028|169180250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
84716385|NCT00429364|169180282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84716386|NCT00429364|169180283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84716387|NCT00429364|169180284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
84716388|NCT00429364|169180285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84716389|NCT00429364|169180286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716390|NCT00429364|169180287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84716391|NCT00429364|169180288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
84716392|NCT00429364|169180289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression model adjusted for age at study visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84716393|NCT00429364|169180290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
84716394|NCT00429364|169180291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84716395|NCT00429364|169180292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
84716396|NCT00429364|169180293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
84716397|NCT00429364|169180294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84716398|NCT00429364|169180295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84716399|NCT00429364|169180296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
84716400|NCT00429364|169180297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84716401|NCT00429364|169180299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
84514023|NCT01237054|168781788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ang2 in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
84514024|NCT01237054|168781788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of G-CSF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
84716402|NCT00429364|169180301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.13
84716403|NCT00429364|169180303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
84716404|NCT00429364|169180305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.10
84716405|NCT05586490|169180335|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6375||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.429
84716406|NCT05586490|169180336|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.351
84716407|NCT05586490|169180337|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.937
84716408|NCT05586490|169180338|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.044
84716409|NCT05586490|169180339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.42
84716410|NCT05586490|169180339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device group and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.50
84716411|NCT05586490|169180340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.986
84716412|NCT05586490|169180340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.479
84716413|NCT05586490|169180341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.098
84716414|NCT05586490|169180341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.729
84716415|NCT05586490|169180342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.15||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.0580
84716416|NCT05586490|169180342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.718
84716417|NCT05586490|169180344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.816
84716418|NCT05586490|169180344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0048||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.985
84514025|NCT01237054|168781788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Follistatin in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
84716419|NCT05586490|169180345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.59
84716420|NCT05586490|169180345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.16||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.51
84514026|NCT01237054|168781788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of HGF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0098
84716421|NCT05290493|169180360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0672
84716422|NCT05290493|169180361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2045
84716423|NCT05290493|169180362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2931
84716424|NCT05290493|169180363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7799
84716425|NCT05290493|169180364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7974|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7974
84716426|NCT05290493|169180365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8286|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8286
84716427|NCT05419830|169180367|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep time dip in systolic BP. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
84514027|NCT01237054|168781788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of VEGF-A in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.02
84514028|NCT01237054|168781789|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.008|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.008
84514029|NCT01237054|168781790|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Kep between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.15
84514030|NCT01237054|168781790|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.33||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ktrans between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.33
84514031|NCT01237054|168781791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
84514032|NCT01237054|168781792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.011
84514033|NCT05323396|168781794|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.19
84514034|NCT05323396|168781795|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.85
84514035|NCT05323396|168781796|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.77
84514036|NCT05323396|168781797|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.12
84514037|NCT05323396|168781798|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.81
84514038|NCT05323396|168781799|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.65
84514039|NCT00913627|168781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|20.19||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.19|12.13|<0.001
84514040|NCT00913627|168781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|20.99||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.99|13.02|<0.001
84514041|NCT00913627|168781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|16.26||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||16.26|8.33|<0.001
84514042|NCT00913627|168781801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||8.38|4.30|<0.001
84716428|NCT05419830|169180368|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in nocturia frequency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
84716429|NCT05419830|169180369|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in NPi. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84716430|NCT05419830|169180370|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in PSQI scores. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
84716431|NCT05419830|169180371|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep efficiency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84716432|NCT02567409|169180378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.98|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||1.98|0.69|
84716433|NCT02567409|169180379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.48|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||2.48|0.71|
84716434|NCT02567409|169180380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
84716435|NCT03106740|169180583|SUPERIORITY|Because relevant \[11C\]PBR28 PET imaging data were unavailable at the time of trial initiation to inform a power analysis of a treatment effect, we ran a power analysis of the treatment effect on the expected change in pain ratings based on a recent clinical trial using minocycline in subjects with back pain. We computed the sample size required for mixed effects between-subject and within-subject (Time: Pretest/Posttest) repeated measures ANOVA design. Alpha was set at 0.05 (two-tailed test).|Restricted maximum likelihood|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||The p-value corresponds to the group-by-time interaction analysis of the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter: Unstandardized partial regression coefficient (beta)|||0.02|-0.02|0.956
84716436|NCT04797858|169180591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0077||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.056|||Fisher Exact|||||0.056|-0.021|0.45
84716437|NCT04797858|169180592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.03|-0.0004|0.11
84716438|NCT04433208|169180597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84716439|NCT02010242|169180603|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were performed on a comparison-wise basis without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA comparing GKT137831 vs placebo after controlling for the baseline UACR level. The UACR were log-transformed prior to analysis. The model included treatment group and log-transformed baseline UACR value as predicted variables. The results were back-transformed exponentially to calculate geo. mean values and associated 90% CIs and 1-sided p-values. The null hypothesis was that the difference in the adjusted mean logarithm of UACR was equal to 0||||1.000
84716440|NCT03314688|169180677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84716441|NCT03314688|169180678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.33
84716442|NCT03314688|169180678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.44
84716443|NCT03314688|169180678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.29
84716444|NCT03314688|169180679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.69
84716445|NCT03314688|169180679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.91
84716446|NCT03314688|169180679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.13
84716447|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket and patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent messages offering $1 cash.||||.506
84716448|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||Comments: Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent active control messages.||||0.378
84716449|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
84716450|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent active control messages and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent active control messages compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
84716451|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.||||||0.121|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those sent active control messages.||||.121
84716452|NCT05012163|169180732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those who were not sent messages.||||.002
84716453|NCT05280574|169180761|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.1|||Distinct-effects GEE model||Average relative effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component composite (SpO2 \<85%, RR \>30/min, RR \<4/min, HR \<45/min, HR \>130/min) of cumulative durations.||We assessed the treatment effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component primary outcome composite of cumulative durations by estimating the average relative effect on the log-transformed count data (counts of observations beyond a given threshold at 1 Hz). Specifically, we employed a distinct-effects (i.e., separate treatment effect estimated for each component) generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to account for within-subject correlation across components with the vector of the 5 cumulative durations as the dependent variable and treatment as independent. We then averaged the component-specific effects and tested whether the average effect equals zero (on the log scale), and reported results as the ratio of geometric means of unblinded versus blinded monitoring.|1.1|0.51|< 0.05
84716454|NCT05363163|169180764|OTHER|If the mean volume variation was higher than 0 and the p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05, the H0 hypothesis was rejected, and the primary endpoint demonstrated.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84716455|NCT05838027|169180785|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|12.55||||||||12.55|0.84|
84716456|NCT05838027|169180786|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.64||||||||2.64|0.24|
84716457|NCT05838027|169180787|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.82||||||||4.82|-3.78|
84716458|NCT05838027|169180788|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.4||||||||1.40|-1.01|
84716459|NCT05838027|169180789|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|2.0||||||||2.00|-7.43|
84716460|NCT05838027|169180790|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.16||||||||4.16|-5.45|
84514043|NCT00913627|168781801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|9.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||9.08|5.05|<0.001
84514044|NCT00913627|168781801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||7.06|3.04|<0.001
84514045|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
84514046|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
84514047|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.94|-42.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-42.27|-76.94|<0.001
84514048|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
84716461|NCT05838027|169180791|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.74||||||||2.74|0.46|
84716462|NCT05838027|169180792|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.29|
84716463|NCT05838027|169180795|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.90|
84716464|NCT05838027|169180796|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.32|
84716465|NCT05838027|169180797|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63||||||||1.63|0.23|
84716466|NCT05838027|169180798|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.54|
84716467|NCT05838027|169180799|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.49||||||||5.49|0.19|
84716468|NCT05838027|169180800|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||||0.43|-2.64|
84716469|NCT05838027|169180801|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.8||||||||6.80|-1.35|
84716470|NCT05838027|169180802|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.36||||||||0.36|-1.74|
84716471|NCT03213873|169180803|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.0|0.57
84716472|NCT03213873|169180804|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.03|0.25
84716473|NCT03213873|169180805|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
84716474|NCT05715528|169180852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.211||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.211|0.997|0.0681
84716475|NCT05715528|169180856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.147|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.147|0.935|0.5558
84716476|NCT05715528|169180857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6469|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.6469
84716477|NCT05715528|169180858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|5.464|||Log-rank test|P value was based on log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression.|||5.464|0.045|0.5581
84716478|NCT05715528|169180860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.02||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||p-value was from Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|MMRM||95% CI was from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||0.08|-0.03|0.4254
84716479|NCT05715528|169180861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.256||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.256|1.032|0.0015
84716480|NCT05715528|169180862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.6978
84716481|NCT05715528|169180867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.5707
84716482|NCT02998528|169180920|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|97.38|0.43|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.43|0.0052
84716483|NCT02998528|169180921|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|13.0|30.3|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||30.3|13.0|
84716484|NCT02998528|169180921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.49|55.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm C over Concurrent Arm B) the Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||55.75|3.49|<0.0001
84716485|NCT02998528|169180922|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|36.1|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||36.1|19.6|
84716486|NCT02998528|169180922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|10.26|||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||10.26|3.16|
84716487|NCT02998528|169180924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.77|||||Stratified by: PD-L1 status (≥ 1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||0.77|0.36|
84716488|NCT04204083|169180939|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84716489|NCT04204083|169180940|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84716490|NCT04204083|169180941|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84716491|NCT04011644|169180957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Quanbeck,A.et al. A randomized trial testing digital medicine support models for mild-to-moderate alcohol use disorder. npj Digit. Med.7,248(2024)||||||0.688
84716492|NCT04011644|169180958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
84716493|NCT04011644|169180959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84716494|NCT04011644|169180961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.908
84716495|NCT04011644|169180963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.206
84716496|NCT04011644|169180964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.104
84716497|NCT04011644|169180965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716498|NCT04011644|169180966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
84716499|NCT04011644|169180967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.555
84716500|NCT04011644|169180968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.131
84716501|NCT04011644|169180972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84716502|NCT01199133|169180976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.41|> 0.05
84716503|NCT02575950|169180983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-3.96|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean values and difference is from ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline total lesion count as covariate and participants as random effect. 100 simulations of monotone multiple imputation is performed. Summary statistics are found across these 100 simulations.||-3.96|-14.71|<.001
84716504|NCT05618587|169181055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84716505|NCT05618587|169181056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84716506|NCT05618587|169181057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84716507|NCT05618587|169181058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84716508|NCT05618587|169181059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
84716509|NCT05618587|169181060|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard unconditional exact test|||||||1.0
84716510|NCT05618587|169181061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84716511|NCT05618587|169181062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84716512|NCT05618587|169181063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84716513|NCT05618587|169181064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84716514|NCT05618587|169181065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84716515|NCT05618587|169181066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84716516|NCT03442309|169181067|NON_INFERIORITY|NI margin for arrest difference of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01||||||||0.01|-.22|
84716517|NCT03442309|169181068|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority OR (OR δ, 0.63)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
84716518|NCT00661141|169181093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8727||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.8727
84716519|NCT00661141|169181096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.0023
84716520|NCT00661141|169181096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.386
84716521|NCT00661141|169181096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0006
84716522|NCT00661141|169181096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||3.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0154
84716523|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|147.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||147.67|90.45|
84716524|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|126.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.94|155.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||155.87|101.94|
84716525|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.66|163.65|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.65|115.66|
84716526|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.83|108.07|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||108.07|62.83|
84716527|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|145.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||145.67|91.19|
84716528|NCT00661141|169181103|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|131.98|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||131.98|96.14|
84716529|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|139.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.18|211.51|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||211.51|92.18|
84716530|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|120.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.8|134.03|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||134.03|108.80|
84716531|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|143.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||190.87|107.72|
84716532|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.35|126.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||126.10|84.35|
84716533|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.61|139.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||139.67|108.61|
84716534|NCT00661141|169181106|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.3|152.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||152.59|123.30|
84716535|NCT00661141|169181108|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.42|136.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||136.84|108.42|
84716536|NCT00661141|169181108|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|163.56|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.56|93.55|
84716537|NCT00661141|169181108|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|150.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|242.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||242.63|93.14|
84716538|NCT00661141|169181108|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|122.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.45|183.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analysis for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||183.00|82.45|
84716539|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|69.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.88|97.78|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||97.78|48.88|
84716540|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|124.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|174.5|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||174.50|88.77|
84716541|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|124.27|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||124.27|89.24|
84716542|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.66|138.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||138.54|56.66|
84716543|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|70.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.16|146.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||146.59|34.16|
84514049|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
84514050|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-57.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-40.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-40.16|-75.43|<0.001
84716544|NCT00661141|169181114|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|86.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.78|132.73|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||132.73|55.78|
84716545|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|117.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||117.00|69.54|
84514051|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-66.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-49.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-49.60|-83.98|<0.001
84514052|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
84716546|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.72|121.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||121.54|103.72|
84716547|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|106.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.81|116.24|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||116.24|96.81|
84716548|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|104.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.5|129.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||129.84|83.50|
84716549|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.86|129.49|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||129.49|77.86|
84716550|NCT00661141|169181117|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|108.42|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||108.42|82.70|
84716551|NCT00661141|169181119|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.01|1113.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||1113.63|78.01|
84716552|NCT00661141|169181119|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|107.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|131.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||131.10|87.42|
84716553|NCT00661141|169181119|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|112.97|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||112.97|84.84|
84716554|NCT04615273|169181137|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis included treatment arm, region, baseline age group, gender, concomitant oral estrogen, Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (AGHD) onset as factors \& baseline trunk percent fat as the covariates. Multiple imputation method was used to impute missing data.||-1.14|-2.94|<.0001
84716555|NCT05062330|169181157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation|||||4.13|1.67|<0.0001
84716556|NCT00670241|169181226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.70|2.05|< 0.001
84716557|NCT00670241|169181227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.46|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.40|1.46|<0.001
84716558|NCT00670241|169181228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-22.6|-6.9|||ANOVA|||||-6.90|-22.6|<0.001
84716559|NCT05683340|169181237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-16.85|||MMRM||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-16.85|-26.71|0.001
84716560|NCT03505008|169181254|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 90% CI for the intergroup difference in SDAI remission rates to exceed the non-inferiority margin of -15%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||||||
84716561|NCT06193070|169181283|OTHER|A one-tailed paired t-test was run to examine within subject mean difference on the cancer nutrition information beliefs scale pre- and post-game.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold was set at alpha \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A paired samples t-test was run on pre- and post-game mean scores within subjects.||All participants were exposed to the intervention, and pre- and post-game scores within subject were examined.||||<.001
84716562|NCT03926130|169181293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|23.0|<0.000001
84716563|NCT03926130|169181294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|18.8|<0.000001
84716564|NCT03926130|169181295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|13.7|<0.000001
84716565|NCT03926130|169181296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.8|33.4|<0.000001
84716566|NCT03926130|169181296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.513623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|-4.7|0.513623
84716567|NCT03926130|169181297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.001431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|5.3|0.001431
84716568|NCT03926130|169181298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.4|27.7|<0.000001
84716569|NCT03926130|169181298|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10%. We do not have power calculation in the SAP for this endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Z test|||||12.8|-1.4|<0.0001
84716570|NCT03926130|169181299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.5|3.2|0.003414
84716571|NCT03926130|169181300|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||1.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.24|0.000011
84716572|NCT03926130|169181301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-2.01|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.42|<0.000001
84716573|NCT03926130|169181302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|18.9|<0.000001
84716574|NCT03926130|169181303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.4|10.2|<0.000001
84716575|NCT03926130|169181304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.8|18.2|<0.000001
84716576|NCT03926130|169181305|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.05|<0.000001
84716577|NCT03926130|169181306|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-1.22|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.48|<0.000001
84716578|NCT03926130|169181307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84716579|NCT03926130|169181308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.732715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-18.0|0.732715
84716580|NCT03926130|169181309|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|27.92|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|33.18|||ANCOVA|||||33.18|22.67|<0.000001
84716581|NCT03926130|169181311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.000213|TWO_SIDED|99.5|4.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|4.1|0.000213
84716582|NCT03926130|169181312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|13.1|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|13.1|<0.000001
84716583|NCT03583333|169181313|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was 12.5%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Adjusted differences and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||12.4|-1.5|0.024
84716584|NCT03583333|169181313|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.||||12.4|-1.5|0.938
84716585|NCT03583333|169181314|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.9|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.9|-8.7|
84716586|NCT03583333|169181315|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|16.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||16.8|-12.4|
84716587|NCT03583333|169181316|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|14.3|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.3|-7.6|
84716588|NCT03583333|169181317|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.6|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||6.6|-15.8|
84716589|NCT03583333|169181318|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.1|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||13.1|-17.8|
84716590|NCT03583333|169181319|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|19.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||19.8|-16.5|
84514053|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
84514054|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
84514055|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-68.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.63|-54.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-54.14|-85.63|<0.001
84716591|NCT03583333|169181320|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|14.4|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.4|-19.8|
84716592|NCT03583333|169181321|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.6|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||10.6|-6.5|
84716593|NCT03583333|169181322|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.4|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||1.4|-10.7|
84716594|NCT03687762|169181356|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716595|NCT03687762|169181357|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716596|NCT03687762|169181358|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716597|NCT03687762|169181359|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716598|NCT03687762|169181360|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716599|NCT03687762|169181361|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84716600|NCT03687762|169181362|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716601|NCT03687762|169181363|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716602|NCT03687762|169181364|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
84716603|NCT03687762|169181365|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716604|NCT03687762|169181366|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716605|NCT03687762|169181367|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716606|NCT03687762|169181368|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84514056|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
84514057|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
84514058|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-65.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.49|-48.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-48.07|-82.49|<0.001
84514059|NCT00913627|168781804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-50.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.09|-32.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-32.45|-69.09|<0.001
84514060|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|6.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.51|4.18|<0.001
84514061|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.40|4.09|<0.001
84716607|NCT03687762|169181369|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716608|NCT03687762|169181370|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716609|NCT03687762|169181371|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
84716610|NCT01866163|169181379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|94.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||Multiple imputations were used to handle missing data.||94.30|9.72|<0.001
84716611|NCT01866163|169181380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.67|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-2.67|-3.90|<0.001
84716612|NCT01866163|169181381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.78|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-0.78|-1.76|<0.001
84716613|NCT04934072|169181445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely above -1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.96|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||0.96|-0.05|
84716614|NCT04934072|169181445|OTHER|Non-superiority Analysis: Non-superiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely below 1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.2|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||1.20|0.19|
84716615|NCT03421340|169181454|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin of 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||exact|||||||0.029
84716616|NCT03421340|169181455|SUPERIORITY|Not powered|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-8|
84514062|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||5.12|2.83|<0.001
84716617|NCT03421340|169181456|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.0|143.0||||||||143|120|
84514063|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|9.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.43|5.63|<0.001
84514064|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.56|5.80|<0.001
84716618|NCT03421340|169181457|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-7.5||||||||-7.5|-11.6|
84716619|NCT02641730|169181520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.383|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.383|-11.000|<0.001
84716620|NCT02641730|169181520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.468|-0.748|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.748|-7.468|0.017
84716621|NCT04271046|169181550|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
84716622|NCT04271046|169181551|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84716623|NCT04271046|169181552|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
84716624|NCT04271046|169181553|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
84716625|NCT04271046|169181560|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.08
84716626|NCT04271046|169181561|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
84716627|NCT04271046|169181562|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
84716628|NCT04271046|169181563|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
84716629|NCT04271046|169181564|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
84716630|NCT04271046|169181565|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
84716631|NCT04271046|169181566|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63
84716632|NCT04271046|169181567|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
84716633|NCT04271046|169181568|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
84716634|NCT04271046|169181569|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
84716635|NCT04271046|169181570|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
84716636|NCT04271046|169181571|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
84716637|NCT04271046|169181572|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
84716638|NCT04271046|169181573|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
84716639|NCT05513937|169181592|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84716640|NCT02846545|169181594|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.178|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.28|= 0.0004
84716641|NCT02846545|169181595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||=|0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.81|= 0.8020
84716642|NCT02846545|169181596|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of hypoglycemia rates|0.9|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.966|||Poisson regression model|||Hypoglycemia rate was analyzed by using a Poisson regression model with the number of hypoglycemia events through Week 52 as the response, treatment and gender as fixed factors, age and baseline HbA1c as covariates, and the duration of study participation through week 52 in logarithm as an offset variable.||0.966|0.838|= 0.0036
84716643|NCT06468982|169181605|SUPERIORITY|To evaluate whether intra-aortic balloon pump catheter support contributes to a more rapid decrease in troponin levels and faster myocardial recovery, daily troponin levels were analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the threshold value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|The hypothesis that IABP causes a rapid increase in troponin levels was analyzed using ANOVA, and the p-value was reported.||After testing for normality, the baseline characteristics of the two groups will be analyzed using the Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Differences between the intra-aortic balloon pump group and the control group in terms of repeated measurements will be analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||0.05
84716644|NCT06468982|169181606|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The prognostic value of risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis||0.78|0.38|<0.05
84716645|NCT04181736|169181607|OTHER||F-statistic|6.621||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for circuit function, with five repeated measures for each circuit measure defining the cognitive control circuit.||||0.020
84716646|NCT04181736|169181612|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.002||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to week 2.||2.002|0.937|<0.001
84716647|NCT04181736|169181612|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|3.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.757|3.547||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||3.547|2.757|<0.001
84716648|NCT04181736|169181613|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.724|-0.774||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in QIDS-SR depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||-0.774|-1.724|< 0.001
84716649|NCT04181736|169181614|OTHER||F-statistic|19.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for cognitive control function, with six repeated measures for behavioral tests of cognitive control.||||<0.001
84716650|NCT04181736|169181615|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.881||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.438||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in SWLS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||1.438|0.324|0.002
84716651|NCT04181736|169181616|OTHER||F-statistic|11.913||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for quality with four repeated measures for domains of quality of life.||||0.003
84716652|NCT04181736|169181617|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.2||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.208||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in C-SSRS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||0.208|-0.608|0.283
84716653|NCT06149338|169181629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84716654|NCT06149338|169181629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84514065|NCT00913627|168781805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|7.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||7.36|3.62|<0.001
84716655|NCT06149338|169181630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.0001
84716656|NCT06149338|169181631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0041
84716657|NCT06149338|169181631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84716658|NCT06149338|169181632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7895||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7895
84716659|NCT06262477|169181638|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed Cmax was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kilograms \[kg\], ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of geometric least square means (GLSM), and corresponding confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.974|1.13||||||||1.13|0.974|
84716660|NCT06262477|169181639|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-inf was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.988|1.15||||||||1.15|0.988|
84716661|NCT06262477|169181640|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-t was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.985|1.15||||||||1.15|0.985|
84716662|NCT01880515|169181667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.99||||||||0.99|0.17|
84716663|NCT01880515|169181670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
84716664|NCT05365958|169181671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
84716665|NCT05365958|169181672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
84716666|NCT05247034|169181676|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716667|NCT05247034|169181676|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84716668|NCT05247034|169181676|OTHER|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0125
84716669|NCT05247034|169181677|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For 1 Hz||||>0.05
84716670|NCT05247034|169181677|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
84716671|NCT05247034|169181677|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
84716672|NCT05247034|169181677|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
84716673|NCT05247034|169181678|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716674|NCT05247034|169181678|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Friedman|||||||0.042
84716675|NCT05247034|169181678|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Friedman|||||||0.015
84716676|NCT05247034|169181679|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
84716677|NCT05247034|169181679|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
84716678|NCT05247034|169181679|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
84716679|NCT05247034|169181680|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716680|NCT05247034|169181680|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716681|NCT05247034|169181680|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716682|NCT05247034|169181681|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716683|NCT05247034|169181681|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716684|NCT05247034|169181681|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716685|NCT05247034|169181682|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716686|NCT05247034|169181682|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716687|NCT05247034|169181682|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716688|NCT05247034|169181683|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716689|NCT05247034|169181683|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716690|NCT05247034|169181683|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716691|NCT05247034|169181684|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716692|NCT05247034|169181684|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716693|NCT05247034|169181684|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
84716694|NCT05247034|169181685|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716695|NCT05247034|169181685|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84716696|NCT05247034|169181685|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
84716697|NCT05247034|169181686|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716698|NCT05247034|169181686|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716699|NCT05247034|169181686|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0027
84716700|NCT05247034|169181687|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716701|NCT05247034|169181687|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716702|NCT05247034|169181687|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0430
84716703|NCT05247034|169181688|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716704|NCT05247034|169181688|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716705|NCT05247034|169181688|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84716706|NCT05247034|169181689|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716707|NCT05247034|169181689|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84716708|NCT05247034|169181689|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716709|NCT05247034|169181690|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716710|NCT05247034|169181690|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716711|NCT05247034|169181690|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84716712|NCT05247034|169181691|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716713|NCT05247034|169181691|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716714|NCT05247034|169181691|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84716715|NCT05247034|169181692|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716716|NCT05247034|169181692|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716717|NCT05247034|169181692|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84716718|NCT05247034|169181693|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
84716719|NCT05247034|169181693|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
84716720|NCT05247034|169181693|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84716721|NCT02668692|169181710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|10.95|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of the FAS.||10.95|0.35|=0.68
84716722|NCT02668692|169181710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.72||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||10.72|0.34|=0.68
84514066|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|16.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.27|10.68|<0.001
84514067|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.01|10.48|<0.001
84514068|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|12.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||12.83|7.33|<0.001
84716723|NCT02668692|169181711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for the FAS.||0.74|0.11|=0.009
84514069|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.71|23.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.71|14.71|<0.001
84514070|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|23.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.78|14.86|<0.001
84514071|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|18.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||18.30|9.44|<0.001
84514072|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|21.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||21.07|11.29|<0.001
84514073|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|22.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||22.49|12.81|<0.001
84514074|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|17.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||17.59|7.97|<0.001
84514075|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|50.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||50.69|31.48|<0.001
84716724|NCT02668692|169181711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||0.63|0.08|=0.003
84716725|NCT05237284|169181758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CAFS at Week 24 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to compare mean scores between the treatment groups at Week 24.||||0.6999
84716726|NCT05237284|169181761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||1.350|-0.310|0.2182
84716727|NCT05237284|169181762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.075|3.914|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline SVC, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction, and baseline SVC-by-visit interaction.||3.914|-3.075|0.8134
84716728|NCT05237284|169181763|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the LS Geometric Mean Ratios|0.961||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.027|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, log transformed baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and log transformed baseline NfL-by-visit interaction.||1.027|0.899|0.2356
84716729|NCT05237284|169181764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.005||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.183|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline megascore, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline megascore-by-visit interaction.||0.183|-0.193|0.9565
84716730|NCT05237284|169181769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.414||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.878|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline serum neurofilament light chain (NfL), disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||0.878|-1.706|0.5289
84716731|NCT05237284|169181770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, randomization strata of the geographic region of the study site, ALS onset region (bulbar or other areas), use of riluzole (yes or no), use of edaravone (yes or no), use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (yes or no), disease duration (from first symptom onset to the screening visit), baseline ALSFRS-R score and baseline NfL.||||0.1830
84716732|NCT02056834|169181792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.0166
84716733|NCT02056834|169181793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.3785
84716734|NCT02056834|169181794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84716735|NCT02056834|169181795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84716736|NCT04820322|169181827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84716737|NCT04820322|169181828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
84716738|NCT04820322|169181829|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84716739|NCT04820322|169181830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
84716740|NCT04820322|169181831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
84716741|NCT04820322|169181832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
84716742|NCT04820322|169181833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84716743|NCT04820322|169181834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84716744|NCT04820322|169181835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
84716745|NCT04820322|169181836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84716746|NCT04820322|169181837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84716747|NCT03580356|169181849|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.183|25.615|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||25.615|3.183|<.0001
84716748|NCT03580356|169181849|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.319|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.319|0.650|0.6646
84716749|NCT03580356|169181849|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.058|32.638|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||32.638|4.058|<.0001
84716750|NCT03580356|169181849|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|1.181||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.667|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.667|0.836|0.1730
84716751|NCT03580356|169181850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.554|-7.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-7.439|-12.554|<.0001
84716752|NCT03580356|169181850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|2.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||2.221|-1.392|0.6735
84716753|NCT03580356|169181850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.664|-8.518|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-8.518|-13.664|<.0001
84716754|NCT03580356|169181850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||1.128|-2.489|0.2305
84716755|NCT03580356|169181852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|-2.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||-2.929|-5.281|<.0001
84716756|NCT03580356|169181852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.928|-0.727|0.5943
84716757|NCT03580356|169181852|SUPERIORITY|Adults only|LS Mean|-4.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.678|-3.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-3.314|-5.678|<.0001
84716758|NCT03580356|169181852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.540|-1.120|0.2467
84716759|NCT03580356|169181854|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|6.063|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||6.063|1.955|<.0001
84716760|NCT03580356|169181854|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.167|0.602|0.8524
84716761|NCT03580356|169181854|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|8.004|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||8.004|2.577|<.0001
84716762|NCT03580356|169181854|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.540|0.794|0.2764
84716763|NCT03580356|169181855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|1.561|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.561|1.235|<.0001
84716764|NCT03580356|169181855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.029||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.111|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.111|0.952|0.2369
84716765|NCT03580356|169181855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.603|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.603|1.268|<.0001
84716766|NCT03580356|169181855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.056||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.140|0.978|0.0830
84716767|NCT03536884|169181864|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of noninferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.771|19.592||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-Secukinumab calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).||19.592|5.771|
84716768|NCT03536884|169181864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|2.31||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test for the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2.310|1.271|<0.001
84716769|NCT03536884|169181865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|3.836||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.836|2.068|<0.001
84716770|NCT03536884|169181867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.835|3.377||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.377|1.835|<0.001
84716771|NCT03536884|169181867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.511|3.11||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.110|1.511|<0.001
84716772|NCT03536884|169181867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.103|5.0||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.000|2.103|<0.001
84716773|NCT03331835|169181872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.93|54.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg).||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||54.79|30.93|<0.001
84716774|NCT03331835|169181873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.81|56.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg)||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||56.71|32.81|<0.001
84716775|NCT03331835|169181874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.78|55.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||55.84|31.78|<0.001
84716776|NCT03331835|169181875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||42.10|20.76|<0.001
84716777|NCT03331835|169181876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-1.33|-4.83|<0.001
84716778|NCT03331835|169181877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.03|-9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-9.68|-23.03|<0.001
84716779|NCT03331835|169181878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-4.81|-13.00|<0.001
84716780|NCT03331835|169181882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, baseline weight group, and the baseline PSI total score as explanatory variables. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-3.53|-6.31|<0.001
84716781|NCT03331835|169181883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint is analysed by using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-0.82|-4.32|0.004
84716782|NCT03331835|169181884|SUPERIORITY|Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (\<=100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|40.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.75|53.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.16|28.75|<0.001
84716783|NCT03331835|169181885|SUPERIORITY|The endpoint was analysed by using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-3.24|0.028
84716784|NCT06029452|169181887|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Sensitivity|0.853|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.815||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.815|
84716785|NCT06029452|169181887|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Specificity|0.584|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.539||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.539|
84716786|NCT05970861|169181999|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: there is no statistical significance between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: statistical significance exists between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.05
84716787|NCT05970861|169181999|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the mean percentages of gut microbiota units.~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the mean percentages of gut microbiota units."||||<0.05
84716788|NCT05970861|169182000|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||>0.05
84716789|NCT05970861|169182001|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||0.01
84716790|NCT05970861|169182002|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.01
84716791|NCT05970861|169182002|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group."||||>0.05
84716792|NCT05970861|169182002|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS).~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS)."||||<0.01
84716793|NCT05736458|169182008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Of the 23 participants who completed all study procedures, 2 participant's data was unusable for this analysis. Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for participant's high and low controllability target.||||0.66
84716794|NCT05736458|169182009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS to post-rTMS 2-back accuracy scores for a high controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.43
84716795|NCT05736458|169182009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 20||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS and post-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for a low controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.04
84716796|NCT05736458|169182010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 11||Statistics are from 2-tailed paired t-test comparing 2-back accuracy score before and after rTMS to a high controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.05
84716797|NCT05736458|169182011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing 2-back percent changes (Post-rTMS - pre-rTMS) scores for participant's high and low controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.27
84716798|NCT02990338|169182012|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.814||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Log Rank|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Confidence interval (CI) for Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated with log-log transformation of survival function and methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley.||0.814|0.436|0.0005
84716799|NCT02990338|169182013|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.||||||<0.0001
84716800|NCT02990338|169182017|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.015||One-sided significance level was 0.02 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|||1.015|0.594|0.0319
84716801|NCT00971087|169182036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|3D + s2D will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit one-sided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05. That is, our null hypothesis is that the AUC for 3D + s2D is 0.05 less than the AUC for 2D FFDM. A difference of 0.05 is considered a clinically significant difference.||||||0.009|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3D + s2D to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance.||||0.009
84716802|NCT00971087|169182037|NON_INFERIORITY|A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3DS to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance. 3DS will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit onesided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05.||||||0.045|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||||||0.045
84716803|NCT03663205|169182063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.912|||One-sided, Log Rank Test||Stratified by stratification factors: disease stage (IIIB or IV) and the level of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (\>=50%, 1% to 49%, \<1%)|||0.912|0.465|0.0054
84716804|NCT03663205|169182070|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 coughing score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in coughing score||3.1|-7.4|
84716805|NCT03663205|169182070|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 dyspnea score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in dyspnea score||2.1|-4.4|
84716806|NCT03663205|169182070|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.2|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 chest pain score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in chest pain score||1.2|-7.6|
84716807|NCT03663205|169182071|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.7|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in Global Health Status/Quality of Life score||8.7|-0.9|
84716808|NCT03995979|169182079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value was calculated using a paired t test|Paired t-test|||A compositional analysis with species-level alpha diversity will be performed between the three conditions (Pre-Dietary Restriction, Dietary Restriction, and Post-Dietary Restriction,) with ANOVA testing. Furthermore, a differential abundance analysis will be performed to further identify and confirm prevalent organisms associated with the experimental dietary restriction.||||0.05
84716809|NCT02518048|169182080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.76||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group).|ANOVA|||A last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was used to account for drop-outs and missing values in the analysis of end of treatment values.||-1.76|-2.58|<0.001
84716810|NCT02518048|169182083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.32||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Total Skin Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.32|-0.53|<0.001
84716811|NCT02518048|169182083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.41||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Echo-Poor Band Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.41|-0.69|<0.001
84716812|NCT05654662|169182084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0032
84514076|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.15|52.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||52.17|33.15|<0.001
84514077|NCT00913627|168781806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|40.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||40.53|21.63|<0.001
84514078|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|9.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.80|6.45|<0.001
84716813|NCT05654662|169182085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.6|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|||-2.6|-10.6|0.0013
84716814|NCT05654662|169182086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0181
84716815|NCT05654662|169182086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0541
84514079|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|9.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.65|6.34|<0.001
84514080|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||7.75|4.46|<0.001
84514081|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|14.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.34|9.02|<0.001
84716816|NCT05654662|169182087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-1.0|-6.7|0.0091
84716817|NCT05654662|169182087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-1.8|-8.8|0.0031
84716818|NCT05654662|169182088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716819|NCT05654662|169182088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716820|NCT05654662|169182088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716821|NCT05654662|169182089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.01|-0.05|0.0051
84716822|NCT05654662|169182089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.01|-0.07|0.0034
84716823|NCT05654662|169182089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.02|-0.08|0.0022
84716824|NCT05654662|169182090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716825|NCT05654662|169182090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716826|NCT05654662|169182090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716827|NCT05654662|169182091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.04|-0.12|<0.0001
84716828|NCT05654662|169182091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
84716829|NCT05654662|169182091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
84716830|NCT05654662|169182092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716831|NCT05654662|169182092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716832|NCT05654662|169182092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84514082|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|14.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.27|9.01|<0.001
84514083|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|11.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||11.00|5.76|<0.001
84514084|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|12.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||12.75|6.93|<0.001
84716833|NCT05654662|169182093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.25|0.0012
84716834|NCT05654662|169182093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.05|-0.29|0.0058
84716835|NCT05654662|169182093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.42|<0.0001
84716836|NCT05654662|169182094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716837|NCT05654662|169182094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716838|NCT05654662|169182094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
84716839|NCT05654662|169182095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.26|0.0022
84716840|NCT05654662|169182095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.04|-0.30|0.0099
84514085|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|13.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||13.46|7.71|<0.001
84716841|NCT05654662|169182095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.45|<0.0001
84716842|NCT05879991|169182105|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|82.65|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.~The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||82.65|70.21|
84514086|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|10.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||10.59|4.87|<0.001
84514087|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|30.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||30.61|19.24|<0.001
84514088|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|31.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||31.28|20.03|<0.001
84514089|NCT00913627|168781807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|24.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||24.38|13.19|<0.001
84514090|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|25.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||25.36|1.26|0.080
84514091|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.39||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|29.04||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||29.04|3.73|0.043
84514092|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.39||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|15.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||15.40|-4.62|0.354
84514093|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.34|63.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||63.96|33.34|<0.001
84514094|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.15|66.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||66.73|37.15|<0.001
84514095|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.62|50.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||50.98|22.62|<0.001
84514096|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|73.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||73.57|41.20|<0.001
84716843|NCT05879991|169182110|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.12|30.79|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 16.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||30.79|22.12|
84716844|NCT05879991|169182111|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|83.59|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.59|70.92|
84716845|NCT03154190|169182125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.20|
84716846|NCT03154190|169182126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.30|
84716847|NCT03154190|169182129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||||||||0.62|0.33|
84716848|NCT03154190|169182131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7||||||||0.70|0.36|
84716849|NCT03154190|169182136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|10.55||||||||10.55|1.88|
84716850|NCT03988621|169182221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.03||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean HSCN scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 0.65 (95% CI: -1.27 to -0.03) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-0.03|-1.27|0.04
84716851|NCT03988621|169182222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.98||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Self Care Inventory scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 5.05 (95% CI: 1.12 to 8.98) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||8.98|1.12|0.01
84716852|NCT03988621|169182223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-2.52||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean PSS scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 4.50 (95% CI: -6.48 to -2.52) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-2.52|-6.48|<0.0001
84716853|NCT03988621|169182224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.73||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Active Coping Subscale||4.73|-0.41|0.099
84514097|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|66.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.56|81.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||81.78|51.56|<0.001
84514098|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|66.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||66.21|34.20|<0.001
84514099|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|67.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.36|83.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||83.93|51.36|<0.001
84514100|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|70.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.16|86.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||86.05|55.16|<0.001
84514101|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.32|69.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||69.38|34.32|<0.001
84514102|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84514103|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|74.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.29|89.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||89.14|59.29|<0.001
84514104|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84514105|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84514106|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514107|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84514108|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84716854|NCT03988621|169182224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.62||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference may not be consistent with difference sample means presented in outcome measure data table.|Avoidance Coping Subscale||0.62|-2.38|0.25
84716855|NCT03988621|169182224|SUPERIORITY|The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minimization Coping Subscale||1.18|-1.81|0.68
84716856|NCT03988621|169182225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.04||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Score||1.04|-3.68|0.27
84716857|NCT03988621|169182225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.53||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Mental Health scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 3.35 (95% CI: 0.17 to 6.53) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|Mental Health Score||6.53|0.17|0.04
84716858|NCT03988621|169182228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3472||||0.5433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5153|3.5218|||Regression, zero inflated poisson||Estimation accounts for the zero-inflated distribution of hospitalization count, thus estimate is inconsistent with mean values in the Outcome Measure Data table|||3.5218|0.5153|0.5433
84716859|NCT03988621|169182229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0143||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7766|1.3247|||Zero-inflated poisson regression|||||1.3247|0.7766|0.9173
84716860|NCT03988621|169182230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6486
84716861|NCT03988621|169182231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6791
84716862|NCT05265065|169182241|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.~The sample size calculation assumed an estimated seroresponse rate of 95% in both half- and full-dose arms, a non- inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference), a one-sided significance level of5%, and no loss to follow- up. Under this scenario, a sample size of 100 per arm provides 90% power to compare seroresponse rates between arms under the non-inferiority framework."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.||2.0|-7.7|
84716863|NCT05265065|169182243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||11.3|-16.1|
84716864|NCT05265065|169182243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.2|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||3.2|-9.5|
84716865|NCT05265065|169182243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|16.1|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||16.1|-17.1|
84716866|NCT05265065|169182244|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.04|0.86|0.228
84716867|NCT05265065|169182245|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.15|0.77|0.537
84716868|NCT05265065|169182245|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.11|0.89|0.922
84716869|NCT05265065|169182245|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||0.93|0.54|0.014
84514109|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514110|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84514111|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84514112|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514113|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84514114|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84514115|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514116|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84514117|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84716870|NCT01447719|169182257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|98.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||98|78|
84716871|NCT01447719|169182258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
84716872|NCT01447719|169182259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation coefficient|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
84716873|NCT01447719|169182260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
84716874|NCT01447719|169182261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|78|
84716875|NCT04778410|169182265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1794|||||||One Group Chi-Square test|The p-value was based on one group Chi-Square test for the null hypothesis CR rate was 0.19 at one-sided alpha of 0.1 in Cohort 2.||||||0.1794
84716876|NCT02905331|169182289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84716877|NCT02905331|169182290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84716878|NCT02905331|169182295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716879|NCT01570361|169182396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Prior to the final analysis, study had two interim analyses. Hence alpha level is 0.0231 for primary analysis adjusted for the two interim analyses.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0009
84716880|NCT01570361|169182397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0118
84716881|NCT01570361|169182398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0041
84716882|NCT03969563|169182411|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR and Brain Health groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.694
84716883|NCT03969563|169182412|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR vs Brain Health group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.837
84716884|NCT02492711|169182429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.979|0.593|0.0334
84716885|NCT02492711|169182430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.165|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||1.165|0.774|0.6204
84716886|NCT02492711|169182432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.87|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.870|0.556|0.0014
84716887|NCT05932407|169182435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||2.0|0.1|
84716888|NCT05932407|169182435|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted hazard ratio was adjusted from crude hazard ratio by covariance 1 (age and gender), and covariance 2 (antithrombotic drug administration, NSAID administration, and hypertension).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||||||Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||1.9|0.1|
84716889|NCT02938520|169182446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 c/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is less than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|2.1|-2.8|
84716890|NCT02938520|169182447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is more than -10%|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|||4.5|-3.7|
84716891|NCT02938520|169182500|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Week 41/48 was compared with the 1st visit (Week 5) based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. p-values are derived for 'Acceptance' only and not adjusted for multiple testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84716892|NCT02938520|169182502|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.6|-1.1|0.307
84716893|NCT02938520|169182502|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.9||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.2|-1.5|0.472
84716894|NCT02938520|169182503|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.8||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.9|-0.4|0.116
84716895|NCT02938520|169182503|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.5|-2.3|0.944
84716896|NCT02938520|169182504|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-1.3||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.0|-5.7|0.552
84716897|NCT02938520|169182504|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-4.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||-0.4|-8.9|0.033
84716898|NCT02938520|169182505|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.021||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.318|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.318|-0.275|0.122
84716899|NCT02938520|169182505|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.103||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|2.453|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.453|-0.248|0.109
84716900|NCT02938520|169182505|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.182||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.958|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.958|-0.594|0.645
84716901|NCT02938520|169182505|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.169||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.657|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.657|-0.994|0.689
84716902|NCT02938520|169182506|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.4|1.0|<0.001
84716903|NCT02938520|169182506|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 44 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||1.9|-0.4|0.217
84716904|NCT02938520|169182507|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.5|||ANOVA||Treatment comparison of HIVTSQc-total treatment satisfaction score at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.5|2.8|<0.001
84716905|NCT02938520|169182509|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.7|-1.4|0.232
84716906|NCT02938520|169182509|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||6.4|-1.0|0.154
84716907|NCT02938520|169182509|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.8|-1.4|0.236
84716908|NCT01116895|169182533|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-32.6|0.89
84716909|NCT01116895|169182533|OTHER||Least square mean difference|4.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|35.3|||ANOVA|||||35.3|-26.2|0.77
84716910|NCT01116895|169182533|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|22.8|||ANOVA|||||22.8|-36.2|0.65
84716911|NCT04505410|169182598|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84514118|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514119|NCT00913627|168781808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84716912|NCT05507333|169182624|OTHER||Proportion of clinically cured patients|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4073|0.7909|||||"The proportion of clinically cured patients at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with continuity correction."|"It was assumed that the true clinical cure rate was 54% in the treatment group, therefore a sample size of 24 patients was needed to obtain 80% power to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the clinical cure rate was above 30%. A sample size of 26 was used to account for patients with missing data.~Hypotheses for the primary endpoint:~Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 30%.~Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 30%"||0.7909|0.4073|
84716913|NCT05507333|169182625|OTHER||Proportion with cont. clinical response|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5366|0.9729|||||"The proportion of participants with continued clinical response at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9729|0.5366|
84716914|NCT05507333|169182626|OTHER||Proportion with clin and mycol. cure|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2091|0.5927|||||"The proportion of participants with clinical and mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.5927|0.2091|
84716915|NCT05507333|169182627|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3375|0.7286|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7286|0.3375|
84716916|NCT05507333|169182628|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4598|0.9384|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants recorded as Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9384|0.4598|
84716917|NCT05507333|169182629|OTHER||Proportion with absence of Candida|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3719|0.7603|||||"The proportion of participants that did not show Candida hyphae in the wet smear (absence of/Yes) at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7603|0.3719|
84716918|NCT05507333|169182630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-3.23|||||The mean change in the score for composite vulvovaginal signs and symptoms from Screening to Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI.|||-3.23|-5.77|
84514120|NCT00913627|168781809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|13.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|37.89||p-value adjusted for gender and categorical baseline pain severity|Proportional hazards regression|||||37.89|4.85|<0.001
84716919|NCT05507333|169182631|OTHER||Proportion with reduction CVVS score|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6872|0.9697|||||"The proportion of participants having a reduction in signs and symptoms (CVVS scores) on Day 7-14 vs. Screening was calculated and presented with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the prop. with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9697|0.6872|
84716920|NCT05464069|169182665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Significant level \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
84716921|NCT03677141|169182680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|21.07||||||||21.07|-30.61|
84716922|NCT05465239|169182697|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for control subjects.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.001
84716923|NCT05465239|169182697|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for subjects with walking disabilities.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84716924|NCT05423730|169182712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|57.2|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||57.20|-49.75|
84716925|NCT05423730|169182713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|63.9|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||63.90|-47.96|
84716926|NCT05423730|169182714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.67|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||0.67|-1.95|
84716927|NCT05423730|169182715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|43.09|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||43.09|-9.45|
84716928|NCT05423730|169182716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|28.4|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||28.40|-3.31|
84716929|NCT05423730|169182717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|27.69|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||27.69|-0.77|
84514121|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|2.03||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|6.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||6.02|-1.95|0.434
84514122|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||0.00|0.00|
84716930|NCT05423730|169182718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|21.24|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||21.24|-21.92|
84716931|NCT05850052|169182729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.79|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.79|0.85|0.26
84716932|NCT05850052|169182730|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.27|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.27|0.82|0.86
84716933|NCT05850052|169182731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|30.0|||Fisher Exact|||||30|0.32|0.36
84716934|NCT04200313|169182740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716935|NCT04200313|169182740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716936|NCT04200313|169182741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716937|NCT04200313|169182741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716938|NCT04200313|169182742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716939|NCT04200313|169182742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716940|NCT04200313|169182743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716941|NCT04200313|169182743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716942|NCT04200313|169182744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716943|NCT04200313|169182744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716944|NCT04200313|169182745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716945|NCT04200313|169182745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716946|NCT04200313|169182746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716947|NCT04200313|169182746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84716948|NCT04200313|169182747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84716949|NCT04200313|169182747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
84716950|NCT05552508|169182847|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All participants||||0.0327
84716951|NCT05552508|169182847|OTHER|||||||0.0359|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \>=4 mucus plugs||||0.0359
84716952|NCT05552508|169182847|OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<4 mucus plugs||||0.1088
84716953|NCT05552508|169182847|OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Non-OCS-dependent participants||||0.0391
84716954|NCT05552508|169182848|OTHER|||||||0.0423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0423
84716955|NCT05552508|169182849|OTHER|||||||0.9465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9465
84716956|NCT05552508|169182850|OTHER|||||||0.3455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3455
84514123|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.78||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|5.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||5.27|-1.71|0.469
84716957|NCT05552508|169182851|OTHER|||||||0.2484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2484
84716958|NCT05552508|169182852|OTHER|||||||0.9405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9405
84716959|NCT05552508|169182853|OTHER|||||||0.6867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6867
84716960|NCT05552508|169182854|OTHER|||||||0.7554|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7554
84716961|NCT03314740|169182884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||cox model|||||1.14|0.5|0.265
84716962|NCT03314740|169182884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.55|||cox- model|||||1.55|0.68|0.904
84716963|NCT04084574|169183022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|6.9||The threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||6.9|-16.8|0.3968
84716964|NCT04084574|169183023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.07926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||0.44|-0.33|0.07926
84716965|NCT04084574|169183025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.3||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|58.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||58.6|-34.2|0.0673
84716966|NCT04084574|169183026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|189.3||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|136.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||136.4|-157.8|0.8821
84716967|NCT04084574|169183027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||3.1|-2.0|0.6479
84514124|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.13||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||16.93|1.33|0.101
84514125|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.73||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|18.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||18.91|2.54|0.069
84514126|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.59||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|8.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||8.57|-1.39|0.303
84716968|NCT04084574|169183028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||24.0|-10.0|0.4044
84716969|NCT04084574|169183029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.91||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.60|-0.97|0.2374
84716970|NCT04084574|169183030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.62||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||8.33|-13.71|0.6188
84716971|NCT04084574|169183031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.03|-2.82|0.0546
84716972|NCT04084574|169183032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.98|-0.98|1.00
84716973|NCT04084574|169183033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.89|1.00
84716974|NCT04102111|169183055|OTHER||Least Squares Means|37.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|95.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||95.8|-21.0|0.288
84716975|NCT02542631|169183062|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size determination was based on the primary endpoint, A1C change from Baseline to Week 24. Assuming that the true mean difference in A1C change for Finesse versus Pen was -0.1% with a SD of 1.2%, a study population of 250 completers (125 per arm) was required to achieve a power of 90% for non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Non-inferiority p-value was calculated with 2-sided comparison of the difference in treatment effects between Finesse and Pen with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
84716976|NCT02542631|169183063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.81|0.26
84716977|NCT02542631|169183064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|3.7||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ACNOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||3.70|-9.63|0.38
84716978|NCT02542631|169183065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.28|-0.28|0.99
84716979|NCT02542631|169183066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.93||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.64|0.71
84716980|NCT02542631|169183067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and week 24 value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.24|-0.12|0.52
84514127|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|24.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|38.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||38.47|10.68|0.008
84514128|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|25.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.35|39.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||39.28|11.35|0.007
84716981|NCT02542631|169183068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|14.67||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||14.67|3.65|0.001
84716982|NCT02542631|169183069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.32||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||8.32|0.33|0.03
84716983|NCT02542631|169183070|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84716984|NCT03334695|169183071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.012
84716985|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.16|25.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||25.54|-21.16|0.853
84716986|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.57|38.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||38.65|-28.57|0.767
84716987|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|36.62||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df,112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||36.62|-30.93|0.868
84716988|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|25.52||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.05|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||25.52|-24.26|0.960
84716989|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.97|42.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.48|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.82|-25.97|0.630
84514129|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||21.92|-0.68|0.129
84514130|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.25|63.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||63.19|32.25|<0.001
84514131|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.24|50.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||50.78|21.24|<0.001
84716990|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|42.36||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.44|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.36|-26.77|0.657
84716991|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|15.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.56|-25.72|0.627
84716992|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.86|15.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.91|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.86|-42.86|0.364
84716993|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.42||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|21.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.15|-38.00|0.574
84716994|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|12.94||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.94|-23.96|0.557
84716995|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|12.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -1.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.35|-39.64|0.302
84716996|NCT02938923|169183085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|18.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.61|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||18.06|-34.33|0.541
84716997|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|357.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.75|1091.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.97|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1091.19|-375.75|0.336
84716998|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|936.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.56|2021.42||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2021.42|-147.56|0.090
84716999|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|579.21||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-515.36|1673.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.05|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1673.78|-515.36|0.297
84514132|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|27.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.93|41.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||41.81|13.93|0.003
84717000|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|383.36||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.06|1032.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1032.79|-266.06|0.245
84717001|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|836.64||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|1740.32||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1740.32|-67.04|0.069
84717002|NCT02938923|169183086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|453.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.13|1365.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 0.98|Difference between changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1365.68|-459.13|0.327
84717003|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-391.74|426.05||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.08|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||426.05|-391.74|0.934
84717004|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.64||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.02|1167.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1167.31|-42.02|0.068
84514133|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|61.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.12|75.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.89|46.12|<0.001
84514134|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.85|68.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||68.80|38.85|<0.001
84717005|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|545.49||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|1155.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1155.79|-64.81|0.079
84717006|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.73||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.4|432.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||432.860|-365.40|0.867
84717007|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|665.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.68|1225.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.36|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1225.81|105.68|0.020
84514135|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.89|61.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||61.58|31.89|<0.001
84514136|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.37|80.18||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||80.18|49.37|<0.001
84514137|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.01|79.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||79.59|50.01|<0.001
84717008|NCT02938923|169183087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|632.02||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.38|1197.66||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1197.66|66.38|0.029
84717009|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|21.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 0.07|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.01|-19.61|0.946
84717010|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|53.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.69|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||53.13|-4.25|0.094
84717011|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.74||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|52.67||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||52.67|-5.19|0.107
84717012|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|24.3||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||24.30|-14.68|0.627
84717013|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|52.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||52.01|-2.20|0.072
84717014|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.1||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|47.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||47.49|-7.29|0.149
84717015|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|12.95||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = -0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||12.95|-15.71|0.849
84717016|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.47||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|35.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|(df, 110) = 1.15|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||35.78|-4.83|0.134
84717017|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.86||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|37.39||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||37.39|-3.68|0.107
84717018|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|13.17||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = -0.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||13.17|-13.64|0.973
84717019|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.49||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|33.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||33.54|-4.56|0.135
84717020|NCT02938923|169183088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|34.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||34.00|-4.55|0.134
84717021|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.76|-0.34|0.125
84717022|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.61||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.61|-1.90|0.758
84514138|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.27|66.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||66.11|34.27|<0.001
84514139|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|68.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.81|84.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||84.38|52.81|<0.001
84717023|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.41||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.41|-3.12|0.455
84717024|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 1.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.00|-0.72|0.229
84717025|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.16|-1.97|0.647
84717026|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.41|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-3.12|0.680
84717027|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.96|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.97|-0.02|0.052
84717028|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.46|-1.79|0.754
84717029|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.06|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.00|-3.28|0.294
84717030|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.78|0.13|0.031
84717031|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.32|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.16|-1.56|0.752
84717032|NCT02938923|169183089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.71||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.71|-3.03|0.223
84717033|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.46|0.24|0.006
84717034|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.97|-0.81|0.863
84717035|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.12||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.12|-1.67|0.091
84514140|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|87.26||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||87.26|57.05|<0.001
84514141|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.57|70.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||70.37|36.57|<0.001
84717036|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.65|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.44|0.21|0.009
84514142|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
84717037|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.02|-0.76|0.778
84717038|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.19|-1.59|0.124
84514143|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.68|93.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||93.05|65.68|<0.001
84514144|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.46|73.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||73.60|40.46|<0.001
84514145|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
84717039|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.24|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.31|0.08|0.027
84717040|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.78|-0.97|0.833
84717041|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.10|-1.67|0.080
84717042|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
84717043|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.84|0.834
84717044|NCT02938923|169183090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.94|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.01|-1.52|0.054
84717045|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.74||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.99|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.74|-0.25|0.326
84717046|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.54|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.49|-0.87|0.587
84717047|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.25|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.25|-1.12|0.213
84717048|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.83|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.78|-0.32|0.410
84717049|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.51||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.63|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.51|-0.99|0.527
84717050|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.23|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.28|-1.23|0.219
84717051|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.93|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.69|-0.25|0.355
84717052|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.59|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.47|-0.88|0.554
84717053|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.24|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-1.10|0.219
84717054|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.95|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.24|0.345
84514146|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.91|94.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||94.49|67.91|<0.001
84514147|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.34|75.35||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.35|42.34|<0.001
84717055|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.69|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.43|-0.88|0.494
84717056|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.35|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.21|-1.11|0.180
84717057|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.4|Difference between the changes of IADL of EX+T - EX+P|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.50|-0.75|0.693
84717058|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.98|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.43|-1.27|0.327
84717059|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.69|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.56|-1.15|0.493
84717060|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.39|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.49|-0.72|0.698
84717061|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.84|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.47|-1.17|0.404
84717062|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.55|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.60|-1.06|0.585
84717063|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.85|Difference between IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.31|0.399
84717064|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.59|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|-0.53|0.554
84717065|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.76|0.998
84717066|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.88|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.73|-0.28|0.378
84717067|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.91||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.51|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.91|-0.53|0.608
84717068|NCT02938923|169183091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.11|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-0.76|0.915
84514148|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
84514149|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
84514150|NCT00913627|168781810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
84717069|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.33||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.33|-1.36|0.602
84717070|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.56|-3.48|0.454
84717071|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.09||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.13|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.09|-3.98|0.262
84717072|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.47|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.40|-1.47|0.639
84717073|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-3.66|0.438
84717074|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.12|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.14|-4.14|0.265
84717075|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.07||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.07|-1.11|0.555
84717076|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.15|-2.39|0.917
84717077|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.68|-2.87|0.606
84717078|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.60|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-1.09|0.549
84717079|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.14|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.06|-2.38|0.887
84717080|NCT02938923|169183092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-2.87|0.574
84717081|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.11||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||5.11|-3.19|0.649
84717082|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|8.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.23|-3.22|0.389
84717083|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|7.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.31|-4.22|0.598
84717084|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|5.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||5.02|-3.26|0.676
84717085|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|8.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.85|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||8.19|-3.24|0.394
84717086|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|7.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.35|-4.15|0.585
84717087|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
84717088|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|8.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.76|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.16|-3.62|0.449
84717089|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.64||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.57|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.64|-4.20|0.567
84717090|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
84717091|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.64|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.75|-3.97|0.526
84717092|NCT02938923|169183093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|7.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.23|-4.55|0.654
84717093|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.98|-1.72|0.597
84717094|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.33|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.04|-5.41|0.184
84717095|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|0.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||0.44|-6.07|0.089
84717096|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.47|Difference in the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.28|-2.01|0.635
84717097|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.46|-5.76|0.242
84717098|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|0.85||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.85|-6.42|0.132
84717099|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.81|-0.77|0.193
84717100|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||4.75|-1.86|0.390
84717101|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.04|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.25|-3.39|0.965
84514151|NCT00913627|168781811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
84717102|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.82|-0.79|0.195
84717103|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.63||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.63|-1.93|0.418
84717104|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.13|-3.46|0.921
84717105|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.88||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||4.88|-0.26|0.078
84717106|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|3.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.02|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.43|-3.51|0.982
84717107|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.32|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||1.15|-5.85|0.187
84717108|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.58||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.76|Difference of the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.58|-0.26|0.080
84717109|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.83||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.83|-3.76|0.781
84514152|NCT00913627|168781811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.02|0.88|<0.001
84514153|NCT00913627|168781811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.98|0.70|<0.001
84514154|NCT00913627|168781812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
84717110|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-5.94|0.121
84717111|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.73|-0.57|0.148
84717112|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.45||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.39|Differences between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||2.45|-3.64|0.699
84717113|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.89||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.4|Difference in the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||0.89|-5.24|0.163
84514155|NCT00913627|168781812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.91|<0.001
84717114|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.69|-0.51|0.137
84514156|NCT00913627|168781812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.79|<0.001
84514157|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.008
84514158|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.007
84717115|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.29||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.29|-3.68|0.648
84717116|NCT02938923|169183094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.72||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.72|-5.29|0.135
84717117|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.058||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.23|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.058|-0.073|0.821
84717118|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.108||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.27|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.108|-0.082|0.789
84717119|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.116||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.116|-0.075|0.672
84717120|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.009||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.38||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|0.009|-0.013|0.703
84717121|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.014||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.25||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|0.014|-0.017|0.803
84717122|NCT02938923|169183095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.016||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.01||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|0.016|-0.015|0.991
84717123|NCT03812614|169183098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in HbA1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language.||1.14|-0.05|0.07
84717124|NCT03812614|169183099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in A1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language||0.64|-0.67|0.96
84717125|NCT03812614|169183100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||3.38|-6.40|0.55
84717126|NCT03812614|169183101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||10.91|0.57|0.03
84717127|NCT03812614|169183102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.58|-2.15|0.76
84717128|NCT03812614|169183103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.46|-2.11|0.72
84717129|NCT03812614|169183104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient health eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.29|-0.76|0.38
84717130|NCT03812614|169183105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient physical activity was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-1.11|0.70
84717131|NCT03812614|169183106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-0.53|0.75
84717132|NCT03812614|169183106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.91|-0.98|0.94
84717133|NCT03812614|169183106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.46|0.42
84717134|NCT03812614|169183107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient self-efficacy was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.52|-0.54|0.96
84717135|NCT03812614|169183108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||9.78|-3.92|0.40
84717136|NCT03812614|169183109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.68|-0.18|0.11
84717137|NCT03812614|169183110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.55|-0.19|0.34
84717138|NCT03812614|169183112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.23|-2.67|0.47
84717139|NCT03812614|169183113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||0.27|-0.78|0.35
84717140|NCT03812614|169183114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient healthy eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.01|-1.00|0.06
84717141|NCT03812614|169183115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.54|-1.22|0.45
84717142|NCT03812614|169183116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.35|-0.86|0.40
84717143|NCT03812614|169183116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.88|-0.90|0.98
84717144|NCT03812614|169183116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.42|0.43
84717145|NCT03812614|169183117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.01|-1.00|0.06
84717146|NCT03812614|169183118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||6.49|-7.22|0.92
84717147|NCT03812614|169183119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.99|0.21|0.02
84717148|NCT03812614|169183120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.70|-0.01|0.06
84717149|NCT03812614|169183121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.|Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|4.57|-2.19|0.49
84717150|NCT03812614|169183122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.66|-0.09|0.08
84717151|NCT04763772|169183130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-14|0.2
84717152|NCT05123027|169183132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.62||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed with a longitudinal mixed effects negative binomial model incorporating the total score at earlier time points as well as 180 days. Fixed effect covariates included baseline score, treatment, days, site, stratum, and an interaction between treatment and days. A random effect was included to account for correlation within each participant.||1.62|0.30|0.399
84717153|NCT05123027|169183133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was modeled similar to the primary outcome, an over dispersed Poisson regression model with fixed effect covariates for treatment arm, treatment days, site, and stratum with an interaction between treatment arm and treatment days. Note that no baseline score covariate was included as all participants will be considered to have achieved 0 steps at baseline. A random intercept was included for each subject to account for repeated measures.||1.45|0.83|0.53
84717154|NCT02585323|169183137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|13.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|24.5|||ANCOVA|||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 13 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||24.5|1.6|0.05
84717155|NCT02585323|169183138|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-29.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.8|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|-75.8|0.05
84514159|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.34|0.02|0.024
84514160|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.78|0.24|<0.001
84717156|NCT02585323|169183139|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-7.8|0.05
84717157|NCT02585323|169183140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|-4.2|0.05
84717158|NCT02585323|169183141|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-3.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-14.9|0.05
84717159|NCT02585323|169183142|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-3.3|0.05
84717160|NCT02585323|169183143|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|-5.0|0.05
84717161|NCT02585323|169183144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-1.7|0.05
84717162|NCT02585323|169183145|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-6.6|0.05
84717163|NCT02585323|169183146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.2|0.05
84514161|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.73|0.20|<0.001
84514162|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.68|0.16|0.002
84717164|NCT02585323|169183147|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.2|0.05
84717165|NCT02585323|169183148|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.05
84717166|NCT02585323|169183149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.05
84717167|NCT02585323|169183150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.1|0.05
84717168|NCT02585323|169183151|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.6|0.05
84717169|NCT02585323|169183152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.05
84717170|NCT03550170|169183159|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|9.11|||||Comparison of teleconference to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||9.11|0.67|
84717171|NCT03550170|169183159|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|11.26|||||Comparison of internet to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||11.26|0.98|
84717172|NCT03550170|169183160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84717173|NCT06356285|169183291|EQUIVALENCE|Quasibinominal models were used as the outcomes are bounded count variables. Accepting a two-sided p-value adjusted for 3 comparisons, the study was designed with 80% power to detect a minimal detectable effect size between the trial arms and control for the primary outcome.|Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p-value, as shown in the table, which was adjusted for 3 comparisons|Quasibinominal regression|||||||0.017
84717174|NCT00677365|169183313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.38||Repeated Measure Model|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference||-0.38|-1.54|0.0014
84717175|NCT00677365|169183314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.52|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio for need of anti-pseudomonal antimicrobials; Estimates are obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including terms for treatment, region, baseline P.aeruginosa density (log10 ), highest baseline MIC of levofloxacin against P. aeruginosa (log2 ), and baseline percent predicted FEV1 (quartiles)||0.52|0.09|0.0007
84717176|NCT00677365|169183315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.61||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between MP-376 240 mg and Placebo groups||14.17|3.05|0.0026
84717177|NCT00677365|169183316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between Placebo and MP-376 240 mg BID groups||17.25|4.63|0.0008
84717178|NCT00677365|169183317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference from MP-376 240 mg BID to placebo groups||11.67|-2.68|0.2174
84717179|NCT01385202|169183319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|78.4||In the worst-case scenario analysis, over seventy-percent (70.2%, 80/114) of the primary effectiveness cohort (PEC) were free from documented symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias during their effectiveness evaluation period.|Fisher Exact|The lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals was 60.9%, significantly higher than the pre-determined performance goal of 50% (p\<0.0001).|The confidence intervals above are the 95% exact binomial confidence intervals.|The null hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be less than or equal to the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%. The alternative hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be greater than the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%.||78.4|60.9|<0.0001
84717180|NCT01385202|169183319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|82.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals above were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method.|||82|66|
84717181|NCT00303459|169183327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|97.31|0.582|1.187|||Log Rank|||||1.187|0.582|0.2508
84717182|NCT00303459|169183328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.673|0.8385
84717183|NCT00303459|169183329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|37.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.8|5.9|0.0106
84514163|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.17|0.52|<0.001
84717184|NCT00303459|169183330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk of improvement|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Fisher Exact|||||1.61|0.60|1.0000
84514164|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.11|0.47|<0.001
84717185|NCT00303459|169183331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.344|||Log Rank|||||1.344|0.544|0.4974
84717186|NCT00303459|169183332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage change over placebo|-23.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-11.79|||Repeated measures analysis|||||-11.79|-33.69|0.0003
84717187|NCT00303459|169183333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.39|-0.42|0.9566
84717188|NCT00303459|169183334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.076|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.076|-0.036|0.5571
84717189|NCT00303459|169183335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-3.7|0.4086
84717190|NCT04214834|169183343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Given that the model was on the log scale, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were derived from 1,000 bootstrap resamples.|A logarithmic transformation was applied to the outcome, centers were added as random effects to account for variation between them.||4.29|1.70|<0.001
84717191|NCT04424316|169183364|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|31.3|
84717192|NCT04424316|169183365|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|69.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||69.5|33.2|
84717193|NCT04424316|169183366|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|64.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||64.5|30.3|
84717194|NCT04424316|169183367|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|62.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||62.8|31.4|
84717195|NCT04424316|169183368|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|93.9||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||93.9|57.5|
84717196|NCT04424316|169183369|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|86.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.8|50.3|
84717197|NCT04424316|169183370|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4|83.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||83.6|49.4|
84717198|NCT04424316|169183371|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|82.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||82.5|50.6|
84514165|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||0.94|0.30|<0.001
84717199|NCT04424316|169183387|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|86.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.7|37.1|
84717200|NCT04424316|169183387|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|80.3||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||80.3|28.6|
84717201|NCT04424316|169183387|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.8||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||76.8|23.9|
84514166|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.37|0.65|<0.001
84717202|NCT04424316|169183387|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|23.8|
84514167|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.44|0.73|<0.001
84514168|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.25|0.54|<0.001
84514169|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.63|0.90|<0.001
84717203|NCT04424316|169183387|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|48.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||48.6|-11.1|
84717204|NCT04424316|169183388|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||25.7|-10.1|
84717205|NCT04424316|169183388|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.7|-9.8|
84717206|NCT04424316|169183388|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|20.1||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.1|-6.5|
84717207|NCT04424316|169183388|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||16.0|-9.5|
84717208|NCT04424316|169183388|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|14.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||14.6|-6.6|
84717209|NCT04424316|169183389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.7||||||Vaccine efficacy at 210 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||57.7|25.6|
84514170|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.69|0.97|<0.001
84514171|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.45|0.74|<0.001
84514172|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.09|<0.001
84717210|NCT04424316|169183389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|54.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 240 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||54.1|21.3|
84717211|NCT04424316|169183389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.9||||||Vaccine efficacy at 270 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||49.9|16.1|
84717212|NCT04424316|169183389|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|47.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||47.1|15.2|
84717213|NCT04109066|169183410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT.~Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method."|Arm A over Arm B||3.27|1.29|0.0021
84514173|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.10|<0.001
84514174|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.38|0.67|<0.001
84514175|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.00|1.26|<0.001
84514176|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.98|1.25|<0.001
84514177|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.57|0.85|<0.001
84717214|NCT04109066|169183410|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.9|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||16.9|4.0|
84717215|NCT04109066|169183411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.11|||||Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency. Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Arm A over Arm B||6.11|1.58|
84717216|NCT04109066|169183411|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|37.5|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||37.5|10.7|
84717217|NCT05652010|169183417|OTHER|Comparative study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2634|1.2659||P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model. As it was an exploratory study no adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.|P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||1.2659|0.2634|0.164
84514178|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.08|1.33|<0.001
84514179|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.97|1.23|<0.001
84717218|NCT05652010|169183418|OTHER||Binominal|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of very satisfied/satisfied was sign. different from 50% when using a 5% test level|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|||0.97|0.75|<0.0001
84717219|NCT05652010|169183419|OTHER|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|Binominal|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Exact test in the binominal distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of YES was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level||||0.92|0.66|<0.0001
84717220|NCT05652010|169183420|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.259||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.855||P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model|P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||0.855|0.078|0.027
84717221|NCT03735979|169183492|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.002
84717222|NCT03735979|169183492|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that eptifibitide was better than placebo was 0.04."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.04
84717223|NCT02994927|169183543|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|< 0.0001
84717224|NCT02994927|169183543|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||=|0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|= 0.2387
84717225|NCT02994927|169183544|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|< 0.0001
84717226|NCT02994927|169183544|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||=|0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|= 0.0066
84717227|NCT00626795|169183571|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.71|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||10.71|-1.59|
84514180|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.54|0.81|<0.001
84514181|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.00|1.20|<0.001
84514182|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.98|1.19|<0.001
84717228|NCT00626795|169183571|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|-3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|3.57|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||3.57|-10.28|
84717229|NCT03533257|169183579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3654
84717230|NCT03533257|169183580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.6698
84717231|NCT03533257|169183581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3086
84717232|NCT03533257|169183582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.5552
84717233|NCT03533257|169183583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.0361
84717234|NCT03533257|169183584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3585
84717235|NCT03533257|169183585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.8996
84514183|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.52|0.73|<0.001
84514184|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.90|1.08|<0.001
84514185|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.97|1.16|<0.001
84717236|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.30|-0.12|0.4641
84717237|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||LS means difference||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.21|-0.21|0.9894
84514186|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.53|0.72|<0.001
84514187|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.79|0.97|<0.001
84514188|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.95|1.14|<0.001
84514189|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.43|0.62|<0.001
84514190|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.77||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.77|0.93|<0.001
84514191|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
84514192|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.46|0.63|<0.001
84514193|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.71|0.87|<0.001
84514194|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
84717238|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-0.52|0.0199
84717239|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.11|-0.34|0.3907
84717240|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.38|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.38|-0.17|0.5393
84717241|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.24|-0.33|0.7931
84717242|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.35|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.35|-0.92|0.0004
84717243|NCT02865538|169183636|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.13|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.13|-0.45|0.3739
84717244|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.077||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|10.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||10.42|0.16|0.0900
84717245|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.55|0.63|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.63|-9.55|0.1487
84717246|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-5.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-5.15|-15.20|0.0012
84717247|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.142||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.37|-0.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.90|-11.37|0.0548
84717248|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.337||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|12.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||12.15|1.03|0.0522
84717249|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|0.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.48|-10.61|0.1326
84717250|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.73|-6.83|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-6.83|-17.73|0.0004
84717251|NCT02865538|169183637|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.408||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.47|-2.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-2.11|-13.47|0.0253
84717252|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||4.0|-1.2|0.3796
84717253|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||0.3|-4.9|0.1413
84514195|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.39|0.56|<0.001
84514196|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.68|0.82|<0.001
84514197|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.89|1.03|<0.001
84717254|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-2.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-2.9|-8.1|0.0007
84717255|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-5.8|0.0624
84717256|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||3.3|-0.7|0.2930
84717257|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-4.4|0.0512
84717258|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-3.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-3.0|-7.0|<0.0001
84717259|NCT02865538|169183638|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-1.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-1.3|-5.5|0.0080
84717260|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||1.80|-0.12|0.1482
84717261|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-1.99|0.0734
84717262|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|-0.86|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.86|-2.74|0.0022
84717263|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.12|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.12|-2.08|0.0660
84717264|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|2.20|0.15|0.0593
84717265|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.10|-1.95|0.1354
84717266|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|-1.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-1.20|-3.21|0.0005
84717267|NCT02865538|169183639|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|-0.34|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.34|-2.43|0.0309
84717268|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|8.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||8.5|-27.8|0.3768
84717269|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.1|-6.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-6.8|-43.1|0.0248
84717270|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.1|-25.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-25.8|-62.1|0.0001
84514198|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.45|0.60|<0.001
84514199|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.64|0.77|<0.001
84514200|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.87|1.00|<0.001
84514201|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.48|0.61|<0.001
84514202|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.68|0.81|<0.001
84514203|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.82|0.96|<0.001
84514204|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.39|0.53|<0.001
84717271|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.9|-23.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-23.8|-61.9|0.0004
84514205|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.64|0.75|<0.001
84717272|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|35.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||35.1|-14.2|0.4819
84717273|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1|22.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||22.2|-27.1|0.8694
84514206|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.65|0.77|<0.001
84514207|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.36|0.49|<0.001
84514208|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.53|0.60|<0.001
84514209|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.58|0.66|<0.001
84717274|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.79||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|0.7|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||0.7|-48.6|0.1105
84717275|NCT02865538|169183640|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.2|7.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||7.4|-44.2|0.2390
84514210|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
84514211|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.51|0.61|<0.001
84725793|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|9.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|12.56|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||12.56|6.46|
84514212|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.48|0.58|<0.001
84717276|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.837||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.837
84717277|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.428||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.428
84717278|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.269||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.269
84717279|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.015||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.015
84717280|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.163||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.163
84717281|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.14||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.140
84717282|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.079||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.079
84717283|NCT06946888|169183641|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.151||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.151
84717284|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.63||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.63
84514213|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.40|0.52|<0.001
84514214|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.24||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.24|0.31|0.001
84514215|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.28|0.36|<0.001
84514216|NCT00913627|168781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
84514217|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.57|0.02|0.034
84514218|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.49|-0.05|0.111
84514219|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.48|-0.06|0.125
84717285|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.608||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.608
84514220|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.22|0.41|<0.001
84514221|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.01|0.22|0.003
84514222|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.98|0.19|0.004
84514223|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.91|0.91|<0.001
84514224|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.74|0.75|<0.001
84514225|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.39|0.41|<0.001
84514226|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.16|1.11|<0.001
84514227|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.09||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.09|1.05|<0.001
84725794|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|165.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.95|223.85|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||223.85|122.95|
84514228|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.78|0.75|<0.001
84514229|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.52|1.46|<0.001
84514230|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.61|1.57|<0.001
84514231|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.20|1.16|<0.001
84514232|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.64|1.59|<0.001
84514233|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.74|1.70|<0.001
84514234|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.21|1.18|<0.001
84514235|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.01|1.98|<0.001
84514236|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.99|1.97|<0.001
84514237|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.38|1.37|<0.001
84514238|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.07|2.01|<0.001
84514239|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.97|1.92|<0.001
84514240|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.33|1.29|<0.001
84514241|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.03||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.03|1.92|<0.001
84514242|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.96|1.87|<0.001
84514243|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.25|1.16|<0.001
84514244|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.83|1.69|<0.001
84717286|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.244||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.244
84717287|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.052||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.052
84717288|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.229||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.229
84717289|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.184||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.184
84717290|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.148||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.148
84514245|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.93|1.80|<0.001
84514246|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.23||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.23|1.11|<0.001
84514247|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.79|1.66|<0.001
84514248|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.85|1.74|<0.001
84514249|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.13|1.02|<0.001
84514250|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.78|1.59|<0.001
84514251|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.7||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.70|1.53|<0.001
84514252|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.21|1.04|<0.001
84514253|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.52|1.30|<0.001
84514254|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.72||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.72|1.52|<0.001
84717291|NCT06946888|169183642|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.143||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.143
84514255|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.11|0.91|<0.001
84514256|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.55||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.55|1.34|<0.001
84514257|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.79|1.59|<0.001
84514258|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.16|0.97|<0.001
84514259|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.52|1.28|<0.001
84514260|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.75|1.52|<0.001
84514261|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.20|0.98|<0.001
84514262|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.54|1.26|<0.001
84514263|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.66|1.39|<0.001
84514264|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.07|0.81|<0.001
84514265|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.49|1.17|<0.001
84514266|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.43|1.13|<0.001
84514267|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.07|0.78|<0.001
84717292|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
84717293|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.273||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.273
84725795|NCT00689351|169203741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.75|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||2.75|1.83|
84514268|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.32|0.95|<0.001
84514269|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.29|0.94|<0.001
84717294|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.424||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.424
84717295|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.482||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.482
84717296|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
84717297|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.806||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.806
84717298|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.786||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.786
84717299|NCT06946888|169183643|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.497||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.497
84725796|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.60|
84717300|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.857||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.857
84514270|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.06|0.71|<0.001
84514271|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.27|0.88|<0.001
84514272|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.1||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.10|0.73|<0.001
84717301|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.684||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.684
84717302|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
84717303|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.09||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.090
84717304|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.545||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.545
84514273|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.08|0.72|<0.001
84514274|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.96|0.53|<0.001
84514275|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.79|0.38|0.003
84514276|NCT00913627|168781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||2.02|0.61|<0.001
84514277|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.91|0.12|0.011
84514278|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.83|0.05|0.028
84514279|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.78|0.00|0.048
84514280|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.96|0.69|<0.001
84514281|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.71|0.45|<0.001
84514282|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.63|0.38|0.002
84514283|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||3.06|1.46|<0.001
84717305|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.251||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.251
84514284|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.82|1.24|<0.001
84514285|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.31||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.31|0.74|<0.001
84514286|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.5||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.50|1.78|<0.001
84514287|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.51|1.81|<0.001
84514288|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.00|1.32|<0.001
84514289|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.12|2.39|<0.001
84514290|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.28|2.57|<0.001
84514291|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||3.63|1.92|<0.001
84514292|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.44|2.70|<0.001
84514293|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.53|2.82|<0.001
84514294|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||3.57|1.87|<0.001
84514295|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.99|3.27|<0.001
84514296|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.95|3.24|<0.001
84514297|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.93|2.24|<0.001
84514298|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|5.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||5.13|3.36|<0.001
84514299|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||4.92|3.17|<0.001
84514300|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.85|2.11|<0.001
84514301|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|5.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||5.01|3.14|<0.001
84514302|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||4.92|3.07|<0.001
84514303|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.75|1.91|<0.001
84514304|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.71|2.78|<0.001
84514305|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.89|2.98|<0.001
84514306|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||3.75|1.85|<0.001
84514307|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.56|2.65|<0.001
84514308|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|4.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.79|2.89|<0.001
84717306|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.701||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.701
84717307|NCT06946888|169183644|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.08||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.080
84717308|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.636||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.636
84717309|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
84717310|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
84717311|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.474||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.474
84725797|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.83|
84514309|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||3.54|1.65|<0.001
84514310|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.53|2.54|<0.001
84514311|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.49|2.52|<0.001
84717312|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.378||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.378
84717313|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.768||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.768
84717314|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
84717315|NCT06946888|169183645|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.449||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.449
84717316|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.593||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.593
84717317|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.994||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.994
84717318|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.959||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.959
84514312|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||3.65|1.69|<0.001
84514313|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.21|2.19|<0.001
84717319|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.946||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.946
84717320|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.715||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.715
84717321|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.422||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.422
84717322|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.379||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.379
84725798|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.76|
84514314|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.51|2.51|<0.001
84514315|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||3.48|1.49|<0.001
84514316|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.21|2.17|<0.001
84514317|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.66|2.64|<0.001
84514318|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||3.60|1.58|<0.001
84717323|NCT06946888|169183646|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.302||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.302
84717324|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.913||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.913
84717325|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.802||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.802
84717326|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.605||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.605
84717327|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.35||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized Estimating Equations were used to analyze repeated measures data and to assess the interaction effect between group and time. Potential interfering factors such as age and years of work experience were controlled during the analysis, and the effect size (Cohen's d) and its 95% confidence interval were calculated to assist in interpreting the clinical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version XX or R version XX, and the significance level was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.350
84725799|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.95|0.57|
84514319|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.15||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.15|2.06|<0.001
84514320|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.61|2.53|<0.001
84717328|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||1||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||1.000
84717329|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.744||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.744
84717330|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.202||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.202
84717331|NCT06946888|169183647|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.918||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.918
84717332|NCT02278211|169183659|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.89|0.20
84717333|NCT02278211|169183660|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.12|||Log Rank|||||5.12|1.15|0.02
84717334|NCT06037668|169183674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1134
84717335|NCT06037668|169183675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.003100
84717336|NCT06037668|169183676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.050300
84717337|NCT06037668|169183677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1178
84717338|NCT06037668|169183678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1003||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1003
84717339|NCT06037668|169183679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4832||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.4832
84717340|NCT02997202|169183697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|1.005|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.005|0.459|0.0518
84514321|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||3.67|1.61|<0.001
84514322|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.21|2.09|<0.001
84717341|NCT02997202|169183698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.293|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.293|0.554|0.4394
84717342|NCT02997202|169183701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.308||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1352|4.6922|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine \& Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||4.6922|1.1352|0.0209
84717343|NCT02997202|169183702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.261|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.261|0.686|0.6417
84717344|NCT02997202|169183703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8938||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5574|1.433|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD II to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||1.4330|0.5574|0.6410
84717345|NCT02997202|169183703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4254||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6103|3.3289|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD III to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||3.3289|0.6103|0.4128
84717346|NCT02997202|169183704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
84717347|NCT02997202|169183705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
84717348|NCT02997202|169183706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4537||||0.2029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5126|23.2687|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD Eradication||23.2687|0.5126|0.2029
84717349|NCT02997202|169183706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7073||||0.4077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3116|1.6055|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD 10\^-4 Detection||1.6055|0.3116|0.4077
84717350|NCT02997202|169183707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2243|0.6199|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||0.6199|0.2243|<0.001
84717351|NCT02997202|169183708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4848||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9886|2.23|||Fine-Grays model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||2.2300|0.9886|0.0568
84514323|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|4.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.46|2.36|<0.001
84514324|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||3.44|1.36|<0.001
84717352|NCT04068792|169183779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.467|2.416||||||||2.416|-4.467|
84717353|NCT04704869|169183833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
84717354|NCT02510235|169183864|NON_INFERIORITY|"To declare non-inferiority between treatments, a change in the SANDE overall score of 12 mm was required, with an estimated standard deviation of 13 (approximately 70% of the mean at 28 ± 4 days after treatment).~The left inferior limits of confidence interval were determined and compared with the non-inferiority limit defined in the testing hypothesis.~Testing Hypothesis:~H0: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin ≤ - 12~/ H1: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin \> - 12"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.87||||Student t-test for unpaired data.|||Values at Day 28 ± 4 (end of treatment) for the SANDE overall VAS score were compared between treatment groups using a Student's t-test for unpaired data.|||-8.87|
84717355|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|6.11|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score||Foreign Body Sensation in the Study Eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||6.11|-7.66|0.8226
84514325|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.12|1.94|<0.001
84514326|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.07|1.91|<0.001
84717356|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.44|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Burning/Stinging in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||9.44|-3.13|0.3178
84717357|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|11.3|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Itching in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||11.30|1.74|0.0085
84725800|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.72|
84717358|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.13|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Pain in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.13|-3.31|0.3124
84514327|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.42||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||3.42|1.28|<0.001
84717359|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.12|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Sticky feeling in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||13.12|0.40|0.0377
84717360|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|8.83|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Blurred vision in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||8.83|-4.62|0.5321
84717361|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|10.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Photophobia in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.68|-6.04|0.5790
84717362|NCT02510235|169183866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|49.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Total ocular tolerability score in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||49.68|-17.41|0.3383
84717363|NCT02510235|169183867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.19|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||3.19|-5.07|0.6484
84717364|NCT02510235|169183868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.51|-0.71|0.7408
84717365|NCT02510235|169183869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.87|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.87|-0.78|0.8596
84717366|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Meibomian glands in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.20|-0.16|0.7891
84514328|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.83|1.57|<0.001
84717367|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.24|0.6075
84514329|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.85|1.62|<0.001
84514330|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.37|1.14|<0.001
84717368|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.14|0.6639
84717369|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value is not duplicated or triplicated, reflecting the global outcome consistent with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.29|-0.10|0.3482
84717370|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.09|-0.34|0.2422
84717371|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Lens in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.11|0.8645
84514331|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.76||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.76|1.51|<0.001
84514332|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.56|1.33|<0.001
84514333|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.47|1.25|<0.001
84514334|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.19|0.86|<0.001
84514335|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.05|0.75|0.001
84514336|NCT00913627|168781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.34|1.05|<0.001
84514337|NCT00913627|168781816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|2.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.89|1.94|<0.001
84514338|NCT00913627|168781816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.86||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.86|1.92|<0.001
84514339|NCT00913627|168781816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.52|1.58|<0.001
84717372|NCT02510235|169183870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Cornea transparency in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.04|-0.11|0.3790
84717373|NCT02510235|169183871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.26|0.8363
84725801|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.88|1.11|
84514340|NCT02444715|168781817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.96
84514341|NCT02444715|168781817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.03
84514342|NCT02444715|168781818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.53
84514343|NCT02444715|168781818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.44
84514344|NCT02444715|168781819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.76
84514345|NCT02444715|168781819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
84514346|NCT02444715|168781820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.39
84514347|NCT02444715|168781820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
84514348|NCT02444715|168781821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.92
84514349|NCT02444715|168781821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.37
84514350|NCT02444715|168781822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.78
84514351|NCT02444715|168781822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.19
84514352|NCT02444715|168781823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.9
84514353|NCT02444715|168781823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.43
84514354|NCT02444715|168781824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.67
84514355|NCT02444715|168781824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
84514356|NCT02444715|168781825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.26
84514357|NCT02444715|168781825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.07
84514358|NCT02444715|168781826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.06
84514359|NCT02444715|168781826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
84514360|NCT02444715|168781827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
84717374|NCT02510235|169183872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||1.02|-0.62|0.6248
84514361|NCT02444715|168781827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.34
84514362|NCT02444715|168781827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
84514363|NCT02444715|168781827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.59
84514364|NCT02444715|168781828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.64
84514365|NCT02444715|168781828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.14
84514366|NCT00095212|168781831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||||||0.04
84514367|NCT00095212|168781832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
84514368|NCT00095212|168781833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
84514369|NCT00095212|168781834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.01
84514370|NCT00095212|168781835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84514371|NCT00095212|168781836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
84514372|NCT00095212|168781837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
84514373|NCT00095212|168781838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84514374|NCT00095212|168781839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84514375|NCT00095212|168781840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84514376|NCT00095212|168781841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84514377|NCT02242201|168781878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84514378|NCT02242201|168781878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
84514379|NCT02242201|168781878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
84514380|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.948
84514381|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.880
84514382|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.802
84514383|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.179
84514384|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.837
84514385|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.142
84514386|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.010
84514387|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.516
84514388|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.052
84514389|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.840
84514390|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.744
84514391|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.501
84514392|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.358
84514393|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.536
84514394|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.110
84514395|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.313
84514396|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.893
84514397|NCT02242201|168781879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.232
84514398|NCT02242201|168781880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.772
84514399|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline||||0.251
84514400|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||3 month follow-up||||0.300
84514401|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.113
84514402|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.147
84514403|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.216
84514404|NCT02242201|168781881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.968
84514405|NCT02242201|168781882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest||||0.776
84514406|NCT02242201|168781882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain with movement||||0.447
84514407|NCT02242201|168781883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.986
84514408|NCT02242201|168781883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
84514409|NCT02242201|168781883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
84514410|NCT02242201|168781883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
84514411|NCT02242201|168781884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.898
84514412|NCT02242201|168781884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.112
84717375|NCT02510235|169183873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.49|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.49|-0.82|0.6153
84514413|NCT02242201|168781884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.046
84514414|NCT02242201|168781884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.026
84514415|NCT02242201|168781885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative extremity neurologic changes||||0.843
84514416|NCT02242201|168781885|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Wound infection||||1.00
84514417|NCT02242201|168781885|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fall requiring medical attention||||1.00
84514418|NCT02242201|168781886|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain at rest||||1.00
84514419|NCT02242201|168781886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain with movement||||0.167
84514420|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2347||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.1276||the threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 1 (IL1)||0.1276|- 0.8077|0.058
84514421|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER|Interleukin 6 (IL6)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
84514422|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 10||0.81|-0.76|0.052
84514423|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Vascular Endotelial Grow Factor A||0.22|-0.50|0.815
84717376|NCT00450216|169183874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.3||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing gastric ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing gastric ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||15.3|4.4|<0.0001
84717377|NCT00450216|169183875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.6||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing UGI (i.e., gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||17.6|6.1|<0.0001
84514424|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||TNF alfa||0.36|-0.42|0.742
84514425|NCT03020641|168781898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chemokine CXC ligand 2||0.44|-0.36|0.603
84514426|NCT03020641|168781899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Matrix metalloproteinase-9||0.65|-0.47|0.600
84514427|NCT03020641|168781899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1||0.97|0.030|0.028
84514428|NCT03020641|168781899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||E-selectin||0.82|-0.64|0.807
84514429|NCT03020641|168781901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|10.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.21|-7.49|0.862
84514430|NCT03238781|168781909|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.26||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.4||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.40|-0.88|0.66
84717378|NCT00450216|169183876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.8||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prio UGI ulcer history at randomization.||6.8|1.0|0.0006
84514431|NCT03238781|168781909|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.43||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.43|-0.89|0.65
84514432|NCT03238781|168781910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.62||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.62|0.41|0.57
84717379|NCT04564209|169183913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||||||.455
84717380|NCT04564209|169183914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||.415
84717381|NCT04564209|169183915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||||||.443
84717382|NCT04564209|169183916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||.457
84717383|NCT04564209|169183917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|||||||.099
84717384|NCT04564209|169183918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||.338
84717385|NCT04564209|169183919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANOVA|||||||.723
84717386|NCT04564209|169183921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.578
84514433|NCT03238781|168781910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.54|0.37|0.45
84514434|NCT03238781|168781911|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.81||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (CM versus EM), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||0.81|-0.87|0.94
84514435|NCT03238781|168781911|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.77||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.94|0.84
84514436|NCT03238781|168781912|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.01||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.01|-2.56|0.81
84514437|NCT03238781|168781912|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.63||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.63|-2.01|0.79
84717387|NCT04564209|169183922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.998
84717388|NCT04564209|169183923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.864
84514438|NCT03238781|168781913|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.44||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.44|-3.15|0.46
84514439|NCT03238781|168781913|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.89||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.89|-1.77|0.64
84514440|NCT03161405|168781923|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6446|2.3904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||2.3904|1.6446|
84717389|NCT03493542|169183946|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.58|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 6||1.58|1.28|<0.0001
84514441|NCT03161405|168781924|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1199|1.4891||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4891|1.1199|
84514442|NCT03161405|168781925|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0965|1.4904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4904|1.0965|
84514443|NCT00837486|168781926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||"one-sided P-value~per protocol responder rates: Active Group = 20.0%, Control Group = 14.3%"|Fisher Exact|||The study originally required a sample size of 208 subjects in order to have 90% power to detect a statistically significant difference between the responder rate of the active and control groups. With this 30-subject cohort, and only 29 subjects completing the blinded-treatment phase per protocol, the comparison of response rates was not adequately powered. The P-value is presented only to describe the outcomes of the two groups.||||=0.53
84514444|NCT01597245|168781949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514445|NCT01597245|168781949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514446|NCT01597245|168781949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514447|NCT01597245|168781950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514448|NCT01597245|168781950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84717390|NCT03493542|169183946|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.55|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 11||1.55|1.25|<0.0001
84514449|NCT01597245|168781950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514450|NCT01597245|168781951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84514451|NCT01597245|168781951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514452|NCT01597245|168781951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514453|NCT01597245|168781952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514454|NCT01597245|168781952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514455|NCT01597245|168781952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514456|NCT01597245|168781953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
84514457|NCT01597245|168781953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514458|NCT01597245|168781953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514459|NCT01597245|168781954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84514460|NCT01597245|168781954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84514461|NCT01597245|168781955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514462|NCT01597245|168781955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514463|NCT01597245|168781955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84514464|NCT01597245|168781956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514465|NCT01597245|168781956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514466|NCT01597245|168781956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514467|NCT01597245|168781957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84514468|NCT01597245|168781957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514469|NCT01597245|168781957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514470|NCT01597245|168781958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514471|NCT01597245|168781958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514472|NCT01597245|168781958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514473|NCT01597245|168781959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514474|NCT01597245|168781959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514475|NCT01597245|168781959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514476|NCT01597245|168781960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
84514477|NCT01597245|168781960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84514478|NCT01597245|168781960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84514479|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.026
84514480|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.076
84514481|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.016
84514482|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
84514483|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
84514484|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
84514485|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
84514486|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
84514487|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
84514488|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
84514489|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
84514490|NCT01597245|168781961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
84514491|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
84514492|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
84514493|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
84514494|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
84514495|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
84717391|NCT03493542|169183946|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.7|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 16||1.70|1.37|<0.0001
84717392|NCT03493542|169183946|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.9|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 18||1.90|1.45|<0.0001
84514496|NCT01597245|168781962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
84514497|NCT01597245|168781963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514498|NCT01597245|168781963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514499|NCT01597245|168781963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514500|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
84514501|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
84514502|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
84514503|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
84514504|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
84514505|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
84514506|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||0.002
84514507|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
84514508|NCT01597245|168781964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
84514509|NCT00731783|168781966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|1.00
84514510|NCT00731783|168781967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.55|||Fisher Exact|||||4.55|1.03|0.05
84514511|NCT00731783|168781968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0.39|0.49
84514512|NCT00731783|168781969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.28|||Fisher Exact|||||3.28|0.77|0.28
84514513|NCT00731783|168781970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|0.23|0.12
84514514|NCT00731783|168781971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|0.21|0.02
84514515|NCT00731783|168781972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.20|0.008
84514516|NCT00731783|168781973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.22|0.02
84539813|NCT01894087|168829640|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of reducing or avoiding opioid use). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid or reduce opioid use, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||0.90|0.65|
84514517|NCT00579345|168781984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||||A/H1N1(Day22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||0.98|0.45|
84514518|NCT00579345|168781984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||A/H3N2 (Day 22)-criterion was met|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.19|0.55|
84514519|NCT00579345|168781984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02|||||B (Day 22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.02|0.46|
84514520|NCT02222818|168781993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that CAFRPlus is no less effective than CAFR by a non-inferiority margin of 2%, assuming a true paired difference of 6% and a standard deviation of 15% for the paired differences, a sample size of 39 subjects with paired data is required to achieve 90% statistical power using the one-sample t-test for non-inferiority, while controlling the one-sided type I error rate at 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ -2% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> -2% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods, and -2% is the non-inferiority margin selected based upon clinical judgment.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
84514521|NCT02222818|168781994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ 0% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> 0% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
84514522|NCT00461786|168782053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|21.0||||||95.0|10.5|35.0||||||Overall Response Rate is the total percentage of participants with either a complete response or a partial response (CR+PR)/48 X 100.||35.0|10.5|
84514523|NCT00835991|168782065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|114.05||||||90.0|107.26|121.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.27|107.26|
84514524|NCT00835991|168782066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.63||||||90.0|97.59|103.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.76|97.59|
84514525|NCT00835991|168782067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.36||||||90.0|98.32|104.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.48|98.32|
84514526|NCT00835991|168782068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.05||||||90.0|94.31|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|94.31|
84514527|NCT00835991|168782069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.55||||||90.0|93.85|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.32|93.85|
84514528|NCT00835991|168782070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.44||||||90.0|93.71|99.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.25|93.71|
84514529|NCT00829309|168782071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.45||||||90.0|80.08|121.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.03|80.08|
84514530|NCT00829309|168782072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.98||||||90.0|85.23|97.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.12|85.23|
84514531|NCT00829309|168782073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.3||||||90.0|85.34|108.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.66|85.34|
84539814|NCT01894087|168829640|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of not combining opioids with other drugs). Numerator was Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid combining opioids with other substances, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.19|0.80|
84514532|NCT01705574|168782074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was that the STB group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm). The alternative hypothesis was that the STB group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group.|Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||12.6|0.4|
84514533|NCT01705574|168782074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted MH proportion. If the lower bound of the CI was \> 0, superiority of STB over ATV+RTV+TVD was established.|If noninferiority of STB versus ATV+RTV+TVD was established, the same 95.2% CI used in evaluating noninferiority was used to evaluate superiority. The baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-stratified, 2-sided CMH test was also used to assess superiority as a secondary assessment.||12.6|0.4|0.034
84717393|NCT03493542|169183967|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 6||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
84514534|NCT00777023|168782079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.42||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.42|-2.80|0.0024
84717394|NCT03493542|169183967|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 11||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
84514535|NCT00777023|168782079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.69|-0.33||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.33|-2.69|0.0040
84514536|NCT00777023|168782080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.41||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.41|-2.72|0.0024
84514537|NCT00777023|168782080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.26|0.02||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.02|-2.26|0.0281
84514538|NCT00777023|168782081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.03||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.03|-0.32|0.0608
84514539|NCT00777023|168782081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.11||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.11|-0.45|0.0003
84514540|NCT00777023|168782082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.0||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.00|-0.43|0.0280
84514541|NCT00777023|168782082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.07||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.07|-0.51|0.0026
84514542|NCT02659150|168782083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-test comparing values obtained during the follow-up imaging (at 13-18 weeks)minus the baseline values||||0.26
84514543|NCT02659150|168782084|OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman|||correlation coefficient||||0.036
84539815|NCT01894087|168829641|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Numerator is Therapist-Led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable Poisson regression for the outcome of total COMM score at follow-up, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.92|0.70|
84539816|NCT02288325|168829666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.33|0.0212
84514544|NCT02659150|168782085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The carotid artery plaque with highest FDG uptake is located using Positron Emission Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging images. Thereafter Paired T- Test is used to compare baseline vs follow-up values of FDG uptake (before vs after 12 weeks of tocilizumab treatment). FDG uptake is assessed as a Target to background values (TBR) , which is calculated as the mean arterial standardized uptake value (SUV) divided by background blood pool SUV.||||0.14
84514545|NCT02659150|168782086|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|-0.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.076
84514546|NCT02659150|168782087|SUPERIORITY||Correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.07
84514547|NCT00904215|168782133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84514548|NCT00904215|168782134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84514549|NCT00904215|168782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84514550|NCT00904215|168782136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84514551|NCT05446870|168782166|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|100.0|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of pCR, adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
84514552|NCT05446870|168782168|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|90.99|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of CRS (CRS3 coded as 1 and CRS1 or 2 coded as 0), adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
84514553|NCT05446870|168782169|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-10.0|
84514554|NCT05446870|168782170|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|37.0||||||||37.0|3.5|
84514555|NCT05446870|168782173|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|38.75|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) coefficient for treatment assignment (MK-4830 containing vs. not) less than zero in Bayesian parametrization of the constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, modeling ctDNA value at Cycle 3 and ctDNA value at baseline as bivariate normal.|||
84514556|NCT04405570|168782190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5551|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5551
84514557|NCT04405570|168782190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7270
84514558|NCT04405570|168782190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0128
84514559|NCT04499963|168782194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared he ALSFRS-R slope (not the actual score) of the patients in our open label treatment versus the historical controls.||||0.984
84514560|NCT04499963|168782199|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514561|NCT04499963|168782200|OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Alpha Diversity|Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.5
84514562|NCT04499963|168782201|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514563|NCT04499963|168782202|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514564|NCT04499963|168782203|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514565|NCT04499963|168782204|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514566|NCT04499963|168782205|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514567|NCT04499963|168782206|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
84514568|NCT03226522|168782221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84514569|NCT03226522|168782221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84514570|NCT00984126|168782222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4||||||A one-sided 95% upper confidence limit was based on an exact calculation for a binomial distribution.||1.4||
84514571|NCT02009163|168782245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a log-rank test, stratified by 4-week cessation status (Yes, No). 4-week cessation was defined as a subject having no binge days during the 4 weeks prior to randomization.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84539817|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16,0.33)|0.172|||||||||||Bayesian logistic regression model|||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84514572|NCT02009163|168782246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.42||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed- effects model for repeated measur|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-0.42|-0.81|<0.001
84514573|NCT02009163|168782247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted P-value for the difference in distribution between treatment groups in CGI-S.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with a modified ridit score, adjusting for Visit 8 (Week 12) CGI-S as the covariate.||||||<0.001
84478631|NCT01135394|168708624|OTHER|The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Pearson correlation p-value|0.0000001|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Genes with p-values below 10^-6|||After the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in HOMA-IR index had been calculated for each subject, the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in expression of each of approximately 45,000 transcripts contained in a human gene array was calculated. A Pearson correlation p-value was calculated for the correlation between change in gene expression and change in HOMA-IR index, with the purpose of identifying the genes whose expression changed in concert with changes in HOMA-IR index.|The genes with P-values below 10\^-6 were identified|||<0.0000001
84478632|NCT05742841|168708629|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84514574|NCT02009163|168782248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-3.9||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-3.9|-7.2|<0.001
84514575|NCT03686033|168782289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|3.22||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least Square (LS) Mean Difference was calculated for 2.5 mg versus (vs) Placebo only.||3.22|-0.98|
84539818|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.01||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84478633|NCT02088541|168708630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75|||Log Rank|||||1.75|0.79|0.4221
84478634|NCT02088541|168708631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9464
84478635|NCT02088541|168708632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0986
84478636|NCT02088541|168708634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0844|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0844
84478637|NCT00379236|168708643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Screening pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.008
84478638|NCT00379236|168708644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is purely nominal|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84478639|NCT00379236|168708645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
84478640|NCT00379236|168708646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
84478641|NCT00379236|168708647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.618
84478642|NCT00379236|168708648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
84478643|NCT00379236|168708649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.002
84478644|NCT00379236|168708660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
84478645|NCT00962754|168708672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority since our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in outcome between the intervention and the control group.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||"log transformation of mean duration of hospitalization,difference between two groups expressed as ratio of geometric means for duration. 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrapping method.~correction by linear regression model"|t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated that 85 patients in each group would give a power in excess of 85% to detect a difference of two days or more in the geometric mean length of hospital stay with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.19|0.81|<0.05
84478646|NCT00438464|168708695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84539819|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probabilty of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.362||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84478647|NCT00438464|168708696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84478648|NCT00438464|168708697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84478649|NCT00438464|168708698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.805
84478650|NCT00438464|168708699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
84478651|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within GG3||||0.70
84478652|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG3||||0.38
84478653|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG3||||0.41
84478654|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG3||||0.75
84478655|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG3||||0.57
84478656|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C (UBE2C), Within GG3||||0.12
84478657|NCT00438464|168708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cleaved Caspase 3 (Caspase), Within GG3||||0.03
84478658|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor (VEGF3), Within GG4||||0.45
84478659|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG4||||0.83
84478660|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG4||||0.04
84478661|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG4||||0.80
84717395|NCT03493542|169183967|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 16||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
84717396|NCT03493542|169183967|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 18||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
84717397|NCT04499521|169183976|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.5||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Bladder D2cc||0.50|-0.27|
84514576|NCT03686033|168782289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|-1.99||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LS Mean Difference was calculated for 25 mg vs Placebo only.||-1.99|-6.35|
84717398|NCT04499521|169183976|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Bladder D2cc||0.96|-0.94|
84717399|NCT04499521|169183976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.16||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Rectum D2cc||0.16|-0.54|
84717400|NCT04499521|169183976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.29||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Rectum D2cc||0.29|-0.67|
84539820|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.046||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
84717401|NCT05525104|169183979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
84514577|NCT01854047|168782302|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w, and 200 mg q4w.||0.36|0.06|0.0063
84514578|NCT01854047|168782302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.40|0.11|0.0008
84717402|NCT05525104|169183980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
84717403|NCT05525104|169183984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84514579|NCT01854047|168782302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.32|0.03|0.0212
84514580|NCT01854047|168782302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.23|-0.07|0.2774
84717404|NCT03364127|169184014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.51|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.51|-.76|0.702
84717405|NCT03364127|169184015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.79|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.79|-.58|0.77
84717406|NCT03364127|169184016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.09|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||4.09|-1.76|0.436
84717407|NCT03364127|169184017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.54||Kaplan-Meier curves by treatment arm were examined to determine the rates of return to baseline over the 12-week follow-up period .|Log Rank|||Goal was to assess duration of effect among those who showed a response to the intervention (1.5 or greater decrease in PIN).||6.54|1.13|0.017
84717408|NCT04881461|169184044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.17||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 86% power for the primary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||3.17|0.60|0.0036
84717409|NCT04881461|169184045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction.|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 95% power for this key secondary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||0.39|-0.04|0.1111
84717410|NCT04881461|169184046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.67||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.67|-0.01|0.0417
84717411|NCT04881461|169184047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.30|-0.15|0.4984
84717412|NCT04881461|169184048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.27|-0.12|0.4438
84717413|NCT04881461|169184049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.38|0.01|0.0363
84717414|NCT04881461|169184050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.31||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand.."||2.31|0.06|0.0329
84717415|NCT04881461|169184051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.79||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.79|0.66|0.0016
84717416|NCT04881461|169184052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.92||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.92|-0.42|0.4502
84717417|NCT04881461|169184053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.23||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.23|-0.14|0.1177
84717418|NCT04881461|169184054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.79||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.79|-0.37|0.4604
84717419|NCT04881461|169184055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.15||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.15|-0.01|0.0549
84717420|NCT04881461|169184056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.93|0.30|0.0049
84717421|NCT04881461|169184057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.95||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.95|0.54|0.0004
84717422|NCT04881461|169184058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.63|0.25|0.0054
84717423|NCT04881461|169184059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.71|0.52|0.0002
84717424|NCT01474122|169184100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.194||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.861|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 3 mg and in placebo|||1.861|0.766|0.434
84717425|NCT01474122|169184100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.208||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.886|||NB-2||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 10 mg and in placebo|||1.886|0.773|0.407
84717426|NCT01474122|169184101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.564|||Chi-squared|||||1.564|0.442|0.5668
84717427|NCT01474122|169184101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.789||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.484|||Chi-squared|||||1.484|0.420|0.4624
84717428|NCT01474122|169184102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.582|||Chi-squared|||||2.582|0.572|0.6117
84717429|NCT01474122|169184102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.264|||Chi-squared|||||2.264|0.485|0.9047
84717430|NCT01474122|169184103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.347
84717431|NCT01474122|169184103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.165
84717432|NCT01474122|169184104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.339
84717433|NCT01474122|169184104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.312
84717434|NCT01474122|169184105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.319
84717435|NCT01474122|169184105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.221
84717436|NCT02326974|169184109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||By estimating that the overall pCR with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab would be approximately 40%, and 20% of the population classified as heterogeneous, the study would have 80% power with 136 evaluable patients to detect a difference in pCR of 44.9% in the non-heterogenous versus 20.3% in the heterogenous subgroup. The study had a 90% power to detect difference in pCR of 43.4% in the non-heterogenous versus 8.8% in the heterogenous subgroup if the observed prevalence of HER2 heterogeneity was 10%.||||<0.001
84717437|NCT02577354|169184118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Cui p-value adjustment for sample size re-estimation at interim analysis; Multiple imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.138
84717438|NCT02577354|169184119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84717439|NCT02577354|169184120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Friedman's regression analysis|Multiple Imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.0499
84717440|NCT02577354|169184122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
84717441|NCT02577354|169184123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
84717442|NCT02577354|169184124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84717443|NCT02577354|169184125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84717444|NCT02577354|169184126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.335
84717445|NCT02577354|169184134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Multiple imputation used for three participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.048
84717446|NCT02577354|169184135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-value for Satisfied with Treatment. Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84717447|NCT02577354|169184137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84717448|NCT06097494|169184154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||||Calculated as the odds of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with depression versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.15|1.01|
84717449|NCT06097494|169184155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.3|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.30|1.09|
84717450|NCT06097494|169184156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety or depression compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.17|1.03|
84717451|NCT06097494|169184157|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.32|||||Adjusted incident rate ratio for increased primary care use was calculated by comparing patients with vitiligo versus matched controls not having vitiligo,using negative binomial regression.|||1.32|1.26|
84717452|NCT06097494|169184159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2|||||Hazard ratios for mental health referrals was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.20|0.93|
84717453|NCT06097494|169184160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||||Hazard ratios for unemployment was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.15|0.76|
84717454|NCT06097494|169184161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.24|||||Hazard ratios for time off work was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.24|1.06|
84717455|NCT06097494|169184162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||||Hazard ratios for sleep disturbance was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.31|1.02|
84717456|NCT05683158|169184163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference between two groups of movement unit in forward direction|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
84717457|NCT05683158|169184163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Statistics difference among forward, ipsilateral and contralateral directions in within group|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
84717458|NCT04490109|169184177|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0148|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0148
84717459|NCT04490109|169184177|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0143|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0143
84717460|NCT04490109|169184179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0205
84717461|NCT04490109|169184180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0044
84717462|NCT04490109|169184180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0077
84717463|NCT04490109|169184181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0400
84717464|NCT04490109|169184181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0486
84717465|NCT04490109|169184183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0246
84717466|NCT04490109|169184183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0366
84717467|NCT04490109|169184184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0467
84717468|NCT04490109|169184185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0293
84717469|NCT04490109|169184186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0045
84717470|NCT04490109|169184186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0043
84717471|NCT04490109|169184187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0026
84717472|NCT04490109|169184187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0005
84717473|NCT04490109|169184188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0348
84478662|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG4||||0.61
84514581|NCT01854047|168782303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w and 200 mg q4w.||0.25|0.08|0.0002
84717474|NCT04490109|169184188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0173
84717475|NCT04490109|169184189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0228
84717476|NCT04490109|169184189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0015
84717477|NCT04490109|169184190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0003
84514582|NCT01854047|168782303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.28|0.011|<0.0001
84717478|NCT04490109|169184191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0195
84717479|NCT04490109|169184192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0365
84717480|NCT04490109|169184193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0086
84717481|NCT04490109|169184193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0035
84478663|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within GG4||||0.86
84478664|NCT00438464|168708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within GG4||||0.02
84478665|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.84
84478666|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.36
84478667|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Finasteride||||0.09
84717482|NCT04490109|169184194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0074
84717483|NCT04490109|169184194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0008
84717484|NCT04244175|169184277|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|||=|0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|10.61|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||10.61|-10.38|=0.986
84717485|NCT04244175|169184277|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|1.42|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.04|11.87|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||11.87|-9.04|=0.823
84717486|NCT04244175|169184277|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.76|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|9.76|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||9.76|-8.23|=0.888
84717487|NCT04244175|169184278|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.3||||||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||19.3|-12.0|
84717488|NCT04244175|169184278|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|16.2||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||16.2|-16.1|
84717489|NCT04244175|169184278|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|15.8||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||15.8|-11.4|
84717490|NCT04244175|169184279|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|2.618|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.618|0.616|=0.587
84478668|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.46
84478669|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.88
84478670|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.18
84478671|NCT00438464|168708706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Finasteride Arm||||<0.001
84478672|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Placebo Arm||||0.32
84478673|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Placebo Arm||||0.83
84478674|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Placebo Arm||||0.77
84478675|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Placebo Arm||||0.87
84478676|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Placebo Arm||||0.91
84478677|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Placebo Arm||||0.90
84717491|NCT04244175|169184279|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.303|||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|2.723|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||2.723|0.624|=0.554
84478678|NCT00438464|168708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Placebo Arm||||<0.001
84478679|NCT03943446|168708708|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference in ER Rate|-0.1|||=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||||0.23|-0.44|=0.590
84717492|NCT04244175|169184279|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.420|0.684|=0.513
84514583|NCT01854047|168782303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.21|0.04|0.0048
84717493|NCT04244175|169184280|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||>0.999
84514584|NCT01854047|168782303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.18|0.01|0.0304
84539821|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.478||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
84514585|NCT01302548|168782325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0833|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8609||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5738|0.7405||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||.7405|-.5738|.7970
84514586|NCT01302548|168782326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2364||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0239|2.3394||This is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|Cell (1,1) Frequency (F) = 13||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the proportion of patients requiring antibiotics after the use of IRRISEPT solution vs. the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||2.3394|.0239|.3575
84514587|NCT01302548|168782327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5477||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0659|1.2659||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 4||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing in patients that are MRSA positive.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||1.2659|-2.0659|.5415
84514588|NCT03134222|168782328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.7500
84514589|NCT03134222|168782328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3047|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.3047
84514590|NCT03134222|168782329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8869|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8869
84514591|NCT03134222|168782329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3293|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3293
84514592|NCT03134222|168782330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7456
84514593|NCT03134222|168782330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6407
84514594|NCT03134222|168782331|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84514595|NCT03134222|168782331|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84514596|NCT03134222|168782332|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84514597|NCT03134222|168782332|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
84514598|NCT03482882|168782333|OTHER||LSM|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-9.5|||Mixed-effect model repeated measures|||||-9.5|-12.0|<0.0001
84514599|NCT00520234|168782343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|APACHE II Stratified||||||0.14
84514600|NCT00017953|168782384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.83|0.51
84514601|NCT00017953|168782385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.79|0.42
84514602|NCT00017953|168782386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.23
84514603|NCT00017953|168782387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.29
84514604|NCT02374853|168782389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84514605|NCT02374853|168782390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
84514606|NCT02374853|168782391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.054
84717494|NCT04244175|169184280|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.618|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.618
84514607|NCT02305758|168782416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.48||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||1.480|0.596|
84514608|NCT02305758|168782417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|2.156||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||2.156|0.738|
84717495|NCT04244175|169184280|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.422|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.422
84514609|NCT02305758|168782418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||12.1|-21.4|
84717496|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.021
84717497|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.5|=0.342
84478680|NCT03943446|168708708|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in ERR|-0.01|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Fisher Exact|||||0.31|-0.34|=1.000
84514610|NCT01754597|168782449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
84514611|NCT01754597|168782450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
84514612|NCT01754597|168782451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
84514613|NCT02149420|168782454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.058||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.007|3.18|||repeated measures Bayesian analysis|with baseline as a covariate||Per protocol the primary analysis was between placebo and the combined VAY736 groups at Week 12.||3.180|-5.007|0.678
84514614|NCT00834067|168782479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.7||||||90.0|90.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|90.1|
84539822|NCT04138823|168829774|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.118||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
84478681|NCT01281189|168708717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.751|34.576|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment as a fixed effect and adjusts for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from sx onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.||||34.576|-28.751|0.8568
84478682|NCT01281189|168708718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.427|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||Hazard Ratio (HR) (Dex/PBO)|1.427|0.750|0.8375
84478683|NCT01281189|168708719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.28|||mixed-effects repeated-measures model|Mixed-effects repeated-measures model with treatment, visit, treatment-by visit interaction, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline-by-visit interaction|The mixed-effects repeated-measures model also adjusted for the following covariates: duration from symptom onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||1.280|-1.128|0.9019
84478684|NCT01281189|168708720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.348|0.801|0.7715
84514615|NCT00834067|168782480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.9|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|99.9|
84514616|NCT00834067|168782481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.7|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|99.7|
84514617|NCT00834067|168782482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.0|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|96|
84514618|NCT00834067|168782483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.1|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|99.1|
84539823|NCT02466685|168829787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84539824|NCT02593110|168829799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.41||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.59|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|-54.59|0.1107
84514619|NCT00834067|168782484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.4|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|99.4|
84514620|NCT00834067|168782485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.8|114.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||114|99.8|
84514621|NCT00834067|168782486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|99.0|106.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106|99|
84539825|NCT02593110|168829799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|41.39|||ANCOVA|||||41.39|-21.84|0.5378
84514622|NCT00834067|168782487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|98.1|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|98.1|
84514623|NCT02246920|168782493|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R Ls Mean Ratio|108.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|124.4||||||||124.40|94.09|
84514624|NCT02246920|168782494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated when the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R LS Mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|124.09||||||||124.09|92.42|
84514625|NCT02246920|168782495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0028
84514626|NCT02246920|168782495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0169
84514627|NCT02678286|168782496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0145
84514628|NCT02678286|168782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1841||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1841
84514629|NCT02678286|168782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
84514630|NCT02678286|168782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Row 3 (SPID48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0040
84514631|NCT02678286|168782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Row 4 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0028
84514632|NCT02678286|168782498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7572
84514633|NCT02678286|168782499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6559||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6559
84514634|NCT02678286|168782499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
84514635|NCT02678286|168782499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4994||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4994
84514636|NCT02678286|168782500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0275
84514637|NCT02678286|168782500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0009
84514638|NCT02678286|168782500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0027
84514639|NCT02678286|168782501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0050
84514640|NCT02678286|168782502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5096
84514641|NCT02678286|168782503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
84514642|NCT02678286|168782504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0178
84514643|NCT02678286|168782505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1888
84514644|NCT02678286|168782506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0788
84514645|NCT02678286|168782507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0607
84514646|NCT02678286|168782508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0027
84514647|NCT05342597|168782509|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.128|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.128|0.931|
84514648|NCT05342597|168782509|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.056|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.056|0.871|
84514649|NCT05342597|168782509|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|1.002|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.002|0.827|
84514650|NCT05342597|168782509|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|0.901|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.901|0.712|
84514651|NCT05342597|168782510|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.429|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.429|0.821|
84514652|NCT05342597|168782510|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|1.15|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.150|0.661|
84514653|NCT05342597|168782510|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|1.082|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.082|0.621|
84514654|NCT05342597|168782510|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.794|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.794|0.362|
84514655|NCT02576938|168782541|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.065
84514656|NCT02576938|168782541|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.027
84717498|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.0|-0.6|=0.059
84514657|NCT00968812|168782550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.085|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||0.085|-0.109|
84539826|NCT02593110|168829799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.96|26.38|||ANCOVA|||||26.38|-24.96|0.9560
84539827|NCT02593110|168829800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.35||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.42|155.12|||ANCOVA|||||155.12|-92.42|0.6121
84539828|NCT02593110|168829800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.78||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.14|250.42|||ANCOVA|||||250.42|33.14|0.0116
84539829|NCT02593110|168829800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75||||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.89|111.39|||ANCOVA|||||111.39|-140.89|0.8146
84539830|NCT02593110|168829801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|12.68|||ANCOVA|||||12.68|-10.84|0.8755
84539831|NCT02593110|168829801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.70|-13.83|0.7651
84539832|NCT02593110|168829801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|22.41|||ANCOVA|||||22.41|-8.65|0.3776
84539833|NCT02593110|168829802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.06||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-19.91|0.1782
84539834|NCT02593110|168829802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|6.07|||ANCOVA|||||6.07|-16.61|0.3555
84514658|NCT00968812|168782550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||-0.023|-0.217|
84514659|NCT00968812|168782551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
84514660|NCT00968812|168782551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.14|0.05|<0.001
84514661|NCT00968812|168782552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-5.7|<0.001
84514662|NCT00968812|168782552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||||-5.1|-6.2|<0.001
84514663|NCT00968812|168782553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.010|-0.200|
84514664|NCT00968812|168782553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||||-0.078|-0.289|
84514665|NCT01593852|168782554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84514666|NCT01593852|168782562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84514667|NCT00838630|168782563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.27||||||90.0|92.32|104.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.61|92.32|
84514668|NCT00838630|168782564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.37||||||90.0|90.47|98.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.43|90.47|
84478685|NCT01281189|168708721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.298|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.298|0.745|0.9033
84514669|NCT00838630|168782565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7||||||90.0|91.52|100.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.08|91.52|
84514670|NCT00571064|168782568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.6593
84514671|NCT00571064|168782568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6048|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.6048
84514672|NCT00571064|168782568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.5924
84514673|NCT00571064|168782569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||<0.0001
84514674|NCT00571064|168782569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
84514675|NCT00571064|168782569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||<0.0001
84514676|NCT00571064|168782571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.0431
84514677|NCT00571064|168782571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.0431
84478686|NCT01281189|168708722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.192|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio (Dex/PBO)|||1.192|0.789|0.7720
84514678|NCT00571064|168782573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.1285
84514679|NCT00571064|168782573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.1285
84478687|NCT05355818|168708723|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian|Historical information from LP0133-1401 (NCT04871711)/LP0133-1402 (NCT04872101) as prior information is used.|There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 13.5% to 58.2%.|Based on the primary estimand 'composite'. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
84478688|NCT05355818|168708724|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 12.3% to 59.9%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
84478689|NCT05355818|168708725|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 5.6% to 51.1%.|||||
84478690|NCT05355818|168708726|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 8.7% to 49.4%|||||
84478691|NCT05355818|168708727|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 3.9% to 42.3%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
84478692|NCT05355818|168708728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.47||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|29.78|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||29.78|5.16|0.0054
84478693|NCT05355818|168708729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.21||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|39.72|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||39.72|2.69|0.0248
84478694|NCT05355818|168708730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.08||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|33.46|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||33.46|-11.30|0.3320
84478695|NCT05355818|168708731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|53.52|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||53.52|12.51|0.0016
84478696|NCT05355818|168708732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response by using WOCF (including the baseline value) after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed using WOCF (including the baseline value).||-0.88|-4.42|0.0038
84478697|NCT01090102|168708734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84478698|NCT01090102|168708735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84478699|NCT01601704|168708736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|At the pre-planned 50% interim analysis, a non-inferiority analysis was conducted based on the estimated hazard ratio (NB32/Placebo) for the time to the first confirmed occurrence of MACE. The upper-bound of the 99.7% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was compared to 1.4, the non-inferiority margin.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.57|1.34|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.34|0.57|
84478700|NCT01601704|168708737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.66|1.33|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.33|0.66|
84478701|NCT01601704|168708738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.21|1.19|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.19|0.21|
84514680|NCT00571064|168782575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.2327
84478702|NCT01601704|168708739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.55|1.67|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.67|0.55|
84478703|NCT01601704|168708740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.43|2.55|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||2.55|0.43|
84478704|NCT03518034|168708742|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin in terms of HR is 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 95% CI were estimated from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD.|The hazard ratio (HR) and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of MACE. If a subject does not experience a MACE during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.17|0.78|
84514681|NCT00571064|168782575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.4724
84717499|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.9|=0.040
84514682|NCT00571064|168782575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF - Study Endpoint||||0.4724
84514683|NCT02648438|168782617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.01|73.94|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||73.94|53.01|
84514684|NCT02648438|168782618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|120.06|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||120.06|85.21|
84514685|NCT01686438|168782649|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean change in ISI score from baseline in Veterans receiving CBT-I by video teleconferencing will be no more than 1.67 smaller than the reference treatment, i.e., Veterans receiving in-person CBT-I.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|1.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.57|-4.63|0.138
84514686|NCT01864174|168782682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study provided 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority in change from baseline mean HbA1c at Week 24, with an assumed standard deviation (SD) of 1.0%, a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%, and 2-sided alpha of 0.05 for the primary comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0687|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||||METFORMIN XR VS METFORMIN IR|||0.17|-0.10|
84514687|NCT02648347|168782687|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.15|-0.04|
84539835|NCT02593110|168829802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.75||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|17.49|||ANCOVA|||||17.49|-5.99|0.3294
84539836|NCT02593110|168829803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72||||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|3.47|||ANCOVA|||||3.47|-20.91|0.1569
84514688|NCT02648347|168782688|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.412|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.412|0.955|=0.2050
84514689|NCT02648347|168782688|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
84514690|NCT02648347|168782689|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.14|-0.06|
84514691|NCT02648347|168782690|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.382|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.382|0.966|=0.1743
84514692|NCT02648347|168782690|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
84514693|NCT02648347|168782691|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||=|0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.564|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.564|0.901|=0.3154
84514694|NCT02648347|168782691|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
84514695|NCT02648347|168782692|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.594|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.594|0.808|=0.5991
84514696|NCT02648347|168782692|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
84514697|NCT02648347|168782693|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.375|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.375|0.902|=0.4388
84539837|NCT02593110|168829803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|12.02|||ANCOVA|||||12.02|-16.16|0.7692
84539838|NCT02593110|168829803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|15.91|||ANCOVA|||||15.91|-9.74|0.6306
84539839|NCT02593110|168829804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|9.02|||ANCOVA|||||9.02|-24.74|0.3542
84539840|NCT02593110|168829804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|16.71|||ANCOVA|||||16.71|-17.98|0.9417
84514698|NCT02648347|168782693|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
84514699|NCT01639222|168782704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|179.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.16|205.52|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D/reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|The primary parameters were analysed in a mixed effects general linear model of the logtransformed values, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The objective of the trial was met if the treatment contrast was statistically significantly different from 0 in the appropriate direction in a 2-sided test on a 5% significance level for both parameters. The 5% significance level for both primary parameters was not adjusted for multiple testing.||205.52|157.16|
84514700|NCT01639222|168782705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|71.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|74.84|||||Point estimate and 95% CI for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D /reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||74.84|68.83|
84514701|NCT01639222|168782706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|156.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.66|201.93|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D / reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||201.93|121.66|
84514702|NCT01045161|168782760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.019
84514703|NCT01045161|168782760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
84514704|NCT01045161|168782762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.0192
84514705|NCT01045161|168782762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
84514706|NCT01085825|168782771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.13
84514707|NCT00819741|168782778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If non-inferiority was shown (that was if H0 was rejected), then superiority of repaglinide and metformin combination therapy compared to repaglinide monotherapy would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.~The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0096||||95.0|-0.491|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||"The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%.~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment ≥0.4%~Against the alternative hypothesis (H1):~H1: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment \<0.4%"||-0.114|-0.491|
84514708|NCT04115293|168782798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.95|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.24|<0.001
84514709|NCT04115293|168782799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.49|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-4.39|<0.001
84514710|NCT04115293|168782800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.16|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-5.24|0.0023
84514711|NCT04115293|168782801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.54|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-4.45|0.0128
84514712|NCT04115293|168782803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.608||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|7.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.860|0.866|0.0885
84514713|NCT04115293|168782804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.101|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.101|1.662|<0.001
84514714|NCT04115293|168782805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.865||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|5.409|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.409|1.518|0.0012
84514715|NCT02571907|168782807|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 91.2%, which was greater than the performance goal of 55%.|||
84514716|NCT02571907|168782808|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the secondary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 70.8%, which was greater than the performance goal of 46%.|||
84514717|NCT03666026|168782823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03||||||||1.03|1.00|
84514718|NCT03666026|168782823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
84514719|NCT03666026|168782823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
84539841|NCT02593110|168829804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|19.86|||ANCOVA|||||19.86|-8.96|0.4508
84717500|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.1|-0.8|=0.152
84514720|NCT00834795|168782824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.16||||||90.0|85.69|105.67|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.67|85.69|
84514721|NCT00834795|168782825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.27||||||90.0|90.34|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.59|90.34|
84514722|NCT00834795|168782826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.36||||||90.0|90.2|102.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.93|90.20|
84514723|NCT03570749|168782843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|12.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.02|2.75|<0.001
84514724|NCT03570749|168782843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|23.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.62|5.89|<0.001
84514725|NCT03570749|168782844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.51|1.81|<0.001
84514726|NCT03570749|168782844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|20.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.87|5.05|<0.001
84514727|NCT03570749|168782845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|15.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.83|1.97|0.001
84514728|NCT03570749|168782845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|38.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.83|5.30|<0.001
84514729|NCT03570749|168782846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|39.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.30|2.72|<0.001
84514730|NCT03570749|168782846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|67.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.68|5.04|<0.001
84514731|NCT03570749|168782847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.62|2.34|<0.001
84514732|NCT03570749|168782847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.81|5.01|<0.001
84717501|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.044
84514733|NCT03570749|168782848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.27|1.41|0.012
84514734|NCT03570749|168782848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|43.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.93|4.73|<0.001
84514735|NCT03570749|168782849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.57|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||||-15.63|-30.57|<0.001
84514736|NCT03570749|168782849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|-30.89|||ANCOVA|||||-30.89|-44.24|<0.001
84514737|NCT03570749|168782850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|1.01|0.047
84514738|NCT03570749|168782850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|2.91|<0.001
84514739|NCT03570749|168782852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.38|0.005
84514740|NCT03570749|168782852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.05|0.040
84514741|NCT03570749|168782853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.93|0.107
84514742|NCT03570749|168782853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.78|0.174
84514743|NCT00583453|168782883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||Treatment x day interaction|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.674
84717502|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.199
84514744|NCT00583453|168782884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment x day interaction reported as 0.018.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84514745|NCT00583453|168782885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||Treatment x day interaction = 0.214|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.214
84539842|NCT01906515|168829842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84514746|NCT00583453|168782887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||treatment x day interaction P = 0.036 Treatment main effect (average day 1 to 10) P = 0.003|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
84514747|NCT00905606|168782917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|93.91||||||90.0|85.42|103.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.25|85.42|
84514748|NCT00905606|168782918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.27||||||90.0|94.63|102.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.05|94.63|
84514749|NCT00905606|168782919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.19||||||90.0|94.64|101.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.87|94.64|
84539843|NCT01906515|168829843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84514750|NCT03635320|168782920|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of -10%|95%CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.42|||Newcombe-Wilson scoring method|Using the Newcombe-Wilson scoring method, the difference of fracture union rate between the TFNA group and the PFNA-II group was 0.|If the lower limit of 95% CI of the difference in the rates of the study group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then the investigational product is considered non-inferior to the control product.|||4.42|-4.53|
84717503|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.171
84514751|NCT00804856|168782935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.58|||Regression, Logistic||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|Analysis for Objective Response||8.58|0.99|0.0523
84514752|NCT00804856|168782939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||0.92|0.35|0.0208
84514753|NCT00804856|168782940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||1.00|0.40|0.0465
84514754|NCT03868891|168782974|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||1.00
84514755|NCT03868891|168782974|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||0.734
84514756|NCT03868891|168782975|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.25
84514757|NCT03868891|168782975|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.75
84514758|NCT03868891|168782976|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.25
84514759|NCT03868891|168782976|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.75
84717504|NCT04244175|169184282|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.125
84717505|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.2|-0.3|=0.767
84514760|NCT00905840|168783002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis of the primary outcome variable, was based on a confirmatory non-inferiority test with a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The non-inferiority margin for a clinically relevant difference was set at 0.1 mm. For a sample size of st least 73, a paired t-test with a 0.0025 one-sided significant level was calculated to have 80% power to reject the hypothesis that the test is inferior to the standard.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.3|||Student's t-test|||"Null hypothesis: Change of functional bone level at the test implant 12 month after surgery is more than 0.1 lower (inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery.~H-1: Change of functional bone level at the tst implant 12 month after surgery is up to 0.1 lower, equal, or higher (not inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery."||0.3|0.1|0.025
84514761|NCT00905840|168783003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||This analysis is up to 12 month.||||0.1573
84514762|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|||||12 month data Plaque index|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3617
84514763|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Plaque index||||||0.7068
84514764|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Plaque Index||||||0.4312
84514765|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|12 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.9933
84514766|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.3667
84514767|NCT00905840|168783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||1.0000
84514768|NCT03181594|168783005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline for the rTNSS would be 0 (no effect). Assumptions included an alpha level of 0.5 (2-tailed), 90% power, and a standard deviation of 2.5 for the mean change from baseline. A total of 68 participants was deemed adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.001
84514769|NCT03181594|168783007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84514770|NCT03181594|168783008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.001 at all time periods. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
84539844|NCT02503787|168829858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A negative value for change in pain represents a reduction (improvement) of the subject's pain score. The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to 3 months equals 0. The sample provided over 90% power, with two-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a change of 2 points.||||<0.01
84514771|NCT01299454|168783021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.751|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.751|0.776|
84514772|NCT01299454|168783021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.066|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.066|0.915|
84725802|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.40|0.78|
84514773|NCT01299454|168783021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.581|1.488|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.488|0.581|
84539845|NCT04700137|168829862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-3.0|0.31
84539846|NCT04700137|168829862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.2|-1.8|0.83
84717506|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.5|0.0|=0.178
84514774|NCT01299454|168783022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|2.244|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.244|0.702|
84514775|NCT01299454|168783022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|3.052|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||3.052|0.977|
84539847|NCT04700137|168829863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.5|0.0|0.05
84514776|NCT01299454|168783022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|2.142|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||2.142|0.506|
84514777|NCT01299454|168783023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.156|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.156|0.707|
84717507|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.3|-0.1|=0.542
84514778|NCT01299454|168783023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|1.087|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.087|0.665|
84717508|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.0|-0.6|=0.106
84514779|NCT01299454|168783023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.531||||||90.0|0.399|0.705|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||0.705|0.399|
84514780|NCT01299454|168783024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.573|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.573|0.774|
84539848|NCT04700137|168829863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.1|-0.4|0.2
84725803|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|234.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.33|311.41|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||311.41|176.33|
84514781|NCT01299454|168783024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.71|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.710|0.841|
84514782|NCT01299454|168783024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|1.189|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.189|0.524|
84514783|NCT01299454|168783025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|2.143|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.143|0.719|
84514784|NCT01299454|168783025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.604|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|2.732|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.732|0.942|
84514785|NCT01299454|168783025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.146|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.146|0.540|
84539849|NCT04700137|168829864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.5|0.45
84540812|NCT03718832|168832726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0506938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0461078||0.2721373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1413002|0.0399126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0399126|-0.1413002|0.2721373
84514786|NCT01299454|168783026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|1.059|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.059|0.691|
84514787|NCT01299454|168783026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.742|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.599|0.918|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.918|0.599|
84539850|NCT04700137|168829864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.3|-0.7|0.51
84514788|NCT01299454|168783026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.352|0.577|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.577|0.352|
84514789|NCT01299454|168783035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.346|0.748|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.748|0.346|
84514790|NCT01299454|168783035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.399|0.861|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.861|0.399|
84514791|NCT01299454|168783035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.521|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.521|0.214|
84514792|NCT01299454|168783036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.153|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.153|0.445|
84717509|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.4|-0.2|=0.663
84539851|NCT04700137|168829865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.3|0.54
84717510|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.4|=0.488
84514793|NCT01299454|168783036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.378|0.934|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.934|0.378|
84514794|NCT01299454|168783036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.308|1.022|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.022|0.308|
84514795|NCT01299454|168783037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.368|0.845|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.845|0.368|
84514796|NCT01299454|168783037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.781|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.781|0.341|
84539852|NCT04700137|168829865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.0|0.1|0.04
84717511|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.100
84539853|NCT04700137|168829866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among patients.||1.7|-2.1|0.84
84514797|NCT01299454|168783037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.195|0.507|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.507|0.195|
84514798|NCT02363803|168783070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.03
84514799|NCT03140631|168783075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84514800|NCT03140631|168783076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||number of participants who experienced a vascular access site complication at 90 days||||0.74
84514801|NCT02169115|168783077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84514802|NCT02169115|168783077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84514803|NCT02169115|168783077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84514804|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.728||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.219|-1.236|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.236|-4.219|0.0008
84514805|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.325||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.735|-0.916|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo toGSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.916|-3.735|0.0021
84514806|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.402||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.862|-0.942|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.942|-3.862|0.0021
84514807|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.021|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.021|0.090|0.0382
84514808|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.958||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.477|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.477|0.439|0.0132
84514809|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.881||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|3.389|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.389|0.373|0.0161
84514810|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.592||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.162|-2.022|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.022|-5.162|0.0001
84514811|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.304|-2.337|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.337|-5.304|0.0000
84514812|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.887||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.350|-4.424|0.0006
84514813|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.953||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.411|4.496|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.496|1.411|0.0005
84514814|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|4.324|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.324|1.126|0.0015
84514815|NCT00575159|168783109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.659||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.071|5.246|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||5.246|2.071|0.0001
84514816|NCT03872128|168783125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
84514817|NCT03872128|168783126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
84514818|NCT03872128|168783127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
84514819|NCT03872128|168783128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Total||||<0.001
84514820|NCT03872128|168783128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Obsessive||||<0.001
84514821|NCT03872128|168783128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Compulsive||||0.003
84514822|NCT03872128|168783130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
84514823|NCT03872128|168783131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Depression||||<0.001
84514824|NCT03872128|168783131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Anxiety||||0.089
84725804|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.19|22.69|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||22.69|12.19|
84540813|NCT03718832|168832726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0428514||0.0640071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1637776|0.0046516||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0046516|-0.1637776|0.0640071
84514825|NCT03117296|168783156|OTHER||Rank-Sum|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Univariate 2-group comparisons were performed using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests (when expected cell counts are \<5) for categorical variables, using 2-group t tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (when normality distributions were violated) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P \< .05. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).||||<0.01
84514826|NCT01935934|168783175|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Trial design discriminated between co-primary endpoints of objective RR of 30% (vs 10%) and 12-week PFS of 55% (vs 30%). The design had 86% power to detect a true objective RR of at least 30% and at least 90% power to detect a true 12-week PFS rate of atleast 55% (or a median PFS of 3.4 months).~The parallel exploratory cohort of uncommon histology cancers was analyzed independently."|||
84717512|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.3|-0.3|=0.969
84717513|NCT04244175|169184283|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.4|=0.344
84717514|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.2|-0.7|=0.010
84717515|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.4|=0.376
84717516|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.5|=0.044
84717517|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
84717518|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
84717519|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
84717520|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
84717521|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
84717522|NCT04244175|169184284|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
84514827|NCT00833586|168783182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.1||||||90.0|85.8|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.4|85.8|
84514828|NCT00833586|168783183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.9||||||90.0|82.7|118.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||118.4|82.7|
84514829|NCT00833586|168783184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.4||||||90.0|95.0|110.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.5|95.0|
84514830|NCT00838279|168783185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.31||||||90.0|97.82|102.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.85|97.82|
84514831|NCT00838279|168783186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.78||||||90.0|99.09|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|99.09|
84514832|NCT00838279|168783187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.4|102.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.55|97.40|
84514833|NCT04608188|168783188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84514834|NCT04608188|168783189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84514835|NCT04608188|168783190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84514836|NCT04608188|168783191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84514837|NCT00304187|168783195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84514838|NCT00840411|168783206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.3|107.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.1|93.3|
84514839|NCT00840411|168783207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|86.5||||||90.0|80.1|93.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.4|80.1|
84514840|NCT00840411|168783208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|87.2||||||90.0|81.0|93.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.8|81.0|
84717523|NCT04244175|169184285|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|3.26|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||3.26|-4.23|=0.829
84514841|NCT02911701|168783233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||maxim|||||||0.3
84514842|NCT01110005|168783300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||2.3|0.7|0.34
84514843|NCT01110005|168783301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||1.3|0.9|0.40
84514844|NCT01110005|168783302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This method was used to control for site of recruitment||||||0.69
84514845|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
84514846|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
84514847|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
84514848|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
84514849|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
84717524|NCT04244175|169184285|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|3.46|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||3.46|-3.87|=0.927
84514850|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
84514851|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.4||||||||1.4|1.1|
84717525|NCT04244175|169184285|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||=|0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|2.88|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.88|-3.57|=0.859
84717526|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.013|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.096|0.069|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.069|-0.096|=0.788
84717527|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.077|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.006|0.16|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.160|-0.006|=0.126
84717528|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.032|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.039|0.103|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.103|-0.039|=0.461
84717529|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.032|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.089|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.089|-0.154|=0.661
84717530|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.115|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.237|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.237|-0.008|=0.124
84717531|NCT04244175|169184286|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.041|||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.146|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.146|-0.064|=0.518
84514852|NCT01077596|168783333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
84514853|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
84717532|NCT03636490|169184299|OTHER|We tested an association between change in urinary sodium excretion rate with stress and ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.0021||||0.0032||95.0|0.0007|0.0034|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, mean DBP during the baseline period, and 24-hour creatinine clearance.||||0.0034|0.0007|0.0032
84717533|NCT03636490|169184300|OTHER|We tested an association between ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate and SBP dipping.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.8244||||0.037||95.0|0.0487|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, glucose, 24-hr sodium and potassium excretion, 24-hr creat clear, and FENa|Data are unstandardized B coefficients (95% CI)|||1.6000|0.0487|0.037
84514854|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||2.0|0.8|
84514855|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0||||||||2.0|0.8|
84514856|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
84514857|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
84514858|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
84514859|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.2|3.9||||||||3.9|1.2|
84514860|NCT01077596|168783334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0||||||95.0|1.1|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.6|1.1|
84514861|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|3.2|6.3||||||||6.3|3.2|
84514862|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|2.0|4.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.4|2.0|
84514863|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|2.8|5.8||||||||5.8|2.8|
84514864|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
84514865|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.4||||||95.0|3.1|6.3||||||||6.3|3.1|
84514866|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
84514867|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|2.8|7.2||||||||7.2|2.8|
84514868|NCT01077596|168783335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||||95.0|2.1|5.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||5.9|2.1|
84514869|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.7|4.1||||||||4.1|1.7|
84717534|NCT04734197|169184317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; the sample size of approximately 280-350 subjects (between 40 and 50 subjects per each of the 7 treatment groups) was based on medical judgement.||||0.0040
84717535|NCT04734197|169184318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3111|||||||Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||"Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis included fixed effects of baseline TBUT, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~Least squares means (LSMs) of the absolute TBUT change from baseline and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.3111
84514870|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.1||||||95.0|1.3|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.4|1.3|
84514871|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.4|3.6||||||||3.6|1.4|
84514872|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
84514873|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.5|3.7||||||||3.7|1.5|
84514874|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
84514875|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.5|4.5||||||||4.5|1.5|
84514876|NCT01077596|168783336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.3|3.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.9|1.3|
84514877|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.5|
84514878|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.4|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.4|
84514879|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|0.4|
84514880|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.3|1.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.0|0.3|
84514881|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4||||||||1.4|0.5|
84514882|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.4|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|0.4|
84514883|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2.0|0.6|
84514884|NCT01077596|168783337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.6|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status†, previous depression dx, previous IBD‡ diagnosis, OC§ use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.6|
84514885|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
84514886|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
84514887|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
84514888|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
84514889|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
84514890|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
84514891|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3||||||||1.3|0.9|
84514892|NCT01077596|168783338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.9|
84514893|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
84514894|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
84514895|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4||||||||1.4|1.0|
84514896|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|1.0|
84514897|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
84514898|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|0.9|
84514899|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
84514900|NCT01077596|168783339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.8|
84514901|NCT00119015|168783365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84514902|NCT00119015|168783366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84514903|NCT00119015|168783367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84514904|NCT00119015|168783368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84514905|NCT00119015|168783369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
84514906|NCT03697109|168783399|EQUIVALENCE|Log odds is equal to 0 (null hypothesis) vs log odds not equal to 0 (alternative hypothesis).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.77|||Chi-squared||An odds ratio (OR) \<1 represents lower odds of loss of response under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo.|A logistic regression model with logit link function was used in order to detect if there was a significant difference in total number of patients with a loss of response with respect to HTN under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo in the RW Phase.||0.77|0.04|0.0215
84514907|NCT01415232|168783442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Balki et al found a Pearson's correlation coefficient between the UD and ND depth of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.91). We believe EDE + US would result in a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.91. To keep the lower bound estimate within 0.04 of a correlation of 0.91, and to maintain a 95% confidence level, 140 patients would need to be sampled. To allow for patients who may not complete the study, 160 patients were enrolled.|correlation coefficient|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||longitudinal correlation coefficient|||Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for epidural distance measurements which included actual clinical epidural needle depth (ND) and the epidural depth equation (EDE), ND and prior EDE + US midline longitudinal plane view, ND and prior EDE + US transverse plane view.||0.93|0.87|< 0.05
84514908|NCT01415232|168783442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|correlation coefficient|transverse plane correlation coefficient|0.9|||>|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||transverse plane correlation coefficient|||Transverse plane correlation coefficient||0.93|0.87|>0.85
84514909|NCT01415232|168783442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Clinical epidural needle depth||6.8|6.5|>0.05
84514910|NCT01415232|168783442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Formula calculation|6.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|6.65|||Formula calculation||Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)|Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)||6.65|6.44|>0.05
84717536|NCT04734197|169184319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"MMRM analysis included fixed effects of baseline Schirmer test score, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~LSMs of the absolute change from baseline in Schirmer test score and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.2027
84514911|NCT02545283|168783443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.81|0.5752
84514912|NCT04523168|168783478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, 120 days||||0.0137
84514913|NCT04523168|168783480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84514914|NCT04994535|168783498|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|37.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.4|24.5|<.0001
84514915|NCT04994535|168783499|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|46.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.4|31.3|<0.0001
84514916|NCT04994535|168783500|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|44.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.7|29.1|<0.0001
84717537|NCT01223352|169184356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||No statistical test of hypothesis was set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.20|0.61|
84514917|NCT04994535|168783503|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|58.3||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|42.0|<.0001
84514918|NCT04994535|168783504|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|18.1|<.0001
84514919|NCT04994535|168783505|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|44.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|27.4|<.0001
84514920|NCT04994535|168783506|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.4||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-5.4|<.0001
84514921|NCT04994535|168783509|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|51.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.0|34.8|<0.0001
84514922|NCT04994535|168783510|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|58.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|40.8|<0.0001
84514923|NCT04994535|168783511|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.2|19.4|<0.0001
84514924|NCT04994535|168783512|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|44.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.6|27.2|<0.0001
84514925|NCT04994535|168783513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.7|-5.8|<0.0001
84514926|NCT04994535|168783514|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-3.7|-6.0|<0.0001
84514927|NCT04994535|168783514|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.6|-5.9|<0.0001
84514928|NCT04994535|168783514|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
84540814|NCT03718832|168832727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.79692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|808.862||0.9864081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1581.244|1608.838||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1608.838|-1581.244|0.9864081
84717538|NCT01223352|169184357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||No statistical hypothesis tests were set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively.|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.05|0.48|
84717539|NCT04173247|169184403|OTHER|A t-test with 180 degrees of freedom to compare the mean DLQI score over the 6 weeks in arm1 to the mean DLQI score over six weeks in arm2.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
84717540|NCT02163694|169184405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-rank test|||PFS was compared between the treatment groups using the log-rank test, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor \[ER\] and/or progesterone receptor \[PgR\] positive versus ER/PgR negative).||||0.003
84514929|NCT03285594|168783544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.271|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.271|-0.638|<0.0001
84514930|NCT03285594|168783544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.387|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.387|-0.706|<0.0001
84514931|NCT03285594|168783545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6056||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8845|-6.8309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-6.8309|-24.8845|0.0006
84514932|NCT03285594|168783545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7725|-13.8911|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-13.8911|-29.7725|<0.0001
84514933|NCT03285594|168783546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.716|-0.462|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.462|-1.716|0.0007
84514934|NCT03285594|168783546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.274|-1.183|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.183|-2.274|<0.0001
84514935|NCT03285594|168783547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-0.178|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.178|-7.642|0.04
84514936|NCT03285594|168783547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.161|-0.507|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.507|-7.161|0.0239
84540815|NCT03718832|168832727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|119.3302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|885.2058||0.8929133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1627.128|1865.789||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1865.789|-1627.128|0.8929133
84514937|NCT03285594|168783548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.142||||||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.142|-7.73|
84514938|NCT03285594|168783548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.333|-1.448|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.448|-6.333|0.0018
84514939|NCT03285594|168783549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.147|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.147|-1.185|0.1265
84514940|NCT03285594|168783549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.055|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.055|-1.199|0.074
84514941|NCT03285594|168783550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|0.696|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.696|-2.707|0.2466
84514942|NCT03285594|168783550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.969|0.665|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.665|-1.969|0.332
84540816|NCT03718832|168832727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1260.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1327.743||0.343724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3880.298|1359.393||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1359.393|-3880.298|0.343724
84540817|NCT03718832|168832727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1206.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1344.574||0.3709654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3860.887|1448.455||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1448.455|-3860.887|0.3709654
84540818|NCT03718832|168832728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1290.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|732.2306||0.0795087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3215|2734.532||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2734.532|-153.3215|0.0795087
84540819|NCT03718832|168832728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1207.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|874.6068||0.1689786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.7854|2933.309||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2933.309|-517.7854|0.1689786
84717541|NCT02163694|169184405|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.728||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||0.900|0.590|0.003
84717542|NCT02163694|169184406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.410
84717543|NCT02163694|169184406|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.914||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.333|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||1.333|0.737|0.410
84514943|NCT02558491|168783553|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.045
84514944|NCT02558491|168783553|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.07
84540820|NCT03718832|168832728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1209.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|957.1006||0.2080145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-679.1596|3097.86||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||3097.86|-679.1596|0.2080145
84717544|NCT02163694|169184407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
84717545|NCT02163694|169184408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.715
84717546|NCT02163694|169184409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
84717547|NCT02163694|169184409|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.737||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.908|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|Stratified by prior platinum therapy (yes vs no) and receptor status (ER and/or PgR positive vs ER/PgR negative).||||0.908|0.597|0.004
84717548|NCT05061017|169184410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84717549|NCT05061017|169184411|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84540821|NCT03718832|168832728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1258.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1077.807||0.2445904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.3893|3386.563||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3386.563|-869.3893|0.2445904
84717550|NCT04099732|169184476|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|183.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.35|204.56|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.56|164.35|
84717551|NCT04099732|169184477|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|174.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.73|195.68|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.7|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||195.68|154.73|
84717552|NCT04099732|169184478|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.84|129.15|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||129.15|109.84|
84717553|NCT04099732|169184479|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|131.94|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||131.94|107.68|
84717554|NCT04099732|169184480|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|186.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.7|204.71|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.71|169.70|
84717555|NCT04099732|169184481|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|120.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.78|130.23|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||130.23|110.78|
84717556|NCT05541484|169184483|OTHER|Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|||||<|0.0001||||||Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84717557|NCT05785130|169184486|SUPERIORITY|T0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||T0|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.74
84717558|NCT05785130|169184486|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|133.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||T1|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.75
84717559|NCT05785130|169184486|SUPERIORITY|T|Median Difference (Final Values)|235.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T2|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
84717560|NCT05785130|169184486|SUPERIORITY|T3|Median Difference (Final Values)|214.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T3|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
84717561|NCT02624050|169184487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|log-binomial regression|||||||0.01
84717562|NCT02624050|169184488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold of significance was \<0.05|log binomial regression|||||||0.37
84514945|NCT02558491|168783553|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.177
84514946|NCT02558491|168783554|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) \& w2 statistics was used with expected counts given by standard of care. Based on achieved recruitment, moderate effect size (0.3) was detectable with 80% power, or large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.042
84717563|NCT02624050|169184493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||"Because the data were skewed, the natural logarithmic transformation was used prior to analysis for inference.~Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05"|Ratio of Geometric Means|This p-value is for 15 min after induction of anesthesia||||||0.277
84725805|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|6.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|8.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||8.67|5.39|
84514947|NCT02558491|168783554|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.276
84514948|NCT02558491|168783555|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.026
84717564|NCT03279978|169184535|OTHER||Slope|0.7124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5702|0.8546||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8546|0.5702|
84717565|NCT03279978|169184535|OTHER||Slope|0.5964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4777|0.7151||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7151|0.4777|
84717566|NCT03279978|169184536|OTHER||Slope|0.6445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5124|0.7766||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7766|0.5124|
84717567|NCT03279978|169184536|OTHER||Slope|0.6223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4747|0.7699||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7699|0.4747|
84717568|NCT03279978|169184537|OTHER||Slope|0.6401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|0.8258||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8258|0.4545|
84514949|NCT02558491|168783555|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.173
84539854|NCT04700137|168829866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among healthcare providers/staff.||3.7|-0.7|0.18
84717569|NCT03279978|169184537|OTHER||Slope|0.5811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4013|0.7609||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7609|0.4013|
84514950|NCT02558491|168783555|OTHER|||||||0.715||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.715
84514951|NCT02558491|168783556|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.036
84514952|NCT02558491|168783556|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.213
84514953|NCT02558491|168783556|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.110
84514954|NCT02558491|168783557|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.018
84514955|NCT02558491|168783557|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.149
84514956|NCT02558491|168783557|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.109
84539855|NCT04700137|168829867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.6|-0.6|0.38
84514957|NCT02558491|168783558|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.78
84540822|NCT03718832|168832729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.035245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757075|2.313415||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.313415|1.757075|<0.001
84514958|NCT02558491|168783558|OTHER|||||||0.399||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.399
84514959|NCT02558491|168783558|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.824
84539856|NCT04700137|168829867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-0.8|0.81
84539857|NCT04700137|168829867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.8|-2.6|0.73
84514960|NCT02558491|168783559|OTHER|||||||0.863||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.863
84514961|NCT02558491|168783559|OTHER|||||||0.965||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.965
84514962|NCT02558491|168783559|OTHER|||||||0.742||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.742
84514963|NCT02558491|168783560|OTHER|||||||0.158||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.158
84514964|NCT02558491|168783560|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.085
84514965|NCT02558491|168783560|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.055
84539858|NCT04700137|168829867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||3.2|-0.8|0.24
84717570|NCT03279978|169184538|OTHER||Slope|0.6005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0722|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4534|0.7477||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7477|0.4534|
84539859|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-12.5|0.12
84514966|NCT02558491|168783561|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.744
84514967|NCT02558491|168783561|OTHER|||||||0.248||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.248
84717571|NCT03279978|169184538|OTHER||Slope|0.5799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0656|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|0.7156||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7156|0.4441|
84717572|NCT04780581|169184540|EQUIVALENCE|log-rank statistic test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of equal survival curves. Estimates of rate and risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals. All the p-values are 2-sided and shown without adjustment for multiple testing, and p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.).||5.1|0.2|0.984
84717573|NCT04780581|169184540|EQUIVALENCE|Log-rank method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1||||||||9.1|-8.8|
84717574|NCT04780581|169184541|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3.0|0.4|0.833
84717575|NCT04780581|169184541|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-14.2|
84717576|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.3|||Chi-squared|||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||9.3|0.2|0.661
84717577|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.9||||||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||6.9|-10.2|
84717578|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||high-flow oxygen requirements||2.2|0.2|0.549
84717579|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.1||||||high-flow oxygen requirements||15.1|-8.2|
84717580|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Chi-squared|||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||3.3|0.4|0.809
84717581|NCT04780581|169184542|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|11.1||||||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||11.1|-13.0|
84717582|NCT04780581|169184543|EQUIVALENCE|T-test|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5|-5|0.908
84717583|NCT04780581|169184544|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Secondary infections||2.5|0.3|0.758
84717584|NCT04780581|169184544|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7||||||Secondary infections||13.7|-10.1|
84717585|NCT04780581|169184544|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Hyperglycaemia||12.3|1.4|0.007
84717586|NCT04780581|169184544|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-5.6||||||Hyperglycaemia||-5.6|-31.8|
84717587|NCT04780581|169184544|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.4|||Chi-squared|||Psychotic states||4.4|-8.5|0.319
84717588|NCT04780581|169184545|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.4|0.962
84717589|NCT04780581|169184545|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|14.9||||||||14.9|-14.2|
84514968|NCT02558491|168783561|OTHER|||||||0.225||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.225
84717590|NCT01651000|169184547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84717591|NCT01651000|169184548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84717592|NCT01651000|169184549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84514969|NCT02558491|168783562|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.86
84717593|NCT03734029|169184551|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4012|0.6444||Two-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, Hazard ratio and 95% CI from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using stratification factors: HER2 status, number of prior lines of chemotherapy, hormone Receptor/CDK status, as defined by IXRS.|Log Rank|||||0.6444|0.4012|<0.0001
84717594|NCT04631016|169184565|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.024||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.015|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.063|-0.015|0.216
84514970|NCT02558491|168783562|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.522
84539860|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||-0.7|-11.5|0.03
84717595|NCT04631016|169184568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.57|0.186
84717596|NCT04631016|169184589|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.067||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.116||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis at Week 12.||0.116|0.017|0.044
84717597|NCT04631016|169184589|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.12||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the MMRM analysis at Week 28.||0.120|0.020|0.036
84717598|NCT04967599|169184603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.81
84717599|NCT04967599|169184604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.46
84717600|NCT04967599|169184605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
84717601|NCT04967599|169184606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.59
84717602|NCT04967599|169184607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.29
84514971|NCT02558491|168783562|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.522
84539861|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||8.5|-10.7|0.83
84717603|NCT04967599|169184608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
84717604|NCT04163991|169184609|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.21||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.21|-1.47|0.0296
84717605|NCT04163991|169184609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0355
84717606|NCT04163991|169184609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0364
84717607|NCT04163991|169184609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.13||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.13|-1.41|0.0478
84717608|NCT04163991|169184620|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.94||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.94|0.43|0.0584
84717609|NCT04163991|169184620|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.76||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.11||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.11|0.51|0.2274
84717610|NCT04163991|169184620|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.77||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.14|0.52|0.2794
84514972|NCT02558491|168783563|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.301
84514973|NCT02558491|168783564|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.189
84717611|NCT04163991|169184620|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.57||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.85|0.39|0.0199
84717612|NCT04163991|169184621|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.79||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.79|0.52|0.0007
84539862|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||12.5|-8.0|0.67
84514974|NCT02558491|168783565|OTHER|||||||0.271||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.271
84514975|NCT00834431|168783566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.0||||||90.0|85.9|98.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.6|85.9|
84514976|NCT00834431|168783567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.2|
84717613|NCT04163991|169184621|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.76||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.76|0.50|0.0003
84717614|NCT04163991|169184621|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.74||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.74|0.48|0.0001
84514977|NCT00834431|168783568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.7||||||90.0|96.3|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.3|
84514978|NCT03733444|168783571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.29||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|52.4||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||52.4|-46.9|0.9123
84514979|NCT03733444|168783571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.01||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|50.8||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||50.8|-47.4|0.9456
84514980|NCT03733444|168783572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.76|0.5162
84514981|NCT03733444|168783572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.71|0.7566
84514982|NCT03733444|168783573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.85|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.85|1.20|
84514983|NCT03733444|168783573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.1|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.10|0.93|
84514984|NCT03733444|168783574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.0||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.2|0.9370
84514985|NCT03733444|168783574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.4|0.8064
84514986|NCT03733444|168783575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|46.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||46.8|-41.1|
84717615|NCT04163991|169184621|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.59||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.59|0.38|< 0.0001
84514987|NCT03733444|168783575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|51.5|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||51.5|-35.5|
84514988|NCT03733444|168783576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.94|0.90|
84514989|NCT03733444|168783576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.56|0.72|
84514990|NCT03733444|168783577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|14.1|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||14.1|-12.4|
84514991|NCT03733444|168783577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|17.6|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||17.6|-10.4|
84514992|NCT03733444|168783578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||2.35|1.01|
84717616|NCT04163991|169184622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|8.0||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||8.0|0.2|0.7750
84514993|NCT03733444|168783578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.16|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all cause hospitalization.|||2.16|0.91|
84514994|NCT03733444|168783581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.14|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||8.14|1.04|
84514995|NCT03733444|168783581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.13|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||5.13|0.55|
84514996|NCT03733444|168783582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
84514997|NCT03733444|168783582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
84514998|NCT03733444|168783583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
84514999|NCT03733444|168783583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
84515000|NCT03733444|168783584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.31|1.20|
84515001|NCT03733444|168783584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.54|0.88|
84515002|NCT03733444|168783585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||3.31|1.20|
84515003|NCT03733444|168783585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||2.54|0.88|
84515004|NCT01304641|168783643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84515005|NCT01304641|168783644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.192|||Regression, Cox|||||1.192|0.976|0.140
84515006|NCT01304641|168783645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84515007|NCT01304641|168783646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84717617|NCT04163991|169184622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||(Lower limit of 90% CI is \< 0.1.) Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.5|0.1|0.6974
84717618|NCT04163991|169184622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.7||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.7|0.1|0.9318
84515008|NCT01304641|168783647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84515009|NCT01304641|168783648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84515010|NCT01304641|168783649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84515011|NCT00465270|168783658|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.22|0.08
84515012|NCT00465270|168783660|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.999|||Log Rank|||||0.999|0.31|0.046
84515013|NCT00651820|168783671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired-Prentice Wilcoxon (PPW)|Time to complete wound closure Drug(T1)and Vehicle(T2)Hypothesis, Ho: T1=T2,using paired Prentice-Wilcoxon at significant level of 5%, 2-sided.||Each subject served as their own control, each receiving duplicate dermatome-induced wounds with 1 wound treated with active drug and the other treated with vehicle. Mean time to wound closure was calculated for the wounds treated with drug, the wounds treated with vehicle, and an over-all mean time to wound closure||||<0.05
84515014|NCT00651820|168783672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stiffness: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
84515015|NCT00651820|168783672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy Absorption: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
84515016|NCT01141374|168783695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.28||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|23.0||The test of hypothesis was conducted with repeated measures ANOVA with Post hoc. It was performed parametric test to compare data and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no statistical difference among 3 groups (control, needles and seeds) after 4 auriculotherapy sessions.||23.00|-76.00|0.352
84539863|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.9||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||9.9|-4.1|0.42
84717619|NCT04163991|169184622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.1||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.1|0.2|0.9108
84717620|NCT04163991|169184623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
84539864|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||4.5|-8.7|0.53
84717621|NCT04163991|169184623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
84717622|NCT04163991|169184623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.09||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||20.09|0.45|0.3407
84478705|NCT03518034|168708744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with adjustment of pre-existing CVD status.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of CV safety endpoint. If a participant does not experience a CV safety endpoint during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.21|0.86|
84717623|NCT04163991|169184623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
84717624|NCT04881110|169184633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|14.5|8.0|<0.001
84717625|NCT04881110|169184633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.9|||Chi-squared||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.90|1.26|<0.001
84717626|NCT04881110|169184634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.8|0.06
84717627|NCT04881110|169184635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|7.4|-14.3|0.52
84717628|NCT04881110|169184636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|1.2|-3.6|0.33
84717629|NCT04881110|169184637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.1|-1.7|0.10
84717630|NCT04881110|169184638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|3.5|-2.8|0.81
84717631|NCT04881110|169184639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|5.8|-5.8|0.99
84515017|NCT01141374|168783696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|37.0||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|As for the comparison between the scores, we used ANOVA for repeated measures.It was made post hoc to find the differences among groups.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days and 8 sessions). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||37.00|-67.00|0.023
84515018|NCT03769025|168783709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1
84515019|NCT03769025|168783710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.959
84717632|NCT04881110|169184640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|22.9|-32.6|0.72
84717633|NCT04881110|169184641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|-0.07|-0.7|0.02
84515020|NCT03374176|168783711|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||chi-square|||<0.05
84515021|NCT03123471|168783716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||39.7|19.5|< 0.0001
84515022|NCT03123471|168783717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||34.6|11.5|< 0.0001
84515023|NCT03123471|168783718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.5|13.9|< 0.0001
84515024|NCT03123471|168783719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.2|9.8|<0.0001
84515025|NCT03123471|168783719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4. The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.4|12.9|<0.0001
84515026|NCT03123471|168783719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.0|9.1|0.0003
84717634|NCT04881110|169184642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.3|-0.04|0.12
84515027|NCT03123471|168783719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||32.4|8.7|0.0007
84515028|NCT03123471|168783720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.1|5.1|0.0025
84515029|NCT03123471|168783720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.9|10.6|<0.0001
84515030|NCT03123471|168783720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||33.9|10.2|0.0003
84515031|NCT03123471|168783720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.9|15.1|<0.0001
84515032|NCT03123471|168783721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-1.73|||ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification factor (Baseline ScPGA moderate or severe) as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate variable.||||-1.73|-4.17|<0.0001
84515033|NCT03290781|168783760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.572||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.572|0.296|<0.001
84515034|NCT03290781|168783760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.401||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.401|0.142|<0.001
84515035|NCT03290781|168783761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.585||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.585|0.310|<0.001
84515036|NCT03290781|168783761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.463||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.463|0.197|<0.001
84515037|NCT03290781|168783762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.62||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.620|0.337|<0.001
84515038|NCT03290781|168783762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.425||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.425|0.148|<0.001
84725806|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.43|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.43|3.07|
84515039|NCT03290781|168783763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.398||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.398|0.129|<0.001
84515040|NCT03290781|168783763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.305||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.305|0.067|<0.001
84515041|NCT03290781|168783764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.488|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.613||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.613|0.329|<0.001
84515042|NCT03290781|168783764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.471||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.471|0.194|<0.001
84515043|NCT03290781|168783765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.554||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.554|0.280|<0.001
84452810|NCT02787863|168656343|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
84452811|NCT02787863|168656344|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
84515044|NCT03290781|168783765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.349||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.349|0.094|<0.001
84515045|NCT03290781|168783766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.287||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.287|0.049|<0.001
84452856|NCT00511355|168656542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0849||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0849
84452857|NCT00511355|168656544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452858|NCT00511355|168656545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4191||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.4191
84515046|NCT03290781|168783766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.111|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.208||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.208|0.006|<0.005
84515047|NCT03290781|168783767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84515048|NCT03290781|168783767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647- 303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
84452859|NCT00511355|168656546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0010
84452860|NCT00511355|168656550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3779||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3779
84452861|NCT00511355|168656551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5027||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5027
84452862|NCT00511355|168656552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0041
84452863|NCT00511355|168656553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
84452864|NCT00511355|168656554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0004
84452865|NCT00511355|168656555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0019
84452866|NCT00511355|168656556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
84452867|NCT00511355|168656557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0187||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0187
84515049|NCT01249651|168783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
84452868|NCT00511355|168656558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452869|NCT00511355|168656559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6886||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.6886
84452870|NCT00511355|168656560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452871|NCT00511355|168656561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452872|NCT00511355|168656562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0083||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0083
84452873|NCT00511355|168656563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0455||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0455
84452874|NCT00511355|168656564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0063
84452875|NCT00511355|168656565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452876|NCT00511355|168656566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84515050|NCT02538523|168783810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fischer's Exact Test for two independent proportions was conducted to compare the statistical significance of the 44.8% difference in proportion of successes between procedure groups at two-months post-procedure (study endpoint) relative to baseline evaluation.||||<0.005
84515051|NCT02538523|168783811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Differences is the statistical significance of change scores in ODI total score from study baseline to endpoint (two-months post-procedure) were evaluated by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with change from baseline to endpoint in ODI total score as the dependent variable, baseline ODI total score as the covariate and procedure group (Erchonia FX-635 or placebo laser) as a main effect.||||<0.05
84515052|NCT04189848|168783820|OTHER|Treatment comparison|Treatment difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||ANOVA|||Intensity of injection site pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||-3.6|-8.2|<0.0001
84452877|NCT00511355|168656567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0078
84452878|NCT00511355|168656568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0016
84452879|NCT00511355|168656569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0003
84452880|NCT00511355|168656570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0009
84452881|NCT00511355|168656571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0024
84452882|NCT00511355|168656572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3653||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3653
84452883|NCT00511355|168656573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452884|NCT00511355|168656574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84452885|NCT00511355|168656575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5668||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5668
84515053|NCT01588236|168783821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84515054|NCT01588236|168783822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo||||>0.05
84452886|NCT00511355|168656576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.1770
84452887|NCT00511355|168656577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
84515055|NCT01588236|168783823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between high dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84515056|NCT01588236|168783824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between low dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84515057|NCT02635750|168783857|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.502|111.62|||||"Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+ don / BI 409306).~Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 18.6."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||111.62|89.502|
84515058|NCT02635750|168783858|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.861|124.17|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don / BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 35.8.|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||124.17|81.861|
84539865|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-6.3|0.20
84478706|NCT03518034|168708745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.77|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior cardiovascular disease (CVD).|The high grade prostate cancer endpoint was analyzed using a discrete time proportional hazard regression model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for pre-existing CVD status. The HR of AndroGel to Placebo and its 2-sided 95% CI were provided.||6.77|0.39|
84478707|NCT03518034|168708746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-value is derived from the omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using linear mixed regression model.|linear mixed regression model|Omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test from linear mixed regression model||A linear mixed regression model was used to analyze the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24, with the dependent variable being the change in PDQ-Q4 score. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CVD status. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.011
84478708|NCT03518034|168708746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 6 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 6 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.79|0.19|
84515059|NCT02635750|168783859|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (%)|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.584|104.19|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 4.9.|The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||104.19|97.584|
84515060|NCT02635750|168783860|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|113.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|120.15|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone. (BI 409306+don / don) Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 9.0.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||120.15|106.41|
84515061|NCT02635750|168783861|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.549|111.68|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don/ BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV(%)) = 18.6.|The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||111.68|89.549|
84515062|NCT02635750|168783862|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.413|103.6|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 7.7.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||103.60|93.413|
84515063|NCT00526188|168783864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.46||||||95.0|6.0|12.93|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided. The study was planned with a power of 80%.||12.93|6.00|
84515064|NCT00526188|168783865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||||95.0|1.84|7.78|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI (for investigator's result)|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image sets, based on investigators assessments was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the investigators difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||7.78|1.84|
84515065|NCT00526188|168783866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.36||||||95.0|7.45|15.28|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was combined pre- and post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in precision of lesion characterization between combined pre and post contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between combined pre- and post-contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||15.28|7.45|
84515066|NCT00834717|168783886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.86||||||90.0|92.36|103.69|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.69|92.36|
84515067|NCT00834717|168783887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.57||||||90.0|82.8|103.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.48|82.80|
84515068|NCT00834717|168783888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.95||||||90.0|83.11|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.97|83.11|
84515069|NCT00795821|168783905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515070|NCT00795821|168783907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for multiple comparisons, the analysis of this secondary outcome measure was pre-specified as a gated secondary objective. As the primary hypothesis was statistically significant, this hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515071|NCT00795821|168783909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515072|NCT00795821|168783911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
84515073|NCT00795821|168783913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.007
84515074|NCT00795821|168783915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.056
84515075|NCT00795821|168783917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
84515076|NCT00795821|168783919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515077|NCT00795821|168783921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.003
84515078|NCT00795821|168783923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.009
84515079|NCT00795821|168783925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Severity of Overall Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.008
84515080|NCT00795821|168783925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue Interference with Daily Activities|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.024
84515081|NCT00795821|168783927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of primary doctor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.261
84515082|NCT00795821|168783927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of specialist|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.868
84515083|NCT00795821|168783927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting other diagnostic tests|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.495
84515084|NCT00795821|168783927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting prescribed medication|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.189
84515085|NCT00795821|168783929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for suicidal ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
84515086|NCT00795821|168783931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for change in supine systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
84515087|NCT00795821|168783931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in supine diastolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515088|NCT00795821|168783933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
84515089|NCT01285713|168783936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0003
84515090|NCT00238615|168783947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability of survival at 2 years|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.9||The primary endpoint of 2 year overall survival was (0.72) = 72%||||2-year overall survival (OS) Our null hypothesis was a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.30. The study was powered at 80% (with α 5% two-tailed) to detect a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55. This would require 30 patients assuming accrual over 2 years with 1 year of additional follow-up. The probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55 is based on previous studies of neoadjuvant approaches with reported 2 year survival in the 40-60% range.||0.90|0.36|
84515091|NCT04516967|168783958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0077
84515092|NCT04516967|168783959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84515093|NCT04516967|168783960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84515094|NCT04516967|168783961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84515095|NCT04516967|168783962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84452969|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||No sample size calculation was performed. In the survey took part 57 patients from the parent study and OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at the end of 12-month follow-up (EOF) visit was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
84452970|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|353.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.27||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.91|527.45||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||527.45|178.91|0.00
84452971|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
84452972|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
84452973|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (study 1 visit 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
84452974|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
84515096|NCT04516967|168783963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
84515097|NCT04516967|168783964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7175
84452975|NCT06523491|168656865|SUPERIORITY||[LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
84452976|NCT01790503|168656882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.71|0.456
84452977|NCT01790503|168656882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.77|0.619
84452978|NCT01790503|168656882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.65|0.272
84452979|NCT01790503|168656883|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.440
84452980|NCT01790503|168656883|OTHER|||||||0.699|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.699
84452981|NCT01790503|168656883|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.003
84452982|NCT01790503|168656883|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.201
84452983|NCT01790503|168656885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.60|0.389
84452984|NCT01790503|168656885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.63|0.393
84452985|NCT01790503|168656885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.63|0.469
84452986|NCT01790503|168656886|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.063
84452987|NCT01790503|168656886|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.969
84452988|NCT01790503|168656886|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||<0.001
84452989|NCT01790503|168656886|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.501
84452990|NCT01790503|168656887|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.705
84452991|NCT01790503|168656887|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||>0.999
84452992|NCT01790503|168656887|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.099
84452993|NCT01790503|168656887|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.348
84452994|NCT02322710|168656898|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the observed difference between healing rates at D21 (Urgotul® - Tullegras M.S.®) in the PP population did not exceed +10%.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||10.0||||||||10.0||
84452995|NCT00122135|168656902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
84452996|NCT02479802|168656924|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||<0.0001
84539866|NCT04700137|168829869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||2.0|-3.4|0.62
84452997|NCT02479802|168656925|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||0.0006
84452998|NCT03124784|168656930|EQUIVALENCE|ARMS\<= 3 %SpO2 Error per International Organization For Standardization (ISO) -80601-2-61 Pilot study Monte Carlo simulation provided 80% Power with 25 subjects for an expected ARMS\< 3 % SpO2.|ARMS|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Accuracy Root Mean Square (ARMS)|Per ISO-80601-2-61, the Root Mean Square difference (SpO2-SaO2) is the measure of merit for desaturation studies.|||
84452999|NCT01202656|168656951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.72
84453000|NCT01121393|168656954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
84453001|NCT01121393|168656954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.389||||||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the 2 treatment arms.||0.389|0.203|
84453002|NCT01121393|168656955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.522|12.679|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to compare the objective response rate between the 2 treatment arms.||12.679|4.522|<0.0001
84453003|NCT01121393|168656956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.039|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||stratified for EGFR mutation group||7.240|2.039|<0.0001
84453004|NCT01121393|168656957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.4013
84453005|NCT01121393|168656957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.144||||||A Cox proportional hazard model stratified (by EGFR mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||1.144|0.715|
84453006|NCT01121393|168656961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.19|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and EGFR mutation group||||-10.19|-17.10|<0.0001
84515098|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate. The confidence intervals (CIs) and the p-values of the comparisons between each dose of CHF 1531 pMDI and Placebo at Day 14 were adjusted for multiplicity, based on the parametric simulation method of Edwards and Berry."||0.171|0.050|<0.001
84453007|NCT01121393|168656964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0001
84453008|NCT01121393|168656964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.692||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.692|0.303|
84453009|NCT01121393|168656965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
84453010|NCT01121393|168656965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.724||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.724|0.394|
84453011|NCT01121393|168656966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0220
84453012|NCT01121393|168656966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.956||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.956|0.511|
84453013|NCT01077973|168656993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.12||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.00|-3.23|0.299
84453014|NCT01077973|168656994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.14|0.52|0.193
84453015|NCT01077973|168656995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.24|0.50|0.304
84453016|NCT01077973|168656995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.59|0.65|0.936
84453017|NCT01077973|168656996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.04|0.41|0.072
84453018|NCT01077973|168656996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.41|0.58|0.652
84453019|NCT01077973|168656996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.07|0.49|0.108
84453020|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.65|0.402
84453021|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.64|0.407
84453022|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.38|0.991
84453023|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.75|0.313
84453024|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.62|0.621
84453025|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.54|0.533
84453026|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.79|0.352
84515099|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.22|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.095|<0.001
84515100|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.194|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.072|<0.001
84515101|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.225|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.225|0.109|<0.001
84453027|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.69|0.573
84453028|NCT01077973|168656997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-0.54|0.657
84453029|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.36|0.382
84453030|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.39|0.242
84453031|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.17|0.720
84453032|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.11|-0.43|0.235
84453033|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.34|0.630
84453034|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.393
84453035|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.46|0.382
84453036|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.32|-0.32|0.995
84453037|NCT01077973|168656998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.12|-0.41|0.287
84453038|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.98|0.377
84453039|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.01|0.324
84453040|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.52|0.902
84453041|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-1.17|0.273
84453042|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.94|0.616
84453043|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.39|-0.85|0.471
84515102|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.190|0.098|<0.001
84515103|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.095|-0.002|0.059
84515104|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.026|0.361
84453044|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.24|0.356
84453045|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-1.00|0.722
84453046|NCT01077973|168656999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|-0.94|0.493
84453047|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.75|0.259
84453048|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.69|0.378
84453049|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.762
84453050|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.17|0.281
84453051|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|-0.97|0.582
84453052|NCT01077973|168657000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|-0.83|0.523
84453053|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.35|0.327
84515105|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.011|0.016
84453054|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|-1.21|0.489
84453055|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.61|-0.88|0.726
84515106|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.075|0.340
84515107|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.038|0.690
84515108|NCT03086460|168783997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.082|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.082|-0.013|0.155
84539867|NCT04700137|168829870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of patients attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||6.3|-15.4|0.41
84453056|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-2.09|0.320
84453057|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.86|0.506
84453058|NCT01077973|168657001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.38|0.691
84453059|NCT01077973|168657002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|-2.07|0.292
84453060|NCT01077973|168657002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-1.87|0.439
84453061|NCT01077973|168657002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.31|0.733
84453062|NCT01077973|168657002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.43|-2.80|0.526
84453063|NCT01077973|168657002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|-2.19|0.624
84453064|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|17.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.07|-11.03|0.672
84453065|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.47||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|8.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.68|-17.61|0.467
84515109|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.175|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.175|0.049|<0.001
84453066|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.55||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|18.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.05|-2.96|0.164
84453067|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.52||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|10.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.92|-25.96|0.427
84453068|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.66||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.25|-23.57|0.537
84453069|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.83||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|13.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.22|-16.88|0.813
84453070|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|8.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.24|-19.24|0.455
84453071|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|9.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.59|-17.63|0.570
84453072|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-13.80|0.792
84453073|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
84453074|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
84453075|NCT01077973|168657003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
84453076|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|22.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.99|-10.86|0.480
84453077|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.34||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|21.23||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.23|-12.55|0.612
84453078|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.47||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|15.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.55|-12.60|0.839
84453079|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-13.2||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|2.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.99|-29.40|0.130
84453080|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.83||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|7.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.73|-23.39|0.331
84453081|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|8.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.59|-19.59|0.450
84453082|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
84453083|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
84453084|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
84453085|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
84453086|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
84453087|NCT01077973|168657004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
84453088|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.89||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|11.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.10|-3.33|0.355
84453089|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|4.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.20|-6.62|0.623
84453090|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.11|-0.90|0.094
84453091|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.43||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|19.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.29|-10.43|0.565
84453092|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|11.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.97|-16.15|0.765
84453093|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.47||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.37|-5.43|0.288
84515110|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.230|0.101|<0.001
84453094|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.87||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-20.00|0.928
84453095|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.4||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|12.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.33|-25.14|0.495
84453096|NCT01077973|168657007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|20.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.59|-9.66|0.477
84453097|NCT00119158|168657011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|modified EASI (eczema area severity index) was considered equivalent if p value was greater than \>0.05|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84515111|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.203|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.203|0.074|<0.001
84515112|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.235|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.113|<0.001
84453098|NCT00608985|168657018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-8.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-8.8|-21.8|<0.0001
84453099|NCT00608985|168657018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-19.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-19.5|-34.3|<0.0001
84453100|NCT00608985|168657018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-0.3|-13.5|0.0376
84453101|NCT00608985|168657019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-6.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-6.5|-20.3|0.0001
84453102|NCT00608985|168657019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-12.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-12.3|-27.3|<0.0001
84453103|NCT00608985|168657019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||11.0|-3.8|0.3358
84453104|NCT00608985|168657020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.3||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-1.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.3|-13.3|0.0186
84453105|NCT00608985|168657020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.6|-16.4|0.0006
84453106|NCT00608985|168657020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-6.6|-18.8|<0.0001
84453107|NCT00608985|168657021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-3.0|-15.3|0.0035
84453108|NCT00608985|168657021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.3|-15.0|0.0006
84453109|NCT00608985|168657021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-9.8|-22.0|<0.0001
84515113|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.197|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.197|0.101|<0.001
84515114|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.104|0.004|0.035
84453110|NCT00608985|168657022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||2.5|-11.0|0.2237
84453111|NCT00608985|168657022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||0.3|-12.3|0.0607
84453112|NCT00608985|168657022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-4.0|-17.3|0.0017
84453113|NCT00608985|168657023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||0.9|-9.1|0.1187
84453114|NCT00608985|168657023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-2.7|-11.5|0.0017
84453115|NCT00608985|168657023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.4|-10.8|0.0121
84453116|NCT02499029|168657035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A series of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of treatment group (NAC or placebo) on PTSD symptomatology, craving, substance use, and depression. Baseline levels of the respective outcome measures were entered in Step 1 of the model to adjust for any baseline differences. Treatment group was entered as the predictor in Step 2. The significance threshold was set at a p-value of .05 (two-sided) for all statistical tests.||||.05
84453117|NCT01081795|168657051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1646
84453118|NCT01081795|168657051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4479
84453119|NCT01081795|168657052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.1|0.1547
84453120|NCT01081795|168657052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2624
84453121|NCT01081795|168657053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2464
84453122|NCT01081795|168657053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.3148
84453123|NCT01081795|168657054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8762
84453124|NCT01081795|168657054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3031
84453125|NCT01081795|168657055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1145
84453126|NCT01081795|168657055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3971
84453127|NCT01081795|168657056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.3|0.1866
84453128|NCT01081795|168657056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1507
84453129|NCT01081795|168657058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1743
84453130|NCT01081795|168657058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2165
84515115|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.024|0.301
84515116|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.110|0.014|0.011
84515117|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.024|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.024|-0.080|0.294
84515118|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.042|0.747
84515119|NCT03086460|168783998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.014|0.155
84515120|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.207|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment, which occurred after the randomization error."||0.207|0.065|<0.001
84515121|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.258|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.258|0.113|<0.001
84515122|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.092|<0.001
84515123|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.118|<0.001
84453131|NCT01081795|168657059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.1||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.0||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||14.0|-3.8|0.3083
84453132|NCT01081795|168657059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0||||0.7235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.6||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||10.6|-6.6|0.7235
84453133|NCT01707693|168657138|SUPERIORITY|repeated measures mixed model analysis of covariance, with the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||||0.023||||||P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied. P-values are one-sided.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
84453134|NCT01707693|168657139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.|ANCOVA|\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.||||||0.011
84453135|NCT01707693|168657140|OTHER|2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
84453136|NCT01707693|168657141|OTHER|counts of stage of change||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Armitage trend test||||||.001
84453137|NCT03403205|168657144|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.13||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||2.13|1.14|< 0.0001
84453138|NCT03403205|168657144|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.94||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||4.94|2.65|< 0.0001
84453139|NCT00487539|168657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84453140|NCT00487539|168657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84453141|NCT00487539|168657228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84453142|NCT00487539|168657228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84453143|NCT00487539|168657229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
84515124|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.231|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.231|0.121|<0.001
84515125|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.108|-0.008|0.088
84515126|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.029|0.323
84453144|NCT00487539|168657229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84453145|NCT00487539|168657230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
84453146|NCT00487539|168657230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
84453147|NCT00852995|168657241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00028
84453148|NCT00852995|168657241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0899
84453149|NCT00852995|168657241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1586
84453150|NCT00852995|168657241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0295
84453151|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||.037
84453152|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||.064
84453153|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||.161
84453154|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||.39
84453155|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||.079
84453156|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||.069
84453157|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||.026
84453158|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||.133
84453159|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||.089
84453160|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||.057
84453161|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||.127
84453162|NCT00852995|168657243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
84453163|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0133
84453164|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3839
84453165|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5721
84453166|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.232
84453167|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0787
84453168|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7919
84453169|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6881
84453170|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9832
84453171|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0466
84453172|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8435
84453173|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8743
84453174|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2884
84453175|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
84453176|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8461
84453177|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9574
84453178|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2994
84453179|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1024
84453180|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8759
84515127|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.005|0.073
84515128|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.039|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.039|-0.080|0.489
84515129|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.056|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.056|-0.057|0.978
84515130|NCT03086460|168783999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.037|0.484
84515131|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.166|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.166|0.048|<0.001
84515132|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.096|<0.001
84515133|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.193|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.193|0.073|<0.001
84515134|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.103|<0.001
84515135|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.192|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.192|0.102|<0.001
84453181|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9008
84453182|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4618
84453183|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2439
84453184|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.749
84453185|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3749
84453186|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
84453187|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0078
84453188|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.07
84453189|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
84453190|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
84453191|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
84453192|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2031
84453193|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0894
84453194|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0288
84453195|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6964
84453196|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.59
84453197|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7146
84453198|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5008
84453199|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1235
84453200|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5488
84453201|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4343
84453202|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1114
84453203|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2119
84453204|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0194
84453205|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.506
84453206|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2317
84453207|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
84453208|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6786
84453209|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7735
84453210|NCT00852995|168657244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
84515136|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.098|0.002|0.041
84515137|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.021|0.275
84515138|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.098|0.008|0.021
84515139|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.073|0.350
84515140|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.044|0.886
84515141|NCT03086460|168784000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.020|0.254
84515142|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.169|0.060|<0.001
84515143|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.099|<0.001
84515144|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.247|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.247|0.138|<0.001
84515145|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.268|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.268|0.163|<0.001
84453211|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
84453212|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
84453213|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.017
84453214|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.011
84453215|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
84453216|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.029
84453217|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.021
84453218|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
84453219|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.044
84453220|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.013
84453221|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.024
84453222|NCT00852995|168657245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.027
84453223|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.0211
84453224|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.04|||Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.09|.0212
84453225|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
84453226|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.05||This is the P-value for the Cox Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.05|.69|0.53
84453227|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure||||||0.26
84453228|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.44||This is the P-value for the Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.44|0.84|0.19
84453229|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.10
84453230|NCT00852995|168657247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.77||P-value for Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.77|0.97|0.06
84453231|NCT00720109|168657250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.8|51.4|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test equivalent to Z-test of proportions.||The a priori plan was to compare MRD positivity rate with that on a prior study, AALL0031 (n=72 Cohorts 1-5 of AALL0031 with 71% MRD positive). Out of 59 patients with end-Induction MRD on AALL0622, 40.7% were MRD positive. Per protocol, rates will be compared with a 2 sample Z-test of proportions, 1-sided test, alpha=5%.||51.4|30.8|<0.001
84453232|NCT00720109|168657251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage|10.5|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|19.3|||Binomial Test||The pre-specified threshold for the estimated percentage of MRD positivity at End Consolidation was set to 16%. Results show an upper bound on the (Agresti-Coull) confidence interval of 19.3%.|||19.3|5.3|=0.13
84453233|NCT01844895|168657272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model of log (Cminss) with device and substudy baseline weight category (\< 60 kg,60-100 kg, \> 100 kg) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used. Point estimates and 90% CIs for device differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. PK comparability was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.00|0.83|
84453234|NCT03208231|168657281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
84453235|NCT03208231|168657282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84515146|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.224|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.224|0.120|<0.001
84515147|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.016|0.165
84515148|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.132|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.132|0.024|0.005
84453236|NCT06485479|168657304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453237|NCT06485479|168657304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453238|NCT06485479|168657304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
84453239|NCT06485479|168657305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453240|NCT06485479|168657305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453241|NCT06485479|168657305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
84453242|NCT06485479|168657306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453243|NCT06485479|168657306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453244|NCT06485479|168657306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
84453245|NCT06485479|168657307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
84515149|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.049|<0.001
84453246|NCT06485479|168657307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
84453247|NCT06485479|168657307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.33
84453248|NCT06485479|168657308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453249|NCT06485479|168657308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84453250|NCT06485479|168657308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.38
84453251|NCT06485479|168657309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.6
84453252|NCT06485479|168657309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
84453253|NCT06485479|168657309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.4
84453254|NCT06142643|168657310|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
84453255|NCT06142643|168657311|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
84515150|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.097|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.097|-0.019|0.187
84515151|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.007|0.028
84453256|NCT04982250|168657319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.0|||||Risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using regression models with Gaussian distributions, identify links, study group fixed effects, and index peer random effects (to adjust for clustering).|The sample size calculation was based on the primary PrEP initiation outcome at follow-up; 80 clusters (40 per study group) provided 80% power to detect a 17% difference in PrEP initiation between the enhanced (80%) and standard (63%) groups, assuming three referred peers per cluster (75% of those recommended), an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.05, and an alpha level of 0.05.||11|-26|
84453257|NCT04982250|168657324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|54.0||||||||54|24|
84453258|NCT04982250|168657325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.0||||||||13|-10|
84453259|NCT04982250|168657326|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|2.0||||||||2|-40|
84453260|NCT04982250|168657327|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|2.5||||||||2.5|-36.3|
84453261|NCT04982250|168657328|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.2|
84453262|NCT01411085|168657352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The assessment was between baseline and values for last 8 weeks.||||0.317
84453263|NCT03784079|168657457|OTHER||Emax|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.484|-1.389||||||||-1.389|-2.484|
84515152|NCT03086460|168784001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.031|0.406
84515153|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.230|0.116|<0.001
84453264|NCT03784079|168657457|OTHER||EC50|7.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|13.602||||||||13.602|0.585|
84453265|NCT03784079|168657457|OTHER||s2e|0.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.212||||||||0.212|0.062|
84453266|NCT03784079|168657458|OTHER||Emax|-1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|-1.379||||||||-1.379|-2.479|
84453267|NCT03784079|168657458|OTHER||EC50|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.861||||||||0.861|0.030|
84515154|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.260|0.146|<0.001
84515155|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.28|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.280|0.166|<0.001
84515156|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.325|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.325|0.216|<0.001
84515157|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.187|<0.001
84453268|NCT03784079|168657458|OTHER||s2e|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.216||||||||0.216|0.063|
84453269|NCT03784079|168657459|OTHER||Emax|-1.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.354||||||||-1.354|-2.498|
84453270|NCT03784079|168657459|OTHER||EC50|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.386||||||||0.386|0.007|
84453271|NCT03784079|168657459|OTHER||s2e|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.222||||||||0.222|0.065|
84453272|NCT04183335|168657517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|15.41||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||15.41|2.78|<0.0001
84453273|NCT04183335|168657518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.98||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||8.98|1.81|0.0004
84453274|NCT04183335|168657519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||19.05|2.49|<0.0001
84453275|NCT04183335|168657520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-14.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-14.90|-38.44|<0.0001
84453276|NCT04183335|168657521|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-4.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.05|-8.34|<0.0001
84453277|NCT04183335|168657522|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.28||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.28|-3.07|<0.0001
84453278|NCT04183335|168657523|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.67||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.67|-4.52|0.0082
84453279|NCT04183335|168657531|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.15||Threshold of significance at \<0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|||-0.15|-1.25|0.0119
84453280|NCT00049673|168657538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.53|0.18
84453281|NCT00049673|168657539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|0.0001
84453282|NCT01535729|168657541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.318|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.318|0.684|0.756
84453283|NCT01535729|168657541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.07|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.070|0.518|0.110
84453284|NCT01535729|168657541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.692|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.692|0.656|0.829
84453285|NCT01535729|168657556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.299|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.299|0.741|0.895
84453286|NCT01535729|168657556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.947|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||0.947|0.501|0.022
84453287|NCT01535729|168657556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.759|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.759|0.767|0.479
84453288|NCT01535729|168657557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.941|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.941|0.569|0.015
84453289|NCT01535729|168657558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|2.582|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.582|1.402|0.000
84453290|NCT01535729|168657558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.248|2.557|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.557|1.248|0.002
84515158|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.028|0.308
84453291|NCT01535729|168657561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.962|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.962|0.535|0.027
84453292|NCT01535729|168657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.362|2.749|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.749|1.362|0.000
84725807|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|110.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.09|159.59|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||159.59|77.09|
84453293|NCT01535729|168657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.239|2.859|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.859|1.239|0.003
84453294|NCT02787850|168657564|OTHER||sucess proportion|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|95.6||||||||95.6|71.9|
84453295|NCT02787850|168657564|OTHER||success proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|90.1||||||||90.1|57.7|
84453296|NCT02787850|168657564|OTHER||success proportion|87.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|94.9||||||||94.9|76.3|
84453297|NCT02787850|168657564|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|95.8||||||||95.8|66.3|
84453298|NCT03269344|168657649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
84453299|NCT03269344|168657650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84453300|NCT03269344|168657651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84453301|NCT03269344|168657652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84453302|NCT03269344|168657653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84453303|NCT03269344|168657654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84453304|NCT04401267|168657655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7139
84453305|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|149.43||||||Buprenorphine||149.43|66.05|
84453306|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|163.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.82|242.34||||||Buprenorphine||242.34|110.82|
84453307|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|281.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.1|423.33||||||Buprenorphine||423.33|187.10|
84453308|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.14|117.98||||||Buprenorphine||117.98|52.14|
84453309|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|195.97||||||Buprenorphine||195.97|81.87|
84453310|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|208.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.21|318.18||||||Buprenorphine||318.18|137.21|
84515159|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.107|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.107|-0.006|0.082
84453311|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|358.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.92|555.17||||||Buprenorphine||555.17|231.92|
84453312|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.03|138.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||138.49|44.03|
84453313|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.26|142.41||||||Norbuprenorphine||142.41|39.26|
84515160|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.152|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.043|<0.001
84453314|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.35|20.66||||||Norbuprenorphine||20.66|6.35|
84515161|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.080|-0.041|0.520
84515162|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.124|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|0.010|0.022
84515163|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
84453315|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|71.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|129.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||129.49|39.00|
84453316|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|109.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.14|207.75||||||Norbuprenorphine||207.75|58.14|
84453317|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.17|212.24||||||Norbuprenorphine||212.24|52.17|
84453318|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|30.94||||||Norbuprenorphine||30.94|8.40|
84453319|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.03|157.12||||||Naloxone||157.12|40.03|
84453320|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|317.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.93|611.54||||||Naloxone||611.54|164.93|
84453321|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1401.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|707.55|2777.46||||||Naloxone||2777.46|707.55|
84453322|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.39|209.59||||||Naloxone||209.59|53.39|
84453323|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.09|155.71||||||Naloxone||155.71|36.09|
84453324|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|300.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.44|607.21||||||Naloxone||607.21|148.44|
84453325|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1325.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|638.03|2752.55||||||Naloxone||2752.55|638.03|
84453326|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|85.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.06|111.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.61|66.06|
84453327|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|123.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.27|159.13||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||159.13|96.27|
84453328|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|118.62||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||118.62|70.21|
84453329|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.23|110.2||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||110.20|65.23|
84453330|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.52|134.06||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||134.06|76.52|
84453331|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|145.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.43|191.26||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||191.26|111.43|
84453332|NCT01846455|168657669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|142.47||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.47|81.33|
84453333|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|120.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|172.82||||||Buprenorphine||172.82|83.35|
84453334|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.85|153.36||||||Buprenorphine||153.36|75.85|
84453335|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|171.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.93|250.15||||||Buprenorphine||250.15|117.93|
84453336|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|112.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.66|163.91||||||Buprenorphine||163.91|77.66|
84453337|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.43|158.43||||||Buprenorphine||158.43|71.43|
84453338|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|95.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|141.99||||||Buprenorphine||141.99|64.36|
84453339|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|152.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.08|224.83||||||Buprenorphine||224.83|103.08|
84453340|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|135.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.44|242.16||||||Norbuprenorphine||242.16|75.44|
84453341|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.82|118.68||||||Norbuprenorphine||118.68|38.82|
84453342|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.01|86.69||||||Norbuprenorphine||86.69|27.01|
84515164|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.21|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.210|0.095|<0.001
84515165|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.249|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.249|0.131|<0.001
84453343|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.75|137.22||||||Norbuprenorphine||137.22|42.75|
84453344|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|176.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|329.17||||||Norbuprenorphine||329.17|94.62|
84453345|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.6|161.59||||||Norbuprenorphine||161.59|48.60|
84453346|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|63.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.87|117.83||||||Norbuprenorphine||117.83|33.87|
84453347|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.3|196.53||||||Naloxone||196.53|51.30|
84453348|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.86|513.9||||||Naloxone||513.90|141.86|
84453349|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|577.22|2211.44||||||Naloxone||2211.44|577.22|
84453350|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.5|247.11||||||Naloxone||247.11|64.50|
84453351|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.79|163.06||||||Naloxone||163.06|38.79|
84453352|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|213.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.07|427.17||||||Naloxone||427.17|107.07|
84453353|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|894.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|436.49|1834.8||||||Naloxone||1834.80|436.49|
84453354|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.94|143.44||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||143.44|85.94|
84453355|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.02|142.16||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.16|87.02|
84453356|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.32|107.35||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||107.35|64.32|
84453357|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|108.08||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||108.08|64.75|
84453358|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.93|174.53||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||174.53|100.93|
84453359|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.12|173.1||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||173.10|102.12|
84453360|NCT01846455|168657670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.54|130.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||130.61|75.54|
84453361|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|125.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.46|197.24||||||Buprenorphine||197.24|79.46|
84453362|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|220.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.33|360.81||||||Buprenorphine||360.81|135.33|
84453363|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|249.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.19|383.14||||||Buprenorphine||383.14|162.19|
84453364|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|94.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.44|158.02||||||Buprenorphine||158.02|56.44|
84453365|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.86|222.84||||||Buprenorphine||222.84|78.86|
84453366|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|233.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.63|403.68||||||Buprenorphine||403.68|135.63|
84453367|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|263.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.52|448.03||||||Buprenorphine||448.03|155.52|
84453368|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|159.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.21|324.79||||||Norbuprenorphine||324.79|78.21|
84453369|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.47|217.91||||||Norbuprenorphine||217.91|52.47|
84453370|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.74|177.5||||||Norbuprenorphine||177.50|42.74|
84453371|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|182.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|372.89||||||Norbuprenorphine||372.89|89.79|
84453372|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|122.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|250.19||||||Norbuprenorphine||250.19|60.24|
84453373|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|69.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.45|142.82||||||Naloxone||142.82|33.45|
84453374|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|282.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.59|562.3||||||Naloxone||562.30|141.59|
84453375|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1497.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|724.85|3094.59||||||Naloxone||3094.59|724.85|
84453376|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.3|190.59||||||Naloxone||190.59|40.30|
84453377|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.34|181.12||||||Naloxone||181.12|34.34|
84453378|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|321.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.65|716.52||||||Naloxone||716.52|144.65|
84453379|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1708.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|744.08|3924.47||||||Naloxone||3924.47|744.08|
84453380|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.92|116.38||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||116.38|60.92|
84453381|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.02|150.17||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||150.17|82.02|
84453382|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|81.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.03|111.92||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.92|60.03|
84453383|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|82.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.89|114.42||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||114.42|59.89|
84515166|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.228|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.228|0.113|<0.001
84453384|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.96|138.0||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||138.00|74.96|
84453385|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|134.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.07|177.82||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||177.82|101.07|
84453386|NCT01846455|168657671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.93|132.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||132.61|73.93|
84453387|NCT01449708|168657679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61|||Chi-squared|||||1.61|1.01|0.04
84515167|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.272|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.272|0.162|<0.001
84453388|NCT01449708|168657681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.29|||Chi-squared|||Grouping of surgical procedures into three categories, analysis using bonferroni correction, 1) ReY group( gastric bypass, conversion to gastric bypass and revision gastric bypass) 2) Gastric Band (GB), 3) sleeve gastrectomy (SG)||7.29|1.28|0.009
84515168|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.144|<0.001
84515169|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.020|0.203
84453389|NCT04033367|168657711|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-6.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-6.90|-24.13|<0.001
84453390|NCT04033367|168657712|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.96|-17.78||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-17.78|-37.96|<0.001
84453391|NCT04033367|168657713|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-9.56||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-9.56|-20.56|<0.001
84453392|NCT04033367|168657714|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
84453393|NCT04033367|168657715|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-1.53||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.53|-5.68|<0.001
84453394|NCT04033367|168657716|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.97||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|28.79||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||28.79|-8.86|0.297
84453395|NCT01784965|168657736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453396|NCT01415752|168657768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.25
84453397|NCT01415752|168657769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.178
84515170|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.039|0.542
84515171|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.010|0.021
84453398|NCT01562548|168657832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.21||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8||P-value was associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided|The model included factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect).|Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||0.80|-1.23|0.68
84453399|NCT01562548|168657832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.42||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.42|-0.72|0.52
84453400|NCT01562548|168657832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.13||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was Second named treatment - first named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.13|-0.64|0.58
84453401|NCT04781816|168657859|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.26|6.85||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline CLASI-A, post-baseline visit, geographical region, disease subtype, baseline use of CQ/HCQ, intervention group, visit-by- intervention group interaction, and visit-by-baseline-CLASI-A interaction.||6.85|-18.26|
84453402|NCT01789970|168657878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in WPI were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||1.00|0.26|<0.001
84453403|NCT01789970|168657879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in API were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||0.91|0.25|<0.001
84453404|NCT01789970|168657880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01||5% significance level|Wald chi-square|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline worst pain intensity (WPI), opioid status, and center in the model||||1.01|0.5|0.059
84453405|NCT01789970|168657881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.96||5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|stratified by center with the following effects: treatment group, baseline API, and opioid status.|Hydrocodone ER / Placebo|API increase \>=30% and API \>=5||0.96|0.47|0.0293
84453406|NCT01789970|168657882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.65||5% significance level|ANCOVA|Model with the following effects: treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline RMDQ score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|||0.65|-1.20|0.557
84453407|NCT02123485|168657890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84453408|NCT03423342|168657893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The updated p-value is calculated and not a threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84515172|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.040|-0.080|0.510
84515173|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.084|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.084|-0.030|0.352
84515174|NCT03086460|168784002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
84453409|NCT03423342|168657894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453410|NCT03423342|168657895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453411|NCT03423342|168657896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453412|NCT03423342|168657897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453413|NCT03423342|168657898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84453414|NCT03138876|168657924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84453415|NCT02682901|168657928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
84453416|NCT02682901|168657929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
84453417|NCT02682901|168657930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
84453418|NCT02682901|168657931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
84453419|NCT02682901|168657932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630
84453420|NCT02682901|168657933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
84453421|NCT02682901|168657934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530
84453422|NCT02682901|168657935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84453423|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Specificity|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
84453424|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
84453425|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
84453426|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
84453427|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
84453428|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
84453429|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
84453430|NCT03694925|168657966|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
84453431|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Specificity|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
84453432|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
84453433|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
84453434|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
84515175|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.241|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.241|0.122|<0.001
84453435|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
84453436|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
84453437|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
84453438|NCT03694925|168657967|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. NPV=98.5%|||
84453439|NCT01639872|168657975|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.99
84453440|NCT01639872|168657976|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.25
84453441|NCT02799069|168657977|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.9||||||||||5.9|
84453442|NCT02799069|168657977|SUPERIORITY||Difference to BF-200 ALA|61.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|71.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority of BF-200 ALA compared to placebo:~A sample size of 264: 88 patients (BF-200 ALA: placebo) will have a power of more than 90% to establish superiority of BF-200 ALA over placebo, even if very conservative response rates of 65% for the BF-200 ALA group and 40% for placebo are assumed using a chi-square test with continuity correction and a two-sided significance level of 0.05."||71.0|51.2|0.0000
84453443|NCT02799069|168657978|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.0||||||||||6.0|
84453444|NCT02799069|168657978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|59.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|70.4|||Chi-squared|||||70.4|48.4|0.0000
84453445|NCT02799069|168657979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|72.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|84.2|||Chi-squared|||||84.2|59.7|0.0000
84453446|NCT02799069|168657979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|17.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.6||||||||||6.6|
84453447|NCT02171611|168658012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|175.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.904|216.149|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMeans of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.149|141.904|
84453448|NCT02171611|168658012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.425|188.161|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment (T2) vs. the Reference treatment (R). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||188.161|127.425|
84453449|NCT02171611|168658013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|175.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.924|216.772|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.772|141.924|
84453450|NCT02171611|168658013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|158.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.052|192.255|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||192.255|130.052|
84453451|NCT02171611|168658014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|186.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.659|236.665|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||236.665|147.659|
84478709|NCT03518034|168708746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 12 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 12 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.83|0.11|
84515176|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.251|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.251|0.133|<0.001
84717635|NCT04881110|169184643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.3|-8.5|0.25
84453452|NCT02171611|168658014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.221|208.326|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.326|133.221|
84453453|NCT02171611|168658015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|181.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.428|226.776|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||226.776|145.428|
84453454|NCT02171611|168658015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.25|207.328|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||207.328|134.25|
84453455|NCT02171611|168658016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.727|229.297|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.297|144.727|
84453456|NCT02171611|168658016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|160.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.633|199.306|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||199.306|129.633|
84453457|NCT02171611|168658017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.993|229.075|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.075|144.993|
84515177|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.275|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.156|<0.001
84515178|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.309|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.309|0.195|<0.001
84515179|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.182|<0.001
84515180|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.071|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.071|-0.049|0.723
84515181|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.025|0.257
84725808|NCT00689351|169203742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|5.33|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.33|3.39|
84515182|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.128|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.014|0.016
84725809|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.862
84515183|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.039|0.464
84453458|NCT02171611|168658017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|164.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.421|203.14|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||203.14|132.421|
84453459|NCT01110200|168658055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment comparison ratio|0.917||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.447|||Negative bionomial regression model||Annualized rate estimates, the treatment comparison ratio, the confidence interval, and the p-value are from a negative binomial regression model with terms for treatment, country, randomization stratum, baseline severity, and time on treatment.|||1.447|0.581|0.710
84453460|NCT06245551|168658083|OTHER|The analysis is applied to the All-subjects data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.78|-15.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.25|-19.78|<0.001
84453461|NCT01318109|168658089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.579||||||||-0.579|-0.923|
84453462|NCT01318109|168658089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.019|-0.697||||||||-0.697|-1.019|
84453463|NCT01318109|168658090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.247|
84453464|NCT01318109|168658090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.143||||||||-0.143|-0.242|
84453465|NCT01318109|168658091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.303||||||||-0.303|-0.469|
84453466|NCT01318109|168658091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|-0.323||||||||-0.323|-0.484|
84453467|NCT01318109|168658092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.621|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.486||||||||-0.486|-0.757|
84453468|NCT01318109|168658092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.569||||||||-0.569|-0.814|
84453469|NCT01318109|168658093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-12.4||||||||-12.40|-26.12|
84453470|NCT01318109|168658093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-16.12||||||||-16.12|-30.43|
84453471|NCT01318109|168658094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.54|-10.66||||||||-10.66|-24.54|
84453472|NCT01318109|168658094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-14.39||||||||-14.39|-28.32|
84453473|NCT01318109|168658095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-11.79||||||||-11.79|-25.95|
84453474|NCT01318109|168658095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|-10.9||||||||-10.90|-25.43|
84453475|NCT01318109|168658096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-10.16||||||||-10.16|-26.32|
84453476|NCT01318109|168658096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|-13.88||||||||-13.88|-30.87|
84453477|NCT01318109|168658097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|2.37||||||||2.37|-20.14|
84453478|NCT01318109|168658097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|3.52||||||||3.52|-16.34|
84453479|NCT02177201|168658098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The antiemetic effect was not significantly different for two groups in this study||||0.05
84453480|NCT02177201|168658098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||77 patients was needed in each groups for an 20% effect size, 5% alpha and 80% statistical power for postoperative vomiting.||||<0.05
84453481|NCT01250379|168658107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in the analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|||0.97|0.65|0.0204
84453482|NCT01250379|168658107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||0.97|0.67|0.0245
84453483|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.88|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-neg||0.88|0.40|0.0088
84515184|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|0.000|0.048
84453484|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-pos/HER-neg||1.05|0.67|0.1196
84453485|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS \<6 months||0.90|0.43|0.0110
84453486|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS ≥6 months||1.03|0.65|0.0816
84453487|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.98|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: taxane chemo||0.98|0.31|0.0395
84453488|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: non-taxane chemo||1.06|0.68|0.1385
84453489|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.75|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: vinorelbine chemo||0.75|0.22|0.0029
84453490|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH ≤ 1.5 ULN||0.96|0.62|0.0171
84453491|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH \> 1.5 ULN||1.16|0.46|0.1797
84453492|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 65 years of age||0.97|0.62|0.0229
84453493|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 65 years of age||1.16|0.51|0.2139
84453494|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 70 years of age||0.89|0.59|0.0021
84453495|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.39|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 70 years of age||2.39|0.64|0.5216
84453496|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 3 metastatic organ sites||0.94|0.58|0.0148
84453497|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 3 metastatic organ sites||1.17|0.61|0.3102
84453498|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free ≤ 6 weeks||1.04|0.64|0.0967
84453499|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free \> 6 weeks||1.00|0.51|0.0489
84453500|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 24 months||0.92|0.41|0.0176
84453501|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 24 months||1.11|0.66|0.2318
84515185|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.022|0.219
84515186|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.226|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.226|0.100|<0.001
84515187|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.254|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.254|0.126|<0.001
84717636|NCT04881110|169184644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|115.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|115.1|59.9|<0.001
84515188|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.229|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.103|<0.001
84453502|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 12 months||1.03|0.26|0.0568
84453503|NCT01250379|168658108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 12 months||1.05|0.66|0.1143
84453504|NCT01250379|168658109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson methodology.|||12.4|-4.2|0.3457
84453505|NCT01250379|168658111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.99|0.51|0.9825
84453506|NCT01250379|168658111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.34|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||2.34|0.73|0.3601
84453507|NCT01250379|168658114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.06|0.59|0.1080
84453508|NCT01250379|168658114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.02|0.59|0.0625
84453509|NCT01250379|168658116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.05|0.68|0.1349
84453510|NCT01250379|168658116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.03|0.68|0.0863
84453511|NCT01250379|168658118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.02|0.65|0.0744
84453512|NCT01250379|168658118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.00|0.66|0.0503
84453513|NCT01250379|168658121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.21|0.76|0.7253
84453514|NCT01250379|168658121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.16|0.75|0.5332
84453515|NCT01314716|168658144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in least squares mean|4.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||8.2|1.1|0.011
84453516|NCT01314716|168658145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.0||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.0|-2.7|0.56
84453517|NCT01327157|168658150|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results.|t-test, 1 sided|The comparison between the groups in each study period (initial) was done through the t-test for two independent samples.||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the first query to check the status of discomfort before treatment in both groups, using VAS..~Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results"||||0.524
84453518|NCT01327157|168658151|EQUIVALENCE|"Only the treatment group was analysed. The dental contacts were evaluated in models and gnathostats demarcated after the points were counted in the models before and after treatment If an increase in the number of dental contacts after occlusal adjustment was detected, in relation of the models.~The models are made in the first and last query, after four visits with one month interval between them."|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The brand carbon mark was done on the treatment group in the first and last query.||||<0.001
84453519|NCT01327157|168658152|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors. The comparison among the groups, in each period of the study (initial and final) was done through t test for two independent samples.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the last query to check the status of discomfort after ninety days in both groups, control and treatment, using VAS.~The statistical significance was considered to p\<0.05 values and it was used the Minitab statistics software, 15.1 version, to get the results."||||0.002
84453520|NCT01327157|168658153|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.705
84453521|NCT01327157|168658154|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84453522|NCT02926950|168658155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.309|-0.64|< 0.0001
84453523|NCT02926950|168658156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0538|-1.0909|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline 2- hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-1.0909|-2.0538|< 0.0001
84453524|NCT02926950|168658157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2247|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2006|-0.3198|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.3198|-1.2006|= 0.0007
84453525|NCT02926950|168658158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.591|-1.144|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.144|-2.591|< 0.0001
84453526|NCT02926950|168658159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-0.497|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.497|-6.07|= 0.0209
84453527|NCT02926950|168658160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.479|-1.592|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.592|-5.479|= 0.0004
84453528|NCT02926950|168658161|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||10.06|0.75|= 0.0238
84453529|NCT02926950|168658162|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|20.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||20.89|6.91|= 0.0001
84453530|NCT02392429|168658183|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the NPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the NPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.64 by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the NPV was greater than 0.64 using the exact binomial test.|||||>|0.99|||||||binomial exact test|||||||>0.99
84453531|NCT02392429|168658184|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the PPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the PPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.79by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the PPV was greater than 0.79 using the exact binomial test.||||||0.06|||||||binomial exact test|||||||0.06
84515189|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.266|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.266|0.146|<0.001
84515190|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.243|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.243|0.125|<0.001
84515191|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.090|-0.036|0.400
84515192|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.064|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.064|-0.059|0.931
84515193|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|-0.017|0.160
84515194|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.041|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.041|-0.090|0.464
84515195|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.047|0.623
84515196|NCT03086460|168784003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.101|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.021|0.197
84515197|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.113|-0.010|0.098
84515198|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.159|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.035|0.002
84515199|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.163|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.039|0.002
84515200|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.063|<0.001
84515201|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.171|0.054|<0.001
84515202|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.018|0.162
84515203|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.012|0.117
84515204|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.011|0.020
84515205|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.062|0.909
84515206|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.037|0.419
84515207|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.083|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.083|-0.039|0.483
84515208|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.099|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.099|-0.012|0.126
84515209|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.131|0.017|0.012
84515210|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.004|0.037
84725810|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.157
84453532|NCT02392429|168658188|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.68|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.68
84453533|NCT02392429|168658189|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.08|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.08
84453534|NCT04137887|168658206|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the Confidence intervals (CIs) for relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE); expressed in percentage (%) was more than (\>) 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|20.66|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|||20.66|-12.43|
84453535|NCT04137887|168658207|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.99|30.14|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of respiratory system.||30.14|-27.99|
84453536|NCT04137887|168658207|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.0|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of circulatory system.||25.00|-15.04|
84515211|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|0.028|0.003
84515212|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.127|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|0.021|0.006
84453537|NCT05064059|168658229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.20|0.80|0.4183
84453538|NCT05064059|168658230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.64||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.64|1.09|0.9967
84453539|NCT05064059|168658231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.1||One-sided, nominal p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||10.1|2.5|0.0007
84453540|NCT05064059|168658235|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.08||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|0.93||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||0.93|-7.09|0.1318
84453541|NCT05064059|168658236|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.95||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|3.02||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||3.02|-4.93|0.6370
84515213|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.025|0.282
84453542|NCT05064059|168658237|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.86||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.57||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||9.57|-1.85|0.1846
84453543|NCT05064059|168658238|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.56||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|6.08||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||6.08|-4.96|0.8410
84515214|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.072|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.072|-0.039|0.554
84515215|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.091|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.014|0.149
84453544|NCT05064059|168658239|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.58|0.64|0.5094
84453545|NCT05064059|168658240|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.33|0.98|0.9704
84453546|NCT05064059|168658241|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.98|1.11|0.9905
84453547|NCT05064059|168658242|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization|||3.26|1.06|0.9853
84453548|NCT00741156|168658244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84453549|NCT04316585|168658266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|8.28|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|Bayesian logistic regression. An informative prior was used for the placebo response in this statistical analysis, the prior for placebo response rate was of the form: 90% weight on Be (5.39, 69) and 10% on Be (1/3,1/3). The prior was derived from historical data from similar clinical trials using meta-analytic predictive prior (MAP) approach. All other parameters took vague priors.||8.28|-9.19|
84453550|NCT04316585|168658266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.07|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|||8.07|-4.81|
84453551|NCT03195517|168658282|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453552|NCT03195517|168658283|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453553|NCT03195517|168658284|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84515216|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.072|0.636
84515217|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.063|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.063|-0.047|0.775
84453554|NCT03195517|168658285|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453555|NCT03195517|168658286|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453556|NCT03195517|168658287|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453557|NCT03195517|168658288|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453558|NCT03195517|168658289|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453559|NCT03195517|168658290|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453560|NCT03195517|168658291|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84453561|NCT02944448|168658327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.4|0.7093
84515218|NCT03086460|168784004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.032|0.425
84725811|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.550
84725812|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.052
84453562|NCT02944448|168658328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-13.1|0.6007
84453563|NCT02944448|168658329|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.0|0.4563
84453564|NCT02944448|168658330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.0|0.8693
84453565|NCT02944448|168658331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-9.1|0.6516
84453566|NCT02944448|168658332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.1|0.5|0.1033
84453567|NCT02944448|168658333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.2|0.5|0.2831
84453568|NCT02944448|168658334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as a main effect and OA joint as a covariate.|"Ratio between treatment odds of having a PGIC of Very Much Improved or Much Improved."|||2.0|0.9|0.1959
84515219|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.187|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.187|0.058|<0.001
84515220|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.215|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.085|<0.001
84515221|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.059|<0.001
84515222|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.242|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|0.118|<0.001
84515223|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.115|<0.001
84515224|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.094|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.039|0.410
84515225|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.063|0.961
84515226|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.005|0.070
84453569|NCT02944448|168658335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test stratified by Primary OA joint (Hip or Knee) and Baseline Week Mean of the Daily NRS (\<6.7 or \>=6.7) (Van Elteren test).||||||0.2858
84453570|NCT02944448|168658336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of withdrawing from treatment due to lack of analgesic efficacy.|||2.7|0.3|0.8002
84453571|NCT03881007|168658388|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.17||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.84|0.359
84515227|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.043|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.043|-0.095|0.454
84515228|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.035|0.370
84515229|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.008|0.086
84515230|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.151|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.020|0.011
84515231|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.164|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.164|0.029|0.005
84515232|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
84515233|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.081|<0.001
84515234|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.065|<0.001
84725813|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.366
84453572|NCT03881007|168658389|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|136.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||136.56|1.52|0.024
84453573|NCT03881007|168658390|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|0.61|0.774
84453574|NCT03881007|168658391|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.59||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|0.2|0.323
84453575|NCT03881007|168658393|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|0.86|0.279
84453576|NCT02889796|168658395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.8|20.6|<0.001
84453577|NCT02889796|168658395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||26.2|13.6|<0.001
84453578|NCT02889796|168658396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.36|<0.001
84453579|NCT02889796|168658396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
84453580|NCT02889796|168658397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||30.0|19.6|<0.001
84453581|NCT02889796|168658397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.3|9.7|<0.001
84453582|NCT02889796|168658397|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using non-responder imputation (NRI).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||<0.001
84453583|NCT02889796|168658397|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using NRI.||||||0.002||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||0.002
84453584|NCT02889796|168658397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|17.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||17.0|3.9|0.001
84515235|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.055|0.740
84515236|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.064|0.973
84515237|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.003|0.064
84515238|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.059|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.059|-0.079|0.774
84453585|NCT02889796|168658397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||6.3|-6.2|0.99
84453586|NCT02889796|168658398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
84453587|NCT02889796|168658398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.40|0.001
84453588|NCT02889796|168658399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|32.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.4|20.2|<0.001
84515239|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.018|0.151
84453589|NCT02889796|168658399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||21.4|9.4|<0.001
84453590|NCT02889796|168658399|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||<0.001
84453591|NCT02889796|168658399|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.||||||0.054||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||0.054
84453592|NCT02889796|168658399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||13.6|-1.0|0.069
84453593|NCT02889796|168658399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||2.6|-11.8|0.18
84453594|NCT02889796|168658400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.6|2.8|<0.001
84453595|NCT02889796|168658400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|2.2|<0.001
84453596|NCT02889796|168658401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.7|<0.001
84453597|NCT02889796|168658401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.7|1.5|<0.001
84453598|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||10.9|5.1|<0.001
84515240|NCT03086460|168784005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.006|0.076
84515241|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.190|0.039|0.003
84515242|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.206|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.206|0.055|<0.001
84725814|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.301
84453599|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.3|2.3|<0.001
84453600|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.9|11.9|<0.001
84453601|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.9|3.1|<0.001
84453602|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||33.3|21.4|<0.001
84515243|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.213|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.213|0.061|<0.001
84725815|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.362
84453603|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||22.5|10.9|<0.001
84453604|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||31.0|18.3|<0.001
84453605|NCT02889796|168658402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
84453606|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||4.1|0.5|0.008
84453607|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||2.2|-0.5|0.18
84453608|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.6|4.6|<0.001
84453609|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||4.0|-0.3|0.067
84453610|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||24.1|14.6|<0.001
84453611|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||16.2|7.5|<0.001
84453612|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|15.7|<0.001
84515244|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.078|<0.001
84453613|NCT02889796|168658404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.0|9.2|<0.001
84453614|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||27.9|16.7|<0.001
84453615|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||17.9|7.2|<0.001
84453616|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||26.1|13.4|<0.001
84453617|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.2|7.5|<0.001
84453618|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.9|13.0|<0.001
84453619|NCT02889796|168658406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.5|12.6|<0.001
84453620|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.22|<0.001
84453621|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
84515245|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.24|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.240|0.097|<0.001
84515246|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.061|0.679
84453622|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.24|<0.001
84453623|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.15|<0.001
84453624|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.34|<0.001
84453625|NCT02889796|168658408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
84453626|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
84453627|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-3.0|0.010
84515247|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.098|-0.052|0.549
84515248|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.036|0.323
84515249|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.073|0.866
84515250|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.055|0.596
84515251|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.061|0.720
84515252|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.185|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.185|0.038|0.003
84515253|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.209|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.209|0.057|<0.001
84515254|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.18|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.180|0.032|0.005
84453628|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84453629|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84725816|NCT00689351|169203743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.718
84453630|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
84453631|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
84453632|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
84515255|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.081|<0.001
84453633|NCT02889796|168658410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84453634|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.002
84453635|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.047
84453636|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84453637|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84453638|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84515256|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.212|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.072|<0.001
84453639|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
84453640|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84515257|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.053|0.573
84725817|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||>0.99
84515258|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.067|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.067|-0.078|0.881
84453641|NCT02889796|168658412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
84453642|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-11.0|<0.001
84453643|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
84453644|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
84453645|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
84453646|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
84453647|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
84453648|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
84453649|NCT02889796|168658414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
84515259|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.030|0.261
84515260|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.104|0.493
84515261|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.092|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.092|-0.055|0.616
84515262|NCT03086460|168784006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.118|-0.026|0.212
84725818|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.245
84725819|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.447
84725820|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.684
84725821|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||>0.99
84453650|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
84453651|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-8.0|<0.001
84453652|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
84453653|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-9.0|<0.001
84453654|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
84453655|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
84453656|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
84453657|NCT02889796|168658416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
84453658|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
84453659|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
84453660|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
84453661|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-9.0|<0.001
84515263|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.106|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.106|-0.039|0.361
84725822|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.578
84725823|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.451
84515264|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.138|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.009|0.085
84453662|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
84453663|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-13.0|<0.001
84453664|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
84453665|NCT02889796|168658418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
84453666|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.96||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.96|-12.70|<0.001
84453667|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|-5.87||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.87|-9.58|<0.001
84453668|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-7.45||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.45|-11.33|<0.001
84453669|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.42||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.42|-9.29|<0.001
84453670|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.13|-9.90|<0.001
84515265|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.037|0.328
84515266|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.042|0.002
84515267|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.158|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|0.020|0.011
84515268|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.104|-0.042|0.404
84717637|NCT04881110|169184645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.09|0.18
84453671|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-4.58||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.58|-8.35|<0.001
84453672|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-5.93||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.93|-9.88|<0.001
84453673|NCT02889796|168658420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-4.62||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.62|-8.56|<0.001
84453674|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||18.9|5.7|<0.001
84453675|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||13.1|-0.1|0.043
84453676|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||22.8|9.8|<0.001
84453677|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.7|1.5|0.011
84453678|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|27.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||27.0|14.9|<0.001
84515269|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.069|0.942
84515270|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.147|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|0.009|0.027
84453679|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.9|7.3|<0.001
84453680|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||22.8|10.5|<0.001
84453681|NCT02889796|168658422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||20.3|7.8|<0.001
84453682|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
84453683|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
84453684|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-0.9|<0.001
84515271|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.104|0.463
84515272|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.025|0.200
84725824|NCT00689351|169203744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.712
84453685|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
84453686|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
84453687|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
84453688|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
84515273|NCT03086460|168784007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.005|0.037
84453689|NCT02889796|168658424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
84453690|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||13.1|5.8|<0.001
84453691|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.7|1.4|0.004
84453692|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||21.1|11.3|<0.001
84453693|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||15.8|6.5|<0.001
84453694|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|20.6|<0.001
84453695|NCT02889796|168658426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
84453696|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||6.7|2.1|<0.001
84453697|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||2.6|-0.5|0.17
84453698|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.4|7.1|<0.001
84453699|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|9.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||9.0|2.6|<0.001
84453700|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.0|26.4|<0.001
84725825|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.681
84453701|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||24.6|13.4|<0.001
84725826|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.482
84725827|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.683
84453702|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||19.9|5.6|<0.001
84453703|NCT02889796|168658428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||6.5|-7.5|0.88
84453704|NCT02889796|168658428|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
84453705|NCT02889796|168658428|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
84453706|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.2|-5.9|<0.001
84453707|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
84453708|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-6.6|<0.001
84453709|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.001
84453710|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.3|<0.001
84453711|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-5.8|<0.001
84453712|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-6.9|<0.001
84453713|NCT02889796|168658434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
84453714|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.1|<0.001
84515274|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.073|-0.083|0.896
84725828|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||>0.99
84725829|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.533
84725830|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.692
84453715|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.001
84453716|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.6|<0.001
84453717|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-6.0|<0.001
84453718|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.4|-8.2|<0.001
84453719|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-6.5|<0.001
84453720|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.3|-7.8|<0.001
84453721|NCT02889796|168658436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.5|-6.1|<0.001
84453722|NCT02889796|168658438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.77|0.042
84453723|NCT02889796|168658438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.02|-0.77|0.039
84453724|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||11.1|2.2|0.002
84453725|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|3.9||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||8.6|-0.8|0.073
84453726|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||12.5|1.5|0.009
84453727|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||10.6|-0.6|0.061
84453728|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||9.4|1.6|0.004
84453729|NCT02889796|168658439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|4.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||8.8|0.7|0.012
84515275|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.089|0.810
84725831|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.662
84453730|NCT02889796|168658443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.9|<0.001
84453731|NCT02889796|168658443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|1.0|<0.001
84453732|NCT02889796|168658443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.1|<0.001
84453733|NCT02889796|168658443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.0|<0.001
84453734|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.9|<0.001
84453735|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.6|0.002
84453736|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.4|0.006
84453737|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|0.7|0.001
84453738|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.1|0.086
84453739|NCT02889796|168658447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-0.2|0.12
84453740|NCT02889796|168658451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.8|<0.001
84453741|NCT02889796|168658451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|1.2|<0.001
84515276|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.084|0.882
84725832|NCT00689351|169203745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.331
84725833|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.409
84725834|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.617
84453742|NCT02889796|168658451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.5|<0.001
84453743|NCT02889796|168658451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.6|<0.001
84453744|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|0.0|0.049
84453745|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-0.0|0.069
84453746|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
84453747|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
84453748|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-0.0|0.060
84453749|NCT02889796|168658457|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.003
84453750|NCT01764633|168658488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.05.||0.92|0.79|< 0.0001
84453751|NCT01764633|168658489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at the 0.05 level, the key secondary endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||0.88|0.73|< 0.0001
84453752|NCT01764633|168658490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary and key secondary endpoints reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of cardiovascular death was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||1.25|0.88|0.6188
84515277|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|-0.015|0.115
84515278|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.134|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.134|-0.014|0.111
84515279|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.083|0.911
84725835|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.807
84725836|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.527
84725837|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.144
84453753|NCT01764633|168658491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints at an overall significant level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.19|0.91|0.5368
84453754|NCT01764633|168658492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.82|0.65|< 0.0001
84453755|NCT01764633|168658493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.95|0.66|0.0101
84453756|NCT01764633|168658494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.86|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.86|0.71|< 0.0001
84453757|NCT01764633|168658495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.13|0.86|0.8179
84453758|NCT01764633|168658496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.92|0.65|0.0035
84453759|NCT03545906|168658517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.075
84453760|NCT03545906|168658518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
84453761|NCT03545906|168658519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.039
84453762|NCT03545906|168658520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.265
84453763|NCT04311086|168658556|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
84453764|NCT04311086|168658557|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
84453765|NCT04311086|168658558|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment||||>0.05
84515280|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.078|0.985
84515281|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.009|0.084
84515282|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.078|0.928
84725838|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling.||||0.495
84725839|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.506
84453766|NCT04311086|168658559|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
84453767|NCT04311086|168658563|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||<0.05
84453768|NCT04311086|168658564|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84453769|NCT04311086|168658565|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
84453770|NCT04311086|168658566|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
84453771|NCT00355394|168658572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84453772|NCT00355394|168658573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84453773|NCT00355394|168658574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
84453774|NCT00355394|168658575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84453775|NCT00355394|168658576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84453776|NCT00355394|168658577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84453777|NCT00756938|168658581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.22||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|8.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||8.90|-6.45|0.753
84453778|NCT00756938|168658582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.81||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||9.51|-5.90|0.643
84725840|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||>0.99
84453779|NCT04823949|168658585|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.88|||Chi-squared|||||1.88|1.33|<0.001
84453780|NCT04823949|168658586|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|0.52|.530
84453781|NCT04823949|168658587|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.53||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.90|0.92|.059
84453782|NCT04823949|168658588|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.04|||Fisher Exact|||||3.04|0.23|.792
84453783|NCT04823949|168658589|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.94|.210
84453784|NCT01175902|168658596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To prove the non-inferiority of Cosopt to Xalatan, the sample size calculation was based on the assumption that non-inferiority margin of trough IOP of 1.5mmHg. A sample size of n=21 patients per group, this study has 80% power (1-β=0.80) and α=0.05, crossover-designed analysis.~In this study, the upper limit of the 95% CI is expected above the maximal acceptable clinically significant difference of 1.5 mmHg of IOP."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.||||0.05
84453785|NCT02347176|168658602|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.968||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.99|-6.78|0.143
84453786|NCT02347176|168658602|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-0.51|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.51|-8.22|0.027
84453787|NCT02347176|168658602|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.13|-8.76|0.011
84453788|NCT02347176|168658603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.29|0.974
84453789|NCT02347176|168658603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.65|0.61|0.281
84725841|NCT00689351|169203746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.200
84453790|NCT02347176|168658603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.37|0.95|0.061
84453791|NCT00411554|168658612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin (Sitagliptin minus Voglibose) = 0.2 percent|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.51|-0.28||"This p-value corresponds to a test of superiority that was performed after success was achieved in the test of non-inferiority (reported under Estimation below), according to the pre-specified analysis plan"|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show non-inferiority and superiority to voglibose (closed procedure) and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.28|-0.51|<0.001
84453792|NCT00411554|168658613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-6.2|-15.3|<0.001
84453793|NCT00411554|168658614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.7|-10.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-26.7|<0.001
84453794|NCT04673786|168658648|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -10% to 10%|Treatment difference (%) and 90% CI|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.32|||ANCOVA|Multiple imputation (MI) with the Missing at random (MAR) assumption was applied.||||4.32|-0.23|
84453795|NCT00143455|168658654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.0556||95.0|0.995|1.536|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.||1.536|0.995|0.0556
84453796|NCT00143455|168658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.343||||0.143||95.0|0.905|1.993|||Chi-squared|||||1.993|0.905|0.143
84453797|NCT00143455|168658656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.011||95.0|1.071|1.701|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.701|1.071|0.0110
84453798|NCT00143455|168658657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.354||||0.0831||95.0|0.961|1.908|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.908|0.961|0.0831
84453799|NCT00143455|168658658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7544||95.0|0.771|1.208|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.208|0.771|0.7544
84453800|NCT02004873|168658675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|93.3|97.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|z-test, 1-sided||"The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.~The coverage level for the confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis."|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%.~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||97.6|93.3|<0.0001
84453801|NCT02004873|168658676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|98.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|95.4|99.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is greater than 80%."||99.6|95.4|<0.0001
84453802|NCT02004873|168658677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|99.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|97.5|100.0||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 85%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is greater than 85%."||100.0|97.5|<0.0001
84453803|NCT02004873|168658678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.35. The Micra sensor indicated rate is considered proportional to the workload if the 90% CI for the Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter falls into \[0.65, 1.35\].|Slope|0.864|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.961||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. Two One-sided Test (TOST) procedure was used at the 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|Two One-sided Test (TOST)|A random effect linear regression model was used to assess if the Micra sensor-indicated rate was proportional to the workload using the Kay-Wilkoff model. The Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter was estimated along with its 90% CI.|Null hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is \< 0.65 or \> 1.35 Alternative hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is between 0.65 and 1.35||0.961|0.768|<0.001
84478710|NCT03518034|168708746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 24 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 24 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.96|-0.01|
84725842|NCT00689351|169203747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but but less than or equal to (≤)39 degrees C.||||0.633
84453804|NCT01687712|168658701|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.7|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.7|-1.3|
84453805|NCT01687712|168658702|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.1|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.1|-2.5|
84453806|NCT01687712|168658706|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were tested against a null of zero at the two-side 5% significance level.||||||0.612||||||P-values are based upon Type III sums of squares.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and Site are included as factors.||"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 = 0 and H1: p2- p1 ≠0,~where p1 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the AFOLIA treatment group and p2 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the Gonal f® treatment group."||||0.612
84453807|NCT03505021|168658728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.547|||ANCOVA|||||2.547|-2.032|0.8253
84453808|NCT03505021|168658729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|37.12|||ANCOVA|||||37.12|-15.74|0.4277
84453809|NCT03505021|168658730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.327|||Regression, Cox|||||1.327|0.833|0.6733
84453810|NCT03505021|168658731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.762||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|8.654|||ANCOVA|||||8.654|-1.129|0.1295
84453811|NCT03505021|168658732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.040|0.6230
84453812|NCT03505021|168658733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.666|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.666|0.1752
84453813|NCT00403260|168658735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction). Non-inferiority of PA to MQ + AS was concluded if the lower limit of the CI for the difference was \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|1.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test is calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to MQ+AS was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than -5%."||3.1|-0.2|0.106
84453814|NCT01664793|168658743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons of between-arm changes in vaccination rates from pre to post intervention.||||||<0.05
84453815|NCT00805740|168658749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|53.3||||||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||53.3|-12.3|
84515283|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.148|-0.008|0.078
84453816|NCT00805740|168658750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|55.6||||||2-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.6|-13.6|
84453817|NCT00805740|168658750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|47.3||||||6-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||47.3|-23.3|
84515284|NCT03086460|168784008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.143|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.010|0.089
84515285|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|18.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|76.37|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Time to onset of action was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by patient, including treatment and period as a factor, and baseline FEV1 as covariate.~For patients receiving the same treatment twice, the analysis includes only data from the first instance of each treatment."||76.37|4.25|<0.001
84725843|NCT00689351|169203747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.721
84725844|NCT00689351|169203747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.009
84453818|NCT00805740|168658752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|27.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||27.9|-39.0|
84453819|NCT02066792|168658758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||At 3 month follow-up||-.21|-.81|<.001
84453820|NCT02066792|168658758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23||Two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||.23|-.37|.635
84453821|NCT02066792|168658758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||||-.18|-.80|.002
84453822|NCT02066792|168658758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.14|-.73|.004
84453823|NCT02066792|168658758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.11|-.72|.008
84453824|NCT05227690|168658765|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
84453825|NCT05227690|168658765|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
84453826|NCT05227690|168658766|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
84515286|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|31.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.52|133.47|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||133.47|7.52|<0.001
84453827|NCT05227690|168658766|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
84453828|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.2|-3.2|=0.3596
84453829|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||1.6|-2.7|=0.6053
84453830|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|=|0.8149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-3.4|=0.8149
84515287|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|44.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|191.34|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||191.34|10.23|<0.001
84725845|NCT00689351|169203747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.253
84725846|NCT00689351|169203747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.143
84725847|NCT00689351|169203748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.781
84453831|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|=|0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||2.9|-3.2|=0.9058
84453832|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|=|0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-4.4|=0.5419
84453833|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|=|0.8585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.7|-3.1|=0.8585
84453834|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.1|=0.5521
84453835|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-4.6|=0.7540
84453836|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|=|0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.7|=0.4842
84453837|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.4|-5.0|=0.6999
84453838|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
84453839|NCT05227690|168658767|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
84453840|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.09|-0.15|=0.5822
84453841|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.13|-0.11|=0.9244
84453842|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.17|=0.9348
84515288|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|40.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|170.45|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||170.45|9.54|<0.001
84515289|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|22.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|92.06|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||92.06|5.70|<0.001
84453843|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.21|=0.7160
84453844|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.6883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.24|=0.6883
84453845|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.14|=0.5973
84453846|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.38|=0.1392
84453847|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|=|0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.23|-0.21|=0.9421
84453848|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.30|=0.5431
84453849|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|=|0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.26|-0.20|=0.8160
84453850|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
84453851|NCT05227690|168658768|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
84453852|NCT05227690|168658769|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.9|||=|0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||3.99|0.90|=0.0904
84453853|NCT05227690|168658769|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.96|||=|0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||4.13|0.93|=0.0756
84515290|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.13|0.75|0.195
84515291|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.46||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.72|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||5.72|1.06|0.037
84515292|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.86|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.86|1.03|0.042
84453854|NCT05227690|168658776|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|=0.2418
84453855|NCT05227690|168658776|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.5720
84453856|NCT05227690|168658776|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.7459
84453857|NCT05227690|168658776|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6729
84453858|NCT05227690|168658777|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|-0.1|=0.3783
84453859|NCT05227690|168658777|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.2|=0.2242
84453860|NCT05227690|168658777|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.8626
84453861|NCT05227690|168658777|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6106
84453862|NCT05227690|168658778|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.4219
84453863|NCT05227690|168658778|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.3933
84453864|NCT05227690|168658778|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|0.0|=0.7366
84453865|NCT05227690|168658778|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|=0.4639
84453866|NCT05022641|168658786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6
84453867|NCT05022641|168658787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.65
84453868|NCT05022641|168658788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.02
84453869|NCT05022641|168658789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84453870|NCT05022641|168658791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6
84515293|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.23|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||3.23|0.60|0.435
84515294|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.89|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||2.89|0.56|0.564
84453871|NCT00847587|168658793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 8 additional hours was chosen to be clinically relevant, as many common medical interventions (such as epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery, labor induction, and general stress) have been reported to delay time to lactogenesis stage II by up to 12 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|120.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was assumed that both groups would have a mean of 54 hours to lactogenesis with a common standard deviation of 12 hours based on previous reports of lactogenesis in women with uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Setting the noninferiority margin at 8 additional hours, using an alpha 0.05 level comparison, to achieve 80% power a sample size of n=34 evaluable subjects was required in each group. The calculation was performed using N Solution 2007 Professional Software.||7.7|-10.6|<0.05
84453872|NCT00847587|168658794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.3|<0.05
84453873|NCT02723201|168658798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.505|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed least square (LS) means and its CI, respectively.||0.505|0.320|<0.001
84453874|NCT02723201|168658798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.216||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.455|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.455|1.016|0.249
84453875|NCT02723201|168658798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.041|0.074|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.074|0.041|<0.001
84453876|NCT02723201|168658798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.685||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|0.939|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.939|0.499|0.054
84453877|NCT02723201|168658800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.648||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.497|0.844|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.844|0.497|0.007
84453878|NCT02723201|168658800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.18||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.088|1.279|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.279|1.088|0.423
84453879|NCT02723201|168658800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.176|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.176|0.077|<0.001
84453880|NCT02723201|168658800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.836||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.731|0.957|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.957|0.731|0.037
84515295|NCT03086460|168784009|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.41|0.818
84725848|NCT00689351|169203748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.060
84453881|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.11|0.65|0.306
84453882|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.09|0.60|0.874
84453883|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.19|0.91|0.646
84453884|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.28|0.82|0.869
84453885|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.88|0.30|0.044
84453886|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.46|0.28|<0.001
84453887|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.49|0.27|<0.001
84515296|NCT03123094|168784053|OTHER||Slope|0.9533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.1256|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1256|0.7810|
84725849|NCT00689351|169203748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.159
84725850|NCT00689351|169203748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.839
84453888|NCT04669678|168658806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|0.35|<0.001
84453889|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||2.74|0.57|0.641
84453890|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.80|0.87|0.204
84453891|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||2.15|0.77|0.415
84453892|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.06|1.23|0.027
84453893|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.73|0.73|0.274
84453894|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||3.13|1.07|0.065
84515297|NCT03123094|168784054|OTHER||Slope|1.0014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8809|1.1219|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1219|0.8809|
84453895|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.75|0.79|0.252
84515298|NCT02115347|168784130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.01|112.08|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.08|68.01|
84515299|NCT02115347|168784131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|112.22|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.22|68.11|
84515300|NCT02115347|168784132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.4|126.79|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.79|72.40|
84453896|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.33|1.57|0.002
84453897|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||1.34|0.46|0.460
84453898|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||2.20|1.15|0.019
84453899|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.27|1.10|0.061
84453900|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.71|0.99|0.106
84453901|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.36|0.93|0.144
84453902|NCT04669678|168658807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.16|1.36|0.011
84453903|NCT02634580|168658818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.23|-31.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.48|-47.23|<0.0001
84453904|NCT02634580|168658819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.68|-31.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.60|-48.68|< 0.0001
84453905|NCT02634580|168658820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|-61.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-61.3|-93.9|<0.0001
84453906|NCT02634580|168658821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|-62.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-62.0|-96.7|<0.0001
84453907|NCT02634580|168658822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||70.70|34.10|<0.0001
84453908|NCT02634580|168658823|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|52.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.36|67.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||67.52|30.36|< 0.0001
84515301|NCT02115347|168784133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|126.97|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.97|72.46|
84515302|NCT02115347|168784134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.74|94.23|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||94.23|65.74|
84725851|NCT00689351|169203748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.264
84453909|NCT02634580|168658824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-20.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.08|-30.80|<0.0001
84453910|NCT02634580|168658825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-20.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.04|-31.63|<0.0001
84453911|NCT02634580|168658826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-26.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-26.68|-40.38|< 0.0001
84453912|NCT02634580|168658827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-25.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-25.94|-40.94|<0.0001
84453913|NCT02634580|168658828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.04|-42.30|< 0.0001
84453914|NCT02634580|168658829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-29.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.22|-43.98|<0.0001
84453915|NCT02634580|168658830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.26|-21.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-21.97|-35.26|< 0.0001
84453916|NCT02634580|168658831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-20.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.09|-34.00|< 0.0001
84453917|NCT02634580|168658832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-30.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-30.50|-43.65|<0.0001
84515303|NCT02115347|168784135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.49|106.2|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||106.20|70.49|
84453918|NCT02634580|168658833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-29.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.20|-43.39|<0.0001
84453919|NCT02634580|168658834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.83|-20.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.43|-41.83|<0.0001
84453920|NCT02634580|168658835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.57|-18.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-18.84|-43.57|<0.0001
84453921|NCT02634580|168658836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|18.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||18.13|-11.15|0.63
84515304|NCT02849457|168784137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9332||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5567|7.2436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12 and 24 month outcomes.|Parameter represents estimated amount difference in group means. Negative value represents higher mean in placebo group.|||7.2436|-8.5567|0.8681
84515305|NCT02849457|168784138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7375|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7375
84515306|NCT02849457|168784139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex.||||1.140|0.309|0.1174
84515307|NCT02849457|168784140|OTHER|Two-sided test of non-equivalence||||||0.4653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4653
84453922|NCT02634580|168658837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|30.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||30.87|-7.29|0.22
84453923|NCT02634580|168658838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||14.14|1.78|0.012
84453924|NCT02634580|168658839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||12.00|-0.82|0.086
84453925|NCT02634580|168658840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||13.87|-15.22|0.93
84453926|NCT02634580|168658841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|27.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||27.43|-12.15|0.44
84453927|NCT03083886|168658904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.997|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||.997|.87|.04
84453928|NCT03083886|168658904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.45|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||1.45|1.35|<0.001
84453929|NCT03083886|168658905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-3.9|-7.7|<0.001
84453930|NCT03083886|168658905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.6|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-2.6|-5.9|<0.001
84453931|NCT03083886|168658906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.7|-9.4|<0.001
84453932|NCT03083886|168658906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-5.0|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.0|-8.4|<0.001
84453933|NCT03083886|168658907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.8|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||6.8|2.6|<0.001
84453934|NCT03083886|168658907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||7.9|4.1|<0.001
84453935|NCT03083886|168658908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.7|5.0|<0.001
84453936|NCT03083886|168658908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.4|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.4|5.0|<0.001
84453937|NCT03178487|168658915|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|12.6|<0.001
84453938|NCT03178487|168658916|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.14|<0.001
84453939|NCT03178487|168658917|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-4.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.41|-9.01|<0.001
84453940|NCT03178487|168658918|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASDAI 50; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|21.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|8.5|0.002
84717638|NCT04881110|169184646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|18.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|18.1|-0.6|0.06
84725852|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.563
84453941|NCT03178487|168658919|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASQoL; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.30|-2.78|0.016
84453942|NCT03178487|168658920|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASAS PR; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.6|10.0|<0.001
84453943|NCT03178487|168658921|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASFI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-1.60|0.001
84453944|NCT03178487|168658922|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASMI(lin); within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.02|-0.43|0.030
84453945|NCT03178487|168658923|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including MASES; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.00|-1.68|0.049
84453946|NCT03178487|168658924|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including WPAI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-5.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.78|-13.82|0.190
84453947|NCT03178487|168658925|OTHER|"To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.~ASAS HI was to be evaluated only if the group of endpoints tested by Hochberg procedure were all significant."|LS Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.37||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped during the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-2.37|0.007
84453948|NCT03178487|168658926|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|38.0|10.2|0.001
84453949|NCT03178487|168658927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.08||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.08|-5.31|<0.001
84515308|NCT02849457|168784141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1889||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8346|1.9562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at randomization (\<=7 vs \>7 months) and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12, 24, and 36 month outcomes.|Pertains to the estimated difference in mean score between groups at study visit corresponding to 24 months of age.|||1.9562|-10.8346|0.1697
84515309|NCT01667679|168784145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.01|||ANCOVA|||||5.01|1.76|<0.0001
84515310|NCT01667679|168784146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.85|||ANCOVA||mild attacks|||5.85|1.47|0.0013
84515311|NCT01667679|168784146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.68|||ANCOVA||moderate/severe attacks|||5.68|1.84|0.0002
84515312|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.60|0.85|0.3549
84453950|NCT03178487|168658928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-4.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.14|-8.27|<0.001
84453951|NCT03178487|168658929|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-4.01|<0.001
84453952|NCT04161495|168658933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be established if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI was less than 4.|Mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|-1.11||||||Hierarchical testing framework: used to control type I error for secondary OM analyses. Statistical testing of Arm A intra-participant comparison non-inferiority continued only when estimation of previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level. For Arm A intra-participant comparison, mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||-1.11|-3.49|
84453953|NCT04161495|168658935|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was less than 1.|Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.42|||Negative binomial regression mode|||Tested according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous OM was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen). For test about Arm A intra-participant comparison superiority, rate ratio and 95% CI were estimated using NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||0.42|0.13|<0.0001
84453954|NCT04161495|168658937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-3.36|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Annualized Bleeding Rate During the Efficacy Period in Prophylaxis Arm - Superiority Analysis\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). Least square (LS) mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-3.36|-10.13|0.0001
84453955|NCT04161495|168658938|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.63|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in Haem-A-QOL Physical Health Score at Weeks 26 and 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a score as covariate.||-0.63|-3.26|0.0042
84453956|NCT04161495|168658939|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.37||An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.|Unstructured covariance matrix|||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a First Item at Week 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-0.37|-2.70|0.0101
84453957|NCT03066102|168659003|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular elevation. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular elevation. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.227
84515313|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.90|1.20|0.0005
84515314|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.21|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.21|1.45|<0.0001
84725853|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||0.468
84453958|NCT03066102|168659003|OTHER|||||||0.764||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular protraction. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular protraction. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.764
84453959|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.413||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.413
84453960|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.984||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.984
84453961|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.006
84453962|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.154
84515315|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.96|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||1.96|1.24|0.0002
84515316|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.71|1.10|0.0057
84515317|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.61|0.99|0.0654
84515318|NCT01667679|168784147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.49|0.89|0.2894
84725854|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.535
84725855|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.019
84725856|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.398
84453963|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.096||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.096
84453964|NCT03066102|168659004|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
84453965|NCT03066102|168659005|OTHER|||||||8.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of serratus anterior during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000085
84453966|NCT03066102|168659005|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of upper trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
84453967|NCT03066102|168659005|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of lower trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.382
84453968|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.000467||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular posterior tilt during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during each angle of scaption.||||0.000467
84453969|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.093||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.093
84453970|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.062
84453971|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.04
84453972|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.000147||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000147
84453973|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||1.2e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000012
84453974|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.007
84453975|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.059
84453976|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.032
84453977|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||1.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular internal rotation during scaption Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.000015
84453978|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.296
84453979|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.457
84453980|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.311
84453981|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.004
84453982|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
84453983|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.137||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.137
84453984|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.636||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.636
84453985|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.406||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.406
84453986|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular upward rotation during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.001
84453987|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.650
84453988|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.141
84453989|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
84453990|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.005
84453991|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.083
84453992|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.389
84453993|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.542
84453994|NCT03066102|168659006|OTHER|||||||0.263||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.263
84453995|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.331||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of upper trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.331
84453996|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of lower trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.627
84453997|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during each angle of scaption."||||0.042
84453998|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 30\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
84453999|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 60\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.018
84454000|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 90\~120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
84454001|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 120\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
84454002|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 90\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.035
84515319|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.54|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||4.54|0.76|0.1771
84515320|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.42|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||3.42|1.21|0.0077
84515321|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.5|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.50|1.32|0.0003
84515322|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.09|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.09|1.29|<0.0001
84454003|NCT03066102|168659007|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 60\~30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.05
84454004|NCT03066102|168659008|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.5
84454005|NCT03066102|168659008|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.843
84454006|NCT03066102|168659008|OTHER|||||||0.466||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.466
84454007|NCT01496066|168659012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84454008|NCT01496066|168659013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84454009|NCT01496066|168659014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84454010|NCT01496066|168659015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0318
84454011|NCT01496066|168659016|EQUIVALENCE|a two-group t-test of equivalence in means was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-0.06|
84454012|NCT02475655|168659136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 5.||||0.67
84454013|NCT02475655|168659139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to week 4/5.||1.04|0.69|0.18
84454014|NCT02475655|168659141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 12.||||0.40
84515323|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.74|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.74|1.14|0.0016
84454015|NCT02475655|168659145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.27|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 1/2.||6.90|-4.27|0.70
84454016|NCT02475655|168659145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|8.29||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 4/5.||8.29|-5.06|0.69
84454017|NCT02475655|168659145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|12.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to 10/12.||12.5|0.16|0.09
84454018|NCT02475655|168659147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.03|-0.06|0.58
84454019|NCT02475655|168659147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 4/5.||0.04|-0.06|0.79
84454020|NCT02475655|168659147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|-0.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to 10/12.||-0.02|-0.11|0.016
84454021|NCT02475655|168659149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-679.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1146.0|-212.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 1/2.||-212|-1146|0.018
84454022|NCT02475655|168659149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-651.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1110.0|-192.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 4/5.||-192|-1110|0.021
84515324|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.69|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.69|1.09|0.0059
84515325|NCT01667679|168784148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.42|0.91|0.2717
84725857|NCT00689351|169203749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.125
84725858|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.596
84725859|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||>0.99
84454023|NCT02475655|168659149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-461.0|528.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 10/12.||528|-461|0.91
84454024|NCT02475655|168659151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.15||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.15|-0.42|0.45
84454025|NCT02475655|168659151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 4/5.||-0.23|-0.87|0.005
84454026|NCT02475655|168659151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.95||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 10/12.||0.95|-0.65|0.75
84454027|NCT02475655|168659153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37754.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19609.0|55898.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 1/2.||55898|19609|<0.001
84454028|NCT02475655|168659153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27832.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9849.0|45815.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 4/5.||45815|9849|0.012
84454029|NCT02475655|168659153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5376.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8592.0|19344.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 10/12.||19344|-8592|0.52
84454030|NCT02475655|168659155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|9.14||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||9.14|0.78|0.05
84515326|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.77|0.87|0.2426
84454031|NCT02475655|168659155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.47|11.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||11.8|4.47|<0.001
84454032|NCT02475655|168659155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.95||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.81||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||6.81|1.08|0.025
84454033|NCT02475655|168659157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|8.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||8.33|1.46|0.020
84454034|NCT02475655|168659157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|17.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||17.1|4.84|0.004
84454035|NCT02475655|168659157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|8.39||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||8.39|0.88|0.043
84454036|NCT02475655|168659158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to Week 10/12.||1.44|0.84|0.56
84725860|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.663
84454037|NCT02475655|168659158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from Week 4/5 to Week 10/12.||1.73|1.09|0.026
84515327|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.99|1.12|0.0069
84515328|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.56|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.56|1.47|<0.0001
84515329|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.23|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.23|1.26|0.0004
84515330|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.11|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||2.11|1.22|0.0008
84454038|NCT02475655|168659159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 4/5.||0.99|0.80|0.07
84515331|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.83|1.04|0.0272
84515332|NCT01667679|168784149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.62|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.62|0.90|0.2085
84454039|NCT02475655|168659159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 12.||1.12|0.80|0.59
84454040|NCT02475655|168659159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.24||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from Week 4/5 to Week 12.||1.24|0.90|0.56
84454041|NCT02475655|168659160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|142.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.6|227.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 2.||227|57.6|0.007
84515333|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||0.02|-0.06|0.3562
84515334|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.14|0.0063
84515335|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.11|-0.26|< 0.0001
84515336|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0005
84515337|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.05|-0.24|0.0040
84515338|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.21|0.0333
84725861|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.439
84515339|NCT01667679|168784151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.06|-0.15|0.4031
84515340|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0181
84515341|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
84515342|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.09|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.09|-0.23|< 0.0001
84515343|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.08|-0.25|0.0001
84515344|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0006
84515345|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.21|0.0189
84515346|NCT01667679|168784152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.03|-0.17|0.1704
84515347|NCT01175018|168784172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84515348|NCT01175018|168784173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84515349|NCT01175018|168784174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515350|NCT01175018|168784175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84515351|NCT01175018|168784176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84515352|NCT01175018|168784177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515353|NCT01175018|168784178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84515354|NCT01175018|168784179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84515355|NCT01175018|168784180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84515356|NCT01175018|168784181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515357|NCT01175018|168784182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515358|NCT01175018|168784183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515359|NCT01175018|168784184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84454042|NCT02475655|168659160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|156.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 5.||156.7|-8.23|0.14
84454043|NCT02475655|168659160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.0|65.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 12.||65.5|-143|0.54
84454044|NCT02475655|168659160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-112.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-231.0|5.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Week 5 to Week 12.||5.90|-231|0.12
84454045|NCT02475655|168659162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 5.||1.49|0.65|0.94
84454046|NCT02475655|168659162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 12.||1.46|0.37|0.46
84515360|NCT01175018|168784185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515361|NCT01175018|168784186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515362|NCT01175018|168784187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84515363|NCT00835263|168784190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.23||||||90.0|100.78|105.73|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.73|100.78|
84725862|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.613
84454047|NCT02475655|168659162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Week 5 to Week 12.||1.48|0.46|0.59
84454048|NCT02475655|168659163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 5.||1.01|0.76|0.11
84454049|NCT02475655|168659163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 12.||1.33|0.64|0.71
84454050|NCT02475655|168659164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.86||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 5.||1.86|0.87|0.30
84515364|NCT00835263|168784191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.31||||||90.0|100.75|105.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.93|100.75|
84515365|NCT00835263|168784192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.14||||||90.0|100.06|104.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.26|100.06|
84515366|NCT01020474|168784193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.18||Missing data for week 15 mean pain score are imputed based on distribution of baseline pain scores if participants discontinue due to adverse events/ abnormal laboratory test results or lack of efficacy.|ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.18|-1.51|0.121
84725863|NCT00689351|169203750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.138
84515367|NCT01020474|168784194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.63|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.63|-1.00|0.655
84515368|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.61|-0.75|0.842
84515369|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.05|-1.32|0.070
84454051|NCT02475655|168659164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|4.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 12.||4.49|0.56|0.46
84454052|NCT02475655|168659165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 5.||1.84|0.90|0.24
84454053|NCT02475655|168659165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.74||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 12.||1.74|0.81|0.46
84454054|NCT02475655|168659170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 5.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|1.72|0.77|0.56
84454055|NCT02475655|168659170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|2.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 12.||2.01|0.47|0.95
84454056|NCT02475655|168659171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 5.||1.56|1.15|0.002
84454057|NCT02475655|168659171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.86|0.60
84515370|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||-0.14|-1.51|0.019
84515371|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||-0.21|-1.59|0.011
84515372|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.02|-1.38|0.056
84515373|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||-0.26|-1.66|0.008
84454058|NCT02475655|168659172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 5.||1.07|0.82|0.40
84515374|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||-0.19|-1.60|0.013
84725864|NCT00623714|169203811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.7||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.70|0.16|0.011
84515375|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.35|-1.77|0.004
84515376|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||-0.24|-1.67|0.009
84515377|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.25|-1.69|0.008
84725865|NCT00623714|169203812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.63|0.26|0.002
84515378|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||-0.13|-1.59|0.021
84515379|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||-0.23|-1.71|0.010
84515380|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.00|-1.49|0.051
84454059|NCT02475655|168659172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 12.||1.27|0.83|0.82
84454060|NCT02475655|168659173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 5.||2.02|1.11|0.028
84454061|NCT02475655|168659173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|5.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 12.||5.25|0.79|0.21
84454062|NCT02475655|168659174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.79||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 5.||1.79|1.08|0.031
84515381|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||-0.14|-1.66|0.020
84515382|NCT01020474|168784195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.03|-1.51|0.060
84515383|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.47|-0.90|0.540
84515384|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.50|-0.87|0.593
84515385|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||0.25|-1.13|0.206
84515386|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||0.21|-1.18|0.168
84515387|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.32|-1.08|0.280
84454063|NCT02475655|168659174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 12.||2.02|0.46|0.93
84454064|NCT02475655|168659175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|4.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 5.||4.05|0.61|0.43
84515388|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||0.06|-1.34|0.075
84515389|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||0.21|-1.21|0.168
84515390|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.30|-1.73|0.006
84515391|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||0.15|-1.29|0.120
84515392|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.05|-1.49|0.037
84515393|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||0.30|-1.16|0.246
84515394|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||0.13|-1.36|0.105
84515395|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.41|-1.09|0.376
84515396|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||0.35|-1.18|0.285
84515397|NCT01020474|168784196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.61|-0.95|0.663
84515398|NCT01020474|168784197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||-0.05|-1.68|0.037
84454065|NCT02475655|168659175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 12.||1.50|0.30|0.41
84454066|NCT02475655|168659176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.07|-0.61|0.038
84454067|NCT02475655|168659176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.51||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.51|0.03|0.07
84454068|NCT02475655|168659177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|-0.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.13|-1.62|0.05
84454069|NCT02475655|168659177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.88|-0.16|0.16
84454070|NCT02475655|168659178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.97||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.97|-2.46|<0.001
84454071|NCT02475655|168659178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-0.50|0.68
84454072|NCT02475655|168659179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.69||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.69|-0.70|0.98
84454073|NCT02475655|168659179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-1.13|0.79
84454074|NCT02475655|168659180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|5.22||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||5.22|1.75|0.001
84454075|NCT02475655|168659180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|0.68|-3.28|0.28
84454076|NCT02475655|168659181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|9.31||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||9.31|3.76|<0.001
84454077|NCT02475655|168659181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|3.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||3.18|-3.56|0.92
84454078|NCT02475655|168659182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.47||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.47|-0.61|0.82
84454079|NCT02475655|168659182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.18|0.033
84454080|NCT02475655|168659183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.55||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.55|-0.53|0.98
84515399|NCT01020474|168784198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||2.58|0.53|0.694
84454081|NCT02475655|168659183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.57||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.57|-0.46|0.37
84454082|NCT02475655|168659184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.72|-1.87||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.87|-4.72|<0.001
84454083|NCT02475655|168659184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||-0.03|-1.42|0.09
84454084|NCT02475655|168659185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.29|-3.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-3.50|-7.29|<0.001
84454085|NCT02475655|168659185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.05|-2.51|0.11
84454086|NCT02475655|168659186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.70|-3.78|0.26
84454087|NCT02475655|168659186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|1.62||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.62|-2.41|0.74
84454088|NCT02475655|168659187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||3.00|-1.90|0.71
84454089|NCT02475655|168659187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|2.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.78|-2.15|0.83
84454090|NCT02475655|168659188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|-0.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.50|-2.16|0.010
84454091|NCT02475655|168659188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.68|-1.02|0.74
84515400|NCT01020474|168784199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||7.02|0.72|0.162
84454092|NCT02475655|168659189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.27|-5.22|0.008
84515401|NCT01020474|168784200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value uses the row mean score statistic based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||||0.013
84454093|NCT02475655|168659189|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|2.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.05|-2.38|0.90
84454094|NCT02475655|168659192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|4.61||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 5.||4.61|-1.83|0.47
84515402|NCT00796653|168784246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.091|<0.0001
84515403|NCT00796653|168784246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.116|<0.0001
84454095|NCT02475655|168659192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|5.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 12.||5.18|-0.77|0.22
84454096|NCT02475655|168659193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.34||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|2.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||2.35|-11.0|0.28
84454097|NCT02475655|168659193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|-3.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-3.02|-16.6|0.019
84454098|NCT02475655|168659194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.41||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||1.41|-3.02|0.55
84454099|NCT02475655|168659194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||-0.04|-3.36|0.09
84454100|NCT02475655|168659195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.23|-3.17|0.15
84454101|NCT02475655|168659195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|1.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||1.35|-4.59|0.37
84454102|NCT02475655|168659196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||0.80|-2.51|0.39
84454103|NCT02475655|168659196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|1.19||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||1.19|-2.59|0.54
84454104|NCT02475655|168659197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|-0.06||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-0.06|-12.0|0.10
84454105|NCT02475655|168659197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-1.73|-11.1|0.026
84454106|NCT02475655|168659198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|7.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.82|-7.26|0.95
84454107|NCT02475655|168659198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|4.45||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||4.45|-12.6|0.43
84454108|NCT02475655|168659199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|7.54||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.54|-5.08|0.74
84454109|NCT02475655|168659199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|11.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||11.5|-3.94|0.42
84515404|NCT00796653|168784246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.188|0.112|<0.0001
84515405|NCT00796653|168784247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0055||95.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.015|0.0055
84454110|NCT02475655|168659200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||1.73|-2.99|0.66
84725866|NCT00882050|169203813|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression|Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.|||0.05
84454111|NCT02475655|168659200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.93|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||0.80|-3.93|0.27
84454112|NCT02475655|168659201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|-2.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-2.46|-11.7|0.013
84454113|NCT02475655|168659201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||5.07|-8.06|0.70
84454114|NCT02475655|168659202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.07|-0.05|0.79
84454115|NCT02475655|168659202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||0.08|-0.07|0.91
84454116|NCT02475655|168659203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.82|3.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||3.12|-8.82|0.43
84454117|NCT02475655|168659203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.53|6.6||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||6.60|-6.53|0.99
84454118|NCT02475655|168659204|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 5.||2.73|1.29|0.007
84454119|NCT02475655|168659204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 12.||1.90|0.90|0.23
84454120|NCT02475655|168659205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 5.||1.72|0.87|0.32
84454121|NCT02475655|168659205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 12.||1.56|0.68|0.91
84454122|NCT02475655|168659206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any on-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 1, 2, 4, or 5).||||0.40
84454123|NCT02475655|168659206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any post-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 10 or 12).||||0.87
84454124|NCT02475655|168659210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 5.||1.88|0.15|0.40
84454125|NCT02475655|168659210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|4.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 12.||4.34|0.20|0.93
84454126|NCT00441545|168659223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1130
84454127|NCT00441545|168659224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0249
84454128|NCT00699907|168659243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.012
84454129|NCT00699907|168659243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84515406|NCT00796653|168784247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
84454130|NCT00699907|168659244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
84454131|NCT00699907|168659244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
84454132|NCT00699907|168659245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0006
84454133|NCT00699907|168659245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84454134|NCT00699907|168659246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.009
84454135|NCT00699907|168659246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84515407|NCT00796653|168784247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.027||95.0|0.005|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.080|0.005|0.0270
84515408|NCT00796653|168784248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1999||95.0|-0.213|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.018|-0.213|0.1999
84515409|NCT00796653|168784248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1818||95.0|-0.196|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.196|0.1818
84454136|NCT00699907|168659247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.037
84515410|NCT00796653|168784248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.0572||95.0|-0.019|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.222|-0.019|0.0572
84515411|NCT00796653|168784249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.0197||95.0|-5.796|-0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.503|-5.796|0.0197
84515412|NCT00796653|168784249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.0094||95.0|-6.18|-0.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.867|-6.180|0.0094
84454137|NCT00699907|168659247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84454138|NCT00699907|168659248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
84454139|NCT00699907|168659248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84454140|NCT00699907|168659249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
84454141|NCT00699907|168659249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
84454142|NCT00699907|168659250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.006
84454143|NCT00699907|168659250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
84454144|NCT00699907|168659251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
84454145|NCT00699907|168659251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
84454146|NCT00430508|168659252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.97|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.97|<0.0001
84454147|NCT00430508|168659252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||||-2.03|-4.79|<0.0001
84454148|NCT00430508|168659252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1788||95.0|-2.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.32|0.1788
84454149|NCT00430508|168659253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.54|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.54|<0.0001
84454150|NCT00430508|168659253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.39|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.39|<0.0001
84454151|NCT00430508|168659253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1081||95.0|-2.19|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-2.19|0.1081
84454152|NCT00430508|168659254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.13|-4.66|||ANCOVA|||||-4.66|-10.13|<0.0001
84454153|NCT00430508|168659254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||||-2.91|-7.4|<0.0001
84454154|NCT00430508|168659254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0255||95.0|-4.79|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-4.79|0.0255
84454155|NCT00430508|168659255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.0|-4.26|||ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-9.00|<0.0001
84454156|NCT00430508|168659255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.7|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-6.70|<0.0001
84454157|NCT00430508|168659255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0812||95.0|-3.66|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-3.66|0.0812
84454158|NCT00430508|168659256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||||95.0|1.69|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|1.69|
84454159|NCT00430508|168659256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||||95.0|1.5|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.50|
84454160|NCT00430508|168659256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|1.07|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.07|
84454161|NCT00430508|168659257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.78|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-6.78|<0.0001
84454162|NCT00430508|168659257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.54|-1.78|||ANCOVA|||||-1.78|-4.54|<0.0001
84454163|NCT00430508|168659257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1452||95.0|-2.43|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.43|0.1452
84454164|NCT00430508|168659258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.79|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-6.79|<0.0001
84454165|NCT00430508|168659258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-4.79|<0.0001
84454166|NCT00430508|168659258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1629||95.0|-2.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-2.52|0.1629
84454167|NCT00430508|168659259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.40|<0.0001
84454168|NCT00430508|168659259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.0009||95.0|-4.12|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-4.12|<0.0009
84454169|NCT00430508|168659259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1985||95.0|-2.55|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-2.55|0.1985
84454170|NCT03889639|168659262|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-56.16||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.99|17.05|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||17.05|-193.99|0.1673
84454171|NCT03889639|168659262|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.24|41.91|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||41.91|-356.24|0.3540
84454172|NCT03889639|168659262|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|13.49||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.05|66.89|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||66.89|-126.05|0.7674
84454173|NCT03889639|168659262|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|85.02||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|96.88|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.88|28.02|0.0178
84515413|NCT00796653|168784249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.2995||95.0|-4.093|1.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.261|-4.093|0.2995
84454174|NCT03889639|168659263|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|10.17||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.49|56.73|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||56.73|-86.49|0.7736
84454175|NCT03889639|168659263|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|37.07||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|71.32|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||71.32|-38.08|0.2480
84454176|NCT03889639|168659263|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|38.5||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.61|75.85|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||75.85|-56.61|0.3081
84454177|NCT03889639|168659263|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|89.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.39|96.41|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.41|68.39|0.0001
84454178|NCT03889639|168659264|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.16||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.44|16.38|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||16.38|-214.44|0.1525
84726432|NCT04454125|169204802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||1.47|0.08|0.15
84454179|NCT03889639|168659264|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-47.38||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.91|47.4|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||47.40|-312.91|0.4606
84454180|NCT03889639|168659264|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|2.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.96|60.54|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||60.54|-138.96|0.9490
84454181|NCT03889639|168659264|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|65.05||||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.21|93.77|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||93.77|-96.21|0.2324
84454182|NCT01703858|168659268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.501|105.272|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.272|92.501|0.0000
84454183|NCT01703858|168659268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.331|78.962|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||78.962|62.331|0.9644
84454184|NCT01703858|168659268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.648|94.346|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.346|73.648|0.2835
84454185|NCT01703858|168659268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.7||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.923|130.867|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.867|104.923|0.1599
84454186|NCT01703858|168659268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.072|107.719|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.719|88.072|0.0020
84454187|NCT01703858|168659269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|89.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.893|104.973|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||104.973|75.893|0.1261
84454188|NCT01703858|168659269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|54.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.4||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.711|73.157|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||73.157|40.711|0.9808
84478711|NCT03518034|168708747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.86||||||Month 6 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.86|0.96|
84454189|NCT01703858|168659269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.2||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.175|124.731|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||124.731|72.175|0.1449
84454190|NCT01703858|168659269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|169.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.7||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.093|231.419|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||231.419|124.093|0.9463
84454191|NCT01703858|168659269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|81.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.811|99.848|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||99.848|65.811|0.4564
84454192|NCT01703858|168659270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.225|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.225|92.500|0.0000
84454193|NCT01703858|168659270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.43|79.038|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||79.038|62.430|0.9635
84454194|NCT01703858|168659270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.774|94.412|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.412|73.774|0.2771
84454195|NCT01703858|168659270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.958|130.787|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.787|104.958|0.1584
84454196|NCT01703858|168659270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.066|107.741|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.741|88.066|0.0020
84454197|NCT03506295|168659271|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.496||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.469|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.469|0.168|0.7878
84454198|NCT02340663|168659282|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84454199|NCT02340663|168659283|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
84454200|NCT02340663|168659284|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665
84515414|NCT00796653|168784250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.7995||95.0|-3.068|2.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.365|-3.068|0.7995
84454201|NCT02340663|168659285|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
84454202|NCT02340663|168659286|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.626
84454203|NCT02340663|168659287|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
84454204|NCT02340663|168659288|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.255
84454205|NCT02340663|168659289|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.049
84454206|NCT02340663|168659292|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
84454207|NCT02340663|168659293|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The P-value given is the computed value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84454208|NCT02340663|168659294|OTHER|||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
84454209|NCT02340663|168659295|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.220
84454210|NCT02340663|168659296|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.081
84454211|NCT02340663|168659297|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84454212|NCT02340663|168659298|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
84454213|NCT02340663|168659299|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.238
84454214|NCT02340663|168659300|OTHER|||||||0.952||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.952
84454215|NCT02340663|168659301|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.53
84454216|NCT02340663|168659302|OTHER|||||||0.292||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
84454217|NCT02340663|168659303|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.||||0.289
84454218|NCT02340663|168659304|OTHER|||||||0.287||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
84454219|NCT02340663|168659305|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
84454220|NCT02340663|168659306|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
84454221|NCT02340663|168659307|OTHER|||||||0.923||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.923
84454222|NCT01459705|168659310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-22.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454223|NCT01459705|168659310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454224|NCT01459705|168659310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454225|NCT01459705|168659311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454226|NCT01459705|168659312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|13.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454227|NCT03850912|168659395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.104||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (chemo and surgical patients combined)||1.290|0.944|0.214
84454228|NCT03850912|168659395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.927||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.201|0.715|0.565
84454229|NCT03850912|168659395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.490|1.008|0.042
84454230|NCT03850912|168659396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.272|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.272|1.000|0.050
84454231|NCT03850912|168659396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.225|0.836|0.903
84454232|NCT03850912|168659396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.418|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.418|1.040|0.014
84454233|NCT03850912|168659397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.139|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.139|0.881|0.978
84454234|NCT03850912|168659397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.046|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.046|0.697|0.126
84454235|NCT03850912|168659397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.302|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.302|0.933|0.254
84454236|NCT03850912|168659398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.183|0.964|0.209
84454237|NCT03850912|168659398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.159|0.850|0.924
84454238|NCT03850912|168659398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.286|0.979|0.099
84454239|NCT03850912|168659399|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.328||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-0.062|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||-0.062|-2.593|0.04
84454240|NCT03850912|168659399|OTHER||Difference|-1.958||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-0.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.646|-3.269|0.004
84454241|NCT03850912|168659400|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.925||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.985|0.136|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.136|-1.985|0.09
84454242|NCT03850912|168659400|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.474|-0.557|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.557|-2.474|0.002
84454243|NCT03850912|168659401|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.767||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.433|-2.532|0.17
84454244|NCT03850912|168659401|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.198|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.259|-1.137|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-1.137|-3.259|<0.0001
84454245|NCT03850912|168659402|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.8084||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.431|-2.048|0.2
84454246|NCT03850912|168659402|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.652||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.496|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.496|-1.800|0.27
84454247|NCT03850912|168659403|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.617||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.386|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.386|-1.620|0.23
84515415|NCT00796653|168784250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.4336||95.0|-3.818|1.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.639|-3.818|0.4336
84515416|NCT00796653|168784250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.9365||95.0|-2.625|2.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.848|-2.625|0.9365
84454248|NCT03850912|168659403|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.434||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||1.431|-0.563|0.39
84515417|NCT00796653|168784251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.333||0.0491||95.0|-5.241|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.010|-5.241|0.0491
84515418|NCT00796653|168784251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.341||0.0636||95.0|-5.119|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|-5.119|0.0636
84515419|NCT00796653|168784251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0194||95.0|-5.806|-0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.511|-5.806|0.0194
84515420|NCT00796653|168784252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 5 mcg minus placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
84515421|NCT00796653|168784252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
84454249|NCT03850912|168659404|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|0.429|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.429|-1.829|0.22
84454250|NCT03850912|168659404|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|0.472|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.472|-1.632|0.28
84454251|NCT03850912|168659405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (chemo and surgical patients combined)||0.913|0.776|<0.001
84454252|NCT03850912|168659405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.885|0.688|<0.001
84454253|NCT03850912|168659405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.990|0.799|0.032
84454254|NCT03850912|168659406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.949|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.949|0.839|<0.001
84454255|NCT03850912|168659406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.872||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.954|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.954|0.796|0.003
84454256|NCT03850912|168659406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.909||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.989|0.835|0.027
84454257|NCT03850912|168659407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.682|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.682|0.593|<0.001
84454258|NCT03850912|168659407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.679|0.550|<0.001
84454259|NCT03850912|168659407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.719|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.719|0.597|<0.001
84454260|NCT03850912|168659408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.811|0.729|<0.001
84454261|NCT03850912|168659408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.858|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.858|0.737|<0.001
84515422|NCT00796653|168784252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Form 12 mcg minus placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
84454262|NCT03850912|168659408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.796|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.796|0.686|<0.001
84454263|NCT00848354|168659430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by country, was used to calculate p-value. Assuming ACR50 response at Week 24 to be 23% in the DMARD combination therapy group and 37% in the etanercept + methotrexate group, a study enrolling 276 participants assigned to etanercept + methotrexate and 138 participants assigned to DMARD combination therapy has 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates testing at the type I error = 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
84454264|NCT00848354|168659431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84454265|NCT00848354|168659432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for vitality domain at Week 24.||||0.0003
84454266|NCT00848354|168659432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for mental component at Week 24.||||0.0002
84515423|NCT00796653|168784253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.123|<0.0001
84515424|NCT00796653|168784253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.157|<0.0001
84515425|NCT00796653|168784253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.199|0.126|<0.0001
84454267|NCT00848354|168659432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for physical component at Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454268|NCT00848354|168659433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on ranks of change in mTSS with treatment group and center main effects and the Baseline rank as covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0270
84454269|NCT00848354|168659434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454270|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||18.2|2.25|<0.0001
84515426|NCT00796653|168784254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
84454271|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.49||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||9.49|2.62|<0.0001
84515427|NCT00796653|168784254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.155|<0.0001
84515428|NCT00796653|168784254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.221|0.148|<0.0001
84515429|NCT00796653|168784255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.108|<0.0001
84454272|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.94||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.94|2.19|<0.0001
84454273|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|6.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.53|2.57|<0.0001
84454274|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.16||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.16|2.51|<0.0001
84454275|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||5.93|2.46|<0.0001
84454276|NCT00848354|168659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|8.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||8.53|3.41|<0.0001
84454277|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.21|2.37|<0.0001
84454278|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.11||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.11|2.19|<0.0001
84454279|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.43||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||4.43|1.90|<0.0001
84454280|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||4.96|2.06|<0.0001
84515430|NCT00796653|168784255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.138|<0.0001
84515431|NCT00796653|168784255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.208|0.133|<0.0001
84515432|NCT00796653|168784256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.080|<0.0001
84454281|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.21|2.46|<0.0001
84454282|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|6.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.22|2.45|<0.0001
84454283|NCT00848354|168659439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|7.78||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.78|3.13|<0.0001
84454284|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|40.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||40.9|0.66|0.1086
84515433|NCT00796653|168784256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
84454285|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|12.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||12.3|1.04|0.0392
84454286|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||13.6|2.04|<0.0001
84454287|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||13.6|2.39|<0.0001
84454288|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||7.09|2.02|<0.0001
84726433|NCT04454125|169204802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||2.68|0.35|0.94
84515434|NCT00796653|168784256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.168|0.091|<0.0001
84454289|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.60|2.02|<0.0001
84454290|NCT00848354|168659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|7.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.46|2.36|<0.0001
84515435|NCT00796653|168784257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.033|0.0002
84515436|NCT00796653|168784257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.083|<0.0001
84515437|NCT00796653|168784257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0071||95.0|0.013|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.013|0.0071
84515438|NCT00796653|168784258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|0.048|<0.0001
84454291|NCT00848354|168659443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84515439|NCT00796653|168784258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.068|<0.0001
84515440|NCT00796653|168784258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.106|0.034|0.0001
84515441|NCT00796653|168784259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0017||95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.022|0.0017
84454292|NCT00848354|168659445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.0||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||10.00|3.88|<0.0001
84454293|NCT00848354|168659446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|17.39||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||17.39|3.49|<0.0001
84454294|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.46|2.24|<0.0001
84515442|NCT00796653|168784259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.057|<0.0001
84515443|NCT00796653|168784259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
84515444|NCT00796653|168784260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0085||95.0|0.013|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.013|0.0085
84515445|NCT00796653|168784260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.049|<0.0001
84515446|NCT00796653|168784260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0067||95.0|0.014|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.088|0.014|0.0067
84454295|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.55||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||8.55|2.91|<0.0001
84454296|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|12.02||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||12.02|2.93|<0.0001
84454297|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|9.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.21|2.27|<0.0001
84454298|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|2.74|<0.0001
84454299|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.72|3.00|<0.0001
84454300|NCT00848354|168659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|15.63||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.63|3.74|<0.0001
84454301|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
84454302|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.82||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.82|2.85|<0.0001
84454303|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.38|2.50|<0.0001
84454304|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.41|2.37|<0.0001
84454305|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|9.76||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.76|3.19|<0.0001
84454306|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|9.52||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||9.52|3.16|<0.0001
84454307|NCT00848354|168659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.21|3.87|<0.0001
84454308|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.40|2.30|<0.0001
84454309|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|7.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.71|3.07|<0.0001
84454310|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|8.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.41|2.98|<0.0001
84454311|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.58||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||7.58|2.55|<0.0001
84454312|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.74||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.74|3.15|<0.0001
84454313|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|11.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||11.73|3.25|<0.0001
84515447|NCT00796653|168784261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.100|0.025|0.0012
84515448|NCT00796653|168784261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.035|0.0002
84717639|NCT04881110|169184647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.6|-0.09|0.06
84454314|NCT00848354|168659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|11.33||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.33|3.67|<0.0001
84454315|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.13||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||9.13|1.05|0.0349
84454316|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.60|1.98|<0.0001
84454317|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.88|2.10|<0.0001
84454318|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.06|2.02|<0.0001
84454319|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.96|2.78|<0.0001
84717640|NCT04881110|169184649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|28.3|21.8|<0.001
84515449|NCT00796653|168784261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0117||95.0|0.011|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.086|0.011|0.0117
84717641|NCT04159519|169184654|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.1062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.2609||||||Comparison with reference arm||0.2609|-0.0485|
84454320|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.90|2.80|<0.0001
84454321|NCT00848354|168659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|9.85||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.85|3.82|<0.0001
84454322|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.60|2.74|<0.0001
84454323|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.18|2.94|<0.0001
84454324|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.61||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.61|3.15|<0.0001
84454325|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.93|3.36|<0.0001
84454326|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|13.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.09|3.91|<0.0001
84515450|NCT00796653|168784262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0014||95.0|0.024|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.024|0.0014
84454327|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.80|4.50|<0.0001
84454328|NCT00848354|168659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||10.47|3.50|<0.0001
84454329|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
84454330|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
84454331|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
84454332|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
84454333|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
84454334|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
84454335|NCT00848354|168659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
84454336|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3054||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||0.3054
84454337|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.53|0.58|0.4044
84454338|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.26||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.26|1.02|0.0388
84454339|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|6.34||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.34|1.31|0.0059
84454340|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.29||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.29|1.99|<0.0001
84454341|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.24||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||12.24|2.88|<0.0001
84454342|NCT00848354|168659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|23.32||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||23.32|3.61|<0.0001
84454343|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
84454344|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
84454345|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
84454346|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
84454347|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
84454348|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
84454349|NCT00848354|168659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
84454350|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.07||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||7.07|2.90|<0.0001
84454351|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.80|2.36|<0.0001
84454352|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||9.72|2.82|<0.0001
84454353|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||10.47|2.63|<0.0001
84454354|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|3.16|<0.0001
84454355|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|18.17||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||18.17|3.86|<0.0001
84454356|NCT00848354|168659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|15.62||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.62|3.94|<0.0001
84454357|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|5.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.73|2.35|<0.0001
84454358|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.22|3.00|<0.0001
84454359|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|8.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.06|3.05|<0.0001
84717642|NCT04159519|169184655|OTHER|Comparison|Least square mean difference|-0.0343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2527|0.1841|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.||Comparison with reference arm||0.1841|-0.2527|
84454360|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||8.96|3.18|<0.0001
84454361|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|10.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.06|3.23|<0.0001
84454362|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|14.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||14.20|4.37|<0.0001
84515451|NCT00796653|168784262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.047|<0.0001
84515452|NCT00796653|168784262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0035||95.0|0.019|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.094|0.019|0.0035
84717643|NCT01499368|169184671|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority: The Lower limit is not lower than -15%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84717644|NCT01499368|169184672|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.05
84454363|NCT00848354|168659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.65||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.65|3.40|<0.0001
84454364|NCT00848354|168659467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454365|NCT00848354|168659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454366|NCT00848354|168659471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454367|NCT00848354|168659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454368|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
84454369|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||0.0007
84454370|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0009
84515453|NCT00796653|168784263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0228||95.0|0.006|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.082|0.006|0.0228
84515454|NCT00796653|168784263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.021|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.021|0.0024
84717645|NCT02765412|169184675|OTHER|multilevel model|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for age, gender, race, comorbidities, implementation group, travel distance, and VAMC indicator|OR corresponding to the interaction between implementation group and lung cancer risk, a ratio of odds ratios. The OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the SI group versus the OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the II group|||0.78|0.58|0.081
84454371|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
84454372|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0005
84454373|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
84454374|NCT00848354|168659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454375|NCT00848354|168659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84515455|NCT00796653|168784263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0664||95.0|-0.002|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.074|-0.002|0.0664
84515456|NCT00796653|168784264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.122|<0.0001
84515457|NCT00796653|168784264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.140|<0.0001
84454376|NCT00848354|168659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454377|NCT00848354|168659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454378|NCT00848354|168659483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1975
84454379|NCT00848354|168659484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0044
84454380|NCT00848354|168659485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84717646|NCT02765412|169184676|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Satisfaction rating on a scale of 0 to 10; Difference is Arm 1 - Arm 2|Simple t-test comparing mean satisfaction ratings between arms||0.46|-0.16|0.35
84454381|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
84454382|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||<0.0001
84454383|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0002
84454384|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
84454385|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0001
84515458|NCT00796653|168784264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.115|<0.0001
84515459|NCT00796653|168784265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.130|<0.0001
84515460|NCT00796653|168784265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.143|<0.0001
84515461|NCT00796653|168784265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.137|<0.0001
84515462|NCT00796653|168784266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
84717647|NCT03781089|169184680|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84717648|NCT03781089|169184681|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
84515463|NCT00796653|168784266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.129|<0.0001
84454386|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
84454387|NCT00848354|168659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0021
84454388|NCT00848354|168659488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0001
84454389|NCT00848354|168659488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
84454390|NCT00848354|168659488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0003
84454391|NCT00848354|168659490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
84717649|NCT02246127|169184692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.32|0.32|0.229
84717650|NCT02246127|169184693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.19|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.19|0.90|0.135
84454392|NCT00848354|168659490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0264
84454393|NCT00848354|168659490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
84454394|NCT00848354|168659492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0005
84454395|NCT00848354|168659492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
84515464|NCT00796653|168784266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.203|0.125|<0.0001
84454396|NCT00848354|168659492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454397|NCT00848354|168659494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
84454398|NCT00848354|168659495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0061
84454399|NCT00848354|168659495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0730
84515465|NCT00796653|168784267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.084|<0.0001
84717651|NCT02246127|169184694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.75|0.77|0.474
84717652|NCT02246127|169184696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
84454400|NCT00848354|168659495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454401|NCT00848354|168659496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0066
84515466|NCT00796653|168784267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.112|<0.0001
84454402|NCT00848354|168659496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0036
84454403|NCT00848354|168659496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454404|NCT00848354|168659497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
84454405|NCT00848354|168659497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0013
84454406|NCT00848354|168659497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
84454407|NCT00848354|168659498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0021
84454408|NCT00848354|168659498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
84454409|NCT00848354|168659498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454410|NCT00848354|168659499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0062
84454411|NCT00848354|168659499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0007
84454412|NCT00848354|168659499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84454413|NCT00848354|168659500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
84454414|NCT00848354|168659500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0073
84454415|NCT00848354|168659500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
84515467|NCT00796653|168784267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.183|0.104|<0.0001
84515468|NCT00796653|168784268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.152|0.071|<0.0001
84717653|NCT02246127|169184698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.012
84454416|NCT00915343|168659503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862||Comparison of log S-cortisol AUC between OD and TID regimens was adjusted for both period effect and subject effect using generalized linear model (GLM) in statistical analysis system (SAS).|ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
84454417|NCT00915343|168659504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-111.989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|89.999|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||89.999|-133.980|<0.0001
84454418|NCT00915343|168659505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|110.417||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.755|204.078|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||204.078|16.755|0.0357
84454419|NCT00915343|168659506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-38.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.276|25.876|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||25.876|-50.276|<0.0001
84454420|NCT00915343|168659507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-65.782||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.201|22.362|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||22.362|-109.201|0.0033
84454421|NCT00915343|168659508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-148.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.469|-106.561|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-106.561|-189.469|<0.0001
84454422|NCT00915343|168659509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-108.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.193|-76.42|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-76.420|-140.193|<0.0001
84454423|NCT00915343|168659510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.27||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.512|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.512|0.028|0.0214
84454424|NCT00915343|168659511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-1.042||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.015|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.015|-2.098|0.0714
84454425|NCT00915343|168659512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.007||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.024|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.024|-0.038|0.6687
84717654|NCT02246127|169184699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
84717655|NCT02246127|169184700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.37|0.86|0.168
84717656|NCT02246127|169184702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.072
84454426|NCT00915343|168659513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.049||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.093|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.093|0.006|0.0280
84454427|NCT00915343|168659514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|5.509||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|10.268|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||10.268|0.751|0.0003
84454428|NCT00915343|168659515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.533|-7.067|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-7.067|-20.533|<0.0001
84454429|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.064||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.097|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h for TID treatment.|AUC0-4h||1.097|1.032|0.0002
84454430|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.675|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-12h for TID treatment.|AUC4-12h||0.675|0.563|<0.0001
84454431|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.525|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-12h for TID treatment.|AUC6-12h||0.525|0.424|<0.0001
84454432|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.588||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.775|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC12-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC12-24h for TID treatment.|AUC12-24h||0.775|0.446|0.0003
84454433|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.935|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h for TID treatment.|AUC0-10h||0.935|0.856|<0.0001
84454434|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.765|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-10h for TID treatment.|AUC4-10h||0.765|0.632|<0.0001
84454435|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.605|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-10h for TID treatment.|AUC6-10h||0.605|0.482|<0.0001
84454436|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.412|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.504|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC10-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC10-24h for TID treatment.|AUC10-24h||0.504|0.338|<0.0001
84454437|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.843|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(0-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(0-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(0-inf)||0.843|0.714|<0.0001
84454438|NCT00915343|168659516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.069||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.521|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(24h-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(24h-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(24h-inf)||2.521|0.453|0.8770
84454439|NCT00915343|168659517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau for OD treatment divided by AUCtau for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
84454440|NCT00915343|168659518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.851|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau/dose for OD treatment divided by AUCtau/dose for TID treatment.|||0.851|0.734|<0.0001
84454441|NCT00915343|168659519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.831|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.831|0.741|<0.0001
84717657|NCT02246127|169184704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.73|||Log Rank|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.73|0.94|0.079
84726434|NCT04454125|169204802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.5|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||16.5|0.47|0.26
84454442|NCT00915343|168659520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.885|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.926|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.926|0.844|<0.0001
84454443|NCT00915343|168659521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.086|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h/dose for TID treatment.|||1.086|1.020|0.0020
84454444|NCT00915343|168659522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|<0.0001
84454445|NCT00915343|168659523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|-0.001|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.001|-0.002|<0.0001
84454446|NCT00915343|168659524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.055||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.334|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.334|-0.444|0.7827
84454447|NCT00915343|168659525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|0.0015
84454448|NCT00915343|168659526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|12.646|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC Extrapolation for OD treatment divided by AUC Extrapolation for TID treatment.|||12.646|2.940|<0.0001
84454449|NCT00915343|168659527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|33.532||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734|65.329|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||65.329|1.734|0.0396
84454450|NCT00915343|168659528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.08||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.177|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.177|-0.017|0.1032
84515469|NCT00796653|168784268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.086|<0.0001
84717658|NCT03635567|169184705|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (hazard ratio \[HR\]) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.71|0.47|<0.0001
84454451|NCT00915343|168659529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.078||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.094|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Patient||0.094|-0.250|0.3767
84454452|NCT00915343|168659529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.064||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.107|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Investigator||0.107|-0.235|0.4625
84454453|NCT00915343|168659530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Patient||||0.6072
84454454|NCT00915343|168659530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Investigator||||1.0000
84454455|NCT00915343|168659531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.6||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.3332
84454456|NCT00915343|168659531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.9||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3405
84454457|NCT00915343|168659532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.8418
84454458|NCT00915343|168659532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3550
84454459|NCT00915343|168659533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-2.9||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0823
84454460|NCT00915343|168659534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5982
84454461|NCT00915343|168659535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|2.3||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0632
84454462|NCT00915343|168659536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.8676
84454463|NCT00915343|168659537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9700
84454464|NCT00915343|168659538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.2624
84454465|NCT00915343|168659539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84454466|NCT00915343|168659541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
84454467|NCT00915343|168659542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-272.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0034
84454468|NCT03434977|168659552|OTHER||Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.986||||||The shown data were ratio of fed conditions divided by fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the least square (LS) means difference (fed-fasted) or confidence interval (CI). The difference in LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||0.986|0.890|
84454469|NCT03434977|168659553|OTHER||LS-Means Difference|0.9083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1821|1.6345||||||The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (non-natural log) PK parameters tmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.6345|0.1821|
84515470|NCT00796653|168784268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.078|<0.0001
84454470|NCT03434977|168659554|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.943|
84454471|NCT03434977|168659555|OTHER||Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC∞ as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.942|
84454472|NCT03434977|168659556|OTHER||Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.041||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters T1/2z as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.041|0.932|
84454473|NCT03434977|168659557|OTHER||Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.091||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRTlast, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.091|1.006|
84454474|NCT03434977|168659558|OTHER||Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.081||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRT∞, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.081|0.996|
84454475|NCT03434977|168659559|OTHER||Ratio|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.071||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters λz as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.071|0.959|
84454476|NCT03434977|168659560|OTHER||Ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.062||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters CL/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.062|0.947|
84454477|NCT03434977|168659561|OTHER||Ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.068||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Vz/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.068|0.916|
84454478|NCT03266016|168659602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.77|||Proportional Odds Logistic Regression|||This analysis is comparing length of weaning between REDvent acute group and control acute group.||2.77|1.01|.045
84454479|NCT03266016|168659602|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6||||||Weaning Phase||2.6|0.7|
84515471|NCT00796653|168784269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.162|<0.0001
84515472|NCT00796653|168784269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.182|<0.0001
84454480|NCT03266016|168659603|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||||Negative binomial model.|||1.25|0.84|
84454481|NCT03266016|168659604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
84454482|NCT03266016|168659605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||||||||2.47|0.44|
84454483|NCT03266016|168659606|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55||||||||2.55|1.01|
84454484|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.010
84454485|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.932
84454486|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.853
84454487|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline-2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.032
84454488|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.001
84454489|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.750
84515473|NCT00796653|168784269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.198|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.334|0.198|<0.0001
84454490|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.810
84454491|NCT03160560|168659609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.006
84454492|NCT01978093|168659610|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations ≥1.0 mg/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.3|||Group difference in proportions|Before concluding on the primary objectives for Rotarix, Prevnar 13 and Havrix, this primary objective regarding anti-PRP needs to be reached||Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 1.0 µg/mL one month after the fourth dose in HibCY Group and third dose in PedHIB Group.||4.30|-2.12|
84454493|NCT01978093|168659611|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the ratio of anti-rotavirus IgA GMC (HibCY group over PedHIB group) is to be ≥0.5|Adjusted GMC ratios|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|1.9|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub-cohorts;97.5% confidence interval calculated for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 Post dose 3)\& Epoch 002 (Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used in order to test these objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for anti-Rota IgA concentrations 2 months after the second dose of Rotarix vaccine||1.90|0.77|
84454494|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio (Ancova Model: adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
84454495|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.42|0.93|
84454496|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.31|0.90|
84454497|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
84454498|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.63|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.63|1.03|
84454499|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|0.88|
84717659|NCT03635567|169184706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.50|<0.0001
84454500|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.34|0.91|
84454501|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|1.00|
84454502|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.50|0.90|
84454503|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.52|1.01|
84454504|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.43|0.94|
84454505|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.29|0.89|
84454506|NCT01978093|168659612|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.53|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.53|0.91|
84454507|NCT01978093|168659613|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations ≥15 mIU/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|3.91|||Group difference in proportions||To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 15 mIU/mL one month after the second Havrix dose.||3.91|-3.76|
84454508|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.04|1.51|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.51|1.04|
84726435|NCT04454125|169204803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits||0.76|0.24|0.004
84454509|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.24|0.83|
84454510|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.92|
84454511|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.28|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.28|0.87|
84454512|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.44|1.01|
84454513|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.36|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.36|0.94|
84454514|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.29|0.93|
84454515|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.33|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.33|0.94|
84454516|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.41|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.41|0.96|
84454517|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.35|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.35|0.97|
84717660|NCT03635567|169184707|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
84454518|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.90|
84454519|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB Group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.34|0.95|
84454520|NCT01978093|168659614|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.50|1.00|
84454521|NCT03193398|168659629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Difference in LS Means (BTRX-246040 - Placebo)||3.6|-6.3|0.5939
84515474|NCT00796653|168784270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.320|0.182|<0.0001
84515475|NCT00796653|168784270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.180|<0.0001
84515476|NCT00796653|168784270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
84454522|NCT03193398|168659630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Investigator-administered MADRS-6 Total Score at week 8||2.3|-4.4|0.5503
84717661|NCT03635567|169184708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
84717662|NCT03635567|169184709|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value based on log-rank test provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.77|0.52|<0.0001
84717663|NCT03635567|169184710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.78|0.44|<0.0001
84454523|NCT03193398|168659631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||2.8|-1.1|0.3906
84454524|NCT03193398|168659632|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1||+/-|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||3.1|-1.3|0.4187
84454525|NCT03193398|168659633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|5.5|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||5.5|-11.5|0.4869
84515477|NCT00796653|168784271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.159|<0.0001
84515478|NCT00796653|168784271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.317|0.177|<0.0001
84515479|NCT00796653|168784271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.345|0.205|<0.0001
84454526|NCT03193398|168659634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||4.7|-2.4|0.5178
84454527|NCT02653768|168659635|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.0||||||This analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 3-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||-2.0|-8.2|
84454528|NCT02653768|168659635|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3||||||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||2.3|-5.2|
84454529|NCT02653768|168659635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up. This is the primary outcome assessment time point.||-3.2|-10.5|0.0003
84454530|NCT02653768|168659636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up for the 30 second chair stand.||1.3|-0.6|0.43
84454531|NCT02653768|168659637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-6.1|0.23
84454532|NCT00584233|168659662|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical test will be to assess non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin is -0.04 in AUC. Key parameters are the number of participating patients, the number of radiologists reading the images in the study. Power analysis was conducted using the standard simulation from the ROC literature (Roe and Metz, Academic Radiology 1997). With a total of 100 participating patients and 4 participating readers, we achieve a power \>80% with a non-inferiority margin of -0.04.|Obuchowski Rockette methodology|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.975|||Obuchowski Rockette|||The analysis is intended to evaluate non-inferiority in observer performance between CE-bCT and CE-bMRI as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The null hypothesis is that the observed difference in average AUC for CE-bCT and CE-bMRI will be outside of a non-inferiority margin of -0.04. See below for details of the power analyses.||.975|.025|0.05
84454533|NCT01970176|168659665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
84454534|NCT01970176|168659666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
84454535|NCT01970176|168659667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84454536|NCT03237065|168659697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for stratum, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-49.8|-76.6|<0.0001
84454537|NCT03237065|168659698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan- Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.0511
84454538|NCT03237065|168659699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-31.6|-57.7|<0.0001
84478712|NCT03518034|168708747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.63||||||Month 12 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.63|0.64|
84478713|NCT03518034|168708747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.94||||||Month 24 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||1.94|0.42|
84478714|NCT03518034|168708747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The omnibus test p value is a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between AndroGel and placebo groups across all time points.|GEE Poisson regression model|||Risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the TRT versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||||0.197
84478715|NCT03518034|168708749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||||Cox proportional-hazards model.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a subject is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a clinical fracture. If a subject does not experience a clinic fracture during the study, the follow-up time is right-censored at the time of subject's last available follow-up observation.||1.97|1.04|
84454539|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.62|0.30|<0.0001
84454540|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.32|<0.0001
84454541|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.96|0.49|<0.0001
84454542|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.46|0.99|<0.0001
84454543|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.51|0.98|<0.0001
84454544|NCT03237065|168659700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.43|0.91|<0.0001
84454545|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|18.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||18.59|9.38|<0.0001
84454546|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.23|9.45|<0.0001
84454547|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|28.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.59|14.72|<0.0001
84454548|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.28|43.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.06|29.28|<0.0001
84454549|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|45.72|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.72|29.99|<0.0001
84515480|NCT00796653|168784272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.270|0.128|<0.0001
84515481|NCT00796653|168784272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.283|0.142|<0.0001
84454550|NCT03237065|168659701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|42.26|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||42.26|26.80|<0.0001
84454551|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|-73.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-73.8|-119.8|<0.0001
84454552|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.4|-34.9|0.1064
84454553|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-251.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.2|-196.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-196.2|-307.2|<0.0001
84454554|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.7|-54.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.5|-103.7|<0.0001
84454555|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-40.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.5|-83.0|<0.0001
84454556|NCT03237065|168659703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.9|-30.1|0.0039
84454557|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.5||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.1|16.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.1|-131.1|0.1243
84454558|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|91.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||91.0|-49.7|0.5547
84454559|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.7|-76.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-76.6|-234.7|0.0005
84454560|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|31.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||31.5|-86.0|0.3516
84454561|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|13.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.7|-62.3|0.1988
84454562|NCT03237065|168659704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|41.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.2|-18.6|0.4379
84454563|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.70|-1.06|0.6869
84454564|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.22|-2.29|0.1037
84454565|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.25|-2.99|0.0213
84454566|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.34|-3.47|0.0176
84454567|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.27|-3.01|0.0999
84454568|NCT03237065|168659705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-1.77|0.8878
84478716|NCT03518034|168708750|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test|||Repeated measures log-binomial regression with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and adjusted for pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.002
84478717|NCT03518034|168708751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|Repeated measures log-binomial regr.|||The risk ratio of progression to diabetes in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures log-binomial regression with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, and pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.494
84478718|NCT03518034|168708752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.23|0.78|
84478719|NCT03518034|168708753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.62|0.76|
84478720|NCT03518034|168708754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.32|0.92|
84478721|NCT03518034|168708755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.51|0.56|
84478722|NCT03518034|168708756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.31|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.31|0.55|
84478723|NCT03518034|168708757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.42|0.47|
84478724|NCT03518034|168708758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.41|0.65|
84478725|NCT03518034|168708759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.54|0.87|
84478726|NCT03518034|168708760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.84|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||3.84|0.95|
84478727|NCT00510484|168708787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84454569|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.66|25.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||25.95|17.66|<0.0001
84454570|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|13.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.33|-4.05|0.2923
84454571|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|26.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||26.74|12.37|<0.0001
84454572|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|40.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||40.14|25.96|<0.0001
84454573|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.43|14.20|<0.0001
84454574|NCT03237065|168659706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|16.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.90|1.16|0.0250
84454575|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.11|-0.22|0.5134
84478728|NCT00510484|168708788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478729|NCT00510484|168708789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478730|NCT00510484|168708790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478731|NCT00510484|168708791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478732|NCT00510484|168708792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478733|NCT00510484|168708793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.013
84478734|NCT00510484|168708794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
84478735|NCT00881361|168708873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84478736|NCT03819478|168708928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4880
84478737|NCT03819478|168708928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1683
84478738|NCT03819478|168708929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7636|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.7636
84478739|NCT03819478|168708930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1584|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1584
84478740|NCT03819478|168708930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1623|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1623
84478741|NCT03819478|168708931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0350
84478742|NCT03819478|168708932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2422|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.2422
84478743|NCT03819478|168708932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5082|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5082
84454576|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.32|-0.24|0.7579
84454577|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|-0.41|0.3169
84454578|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.18|-0.76|0.0018
84454579|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.24|-0.77|0.0003
84454580|NCT03237065|168659707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.50|0.1063
84454581|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|11.85|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.85|-2.72|0.2166
84454582|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.19|-13.47|0.2997
84454583|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|8.56|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||8.56|-7.75|0.9221
84454584|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.69||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-5.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.32|-26.07|0.0034
84454585|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.93|-11.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-11.16|-33.93|0.0002
84515482|NCT00796653|168784272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.312|0.170|<0.0001
84515483|NCT00796653|168784273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.290|0.146|<0.0001
84717664|NCT03635567|169184711|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|22.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||22.3|7.4|0.0001
84454586|NCT03237065|168659708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.42|-14.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-14.21|-35.42|<0.0001
84454587|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.03|-0.10|0.3048
84454588|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.13|-0.02|0.1641
84454589|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.02|0.1333
84454590|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.16|-0.17|0.9385
84454591|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|0.00|0.0408
84454592|NCT03237065|168659709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.03|0.2376
84454593|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.67|0.0882
84454594|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.06|-0.74|0.0941
84454595|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.66|-0.02|0.0628
84454596|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.79|0.14|0.0056
84454597|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.55|0.00|0.0492
84454598|NCT03237065|168659711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.64|-0.05|0.0882
84454599|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|22.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.3|-35.3|0.6568
84454600|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|45.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.5|-94.0|0.4929
84454601|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.3|-21.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-21.1|-162.3|0.0113
84454602|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.4|-162.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-162.3|-318.4|<0.0001
84454603|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-196.1|-74.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-74.0|-196.1|<0.0001
84454604|NCT03237065|168659712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.2|-22.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-22.2|-113.2|0.0039
84454605|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|48.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||48.5|-0.0|0.0503
84454606|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.8|-5.5|0.5794
84454607|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-54.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.3|-70.1|<0.0001
84478744|NCT03819478|168708933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5119
84478745|NCT03819478|168708933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4902
84478746|NCT03819478|168708934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.8500
84478747|NCT03819478|168708935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3685|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.3685
84478748|NCT03819478|168708935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0894
84478749|NCT03819478|168708936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5334|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5334
84478750|NCT03819478|168708937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1573
84478751|NCT00091962|168708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||repeated measures mixed-effect model with treatment, time (4 time points), and sex; all 2- and 3-factor interaction terms with subject intercepts were treated as a random effect to account for individual differences at randomization.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84454608|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-3.5|-10.4|0.0001
84454609|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-2.4|-9.1|0.0008
84454610|NCT03237065|168659713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.6|-8.1|0.0040
84454611|NCT03237065|168659714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-2.6|-18.8|0.0090
84454612|NCT04317274|168659721|OTHER||Slope|-0.19||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Note: original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the high cholesterol group.||||0.21
84454613|NCT04317274|168659721|OTHER||Slope|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the colorectal cancer group.||||<0.001
84454614|NCT04317274|168659722|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the high cholesterol group.||||<.001
84454615|NCT04317274|168659722|OTHER||Slope|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient]|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the colorectal cancer group.||||<.001
84454616|NCT02161211|168659737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Chi-squared|df = 2||Null hypothesis = no difference in frequency in relapse between groups||||.673
84454617|NCT02161211|168659738|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|-0.278||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.084|||Wald Chi-squared|Negative binomial regression with offset of natural log of possible drinking days||||.084|-.64|.133
84454618|NCT02161211|168659738|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|0.101||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||Wald Chi-squared|||||.44|-.24|.562
84454619|NCT02161211|168659739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|F(2,105) = .019||||||.982
84454620|NCT02161211|168659740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion between the groups||||.685
84454621|NCT02161211|168659741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no significant difference in frequency of hazardous drinking between groups||||.608
84454622|NCT03439033|168659756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||McNemar||Risk difference reflects PSMA PET/MRI Scan detection proportion minus MRI scan detection proportion.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
84454623|NCT00993031|168659766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Chi-squared|||||2.67|.26|.76
84454624|NCT00993031|168659767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|.29|.76
84454625|NCT00993031|168659768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|.36|.45
84454626|NCT00993031|168659770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|.89|.21
84454627|NCT00993031|168659771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Chi-squared|||||1.83|.98|.06
84454628|NCT01834729|168659782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.78
84454629|NCT01834729|168659783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.57
84454630|NCT00288080|168659784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398|||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect an improvement in the 4-year overall survival rate from 86% (AS+RT) to 93% (AS+RT+CT). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, then an absolute improvement of 7% in the 4-year overall survival rate translates to a 51% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.49) in the yearly death rate. Under a 1-sided significance level of 0.05 and 90% power, at least 78 deaths and 486 cases were required to perform the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0398
84454631|NCT00288080|168659785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Biochemical control rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-sided log-rank test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.22
84454632|NCT00288080|168659787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||Distant failure rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-side log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.21
84454633|NCT00288080|168659788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0484|||||||Log Rank|||Disease-free survival rates were compared by a two-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0484
84454634|NCT00087646|168659805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Group A Vs Group D||3.31|1.21|0.0060
84454635|NCT00087646|168659806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.51|0.63|0.9228
84454636|NCT00087646|168659807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|1.40|0.0006
84454637|NCT00087646|168659808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 12||4.18|1.66|<.0001
84454638|NCT00087646|168659808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24||1.79|0.89|0.1955
84454639|NCT00087646|168659808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48||1.93|0.95|0.0883
84454640|NCT00087646|168659809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 12)||3.19|1.67|<.0001
84454641|NCT00087646|168659809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 24)||1.60|0.85|0.3389
84454642|NCT01331304|168659813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Because this study has co-primary outcomes (CGI-EI and NCAs), the analyses of the treatment effect in the two primary hypotheses each involved a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the first co-primary aim, mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessments of the CGI-EI over 6 months.||||0.59
84454643|NCT01331304|168659814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the second co-primary, patient monthly rates of NCAs (determined by dividing total number of NCAs during follow-up by the length of follow-up - to account for attrition and resulting differential exposure time) for treatment groups were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.118
84454644|NCT01331304|168659815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated collection of measures relevant to calculation of the Framingham Risk Score over 6 months||||0.11
84454645|NCT01331304|168659816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessment of the LIFE-RIFT over 6 months||||0.70
84454646|NCT04925752|168659836|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|<0.0001
84454647|NCT04925752|168659836|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|< 0.0001
84454648|NCT04925752|168659837|OTHER|Null Hypothesis 03: LEN - F/TDF\>= 0.8/100PY; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN is not substantially greater than F/TDF (LEN is comparable to F/TDF).|Rate difference|-0.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|-0.255||p-value for rate difference (SC LEN minus F/TDF) is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI for rate difference versus F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.255|-1.669|<0.0001
84454649|NCT04925752|168659837|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.111||||0.00245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.513||P-value for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||Confidence interval for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Null Hypothesis 04: LEN vs F/TDF\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than F/TDF.||0.513|0.024|0.00245
84454650|NCT04202679|168659930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||5.00|1.08|0.0216
84454651|NCT04202679|168659931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|22.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.66|3.56|<0.0001
84454652|NCT04202679|168659932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.55||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||9.55|2.02|<0.0001
84454653|NCT04202679|168659933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|18.11||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05||18.11|2.03|0.0001
84454654|NCT04202679|168659934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.52||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||7.52|1.13|0.0194
84454655|NCT04202679|168659935|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.81|-12.51||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-12.51|-33.81|<0.0001
84454656|NCT04202679|168659936|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-4.36||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.36|-8.42|<0.0001
84454657|NCT04202679|168659937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.73||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.73|-2.49|0.0003
84454658|NCT04202679|168659938|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.30|-0.22|0.1658
84454659|NCT04202679|168659946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.04||Threshold of significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|||-0.04|-1.18|0.0370
84454660|NCT00762515|168659972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline is used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84454661|NCT00762515|168659973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline to be used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
84454662|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|18.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.97|21.67||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||21.67|14.97|<.001
84454663|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|62.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.21|67.74||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||67.74|58.21|<.001
84454664|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.11||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.33||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||2.33|-0.10|0.128
84515484|NCT00796653|168784273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.166|<0.0001
84454665|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|88.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.77|90.76||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||90.76|85.77|<.001
84454666|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.51|55.23||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||55.23|34.51|<.001
84454667|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-17.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.21|-13.25||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-13.25|-21.21|<.001
84454668|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.46|82.2||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||82.20|58.46|<.001
84454669|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-61.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.76|-55.18||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-55.18|-68.76|<.001
84454670|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.37|35.48||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||35.48|15.37|<.001
84454671|NCT01582308|168659985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|87.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|94.61||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||94.61|80.06|<.001
84454672|NCT01354028|168660056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1303||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom =1||"Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in sleep efficiency in preterm infants on the day of massage versus the day without massage.~Power calculation: the sample size was determined by convenience for this pilot study"||||0.1303
84515485|NCT00796653|168784273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.292|0.148|<0.0001
84454673|NCT01354028|168660059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Pearson's chi square|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in massage therapy or no massage therapy in number of infants who will be asleep at the end of massage or the corresponding time frame on the non massage day.~Pearson's chi square=4.98"||||0.026
84454674|NCT05425563|168660084|OTHER||Slope|8.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8792|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
84454675|NCT05425563|168660085|OTHER||Slope|8.0809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
84454676|NCT05425563|168660086|OTHER||Slope|8.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
84454677|NCT05425563|168660093|OTHER||Slope|34.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
84454678|NCT05425563|168660094|OTHER||Slope|33.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
84454679|NCT05425563|168660095|OTHER||Slope|31.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
84454680|NCT01087541|168660109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.01||95.0|0.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|0|<0.01
84454681|NCT01087541|168660111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|2|<0.001
84454682|NCT01340209|168660141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.106|-0.082|0.7971
84454683|NCT01340209|168660141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.207|0.018|0.0203
84454684|NCT01340209|168660142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.068|-0.141|0.4944
84454685|NCT01340209|168660142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.188|-0.023|0.1270
84454686|NCT01340209|168660143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.282||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.634|24.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||24.630|-23.634|0.9677
84454687|NCT01340209|168660143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|34.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.346||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.919|58.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium Respimat 5 μg minus placebo||58.432|9.919|0.0058
84454688|NCT01340209|168660144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.388|26.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||26.680|-9.388|0.3468
84454689|NCT01340209|168660144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.238||0.5013||95.0|-11.927|24.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||24.359|-11.927|0.5013
84454690|NCT01340209|168660145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.196||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.601|29.517|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||29.517|-6.601|0.2132
84454691|NCT01340209|168660145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.245||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.759|34.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||34.555|-1.759|0.0766
84454692|NCT01340209|168660146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.637|1.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||1.436|-2.637|0.5629
84454693|NCT01340209|168660146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|2.601|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||2.601|-1.473|0.5871
84454694|NCT01394705|168660171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.65
84454695|NCT01394705|168660171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84454696|NCT01394705|168660172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84454697|NCT00353418|168660180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6119||95.0|0.68|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Sample sizes of 133 and 267 patients for RBV 800 mg daily and RBV 1000 or 1200 mg daily, respectively, provided the following probabilities of detecting the specified differences in SVR with a 0.05 level two-sided chi-square test of significance:~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.40; Probability - 0.49~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.45; Probability - 0.83"||1.93|0.68|0.6119
84454698|NCT04428411|168660203|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84726436|NCT04454125|169204803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.31|0.05|<0.0001
84454699|NCT04428411|168660204|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84454700|NCT04428411|168660205|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84454701|NCT04428411|168660206|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84454702|NCT04428411|168660207|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84454703|NCT04428411|168660208|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84454704|NCT04428411|168660209|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84454705|NCT04428411|168660210|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84454706|NCT04428411|168660211|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84454707|NCT04428411|168660212|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
84454708|NCT04428411|168660212|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
84454709|NCT04428411|168660213|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
84454710|NCT04428411|168660213|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
84454711|NCT04428411|168660214|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
84454712|NCT04428411|168660214|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
84454713|NCT02918019|168660225|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.39|0.0049
84454714|NCT02918019|168660225|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.54|0.1838
84454715|NCT02918019|168660225|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.63||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.91|||Poisson regression|||||0.91|0.44|0.0144
84454716|NCT00662792|168660226|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.158|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-12||0.158|0.102|<0.0001
84454717|NCT00662792|168660226|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.097|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs Tiotropium (Tio18GEL) for FEV1 AUC0- 12||0.097|0.042|<.0001
84454718|NCT00662792|168660226|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.004|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.004|-0.052|0.0914
84454719|NCT00662792|168660227|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-Inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
84454720|NCT00662792|168660227|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
84454721|NCT00662792|168660227|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.028|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.028|-0.086|0.0001
84454722|NCT00662792|168660228|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.166|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of Peak FEV1||0.166|0.102|<.0001
84454723|NCT00662792|168660228|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.098|||ANOVA|Analysis of with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of PeakFEV1.||0.098|0.034|<.0001
84454724|NCT00662792|168660228|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.006|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.006|-0.058|0.1093
84454725|NCT00662792|168660229|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Differences of adjusted means|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.092|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of trough FEV1||0.092|0.024|0.0008
84454726|NCT00662792|168660229|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as a delta of 0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.063|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of trough FEV1||0.063|-0.004|0.0857
84454727|NCT00662792|168660229|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.003|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.003|-0.071|0.0317
84454728|NCT00662792|168660230|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.124|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-24||0.124|0.071|<.0001
84454729|NCT00662792|168660230|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.093|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) for FEV1 AUC24||0.093|0.041|<.0001
84454730|NCT00662792|168660230|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|-0.014|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.014|-0.067|0.0029
84454731|NCT00662792|168660231|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.132|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.132|0.034|0.0010
84515486|NCT00796653|168784274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.018|0.0133
84515487|NCT00796653|168784274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.073|<0.0001
84454732|NCT00662792|168660231|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.226|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.226|0.127|<.0001
84454733|NCT00662792|168660231|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.005|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.005|-0.095|0.0757
84454734|NCT00662792|168660232|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.137|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.137|0.033|0.0015
84454735|NCT00662792|168660232|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.171|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.171|0.066|<.0001
84454736|NCT00662792|168660232|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.032|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.032|-0.138|0.0017
84454737|NCT00662792|168660233|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.131|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.131|0.037|0.0005
84454738|NCT00662792|168660233|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.194|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.194|0.100|<.0001
84454739|NCT00662792|168660233|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.018|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.018|-0.113|0.0074
84454740|NCT00662792|168660234|SUPERIORITY||Differences of adjusted means|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.109|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.109|-0.008|0.0898
84454741|NCT00662792|168660234|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.201|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.201|0.083|<.0001
84454742|NCT00662792|168660234|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.002|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.002|-0.116|0.0601
84454743|NCT00662792|168660235|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.033|-0.089|0.3652
84454744|NCT00662792|168660235|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.103|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.103|-0.020|0.1816
84515488|NCT00796653|168784274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0212||95.0|0.012|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.151|0.012|0.0212
84454745|NCT00662792|168660235|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.033|-0.157|0.0026
84454746|NCT00662792|168660236|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||16.8|6.9|<.0001
84454747|NCT00662792|168660236|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|29.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||29.2|19.2|<.0001
84454748|NCT00662792|168660236|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||1.6|-8.5|0.1804
84454749|NCT00662792|168660237|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|3.5|0.0008
84454750|NCT00662792|168660237|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||15.5|5.6|<.0001
84454751|NCT00662792|168660237|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-8.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-8.0|-17.9|<.0001
84454752|NCT00662792|168660238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||14.6|5.7|<.0001
84454753|NCT00662792|168660238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|21.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||21.9|12.9|<.0001
84515489|NCT00796653|168784275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0004||95.0|0.057|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.057|0.0004
84454754|NCT00662792|168660238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-3.7|-12.7|0.0004
84454755|NCT00662792|168660239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|18.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||18.9|7.2|<.0001
84454756|NCT00662792|168660239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|28.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||28.9|17.2|<.0001
84454757|NCT00662792|168660239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.6|-11.2|0.0769
84454758|NCT00662792|168660240|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||9.1|-3.5|0.3775
84454759|NCT00662792|168660240|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|0.7|0.0285
84454760|NCT00662792|168660240|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-2.5|-15.2|0.0065
84454761|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning PEF||10.4|1.0|0.0182
84454762|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning PEF||11.1|1.6|0.0091
84454763|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning PEF||-3.3|-12.8|0.0010
84515490|NCT00796653|168784275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012||95.0|0.045|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.045|0.0012
84515491|NCT00796653|168784275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0056||95.0|0.029|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.169|0.029|0.0056
84717665|NCT03635567|169184714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
84454764|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening PEF||16.2|5.8|<.0001
84454765|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|28.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening PEF||28.6|18.1|<.0001
84454766|NCT00662792|168660244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening PEF||6.8|-3.8|0.5766
84454767|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.071|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning FEV1||0.071|0.008|0.0137
84454768|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.059|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.059|-0.005|0.0981
84454769|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.010|-0.054|0.1827
84454770|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.092|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening FEV1||0.092|0.022|0.0014
84515492|NCT00796653|168784276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0045||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0045
84515493|NCT00796653|168784276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0046||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0046
84454771|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.140|0.070|<.0001
84454772|NCT00662792|168660245|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.056|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.056|-0.015|0.2584
84454773|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.02|-0.11|0.0027
84454774|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||0.03|-0.06|0.4587
84454775|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.08|-0.01|0.1535
84454776|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.05|-0.14|0.0002
84454777|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.14|0.0006
84454778|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.06|0.5784
84454779|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|24 hours||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
84454780|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|24 hours||-0.02|-0.12|0.0042
84515494|NCT00796653|168784276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0023||95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.181|0.039|0.0023
84717666|NCT04310423|169184720|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interaction for alcohol cue-induced alcohol craving.||||0.036
84454781|NCT00662792|168660246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|24 hours||0.05|-0.05|0.9978
84454782|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.11|-0.55|0.0029
84454783|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||-0.14|-0.58|0.0012
84454784|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.25|-0.02|0.0829
84454785|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.30|0.0115
84454786|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.22|0.1772
84454787|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.27|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.27|-0.18|0.6895
84454788|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Over 24 hours||-0.21|-0.84|0.0013
84454789|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Over 24 hours||-0.15|-0.78|0.0040
84454790|NCT00662792|168660247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Over 24 hours||0.48|-0.16|0.3287
84515495|NCT00796653|168784277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0077||95.0|0.026|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.169|0.026|0.0077
84717667|NCT04310423|169184721|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way Treatment x Time interaction||||>0.05
84717668|NCT04310423|169184722|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
84454791|NCT00662792|168660248|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.03|0.9956
84454792|NCT00662792|168660248|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7100
84454793|NCT00662792|168660248|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.04|-0.02|0.3659
84454794|NCT00662792|168660249|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.02|-0.04|0.4416
84454795|NCT00662792|168660249|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7058
84454796|NCT00662792|168660249|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.05|-0.01|0.1494
84454797|NCT00662792|168660250|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.06|-0.06|0.9980
84454798|NCT00662792|168660250|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.08|-0.04|0.4618
84454799|NCT00662792|168660250|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.12|0.00|0.0418
84454800|NCT00662792|168660251|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.08|0.4206
84515496|NCT00796653|168784277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0009||95.0|0.05|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.050|0.0009
84515497|NCT00796653|168784277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0339||95.0|0.006|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.149|0.006|0.0339
84454801|NCT00662792|168660251|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.06|-0.05|0.8723
84454802|NCT00662792|168660251|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.11|-0.01|0.1005
84454803|NCT00094757|168660270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)|ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-0.82|<0.001
84454804|NCT00094757|168660270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.26|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)||||-0.26|-0.70|<0.001
84454805|NCT00094757|168660271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-8.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-8.9|-30.5|<0.001
84454806|NCT00094757|168660271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-6.1|-27.6|<0.002
84454807|NCT03021642|168660274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.67|103.96||||||||103.96|93.67|
84454808|NCT03021642|168660275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.43|103.59||||||||103.59|88.43|
84454809|NCT03021642|168660276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|103.36||||||||103.36|90.8|
84454810|NCT03021642|168660277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.025|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.025|-1.000|0.8981
84454811|NCT02474082|168660302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|35.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.40|7.79|<.0001
84454812|NCT03285243|168660442|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori, All p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84454813|NCT03285243|168660443|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori, all p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
84454814|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.56|-77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.11|-81.56|<0.0001
84454815|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-87.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.8|-85.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-85.84|-88.80|<0.0001
84515498|NCT00796653|168784278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0718||95.0|-0.006|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.006|0.0718
84454816|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-85.65|-81.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.78|-85.65|<0.0001
84454817|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.15|-90.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-90.98|-93.15|<0.0001
84454818|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.64|-82.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-82.74|-86.64|<0.0001
84454819|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.85|-91.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-91.74|-93.85|<0.0001
84454820|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.69|-76.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.96|-81.69|<0.0001
84454821|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-88.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.06|-87.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-87.18|-90.06|<0.0001
84454822|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.11|-76.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.52|-81.11|<0.0001
84454823|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-86.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.82|-84.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.55|-87.82|<0.0001
84717669|NCT04310423|169184723|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
84717670|NCT04310423|169184724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Main effect of treatment on alcohol cue-elicited brain activation||||<0.001
84454824|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|-77.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.78|-81.36|<0.0001
84454825|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.34|-83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-83.50|-86.34|<0.0001
84454826|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|72.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|55.37|92.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||92.40|55.37|<0.0001
84454827|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|98.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|75.92|122.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||122.96|75.92|<0.0001
84454828|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-80.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.84|-78.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-78.33|-81.84|<0.0001
84454829|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.92|-81.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.69|-84.92|<0.0001
84454830|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.06|-76.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate||-76.62|-80.06|<0.0001
84454831|NCT02793232|168660495|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-85.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.57|-84.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.05|-86.57|<0.0001
84454832|NCT04849780|168660496|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean change from baseline overall comfort. Sample size was determined using a 2-sided Satterthwaite t-test assuming unequal variances with an alpha level of 5%. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Population Mean Difference|29.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.602|33.732|||Bootstrapping methods||Population Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2|||33.732|24.602|
84454833|NCT04849780|168660497|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.6|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-8.6|-12.7|
84454834|NCT04849780|168660498|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|LS Mean|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|32.9|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A), minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||32.9|19.0|
84717671|NCT03884101|169184756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5550121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.24|0.83|0.5550121
84717672|NCT03884101|169184757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1792058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.10|0.77|0.1792058
84454835|NCT04849780|168660499|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-7.0|||Heterogeneous mixed model analysis||Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A) minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-7.0|-10.1|
84515499|NCT00796653|168784278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0863||95.0|-0.009|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.009|0.0863
84515500|NCT00796653|168784278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2982||95.0|-0.034|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.034|0.2982
84515501|NCT00796653|168784279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.019||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0190
84515502|NCT00796653|168784279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0601||95.0|-0.003|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.003|0.0601
84515503|NCT00796653|168784279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2573||95.0|-0.031|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.031|0.2573
84515504|NCT00796653|168784280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.02||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0200
84515505|NCT00796653|168784280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.047|0.0013
84515506|NCT00796653|168784280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1598||95.0|-0.021|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.126|-0.021|0.1598
84515507|NCT00796653|168784281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0307||95.0|0.008|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.008|0.0307
84515508|NCT00796653|168784281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0073||95.0|0.027|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.027|0.0073
84515509|NCT00796653|168784281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3147||95.0|-0.036|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.036|0.3147
84717673|NCT03884101|169184758|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.2459875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.2459875
84454836|NCT03979274|168660505|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.68||||||||102.68|94.55|
84454837|NCT03979274|168660506|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.34|104.26||||||||104.26|91.34|
84515510|NCT00796653|168784282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.160|<0.0001
84515511|NCT00796653|168784282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.156|<0.0001
84515512|NCT00796653|168784282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.321|0.175|<0.0001
84515513|NCT00796653|168784283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.174|<0.0001
84515514|NCT00796653|168784283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.148|<0.0001
84454838|NCT03979274|168660509|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.03||||||||101.03|98.45|
84454839|NCT03979274|168660510|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.7|100.85||||||||100.85|97.70|
84454840|NCT02302963|168660516|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|||||<|0.001|||||||GLM Repeated Measures|Repeated-measures general linear model was used to compare HCLC versus SAP data. A P-value of \< 0.001 was considered the threshold for significance.||||||<0.001
84454841|NCT00535925|168660517|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Cox Shared Frailty Model, adjusted for age, sex, SBP, Hb, eGFR, albuminuria, HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides (log-scaled) to reduce bias risk.||||||<0.05
84454842|NCT01724528|168660540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-196.794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-154.988|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||-154.988|-238.600|<0.0001
84454843|NCT01724528|168660541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|4.097||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6467|8.8406|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||8.8406|-0.6467|0.0903
84454844|NCT01724528|168660542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0231||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0153|0.0654|||Wilson's confidence interval|||||0.0654|-0.0153|0.1993
84454845|NCT01724528|168660543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.875||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4408|1.7369|||Chi-squared|||||1.7369|0.4408|0.8488
84454846|NCT01724528|168660544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.994||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9691|1.0199|||Chi-squared|||||1.0199|0.9691|1.0000
84454847|NCT00466310|168660546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted p value is .0041|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A wilcoxon rank sum test was performed comparing baseline plasmalogen values, comparing schizophrenia subjects vs controls.P values from this analysis were adjusted for false discovery rates by the method of Storey and Tribshiani.||||0.0149
84717674|NCT03884101|169184758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5875597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.5875597
84717675|NCT03884101|169184759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.12|0.77|0.21552
84717676|NCT03884101|169184760|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.2||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||3.5|-11.9|0.8569
84454848|NCT05574062|168660547|NON_INFERIORITY|-7.5% non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|
84515515|NCT00796653|168784283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.328|0.180|<0.0001
84515516|NCT00796653|168784284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.141|<0.0001
84454849|NCT05574062|168660548|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|
84454850|NCT05574062|168660549|NON_INFERIORITY|non- inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|
84454851|NCT05574062|168660550|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|<.0001
84454852|NCT05574062|168660551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|<.0001
84454853|NCT05574062|168660552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|0.1097
84454854|NCT05574062|168660553|NON_INFERIORITY|non inferiority margin of -7.5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|
84454855|NCT05574062|168660554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|0.0581
84454856|NCT06033079|168660582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.95||||||||2.95|0.32|
84454857|NCT06033079|168660583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
84454858|NCT06033079|168660584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.37||||||||2.37|0.30|
84454859|NCT06033079|168660585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.82||||||||1.82|0.32|
84454860|NCT06033079|168660586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.51||||||||7.51|0.34|
84454861|NCT06033079|168660587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.42||||||||1.42|0.13|
84454862|NCT06033079|168660588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.9||||||||7.90|0.41|
84454863|NCT03048422|168660653|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||||||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|
84454864|NCT03048422|168660653|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.3||||||Difference in proportions for per-protocol analysis.||10.3|1.6|
84454865|NCT03048422|168660653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for superiority and intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|0.005
84454866|NCT03048422|168660654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
84454867|NCT03048422|168660654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.1|-8.8|0.97
84454868|NCT03048422|168660654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-17.1|0.047
84478752|NCT02146248|168708959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||||||The two-tailed P value equals 0.4795|McNemar|||McNemar paired. Hypothesis is no change in tubal patency status. All subjects know to have bilateral patency in one of the exams during natural cycle||||0.4795
84478753|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0059||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||0.0059|
84478754|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0431||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0431|
84478755|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.056||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0560|
84478756|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0215||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0215|
84478757|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0371||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0371|
84478758|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0037||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0037|
84478759|NCT01033487|168708991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|0.0062||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||0.0062|
84478760|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0676||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0676|
84478761|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0245|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1431||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1431|
84478762|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1594||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1594|
84478763|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1222||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1222|
84478764|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0239|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0849||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0849|
84478765|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0238|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0088||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0088|
84478766|NCT01033487|168709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0068||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0068|
84478767|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0576||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0576|
84478768|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1136||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1136|
84478769|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1413||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1413|
84478770|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0212|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1252||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1252|
84478771|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0946||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0946|
84454869|NCT03048422|168660655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.9|-14.2|0.098
84454870|NCT03048422|168660655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|11.7|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.7|-5.9|0.26
84454871|NCT03048422|168660655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.8|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||5.8|-11.3|0.26
84454872|NCT03048422|168660656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|6.3|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.||6.3|-12.8|0.25
84454873|NCT03048422|168660656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-12.1|0.32
84454874|NCT03048422|168660656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||3.2|-14.3|0.11
84454875|NCT03048422|168660657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions between arms for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||22.0|9.3|< 0.0001
84454876|NCT03048422|168660658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF).||3.2|-3.3|0.97
84454877|NCT03048422|168660659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||3.1|1.9|< 0.001
84454878|NCT03048422|168660660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||9.1|-1.8|0.19
84515517|NCT00796653|168784284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.300|0.151|<0.0001
84515518|NCT00796653|168784284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
84515519|NCT00796653|168784285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.106|<0.0001
84454879|NCT03048422|168660660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-5.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-5.2|-17.9|< 0.001
84717677|NCT03884101|169184761|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||6.7|-6.7|0.4999
84454880|NCT03048422|168660660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.2|-14.6|0.022
84454881|NCT03048422|168660661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.1|-5.9|0.61
84454882|NCT03048422|168660661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||6.6|-9.4|0.74
84454883|NCT03048422|168660661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.8|-7.4|0.86
84515520|NCT00796653|168784285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.105|<0.0001
84515521|NCT00796653|168784285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.283|0.132|<0.0001
84717678|NCT03884101|169184762|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.77||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||cLDA model|||||-0.36|-7.17|0.0302
84454884|NCT03048422|168660662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.9|-3.4|0.27
84454885|NCT03048422|168660663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference combined DTG arms-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-7.6|0.49
84454886|NCT03048422|168660664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.0|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of combined DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF.||12.0|-3.8|0.15
84454887|NCT03048422|168660665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
84454888|NCT03048422|168660665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.6|-9.3|0.95
84454889|NCT03048422|168660665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-17.6|0.037
84454890|NCT03048422|168660666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.06|0.50|0.095
84454891|NCT03048422|168660666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.19|0.58|0.30
84454892|NCT03048422|168660666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.88|0.42|0.008
84454893|NCT03048422|168660667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.1|-1.2|0.28
84515522|NCT00796653|168784286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.111|<0.0001
84717679|NCT03884101|169184763|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.29||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|0.72|||cLDA model|||||0.72|-5.31|0.1355
84454894|NCT03048422|168660667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.4|-1.5|0.47
84454895|NCT03048422|168660667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||2.2|-1.3|0.31
84454896|NCT03048422|168660668|SUPERIORITY|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||Z-test|||||1.3|-3.4|0.20
84454897|NCT03048422|168660668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-0.9|-8.9|0.008
84454898|NCT03048422|168660668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-2.2|-9.7|<0.001
84454899|NCT03048422|168660669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.023|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.023|-0.208|0.12
84454900|NCT03048422|168660669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.158|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.158|-0.061|0.39
84515523|NCT00796653|168784286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.138|<0.0001
84515524|NCT00796653|168784286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.269|0.115|<0.0001
84515525|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.435||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.004|22.411|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.411|5.004|0.0021
84454901|NCT03048422|168660669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.072|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.072|-0.161|0.45
84454902|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.5|-11.3|0.94
84454903|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||14.9|-6.5|0.44
84454904|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.3|-1.8|0.18
84454905|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||31.1|-8.9|0.27
84454906|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-22.6|0.048
84454907|NCT03048422|168660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||20.5|-21.0|0.98
84515526|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.158|29.584|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||29.584|12.158|<0.0001
84515527|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.506|22.991|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.991|5.506|0.0014
84717680|NCT03370913|169184768|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction from Baseline|-77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were for 2-sided test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|Superiority was tested by1-sample t-test to test null hypothesis that change is \>=0. Only negative changes represent efficacy.|77% reduction|Change from baseline in the ABR for all bleeds (post-baseline EEP value - baseline value)||||<0.0001
84717681|NCT06603766|169184776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
84454908|NCT03048422|168660671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.3|-3.1|0.40
84454909|NCT03048422|168660671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-8.0|0.023
84454910|NCT03048422|168660671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.8|-8.7|0.003
84454911|NCT03048422|168660673|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-8.8|0.16
84454912|NCT03048422|168660673|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.3|-8.7|0.38
84454913|NCT03048422|168660673|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||||-0.9|-11.8|0.023
84454914|NCT03048422|168660674|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-13.9|0.12
84454915|NCT03048422|168660674|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||||10.0|-6.0|0.63
84454916|NCT03048422|168660674|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.4|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.4|-11.7|0.28
84454917|NCT03048422|168660675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.103|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.103|0.013|0.011
84454918|NCT03048422|168660675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|-0.014|0.19
84454919|NCT03048422|168660675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.133|0.040|< 0.001
84454920|NCT03048422|168660676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.048|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.048|-0.005|0.11
84515528|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.463||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|26.16|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||26.160|8.640|0.0001
84515529|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.153|31.596|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||31.596|14.153|<0.0001
84515530|NCT00796653|168784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.475||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.032|24.599|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||24.599|7.032|0.0004
84717682|NCT06603766|169184777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84717683|NCT06603766|169184778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84717684|NCT06603766|169184779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
84717685|NCT06603766|169184780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84717686|NCT06603766|169184781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84454921|NCT03048422|168660676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.049|-0.000|0.055
84454922|NCT03048422|168660676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|0.022|< 0.001
84454923|NCT03048422|168660677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.045|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.045|0.001|0.041
84454924|NCT03048422|168660677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.055|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.055|0.013|0.002
84454925|NCT03048422|168660677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.078|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.078|0.036|< 0.001
84454926|NCT01928381|168660678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.34|0.5695
84454927|NCT01928381|168660678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.43|0.8905
84454928|NCT01928381|168660678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.30|0.4822
84454929|NCT01928381|168660679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabalin|||0.82|-0.20|0.2237
84454930|NCT01928381|168660679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabain, positive control|||0.08|-0.93|0.0978
84515531|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.084|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.084|-0.391|0.2057
84454931|NCT01928381|168660679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.62|0.6610
84454932|NCT01227902|168660690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|52.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||52.9|27.1|
84454933|NCT01227902|168660690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|44.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||44.9|19.1|
84454934|NCT01227902|168660690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|64.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||64.8|35.2|
84454935|NCT01227902|168660690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|70.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||70.5|43.3|
84454936|NCT01227902|168660690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|51.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||51.4|37.6|
84454937|NCT02363478|168660726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of contractions, resting LES pressure and IRP between baseline and week 4.||||||<0.05
84454938|NCT02363478|168660729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain and dysphagia between baseline and week 4.||||||0.05
84454939|NCT00930059|168660738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.9||The primary test of significance was 1-sided, and a nominal Type I error rate a = 0.05 was employed.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and p-values were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.90|-1.52|0.3353
84454940|NCT00930059|168660739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.38||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.38|-0.99|0.6073
84454941|NCT00930059|168660739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|0.84||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.84|-1.56|0.3086
84454942|NCT00930059|168660739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|0.58||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.58|-1.82|0.1970
84454943|NCT00930059|168660740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 3: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.29|-0.18|0.6547
84454944|NCT00930059|168660740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.31||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 6: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.31|-0.16|0.7020
84454945|NCT00930059|168660740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 9: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.06|-0.41|0.1138
84454946|NCT00930059|168660740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.04||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 12: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.04|-0.44|0.0816
84454947|NCT00930059|168660742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.27||No adjustments have been made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.27|-0.89|0.7634
84454948|NCT00930059|168660742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|2.45||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.45|-0.75|0.8077
84454949|NCT00930059|168660742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|2.57||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.57|-0.66|0.8350
84454950|NCT00930059|168660742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|1.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.48|-1.78|0.4377
84454951|NCT01299766|168660749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74|||Poisson regression with robust SE (GEE)|||Poisson regression with robust standard errors (GEE) was used to jointly model decline in HVLT-R Total Recall score ≥ 6 words at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by treatment group. The model included time, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction terms, and baseline HVLT-R Total Recall score.||0.74|0.02|.02
84454952|NCT01299766|168660750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the trajectory. Fixed effects for time (as a continuous variable), treatment group, time-by-treatment group interaction, and age at baseline were included. Random intercepts and slopes were included to account for within-subject correlation.||5.07|-.14|.064
84454953|NCT03968419|168660811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.56|21.23||||||Difference in MPR rate||21.23|-25.56|
84726437|NCT04454125|169204803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.87|0.10|0.03
84454954|NCT02109159|168660814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||1.4|0.8|0.44
84454955|NCT02109159|168660814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||1.7|0.8|0.47
84454956|NCT02109159|168660815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||0.04|-0.02|0.53
84454957|NCT02109159|168660815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||0.8|-0.5|0.56
84454958|NCT01641939|168660828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||One sided p-value with correction for interim treatment selection due to adaptive seamless phase design.|Log Rank|Log-Rank test, inverse normal combination test.||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||1.60|0.87|0.8589
84454959|NCT01641939|168660829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||2.03|0.32|
84454960|NCT01641939|168660829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.92||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||4.92|0.82|
84454961|NCT01641939|168660829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Trastuzumab Emtansine 3.6 mg||0.96|0.23|
84454962|NCT01641939|168660831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy||1.43|0.89|0.308
84454963|NCT01815229|168660849|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value applies to cell count at removal|t-test, 2 sided|||Tracheal lavages (TL) were done in intubated humans to obtain cell counts.||||<0.05
84454964|NCT00804687|168660851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0602||95.0|-0.258|0.006|||Linear mixed model|||||0.006|-0.258|0.0602
84454965|NCT00804687|168660851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0043||95.0|-0.328|-0.063|||Linear mixed model|||||-0.063|-0.328|0.0043
84454966|NCT00804687|168660851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.075|||Linear mixed model|||||0.075|-0.206|0.3513
84454967|NCT00804687|168660852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|8.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0003||95.0|4.104|13.104|||Linear mixed model|||||13.104|4.104|0.0003
84454968|NCT00804687|168660852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|4.699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0428||95.0|0.155|9.243|||Linear mixed model|||||9.243|0.155|0.0428
84454969|NCT00804687|168660852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-3.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.424|0.614|||Linear mixed model|||||0.614|-8.424|0.0895
84454970|NCT02397473|168660869|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-6.72|0.036
84454971|NCT02397473|168660870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Koch's nonparametric randomization-based ANCOVA.||||||0.046
84454972|NCT02397473|168660871|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-3.23|0.493
84454973|NCT02397473|168660872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.046||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|7.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.469|1.242|0.016
84726438|NCT04694300|169204804|SUPERIORITY|Lower the maximum pain intensity score the more effective the analgesic|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84454974|NCT02397473|168660873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.312||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|3.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.426|.502|0.575
84454975|NCT02397473|168660874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures.||||1.819|.512|0.910
84454976|NCT02397473|168660875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudolikelihood-based repeated measures model||||1.923|0.449|0.841
84454977|NCT01405053|168660985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.558||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|15.7|||ANCOVA|||The primary statistical model for comparing the 2 treatment groups was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) mixed model for repeated measures with baseline score, age, and sex as covariates, and treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as factors.||15.7|-10.5|0.6928
84454978|NCT02301403|168661020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.14|1.69|<.001
84454979|NCT01128829|168661021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each subject served as their own control. We compared insulin concentrations when subjects consumed sucralose before a glucose load (experimental condition) with those on the day consumed water before a glucose load (control condition).||||0.025
84454980|NCT01060059|168661038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline Gender (Male vs. Female), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.46|0.62|0.831
84454981|NCT01060059|168661038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.76||Baseline Medical conditions (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||1.76|0.74|0.554
84454982|NCT01060059|168661038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.42||Baseline gastrointestinal symptoms (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||3.42|0.43|0.714
84454983|NCT01060059|168661039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline HbA1c was 1% more, was it associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.78|0.60|<0.001
84454984|NCT01060059|168661040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if longer duration of diabetes was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.96|0.055
84454985|NCT01060059|168661041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if older age (1 year older), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.99|0.95|<0.001
84726439|NCT04694300|169204805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84726440|NCT04694300|169204806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84454986|NCT01060059|168661042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher BMI (1 kg/m\^2 higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.23|1.15|<0.001
84454987|NCT01060059|168661043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if greater height (1 cm higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.05|1.00|0.026
84454988|NCT01060059|168661044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline creatinine (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.77|0.18|0.007
84454989|NCT01060059|168661044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting HDL cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.97|0.094
84454990|NCT01060059|168661044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting total cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.01|1.00|0.259
84454991|NCT01060059|168661044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting triglycerides (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|1.00|0.123
84454992|NCT01920711|168661056|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8698||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7526|1.0052||1-sided p-value 0.0294|Proportional Rates Model (LWYY)|Treatment as fixed-effect factor and stratified by region and with robust variance estimate.||Primary Composite Events||1.0052|0.7526|0.0587
84454993|NCT01920711|168661056|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8511||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7216|1.0039||1-sided p-value 0.0278|Joint Frality Model|Treatment and region as fixed-effect factors||Total Hospitalizations for heart failure||1.0039|0.7216|0.0556
84454994|NCT01920711|168661056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9531||||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7863|1.1551||1-sided p-value 0.3120|Cox's proportional hazard model|||Cardiovascular Death||1.1551|0.7863|0.6241
84454995|NCT01920711|168661057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean of Difference|1.0264||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|2.0576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Clinical Summary Score||2.0576|-0.0047|0.0510
84454996|NCT01920711|168661058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4475||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1294|1.8552|||Repeated measures cumulative odds model|The response variable is the change from baseline to any scheduled time points up to Month 8.||NYHA Class Change||1.8552|1.1294|0.0035
84454997|NCT01920711|168661059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5041||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3312|0.7673|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Composite renal endpoint||0.7673|0.3312|0.0014
84454998|NCT01920711|168661059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9295||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0581|14.861|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Renal Death||14.861|0.0581|0.9588
84454999|NCT01920711|168661059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5774||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2272|1.4672|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Reaching ESRD||1.4672|0.2272|0.2484
84455000|NCT01920711|168661059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4407||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2798|0.6942|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||\>=50% decline in eGFR from baseline||0.6942|0.2798|0.0004
84455001|NCT01920711|168661060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9696||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8352|1.1255|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||All-cause mortality||1.1255|0.8352|0.6846
84455002|NCT03550066|168661105|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit, d, is selected as the largest difference that is clinically acceptable. Here the non-inferiority limit is d=.6 (a medium to large effect size).||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance: \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84455003|NCT01493180|168661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
84726441|NCT04694300|169204807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84455004|NCT02321436|168661119|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified log rank test.||||||0.0176||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Log Rank|||||||0.0176
84455005|NCT02321436|168661119|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified Wilcoxon test.||||||0.048||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0480
84455006|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||-0.47|-1.54|0.0005
84455007|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||-0.47|-1.63|0.0007
84455008|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.48||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||-0.48|-1.62|0.0006
84455009|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||-0.31|-1.36|0.0027
84455010|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.26||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||-0.26|-1.39|0.0052
84455011|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||0.31|-1.35|0.2037
84515532|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.028|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.028|-0.504|0.0284
84717687|NCT04496752|169184794|EQUIVALENCE|Weighted Cohen's kappa statistics were computed between DCTClock-pen and MMSE, and between DCTClock-tablet and MMSE. A TOST (two one-sided test) of equivalence was planned, with a difference in kappa of 0.2 specified a priori as significant.|Difference in Cohen's Kappa|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.19|||||The difference is Cohen's kappa is (tablet - pen). The confidence interval is estimated with a nonparametric bootstrap (5000 samples).|||0.19|-0.05|
84455012|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.94||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||0.94|-1.25|0.7656
84455013|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.23||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||1.23|-1.46|0.8521
84455014|NCT02321436|168661120|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.81||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||0.81|-1.24|0.6582
84455015|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||11.1|-9.5|0.8754
84455016|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||11.1|-12.8|0.8805
84455017|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||9.6|-14.0|0.6992
84455018|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|12.8||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||12.8|-13.0|0.9882
84515533|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.017|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.017|-0.461|0.0685
84455019|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|21.2||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||21.2|-11.9|0.5646
84455020|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|9.0||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||9.0|-34.0|0.2325
84455021|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||11.1|-39.4|0.2441
84455022|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|15.7||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||15.7|-33.7|0.4311
84455023|NCT02321436|168661121|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|24.3||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||24.3|-33.3|0.7310
84455024|NCT02321436|168661122|OTHER|||||||0.6128||||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value represents the strength of the association between treatment and global assessments of changes at the last visit, adjusted for symptomatic status at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p value significance level = 5%||||||0.6128
84455025|NCT00546052|168661125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.999||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5%.||0.06|-0.02|0.999
84455026|NCT00546052|168661126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.999||95.0|0.01|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5mmol/L.||0.07|0.01|0.999
84455027|NCT00546052|168661128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.001||95.0|-17.62|-16.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg||-16.27|-17.62|<0.001
84455028|NCT00546052|168661129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.39|<|0.001||95.0|-10.29|-9.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg.||-9.39|-10.29|<0.001
84455029|NCT00546052|168661130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
84455030|NCT00546052|168661131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
84455031|NCT00546052|168661132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.084
84455032|NCT00546052|168661133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.654
84455033|NCT00546052|168661134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.5||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.336
84455034|NCT00546052|168661135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
84455035|NCT00546052|168661136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
84455036|NCT00546052|168661137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.613
84455037|NCT03244033|168661218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.57|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site (p\<.001) and for whether physician contextualized plan (AOR 2.14, p=.001), and random effects of physician and patient.||Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of red flag improved/resolved (vs. not) during outcome period with fixed effects of intervention, site, and whether contextual factor was incorporated into care plan, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||1.64|.57|.91
84455038|NCT03244033|168661219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of red flag, visible/concealed recorder, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR\>1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider probing red flag (vs. not) during visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, \\whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, and whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||3.86|1.13|0.02
84515534|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||0.020|-0.576|0.0674
84455039|NCT03244033|168661220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of factor, recorder visible/concealed, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR \> 1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider incorporating contextual factor into care plan (vs. not) at visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, whether factor was identified by provider probe, whether factor was revealed by patient, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||5.41|1.32|.006
84455040|NCT02167945|168661234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84455041|NCT02167945|168661234|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
84455042|NCT02167945|168661235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84455043|NCT02167945|168661235|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
84455044|NCT02167945|168661236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84455045|NCT02167945|168661236|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
84515535|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0163||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|-0.067|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.067|-0.662|0.0163
84515536|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.020|-0.620|0.0364
84455046|NCT02167945|168661237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
84455047|NCT02167945|168661237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
84455048|NCT02167945|168661238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
84455049|NCT02167945|168661238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
84455050|NCT02167945|168661239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
84515537|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|0.075|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.075|-0.922|0.0959
84726442|NCT04694300|169204810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84455051|NCT02167945|168661239|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
84455052|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.21|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.21|-3.30|0.026
84455053|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.91|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.91|-1.97|0.472
84455054|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.4|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.40|-2.47|0.159
84455055|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.36|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.36|-2.95|0.125
84455056|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.29|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.29|-1.78|0.756
84455057|NCT02167945|168661241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.75|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-2.32|0.315
84455058|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.75|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-3.30|0.216
84455059|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.17|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.17|-3.58|0.074
84455060|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.05|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.05|-3.67|0.056
84455061|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.16|-2.84|0.411
84455062|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.11|-3.55|0.065
84455063|NCT02167945|168661242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.25|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24||-0.25|-3.91|0.026
84455064|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.14|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes (PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.14|-3.86|0.035
84455065|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.42|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.42|-3.88|0.015
84455066|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.048
84726443|NCT04694300|169204811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84455067|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.22|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.22|-2.67|0.466
84455068|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.13|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.13|-3.70|0.035
84455069|NCT02167945|168661243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.43|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.43|-4.01|0.015
84455070|NCT02623335|168661263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Options questions||||0.353
84455071|NCT02623335|168661263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Expectations questions||||0.923
84455072|NCT02623335|168661263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Risks questions||||0.255
84455073|NCT02623335|168661263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|239047259.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Advance directives questions||||0.094
84455074|NCT02623335|168661264|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T2 and T1||||0.84
84455075|NCT02623335|168661264|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T3 and T1||||0.645
84455076|NCT02623335|168661265|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.37||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
84717688|NCT03662022|169184797|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.95|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|2.23||The significance level was determined at 0.017, to account for the fact that we made three comparisons, thus conclusions can be drawn by examining if the 98.3% CI for the incidence rate ratio (IRR) contains the critical value of 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|0.40|<0.017
84455077|NCT02623335|168661266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.412
84455078|NCT02623335|168661267|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84455079|NCT02623335|168661268|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.72||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.106
84455080|NCT02623335|168661268|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-1.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.007
84455081|NCT02623335|168661269|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.034
84455082|NCT02623335|168661269|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment (T3)||||0.019
84455083|NCT02623335|168661270|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.022
84455084|NCT02623335|168661270|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.053
84455085|NCT02623335|168661272|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|5.04||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84455086|NCT00523991|168661281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.27||"There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS-Means"|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline in the model.||||0.27|0.18|<0.001
84455087|NCT00523991|168661285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84455088|NCT00523991|168661289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.19|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.19|<0.001
84455089|NCT00523991|168661305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"Terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
84455090|NCT00523991|168661306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.25||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.25|0.16|<0.001
84455091|NCT00523991|168661307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium vesus placebo||0.28|0.18|<0.001
84455092|NCT00523991|168661308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.20|<0.001
84455093|NCT00523991|168661309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.3||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.30|0.20|<0.001
84455094|NCT00523991|168661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity area under the curve at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.24|<0.001
84455095|NCT00523991|168661317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and trough forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
84455096|NCT00523991|168661321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.42|0.24|<0.001
84455097|NCT00523991|168661337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
84455098|NCT00523991|168661338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.36||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.36|0.21|<0.001
84455099|NCT00523991|168661339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.23|<0.001
84455100|NCT00523991|168661340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.25|0.4||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.40|0.25|<0.001
84455101|NCT00523991|168661341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.45|0.26|<0.001
84455102|NCT00523991|168661348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.927||95.0|-0.38|0.41||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and albuterol use at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.41|-0.38|0.927
84455103|NCT00523991|168661349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.174
84515538|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.115|-0.117|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.117|-1.115|0.0155
84717689|NCT03662022|169184797|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.34|0.017
84455104|NCT00523991|168661350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.186
84455105|NCT00523991|168661351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.045
84455106|NCT00523991|168661352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.223
84455107|NCT00523991|168661353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.010
84455108|NCT00523991|168661354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.086
84455109|NCT00523991|168661356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.729||95.0|-2.97|4.24||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.24|-2.97|0.729
84515539|NCT00796653|168784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|-0.039|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.039|-1.042|0.0347
84717690|NCT03662022|169184797|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.22|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|0.22|<0.017
84717691|NCT05275556|169184798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Poisson Regression|||||0.23|0.07|0.0002
84717692|NCT05275556|169184799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Resampling based|||||0.03|-0.15|0.09
84455110|NCT00523991|168661357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.149||95.0|-5.9|0.9||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.90|-5.90|0.149
84455111|NCT00523991|168661358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.763||95.0|-4.0|2.93||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.93|-4.00|0.763
84455112|NCT00523991|168661359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.313||95.0|-5.45|1.75||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.75|-5.45|0.313
84455113|NCT00523991|168661360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.682||95.0|-4.6|3.01||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||3.01|-4.60|0.682
84455114|NCT00523991|168661361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.043||95.0|-7.39|-0.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||-0.13|-7.39|0.043
84455115|NCT00523991|168661363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.823||95.0|-6.01|4.79||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.79|-6.01|0.823
84455116|NCT00523991|168661364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.767||95.0|-7.86|5.81||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.81|-7.86|0.767
84455117|NCT00523991|168661365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.754||95.0|-4.12|5.67||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.67|-4.12|0.754
84455118|NCT00523991|168661366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.995||95.0|-6.31|6.27||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.27|-6.31|0.995
84455119|NCT00523991|168661367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.72||95.0|-7.77|5.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.39|-7.77|0.720
84455120|NCT00523991|168661368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.064||95.0|-12.1|0.35||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.35|-12.10|0.064
84455121|NCT00523991|168661370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.718||95.0|-7.21|4.98||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.98|-7.21|0.718
84455122|NCT00523991|168661371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.912||95.0|-7.9|7.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.06|-7.90|0.912
84455123|NCT00523991|168661372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.162||95.0|-1.55|9.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.13|-1.55|0.162
84455124|NCT00523991|168661373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.471||95.0|-4.51|9.69||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.69|-4.51|0.471
84455125|NCT00523991|168661374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.961||95.0|-6.52|6.84||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.84|-6.52|0.961
84717693|NCT05275556|169184800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Threshold for significance is 0.025.||||11.2|-0.3|0.031
84455126|NCT00523991|168661375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.158||95.0|-11.73|1.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.94|-11.73|0.158
84455127|NCT00523991|168661377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.469||95.0|-3.01|6.49||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.49|-3.01|0.469
84455128|NCT00523991|168661378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79||||0.079||95.0|-0.68|12.26||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||12.26|-0.68|0.079
84455129|NCT00523991|168661379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.051||95.0|-0.02|8.23||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||8.23|-0.02|0.051
84455130|NCT00523991|168661380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.075||95.0|-0.35|7.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.21|-0.35|0.075
84455131|NCT00523991|168661381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.306||95.0|-1.39|4.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||4.38|-1.39|0.306
84455132|NCT00523991|168661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.363||95.0|-7.39|2.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.73|-7.39|0.363
84455133|NCT00523991|168661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.668||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.668
84455134|NCT00523991|168661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.78||95.0|-0.02|0.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.03|-0.02|0.780
84515540|NCT00796653|168784289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0164||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0164
84455135|NCT00523991|168661386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.61||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.610
84455136|NCT00523991|168661387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.554||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.554
84455137|NCT00523991|168661388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.549||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.549
84455138|NCT00523991|168661389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.568||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.568
84455139|NCT00523991|168661391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.358||95.0|-0.18|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.18|0.358
84515541|NCT00796653|168784289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0196||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0196
84515542|NCT00796653|168784289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0041||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0041
84717694|NCT05275556|169184801|OTHER||rate|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717695|NCT05275556|169184802|OTHER|2 sided test for differences between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Permutation test|||||||0.169
84455140|NCT00523991|168661392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.219||95.0|-0.2|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.20|0.219
84455141|NCT00523991|168661393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.518||95.0|-0.1|0.19||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.19|-0.10|0.518
84455142|NCT00523991|168661394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.455||95.0|-0.09|0.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.21|-0.09|0.455
84455143|NCT00523991|168661395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|-0.16|0.15||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.15|-0.16|0.927
84455144|NCT00523991|168661396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.933||95.0|-0.17|0.16||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.16|-0.17|0.933
84515543|NCT00796653|168784290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0388||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0388
84515544|NCT00796653|168784290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0038
84515545|NCT00796653|168784290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0053||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0053
84455145|NCT00523991|168661397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.996
84455146|NCT00523991|168661398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.196
84455147|NCT00523991|168661399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.800
84515546|NCT00796653|168784291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0555||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0555
84717696|NCT05275556|169184803|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis: 52.4 in Colonoscopy (Standard of Care), 59.6 in CAD-e Device|||
84455148|NCT00523991|168661400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.215
84455149|NCT00523991|168661401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.205
84455150|NCT00523991|168661402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.622
84455151|NCT00523991|168661403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.446
84455152|NCT00523991|168661405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.819||95.0|-0.05|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.05|0.819
84455153|NCT00523991|168661406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.204||95.0|-0.1|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.10|0.204
84515547|NCT00796653|168784291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0122
84515548|NCT00796653|168784291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0144||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0144
84515549|NCT00796653|168784292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5707||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.5707
84515550|NCT00796653|168784292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0814||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0814
84717697|NCT05275556|169184804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.4||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.4|-0.2|0.0578
84717698|NCT05275556|169184805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.0|-1.5|0.7813
84455154|NCT00523991|168661407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.67||95.0|-0.08|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.670
84455155|NCT00523991|168661408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.63||95.0|-0.09|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.630
84455156|NCT00523991|168661409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.704||95.0|-0.1|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.10|0.704
84455157|NCT00523991|168661410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.579||95.0|-0.11|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.579
84455158|NCT00523991|168661412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.54||||0.916||95.0|-464.02|416.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||416.94|-464.02|0.916
84455159|NCT00523991|168661413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.42||||0.899||95.0|-520.19|457.34||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||457.34|-520.19|0.899
84455160|NCT00523991|168661414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|181.99||||0.495||95.0|-341.75|705.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||placebo versus tiotropium||705.73|-341.75|0.495
84455161|NCT00523991|168661415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.83||||0.318||95.0|-250.37|768.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||768.03|-250.37|0.318
84455162|NCT00523991|168661416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.18||||0.45||95.0|-338.04|760.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||760.39|-338.04|0.450
84455163|NCT00523991|168661417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.46||||0.858||95.0|-512.2|615.12||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||615.12|-512.20|0.858
84455164|NCT01700192|168661431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.40|-1.20|<0.001
84455165|NCT01700192|168661431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.7||||||||-9.7|-25.0|
84455166|NCT01700192|168661434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.30|-1.00|<0.001
84515551|NCT00796653|168784292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7413||95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.2|-0.2|0.7413
84515552|NCT00796653|168784293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.1524||95.0|-0.162|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.036|-0.162|0.1524
84717699|NCT05275556|169184806|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17||||||||0.17|0.05|
84455167|NCT01700192|168661434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-7.3||||||||-7.3|-24.4|
84455168|NCT01700192|168661435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Zero-inflated Log-normal Model|||||0.05|-0.35|0.154
84455169|NCT01700192|168661435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.3||||||||4.3|-41|
84455170|NCT01700192|168661436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.60|-1.70|<0.001
84455171|NCT01700192|168661436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-24.6|
84455172|NCT01700192|168661437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.10|-9.10|<0.001
84515553|NCT00796653|168784293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.0211||95.0|0.106|1.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.307|0.106|0.0211
84717700|NCT05275556|169184807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||12.9|3.7|0.0004
84455173|NCT01700192|168661437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-8.3||||||||-8.3|-22.7|
84455174|NCT03175549|168661464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|29.38||A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error was calculated using bootstrap methods which is considered best for MEM.|||29.38|-10.22|0.36
84455175|NCT03175549|168661465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posted results show mean change in drinking for the drug group relative to placebo for each day of the 11 days of ad libidum drinking (Days 1-11) permitted during the 14 days (2 weeks) of medication.||||<0.025
84455176|NCT03175549|168661465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|473 daily observations within 43 individuals.|The apremilast group showed a significantly more rapid reduction in drinks per day relative to placebo.|||||0.025
84455177|NCT02435849|168661466|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR within 3 months is less than or equal to 20%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
84455178|NCT02435849|168661468|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
84455179|NCT02435849|168661469|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
84455180|NCT00725075|168661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-2.26||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||1.74|-6.25|0.267
84455181|NCT00725075|168661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-0.08||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||3.74|-3.91|0.966
84455182|NCT02979431|168661521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
84455183|NCT02979431|168661521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||=0.001
84455184|NCT02979431|168661521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
84455185|NCT02979431|168661522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5843|=|0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A comparison for change from Baseline in GSS to Day 2, 5 hours post-dose was performed using a contrast analysis on a longitudinal mixed model with random factor subject and fixed effects baseline value, treatment group and timepoint, including the treatment-by-timepoint interaction term. All data up to + including Day 3 were used in the longitudinal mixed model. The Kenward-Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.The model was fitted using an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||||=0.271
84455186|NCT02979431|168661522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.4904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|=|0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.404
84455187|NCT02979431|168661522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.2156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5842|=|0.713|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.713
84455188|NCT01235962|168661538|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.862||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.063|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.063|0.699|0.1649
84455189|NCT01235962|168661539|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.311|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.311|0.759|0.9880
84455190|NCT01235962|168661541|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.802||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.954|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.954|0.675|0.0126
84455191|NCT01235962|168661542|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.001||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.257|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.257|0.796|0.9959
84455192|NCT01235962|168661544|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.693||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.943|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.943|0.510|0.0201
84455193|NCT01235962|168661545|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.004||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.521|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.521|0.662|0.9865
84455194|NCT01235962|168661546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.397|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|-2.307|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.307|-4.486|<.001
84455195|NCT01235962|168661546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.043||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.917|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.917|-1.003|0.930
84515554|NCT00796653|168784293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1314||95.0|-0.139|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.139|0.1314
84726444|NCT04694300|169204812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Higher percentage inhibition relates to greater selectivity for COX-2||||||0.59
84455196|NCT01235962|168661546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.119||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|1.196|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.196|-0.958|0.828
84455197|NCT01235962|168661546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.347||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.658|0.964|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.964|-1.658|0.603
84455198|NCT01235962|168661546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.17||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.843|1.503|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.503|-1.843|0.841
84455199|NCT01235962|168661547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.283|-0.955|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.955|-2.283|<.001
84455200|NCT01235962|168661547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24 M DFS FU)|-0.114||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.522|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.522|-0.750|0.726
84455201|NCT01235962|168661547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36 M DFS FU)|-0.09||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.609|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.609|-0.789|0.801
84455202|NCT01235962|168661547|SUPERIORITY||Meat Difference (48 M DFS FU)|-0.212||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.32|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.320|-1.044|0.617
84455203|NCT01235962|168661547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54 M DFS FU)|0.341||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|1.51|||adjusted for baseline score using mixedm|||||1.510|-0.828|0.565
84455204|NCT01235962|168661548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.077||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.051|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.051|-0.205|0.238
84455205|NCT01235962|168661548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.052||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.081|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.081|-0.185|0.442
84455206|NCT01235962|168661548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.016||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.158|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.158|-0.125|0.819
84455207|NCT01235962|168661548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.119||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.073|||analysis of covariance|analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.073|-0.311|0.223
84455208|NCT01235962|168661548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.203||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.028|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.028|-0.435|0.085
84455209|NCT01235962|168661549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.129|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.129|-1.660|<.001
84455210|NCT01235962|168661549|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|0.117||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.249|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.249|-0.015|0.083
84455211|NCT01235962|168661549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.236|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.236|-0.074|0.307
84515555|NCT00796653|168784294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.0319||95.0|0.057|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.267|0.057|0.0319
84515556|NCT00796653|168784294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0312||95.0|0.06|1.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.274|0.060|0.0312
84455212|NCT01235962|168661549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.029||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.191|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.191|-0.249|0.796
84455213|NCT01235962|168661549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.016||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.205|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-models||||0.205|-0.237|0.885
84455214|NCT01235962|168661550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Differencec (Week 52)|-0.27||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.092|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.092|-0.633|0.143
84455215|NCT01235962|168661550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.069||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.475|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.475|-0.336|0.736
84455216|NCT01235962|168661550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.188||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.623|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.623|-0.247|0.397
84455217|NCT01235962|168661550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.649|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.649|-0.488|0.781
84455218|NCT01235962|168661550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.278||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.539|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.539|-1.094|0.503
84455219|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 thermo)|-0.717||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.751|1.318|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.318|-2.751|0.490
84455220|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU- thermo)|-0.285||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.358|1.788|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.788|-2.358|0.788
84455221|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU- thermo)|1.18||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.901|3.262|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.262|-0.901|0.266
84455222|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.725||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.779|3.229|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.229|-1.779|0.570
84455223|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|2.023||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|6.251|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||6.251|-2.205|0.346
84455224|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.018||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.040|0.111
84455225|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.02||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.003|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.003|-0.044|0.094
84455226|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.037|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.037|-0.018|0.490
84455227|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.009||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.043|0.580
84455228|NCT01235962|168661551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|0.017||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.063|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.063|-0.029|0.473
84455229|NCT01235962|168661552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|-2.606|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.606|-4.466|<.001
84455230|NCT01235962|168661552|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.102||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.738|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.738|-0.942|0.812
84455231|NCT01235962|168661552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.233||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.155|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.155|-0.690|0.621
84455232|NCT01235962|168661552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.082||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.122|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.122|-0.959|0.878
84455233|NCT01235962|168661552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.412||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|1.712|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.712|-0.887|0.533
84455234|NCT01235962|168661553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.515|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.078|-0.952|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.952|-2.078|<.001
84455235|NCT01235962|168661553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.014||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.561|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.561|-0.534|0.961
84455236|NCT01235962|168661553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.043||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.641|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.641|-0.555|0.888
84455237|NCT01235962|168661553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.061||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.736|0.614|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.614|-0.736|0.858
84455238|NCT01235962|168661553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.452||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|1.309|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.309|-0.404|0.300
84515557|NCT00796653|168784294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1777||95.0|-0.191|1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.029|-0.191|0.1777
84455239|NCT01235962|168661554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.103||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.211|0.059
84515558|NCT00796653|168784295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1714||95.0|-0.184|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.184|0.1714
84515559|NCT00796653|168784295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.1142||95.0|-0.119|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.103|-0.119|0.1142
84515560|NCT00796653|168784295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0888||95.0|-0.081|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.150|-0.081|0.0888
84515561|NCT00796653|168784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.1235||95.0|-0.134|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.113|-0.134|0.1235
84515562|NCT00796653|168784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.2666||95.0|-0.271|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.978|-0.271|0.2666
84726445|NCT04694300|169204813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84455240|NCT01235962|168661554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.041||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.074|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.074|-0.155|0.487
84455241|NCT01235962|168661554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.037||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.16|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.160|-0.085|0.885
84455242|NCT01235962|168661554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.119|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.119|-0.183|0.676
84455243|NCT01235962|168661554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.015||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.153|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.153|-0.183|0.859
84455244|NCT01235962|168661555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-1.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.3|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.300|-1.769|<.001
84455245|NCT01235962|168661555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|0.089||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.202|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.202|-0.025|0.127
84455246|NCT01235962|168661555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (36M DFS FU)|0.123||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.255|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.255|-0.009|0.069
84455247|NCT01235962|168661555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (48M DFS FU)|0.049||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.208|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.208|-0.110|0.544
84455248|NCT01235962|168661555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.061||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.246|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.246|-0.124|0.518
84455249|NCT01235962|168661556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-0.374||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|-0.053|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.053|-0.695|0.022
84455250|NCT01235962|168661556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|-0.104||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.253|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.253|-0.462|0.567
84455251|NCT01235962|168661556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.072||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.446|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.446|-0.302|0.706
84455252|NCT01235962|168661556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.12||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.583|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.583|-0.343|0.612
84455253|NCT01235962|168661556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.045||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.496|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.496|-0.587|0.870
84455254|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - thermo.)|-2.116||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.872|-0.359|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.359|-3.872|0.018
84455255|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - thermo)|-0.253||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|1.508|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.508|-2.014|0.778
84455256|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - thermo)|0.847||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.724|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.724|-1.030|0.376
84455257|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.131||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.294|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.294|-2.032|0.905
84455258|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|0.401||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.269|3.071|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.071|-2.269|0.768
84515563|NCT00796653|168784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.3335||95.0|-0.317|0.934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.934|-0.317|0.3335
84717701|NCT05275556|169184808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.1|-1|0.1185
84455259|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.026||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|-0.007|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.007|-0.044|0.007
84455260|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.005|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.005|-0.036|0.130
84455261|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.007||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.03|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.030|-0.015|0.520
84455262|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.014||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.011|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.011|-0.040|0.276
84455263|NCT01235962|168661557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|-0.007||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.037|0.665
84478772|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0383||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0383|
84478773|NCT01033487|168709001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.011||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0110|
84478774|NCT00862654|168709004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||<0.01
84478775|NCT00862654|168709004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||0.039
84478776|NCT03219567|168709005|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OCT compared to MRI||||0.35
84478777|NCT03954444|168709020|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval, should be within -20% to +20%|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|8.0||||||||8.0|-2.6|
84478778|NCT03954444|168709020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
84478779|NCT03954444|168709020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1126
84478780|NCT03162458|168709034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84478781|NCT03162458|168709035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
84478782|NCT03162458|168709036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.055
84478783|NCT03162458|168709037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.051
84478784|NCT03162458|168709038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the morning on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.19
84478785|NCT03162458|168709038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the evening on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.44
84478786|NCT03162458|168709039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
84478787|NCT03162458|168709040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84478788|NCT03162458|168709041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84478789|NCT03162458|168709042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
84478790|NCT03162458|168709043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84478791|NCT03812588|168709046|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.261||0.292|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear regression model of condition in predicting change in HRSD-24. P-value and coefficient are Medication:Track. Medication (Escitalopram or Placebo) with Track (RFM or CFM) as co-variates. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.292
84478792|NCT01181778|168709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Daily Pill|-0.4||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Daily Pill before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||1.8|-2.6|0.705
84478793|NCT01181778|168709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Weekly Patch|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Weekly Patch before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||5.0|2.6|<0.0001
84478794|NCT01181778|168709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Monthy Ring|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|17.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Monthly Ring before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||17.8|14.3|<0.0001
84515564|NCT00796653|168784297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3287||95.0|-0.315|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.941|-0.315|0.3287
84455264|NCT01727258|168661565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|14.25||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Colgate Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.25|7.45|<0.001
84455265|NCT01727258|168661565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.729||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-5.16|0.314
84455266|NCT01727258|168661565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|16.03||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||16.03|9.17|<0.001
84455267|NCT01727258|168661566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|8.41||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Sensodyne. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.41|3.76|<0.001
84455268|NCT01727258|168661566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.52|-2.16|0.881
84455269|NCT01727258|168661566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|8.24||Significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|3.57|<0.001
84455270|NCT01727258|168661567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-1.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.05|-12.38|0.020
84515565|NCT00796653|168784297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1341||95.0|-0.148|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.109|-0.148|0.1341
84515566|NCT00796653|168784297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.722||95.0|-0.516|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.745|-0.516|0.7220
84515567|NCT00796653|168784298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.2176||95.0|-0.234|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.027|-0.234|0.2176
84515568|NCT00796653|168784298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.0258||95.0|0.087|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.348|0.087|0.0258
84717702|NCT05275556|169184809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.2||nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.2|-0.4|0.0752
84717703|NCT05275556|169184811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.6|-3.2|0.8194
84455271|NCT01727258|168661567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.78|-5.52|0.964
84455272|NCT01727258|168661567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.845||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-1.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.23|-12.47|0.017
84717704|NCT05275556|169184812|OTHER|Test for difference|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69||Nominal p-value|Exact poisson|||||1.69|1.14|0.0008
84717705|NCT04679389|169184832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84717706|NCT04679389|169184833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84717707|NCT04679389|169184834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84717708|NCT04679389|169184835|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84717709|NCT04679389|169184838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84455273|NCT01727258|168661568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.327||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.35|-13.50|0.039
84455274|NCT01727258|168661568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.61|-1.50|0.130
84455275|NCT01727258|168661568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.43|-18.53|<0.001
84717710|NCT04679389|169184839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84717711|NCT05257603|169184840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|5.72|||ANOVA|||||5.72|3.24|<0.99
84717712|NCT05257603|169184841|OTHER||||||<|0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.29
84455276|NCT01727258|168661569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-2.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-2.00|-14.51|0.010
84478795|NCT01181778|168709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Other Method|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Other Method before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
84478796|NCT01181778|168709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Undecided|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-14.1|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Undecided before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-14.1|-17.6|<0.0001
84478797|NCT02713789|168709067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.827
84478798|NCT02713789|168709067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.594
84478799|NCT02713789|168709067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.274
84478800|NCT02713789|168709067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.766
84478801|NCT02713789|168709068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.384
84478802|NCT02713789|168709068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.144
84478803|NCT02713789|168709068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.022
84478804|NCT02713789|168709068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.137
84478805|NCT02713789|168709068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.123
84478806|NCT02713789|168709069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.160
84478807|NCT02713789|168709069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.208
84478808|NCT02713789|168709069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.316
84478809|NCT02713789|168709069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.221
84478810|NCT02713789|168709069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.172
84478811|NCT02713789|168709070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.199
84478812|NCT02713789|168709070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.203
84478813|NCT02713789|168709070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.500
84478814|NCT02713789|168709070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.296
84478815|NCT02713789|168709070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.286
84478816|NCT02713789|168709071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.449
84478817|NCT02713789|168709071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.381
84478818|NCT02713789|168709071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.011
84478819|NCT02713789|168709071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.05
84478820|NCT02713789|168709071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.09
84478821|NCT02713789|168709072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.074
84478822|NCT02713789|168709072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.468
84455277|NCT01727258|168661569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|10.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||10.51|-1.98|0.179
84455278|NCT01727258|168661569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.25|-18.79|<0.001
84455279|NCT01727258|168661570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-4.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.93|-18.93|<0.001
84455280|NCT01727258|168661570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|12.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||12.53|-1.44|0.119
84455281|NCT01727258|168661570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-10.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-10.42|-24.52|<0.001
84455282|NCT00993928|168661601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q3: Percent change in sleep latency from baseline to week 7.||||0.85
84455283|NCT00993928|168661601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q6A: Percent change in time to fall back asleep from baseline to week 7.||||0.86
84455284|NCT00993928|168661603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84455285|NCT00993928|168661605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare percent change from baseline to week 7 Distress Thermometer score.||||0.64
84455286|NCT01665144|168661606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.95|0.65|0.0134
84455287|NCT01665144|168661607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.10|0.80|0.4398
84455288|NCT01665144|168661608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-613.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-800.2|-426.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 12||-426.0|-800.2|<0.0001
84455289|NCT01665144|168661608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-990.6|-564.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 24||-564.4|-990.6|<0.0001
84455290|NCT01665144|168661608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-695.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.3|-513.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Average over Month 12 and Month 24||-513.3|-877.3|<0.0001
84455291|NCT01665144|168661609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.60|0.0058
84455292|NCT01665144|168661610|SUPERIORITY||ARR ratio|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.587|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.587|0.337|<0.0001
84455293|NCT01665144|168661611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.41|<0.0001
84455294|NCT01665144|168661613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.19|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.19|-3.85|0.0764
84455295|NCT01665144|168661613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.44|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||1.44|-3.89|0.3671
84455296|NCT01665144|168661614|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.191|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.191|0.083|<0.0001
84455297|NCT01665144|168661614|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.362|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.362|0.087|<0.0001
84455298|NCT01665144|168661615|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.328|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 12||0.328|0.215|<0.0001
84455299|NCT01665144|168661615|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.196|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 24||0.196|0.103|<0.0001
84455300|NCT01665144|168661616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.247|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.247|0.103|<0.0001
84455301|NCT01665144|168661616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.236|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||0.236|0.021|0.0196
84455302|NCT01665144|168661617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses at baseline||1.11|0.68|
84455303|NCT01665144|168661617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses at baseline||0.91|0.49|
84455304|NCT01665144|168661617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.06|0.69|
84455305|NCT01665144|168661617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.19|0.53|
84455306|NCT01665144|168661618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Rapidly evolving patients||0.91|0.46|
84455307|NCT01665144|168661618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Not rapidly evolving patients||1.09|0.69|
84455308|NCT01665144|168661619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With moderate or severe course of disease||0.99|0.65|
84455309|NCT01665144|168661619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without moderate or severe course of disease||1.13|0.47|
84455310|NCT03551743|168661639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-65.02||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0344
84455311|NCT03551743|168661639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-92.38||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
84455312|NCT03551743|168661639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-46.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84455313|NCT03551743|168661640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|88722.37||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
84455314|NCT03551743|168661640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|151500.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84455315|NCT03551743|168661640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|198560.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
84455316|NCT03551743|168661641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-76.05||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1874
84455317|NCT03551743|168661641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-27.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.386
84455318|NCT03551743|168661641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84455319|NCT02105415|168661664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7|||ANCOVA|||5 minutes||2.7|-6.9|0.385
84455320|NCT02105415|168661664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|||10 minutes||2.8|-10.8|0.241
84455321|NCT02105415|168661664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6|||ANCOVA|||15 minutes||5.6|-7.2|0.802
84455322|NCT02105415|168661665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
84455323|NCT02105415|168661666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|||Pre-treatment||||0.212
84455324|NCT02105415|168661666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||New-onset pressors (within 3 minutes)||||0.308
84455325|NCT02105415|168661666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANCOVA|||Delayed-onset pressors (within 24 hrs)||||0.691
84455326|NCT02105415|168661668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
84455327|NCT02105415|168661669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||Red blood cell||||0.069
84455328|NCT02105415|168661669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Non-red blood cell||||0.046
84455329|NCT02105415|168661669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANCOVA|||Colloid||||0.502
84455330|NCT02105415|168661670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.994
84455331|NCT02105415|168661671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
84455332|NCT00644787|168661697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference of 7.5 mm in VAS score was selected as the threshold value for clinical non-inferiority of Fentanyl 1-day transdermal patch to Fentanyl 3-day transdermal patch.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.23||||||||6.23|-3.50|
84455333|NCT01680900|168661712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.48|-2.60|0.05
84455334|NCT01680900|168661713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84455335|NCT01680900|168661714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.08|-0.75|<0.05
84455336|NCT01680900|168661718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.21|-0.74|0.05
84455337|NCT02851173|168661738|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group.||||0.79
84455338|NCT02851173|168661738|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. MCI group.||||0.87
84455339|NCT02851173|168661738|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group. 3 outliers removed, whose scores were outside 1.5 times the interquartile range.||||0.16
84455340|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.22
84455341|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.69
84455342|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.25
84455343|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.86
84455344|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.28
84455345|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.12
84455346|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.26
84455347|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||The contract of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.83
84455348|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.55
84478823|NCT02713789|168709072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.109
84478824|NCT02713789|168709072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.493
84478825|NCT02713789|168709072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.235
84478826|NCT02713789|168709073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.136
84478827|NCT02713789|168709073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.498
84478828|NCT02713789|168709073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.369
84478829|NCT02713789|168709073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.337
84478830|NCT02713789|168709073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP5||||0.160
84455349|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.76
84455350|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.38
84455351|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.93
84455352|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.41
84455353|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.06
84455354|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.18
84455355|NCT02851173|168661739|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.84
84455356|NCT02851173|168661740|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.53
84515569|NCT00796653|168784298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6044||95.0|-0.466|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.800|-0.466|0.6044
84515570|NCT00796653|168784299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1946||95.0|0.58|1.111|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.111|0.580|0.1946
84455357|NCT02851173|168661740|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.74
84455358|NCT02851173|168661741|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.72
84455359|NCT02851173|168661741|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.97
84455360|NCT02531646|168661743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
84455361|NCT02531646|168661744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
84515571|NCT00796653|168784299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071||95.0|0.634|1.198|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.198|0.634|0.4071
84455362|NCT02531646|168661745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
84455363|NCT02531646|168661746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
84455364|NCT02531646|168661747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
84455365|NCT02531646|168661749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
84515572|NCT00796653|168784299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6404||95.0|0.67|1.267|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.267|0.670|0.6404
84455366|NCT00680836|168661849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.0|0.26
84455367|NCT00680836|168661850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|0.0|0.98
84455368|NCT00680836|168661851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84515573|NCT00796653|168784300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2942||95.0|0.336|1.399|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.399|0.336|0.2942
84455369|NCT00680836|168661852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Chi-squared|||||0.2|-0.2|0.64
84455370|NCT00680836|168661853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.7|0.72
84515574|NCT00796653|168784300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.8594||95.0|0.493|1.82|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.820|0.493|0.8594
84455371|NCT00680836|168661854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.5|0.86
84455372|NCT00997516|168661869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84455373|NCT00997516|168661870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84455374|NCT00997516|168661879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall body satisfaction||||0.86
84455375|NCT00997516|168661879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Damage to body||||0.18
84455376|NCT00997516|168661879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical attractiveness||||0.04
84455377|NCT00997516|168661879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Masculinity/femininity||||0.34
84455378|NCT00997516|168661879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Looking at oneself naked||||0.63
84515575|NCT00796653|168784300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5466||95.0|0.405|1.593|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.593|0.405|0.5466
84455379|NCT00997516|168661880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of abdomen||||0.48
84455380|NCT00997516|168661880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of scars||||0.09
84455381|NCT00997516|168661880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with scars||||0.25
84455382|NCT00997516|168661880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort of scars||||0.81
84455383|NCT00997516|168661880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall impression of scars||||<0.01
84515576|NCT00796653|168784301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2494||95.0|0.566|1.15|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.150|0.566|0.2494
84455384|NCT00236080|168661932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Number of participants analyzed was determined by those participants who had at least 1 postbaseline efficacy assessment. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients. It is expected that the sample size will provide sufficient information for describing the specified evaluations.||||||0.1236||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|This analysis adjusted for the difference among the treatment groups at baseline.||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint.||||0.1236
84455385|NCT00236080|168661933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using the adjusted p value from Tukey's least significant difference (LSD) test for armodafinil at 200 mg/day. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients.||||||0.0945||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint .||||0.0945
84455386|NCT01214044|168661934|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the time of the dim light melatonin onset changed from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||A within subjects comparison was done to compare the time of the dim light melatonin onset before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11).||||0.2
84455387|NCT01214044|168661935|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Hamilton-21 score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.01||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Hamilton-21 score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.01
84455388|NCT01214044|168661936|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Beck Depression Inventory-II score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.14||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Beck Depression Inventory-II score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.14
84455389|NCT01214044|168661937|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.06||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.66|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.06
84455390|NCT01214044|168661937|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.48||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.02|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.48
84515577|NCT00796653|168784301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2006||95.0|0.555|1.126|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.126|0.555|0.2006
84515578|NCT00796653|168784301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795||95.0|0.637|1.279|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.279|0.637|0.5795
84717713|NCT05257603|169184842|OTHER||||||<|0.99|||||||ANOVA|||A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean difference in key presses from time 1 to time 2 between the intervention (RPCW) and Control conditions.||||<0.99
84515579|NCT00796653|168784302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1342||0.1571||95.0|0.5613|1.0979|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0979|0.5613|0.1571
84455391|NCT00408694|168661938|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis, H0: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≤ 0.05. Alternative hypothesis, HA: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≥ 0.15.|If 3 of the first 14 patients or 4 of the first 42 patients experience the specified adverse events, then the regimen is considered unacceptable as calculated by the Fleming method for a two-stage design with type I error and the statistical power were set at 0.14 and 0.83, respectively.|||
84455392|NCT01017952|168661956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.99|0.66|0.040
84455393|NCT01017952|168661956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.97|0.64|0.024
84455394|NCT01017952|168661956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.85|0.56|<0.001
84455395|NCT01017952|168661957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.177
84455396|NCT01017952|168661957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.66|0.036
84455397|NCT01017952|168661957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||||0.82|0.54|<0.001
84455398|NCT01017952|168661958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.07|0.65|0.154
84455399|NCT01017952|168661958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.99|0.60|0.041
84455400|NCT01017952|168661958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.84|0.51|<0.001
84455401|NCT01017952|168661959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.034||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.066||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.066|0.003|0.034
84455402|NCT01017952|168661959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.056|-0.008|0.143
84455403|NCT01017952|168661959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.057|-0.006|0.115
84455404|NCT01064167|168661960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Given that the frequency of RBC transfusion for OPCAB surgery is about 55%, to detect 35% reduction in TA group, with power=o.8 and α=0.05, a group of 107 patients in each arm is required. We estimated a crossover rate of 20%. The final sample size for randomization purposes increased to a total of 260 patients. The Chi-square test was used to test the differences in categorical variables between both groups.If one or more cells had an expected count less than 5, Fisher's Exact Test was used.||||<0.05
84455405|NCT01064167|168661961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84455406|NCT03543410|168661986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.489|-0.09||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.090|-6.489|0.044
84455407|NCT03543410|168661986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.273|0.017||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-6.273|0.051
84455408|NCT03543410|168661987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.658|0.095||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.658|0.143
84455409|NCT03543410|168661987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.15||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.150|-0.588|0.243
84455410|NCT02642094|168661992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0020
84455411|NCT02642094|168661993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
84515580|NCT00796653|168784302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1451||0.3814||95.0|0.6205|1.2005|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2005|0.6205|0.3814
84455412|NCT02642094|168661994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84455413|NCT02642094|168661995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0072
84455414|NCT02642094|168661996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3093
84455415|NCT04871711|168662000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|16.1||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||16.1|3.6|0.006
84455416|NCT04871711|168662001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.6||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.6|15.5|<0.001
84717714|NCT05257603|169184843|OTHER||||||<|0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.45
84455417|NCT04871711|168662002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|31.7||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||31.7|14.0|<0.001
84455418|NCT04871711|168662003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||18.9|5.7|0.001
84455419|NCT04871711|168662004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|15.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||15.6|5.3|<0.001
84455420|NCT04871711|168662005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.4||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.4|12.6|<0.001
84455421|NCT04871711|168662006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
84455422|NCT04871711|168662007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||14.7|3.8|0.004
84455423|NCT04871711|168662008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|30.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.6|14.4|<0.001
84515581|NCT00796653|168784302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1748||0.7098||95.0|0.7699|1.468|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.4680|0.7699|0.7098
84455424|NCT04871711|168662009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
84455425|NCT04871711|168662010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.9|12.4|<0.001
84455426|NCT04871711|168662011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|32.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.7|15.2|<0.001
84515582|NCT00796653|168784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2952||0.5326||95.0|0.3814|1.6464|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6464|0.3814|0.5326
84515583|NCT00796653|168784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9824||95.0|0.5038|2.016|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0160|0.5038|0.9824
84455427|NCT04871711|168662012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|27.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.5|11.8|<0.001
84455428|NCT04871711|168662013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||24.3|10.1|<0.001
84455429|NCT04871711|168662014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|34.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||34.3|17.2|<0.001
84455430|NCT04871711|168662015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|33.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.0|15.5|<0.001
84455431|NCT04871711|168662016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-23.8||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-23.8|-46.7|<0.001
84455432|NCT04871711|168662017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.6||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.6|-4.7|<0.001
84455433|NCT04871711|168662018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.2|<0.001
84455434|NCT04871711|168662019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.3|<0.001
84455435|NCT04871711|168662020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.0|-2.1|<0.001
84455436|NCT04871711|168662021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
84515584|NCT00796653|168784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||0.9112||95.0|0.5194|2.0832|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.0832|0.5194|0.9112
84515585|NCT00796653|168784304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1389||0.1136||95.0|0.5158|1.0733|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0733|0.5158|0.1136
84515586|NCT00796653|168784304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1449||0.1887||95.0|0.5456|1.1271|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1271|0.5456|0.1887
84455437|NCT04871711|168662022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.40|-0.79|<0.001
84455438|NCT04871711|168662023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.9||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.9|15.0|<0.001
84455439|NCT01913483|168662025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9458||||||The primary endpoint analysis was to assess the superiority of bivalirudin versus UFH in BARC ≥3 bleeds within the 48 hours post study drug initiation or at hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.|Chi-squared|||Assuming a bleeding event rate of 5.0% in the heparin control treatment group and 3.2% in the bivalirudin group (36% relative risk reduction, a sample size of 3900 participants was to provide more than 80% power with a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05). This estimate took into consideration that the interim efficacy analysis was to be performed when approximately 70% of participants were enrolled using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.||||0.9458
84455440|NCT01469000|168662029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.93||1-sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.93|0.48|0.009
84455441|NCT01469000|168662030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.90|0.46|0.005
84455442|NCT01469000|168662031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||1.16|0.51|0.105
84455443|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78||||||Patient-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.78|0.77|
84455444|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42||||||Patient-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.42|0.60|
84455445|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.3||||||Patient-rated Cough: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.30|0.84|
84455446|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71||||||Patient-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.71|0.65|
84455447|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02||||||Patient-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.02|0.32|
84455448|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||||||Patient-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.91|0.64|
84455449|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.77||||||Patient-rated Overall Symptoms: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.77|0.68|
84455450|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.17||||||Patient-rated Interference: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.17|0.88|
84455451|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74||||||Patient-rated Quality of Life: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.74|0.72|
84455452|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||Observer-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.49|0.97|
84455453|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||Observer-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.93|0.82|
84455454|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15||||||Observer-rated Cough:Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.15|0.72|
84455455|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||||||Observer-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.83|0.64|
84455456|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.91||||||Observer-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.91|0.60|
84455457|NCT01469000|168662035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||||||Observer-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.03|0.41|
84455458|NCT00632853|168662077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8741|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8741
84455459|NCT00695565|168662149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis does not take into account the subjects' screening capsaicin response (measure of nociceptor function).||||0.168
84455460|NCT00695565|168662149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Each subject was screened for responsiveness of nociceptors in the skin to a capsaicin stimulus (rated on 0-10 pain scale; 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain). The interaction term composed of treatment assignment and capsaicin threshold was examined at the prespecified alpha level of 0.1.~This analysis includes subjects with a capsaicin rating of ≥ 2. Thirty (30) subjects in the Placebo group and 33 subjects in the active Clonidine Topical Gel (ARC-4558) group had capsaicin scores ≥ 2."||||0.014
84455461|NCT01462266|168662163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Adjusting for participant's use of metformin at Visit 1/Screening Visit (i.e., on metformin, or not on metformin)||||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
84515587|NCT00796653|168784304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.9761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1747||0.8925||95.0|0.6869|1.387|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.3870|0.6869|0.8925
84455462|NCT01106846|168662168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.947
84455463|NCT02288273|168662169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455464|NCT04247425|168662183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.59
84455465|NCT04247425|168662184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.02
84455466|NCT04247425|168662185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||1.0
84455467|NCT04247425|168662186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.09
84455468|NCT00692211|168662202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Study powered to detect 10% difference in proportion of screening adherence based on alpha of 0.05, beta 0.20.||2.32|1.04|0.01
84515588|NCT00796653|168784307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
84455469|NCT05888103|168662235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|-42.65|||ANCOVA|||||-42.65|-52.35|<0.0001
84455470|NCT05888103|168662236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-62.86|||ANCOVA|||||-62.86|-76.60|<0.0001
84455471|NCT05888103|168662237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.86|-69.8|||ANCOVA|||||-69.80|-85.86|<0.0001
84455472|NCT05888103|168662238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-226.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.77|-208.45|||ANCOVA|||||-208.45|-244.77|<0.0001
84455473|NCT05888103|168662239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-28.07|||ANCOVA|||||-28.07|-34.91|<0.0001
84455474|NCT05888103|168662240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.24|-63.69|||ANCOVA|||||-63.69|-79.24|<0.0001
84455475|NCT05888103|168662241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.94||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.42|||ANCOVA|||||9.42|-3.55|0.3743
84455476|NCT05888103|168662242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|-1.54|0.4228
84717715|NCT05257603|169184844|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Given the exploratory nature of the analysis we were looking for a trend in improvement in emotion regulation (i.e., p\<.10) following the intervention condition compared to control.|ANOVA|||||||<.10
84455477|NCT05888103|168662243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.57|-36.57|||ANCOVA|||||-36.57|-44.57|<0.0001
84455478|NCT05888103|168662244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.56|-65.13|||ANCOVA|||||-65.13|-79.56|<0.0001
84455479|NCT05888103|168662245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-32.96|||ANCOVA|||||-32.96|-40.72|<0.0001
84455480|NCT05888103|168662246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-37.47|||ANCOVA|||||-37.47|-46.28|<0.0001
84455481|NCT05888103|168662247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.05||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.93|||ANCOVA|||||5.93|-1.84|0.3011
84455482|NCT05888103|168662248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.13||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.35|||ANCOVA|||||8.35|-2.09|0.2403
84455483|NCT05888103|168662249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.58|-19.95|||ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-40.58|<0.0001
84455484|NCT05888103|168662250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|0.60|<0.0001
84455485|NCT05888103|168662251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|13.91|||ANCOVA|||||13.91|-7.88|0.5877
84455486|NCT05888103|168662252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.96||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.17|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-31.17|0.5019
84455487|NCT05900115|168662258|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
84515589|NCT00796653|168784307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.967|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
84455488|NCT05900115|168662259|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
84515590|NCT00796653|168784307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
84455489|NCT05900115|168662260|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
84455490|NCT05900115|168662261|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
84455491|NCT05900115|168662262|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
84455492|NCT05900115|168662263|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
84455493|NCT05900115|168662264|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
84455494|NCT05900115|168662265|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
84455495|NCT05900115|168662266|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary dichotomous outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|.38|0.85
84455496|NCT05900115|168662267|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
84455497|NCT01641120|168662294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<.05
84539868|NCT04700137|168829870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of healthcare providers/staff attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||16.2|-5.2|0.31
84455498|NCT01641120|168662295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.193
84455499|NCT01641120|168662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.035
84455500|NCT01641120|168662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||.005
84455501|NCT02554929|168662298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.74||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SAD.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||0.74|-0.91|0.002
84455502|NCT02554929|168662298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.48||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SM.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.48|-0.95|0.002
84455503|NCT02554929|168662301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|8.08||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value of the estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between change in CGAS scores for participants in the CBT arm, in comparison to those in the socialization arm, from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||8.08|-4.28|0.002
84455504|NCT01916980|168662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in least squares (LS) mean for the Desloratadine: Eczema/Dermatitis group||||<0.001
84455505|NCT01916980|168662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in LS mean for the Desloratadine: Dermal Pruritus group||||<0.001
84455506|NCT02324270|168662310|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of mean changes between test and reference products was contained within the interval, \[0.80,1.25\], then the products were considered to be equivalent.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08||||||||1.08|0.94|
84455507|NCT02324270|168662311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84455508|NCT02324270|168662311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84455509|NCT03521791|168662322|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.133
84539869|NCT02924727|168829900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9012||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7778|1.0441|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||Primary Composite||1.0441|0.7778|0.1659
84455510|NCT03521791|168662323|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
84455511|NCT03521791|168662324|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.333
84455512|NCT03521791|168662325|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
84455513|NCT03521791|168662326|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.394|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
84455514|NCT03521791|168662327|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
84539870|NCT02924727|168829900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7104|1.0754|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV Death||1.0754|0.7104|0.2031
84539871|NCT02924727|168829900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8653||||0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7044|1.0629|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First HF Hospitalization||1.0629|0.7044|0.1679
84455515|NCT03521791|168662329|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
84455516|NCT03521791|168662330|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.117|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.117
84455517|NCT03521791|168662331|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.626
84455518|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.73|122.96|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||122.96|91.73|
84455519|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|50.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.34|59.1|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||59.10|42.34|
84455520|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.85|55.68|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||55.68|39.85|
84455521|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.49|68.92|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||68.92|49.49|
84455522|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.78|99.43|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||99.43|73.78|
84455523|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|93.62|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||93.62|69.48|
84455524|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.61|104.09|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||104.09|77.61|
84455525|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|98.2|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||98.20|72.94|
84539872|NCT02924727|168829900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6831||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|1.0266|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First Outpatient HF||1.0266|0.4546|0.0667
84539873|NCT02924727|168829901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9133||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7824|1.0662|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death or HF hospitalization||1.0662|0.7824|0.2507
84455526|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|179.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.57|212.99|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||212.99|151.57|
84455527|NCT04024501|168662336|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|122.11|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||122.11|90.18|
84455528|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|100.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|118.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||118.65|84.94|
84455529|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.74|49.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||49.00|34.74|
84455530|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.61|48.81|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||48.81|34.61|
84455531|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|53.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.09|63.59|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||63.59|45.09|
84455532|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.19|91.06|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||91.06|65.19|
84515591|NCT01940341|168784322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 130 and 260 participants in the TDF group and TAF groups, respectively were planned to give 90% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size was based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF-TDF) in proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 91%. All missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.2|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||7.2|-3.6|
84539874|NCT02924727|168829902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8422||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6979|1.0163|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||HF hospitalization or Outpatient HF||1.0163|0.6979|0.0732
84455533|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.94|90.71|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.71|64.94|
84455534|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|100.03|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||100.03|70.93|
84455535|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|99.64|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||99.64|70.65|
84455536|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|204.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.22|243.42|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||243.42|171.22|
84455537|NCT04024501|168662337|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.06|129.83|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||129.83|92.06|
84455538|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|124.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.09|154.54|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||154.54|101.09|
84455539|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|33.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.15|42.01|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||42.01|27.15|
84455540|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|27.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.72|33.61|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||33.61|21.72|
84455541|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.61|45.82|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||45.82|29.61|
84455542|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.15|113.36|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||113.36|74.15|
84455543|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.33|90.7|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.70|59.33|
84455544|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|67.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.37|84.12|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||84.12|54.37|
84455545|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|67.3|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||67.30|43.50|
84455546|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.15|250.32|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||250.32|160.15|
84455547|NCT04024501|168662338|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|91.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||91.75|59.30|
84455548|NCT04187092|168662358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The 12-week changes in the KOOS scores, and the 12-week changes in the IKDC scores were analyzed by way of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Covariates: Age and sex of the subject, the subject's baseline outcome measure, the subject's baseline IKDC Total score, and the subject's standardized intake date (i.e., i.e., subject's intake date minus the intake date of the first enrolled subject) served as the ANCOVA concomitant adjustment variables||||<0.05
84455549|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.043|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 0 hr.|||1.043|0.946|0.791
84455550|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
84515592|NCT00838136|168784347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.23||||||90.0|99.88|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.60|99.88|
84515593|NCT00838136|168784348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.87||||||90.0|99.18|104.63|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.63|99.18|
84515594|NCT00838136|168784349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.76||||||90.0|98.6|102.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.97|98.60|
84515595|NCT01641380|168784356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We also evaluated the difference between the number of days after the scheduled appointment patients returned.||.06|-1.4|<.05
84515596|NCT01641380|168784356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of proportions|0.417||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3307|24.8818|||Chi-squared||Intervention 34/50; Control : 28/50|On time for 1st follow-up visit||24.8818|-13.3307|0.5187
84515597|NCT01641380|168784359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||[Proportion of Eligible Patients Enrolle|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84515598|NCT01581658|168784361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|128.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.962|156.604|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||156.604|105.962|
84455551|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.001||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.051|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 15 min.|||1.051|0.953|0.975
84455552|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 45 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
84515599|NCT01581658|168784361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.306|174.848|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||174.848|118.306|
84455553|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.003||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.053|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr.|||1.053|0.955|0.908
84455554|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.025||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.077|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr 45 min.|||1.077|0.977|0.312
84455555|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr.|||1.058|0.960|0.763
84455556|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.15|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 30 min.|||1.150|1.043|<0.001
84515600|NCT01581658|168784361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|152.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.287|185.166|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||185.166|125.287|
84515601|NCT01581658|168784362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.236|121.015|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.015|72.236|
84515602|NCT01581658|168784362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.216|119.305|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||119.305|71.216|
84515603|NCT01581658|168784362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|121.674|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.674|72.630|
84515604|NCT00787254|168784371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4499|||Log Rank|||||0.4499|0.1400|<0.0001
84515605|NCT00787254|168784372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
84515606|NCT00787254|168784373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0041
84515607|NCT00787254|168784374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0652
84515608|NCT00787254|168784375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9836
84515609|NCT00787254|168784377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84515610|NCT00787254|168784378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
84515611|NCT00787254|168784379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
84515612|NCT00787254|168784380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2363||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
84515613|NCT00787254|168784382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84515614|NCT00787254|168784383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4788
84515615|NCT00787254|168784384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6607||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6607
84515616|NCT00787254|168784385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8811
84455557|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.098|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 45 min.|||1.098|0.996|0.070
84455558|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.971||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.02|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 15 min.|||1.020|0.925|0.238
84455559|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.975||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.023|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 30 min.|||1.023|0.928|0.298
84515617|NCT00787254|168784386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84515618|NCT00787254|168784388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2060
84515619|NCT00787254|168784389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5099||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5099
84515620|NCT00787254|168784390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7794||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7794
84515621|NCT00787254|168784391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84455560|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.994||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.044|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 45 min.|||1.044|0.947|0.821
84455561|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.991||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.04|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr.|||1.040|0.944|0.715
84455562|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 15 min.|||1.058|0.960|0.759
84455563|NCT01475734|168662363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 30 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
84455564|NCT00880750|168662409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.47, 3.47).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.18|
84455565|NCT00880750|168662410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.40, 3.40).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-3.17|
84455566|NCT00880750|168662411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.34||||||90.0|1.26|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation AUC 0-48 was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.42|1.26|
84455567|NCT00880750|168662412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.26||||||90.0|1.2|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation Cmax was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.33|1.20|
84455568|NCT00880750|168662413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|The median difference and 90% CI for the median difference was then calculated based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test||||0.50|0.00|
84455569|NCT03242954|168662414|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.101|||Regression, Linear|||||0.101|0.001|0.5148
84455570|NCT03242954|168662415|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.389|||Regression, Linear|||||0.389|0.169|<.0001
84455571|NCT03242954|168662416|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.073|||GEE Linear model|||||0.073|0.001|0.4324
84455572|NCT03242954|168662417|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.374|||GEE Linear model|||||0.374|0.175|<.0001
84455573|NCT04660643|168662449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-22.9|<.001
84455574|NCT04660643|168662450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.0|<.001
84515622|NCT00787254|168784393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6980
84455575|NCT04660643|168662451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
84455576|NCT04660643|168662452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.7|-14.1|<.001
84455577|NCT04660643|168662453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
84455578|NCT04660643|168662454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-10.14|<.001
84455579|NCT04660643|168662455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.38|<.001
84455580|NCT04660643|168662456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.4|-37.7|<.001
84455581|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-3.28|-7.76|<.001
84455582|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-3.15|-9.87|<.001
84455583|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.8|0.6|0.014
84515623|NCT00787254|168784394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4599||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4599
84515624|NCT00787254|168784395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0355
84515625|NCT00787254|168784396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7325
84515626|NCT00787254|168784398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8262
84515627|NCT00787254|168784399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7244
84515628|NCT00787254|168784400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9566||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9566
84515629|NCT00787254|168784401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2008
84455584|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.1|-24.0|<.001
84455585|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16|-24.9|<.001
84455586|NCT04660643|168662457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-3.0|-17.9|0.008
84455587|NCT04660643|168662458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-4.6|-8.1|<.001
84455588|NCT04660643|168662458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.4|-4.8|<.001
84455589|NCT04660643|168662459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|1.7|<.001
84515630|NCT00787254|168784403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0703
84515631|NCT00787254|168784404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3046
84455590|NCT04660643|168662460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.8|<0.001
84455591|NCT04660643|168662461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.72|168.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||168.09|54.72|<0.001
84455592|NCT04660643|168662462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|121.99|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5% body weight reduction from baseline||121.99|18.32|<0.001
84455593|NCT04660643|168662462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.46|148.39|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10% body weight reduction from baseline||148.39|34.46|<0.001
84455594|NCT04660643|168662462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.06|152.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15% body weight reduction from baseline||152.14|42.06|<0.001
84455595|NCT04660643|168662462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|140.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.06|300.29|||Regression, Logistic|||≥20% body weight reduction from baseline||300.29|66.06|<0.001
84455596|NCT04660643|168662463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.046|||Log Rank||Unstratified hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model with Baseline Weight (kg), Analysis Country, Sex, IWRS MTD at Week 36, Weight at randomization (kg) as covariates.|||0.046|0.004|<.001
84455597|NCT04660643|168662464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
84455598|NCT04660643|168662465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
84455599|NCT04660643|168662466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.5|<.001
84455600|NCT04660643|168662467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-15.1|<.001
84455601|NCT04660643|168662468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-10.40|<.001
84455602|NCT04660643|168662469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.39|<.001
84455603|NCT04660643|168662470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-40.6|<.001
84455604|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-4.72|-9.27|<.001
84515632|NCT00787254|168784405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7121
84515633|NCT00787254|168784406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1522||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1522
84455605|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-4.21|-10.91|<.001
84455606|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.418||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.43|-0.14|0.064
84455607|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.3|-24.7|<.001
84455608|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16.4|-25.8|<.001
84455609|NCT04660643|168662471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.793||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.98|-4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-4.06|-18.98|0.004
84455610|NCT04660643|168662472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-5.1|-8.7|<.001
84455611|NCT04660643|168662472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.6|-5.1|<.001
84515634|NCT00787254|168784408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5328
84515635|NCT00787254|168784409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7223||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7223
84515636|NCT00787254|168784410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3117
84515637|NCT00787254|168784411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4344
84515638|NCT00787254|168784413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1571||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1571
84515639|NCT00787254|168784414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2503
84515640|NCT00787254|168784415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4028
84515641|NCT00787254|168784416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
84515642|NCT01343004|168784460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84515643|NCT01343004|168784460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84515644|NCT01343004|168784461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84455612|NCT04660643|168662473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|1.7|<.001
84455613|NCT04660643|168662474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.5|<.001
84515645|NCT01343004|168784461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84515646|NCT01343004|168784461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8155|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.8155
84515647|NCT01343004|168784462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84515648|NCT01343004|168784462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84515649|NCT01343004|168784462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84515650|NCT01343004|168784463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84455614|NCT03988907|168662475|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
84455615|NCT03988907|168662476|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.20|1.02|
84455616|NCT03988907|168662477|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
84455617|NCT03988907|168662478|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
84455618|NCT03988907|168662479|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.3||||||||1.30|1.11|
84455619|NCT03988907|168662480|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.41||||||||1.41|1.14|
84455620|NCT00167245|168662505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84455621|NCT00167245|168662506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.45
84455622|NCT00167245|168662507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|-2.1|0.4
84515651|NCT01343004|168784463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
84515652|NCT01343004|168784463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.0004
84515653|NCT01343004|168784464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0318
84455623|NCT01773421|168662526|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
84515654|NCT01343004|168784464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2304
84515655|NCT01343004|168784464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3361
84515656|NCT02925884|168784528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Decreased Cognitive Functions.||||0.011
84515657|NCT02925884|168784528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Eyestrain.||||<0.001
84515658|NCT02925884|168784528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Physical Discomfort.||||0.009
84515659|NCT02925884|168784528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Deceased Visual Function.||||<0.001
84515660|NCT02925884|168784528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Poor Balance.||||0.28
84515661|NCT02925884|168784529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
84515662|NCT02925884|168784530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Red Color Perception.||||0.009
84455624|NCT01773421|168662527|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.2|1.02|
84515663|NCT02925884|168784530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Green Color Perception.||||0.446
84455625|NCT01773421|168662528|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.27||||||||1.27|1|
84455626|NCT00445302|168662559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|119.26||||||||119.26|63.59|
84455627|NCT00445302|168662559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means(%)|106.6||||||90.0|78.99|143.87||||||||143.87|78.99|
84515664|NCT02925884|168784530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Blue Color Perception.||||0.953
84515665|NCT02925884|168784531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
84515666|NCT02925884|168784532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
84515667|NCT02925884|168784533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.343
84455628|NCT00445302|168662559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|106.76||||||90.0|79.11|144.08||||||||144.08|79.11|
84455629|NCT00445302|168662562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|121.74||||||90.0|91.86|161.43||||||||161.43|91.86|
84455630|NCT00445302|168662562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|151.44||||||90.0|115.78|198.09||||||||198.09|115.78|
84455631|NCT00445302|168662562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|169.51||||||90.0|129.59|221.72||||||||221.72|129.59|
84455632|NCT01276821|168662576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non - Inferiority Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis Efficacy of nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is not higer than as compared to L-Epinephrine given with 0.9% normal saline in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis.~Alternate Hypothesis:~Nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is superior to 0.9% Normal saline with L-Epinephrine in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis."||1.82|0.78|<0.05
84455633|NCT02939131|168662584|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not. The study was designed for at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.8 standard deviations (SD), which corresponded to a difference of four points. We assumed an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) between 0.02 and 0.16 and allowed for 10% non-evaluability. In a pre-planned interim analysis, we estimated the ICC based on the entry QIDS-SR to be 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|-0.94|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|||-0.94|-6.79|0.01
84455634|NCT02939131|168662585|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|||65.5|23.1|<0.001
84455635|NCT02939131|168662586|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|||52.9|8.9|0.01
84515668|NCT02925884|168784534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.489
84515669|NCT02925884|168784535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
84515670|NCT02925884|168784536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84515671|NCT02925884|168784537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
84515672|NCT04516434|168784538|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
84515673|NCT04516434|168784538|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
84515674|NCT04516434|168784539|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.08
84515675|NCT04516434|168784539|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.045
84515676|NCT04516434|168784541|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
84515677|NCT04516434|168784541|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.41
84515678|NCT04516434|168784541|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
84515679|NCT04516434|168784541|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.01
84515680|NCT04516434|168784542|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
84515681|NCT04516434|168784542|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
84515682|NCT04516434|168784543|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
84515683|NCT04516434|168784543|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
84455636|NCT02939131|168662587|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|262.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Group mean for ESC is subtracted from the group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site mean CD4 cell counts.|||262|-223|0.86
84455637|NCT02939131|168662588|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from the group mean of the COMB-R group. The group means are the means of the site mean log10 HIV RNA copies/mL.|||0.99|-0.65|0.66
84455638|NCT02939131|168662589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R group had a site-level average of more days in last 30 with missed HIV medication doses.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 24.||4.0|0.1|0.04
84455639|NCT02939131|168662589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference reflects greater number of days with missed HIV medication doses in last 30 days for COMB-R group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 48.||5.2|-5.0|0.96
84455640|NCT02939131|168662590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the COMB-R group rated adherence to HIV medications better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 24.||0.4|-1.1|0.27
84455641|NCT02939131|168662590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 48.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
84455642|NCT02939131|168662591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.1|0.14
84455643|NCT02939131|168662591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||1.1|-0.6|0.49
84455644|NCT02939131|168662592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group had more days with missed depression medications than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 24.||4.4|0.0|0.05
84455645|NCT02939131|168662592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported more days with missed doses than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 48.||7.1|-12.5|0.53
84455646|NCT02939131|168662593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.5|0.13
84455647|NCT02939131|168662593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking their medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 48.||2.0|-1.1|0.53
84455648|NCT02939131|168662594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.1|-1.3|0.07
84455649|NCT02939131|168662594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||2.3|-0.8|0.28
84455650|NCT02939131|168662595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.44
84515684|NCT00834522|168784544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.79||||||90.0|99.4|108.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.37|99.40|
84455651|NCT02939131|168662597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The average number of scheduled study visits through week 24 was computed for each site. The analysis was of these site-level averages. These values were compared between study groups||0.3|-0.4|0.67
84455652|NCT02939131|168662597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||We computed the average number of scheduled study visits through week 48 for each site. We then averaged the site-level values and compared study groups.||0.5|-0.7|0.74
84455653|NCT02939131|168662598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||0.76|-4.74|0.14
84515685|NCT00834522|168784545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.37||||||90.0|97.04|112.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.25|97.04|
84515686|NCT00834522|168784546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.22||||||90.0|96.9|112.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.08|96.90|
84455654|NCT02939131|168662599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|50.0|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||50.0|0.5|0.05
84455655|NCT02939131|168662600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|44.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||44.8|-12.3|0.24
84455656|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.28||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates that the treatment difference (lower QIDS-SR score with COMB-R than with ESC) was greater for females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||11.28|2.30|0.01
84455657|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|1.93||This is the test of effect modification by age group|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates the treatment difference is greater for younger compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||1.93|-7.05|0.23
84455658|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.95||This is the test of the effect modification of viral suppression status|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with viral suppression at study entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||2.95|-8.48|0.31
84455659|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|5.95||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR depression level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with moderate levels of depression compared to severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.95|-4.29|0.72
84455660|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.31||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would indicate a greater treatment difference for those with perinatal HIV acquisition compared to behavioral acquisition.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.31|-5.91|0.91
84455661|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|6.57||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage level|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment effect for those with less than HIV CDC Stage 3 compared to those with CDC Stage 3 HIV illness.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||6.57|-3.91|0.57
84478831|NCT04491240|168709078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.91404||0.020875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97687|132.6031|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||132.6031|13.97687|0.020875
84515687|NCT02301975|168784548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit PM FEV1 for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 milliliter (mL)|Least square mean change difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.049||||||||0.049|-0.011|
84515688|NCT02301975|168784548|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.093|<0.001
84717716|NCT05257603|169184845|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA was used to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
84717717|NCT05257603|169184846|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for a trend set at p\<.10 for condition effect (intervention v control).|ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
84455662|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|13.59||This is the test of effect modification of CD4 Stage 3 at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 count at entry compared to those with Stage 3 CD4 count.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups..||13.59|-1.73|0.10
84455663|NCT02939131|168662601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.6||This is the test of effect modification by Nadir Stage 3 level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compare to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||4.60|-7.74|0.58
84455664|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.53|-19.1||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment response (higher percent with response in COMB-R than in ESC group) among females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||-19.10|-116.53|0.01
84455665|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|94.38||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.38|-8.23|0.09
84455666|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|55.49||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with suppressed viral status at entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||55.49|-51.13|0.93
84455667|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|49.0||This is the test of effect modification by entry QIDS-SR depression level.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment response for those with severe depressive symptoms at study entry compared to those with moderate depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||49.00|-42.28|0.87
84455668|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.91|105.2||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a larger treatment response for those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||105.20|-21.91|0.17
84455669|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|124.83||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment response for those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with CDC classification less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||124.83|-26.02|0.17
84455670|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.76|94.15||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect greater treatment response for those with CD4 Stage 3 compared to those with less than Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.15|-70.76|0.71
84515689|NCT02301975|168784548|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.134|0.074|<0.001
84515690|NCT02301975|168784549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 mL|Least square mean change difference|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.04||||||||0.040|-0.027|
84455671|NCT02939131|168662602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.48||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.46|94.5||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Nadir stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a larger treatment response among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compared to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.50|10.46|0.02
84455672|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.84|7.72||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect (higher percent with remission for COMB-R than for ESC) among females.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||7.72|-97.84|0.09
84455673|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.38|46.2||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a larger treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||46.20|-43.38|0.95
84455674|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|51.65||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with suppressed viral load compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.65|-40.47|0.79
84455675|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.97||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.88|26.94||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR level at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with moderate depression symptomatology at entry compared to those with severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||26.94|-58.88|0.42
84455676|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|61.22||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral transmission.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||61.22|-41.24|0.68
84478832|NCT04491240|168709078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|69.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.67648||0.000953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.88502|102.235|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||102.2350|36.88502|0.000953
84478833|NCT04491240|168709078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.85531||0.002233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.69923|81.72077|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||81.72077|24.69923|0.002233
84478834|NCT04491240|168709079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|331.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|315.823||0.008948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.5938|557.4462|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||557.4462|105.5938|0.008948
84478835|NCT04491240|168709079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|366.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|414.9726||0.020921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.77651|663.4835|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||663.4835|69.77651|0.020921
84515691|NCT02301975|168784549|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.086|<0.001
84455677|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.62|42.2||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with less than Stage 3 classification.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||42.20|-70.62|0.57
84455678|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.97||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.12|51.17||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 levels compared to those with Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.17|-141.12|0.26
84455679|NCT02939131|168662603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|72.02||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 nadir stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect by those with Stage 3 CD4 Nadir compared to those with less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||72.02|-52.97|0.72
84455680|NCT02939131|168662604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|28.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||28.1|-8.4|0.26
84455681|NCT02939131|168662604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||24.6|-37.1|0.66
84455682|NCT02939131|168662605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with regular frequency alcohol use at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||31.7|-22.3|0.71
84455683|NCT02939131|168662605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|59.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants at each site with regular alcohol use at week 48 was computed. These site-level percents were compared across treatments||59.6|-6.3|0.10
84455684|NCT02939131|168662606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The average number of drinks per day reported at week 24 was computed for each site and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.2|-2.6|0.09
84515692|NCT02301975|168784549|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.147|0.080|<0.001
84455685|NCT02939131|168662606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level average numbers of drinks per day reported at week 48 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.8|0.79
84455686|NCT02939131|168662607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group anc vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking at week 24 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.87
84455687|NCT02939131|168662607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking reported at week 48 were computed and the site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.8|-0.8|0.99
84455688|NCT02939131|168662608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|26.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||26.0|-19.7|0.77
84515693|NCT02301975|168784550|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||||3.0|-0.5|
84455689|NCT02939131|168662608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|38.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||38.4|-8.9|0.20
84515694|NCT02301975|168784550|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|0.9|0.002
84515695|NCT02301975|168784550|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-0.3|0.106
84515696|NCT02301975|168784551|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.7|
84515697|NCT02301975|168784551|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|0.8|0.004
84515698|NCT02301975|168784551|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-0.4|0.115
84515699|NCT02301975|168784552|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|9.4||||||||9.4|1.1|
84455690|NCT02939131|168662609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular use of tobacco at week 24. The percent of participants at each site with regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||33.3|-2.8|0.09
84455691|NCT02939131|168662609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|55.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular frequency use of tobacco at week 48. Site level percentages of the numbers of participants with regular tobacco use were computed and compared across treatment groups.||55.3|-14.0|0.21
84455692|NCT02939131|168662610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||28.3|-12.4|0.41
84455693|NCT02939131|168662610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|36.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||36.8|-10.9|0.26
84455694|NCT02939131|168662610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|29.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||29.5|-20.2|0.69
84455695|NCT02939131|168662610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||23.5|-24.8|0.96
84515700|NCT02301975|168784552|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|25.6|||ANCOVA|||||25.6|17.4|<0.001
84515701|NCT02301975|168784552|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|20.4|||ANCOVA|||||20.4|12.2|<0.001
84515702|NCT02301975|168784553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54||||||||1.54|0.53|
84455696|NCT02939131|168662611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|44.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates a higher site-level percentage of participants reporting regular use fof marijuana in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis for regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 24. The percent of participants at each site reporting regular use (of those reporting any use) was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||44.1|-23.9|0.53
84515703|NCT02301975|168784553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.69|0.595
84515704|NCT02301975|168784553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.75|0.372
84455697|NCT02939131|168662611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|34.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||34.9|-35.1|1.0
84455698|NCT02939131|168662611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 24. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||65.5|-16.2|0.18
84515705|NCT02301975|168784554|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.3||||||||9.3|0.7|
84515706|NCT02301975|168784554|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.5|||ANCOVA|||||23.5|14.9|<0.001
84515707|NCT02301975|168784554|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.5|||ANCOVA|||||18.5|9.9|<0.001
84515708|NCT04278560|168784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|385.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated Measures Two-Way ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled by Baseline Step Counts|ANOVA|||||||0.009
84515709|NCT04278560|168784557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.03
84515710|NCT04278560|168784558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for the analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.4
84515711|NCT04278560|168784559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.016
84515712|NCT04278560|168784560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.17
84515713|NCT04278560|168784561|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.1
84515714|NCT04278560|168784562|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline||||||0.7
84515715|NCT04278560|168784563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84515716|NCT04278560|168784564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84539875|NCT02924727|168829903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9007||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7734|1.0489|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death, Non-fatal spontaneous MI or Non-fatal stroke||1.0489|0.7734|0.1785
84455699|NCT02939131|168662611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||22.9|-59.5|0.34
84455700|NCT02939131|168662612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|39.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||39.6|-12.9|0.29
84455701|NCT02939131|168662612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|24.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis for week 48. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||24.5|-17.0|0.70
84455702|NCT02939131|168662613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.4|-13.7|0.71
84455703|NCT02939131|168662613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||8.1|-17.5|0.44
84455704|NCT02939131|168662614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.8|-5.3|0.23
84455705|NCT02939131|168662614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||12.7|-17.5|0.73
84455706|NCT02939131|168662615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.5|-0.4|0.24
84455707|NCT02939131|168662615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.3|0.22
84515717|NCT00462228|168784588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.55
84455708|NCT02939131|168662616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|23.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents of low frequency condom use in COMB-R treatment group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 24 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||23.9|-40.4|0.57
84455709|NCT02939131|168662616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 48 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||9.5|-53.1|0.15
84455710|NCT02939131|168662617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|27.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level percents were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 24, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||27.2|-40.9|0.65
84455711|NCT02939131|168662617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 48, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||-5.8|-69.7|0.02
84455712|NCT02939131|168662618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R participants attended more sessions than ESC|We averaged the number of counseling sessions for each site and compared these site-level averages.||8.1|-3.0|0.33
84455713|NCT02939131|168662623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|38.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants in the COMB-R group were taking medications, based on site-level percentages.|This is the analysis for the percent of participants on any psychiatric medication at week 24. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||38.2|-0.9|0.06
84455714|NCT02939131|168662623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||35.5|-0.7|0.06
84515718|NCT00462228|168784588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||1.00
84455715|NCT02939131|168662623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|40.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||40.6|4.2|0.02
84455716|NCT02939131|168662623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages of those on medication were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||9.6|-17.3|0.54
84455717|NCT02939131|168662623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate the site-level percentages of those on medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-antidepressant psychiatric medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||15.4|-25.4|0.60
84455718|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|24.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on any psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||24.8|-32.5|0.77
84455719|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more study time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on single SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||33.5|-37.3|0.91
84455720|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|26.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||26.9|-60.2|0.40
84455721|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on a single non-SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||40.1|-67.0|0.52
84455722|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.0|785.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Because of sparseness, the confidence intervals for this site-level analysis are very large.|A positive difference indicates more time on medication in the COMB-R group. There was data from only one site in the ESC group and 2 sites in the COMB-R group. The confidence interval for the difference is quite large and the test is unreliable.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on non-SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups. This analysis is unstable because of sparseness.||785.7|-778.0|0.96
84455723|NCT02939131|168662624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|23.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would reflect more time on medications in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on antidepressant medication across treatment groups.||23.0|-31.4|0.74
84455724|NCT02939131|168662625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level average interim counseling sessions was higher in the COMB-R group.|We compared the site-level average number of interim counseling sessions between treatment groups.||8.2|-2.8|0.29
84455725|NCT02939131|168662627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates higher site-level averages in the COMB-R group.|The average score for all participants at each site was computed. These site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.38|0.02|0.03
84455726|NCT02939131|168662628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group and vice versa|The average of scores for all participants' clinicians at each site was computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.29|-0.43|0.69
84455727|NCT02939131|168662629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group than the ESC group and vice versa.|The average scores for all participants' prescribing clinicians at each site were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.03|0.26|0.004
84717718|NCT05257603|169184847|OTHER||||||<|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial.||||<.098
84455728|NCT02939131|168662630|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|14.36|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtract group mean for ESC from group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site-level percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 24. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.36|-14.04|0.98
84455729|NCT02939131|168662630|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 24.The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||12.98|-7.85|0.60
84539876|NCT02924727|168829904|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8361||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7018|0.9961|||Negative Binomial regression model|||Total Number of Confirmed Composite Endpoints||0.9961|0.7018|0.0452
84717719|NCT04024059|169184849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737|||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|4.195|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.195|0.719|=0.22
84717720|NCT04024059|169184849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.035|||=|0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.461|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.461|0.435|=0.938
84455730|NCT02939131|168662630|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events as defined above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|11.02|||t-test, 2 sided||The ESC group mean percent of participants reporting a trigger event was subtracted from the COMB-R group mean.|This is the analysis of the triggering events (psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts) through week 24. A participant is counted once if they had reported any such event prior to the upper bound of the week 24 window. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event were computed.The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.02|-2.21|0.17
84455731|NCT02939131|168662631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|14.13|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.13|-13.85|0.98
84455732|NCT02939131|168662631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.89|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||19.89|-8.60|0.40
84455733|NCT02939131|168662631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|11.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new trigger events through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.29|-5.27|0.44
84515719|NCT00462228|168784588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.45
84515720|NCT00462228|168784588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.43
84515721|NCT00462228|168784589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||6 week comparison,alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores||||0.23
84515722|NCT00462228|168784589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.022
84515723|NCT00462228|168784589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.06
84515724|NCT00462228|168784589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.027
84515725|NCT00462228|168784590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||1.0
84515726|NCT00462228|168784590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.55
84515727|NCT00462228|168784590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.81
84515728|NCT00462228|168784590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.57
84455734|NCT03569202|168662634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8837||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7081|10.4756||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||10.4756|-6.7081|0.662
84455735|NCT03569202|168662634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7199|-18.5692||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-18.5692|-30.7199|<0.0001
84455736|NCT03569202|168662634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6036|-20.4529||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-20.4529|-32.6036|<0.0001
84455737|NCT03569202|168662635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9808||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6005|7.639||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.6390|-13.6005|0.575
84515729|NCT00462228|168784591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.55
84515730|NCT00462228|168784591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||1.0
84515731|NCT00462228|168784591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.17
84455738|NCT03569202|168662635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2593|2.7593||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7593|-12.2593|0.2098
84455739|NCT03569202|168662635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7692||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2785|5.7401||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||5.7401|-9.2785|0.6381
84455740|NCT03569202|168662636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8462||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6792|2.3715||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||2.3715|-0.6792|0.271
84455741|NCT03569202|168662636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7115||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.7901||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7901|0.6330|0.0025
84455742|NCT03569202|168662636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8654||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2132|1.944||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.9440|-0.2132|0.1134
84455743|NCT03569202|168662637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1731||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1016|7.4477||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.4477|-3.1016|0.412
84455744|NCT03569202|168662637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01923||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7105|3.749||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||3.7490|-3.7105|0.9918
84455745|NCT03569202|168662637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1538||||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8836|1.5759||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.5759|-5.8836|0.2516
84515732|NCT00462228|168784591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.64
84455746|NCT03569202|168662638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5093||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007267|1.0113||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||1.0113|0.007267|0.047
84515733|NCT00462228|168784592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R total recall scores.||||0.34
84515734|NCT00462228|168784592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||1.0
84515735|NCT00462228|168784592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.54
84515736|NCT00462228|168784592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.91
84515737|NCT00462228|168784593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.34
84515738|NCT00462228|168784593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.55
84515739|NCT00462228|168784593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.37
84455747|NCT03569202|168662638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5596||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2046|0.9146||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.9146|0.2046|0.0026
84455748|NCT03569202|168662638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05032||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3047|0.4053||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.4053|-0.3047|0.7770
84455749|NCT03569202|168662639|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.7604||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.447
84455750|NCT03569202|168662639|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.014
84455751|NCT03569202|168662639|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.070
84455752|NCT03569202|168662640|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.6396||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.522
84455753|NCT03569202|168662640|OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.119
84455754|NCT03569202|168662640|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.900
84455755|NCT03569202|168662641|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.5387||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.590
84455756|NCT03569202|168662641|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.043
84455757|NCT03569202|168662641|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.442
84539877|NCT02924727|168829905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8751||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7279|1.052|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||All-Cause Death||1.0520|0.7279|0.1556
84455758|NCT03569202|168662643|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|0.9208||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.357
84455759|NCT03569202|168662643|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.001
84455760|NCT03569202|168662643|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.065
84455761|NCT03569202|168662644|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|1.044||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.296
84515740|NCT00462228|168784593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.95
84515741|NCT00462228|168784594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.75
84515742|NCT00462228|168784594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.51
84515743|NCT00462228|168784594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.31
84515744|NCT00462228|168784594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.46
84515745|NCT00462228|168784595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.34
84515746|NCT00462228|168784595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.75
84515747|NCT00462228|168784595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.37
84515748|NCT00462228|168784595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.45
84455762|NCT03569202|168662644|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.012
84515749|NCT00567320|168784596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM analysis of % of Cocaine Positive Urines per week over 12 weeks. Subjects were used as a Random variable, with medication dosing set to 'Fixed'.||||0.84
84515750|NCT00834340|168784597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
84515751|NCT00834340|168784598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|94.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.0|
84455763|NCT03569202|168662644|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||>0.05
84455764|NCT03569202|168662646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9911||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6117|11.6295||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||11.6295|-15.6117|0.764
84455765|NCT03569202|168662646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0625||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.928|-6.197||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.1970|-27.9280|0.0038
84455766|NCT03569202|168662646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0714||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.285|-6.8579||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.8579|-23.2850|0.0011
84455767|NCT01175005|168662695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84515752|NCT00834340|168784599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|98.7|
84515753|NCT00395694|168784600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with rash events.|||11.1|1.6|
84515754|NCT03673670|168784629|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.021||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.991|0.168
84515755|NCT03673670|168784629|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|0.995||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.966|0.731
84455768|NCT00454779|168662696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.002|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.002|0.395|0.051
84455769|NCT00454779|168662696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.048
84455770|NCT00454779|168662697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|24.12|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||24.12|-11.67|
84455771|NCT00454779|168662697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||||95.0|0.57|3.33|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||3.33|0.57|
84455772|NCT00454779|168662698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|23.85|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||23.85|-8.29|
84455773|NCT00454779|168662698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||||95.0|0.62|5.26|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||5.26|0.62|
84455774|NCT00454779|168662701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.717|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone|||1.717|0.709|0.663
84455775|NCT00454779|168662701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.666
84455776|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.84||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.84|0.37|<0.001
84455777|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.62|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.29||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.83|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||1.29|0.30|<0.01
84455778|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.77||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.31|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||3.77|0.36|<0.01
84455779|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.26|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.38|0.19|<0.05
84515756|NCT03673670|168784630|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.115
84455780|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.28||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.79|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.28|0.66|<0.001
84455781|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.98||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.01|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||1.98|0.32|<0.05
84455782|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.46||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.46|0.25|<0.001
84515757|NCT03673670|168784630|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.111
84455783|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.74|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||2.44|0.45|<0.001
84539878|NCT00174954|168829943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.785
84455784|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.78||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.59|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||1.78|0.13|<0.01
84455785|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.47||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -1.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.47|0.16|>0.05
84455786|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.08||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.10|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.08|0.60|<0.001
84455787|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.09|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.95||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.17|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||2.95|0.40|<0.01
84455788|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.69||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.001
84455789|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.32||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
84455790|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.90||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
84455791|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -1.02||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||||>0.05
84515758|NCT03673670|168784631|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.014||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.987|0.303
84515759|NCT03673670|168784632|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.027||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.998|0.067
84515760|NCT03673670|168784632|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.042|||ANCOVA|||||1.042|0.984|0.395
84717721|NCT04024059|169184850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|4.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.336|0.733|=0.202
84455792|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -4.01||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
84455793|NCT01337973|168662708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.21||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall non-partner injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
84515761|NCT03673670|168784633|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.039|||ANCOVA|||||1.039|0.984|0.404
84717722|NCT04024059|169184850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.571|=.474
84455794|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.47||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.52|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.47|0.62|<0.001
84455795|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.98|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.18|<0.01
84455796|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.13|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||1.8|0.4|<0.05
84455797|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.48|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.54|<0.05
84455798|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.71||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.94|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.71|0.78|<0.001
84455799|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.61|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.16||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.56|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||2.16|0.17|<0.05
84455800|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.44||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.86|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||2.44|0.57|<0.01
84515762|NCT03673670|168784634|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.123|||ANCOVA|||||1.123|1.043|0.001
84515763|NCT03673670|168784634|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.101|||ANCOVA|||||1.101|1.023|0.002
84515764|NCT03673670|168784635|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.02||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.997|0.096
84717723|NCT04024059|169184851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.497|0.299|=0.328
84455801|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.51|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.48|0.61|<0.001
84455802|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||||<0.001
84455803|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.45||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
84539879|NCT00174954|168829944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.020
84717724|NCT04024059|169184851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.627|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.627|0.322|=0.435
84717725|NCT05954546|169184852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.72|||||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Encorafenib+Binimetinib (RWD) relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (CTD) (reference).||1.72|0.62|
84455804|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.5||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
84455805|NCT01337973|168662709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.58||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||||<0.05
84455806|NCT02522767|168662718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.32||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.32|0.73|>0.05
84455807|NCT02522767|168662721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.29||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.29|0.96|>0.05
84455808|NCT02522767|168662722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.15|||Generalized estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.15|0.78|>0.05
84455809|NCT02522767|168662723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.02||The p-value was based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as a factor.|Times to normal stool pattern were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.02|0.91|>0.05
84455810|NCT02522767|168662724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-0.08|-0.41|<0.05
84515765|NCT03673670|168784635|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.002||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.979|0.862
84515766|NCT03673670|168784636|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.945
84717726|NCT03547271|169185072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.842|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||0.842|0.565|
84717727|NCT03547271|169185072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.58|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||5.58|4.00|
84455811|NCT02522767|168662725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.39|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.67|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.67|-5.46|>0.05
84455812|NCT02522767|168662726|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-289.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-514.96|-64.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to calculate estimates.|Changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-64.42|-514.96|<0.05
84455813|NCT02522767|168662727|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.5|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimates.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||20.50|5.10|<0.05
84455814|NCT03222427|168662733|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|1.18||||||||1.18|0.769|
84455815|NCT00254566|168662735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.8|3.9|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence Interval|95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.9|-5.8|
84455816|NCT00254566|168662736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in the percentage of participants with Cure and the 95% CI|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
84455817|NCT00254566|168662737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciprocal of the variance. Stratification will be by steroid use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
84455818|NCT00254566|168662738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.5|3.3|||||Risk difference is the difference in eradication rates of pathogens by treatment|||3.3|-4.5|
84515767|NCT03673670|168784636|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.501
84515768|NCT03437265|168784646|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
84515769|NCT03437265|168784647|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
84455819|NCT00254566|168662739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.33||||0.159||95.0|0.9|2.0||p-value was estimated from Cox's Proportional Hazard model with steriod use and country as factors and baseline FEV1 fitted as covariate|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time taken for 1st 25th quartile of subjects to experience recurrence of AECB. Estimate of median time to event couldn't be calculated because \<50% of subjects in analysis population experienced a recurrence. The ratio of the treatment groups' recurrence rate (hazard ratio) estimated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for steroid use, frequency of AECB in previous 12 months, country and baseline Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1).||2.0|0.9|0.159
84455820|NCT00254566|168662740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.57||95.0|-0.21|0.12|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use, and country fitted as factor and baseline CCQ total scores and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.12|-0.21|0.57
84455821|NCT00254566|168662740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.82||95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.10|-0.13|0.82
84455822|NCT00254566|168662741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81||95.0|-0.21|0.17|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.17|-0.21|0.81
84455823|NCT00254566|168662741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87||95.0|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.12|0.87
84455824|NCT00254566|168662742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.385||95.0|-0.27|0.1|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.10|-0.27|0.385
84455825|NCT00254566|168662742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.56||95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.09|-0.17|0.56
84455826|NCT00254566|168662743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.62||95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.16|-0.26|0.62
84455827|NCT00254566|168662743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8||95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.18|0.80
84515770|NCT03437265|168784648|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
84455828|NCT00356031|168662840|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
84455829|NCT00356031|168662841|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
84455830|NCT01872338|168662846|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.87|||negative binomial regression|||||.87|.29|.015
84455831|NCT01872338|168662847|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||negative binomial regression|||||.82|.22|.01
84455832|NCT01872338|168662848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures, overall time by condition effect||||||.34
84455833|NCT01872338|168662849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||repeated measures, overall time by condition effect|Regression, Linear|||||||.23
84455834|NCT02419508|168662871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
84455835|NCT02419508|168662872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455836|NCT02419508|168662873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455837|NCT02419508|168662874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455838|NCT02419508|168662875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455839|NCT02419508|168662876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455840|NCT02419508|168662877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84455841|NCT03657459|168662905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Chi-squared|Pearsons Chi Square||||||0.0096
84455842|NCT03657459|168662906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||no adjustment|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square||||||0.90
84455843|NCT00066690|168662926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.04|0.66|0.1
84455844|NCT00066690|168662926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.86|0.53|
84455845|NCT00066690|168662927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.03|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.03|0.3|0.09
84455846|NCT00066690|168662927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.83|0.49|
84455847|NCT00066690|168662928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.18|0.66|0.40
84455848|NCT00066690|168662928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio.|||0.96|0.52|
84455849|NCT00066690|168662929|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.92|0.48|0.01
84455850|NCT00066690|168662929|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio|||1.15|0.62|
84515771|NCT03437265|168784649|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
84455851|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||bFGF (high versus low)||1.80|0.63|0.8127
84455852|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.08||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||E-selectin (high versus low)||3.08|1.06|0.0285
84455853|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||ICAM (high versus low)||1.85|0.64|0.7478
84455854|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.33||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||PlGF (high versus low)||2.33|0.58|0.6761
84455855|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.09||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGF A (high versus low)||2.09|0.72|0.4601
84515772|NCT03437265|168784650|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
84515773|NCT03437265|168784651|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented. The Geometric CV for glycolic acid was Not Calculated (appears as 0%).|||
84515774|NCT03437265|168784652|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary of the number of bowel movements per time period for the PD analysis set|||
84515775|NCT03437265|168784653|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The time (in minutes) to achieve clear effluent/time to turbid contents is presented for the PD analysis set.|||
84515776|NCT02294786|168784663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.8||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||Cycle 1-3 (up to 9 weeks)||20.0|-29.2|0.775
84515777|NCT04859517|168784686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.08|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.08|-8.87|0.0123
84455856|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.29||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-1 (high versus low)||1.29|0.46|0.3193
84455857|NCT00700180|168662930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.45||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-2 (high versus low)||2.45|0.85|0.1758
84455858|NCT00700180|168662932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.78|0.9454
84455859|NCT00700180|168662933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Responses Rates|9.34||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||21.0|-2.4|0.1737
84455860|NCT00700180|168662934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||11.7|-8.2|0.6148
84455861|NCT00700180|168662936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.68|0.7587
84455862|NCT00700180|168662938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.87|0.3120
84455863|NCT00168831|168662978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84455864|NCT00168831|168662978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84515778|NCT04859517|168784687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||-2.01|-5.75|<0.0001
84515779|NCT04859517|168784690|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Risk Difference|-7.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-1.46|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.46|-13.74|0.0153
84515780|NCT04859517|168784691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|0.21|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|0.21|-9.03|0.0612
84515781|NCT04859517|168784710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.06|0.0077
84515782|NCT04859517|168784711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.14|<0.0001
84515783|NCT01068821|168784712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculations (yielding 25 patients per group): two-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80% for detection of a 2 cm (SD 2.5 cm) difference. Continuous variables analyzed by Student's T-test and One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with statistical significance: p value ≤ 0.05 or 95% Confidence Interval excluding one. Confirmation by Wilcoxon Rank-Sum/Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categorical variables by Chi Square Test, confirmed by Fisher's Exact test.||||0.1
84455865|NCT00168831|168662979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.052||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0004
84455866|NCT00168831|168662979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||0.0012
84455867|NCT00168831|168662980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84455868|NCT00168831|168662980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
84455869|NCT00168831|168662981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg vs. Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
84455870|NCT00168831|168662981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg vs. Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
84455871|NCT00168831|168663025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455872|NCT00168831|168663025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455873|NCT00168831|168663026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455874|NCT00168831|168663026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455875|NCT00168831|168663027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84515784|NCT01068821|168784713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fischer's exact test, significance defined as p\<0.05||||0.5
84455876|NCT00168831|168663027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455877|NCT00168831|168663028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455878|NCT00168831|168663028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455879|NCT00168831|168663029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455880|NCT00168831|168663029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455881|NCT00168831|168663030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0169||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||0.0169
84515785|NCT00840073|168784728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.0||||||90.0|85.13|108.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.27|85.13|
84455882|NCT00168831|168663030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
84455883|NCT03106779|168663086|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference in the MMR rate|12.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor, i.e. cytogenetic response status (MCyR vs no MCyR) at screening||||22.30|2.19|0.029
84455884|NCT04233229|168663113|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|39.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||39.8|15.0|<.001
84515786|NCT00840073|168784729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.81||||||90.0|96.72|111.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.41|96.72|
84515787|NCT00840073|168784730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.37||||||90.0|97.34|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|97.34|
84515788|NCT00840073|168784731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.76||||||90.0|100.08|107.57|||||Informational Purposes Only|||107.57|100.08|
84539905|NCT03573830|168830146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|0.34|0.000
84455885|NCT04233229|168663114|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during diurnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|35.5||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||35.5|10.6|<.001
84455886|NCT04233229|168663115|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during nocturnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|55.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||55.8|25.8|<.001
84455887|NCT04233229|168663116|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-15.0||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-15.0|-40.5|<.001
84455888|NCT04233229|168663117|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.9||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-7.9|-32.4|0.003
84455889|NCT04233229|168663118|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||1.3|-1.0|0.79
84455890|NCT04233229|168663119|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||0.4|-0.3|0.84
84515789|NCT00840073|168784732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.34||||||90.0|100.84|105.92|||||Informational Purposes Only|||105.92|100.84|
84515790|NCT03261167|168784773|OTHER||Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|35.0||||||||35.0|1.1|
84515791|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.2|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||49.2|17.0|
84515792|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|38.5|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||38.5|4.9|
84515793|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|35.5|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||35.5|1.3|
84515794|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.1|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||30.1|-4.2|
84515795|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.8|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||9.8|-20.9|
84515796|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|5.9|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||5.9|-23.0|
84515797|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|3.2|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.2|-27.5|
84515798|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|7.9|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||7.9|-27.2|
84515799|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|4.7|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||4.7|-21.9|
84515800|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|3.4|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.4|-24.3|
84515801|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.0|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.0|-23.8|
84515802|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|17.4|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.4|-17.7|
84515803|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|6.5|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.5|-26.4|
84515804|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|10.3|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||10.3|-23.6|
84515805|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|15.7|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||15.7|-18.8|
84539906|NCT03573830|168830147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.05|0.002
84455891|NCT04233229|168663120|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and glucose variability (% CV Coefficient of Variation) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.6||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||7.6|-0.2|0.060
84455892|NCT04233229|168663121|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with 2 factors: HbA1c value at baseline and study group|Adjusted means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.7||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-0.7|-1.9|<.001
84455893|NCT04233229|168663122|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and total daily insulin dose at selection|Adjusted means difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|41.2||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||41.2|-78.2|0.52
84455894|NCT04233229|168663123|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and body weight at study initiation visit|Adjusted means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||6.1|-0.4|0.08
84455895|NCT02288247|168663124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.96|0.53|0.027
84455896|NCT02288247|168663125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.82|0.41|0.002
84455897|NCT02288247|168663127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||From the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease progression (radiographic, non-radiographic) in Period 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.142
84455898|NCT02288247|168663130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.13||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.13|0.47|0.994
84455899|NCT04652804|168663133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19||||||Reference group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.19|1.00|
84455900|NCT04652804|168663133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||||||Reference Group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.05|0.90|
84455901|NCT04652804|168663133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.15|0.80|
84455902|NCT04652804|168663133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.04|0.77|
84455903|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.29||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.29|-0.61|< 0.001
84455904|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.61||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.61|-0.29|0.03
84455905|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.33|-0.57|< 0.001
84455906|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.57|-0.33|0.02
84515806|NCT03261167|168784774|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|17.9|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.9|-18.8|
84515807|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.22|-0.75|
84515808|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.13|-0.71|
84455907|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.16||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.16|-0.72|< 0.001
84455908|NCT00927368|168663164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.72||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.72|-0.16|0.11
84455909|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|34.0||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||34|-17|0.04
84455910|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.002
84455911|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.03
84455912|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.0||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||23|-24|0.005
84455913|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|25.0||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||25|-22|0.006
84515809|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.71|
84455914|NCT00927368|168663165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|29.0||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||29|-20|0.02
84455915|NCT00927368|168663166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus stimulating catheter.||||0.11
84455916|NCT00927368|168663166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|75.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus ultrasound guidance alone||75|6|0.01
84455917|NCT00927368|168663166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|102.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating catheter versus ultrasound guidance alone||102|31|< 0.001
84455918|NCT00927368|168663167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incremental cost (additional cost of stimulating needle compared to ultrasound alone).|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
84515810|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.02|-0.51|
84515811|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.42|-0.27|
84455919|NCT00927368|168663167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We estimated incremental cost, or additional cost of stimulating needle + catheter stimulation to stimulating needle alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
84455920|NCT00927368|168663167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We calculated incremental cost, or the additional cost of stimulating needle + stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
84455921|NCT00964431|168663176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.816|13.275|||ANCOVA|||||13.275|5.816|<0.001
84455922|NCT03072160|168663187|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||CD4|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.926
84455923|NCT03072160|168663187|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||CD8|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.445
84455924|NCT03072160|168663187|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Tregs|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.210
84455925|NCT03072160|168663187|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Natural Killer (NK) cells|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.780
84455926|NCT00820755|168663196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.959||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.25|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]' versus 'other').||1.250|0.736|0.1265
84515812|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.46|-0.25|
84455927|NCT00820755|168663198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.0622||95.0|0.613|0.976|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (IVRS) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('CR or PR' versus 'other').||0.976|0.613|0.0622
84455928|NCT02211261|168663208|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|17.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.44|36.95|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||36.95|8.44|
84455929|NCT02211261|168663208|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|49.51|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||49.51|21.64|
84455930|NCT02211261|168663208|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|35.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|51.95|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||51.95|23.60|
84455931|NCT02211261|168663208|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|53.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.36|77.78|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.78|36.36|
84455932|NCT02211261|168663210|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|11.4|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||11.40|4.70|
84455933|NCT02211261|168663210|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.67|50.12|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||50.12|20.67|
84455934|NCT02211261|168663210|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|34.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.57|52.52|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||52.52|22.57|
84455935|NCT02211261|168663210|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|51.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.26|77.31|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.31|34.26|
84455936|NCT02551159|168663249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.32|0.69|0.787
84455937|NCT02551159|168663251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.39|0.80|0.634
84455938|NCT02551159|168663253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.8||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.94|0.287
84455939|NCT02551159|168663253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.76||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.76|0.99|0.028
84455940|NCT02551159|168663254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.37||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.37|0.10|<0.001
84455941|NCT02551159|168663254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.57|0.20|<0.001
84455942|NCT02551159|168663256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.27|0.83|0.811
84455943|NCT02551159|168663256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.25|0.87|0.624
84455944|NCT02551159|168663259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.68|1.10|0.006
84455945|NCT02551159|168663259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.53||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.53|1.06|0.008
84455946|NCT02551159|168663260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|0.13|<0.001
84455947|NCT02551159|168663260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|0.20|<0.001
84455948|NCT02175680|168663270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|The time to Virologic Failure for the subjects treated with PRO 140 monotherapy was compared to historical data.|||The median time to Virologic Failure for historical controls was 29 days.|||<0.0001
84515813|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.33|-0.37|
84455949|NCT04506294|168663314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.536
84455950|NCT03434379|168663325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.79|0.42|0.0006
84455951|NCT03434379|168663325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.52|0.0009
84455952|NCT03434379|168663326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
84455953|NCT03434379|168663327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.25|0.0026
84455954|NCT03434379|168663327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.80|0.35|0.0019
84455955|NCT03434379|168663328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.40|0.0117
84455956|NCT03434379|168663329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.01|1.68|<0.0001
84455957|NCT03434379|168663330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.71|2.02|<0.0001
84455958|NCT03434379|168663331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.66|2.99|<0.0001
84455959|NCT03434379|168663332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.7|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.70|0.08|0.0051
84455960|NCT03434379|168663333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.12|0.0048
84515814|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.19|
84515815|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.43|-0.23|
84515816|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.52|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.52|-0.17|
84455961|NCT03434379|168663334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.15|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||2.15|0.16|0.4187
84455962|NCT03434379|168663335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.46|<.0001
84455963|NCT03434379|168663336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.36|<.0001
84455964|NCT03434379|168663337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.92|0.53|0.0105
84455965|NCT03434379|168663338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.52|0.0063
84455966|NCT03434379|168663339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.35|<.0001
84455967|NCT03434379|168663340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.78|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.78|0.32|0.0019
84515817|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.48|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.48|-0.20|
84515818|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.34|-0.25|
84455968|NCT03434379|168663340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/= 400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.06|0.42|0.0879
84455969|NCT03434379|168663341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||Log Rank|||AFP\<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.68|0.37|<.0001
84455970|NCT03434379|168663341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.15|0.53|0.2159
84455971|NCT03434379|168663342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.57|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
84455972|NCT03434379|168663342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.73|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.73|0.35|0.0002
84455973|NCT03434379|168663343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.39|<.0001
84455974|NCT03434379|168663343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.84|0.46|0.0019
84455975|NCT03434379|168663343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.46|0.0028
84455976|NCT03434379|168663348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||13.86|1.53|0.0036
84455977|NCT03434379|168663349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|12.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.87|1.72|0.0013
84455978|NCT03434379|168663350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|17.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||17.39|1.47|0.0052
84515819|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.63|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.63|-0.08|
84515820|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.51|-0.23|
84455979|NCT03434379|168663351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.85|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.85|0.02|0.4581
84455980|NCT03434379|168663352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||Log Rank||Lower limit: \<0.01|Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.91|0.01|0.0100
84455981|NCT03434379|168663353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||3.69|0.03|0.3477
84455982|NCT03434379|168663354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.89|0.40|0.0103
84455983|NCT03434379|168663355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.71|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.71|0.33|0.0002
84455984|NCT03434379|168663356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.07|0.43|0.0927
84455985|NCT03434379|168663357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.06|0.43|0.0861
84455986|NCT03434379|168663358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.33|0.0004
84455987|NCT03434379|168663359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.78|0.26|0.0035
84455988|NCT03434379|168663359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.23|0.42|0.2214
84515821|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.33|
84515822|NCT03261167|168784775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.47|-0.31|
84539907|NCT03573830|168830148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.56||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|62.46||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||62.46|2.65|0.033
84455989|NCT03434379|168663359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.88|0.32|0.0135
84455990|NCT01116544|168663414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
84455991|NCT01116544|168663415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis called for sample sizes of 32 participants in each treatment group. The study was close before reaching this number of participants.|||||<|0.001||||||Hypothesis: significant increase in score (post-tx - pre-tx) for both groups|ANCOVA|FMA scores adjusted for baseline differences.||||||<0.001
84455992|NCT01116544|168663416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Across both groups, whether score increased following completion of intervention|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84455993|NCT01116544|168663417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Across both treatment groups|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84455994|NCT01116544|168663418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data combined between 2 treatment groups||||0.001
84455995|NCT01116544|168663419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Both treatment groups combined||||>0.05
84455996|NCT02022826|168663459|OTHER||percentage of agreement|76.0||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|83.0|||McNemar|||||83|69|0.0052
84455997|NCT02022826|168663460|OTHER||precentage of agreement|92.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|96.0|||McNemar|||||96|87|1.00
84455998|NCT03179436|168663464|OTHER||Percent Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||Percent Difference|Comparision based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||14.1|-8.7|
84455999|NCT01332071|168663486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|99.83|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.83|93.44|
84456000|NCT01332071|168663487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|102.5|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.50|93.25|
84515823|NCT03261167|168784776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||||Week 2. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.00|-0.48|
84515824|NCT03261167|168784776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||||Week 4. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.09|-0.42|
84456001|NCT01332071|168663488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|99.72|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.72|93.32|
84456002|NCT01332071|168663489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|95.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.67|100.1|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||100.10|91.67|
84456003|NCT01332071|168663490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|99.22|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.22|90.70|
84456004|NCT01332071|168663491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|102.86|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.86|93.15|
84456005|NCT01634555|168663493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan .||||1.05|0.83|
84456006|NCT01634555|168663493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.04|0.88|
84456007|NCT01634555|168663495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan.||||1.12|0.97|
84456008|NCT01634555|168663495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.12|0.85|
84456009|NCT01738971|168663504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|3.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|see above description of analysis taking into account cluster randomisation||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in progestogen only pill group compared to control."||5.13|1.90|<0.001
84515825|NCT03261167|168784776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||||Week 6. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.08|-0.37|
84515826|NCT03261167|168784776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||||Week 12. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.52|
84515827|NCT04813354|168784786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.40|0.01|<0.001
84456010|NCT01738971|168663504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|2.57||||0.006||95.0|1.55|4.27||see above comments regarding analysis taking cluster randomised account into consideration|t-test, 2 sided|||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in rapid access group compared to control."||4.27|1.55|0.006
84456011|NCT02065453|168663522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The data will be analyzed using linear regression, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and chi-square analysis.||||<0.001
84456012|NCT03694392|168663525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.3% (5.9%, 23.8%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
84456013|NCT03694392|168663526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.9% (-9.2% to 35.2%)|||1.09|0.65|<0.05
84456014|NCT03694392|168663527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 16.7% (-5.6% to 34.4%)|||1.06|0.66|<0.05
84456015|NCT03694392|168663528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 2.4% (-8.1% to 11.9%)|||1.08|0.88|<0.05
84456016|NCT03694392|168663529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -15.7% (-79.5% to 25.5%)|||1.80|0.75|<0.05
84456017|NCT03694392|168663530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.0% to 5.4%)|||1.06|0.95|<0.05
84456018|NCT03694392|168663531|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 1.8% (-2.2% to 5.5%)|||5.5|-2.2|<0.05
84456019|NCT03694392|168663532|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|22.1|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 9.4% (-5.4% to 22.1%)|||22.1|-5.4|<0.05
84456020|NCT03694392|168663533|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 6.2% (-2.2% to 13.9%)|||1.02|0.86|<0.05
84456021|NCT03694392|168663534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -6.9% (-51.6% to 24.6%)|||1.52|0.75|<0.05
84515828|NCT04813354|168784788|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.74|0.03|0.005
84515829|NCT04813354|168784797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|33.96|||Paired samples t-test|||||33.96|21.31|<0.001
84456022|NCT03694392|168663535|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 5.2% (-18.8% to 24.4%)|||1.12|0.76|<0.05
84456023|NCT03694392|168663536|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.8% (6.6% to 14.7%)|||0.93|0.85|<0.05
84456024|NCT03694392|168663537|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.2% to 5.6%)|||1.06|0.94|<0.05
84456025|NCT03694392|168663538|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -45.5% (-100.2% to -5.8%)|||2.00|1.06|<0.05
84456026|NCT03694392|168663539|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.2% (1.4% to 18.2%)|||0.99|0.82|<0.05
84456027|NCT03694392|168663540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -16.2% (-43.0% to 5.5%)|||1.43|0.95|<0.05
84456028|NCT03694392|168663541|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.7% (6.0% to 24.5%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
84515830|NCT02964039|168784820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.047 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.77) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.047
84515831|NCT02964039|168784821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.16 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.023) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.16
84456029|NCT03694392|168663542|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.3% (-33.9% to 39.9%)|||1.34|0.60|<0.05
84456030|NCT00618722|168663544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.043
84456031|NCT00618722|168663544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.050
84456032|NCT00618722|168663544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.2|-0.7|0.249
84456033|NCT00618722|168663545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||3.1|0.7|0.003
84456034|NCT00618722|168663545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.6|0.1|0.030
84456035|NCT00618722|168663545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.8|0.4|0.012
84456036|NCT00618722|168663546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||||65.2|12.6|0.015
84456037|NCT00618722|168663546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|28.9||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|0.4|0.096
84456038|NCT00618722|168663546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|44.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|68.8|||Fisher Exact|||||68.8|20.6|0.003
84456039|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.6|0.0|0.078
84456040|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated easures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.3|0.781
84456041|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.5|-0.1|0.146
84456042|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|0.0|0.076
84515832|NCT02964039|168784822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.64 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.024) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.64
84456043|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.3|0.975
84456044|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.1|0.183
84456045|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.017
84456046|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.022
84456047|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.6|0.0|0.081
84456048|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.2|0.510
84456049|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.330
84456050|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.3|0.720
84456051|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.205
84456052|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.410
84456053|NCT00618722|168663547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.2|0.436
84456054|NCT00618722|168663548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||12.3|-9.1|0.762
84515833|NCT02964039|168784823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||A priori threshold: 0.92|ANOVA|0.92 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.076) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.92
84456055|NCT00618722|168663548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|5.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||14.2|-3.8|0.248
84456056|NCT00618722|168663548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||19.1|-0.4|0.061
84456057|NCT00200057|168663550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||No multiplicity adjustments were made for the primary outcome analysis. Two-tailed p-values were considered statistically significant if they were less than 0.05.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
84456058|NCT00200057|168663551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
84456059|NCT00200057|168663552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84456060|NCT00200057|168663553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84456061|NCT00200057|168663554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84456062|NCT00200057|168663555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
84456063|NCT00200057|168663556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.79|0.62|<0.0001
84515834|NCT02964039|168784824|SUPERIORITY||||||>=|0.22||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|We compared incident rates assuming a negative binomial distribution with leas squares means estimates predicted via generalized linear model.||||||>=0.22
84456064|NCT05512949|168663557|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.7||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||1.0|0.5|0.045
84456065|NCT05512949|168663557|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.4||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||0.6|0.3|0.162
84456066|NCT05512949|168663560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
84456067|NCT05512949|168663560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.708
84456068|NCT01097629|168663610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|34.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.3|18.3|<0.00001
84456069|NCT01097629|168663611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|25.1|||<|1e-05||95.0|16.0|34.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.2|16.0|<0.00001
84515835|NCT02964039|168784825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84539908|NCT03573830|168830150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|0.00|0.065
84539909|NCT03573830|168830151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|0.01|0.030
84539910|NCT00886015|168830313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.93||||||||1.93|0.96|
84456070|NCT01097629|168663612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-22.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.3|-36.6|<0.00001
84456071|NCT01097629|168663613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-22.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.1|-36.7|<0.00001
84456072|NCT01097629|168663614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.8||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.9||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.9|-18.8|0.00003
84456073|NCT01097629|168663615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.2||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-7.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-7.0|-19.4|0.00003
84456074|NCT01097629|168663616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.1||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.4|-17.8|0.00004
84456075|NCT01097629|168663617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.6||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.8||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||2.8|-10.1|0.26510
84456076|NCT01097629|168663618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||33.1|19.8|<0.00001
84456077|NCT01097629|168663619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-42.0|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-35.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-35.3|-48.6|<0.00001
84539911|NCT00886015|168830314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.98||||||||0.98|0.46|
84539912|NCT00886015|168830315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18||||||||1.18|0.66|
84717728|NCT03547271|169185072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|Slope|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.78|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||1.78|1.33|
84717729|NCT03547271|169185072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.04|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||2.04|1.55|
84515836|NCT05630885|168784833|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.984||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.056||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel, adjusting for statin-use. The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 0.046 in log10 MDS TBR (10% relative fold-change), assuming a null difference of 0 in log10 MDS TBR (a ratio of 1 in absolute-scale), a standard deviation of 0.065 of change in log10 TBR, and 75 evaluable participants.||1.056|0.916|0.65
84456078|NCT01097629|168663620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.1|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-8.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.4|-17.7|<0.00001
84456079|NCT01097629|168663621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-14.9|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-14.9|-28.6|<0.00001
84456080|NCT05197803|168663631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (BTE)||||0.0001
84456081|NCT05197803|168663631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (RIC)||||0.0001
84456082|NCT00132041|168663632|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
84515837|NCT05630885|168784833|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.4||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by statin-use is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by statin-use at study entry (use versus no-use).||||0.40
84717730|NCT03547271|169185073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.56|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||-6.56|-17.74|
84456083|NCT00132041|168663632|OTHER||Success rate|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.252||||||logistic regression model after specifying site as cluster (using GEE approach).||0.252|0.136|
84456084|NCT00132041|168663633|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
84456085|NCT00132041|168663633|OTHER||Slope|-3.7913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9056|-1.6769|||Generlaized estimating equations|Multivariate logistic model. P-value for number of RFA sessions dichotomized 1: more than 1; using the latter as the reference.|This estimate is for the effect of a single RFA sessions (v multiple sessions) in the multivariate model response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.|multivariate logistic regression model was fit using GEEs to correct for site clustering effects, in which, the response variable was success/failure at 18 months and the covariates were tumor size, whether or not a patient received repeated RFA, whether or not a local tumor recurrence occurred, whether or not a remote tumor occurrence occurred, and two common confounding factors - age and gender||-1.6769|-5.9056|0.0004
84456086|NCT00132041|168663634|OTHER||GEE|-0.9101||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6894|-0.1308|||Generlaized Estimating Equations|multivariate GEE model using logistic link|Estimation parameter is for tumor size when controlling for other covariates.|Effect of tumor size in the multivariate model with response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.||-0.1308|-1.6894|0.0221
84515838|NCT05630885|168784833|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.63||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by sex is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for sex (F vs M) and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by sex (female versus male).||||0.63
84539913|NCT00886015|168830316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98||||||||0.98|0.44|
84456087|NCT00132041|168663636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2496||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||assuming unequal variance (Satterthwaite p)|t-test, 2 sided||Difference represents the size of tumors that do no recur minus those that do.|the mean tumor size in the two groups, recurred and non recurred tumors, will be compared using a t-test assuming H0: recur=non-recurr||||0.06
84539914|NCT00886015|168830317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||Mild ECA compared with Normal||0.97|0.42|
84456088|NCT00132041|168663638|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.38|||||Twelve tumors were detected in the liver specimens, but only one of those was identified by the CT central readers|||0.38|0.00|
84456089|NCT00132041|168663638|OTHER||Specificity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.994|||||The central CT readers correctly identified three out of the four patients without pathologic evidence of tumor|Specificity||0.994|0.194|
84456090|NCT00132041|168663640|OTHER|McNemar's Test to compare success rates after assuming transplants as successes versus after assuming transplants as failures.||||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
84456091|NCT02804763|168663708|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0727||||||The lowest p-value (z-statistic with the highest value) was used to establish proof of dose response.|MCP-Mod|||"Multiple contrast testing (MCP-mod methodology) was used to test for a statistically significant dose-response relationship between the primary endpoint (BICLA at Week 24) and dose, which would indicate a drug effect of DZP over Placebo.~The best fitting statistically significant model could be used to estimate the dose needed to achieve desired treatment effect."||||=0.0727
84456092|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||=|0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||3.8|0.7|=0.2699
84456093|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.8|0.9|=0.1036
84456094|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.3|0.8|=0.1518
84456095|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|32.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 1 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.4|-9.2|
84515839|NCT05630885|168784833|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.71||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by race is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for race and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by race (Black/African-American versus Non-Black/African-American).||||0.71
84456096|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|38.0||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 2 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.0|-3.3|
84515840|NCT05630885|168784834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.996||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.067||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.067|0.930|0.91
84515841|NCT05630885|168784834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.98||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.066||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.066|0.901|0.64
84539915|NCT00886015|168830317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01||||||Moderate ECA compared with Normal||1.01|0.39|
84539916|NCT00886015|168830317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Severe ECA compared with Normal||1.10|0.35|
84539917|NCT00886015|168830318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.53||||||||1.53|0.97|
84456097|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|35.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 3 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.4|-5.5|
84456098|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.5||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.5|-8.7|
84456099|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|38.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.3|-3.2|
84456100|NCT02804763|168663709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|35.6||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.6|-5.2|
84456101|NCT03216382|168663818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.93
84456102|NCT03216382|168663819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.74
84456103|NCT03216382|168663819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period (squared) The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.44
84456104|NCT03216382|168663820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.17
84456105|NCT03216382|168663821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time .|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.50
84456106|NCT03216382|168663821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a= 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and intervention period (days 7-14, squared).|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.02
84456107|NCT03216382|168663822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.46
84456108|NCT03216382|168663823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.53
84515842|NCT05630885|168784835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.087||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.087|0.939|0.79
84515843|NCT05630885|168784835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.017||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.106||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.106|0.935|0.69
84726446|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.103|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.103|-0.143|
84456109|NCT03216382|168663824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.07
84456110|NCT03216382|168663825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the apriori threshold for significance was 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.58
84456111|NCT03216382|168663826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.86
84515844|NCT05630885|168784836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.6||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in fasting glucose from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting glucose adjusting for statin-use.||9.6|-4.6|0.49
84515845|NCT05630885|168784837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in fasting insulin from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting insulin adjusting for statin-use.||1.43|0.81|0.62
84515846|NCT05630885|168784837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in HOMA-IR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of HOMA-IR adjusting for statin-use.||1.54|0.78|0.61
84456112|NCT03216382|168663827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.39
84456113|NCT01482910|168663860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.4||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline BCVA as a covariate, and treatment group and baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters) as fixed factors|Least square mean difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from ANCOVA, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: mean changes are identical in both groups. A sample size of 300 subjects with a 3:1 (EYLEA to PDT) randomization ratio is sufficient to detect the superiority of EYLEA to PDT assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a power of 90%, a treatment difference of 7.5 letters and a common standard deviation of 14 letters.||13.4|6.8|<0.0001
84456114|NCT01482910|168663861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.9||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters)|Proportion difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from CMH, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: proportions are identical in both groups||12.9|0.4|0.0359
84456115|NCT01552681|168663882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is testing for treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with adjustments for screening stimulated salivary flow.|ANCOVA|||Missing Week 24 assessments were imputed by carrying forward the last observed post-baseline value.||||0.33
84456116|NCT02769728|168663904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||0.001
84456117|NCT02769728|168663905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.081
84456118|NCT02769728|168663906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.114
84515847|NCT05630885|168784838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.52||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in hsCRP from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of hsCRP adjusting for statin-use.||1.52|0.62|0.91
84515848|NCT05630885|168784838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in IL-6 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of IL-6 adjusted for statin-use.||1.33|0.77|0.94
84515849|NCT05630885|168784838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.77||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MCP-1 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MCP-1 adjusting for statin-use.||5.77|3.89|<0.001
84726447|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.036|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.036|-0.098|
84456119|NCT02769728|168663907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.021
84456120|NCT02769728|168663908|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||1.00
84456121|NCT04698525|168663978|NON_INFERIORITY|"A new treatment (memantine) that is not much worse or non-inferior to the standard treatment (valproate) may be attractive if, compared to it, it is expected to cause fewer side effects or improve quality of life or if its dosing regimen is easier to tolerate."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||"Comparison between VPA and Memantine was:~0.9 p-value (two-tailed)"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Memantine 3.534 z corrected for ties 0.0004 p-value (two-tailed)~VPA 3.418 z corrected for ties 0.0006 p-value (two-tailed)"||Null hypothesis: Memantine is as effective as valproate in treating episodic migraine.|We made also student t|10|0|0.9
84515850|NCT05630885|168784839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-49.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|60.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD14 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of sCD14 adjusting for statin-use.||60|-158|0.38
84456122|NCT02058147|168664030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.898|-0.665||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.665|-0.898|<0.0001
84456123|NCT02058147|168664030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|
84456124|NCT02058147|168664030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Test of superiority was also performed as a secondary endpoint according to hierarchical testing procedure. Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|<0.0001
84456125|NCT02058147|168664031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.63|47.59||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||47.59|33.63|<0.0001
84456126|NCT02058147|168664031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.81|42.95||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||42.95|29.81|<0.0001
84456127|NCT02058147|168664031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|20.25||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||20.25|8.37|<0.0001
84456128|NCT02058147|168664031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.13|22.58||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||22.58|10.13|<0.0001
84456129|NCT02058147|168664032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.77||Threshold for significance ≤0.05. The hierarchical testing continued only when primary hypotheses (superiority: FRC to lixisenatide; non-inferiority: FRC to insulin glargine for HbA1c) was statistically significant.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening \& country as fixed effects \& baseline plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order.||-1.77|-2.498|<0.0001
84456130|NCT02058147|168664033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.891|-0.91||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.91|-1.891|<0.0001
84515851|NCT05630885|168784839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|75.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD163 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of sCD163 adjusting for statin-use.||75|-87|0.88
84515852|NCT05630885|168784840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.12||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MIP-1 beta from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MIP-1 beta adjusting for statin-use.||2.12|1.28|<0.001
84726448|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.028|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.028|-0.102|
84515853|NCT05630885|168784840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in RANTES from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of RANTES adjusting for statin-use.||1.28|0.82|0.85
84515854|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.598
84515855|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
84515856|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.635
84515857|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.740
84456131|NCT02058147|168664034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|-1.682||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.682|-2.246|<0.0001
84456132|NCT02058147|168664035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|-1.158||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.158|-1.645|<0.0001
84456133|NCT02058147|168664035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.892|-0.495||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.495|-0.892|<0.0001
84515858|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.8||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-14.1|0.572
84515859|NCT00950989|168784843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.572
84515860|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|14.0||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.0|-20.4|0.728
84515861|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
84515862|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-6.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.7||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-23.4|0.412
84515863|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedures|||||||0.740
84515864|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|20.5||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-14.2|0.740
84515865|NCT00950989|168784844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
84515866|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.984
84515867|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
84515868|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.993
84515869|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
84515870|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.2||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-7.5|0.159
84515871|NCT00950989|168784845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.797
84456134|NCT02058147|168664036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.15|24.01||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8%, ≥8%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||24.01|12.15|<0.0001
84456135|NCT02058147|168664037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.45||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||18.45|7.5|< 0.0001
84456136|NCT02058147|168664038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.632|1.252||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects.||1.252|-2.632|0.4857
84456137|NCT01486199|168664049|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing absorptive clearance in CF children vs adult controls||||0.002
84456138|NCT01486199|168664050|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mucociliary clearance in CF children compared to healthy adults||||0.20
84456139|NCT01486199|168664051|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing absorptive clearance at t=0 vs t=2 years in pediatric CF subjects||||0.24
84456140|NCT01486199|168664052|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing mucociliary clearance at t=0 and t=2yrs in pediatric CF subjects||||0.87
84456141|NCT02063035|168664053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1318
84456142|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84456143|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84515872|NCT00950989|168784846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.459
84456144|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84456145|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84456146|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84456147|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.003|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
84456148|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.035|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.001|||
84456149|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.176|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.018|||
84515873|NCT00950989|168784846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.906
84515874|NCT00950989|168784846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.849
84456150|NCT03604445|168664062|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.129|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.83|||
84515875|NCT04493684|168784959|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.823|3.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.323|1.823|
84515876|NCT04493684|168784959|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.381|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.223|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.56|1.223|
84456151|NCT01360645|168664066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-1.54|-4.70|0.0001
84456152|NCT01360645|168664067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-1.54|-4.87|0.0002
84456153|NCT01360645|168664068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.86|0.0372
84456154|NCT01360645|168664069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.88|0.0349
84515877|NCT04493684|168784960|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.629|2.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||2.717|1.629|
84515878|NCT04493684|168784960|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.497|1.22|
84515879|NCT04493684|168784961|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.668|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.19|1.668|
84515880|NCT04493684|168784961|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.582|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.582|1.19|
84515881|NCT05152576|168785027|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
84515882|NCT05152576|168785027|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|57.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||57.1|19.2|<0.001
84456155|NCT01360645|168664070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.25|0.0080
84456156|NCT01360645|168664070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.54|-2.91|0.0045
84456157|NCT01360645|168664070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.30|-3.96|0.0001
84456158|NCT01360645|168664070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.18|-4.01|0.0004
84456159|NCT01360645|168664070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-1.70|-4.68|0.0000
84515883|NCT05152576|168785027|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
84515884|NCT00859430|168785028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|105.0||||||90.0|98.6|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|98.6|
84515885|NCT00859430|168785029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|96.2|
84456160|NCT01360645|168664071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.28|0.0086
84456161|NCT01360645|168664071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.30|-2.74|0.0149
84456162|NCT01360645|168664071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.05|-3.78|0.0006
84456163|NCT01360645|168664071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.04|-4.00|0.0009
84456164|NCT01360645|168664071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-3.28|-4.84|0.0000
84456165|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.08|-0.38|0.0022
84456166|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.05|-0.38|0.0115
84456167|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.03|-0.41|0.0255
84456168|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.16|-0.57|0.0005
84456169|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
84456170|NCT01360645|168664072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.17|-0.60|0.0005
84456171|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.10|-0.40|0.0010
84456172|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.02|-0.37|0.0290
84456173|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.01|-0.40|0.0422
84456174|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.18|-0.61|0.0003
84456175|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.64|0.0002
84456176|NCT01360645|168664073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
84456177|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.02|-0.25|0.0229
84456178|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.00|-0.28|0.0459
84456179|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.0097
84456180|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.08|-0.42|0.0038
84456181|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.18|-0.54|0.0001
84456182|NCT01360645|168664074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14.||-0.15|-0.52|0.0004
84515886|NCT00859430|168785030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|95.9|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|95.9|
84515887|NCT03049748|168785039|OTHER|This is a pilot randomized trial with a purpose of establishing preliminary efficacy data to inform future studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84456183|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.04|-0.27|0.0109
84456184|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.03|-0.25|0.1286
84456185|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.00|-0.32|0.0521
84456186|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.06|-0.42|0.0084
84456187|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
84515888|NCT03049748|168785040|OTHER|Same rationale as the primary outcome.|||||>|0.05||||||All p-values across time periods, between groups, were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
84456188|NCT01360645|168664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.15|-0.53|0.0006
84456189|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.32|-2.82|0.0139
84456190|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.04|-3.01|0.0436
84456191|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.55|-2.75|0.1903
84456192|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.26|-3.21|0.0951
84515889|NCT03049748|168785041|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p values between groups across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
84515890|NCT03049748|168785042|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between groups across time periods were \>.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
84717731|NCT03547271|169185073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|9.62|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||9.62|4.44|
84456193|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.09|-3.59|0.0626
84456194|NCT01360645|168664076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.06|-3.87|0.0435
84456195|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.47|-2.95|0.0069
84456196|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.35|-2.68|0.1322
84456197|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.98|-2.41|0.4055
84515891|NCT03049748|168785043|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between group differences across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
84515892|NCT03049748|168785044|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Differences in group hospitalization rates p-values: T1 = .093; T2 = .008; T3 = .029|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84515893|NCT00835484|168785045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.15||||||90.0|91.77|102.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.83|91.77|
84539918|NCT01473407|168830327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||||||Least Square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.01|-0.25|
84456198|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.55|-3.08|0.1715
84515894|NCT00835484|168785046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.8||||||90.0|95.1|106.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.84|95.1|
84515895|NCT00835484|168785047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.39||||||90.0|95.89|107.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.2|95.89|
84515896|NCT01011413|168785064|NON_INFERIORITY|"Only the primary endpoint is assessed in terms of non-inferiority. All other comparisons are tests for superiority and are considered statistically significant at a two-sided alpha=0.05.~Non-inferiority of EFV 400 mg was defined as the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between groups in the proportion of viral load below 200 copies/mL at week 48 lying above -10%."||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Pearson's chi-squared|Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's exact test derived p value was used||Sample size calculation assumes 85% of participants randomised to 600mg EFV arm will have plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/ml at 48 weeks. Assuming no difference between randomised treatments in proportion with plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/mL, to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis using a 10% non-inferiority margin will require 286 participants per arm, making a total of 572 participants. Power for modified ITT analysis was 93%.||||0.05
84515897|NCT01011413|168785064|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be defined as the lower 95% confidence limit of the difference in percentages of patients with undetectable viral load lying above -10% (i.e. a non-inferiority margin of 10%).||||||0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||To ensure the per protocol (PP) analysis has 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, the sample size was inflated for patients who switch treatment for toxicity. This is estimated to be no more than 10% randomised patients. To ensure 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the ITT and PP analyses, a total of 630 (315 per arm) patients will be randomised giving 93% power for the ITT analysis. Null hypothesis: no statistically significant difference between the 600mg and 400mg EFV regimens.||||0.05
84456199|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.48|-3.33|0.1424
84456200|NCT01360645|168664077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||0.44|-3.52|0.1270
84456201|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.26|-0.81|0.3079
84515898|NCT01011413|168785065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference between proportions|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84456202|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.34|-0.73|0.4771
84456203|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 11||-0.08|-0.92|0.0195
84515899|NCT00075478|168785091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Reference arm is Arm 2.||1.1|0.3|.09
84515900|NCT00075478|168785092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Regression, Cox|||||3.0|0.1|0.59
84456204|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 14||-0.04|-0.96|0.0323
84456205|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 11||-0.18|-1.07|0.0058
84456206|NCT01360645|168664078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 14||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
84515901|NCT00075478|168785093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.06
84515902|NCT00075478|168785094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.3|0.09
84515903|NCT00075478|168785095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Regression, Cox|||||3.1|0.8|0.16
84456207|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 11||0.36|-0.71|0.5151
84456208|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 14||0.41|-0.70|0.6080
84515904|NCT00075478|168785096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||||2.7|0.9|0.14
84515905|NCT00075478|168785098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.05
84515906|NCT00673660|168785142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total cholesterol||||<0.001
84515907|NCT00673660|168785142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||LDL cholesterol||||<0.001
84515908|NCT00673660|168785142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||HDL cholesterol||||0.972
84515909|NCT00673660|168785142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Triglycerides||||0.034
84456209|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 11||-0.06|-0.92|0.0267
84515910|NCT00824291|168785166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|0.78|0.002
84456210|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 14||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
84456211|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 11||-0.11|-1.01|0.0146
84456212|NCT01360645|168664079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 14||-0.14|-1.09|0.0113
84456213|NCT01360645|168664080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_Last observation carry forward (LOCF) model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-1.22|-3.47|0.0001
84456214|NCT01360645|168664081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-3.47|0.0002
84456215|NCT01360645|168664082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_LOCF model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-0.17|-2.17|0.0219
84456216|NCT01360645|168664083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-2.13|0.0376
84456217|NCT01360645|168664084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.63||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.44|1.09|0.0176
84515911|NCT00824291|168785167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|-0.09|0.067
84515912|NCT00824291|168785168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84515913|NCT00824291|168785169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84515914|NCT00824291|168785170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|0.01|0.040
84515915|NCT00824291|168785171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.16|0.035
84515916|NCT00824291|168785172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|0.10|0.041
84515917|NCT00824291|168785173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-0.13|0.145
84515918|NCT01648582|168785192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.4||||||||-0.40|-0.74|
84515919|NCT01648582|168785192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.35|
84515920|NCT01648582|168785193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||||||||-0.38|-0.77|
84515921|NCT01648582|168785193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.33|
84515922|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 26||||<0.001
84515923|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0 Week 26||||0.004
84515924|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
84515925|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
84515926|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||<0.001
84515927|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||0.002
84515928|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
84515929|NCT01648582|168785194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
84515930|NCT01648582|168785195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.59|-0.11|0.177
84515931|NCT01648582|168785195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||1.23|0.53|<0.001
84515932|NCT01648582|168785195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.50|-0.25|0.518
84515933|NCT01648582|168785195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||1.20|0.45|<0.001
84456218|NCT01360645|168664085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.54||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.35|1.01|0.0429
84456219|NCT01360645|168664086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.68||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.86|0.98|0.0586
84456220|NCT01360645|168664087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.90|0.97|0.0671
84456221|NCT01360645|168664088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.10|1.23|0.0003
84456222|NCT01360645|168664089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.27|1.27|0.0002
84456223|NCT00773279|168664090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference, PDS290 minus FlexPen, in HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment. PDS290 was to be declared non-inferior to FlexPen® if the upper limit of that CI would be less than the non-inferiority margin 0.40 % (absolute)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.127|0.032|||Linear mixed effect model|Linear mixed effect model with period and delivery systems as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||The null hypothesis is that PDS290 be not non-inferior to FlexPen® with respect to HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment; non-inferiority margin is 0.4 % (absolute).||0.032|-0.127|
84456224|NCT01890421|168664114|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|-0.7||||0.8694|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||-8.5|0.8694
84456225|NCT01890421|168664114|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||21.7|<0.0001
84456226|NCT01890421|168664114|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|24.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.6||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||16.6|<0.0001
84456227|NCT01890421|168664115|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|7.4||||0.0455|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||0.5|0.0455
84456228|NCT01890421|168664115|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|34.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|25.2||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||25.2|<0.0001
84456229|NCT01890421|168664115|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|30.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||21.7|<0.0001
84456230|NCT01890421|168664120|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|35.8|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||35.8|18.5|<0.0001
84456231|NCT01890421|168664120|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|34.4|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 10%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||34.4|19.9|<0.0001
84456232|NCT02986230|168664148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84515934|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||0.88|0.42|<0.001
84515935|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||1.17|0.71|<0.001
84456233|NCT02986230|168664148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in randomization process. Tests of the planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84456234|NCT02986230|168664149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84456235|NCT02986230|168664149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84456236|NCT02986230|168664150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84456237|NCT02986230|168664150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the intervention effect on the completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
84456238|NCT00874250|168664151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.996|||Binomial Test|||||0.996|0.895|0.0024
84456239|NCT00428597|168664161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.000118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.662||Log-rank test statistic and 2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model|||0.662|0.263|0.000118
84456240|NCT00428597|168664162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) using exact method based on binomial distribution.|||17.5|4.1|
84456241|NCT00428597|168664165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.409||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.894||2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.894|0.187|0.0204
84456242|NCT00428597|168664166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1543||||0.6799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.6|-4.3|0.6799
84515936|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.07|-0.92|0.024
84515937|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||0.32|-0.53|0.617
84515938|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.01|-0.70|0.055
84515939|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.39|-0.32|0.855
84515940|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.64|-1.46|<0.001
84515941|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.19|-1.01|0.004
84515942|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||-0.29|-0.97|<0.001
84515943|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||0.22|-0.45|0.489
84456243|NCT00428597|168664167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4404||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4|-6.9|0.6058
84456244|NCT00428597|168664168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5575||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||3.2|-10.3|0.3008
84456245|NCT00428597|168664169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7911||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.3|-2.8|0.3230
84456246|NCT00428597|168664170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5113||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||9.5|-6.5|0.7113
84456247|NCT00428597|168664171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6672||||0.6487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||5.5|-8.9|0.6487
84456248|NCT00428597|168664172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||10.1|-6.4|0.6545
84456249|NCT00428597|168664173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0035||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||2|-10|0.1936
84456250|NCT00428597|168664174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.4||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||28.4|14.3|<0.0001
84456251|NCT00428597|168664175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||12.1|-1.6|0.1339
84456252|NCT00428597|168664176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7816||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.7|-5.1|0.6138
84456253|NCT00428597|168664177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2778||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||7.1|-6.6|0.9367
84515944|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.48|-1.30|<0.001
84717732|NCT03547271|169185073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|4.7|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.70|-0.49|
84515945|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.06|-0.88|0.024
84456254|NCT00428597|168664178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.753||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||15|0.5|0.0372
84456255|NCT00428597|168664179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1463||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.9|-4.6|0.6939
84456256|NCT00428597|168664180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5128||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|4.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4.2|-11.2|0.3711
84456257|NCT01506882|168664191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|84.2||||||"The primary efficacy variable was to be calculated as the proportion p=n/N of subjects (n) staying seizure free for 6 months out of the total number of subjects (N). For this proportion p, an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed based on the F distribution.~The hypothesis H0: p=0.4 was to be formally rejected in favor of H1: p\>0.4, if the lower confidence limit for p was greater than 0.4."||84.2|60.9|
84456258|NCT05523973|168664213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
84456259|NCT05523973|168664214|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84456260|NCT05523973|168664215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Sign test|||||||0.09
84456261|NCT05523973|168664216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Sign test|||||||.722
84456262|NCT05523973|168664217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Sign test|||||||.28
84456263|NCT05523973|168664218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Sign test|||||||.15
84456264|NCT05523973|168664219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Sign test|||||||.8
84515946|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.41|-1.17|<0.001
84515947|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.03|-0.73|0.067
84515948|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.01|0.52|<0.001
84515949|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.31|0.82|<0.001
84515950|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.07|-1.00|0.025
84456265|NCT05523973|168664220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
84456266|NCT05523973|168664221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||||||.92
84515951|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||0.26|-0.67|0.384
84456267|NCT02265913|168664236|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% of success|Equivalence ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|105.0|||Fieller's method|||||105|92|
84456268|NCT00778830|168664237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8078|2.1491||||||||2.1491|0.8078|
84456269|NCT01307033|168664251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||Constained logitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||2.2|-1.7|
84456270|NCT01307033|168664252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.5|||Constained longitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.5|-5.0|
84456271|NCT02274688|168664254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||Wald Chi-Square=11.29, df=3, P=0.01|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.01
84456272|NCT02274688|168664255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.01, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
84515952|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||-0.06|-0.80|0.024
84515953|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||0.42|-0.32|0.783
84515954|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.20|-1.07|0.004
84515955|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
84515956|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||-0.27|-1.01|<0.001
84515957|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||0.27|-0.47|0.603
84456273|NCT02274688|168664256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.25, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
84456274|NCT02274688|168664257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55|||||||Wald Chi-Square=2.12, df=3, p=0.55|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.55
84456275|NCT02274688|168664258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.52, df=3; p=0.32|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.32
84456276|NCT02274688|168664259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.26|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.02, df=3, p=0.26|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.26
84456277|NCT02274688|168664260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.44, df=3, p=0.22|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.22
84456278|NCT02274688|168664261|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||F(3,507)=2.24, P=0.08|Regression Poisson|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.08
84456279|NCT02274688|168664262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.24, df=3, p=0.36|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||0.36
84456280|NCT01400932|168664263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-15.8|||ANCOVA|||||-15.8|-26.2|<0.001
84456281|NCT01400932|168664264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456282|NCT01400932|168664264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84515958|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.41|-1.26|<0.001
84515959|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
84456283|NCT01400932|168664264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456284|NCT01400932|168664264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456285|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456286|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456287|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456288|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456289|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456290|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84456291|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84456292|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456293|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456294|NCT01400932|168664265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456295|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456296|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456297|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456298|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456299|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456300|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456301|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456302|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456303|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456304|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456305|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84456306|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456307|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84515960|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.60|-1.39|<0.001
84515961|NCT01648582|168785196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.20|-0.98|0.003
84515962|NCT01648582|168785197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.831||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.352
84515963|NCT01648582|168785197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.761||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.352
84515964|NCT01648582|168785197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.147||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5, Week 52||||0.025
84456308|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456309|NCT01400932|168664266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456310|NCT01400932|168664267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456311|NCT01400932|168664268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
84456312|NCT01400932|168664268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84456313|NCT01400932|168664268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84456314|NCT01400932|168664268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84456315|NCT01400932|168664268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456316|NCT01400932|168664269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456317|NCT01400932|168664269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456318|NCT01400932|168664269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456319|NCT01400932|168664269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456320|NCT01400932|168664269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456321|NCT04656990|168664279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84456322|NCT04656990|168664282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.04
84456323|NCT00282243|168664299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.42|92.29|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||92.29|85.42|
84456324|NCT00282243|168664301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.88|85.08|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||85.08|77.88|
84456325|NCT05256888|168664323|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"In a linear model to assess group effects on fatigue at 12 weeks, adjusting for baseline levels of fatigue:~Effect of group = -1.77±1.08, p=0.11, favoring the TRE group."||||0.11
84456326|NCT02487108|168664329|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.931|57.855|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||57.855|19.931|<0.001
84456327|NCT02487108|168664329|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.122|62.881|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||62.881|25.122|<0.001
84456328|NCT02487108|168664329|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.589|72.282|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||72.282|34.589|<0.001
84456329|NCT01688050|168664358|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|All-cause mortality rate (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.88|||||Wald method|||5.88|0|
84456330|NCT01688050|168664359|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Aortic injury-related mortality rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.1|||||Exact method|||7.1|0|
84456331|NCT01688050|168664360|OTHER|The primary effectiveness endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Device success rate (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|100.0|||||Wald method|||100|90.6|
84456332|NCT01110395|168664361|OTHER|Bland and Altman|Mean + SD|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||Bland Altman|mean + SD|Bland Altman|We have provided all the information that is available to us. The PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no further data to correct the errors.|We are unable to provide any further data that has been requested. We have supplied all the data that we can possibly provide because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no other data.|There are no other statistical analysis. We have provided all the information that is available to us. We have no other data available to us because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him.|||
84515965|NCT01648582|168785197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.025
84515966|NCT01648582|168785198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.977||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.025
84456333|NCT01110395|168664361|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mean + SD|||||||<0.05
84456334|NCT05099640|168664372|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
84456335|NCT05099640|168664373|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
84456336|NCT05099640|168664374|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|294.24|||Chi-squared|||||294.24|5.30|<0.0001
84456337|NCT05099640|168664375|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|245.34|||Chi-squared|||||245.34|12.28|<0.0001
84456338|NCT05099640|168664376|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-289.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.29|-223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-223.50|-356.29|<0.0001
84456339|NCT05099640|168664376|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-375.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.88|-315.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-315.06|-435.88|<0.0001
84456340|NCT05099640|168664376|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
84456341|NCT05099640|168664377|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.45|-30.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-30.59|-54.45|<0.0001
84456342|NCT05099640|168664377|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02|-52.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-52.03|-70.02|<0.0001
84515967|NCT01648582|168785198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.025
84515968|NCT01648582|168785198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 52||||0.029
84515969|NCT01648582|168785198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.864||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.029
84456343|NCT05099640|168664377|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
84456344|NCT05099640|168664382|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-492.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.59|-369.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-369.87|-614.59|<0.0001
84456345|NCT05099640|168664383|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|-51.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.74|-97.72|<0.0001
84456346|NCT00849667|168664397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.21|0.81|0.4513
84456347|NCT00849667|168664397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.06|0.70|0.0761
84456348|NCT00849667|168664398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.27|0.78|0.4823
84456349|NCT00849667|168664398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.13|0.68|0.1616
84456350|NCT00849667|168664399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.72|0.2938
84515970|NCT01648582|168785201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 SBP||||0.008
84456351|NCT00849667|168664399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.02|0.58|0.0318
84456352|NCT00849667|168664400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.85|0.5636
84456353|NCT00849667|168664400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.09|0.76|0.1560
84456354|NCT00849667|168664402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.0|-5.4|0.6864
84456355|NCT00849667|168664402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6|-4.8|0.4923
84456356|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||4.1|-4.9|0.8106
84456357|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||8.8|1.4|0.0064
84456358|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.1||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||10.2|-2.0|0.3005
84456359|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||9.9|-2.5|0.2445
84456360|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.3||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.4|-2.8|0.2797
84456361|NCT00849667|168664405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.9||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.0|-3.2|0.2136
84456362|NCT01262625|168664419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||||1.75|0.61|0.19
84456363|NCT01262625|168664420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.08
84456364|NCT01262625|168664420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.02
84456365|NCT04398732|168664424|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 12.||||0.0001
84456366|NCT04398732|168664425|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 12.||||0.0001
84515971|NCT01648582|168785201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.584||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 DBP||||0.584
84515972|NCT01648582|168785201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 SBP||||0.169
84515973|NCT01648582|168785201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 DBP||||0.110
84515974|NCT01648582|168785202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
84515975|NCT01648582|168785202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
84515976|NCT01648582|168785209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 26|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84515977|NCT01648582|168785209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
84515978|NCT01648582|168785210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
84515979|NCT01648582|168785210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
84456367|NCT04398732|168664426|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 12.||||0.0001
84456368|NCT04398732|168664427|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.036
84456369|NCT04398732|168664427|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
84456370|NCT04398732|168664427|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
84456371|NCT04398732|168664428|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.42
84456372|NCT04398732|168664428|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
84456373|NCT04398732|168664428|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
84456374|NCT04398732|168664429|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.72
84456375|NCT04398732|168664429|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
84456376|NCT04398732|168664429|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
84456377|NCT04398732|168664430|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 4.||||0.0001
84515980|NCT00840476|168785323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.26||||||90.0|93.12|107.95|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.95|93.12|
84456378|NCT04398732|168664431|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 4.||||0.0001
84456379|NCT04398732|168664432|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 4.||||0.0001
84515981|NCT00840476|168785324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|105.14||||||90.0|100.27|110.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.25|100.27|
84717733|NCT03547271|169185073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.77|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||5.77|0.34|
84456380|NCT02086331|168664451|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Intraclass correlation of repeated measures - 0.96, p=0.08|||
84456381|NCT00510276|168664453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|8.2||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.20|1.44|0.005
84456382|NCT00510276|168664454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|10.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.12|1.68|0.006
84456383|NCT00510276|168664455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.46||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.46|1.00|0.018
84515982|NCT00840476|168785325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.33||||||90.0|99.16|109.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.76|99.16|
84515983|NCT00556322|168785327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7299
84456384|NCT00510276|168664456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.39||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 psychological health subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.39|0.33|0.034
84456385|NCT00510276|168664457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 life outlook subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||7.12|-0.33|0.074
84456386|NCT00510276|168664458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CGI-ADHD-S score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.24|-0.63|<0.001
84456387|NCT00510276|168664459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CAARS-S:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.15|-5.94|<0.001
84456388|NCT00510276|168664460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in PGI-I scores at 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.04|-0.45|0.020
84456389|NCT00510276|168664461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in MADRS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.19|0.282
84717734|NCT04835363|169185090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
84717735|NCT04835363|169185091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
84717736|NCT04835363|169185092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
84717737|NCT04835363|169185093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.078
84717738|NCT04835363|169185094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84717739|NCT04835363|169185095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.797
84456390|NCT00510276|168664462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BAI score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||1.19|-2.21|0.556
84456391|NCT00510276|168664463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Tested was the null hypothesis that AAQOL-29 total score and CAARS-Inv:SV total score are not correlated.||||<0.001
84456392|NCT00510276|168664464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of alcohol score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.08|-0.39|0.198
84456393|NCT00510276|168664465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of caffeine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.26|-0.33|0.825
84456394|NCT00510276|168664467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of nicotine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||2.17|-0.53|0.233
84456395|NCT00510276|168664468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of marijuana score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.37|-0.24|0.676
84456396|NCT00510276|168664469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Fagerstorm Test for Nicotine Dependence score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.39|-1.00|0.382
84456397|NCT00510276|168664470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in SASS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.78|-1.24|0.656
84515984|NCT00556322|168785330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.21|0.72|0.6198
84456398|NCT00510276|168664471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Self-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.86|-4.08|0.201
84456399|NCT00510276|168664472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference in CAARS-Inv:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between the atomoxetine group and the placebo group. With approximately 220 patients per arm, assuming a 68% completion rate and an estimated effect size of atomoxetine over placebo of 0.35, using a 5% significance level, the analysis was expected to have 90% power to detect a difference between atomoxetine and placebo at week 12.||-2.72|-7.39|<0.001
84456400|NCT00510276|168664473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|17.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Other-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||17.63|-16.41|0.933
84456401|NCT00510276|168664474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Behavioral regulation score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.81|-5.09|0.007
84456402|NCT00510276|168664475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A emotional control section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.50|0.219
84456403|NCT00510276|168664476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A GEC section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.78|-12.37|0.002
84456404|NCT00510276|168664477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inconsistency section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.29|-0.47|0.644
84515985|NCT00556322|168785330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.62|0.55|0.8398
84515986|NCT00556322|168785333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.97|0.0885
84515987|NCT00556322|168785336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.61|0.98|0.0662
84717740|NCT04835363|169185096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.358
84456405|NCT00510276|168664478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEFS-A infrequency score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.25|-0.02|0.097
84456406|NCT00510276|168664479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inhibit Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.37|-1.57|0.002
84456407|NCT00510276|168664480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Initiate section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.02|-1.33|0.044
84456408|NCT00510276|168664481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Metacognition section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-1.55|-7.43|0.003
84456409|NCT00510276|168664482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A negativity section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.23|-0.51|0.456
84456410|NCT00510276|168664483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Organization of Materials section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.00|-1.31|0.051
84456411|NCT00510276|168664484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Plan/Organize section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.47|-2.19|0.002
84456412|NCT00510276|168664485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A SHIFT section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.01|-1.04|0.045
84456413|NCT00510276|168664486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Self Monitor Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.32|-1.35|0.001
84456414|NCT00510276|168664487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Task Monitor section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.19|-1.23|0.008
84456415|NCT00510276|168664488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Working Memory section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.63|-1.98|<0.001
84456416|NCT00510276|168664489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in ESS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.04|-1.42|0.065
84515988|NCT00556322|168785336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.69|0.61|0.9403
84515989|NCT00556322|168785338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.55||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||p-values are based on non-stratified analysis|Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using Hauck-Anderson Method|||6.7|-3.6|0.5349
84515990|NCT00556322|168785340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.93|0.1498
84456417|NCT00510276|168664490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested was smoking status across treatment.||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.788
84456418|NCT00510276|168664491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||Tested was smoking status across treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of strong response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.482
84456419|NCT03486392|168664497|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) Means|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-4.19|||Dunnett's method|||||-4.19|-9.31|< 0.001
84515991|NCT00556322|168785343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.90|0.2202
84515992|NCT00556322|168785346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.95|0.1063
84515993|NCT00835146|168785354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.9||||||90.0|91.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|91.8|
84717741|NCT04835363|169185097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
84456420|NCT03486392|168664497|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|-5.84|||Dunnett's method|||||-5.84|-10.31|< 0.001
84456421|NCT03486392|168664497|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-7.78|||Dunnett's method|||||-7.78|-12.31|< 0.001
84456422|NCT03486392|168664497|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.57|||Dunnett's method|||||-3.57|-7.99|< 0.001
84456423|NCT00666926|168664539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|155.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.66|220.95|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||220.95|109.66|
84456424|NCT00666926|168664540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|315.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.6|437.97|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||437.97|227.60|
84456425|NCT00666926|168664541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|496.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|206.24|1195.92|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||1195.92|206.24|
84456426|NCT01960855|168664550|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.033
84456427|NCT01960855|168664550|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
84456428|NCT01960855|168664550|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84456429|NCT01960855|168664550|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84456430|NCT01960855|168664551|OTHER||||||=|0.364|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.364
84456431|NCT01960855|168664551|OTHER||||||=|0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.014
84515994|NCT00835146|168785355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|93.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|93.3|
84515995|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-5.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.||-5.86|-50.40|
84456432|NCT01960855|168664551|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
84456433|NCT01960855|168664551|OTHER||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.008
84456434|NCT01960855|168664552|OTHER||||||=|0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.093
84515996|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.68|-6.64|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.||-6.64|-51.68|
84456435|NCT01960855|168664552|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84456436|NCT01960855|168664552|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
84456437|NCT01960855|168664552|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
84456438|NCT01960855|168664553|OTHER||||||=|0.366|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.366
84456439|NCT01960855|168664553|OTHER||||||=|0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.17
84456440|NCT01960855|168664553|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
84456441|NCT01960855|168664553|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.028
84456442|NCT01960855|168664554|OTHER||||||=|0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.126
84456443|NCT01960855|168664554|OTHER||||||=|0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.072
84456444|NCT01960855|168664554|OTHER||||||=|0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.012
84456445|NCT01960855|168664554|OTHER||||||=|0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.021
84456446|NCT01014585|168664609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.27|0.0004
84456447|NCT01014585|168664609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84456448|NCT01014585|168664609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|45.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84456449|NCT01014585|168664610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.20|0.0002
84456450|NCT01014585|168664610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|22.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84456451|NCT01014585|168664611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.46|0.4104
84717742|NCT04835363|169185098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.496
84456452|NCT01014585|168664611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84456453|NCT01014585|168664611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|30.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
84456454|NCT01649947|168664637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|72.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is comprised of evaluable patients who had measureable disease and received at least one cycle of therapy and had disease evaluated.||72|8.9|0.01
84456455|NCT01162421|168664639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|20.8|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||||20.8|-23.4|0.907
84456456|NCT01162421|168664640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|24.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||24.1|-17.7|0.762
84456457|NCT01162421|168664640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||17.5|-28.1|0.650
84456458|NCT01162421|168664641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 6||-0.10|-1.62|0.027
84717743|NCT04835363|169185099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.241
84456459|NCT01162421|168664641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.667||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 12||-0.12|-2.79|0.033
84456460|NCT01162421|168664641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.60|-5.05|0.120
84456461|NCT01162421|168664642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.7||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||P-value is based on two sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval is based on Wilson confidence limits.|||1.6|-27.0|0.095
84456462|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|33.97|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.97|-9.79|0.281
84456463|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|48.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||48.93|4.98|0.021
84456464|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|28.63|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||28.63|-15.29|0.552
84456465|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|9.72|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||9.72|-34.04|0.281
84456466|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|7.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||7.78|-36.64|0.209
84456467|NCT01162421|168664643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|2.62|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||2.62|-41.74|0.091
84456468|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|36.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||36.26|-5.05|0.148
84456469|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|41.61|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.61|-0.14|0.060
84515997|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.25|-10.9|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.||-10.90|-62.25|
84456470|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|31.29|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||31.29|-13.85|0.451
84456471|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|31.43|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||31.43|-12.82|0.413
84456472|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.74|15.23|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||15.23|-29.74|0.528
84456473|NCT01162421|168664644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|12.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||12.56|-31.61|0.399
84456474|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.06|||Fisher Exact|||Month 3||27.06|-1.70|0.111
84456475|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|36.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||36.53|2.74|0.031
84456476|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|22.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||22.31|-16.74|0.780
84456477|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|35.04|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||35.04|-2.07|0.092
84456478|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|30.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||30.40|-8.86|0.290
84456479|NCT01162421|168664645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.86|4.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||4.01|-37.86|0.116
84456480|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 3||-1.2|-5.9|0.004
84456481|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
84456482|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.4|-5.1|0.021
84515998|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-18.03|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.||-18.03|-72.80|
84717744|NCT04835363|169185100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
84717745|NCT04835363|169185101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
84515999|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.84|-7.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.||-7.86|-50.84|
84456483|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.1|-4.0|0.037
84456484|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.5|-3.7|0.702
84456485|NCT01162421|168664646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.8|-2.8|0.644
84456486|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-0.1|-3.7|0.039
84456487|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.8|-5.0|<0.001
84456488|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 9||-0.6|-3.8|0.008
84456489|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
84456490|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||1.2|-2.6|0.452
84456491|NCT01162421|168664647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.8|-2.3|0.343
84516000|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-6.49|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean||-6.49|-45.80|
84516001|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|-8.58|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.||-8.58|-55.41|
84516002|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.64|-15.29|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.||-15.29|-66.64|
84516003|NCT01929863|168785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-14.85|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.||-14.85|-54.67|
84717746|NCT04835363|169185102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.141
84456492|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.7|-7.3|0.220
84456493|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-3.3|-11.0|<0.001
84456494|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||0.0|-7.5|0.050
84516004|NCT01929863|168785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.125|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-10 h).|||1.125|0.912|
84516005|NCT01929863|168785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.145|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Cmax.|||1.145|0.937|
84717747|NCT04835363|169185102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||DISENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.496
84456495|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||3.2|-4.6|0.725
84456496|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.1|-5.1|0.837
84456497|NCT01162421|168664648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||2.9|-4.5|0.661
84456498|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.7|-4.4|0.156
84456499|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.9|-6.1|<0.001
84456500|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.1|-4.9|0.040
84516006|NCT00835536|168785455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.1|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|93.1|
84516007|NCT00835536|168785456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.5||||||90.0|92.1|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|92.1|
84516008|NCT00730691|168785502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.69||This treatment arm is not in the pre-specified testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05) comparing each of the 3 doses of vortioxetine to placebo.||0.69|-2.62|0.255
84516009|NCT00730691|168785502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.35|-1.96|0.719
84516010|NCT00730691|168785502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.27||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.27|-2.06|0.642
84516011|NCT00730691|168785502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.89|-4.30|0.003
84516012|NCT00730691|168785503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.11|-0.89|0.830
84516013|NCT00730691|168785503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.77||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.77|-1.24|0.643
84456501|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.5|-3.1|0.492
84456502|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.0|-3.2|0.649
84456503|NCT01162421|168664649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.4|-3.0|0.464
84456504|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-2.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-2.2|-22.5|0.018
84456505|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-13.7|-37.3|<0.001
84456506|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||2.3|-21.0|0.113
84456507|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||7.9|-14.9|0.544
84456508|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|11.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||11.2|-12.5|0.916
84456509|NCT01162421|168664650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||11.6|-11.8|0.983
84456510|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.6|-12.2|0.641
84456511|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|6.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||6.0|-16.4|0.358
84456512|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||16.4|-5.9|0.352
84456513|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||10.6|-10.5|0.990
84456514|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|17.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||17.1|-4.3|0.238
84516014|NCT00730691|168785503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.07||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.07|-2.10|0.036
84456515|NCT01162421|168664651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||18.1|-4.0|0.207
84456516|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||9.5|-11.5|0.850
84516015|NCT00730691|168785503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.50|-2.58|0.004
84456517|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.5|-19.4|0.129
84456518|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||11.6|-10.8|0.937
84456519|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|8.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||8.8|-13.5|0.670
84456520|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||16.7|-5.9|0.341
84456521|NCT01162421|168664652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||15.3|-9.2|0.621
84456522|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.9|-5.3|0.697
84516016|NCT00730691|168785504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.15|-0.36|0.407
84456523|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.5|-10.5|0.744
84456524|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.0|-7.7|0.967
84456525|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||9.5|-3.7|0.377
84456526|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||12.4|-1.5|0.122
84456527|NCT01162421|168664653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.2|-4.4|0.490
84516017|NCT00730691|168785504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.33|0.533
84516018|NCT00730691|168785504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.34|0.491
84516019|NCT00730691|168785504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.17|-0.70|0.001
84456528|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-1.0|0.102
84456529|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
84456530|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.2|-0.9|0.214
84456531|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.3|-0.8|0.339
84516020|NCT00730691|168785505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.85|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.85|-1.16|0.652
84456532|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.6|-0.6|0.973
84456533|NCT01162421|168664654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.5|-0.6|0.755
84456534|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|25.13|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||25.13|-7.09|0.316
84456535|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|42.85|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||42.85|6.09|0.014
84456536|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|17.66|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||17.66|-24.10|0.762
84456537|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|33.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||33.54|-7.46|0.220
84456538|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|17.86|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||17.86|-24.90|0.747
84456539|NCT01162421|168664655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.4||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|18.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||18.01|-26.80|0.701
84456540|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.5||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|30.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||30.78|-9.83|0.318
84516021|NCT00730691|168785505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.98|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.98|-1.98|0.511
84516022|NCT00730691|168785505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.51|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.51|-2.38|0.204
84516023|NCT00730691|168785505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.03|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.03|-4.10|0.001
84456541|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|44.39|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||44.39|1.03|0.047
84456542|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|27.71|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||27.71|-17.74|0.668
84456543|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|30.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.56|-14.88|0.500
84456544|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
84456545|NCT01162421|168664656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
84456546|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||28.00|-12.17|0.444
84456547|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|41.83|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.83|-1.53|0.076
84456548|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|25.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||25.52|-20.10|0.816
84516024|NCT00730691|168785506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.750|0.709|0.641
84456549|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|30.87|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.87|-14.61|0.485
84456550|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
84456551|NCT01162421|168664657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
84456552|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|33.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.99|-10.84|0.316
84456553|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|25.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||25.54|-15.43|0.630
84456554|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|20.21|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||20.21|-20.94|0.972
84456555|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|6.7|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||6.70|-34.83|0.186
84456556|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.6||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|4.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||4.26|-29.46|0.142
84456557|NCT01162421|168664658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.34|11.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.52|-20.34|0.727
84456558|NCT01162421|168664659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|22.22|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||||22.22|-9.21|0.486
84456559|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.29|-0.23|0.809
84456560|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.09|-0.44|0.194
84456561|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.29|-0.24|0.863
84456562|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.35|-0.16|0.452
84456563|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.33|-0.23|0.738
84456564|NCT01162421|168664660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.38|-0.21|0.572
84456565|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.05|10.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||10.31|-34.05|0.299
84516025|NCT00730691|168785506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.605|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.605|0.643|0.945
84456566|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|19.77|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||19.77|-25.77|0.796
84456567|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.22|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||29.22|-15.30|0.540
84516026|NCT00730691|168785506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.749|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.749|0.709|0.641
84456568|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|12.19|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||12.19|-31.39|0.392
84456569|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|19.37|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||19.37|-25.96|0.776
84456570|NCT01162421|168664661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.1||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.64|6.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||6.40|-38.64|0.166
84456571|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|9.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||9.01|-30.84|0.283
84456572|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||28.00|-12.17|0.444
84456573|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|23.38|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||23.38|-20.16|0.885
84456574|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|20.64|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||20.64|-22.54|0.931
84456575|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||23.03|-18.63|0.836
84456576|NCT01162421|168664662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||23.03|-18.63|0.836
84516027|NCT00730691|168785506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|2.246|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||2.246|0.907|0.124
84456577|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||5.4|-3.6|0.699
84456578|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.7|-2.1|0.261
84516028|NCT00730691|168785507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.14|-5.15|0.064
84516029|NCT00730691|168785507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.353||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.40|-4.92|0.096
84456579|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.2|-6.2|0.514
84456580|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.3|-7.7|0.283
84456581|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||3.4|-7.5|0.461
84456582|NCT01162421|168664663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-6.6|0.703
84456583|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|15.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||15.16|-17.94|1.000
84456584|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|8.81|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 6||8.81|-22.34|0.468
84456585|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.88|3.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 9||3.16|-27.88|0.142
84456586|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|19.83|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 12||19.83|-11.08|0.712
84456587|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|22.89|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 18||22.89|-8.92|0.482
84456588|NCT01162421|168664664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|7.69|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 24||7.69|-21.18|0.418
84456589|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|7.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.4|-16.3|0.453
84456590|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||4.0|-19.7|0.187
84516030|NCT00730691|168785507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.397||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.14|-4.36|0.250
84516031|NCT00730691|168785507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.73|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.73|-7.34|0.002
84456591|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|9.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||9.4|-16.1|0.598
84456592|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||15.0|-8.2|0.558
84456593|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||15.6|-10.1|0.669
84456594|NCT01162421|168664665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||13.5|-11.3|0.865
84456595|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.13|-0.10|0.809
84456596|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.17|-0.08|0.447
84456597|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.09|-0.16|0.579
84456598|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.12|-0.11|0.922
84456599|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.12|-0.14|0.894
84456600|NCT01162421|168664666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.10|-0.17|0.611
84456601|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||6.3|-11.3|0.572
84456602|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||18.2|-2.4|0.130
84456603|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.1|-12.9|0.649
84456604|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|6.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||6.9|-12.3|0.579
84456605|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||8.9|-11.1|0.826
84456606|NCT01162421|168664667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.0|-13.8|0.675
84456607|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||4.3|-2.0|0.458
84456608|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.1|-4.9|0.419
84456609|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.4|-2.3|0.692
84456610|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||5.0|-1.8|0.357
84456611|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.7|-2.0|0.420
84456612|NCT01162421|168664668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-1.8|0.380
84456613|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||1.1|0.0|0.046
84456614|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||1.3|0.3|0.003
84456615|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.8|-0.2|0.204
84456616|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.7|-0.2|0.227
84456617|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.5|-0.4|0.860
84456618|NCT01162421|168664669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.6|-0.3|0.476
84456619|NCT01446419|168664707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA with factors of tx group, analysis center and tx group by analysis center interaction, and a covariate of baseline ODI score.||||||0.019
84516032|NCT02554890|168785520|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|0.808||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8080|0.6315|<.0001
84516033|NCT02554890|168785524|OTHER||exponentially back transformed from LS m|0.8487||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7694|0.9361|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.9361|0.7694|0.0011
84516034|NCT02554890|168785525|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.6487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4559|1.8669|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.8669|1.4559|<.0001
84516035|NCT02554890|168785526|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3248|1.519|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5190|1.3248|<.0001
84516036|NCT02554890|168785527|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4745|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3752|1.581|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5810|1.3752|<.0001
84516037|NCT02554890|168785528|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6171|0.8245||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8245|0.6171|<.0001
84516038|NCT01521780|168785531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0803|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.1163||||||||0.1163||
84516039|NCT01521780|168785532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0555|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0733||||||||0.0733||
84456620|NCT01557166|168664710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-6.1||||0.015||95.0|-11.0|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with treatment, country and sex as fixed factors, and the baseline value of AHI, baseline BMI and baseline age as covariates.||Let μ liraglutide 3.0mg and μ placebo denote mean change in AHI for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo,respectively. The null-hypothesis and the alternative was H0: μliraglutide 3.0mg = μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide 3.0mg ≠ μplacebo.||-1.19|-11.0|0.015
84456621|NCT01583374|168664770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||6.2|-14.3|0.4383
84516040|NCT00834275|168785536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|94|
84516041|NCT00834275|168785537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|98.3|
84516042|NCT00834275|168785538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|98.3|
84516043|NCT03649477|168785539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.202||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|1.324||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.324|-3.729|0.3493
84516044|NCT03649477|168785539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.136||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.685|-0.586||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.586|-5.685|0.0162
84516045|NCT03649477|168785540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.608||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.674||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.674|-2.890|0.6001
84516046|NCT03649477|168785540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764||||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.068|1.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.541|-3.068|0.5143
84516047|NCT03649477|168785541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|3.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.541|-3.175|0.9144
84516048|NCT03649477|168785541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.812||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.177|-0.446||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.446|-7.177|0.0266
84456622|NCT01583374|168664770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||8.5|-12.0|0.7427
84456623|NCT01583374|168664771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.32|-0.41|0.8032
84456624|NCT01583374|168664771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.19|-0.53|0.3624
84456625|NCT01583374|168664772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-0.33|0.8618
84456626|NCT01583374|168664772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.27|-0.45|0.6262
84516049|NCT03649477|168785542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.125||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.125|-0.748|0.1598
84516050|NCT03649477|168785542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|-0.059||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.059|-0.937|0.0266
84456627|NCT01583374|168664773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.2|-8.1|0.6958
84456628|NCT01583374|168664773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||14.5|-5.8|0.4051
84516051|NCT03649477|168785543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085||||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.761||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.761|-2.932|0.2479
84516052|NCT03649477|168785543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.412||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.276|-0.548||0.05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.548|-4.276|0.0114
84726449|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.071|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.071|-0.064|
84456629|NCT01583374|168664774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.99|-0.49|0.5126
84456630|NCT01583374|168664774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.01|-0.46|0.4624
84456631|NCT01583374|168664775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-1.18|0.6997
84456632|NCT01583374|168664775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.42|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.42|-1.50|0.9587
84456633|NCT01583374|168664776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.17|-0.06|0.3307
84516053|NCT01030133|168785561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|0.75||||||0.05
84516054|NCT04870606|168785566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0181|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0181
84516055|NCT04870606|168785567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.1223|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1223
84516056|NCT04870606|168785568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0038|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0038
84516057|NCT05776901|168785575|OTHER|Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, including mean, median, and standard deviation of the System Usability Scores collected from the baseline and week 3 were computed. Then, a two-sided, paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the change in mean System Usability Scores from baseline at week 3.|Mean diff in SUS from baseline at week 3|34.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|96.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||96.37|-28.04|<0.05
84516058|NCT00761813|168785623|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|.63|
84516059|NCT00761813|168785624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84516060|NCT00836472|168785631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.41||||||90.0|88.43|105.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.10|88.43|
84726450|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.061|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.061|-0.075|
84516061|NCT00836472|168785632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.14|102.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.57|95.14|
84456634|NCT01583374|168664776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.14|-0.08|0.5938
84456635|NCT00670007|168664780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.279|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.53||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) was a linear random regression model with country, inspiration state, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.530|-1.089|= 0.752
84456636|NCT00670007|168664780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.371|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|0.417||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.417|-1.159|= 0.823
84516062|NCT00836472|168785633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.52||||||90.0|94.44|102.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.78|94.44|
84516063|NCT00836472|168785634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.08||||||90.0|89.6|98.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.77|89.60|
84516064|NCT00836472|168785635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.33||||||90.0|92.6|100.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.21|92.60|
84516065|NCT00836472|168785636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.01||||||90.0|92.18|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.00|92.18|
84516066|NCT03246503|168785645|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87||statistical significance of Pearson correlation coefficient|Pearson correlation coefficient||Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.|Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.||.87|0.77|<.001
84516067|NCT03246503|168785646|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|intercept of regression line|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|4.91|||Regression, Linear|||||4.91|3.35|<.001
84516068|NCT03246503|168785647|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|Slope|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||||0.76|0.60|<.001
84516069|NCT00466167|168785657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.4|2.4|0.0001
84516070|NCT00466167|168785657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||9.1|4.2|<.0001
84516071|NCT00466167|168785658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.9|1.0|0.0122
84516072|NCT00466167|168785658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||10.5|3.7|<.0001
84516073|NCT03466866|168785687|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.67||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||Poisson regression|We adjusted for stratification variables, sex, baseline MOCA, number of medical conditions, PSQ Communication, and PSQ General satisfaction.||We used Poisson regression to model the number of outcome events as a function of randomization assignment, adjusting for the stratification variables and using follow-up time as the offset term. We calculated estimates of annual rates of the primary outcome and the adjusted estimate of the rate ratio. We evaluated the primary hypothesis by testing the null hypothesis that the rate ratio for randomization assignment equals 1.||1.07|.42|.12
84516074|NCT03466866|168785688|SUPERIORITY|General Satisfaction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||We modeled PSQ- scores as continuous variables to estimate average change over time by treatment group. We used mixed effects linear regression with fixed effects for time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, and time by randomization interaction. A random intercept term and an appropriate covariance structure was used to account for correlation among repeated measurements.||.45|-.22|.502
84516075|NCT03466866|168785689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was performed with Number of Quality Metrics as the dependent variable, treatment arm as the main independent variable of interest and the stratification variables as adjusting variables.||.69|.16|.23
84539919|NCT01473407|168830328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.483|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.13||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||11.13|-10.40|
84456637|NCT00670007|168664780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.176|||=|0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.738||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for FRC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.738|-1.09|= 0.648
84456638|NCT00670007|168664781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.53||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|1.12||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||1.120|-2.179|0.526
84456639|NCT00670007|168664781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.486||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.154||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.154|-2.126|0.558
84456640|NCT00670007|168664781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.019||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.858|1.895||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.895|-1.858|0.984
84456641|NCT00670007|168664782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.294||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|4.233||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||4.233|-3.645|0.883
84516076|NCT03466866|168785690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used mixed effects linear regression. Fixed effects included time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, time by randomization interaction, and the three stratification variables. From the results of this model, we estimated the mean change from baseline to 6 months, 6 months to 12 months and baseline to 12 months within each treatment group. We then compared the change from baseline to 12 months between the two groups.||9.66|-.76|.094
84516077|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.88|-1.30|<0.0001
84516078|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.15|-0.19|<0.0001
84456642|NCT00670007|168664782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.151||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.172|3.87||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||3.870|-4.172|0.941
84456643|NCT00670007|168664782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.787||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.014||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||6.014|-2.440|0.404
84516079|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.27|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.85|-1.27|<0.0001
84516080|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.18|-0.16|<0.0001
84539920|NCT01473407|168830329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7563||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.7563
84539921|NCT01473407|168830330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1061||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.1061
84539922|NCT01473407|168830331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.3369
84456644|NCT00624221|168664791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 40 subjects was estimated based on having 80% power to determine greater than 10% difference in cell loss between groups with estimated standard deviation of 17 and estimated correlation of 0.5.||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired difference t-test|||||||0.10
84456645|NCT01542307|168664823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
84516081|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-0.99|<0.0001
84516082|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.29||||0.1026||95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.46|0.12|0.1026
84516083|NCT00318461|168785711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.86|-1.28|<0.0001
84516084|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.29||||0.0016||95.0|-2.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.41|-2.16|0.0016
84516085|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.48|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.01|-4.48|<0.0001
84456646|NCT01542307|168664824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84516086|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07||||0.0117||95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.19|-1.94|0.0117
84516087|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.27|-2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.79|-4.27|<0.0001
84516088|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.8198||95.0|-1.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.60|-1.15|0.8198
84456647|NCT01542307|168664825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84516089|NCT00318461|168785712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.00|-3.47|<0.0001
84456648|NCT01542307|168664826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84456649|NCT01542307|168664827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
84456650|NCT01542307|168664828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84456651|NCT01542307|168664829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84456652|NCT01542307|168664830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84456653|NCT02591615|168664831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2176
84456654|NCT02591615|168664832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.67|0.84
84456655|NCT02863068|168664840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2967||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS for all participants between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for all participants.||||0.2967
84456656|NCT02863068|168664841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2818||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.2818
84456657|NCT02863068|168664841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms||||1.0
84456658|NCT02863068|168664842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.3754
84456659|NCT02863068|168664844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.1165
84456660|NCT02863068|168664844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4583
84456661|NCT02863068|168664845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.068
84456662|NCT02863068|168664845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.5
84456663|NCT02863068|168664845|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
84456664|NCT02863068|168664845|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
84456665|NCT02863068|168664846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4298
84456666|NCT02863068|168664846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.2701
84456667|NCT01734655|168664849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
84539950|NCT03022370|168830601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||||0.95|-1.21|0.810
84456668|NCT01734655|168664850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
84456669|NCT01734655|168664851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
84456670|NCT02613208|168664867|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.392|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
84456671|NCT02613208|168664867|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.088||||0.444|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.444
84456672|NCT02613208|168664869|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.373|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
84456673|NCT02613208|168664869|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.129||||0.241|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.241
84456674|NCT00947531|168664925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.13||P-value obtained from the F-test statistic of Cerebrolysin versus Placebo as part of ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed. The overall significance level alpha was fixed at alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the two treatment groups. A sample size of 103 evaluable patients per treatment group was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of 4.1 points in ADAS-cog+ weak 24 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 9.0) in favor of Cerebrolysin with a power of 90% and a probability level of alpha-level 0.025 (one-sided).||-4.13|-8.22|< 0.0001
84456675|NCT06062264|168664942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06||||||Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination|Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|1.06|1.00|
84539951|NCT03022370|168830601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.04|-2.01|0.041
84456676|NCT06062264|168664942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.06|0.99|
84456677|NCT03706365|168664945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.111|||Log Rank|||||1.111|0.619|0.2123
84456678|NCT03706365|168664946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.856|||Log Rank|||||0.856|0.474|0.0026
84456679|NCT03706365|168664947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.160|0.611|0.2899
84456680|NCT03706365|168664949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.419|||Log Rank|||||1.419|0.377|0.3531
84456681|NCT03706365|168664950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.285|||Log Rank|||||1.285|0.669|0.6507
84456682|NCT03706365|168664951|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.131|||Log Rank|||||1.131|0.522|0.1807
84456683|NCT03706365|168664956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.665|0.6970
84456684|NCT05195528|168664957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|22.45||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.45|11.81|<0.0001
84456685|NCT05195528|168664957|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|22.04||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.04|11.36|<0.0001
84456686|NCT05195528|168664958|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|21.6||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||21.60|9.93|<0.0001
84456687|NCT05195528|168664958|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.84|19.54||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||19.54|7.84|<0.0001
84516090|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.11||||0.0378||95.0|-2.18|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.05|-2.18|0.0378
84516091|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.51|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.72|-4.51|<0.0001
84456688|NCT01552902|168664959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-3.4|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least squares mean (LSM), the difference in LSM and its 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-1.3|-5.4|= 0.0013
84456689|NCT01552902|168664959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-6|-11|< 0.0001
84456690|NCT01552902|168664959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that includes treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-2.6|-7.6|< 0.0001
84456691|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|0.67|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.67|-6.38|
84456692|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.78|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.78|-3.75|
84456693|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.26|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.26|-3.52|
84456694|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.6|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.60|-5.34|
84539952|NCT03022370|168830602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.67|0.635
84456695|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.2|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.20|-2.50|
84456696|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.77|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.77|-5.67|
84539953|NCT03022370|168830602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.41|0.256
84539954|NCT03022370|168830603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.73|0.526
84456697|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.08|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.08|-3.99|
84456698|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.55|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.55|-2.68|
84456699|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.18|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.18|-4.17|
84456700|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.97|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.97|-1.20|
84456701|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.73|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.73|-4.66|
84456702|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.05|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.05|-2.76|
84456703|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.86|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.86|-2.15|
84456704|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.53|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.53|-4.76|
84456705|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.66|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.66|-2.25|
84456706|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.34|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.34|-5.95|
84456707|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|1.56|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.56|-3.39|
84456708|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.2|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.20|-3.91|
84456709|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.21|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.21|-4.99|
84456710|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.08|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.08|-2.97|
84456711|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-0.58|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||-0.58|-7.39|
84456712|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.81|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.81|-4.54|
84456713|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.41|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.41|-4.12|
84456714|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|1.23|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.23|-5.47|
84456715|NCT02631538|168664972|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.24|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.24|-2.21|
84456716|NCT00110019|168664983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for overall survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.18|0.87|0.863
84456717|NCT00110019|168664984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for progression-free survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.03|0.78|0.092
84456718|NCT00110019|168664985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
84539955|NCT03022370|168830603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.67|0.931
84456719|NCT01046695|168664990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the TENS Unit during the first and second 24 hours.||||.005
84456720|NCT01046695|168664990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the Control Arm during the first and second 24 hours.||||.11
84456721|NCT01046695|168664991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
84456722|NCT04426695|168664995|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.51|0.0663
84456723|NCT04426695|168664995|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.0204||95.0|-0.57|0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.0204
84456724|NCT04426695|168664995|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||-0.05|-0.51|0.0172
84456725|NCT04426695|168664996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0431
84516092|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.23||||0.0185||95.0|-2.3|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.16|-2.30|0.0185
84516093|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.64|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.83|-4.64|<0.0001
84516094|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.27||||0.9069||95.0|-1.33|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.80|-1.33|0.9069
84516095|NCT00318461|168785713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.67|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.87|-3.67|<0.0001
84456726|NCT04426695|168664996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7975||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7975
84456727|NCT04426695|168664996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2048||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.2048
84456728|NCT04426695|168664997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
84456729|NCT04426695|168664997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2415||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2415
84456730|NCT04426695|168664997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0195
84539956|NCT03022370|168830604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.63|0.691
84456731|NCT04426695|168664998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0085
84456732|NCT04426695|168664998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9902
84456733|NCT04426695|168664998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1486||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.1486
84456734|NCT04426695|168664999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
84456735|NCT04426695|168664999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2210
84456736|NCT04426695|168664999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0249
84456737|NCT04426695|168665000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
84456738|NCT04426695|168665000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0714||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0714
84456739|NCT04426695|168665000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0061
84456740|NCT04426695|168665001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
84456741|NCT04426695|168665001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3544||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3544
84516096|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.68|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.50|-2.68|<0.0001
84516097|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.1845||95.0|-0.87|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.11|-0.87|0.1845
84516098|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.63|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.44|-2.63|<0.0001
84516099|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.3047||95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||0.17|-0.82|0.3047
84456742|NCT04426695|168665001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0212
84456743|NCT04426695|168665007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0575||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0575
84539957|NCT03022370|168830604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.60|0.692
84539958|NCT03022370|168830605|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.72|0.137
84539959|NCT03022370|168830605|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.40|-0.58|0.721
84456744|NCT04426695|168665007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3133||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3133
84456745|NCT04426695|168665007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
84456746|NCT04426695|168665008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2167||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2167
84456747|NCT04426695|168665008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4123
84456748|NCT04426695|168665008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2206||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2206
84456749|NCT04426695|168665009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0383
84456750|NCT04426695|168665009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3296||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3296
84516100|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.12|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.94|-2.12|<0.0001
84539960|NCT03022370|168830606|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.70|0.332
84456751|NCT04426695|168665009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0766
84456752|NCT04426695|168665010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0070
84456753|NCT04426695|168665010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0507
84456754|NCT04426695|168665010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0051
84456755|NCT04426695|168665011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0174
84456756|NCT04426695|168665011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2900
84456757|NCT04426695|168665011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0454
84456758|NCT04426695|168665012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0040
84456759|NCT04426695|168665012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
84726451|NCT03345407|169204819|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.042|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.042|-0.051|
84456760|NCT04426695|168665012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0032
84539961|NCT03022370|168830606|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.71|0.468
84539962|NCT03022370|168830607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
84539963|NCT03022370|168830607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.89|0.129
84456761|NCT04426695|168665013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0105
84456762|NCT04426695|168665013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0622||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0622
84456763|NCT04426695|168665013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
84456764|NCT04426695|168665014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0275
84456765|NCT04426695|168665014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
84456766|NCT04426695|168665014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0072
84456767|NCT04426695|168665015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1032
84516101|NCT00318461|168785714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.18||||0.8079||95.0|-0.32|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.67|-0.32|0.8079
84539964|NCT03022370|168830608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
84456768|NCT04426695|168665015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3350
84456769|NCT04426695|168665015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1314||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1314
84456770|NCT04426695|168665016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00024||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00024
84456771|NCT04426695|168665016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
84456772|NCT04426695|168665016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
84456773|NCT04426695|168665023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0533
84456774|NCT04426695|168665023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0411
84456775|NCT04426695|168665023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0229
84456776|NCT04426695|168665024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0218
84456777|NCT04426695|168665024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0156
84456778|NCT04426695|168665024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0067
84456779|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2162||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2162
84456780|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8783
84456781|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5583
84456782|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7189||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7189
84539965|NCT03022370|168830608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.64|0.836
84456783|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
84456784|NCT04426695|168665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2103
84456785|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
84516102|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.58|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.28|-2.58|<0.0001
84726452|NCT03345407|169204820|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
84456786|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1256||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1256
84456787|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
84456788|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1298
84456789|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2642
84456790|NCT04426695|168665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0970
84456791|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0147
84456792|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0669||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0669
84456793|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0094
84456794|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1306||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1306
84456795|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3576
84456796|NCT04426695|168665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1476
84456797|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
84456798|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0535
84726453|NCT03345407|169204820|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.35|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.35|0.57|
84456799|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0199
84456800|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2784
84456801|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2510
84456802|NCT04426695|168665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1702
84456803|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0500
84456804|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0663
84456805|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0229
84456806|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
84456807|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0388||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0388
84456808|NCT04426695|168665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
84456809|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0370
84456810|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1596
84456811|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0444
84456812|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1802|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1802
84456813|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0407
84456814|NCT04426695|168665036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0523
84456815|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0245
84539966|NCT04020887|168830619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|18.01||||||Difference in time to PACU discharge determination from observation to interaction phase \[ Time Frame: 6 months\]: The difference in discharge readiness time between the observation and interaction phases will be compared.||18.01|-6.01|
84456816|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0554
84456817|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0179
84456818|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
84456819|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
84456820|NCT04426695|168665037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84456821|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
84456822|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
84456823|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84456824|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0250
84456825|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
84456826|NCT04426695|168665038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
84456827|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0623
84456828|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0203
84456829|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0193
84456830|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.1206
84456831|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0911
84456832|NCT04426695|168665039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0645
84456833|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0623
84456834|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0203
84456835|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0193
84456836|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.1206
84456837|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0911
84456838|NCT04426695|168665040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0645
84456839|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
84456840|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9880
84456841|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2498||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2498
84539967|NCT04020887|168830620|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|35.66||||||||35.66|23.82|
84456842|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
84456843|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0457
84456844|NCT04426695|168665041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2153||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2153
84456845|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0811
84456846|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6701||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6701
84456847|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2006||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2006
84456848|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3313
84456849|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5542||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5542
84456850|NCT04426695|168665042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2214||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2214
84456851|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0389||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0389
84456852|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
84516103|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.53||||0.0542||95.0|-1.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.01|-1.08|0.0542
84717748|NCT02532621|169185117|NON_INFERIORITY|"Cumulative patency at 6 months was evaluated using the estimated patency from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. The test statistic took the following form:~Z-test statistic = (P - 0.75) / SE (P) Where, (P) represents the Kaplan Meier estimate of cumulative patency at 6 months, and the standard error SE (P) is estimated using the method of Peto et al (1977)."|Cumulative patency|92.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A one-sided p-value of 0.025 was considered evidence of statistical significance for the primary study endpoint.|one-sided binomial exact test|||"The primary endpoint was evaluated by comparison with a performance goal of 75% that was determined from medical literature.~The sample size of 158 patients was estimated as follows:~* Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative patency rate at 6 months (exact binomial estimation for sample size)~* Type I error (alpha): 0.025 (one-sided)~* 80% Statistical power~* 8% Lost-to-follow up rate"||||<0.001
84717749|NCT03904576|169185143|OTHER||Difference of least squares means (T-R)|-7.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.949|-3.661||||||Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||-3.661|-10.949|
84456853|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1079
84456854|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3315||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3315
84456855|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5797
84456856|NCT04426695|168665043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3036
84539968|NCT04020887|168830621|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|-2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.18|
84456857|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
84456858|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
84456859|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
84456860|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
84456861|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
84456862|NCT04426695|168665044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
84456863|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2635||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2635
84456864|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8013||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8013
84456865|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4160
84456866|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2194||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2194
84456867|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3240
84456868|NCT04426695|168665045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1981||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1981
84456869|NCT03653390|168665066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
84456870|NCT03653390|168665066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.22|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||0.22|-2.71|0.11
84456871|NCT03653390|168665066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.95|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.95|-3.85|<0.01
84516104|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
84539969|NCT04020887|168830622|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|20.79||||||||20.79|5.16|
84456872|NCT03653390|168665066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.32|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.32|-2.64|0.16
84456873|NCT03653390|168665067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
84456874|NCT03653390|168665067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.3||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.30|-4.05|0.018
84456875|NCT03653390|168665067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.41||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.41|-4.12|0.012
84456876|NCT03653390|168665067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.81||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||1.81|-1.98|0.99
84456877|NCT03653390|168665068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.382
84456878|NCT03653390|168665069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.29
84456879|NCT03653390|168665070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.057
84539970|NCT04020887|168830623|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.07||||||||3.07|-1.63|
84516105|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55||||0.0451||95.0|-1.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||-0.01|-1.10|0.0451
84456880|NCT03653390|168665071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.21
84456881|NCT03653390|168665072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in radius of gyration from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.79
84456882|NCT03653390|168665073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.26
84456883|NCT03653390|168665074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in minutes from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
84456884|NCT03653390|168665074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|38.4||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||38.4|-95.7|0.57
84456885|NCT03653390|168665074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|132.6||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||132.6|0.56|0.048
84456886|NCT03653390|168665074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|95.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|158.7||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||158.7|31.8|<0.01
84456887|NCT03653390|168665075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
84456888|NCT03653390|168665075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.13||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.13|-2.97|0.028
84456889|NCT03653390|168665075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.75|||Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.75|-3.55|<0.01
84456890|NCT03653390|168665075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.83||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.83|-2.03|0.59
84456891|NCT00531960|168665081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.70|0.8060
84456892|NCT00531960|168665083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.75|0.4063
84516106|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.90|-2.20|<0.0001
84516107|NCT00318461|168785715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.9006||95.0|-0.7|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.39|-0.70|0.9006
84539971|NCT04020887|168830624|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|12.71||||||||12.71|3.13|
84539972|NCT03852537|168830627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
84456893|NCT00531960|168665084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-17.28||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|0.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was determined by using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||0.3|-34.8|0.0444
84456894|NCT00531960|168665085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-12.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|2.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in disease control was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||2.8|-27.3|0.0944
84456895|NCT02532855|168665107|NON_INFERIORITY|For the primary hypothesis, sitagliptin will be considered non-inferior to dapagliflozin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference in least squares mean change from baseline in A1C (sitagliptin minus dapagliflozin) is less than 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin). Longitudinal data analysis (LDA), Antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), Least squares means (LSM)|Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|
84456896|NCT02532855|168665107|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||Longitudinal data analysis|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
84456897|NCT02532855|168665108|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.1||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||5.1|-10.7|
84456898|NCT02532855|168665109|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||3.0|-3.0|
84456899|NCT02532855|168665110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-5.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.8|||LDA|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.8|-13.3|0.138
84456900|NCT02532855|168665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate.||||5.3|-12.1|
84456901|NCT02532855|168665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.4||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline glucagon AUC value as a covariate.||||1.4|-10.1|
84456902|NCT02532855|168665113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|22.0||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC value as a covariate.||||22.0|-12.2|
84456903|NCT02532855|168665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC to glucagon AUC ratio value as a covariate.||||1.3|-0.1|
84456904|NCT02532855|168665115|OTHER|The percentage of participants was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques from LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|23.2||||Miettinen and Nurminen (M\&N) method with multiple imputation from a LDA Model.||||23.2|7.7|
84456905|NCT02532855|168665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.3||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-1.2|
84456906|NCT00820573|168665128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"A general unstructured variance-covariance matrix (ANOVA) was applied for measurements at different periods. Between-group comparisons after 6 wks of treatment were assessed using the ANOVA model at alpha=0.05 (two-sided).~16 subjects provide \~90% power to detect difference in EGP of 0.28 mg/kg.min (95% CI = 0.17 mg/kg.min)."||||<0.05
84456907|NCT00820573|168665129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||multivariate analysis was performed to compare results amongst all four groups||||<0.05
84456908|NCT00820573|168665130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||0.05
84456909|NCT00820573|168665131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84456910|NCT00508391|168665167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis utilized an objective performance criteria of 63% with a clinically significant difference of 12%. For the non-inferiority hypothesis, the one-sided Type I error was set to 0.05 and the statistical power was set to 80%.|Objective Performance Criteria|63.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|54.8||||Non-inferiority comparison|||"Efficacy was assessed in a non-inferiority, responder classification design where the proportion of total subjects classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing was compared to an objective performance criteria.~An effect of gender analysis was performed on the primary efficacy endpoint to compare the proportion of males and females classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing."|||54.8|
84456911|NCT00508391|168665168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis has a one-sided Type I error of 0.05 with an 80% statistical power.|Objective Performance Criteria|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.6||||Non-inferiority comparison|||Safety will be evaluated in a non-inferiority format. The null hypothesis is the percent of subjects that did not experience an adverse event with an active interventricular delay feature at two months is inferior to 90% with a clinically significant difference of 10%|||97.6|
84516108|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.13||||0.8871||95.0|-0.62|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.36|-0.62|0.8871
84516109|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.12||||0.8695||95.0|-0.51|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.27|-0.51|0.8695
84539973|NCT03852537|168830628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
84539974|NCT03852537|168830629|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84456912|NCT00330187|168665185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.4|0.9|0.07
84456913|NCT01225562|168665191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.96|0.75|0.0080
84456914|NCT01225562|168665191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.95|0.74|0.0043
84456915|NCT01225562|168665192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.06|0.71|0.1547
84456916|NCT01225562|168665192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.01|0.68|0.0676
84456917|NCT01225562|168665193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.16|0.86|0.9851
84456918|NCT01225562|168665193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.04|0.76|0.1350
84456919|NCT01225562|168665194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.7|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.70|1.96|<0.0001
84456920|NCT01225562|168665194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.21|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.21|1.68|<0.0001
84539975|NCT03852537|168830631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
84539976|NCT03852537|168830632|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
84539977|NCT03852537|168830633|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84456921|NCT01107444|168665200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||||||The t-test was based on the logarithm of the ratio of tumor size at Cycle 2 to that at baseline as this measure follows a normal distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.284
84456922|NCT01948830|168665213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level. Non-inferiority with respect to BCVA: H01: μtreat and extend - μmonthly ≤ - Δ versus HA1: μtreat and extend - μmonthly \> - Δ where μtreat and extend and μmonthly are the unknown mean changes from baseline in BCVA to Month 12 in the treat and extend regimen and the monthly regimen, respectively. Δ is the non-inferiority margin and is pre-defined to be 5 letters for the justification of the margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84456923|NCT01260454|168665239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is open-label, uncontrolled data; the comparison is made between each individual's baseline.||||0.03
84456924|NCT00091832|168665250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.245
84456925|NCT00091832|168665251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.848
84456926|NCT00091832|168665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||||95.0|0.68|4.35|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.35|0.68|
84456927|NCT00091832|168665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||||95.0|0.51|3.24|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.24|0.51|
84456928|NCT00091832|168665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.34|2.29|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.29|0.34|
84456929|NCT00091832|168665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||||95.0|0.51|3.2|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.20|0.51|
84456930|NCT00091832|168665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||||95.0|0.7|4.34|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.34|0.70|
84456931|NCT00091832|168665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||||95.0|0.69|4.79|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.79|0.69|
84456932|NCT00091832|168665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||||95.0|0.25|1.76|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.76|0.25|
84456933|NCT00091832|168665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.24|1.77|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.77|0.24|
84456934|NCT00091832|168665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||||95.0|0.22|1.58|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.58|0.22|
84456935|NCT00091832|168665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||||95.0|0.25|1.92|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.92|0.25|
84456936|NCT00091832|168665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.31|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.31|0.51|
84456937|NCT00091832|168665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.65|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.65|0.64|
84456938|NCT00091832|168665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
84456939|NCT00091832|168665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
84456940|NCT00091832|168665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.71|1.83|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.83|0.71|
84456941|NCT00091832|168665265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||||95.0|0.159|1.856|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.856|0.159|
84456942|NCT00091832|168665265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||||95.0|0.159|1.859|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.859|0.159|
84456943|NCT00091832|168665265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||||95.0|0.266|2.355|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.355|0.266|
84456944|NCT00091832|168665265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||||95.0|0.389|2.963|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.963|0.389|
84456945|NCT00091832|168665265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||||95.0|0.158|1.847|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.847|0.158|
84456946|NCT00091832|168665266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||||95.0|0.51|7.17|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.17|0.51|
84456947|NCT00091832|168665266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.36|3.97|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.97|0.36|
84456948|NCT00091832|168665266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||||95.0|0.26|2.52|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.52|0.26|
84456949|NCT00091832|168665266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
84539978|NCT03852537|168830634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84456950|NCT00091832|168665266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
84456951|NCT00654498|168665321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-2.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-2.46|-6.58|<0.0001
84456952|NCT00654498|168665322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
84456953|NCT00654498|168665323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
84456954|NCT00654498|168665324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
84456955|NCT00654498|168665325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1386
84456956|NCT00654498|168665326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.83|-2.14|<0.0001
84456957|NCT00654498|168665327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.73|-1.99|<0.0001
84456958|NCT00654498|168665328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.72|-2.00|<0.0001
84456959|NCT00654498|168665329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.02|-1.06|0.0402
84456960|NCT00654498|168665330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||0.04|-0.69|0.0771
84456961|NCT00654498|168665331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.22|-1.20|0.0048
84516110|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03||||0.9994||95.0|-0.46|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.52|-0.46|0.9994
84456962|NCT00654498|168665332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
84456963|NCT00954109|168665345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84456964|NCT00954109|168665346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84456965|NCT04343651|168665361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
84456966|NCT04343651|168665362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||Likelihood test-Cox Prop. hazards model|Stratification factors: Baseline NEWS Total score and Age.||||1.41|0.43|0.4138
84456967|NCT04025632|168665384|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds|0.55||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.57||Conducted using a 2-sided Van Elteren test, which represents an extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparing 2 treatments in a stratified experiment using within-stratum ranks assigning greater weight to rank sums from smaller strata.|2-sided Van Elteren test||The magnitude of association between treatment groups was expressed as in Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds followed by the 95% confidence intervals.|||1.57|0.19|0.464
84456968|NCT04025632|168665386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|5.535||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups was calculated using logistic regression with investigational medicinal product and strata as fixed factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.535|0.214|0.919
84456969|NCT04025632|168665387|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.688||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.781|1.404||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase \[HMGCR\]+/anti-signal recognition particle \[SRP\]+) as fixed factors with Baseline 3TUG as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.404|-2.781|0.496
84456970|NCT04025632|168665388|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.89||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|13.95||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline proximal MMT as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||13.95|-6.18|0.431
84456971|NCT04025632|168665389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.204||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|1.448||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Physician Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.448|-1.855|0.800
84456972|NCT04025632|168665390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.281||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.829||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Patient Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.829|-3.390|0.221
84456973|NCT04025632|168665391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.147||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|0.307||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline HAQ as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.307|-0.601|0.508
84456974|NCT04025632|168665392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.143||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.837|||Linear Mixed Effect Model|Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline MDAAT as a covariate.|The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.837|-1.123|0.765
84539979|NCT03852537|168830635|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84539980|NCT03852537|168830637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
84456975|NCT04025632|168665393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.53||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|15.55||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline FACIT-Fatigue Scale as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||15.55|-4.49|0.265
84456976|NCT00925600|168665398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval, or equivalently upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority bound of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The primary endpoint was summarized with the point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||7.2|-6.3|0.0026
84456977|NCT00925600|168665399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||2.0|-6.4|
84456978|NCT00925600|168665400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||5.3|-5.9|
84456979|NCT00925600|168665401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||3.3|-7.6|
84456980|NCT03932799|168665436|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, and health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.16|<.001
84456981|NCT03932799|168665437|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||1.31|0.53|.43
84456982|NCT03932799|168665440|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.14||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||6.14|1.50|.002
84516111|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.04||||0.9984||95.0|-0.35|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.35|0.9984
84516112|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.6201||95.0|-0.28|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.70|-0.28|0.6201
84516113|NCT00318461|168785716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.4831||95.0|-0.18|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.60|-0.18|0.4831
84456983|NCT03932799|168665441|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey covariates: days from injury to baseline survey, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and physical therapy (PT) utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.32|0.71|.84
84456984|NCT03932799|168665442|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.49|0.71|.88
84456985|NCT03932799|168665443|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.11||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.11|0.49|.15
84456986|NCT03932799|168665444|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.21|0.60|.38
84456987|NCT03932799|168665445|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.28||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Leisure or social activities outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.28|0.91|.12
84456988|NCT03932799|168665445|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.07||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Getting out with friends or family outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.07|0.74|.42
84456989|NCT03932799|168665445|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Doing household chores outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.51|0.63|.91
84456990|NCT03932799|168665445|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Using transportation outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.21|0.64|.59
84516114|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.59|-1.07|<0.0001
84539981|NCT05534061|168830644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.56|0.62|.944
84456991|NCT03932799|168665446|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.75|0.88|.22
84456992|NCT03932799|168665447|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.47||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||3.47|1.12|.02
84456993|NCT03932799|168665448|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.83|0.95|.10
84456994|NCT03932799|168665450|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|-0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.01|-0.03|.53
84456995|NCT03932799|168665451|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.16||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.32|-0.00|.053
84456996|NCT03932799|168665452|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.05|.01
84456997|NCT03932799|168665453|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.35||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.35|0.42|.35
84456998|NCT01070329|168665474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||The P-value is for the main effect of treatment. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
84456999|NCT01070329|168665475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-5.77|<0.001
84457000|NCT01070329|168665476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.42||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.47|<0.001
84457001|NCT01070329|168665476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.53||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.42|<0.001
84457002|NCT01070329|168665476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
84457003|NCT01070329|168665476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.61||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-4.16|<0.001
84457004|NCT01070329|168665477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84457005|NCT01070329|168665478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||This third gated secondary outcome measure failed to meet statistical significance. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
84457006|NCT01070329|168665479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fourth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; prior gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-1.48|-4.13|
84457007|NCT01070329|168665480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.34||This is the p-value for the Change at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.34|0.00|0.050
84457008|NCT01070329|168665480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.9||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||2.90|-0.12|0.071
84457009|NCT01070329|168665481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.82||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.82|0.00|0.050
84457010|NCT01070329|168665481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|0.50|0.007
84457011|NCT01070329|168665481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|3.5||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.50|-0.09|0.063
84457012|NCT01070329|168665481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.02||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.02|0.60|0.004
84457013|NCT01070329|168665482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fifth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; the third gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-0.96|-3.18|
84457014|NCT01070329|168665483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.15||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.93|0.007
84457015|NCT01070329|168665483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
84457016|NCT01070329|168665484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
84457017|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.85|<0.001
84516115|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.28|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.12|-0.28|<0.0001
84457018|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.64|0.003
84457019|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
84457020|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.86|<0.001
84457021|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.75|0.008
84457022|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.80|0.004
84539982|NCT05534061|168830645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.65|0.62|.952
84457023|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability Score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
84457024|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.72|0.012
84457025|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.70|0.029
84457026|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.75|0.037
84457027|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.81|0.006
84457028|NCT01070329|168665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
84457029|NCT01070329|168665486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.49||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.90|<0.001
84457030|NCT01070329|168665487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||This is the p-value for Suicidal Ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
84457031|NCT01989221|168665506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean GCSI-DD scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean GCSI-DD scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
84457032|NCT01989221|168665507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean nausea and vomiting symptom scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean symptom scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
84457033|NCT00542620|168665508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.691||||0.001||95.0|-1.049|-0.334||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||-0.334|-1.049|0.001
84457034|NCT00542620|168665509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.003||95.0|-0.97|-0.219||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated.|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||-0.219|-0.970|0.003
84457035|NCT00542620|168665510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.573||95.0|-38.77|22.08|||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline fructosamine and the change in insulin administration mode||||22.08|-38.77|0.573
84457036|NCT00542620|168665511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.063
84457037|NCT00542620|168665512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.389
84516116|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment was at 104 weeks analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-1.05|<0.0001
84457038|NCT00542620|168665513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.856
84457039|NCT00542620|168665514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.917
84457040|NCT00542620|168665515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.209
84457041|NCT00542620|168665516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.220
84457042|NCT00542620|168665517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment for baseline value||||||0.234
84457043|NCT00542620|168665518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.534
84457044|NCT00542620|168665519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.722
84457045|NCT00542620|168665520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.727
84457046|NCT00542620|168665521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.411
84457047|NCT00542620|168665522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.471
84516117|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.27|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.13|-0.27|<0.0001
84516118|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.37|-0.85|<0.0001
84457048|NCT00542620|168665525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.127
84457049|NCT00542620|168665526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.1
84457050|NCT00542620|168665527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.166
84457051|NCT00542620|168665528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.023
84516119|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.14||||0.0052||95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.34|-0.06|0.0052
84516120|NCT00318461|168785717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to placebo metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.0001
84516121|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.24||||0.5282||95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.74|0.5282
84539983|NCT05534061|168830646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.11||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||3.11|0.43|.768
84457052|NCT00542620|168665529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.439
84457053|NCT00542620|168665530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.202
84457054|NCT00542620|168665531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.665
84457055|NCT02357420|168665538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Measures mixed effects model (MMRM)|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.36
84457056|NCT02357420|168665538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.25
84457057|NCT02357420|168665538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.59
84457058|NCT02908100|168665554|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.373
84457059|NCT02908100|168665554|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|-7.3|0.339
84457060|NCT02908100|168665555|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.7||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|-6.1|0.223
84457061|NCT02908100|168665555|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.0||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-11.8|0.737
84457062|NCT02908100|168665556|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.614
84457063|NCT02908100|168665556|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.607
84457064|NCT02908100|168665557|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.410
84457065|NCT02908100|168665557|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.418
84457066|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|14.9||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||43.7|-14|0.378
84457067|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||36.7|-21.7|0.732
84457068|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
84516122|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.7644||95.0|-0.55|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.25|-0.55|0.7644
84516123|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.36||||0.2063||95.0|-0.86|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.2063
84457069|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.6||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||38.7|-21.4|0.234
84457070|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
84457071|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||44.4|-14.1|0.134
84457072|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-7.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.3|-37.6|0.830
84516124|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.2678||95.0|-0.68|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.12|-0.68|0.2678
84516125|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.9887||95.0|-0.57|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.57|0.9887
84457073|NCT02908100|168665558|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||27.8|-32.1|0.963
84457074|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|19.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||47.5|-9.4|0.189
84457075|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.7||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||35.2|-21.9|0.909
84457076|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
84516126|NCT00318461|168785718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.02||||0.9998||95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9998
84717750|NCT03904576|169185143|OTHER||Difference in %|-24.396|||||||||||||Difference of least squares means in % (ratio to Placebo) (T-R)/R\*100%|Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||||
84457077|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||33.8|-27.1|0.234
84457078|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
84457079|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||36.3|-22|0.310
84457080|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||28.2|-32.5|0.922
84457081|NCT02908100|168665559|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-5.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.7|-35.4|0.701
84457082|NCT02908100|168665560|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||17.1|-10.9|0.692
84457083|NCT02908100|168665560|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|1.9||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||15.9|-12|0.871
84457084|NCT02908100|168665560|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||25.1|-2.8|0.105
84457085|NCT02908100|168665560|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.7||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||21.6|-6.1|0.286
84457086|NCT02908100|168665561|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-1.6||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||13.6|-16.8|0.936
84457087|NCT02908100|168665561|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||12.4|-18.2|0.683
84457088|NCT02908100|168665561|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||26.8|-3.4|0.086
84457089|NCT02908100|168665561|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|0.9||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||16.1|-14.2|0.879
84457090|NCT01808612|168665573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 522 participants were to be enrolled. Randomization was to be 2:1:3 (20 mg fluoxetine:40 mg fluoxetine:placebo). Assuming 5% of participants would have missing post-baseline data, the study had 85% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 (20 mg fluoxetine compared to placebo on HAMD21 total score) based on simulations with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||2.00|-0.55|0.264
84457091|NCT03683394|168665580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.26||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.26|0.04|0.008
84457092|NCT03683394|168665581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.21|0.02|0.002
84457093|NCT03683394|168665582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||2.14|0.08|0.03
84457094|NCT03683394|168665583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.19||Adjusted for age and sex.|Fisher Exact|In an exploratory outcome, we examined incidence of a low CASI score or a diagnosis of MCI or dementia by treatment group.||||2.19|0.19|0.52
84457095|NCT00559273|168665584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
84457096|NCT00559273|168665584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
84457097|NCT00559273|168665585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MIRCERA treatment was regarded as non-inferior to the darbepoetin alfa reference group if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.180|-0.252|<0.0001
84457098|NCT04276207|168665592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.142|-0.896|0.1450
84457099|NCT04276207|168665593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.117|-0.406|0.0010
84457100|NCT04276207|168665594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||-2.49|-22.73|0.0173
84457101|NCT04276207|168665594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.81|-10.69|0.0243
84457102|NCT04276207|168665595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||||0.945
84457103|NCT04276207|168665595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||||0.888
84457104|NCT01256177|168665596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
84457105|NCT01256177|168665597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||4.13|1.56|0.001
84457106|NCT01256177|168665598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.86|1.46|0.001
84457107|NCT01256177|168665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 1 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.15|-2.79|0.029
84457108|NCT01256177|168665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 2 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.69|-4.16|0.006
84457109|NCT01256177|168665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 4 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.25|-5.00|0.001
84457110|NCT01256177|168665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.05|-4.12|0.045
84457111|NCT01256177|168665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
84717751|NCT01992913|169185145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||"Fisher's exact Test, right-sided probability based on a directional hypothesis."|Fisher Exact|||We conducted a 2 X 2 chi-square analysis of differences in proportion.||||<.05
84457112|NCT01256177|168665600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline HAM-D total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in HAM-D total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.61|-3.88|0.007
84457113|NCT01256177|168665601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for overall BP illness as covariate, trt, bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score for overall Bipolar (BP) illness based on observed cases (OC)||-0.17|-0.84|0.003
84457114|NCT01256177|168665601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for depression as covariate, trt, Bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score of depression based on observed cases (OC)||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
84457115|NCT01256177|168665602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score and bipolar Strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.36|1.26|0.004
84457116|NCT01256177|168665603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS item 10 score as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS item 10 score for suicidal ideation based on observed cases (OC)||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
84457117|NCT01256177|168665604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, strata and baseline score.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||2.38|0.03|0.233
84457118|NCT01925209|168665615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.331||0.221|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-19.63|54.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||||54.80|-19.63|0.2210
84457119|NCT01925209|168665615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.176||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.21|55.4|||mixed model repeated measure|||||55.40|-18.21|0.1909
84457120|NCT01925209|168665615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.121||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.97|35.36|||mixed models repeated measures|||||35.36|-37.97|0.9263
84457121|NCT00110994|168665621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.034|||log rank test|||||1.034|0.428|0.068
84457122|NCT00110994|168665622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.57|||log rank test|||||1.570|0.627|0.973
84457123|NCT00110994|168665624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.98|||log rank test|||||0.980|0.391|0.039
84457124|NCT00110994|168665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|1.601|||log rank test|||||1.601|0.114|0.194
84457125|NCT00110994|168665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.908
84457126|NCT00110994|168665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
84457127|NCT00110994|168665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
84457128|NCT00110994|168665630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
84457129|NCT00331006|168665678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1875||||0.043|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.053|||the a priori p-value was 0.05 for statistical significance|Exact Binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants in which the inhibitor level falls to less than 5 BU/mL between weeks 6 to 22 and remains below 5 BU/mL at 5-7 days following re-challenge with factor VIII is no more than 0.05|||.053|0.043
84457130|NCT00331006|168665679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.524|||Exact Binomial|||No hypothesis about the value of this proportion was specified in the study design||0.524|0.073|
84457131|NCT00109473|168665697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84457132|NCT03213366|168665702|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0095||||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04676|0.02776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.02776|-0.04676|0.5783
84457133|NCT03213366|168665702|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01692||||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05318|0.01933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.01933|-0.05318|0.3185
84457134|NCT03213366|168665703|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03674||||0.07863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00516|0.07863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.07863|-0.00516|0.07863
84457135|NCT03213366|168665703|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02594||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01648|0.06836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.06836|-0.01648|0.1999
84457136|NCT03213366|168665704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000443||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.8963
84457137|NCT03213366|168665704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004308||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks||||0.3229
84457138|NCT03213366|168665705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008705||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|||||This t-test was for the random effects model not for comparing the difference between the arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2433
84457139|NCT03213366|168665705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01358||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0839
84457140|NCT03213366|168665706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.302||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.2114
84457141|NCT03213366|168665706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03149||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.2141
84457142|NCT03213366|168665707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0278||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0124
84457143|NCT03213366|168665707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03052||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0022
84457144|NCT03213366|168665708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05747||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.1021
84457145|NCT03213366|168665708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05101||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.133
84457146|NCT03213366|168665709|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0209||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0818
84457147|NCT03213366|168665709|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03103||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0334
84457148|NCT01879410|168665713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg minus FSC 250/50 mcg.|||0.139|0.063|<0.001
84457149|NCT00364182|168665747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-24.5||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-24.5|-36.5|<0.0001
84457150|NCT00364182|168665747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-26.6||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-26.6|-38.5|<0.0001
84457151|NCT00364182|168665747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.2||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||5.2|-1.2|0.2167
84457152|NCT00364182|168665748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.6|0.1|0.002
84457153|NCT00364182|168665748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|0.1|0.021
84457154|NCT00364182|168665748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.9|0.2|0.004
84457155|NCT00364182|168665748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|-0.1|0.093
84457156|NCT00364182|168665749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.4|0.000
84457157|NCT00364182|168665749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.2|-0.5|0.0000
84457158|NCT00364182|168665749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.5|0.002
84457159|NCT00364182|168665749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.0|-0.5|0.031
84457160|NCT00364182|168665753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.9|||ANOVA|||||4.9|-9.2|0.544
84457161|NCT00364182|168665753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-7.5|0.592
84457162|NCT00364182|168665753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.4|||ANOVA|||||8.4|-1.1|0.131
84457163|NCT01439945|168665792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.13
84457164|NCT01439945|168665792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.67
84457165|NCT01439945|168665793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.25
84457166|NCT01439945|168665793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.|ANOVA|||||||0.55
84457167|NCT01439945|168665796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84457168|NCT01439945|168665797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
84457169|NCT01439945|168665797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
84457170|NCT02730260|168665817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||Test of the null hypothesis that directive and nondirective coaching have equal smoking cessation rates.||||0.41
84457171|NCT02730260|168665817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio based on the parameter estimate for the variable, IncomeAboveMedian (0=false, 1=true), from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. An unbalanced variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model.||||<0.03
84457172|NCT02730260|168665817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio for PriorQuit, from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. This variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model because it was not balanced after randomization.||||<0.03
84457173|NCT05032950|168665827|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|368.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.91|425.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||425.41|318.91|
84457174|NCT05032950|168665828|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|1430.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1204.54|1697.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1697.71|1204.54|
84717752|NCT01992913|169185145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.13|||Chi-squared|ChiSq = 3.6562, df = 1|OR, iCBT / TAU in job attainment|Chis Sq: group (iCBT/TAU) X Job attained (Yes/No)||7.13|0.97|<.06
84457175|NCT05032950|168665829|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1451.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.42|1721.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1721.35|1224.42|
84457176|NCT05032950|168665834|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|387.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|335.25|447.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||447.21|335.25|
84457177|NCT05032950|168665835|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1645.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1385.75|1953.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios||1953.11|1385.75|
84457178|NCT05032950|168665836|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1677.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1414.59|1988.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1988.69|1414.59|
84457179|NCT01078805|168665880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0177
84457180|NCT01078805|168665880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0019
84457181|NCT01078805|168665880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0143
84516127|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
84457182|NCT01078805|168665881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0689
84457183|NCT01078805|168665881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0412
84457184|NCT01078805|168665881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0631
84457185|NCT01078805|168665882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84457186|NCT01078805|168665883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84457187|NCT01445678|168665889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.54||||||||0.54|-8.91|
84457188|NCT01445678|168665890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|2.59||||||||2.59|-4.52|
84457189|NCT01445678|168665891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.89||||||||0.89|-7.23|
84457190|NCT01445678|168665892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.33||||||||2.33|-3.4|
84457191|NCT01445678|168665893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|0.94||||||||0.94|-9.09|
84539984|NCT05534061|168830647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.94||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||10.94|1.43|.008
84457192|NCT01445678|168665894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.37||||||||2.37|-0.88|
84457193|NCT01265524|168665904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.014
84457194|NCT01265524|168665908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.0002
84726454|NCT03345407|169204820|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.50|0.65|
84457195|NCT01265524|168665909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.072
84457196|NCT03116113|168665919|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3181|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.3181
84457197|NCT03116113|168665919|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5177|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.5177
84457198|NCT02064764|168665990|OTHER|Log-Rank Test For Comparing Treatment and Control||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
84457199|NCT02064764|168665991|OTHER|||||||0.7348|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7348
84457200|NCT00600171|168666002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.164|||ANCOVA|||||0.164|-0.036|0.208
84457201|NCT00600171|168666002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|-0.029|0.169
84516128|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.967||95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.41|-0.62|0.9670
84516129|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.36|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.07|-2.36|<0.0001
84717753|NCT01992913|169185146|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|df (1, 30) for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 6 month assessment points.||.89|-2.67|<0.33
84457202|NCT00600171|168666002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|0.030|0.011
84457203|NCT00600171|168666002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.220|0.023|0.016
84457204|NCT00600171|168666002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.261|||ANCOVA|||||0.261|0.062|0.001
84457205|NCT03990870|168666052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84726455|NCT03345407|169204820|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.02|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.02|0.37|
84457206|NCT03990870|168666055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84457207|NCT03990870|168666057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84457208|NCT01279057|168666058|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|104.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.421|124.21||||||||124.210|87.421|
84457209|NCT01279057|168666059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84457210|NCT01279057|168666059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84457211|NCT01279057|168666060|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|106.635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.256|127.79||||||||127.790|89.256|
84457212|NCT01279057|168666061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84457213|NCT01279057|168666061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84457214|NCT01279057|168666062|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|115.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.129|143.949||||||||143.949|94.129|
84457215|NCT01279057|168666063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
84457216|NCT01279057|168666063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0441
84457217|NCT01279057|168666064|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|117.712|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|146.583||||||||146.583|95.410|
84457218|NCT01279057|168666065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
84457219|NCT01279057|168666065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
84457220|NCT00849017|168666081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.11|<0.0001
84457221|NCT00849017|168666081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-1.31|<0.0001
84457222|NCT02411448|168666159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.461|<0.0001
84457223|NCT02411448|168666161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.303|||Log Rank|||||1.303|0.532|0.4209
84457224|NCT02411448|168666162|OTHER|||||||0.7413|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7413
84457225|NCT02411448|168666163|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
84457226|NCT02411448|168666164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.805|||Log Rank|||||0.805|0.477|0.0003
84457227|NCT01577238|168666177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84457228|NCT01058096|168666182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-1.9|-6.7|0.0004
84457229|NCT01058096|168666183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0027
84457230|NCT00624520|168666223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|891.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.18
84457231|NCT00624520|168666224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84457232|NCT00624520|168666225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84457233|NCT00624520|168666226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84457234|NCT00624520|168666227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
84457235|NCT00624520|168666228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84457236|NCT00624520|168666229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84457237|NCT00624520|168666230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84457238|NCT00624520|168666231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
84457239|NCT00624520|168666232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value refers to a repeated measures within-group comparison in the CBSM group using ANCOVA with baseline DP elevation as covariate from baseline to 3 months post.|ANCOVA||Range of Cohen's d for small effect is 0.20 - 0.50|||||0.025
84457240|NCT00624520|168666233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.81
84457241|NCT01570244|168666265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|140.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.84|148.47|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||148.47|133.84|
84717754|NCT01992913|169185146|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 12 month assessment points.||2.19|-1.14|<.54
84457242|NCT01570244|168666266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Odds Ratio (OR)|114.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.49|124.97|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||124.97|105.49|
84457243|NCT01570244|168666267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|171.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.2|183.33|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||183.33|160.20|
84457244|NCT01570244|168666270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric mean ratio|140.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.4|144.78|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||144.78|136.40|
84457245|NCT01570244|168666271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|119.92|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||119.92|110.81|
84457246|NCT01570244|168666272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.99|162.14|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||162.14|145.99|
84457247|NCT00464204|168666273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-331.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1033.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-640.0|-21.0||One-sided t-test assuming unequal variances (as variances were significantly different between treatment groups).No multiple comparisons were made. A priori threshold for statistical significance for the confirmatory analysis on FAS: 0.025 one-sided.|t-test, 1 sided||Considered difference: Voluven® minus NaCl 0.9 %|"Null-hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization in patients treated with Voluven® is higher than or equal to this amount in patients treated with NaCl.~Alternative hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization is lower in patients treated with Voluven® than in patients treated with NaCl."||-21|-640|0.0185
84457248|NCT05384041|168666288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Intent to Treat analyses||||0.056
84457249|NCT05384041|168666289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active - Control) at Week 1||||0.048
84457250|NCT05384041|168666290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2595
84457251|NCT05384041|168666290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1286|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1286
84457252|NCT05384041|168666290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1449
84457253|NCT05384041|168666291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2065
84457254|NCT05384041|168666291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1349
84457255|NCT05384041|168666291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1142
84457256|NCT05384041|168666292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.231
84457257|NCT05384041|168666292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.192
84457258|NCT05384041|168666292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.045
84457259|NCT05384041|168666294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84457260|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.0026
84457261|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4706|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.4706
84516130|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.9368||95.0|-0.39|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.64|-0.39|0.9368
84457262|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.0197
84457263|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4858|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.4858
84457264|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0183|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.0183
84457265|NCT05384041|168666295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7885|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.7885
84457266|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||<0.001
84457267|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.450
84457268|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.008
84457269|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.438
84457270|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
84457271|NCT05384041|168666296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.355
84457272|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.046
84457273|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.351
84457274|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.053
84457275|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.120
84457276|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.170
84457277|NCT05384041|168666297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.122
84457278|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
84457279|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.751
84457280|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.013
84457281|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.318
84457282|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.173
84457283|NCT05384041|168666298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.142
84457284|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.026
84457285|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.241
84457286|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.059
84457287|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.478
84457288|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.009
84457289|NCT05384041|168666299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.729
84457290|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
84457291|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.067
84457292|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
84457293|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.006
84457294|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.036
84457295|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
84457296|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.914
84457297|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.887
84457298|NCT05384041|168666300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.791
84457299|NCT03183128|168666322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value presented for both hypothesis tests: H0: RR≥1 and H0: RR≥0.833.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|||0.58|0.18|<0.001
84516131|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06||||0.0003||95.0|-1.71|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.71|0.0003
84457300|NCT03183128|168666323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 4||0.67|0.19|<0.001
84457301|NCT03183128|168666323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 12||0.65|0.24|<0.001
84457302|NCT03183128|168666323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 24||0.73|0.30|<0.001
84457303|NCT01751971|168666398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|37.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value would represent a greater reduction in AHI with oxygen (% sham) in the high vs low loop gain group.|"Primary statistical comparison was the percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %----between two phenotypic patient subgroups. Patient subgroups were defined by the loop gain (LG1) measured on the sham night as high or low (a priori cutoff LG1=0.7)."||37.1|-16|0.4
84457304|NCT01751971|168666398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimation parameter would indicate lower AHI on oxygen versus sham.|Here we aimed to confirm that there was a difference between AHI on oxygen vs sham (overall, i.e. in unselected patients). This test, however was not part of our primary objective.||24.1|10.7|<0.001
84457305|NCT01751971|168666398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|64.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimated value would indicate a greater percentage reduction in AHI (oxygen vs. sham) in favorable vs. unfavorable subgroups.|"The primary goal of the study was to identify a phenotypic subgroup of patients with sleep apnea that responds preferentially to oxygen (percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %). We defined patient subgroups (favorable versus unfavorable) based on the four key phenotypic traits (loop gain, collapsibility, arousal threshold, muscle responses) measured on the sham night, with the use of multiple logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation."||64.6|21.0|0.001
84457306|NCT00706628|168666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0577|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0577
84457307|NCT00706628|168666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0863
84457308|NCT00706628|168666406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1754|1.7892||||||||1.7892|1.1754|
84457309|NCT02921425|168666418|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
84457310|NCT02921425|168666420|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
84516132|NCT00318461|168785719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.78||||0.0008||95.0|0.27|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.29|0.27|0.0008
84457311|NCT02921425|168666421|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
84457312|NCT02921425|168666423|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||systolic blood pressure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
84457313|NCT02921425|168666423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||diastolic blood pressure||||.001
84457314|NCT02921425|168666425|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.019
84516133|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.96|-2.37|<0.0001
84457315|NCT01228903|168666438|EQUIVALENCE|(Doehner et al.) CHF patients on allopurinol (n= 14) had improved BA-FMD= 10.6 ± 2.0 (mean ± SE) vs placebo (n= 14, FMD= 6.7 ± 0.1); difference in means= 3.9. Yiginer et al. found a similar difference in metabolic syndrome. A sample size of 34/group will have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.9 (common standard deviation=5.6, two group t-test=0.050 two-sided significance). Accounting for a potential drop-out rate17%, n= 40/group was recruited.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value represents the difference between the change from baseline in both groups.|The null hypothesis was the there will be no difference between the placebo and allopurinol. The power for the study was calculated (as appropriate) based on the prior literature.||||0.47
84457316|NCT01375764|168666450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-27.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-27.80|-44.08|<0.001
84457317|NCT01375764|168666450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.97|-19.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-19.67|-35.97|<0.001
84457318|NCT01375764|168666450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Tretament Difference|-26.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-17.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-17.93|-34.08|<0.001
84457319|NCT01375764|168666451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|-40.84||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.84|-53.73|<0.001
84457320|NCT01375764|168666452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-58.3||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-58.3|-94.9|<0.001
84457321|NCT01375764|168666452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-37.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-37.1|-74.0|<0.001
84457322|NCT01375764|168666452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|-34.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-34.5|-70.8|<0.001
84457323|NCT01375764|168666453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.7|-75.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-75.0|-108.7|<0001
84457324|NCT01375764|168666454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.93|-26.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-26.28|-40.93|<0.001
84457325|NCT01375764|168666454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.99|-19.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-19.32|-33.99|<0.001
84457326|NCT01375764|168666454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.13|-17.59||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.59|-32.13|<0.001
84540499|NCT02517463|168832011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The PPP from a previous study was 67.2%. Assuming the PPP in the preovulatory and post-ovulatory groups were equivalent, and taking 10% to be the maximum permitted difference for equivalence, a minimum of 273 subjects in each group would be required to confirm equivalence between the two groups with a power of 80% and type I error of 0.05. Therefore, our recruitment of 700 subjects with more than 300 in each group was sufficient."|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84717755|NCT01992913|169185146|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 18 month assessment point.||1.73|-1.32|<0.71
84457327|NCT01375764|168666455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.81|-39.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-39.18|-50.81|<0.001
84457328|NCT01375764|168666456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Teatment Difference|-29.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|-22.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-22.92|-36.84|<0.001
84726456|NCT03345407|169204820|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.52|0.85|
84516134|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.3||||0.5048||95.0|-0.86|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.86|0.5048
84516135|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.49|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.08|-2.49|<0.0001
84516136|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.42||||0.2005||95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.98|0.2005
84516137|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.16||||0.0003||95.0|-1.86|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.46|-1.86|0.0003
84516138|NCT00318461|168785720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.7871||95.0|-0.35|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.76|-0.35|0.7871
84516139|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|27.75||||0.0031||95.0|7.83|47.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||47.67|7.83|0.0031
84516140|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.44||||0.9987||95.0|-15.03|17.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||17.90|-15.03|0.9987
84516141|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|21.96||||0.0263||95.0|2.04|41.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||41.87|2.04|0.0263
84516142|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.36||||0.9227||95.0|-20.94|12.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.22|-20.94|0.9227
84516143|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|22.08||||0.0253||95.0|2.15|42.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||42.01|2.15|0.0253
84516144|NCT00318461|168785721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.23||||0.9293||95.0|-20.78|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.31|-20.78|0.9293
84457329|NCT01375764|168666456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-15.16||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.16|-29.10|<0.001
84457330|NCT01375764|168666456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.48||Testing based on a signficance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-14.48|-28.29|<0.001
84457331|NCT01375764|168666457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|-32.64||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.64|-43.81|<0.001
84457332|NCT01375764|168666458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.56|-24.34||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-24.34|-37.56|<0.001
84457333|NCT01375764|168666458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.53|-17.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.29|-30.53|<0.001
84457334|NCT01375764|168666458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-15.8||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.80|-28.92|<0.001
84457335|NCT01375764|168666459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.77|-32.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.07|-43.77|<0.001
84457336|NCT01375764|168666460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.57|-27.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-27.52|-40.57|<0.001
84516145|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|25.71||||0.8821||95.0|-69.84|121.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||121.26|-69.84|0.8821
84516146|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|6.56||||0.9989||95.0|-72.66|85.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||85.79|-72.66|0.9989
84540500|NCT02517463|168832012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.564
84457337|NCT01375764|168666460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|-20.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-20.27|-33.35|<0.001
84457338|NCT01375764|168666460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.57|-18.62||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-18.62|-31.57|<0.001
84457339|NCT01375764|168666461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-35.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-35.50|-46.99|<0.001
84457340|NCT02867761|168666462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.37|0.60|0.65
84457341|NCT02867761|168666466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.30
84457342|NCT02867761|168666467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.49
84457343|NCT02867761|168666468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.96
84457344|NCT02867761|168666469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
84457345|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with any symptoms (shortness of breath, chest tightness, wheezing, cough, or sputum)||||0.35
84457346|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with shortness of breath||||0.61
84457347|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with chest tightness||||0.48
84457348|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with wheezing||||0.81
84540501|NCT02517463|168832013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84457349|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with cough||||0.17
84457350|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with sputum||||0.64
84457351|NCT02867761|168666472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with use of albuterol.||||0.84
84457352|NCT02411747|168666495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta: 0.8, p significant if p \> 0.005||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||0.34
84457353|NCT02149810|168666496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.31||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on SDNN.||The primary focus of this study was the interaction effect of treatment on heart rate variability at Weeks 0 and 12. On the assumption that this effect size is medium (Cohen's f = .25), calculations (using G\*Power) 23 indicate that a sample size of 80 yield power estimates of .99 for both the interaction and the main effect of time. The study enrolled 95 participants to account for participant attrition.||0.31|-0.09|0.28
84457354|NCT02149810|168666497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.51||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on LF HRV.||||0.51|-0.44|0.89
84516147|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|35.2||||0.7292||95.0|-60.33|130.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||130.72|-60.33|0.7292
84516148|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|16.05||||0.9689||95.0|-63.69|95.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||95.79|-63.69|0.9689
84457355|NCT02149810|168666498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-5.05|0.030
84457356|NCT02149810|168666499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.37|0.021
84457357|NCT02149810|168666500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|29.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.01|-7.01|0.22
84457358|NCT02149810|168666501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.37|-8.54|0.72
84457359|NCT02149810|168666502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.46|0.018
84457360|NCT02149810|168666503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|21.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.66|-21.94|0.99
84457361|NCT02149810|168666504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of participants who responded to the intervention (≥50% decrease from baseline on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.53|1.01|0.049
84457362|NCT02149810|168666505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.64||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of the proportion of participants who achieved remission (scores ≤7 on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.64|1.06|0.040
84457363|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 16||0.77|0.63|< 0.001
84457364|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 18||0.80|0.64|< 0.001
84457365|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 31||0.74|0.60|< 0.001
84457366|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 33||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
84457367|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 45||0.76|0.60|< 0.001
84457368|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 52||0.78|0.64|< 0.001
84457369|NCT03158220|168666517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 58||0.76|0.63|< 0.001
84457370|NCT03158220|168666520|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||1.4|-6.4|0.212
84457371|NCT03158220|168666521|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.4|||||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||3.4|-7.3|
84516149|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|72.38||||0.1818||95.0|-23.15|167.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||167.90|-23.15|0.1818
84457372|NCT03158220|168666522|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||0.9|-3.1|0.300
84457373|NCT02216695|168666547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for 65 to 74 years age group with \< 65 years as the reference group|||1.40|1.30|
84457374|NCT02216695|168666547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group 75 to 84 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||1.79|1.66|
84457375|NCT02216695|168666547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group equal to greater than 85 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||2.19|1.89|
84516150|NCT00318461|168785722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|53.23||||0.2978||95.0|-26.3|132.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||132.76|-26.30|0.2978
84516151|NCT01172145|168785725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.40|-16.86|0.181
84516152|NCT04134091|168785733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84457376|NCT02216695|168666548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 1998-2003 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.30|1.10|
84457377|NCT02216695|168666548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 2008-13 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.18|1.07|
84457378|NCT02162862|168666575|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84457379|NCT02162862|168666575|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84457380|NCT02162862|168666575|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.102
84457381|NCT02162862|168666576|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84457382|NCT02162862|168666576|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.646
84457383|NCT02162862|168666576|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
84457384|NCT01950819|168666599|NON_INFERIORITY|p vale for non inferiority margin is 10 %|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.3|||Logistic Regression Model|||calculated at month 12||7.3|-1.4|0.001
84457385|NCT02649634|168666624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
84516153|NCT04134091|168785733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84516154|NCT04134091|168785734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84516155|NCT04134091|168785734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84516156|NCT04134091|168785735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84516157|NCT04134091|168785735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84516158|NCT04134091|168785736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84516159|NCT04134091|168785736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84516160|NCT04134091|168785737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84516161|NCT04134091|168785737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84516162|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||>0.05
84516163|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||<0.05
84457386|NCT02649634|168666625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
84457387|NCT02649634|168666626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment adherence was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean number of TrymGym sessions missed.||||.65
84457388|NCT02649634|168666627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
84457389|NCT02649634|168666628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
84457390|NCT02649634|168666629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457391|NCT02649634|168666630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457392|NCT02649634|168666631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457393|NCT02649634|168666632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457394|NCT02649634|168666633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84516164|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
84516165|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
84516166|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.01
84516167|NCT04134091|168785738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.001
84516168|NCT04134091|168785739|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84516169|NCT04134091|168785739|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84516170|NCT04134091|168785740|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84516171|NCT04134091|168785740|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84516172|NCT04134091|168785741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84516173|NCT04134091|168785741|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84516174|NCT04134091|168785742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84516175|NCT04134091|168785742|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84516176|NCT04134091|168785743|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84516177|NCT04134091|168785743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84516178|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||>0.05
84516179|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||<0.01
84516180|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||>0.05
84457395|NCT02649634|168666634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457396|NCT02649634|168666635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457397|NCT02649634|168666636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457398|NCT02649634|168666637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457399|NCT02649634|168666638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457400|NCT02649634|168666639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
84457401|NCT02649634|168666640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
84457402|NCT02649634|168666641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
84457403|NCT02649634|168666642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
84516181|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||< 0.01
84516182|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||>0.05
84516183|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.05
84457404|NCT02649634|168666643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
84516184|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||>0.05
84516185|NCT04134091|168785744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||<0.05
84516186|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
84516187|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
84516188|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
84516189|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
84516190|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
84516191|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
84516192|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
84516193|NCT04134091|168785745|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
84516194|NCT02354339|168785746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.240
84457405|NCT02649634|168666644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84457406|NCT02649634|168666645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84457407|NCT02649634|168666646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84457408|NCT02649634|168666647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84457409|NCT02649634|168666648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84457410|NCT02649634|168666649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
84516195|NCT02354339|168785746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.850
84457411|NCT01261559|168666660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear|A multivariate linear regression model was fitted for the main outcome of percent relative dose, with age, BMI, and bra cup size as covariates.||Powered to detect difference of 10% at 80% power if 66 or more subjects enrolled.||25|4|0.003
84457412|NCT02928952|168666663|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.153|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.153
84516196|NCT02354339|168785747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.012
84457413|NCT02928952|168666663|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.026
84457414|NCT02928952|168666663|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Within group analysis of intervention effect on Diabetes Distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes, PAID scale) over time stratified by hemoglobin A1c\<8.5% and =/\>8.5.||||0.012
84457415|NCT02928952|168666664|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||||0.604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||.604
84457416|NCT02928952|168666665|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.911|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.911
84457417|NCT02928952|168666666|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.940
84516197|NCT02354339|168785747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.391
84516198|NCT02354339|168785748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.206
84516199|NCT02354339|168785748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||0.721
84516200|NCT02354339|168785749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.371
84516201|NCT02354339|168785749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.238
84457418|NCT02928952|168666667|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.305|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.305
84457419|NCT02928952|168666668|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.228
84457420|NCT02928952|168666669|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Differing sample sizes are due to attrition and missed research visits. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.671
84457421|NCT02928952|168666670|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.571|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.571
84457422|NCT02928952|168666671|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.003
84457423|NCT02928952|168666672|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.632|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.632
84516202|NCT02354339|168785750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.452
84457424|NCT02928952|168666673|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.219
84457425|NCT02928952|168666674|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.931
84457426|NCT02928952|168666675|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.627|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.627
84457427|NCT02928952|168666676|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.60
84457428|NCT02928952|168666677|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.461
84457429|NCT02928952|168666678|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.906
84457430|NCT02928952|168666679|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.856
84457431|NCT02928952|168666680|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.89
84457432|NCT01850615|168666681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.72|||||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (faster aspart+basal minus basal only), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%.|Change from baseline in HbA1c after 18 weeks of treatment was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits 16, 22 and 28 were included in the analysis. This model included treatment, region and strata as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.72|-1.17|
84457433|NCT01227967|168666689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-0.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Combination Therapy minus the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Combination Therapy was better than the Oseltamivir Monotherapy and that the detectable rate in the Combination Therapy was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-0.2|-19.8|0.046
84457434|NCT03403400|168666704|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.893||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between groups in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between groups in mCTSIB||||.640
84457435|NCT03403400|168666704|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.196||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB||||.18
84457436|NCT03403400|168666705|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in TUG Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in TUG||||.67
84457437|NCT03403400|168666705|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group Ha: There is a significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group||||.71
84457438|NCT03403400|168666706|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DGI||||.67
84457439|NCT03403400|168666706|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.66||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and control group in DGI||||.42
84457440|NCT03403400|168666707|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.386||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DHI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DHI||||.11
84457441|NCT03403400|168666707|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.351||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group Ha: There is a significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group||||.04
84457442|NCT00848120|168666801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
84516203|NCT02354339|168785750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.801
84516204|NCT02354339|168785751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.005
84457443|NCT00848120|168666802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
84457444|NCT00848120|168666803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.001
84457445|NCT02525549|168666810|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.0|||Fieller's method|||||102.00|88.6|
84457446|NCT02525549|168666811|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|109.4|||Fieller's method|||||109.4|92.3|
84457447|NCT01988090|168666815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
84516205|NCT02354339|168785751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on placebo group||||0.752
84457448|NCT01988090|168666817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84457449|NCT02238847|168666819|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was set at 20%. This was chosen to support a practical study size while still able to identify major differences if this were the case.|||||<|0.01||||||Reported p-value of \<0.01 is calculated p-value. (p\<0.05 was considered significant)|Exact Non-inferiority|||||||<0.01
84457450|NCT02238847|168666820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
84457451|NCT02440581|168666869|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
84457452|NCT02440581|168666870|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.490
84457453|NCT02440581|168666871|OTHER|T-tests|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84457454|NCT02440581|168666872|OTHER|T-Tests||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
84457455|NCT02440581|168666873|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.283
84457456|NCT04722991|168666888|OTHER|Bayesian inference with non-informative priors|Point estimate|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.029|||||Median of posterior distribution|||0.029|-0.080|
84457457|NCT02246621|168666903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.698|||Log Rank|||||0.698|0.418|0.000002
84457458|NCT02246621|168666905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84457459|NCT02246621|168666907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.501
84457460|NCT02246621|168666908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.101
84457461|NCT02246621|168666912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.688
84457462|NCT02246621|168666913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
84457463|NCT02587338|168666930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
84457464|NCT02587338|168666931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
84457465|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|83.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|61.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||61.0|<0.001
84516206|NCT02354339|168785752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.791
84516207|NCT02354339|168785752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.910
84516208|NCT02354339|168785753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.458
84516209|NCT02354339|168785753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.953
84457466|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|88.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|67.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||67.4|<0.001
84457467|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the CCI vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.999
84457468|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.394|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-410.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-410|0.394
84457469|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|78.4||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|52.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||52.1|0.004
84457470|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|80.3||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|54.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||54.7|0.002
84457471|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the IVV vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.992
84516210|NCT02354339|168785754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.470
84516211|NCT02354339|168785754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.807
84457472|NCT00630331|168666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-429.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-429.4|0.400
84457473|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.7||||0.078|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.5|0.078
84457474|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|87.3||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.6|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||4.6|0.104
84516212|NCT02354339|168785755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.604
84516213|NCT02354339|168785755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on placebo group||||0.350
84516214|NCT02354339|168785756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.727
84457475|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.3|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||36.3|0.030
84516215|NCT02354339|168785756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.229
84516216|NCT02354339|168785757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.151
84457476|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0||||0.376|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||17.5|0.376
84457477|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.6||||0.085|ONE_SIDED|97.5|32.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||32.9|0.085
84457478|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.9|0.033
84457479|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|73.6||||0.265|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-30.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-30.0|0.265
84457480|NCT00630331|168666933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|51.7||||0.319|ONE_SIDED|97.5|19.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||19.4|0.319
84717756|NCT01992913|169185148|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.19
84457481|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|69.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||55.0|<0.001
84457482|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|73.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||73.0|<0.001
84457483|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|75.6||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5|35.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||35.1|0.040
84516217|NCT02354339|168785757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.955
84516218|NCT02354339|168785758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.350
84516219|NCT02354339|168785758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on placebo group||||0.470
84457484|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5|18.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||18.2|0.37
84457485|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.0||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|46.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||46.7|0.003
84457486|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|81.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||60.9|<0.001
84457487|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.3||||0.53|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-9.0|0.53
84457488|NCT00630331|168666934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|97.5|22.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||22.2|0.26
84457489|NCT01302808|168666944|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84516220|NCT02354339|168785759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
84516221|NCT02354339|168785759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.436
84457490|NCT00821678|168666970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-6.19|0.002
84457491|NCT00821678|168666971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.001
84457492|NCT00821678|168666972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.33|0.48
84457493|NCT00821678|168666973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|0.45|0.02
84457494|NCT00821678|168666976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.46|0.65
84457495|NCT00821678|168666977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|3.2|<0.001
84457496|NCT02078219|168666978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.99|-21.57|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-21.57|-36.99|<0.0001
84457497|NCT02078219|168666978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|-41.52|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-41.52|-56.97|<0.0001
84457498|NCT02078219|168666978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-45.67|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-45.67|-61.00|<0.0001
84457499|NCT02761967|168666987|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical power of the study for the temporal variables was 82%. Multiple linear regression models were obtained for the first and second stages and for the total duration of delivery.||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.776
84457500|NCT03136107|168666990|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical criterion defined in ISO 24444:2010 is that the 95 %CI is within ±17 % of the mean SPF||||||||||||||||CI % values (which is the percentage that half the 95 % CI represents of the mean values).|Test product CI of ±16.4% and reference product CI of ±16.6% of the mean SPF.|||
84457501|NCT04533711|168666999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|24.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.38|-7.68|0.3086
84457502|NCT04533711|168667000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.93||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|26.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.92|-5.06|0.1820
84457503|NCT04533711|168667001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|308.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|667.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||667.1|-50.2|0.094
84457504|NCT04533711|168667002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|352.0||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|729.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||729.2|-25.2|0.0691
84457505|NCT04533711|168667003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|10.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.94|-22.6|0.4953
84457506|NCT04533711|168667004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.49|-20.0|0.8041
84457507|NCT04533711|168667005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-2.86|0.9645
84457508|NCT04533711|168667006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-5.85|0.0989
84457509|NCT04533711|168667007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|-0.77|0.7667
84457510|NCT04533711|168667008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.87|0.0894
84457511|NCT03219164|168667009|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 14-day treatment regimen was claimed if the lower bound of 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the treatment difference (14-day course group vs 28-day course group) was above the noninferiority margin of -20%.|Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|8.6|||||The difference in percentage between treatment groups, and the associated 95% CIs were constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method using age as stratification factor.|||8.6|-24.6|
84457512|NCT03219164|168667011|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The historical pooled data from published results for the percentage of participants with successful PA eradication at 28 days post-treatment with TNS was estimated to be 77%.|||
84457513|NCT02689492|168667015|OTHER||Intercept|68.5027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0355|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
84457514|NCT02689492|168667016|OTHER||Intercept|95.4051|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9951|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
84457515|NCT02689492|168667017|OTHER||Intercept|74.8895|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0048|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
84457516|NCT02732951|168667020|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.45||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|49.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Fixed effects of treatment, prior anti-diabetic macular oedema treatment status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within patient errors.|Null hypothesis = The CSFT change from baseline at Week 12 is equal in both groups||49.13|-16.23|0.3199
84457517|NCT00110305|168667098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response rate|0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||11.3|-10.4|0.92
84457518|NCT00110305|168667098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.0||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||9.0|-13.6|0.56
84457519|NCT00110305|168667098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|8.4||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||8.4|-14.0|0.62
84457520|NCT00110305|168667098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.5|-10.5|0.80
84457521|NCT00110305|168667099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.6||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.6|-17.1|0.45
84457522|NCT00110305|168667099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|7.7||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.7|-17.3|0.45
84457523|NCT00110305|168667099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|12.8||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||12.8|-12.9|0.99
84457524|NCT00110305|168667099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response|2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||13.3|-8.1|0.63
84457525|NCT00110305|168667101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||||95.0|-14.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-14.7|
84457526|NCT00961532|168667115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the hypothesis that there would be a change from baseline to 60 minutes after the start of the desmopressin (DDAVP) infusion.||||0.014
84717757|NCT01992913|169185148|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 6 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.99
84457527|NCT04574999|168667155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84457528|NCT04574999|168667156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84457529|NCT04574999|168667158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84457530|NCT04574999|168667159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84457531|NCT00391599|168667161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84457532|NCT00391599|168667163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84457533|NCT00206726|168667168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CR rate|0.0833||||0.014||90.0|0.0334|0.1673||2-sided p-value computed from an exact binomial test comparing the observed rate versus 2% historical rate|exact binomial test|||Comparison of CR rate versus 2 percent (%) historic control (p-value and 90% confidence interval)||0.1673|0.0334|0.014
84457534|NCT00008385|168667174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.37||This p value should be compared to the nominal p value of 0.0035 adjusting for the previous interim analyses|Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval was repeated confidence interval for the risk ratio|||2.37|0.64|0.294
84457535|NCT00008385|168667175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
84457536|NCT00008385|168667176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.154
84457537|NCT05148884|168667183|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0016
84457538|NCT05148884|168667183|OTHER|||||||0.6886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.6886
84457539|NCT05148884|168667184|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0281
84457540|NCT05148884|168667184|OTHER|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.7953
84457541|NCT01993888|168667201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84457542|NCT06415305|168667327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||<0.008
84457543|NCT06415305|168667328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
84457544|NCT06415305|168667329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.008
84457545|NCT06415305|168667330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
84457546|NCT03051633|168667338|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where substance use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If substance use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.126|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use alchohol in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||-0.126|-0.714|.004
84457547|NCT03051633|168667339|SUPERIORITY|Event: dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol intoxication in known participant history prior to data collection, where intoxication was not reported in prior measurement occasions. Episodes: Represent the period of time between measurement occasions, thus, each episode represents the measured period of time between each assessment wave. Censoring: Indicates the risk period during which particpants experienced intoxication uptake.|Hazard Ratio, log|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|-0.018|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ration rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol initiation during a given measurement period, given that students did not become intoxicated in a previous measurement period. Thus, for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: controlling for age at first assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake at the end of their eight grade year||-0.018|-0.762|.037
84457548|NCT03051633|168667340|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time marijuana use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where marijuana use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If marijuana use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.17||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.444|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time marijuana use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use marijuana in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of marijuana use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||0.444|-0.104|0.228
84457549|NCT00393718|168667350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.4%. Superiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.0%.|Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3||p-value is for the null hypothesis for superiority. A significance level of a one-sided 2.5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included HbA1C at baseline as a covariate and treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects.~Hypothesis for non-inferiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.4, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.4,~Hypothesis for superiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.0, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.0, where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively. When non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority was evaluated based on the closed testing procedure."||-0.30|-0.70|<0.0001
84516222|NCT02354339|168785760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.989
84516223|NCT02354339|168785760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.949
84457550|NCT00393718|168667351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||||95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.27|-0.71|
84457551|NCT00393718|168667352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-12.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-18.2|-7.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-7.5|-18.2|<0.0001
84457552|NCT00393718|168667353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||||95.0|-18.6|-4.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.9|-18.6|
84457553|NCT00393718|168667354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-93.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-119.61|-66.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-66.50|-119.61|<0.0001
84457554|NCT00393718|168667355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-74.51||||||95.0|-105.75|-43.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-43.27|-105.75|
84457555|NCT00393718|168667356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|-25.0|-10.27||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-10.27|-25.00|<0.0001
84457556|NCT00393718|168667357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.21||||||95.0|-26.32|-8.09|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-8.09|-26.32|
84457557|NCT00393718|168667358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-19.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.99|-11.94||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-11.94|-27.99|<0.0001
84516224|NCT02354339|168785761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.095
84516225|NCT02354339|168785761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.401
84457558|NCT00393718|168667359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.03||||||95.0|-21.46|-4.6|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.60|-21.46|
84717758|NCT01992913|169185148|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 12 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.94
84717759|NCT01992913|169185148|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.14
84717760|NCT05215054|169185275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.||||||||||||||||Difference of changes from baseline in WSRS score for Gana V versus Sculptra|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.To assess assay sensitivity, the proportion of responders with Gana V®, defined as improvement of ≥1-grade in the WSRS when compared to D0 pre-injection must be ≥50% at the 6 months visit after baseline.|||
84457559|NCT00393718|168667360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.34|-1.48||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-1.48|-2.34|<0.0001
84516226|NCT02354339|168785762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
84516227|NCT02354339|168785762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.791
84457560|NCT00393718|168667361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.71||||||95.0|-2.25|-1.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.18|-2.25|
84457561|NCT00393718|168667362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.35|0.12|
84457562|NCT00393718|168667362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18||||||95.0|0.09|0.36|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.36|0.09|
84457563|NCT00393718|168667362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.11|0.34|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.34|0.11|
84457564|NCT00988247|168667399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.5|<0.001
84457565|NCT00988247|168667400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
84457566|NCT00988247|168667401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
84457567|NCT00988247|168667402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
84457568|NCT00988247|168667403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.3||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-0.7|0.143
84717761|NCT02933489|169185285|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT = AB-MR|Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace|0.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0116|||McNemar||"Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace, described in :~Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Statist. Med. 2014; 33:2850-75."|The proportion of participants who had an invasive cancer, verified by pathology, detected by each modality (the invasive cancer detection rates) will be made using exact McNemar's test.||0.0116|0.0022|0.002
84717762|NCT02933489|169185286|EQUIVALENCE|PPV DBT = PPV AB-MR||||||0.15||||||"Generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression with the p-value from the resulting score test.~5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance"|Leisenring|Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345-351||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.15
84717763|NCT02933489|169185287|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT short term follow-up rate = AB-MR short term follow-up rate|||||<|0.0001||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5=0.01 corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|McNemar|exact p-value||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR short term follow-up rates||||<0.0001
84717764|NCT02933489|169185287|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT additional imaging rate =AB-MR additional imaging rate||||||0.02||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01, corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the SAP|McNemar|exact p-values||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR additional imaging rates||||0.02
84516228|NCT03393208|168785774|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS) Mean%|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|107.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||107.20|92.84|
84717765|NCT02933489|169185288|EQUIVALENCE|Sensitivity DBT = Sensitivity AB-MR||||||0.001||||||The comparison of the sensitivity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||0.001
84717766|NCT02933489|169185288|EQUIVALENCE|Specificity DBT = Specificity AB-MR|||||<|0.001||||||The comparison of the Specificity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||<0.001
84717767|NCT03990883|169185302|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|3.7|||McNemar|||||3.7|-2.96|<0.0001
84457569|NCT00988247|168667404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.49||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-1.1|0.130
84457570|NCT00956930|168667441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.122||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.557|||Log Rank|||||0.557|0.027|0.007
84457571|NCT01838044|168667457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between two study arms.||0.42|-0.72|0.6012
84516229|NCT03393208|168785774|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.67||||||90.0|91.25|106.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||106.69|91.25|
84516230|NCT03393208|168785775|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.62||||||90.0|92.69|106.77||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||106.77|92.69|
84457572|NCT01838044|168667458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B at Week 10.||1.83|1.02|<0.0001
84457573|NCT01838044|168667459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B compared between two study arms at Week 10.||0.95|-0.48|0.5128
84457574|NCT01838044|168667461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.32|-0.22|0.7251
84457575|NCT01838044|168667461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.46|-0.06|0.1255
84457576|NCT01838044|168667463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between treatment groups.||0.29|-0.97|0.2856
84457577|NCT01838044|168667463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 compared between treatment groups.||0.41|-1.02|0.3987
84457578|NCT00565617|168667486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84457579|NCT00125034|168667487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.516||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.335|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||Assuming a difference in rate of best confirmed response of at least 20% between the 2 treatments, ie an approximately 70% response rate under cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 \& 50% under FOLFOX-4 alone for the stratum with ECOG PS0-1 \& 66% and 45% respectively for the ECOG PS2 stratum, the common OddsR over the strata was expected to be 2.33. A sample size of approximately 146/group was calculated as necessary to detect a significant overall response of at least 2.33 at level α=0.05 with a power of 90%||2.335|0.975|0.064
84516231|NCT03393208|168785775|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.5||||||90.0|93.72|109.92||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||109.92|93.72|
84457580|NCT00125034|168667488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.551||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.717|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||4.717|1.380|0.0027
84726457|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.103|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.103|0.054|
84457581|NCT00125034|168667489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.459||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.924|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||0.924|0.228|0.0290
84457582|NCT00125034|168667490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.23|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.230|0.705|0.6170
84457583|NCT00125034|168667491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.567||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.856|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.856|0.375|0.0064
84457584|NCT00125034|168667492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|2.679|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||2.679|1.104|0.0153
84457585|NCT00125034|168667493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.303|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.303|0.791|0.9050
84457586|NCT00125034|168667494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.219|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.219|0.599|0.3854
84516232|NCT03393208|168785776|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||0.25|-0.25|
84516233|NCT03393208|168785776|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.25||||||90.0|-0.25|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||0.50|-0.25|
84516234|NCT03393208|168785778|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.26||||||90.0|94.33|108.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||108.69|94.33|
84516235|NCT03393208|168785778|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.61|105.21||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||105.21|91.61|
84516236|NCT01848938|168785787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
84516237|NCT01848938|168785788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.005
84516238|NCT01848938|168785789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.023
84516239|NCT01848938|168785791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.001
84516240|NCT01848938|168785792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
84457587|NCT00125034|168667495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.906|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.906|0.873|0.2004
84457588|NCT04666038|168667500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.536||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.746||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) \& 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.746|0.385|0.0002
84457589|NCT04666038|168667501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.669||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.669|0.338|<0.0001
84457590|NCT04666038|168667502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.749||The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.749|0.679|0.7202
84457591|NCT04666038|168667503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.524||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.524|0.254|<0.0001
84457592|NCT04666038|168667504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.534||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.534|0.280|<0.0001
84457593|NCT03400800|168667512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.66|-50.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-50.35|-56.66|<0.0001
84457594|NCT03400800|168667513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.57|-46.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.77|-51.57|<0.0001
84457595|NCT03400800|168667514|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.01|-48.72||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-48.72|-55.01|<.0001
84516241|NCT00207090|168785809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.106||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of Cmax. The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||1.106|0.751|
84516242|NCT00207090|168785810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.482|0.664||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of (AUC \[INF\]). The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||0.664|0.482|
84516243|NCT00841698|168785833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.34||||||90.0|91.67|103.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.35|91.67|
84516244|NCT00841698|168785834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.46||||||90.0|90.22|98.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.89|90.22|
84516245|NCT00841698|168785835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.83||||||90.0|89.96|99.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.96|89.96|
84516246|NCT00835692|168785836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Mean x 100|98.4||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|91.5|
84516247|NCT00835692|168785837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.6|97.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.6|89.6|
84457596|NCT03400800|168667515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.39|-46.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.48|-51.39|<0.0001
84457597|NCT03400800|168667516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.97|-76.57||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-76.57|-81.97|<0.0001
84457598|NCT03400800|168667517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|-27.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-27.81|-31.78|<0.0001
84457599|NCT03400800|168667518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.21|-36.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-36.67|-41.21|<0.0001
84457600|NCT03400800|168667519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-40.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-40.60|-46.04|<0.0001
84457601|NCT01512264|168667521|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.58.||||0.006
84457602|NCT01512264|168667521|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.27.||||0.015
84457603|NCT01512264|168667521|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.203
84457604|NCT01512264|168667521|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.63.||||0.010
84457605|NCT01512264|168667522|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
84457606|NCT01512264|168667522|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.57.||||0.618
84457607|NCT01512264|168667522|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 1.31.||||1.000
84457608|NCT01512264|168667522|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 4.35.||||0.019
84457609|NCT01512264|168667524|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.69.||||0.118
84457610|NCT01512264|168667524|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.482
84457611|NCT01512264|168667524|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.37.||||0.368
84457612|NCT01512264|168667524|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.70.||||0.147
84457613|NCT01512264|168667525|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
84457614|NCT01512264|168667525|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.25.||||0.695
84457615|NCT01512264|168667525|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.25.||||0.175
84457616|NCT01512264|168667525|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.60.||||0.518
84457617|NCT01512264|168667527|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.71.||||0.109
84457618|NCT01512264|168667527|OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.485
84457619|NCT01512264|168667527|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.07.||||0.864
84457620|NCT01512264|168667527|OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.43.||||0.341
84516248|NCT00835692|168785838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.5|97.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.7|89.5|
84457621|NCT01512264|168667528|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.12.||||0.899
84457622|NCT01512264|168667528|OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.19.||||0.519
84457623|NCT01512264|168667528|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.09.||||1.000
84457624|NCT01512264|168667528|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.84.||||0.140
84457625|NCT01512264|168667530|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.24.||||0.520
84457626|NCT01512264|168667530|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.97.||||0.800
84457627|NCT01512264|168667530|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.68.||||0.148
84457628|NCT01512264|168667530|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.67.||||0.787
84457629|NCT01512264|168667531|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.12.||||0.239
84457630|NCT01512264|168667531|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 2.71.||||0.212
84457631|NCT01512264|168667531|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.10.||||0.120
84457632|NCT01512264|168667531|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.14.||||0.263
84457633|NCT01194440|168667541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Bonferonni|Adjusting for multiple comparisons in the analyses, a Bonferonni-corrected p-value of 0.05/5 = 0.01 to represent statistical significance was used.||The primary hypothesis of the study is that administration of zoledronic acid with letrozole would result in a significant decline in the percentage of women experiencing AIMSS compared to letrozole treatment alone (historical control).||||<0.001
84457634|NCT00896532|168667557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|9.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.9|7.5|< 0.0001
84457635|NCT00896532|168667557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from placebo|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||6.9|4.3|< 0.0001
84457636|NCT00896532|168667557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|8.7||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||8.7|6.1|< 0.0001
84457637|NCT00896532|168667557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|9.8||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.8|7.3|< 0.0001
84457638|NCT03430986|168667658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|2.349|||MMRM|MMRM included treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effect using an unstructured covariance matrix.||||2.349|1.726|<0.0001
84717768|NCT03990883|169185303|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|3.71||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.71|-3.71|<0.0001
84457639|NCT03430986|168667659|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|82.4|||Fisher Exact|2-sided test comparing responder rate between treatment group and control group.||||82.4|50.0|<0.0001
84478836|NCT04491240|168709079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|239.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|204.0934||0.004873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.20037|385.1996|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||385.1996|93.20037|0.004873
84478837|NCT01293084|168709086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84457640|NCT00484315|168667674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 1264 subjects (resulting in 1200 after accounting for 5% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155||0.9996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.85||The p-value is the posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data observed.|Bayesian modeling||Values are based on the posterior distribution of the difference in TLF rates between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. The upper limit is the 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of the posterior distribution.|Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the 12-month TLF rate for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the 12-month TLF rate in the TAXUS Express2 control. The null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is at least 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is less than 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate.||1.85||0.9996
84457641|NCT00484315|168667675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 330 subjects (resulting in 280 after accounting for 15% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08253||0.997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1078||P-value is posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data observed. Non-inferiority was concluded, as this probability is greater than 95%.|Bayesian modeling||Based on posterior distribution of the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. Upper limit is 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of posterior distribution.|Natural log (ln) transformation was used to improve normality of the secondary endpoint distribution. Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the mean ln(9-month %DS) for TAXUS Express. Null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean was at least 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express mean. Alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean is less than 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express TLF mean.||0.1078||0.9970
84457642|NCT01552343|168667687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Correlation - no adjustments||||0.0187
84457643|NCT01552343|168667687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline # of voids||||0.0094
84457644|NCT01552343|168667687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline NI total score||||0.0383
84457645|NCT01552343|168667687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - age category||||0.0133
84457646|NCT01552343|168667687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Partial correlation - gender||||0.0128
84516249|NCT01149733|168785839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.32|91.00|
84516250|NCT01149733|168785840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.72|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.10|87.72|
84457647|NCT01552343|168667688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score (Q1-Q11)||18.8|2.7|
84457648|NCT01552343|168667688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|9.6|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Overall Impact Question (Q12)||9.6|-9.6|
84726458|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.500|0.580|
84457649|NCT01552343|168667691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Screening||3.1|-20.3|0.1471
84457650|NCT01552343|168667691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Baseline||-1.2|-26.0|0.0318
84457651|NCT01552343|168667691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Screening||-0.3|-31.2|0.0463
84457652|NCT01552343|168667691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Baseline||-0.7|-34.6|0.0413
84457653|NCT01552343|168667692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates baseline score, treatment and age stratum (\<65, \>=65).||Treatment effect. NI total scores are transformed to a 0-100 scale where 0 is good and 100 bad.||6.3|-6.6|0.9647
84457654|NCT02292771|168667717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.879|6.479|||Finite mixture model|||||6.479|-8.879|0.3797
84516251|NCT01149733|168785841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|90.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.59|94.89|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.89|86.59|
84457655|NCT02292771|168667718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.44|0.9520
84457656|NCT02292771|168667719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.46|0.9520
84457657|NCT02292771|168667720|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.73|0.5672
84457658|NCT02292771|168667721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.71|0.30|0.5066
84457659|NCT02292771|168667727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.84|0.12|0.7790
84457660|NCT02292771|168667728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.51|0.6646
84457661|NCT02292771|168667729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.75|0.1432
84457662|NCT02292771|168667730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|0.43|0.5250
84457663|NCT02292771|168667731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.13|0.4682
84516252|NCT00099047|168785864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS version 8||36 evaluable patients randomized 1:1 to each treatment was planned in order to have \>77% power to detect differences in above parameters equal to or greater than one standard deviation, based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test with .05 Type I error.|||||.23
84516253|NCT00830024|168785876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.75||||||90.0|93.35|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|93.35|
84457664|NCT02747927|168667804|OTHER||VE|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|85.3||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 25%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Assuming true VE of 60% and, virologically confirmed cases of dengue fever induced by any dengue serotype occurring from 30 days post 2nd vaccination (Day 120) until end of Part 1 would provide at least 90% power to rule out vaccine effect of ≤25%.||85.3|73.3|<0.001
84457665|NCT02747927|168667805|OTHER||VE|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|94.7||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 0%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||94.7|82.6|<0.001
84457666|NCT02747927|168667806|OTHER||VE|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|79.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.9|54.8|
84457667|NCT02747927|168667806|OTHER||VE|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|97.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.6|89.9|
84457668|NCT02747927|168667806|OTHER||VE|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|64.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||64.1|27.1|
84457669|NCT02747927|168667806|OTHER||VE|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||85.8|-69.7|
84457670|NCT02747927|168667807|OTHER||VE|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|49.1|
84457671|NCT02747927|168667808|OTHER||VE|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|81.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||81.9|68.5|
84457672|NCT02747927|168667809|OTHER||VE|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-978.5|91.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.1|-978.5|
84516254|NCT00830024|168785877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.94||||||90.0|91.76|100.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.3|91.76|
84516255|NCT00830024|168785878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.89||||||90.0|91.67|100.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.31|91.67|
84457673|NCT02747927|168667818|OTHER||VE|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region|||56.0|37.1|
84457674|NCT02747927|168667819|OTHER||VE|55.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|70.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||70.0|34.5|
84457675|NCT02747927|168667820|OTHER||VE|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|83.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||83.9|56.3|
84457676|NCT02747927|168667821|OTHER||VE|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|98.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.6|72.4|
84457677|NCT02747927|168667822|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|85.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||85.9|70.1|
84457678|NCT02747927|168667823|OTHER||VE|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|87.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||87.4|57.1|
84457679|NCT02747927|168667823|OTHER||VE|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|69.9|
84457680|NCT02747927|168667823|OTHER||VE|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|91.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||91.5|-69.7|
84457681|NCT02747927|168667823|OTHER||VE|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|88.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.5|54.8|
84457682|NCT02747927|168667824|OTHER||VE|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|89.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||89.7|57.8|
84457683|NCT02747927|168667824|OTHER||VE|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|95.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||95.4|57.6|
84516256|NCT03804983|168785894|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.178||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.178
84516257|NCT03804983|168785895|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.145||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.145
84516258|NCT03804983|168785896|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.304||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.304
84457684|NCT02747927|168667824|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|13.5|
84457685|NCT02747927|168667824|OTHER||VE|42.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|92.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||92.0|-307.5|
84457686|NCT02747927|168667824|OTHER||VE|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|89.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||89.5|-45.1|
84457687|NCT02747927|168667825|OTHER||VE|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|86.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||86.9|68.3|
84516259|NCT03804983|168785897|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.131||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.131
84516260|NCT03804983|168785899|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.206||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.206
84516261|NCT03804983|168785900|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.335||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.335
84516262|NCT03804983|168785901|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.637||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.637
84457688|NCT02747927|168667825|OTHER||VE|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.8|36.4|
84457689|NCT02747927|168667825|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|66.6|
84457690|NCT02747927|168667825|OTHER||VE|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.8|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||97.8|-168.8|
84457691|NCT02747927|168667825|OTHER||VE|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|91.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.6|57.2|
84457692|NCT02747927|168667826|OTHER||VE|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.1|79.3|
84457693|NCT02747927|168667827|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
84457694|NCT02747927|168667828|OTHER||VE|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|52.1|
84457695|NCT02747927|168667829|OTHER||VE|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|77.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||77.4|16.2|
84457696|NCT02747927|168667829|OTHER||VE|86.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|95.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.0|63.8|
84457697|NCT02747927|168667829|OTHER||VE|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|9.9|
84457698|NCT02747927|168667829|OTHER||VE|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|96.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||96.0|47.4|
84457699|NCT02747927|168667830|OTHER||VE|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|85.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.5|39.1|
84457700|NCT02747927|168667830|OTHER||VE|57.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|85.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.7|-27.2|
84457701|NCT02747927|168667830|OTHER||VE|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|14.0|
84457702|NCT02747927|168667830|OTHER||VE|36.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.1|82.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||82.9|-138.1|
84457703|NCT02747927|168667830|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||100.0|43.1|
84457704|NCT02747927|168667831|OTHER||VE|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|78.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||78.1|46.4|
84457705|NCT02747927|168667831|OTHER||VE|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|80.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.7|0.8|
84516263|NCT03804983|168785902|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.347||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.347
84457706|NCT02747927|168667831|OTHER||VE|85.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.2|54.4|
84457707|NCT02747927|168667831|OTHER||VE|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|77.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||77.6|8.3|
84457708|NCT02747927|168667831|OTHER||VE|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|93.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||93.9|2.2|
84457709|NCT02747927|168667832|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|95.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.1|53.7|
84457710|NCT02747927|168667834|OTHER||VE|74.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|80.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||80.3|66.6|
84457711|NCT02747927|168667835|OTHER||VE|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|80.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.0|51.7|
84457712|NCT02747927|168667835|OTHER||VE|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|92.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.2|74.5|
84457713|NCT02747927|168667835|OTHER||VE|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|19.1|
84457714|NCT02747927|168667835|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|88.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.7|62.4|
84457715|NCT02747927|168667836|OTHER||VE|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.0|59.3|
84457716|NCT02747927|168667836|OTHER||VE|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|88.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||88.9|50.0|
84457717|NCT02747927|168667836|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.8|53.7|
84516264|NCT03804983|168785903|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.057||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.057
84457718|NCT02747927|168667836|OTHER||VE|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|79.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||79.2|-84.9|
84457719|NCT02747927|168667836|OTHER||VE|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|93.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||93.3|29.7|
84457720|NCT02747927|168667837|OTHER||VE|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||80.9|64.4|
84457721|NCT02747927|168667837|OTHER||VE|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|79.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.3|37.8|
84457722|NCT02747927|168667837|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|92.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.1|71.1|
84457723|NCT02747927|168667837|OTHER||VE|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|78.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||78.5|18.5|
84457724|NCT02747927|168667837|OTHER||VE|79.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|89.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||89.9|59.1|
84457725|NCT02747927|168667838|OTHER||VE|90.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|95.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.8|78.8|
84457726|NCT02747927|168667839|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
84457727|NCT00522392|168667867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two arms.||||0.092
84457728|NCT00522392|168667868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the response rates between the two arms.||||0.029
84457729|NCT00522392|168667869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between the two arms.||||0.48
84457730|NCT03902080|168667887|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.02|<0.0001
84725938|NCT04239911|169203981|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the doctor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. all other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||0.94|0.03|0.043
84457731|NCT03902080|168667888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.0001
84457732|NCT03902080|168667889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.36|=0.0015
84457733|NCT03902080|168667890|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.33|=0.0034
84516265|NCT03804983|168785904|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.435||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.435
84457734|NCT03902080|168667891|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.0001
84457735|NCT03902080|168667892|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|21.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.02|9.13|<0.0001
84457736|NCT03575104|168667893|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-11.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.604|-5.633||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-5.633|-17.604|0.0001
84457737|NCT03575104|168667893|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.74||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.693|3.215||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00977; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.215|-8.693|0.3669
84478838|NCT01293084|168709087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84457738|NCT03575104|168667894|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-10.25||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|-3.548||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.01563; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.548|-16.95|0.0028
84457739|NCT03575104|168667894|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-1.95||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.666|4.764||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||4.764|-8.666|0.5686
84457740|NCT03575104|168667895|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-6.45||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.282|-0.614||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.614|-12.282|0.0303
84457741|NCT03575104|168667895|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.61||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.197||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00195; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.197|-8.41|0.3782
84457742|NCT03575104|168667896|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-9.01||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.339|-2.684||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00313; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.684|-15.339|0.0053
84457743|NCT03575104|168667896|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-3.19||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|3.146||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.146|-9.528|0.3233
84516266|NCT03804983|168785905|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.135||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.135
84516267|NCT03804983|168785906|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.271||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.271
84717769|NCT03990883|169185304|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.96||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.07||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||4.07|-9.99|0.025
84457744|NCT03575104|168667897|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|16.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.224|24.035||Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.0125; statistically significant = YES|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||24.035|8.224|<.0001
84457745|NCT03575104|168667897|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.37|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.507|21.226||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||21.226|5.507|= 0.0009
84457746|NCT03575104|168667898|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|19.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.125|27.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00781; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||27.994|10.125|<.0001
84516268|NCT03804983|168785907|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
84516269|NCT03804983|168785909|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
84516270|NCT03804983|168785910|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.294||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.294
84516271|NCT03804983|168785911|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.584||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.584
84516272|NCT03804983|168785912|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.69||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.69
84516273|NCT03804983|168785913|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.066||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.066
84516274|NCT03804983|168785914|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.904||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.904
84516275|NCT00835705|168785954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.03||||||90.0|98.4|107.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.88|98.40|
84516276|NCT00835705|168785955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.43||||||90.0|96.71|100.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.18|96.71|
84516277|NCT00835705|168785956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.29||||||90.0|96.58|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.03|96.58|
84516278|NCT00835705|168785957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.16||||||90.0|95.33|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||111.64|95.33|
84516279|NCT00835705|168785958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.79||||||90.0|95.75|112.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.50|95.75|
84516280|NCT00835705|168785959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|104.26||||||90.0|95.76|113.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||113.52|95.76|
84516281|NCT01750294|168785960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84726459|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.467|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.467|0.581|
84457747|NCT03575104|168667898|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.58|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.691|22.475||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||22.475|4.691|= 0.0028
84457748|NCT03575104|168667899|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.581|0.071||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00625; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.071|-1.581|= 0.0733
84457749|NCT03575104|168667899|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.43|||=|0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.251|0.392||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.392|-1.251|= 0.3048
84457750|NCT03575104|168667900|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-1.25|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.276||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00391; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.276|-2.230|= 0.0120
84516282|NCT00128219|168786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|The study was multi-center, and the Cox model was stratified by geographic region of the participating clinical sites.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first acquisition of vaginal type III GBS was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by region to the data. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||58|1|0.044
84516283|NCT00128219|168786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportions always vaginal GBS-III negative by arm to a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the 2-sided 5% level Fisher's exact, with GBS III-TT arm in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator so \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||2.34|0.917|0.120
84516284|NCT00128219|168786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.089||95.0|-7.0|61.0||Significance was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity. Exchangeable correlation structure and GEE were used for repeated measures.|Binomial regression, log-linear link|The Wald test of treatment effect was used to test no difference in proportion of GBS III pos. by arm against a 2-sided alternative of a difference.|Estimate of vaccine efficacy and 95% CI were obtained by transforming the estimate of log relative risk for treatment effect and the robust Wald CI in the log-linear binomial regression model fit to the proportion of vaginal type III GBS swabs.|The proportion of vaginal swabs that were GBS III culture positive was estimated from a GEE model fit with binomial family, log-link, and exchangeable correlation. Point and robust interval estimates for vaccine efficacy, were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in this model, and used to test the hypothesis of no efficacy.||61|-7|0.089
84540502|NCT03180645|168832014|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.07||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of the face as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline.|||0.06|-2.21|0.0638
84478839|NCT02259127|168709088|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.14|= 0.004
84516285|NCT00128219|168786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportion persistently colonized by arm against a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test. The GBS III-TT arm is in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator, so a value \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||1.45|0.18|0.256
84516286|NCT05090839|168786086|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|variance explained by the IV.|0.072|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.234|||ANOVA|||||.234|.0000|<0.05
84516287|NCT05090839|168786088|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.554|||ANOVA|||This is a comparison that is specific to the contrast of visualizing traumatic versus stressful events.||.554|0|<0.05
84516288|NCT05090839|168786089|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.676|||ANOVA|||||.676|.000|<0.05
84516289|NCT00373256|168786090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6299||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1793|2.2527||p-value from 1-sided log-rank stratified for prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment. Stratification factors from Interactive Voice Randomization System.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel.|||2.2527|1.1793|0.9986
84516290|NCT00373256|168786091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.5||||||||38.5|26.4|
84516291|NCT00373256|168786091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|38.4||||||||38.4|26.3|
84516292|NCT00373256|168786094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|83.0||||||1 year||83.0|68.7|
84516293|NCT00373256|168786094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|50.3||||||2 years||50.3|20.9|
84516294|NCT00373256|168786094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|89.1||||||1 year||89.1|76.0|
84516295|NCT00373256|168786094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|74.7||||||2 years||74.7|43.2|
84516296|NCT00446966|168786115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84516297|NCT00835575|168786116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.52||||||90.0|92.84|106.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.69|92.84|
84516298|NCT00835575|168786117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.59||||||90.0|99.13|108.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.25|99.13|
84516299|NCT00835575|168786118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.87||||||90.0|99.47|108.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.46|99.47|
84516300|NCT02718963|168786142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the Videofluoroscopic swallowing study(VFSS) kinematic variables, VDS, PAS, and high resolution manometry (HRM) variables between the neuromuscular electrical stimulation session and the control session in swallowing thin fluid and thick fluid for healthy, dysphagic and whole participants. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the differences of VFSS variables, VDS, PAS, and HRM variables between the healthy participants and dysphagic participants.||||< 0.05
84516301|NCT01695239|168786148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84516302|NCT01695239|168786148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84516303|NCT01695239|168786148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84516304|NCT04383587|168786180|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Participants were grouped by age (18-35 vs. 36-50 vs. 51-65 vs. \>65), Sex at birth (Female vs. Male). and Occupational Role (Technician vs Anesthesiologist vs Advanced Practice Provider vs. Attendant Aide vs. CRNA vs. OR nurse vs Perfusionist vs Surgeon).||||>0.18
84516305|NCT03913377|168786184|EQUIVALENCE|A statistically significant difference in NIBUT/NIKBUT between Test lens and Spectacles was concluded if the upper confidence limit of the 95% CI is below zero or the lower limit is above zero.|LS Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The null and alternative hypotheses for testing significant difference between Test lens and Spectacles among habitual lens users with respect to NIBUT/NIKBUT.||-1.44|-4.14|
84457751|NCT03575104|168667900|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.73|||=|0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.239||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.239|-1.706|= 0.1393
84457752|NCT03575104|168667901|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.93||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.05|0.82|0.2506
84457753|NCT03575104|168667901|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.91|0.71|0.0004
84457754|NCT03575104|168667902|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.96||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.09|0.84|0.5037
84457755|NCT03575104|168667902|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.81||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.93|0.71|0.0021
84457756|NCT01169779|168667908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|-0.162||Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), sulfonylurea use (Yes,No), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 24 between lixisenatide arm and placebo arm, 190 patients per group would provide a power of 96% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.162|-0.551|0.0004
84516306|NCT03913377|168786185|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|85.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|97.89|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||97.89|43.2|
84516307|NCT03913377|168786185|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|84.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.67|96.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||96.75|48.67|
84457757|NCT01354132|168667918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84457758|NCT01354132|168667919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84457759|NCT01354132|168667920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84457760|NCT01354132|168667921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
84457761|NCT01354132|168667922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speed of Processing||||0.022
84457762|NCT01354132|168667923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
84457763|NCT01354132|168667924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
84457764|NCT01354132|168667925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
84457765|NCT01354132|168667926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.464
84457766|NCT01354132|168667927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
84457767|NCT01354132|168667928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84457768|NCT01354132|168667929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
84457769|NCT01354132|168667930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84726460|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.709|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.709|0.682|
84457770|NCT01354132|168667931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6732
84457771|NCT01354132|168667932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8786
84457772|NCT01354132|168667933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5622
84457773|NCT01354132|168667934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9574
84457774|NCT01354132|168667935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0043
84457775|NCT01354132|168667936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3804
84457776|NCT01354132|168667937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9403
84457777|NCT01354132|168667938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9215
84457778|NCT00928070|168667941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.24||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.24|-1.05|0.0018
84516308|NCT03913377|168786186|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of test.|Mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimate was calculated for Test.|0.65|0.40|
84726461|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.902|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||0.902|0.268|
84516309|NCT03913377|168786186|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|0.44|-0.19|
84457779|NCT00928070|168667942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.38||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.38|-1.27|0.0003
84457780|NCT00928070|168667943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84457781|NCT00928070|168667943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
84457782|NCT00928070|168667945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.40|-1.35|0.0003
84457783|NCT00928070|168667945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.39||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.39|-1.29|0.0003
84457784|NCT00928070|168667946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84457785|NCT00928070|168667946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84457786|NCT00928070|168667948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.43||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.43|-1.77|0.0014
84457787|NCT00928070|168667948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.70|-2.10|<0.0001
84457788|NCT00928070|168667949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0002
84457789|NCT00928070|168667949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
84457790|NCT00928070|168667951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.10|-0.39|0.2511
84457791|NCT00928070|168667951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0189
84457792|NCT00928070|168667952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0010
84457793|NCT00928070|168667954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.3||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.30|-7.04|0.0001
84457794|NCT00928070|168667954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-2.66||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.66|-7.27|<0.0001
84516310|NCT03913377|168786187|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test.|Mean Proportion|30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|73.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Test|||73.8|6.5|
84516311|NCT03913377|168786187|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean Proportion|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|69.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|||69.8|6.1|
84516312|NCT01492439|168786274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||This applies to Semester 1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
84516313|NCT01492439|168786274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||||||This applies to semester 2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.225
84457795|NCT00928070|168667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: =\<3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0035
84516314|NCT01492439|168786275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.247
84457796|NCT00928070|168667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.92||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: \>3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||2.92|-2.01|0.7089
84516315|NCT01492439|168786275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.747
84516316|NCT01492439|168786275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.582
84516317|NCT01492439|168786276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
84516318|NCT01492439|168786277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.950
84516319|NCT01492439|168786277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.027
84457797|NCT00928070|168667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: =\<2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
84516320|NCT01492439|168786277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.639
84516321|NCT01492439|168786278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84516322|NCT01492439|168786279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||This applies to Trial 1 on the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.314
84516323|NCT01492439|168786279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||This applies to the total score of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
84516324|NCT01492439|168786279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.669
84516325|NCT01492439|168786280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||This applies to the 'trial 1' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
84516326|NCT01492439|168786280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||This applies to the total of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.269
84516327|NCT01492439|168786280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.666
84516328|NCT01492439|168786281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.391
84516329|NCT01492439|168786282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.958
84516330|NCT01492439|168786283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
84516331|NCT01492439|168786283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||This applies to the 'backward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.518
84516332|NCT01492439|168786283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||This applies to the total score (forward+backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
84516333|NCT01492439|168786284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.802
84516334|NCT01492439|168786284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||This applies to the 'backwards' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
84516335|NCT01492439|168786284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||||||This applies to the total score (forward + backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.171
84516336|NCT01492439|168786285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
84516337|NCT01492439|168786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.527
84516338|NCT01492439|168786287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.852
84516339|NCT01492439|168786287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
84516340|NCT01492439|168786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||||||This applies to the total number of correct categories on the WCST|ANCOVA|||||||0.612
84516341|NCT01492439|168786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.156
84516342|NCT01492439|168786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.926
84516343|NCT01492439|168786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total number of categories on the WCST.||||0.843
84516344|NCT01492439|168786291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||||||This applies to the total number of errors made on the DVT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.129
84516345|NCT01492439|168786292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.004
84516346|NCT01492439|168786293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||ANCOVA|This applies to the total number of errors on the DVT.||||||0.853
84516347|NCT01492439|168786294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.468
84516348|NCT04590027|168786309|NON_INFERIORITY|power calculation was not recorded Definition of non inferiority: two point difference of pain score at the measurement times|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|To rule out confounders due to an age difference, the ANCOVA test was applied to compare the differences in pain scores age-unrelatedly.|||Fisher Yates Test to compare the requirement of resue medication|||<0.05
84457798|NCT00928070|168667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.09||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: \>2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||1.09|-0.78|0.7437
84457799|NCT00928070|168667956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 4- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0009
84457800|NCT00928070|168667956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0021
84457801|NCT00928070|168667958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-5.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-5.45|-12.85|<0.0001
84457802|NCT00928070|168667958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-3.61||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-3.61|-11.60|0.0002
84516349|NCT04590027|168786310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84516350|NCT00840216|168786344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.9||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84516351|NCT00840216|168786345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84457803|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|12.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||12.25|4.09|<0.0001
84457804|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|11.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||11.15|2.77|0.0012
84457805|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.95||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.95|0.05|0.0472
84457806|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.46|-0.55|0.1087
84516352|NCT00840216|168786346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
84516353|NCT01058668|168786355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
84516354|NCT01058668|168786355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.6|-8.2|<0.001
84516355|NCT01058668|168786356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
84516356|NCT01058668|168786356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84457807|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.28||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.28|2.31|0.0012
84457808|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|13.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||13.33|4.75|<0.0001
84516357|NCT02777580|168786368|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84516358|NCT02777580|168786369|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||||||||1.48|0.62|
84516359|NCT02777580|168786370|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|35.8||||||||35.8|0.58|
84516360|NCT02777580|168786371|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.48||||||||6.48|0.25|
84540503|NCT04208750|168832026|OTHER|Difference between independent proportions||||||||||||||||Added the number of participants from each study arm who preferred each refraction type and then converted it to the proportions|For each outcome, we compared the proportion of participants from both study arms who preferred the VR800 refraction to the proportion of participants who preferred the Standard refraction using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions.|||
84516361|NCT00848536|168786378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
84457809|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|9.67||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.67|0.96|0.0169
84457810|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|8.17||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||8.17|-0.08|0.0546
84457811|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|5.55||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.55|-0.85|0.1497
84457812|NCT00928070|168667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|9.23||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.23|1.84|0.0034
84457813|NCT00928070|168667961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|22.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment and center as factors was used to calculate p-value.||22.08|10.43|<0.0001
84457814|NCT00928070|168667962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not satisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, satisfied: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used.||||<0.0001
84457815|NCT00928070|168667964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline value, and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.15|-0.51|0.2788
84516362|NCT00848536|168786379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||00.6|-0.8|
84516363|NCT00848536|168786380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
84457816|NCT00928070|168667965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 4: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||8.00|0.00|0.0021
84457817|NCT00928070|168667965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|11.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 12: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.00|3.00|<0.0001
84457818|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.77||||||Arterial outlet-nasopharyngeal temperatures||0.77|-1.10|
84457819|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial-venous inflow temperatures||0.95|-0.63|
84457820|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.74|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet-bladder||0.74|-1.98|
84457821|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.54|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet- Tcore||1.54|-1.38|
84457822|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.38||||||Nasopharyngeal-venous inflow temperatures||1.38|-0.73|
84457823|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.59||||||Nasopharyngeal-bladder temperatures||0.59|-1.50|
84457824|NCT04355013|168667972|OTHER|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.39||||||Nasopharyngeal-Tcore temperatures||1.39|-0.90|
84457825|NCT00862251|168667977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least-square means|-14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.91|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-9.91|-19.61|<0.001
84457826|NCT00862251|168667978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in Least Square Means|-13.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.79|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-6.79|-20.44|<0.001
84457827|NCT00862251|168667979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least squares mean|-15.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|-8.81|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||-8.81|-22.65|<0.001
84457828|NCT00862251|168667980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Change in Least Squares Means|-3.81||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|0.17|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.17|-7.78|0.060
84457829|NCT00862251|168667981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.2|2.5|<0.001
84457830|NCT00862251|168667981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.6|1.3|<0.001
84457831|NCT00862251|168667982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|2.3|<0.001
84457832|NCT00862251|168667983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.6|1.9|<0.001
84457833|NCT00862251|168667984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-5.28|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.28|-11.38|<0.001
84457834|NCT00862251|168667984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-0.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.13|-5.13|0.039
84457835|NCT00862251|168667985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.88||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|2.77|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.77|-8.53|0.316
84457836|NCT00862251|168667985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.43|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.43|-6.75|0.356
84725939|NCT04239911|169203981|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|||"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the nurse/supervisor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||4.58|0.22|0.99
84457837|NCT00862251|168667986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.45|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||3.45|-2.50|0.756
84457838|NCT00862251|168667986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.92|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.92|-2.96|0.675
84457839|NCT00862251|168667987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93|-7.31|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-7.31|-15.93|<0.001
84457840|NCT00862251|168667987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.35|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||0.35|-6.71|0.078
84457841|NCT00862251|168667988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.23|-8.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-8.10|-20.23|<0.001
84457842|NCT00862251|168667988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|2.41|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.41|-7.53|0.313
84457843|NCT00862251|168667989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-4.23|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.23|-12.10|<0.001
84457844|NCT00862251|168667989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.40|-5.05|0.266
84457845|NCT00862251|168667990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-5.75|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.75|-17.16|<0.001
84457846|NCT00862251|168667990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.54|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.54|-6.81|0.371
84457847|NCT00862251|168667991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.56|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.56|-11.46|<0.001
84457848|NCT00862251|168667991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.12|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.12|-5.78|0.041
84457849|NCT00862251|168667992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|4.06|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||4.06|-0.93|0.218
84457850|NCT00862251|168667992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.83|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.83|-2.27|0.832
84457851|NCT00862251|168667993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-4.47|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.47|-13.36|<0.001
84457852|NCT00862251|168667993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.13|-6.17|0.175
84457853|NCT00862251|168667994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|14.32|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||14.32|-19.88|0.749
84457854|NCT00862251|168667994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.69||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|18.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||18.10|-8.73|0.494
84457855|NCT02304926|168668019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457856|NCT02304926|168668020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457857|NCT02304926|168668021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457858|NCT02304926|168668022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84457859|NCT02304926|168668023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84457860|NCT02304926|168668024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457861|NCT02304926|168668025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457862|NCT02304926|168668026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457863|NCT02304926|168668027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457864|NCT02304926|168668028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457865|NCT02304926|168668029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457866|NCT02304926|168668030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457867|NCT02304926|168668031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457868|NCT02304926|168668032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457869|NCT02304926|168668033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457870|NCT02304926|168668034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457871|NCT02304926|168668035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457872|NCT02304926|168668036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84457873|NCT02304926|168668037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457874|NCT02304926|168668038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84457875|NCT02388295|168668039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.13|ONE_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline within treatment arm||||0.13
84457876|NCT02388295|168668039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.91|ONE_SIDED|||||not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.91
84457877|NCT02388295|168668039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.68|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|no adjustments|larger negagtive values (powereed to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.68
84457878|NCT02388295|168668039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||Looking for negative direction to indicate treatment better than placebo|Secondary objective - comparison to placebo||||0.32
84457879|NCT02388295|168668039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||lookin for negative difference compared to placebo|Secondary objective||||0.45
84457880|NCT01355289|168668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|31.62||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|57.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.84|5.39|0.0236
84457881|NCT01355289|168668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|60.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|85.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.27|36.30|0.0003
84457882|NCT01355289|168668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|58.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|85.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.88|30.92|0.0003
84457883|NCT02706938|168668109|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1604||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6263|2.027||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.0270|0.6263|0.0002
84457884|NCT02706938|168668109|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.359||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6255|-0.0924||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||-0.0924|-0.6255|0.0082
84457885|NCT02706938|168668110|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9131|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5093||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5987|3.7724||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||3.7724|-17.5987|0.099
84457886|NCT02706938|168668110|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0263||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2651|0.2125||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||0.2125|-0.2651|0.8084
84457887|NCT02507349|168668112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||<0.0001
84457888|NCT02507349|168668112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49.||||0.0033
84457889|NCT02507349|168668112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.3164
84457890|NCT02507349|168668112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.0482
84457891|NCT02507349|168668112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.9928
84457892|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.6243
84457893|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1969|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.1969
84457894|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49||||0.0042
84457895|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.0002
84457896|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.7254
84457897|NCT02507349|168668113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.0580
84516364|NCT00908128|168786381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on lon-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.96||||||90.0|82.4|100.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.41|82.40|
84516365|NCT00908128|168786382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.16||||||90.0|96.24|102.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.16|96.24|
84516366|NCT00908128|168786383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.76|101.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.89|95.76|
84516367|NCT03930732|168786391|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and a few secondary endpoint analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.049. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported (till OM 9). The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.049 level.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.324||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|-0.14|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.140|-0.508|0.0005
84516368|NCT03930732|168786392|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.125||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.125|0.042|<0.0001
84516369|NCT03930732|168786393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.083||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BDFEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.128|0.038|0.0003
84516370|NCT03930732|168786394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.203||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.203|0.045|0.0022
84516371|NCT03930732|168786395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.127||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.212||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.212|0.042|0.0034
84457898|NCT02507349|168668114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.4677
84516372|NCT03930732|168786396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.363||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.459|-1.266||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.266|-5.459|0.0017
84516373|NCT03930732|168786397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.439||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.89||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.890|1.096|0.0089
84516374|NCT03930732|168786398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|-0.45||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score, and baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.450|-1.823|0.0012
84457899|NCT02507349|168668114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0940
84540504|NCT02201277|168832040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Fisher's exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in the numbers of filters with penetration for each type. The numbers were not powered enough to make extensive tests in this area meaningful.||||1.0
84457900|NCT02507349|168668115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.8733
84457901|NCT02507349|168668115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0113
84457902|NCT02507349|168668116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.2328
84457903|NCT02507349|168668116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0005
84457904|NCT02507349|168668117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0033
84457905|NCT02507349|168668118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.1649
84457906|NCT02507349|168668118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0016
84457907|NCT02507349|168668119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0080
84457908|NCT02507349|168668120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84457909|NCT02507349|168668121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84457910|NCT00754156|168668124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84516375|NCT03930732|168786399|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.418||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.109||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.109|-0.728|0.0052
84516376|NCT04708028|168786408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.379
84516377|NCT04708028|168786408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.646
84516378|NCT04708028|168786408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.219
84457911|NCT00860470|168668141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.06|0.86|0.36
84516379|NCT04708028|168786408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.223
84516380|NCT04708028|168786409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.410
84516381|NCT04708028|168786409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.127
84516382|NCT04708028|168786409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.268
84457912|NCT00860470|168668142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.20|0.88|0.78
84457913|NCT00860470|168668143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.04|0.63|0.11
84457914|NCT00860470|168668144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.99|0.81|0.02
84457915|NCT00860470|168668145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.80|<0.001
84457916|NCT00860470|168668146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.97|0.57|0.03
84457917|NCT00860470|168668147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.86|0.62|<0.001
84457918|NCT00860470|168668148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.93|0.81|0.87
84457919|NCT00860470|168668149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.85|<0.001
84457920|NCT00860470|168668150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.01|0.96|0.13
84516383|NCT04708028|168786409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.353
84516384|NCT02825680|168786410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares reach within the pre-intervention timeframe versus the post-intervention timeframe for each LEAP (intervention) and control case. Intention to treat analysis was used; all participating facilities randomized to the LEAP (intervention) arm were included whether or not they completed the intervention.||||.011
84516385|NCT01097577|168786415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||This study was designed to determine if pregabalin is an effective regimen for postoperative pain control following PRK. We hypothesized that there will be at least a 10% improvement in pain after PRK using a scheduled pregabalin dosing regimen compared to placebo. A power analysis was completed to determine the number of patients necessary.||||0.180
84516386|NCT01097577|168786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.207
84516387|NCT01097577|168786417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
84457921|NCT00348140|168668151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.2|0.739
84457922|NCT00348140|168668151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||2.4|-0.8|0.343
84457923|NCT00348140|168668152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|0.783
84457924|NCT00348140|168668152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.1|0.940
84457925|NCT00348140|168668153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.8|-1.1|=0.763
84457926|NCT00348140|168668153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|=0.800
84457927|NCT00348140|168668154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.7|0.611
84457928|NCT00348140|168668154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.6|0.741
84457929|NCT00348140|168668155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.913
84457930|NCT00348140|168668155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.481
84457931|NCT00348140|168668156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.4|0.557
84457932|NCT00348140|168668156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.404
84457933|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.5|0.633
84516388|NCT01097577|168786418|SUPERIORITY|Question 1: Pain at its worst||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.223
84457934|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.4|0.575
84516389|NCT01097577|168786419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.311
84725940|NCT00237718|169204001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84725941|NCT00237718|169204002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84516390|NCT01097577|168786420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OD||||0.581
84516391|NCT01097577|168786420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OS||||0.307
84516392|NCT00748072|168786421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated by the difference in post-biopsy bleeding complications. Since the presence of bleeding was demonstrated in about 30-40 % in our previous observational study, we hypothesized a reduction risk of 0.50 and an absolute reduction of risk from 0.40 to 0.20. The sample size of the study for a power of 0.80 and a significance level \<0.05 was calculated in 158 patients.||0.85|0.24|0.01
84725942|NCT04908488|169204003|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Means Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Within subject correlation due to eye and the crossover design were accounted for in the model.|Lens difference (P1fA minus AMfA)|||-0.01||
84457935|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-0.6|0.820
84457936|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.6|-0.7|0.908
84457937|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.1|-0.3|0.292
84457938|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.7|0.978
84457939|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||1.0|-0.6|0.691
84457940|NCT00348140|168668157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.8|-0.9|0.849
84457941|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.938
84457942|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.887
84457943|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.465
84457944|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.3|-0.2|0.596
84457945|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.452
84457946|NCT00348140|168668158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.429
84516393|NCT00199901|168786426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.568||||||||1.568|0.532|
84457947|NCT00348140|168668159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.386
84516394|NCT00199901|168786428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.455||||||||1.455|0.532|
84457948|NCT00348140|168668159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.999
84516395|NCT00199901|168786429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.614||||||||1.614|0.514|
84457949|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||2.5|-0.2|0.090
84457950|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||1.3|-1.3|0.957
84516396|NCT04517604|168786441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.984||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|6.47||no adjustment for multiple comparisons as was a pilot|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-16.52|.343
84516397|NCT04517604|168786442|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study funded under a pilot funding mechanism which specifically did not require a power analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.77||no test for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was an open-label, single group study using a within subject design. We compared pre-treatment values to post-treatment values.||-.77|-2.63|.0026
84516398|NCT05511935|168786467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|9.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.06|-5.57|0.64
84457951|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||2.2|-0.9|0.395
84457952|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-2.5|0.275
84457953|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||3.4|0.1|0.039
84457954|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.6|-1.8|0.895
84457955|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||2.3|-2.1|0.914
84457956|NCT00348140|168668160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||1.3|-3.2|0.430
84457957|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.583
84457958|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.631
84457959|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.1|-0.8|0.812
84516399|NCT05511935|168786468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|-2.28|0.47
84516400|NCT05511935|168786469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|6.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.11|-10.77|0.59
84457960|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.0|-0.9|0.952
84457961|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 24||0.2|-2.1|0.117
84457962|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.1|-2.1|0.074
84457963|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.3|-2.4|0.141
84457964|NCT00348140|168668161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.7|-2.1|0.331
84516401|NCT05511935|168786470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|-12.61|0.77
84457965|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||11.2|-2.9|0.251
84457966|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||13.2|-1.4|0.113
84516402|NCT05511935|168786471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.47|-17.95|<0.001
84516403|NCT05511935|168786472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.34|-2.10|0.39
84516404|NCT05511935|168786473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.24|-14.52|<0.01
84516405|NCT05511935|168786474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|5.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.23|-10.90|0.49
84516406|NCT05511935|168786476|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.35|||Regression, Linear|||||18.35|-2.92|0.15
84516407|NCT05511935|168786477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.99|||Regression, Linear|||||8.99|-8.13|0.92
84516408|NCT05511935|168786478|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|19.49|||Regression, Linear|||||19.49|-4.17|0.20
84516409|NCT05511935|168786479|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.15|12.56|||Regression, Linear|||||12.56|-31.15|0.39
84516410|NCT05710718|168786504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||paired T-test|No formal hypothesis test was planned for this pilot study. P-values are provided for exploratory purposes and are unadjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.076
84516411|NCT02832063|168786541|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy power calculations assume a \>25% difference between B244 treatment and placebo and a 15% dropout. Each of the endpoints comprising the co-primary endpoint will be tested at an alpha level of p\<0.05. In order to achieve 90% power with a 5% Type I error rate, a total of 372 participants is required.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
84516412|NCT00772603|168786556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-5.8||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-5.80|-30.40|=0.003
84516413|NCT00772603|168786556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.3|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.2||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||1.20|-22.30|=0.078
84516414|NCT00772603|168786557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.3||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-6.30|-33.00|=0.003
84516415|NCT00772603|168786557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.3|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||9.70|-16.20|=0.589
84516416|NCT00772603|168786558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|3.494|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||3.494|1.126|=0.018
84516417|NCT00772603|168786558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.075||95.0|0.95|2.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||2.937|0.950|=0.075
84457967|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||10.2|-7.1|0.723
84457968|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||13.2|-6.3|0.482
84516418|NCT00772603|168786559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.013
84516419|NCT00772603|168786559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.528||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.528
84516420|NCT00772603|168786560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.008
84516421|NCT00772603|168786560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0546||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.0546
84516422|NCT00836004|168786561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.69||||||90.0|93.88|105.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.85|93.88|
84516423|NCT00836004|168786562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.62|102.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.19|90.62|
84516424|NCT00836004|168786563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.17||||||90.0|92.14|102.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.48|92.14|
84516425|NCT02826694|168786570|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T3||||0.168
84457969|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||12.6|-9.5|0.785
84457970|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||13.8|-9.4|0.711
84457971|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.2|-7.2|0.484
84457972|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.4|-8.5|0.572
84457973|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||17.3|-3.6|0.197
84457974|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||18.4|-3.5|0.183
84457975|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||22.6|-2.6|0.121
84457976|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||19.3|-5.8|0.291
84516426|NCT02826694|168786570|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T4||||0.026
84516427|NCT00859521|168786590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.7||||||90.0|92.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|92.4|
84516428|NCT00859521|168786591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|96.9|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|96.9|
84457977|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|22.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||22.9|-8.9|0.389
84457978|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||12.6|-15.0|0.865
84457979|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||19.6|-11.3|0.596
84457980|NCT00348140|168668162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||14.2|-14.7|0.975
84457981|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||-0.1|-4.7|0.043
84516429|NCT00859521|168786592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.8||||||90.0|97.2|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|97.2|
84516430|NCT01609257|168786593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.674
84516431|NCT01609257|168786600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84516432|NCT01609257|168786601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 1||||0.008
84516433|NCT01609257|168786601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 2||||0.037
84516434|NCT01609257|168786602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.199
84516435|NCT01609257|168786603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||||||Comparison of % Positive|Fisher Exact|||Any Day 1 to 30||||0.562
84457982|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||0.1|-4.5|0.056
84457983|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||2.1|-2.8|0.758
84457984|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||0.5|-4.5|0.109
84457985|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.0|-5.2|0.050
84457986|NCT00348140|168668163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.9|-6.0|0.009
84457987|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.03|-0.02|0.662
84457988|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.02|-0.03|0.503
84457989|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.03|-0.03|0.892
84516436|NCT02125461|168786626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.65|0.42|<0.0001
84717770|NCT03990883|169185305|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|7.52||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||7.52|-8.42|0.009
84726462|NCT03345407|169204821|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.539|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.539|0.800|
84457990|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.00|-0.05|0.083
84457991|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.05|0.366
84457992|NCT00348140|168668164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.03|0.769
84457993|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.3|-0.7|0.529
84457994|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.4|-0.7|0.620
84516437|NCT02125461|168786627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.87|0.53|0.00251
84457995|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.3|-1.0|0.284
84457996|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.9|-0.4|0.488
84457997|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 48||1.0|-0.5|0.549
84457998|NCT00348140|168668165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.9|-0.6|0.780
84457999|NCT00348140|168668166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.106
84458000|NCT00348140|168668166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.2|0.229
84458001|NCT00348140|168668167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.324
84458002|NCT00348140|168668167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.987
84458003|NCT00348140|168668168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|0.00|0.038
84458004|NCT00348140|168668168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
84458005|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.3|-0.4|0.748
84458006|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.617
84458007|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.3|-0.5|0.708
84516438|NCT02125461|168786628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis performed using Fisher's exact test with mid p-value modification by subtracting half of the probability of the observed table from Fisher's p-value.||||<0.001
84516439|NCT02125461|168786632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
84516440|NCT02125461|168786633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value generated based on z-test where z-test statistic is the ratio of the log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by the square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance was estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||||||0.005
84516441|NCT02125461|168786634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
84516442|NCT02125461|168786635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.18|0.77|0.664
84540505|NCT02201277|168832040|EQUIVALENCE|rate of penetration||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.0
84458008|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.400
84458009|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.928
84458010|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.1|0.178
84726463|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.30|0.21|
84458011|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.626
84458012|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.608
84458013|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.865
84458014|NCT00348140|168668181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.8|-0.1|0.149
84458015|NCT00619957|168668182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|5.6|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.60|3.46|<0.0001
84458016|NCT00619957|168668183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.47|1.66|<0.0001
84458017|NCT00619957|168668184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||4.16|2.19|<0.0001
84458018|NCT00619957|168668185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|5.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.66|3.49|<0.0001
84458019|NCT00619957|168668186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||0.99|-0.19|0.1856
84458020|NCT00619957|168668187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.25|0.05|0.0346
84458021|NCT00619957|168668188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.41|0.98|<0.0001
84458022|NCT00619957|168668189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.17|0.76|<0.0001
84516443|NCT02125461|168786636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for dyspnea. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.29|0.88|0.522
84458023|NCT00619957|168668190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.36|-0.36|0.2538
84458024|NCT00619957|168668191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.74|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.74|-0.01|0.0537
84458025|NCT00619957|168668192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.15|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.15|0.32|0.0081
84458026|NCT00619957|168668193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.94|0.18|0.0187
84458027|NCT00619957|168668194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.34|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.34|-0.19|0.1408
84458028|NCT00619957|168668195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.92|0.23|0.0129
84458029|NCT00619957|168668196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.26|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.26|1.35|<0.0001
84458030|NCT00619957|168668197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.08|1.22|<0.0001
84516444|NCT02125461|168786636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for cough. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.12|0.74|0.380
84516445|NCT02125461|168786636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for hemoptysis. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.00|0.56|0.048
84516446|NCT02125461|168786636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for chest pain. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.19|0.75|0.626
84516447|NCT02888756|168786640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed for week 6, to provide statistical information for decision on execution of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS).||||0.14
84458031|NCT00619957|168668198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|-35.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-35.67|-51.52|<0.0001
84458032|NCT00619957|168668199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|-31.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-31.43|-58.01|<0.0001
84458033|NCT00619957|168668200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.99|-28.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-28.67|-55.99|<0.0001
84458034|NCT00619957|168668201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.38|-33.72|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.72|-59.38|<0.0001
84458035|NCT00619957|168668202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.01|-33.29|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.29|-57.01|<0.0001
84458036|NCT00619957|168668203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.43|-8.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-8.32|-23.43|<0.0001
84516448|NCT00834132|168786656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.81||||||90.0|84.77|106.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.04|84.77|
84516449|NCT00834132|168786657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.89||||||90.0|96.0|106.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.03|96.00|
84516450|NCT00834132|168786658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.14||||||90.0|96.05|106.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.49|96.05|
84516451|NCT03552484|168786689|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group paired t-tests and between-group paired t-tests||||0.59
84458037|NCT00619957|168668204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-12.91|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-12.91|-31.08|<0.0001
84458038|NCT00619957|168668205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.75|-13.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-13.17|-30.75|<0.0001
84516452|NCT03552484|168786690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between-group comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84516453|NCT03552484|168786691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group comparison of change in Multidimensional Caregiver Strain Index|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
84516454|NCT01592240|168786781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.06|-23.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-23.50|-45.06|<0.001
84516455|NCT01592240|168786781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-45.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-34.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-34.21|-55.93|<0.001
84516456|NCT01592240|168786781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.14|-42.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-42.70|-64.14|<0.001
84516457|NCT01592240|168786781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-14.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-14.67|-40.49|<0.001
84458039|NCT00619957|168668206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.02|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-6.02|-24.20|0.0012
84717771|NCT03990883|169185306|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.11||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.11|-3.85|<0.0001
84458040|NCT00619957|168668207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-7.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-7.49|-25.24|0.0003
84458041|NCT00619957|168668208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-11.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-11.99|-19.29|<0.0001
84458042|NCT00619957|168668209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|-16.59|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.59|-25.61|<0.0001
84458043|NCT00619957|168668210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.98|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.98|-27.80|<0.0001
84458044|NCT00619957|168668211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-16.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.47|-39.84|<0.0001
84458045|NCT00619957|168668212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-16.87|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.87|-37.63|<0.0001
84458046|NCT00619957|168668213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.71|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.71|-1.99|0.8794
84458047|NCT00619957|168668214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.67|-2.62|0.6658
84458048|NCT00619957|168668215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.81|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.81|-2.39|0.7840
84516458|NCT01592240|168786781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-44.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.65|-32.05|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.05|-57.65|<0.001
84458049|NCT00619957|168668216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||||<0.0001
84458050|NCT00619957|168668217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.771||||0.7284||95.0|0.184|3.226|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.226|0.184|0.7284
84458051|NCT00619957|168668218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.688||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.932|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.932|0.245|0.5293
84458052|NCT00868790|168668219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-17.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.3|-6.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-6.1|-28.3|0.013
84458053|NCT00868790|168668219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-12.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-12.4|-34.5|<0.001
84458054|NCT00868790|168668219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-25.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-25.0|-44.8|<0.001
84458055|NCT00868790|168668220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-5.4|-17.5|0.002
84458056|NCT00868790|168668220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-15.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-15.8|-27.8|<0.001
84458057|NCT00868790|168668220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-30.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-30.0|-42.0|<0.001
84458058|NCT00868790|168668220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.0|-10.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-10.1|-30.0|0.001
84717772|NCT03990883|169185307|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.16||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.16|-4.05|<0.0001
84717773|NCT05412004|169185371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|-14.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.20|-25.82|<0.001
84717774|NCT05412004|169185371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-17.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-17.93|-29.61|<0.001
84516459|NCT01592240|168786782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|-17.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-17.67|-39.15|<0.001
84458059|NCT00868790|168668221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-14.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|3.2|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||3.2|-33.0|0.174
84458060|NCT00868790|168668221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-2.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-2.4|-38.4|0.063
84458061|NCT00868790|168668221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.4|-59.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-59.8|-96.4|<0.001
84458062|NCT00868790|168668221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.9|-31.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-31.8|-66.9|<0.001
84458063|NCT00868790|168668222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.8||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.1|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||3.1|-4.6|0.742
84458064|NCT00868790|168668222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.4|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||8.4|0.6|0.060
84458065|NCT00868790|168668222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|11.7|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||11.7|3.8|0.002
84458066|NCT00868790|168668222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-3.9||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|2.3|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||2.3|-10.2|0.248
84458067|NCT01763164|168668225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.80|0.47|< 0.001
84458068|NCT01763164|168668226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log rank test.||1.33|0.75|0.499
84458069|NCT01763164|168668227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.015
84516460|NCT01592240|168786782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-43.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-32.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.51|-53.90|<0.001
84458070|NCT01763164|168668227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR + Unconfirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.002
84458071|NCT01763164|168668240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.96|
84516461|NCT01592240|168786782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-30.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-30.41|-51.66|<0.001
84516462|NCT01592240|168786782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-13.84|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-13.84|-33.70|<0.001
84516463|NCT01592240|168786782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.24|-20.49|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-20.49|-40.24|<0.001
84516464|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-25.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.10|-44.91|<0.001
84516465|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-32.33|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-32.33|-52.30|<0.001
84516466|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.97|-43.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-43.27|-62.97|<0.001
84516467|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.25|-15.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-15.67|-38.25|<0.001
84458072|NCT01763164|168668243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.06|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test and Cox PH model were stratified by American joint committee on cancer stage, prior line immunotherapy and ECOG performance status. P-value was one tailed and was based on the log-rank score test. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.||4.06|1.19|0.995
84458073|NCT03377634|168668246|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS Pain intensity, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain intensity||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84458074|NCT03377634|168668247|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS pain interference, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain interference||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.99
84458075|NCT03377634|168668248|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in SPPB, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline SPPB||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.14
84458076|NCT03377634|168668249|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in weight, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline weight||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.11
84458077|NCT03377634|168668250|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in activity time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline stepping time||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.65
84458078|NCT03377634|168668251|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sitting time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline sitting time||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
84458079|NCT03377634|168668252|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sit to stand transitions, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline transitions||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.28
84458080|NCT01264939|168668255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-3.08||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.08|-5.97|<0.0001
84458081|NCT01264939|168668256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.86||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-6.86|-13.17|<0.0001
84458082|NCT01264939|168668257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-4.07||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.07|-7.72|<0.0001
84458083|NCT01264939|168668258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.68||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||2.68|1.47|<0.0001
84458084|NCT01264939|168668259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84458085|NCT01264939|168668260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84458086|NCT01264939|168668261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.96||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.96|-7.25|<0.0001
84516468|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-29.94|-52.32|<0.001
84458087|NCT01264939|168668262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-3.06||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.06|-6.28|<0.0001
84458088|NCT01264939|168668263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||0.0006
84516469|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.42|-19.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.77|-38.42|<0.001
84516470|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-40.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.43|-30.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-30.86|-49.43|<0.001
84458089|NCT01264939|168668264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84458090|NCT01171612|168668279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.299|||Chi-squared|||Reference group were patients who maintained antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and/or clopidogrel) during the 4 days before surgery||2.299|0.513|0.479
84458091|NCT01171612|168668279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.638||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|3.662|||Chi-squared|||||3.662|0.733|0.479
84458092|NCT00854828|168668280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84458093|NCT00996203|168668292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||EQ-5D scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84458094|NCT00996203|168668295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||General health at baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84458095|NCT00996203|168668297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline Versus Week 24 DAS28 scores|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84458096|NCT00996203|168668299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Mean HAQ scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84458097|NCT03094195|168668313|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.9|-1.3|0.689
84458098|NCT03094195|168668313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.6|-1.6|0.350
84458099|NCT03094195|168668317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.908
84458100|NCT03094195|168668317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.609
84458101|NCT03094195|168668318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.800
84458102|NCT03094195|168668318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.653
84458103|NCT03094195|168668320|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-0.4|0.225
84458104|NCT03094195|168668320|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.0|0.914
84458105|NCT02116621|168668332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.19|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.19|-2.91|
84458106|NCT02116621|168668333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: -0.79 (-2.37 to 0.80); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.36 (-2.91 to 0.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.16 (-1.47 to 1.79)|||0.21
84458107|NCT02116621|168668334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.31 (-1.18 to 1.81); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.41 (-2.87 to 0.06); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.24 (-2.77 to 0.30)|||0.06
84458108|NCT02116621|168668335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks:-0.66 (-2.55 to 1.24); baseline to 26 weeks: 0.93 (-0.92 to 2.79); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.76 (-1.19 to 2.70)|||0.35
84458109|NCT02116621|168668336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.30 (-1.01 to 1.61); baseline to 26 weeks: -0.17 (-1.45 to 1.12); baseline to 52 weeks: -0.26 (-1.61 to 1.09)|||0.86
84458110|NCT02116621|168668337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.05 (-2.54 to 4.64); baseline to 26 weeks: 1.90 (-1.66 to 5.47); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.08 (-3.61 to 3.77).|||0.70
84458111|NCT02116621|168668338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 4.24 (-2.73 to 11.20); baseline to 26 weeks: 4.64 (-2.25 to 11.54); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.91 (-9.07 to 5.26).|||0.20
84458112|NCT02116621|168668339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.76 (-2.37 to 5.89); baseline to 26 weeks: 2.55 (-1.50 to 6.60); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.53 (-2.70 to 5.77).|||0.66
84458113|NCT02116621|168668340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 7.77 (-2.87 to 18.42); baseline to 26 weeks: 7.29 (-3.16 to 17.75); baseline to 52 weeks: 4.13 (-6.81 to 15.07).|||0.44
84458114|NCT02116621|168668341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 2.15 (-2.84 to 7.13); baseline to 26 weeks: 3.31 (-1.57 to 8.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.00 (-4.11 to 6.11).|||0.58
84458115|NCT02116621|168668342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.81 (-4.41 to 8.02); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.57 (-7.68 to 4.54); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.11 (-5.27 to 7.48).|||0.73
84458116|NCT02116621|168668343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.06|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.06|-2.87|
84458117|NCT02116621|168668344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.79|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|2.79|-0.92|
84458118|NCT02116621|168668345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.12|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|1.12|-1.45|
84458119|NCT02116621|168668346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.47|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|5.47|-1.66|
84458120|NCT02116621|168668347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|11.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|11.54|-2.25|
84458121|NCT02116621|168668348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|6.60|-1.50|
84458122|NCT02116621|168668349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|17.75|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|17.75|-3.16|
84458123|NCT02116621|168668350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.19|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|8.19|-1.57|
84458124|NCT02116621|168668351|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|4.54|-7.68|
84458125|NCT02116621|168668352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|21.24|||Regression, Linear|||||21.24|2.59|0.01
84458126|NCT02116621|168668353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.8|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||0.80|-2.37|
84458127|NCT02116621|168668354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.81|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.81|-1.18|
84458128|NCT02116621|168668355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.61|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.61|-1.01|
84458129|NCT02116621|168668356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.24|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.24|-2.55|
84458130|NCT02116621|168668357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.64|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||4.64|-2.54|
84516471|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.37|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-29.94|-48.37|<0.001
84717775|NCT05412004|169185372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-47.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.76|-29.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-29.55|-65.76|<0.001
84458131|NCT02116621|168668358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|11.2|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||11.20|-2.73|
84458132|NCT02116621|168668359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|5.89|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||5.89|-2.37|
84458133|NCT02116621|168668360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|18.42|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||18.42|-2.87|
84458134|NCT02116621|168668361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.13|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||7.13|-2.84|
84458135|NCT02116621|168668362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|8.02|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||8.02|-4.41|
84458136|NCT02116621|168668363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.79|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.79|-1.47|
84458137|NCT02116621|168668364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.3|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||0.30|-2.77|
84458138|NCT02116621|168668365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.09|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.09|-1.61|
84458139|NCT02116621|168668366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.7|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||2.70|-1.19|
84458140|NCT02116621|168668367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||3.77|-3.61|
84458141|NCT02116621|168668368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.26|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.26|-9.07|
84458142|NCT02116621|168668369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.77|-2.70|
84516472|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-14.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-14.70|-32.88|<0.001
84516473|NCT01592240|168786783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.13|-20.04|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.04|-38.13|<0.001
84458143|NCT02116621|168668370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|15.07|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||15.07|-6.81|
84458144|NCT02116621|168668371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.11|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||6.11|-4.11|
84458145|NCT02116621|168668372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|7.48|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||7.48|-5.27|
84458146|NCT02116621|168668373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||||18.96|-0.15|0.054
84458147|NCT01412957|168668374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.59||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|The primary hypothesis was that panitumumab plus BSC would improve overall survival compared to BSC alone. A comparison between treatments was performed using the log-rank test stratified by the randomization factors at a 5% significance level.||||0.0096
84458148|NCT01412957|168668375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-6.08|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the ITT Analysis Set was tested at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect on overall survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||<0.0001
84458149|NCT01412957|168668376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.47||||0.0135|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|Overall survival in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect for progression-free survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||0.0135
84458150|NCT01412957|168668377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-5.98|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was to be compared at a significance level of 5% if overall survival in the wild-type RAS Efficacy Anaysis Set demonstrated a significant treatment effect.||||<0.0001
84458151|NCT01412957|168668378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.47|123.77|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||123.77|7.47|<0.0001
84458152|NCT01412957|168668379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|101.62|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||101.62|5.89|<0.0001
84516474|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.64||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.63|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.63|-1.35|0.281
84516475|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.73||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|4.71|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.71|-1.24|0.251
84516476|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.53||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.50|-2.43|0.724
84516477|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|7.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.70|1.21|0.007
84717776|NCT05412004|169185372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-56.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.73|-38.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-38.70|-73.73|<0.001
84717777|NCT05412004|169185373|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|54.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.79|30.76|<0.001
84717778|NCT05412004|169185373|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|60.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.65|36.55|<0.001
84458153|NCT01870739|168668409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0616||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4178|0.2947|||Linear Model|Treatment as fixed effect and corresponding baseline as covariate.||||0.2947|-0.4178|0.7324
84458154|NCT01870739|168668410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4582|0.3839|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.3839|-0.4582|0.8614
84516478|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.09|0.63|0.019
84516479|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.51|-1.07|0.225
84516480|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.79||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.97|0.571
84516481|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.49||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-2.25|0.725
84717779|NCT05412004|169185374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|39.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.22|18.27|<.001
84458155|NCT01870739|168668411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0812||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6987|0.5362|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.5362|-0.6987|0.7946
84458156|NCT01986062|168668419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458157|NCT01986062|168668420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458158|NCT01986062|168668421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458159|NCT01986062|168668422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458160|NCT01986062|168668423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458161|NCT01986062|168668424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84458162|NCT01565980|168668447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the comparison of least square (LS) means represent the effect of the trial arm. The effect sizes are calculated as Cohen's d: difference between LS means divided by the standard deviation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analyzed using linear mixed effects models (LME). The main effect of the trial arm was evaluated by averaging time 2 and time 3 values of the outcomes within the LME model. The resulting least square (LS) means and their standard errors are reported.||||<.05
84458163|NCT01565980|168668448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84458164|NCT01565980|168668449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84458165|NCT01565980|168668450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84458166|NCT01565980|168668451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84458167|NCT01565980|168668452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84458168|NCT01565980|168668453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Descriptive statistics for outcomes|||||||<0.05
84458169|NCT02338843|168668479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified logistic regression model. Adjusted by baseline MAP and APACHE II, vasopressin use and average NED 6 hours prior to randomization.||||13.3|4.76|<0.001
84458170|NCT02300129|168668490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||P value associated to treatment effect in the model. Study design with a power of 80% and a type I error at 5% (two-sided).|ANOVA|Analysis of variance including sequence, subject (sequence), period and treatment as factors in the model||||||0.7420
84458171|NCT00432237|168668526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458172|NCT00432237|168668526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458173|NCT00432237|168668527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458174|NCT00432237|168668527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458175|NCT00432237|168668528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458176|NCT00432237|168668528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458177|NCT00432237|168668529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458178|NCT00432237|168668529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458179|NCT00432237|168668530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458180|NCT00432237|168668530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458181|NCT00432237|168668531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84717780|NCT05412004|169185374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.12|44.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.31|22.12|<0.001
84458182|NCT00432237|168668531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458183|NCT00432237|168668532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458184|NCT00432237|168668532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84516482|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.57|-1.56|0.268
84458185|NCT00432237|168668533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458186|NCT00432237|168668533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
84458187|NCT02348099|168668547|OTHER|"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of Glucose between injection sites. In the third phase, area under the curve will be measured to determine differences between insulin absorption levels. Statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS version 15.0.0 and SAS version 8.2 A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of glucose between injection sited.~If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that any changes witnessed in an experiment are because of random chance and not because of changes made to variables in the experiment. A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|a P-Value is \<0.01|||<0.01
84458188|NCT02157883|168668555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|79.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.15|87.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||87.21|73.15|
84458189|NCT02157883|168668556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|124.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.61|134.53|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||134.53|114.61|
84458190|NCT02157883|168668563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|75.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|89.69|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||89.69|64.18|
84516483|NCT01592240|168786784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.54|-3.55|0.996
84458191|NCT02157883|168668564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|124.19|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||124.19|94.36|
84516484|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.41||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.21|-2.38|0.246
84458192|NCT02157883|168668565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.94|49.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||49.21|39.94|
84458193|NCT02157883|168668566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|49.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.7|54.99|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||54.99|43.70|
84458194|NCT03155997|168668567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.00957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.932|||Log Rank|Stratified by Interactive Web Response Systems (IWRS) Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.932|0.598|0.00957
84458195|NCT03155997|168668569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.92|||||Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.920|0.559|
84516485|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.62||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.38|-3.14|0.371
84516486|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.10|-4.40|0.643
84516487|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.66||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.99|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.99|1.33|0.018
84717781|NCT05412004|169185375|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-70.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.619|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.94|-49.31||||||||-49.31|-90.94|
84516488|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.52||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|12.83|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.83|0.22|0.043
84516489|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|9.36|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.36|-1.56|0.160
84516490|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.85||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|6.25|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.25|-4.56|0.758
84516491|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.57||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.95|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||7.95|-2.81|0.347
84717782|NCT05412004|169185375|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-61.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.66|-37.93||||||||-37.93|-84.66|
84458196|NCT01111305|168668596|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as p≥0.05||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
84458197|NCT04258579|168668603|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|19.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|22.67||||||||22.67|15.59|
84458198|NCT04258579|168668603|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.24||||||||21.24|12.50|
84458199|NCT04258579|168668603|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|18.76||||||||18.76|11.24|
84516492|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.99||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.21|-3.22|0.343
84458200|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|24.5||||||||24.50|19.70|
84458201|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|21.8||||||||21.80|18.00|
84458202|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.68|10.18||||||||10.18|7.68|
84458203|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|26.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.32|28.94||||||||28.94|24.32|
84458204|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 1|22.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|25.23||||||||25.23|19.87|
84458205|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 2|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|23.13||||||||23.13|18.87|
84458206|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 3|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|9.99||||||||9.99|7.39|
84458207|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 4|27.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|29.69||||||||29.69|25.07|
84516493|NCT01592240|168786785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.48|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.48|-6.87|0.824
84458208|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 1|22.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|25.06||||||||25.06|20.18|
84516494|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-11.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-11.67|-25.44|<0.001
84516495|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-20.79|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.79|-34.55|<0.001
84717783|NCT05412004|169185376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.03||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-0.12|-3.95|0.037
84516496|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.95|-25.22|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.22|-38.95|<0.001
84516497|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.89|-6.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-6.24|-22.89|<0.001
84717784|NCT05412004|169185376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Related Impairment||-1.17|-5.69|0.003
84458209|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 2|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.84|23.32||||||||23.32|19.84|
84458210|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 3|9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|10.46||||||||10.46|7.92|
84458211|NCT04258579|168668604|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 4|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.53|30.09||||||||30.09|25.53|
84458212|NCT04258579|168668605|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline|22.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.56|25.34||||||||25.34|19.56|
84458213|NCT04258579|168668605|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|20.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.65|23.41||||||||23.41|17.65|
84458214|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 1|19.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.24|22.54||||||||22.54|17.24|
84458215|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 2|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.72|25.2||||||||25.20|19.72|
84458216|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 3|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.72|18.28||||||||18.28|13.72|
84458217|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 4|17.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|20.24||||||||20.24|15.34|
84458218|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.05|26.53||||||||26.53|19.05|
84458219|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|30.44||||||||30.44|22.96|
84458220|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|17.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.57|20.33||||||||20.33|14.57|
84458221|NCT04258579|168668606|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.23|23.15||||||||23.15|18.23|
84458222|NCT02076165|168668609|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of participants who completed all 5 treatment sessions, comparing ABC-I to CBT-I.||||=.120
84458223|NCT02076165|168668610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual bed time. Negative values indicate the number of minutes earlier than the recommended bed time that the participant went to bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||6.32|-7.75|=.843
84516498|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.83|-20.16|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.16|-36.83|<0.001
84516499|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-12.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-12.27|-27.07|<0.001
84516500|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.52|-20.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.82|-35.52|<0.001
84516501|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.73|-18.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-18.09|-32.73|<0.001
84516502|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-6.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-6.09|-19.35|<0.001
84516503|NCT01592240|168786786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|-10.23|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-10.23|-23.47|<0.001
84516504|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.23|-13.92|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-13.92|-29.23|<0.001
84516505|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-22.89|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-22.89|-38.19|<0.001
84516506|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.59|-28.31|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-28.31|-43.59|<0.001
84516507|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|-8.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-8.41|-25.87|<0.001
84458224|NCT02076165|168668611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual rise time. Positive values indicate the number of minutes later than the recommended rise time that the participant got out of bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||7.35|-12.91|=0.590
84458225|NCT02076165|168668612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|=|0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis||The proportion of nights participants who did not follow the recommendation to get out of bed if awake more than 20 minutes. Higher numbers indicate greater non-adherence.|||0.096|-0.093|=0.979
84458226|NCT02076165|168668613|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.74|-2.92|=0.004
84458227|NCT02076165|168668614|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||4.23|-2.72|.003
84516508|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.45|-21.98|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-21.98|-39.45|<0.001
84516509|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-13.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-13.86|-30.32|<0.001
84458228|NCT02076165|168668615|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||2.57|-1.21|<0.001
84516510|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.13|-22.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-22.77|-39.13|<0.001
84516511|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-19.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.09|-35.38|<0.001
84516512|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.78|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-7.78|-22.90|<0.001
84516513|NCT01592240|168786787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-11.59|-26.70|<0.001
84516514|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.77||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|9.88|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.88|-6.33|0.667
84516515|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|13.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.54|-2.66|0.187
84516516|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|11.9|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.90|-4.25|0.352
84516517|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|12.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.09|-0.89|0.090
84516518|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.36||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||10.82|-2.10|0.184
84516519|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.59||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|8.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.28|-7.09|0.879
84516520|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|8.02|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.02|-7.17|0.911
84516521|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|11.69|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||11.69|-3.44|0.283
84516522|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|6.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.59|-9.41|0.728
84516523|NCT01592240|168786788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.75|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.75|-10.13|0.587
84516524|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|8.74|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.74|-10.05|0.890
84516525|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.32||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|11.68|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.68|-7.04|0.625
84726464|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.76|
84516526|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.54||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|15.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||15.94|-2.86|0.172
84458229|NCT02076165|168668616|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.36|-1.14|<.001
84458230|NCT02076165|168668617|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.98|-0.98|=0.048
84458231|NCT02076165|168668618|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.17|-2.32|=0.008
84458232|NCT01756456|168668648|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|15.88|54.71|||Chi-squared|||Phase II||54.71|15.88|<0.001
84458233|NCT01756456|168668648|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|38.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|18.96|57.83|||Chi-squared|||||57.83|18.96|=0.001
84458234|NCT01756456|168668649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.8|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.66|47.87|||Chi-squared|||||47.87|3.66|=0.016
84458235|NCT01756456|168668649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.06|11.91|57.41|||Chi-squared|||||57.41|11.91|=0.002
84458236|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|2.4|||=|0.818|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-20.3|25.08|||Chi-squared|||At week 6 - reading center||25.08|-20.30|=0.818
84458237|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-6.3|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-30.62|17.96|||Chi-squared|||at week 6 - central reading center||17.96|-30.62|=0.571
84516527|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.5||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|7.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.80|-0.79|0.109
84516528|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.67||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||6.94|-1.60|0.218
84717785|NCT05412004|169185376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-1.58|-6.21|<0.001
84458238|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-3.11|43.79|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||43.79|-3.11|=0.064
84458239|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-0.89|47.04|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||47.04|-0.89|=0.041
84458240|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.9|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.06|0.07|43.64|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||43.64|0.07|=0.031
84458241|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|26.9|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.06|5.57|48.28|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||48.28|5.57|=0.008
84458242|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.06|4.18|48.01|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.01|4.18|=0.011
84458243|NCT01756456|168668650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.9|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.55|48.33|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.33|3.55|=0.014
84458244|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.7|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|27.57|||Chi-squared|||week 4||27.57|-0.19|=0.065
84458245|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|26.78|||Chi-squared|||week 4||26.78|-2.05|=0.097
84516529|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|6.29|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.29|-8.01|0.812
84516530|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.94|-8.24|0.749
84516531|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.82||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|12.93|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||12.93|-1.29|0.108
84516532|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|4.34|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.34|-5.99|0.752
84516533|NCT01592240|168786789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.57|-6.68|0.550
84458246|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|31.92|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.92|1.97|=0.036
84458247|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.6|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.12|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.12|0.04|=0.054
84458248|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|17.1|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|32.72|||Chi-squared|||week 8||32.72|1.45|=0.043
84458249|NCT01756456|168668651|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.4|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|26.93|||Chi-squared|||week 8||26.93|-4.08|=0.157
84458250|NCT01756456|168668652|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|8.9|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.50|1.33|=0.022
84516534|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.0|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.00|-2.62|0.893
84458251|NCT01756456|168668652|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|5.0|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.88|||ANCOVA|||||12.88|-2.90|=0.213
84458252|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|5.5|||=|0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.48|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.48|-14.53|=0.592
84458253|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY|week 4|difference in percentage|-2.3|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.40|-24.01|=0.835
84458254|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.7|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|47.22|||Chi-squared|||week 6||47.22|8.10|=0.008
84458255|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|34.68|||Chi-squared|||week 6||34.68|-9.91|=0.282
84458256|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.2|||=|0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|29.45|||Chi-squared|||||29.45|-9.15|=0.303
84458257|NCT01756456|168668653|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|7.9|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|27.92|||Chi-squared|||week 8||27.92|-12.13|=0.442
84458258|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.6|||=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|17.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||17.71|-22.87|=0.597
84516535|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.33||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.15|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.15|-1.49|0.355
84516536|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.17|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.17|-3.45|0.655
84458259|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|18.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||18.71|-23.26|>0.999
84458260|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.8|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|13.76|||Chi-squared|||week 6||13.76|-28.70|=0.183
84717786|NCT05412004|169185376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-4.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep-Related Impairment||-1.56|-6.97|0.002
84458261|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.0|||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.41|11.88|||Chi-squared|||week 6||11.88|-31.41|=0.116
84458262|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.8|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|10.35|||Chi-squared|||week 8||10.35|-31.30|=0.134
84458263|NCT01756456|168668654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.9|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|13.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||13.52|-29.51|=0.307
84458264|NCT01756456|168668656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.62|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.62|1.03|=0.041
84458265|NCT01756456|168668656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.11|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.11|0.92|=0.081
84458266|NCT01756456|168668656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.88|||Chi-squared|||week 8||5.88|1.04|=0.040
84458267|NCT01756456|168668656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||4.52|0.82|=0.132
84458268|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.8|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|33.97|||Chi-squared|||week 4||33.97|-2.36|=0.097
84458269|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.2|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|32.15|||Chi-squared|||week 4||32.15|-5.72|=0.175
84458270|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|37.0|||Chi-squared|||week 6||37.00|-3.11|=0.105
84458271|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.0|||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|31.57|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.57|-9.64|=0.300
84458272|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.5|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|46.67|||Chi-squared|||week 8||46.67|8.33|=0.008
84458273|NCT01756456|168668661|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|38.83|||Chi-squared|||week 8||38.83|-0.91|=0.068
84458274|NCT00813995|168668675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparison|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84458275|NCT03618030|168668680|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom PERMP-T scores.||||.0003
84458276|NCT00888238|168668685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.7|||<|0.001||90.0|1.47|1.93|||ANOVA|||||1.93|1.47|<0.001
84458277|NCT00888238|168668686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.3|||<|0.001||90.0|1.08|1.52|||ANOVA|||||1.52|1.08|<0.001
84458278|NCT01032629|168668711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.12|0.78|=0.4576
84458279|NCT01032629|168668711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.68|=0.0467
84516537|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.21|-3.20|0.719
84516538|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.41||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.12|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.12|-2.31|0.768
84516539|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.66||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.2|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.20|-0.88|0.199
84516540|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.41|-1.62|0.483
84516541|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.49|0.420
84516542|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.28|-2.67|0.488
84458280|NCT01032629|168668711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox proportional hazard method|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.03|0.75|0.1120
84516543|NCT01592240|168786790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.58|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.58|-2.36|0.694
84458281|NCT01032629|168668712|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.571|7.154|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||7.154|-1.571|=0.210
84458282|NCT01032629|168668712|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|8.504|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||8.504|-0.368|=0.072
84458283|NCT01032629|168668713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.97|0.67|
84458284|NCT01032629|168668713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.85|0.58|
84458285|NCT01032629|168668714|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.374|-0.429|
84458286|NCT01032629|168668714|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.731||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.731|-0.079|
84516544|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|10.29||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|42.3|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||42.30|-21.73|0.527
84516545|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|32.26|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.26|-31.49|0.981
84516546|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.72|32.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.80|-31.72|0.974
84458287|NCT01032629|168668715|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.940|0.800|
84458288|NCT01032629|168668715|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.910|0.770|
84458289|NCT01032629|168668716|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.755||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.755|0.599|
84458290|NCT01032629|168668716|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.328||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.328|0.160|
84458291|NCT01032629|168668717|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.177||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.177|-0.355|
84458292|NCT01032629|168668717|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.227||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.227|-0.405|
84458293|NCT01032629|168668718|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|-0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.374|-0.794|
84458294|NCT01032629|168668718|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.523||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.523|-0.945|
84458295|NCT01032629|168668719|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||95.0|-3.472|-2.454||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-2.454|-3.472|
84458296|NCT01032629|168668719|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.125|-3.103||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.103|-4.125|
84458297|NCT01032629|168668720|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.998|-1.914||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.914|-3.998|
84458298|NCT01032629|168668720|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.579|-3.484||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.484|-5.579|
84458299|NCT01032629|168668720|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|-0.205||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.205|-1.437|
84458300|NCT01032629|168668720|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|-1.007||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.007|-2.245|
84458301|NCT01032629|168668721|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.070|-0.040|
84458302|NCT01032629|168668721|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.080|-0.030|
84458303|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.259||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.259|0.105|
84516547|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.58||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||5.09|-8.25|0.640
84516548|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|7.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.77|-5.61|0.750
84516549|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|9.8||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|39.01|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||39.01|-19.41|0.509
84516550|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.69||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.76|26.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||26.38|-31.76|0.855
84516551|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.04||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|32.47|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||32.47|-26.39|0.839
84516552|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|2.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||2.59|-6.57|0.392
84516553|NCT01592240|168786791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.33||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-5.91|0.565
84717787|NCT05412004|169185377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-14.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.19|-17.99|<0.001
84458304|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.307||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.307|0.152|
84458305|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.065||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C)||0.065|0.031|
84458306|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.075||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.075|0.040|
84458307|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.17||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.170|0.046|
84458308|NCT01032629|168668722|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.226||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.226|0.102|
84458309|NCT01032629|168668723|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.076||||||||0.076|-0.040|
84458310|NCT01032629|168668723|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.023|
84458311|NCT00516919|168668724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.45|||=|0.51||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at post-treatment, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.51
84458312|NCT00516919|168668724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.69|||=|0.41||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at 6-month follow-up, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.41
84458313|NCT00723957|168668728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41||
84516554|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.997|56.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||56.020|3.997|<0.001
84717788|NCT05412004|169185377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-17.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-15.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-15.28|-19.29|<.001
84458314|NCT00723957|168668728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5735|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.5735
84458315|NCT00723957|168668729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10||
84458316|NCT00723957|168668729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.1750
84458317|NCT00723957|168668730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15||
84458318|NCT00723957|168668730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.316|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.316
84458319|NCT00723957|168668736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1|||Regression, Cox||β3T+ subgroup|||2.10||
84458320|NCT00723957|168668736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.9|||Regression, Cox||β3T- subgroup|||0.90||
84458321|NCT00723957|168668736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.4|||Regression, Cox||Overall population|||1.40||
84458322|NCT01360996|168668739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84458323|NCT01360996|168668740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84458324|NCT01360996|168668741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84458325|NCT01360996|168668742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84458326|NCT01360996|168668743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
84458327|NCT01360996|168668744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84458328|NCT01360996|168668745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
84458329|NCT01015833|168668765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.4|0.8|0.24
84458330|NCT01015833|168668767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.2|0.72|0.98
84458331|NCT01656772|168668772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d = -0.05. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \> 1.645 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted to take into account the correlation between multiple PVs on the same subject. The sample estimate of the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated as the Pearson sample correlation coefficient for all pairs of observations.|Farrington and Manning|||The primary effectiveness endpoint is the successful navigation and EGM recording of each pre-specified pulmonary vein (PV). The RF ablation treatment was not part of the investigational procedure. The null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a test statistic Z based on the Farrington and Manning likelihood score statistic with adjustment to take into account the correlation between multiple observations (PVs) on the same subject.||||0.0405
84458332|NCT01656772|168668773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d= 0.07. The one-sided null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a standard unpooled asymptotically normal test statistic. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \< -1.7046 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-statistic|||||||.0441
84458333|NCT01651780|168668774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.77||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.48|0.2692
84458334|NCT01651780|168668775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.89||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.64|0.4967
84458335|NCT00288574|168668848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||The proportion of patients successfully completing the trial in the fluoxetine and placebo groups was compared using the chi-squared statistic.||||0.57
84516555|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.615|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.984|308.328|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||308.328|7.984|<0.001
84516556|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.674|44.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||44.892|3.674|<0.001
84516557|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.107||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|7.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||7.401|1.304|0.010
84458336|NCT00288574|168668849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in body weight, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.75
84458337|NCT00288574|168668850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment of BDI in fluoxetine versus placebo groups||||0.007
84458338|NCT00288574|168668851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in BDI, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.79
84458339|NCT00288574|168668852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in RSES, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.69
84458340|NCT00288574|168668853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Q-LES-Q, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.78
84458341|NCT00288574|168668854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Drive for Thinness subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.19
84458342|NCT00288574|168668855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Bulimia subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.46
84458343|NCT00288574|168668856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Body Dissatisfaction subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.86
84458344|NCT00288574|168668857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Perfectionism subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.25
84458345|NCT00288574|168668858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on the YBC-EDS, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.26
84516558|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.402|15.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||15.225|2.402|<0.001
84516559|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.932|41.495|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||41.495|3.932|<0.001
84717789|NCT05412004|169185378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.21|0.752
84458346|NCT01817790|168668863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in Daily rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.13|-0.59|0.0024
84458347|NCT01817790|168668864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0057
84458348|NCT01817790|168668865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0009||95.0|-0.65|-0.17||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.17|-0.65|0.0009
84458349|NCT01817790|168668866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.02|-0.19|0.0117
84516560|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.886|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|163.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||163.335|8.330|<0.001
84516561|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.741|75.006|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||75.006|5.741|<0.001
84516562|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.219||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.061|18.764|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.764|2.061|0.001
84516563|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|18.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.693|2.060|0.001
84717790|NCT05412004|169185378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.51||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.57|0.350
84717791|NCT05412004|169185379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|-4.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-4.77|-10.48|<0.001
84458350|NCT01817790|168668867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0005||95.0|-0.23|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.23|0.0005
84458351|NCT01817790|168668868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.0023||95.0|-0.22|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/Watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.22|0.0023
84458352|NCT01817790|168668869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|-0.09||p-value was nor adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.09|-0.26|<0.0001
84458353|NCT01817790|168668870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0304||95.0|-0.18|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.18|0.0304
84458354|NCT01817790|168668871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0361||95.0|-0.19|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0361
84458355|NCT01817790|168668872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM iTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.50|0.0129
84458356|NCT01817790|168668873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.07||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in rNCSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.07|-0.22|0.0002
84516564|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.752|133.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||133.423|5.752|<0.001
84516565|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.783|367.564|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||367.564|13.783|<0.001
84516566|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.855|510.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||510.387|19.855|<0.001
84458357|NCT01817790|168668874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Using this test controlling for investigative site. The response variable lied on ordinal scale of measurement.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the end of treatment assessment of response between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||||0.0118
84458358|NCT01817790|168668875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in objective assessment of conjunctival redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||0.10|-0.12|0.8586
84458359|NCT01817790|168668876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.29||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in MiniRQLQ scores between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.29|-0.65|<0.0001
84458360|NCT01817790|168668877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Activities' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray||-0.30|-0.68|<0.0001
84516567|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516568|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.336|98.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.169|6.336|<0.001
84516569|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.094|353.742|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||353.742|18.094|<0.001
84516570|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.621|166.894|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||166.894|10.621|<0.001
84516571|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|98.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.075|1.396|0.023
84516572|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|299.817|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL||299.817|4.527|<0.001
84516573|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516574|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516575|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516576|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516577|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516578|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84458361|NCT01817790|168668878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.24||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Practical Problems' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.24|-0.64|<0.0001
84458362|NCT01817790|168668879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Nose Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.0001
84458363|NCT01817790|168668880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Eye Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
84458364|NCT01817790|168668881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Other Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.21|-0.64|<0.0001
84458365|NCT00891202|168668901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.82|-23.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitted with treatment and baseline spleen severity (low spleen severity: spleen volume less than or equal to \[\<=\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume, high spleen severity: spleen volume greater than \[\>\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume).||-23.24|-36.82|<0.0001
84458366|NCT04596891|168668918|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|F ratio|20.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio.|No control group, open trial for feasibility/safety||||<0.001
84458367|NCT04596891|168668918|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test (baseline to post-treatment)|paired-samples t-test|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|12.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.93|-1.79|0.002
84458368|NCT04596891|168668923|OTHER|ANOVA|F ratio|8.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio. If it exceeds the critical F ratio, the null hypothesis (no effect of time) is rejected.|||||<0.001
84516579|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516580|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84458369|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.029
84458370|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.047
84458371|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.016
84458372|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.340
84458373|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.040
84458374|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.036
84458375|NCT03532100|168668960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.028
84458376|NCT01252966|168668977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Longitudinal logistic regression with fitted generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate an overall treatment effect odds ratio including both the EOT and 6-month time points and relevant covariates (e.g., baseline smoking rate, age, Shipley IQ score). The study (n=213) had 80% power to detect small to medium effects on quit rates (corresponding to Cohen's one-sample d=0.38).||1.13|0.42|0.14
84458377|NCT01252966|168668979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
84516581|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516582|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.587||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
84516583|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
84516584|NCT01592240|168786805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
84516585|NCT03264092|168786829|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
84516586|NCT03264092|168786830|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
84516587|NCT03264092|168786831|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
84717792|NCT05412004|169185379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-0.65|-6.75|0.017
84458378|NCT01252966|168668980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
84458379|NCT01252966|168668981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Results would not survive correction for multiple hypothesis testing.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.033
84458380|NCT03275870|168668991|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||p value \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84458381|NCT03275870|168668992|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||P value of \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
84516588|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least means squares from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.06
84516589|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.008
84516590|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Week 12 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.07
84516591|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means.|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered as being significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates,||||0.003
84458382|NCT04854499|168669014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|2.136|||||HR along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by the stratification factors at randomization.|||2.136|0.809|
84458383|NCT04854499|168669018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.985||||||||1.985|0.603|
84516592|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates. .||||0.0002
84516593|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0007
84458384|NCT04854499|168669019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|2.147|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.147|0.449|
84458385|NCT04854499|168669019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|2.321|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.321|0.383|
84516594|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.15
84516595|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariate values.||||0.014
84540823|NCT03718832|168832729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1395364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734473|2.282927||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.282927|1.734473|<0.001
84458386|NCT03932812|168669049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.206
84458387|NCT03932812|168669050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.101
84516596|NCT00862563|168786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means s from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.1
84458388|NCT03932812|168669051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.836
84458389|NCT03932812|168669052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|The outcome for this analyses is use of emergency care.||||0.567
84458390|NCT03932812|168669053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.014
84458391|NCT03932812|168669054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.010
84458392|NCT03932812|168669055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.188
84458393|NCT03293654|168669065|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.39|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.39|1.18|
84458394|NCT03293654|168669065|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.22|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.22|1.03|
84458395|NCT03293654|168669065|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.24|||||Ratio of GLSM, EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.24|1.05|
84458396|NCT03293654|168669066|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator|1.22|1.09|
84516597|NCT00862563|168786833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison between mean values obtained for the topiramate and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.015
84516598|NCT00862563|168786833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference Week 12|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the zonisamide and placebo group for Week 12. Mixed models generated means were used in this analysis.||||0.784
84458397|NCT03293654|168669066|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.22|1.09|
84516599|NCT00862563|168786833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the levetiracetam and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.264
84516600|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.013
84540824|NCT03718832|168832729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.619982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2663507|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096575|2.143388||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.143388|1.096575|<0.001
84458398|NCT03293654|168669066|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||1.13|1|
84458399|NCT03293654|168669073|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.07|||||MB02 in numerator and EU Avastin in denominator|||1.07|0.962|
84458400|NCT03293654|168669073|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.13|||||MB02 is numerator and US Avastin is denominator|||1.13|0.996|
84458401|NCT03293654|168669073|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.11|||||EU Avastin in the numerator and US Avastin in the denominator|||1.11|0.983|
84458402|NCT03293654|168669074|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.07|0.969|
84458403|NCT03293654|168669074|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.12|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.12|0.998|
84458404|NCT03293654|168669074|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.1|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.1|0.981|
84458405|NCT03293654|168669075|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|0.986|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.08|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.08|0.903|
84458406|NCT03293654|168669075|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.19|1.01|
84458407|NCT03293654|168669075|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.22|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.22|1.02|
84458408|NCT01933932|168669076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.12|0.77|0.4355
84458409|NCT01933932|168669077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.30|0.85|0.6431
84458410|NCT01933932|168669078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||2.62|1.00|0.0515
84458411|NCT01933932|168669080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||1.86|0.74|0.5007
84458412|NCT01933932|168669081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.11|0.74|0.3438
84516601|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.036
84516602|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.24
84458413|NCT05617521|168669104|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients||||||0.008||||||The comparative analysis of the CIT was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84458414|NCT05617521|168669105|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.|||||<|0.001||||||For the comparison of abdominal pressure, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84458415|NCT05617521|168669106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The comparative analysis of the CIL was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458416|NCT05617521|168669107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.321
84458417|NCT05617521|168669108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
84458418|NCT05617521|168669109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84458419|NCT05617521|168669110|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
84458420|NCT05617521|168669112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84458421|NCT05617521|168669113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458422|NCT05617521|168669114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84516603|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
84516604|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0015
84458423|NCT05617521|168669115|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.||||||0.01||||||For the comparison of position change, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84458424|NCT05617521|168669116|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84458425|NCT00891995|168669117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline C-peptide AUC, age, gender and diabetic ketoacidosis.||||||0.49
84458426|NCT00891995|168669120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c, age, gender and Diabetic ketoacidosis||||||0.40
84458427|NCT02054702|168669126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458428|NCT02054702|168669126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458429|NCT02054702|168669127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.4244
84458430|NCT02054702|168669127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.7623
84458431|NCT02054702|168669128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.8759
84458432|NCT02054702|168669128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2176
84458433|NCT02054702|168669129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8420
84516605|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
84458434|NCT02054702|168669129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.3781
84458435|NCT02054702|168669130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.1807
84458436|NCT02054702|168669130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2802
84458437|NCT02054702|168669131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8622
84516606|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.04
84516607|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.025
84516608|NCT00862563|168786834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.018
84516609|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.005
84458438|NCT02054702|168669131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.4848
84458439|NCT02054702|168669132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8588
84458440|NCT02054702|168669132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9928|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9928
84458441|NCT02054702|168669133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458442|NCT02054702|168669133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 were observed for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458443|NCT02054702|168669136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and total score at baseline as covariate was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458444|NCT02054702|168669136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
84458445|NCT02054702|168669137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.0392
84516610|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.003
84516611|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.044
84458446|NCT02054702|168669137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9716
84458447|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|15.24|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 1||15.24|-21.96|
84458448|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.01|6.4|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg versus Placebo Day 1||6.40|-30.01|
84458449|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|-8.32|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 1||-8.32|-42.99|
84458450|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|34.53|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 28||34.53|-5.06|
84458451|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|23.08|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg vs Placebo Day 28||23.08|-14.64|
84516612|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factors. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
84717793|NCT03952520|169185439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|48.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||48.1|26.5|
84458452|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|24.47|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 28||24.47|-11.18|
84458453|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.73|2.9|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of the Placebo arm||2.90|-28.73|
84458454|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|22.05|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 10 mg arm||22.05|-11.69|
84458455|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|19.36|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 50 mg arm||19.36|-13.13|
84458456|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|34.3|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 125 mg arm||34.30|4.47|
84458457|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
84458458|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
84458459|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
84458460|NCT01262898|168669138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078||||||95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
84458461|NCT02630953|168669301|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|28.7||Significance level was set at .05 a priori.|quantile regression|Bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications)||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-ups, controlling for baseline. Quantile regression models the median outcome instead of the mean, and are appropriate when data is skewed (as was the case in both self-reported and objectively measured MVPA).||28.70|-41.15|0.24
84717794|NCT03952520|169185440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.1|2.0|
84458462|NCT02630953|168669302|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|47.37||Significance was set at .05 a priori|quantile regression|||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-up, controlling for baseline||47.37|-32.37|0.73
84458463|NCT02630953|168669303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set at .05 a priori|Regression, Linear|||Using a series of generalized linear models with identity link, we examined treatment effects on biomarkers at 6 months controlling for baseline and potential confounders.||||>.06
84458464|NCT01957137|168669317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling, period and the interaction between cycling and period.||||||0.3773
84458465|NCT01957137|168669318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.2396
84458466|NCT01957137|168669319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.8874
84516613|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-47.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
84516614|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Week 12.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
84516615|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.017
84458467|NCT03359902|168669343|SUPERIORITY||beta|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed effects model was conducted to account for carryover and order effects in this crossover trial.~Assuming α = 0.05, two-sided test, and 60 participants in total. If the carryover effect is negligible, we will have 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.604 for memory improvement"||||0.11
84458468|NCT01272583|168669346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||1.0
84458469|NCT01272583|168669347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||GLP-1 intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||<0.001
84458470|NCT01272583|168669347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||GLP-1 Total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
84458471|NCT01272583|168669347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||GIP intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.049
84458472|NCT01272583|168669347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||GIP total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||0.44
84458473|NCT01272583|168669348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.14
84458474|NCT01272583|168669349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
84458475|NCT01272583|168669350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.22
84458476|NCT01272583|168669351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.01
84458477|NCT01272583|168669351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|Post Hoc testing||||||<0.05
84458478|NCT01272583|168669352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.76
84458479|NCT01955707|168669388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use.||0.26|-0.09|
84458480|NCT01955707|168669388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.3||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.30|0.91|0.779
84458481|NCT01955707|168669389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.27||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.27|-0.09|
84458482|NCT01955707|168669389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.31||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.31|0.92|0.797
84516616|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0002
84516617|NCT00862563|168786835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis.Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.026
84458483|NCT01955707|168669390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.24||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.24|-0.13|
84458484|NCT01955707|168669390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.05||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.27||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.27|0.88|0.684
84458485|NCT01955707|168669391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.11||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.11|-0.12|
84458486|NCT01955707|168669391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.12|0.89|0.487
84516618|NCT00862563|168786836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction term.'||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
84516619|NCT00862563|168786836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for group x time interaction term for the comparison of data for the topiramate and placebo group.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
84516620|NCT00862563|168786836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for interaction effect for the comparison of data for the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.30
84516621|NCT00862563|168786837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the paired comparison of COWAT-category data for the zonisamide and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.003
84458487|NCT01955707|168669392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.1||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.10|-0.14|
84458488|NCT01955707|168669392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.11|0.87|0.402
84458489|NCT01955707|168669393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.13||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to Day 5 using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for for treatment, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.13|-0.18|
84458490|NCT01955707|168669393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.14|0.84|0.394
84458491|NCT01955707|168669394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.25||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|1.98||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at 24 hours. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||1.98|-2.48|0.427
84458492|NCT01955707|168669394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.71||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|3.94||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||3.94|-0.52|0.896
84516622|NCT00862563|168786837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of data from the topiramate and the placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.01
84717795|NCT03952520|169185442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||0.4|-0.2|
84458493|NCT01955707|168669394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|3.15||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.4||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||5.40|0.89|0.989
84458494|NCT01955707|168669394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|4.25||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 90. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||4.25|-0.38|0.915
84458495|NCT01955707|168669395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.45||One sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 5. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.45|0.55|0.564
84458496|NCT01955707|168669395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.1||One-sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 30. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||2.10|0.80|0.077
84458497|NCT01955707|168669395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.86||One -sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of the distribution of mRS scores at Day 90. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.86|0.71|0.243
84458498|NCT01955707|168669396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.68||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.19|10.56||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||10.56|-9.19|0.455
84516623|NCT00862563|168786837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.36
84516624|NCT00862563|168786838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.07
84458499|NCT01955707|168669396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|1.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.76|11.19||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||11.19|-8.76|0.420
84458500|NCT01955707|168669396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.56||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|13.75|||repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 90/Final Visit. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||13.75|-6.64|0.283
84458501|NCT03896581|168669422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.402|22.969|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.969|5.402|<0.001
84458502|NCT03896581|168669423|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.233|||ANCOVA|||||-0.233|-0.420|<0.001
84458503|NCT03896581|168669425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.365|73.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.940|12.365|<0.001
84458504|NCT03896581|168669426|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.386|7.688|||ANCOVA|||||7.688|4.386|<0.001
84458505|NCT03896581|168669427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.119|27.999|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.999|6.119|<0.001
84458506|NCT02660580|168669465|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% CI for the treatment difference was included in the equivalence interval \[-15%, 15%\]).|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.98||||||||2.98|-1.21|
84458507|NCT02660580|168669481|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% stratified Newcombe Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in percentage was included in the equivalence interval (-18, 18).|Percentage difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|4.07||||||||4.07|-7.82|
84516625|NCT00862563|168786838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group X time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that age adjusted Digit Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
84458508|NCT00450580|168669519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms is greater than -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-11.4|9.5||||||||9.5|-11.4|
84458509|NCT01499173|168669531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Actual p value shown here; not threshold.|multilevel linear regression|||||||<0.01
84458510|NCT01499173|168669532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||multilevel linear regression|||||||0.34
84458511|NCT01499173|168669533|OTHER|odds ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Odds ratio was calculated for each question comparing 1 week data with 1 month data||||
84516626|NCT00862563|168786838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.95
84516627|NCT00862563|168786839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Spatial Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.038
84516628|NCT00862563|168786839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.0025
84516629|NCT00862563|168786839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.3
84516630|NCT02663349|168786848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within sample analysis of change between baseline and 3 month assessment.||||.08
84458512|NCT03804671|168669537|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including the fixed effect for 'formulation' and 'subject' as a random effect.|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|70.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.69|87.23|||||The geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 18.7. Ratio was calculated as (AUC0-∞/dose) oral /(AUC0-∞/dose) intravenous multiplied by 100.|||87.23|56.69|
84458513|NCT04572633|168669553|OTHER||Wilson Score|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.72|100.0|||||Bootstrap sampling with replacement method to account for potential within-subject lesion correlations. Subject is the bootstrap sampling unit, 1,000,000 iterations for bootstrap resampling, and the bias-corrected and accelerated method was used.|||100|83.72|
84458514|NCT04572633|168669554|OTHER||Wilson Score|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.23||||||||18.23|2.35|
84458515|NCT02354833|168669573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84458516|NCT02354833|168669574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Nausea||||0.28
84458517|NCT02354833|168669574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Emesis||||< 0.001
84458518|NCT02354833|168669575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
84458519|NCT02354833|168669576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84458520|NCT05424276|168669577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.895||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.522|2.985||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||2.985|-4.522|0.686
84458521|NCT05424276|168669577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|4.687||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||4.687|-2.745|0.606
84458522|NCT05424276|168669577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.925||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|5.086||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||5.086|-2.539|0.509
84458523|NCT05424276|168669578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.717|2.611||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.611|-1.717|0.683
84458524|NCT05424276|168669578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|3.495||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||3.495|-0.783|0.212
84516631|NCT02663349|168786849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within sample change between baseline and 6 month assessment.||||.69
84516632|NCT02663349|168786850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Within sample change assessed between baseline and 3-month assessment||||.02
84516633|NCT02663349|168786851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Change between baseline and 6 month assessment||||.34
84516634|NCT02663349|168786852|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Hostility scale||||>.05
84516635|NCT02663349|168786852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Completer analysis to examine within group change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Aggression scale||||.04
84516636|NCT02663349|168786853|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Hostility scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||>.05
84516637|NCT02663349|168786853|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Aggression scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
84516638|NCT02663349|168786854|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Change within group between baseline and 3 month assessment on the TASIT total score for part 3||||> .05
84516639|NCT02663349|168786855|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||within group change on the TASIT total score for Part 3 between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
84458525|NCT05424276|168669578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.749|2.654||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.654|-1.749|0.685
84458526|NCT05424276|168669579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.304||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of treatment||0.304|-0.139|0.463
84458527|NCT05424276|168669579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.383||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.383|-0.051|0.133
84458528|NCT05424276|168669579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.286||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.286|-0.159|0.575
84458529|NCT05424276|168669580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.092||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 week of dosing||0.092|-0.488|0.178
84516640|NCT02663349|168786856|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on SSPA Total Score between baseline and 3-month assessment||||>.05
84516641|NCT02663349|168786857|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on the SSPA total score between baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
84516642|NCT02663349|168786858|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance Total score on scales 1-7 between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||> .05
84458530|NCT05424276|168669580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.3||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.300|-0.274|0.931
84458531|NCT05424276|168669580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.163||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.163|-0.426|0.380
84458532|NCT05424276|168669581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|0.342||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.342|-2.308|0.144
84458533|NCT05424276|168669581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.096||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||-0.096|-2.720|0.036
84458534|NCT05424276|168669581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|0.18||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.180|-2.514|0.089
84458535|NCT05424276|168669582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|3.477||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||3.477|-3.127|0.916
84458536|NCT05424276|168669582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|5.621||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.621|-0.921|0.158
84458537|NCT05424276|168669582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|5.768||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.768|-0.941|0.157
84458538|NCT05424276|168669583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|0.602||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.602|-1.952|0.297
84458539|NCT05424276|168669583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.639||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|0.5||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.500|-2.032|0.233
84458540|NCT05424276|168669583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|1.783||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.783|-0.818|0.464
84458541|NCT05424276|168669584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.346|7.898||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||7.898|-7.346|0.943
84458542|NCT05424276|168669584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.547|8.402||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.402|-6.547|0.806
84458543|NCT05424276|168669584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.884||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.686|8.719||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.719|-6.686|0.794
84516643|NCT02663349|168786859|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change between baseline and 6-month assessment on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance total score on scales 1-7||||> .05
84516644|NCT02663349|168786860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between Baseline and 3-Month assessments||||.15
84516645|NCT02663349|168786860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 3-month assessments||||.10
84516646|NCT02663349|168786860|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 3-month assessment||||>.05
84516647|NCT02663349|168786860|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 3 month assessment||||> .05
84516648|NCT02663349|168786861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||.01
84516649|NCT02663349|168786861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 6-month assessment||||.03
84516650|NCT02663349|168786861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
84516651|NCT02663349|168786861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
84458544|NCT05424276|168669585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.193|0.4||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.400|-2.193|0.173
84458545|NCT05424276|168669585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.828|0.725||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.725|-1.828|0.393
84458546|NCT05424276|168669585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|0.323||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.323|-2.246|0.141
84458547|NCT05424276|168669586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|1.366||Study not sized for efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.366|-0.925|0.704
84458548|NCT05424276|168669586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.494||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.494|-0.742|0.506
84458549|NCT05424276|168669586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.227|1.063||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.063|-1.227|0.888
84516652|NCT02663349|168786862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.09
84516653|NCT02663349|168786862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Workplace Coping scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.12
84516654|NCT02663349|168786863|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
84516655|NCT02663349|168786863|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Workplace Coping scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
84458550|NCT05424276|168669587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.067||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|0.013|0.004
84458551|NCT05424276|168669587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.047||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.047|-0.006|0.125
84458552|NCT05424276|168669587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.046||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.046|-0.009|0.179
84458553|NCT05424276|168669588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.094||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.094|-0.283|0.321
84458554|NCT05424276|168669588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.114||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.259|0.444
84458555|NCT05424276|168669588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.053||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.053|-0.332|0.154
84458556|NCT05424276|168669589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.212||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.212|-0.199|0.950
84458557|NCT05424276|168669589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.067||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|-0.338|0.189
84458558|NCT05424276|168669589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.301|0.374
84458559|NCT05424276|168669590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.131||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.131|-0.101|0.803
84458560|NCT05424276|168669590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.120|-0.110|0.935
84458561|NCT05424276|168669590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.121||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.121|-0.116|0.968
84458562|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||16.3|9.5|<0.001
84458563|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.4|<0.001
84458564|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||14.2|7.4|<0.001
84458565|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.6|<0.001
84458566|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||11.0|4.2|<0.001
84458567|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||13.6|7.2|<0.001
84458568|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.6|1.9|0.002
84458569|NCT00792298|168669606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|4.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.8|1.6|0.003
84458570|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-24.3|-49.4|<0.001
84458571|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.7|-42.1|<0.001
84458572|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-33.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-21.5|-46.4|<0.001
84458573|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-20.2|-46.3|<0.001
84458574|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-37.1|<0.001
84516656|NCT03317444|168786868|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|48.9|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||48.9|23.5|< 0.0001
84516657|NCT03317444|168786868|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|46.8|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||46.8|21.2|< 0.0001
84516658|NCT03317444|168786868|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.6|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||45.6|19.7|< 0.0001
84726465|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.61|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.61|0.54|
84458575|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.1|-41.0|<0.001
84458576|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.8|-33.5|<0.001
84458577|NCT00792298|168669607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-21.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.7|-34.2|0.001
84458578|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-13.1|-37.7|<0.001
84458579|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-9.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.7|-19.7|0.068
84458580|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-10.9|-35.3|<0.001
84516659|NCT03317444|168786869|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.5|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.5|1.77|< 0.0001
84516660|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for TIF introduction and time periods as fixed effects and hospitals and time periods as random effects.|generalized linear mixed regression mode|||For mobility on EU arrival assessed,||||0.504
84516661|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression mode|||Respiratory rate at EU assessed||||0.169
84516662|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Airway assessed||||0.006
84516663|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|38.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Chest examined||||0.001
84516664|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|93.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Intra-abdominal bleeding evaluated||||0.001
84516665|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|354.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Spine Immobilized for RTI or Fall Victims||||0.001
84516666|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Splinting of Fractures Considered||||0.001
84458581|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-3.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||6.3|-13.8|0.459
84458582|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-9.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||2.8|-21.5|0.130
84458583|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-32.3|<0.001
84516667|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Tetanus Considered for bites, burns, lacerations, and abrasions||||0.006
84516668|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Date of Injury Recorded||||0.047
84516669|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Death||||0.166
84516670|NCT04547192|168786870|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Important Clinical Data Document||||0.013
84516671|NCT04547192|168786871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||||||0.166
84516672|NCT02284867|168786942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Multivariable binary logistic regression was done to examine the relation between CD16+ NK and preterm labor as adjusted for other confounding factors the enter method was used to build the regression model.~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."|Odds Ratio (OR)|65.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.96|606.76||To our best of known , no previous human studies was analyzing this issue|Regression, Logistic|||"Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and differences were compared using the Pearson chi-squared test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."||606.76|6.96|<0.0002
84458584|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-3.4||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.7|-15.6|0.577
84516673|NCT02927639|168786947|SUPERIORITY|"A subject was considered completed if they completed all 3 SCI (as indicated in participant flow section) - 13 control, 10 intervention.~However, the mixed model took in to account ALL available data. As such, there were 70 control, 65 intervention that completed at least 1 SCI. Their data was analyzed by the model and used to predict later outcomes so they were considered to be included in the analysis."||||||0.035||||||The mixed model may provide a significantly different change in SCI score from baseline to the 6 month using a per-protocol analysis in the intervention group as compared to the control group. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A multilevel mixed effects linear regression model was used to analyze this data. This analysis allowed for an estimation of missing data. This explains the discrepancy in the number of participant study completion vs participant data analyzed (see below).||||0.035
84516674|NCT00911274|168786965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.41||||||90.0|82.77|103.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.18|82.77|
84516675|NCT00911274|168786966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.3||||||90.0|97.84|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.88|97.84|
84458585|NCT00792298|168669608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-2.3||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.5|-12.2|0.644
84458586|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-22.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-6.2|-38.3|0.007
84458587|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-19.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-2.6|-36.6|0.024
84458588|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.2|-46.9|<0.001
84458589|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-15.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.8|-32.3|0.063
84458590|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-17.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-1.7|-33.1|0.030
84458591|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-24.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.3|-41.0|0.003
84458592|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-19.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.0|-35.1|0.020
84516676|NCT00911274|168786967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|97.77|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.34|97.77|
84516677|NCT01640197|168786974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516678|NCT01640197|168786975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84458593|NCT00792298|168669609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-20.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.4|-37.0|0.019
84458594|NCT03304522|168669619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.876|-0.293|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.293|-1.876|<0.0001
84458595|NCT03304522|168669622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|-0.312|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.312|-1.911|<0.0001
84458596|NCT03304522|168669624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.3|-1.5|<0.0001
84516679|NCT01640197|168786976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516680|NCT01640197|168786977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516681|NCT01640197|168786978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516682|NCT01640197|168786979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516683|NCT01640197|168786980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84516684|NCT03480763|168786981|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||8.5|0.1|0.043
84516685|NCT03480763|168786981|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|21.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||21.2|6.0|<0.001
84458597|NCT00670709|168669628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
84458598|NCT00670709|168669629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||HD subjects vs control subjects||||<0.005
84458599|NCT03371355|168669636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-41|0.0343
84458600|NCT03371355|168669636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-28|-56|<0.0001
84458601|NCT03371355|168669636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-17.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-17|-52|0.0009
84458602|NCT03371355|168669637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.68|-37.06|||ANCOVA|||||-37.06|-62.68|<0.0001
84458603|NCT03371355|168669637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-71.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.47|-58.85|||ANCOVA|||||-58.85|-84.47|<0.0001
84458604|NCT03371355|168669637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-59.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.04|-45.44|||ANCOVA|||||-45.44|-74.04|<0.0001
84458605|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.59|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||TC||-1.39|-31.59|0.0327
84458606|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-21.94|||ANCOVA|||TC||-21.94|-52.15|<0.0001
84458607|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|-15.05|||ANCOVA|||TC||-15.05|-48.23|0.0003
84516686|NCT03480763|168786981|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||10.2|-0.5|0.077
84458608|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|20.54|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||20.54|-5.55|0.2560
84458609|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|4.05|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.05|-21.26|0.1795
84458610|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.48|4.95|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.95|-22.48|0.2065
84458611|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|1.01|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||1.01|-6.43|0.1515
84458612|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|-4.91|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-4.91|-12.29|<0.0001
84458613|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-0.12|-8.18|0.0436
84516687|NCT03480763|168786982|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.6||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||6.6|-5.5|0.855
84458614|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-1.33|-16.94|0.0224
84458615|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|-7.84|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-7.84|-22.94|0.0001
84458616|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-2.78|-18.86|0.0091
84458617|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||1.42|-29.12|0.0748
84458618|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.68|-13.18|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-13.18|-43.68|0.0004
84458619|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-10.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-10.64|-44.08|0.0016
84458620|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|6.8|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||6.80|-11.68|0.6005
84458621|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.83||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||-0.59|-19.07|0.0374
84458622|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|5.0|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||5.00|-15.55|0.3100
84458623|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.002||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.09|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.09|-2.10|0.0728
84458624|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.803||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||-0.69|-2.91|0.0018
84458625|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.091||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.12|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.12|-2.30|0.0759
84458626|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.887||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|8.11|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||8.11|-9.89|0.8451
84458627|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.59||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|1.41|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||1.41|-16.59|0.0973
84458628|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.418||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|6.61|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||6.61|-13.45|0.5000
84458629|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.753||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-2.03|-7.47|0.0008
84458630|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.82|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-5.82|-11.18|<0.0001
84458631|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-3.93|-9.78|<0.0001
84458632|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.85|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-7.85|-25.80|0.0003
84458633|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-26.24|-44.07|<0.0001
84458634|NCT03371355|168669638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.89|-11.39|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-11.39|-30.89|<0.0001
84458635|NCT03371355|168669639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0128||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.10|0.8299
84458636|NCT03371355|168669639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0144||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.8102
84458637|NCT03371355|168669639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0146||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.14|0.8223
84458638|NCT03371355|168669640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||16.02|-0.35|0.0604
84458639|NCT03371355|168669640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.74|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||9.74|-6.61|0.7048
84458640|NCT03371355|168669640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|7.2|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||7.20|-10.65|0.7024
84458641|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-33.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-33|-54|<0.0001
84516688|NCT03480763|168786982|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.5||||0.385||95.0|-4.4|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||11.3|-4.4|0.385
84516689|NCT03480763|168786982|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||9.2|-5.1|0.577
84516690|NCT03480763|168786983|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.9|-2.5|0.523
84516691|NCT03480763|168786983|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||15.6|3.7|0.002
84458642|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-54|-69|<0.0001
84458643|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-47|-66|<0.0001
84458644|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-1|-16|0.0309
84458645|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-12|-26|<0.0001
84458646|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-9|-25|<0.0001
84458647|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|6.0||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||21|-7|0.4016
84458648|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||6|-18|0.2589
84458649|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||1|-24|0.0616
84458650|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||4|-18|0.1918
84458651|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||-14|-32|<0.0001
84458652|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||3|-21|0.1132
84458653|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-5|-40|0.0177
84516692|NCT03480763|168786983|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||6.7|-3.9|0.597
84516693|NCT03480763|168786983|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|6.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||12.1|1.2|0.016
84516694|NCT03480763|168786984|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.7|-4.4|0.961
84458654|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-23|-51|<0.0001
84458655|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-12|-45|0.0033
84458656|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||0|-18|0.0523
84458657|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-26|0.0002
84458658|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-28|0.0004
84458659|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-12|0.4204
84458660|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||0|-16|0.0441
84516695|NCT03480763|168786984|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||10.8|-2.8|0.252
84516696|NCT03480763|168786984|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||4.8|-5.8|0.852
84717796|NCT03952520|169185443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.0|-3.1|
84458661|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||2|-16|0.1324
84516697|NCT03480763|168786984|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.9||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||11.2|-1.4|0.125
84458662|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-29.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||7|-53|0.1009
84458663|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-52.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||-28|-68|0.0005
84458664|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||24|-50|0.3004
84458665|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||7|-10|0.6135
84458666|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||2|-15|0.1127
84458667|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||4|-14|0.2576
84458668|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-16.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-16|-52|0.0017
84458669|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-45|-68|<0.0001
84458670|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-29.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-29|-61|<0.0001
84458671|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-11.0||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-2|-20|0.0193
84516698|NCT03480763|168786985|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following V114 or Prevnar 13™||1.2|-1.2|
84717797|NCT03952520|169185444|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.5|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||26.5|5.0|
84458672|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-19|-33|<0.0001
84458673|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-4|-23|0.0063
84458674|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||23|-21|0.8873
84458675|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||15|-27|0.4404
84458676|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-1.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|27.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||27|-22|0.9665
84458677|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-7.0||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||10|-21|0.4133
84458678|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-6.0||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||11|-20|0.4750
84458679|NCT03371355|168669641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-4.0||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||15|-20|0.6354
84458680|NCT03371355|168669642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|-42.53|0.1799
84458681|NCT03371355|168669642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.8||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|39.49|||ANCOVA|||||39.49|-11.83|0.2867
84458682|NCT03371355|168669642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.78|31.14|||ANCOVA|||||31.14|-26.78|0.8812
84516699|NCT03480763|168786986|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following PNEUMOVAX™23||1.3|-1.3|
84516700|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.74||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.74|1.10|
84458683|NCT03371355|168669643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.94|0.3995
84458684|NCT03371355|168669643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.59|0.8155
84458685|NCT03371355|168669643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.54|0.6466
84458686|NCT03371355|168669644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.89|||ANCOVA|||||6.89|-9.66|0.7393
84458687|NCT03371355|168669644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-8.45|0.9744
84458688|NCT03371355|168669644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.58||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|12.91|||ANCOVA|||||12.91|-5.75|0.4477
84458689|NCT03371355|168669645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.794||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-6.72|0.4710
84458690|NCT03371355|168669645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|-4.68|0.9169
84458691|NCT03371355|168669645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.133||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-3.44|0.4484
84458692|NCT03371355|168669646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.17|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-50.17|0.0916
84458693|NCT03371355|168669646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.51|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-38.51|0.4032
84458694|NCT03371355|168669646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|31.45|||ANCOVA|||||31.45|-27.56|0.8959
84458695|NCT03371355|168669647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.3202
84458696|NCT03371355|168669647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.11|0.8485
84458697|NCT03371355|168669647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0314||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.08|0.5812
84458698|NCT03371355|168669648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.15|||ANCOVA|||||2.15|-1.28|0.6157
84458699|NCT03371355|168669648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|-1.66|0.9869
84458700|NCT03371355|168669648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.07|0.7084
84458701|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|10.0|||ANCOVA|||SBP||10.00|-4.41|0.4431
84458702|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.08||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|9.22|||ANCOVA|||SBP||9.22|-5.05|0.5630
84458703|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.63||||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.79|||ANCOVA|||SBP||5.79|-9.06|0.6634
84516701|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.29|0.90|
84516702|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.32|0.85|
84516703|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.56||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.56|0.94|
84458704|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|8.92|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.92|-0.71|0.0937
84458705|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.49||||0.1522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.28|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.28|-1.31|0.1522
84458706|NCT03371355|168669649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.59|||ANCOVA|||DBP||6.59|-3.35|0.5188
84458707|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Weight||2.39|-1.24|0.5299
84458708|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.65|-1.89|0.8919
84458709|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.44|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.44|-2.25|0.6653
84458710|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.35||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|8.14|||ANCOVA|||SBP||8.14|-3.43|0.4213
84458711|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|6.96|||ANCOVA|||SBP||6.96|-4.49|0.6696
84458712|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.73|||ANCOVA|||SBP||4.73|-7.20|0.6819
84458713|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|11.31|||ANCOVA|||DBP||11.31|-1.28|0.1171
84458714|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.94||||0.2155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|10.21|||ANCOVA|||DBP||10.21|-2.33|0.2155
84458715|NCT03371355|168669650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|8.2|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.20|-4.79|0.6034
84458716|NCT03371355|168669651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.44|||ANCOVA|||||4.44|-2.48|0.5752
84458717|NCT03371355|168669651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.59|||ANCOVA|||||7.59|0.58|0.0230
84458718|NCT03371355|168669651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.25|||ANCOVA|||||5.25|-2.10|0.3965
84458719|NCT03371355|168669652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.44||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|36.26|||ANCOVA|||||36.26|-11.39|0.3023
84458720|NCT03371355|168669652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.03||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|50.19|||ANCOVA|||||50.19|1.87|0.0350
84458721|NCT03371355|168669652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.27||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|37.55|||ANCOVA|||||37.55|-13.02|0.3374
84458722|NCT03371355|168669654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.59||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|4.31|||ANCOVA|||||4.31|-9.49|0.4583
84458723|NCT03371355|168669654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.71||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-12.43|0.0943
84458724|NCT03371355|168669654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.57||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-11.45|0.1909
84458725|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.22|||ANCOVA|||ALT||16.22|-2.10|0.1294
84458726|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|23.59|||ANCOVA|||ALT||23.59|5.98|0.0012
84458727|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.9||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|18.11|||ANCOVA|||ALT||18.11|-0.36|0.0594
84458728|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||[Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.45|||ANCOVA|||AST||10.45|-0.47|0.0730
84458729|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7|||ANCOVA|||AST||13.70|3.17|0.0020
84458730|NCT03371355|168669655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|12.0|||ANCOVA|||AST||12.00|1.05|0.0200
84458731|NCT03371355|168669656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-4.55|0.4812
84458732|NCT03371355|168669656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|1.83|||ANCOVA|||||1.83|-4.88|0.3679
84458733|NCT03371355|168669656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-7.72|0.0210
84458734|NCT03371355|168669657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.73|0.6227
84458735|NCT03371355|168669657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.97|0.1950
84458736|NCT03371355|168669657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.00|0.2271
84458737|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.06||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.57|207.69|||ANCOVA|||SAT||207.69|-173.57|0.8591
84458738|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|32.92||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.11|229.95|||ANCOVA|||SAT||229.95|-164.11|0.7404
84458739|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.3||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.5|182.9|||ANCOVA|||SAT||182.90|-215.50|0.8711
84458740|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.95||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.64|186.53|||ANCOVA|||VAT||186.53|-176.64|0.9569
84458741|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.26||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.53|168.02|||ANCOVA|||VAT||168.02|-216.53|0.8025
84458742|NCT03371355|168669658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.02||||0.8202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.09|214.12|||ANCOVA|||VAT||214.12|-170.09|0.8202
84458743|NCT03371355|168669659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.69|||ANCOVA|||||6.69|-6.47|0.9734
84458744|NCT03371355|168669659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|5.86|||ANCOVA|||||5.86|-7.25|0.8333
84458745|NCT03371355|168669659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.66||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.99|0.6207
84458746|NCT03371355|168669660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.8026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.04|0.8026
84458747|NCT03371355|168669660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.07|0.4917
84458748|NCT03371355|168669660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.05|0.8916
84458749|NCT03371355|168669661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.50|0.7280
84458750|NCT03371355|168669661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.69|0.7354
84458751|NCT03371355|168669661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.84|0.4682
84458752|NCT01173653|168669690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi square|23.02|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84458753|NCT00584870|168669691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.67|-0.67||p-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and statistical test was 1-sided with 0.1 significance level.|Repeated Measures Model|||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with baseline, center, treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed main effects and participant as random effect.||-0.67|-1.67|0.001
84458754|NCT03529409|168669749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.066|-.507|.01
84458755|NCT03529409|168669750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|5.5||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-1.61|.28
84458756|NCT03529409|168669751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|157.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|382.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||382|-67|.16
84458757|NCT03529409|168669752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-1.51|.77
84458758|NCT03529409|168669753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.67||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.67|-2.24|.63
84458759|NCT03529409|168669754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|84.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.0|304.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||304|-136|.44
84458760|NCT03529409|168669755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.58||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.85|.87
84516704|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.43|0.95|
84516705|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.35|0.93|
84458761|NCT03529409|168669760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.55||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.89. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|-2.49|.65
84516706|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.25|0.90|
84516707|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.33|0.91|
84458762|NCT03529409|168669761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.1||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.66. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|-10.5|.63
84458763|NCT03529409|168669762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.28||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.94. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.28|-.34|.85
84458764|NCT01795547|168669799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI at Week 28 was \> -5 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: D ≤ -5 against H1: D \> -5 was ≤2.5%, where D was the mean treatment difference (aripiprazole minus paliperidone). Superiority was then tested as pre-specified with the FAS and demonstrated for aripiprazole over paliperidone, since the lower bound of the 95% CI was \>0.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.666||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|9.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||Comparison of aripiprazole versus paliperidone was made using estimates from a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.015|0.316|0.036
84458765|NCT01795547|168669800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.492||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.935|-0.049||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.049|-2.935|0.043
84458766|NCT01795547|168669801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.09||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.090|-0.477|0.004
84458767|NCT01795547|168669802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.331||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.782||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.782|-0.120|0.149
84458768|NCT01795547|168669803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.753||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.412||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.412|0.093|0.039
84516708|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.53|1.05|
84516709|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.34|0.95|
84516710|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.38|0.96|
84516711|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.20|0.89|
84458769|NCT01795547|168669804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.764||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|3.672||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.672|-0.143|0.070
84458770|NCT01795547|168669805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.922||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.119||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||2.119|-0.275|0.130
84458771|NCT01795547|168669806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.007||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.402|4.417||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||4.417|-2.402|0.561
84458772|NCT01795547|168669807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.695||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|0.121||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.121|-1.511|0.095
84458773|NCT00151892|168669808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects in remission at 6 months of the two treatment groups will be computed. Non-inferiority of SPD476 to Asacol will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI lies above the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Difference in proportions|0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||The null hypothesis to be tested is that the true difference in proportions is less than or equal to -10%.||0.08|-0.04|
84458774|NCT02764541|168669821|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0045
84458775|NCT02764541|168669821|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma||||||0.0161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
84516712|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.61|1.01|
84458776|NCT02764541|168669822|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.9288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9288
84458777|NCT02764541|168669824|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.29|0.920
84717798|NCT03952520|169185445|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||10.0|-6.9|
84458778|NCT02764541|168669825|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of RCB response rate between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84458779|NCT00749190|168669831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 1 mg minus placebo|||-0.03|-0.44|0.0226
84458780|NCT00749190|168669831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 5 mg minus placebo|||-0.18|-0.59|0.0002
84516713|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.06||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||2.06|1.29|
84717799|NCT03952520|169185447|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.8|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||13.8|-1.5|
84458781|NCT00749190|168669831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.51||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10 mg minus placebo|||-0.51|-0.91|<0.0001
84458782|NCT00749190|168669831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.5||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25 mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
84458783|NCT00749190|168669831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.43||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 50 mg minus placebo|||-0.43|-0.84|<0.0001
84458784|NCT03726268|168669896|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.970
84458785|NCT03726268|168669896|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.631
84458786|NCT03726268|168669897|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458787|NCT03726268|168669897|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458788|NCT03726268|168669898|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458789|NCT03726268|168669898|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84458790|NCT03726268|168669899|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84516714|NCT03480763|168786987|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||1.17|0.77|
84458791|NCT03726268|168669899|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84458792|NCT03726268|168669900|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.105
84458793|NCT03726268|168669900|OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.531
84458794|NCT04696861|168669901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
84458795|NCT04696861|168669902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
84458796|NCT04696861|168669903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.368
84458797|NCT04696861|168669905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.634
84458798|NCT04696861|168669906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.832
84458799|NCT04696861|168669908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.624
84458800|NCT04696861|168669909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.833
84516715|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.07|0.79|
84516716|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.16|0.87|
84516717|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.02|0.74|
84516718|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.18|0.84|
84458801|NCT04696861|168669910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.7
84458802|NCT04696861|168669911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.79
84458803|NCT04696861|168669912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.55
84458804|NCT04696861|168669913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.823
84458805|NCT04696861|168669914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.942
84458806|NCT04696861|168669915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.207
84458807|NCT04696861|168669916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.594
84458808|NCT04696861|168669917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.738
84516719|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.96|
84516720|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.40|0.96|
84516721|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.16|0.85|
84516722|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.22|0.89|
84516723|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.39||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.39|0.98|
84516724|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.36|1.00|
84516725|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.29|0.95|
84516726|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.27|0.93|
84458809|NCT04696861|168669918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.845
84458810|NCT03952559|168669919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.21|0.58|0.7261
84458811|NCT03952559|168669919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.95|0.0718
84458812|NCT03952559|168669919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.02|<0.0001
84458813|NCT03952559|168669922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.59|0.9615
84458814|NCT03952559|168669922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.83|0.2010
84458815|NCT03952559|168669922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|1.38|0.0017
84516727|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.35|0.96|
84516728|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||1.77|1.16|
84516729|NCT03480763|168786988|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||0.95|0.67|
84516730|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.58||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.58|0.94|
84516731|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.3||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.30|1.56|
84516732|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.97|0.60|
84516733|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.40|0.81|
84516734|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
84458816|NCT03952559|168669923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.43|0.8544
84458817|NCT03952559|168669923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.91|0.98|0.0561
84458818|NCT03952559|168669923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.82|1.54|0.0012
84458819|NCT03952559|168669924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-4.16|0.2627
84458820|NCT03952559|168669924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-4.31|0.2135
84458821|NCT03952559|168669924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-5.36|0.0443
84458822|NCT03952559|168669925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.30|0.4943
84458823|NCT03952559|168669925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.80|0.1677
84458824|NCT03952559|168669925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.70|1.06|0.0336
84458825|NCT03952559|168669926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.42|0.8866
84458826|NCT03952559|168669926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.70|0.2316
84458827|NCT03952559|168669926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.59||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.08|0.0328
84516735|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.06||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.06|1.31|
84516736|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.14|0.80|
84516737|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.24|0.83|
84516738|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.37|0.87|
84516739|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.84||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.84|1.20|
84516740|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.55||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.55|1.06|
84516741|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.92|
84516742|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.0||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.00|1.18|
84516743|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|34.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.13|46.5||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||46.50|26.13|
84516744|NCT03480763|168786989|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|9.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|11.2||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||11.20|7.48|
84516745|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.09|0.72|
84516746|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.07||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.07|1.46|
84516747|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.99|0.64|
84516748|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.30|0.84|
84516749|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.77||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.77|1.10|
84458828|NCT03952559|168669927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.70|0.5361
84458829|NCT03952559|168669927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.73|0.4417
84458830|NCT03952559|168669927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|1.16|0.0121
84458831|NCT03952559|168669928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.37|0.7706
84458832|NCT03952559|168669928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.86|0.38|0.7409
84458833|NCT03952559|168669928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.63|1.15|0.0253
84458834|NCT03952559|168669929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-8.95|0.1317
84458835|NCT03952559|168669929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-10.19|0.0451
84516750|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.1||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.10|1.28|
84516751|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.13|0.74|
84516752|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.41||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.41|0.91|
84516753|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.38|0.87|
84516754|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.92||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.92|1.27|
84516755|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.39||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.39|0.91|
84516756|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.41|0.92|
84458836|NCT03952559|168669929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.58|-12.66|0.0031
84458837|NCT03952559|168669930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.11|0.4238
84458838|NCT03952559|168669930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.44|0.5118
84458839|NCT03952559|168669930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.52|1.34|0.0129
84458840|NCT03952559|168669931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.75|-5.77|0.4852
84458841|NCT03952559|168669931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-5.98|0.4205
84458842|NCT03952559|168669931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-9.59|0.0138
84458843|NCT03952559|168669932|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84458844|NCT03952559|168669932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
84458845|NCT03952559|168669932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.302
84458846|NCT03952559|168669933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|14.35|||ANOVA|||||14.35|-5.41|0.375
84458847|NCT03952559|168669933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|13.0|||ANOVA|||||13.00|-6.76|0.536
84458848|NCT03952559|168669933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|22.05|||ANOVA|||||22.05|2.29|0.016
84458849|NCT03952559|168669934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-49.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.81|4.42|||ANOVA|||||4.42|-102.81|0.073
84516757|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.04|1.27|
84516758|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.78|19.86||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||19.86|13.78|
84516759|NCT03480763|168786990|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|12.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.82|15.19||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||15.19|10.82|
84516760|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
84516761|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.9||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.90|1.29|
84516762|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.90|0.57|
84516763|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.33|0.78|
84516764|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.93|
84516765|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.77|1.16|
84516766|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.11|0.80|
84516767|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.18|0.81|
84516768|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.36|0.90|
84516769|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.55||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.55|1.05|
84516770|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.31|0.91|
84458850|NCT03952559|168669934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-37.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.29||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.0|16.23|||ANOVA|||||16.23|-91.00|0.172
84458851|NCT03952559|168669934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|-26.75|||ANOVA|||||-26.75|-133.98|0.004
84458852|NCT03952559|168669935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.38|0.0829
84458853|NCT03952559|168669935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-1.22|0.1752
84458854|NCT03952559|168669935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.82|0.0029
84458855|NCT03952559|168669936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2688
84458856|NCT03952559|168669936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.85|0.0166
84458857|NCT03952559|168669936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.75|0.0908
84458858|NCT03952559|168669937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-2.79|0.3409
84458859|NCT03952559|168669937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1022
84458860|NCT03952559|168669937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1024
84458861|NCT03952559|168669938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.54|0.1436
84458862|NCT03952559|168669938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.61|0.0483
84458863|NCT03952559|168669938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.80|0.0012
84458864|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.63|-3.27|0.9183
84516771|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.29|0.91|
84458865|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.93|-4.09|0.4805
84458866|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.86|-5.26|0.3488
84458867|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.66|-4.85|0.2388
84458868|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.542||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||3.98|-10.23|0.0098
84458869|NCT03952559|168669939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.42|-5.18|0.1698
84458870|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.88|-3.24|0.8611
84458871|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.571||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||2.05|-4.12|0.5098
84458872|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.27|-6.08|0.1997
84458873|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.35|-5.11|0.1957
84458874|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.864||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.32|-8.19|0.0881
84458875|NCT03952559|168669940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.28|-5.27|0.1604
84458876|NCT03952559|168669941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.93|0.2987
84458877|NCT03952559|168669941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.88|0.3096
84458878|NCT03952559|168669941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-1.55|0.6341
84458879|NCT03952559|168669942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|17.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.09|-6.54|0.2871
84458880|NCT03952559|168669942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|-7.83|0.3093
84458881|NCT03952559|168669942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|8.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.21|-18.22|0.2912
84458882|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY|Absenteeism Change from Baseline|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.54|-7.74|0.6079
84458883|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.092||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||4.24|-7.94|0.5492
84458884|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.281||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.53|-11.39|0.1338
84458885|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||6.08|-7.96|0.7928
84458886|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.553||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||1.69|-12.30|0.1366
84458887|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.792||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||0.71|-14.21|0.0760
84458888|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||4.80|-13.16|0.3602
84458889|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.516||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||2.65|-15.14|0.1678
84458890|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.808||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-2.08|-21.00|0.0170
84458891|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.82|-10.66|0.1645
84458892|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.158||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.34|-11.07|0.1240
84458893|NCT03952559|168669943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.80|-13.23|0.0270
84458894|NCT03952559|168669944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.43|-3.49|0.4778
84458895|NCT03952559|168669944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.743||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.39|-3.38|0.4649
84458896|NCT03952559|168669944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|-0.89|0.1013
84458897|NCT03952559|168669945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.27|0.6574
84458898|NCT03952559|168669945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.35|0.9488
84458899|NCT03952559|168669945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.47|0.4546
84458900|NCT03952559|168669946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.79|0.8133
84458901|NCT03952559|168669946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.11|0.2517
84458902|NCT03952559|168669946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.32|0.0803
84458903|NCT03498521|168669980|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.75||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Stratified log-rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.0177
84458904|NCT04167345|168669985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|1.1|<.0001
84458905|NCT04167345|168669985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|1.1|<.0001
84458906|NCT04167345|168669987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|0.5|0.0114
84458907|NCT04167345|168669987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.1|0.0009
84458908|NCT00960076|168669989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.73|
84458909|NCT00960076|168669990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-9.28||||||||-9.28|-37.36|
84458910|NCT00960076|168669991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-4.5||||||||-4.50|-21.86|
84458911|NCT00960076|168669992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.2||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|0.2|0.0459
84458912|NCT02511522|168669993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.004
84458913|NCT02511522|168669994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.068
84458914|NCT02511522|168669995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.45
84458915|NCT02511522|168669996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.07
84458916|NCT02073487|168670081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84458917|NCT01147926|168670100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84458918|NCT00885365|168670130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority is shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is above the non-inferiority margin set at -4.5%.|difference of least square means|-0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Based on previous studies, the difference between reference and placebo after 4-week treatment is assumed to be about 12% and the non-inferiority margin safely placed at 4.5%. With a between-patient SD of 13.5% and estimated difference between treatments of zero, sample size of 143 per group allows a 80% power to show the non-inferiority of Bramitob® versus TOBI®. Accounting for an expected dropout rate of 11%, a minimum of 160 participants per group is required.||1.59|-2.58|0.640
84458919|NCT00885365|168670132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.01||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.05|-0.08|0.634
84516772|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.76|1.06|
84458920|NCT00885365|168670133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.55||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||1.69|-2.78|0.630
84458921|NCT00885365|168670134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.06|-0.09|0.693
84458922|NCT00885365|168670135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.51||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||4.09|-3.06|0.777
84458923|NCT00885365|168670136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.08|0.505
84458924|NCT00885365|168670137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|ANCOVA|treatment and country are fixed effects and baseline log10 bacterial load (CFU/g) value is a covariate||Analysis of Week 4 data||0.39|-0.31|0.820
84458925|NCT00885365|168670140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 4||||0.692
84458926|NCT00885365|168670140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 8||||0.128
84458927|NCT00004054|168670147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.43|||Log Rank|||The original target sample size was 1440 patients with a requirement of 340 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the hormones and RT plus chemotherapy arm; the design is based on detecting a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year OS from 79% to 85%, or a 33% relative reduction in the yearly hazard rate, with 90% power and a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.43|0.76|0.81
84458928|NCT00004054|168670148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.27|0.74|0.82
84458929|NCT00004054|168670149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.1|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.10|0.28|0.09
84458930|NCT00004054|168670150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.36|0.48|0.42
84458931|NCT00004054|168670151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Cox proportional hazards model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.19|0.75|0.61
84516773|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|17.34||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||17.34|9.44|
84458932|NCT05003115|168670161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-6.36||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||||1.44|-14.17|0.101
84458933|NCT05003115|168670162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||||0.59|-0.79|0.78
84458934|NCT05003115|168670163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.95||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|-2.83|0.314
84458935|NCT05003115|168670164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.04||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.92|||Regression, Linear|||||3.92|-6.00|0.679
84458936|NCT05003115|168670165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||||2.25|-2.23|0.994
84458937|NCT05003115|168670166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.22||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.89|||Regression, Linear|||||0.89|-3.33|0.258
84458938|NCT05003115|168670167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.4||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||||3.96|-4.75|0.857
84458939|NCT04336397|168670199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|1.0|0.04
84458940|NCT04336397|168670199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84458941|NCT00951821|168670212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5||Effect sizes were also calculated due to small sample size|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported statistic (-3.3) is the difference in the change from baseline to follow-up between the two treatment arms, estimated in a mixed effect regression model.|||5.5|-12.1|.46
84458942|NCT00951821|168670213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistic provided (0.4) is the difference in the change in BDI score from baseline to follow-up by treatment group.|||3.06|-2.36|.75
84458943|NCT05224258|168670234|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84458944|NCT05224258|168670234|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint.|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
84516774|NCT03480763|168786995|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.84||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||3.84|2.73|
84516775|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.92|0.65|
84516776|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.63||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.63|1.24|
84516777|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.91|0.64|
84458945|NCT05224258|168670235|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|<0.001
84458946|NCT05224258|168670235|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
84458947|NCT05224258|168670236|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
84458948|NCT05224258|168670236|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.2|<0.001
84458949|NCT05224258|168670237|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|0.208
84458950|NCT05224258|168670237|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
84458951|NCT05067127|168670238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.436|-0.85|||MMRM|||An mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, baseline immunosuppressants use, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline log-transformed uPCR, was utilized to analyze the log-transformed ratio of uPCR at Week 26 compared to baseline.||-0.85|-1.436|<0.0001
84458952|NCT05067127|168670239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.105|124.026|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline eGFR values, baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||124.026|6.105|<0.0001
84458953|NCT05067127|168670240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.932|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.401|113.897|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||113.897|8.401|<0.0001
84516778|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.05|0.75|
84516779|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.67||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.67|1.12|
84726466|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.50|
84458954|NCT05067127|168670241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.002||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline C3G histologic index activity score, disease type, and stratification factors.||0.798|-2.803|0.2753
84458955|NCT05067127|168670242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.392|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.477|115.852|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3c staining, disease type, and stratification factors.||115.852|6.477|<0.0001
84458956|NCT05067127|168670243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.312||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|12.122|||MMRM|||An MMRM model included fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline eGFR, was utilized to analyze the mean change from baseline to Week 26 in eGFR.||12.122|0.501|0.0333
84458957|NCT05067127|168670244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.753||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|15.716|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline proteinuria values, disease type, and stratification factors.||15.716|2.106|0.0006
84458958|NCT05067127|168670245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.341||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.863|880.544|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline albumin values, disease type, and stratification factors.||880.544|8.863|0.0001
84516780|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.81|1.21|
84516781|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.02|0.72|
84516782|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.23|0.88|
84516783|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.26|0.88|
84516784|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
84458959|NCT05067127|168670246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.175|9999.999|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3 levels, stratification factors and disease type.||9999.999|12.175|0.0094
84458960|NCT05067127|168670247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.562||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|3.863|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||3.863|-2.739|0.7384
84458961|NCT05067127|168670248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.345||||0.5648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.237|5.927|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||5.927|-3.237|0.5648
84458962|NCT00473876|168670272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The differences between baseline and post-intervention (4 months) was analyzed using independent t-test, comparing metformin and placebo.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on peak VO2. We targetted 66 subjects and power calculation based on our previous observational study of CHF with insulin resistance with mean peak VO2 of 11.||||0.08
84458963|NCT00473876|168670273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|Compare between metformin and placebo arm.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on the ratio between VCO2 (production of CO2) and VE (ventilation), it is also called the VE/VCO2 slope||||0.034
84458964|NCT01276288|168670301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|118.07||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||118.07|97.11|0.0092
84458965|NCT01276288|168670301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.14|116.11||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.11|100.14|0.0030
84458966|NCT01276288|168670302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.55|119.29||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||119.29|88.55|0.0199
84458967|NCT01276288|168670302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|118.04||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||118.04|97.90|0.0086
84458968|NCT01276288|168670303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|96.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|104.05||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||104.05|89.08|0.0008
84516785|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.33|0.97|
84516786|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.96|
84458969|NCT01276288|168670304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|116.85||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||116.85|88.63|0.0114
84458970|NCT01276288|168670305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.06|103.88||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||103.88|99.06|<0.0001
84458971|NCT01276288|168670305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.39|108.62||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||108.62|100.39|<0.0001
84516787|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.62||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.62|1.12|
84516788|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|7.21||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||7.21|5.33|
84516789|NCT03480763|168786996|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|5.73||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||5.73|4.38|
84516790|NCT01838681|168787027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|Model included MADRS total score at the randomisation visit, treatment group, country, and the randomisation criteria used||||1.15|0.60|0.2641
84458972|NCT01276288|168670305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|111.01||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.01|95.93|0.0005
84458973|NCT01276288|168670306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.81|116.25||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.25|93.81|0.0066
84458974|NCT01276288|168670306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|111.97||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.97|94.13|0.0012
84458975|NCT01276288|168670306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|107.42||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||107.42|97.65|<0.0001
84458976|NCT01818297|168670351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.14|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|||Due to early termination, the study was insufficiently powered to test the primary objective. This analysis is exploratory and descriptive in nature and cannot be considered conclusive.|Z-test|The Z-test (using an unpooled standard deviation, without continuity correction) was used to test the difference in responder rates between groups.|The Estimation Parameter is the difference between the responder rates in the Treatment and Control groups. The difference is calculated as Treatment - Control. A positive number represents a higher responder rate in the Treatment group.|The original sample size estimate for the primary objective was based on the following assumptions: 109 subjects in each arm with a responder rate of 22% in the Control group and 40% in the Treatment group, and a one-sided α= 0.05 using a Z test with unpooled variance, would result in 90% power. Because the study terminated early, the actual sample size (32 in Treatment, 30 in Control) resulted in 47% power under the same assumptions.|||-5.8|0.14
84458977|NCT00552110|168670393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA); classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||"Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.~Power calculation: The target randomization of 875 subjects (175 subjects per treatment arm) was needed to detect a treatment difference of 0.8 point or more in change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, assuming a pooled standard deviation of 2.3 points."||||0.002
84458978|NCT00552110|168670393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.||||<0.001
84458979|NCT00552110|168670393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of MFNS once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of placebo.||||<0.001
84458980|NCT00552110|168670394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA; classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily.||||0.021
84516791|NCT00424047|168787051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.438|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dex:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||0.438|0.240|<0.001
84516792|NCT00424047|168787052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.07|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||1.070|0.498|0.105
84458981|NCT00552110|168670394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC (0-4hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily||||<0.001
84458982|NCT00552110|168670394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of OXY twice daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of placebo||||<0.001
84458983|NCT04373460|168670459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.8|||Fisher Exact|||||5.8|1.0|0.005
84516793|NCT00424047|168787053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.143|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.143|0.651|0.302
84458984|NCT04373460|168670460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.11|0.16
84516794|NCT00424047|168787054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
84516795|NCT00424047|168787055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
84458985|NCT04373460|168670461|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||Rate per person-years|||||0.32|0.03|0.02
84458986|NCT04373460|168670462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.01|0.32
84458987|NCT04373460|168670467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
84458988|NCT04373460|168670471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.425||||||||1.425|0.192|
84458989|NCT00700804|168670478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Effects of calcium (Ca), protein \& their interaction were tested using repeated measures analysis of variance (subjects nested under High or Low Ca)|Reported analysis is the main effect of Calcium (High vs Low) from the Mixed Model Analysis which averages across the two levels of dietary protein. The main effect of protein and the calcium x protein interaction were not statistically significant.|||||0.05
84458990|NCT02901431|168670479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LSMeans|-0.16||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|-2.56|0.911
84458991|NCT02901431|168670480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjused LSMean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|2.43||||||Week 12||2.43|-1.85|
84458992|NCT02901431|168670480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.67|2.22||||||Week 24||2.22|-2.67|
84458993|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|1.92||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 12||1.92|-2.36|
84516796|NCT00424047|168787058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone : placebo/dexamethasone).|||0.921|0.338|0.021
84516797|NCT00424047|168787059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.478||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.478|0.27|<0.001
84516798|NCT00424047|168787060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.166||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.532||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone: placebo/dexamethasone)|||1.532|0.887|0.271
84458994|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.02||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 24||3.02|-1.60|
84458995|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.12||||||Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 12||3.12|-2.10|
84458996|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY|Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|2.51||||||||2.51|-3.74|
84458997|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 12|Difference in adjusted LSMean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|4.9||||||||4.90|-0.63|
84458998|NCT02901431|168670481|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Differences in adjusted LSMean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|3.22||||||||3.22|-2.87|
84458999|NCT02901431|168670487|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS Means|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||6.70|0.78|
84459000|NCT02901431|168670487|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS means|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|5.29||||||Week 24||5.29|-0.73|
84459001|NCT02901431|168670489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LS Means|0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.99|0.992
84459002|NCT04672083|168670497|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
84459003|NCT04672083|168670498|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
84459004|NCT04672083|168670499|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% confidence interval for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84459005|NCT04672083|168670500|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84516799|NCT00424047|168787061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.486||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.486|0.866|0.359
84516800|NCT00424047|168787062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.964|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.964|0.398|0.032
84516801|NCT03100344|168787069|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||||0.0|-27.3|0.051
84459006|NCT04672083|168670501|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84459007|NCT04672083|168670502|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84459008|NCT04672083|168670503|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84459009|NCT04672083|168670504|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantification.||||<0.05
84459010|NCT04672083|168670505|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
84459011|NCT04672083|168670506|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
84459012|NCT04672083|168670507|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
84459013|NCT05775289|168670539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.63|0.9705
84459014|NCT05775289|168670540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.43|0.42|0.4056
84516802|NCT03100344|168787069|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
84516803|NCT03100344|168787069|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||||6.8|-20.5|0.322
84726467|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.25|0.38|
84459015|NCT00490542|168670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.2||||||||10.2|0.6|
84459016|NCT04743856|168670569|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Apriori p-value for significance was \<0.05. Models were not adjusted for additional covariates and multiple comparisons adjustment was not performed.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models for binomial outcomes were run to determine if there were significant differences in meeting goal over time.||||||0.63
84459017|NCT04743856|168670570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1106.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.76||0.0665||||||Apriori significance level was p\<0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were not adjusted for additional variables.||||||0.0665
84459018|NCT01813890|168670591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|105.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|179.2||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||179.2|32.0|0.006
84459019|NCT01813890|168670591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|126.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|203.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||203.7|49.5|0.004
84516804|NCT03100344|168787070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.8|2.0|0.034
84516805|NCT03100344|168787070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|14.7|<0.001
84516806|NCT03100344|168787070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|-4.2|0.154
84516807|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||22.2|-0.4|0.062
84516808|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.6|0.8|0.042
84516809|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||15.0|-4.7|0.307
84516810|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.7|9.3|0.003
84459020|NCT00046228|168670609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.551||95.0|0.67|1.23||The null hypothesis was tested at the significance level of 0.049. If it is significant, the significance level of null hypotheses tested in the analyses 2 and 3 will be adjusted according to the modified Hochberg approach.|Log Rank|Independent Clinical Endpoints Committee confirmed components of primary endpoint except for death \& resuscitated v fib assessed by the investigator)||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI group versus the Primary PCI group is 15% in lower risk, 25% in medium risk, and 35% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 83.4 %.||1.23|0.67|0.551
84459021|NCT00046228|168670609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.858||95.0|0.72|1.31|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the Abciximab facilitated PCI versus the Primary PCI group is 12.7%, in lower risk, 17.9% in medium risk, and 25.0% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1000 subjects per group) is 54.1%||1.31|0.72|0.858
84459022|NCT00046228|168670609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.676||95.0|0.69|1.27|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI versus the abciximab facilitated PCI group is 2.6% in lower risk, 8.7% in medium risk, and 13.3% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 13.5%.||1.27|0.69|0.676
84459023|NCT00046228|168670610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.247||95.0|0.57|1.16|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.16|0.57|0.247
84459024|NCT00046228|168670610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.278||95.0|0.58|1.17|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.17|0.58|0.278
84459025|NCT00046228|168670610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.944||95.0|0.68|1.43|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.43|0.68|0.944
84459026|NCT00046228|168670611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.494||95.0|0.74|1.84|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.84|0.74|0.494
84516811|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||40.9|11.4|0.001
84516812|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.1|4.9|0.011
84516813|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||41.7|13.5|<0.001
84516814|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||54.8|25.7|<0.001
84516815|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.8|17.4|<0.001
84459027|NCT00046228|168670611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.338||95.0|0.79|1.95|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.95|0.79|0.338
84459028|NCT00046228|168670611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.781||95.0|0.61|1.45|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.45|0.61|0.781
84459029|NCT00046228|168670612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.016||95.0|1.08|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||2.10|1.08|0.016
84459030|NCT00046228|168670612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.67||95.0|0.76|1.52|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.52|0.76|0.670
84459031|NCT00046228|168670612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.042||95.0|1.01|1.93|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.93|1.01|0.042
84459032|NCT00046228|168670613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.603||95.0|0.62|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.62|0.603
84516816|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|37.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||37.1|4.2|0.018
84516817|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||59.9|27.6|<0001
84516818|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||42.6|9.7|0.003
84516819|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||41.4|7.3|0.007
84516820|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||59.9|27.4|<0.001
84516821|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.9|2.4|0.030
84516822|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||50.2|16.4|<0.001
84516823|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|63.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||63.2|31.2|<0.001
84516824|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||39.4|6.1|0.010
84516825|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.5|9.2|0.004
84516826|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||53.3|20.1|<0.001
84459033|NCT00046228|168670613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.765||95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.73|0.765
84459034|NCT00046228|168670613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.415||95.0|0.59|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.59|0.415
84459035|NCT00046228|168670614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.218
84459036|NCT00046228|168670614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.497
84459037|NCT00046228|168670614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.062
84459038|NCT00046228|168670615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.63|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||3.19|1.63|<0.001
84459039|NCT00046228|168670615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.025||95.0|1.05|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.15|1.05|0.025
84459040|NCT00046228|168670615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.05|1.12|0.008
84459041|NCT00046228|168670616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.439
84459042|NCT00046228|168670616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
84516827|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||41.4|7.6|0.007
84516828|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||38.1|3.6|0.022
84459043|NCT00046228|168670616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84459044|NCT00046228|168670617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84459045|NCT00046228|168670617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
84459046|NCT00046228|168670617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84459047|NCT00046228|168670618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.434||95.0|0.69|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.69|0.434
84459048|NCT00046228|168670618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.589||95.0|0.71|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.71|0.589
84459049|NCT00046228|168670618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.809||95.0|0.74|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.74|0.809
84459050|NCT00655928|168670619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84459051|NCT01707992|168670620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.937|||=|0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary analysis for the comparison between laquinimod 0.6 mg versus placebo was conducted using the baseline adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Categorical EDSS at baseline (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 4 or greater than \[\>\] 4), country/geographical region (CGR), categorical age at baseline (\<=38 or \>38), and T2 volume at baseline were included as covariates in the model.||1.313|0.668|= 0.7057
84459052|NCT04108429|168670635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.830
84459053|NCT04108429|168670636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.759
84459054|NCT04108429|168670637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for T|||Counseling center utilization data were examined using Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for Time-Series data to determine if there were changes in utilization between the pre-implementation and implementation phases. SMA evaluates the statistical significance of between-phase changes in data streams and also accounts for the presence of autocorrelation (the non-independence of data points in time-series data streams).||||.275
84459055|NCT04108429|168670639|SUPERIORITY|generalized linear mixed model||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
84459056|NCT04108429|168670640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.489
84459057|NCT04108429|168670641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.001
84459058|NCT04211337|168670651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.475|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.475|0.165|<0.0001
84459059|NCT04211337|168670652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.423|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.423|0.153|<0.0001
84459060|NCT04211337|168670653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.3||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib)|Clopper-Pearson method|||||6.3|2.2|<0.0001
84459061|NCT04211337|168670654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.275||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.587|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).||||0.587|0.129|0.0004
84516829|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||41.3|7.4|0.007
84516830|NCT03100344|168787071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.4|0.4|0.050
84516831|NCT03100344|168787072|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-14.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.7|||Kenward Roger|||||-2.7|-26.2|0.017
84516832|NCT03100344|168787072|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-11.3||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.4|||Kenward Roger|||||0.4|-23.1|0.058
84459062|NCT04211337|168670657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.10|-0.23|<0.0001
84459063|NCT03783195|168670743|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||0.76|-1.77|0.40
84459064|NCT03783195|168670744|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.57||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||2.57|-3.33|0.71
84459065|NCT03783195|168670745|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-10.72||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in VLDL-TG as compared to high GRS group.||-10.72|-31.33|0.0006
84459066|NCT03783195|168670746|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Median Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements at different time points between the two GRS groups.||0.46|-0.27|0.59
84459067|NCT03783195|168670747|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.75|-4.38||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum triglycerides as compared to high GRS group.||-4.38|-37.75|0.017
84459068|NCT03783195|168670748|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements baseline and 3hr timepoints at week 0 and week 3 between the two GRS groups.||0.33|-0.37|0.89
84459069|NCT03783195|168670749|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|5.55||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have less increase in HDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||5.55|-14.28|0.36
84459070|NCT03783195|168670750|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.27|0.67
84516833|NCT03100344|168787072|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-8.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-8.3|-31.6|<0.001
84516834|NCT03100344|168787073|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-9.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.8|-17.5|0.016
84516835|NCT03100344|168787073|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-12.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-5.1|||Kenward Roger|||||-5.1|-20.6|0.001
84516836|NCT03100344|168787073|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-7.6||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.3|||Kenward Roger|||||0.3|-15.4|0.058
84459071|NCT03783195|168670751|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.76|3.69||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in LDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.69|-45.76|0.09
84459072|NCT03783195|168670752|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.24|0.69
84459073|NCT03783195|168670753|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.39|3.17||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in total cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.17|-62.39|0.07
84459074|NCT03783195|168670754|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.80
84459075|NCT03783195|168670755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.91||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum uric acid as compared to high GRS group.||0.91|-0.18|0.17
84459076|NCT03783195|168670756|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.58|0.22
84516837|NCT03100344|168787074|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.2|-37.8|<0.001
84516838|NCT03100344|168787074|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.6|||Kenward Roger|||||-18.6|-44.9|<0.001
84516839|NCT03100344|168787074|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.8|-38.4|<0.001
84516840|NCT03100344|168787075|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
84516841|NCT03100344|168787075|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
84516842|NCT03100344|168787075|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
84459077|NCT03783195|168670757|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.0009||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALT as compared to high GRS group.||-0.0009|-0.03|0.04
84459078|NCT03783195|168670758|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.52|0.53
84459079|NCT03783195|168670759|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|58.08||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum AST as compared to high GRS group.||58.08|-16.9|0.25
84516843|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
84516844|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
84516845|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
84516846|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
84516847|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
84516848|NCT03100344|168787076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
84516849|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
84516850|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
84516851|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
84516852|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
84459080|NCT03783195|168670760|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.59|0.20
84459081|NCT03783195|168670761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.78||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|75.67||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALP as compared to high GRS group.||75.67|-17.76|0.21
84516853|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
84516854|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
84516855|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
84516856|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
84516857|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
84516858|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
84516859|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
84516860|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.2|-0.3|0.032
84516861|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
84516862|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
84516863|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
84516864|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
84516865|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
84516866|NCT03100344|168787076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
84516867|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||14.3|-6.8|0.487
84516868|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||26.5|1.6|0.033
84516869|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.8|0.2|0.053
84516870|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.8|3.2|0.021
84516871|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.3|2.4|0.027
84516872|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.1|7.3|0.006
84516873|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||32.2|-1.7|0.086
84516874|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||43.1|9.3|0.004
84459082|NCT03783195|168670762|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.214|0.67
84459083|NCT03783195|168670763|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.28||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum GGT as compared to high GRS group.||0.28|-0.12|0.41
84459084|NCT03783195|168670764|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.44|0.49
84459085|NCT00215150|168670765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Results are from a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the difference from endpoint to baseline for the intent to treat sample from the open label phase of the project.||||< 0.001
84459086|NCT00215150|168670765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Results are from a Kruskal Wallis test on the ziprasidone/placebo groups from the randomization phase of the project.||||> .05
84459087|NCT02240134|168670766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for air filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||3.32|0.46|0.68
84459088|NCT02240134|168670766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.72|0.35|0.96
84459089|NCT02240134|168670767|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|-6.96||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|24.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||24.55|-30.50|0.250
84459090|NCT02240134|168670767|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|11.77||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|49.72||Statistical significance selected as 95% confidence interval of the estimation parameter that excludes the null value, 0.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in indoor PM2.5 for education treatment versus placebo.|Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||49.72|-16.57|0.295
84459091|NCT03124459|168670779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|4.9|0.01
84459092|NCT03124459|168670780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-6.8|0.16
84459093|NCT03124459|168670781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|74.0|||ANCOVA|||||74|-3.2|0.13
84459094|NCT03124459|168670782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.1|0.73
84516875|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||34.2|0.5|0.050
84717800|NCT05157841|169185456|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.74|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-109.6|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-109.6|-218.3|<0.00001
84459095|NCT03124459|168670783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-4.6|0.51
84459096|NCT03124459|168670788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.4|0.63
84459097|NCT01903876|168670789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.044
84459098|NCT01903876|168670790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.042
84459099|NCT00603239|168670815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustments for multiplicity were made.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HbA1c is equal between the two treatment groups. Greater than 99% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.88% in change in HbA1c from baseline using a 2-sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84459100|NCT00603239|168670816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<= 7% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.113
84459101|NCT00603239|168670817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c \<= 6.5% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.004
84459102|NCT00603239|168670818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in FSG is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
84459103|NCT00603239|168670819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.176
84459104|NCT00603239|168670821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change form baseline in HOMA-B is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
84516876|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||38.1|3.3|0.023
84459105|NCT00603239|168670822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HOMA-S is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.794
84459106|NCT00603239|168670823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Incidence of minor hypoglycemia episodes is equal between the two treatment groups.||||1.00
84459107|NCT00603239|168670824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in IWQOL-Lite Total Score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the Total Score only.||||0.342
84459108|NCT00603239|168670825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05)|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in EQ-5D score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the EQ-5D Health State Score only.||||0.186
84459109|NCT03093402|168670842|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.6|-2.5|0.4190
84459110|NCT03093402|168670842|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.3|-2.7|0.4190
84459111|NCT03093402|168670842|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.8|-2.2|0.4190
84459112|NCT03093402|168670852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.594
84459113|NCT03093402|168670852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.487
84516877|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
84516878|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
84516879|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||37.3|1.3|0.041
84516880|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||45.4|10.4|0.003
84516881|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.2|-0.5|0.063
84516882|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.6|-0.4|0.064
84516883|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|40.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||40.3|4.9|0.016
84516884|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||36.9|1.3|0.041
84516885|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.6|-0.4|0.064
84516886|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.4|8.6|0.005
84459114|NCT03093402|168670852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.760
84459115|NCT03093402|168670852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.676
84459116|NCT03093402|168670853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.796
84459117|NCT03093402|168670853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.955
84459118|NCT03093402|168670853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.211
84459119|NCT03093402|168670853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.481
84459120|NCT03093402|168670854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.790
84459121|NCT03093402|168670854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.843
84459122|NCT03093402|168670854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.637
84459123|NCT03093402|168670854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.243
84459124|NCT03093402|168670855|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>=100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||>0.999
84459125|NCT03093402|168670855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.861
84459126|NCT03093402|168670856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.7||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.7|-4.8|0.390
84516887|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.0|-0.6|0.064
84516888|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.8|-2.0|0.094
84459127|NCT03093402|168670856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.2||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.2|-4.9|0.390
84459128|NCT03093402|168670856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.6|-8.6|0.390
84459129|NCT03093402|168670857|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.0|-1.6|0.556
84516889|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||39.6|5.1|0.014
84516890|NCT03100344|168787077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||28.0|-7.7|0.273
84516891|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.0|-6.8|0.979
84516892|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.0|-5.8|0.668
84516893|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.2|-5.8|0.658
84459130|NCT03093402|168670857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each JBT-101 cohort versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-2.5|0.556
84459131|NCT03093402|168670857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.4|-3.1|0.556
84459132|NCT03093402|168670858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.669
84459133|NCT03093402|168670858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.432
84459134|NCT03093402|168670858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.780
84459135|NCT03093402|168670858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.285
84459136|NCT03093402|168670860|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.872
84459137|NCT03093402|168670860|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.895
84516894|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.2|-8.0|0.690
84516895|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.7|-6.9|0.521
84516896|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.5|1.5|0.033
84459138|NCT03093402|168670860|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.669
84516897|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.0|-3.1|0.172
84516898|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.7|3.7|0.014
84516899|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.9|8.2|0.002
84516900|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||18.8|-7.5|0.404
84516901|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||39.6|9.4|0.003
84516902|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||28.2|-0.1|0.059
84516903|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||25.0|-5.6|0.222
84516904|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||42.3|10.0|0.003
84516905|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.0|3.3|0.22
84516906|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||29.3|-2.8|0.111
84516907|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||46.0|13.2|<0.001
84459139|NCT03093402|168670860|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||||0.668|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.668
84459140|NCT03093402|168670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.5|-2.3|.820
84459141|NCT03093402|168670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.8|-2.0|.820
84459142|NCT03093402|168670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.1|-2.6|.820
84459143|NCT03093402|168670862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.4|-3.0|.244
84459144|NCT03093402|168670862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-5.2|.244
84459145|NCT03093402|168670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.9|-6.2|.244
84459146|NCT03093402|168670863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.40|-0.27|0.408
84459147|NCT03093402|168670863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.26|-0.40|0.408
84459148|NCT03093402|168670863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.16|-0.50|0.408
84516908|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||33.6|1.3|0.040
84516909|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.4|-7.3|0.262
84516910|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||25.7|-8.4|0.327
84516911|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||33.1|-1.7|0.083
84516912|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||27.2|-7.0|0.255
84516913|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.9|2.2|0.034
84516914|NCT03100344|168787078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.6|0.3|0.053
84516915|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
84459149|NCT03093402|168670864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.48||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.24|-5.72||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||-5.72|-37.24|0.070
84459150|NCT03093402|168670864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|4.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.54|-25.33|0.070
84459151|NCT03093402|168670864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|4.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.16|-25.78|0.070
84459152|NCT03093402|168670865|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.99||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.99|-3.38|0.979
84459153|NCT03093402|168670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.93||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.93|-3.13|0.979
84459154|NCT03093402|168670865|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.31||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Physical Function Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||4.31|-2.77|0.979
84459155|NCT03093402|168670866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||3.26|-6.14|0.788
84459156|NCT03093402|168670866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|2.96||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||2.96|-6.07|0.788
84459157|NCT03093402|168670866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.94||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||4.94|-4.00|0.788
84459158|NCT03093402|168670867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.16|-6.14|0.766
84459159|NCT03093402|168670867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.11||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||5.11|-3.60|0.766
84516916|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
84516917|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||4.8|-4.8|0.985
84516918|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.2|-8.4|0.154
84516919|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
84516920|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
84459160|NCT03093402|168670867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|3.07||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.07|-5.55|0.766
84459161|NCT03093402|168670868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|5.17||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||5.17|-6.04|0.982
84459162|NCT03093402|168670868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.50|-6.22|0.982
84459163|NCT03093402|168670868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.36||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||4.36|-6.32|0.982
84459164|NCT03093402|168670869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.91||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.91|-4.74|0.607
84459165|NCT03093402|168670869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.71||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||7.71|-1.85|0.607
84459166|NCT03093402|168670869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|6.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||6.09|-3.22|0.607
84459167|NCT03093402|168670870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.30|-4.66|0.981
84459168|NCT03093402|168670870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.86||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.86|-3.84|0.981
84459169|NCT03093402|168670870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.08||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.08|-4.62|0.981
84459170|NCT03093402|168670871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.29|-6.00|0.653
84516921|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.3|-7.5|0.602
84516922|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.4|-4.5|0.413
84516923|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||9.1|-5.7|0.658
84516924|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.3|-3.2|0.307
84459171|NCT03093402|168670871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.88||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.88|-3.10|0.653
84459172|NCT03093402|168670871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.67||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.67|-4.31|0.653
84459173|NCT03093402|168670872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.29|-2.56|0.245
84459174|NCT03093402|168670872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.80|-1.93|0.245
84459175|NCT03093402|168670872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.09|-2.64|0.245
84459176|NCT03093402|168670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|3.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.54|-4.45|0.608
84459177|NCT03093402|168670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|5.47||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.47|-2.27|0.608
84459178|NCT03093402|168670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.45||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.45|-2.25|0.608
84516925|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.8|6.9|0.002
84516926|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||17.4|0.1|0.054
84516927|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.5|-5.4|0.325
84459179|NCT00054847|168670889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84||Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for stratification factors and characteristics that were potentially predictive of graft patency. We also performed prespecified subgroup analyses and assessed treatment subgroup interaction.|Chi-squared|We performed as-treated and per-protocol analyses \& multiple imputations as sensitivity analyses to the intent-to-treat analysis on primary end point.||The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 1-year patency rates of 92% in radial artery vs 83% in saphenous vein grafts, with a 2-sided type I error of 5%and an expected 1-year catheterization completion rate of 65%.||1.84|.62|.82
84717801|NCT05157841|169185457|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Least square mean difference|0.39|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.55|0.28|<0.00001
84459180|NCT00054847|168670890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
84459181|NCT00054847|168670891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
84516928|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.1|3.1|0.019
84516929|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||30.5|4.5|0.011
84516930|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.7|-3.2|0.153
84516931|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||38.4|10.3|0.001
84459182|NCT00461175|168670897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, breastfeeding at time of insertion and parity status.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.70|0.96|
84459183|NCT00461175|168670897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, time since last delivery, experience of the inserting health care provider.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.78|0.99|
84459184|NCT00461175|168670898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||||||||0.09|0.04|
84459185|NCT00461175|168670898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||||||||0.64|0.42|
84459186|NCT00461175|168670898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, and parity.|||0.25|0.10|
84516932|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||25.1|-0.7|0.069
84516933|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||26.6|-0.8|0.070
84516934|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.3|6.5|0.006
84516935|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.7|0.3|0.052
84516936|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||26.3|-0.7|0.069
84516937|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.3|4.9|0.011
84516938|NCT03100344|168787079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||25.7|-1.3|0.083
84459187|NCT03093155|168670899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.49|||Regression, Cox|||||0.49|0.20|<0.001
84459188|NCT03093155|168670900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84516939|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
84516940|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
84516941|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
84516942|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
84516943|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
84459189|NCT03093155|168670901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.38|0.018
84516944|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
84516945|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
84516946|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
84516947|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
84516948|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
84516949|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
84516950|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
84459190|NCT03093155|168670902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
84459191|NCT03093155|168670903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||The RECIST responses were categorized as SD/PD or NA compared to PR or Better as a binary outcome.||||0.068
84459192|NCT01773473|168670907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
84459193|NCT00826514|168670914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.209||||||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value, age and treatment as covariates.||0.209|-1.150|
84516951|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
84516952|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
84516953|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.5|1.8|0.032
84516954|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
84516955|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
84516956|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
84459194|NCT00826514|168670917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.754|1.905||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI Total Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.905|-4.754|
84459195|NCT00826514|168670917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.701|0.591||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI PD Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.591|-2.701|
84459196|NCT00826514|168670917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.789|1.541||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI US Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.541|-0.789|
84459197|NCT00826514|168670917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.785|0.631||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI QoL Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.631|-1.785|
84459198|NCT00826514|168670918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.348||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.348|-0.990|
84459199|NCT00826514|168670919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.829|1.452||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.452|-1.829|
84459200|NCT00826514|168670920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.144|-2.968||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||-2.968|-64.144|
84459201|NCT00826514|168670921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.364|0.415||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.415|-1.364|
84516957|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
84516958|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
84717802|NCT05157841|169185458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|2.01|0.0003
84459202|NCT00826514|168670922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.146|0.401||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.401|-3.146|
84459203|NCT00826514|168670923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.417|0.334||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.334|-0.417|
84459204|NCT00826514|168670924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.791|1.822||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.822|-1.791|
84459205|NCT00826514|168670925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.763|4.407||||||Week 6: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||4.407|0.763|
84459206|NCT00826514|168670925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|2.575||||||Week 16: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||2.575|0.388|
84459207|NCT01053312|168670945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.688||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Contralateral to the biopsy Site||||0.098
84516959|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
84717803|NCT05157841|169185459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as main effect and site as categorical and age as continuous covariates.||||0.93|0.45|0.0089
84459208|NCT01053312|168670945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.482||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||Ipsilateral to the biopsy Site||||0.268
84459209|NCT01053312|168670945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.685||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||Composite Region||||0.099
84459210|NCT02207907|168671014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.317|-14.664|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-14.664|-20.317|<0.0001
84459211|NCT02207907|168671015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|-0.165|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.165|-0.237|<0.0001
84516960|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
84516961|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
84516962|NCT03100344|168787080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
84516963|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||Week 1||0.0|-20.0|0.049
84717804|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariate of age.||||0.0|-1.7|0.0296
84459212|NCT01025635|168671029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|study center adjusted||||||0.017
84459213|NCT01025635|168671030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|with factors treatment group, study center, and baseline lesion count as covariate||||||<0.001
84459214|NCT01834404|168671054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.057
84459215|NCT01834404|168671055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.052
84459216|NCT01834404|168671056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
84459217|NCT01834404|168671057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
84459218|NCT01834404|168671058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
84459219|NCT01834404|168671059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
84516964|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-7.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.0|-26.7|<0.001
84516965|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-5.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-5.8|-25.6|0.002
84459220|NCT01834404|168671060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
84459221|NCT01834404|168671061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This p-value was based on a rank transformation.||||0.030
84459222|NCT01834404|168671062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84459223|NCT01834404|168671063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
84459224|NCT01834404|168671064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
84459225|NCT01834404|168671065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84459226|NCT01834404|168671066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84516966|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.8||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||1.3|-20.9|0.084
84459227|NCT01499290|168671067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|1.58||||||The primary objective of this study (FDA agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the mMITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||1.58|-8.64|
84459228|NCT01499290|168671068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the MITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.10|-6.90|
84459229|NCT01499290|168671069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.89||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.89|-4.61|
84459230|NCT00327444|168671093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.56|53.05||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||53.05|10.56|0.0019
84459231|NCT00327444|168671094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|375.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|205.99||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|797.42||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference was estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||797.42|-46.48|0.0160
84459232|NCT00327444|168671095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.54||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||-0.54|-4.33|0.0035
84459233|NCT00805207|168671097|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84459234|NCT00805207|168671097|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84459235|NCT00805207|168671097|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.88
84459236|NCT00805207|168671097|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.26
84459237|NCT00805207|168671097|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.98
84459238|NCT00805207|168671098|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84459239|NCT00805207|168671098|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84459240|NCT00805207|168671098|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84459241|NCT00805207|168671098|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
84459242|NCT00805207|168671098|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
84516967|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-5.2|-27.2|0.004
84516968|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-3.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-3.8|-25.8|0.008
84516969|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-0.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-0.4|-27.5|0.044
84516970|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-7.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-7.6|-34.7|0.002
84459243|NCT00805207|168671099|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
84459244|NCT00805207|168671099|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84459245|NCT00805207|168671099|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
84459246|NCT00805207|168671099|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
84459247|NCT00805207|168671100|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
84459248|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84459249|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84459250|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||0.96
84459251|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84459252|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
84459253|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
84459254|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
84459255|NCT00805207|168671101|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
84459256|NCT00064701|168671102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-8.9|5.2||||||||5.2|-8.9|
84459257|NCT00064701|168671102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-9.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-9.9|
84459258|NCT00064701|168671103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.6||||||||0.6|-7.2|
84459259|NCT00064701|168671103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.1|
84459260|NCT00064701|168671104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-8.5|
84459261|NCT00064701|168671104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.0|
84459262|NCT00064701|168671105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.0||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 6 months||-3.0|-13.1|
84459263|NCT00064701|168671105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 6 months||1.8|-9.5|
84459264|NCT00064701|168671105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 Months|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.3||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 12 months||-0.3|-12.0|
84459265|NCT00064701|168671105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 months|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 12 months||2.8|-9.6|
84459266|NCT00064701|168671115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.5||||||||5.5|-6.5|
84459267|NCT00064701|168671115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-3.9|
84459268|NCT00064701|168671116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.6||||||||6.6|-9.1|
84459269|NCT00064701|168671116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.1|
84459270|NCT02249052|168671117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.394|-71.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-71.265|-95.394|<0.0001
84459271|NCT02249052|168671118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.8947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6686|0.987|||Sign test|||||.9870|.6686|<.0001
84459272|NCT02847598|168671163|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean Difference|-3.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2|||MMRM|||A Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.2|-6.7|0.037
84459273|NCT02847598|168671164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.29||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-4.88|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-4.88|-43.70|0.015
84459274|NCT02847598|168671164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.71|-14.12|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-14.12|-52.71|<0.001
84459275|NCT02847598|168671164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.55|-11.42|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.42|-44.55|0.001
84459276|NCT02847598|168671167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|6.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||6.08|-25.94|0.220
84459277|NCT02847598|168671167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|7.9|||MMRM|||Week 16: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||7.90|-25.82|0.293
84516971|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-1.8|-28.8|0.026
84516972|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|0.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||0.7|-30.2|0.062
84459278|NCT02847598|168671167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 24: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.79|-32.28|0.062
84459279|NCT02847598|168671168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|-11.97|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.97|-48.75|0.001
84459280|NCT02847598|168671168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.46|-18.87|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-18.87|-55.46|<0.001
84459281|NCT02847598|168671168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-10.4|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-10.40|-41.71|0.001
84459282|NCT02847598|168671174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.5|-3.0|0.007
84459283|NCT02847598|168671176|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.58|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.58|-0.90|0.667
84459284|NCT02848833|168671204|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84459285|NCT02848833|168671207|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84459286|NCT02848833|168671208|OTHER|Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84459287|NCT02848833|168671209|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84459288|NCT02848833|168671210|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84459289|NCT03797001|168671223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84459290|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.157||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.157|0.108|<0.0001
84459291|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.078|<0.0001
84459292|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.145||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.145|0.096|< 0.0001
84459293|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.155||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.155|0.106|<0.0001
84717805|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.1||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.1|-3.6|<0.00001
84459294|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.115|0.066|<0.0001
84459295|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.036|-0.013|0.3394
84459296|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.167||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.167|0.118|<0.0001
84459297|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.005|0.0173
84459298|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.014|-0.035|0.4210
84459299|NCT01431287|168671253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
84459300|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.063|<0.0001
84459301|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.075|0.024|0.0001
84459302|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.092|0.042|<0.0001
84459303|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.087|0.037|<0.0001
84459304|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.004|0.0231
84516973|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-7.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-7.9|-38.9|0.003
84459305|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.046|-0.004|0.1073
84459306|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.058|<0.0001
84459307|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.013|0.0029
84459308|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.030|-0.020|0.6939
84516974|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-5.2|-36.0|0.009
84516975|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-2.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-2.3|-29.4|0.022
84516976|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-10.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-10.2|-37.1|<0.001
84516977|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-1.3|-28.1|0.032
84516978|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||1.1|-28.6|0.070
84516979|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-38.5|0.002
84459309|NCT01431287|168671254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|0.008|0.0097
84459310|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
84459311|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
84459312|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
84459313|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
84459314|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
84459315|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
84459316|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
84459317|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
84717806|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.5|-4.1|<0.00001
84459318|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
84459319|NCT01431287|168671255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
84459320|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
84459321|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
84516980|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|4.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||4.1|-25.6|0.154
84516981|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-12.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||1.9|-26.0|0.090
84459322|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
84459323|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
84459324|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
84459325|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
84459326|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
84459327|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
84459328|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
84459329|NCT01431287|168671256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
84717807|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.00001
84459330|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.008|0.0095
84516982|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-2.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-2.1|-29.7|0.024
84459331|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
84459332|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0112
84516983|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|4.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||4.4|-23.4|0.180
84516984|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||0.0|-27.3|0.051
84516985|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
84516986|NCT03100344|168787081|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||6.8|-20.5|0.322
84516987|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-2.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-2.4|-19.4|0.012
84516988|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.1|-23.8|<0.001
84516989|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-0.9|-17.8|0.029
84516990|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-11.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-11.6|-32.0|<0.001
84459333|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.068|<0.0001
84459334|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
84459335|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.024|0.9514
84459336|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.069|<0.0001
84459337|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.007||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.007|-0.057|0.0131
84459338|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.036|-0.086|<0.0001
84459339|NCT01431287|168671257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0243
84459340|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.170|0.119|<0.0001
84516991|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-19.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-19.1|-39.1|<0.001
84717808|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.6|-0.9|0.3419
84459341|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.136|0.085|<0.0001
84459342|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.094|<0.0001
84459343|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.132|0.081|<0.0001
84516992|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-13.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-13.6|-34.0|<0.001
84516993|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-10.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-10.5|-32.1|<0.001
84516994|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-24.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-24.2|-45.5|<0.001
84717809|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-2.5|<0.00001
84726468|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.63|0.77|
84459344|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.110|0.059|<0.0001
84459345|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.051|0.000|0.0470
84459346|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.107|<0.0001
84459347|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
84459348|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.038|-0.013|0.3329
84459349|NCT01431287|168671258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.047|-0.004|0.0958
84516995|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-19.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-19.9|-41.6|<0.001
84516996|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-12.6|-33.2|<0.001
84516997|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-27.2|-47.4|<0.001
84516998|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-23.8|-44.4|<0.001
84459350|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
84459351|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.139|0.086|<0.0001
84459352|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
84516999|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-12.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-12.5|-35.6|<0.001
84517000|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-27.2|-49.7|<0.001
84517001|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-18.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-18.7|-41.7|<0.001
84517002|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-32.8|<0.001
84517003|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-22.6|-46.0|<0.001
84517004|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-16.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-16.8|-40.7|<0.001
84517005|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-8.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-8.4|-33.7|0.001
84517006|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-17.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-17.3|-42.1|<0.001
84517007|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-15.2|-40.6|<0.001
84517008|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-8.6|-36.1|0.002
84517009|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-18.0|-44.9|<0.001
84459353|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
84459354|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.125|0.072|<0.0001
84459355|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.012|0.3008
84459356|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
84459357|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1484
84459358|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.026|0.9981
84459359|NCT01431287|168671259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1480
84459360|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
84459361|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.011|0.0050
84517010|NCT03100344|168787082|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-16.2|-43.8|<0.001
84459362|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.089|0.039|<0.0001
84459363|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
84459364|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.010|0.0057
84459365|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.025|0.9633
84517011|NCT03100344|168787084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
84517012|NCT03100344|168787084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.8|-3.8|<0.001
84517013|NCT03100344|168787084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.3|-3.3|<0.001
84459366|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.038|<0.0001
84459367|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0250
84459368|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.023|0.8949
84459369|NCT01431287|168671260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.052|0.002|0.0351
84459370|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.105|0.055|<0.0001
84459371|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.073|0.022|0.0002
84459372|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.101|0.051|<0.0001
84459373|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.086|0.036|<0.0001
84517014|NCT03100344|168787085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
84459374|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.069|0.018|0.0007
84459375|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.029|-0.022|0.7755
84459376|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
84517015|NCT03100344|168787085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.6|-3.6|<0.001
84517016|NCT03100344|168787085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
84517017|NCT03100344|168787086|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-9.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-9.9|-37.7|<0.001
84517018|NCT03100344|168787086|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-17.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-17.7|-45.0|<0.001
84517019|NCT03100344|168787086|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-15.2|-43.2|<0.001
84517020|NCT02433977|168787102|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517021|NCT02433977|168787103|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517022|NCT02433977|168787104|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517023|NCT02433977|168787105|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517024|NCT02433977|168787107|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517025|NCT02433977|168787109|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517026|NCT02433977|168787110|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84517027|NCT02433977|168787111|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
84459377|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0118
84459378|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.010|0.2416
84459379|NCT01431287|168671261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.043|-0.008|0.1792
84459380|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.074|<0.0001
84459381|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.084|0.033|<0.0001
84459382|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.107||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.107|0.057|<0.0001
84459383|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.073|0.023|0.0002
84459384|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.067|0.016|0.0014
84517028|NCT02645253|168787136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0785|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||Linear Model|||||1.15|0.882|
84517029|NCT02645253|168787138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.23|||Linear Model|||||1.23|1.06|
84459385|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.043|-0.008|0.1747
84459386|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.040|<0.0001
84459387|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.066|0.016|0.0016
84517030|NCT02645253|168787140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.31|||Linear Model|||||1.31|0.801|
84517031|NCT02645253|168787150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||Linear Model|||||1.09|0.870|
84517032|NCT02645253|168787155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.14|||Linear Model|||||1.14|0.951|
84517033|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.09|||ANCOVA||Day 1/ Day -1|||122.09|86.88|
84517034|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.32|109.04|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||109.04|77.32|
84517035|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|105.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|125.49|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||125.49|89.40|
84517036|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.35|106.16|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||106.16|75.35|
84517037|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|99.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.12|118.46|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||118.46|84.12|
84517038|NCT02645253|168787167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|75.38||||||95.0|63.4|89.61|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||89.61|63.40|
84459388|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0081
84459389|NCT01431287|168671262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.032|-0.019|0.6110
84459390|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.111|0.059|<0.0001
84517039|NCT02727192|168787177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||A two-sided significance level of 5% was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||1.3|-2.6|0.520
84517040|NCT02727192|168787178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-3.3|0.440
84517041|NCT02727192|168787179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-2.1|0.410
84517042|NCT02727192|168787180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
84517043|NCT02727192|168787183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Regression, Linear|||Mental Component Summary score||5.8|-0.1|0.058
84517044|NCT02727192|168787183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Physical Component Summary score||0.8|-5.1|0.160
84517045|NCT02727192|168787184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-2.0|0.110
84517046|NCT02727192|168787186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.5|0.850
84517047|NCT02727192|168787188|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-1.0|0.650
84517048|NCT02727192|168787189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.5|0.8|0.006
84517049|NCT02727192|168787190|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-31.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.4|40.7|||Regression, Linear|||||40.7|-103.4|0.389
84517050|NCT02727192|168787193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|-0.3|0.697
84517051|NCT00928057|168787195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.506||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA model was used to calculate the absolute percent (%)change in fructosamine (% \|∆ Fru\|), with 95 % confidence intervals."||||0.506
84517052|NCT00928057|168787195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.878||||||The threshold for significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using ANOVA. The ANOVA model was used to calculate the % \|∆ Fru\|, with 95% confidence intervals."||||0.878
84517053|NCT00928057|168787200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is the same or greater than the pain for the reference. The alternative hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is less than the pain for the reference.||||0.019
84517054|NCT00928057|168787200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||As described for the 4 vs. 5mm statistical analysis.||||<0.001
84459391|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.076|0.025|0.0001
84459392|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.051|<0.0001
84459393|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.095|0.044|<0.0001
84517055|NCT03206749|168787202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|42.4|||ANCOVA|||||42.40|16.61|<0.0001
84517056|NCT03206749|168787203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.18|40.88|||ANCOVA|||||40.88|16.18|<0.0001
84459394|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|0.016|0.0013
84459395|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.034|-0.017|0.5274
84459396|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.103|0.052|<0.0001
84459397|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
84459398|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.018|0.5744
84459399|NCT01431287|168671263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.053|0.001|0.0381
84459400|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.055|<0.0001
84459401|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|0.027|<0.0001
84517057|NCT03206749|168787204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|62.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|89.27|||ANCOVA|||||89.27|36.30|<0.0001
84517058|NCT03206749|168787205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||||2.16|1.01|0.0469
84459402|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.039|<0.0001
84459403|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.081|0.029|<0.0001
84459404|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.011|0.0052
84517059|NCT03206749|168787206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.79|0.3294
84517060|NCT03206749|168787207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2341|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2341
84517061|NCT03206749|168787208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3358||||||0 - 24 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3358
84517062|NCT03206749|168787208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||Greater than (\>) 24 - 48 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
84517063|NCT03206749|168787209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0 - 24 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0004
84517064|NCT03206749|168787209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||\>24 - 48 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0035
84517065|NCT02752074|168787220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.51711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.83|0.51711
84517066|NCT02752074|168787221|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.80666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.49||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.86|0.80666
84540825|NCT03718832|168832729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.559642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2680774|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032797|2.086488||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.086488|1.032797|<0.001
84459405|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.010|0.2273
84459406|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|0.045|<0.0001
84459407|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.055||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.055|0.002|0.0330
84459408|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.037|-0.016|0.4327
84459409|NCT01431287|168671264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.044|-0.008|0.1764
84459410|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.007|0.0241
84459411|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.148||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.148|0.051|<0.0001
84459412|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.021|0.0049
84459413|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
84517067|NCT05099380|168787249|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 286 subjects (143 for each lens group) competing the study assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control.||6.7|-0.6|
84459414|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.162|0.064|<0.0001
84459415|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.063|0.5831
84459416|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.182||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.182|0.084|<0.0001
84540506|NCT00129545|168832077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The posterior probability of non-inferiority is defined as the probability that the event rate for the Device group is less than twice that for the Control group. This probability was required to be greater than 0.975 for a finding of non-inferiority. The criterion for non-inferiority was consistently met at each analysis time point demonstrating the Device group is non-inferior to the Control group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||||Relative Risk calculated as Device Rate over Control rate, with 95% Credible Intervals|||1.07|0.42|
84459417|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.006|-0.092|0.0822
84459418|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|-0.028||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.028|-0.126|0.0020
84459419|NCT01431287|168671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.083||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.083|-0.015|0.1774
84459420|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.268||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.268|0.169|<0.0001
84459421|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
84517068|NCT05099380|168787250|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.05.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a linear mixed model-based method with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 16 subjects (8 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.01|-0.02|
84517069|NCT05099380|168787251|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.05.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 240 subjects (120 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
84517070|NCT05099380|168787252|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.1.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 140 subjects (70 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
84517071|NCT05099380|168787253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 73% for CLUE comfort using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.5|-4.8|
84717810|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.6|-2.8|<0.00001
84459422|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.160|<0.0001
84459423|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.104|<0.0001
84540507|NCT01776632|168832088|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.03
84717811|NCT05157841|169185460|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.9|-2.1|<0.00001
84459424|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.183||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.183|0.084|<0.0001
84459425|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.059|-0.040|0.6974
84459426|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.213||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.213|0.114|<0.0001
84459427|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.026|0.0027
84459428|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.006|0.0269
84459429|NCT01431287|168671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.069|-0.030|0.4343
84459430|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.248||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.248|0.148|<0.0001
84459431|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.197||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.197|0.096|<0.0001
84517072|NCT05099380|168787254|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points lower than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 23% for CLUE handling using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||2.3|-6.0|
84517073|NCT05099380|168787255|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio was greater than 0.67.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.16|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of Excellent rating for the Test was 10% higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 93% using a Pearson chi-square test for two proportions with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05."||2.16|0.83|
84459432|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.158|<0.0001
84459433|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.242|0.143|<0.0001
84540508|NCT01776632|168832089|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.003
84540509|NCT01776632|168832090|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.04
84459434|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.206|0.106|<0.0001
84540510|NCT01776632|168832091|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-1.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.09
84459435|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.040|-0.060|0.6980
84459436|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.233|0.132|<0.0001
84459437|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.001|0.0442
84459438|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.065|-0.035|0.5514
84459439|NCT01431287|168671267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.086|-0.014|0.1569
84517074|NCT05099380|168787256|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the preference ratio was greater than 1.|Preference Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.1|||Linear Mixed Model||Preference ratio was calculated as Study lens over Habitual lens within the Test lens group.|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of subjects preferring Study lens was 20% higher than preferring Habitual lens in the Test lens group, the estimated statistical power for testing superiority of the Test relative to the Habitual was 88% using a simulation approach with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.10|1.40|
84517075|NCT00907907|168787308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.97||||||90.0|80.25|110.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.04|80.25|
84517076|NCT00907907|168787309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.01||||||90.0|98.74|105.39|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.39|98.74|
84517077|NCT00907907|168787310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.91||||||90.0|95.99|103.98|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.98|95.99|
84517078|NCT00545792|168787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single point estiamte of 1-yr PFS|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||||The reported 1-year PFS rate 80% (Exact 95% CI: 56% - 94%) was the proportion of the patients remained progression free after 12 months.|Single-arm feasibility study; Kaplan Meier analysis was applied to estimate one-year PFS distribution as well as to calculate proportion of patients remain progression free by month 12.||0.94|0.56|
84517079|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.03||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.03|0.751|
84517080|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.15||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.843|
84517081|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.02|0.740|
84517082|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.29||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.29|0.888|
84459440|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.253||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.253|0.150|<0.0001
84517083|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.05||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.05|0.714|
84517084|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.12||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.12|0.766|
84517085|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.19||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.19|0.869|
84459441|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
84459442|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.269||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.269|0.167|<0.0001
84459443|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.232||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day\^interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.232|0.130|<0.0001
84459444|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.25||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.250|0.148|<0.0001
84459445|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.067|0.5373
84459446|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.216||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.216|0.114|<0.0001
84459447|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.070|-0.033|0.4763
84459448|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.088|-0.015|0.1613
84517086|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.13||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.13|0.816|
84459449|NCT01431287|168671268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.069|0.4908
84459450|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.173||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.173|0.072|<0.0001
84517087|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.15||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.829|
84517088|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.22||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.22|0.878|
84517089|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.11||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.11|0.791|
84517090|NCT02842853|168787315|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.15||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.818|
84517091|NCT02842853|168787316|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.5||||||Serogroup A||23.5|14.8|
84459451|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.012|0.0154
84459452|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.181||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.181|0.080|<0.0001
84459453|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.134|0.033|0.0012
84459454|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.020|0.0061
84459455|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.059|0.7518
84459456|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0034
84459457|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.110|0.009|0.0209
84459458|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.004|0.0708
84459459|NCT01431287|168671269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|-0.038|0.6148
84459460|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.215||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.215|0.114|<0.0001
84459461|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.020|0.0064
84459462|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.102|<0.0001
84517092|NCT02842853|168787316|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|45.0||||||Serogroup C||45|36.7|
84517093|NCT02842853|168787316|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.9||||||Serogroup Y||21.9|14.5|
84517094|NCT02842853|168787316|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.3||||||Serogroup W||23.3|14.9|
84726469|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.69|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.69|0.36|
84459463|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0035
84459464|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.109|0.008|0.0233
84459465|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|-0.039|0.6413
84459466|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.138||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.138|0.037|0.0007
84459467|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.144|0.043|0.0003
84459468|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.026|0.0030
84459469|NCT01431287|168671270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|-0.034|0.5159
84459470|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.261||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.261|0.159|<0.0001
84459471|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.141||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.141|0.038|0.0006
84459472|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
84459473|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.017|0.0094
84726470|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.33|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.33|0.82|
84459474|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.011|0.0174
84459475|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.2888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|-0.023|0.2888
84459476|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.146|0.044|0.0003
84459477|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.172||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.172|0.070|<0.0001
84459478|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.166|0.064|<0.0001
84459479|NCT01431287|168671271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.057|-0.045|0.8241
84459480|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.208||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.208|0.108|<0.0001
84459481|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.022|0.0048
84459482|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.200|0.101|<0.0001
84459483|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.152|0.053|<0.0001
84459484|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.014|0.0116
84459485|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|-0.042|0.7577
84517095|NCT02842853|168787317|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|25.8||||||Serogroup A||25.8|13.5|
84517096|NCT02842853|168787317|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|46.9||||||Serogroup C||46.9|35.0|
84459486|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.16||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.160|0.061|<0.0001
84459487|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.136|0.037|0.0007
84459488|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.002|0.0621
84459489|NCT01431287|168671272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.089|-0.011|0.1266
84517097|NCT02842853|168787317|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|33.3||||||Serogroup Y||33.3|21.7|
84726471|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.67|
84459490|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.209||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.209|0.104|<0.0001
84459491|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.139|0.034|0.0013
84459492|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.223|0.118|<0.0001
84459493|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.154|0.049|0.0001
84459494|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.153|0.048|0.0002
84459495|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.039|-0.066|0.6093
84459496|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.140|0.035|0.0011
84459497|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.123|0.017|0.0095
84517098|NCT02842853|168787317|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|32.9||||||Serogroup W||32.9|20.7|
84517099|NCT02842853|168787318|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.9||||||Serogroup A||24.9|12.5|
84517100|NCT02842853|168787318|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|48.0||||||Serogroup C||48.0|36.6|
84459498|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.016|0.0108
84459499|NCT01431287|168671273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|-0.051|0.9627
84459500|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
84459501|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
84517101|NCT02842853|168787318|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|14.5||||||Serogroup Y||14.5|6.18|
84459502|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.114|0.028|0.0012
84459503|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
84459504|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.031|0.0010
84459505|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|0.003|0.0384
84459506|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
84459507|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
84459508|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
84459509|NCT01431287|168671274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
84517102|NCT02842853|168787318|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|18.2||||||Serogroup W||18.2|7.22|
84517103|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.16||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||-1.16|-9.59|
84459510|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
84517104|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.01||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||7.01|-1.3|
84517105|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|1.74||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.74|-6.78|
84517106|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.28||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.28|-1.58|
84517107|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.54||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.54|-0.740|
84517108|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|6.79||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.79|0.708|
84459511|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
84459512|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|0.010|0.0136
84517109|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.07||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||3.07|-2.14|
84517110|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|4.79||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||4.79|-0.763|
84517111|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|5.2||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||5.20|-0.248|
84459513|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.116|0.035|0.0003
84459514|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|0.016|0.0065
84459515|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.089|0.005|0.0277
84459516|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
84459517|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
84459518|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
84517112|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.54||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.54|-3.00|
84517113|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.89||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.89|-1.84|
84517114|NCT02842853|168787319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.61||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.61|-1.02|
84517115|NCT02842853|168787320|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.24||||||Serogroup A||2.24|1.67|
84517116|NCT02842853|168787320|OTHER||GMT Ratio|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|9.84||||||Serogroup C||9.84|6.58|
84517117|NCT02842853|168787320|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.84||||||Serogroup Y||3.84|2.71|
84517118|NCT02842853|168787320|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.24||||||Serogroup W||2.24|1.61|
84517119|NCT01175135|168787340|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.66|1.24||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-5.66|0.2053
84459519|NCT01431287|168671275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
84459520|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.244|0.077|0.0002
84459521|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.228|0.053|0.0017
84459522|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.210|0.046|0.0022
84459523|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
84459524|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.022|0.0141
84459525|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
84459526|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
84459527|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
84459528|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
84517120|NCT01175135|168787340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.698||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|2.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.80|-4.14|0.4024
84459529|NCT01431287|168671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
84459530|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.057|0.0008
84517121|NCT01175135|168787340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.68|-3.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.80|-12.68|0.0090
84459531|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.209|0.042|0.0032
84459532|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.183|0.027|0.0085
84459533|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.235|0.077|0.0001
84459534|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.176|0.011|0.0255
84459535|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
84459536|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
84459537|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
84459538|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
84459539|NCT01431287|168671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
84459540|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
84459541|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
84459542|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
84459543|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
84459544|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
84459545|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
84459546|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
84459547|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
84459548|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
84459549|NCT01431287|168671278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
84459550|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
84717812|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||8|-7|0.8842
84459551|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
84459552|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
84517122|NCT01175135|168787341|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.01|||||The adjusted 80% Confidence Interval (CI) equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.01|-0.07|
84517123|NCT01175135|168787341|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.1|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.10|-0.02|
84517124|NCT01175135|168787341|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.0|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||-0.00|-0.08|
84517125|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.5|0.68||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.68|-1.50|0.3144
84459553|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
84459554|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
84459555|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
84459556|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
84459557|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
84459558|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
84459559|NCT01431287|168671279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
84517126|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|1.25||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.95|0.5700
84517127|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.4|-1.59||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.59|-4.40|0.0034
84517128|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|-0.02||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.02|-1.90|0.0942
84517129|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.203|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.56|0.33||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.33|-1.56|0.2030
84726472|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.74|0.63|
84459560|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
84459561|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
84459562|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
84517130|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.944||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.05||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.48|0.0907
84459563|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
84459564|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
84517131|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.97||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.97|-2.45|0.2904
84517132|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.82|1.62||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-1.82|0.4710
84517133|NCT01175135|168787342|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.718||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.86|-1.45||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.45|-5.86|0.0172
84517134|NCT01175135|168787343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-0.33|0.1970
84517135|NCT01175135|168787343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.15|-0.24|0.3835
84517136|NCT01175135|168787343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.1||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.10|-0.61|0.0395
84517137|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.84|0.1999
84459565|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
84459566|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
84517138|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.48|0.76||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.48|0.3399
84517139|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.06|-1.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.18|-4.06|0.0100
84517140|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|0.23||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.23|-1.77|0.1625
84517141|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.783||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-1.57|0.2354
84517142|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.08|0.5||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-2.08|0.2161
84517143|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.23|0.2480
84517144|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.71||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.71|-0.92|0.4345
84517145|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|-0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.44|-2.53|0.0346
84517146|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|0.6||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.60|-0.68|0.4685
84517147|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-0.49|0.6214
84517148|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.84||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.84|-2.48|0.0052
84517149|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.79||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-0.55|0.5894
84517150|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|1.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-0.20|0.8155
84517151|NCT01175135|168787344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.55|-0.81||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.81|-2.55|0.0069
84517152|NCT01175135|168787345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.06|0.2727
84517153|NCT01175135|168787345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|0.69||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.69|-0.76|0.4747
84517154|NCT01175135|168787345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.07|-2.93|0.0031
84517155|NCT01175135|168787346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.32|0.3598
84517156|NCT01175135|168787346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.37||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.37|-0.13|0.7275
84517157|NCT01175135|168787346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|-0.42||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.42|-1.07|0.0019
84517158|NCT01175135|168787347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.06|1.74||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-2.06|0.5429
84517159|NCT01175135|168787347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|2.16||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-1.68|0.4354
84517160|NCT01175135|168787347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|4.99||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.99|0.08|0.0930
84517161|NCT03364192|168787359|OTHER|Multilevel modeling adapted for multiple-baseline design comparing participant goal attainment before, during, and after peer-delivered Whole Health Coaching.|||||<|0.05|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||<0.05
84517162|NCT02699463|168787369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The calculated p-value was \<0.01|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84517163|NCT01108445|168787370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
84517164|NCT01108445|168787372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The 95% CI for the HC was (4,6). If the median PFS for RAD001 is within the 95% CI for the HC, it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for RAD001 arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
84517165|NCT01108445|168787372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||95% CI for HC was(4,6). If the median PFS for Sunitinib is within the 95% CI for the HC,it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for Sunitinib arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
84517166|NCT01108445|168787374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.589
84517167|NCT01108445|168787375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.066
84517168|NCT02488239|168787387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial rate|||||||<0.001
84517169|NCT02488239|168787388|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84517170|NCT02960295|168787407|OTHER|There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.||||||||||||||||In this interventional study the number of glucose checks per patient per day was calculated as stated above. There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.|This is a simple calculation of the mean (sd) of the number of glucose checks per pt per day|||
84517171|NCT02960295|168787408|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation (r)|||||||<0.05
84517172|NCT02960295|168787408|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
84517173|NCT02960295|168787408|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
84517174|NCT00909753|168787411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.7|85.8|
84517175|NCT00909753|168787412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5||||||90.0|92.2|98.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.9|92.2|
84517176|NCT00909753|168787413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
84517177|NCT00909753|168787414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.5|95.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.9|85.5|
84517178|NCT00909753|168787415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.5|99.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.5|85.5|
84517179|NCT00909753|168787416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.0||||||90.0|91.3|98.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.7|91.3|
84517180|NCT00909753|168787417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% COnfidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
84517181|NCT00909753|168787418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.0|96.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.3|85.0|
84517182|NCT03214588|168787423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000746|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00179|0.0007||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00070|-0.00179|>0.999
84517183|NCT03214588|168787423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000616|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00172|0.00033||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00033|-0.00172|>0.999
84517184|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.44|-2.18|0.135
84517185|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.66||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.66|-0.48|0.818
84517186|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.47|-1.11|0.591
84517187|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643||0.713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|1.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.44|-0.71|0.713
84517188|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.822||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.62||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.62|-1.13|0.616
84517189|NCT03214588|168787424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.51||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.51|-0.76|0.708
84517190|NCT03214588|168787425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000604||0.741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0014|0.00062||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.00062|-0.00140|0.741
84517191|NCT03214588|168787425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000505||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00177|-0.00008||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.00008|-0.00177|0.964
84517192|NCT03214588|168787425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000772||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00143|0.00115||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00115|-0.00143|0.573
84517193|NCT03214588|168787425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000646||0.749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00152|0.00064||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00064|-0.00152|0.749
84517194|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.29|-0.23|0.571
84517195|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.44|0.02|0.963
84517196|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.28|-0.27|0.515
84517197|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.54||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.54|0.08|0.986
84517198|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.37||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.37|-0.18|0.718
84459567|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
84459568|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
84459569|NCT01431287|168671280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
84459570|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
84459571|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
84459572|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
84459573|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
84459574|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
84517199|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.52||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.52|0.08|0.986
84459575|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
84459576|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
84517200|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.09||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.09|-0.40|0.153
84517201|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.33|-0.07|0.861
84517202|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.18||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.18|-0.22|0.443
84459577|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
84459578|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
84459579|NCT01431287|168671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||djusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
84459580|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
84459581|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
84459582|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
84459583|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
84517203|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.13|-0.20|0.359
84517204|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.17||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.17|-0.36|0.268
84517205|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.19|-0.24|0.411
84517206|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.2||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.20|-0.31|0.358
84517207|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.41|0.00|0.946
84517208|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.32|0.505
84517209|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.20|0.658
84459584|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
84459585|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
84459586|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
84459587|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
84459588|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
84459589|NCT01431287|168671282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
84459590|NCT01552057|168671297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||0.06|-0.70|0.0988
84459591|NCT01552057|168671298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
84459592|NCT01552057|168671299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.18||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.18|-0.71|0.0012
84459593|NCT01552057|168671300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-1.45||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.45|-9.26|0.0073
84459594|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|7.35||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning||7.35|1.32|0.0049
84717813|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|27.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||27|10|<0.0001
84726473|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.88|0.28|
84459595|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|11.94||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Physical||11.94|3.57|0.0003
84459596|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|8.59||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain||8.59|2.76|0.0002
84459597|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.96||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||General Health||5.96|0.53|0.0192
84459598|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.25||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||10.25|3.15|0.0002
84459599|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.04||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|11.34||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Social Functioning||11.34|2.74|0.0014
84459600|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|13.83||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional||13.83|4.41|0.0002
84459601|NCT01552057|168671301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|11.43||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mental Health||11.43|4.39|<0.0001
84459602|NCT01552057|168671302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.38||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.38|-4.32|0.0002
84459603|NCT01552057|168671303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.44||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||WPI||-0.44|-2.12|0.0029
84459604|NCT01552057|168671303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Symptom Severity||0.06|-0.79|0.0906
84459605|NCT01552057|168671304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Pain||0.03|-0.70|0.0755
84459606|NCT01552057|168671304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.06|-0.88|0.0232
84459607|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.12|-0.99|0.0126
84459608|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Least Pain||-0.12|-0.87|0.0092
84459609|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Pain Right Now||-0.15|-1.00|0.0083
84459610|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With General Activity||0.06|-0.98|0.0807
84459611|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Mood||-0.22|-1.29|0.0057
84459612|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Walking Ability||0.09|-0.84|0.1114
84459613|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Normal Work||0.09|-0.94|0.1081
84459614|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Relationships With Other People||-0.07|-1.04|0.0264
84459615|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Sleep||0.32|-0.81|0.3959
84459616|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Enjoyment of Life||-0.15|-1.18|0.0119
84459617|NCT01552057|168671305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Interference||-0.07|-0.96|0.0222
84459618|NCT01552057|168671306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.71|0.0113
84459619|NCT01552057|168671307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.27||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-0.94|0.0005
84459620|NCT01552057|168671308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.37||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.07|<0.0001
84459621|NCT01552057|168671309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.82|0.0226
84459622|NCT01552057|168671310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.74|0.0408
84459623|NCT03895203|168671314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.583|10.943|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.943|4.583|<0.001
84459624|NCT03895203|168671315|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.187|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||||-0.125|-0.249|<0.001
84459625|NCT03895203|168671317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.211|178.918|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.918|22.211|<0.001
84459626|NCT03895203|168671318|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.229|5.444|||ANCOVA|||||5.444|3.229|<0.001
84459627|NCT03895203|168671319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.668|8.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.088|3.668|<0.001
84459628|NCT03895203|168671320|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.130|-0.524|0.001
84459629|NCT03895203|168671321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.904||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.074|1.180|0.008
84459630|NCT03895203|168671322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.437||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.559|7.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.574|1.559|0.002
84459631|NCT03895203|168671324|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.111|||ANCOVA|||||-0.111|-0.452|0.001
84459632|NCT05127486|168671408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.38|0.81|0.695
84459633|NCT05127486|168671409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.56|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.56|0.89|
84459634|NCT05127486|168671410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.79|0.89|
84459635|NCT05127486|168671411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.82|
84459636|NCT05127486|168671412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.11|
84459637|NCT05127486|168671413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.90|
84459638|NCT05127486|168671414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.73|
84459639|NCT05127486|168671415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|
84459640|NCT05127486|168671416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Total score||7.37|1.42|
84459641|NCT05127486|168671416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.58|||ANCOVA|||RF-R||8.58|1.90|
84459642|NCT05127486|168671416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.71|||ANCOVA|||RF-P||6.71|1.06|
84459643|NCT05127486|168671416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|6.44|||ANCOVA|||EF||6.44|-0.08|
84459644|NCT05127486|168671417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|-6.94|
84459645|NCT00310310|168671422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
84459646|NCT00310310|168671423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
84459647|NCT00310310|168671424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
84459648|NCT00310310|168671426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
84459649|NCT00310310|168671427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.59
84517210|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.38||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.38|-0.24|0.649
84517211|NCT03214588|168787426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.32||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.32|-0.19|0.661
84717814|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|47.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|38.0|56.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||56|38|<0.0001
84459650|NCT00310310|168671428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
84459651|NCT00310310|168671429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
84459652|NCT00310310|168671430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
84459653|NCT00310310|168671431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.38
84517212|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.47|0.86|0.992
84517213|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.28|1.29|0.999
84517214|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|2.64||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.64|-1.84|0.616
84517215|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|2.95||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.95|-0.83|0.823
84726474|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.72|
84459654|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.9|-1.8|
84459655|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.5|-6.8|
84459656|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.3|-1.7|
84459657|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.4|-4.3|
84459658|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|-1.3|
84459659|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.7|
84459660|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.4|-2.0|
84459661|NCT03193866|168671439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.1|-3.2|
84459662|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.8|-7.5|
84459663|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.8|-18.5|
84459664|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.6|-8.8|
84459665|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.2|-8.1|
84459666|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.9|-5.7|
84517216|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.13|-0.10|0.942
84517217|NCT03214588|168787427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|3.87||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||3.87|0.35|0.975
84517218|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.29|-0.15|
84517219|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.25|-0.12|
84717815|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|70.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||70|46|<0.0001
84517220|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.11|-0.30|
84517221|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.33|-0.02|
84517222|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.28||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.28|-0.19|
84517223|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.40|0.00|
84517224|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||3.14|0.83|
84726475|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.30|
84517225|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.97||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||1.97|0.06|
84517226|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.55||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||2.55|-0.40|
84517227|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|1.43||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||1.43|-1.06|
84517228|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.91||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||2.91|-0.48|
84517229|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.94||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||1.94|-0.87|
84517230|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.2||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.20|-0.41|
84517231|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.45||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.45|0.12|
84517232|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.44|
84717816|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|72.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||72|47|<0.0001
84517233|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.01|
84517234|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.25||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.25|-0.27|
84517235|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.0||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.00|-0.09|
84517236|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.3||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.8|
84517237|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.9||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.9|0.1|
84517238|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||0.2|-1.3|
84517239|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||1.2|0.0|
84517240|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||0.7|-1.2|
84517241|NCT03214588|168787428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.3||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.3|
84517242|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.15||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.15|-0.13|
84517243|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.12||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.12|-0.11|
84517244|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.11|-0.24|
84517245|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.25||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.25|-0.05|
84517246|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.25|-0.11|
84517247|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.26|-0.03|
84517248|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.25|-0.09|
84517249|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.24|-0.04|
84517250|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.08||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.08|-0.16|
84517251|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.17||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.17|-0.03|
84726476|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.84|
84517252|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.16||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.16|-0.16|
84517253|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.22||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.22|-0.04|
84517254|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.29|-0.14|
84517255|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.14||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.14|-0.22|
84517256|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.28|-0.13|
84517257|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.11|-0.24|
84517258|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.12|-0.30|
84517259|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.03|-0.32|
84459667|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.0|-4.7|
84459668|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.9|-6.2|
84459669|NCT03193866|168671440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.5|-10.8|
84459670|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.5|
84459671|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-12.5|
84459672|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-2.5|
84459673|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.1|-4.9|
84459674|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.1|-2.6|
84517260|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.33|-0.15|
84459675|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.2|
84459676|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.0|
84517261|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.23||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.16|
84517262|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.23||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.18|
84517263|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.20|-0.15|
84517264|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.36|-0.17|
84517265|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.13||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.13|-0.30|
84517266|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.53|0.04|
84517267|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.06|
84459677|NCT03193866|168671441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.8|-0.6|
84459678|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.8|-2.2|
84459679|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.7|-20.3|
84459680|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.5|-2.6|
84459681|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-5.8|
84459682|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.7|-2.9|
84459683|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.6|-4.5|
84459684|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-4.7|
84459685|NCT03193866|168671442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-1.7|
84459686|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.48|0.30|
84459687|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.42||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.42|0.11|
84459688|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.23||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.23|0.10|
84517268|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.37||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.37|-0.22|
84517269|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.16||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.16|-0.32|
84459689|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.13|-0.03|
84459690|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.19|0.08|
84459691|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.16|0.01|
84459692|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.21|0.06|
84459693|NCT03193866|168671443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.33|0.13|
84459694|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-66.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-66.6|-76.6|
84459695|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-56.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-56.4|-76.3|
84459696|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-47.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-41.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.7|-53.0|
84459697|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-36.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.6|-49.6|
84459698|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-41.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-36.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.2|-46.4|
84517270|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.12|-0.43|
84517271|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.23||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.23|-0.23|
84517272|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.40|-0.14|
84517273|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.12|
84517274|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.43|-0.09|
84517275|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.09|-0.36|
84517276|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.29|
84517277|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.21|
84459699|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.8|
84459700|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.7|
84459701|NCT03193866|168671444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-41.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.6|-58.0|
84459702|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
84459703|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.4|-0.3|
84459704|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
84459705|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.3|
84459706|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.1|
84517278|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.26||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.26|-0.33|
84517279|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.36|-0.12|
84459707|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
84517280|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.48||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.25|
84517281|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.47|-0.14|
84517282|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.26|
84517283|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.25|-0.36|
84517284|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.60|-0.02|
84517285|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.41||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.41|-0.10|
84517286|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.13||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.13|-0.63|
84517287|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.18||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.18|-0.47|
84517288|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.37|
84459708|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.2|-0.1|
84459709|NCT03193866|168671445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
84459710|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||11.9|-2.2|
84459711|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||20.6|-2.6|
84459712|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.2|-7.6|
84459713|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.1|-9.4|
84459714|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-8.6|
84459715|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.2|-4.7|
84459716|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.1|-6.9|
84517289|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.58|-0.11|
84459717|NCT03193866|168671446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||14.1|-6.3|
84517290|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.51||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.06|
84517291|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.35|-0.12|
84517292|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.28|-0.41|
84517293|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.29||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.29|-0.29|
84517294|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.12|
84517295|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.21||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.21|-0.31|
84517296|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.32||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.32|-0.15|
84459718|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-27.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.9|-40.3|
84459719|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-21.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-21.5|-43.0|
84459720|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-15.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-15.7|-27.9|
84459721|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.2|-14.5|
84459722|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-28.9|
84459723|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.5|-18.9|
84459724|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-20.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.2|-32.8|
84459725|NCT03193866|168671447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-23.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-23.2|-40.1|
84459726|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-27.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.0|-39.4|
84459727|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-19.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.8|-41.4|
84459728|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-14.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-14.7|-27.0|
84517297|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.27|-0.12|
84517298|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.43|-0.27|
84517299|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.42||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.42|-0.17|
84517300|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.58|0.04|
84517301|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.43|-0.01|
84726477|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.78|0.65|
84459729|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.3|-13.6|
84459730|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-29.2|
84459731|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.1|-18.6|
84459732|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-19.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.0|-31.7|
84459733|NCT03193866|168671448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-20.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.8|-38.2|
84459734|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.00|-0.07|
84459735|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.09|
84459736|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.03|
84459737|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.05|-0.03|
84459738|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.04|-0.02|
84459739|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.01|
84517302|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.77||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.77|0.10|
84517303|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.44||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.44|-0.12|
84517304|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.60|-0.16|
84459740|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|0.00|
84459741|NCT03193866|168671449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.06|
84459742|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.2|-3.3|
84459743|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-9.4|
84459744|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.4|-4.2|
84459745|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.8|-5.9|
84459746|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.5|-2.9|
84459747|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-4.0|
84459748|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-7.0|
84517305|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.31||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.31|-0.33|
84517306|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.56|-0.22|
84517307|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.26|-0.39|
84517308|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.87||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.87|0.12|
84517309|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.36|-0.25|
84517310|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.95||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.95|0.22|
84517311|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.47|-0.15|
84517312|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.02||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||1.02|0.11|
84517313|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.71||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||0.71|-0.04|
84517314|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.53|-0.12|
84517315|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.27|-0.26|
84459749|NCT03193866|168671450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.4|-2.9|
84459750|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-2.9|-8.1|
84459751|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.0|-10.9|
84459752|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.8|-4.0|
84459753|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-2.1|
84459754|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.6|-2.2|
84459755|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.8|-0.3|
84459756|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|0.9|
84459757|NCT03193866|168671451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.0|0.2|
84517316|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.28|-0.56|
84517317|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.19|-0.53|
84459758|NCT03878147|168671473|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.01|0.78|<.01
84517318|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.78||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.78|-0.12|
84517319|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.51||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.51|-0.25|
84517320|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.18||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.18|-0.51|
84517321|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.31||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.31|-0.25|
84517322|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.07||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.07|-0.68|
84517323|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.15||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.15|-0.48|
84726478|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.67|0.62|
84459759|NCT03878147|168671473|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.44|-0.80|.32
84478840|NCT02259127|168709088|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (Frequentist \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.02|-0.36|=0.057
84478841|NCT02259127|168709088|NON_INFERIORITY|Bayesian estimation was used for the primary analysis of the difference in treatment failure by 96 weeks by arm in \<14kg cohort. An informative prior distribution was used based on the treatment effect observed in \>=14kg cohort, with relative weight defined by clinical opinion, solicited prior to the main trial results.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: diff in adj. KM estimates (Bayesian \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.19|0.02
84478842|NCT02259127|168709088|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.21|0.003
84478843|NCT02259127|168709088|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.03|-0.12|0.22
84478844|NCT02259127|168709089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 665~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||11|-1|= 0.1377
84478845|NCT02259127|168709089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||=|0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-10|= 0.8895
84478846|NCT02259127|168709089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|||=|0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 381~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||17|0.4|=0.0435
84478847|NCT02259127|168709089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|47.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||47|6|0.021
84478848|NCT02259127|168709090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||=|0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 670~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-2|= 0.2256
84478849|NCT02259127|168709090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7|-8|= 0.9536
84478850|NCT02259127|168709090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||=|0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 384~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||12|-1|= 0.1104
84478851|NCT02259127|168709090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||37|2|0.038
84478852|NCT02259127|168709091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|82.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusted for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||82|-12|= 0.144
84478853|NCT02259127|168709091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|109.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||109|-21|0.185
84517324|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.40|-0.45|
84459760|NCT03878147|168671473|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.16|-3.74|.07
84459761|NCT03878147|168671473|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.68|-2.10|.83
84459762|NCT03878147|168671474|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.42|-0.71|.65
84517325|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.36|-0.34|
84459763|NCT03878147|168671474|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.54|.95
84459764|NCT03878147|168671474|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.13|-0.92|.34
84478854|NCT02259127|168709091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|93.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||93|-39|= 0.427
84478855|NCT02259127|168709091|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-308.0|368.0|||Regression, Linear|||||368|-308|0.86
84517326|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.53|-0.10|
84517327|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.69||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.69|0.17|
84517328|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.19|-0.72|
84517329|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.39||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.39|-0.38|
84517330|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.51|-0.23|
84517331|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.64||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.64|0.02|
84517332|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.50|-0.17|
84517333|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.61||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.61|0.06|
84517334|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.84||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.84|-0.09|
84517335|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.60|-0.19|
84517336|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.82||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.82|-0.20|
84459765|NCT03878147|168671474|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.73|.81
84459766|NCT03878147|168671475|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.043||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.043|0.004|.01
84459767|NCT03878147|168671475|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.040|0.003|.02
84459768|NCT03878147|168671475|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.05|-0.01|.19
84459769|NCT03878147|168671475|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.04|-0.01|.19
84459770|NCT05817045|168671476|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.31|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.310|0.777|0.948
84459771|NCT05817045|168671476|SUPERIORITY|Per-Protocol Population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.337||adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score.|NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Per-Protocol Population||1.337|0.774|0.902
84459772|NCT05817045|168671476|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.342|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) - Secondary Analysis (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.342|0.782|0.859
84478856|NCT02259127|168709092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-19|< 0.001
84478857|NCT02259127|168709092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-8.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.5|-40.3|= 0.0032
84717817|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|80.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|89.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||89|71|<0.0001
84459773|NCT05817045|168671478|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.596|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virologic rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.596|1.047|0.017
84459774|NCT05817045|168671478|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.665|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (Per-Protocol population)||1.665|1.059|0.014
84459775|NCT05817045|168671478|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.69|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) - Secondary analysis - (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.690|1.086|0.007
84459776|NCT05817045|168671478|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: Flowflex|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.997|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.997|1.064|
84459777|NCT05817045|168671478|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: BinaxNOW|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.561|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Subgroup Analysis - Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.561|0.801|
84517337|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.67||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.67|-0.17|
84517338|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.5|-0.1|
84517339|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.4|-0.1|
84459778|NCT02688647|168671487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 38.85 (95% CI: -126.99, 204.69) mL||||0.5733
84459779|NCT02688647|168671487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -39.96 (95% CI: -288.63, 208.71) mL||||0.6967
84459780|NCT02688647|168671487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 94.16 (95% CI: -1103.56, 1291.88) mL||||0.5003
84459781|NCT02688647|168671487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4866|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||No Prior Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -34.13 (95% CI: -137.08, 68.82)||||0.4866
84459782|NCT02688647|168671490|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 1.88 (95% CI: -2.69, 6.45)||||||0.3391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.3391
84517340|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.4|
84459783|NCT02688647|168671490|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -1.72 (95% CI: -8.13, 4.69)||||||0.5201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.5201
84517341|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.5|0.0|
84517342|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.5|
84517343|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.3|-0.2|
84517344|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.4|
84517345|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.3|-0.3|
84517346|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
84517347|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
84517348|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
84517349|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.2|
84517350|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.3|-0.1|
84517351|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
84517352|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
84459784|NCT02688647|168671490|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 2.48 (95% CI: -23.84, 28.81)||||||0.4426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4426
84459785|NCT02688647|168671490|SUPERIORITY|No Prior Use of Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 8.70 (95% CI: -78.76, -96.17)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4260
84459786|NCT02688647|168671500|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.86 (0.16, 4.48)||||0.8561
84459787|NCT02688647|168671500|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.17, 4.33)||||0.8608
84459788|NCT02688647|168671501|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.79)||||0.0084
84459789|NCT02688647|168671501|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.03)||||0.0508
84459790|NCT02688647|168671503|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.02, 5.54)||||0.4251
84459791|NCT02688647|168671503|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.02, 4.45)||||0.3294
84459792|NCT03619213|168671505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.92|0.73|0.0008
84459793|NCT03619213|168671506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.95|0.73|0.0085
84459794|NCT03619213|168671507|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.89|0.67|0.0003
84459795|NCT03619213|168671508|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.90|0.65|0.0017
84459796|NCT03619213|168671509|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score, stratified by T2DM status at randomisation.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in KCCQ Total Symptom Score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|Comparison Group: Placebo||1.21|1.03|0.0086
84459797|NCT03619213|168671510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.05|0.74|0.1678
84459798|NCT03619213|168671511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.07|0.83|0.3425
84459799|NCT02886702|168671512|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval on the difference between the proportions to be within \[-20%, +20%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||90.0|-12.6|3.6||p-value not calculated|Yates' corrected confidence interval|||||3.6|-12.6|
84459800|NCT02886702|168671512|SUPERIORITY|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for missing efficacy values||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.3520
84459801|NCT02886702|168671513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.8105
84459802|NCT02886702|168671513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0613
84459803|NCT02886702|168671514|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||1.0000
84517353|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.4|
84459804|NCT02886702|168671514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0712
84459805|NCT00331760|168671547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 64% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 25%.||||0.12
84459806|NCT00331760|168671547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 88% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 20%.||||0.043
84459807|NCT02514044|168671555|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.008
84459808|NCT02514044|168671556|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.02
84459809|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-898.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2884.82|1088.82||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||1088.82|-2884.82|.37
84517354|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
84517355|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
84459810|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-2602.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4687.44|-516.69||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||-516.69|-4687.44|.02
84459811|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-1244.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3287.6|797.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||797.85|-3287.60|.23
84459812|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1468.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1368.93|4306.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4306.02|-1368.93|0.31
84459813|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|388.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2397.51|3173.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3173.62|-2397.51|0.78
84459814|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1991.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.52|4847.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4847.86|-865.52|0.17
84459815|NCT03417440|168671560|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-590.7||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4591.17|3409.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3409.75|-4591.17|0.77
84459816|NCT03417440|168671561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.7||0.17|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||8.3||0.17
84459817|NCT03417440|168671561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.8||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0||68.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||68.8||0.94
84459818|NCT03417440|168671561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|116.4||0.99|ONE_SIDED|90.0||82.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||82.7||0.99
84459819|NCT03417440|168671562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.47|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-12.5|0.47
84459820|NCT03417440|168671562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.315|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-8.3|0.315
84517356|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.2||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.8|
84459821|NCT03417440|168671562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.355|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-9.4|0.355
84517357|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.8|0.0|
84459822|NCT03417440|168671563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.86|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.3|0.86
84459823|NCT03417440|168671563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.6|0.38
84517358|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
84517359|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.2|
84517360|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.5|
84517361|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.0|
84517362|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
84517363|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
84517364|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
84517365|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
84459824|NCT03417440|168671563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.66|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.66
84459825|NCT03417440|168671564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.69|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.9|0.69
84459826|NCT03417440|168671564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.6|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.0|0.60
84459827|NCT03417440|168671564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.11|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.2|0.11
84459828|NCT03417440|168671565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.94
84459829|NCT03417440|168671565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.73|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.4|0.73
84459830|NCT03417440|168671565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.22|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.22
84459831|NCT03417440|168671566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.46
84459832|NCT03417440|168671566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.96|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.96
84459833|NCT03417440|168671566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.495
84517366|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
84459834|NCT03417440|168671567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.445|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.445
84517367|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.0|-0.3|
84459835|NCT03417440|168671567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.5|0.92
84459836|NCT03417440|168671567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.23|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.23
84459837|NCT03417440|168671568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.78|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.78
84459838|NCT03417440|168671568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.98|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.98
84459839|NCT03417440|168671568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.13|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.13
84517368|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
84517369|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.1|
84517370|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.0|-0.2|
84459840|NCT03417440|168671569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.6||0.285
84459841|NCT03417440|168671569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.5|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.1||0.50
84459842|NCT03417440|168671569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3||0.92
84459843|NCT03417440|168671570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.42
84459844|NCT03417440|168671570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.82|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.9|0.82
84459845|NCT03417440|168671570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.58|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.58
84459846|NCT03417440|168671571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.45|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.45
84459847|NCT03417440|168671571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.49|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.0|0.49
84459848|NCT03417440|168671571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.61|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.61
84459849|NCT03417440|168671572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.84
84459850|NCT03417440|168671572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
84459851|NCT03417440|168671572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
84517371|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
84517372|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
84517373|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
84459852|NCT03417440|168671573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
84459853|NCT03417440|168671573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
84459854|NCT03417440|168671573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84459855|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.10435||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Self-efficacy for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3116
84459856|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.17742||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Correlation between Self-regulation of Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.0838
84459857|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.09834||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Family Social Support for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3510
84726479|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.77|0.26|
84459858|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04562||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Outcome Expectation for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6659
84459859|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04831||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Aging Self-perceptions (Attitude Toward Own Aging) change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6402
84459860|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.13128||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychosocial Loss change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.2048
84459861|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.10022||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Physical Change change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3445
84459862|NCT03417440|168671574|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.00866||||0.934|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychological Growth change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.9340
84517374|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
84517375|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
84459863|NCT02537678|168671702|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.26|.006
84459864|NCT02537678|168671703|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.47||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.47|.004
84459865|NCT02537678|168671704|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.5||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.50|.001
84459866|NCT02537678|168671705|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.94||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.94|<0.001
84459867|NCT02537678|168671706|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.044|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.33||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.33|.044
84459868|NCT02537678|168671707|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.07||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.07|0.002
84459869|NCT02537678|168671708|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.016|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.06||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.06|0.016
84459870|NCT02537678|168671709|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.72||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.72|0.003
84459871|NCT02537678|168671710|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.89||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.89|0.007
84459872|NCT02537678|168671711|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.008|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.24||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.24|0.008
84459873|NCT02537678|168671712|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.88||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.88|0.015
84459874|NCT02537678|168671713|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.024|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.68||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.68|0.024
84459875|NCT02537678|168671714|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.39||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.39|0.001
84459876|NCT02537678|168671715|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.47||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.47|0.003
84459877|NCT02537678|168671716|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.3||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.30|<0.001
84459878|NCT02537678|168671717|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.29||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.29|0.001
84459879|NCT02537678|168671718|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.38||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.38|0.004
84459880|NCT02537678|168671719|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.19||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.19|<0.001
84459881|NCT02537678|168671720|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.33||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.33|0.005
84459882|NCT02537678|168671721|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.028|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.99||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.99|0.028
84459883|NCT02537678|168671722|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.64||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.64|0.009
84459884|NCT02537678|168671723|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.82||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.82|0.006
84459885|NCT02537678|168671724|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.31|0.001
84517376|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
84459886|NCT02537678|168671725|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.43||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-1.43|<0.001
84459887|NCT02537678|168671726|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.04||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.04|<0.001
84459888|NCT02537678|168671727|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.87||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.87|0.003
84459889|NCT02537678|168671728|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults.Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.8||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.80|<0.001
84459890|NCT01147809|168671735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|52.5|||ANCOVA|||||52.5|-3.9|0.103
84459891|NCT01147809|168671757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.9||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|51.1|||ANCOVA|||||51.1|-15.6|0.407
84459892|NCT01147809|168671758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.4||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|||||37.4|-33.5|0.802
84517377|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
84517378|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.0|-0.3|
84517379|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
84517380|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.4|-0.2|
84517381|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.7||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.7|0.1|
84517382|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
84517383|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.6|0.1|
84459893|NCT01307423|168671766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.7|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.7|3.5|0.0062
84459894|NCT01307423|168671766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.5|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||23.5|6.1|0.0010
84517384|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
84459895|NCT01307423|168671767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.071|-0.265|0.0008
84517385|NCT03214588|168787429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.5|0.0|
84517386|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.76||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.76|-1.31|0.599
84517387|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.42||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||2.42|0.26|0.978
84517388|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.06||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.06|-1.87|0.533
84517389|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|1.23||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.23|-1.83|0.370
84517390|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|4.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.04|0.32|0.972
84517391|NCT03214588|168787430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||2.19|-0.63|0.825
84517392|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23858||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3665|0.4565||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.4565|-0.3665|0.426
84517393|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15794||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6005|-0.0557||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.0557|-0.6005|0.975
84517394|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31186||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3931|0.6826||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.6826|-0.3931|0.324
84517395|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23213||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3891|0.4117||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.4117|-0.3891|0.481
84517396|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28088||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6911|0.2778||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.2778|-0.6911|0.765
84726480|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.42|0.71|
84726481|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.38|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.38|0.32|
84459896|NCT01307423|168671767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.120|-0.314|<.0001
84459897|NCT01307423|168671768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|7.7|0.0002
84459898|NCT01307423|168671768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.4|3.3|0.0063
84459899|NCT01307423|168671769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|-0.065||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.065|-0.271|0.0014
84459900|NCT01307423|168671769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.117||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.117|-0.322|<.0001
84459901|NCT01307423|168671770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.01||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.01|0.75|0.0043
84459902|NCT01307423|168671770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.82||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.82|1.55|0.0002
84459903|NCT01307423|168671771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|24.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.0|4.8|0.0037
84459904|NCT01307423|168671771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||30.7|11.3|<.0001
84459905|NCT01307423|168671772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-0.0|-10.0|0.0485
84459906|NCT01307423|168671772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-2.8|-12.8|0.0022
84459907|NCT01307423|168671773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||0.6|-0.8|0.7696
84459908|NCT01307423|168671773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0038
84459909|NCT01307423|168671774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.2|-1.6|
84459910|NCT01307423|168671774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.0|-1.4|
84459911|NCT01307423|168671775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.78|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-2.78|-7.04|
84459912|NCT01307423|168671775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.51|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-3.51|-7.78|
84459913|NCT01307423|168671776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.25|-0.67|<0.0001
84726482|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.70|
84459914|NCT01307423|168671776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
84459915|NCT01307423|168671777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.87|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||2.87|-0.63|
84459916|NCT01307423|168671777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||4.31|0.80|
84459917|NCT01307423|168671778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.65|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||3.65|0.28|
84459918|NCT01307423|168671778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.41|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||5.41|2.02|
84459919|NCT01307423|168671779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|28.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||28.6|10.5|
84459920|NCT01307423|168671779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|27.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||27.2|9.2|
84459921|NCT01307423|168671780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.5|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.5|-10.6|
84459922|NCT01307423|168671780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.7|-10.8|
84459923|NCT01307423|168671781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.0|
84459924|NCT01307423|168671781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.2|-1.6|
84459925|NCT01307423|168671782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.3|-1.7|
84459926|NCT01307423|168671782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.4|
84459927|NCT01307423|168671783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.84|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.84|-7.31|
84459928|NCT01307423|168671783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-2.89|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.89|-7.38|
84459929|NCT01307423|168671784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.23|-0.70|<0.0001
84459930|NCT01307423|168671784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.69|0.0001
84459931|NCT01307423|168671785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.93|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.93|-0.68|
84459932|NCT01307423|168671785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.15|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.15|0.52|
84459933|NCT01307423|168671786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||15.5|-10.2|
84459934|NCT01307423|168671786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|29.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||29.8|4.2|
84459935|NCT01307423|168671787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|20.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.4|-7.8|
84459936|NCT01307423|168671787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|16.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||16.4|-12.6|
84459937|NCT01307423|168671788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|25.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.8|6.4|
84459938|NCT01307423|168671788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.1|9.6|
84459939|NCT01307423|168671789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||18.8|-6.8|
84459940|NCT01307423|168671789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|30.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||30.6|5.3|
84459941|NCT01307423|168671790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|25.9|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.9|-2.1|
84459942|NCT01307423|168671790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.8|-9.2|
84459943|NCT01307423|168671791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.8|8.8|
84459944|NCT01307423|168671791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.0|2.7|
84459945|NCT01307423|168671792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.5|1.3|
84459946|NCT01307423|168671792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.4|1.2|
84459947|NCT01307423|168671793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.2|-0.4|
84717818|NCT00624442|169185467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding systolic ejection time PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
84459948|NCT01307423|168671793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.1|-0.4|
84459949|NCT01307423|168671794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||16.3|3.2|
84459950|NCT01307423|168671794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||12.3|0.2|
84459951|NCT01307423|168671795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.1|-4.1|
84459952|NCT01307423|168671795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.8|-3.7|
84459953|NCT01307423|168671796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.6|-8.1|
84459954|NCT01307423|168671796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|29.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.3|6.3|
84726483|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.71|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.71|0.63|
84459955|NCT01307423|168671797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||23.5|-4.8|
84459956|NCT01307423|168671797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|21.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||21.5|-7.2|
84459957|NCT01307423|168671798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||17.7|-4.8|
84459958|NCT01307423|168671798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|27.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.1|3.4|
84459959|NCT01307423|168671799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|24.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.8|-3.8|
84459960|NCT01307423|168671799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|19.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.3|-9.5|
84459961|NCT01587989|168671827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.820|-0.165|0.188
84459962|NCT01587989|168671827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 12.||||0.015
84459963|NCT01587989|168671827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted change in DAS28 score from Weeks 12-24.||||0.304
84459964|NCT01587989|168671828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.732
84459965|NCT01587989|168671829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.207
84459966|NCT01587989|168671830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
84459967|NCT01587989|168671831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
84459968|NCT01587989|168671832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.842
84459969|NCT01587989|168671833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical standardized value||||0.417
84459970|NCT01587989|168671833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental standardized value||||0.112
84459971|NCT01587989|168671834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.655
84459972|NCT01587989|168671834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.839
84517397|NCT03214588|168787431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19778||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2238|0.4585||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.4585|-0.2238|0.280
84517398|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|4.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.4|-9.9|0.735
84517399|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|9.1||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||9.1|-2.7|0.182
84517400|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|-0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||-0.9|-12.9|0.970
84459973|NCT01587989|168671835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effectiveness||||0.580
84459974|NCT01587989|168671835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side-effects||||0.975
84459975|NCT01587989|168671835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Convenience||||0.421
84459976|NCT01587989|168671835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global satisfaction||||0.277
84459977|NCT01056107|168671854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.0075
84459978|NCT01056107|168671854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||<0.001
84517401|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|6.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||6.4|-3.6|0.321
84517402|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|1.5||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.5|-13.0|0.905
84517403|NCT03214588|168787432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|9.0||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||9.0|-2.9|0.199
84517404|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.974
84517405|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.893
84459979|NCT01380899|168671864|SUPERIORITY|IHC analyses revealed intense α-synuclein positive immunostaining in PD patients, showing small nodular deposits from 1 to 2 μm in diameter in the SCL of the epidermis including the epidermal component adjacent to hair follicles, and in cells from PSUs, while control subjects presented null immunoreaction. The α-synuclein inclusions in the two groups of patients were morphologically similar but quantitatively different. These inclusions appeared to be juxtanuclear.|Median Difference (Net)|57.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|62.6||The presence of alpha-synuclein aggregates expressed as % of cells with inclusions was tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test). Then, with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests (software Statistica 7.0 at 95% confidence).|Kruskal-Wallis|The groups were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests.|The expression of the abnormal protein (alpha-synuclein) must be different between the three groups (PD, AP, and control)|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis made on the basis of the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal a-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test.|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis based on the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal α-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Next, the groups were analyzed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests. One independent analysis was performed for each structure, namely the epidermis, PSU, and EG. Assessments were performed using the software Statistica 7.0 (Tulsa, OK) at 95% confidence.|62.6|44.9|< 0.01
84459980|NCT02811744|168671875|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as no significant difference between study groups on a T-test.||||||0.5||||||No adjustments on the comparison. There was no multiple comparison adjustment for the p value, as this was the primary outcome. This is the experimental p value; the threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No power calculation. This is an exploratory study.||||0.5
84459981|NCT02091440|168671888|OTHER|Single group|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84459982|NCT02091440|168671889|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier Survival|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84459983|NCT02091440|168671890|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84459984|NCT02091440|168671891|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84459985|NCT02091440|168671892|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|31.4|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||31.4|7.5|
84517406|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.954
84517407|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.793
84517408|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.845
84459986|NCT02091440|168671893|OTHER|Single group|Percentage change|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage change from 24 months to screening in NYHA classes III and IV. Percentage change is 16.67% - 100% = -83.33%|||||
84459987|NCT02091440|168671894|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|275.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|418.9|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||418.9|-158.9|
84459988|NCT03576144|168671905|OTHER||Slope|1.0474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0283|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.0951|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUC0-12 of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0951|0.9997|
84459989|NCT03576144|168671906|OTHER||Slope|1.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.0732|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0732|0.9451|
84459990|NCT03576144|168671907|OTHER||Slope|1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9972|1.1069|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1069|0.9972|
84459991|NCT03576144|168671908|OTHER||Slope|1.0361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0379|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9722|1.1001|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1001|0.9722|
84459992|NCT03263091|168671919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.582||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusting for the stratification factors (EPO level, International Prognostic Scoring System - Revised \[IPSS-R\] risk category and RBC transfusion burden).||3.290|0.761|0.217
84726484|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.55|
84459993|NCT01381094|168671972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|0.24|
84459994|NCT01381094|168671972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||||||||1.33|0.20|
84459995|NCT01381094|168671972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83||||||||1.83|0.73|
84459996|NCT01381094|168671972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.0||||||||2.00|0.91|
84459997|NCT01381094|168671972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84459998|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9355|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9355
84459999|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6594|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6594
84460000|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0203|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0203
84460001|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0369|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0369
84460002|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY|p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).|||||=|0.3713|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.3713
84460003|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.163|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1630
84460004|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7615|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7615
84460005|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0040
84460006|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0003
84460007|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3978|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3978
84460008|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0083
84460009|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0323|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0323
84460010|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0003
84460011|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0001
84460012|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4230
84460013|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0023
84460014|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0009
84460015|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460016|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460017|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5291|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5291
84460018|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
84460019|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0222|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0222
84460020|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
84460021|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
84460022|NCT01381094|168671973|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9314|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9314
84460023|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5219|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5219
84517409|NCT03214588|168787433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.816
84517410|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.840
84460024|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6743
84460025|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0078|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0078
84517411|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.854
84460026|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0301|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0301
84460027|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4502|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.4502
84460028|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6967|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6967
84460029|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7385
84460030|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0176|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0176
84460031|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0057|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0057
84460032|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5551|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5551
84517412|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.922
84717819|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||2|-1|0.3665
84726485|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.87|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.87|0.31|
84460033|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0086
84460034|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2385
84460035|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0007
84460036|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0002
84460037|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8895|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8895
84460038|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0127|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0127
84460039|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0076
84460040|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0007
84460041|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460042|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5522|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5522
84517413|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.794
84517414|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.830
84460043|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0031
84460044|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2188|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2188
84460045|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0054|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0054
84460046|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0037
84460047|NCT01381094|168671974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9521|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9521
84460048|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3943|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.3943
84460049|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2096|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.2096
84460050|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0637|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0637
84517415|NCT03214588|168787434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
84717820|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0|||<|0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||3|0|<0.0357
84460051|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5016
84460052|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7549|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.7549
84460053|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5991|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5991
84460054|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4258
84460055|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0336|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0336
84717821|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|1|0.0004
84460056|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0258
84460057|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2412|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.2412
84460058|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0031
84460059|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7705|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7705
84517416|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.987
84717822|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||4|1|0.0086
84460060|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0024
84460061|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0006
84460062|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6189|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6189
84460063|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0075|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0075
84460064|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0259|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0259
84460065|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460066|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460067|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8898|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8898
84460068|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0010
84460069|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2864|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2864
84460070|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
84460071|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0016
84460072|NCT01381094|168671975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9697|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9697
84460073|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=1.0000
84460074|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0055
84460075|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0009
84460076|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0002
84460077|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9722|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9722
84460078|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=1.0000
84460079|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0008|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0008
84460080|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0002
84460081|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
84460082|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6579|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6579
84460083|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4102|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4102
84460084|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0023
84460085|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0052
84460086|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0017
84517417|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.771
84717823|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|2.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|0|0.032
84717824|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||6|3|<0.0001
84460087|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7378|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7378
84460088|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3371|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3371
84460089|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0916
84460090|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4656
84460091|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1629|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1629
84460092|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.7032
84460093|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5194|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5194
84460094|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8516|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8516
84460095|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0017
84517418|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.526
84517419|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.665
84460096|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0656
84460097|NCT01381094|168671976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6495|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6495
84460098|NCT01381094|168671977|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2065|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.2065
84460099|NCT01381094|168671977|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.1807
84460100|NCT01381094|168671977|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7869|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.7869
84460101|NCT01381094|168671977|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.4743
84460102|NCT01381094|168671977|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6407|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.6407
84460103|NCT01381094|168671978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460104|NCT01381094|168671978|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
84460105|NCT01381094|168671978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460106|NCT01381094|168671978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460107|NCT01381094|168671978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460108|NCT01381094|168671979|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
84460109|NCT01381094|168671979|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0004
84460110|NCT01381094|168671979|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
84460111|NCT01381094|168671979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460112|NCT01381094|168671979|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
84460113|NCT01381094|168671980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460114|NCT01381094|168671980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0043
84460115|NCT01381094|168671980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460116|NCT01381094|168671980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460117|NCT01381094|168671980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
84460118|NCT01381094|168671981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0027
84460119|NCT01381094|168671981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460120|NCT01381094|168671981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
84460121|NCT01381094|168671981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
84460122|NCT01381094|168671981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0005
84460123|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6051|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6051
84460124|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5197|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5197
84460125|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1073|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1073
84517420|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.576
84460126|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1321|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1321
84460127|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4358|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4358
84460128|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8109|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8109
84460129|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2575|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2575
84460130|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8361
84460131|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0294
84726486|NCT03345407|169204824|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.73|
84460132|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8809|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8809
84460133|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4971|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4971
84460134|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3994|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3994
84460135|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5022|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5022
84460136|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.9916
84460137|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2292|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.2292
84460138|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1331|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1331
84460139|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5518|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5518
84460140|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9032
84460141|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2387|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2387
84460142|NCT01381094|168671987|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4251|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.4251
84460143|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0448|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0448
84460144|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
84460145|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0813|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0813
84460146|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0038
84460147|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6861
84460148|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0553|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0553
84460149|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0004
84726487|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.765|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.765|0.477|
84460150|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
84460151|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
84460152|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7379|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7379
84460153|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.072|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0720
84460154|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
84460155|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460156|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460157|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6781|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.6781
84460158|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0524|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0524
84460159|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0367|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0367
84460160|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6671|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6671
84460161|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6861
84460162|NCT01381094|168671988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9012
84460163|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3953|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3953
84460164|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.085|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0850
84460165|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6045|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6045
84460166|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7743
84460167|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5326|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5326
84460168|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3465|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.3465
84460169|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2756|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2756
84460170|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1414|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1414
84460171|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6941|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6941
84460172|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9403|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.9403
84460173|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.831|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8310
84460174|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0654|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0654
84460175|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4169|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4169
84460176|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0103|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0103
84460177|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3968|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3968
84460178|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0325|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0325
84517421|NCT03214588|168787435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.865
84460179|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2151|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2151
84460180|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8436|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8436
84460181|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5962|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5962
84460182|NCT01381094|168671989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3957|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.3957
84460183|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0294
84460184|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0021|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0021
84460185|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
84460186|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0001
84460187|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0925|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0925
84460188|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0433|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0433
84460189|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
84460190|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0005
84517422|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.966
84726488|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.597|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.597|0.840|
84460191|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
84460192|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1626|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1626
84460193|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0366|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0366
84460194|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0004
84460195|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0012
84460196|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84517423|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.983
84517424|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.953
84460197|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1779|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1779
84460198|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5867|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5867
84460199|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1306|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1306
84460200|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9889|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9889
84460201|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2026|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2026
84460202|NCT01381094|168671990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5703|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5703
84460203|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
84717825|NCT00624442|169185468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding fractional shortening PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
84460204|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0092|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0092
84460205|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0012
84726489|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.432|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.432|0.734|
84460206|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
84517425|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.781
84460207|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1157|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1157
84460208|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0069
84460209|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0034
84460210|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0067|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0067
84460211|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
84460212|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0401|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0401
84460213|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0042|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0042
84517426|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.948
84517427|NCT03214588|168787436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
84460214|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460215|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
84460216|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
84460217|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0422|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0422
84460218|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0232|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0232
84460219|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0243|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0243
84460220|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0001
84460221|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1089|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1089
84460222|NCT01381094|168671991|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0833|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0833
84460223|NCT01381094|168671993|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5456|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.5456
84460224|NCT01381094|168671993|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0053|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0053
84460225|NCT01381094|168671993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||<0.0001
84460226|NCT01381094|168671993|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0040
84460227|NCT01381094|168671993|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.2017
84460228|NCT00318292|168672036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.003||95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-3.2|.003
84517428|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.666
84460229|NCT00824564|168672055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.7|61.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated standard error (SE), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||61.7|-172.7|0.348
84460230|NCT00824564|168672056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.78||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|89.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||89.3|-41.3|0.466
84460231|NCT00824564|168672057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||2.2|-20.7|0.109
84460232|NCT00824564|168672057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 4 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||-0.1|-13.4|0.045
84517429|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.812
84517430|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.834
84460233|NCT00824564|168672057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 8 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||1.8|-15.4|0.119
84460234|NCT00824564|168672057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 24 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||7.5|-52.9|0.139
84460235|NCT00824564|168672058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.1||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.2|288.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||288.6|-238.2|0.849
84460236|NCT00824564|168672059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.714
84460237|NCT00824564|168672060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at end of surgery, a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.96|-0.21|0.208
84460238|NCT00824564|168672060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at 1 hour post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.61|-0.40|0.682
84517431|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.841
84517432|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.893
84517433|NCT03214588|168787437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.907
84517434|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.032
84460239|NCT00824564|168672060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 1 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.63|-0.35|0.569
84460240|NCT00824564|168672060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 2 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.70|-0.29|0.413
84460241|NCT00824564|168672060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 4/ET post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.66|-0.44|0.686
84517435|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.216
84517436|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.215
84517437|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.411
84517438|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.194
84517439|NCT03214588|168787438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.408
84517440|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.406
84517441|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.235
84517442|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.225
84517443|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.434
84460242|NCT00824564|168672061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test at 5% level of significance was used as the event rate was low and the expected count for any cell in the (unstratified) 2\*2 contingency table was less than 5.||||0.241
84460243|NCT00775021|168672062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03501|0.2334|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilconA minus nelfilcon A. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, period, lens type by period interaction, gender, lens type by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal to ro higher ratings of overall comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2334|-0.03501|
84460244|NCT00775021|168672063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07768|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.108|0.06501|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A. Analysis adjusted for lens type, period, lens by period interaction, gender, lens by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site and eye within subject as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that eyes that wore etafilcon A contact lenses will have less inferior region corneal staining than eyes that wore nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.06501|-0.1080|
84460245|NCT00775021|168672064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.0055|0.4001|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses have equal to or higher comfort ratings at the end of the day than nelfilcon A.||0.4001|-0.0055|
84460246|NCT00775021|168672065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.5016|-0.1088|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal or higher ratings of initial comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||-0.1088|-0.5016|
84460247|NCT00775021|168672066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.1301|0.2489|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etaflicon A contact lenses have equal to or higher ratings of ease of handling than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2489|-0.1301|
84460248|NCT00363415|168672067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||<|0.01||95.0|1.27|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|1.27|<0.01
84460249|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Male|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460250|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Female|Log Rank|||||||0.023
84460251|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Race: Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460252|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for Race: Non-Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
84460253|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 0 or 1.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460254|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 2.|Log Rank|||||||0.519
84460255|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||P-value for Region: United States.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
84460256|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Region: European Union.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
84460257|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Region: Intercontinental Region.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
84460258|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for LDH (lactate dehydrogenase): \>Upper Limit of Normal.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
84460259|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Age: \<=65 years.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460260|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Age: \>65 years.|Log Rank|||||||0.013
84460261|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \<=2.|Log Rank|||||||0.092
84460262|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \>=3.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460263|NCT00363415|168672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for History of Brain Metastases: No.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84460264|NCT03464045|168672074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.06|0.61|0.122
84460265|NCT03464045|168672074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.18|0.67|0.417
84460266|NCT03464045|168672074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.17|0.66|0.376
84478858|NCT02259127|168709092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-23.9|< 0.001
84460267|NCT03464045|168672075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.15|0.55|0.220
84460268|NCT03464045|168672075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.32|0.63|0.628
84460269|NCT03464045|168672075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.33|0.63|0.632
84460270|NCT03464045|168672076|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.29|0.54|0.420
84460271|NCT03464045|168672076|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.38|0.57|0.606
84460272|NCT03464045|168672076|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.38|0.57|0.609
84460273|NCT02148029|168672160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||3.1|-1.1|0.34
84460274|NCT02148029|168672161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||8.0|-7.1|0.89
84460275|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Physical Functioning (PF) domain score.||8.4|-20.3|0.43
84460276|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to Physical health problems (RP) domain score.||11.6|-1.6|0.13
84460277|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to mental health or Emotional problems (RE) domain score.||8.2|-2.8|0.33
84460278|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the energy/fatigue/Vitality (VT) domain score.||20.0|-8.7|0.43
84460279|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Mental Health/emotional well-being (MH) domain score.||8.6|-13.8|0.64
84460280|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Social Functioning (SF) domain score.||12.8|-20.5|0.64
84460281|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|29.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Bodily Pain (BP) domain score.||29.7|-10.7|0.35
84517444|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.249
84517445|NCT03214588|168787439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.380
84517446|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.422
84460282|NCT02148029|168672162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the General Health (GH) domain score.||7.0|-14.1|0.50
84460283|NCT02148029|168672163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.5|27.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||27.7|-95.5|0.27
84460284|NCT02148029|168672164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Reflux - No reflux|||0.1|-3.4|0.07
84460285|NCT02148029|168672165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = PTS - No PTS|||0.9|-0.8|0.91
84460286|NCT03905928|168672171|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise general linear model conducted in FSL software using a one-sample t-test on the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts conducted at the subject-level.|A whole-brain, one-sample t-test was used with a voxel threshold p \<.001 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
84460287|NCT03905928|168672172|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention that differ by the nicotine groups (18 mg/ml vs. 0 mg/ml) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
84460288|NCT03905928|168672173|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention between the flavor groups (tobacco vs. strawberry) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
84460289|NCT03905928|168672174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare the change in e-cigarette dependence (week 4 - week 2 PSECDI difference score) between the four e-cigarette groups.||||0.573
84460290|NCT03905928|168672176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare changes in self-reported craving across all groups.||||.022
84517447|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.226
84460291|NCT01748799|168672219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (CWS) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||<0.01
84460292|NCT01748799|168672219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Checklist (CWC) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||0.01
84460293|NCT02620020|168672220|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.34||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.88|0.3876
84460294|NCT02620020|168672220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.32|0.0180
84460295|NCT02620020|168672220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.26|0.0288
84460296|NCT02620020|168672222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.77||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.65|0.0028
84460297|NCT02620020|168672222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.54||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-3.36|0.0068
84460298|NCT02620020|168672222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.06||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.06|-3.88|0.0006
84460299|NCT02620020|168672223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.46|0.1501
84460300|NCT02620020|168672223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.41|0.2603
84460301|NCT02620020|168672223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.59|0.0135
84460302|NCT01478958|168672235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||Overall diet effect. No post-hoc analyses required. Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI, age, gender and intervention diet used as prognostic factors in model.||To detect a 2% inter-group difference in FMD (primary outcome) using a SD of 2.3, 90% power and 5% significance level, n=171 participants were required (n=57 per group), increasing to n=228 to include a 25% dropout rate.||||0.238
84460303|NCT01478958|168672235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Effect of the SFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||0.021
84460304|NCT01478958|168672235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of MUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
84517448|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.639
84517449|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.094
84460305|NCT01478958|168672235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of n-6 PUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
84460306|NCT02930174|168672277|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84460307|NCT02930174|168672278|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
84460308|NCT02930174|168672279|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.184
84460309|NCT02930174|168672280|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
84460310|NCT02930174|168672281|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.204
84460311|NCT02930174|168672282|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.136
84460312|NCT01976806|168672318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Compound-symmetry covariance structure with age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline RBC DHA level, and intervention group variables|Mean change in pocket depth (3-month follow-up minus baseline) among dental sites with baseline pocket depths \>=5 mm in the DHA intervention group versus the placebo group.|Intent-to-treat basis with a type I error rate of 0.05. The follow-up pocket depth, was assessed in linear mixed effects models with a compound-symmetry covariance structure and age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline red blood cell (RBC) DHA level (dichotomized at median), and intervention group as fixed-effect variables.||||<0.05
84460313|NCT04551014|168672335|NON_INFERIORITY|For polypectomy without submucosal injection of EverLiftTM to be considered non-inferior, we calculated that 115 polyps were needed in each group to achieve an alpha value of 0.05, power of 90%, and non-inferiority margin of -10%.||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
84460314|NCT04551014|168672336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84460315|NCT04551014|168672337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.697
84460316|NCT00963807|168672362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.336
84460317|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.52|-15.50|0.8918
84460318|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.89||||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.14|-19.91|0.5183
84460319|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.89||||0.5718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|9.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|-17.59|0.5718
84478859|NCT02259127|168709092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-8.4|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.4|-18.5|< 0.001
84478860|NCT02259127|168709093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.36|0.55|= 0.53
84478861|NCT02259127|168709093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.49|0.47|= 0.86
84478862|NCT02259127|168709093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.46|0.48|= 0.52
84460320|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.37||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|18.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||18.56|-11.82|0.6591
84460321|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|12.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.13|-18.17|0.6921
84460322|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.20|-19.98|0.3513
84460323|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|23.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||23.88|-5.96|0.2346
84460324|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.24||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|21.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.39|-8.92|0.4138
84460325|NCT01587950|168672365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.99|-16.44|0.6931
84460326|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|8.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.26|-21.04|0.3867
84460327|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.22||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|3.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.96|-26.41|0.1448
84460328|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.83||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|8.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.99|-18.66|0.4874
84460329|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.87||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.23|5.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||5.49|-25.23|0.2038
84460330|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.12||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.19|-26.43|0.1518
84460331|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|12.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.49|-14.98|0.8567
84517450|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.516
84460332|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.01||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|26.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, at 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.08|-4.06|0.1493
84460333|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.45||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|20.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.76|-9.86|0.4798
84460334|NCT01587950|168672366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.56||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.42|8.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.29|-19.42|0.4255
84460335|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.96||||0.7769||95.0|-15.71|11.8||ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.80|-15.71|0.7769
84460336|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|8.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-20.64|0.3811
84460337|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5044||95.0|-17.35|8.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.63|-17.35|0.5044
84460338|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.84|-20.20|0.4374
84517451|NCT03214588|168787440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.266
84517452|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.41|-0.80|0.299
84460339|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.02||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|10.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.41|-18.46|0.5796
84460340|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|14.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05||14.64|-11.32|0.7994
84460341|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.75||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.93|-6.42|0.2784
84517453|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.04|0.06|0.967
84517454|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.59||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.59|-0.54|0.529
84517455|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.80|-0.13|0.880
84460342|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.68||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|21.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.12|-7.75|0.3581
84460343|NCT01587950|168672367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|11.97|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.97|-14.11|0.8703
84460344|NCT03128957|168672368|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample permutation are feasible.||||||0.036|||||||permutation test|Given the non-parametric nature of spearman's correlation coefficient and a small sample we used a permutation test to calculate p-values.||Non-parametric covariance adjusted Spearman's correlation ρ\_s. To test the Null that Ho: ρ\_s.=0 vs alternative that Ha: ρ\_s.≠0, we used a method that calculates the probability that it would be greater than or equal to the observed ρ ̂, given the null hypothesis, by using a permutation test. An advantage of this approach is that it automatically takes into account the number of tied data values in the sample and the way they are treated in computing the rank correlation.||||0.036
84460345|NCT03128957|168672369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.015
84460346|NCT03128957|168672370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.047
84460347|NCT00684177|168672371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|18.4|||Chi-squared|||||18.4|-1.6|0.098
84460348|NCT00684177|168672372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
84460349|NCT00684177|168672373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
84460350|NCT05818124|168672401|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.48||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.00|-3.97|0.783
84517456|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.79||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-0.58|0.599
84460351|NCT05818124|168672402|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.21|||ANOVA|||||-0.21|-4.21|0.032
84460352|NCT05818124|168672403|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||ANOVA|||||1.47|-1.07|0.756
84460353|NCT05818124|168672404|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|23.21||||||||23.21|-23.21|
84460354|NCT05818124|168672405|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|20.27||||||||20.27|-25.78|
84726490|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.413|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.413|0.719|
84460355|NCT05818124|168672406|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|13.38||||||||13.38|-30.26|
84460356|NCT05818124|168672407|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
84460357|NCT05818124|168672408|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
84460358|NCT05818124|168672409|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|10.5||||||||10.50|-27.63|
84460359|NCT05818124|168672412|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.33|0.51|0.3102
84460360|NCT05818124|168672413|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.14|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.14|0.27|0.0779
84460361|NCT05818124|168672416|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-7.47|0.045
84460362|NCT05818124|168672417|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.56||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|1.69|||ANOVA|||||1.69|-6.81|0.226
84460363|NCT05818124|168672418|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
84460364|NCT05818124|168672419|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.74||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.66|||ANOVA|||||3.66|-2.19|0.609
84460365|NCT05818124|168672420|OTHER|Difference in Least Squares Mean|Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.34||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-1.04|0.614
84460366|NCT05818124|168672421|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.37||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.83|||ANOVA|||||1.83|-1.09|0.608
84460367|NCT05818124|168672422|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.43||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.25|||ANOVA|||||1.25|-0.39|0.288
84460368|NCT05818124|168672423|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.09||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.97|||ANOVA|||||0.97|-0.80|0.842
84460369|NCT05818124|168672426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.71|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.71|0.14|0.0042
84460370|NCT05818124|168672427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.33|0.3290
84460371|NCT05818124|168672428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.34|0.27|0.1502
84460372|NCT05818124|168672429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.92|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.92|0.59|0.4865
84460373|NCT05818124|168672432|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.79||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|4.78|||ANOVA|||||4.78|-14.36|0.313
84460374|NCT05818124|168672433|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.87||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|2.36|||ANOVA|||||2.36|-16.11|0.138
84460375|NCT05818124|168672434|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.74||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.74|||ANOVA|||||4.74|-3.26|0.706
84460376|NCT05818124|168672435|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.58||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|-5.10|0.367
84460377|NCT05818124|168672441|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.14||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.92|||ANOVA|||||1.92|-10.20|0.177
84460378|NCT05818124|168672442|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.97||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|-3.24|0.395
84460379|NCT05818124|168672454|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Difference in least squares means|-0.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-2.10|0.110
84460380|NCT05818124|168672455|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
84460381|NCT00371267|168672490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.27
84460382|NCT00371267|168672491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.35
84460383|NCT00371267|168672492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.74
84460384|NCT00371267|168672493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
84460385|NCT00371267|168672494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
84517457|NCT03214588|168787441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.90|-0.21|0.846
84517458|NCT03214588|168787442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
84460386|NCT01575912|168672531|OTHER|||||||0.121||||||using Mann Whitney test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
84517459|NCT03214588|168787442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
84517460|NCT03214588|168787442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
84517461|NCT03214588|168787442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
84460387|NCT00486902|168672532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was determined assuming an incidence of breakthrough pain of 75% and an absolute difference between groups of -20 to +15%. This rate of request for analgesia in the first 24 h was based on data from a parallel study utilizing the same multimodal postoperative pain regimen for cesarean delivery. Group sample sizes of 90 achieve 80% power to detect this difference using the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.05.||||0.86
84460388|NCT00486902|168672533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84460389|NCT00486902|168672534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84460390|NCT00486902|168672535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
84460391|NCT00486902|168672536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
84460392|NCT00486902|168672537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84460393|NCT00486902|168672538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84460394|NCT00486902|168672539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.09|-1.1|0.02
84460395|NCT04178590|168672544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
84460396|NCT04178590|168672545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460397|NCT04178590|168672546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460398|NCT04178590|168672547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460399|NCT04178590|168672548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
84460400|NCT04178590|168672549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
84460401|NCT04178590|168672550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
84460402|NCT04178590|168672551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
84460403|NCT04178590|168672552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
84460404|NCT04178590|168672553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460405|NCT04178590|168672554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.05||||||0.000
84460406|NCT04178590|168672555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460407|NCT04178590|168672556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
84460408|NCT04178590|168672557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460409|NCT04178590|168672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460410|NCT04178590|168672559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84517462|NCT00115063|168787461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84517463|NCT00115063|168787462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84517464|NCT00115063|168787463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84517465|NCT00115063|168787463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value for dystolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84517466|NCT00115063|168787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for LDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84517467|NCT00115063|168787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for HDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84460411|NCT04178590|168672560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
84460412|NCT04178590|168672561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460413|NCT04178590|168672562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460414|NCT04178590|168672563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
84460415|NCT04178590|168672564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
84460416|NCT04178590|168672565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
84460417|NCT04178590|168672566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.008
84460418|NCT04178590|168672567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.500
84517468|NCT00115063|168787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
84460419|NCT04178590|168672568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
84460420|NCT04178590|168672569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
84460421|NCT04178590|168672570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.40
84460422|NCT04178590|168672571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
84460423|NCT04178590|168672572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
84517469|NCT00115063|168787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for uric acid|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84460424|NCT04178590|168672573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
84460425|NCT04178590|168672574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.453
84460426|NCT04178590|168672575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.625
84517470|NCT00115063|168787465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84460427|NCT04178590|168672576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
84460428|NCT04178590|168672577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
84460429|NCT04178590|168672578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
84460430|NCT04178590|168672579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.065
84460431|NCT04178590|168672580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.821
84460432|NCT04178590|168672581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460433|NCT04178590|168672582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84460434|NCT04178590|168672583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460435|NCT04178590|168672584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460436|NCT04178590|168672585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460437|NCT04178590|168672586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460438|NCT04178590|168672587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460439|NCT04178590|168672588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.671
84460440|NCT04178590|168672589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460441|NCT04178590|168672590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460442|NCT04178590|168672591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460443|NCT04178590|168672592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
84460444|NCT04178590|168672593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460445|NCT04178590|168672594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460446|NCT04178590|168672595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
84460447|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.885||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.885|0.357|
84460448|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|1.072||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.072|0.349|
84460449|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.981||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||0.981|0.274|
84460450|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.796||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.796|0.217|
84460451|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.021||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.021|0.262|
84460452|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.503||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.503|0.291|
84460453|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.254||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.254|0.366|
84460454|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.134||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.134|0.520|
84460455|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.15||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.150|0.427|
84517471|NCT00115063|168787466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84517472|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.302|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.302|0.322|0.22
84517473|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.301|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.301|0.322|0.24
84517474|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|2.405|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.501|0.83
84460456|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|1.015||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.015|0.329|
84460457|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.728||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.728|0.231|
84460458|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.657||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.657|0.484|
84460459|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.563||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.563|0.350|
84460460|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|3.697||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||3.697|0.659|
84460461|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.853||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.853|0.433|
84460462|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.039||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.039|0.437|
84517475|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.356|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.356|0.490|0.87
84517476|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.131|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.131|0.458|0.96
84517477|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.212|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.212|0.289|0.16
84460463|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.004||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.004|0.374|
84517478|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.937|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.937|0.324|0.035
84517479|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.045|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.045|0.373|0.070
84517480|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.085||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.947|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.947|0.605|0.79
84517481|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.743|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.743|0.527|0.99
84517482|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.593|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.593|0.488|0.78
84460464|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.921|0.338|
84460465|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.23||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.230|0.427|
84460466|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.386||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.386|0.384|
84460467|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.353||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.353|0.559|
84460468|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.082||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.082|0.556|
84460469|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.919||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.919|0.394|
84460470|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.007||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.007|0.386|
84460471|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.7||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.700|0.263|
84460472|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.842||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.842|0.299|
84460473|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.903||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.903|0.255|
84460474|NCT00996840|168672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|1.192||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.192|0.281|
84460475|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.75||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.750|0.312|
84460476|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.229||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.229|0.399|
84460477|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.254||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.254|0.370|
84460478|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|1.231||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.231|0.368|
84460479|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.857||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.857|0.456|
84460480|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|2.002||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.002|0.445|
84460481|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.723||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.723|0.476|
84460482|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.08||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.080|0.488|
84460483|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.317||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.317|0.476|
84460484|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.26||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.260|0.417|
84517483|NCT00205777|168787467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.968|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.968|0.340|0.036
84517484|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.099|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.099|0.339|0.097
84717826|NCT04933474|169185471|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary outcome will be the baseline vs. week 8 difference-in-difference in 7-day average NRS pain intensity scores, dichotomized into if the MCID of 2 is achieved. The between arm difference of achieving the MCID of 2 will be tested using Chi-squared test.||||0.088
84517485|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|1.151|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.151|0.361|0.15
84517486|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.793|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.793|0.493|0.83
84517487|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.019|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.019|0.435|0.067
84460485|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|1.13||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.130|0.379|
84717827|NCT04933474|169185472|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.103
84717828|NCT04933474|169185473|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.774
84460486|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.12||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.120|0.583|
84460487|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.146||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.146|0.539|
84460488|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|2.574||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.574|0.735|
84460489|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.783||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.783|0.400|
84460490|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.277||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.277|0.539|
84460491|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.589||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.589|0.613|
84460492|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.467||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.467|0.582|
84460493|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.11||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.110|0.716|
84460494|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|2.312||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.312|0.719|
84460495|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.916||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.916|1.053|
84460496|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.803||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.803|0.419|
84460497|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.996||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.996|0.433|
84460498|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.171||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.171|0.477|
84460499|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.024||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.024|0.421|
84460500|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.279||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.279|0.451|
84460501|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.701||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.701|0.550|
84460502|NCT00996840|168672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.229||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.229|0.450|
84460503|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.985||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.985|0.607|
84460504|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.084||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.084|0.583|
84460505|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.135||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.135|0.533|
84460506|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.931||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.931|0.430|
84460507|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.103||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.103|0.397|
84460508|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.756||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.756|0.286|
84460509|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.935||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.935|0.295|
84517488|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.896|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.896|0.367|0.014
84517489|NCT00205777|168787468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.885|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.885|0.710|0.50
84517490|NCT00205777|168787469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.052|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.052|0.440|0.085
84460510|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.18||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.180|0.768|
84460511|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.269||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.269|0.733|
84460512|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.387||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.387|0.710|
84517491|NCT00205777|168787469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.857|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.857|0.434|0.004
84517492|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.903|0.203|0.40
84460513|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.285||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.285|0.649|
84460514|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.051||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.051|0.415|
84460515|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.072||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.072|0.445|
84460516|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.239||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.239|0.423|
84460517|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.144||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.144|0.789|
84460518|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.249||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.249|0.777|
84460519|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.428||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.428|0.797|
84460520|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.239||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.239|0.686|
84460521|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.287||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.287|0.583|
84460522|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.95||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.950|0.444|
84460523|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.14||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.140|0.457|
84460524|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.075||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.075|0.748|
84460525|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.119||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.119|0.703|
84460526|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.123||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.123|0.638|
84460527|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.084||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.084|0.609|
84460528|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.855||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.855|0.394|
84460529|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.639||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.639|0.301|
84717829|NCT04933474|169185474|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.005
84460530|NCT00996840|168672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.714||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.714|0.285|
84460531|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.119||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.119|0.646|
84460532|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.411||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.411|0.814|
84460533|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.478||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.478|0.790|
84460534|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.266||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.266|0.715|
84460535|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.285||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.285|0.655|
84460536|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.395||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.395|0.735|
84460537|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.64||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.640|0.831|
84460538|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.167||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.167|0.713|
84460539|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.233||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.233|0.753|
84517493|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.504||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.676|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.676|0.151|0.26
84460540|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.214||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.214|0.693|
84460541|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.123||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.123|0.673|
84460542|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.550|0.840|
84517494|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.860|0.157|0.33
84517495|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.661||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.118|0.206|0.49
84460543|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.505||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.505|0.837|
84460544|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.063|2.045||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.045|1.063|
84460545|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.031||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.031|0.672|
84460546|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.092||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.092|0.707|
84460547|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.307||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.307|0.800|
84460548|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.187||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.187|0.761|
84460549|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.262||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.262|0.743|
84460550|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.193||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.193|0.718|
84460551|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.613||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.613|0.936|
84460552|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.131||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.131|0.753|
84460553|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.943||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.943|0.625|
84460554|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.042||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.042|0.655|
84460555|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.942||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.942|0.615|
84460556|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.003||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.003|0.608|
84460557|NCT00996840|168672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.851||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.851|0.524|
84460558|NCT00996840|168672619|OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.122||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.122|0.659|
84478863|NCT02259127|168709093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.04|0.42|= 0.86
84478864|NCT02259127|168709094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.13|0.61|= 0.24
84517496|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.370|0.305|0.76
84460559|NCT00619229|168672651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.55||The criterion for significance (α) was set at one-sided α = 0.025, which means that only an effect in the expected direction was interpreted.|ANCOVA||For exploratory testing an Analysis of Variance-Covariance (ANCOVA) F-test with dependent variable 'difference in visual acuity', fixed factors 'treatment' and 'centre' and Baseline value as a covariate was used.|"The primary goal of the study was to test the following null hypothesis:~H0: μAlprostadil ≤ μPlacebo, against the alternative hypothesis H1: μAlprostadil \> μPlacebo, where μ denotes the mean differences in visual acuity between measurements at 3 months after the end of study drug infusion minus measurements at baseline as assessed as line difference on the standard ETDRS charts."||2.55|-0.674|0.1220
84460560|NCT01075178|168672665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.81|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.96|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.96||
84460561|NCT01075178|168672666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.95|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.95||
84460562|NCT01075178|168672667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|1.05|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.64|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||1.64||
84460563|NCT01075178|168672668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.19|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||2.19||
84460564|NCT00929240|168672764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by interactive voice/Web response system (IVRS), estrogen receptor (ER) status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|Log Rank||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
84460565|NCT00929240|168672764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.597|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.597|0.309|<0.0001
84460566|NCT00929240|168672765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.3|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of bevacizumab + capecitabine arm to bevacizumab alone arm.|||20.3|-2.1|0.113
84460567|NCT00929240|168672766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of Bevacizumab+Capecitabine group to Bevacizumab only group.|||4.6|-2.6|0.580
84460568|NCT00929240|168672768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.685||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank|||||0.685|0.263|<0.0003
84460569|NCT00929240|168672768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.798||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||0.798|0.334|0.002
84460570|NCT00929240|168672771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank||Stratification variables are randomisation stratification parameters as of IVRS: ER status, Visceral metastasis (yes/no), Response to initial phase, LDH concentration level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
84517497|NCT00205777|168787470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.238||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|4.616|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||4.616|0.332|0.75
84517498|NCT00205777|168787471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.15||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.15|0.38|
84517499|NCT00205777|168787471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.21||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.21|0.39|
84517500|NCT00205777|168787472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.06||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.06|0.5|
84517501|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
84517502|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
84460571|NCT00929240|168672771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.591||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was determined using the cox regression model.|||0.591|0.305|<0.0001
84460572|NCT02203149|168672795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-14.5|
84460573|NCT02203149|168672796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||2.8|-6.0|
84460574|NCT03168867|168672813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
84460575|NCT05292755|168672842|OTHER|One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean Faith's phylogenetic diversity before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.232
84460576|NCT05292755|168672843|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA was used to compare mean Shannon's diversity indices before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.224
84460577|NCT05292755|168672844|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney|||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney tests were used to compare changes in weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances between intervention groups before and after intervention at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.227
84460578|NCT00432809|168672848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84460579|NCT00432809|168672848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84460580|NCT00432809|168672848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84460581|NCT00432809|168672852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460582|NCT00432809|168672852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460583|NCT00432809|168672852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84460584|NCT00432809|168672853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84460585|NCT00432809|168672853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84460586|NCT00432809|168672853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84460587|NCT00432809|168672854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460588|NCT00432809|168672854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84517503|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
84460589|NCT00432809|168672854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
84460590|NCT00432809|168672855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Therapy vs. Gastric Bypass||||<0.001
84460591|NCT00432809|168672855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460592|NCT00432809|168672855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
84460593|NCT00432809|168672856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460594|NCT00432809|168672856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460595|NCT00432809|168672856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84460596|NCT00432809|168672857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460597|NCT00432809|168672857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460598|NCT00432809|168672857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
84460599|NCT00432809|168672858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460600|NCT00432809|168672858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460601|NCT00432809|168672858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
84460602|NCT00432809|168672859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460603|NCT00432809|168672859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84460604|NCT00432809|168672859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84460605|NCT00432809|168672860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
84460606|NCT00432809|168672860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
84460607|NCT00432809|168672860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
84460608|NCT00432809|168672861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84460609|NCT00432809|168672861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84460610|NCT00432809|168672861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
84460611|NCT00432809|168672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84460612|NCT00432809|168672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84460613|NCT00432809|168672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84460614|NCT00432809|168672863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84460615|NCT00432809|168672863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84460616|NCT00432809|168672863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84460617|NCT00432809|168672864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460618|NCT00432809|168672864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1.001
84460619|NCT00432809|168672864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84460620|NCT00432809|168672865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84517504|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
84517505|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.89
84517506|NCT00205777|168787473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
84517507|NCT00205777|168787474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
84460621|NCT00432809|168672865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460622|NCT00432809|168672865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84460623|NCT00432809|168672866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460624|NCT00432809|168672866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460625|NCT00432809|168672866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84460626|NCT00432809|168672867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460627|NCT00432809|168672867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84460628|NCT00432809|168672867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84460629|NCT00432809|168672868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460630|NCT00432809|168672868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84517508|NCT00205777|168787474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
84460631|NCT00432809|168672868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84460632|NCT00432809|168672869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460633|NCT00432809|168672869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84517509|NCT00205777|168787474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.94
84517510|NCT00205777|168787475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.18
84460634|NCT00432809|168672869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84460635|NCT00432809|168672870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84460636|NCT00432809|168672870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84460637|NCT00432809|168672870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84460638|NCT00432809|168672871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460639|NCT00432809|168672871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460640|NCT00432809|168672871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84460641|NCT00432809|168672872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460642|NCT00432809|168672872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84460643|NCT00432809|168672872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84460644|NCT00707577|168672885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|random effects regression models for panel data adjusted for clustering within team||||||<0.05
84460645|NCT00190775|168672886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||<0.001
84460646|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.905
84460647|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.491
84460648|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.600
84460649|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.052
84460650|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.514
84460651|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.515
84460652|NCT00190775|168672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.315
84460653|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
84460654|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.122
84460655|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.931
84460656|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
84460657|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.190
84460658|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
84460659|NCT00190775|168672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
84517511|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.46
84517512|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.90
84517513|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.93
84517514|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.84
84517515|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.39
84460660|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
84460661|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.705
84460662|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.686
84460663|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.618
84460664|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.903
84460665|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
84460666|NCT00190775|168672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.403
84460667|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.941
84460668|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
84460669|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.391
84460670|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.685
84517516|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.52
84460671|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.774
84460672|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
84517517|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.28
84517518|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.31
84460673|NCT00190775|168672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
84460674|NCT00190775|168672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.617
84460675|NCT00190775|168672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.789
84460676|NCT00190775|168672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.670
84460677|NCT00190775|168672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.018
84460678|NCT00190775|168672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.405
84460679|NCT00190775|168672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.544
84460680|NCT00190775|168672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.494
84460681|NCT00190775|168672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.547
84517519|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.17
84460682|NCT00190775|168672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.059
84460683|NCT00190775|168672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
84460684|NCT00190775|168672893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.334
84460685|NCT00190775|168672893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.087
84517520|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.72
84460686|NCT00190775|168672893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.795
84460687|NCT00190775|168672893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.955
84460688|NCT00190775|168672893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
84460689|NCT00190775|168672894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.248
84517521|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.97
84517522|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.76
84517523|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.29
84517524|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.43
84460690|NCT00190775|168672894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.163
84460691|NCT00190775|168672894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.947
84460692|NCT00190775|168672894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.214
84460693|NCT00190775|168672894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.543
84460694|NCT00190775|168672895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||0.001
84460695|NCT00190775|168672896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
84460696|NCT00190775|168672896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.134
84460697|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.056
84460698|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.459
84460699|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.435
84460700|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.677
84517525|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.59
84517526|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.19
84460701|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.376
84460702|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
84460703|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.030
84460704|NCT00190775|168672897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.434
84460705|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.578
84460706|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.062
84460707|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.567
84460708|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.383
84517527|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.80
84517528|NCT00205777|168787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.11
84517529|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.296|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.296|0.790|0.968
84517530|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.097|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.097|0.652|0.211
84460709|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.963
84460710|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.075
84517531|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.556|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.556|0.925|0.191
84517532|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.497|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||3.497|0.566|0.493
84717830|NCT04933474|169185475|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.831
84460711|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.854
84460712|NCT00190775|168672898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.671
84460713|NCT00190775|168672899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.280
84460714|NCT00190775|168672899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.34
84460715|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.103
84460716|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.182
84460717|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.161
84460718|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.472
84460719|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.949
84460720|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.848
84460721|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.050
84460722|NCT00190775|168672900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.840
84517533|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.405|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.316|0.820
84460723|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.785
84460724|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.081
84460725|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.518
84460726|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.883
84460727|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.439
84460728|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.167
84460729|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.381
84460730|NCT00190775|168672901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.906
84460731|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.420
84460732|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.249
84460733|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.927
84460734|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.205
84460735|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.673
84460736|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.881
84460737|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.808
84460738|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.498
84460739|NCT00190775|168672902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.283
84460740|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.784
84460741|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.864
84460742|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.884
84460743|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.072
84460744|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.120
84460745|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||95.0||||P-Value Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.925
84460746|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.444
84460747|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.166
84460748|NCT00190775|168672903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
84460749|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.895
84460750|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.792
84460751|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.318
84460752|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.914
84460753|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.961
84460754|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
84517534|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.612||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|4.161|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||4.161|0.624|0.371
84460755|NCT00190775|168672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.827
84460756|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.828
84460757|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.401
84460758|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.300
84460759|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
84460760|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.772
84460761|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
84460762|NCT00190775|168672905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.636
84460763|NCT00190775|168672906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.583
84460764|NCT00190775|168672906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.997
84460765|NCT00190775|168672906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.333
84460766|NCT00190775|168672907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Oppositional Defiant Disorder Flag|Fisher Exact|||||||.792
84460767|NCT00190775|168672907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-Value for Conduct Disorder Flag.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
84460768|NCT00190775|168672908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
84460769|NCT00190775|168672908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
84460770|NCT00190775|168672908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.399
84460771|NCT00190775|168672909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.365
84460772|NCT00190775|168672909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.620
84460773|NCT00190775|168672909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.462
84460774|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
84460775|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
84460776|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460777|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460778|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460779|NCT00190775|168672910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460780|NCT00190775|168672911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 8 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460781|NCT00190775|168672911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460782|NCT00190775|168672912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.553
84460783|NCT00190775|168672912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.797
84460784|NCT00190775|168672913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-Value for State Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.108
84460785|NCT00190775|168672913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Trait Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.026
84460786|NCT00190775|168672913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-Value is for State Anxiety Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.897
84517535|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.861|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.861|0.776|0.423
84517536|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.491|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.491|0.587|0.799
84517537|NCT00205777|168787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|2.002|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.002|0.818|0.298
84517538|NCT00205777|168787481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.19|0.78|0.73
84726491|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.057|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.057|0.487|
84460787|NCT00190775|168672913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||P-Value is for Trait Anxiety Score at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.171
84460788|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.892
84460789|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.003
84460790|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.007
84460791|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.533
84460792|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.054
84460793|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.012
84460794|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.457
84460795|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
84460796|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.021
84460797|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.710
84460798|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
84460799|NCT00190775|168672914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
84460800|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.722
84460801|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.011
84460802|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
84460803|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.779
84460804|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
84460805|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.002
84460806|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.716
84460807|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.071
84460808|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.034
84460809|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.938
84460810|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
84517539|NCT00205777|168787481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.83|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.83|0.41|0.71
84517540|NCT00205777|168787481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.66|0.80|0.45
84460811|NCT00190775|168672915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
84460812|NCT00190775|168672916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.546
84460813|NCT00190775|168672916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.530
84460814|NCT00190775|168672916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
84717831|NCT04933474|169185476|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.44||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and week 8) and opioid use (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||2.02|1.03|0.031
84460815|NCT00190775|168672916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||P-Vaue for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.986
84460816|NCT00642642|168672932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|Paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||0.0109
84460817|NCT00642642|168672933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|McNemar|paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||<0.0001
84460818|NCT00332202|168672936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.216|||Log Rank|||||1.216|0.689|0.541
84460819|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 2||||0.606
84460820|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 4||||0.971
84460821|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.580
84460822|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 12||||0.265
84460823|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 18||||0.460
84460824|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.441
84460825|NCT00332202|168672942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 36||||0.357
84460826|NCT00332202|168672943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.267
84460827|NCT00332202|168672943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.807
84460828|NCT00332202|168672943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 33||||0.864
84460829|NCT00332202|168672944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.420|0.415|0.400
84460830|NCT00332202|168672944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.309||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|3.08|||Regression, Cox|||||3.080|0.557|0.539
84517541|NCT00205777|168787482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
84517542|NCT00205777|168787482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
84717832|NCT04243759|169185500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84460831|NCT00332202|168672945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.775||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|3.329|||Regression, Cox|||||3.329|0.947|0.084
84460832|NCT00332202|168672945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.286||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|3.137|||Regression, Cox|||||3.137|0.527|0.585
84460833|NCT05087030|168672999|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was performed with an ANCOVA model with %CfB in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 as the dependent variable, covariates were treatment arm (RGB-14-P and US-licensed Prolia).|Estimated Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.826|||ANCOVA|||||0.826|-0.465|
84460834|NCT05087030|168672999|SUPERIORITY|Non-Superiority Test|Estimated Difference|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.099|1.191|||ANCOVA|||||1.191|-0.099|
84460835|NCT05087030|168673000|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.046|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||1.046|0.978|0.494
84460836|NCT05087030|168673001|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.31||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|0.165|||Mixed model repeated measures|||at Week 26||0.165|-0.792|0.199
84460837|NCT05087030|168673001|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.16||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.358|||mixed model repeated measures|||At Week 52||0.358|-0.680|0.543
84460838|NCT05087030|168673002|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.03||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.769|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 26||0.769|-0.703|0.929
84460839|NCT03658954|168673036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.75
84460840|NCT03658954|168673037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.05
84460841|NCT03658954|168673038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.02
84460842|NCT00741819|168673051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test]||Change in 6MWD from Baseline was calculated for patients still remaining on study at Week 12.|Analysis of endpoints was descriptive in nature. Numeric endpoints for post-baseline assessments were compared to Baseline using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and p-values were calculated for descriptive purposes; no formal hypothesis testing was planned.||||<0.001
84460843|NCT00741819|168673052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Analysis based on Total CAMPHOR Score.|||||<0.001
84460844|NCT00741819|168673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3||0.895||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Side-Effects Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||0.895
84460845|NCT00741819|168673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Convenience Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
84517543|NCT00205777|168787482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84460846|NCT00741819|168673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.7|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Global Satisfaction, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
84460847|NCT00741819|168673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Effectiveness score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
84460848|NCT00741819|168673055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
84460849|NCT02863198|168673058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84460850|NCT02863198|168673059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84460851|NCT02863198|168673060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84460852|NCT02863198|168673061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84460853|NCT02863198|168673062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84460854|NCT02863198|168673063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84460855|NCT00609622|168673064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.705||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.272|5.751|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH): greater than (\>) 1.5 vs. less than or equal to (\<=) 1.5 \* upper limit of normal range (ULN), and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||5.751|1.272|0.9963
84517544|NCT00205777|168787482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84517545|NCT00205777|168787482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84460856|NCT00609622|168673065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.618||||0.9289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|3.096|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline LDH: \>1.5 vs. \<=1.5 \* ULN, and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||3.096|0.845|0.9289
84460857|NCT00609622|168673068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-Distribution|3.956||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.412|18.324|||Chi-squared|||||18.324|-10.412|0.5898
84460858|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.82|0.0515
84460859|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.22|-3.11|0.0876
84460860|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.02|-3.64|0.0522
84460861|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.52|-3.81|0.1339
84460862|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.57|-3.68|0.4233
84460863|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-5.18|0.2211
84517546|NCT00205777|168787483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84460864|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.04|-3.22|0.8184
84460865|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|17.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.23|0.57|0.0380
84460866|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|17.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.81|-6.61|0.3266
84460867|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.75||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|27.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||27.76|-16.26|0.4667
84460868|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460869|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.52|-2.80|0.5587
84460870|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.81|-1.37|0.6122
84460871|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-1.87|0.4642
84460872|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.54|-2.41|0.2105
84460873|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.76|-0.57|0.1950
84517547|NCT00205777|168787483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84517548|NCT00205777|168787484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.26
84517549|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||||<0.001
84460874|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.5779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.75|-1.55|0.5779
84460875|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.50|-2.15|0.6314
84460876|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.87|-2.85|0.7554
84460877|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.94||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||5.34|-13.22|0.3781
84460878|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|8.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||8.13|-13.83|0.5715
84460879|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|3.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.93|-19.08|0.1271
84460880|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460881|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.6785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-1.03|0.6785
84460882|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.74|-1.63|0.4623
84460883|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.9302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.20|-1.31|0.9302
84460884|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.33|-1.84|0.7502
84460885|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.95|-2.12|0.9335
84460886|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.17|-2.40|0.9191
84460887|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.27|-3.46|0.6750
84460888|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.43|-4.20|0.5874
84460889|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|16.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.06|-7.53|0.4507
84517550|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517551|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84460890|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.08|-4.28|0.3087
84460891|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|15.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||15.76|-16.26|0.9635
84460892|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460893|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.53|-2.37|0.6699
84460894|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||-0.70|-3.98|0.0055
84460895|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.85|-2.92|0.2793
84460896|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.99|-3.17|0.2999
84460897|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.29|-3.82|0.3270
84460898|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.45|-2.39|0.9779
84460899|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.8344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.45|-4.25|0.8344
84460900|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||6.41|-3.50|0.5494
84460901|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.85|3.15|0.0136
84717833|NCT04243759|169185501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subjects comparison of drinks per drinking day with full intervention app access versus daily assessment via the app only||0.95|-0.24|.232
84726492|NCT03345407|169204825|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.426|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.426|0.899|
84460902|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.78||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||25.29|2.26|0.0247
84460903|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|22.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.91|-12.91|0.3527
84460904|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460905|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.53|-4.05|0.1309
84460906|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.72|0.0510
84460907|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.95|-2.44|0.3858
84460908|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.15|-2.90|0.3943
84460909|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.27|-3.53|0.3499
84460910|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.50|-2.64|0.9567
84460911|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-5.12|0.2901
84460912|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|2.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.92|-5.05|0.5857
84460913|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|12.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.02|-12.56|0.9635
84460914|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|10.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.56|-15.36|0.6850
84460915|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||11.73|-19.23|0.4968
84460916|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84517552|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84460917|NCT00609622|168673070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.55|-2.71|0.5891
84460918|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-2.50|0.5081
84460919|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.79|-2.67|0.6977
84460920|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.33|-5.85|0.0797
84460921|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.17|-5.62|0.5808
84460922|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|4.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.38|-6.44|0.7046
84460923|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.76|-2.40|0.2052
84517553|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517554|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.018
84460924|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.27||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.46|0.07|0.0483
84460925|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|24.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||24.26|-16.41|0.6832
84460926|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|20.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||20.05|-18.05|0.9081
84460927|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.7289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|16.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.38|-12.88|0.7289
84460928|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460929|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.95|-4.43|0.6921
84460930|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.19|-0.19|0.9788
84460931|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.33|0.2747
84460932|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.14|-0.50|0.2776
84460933|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.62|0.1403
84460934|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.50|-0.55|0.9151
84460935|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.05|-0.36|0.3277
84517555|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517556|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517557|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517558|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517559|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517560|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517561|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517562|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517563|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517564|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
84517565|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
84460936|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-0.86|1.0000
84460937|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.67|-1.53|0.5661
84460938|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.15|-2.95|0.7309
84460939|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.66|-2.16|0.3273
84460940|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
84460941|NCT00609622|168673071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.27|-0.39|0.7108
84460942|NCT00666562|168673104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84460943|NCT00275561|168673131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
84517566|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.019
84460944|NCT00275561|168673132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84460945|NCT00275561|168673133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84460946|NCT00686205|168673159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.94||||||95.0|99.88|99.97|||Binomial Exact|Sample size is based on power of 80%, alpha level of 0.05, using the binomial distribution when comparing to a lower bound of specificity at 99.84.||||99.97|99.88|
84460947|NCT00686205|168673160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|99.76|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.76|
84460948|NCT02469246|168673185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-8.9|1.1|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of the primary efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||1.1|-8.9|0.15
84460949|NCT02469246|168673186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|-6.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||-0.3|-12.3|0.042
84460950|NCT02469246|168673187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|3.5|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||3.5|-1.0|0.45
84460951|NCT02469246|168673188|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-1.0|0.34
84460952|NCT02469246|168673189|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.6||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-7.4|0.62
84460953|NCT02469246|168673190|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-5.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|0.4|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||0.4|-12.2|0.069
84460954|NCT02469246|168673191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-32.0||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-4.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-4|-61|0.026
84460955|NCT02469246|168673192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-39.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-8.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-8|-70|0.013
84460956|NCT02469246|168673193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.179||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.598||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.598|-0.240|0.40
84517567|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517568|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84517569|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517570|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517571|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84726493|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.70|0.35|
84460957|NCT02469246|168673194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.165||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.678||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.678|-0.348|0.53
84460958|NCT02469246|168673195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.151||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.767||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.767|-0.465|0.63
84460959|NCT02469246|168673196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.056||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.713||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.713|-0.825|0.89
84460960|NCT00885079|168673197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for change from baseline in the FCS score was determined by comparing the non-inferiority margin (0.4) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.24||An analysis of change from baseline of FCS was performed using t-test. The level of singnificanse was 5 % (2-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.47|<0.05
84460961|NCT00885079|168673198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84460962|NCT03303989|168673213|SUPERIORITY|Efficacy of MMF was examined by the proportion of responders in MMF+Peg compared to PBO+Peg. Rates of the primary outcome were compared using proportions and 95% confidence intervals and tested for differences using Fisher's exact test.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare baseline and clinical characteristics between treatment groups as appropriate.||||<0.01
84460963|NCT01658514|168673214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|51.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.77|70.23||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||70.23|37.77|0.0011
84460964|NCT01658514|168673214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|73.8||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|97.43||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||97.43|55.97|0.0733
84460965|NCT01658514|168673214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.25|76.1||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||76.10|42.25|0.0028
84460966|NCT01658514|168673214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.61|73.02||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||73.02|37.61|0.0025
84460967|NCT01658514|168673215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|65.5||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|92.68||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||92.68|46.32|0.0474
84460968|NCT01658514|168673215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|77.3||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.72|105.41||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||105.41|56.72|0.1691
84460969|NCT01658514|168673215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.73|78.63||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||78.63|40.73|0.0064
84517572|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517573|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517574|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517575|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517576|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517577|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517578|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84460970|NCT01658514|168673215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|54.6||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.68|79.11||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||79.11|37.68|0.0097
84460971|NCT01658514|168673216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9444|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for Placebo-adjusted Change from Pre-dose Value in Lactate Versus Metformin Concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||0.9444
84460972|NCT01658514|168673216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for placebo-adjusted change from pre-dose value in lactate versus metformin concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
84460973|NCT00144170|168673229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||24.0|12.9|0.0001
84460974|NCT00144170|168673230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84460975|NCT00144170|168673231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||31.1|18.6|0.0001
84460976|NCT00144170|168673232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|22.5|0.0001
84460977|NCT00144170|168673233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||35.7|23.2|0.0001
84517579|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84460978|NCT00144170|168673234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||32.6|20.5|0.0001
84517580|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517581|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717834|NCT02777593|169185614|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.64, then the the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.751|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 12-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.64 (i.e. 64%), derived from historical GORE TAG® and Conformable TAG® data.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 70 patients. With attrition, 85 patients were required."||||
84726494|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.77|0.63|
84460979|NCT00144170|168673235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||27.9|16.2|0.0001
84460980|NCT00144170|168673236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|13.3|0.0001
84460981|NCT00144170|168673237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|13.0|0.0001
84460982|NCT00144170|168673238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|11.7|0.0001
84460983|NCT00144170|168673239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|11.7|0.0001
84460984|NCT00144170|168673240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|22.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|12.0|0.0001
84460985|NCT00144170|168673241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|21.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|11.2|0.0001
84460986|NCT00144170|168673242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|21.3||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|11.1|0.0001
84517582|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517583|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517584|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517585|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517586|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517587|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517588|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517589|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
84517590|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
84517591|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84460987|NCT00144170|168673243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.6||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.6|10.6|0.0001
84517592|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84517593|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.006
84517594|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517595|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84460988|NCT00144170|168673244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84460989|NCT00144170|168673245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84460990|NCT00144170|168673246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84460991|NCT00144170|168673320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1026
84478865|NCT02259127|168709094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.74|0.5|= 0.83
84478866|NCT02259127|168709094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.75|= 0.57
84478867|NCT02259127|168709094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.88|0.33|= 0.01
84478868|NCT02259127|168709095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.77|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.77|0.11|= 0.01
84478869|NCT02259127|168709095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.33|0.09|= 0.13
84478870|NCT02259127|168709095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.03|0.05|0.055
84478871|NCT02259127|168709096|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.1|= 0.003
84478872|NCT02259127|168709096|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.13|= 0.035
84478873|NCT02259127|168709096|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.004|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.004|-0.11|= 0.039
84478874|NCT02259127|168709096|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Other [Bootstrap method]|||||0.02|-0.36|0.057
84478875|NCT02259127|168709097|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.16|= 0.003
84478876|NCT02259127|168709097|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.21|= 0.009
84517596|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717835|NCT05485935|169185615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|72.64||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||72.64|19.24|0.001
84717836|NCT05485935|169185616|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.35|0.07|<0.001
84717837|NCT05485935|169185617|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.40|0.04|<0.001
84717838|NCT05485935|169185618|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|47.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||47.6|9.5|0.004
84717839|NCT03982186|169185625|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-2.3|||=|0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.38|-5.97|= 0.848
84460992|NCT03871491|168673322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of maternal death or sepsis within 6 weeks (42 days) post-delivery||0.79|0.56|<0.001
84460993|NCT03871491|168673323|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Intrapartum/Neonatal Death or Sepsis Within 4 Weeks (28 Days) Post-delivery in Intervention vs. Placebo Group||1.09|0.95|0.56
84460994|NCT03871491|168673324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.77||||||||0.77|0.55|
84717840|NCT03982186|169185625|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|7.4|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|13.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||||13.68|1.07|= 0.027
84460995|NCT03871491|168673325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|36.14||||||||36.14|0.45|
84460996|NCT03871491|168673327|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79||||||||0.79|0.55|
84460997|NCT03871491|168673328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75||||||||0.75|0.43|
84460998|NCT03871491|168673329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||||0.99|0.65|
84460999|NCT03871491|168673330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||||||||0.85|0.56|
84461000|NCT03871491|168673331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01||||||||1.01|0.95|
84517597|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461001|NCT03871491|168673333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||||0.82|0.52|
84461002|NCT03871491|168673334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||||||||1.15|0.70|
84461003|NCT03871491|168673335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.84||||||||0.84|0.73|
84461004|NCT03871491|168673336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41||||||||1.41|0.84|
84461005|NCT03871491|168673337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||||||||1.1|0.96|
84461006|NCT03871491|168673338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||||||||1.47|0.73|
84461007|NCT03871491|168673339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||||||||1.07|0.88|
84461008|NCT03871491|168673341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||||1.21|0.96|
84461009|NCT03871491|168673342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12||||||||1.12|0.94|
84461010|NCT03871491|168673343|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0||||||||1.0|0.93|
84517598|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717841|NCT03982186|169185625|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|9.1|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|14.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.07|4.16|= 0.917
84717842|NCT03982186|169185625|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-6.7|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.67|1.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.25|-14.67|= 0.917
84717843|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Accuracy|0.6587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.7408||||||||0.7408|0.5690|
84717844|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.8736|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717845|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Specificity|0.4872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717846|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.7917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717847|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.6333|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717848|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1212|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717849|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Specificity|0.9032|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717850|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.3077|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461011|NCT03871491|168673344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|10.1||||||||10.1|0.71|
84461012|NCT05202808|168673347|NON_INFERIORITY|"The endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 6 months was compared between the LAL and Control groups. The statistical hypothesis is:~* H0: Median(LAL) - Median(control) ≥ 5% vs~* Ha: Median(LAL) - Median(control) \< 5%~The median ECL for the LAL group is at most 5% higher than the median ECL for the Control group.~The first co-primary safety endpoint is met if the median ECL of the LAL group is non-inferior to the Control group using a right-tail Wilcoxon test using a significance level of 0.05."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.66|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, a power of 0.80, a randomization ratio of 2:1, and then the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon asymptotic relative efficiency (A.R.E.) efficiency adjustment, the sample size per two-sample t-test is 192 LAL eyes and 96 Control eyes (total of 288), with an assumed dropout rate of 10%.||1.66|-1.00|<0.0001
84461013|NCT05202808|168673349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|7.15|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and Control group is the denominator. At Month 6, the odds of achieving UCDVA of 20/20 or better were 4.61 times greater for the LAL group than the Control group.|||7.15|2.97|
84461014|NCT05202808|168673350|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|36.14|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving Absolute MRCYL of 0.5D or less was 20.74 for the LAL group versus the Control group at month 6.|||36.14|12.05|
84517599|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517600|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517601|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517602|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517603|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517604|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
84517605|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.005
84517606|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84517607|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517608|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
84517609|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517610|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461015|NCT05202808|168673351|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|23.57|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving simultaneous Absolute MRSE and MRCL of 0.5 D or less was 14.46 in the LAL group vs. Control at month 6.|||23.57|8.89|
84461016|NCT04996797|168673352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.5|11.8|<.0001
84461017|NCT04996797|168673355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
84461018|NCT04996797|168673356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|56.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||56.9|27.4|<.0001
84461019|NCT04996797|168673357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0224||95.0|2.1|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factor of biologic status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||37.9|2.1|0.0224
84461020|NCT04996797|168673358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0223||95.0|1.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||24.6|1.8|0.0223
84461021|NCT04996797|168673359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0009||95.0|12.1|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.9|12.1|0.0009
84461022|NCT04996797|168673360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
84517611|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517612|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517613|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517614|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.39
84461023|NCT04996797|168673361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||||95.0|-2.4|36.4|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.4|-2.4|
84461024|NCT04996797|168673362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||||95.0|0.4|42.2|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.2|0.4|
84461025|NCT04996797|168673363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||||95.0|-6.9|26.9|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||26.9|-6.9|
84461026|NCT04996797|168673364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9||||||95.0|5.0|48.3|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||48.3|5.0|
84461027|NCT04996797|168673365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
84517615|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.17
84517616|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
84461028|NCT04996797|168673366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
84717851|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.7434|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461029|NCT04996797|168673367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2||||||95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
84461030|NCT04996797|168673368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|17.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||46.8|17.2|<0.0001
84461031|NCT04996797|168673369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||||95.0|-1.7|38.7|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||38.7|-1.7|
84461032|NCT02747004|168673378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||||0.2930
84461033|NCT02747004|168673378|OTHER|Informal phase 2 non-inferiority.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.535|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||1.535|0.711|
84461034|NCT01444300|168673388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.51
84461035|NCT01444300|168673389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo after 12 weeks.||||0.7
84461036|NCT01444300|168673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.8
84461037|NCT04885257|168673397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
84461038|NCT01697345|168673417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.092|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0378|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-6.256|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.256|-13.928|<0.0005
84461039|NCT01697345|168673418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.859|-0.741|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.741|-1.859|<0.0005
84461040|NCT01697345|168673419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.369||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.495|-0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.755|-2.495|0.002
84461041|NCT01697345|168673420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.876||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.692|-0.308|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.308|-2.692|0.018
84461042|NCT01697345|168673421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18168||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9508|-0.4492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.44920|-1.95080|0.005
84461043|NCT01697345|168673422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.355||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-1.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.039|-2.761|0.001
84461044|NCT01697345|168673423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.567|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.793|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.706|-1.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.428|-3.706|<0.0005
84461045|NCT01245647|168673454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84461046|NCT01245647|168673455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84461047|NCT01245647|168673456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
84461048|NCT01245647|168673457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||no significant difference by Fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84461049|NCT01245647|168673458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84461050|NCT02370121|168673459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
84461051|NCT02370121|168673460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84461052|NCT02370121|168673461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84461053|NCT02370121|168673462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84461054|NCT02370121|168673463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84461055|NCT02370121|168673464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
84461056|NCT02370121|168673465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84461057|NCT02370121|168673466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84461058|NCT02370121|168673467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84461059|NCT02370121|168673468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84461060|NCT02370121|168673469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84461061|NCT02370121|168673470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
84461062|NCT02370121|168673471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84517617|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.016
84717852|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717853|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Specificity|0.8833|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717854|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.1765|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461063|NCT02370121|168673472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84461064|NCT02370121|168673473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84461065|NCT02370121|168673474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
84461066|NCT02370121|168673475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84461067|NCT01392183|168673498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.22|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio comparing Median PFS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||2.22|0.84|
84461068|NCT01392183|168673499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93|||||Adjusted HR comparing Median OS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||1.93|0.7|
84461069|NCT05198713|168673501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461070|NCT01232946|168673535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
84461071|NCT01232946|168673536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
84461072|NCT01232946|168673537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
84461073|NCT00265941|168673539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + cisplatin|A total of 945 patients were required (900 analyzable) to test for a 25% reduction in the hazard associated with progression-free survival with 84% statistical power using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level (0.0238 after 3 interim analyses).||1.32|0.88|0.76
84461074|NCT00265941|168673540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|Arms were compared using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level.||1.21|0.74|0.32
84461075|NCT00265941|168673541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|||1.70|0.99|0.97
84461076|NCT00265941|168673546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||3 months||||0.74
84461077|NCT00265941|168673546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||12 months||||0.99
84461078|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Diet 3-month||||0.13
84461079|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level 0.05||Diet 12-month||||0.87
84461080|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 3-month||||0.39
84461081|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 12-month||||0.16
84461082|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 3-month||||0.81
84461083|NCT00265941|168673547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 12-month||||0.67
84461084|NCT00265941|168673548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.016
84461085|NCT00265941|168673549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Progression-free survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.51|0.79|0.60
84461086|NCT00265941|168673549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.76|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Overall survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.76|0.81|0.37
84461087|NCT00265941|168673549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Local-regional failure||1.46|0.60|0.76
84461088|NCT00265941|168673550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Progression-free survival is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.75|0.12|0.01
84461089|NCT00265941|168673550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Overall survival (OS) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||1.20|0.12|0.10
84461090|NCT00265941|168673550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.97|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Loco-regional control (LRC) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.97|0.10|0.04
84461091|NCT02432807|168673557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2219
84461092|NCT02432807|168673558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1817
84461093|NCT02966314|168673570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|126.47|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||126.47|2.77|0.003
84461094|NCT02966314|168673572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|17.63|||Regression, Linear|||||17.63|1.24|0.03
84461095|NCT02966314|168673574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|720.54|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||720.54|1.49|0.03
84461096|NCT02966314|168673576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.3|||Regression, Linear|Accounting for multiple measures, using poisson distribution with natural log link||||25.3|1.9|0.005
84461097|NCT02886715|168673657|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|103.31||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.31|94.39|
84461098|NCT02886715|168673657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.87|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.87|-9.46|0.0185
84461099|NCT02886715|168673659|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.42|103.61||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.61|93.42|
84461100|NCT02886715|168673659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.3|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.30|-8.48|0.0354
84717855|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9725|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717856|NCT03512301|169185681|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.4446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2791|0.6101||||||||0.6101|0.2791|
84517618|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
84717857|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER|Linear Regression. Power calculations for linear regression between CAMCI and MoCA were found to be sufficiently powered with a Pearson's R of at least 0.3 at 80% power and that equated to a test-set size of 98.|Pearson Correlation|0.5073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3892|0.6091|||||Linear Regression Equation: \[CAMCI Score\] = -5.42 + 1.40 X \[MoCA Score\]|||0.6091|0.3892|
84461101|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69||||||90.0|-12.62|-6.77|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-6.77|-12.62|
84461102|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-2.87|2.98|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||2.98|-2.87|
84461103|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.75||||||90.0|6.83|12.67|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||12.67|6.83|
84461104|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||||90.0|-5.5|-2.44|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-2.44|-5.50|
84461105|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.21|0.85|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||0.85|-2.21|
84461106|NCT00768560|168673685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||||90.0|1.76|4.82|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||4.82|1.76|
84517619|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717858|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Accuracy|0.5556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4644|0.644||||||||0.6440|0.4644|
84461107|NCT01128387|168673694|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Pantiumumab (in combination with Cisplatin \& Fluorouracil - see below)||||
84461108|NCT01128387|168673694|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Cisplatin||||
84461109|NCT01128387|168673694|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|750.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Fluorourcil||||
84461110|NCT01021111|168673696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The values from the three jumps were averaged in order to have one mean value per subject per session. Paired Student t-tests (baseline vs. follow-up) were used to evaluate the effects of the training.||||<0.01
84461111|NCT01021111|168673697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson|||The association between the change in the thigh coronal angular velocity from baseline to follow-up and the change in the knee abduction moment from baseline to follow-up was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), alpha =0.05||||<0.05
84461112|NCT01535235|168673698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84461113|NCT01535235|168673699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
84461114|NCT02120417|168673726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.252|||Log Rank|The P-value was analyzed by Log-Rank Test stratified by Hormone Receptor Status.||||1.252|0.694|0.762
84461115|NCT00594399|168673737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of insulin|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84461116|NCT00594399|168673740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of glucose|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
84461117|NCT00594399|168673743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with adjustment for baseline value of physical activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84461118|NCT01440101|168673745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Mann-Whitney U test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84461119|NCT01440101|168673748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Van Elteren test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.001
84461120|NCT01440101|168673749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.006
84461121|NCT01440101|168673750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.586|||Fisher Exact|||Relapse-free proportions compared using a two-sided Fisher exact test. In the analysis, participants with unknown status are considered to have relapsed.||0.586|0.223|<0.001
84461122|NCT01440101|168673751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||||0.729
84461123|NCT01440101|168673751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.942
84461124|NCT02700451|168673788|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total in the first 72H is the same across these arms||||<0.001
84517620|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717859|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717860|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Specificity|0.3913|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461125|NCT02700451|168673788|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||The thresholds for statistical significant was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total to discharge is the same across these arms||||<0.001
84461126|NCT02700451|168673789|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||Similar Distribution of opioid use between the 3 arms||||0.048
84461127|NCT02700451|168673790|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
84461128|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.732|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.732
84461129|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.896|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.896
84461130|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.004
84461131|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.325
84461132|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.283|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.283
84461133|NCT02700451|168673793|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.610
84461134|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
84461135|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.294|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.294
84461136|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
84461137|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.082
84461138|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.117
84461139|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.061
84461140|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.023
84461141|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.681|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.681
84461142|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.405|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.405
84461143|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.458|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.458
84461144|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.482
84461145|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.544|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.544
84517621|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517622|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461146|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.202
84461147|NCT02700451|168673794|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.580
84461148|NCT02700451|168673796|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.928|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 24H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.928
84461149|NCT02700451|168673796|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 48H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.906
84461150|NCT02700451|168673796|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.926|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 72H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.926
84461151|NCT02700451|168673796|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.934|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at Discharge is the same across the 3 arms||||0.934
84461152|NCT02700451|168673797|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of patient receiving at least 1 transfusion is the same across the 3 arms||||0.078
84461153|NCT02700451|168673798|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||792|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0792
84461154|NCT02700451|168673799|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in day is the same across these arms||||0.034
84461155|NCT02700451|168673799|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in hour is the same across these arms||||0.030
84461156|NCT02700451|168673800|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.974|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.974
84461157|NCT02700451|168673800|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.444|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the MCS between the 3 ams||||0.444
84461158|NCT02700451|168673801|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.215
84461159|NCT02700451|168673802|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.044
84461160|NCT02700451|168673802|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.767|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison MCS score between the 3 arms||||0.767
84461161|NCT02700451|168673803|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
84461162|NCT01511445|168673826|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was specified as 15 NDI points (0-100 scale).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Fisher Exact||A negative value means that the PEEK change was slightly larger than the silicon nitride study arm.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in NDI scores from pre-op to 24 months was equal in the two study arms.||4.5|-7.3|0.641
84461163|NCT01511445|168673827|NON_INFERIORITY|The definition of fusion is rotation on flexion-extension films of less than or equal to four degrees and translation less than 1.25 mm.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that the fusion rates would be equal in the two study arms. The comparison includes patients with flexion-extension films at 24 months (as-treated population).||||0.710
84461164|NCT04233424|168673862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-2.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.0|-6.7|0.152
84461165|NCT04233424|168673863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-3.9|0.6219
84461166|NCT04233424|168673864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||1.2|-2.8|0.4373
84461167|NCT04325503|168673865|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0905||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.159||A priori threshold statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 9||||0.159|0.022|0.015
84461168|NCT04325503|168673866|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.216||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||2.216|-1.550|0.694
84461169|NCT04325503|168673867|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.444||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|3.252||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||3.252|-0.363|0.103
84461170|NCT04325503|168673868|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.554|2.372||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 10||||2.372|-6.554|0.321
84461171|NCT04325503|168673869|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.185||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.544|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||0.544|-0.175|0.265
84717861|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.5625|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461172|NCT04325503|168673870|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.143||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.296|15.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 6||||15.0|1.296|0.0270
84461173|NCT04325503|168673871|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.||||||0.153||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.153
84461174|NCT01642212|168673885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84461175|NCT01642212|168673886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.75||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.808|-1.687||LS mean estimates were determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and the baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.687|-11.808|0.0096
84461176|NCT01642212|168673887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.49||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.895|1.92||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.920|-6.895|0.2649
84461177|NCT01642212|168673887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.322|2.501||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||2.501|-8.322|0.2878
84461178|NCT01642212|168673889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 15 Eosinophils/HPF||||0.0001
84461179|NCT01642212|168673889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 1 Eosinophils/HPF||||<0.0001
84461180|NCT01642212|168673890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0206
84717862|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461181|NCT01642212|168673890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0275
84461182|NCT01642212|168673891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0026
84461183|NCT01642212|168673891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0199
84461184|NCT01642212|168673892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-22.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.345|-14.334|||ANCOVA|LS mean based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-14.334|-30.345|<0.0001
84517623|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461185|NCT01642212|168673893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-2.358||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.358|-5.172|<0.0001
84461186|NCT01642212|168673894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|-17.57||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of proximal eosinophil count||-17.570|-53.438|0.0002
84461187|NCT01642212|168673894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-59.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.173|-34.948||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of mid- eosinophil count||-34.948|-84.173|<0.0001
84517624|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717863|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717864|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Specificity|0.9841|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717865|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.9231|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717866|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.5487|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461188|NCT01642212|168673894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-67.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.573|-41.18||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of distal eosinophil count||-41.180|-93.573|<0.0001
84461189|NCT01642212|168673895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.44||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.593|-7.293||LS mean estimates were based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-7.293|-29.593|0.0015
84461190|NCT01642212|168673896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference was determined by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of distribution of scores across all responses||||0.1170
84461191|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of heartburn||||0.1947
84461192|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of chest pain||||0.8029
84461193|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of regurgitation||||0.4963
84461194|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of abdominal pain||||0.5257
84461195|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of nausea||||0.5219
84461196|NCT01642212|168673897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of vomiting||||0.2886
84461197|NCT01642212|168673900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. Both responses (no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of symptoms of participants with no symptoms at baseline||||0.1600
84461198|NCT01642212|168673902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0606
84517625|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517626|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717867|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717868|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Specificity|0.8917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84461199|NCT01642212|168673902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0165
84461200|NCT01642212|168673903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7817
84461201|NCT01642212|168673904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.04||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||0.040|-0.222|0.1686
84461202|NCT01642212|168673904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.21||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.210|-0.269|0.8046
84461203|NCT01642212|168673904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.219||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.219|-0.199|0.9239
84461204|NCT01642212|168673905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.806|1.339||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.339|-2.806|0.4835
84461205|NCT01642212|168673905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.974|0.132||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.132|-3.974|0.0662
84461206|NCT01642212|168673905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.006|0.41||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.410|-4.006|0.1091
84461207|NCT00702143|168673940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0002
84461208|NCT00702143|168673940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||<0.0001
84717869|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.2353|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717870|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9817|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84717871|NCT03512301|169185682|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.3931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2401|0.5461||||||||0.5461|0.2401|
84717872|NCT02720068|169185688|OTHER|Difference in Percentage|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.9|||||Confidence interval based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-7.3|
84461209|NCT00702143|168673940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0014
84461210|NCT00702143|168673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||<0.0001
84461211|NCT00702143|168673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
84461212|NCT00702143|168673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
84461213|NCT00702143|168673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0003
84461214|NCT02382133|168674011|SUPERIORITY|comparing nasal and forehead oximetry sensor pressure ulcer incidence|||||=|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.006
84461215|NCT00045032|168674014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461216|NCT00045032|168674014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.67|0.44|
84461217|NCT00045032|168674015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
84517627|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517628|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517629|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.01
84517630|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84517631|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517632|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461218|NCT00045032|168674015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.53|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.53|0.34|
84461219|NCT00045032|168674018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461220|NCT00045032|168674018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.67|
84461221|NCT00045032|168674018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461222|NCT00045032|168674018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.67|
84461223|NCT00045032|168674023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.68|
84461224|NCT00045032|168674023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.69|
84461225|NCT00045032|168674030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.89|0.7962
84461226|NCT00045032|168674032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2379|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2379
84461227|NCT00045032|168674032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||1.21|0.47|
84461228|NCT00045032|168674033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84461229|NCT00045032|168674033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.28|
84461230|NCT00045032|168674036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
84461231|NCT00045032|168674036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.88|0.65|
84461232|NCT00045032|168674036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
84461233|NCT00045032|168674036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.63|
84461234|NCT00045032|168674038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.64|
84461235|NCT00045032|168674038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
84461236|NCT00045032|168674040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.21|0.84|0.9156
84461237|NCT00045032|168674042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461238|NCT00045032|168674042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
84461239|NCT00045032|168674042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461240|NCT00045032|168674042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
84517633|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517634|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517635|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517636|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517637|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517638|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461241|NCT00045032|168674044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.11|0.80|0.4755
84461242|NCT00045032|168674046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461243|NCT00045032|168674046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.67|
84461244|NCT00045032|168674046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461245|NCT00045032|168674046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.65|
84461246|NCT00045032|168674048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.85|0.9626
84461247|NCT00045032|168674050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461248|NCT00045032|168674050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
84461249|NCT00045032|168674050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84717873|NCT04174170|169185708|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.03||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|4.16|||MMRM|||||4.16|-2.09|0.5165
84461250|NCT00045032|168674050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
84461251|NCT00045032|168674052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.10|0.80|0.4500
84461252|NCT00045032|168674054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461253|NCT00045032|168674054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
84517639|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.048
84517640|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
84517641|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517642|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517643|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517644|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517645|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517646|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717874|NCT04174170|169185708|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.71||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.46|||MMRM|||||2.46|-3.88|0.6593
84717875|NCT04174170|169185709|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.31|-0.25|0.8215
84461254|NCT00045032|168674054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461255|NCT00045032|168674054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.59|
84461256|NCT00045032|168674056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.15|0.80|0.6823
84461257|NCT00045032|168674058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.13|0.84|0.7251
84461258|NCT04068103|168674081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P value \<= 0.35 moves trial to phase III, \>0.35 stops trial for futility. Decision rule calls for early stopping due to futility.|Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test of ctDNA clearance by treatment arm.||||0.98
84461259|NCT00473694|168674093|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|21.42||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.42|13.95|<0.0001
84461260|NCT00473694|168674094|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|14.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|21.67||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.67|10.18|<0.0001
84461261|NCT00473694|168674095|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|19.95||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||19.95|12.58|<0.0001
84461262|NCT00473694|168674096|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|18.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|24.35||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.35|13.98|<0.0001
84461263|NCT00473694|168674097|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.62|21.31||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.31|13.62|<0.0001
84461264|NCT00473694|168674098|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|24.38||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.38|12.85|<0.0001
84461265|NCT02513940|168674161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84461266|NCT02513940|168674162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p=0.008 Progesterone vs placebo: p=0.73 Testosterone vs progesterone: p=0.0008"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84461267|NCT02513940|168674163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.60
84461268|NCT02513940|168674164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p = 0.0001 Progesterone vs placebo: p = 0.25 Testosterone vs progesterone: p = 0.002"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.0003
84517647|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517648|NCT00205777|168787485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517649|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717876|NCT04174170|169185709|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.26|-0.31|0.8584
84461269|NCT02513940|168674165|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||>0.99
84461270|NCT02513940|168674165|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash at gel application site||||>0.99
84461271|NCT02015819|168674188|OTHER||||||||||||||||||MFD was determined to be 1.5x10\^8 in combination with oral 5-FC 37.5 mg/kg and leucovorin 25 mg every 6 hours for 7 days.|||
84461272|NCT03431012|168674232|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|ANCOVA|ANCOVAs, setting baseline intentions as a covariate, were performed to determine whether post-exposure mean intentions differed between groups.||We predicted that Virus Agency (VA) and Positive Framing (PF) would lead to greater adherence intentions, compared to the human agency (HA) and negative framing (NF) versions respectively.||||>.05
84461273|NCT03431012|168674233|OTHER||||||=|0.113||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher worry than the human agency assignment.||||=.113
84461274|NCT03431012|168674234|OTHER||||||=|0.809||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of susceptibility than the human agency assignment.||||=.809
84461275|NCT03431012|168674235|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of severity of the pandemic than the human agency assignment.||||0.025
84461276|NCT03431012|168674236|OTHER||||||=|0.199||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that the Agency Assignment would not affect self-efficacy, i.e. people's perceived ability to use the antivirals as recommended.||||=0.199
84461277|NCT03431012|168674237|OTHER||||||=|0.484||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to higher response efficacy.||||=0.484
84461278|NCT03431012|168674238|OTHER||||||=|0.494||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to lower response costs compared to Negative Framing.||||=0.494
84461279|NCT03068715|168674240|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MADRS scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||<0.001
84461280|NCT03068715|168674241|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
84461281|NCT03068715|168674244|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
84517650|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.010
84517651|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517652|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.023
84517653|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517654|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461282|NCT03068715|168674245|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-t test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.308
84461283|NCT03068715|168674245|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.778
84461284|NCT03068715|168674245|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.468
84461285|NCT03068715|168674245|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.486
84461286|NCT03068715|168674246|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.447
84461287|NCT03068715|168674246|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.115
84461288|NCT03068715|168674246|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.546
84461289|NCT03068715|168674246|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.607
84517655|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517656|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517657|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461290|NCT03068715|168674247|SUPERIORITY||P value of the interaction|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons at this time.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the interaction between treatment condition and timepoint.||We conducted a linear mixed models analysis, with a focus on the interaction term. No power analysis for this measure because number of participants was determined by other primary study aims.||||<0.05
84517658|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517659|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517660|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517661|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517662|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517663|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517664|NCT00205777|168787486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517665|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
84517666|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
84517667|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517668|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517669|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461291|NCT03068715|168674248|SUPERIORITY|The SDNN (the standard deviation of the RR intervals) was recorded using ECG. It was not necessary to conduct a power analysis for this measure because the number of participants in the study was based on other considerations (primary treatment goals of the study).|P value of the interaction|0.245|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For reporting purposes here the p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the significance of the interaction between treatment group and timepoint.||We used a linear mixed models analysis, with the fixed factors being treatment group and timepoint.||||<0.05
84461292|NCT03830281|168674272|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.06|0.565
84461293|NCT03830281|168674273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-36.0|<0.001
84461294|NCT03830281|168674274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13.0|-42.6|< 0.001
84461295|NCT03830281|168674275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during daytime is reported.||2.8|-1.4|0.532
84461296|NCT03830281|168674275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during 24-hour period is reported.||2.5|-1.8|0.738
84461297|NCT02201940|168674295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Participants in the SOF/VEL group were compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
84517670|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517671|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
84461298|NCT00636818|168674302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461299|NCT00636818|168674303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461300|NCT00636818|168674304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461301|NCT00636818|168674305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84461302|NCT00636818|168674306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84461303|NCT00636818|168674307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84461304|NCT00636818|168674307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Color Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84461305|NCT00636818|168674307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Color-Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
84461306|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
84517672|NCT00205777|168787487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
84517673|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517674|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517675|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461307|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461308|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84461309|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
84461310|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
84461311|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perception: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
84461312|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Vitality: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
84461313|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
84461314|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
84461315|NCT00636818|168674308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84461316|NCT04898166|168674320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 18.90 and its asymptotic significance .000||||||0.000
84461317|NCT04898166|168674321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 7.544 and its asymptotic significance .273||||||0.081
84461318|NCT02690701|168674331|SUPERIORITY|This superiority trial compares secukinumab with placebo with a view of demonstrating the superiority of secukinumab over placebo with regards to a specific outcome measure.|Least Square Mean|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis (Analysis of Covariance) of change from baseline in target to background ratio for regions of the aorta at Week 12 (Full Analysis Set)||0.064|-0.169|0.3712
84461319|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non-adjusted||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.001
84517676|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.93
84717877|NCT04174170|169185710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.16||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.69||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.69|-11.00|0.2331
84461320|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.017
84461321|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.495
84517677|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517678|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517679|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517680|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461322|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST||||0.365
84461323|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.602
84517681|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.30
84517682|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517683|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517684|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517685|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517686|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517687|NCT00205777|168787488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517688|NCT00205777|168787489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517689|NCT00205777|168787489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461324|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.915
84461325|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.033
84517690|NCT00205777|168787489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517691|NCT00205777|168787489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517692|NCT00205777|168787490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.037
84517693|NCT00205777|168787490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.16
84517694|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517695|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517696|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517697|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.40
84517698|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517699|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517700|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517701|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461326|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
84461327|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.087
84461328|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS CHANGE||||0.399
84461329|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.030
84461330|NCT02115308|168674361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.048
84461331|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Non-adjusted.|paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.011
84517702|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.004
84517703|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717878|NCT04174170|169185710|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-1.85||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-1.85|-15.82|0.0134
84717879|NCT04664881|169185713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.71
84461332|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||non-adjusted|paired t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.003
84461333|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.39|||||||paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.390
84461334|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
84461335|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
84461336|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||0.022
84461337|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.001
84461338|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
84461339|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.006
84461340|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||<0.000
84461341|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Changes||||0.058
84461342|NCT02115308|168674362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.310
84461343|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.001
84461344|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.002
84461345|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.721
84461346|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.797
84517704|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517705|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517706|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461347|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.474
84461348|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.537
84461349|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.717
84461350|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.041
84461351|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.050
84461352|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908||||||non adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.908
84461353|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.233
84461354|NCT02115308|168674363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.187
84461355|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.008
84461356|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.006
84461357|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.428
84461358|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
84461359|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
84461360|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.006
84461361|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
84461362|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
84461363|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.004
84461364|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||<0.000
84461365|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.172
84461366|NCT02115308|168674365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.957
84461367|NCT02698189|168674371|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.000; upper = 0.415|||
84461368|NCT02698189|168674371|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.040; upper = 0.391|||
84461369|NCT01564784|168674402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|38.4|64.3|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||64.3|38.4|<0.0001
84461370|NCT01564784|168674403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.568|0.993|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.993|0.568|0.0105
84461371|NCT01564784|168674404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.809|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.809|0.297|0.0021
84461372|NCT01564784|168674405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.336|0.602|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.602|0.336|<0.0001
84461373|NCT01564784|168674406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|40.6|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||40.6|22.6|<0.0001
84461374|NCT01564784|168674407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||||<0.0001
84461375|NCT01564784|168674408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3168|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal at Screening||||0.3168
84461376|NCT01564784|168674408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal after remission||||0.2160
84717880|NCT04664881|169185714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiovascular Death||||0.99
84461377|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Physical Functioning||12.3|1.4|0.0139
84461378|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Role Functioning||19.5|3.2|0.0065
84461379|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Emotional Functioning||2.3|-6.9|0.3307
84461380|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Cognitive Functioning||7.0|-1.4|0.1904
84461381|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Social Functioning||16.1|0.7|0.0336
84461382|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Global Health Status||10.3|-1.7|0.1572
84461383|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Dyspnoea||1.4|-10.8|0.1281
84461384|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Insomnia||5.2|-8.7|0.6207
84461385|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Appetite Loss||-1.4|-16.0|0.0193
84461386|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Constipation||7.3|-4.4|0.6249
84517707|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461387|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Diarrhoea||1.1|-7.2|0.1534
84461388|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Financial Difficulties||4.7|-9.7|0.4915
84517708|NCT00205777|168787491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517709|NCT00205777|168787492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517710|NCT00205777|168787492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.001
84517711|NCT00205777|168787492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517712|NCT00205777|168787492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.009
84517713|NCT00205777|168787493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.034
84517714|NCT00205777|168787493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.77
84461389|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Fatigue||2.0|-10.8|0.1789
84461390|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Nausea and Vomiting||2.7|-6.0|0.4578
84461391|NCT01564784|168674410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Pain||6.0|-7.3|0.8428
84461392|NCT01564784|168674411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||0.07|-0.01|0.1710
84461393|NCT01564784|168674412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||10.4|-1.2|0.1172
84461394|NCT03430310|168674461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84461395|NCT01446809|168674462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
84461396|NCT01446809|168674463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
84461397|NCT03972488|168674473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.418|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||||0.418|0.182|<0.0001
84461398|NCT03972488|168674474|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|7.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|18.4|||Stratified One-sided p-value|||||18.40|3.32|<0.0001
84461399|NCT03972488|168674475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.283|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||Global Health Status||1.283|0.570|0.2222
84461400|NCT02770807|168674500|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.190|-2.932|0.0847
84517715|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461401|NCT02770807|168674500|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.957|0.152|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.152|-2.957|0.0765
84461402|NCT02770807|168674501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|2.099|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects.||2.099|0.426|0.8919
84461403|NCT02770807|168674501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.848||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.053|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels:~\<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects."||4.053|0.842|0.1255
84461404|NCT02770807|168674502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|3.144|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.144|0.597|0.4583
84461405|NCT02770807|168674502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.371||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.16|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.160|0.595|0.4585
84461406|NCT02770807|168674503|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-13.33||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.261|55.601|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||55.601|-82.261|0.7029
84461407|NCT02770807|168674503|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-77.31||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.201|-6.421|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||-6.421|-148.201|0.0328
84461408|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 2 years||1.13|0.66|0.2866
84461409|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS||1.53|0.74|0.7530
84461410|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW||1.30|0.74|0.9137
84461411|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand)||0.80|0.40|0.0012
84461412|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (dominant hand)||1.09|0.48|0.1251
84461413|NCT01416181|168674538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand)||0.87|0.39|0.0091
84461414|NCT01416181|168674540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and T25FW.|active/placebo|||1.70|0.80|0.4369
84461415|NCT01416181|168674541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5409|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL MSWS-12.||||||0.5409
84461416|NCT01416181|168674542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2586|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL ABILHAND.||||||0.2586
84461417|NCT01416181|168674543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Wk 96 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.1529
84461418|NCT01416181|168674544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL brain volume.||Only participants with BL brain volume are included in the p-value calculation.||||0.2424
84461419|NCT01416181|168674545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6).||||1.05|0.58|0.1052
84461420|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 156 weeks||0.94|0.47|0.0205
84461421|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS at 156 weeks||1.10|0.48|0.1305
84517716|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517717|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517718|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517719|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461422|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW at 156 weeks||1.12|0.57|0.1988
84461423|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand) at 156 weeks||0.88|0.39|0.0093
84461424|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors onm 9HPT (dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.01|0.39|0.0540
84461425|NCT01416181|168674546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.12|0.44|0.1410
84461426|NCT01416181|168674547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Week 156||||0.0273
84461427|NCT01416181|168674547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1974
84461428|NCT01416181|168674547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2506|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2506
84461429|NCT01416181|168674548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Overall: Week 156||||0.0960
84461430|NCT01416181|168674548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.4957
84461431|NCT01416181|168674548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2916
84461432|NCT01416181|168674549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall, Week 156||||0.1119
84461433|NCT01416181|168674549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1129
84461434|NCT01416181|168674549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2351
84461435|NCT01416181|168674550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.0261
84461436|NCT01416181|168674550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0585|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.0585
84517720|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517721|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461437|NCT01416181|168674550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.6095
84461438|NCT01416181|168674551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7230
84461439|NCT01416181|168674551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8781|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.8781
84461440|NCT01416181|168674551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2751
84461441|NCT01416181|168674552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5051|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.5051
84461442|NCT01416181|168674552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7283
84461443|NCT01416181|168674552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.1666
84461444|NCT01416181|168674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.4330
84517722|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
84517723|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517724|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517725|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461445|NCT01416181|168674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7122|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7122
84461446|NCT01416181|168674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.3861
84461447|NCT01416181|168674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7225|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7225
84461448|NCT01416181|168674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9121|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.9121
84461449|NCT01416181|168674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2594|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2594
84461450|NCT01416181|168674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8066|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 6MWT.||Week 156||||0.8066
84461451|NCT01416181|168674557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.7084
84461452|NCT01416181|168674559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL SDMT.||Week 156||||0.3465
84461453|NCT01416181|168674563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL normalized brain volume.||Percentage change from Week 24 to Week 156||||0.0070
84461454|NCT01416181|168674564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5034||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL WGM brain volume||Percentage hange from Baseline to Week 156||||0.5034
84461455|NCT01416181|168674565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 156 compared to Week 108 is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and baseline volume of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression model|natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment||Week 156||||< 0.0001
84461456|NCT01896232|168674624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior to cinacalcet if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference (cinacalcet - etelcalcetide) was \< 12%, the prespecified margin for non-inferiority.|Stratified Treatment Difference|-10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|-3.51||||||"The analysis was conducted on the Full Analysis Set (683 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment difference between the proportions (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) stratified by screening PTH level and region."||-3.51|-17.45|
84461457|NCT01896232|168674625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 50% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.23|1.21|0.001
84461458|NCT01896232|168674626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 30% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.17|1.16|0.004
84461459|NCT01896232|168674627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression, including screening value of the number of days of nausea and vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||1.49|0.89|0.27
84517726|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517727|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.009
84461460|NCT01896232|168674628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-2.21|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using a repeated measures mixed effects model, including treatment group, randomization stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study week, and study week by treatment as fixed effects.||-2.21|-4.76|
84461461|NCT01896232|168674629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by screening PTH level and region.||1.59|0.83|
84461462|NCT01896232|168674630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for screening PTH level and region.||0.12|-0.18|
84517728|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517729|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.055
84517730|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
84461463|NCT01896232|168674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|This analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression including screening value of the number of episodes of vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.||1.72|0.86|
84461464|NCT01485614|168674656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.19|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin is compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||0.30|-0.68|= 0.448
84461465|NCT01485614|168674658|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.9||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||14.9|-10.0|
84461466|NCT01485614|168674660|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.8||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||10.8|-1.3|
84461467|NCT01485614|168674663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.7|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|21.2||"Percentage of participants with an A1C goal (7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|Miettinen and Nurminen||||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|21.2|-8.1|= 0.374
84461468|NCT01485614|168674665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.6|||=|0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|"The percentage of participants with an A1C at the A1C goal (6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the LDA model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|18.3|-11.6|= 0.639
84461469|NCT01485614|168674670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.5|||=|0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||17.5|-14.4|= 0.849
84461470|NCT00733902|168674746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
84461471|NCT00733902|168674746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.43|0.005
84517731|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461472|NCT00733902|168674746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.78|<0.001
84461473|NCT00733902|168674747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.32|0.009
84461474|NCT00733902|168674747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.54|<0.001
84461475|NCT00733902|168674747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.80|<0.001
84461476|NCT00733902|168674748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.52|0.001
84517732|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517733|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461477|NCT00733902|168674748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
84461478|NCT00733902|168674748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.70|<0.001
84461479|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
84461480|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
84517734|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517735|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517736|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517737|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517738|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461481|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
84461482|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.47|<0.001
84461483|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.22|0.013
84461484|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.57|<0.001
84461485|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.36|0.003
84461486|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.29|0.006
84461487|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.87|<0.001
84461488|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.68|<0.001
84461489|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.48|0.002
84517739|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517740|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461490|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.87|<0.001
84461491|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.28|0.027
84461492|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-1.15|0.071
84461493|NCT00733902|168674749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.78|<0.001
84461494|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
84461495|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
84461496|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
84461497|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
84461498|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.06|0.052
84461499|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.50|<0.001
84461500|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.26|0.006
84517741|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517742|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517743|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517744|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461501|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
84461502|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.86|-1.91|<0.001
84461503|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
84461504|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.30|0.005
84461505|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.75|<0.001
84461506|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-1.07|0.061
84461507|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.20|0.021
84461508|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.85|<0.001
84517745|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517746|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717881|NCT04664881|169185714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction||||0.36
84461509|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.166
84461510|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.167
84517747|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
84517748|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517749|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
84517750|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
84717882|NCT04664881|169185714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Arrhythmias||||0.13
84461511|NCT00733902|168674750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.75|<0.001
84461512|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
84461513|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
84461514|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
84461515|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.51|<0.001
84461516|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.38|0.002
84461517|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.76|<0.001
84517751|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517752|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717883|NCT04664881|169185714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiac Arrest||||0.99
84726495|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.77|
84461518|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.35|0.002
84461519|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
84461520|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.94|<0.001
84461521|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.70|<0.001
84461522|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.57|<0.001
84461523|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.91|<0.001
84461524|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.26|0.021
84461525|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.22|0.029
84461526|NCT00733902|168674751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.78|<0.001
84461527|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
84461528|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
84517753|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461529|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
84461530|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.46|<0.001
84517754|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461531|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
84461532|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.71|<0.001
84517755|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
84517756|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517757|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
84517758|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517759|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.10
84461533|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.33|0.002
84461534|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.46|<0.001
84461535|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.04|<0.001
84517760|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.89
84517761|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.60
84517762|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.82
84461536|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.56|<0.001
84461537|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
84461538|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
84461539|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.12|0.030
84461540|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
84461541|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.96|<0.001
84461542|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-1.03|0.085
84461543|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.18|0.026
84461544|NCT00733902|168674752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.84|-1.94|<0.001
84461545|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
84517763|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
84517764|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461546|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
84461547|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
84461548|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
84517765|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
84461549|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
84461550|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
84726496|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.71|
84517766|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461551|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
84517767|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.083
84517768|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
84517769|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.84
84517770|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
84517771|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.13
84517772|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517773|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
84726497|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.75|0.61|
84461552|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
84461553|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-0.85|<0.001
84461554|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
84461555|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.57|<0.001
84461556|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.80|<0.001
84461557|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.035
84461558|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.36|0.125
84461559|NCT00733902|168674755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.58|<0.001
84461560|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
84461561|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
84461562|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
84517774|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517775|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.28
84461563|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
84461564|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.62|<0.001
84517776|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA||||0.10
84517777|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.94
84517778|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
84517779|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.63
84517780|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.70
84461565|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.75|<0.001
84461566|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
84461567|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
84461568|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-0.89|<0.001
84517781|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.58
84517782|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.29
84517783|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.59
84517784|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
84517785|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.57
84517786|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.49
84461569|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.59|<0.001
84461570|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
84461571|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.83|<0.001
84461572|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.47|0.004
84461573|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.55|<0.001
84461574|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.77|<0.001
84461575|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.37|0.090
84517787|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
84517788|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.93
84517789|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
84461576|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.053
84517790|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.72
84461577|NCT00733902|168674756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.70|<0.001
84717884|NCT00412607|169185777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of mortality|13.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||17.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval is a one-sided with upper confidence level = 17.5% computed using the exact binomial test.|"Assumptions for sample size calculation: 10% attrition rate, Type I error of 0.05, anticipated 12-month mortality rate is 0.19, a region of indifference of 0.07, power of 0.8; the required sample size is 249 per nQuery Exact test for single proportion method.~The null hypothesis is that the 12-month mortality rate is greater than or equal to 0.26; the alternative is that the rate is less than 0.26. This hypothesis is evaluated with one-sided exact binomial test at α= 0.05."||17.5||
84461578|NCT02210780|168674777|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.29|43.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||43.75|24.29|<0.0001
84461579|NCT02210780|168674778|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|51.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||51.01|29.40|<0.0001
84461580|NCT02210780|168674779|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.38|44.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||44.66|23.38|<0.0001
84461581|NCT02210780|168674780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-1.55|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-1.55|-2.72|<0.0001
84461582|NCT02210780|168674781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|-13.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model that includes treatment, randomization strata and baseline value as covariates.||-13.1|-22.5|<0.0001
84461583|NCT02210780|168674783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|-1.7|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline values as covariates.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
84517791|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.12
84517792|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.043
84517793|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.53
84517794|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
84517795|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517796|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461584|NCT02210780|168674784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|-6.6|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which included treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.0001
84461585|NCT03617926|168674798|SUPERIORITY|In case superiority is not proven, non-inferiority is tested. As non-inferiority margin (δ), a 7.5% worse cure rate is regarded as clinically not relevant. The following null hypothesis will be used: H0, NI: pT-pR \< δ, whereby δ = -7.5%. The lower, 95% confidence interval of the difference pT-pR will be used for the test. If H0, NI will be rejected, non-inferiority cannot be shown.||||||0.023||||||A priori treshold p value of 0.05 for statistical significance was set prior to study start.|Chi-squared|||"Efficacy analyses is performed on the ITT population (all subjects who were included and randomized in the study, with available baseline value of the primary endpoint and at least one follow-up visit). All statistical tests are performed at a 5% level of significance. The aim of this analysis is to show superiority for the cure rate of the test product versus a predefined limit of 70%. The following null hypothesis will be tested: H0, prim: pT - pR = 0 and Ha: pT - pR \> 15%~I"||||0.023
84461586|NCT01929083|168674855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.04
84717885|NCT03816397|169185783|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 118 subjects (59 in each group) provides 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2.0 for the time to treatment failure comparing the group randomized to discontinue adalimumab to the group randomized to continue using adalimumab, assuming a median time until treatment failure of 10 weeks in the group that discontinues adalimumab (Arm 1) and of 20 weeks in the group that continues on adalimumab (Arm 2), an equal allocation between groups, and a 10% total loss to follow-up.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Log Rank||For the HR, the numerator is the placebo group (stop adalimumab) and the denominator is the adalimumab group (continue adalimumab).|A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to treatment failure between the adalimumab and placebo groups up to the primary endpoint of 48 weeks, with country and conventional DMARD use included as fixed effects in the model. The null hypothesis was an hazard ratio (HR) of 1. Hypothesis testing was based on a permutation test of the log hazard ratio (100,000 replicates). The model was checked for the assumption of proportional hazards by assessing Schoenfeld residuals.||21.2|3.6|<0.0001
84717886|NCT04602611|169185786|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.0547||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.4773||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.||0.4773|-0.3680|0.80
84726498|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.99|0.46|
84726499|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.20|
84461587|NCT01929083|168674856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.003
84461588|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for incidence of fatigue/malaise|Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84461589|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||p values for incidence of headache|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
84461590|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of mood changes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84461591|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of breast tenderness|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84461592|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84461593|NCT01929083|168674857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of vertigo requiring discontinuation of therapy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
84461594|NCT01929083|168674858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
84461595|NCT01929083|168674859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.002
84461596|NCT01929083|168674860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for bradycardia|Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
84461597|NCT01929083|168674860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for burning at infusion site|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84461598|NCT01929083|168674860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for transient QTc interval \> 500 ms|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.99
84461599|NCT01929083|168674861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.43
84461600|NCT01929083|168674862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.36
84461601|NCT01929083|168674863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84461602|NCT01929083|168674864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
84461603|NCT01075087|168674886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-26|.05
84461604|NCT00087438|168674888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Test statistic = \[ln(estimated hazard rate) - ln(hypothesized hazard rates)\] / \[1/square root (number of patients with local progression by two years\]. Reject null hypothesis at an alpha level of 0.05 if test statistics is less than -1.645.|z-test, one-sided|||Null hypothesis = 60% two-year local control (0.02128/mo. hazard rate); alternative = 80% (0.0093/mo.) assuming at least approximately exponential distribution of time to local progression. Using the asymptotic properties of the ratio of the logarithms of hazard rates, less than 18 cases of local progression were required for a Type I error rate of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference in local control rates at least this large. Hazard rate estimated using life table two-year estimates.||||0.013
84717887|NCT04602611|169185787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.||The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.|The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 6 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 52/87(60%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 35/87 (40%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 58/95 (61%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 37/95 (39%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.88.|||0.88
84717888|NCT04602611|169185788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.|||The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 12 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 23/87(26%) evaluable subjects were alive at 12 months and 64/87(74%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 28/95 (29%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 67/95 (71%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.74.|||0.74
84717889|NCT04602611|169185789|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.1574||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3905|0.7054||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.7054|-0.3905|0.57
84717890|NCT04602611|169185790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.309||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|Unadjusted log-rank test|The estimated hazard ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care; the model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|||1.309|0.570|0.45
84717891|NCT04602611|169185791|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|-0.4194||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0763|0.2374||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.2374|-1.0763|0.21
84717892|NCT04602611|169185792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|6.15||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|The estimated odds ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||6.15|1.75|<0.01
84717893|NCT04602611|169185793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.6939||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9538|0.5659||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; slope was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.5659|-5.9538|0.11
84717894|NCT04602611|169185794|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1197||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0315|0.4378||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|This univariate model was not adjusted for other covariates; this model was estimated using 84 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.4378|-0.0315|0.09
84717895|NCT04675034|169185804|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|0.67|||ANCOVA|Least Square (LS) mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.670|-0.968|0.360
84717896|NCT04675034|169185804|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.619|0.027|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.027|-1.619|0.029
84717897|NCT04675034|169185804|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.009|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.009|-1.618|0.026
84717898|NCT04675034|169185804|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.245|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.245|-1.423|0.083
84717899|NCT03351998|169185843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|365.55||0.6051|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.6051
84717900|NCT03351998|169185843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.0||0.9434|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9434
84717901|NCT03351998|169185843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|179.54||0.9408|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9408
84717902|NCT03351998|169185844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.7458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.7458
84717903|NCT03351998|169185844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.4056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.4056
84717904|NCT03351998|169185844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.1932
84717905|NCT02360371|169185845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed methods|||||||0.567
84717906|NCT02360371|169185846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Mixed Model|||||||0.805
84717907|NCT01527188|169185861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-198.18||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.82|-6.55|||ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-389.82|0.0427
84517797|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84717908|NCT01527188|169185861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-171.82||||0.0793||95.0|-363.87|20.24|||ANCOVA|||||20.24|-363.87|0.0793
84717909|NCT01527188|169185861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.9|69.04|||ANCOVA|||The statistical test is not applicable due to the step-down approach performed to address the multiplicity issue.||69.04|-305.90|
84717910|NCT01527188|169185862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-125.61||||0.0323||95.0|-240.53|-10.69|||ANCOVA|||||-10.69|-240.53|0.0323
84717911|NCT01527188|169185862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-122.23||||0.0376||95.0|-237.38|-7.08|||ANCOVA|||||-7.08|-237.38|0.0376
84717912|NCT01527188|169185862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-91.18||||0.1119||95.0|-203.74|21.38|||ANCOVA|||||21.38|-203.74|0.1119
84717913|NCT04518943|169185870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-634.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1924.0|655.0|||linear mixed model|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignment, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||655|-1924|0.418
84717914|NCT04518943|169185870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1697.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3000.0|-385.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-385|-3000|0.033
84717915|NCT04518943|169185870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|820.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-347.0|1988.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1988|-347|0.248
84717916|NCT04518943|169185870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1121.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|2323.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.|Positive values represent a positive effect of requests for advice on steps compared to no request for advice.|2323|82|0.125
84717917|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.|Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|0.70|-1.05|0.739
84717918|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.39|-1.42|0.347
84717919|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.57|-0.35|0.293
84717920|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.30|-0.67|0.599
84717921|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.40|0.58|0.007
84726500|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.46|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.46|0.84|
84717922|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.70|0.86|0.002
84717923|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.94|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.94|0.10|0.068
84717924|NCT04518943|169185871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.14|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.14|-0.76|0.740
84717925|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator..||0.47|-0.19|0.481
84717926|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.52|-0.16|0.388
84717927|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.34|-0.38|0.926
84717928|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.20|-0.54|0.446
84726501|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.53|
84461605|NCT01486264|168674895|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline TWSTRS Severity subscale score, was used to test the non-inferiority of Short Flex versus Long Flex treatment. Non-inferiority margin delta equal to (=) 2 points.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-2.9|
84461606|NCT00283387|168674908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84461607|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
84461608|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
84461609|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
84517798|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517799|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
84717929|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.42|-0.27|0.711
84717930|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.15|-0.55|0.345
84717931|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.36|-0.33|0.928
84717932|NCT04518943|169185872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.16|-0.55|0.372
84717933|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.3|-1.60|0.767
84717934|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|2.69|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.69|-1.12|0.500
84717935|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||2.61|-1.43|0.631
84717936|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1.44|-2.69|0.620
84461610|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
84517800|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.64
84517801|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
84517802|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
84517803|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
84717937|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|2.12|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of pre-commitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.12|-1.77|0.886
84517804|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517805|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517806|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517807|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.81
84461611|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
84461612|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
84461613|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.19||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
84461614|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.16||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.21
84461615|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.14||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.33
84461616|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
84461617|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
84461618|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.58
84461619|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.92
84461620|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.84
84517808|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.98
84517809|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.87
84517810|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.40
84517811|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
84461621|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.83
84461622|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.72
84461623|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.48
84461624|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.54
84461625|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.56
84461626|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.22
84461627|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.40
84461628|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.35
84461629|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.17||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
84461630|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
84461631|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.15
84461632|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461633|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
84461634|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
84461635|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461636|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461637|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461638|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.13||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
84461639|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.41
84461640|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
84461641|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
84461642|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.05||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.88
84717938|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|-2.03|-2.03|1.88|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.88|-2.03|0.950
84461643|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
84461644|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
84461645|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.94
84461646|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.97
84461647|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
84461648|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
84461649|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
84461650|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
84461651|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
84461652|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.54
84461653|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.13
84517812|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517813|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84517814|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
84461654|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.18
84461655|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.19||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.29
84517815|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.85
84517816|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.26
84517817|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
84517818|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.22
84517819|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.86
84517820|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
84517821|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||1.00
84517822|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.44
84517823|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
84517824|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.55
84517825|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
84517826|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
84517827|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
84517828|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
84517829|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.054
84517830|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.62
84517831|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.99
84517832|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.11
84517833|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
84517834|NCT00205777|168787494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
84517835|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||0.97
84517836|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.19
84517837|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.74
84517838|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
84517839|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
84517840|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
84517841|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
84517842|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
84517843|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
84517844|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
84517845|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
84517846|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
84517847|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
84517848|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
84517849|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
84517850|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.59
84517851|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
84517852|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
84517853|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
84461656|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.12
84461657|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.10
84461658|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.01
84461659|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461660|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
84461661|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.09
84461662|NCT03182738|168674909|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.05
84461663|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-2.09||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
84461664|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.94||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
84461665|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.79||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
84461666|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.78||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
84517854|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
84517855|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
84517856|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.50
84517857|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
84517858|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.091
84461667|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm"|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.98
84461668|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
84461669|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.84||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
84461670|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.43||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
84461671|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
84461672|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.23||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|||0.96
84461673|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.77||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
84461674|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.05||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
84461675|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.5||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
84517859|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
84517860|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
84517861|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
84517862|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
84517863|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
84517864|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
84517865|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
84517866|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.035
84461676|NCT03182738|168674910|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|2.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.64
84461677|NCT03584009|168674915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|12.94||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.94|-16.86|0.7286
84461678|NCT03584009|168674916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.61|0.7853
84461679|NCT03584009|168674917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|8.37||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.37|-12.29|0.5978
84461680|NCT03584009|168674919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.43||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||3.43|1.02|0.0403
84461681|NCT00509106|168674933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on the MITTE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for the MITTE populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.7|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared with that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the MITTE Population in adult subjects with CABP.||12.7|-1.0|
84461682|NCT02039947|168674953|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|70.4|||percent||Percent|||70.4|47.3|<.0001
84461683|NCT01772134|168674961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|0.107|<0.001
84461684|NCT01772134|168674961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.178|0.097|<0.001
84461685|NCT01309737|168674981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|17.68||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.68|5.33|<0.0001
84461686|NCT01309737|168674981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|30.59||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.59|8.99|<0.0001
84461687|NCT01309737|168674981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|20.17|||Normal approximation|||||20.17|5.99|0.0003
84461688|NCT01309737|168674982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-38.49||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-38.49|-52.98|<0.0001
84517867|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.024
84461689|NCT01309737|168674982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.33|-50.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-50.86|-65.33|<0.0001
84517868|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
84517869|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
84517870|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.80
84517871|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
84461690|NCT01309737|168674982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|-6.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-18.24|<0.0001
84461691|NCT01309737|168674983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|17.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.31|3.48|<0.0001
84461692|NCT01309737|168674983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|46.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||46.22|8.08|<0.0001
84461693|NCT01309737|168674983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|20.88|||Normal Approximation|||||20.88|7.72|<0.0001
84461694|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-2.14||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-2.14|-3.80|<0.0001
84461695|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-3.47||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.47|-5.13|<0.0001
84461696|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.65|-2.01|0.0001
84461697|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-3.42||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.42|-5.51|<0.0001
84461698|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-5.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.05|-7.14|<0.0001
84461699|NCT01309737|168674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.79|-2.48|0.0002
84517872|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.060
84517873|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
84517874|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
84517875|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
84517876|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
84517877|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
84726502|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.16|0.74|
84517878|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
84461700|NCT01309737|168674986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.95|1.89|<.0001
84461701|NCT01309737|168674986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|19.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||19.95|4.08|<.0001
84461702|NCT01309737|168674986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|16.71|||Normal Approximation|||||16.71|4.87|0.0004
84461703|NCT01309737|168674987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||4.62|0.74|0.1786
84461704|NCT01309737|168674987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||10.25|1.77|0.0003
84461705|NCT01309737|168674987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.14|||Normal Approximation|||||11.14|2.30|0.0029
84461706|NCT01309737|168674988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|16.45||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||16.45|5.02|<0.0001
84461707|NCT01309737|168674988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.0|30.73||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.73|9.00|<0.0001
84461708|NCT01309737|168674988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|20.69|||Normal Approximation|||||20.69|6.54|0.0002
84517879|NCT00205777|168787495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
84517880|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
84517881|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
84517882|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
84517883|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
84517884|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.050
84517885|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.045
84517886|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
84517887|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.56
84517888|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
84517889|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
84517890|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
84517891|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.055
84517892|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.069
84517893|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
84461709|NCT01309737|168674989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.62||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.19|-10.68||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-10.68|-64.19|0.0062
84461710|NCT01309737|168674989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.75||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-14.78||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-14.78|-68.80|0.0025
84461711|NCT01309737|168674989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.91|17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.21|-25.91|0.6920
84461712|NCT01309737|168674993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461713|NCT01309737|168674993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461714|NCT01309737|168674993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461715|NCT01309737|168674994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461716|NCT01309737|168674994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461717|NCT01309737|168674994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461718|NCT01309737|168674995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461719|NCT01309737|168674995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461720|NCT01309737|168674995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84461721|NCT03119649|168675035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.0||P-value obtained from the Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.0|-11.6|0.4291
84461722|NCT03119649|168675035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.6||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.6|-12.8|0.3477
84461723|NCT03119649|168675035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-8.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||-8.3|-23.2|<0.0001
84461724|NCT03119649|168675035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||1.2|-13.9|0.0995
84461725|NCT03119649|168675036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.4|-3.1|0.5940
84461726|NCT03119649|168675036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.8|-3.5|0.7553
84517894|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
84517895|NCT00205777|168787496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
84517896|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
84517897|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
84517898|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
84517899|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
84517900|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
84517901|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
84461727|NCT03119649|168675036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.9|-2.9|0.5958
84461728|NCT03119649|168675036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||6.2|-1.6|0.2403
84517902|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.15
84517903|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.71
84461729|NCT03119649|168675037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||12.4|-6.9|0.5749
84461730|NCT03119649|168675037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|11.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||11.3|-8.1|0.7381
84461731|NCT03119649|168675037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.7||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||15.7|-2.0|0.1282
84461732|NCT03119649|168675037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||10.5|-7.3|0.7212
84461733|NCT01073943|168675056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.9||||||||||-2.9|
84461734|NCT01073943|168675057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.8||||||||||-8.8|
84461735|NCT01073943|168675058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84461736|NCT01073943|168675059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84461737|NCT01073943|168675060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84461738|NCT01073943|168675061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84461739|NCT01073943|168675062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84461740|NCT01073943|168675063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84517904|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.042
84461741|NCT01073943|168675065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|||||||Mid colon comparison|||-0.1|
84461742|NCT01073943|168675065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||-1.5|
84461743|NCT01073943|168675065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.7|||||||Overall comparison: ascending colon, mid colon and recto-sigmoid colon|||-5.7|
84517905|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.077
84517906|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
84517907|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
84517908|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
84517909|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
84461744|NCT05300087|168675066|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.085|||ANOVA|||||1.085|0.947|<0.0001
84461745|NCT05300087|168675067|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-t) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.051|||ANOVA|||||1.051|0.993|<0.0001
84461746|NCT05300087|168675068|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-inf) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.048|||ANOVA|||||1.048|0.994|<0.0001
84461747|NCT05662332|168675081|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Change difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|
84461748|NCT05662332|168675082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.03||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.684
84461749|NCT05662332|168675083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|4.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.90|-1.58|0.155
84461750|NCT05662332|168675084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-43.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-25.0|-62.4|<0.001
84461751|NCT05662332|168675085|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Negative binomial model|||||0.84|0.39|0.005
84517910|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
84517911|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
84517912|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
84517913|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.10
84517914|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
84517915|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.057
84517916|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
84517917|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
84517918|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
84517919|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
84517920|NCT00205777|168787497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
84517921|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.018
84517922|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.29
84517923|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.049
84517924|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
84517925|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.97
84517926|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
84517927|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
84517928|NCT00205777|168787498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.32
84517929|NCT00205777|168787499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84517930|NCT00205777|168787499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
84517931|NCT00205777|168787499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84461752|NCT05662332|168675087|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.58||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.23|||Negative binomial model|||||1.23|0.28|0.155
84461753|NCT05662332|168675089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.047|0.033
84461754|NCT05662332|168675090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.25|-0.13|0.071
84461755|NCT05662332|168675093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.8|-0.2|0.072
84517932|NCT00205777|168787499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
84517933|NCT00205777|168787499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84517934|NCT00205777|168787500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
84517935|NCT00205777|168787500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
84517936|NCT00205777|168787501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
84517937|NCT00205777|168787501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
84517938|NCT00205777|168787501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
84517939|NCT00205777|168787501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
84517940|NCT00205777|168787501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
84517941|NCT00205777|168787502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.73
84517942|NCT00205777|168787502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84517943|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.81
84517944|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
84461756|NCT03248128|168675097|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.129|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.129|0.037|<0.001
84517945|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.005
84517946|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.013
84517947|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
84517948|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
84517949|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.44
84517950|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
84517951|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
84517952|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
84517953|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
84517954|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.85
84517955|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
84517956|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.015
84517957|NCT00205777|168787503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
84517958|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
84517959|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.53
84461757|NCT03248128|168675098|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||8.4|-2.0|0.228
84461758|NCT03248128|168675099|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||10.9|1.4|0.011
84717939|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares phq mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.61|-3.51|0.248
84717940|NCT04518943|169185873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares phq mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.79|-3.25|0.317
84717941|NCT04518943|169185874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1685.0|1616.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1616|-1685|0.972
84717942|NCT04518943|169185874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2428.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4134.0|-722.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-722|-4134|0.019
84717943|NCT04518943|169185874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|418.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-999.0|1836.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1836|-999|0.627
84461759|NCT03248128|168675100|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.073||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.118|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.118|0.028|0.002
84461760|NCT03248128|168675101|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||3.8|-4.5|0.870
84461761|NCT03248128|168675102|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||4.1|-4.2|0.988
84461762|NCT03248128|168675103|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.035||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.080|-0.010|0.124
84461763|NCT03248128|168675104|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.10|0.910
84461764|NCT03248128|168675105|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.2|-3.6|0.614
84461765|NCT03248128|168675106|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.3|-3.6|0.594
84461766|NCT03248128|168675107|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.028||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.073|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.073|-0.017|0.226
84461767|NCT03248128|168675108|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.13|0.663
84461768|NCT01126580|168675131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 vs Metformin on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.08|-0.36|<0.001
84517960|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||1.00
84517961|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
84517962|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
84717944|NCT04518943|169185874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1417.0|1807.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1807|-1417|0.842
84717945|NCT04757753|169185897|NON_INFERIORITY|"πN = 2-year successful treatment rate of PA1704 πR = 2-year successful treatment rate of BioRoot™ RCS Δ = πN - πR ΔL = non-inferiority margin fixed to 13% or 0.13~Hypotheses are :~H0 : Δ ≤ -ΔL H1 : Δ \> -ΔL The χ2 of Dunnett \& Gent is used to assess the non-inferiority"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0074|0.0087||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The statistical analysis was done on the proportion difference of the treatment efficacy, defined on loose criteria, at 24 months, in PP population.||0.0087|-0.0074|0.03
84726503|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.43|
84461769|NCT01126580|168675131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.29|<0.001
84461770|NCT01126580|168675131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
84461771|NCT01126580|168675131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.01|-0.29|0.020
84461772|NCT01126580|168675132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.35|<0.001
84461773|NCT01126580|168675132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.20|<0.001
84461774|NCT01126580|168675132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.35|0.024
84461775|NCT01126580|168675132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.12|-0.20|0.299
84461776|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
84461777|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
84461778|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84517963|NCT00205777|168787504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.52
84517964|NCT00205777|168787505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84517965|NCT00205777|168787505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
84461779|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.011
84461780|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84461781|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.269
84461782|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84461783|NCT01126580|168675133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.134
84461784|NCT01126580|168675134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
84461785|NCT01126580|168675134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
84461786|NCT01126580|168675134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
84461787|NCT01126580|168675134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
84461788|NCT01126580|168675135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
84461789|NCT01126580|168675135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
84461790|NCT01126580|168675135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84461791|NCT01126580|168675135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.469
84517966|NCT00205777|168787505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84517967|NCT00205777|168787505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
84517968|NCT00205777|168787505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84517969|NCT00205777|168787506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84517970|NCT00205777|168787506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
84517971|NCT00205777|168787507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
84517972|NCT00205777|168787507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84517973|NCT00205777|168787507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
84461792|NCT01126580|168675136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.811
84461793|NCT01126580|168675136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84461794|NCT01126580|168675136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.440
84461795|NCT01126580|168675136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84461796|NCT01126580|168675137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.750
84461797|NCT01126580|168675137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84461798|NCT01126580|168675137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.412
84461799|NCT01126580|168675137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84461800|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84517974|NCT00205777|168787507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.088
84461801|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84461802|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84461803|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84461804|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84461805|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
84461806|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
84461807|NCT01126580|168675138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84461808|NCT00803114|168675169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.05||95.0|0.12|0.41|||Fisher Exact||Relative risk describes the risk of requiring additional analgesics in the first 24 hours postpartum with the denominator being the arm which received placebo.|Relative risk ratio estimation with 95% CI using exact methods||0.41|0.12|0.05
84461809|NCT00803114|168675170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.05||95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 226|The epidural morphine group represents the baseline of comparison for difference in means, with the placebo group requiring additional analgesics earlier.|||-2.3|-5.7|0.05
84461810|NCT00803114|168675171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.05||95.0|0.7|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 212|Difference in VAS score when compared to the baseline group, subjects receiving epidural morphine|||1.8|0.7|0.05
84461811|NCT00803114|168675172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Fisher's exact test result did not reveal statistically significant differences between expected and real frequencies in any of the categories.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
84461812|NCT03040154|168675182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.33|0.006
84461813|NCT03528681|168675203|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.959|0.902|<0.001
84461814|NCT03528681|168675203|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.876|0.825|<0.001
84461815|NCT03528681|168675208|OTHER|The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.67|2.17|<0.001
84461816|NCT03528681|168675208|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||21.00|6.45|<0.001
84461817|NCT03528681|168675209|OTHER|The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.05|1.07|0.035
84461818|NCT03528681|168675209|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||15.27|2.56|<0.001
84461819|NCT03528681|168675210|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||8.31|3.13|<0.001
84461820|NCT03528681|168675210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|13.71|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||13.71|8.57|<0.001
84517975|NCT00205777|168787507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
84517976|NCT00205777|168787508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84517977|NCT00205777|168787508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84461821|NCT03528681|168675213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.293|-49.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-49.203|-161.293|<0.001
84461822|NCT03528681|168675213|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-137.267|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.596|-81.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-81.937|-192.596|<0.001
84461823|NCT03528681|168675213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.147|-0.120|0.839
84461824|NCT03528681|168675213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.070|-0.195|0.355
84461825|NCT03528681|168675215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.57|0.27|<0.001
84461826|NCT03528681|168675215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.25|0.10|<0.001
84461827|NCT01614457|168675221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.1114||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1305|5.3532|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||5.3532|-1.1305|0.1979
84461828|NCT01614457|168675222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.2626||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5698|2.095||p-value for the treatment effect is from the slope of BMI (kg/m2) versus time (days).|Linear Mixed model|||Analysis was based on linear mixed model with dependent variable BMI and treatment as a fixed effect, adjustment for baseline percent predicted FEV1, age and visit by treatment interaction was included as covariates and intercept, visit were included as random effects.||2.0950|-1.5698|0.7780
84461829|NCT01614457|168675223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-23.9693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0094|-19.9293|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and sweat chloride, using a compound symmetry covariance matrix.||-19.9293|-28.0094|<0.0001
84461830|NCT01614457|168675224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3874||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1658|14.609|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and CFQ-R respiratory domain score, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||14.6090|2.1658|0.0091
84517978|NCT00205777|168787509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
84517979|NCT00205777|168787509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
84726504|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.27|0.63|
84461831|NCT01614457|168675225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||||||0.8556
84461832|NCT03518840|168675227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3329|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6299|-1.2932|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline ASLR score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2932|-2.6299|<.001
84461833|NCT03518840|168675228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3353|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|-1.2757|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline NRS score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2757|-2.6190|<.001
84461834|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 1||||< 0.0001
84461835|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2||||< 0.0001
84461836|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 3||||< 0.0001
84461837|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||< 0.0001
84461838|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||< 0.0001
84461839|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6||||< 0.0001
84461840|NCT00500071|168675243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 7||||< 0.0001
84461841|NCT00500071|168675244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84461842|NCT00500071|168675247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
84461843|NCT00500071|168675248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||< 0.0001
84517980|NCT00205777|168787509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84517981|NCT00205777|168787509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
84517982|NCT00205777|168787509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
84517983|NCT00205777|168787510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
84517984|NCT00205777|168787510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.070
84517985|NCT00205777|168787511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
84517986|NCT00205777|168787511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84517987|NCT00205777|168787511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84517988|NCT00205777|168787511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
84517989|NCT00205777|168787511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
84726505|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.20|0.16|
84461844|NCT00500071|168675248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||< 0.0001
84461845|NCT00500071|168675248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Metacognition Index||||< 0.0001
84461846|NCT00728416|168675287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR nasal congestion score over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM PRIOR Nasal Congestion Score as covariates.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.001
84461847|NCT00728416|168675288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR TNSS over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM TNSS as covariates.||-0.83|-1.72|<0.001
84461848|NCT00389207|168675289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.684||95.0|-0.062|0.095||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening VL and CD4+ categories (only 373 NVP patients due to empty cells)||||0.095|-0.062|0.684
84461849|NCT00389207|168675289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.584||95.0|-0.065|0.115||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.115|-0.065|0.584
84461850|NCT00389207|168675289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.855||95.0|-0.084|0.101||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.101|-0.084|0.855
84461851|NCT00389207|168675290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.038||||0.321||95.0|-0.112|0.037||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.037|-0.112|0.321
84461852|NCT00389207|168675301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461||||0.0403||95.0|0.22|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.220|0.0403
84461853|NCT00389207|168675305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.097||||0.0109||95.0|-0.171|-0.022||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients||||-0.022|-0.171|0.0109
84461854|NCT00389207|168675305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.072||||0.1033||95.0|-0.158|0.015||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.015|-0.158|0.1033
84461855|NCT00389207|168675305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.122||||0.0073||95.0|-0.212|-0.033||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.033|-0.212|0.0073
84461856|NCT00389207|168675306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.117||||0.0031||95.0|-0.194|-0.04||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.040|-0.194|0.0031
84517990|NCT00205777|168787512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
84517991|NCT00205777|168787512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
84517992|NCT00205777|168787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84517993|NCT00205777|168787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.62
84517994|NCT00205777|168787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
84517995|NCT00205777|168787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
84517996|NCT00205777|168787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84517997|NCT00205777|168787514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
84517998|NCT00205777|168787514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
84517999|NCT00205777|168787515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84518000|NCT00205777|168787515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
84518001|NCT00205777|168787515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
84518002|NCT00205777|168787515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
84518003|NCT00205777|168787515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
84518004|NCT00205777|168787516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84518005|NCT00205777|168787516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
84518006|NCT00205777|168787517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84518007|NCT00205777|168787517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
84518008|NCT00205777|168787517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.050
84518009|NCT00205777|168787517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.061
84518010|NCT00205777|168787517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
84518011|NCT00205777|168787518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84461857|NCT00389207|168675306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.096||||0.0365||95.0|-0.186|-0.006||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.006|-0.186|0.0365
84461858|NCT00389207|168675306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.139||||0.0033||95.0|-0.231|-0.046||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.046|-0.231|0.0033
84461859|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.001||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.066|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.066|-0.065|0.9784
84461860|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.064||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.123|0.005|0.0331
84461861|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.058||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.121|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.121|-0.005|0.0691
84461862|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|-0.023||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.038|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.038|-0.084|0.4585
84461863|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.015||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.064|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.064|-0.034|0.5438
84461864|NCT00389207|168675309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.016||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.071|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.071|-0.039|0.5659
84461865|NCT00389207|168675310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0002||95.0|0.57|0.839|||Regression, Cox|||||0.839|0.570|0.0002
84461866|NCT00389207|168675310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.764|||Regression, Cox|||Cox regression on responders only (N=289 in Nevirapine QD+BID and N=175 in Atazanvir/ritonavir)||0.764|0.519|<0.0001
84461867|NCT00389207|168675311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.1329||95.0|0.535|1.086|||Regression, Cox|||||1.086|0.535|0.1329
84461868|NCT00389207|168675312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0444||95.0|0.539|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.539|0.0444
84461869|NCT02371629|168675333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|||||0.066|0.000|0.051
84461870|NCT01051739|168675354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance is p\<0.05|Kaplan Meyer survival curves|||||||.21
84461871|NCT03192904|168675355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84461872|NCT03352245|168675372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
84461873|NCT03352245|168675373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84461874|NCT03352245|168675374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
84461875|NCT03352245|168675375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
84461876|NCT03352245|168675376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
84461877|NCT03352245|168675377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
84461878|NCT03352245|168675378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
84461879|NCT03352245|168675379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
84461880|NCT03352245|168675380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.144
84461881|NCT03352245|168675381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
84461882|NCT03352245|168675382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
84461883|NCT03352245|168675383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
84461884|NCT03352245|168675384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
84461885|NCT03352245|168675385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
84461886|NCT03352245|168675386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
84461887|NCT03352245|168675387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.237
84461888|NCT03352245|168675388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.861
84461889|NCT03815175|168675597|NON_INFERIORITY|"H0: Death/(MI\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA\]) ≥ δ HA: Death/MI(\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520\]) \< δ~Where δ is the non-inferiority margin. The test will be carried out with a one-sided significance level of 0.025 and a non-inferiority margin (δ) of 2.5%."||||||0.0005|||||||Farrington-Manning method|||||||0.0005
84461890|NCT03815175|168675600|SUPERIORITY|"H0: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA) ≥ 0 HA: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520) \< 0~B 1m-DAPT and B XIENCE V USA are bleeding rates (BARC type 2-5) between 1-month and 6-month follow-up for the pooled 1-month DAPT arm and XIENCE V USA historical control, respectively."||||||0.1888|||||||Farrington and Manning method|||||||0.1888
84518012|NCT00205777|168787518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.056
84518013|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.20
84518014|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
84518015|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
84461891|NCT03577990|168675637|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
84461892|NCT03577990|168675638|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1250.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
84461893|NCT03577990|168675639|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|300.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
84461894|NCT03577990|168675641|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|500.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
84461895|NCT00488631|168675647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.010
84518016|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
84518017|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
84518018|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
84518019|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
84518020|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.096
84717946|NCT04868656|169185903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||0.8|-5.0|0.15
84726506|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.56|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.56|0.79|
84461896|NCT00488631|168675647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||<0.001
84461897|NCT00488631|168675648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.122
84461898|NCT00488631|168675648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.004
84461899|NCT00488631|168675649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.011
84461900|NCT00488631|168675649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.002
84461901|NCT00488631|168675650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.365
84461902|NCT00488631|168675650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.098
84461903|NCT00488631|168675651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.279
84518021|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
84461904|NCT00488631|168675651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.423
84461905|NCT01696461|168675652|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Percentage of donors mobilized with plerixafor. No comparison group was analyzed.|||
84461906|NCT01696461|168675653|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. Percentage of donor experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3. Grade of maximum toxicity across all time points is reported.|||
84461907|NCT01696461|168675654|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. The number of donors experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and one, six, and 12 months post-donation. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3.|||
84461908|NCT01696461|168675655|OTHER||||||||||||||||||At 100 days after HCT, all patients in both the MAC and the RIC cohorts had achieved neutrophil engraftment. All patients in the MAC arm and 97% of patients in the RIC arm had achieved platelet engraftment. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 13 and 15 days for MAC and RIC, respectively. The median time to platelet engraftment was 19 and 18 days for MAC and RIC, respectively.|||
84518022|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
84518023|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
84518024|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
84518025|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
84461909|NCT01696461|168675656|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Full donor myeloid chimerism was achieved relatively quickly in both RIC and MAC groups (median 100% at day +28 in both RIC and MAC), but conversion to full donor T-cell chimerism appeared to be slower in the RIC patients.~T-cell chimerism for MAC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 92(59-100)%, Day +100: 97(76-100)%, Day +180: 100(91-100)%, Day +365: 100(100-100)%~T-cell chimerism for RIC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 80(50-100)%, Day +100: 84(64-100)%, Day +180: 95(74-100)%, Day +365: 100(87-100)%"|||
84461910|NCT01696461|168675657|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive outcome.There were no cases of primary graft failure.|||
84461911|NCT01696461|168675658|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of acute graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of acute GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing risk.|||
84461912|NCT01696461|168675659|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Immune reconstitution was measured by CD3+CD4+ and CD3+CD8+ T cells in the peripheral blood of patients at days 28, 100, 180, and 365 after HCT. Notably, median CD3+CD4+ cell counts were \>200/µL at all times analyzed, including day 28 in both MAC and RIC groups.|||
84518026|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
84518027|NCT00205777|168787520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
84518028|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
84518029|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
84518030|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
84717947|NCT04868656|169185904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.6|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||16.6|-6.0|0.34
84717948|NCT04868656|169185905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model includes the arm indicator variable only; model does not include stratification variables due to potential for overfitting.||2.5|0.1|0.23
84518031|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
84518032|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
84518033|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
84518034|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
84518035|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
84518036|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.40
84518037|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.45
84518038|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.012
84518039|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.54
84518040|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
84518041|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
84518042|NCT00205777|168787522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
84518043|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.21
84518044|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.058
84717949|NCT04093869|169186017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Full alpha of 0.05 was allocated to this as the sole primary outcome.|Regression, Linear||A negative mean difference would represent a better outcome in the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||14|-6|0.40
84717950|NCT04093869|169186018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|85.0|||||A positive value for the estimate represents a greater distance walked for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||85|-44|
84717951|NCT04093869|169186019|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-316.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|336.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-979.0|346.0|||||A positive value for the estimate would represent more steps per day for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||346|-979|
84461913|NCT01696461|168675660|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Groups were not directly compared using a statistical test.|Percentage of recipients at-risk for CMV reactivation who experienced a reactivation.|||
84461914|NCT01696461|168675661|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of treatment-related mortality and disease relapse/progression were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|The incidence of treatment-related mortality and relapse was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. When computing the cumulative incidence probability of treatment-related mortality and relapse, relapse and treatment-related mortality, respectively, were considered as a competing risk.|||
84518045|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
84518046|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
84518047|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
84461915|NCT01696461|168675662|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of progression free survival and overall survival were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probability of progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression-free survival at 1 year was 53% (95% CI, 36% to 71%) after MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) after RIC. Overall survival at 1 year was 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) after MAC and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) after RIC.|||
84461916|NCT01696461|168675663|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive.|This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
84461917|NCT01696461|168675664|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of chronic GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing event.|||
84461918|NCT01696461|168675665|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. There were no cases of secondary graft failure.|||
84461919|NCT01696461|168675666|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
84461920|NCT03542682|168675687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.63|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||13.30|-124.63|
84461921|NCT03542682|168675689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||3.02|-1.10|
84461922|NCT03542682|168675690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.7|510.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||510.41|-246.70|
84518048|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
84518049|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.57
84518050|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
84518051|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
84717952|NCT04093869|169186020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|34.0||||||||34|-5|
84461923|NCT04321343|168675691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.587||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1036|-6.5227|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.5227|-44.1036|0.0083
84461924|NCT04321343|168675691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.287||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2074|-2.7991|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.7991|-39.2074|0.0237
84461925|NCT04321343|168675691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.053||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4923|-6.0035|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.0035|-41.4923|0.0087
84461926|NCT04321343|168675692|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-26.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.252||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3208|-6.1313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-6.1313|-46.3208|0.0105
84461927|NCT04321343|168675692|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-21.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.873||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8475|-2.1451|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-2.1451|-40.8475|0.0295
84461928|NCT04321343|168675692|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.746||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.392|-5.1884|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-5.1884|-43.3920|0.0127
84461929|NCT04321343|168675693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.824||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2463|-1.0957|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0957|-8.2463|0.0105
84461930|NCT04321343|168675693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.514|-0.6799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-0.6799|-7.5140|0.0188
84461931|NCT04321343|168675693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.689||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6307|-1.0104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0104|-7.6307|0.0105
84461932|NCT04321343|168675694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|10.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||10.087|0.677|0.1634
84461933|NCT04321343|168675694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|11.831|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.831|0.899|0.0722
84461934|NCT04321343|168675694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|11.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.052|0.909|0.0703
84461935|NCT04321343|168675695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||9.72|-22.66|0.4318
84461936|NCT04321343|168675695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.10|-17.37|0.8382
84717953|NCT04093869|169186021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better QOL survey score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.11|-0.1|
84461937|NCT04321343|168675695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||20.33|-9.92|0.4982
84461938|NCT04321343|168675696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|3.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.935|0.131|0.7137
84461939|NCT04321343|168675696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|14.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.580|0.937|0.0597
84461940|NCT04321343|168675696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.430|0.655|0.1749
84461941|NCT04321343|168675697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|14.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.43|-20.15|0.7449
84461942|NCT04321343|168675697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.93|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||13.90|-19.93|0.7255
84461943|NCT04321343|168675697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|18.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||18.59|-13.89|0.7755
84518052|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
84518053|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
84717954|NCT04093869|169186022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better Frailty index score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.30|-0.22|
84717955|NCT04093869|169186023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.20|
84461944|NCT04321343|168675698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|13.806|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.806|0.703|0.1325
84461945|NCT04321343|168675698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|4.898|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.898|0.201|0.9918
84461946|NCT04321343|168675698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|21.714|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.714|1.053|0.0410
84461947|NCT04321343|168675699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||12.36|-28.25|0.4413
84461948|NCT04321343|168675699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.50|-37.63|0.0859
84461949|NCT04321343|168675699|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.31|16.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||16.97|-22.31|0.7887
84461950|NCT04321343|168675700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.47|-13.19|0.1166
84461951|NCT04321343|168675700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-3.80|-18.26|0.0030
84461952|NCT04321343|168675700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.87|-15.79|0.0131
84461953|NCT04321343|168675701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9701|1.9436|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.9436|-3.9701|0.4963
84461954|NCT04321343|168675701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.402||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5109|2.0866|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||2.0866|-3.5109|0.6131
84461955|NCT04321343|168675701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1593|1.2779|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.2779|-4.1593|0.2939
84461956|NCT04321343|168675702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|0.3589|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3589|-0.4845|0.7672
84461957|NCT04321343|168675702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5216|0.2678|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2678|-0.5216|0.5233
84518054|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
84518055|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.16
84518056|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.059
84518057|NCT00205777|168787524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
84717956|NCT04093869|169186024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.13|
84717957|NCT04093869|169186025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.12|
84461958|NCT04321343|168675702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6376|0.0805|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0805|-0.6376|0.1263
84461959|NCT04321343|168675703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|0.3002|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3002|-0.3559|0.8662
84461960|NCT04321343|168675703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4253|0.2369|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2369|-0.4253|0.5726
84461961|NCT04321343|168675703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4907|0.1192|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.1192|-0.4907|0.2289
84461962|NCT04321343|168675704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5509|0.4607|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4607|-0.5509|0.8595
84461963|NCT04321343|168675704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7194|0.2759|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2759|-0.7194|0.3776
84461964|NCT04321343|168675704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9426|0.017|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0170|-0.9426|0.0424
84461965|NCT04321343|168675705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|14.152|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.152|0.775|0.1084
84461966|NCT04321343|168675705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
84461967|NCT04321343|168675705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|6.948|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.948|0.501|0.3333
84461968|NCT04321343|168675706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.230|0.345|0.7677
84461969|NCT04321343|168675706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
84461970|NCT04321343|168675706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|6.486|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.486|0.598|0.2711
84717958|NCT04093869|169186026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.6|||||A positive value for the estimate represents better self-efficacy for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||1.60|-0.83|
84461971|NCT04321343|168675707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|5.547|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.547|0.376|0.5981
84461972|NCT04321343|168675707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|5.572|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.572|0.363|0.6228
84461973|NCT04321343|168675707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.323|0.245|0.8799
84461974|NCT04321343|168675708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|17.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.208|0.625|0.1474
84461975|NCT04321343|168675708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|14.631|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.631|0.481|0.2620
84461976|NCT04321343|168675708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|4.133|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.133|0.117|0.6935
84726507|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.30|0.46|
84461977|NCT04321343|168675709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.215|-0.350|0.6384
84461978|NCT04321343|168675709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.006|-0.547|0.0549
84461979|NCT04321343|168675709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.142|-0.683|0.0030
84461980|NCT04321343|168675710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8165|0.7149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7149|-0.8165|0.8961
84461981|NCT04321343|168675710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5935|0.9204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.9204|-0.5935|0.6710
84461982|NCT04321343|168675710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7092|0.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7233|-0.7092|0.9846
84461983|NCT04321343|168675711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.75||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.306|-12.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-12.558|-157.306|0.0216
84461984|NCT04321343|168675711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.72||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.957|23.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||23.738|-116.957|0.1931
84461985|NCT04321343|168675711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.31||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.002|2.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.194|-129.002|0.0581
84518058|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
84725943|NCT01107912|169204004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference of median MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 5-mg in the elderly group to the 75th percentile of the MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 10 mg MD in the non-elderly group at the end of Period 1 was estimated from the observed data. The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference was estimated from resampling data with replacement through bootstrap methodology and was used to compare with the non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points.|Estimate of the difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0||||||||9.00|1.00|
84461986|NCT04321343|168675712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5577|0.0456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0456|-0.5577|0.0958
84461987|NCT04321343|168675712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5648|0.0181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0181|-0.5648|0.0659
84461988|NCT04321343|168675712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5728|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0300|-0.5728|0.0297
84461989|NCT04321343|168675713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|0.1476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1476|-0.5423|0.2606
84461990|NCT04321343|168675713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.1016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1016|-0.5690|0.1709
84461991|NCT04321343|168675713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6274|-0.0148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0148|-0.6274|0.0400
84461992|NCT04321343|168675714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|0.0351|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0351|-0.0139|0.3955
84461993|NCT04321343|168675714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0115|0.0362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0362|-0.0115|0.3081
84461994|NCT04321343|168675714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0053|0.0383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0383|-0.0053|0.1374
84461995|NCT04321343|168675715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.86||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.073|-7.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-7.817|-90.073|0.0199
84461996|NCT04321343|168675715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.66||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.558|7.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.009|-66.558|0.1120
84461997|NCT04321343|168675715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.935|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-19.340|-89.935|0.0026
84461998|NCT04321343|168675716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|3.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.4470|-0.0980|0.0639
84461999|NCT04321343|168675716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.867||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1149|4.5464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.5464|1.1149|0.0014
84462000|NCT04321343|168675716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1982|6.5543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.5543|3.1982|<0.0001
84462001|NCT04321343|168675717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.9748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.9748|-0.6080|0.1944
84462002|NCT04321343|168675717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7268|4.1907|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.1907|0.7268|0.0056
84462003|NCT04321343|168675717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0111|2.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.3720|-1.0111|0.4288
84462004|NCT04321343|168675718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4307|0.9295|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.9295|-3.4307|0.2564
84462005|NCT04321343|168675718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6348|0.4392|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4392|-3.6348|0.1222
84462006|NCT04321343|168675718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|-0.351|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||-0.3510|-4.0880|0.0206
84462007|NCT04321343|168675719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.201|0.436|0.5221
84518059|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
84462008|NCT04321343|168675719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
84462009|NCT04321343|168675719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|9.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.636|0.853|0.0914
84462010|NCT04321343|168675720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|11.679|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.679|0.628|0.1854
84462011|NCT04321343|168675720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
84462012|NCT04321343|168675720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|5.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.880|0.398|0.5223
84462013|NCT04321343|168675721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4749|2.0356|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.0356|-1.4749|0.7532
84462014|NCT04321343|168675721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2946|3.6763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.6763|0.2946|0.0216
84518060|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
84462015|NCT04321343|168675721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4283|1.8771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.8771|-1.4283|0.7893
84518061|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
84717959|NCT00709956|169186074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|9.4||If the primary endpoint reaches significance, treatment effect of the secondary endpoint is determined at a 2-sided nominal of 0.05. Since hierarchy of the endpoints to be tested has been predefined, no correction for multiple testing will be applied|Generalized linear model|Subject (sequence), treatment, and period as fixed effect||With a sample size of at least 63 patients and based on the assumptions on the primary endpoint (normal distribution, SD of the difference of 30 m) the study was designed to detect a significant treatment effect with 90% power, assuming a difference exceeding 12.5 m between the mean values of the 6MWD following the iloprost power 15 treatment and the one following the placebo treatment.||9.4|-12.3|0.7883
84725944|NCT02432183|169204009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|post-hoc comparison with Dunn's multiple comparison test: p=0.0326 between arm 1 and 2; p=0.0147 between arm 1 and 3||||||0.0061
84462016|NCT01212445|168675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.192||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.325|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was defined as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.325|0.096|0.1790
84462017|NCT01212445|168675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.314||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.459|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.459|0.191|1.0000
84462018|NCT01212445|168675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.196||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.331|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.331|0.098|0.2558
84462019|NCT01212445|168675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|4.763|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence interval. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||4.763|0.774|
84462020|NCT01212445|168675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||2.720|0.386|
84518062|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
84518063|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
84518064|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
84518065|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
84518066|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
84518067|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
84518068|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
84518069|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
84462021|NCT01212445|168675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.077||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.185|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.185|0.021|0.2350
84462022|NCT01212445|168675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.157||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.286|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.286|0.070|0.5256
84462023|NCT01212445|168675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.118||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.239|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.239|0.044|0.7746
84462024|NCT01212445|168675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||7.940|0.628|
84462025|NCT01212445|168675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|6.043|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||6.043|0.424|
84462026|NCT01212445|168675727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.752||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|19.338|||ANCOVA|||||19.338|-3.834|0.1876
84462027|NCT01212445|168675727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.706||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|13.141|||ANCOVA|||||13.141|-9.729|0.7680
84462028|NCT01212445|168675727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.046||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.412|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.320|-17.412|0.2941
84518070|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
84717960|NCT04079517|169186087|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing mean difference in symptom score (95% confidence intervals). Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication of differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences in symptom score between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|||
84462029|NCT01212445|168675728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.059|9.454|||ANCOVA|||||9.454|-12.059|0.8109
84462030|NCT01212445|168675728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.693|8.544|||ANCOVA|||||8.544|-12.693|0.6995
84462031|NCT01212445|168675728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.329|9.784|||ANCOVA|||||9.784|-11.329|0.8850
84462032|NCT01212445|168675729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.886||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|25.695|||ANCOVA|||||25.695|0.078|0.0486
84462033|NCT01212445|168675729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.471|13.962|||ANCOVA|||||13.962|-11.471|0.8465
84462034|NCT01212445|168675729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.641||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.449|1.167|||ANCOVA|||||1.167|-24.449|0.0744
84717961|NCT02231749|169186151|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.2|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||22.2|9.8|<0.0001
84717962|NCT02231749|169186152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.44|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.44|<0.0001
84462035|NCT01212445|168675730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|13.534|||ANCOVA|||||13.534|-6.153|0.4591
84462036|NCT01212445|168675730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.887||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.765|12.539|||ANCOVA|||||12.539|-6.765|0.5546
84462037|NCT01212445|168675730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.397|8.79|||ANCOVA|||||8.790|-10.397|0.8685
84462038|NCT01212445|168675731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|-0.774|0.1865
84462039|NCT01212445|168675731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.323|||ANCOVA|||||0.323|-0.602|0.5530
84462040|NCT01212445|168675731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.637|||ANCOVA|||||0.637|-0.293|0.4670
84462041|NCT01672892|168675754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Since there is no prior data using this tool in this patient population, an effect size of 0.4 was chosen to calculate sample size. Based on a two-sample t-test with one interim look and a two-sided alpha=0.05, a sample size of 225 is needed to achieve 85% statistical power. Assuming an attrition rate of 10% and noncompliance of 10%, 281 patients were required in order to ensure 225 evaluable patients for the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0476
84462042|NCT01672892|168675755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Binomial test of proportions|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4338
84462043|NCT01672892|168675756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 3 of RT||||0.04
84462044|NCT01672892|168675756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 5 of RT||||0.03
84462045|NCT01672892|168675756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.41
84462046|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-G total score - 5 weeks||||0.54
84462047|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.72
84518071|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
84518072|NCT00205777|168787526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
84518073|NCT00185458|168787550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.128
84518074|NCT00185458|168787551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.296
84518075|NCT00185458|168787553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518076|NCT00185458|168787555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.027
84518077|NCT00185458|168787556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84462048|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.01
84462049|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.45
84518078|NCT00185458|168787557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518079|NCT00185458|168787558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518080|NCT00185458|168787559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.054
84518081|NCT00185458|168787560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84717963|NCT02231749|169186153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.64|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.64|0.0331
84462050|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.03
84462051|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.9
84462052|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.55
84462053|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
84462054|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
84462055|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.09
84462056|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
84462057|NCT01672892|168675757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
84462058|NCT01672892|168675758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||5 weeks||||0.61
84462059|NCT01672892|168675758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.67
84462060|NCT01672892|168675759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.81
84462061|NCT01672892|168675760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||2.35|0.82|0.21
84462062|NCT01672892|168675761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||1.79|0.32|0.53
84462063|NCT01672892|168675764|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Baseline||||<0.0001
84462064|NCT01672892|168675764|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Week 5||||<0.0001
84462065|NCT01672892|168675765|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at baseline||||<0.0001
84462066|NCT01672892|168675765|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at week 5||||<0.0001
84462067|NCT01672892|168675765|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at baseline||||<0.0001
84518082|NCT00185458|168787561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84717964|NCT02231749|169186154|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.2||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.7|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||12.7|1.8|0.0191
84717965|NCT02231749|169186155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.49|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.49|0.0003
84462068|NCT01672892|168675765|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at week 5||||<0.0001
84462069|NCT01672892|168675766|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Bowel domain||||<0.0001
84462070|NCT01672892|168675766|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Urinary domain||||<0.0001
84462071|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8974
84518083|NCT00185458|168787562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518084|NCT00185458|168787563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518085|NCT00185458|168787564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84717966|NCT02231749|169186156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.8498
84462072|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population- from baseline to day 21||||0.7612
84462073|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
84462074|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population - day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
84462075|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3351|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.3351
84462076|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.1233
84518086|NCT00185458|168787565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84518087|NCT00185458|168787566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.175
84518088|NCT00185458|168787567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.062
84518089|NCT00185458|168787568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
84540826|NCT03718832|168832730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.881776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057965|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673875|2.089677||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.089677|1.673875|<0.001
84462077|NCT00914628|168675810|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.5995
84462078|NCT00914628|168675810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
84462079|NCT00914628|168675811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Log Rank|Statistical analysis was performed on Intention-To-Treat population.||||||0.7660
84462080|NCT00914628|168675811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Intention-To-Treat population.||||0.6706
84462081|NCT00914628|168675811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7332|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.7332
84462082|NCT00914628|168675811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.6439
84462083|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.1735
84462084|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.5958
84462085|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2889|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2889
84462086|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for Per-Protocol Set.||||0.1642
84462087|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Log Rank|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.8739
84462088|NCT00914628|168675812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2304
84462089|NCT00914628|168675817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.3526
84462090|NCT00914628|168675817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
84462091|NCT00914628|168675817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2607
84462092|NCT00914628|168675817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Function||||0.5929
84462093|NCT00914628|168675821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
84462094|NCT00914628|168675821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.3526
84462095|NCT00914628|168675821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.5929
84462096|NCT00914628|168675821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.2607
84462097|NCT01756157|168675874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.61||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.23|0.0523
84462098|NCT02799381|168675884|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-15.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|-8.63||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|||-8.63|-21.47|<0.0001
84462099|NCT02799381|168675885|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.83||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||4.83|1.71|<0.0001
84462100|NCT02799381|168675886|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-16.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|-8.85||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-8.85|-24.48|<0.0001
84462101|NCT02799381|168675887|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.44|-2.78|<0.0001
84462102|NCT02799381|168675888|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-5.54|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-2.49||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-2.49|-8.59|=0.0006
84462103|NCT02799381|168675889|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.35|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.19||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.19|-3.51|=0.0002
84518090|NCT03503318|168787569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.367||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.367|0.109|<0.0001
84518091|NCT03503318|168787569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.618||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.618|0.227|<0.0001
84717967|NCT03839446|169186170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.65|0.18|0.777
84462104|NCT02799381|168675890|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-4.05|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||0.44|-8.55|=0.0762
84462105|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER|||||||0.2968||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.2968
84462106|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
84462107|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER|||||||0.0534||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.0534
84462108|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
84462109|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.032
84462110|NCT02698410|168675894|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
84462111|NCT01713348|168675910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.19|-1.29|0.9345
84462112|NCT01713348|168675910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) intervention arm compared to control arm.||2.73|0.05|0.0427
84518092|NCT01125163|168787606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All infants were analyzed according to their assigned groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.59
84518093|NCT01125163|168787607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.64
84518094|NCT02709018|168787619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
84518095|NCT02709018|168787620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
84462113|NCT01713348|168675911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.16|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.16|-2.65|0.8367
84462114|NCT01713348|168675911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.4|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.40|-1.86|0.7969
84462115|NCT01713348|168675912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-0.51|0.0352
84462116|NCT01713348|168675912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-0.54|0.0506
84462117|NCT01713348|168675913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-6.4|0.0580
84462118|NCT01713348|168675913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.9|-13.6|0.0002
84462119|NCT01713348|168675914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.59|0.0580
84462120|NCT01713348|168675914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.24|0.0002
84518096|NCT01120028|168787644|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.28|<0.0001
84518097|NCT01120028|168787645|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5
84518098|NCT01120028|168787646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.59|0.58
84518099|NCT01120028|168787647|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.18|||Log Rank|||||6.18|0.64|0.23
84518100|NCT01120028|168787648|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.80|0.88
84518101|NCT01120028|168787649|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|1.11|0.008
84518102|NCT01120028|168787650|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.99
84518103|NCT01120028|168787651|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.34|0.52
84518104|NCT01248728|168787667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
84518105|NCT01248728|168787668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84518106|NCT01248728|168787670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84518107|NCT01248728|168787671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6
84462121|NCT00644592|168675982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of mean effects|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean log difference (SE) between the period 2 and period 1 effects and SE was estimated. This estimates twice the effect size\[since (B-A)-(A-B)=2B-2A\] so the actual estimate was based upon the antilog of half of this difference.|This is a crossover analysis. To convert to a ratio effect, the mean difference must be divided by two and antilogs take. The outcome represents a relative effect.||1.52|1.06|0.015
84462122|NCT01157117|168675983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Fisher Exact|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of milk protein followed by an open feeding of milk was compared using Fisher's Exact test with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||37.3|-13.4|0.42
84462123|NCT03215277|168676003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Posterior Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. The mean posterior difference and 95% credible interval were presented for the BKZ vs CZP comparison.||0.60|-0.14|
84462124|NCT03215277|168676003|SUPERIORITY||PR[Diff > 0%](%)|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. Pr\[Diff\>0%\](%) refers to the probability that the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the BKZ group was greater than the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the CZP group.||||
84462125|NCT04112914|168676024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.021
84462126|NCT04112914|168676025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.638
84462127|NCT04112914|168676026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.72|0.55|0.338
84462128|NCT04112914|168676027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.606
84462129|NCT04112914|168676028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.508
84462130|NCT04112914|168676029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.042
84462131|NCT04112914|168676030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
84462132|NCT01244737|168676033|OTHER||Pearson correlation co-efficient|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||This is a diagnostic test of FLT uptake (SUV max) as a predictor of cellular proliferation (MIB) and is performed as an analysis of correlation using each evaluable participant enrolled in either Arm 1 (New Diagnosis) or Arm 2 (Possible recurrent tumor). The groups (Arm 1 and Arm 2) provide pathways for enrollment. Correlation between the two measures of outcome (SUV max and MIB) is evaluated.||||< 0.001
84462133|NCT01244737|168676036|OTHER|Paired T-test to assess change in FLT uptake (SUV max) with chemotherapy.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84462134|NCT00356915|168676068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||P-Value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, . The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
84462135|NCT00356915|168676069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. No p-value was calculated for this endpoint.|Wald's CI|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||Comparison between the 2 itraconazole groups was based on lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-4.3|
84462136|NCT00356915|168676070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumption was that the Complete Cure rate at week 52 was 35% for the active dosing groups, a sample size of 552 ITT subjects per active group would have had a 93% power for testing the proportion of subjects with Complete Cure. These computations assumed a non inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025. Power computations were performed using nQuery Advisor, Version 5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.1||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||The test for demonstrating non-inferiority was based on a margin of 10%. Thus, non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-1.1|< 0.001
84462137|NCT00356915|168676071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
84462138|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Aches||||0.200
84462139|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Headaches||||0.0326
84518108|NCT04633564|168787687|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence region is (0.73, 1.36).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.12||||||||1.12|0.83|
84462140|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing/Sneezing||||0.0043
84462141|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trouble Breathing||||0.0003
84518109|NCT00926887|168787695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84518110|NCT00926887|168787698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-2.711; df=102; p\<0.01||||||<0.01
84518111|NCT00926887|168787702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102, t=-3.44||||||<0.001
84518112|NCT00830258|168787722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.76||||||90.0|98.17|113.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||113.93|98.17|
84462142|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Congestion||||0.3714
84462143|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.300
84462144|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Loss of Smell/Taste||||0.2286
84462145|NCT04871815|168676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Anxiety||||0.999
84462146|NCT04871815|168676073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84462147|NCT04871815|168676074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1963
84462148|NCT04871815|168676075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84462149|NCT04871815|168676075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0008
84462150|NCT04871815|168676075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study).||||<0.0001
84518113|NCT00830258|168787723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.45||||||90.0|104.31|116.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116.96|104.31|
84518114|NCT00830258|168787724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.61||||||90.0|104.39|117.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117.20|104.39|
84462151|NCT04871815|168676075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0114
84462152|NCT04871815|168676075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study)||||<0.0001
84462153|NCT01740362|168676078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.77|194.69||||||1 way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on natural log-transformed AUC(0-∞) analyzed using linear model with degrees of renal impairment(creatinine clearance\[CLcr, discrete\]) evaluated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effect. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) mixed procedure (PROC MIXED) was used. Anti-log of adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550\[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550\[normal renal function\]), 90% confidence interval (CI) were taken to estimate mean ratio and 90% CI.||194.69|96.77|
84462154|NCT01740362|168676078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|142.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.53|202.24||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||202.24|100.53|
84462155|NCT01740362|168676078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|222.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.02|315.89||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||315.89|157.02|
84462156|NCT01740362|168676079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.22|129.06||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||129.06|67.22|
84462157|NCT01740362|168676079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.18|144.34||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||144.34|75.18|
84462158|NCT01740362|168676079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.91|163.02||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||163.02|84.91|
84462159|NCT01442181|168676105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month in minimally invasive group||||0.03
84462160|NCT01442181|168676105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the fatigue and energy was done in baseline-3 month, and 6 month in each group. Minimally Invasive: baseline vs 3 month||||0.01
84462161|NCT01442181|168676105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue in medical therapy group; baseline vs 3 month||||0.49
84462162|NCT01442181|168676105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month||||0.06
84462163|NCT03133767|168676126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
84518115|NCT00488774|168787729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
84518116|NCT00488774|168787729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.081
84518117|NCT00488774|168787729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.145
84518118|NCT00488774|168787730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.832
84518119|NCT00488774|168787730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.370
84518120|NCT00488774|168787730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.702
84462164|NCT03133767|168676127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
84462165|NCT03133767|168676128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
84462166|NCT03133767|168676129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.361
84462167|NCT03133767|168676130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.509
84462168|NCT03664726|168676135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||Comparison of differences by group|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
84462169|NCT03664726|168676136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
84462170|NCT03664726|168676137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
84462171|NCT02333227|168676155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
84462172|NCT02333227|168676156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Co-primary outcomes|We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
84462173|NCT02333227|168676157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84462174|NCT02333227|168676158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Specifically, the composite of periodontal disease was also created; this composite was positive if any of the following were detected: gingival bleeding, pockets of 4 mm or greater, or loss of attachment of 4 mm or greater. A scaled periodontal disease score was also created which was the sum of scores for gingival bleeding (+1 if bleeding was present, per tooth), gingival pockets (+1 for pockets of 4-5 mm and +2 for 6 mm or deeper, per tooth), and loss of attachment (+1 for 4-5 mm loss, +2 for 6-8 mm, +3 for 9-11 mm, and +4 for 12 mm or more, per tooth with values recorded for index teeth) divided by the number of teeth present.|||<0.05
84462175|NCT02333227|168676159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84462176|NCT00397150|168676160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.92||||||||3.92|1.33|
84518121|NCT05523895|168787731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-4.6|0.2986
84462177|NCT00397150|168676165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.11||||||||2.11|1.70|
84462178|NCT00397150|168676166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63||||||||2.63|1.12|
84462179|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.13|-4.59|
84518122|NCT05523895|168787731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.5|0.2859
84518123|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.94||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For symptom-severity score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size and non-normal distributions of symptom severity scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in symptom severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) symptom severity than the other group.||||.052
84462180|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-2.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.01|-10.48|
84462181|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|1.81|
84462182|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|5.64|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.64|-2.65|
84462183|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.52|-0.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-0.52|-8.52|
84462184|NCT01982630|168676175|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|5.83|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.83|-2.38|
84462185|NCT01982630|168676176|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|0.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||0.32|-4.55|
84462186|NCT01982630|168676176|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|5.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.66|-0.61|
84462187|NCT01982630|168676176|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|7.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||7.93|1.35|
84462188|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|3.71|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||3.71|-5.01|
84462189|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|-2.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.19|-10.66|
84462190|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|9.97|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.97|1.57|
84462191|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|4.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.00|-4.29|
84462192|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|-1.92|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-1.92|-9.91|
84462193|NCT01982630|168676177|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.62|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.62|-3.60|
84462194|NCT01982630|168676178|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.02|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.02|-3.80|
84462195|NCT01982630|168676178|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|9.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.15|1.34|
84462196|NCT01982630|168676178|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|2.05|
84462197|NCT01982630|168676179|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|2.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.57|-3.71|
84462198|NCT01982630|168676179|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|12.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.03|3.50|
84462199|NCT01982630|168676179|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.89|12.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.79|3.89|
84462200|NCT01982630|168676180|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|5.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.09|-2.40|
84518124|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For coping score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of coping scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in coping, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) coping than the other group.||||.04
84717968|NCT03839446|169186170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Percent of blasts present in the bone marrow.||1.01|0.96|0.200
84717969|NCT03839446|169186170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.014
84462201|NCT01982630|168676180|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|13.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||13.30|3.29|
84462202|NCT01982630|168676180|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.20|1.69|
84462203|NCT01982630|168676181|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|6.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||6.34|-1.42|
84462204|NCT01982630|168676181|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|14.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||14.81|4.42|
84462205|NCT01982630|168676181|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|12.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.60|1.70|
84462206|NCT01982630|168676182|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-1.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||-1.14|-6.80|
84462207|NCT01982630|168676182|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.93|-4.33|
84717970|NCT03839446|169186171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.86|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.86|0.17|0.801
84462208|NCT01982630|168676182|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|7.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.06|-0.54|
84462209|NCT01982630|168676183|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|2.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.15|-5.31|
84462210|NCT01982630|168676183|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|7.35|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.35|-2.32|
84462211|NCT01982630|168676183|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|9.16|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.16|-0.96|
84462212|NCT01982630|168676184|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.31|0.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||0.34|-7.31|
84462213|NCT01982630|168676184|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|9.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.03|-1.11|
84462214|NCT01982630|168676184|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|12.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||12.73|2.16|
84462215|NCT01982630|168676185|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|4.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||4.57|-4.51|
84462216|NCT01982630|168676185|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|10.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||10.73|-1.33|
84462217|NCT01982630|168676185|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|11.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.00|-1.67|
84462218|NCT01982630|168676186|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.39|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.39|-0.70|
84462219|NCT01982630|168676186|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|14.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||14.23|3.53|
84462220|NCT01982630|168676186|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|11.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.15|-0.08|
84540827|NCT03718832|168832730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.868221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.664499|2.071943||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.071943|1.664499|<0.001
84462221|NCT01982630|168676187|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.98|-0.12|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.12|-6.98|
84462222|NCT01982630|168676187|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|5.49|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.49|-3.38|
84462223|NCT01982630|168676187|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|9.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||9.23|-0.02|
84462224|NCT01982630|168676188|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|2.28|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||2.28|-4.59|
84462225|NCT01982630|168676188|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.99|13.31|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.31|3.99|
84462226|NCT01982630|168676188|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.96|14.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.65|4.96|
84462227|NCT01982630|168676189|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|-0.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.56|-7.52|
84462228|NCT01982630|168676189|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.57|14.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.89|5.57|
84462229|NCT01982630|168676189|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.38|19.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||19.15|9.38|
84462230|NCT01982630|168676190|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.47|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||1.47|-5.70|
84462231|NCT01982630|168676190|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|13.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.64|18.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||18.03|8.64|
84518125|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.176||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the concern score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outlier of the concern scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in their concern, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) concern than the other group.||||.03
84518126|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the sleep score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of sleep scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in sleep scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) sleep scores than the other group.||||.37
84518127|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For social score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of social scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in social scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) social scores than the other group.||||.04
84518128|NCT01642277|168787736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the overall health related quality of life (HRQL) score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of HRQL scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in health related quality of life, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) health realted quality of life than the other group.||||.04
84518129|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the obstructive discomfort score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in obstructive discomfort, and and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) obstructive discomfort than the other group.||||.46
84518130|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the irritative score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in irritation, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) irritation than the other group.||||.07
84518131|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the stress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in stress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) stress than the other group.||||.11
84518132|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.69||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the urinary distress inventory score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in urinary distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) urinary distress than the other group.||||.09
84518133|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.68||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the general score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in general pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) general pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.09
84518134|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.23||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the anterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in anterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) anterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.82
84518135|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the posterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in posterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) posterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.06
84518136|NCT01642277|168787737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the pelvic organ prolapse distress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pelvic organ prolapse distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) pelvic organ prolapse distress than the other group.||||.07
84717971|NCT03839446|169186171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||% bone marrow blasts||1.01|0.95|0.168
84518137|NCT03428750|168787755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.006
84717972|NCT03839446|169186171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.015
84717973|NCT03142009|169186179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.04|-.45|.021
84462232|NCT01982630|168676190|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|15.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.53|20.38|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||20.38|10.53|
84462233|NCT01982630|168676191|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|5.7|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.70|-1.47|
84462234|NCT01982630|168676191|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.73|15.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||15.13|5.73|
84462235|NCT01982630|168676191|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|13.24|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.24|3.40|
84462236|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|29.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.34|54.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||54.77|4.34|
84462237|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|50.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||50.19|2.02|
84462238|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.23|27.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||27.14|-20.23|
84462239|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-26.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.96|-2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-2.93|-49.96|
84462240|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.04|-7.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.77|-52.04|
84462241|NCT01982630|168676207|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.53|-32.48|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-32.48|-79.53|
84462242|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|40.18|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||40.18|-10.25|
84462243|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.52|30.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||30.65|-17.52|
84462244|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.29|32.08|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||32.08|-15.29|
84518138|NCT03428750|168787756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84717974|NCT03142009|169186180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-.01|.075
84462245|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-35.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.75|-11.72|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.72|-58.75|
84462246|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.77|-21.5|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.50|-65.77|
84518139|NCT03428750|168787757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.001
84462247|NCT01982630|168676208|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.72|-26.68|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-26.68|-73.72|
84518140|NCT03428750|168787758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84462248|NCT01982630|168676209|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.59|-5.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.81|-56.59|
84462249|NCT01982630|168676209|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-25.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.25|0.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||0.01|-50.25|
84462250|NCT01982630|168676209|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.31|5.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||5.14|-17.31|
84462251|NCT01982630|168676210|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-27.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.87|-2.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-2.09|-52.87|
84518141|NCT03428750|168787759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84518142|NCT03428750|168787760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84518143|NCT03428750|168787761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84518144|NCT03428750|168787762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84717975|NCT03215706|169186196|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.86|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.86|0.56|0.0006
84717976|NCT03215706|169186197|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.84|0.58|0.0001
84462252|NCT01982630|168676210|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-30.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.72|-5.46|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.46|-55.72|
84462253|NCT01982630|168676210|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.11|14.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||14.34|-8.11|
84462254|NCT01982630|168676211|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.88|30.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||30.06|-20.88|
84462255|NCT01982630|168676211|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.68|19.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||19.85|-30.68|
84462256|NCT01982630|168676211|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|21.78|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||21.78|-1.77|
84462257|NCT01982630|168676212|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.53|10.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.57|-40.53|
84462258|NCT01982630|168676212|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.77|10.76|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.76|-39.77|
84462259|NCT01982630|168676212|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|11.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||11.52|-12.47|
84462260|NCT01982630|168676213|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.81|-21.55|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.55|-65.81|
84462261|NCT01982630|168676213|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.35|-25.45|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-25.45|-69.35|
84462262|NCT01982630|168676213|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|13.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||13.19|-5.76|
84717977|NCT03215706|169186198|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.50|1.31|0.0003
84462263|NCT01982630|168676214|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-34.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.14|-11.88|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.88|-56.14|
84462264|NCT01982630|168676214|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.15|-17.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-17.26|-61.15|
84462265|NCT01982630|168676214|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|14.67|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||14.67|-4.28|
84462266|NCT01982630|168676215|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.89|-1.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.56|-45.89|
84462267|NCT01982630|168676215|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-33.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.93|-11.98|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.98|-55.93|
84462268|NCT01982630|168676215|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|19.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||19.89|0.56|
84462269|NCT01982630|168676216|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.65|-1.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.32|-45.65|
84462270|NCT01982630|168676216|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.74|-7.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.79|-51.74|
84462271|NCT01982630|168676216|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|15.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||15.93|-3.39|
84462272|NCT01273818|168676251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fscher exact test|||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||we did not need an estimation parameter such as odds or relative risk because of our experimental design and hypothesis of this study.|"Comparison Group Selection: our primary outcome is infection positive or negativeso, we compared the frequencies of being positive infections for these three groups. Our null hypothesis is  positive infection frequencies are same for three groups. We calculated post-hoc power for this design and found 0.99 for the percentages which shows positive infections respectively for Topical Gentamicin, cefazoline iv and topical gentamicin and iv cefazolin; 2.3%, 3.1% and 0%."||||0.198
84717978|NCT02567435|169186303|SUPERIORITY||3-Year EFS|65.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.44
84717979|NCT02567435|169186304|SUPERIORITY||3-Year OS|78.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
84717980|NCT02446600|169186312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.105||The p-value is one-sided. Per the protocol, the statistical significance threshold was \<0.025. Type 1 error was controlled using hierarchical testing strategy.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the minimization factors provided at randomization|The hazard ratio estimate compares olaparib+cedirinib to chemotherapy. If olaparib+cedirinib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm II was suspended for futility at the interim analysis so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.105|0.663|0.077
84462273|NCT05405166|168676292|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater or equal to 0.839.|Relative risk|1.008||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.126|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|||1.126|0.903|0.0006
84725945|NCT01124916|169204012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8728.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|853.129|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7028.846|10427.154|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the total cost of care between standard and robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy six weeks after surgery.||10427.154|7028.846|<.001
84462274|NCT05405166|168676293|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|1.784||||||||1.784|1.316|
84462275|NCT05405166|168676294|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% CI was greater or equal to 0.6312.|Relative risk|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.215|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.215|0.841|<0.0001
84462276|NCT05405166|168676295|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.302|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.158|1.465||||||A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.465|1.158|
84462277|NCT05405166|168676296|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.164|||Fisher Exact||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.164|0.022|<0.0001
84462278|NCT05405166|168676297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.036||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|2.908||Stratified on multiple myeloma (MM) isotype (immunoglobulin G \[IgG\] versus non-IgG), body weight (\<=65 kg, \>65 to \<=85 kg, and \>85 kg), and number of prior lines (1 to 2 versus \>=3) according to IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using the Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.908|1.425|0.0001
84462279|NCT01167712|168676354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||||||Estimated hazard of first progression or death for weekly paclitaxel treatment relative to standard 3 week paclitaxel.||1.06|.74|
84462280|NCT01167712|168676355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23||||||||1.23|.72|
84462281|NCT04364854|168676415|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.87|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.87|-2.31|
84462282|NCT04364854|168676415|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.15|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||3.15|-2.94|
84462283|NCT04364854|168676415|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.33|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.33|-2.9|
84462284|NCT04364854|168676416|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.13|-0.26|
84462285|NCT04364854|168676416|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.28|-0.21|
84462286|NCT04364854|168676416|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.04|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||-0.04|-0.42|
84462287|NCT04364854|168676417|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.9|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.9|-2.59|
84462288|NCT04364854|168676417|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM-Narrative, and age.|||3.8|-2.23|
84518145|NCT03428750|168787763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
84540828|NCT03718832|168832730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.650879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246611|2.055147||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.055147|1.246611|<0.001
84462289|NCT04364854|168676417|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.82|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.82|-2.32|
84462290|NCT04364854|168676418|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.45|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||3.45|-3.59|
84462291|NCT04364854|168676418|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||4.8|-4.27|
84462292|NCT04364854|168676418|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.56|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||1.56|-5.77|
84462293|NCT03063385|168676444|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0285||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value \& estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for self-efficacy. Used modified Baron \& Kenny method|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for self-efficacy as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0285|0.0022|.0229
84462294|NCT03063385|168676444|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0019|0.0282||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value and estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for sexual communication attitudes. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for sexual communication attitudes as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0282|0.0019|0.0249
84462295|NCT03063385|168676444|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0068||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0292||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|Reported P-value and estimate rely on the group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for subjective norms. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for subjective norms as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0292|0.0025|0.0204
84462296|NCT00469079|168676490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84462297|NCT00469079|168676491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Product use is by self-report and daily diaries.||||0.05
84462298|NCT00469079|168676492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Other|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period.||This study was not powered to detect differences in smoking cessation rates between groups; however, smoking status was collected to obtain preliminary data. Point prevalence (no smoking during the previous 7 days) cigarette abstinence rates were calculated at the week-4 visit and at each of the 2 follow-up visits. Continuous abstinence rates were calculated for the 4 week period between the week 1 and week 4 visits. Abstinence at all visits was assessed by self-report and confirmed by CO.||||<0.05
84462299|NCT00469079|168676493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference between 3 groups|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period. Each repeated-measures model included the treatment effect, a visit effect, the interaction between treatment and visit, the interaction between subject error and within-subject error terms.||||> 0.10
84462300|NCT03952130|168676511|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
84462301|NCT03952130|168676512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-29.4|0.003
84462302|NCT03952130|168676513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10.0|-41.1|0.001
84462303|NCT03952130|168676514|OTHER||Relative rate|0.85||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.77|||Empirical method|||||3.77|0.19|0.834
84462304|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=30 minutes post meal||1.38|0.72|0.983
84462305|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.74|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=1 hour post meal||2.74|0.95|0.076
84462306|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.19||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.79|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=2 hours post meal||1.79|0.79|0.409
84462307|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.22||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.68|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=4 hours post meal||1.68|0.89|0.217
84462308|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.09||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.65|||Negative binomial regression|||\>1 to \<=2 hours post meal||1.65|0.71|0.703
84462309|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|1.24||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.73|||Negative binomial regression|||\>2 to \<=4 hours post meal||1.73|0.89|0.206
84462310|NCT03952130|168676515|OTHER||Relative rate|0.75||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||\>4 hours post meal||1.04|0.55|0.082
84462311|NCT03952130|168676516|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.86|0.309
84462312|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning premeal-fasting||-7.7|-23.8|<.001
84462313|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 1-hour post meal||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
84462314|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-4.8|-25.0|0.004
84462315|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday premeal||6.8|-11.4|0.616
84462316|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 1-hour post meal||0.1|-18.4|0.054
84462317|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour post meal||6.0|-12.6|0.483
84462318|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening premeal||21.7|-0.6|0.064
84462319|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 1-hour post meal||4.2|-15.5|0.262
84462320|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour post meal||2.0|-17.5|0.117
84462321|NCT03952130|168676517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||6.2|-15.1|0.414
84518146|NCT01919112|168787779|OTHER|Regression models using interaction terms will used to assess for heterogeneity of intervention effects across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract (CBT)-lesion load, a combined measure of lesion size and location. For purposes of the analysis, the CBT-lesion load was dichotomized into 2 groups based on the median CBT-lesion load volume.||||||0.116||||||Interaction p-values will be considered statistically significant at the 0.15 level of significance given the relatively low power for tests of interaction to detect a true interaction.|2-way analysis of variance with interact|The tDCS intervention was the main variable of interest, PAS score the main outcome and CBT-lesion load was the interaction term used.||The aim for this analysis was to assess for effect modification of the trial intervention across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract-lesion load.||||0.116
84462322|NCT03952130|168676518|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Basal insulin dose||0.6|-0.7|0.947
84462323|NCT03952130|168676518|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bolus insulin dose||2.6|-1.3|0.500
84462324|NCT03952130|168676518|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total insulin dose||2.7|-1.4|0.543
84518147|NCT02944617|168787781|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84518148|NCT02944617|168787783|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.077
84518149|NCT02554877|168787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.48|-1.34|<0.0001
84462325|NCT03952130|168676519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.42|0.47|0.462
84462326|NCT03952130|168676519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.10|0.26|0.089
84462327|NCT04425850|168676527|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test on the percentage of subjects who contracted COVID-19 in each arm||||< 0.0001
84462328|NCT02907944|168676529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.82|0.55
84462329|NCT02907944|168676529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.37|0.92|0.09
84462330|NCT02907944|168676529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.71|1.14|0.001
84462331|NCT02907944|168676530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.81|0.59
84462332|NCT02907944|168676530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.55|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.55|0.88|0.11
84462333|NCT02907944|168676530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.66|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.66|1.09|0.005
84462334|NCT02559505|168676543|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84462335|NCT02559505|168676543|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
84462336|NCT02559505|168676544|OTHER|||||||0.408||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.408
84462337|NCT02559505|168676544|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84462338|NCT02559505|168676545|OTHER|||||||0.991||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.991
84462339|NCT02559505|168676545|OTHER|||||||0.334||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
84462340|NCT02559505|168676546|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
84462341|NCT02559505|168676546|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
84462342|NCT02559505|168676547|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.680
84462343|NCT02559505|168676547|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84518150|NCT02554877|168787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.73|-1.59|<0.0001
84726508|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.86|0.62|
84518151|NCT02554877|168787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-0.74|-1.60|<0.0001
84518152|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|Least squares mean (LS mean) difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
84462344|NCT03523585|168676551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3589|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.4535||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.4535|0.2840|<0.000001
84462345|NCT03523585|168676552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6575||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5023|0.8605||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.8605|0.5023|0.0021
84462346|NCT03523585|168676553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for BICR Assessment||||<0.0001
84462347|NCT03523585|168676553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for Investigator Assessment||||<0.0001
84462348|NCT03523585|168676555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2828|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.3524||Stratified Log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.3524|0.2270|<0.000001
84462349|NCT00698516|168676556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood variance|65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|76.9||Historical data in target population showed 3-month PFS rates of \<=50%. Oral topotecan with IV bevacizumab would provide clinically meaningful improvement in 3-month PFS if it could demonstrate a 40% improvement relative to the historical data.|Z statistic|Z statistic was used to reject the null hypothesis provided Z\>=1.65, where Z = (KM estimate at 3 months - null hypothesis value \[50%\])/Greenwood SE.||||76.9|49.3|0.017
84462350|NCT04331899|168676583|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.19|0.56|0.29
84462351|NCT04331899|168676584|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.11||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Log change at Day 14. Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.11|-1.23|0.91
84462352|NCT04331899|168676585|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.16|0.85|0.95
84462353|NCT04331899|168676586|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.41||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.41|0.60|0.76
84462354|NCT00101361|168676588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the required sample size of 400 participants provided 85% power to detect an increase in healing from 25% in the placebo group to 40% in the oxandrolone group, as assuming a 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, 13% rate of loss to follow up, and a test of proportions by using an arcsine transformation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For spinal cord injury patients with a Stage III or IV pressure ulcer of the pelvic region who receive 24 weeks or less of optimized clinical care (i.e., guideline-driven care with nutritional support) compared with optimized clinical care and an oral anabolic steroid agent (oxandrolone) there will be no difference in the percent of healed pressure ulcers.||6.8|-17.5|<0.05
84462355|NCT01062399|168676589|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A dose level for RAD001 will be considered acceptable if no patient of the first 3patients or no more than 2 patients of the first 6 patients experience a DLT. If the current level is considered acceptable, then dose escalation will occur and the protocol will be reopened. Otherwise, the preceding acceptable dose level will be declared the MTD.|||
84462356|NCT01062399|168676590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.6|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + TMZ|Assuming exponential distribution with median PFS (mPFS) time for control of 6.7 mos. for the control arm, tt was hypothesized that there would be a 43% improvement in mPFS time, corresponding to a mPFS time of 9.6. This is equivalent to a hazard ratio of 0.7 for the experimental arm vs. control arm. With a 1-sided significance level = 0.15 and 85% power, a total of 134 PFS events out of 180 eligible patients were required to detect the projected effect size.||1.60|0.82|0.79
84462357|NCT01062399|168676591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.45|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = RT + TMZ|||2.45|1.14|0.008
84518153|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
84462358|NCT02424539|168676594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.78|||ANCOVA||Least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.78|-1.68|<0.001
84462359|NCT02424539|168676594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.87|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.87|-1.77|<0.001
84462360|NCT02424539|168676595|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.39|0.14|<0.001
84462361|NCT02424539|168676595|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
84462362|NCT02424539|168676596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.46|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.46|-2.84|<0.001
84462363|NCT02424539|168676596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.29|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.29|-2.66|<0.001
84462364|NCT02424539|168676597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.18|-0.38|0.503
84462365|NCT02424539|168676597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.03|-0.53|0.078
84462366|NCT02424539|168676598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.02|0.01|0.048
84462367|NCT02424539|168676598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.17|0.16|0.011
84518154|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.30|-0.57|<0.0001
84462368|NCT02424539|168676599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.90|-1.83|<0.001
84462369|NCT02424539|168676599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.99|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.99|-1.92|<0.001
84518155|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
84462370|NCT02424539|168676600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.34|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.34|0.12|<0.001
84462371|NCT02424539|168676600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.29|0.10|<0.001
84462372|NCT02424539|168676601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.73|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.73|-3.23|<0.001
84462373|NCT02424539|168676601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.52|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.52|-3.03|<0.001
84462374|NCT02424539|168676602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.17|-0.38|0.442
84462375|NCT02424539|168676602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.02|-0.57|0.035
84462376|NCT02424539|168676603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.16|0.60|0.004
84540829|NCT03718832|168832730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.636306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2052192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232994|2.039618||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.039618|1.232994|<0.001
84462377|NCT02424539|168676603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.95|1.38|<0.001
84462378|NCT04893265|168676663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1352|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3060|-0.1352|0.4471
84462379|NCT04893265|168676664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8378|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4284|1.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||1.6385|0.4284|<0.05
84462380|NCT04893265|168676665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4306|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6166|3.3192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||3.3192|0.6166|<0.05
84462381|NCT04893265|168676666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07311|0.2463|||||Adjusted for Demographics, COVID Cases Per 100,000 Population, Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, and Test Value with random intercepts for Dyad and Individual|||0.2463|-0.07311|
84462382|NCT03090191|168676670|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-38.7|66.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||66.6|-38.7|
84462383|NCT03090191|168676671|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-28.4|61.0|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||61.0|-28.4|
84462384|NCT03090191|168676680|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-110.7|62.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model.|||62.5|-110.7|
84462385|NCT03090191|168676681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (2-sided)|||||||0.0172
84462386|NCT03090191|168676682|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|0.0|0.81||||||||0.81|0.00|
84462387|NCT03090191|168676683|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1533.1|75.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||75.6|-1533.1|
84462388|NCT03090191|168676684|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-74.6|58.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model|||58.5|-74.6|
84518156|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.80|<0.0001
84717981|NCT00357682|169186323|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.24||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in low dose PPI (20mg) patients to high dose PPI (80mg) patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and aspirin randomisation group.||1.57|0.98|0.068
84462389|NCT03090191|168676685|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-102.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1770.1|67.2|||||VE = 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR= the calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between the Clostridium difficile vaccine group and the placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||67.2|-1770.1|
84462390|NCT03090191|168676686|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-246.7|78.5|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||78.5|-246.7|
84462391|NCT00749606|168676763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear models analyzed within-subject variation in repeated measures over time. Intention to treat analysis used 5 imputations for missing data.||||||<0.01
84462392|NCT01121406|168676800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier DC rates|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|6.0|||||"95% CI using Greenwood´s variance estimate.~Volasertib (BI 6727) minus Cytotoxic."|Kaplan Meier estimates and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Greenwood's variance estimate within each treatment arm and the asymptotic CI for the difference in the rates found. The time was censored in those cases where there was no death or progression until the last trial visit||6.0|-31.1|
84462393|NCT01121406|168676801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.53|0.66|
84462394|NCT01121406|168676802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.42|0.63|
84462395|NCT01121406|168676805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.70|0.73|
84725946|NCT01124916|169204013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.846||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.769|9.369|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in urinary distress between women assigned to LASC and those assigned to RASC six months after intervention as measured by the UDI.||9.369|-21.769|.43
84462396|NCT01121406|168676806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.61|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.61|0.40|
84462397|NCT01121406|168676807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.65|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.65|0.37|
84462398|NCT01121406|168676808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.93|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.93|0.39|
84462399|NCT01121406|168676809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.47|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.47|0.33|
84462400|NCT01121406|168676810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.77|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||0.77|0.09|
84462401|NCT02750410|168676849|SUPERIORITY||LS mean percent difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-1.73|<0.001
84462402|NCT02750410|168676850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.117||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.479|||Regression, Logistic|||analysis was based on repeated measures logistic regression||0.479|0.028|0.003
84462403|NCT02750410|168676851|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.91|-41.37|<0.001
84462404|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.39|-16.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebreakfast BG||-16.78|-36.39|<0.001
84462405|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.77|-29.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Breakfast 2-hour PPBG||-29.00|-61.77|<0.001
84518157|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
84462406|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-24.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prelunch BG||-24.45|-49.20|<0.001
84462407|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-32.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lunch 2-hour PPBG||-32.46|-67.85|<0.001
84462408|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|-18.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Predinner BG||-18.48|-44.05|<0.001
84462409|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.55|-17.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Dinner 2-hour PPBG||-17.38|-52.55|<0.001
84462410|NCT02750410|168676852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-24.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Bedtime BG||-24.09|-58.81|<0.001
84462411|NCT02750410|168676853|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.59|0.776
84462412|NCT02580058|168676915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.497|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.497|0.867|0.8253
84462413|NCT02580058|168676915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.179|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.179|0.672|0.2082
84462414|NCT02580058|168676916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.16|||Log Rank|1-sided||||2.160|1.310|>0.9999
84462415|NCT02580058|168676916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.011|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.011|0.607|0.0301
84462416|NCT02580058|168676935|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|126.7||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||126.7|95.4|
84462417|NCT02580058|168676936|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|101.5||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||101.5|79.5|
84462418|NCT02580058|168676937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|106.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||106|87|
84462419|NCT02580058|168676938|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||104|88|
84518158|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.49|-0.93|<0.0001
84462420|NCT02580058|168676939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|107.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||107|76|
84462421|NCT02580058|168676940|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.0|168.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||168|60|
84462422|NCT00613626|168676963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.718||0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||A one-sided log rank test with an overall sample size of 68 subjects (of which 34 are in arm A and 34 are in arm B) achieves 80% power at a 0.10 significance level to detect a difference of 3 months in PFS between 4 month median PFS and 7 month median PFS.||||0.10
84462423|NCT00613626|168676963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9518|TWO_SIDED|||||P-Value (2-tailed) is calculated based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Degrees of freedom=1||||||0.9518
84462424|NCT00613626|168676965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|P-value (two-tailed) is calculated based on an unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.2533
84462425|NCT00613626|168676966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|||||||0.8720
84462426|NCT00613626|168676967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4577
84462427|NCT00613626|168676968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Survival analysis of VEGF variants using cox proportional hazard analysis in arm A and arm B.|Data was not collected for safety lead-in participants and these participants were not included in the analysis.||||
84462428|NCT00613626|168676968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Logistic Regression Analysis|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Objective Response Analysis of VEGF variants using Logistic Regression Analysis in arm A and arm B|||||
84462429|NCT05480514|168676969|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.9741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9445|0.9926|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|||||0.9926|0.9445|
84462430|NCT03232073|168676974|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect (Rate Ratio)|0.779||||||95.0|0.629|0.965||||||||0.965|0.629|
84462431|NCT03199911|168677046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
84462432|NCT03199911|168677048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03|||Fisher Exact|||||4.03|0.42|0.77
84462433|NCT03199911|168677049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|14.77|||Fisher Exact|||||14.77|0.06|1.00
84462434|NCT03815292|168677088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84462435|NCT03815292|168677089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0445
84462436|NCT03815292|168677090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0345
84462437|NCT03815292|168677091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.04
84462438|NCT03815292|168677092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0016
84462439|NCT03815292|168677093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0054
84462440|NCT03815292|168677093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.78
84462441|NCT03815292|168677093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0042
84462442|NCT03815292|168677094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.77
84518159|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects..|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.74|-1.17|<0.0001
84462443|NCT03815292|168677095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.0118
84462444|NCT03815292|168677096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.058
84462445|NCT01584024|168677097|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.003
84462446|NCT01584024|168677098|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.17
84462447|NCT04902885|168677116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||non-parametric ANCOVA|||70 subjects (35 per group) provided approximately 95% power at the test level of α = 0.05 (2-sided) .Assuming a dropout rate of approximately 12%, the sample size for Part II was 80 subjects (40 per group)||||0.0003
84462448|NCT00893789|168677147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8336||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.8336
84462449|NCT00893789|168677147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0514||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0514
84462450|NCT00893789|168677147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0010
84462451|NCT00893789|168677148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7884||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.7884
84462452|NCT00893789|168677148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2359||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.2359
84462453|NCT00893789|168677148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.4401
84462454|NCT03818815|168677174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.62
84462455|NCT03818815|168677175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.07
84462456|NCT04419506|168677176|OTHER||Posterior difference|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|154.2|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||154.2|29.5|
84462457|NCT04419506|168677176|OTHER||Posterior difference|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.5|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||125.5|6.3|
84462458|NCT03047005|168677197|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.07
84462459|NCT03047005|168677198|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.01
84462460|NCT03293030|168677208|SUPERIORITY|Note: Our statistical test was run to identify the number of significant genes. The result is a number and there is no calculation of any comparative statistic such as an odds ratio.|||||<|0.05||||||P-value was adjusted for false discovery rate|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Single cell RNA-sequencing was used to calculate the number of differentially expressed genes in cutaneous CD4+ T cells between week 0 and week 12 in dupilumab-treated subjects. The calculation was performed in the software package Seurat (RRID:SCR\_016341) using the FindMarkers function, which utilizes a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Genes were considered significantly differentially expressed if the adjusted p-value \< 0.05 and the absolute value of log2(Fold Change) \> 1.0.||||<0.05
84462461|NCT02586805|168677213|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.65|-61.243||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.243|-84.650|<0.001
84462462|NCT02586805|168677213|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.379|-59.456||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-59.456|-82.379|<0.001
84462463|NCT02586805|168677213|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-86.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.828|-76.15||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-76.150|-92.828|<0.001
84462464|NCT02586805|168677214|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-80.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.169|-66.114||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-66.114|-89.169|<0.001
84462465|NCT02586805|168677214|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-74.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.733|-58.983||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-58.983|-83.733|<0.001
84462466|NCT02586805|168677214|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-87.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.494|-75.204||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-75.204|-93.494|<0.001
84518160|NCT02554877|168787785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.76|-1.20|<0.0001
84518161|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-37.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|-27.7||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-27.70|-47.96|<0.0001
84540830|NCT03718832|168832731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1104533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0769621||0.1519153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.040785|0.2616915||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.2616915|-0.040785|0.1519153
84462467|NCT02586805|168677215|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-70.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.696|-49.699||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-49.699|-82.696|<0.001
84462468|NCT02586805|168677215|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.316|-54.496||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-54.496|-84.316|<0.001
84462469|NCT02586805|168677215|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-83.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.618|-67.099||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-67.099|-91.618|<0.001
84518162|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-44.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.98|-34.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-34.72|-54.98|<0.0001
84518163|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-48.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-38.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-38.37|-58.81|<0.0001
84518164|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-30.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-18.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-18.74|-42.52|<0.0001
84518165|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-39.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|-27.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-27.35|-51.13|<0.0001
84518166|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.22|-26.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-26.38|-50.22|<0.0001
84518167|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-7.05||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-7.05|-31.88|0.0023
84518168|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|-24.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-24.69|-49.27|<0.0001
84518169|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-22.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-22.72|-47.55|<0.0001
84518170|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.81|-7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-7.73|-31.81|0.0014
84518171|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.17|-23.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-23.35|-47.17|<0.0001
84518172|NCT02554877|168787786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-24.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-24.46|-48.43|<0.0001
84518173|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.057||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|21.82||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||21.82|1.68|0.0059
84518174|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.927||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|31.96||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||31.96|2.49|0.0008
84726509|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.02|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.02|0.36|
84518175|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|52.67||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||52.67|4.34|<0.0001
84462470|NCT02586805|168677216|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-77.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.253|-63.572||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-63.572|-86.253|<0.001
84462471|NCT02586805|168677216|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.115|-61.833||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.833|-84.115|<0.001
84462472|NCT02586805|168677216|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-89.008|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.325|-78.707||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-78.707|-94.325|<0.001
84462473|NCT00811252|168677219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.34||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.34|-5.31|0.0011
84462474|NCT00811252|168677219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.46||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-7.50|<0.0001
84462475|NCT00811252|168677220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.28||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.28|-3.98|0.0240
84462476|NCT00811252|168677220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.34||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.34|-6.10|<0.0001
84462477|NCT00811252|168677221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.61||Since p-value \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.72|0.2134
84462478|NCT00811252|168677221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.6||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.99|0.0002
84518176|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|17.47||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||17.47|0.64|0.1532
84462479|NCT00811252|168677222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.67|0.6879
84518177|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.198||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|21.22||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||21.22|0.83|0.0826
84518178|NCT02554877|168787787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.588||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|25.73||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||25.73|1.21|0.0272
84462480|NCT00811252|168677222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.16||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-2.65|0.0827
84462481|NCT00811252|168677223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.66||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.49|0.4482
84462482|NCT00811252|168677223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.24|-0.95|0.7971
84462483|NCT00811252|168677224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-2.26||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.32|<0.0001
84462484|NCT00811252|168677225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.91||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.80|0.0015
84462485|NCT00811252|168677226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
84462486|NCT00811252|168677227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
84462487|NCT00811252|168677228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.01||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.88|0.0552
84518179|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.66|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.59|-6.66|0.7618
84518180|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|4.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.96|-6.25|0.8489
84518181|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|8.12||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.12|-3.17|0.4699
84518182|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.63|3.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.19|-7.63|0.4979
84518183|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|1.95||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.95|-8.85|0.2927
84518184|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.26|0.6||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||0.60|-10.26|0.1430
84518185|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.7373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.92|-7.42|0.7373
84518186|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|3.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.66|-8.57|0.5075
84462488|NCT00811252|168677229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.7||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.26|0.0008
84518187|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.6295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.99|4.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.37|-7.99|0.6295
84518188|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.69|-3.39|0.4266
84518189|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.4||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.40|-1.47|0.2038
84518190|NCT02554877|168787792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|8.78||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.78|-4.19|0.5592
84518191|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|16.05||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||16.05|-5.86|
84518192|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|15.48||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||15.48|-9.76|
84462489|NCT00811252|168677230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.83||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.27|0.0090
84462490|NCT01078753|168677270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.813||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.163||Desmopressin was considered to be superior to Placebo if the p-value for the comparison was \< 0.05 and the reduction from Baseline in number of wet nights was larger in the FE992026 group than in the Placebo group.|ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||3.163|0.462|0.009
84462491|NCT01078753|168677271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|1.629||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.972|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||2.972|0.287|0.018
84462492|NCT01078753|168677272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.183||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|1.335|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis included Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||1.335|-0.968|0.752
84462493|NCT01015443|168677295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.931|||Adjusted log rank|||||1.931|0.552|0.921
84462494|NCT00095303|168677314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope of linear trajectory of drug use|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of the BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in reducing adolescent drug abuse, defined as the percentage of drug use days in 28-day periods. The outcome variable is the percentage of days of drug use within a 28-day period. This variable constructed from the Timeline-Follow-back instrument and measured as the sum of the number of days with positive use in 28-day increments. Hypothesis tested using hierarchical linear models.||.14|-.04|.27
84462495|NCT00095303|168677316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing adolescent externalizing problem behaviors||0.08|-0.28|.26
84462496|NCT00095303|168677332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||GEE|||Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the rates of drug use, defined as the percentage of drug use days in last 90 days. The primary hypothesis will be evaluated in terms of % of days of drug use in the last 90 days, assessed by the timeline follow-back. The general analytic approach will use generalized estimating equation (GEE) with negative binomial distribution comparing the BSFT and TAU participants||1.09|.82|.21
84462497|NCT00095303|168677334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||GEE|||Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the level of externalizing problem behaviors||-.12|-.71|<.006
84462498|NCT00095303|168677335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in improving family functioning.The four components of the 'Parenting Practices Inventory' will be used to create a composite for use in this analysis. The four component scales from the Parenting Practices Inventory are 'Positive Parenting', 'Discipline Effectiveness,' 'Avoidance of Discipline' and 'Monitoring' scales from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey. Hypothesis will be analyzed as using hierarchical linear models.||.22|.03|.015
84462499|NCT00095303|168677339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.54|||GEE|||||1.54|-.18|.12
84717982|NCT00357682|169186323|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in aspirin patients to non-aspirin patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and PPI randomisation group.||1.58|1.01|0.037
84462500|NCT00095303|168677340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76|||GEE||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing sexually risky behaviors. The total score of the 'HIV/Sex Risk Behaviors' measure will be used as the outcome.Hypothesis analyzed using the hierarchical linear model.||.76|-.09|.12
84462501|NCT00095303|168677344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.37|||GEE|||||.37|-.09|.23
84462502|NCT01364467|168677350|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84518193|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.91|30.34||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||30.34|3.91|
84462503|NCT01364467|168677351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84717983|NCT00357682|169186324|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.82|||Accelerated Failure Time|||All recordings of death, regardless of the cause are used in this analysis and both PPI groups are compared.||1.82|1.01|0.039
84462504|NCT01364467|168677351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84462505|NCT05490771|168677400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||one-sided exact binomial test|||The ORR was compared against a null benchmark value of 5%. If the observed ORR were ≥5 of 31 (16%), it would then be concluded that the agent is promising and worthy of further investigation. When the number of analyzable cases (who were eligible and treated, and with outside assay results confirmed by the central MATCH assay) was \<31, the one-sided exact binomial test would be used for significance test with one-side type I error rate of 5%.||||0.0341
84462506|NCT03842137|168677403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|Utilizing a regression model, baseline craving scores, group condition, and their interaction are regressed on 2-week craving scores.||||-.15|-.91|.008
84462507|NCT03842137|168677404|SUPERIORITY|An ancova model was conducted comparing differences between tDCS and sham on post-stimulation theta burst rate, while controlling for pre-stimulation theta burst rate||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
84518194|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|16.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.22|-10.80|
84518195|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|16.45||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.45|-10.61|
84518196|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|9.94||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||9.94|-15.08|
84518197|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.29|13.03||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||13.03|-16.29|
84462508|NCT05139030|168677405|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.97||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.7|-12.9|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-12.9|-118.7|0.0074
84462509|NCT05139030|168677406|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||ANCOVA|Total opioid consumption was transformed to log scale. Main effect of treatment, covariates: pooled Investigator site (categorical); age (continuous)||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.92|0.64|0.0018
84462510|NCT05139030|168677407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazard model: treatment as main effect, pooled Investigator site as categorical, and age and height as continuous covariates||||0.96|0.51|0.0127
84462511|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.4|-0.6|0.3674
84462512|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-0.9|0.1016
84462513|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.4|0.0215
84462514|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-1.2|0.0794
84462515|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.5|-0.7|0.3606
84462516|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0184
84462517|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0476
84462518|NCT05139030|168677408|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0529
84462519|NCT01299025|168677423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84462520|NCT00004980|168677427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.005||95.0|-4.65|-0.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degree of freedom = 48||||-.86|-4.65|.005
84518198|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.4|11.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||11.22|-20.40|
84462521|NCT00004980|168677428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.002||95.0|0.507|2.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 48||null hypothesis is that the groups are the same||2.03|.507|.002
84462522|NCT00004980|168677429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 46||||-.44|-1.45|.001
84462523|NCT00004980|168677430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|Chi-squared|||||||.01
84462524|NCT01624194|168677431|OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.0275
84462525|NCT01624194|168677432|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Fisher's Exact Test was used to test for differences in adverse events between oxytocin-treated and placebo-treated individuals. A p-value of ≤0.05 would have been statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84462526|NCT01624194|168677433|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
84462527|NCT01624194|168677436|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.3395
84462528|NCT01624194|168677444|OTHER|||||||0.9757|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.9757
84462529|NCT01624194|168677445|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
84462530|NCT01624194|168677446|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84462531|NCT01624194|168677447|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For all blood pressure analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84462532|NCT03429075|168677477|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84462533|NCT00630032|168677533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.59|0.175
84462534|NCT00630032|168677534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.53|0.1687
84462535|NCT00630032|168677535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.45|0.6502
84518199|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|19.16||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||19.16|-13.66|
84518200|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|19.02||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.02|-3.30|
84462536|NCT00630032|168677536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.49|0.0665
84462537|NCT00630032|168677537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.59|0.148
84462538|NCT00630032|168677538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8968
84462539|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-16.0||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-16.0|-41.6|<0.001
84462540|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.5||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-37.5|-63.4|<0.001
84462541|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.5||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||18.3|-7.3|0.395
84462542|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|38.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.8||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||50.8|25.2|<0.001
84462543|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|68.9||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||68.9|43.1|<0.001
84462544|NCT00955110|168677555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|79.7||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||79.7|53.9|<0.001
84462545|NCT02128490|168677556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|51.0|||Fisher Exact|||||51.0|20.8|<0.001
84462546|NCT02128490|168677556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|28.9|<0.001
84717984|NCT00357682|169186324|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.25||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 163 deaths in the aspirin comparison with all-cause mortality as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.9 years IQR: (8.2 , 10.0) Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.70|0.92|0.159
84717985|NCT00357682|169186325|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 81 diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison with adenocarcinoma oesophageal cancer as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9)||1.61|0.67|0.864
84717986|NCT00357682|169186325|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.02||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 70 diagnoses of adenocarcinoma in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years, IQR: (8.1 , 10), Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.64|0.64|0.921
84462547|NCT02128490|168677556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|22.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|41.0|||Fisher Exact|||||41.0|3.7|0.034
84462548|NCT02128490|168677556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.6|||Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-18.2|0.817
84462549|NCT02128490|168677557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.6||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.0|||Fisher Exact|||||29.0|-3.9|0.224
84462550|NCT02128490|168677557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|31.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|50.1|||Fisher Exact|||||50.1|13.1|0.004
84462551|NCT02128490|168677557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-17.5||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-38.1|0.139
84462552|NCT02128490|168677557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.3||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|26.4|||Fisher Exact|||||26.4|-17.9|0.815
84462553|NCT02128490|168677558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|69.5|||Fisher Exact|||||69.5|38.2|<0.001
84462554|NCT02128490|168677558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|55.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||Fisher Exact|||||71.1|39.5|<0.001
84462555|NCT02128490|168677558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|21.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|43.1|||Fisher Exact|||||43.1|-0.3|0.069
84462556|NCT02128490|168677558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|18.2|||Fisher Exact|||||18.2|-26.6|0.817
84462557|NCT02243176|168677559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.13|-0.22|0.6236
84518201|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|13.87||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||13.87|-16.13|
84518202|NCT02554877|168787793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|19.04||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.04|-7.07|
84462558|NCT02243176|168677560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.15|-0.21|0.7809
84462559|NCT02243176|168677561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||0.39|0.12|<0.0001
84462560|NCT02243176|168677562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratefied by baseline disease severity (HbA1c\<8%, \>=8%)||||1.15|0.74|0.5044
84462561|NCT02243176|168677563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||1.67|0.98|0.0518
84462562|NCT02243176|168677564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.38|-0.33|0.8915
84462563|NCT02243176|168677565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.791|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.791|-0.186|0.2248
84462564|NCT02243176|168677566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.407||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.039|24.005|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||24.005|-9.039|0.3739
84462565|NCT02243176|168677567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||1.19|0.18|0.0078
84518203|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|5.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.20|-3.12|0.6800
84462566|NCT02517515|168677576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-naïve group, the sample size 180 treatment-naïve participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
84717987|NCT00357682|169186326|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant.|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.02|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 103 such diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9) Range: (0 , 11.48)||2.02|0.92|0.119
84462567|NCT02517515|168677576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the treatment-experienced participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
84462568|NCT02517515|168677577|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
84518204|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|5.8||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.80|-2.52|0.5150
84518205|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|8.85||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.85|0.47|0.0676
84462569|NCT02517515|168677577|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-experienced participants in the double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
84462570|NCT03440112|168677592|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|3.0039||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.391
84462571|NCT03440112|168677593|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|9.4836||||0.02351|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.02351
84462572|NCT01009463|168677594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.06|0.72|0.181
84462573|NCT01009463|168677594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.81|0.54|<0.001
84462574|NCT01009463|168677594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.04|0.70|0.109
84462575|NCT01009463|168677595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.76|0.430
84462576|NCT01009463|168677595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.59|0.002
84462577|NCT01009463|168677595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.69|0.114
84462578|NCT01009463|168677596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.05|0.67|0.125
84518206|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|3.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.48|-4.73|0.8021
84462579|NCT01009463|168677596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.78|0.49|<0.001
84462580|NCT01009463|168677596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||1.01|0.64|0.064
84462581|NCT01009463|168677597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.072||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.072|0.009|0.011
84717988|NCT00357682|169186326|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.51||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.29|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are a total of 92 conversions to HGD in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years IQR (8.1 , 10.0) Range (0 , 11.5)||2.29|1.00|0.053
84518207|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|2.16||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.16|-6.06|0.4346
84717989|NCT04940624|169186447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-15.64|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|0.24||The p-value was calculated by Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||0.24|-31.30|=0.061
84462582|NCT01009463|168677597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.09||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.090|0.027|<0.001
84462583|NCT01009463|168677597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.096||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.096|0.033|<0.001
84462584|NCT02874794|168677630|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|13.2|||ANCOVA|||||13.2|-17.6|0.7827
84518208|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|2.09||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.09|-6.15|0.4173
84462585|NCT02874794|168677633|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.6667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5858|0.7589|||ANCOVA|||||0.7589|0.5858|<.0001
84462586|NCT02874794|168677634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.58|0.5792
84462587|NCT02874794|168677635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.59|||ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-4.02|<.0001
84462588|NCT02874794|168677636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8617
84462589|NCT02874794|168677637|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||vs Enalapril||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
84462590|NCT02874794|168677638|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||||1.68|-0.41|0.2354
84462591|NCT02874794|168677639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.05|0.8215
84462592|NCT02874794|168677640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-3.13|0.0452
84462593|NCT02874794|168677641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-3.68|0.0242
84462594|NCT01021007|168677644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.005
84462595|NCT01021007|168677645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84462596|NCT01021007|168677646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
84462597|NCT04899271|168677656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.807
84462598|NCT04899271|168677657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.746
84462599|NCT04899271|168677657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.201
84462600|NCT04899271|168677658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
84462601|NCT04899271|168677658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
84462602|NCT04899271|168677658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.776
84462603|NCT04899271|168677659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.521
84462604|NCT04899271|168677659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.959
84462605|NCT04899271|168677659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.773
84518209|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.21|3.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.26|-5.21|0.7036
84462606|NCT04899271|168677660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.691
84462607|NCT04899271|168677660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.685
84462608|NCT04899271|168677660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.640
84462609|NCT04899271|168677661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
84462610|NCT04899271|168677661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared and Fisher's Exact test separated with a /.||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
84462611|NCT04899271|168677661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||Comparison at month 18||||0.577
84462612|NCT04899271|168677662|SUPERIORITY|The effect of treatment on the cumulative number of severe hypoglycemic events was evaluated by means of a Cox proportional hazards model. The Andersen-Gill intensity model with model-based variance was utilized.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.271||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.819|||Cox proportional hazards model|Analysis is based on Cox proportional hazards model.||||2.819|0.573|0.554
84462613|NCT04899271|168677664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.320
84462614|NCT04899271|168677664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.398
84518210|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|1.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.56|-6.84|0.2993
84462615|NCT04899271|168677664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||1.000
84462616|NCT04899271|168677665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.892
84462617|NCT04899271|168677665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.412
84462618|NCT04899271|168677665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.371
84462619|NCT00892437|168677683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-weighted difference (COBI group - RTV group) in the response rate at Week 24 was greater than -12%.|Difference in percentages|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|9.9|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|A total planned sample size of 75 subjects had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.||9.9|-24.6|
84462620|NCT00892437|168677684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|9.4|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||9.4|-25.9|
84462621|NCT00892437|168677685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in least squares mean (LSM) and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.22|-0.25|0.87
84462622|NCT00892437|168677686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.23|-0.30|0.82
84462623|NCT00892437|168677687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|10.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|84.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||84|-63|0.78
84462624|NCT00892437|168677688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|47.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|134.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||134|-41|0.29
84462625|NCT01882725|168677693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84462626|NCT01882725|168677694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84462627|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|2.88||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.88|-7.65|
84462628|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-3.21||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.21|-26.40|
84462629|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|6.05||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.05|-5.84|
84717990|NCT04940624|169186448|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-14.29|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|1.53||The p-value was calculated by the Rank ANCOVA model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||1.53|-30.51|=0.089
84462630|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.25||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.25|-1.71|
84462631|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|8.89||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.89|-4.09|
84462632|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
84462633|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.19|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.89|-16.19|
84462634|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|4.86||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.86|-9.07|
84462635|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.39||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.39|-14.40|
84462636|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-7.16||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-7.16|-30.10|
84462637|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-3.26||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.26|-21.66|
84462638|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
84462639|NCT01193335|168677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
84462640|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.62|
84462641|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.38|
84462642|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.59|
84462643|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.65|0.92|
84462644|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.25|0.80|
84462645|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.58|
84462646|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.47|
84462647|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.89|0.55|
84462648|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.19|0.77|
84462649|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
84462650|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.45|
84717991|NCT04940624|169186449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||7.96|1.30|=0.010
84462651|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.57|
84462652|NCT01193335|168677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 19: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.68|
84462653|NCT01193335|168677710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.668
84462654|NCT01193335|168677710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.051
84462655|NCT01193335|168677711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.704
84462656|NCT01193335|168677711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
84462657|NCT01193335|168677712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.531
84462658|NCT01193335|168677712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
84462659|NCT01193335|168677713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.183
84462660|NCT01193335|168677713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.357
84462661|NCT01193335|168677714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.794
84462662|NCT01193335|168677714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.782
84462663|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||Serotype 4: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.14|0.63|
84462664|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.62||||||Serotype 6B: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.62|0.95|
84462665|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||Serotype 9V: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.47|0.96|
84462666|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26||||||Serotype 14: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.26|0.74|
84462667|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02||||||Serotype 18C: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.02|0.63|
84717992|NCT04940624|169186450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on CMH test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||9.49|1.36|=0.008
84462668|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.19|0.65|
84462669|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 23F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.74|
84462670|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||||||Serotype 1: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.11|0.64|
84462671|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||||||Serotype 3: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||2.05|1.03|
84462672|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.24||||||Serotype 5: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.24|0.81|
84462673|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82||||||Serotype 6A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.82|1.02|
84462674|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 7F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.18|0.78|
84462675|NCT01193335|168677715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52||||||Serotype 19A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.52|0.88|
84462676|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462677|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.96||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.96|-8.15|
84462678|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462679|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462680|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.24||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.24|-3.13|
84717993|NCT04940624|169186452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.72|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.72|1.33|=0.004
84462681|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462682|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|3.1||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.10|-6.32|
84462683|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462684|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|4.42||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.42|-21.93|
84462685|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462686|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462687|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462688|NCT01193335|168677717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
84462689|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.60|
84717994|NCT04940624|169186453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.87|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.87|1.37|=0.003
84462690|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.66|0.39|
84462691|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.80|0.51|
84462692|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.66|
84462693|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.85|
84462694|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.58|
84462695|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.43|
84518211|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|4.32||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.32|-4.16|0.9751
84462696|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.20|0.77|
84462697|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.41|
84462698|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.56|
84518212|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|8.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.96|-0.50|0.1408
84717995|NCT04940624|169186454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.26|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Alertness||2.26|0.56|=0.741
84462699|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.70|0.41|
84462700|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.71|
84462701|NCT01193335|168677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.42|
84462702|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.51|
84462703|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.47|
84462704|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.61|
84518213|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|9.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.38|0.02|0.0986
84518214|NCT02554877|168787794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.5||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.50|-0.92|0.1851
84518215|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|3.98||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||3.98|-3.19|0.8559
84518216|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|6.55||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.55|-0.62|0.1729
84518217|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|12.06||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||12.06|4.84|0.0002
84717996|NCT04940624|169186454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Communication||2.02|0.54|=0.901
84462705|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.66|
84462706|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.08|0.66|
84462707|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
84462708|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.79||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.46|
84462709|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.03||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.64|
84462710|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.73|
84717997|NCT04940624|169186454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Disruptive Behaviors||2.28|0.58|=0.693
84462711|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.58|
84462712|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.57|
84462713|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.00|0.69|
84462714|NCT01193335|168677720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.49|
84462715|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.63|
84462716|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
84462717|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.84|0.46|
84462718|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.61|
84462719|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.67|0.37|
84462720|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
84462721|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.64|0.35|
84462722|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.61|
84540831|NCT03718832|168832731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0594575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654489||0.3641254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691675|0.1880824||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.1880824|-0.0691675|0.3641254
84717998|NCT04940624|169186455|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.03|||=|0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.52||P-value was based on MMRM analysis with change from baseline as outcome and baseline score as fixed continuous effect; treatment group, age stratum, analysis visit, and analysis visit by treatment group interaction as fixed categorical effects.|MMRM|||||1.52|-7.59|=0.189
84717999|NCT04940624|169186456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.13|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||7.13|1.87|<0.001
84462723|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.39|
84462724|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.52|
84462725|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
84462726|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.67|
84726510|NCT03345407|169204827|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.57|
84462727|NCT01193335|168677721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.36|
84462728|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.61|
84462729|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.38|
84462730|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.54|
84462731|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.51|
84462732|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.40|
84462733|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.71||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.71|0.29|
84462734|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.38|
84518218|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.8837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||4.59|-3.85|0.8837
84718000|NCT04940624|169186457|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-9.97|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|7.87|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||7.87|-29.01|=0.565
84718001|NCT04940624|169186458|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-8.13|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-26.31|10.13|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.13|-26.31|=0.637
84718002|NCT04940624|169186459|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.4|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||5.40|-3.81|
84462735|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.63|
84462736|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.11|0.39|
84462737|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.50|
84462738|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.95|0.47|
84462739|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.13|0.70|
84462740|NCT01193335|168677722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.37|
84462741|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.81||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.81|0.99|
84462742|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.2||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.20|0.59|
84462743|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.93|0.26|
84462744|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.98|0.80|
84462745|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.00|1.01|
84518219|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|7.84||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||7.84|-0.60|0.1573
84462746|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.89||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.89|0.82|
84462747|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.99||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.99|0.80|
84462748|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.56|
84462749|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.41|0.83|
84518220|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.65|12.11||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||12.11|3.65|0.0024
84718003|NCT04940624|169186460|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2||||||||11.2|0.1|
84462750|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.36|
84462751|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.68|0.88|
84462752|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.39|0.78|
84462753|NCT01193335|168677728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.51|0.89|
84462754|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.44||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.37|
84462755|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.71|0.37|
84518221|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||7.73|-0.55|0.1538
84718004|NCT04940624|169186461|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||||Least square mean difference was estimated using a linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors.|||1.0|-3.1|
84718005|NCT04039113|169186471|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.06||1-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.06|0.64|0.1042
84462756|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.12||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.12|0.76|
84462757|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.33|
84462758|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.55||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.55|0.24|
84462759|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.77|0.97|
84462760|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.46|0.35|
84462761|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.60|1.00|
84462762|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.33|0.68|
84462763|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.82|
84518222|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|8.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||8.49|0.28|0.0789
84518223|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.98|14.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||14.30|5.98|<0.0001
84518224|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.36|11.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.56|2.36|0.0132
84462764|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.24|
84462765|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.53||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.53|0.58|
84462766|NCT01193335|168677729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.52|
84462767|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.45|
84462768|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.4||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.40|0.54|
84462769|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.41|
84518225|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.85|11.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.96|2.85|0.0079
84718006|NCT04039113|169186471|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11||2-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.11|0.61|0.2085
84518226|NCT02554877|168787795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|15.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||15.42|6.24|0.0001
84518227|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.01|6.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.92|-4.01|0.6597
84518228|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|6.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.49|-4.45|0.7583
84518229|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|8.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.61|-2.39|0.3516
84518230|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|3.75||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.75|-7.42|0.5877
84518231|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|1.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.26|-9.92|0.2016
84518232|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.08|-0.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.89|-12.08|0.0568
84518233|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.48|2.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.61|-8.48|0.3827
84518234|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.81|0.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||0.20|-10.81|0.1126
84518235|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.73|1.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.38|-9.73|0.2160
84518236|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|9.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.72|-2.64|0.3443
84518237|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.94||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.94|-2.30|0.3031
84726511|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.2|-0.5|
84462770|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.54|
84462771|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.34|
84462772|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.10|0.31|
84518238|NCT02554877|168787796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.27|7.04||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||7.04|-5.27|0.8129
84462773|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.01|0.40|
84462774|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.81||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.38|
84462775|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.76|
84462776|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.45|
84462777|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.85|0.47|
84462778|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.74|
84462779|NCT01193335|168677730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
84462780|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.05|0.35|
84518239|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.01|-0.33|0.4020
84518240|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||0.73|-0.61|0.8789
84518241|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.54||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.54|0.19|0.0345
84462781|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.63||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.63|0.41|
84462782|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.22|
84462783|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.38|
84462784|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.76||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.10|
84518242|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|2.08||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.08|0.48|0.0087
84540832|NCT03718832|168832731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2062905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1288363||0.1100186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0468859|0.4594669||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.4594669|-0.0468859|0.1100186
84462785|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.3||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.30|0.25|
84462786|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.65||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.65|0.11|
84462787|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.81|
84462788|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.56|
84462789|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.23||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.23|0.51|
84462790|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.17|
84462791|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.97||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.97|0.64|
84462792|NCT01193335|168677731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.27|
84462793|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.37|0.33|
84462794|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.07||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.07|0.37|
84462795|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.36||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||5.36|0.57|
84462796|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.07|0.38|
84462797|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.21||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.21|0.18|
84462798|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.53||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.27|
84462799|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.17|
84462800|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.96|
84462801|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.41|
84462802|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.49|
84462803|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.03||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.16|
84462804|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.48||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.48|0.27|
84462805|NCT01193335|168677732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.22|
84462806|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|5.99||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.99|-6.33|
84462807|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|5.39||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.39|-16.87|
84462808|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|10.67||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.67|-24.28|
84462809|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|10.57||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.57|-3.68|
84462810|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|5.88||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.88|-6.57|
84462811|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.91||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.91|-3.32|
84462812|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.94||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.94|-6.73|
84462813|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Perecent Difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|4.34||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.34|-25.51|
84518243|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.88||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.88|0.28|0.0268
84725947|NCT00887471|169204014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The relationship of surgical group with AHI change was evaluated by constructing a mixed linear model (MLM). The dependent variable was the logarithm of the ratio of postoperative AHI score to preoperative AHI score; this transformation was chosen in order to minimize skew of model residuals. Surgical group was introduced as a fixed factor; subject pairs constituted levels of a random blocking) factor.||||.590
84462814|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.48||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.48|0.04|
84462815|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-16.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.15|-2.6||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.60|-29.15|
84462816|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.97||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.97|-1.96|
84462817|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.10|-7.55|
84462818|NCT01193335|168677733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|3.18||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.18|-5.96|
84462819|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|7.49||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.49|-25.11|
84462820|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|10.4||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.40|-21.03|
84462821|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|21.16||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||21.16|-7.16|
84462822|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.35||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.35|-20.28|
84462823|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|8.11||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.11|-29.01|
84462824|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|17.65||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.65|-1.52|
84462825|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-13.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|3.31||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.31|-29.57|
84462826|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|17.81||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.81|-0.52|
84462827|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|8.29||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.29|-22.86|
84462828|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|10.08||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.08|-8.82|
84462829|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-3.95||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.95|-35.45|
84462830|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|19.06||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.06|-8.50|
84462831|NCT01193335|168677734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|11.13||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.13|-17.51|
84462832|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|5.89||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.89|-5.59|
84462833|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|7.37||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.37|-6.81|
84462834|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|7.44||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.44|-10.87|
84462835|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.94||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.94|-5.94|
84462836|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|4.25||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.25|-8.66|
84518244|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.19|0.58|0.0047
84725948|NCT00887471|169204014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||P value for the variances. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear model was constructed as described above. Variance was estimated separately for each group.||||.022
84462837|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|3.56||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.56|-17.93|
84462838|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|7.04||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.04|-6.74|
84462839|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|2.75||||||Serotype 1: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.75|-16.37|
84462840|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|6.85||||||Serotype 3: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.85|-3.37|
84462841|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|5.14||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.14|-8.36|
84462842|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|5.04||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.04|-4.73|
84462843|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
84462844|NCT01193335|168677735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
84462845|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-24.5|
84462846|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|11.8||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.8|-23.6|
84462847|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|6.0||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.0|-27.6|
84462848|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.4||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.4|-17.0|
84462849|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.9|-40.0|
84462850|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|3.4||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.4|-27.4|
84462851|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-11.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-11.0|-43.9|
84462852|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.3||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.3|-10.9|
84462853|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|15.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.1|-17.5|
84462854|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|4.5||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.5|-25.3|
84462855|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-33.3|
84462856|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.1|-7.1|
84462857|NCT01193335|168677736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-2.8||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.8|-33.7|
84462858|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-25.2|
84518245|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.76|0.38|0.0116
84518246|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.66|0.27|0.0220
84518247|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.01|0.62|0.0021
84718007|NCT05550636|169186487|OTHER||adjusted gMean Ratio (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|107.4|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.9%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||107.4|79.3|
84725949|NCT00887471|169204015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The relationship of surgical group with postoperative AHI ≤ 5 was evaluated by exact conditional logistic regression, predicting AHI ≤ 5 from surgical group with subject pairs as strata.||||1.00
84725950|NCT00595959|169204022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing to an expected value of 20% reduction from initial to post-laser||||0.001
84462859|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.0||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.0|-18.5|
84462860|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|26.2||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||26.2|-12.0|
84462861|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|13.3||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.3|-19.1|
84462862|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.3||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-0.3|-34.6|
84462863|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.1||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.1|-20.6|
84462864|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-3.2||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.2|-37.8|
84462865|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.2|-2.7|
84462866|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|12.0||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.0|-22.0|
84462867|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.4||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.4|-26.7|
84462868|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-36.8|
84462869|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|4.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.1|-26.4|
84462870|NCT01193335|168677737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-4.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.6|-37.7|
84462871|NCT01733329|168677738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84462872|NCT01733329|168677739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84462873|NCT01733329|168677740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
84462874|NCT01733329|168677741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
84462875|NCT03826914|168677744|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|-0.015||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance||Placebo - Cardioflex|The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-0.015|-0.846|0.042
84462876|NCT03826914|168677745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.772||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-2.24||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance|||The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-2.24|-11.2|0.04
84462877|NCT04246047|168677749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.31|0.53|||one-sided stratified log-rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.53|0.31|<0.00001
84462878|NCT00843180|168677825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.2||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||this was a feasibility pilot study CI is descriptor of dispersion|comparison between groups by t-test||4.2|-5.4|0.80
84518248|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.26|0.56|0.0067
84725951|NCT03014726|169204055|OTHER|Recurrence \< 0.5 as defined by an IPSS score of less than or equal to 11. The performance goal is met if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for recurrence is less than 50%.|||||<|0.001|||||||1-sample binomial z-test|||||||<0.001
84462879|NCT00843180|168677826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||CI serves as dispersion measure|||2.1|-6.9|0.29
84462880|NCT00843180|168677827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided||95% CI is dispersion parameter|||24.3|-31.9|0.78
84462881|NCT00843180|168677828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted|95%CI is dispersion measure|||13.2|-9.5|0.70
84462882|NCT00457639|168677848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|61.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.1|-19.7|0.42
84462883|NCT00457639|168677849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.8|-17.7|0.45
84462884|NCT00002850|168677869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Fisher Exact|Target accrual=70 patients per arm to provide 92% power to detect a difference of 0.31 vs. 0.08 in the proportion of patients with serious infection.||"H0: There is no significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.~Ha: There is a significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.218
84462885|NCT01477450|168677873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
84462886|NCT01477450|168677873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84462887|NCT01477450|168677873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
84462888|NCT02234622|168677897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-8.2|0.002
84462889|NCT02234622|168677898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.3|0.005
84462890|NCT02234622|168677899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-11.9|0.042
84462891|NCT02234622|168677900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-4.2|0.482
84462892|NCT02234622|168677901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.7|0.635
84462893|NCT02234622|168677902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-6.0|0.367
84462894|NCT02234622|168677903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.5|0.668
84462895|NCT01200433|168677985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.94||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.05|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.05|0.84|0.011
84462896|NCT01200433|168677986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.02|0.96|< 0.001
84462897|NCT01200433|168677988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
84462898|NCT01200433|168677989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.18|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.18|0.86|0.91
84462899|NCT01200433|168677991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.2|-4.1|0.02
84462900|NCT01200433|168677992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|>0.99
84462901|NCT03439345|168678032|SUPERIORITY|For the time-to-event analyses, survival analytic methods will be used to evaluate the time to the first event during the entire study period. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation, will be used to estimate the hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.||||0.91|0.58|0.006
84462902|NCT03439345|168678033|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.91|0.57|0.005
84462903|NCT03439345|168678034|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.31|0.08
84518249|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|2.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.02|0.33|0.0225
84518250|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.25|0.55|0.0073
84518251|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.73|-0.12|0.2391
84725952|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|3.03|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as a multiplier in the Modified Diet in Renal Disease Study Group (MDRD) equation.|||3.03|1.18|
84462904|NCT03439345|168678035|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.90|0.61|0.003
84462905|NCT03439345|168678036|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.85|0.52|0.001
84462906|NCT03439345|168678037|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.84|0.30|0.008
84462907|NCT03439345|168678038|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline visual acuity.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.01|-0.01|0.36
84462908|NCT03439345|168678039|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline VFQ-25 composite score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||1|-1|0.58
84462909|NCT03439345|168678040|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Index Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.02|-0.02|0.93
84462910|NCT03439345|168678041|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Visual Analogue Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from a linear mixed model repeated measures||1|-2|0.43
84462911|NCT03439345|168678042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1062.0|624.0||||||||624|-1062|
84462912|NCT03439345|168678043|OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|614.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||£614 cost per QALY gained based on probabilistic analysis|||||
84462913|NCT03439345|168678044|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.58|
84462914|NCT03439345|168678045|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.00|0.40|
84462915|NCT03439345|168678046|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.97|0.52|
84462916|NCT03439345|168678047|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.07|0.55|
84462917|NCT03439345|168678048|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.21||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.21|0.51|
84462918|NCT03439345|168678049|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.54|
84462919|NCT03439345|168678050|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.28|
84462920|NCT03439345|168678051|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.60|
84462921|NCT03439345|168678052|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.95||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.95|0.49|
84518252|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.43||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.43|-0.42|0.9912
84725953|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.59|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.59|1.43|
84462922|NCT03439345|168678053|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.06||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.53|
84462923|NCT03439345|168678054|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.57||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||3.57|0.55|
84462924|NCT03439345|168678055|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.03|0.48|
84462925|NCT03439345|168678056|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.56|
84462926|NCT03439345|168678057|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline UACR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|3.5|||||Estimates are in %.|Linear mixed model repeated measures analyses were conducted to estimate the trial-averaged percentage difference in geometric mean UACR between the randomised treatment groups. UACR data at baseline was available for 312 participants allocated fenofibrate and 310 participants allocated placebo.||3.5|-25.8|
84462927|NCT03439345|168678058|SUPERIORITY|"Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.~."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.60|0.69|
84462928|NCT03439345|168678059|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.12|0.11|
84462929|NCT05110300|168678060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0283
84462930|NCT05110300|168678061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3118
84462931|NCT05110300|168678062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.213
84462932|NCT05110300|168678062|EQUIVALENCE|MDC of the inpatient stroke population for the BBS was used as the equivalence bounds. Equivalence bounds were set at +/- 6.9|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84462933|NCT05110300|168678062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.320
84462934|NCT05110300|168678063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2612||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.2612
84462935|NCT05110300|168678064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5410
84462936|NCT05110300|168678065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.6282
84462937|NCT05110300|168678065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.5056
84462938|NCT05110300|168678066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5580
84518253|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.77||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.77|-0.09|0.1930
84540833|NCT03718832|168832731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1162375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015839||0.2531303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0834025|0.3158775||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.3158775|-0.0834025|0.2531303
84462939|NCT05110300|168678067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0897||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0897
84462940|NCT05110300|168678068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0549||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.0549
84462941|NCT05110300|168678068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05626||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.05626
84462942|NCT05110300|168678069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0706
84462943|NCT05110300|168678070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1629||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.1629
84462944|NCT05110300|168678071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.4271
84462945|NCT05110300|168678071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.4190
84462946|NCT05110300|168678072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3444||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3444
84462947|NCT05110300|168678073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3581
84462948|NCT05110300|168678074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.9060
84462949|NCT05110300|168678074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.0848
84462950|NCT02396147|168678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.56|129.52|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference)\*100|||129.52|58.56|
84462951|NCT02396147|168678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.95|115.18|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||115.18|59.95|
84518254|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||1.25|0.35|0.0038
84518255|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.02|0.12|0.0394
84725954|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.06|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.06|1.71|
84462952|NCT02396147|168678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.88|116.79|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||116.79|52.88|
84462953|NCT02396147|168678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|130.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||130.61|67.98|
84462954|NCT02396147|168678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|119.4|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (Reference) \*100|||119.40|74.83|
84462955|NCT02396147|168678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration|77.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.29|94.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.61|64.29|
84462956|NCT02396147|168678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.21|102.37|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.37|64.21|
84462957|NCT02396147|168678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|112.55|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.55|76.48|
84462958|NCT02396147|168678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|119.12|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||119.12|74.85|
84462959|NCT02396147|168678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.53|94.51|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.51|64.53|
84462960|NCT02396147|168678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|102.34|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.34|64.36|
84462961|NCT02396147|168678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|112.54|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.54|76.84|
84462962|NCT01142323|168678117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Matched pairs|||||||0.008
84462963|NCT01142323|168678118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84462964|NCT00345605|168678148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.|For sample size calculation, we used the means and standard deviation for PT, PTT. Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.||||
84462965|NCT01475955|168678155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pearson chi-square||||0.0041
84518256|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.93||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||0.93|0.02|0.0862
84462966|NCT00917384|168678225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0473||95.0|0.603|0.998|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.998|0.603|0.0473
84462967|NCT00917384|168678226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.62|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.620|0.376|<0.0001
84462968|NCT00917384|168678227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference Between Arms|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.6|||Normal Approximation|||||33.6|14.9|<0.0001
84462969|NCT01521845|168678234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84462970|NCT01521845|168678235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84462971|NCT01521845|168678236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||not comparable|||||||1
84462972|NCT01458340|168678246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.6026|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||α=0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.2||0.6026
84462973|NCT01458340|168678246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4844|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||2.7||0.4844
84518257|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.61|0.48|0.0024
84540834|NCT03718832|168832732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0584644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.040837||0.152918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1387132|0.0217844||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0217844|-0.1387132|0.152918
84725955|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|2.18|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.18|0.888|
84462974|NCT01458340|168678247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.5269|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.7||0.5269
84462975|NCT01458340|168678247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2092|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||1.8||0.2092
84462976|NCT01702805|168678262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||Robust Poisson Regression|The relative risk was adjusted for birth-weight and center stratum.||Null hypothesis: A higher hemoglobin threshold for red-cell transfusions, as compared with a lower threshold, will not reduce nor increase the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment in infants at 22 to 26 months of age corrected for prematurity.||1.10|0.92|0.93
84462977|NCT01238120|168678292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9168
84462978|NCT01238120|168678293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6536|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6536
84462979|NCT00736229|168678295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison for the difference in Median glucose values during steady state across all three groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated across the three groups (Exenatide,Moderate and Intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
84462980|NCT00736229|168678295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Intensive Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
84462981|NCT00736229|168678295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Moderate Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.15
84462982|NCT00736229|168678296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Time (Hrs) to steady state was evaluated across the three groups (exenatide, moderate and intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
84462983|NCT00736229|168678296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.80
84462984|NCT00736229|168678296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
84462985|NCT04334148|168678313|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84462986|NCT04334148|168678314|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
84462987|NCT04334148|168678315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
84462988|NCT00258154|168678333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 10 mIU/mL greater than -10%|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||3.6|-3.7|<0.001
84462989|NCT00258154|168678335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 0.15 μg/mL greater than -10%.|Percentage point difference|-3.7||||0.015||95.0|-9.3|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||1.3|-9.3|0.015
84462990|NCT03772327|168678387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.694|||t-test, 2 sided|A ratio of Week 12 to baseline TFV-DP levels was used rather than a raw difference as a ratio was normally distributed.|The mean difference is mean ratio (Week 12 TFV-DP level over the Week 0 TFV-DP level) in the Routine counseling + AdhereTech bottle arm less the mean ratio in the Routine counseling arm.|The power calculation was based on a null hypothesis of no difference in mean tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations between baseline versus week 12. Expected baseline mean (SD): 900 (404) fmol/punch. 12 week mean (SD): 1332 (597) fmol/punch in the AdhereTech bottle arm vs. 900 (404) fmol/punch in control arm. Type 1 error = 0.05, power = 80%, a sample size of 32 per arm (64 total) based on a two-sided t-test with equal variance.||0.694|-0.028|0.070
84462991|NCT03772327|168678388|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined if a two-sided 2 sample proportion test accepts the null hypothesis with p \> 0.05.|Difference in proportions|0.045||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|degrees of freedom = 1|This is the proportion of those completing a week 12 visit less those completing a week 0 visit.|The null hypothesis is that the proportion of randomized participants that complete a week 12 visit is not lower in the AdhereTech bottle arm.||0.270|-0.179|0.89
84462992|NCT03772327|168678389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Log transformation of viral load|Difference of log viral load at Week 12 less the log viral load at baseline|Null hypothesis: Mean HIV viral load is not significantly different in the AdhereTech bottle group compared to the routine counseling only group.||||0.328
84462993|NCT03772327|168678390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.395||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|2.044|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for change from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL at baseline to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL at week 12 due to the intervention (AdhereTech bottle).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportion of participants that go from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL between baseline to Week 12 in the AdhereTech bottle group compared the routine counseling group.||2.044|0.058|0.294
84462994|NCT03772327|168678392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.276|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Adherence in the AdhereTech bottle arm is not better than the control arm at Week 12.||0.276|-0.237|1
84462995|NCT04689828|168678393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|Stratified||||0.56|0.29|0.00000001
84462996|NCT04689828|168678394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||stratified Cox PH model|||||1.14|0.72|0.20
84462997|NCT04322708|168678443|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||||89.0|71.5|<0.0001
84540835|NCT03718832|168832732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0585771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304262||0.0548344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1183728|0.0012186||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.0012186|-0.1183728|0.0548344
84725956|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.31|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.31|1.14|
84462998|NCT04322708|168678443|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|85.4|||Fisher Exact|||||85.4|66.1|<0.0001
84462999|NCT04322708|168678444|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.7||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.3|-1.9|0.2470
84463000|NCT04322708|168678444|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.8||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-7.3|0.2372
84463001|NCT04322708|168678445|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||||-82.4|-109|<0.0001
84463002|NCT04322708|168678445|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|-82.5|||ANCOVA|||||-82.5|-110|<0.0001
84463003|NCT04322708|168678446|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|90.8|||Fisher Exact|||||90.8|74.4|<0.0001
84463004|NCT04322708|168678446|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.8|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|69.8|<0.0001
84463005|NCT04322708|168678447|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.4|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|66.4|<0.0001
84463006|NCT04322708|168678447|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|72.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|81.9|||Fisher Exact|||||81.9|61.3|<0.0001
84463007|NCT04322708|168678448|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|49.5|||Fisher Exact|||||49.5|22.9|<0.0001
84463008|NCT04322708|168678448|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61.0|35.9|<0.0001
84463009|NCT04322708|168678449|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-4.8||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-19.2|0.5561
84463010|NCT04322708|168678449|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|4.9||||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact|||||19.6|-9.9|0.5554
84463011|NCT04322708|168678450|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.6||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||ANCOVA|||||17.0|-18.1|0.9506
84463012|NCT04322708|168678450|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-17.6||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-35.4|0.0511
84463013|NCT04322708|168678451|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.6||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||6.7|-1.4|0.2007
84463014|NCT04322708|168678451|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.7||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||1.3|-6.8|0.1889
84463015|NCT04322708|168678452|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.3||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.4980
84463016|NCT04322708|168678452|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.7|0.6390
84463017|NCT00195351|168678455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.009||95.0|-13.1|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-13.1|0.009
84463018|NCT00195351|168678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.02||95.0|-14.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.8|-14.5|0.020
84463019|NCT00195351|168678457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.015||95.0|-13.9|8.1|||Method of Mehrotra and Railkar|||||8.1|-13.9|0.015
84463020|NCT03959189|168678475|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.0796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following ERX-963 versus placebo. In the primary analysis of SSS, the cohort 1 and cohort 2 data were combined for ERX-963 and placebo treatments.||0.5|-0.6|0.7746
84463021|NCT03959189|168678475|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 1 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 1 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||0.5|-1.0|0.4700
84463022|NCT03959189|168678475|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4272||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 2 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 2 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||1.0|-0.8|0.8127
84463023|NCT01480180|168678503|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.66||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.66|2.94|<0.001
84518258|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.48|0.37|0.0068
84518259|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.42|0.29|0.0132
84725957|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.22|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.22|1.41|
84725958|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.7|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.7|1.74|
84463024|NCT01480180|168678505|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.11||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.11|2.59|<0.001
84463025|NCT01480180|168678507|OTHER||Poisson estimate|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||2.95|1.87|<0.001
84463026|NCT01480180|168678507|OTHER||Poisson estimate|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.24||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||6.24|3.09|<0.001
84463027|NCT02513446|168678577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|176.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|193.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||193.2|160.5|
84463028|NCT02513446|168678578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|136.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.9|169.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||169.4|109.9|
84463029|NCT02513446|168678579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|174.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.1|192.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||192.0|159.1|
84463030|NCT04323488|168678587|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.925
84463031|NCT04323488|168678587|OTHER|||||||0.834||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.834
84463032|NCT04323488|168678587|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.180
84463033|NCT04323488|168678587|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.091
84463034|NCT04323488|168678588|OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.524
84463035|NCT04323488|168678588|OTHER|||||||0.379||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.379
84463036|NCT04323488|168678588|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.010
84463037|NCT04323488|168678588|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.017
84463038|NCT04323488|168678589|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.60
84463039|NCT04323488|168678589|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.03
84463040|NCT04323488|168678589|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.60
84463041|NCT04323488|168678589|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.03
84463042|NCT04323488|168678590|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||< 0.001
84540836|NCT03718832|168832732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1691027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673022||0.0123238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3013583|-0.036847||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.036847|-0.3013583|0.0123238
84725959|NCT00999336|169204072|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|2.3|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.3|0.944|
84463043|NCT04323488|168678590|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.29
84463044|NCT04323488|168678590|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||< 0.001
84463045|NCT04323488|168678590|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.26
84463046|NCT05175170|168678596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
84463047|NCT05175170|168678596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
84463048|NCT05175170|168678597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.202||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.002
84463049|NCT05175170|168678597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.081||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.051
84463050|NCT01650805|168678601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.074
84463051|NCT01650805|168678603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||<0.001
84463052|NCT01650805|168678604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.317
84463053|NCT02625402|168678607|EQUIVALENCE|Knowledge scores within 10% points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|21.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21.5|-8.8|<0.05
84463054|NCT03414359|168678616|NON_INFERIORITY|As there is no existing data in the literature that clearly defines a clinically significant reduction in the onset time of anesthesia, the non-inferiority margin was defined a priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is, \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To exclude a clinically important difference between the LEBF group and the chloroprocaine group, given a standard deviation of 4 minutes, and a non-inferiority margin of 3 minutes difference between groups, 62 mother-infant dyads (31 mother-infant dyads in each arm) are required to have a significance level of 5% and a power of 90%. In total, 70 female patients were recruited to account for any withdrawals.||||0.10
84463055|NCT00770861|168678621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Between-treatment comparison of efficacy was performed by ANCOVA, with treatment, baseline BMI, center as factors \& baseline value as a covariate.||H0 - There was no difference in BP reduction between Neb and Placebo. The efficacy analyses were based on the ITT population for the double-blind treatment phase. The LOCF was used to impute missing postbaseline values. Sensitivity analyses were based on observed cases for all efficacy parameters. All statistical tests were two-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance for main effects. All confidence intervals were two-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
84463056|NCT00770861|168678622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84463057|NCT02332915|168678634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for treated items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.0128
84463058|NCT02332915|168678635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for untreated (generalization) items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.942
84463059|NCT02332915|168678636|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment intelligibility scores||||<.001
84463060|NCT01093612|168678691|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
84463061|NCT01093612|168678692|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
84463062|NCT03191786|168678699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||0.97|0.63|0.025
84463063|NCT03191786|168678700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.3||||||OS Rate at 6 Months||16.3|-3.3|
84463064|NCT03191786|168678700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|15.0||||||OS Rate at 12 Months||15.0|-4.9|
84463065|NCT03191786|168678700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.5||||||OS Rate at 18 Months||16.5|-1.6|
84518260|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.14||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||2.14|0.65|0.0024
84540837|NCT03718832|168832732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1701425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575065||0.0032534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2831584|-0.0571266||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.0571266|-0.2831584|0.0032534
84725960|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.35|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.35|1.05|
84463066|NCT03191786|168678700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.5||||||OS Rate at 24 Months||19.5|4.4|
84463067|NCT03191786|168678702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||1.07|0.70|0.182
84463068|NCT03191786|168678707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.975||95.0|0.57|1.78|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (single item QLQ-C30)||1.78|0.57|0.975
84463069|NCT03191786|168678707|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Fatigue (multi items QLQ-C30)||1.42|0.55|0.620
84463070|NCT03191786|168678708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.26|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Cough (single item QLQ-LC13)||2.26|0.60|0.653
84463071|NCT03191786|168678708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Chest pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||0.97|0.27|0.036
84463072|NCT03191786|168678708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (multiple items QLQ-LC13)||1.11|0.45|0.125
84463073|NCT03191786|168678708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Arm and/or shoulder pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||1.39|0.41|0.362
84463074|NCT03191786|168678708|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Log Rank|||Time to Confirmed Deterioration for the Composite of the 3 following symptoms: cough, dyspnoea (multi-items QLQ-LC13) and chest pain||0.99|0.46|0.041
84463075|NCT03191786|168678709|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.15|0.61|0.272
84463076|NCT03191786|168678710|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.18|0.64|0.366
84463077|NCT01943539|168678737|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84463078|NCT01362322|168678741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted radio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to diphteria vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.09|0.85|
84463079|NCT01362322|168678741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to tetanus vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.1|0.86|
84463080|NCT01362322|168678742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.04|0.82|
84463081|NCT01362322|168678742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-filamentous haemagglutinin (anti-FHA) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to filamentous haemagglutinin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.03|0.83|
84463082|NCT01362322|168678742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertactin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.13|0.85|
84463083|NCT03715465|168678763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
84463084|NCT03715465|168678764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.411
84463085|NCT03715465|168678764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.920
84463086|NCT03715465|168678765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.787
84463087|NCT03715465|168678765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.916
84463088|NCT03715465|168678766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.270
84540838|NCT01996241|168832749|OTHER|Odds ratio (95% CI), p-value for all the outcomes.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.38|0.7|0.98
84725961|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|4.07|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.07|1.32|
84463089|NCT03715465|168678766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.406
84463090|NCT03715465|168678767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.635
84463091|NCT03715465|168678767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.383
84463092|NCT03715465|168678768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456
84463093|NCT03715465|168678769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
84463094|NCT03715465|168678770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84463095|NCT03715465|168678771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
84463096|NCT03715465|168678772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
84463097|NCT03715465|168678773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
84463098|NCT03715465|168678774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84463099|NCT03715465|168678775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246
84463100|NCT03715465|168678776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.333
84463101|NCT00430781|168678777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.535||90.0|0.65|1.7||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value. p\<=0.0037 required for significance, and p\>0.4956 indicated futility.|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing combination to lapatinib monotherapy|||1.7|0.65|0.535
84463102|NCT00430781|168678780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.237
84463103|NCT00430781|168678784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.66||||0.013||90.0|0.48|0.91||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.013
84463104|NCT02158533|168678806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.4||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg compared to placebo.||0.4|-4.1|0.109
84463105|NCT02158533|168678806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S2 vs Placebo S2). The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5/0.5 compared to placebo.||2.3|-2.3|0.975
84518261|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.89|0.40|0.0115
84463106|NCT00320671|168678810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|56.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|69.9|||Log Rank||Only the subjects taking risperidone were analysed in this section|||69.9|43.9|.61
84463107|NCT00320671|168678810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|62.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|74.8|||Log Rank||Only subjects taking aripiprazole were analysed in this section|||74.8|50.8|.61
84463108|NCT01532453|168678820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank ANCOVA With treatment, center, gender, transplanted organ as factors and age of organ transplant as a covariable.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0278
84463109|NCT01532453|168678821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2703|1.2405|||ANCOVA|||||1.2405|0.2703|<0.05
84463110|NCT01575548|168678843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used to compare DFS between the two arms.||||1.29|0.54|0.21
84463111|NCT03230097|168678871|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.795|||Regression, Cox|Stratified (by baseline use of antipsychotic medication) Cox proportional hazards model was used. Treatment effect and NAPLS risk score as covariates.|Ratio = BI 409306/placebo.|||2.795|0.258|0.7873
84463112|NCT03230097|168678873|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.77||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.773|7.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 24. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||7.315|-3.773|0.5212
84518262|NCT02554877|168787797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.72|0.22|0.0344
84518263|NCT05133180|168787813|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.412|84.165||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||It was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect). For the imputation of missing data at week 4, a Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline Schirmer I test value, gender, age class, and Schirmer I test at week 2 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets.||84.165|3.412|<0.001
84540642|NCT01128179|168832510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1121||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3389|0.1146||The a priori significance level was 5%. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Assuming that the natural logarithm transformed serum intact FGF-23 is normally distributed with a mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 0.46, 33 subjects randomised 2:1 (lanthanum carbonate to placebo) will be sufficient to detect with 80% power at the 5% 2-sided significance level a decrease of 0.5 in the mean difference (placebo minus lanthanum carbonate) of the log-transformed data at Week 12.||0.1146|-0.3389|0.3186
84463113|NCT03230097|168678873|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.18||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.071|9.425|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM), see endpoint description for details.|BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||9.425|-3.071|0.3127
84463114|NCT03230097|168678874|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.99||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|2.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.057|-12.033|0.1602
84463115|NCT03230097|168678875|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.749|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, positive items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.153|-3.749|0.5858
84463116|NCT03230097|168678875|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.43||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|4.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, negative items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.462|-1.604|0.3445
84463117|NCT03230097|168678875|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.71||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.772|11.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, total score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||11.196|-7.772|0.7154
84463118|NCT00440401|168678952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0001
84463119|NCT00440401|168678953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0006
84463120|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||117|90.7|
84463121|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|110.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||110|78.1|
84463122|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||120|85.7|
84463123|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|101.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|78.4|
84463124|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale||||114|87.7|
84463125|NCT02498652|168678970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|119.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||119|85.5|
84540511|NCT03164616|168832126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.885||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.885|0.620|0.00093
84463126|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.3|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|94.3|
84463127|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.4|106.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||106|90.4|
84463128|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||114|94.5|
84463129|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|97.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||97.7|86.7|
84463130|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|91.0|
84463131|NCT02498652|168678973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|102.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||102|92.8|
84463132|NCT04207710|168678979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
84463133|NCT04207710|168678979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
84463134|NCT04207710|168678979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
84463135|NCT04207710|168678979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
84463136|NCT06129487|168678989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.256
84463137|NCT00780403|168678990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed at the significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
84518264|NCT05133180|168787814|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|adjusted mean difference|-4.561||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.581|4.459||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an Analysis of Covariance with change from baseline in global SANDE Score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class, baseline global SANDE score as fixed effects and site as random effect. For missing data, Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline global SANDE score, gender, age class, and intermediate global SANDE scores up to week 12 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets||4.459|-13.581|0.322
84518265|NCT05133180|168787815|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on a logistic regression with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|82.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||82.310|3.091|<0.001
84518266|NCT05133180|168787816|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.753||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.303|6.798||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||6.798|-12.303|0.572
84518267|NCT05133180|168787817|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-4.732||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|4.354||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||4.354|-13.819|0.307
84463138|NCT00847613|168678991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.73|45.23||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||45.23|27.73|<0.0001
84463139|NCT00847613|168678991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|26.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.28|34.97||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||34.97|17.28|<0.0001
84463140|NCT00847613|168678992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.02|-0.79|0.0376
84463141|NCT00847613|168678992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||0.04|-0.73|0.0792
84463142|NCT00847613|168678993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.31|-0.49|<0.0001
84540643|NCT01128179|168832511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|19.23||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of serum iPTH at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline iPTH as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||19.23|-6.15|0.2995
84463143|NCT00847613|168678993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.16|-0.34|0.0002
84463144|NCT00847613|168678994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|19.36||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||19.36|9.44|<0.0001
84463145|NCT00847613|168678994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|5.61||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|9.38||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.38|1.85|0.0034
84463146|NCT05755438|168679083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.659|5.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.744|1.659|0.0003
84463147|NCT05755438|168679083|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|36.39||||||||36.39|11.42|
84463148|NCT05755438|168679084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.400|0.0034
84463149|NCT05755438|168679084|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|27.72||||||||27.72|5.82|
84463150|NCT05755438|168679085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|16.485|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||16.485|1.206|0.0164
84463151|NCT05755438|168679085|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.591|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|15.79||||||||15.79|1.71|
84463152|NCT05755438|168679086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|14.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||14.647|1.486|0.0048
84463153|NCT05755438|168679086|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|19.62||||||||19.62|3.71|
84463154|NCT05755438|168679087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|8.608|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.608|1.422|0.0064
84463155|NCT05755438|168679087|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|24.17||||||||24.17|4.54|
84463156|NCT05755438|168679088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.44|-1.54|0.0005
84540644|NCT01128179|168832512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|15.57||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||15.57|-5.36|0.3252
84463157|NCT05755438|168679088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.73|-2.11|<0.0001
84463158|NCT05755438|168679088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.94|-2.43|<0.0001
84463159|NCT05755438|168679088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.91|-2.43|<0.0001
84463160|NCT05755438|168679091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.925|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.406|2.636|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.636|1.406|<0.0001
84463161|NCT05755438|168679092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.111||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.419|3.139|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||3.139|1.419|0.0002
84463162|NCT05755438|168679095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 2||-0.16|-1.20|0.0111
84463163|NCT05755438|168679095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.47|-1.82|0.0010
84463164|NCT05755438|168679095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-0.37|-1.84|0.0034
84463165|NCT05755438|168679095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 12||-0.37|-1.90|0.0038
84463166|NCT05755438|168679101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.826||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.42|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||1.42|-1.84|0.8028
84463167|NCT05755438|168679101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||1.49|-2.17|0.7151
84463168|NCT05755438|168679101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.79|-2.95|0.2569
84463169|NCT05755438|168679101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.53|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.53|-3.30|0.1555
84463170|NCT05755438|168679103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||10.27|-0.47|0.0736
84463171|NCT05755438|168679103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|8.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||8.69|-2.07|0.2265
84463172|NCT05755438|168679103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.061||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||13.35|1.27|0.0180
84463173|NCT05755438|168679103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||12.06|-0.25|0.0600
84463174|NCT03476850|168679167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An a priori sample size calculation found 24 subjects per group (48 total) provided \>80% power to detect a 2 unit difference in patient reported pain based on a 2-sided test and significance level a = 0.05 assuming at least 3 measures per subject and a within subject covariance having a compound symmetric structure with a standard deviation in pain score of 3 units and within subject correlation of 0.5.||||.883
84463175|NCT03476850|168679168|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.977
84463176|NCT03476850|168679169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.009
84518268|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.16||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.668|7.988||P-value of Least Square (LS) means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|MMRM|||Impact on daily activities at week 4.||7.988|-3.668|0.468
84725962|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|4.29|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.29|1.48|
84463177|NCT03476850|168679171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.110
84463178|NCT03476850|168679172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.719
84463179|NCT02912364|168679173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22||||.34|.13|< .001
84463180|NCT02912364|168679174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 22.||||.79|.30|< .001
84463181|NCT04090164|168679201|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.406||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.341|4.316|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used for testing of association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test status.||4.316|1.341|0.0027
84463182|NCT04090164|168679201|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.032||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|31.25|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to test the association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test result in women younger than 45 years.||31.25|1.582|0.0034
84463183|NCT01332435|168679241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84463184|NCT01332435|168679241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84463185|NCT01332435|168679242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84463186|NCT01332435|168679242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
84463187|NCT01332435|168679243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84463188|NCT01332435|168679243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0699
84463189|NCT01332435|168679244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84463190|NCT01332435|168679244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8645||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8645
84463191|NCT01332435|168679245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84463192|NCT01332435|168679245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84463193|NCT03704051|168679247|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.634
84463194|NCT03704051|168679248|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.115
84463195|NCT02495077|168679249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated month 24 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence intervals result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||0.93|-10.73|0.099
84463196|NCT02495077|168679250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84463197|NCT02495077|168679251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84463198|NCT02495077|168679253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
84463199|NCT02495077|168679254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.242
84463200|NCT02495077|168679256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84463201|NCT02495077|168679257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
84463202|NCT02495077|168679258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
84463203|NCT02495077|168679260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84463204|NCT02495077|168679261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.135
84518269|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.431||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.362||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Emotional Impact due to Dry eye at week 4.||9.362|-4.500|0.492
84540512|NCT03164616|168832127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.016||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||1.016|0.724|0.07581
84725963|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|2.32|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.32|0.772|
84463205|NCT02495077|168679262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.157
84463206|NCT02495077|168679263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.071
84463207|NCT02495077|168679264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.543
84463208|NCT02495077|168679265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
84463209|NCT02495077|168679266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275
84463210|NCT02495077|168679267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
84463211|NCT02495077|168679268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
84463212|NCT02495077|168679269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
84463213|NCT02495077|168679270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.30|-5.37|0.639
84463214|NCT02495077|168679271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.10|-6.22|0.510
84463215|NCT02495077|168679271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.76|-6.45|0.430
84463216|NCT02495077|168679271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.31|-6.86|0.328
84463217|NCT02495077|168679272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|3.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.89|-5.58|0.725
84463218|NCT02495077|168679273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.72|-6.41|0.601
84463219|NCT02495077|168679273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.37|-6.66|0.519
84463220|NCT02495077|168679273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.91|-7.08|0.411
84463221|NCT02495077|168679274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
84463222|NCT02495077|168679275|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84463223|NCT02495077|168679276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.451
84463224|NCT02495077|168679277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
84463225|NCT02495077|168679278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
84463226|NCT02495077|168679279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
84463227|NCT02495077|168679280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Hours/Day 1. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 24 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 24 hours/day 1. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.35|-0.36|0.256
84518270|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|3.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.511|13.111||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Impact on Work due to Dry Eye at week 4.||13.111|-6.511|0.510
84463228|NCT02495077|168679280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Hours/Day 2. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 48 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 48 hours/day 2. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.23|-0.48|0.391
84463229|NCT02495077|168679280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||72 Hours/Day 3. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 72 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 72 hours/day 3. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.42|-0.30|0.199
84463230|NCT02495077|168679281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
84463231|NCT02495077|168679282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
84463232|NCT02495077|168679283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
84463233|NCT02495077|168679284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
84463234|NCT02495077|168679285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
84463235|NCT02495077|168679286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
84463236|NCT02495077|168679287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.171
84463237|NCT02495077|168679288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
84463238|NCT02495077|168679289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.572
84463239|NCT02495077|168679290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.973
84463240|NCT02495077|168679291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
84463241|NCT02495077|168679292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84463242|NCT02495077|168679293|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84463243|NCT02495077|168679294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.347
84463244|NCT03167619|168679311|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.18||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.27|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.27|0.11|0.0023
84463245|NCT03167619|168679312|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.19|0.07|<0.0001
84463246|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in alveolar macrophages||||0.45
84463247|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.40
84463248|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.75
84463249|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in alveolar macrophages||||0.49
84463250|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2 like 2 (Nrf2) in alveolar macrophages||||0.88
84463251|NCT01335971|168679322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.71
84463252|NCT01335971|168679323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Nrf2 in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.68
84518271|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|Least square mean difference|4.078||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.142|11.299||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 12||11.299|-3.142|0.268
84518272|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|least square mean difference|5.55||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.462|14.562||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Emotional Impact due to Dry eye - Week 12||14.562|-3.462|0.227
84518273|NCT05133180|168787818|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|3.475||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|13.601||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on Work due to Dry Eye - Week 12||13.601|-6.651|0.501
84518274|NCT05133180|168787819|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.549||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|10.723||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 4||10.723|-11.820|0.924
84518275|NCT05133180|168787819|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|1.072||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.398|7.542||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 4||7.542|-5.398|0.745
84518276|NCT05133180|168787819|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-4.206||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.53|7.118||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 12||7.118|-15.530|0.467
84518277|NCT05133180|168787819|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.244||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.387|9.874||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 12||9.874|-5.387|0.564
84463253|NCT01335971|168679324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.69
84463254|NCT01335971|168679324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||<0.01
84463255|NCT01335971|168679325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.53
84463256|NCT01335971|168679326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||<0.01
84463257|NCT01335971|168679327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||0.06
84463258|NCT01335971|168679328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
84463259|NCT01335971|168679329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to C-reactive protein concentration||||0.41
84463260|NCT01335971|168679329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-6 concentration||||0.07
84463261|NCT01335971|168679329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-8 concentration||||0.65
84463262|NCT01335971|168679330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to interleukin-8 results||||0.71
84463263|NCT01335971|168679330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to secretory leukoprotease inhibitor results||||0.33
84463264|NCT01335971|168679331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to isoprostane results.||||0.80
84463265|NCT01335971|168679331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to thiobarbituric acid reactive substances results.||||0.35
84463266|NCT01335971|168679331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to total antioxidants results.||||0.53
84463267|NCT05740813|168679334|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.324||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.3117 for Dose 1. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter mode|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.324|0.850|
84463268|NCT05740813|168679334|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.22||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.6426. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.220|0.753|
84463269|NCT05740813|168679335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5639||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|0.562|-1.657|0.3325
84518278|NCT05133180|168787820|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.805||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|5.476||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 4||5.476|-7.086|0.802
84518279|NCT05133180|168787820|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-8.789||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|-1.418||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 12||-1.418|-16.160|0.019
84518280|NCT05133180|168787821|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.518||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|-0.031||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein Week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.031|-3.005|0.045
84518281|NCT05133180|168787821|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.773||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|-0.101||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein Week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.101|-3.446|0.038
84463270|NCT05740813|168679335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6732||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.420|-1.230|0.8878
84540839|NCT01996241|168832750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.4|0.7|0.98
84463271|NCT05740813|168679336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1066||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.563|2.723|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|2.723|-5.563|0.5008
84463272|NCT05740813|168679336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5292||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714|7.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|7.236|-2.714|0.3721
84463273|NCT05740813|168679338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.506|10.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|10.099|-6.506|0.6707
84463274|NCT05740813|168679338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.011||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.463|22.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|22.172|2.463|0.0144
84463275|NCT05740813|168679339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.092||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.179|1.011|0.0253
84463276|NCT05740813|168679339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.073||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.175|0.978|0.1364
84463277|NCT05740813|168679340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1327||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.254|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|4.137|-4.254|0.9782
84463278|NCT05740813|168679340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5101||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|3.286|-6.590|0.5108
84463279|NCT05740813|168679341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||Log Rank|Dose 1. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6481
84463280|NCT05740813|168679341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||Log Rank|Dose 2. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6344
84463281|NCT02439775|168679343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1194||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.1194
84463282|NCT01184989|168679399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||||90.0|97.64|106.893|||Geometric Mean||Dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated local measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 136 quantifiable measurements.||106.893|97.640|
84463283|NCT01184989|168679400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|92.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.5||||90.0|90.079|94.719|||Geometric Mean||The Dispersion Value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated central measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 468 quantifiable measurements.||94.719|90.079|
84463284|NCT01570491|168679402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"We hypothesized that real-time US guidance would result in a 20% lower number of attempts compared to the control group.~At the 0.05 level of significance with a power of 0.8, we will require a minimum of 20 patients per group, therefore we planned to recruit 40 patients in total."||||0.83
84463285|NCT01570491|168679403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84463286|NCT01570491|168679404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
84463287|NCT01570491|168679405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
84726512|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-0.8|
84463288|NCT05370157|168679406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.74|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in knowledge from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||7.74|0.76|.03
84463289|NCT05370157|168679407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in skill use from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.20|-0.40|.30
84463290|NCT05370157|168679411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in psychological safety from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.79|-1.25|.45
84463291|NCT05370157|168679412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in learning behavior from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.40|-0.44|.89
84463292|NCT05370157|168679413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.36|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in team performance from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||1.36|-1.51|.85
84463293|NCT01508676|168679414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84463294|NCT00609128|168679417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with preplanned comparisons was used to generate two tailed P values. Paired t tests were used to make appropriate post-ANOVA comparisons.||"tears were collected in season from eyes of allergic patients with or without olopatadine treatment, that is one eye was treated and the patients other eye was not.~Tears from each patient's eyes were pooled to provide enough volume."||||<0.05
84463295|NCT00754390|168679420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium does not affect zinc absorption||||0.17
84518282|NCT05133180|168787821|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.224||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.096|0.649||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 12|MMRM|||Herein Week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||0.649|-3.096|0.200
84718008|NCT05550636|169186488|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.9|88.2|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.4%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||88.2|68.9|
84463296|NCT00754390|168679420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary Phytate does not affect zinc absorption||||0.0002
84463297|NCT00754390|168679420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium and dietary phytate do not affect zinc absorption. Eight women were required to detect a difference in zinc absorption of 7 percentage points with a power of 90%, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.09
84718009|NCT05550636|169186489|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.9|104.9|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 24.4|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||104.9|76.9|
84463298|NCT00144300|168679532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.71|1.6||||||||1.60|0.71|
84463299|NCT01877655|168679608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85||P-value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI was based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness \& donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality and adjudicated CMV EOD. Analysis was completed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at the 1-sided 5% level stratified by use of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and by receipt of a kidney from a living or deceased donor.||1.85|0.87|0.205
84463300|NCT01877655|168679609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV viremia through 1 year posttransplant. CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. The 95% CI was based on cumulative incidence function CMV viremia rate at 1 year.||1.22|0.76|0.748
84463301|NCT01877655|168679610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV-specific antiviral therapy (AVT) through 1 year. Time to first adjudicated CMV-specific therapy was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Rate was based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.29|0.80|0.888
84463302|NCT01877655|168679611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51||P value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of composite of CMV viremia and adjudicated CMV-AVT. The CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Participants with no posttransplant viral load data were excluded from the analysis.||1.51|0.73|0.802
84463303|NCT01877655|168679612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of rate of adjudicated CMV AVT or CMV EOD. Time to first CMV-specific AVT was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia or CMV EOD. CMV-specific AVT and EOD and were determined by the adjudication committee. Rate based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.28|0.80|0.928
84463304|NCT01877655|168679613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality at 1 year. Participants with unknown survival status at 1 year were considered dead for this analysis.||1.73|0.81|0.393
84463305|NCT00095121|168679619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||End of double-blind treatment|Fisher Exact|||After unblinding the results, due to the small number of responders in the placebo group, it was determined that a statistical exact test would be more appropriate in the evaluation of treatment group differences than the originally planned 95% confidence intervals of the difference between the groups. Therefore, the results were analyzed by study visit, and a Fisher exact test was used to evaluate treatment differences between the adefovir dipivoxil and placebo groups.||||<0.001
84463306|NCT00095121|168679635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Loss|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
84463307|NCT00095121|168679635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Seroconversion|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
84463308|NCT01225068|168679667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|0.22||||||||||no p value for effect size calculations ES is dimensionless; ES (Cohen's d) is a well described statistical construct and is calculated from the difference between the means (here at baseline and 6 weeks) divided by the pooled standard deviation.|effect size is endpoint and not comparis|no p value for effect size calculations||effect size is endpoint and not comparison||||
84463309|NCT05278104|168679712|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||1.7|-2.6|
84463310|NCT05278104|168679713|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||0.3|-4.6|
84463311|NCT05278104|168679714|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||2.4|-2.1|
84463312|NCT05278104|168679715|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||3.1|-1.3|
84463313|NCT01843374|168679717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||P-value was estimated using the method of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and Line of therapy.|Log Rank|The stratification factors included EORTC status and line of therapy as recorded in IVRS/IWRS.|Tremelimumab represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator|H0: No difference between tremelimumab and placebo H1: Difference between tremelimumab and placebo||1.12|0.76|0.4081
84463314|NCT01843374|168679718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.289||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank||Tremelimumab is the numerator and Placebo the denominator|||1.289|0.793|0.926
84463315|NCT01843374|168679719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank|Stratification factors were EORTC status and Line of therapy|Tremelimumab is the numerator and placebo, the denominator|||0.98|0.68|0.0325
84463316|NCT01709799|168679727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,90.577)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||< .001
84463317|NCT01709799|168679727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom are (4,90.564)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.995
84463318|NCT01709799|168679728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,97.137)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<.001
84463319|NCT01709799|168679728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,97.108)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.254
84463320|NCT01709799|168679729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,99.647)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
84463321|NCT01709799|168679729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,99.601)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.781
84463322|NCT01709799|168679730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,102.315)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
84463323|NCT01709799|168679730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,102.216)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.026
84463324|NCT01709799|168679731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,93.240)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
84463325|NCT01709799|168679731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,93.167)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.313
84463326|NCT01709799|168679732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,115.573)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||0.630
84463327|NCT01709799|168679732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,115.593)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.498
84463328|NCT00443560|168679738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.01||95.0|2.3|4.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.5|2.3|<0.01
84463329|NCT00443560|168679739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||<|0.01||95.0|9.9|15.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||15.0|9.9|<0.01
84518283|NCT05133180|168787822|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.64||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.98||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.980|0.300|0.016
84463330|NCT00443560|168679740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84463331|NCT02082184|168679741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8222
84463332|NCT02082184|168679742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7925
84463333|NCT02082184|168679743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<70 mg/dL||||<0.001
84463334|NCT02082184|168679743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL||||0.0014
84463335|NCT02082184|168679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||0.0164
84463336|NCT02082184|168679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||0.0017
84463337|NCT02082184|168679745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5970
84463338|NCT02082184|168679745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.8729
84463339|NCT02082184|168679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||0.6075
84463340|NCT02082184|168679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2295|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.2295
84463341|NCT02082184|168679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.001
84463342|NCT01466751|168679759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|8.687||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A-priori threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons. The omnibus effect from the linear mixed model for the Treatment Arm x Time Interaction was utilized to establish significance of the effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom=1, Denominator degrees of freedom = 168||A linear mixed model was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the intervention groups would show equivalent performance change on the outcome measure from baseline to the 3 month time points.||||0.004
84463343|NCT01466751|168679760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|2.032||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold was: p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom: 1, Denominator degrees of freedom: 168||A linear mixed model was used to test the null hypothesis that the two treatment groups would display no differential changes in amygdala BOLD signal from baseline to 3 months as a main effect or in interaction with facial affect type (fear or happy) or by brain hemisphere (left or right).||||0.156
84463344|NCT02413255|168679769|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0195||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9752|1.0637|||Power Model|||||1.0637|0.9752|0.465
84463345|NCT02413255|168679770|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.1124||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9913|1.2336|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.2336|0.9913|0.126
84463346|NCT02413255|168679770|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.09||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9962|1.1838|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1838|0.9962|0.114
84463347|NCT02413255|168679771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||0.5402
84463348|NCT02413255|168679772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 1||||0.7824
84463349|NCT02413255|168679772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4056|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 9||||0.4056
84518284|NCT05133180|168787822|SUPERIORITY||least ssquare mean difference|1.133||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|2.596||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.596|-0.329|0.129
84518285|NCT05133180|168787822|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|2.722||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 12.|MMRM|||Herein week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.722|-0.002|0.050
84725964|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|3.78|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.78|1.01|
84463350|NCT02413255|168679773|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0606||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0187|1.1026|||Power Model|||||1.1026|1.0187|0.019
84463351|NCT02413255|168679774|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0789||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9628|1.195|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.1950|0.9628|0.258
84463352|NCT02413255|168679774|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0929||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9878|1.198|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1980|0.9878|0.144
84463353|NCT02413255|168679777|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0799||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0371|1.1227|||Power Model|||||1.1227|1.0371|0.003
84463354|NCT02413255|168679778|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0897||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9735|1.206|||Power Model|||||1.2060|0.9735|0.201
84463355|NCT02413255|168679779|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0188||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9734|1.0642|||Power Model|||||1.0642|0.9734|0.490
84463356|NCT02413255|168679780|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0846||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.2002|||Power Model|||||1.2002|0.9690|0.224
84463357|NCT02413255|168679787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||<.0001
84518286|NCT05133180|168787823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 4 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||<0.001
84463358|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|1.628||||||||1.628|0.772|
84463359|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.678||||||||1.678|0.796|
84463360|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.425||||||||1.425|0.676|
84463361|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.587||||||||1.587|0.701|
84463362|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.604||||||||1.604|0.761|
84463363|NCT02413255|168679803|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.778||||||||1.778|0.844|
84463364|NCT02333331|168679804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.64|0.274
84463365|NCT02333331|168679804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.83|0.320
84463366|NCT02333331|168679804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-0.24|0.134
84463367|NCT02333331|168679805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|30.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.95|-37.6|0.576
84463368|NCT02333331|168679805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|61.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.41|-22.2|0.178
84463369|NCT02333331|168679805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.98|-10.4|0.163
84463370|NCT02333331|168679806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.10|0.488
84463371|NCT02333331|168679806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.02|0.055
84518287|NCT05133180|168787823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.009
84463372|NCT02333331|168679806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.03|0.161
84463373|NCT02333331|168679807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.99|0.213
84463374|NCT02333331|168679807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|1.03|<0.001
84463375|NCT02333331|168679807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.05|<0.001
84463376|NCT02333331|168679808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.458
84463377|NCT02333331|168679808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.03|<0.001
84463378|NCT02333331|168679808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|1.04|<0.001
84463379|NCT02413398|168679809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline (MMRM model)||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
84463380|NCT02413398|168679810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean percent change from baseline (MMRM)||-0.69|-2.15|<0.001
84463381|NCT02413398|168679811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo (MMRM)||-6.45|-26.73|0.001
84463382|NCT02413398|168679812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline vs. placebo (MMRM)||0.0|-6.3|<0.050
84463383|NCT01494038|168679813|NON_INFERIORITY|Calculate the difference between the immediate arm incidence rate and the deferred arm incidence rate; if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is lower than a 5% difference in incidence rates, non-inferiority will be considered to be proven.|Incidence rate difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|4.98||||||||4.98|-4.77|
84463384|NCT01494038|168679814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.093
84463385|NCT01494038|168679816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.288
84463386|NCT01494038|168679817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.073
84463387|NCT01494038|168679818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.264
84463388|NCT01494038|168679819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid-P adjustment||||||0.012
84463389|NCT01494038|168679822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.279
84463390|NCT01494038|168679823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||.893
84463391|NCT01494038|168679824|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.94|
84463392|NCT01494038|168679825|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.02|
84463393|NCT01494038|168679826|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.32||||||||1.32|-4.17|
84463394|NCT01494038|168679827|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.33|
84463395|NCT01494038|168679828|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.72|
84463396|NCT01494038|168679829|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.1||||||||1.1|-4.48|
84463397|NCT01494038|168679830|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|1.25||||||||1.25|-3.86|
84463398|NCT01494038|168679831|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|12.13||||||||12.13|-7.86|
84463399|NCT01494038|168679832|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|13.86||||||||13.86|-0.08|
84463400|NCT01494038|168679833|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|24.68||||||||24.68|-13.7|
84725965|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.67|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.67|1.21|
84518288|NCT05133180|168787823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.020
84518289|NCT05133180|168787823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.022
84718010|NCT02502266|169186490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.995|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||0.995|0.424|
84463401|NCT01494038|168679834|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.65||||||||29.65|2.11|
84463402|NCT01494038|168679835|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
84463403|NCT01494038|168679836|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
84463404|NCT01494038|168679837|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
84463405|NCT01494038|168679838|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
84463406|NCT01494038|168679839|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
84463407|NCT01494038|168679840|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
84463408|NCT01494038|168679841|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
84463409|NCT01494038|168679842|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
84463410|NCT01494038|168679847|OTHER|Measuring agreement between the tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemars test||||||< 0.0001
84718011|NCT02502266|169186490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.284|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.284|0.539|
84463411|NCT01494038|168679847|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.5||||||||0.50|0.35|
84463412|NCT01494038|168679848|OTHER|Agreement between tests||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||0.22
84463413|NCT01494038|168679848|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.21||||||||0.21|0.001|
84463414|NCT01494038|168679849|OTHER|Agreement between tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||< 0.0001
84463415|NCT01494038|168679849|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||||||||0.53|0.39|
84463416|NCT00537940|168679854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between Baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||7.0|-6.0|0.8708
84463417|NCT00537940|168679855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio and its 95% CI are calculated by exponentiating the log odds ratio and 95% CI that correspond to the treatment contrast in the logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline term and country as covariate. All statistical tests for secondary efficacy parameters were two sided and performed at significance level of α = 0.05. The above statistical analysis applies to All Partial Seizures - FAS Population.||1.335|0.635|0.662
84463418|NCT00537940|168679856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9232
84463419|NCT00537940|168679856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple Partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6361
84463420|NCT00537940|168679856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9075
84463421|NCT00537940|168679856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4203
84463422|NCT00537940|168679857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5069
84463423|NCT00537940|168679857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
84463424|NCT00537940|168679857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6054
84463425|NCT00537940|168679857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6603
84463426|NCT00537940|168679859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is calculated using Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1881
84463427|NCT00537940|168679860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and and country as covariates.||0.97|-0.53|0.5643
84518290|NCT05133180|168787824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.065
84463428|NCT00537940|168679860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21 / ET , HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country as covariates.||0.54|-0.73|0.7712
84463429|NCT00537940|168679860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.97|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.97|-0.41|0.4236
84463430|NCT00537940|168679860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.4|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21/ET, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment1difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.40|-0.75|0.5492
84463431|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||7.31|-0.81|0.1160
84463432|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.98|-3.62|0.8490
84463433|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.73|-4.34|0.6728
84463434|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.47|-2.56|0.3954
84463435|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||8.98|-0.92|0.1106
84463436|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.22|-6.09|0.3603
84463437|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.30|0.8312
84463438|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9101
84463439|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|2.45|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.45|-7.19|0.3346
84463440|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||3.37|-4.69|0.7491
84518291|NCT05133180|168787825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.125
84518292|NCT05133180|168787826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.005
84518293|NCT05133180|168787826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.116
84518294|NCT05133180|168787826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.864
84518295|NCT05133180|168787827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.011
84518296|NCT05133180|168787827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.316
84518297|NCT05133180|168787827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.685
84518298|NCT05133180|168787828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.016
84518299|NCT05133180|168787828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.160
84518300|NCT05133180|168787828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.839
84518301|NCT05133180|168787829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0455|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0455
84518302|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.06||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 8||||0.060
84518303|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.079||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 8||||0.079
84518304|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.251||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 8||||0.251
84518305|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.203||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 16||||0.203
84518306|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.114||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 16||||0.114
84518307|NCT05133180|168787830|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.112||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 16||||0.112
84518308|NCT05133180|168787831|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.002||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 8||||0.002
84518309|NCT05133180|168787831|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 16||||0.076
84518310|NCT05133180|168787832|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 8||||0.160
84540840|NCT01996241|168832751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.31||Adjusted for village strata and cluster, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum using individual-level data and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (in the form of cluster-level summaries).|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||2.31|0.2|0.331
84463441|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|6.71|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.71|-0.74|0.1162
84463442|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||5.32|-1.21|0.2163
84463443|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.61|0.30|0.0321
84463444|NCT00537940|168679861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.85|-2.17|0.7889
84463445|NCT00537940|168679862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.948|0.449|0.0252
84463446|NCT00537940|168679862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.811||||0.3459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 21: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.254|0.524|0.3459
84463447|NCT03952546|168679868|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was carried out by calculating the upper 95% confidence limit (one sided confidence interval) for the difference in estimated blood loss (δ = Unipolar electrocautery system - Saline-coupled bipolar sealer), with the margin of inferiority (δ), set at 200 cc.||||||0.1254|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1254
84518311|NCT05133180|168787832|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 8||||0.009
84718012|NCT02502266|169186490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.773|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.773|0.745|
84463448|NCT03952546|168679869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84518312|NCT05133180|168787832|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 16||||0.076
84540841|NCT01996241|168832752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.15|0.6|0.26
84463449|NCT00685178|168679871|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Condition|2.21||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|||||Using the proportion of negative urine samples obtained, the four groups were compared to determine whether there are any group differences in cocaine abstinence (as measured by negative urine samples).|Chi-squared||F-value for main effect of Drug Condition|||||0.531
84463450|NCT00685178|168679872|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.969|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||CR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between CR groups (topiramate + CR and Placebo + CR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
84463451|NCT00685178|168679872|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||NonCR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between Non-CR groups (topiramate + NonCR and Placebo + NonCR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
84463452|NCT00077623|168679880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.098|0.38||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.380|-0.098|<0.0001
84463453|NCT00077623|168679880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity .|Mean Difference between groups|-0.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.262|0.217||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.217|-0.262|<0.0001
84463454|NCT01334125|168679889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.903
84463455|NCT01334125|168679890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.578
84463456|NCT01334125|168679891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||Two way ANOVA comparison of the means of the adiponectin/leptin ratios between the metformin and placebo groups||||0.057
84463457|NCT01334125|168679892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis for minor hypoglycemia||||1.00
84463458|NCT01334125|168679892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis of the nocturnal hypoglycemia||||1.00
84463459|NCT05299892|168679938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.46153||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.99|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA .Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE moderate. Analysis of age effects was not completed.||12.99|1.79|.005
84463460|NCT05299892|168679938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.00961|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|15.11|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA . Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE strong. An analysis of age effects was not completed.||15.11|3.91|<.001
84463461|NCT05299892|168679938|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no significant differences between the mean unaided CNC score at 50 dBA and the mean aided CNC score with SE off.||||<0.001
84463462|NCT01389128|168679941|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84463463|NCT01389128|168679944|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
84463464|NCT00149214|168679956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|16.5||||||95.0|10.5|24.2||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Pemetrexed treatment arm.||24.2|10.5|
84463465|NCT00149214|168679956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|20.2||||||95.0|13.4|28.5||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Cyclophosphamide treatment group.||28.5|13.4|
84463466|NCT00756002|168679961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||<0.001
84463467|NCT00756002|168679962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463468|NCT00756002|168679963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463469|NCT00756002|168679964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||0.003
84463470|NCT00756002|168679965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463471|NCT00756002|168679966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463472|NCT00756002|168679967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463473|NCT00756002|168679968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84518313|NCT05133180|168787832|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.128||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 16||||0.128
84518314|NCT01604941|168787837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.2960
84463474|NCT00756002|168679969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463475|NCT00756002|168679970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463476|NCT00756002|168679971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463477|NCT00756002|168679972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463478|NCT00756002|168679973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84463479|NCT00756002|168679974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84463480|NCT00756002|168679975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
84463481|NCT00756002|168679976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.010
84463482|NCT00756002|168679977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.002
84463483|NCT00756002|168679978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.006
84463484|NCT00756002|168679979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84518315|NCT01604941|168787837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0400
84518316|NCT01604941|168787837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.6303
84718013|NCT02502266|169186491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.597|1.06||The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization|Log Rank||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.060|0.597|0.145
84463485|NCT00756002|168679980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84518317|NCT01604941|168787838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0365
84518318|NCT01604941|168787838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0019
84463486|NCT00756002|168679981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463487|NCT00756002|168679982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463488|NCT00756002|168679983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463489|NCT00756002|168679984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84518319|NCT01604941|168787838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.1695
84518320|NCT01604941|168787839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0394
84518321|NCT01604941|168787839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0004
84463490|NCT00756002|168679985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463491|NCT00756002|168679986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463492|NCT00756002|168679987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
84463493|NCT00756002|168679988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.785
84463494|NCT00756002|168679989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.422
84463495|NCT00756002|168679990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.665
84463496|NCT00756002|168679991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.228
84463497|NCT00756002|168679992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.099
84463498|NCT00756002|168679993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
84463499|NCT00756002|168679994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
84463500|NCT00756002|168679995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.001
84463501|NCT00756002|168679996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
84463502|NCT00756002|168679997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.040
84463503|NCT00756002|168679998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.814
84463504|NCT00756002|168679999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.929
84518322|NCT01604941|168787839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0332
84463505|NCT00756002|168680000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.591
84463506|NCT00756002|168680001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.015
84463507|NCT00756002|168680002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.097
84463508|NCT00756002|168680003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
84518323|NCT01604941|168787840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.3202
84518324|NCT01604941|168787840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.4549
84463509|NCT00756002|168680004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.003
84463510|NCT00756002|168680005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.111
84463511|NCT05483127|168680054|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=P1fA - MDT. Sign (negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.00||
84463512|NCT00315302|168680055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.21||95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as atropine plus plano group minus atropine group|"The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of logMAR visual acuity scores in the amblyopic eye obtained 18 weeks after randomization, adjusted for baseline acuity scores in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The primary analysis included only patients with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/100; sample size was based upon a two-sided alpha of 0.05, with 90% power to detect a difference if the true difference in change from baseline between groups was 0.075 logMAR at 18 weeks."||0.8|-0.2|0.21
84463513|NCT00315302|168680056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||.03
84463514|NCT00315302|168680057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||5.8|3.2|
84463515|NCT00315302|168680057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.4||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||6.4|3.7|
84463516|NCT00315302|168680058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||0.39
84463517|NCT00315302|168680059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||All patients without respect to cause of amblyopia.||||0.39
84463518|NCT00315302|168680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||Among anisometropic patients only||||0.90
84518325|NCT01604941|168787840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.3291
84518326|NCT01604941|168787841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.6703
84518327|NCT01604941|168787841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2618
84518328|NCT01604941|168787841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 16 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.7679
84518329|NCT01604941|168787842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.1683
84518330|NCT01604941|168787842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0123
84518331|NCT01604941|168787842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2334
84518332|NCT05283148|168787850|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.321||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the lumbar spine. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.321
84718014|NCT02502266|169186491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.726|1.0|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization.|The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.00|0.726|1.0
84718015|NCT02502266|169186492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.771|1.368||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.368|0.771|
84463519|NCT00315302|168680062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups;~Alternate: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups"||||0.003
84463520|NCT01165229|168680074|OTHER|The efficacy of Herpes Zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of VE was above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.54|94.32|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79 YOA group.||94.32|83.54|<0.0001
84463521|NCT01165229|168680074|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.65|96.16|||Poisson exact method|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.16|74.65|<0.0001
84518333|NCT05283148|168787851|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.714||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA lumbar spine scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.714
84518334|NCT05283148|168787852|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.09||||||p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the total hip. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
84518335|NCT05283148|168787853|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.604||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA total hip scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.604
84518336|NCT05283148|168787854|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.013||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the femoral neck. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.013
84718016|NCT02502266|169186492|OTHER|No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.795|1.413||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.413|0.795|
84718017|NCT06408870|169186504|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.08|106.75|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.0."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.75|101.08|
84718018|NCT06408870|169186505|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.83|110.01|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.5."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||110.01|100.83|
84718019|NCT06408870|169186506|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.95|106.65|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.1."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.65|100.95|
84463522|NCT01165229|168680074|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.29|93.66|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||93.66|84.29|<0.0001
84463523|NCT01165229|168680075|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|93.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.47|99.19|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||99.19|72.47|<0.0001
84463524|NCT01165229|168680075|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|71.16||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.51|97.08|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||97.08|-51.51|0.1844
84463525|NCT01165229|168680075|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|88.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|97.1|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||97.10|68.70|<0.0001
84518337|NCT05283148|168787855|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.166||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA femoral neck scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.166
84718020|NCT05030584|169186541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.05||The type I error rate was controlled at a one-sided α=0.025 level.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||"For category Change from baseline."||-1.05|-2.04|<0.0001
84718021|NCT04955431|169186616|OTHER|We performed a 2-way Repeated Measures ANOVA to compare changes in blood IL-6 levels from baseline to post simulated firefighting on control days (Normal Sleep) and experimental days (Sleep Restriction).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84718022|NCT04955431|169186617|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84718023|NCT04319887|169186692|OTHER||||||||||||||||||statistical analysis section may be deleted|||
84463526|NCT01165229|168680076|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.04|94.85|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||94.85|86.04|<0.0001
84463527|NCT01165229|168680076|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.22|96.94|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.94|80.22|<0.0001
84463528|NCT01165229|168680076|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|94.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||94.46|86.88|<0.0001
84463529|NCT01165229|168680077|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.57|98.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of of Vaccine Efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 placebo 70-79YOA Group||98.95|62.57|<0.0001
84463530|NCT01165229|168680077|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|65.76||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.58|96.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.62|-91.58|0.3072
84518338|NCT05283148|168787856|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.23||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (interquartile range) for each group, based on the ASCQ-Me Pain Impact instrument (lower scores indicate worse pain impact). Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.23
84718024|NCT02890355|169186702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.78||a priori threshold for statistical significance, one sided p=0.02|Log Rank|||||1.78|0.85|0.28
84463531|NCT01165229|168680077|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|85.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|96.3|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||96.30|58.52|<0.0001
84518339|NCT00095784|168787865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CD34+ cell levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||<0.0001
84718025|NCT02890355|169186704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.96|0.09
84718026|NCT00353496|169186718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified according to progression status at baseline and prior therapy.||||0.73|0.30|<0.001
84718027|NCT02379351|169186724|OTHER|This pilot study is primarily descriptive statistics||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics - parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated (Chi-squared)||||||.1
84718028|NCT02379351|169186725|NON_INFERIORITY|Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics: parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated.|||Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||<0.01
84463532|NCT01165229|168680078|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|21.7||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|54.39|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||54.39|-34.40|0.3749
84463533|NCT01165229|168680078|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|51.76||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|85.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=80YOA Group||85.95|-65.55|0.2466
84718029|NCT00195403|169186813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in PGA at Month 3 was evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
84718030|NCT00195403|169186814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in number of joints with tenderness, pain, and limitation of motion or swelling at Month 3 were evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
84718031|NCT02166463|169186851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Used a one-sided log-rank test between 2 arms||Assuming a 3-year EFS of 82% (5-year EFS of 78.4%, long term EFS of 76%) for standard arm, the study will have approximately 86% power for detecting an 8% improvement in 3-year EFS in the Bv-AVEPC arm (3-year EFS of 90%, 5-year EFS of 88.0%, long term EFS of 86.7%) in log rank test.||||0.0001
84726513|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.8|
84463534|NCT01165229|168680078|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|28.4||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|56.44|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=70YOA Group||56.44|-17.69|0.1877
84463535|NCT01165229|168680081|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.13|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||100.00|-144.13|0.2533
84463536|NCT01165229|168680081|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.14|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-435.14|0.5024
84463537|NCT01165229|168680081|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||100.00|-9.92|0.0636
84463538|NCT01165229|168680082|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-65.69||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-827.06|73.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||73.62|-827.06|0.4947
84463539|NCT01165229|168680082|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-558.05|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-558.05|1.0000
84518340|NCT00095784|168787871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CXCR4 levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||0.29
84718032|NCT06393127|169186859|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|111.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.36|99.07|
84718033|NCT06393127|169186860|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|113.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|125.05|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 32.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||125.05|102.70|
84463540|NCT01165229|168680082|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.32|83.16|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||83.16|-433.32|1.0000
84463541|NCT01165229|168680083|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|43.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|70.53|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||70.53|10.77|0.0112
84463542|NCT01165229|168680083|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|27.03||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|73.2|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||73.20|-26.43|0.3903
84463543|NCT01165229|168680083|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|39.6||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|64.75|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||64.75|10.79|0.0083
84463544|NCT01165229|168680084|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|58.94||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|80.96|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||80.96|11.45|0.0232
84463545|NCT01165229|168680084|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-14.56||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.3|67.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||67.46|-303.30|0.8324
84518341|NCT00095784|168787877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in hemoglobin F levels.||||0.99
84463546|NCT01165229|168680084|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|49.25||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|73.47|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||73.47|2.92|0.0404
84463547|NCT01165229|168680093|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.88|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59YOA Group.Comparison of vaccine efficacy for groups 70-79 and above 80 YOA are presented in outcome measure 2.||100.00|40.88|0.0081
84463548|NCT01165229|168680093|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.83|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69YOA Group||100.00|-442.83|0.5097
84463549|NCT01165229|168680094|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-649.86|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59 YOA Group||100.00|-649.86|1.0000
84463550|NCT01165229|168680094|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3938.7|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69 YOA Group||100.00|-3938.70|1.0000
84463551|NCT01165229|168680094|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|21.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.41|78.91|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79 YOA Group||78.91|-149.41|1.0000
84518342|NCT03325881|168787883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that included treatment group, nominal visit, age group, interaction of the treatment group with the visits as factors, baseline ADHD-RS5 total score as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline ADHD-RS-5 Total Score with the visit.||3.1|-6.8|0.451
84463552|NCT01165229|168680094|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|-223.81||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-883.05|18.84|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo\>=80 YOA Group||18.84|-883.05|0.1528
84463553|NCT01165229|168680094|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.29||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.53|65.57|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=50 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=50 YOA Group||65.57|-161.53|0.5417
84463554|NCT01165229|168680095|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|23.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|53.78|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||53.78|-25.80|0.2885
84463555|NCT01165229|168680095|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|54.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.03|86.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo \>=80 YOA Group||86.46|-50.03|0.1940
84463556|NCT01165229|168680095|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|30.48||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|56.27|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo\>=70 YOA Group||56.27|-10.52|0.1243
84518343|NCT03325881|168787884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that includes treatment group, nominal visit, age group,interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline CGI-S as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline CGI-S with the visit.||0.3|-0.5|0.597
84518344|NCT03676634|168787894|OTHER||single proportion|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.947|||||Values listed in table are for Type A. Estimated Value for the Estimation Parameter for type B = 0.875. Lower limit = 0.710, upper limit = 0.965|Consider increase from baseline to post-dose values. Parameter is proportion achieving desired increase (≥ 3x or 4x increase in Type A and Type B NAC).|Proportion of participants achieving ≥ 3x or 4x increase in NAC values was calculated for both Type A and Type B. Primary endpoint was achieved if both Type A and Type B had proportion ≥50%.|.947|.672|
84540842|NCT01996241|168832753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.55||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.55|0.7|0.79
84518345|NCT02213263|168787920|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was tested within the pre-specified margins of (-16%, 16%) 95% confidence interval.|Difference in ORR|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|13.47||||||Difference in ORR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.47|-4.16|
84518346|NCT02213263|168787926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.72||A log-rank test stratified by follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2 (FLIPI2) risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to TTF at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||1.720|0.786|0.450
84518347|NCT02213263|168787927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.393||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.291|||Log Rank|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to PFS at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.291|0.847|0.189
84518348|NCT02213263|168787928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|6.5||||||Difference in CR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.50|-11.09|
84518349|NCT02213263|168787929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.492||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|2.704||A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to DOR at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.704|0.823|0.185
84518350|NCT02213263|168787930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.94||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Due to smaller number of participants with an event, upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated.|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to overall survival at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.||||0.000|0.319
84518351|NCT04428307|168787943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||||||||2.02|0.61|
84463557|NCT02255838|168680150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.05
84518352|NCT04428307|168787943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.71||||||||1.71|0.49|
84518353|NCT04428307|168787944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||||||||1.80|0.83|
84518354|NCT04428307|168787944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||||||||1.62|0.81|
84518355|NCT04428307|168787945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||||1.09|0.80|
84518356|NCT04428307|168787945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
84478877|NCT02259127|168709097|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.01|-0.16|= 0.079
84518357|NCT04428307|168787946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.73||||||||1.73|0.75|
84518358|NCT04428307|168787946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||||||||1.74|0.77|
84518359|NCT04428307|168787947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
84518360|NCT04428307|168787947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||||1.04|0.89|
84518361|NCT02679729|168787955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.853||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||0.853|0.396|
84518362|NCT02679729|168787956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.49||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.49|0.905|
84518363|NCT02679729|168787957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.76||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.76|1.34|
84518364|NCT04667338|168787971|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5061|||||||Chi-squared|||Pharmacological||||=0.5061
84518365|NCT04667338|168787971|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2053|||||||Chi-squared|||Non-pharmacological||||=0.2053
84518366|NCT04667338|168787972|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4016
84518367|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5274|||||||Chi-squared|||Educational level ongoing or completed level of education||||=0.5274
84518368|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7051|||||||Chi-squared|||Occupational status and occupation||||=0.7051
84518369|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3543|||||||Chi-squared|||Civil status||||=0.3543
84518370|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Living conditions||||=0.0368
84518371|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3512|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking status||||=0.3512
84518372|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Alcohol intake||||=0.1040
84518373|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0202|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise status||||=0.0202
84518374|NCT04667338|168787975|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3503|||||||Chi-squared|||Family history of narcolepsy||||=0.3503
84518375|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0715|||||||Chi-squared|||General practitioner||||=0.0715
84518376|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0929|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurologist||||=0.0929
84518377|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3092|||||||Chi-squared|||Neuropediatrician||||=0.3092
84518378|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4528|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurophysiologist||||=0.4528
84518379|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Pneumologist||||<0.0001
84518380|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1785|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist||||=0.1785
84518381|NCT04667338|168787980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1474|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist-unit||||=0.1474
84518382|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2042|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical history||||=0.2042
84518383|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical assessment: ESS||||=0.5818
84463558|NCT01512368|168680160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.144||All reported p values are based on two-sided tests considering ≤0.05 as significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, time of exercise, creatinine, waist to hip ratio, fat percentage, body mass index, mean rest heart rate, blood pressure.|Metabolic equivalents (METs) consumed were independently associated with the log of delta (final-basal) FGF21 levels.|"FGF21 was log transformed to approximate normality before analyses. Null hypothesis was Ho = Y1 (FGF21 level at baseline) = Y2 (FGF21 level after two weeks of exercising). Power calculation was 80% with 60 participants evaluated (one group). To evaluate the effect of exercise on clinical and biochemical parameters, we used the difference between final - basal levels (delta)."||0.144|0.034|<0.001
84463559|NCT01515072|168680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21||This is an unadjusted comparison. P value \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses for the RIPC effect are provided below.|0.08 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size and Power estimation: A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.21|-0.37|0.38
84463560|NCT01515072|168680175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||This is an unadjusted analysis. P \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses are provided below.|0.03 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.26|-0.33|0.70
84463561|NCT01515072|168680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.63
84463562|NCT01515072|168680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84463563|NCT01515072|168680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
84518384|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurological assessment||||=0.0368
84463564|NCT01515072|168680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
84463565|NCT01515072|168680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.48
84463566|NCT01515072|168680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.04
84463567|NCT01515072|168680182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.5||P\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Final flow was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion|Data shown above is the the adjusted mean difference in final flow in RIPC group|||19.5|-10.1|0.53
84463568|NCT01515072|168680183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
84463569|NCT01515072|168680184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.76||Adjusted analysis with recipient age as a continuous variable, sex, race as black versus not black, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension,antigen mismatches, donor age as a continuous variable and trial site.|Chi-squared|||||2.76|0.95|0.07
84463570|NCT01515072|168680184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84463571|NCT01515072|168680185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Final resistance was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion.|Data shown above is the adjusted mean difference in final resistance in the RIPC group.|||0.17|0.03|0.006
84463572|NCT01515072|168680186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.50
84463573|NCT01515072|168680187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.03
84518385|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1128|||||||Chi-squared|||MSLT||||=0.1128
84463574|NCT01515072|168680188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.9|||Log Rank|Results of adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses for six month death-censored kidney graft survival are shown below|The proportional hazard ratio favors RIPC group|||0.90|0.04|0.01
84463575|NCT01515072|168680189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.37
84463576|NCT01499576|168680215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent agreement|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84463577|NCT01499576|168680216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa index of agreement|0.808|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa index of agreement|||||||<0.01
84463578|NCT01499576|168680217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||persent of adverse event|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84463579|NCT01662999|168680223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.026|0.867|
84463580|NCT01662999|168680224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjusted geometric mean|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(INF). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.008|0.961|
84463581|NCT01662999|168680226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(0-T). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.014|0.966|
84463582|NCT01662999|168680228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||0.972|0.883|
84518386|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3396|||||||Chi-squared|||AHI||||=0.3396
84518387|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6794|||||||Chi-squared|||Other procedures||||=0.6794
84518388|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||HLA typing||||=0.0138
84463583|NCT01662999|168680230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.004|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite of saxagliptin). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.109|1.004|
84463584|NCT01662999|168680231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.960|
84463585|NCT01662999|168680232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.961|
84463586|NCT01662999|168680233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
84463587|NCT01662999|168680234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
84518389|NCT04667338|168787981|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0597|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypocretin-1 CSF or Orexin||||=0.0597
84463588|NCT01662999|168680235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.030|0.960|
84463589|NCT01662999|168680236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.064|1.029|
84463590|NCT00524303|168680271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|17.9|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the trastuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||17.9|-38.1|
84463591|NCT00524303|168680271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|49.4|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||49.4|-8.0|
84463592|NCT00524303|168680272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|32.5|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||32.5|-17.8|0.627
84463593|NCT00524303|168680272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|25.1|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||25.1|-25.1|1.000
84463594|NCT03478683|168680279|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.043|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.043|-0.013|
84463595|NCT03478683|168680280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.018|-0.037|0.481
84463596|NCT03478683|168680280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.086||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.086|0.037|<0.001
84518390|NCT04667338|168787982|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1171
84518391|NCT04667338|168787983|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3834
84518392|NCT04667338|168787988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0531
84518393|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||Take short naps||||=0.0005
84518394|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8221|||||||Chi-squared|||Maintain a regular sleep schedule||||=0.8221
84518395|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2291|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid caffeine or alcohol before bedtime||||=0.2291
84518396|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9177|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid smoking, especially at night||||=0.9177
84518397|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4188|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise daily||||=0.4188
84518398|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid large, heavy meals right before bedtime||||=0.5818
84518399|NCT04667338|168787989|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Other||||=0.5432
84518400|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment||||=0.5432
84518401|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0397|||||||Chi-squared|||Routine monitoring visits||||=0.0397
84518402|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0306|||||||Chi-squared|||Tests||||=0.0306
84463597|NCT03478683|168680280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.084||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.084|0.032|<0.001
84463598|NCT03478683|168680280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.066||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.066|0.010|0.007
84463599|NCT03478683|168680281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.013||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.013|-0.030|0.415
84463600|NCT03478683|168680282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.04||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.040|-0.014|0.335
84463601|NCT01330381|168680294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9002
84463602|NCT01330381|168680295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3520
84463603|NCT01330381|168680296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5228|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5228
84463604|NCT01330381|168680305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.377
84463605|NCT01330381|168680308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1599|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.1599
84463606|NCT01330381|168680309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
84463607|NCT01330381|168680310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4647|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.4647
84463608|NCT01330381|168680311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
84725966|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|4.96|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.96|1.46|
84463609|NCT01330381|168680312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3044|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.3044
84463610|NCT00401973|168680341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||To detect a difference between treatment arms of 3.06 kg in mean weight change from baseline to endpoint, 150 patients must be enrolled in stepped intervention arm and 50 in control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 6.87 kg, there is 80% power to detect a difference between treatment arms on a 1-sided 2-sample t-test at the 5% significance level. Primary analysis was the comparison of mean weight change for 'olanzapine only' versus pooled 'olanzapine \& adjunctive treatment' arm at Week 22.||||0.065
84463611|NCT00401973|168680341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||Hypothesis=weight gain associated with olanzapine can be prevented or mitigated with an adjunctive pharmacological algorithm.||||0.113
84463612|NCT00401973|168680341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||||||0.036
84463613|NCT00401973|168680342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.498
84463614|NCT00401973|168680342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
84463615|NCT00401973|168680342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
84463616|NCT00401973|168680343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
84463617|NCT00401973|168680343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
84463618|NCT00401973|168680343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
84463619|NCT00401973|168680344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84463620|NCT00401973|168680344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
84463621|NCT00401973|168680344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
84463622|NCT00401973|168680345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
84463623|NCT00401973|168680345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.350
84463624|NCT00401973|168680345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.123
84463625|NCT00401973|168680346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.499
84463626|NCT00401973|168680346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
84463627|NCT00401973|168680346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.339
84463628|NCT00401973|168680347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
84463629|NCT00401973|168680347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.976
84463630|NCT00401973|168680347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
84463631|NCT00401973|168680348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
84463632|NCT00401973|168680348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
84463633|NCT00401973|168680348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
84463634|NCT00401973|168680349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
84463635|NCT00401973|168680349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
84463636|NCT00401973|168680349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
84463637|NCT00401973|168680350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.474
84463638|NCT00401973|168680350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
84463639|NCT00401973|168680350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.652
84725967|NCT00999336|169204073|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|2.38|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.38|0.793|
84463640|NCT05099991|168680365|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated with a mean increase in procedure of 5 minutes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.2||||||||8.2|-7.8|
84463641|NCT05099991|168680366|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
84463642|NCT04329923|168680406|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
84463643|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|5|
84463644|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between MenABCWY and MenACWY groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|44.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||44|21|
84463645|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|0|
84463646|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||31|5|
84463647|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|7|
84463648|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||42|18|
84463649|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|33.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||33|4|
84478878|NCT02259127|168709098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.68|0.38|= 0.993
84478879|NCT02259127|168709098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2|0.13|= 0.33
84478880|NCT02259127|168709098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.12|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||3.12|0.32|= 0.991
84478881|NCT02259127|168709098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7.13|0.14|= 0.997
84518403|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Emergency visits||||=0.7451
84518404|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0845|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalizations||||=0.0845
84518405|NCT04667338|168787990|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3813|||||||Chi-squared|||Complications||||=0.3813
84518406|NCT04667338|168787992|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Absenteeism||||=0.0034
84518407|NCT04667338|168787992|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presenteeism||||=0.2178
84518408|NCT04667338|168787992|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work productivity loss||||=0.1758
84518409|NCT04667338|168787992|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity Impairment / disability||||=0.1789
84518410|NCT04667338|168787993|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5806|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.5806
84518411|NCT04667338|168787995|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1602|||||||Chi-squared|||Mobility||||=0.1602
84518412|NCT04667338|168787995|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5249|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-Care||||=0.5249
84518413|NCT04667338|168787995|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1095|||||||Chi-squared|||Usual activities||||=0.1095
84718034|NCT06393127|169186861|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|111.14|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.5|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.14|99.10|
84518414|NCT04667338|168787995|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3528|||||||Chi-squared|||Pain / Discomfort||||=0.3528
84518415|NCT04667338|168787995|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7434|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety / Depression||||=0.7434
84518416|NCT04667338|168787996|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0396
84518417|NCT04667338|168787997|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Effectiveness||||=0.0394
84718035|NCT04479787|169186885|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
84718036|NCT04479787|169186886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||< 0.0001
84518418|NCT04667338|168787997|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Convenience||||=0.3093
84518419|NCT04667338|168787997|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global satisfaction||||=0.2296
84518420|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||=0.1817
84518421|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Bipolar disorder||||=0.0885
84518422|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3043|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety disorders||||=0.3043
84718037|NCT04479787|169186887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
84518423|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Panic disorder||||=0.0885
84518424|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Phobia disorder||||=0.5603
84518425|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Obsessive compulsive disorder||||=0.5603
84518426|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3646|||||||Chi-squared|||Diagnosis of ADHD||||=0.3646
84518427|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2615|||||||Chi-squared|||Obesity||||=0.2615
84518428|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3076|||||||Chi-squared|||Endocrine Disorders||||=0.3076
84518429|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||Peripheral vascular disease||||=0.4090
84518430|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (TIA)||||=0.5603
84518431|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||=0.5603
84518432|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Connective tissue disease||||=0.5603
84518433|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease||||=0.7451
84518434|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3108|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes Mellitus||||=0.3108
84518435|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2407|||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor||||=0.2407
84518436|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||AIDS||||=0.5603
84518437|NCT04667338|168787998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1739|||||||Chi-squared|||Others||||=0.1739
84518438|NCT04667338|168787999|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3585
84518439|NCT01124786|168788026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||<|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.326|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence interval presented above, so parameter dispersion not indicated in standard deviation field directly above.|If the median Overall Survival (OS) for the CO-1.01-treated patients is 7.7 months and the median OS for gemcitabine-treated patients with hENT1-low status is 4 months (hazard ratio of 0.53), then a total of 144 events of death in the hENT1-low subgroup will provide over 90% power at a 0.05 (2 sided) significance level for the comparison of CO-1.01 to gemcitabine in the hENT1-low patients.||1.326|0.746|<0.973
84518440|NCT01442376|168788035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|12.4||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||12.4|-11.7|
84540843|NCT01996241|168832754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.34|0.5|0.45
84718038|NCT04479787|169186888|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
84718039|NCT04479787|169186889|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
84718040|NCT04479787|169186890|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
84718041|NCT04479787|169186891|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
84718042|NCT04479787|169186892|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
84463650|NCT01272180|168680411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|3|
84463651|NCT03334214|168680422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84463652|NCT03334214|168680423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
84463653|NCT03334214|168680426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
84463654|NCT03334214|168680427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the baseline liver fat stratum (\<20%, ≥20%) stratification factor.||||||0.0774
84518441|NCT01442376|168788035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.4|7.6||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||7.6|-16.4|
84518442|NCT01075516|168788038|OTHER|Continuous data summarized as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD). For cost data Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. The analysis evaluated HCS perspective of group membership impact (SC vs RM) on total health care cost, adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84518443|NCT01075516|168788039|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. For cost data the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on cardiovascular hospitalization timeframe (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84463655|NCT03334214|168680428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
84463656|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol||||0.682
84463657|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||ApoB||||0.716
84463658|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|||HDL||||0.717
84540844|NCT04882241|168832756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.39528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.70|0.50|0.39528
84540845|NCT04882241|168832757|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.33244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||12.0|-7.7|0.33244
84463659|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||ANOVA|||LDL-C||||0.463
84463660|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANOVA|||Non-HDL||||0.555
84463661|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Triglycerides||||0.619
84463662|NCT03334214|168680429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||ANOVA|||VLDL-C||||0.698
84463663|NCT03334214|168680430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||ANOVA|||FPG||||0.902
84463664|NCT03334214|168680430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Van Elteren test|||HOMA-IR||||0.267
84463665|NCT03334214|168680430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Van Elteren test|||Insulin||||0.200
84463666|NCT03334214|168680431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.933
84463667|NCT03351244|168680442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|2.056|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.056|0.585|0.7735
84463668|NCT03351244|168680442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.77|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.770|0.468|0.7809
84463669|NCT03351244|168680442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.753|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.753|0.576|0.9862
84463670|NCT03351244|168680443|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.38||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|1.57|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.570|-0.809|0.5289
84463671|NCT03351244|168680443|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.21||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|1.475|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.475|-1.055|0.7440
84463672|NCT03351244|168680443|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.31||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.745|1.358|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.358|-0.745|0.5659
84463673|NCT03351244|168680446|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|4.989|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.989|0.203|0.9938
84463674|NCT03351244|168680446|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|5.531|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||5.531|0.225|0.8930
84463675|NCT03351244|168680446|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.233|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.233|0.265|0.9360
84463676|NCT03351244|168680448|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|2.118|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.118|0.293|0.6362
84463677|NCT03351244|168680448|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|1.826|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.826|0.205|0.3782
84463678|NCT03351244|168680448|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.671|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.671|0.296|0.4253
84463679|NCT02951273|168680449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0276
84463680|NCT02951273|168680450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84518444|NCT01075516|168788040|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.8||||||Comparison of utility at baseline from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 3-Level Self-Report (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.80
84718043|NCT05495945|169186897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84463681|NCT02951273|168680451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6025|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6025
84463682|NCT02951273|168680452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.3213
84463683|NCT02951273|168680453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||The reported p-value was calculated|repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0005
84463684|NCT02951273|168680454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5404|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.5404
84463685|NCT02951273|168680455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8947|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.8947
84463686|NCT02951273|168680456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Linear mixed models|||||||0.0068
84718044|NCT05495945|169186898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84718045|NCT05495945|169186899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84718046|NCT05495945|169186900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84463687|NCT02951273|168680457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84463688|NCT02951273|168680458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84463689|NCT02951273|168680459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84463690|NCT02951273|168680460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
84463691|NCT00121225|168680465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84463692|NCT00091793|168680481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|6.2|<0.0001
84463693|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
84463694|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
84463695|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.61|0.44|
84463696|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
84463697|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.18|
84463698|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.31|
84463699|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.19|
84463700|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
84463701|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.17|
84463702|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.25|
84463703|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.27|
84463704|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
84463705|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.10|
84463706|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
84463707|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.16|0.09|
84463708|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.41|
84463709|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
84463710|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.38|
84463711|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.60|
84463712|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.51|
84463713|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.86|
84463714|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.41|
84463715|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.39|
84463716|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|0.78|
84463717|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.71|
84463718|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.54|
84463719|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.06|0.78|
84463720|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.29|
84463721|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.39|
84463722|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.53|
84463723|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.49|
84463724|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.63|0.52|
84518445|NCT01075516|168788040|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.38||||||Comparison of utility at 12 months from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.38
84518446|NCT01075516|168788040|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.53
84518447|NCT00902538|168788080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1187
84518448|NCT00902538|168788080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84463725|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.53|
84463726|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.64|0.42|
84463727|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
84463728|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.88|0.63|
84463729|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.15|
84463730|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.35|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.35|0.23|
84518449|NCT00902538|168788081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0425
84518450|NCT00902538|168788081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84518451|NCT00902538|168788082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1939||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1939
84518452|NCT00902538|168788082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84518453|NCT00902538|168788083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
84518454|NCT00902538|168788083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84518455|NCT00902538|168788084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84518456|NCT00902538|168788084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84463731|NCT01025336|168680492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
84463732|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.56|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.42|
84463733|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.56|
84463734|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
84463735|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.57|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.57|0.44|
84463736|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.60|
84463737|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.97|0.63|
84463738|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.81|
84463739|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.99|0.74|
84463740|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
84463741|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
84463742|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.31|
84463743|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.59|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.40|
84463744|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.96|0.58|
84463745|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.67|
84463746|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.37|
84518457|NCT00902538|168788085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1611
84518458|NCT00902538|168788086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
84463747|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.57|
84463748|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.85|
84463749|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.04|
84463750|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.62|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.48|
84463751|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.83|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.59|
84463752|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.57|
84463753|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.65|
84518459|NCT00902538|168788087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0412
84518460|NCT00902538|168788088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0253
84518461|NCT00902538|168788089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0063
84518462|NCT01935674|168788090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|22.5||P-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test; significance threshold set at α = 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test; analysis based on intention-to-treat population.||Comparison of percentage change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between rosuvastatin and PI/r switch groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum test used. Study powered to detect a 15% difference with 80% power and α = 0.05. All participants included in intention-to-treat analysis.||22.5|2.9|0.003
84518463|NCT03527485|168788098|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in ventral striatum (VS).||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
84463754|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.93|0.66|
84463755|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.75|
84518464|NCT03527485|168788098|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in Prefrontal cortex (PFC).||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.044
84518465|NCT04198363|168788100|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of vonoprazan to esomeprazole was evaluated by Farrington and Manning test using a noninferiority margin of 10% for analysis.|Difference in Proportions|0.1|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|6.17|||Farrington and Manning Test||Difference in proportions for vonoprazan versus esomeprazole was analyzed and the 2-sided Wald confidence interval was used for determining the 95% confidence interval.|||6.17|-5.95|=0.0009
84518466|NCT03067987|168788111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
84518467|NCT03067987|168788112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
84518468|NCT03442322|168788115|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.25||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.492
84518469|NCT03442322|168788116|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.73||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.765
84518470|NCT03442322|168788117|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.77||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.808
84463756|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.27|
84463757|NCT01025336|168680493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.34|
84463758|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
84463759|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.79|
84463760|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.90|0.69|
84463761|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
84463762|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.32|0.98|
84518471|NCT03442322|168788118|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.108
84518472|NCT03442322|168788119|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|2.59||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.411
84463763|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.81|0.62|
84463764|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
84463765|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
84463766|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.76|0.47|
84463767|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
84463768|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.30|0.96|
84463769|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.75|
84518473|NCT03442322|168788120|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.08||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.981
84518474|NCT03442322|168788121|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.020
84518475|NCT03442322|168788122|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.62||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.299
84518476|NCT03442322|168788123|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.68||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
84518477|NCT03442322|168788124|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
84518478|NCT03442322|168788125|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-5.95||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.043
84518479|NCT03442322|168788126|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.91||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.279
84518480|NCT03442322|168788127|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.92||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.728
84518481|NCT03442322|168788128|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.75||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.490
84518482|NCT03442322|168788129|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|4.44||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.232
84518483|NCT03442322|168788130|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.11||||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.708
84518484|NCT03442322|168788131|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.0||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.775
84518485|NCT03442322|168788132|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.77||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.584
84518486|NCT03442322|168788133|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.25||||0.898|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.898
84518487|NCT03442322|168788134|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.79||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.217
84718047|NCT03391466|169186923|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.514||Stratified (randomization factors) log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), stratified using randomization stratification factors.|||0.514|0.308|<0.0001
84726514|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.2|-2.0|
84518488|NCT03442322|168788135|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.39||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.560
84518489|NCT03442322|168788136|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.08||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.277
84518490|NCT03442322|168788137|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.400
84463770|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
84463771|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
84463772|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.75|0.94|
84463773|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
84463774|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.60|1.14|
84463775|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.20|
84518491|NCT03442322|168788138|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.18||||0.303|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.303
84463776|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
84463777|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.30|2.26|
84463778|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.75|1.53|
84463779|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
84463780|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.7|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.70|1.97|
84463781|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.29|1.99|
84463782|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
84463783|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.78|1.18|
84518492|NCT01404988|168788159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the Type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
84518493|NCT01404988|168788159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
84518494|NCT01404988|168788160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3
84518495|NCT01404988|168788160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.77
84518496|NCT01404988|168788161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84726515|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjacent median difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.3|0.0|
84463784|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.04|
84463785|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
84463786|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.29|0.96|
84463787|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.20|0.89|
84463788|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
84463789|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.61|1.24|
84518497|NCT01404988|168788161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
84463790|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.27|0.96|
84463791|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rises|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
84463792|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.88|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.88|1.82|
84463793|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.90|1.18|
84463794|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
84463795|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.63|
84463796|NCT01025336|168680494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.51|0.99|
84518498|NCT01404988|168788162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, type 1 error was set at 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
84518499|NCT01404988|168788162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84518500|NCT02488109|168788189|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Changes in rates of clinical remission by group over time in the mITT model.|Regression, Linear|Clinical remission was modeled as a nominal multinomial outcome (yes, no, or missing)||The study was powered to detect a difference in 12-months clinical remission rates between groups. N = 60 per arm with 85% retention would provide 80% power on a 2-sided 0.05-level test to detect a 20% difference between groups in 12-months clinical remission rates. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression model was used to compare study arms with respect to achievement and maintenance of clinical remission.||||0.42
84726516|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-1.1|
84540846|NCT04882241|168832758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.22|0.48|0.52903
84540847|NCT04882241|168832763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.34632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.05|0.34|0.34632
84518501|NCT02488109|168788190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.53||Survival analysis of time to medical stability by log-rank test, which does not assume proportional hazards. Those who did not reach medical stability before hospital discharge were censored; analyses accounted for the site effect by stratification.|Survival analysis with log rank test|Compared time to achieve medical stability by arm; participants who did not meet stability criteria by hospital discharge were right-censored||This trial was powered at 0.80 to detect a 12% to 20% difference in restored medical stability at 0.05 type I error and correlation between time points from 0.1 to 1.||2.53|1.10|0.01
84518502|NCT02488109|168788191|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cost outcomes of group differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated.||28,819|9,293|0.002
84463797|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
84463798|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.16|0.91|
84463799|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
84463800|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.91|
84463801|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
84518503|NCT02302716|168788192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week HbA1c level for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.22|0.693
84518504|NCT02906813|168788203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.631||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.969|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period and regimen, and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative bioavailability (BA) of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.969|0.411|0.079
84518505|NCT02906813|168788203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.403||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.262|0.618|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.618|0.262|0.002
84718048|NCT03391466|169186924|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, one-sided tailed test, stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Difference in ORR|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|42.1||Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test.|95% CI for the difference in ORR was from Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||42.1|23.2|<0.0001
84463802|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.24|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.24|1.82|
84463803|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
84463804|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.09|1.54|
84463805|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
84463806|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.55|1.48|
84463807|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
84463808|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.51|1.50|
84463809|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
84463810|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.18|1.31|
84463811|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
84463812|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.38|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.38|1.76|
84463813|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
84518506|NCT02906813|168788204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|1.024|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.024|0.706|0.146
84726517|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.4|-0.5|
84463814|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.38|
84463815|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
84463816|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.55|1.14|
84463817|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
84463818|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|1.28|
84463819|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
84463820|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.31|1.53|
84463821|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
84463822|NCT01025336|168680495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.84|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.84|1.24|
84463823|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
84463824|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
84463825|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.20|
84463826|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.20|
84463827|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.31|
84518507|NCT02906813|168788204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.889||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.07|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.070|0.738|0.281
84518508|NCT02906813|168788205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.842||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.05|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.050|0.676|0.191
84726518|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.9|
84463828|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.18|
84463829|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
84540907|NCT01349192|168832922|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.74||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.74|0.25|0.0005
84463830|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.12|
84463831|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
84463832|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.22|0.13|
84463833|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
84463834|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.25|
84463835|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.14|0.08|
84726519|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.4|-1.9|
84463836|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.10|0.06|
84463837|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.22|
84463838|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.40|
84463839|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.29|
84463840|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.29|
84463841|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.17|
84463842|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.36|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.36|0.21|
84463843|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.27|
84463844|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.28|0.13|
84463845|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.20|
84463846|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.28|
84463847|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.48|
84463848|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
84463849|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.65|0.42|
84463850|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.20|
84463851|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
84463852|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.29|
84463853|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
84463854|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
84463855|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.36|
84463856|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.58|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.58|0.35|
84518509|NCT02906813|168788205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.894||||0.355||90.0|0.726|1.1|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.100|0.726|0.355
84518510|NCT00557245|168788210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.56||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.56|0.19|<0.001
84518511|NCT00557245|168788210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.45|0.13|<0.001
84518512|NCT00557245|168788211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84518513|NCT00557245|168788211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
84518514|NCT00557245|168788215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.24
84518515|NCT00557245|168788215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.49
84518516|NCT00557245|168788216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.32
84518517|NCT00557245|168788216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.66
84518518|NCT00557245|168788217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.51
84518519|NCT00557245|168788217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.86
84463857|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.39|
84463858|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.54|0.34|
84463859|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.23|
84518520|NCT00557245|168788218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed-effects model||||||0.42
84518521|NCT00557245|168788218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope Difference over time|0.07||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|Placebo arm is the reference group.|||||0.08
84518522|NCT00557245|168788219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.02
84518523|NCT00557245|168788219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||<0.001
84518524|NCT00557245|168788220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.35
84518525|NCT00557245|168788220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.008
84518526|NCT00521586|168788221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.4||||||A/H1N1 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 percent (%) confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang||7.4|-1.8|
84518527|NCT00521586|168788221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.2||||||A/H3N2 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||7.2|-3.9|
84518528|NCT00521586|168788221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.2||||||B strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||6.2|-5.6|
84463860|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.15|
84463861|NCT01025336|168680496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.42|
84463862|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.50|0.36|
84463863|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.36|
84463864|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.44|0.33|
84463865|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.26|
84463866|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.42|
84463867|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.14|0.64|
84463868|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
84463869|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.18|0.86|
84463870|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
84463871|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.81|
84463872|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.34|
84463873|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.66|
84518529|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.58|
84540908|NCT01349192|168832922|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.525||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||Test includes adjustment for two interim reviews of efficacy data. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group.|||0.80|0.23|0.0004
84463874|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.37|
84463875|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
84518530|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.66|
84518531|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.87||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.87|0.55|
84518532|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.05|0.67|
84518533|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.70|
84518534|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.60|
84518535|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.63|
84463876|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.30|
84463877|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.98|0.47|
84463878|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.72|
84518536|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.86|0.59|
84726520|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-2.3|
84518537|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.98|0.60|
84518538|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.88|0.58|
84540909|NCT01349192|168832923|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion using antibiotics in the treatment group minus the proportion using antibiotics in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.34|-0.18|0.5463
84463879|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.71|
84463880|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.50|
84463881|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.56|
84463882|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.54|
84518539|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.74|
84518540|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.10|0.67|
84518541|NCT00521586|168788222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.66|
84518542|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.34|0.83|
84725968|NCT00636168|169204085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio, and its 95 % confidence interval was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as indicated at randomization, with treatment as the single covariate.. The analysis was performed after 528 RFS events per IRC were reported. Two-sided, 95% confidence intervals for median RFS were computed by the Brookmeyer and Crowley method using log-log transformation.||0.90|0.64|0.0013
84518543|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.75|
84518544|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.28|0.92|
84518545|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.68|
84518546|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.30|0.88|
84518547|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.84|
84518548|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.78|
84518549|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.48||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.48|0.93|
84518550|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.17|0.86|
84518551|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.84|
84463883|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.78|
84463884|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.59|
84463885|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.53|
84463886|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.51|
84463887|NCT01025336|168680497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
84463888|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|10.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.67|6.05|
84463889|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|10.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.45|6.65|
84463890|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|6.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.14|3.71|
84463891|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.91|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.91|2.59|
84463892|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.26|3.67|
84463893|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.20|
84463894|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|21.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.34|7.80|
84463895|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|12.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||12.92|6.26|
84463896|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|8.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.07|3.71|
84463897|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|8.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.80|4.35|
84463898|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|16.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.30|9.71|
84463899|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|10.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.02|5.59|
84463900|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|23.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.81|9.56|
84463901|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|17.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.38|8.66|
84463902|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|9.89|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.89|4.29|
84463903|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.59|34.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||34.24|12.59|
84463904|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|31.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||31.46|14.56|
84463905|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.24|17.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.01|7.24|
84463906|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|52.57|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||52.57|19.75|
84518552|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.87|
84518553|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.31|0.85|
84463907|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|65.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||65.43|34.00|
84463908|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|29.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||29.17|12.95|
84463909|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|21.13|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.13|7.79|
84463910|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|18.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.68|8.56|
84463911|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|10.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.10|4.54|
84463912|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|20.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||20.02|8.16|
84463913|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|16.23|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.23|8.15|
84463914|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|11.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.25|5.75|
84518554|NCT00521586|168788223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.80|
84518555|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.18|0.87|
84518556|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.10|0.82|
84463915|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|30.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.76|12.99|
84463916|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|30.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.06|16.50|
84463917|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|13.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||13.63|7.07|
84463918|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|16.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.34|8.82|
84463919|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|16.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.66|10.21|
84518557|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.88|
84463920|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.94|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.94|5.86|
84463921|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|18.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.34|8.05|
84463922|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|23.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.24|12.77|
84463923|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|16.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.45|8.01|
84463924|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|18.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.19|7.89|
84463925|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.92|5.02|
84518558|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.80|
84463926|NCT01025336|168680498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.29|3.52|
84463927|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.49|3.05|
84463928|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.81|1.92|
84463929|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.50|1.83|
84463930|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.74|1.32|
84463931|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.09|5.82|
84463932|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|8.21|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.21|4.25|
84463933|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.00|3.96|
84463934|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|3.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.79|2.58|
84463935|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|16.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.49|8.56|
84463936|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.76|2.59|
84463937|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|9.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.03|4.61|
84463938|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.24|2.32|
84463939|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|10.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.33|5.23|
84463940|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|7.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.69|4.07|
84463941|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|2.50|
84463942|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.04|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.04|2.10|
84463943|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.71|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.71|2.26|
84463944|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.63|2.23|
84463945|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|3.16|
84463946|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.06|
84463947|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.60|2.46|
84518559|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.22|0.84|
84463948|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.15|2.24|
84463949|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|7.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.76|4.55|
84463950|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.17|3.13|
84463951|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.25|5.16|
84463952|NCT01025336|168680499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.40|2.24|
84463953|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.08|1.02|
84518560|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
84518561|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.85|
84518562|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.07|0.81|
84518563|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.81|
84518564|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.79|
84518565|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.80|
84463954|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.99|1.14|
84463955|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.06|1.22|
84463956|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.56|1.15|
84463957|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.53|1.36|
84463958|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.91|1.15|
84463959|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.44|1.80|
84463960|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.96|0.99|
84463961|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.62|0.73|
84463962|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.39|1.02|
84463963|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.38|
84463964|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.12|1.53|
84463965|NCT01025336|168680500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.82|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.82|1.18|
84518566|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
84518567|NCT00521586|168788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.74|
84726521|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.2|-1.2|
84463966|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.25|1.02|
84463967|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.44|0.78|
84463968|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|1.06|
84463969|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.04|0.41|
84463970|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.24|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.24|1.82|
84463971|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.11|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.11|1.43|
84463972|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|0.96|
84518568|NCT00834964|168788252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|92.72|101.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.49|92.72|
84463973|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|0.88|
84463974|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.54|0.64|
84463975|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.71|
84463976|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|1.01|
84463977|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|0.84|
84463978|NCT01025336|168680501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.2|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.20|1.89|
84518569|NCT00834964|168788253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.7||||||90.0|94.74|104.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.92|94.74|
84463979|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.51|0.72|
84518570|NCT00834964|168788254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|93.46|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|93.46|
84518571|NCT00834964|168788255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.29||||||90.0|91.96|100.82|||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria; results are presented for informational purposes only.|||100.82|91.96|
84463980|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.94|0.52|
84463981|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.47|0.58|
84463982|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.25|
84463983|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.32|0.85|
84463984|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.82|
84463985|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.97|0.37|
84463986|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.70|0.54|
84463987|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.59|
84463988|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.17|0.48|
84463989|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.05|0.58|
84463990|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.88|0.41|
84463991|NCT01025336|168680502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.81|1.05|
84518572|NCT00834964|168788256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.1||||||90.0|100.08|108.29|||||Metaboite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||108.29|100.08|
84725969|NCT00636168|169204088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.8% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.92|0.64|0.0024
84463992|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|1.27|
84463993|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.59|0.95|
84463994|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.29|1.03|
84463995|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.97|0.95|
84463996|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.31|1.42|
84463997|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.04|0.88|
84463998|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|0.95|
84463999|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.99|0.70|
84464000|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.25|0.57|
84464001|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.12|1.06|
84464002|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.69|0.97|
84464003|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.53|1.21|
84464004|NCT01025336|168680503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.42|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.42|1.54|
84464005|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.63|0.80|
84464006|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.39|0.77|
84464007|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.69|0.68|
84464008|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.31|1.03|
84464009|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||4.55|1.66|
84464010|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.94|2.25|
84464011|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|9.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||9.98|3.85|
84464012|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||7.40|2.43|
84464013|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.89|
84464014|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.06|
84464015|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.78|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.78|1.50|
84464016|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.04|2.30|
84540910|NCT01349192|168832924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|11.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference was calculated as mean days of antibiotic use in the treatment group minus the mean days of antibiotic use in the observation group.|||11.47|-30.3|0.3683
84464017|NCT01025336|168680504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.37|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.37|1.37|
84464018|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.90|0.48|
84464019|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.09|0.64|
84464020|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.44|0.20|
84464021|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.26|0.59|
84464022|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.26|0.11|
84726522|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-1.4|
84464023|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.22|0.49|
84464024|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|0.68|
84464025|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.55|0.90|
84464026|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.30|1.02|
84464027|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.14|0.52|
84464028|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.62|
84464029|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.98|0.89|
84464030|NCT01025336|168680505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.26|
84464031|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
84464032|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
84464033|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
84518573|NCT00834964|168788257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.52||||||90.0|97.3|103.84|||||Metabolite results were not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||103.84|97.30|
84518574|NCT01662960|168788264|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|2.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.443
84518575|NCT01662960|168788265|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.80
84518576|NCT01662960|168788266|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.93
84518577|NCT01662960|168788268|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.28
84518578|NCT01662960|168788269|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.36||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.86
84518579|NCT04188392|168788276|OTHER|Rate of subjects enrolled per month of recruitment; based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment.|Rate (per month)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.25|||||Based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment|Recruitment goal of 6 subjects total.||2.25|0.38|
84518580|NCT04188392|168788277|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed protocol: yes = 6, no = 0|Point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate = 100% (95% C.I. 54%,100%)|Binary outcome (completed protocol yes vs. no); goal of 75% of subjects completing protocol|Point estimate of completion rate and 95% confidence interval|1|0.54|
84726523|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.1|-1.4|
84518581|NCT04188392|168788278|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean of the differences|21.7||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|70.8||A priori significance threshold of p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.2263, df=4||alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0||70.8|-27.4|0.2873
84518582|NCT04188392|168788279|OTHER|Total participants = 6; discontinued due to adverse effects: yes = 0, no =6|Point estimate, 95% confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||||Discontinuation rates due to adverse effects: Point estimate 0% (95% C.I. 0%, 45.9%)|Binary outcome: Discontinued due to adverse effects yes vs. no||0.46|0|
84518583|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 1: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 1 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: Completed sleep study 1 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84518584|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 2: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 2 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 2 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84518585|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 3: yes = 5, no=1|point estimate|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.996|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 3 = 83.3% (95% C.I. 36%, 99.6%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 3 yes vs. no||0.996|0.36|
84518586|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy data: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for at least 4 days of actigraphy pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%).|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy data pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84464034|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
84518587|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment: yes = 6, no =0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84518588|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84518589|NCT04188392|168788280|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
84518590|NCT00608322|168788290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84518591|NCT03060486|168788297|OTHER||Signed Rank Score Difference|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<.0001
84464035|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
84464036|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
84464037|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
84464038|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
84464039|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
84464040|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
84464041|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
84725902|NCT01159600|169203843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.5||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.50|-2.48|<0.0001
84464042|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
84464043|NCT01025336|168680506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
84464044|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.92|0.48|
84518592|NCT02252016|168788372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|23.3||||||The estimated difference (± 95% confidence interval \[CI\]) in percentage of participants experiencing an AE in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||23.3|-7.3|
84464045|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.76|
84464046|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.22|0.88|
84464047|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.95|0.93|
84518593|NCT02252016|168788373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||The estimated difference (± 95% CI) in percentage of participants withdrawing from study treatment due to an AE(s) in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||1.6|-10.2|0.155
84464048|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.66|0.27|
84464049|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.56|0.64|
84464050|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|1.14|
84464051|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.85|1.01|
84464052|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.87|1.26|
84518594|NCT00834873|168788436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.77||||||90.0|85.04|105.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.61|85.04|
84464053|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.19|0.57|
84464054|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.31|0.75|
84464055|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|0.93|
84464056|NCT01025336|168680507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.15|0.50|
84464057|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
84464058|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
84464059|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
84464060|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
84464061|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
84464062|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
84464063|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
84726524|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.7|
84464064|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
84464065|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
84464066|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
84464067|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
84464068|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
84464069|NCT01025336|168680508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
84464070|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.64|0.87|
84464071|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.63|
84464072|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.80|1.25|
84464073|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.53|0.71|
84464074|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|11.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||11.44|4.67|
84518595|NCT00834873|168788437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.59|102.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.23|90.59|
84464075|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.17|1.61|
84464076|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||3.29|1.22|
84464077|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.77|0.96|
84464078|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.54|
84464079|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|0.92|
84464080|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.83|1.01|
84464081|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.78|0.77|
84464082|NCT01025336|168680509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.64|1.97|
84464083|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.15|1.15|
84464084|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.32|0.76|
84464085|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.05|1.09|
84518596|NCT00834873|168788438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.11||||||90.0|90.45|102.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.12|90.45|
84464086|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.96|0.95|
84464087|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|7.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||7.50|3.05|
84464088|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.64|1.40|
84464089|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.62|0.58|
84464090|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.32|0.83|
84464091|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.40|0.58|
84464092|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.41|1.09|
84464093|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.03|1.10|
84464094|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.02|0.89|
84464095|NCT01025336|168680510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.97|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.97|1.27|
84464096|NCT01873950|168680526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
84464097|NCT01873950|168680527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
84464098|NCT01873950|168680528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
84726525|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjsted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-2.3|
84518597|NCT02055547|168788478|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|5.76|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|5.76|3.69|<0.001
84518598|NCT02055547|168788478|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.12|3.36|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.36|2.12|<0.001
84518599|NCT02055547|168788478|OTHER|"Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs.~MK-8521 35μg was calculated from the model."|Geometric mean ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.16|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.16|1.38|<0.001
84518600|NCT02055547|168788479|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|3.53|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.53|2.62|<0.001
84518601|NCT02055547|168788479|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.26|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.26|1.67|<0.001
84518602|NCT02055547|168788479|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - 35μg) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg - 35μg was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.82|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|1.82|1.35|<0.001
84518603|NCT02055547|168788480|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125mcg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.7|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.7|0.6|<0.001
84518604|NCT02055547|168788480|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.74|<0.001
84518605|NCT02055547|168788480|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.75|<0.001
84518606|NCT02055547|168788481|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.63|0.49|<0.001
84518607|NCT02055547|168788481|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.81|0.62|<0.001
84518608|NCT02055547|168788481|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.89|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.89|0.69|0.004
84518609|NCT05604209|168788504|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.14|0.67|<0.001
84464099|NCT02723630|168680559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.52||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.84|106.53||P-value for the formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.53|94.84|0.8826
84464100|NCT02723630|168680559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.03||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|100.12||P-value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.12|92.11|0.1095
84464101|NCT02723630|168680560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.8||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|106.61||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.61|95.31|0.8121
84464102|NCT02723630|168680560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.51||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.53|100.65||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.65|92.53|0.1630
84464103|NCT02723630|168680561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|99.68||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|107.47||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||107.47|92.45|0.9427
84464104|NCT02723630|168680561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.5||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|98.64||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.64|88.63|0.0403
84718049|NCT03391466|169186925|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.007||Stratified log-rank (randomization factor) p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization factor) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.||The Rho family spending function with parameter (Rho = 6) was used to allocate alpha between the interim and primary OS analysis. Given that fewer than the anticipated 210 events were observed at the data cutoff date for the primary OS analysis (25 January 2023), the efficacy boundary for the primary OS analysis was recalculated using the Rho family spending function based on the actual observed event numbers (177 deaths) resulting in an efficacy boundary at 1-sided significance level of 0.0249.|1.007|0.530|0.027
84464105|NCT02723630|168680562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.29||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.58||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.58|94.37|0.9373
84464106|NCT02723630|168680562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|95.17||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.03|99.5||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||99.50|91.03|0.0682
84726526|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-1.9|
84464107|NCT02723630|168680563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|98.73||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.57|110.06||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||110.06|88.57|0.8448
84464108|NCT02723630|168680563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|90.64||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|98.38||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.38|83.51|0.0498
84464109|NCT02532543|168680567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.863
84464110|NCT02532543|168680568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.718
84464111|NCT02532543|168680568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.853
84464112|NCT02532543|168680569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal bone height||||0.718
84464113|NCT02532543|168680569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal bone height||||0.999
84464114|NCT02532543|168680569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial bone height||||0.440
84464115|NCT02532543|168680569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal bone height||||0.729
84464116|NCT02532543|168680570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.613
84464117|NCT02532543|168680571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.492
84464118|NCT02532543|168680571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.917
84464119|NCT02532543|168680572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal soft tissue height||||0.353
84464120|NCT02532543|168680572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal soft tissue height||||0.823
84464121|NCT02532543|168680572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial soft tissue height||||0.243
84464122|NCT02532543|168680572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal soft tissue height||||0.756
84464123|NCT01144637|168680592|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.1012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9992|1.2136||||||||1.2136|0.9992|
84464124|NCT01144637|168680592|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 3)|0.9444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8554|1.0427||||||||1.0427|0.8554|
84718050|NCT03391466|169186926|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.736||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.108||Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care.|||1.108|0.488|0.0695
84464125|NCT01144637|168680592|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 3)|0.8577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7753|0.9488||||||||0.9488|0.7753|
84464126|NCT00906789|168680604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a continuous confidence score (0-100), the trapezoidal method was used to obtain the area under the LROC with bootstrapping at 10,000 iterations to obtain the 95% confidence interval (CI). Acceptance criteria for tests of non-inferiority and superiority were previously set at 95% CI upper bound of ΔAUCUA-SV less than δ=0.1 and δ=0, respectively. If the 95% CI upper bound difference of UA-SV is less than 0.1, then SV is non-inferior. If it is 0 or less than 0, then SV is superior.||||||0.05|||||||Bootstraping|||The sample size of 351 patients, in a 2:1 ratio of nodule absent to present patients was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference in areas under the curve of 0.10 or greater. This sample size was calculated using PASS software (Hintze, 2008). Settings: • α = 0.025. • one-sided test • AUCA = 0.80 and AUCSV = 0.90.• 2:1 ratio of patients with nodules to those without • areas calculated for the entire curves • correlation 0.3\* • discrete data. • standard deviation ratios of 1\*.||||0.05
84464127|NCT02334267|168680607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84464128|NCT02334267|168680608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
84464129|NCT02334267|168680609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84464130|NCT02334267|168680610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84464131|NCT00923091|168680611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
84464132|NCT00923091|168680611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0323
84464133|NCT00923091|168680611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0080
84464134|NCT00923091|168680611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
84464135|NCT00923091|168680611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0107
84464136|NCT00923091|168680612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84464137|NCT00923091|168680612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84464138|NCT00923091|168680612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84464139|NCT00923091|168680612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0034
84464140|NCT00923091|168680612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
84464141|NCT00923091|168680613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0295
84464142|NCT00923091|168680613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
84464143|NCT00923091|168680613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
84464144|NCT00923091|168680613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2033
84464145|NCT00923091|168680613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
84464146|NCT00923091|168680614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1135||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1135
84464147|NCT00923091|168680615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2765
84464148|NCT00923091|168680616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4964
84464149|NCT00923091|168680617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1301
84464150|NCT00923091|168680617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01301
84464151|NCT00923091|168680618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0503
84464152|NCT01645280|168680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.184
84464153|NCT01645280|168680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.130
84464154|NCT01645280|168680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.642
84464155|NCT01645280|168680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.832
84464156|NCT01645280|168680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.019
84464157|NCT01645280|168680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.025
84464158|NCT01645280|168680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.248
84464159|NCT01645280|168680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.045
84464160|NCT01645280|168680629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.381
84464161|NCT01645280|168680629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.543
84464162|NCT01645280|168680629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.629
84464163|NCT01645280|168680629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.273
84464164|NCT01645280|168680630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.060
84464165|NCT01645280|168680630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.134
84464166|NCT01645280|168680630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.280
84464167|NCT01645280|168680630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.345
84464168|NCT01254344|168680679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a 70% rate (i.e., proportion of participants with success of prophylaxis) for both groups and a significance level of 0.025, at least 200 evaluable participants per group were needed to have 90% probability that the lower limit of the 95% (two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in the response rates between the 2 groups was greater than -15 percentage points."|Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.5|-5.2|
84464169|NCT01254344|168680680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.1|-2.2|
84464170|NCT03322657|168680681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.5|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||6.5|2.2|<0.001
84464171|NCT03322657|168680682|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-2.0|0.13
84464172|NCT03322657|168680683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.34|0.43|0.30
84464173|NCT03322657|168680684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.35|0.21
84464174|NCT03322657|168680685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-0.18|0.04
84726527|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.9|
84464175|NCT03249350|168680687|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.49
84464176|NCT03249350|168680688|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.92
84464177|NCT03249350|168680689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=13.58.||Cognitive Behavioral Components||||<0.001
84464178|NCT03249350|168680689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=3.02.||Behavioral Modification Components||||0.08
84464179|NCT03249350|168680690|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.09
84464180|NCT03249350|168680691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.95
84464181|NCT03249350|168680692|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||APQ - Poor Monitoring - Parent Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.88
84464182|NCT03249350|168680693|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
84464183|NCT03249350|168680694|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.50
84464184|NCT03249350|168680695|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.03
84464185|NCT03249350|168680696|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GAIN - Substance Frequency Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.54
84464186|NCT03249350|168680697|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
84464187|NCT03249350|168680698|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||BISBAS Drive - Youth Report. Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
84464188|NCT03249350|168680699|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.35
84464189|NCT03249350|168680700|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.13
84464190|NCT03249350|168680701|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.30
84464191|NCT03249350|168680702|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.70
84464192|NCT03249350|168680703|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
84464193|NCT03249350|168680704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
84464194|NCT03249350|168680705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EATQ Effortful Control - Youth Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.11
84464195|NCT03249350|168680706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.99
84464196|NCT03249350|168680707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.82
84464197|NCT03249350|168680708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Peer Delinquency||||0.23
84464198|NCT03249350|168680709|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.73
84464199|NCT03249350|168680710|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
84464200|NCT00624338|168680711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.82||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.74|0.518
84464201|NCT00624338|168680711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.78||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.78|0.31|0.003
84726528|NCT03345407|169204828|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-0.8|
84464202|NCT00624338|168680712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.69|0.929
84464203|NCT00624338|168680712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.87|0.36|0.009
84464204|NCT00624338|168680713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.76|0.412
84464205|NCT00624338|168680713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.722||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||1.19|0.44|0.198
84464206|NCT01476787|168680716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.128
84464207|NCT01476787|168680717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.120|0.756|0.406
84464208|NCT01476787|168680719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.261||||||||1.261|0.854|
84464209|NCT01476787|168680720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.395||||||||1.395|0.775|
84464210|NCT01476787|168680721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.006|||Regression, Cox|||||1.006|0.651|
84464211|NCT01151137|168680768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.294||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.936||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for stroke, systemic arterial embolism, myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||3.936|1.337|0.0019
84464212|NCT01151137|168680769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.617||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for unscheduled cardiovascular hospitalization or death from any cause~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||2.617|1.448|<0.0001
84518610|NCT05604209|168788504|SUPERIORITY||median log2 fold change|1.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||2.59|0.09|0.008
84464213|NCT01151137|168680771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.115||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|4.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||4.490|0.996|0.0460
84464214|NCT01933672|168680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.35|-26.12||||||Change from baseline||-26.12|-36.35|
84464215|NCT01933672|168680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-31.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.29|-25.37||||||Change from baseline||-25.37|-37.29|
84464216|NCT01933672|168680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.99|-13.5||||||Change from baseline||-13.50|-24.99|
84464217|NCT01933672|168680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
84464218|NCT01933672|168680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
84518611|NCT05604209|168788504|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-am log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.59|0.93|0.008
84518612|NCT05604209|168788504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.279
84518613|NCT05604209|168788505|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.33|1.09|<0.001
84518614|NCT05604209|168788505|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.40|0.59|0.008
84726529|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.03|
84464219|NCT01933672|168680775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.0|-16.85||||||Compared with Baseline||-16.85|-27.00|
84464220|NCT01933672|168680775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.3|-15.1||||||Compared with Baseline||-15.10|-26.30|
84464221|NCT01933672|168680775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.24|-10.78||||||Compared with Baseline||-10.78|-22.24|
84464222|NCT01933672|168680775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.74|0.92||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||0.92|-11.74|
84464223|NCT01933672|168680775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|2.49||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||2.49|-10.86|
84464224|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||0.07|-0.19|
84464225|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.21||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.21|-0.09|
84464226|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.45||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.45|0.16|
84464227|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|-0.36||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.36|-0.56|
84464228|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.03||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.03|-0.45|
84464229|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.48||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.48|-0.08|
84464230|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.03||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||1.03|0.38|
84464231|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.37||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.37|-0.26|
84464232|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||||80.0|-0.28|0.57||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.57|-0.28|
84464233|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.11||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||1.11|0.19|
84464234|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|0.03|
84464235|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.67||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.67|-0.08|
84464236|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|-0.05|
84464237|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.53||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.53|-0.45|
84464238|NCT01933672|168680776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.51||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.51|-0.55|
84518615|NCT05604209|168788505|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.09|0.94|0.008
84464239|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.75|1.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||1.07|-0.75|
84464240|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|1.51||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||1.51|-0.58|
84464241|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|2.63||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||2.63|0.58|
84464242|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|-0.05||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.05|-2.84|
84464243|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.63|0.35||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.35|-2.63|
84464244|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|3.88||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||3.88|-0.50|
84464245|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.56|6.58||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||6.58|1.56|
84464246|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.42|2.4||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||2.40|-2.42|
84464247|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.62|5.01||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.01|-1.62|
84464248|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|7.62||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||7.62|0.54|
84464249|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.66|2.27||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||2.27|-3.66|
84464250|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.7|8.43||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||8.43|1.70|
84464251|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|6.94||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||6.94|-0.10|
84464252|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.42|0.18||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.18|-8.42|
84464253|NCT01933672|168680777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|5.89||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.89|-2.60|
84464254|NCT01933672|168680780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.39||||||Compared with baseline||1.39|0.21|
84464255|NCT01933672|168680780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.93||||||Compared with baseline||0.93|-0.43|
84464256|NCT01933672|168680780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.4||||||Compared with baseline||0.40|-0.92|
84464257|NCT01933672|168680780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.95||||||||1.95|0.17|
84464258|NCT01933672|168680780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|1.47||||||||1.47|-0.45|
84726530|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.42|
84464259|NCT01274897|168680792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|81.0||The immune response considered sufficient if for serogroup A the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse is ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup A.|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||81|71|
84464260|NCT01274897|168680792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|90.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup C, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup C|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||90|82|
84464261|NCT01274897|168680792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|33.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup W, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup W|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||33|23|
84464262|NCT01274897|168680792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|74.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup Y, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup Y|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||74|63|
84464263|NCT02680301|168680798|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon sign- rank test values with ranks from change in cream efficacy ratings minus change in ointment efficacy ratings.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84518616|NCT05604209|168788505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.878
84518617|NCT05604209|168788506|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.63|0.54|<0.001
84518618|NCT05604209|168788506|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.61|0.39|0.008
84518619|NCT05604209|168788506|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.37|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.37|0.43|0.016
84464264|NCT00538642|168680808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84464265|NCT05635838|168680826|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-2.21|0.0215
84464266|NCT05635838|168680828|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.65|0.1671
84464267|NCT05635838|168680829|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.27|0.7982
84518620|NCT05604209|168788506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.189
84518621|NCT05604209|168788507|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.51|0.81|<0.001
84518622|NCT05604209|168788507|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.89|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.89|0.63|0.008
84464268|NCT05635838|168680830|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-0.52|0.2031
84464269|NCT05635838|168680832|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-2.20|0.2387
84464270|NCT02031146|168680840|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Two sample test of proportion in Stata|||||||0.29
84464271|NCT02031146|168680841|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.69
84464272|NCT02031146|168680842|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
84726531|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.24|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.24|0.69|
84464273|NCT05165394|168680843|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.8663|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|||Significance level = 0.1|ANCOVA||Confidence interval and p-value are one-sided for test of null hypothesis that the LS mean difference between NBI-1065846 and placebo in DARS total score at Day 57 is greater than or equal to zero.||||-8.4|0.8663
84464274|NCT05165394|168680844|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||NBI-1065846 - Placebo|||4.8|-7.1|0.7008
84464275|NCT05165394|168680845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9051|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test|||CGI-S scores at Day 57 for NBI-1065846 compared to placebo.||||0.9051
84464276|NCT01582282|168680854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.64||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84464277|NCT01582282|168680854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.72||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84518623|NCT05604209|168788507|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.79|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C162-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.79|0.70|0.016
84464278|NCT01582282|168680855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
84464279|NCT01582282|168680855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84464280|NCT01582282|168680856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.808
84464281|NCT01582282|168680856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.328
84464282|NCT01582282|168680857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.508|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.508
84464283|NCT01582282|168680857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.962
84464284|NCT01582282|168680858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.84||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
84464285|NCT01582282|168680858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.978
84464286|NCT01582282|168680859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.785
84464287|NCT01582282|168680859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45||||0.811|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.811
84464288|NCT00492622|168680860|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||<|0.01||||||\<0.01 is used for determining the level of significance.|paired t-tests|||||||< 0.01
84464289|NCT00492622|168680861|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||||||||||||||P\<0.05 was used as the level of significance with ANOVA for this endpoint.|||
84518624|NCT05604209|168788507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.955
84464290|NCT00492622|168680862|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.||||||0.95||||||An analysis of variance model was used to compare AUC between IR and DR omeprazole using the natural logarithmic transformation. The model included the following factors: treatment, period, sequence and patient nested within the sequence.|ANOVA|||||||0.95
84464291|NCT00435539|168680881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4783
84464292|NCT00435539|168680881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0932
84464293|NCT00435539|168680881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0721
84464294|NCT00435539|168680882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
84464295|NCT00435539|168680882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
84464296|NCT00435539|168680882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5343
84464297|NCT02839746|168680887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
84464298|NCT02839746|168680887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
84464299|NCT02839746|168680888|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84464300|NCT02839746|168680888|OTHER|Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.|||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank]|||||||<0.0001
84464301|NCT02839746|168680889|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84464302|NCT02839746|168680889|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
84464303|NCT02767570|168680903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|For the primary hypothesis that there would be a greater reduction in pain for the altered compared to the consistent FPA group, an effect size of 0.57 was assumed. To achieve 80% power with an alpha of 0.05, 39 participants per group were needed, so our recruitment goal was 40 subjects per group.||-0.5|-1.9|0.001
84464304|NCT02767570|168680904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
84464305|NCT02767570|168680905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-1.05|-6.42|0.006
84464306|NCT02767570|168680906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||1.30|-1.42|0.93
84464307|NCT02767570|168680907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|2.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||2.80|-3.38|0.85
84464308|NCT02767570|168680908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||0.90|-0.89|0.99
84464309|NCT04426630|168680909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||<0.001
84464310|NCT04426630|168680910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
84464311|NCT04426630|168680911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
84518625|NCT05604209|168788508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group changes in breadth from baseline to day 56 were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median change in breadth of T-cell response to HIV-1 subpools from baseline to day 56 within all vaccinees is zero.||4|-1|0.125
84464312|NCT04426630|168680912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Wilcoxon sign-rank test used to compared baseline outcomes to 6 month outcomes.||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||0.028
84464313|NCT04426630|168680913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84464314|NCT04426630|168680914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84464315|NCT04426630|168680915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
84464316|NCT04426630|168680916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84464317|NCT04426630|168680917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
84464318|NCT04426630|168680918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
84464319|NCT04426630|168680919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.07
84464320|NCT04426630|168680920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84464321|NCT00467649|168680936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0180
84464322|NCT03240081|168680948|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when defining and evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84518626|NCT00112437|168788515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.45||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.45|2.54|<=0.001
84540848|NCT02091856|168832772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA for three groups: C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG and two time points: pre \& post||It was hypothesized that regardless of the CBT version received (conventional or religious), those in the active treatments would achieve a greater reduction in depressive and associated symptoms than participants in the wait-list condition.||||<0.001
84464323|NCT03240081|168680949|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.95|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
84464324|NCT00149825|168680969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|This is a one-tailed test||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants randomized to MED+CBTI will experience remission of depression||||.13
84464325|NCT00149825|168680970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants in MED+CBTI will experience remission of insomnia.||||.05
84464326|NCT05593432|168680971|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.17||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|51.33||stratified by Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score (3 or 4)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||51.33|7.55|0.0129
84464327|NCT05593432|168680971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|12.38|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||12.38|1.32|
84464328|NCT05593432|168680972|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.68||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|53.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||53.51|7.71|0.0141
84464329|NCT05593432|168680972|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|13.17|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||13.17|1.31|
84464330|NCT05593432|168680974|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|64.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||64.00|16.61|0.0027
84464331|NCT05593432|168680974|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|24.02|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||24.02|1.85|
84464332|NCT05593432|168680976|EQUIVALENCE|A log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor, Baseline IGA score (3 or 4), was used for between-treatment group comparisons. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval was estimated based on the stratified Cox regression model. using Efron's method accounting for ties.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.381|||Log Rank|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|Cox regression model stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|||5.381|1.510|0.0008
84464333|NCT01450137|168681022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.79|||Fisher Exact|||||0.79|0.11|0.0301
84464334|NCT01450137|168681023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94|||Fisher Exact|||||0.94|0.36|0.0010
84464335|NCT01450137|168681024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84464336|NCT01450137|168681025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.0|||z-test||Difference between restricted mean survival time at 12 months|||39|11|0.0005
84540513|NCT03164616|168832128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.860|0.600|0.00031
84464337|NCT04458857|168681040|OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.90|0.0210
84464338|NCT04800315|168681054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-7.7|||ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-35.81|0.003
84464339|NCT04800315|168681054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.19|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-27.19|0.057
84464340|NCT04800315|168681054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.28||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.88|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-30.88|0.029
84464341|NCT04800315|168681055|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|24.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|8.8|0.004
84464342|NCT04800315|168681055|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|15.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|0.8|0.061
84464343|NCT04800315|168681055|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|13.6|<0.001
84464344|NCT04800315|168681056|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|23.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.2|6.2|0.018
84464345|NCT04800315|168681056|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|21.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.3|4.3|0.033
84464346|NCT04800315|168681056|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|26.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.0|9.3|0.006
84464347|NCT04800315|168681057|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|2.3|
84464348|NCT04800315|168681057|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|-4.6|
84726532|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.91|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.91|0.95|
84464349|NCT04800315|168681057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.4|0.4|
84464350|NCT04800315|168681058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|-14.44|||ANCOVA|||||-14.44|-41.89|
84464351|NCT04800315|168681058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.26|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-27.26|
84464352|NCT04800315|168681058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|-4.62|||ANCOVA|||||-4.62|-33.53|
84464353|NCT04800315|168681059|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-3.54|||ANCOVA|||||-3.54|-41.46|
84464354|NCT04800315|168681059|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-13.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|4.33|||ANCOVA|||||4.33|-30.67|
84464355|NCT04800315|168681059|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|3.75|||ANCOVA|||||3.75|-36.40|
84464356|NCT04800315|168681060|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|2.7|0.042
84464357|NCT04800315|168681060|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|19.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|4.1|0.029
84464358|NCT04800315|168681060|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|2.3|0.052
84464359|NCT04800315|168681062|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-23.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.48|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||||-4.76|-41.48|
84464360|NCT04800315|168681062|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|8.59|||ANCOVA|||||8.59|-25.16|
84464361|NCT04800315|168681062|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-10.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.39|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-29.39|
84464362|NCT01065428|168681067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84464363|NCT01065428|168681068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84464364|NCT00196937|168681075|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.29||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.29|-1.97|
84464365|NCT00196937|168681075|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.03|-1.87|
84464366|NCT03368404|168681103|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-102 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.13|||||Treatment difference : CBL-102 - Vismed Multi|||0.13|-1.34|
84464367|NCT03368404|168681104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0592
84464368|NCT03368404|168681105|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
84464369|NCT03368404|168681106|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
84464370|NCT03368404|168681107|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
84464371|NCT03368404|168681108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 28 (Visit 4)||||0.0176
84464372|NCT03368404|168681108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment to baseline||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 90 (Visit 5)||||0.0010
84464373|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Daily Activities"||||0.0251
84464374|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Difficulties with work and handicap"||||0.0015
84464375|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Giving up makeup"||||0.2024
84464376|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acknowledgement of the Disease"||||0.0421
84464377|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acceptance of the disease"||||0.3945
84464378|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Fear for the Future"||||0.0536
84464379|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Emotional well-being"||||0.1998
84464380|NCT03368404|168681109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) questions:~Global Question"||||0.0306
84464381|NCT03368404|168681110|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
84464382|NCT03368404|168681111|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
84464383|NCT03368404|168681112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
84464384|NCT01751646|168681147|OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||P-value from Wilcoxon rank sum test for change between baseline and Week 48 Vitamin D vs. Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1166
84464385|NCT01751646|168681149|OTHER|||||||0.8383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.8383
84464386|NCT01751646|168681152|OTHER|||||||0.1378|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1378
84464387|NCT01751646|168681154|OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4686
84464388|NCT01751646|168681156|OTHER|||||||0.7601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7601
84464389|NCT01751646|168681158|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3978
84464390|NCT01751646|168681160|OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1187
84464391|NCT01751646|168681163|OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5098
84464392|NCT01751646|168681164|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2550
84464393|NCT01751646|168681165|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.6499
84464394|NCT01751646|168681166|OTHER|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2348
84464395|NCT01751646|168681169|OTHER|||||||0.2648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2648
84464396|NCT01751646|168681172|OTHER|||||||0.3728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3728
84464397|NCT01751646|168681175|OTHER|||||||0.7825|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7825
84464398|NCT01751646|168681178|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1950
84464399|NCT01751646|168681181|OTHER|||||||0.7127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7127
84464400|NCT01751646|168681184|OTHER|||||||0.4676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4676
84464401|NCT01751646|168681187|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0210
84464402|NCT01751646|168681190|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0144
84464403|NCT01751646|168681193|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||< 0.0001
84464404|NCT01751646|168681196|OTHER|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0814
84464405|NCT01751646|168681199|OTHER|||||||0.4808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4808
84464406|NCT01751646|168681202|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3870
84464407|NCT01751646|168681205|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4290
84464408|NCT01751646|168681206|OTHER|||||||0.9186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.9186
84464409|NCT01751646|168681207|OTHER|||||||0.4016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4016
84464410|NCT01751646|168681208|OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5810
84464411|NCT01751646|168681209|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1570
84464412|NCT01751646|168681215|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to week 48||||<0.0001
84464413|NCT01751646|168681215|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to Week 48||||<0.0001
84464414|NCT01751646|168681218|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
84464415|NCT01751646|168681218|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
84464416|NCT02973815|168681232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.067|||Regression, Linear|||This was adjusted for the baseline BMI-Z score, child sex, baseline child age, and economic assistance||0.067|-0.194|0.342
84518627|NCT00112437|168788515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.73|1.82|<=0.001
84464417|NCT02973815|168681233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73104||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Fruit value, and economic assistance status||2.71|-0.20|0.09
84464418|NCT02973815|168681234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Vegetable value, and economic assistance status||2.44|0.02|0.047
84464419|NCT02973815|168681235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline healthfulness score and economic assistance status||0.88|0.08|0.019
84464420|NCT02973815|168681236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline vegetable intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.09|-0.4|0.218
84464421|NCT02973815|168681237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.77|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline fruit intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.77|-0.03|0.066
84464422|NCT02973815|168681238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|3.98|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline MVPA, child age (baseline), and child sex||3.98|-13.56|0.28
84464423|NCT02973815|168681239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline screentime, child age (baseline), and child sex||0.34|-0.31|0.928
84464424|NCT03037905|168681266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-17.1|0.20
84464425|NCT03037905|168681267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.3|-5.9|0.60
84464426|NCT03037905|168681268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-7.0|.76
84464427|NCT03037905|168681269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.83
84464428|NCT02273973|168681287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|21.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.32|0.11|0.0490
84464429|NCT02273973|168681288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.21||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|-1.12|0.3698
84464430|NCT02273973|168681289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.19||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|33.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.81|2.57|0.0332
84464431|NCT02273973|168681290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.37||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.04|||Fisher Exact|||||4.04|-1.30|0.4803
84464432|NCT02273973|168681291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.61|-9.20|0.5017
84464433|NCT02273973|168681292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.75|||Fisher Exact|||||4.75|-2.65|1.0000
84464434|NCT02273973|168681293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.14||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.68|5.59|0.0115
84464435|NCT02273973|168681294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.66||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.20|-11.88|0.7928
84464436|NCT02273973|168681295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.45||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.70|-5.80|0.2659
84464437|NCT02273973|168681296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.63||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.34|0.3299
84464438|NCT02273973|168681297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.68||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|25.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.32|-3.96|0.1554
84464439|NCT02273973|168681298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.41||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|16.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.63|-11.82|0.7870
84464440|NCT02273973|168681299|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Week 3.||1.05|0.65|0.117
84464441|NCT02273973|168681299|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Surgery.||1.65|0.95|0.105
84464442|NCT02273973|168681301|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-13.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|-4.96|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.96|-21.67|0.002
84464443|NCT01676116|168681309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.11|<0.001
84464444|NCT01287117|168681318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.21||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.21|-4.71|0.0010
84464445|NCT01287117|168681318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.95||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.18||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.18|-4.72|0.0012
84464446|NCT01287117|168681318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|-4.1||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.10|-7.49|<0.0001
84464447|NCT01287117|168681319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.75||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.92||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.92|-9.59|0.0035
84518628|NCT00112437|168788515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.59||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.59|0.68|0.003
84726533|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.08|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.08|0.61|
84464448|NCT01287117|168681319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.75||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.75|-10.33|0.0008
84464449|NCT01287117|168681319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-9.16||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-9.16|-16.44|<0.0001
84464450|NCT01287117|168681320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.75||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.54||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.54|-4.95|0.0149
84464451|NCT01287117|168681320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.44||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.32||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.32|-5.57|0.0017
84540849|NCT02091856|168832773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in secondary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA (C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG at pre- and post-intervention).||||||>0.05
84464452|NCT01287117|168681320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.76||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.76|-9.10|<0.0001
84464453|NCT01287117|168681321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||2.03|0.95|0.0879
84464454|NCT01287117|168681321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.14|1.04|0.0301
84464455|NCT01287117|168681321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.36||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.36|1.63|<0.0001
84464456|NCT01287117|168681322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0148
84464457|NCT01287117|168681322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84464458|NCT01287117|168681322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84464459|NCT01287117|168681323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0118
84464460|NCT01287117|168681323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0226
84464461|NCT01287117|168681323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84518629|NCT00112437|168788515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.49||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.46||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.46|-1.44|0.343
84540850|NCT02091856|168832774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84540851|NCT02091856|168832775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84540852|NCT02091856|168832776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84464462|NCT01287117|168681324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.34||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.51||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||-0.51|-4.17|0.0124
84464463|NCT01287117|168681324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.27||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.27|-5.05|0.0012
84464464|NCT01287117|168681324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-3.87||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.87|-7.59|<0.0001
84464465|NCT01287117|168681325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.28||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||2.28|-1.76|0.7956
84464466|NCT01287117|168681325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.31||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||0.84|-3.46|0.2286
84464467|NCT01287117|168681325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-2.2||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-2.20|-5.96|<0.0001
84464468|NCT01287117|168681326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4867||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4867
84464469|NCT01287117|168681326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.1747
84464470|NCT01287117|168681326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84464471|NCT01287117|168681327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4580
84518630|NCT00112437|168788516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|7.02||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.02|4.32|<=0.001
84540853|NCT05262387|168832777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|1.52|0.0494
84464472|NCT01287117|168681327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.2087
84464473|NCT01287117|168681327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
84464474|NCT02042131|168681328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Log Rank|||Omnibus test of all three groups||||.082
84464475|NCT02042131|168681328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||.028
84464476|NCT02042131|168681328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.24||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||0.96|0.06|.040
84464477|NCT02042131|168681329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus test comparing all three groups.||||<0.001
84464478|NCT02042131|168681329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
84464479|NCT02042131|168681330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
84464480|NCT02042131|168681331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Omnibus test of all groups||||0.040
84464481|NCT02042131|168681331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Planned contrast #2: E-CRP vs. TAU/S-CRP||0.9|0.002|0.045
84718051|NCT03391466|169186927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.487||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.487|0.290|<0.0001
84464482|NCT01821677|168681338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
84464483|NCT01821677|168681338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84464484|NCT01821677|168681338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84464485|NCT01821677|168681339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
84464486|NCT01821677|168681339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
84464487|NCT01821677|168681339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
84464488|NCT03461965|168681340|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing total responses that were correct across all participants in both arms||||0.007
84464489|NCT03461965|168681341|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.0001
84464490|NCT03461965|168681341|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.03
84464491|NCT03461965|168681341|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.352
84464492|NCT03461965|168681342|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
84464493|NCT03461965|168681342|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.04
84464494|NCT03461965|168681342|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.052
84464495|NCT03461965|168681343|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
84464496|NCT03461965|168681343|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
84464497|NCT03461965|168681343|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.208
84464498|NCT03461965|168681344|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.03
84464499|NCT02606877|168681365|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|88.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|119.97|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||119.97|65.40|
84464500|NCT02606877|168681366|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|80.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.27|126.79|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||126.79|51.27|
84464501|NCT02606877|168681367|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|107.48|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||107.48|87.84|
84464502|NCT02606877|168681368|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|112.56|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||112.56|87.94|
84464503|NCT02606877|168681369|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|89.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|120.73|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||120.73|66.33|
84464504|NCT02786537|168681419|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test derived by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|PROD vs. SOF/LDV based regimens as reported in PRO (ALL PATIENTS WHO STARTED TREATMENT BY ARM AS TREATED), population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date - RBV FREE REGIMENS||0.3|-3.6|
84464505|NCT02786537|168681419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method. CI for median derived from PROC QUANTREG.|RBV free EBR/GZR regimen compared to PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||3.1|-0.4|
84464506|NCT02786537|168681420|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test completed by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free EBR/GZR regimen vs SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.0|-0.6|
84464507|NCT02786537|168681422|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||||The comparisons between regimens can be viewed as superiority test, by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero|Analysis of EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV irrespective of RBV usage in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||1.0|0.0|
84464508|NCT02786537|168681423|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization and limited RBV sample size.||7.0|-4.2|
84464509|NCT02786537|168681423|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free PrOD vs. SOF/LDV regimens (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||7.0|-4.2|
84464510|NCT02786537|168681424|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.3|-1.6|
84464511|NCT02786537|168681427|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date). Analysis limited to RBV free regimen in consideration RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization.||5.5|-1.9|
84540854|NCT05262387|168832777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.38|21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.9|6.38|0.0028
84540855|NCT05262387|168832778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-102|0.1998
84726534|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
84464512|NCT02786537|168681427|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||2.7|-4.6|
84464513|NCT02786537|168681428|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on presence of zero in 95% CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis limited to RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization. All patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||1.6|-1.4|
84464514|NCT02786537|168681431|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test determined by comparing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free regimens -all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date.||1.3|-9.9|
84464515|NCT02786537|168681431|SUPERIORITY|Superiority comparison by viewing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||||||RBV free regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||9.4|-3.4|
84464516|NCT02786537|168681433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization. Population includes patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||2.1|-3.6|
84540856|NCT05262387|168832778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.9041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.4|-53.1|0.9041
84464517|NCT02786537|168681442|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence range +/-5%|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.3||||||||11.3|-15.3|
84464518|NCT03237845|168681585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|3.3|0.0006
84464519|NCT03237845|168681586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|6.9|< 0.0001
84464520|NCT03237845|168681587|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.8|9.4|< 0.0001
84464521|NCT03237845|168681588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|3.2|0.0039
84464522|NCT03237845|168681589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.4|< 0.0001
84464523|NCT03237845|168681590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.2|-2.7|0.2084
84464524|NCT01221233|168681598|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84464525|NCT03291197|168681605|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Our study was not powered to perform statistical analysis though was still conduct to look for a trend in reduction of VAS.||||0.043
84464526|NCT00234104|168681607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0074||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0074
84464527|NCT00234104|168681607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0459||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0459
84464528|NCT00234104|168681607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0010
84540857|NCT01339403|168832839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||Kaposi's sarcoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
84718052|NCT03391466|169186928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.545|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.545|0.327|
84464529|NCT01633060|168681620|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.53||||Log Rank||||||0.53|<0.001
84464530|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.657||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.584|13.686||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||13.686|1.584|0.005
84464531|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.478||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|7.632||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.632|0.805|0.114
84464532|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.555||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.555|1.160|0.026
84464533|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.943||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|11.534||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||11.534|1.348|0.012
84464534|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|4.151||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.151|0.361|0.746
84464535|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.932|16.013||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||16.013|1.932|0.001
84464536|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|8.882||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.882|0.999|0.050
84464537|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.418||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|12.834||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.834|1.521|0.006
84464538|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.165||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|12.178||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.178|1.425|0.009
84464539|NCT03114969|168681670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|4.095||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.095|0.357|0.761
84464540|NCT03114969|168681671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|6.163||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.163|0.853|0.100
84464541|NCT03114969|168681671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.642||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|7.022||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.022|0.994|0.051
84464542|NCT03114969|168681672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.808|8.829||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.829|1.808|<0.001
84464543|NCT03114969|168681672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.181||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.059||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.059|0.940|0.069
84464544|NCT03114969|168681672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|10.08||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||10.080|2.339|<0.001
84464545|NCT03114969|168681672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|5.764||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.764|1.274|0.010
84464546|NCT03114969|168681673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.503||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|7.659||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.659|0.818|0.108
84464547|NCT03114969|168681673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.409||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|7.331||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.331|0.792|0.122
84518631|NCT00112437|168788516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.45|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|5.76||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.76|3.15|<=0.001
84464548|NCT03114969|168681674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.887||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.903||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||12.903|1.851|0.001
84464549|NCT03114969|168681674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|14.284||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||14.284|2.106|<0.001
84464550|NCT03114969|168681675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.863|8.337||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.337|1.863|<0.001
84464551|NCT03114969|168681675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|5.256||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.256|1.088|0.030
84718053|NCT03391466|169186929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.669|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.669|0.383|
84464552|NCT03114969|168681675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|9.364||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.364|2.388|<0.001
84464553|NCT03114969|168681675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.957||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|5.936||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.936|1.473|0.002
84464554|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.404||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|5.676||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||5.676|1.018|0.045
84464555|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.823||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.319||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.319|0.770|0.172
84464556|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.989||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|7.272||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||7.272|1.229|0.016
84464557|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.747||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|3.937||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||3.937|0.775|0.179
84464558|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.775|0.509|0.690
84464559|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.363||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.639||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.639|1.480|0.004
84464560|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|6.42||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.420|1.264|0.012
84464561|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.986|10.791||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.791|1.986|<0.001
84464562|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|4.528||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||4.528|0.916|0.081
84464563|NCT03114969|168681676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.283|0.438|1.000
84464564|NCT03114969|168681677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.935||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|3.921||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.921|0.955|0.067
84464565|NCT03114969|168681677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|4.961||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.961|1.283|0.007
84464566|NCT03114969|168681678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.399||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|4.596||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.596|1.252|0.008
84464567|NCT03114969|168681678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.812||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|3.544||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||3.544|0.926|0.082
84464568|NCT03114969|168681678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|6.905||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||6.905|2.135|<0.001
84464569|NCT03114969|168681678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.766||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.766|1.810|<0.001
84464570|NCT03114969|168681679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.428||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.428|0.842|0.120
84464571|NCT03114969|168681679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.664||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.664|0.730|0.232
84718054|NCT03391466|169186930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.532|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.532|0.318|
84464572|NCT03114969|168681680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.019|8.807||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.807|2.019|<0.001
84464573|NCT03114969|168681680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.005||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||11.005|2.660|<0.001
84464574|NCT03114969|168681681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.477||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|4.815||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.815|1.274|0.007
84464575|NCT03114969|168681681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|5.683||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.683|1.328|0.006
84464576|NCT03114969|168681681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|7.118||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||7.118|2.133|<0.001
84464577|NCT03114969|168681681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.508|9.1||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.100|2.508|<0.001
84464578|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.347||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|132.143||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||132.143|0.408|0.176
84464579|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|164.465||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||164.465|0.526|0.128
84464580|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.454||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|351.613||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||351.613|1.190|0.038
84464581|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.776||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|311.669||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||311.669|1.131|0.041
84464582|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.873||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|162.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||162.775|0.484|0.141
84464583|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.215||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|200.904||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||200.904|0.519|0.126
84464584|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.717||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|263.125||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||263.125|0.715|0.082
84464585|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.283||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.561|512.532||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||512.532|1.561|0.024
84718055|NCT03391466|169186931|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|23.9||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||23.9|12.3|<0.0001
84718056|NCT03391466|169186931|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|9.8||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|17.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.0|2.6|0.0124
84464586|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.736||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|399.541||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||399.541|1.183|0.038
84464587|NCT03114969|168681682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.603||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|155.763||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||155.763|0.371|0.188
84464588|NCT03114969|168681683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.781||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|124.117||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||124.117|0.488|0.147
84464589|NCT03114969|168681683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.786||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|173.301||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||173.301|0.553|0.120
84464590|NCT03114969|168681684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|11.389||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||11.389|0.383|0.395
84464591|NCT03114969|168681684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|17.244||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.244|0.612|0.166
84464592|NCT03114969|168681684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.196||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|17.14||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.140|0.596|0.175
84464593|NCT03114969|168681684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.408||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|27.61||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||27.610|1.059|0.042
84518632|NCT00112437|168788516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.39|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.73|2.06|<=0.001
84464594|NCT03114969|168681685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.145||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|216.818||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||216.818|0.680|0.090
84464595|NCT03114969|168681685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.991||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|196.435||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||196.435|0.508|0.130
84464596|NCT03114969|168681686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.907||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|188.208||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||188.208|0.753|0.079
84540858|NCT01339403|168832839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|14.2|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.2|10.3|<0.001
84464597|NCT03114969|168681686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.06||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|262.042||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||262.042|0.866|0.063
84464598|NCT03114969|168681687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|13.69||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||13.690|0.521|0.239
84464599|NCT03114969|168681687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.929||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|15.125||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.125|0.567|0.200
84464600|NCT03114969|168681687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.269||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|21.489||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||21.489|0.848|0.078
84464601|NCT03114969|168681687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.132||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|25.55||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||25.550|1.031|0.046
84464602|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.483||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|9.961||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||9.961|1.218|0.020
84464603|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|6.895||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.895|0.757|0.143
84464604|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.268||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|17.187||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.187|1.615|0.006
84464605|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.655||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.478|14.666||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||14.666|1.478|0.009
84464606|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.274||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|4.005||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.005|0.405|0.679
84464607|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.804||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.372|10.544||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||10.544|1.372|0.010
84518633|NCT00112437|168788516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.84||||0.218||95.0|-2.19|0.51||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.51|-2.19|0.218
84540514|NCT03164616|168832129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.916||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||0.916|0.650|0.00304
84464608|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.555||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|7.369||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||7.369|0.886|0.083
84464609|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|18.611||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||18.611|1.890|0.002
84464610|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.929||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.556|15.612||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.612|1.556|0.007
84464611|NCT03114969|168681688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|3.788||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.788|0.385|0.746
84464612|NCT03114969|168681689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|3.905||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.905|0.578|0.404
84464613|NCT03114969|168681689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|4.05||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.050|0.625|0.330
84464614|NCT03114969|168681690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.968||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.968|0.761|0.189
84464615|NCT03114969|168681690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.799||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.799|0.901|0.086
84464616|NCT03114969|168681690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|4.142||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.142|0.918|0.082
84464617|NCT03114969|168681690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.415||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|5.024||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.024|1.161|0.018
84464618|NCT03114969|168681691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|4.633||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.633|0.492|0.472
84464619|NCT03114969|168681691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|4.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.283|0.459|0.553
84718057|NCT03391466|169186931|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|4.4||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||12.0|-3.3|0.2655
84718058|NCT03391466|169186932|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|18.2||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.2|8.0|<0.0001
84464620|NCT03114969|168681692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|6.407||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.407|0.993|0.052
84464621|NCT03114969|168681692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|6.862||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.862|1.107|0.029
84464622|NCT03114969|168681693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.434||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|5.276||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.276|1.123|0.024
84464623|NCT03114969|168681693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.389||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|5.376||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.376|1.061|0.035
84464624|NCT03114969|168681693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|5.819||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.819|1.434|0.003
84464625|NCT03114969|168681693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|6.055||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.055|1.461|0.003
84464626|NCT01852344|168681718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
84464627|NCT01852344|168681718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
84718059|NCT03391466|169186932|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|5.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||11.0|-0.9|0.1253
84464628|NCT01852344|168681719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.236
84718060|NCT03391466|169186933|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.081||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.138||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||0.138|0.024|0.0112
84464629|NCT01852344|168681720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
84464630|NCT03443024|168681779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0165
84464631|NCT03443024|168681779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0022
84464632|NCT03443024|168681779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
84464633|NCT03443024|168681780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
84464634|NCT03443024|168681780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
84464635|NCT03443024|168681780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
84464636|NCT03443024|168681781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1917
84464637|NCT03443024|168681781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0392
84464638|NCT03443024|168681781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
84464639|NCT03443024|168681782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2043
84464640|NCT03443024|168681782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
84464641|NCT03443024|168681782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0018
84464642|NCT03443024|168681783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0554
84464643|NCT03443024|168681783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
84464644|NCT03443024|168681783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
84464645|NCT03443024|168681784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0800
84464646|NCT03443024|168681784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
84464647|NCT03443024|168681784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
84464648|NCT03443024|168681785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0773
84464649|NCT03443024|168681785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0459
84464650|NCT03443024|168681785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
84464651|NCT03443024|168681786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0047
84464652|NCT03443024|168681786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84464653|NCT03443024|168681786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84464654|NCT03443024|168681787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6674
84464655|NCT03443024|168681787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1166
84464656|NCT03443024|168681787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0119
84464657|NCT03443024|168681788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2371
84464658|NCT03443024|168681788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1067
84464659|NCT03443024|168681788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
84518634|NCT00112437|168788517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.35|1.62|<=0.001
84464660|NCT03443024|168681789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4631
84464661|NCT03443024|168681789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
84464662|NCT03443024|168681789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0232
84464663|NCT03443024|168681790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4729
84464664|NCT03443024|168681790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0282
84464665|NCT03443024|168681790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0506|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0506
84464666|NCT01145391|168681808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.5||95.0||||For systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
84464667|NCT01333189|168681833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.329
84464668|NCT01333189|168681834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.891
84464669|NCT01333189|168681835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
84464670|NCT01333189|168681836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.509
84464671|NCT01333189|168681836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.500
84464672|NCT01333189|168681836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.607
84464673|NCT01333189|168681837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
84464674|NCT01333189|168681838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.480
84464675|NCT01333189|168681838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.120
84464676|NCT01333189|168681838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.668
84464677|NCT01333189|168681839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.511
84464678|NCT01333189|168681840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.402
84464679|NCT01333189|168681841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
84464680|NCT01333189|168681842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.686
84464681|NCT01333189|168681842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.434
84464682|NCT01333189|168681842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.227
84464683|NCT01333189|168681843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
84464684|NCT01333189|168681844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.160
84464685|NCT01333189|168681844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.008
84464686|NCT01333189|168681844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.877
84464687|NCT01282814|168681854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|115.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.45|123.72|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.72|108.45|
84464688|NCT01282814|168681855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.68|116.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.63|103.68|
84464689|NCT01282814|168681856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.45|111.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.71|101.45|
84464690|NCT01524289|168681857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-33.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Between group comparison of percent change from baseline performed using Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model.||||-33.7|-45.7|<0.001
84464691|NCT01524289|168681858|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.4|-11.5|
84464692|NCT01524289|168681859|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.6|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6|-4.8|
84464693|NCT01524289|168681860|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|5.6|-8.9|
84464694|NCT01524289|168681861|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.1|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|6.1|-5.5|
84464695|NCT01524289|168681862|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Difference in Percentages|-8.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-20.1|0.168
84464696|NCT01524289|168681863|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-7.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.3|-18.7|0.179
84464697|NCT01524289|168681864|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-13.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-3.1|-25.0|0.011
84464698|NCT01524289|168681865|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||8.4|-6.8|0.696
84464699|NCT01524289|168681866|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.2|0.480
84464700|NCT01524289|168681867|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
84464701|NCT01524289|168681868|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.7|>0.999
84464702|NCT01524289|168681869|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
84464703|NCT01524289|168681870|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
84464704|NCT01524289|168681871|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
84464705|NCT01524289|168681872|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.3|-2.2|0.218
84464706|NCT01524289|168681873|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.6|>0.999
84464707|NCT01524289|168681874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|102.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|110.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||110.1|94.2|<0.001
84464708|NCT01524289|168681875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-31.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-31.1|-41.7|<0.001
84464709|NCT01524289|168681876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-20.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-20.1|-29.5|<0.001
84464710|NCT01524289|168681877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|37.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||37.6|28.2|<0.001
84464711|NCT01524289|168681878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-21.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the median difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test.|||-21.2|-34.7|<0.001
84464712|NCT02104180|168681879|NON_INFERIORITY|An estimate of the difference between the pain felt by patient during the two dressings removals along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) has been derived. If the upper limit of the confidence interval was less than 13 mm, clinical non-inferiority of Tulle Gras versus Urgotul has been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|1.864|||||The pain intensity has been analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model for this cross-over study included sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|||1.864|-1.339|
84464713|NCT03425656|168681897|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Chi-squared|||||0.16|-0.23|0.73
84464714|NCT03425656|168681898|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
84518635|NCT00112437|168788517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.06|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.93||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.93|1.20|<=0.001
84464715|NCT03425656|168681899|OTHER||Chi-squared|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
84464716|NCT03425656|168681900|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84464717|NCT00035815|168681902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of MMT was calculated as a ratio of change from baseline to last follow-up to time to duration until last follow-up. For the patients that died during the study period, the last follow-up time was considered as the time of death with a zero score for MMT measurement. Analysis was performed using intention to treat approach. Comparison of rate of change in MMT scores between the placebo and IGF-1 group was made using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate.||||0.529
84464718|NCT00035815|168681903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Patients who elected to proceed to tracheostomy were assessed on the day of their procedure. Subjects who continuously utilized NIPPV for greater than 10 days were assessed as being ventilator-dependent on the first day they began continuous NIPPV. Survival between groups was compared using the Cox-proportional Hazards model.||1.4|0.77|0.415
84464719|NCT00035815|168681904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The final secondary outcome measure was the rate of change in the ALSFRS-r score. The ALSFRS-r was completed at each visit (randomization and then at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post-randomization). As with the MMT scores a score of 0 was imputed on the day of death. Analysis of the ALSFRS-r scores as a secondary outcome was performed in similar manner as MMT score.||||0.321
84464720|NCT02209597|168681905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84464721|NCT01855789|168681908|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of TCZ + PBO was claimed if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference was below 0.6.|Estimated Mean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.592||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included Week 24 DAS28 as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>/=100 kg qw), participant anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure (Yes/No).||0.592|0.045|
84464722|NCT01855789|168681909|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-10.2||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.2|-20.2|0.0746
84464723|NCT01855789|168681909|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.8||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.6|-19.3|0.1159
84464724|NCT01855789|168681909|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-0.6|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.6|-15.8|
84464725|NCT01855789|168681910|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-2.4|-24.8|0.0377
84464726|NCT01855789|168681910|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-15.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.7|-26.2|0.0130
84464727|NCT01855789|168681910|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-0.4|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.4|-21.4|
84464728|NCT01855789|168681911|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2||||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||2.9|-19.2|0.3599
84464729|NCT01855789|168681911|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-11.6||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.3|-22.8|0.0663
84464730|NCT01855789|168681911|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|3.1|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||3.1|-19.4|
84464731|NCT01855789|168681912|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|7.5||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||17.3|-2.4|0.2371
84464732|NCT01855789|168681912|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|3.4||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||13.7|-6.9|0.4811
84464733|NCT01855789|168681913|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-9.5||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.8|-20.9|0.1062
84464734|NCT01855789|168681913|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-6.8||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||4.6|-18.2|0.3611
84464735|NCT01855789|168681914|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.3|-24.0|0.0228
84464736|NCT01855789|168681914|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-5.4||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||5.4|-16.3|0.3665
84464737|NCT01855789|168681915|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.68|||||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|ANCOVA model included Week 24 bone erosion as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw).||0.68|-0.21|
84464738|NCT01863758|168681919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of bleeding episodes|3.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.8|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 49.36.|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||3.80|2.56|<0.05
84464739|NCT01863758|168681920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of spontaneous BEs|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.43|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 32.23|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of spontaneous BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||2.43|1.46|<0.05
84464740|NCT02858193|168681961|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|Geometric means ratio|111.63||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|94.12|100.51|123.99||"treatment p-value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||123.99|100.51|0.0482
84464741|NCT02858193|168681963|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies|geometric means ratio|109.41||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.93|114.07||"treatment p-value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in%|||114.07|104.93|0.0002
84464742|NCT02858193|168681964|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.593|||||||Friedman|||||||0.5930
84464743|NCT01269125|168681987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
84464744|NCT01269125|168681991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
84464745|NCT01269125|168681991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.48||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.2|-0.4|0.48
84540859|NCT01339403|168832839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|3.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.3|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive cervical cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.3|1.0|0.059
84464746|NCT01269125|168681991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.22||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.1|-0.4|0.22
84464747|NCT00417612|168682014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
84464748|NCT03216265|168682033|OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of body as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline (Visit 2) minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2).|||-0.78|-2.10|<0.0001
84464749|NCT01306058|168682067|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
84464750|NCT01306058|168682068|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001||||||Cycle 1 day 15 vs. cycle 1 day 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84464751|NCT01306058|168682068|NON_INFERIORITY|Cycle 2 day 1 vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84718061|NCT03391466|169186933|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.028||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.091||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||0.091|-0.034|0.3703
84464752|NCT01306058|168682068|NON_INFERIORITY|eos (end of study) vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
84464753|NCT00849693|168682070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
84464754|NCT01183858|168682085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33||Unstratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.671
84464755|NCT01183858|168682091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.84|0.625
84464756|NCT00641147|168682131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84464757|NCT00641147|168682131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
84464758|NCT00641147|168682132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84464759|NCT00641147|168682133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
84464760|NCT00641147|168682134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84464761|NCT00641147|168682135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84726535|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.16|0.14|
84464762|NCT00641147|168682136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84518636|NCT00112437|168788517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.53||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.53|0.80|<=0.001
84464763|NCT00641147|168682137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84464764|NCT00641147|168682138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84464765|NCT00641147|168682139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84464766|NCT00641147|168682140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84464767|NCT00641147|168682141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84464768|NCT00641147|168682142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84464769|NCT00641147|168682146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84464770|NCT00984659|168682153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.713
84540860|NCT01339403|168832839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.8|||Poisson Regression|||Non-AIDS-defining cancers: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.8|1.5|<0.001
84464771|NCT00984659|168682157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted Forced Expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84464772|NCT00984659|168682158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84464773|NCT00984659|168682159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
84464774|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.31||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 8|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.18|<0.001
84464775|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 15|ANCOVA|||||0.19|0.06|<0.001
84464776|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.16||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 22|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
84464777|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.17||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 29|ANCOVA|||||0.17|0.06|<0.001
84464778|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001||95.0|0.08|0.18||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 36|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
84464779|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.18||95.0|-0.03|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 43|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.03|0.180
84464780|NCT00984659|168682161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.307||95.0|-0.07|0.23||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Visit 3/PD|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.07|0.307
84464781|NCT00984659|168682165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.34||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CGI-C responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.14|<0.001
84464782|NCT00984659|168682166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CRQ-SAS Dyspnea Domain responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.21|<0.001
84464783|NCT00984659|168682167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535||95.0|-0.08|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for Physician-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.08|0.535
84464784|NCT00984659|168682167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08||95.0|-0.02|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparison of mean SOBDA score for Participant-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.02|0.08
84464785|NCT02424149|168682173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
84464786|NCT02424149|168682174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84464787|NCT02424149|168682175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84464788|NCT02424149|168682176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84464789|NCT02424149|168682177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84464790|NCT01745055|168682183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|107.29||||||Natural log transformed, AUC (0-12) of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.29|99.00|
84464791|NCT01745055|168682184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.79|112.47||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.47|93.79|
84464792|NCT01745055|168682185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|103.57||||||Natural log transformed, AUClast of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||103.57|77.38|
84464793|NCT01745055|168682186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|87.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.03|100.12||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.12|76.03|
84464794|NCT01720667|168682213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of 24 hour seizure termination rates using a Fisher's exact test.||||<0.001
84464795|NCT01720667|168682214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of seizure cessation at 48 hours using Fisher's exact test||||<0.001
84464796|NCT03472534|168682223|OTHER|The p-value for the overall F-test was used to determine if the mean irritation scores were equal for all four products.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84464797|NCT03865407|168682242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1839
84464798|NCT03865407|168682243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3036
84464799|NCT03865407|168682244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84464800|NCT03865407|168682245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1421
84464801|NCT03865407|168682246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0022
84464802|NCT03865407|168682247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3032
84464803|NCT02052960|168682271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.359|||Log Rank|||||1.359|0.736|0.86
84464804|NCT02052960|168682272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-14.5|0.77
84464805|NCT02052960|168682273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|9.63|||Chi-squared|||||9.63|-12.05|0.83
84464806|NCT02052960|168682274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.372|||Log Rank|||||1.372|0.814|0.70
84464807|NCT02052960|168682275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.396|||Log Rank|||||1.396|0.734|0.96
84464808|NCT00949650|168682441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
84464809|NCT00949650|168682441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576||||0.0002||95.0|0.426|0.778|||Regression, Cox|Cox Proportional Hazard (PH) regression stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg versus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||0.778|0.426|0.0002
84464810|NCT00949650|168682442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.802|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.855|8.075|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||8.075|2.855|<0.0001
84518637|NCT00112437|168788517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.11|-1.61|0.135
84464811|NCT00949650|168682443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.288||||0.0118||95.0|1.202|4.356|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||4.356|1.202|0.0118
84718062|NCT03391466|169186934|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|18.8||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.8|8.5|<0.0001
84464812|NCT00949650|168682444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7916||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.7916
84464813|NCT00949650|168682444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.385||95.0|0.66|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||1.174|0.660|0.3850
84464814|NCT00949650|168682445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|-13.64|-5.99|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SoD, EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||-5.99|-13.64|<0.0001
84464815|NCT00949650|168682448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0062
84464816|NCT00949650|168682448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||0.2133||95.0|0.401|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.866|0.401|0.2133
84464817|NCT00949650|168682449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0129
84464818|NCT00949650|168682449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0078||95.0|0.499|0.927|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.927|0.499|0.0078
84464819|NCT00949650|168682450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1882||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.1882
84464820|NCT00949650|168682450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.0427||95.0|0.618|1.104|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||1.104|0.618|0.0427
84464821|NCT00069121|168682473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||This test used a two-sided significance level of 5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.93|0.69|0.0038
84464822|NCT00069121|168682474|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.91|0.67|0.0015
84464823|NCT00069121|168682476|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.99|0.70|0.0367
84464824|NCT00942708|168682478|OTHER|Single group evaluation of change in PVR between 12 weeks and baseline (T-test for one group, 2-sided, p\<0.05 considered significant)||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
84464825|NCT03851510|168682481|OTHER|95% confidence of prevalence measure.|prevalence|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.4||||||All participants that were consented, eligible, and completed the Vector EFL screening (supine).||60.4|32.6|
84464826|NCT01894516|168682520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||52.6|22.4|< 0.0001
84464827|NCT01894516|168682520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|51.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||51.8|21.3|< 0.0001
84464828|NCT01894516|168682520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|58.2||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||58.2|28.4|< 0.0001
84464829|NCT05652660|168682531|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.77|138.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||138.59|104.77|
84464830|NCT05652660|168682532|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.53|118.06|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.06|103.53|
84540515|NCT03164616|168832130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.382|2.619||||||D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.619|1.382|
84464831|NCT02340104|168682538|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant and error as random effects.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.81|||||Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as independent variables, where participant was fitted as a random effect.|||0.810|0.769|
84464832|NCT01040832|168682539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Stratified log rank|||||1.6|0.7|0.793
84464833|NCT01040832|168682540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.999
84464834|NCT01040832|168682541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.557
84464835|NCT01539837|168682545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||calculated|Pairwise comparisons,post-hoc Bonferoni|||||||<0.01
84464836|NCT01629667|168682550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-4.13|0.140
84464837|NCT01629667|168682550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-3.73|0.234
84464838|NCT03849560|168682586|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H1N1 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||||||||1.82|0.82|
84464839|NCT03849560|168682586|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H3N2 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.3||||||||2.30|1.08|
84718063|NCT03391466|169186934|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|11.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.1||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.1|5.4|0.0004
84464840|NCT03849560|168682586|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for YAMA antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.15||||||||2.15|0.90|
84464841|NCT03849560|168682586|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for VICT antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.63||||||||1.63|0.68|
84464842|NCT03849560|168682587|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H1N1 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H1N1 was ≤1.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7762|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H1N1||1.030|0.7762|
84464843|NCT03849560|168682587|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H3N2 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H3N2 was ≤1.5|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7516|1.0593||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H3N2||1.0593|0.7516|
84464844|NCT03849560|168682587|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Yamagata if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Yamagata antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6918|0.9683||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) for the strain B/Yamagata||0.9683|0.6918|
84464845|NCT03849560|168682587|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Victoria if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Victoria antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0328||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.2445|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain B/Victoria||1.2445|0.8570|0.05
84464846|NCT03849560|168682588|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
84464847|NCT03849560|168682588|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.282
84464848|NCT03849560|168682588|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
84464849|NCT03849560|168682588|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
84464850|NCT03849560|168682589|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.452
84464851|NCT03849560|168682589|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.639
84540516|NCT03164616|168832130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.367||||||T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors T + D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs TC \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.367|1.260|
84464852|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of mean geometri|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|5.6||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group||5.60|4.22|
84464853|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.24||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group||6.24|4.53|
84464854|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|6.25||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group||6.25|4.78|
84464855|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|5.49||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group||5.49|4.14|
84464856|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|4.94||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.94|3.59|
84464857|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||6.12|4.45|
84464858|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|4.69||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.69|3.48|
84464859|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.34||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.34|3.97|
84464860|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||6.12|4.38|
84464861|NCT03849560|168682591|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.56||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.56|4.00|
84464862|NCT04382651|168682596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.7||1-Sided|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-2.7|0.33
84464863|NCT01507545|168682602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||One-sided log-rank test|||||1.67|0.76|0.7335
84464864|NCT01507545|168682603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||One-sided log-rank test|||||2.19|0.93|0.9498
84518638|NCT00112437|168788518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.66|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.61|1.71|<=0.001
84464865|NCT01507545|168682604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|-2.4||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.992|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||||2.230|-6.992|0.333
84464866|NCT01753518|168682621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
84464867|NCT01753518|168682622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
84464868|NCT01753518|168682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for staple expulsion or suture trimming||||0.25
84464869|NCT01753518|168682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Surgical Site Infection||||0.06
84464870|NCT01753518|168682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Superficial Wound Separation||||0.21
84464871|NCT01753518|168682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Seroma||||0.49
84464872|NCT01753518|168682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Hematoma||||0.50
84464873|NCT01753518|168682624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Tylenol use.||||0.48
84464874|NCT01753518|168682624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Ibuprofen use.||||0.30
84464875|NCT01753518|168682624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Toradol use.||||0.85
84464876|NCT01753518|168682624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Oxycodone use.||||0.78
84464877|NCT01753518|168682626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison for negative responses to Appearance of incision question."||||0.51
84464878|NCT01753518|168682626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison for negative responses to Would recommend treatment to friends question."||||0.098
84464879|NCT01753518|168682626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of negative responses to Willingness to use treatment again question."||||0.57
84464880|NCT01753518|168682626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of negative responses to Overall satisfaction question."||||0.41
84464881|NCT01753518|168682627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for appearance of incision."||||0.85
84464882|NCT01753518|168682627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for recommend treatment."||||0.004
84464883|NCT01753518|168682627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for willingness to use treatment again."||||<0.001
84464884|NCT01753518|168682628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84464885|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar painful.||||0.35
84464886|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar itching.||||0.48
84464887|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar color is different.||||0.034
84464888|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar stiffness is different.||||0.041
84464889|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar thickness is different.||||0.23
84464890|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar more irregular.||||0.13
84464891|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: overall opinion.||||0.11
84464892|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: vascularity.||||0.68
84464893|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pigmentation.||||0.18
84464894|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: thickness||||0.75
84464895|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: relief.||||0.36
84464896|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pliability.||||0.78
84464897|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: surface area.||||0.76
84464898|NCT01753518|168682629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: overall opinion.||||0.97
84464899|NCT00553787|168682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|9.25||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.25|7.96|<0.0001
84464900|NCT00553787|168682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|7.37||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.37|5.79|<0.0001
84464901|NCT00553787|168682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||2.82|1.24|<0.0001
84464902|NCT00553787|168682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.955|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|11.11||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||11.11|7.34|<0.0001
84464903|NCT00553787|168682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|7.97||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.97|4.93|<0.0001
84464904|NCT00553787|168682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||1.81|1.15|0.0018
84464905|NCT01088412|168682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.||5.96|2.24|
84464906|NCT01088412|168682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.2||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of primary malignancies in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and gender.||1.20|0.39|
84464907|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All DM (T1, T2 and DM Not Otherwise Specified \[NOS\] Combined)"||4.15|2.14|
84464908|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||4.15|1.72|
84518639|NCT00112437|168788518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.89|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.84||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.84|0.93|<=0.001
84540517|NCT03164616|168832133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.928|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.928|0.666|
84726536|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.98|0.74|
84464909|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.69||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.69|1.80|
84464910|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.93||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||7.93|0.84|
84464911|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.83|0.00|
84464912|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.83|0.36|
84464913|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.66||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.66|1.24|
84464914|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.3||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||24.30|0.00|
84464915|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T1 DM."||1.44|0.56|
84464916|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T1DM."||1.40|0.36|
84464917|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T1DM."||4.38|0.31|
84464918|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.14||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T1DM."||4.14|0.29|
84464919|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.23||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T1DM."||7.23|0.00|
84464920|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T1DM."||3.38|0.00|
84464921|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.1||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T1DM."||6.10|0.43|
84464922|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.84||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T1DM."||14.84|0.00|
84464923|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T2 DM."||5.96|2.24|
84464924|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.87||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T2DM."||6.87|2.03|
84464925|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|18.89||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T2DM."||18.89|1.33|
84464926|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T2DM."||7.52|0.00|
84464927|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.16||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T2DM."||31.16|0.00|
84464928|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|28.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T2DM."||28.52|0.96|
84464929|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.7||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T2DM."||16.70|0.08|
84464930|NCT01088412|168682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|63.97||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T2DM."||63.97|0.00|
84464931|NCT03494725|168682681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Outcome was subjected to transformation to meet model assumptions. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||The sample size was computed for a repeated measurement ANOVA with two groups and seven repeated measurements (power=0.85, α=0.05, f=0.1). The calculation resulted in a group size of 56 participants each, which was rounded up to 60 participants per treatment group to account for attrition.||||0.757
84464932|NCT00514449|168682720|OTHER||number of voxels in a cluster|2037.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||Time by treatment group interaction term|||||0.004
84464933|NCT04083144|168682722|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84464934|NCT04083144|168682723|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
84464935|NCT04083144|168682724|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84464936|NCT04083144|168682725|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.07||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
84464937|NCT04083144|168682726|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.17||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
84464938|NCT00995371|168682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.96|1.09|<0.05
84464939|NCT00995371|168682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||1.55|-1.43|>0.05
84464940|NCT00995371|168682743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|19.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||19.31|3.35|<0.05
84464941|NCT00995371|168682743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.65|||>|0.05||95.0|-4.12|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||15.41|-4.12|>0.05
84726537|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.97|0.73|
84464942|NCT00995371|168682744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.05||95.0|0.61|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.77|0.61|<0.05
84518640|NCT00112437|168788518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.87||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.82|-0.09|0.095
84464943|NCT00995371|168682744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.66|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||2.66|-0.66|>0.05
84464944|NCT00995371|168682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13|||<|0.05||95.0|7.43|24.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||24.83|7.43|<0.05
84464945|NCT00995371|168682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||>|0.05||95.0|-1.24|13.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||13.58|-1.24|>0.05
84464946|NCT01462292|168682759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.946||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.122|21.229||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilizing a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||21.229|-39.122|0.554
84464947|NCT01462292|168682759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.099||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|56.408||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilising a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||56.408|-2.210|0.069
84464948|NCT01462292|168682760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|2.392||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||2.392|-1.618|0.699
84464949|NCT01462292|168682760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.072|2.735||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.735|-1.072|0.384
84726538|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.83|
84464950|NCT01462292|168682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.886||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment,centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Ascent Week 24||0.886|-0.883|0.997
84464951|NCT01462292|168682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.803||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|0.048||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Ascent, Week 24||0.048|-1.655|0.064
84464952|NCT01462292|168682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.685||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|0.662||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.662|-2.033|0.311
84464953|NCT01462292|168682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.412||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.878||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.878|-1.702|0.523
84464954|NCT01462292|168682762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.564||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.127||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.127|0.000|0.050
84464955|NCT01462292|168682762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.571||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||0.571|-0.498|0.890
84464956|NCT01462292|168682763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.356||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.936|15.648||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||15.648|-10.936|0.723
84464957|NCT01462292|168682763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.034|13.676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6mg||13.676|-12.034|0.898
84464958|NCT01462292|168682765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.92||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.92|-2.90|0.684
84464959|NCT01462292|168682765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.12||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.12|-2.49|0.873
84464960|NCT01462292|168682767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-892.88||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4391.1|2605.35||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 24||2605.35|-4391.10|0.610
84464961|NCT01462292|168682767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2054.86||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5587.33|1477.6||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 48||1477.60|-5587.33|0.248
84464962|NCT01462292|168682767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1305.46||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4668.41|2057.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 24||2057.48|-4668.41|0.439
84464963|NCT01462292|168682767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|167.39||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3208.98|3543.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 48||3543.77|-3208.98|0.921
84464964|NCT01462292|168682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week||7.01|0.02|0.541
84464965|NCT01462292|168682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|4.27||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week||4.27|0.03|0.417
84518641|NCT00112437|168788518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.75|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.75|-1.14|
84718064|NCT03391466|169186934|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|3.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||10.0|-2.3|0.2549
84464966|NCT02613572|168682787|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84464967|NCT02613572|168682788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
84464968|NCT02613572|168682789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84464969|NCT02613572|168682790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
84464970|NCT02613572|168682791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
84464971|NCT02613572|168682792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84464972|NCT02342561|168682793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At end of surgery||||0.601
84464973|NCT02342561|168682793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After skin disinfection||||0.823
84464974|NCT02342561|168682794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in prevalence of CoNs between the 2 groups was analysed. The null-hypothesis was no difference.||||0.731
84464975|NCT01748695|168682805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||||||Based on a linear mixed measures model with treatment and period included as fixed effects, subject included as a random effect and between- and within- subject baseline covariates included.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.834
84464976|NCT00112151|168682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). The primary analysis was conducted in the PRT groups and compared CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
84464977|NCT00112151|168682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). To address whether the effects of any T on physical function are the same without PRT, the analysis was also conducted in the No PRT groups, comparing CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
84464978|NCT00112151|168682884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
84464979|NCT00112151|168682884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
84464980|NCT00112151|168682885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
84464981|NCT00112151|168682885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
84464982|NCT00112151|168682886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
84464983|NCT00112151|168682886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
84464984|NCT00112151|168682887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
84464985|NCT00112151|168682887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
84464986|NCT00112151|168682888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
84464987|NCT00112151|168682888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
84540518|NCT03164616|168832133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.883|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.883|0.632|
84464988|NCT03191396|168682909|NON_INFERIORITY|HbA1c non-inferiority was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56||The non-inferiority p-value is calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3.|ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from subjects within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor as categorical effect and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
84464989|NCT03191396|168682909|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
84464990|NCT03191396|168682910|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-3.09|-4.57|<0.0001
84464991|NCT01438710|168682950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change (i.e., absolute change) from baseline (Day 7, pre-conversion) on FTM overall score to Day 14 (post-conversion) was evaluated using paired t-test (at 0.05 significance level, two sided). An estimation of mean change from baseline and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided.||||0.0048
84464992|NCT00945750|168682955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the AUC geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||||90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
84464993|NCT00945750|168682956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
84464994|NCT00945750|168682957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.04|1.2||||||||1.20|1.04|
84464995|NCT00945750|168682958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||||90.0|1.02|1.24||||||||1.24|1.02|
84464996|NCT02531035|168682977|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.97|17.81||P-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by different levels of stratification factors of BMI at Screening(\<25 kg/m\^2,\>=25 kg/m\^2),Week -2 A1C(\<=9.0%, \>9.0%),and using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion(CSII) at Screening(yes,no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.81|8.97|< 0.001
84464997|NCT02531035|168682978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.38|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.38|-0.54|< 0.001
84464998|NCT02531035|168682979|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.66|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9%, \>9%), randomization stratum of Use of CSII at Screening (Yes, No), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline weight-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-2.66|-3.31|< 0.001
84464999|NCT02531035|168682980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by- time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline SBP-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.3|-5.7|= 0.002
84465000|NCT02531035|168682981|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.48|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-6.48|-18.17|< 0.001
84465001|NCT03726671|168682982|OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Betaine IER||||0.0247
84465002|NCT03726671|168682982|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Choline IER||||<0.0001
84465003|NCT03726671|168682982|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0002
84465004|NCT03726671|168682983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||||14.7|3.48|<0.001
84465005|NCT03726671|168682983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.11|||Fisher Exact|||||8.11|2.06|0.01
84465006|NCT03726671|168682983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.58|||Fisher Exact|||||3.58|0.86|0.086
84465007|NCT03726671|168682984|OTHER|||||||0.6985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Betaine IER||||0.6985
84465008|NCT03726671|168682984|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Choline IER||||0.0350
84465009|NCT03726671|168682984|OTHER|||||||0.6864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.6864
84465010|NCT03726671|168682985|EQUIVALENCE|There are linear combinations of metabolites that differentiate (non-equivalent) the 25% choline diet from the 100% choline diet.|||||<|0.049|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test||||Supervised OPLSDA was used to determine the variable importance to projections of metabolites/signals that differentiated the 25% and 100% choline diet arms.|||<0.049
84465011|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.9567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9567
84465012|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0899|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0899
84465013|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.9003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.9003
84465014|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.9932|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9932
84465015|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.3984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.3984
84465016|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.3080
84465017|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.7603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.7603
84465018|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.2995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.2995
84465019|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0003
84465020|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.1303|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.1303
84465021|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0015
84465022|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.4185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.4185
84465023|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.3464|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.3464
84465024|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0019
84465025|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.2091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.2091
84465026|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.8141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.8141
84518642|NCT00112437|168788519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.94|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.24|1.64|<=0.001
84465027|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0187
84465028|NCT03726671|168682986|OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0107
84465029|NCT03726671|168682987|OTHER|||||||0.0842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0842
84465030|NCT03726671|168682987|OTHER|||||||0.0819|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.0819
84465031|NCT03726671|168682987|OTHER|||||||0.9015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9015
84465032|NCT03726671|168682987|OTHER|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.1191
84465033|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. betaine IER||||0.2351
84465034|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4501
84518643|NCT00112437|168788519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.65|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.94||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.94|1.35|<=0.001
84465035|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.4136|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.4136
84465036|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.9463|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.9463
84465037|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.0675|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0675
84465038|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.2863|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.2863
84465039|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.5552
84465040|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.4209|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4209
84465041|NCT03726671|168682988|OTHER|||||||0.6647|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.6647
84465042|NCT03270085|168682991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84465043|NCT03270085|168682992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84465044|NCT03270085|168682993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84465045|NCT00151411|168683028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.4|-9.9|0.54
84465046|NCT00151411|168683029|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.6|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the probability of ovulation.||6.6|0.9|0.07
84465047|NCT00151411|168683029|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the count of ovulations provided a woman actually ovulated.||1.9|0.7|0.51
84465048|NCT00151411|168683030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.0|0.1|0.05
84465049|NCT00634543|168683079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if lower confidence limit of 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.39.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was calculated for change from baseline in pain intensity score at Day 43.||||1.01|-0.23|0.2143
84465050|NCT00634543|168683080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 15.||||||0.7539
84465051|NCT00634543|168683080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5905|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 29.||||||0.5905
84465052|NCT00634543|168683080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 43.||||||0.7407
84465053|NCT00634543|168683081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.3504
84465054|NCT00634543|168683082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.5690
84465055|NCT00474630|168683085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.34|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-4.34|<0.001
84465056|NCT00474630|168683086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
84465057|NCT00474630|168683087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.50|2.15|<0.001
84465058|NCT00474630|168683088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84465059|NCT00474630|168683089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.84|||ANCOVA|||||4.84|1.80|<0.001
84465060|NCT00474630|168683090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.21|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-16.21|0.065
84465061|NCT00474630|168683091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.59||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.59|-3.57|
84465062|NCT00474630|168683092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.88||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.88|1.79|
84465063|NCT00474630|168683093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.04||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.04|1.50|
84465064|NCT00474630|168683094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.86|0.35|
84465065|NCT00474630|168683095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.57||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.57|0.27|
84518644|NCT00112437|168788519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.69||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.69|1.08|<=0.001
84465066|NCT00474630|168683096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|12.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||12.67|0.55|
84465067|NCT00474630|168683097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84465068|NCT00474630|168683098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84465069|NCT00474630|168683099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||5.14|1.36|
84465070|NCT00474630|168683100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.51||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.51|-0.77|
84465071|NCT00474630|168683101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
84465072|NCT00474630|168683103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-0.74||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.74|-9.22|
84465073|NCT00474630|168683104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.62||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.62|-7.48|
84465074|NCT00474630|168683105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.33||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.33|-1.02|
84465075|NCT00474630|168683106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-1.04|
84465076|NCT00474630|168683107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.65|0.59|
84465077|NCT00474630|168683108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.27|-0.42|
84465078|NCT00474630|168683109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.76|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-0.76|
84465079|NCT04243369|168683114|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics was provided. The rate and the exact 95% CI of the rate using the Clopper-Pearson Exact method is calculated.|Rate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100|88.4|
84540519|NCT04604795|168832169|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.331|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.331|0.833|
84465080|NCT01954628|168683126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|23.7||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.3|175.7||AAC were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model adjusting for treatment and region as factors and including the baseline score as a covariate.|ANOVA|||Sample size based on area above the daily EXACT score curve (AAC) from Day 1 to Day 29 from subjects with an acute COPD exacerbation, collected over 28 days. Assuming a residual SD of 500 points, a sample size of 200 subjects per arm would be expected to have an 80% power to detect a true treatment difference in the AAC of 140 points over 12-weeks treatment, using a 2-sided test; alpha-level of 0.05.This difference corresponds to a mean daily improvement of 1.67 points on the EXACT symptom score||175.7|-128.3|0.759
84465081|NCT01954628|168683127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-0.34||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.89|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model with fixed factors treatment, region and baseline total CAT score as covariate were used. Missing post-treatment data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||0.89|-1.57|0.588
84465082|NCT01954628|168683128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|1.083||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.52|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with fixed factors treatment, region and time in study as offset.||The number of subjects with at least one COPD exacerbation were summarised by treatment group.||1.520|0.771|0.646
84465083|NCT01954628|168683131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Missing post-treatment data was imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||||0.226
84465084|NCT03069690|168683154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.665||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.649|4.85||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.850|-5.649|.80
84465085|NCT03069690|168683154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.813|2.039||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||2.039|-8.813|.80
84465086|NCT03069690|168683154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.184||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.184|-6.530|.80
84465087|NCT00909090|168683220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84465088|NCT00909090|168683221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis compared mean differences between placebo and intervention at the 12-month time point.||||0.21
84540520|NCT04604795|168832169|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.916|8.474|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||8.474|4.916|
84465089|NCT00909090|168683222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis compared mean change from baseline to 12-month time points.||||0.01
84465090|NCT00909090|168683223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis conducted on mean change over one year, between groups||||0.02
84465091|NCT02926573|168683228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.27|
84465092|NCT02926573|168683229|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|21.0||||||||21|-3.0|
84465093|NCT02926573|168683231|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.0|||||"The estimation parameter is based on those participants who answered they were very satisfied with overall pain control."|||11|-15|
84465094|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||18.3|-3.4|
84465095|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||20.3|-2.9|
84465096|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.9|-4.6|
84465097|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|16.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||16.8|-6.6|
84465098|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||18.3|-3.6|
84465099|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||21.6|-5.6|
84465100|NCT02926573|168683232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||23.8|-3.5|
84465101|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||22.3|-0.9|
84465102|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||21.6|-3.4|
84465103|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.6|-6.1|
84465104|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|17.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||17.8|-7.3|
84465105|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||23.8|-1.4|
84465106|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||29.9|-0.1|
84465107|NCT02926573|168683233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|26.0|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||26.0|-2.8|
84540521|NCT04604795|168832178|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.268|1.847|||||AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.847|1.268|
84540522|NCT04604795|168832178|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.141|15.423|||||Log transformed AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||15.423|10.141|
84465108|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||11.9|-14.7|
84465109|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||19.2|-8.6|
84465110|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|24.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||24.2|-2.4|
84465111|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|20.7|||||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|20.7|-6.6|
84465112|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||22.3|-6.4|
84465113|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.7|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||31.7|-0.4|
84465114|NCT02926573|168683234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|33.4|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||33.4|0.0|
84465115|NCT00611455|168683238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|1.67|<0.001
84465116|NCT01678846|168683294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of less than 1 would demonstrate a protective effect of the intervention. Unadjusted odds ratio presented, accounting for correlation between students within schools.|Does the Toolkit intervention reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school students.||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
84518645|NCT00112437|168788519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.29||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.0||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.00|-1.58|0.731
84465117|NCT01873742|168683308|OTHER|The BDI's Cronbach's alpha was .93 at start of therapy, and .95 at the end of therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84465118|NCT01832961|168683309|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|Friedman's test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect of size used to calculate responsiveness and classified as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8).|||<0.05
84465119|NCT01832961|168683310|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
84540523|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.693|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) versus (vs) Day 3 (fasted)|||0.693|0.318|
84465120|NCT01832961|168683311|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
84465121|NCT01832961|168683312|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|T-test was used to comparisons before and after FeNO results||||||<0.05
84465122|NCT01832961|168683313|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|||||||<0.05
84465123|NCT01707147|168683318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.71|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-0.71|-0.83|<0.0001
84465124|NCT01707147|168683321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-15.12|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-15.12|-20.98|<0.0001
84465125|NCT03165981|168683403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.10|0.36|0.7588
84465126|NCT03165981|168683404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.40|0.39|.9412
84465127|NCT03165981|168683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
84465128|NCT03165981|168683406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.13|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||3.13|0.24|0.8325
84465129|NCT03165981|168683407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
84465130|NCT03165981|168683408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.48|0.21|0.6101
84465131|NCT03165981|168683409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.848
84465132|NCT03165981|168683411|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84465133|NCT03990766|168683425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|42.3||||||||42.3|-35.6|
84465134|NCT03990766|168683426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||||5|-3|
84540524|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.405|0.882|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.882|0.405|
84465135|NCT03990766|168683427|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.0||||||The within-subject change in QOD-NS scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort.||-4|-15|
84465136|NCT03990766|168683428|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||The within-subject change in ODOR scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort. We confirmed the reported results.||17|-2|
84465137|NCT01543490|168683432|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.6||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.|||16.6|0.2|0.0354
84465138|NCT01543490|168683433|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05, and missing data imputed using the LOCF approach.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.0||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% CI was calculated.|||15.0|-1.3|0.1036
84465139|NCT04192448|168683434|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.82|26.19|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||26.19|-29.82|.28
84465140|NCT04192448|168683434|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.01|35.01|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||35.01|-33.01|.39
84478882|NCT02259127|168709099|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 677~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.12|= 0.015
84518646|NCT00112437|168788520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.29||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.35|-0.77|0.112
84540525|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.194|0.427|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.427|0.194|
84540526|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|0.643|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.643|0.292|
84718065|NCT00003222|169186990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.13
84540527|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.617|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.617|0.280|
84540528|NCT04604795|168832215|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.903|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.903|0.410|
84518647|NCT00112437|168788520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.95|-1.13|
84518648|NCT00112437|168788520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.42|-1.69|
84465141|NCT04192448|168683435|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.63|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol Condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.63|-2.88|.33
84465142|NCT04192448|168683435|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.88|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.88|-2.53|.33
84465143|NCT04192448|168683436|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.67|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined differences in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||6.67|-8.00|.23
84478883|NCT02259127|168709099|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.172|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.029|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (frequentist \<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.029|-0.362|= 0.075
84518649|NCT00112437|168788520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.42|-2.53|
84540529|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.205|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.205|0.867|
84540530|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.308|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.308|0.941|
84718066|NCT00003222|169186991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.004
84518650|NCT00112437|168788521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.23|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.24|0.22|<=0.001
84518651|NCT00112437|168788521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.11|0.09|0.005
84518652|NCT00112437|168788521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.29|-0.74|0.630
84518653|NCT00112437|168788521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.27||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.27|-2.28|
84518654|NCT00112437|168788522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-57.86|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.33|-43.38||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-43.38|-72.33|<=0.001
84518655|NCT00112437|168788522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-30.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-30.91|-60.93|<=0.001
84518656|NCT00112437|168788522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-31.84|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-15.58||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-15.58|-48.11|<=0.001
84518657|NCT00112437|168788522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.17||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|43.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||43.24|-0.94|0.249
84540531|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.671|0.933|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.933|0.671|
84540532|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|1.007|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.007|0.724|
84465144|NCT04192448|168683436|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|11.17|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||11.17|-10.84|.44
84465145|NCT01981122|168683456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures||||||.095
84465146|NCT02773758|168683461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|-1.071|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.071|-1.509|<0.0001
84465147|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465148|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465149|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465150|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84518658|NCT00112437|168788523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.33|||<=|0.001||95.0|-75.86|-36.81||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-36.81|-75.86|<=0.001
84540533|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.992|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.992|0.713|
84540534|NCT04604795|168832217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.165|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.165|0.837|
84718067|NCT02115282|169187011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, the threshold for significance was two-sided p value of 0.2%.|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.67|0.30
84718068|NCT02115282|169187012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified on the four randomization factors. The threshold for statistical significance was two-sided p value of 3.7% after taking into account the five interim analyses of OS into account.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.82|0.94
84465151|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465152|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465153|NCT00500149|168683464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465154|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||< 0.0001
84465155|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465156|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465157|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465158|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465159|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.001
84465160|NCT00500149|168683465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
84465161|NCT01592851|168683466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.63||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.63|-1.03|<0.0001
84518659|NCT00112437|168788523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.57|||<=|0.001||95.0|-56.63|-14.51||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-14.51|-56.63|<=0.001
84540535|NCT00719186|168832241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84726539|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.62|0.57|
84465162|NCT01592851|168683467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.12|-0.41|0.0006
84465163|NCT01592851|168683468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.28||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.28|-0.63|<0.0001
84465164|NCT01592851|168683469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.15||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||25.15|13.70|<0.0001
84465165|NCT01592851|168683470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.84||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|11.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||11.13|2.54|0.0021
84465166|NCT01592851|168683471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.65||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||6.65|1.08|0.0070
84465167|NCT00521339|168683494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84465168|NCT00521339|168683495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
84465169|NCT00521339|168683496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84465170|NCT00521339|168683497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84465171|NCT00521339|168683498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
84465172|NCT00521339|168683499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.242
84465173|NCT00521339|168683500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.329
84465174|NCT00521339|168683501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
84465175|NCT00521339|168683503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
84465176|NCT00521339|168683504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84465177|NCT00521339|168683505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84465178|NCT00521339|168683507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
84465179|NCT00521339|168683508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
84465180|NCT00521339|168683509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84465181|NCT00521339|168683510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
84465182|NCT00521339|168683511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84518660|NCT00112437|168788523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.66||||0.08||95.0|-44.54|1.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||1.23|-44.54|0.080
84540861|NCT01339403|168832839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||AIDS-defining cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
84726540|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.50|0.75|
84465183|NCT00521339|168683512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84465184|NCT00521339|168683513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
84465185|NCT00521339|168683514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.539
84465186|NCT00521339|168683515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
84465187|NCT00521339|168683516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
84465188|NCT00521339|168683517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.898
84465189|NCT00521339|168683518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
84465190|NCT00089843|168683529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate) on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
84465191|NCT00089843|168683529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||This p value was for the effect of testosterone on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||0.8|-2.0|0.41
84465192|NCT00089843|168683530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-41.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate).|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.002
84465193|NCT00089843|168683530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-11.0||||0.39||95.0||||This p value was for the effect of testosterone.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.39
84465194|NCT01819935|168683531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.20|0.72|
84465195|NCT01819935|168683532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.05|0.53|
84465196|NCT01819935|168683533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.15|0.90|
84465197|NCT01819935|168683534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.09|0.39|
84465198|NCT01819935|168683535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.37|0.68|
84465199|NCT01819935|168683536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.13|0.68|
84465200|NCT01819935|168683537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.48|0.54|
84465201|NCT01819935|168683538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.45||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.45|1.06|
84465202|NCT01157169|168683539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.67|120.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.07|101.67|
84465203|NCT01157169|168683540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|112.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.45|99.74|
84718069|NCT06415045|169187026|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.55|124.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.58|106.55|
84718070|NCT06415045|169187027|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|85.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|107.06|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.4|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||107.06|68.80|
84718071|NCT06415045|169187028|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.38|124.46|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.46|106.38|
84465204|NCT01157169|168683541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|111.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.24|97.18|
84465205|NCT01157169|168683542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|101.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.93|85.37|
84465206|NCT01157169|168683543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|101.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.46|87.44|
84465207|NCT01157169|168683544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.56|104.39|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.39|86.56|
84465208|NCT00663858|168683545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.894|0.709|||ANOVA|||||0.709|-1.894|0.371
84465209|NCT00663858|168683545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-709.0|2.132|||ANCOVA|||||2.132|-0709|0.3253
84518661|NCT00112437|168788523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|47.88||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||47.88|-8.48|
84465210|NCT00663858|168683545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.542|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||||-0.106|-2.542|0.0333
84540645|NCT01128179|168832513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.845|1.403||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||1.403|-8.845|0.1459
84465211|NCT02435173|168683562|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and log10 transformed baseline SPD as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.37|0.0012
84465212|NCT02435173|168683563|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|40.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.51|51.75|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||51.75|28.51|<0.0001
84726541|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.39|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.39|0.17|
84726542|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.01|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.01|0.72|
84465213|NCT02940886|168683579|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement was used for testing and included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.13|-0.13|
84465214|NCT02940886|168683580|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.88|0.06|
84465215|NCT02940886|168683580|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.71||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.71|-0.91|
84465216|NCT02940886|168683580|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
84465217|NCT02940886|168683581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.5695
84465218|NCT02940886|168683582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3913|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.3913
84465219|NCT02940886|168683584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.72|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||4.72|1.27|0.0077
84465220|NCT02940886|168683584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.26|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||3.26|1.80|<0.0001
84518662|NCT00112437|168788524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.82|-0.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||-0.74|-35.82|0.004
84518663|NCT00112437|168788524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.26||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|17.39||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.39|-19.90|0.344
84540536|NCT02096744|168832291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|109.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||109.37|95.74|<0.0001
84465221|NCT02940886|168683584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.58|0.96|0.1049
84465222|NCT02940886|168683584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.38|0.80|0.7032
84465223|NCT02940886|168683585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0880
84465224|NCT02940886|168683586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.41|0.92|0.2420
84465225|NCT02940886|168683587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.28|0.81|0.8746
84465226|NCT02940886|168683588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||5.71|3.58|<0.0001
84465227|NCT02940886|168683589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
84465228|NCT02940886|168683589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.38|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.38|0.19|<0.0001
84465229|NCT02940886|168683589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.20|-0.02|0.1091
84465230|NCT02940886|168683590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|246.3|289.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||289.0|246.3|<0.0001
84465231|NCT02940886|168683590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||57.8|25.6|<0.0001
84465232|NCT02940886|168683590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.2|-20.3|0.1150
84518664|NCT00112437|168788524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|17.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.89|-20.55|
84540862|NCT01339403|168832840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.5|1.3|<0.001
84465233|NCT02940886|168683590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.0|-17.7|0.0812
84465234|NCT02940886|168683591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|12.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||12.7|10.1|<0.0001
84465235|NCT02940886|168683591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.6|1.2|0.0001
84465236|NCT02940886|168683591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.1|0.2|0.0162
84465237|NCT02940886|168683591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.8|0.0|0.0569
84465238|NCT02940886|168683592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|49.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||49.3|38.1|<0.0001
84465239|NCT02940886|168683592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||9.8|0.3|0.0375
84465240|NCT02940886|168683592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.3|-4.0|0.6027
84465241|NCT02940886|168683592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.4|-2.7|0.8207
84518665|NCT00112437|168788524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|50.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||50.46|5.84|
84518666|NCT00112437|168788525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-5.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-5.04|-26.11|<=0.001
84540537|NCT02096744|168832292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.367|110.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.487|98.367|<0.0001
84465242|NCT02940886|168683593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.01|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||2.01|0.04|0.0422
84465243|NCT02940886|168683593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.66|-1.44|0.4646
84465244|NCT02940886|168683593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.76|-1.39|0.5703
84465245|NCT01650779|168683657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0002
84465246|NCT01650779|168683657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
84465247|NCT01650779|168683657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
84465248|NCT01650779|168683658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1178|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1178
84465249|NCT01650779|168683658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1176|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1176
84465250|NCT01650779|168683658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0322
84465251|NCT01650779|168683659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.5811
84465252|NCT01650779|168683659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.7744
84465253|NCT01650779|168683659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.3877
84518667|NCT00112437|168788525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.43||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|16.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||16.89|-6.02|0.645
84465254|NCT03567291|168683673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-3.4|0.78
84465255|NCT01103349|168683686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.494||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|6.809||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||6.809|0.931|0.0050
84465256|NCT01103349|168683686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|2.369|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.567||0.0657||95.0|-0.713|5.452||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||5.452|-0.713|0.0657
84540863|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|75.7|||Poisson Regression|||Wasting syndrome: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||75.7|57.1|<0.001
84465257|NCT01103349|168683686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|1.501|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.602||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.653||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd)||4.653|-1.652|0.1748
84465258|NCT01103349|168683687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.048||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.048|-0.512|0.0092
84465259|NCT01103349|168683687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.124||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.063||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.063|-0.423|0.0732
84465260|NCT01103349|168683687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.126||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.147||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.147|-0.347|0.2139
84465261|NCT00958568|168683697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Power estimate assumes approximately 1230 participants enter SPII. With a 60% drop-out/disqualification rate in SPII, then 492 participants enter SPIII. If 26% of participants drop out during SPIII, then 364 participants enter SPIV. Assuming 20% drop-out rate, 25% relapse rate on OFC and 40% relapse rate for fluoxetine (hazard ratio = 0.56), the log-rank test is 80% powered to detect a difference at a 2-sided 0.05 level. A total of 95 relapse events during SPIV should satisfy these assumptions.||||<0.001
84465262|NCT00958568|168683698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
84465263|NCT00958568|168683699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
84465264|NCT00958568|168683700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.713
84465265|NCT00958568|168683701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
84465266|NCT00958568|168683702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84465267|NCT00958568|168683703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.831
84465268|NCT00958568|168683704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84718072|NCT02112916|169187045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.091|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the EFS of the randomized patients (T-ALL+T-LLy) on Arm A vs Arm B. Study was designed to accrue 1200 eligible, evaluable randomized patients (to provide 90.5% power to detect an improvement in 4-year EFS from 85% to 90% with an alpha of 0.05 (one-sided log-rank test) (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.6483). Study was closed to accrual early due to results from AALL0434 for nelarabine.||1.091|0.561|0.074
84718073|NCT05714059|169187057|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c, from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84718074|NCT05714059|169187057|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.50% with a margin of 0.4%. A significance level of 0.025 (one-sided) was used|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.6|-0.8|<0.001
84465269|NCT00958568|168683708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Remission rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.047
84465270|NCT00958568|168683709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.36||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.36|-4.46|<0.001
84465271|NCT00958568|168683710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-2.24||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-2.24|-5.39|<0.001
84465272|NCT00958568|168683711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-0.12|-0.55|0.002
84465273|NCT00958568|168683714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.53||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-0.53|-3.36|0.007
84465274|NCT00958568|168683715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465275|NCT00958568|168683716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
84718075|NCT05714059|169187058|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
84718076|NCT05714059|169187058|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
84718077|NCT05714059|169187059|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was estimated for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
84718078|NCT05714059|169187059|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) were summarized from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period for this endpoint|||0.3|0.1|<0.001
84726543|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.64|
84465276|NCT00958568|168683717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465277|NCT00958568|168683718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|7.89||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||7.89|-9.71|0.839
84465278|NCT00958568|168683719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
84465279|NCT00958568|168683719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465280|NCT00958568|168683719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465281|NCT00958568|168683720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|6.54||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||6.54|-9.69|0.703
84465282|NCT00958568|168683721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
84518668|NCT00112437|168788525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|23.92||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||23.92|-0.47|
84465283|NCT00958568|168683721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
84465284|NCT00958568|168683721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.458
84465285|NCT00958568|168683722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-1.47||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.47|-5.99|0.001
84465286|NCT00958568|168683723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84465287|NCT00958568|168683724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465288|NCT00958568|168683725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|28.26||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||28.26|-1.72|0.083
84465289|NCT00958568|168683726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84465290|NCT00958568|168683726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84465291|NCT00958568|168683726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.054
84465292|NCT00958568|168683727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.56||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||9.56|2.22|0.002
84465293|NCT00958568|168683728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84465294|NCT00958568|168683728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84465295|NCT00958568|168683728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Impaired. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
84465296|NCT00958568|168683728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-value is for Normal/Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
84465297|NCT00958568|168683729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||4.88|2.96|<0.001
84465298|NCT00958568|168683730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84465299|NCT00958568|168683731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for suicidal ideation. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
84465300|NCT00958568|168683732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.27||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||2.27|-5.42|0.421
84465301|NCT00283712|168683743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||The study goals were to gather evidence of safety and possible efficacy of infliximab for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris (PV). The analyses focused on estimation rather than hypothesis testing; therefore, there was not sufficient power to detect plausible treatment differences unless they were very large. The sample size reflects a balance between the desire to meet study goals and to expose as few participants as possible until the safety of infliximab for treatment of PV has been clarified.||0.22|-0.22|1.00
84465302|NCT00283712|168683743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|42.67|||Fisher Exact|||||42.67|0.02|1.00
84465303|NCT00283712|168683744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.26|
84465304|NCT00283712|168683745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.36||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||0.36|-0.31|1.00
84465305|NCT00283712|168683745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|38.35||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||38.35|0.02|1.00
84540538|NCT02096744|168832293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||108.63|97.25|<0.0001
84465306|NCT00283712|168683746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.55|||Fisher Exact|||||0.55|-0.15|0.65
84465307|NCT00283712|168683746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.79|||Fisher Exact|||||2.79|0.06|0.650
84465308|NCT00283712|168683756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||||0.3|-0.3|1.00
84465309|NCT03065530|168683791|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was calculated on the basis of an our initial pilot study, and the SD was 1.4 between the four groups. We hypothesized that the differences in VAS between the four groups and the SDs would be 15%. A power analysis suggested that there will be 80% power to detect differences at an α=0.05 significance level (two-tailed), including 24 individuals per treatment group. Considering the exclusion of 25% of patients, 30 parturients were eventually recruited in each group.||||<0.05
84718079|NCT05714059|169187060|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
84465310|NCT02285010|168683815|NON_INFERIORITY|Definition: 50% reduction of morphine consumption Type I error (alpha) 0.05, Type II error (beta) 80%||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
84465311|NCT02285010|168683816|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, Beta 80%||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
84465312|NCT02285010|168683817|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at rest||||0.33
84465313|NCT02285010|168683817|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at movement||||0.75
84465314|NCT02285010|168683818|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||For pruritus||||0.16
84465315|NCT02285010|168683818|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||For Nausea||||0.66
84465316|NCT02285010|168683818|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||For Vomiting||||0.46
84465317|NCT02285010|168683818|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||For Dizziness||||0.54
84465318|NCT02285010|168683818|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For visual disturbance||||0.05
84465319|NCT02285010|168683819|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05||||||P-Value 0.05 was calculated.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84465320|NCT02708212|168683820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of fentanyl and midazolam between the two study groups.||||<0.0001
84465321|NCT02708212|168683821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of midazolam between the two study groups.||||0.0012
84465322|NCT02708212|168683822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6967
84465323|NCT05341466|168683823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0098
84465324|NCT05341466|168683823|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.418||||0.014|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step length asymmetry.||||0.014
84465325|NCT05341466|168683823|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.496||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step time asymmetry.||||0.006
84465326|NCT05341466|168683823|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.666||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus changes in net metabolic power.||||0.001
84465327|NCT05341466|168683824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0232||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.744
84465328|NCT05341466|168683825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0231||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
84465329|NCT05341466|168683826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.681||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
84465330|NCT00394914|168683919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.973
84465331|NCT00394914|168683920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.425
84465332|NCT00044044|168683953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84465333|NCT00044044|168683954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84540646|NCT01128179|168832514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0297||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0897||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter||0.0897|-0.1492|0.6134
84465334|NCT00044044|168683955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84465335|NCT00044044|168683956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84465336|NCT02179398|168683964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84465337|NCT02179398|168683965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84465338|NCT02179398|168683966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Power calculation suggested 97 patients should be enrolled in each group to give 80% power at the 5% level of significance to detect a 20% difference in antibiotic prescription rate||||0.810
84465339|NCT02519231|168684053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|For days with bleeding/spotting outcomes, we used independent t-tests to compare the unadjusted mean difference between groups.|Treatment Difference = Naproxen - Placebo|We originally planned to enroll 60 subjects based on other similar studies that evaluated treatment for bleeding among women using contraception; as reported by Cohen et al., a sample size of 42 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 7 bleeding/spotting days in 30 days by two-sample t-test, allowing for an expected 20% drop-out.|We designed the study to include another site, in addition to the UW site enrolled participants. After 6 months of failed active recruitment at the other site, we discontinued that site from the study. Resources did not permit us to contract with an alternative recruitment site, and thus the protocol was revised to enroll 32 participants at the Seattle site only.|||.11
84465340|NCT02519231|168684054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84465341|NCT00377299|168684078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84465342|NCT00377299|168684079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84465343|NCT00377299|168684080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84465344|NCT00377299|168684081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84465345|NCT00377299|168684082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84465346|NCT04799782|168684083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84465347|NCT04799782|168684084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84465348|NCT00969618|168684086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for total ADHD symptoms score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465349|NCT00969618|168684086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for inattention subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465350|NCT00969618|168684086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465351|NCT00969618|168684086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ADHD index subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465352|NCT00969618|168684087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465353|NCT00969618|168684088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465354|NCT00969618|168684088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465355|NCT00969618|168684088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465356|NCT00969618|168684089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.200
84465357|NCT00969618|168684090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465358|NCT00969618|168684091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465359|NCT00969618|168684091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465360|NCT00969618|168684091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84465361|NCT00969618|168684092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.384
84465362|NCT02988986|168684135|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior data for Ki67 changes in the tamoxifen arm alone, we will assume null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses of 60% and 80% reduction in Ki67, respectively. A sample of 25 patients will provide 86% power to detect the hypothesized reduction in Ki67 with 5% alpha based on a two-sided, one sample t-test of mean percent change in Ki67 level.|||||=|0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was the change in Ki67 after 6 weeks of treatment.||||=0.0023
84465363|NCT03088605|168684154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline scores as a covariate||0|-0.7|0.02
84465364|NCT03088605|168684155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change form baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.0001
84465365|NCT03088605|168684156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.36|0.03
84465366|NCT03088605|168684157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|0.575|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline; ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.575|-0.177|0.39
84465367|NCT03088605|168684158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||2.0|-1.7|0.97
84465368|NCT03088605|168684159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.48|0.06
84465369|NCT02747043|168684163|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint will first be demonstrated by comparing the 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 between ABP 798 and rituximab with a noninferiority margin of -15%. If this is successful, the 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 will be compared with a nonsuperiority margin of +35.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|16.8|||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR by week 28 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).|||16.8|-1.4|
84465370|NCT02747043|168684163|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.6||||||||18.6|-3.2|
84465371|NCT02747043|168684164|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.2||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||11.2|-9.3|
84465372|NCT02747043|168684164|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.2||||||The 2-sided 95% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||13.2|-11.3|
84465373|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Any adverse event of interest'||16.3|-8.3|
84465374|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Infusion reactions including hypersensitivity'||12.3|-12.1|
84465375|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.0||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Hematological reactions'||13.0|-11.8|
84465376|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Cardiac disorders'||13.2|-11.8|
84465377|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|14.0||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Serious infections'||14.0|-10.9|
84465378|NCT02747043|168684170|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Severe mucocutaneous reactions'||13.2|-11.7|
84465379|NCT03136705|168684174|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|1.009||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||1.031|0.989|0.3738
84518669|NCT00112437|168788525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|44.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.55|59.16||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||59.16|30.55|
84540647|NCT01128179|168832515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0294||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0739|0.1328||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Total Calcium at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Total Calcium as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||0.1328|-0.0739|0.5636
84465380|NCT03136705|168684175|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|0.0043||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0414|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||0.0499|-0.0414|0.854
84465381|NCT03136705|168684176|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|20.38||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|42.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||42.03|-1.26|0.0648
84465382|NCT04655586|168684196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715||||||All rNAPc2 vs. Heparin|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.4715
84465383|NCT04655586|168684197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1883|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.1883
84465384|NCT04655586|168684200|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||1.0
84465385|NCT04655586|168684201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0254
84465386|NCT04655586|168684202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0535
84465387|NCT04655586|168684203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.8300
84465388|NCT01380093|168684219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-18.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square (LS) mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.1|-31.7|<0.0001
84465389|NCT01380093|168684219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.6|5.1|0.0009
84465390|NCT01380093|168684219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|43.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||43.6|30.0|<0.0001
84465391|NCT01380093|168684220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-11.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence. Planned power of at least 89% assumed a mean difference of 15 to 30 points and a standard deviation of paired differences of 15 to 20 points, with conservative multiple comparison adjustment for alpha of 0.025.||-11.1|-20.2|<0.0001
84465392|NCT01380093|168684220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|18.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.0|8.9|<0.0001
84465393|NCT01380093|168684220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|33.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.7|24.6|<0.0001
84465394|NCT01380093|168684221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-41.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-41.0|-61.2|<0.0001
84465395|NCT01380093|168684221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|34.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.6|14.5|<0.0001
84465396|NCT01380093|168684221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|85.8||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||85.8|65.6|<0.0001
84465397|NCT01380093|168684222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-11.8|<0.0001
84465398|NCT01380093|168684222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.1|2.3|0.0006
84718080|NCT05714059|169187060|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
84465399|NCT01380093|168684222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.0|11.2|<0.0001
84726544|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.14|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.14|0.75|
84726545|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.45|0.53|
84465400|NCT01380093|168684223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.5|-62.0|<0.0001
84465401|NCT01380093|168684223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.3|15.8|<0.0001
84465402|NCT01380093|168684223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|91.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||91.0|64.5|<0.0001
84465403|NCT01380093|168684224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-42.2|-95.0|<0.0001
84465404|NCT01380093|168684224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||82.8|30.1|<0.0001
84465405|NCT01380093|168684224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|125.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.7|151.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||151.5|98.7|<0.0001
84465406|NCT01380093|168684225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.8|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-39.2|-112.8|0.0001
84465407|NCT01380093|168684225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||103.2|29.8|0.0006
84465408|NCT01380093|168684225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|179.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||179.3|105.7|<0.0001
84465409|NCT01380093|168684226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-136.5|0.0011
84465410|NCT01380093|168684226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||120.0|19.7|0.0071
84465411|NCT01380093|168684226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|206.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||206.3|105.7|<0.0001
84465412|NCT01380093|168684227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.7|-0.6|0.1254
84465413|NCT01380093|168684227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.6|-3.6|0.4592
84465414|NCT01380093|168684227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.4|-5.6|0.0251
84465415|NCT01380093|168684228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.0|-19.9|<0.0001
84465416|NCT01380093|168684228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.7|4.8|<0.0001
84465417|NCT01380093|168684228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||29.1|20.3|<0.0001
84465418|NCT01380093|168684229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-116.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-95.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-95.7|-136.5|<0.0001
84465419|NCT01380093|168684229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.1|39.3|<0.0001
84465420|NCT01380093|168684229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|175.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.4|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||196.2|155.4|<0.0001
84465421|NCT01380093|168684230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-202.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|-165.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-165.3|-239.0|<0.0001
84465422|NCT01380093|168684230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|159.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||159.2|85.7|<0.0001
84465423|NCT01380093|168684230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|324.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|287.7|361.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||361.5|287.7|<0.0001
84465424|NCT01380093|168684231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-253.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-301.5|-204.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-204.5|-301.5|<0.0001
84465425|NCT01380093|168684231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.5|200.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||200.2|103.5|<0.0001
84465426|NCT01380093|168684231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|404.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.4|453.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||453.3|356.4|<0.0001
84465427|NCT01380093|168684232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-306.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.9|-242.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-242.6|-370.9|<0.0001
84465428|NCT01380093|168684232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|232.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||232.6|104.7|<0.0001
84465429|NCT01380093|168684232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|475.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|411.3|539.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||539.6|411.3|<0.0001
84465430|NCT01380093|168684233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.6|0.5607
84465431|NCT01380093|168684233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.2|<0.0001
84465432|NCT01380093|168684233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|1.0|<0.0001
84465433|NCT01380093|168684234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-10.3|-20.3|<0.0001
84465434|NCT01380093|168684234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.2|6.3|<0.0001
84465435|NCT01380093|168684234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.5|21.5|<0.0001
84465436|NCT01380093|168684235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-59.5|<0.0001
84540864|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|428.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.2|628.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||628.5|292.2|<0.001
84465437|NCT01380093|168684235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||40.1|16.5|<0.0001
84465438|NCT01380093|168684235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|87.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||87.8|64.2|<0.0001
84465439|NCT01380093|168684236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.9|-85.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-85.6|-132.9|<0.0001
84465440|NCT01380093|168684236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.6|43.5|<0.0001
84465441|NCT01380093|168684236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|176.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.6|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||199.9|152.6|<0.0001
84465442|NCT01380093|168684237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-190.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.2|-147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-147.3|-234.2|<0.0001
84465443|NCT01380093|168684237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|178.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||178.0|91.5|<0.0001
84465444|NCT01380093|168684237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.1|368.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||368.9|282.1|<0.0001
84465445|NCT01380093|168684238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.0|-187.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-187.7|-302.0|<0.0001
84465446|NCT01380093|168684238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.5|223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||223.5|109.5|<0.0001
84465447|NCT01380093|168684238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|411.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|354.3|468.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||468.6|354.3|<0.0001
84465448|NCT01380093|168684239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-310.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-384.5|-235.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-235.5|-384.5|<0.0001
84465449|NCT01380093|168684239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.8|259.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||259.5|110.8|<0.0001
84465450|NCT01380093|168684239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|495.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|420.6|569.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||569.7|420.6|<0.0001
84465451|NCT01380093|168684240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-22.3|-38.7|<0.0001
84465452|NCT01380093|168684240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|39.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.0|22.6|<0.0001
84465453|NCT01380093|168684240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|69.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.5|53.1|<0.0001
84465454|NCT01380093|168684241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.8|-1.0|0.8671
84465455|NCT01380093|168684241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.7|0.9|0.0001
84465456|NCT01380093|168684241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
84540539|NCT02096744|168832294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.148|110.294|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group','sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.294|98.148|<0.0001
84465457|NCT01380093|168684242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-17.0|<0.0001
84465458|NCT01380093|168684242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||12.8|4.8|<0.0001
84465459|NCT01380093|168684242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||25.8|17.8|<0.0001
84465460|NCT01380093|168684243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-35.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.3|-55.3|<0.0001
84465461|NCT01380093|168684243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.5|14.6|<0.0001
84465462|NCT01380093|168684243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||79.8|59.9|<0.0001
84465463|NCT01380093|168684244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.3|-88.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-88.8|-129.3|<0.0001
84465464|NCT01380093|168684244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.4|39.9|<0.0001
84465465|NCT01380093|168684244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|148.9|189.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||189.5|148.9|<0.0001
84465466|NCT01380093|168684245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-207.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.0|-172.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-172.1|-242.0|<0.0001
84465467|NCT01380093|168684245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|153.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||153.5|83.9|<0.0001
84465468|NCT01380093|168684245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.8|360.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||360.7|290.8|<0.0001
84465469|NCT01380093|168684246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-268.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.2|-223.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-223.2|-313.2|<0.0001
84465470|NCT01380093|168684246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|191.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.9|102.1|<0.0001
84465471|NCT01380093|168684246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|415.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|370.2|460.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||460.2|370.2|<0.0001
84465472|NCT01380093|168684247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-336.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.4|-276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-276.6|-395.4|<0.0001
84465473|NCT01380093|168684247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.4|224.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||224.8|106.4|<0.0001
84465474|NCT01380093|168684247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|501.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|442.2|561.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||561.0|442.2|<0.0001
84465475|NCT01380093|168684248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-26.8|-40.7|<0.0001
84465476|NCT01380093|168684248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|33.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.6|19.7|<0.0001
84465477|NCT01380093|168684248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|67.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.4|53.4|<0.0001
84465478|NCT01380093|168684249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.4|0.3345
84465479|NCT01380093|168684249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.3|1.5|<0.0001
84465480|NCT01380093|168684249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.1|<0.0001
84540540|NCT00125515|168832304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||all statistical analysis were two tailed and employed an alpha significance level of 0.05.||||0.32
84465481|NCT01380093|168684250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.0|-2.0|0.0453
84465482|NCT01380093|168684250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.7|0.5637
84465483|NCT01380093|168684250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|0.3|0.0110
84465484|NCT01380093|168684251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.6|-8.2|0.0041
84465485|NCT01380093|168684251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.3|-1.2|0.2178
84465486|NCT01380093|168684251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.3|3.7|<0.0001
84465487|NCT01380093|168684252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.9|-28.8|0.0001
84465488|NCT01380093|168684252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.3|-2.6|0.1510
84465489|NCT01380093|168684252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|35.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.7|16.8|<0.0001
84465490|NCT01380093|168684253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-34.4|-75.9|<0.0001
84465491|NCT01380093|168684253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.2|-2.2|0.0796
84518670|NCT00112437|168788526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.74|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.14|-19.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-19.33|-52.14|<=0.001
84465492|NCT01380093|168684253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|94.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||94.4|52.9|<0.0001
84465493|NCT01380093|168684254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-52.7|-112.9|<0.0001
84465494|NCT01380093|168684254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||56.9|-3.1|0.0780
84465495|NCT01380093|168684254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.6|139.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||139.8|79.6|<0.0001
84465496|NCT01380093|168684255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-111.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-70.2|-153.7|<0.0001
84465497|NCT01380093|168684255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.9||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|75.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||75.5|-7.8|0.1089
84465498|NCT01380093|168684255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.1|187.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||187.5|104.1|<0.0001
84465499|NCT01380093|168684256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-8.6|-18.8|<0.0001
84465500|NCT01380093|168684256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.1|0.9|0.0215
84726546|NCT03345407|169204829|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.43|0.71|
84465501|NCT01380093|168684256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||24.8|14.6|<0.0001
84465502|NCT01380093|168684257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-3.6|0.0007
84465503|NCT01380093|168684257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|0.0|0.0455
84465504|NCT01380093|168684257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.9|2.3|<0.0001
84465505|NCT01380093|168684258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.3|-0.9|0.3749
84465506|NCT01380093|168684258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-0.5|0.7939
84465507|NCT01380093|168684258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.3|0.2524
84465508|NCT01380093|168684259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.5|-3.8|0.1211
84465509|NCT01380093|168684259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.5|-0.7|0.1997
84465510|NCT01380093|168684259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|0.9|0.0057
84465511|NCT01380093|168684260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-16.7|0.0057
84465512|NCT01380093|168684260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.4|-2.3|0.1918
84465513|NCT01380093|168684260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||21.2|7.5|<0.0001
84465514|NCT01380093|168684261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-12.9|-50.2|0.0013
84465515|NCT01380093|168684261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.5|-3.7|0.1136
84465516|NCT01380093|168684261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|65.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||65.1|27.8|<0.0001
84465517|NCT01380093|168684262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-24.0|-83.2|0.0006
84540541|NCT00625872|168832307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.08||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||3.08|-3.93|0.7232
84465518|NCT01380093|168684262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||52.7|-6.3|0.1207
84465519|NCT01380093|168684262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|106.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||106.4|47.3|<0.0001
84465520|NCT01380093|168684263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-33.0|-118.6|0.0008
84465521|NCT01380093|168684263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.8||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|74.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||74.5|-10.8|0.1410
84465522|NCT01380093|168684263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|150.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||150.5|64.9|<0.0001
84465523|NCT01380093|168684264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.6|-14.4|<0.0001
84465524|NCT01380093|168684264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.7|-0.1|0.0529
84465525|NCT01380093|168684264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.7|9.9|<0.0001
84465526|NCT01380093|168684265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-3.8|0.0806
84465527|NCT01380093|168684265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.1|-0.9|0.2769
84465528|NCT01380093|168684265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.0|0.9|0.0056
84465529|NCT01380093|168684266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-1.7|0.1100
84465530|NCT01380093|168684266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|-1.0|0.9421
84465531|NCT01380093|168684266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.7|-0.2|0.1266
84465532|NCT01380093|168684267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-5.3|0.0723
84465533|NCT01380093|168684267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.8|-1.7|0.4515
84465534|NCT01380093|168684267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.4|0.8|0.0121
84465535|NCT01380093|168684268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.3|-18.7|0.0059
84465536|NCT01380093|168684268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.8|-3.5|0.2800
84465537|NCT01380093|168684268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||22.8|7.5|0.0002
84465538|NCT01380093|168684269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-54.8|0.0001
84465539|NCT01380093|168684269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.2|-4.8|0.1488
84465540|NCT01380093|168684269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|67.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.9|31.8|<0.0001
84465541|NCT01380093|168684270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.6|-88.5|<0.0001
84465542|NCT01380093|168684270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||48.7|-8.0|0.1556
84465543|NCT01380093|168684270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|108.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||108.9|52.0|<0.0001
84465544|NCT01380093|168684271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.8|-43.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-43.2|-124.8|0.0001
84465545|NCT01380093|168684271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-13.3|0.1826
84465546|NCT01380093|168684271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.6|152.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||152.2|70.6|<0.0001
84465547|NCT01380093|168684272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-7.0|-16.4|<0.0001
84465548|NCT01380093|168684272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.9|-0.5|0.0811
84465549|NCT01380093|168684272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||20.6|11.1|<0.0001
84465550|NCT01380093|168684273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.1|-3.8|0.0007
84465551|NCT01380093|168684273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|-0.4|0.1631
84465552|NCT01380093|168684273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.8|2.1|<0.0001
84465553|NCT01380093|168684274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-3.1|0.2117
84465554|NCT01380093|168684274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|0.2|0.0345
84465555|NCT01380093|168684274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|1.4|0.0011
84465556|NCT01380093|168684275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-18.4|0.0002
84465557|NCT01380093|168684275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.6|2.3|0.0081
84718081|NCT04899674|169187061|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|103.8|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.8|86.3|
84465558|NCT01380093|168684275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||26.8|14.4|<0.0001
84465559|NCT01380093|168684276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.8|-55.6|<0.0001
84726547|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||8.3|-4.8|
84465560|NCT01380093|168684276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|51.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||51.7|17.0|0.0002
84465561|NCT01380093|168684276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|72.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.0|55.2|<0.0001
84465562|NCT01380093|168684277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-100.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.2|-58.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-58.4|-142.2|<0.0001
84465563|NCT01380093|168684277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|93.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|135.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||135.7|52.1|<0.0001
84465564|NCT01380093|168684277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|194.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.3|236.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||236.1|152.3|<0.0001
84465565|NCT01380093|168684278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-147.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-89.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-89.6|-205.1|<0.0001
84465566|NCT01380093|168684278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|191.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.7|76.5|<0.0001
84465567|NCT01380093|168684278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|281.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.7|339.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||339.2|223.7|<0.0001
84465568|NCT01380093|168684279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-201.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.3|-123.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-123.6|-279.3|<0.0001
84465569|NCT01380093|168684279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|246.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||246.7|91.5|<0.0001
84465570|NCT01380093|168684279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|370.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.7|448.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||448.4|292.7|<0.0001
84465571|NCT01380093|168684280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-23.8|<0.0001
84465572|NCT01380093|168684280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
84465573|NCT01380093|168684280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||49.5|34.7|<0.0001
84518671|NCT00112437|168788526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|17.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.23|-20.58|0.161
84465574|NCT01380093|168684281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0253
84465575|NCT01380093|168684281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|1.6|<0.0001
84465576|NCT01380093|168684281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.4|3.0|<0.0001
84540542|NCT00625872|168832308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|4.82||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||4.82|-8.04|0.1941
84465577|NCT01380093|168684282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.6|-3.7|0.0062
84465578|NCT01380093|168684282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.0|-1.0|0.4998
84465579|NCT01380093|168684282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.2|1.1|0.0008
84465580|NCT01380093|168684283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-11.1|0.0009
84465581|NCT01380093|168684283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.3|-1.8|0.2693
84465582|NCT01380093|168684283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.3|5.3|<0.0001
84465583|NCT01380093|168684284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.2||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.3|-27.2|0.0042
84518672|NCT00112437|168788526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|17.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.82|-20.99|
84518673|NCT00112437|168788526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|71.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||71.44|22.35|
84465584|NCT01380093|168684284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||19.6|-2.2|0.1139
84518674|NCT00112437|168788527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.1|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.42|2.77|<=0.001
84540543|NCT00625872|168832310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Sequential Processing): Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0532
84540544|NCT00625872|168832310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Simultaneous Processing): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3383
84465585|NCT01380093|168684284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.9|14.1|<0.0001
84465586|NCT01380093|168684285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
84465587|NCT01380093|168684285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|34.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.4|20.1|<0.0001
84726548|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.1|-4.0|
84465588|NCT01380093|168684285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|69.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.4|54.9|<0.0001
84465589|NCT01380093|168684286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.7|-58.5|0.0039
84465590|NCT01380093|168684286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|42.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.7|-4.0|0.1026
84465591|NCT01380093|168684286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||77.8|31.0|<0.0001
84465592|NCT01380093|168684287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.5|-73.1|0.0051
84465593|NCT01380093|168684287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|55.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||55.0|-4.4|0.0941
84465594|NCT01380093|168684287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||98.4|38.8|<0.0001
84465595|NCT01380093|168684288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.1|-85.0|0.0083
84465596|NCT01380093|168684288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.3||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-3.5|0.0766
84465597|NCT01380093|168684288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|117.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||117.3|45.4|<0.0001
84465598|NCT01380093|168684289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.1|-12.9|0.0018
84465599|NCT01380093|168684289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||9.7|-0.1|0.0527
84465600|NCT01380093|168684289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.7|7.9|<0.0001
84465601|NCT01380093|168684290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-1.4|0.3986
84465602|NCT01380093|168684290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.5|0.6|0.0023
84465603|NCT01380093|168684290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.0|0.0002
84518675|NCT00112437|168788527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.48|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.77||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.77|2.20|<=0.001
84465604|NCT01380093|168684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-18|0.0029
84465605|NCT01380093|168684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||15|1|0.0286
84540545|NCT00625872|168832310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Achievement): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6830
84465606|NCT01380093|168684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||27|12|<0.0001
84465607|NCT01380093|168684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-22|0.0050
84465608|NCT01380093|168684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17|-1|0.0700
84465609|NCT01380093|168684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||30|12|<0.0001
84465610|NCT01380093|168684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|0.5|<0.0001
84465611|NCT01380093|168684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
84465612|NCT01380093|168684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
84518676|NCT00112437|168788527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.07|1.43|<=0.001
84726549|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.2|
84465613|NCT01380093|168684294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.9|<0.0001
84465614|NCT01380093|168684294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.3|-2.2|<0.0001
84465615|NCT01380093|168684294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.6|-4.6|<0.0001
84465616|NCT01380093|168684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.8|3.9|<0.0001
84465617|NCT01380093|168684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4.3|-6.3|<0.0001
84465618|NCT01380093|168684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.2|-11.1|<0.0001
84465619|NCT01380093|168684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.7|6.6|<0.0001
84465620|NCT01380093|168684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.8|-15.9|<0.0001
84465621|NCT01380093|168684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.4|-24.5|<0.0001
84465622|NCT01380093|168684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.7|8.7|<0.0001
84465623|NCT01380093|168684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-24.5|<0.0001
84465624|NCT01380093|168684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-30.2|-36.2|<0.0001
84465625|NCT01380093|168684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||23.3|11.6|<0.0001
84465626|NCT01380093|168684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-31.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.9|-43.6|<0.0001
84465627|NCT01380093|168684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-49.3|-61.1|<0.0001
84465628|NCT01380093|168684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.4|0.8|<0.0001
84465629|NCT01380093|168684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.5|-2.1|<0.0001
84465630|NCT01380093|168684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-2.6|-3.2|<0.0001
84465631|NCT01380093|168684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.6|0.3|0.0262
84465632|NCT01380093|168684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.0|-1.3|0.4180
84465633|NCT01380093|168684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-3.7|0.1479
84465634|NCT01380093|168684301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.35|0.07|0.0181
84465635|NCT01380093|168684302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.83|0.68|<0.0001
84465636|NCT01380093|168684303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-1) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.86|0.69|0.0004
84465637|NCT01380093|168684304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-2) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.94|0.79|0.0065
84465638|NCT01380093|168684305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-4) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.06|0.91|0.6399
84465639|NCT01380093|168684306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-8) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.08|0.94|0.9057
84465640|NCT01380093|168684307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-12) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.10|0.97|0.4250
84465641|NCT01380093|168684308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-24) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.18|1.03|0.0204
84465642|NCT01380093|168684309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.49|1.17|0.0005
84465643|NCT00201201|168684334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (1,161)=4.44,p=0.035).||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use. Non-parametric tests (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic), based on rank scores, controlling for participant code were used for the transformed behavior risk scores within groups.||||0.035
84540546|NCT00625872|168832310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Non-Verbal): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.4935
84465644|NCT00201201|168684335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0204
84465645|NCT00201201|168684336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0001
84465646|NCT00201201|168684337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||0.0001
84465647|NCT00201201|168684338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0431
84465648|NCT00201201|168684339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzed at 0 and 12 weeks.||||<.10
84465649|NCT02677701|168684355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.44||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.35|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||7.35|-0.48|0.0846
84465650|NCT02677701|168684356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|5.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||5.26|-2.64|0.51
84465651|NCT02677701|168684357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||1.22|-7.01|0.17
84465652|NCT02677701|168684358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.77||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||6.77|-3.70|0.56
84465653|NCT02677701|168684359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.47||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|0.03|0.043
84465654|NCT03503773|168684399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||There was no formal hypothesis testing conducted in the study. 95% CIs are intended to be descriptive in nature only|The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no difference in the change in 24 hour mean SBP between treatment and sham control. The Type I error rate for rejecting the null hypothesis will be set at an alpha level of 0.05.||1.7|-4.8|0.2682
84465655|NCT03503773|168684400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6964|||||||ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.6964
84465656|NCT03503773|168684401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.0775
84465657|NCT03503773|168684403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4734|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.4734
84465658|NCT03503773|168684405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
84465659|NCT03503773|168684407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.073|||Fisher Exact|||||0.073|-0.132|0.573
84518677|NCT00112437|168788527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.83||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.83|-1.84|0.536
84518678|NCT00112437|168788528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.69|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|6.12||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.12|3.25|<=0.001
84540547|NCT00625872|168832310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Mental Processing Composite): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3458
84465660|NCT01208181|168684455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.09|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.09|-0.49|0.004
84465661|NCT01208181|168684455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.27||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.06|-0.48|0.034
84465662|NCT01208181|168684456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-4.13|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-4.13|-11.85|<0.001
84465663|NCT01208181|168684456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-6.66|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-6.66|-14.74|<0.001
84465664|NCT01208181|168684457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|0.02||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||0.14|-0.10|0.730
84465665|NCT01208181|168684458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.45|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-0.45|-4.98|0.019
84465666|NCT01208181|168684459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares mean|1.61||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71|||covariance model|||||3.71|-0.49|0.327
84465667|NCT01164501|168684505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.39||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild or moderate renal impaired patients was the first step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal impairment and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.39|-0.62|<0.0001
84465668|NCT01164501|168684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.32||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the second step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.32|-0.72|<0.0001
84465669|NCT01164501|168684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.49||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the third step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.49|-0.88|<0.0001
84465670|NCT01164501|168684507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in moderate renal impaired patients was the fourth step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
84465671|NCT01096667|168684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.89|-5.05|0.034
84465672|NCT01096667|168684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.17|-1.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.82|-6.17|0.010
84465673|NCT01096667|168684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.78|-1.6||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.60|-5.78|0.012
84465674|NCT01096667|168684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.21||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.13|-5.30|0.024
84465675|NCT01096667|168684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.94|-1.46||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.46|-5.94|0.018
84465676|NCT01096667|168684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.78|-2.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.09|-6.78|0.008
84465677|NCT01096667|168684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.24|-2.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.74|-7.24|0.002
84465678|NCT01096667|168684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.16|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-6.16|0.013
84465679|NCT01096667|168684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.93|0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.54|-4.93|0.152
84465680|NCT01096667|168684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.06|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.30|-6.06|0.078
84465681|NCT01096667|168684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.02||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.79|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.79|0.174
84465682|NCT01096667|168684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.77|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.77|0.174
84465683|NCT01096667|168684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.01||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.09|-0.94||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-0.94|-7.09|0.047
84465684|NCT01096667|168684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.25|-4.07||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-4.07|-10.25|0.002
84465685|NCT01096667|168684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.28|-3.11||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-3.11|-9.28|0.005
84465686|NCT01096667|168684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.37||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|-1.33||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.33|-7.41|0.033
84465687|NCT01096667|168684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.03|-1.29||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.29|-4.03|0.007
84465688|NCT01096667|168684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.67|-4.55|0.003
84518679|NCT00112437|168788528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.97||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.97|2.18|<=0.001
84518680|NCT00112437|168788528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.82|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.25||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.25|1.39|<=0.001
84518681|NCT00112437|168788528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.04|-1.85|0.585
84518682|NCT00112437|168788529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.09|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.01|3.18|<=0.001
84518683|NCT00112437|168788529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.56|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.42|2.70|<=0.001
84518684|NCT00112437|168788529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.43|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|6.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.33|2.52|<=0.001
84518685|NCT00112437|168788529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.89|-1.97|0.981
84518686|NCT00112437|168788530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.73|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.46|3.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.01|0.46|<=0.001
84465689|NCT01096667|168684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.27||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.65|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.88|-3.65|0.018
84540548|NCT00625872|168832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6256||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Distractibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6256
84465690|NCT01096667|168684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|-0.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.82|-3.56|0.021
84465691|NCT01096667|168684536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.99||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-1.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.55|-4.43|0.004
84465692|NCT01096667|168684536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|-1.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.24|-4.26|0.010
84465693|NCT01096667|168684536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.09|-1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.19|-4.09|0.010
84465694|NCT01096667|168684536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.13|-4.00|0.011
84465695|NCT01096667|168684537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.57||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.57|-4.43|0.048
84465696|NCT01096667|168684537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.58|-1.51||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.51|-5.58|0.013
84518687|NCT00112437|168788530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.11||||0.028||95.0|-0.12|2.34||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||2.34|-0.12|0.028
84540549|NCT00625872|168832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Alertness): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
84465697|NCT01096667|168684537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-3.82|0.111
84465698|NCT01096667|168684537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.36|-3.51|0.148
84465699|NCT01096667|168684539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.6||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.60|-3.01|0.196
84465700|NCT01096667|168684539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.05||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.86|0.77||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.77|-2.86|0.229
84465701|NCT01096667|168684539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.02||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.83|-1.2||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.20|-4.83|0.017
84465702|NCT01096667|168684539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.84||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.63|-1.06||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.06|-4.63|0.021
84465703|NCT01096667|168684541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.83|-0.61||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.61|-3.83|0.039
84465704|NCT01096667|168684541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.07||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.63|1.77||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.77|-1.63|0.521
84465705|NCT01096667|168684541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.02|-0.75||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.75|-4.02|0.031
84465706|NCT01096667|168684541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|0.07||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.07|-3.19|0.110
84465707|NCT01096667|168684542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.38||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.13|-1.63||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.63|-5.13|0.007
84465708|NCT01096667|168684542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.33|1.38||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.38|-2.33|0.370
84465709|NCT01096667|168684542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.87||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.87|-4.43|0.029
84465710|NCT01096667|168684542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.64||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.42|0.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.13|-3.42|0.118
84465711|NCT01096667|168684543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.96|2.0||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||2.00|-1.96|0.506
84540550|NCT00625872|168832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Flexibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||1.0000
84518688|NCT00112437|168788530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|0.2||||0.804||95.0|-1.1|1.49||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.49|-1.10|0.804
84465712|NCT01096667|168684543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.61||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||3.71|-0.49|0.838
84465713|NCT01096667|168684543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.82||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-3.82|0.123
84465714|NCT01096667|168684543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.07||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.06|0.93||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|-3.06|0.246
84465715|NCT01096667|168684545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|-2.1||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-2.10|-6.30|0.005
84465716|NCT01096667|168684545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.12||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.23|0.99||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.99|-3.23|0.248
84465717|NCT01096667|168684545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.95|-1.73||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.73|-5.95|0.010
84465718|NCT01096667|168684545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|-1.25||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.25|-5.40|0.020
84465719|NCT01096667|168684547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|42.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|31.42|52.94||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||52.94|31.42|0.000
84465720|NCT01096667|168684547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|60.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.47|71.31||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||71.31|49.47|0.000
84465721|NCT01096667|168684547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|70.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|59.58|81.1||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||81.10|59.58|0.000
84465722|NCT01096667|168684547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.63||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.22|5.96||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||5.96|-15.22|0.713
84465723|NCT01096667|168684549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.45|-8.75||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-8.75|-27.45|0.007
84465724|NCT01096667|168684549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-25.43||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-25.43|-44.19|0.000
84465725|NCT01096667|168684549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.78|-26.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-26.07|-44.78|0.000
84465726|NCT01096667|168684549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.61||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|8.65||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||8.65|-9.86|0.467
84465727|NCT01096667|168684550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-5.54||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.89|3.82||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||3.82|-14.89|0.224
84465728|NCT01096667|168684550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-17.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.39|-7.61||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-7.61|-26.39|0.011
84465729|NCT01096667|168684550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-26.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.84|-17.33||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-17.33|-35.84|0.000
84465730|NCT01096667|168684550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|8.65||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|17.87||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||17.87|-0.56|0.886
84465731|NCT01765712|168684553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.03|-1.99|0.55
84465732|NCT01845077|168684558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|95.3|
84465733|NCT01845077|168684558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|104.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||One patient was excluded from this analysis due to the lack of the 72h sample for the L+M1000 fed treatment.||104.7|98.4|
84465734|NCT01845077|168684558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.7|98.2|
84465735|NCT01845077|168684559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|103.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.6|86.8|
84465736|NCT01845077|168684559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|103.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.8|90.2|
84465737|NCT01845077|168684559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|108.6||||||90.0|99.5|118.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||118.5|99.5|
84518689|NCT00112437|168788530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.15||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.15|-2.46|
84518690|NCT00112437|168788531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.9|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.46|1.34|<=0.001
84465738|NCT01845077|168684560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|110.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||110.8|97.1|
84465739|NCT01845077|168684560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|105.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.9|111.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||111.0|99.9|
84465740|NCT01845077|168684560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|104.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||104.1|90.2|
84465741|NCT01845077|168684561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.8|
84465742|NCT01845077|168684561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|96.1|
84465743|NCT01845077|168684561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|106.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||106.0|86.7|
84540551|NCT00625872|168832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Go/No Go): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1234
84465744|NCT01845077|168684562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.6|
84465745|NCT01845077|168684562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|103.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.4|95.6|
84465746|NCT01845077|168684562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|109.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.5|90.1|
84465747|NCT01845077|168684563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|109.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.8|84.8|
84465748|NCT01845077|168684563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|107.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||107.7|98.9|
84465749|NCT01845077|168684563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|125.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||125.4|92.5|
84518691|NCT00112437|168788531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.09|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.59|3.6||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.60|0.59|<=0.001
84540552|NCT00625872|168832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3291||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Vigilance): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3291
84465750|NCT01004107|168684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
84465751|NCT01004107|168684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84465752|NCT01004107|168684566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84465753|NCT01004107|168684567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84465754|NCT01004107|168684570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465755|NCT01004107|168684571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84465756|NCT00465738|168684581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval for the difference between the response rates of the groups was calculated. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson CI for the difference of proportions was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -25%.|difference in response rates|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|24.9|||||difference in response rates = response rate for high volume dilution group (20 U/ml) - response rate for low volume dilution group (50 U/ml)|Null hypothesis: The response rate for the low volume dilution group (50 U/ml) is greater than the response rate for the high volume dilution group (20 U/ml).||24.9|-4.4|
84465757|NCT02989727|168684629|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.59
84465758|NCT02989727|168684630|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.84
84718082|NCT04899674|169187062|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans[%]|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|110.7|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=31.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||110.7|74.3|
84465759|NCT02989727|168684631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.08
84465760|NCT02989727|168684631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.53
84465761|NCT02989727|168684639|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.02
84465762|NCT02989727|168684639|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.73
84465763|NCT01507246|168684647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.62||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.03|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis: Mean ratio of geometric least-squares mean for each group is identical.||6.03|1.14|0.0251
84465764|NCT01507246|168684648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.24||||0.02767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.49|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis = distribution of costs is identical between the two groups.||1.49|1.03|0.02767
84465765|NCT02975349|168684655|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.45||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative Binomial model|||||2.91|0.72|0.2947
84465766|NCT02975349|168684655|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.3||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.63|0.14|0.0015
84465767|NCT02975349|168684655|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.44||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.93|0.21|0.0313
84726550|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-6.7|
84465768|NCT02975349|168684656|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|1.66||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||4.09|0.67|0.2692
84465769|NCT02975349|168684656|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.31||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.20|0.08|0.0896
84465770|NCT02975349|168684656|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.23||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.09|0.05|0.0633
84465771|NCT02975349|168684657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.95|||Logistic model|||||1.95|0.29|0.5609
84465772|NCT02975349|168684657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.41|||Logistic model|||||8.41|0.92|0.0689
84465773|NCT02975349|168684657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.99|||Logistic model|||||5.99|0.72|0.1767
84465774|NCT02975349|168684658|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.4070
84465775|NCT02975349|168684658|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.5829
84465776|NCT02975349|168684658|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.2732
84465777|NCT02975349|168684670|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.36||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.70|0.3676
84465778|NCT02975349|168684670|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Negative Binomial|||||0.57|0.13|0.0005
84465779|NCT02975349|168684670|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85|||Negative Binomial|||||0.85|0.20|0.0157
84465780|NCT02975349|168684671|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.25|-0.25|0.9731
84726551|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.5|-4.0|
84465781|NCT02975349|168684671|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.25||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0017
84465782|NCT02975349|168684671|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||-0.25|-0.75|< 0.0001
84465783|NCT02975349|168684672|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|1.29||||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.63|0.4807
84465784|NCT02975349|168684672|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Negative Binomial|||||1.04|0.24|0.0620
84465785|NCT02975349|168684672|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.42||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.87|||Negative Binomial|||||0.87|0.20|0.0189
84465786|NCT02975349|168684673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.8776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.28|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||0.28|-0.24|0.8776
84465787|NCT02975349|168684673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.15|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.15|-0.66|0.0019
84465788|NCT02975349|168684673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.10|-0.62|0.0063
84465789|NCT02975349|168684674|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.009|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.009|-0.004|0.9315
84465790|NCT02975349|168684674|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.014||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.050|0.0008
84465791|NCT02975349|168684674|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.018||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.042|0.0014
84465792|NCT03551522|168684693|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|11.02||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|23.67|||ANCOVA|||||23.67|-1.63|0.0874
84465793|NCT03551522|168684693|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|6.54||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|19.37|||ANCOVA|||||19.37|-6.28|0.3151
84465794|NCT03551522|168684693|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|7.78||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|20.58|||ANCOVA|||||20.58|-5.01|0.2313
84465795|NCT05136885|168684702|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.102||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. (Trehalose) slowed progression) was (0.8772). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by Trehalose relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, baseline use of Relyvrio, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, serum NfL concentration and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.102|0.665|
84465796|NCT05136885|168684704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.97|-4.06|0.7607
84465797|NCT05136885|168684705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.7737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||7.21|-5.37|0.7737
84465798|NCT05136885|168684706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2137
84478884|NCT02259127|168709099|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.126|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.036|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 295~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.036|-0.21|= 0.004
84478885|NCT02259127|168709099|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.023|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.056|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 382~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.056|-0.096|= 0.547
84518692|NCT00112437|168788531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.53||||0.094||95.0|-0.01|3.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.07|-0.01|0.094
84478886|NCT02259127|168709114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.3|= 0.004
84478887|NCT02259127|168709114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.5|0.2|= 0.024
84478888|NCT02259127|168709114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusting Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.6|-0.1|= 0.075
84478889|NCT02259127|168709114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.8|0.67
84478890|NCT02259127|168709115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|0.01|= 0.036
84478891|NCT02259127|168709115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.36|-0.03|=0.092
84465799|NCT01240811|168684754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
84465800|NCT01240811|168684754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
84465801|NCT01240811|168684755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Difference in paired change in Nugent score from baseline to 2 months||||0.08
84465802|NCT01240811|168684756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of H2O2 producing Lactobacilli species by qPCR||||0.46
84465803|NCT01240811|168684756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of Garnerella vaginalis species by qPCR||||0.62
84465804|NCT03825042|168684770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-15.2|||ANCOVA|||||-15.20|-26.80|0.0000
84518693|NCT00112437|168788531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.95||||||95.0|-4.5|-1.4||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||-1.40|-4.50|
84518694|NCT00112437|168788532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-47.21|||<=|0.001||95.0|-64.51|-29.9||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-29.90|-64.51|<=0.001
84465805|NCT03825042|168684771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-3.61|||ANCOVA|||||-3.61|-8.45|0.0000
84465806|NCT03825042|168684772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-9.11|||ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-20.02|0.0000
84465807|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465808|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0261
84465809|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
84540553|NCT00625872|168832331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.0||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||6.00|-5.71|0.9560
84465810|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465811|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465812|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465813|NCT02316470|168684780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84465814|NCT02316470|168684781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
84465815|NCT02316470|168684782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
84465816|NCT02316470|168684783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
84465817|NCT04003155|168684854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.69|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)||-1.05|-2.69|<0.001
84465818|NCT04003155|168684854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.89|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.25|-2.89|<0.001
84465819|NCT04003155|168684854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
84465820|NCT04003155|168684854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
84465821|NCT04003155|168684855|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001||95.0|-3.25|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.52|-3.25|<0.001
84465822|NCT04003155|168684855|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.70|-3.40|<0.001
84465823|NCT04003155|168684855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
84465824|NCT04003155|168684855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
84465825|NCT04003155|168684856|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.012||95.0|-0.27|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.012
84465826|NCT04003155|168684856|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002||95.0|-0.3|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.30|0.002
84465827|NCT04003155|168684856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
84465828|NCT04003155|168684856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
84465829|NCT04003155|168684857|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002||95.0|-0.39|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.39|0.002
84465830|NCT04003155|168684857|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007||95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.35|0.007
84465831|NCT04003155|168684857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
84518695|NCT00112437|168788532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-33.67|||<=|0.001||95.0|-51.44|-15.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-15.91|-51.44|<=0.001
84465832|NCT04003155|168684857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
84465833|NCT04003155|168684858|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.489||95.0|-2.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||1.0|-2.0|0.489
84465834|NCT04003155|168684858|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.155||95.0|-2.5|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.4|-2.5|0.155
84465835|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.09|-2.53|<0.001
84465836|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.53|-1.97|<0.001
84540554|NCT00625872|168832347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||1.25|-0.15|0.1107
84726552|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-2.7|
84465837|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.19|-2.75|<0.001
84465838|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.05|-2.60|<0.001
84465839|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.19|-2.79|<0.001
84465840|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.31|-2.90|<0.001
84465841|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.27|-2.87|<0.001
84465842|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.39|-2.98|<0.001
84465843|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.30|-2.92|<0.001
84465844|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.59|-3.19|<0.001
84465845|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.25|-2.95|<0.001
84465846|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.42|-3.11|<0.001
84465847|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.54|-3.25|<0.001
84465848|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.55|-3.23|<0.001
84465849|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.22|-2.93|<0.001
84465850|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.31|-3.00|<0.001
84465851|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-3.05|<0.001
84465852|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.33|-2.98|<0.001
84465853|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-3.34|<0.001
84465854|NCT04003155|168684859|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.60|-3.30|<0.001
84465855|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
84465856|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
84465857|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.05|-0.24|0.003
84465858|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.25|0.002
84465859|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
84465860|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.06|-0.28|0.003
84465861|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
84465862|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.06|-0.29|0.004
84465863|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
84465864|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
84465865|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
84465866|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
84465867|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.41|<0.001
84465868|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
84465869|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.41|<0.001
84465870|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.06|-0.35|0.004
84465871|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.13|-0.43|<0.001
84465872|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.08|-0.37|0.002
84465873|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
84465874|NCT04003155|168684860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
84465875|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-9.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-9.06|-21.99|<0.001
84465876|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-5.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.74|-18.69|<0.001
84540555|NCT00625872|168832349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.21||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||8.21|1.13|0.0161
84540556|NCT00625872|168832358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.2||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Triceps SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.20|-0.89|0.1870
84465877|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|-10.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-10.27|-24.32|<0.001
84465878|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-11.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-11.29|-25.30|<0.001
84465879|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-11.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-11.00|-25.25|<0.001
84465880|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-14.09|-28.29|<0.001
84465881|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-9.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-9.26|-24.24|<0.001
84465882|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-13.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.61|-28.50|<0.001
84465883|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.02|-10.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-10.12|-25.02|<0.001
84465884|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-14.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-14.39|-29.18|<0.001
84465885|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|-10.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-10.75|-26.03|<0.001
84465886|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|-16.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-16.27|-31.39|<0.001
84465887|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-10.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-10.25|-26.33|<0.001
84465888|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|-13.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.48|-29.35|<0.001
84465889|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.14|-12.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.19|-28.14|<0.001
84465890|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-13.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-13.30|-29.04|<0.001
84465891|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|-8.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-8.61|-24.73|<0.001
84725970|NCT00636168|169204091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.1% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.88|0.58|0.0013
84465892|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-10.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-10.94|-26.84|<0.001
84465893|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|-9.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-9.99|-25.77|<0.001
84465894|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|-11.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-11.72|-27.28|<0.001
84465895|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.35|-28.30|<0.001
84465896|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-14.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-14.28|-30.00|<0.001
84465897|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|-11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-11.96|-28.19|<0.001
84465898|NCT04003155|168684861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-24.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-16.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.20|-32.16|<0.001
84465899|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.999||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.999|1.823|<0.001
84465900|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|5.497||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.497|1.658|<0.001
84465901|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.187||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.549||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.549|1.363|0.001
84465902|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.786|4.601||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.601|1.786|<0.001
84465903|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|3.345||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.345|1.326|0.002
84465904|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.333|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|5.302||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.302|2.121|<0.001
84465905|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.233|1.323|0.001
84465906|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.947|4.746||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.746|1.947|<0.001
84465907|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.357||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.357|1.363|<0.001
84465908|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.067|5.08||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.080|2.067|<0.001
84465909|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|3.21||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.210|1.317|0.002
84465910|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.994|4.858||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.858|1.994|<0.001
84465911|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.984||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.097||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.097|1.280|0.002
84465912|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.062|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.977|4.788||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.788|1.977|<0.001
84465913|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|4.294||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.294|1.774|<0.001
84465914|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.712|1.536|<0.001
84465915|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|3.186||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.186|1.329|0.001
84465916|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.701|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.204||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.204|1.750|<0.001
84465917|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.742|4.306||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.306|1.742|<0.001
84465918|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.505|6.214||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.214|2.505|<0.001
84465919|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.27||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.270|1.363|<0.001
84465920|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.953|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|4.602||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.602|1.912|<0.001
84465921|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.894||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.961||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.961|1.220|0.005
84465922|NCT04003155|168684862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.035|4.944||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.944|2.035|<0.001
84465923|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.158||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|64.304||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||64.304|0.398|0.322
84465924|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.925||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|77.353||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.353|0.569|0.225
84465925|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.334||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|120.422||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||120.422|1.064|0.089
84465926|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.026||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|96.916||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||96.916|0.797|0.143
84465927|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.468||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.468|0.370|0.711
84465928|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|5.328||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.328|0.508|0.441
84465929|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.351||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|35.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||35.172|1.383|0.032
84465930|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.059||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|21.086||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.086|0.693|0.175
84540557|NCT00625872|168832358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.19||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Subscapular SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.19|-0.49|0.3494
84465931|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.225||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|28.29||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||28.290|1.039|0.071
84465932|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|34.323||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||34.323|1.348|0.035
84726553|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||11.0|-2.5|
84540558|NCT00625872|168832358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.01||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Suprailiac SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||-0.01|-0.54|0.0458
84465933|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|45.64||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||45.640|1.912|0.011
84465934|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.949||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|44.892||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||44.892|1.881|0.012
84465935|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.344||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|35.134||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||35.134|1.381|0.032
84465936|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.514||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.055|48.354||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||48.354|2.055|0.008
84465937|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.238||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.222|10.148||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.148|1.222|0.026
84465938|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|10.714||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.714|1.311|0.019
84465939|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.626||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|6.951||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.951|1.101|0.037
84465940|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|7.263||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.263|1.167|0.027
84465941|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|3.968||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.968|0.753|0.210
84465942|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|4.634||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.634|0.923|0.087
84465943|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|6.157||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.157|0.795|0.148
84465944|NCT04003155|168684863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|9.194||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.194|1.329|0.015
84465945|NCT01666444|168684892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.923|ONE_SIDED|92.0||1.48||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).|Treatment Hazard ratio for overall survival (PLD+VTX relative to PLD+placebo). Survival is measured from date of enrollment and randomization on the study until death from any cause, or date of last contact.|The null hypothesis is that the hazards of death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment of this hypothesis was done with a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature to assess this hypothesis when at least 211 deaths had occurred among all individuals enrolled. Type I error was to be set to 0.08 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 30% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.70) due to VTX-2337 was 88.2%.||1.48||0.923
84465946|NCT01666444|168684893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.943|ONE_SIDED|98.0||1.56||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of first progression or death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment was to use a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature when survival is mature for analysis. Type I error was to be set to 0.02 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 31% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.69) due to VTX-2337 was expected to be approximately 83%.||1.56||0.943
84465947|NCT04011436|168684936|SUPERIORITY|In the bivariate analysis, a comparison was initially made of each of the domains of the Kujala test, for the assessment of pain at baseline, assessing the differences between the intervention groups using the chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between two continuous variables, such as Q angle and anterior knee pain, assessing the correlation marginally and conditionally on each of the treatment groups.|difference in frequency distribution|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.05|||Fisher Exact|we also used Chi-squared for the domains of pain and limp.||||0.05|0.025|<0.05
84540865|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|9.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumonia, recurrent: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.5|7.9|<0.001
84726554|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-4.8|
84518696|NCT00112437|168788532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.94|||<=|0.001||95.0|-54.15|-17.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-17.74|-54.15|<=0.001
84518697|NCT00112437|168788532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|17.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|41.8||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||41.80|-6.78|0.101
84518698|NCT00112437|168788533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-63.34|||<=|0.001||95.0|-88.32|-38.36||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-38.36|-88.32|<=0.001
84518699|NCT00112437|168788533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-13.18||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-13.18|-65.40|<=0.001
84518700|NCT00112437|168788533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-23.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|5.09||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||5.09|-53.04|0.124
84518701|NCT00112437|168788533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|56.73|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||56.73|-12.38|
84540559|NCT01512160|168832360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.2||||||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was presented.||2.2|-4.3|
84465948|NCT04011436|168684937|SUPERIORITY|For the analysis of the differences in medians between the groups, taking into account that the outcomes did not present a normal distribution, and assuming the assumption of independence of the variables, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was done for the assessment of change in pain with Visual Analogue Scale.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
84465949|NCT04011436|168684938|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for Change in Patellofemoral Misalignment With Q Angle´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
84540560|NCT01512160|168832360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.3||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||2.3|-4.1|
84465950|NCT04011436|168684939|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was calculated for the change in core strength with McGill´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
84465951|NCT04011436|168684940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Quadriceps and Gluteus Strength With Squat´s Test.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
84465952|NCT04011436|168684941|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Static Balance with Single Leg Stance.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
84465953|NCT04011436|168684942|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in the total amount of Physical Activity reported in minutes.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
84465954|NCT04760314|168684943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|11.6|<0.001
84465955|NCT04760314|168684943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.0|17.5|<0.001
84465956|NCT04760314|168684944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.8|20.6|<0.001
84465957|NCT04760314|168684944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|26.2|<0.001
84465958|NCT04760314|168684945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-24.9|||ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-44.1|<0.001
84465959|NCT04760314|168684945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-30.3|||ANCOVA|||||-30.3|-47.7|<0.001
84465960|NCT04760314|168684946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|6.8|0.003
84465961|NCT04760314|168684946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.5|13.9|<0.001
84465962|NCT04760314|168684947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|-1.2|0.404
84465963|NCT04760314|168684948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|-1.6|0.294
84465964|NCT04760314|168684948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-0.5|0.138
84465965|NCT04760314|168684949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|1.8|0.013
84465966|NCT04760314|168684949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|8.1|0.001
84465967|NCT04760314|168684950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|8.7|0.001
84465968|NCT04760314|168684950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|17.9|<0.001
84465969|NCT01371838|168684954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated in CE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in CE Population. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted whereby if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with CABP.||17.1|2.8|
84465970|NCT01371838|168684955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||16.4|4.9|
84465971|NCT01371838|168684956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||15.4|1.8|
84465972|NCT01371838|168684957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments. If lower limit of 95% CI for the risk difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded in this population.|||19.2|6.8|
84465973|NCT01371838|168684958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
84465974|NCT01371838|168684959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
84465975|NCT01371838|168684962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
84465976|NCT01371838|168684963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
84465977|NCT01371838|168684964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone overall success rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||19.2|6.8|
84465978|NCT01371838|168684965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||17.1|2.8|
84465979|NCT01371838|168684966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.0||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||3.0|-2.5|
84465980|NCT01371838|168684967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||4.5|-2.4|
84465981|NCT04315363|168684970|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the primary outcome changes (i.e., sedentary time) before and after the intervention.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84465982|NCT04315363|168684971|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the secondary outcome changes (i.e., moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) before and after the intervention.||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84465983|NCT00641043|168684975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.30|-0.71|<0.0001
84465984|NCT00641043|168684976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
84465985|NCT00641043|168684977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
84465986|NCT00641043|168684978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.70|<0.0001
84465987|NCT00641043|168684979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-21.1|<0.0001
84465988|NCT00641043|168684980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-10.5|-22.3|<0.0001
84465989|NCT00641043|168684981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.5|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.0|-19.5|<0.0001
84465990|NCT00641043|168684982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.5|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-20.5|<0.0001
84540561|NCT01512160|168832360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|6.7||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||6.7|0.3|
84465991|NCT00641043|168684983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.103||||0.0051||95.0|1.25|3.539|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||3.539|1.25|0.0051
84465992|NCT00641043|168684985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.3547||95.0|0.716|2.537|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||2.537|0.716|0.3547
84465993|NCT00641043|168684987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.823|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.286|6.394|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||6.394|2.286|<0.0001
84465994|NCT01591018|168685008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||Pre-study calculations using chi-square test with a continuity correction showed that ≥60 patients in each group were needed to reach a significant difference with an alpha value of 0.05 (two-tailed) and a beta value of 0.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Sample size was based on an expected 20% reduction of new ischemic lesions on DW-MRI in the sonolysis group (estimated prevalence, 10%) compared with the control group (estimated prevalence, 30%).||||<0.05
84465995|NCT02546856|168685011|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis that the relative dose of BBs would reach 52% by the end of the study and using an equivalence margin of 7%, we would need 157 patients per group for an alpha level of significance of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% (beta of 0.80).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.1|7.5|<0.001
84465996|NCT02546856|168685012|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|1.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|6.32|||Chi-squared|||||6.32|-3.33|0.52
84465997|NCT02546856|168685013|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.1|||Chi-squared|||||6.1|-1.9|0.31
84465998|NCT02546856|168685014|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.63||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.85|||Chi-squared|||||5.85|-7.1|0.85
84465999|NCT02546856|168685015|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.54|||Chi-squared|||||7.54|-3.3|0.44
84466000|NCT02546856|168685017|NON_INFERIORITY|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.04|||Chi-squared|||||3.04|-1.6|0.56
84466001|NCT02546856|168685021|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.69|0.96
84466002|NCT02546856|168685022|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.47||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.0|748.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||748|-781|0.97
84466003|NCT02546856|168685023|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|-11.27|0.44
84466004|NCT02546856|168685025|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.81|-6.63|0.75
84466005|NCT02546856|168685026|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.2|0.20
84466006|NCT02546856|168685027|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.4|||Chi-squared|||||-1.4|-9.7|0.01
84466007|NCT02546856|168685028|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.68||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.87|||Chi-squared|Equivalence margin of 7%||||2.87|-4.2|0.71
84466008|NCT02546856|168685029|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.3|8.7|<0.001
84466009|NCT02546856|168685030|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.1|-15.1|0.93
84466010|NCT02546856|168685031|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|-7.1|0.86
84466011|NCT00117338|168685063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.775||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.775
84466012|NCT00117338|168685064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.931||95.0|-0.41|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.45|-0.41|0.931
84466013|NCT00117338|168685065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.975||95.0|0.61|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||1.61|0.61|0.975
84466014|NCT00117338|168685066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.612||95.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.09|-0.05|0.612
84466015|NCT00117338|168685067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.774
84466016|NCT00117338|168685068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.173||95.0|-0.02|0.11|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.11|-0.02|0.173
84466017|NCT00117338|168685069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model (Nonparametric) based on Tukey's normalized ranks with terms treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||||0.580
84466018|NCT01342640|168685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 20 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
84466019|NCT01342640|168685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 24 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
84466020|NCT01342640|168685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 28 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
84466021|NCT00479466|168685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-17.3|||ANCOVA|||||-17.3|-44.0|<0.001
84466022|NCT00479466|168685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-59.7|<0.001
84466023|NCT00479466|168685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-38.0|||ANCOVA|||||-38.0|-64.3|<0.001
84466024|NCT00479466|168685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||||-47.8|-74.6|<0.001
84466025|NCT00479466|168685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.4|-48.6|<0.001
84466026|NCT00479466|168685128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.53|<0.001
84466027|NCT00479466|168685128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-1.91|<0.001
84466028|NCT00479466|168685128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.31|||ANCOVA|||||-1.31|-2.07|<0.001
84466029|NCT00479466|168685128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-2.45|<0.001
84466030|NCT00479466|168685128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.70|<0.001
84466031|NCT00479466|168685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-34.3|||ANCOVA|||||-34.3|-79.4|<0.001
84466032|NCT00479466|168685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-48.2|||ANCOVA|||||-48.2|-91.8|<0.001
84466033|NCT00479466|168685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.4|-65.3|||ANCOVA|||||-65.3|-109.4|<0.001
84466034|NCT00479466|168685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|-79.1|||ANCOVA|||||-79.1|-124.2|<0.001
84466035|NCT00479466|168685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.7|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||||-38.8|-82.7|<0.001
84466036|NCT02927171|168685131|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
84466037|NCT01703819|168685148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.7726
84466038|NCT01703819|168685149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5702||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOV As.||||0.5702
84466039|NCT00858702|168685187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0158
84466040|NCT00858702|168685188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0566
84466041|NCT00858702|168685189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84466042|NCT01849250|168685192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.50
84466043|NCT01849250|168685195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.19
84466044|NCT01849250|168685196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||.52
84466045|NCT01849250|168685197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
84466046|NCT00367640|168685199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0006
84466047|NCT00367640|168685199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0001
84466048|NCT00367640|168685199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.4606
84466049|NCT02544984|168685293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||The numbers of unscheduled clinic visits due to respiratory symptoms are compared.||||0.473
84466050|NCT02544984|168685293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Unscheduled clinic visits due to symptoms other than respiratory symptoms are compared||||0.505
84466051|NCT02544984|168685293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of emergency room visits are compared||||0.047
84466052|NCT02544984|168685293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of hospital admissions are compared||||0.675
84540562|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.9||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||1.9|-2.8|
84466053|NCT02544984|168685294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||||||0.435
84466054|NCT00638846|168685414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.136|1.739|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric / balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is superior to balfilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||1.739|1.136|
84466055|NCT00638846|168685415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.624|1.138|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric/balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of instability.||1.138|0.624|
84466056|NCT00638846|168685416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1307|-0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon At toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less time required to fit.||-0.5680|-1.1307|
84466057|NCT00638846|168685417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A.||0.3680|0.07001|
84466058|NCT00638846|168685418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is -0.4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.0688|-0.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower grade fo corneal staining.||-0.0197|-0.0688|
84466059|NCT00638846|168685419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric.||0.3680|0.07001|
84466060|NCT01520922|168685438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.53|99.44|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 90 mg/m\^2.|||99.44|84.53|
84466061|NCT01520922|168685438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.67|84.74|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 70 mg/m\^2.|||84.74|59.67|
84466062|NCT02345161|168685520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.194|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.194|0.148|<0.001
84466063|NCT02345161|168685521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.226|0.131|<0.001
84466064|NCT02345161|168685522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
84466065|NCT02345161|168685523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-5.5|0.065
84466066|NCT02345161|168685524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.84|0.30|<0.001
84466067|NCT02345161|168685525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.97|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.97|-0.28|0.279
84466068|NCT02345161|168685526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.817
84466069|NCT02345161|168685527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.1|0.767
84466070|NCT02345161|168685528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Generalized linear modeL|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.86|0.49|0.002
84466071|NCT02345161|168685529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Generalized Linear model|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.85|0.37|0.006
84518702|NCT00112437|168788534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.71||||0.015||95.0|-36.03|2.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||2.61|-36.03|0.015
84466072|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.66|-1.25|<0.001
84466073|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
84466074|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.78|-1.57|<0.001
84466075|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.91|-1.75|<0.001
84466076|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.97|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.97|-1.85|<0.001
84518703|NCT00112437|168788534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.51||||0.246||95.0|-27.31|10.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||10.29|-27.31|0.246
84518704|NCT00112437|168788534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.79||||||95.0|-22.66|19.08|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||19.08|-22.66|
84518705|NCT00112437|168788534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|21.74||||||95.0|-1.32|44.81|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||44.81|-1.32|
84726555|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.3|
84466077|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.91|-1.79|<0.001
84466078|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.36|-0.67|<0.001
84466079|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
84466080|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.48|-0.90|<0.001
84466081|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.52|-0.97|<0.001
84466082|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.56|-1.03|<0.001
84466083|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.54|-1.01|<0.001
84466084|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.09|-0.26|<0.001
84466085|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
84466086|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.05|-0.28|0.004
84466087|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
84540563|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.0||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||2.0|-2.7|
84718083|NCT04899674|169187063|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|104.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||104.3|86.7|
84718084|NCT05648890|169187067|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST test before operation.||||<0.0001
84718085|NCT05648890|169187068|OTHER|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used .|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's ran correlation coefficient|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used for correlation between two quantities.||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST after operation||||< .001
84718086|NCT05648890|169187069|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and Clock drawing test before operation.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||<0.0001
84718087|NCT05648890|169187070|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and clock drawing test after operation.||||<0.001
84718088|NCT05648890|169187071|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficien|||Correlation between MMSE and Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.001
84540564|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|5.1||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||5.1|0.4|
84718089|NCT05648890|169187071|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test before operation.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Clock drawing before operation.||||0.023
84718090|NCT05648890|169187072|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between Clock drawing test and MMSE after operation.||||<0.0001
84718091|NCT05648890|169187073|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with MMSE before operation.||||<0.0001
84718092|NCT05648890|169187073|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with TEGEST before operation.||||<0.0001
84718093|NCT05648890|169187073|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.0001
84718094|NCT05648890|169187074|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living at a house or in apartment and relationships with Clinical frailty scale.||||.562
84718095|NCT05648890|169187075|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test was used.||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living with with family or alone and relationship with Clinical frailty scale.||||0.129
84718096|NCT05648890|169187076|OTHER|Mann-Whintney test was used.||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Relationship between respondents living at home with stairs and respondents living at home with an elevator and Clinical frailty scale.||||0.019
84718097|NCT05288348|169187128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|11.33||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||||11.33|-6.19|0.56
84718098|NCT05288348|169187128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||Adjusted for age, sex, respiratory rate and injury type||9.48|-10.5|0.92
84718099|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60min||3.37|-17.66|0.18
84718100|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60 min Adjusted for sex and injury type||15.10|-9.30|0.63
84718101|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.59||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|1.21||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 90 min||1.21|-22.39|0.08
84718102|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.36||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA|Adjusted for ISS|VNRS @90min adjusted||20.80|-6.13|0.28
84718103|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 120 min||4.56|-23.60|0.18
84718104|NCT05288348|169187129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA||VNRS @ 120min adjusted for sex, HR, RR, and injury type||10.20|-20.70|0.50
84718105|NCT05288348|169187130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||PGA @ 30 min|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84718106|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.89|||General Addative Model|||"SPID 30~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||1.89|-4.77|0.39
84718107|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.95|||General Additive Model|||"SPID 30, Adjusted Analysis~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||4.95|-1.50|0.29
84718108|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.47|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 60min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||6.47|-6.63|0.98
84718109|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|6.98|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 60 Adjusted~Last observed carried forward to address missingness"||6.98|-5.76|0.85
84718110|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.26||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|11.28|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 90 mn last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||11.28|-8.75|0.8
84518706|NCT00112437|168788535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.64||||0.002||95.0|-28.84|-4.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-4.44|-28.84|0.002
84518707|NCT00112437|168788535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|7.24||||0.852||95.0|-5.73|20.21||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||20.21|-5.73|0.852
84518708|NCT00112437|168788535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||||95.0|-13.69|12.92|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||12.92|-13.69|
84518709|NCT00112437|168788535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|36.79||||||95.0|21.19|52.38|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||52.38|21.19|
84518710|NCT00112437|168788536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|-3.43||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-3.43|-39.55|0.011
84518711|NCT00112437|168788536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|13.31||||0.618||95.0|-7.1|33.71||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least square means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||33.71|-7.10|0.618
84518712|NCT00112437|168788536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|29.01|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||29.01|-13.46|
84518713|NCT00112437|168788536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|74.59|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||74.59|23.86|
84718111|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.44||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.92|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 90 min Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||9.92|-10.2|0.92
84718112|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|16.9|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 120 min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||16.90|-10.45|0.64
84726556|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-7.3|
84466088|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
84466089|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
84466090|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.18|-0.37|<0.001
84466091|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.23|-0.46|<0.001
84466092|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.21|-0.47|<0.001
84466093|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
84466094|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
84466095|NCT02345161|168685530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.22|-0.50|<0.001
84518714|NCT00112437|168788537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|9.53||||||In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis assess the time course of resolution of effect on lumbar spine BMD during the 12 month extension following 24 months of treatment with odanacatib once weekly. The primary objective was to assess the resolution of effect, on lumbar spine BMD, for the participants who received odanacatib 50 mg for 3 years compared to those who received odanacatib 50 mg in the 2nd year and switched to placebo for the 3rd year extension.||9.53|3.38|
84518715|NCT00112437|168788538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|9.17||||||||9.17|3.44|
84518716|NCT00112437|168788539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.57||||||||5.57|-0.16|
84518717|NCT00112437|168788540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|8.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.46||||||||12.46|3.80|
84518718|NCT00112437|168788541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.46||||||||4.46|-1.54|
84518719|NCT00112437|168788542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|5.88||||||||5.88|-0.93|
84518720|NCT00112437|168788543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-78.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.2|-36.92||||||||-36.92|-119.20|
84518721|NCT00112437|168788544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.7|10.2||||||||10.20|-78.70|
84518722|NCT00112437|168788545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-39.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.17|8.68||||||||8.68|-87.17|
84518723|NCT00112437|168788546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|38.85||||||||38.85|-5.67|
84518724|NCT00112437|168788547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.04|31.18||||||||31.18|-42.04|
84518725|NCT00112437|168788548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|84.83||||||||84.83|13.37|
84466096|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||0.09|-1.13|0.094
84466097|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.34|-1.80|0.004
84518726|NCT00112437|168788549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|209.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.14|291.73||||||||291.73|127.14|
84518727|NCT03703258|168788566|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.60
84518728|NCT03703258|168788566|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
84466098|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.14|-1.79|0.022
84466099|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.445||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.88|0.024
84466100|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
84466101|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.16|-2.05|0.022
84466102|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 25-28|||-0.35|-2.29|0.008
84466103|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 29-32|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
84518729|NCT03703258|168788567|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.94
84518730|NCT03703258|168788567|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
84518731|NCT03703258|168788568|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.38
84518732|NCT03703258|168788568|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
84518733|NCT03703258|168788569|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.04
84518734|NCT03703258|168788569|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
84466104|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 33-36|||-0.48|-2.52|0.004
84466105|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 37-40|||-0.23|-2.22|0.016
84466106|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 41-44|||-0.48|-2.50|0.04
84466107|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 45-49|||-0.50|-2.56|0.007
84466108|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 49-52|||-0.39|-2.45|0.007
84466109|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.00|-0.66|0.051
84466110|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.20|-1.02|0.003
84466111|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.15|-1.07|0.010
84466112|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.10|0.013
84466113|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
84466114|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
84466115|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.21|-1.30|0.006
84466116|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.31|-1.40|0.002
84466117|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.38|-1.51|0.001
84466118|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.20|-1.32|0.008
84466119|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.24|-1.40|0.006
84466120|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||Breathlessness score, Week 41-44||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
84466121|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52EXA|||-0.30|-1.45|0.003
84466122|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.16|-0.20|0.840
84466123|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.06|-0.36|0.167
84466124|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||0.12|-0.34|0.359
84466125|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||0.13|-0.36|0.360
84466126|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||0.17|-0.36|0.490
84466127|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||0.15|-0.39|0.388
84466128|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||0.10|-0.44|0.218
84466129|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||0.07|-0.47|0.138
84466130|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||0.11|-0.44|0.239
84466131|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||0.16|-0.38|0.417
84466132|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||0.03|-0.54|0.078
84466133|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||0.01|-0.54|0.058
84466134|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||0.11|-0.45|0.231
84518735|NCT03703258|168788570|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.51
84518736|NCT03703258|168788570|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
84518737|NCT03703258|168788570|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84518738|NCT03703258|168788570|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84466135|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.01|-0.37|0.068
84466136|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.09|-0.56|0.006
84466137|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.01|-0.53|0.042
84466138|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.03|-0.57|0.027
84466139|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.09|-0.67|0.010
84466140|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.09|-0.66|0.010
84466141|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.12|-0.70|
84466142|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
84466143|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
84466144|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.07|-0.67|0.014
84466145|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.12|-0.72|0.007
84466146|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.13|-0.76|0.006
84466147|NCT02345161|168685531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
84466148|NCT02345161|168685540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||3.4|0.3|0.023
84466149|NCT02345161|168685540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||1.0|-2.1|0.471
84466150|NCT02345161|168685541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||2.5|-4.7|0.564
84518739|NCT03703258|168788571|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.04
84466151|NCT02345161|168685541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||3.3|-2.9|0.908
84466152|NCT02345161|168685544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, SBP|||1.2|-1.0|0.849
84466153|NCT02345161|168685544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, DBP|||0.9|-0.6|0.613
84466154|NCT02345161|168685545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||: LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, SBP|||0.8|-3.9|0.183
84466155|NCT02345161|168685545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, DBP|||0.6|-2.3|0.253
84466156|NCT02345161|168685547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.2|-0.6|0.526
84466157|NCT02345161|168685548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.5|0.7|0.007
84466158|NCT02238028|168685578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||Paired Student's t tests were used in the absence and presence of wearing respirators. HRV was log-transformed before regression analyses. Linear mixed-effect models were applied to investigate the effects of wearing respirators. Age, sex, body mass index, PM2.5 concentration, 48-h mean temperature and 48-h mean humidity were introduced into the model as fixed-effect terms. At last, we incorporated random-effect intercepts for subjects to account for correlations between repeated measurements.||||<0.05
84466159|NCT02238028|168685579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||||||<0.05
84518740|NCT03703258|168788571|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.34
84466160|NCT00631488|168685602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between group difference.||22.7|5.2|0.002
84466161|NCT00631488|168685602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-9.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-9.2|-26.5|<0.001
84466162|NCT00631488|168685603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||18.2|0.0|0.050
84466163|NCT00631488|168685603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-10.1|-28.0|<0.001
84466164|NCT00631488|168685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||45.8|-0.6|0.056
84466165|NCT00631488|168685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-21.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-21.8|-67.3|<0.001
84466166|NCT00631488|168685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||6.7|1.7|0.001
84466167|NCT00631488|168685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|15.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||15.7|10.7|<0.001
84518741|NCT03703258|168788571|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84518742|NCT03703258|168788571|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84518743|NCT03703258|168788572|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.13
84518744|NCT03703258|168788572|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.24
84518745|NCT03703258|168788572|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84518746|NCT03703258|168788572|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84466168|NCT00631488|168685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference||-3.8|-9.5|<0.001
84466169|NCT00631488|168685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||-8.5|-14.1|<0.001
84466170|NCT00103194|168685607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PSA response rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.2||||||||8.2|0|
84466171|NCT00103194|168685608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis is testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment PSA slopes.||||||0.006
84466172|NCT02639182|168685637|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||||0.983||||||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||||0.983
84466173|NCT02639182|168685638|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.423||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|2.192||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||2.192|0.924|0.110
84466174|NCT02639182|168685639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis of the ORR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported.||||1.1|0.1|0.062
84466175|NCT02639182|168685640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376||||0.439||95.0|0.031|4.482||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||4.482|0.031|0.439
84466176|NCT02639182|168685641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746||||||Test conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and number of prior systemic RCC regimens.|Log Rank|||||||0.746
84466177|NCT02639182|168685642|SUPERIORITY|A CMH analysis of the DCR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||The stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported as a measure of relative treatment effect, along with its two-sided 95% CI.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.2|0.152
84466178|NCT00907881|168685659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Regression, Linear|Pearson correlation coefficient||||||0.0002
84466179|NCT03864237|168685666|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.37|||Regression, Linear|Regression controls for baseline value of outcome and sex to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||||2.37|-1.31|0.568
84466180|NCT03864237|168685667|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||||2.59|-0.13|0.077
84466181|NCT03864237|168685668|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-3.52|0.30
84466182|NCT03864237|168685669|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.0|||Regression, Linear|||||3.0|-1.31|0.44
84466183|NCT03864237|168685670|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||||2.30|-2.81|0.845
84466184|NCT03864237|168685671|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.31|||Regression, Linear|||||2.31|-1.72|0.77
84466185|NCT03864237|168685672|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.54|||Regression, Linear|||||4.54|-1.0|0.21
84466186|NCT01097616|168685673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.1|12.0|<0.00001
84478892|NCT02259127|168709115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|-0.05|=0.176
84478893|NCT02259127|168709115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-1.1|0.50
84466187|NCT01097616|168685674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|27.6||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.6|11.9|<0.00001
84466188|NCT01097616|168685675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-19.2|-33.5|<0.00001
84466189|NCT01097616|168685676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-15.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-15.4|-30.3|<0.00001
84466190|NCT01097616|168685677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.4||||0.00298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.5|-12.3|0.00298
84518747|NCT03703258|168788573|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.85
84518748|NCT03703258|168788573|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.96
84518749|NCT03703258|168788573|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84518750|NCT03703258|168788573|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84518751|NCT03703258|168788574|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.75
84518752|NCT03703258|168788574|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
84518753|NCT03703258|168788574|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84518754|NCT03703258|168788574|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84518755|NCT03703258|168788575|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.86
84518756|NCT03703258|168788575|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.55
84518757|NCT03703258|168788575|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
84718113|NCT05288348|169187131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|11.3|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 120 Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||11.30|-15.60|0.75
84718114|NCT05288348|169187132|SUPERIORITY||z statistic|0.46||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.96|||two sided test of proportion|||||1.96|-1.96|0.64
84718115|NCT05288348|169187133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.22||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.66|||General Additive Models|||||0.66|-1.11|0.61
84466191|NCT01097616|168685678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.4||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.0|-12.8|0.00019
84518758|NCT03703258|168788575|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
84466192|NCT01097616|168685679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-6.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.1|-16.3|0.00002
84466193|NCT01097616|168685680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.4||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.6|0.00037
84466194|NCT01097616|168685681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.6||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||20.3|6.9|0.00007
84466195|NCT01097616|168685681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|27.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.4|15.5|<0.00001
84466196|NCT01097616|168685682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|16.3||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|24.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||24.8|7.9|0.00016
84466197|NCT01097616|168685683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.7||||0.01711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||19.5|1.9|0.01711
84518759|NCT01229150|168788616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
84518760|NCT01229150|168788616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.75
84518761|NCT01229150|168788620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
84518762|NCT01229150|168788620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
84518763|NCT01229150|168788622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0007||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 2.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0007
84518764|NCT01229150|168788622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84518765|NCT01229150|168788622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 2 and cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||4 patients in this group; statistically underpowered.||||0.0209
84518766|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.814
84518767|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.013
84518768|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.287
84518769|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.027
84466198|NCT01097616|168685684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-25.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-25.7|-39.3|<0.00001
84466199|NCT01097616|168685684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-32.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-32.3|-44.5|<0.00001
84466200|NCT01097616|168685685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-18.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-18.4|-34.3|<0.00001
84466201|NCT01097616|168685686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.6||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.3|-24.8|0.00009
84466202|NCT01097616|168685687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.6||||0.01564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.1|-10.2|0.01564
84466203|NCT01097616|168685687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.7||||0.00609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.6|-9.7|0.00609
84466204|NCT01097616|168685688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.4||||0.05191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||0.0|-10.9|0.05191
84466205|NCT01097616|168685689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.2||||0.03771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-0.3|-10.2|0.03771
84466206|NCT01097616|168685692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.6||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-4.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.9|0.00041
84466207|NCT01097616|168685692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-5.5|-15.0|0.00002
84518770|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.390
84518771|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.844
84518772|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.030
84518773|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.437
84518774|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.034
84518775|NCT01494532|168788637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.808
84518776|NCT01494532|168788638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|3.166|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.166|0.398|0.826
84466208|NCT01097616|168685693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.6|-16.0|0.00040
84466209|NCT01097616|168685694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.1||||0.00606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.3|-13.8|0.00606
84466210|NCT00591227|168685701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
84466211|NCT03626415|168685712|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.96|141.55|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||141.55|62.96|
84466212|NCT03626415|168685712|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adusted Geometric Means|105.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.38|158.24|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||158.24|70.38|
84466213|NCT03626415|168685713|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|133.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|206.28|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||206.28|86.17|
84466214|NCT03626415|168685713|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|153.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.52|238.25|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||238.25|99.52|
84466215|NCT03626415|168685714|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.39|100.47|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||100.47|57.39|
84466216|NCT03626415|168685714|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|111.33|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||111.33|63.59|
84466217|NCT03626415|168685715|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|126.08|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||126.08|72.71|
84466218|NCT03626415|168685715|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|151.2|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||151.20|87.19|
84518777|NCT01494532|168788638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.593|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.593|0.732|0.233
84518778|NCT01494532|168788638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.065|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.065|0.439|0.902
84518779|NCT01494532|168788638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.866||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|4.158|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.158|0.837|0.127
84518780|NCT01494532|168788638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.362||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|3.888|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.888|0.477|0.564
84518781|NCT01494532|168788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.659|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.659|0.310|0.861
84518782|NCT01494532|168788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.608||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.782|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.782|0.684|0.277
84518783|NCT01494532|168788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.500|0.461|0.869
84518784|NCT01494532|168788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|4.545|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.545|0.808|0.140
84718116|NCT05288348|169187133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.65|||General Additive Model|||6 item screener adjusted analysis||0.65|-1.23|0.54
84518785|NCT01494532|168788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|5.218|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.218|0.547|0.362
84518786|NCT01494532|168788640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.965|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||1.965|0.266|0.525
84518787|NCT01494532|168788640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.851||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|4.109|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.109|0.834|0.130
84518788|NCT01494532|168788640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|2.232|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.232|0.444|0.992
84518789|NCT01494532|168788640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|3.248|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.248|0.674|0.329
84518790|NCT01494532|168788640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.907||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|2.61|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.610|0.315|0.856
84466219|NCT02064439|168685725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.59|0.20|0.0001
84466220|NCT02064439|168685725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.14|0.47||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.47|0.14|<0.0001
84466221|NCT02064439|168685725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.75||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.75|0.65|0.4328
84466222|NCT02064439|168685726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.04||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||8.04|0.50|0.3235
84466223|NCT02064439|168685726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.84||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||6.84|0.39|0.5005
84466224|NCT02064439|168685726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.03||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||4.03|0.37|0.7337
84466225|NCT02064439|168685727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.57|0.20|<0.0001
84466226|NCT02064439|168685727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.54|0.19|<0.0001
84466227|NCT02064439|168685727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.06|0.57|0.8172
84466228|NCT02064439|168685728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.02||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.02|0.69|0.3318
84466229|NCT02064439|168685728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.2||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||2.20|0.44|0.9726
84466230|NCT02064439|168685728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.06|0.70|0.3137
84466231|NCT03350750|168685729|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Model Effect (Open vs. Closed)|0.22||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA||This is the coefficient for an indicator variable comparing the Open versus Closed shunt group, in a linear regression model with Month 4 gait velocity as the outcome and Baseline gait velocity included as a predictor along with treatment.|||0.46|-0.02|0.071
84466232|NCT03350750|168685730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
84466233|NCT03350750|168685731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84466234|NCT03350750|168685732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
84466235|NCT03350750|168685733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.172
84466236|NCT03350750|168685734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
84466237|NCT03350750|168685735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84466238|NCT03350750|168685736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
84466239|NCT03350750|168685737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84466240|NCT03350750|168685738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84466241|NCT03350750|168685739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84466242|NCT03350750|168685740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
84466243|NCT03350750|168685741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test with a mid-p-value correction||||||0.235
84466244|NCT02433288|168685744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
84466245|NCT02433288|168685745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0017
84466246|NCT02433288|168685746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-13.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-13.57|-26.91|<0.0001
84466247|NCT02433288|168685747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-4.56|0.3939
84466248|NCT02433288|168685748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|4.53|||ANCOVA|linear model including terms for randomized group and baseline LDL-C||||4.53|-3.27|0.7514
84466249|NCT00062738|168685782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||For the responder analysis, an LOCF approach was used in which a clinical response was operationally defined as at least a 50% reduction in the HAM-D score from baseline to 8 weeks. Clinical response was cross-tabulated with treatment and Fisher exact test was used to distinguish differences among these groups.||15.9|0.8|<.05
84466250|NCT01214434|168685794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84718117|NCT05288348|169187134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.46|||Ordinal Polytomous Logisitic Regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min.||4.46|1.24|0.009
84718118|NCT05288348|169187134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.29|||Ordinal polytomous logistic regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min. adjusted for ISS and Race||4.29|1.18|0.01
84718119|NCT05288348|169187135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.22|0.96
84718120|NCT05288348|169187135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.04|||||Adjusted for age, sex and SpO2|||5.04|0.17|
84718121|NCT05288348|169187136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|24.92||||||||24.92|0.04|
84718122|NCT05288348|169187136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.28|||||Adjusted for Heart Rate and Injury Severity Score|||14.28|0|
84718123|NCT05288348|169187137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.37||||||||8.37|0.39|
84718124|NCT05288348|169187137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.6|||||Adjusted for SpO2|||8.60|0.39|
84718125|NCT05288348|169187139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.12||||||||5.12|0.02|
84466251|NCT01214434|168685796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.03
84466252|NCT01214434|168685797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6
84466253|NCT01214434|168685798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.24
84466254|NCT01214434|168685799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.8
84466255|NCT02075255|168685800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|16.70|<0.001
84466256|NCT02075255|168685800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|20.80|<0.001
84466257|NCT02075255|168685801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.57|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.57|2.22|<0.001
84466258|NCT02075255|168685801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.63|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.63|2.22|<0.001
84466259|NCT02075255|168685802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
84466260|NCT02075255|168685802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
84466261|NCT02075255|168685803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||7.22|1.79|<0.001
84466262|NCT02075255|168685803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.86|1.57|<0.001
84466263|NCT02075255|168685804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||14.21|1.92|<0.001
84466264|NCT02075255|168685804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||11.12|1.58|0.002
84466265|NCT02075255|168685805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.83|0.21|0.012
84466266|NCT02075255|168685805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||1.01|0.27|0.053
84466267|NCT02075255|168685806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||6.23|1.60|<0.001
84466268|NCT02075255|168685806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.31|1.41|0.002
84466269|NCT02075255|168685807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.65|0.16|0.001
84466270|NCT02075255|168685807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.56|0.14|<0.001
84466271|NCT02075255|168685808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.66|0.22|<0.001
84466272|NCT02075255|168685808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.57|0.17|<0.001
84466273|NCT02075255|168685809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||1.64|0.14|0.291
84466274|NCT02075255|168685809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||0.63|0.01|0.042
84466275|NCT02075255|168685810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.76|0.27|0.003
84466276|NCT02075255|168685810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.53|0.17|<0.001
84466277|NCT02075255|168685811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.49|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||1.49|0.13|0.187
84466278|NCT02075255|168685811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.07||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||0.63|0.01|0.018
84518791|NCT01494532|168788642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
84518792|NCT01494532|168788642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
84518793|NCT01494532|168788642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
84518794|NCT01494532|168788642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
84518795|NCT01494532|168788642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
84518796|NCT01494532|168788643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
84518797|NCT01494532|168788643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
84518798|NCT01494532|168788643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
84518799|NCT01494532|168788643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
84518800|NCT01494532|168788643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
84518801|NCT01494532|168788644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
84518802|NCT01494532|168788644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
84466279|NCT02075255|168685813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.251|-0.040|0.153
84466280|NCT02075255|168685813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.258|-0.033|0.129
84466281|NCT02075255|168685814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.32|-0.35|0.947
84466282|NCT02075255|168685814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.16|-0.51|0.291
84466283|NCT02075255|168685815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.18|-0.18|0.998
84466284|NCT02075255|168685815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.05|-0.30|0.177
84466285|NCT02075255|168685816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.17|-0.17|0.973
84466286|NCT02075255|168685816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.23|0.480
84518803|NCT01494532|168788644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
84518804|NCT01494532|168788644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
84518805|NCT01494532|168788644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
84518806|NCT01494532|168788645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.998
84518807|NCT01494532|168788645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
84518808|NCT01494532|168788645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
84518809|NCT01494532|168788645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84518810|NCT01494532|168788645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
84518811|NCT01494532|168788646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
84518812|NCT01494532|168788646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.126
84518813|NCT01494532|168788646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
84518814|NCT01494532|168788646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.148
84518815|NCT01494532|168788646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
84518816|NCT01494532|168788647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
84518817|NCT01494532|168788647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
84518818|NCT01494532|168788647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.121
84518819|NCT01494532|168788647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
84518820|NCT01494532|168788647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.187
84518821|NCT01494532|168788648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
84518822|NCT01494532|168788648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
84518823|NCT01494532|168788648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
84466287|NCT02075255|168685817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.57|-1.44|0.397
84466288|NCT02075255|168685817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
84466289|NCT02075255|168685818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||45.07|-6.58|0.143
84466290|NCT02075255|168685818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.01||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|55.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||55.76|4.26|0.023
84466291|NCT02075255|168685819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|40.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||40.46|-10.08|0.237
84466292|NCT02075255|168685819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|56.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||56.71|6.32|0.014
84518824|NCT01494532|168788648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
84466293|NCT02075255|168685820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.08|0.742
84466294|NCT02075255|168685820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.07|-0.11|0.693
84466295|NCT02075255|168685821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-0.55|0.139
84466296|NCT02075255|168685821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.23|-0.86|0.001
84466297|NCT02075255|168685822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.295|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||2.295|0.592|0.658
84466298|NCT02075255|168685822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.340|0.826|0.155
84466299|NCT02075255|168685823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.53|-0.08|0.151
84466300|NCT02075255|168685823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.76|0.14|0.004
84466301|NCT02075255|168685824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.538||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.060|0.773|0.220
84466302|NCT02075255|168685824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.605|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.605|0.882|0.108
84466303|NCT02075255|168685828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.1|-104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit|Percent change|||-104.3|-220.1|<0.001
84466304|NCT02075255|168685828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-217.9|-100.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit.|Percent change|||-100.9|-217.9|<0.001
84466305|NCT01748760|168685836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.87
84466306|NCT00872898|168685838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-4.9|0.1197
84466307|NCT00872898|168685839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||7.0|-7.2|0.9781
84466308|NCT00872898|168685840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.5|-3.2|0.1459
84466309|NCT00872898|168685841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-1.9|0.1344
84466310|NCT00872898|168685842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.0|-1.5|0.7000
84466311|NCT00872898|168685843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.3|0.9069
84466312|NCT00872898|168685844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-1.2|0.4679
84466313|NCT00872898|168685845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9598
84466314|NCT00872898|168685846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9898
84466315|NCT00872898|168685847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.5||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.7|0.4228
84518825|NCT01494532|168788648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
84466316|NCT00872898|168685848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.4||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||2.5|0.2|0.0201
84466317|NCT00872898|168685849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.3|0.6889
84466318|NCT00872898|168685850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.2|-0.9|0.7481
84466319|NCT00872898|168685851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.2|0.9500
84466320|NCT03320512|168685865|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.04965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) Average Treatment Effect (ATE)||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.29|0.00|0.04965
84466321|NCT03320512|168685865|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.13|-0.21|0.62
84466322|NCT03320512|168685866|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.26|-0.03|0.11
84466323|NCT03320512|168685866|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.21|-0.08|0.38
84466324|NCT03320512|168685867|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.09|0.68
84466325|NCT03320512|168685867|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.25|-0.03|0.53
84466326|NCT03320512|168685868|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.15|-0.02|0.53
84466327|NCT03320512|168685868|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.12|-0.12|0.96
84466328|NCT03320512|168685869|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.0||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.00|-0.84|0.93
84466329|NCT03320512|168685869|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-1.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.91||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.91|-4.16|0.60
84466330|NCT03320512|168685870|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.73||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.48||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||2.48|-1.03|0.60
84466331|NCT03320512|168685870|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.04|-2.86|0.60
84466332|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.20|0.60
84466333|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.09|-0.21|0.60
84466334|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.03|-0.30|0.53
84466335|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.24|0.60
84466336|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.04|-0.25|0.53
84466337|NCT03320512|168685871|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.07|-0.20|0.60
84466338|NCT03320512|168685872|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.29|-0.07|
84466339|NCT03320512|168685872|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.34|0.03|
84466340|NCT03320512|168685872|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.15|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.15|-0.27|
84466341|NCT03320512|168685872|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.21|
84518826|NCT01494532|168788649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
84466342|NCT03320512|168685873|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.05|
84466343|NCT03320512|168685873|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.29|-0.04|
84466344|NCT03320512|168685873|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.08|
84466345|NCT03320512|168685873|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.13|
84466346|NCT03320512|168685874|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.02|0.11
84466347|NCT03320512|168685874|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
84466348|NCT03320512|168685875|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|8.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||17.83|0.07|0.05
84466349|NCT03320512|168685875|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-3.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|5.95|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||5.95|-13.33|0.45
84466350|NCT03320512|168685876|SUPERIORITY||Incremental cost effectiveness ratio|25.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.05|236.81|||||The confidence interval was created using percentile bootstrap.|Participants were included if they were at an active site with cost data and had a 3-month binary TFV measure.||236.81|-194.05|
84466351|NCT02428140|168685877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.42|1.45|0.003
84466352|NCT02428140|168685878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.9|3.4|.005
84466353|NCT02428140|168685879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.3|-1.0|0.28
84466354|NCT02428140|168685881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
84466355|NCT02428140|168685882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.2|
84466356|NCT02961764|168685890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.289|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.532|||Fisher Exact|||||0.532|0.156|<0.001
84466357|NCT02961764|168685891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.005
84466358|NCT02961764|168685892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.050
84466359|NCT02961764|168685894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
84466360|NCT00633139|168685944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4013
84466361|NCT00633139|168685945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2750
84466362|NCT00633139|168685946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1363
84466363|NCT02160977|168685947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84466364|NCT02160977|168685948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84466365|NCT02160977|168685949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84466366|NCT00128206|168685991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51|||>|0.05||95.0|0.13|2.01|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in toxicity by study group, and a sample of 360 participants (180 in each group)was estimated to have sufficient power to detect a difference.||2.01|.13|>.05
84466367|NCT03151148|168686038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.06|0.29|0.075
84466368|NCT03151148|168686039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.51|0.044
84466369|NCT03151148|168686040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.13|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.13|0.36|0.121
84466370|NCT03151148|168686041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.46|0.053
84466371|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.76||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|16.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.226|0.469|0.261
84466372|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.41||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|2.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.393|0.069|0.319
84466373|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|6.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.027|0.174|0.978
84466374|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.44||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|20.749|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.749|0.570|0.177
84466375|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.7||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|9.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.973|0.288|0.558
84466376|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.04||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|13.151|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.151|0.082|0.977
84466377|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|33.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|429.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||429.219|2.672|0.007
84466378|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.97||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|151.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||151.752|0.945|0.055
84466379|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.93||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|13.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.875|0.062|0.957
84466380|NCT03151148|168686046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|22.607|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||22.607|0.141|0.654
84466381|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.722||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2227|33.2594|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||33.2594|0.2227|0.432
84518827|NCT01494532|168788649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
84518828|NCT01494532|168788649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
84466382|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.147||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0121|1.8018|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.8018|0.0121|0.133
84466383|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.371||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0304|4.5392|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.5392|0.0304|0.437
84466384|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.247||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|15.5231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.5231|0.1002|0.863
84466385|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.615||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0503|7.5106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.5106|0.0503|0.702
84466386|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.465||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0128|16.8576|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.8576|0.0128|0.675
84466387|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|32.638||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8994|1184.4298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1184.4298|0.8994|0.057
84466388|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.539||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|418.7586|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||418.7586|0.3180|0.181
84466389|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.895||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|36.5559|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.5559|0.0219|0.953
84518829|NCT01494532|168788649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
84518830|NCT01494532|168788649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
84518831|NCT01494532|168788650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.734
84518832|NCT01494532|168788650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
84518833|NCT01494532|168788650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
84518834|NCT01494532|168788650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.123
84518835|NCT01494532|168788650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
84466390|NCT03151148|168686048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.719||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0474|62.3828|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||62.3828|0.0474|0.767
84466391|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.395||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5429|3.5835|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.5835|0.5429|0.488
84466392|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.823||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1038|7.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.2210|1.1038|0.030
84466393|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.077||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|5.3135|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.3135|0.8122|0.127
84466394|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.789||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3065|2.0331|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.0331|0.3065|0.623
84466395|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.627||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.6028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6028|0.2450|0.328
84466396|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.231||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5799|8.5866|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.5866|0.5799|0.242
84466397|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.977||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5137|7.6055|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.6055|0.5137|0.321
84518836|NCT01494532|168788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
84518837|NCT01494532|168788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
84518838|NCT01494532|168788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
84518839|NCT01494532|168788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
84518840|NCT01494532|168788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
84466398|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.86||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4833|7.1564|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.1564|0.4833|0.366
84466399|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.713||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|15.1856|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.1856|0.9080|0.068
84466400|NCT03151148|168686050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.858||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7328|11.1434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||11.1434|0.7328|0.130
84466401|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.16||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|20.952|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.952|0.476|0.233
84466402|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.08||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.514|0.012|0.008
84466403|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.298|0.007|0.001
84466404|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.651|0.013|0.017
84466405|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.292|0.007|0.001
84466406|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|15.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.967|0.366|0.358
84718126|NCT05288348|169187139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.56|||||Adjusted for heart rate|||4.56|0.02|
84718127|NCT05288348|169187140|SUPERIORITY||difference of proportion|0.135|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84518841|NCT01494532|168788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
84518842|NCT01494532|168788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
84518843|NCT01494532|168788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
84518844|NCT01494532|168788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
84518845|NCT01494532|168788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
84518846|NCT01494532|168788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
84518847|NCT01494532|168788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
84518848|NCT01494532|168788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
84518849|NCT01494532|168788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
84518850|NCT01494532|168788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
84518851|NCT01494532|168788654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
84518852|NCT01494532|168788654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
84518853|NCT01494532|168788654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
84518854|NCT01494532|168788654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
84518855|NCT01494532|168788654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
84518856|NCT01494532|168788655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
84518857|NCT01494532|168788655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
84518858|NCT01494532|168788655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
84518859|NCT01494532|168788655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
84518860|NCT01494532|168788655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
84518861|NCT01494532|168788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84518862|NCT01494532|168788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
84518863|NCT01494532|168788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
84718128|NCT05288348|169187141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||Regression, Cox|||||1.61|0.69|0.90
84518864|NCT01494532|168788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84518865|NCT01494532|168788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
84518866|NCT01494532|168788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
84518867|NCT01494532|168788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
84518868|NCT01494532|168788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
84718129|NCT05288348|169187141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted for Race and ISS||1.81|0.75|0.48
84718130|NCT05288348|169187143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||Non parametric General Addative Model|||||0.15|-0.15|0.99
84518869|NCT01494532|168788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
84518870|NCT01494532|168788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
84518871|NCT01494532|168788658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
84518872|NCT01494532|168788658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
84518873|NCT01494532|168788658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.170
84518874|NCT01494532|168788658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84518875|NCT01494532|168788658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
84518876|NCT01494532|168788659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.409
84518877|NCT01494532|168788659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.598
84518878|NCT01494532|168788659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
84518879|NCT01494532|168788659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
84518880|NCT01494532|168788659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.348
84518881|NCT00849797|168788661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|90.86||||||90.0|85.47|96.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.60|85.47|
84718131|NCT05288348|169187143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||Adjusted||0.15|-0.16|0.96
84466407|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.683|0.016|0.019
84466408|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.11||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.739|0.017|0.023
84466409|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.647|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.647|0.013|0.017
84518882|NCT00849797|168788662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.59|100.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.66|96.59|
84518883|NCT00849797|168788663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.74||||||90.0|96.71|100.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.80|96.71|
84518884|NCT00849797|168788664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.5||||||90.0|95.66|100.48|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||100.48|95.66|
84518885|NCT00849797|168788665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.29||||||90.0|98.96|101.64|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.64|98.96|
84518886|NCT00849797|168788666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.08||||||90.0|98.91|101.27|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.27|98.91|
84518887|NCT00829764|168788685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.52||||||90.0|88.49|98.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.83|88.49|
84518888|NCT00829764|168788686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75||||||90.0|93.98|101.67|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.67|93.98|
84518889|NCT00829764|168788687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.46||||||90.0|94.78|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|94.78|
84518890|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||4.96e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000496
84518891|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000103
84518892|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0004398
84518893|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||6.8e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000068
84518894|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000002
84518895|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||9.26e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000926
84518896|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0015450
84518897|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0004632
84518898|NCT03247686|168788710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12||||0.0096960
84718132|NCT05288348|169187144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||||0.16|-0.17|0.84
84466410|NCT03151148|168686051|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.37||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|2.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.436|0.056|0.299
84466411|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|5.380|0.415|0.538
84466412|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.180|0.245|0.849
84466413|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.424|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.424|0.110|0.155
84466414|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.45||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|1.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.722|0.117|0.242
84466415|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.47||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.735|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.735|0.129|0.258
84466416|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.26||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.520|0.349|0.726
84466417|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.145|0.088|0.080
84518899|NCT03247686|168788711|EQUIVALENCE|Two sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in change from baseline (95% CI)||1.34|-6.34|0.180
84518900|NCT03930849|168788731|OTHER||F-value for Type 3 Fixed, df=4|2.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time term in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.10
84518901|NCT03930849|168788732|SUPERIORITY||F statistic GroupxTime, df=4|0.025||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time analysis in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.90
84518902|NCT03930849|168788733|SUPERIORITY||F Value Group x Time, DF=4|2.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of F statistic reported below for mixed methods analysis group\*time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84718133|NCT05288348|169187144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.16|-0.19|0.84
84466418|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.81||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.917|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.917|0.225|0.748
84466419|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.23||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|4.617|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.617|0.327|0.760
84466420|NCT03151148|168686052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.832|0.219|0.713
84466421|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.524|41.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||41.435|3.524|<0.001
84466422|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.58||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|8.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.853|0.753|0.131
84466423|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.527|0.640|0.210
84466424|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|13.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.290|1.138|0.031
84466425|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.64||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.630|0.479|0.429
84466426|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|9.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.712|50.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||50.043|1.712|0.010
84540565|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|10.5||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||10.5|-12.6|
84718134|NCT05288348|169187145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.22|-0.17|0.81
84466427|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|18.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||18.627|0.637|0.150
84466428|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|5.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|29.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||29.578|1.012|0.048
84466429|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|23.821|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||23.821|0.665|0.130
84466430|NCT03151148|168686053|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|13.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.542|74.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||74.304|2.542|0.002
84466431|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|8.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.028|1.689|0.001
84466432|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|5.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.267|1.109|0.027
84466433|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.847|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.847|0.810|0.153
84466434|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|3.884|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.884|0.799|0.160
84540566|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|11.4||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.4|-11.5|
84718135|NCT05288348|169187145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.22|-0.20|0.91
84718136|NCT05288348|169187146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.18|-0.25|0.74
84718137|NCT05288348|169187146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.18|-0.30|0.63
84466435|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|2.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.868|0.603|0.489
84466436|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|9.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.295|1.032|0.044
84466437|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.87||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.614|0.290|0.805
84466438|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|10.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||10.859|1.205|0.022
84466439|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|15.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.978|1.458|0.010
84466440|NCT03151148|168686054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.19||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|6.692|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.692|0.716|0.169
84466441|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.176||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0351|0.8807|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.8807|0.0351|0.035
84466442|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.214||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0427|1.0702|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0702|0.0427|0.060
84518903|NCT01251393|168788737|EQUIVALENCE|"The comparisons between the placebo and the biperiden groups at baseline were performed by means of the independent t-Test. We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.~We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack."|||||<|0.05||||||We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack.|ANOVA|||We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.||||<0.05
84540567|NCT01512160|168832364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|19.1||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||19.1|-4.0|
84518904|NCT01541215|168788738|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c~Superiority of liraglutide over placebo was to be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was entirely below 0%, implying that the two sided p-value was less than 5%."|Treatment difference|-1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|-0.464|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for week 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.464|-1.653|<0.001
84466443|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.182||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0363|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.9100|0.0363|0.038
84466444|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.329||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|1.6691|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6691|0.0650|0.179
84466445|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.136||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0271|0.6805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.6805|0.0271|0.015
84466446|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.302||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0299|3.0493|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.0493|0.0299|0.309
84466447|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.372||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|3.7569|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.7569|0.0369|0.401
84466448|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.591||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0586|5.9658|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.9658|0.0586|0.655
84466449|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.43||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0395|4.6836|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.6836|0.0395|0.488
84518905|NCT01541215|168788739|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-1.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.093|-0.662|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.662|-3.093|0.002
84466450|NCT03151148|168686055|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.485||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1471|14.9869|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||14.9869|0.1471|0.737
84466451|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.248||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0844|0.7281|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.7281|0.0844|0.011
84466452|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.656||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2245|1.9178|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.9178|0.2245|0.440
84466453|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.479||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.4007|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4007|0.1640|0.178
84466454|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.478||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1624|1.4091|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4091|0.1624|0.180
84466455|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.357||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1222|1.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0441|0.1222|0.060
84466456|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.498||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1068|2.3188|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.3188|0.1068|0.373
84518906|NCT01541215|168788740|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: HbA1c \< 7.0% after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment odds ratio|5.353|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|13.615|||logistic regression model|||Missing data was imputed using pattern mixture model. For each imputed data set the binary response was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link with treatment and stratification group (gender\*age group) as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.The estimated treatment effects and confidence intervals were combined using Rubin´s formula.||13.615|2.105|<0.001
84518907|NCT01541215|168788741|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Change from baseline in BMI SDS after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.06|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||0.060|-0.153|0.392
84518908|NCT01127087|168788842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB Calcium oxalate (CaOx) Stone Formers arm.||||0.027
84466457|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.281||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0604|1.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.3106|0.0604|0.106
84466458|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.168||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2507|5.4434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.4434|0.2507|0.843
84466459|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.559||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3122|7.7818|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.7818|0.3122|0.587
84466460|NCT03151148|168686056|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.707||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1495|3.3426|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.3426|0.1495|0.661
84466461|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1197.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|525.563|2726.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2726.953|525.563|<0.001
84466462|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|779.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|342.093|1774.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1774.996|342.093|<0.001
84466463|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|673.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|295.697|1534.265|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1534.265|295.697|<0.001
84466464|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|60.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.92|145.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|145.027|24.920|<0.001
84466465|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.79||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.636|8.767|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.767|1.636|0.002
84518909|NCT01127087|168788842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.14
84466466|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|757.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.143|1732.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1732.242|331.143|<0.001
84466467|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|199.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.636|455.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||455.127|87.636|<0.001
84466468|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|508.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.113|1158.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|1158.715|223.113|<0.001
84466469|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|107.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.568|255.313|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||255.313|45.568|<0.001
84466470|NCT03151148|168686057|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.058|36.657|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.657|7.058|<0.001
84466471|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|142.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.484|349.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||349.119|58.484|<0.001
84466472|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|35.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.402|85.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||85.972|14.402|<0.001
84466473|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|41.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.043|101.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||101.739|17.043|<0.001
84466474|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|9.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.330|1.395|0.008
84518910|NCT01127087|168788843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.018
84518911|NCT01127087|168788843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.06
84466475|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.39||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|3.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.458|0.561|0.474
84466476|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|266.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.86|654.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||654.231|108.860|<0.001
84466477|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.907|124.768|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||124.768|20.907|<0.001
84466478|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|74.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.686|183.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||183.125|30.686|<0.001
84466479|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|26.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.262|66.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||66.169|10.262|<0.001
84466480|NCT03151148|168686058|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|8.338|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.338|1.397|0.007
84466481|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.692|120.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||120.379|21.692|<0.001
84466482|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.463|30.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||30.317|5.463|<0.001
84518912|NCT00828321|168788873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.16||||||90.0|85.08|104.21|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.21|85.08|
84518913|NCT00828321|168788874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.21|108.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.6|96.21|
84466483|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|26.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||26.986|4.863|<0.001
84466484|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|6.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.024|0.971|0.058
84466485|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.805|0.315|0.526
84466486|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|131.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||131.279|23.490|<0.001
84466487|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|27.755|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.755|5.000|<0.001
84466488|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|23.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.833|54.579|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||54.579|9.833|<0.001
84466489|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.516|27.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.052|4.516|<0.001
84466490|NCT03151148|168686059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.724|1.031|0.042
84518914|NCT00828321|168788875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.34|108.58|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.58|96.34|
84466491|NCT00494871|168686065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.0|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.87|0.025
84466492|NCT00494871|168686066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.0||||||||1.00|0.24|
84466493|NCT00494871|168686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.22||||||||1.22|0.34|
84466494|NCT00494871|168686068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34||||||||1.34|0.41|
84466495|NCT00494871|168686069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98||||||||0.98|0.22|
84466496|NCT00494871|168686070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.85||||||||15.85|0.06|
84466497|NCT00494871|168686071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.16||||||||28.16|0.30|
84466498|NCT00494871|168686072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.7||||||||14.70|0.60|
84466499|NCT00494871|168686073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.4||||||||1.40|0.16|
84466500|NCT00494871|168686074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.31||||||||4.31|0.43|
84466501|NCT00494871|168686075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.43||||||||1.43|0.50|
84466502|NCT00494871|168686076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56||||||||1.56|0.92|
84466503|NCT03918642|168686077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.83|-2.35|<0.001
84466504|NCT03918642|168686078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.78|0.01
84466505|NCT03918642|168686079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|0.12|<0.001
84518915|NCT00828321|168788876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.52||||||90.0|92.63|104.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.79|92.63|
84518916|NCT00828321|168788877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.45||||||90.0|94.66|100.32|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.32|94.66|
84466506|NCT03918642|168686080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-3.30|0.14
84466507|NCT03918642|168686081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.42|-1.99|0.85
84466508|NCT03918642|168686082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-5.88|0.03
84466509|NCT03918642|168686083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-4.33|0.02
84466510|NCT03918642|168686084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-4.30|0.006
84466511|NCT03918642|168686085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-4.34|0.11
84466512|NCT03918642|168686086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-8.44|0.03
84466513|NCT03918642|168686087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-7.83|0.07
84466514|NCT03918642|168686088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.10|0.36|0.005
84466515|NCT03918642|168686089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-0.40|0.17
84518917|NCT02997176|168788878|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.92|252.98||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||252.98|79.92|
84518918|NCT02997176|168788878|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|110.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|223.85||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||223.85|54.58|
84518919|NCT02997176|168788879|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|109.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|169.84||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||169.84|70.93|
84466516|NCT03918642|168686090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-4.14|0.11
84466517|NCT03918642|168686091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-5.73|0.11
84466518|NCT03918642|168686092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-2.33|0.33
84466519|NCT03918642|168686093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-1.74|0.69
84466520|NCT03918642|168686094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|0.77|<0.001
84466521|NCT03918642|168686095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.62|<0.001
84466522|NCT03918642|168686096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|99.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.56|4.66|<0.001
84466523|NCT03918642|168686097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|1.74|0.006
84466524|NCT03918642|168686098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|58.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.25|2.38|0.002
84466525|NCT03918642|168686099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|43.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.67|0.99|0.05
84466526|NCT03918642|168686100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|225.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||225.44|0.86|0.06
84466527|NCT03918642|168686101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|89.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.30|0.35|0.22
84466528|NCT00972244|168686109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0987|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
84466529|NCT00972244|168686109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.26|-0.65|<0.0001
84466530|NCT00972244|168686109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.53|-0.92|<0.0001
84466531|NCT00972244|168686109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.59|-0.99|<0.0001
84466532|NCT00972244|168686110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-16.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-16.70|-35.45|<0.0001
84466533|NCT00972244|168686110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-20.14||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-20.14|-38.70|<0.0001
84466534|NCT00972244|168686110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|-23.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.60|-42.28|<0.0001
84518920|NCT02997176|168788879|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.14|224.74||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||224.74|77.14|
84466535|NCT00972244|168686110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8358|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-31.85||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-31.85|-50.90|<0.0001
84466536|NCT00972244|168686111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.6||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||7.6|-9.1|1.0000
84466537|NCT00972244|168686111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.8||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||18.8|-2.3|0.2057
84466538|NCT00972244|168686111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.2||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||13.2|-6.2|0.6203
84466539|NCT00972244|168686111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||19.5|-2.0|0.2050
84466540|NCT00090285|168686112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|90.6||||||95.0|70.1|98.2|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||98.2|70.1|
84466541|NCT00090285|168686120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|77.5||||||95.0|39.6|93.3||||||||93.3|39.6|
84518921|NCT02997176|168788880|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|149.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|243.93||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||243.93|91.49|
84518922|NCT02997176|168788880|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|202.43||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||202.43|60.91|
84518923|NCT02997176|168788881|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|115.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.95|170.6||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.6|77.95|
84518924|NCT02997176|168788881|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|132.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|213.67||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||213.67|81.87|
84466542|NCT00090285|168686121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|85.5||||||95.0|77.0|91.3|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||91.3|77.0|
84466543|NCT00090285|168686122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|51.0||||||95.0|40.3|59.9|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||59.9|40.3|
84466544|NCT04498910|168686138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.2|-3.6|
84466545|NCT04498910|168686139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.0|-4.2|
84466546|NCT02345434|168686163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|13.4||||||||13.4|-6.35|
84466547|NCT02345434|168686164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.68|
84466548|NCT00532883|168686183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||This is a global test comparing all four treatment arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||F-test from a longitudinal mixed model (controlling for baseline measurement)testing the hypothesis of no difference in mean percent dense cells between the four treatment groups at Visit 6. The study was originally powered to detect a difference of 20%, but it was stopped early.||||0.93
84466549|NCT01327339|168686184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||7.8|4.3|
84466550|NCT02795767|168686232|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.023|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.023|0.006|
84466551|NCT02795767|168686233|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.21|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.210|0.051|
84466552|NCT00477451|168686317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84466553|NCT00477451|168686318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.368
84466554|NCT00477451|168686319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.207
84466555|NCT03245814|168686322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.42|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline score \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.42|0.12|<.001
84466556|NCT03245814|168686323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.40|0.11|<.001
84466557|NCT03245814|168686324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.86|0.23|.02
84466558|NCT03245814|168686325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.5|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.50|0.13|<.001
84466559|NCT03245814|168686326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.64|0.18|.001
84466560|NCT03245814|168686327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.45|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||5.45|1.47|.003
84466561|NCT03245814|168686328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.48|0.12|<.001
84466562|NCT03245814|168686329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.38|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.38|2.00|<.001
84466563|NCT03245814|168686330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|8.83|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||8.83|2.28|<.001
84466564|NCT03245814|168686331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.40|1.88|<.001
84466565|NCT03245814|168686332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.47|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||4.47|1.22|.02
84466566|NCT03245814|168686333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.75|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.75|0.20|.009
84466567|NCT03245814|168686334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects regression models to account for repeated measures (multiple assessments per day) within individuals.||||||0.002
84466568|NCT00510692|168686347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.78|0.005
84466569|NCT00784784|168686356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||That in a year with mismatch between influenza vaccine antigen and infecting H3N2 strain, seasonal (10-13 weeks) antiviral prophylaxis in adults will provide better protection from symptomatic influenza infection than trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine.||4.8|0.01|0.25
84466570|NCT02099799|168686362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
84466571|NCT02099799|168686363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.572
84466572|NCT02099799|168686364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.799
84466573|NCT02099799|168686365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1312.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84466574|NCT02099799|168686366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2265
84466575|NCT02099799|168686367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8897
84466576|NCT03290300|168686368|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with multiple comparisons to baseline||||||<0.0001
84466577|NCT02746679|168686398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
84466578|NCT02746679|168686399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84466579|NCT02746679|168686400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84466580|NCT02746679|168686401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
84466581|NCT02746679|168686402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
84466582|NCT02746679|168686403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
84466583|NCT02746679|168686404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.003
84466584|NCT02746679|168686405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.024
84518925|NCT02997176|168788882|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.19|181.66||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||181.66|85.19|
84518926|NCT02997176|168788882|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|113.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|174.07||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||174.07|73.90|
84466585|NCT02746679|168686406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.004
84466586|NCT02746679|168686407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
84466587|NCT02746679|168686408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
84466588|NCT02746679|168686409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.277
84466589|NCT02746679|168686410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
84466590|NCT04036136|168686418|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Model covariates are Baseline SHAPS, age, and sex.||1.68|-2.41|0.724
84466591|NCT04036136|168686419|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.038|||Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.038|-0.124|0.292
84466592|NCT04036136|168686420|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.148||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.02||The equivalence margin is 0.|Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.020|-0.316|0.084
84466593|NCT00515463|168686424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Risk difference \> 0 indicates that incidence of binding anti-denosumab antibodies in denosumab PFS is greater than denosumab vial. 95% CI based on a normal approximation with continuity correction.|||0.7|-0.7|
84466594|NCT00515463|168686425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7||||||||0.7|-0.7|
84518927|NCT02997176|168788882|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|95.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|134.83||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.83|67.90|
84518928|NCT02997176|168788883|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.74|170.8||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.80|57.74|
84466595|NCT00916721|168686498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple significance testing:we adjusted p-value by controlling the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses:false discovery rate,Benjamini||||||0.05
84466596|NCT01797029|168686501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84466597|NCT02101411|168686517|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and MACE rate at 24 months were compared using the Chi-squared test. was recorded.||||0.002
84466598|NCT02101411|168686517|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||||0.002
84466599|NCT02026908|168686571|OTHER|Paired T- test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||A p-value was calculated. Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.0001
84466600|NCT02026908|168686572|OTHER|Paired t test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
84518929|NCT02997176|168788883|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|96.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.22|178.14||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||178.14|52.22|
84518930|NCT02997176|168788883|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|64.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.65|103.46||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||103.46|39.65|
84518931|NCT02997176|168788886|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.81|167.47||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||167.47|83.81|
84518932|NCT02997176|168788886|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|108.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.25|160.3||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||160.30|73.25|
84518933|NCT02997176|168788886|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|162.83||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||162.83|85.29|
84466601|NCT02026908|168686573|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
84518934|NCT02997176|168788887|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.74|157.64||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||157.64|56.74|
84518935|NCT02997176|168788887|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.69|164.26||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||164.26|51.69|
84518936|NCT02997176|168788887|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|84.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.14|134.1||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.10|53.14|
84466602|NCT02026908|168686574|OTHER|Paired T Test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84518937|NCT01630616|168788925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/adults)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.26||||||||1.26|0.62|
84518938|NCT01630616|168788926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
84518939|NCT01630616|168788927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
84518940|NCT04406194|168788938|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean Ratio|0.9684||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.9977|||ANOVA|||||0.9977|0.9400|0.0000
84518941|NCT04406194|168788939|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean Ratio|1.0555||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9292|1.1989|||ANOVA|||||1.1989|0.9292|0.0155
84518942|NCT04406194|168788940|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean Ratio|0.9719||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.0006|||ANOVA|||||1.0006|0.9440|0.0000
84518943|NCT00385736|168788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.031
84518944|NCT00385736|168788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.833
84518945|NCT00385736|168788951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.107
84518946|NCT00385736|168788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.382
84518947|NCT00385736|168788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
84518948|NCT00385736|168788954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84518949|NCT00385736|168788955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.080
84518950|NCT00385736|168788956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
84518951|NCT00385736|168788957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.526
84518952|NCT00385736|168788958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.506
84518953|NCT00385736|168788959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
84518954|NCT00385736|168788960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.797
84518955|NCT00385736|168788961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.614
84518956|NCT00385736|168788962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.532
84518957|NCT00506831|168789026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the mRSS is not significantly different at month 6 compared with baseline. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean mRSS at month 6 compared with baseline.||||0.005
84466603|NCT02026908|168686575|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.008
84718138|NCT01260896|169187149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|113.54|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.54|100.54|
84718139|NCT01260896|169187150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|110.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.55|100.37|
84726557|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.0|-4.6|
84466604|NCT05057988|168686602|OTHER|paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|0.53|<.001
84466605|NCT05057988|168686603|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.17||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-1.42|.208
84466606|NCT05057988|168686604|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|0.52|<.001
84466607|NCT05057988|168686605|OTHER|Paired t test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.65||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.47|-.84|.328
84466608|NCT05057988|168686606|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.16|1.26|<.001
84466609|NCT05057988|168686607|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.53|-1.22|.486
84466610|NCT05057988|168686608|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.57||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.99|-2.46|.832
84466611|NCT05057988|168686609|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-1.33|.340
84466612|NCT05057988|168686611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t test||paired sample t test||0.89|-0.34|0.370
84466613|NCT05057988|168686611|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.89|-.34|.370
84466614|NCT02385123|168686613|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466615|NCT02385123|168686614|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466616|NCT02385123|168686615|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466617|NCT02385123|168686616|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people|||
84518958|NCT01410227|168789038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis of the rate of subjects with a treatment success of \<= 0.65 (H0: p \<= 0.65) versus an alternative hypothesis of \> 0.65 (HA: p \> 0.65) was tested at the 5% one-sided level of significance. The proportion of subjects with treatment success under the alternative hypothesis was expected to be approximately 0.90. If 20 subjects were treated, the study provided 86% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Clopper-Pearson|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.7|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||||100|84.7|
84540568|NCT01512160|168832365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|16.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||16.1|-15.6|
84466618|NCT02385123|168686617|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466619|NCT02385123|168686618|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466620|NCT02385123|168686619|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466621|NCT02385123|168686620|OTHER|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466622|NCT02385123|168686621|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466623|NCT02385123|168686622|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84518959|NCT00835614|168789148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.9||||||90.0|87.5|94.4|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.4|87.5|
84540569|NCT01512160|168832365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|14.8||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||14.8|-16.5|
84466624|NCT02385123|168686623|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466625|NCT02385123|168686624|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466626|NCT02385123|168686625|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466627|NCT02385123|168686626|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466628|NCT02385123|168686628|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466629|NCT02385123|168686629|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466630|NCT02385123|168686630|OTHER|Single group analysis.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466631|NCT02385123|168686631|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466632|NCT02385123|168686632|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466633|NCT02385123|168686633|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466634|NCT02385123|168686634|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
84466635|NCT01397071|168686711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in PAT measurements was made to beef alone vs. beef with avocado 2 hours post-ingestion||||0.052
84466636|NCT01397071|168686712|OTHER||% of baseline|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance is defined as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to beef patty alone vs. beef patty with avocado added 3 hours post-ingestion.||||0.03
84466637|NCT02145156|168686713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.36
84466638|NCT02145156|168686713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.18
84466639|NCT02145156|168686713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.22
84466640|NCT02145156|168686713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
84466641|NCT02145156|168686714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
84466642|NCT02145156|168686714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84466643|NCT02145156|168686714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
84466644|NCT02145156|168686714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
84466645|NCT02145156|168686715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84466646|NCT02145156|168686715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
84466647|NCT02145156|168686715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
84466648|NCT02145156|168686715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
84466649|NCT02145156|168686716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
84466650|NCT02145156|168686716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.52
84466651|NCT02145156|168686716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.71
84466652|NCT02145156|168686716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
84466653|NCT02145156|168686717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84466654|NCT02145156|168686717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.15
84466655|NCT02145156|168686717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.98
84466656|NCT02145156|168686717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
84466657|NCT02145156|168686718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84466658|NCT02145156|168686718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
84466659|NCT02145156|168686718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
84466660|NCT02145156|168686718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
84466661|NCT02145156|168686719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
84466662|NCT02145156|168686719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84466663|NCT02145156|168686719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
84466664|NCT02145156|168686719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
84466665|NCT02145156|168686720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
84466666|NCT02145156|168686720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
84466667|NCT02145156|168686720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84466668|NCT02145156|168686720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
84466669|NCT02145156|168686721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84466670|NCT02145156|168686721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84466671|NCT02145156|168686721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84466672|NCT02145156|168686721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84466673|NCT02145156|168686722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84466674|NCT02145156|168686722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84466675|NCT02145156|168686722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84466676|NCT02145156|168686722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
84466677|NCT02145156|168686723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
84466678|NCT02145156|168686723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
84466679|NCT02145156|168686723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84466680|NCT02145156|168686723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84466681|NCT02145156|168686724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84466682|NCT02145156|168686724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
84466683|NCT02145156|168686724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84518960|NCT00835614|168789149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.1||||||90.0|90.3|93.9|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||93.9|90.3|
84466684|NCT02145156|168686724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84466685|NCT02417233|168686736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.62|0.848
84466686|NCT02417233|168686736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.90|0.125
84466687|NCT02417233|168686737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.48|0.636
84466688|NCT02417233|168686737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.401||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.87|0.165
84466689|NCT02417233|168686738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|0.86|0.16
84466690|NCT02417233|168686738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.06|0.03
84466691|NCT02417233|168686739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.03|0.24
84466692|NCT02417233|168686739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.16|0.59|0.20
84718140|NCT01260896|169187151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|108.73|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.73|97.80|
84466693|NCT02417233|168686740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.943||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.90|0.093
84466694|NCT02417233|168686740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.764||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.81|0.152
84540570|NCT01512160|168832365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||25.1|-6.6|
84466695|NCT01600131|168686754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.693
84466696|NCT01600131|168686755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.693
84466697|NCT01600131|168686756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.055
84466698|NCT01600131|168686757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.346
84466699|NCT01600131|168686759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.688|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.688
84466700|NCT01600131|168686760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.418|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.418
84466701|NCT01600131|168686761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.180
84466702|NCT01600131|168686762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.332
84466703|NCT01600131|168686763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.318
84466704|NCT01600131|168686764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.077
84466705|NCT01600131|168686765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.305
84466706|NCT01600131|168686768|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.514|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.514
84466707|NCT01600131|168686769|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.090
84466708|NCT01600131|168686770|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.009
84466709|NCT01600131|168686771|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.225
84466710|NCT01600131|168686772|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.443
84466711|NCT01600131|168686773|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.158
84466712|NCT01600131|168686774|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.046
84718141|NCT01260896|169187152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.29|119.35|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||119.35|109.29|
84726558|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-2.9|
84466713|NCT01600131|168686775|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.149
84466714|NCT01600131|168686776|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.034
84466715|NCT01600131|168686777|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.846
84466716|NCT01600131|168686778|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||.0442
84466717|NCT01600131|168686779|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.293
84466718|NCT02487745|168686810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
84466719|NCT02487745|168686811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
84466720|NCT00406315|168686822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16.||||
84466721|NCT00406315|168686822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16 LOCF. Based on past information, the standard deviation of the mean weight difference was expected to be 2.2. The sample size of the study was estimated so that the one-sided CI of the mean weight decrease has a certain width. To obtain a one-sided CI with a width of 0.27 kg, a sample size of 180 subjects was needed. In other words, we were 95% certain that the true mean weight decrease was in an interval starting from the observed weight decrease and extending 0.27 kg unit above it.||||
84466722|NCT00406315|168686823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.41||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.41|-8.48|
84466723|NCT00406315|168686824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.44||||||HDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||1.44|-1.82|
84466724|NCT00406315|168686824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.09||||||LDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.09|-7.07|
84466725|NCT00406315|168686824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|13.15||||||Triglycerides. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||13.15|-16.44|
84466726|NCT00406315|168686825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.14|-0.02|
84466727|NCT00406315|168686826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|6.15||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.15|-0.09|
84466728|NCT00406315|168686827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|134.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.43|289.98||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||289.98|-20.43|
84466729|NCT00406315|168686828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.11||||||Waist. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-5.93|
84466730|NCT00406315|168686828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Hip. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.10|-6.20|
84466731|NCT00406315|168686829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42||||||Total Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.42|-0.32|
84466732|NCT00406315|168686829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Global Severity Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-0.05|
84466733|NCT00406315|168686829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Global Incapacitation Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.07|-0.06|
84466734|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-7.75||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-7.75|-12.70|
84466735|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-4.63||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-4.63|-8.59|
84466736|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.53||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.53|-4.07|
84466737|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.83||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.03|
84466738|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.99||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.36|
84466739|NCT00406315|168686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.35||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.35|-1.48|
84466740|NCT00406315|168686831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.61||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.61|-0.90|
84466741|NCT00406315|168686831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.36|-0.58|
84466742|NCT00406315|168686832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|2.88||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.88|2.52|
84466743|NCT00406315|168686832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.34||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||3.34|3.02|
84466744|NCT00406315|168686833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.83||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.27|
84718142|NCT01260896|169187153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.84|111.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.79|104.84|
84466745|NCT00406315|168686833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.99||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.16|
84466746|NCT00406315|168686834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-3.26||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-3.26|-5.95|
84466747|NCT00406315|168686834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.85||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.85|-5.57|
84466748|NCT00406315|168686834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||||||Global Rating, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.73|-1.31|
84466749|NCT00406315|168686834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.63||||||Global Rating, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.63|-1.13|
84466750|NCT00406315|168686835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|9.69||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.69|6.07|
84466751|NCT00406315|168686835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.65||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.65|3.89|
84466752|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
84466753|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
84466754|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
84466755|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
84466756|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
84466757|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
84466758|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
84466759|NCT00406315|168686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
84466760|NCT00321984|168686852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84466761|NCT00321984|168686852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84466762|NCT00321984|168686852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72941||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.72941
84466763|NCT00321984|168686854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84718143|NCT01260896|169187154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.85|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.85|92.92|
84466764|NCT00321984|168686854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
84466765|NCT00321984|168686854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3146||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31460
84466766|NCT01469013|168686856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84466767|NCT01469013|168686858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.009
84466768|NCT00076219|168686876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.86|0.47
84466769|NCT05232097|168686877|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the median of differences of the rumination score before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.005
84466770|NCT05232097|168686878|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the same number of patients has intragastric pressure peaks indicating rumination before and after therapy.||||0.11
84466771|NCT05232097|168686879|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The differences of means of 15D before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.060
84466772|NCT05232097|168686880|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The median of differences of WHODAS 2.0 before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.865
84466773|NCT05232097|168686881|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis : the differences of median BDI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||0.149
84466774|NCT05232097|168686882|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median of BAI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||1.000
84466775|NCT05232097|168686883|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median weight before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.102
84466776|NCT02553915|168686889|OTHER|Comparisons were made for each biomarker within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.|||||<|0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||To evaluate whether a dose-response relationship exists between dose of EPA and decrease either in plasma IL-6 levels or in mitogen-stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression and secretion, when compared with placebo. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]. Comparisons were made within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.10
84466777|NCT02553915|168686890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"To evaluate:~1. whether EPA treatment produces a decrease in ratings of depression severity, when compared with placebo-treated subjects; and~2. whether the changes in IL-6 or mitogen- stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression mediate changes observed in ratings of depression.~\[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]"||||<0.1
84466778|NCT02553915|168686891|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in IDS-C30 scores were compared pre and post 12 weeks of treatment with each intervention, within each arm.||||<0.01
84466779|NCT02553915|168686892|OTHER|Exploratory.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in mitogen-stimulated PBMC IL-6. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] Comparisons were made between pre and post treatment levels in each of the 4 treatment arms.||||<0.1
84466780|NCT02553915|168686893|OTHER|Exploratory|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in the expression of inflammation pathway-related genes. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] (We evaluated gene expression of IL-6 and TNF-α.)||||<0.1
84466781|NCT00700752|168686895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.1636|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus balafilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A for comfort.||1.1636|0.7890|
84466782|NCT03303339|168686896|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84466783|NCT01426386|168686909|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|10.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Number of oocytes retrieved as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||10.18|5.69|<0.001
84466784|NCT01426386|168686910|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|15.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Follicular volume as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||15.48|6.78|<0.001
84466785|NCT01426386|168686911|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Log(estradiol) as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor, log(dose) and log(baseline estradiol) as covariates||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||1.11|0.56|<0.001
84466786|NCT01426386|168686913|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.78||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Fertilised oocytes as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||4.78|1.71|<0.001
84466787|NCT01426386|168686915|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using the chi-squared test.||||||0.248||||||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|Chi-squared|||||||0.248
84466788|NCT02116972|168686934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.07|||Logitudinal mixed effects model|||The step-down testing procedure to control for multiplicity would be voided if the primary endpoint is not met and analyses proceeded for exploratory purposes.||0.07|-1.22|0.0821
84466789|NCT03461289|168687000|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 (26.1%) babies were alive and did not need mechanical ventilation at 14 months of age.|0.87|0.48|<0.0001
84466790|NCT00492401|168687017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of miR-29b in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.02
84466791|NCT00492401|168687017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of DNMT3a in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.06
84466792|NCT00121810|168687132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.012||95.0|4.2|33.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that mean percent change from baseline to 12 months for Group 1 (mycophenolate mofetil + sirolimus) was equal to that for Group 2 (mycophenolate mofetil + cyclosporine or tacrolimus) based on the intent-to-treat population.||33.2|4.2|0.012
84466793|NCT00121810|168687133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.543||95.0|-9.6|18.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) type as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||18.2|-9.6|0.543
84466794|NCT00121810|168687134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.8||||0.003||95.0|-17.9|-3.7||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||-3.7|-17.9|0.003
84466795|NCT00121810|168687134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0||||0.108||95.0|-35.4|3.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||3.5|-35.4|0.108
84466796|NCT00121810|168687134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.4||||0.039||95.0|-47.7|-1.2||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||-1.2|-47.7|0.039
84466797|NCT00121810|168687135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001||95.0|4.1|13.3||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||13.3|4.1|<0.001
84466798|NCT00121810|168687135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.029||95.0|0.7|13.1||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||13.1|0.7|0.029
84466799|NCT00121810|168687135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||0.015||95.0|1.7|15.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||15.9|1.7|0.015
84466800|NCT00121810|168687136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.2|12.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||12.9|4.2|<0.001
84466801|NCT00121810|168687136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.059||95.0|-0.2|11.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||11.9|-0.2|0.059
84466802|NCT00121810|168687136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.036||95.0|0.5|14.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||14.5|0.5|0.036
84466803|NCT02260193|168687139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.25|
84466804|NCT02260193|168687139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
84466805|NCT02260193|168687139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.48|
84466806|NCT02260193|168687140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.54|
84466807|NCT02260193|168687140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.49|
84466808|NCT02260193|168687140|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66||||||||0.66|-0.53|
84466809|NCT02260193|168687141|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.71|
84466810|NCT02260193|168687141|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29||||||||0.29|-0.50|
84466811|NCT02260193|168687141|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.16|
84540571|NCT01512160|168832366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.5|
84466812|NCT01377467|168687172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.137|6.98|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|We calculated that a sample size of 43 patients per group would provide a statistical power of 86% to detect a 4% difference in the percentage change of areal BMD at the total lumbar spine at 12 months, using a two-sided t-test with an α-level of 0.05 and assuming a mean ± SD change of 4 ± 6% in the denosumab group and 0 ± 6% in the control group. To account for a dropout rate of 5%, it was planned to randomize a total of 90 patients.||6.980|3.137|<0.001
84466813|NCT01377467|168687173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|3.659|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.659|0.132|0.035
84466814|NCT01377467|168687174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.329|3.447|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.447|-1.329|0.380
84466815|NCT01377467|168687175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.975|6.178|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||6.178|2.975|<0.001
84466816|NCT01377467|168687176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.072|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.072|0.440|0.009
84466817|NCT01377467|168687177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|4.193|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||4.193|-0.122|0.064
84466818|NCT01377467|168687178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|10.466|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p=0.007. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.002. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
84466819|NCT01377467|168687179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|275622.016|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.012. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
84466820|NCT01377467|168687180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.717||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p\<0.001. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.014
84466821|NCT01377467|168687181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.707||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.068
84466822|NCT01377467|168687182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|99952.126||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.114
84726559|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||9.4|-4.8|
84466823|NCT01377467|168687183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|84.83||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.593. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.578
84466824|NCT01377467|168687184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|248.686||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.296. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.607
84466825|NCT01377467|168687185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.342||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
84466826|NCT01377467|168687186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.049||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84466827|NCT01377467|168687187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-0.937||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
84466828|NCT01377467|168687188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.752||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84466829|NCT01377467|168687189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.166||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84466830|NCT01377467|168687190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.288||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
84466831|NCT01377467|168687191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.64||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
84466832|NCT01377467|168687192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.991||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84466833|NCT00336492|168687195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.146
84466834|NCT03103750|168687202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary hypothesis of calcitriol-related differences in amphetamine-induced dopamine release was determined by significance of the main effect of medication (calcitriol vs. placebo) on %change in BPND (i.e., post-Amp relative to pre-Amp scans) at a threshold of p\<0.05.||||0.016
84466835|NCT03103750|168687204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84466836|NCT01663740|168687205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-40.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1387||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.869|-11.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||-11.463|-68.869|0.0075
84466837|NCT01663740|168687206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|7.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to EOT|||7.135|-3.619|0.5109
84726560|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.6|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.6|-4.1|
84540572|NCT01512160|168832366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.7|
84518961|NCT00835614|168789150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.2||||||90.0|90.4|94.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94|90.4|
84518962|NCT00829712|168789151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.95||||||90.0|94.02|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|94.02|
84518963|NCT00829712|168789152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|95.08|103.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.19|95.08|
84518964|NCT00829712|168789153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.94||||||90.0|96.08|103.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.95|96.08|
84518965|NCT00606281|168789154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
84518966|NCT00606281|168789155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
84518967|NCT03131895|168789157|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) on the original scale.|Least square (LS) mean ratio|1.0436||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9453|1.1521|||ANOVA|||||1.1521|0.9453|0.5535
84518968|NCT03131895|168789157|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0185||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9334|1.1113|||ANOVA|||||1.1113|0.9334|0.8920
84518969|NCT03131895|168789158|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.039||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1024|||ANOVA|||||1.1024|0.9792|0.3209
84518970|NCT03131895|168789158|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0353||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9719|1.1029|||ANOVA|||||1.1029|0.9719|0.3896
84518971|NCT03131895|168789159|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0335||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9733|1.0975|||ANOVA|||||1.0975|0.9733|0.4163
84518972|NCT03131895|168789159|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0031||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9458|1.0638|||ANOVA|||||1.0638|0.9458|0.9778
84518973|NCT01339247|168789160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0886|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0011|1.177|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.1770|1.0011|
84518974|NCT01339247|168789161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0849|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0849|0.9676|
84518975|NCT01339247|168789162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9716|1.0956|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0956|0.9716|
84518976|NCT05143047|168789194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84518977|NCT05143047|168789195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84518978|NCT05143047|168789196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
84518979|NCT05143047|168789197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
84518980|NCT05143047|168789198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
84518981|NCT05143047|168789199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
84466838|NCT01663740|168687206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2058||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.566|5.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to end of FU|||5.464|-7.566|0.7449
84466839|NCT01663740|168687207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2934||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.001|9.739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from EOT to end of FU|||9.739|-4.001|0.3940
84466840|NCT01663740|168687208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3687||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.903|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Basline to EOT|||0.903|-0.594|0.6773
84466841|NCT01663740|168687208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3343||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Baseline to end of FU|||0.551|-0.806|0.7046
84466842|NCT01663740|168687209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3684||0.7323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from EOT to end of FU|||0.633|-0.888|0.7323
84466843|NCT01663740|168687210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|51.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.6869||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.626|127.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||127.159|-24.626|0.1756
84466844|NCT01663740|168687211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-10.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.5745||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.934|29.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||29.543|-49.934|0.6058
84466845|NCT01663740|168687212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1214||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.346|-3.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to EOT|||-3.311|-40.346|0.0222
84466846|NCT01663740|168687212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-9.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3702||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.795|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to end of FU|||7.190|-26.795|0.2495
84466847|NCT01663740|168687213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-11.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2576||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|13.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from EOT to end of FU|||13.674|-37.039|0.3505
84466848|NCT01663740|168687214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7578||0.4021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.524|8.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to EOT|||8.042|-19.524|0.4021
84466849|NCT01663740|168687214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1817||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|8.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to end of FU|||8.714|-12.423|0.7229
84466850|NCT01663740|168687215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7598||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.192|13.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from EOT to end of FU|||13.291|-19.192|0.7080
84466851|NCT01663740|168687216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6512||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.213|1.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to EOT|||1.491|-5.213|0.2673
84466852|NCT01663740|168687216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6147||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.392|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to end of FU|||2.164|-4.392|0.4949
84466853|NCT01663740|168687217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.063|3.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from EOT to end of FU|||3.157|-3.063|0.9753
84466854|NCT01663740|168687218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6347||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|1.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to EOT|||1.366|-1.214|0.9053
84466855|NCT01663740|168687218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4477||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to end of FU|||-0.305|-2.125|0.0104
84466856|NCT01663740|168687219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.899|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,\& pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from EOT to end of FU|||-0.231|-1.899|0.0143
84518982|NCT05143047|168789200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
84518983|NCT05143047|168789201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84518984|NCT05143047|168789202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84518985|NCT00841542|168789250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.19||||||90.0|94.2|102.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withing 80 - 125|||102.34|94.20|
84518986|NCT00841542|168789251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.86||||||90.0|93.38|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.66|93.38|
84518987|NCT00841542|168789252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.22||||||90.0|93.87|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|93.87|
84518988|NCT05143801|168789282|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.003
84518989|NCT05143801|168789282|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.933||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.933
84518990|NCT05143801|168789282|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.|No Method of Estimation was used|||||0.344||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.344
84518991|NCT05143801|168789283|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.117||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed to investigate statistical differences for all variables across the four conditions. Both main and interaction effects were calculated along with effect size, reported as partial ⴄ2 as provided by the statistical software JASP (version 0.14.1.0).||||0.117
84518992|NCT05143801|168789283|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.832
84518993|NCT05143801|168789283|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.879||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.879
84518994|NCT05143801|168789284|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.749||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.749
84466857|NCT01663740|168687220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7274||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|6.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to EOT|||6.052|-0.969|0.1505
84466858|NCT01663740|168687220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6739||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to end of FU|||0.387|-2.352|0.1539
84466859|NCT01663740|168687221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8084||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.136|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from EOT to end of FU|||0.188|-3.136|0.0798
84466860|NCT01663740|168687222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.466||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.792|47.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to EOT|||47.585|-47.792|0.9965
84518995|NCT05143801|168789284|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.311||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.311
84518996|NCT05143801|168789284|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.368||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.368
84518997|NCT05143801|168789285|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.789||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.789
84518998|NCT05143801|168789285|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.739||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.739
84518999|NCT05143801|168789285|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.158||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.158
84519000|NCT05143801|168789286|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.394
84519001|NCT05143801|168789286|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.157||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.157
84519002|NCT05143801|168789286|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.015||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.015
84519003|NCT05143801|168789287|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.96||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.960
84519004|NCT05143801|168789287|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.073||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.073
84466861|NCT01663740|168687222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|15.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.6031||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.599|57.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to end of FU|||57.142|-26.599|0.4636
84466862|NCT01663740|168687223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0805||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.438|43.917|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from EOT to end of FU|||43.917|-26.438|0.6134
84466863|NCT01663740|168687224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9301||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.223|32.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to EOT|||32.506|-16.223|0.5002
84466864|NCT01663740|168687224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|40.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6084||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|76.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to end of FU|||76.643|4.720|0.0279
84466865|NCT01663740|168687225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|25.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1348||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.024|71.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables|Change in inhibin B level from EOT to end of FU|||71.786|-20.024|0.2548
84466866|NCT01663740|168687226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|45.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||45.3|-19.3|
84466867|NCT01663740|168687226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|43.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||43.3|-34.3|
84466868|NCT01663740|168687226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|48.8|||||Change in normal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||48.8|-15.3|
84466869|NCT01663740|168687227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|42.5|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||42.5|-34.5|
84466870|NCT01663740|168687228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|33.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||33.7|-31.3|
84466871|NCT01663740|168687228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|44.4|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||44.4|-31.1|
84466872|NCT01663740|168687229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|29.3|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||29.3|-50.0|
84466873|NCT01663740|168687230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|2.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||2.7|-59.7|
84466874|NCT01663740|168687230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|47.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||47.7|-29.7|
84466875|NCT01663740|168687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|27.9|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||27.9|-47.2|
84466876|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|51.5||An equal-slopes analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||51.5|-57.5|0.493
84466877|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|98.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||98.2|-40.2|0.780
84466878|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|-20.1||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||-20.1|-76.8|0.008
84466879|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|5.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||5.2|-68.7|0.072
84466880|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.315||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.315
84466881|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.049||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
84466882|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.275||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.275
84466883|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.002||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84466884|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.028||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84466885|NCT01522651|168687233|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.334||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
84466886|NCT02658656|168687236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Chi-squared|||||1.85|.45|0.798
84466887|NCT02658656|168687237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.15|||Chi-squared|||||2.15|0.44|0.935
84466888|NCT02658656|168687238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.49|0.829
84466889|NCT02658656|168687239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.11|||Chi-squared|||||2.11|0.56|0.809
84466890|NCT02658656|168687240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.47|||Chi-squared|||||2.47|0.54|0.717
84466891|NCT02658656|168687241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||Chi-squared|||||2.02|0.61|0.738
84466892|NCT00408421|168687301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||Null hypothesis: the difference in 24-hour average pain score between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups at last visit of treatment phase is zero. This study will have at least 80% power to detect a treatment group difference of 1.0 point in the baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups based on Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF).||||<0.001
84466893|NCT00408421|168687302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.001||95.0|-0.84|-0.21||Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), PGI severity at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean outcome measure at endpoint.||-0.21|-0.84|0.001
84466894|NCT00408421|168687303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.003||95.0|-2.33|-0.48||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.48|-2.33|0.003
84466895|NCT00408421|168687304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.004||95.0|-1.09|-0.22||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.22|-1.09|0.004
84466896|NCT00408421|168687305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18||||0.001||95.0|-8.33|-2.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.03|-8.33|0.001
84466897|NCT00408421|168687306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.004||95.0|-10.72|-2.11||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.11|-10.72|0.004
84466898|NCT00408421|168687307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.005||95.0|-1.4|-0.25||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.25|-1.40|0.005
84466899|NCT00408421|168687308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||||||<0.001
84519005|NCT05143801|168789287|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.503||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.503
84466900|NCT00408421|168687309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.039||95.0|-1.69|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.69|0.039
84519006|NCT05143801|168789288|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.786||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.786
84519007|NCT05143801|168789288|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.18||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.180
84519008|NCT05143801|168789288|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.239||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.239
84519009|NCT05143801|168789289|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.134
84519010|NCT05143801|168789289|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.621||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.621
84519011|NCT05143801|168789289|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.553||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.553
84519012|NCT05143801|168789290|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.461||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.461
84519013|NCT05143801|168789290|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.877||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.877
84519014|NCT05143801|168789290|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.919||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.919
84519015|NCT05143801|168789291|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.466||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.466
84519016|NCT05143801|168789291|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.186||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.186
84519017|NCT05143801|168789291|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.08||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.080
84519018|NCT05143801|168789292|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.375||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.375
84519019|NCT05143801|168789292|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.178||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.178
84519020|NCT05143801|168789292|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.533||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.533
84519021|NCT05143801|168789293|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.290
84519022|NCT05143801|168789293|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.527||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.527
84519023|NCT05143801|168789293|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.045||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.045
84519024|NCT05143801|168789294|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.018
84519025|NCT05143801|168789294|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84519026|NCT05143801|168789294|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.035||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.035
84519027|NCT05143801|168789295|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84519028|NCT05143801|168789295|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.678||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
84519029|NCT05143801|168789295|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect||||||0.678|||||||2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
84519030|NCT05143801|168789296|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84519031|NCT05143801|168789296|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.487
84519032|NCT05143801|168789296|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.79||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.790
84519033|NCT05143801|168789297|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.089||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.089
84519034|NCT05143801|168789297|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.297||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.297
84519035|NCT05143801|168789297|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.111
84519036|NCT05143801|168789298|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.024||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.024
84519037|NCT05143801|168789298|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.002
84466901|NCT00408421|168687310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
84466902|NCT00408421|168687311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.46|-1.66|<0.001
84466903|NCT00408421|168687312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.004||95.0|-1.28|-0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
84466904|NCT00408421|168687313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.52|-0.42||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
84466905|NCT00408421|168687314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.003||95.0|-1.5|-0.32||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.32|-1.50|0.003
84466906|NCT00408421|168687315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.019||95.0|-1.3|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.12|-1.30|0.019
84466907|NCT00408421|168687316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.164||95.0|-0.97|0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.17|-0.97|0.164
84466908|NCT00408421|168687317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.049||95.0|-1.25|0.0||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.00|-1.25|0.049
84466909|NCT00408421|168687318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.093||95.0|-1.1|0.08||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.08|-1.10|0.093
84519038|NCT05143801|168789298|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.014||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.014
84519039|NCT05143801|168789299|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
84519040|NCT05143801|168789299|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.893||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.893
84466910|NCT00408421|168687319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.287||95.0|-0.82|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-0.82|0.287
84466911|NCT00408421|168687320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.033||95.0|-1.23|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.23|0.033
84466912|NCT00408421|168687321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.015||95.0|-1.4|-0.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.15|-1.40|0.015
84466913|NCT00408421|168687322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.029||95.0|-1.06|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.06|-1.06|0.029
84466914|NCT00408421|168687323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.033
84466915|NCT00408421|168687324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.075
84466916|NCT00408421|168687325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.088||95.0|-0.28|3.94||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.94|-0.28|0.088
84519041|NCT05143801|168789299|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.969||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.969
84466917|NCT00408421|168687326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.08||95.0|-0.22|3.96||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.96|-0.22|0.080
84466918|NCT00408421|168687327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
84519042|NCT01075282|168789310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of LY2189265 1.5 mg vs insulin glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 52-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 20%.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
84726561|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.8|-6.1|
84519043|NCT01075282|168789310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|<0.001
84519044|NCT01075282|168789310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
84519045|NCT01075282|168789310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|0.05
84519046|NCT01075282|168789311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
84519047|NCT01075282|168789311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
84519048|NCT01075282|168789311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
84519049|NCT01075282|168789311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
84519050|NCT01075282|168789311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
84519051|NCT01075282|168789311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|<0.001
84519052|NCT01075282|168789311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
84519053|NCT01075282|168789311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|0.378
84519054|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|7.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.11|2.98|<0.001
84519055|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.24||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.41|<0.001
84519056|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|5.75||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.45|<0.001
84519057|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.098
84519058|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.14||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.85|<0.001
84519059|NCT01075282|168789312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.82|0.334
84519060|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.63||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|2.90|<0.001
84519061|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.11|1.57|<0.001
84519062|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.85||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|1.81|<0.001
84519063|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.39||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.26|0.004
84519064|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.57||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.||||3.57|1.44|<0.001
84519065|NCT01075282|168789313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.42||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.96|0.073
84519066|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.109
84519067|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
84519068|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
84519069|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.400
84519070|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
84519071|NCT01075282|168789314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.055
84519072|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.33||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.33|2.33|<0.001
84519073|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.99||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.99|1.99|<0.001
84519074|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.9||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|2.71|<0.001
84519075|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.36||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.36|2.17|<0.001
84519076|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.89||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|2.59|<0.001
84519077|NCT01075282|168789317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.46||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.46|2.17|<0.001
84466919|NCT00408421|168687328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.641||95.0|-1.19|0.74||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.74|-1.19|0.641
84466920|NCT00408421|168687329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.193||95.0|-1.17|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-1.17|0.193
84466921|NCT00408421|168687330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.003
84466922|NCT00408421|168687331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.026
84519078|NCT01252953|168789337|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
84519079|NCT01252953|168789338|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|0.86|0.052
84519080|NCT01252953|168789339|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||In accordance with the data analysis plan, if the outcome of a major atherosclerotic event did not reach significance, there was no hypothesis testing for presumed ischemic stroke, so no P value is given.||||||1.12|0.87|
84519081|NCT01252953|168789340|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.88|0.02
84519082|NCT01026402|168789341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|50.0|||||||||||||50mg twice daily continuous dosing 20 evaluable patients|||||
84519083|NCT01026402|168789341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|100.0|||||||||||||100mg once daily continuous dosing 16 evaluable patients|||||
84519084|NCT01026402|168789341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|125.0|||||||||||||125mg twice daily intermittent dosing (2 days on, 5 days off) 29 evaluable patients|||||
84519085|NCT00906399|168789357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.725||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.93|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).||||0.930|0.565|0.0114
84519086|NCT00906399|168789357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.644||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.831|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40).||||0.831|0.500|0.0007
84519087|NCT00906399|168789358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.87|0.60|0.0008
84519088|NCT00906399|168789358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.4|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.40|0.27|<0.0001
84519089|NCT00906399|168789359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.95|0.57|0.0200
84519090|NCT00906399|168789359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.80|0.47|0.0003
84466923|NCT00408421|168687332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.459||95.0|-1.32|2.92||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||2.92|-1.32|0.459
84466924|NCT00408421|168687333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.326||95.0|-1.1|3.28||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.28|-1.10|0.326
84466925|NCT00408421|168687334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16||||0.069||95.0|-0.25|6.56||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||6.56|-0.25|0.069
84466926|NCT00408421|168687335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.107||95.0|-1.2|0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.12|-1.20|0.107
84466927|NCT02772965|168687336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.45|0.08
84466928|NCT02772965|168687337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84466929|NCT02772965|168687338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
84466930|NCT02772965|168687339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
84466931|NCT02772965|168687340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84466932|NCT02772965|168687341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||Chi-squared|||||1.04|0.49|0.08
84466933|NCT03478878|168687342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|13.11||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||13.11|-9.43|0.705
84466934|NCT03478878|168687342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|31.02||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||31.02|-27.43|0.577
84466935|NCT03478878|168687343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.35||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||11.35|-7.60|0.646
84466936|NCT03478878|168687343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|23.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||23.90|-19.30|0.405
84466937|NCT03046472|168687352|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84466938|NCT03046472|168687353|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84466939|NCT03046472|168687354|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84466940|NCT01614769|168687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.98|51.8||||||||51.80|-22.98|
84466941|NCT01614769|168687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|72.74||||||||72.74|-2.08|
84466942|NCT01614769|168687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.21|
84519091|NCT00906399|168789360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0380
84519092|NCT00906399|168789360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0383
84519093|NCT03488108|168789370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
84519094|NCT03488108|168789371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.90
84519095|NCT03488108|168789372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
84519096|NCT03488108|168789373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
84519097|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.58||||||Comparison between 0.12 mg/cm2 copper sulfate and copper sulfate 2% in petrolatum||0.58|-0.01|
84519098|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66||||||Comparison between 0.24 mg/cm2 manganese chloride and manganese chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.66|0.24|
84519099|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride vs 1% tin chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride and tin chloride 1% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
84519100|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.65|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate vs 19% ammonium titanium oxide oxalate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate and ammnium titanium oxide oxalate 19% in petrolatum||0.65|0.15|
84519101|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.050 mg V/cm2 vanadium sulfate vs 1.5% vanadium sulfate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.050 mg/cm2 vanadium sulfate and vanadium sulfate 1.5% in petrolatum||0.73|0.30|
84519102|NCT02615249|168789384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride vs 2% zinc chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison betweenm 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride and zinc chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
84519103|NCT02597049|168789406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-0.97|<.001
84519104|NCT02597049|168789406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.84|< .001
84519105|NCT02597049|168789407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.00|<.001
84519106|NCT02597049|168789407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-0.86|<.001
84519107|NCT02597049|168789408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
84519108|NCT02597049|168789408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
84519109|NCT02597049|168789408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
84519110|NCT02597049|168789408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
84519111|NCT02597049|168789409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-1.8|0.027
84519112|NCT02597049|168789409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.4|-1.3|0.264
84519113|NCT02597049|168789409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.0|-1.7|0.059
84519114|NCT02597049|168789409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.5|-1.2|0.435
84519115|NCT02597049|168789410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-18.6|-30.8|< .001
84519116|NCT02597049|168789410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.5||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-13.5|-25.7|<0.001
84519117|NCT02597049|168789410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-20.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-20.6|-32.7|<0.001
84519118|NCT02597049|168789410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-14.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-14.6|-26.7|<0.001
84519119|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal.||-13.8|-25.7|< .001
84519120|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal||-9.2|-21.2|< .001
84519121|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-15.3|-33.8|< .001
84519122|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-11.8|-30.3|< .001
84519123|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-10.2|-26.4|< .001
84519124|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-6.2|-22.5|< .001
84519125|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-9.3|-28.8|< .001
84519126|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-3.1|-22.5|0.010
84519127|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.7|-30.7|< .001
84519128|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.4|-30.7|< .001
84466943|NCT01614769|168687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.24|
84466944|NCT01614769|168687357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.12|1.05||||||||1.05|-11.12|
84466945|NCT01614769|168687357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-1.24||||||||-1.24|-13.30|
84466946|NCT04688346|168687380|NON_INFERIORITY|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84466947|NCT01958671|168687389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.76|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.76|-1.22|<0.001
84466948|NCT01958671|168687389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.93|-1.39|<0.001
84466949|NCT01958671|168687390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.1|-13.1|
84466950|NCT01958671|168687390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.6|-14.8|
84466951|NCT01958671|168687391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-7.7|
84466952|NCT01958671|168687391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.7|-8.2|
84466953|NCT01958671|168687392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.76|-26.29|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-26.29|-42.76|<0.001
84466954|NCT01958671|168687392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-44.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.28|-35.74|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-35.74|-52.28|<0.001
84466955|NCT01958671|168687393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.95|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.95|-2.57|<0.001
84466956|NCT01958671|168687393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.34|-2.98|<0.001
84466957|NCT01958671|168687394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||6.95|1.85|<0.001
84466958|NCT01958671|168687394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.24|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline||||13.24|3.46|<0.001
84466959|NCT01958671|168687396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-69.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.24|-54.83|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-54.83|-83.24|<0.001
84466960|NCT01958671|168687396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-67.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.73|-52.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-52.93|-81.73|<0.001
84466961|NCT01958671|168687398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-0.65||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.65|-5.98|0.015
84519129|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-12.9|-31.4|< .001
84466962|NCT01958671|168687398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.71||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.98|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.98|-4.40|0.213
84466963|NCT01958671|168687400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.09||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.09|-3.51|0.039
84466964|NCT01958671|168687400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.35||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.35|-2.09|0.669
84466965|NCT02778867|168687401|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.58
84466966|NCT02778867|168687402|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two sided||||||0.06
84466967|NCT02778867|168687405|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84466968|NCT02778867|168687406|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||α \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test||||||0.22
84466969|NCT02778867|168687407|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84466970|NCT01290484|168687408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percentage volume change|-3.47||||||||||||||||||
84466971|NCT00960440|168687409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|23.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.45|34.92||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.92|12.45|<0.0001
84519130|NCT02597049|168789411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-7.4|-26.0|< .001
84466972|NCT00960440|168687409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|28.41||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||28.41|6.06|0.0024
84466973|NCT00960440|168687410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.38|<0.0001
84466974|NCT00960440|168687410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.15||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.36|<0.0001
84466975|NCT00960440|168687411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|15.51||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.51|3.54|0.0017
84466976|NCT00960440|168687411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.10|0.00|0.0496
84466977|NCT01505491|168687485|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.752|129.812|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||129.812|98.752|0.1163
84466978|NCT01505491|168687485|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.984|153.412|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||153.412|113.984|0.7345
84466979|NCT01505491|168687485|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.974|99.83|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||99.830|74.974|0.1833
84466980|NCT01505491|168687486|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|109.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.384|122.935|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.935|97.384|0.0303
84466981|NCT01505491|168687486|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|128.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.492|146.365|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||146.365|113.492|0.6547
84466982|NCT01505491|168687486|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.238|97.564|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||97.564|76.238|0.1572
84466983|NCT01505491|168687487|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|110.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.687|122.035|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.035|99.687|0.0212
84519131|NCT02597049|168789412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
84519132|NCT02597049|168789412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.5|-1.7|0.273
84519133|NCT02597049|168789412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-0.2|-2.4|0.023
84519134|NCT02597049|168789412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||0.6|-1.7|0.320
84519135|NCT02463487|168789417|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.87
84519136|NCT02463487|168789419|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84466984|NCT01505491|168687487|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.638|130.757|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||130.757|105.638|0.1700
84466985|NCT01505491|168687487|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|96.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.064|107.017|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||107.017|87.064|0.0016
84466986|NCT00859898|168687492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
84466987|NCT00859898|168687492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.33|-0.75|<0.0001
84466988|NCT00859898|168687492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 0.35%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||0.20|-0.22|
84466989|NCT00859898|168687492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||0.20|-0.22|0.9144
84466990|NCT00859898|168687493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-7.0||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-7.0|-20.9|<0.0001
84466991|NCT00859898|168687493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-18.5||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-18.5|-32.6|<0.0001
84466992|NCT00859898|168687493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change FPG from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 15 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||-4.6|-18.6|
84466993|NCT00859898|168687493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6||two-sided significance level at α=0.05.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||-4.6|-18.6|0.0012
84466994|NCT00859898|168687494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.598||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.9||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.9|5.9|0.0012
84519137|NCT02466087|168789448|OTHER||diiference in differences|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||
84519138|NCT01472432|168789542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
84519139|NCT01472432|168789543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
84519140|NCT01472432|168789544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months. P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||p-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months.||||<0.05
84466995|NCT00859898|168687494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.6||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||20.6|2.1|0.0165
84466996|NCT00859898|168687495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1807||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|: treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.09|-0.81|0.0133
84466997|NCT00859898|168687495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1817||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.18|-0.89|0.0036
84466998|NCT00859898|168687496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3401|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.3||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-1.30|-2.64|<0.0001
84466999|NCT00859898|168687496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.71||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.71|-2.03|<0.0001
84467000|NCT03408873|168687504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84519141|NCT01472432|168789545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84467001|NCT03408873|168687504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.12
84467002|NCT03408873|168687505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.0599
84519142|NCT03234907|168789548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||=|0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|6.8||P-value was based on CHW test, based on weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: (1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cui-Hung-Wang (CHW) test||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.8|-17.2|=0.347
84540573|NCT01512160|168832366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.0|0.6|
84467003|NCT03408873|168687505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.63
84467004|NCT03408873|168687507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467005|NCT03408873|168687508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467006|NCT03408873|168687508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
84467007|NCT03408873|168687509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467008|NCT03408873|168687509|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24) to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.003
84467009|NCT03408873|168687510|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84467010|NCT03408873|168687510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
84467011|NCT03408873|168687511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.0566
84467012|NCT03408873|168687512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between screen and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
84467013|NCT03408873|168687513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467014|NCT03408873|168687514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467015|NCT03408873|168687515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84467016|NCT03408873|168687516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
84519143|NCT03234907|168789549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|||=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.0||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to:(1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.0|-11.5|=0.531
84519144|NCT02986139|168789550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||A mixed effects analysis of variance model was used to assess injection site pain with the new formulation of etanercept as the test treatment and the commercial formulation of etanercept as the reference treatment. Treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication were evaluated as fixed effect covariates, and subject within sequence was included as a random effect.||-0.0|-8.0|0.048
84519145|NCT00414726|168789553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van-Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test; ajustments made for baseline NIHSS categories (4-11)(12-20)(\>20).||Subjects were analyzed using an intention to treat approach. All subjects were analyzed at 24 hours. For four subjects missing 24-hour NIHSS scores, the change score was given the highest possible value.||||0.91
84467017|NCT03408873|168687517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.73
84467018|NCT03408873|168687518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.02
84467019|NCT02214186|168687543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
84467020|NCT02214186|168687544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
84467021|NCT02214186|168687545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures||||||<0.05
84467022|NCT02214186|168687546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
84519146|NCT00414726|168789554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxin rank sum test that adjusts for stratified randomization.||||||0.68
84519147|NCT01993186|168789560|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.45||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.63|80.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||80.95|-38.63|0.5812
84519148|NCT01993186|168789563|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.23|84.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||84.25|-51.23|0.8197
84519149|NCT01993186|168789564|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|37.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||37.5|0|0.7276
84519150|NCT01993186|168789568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1231||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-114.44|109.67||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTISRTSD||109.67|-114.44|0.486
84467023|NCT02214186|168687547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||>0.05
84467024|NCT02214186|168687548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
84467025|NCT02214186|168687549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84467026|NCT02214186|168687550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||<0.05
84467027|NCT02214186|168687551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84467028|NCT01525849|168687552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, delta=0.8, true difference=0, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 72 participants (36 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-inferiority test to demonstrate that the long-term (1-year) change in sinus symptoms (overall SNOT-20 score) after balloon dilation is not worse than after FESS.||||<0.001
84467029|NCT01525849|168687553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test for superiority of balloon dilation over FESS. Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, BD estimate=0.5, FESS estimate=1.5, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 46 participants (23 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
84467030|NCT01525849|168687554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.628
84467031|NCT01525849|168687556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84519151|NCT01993186|168789568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|63.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0537||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|150.94||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDSRT||150.94|-23.6|0.8849
84467032|NCT01847547|168687574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||||95.0|0.64|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.70|0.64|
84519152|NCT01993186|168789568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-63.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.6496||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-163.59|35.93||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDFRT||35.93|-163.59|0.1463
84467033|NCT01847547|168687575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.36|0.69|
84467034|NCT01847547|168687576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.62|2.45|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.45|0.62|
84467035|NCT01847547|168687577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||||95.0|0.15|0.59|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.59|0.15|
84467036|NCT01847547|168687578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.15|0.67|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||0.67|0.15|
84467037|NCT01847547|168687579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.09|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.84|0.09|
84467038|NCT01847547|168687580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.78|
84467039|NCT01847547|168687582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.48|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.14|0.48|
84467040|NCT01847547|168687583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||||95.0|0.47|2.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.20|0.47|
84467041|NCT01847547|168687584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.98|0.21|
84467042|NCT01847547|168687585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.5|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.08|0.50|
84467043|NCT01847547|168687586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||||95.0|0.21|0.76|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.76|0.21|
84467044|NCT01847547|168687587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.58|1.55|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.55|0.58|
84467045|NCT01847547|168687588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|0.32|5.72|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||5.72|0.32|
84467046|NCT01847547|168687589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||||95.0|0.83|3.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.08|0.83|
84467047|NCT01847547|168687590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.57|3.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.70|0.57|
84540574|NCT01512160|168832367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.5|
84519153|NCT01993186|168789569|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5659||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|36.79||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALTEA||36.79|-1.26|0.9378
84467048|NCT01847547|168687591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||1.35|0.67|
84467049|NCT01847547|168687592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.79|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.79|
84467050|NCT04392011|168687593|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.57||||||||1.57|1.23|
84467051|NCT04392011|168687594|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19||||||||1.19|0.83|
84467052|NCT04392011|168687596|OTHER||Cmax ratio (midazolam)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.7||||||||1.70|1.32|
84467053|NCT04392011|168687596|OTHER||Cmax ratio (dextromethorphan)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||||1.19|0.78|
84467054|NCT04392011|168687598|OTHER||half-life ratio (dextromethorphan)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||||1.08|0.92|
84467055|NCT04392011|168687598|OTHER||half-life ratio (midazolam)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.17||||||||1.17|0.98|
84467056|NCT03694522|168687656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors of geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||1.04|0.44|0.0727
84467057|NCT03694522|168687657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.95|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.95|0.35|0.0268
84467058|NCT03694522|168687658|SUPERIORITY||Difference|13.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions||||29.0|-2.8|0.1060
84467059|NCT03694522|168687660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.94|0.38|
84467060|NCT02760407|168687661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.183|0.352|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 50% resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.352|0.183|<0.0001
84467061|NCT02760407|168687661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.171|0.341|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rate of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.341|0.171|<0.0001
84467062|NCT02760407|168687662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.298|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 52.5% at Week 12.||0.298|0.148|<0.0001
84467063|NCT02760407|168687662|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.022|0.112||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.112|-0.022|
84467064|NCT02760407|168687662|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.035|0.102||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.102|-0.035|
84467065|NCT02760407|168687663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.257|0.397|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in the 64 mg q4w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.397|0.257|<0.0001
84467066|NCT02760407|168687663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.391|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in the 64 mg q2w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.391|0.250|<0.0001
84467067|NCT02760407|168687664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.313|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 27% at Week 12.||0.313|0.191|<0.0001
84467068|NCT02760407|168687664|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.004|0.147||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.147|0.004|
84519154|NCT01993186|168789569|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1853||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.06||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALFTMS||3.06|-4.13|0.5959
84467069|NCT02760407|168687664|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.003|0.141||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.141|-0.003|
84467070|NCT02760407|168687665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.29|<0.0001
84467071|NCT02760407|168687665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.33|<0.0001
84467072|NCT02760407|168687665|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.1||||||||-0.10|-0.28|
84467073|NCT02760407|168687666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.192|0.349|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.349|0.192|<0.0001
84467074|NCT02760407|168687666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.195|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.353|0.195|<0.0001
84467075|NCT02760407|168687666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.303||||||||0.303|0.165|
84467076|NCT02760407|168687667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.031|0.123|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.123|0.031|0.0003
84467077|NCT02760407|168687667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.111|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.111|0.020|0.001
84467078|NCT02760407|168687667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.127||||||||0.127|0.046|
84467079|NCT02522377|168687668|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.72
84467080|NCT02522377|168687669|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions in mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=7.836.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.77
84467081|NCT02522377|168687670|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.40
84467082|NCT02522377|168687671|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.3634.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.009
84467083|NCT02522377|168687672|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.34
84467084|NCT02522377|168687673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds Ratio of Midazolam (numerator) to Ketamine Infusions (denominator)|||7.20|0.01|0.58
84467085|NCT01158950|168687674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale.||||0.032
84467086|NCT01158950|168687675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|Statistical tests are computed across multiple subregions (voxels) within each area. Thus, the correlation coefficient above is a summary score.||||||< 0.05
84467087|NCT02137772|168687676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-14.6||A 1-sided p-value ≤0.0249 for the risk difference was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.6|-32.5|<0.0001
84467088|NCT02137772|168687677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
84467089|NCT02137772|168687678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.0001
84467090|NCT02137772|168687679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||3.2|-4.0|0.4056
84467091|NCT02137772|168687680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.5||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||1.5|-3.5|0.2258
84467092|NCT02137772|168687681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-22.4||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.4|-39.6|<0.0001
84467093|NCT02137772|168687682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-14.3||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.3|-32.3|<0.0001
84467094|NCT02137772|168687683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
84519155|NCT01993186|168789570|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4988||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.88||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SSPSLF||0.88|-0.76|0.4522
84540575|NCT01512160|168832367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.8|0.4|
84519156|NCT01993186|168789571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|2.68||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMBE48||2.68|-5.15|0.3017
84467095|NCT01422304|168687710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was stratified for renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min) and prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including low molecular weight heparin \[LMWH\], including unfractionated heparin \[UFH\], or not including either LMWH or UFH)||1.29|0.38|
84467096|NCT01422304|168687711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||7.3|3.7|
84467097|NCT01422304|168687711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|2.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.8|-0.9|
84467098|NCT01422304|168687712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||4.7|1.3|
84467099|NCT01422304|168687712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.9|-1.0|
84467100|NCT01422304|168687713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.8|-3.0|
84467101|NCT01422304|168687714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||0.5|-3.4|
84519157|NCT01993186|168789571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6495||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.11||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMS68||1.11|-1.03|0.5235
84467102|NCT01422304|168687715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.2|-3.1|
84467103|NCT01422304|168687716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.5|-0.7|
84519158|NCT01993186|168789572|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4806||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.874|30.08||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled||30.08|-43.874|0.6205
84467104|NCT01422304|168687718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|30.5|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A negative value indicates that the average adjusted drainage volume was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site.||30.5|-45.0|
84519159|NCT01993186|168789573|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5759||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.236|4.527||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled (percent predicted)||4.527|-7.236|0.6476
84519160|NCT01993186|168789575|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.83|7.97||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include baseline GMFM-88 total score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||GMFM-88 UX007-Placebo||7.97|-4.83|0.3435
84519161|NCT04158687|168789579|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.6|-4.5|0.6003
84519162|NCT04158687|168789579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||5.0|-2.0|0.3920
84519163|NCT04158687|168789579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||6.0|-0.9|0.1444
84519164|NCT04158687|168789580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.2|-0.3|0.8065
84519165|NCT04158687|168789580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.4|-0.1|0.2121
84519166|NCT04158687|168789580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.5|0.0|0.0264
84519167|NCT04158687|168789581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||3.5|-2.1|0.6101
84519168|NCT04158687|168789581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.1|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.1|-3.4|0.6237
84519169|NCT04158687|168789581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.8|-4.6|0.1764
84519170|NCT05497557|168789611|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.839||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.839|0.547|
84519171|NCT05497557|168789612|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.628|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.628|
84519172|NCT05497557|168789613|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.619|
84519173|NCT00835666|168789629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|92.6|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|92.6|
84467105|NCT01422304|168687719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence, adjusted for strata and investigational site|Miettinen and Nurminen Method was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site||2.0|-7.4|
84519174|NCT00835666|168789630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.2||||||90.0|94.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.7|
84467106|NCT01422304|168687720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||Generalized Linear Model||GMR is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Generalized Linear Model was applied to transfusion volume transformed to the log-scale, adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site. Result and 95% Confidence Interval was transformed back to the original scale.||1.24|0.98|
84467107|NCT01422304|168687721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A positive value indicates that the average adjusted reduction in Hgb at Visit 3 (bleeding index) was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy), investigational site and baseline hemoglobin value.||3.1|-0.4|
84467108|NCT01422304|168687722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||3.1|-6.3|
84519175|NCT00835666|168789631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.4||||||90.0|94.9|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.9|
84519176|NCT04723693|168789785|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
84519177|NCT04723693|168789786|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
84519178|NCT00538031|168789845|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.61
84519179|NCT00538031|168789846|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
84540576|NCT01512160|168832367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.9|0.7|
84540577|NCT01512160|168832368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.6|
84519180|NCT01484912|168789847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The superiority testing was conducted one sided with 0.025 significance level. If H0 was rejected one-sided 0.025 significance level, STA-2 was concluded to be statistically superior to Placebo.All hypothesis testing except for the primary efficacy endpoint was conducted two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-test was used to compare the change in total exercise time between the treatment groups. The change in total exercise time (△) was defined as the total exercise time at end-point visit minus the total exercise time at baseline. Let △T be the change in total exercise time for treatment group (STA-2) and △C be the change in total exercise time for control group (Placebo). The hypothesis testing for the superiority of STA-2 to Placebo was H0：△T-△C≦0 with H1：△T-△C﹥0.||||0.025
84519181|NCT01484912|168789848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All hypothesis testing was conducted with T-tests, two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||0.005
84519182|NCT00540423|168789853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0||||||95.0|35.21|84.79|||||The units of risk difference is percentage.|||84.79|35.21|
84519183|NCT00540423|168789855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 75% responders|43.5||||||95.0|23.19|65.51|||||Confidence interval of the percentage of participants for whom at least 75% of their assessments during the course of 26 weeks of SB-494115-GR treatment met the definition of responders.|||65.51|23.19|
84519184|NCT02412852|168789945|OTHER||||||||||||||||||\]The pharmacokinetics data are particularly sparse, and therefore substantial interpolations and imputations were required to produce an analyzable data set. Consequently, while not ideal, the Last Observation Carried Forward method was used for these data. There was a large amount of missing data which required imputation to determine results. The large amount of interpolations and imputations required for the pharmacokinetic analysis means that the pharmacokinetic results will need to be interpreted with caution. 3 X 3 Analysis of Variance used to compare Placebo to the two active groups. Missing data required imputation of available data.|||
84467109|NCT00866294|168687733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1||The hypothesis test was conducted with a two-sided significance level of 5% to show the superiority of paroxetine CR relative to placebo.|ANCOVA|The primary analysis was based on an ANCOVA with a model adjusting for baseline HAM-D total score and region (Japan and South Korea).|Mean difference = paroxetine CR minus placebo|||-1.1|-3.8|<0.001
84467110|NCT03415464|168687752|OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
84467111|NCT02273323|168687756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|0.23|-0.37|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated effect of tea vs placebo||0.83|-0.37|0.43
84467112|NCT02273323|168687757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject=random factor; treatment, on/off medication, period = fixed effects||Estimated effect of tea vs. placebo||1.82|-0.40|0.20
84467113|NCT02273323|168687758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-5.26|
84467114|NCT02273323|168687759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-2.16|
84467115|NCT02273323|168687760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-4.65|
84467116|NCT02273323|168687761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|-0.73|
84467117|NCT03117049|168687762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.37|0.43|0.71|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
84467118|NCT03117049|168687763|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
84519185|NCT02412852|168789947|OTHER|ANOVA on only those subjects who completed testing.||||||0.05||||||The results were analyzed using an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group: both placebo groups combined, 40 mg TV1001sr, and 80 mg TV1001sr); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).|ANOVA|The means of the three groups were further analyzed using a post hoc comparison procedure (the Scheffé test).||||||0.05
84519186|NCT02412852|168789948|OTHER|The composite conduction measure and the composite velocity measure were analyzed using an Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Group: combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, and 80 mg TV1001); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||.15
84519187|NCT02412852|168789949|OTHER|A 3 by 3 Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, or 80 mg TV1001) and one within-subjects factor (Visit 1, Visit 2, or Visit 3) was performed for HbA1c values.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||.36
84467119|NCT03117049|168687764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.17||||||||2.17|1.11|
84519188|NCT02412852|168789950|OTHER|ANOVA to compare differences from baseline to completion of testing.||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||.93
84519189|NCT00985439|168789951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.195|16.619|||ANCOVA|||||16.619|6.195|<0.001
84467120|NCT03117049|168687765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
84467121|NCT00839098|168687768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84467122|NCT00839098|168687769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84467123|NCT00839098|168687770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84467124|NCT00839098|168687771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84467125|NCT00839098|168687772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84467126|NCT00839098|168687773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84519190|NCT01906372|168789967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency of achieving primary endpoint|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Open label single arm pilot trial without control group.||||||||
84519191|NCT01906372|168789968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84540578|NCT01512160|168832368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|0.7|
84467127|NCT00839098|168687774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84467128|NCT00798967|168687775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (\<= 6 or \> 6 L/week of PN at baseline)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84467129|NCT00798967|168687776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Last Dosing Visit||||< 0.001
84467130|NCT01354691|168687777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.67
84467131|NCT01354691|168687778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.21
84467132|NCT01354691|168687779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.78
84467133|NCT01354691|168687780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.83
84467134|NCT01354691|168687781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.77
84467135|NCT03141307|168687788|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84467136|NCT03141307|168687789|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84467137|NCT03141307|168687790|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.502||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.502
84467138|NCT03141307|168687791|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.071||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.071
84519192|NCT03629054|168789969|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|102.72|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||102.72|98.17|<0.0001
84467139|NCT03141307|168687792|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.124||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.124
84467140|NCT03141307|168687793|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84467141|NCT00227877|168687794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.80|1.08|< 0.05
84467142|NCT00227877|168687795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.42|0.34|.32
84467143|NCT00227877|168687796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|3.27|.99|0.05
84467144|NCT00227877|168687797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.16|.53|0.23
84467145|NCT00227877|168687798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.36|.97|.07
84467146|NCT00227877|168687799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.21|.42|.93
84467147|NCT00227877|168687800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.70|.27|.78
84467148|NCT00227877|168687801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||1.09|.51|.13
84467149|NCT00227877|168687802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.91|.48|.66
84467150|NCT00227877|168687803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.17||Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||1.17|.64|.35
84467151|NCT00227877|168687804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.87|.46|<.01
84540579|NCT01512160|168832368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.3||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.3|0.4|
84467152|NCT00227877|168687805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.98|.54|< 0.05
84467153|NCT02522481|168687819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0896
84467154|NCT02522481|168687819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
84467155|NCT01254604|168687849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was planned to enroll 248 subjects (124 per treatment group) to yield approximately 230 evaluable subjects (115 per treatment group). The study had power of 90% to test the primary hypothesis. The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions for treatment difference in change from baseline in IOP at Week 4: α = 0.025 (1-sided), Non-inferiority margin = 1.5 mmHg, True treatment difference = 0 mmHg, Standard deviation = 3.5 mmHg.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis model includes terms for treatment, baseline IOP and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Difference is tafluprost - timolol|The study hypothesis was that tafluprost is non-inferior to timolol with respect to change from baseline in diurnal IOP at Week 4 in participants with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The study hypothesis would be met if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference in mean diurnal IOP change from baseline at Week4 (tafluprost - timolol) was ≤1.5 mmHg.||-0.7|-2.6|
84467156|NCT01254604|168687850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|33.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|Participants were stratified by baseline IOP (\<26 mmHg or ≥26 mmHg at 0800 hours) and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Between-group difference in percentage of participants with ≥25% reduction in IOP at Week 4 = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||33.4|5.7|
84519193|NCT03629054|168789970|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.58|99.24|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.24|91.58|<0.0001
84519194|NCT03629054|168789971|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|104.31|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||104.31|96.17|<0.0001
84467157|NCT01254604|168687851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||9.4|-17.3|
84467158|NCT01254604|168687852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued study drug due to an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||5.7|-3.5|
84467159|NCT03504774|168687853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis of the change from baseline in CD28 expression||||0.30
84519195|NCT03629054|168789972|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|92.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|100.57|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||100.57|85.21|0.0029
84467160|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.82
84467161|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis on the change from baseline to week 58||||0.053
84467162|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.062
84467163|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.30
84467164|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 58||||0.54
84467165|NCT03504774|168687854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.82
84467166|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.25
84467167|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.24
84467168|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.61
84467169|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.034
84467170|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.45
84467171|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.12
84467172|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.83
84467173|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.67
84467174|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.80
84467175|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.46
84467176|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.48
84467177|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.25
84467178|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.14
84467179|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.73
84467180|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.16
84467181|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.47
84467182|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.84
84467183|NCT03504774|168687855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.55
84467184|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2269.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.23
84467185|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1311.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.12
84467186|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|958.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.79
84467187|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|347.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.29
84467188|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4364.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.29
84467189|NCT03504774|168687856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4017.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.42
84467190|NCT00719576|168687861|SUPERIORITY|The Wilks lambda test statistic and associated single P value from the MANOVA model were used to test the statistical significance of the difference in the co-primary endpoint between MACI and microfracture.||||||0.001|||||||MANOVA|||The changes from Baseline to Week 104 in KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores (co-primary efficacy parameter) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) model, with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method for handling missing data. Terms included in the model are treatment and center as class variables and baseline KOOS pain and Function (SRA) as continuous covariates.||||0.001
84467191|NCT00719576|168687862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Differences between groups were tested using analysis of variance|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and center||||||.717
84467192|NCT00719576|168687863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Row Mean Score Chi-Square||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score chi-squared test for defect fill.||||.920
84467193|NCT00719576|168687864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||KOOS Response Rate: a participant is regarded as a responder for KOOS if a 10-point improvement in both KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores was achieved with respect to Baseline. Otherwise, the patient is regarded as a nonresponder.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated for response categories 'Responded' and 'Not responded' using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 Test stratified by Center||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by center for responders.||||0.016
84467194|NCT00719576|168687866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS activities of daily living p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
84467195|NCT00719576|168687866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||KOOS knee-related quality of life p-value 0.029|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||0.029
84467196|NCT00719576|168687866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS other symptoms p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
84467197|NCT01035606|168687896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
84467198|NCT01035606|168687897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
84467199|NCT01809262|168687909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0005||95.0|0.031|0.109|||ANCOVA|||||0.109|0.031|0.0005
84540866|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|97.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.5|124.8|||Poisson Regression|||Cytomegalovirus: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||124.8|75.5|<0.001
84467200|NCT01809262|168687909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.138|||ANCOVA|||||0.138|0.060|<0.0001
84467201|NCT01809262|168687909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|0.074|<0.0001
84467202|NCT01809262|168687909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.080|<0.0001
84467203|NCT01809262|168687910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.139|||ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.077|<0.0001
84467204|NCT01809262|168687910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.186|||ANCOVA|||||0.186|0.124|<0.0001
84467205|NCT01809262|168687910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANCOVA|||||0.192|0.130|<0.0001
84467206|NCT01809262|168687910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|0.161|<0.0001
84467207|NCT01809262|168687911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|0.068|<0.0001
84467208|NCT01809262|168687911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.107|<0.0001
84467209|NCT01809262|168687911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.122|<0.0001
84467210|NCT01809262|168687911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.215|||ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.152|<0.0001
84467211|NCT01809262|168687912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.117|||ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.056|<0.0001
84467212|NCT01809262|168687912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.148|||ANCOVA|||||0.148|0.087|<0.0001
84519196|NCT03629054|168789973|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|97.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|105.26|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||105.26|89.99|0.0001
84467213|NCT01809262|168687912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|0.107|<0.0001
84467214|NCT01809262|168687912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.193|||ANCOVA|||||0.193|0.132|<0.0001
84519197|NCT03629054|168789974|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|111.5|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||111.50|98.56|<0.0001
84519198|NCT03629054|168789975|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.33|103.18|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||103.18|98.33|<0.0001
84519199|NCT03629054|168789976|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|103.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|110.71|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||110.71|96.90|<0.0001
84519200|NCT03629054|168789977|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|99.32|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.32|92.29|<0.0001
84467215|NCT01809262|168687913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|0.041|<0.0001
84467216|NCT01809262|168687913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.062|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.062|<0.0001
84467217|NCT01809262|168687913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.156|||ANCOVA|||||0.156|0.089|<0.0001
84467218|NCT01809262|168687913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.174|||ANCOVA|||||0.174|0.107|<0.0001
84467219|NCT01809262|168687914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.084|<0.0001
84467220|NCT01809262|168687914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.203|||ANCOVA|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
84467221|NCT01809262|168687914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
84467222|NCT01809262|168687914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
84467223|NCT01809262|168687915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.402|||ANCOVA|||||0.402|0.210|<0.0001
84467224|NCT01809262|168687915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.452|||ANCOVA|||||0.452|0.258|<0.0001
84467225|NCT01809262|168687915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.447|||ANCOVA|||||0.447|0.253|<0.0001
84467226|NCT01809262|168687915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.359|0.551|||ANCOVA|||||0.551|0.359|<0.0001
84467227|NCT02202031|168687923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.21|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.21|-0.73|0.6222
84467228|NCT02202031|168687924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.47|-0.64|0.7695
84467229|NCT02202031|168687925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||ANCOVA|change from baseline value, adjusted for baseline value||||0.39|-0.24|0.6456
84467230|NCT02202031|168687926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.6|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.60|-0.66|0.9190
84467231|NCT02202031|168687927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|4.84|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value.||||4.84|-2.51|0.5358
84519201|NCT00924638|168789979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.7|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||21.7|1.9|0.0006
84519202|NCT00924638|168789980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||20.8|2.6|<0.0001
84519203|NCT00924638|168789981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of recurrent stroke or TIA is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||1.32|0.35|0.25
84519204|NCT00924638|168789982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.8|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the OAC drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||14.8|2.8|
84519205|NCT00924638|168789983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the anti-arrhythmic drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||3.1|-2.3|
84519206|NCT00924638|168789984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84519207|NCT00924638|168789985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of cardiovascular or stroke/TIA related hospitalization is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||2.60|0.73|0.33
84519208|NCT00367133|168789987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P values for two group comparisons for difference in mean change.||||0.02
84519209|NCT00367133|168789987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.002
84519210|NCT00367133|168789987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.49
84519211|NCT00367133|168789990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.03
84519212|NCT00367133|168789990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.01
84519213|NCT00367133|168789990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.82
84519214|NCT00367133|168789991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84519215|NCT00367133|168789991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84519216|NCT00367133|168789991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.91
84519217|NCT00367133|168789993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84519218|NCT00367133|168789993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84519219|NCT00367133|168789993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.60
84519220|NCT00367133|168789994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
84519221|NCT00367133|168789994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||<0.001
84519222|NCT00367133|168789994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||0.55
84519223|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
84519224|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.0001
84519225|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
84519226|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3058|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||=0.3058
84519227|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3278|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.3278
84519228|NCT01447511|168790002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6155|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||=0.6155
84519229|NCT02336074|168790008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Treatment arms were compared in terms of absolute total HIV DNA levels (on a log10-scale) at post-randomization weeks 16 and 18 adjusted for the baseline (i.e. randomization) level and by stratum.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
84519230|NCT02336074|168790010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of the proportion of patients with undetectable viral outgrowth using logistic regression.~The analysis was adjusted for stratum and baseline viral outgrowth. Missing baseline values were imputed."||||0.145
84519231|NCT00836758|168790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84519232|NCT00840203|168790025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|88.6|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|88.6|
84519233|NCT00840203|168790026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|82.8|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|82.8|
84519234|NCT00840203|168790027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.0||||||90.0|83.0|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|83.0|
84519235|NCT00840203|168790028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|91.5|
84519236|NCT00840203|168790029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|86.7|110.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||110|86.7|
84519237|NCT00840203|168790030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.1|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|86.1|
84519238|NCT03349567|168790037|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.99||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antimicrobial prescription rates.||||1.01|0.98|0.35
84519239|NCT03349567|168790038|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||||1.35|0.93|
84519240|NCT03349567|168790039|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||||||||1.27|0.81|
84519241|NCT03349567|168790040|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34||||||||1.34|0.58|
84519242|NCT03349567|168790041|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29||||||||1.29|0.53|
84519243|NCT03349567|168790042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84519244|NCT03349567|168790042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84519245|NCT03349567|168790043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antibiotic prescription rates.||||||0.46
84519246|NCT00989950|168790044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|233.0|||ANOVA|||||233|0|0.588
84519247|NCT00101439|168790045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.08|0.73|0.241
84519248|NCT00101439|168790046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.20|0.87|0.812
84519249|NCT01665508|168790071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± (SD) and categorical data presented as frequency and percentage of the sample. Comparisons between baseline and post-treatment SAQ scores, SF-36v2 scores, and CPET variables were performed using a paired t-test for normally distributed variables or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed variables. Normality was defined by the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical variables, data were compared using a chi-squared test.||||< 0.05
84519250|NCT02054715|168790075|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test as a statistical comparing MP and PE means.||3.9|-4.1|0.9621
84519251|NCT02054715|168790076|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.26|||F-test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||3.26|-2.89|0.9065
84519252|NCT02054715|168790077|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.69|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||2.69|-2.79|0.9709
84519253|NCT02054715|168790078|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test between MP and PE. 69% of subjects that got the Multimedia Psychoeducation intervention chose to participate in a clinical trial, compared with 62% in the Print Education group||||0.014
84519254|NCT00858780|168790079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|29.82|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||29.82|1.72|0.007
84519255|NCT00858780|168790079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.41|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||5.41|0.54|0.362
84519256|NCT00858780|168790079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|16.99|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||16.99|1.04|0.044
84519257|NCT02153645|168790104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-13.9|0.179
84519258|NCT02153645|168790104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-11.2|0.458
84519259|NCT03969641|168790110|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 (1-sided) and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Proportions (RIV4 - IIV4)|-0.0214|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0406|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used, stratified by site.|The directional comparison was the upper bound of the confidence interval using a 10% noninferiority margin.|The null hypothesis assumes that RIV4 is inferior (i.e., RIV4 will have a higher proportion) to IIV4 in regards to the proportion of pregnant women with adverse birth outcomes.||0.0406||<0.0001
84519260|NCT03969641|168790111|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of preterm birth was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Preterm birth||1.48|0.35|0.4645
84519261|NCT03969641|168790112|SUPERIORITY|These proportions were compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportions of combined fetal death and neonatal death was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.00000031||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Fetal or neonatal death|||0.00|0.2447
84519262|NCT03969641|168790113|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of spontaneous abortion after vaccination was also calculated. This was a subgroup analysis of only those participants vaccinated at less than 20 weeks gestational age.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||Spontaneous abortion||5.47|0.04|0.6235
84519263|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Pain||2.50|0.55|0.7029
84519264|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Redness||22.52|0.18|0.6217
84519265|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Tenderness||1.39|0.35|0.3848
84519266|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.35|||Mantel Haenszel|||Nausea||1.35|0.21|0.2504
84519267|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|||Vomiting||1.93|0.20|0.5751
84540867|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|74.9|||Poisson Regression|||Esophageal Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||74.9|48.3|<0.001
84467232|NCT02202031|168687928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.34|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.34|-2.90|0.4663
84467233|NCT02202031|168687929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.38|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.38|-2.05|0.3134
84467234|NCT02202031|168687930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|3.53|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||3.53|-7.05|0.5146
84467235|NCT02202031|168687931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.16|-0.44|0.3611
84467236|NCT02202031|168687932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.57|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.57|-2.43|0.6722
84467237|NCT02202031|168687933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.07|-1.4|0.0786
84467238|NCT02202031|168687934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.79|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.79|-2.87|0.2284
84467239|NCT02202031|168687935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.13|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||-0.13|-3.28|0.0335
84467240|NCT02202031|168687936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.81|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.81|-0.66|0.8408
84467241|NCT02202031|168687937|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.32|0.5578
84467242|NCT02202031|168687938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.5578
84467243|NCT02202031|168687939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.31|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||0.31|-0.79|0.7301
84467244|NCT02202031|168687940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic||||0.04|-0.89|0.6646
84519268|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.19|||Mantel Haenszel|||Diarrhea||3.19|0.32|1.0000
84519269|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Abdominal Pain||3.04|0.21|1.0000
84467245|NCT02202031|168687941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.4993
84467246|NCT02202031|168687942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.23|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||4.23|-3.05|0.7506
84467247|NCT02202031|168687943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|3.87|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||3.87|-6.98|0.6268
84467248|NCT00431847|168687957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0448|-0.02013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02013|-0.0448|<0.0001
84467249|NCT00431847|168687957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi Squared|2.65||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4492
84467250|NCT00431847|168687957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2308||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5621|0.3461|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.|Estimated intercept group difference|A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3461|-0.5621|0.640
84467251|NCT00431847|168687957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3372||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3334|0.9932|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9932|-0.3334|0.3286
84467252|NCT00431847|168687957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4716||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06841|1.7866|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.7866|-0.06841|0.0694
84519270|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Headache||1.13|0.25|0.1326
84519271|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Chills/Shivering||5.04|0.20|1.0000
84467253|NCT00431847|168687958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03076|-0.01589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01589|-0.03076|<0.0001
84467254|NCT00431847|168687958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.49||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4772
84467255|NCT00431847|168687958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1503||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3729|-0.2184|0.6077
84467256|NCT00431847|168687958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2194||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2311|0.6319|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.6319|-0.2311|0.3616
84467257|NCT00431847|168687958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3066||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2948|0.9112|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9112|-0.2948|0.3155
84467258|NCT00431847|168687959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03573|-0.01919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01919|-0.03573|<0.0001
84467259|NCT00431847|168687959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3345
84467260|NCT00431847|168687959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2993|0.3765|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3765|-0.2993|0.8223
84519272|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Body Rash|||0.00|1.0000
84519273|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||Malaise (Fatigue)||2.15|0.39|1.0000
84467261|NCT00431847|168687959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2009|0.7848|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.7848|-0.2009|0.2448
84467262|NCT00431847|168687959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3502||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2405|1.1369|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1369|-0.2405|0.2014
84519274|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Myalgia (Body Aches)||2.48|0.31|1.0000
84519275|NCT03969641|168790114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Joint Pain||2.29|0.22|0.7704
84519276|NCT05604014|168790125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84519277|NCT05604014|168790126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
84519278|NCT05604014|168790127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84519279|NCT05604014|168790128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84467263|NCT00431847|168687960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5446|-0.02613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.02613|-0.5446|<0.0001
84519280|NCT02426918|168790137|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the low dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15% and if non-inferiority was confirmed for the high dose.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|3.0||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||3.00|-11.42|
84519281|NCT02426918|168790137|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the high dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|8.38||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||8.38|-8.32|
84519282|NCT00834405|168790152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|106.0||||||90.0|98.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|98.0|
84519283|NCT00834405|168790153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
84519284|NCT03031795|168790181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \< 0.05 for each row comparison with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"A 2 point difference was used to power the study. This is consistent with previous definitions of a clinically meaningful reductions in pain and provides a visually meaningful change on the 0-10 numerical rating scale with anchors at every other point, for example moving from very severe (8) to severe pain (6) or from moderate pain (4) to mild pain (2)."||||< 0.05
84519285|NCT01087502|168790205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.60|<0.0001
84519286|NCT01087502|168790207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.1602||95.0|-22.28|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-22.28|0.1602
84519287|NCT02705716|168790214|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|0.252|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA Model, Response: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score Factors: treatment \& site Covariates: baseline Schiff sensitivity score|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||0.252|-0.497|0.5191
84519288|NCT01151618|168790217|OTHER|"Sensitivity and Specificity of values with respect to the Mead Whittenberger method were computed as follows (FL=flow limited and NFL = Non Flow limited):~Sensitivity = (# of FL breaths detected by FOT / # of FL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100 Specificity =(# of NFL breaths detected by FOT / # of NFL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100"|DeltaXrs (cmH2O*s/L)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|100.0|||||DeltaXrs equals average inspiratory reactance minus average expiratory reactance.|||100|0|
84519289|NCT02227238|168790223|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority of DTG plus 2 NRTI's was to be declared if the lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in snapshot response rates (DTG - LPV/RTV) is greater than - 12%. This was also performed using the Per-Protocol (PP) Population. If both analyses show non-inferiority, the hypothesis of antiviral effect of DTG + 2 NRTI's was superior to LPV/RTV + 2 NRTIs was to be tested.|Proportion difference|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus that on LPV/RTV and based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA and number of fully active background NRTIs, has been presented.||Superiority would be declared if the lower end of the confidence interval was above 0%|20.3|7.3|<.001
84519290|NCT02227238|168790226|OTHER||Proportion difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.3|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 24 has been presented.|||9.3|2.2|
84467264|NCT00431847|168687960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.19||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3631
84519291|NCT02227238|168790226|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.4|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 48 has been presented.|||14.4|5.3|
84519292|NCT02227238|168790253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|-0.069|||Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 24 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.069|-0.272|0.0010
84519293|NCT02227238|168790253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.147||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.035|||'Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 48 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.035|-0.259|0.0100
84467265|NCT00431847|168687960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2746||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6404|0.4396|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.4396|-0.6404|0.7148
84467266|NCT00431847|168687960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4009||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4318|1.1453|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1453|-0.4318|0.3741
84467267|NCT00431847|168687960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5609||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1938|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.4000|0.1938|0.0213
84467268|NCT00431847|168687961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03702|-0.0185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01850|-0.03702|<0.0001
84467269|NCT00431847|168687961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.88||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.2752
84467270|NCT00431847|168687961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1918||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6851|0.06941|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.06941|-0.6851|0.1094
84467271|NCT00431847|168687961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5079|0.5935|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5935|-0.5079|0.8786
84467272|NCT00431847|168687961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09297|1.4448|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.4448|-0.09297|0.0847
84519294|NCT02227238|168790254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.356|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 24 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.356|-0.729|<0.0001
84519295|NCT02227238|168790254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.358||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.161|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 48 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.161|-0.555|0.0004
84540868|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|136.8|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium avium complex: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||136.8|70.8|<0.001
84467273|NCT00431847|168687962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04808|-0.02481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02481|-0.04808|<0.0001
84467274|NCT00431847|168687962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.16||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3677
84467275|NCT00431847|168687962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4929|0.3766|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3766|-0.4929|0.7926
84467276|NCT00431847|168687962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.8026|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.8026|-0.4610|0.5953
84467277|NCT00431847|168687962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4482||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1943|1.5689|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5689|-0.1943|0.1261
84467278|NCT00431847|168687963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7286|-0.2377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.2377|-0.7286|0.0002
84467279|NCT00431847|168687963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.2||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3617
84467280|NCT00431847|168687963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7573||0.2532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2715|8.5863|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||8.5863|-2.2715|0.2532
84467281|NCT00431847|168687963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9633||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5833|9.0286|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||9.0286|-6.5833|0.7580
84467282|NCT00431847|168687963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3759||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7484|3.4187|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.4187|-17.7484|0.1837
84467283|NCT00431847|168687964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03909|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3971|0.5511|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.5511|0.3971|<0.0001
84467284|NCT00431847|168687964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.83||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6075
84467285|NCT00431847|168687964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2763||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4675|1.5607|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5607|-3.4675|0.4558
84467286|NCT00431847|168687964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.977||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2442|0.5432|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5432|-7.2442|0.0914
84467287|NCT00431847|168687964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0921||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4589|-2.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-2.2810|-14.4589|0.007
84540648|NCT01128179|168832516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0129||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2811|0.2553||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Calcium-Phosphate Product at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Calcium-Phosphate Product as a covariate.||0.2553|-0.2811|0.9220
84540649|NCT01682811|168832517|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sample t-test comparing the absolute value to an alternate expected value of zero.||||0.0001
84519296|NCT00985751|168790262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine (GSK 2189242A) combined with Synflorix™ vaccine (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
84519297|NCT00985751|168790263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would be express|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine GSK 2189242A (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
84519298|NCT01986647|168790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.2691
84519299|NCT01986647|168790278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.6087
84519300|NCT01986647|168790279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0022
84519301|NCT01986647|168790280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0344
84519302|NCT01986647|168790281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.49|0.6879
84519303|NCT01986647|168790282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.56|0.5719
84519304|NCT01986647|168790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.53|0.44|0.489
84519305|NCT01986647|168790284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.6|0.37|0.2981
84519306|NCT01986647|168790285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.30|0.9279
84519307|NCT01986647|168790286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.67|0.5835
84519308|NCT01986647|168790287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
84519309|NCT01986647|168790288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
84519310|NCT01986647|168790289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
84519311|NCT01986647|168790290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84519312|NCT01986647|168790291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
84519313|NCT01986647|168790292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.29|0.0324
84519314|NCT02003391|168790327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6191|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.8503|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8503||<0.0001
84519315|NCT02272803|168790332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||||Hazard Ratio of E-Ld to Ld. Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3)|||1.67|0.41|
84519316|NCT03105297|168790416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||95.0||||p-value for comparing between treatments (strip/no strip) were computed from mixed models with treatment \& period as fixed effects, participants as random effects \& time as repeated measures effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0147
84519317|NCT03105297|168790417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84519318|NCT03105297|168790418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84519319|NCT03105297|168790419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0073
84519320|NCT02452463|168790495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
84519321|NCT02452463|168790497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: OS distributions are equal||||0.75
84519322|NCT02452463|168790498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: PFS distributions are equal||||0.25
84519323|NCT02452463|168790499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.131
84519324|NCT02452463|168790500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
84519325|NCT02452463|168790501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616
84519326|NCT02452463|168790501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Paired T-test|||Comparing change relative to baseline.||||0.183
84519327|NCT02452463|168790501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||paired T-test|||Evaluating change relative to baseline.||||0.203
84519328|NCT02452463|168790502|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
84540650|NCT01682811|168832520|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons between treated and placebo lesions within subject.||||0.24
84540651|NCT01682811|168832523|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
84519329|NCT03867760|168790504|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to detect a difference in pain intensity of at least 0.85 points corresponding to an effect size of 0.57 based on results from our pilot study. The sample size needed was 50 per group based on power of .80, alpha of .05.||||||0.809||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain intensity than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.809
84467288|NCT00431847|168687965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2987|-0.1352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1352|-0.2987|<0.0001
84467289|NCT00431847|168687965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.37||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0950
84467290|NCT00431847|168687965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3351||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9056|3.3547|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3547|-1.9056|0.5878
84467291|NCT00431847|168687965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0697||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3231|3.8299|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.8299|-4.3231|0.9053
84467292|NCT00431847|168687965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2285||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7034|4.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.0120|-8.7034|0.4682
84467293|NCT00431847|168687966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03562||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02369|0.1165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1165|-0.02369|0.1938
84467294|NCT00431847|168687966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.43||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4884
84467295|NCT00431847|168687966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3991||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1348|3.3696|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3696|-2.1348|0.6593
84467296|NCT00431847|168687966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0263||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|7.4431|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.4431|-0.5280|0.0889
84467297|NCT00431847|168687966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8061||0.8727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9692|5.0694|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||5.0694|-5.9692|0.8727
84467298|NCT00431847|168687967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08855|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6973|-0.3486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.3486|-0.6973|<.0001
84467299|NCT00431847|168687967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|4.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.1800
84519330|NCT03867760|168790505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain interference than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.369
84519331|NCT03867760|168790506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in anxiety than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.029
84519332|NCT03867760|168790507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in depression than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.236
84519333|NCT03867760|168790508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in fatigue than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.904
84519334|NCT03867760|168790509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in sleep disturbance than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.936
84519335|NCT03867760|168790510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention who experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity will not have a significantly higher pre-treatment treatment credibility and expectancy score than non-improvers.||||0.02
84519336|NCT01073631|168790512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.07|82.73|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||82.73|75.07|
84467300|NCT00431847|168687967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8198||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.253|7.857|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.8570|-3.2530|0.4151
84467301|NCT00431847|168687967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1592|12.8344|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.8344|-4.1592|0.3157
84467302|NCT00431847|168687967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9715||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|25.5541|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||25.5541|-1.9040|0.0911
84519337|NCT03544216|168790514|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Results of post-hoc analyses comparing scores of each lens type to one another:~Habitual lens and multifocal contact lens: p \<0.001 Habitual lens and single vision lens: p \<0.001 Multifocal lens and single vision lens: p = 0.08"|Generalized linear models|||Generalized linear models (controlling for repeated measures) of crossover analyses was run to compare mean CLDEQ-8 scores with habitual, multifocal, and single vision contact lenses (controlling for order)||||<0.001
84519338|NCT03544216|168790514|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and refractive error (continuous, mean binocular spherical equivalent)||||0.5
84519339|NCT03544216|168790514|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between magnitude in accommodative lag (measured in diopters with a 2 diopter visual target) and lens type (single vision or multifocal)||||0.7
84519340|NCT03544216|168790514|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (continuous, measured in self-reported years)||||0.3
84519341|NCT03544216|168790514|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (measured categorically as 30 to \<35 years old and 35 to 40 years old, by self report)|"Post-Hoc Testing comparing CLDEQ-8 scores and the interaction between lens type and age group (denoted by lens type\*age group) produced the following results:~p = 0.01 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\<35 age group p = 0.07 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to SV\*\>35 age group p \>0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\>35 age group compared to SV\*\>25 age group"|||0.047
84467303|NCT00431847|168687968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09078||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4675|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1100|-0.4675|0.0016
84467304|NCT00431847|168687968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.33||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0966
84467305|NCT00431847|168687968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4264||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7938|7.7697|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.7697|-1.7938|0.2195
84467306|NCT00431847|168687968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7381||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8289|4.9018|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.9018|-9.8289|0.5105
84467307|NCT00431847|168687968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1087||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4174|1.6433|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.6433|-22.4174|0.0903
84467308|NCT00431847|168687969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.04113||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2252|0.1429|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1429|-0.2252|0.6602
84467309|NCT00431847|168687969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.53||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6764
84467310|NCT00431847|168687969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6357||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7036|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.6840|-2.7036|0.3458
84519342|NCT00840879|168790544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.15||||||90.0|90.96|105.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.90|90.96|
84519343|NCT00840879|168790545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.34||||||90.0|91.82|101.07|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.07|91.82|
84519344|NCT00840879|168790546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.76||||||90.0|93.31|102.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.42|93.31|
84467311|NCT00431847|168687969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0583||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2466|2.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.7430|-13.2466|0.1969
84467312|NCT00431847|168687969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5287||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8429|-0.1162|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.1162|-25.8429|0.0480
84519345|NCT01851876|168790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
84519346|NCT01911429|168790561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-8.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.7|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.7|-12.4|0.0003
84726562|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-5.7|
84519347|NCT01911429|168790561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-7.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.4|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.4|-12.1|0.0006
84467313|NCT00431847|168687970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1003||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4323|-0.03745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.03745|-0.4323|0.0199
84467314|NCT00431847|168687970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.6||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4577
84467315|NCT00431847|168687970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8797||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.624|4.7236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.7236|-6.6240|0.7417
84467316|NCT00431847|168687970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4523||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5129|10.0289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||10.0289|-7.5129|0.7778
84467317|NCT00431847|168687970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2532||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7608|22.8073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||22.8073|-5.7608|0.2411
84467318|NCT00431847|168687971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08284||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00029|0.3261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.3261|-0.00029|0.0504
84467319|NCT00431847|168687971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.45||||0.6942|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6942
84519348|NCT01911429|168790562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
84467320|NCT00431847|168687971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4216||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2469|6.2951|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||6.2951|-3.2469|0.5297
84467321|NCT00431847|168687971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7464||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1478|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.6120|-11.1478|0.3155
84467322|NCT00431847|168687971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.092||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7515|2.2399|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.2399|-21.7515|0.1105
84467323|NCT00431847|168687972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07538||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4465|-0.1493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1493|-0.4465|0.001
84467324|NCT00431847|168687972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.72||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4361
84519349|NCT01911429|168790562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.42||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.16|-0.67|0.0015
84467325|NCT00431847|168687972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6015||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0247|4.2246|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.2246|-6.0247|0.7297
84467326|NCT00431847|168687972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0186||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.625|12.2043|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.2043|-3.6250|0.2868
84467327|NCT00431847|168687972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2663||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|21.3505|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||21.3505|-3.3270|0.1516
84467328|NCT00431847|168687973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2584|-0.6967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury. T||-0.6967|-1.2584|<0.0001
84467329|NCT00431847|168687973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|0.78||||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.8548
84519350|NCT02450539|168790577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.765||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.672|||Stratified log-rank test.||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.672|1.165|0.0068
84519351|NCT02450539|168790580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|2.022|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).\]||2.022|0.879|0.1746
84519352|NCT02450539|168790581|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.6|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||-6.6|-29.3|
84519353|NCT02450539|168790582|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|2.8|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||2.8|-29.2|
84467330|NCT00431847|168687973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3026|11.0296|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.0296|-4.3026|0.3882
84467331|NCT00431847|168687973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9044||0.9322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1376|11.1317|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.1317|-12.1376|0.9322
84467332|NCT00431847|168687973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2462||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8992|39.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||39.3341|2.8992|0.0233
84467333|NCT00339183|168687974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.91||||0.0036|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.0036
84519354|NCT02450539|168790583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|2.792|||Stratified Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression model.|Stratification factors are baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), Number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.792|0.502|0.7039
84519355|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Headache||||
84467334|NCT00339183|168687974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.46||||0.1448|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a 1% level conditional upon first demonstrating a significant difference in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.1448
84467335|NCT00339183|168687975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.57||||0.1154|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.1154
84467336|NCT00339183|168687975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-0.6||||0.5503|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|The treatment effect on OS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at the 4% level conditional on first demonstrating a significant OS treatment effect in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.5503
84467337|NCT00339183|168687976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|8.6|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||8.60|3.21|<0.0001
84467338|NCT00339183|168687976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||1.76|0.56|1.0000
84519356|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Diarrhea||||
84519357|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core symptom severity||||
84519358|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean interference||||
84519359|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean lung cancer symptom severity||||
84467339|NCT02142894|168687988|EQUIVALENCE|The results are analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table with 95%CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|95.2||||||||95.2|72.7|
84467340|NCT03078608|168688000|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||1.00
84467341|NCT03078608|168688001|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.11
84467342|NCT03078608|168688002|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.79
84467343|NCT03078608|168688003|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.29
84467344|NCT03078608|168688004|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.67
84467345|NCT03078608|168688005|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.24
84467346|NCT03078608|168688006|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.25
84467347|NCT03078608|168688007|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.53||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.47
84467348|NCT03078608|168688008|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.23
84467349|NCT03078608|168688009|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.39
84467350|NCT01455428|168688011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.08|0.0002
84467351|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.2||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.20|-0.79|0.0010
84467352|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.35|-0.94|<0.0001
84467353|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.88|0.0001
84519360|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung cancer symptom severity||||
84519361|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean brain tumor symptom severity||||
84519362|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung worst 5 symptoms severity||||
84519363|NCT02450539|168790584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Rash||||
84519364|NCT02450539|168790585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ VAS Overall Self-rated Health Score||||
84467354|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
84467355|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
84467356|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.89|0.0001
84467357|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.41||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.41|-1.01|<0.0001
84467358|NCT01455428|168688012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.40|-1.00|<0.0001
84467359|NCT01455428|168688014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.93|0.0079
84467360|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.19|-0.86|0.0024
84467361|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.31|-0.99|0.0002
84467362|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0012
84467363|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.11|-0.79|0.0101
84467364|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.73|0.0258
84467365|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.74|0.0260
84467366|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.14|-0.83|0.0062
84467367|NCT01455428|168688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0081
84467368|NCT01455428|168688016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||0.0007
84519365|NCT02450539|168790586|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ-5D-5L Index Value||||
84519366|NCT00834444|168790587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.9||||||90.0|87.8|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|87.8|
84540652|NCT02694328|168832524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.88||P-value was adjusted using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|ANCOVA|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.||||-0.88|-3.88|0.003
84467369|NCT01455428|168688019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.37||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.37|-11.99|<0.0001
84467370|NCT01455428|168688020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.58|0.0007
84467371|NCT01455428|168688022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.464||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|-2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.35|-12.08|0.0039
84467372|NCT01455428|168688023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|7.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|-3.76|0.5351
84467373|NCT01455428|168688024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.579||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.73||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-5.45|0.8892
84467374|NCT01455428|168688025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|0.14|0.0035
84467375|NCT01455428|168688026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||3.60|0.90|0.0972
84467376|NCT01455428|168688027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161||0.5702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|8.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||8.03|-4.44|0.5702
84467377|NCT01455428|168688028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.194||0.6929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.20|-3.46|0.6929
84467378|NCT01455428|168688029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.94||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.94|-6.63|0.1403
84467379|NCT01455428|168688030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.39|-0.86|<0.0001
84467380|NCT01455428|168688031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.27|-0.72|<0.0001
84467381|NCT01455428|168688033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|-0.83|0.5060
84467382|NCT01455428|168688034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.66|0.7247
84467383|NCT00455858|168688063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.368|-1.344|||t-test|||||-1.344|-1.368|<.0001
84467384|NCT00455858|168688064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.338|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-1.327|||t-test|||||-1.327|-1.350|<.0001
84467385|NCT00455858|168688065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-69.553|||<|0.0001||95.0|-70.047|-69.06|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 12||-69.060|-70.047|<.0001
84467386|NCT00455858|168688065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-72.159|||<|0.0001||95.0|-72.647|-71.671|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 20||-71.671|-72.647|<.0001
84467387|NCT00751881|168688082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to have 94% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction in ARR with teriflunomide compared to placebo at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.0001
84540869|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|189.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.3|319.5|||Poisson Regression|||Cryptococcosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||319.5|112.3|<0.001
84467388|NCT00751881|168688082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|22.3||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0183
84467389|NCT00751881|168688083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* S1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* S2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to have 75% power to detect a 37% hazard ratio reduction in time to disability progression with teriflunomide compared to placebo."||||0.0442
84467390|NCT00751881|168688083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|4.5||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.7620
84467391|NCT02222129|168688109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, version 9.2 (Statistical Analysis Software, Cary, NC). All power calculations were at the 80% level with an alpha of 0.05. Based upon opioid consumption data previously reported for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, a sample size of 74 would be necessary to detect a 10 mg difference in morphine equivalents totaled over the entire hospital stay. (Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. The Journal of Urology 2005;174(3):912-914.||||0.39
84467392|NCT01651260|168688113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper probability of failure|0.05||||||||||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||||
84467393|NCT02144220|168688124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84467394|NCT03242759|168688170|OTHER|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.505
84467395|NCT03242759|168688170|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.181
84467396|NCT03242759|168688171|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.571
84467397|NCT03242759|168688171|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.232
84467398|NCT03242759|168688172|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
84467399|NCT03242759|168688172|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.375
84467400|NCT03242759|168688173|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.027
84467401|NCT03242759|168688173|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.938
84467402|NCT03242759|168688174|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.001
84467403|NCT03242759|168688174|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.048
84467404|NCT03242759|168688175|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.018
84467405|NCT03242759|168688175|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.125
84467406|NCT03242759|168688176|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.073
84467407|NCT03242759|168688176|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.755
84467408|NCT03242759|168688177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
84467409|NCT03242759|168688177|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.281
84467410|NCT03242759|168688178|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
84467411|NCT03242759|168688178|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.008
84467412|NCT03242759|168688179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
84467413|NCT03242759|168688179|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.031
84467414|NCT03242759|168688181|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
84467415|NCT03242759|168688181|OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.939
84467416|NCT03242759|168688182|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.169
84467417|NCT03242759|168688182|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.545
84467418|NCT03242759|168688183|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.333
84467419|NCT03242759|168688183|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.786
84467420|NCT03242759|168688184|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.245
84467421|NCT03242759|168688184|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.454
84467422|NCT03242759|168688185|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.543
84467423|NCT03242759|168688185|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.733
84467424|NCT03242759|168688186|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.046
84467425|NCT03242759|168688186|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.898
84519367|NCT00834444|168790588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.9|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.9|
84540653|NCT02694328|168832525|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-4.6||P-value was adjusted using the CHW method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) of ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-4.6|-22.8|0.003
84467426|NCT00064662|168688189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of 24 month success rates. Null hypothesis is that the distributions in the two groups are equal.||||0.01
84467427|NCT00064662|168688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of cumulative success rates in the two groups. Null hypothesis is that the distributions are equal in the two groups.||||<0.001
84467428|NCT00064662|168688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kalpan Meier (Wald statistic)|||Kaplan Meier time-to-event analysis of cumulative success rates. Used Wald test of equality of survival distributions.||||<0.0001
84467429|NCT03008590|168688192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.90
84467430|NCT03008590|168688193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.22
84467431|NCT03008590|168688194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.02
84467432|NCT03008590|168688195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.3
84467433|NCT03008590|168688196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.04
84467434|NCT03008590|168688197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.78
84467435|NCT03008590|168688198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.92
84467436|NCT02986958|168688221|OTHER|We used generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure to assess the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of between-group differences. Regression models included treatment assignment and patient-level covariates (patient age, gender, and MMSE score) that were postulated as affecting communication outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
84467437|NCT01000064|168688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
84467438|NCT01000064|168688250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
84467439|NCT01000064|168688251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84467440|NCT01000064|168688252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84467441|NCT01000064|168688253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84467442|NCT01000064|168688254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
84467443|NCT01000064|168688255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84467444|NCT00410280|168688267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|1.15|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) and p-value were derived from the model.||1.15|-14.04|0.0947
84467445|NCT00410280|168688268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|3.35|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.35|-11.84|0.2673
84467446|NCT00410280|168688269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-1.24|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.24|-46.35|0.0391
84467447|NCT00410280|168688269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.17||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.72|5.39|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.39|-39.72|0.1326
84467448|NCT00410280|168688270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-0.35|-19.16|0.0423
84467449|NCT00410280|168688270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|5.35|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.35|-13.46|0.3902
84519368|NCT00834444|168790589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.7|
84519369|NCT02052895|168790590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of ROC-AUC|0.0317||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0409|0.1043|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.1043|-0.0409|0.3924
84519370|NCT02704091|168790597|SUPERIORITY|"The following Null-hypothesis was tested:~H0: λA(t) = λB (t) versus H1: λA(t) ≠ λB (t), where λ(t) represents the hazard at time t, A=diosmectite and B=placebo."|||||=|0.2524|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||The primary analysis tested the equality of time to recovery between the 2 treatment groups, applying the 2-sided Gehan-Wilcoxon test (α=5%).||||=0.2524
84519371|NCT02704091|168790598|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3511|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to recovery, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.3511
84467450|NCT00410280|168688271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.90|-36.21|0.0302
84467451|NCT00410280|168688271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.34|3.97|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.97|-30.34|0.1289
84467452|NCT00410280|168688272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Screening: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.96|-0.79|0.8469
84467453|NCT00410280|168688272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.86|-0.86|0.9995
84467454|NCT00410280|168688272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 35: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.59|-1.14|0.5280
84467455|NCT03625986|168688287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.68||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
84467456|NCT03625986|168688288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8103
84467457|NCT03625986|168688289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0105
84467458|NCT03625986|168688290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2415.93||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0182
84467459|NCT03625986|168688291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8429
84467460|NCT03625986|168688292|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4881
84467461|NCT03625986|168688293|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0835
84467462|NCT03625986|168688294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
84467463|NCT03625986|168688295|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0052
84467464|NCT03625986|168688296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0797
84467465|NCT03625986|168688297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1084
84467466|NCT03625986|168688298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.3469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3469
84467467|NCT03625986|168688299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3632||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
84467468|NCT03625986|168688300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
84467469|NCT03625986|168688301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5448
84467470|NCT03625986|168688302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
84467471|NCT03625986|168688303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1567
84467472|NCT01850563|168688308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
84519372|NCT02704091|168790599|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7285|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to first formed stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.7285
84467473|NCT01850563|168688310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
84467474|NCT02078713|168688323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.65|0.46
84467475|NCT02078713|168688323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.10|0.57|0.16
84467476|NCT02078713|168688324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.05|1.03|0.03
84467477|NCT02078713|168688325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33||P-value calculated in imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.33|1.11|0.01
84467478|NCT02078713|168688326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.67||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.67|0.74|0.62
84467479|NCT02078713|168688327|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had been less involved to right amount (ref)||3.04|0.40|0.85
84467480|NCT02078713|168688327|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.5||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished their providers had been more involved, compared to right amount (ref)||3.50|0.73|0.24
84467481|NCT02078713|168688328|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had expressed preference less strongly to right amount (ref).||2.25|0.45|0.997
84467482|NCT02078713|168688328|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished provider had expressed preference more strongly, compared to right amount (ref).||1.16|0.41|0.16
84467483|NCT02078713|168688329|SUPERIORITY|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.82|0.93|0.13
84467484|NCT02078713|168688330|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patient decision to both (ref)||1.61|0.79|0.50
84467485|NCT02078713|168688330|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|2.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.15||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of provider decision to both (ref)||5.15|0.89|0.09
84519373|NCT02704091|168790600|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from first study treatment intake to last watery stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.1807
84519374|NCT02704091|168790601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of stools for the overall time period, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.07|-0.15|0.4294
84519375|NCT02704091|168790602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of watery stools for the overall time period, based on an ANCOVA method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of watery stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||-0.00|-0.24|0.0465
84519376|NCT01945580|168790666|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 362 subjects (181 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority of transvaginal biologic to native tissue repair, using a margin of 12.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|5.9|||||The propensity adjusted treatment difference of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) minus NTR was estimated and missing data was handled using multiple imputation method.|||5.9|-5.6|
84467486|NCT02078713|168688331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.71|0.94|0.12
84467487|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of overall score||1.74|0.80|0.41
84467488|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of informed decision subscale||1.80|1.00|0.0496
84467489|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of uncertainty subscale of DCS||2.05|1.03|0.03
84467490|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of effective decision subscale||1.59|0.80|0.5
84467491|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of values clarity subscale||1.59|0.86|0.31
84467492|NCT02078713|168688332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of support subscale||1.49|0.76|0.73
84467493|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.72||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pills are more effective than condoms||1.72|0.94|0.12
84467494|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.62||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are more effective than pills||3.62|1.94|<0.0001
84467495|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - depo is more effective than condoms||2.44|1.29|0.0004
84467496|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are an option for nulliparous young women||2.71|1.36|0.0002
84467497|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Methods causing periods to stop are safe.||2.71|1.28|0.001
84467498|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - LARC can be removed early||1.57|0.85|0.36
84467499|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.41||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - Copper IUD can act as EC||4.41|1.72|<0.0001
84467500|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.63||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - After sex, there is something you can do to prevent pregnancy||1.63|0.36|0.49
84467501|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - EC can prevent pregnancy after sex||1.34|0.39|0.31
84467502|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pill does not affect fertility||1.84|0.96|0.08
84467503|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.26||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.||Comparison of correct knowledge - patch does not affect fertility|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|2.26|1.2|0.002
84467504|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - ring does not affect fertility||2.35|1.23|0.002
84467505|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Depo does affect fertility||1.43|0.62|0.77
84519377|NCT01945580|168790667|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.10 (power 90%), 308 subjects (154 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 11.6%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|4.7|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||4.7|-0.8|
84467506|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.17||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.17|1.19|0.002
84467507|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Non-hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.1|1.15|0.004
84467508|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Implant does not affect fertility||2.07|1.14|0.005
84467509|NCT02078713|168688333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||OR calculated in multiply imputed dataset. Intervention patients had 2.47 times the odds of control patients to give correct answer.|Comparison of correct knowledge - composite IUD knowledge item (all correct responses on items related to IUD knowledge, versus any incorrect)||3.49|1.75|<0.0001
84540654|NCT02694328|168832526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-6.5|-25.3|0.001
84467510|NCT02078713|168688334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at baseline||1.61|0.88|0.25
84467511|NCT02078713|168688334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention groups in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at 4 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.66|0.5
84467512|NCT02078713|168688334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving a top score on the 5-point Likert scale at 7 months post-enrollment.||1.13|0.60|0.23
84467513|NCT02078713|168688335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.25|0.66|0.55
84467514|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating for hormonal IUD. Patients excluded from analysis if they had not heard of hormonal IUD.||1.6|0.92|0.13
84467515|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on non-hormonal IUD. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the non-hormonal IUD in the post-visit survey.||1.3|0.75|0.92
84467516|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating of implant||1.07|0.67|0.17
84519378|NCT02640235|168790735|NON_INFERIORITY|The logistic regression estimates are generated from predicted values of the fitted logistic regression model. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than -10, Celstat is non-inferior to Surgicel. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 0, Celstat will be declared superior to Surgicel.|Difference in avg predicted proportion|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-1.4|-15.6|
84467517|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on condoms. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of condoms in the post-visit survey.||0.92|0.54|0.009
84467518|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the shot (Depo Provera). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the the shot (Depo Provera) in the post-visit survey.||1.12|0.65|0.26
84467519|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pill. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pill in the post-visit survey.||1.11|0.64|0.23
84467520|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the patch. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the patch in the post-visit survey.||1.22|0.69|0.55
84467521|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pull-out method. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pull-out method in the post-visit survey.||1.25|0.76|0.84
84519379|NCT02640235|168790738|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.1|-3.6|
84467522|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the ring. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the ring in the post-visit survey.||1.02|0.64|0.07
84467523|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on female sterilization/tubal ligation. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of female sterilization/tubal ligation in the post-visit survey.||0.82|0.42|0.002
84467524|NCT02078713|168688336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.85||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on male sterilization/vasectomy. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of male sterilization/vasectomy in the post-visit survey.||0.85|0.4|0.005
84467525|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.42||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of hormonal IUD||3.42|0.71|0.27
84467526|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.4||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of non-hormonal IUD||3.40|0.80|0.18
84467527|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of implant||2.69|0.62|0.5
84519380|NCT02640235|168790739|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.5|-12|
84467528|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.89||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of the patch||4.89|0.59|0.32
84467529|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of ring||2.81|0.68|0.37
84467530|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of male sterilization (vasectomy)||3.73|0.60|0.39
84467531|NCT02078713|168688337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of female sterilization||3.73|0.6|0.39
84467532|NCT02078713|168688338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81||P-value calculated from multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|"The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group rating their appointment as much better, in the numerator, over the odds of the control group giving this rating in the denominator."|Patients excluded from test if they reported not having had a previous contraceptive counseling appointment.||1.81|0.90|0.18
84467533|NCT02078713|168688339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|18.66||P-value calculated in multiple imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||18.66|8.54|<0.001
84467534|NCT02078713|168688340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.29||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||5.29|-3.19|0.63
84519381|NCT02640235|168790740|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.3|-5.7|
84467535|NCT02078713|168688341|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|2.68|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Test of follow-up score of emotional exhaustion subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site||2.68|-10.62|0.24
84467536|NCT02078713|168688341|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|1.72|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error|Linear regression of follow-up score for depersonalization subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site.||1.72|-4.76|0.36
84467537|NCT02078713|168688341|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.34|||Regression, Linear||Tool group compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Linear regression of follow-up score for personal accomplishment subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for site and baseline score.||1.34|-4.61|0.28
84467538|NCT02078713|168688342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.65||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.65|0.69|0.78
84467539|NCT02078713|168688343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.35|0.66|0.75
84519382|NCT02640235|168790741|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.4|-3.9|
84519383|NCT00073307|168790757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.146||95.0|0.74|1.04||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||1.04|0.74|0.146
84540580|NCT02972892|168832386|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|15.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||15.01|6.89|<.001
84467540|NCT02078713|168688343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.53|0.75|0.71
84467541|NCT02078713|168688344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.34|0.66|0.75
84467542|NCT02078713|168688344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.64|0.83|0.37
84467543|NCT02078713|168688345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.37||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||3.37|0.48|0.63
84467544|NCT02078713|168688345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.8||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||3.80|0.88|0.11
84467545|NCT03074162|168688355|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|51.7|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||51.70|40.11|
84467546|NCT03074162|168688355|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|85.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.11|98.77|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||98.77|74.11|
84519384|NCT00073307|168790758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0287||95.0|0.62|0.97||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||0.97|0.62|0.0287
84519385|NCT00073307|168790759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.35|0.55|||Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|The planned final PFS analysis was to be performed when approximately 363 progressions or deaths (if death occurred before progression) were observed. The analysis had power of 90% to detect a 50% increase in PFS using a two-sided alpha of 0.01||0.55|0.35|<0.000001
84519386|NCT00073307|168790760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates (CR+PR)|-2.1||||||95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustments for country and Motzer category|difference in response rates (CR+PR) = Placebo - Sorafenib|||-0.6|-3.7|
84519387|NCT00073307|168790761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline FKSI-10 score and relative day of FKSI-10 completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.98
84519388|NCT00073307|168790762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline PWB score and relative day of PWB completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.83
84467547|NCT03074162|168688356|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|49.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.39|56.71|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||56.71|43.39|
84467548|NCT03074162|168688356|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|83.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|105.31|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||105.31|66.33|
84467549|NCT02948777|168688369|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84467550|NCT02948777|168688370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84519389|NCT01438060|168790763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.49||Baseline data was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and study center as main effects.|ANOVA||Model based estimate.|Analysis at Baseline (Day 0)||1.49|-1.15|0.802
84467551|NCT02948777|168688371|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
84467552|NCT02948777|168688372|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84467553|NCT02948777|168688373|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84467554|NCT02948777|168688374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84467555|NCT02948777|168688375|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84467556|NCT02948777|168688376|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
84467557|NCT02948777|168688377|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.31
84467558|NCT02948777|168688378|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
84467559|NCT02948777|168688379|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84467560|NCT02948777|168688380|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84467561|NCT02948777|168688381|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
84467562|NCT02948777|168688382|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84467563|NCT02948777|168688383|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84467564|NCT02948777|168688384|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
84467565|NCT02948777|168688385|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84467566|NCT02948777|168688386|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
84467567|NCT02948777|168688387|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
84467568|NCT02948777|168688388|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84467569|NCT02948777|168688389|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84467570|NCT02948777|168688390|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84467571|NCT02948777|168688392|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84467572|NCT02948777|168688393|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84467573|NCT03242928|168688394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||||-0.013|-0.161|= 0.021
84467574|NCT03242928|168688395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.023|||ANOVA|||||-0.023|-0.331|= 0.025
84467575|NCT03242928|168688396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.006|||ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.146|= 0.072
84467576|NCT03650452|168688402|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-30.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-13.19||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-13.19|-46.99|0.0007
84467577|NCT03650452|168688403|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-25.93||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.96|-10.69||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-10.69|-43.96|0.0024
84467578|NCT03650452|168688404|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-50.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.03|-25.09||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-25.09|-75.03|0.0001
84467579|NCT03650452|168688405|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-16.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|4.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||4.49|-39.50|0.1470
84467580|NCT03650452|168688408|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference (TAK-935 - Placebo) of change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo was computed using MMRM.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||The MMRM model included treatment and visit as factors along with treatment\*visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate; and visit as repeated measure.|||0.49|-0.32|0.6829
84467581|NCT01703286|168688470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.633|0.5403
84467582|NCT01703286|168688470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.632|0.5402
84467583|NCT01703286|168688470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.0||||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.397|||ANOVA|||||1.397|0.715|0.9989
84519390|NCT01438060|168790763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.44||ANCOVA model for LOCF data set included the baseline measure as covariate and the study center and treatment as main effects.|ANCOVA||Model based estimate|Analysis at Week 10||0.44|-2.49|0.169
84519391|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.79||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 1||1.35|0.47|0.391
84467584|NCT01703286|168688471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.208||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.738|||ANOVA|||||1.738|0.840|0.3885
84467585|NCT01703286|168688471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.251||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.801|||ANOVA|||||1.801|0.868|0.3105
84467586|NCT01703286|168688471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.035||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.485|||ANOVA|||||1.485|0.721|0.8749
84467587|NCT01703286|168688472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.03|||ANOVA|||||0.030|-0.130|0.2982
84467588|NCT01703286|168688472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.059|0.101|||ANOVA|||||0.101|-0.059|0.6601
84467589|NCT01703286|168688472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.152|||ANOVA|||||0.152|-0.009|0.1412
84467590|NCT00931892|168688479|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
84467591|NCT00931892|168688480|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
84467592|NCT00931892|168688481|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.387
84467593|NCT00931892|168688481|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
84467594|NCT00931892|168688482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.010
84467595|NCT00931892|168688482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.036
84467596|NCT00931892|168688482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.013
84467597|NCT00931892|168688482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.006
84467598|NCT00931892|168688484|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) score for Day 3 of Gluten Challenge||||0.05
84467599|NCT00931892|168688484|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) Score from baseline to Day 14||||0.020
84467600|NCT00931892|168688484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI)score between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.060
84467601|NCT00931892|168688486|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) on Day 3 of the Gluten Challenge||||0.01
84467602|NCT00931892|168688486|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) from baseline to Day 14 of Gluten Challenge||||0.012
84467603|NCT00931892|168688486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.090
84467604|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||"P- value for social function"|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.047
84467605|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||"P- value of  symptom/problem list "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.688
84467606|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||||||"P- value of  effects of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.772
84467607|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||"P-value of  burden of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.301
84467608|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||"P-value of  work status "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.250
84467609|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||||||"P-value of  cognitive function "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.895
84467610|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||"P-value of  quality of social interaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.281
84467611|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  sleep "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
84519392|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.95||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 2||1.31|0.69|0.766
84467612|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  social support "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
84467613|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||||||"P-value of  dialysis staff encouragement "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.943
84467614|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  overall health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
84467615|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"P-value of  patient satisfaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.090
84467616|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||||||"P-value of  physical functioning "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.391
84467617|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||"P-value of  role-physical "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.438
84467618|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||"P-value of  pain "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.424
84467619|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||"P-value of  general health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.169
84467620|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||||||"P-value of  emotional well-being "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.858
84467621|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||"P-value of  role-emotional "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.156
84467622|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||"P-value of  energy/fatigue "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.084
84467623|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||||||"P-value of  SF-12 physical composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.583
84467624|NCT01876732|168688488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||||||"p-value of  SF-12 mental composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.358
84467625|NCT00305006|168688501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.01
84467626|NCT04964063|168688523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.19|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.19|-1.47|<.0001
84467627|NCT04964063|168688523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.45|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-1.45|-1.77|<.0001
84467628|NCT04964063|168688523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-1.0|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.00|-1.33|<.0001
84467629|NCT04964063|168688524|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.70|-1.98|<.0001
84467630|NCT04964063|168688524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.02|-2.33|<.0001
84467631|NCT04964063|168688524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.29|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.29|-1.61|<.0001
84467632|NCT04964063|168688525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-2.15|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.15|-2.43|<.0001
84467633|NCT04964063|168688525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-2.47|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.47|-2.79|<.0001
84467634|NCT04964063|168688525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.70|-2.02|<.0001
84467635|NCT04964063|168688526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-2.4|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.40|-2.68|<.0001
84467636|NCT04964063|168688526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-2.73|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.73|-3.05|<.0001
84467637|NCT04964063|168688526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.87|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.87|-2.20|<.0001
84467638|NCT04964063|168688527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-2.55|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.55|-2.84|<.0001
84467639|NCT04964063|168688527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.83|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.83|-3.15|<.0001
84467640|NCT04964063|168688527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.02|-2.35|<.0001
84467641|NCT04964063|168688528|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-2.79|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.79|-3.08|<.0001
84467642|NCT04964063|168688528|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-3.08|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-3.08|-3.40|<.0001
84467643|NCT04964063|168688528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-2.21|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.21|-2.53|<.0001
84467644|NCT04964063|168688530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-15.05|||ANOVA|||||-15.05|-20.81|<.0001
84467645|NCT04964063|168688531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|-28.36|||ANOVA|||||-28.36|-34.04|<.0001
84467646|NCT04964063|168688532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-36.59|||ANOVA|||||-36.59|-42.30|<.0001
84467647|NCT04964063|168688533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.24|-41.49|||ANOVA|||||-41.49|-47.24|<.0001
84467648|NCT04964063|168688534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-45.12|||ANOVA|||||-45.12|-50.96|<.0001
84467649|NCT04964063|168688535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.33|-49.62|||ANOVA|||||-49.62|-55.33|<.0001
84519393|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||1.32|0.76|0.967
84467650|NCT04964063|168688537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-2.02|||ANOVA|||||-2.02|-2.88|<.0001
84467651|NCT04964063|168688538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-3.85|||ANOVA|||||-3.85|-4.69|<.0001
84467652|NCT04964063|168688539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-5.28|||ANOVA|||||-5.28|-6.13|<.0001
84467653|NCT04964063|168688540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-6.02|||ANOVA|||||-6.02|-6.88|<.0001
84467654|NCT04964063|168688541|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-6.58|||ANOVA|||||-6.58|-7.45|<.0001
84467655|NCT04964063|168688542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-7.01|||ANOVA|||||-7.01|-7.87|<.0001
84519394|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||1.19|0.71|0.505
84519395|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||1.36|0.84|0.590
84467656|NCT04964063|168688544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-5.2|||ANOVA|||||-5.20|-7.46|<.0001
84467657|NCT04964063|168688545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-10.41|||ANOVA|||||-10.41|-12.64|<.0001
84467658|NCT04964063|168688546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-13.42|||ANOVA|||||-13.42|-15.66|<.0001
84467659|NCT04964063|168688547|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-15.41|||ANOVA|||||-15.41|-17.67|<.0001
84467660|NCT04964063|168688548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-16.58|||ANOVA|||||-16.58|-18.87|<.0001
84467661|NCT04964063|168688549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-17.72|||ANOVA|||||-17.72|-19.96|<.0001
84467662|NCT04964063|168688551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.56|||ANOVA|||||-1.56|-2.52|<.0001
84467663|NCT04964063|168688552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-3.22|||ANOVA|||||-3.22|-4.17|<.0001
84467664|NCT04964063|168688553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.20|-5.15|<.0001
84467665|NCT04964063|168688554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-4.76|||ANOVA|||||-4.76|-5.72|<.0001
84467666|NCT04964063|168688555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-5.14|||ANOVA|||||-5.14|-6.12|<.0001
84467667|NCT04964063|168688556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-5.77|||ANOVA|||||-5.77|-6.72|<.0001
84467668|NCT04964063|168688558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-4.44|||ANOVA|||||-4.44|-6.06|<.0001
84467669|NCT04964063|168688559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-7.72|||ANOVA|||||-7.72|-9.32|<.0001
84467670|NCT04964063|168688560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-9.75|||ANOVA|||||-9.75|-11.35|<.0001
84467671|NCT04964063|168688561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|-10.79|||ANOVA|||||-10.79|-12.41|<.0001
84467672|NCT04964063|168688562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-11.81|||ANOVA|||||-11.81|-13.45|<.0001
84467673|NCT04964063|168688563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.69|-13.08|||ANOVA|||||-13.08|-14.69|<.0001
84467674|NCT04964063|168688565|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.33|||ANOVA|||||-1.33|-2.43|<.0001
84467675|NCT04964063|168688566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-2.65|||ANOVA|||||-2.65|-3.74|<.0001
84467676|NCT04964063|168688567|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.44|||ANOVA|||||-3.44|-4.53|<.0001
84467677|NCT04964063|168688568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-5.10|<.0001
84467678|NCT04964063|168688569|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-4.48|||ANOVA|||||-4.48|-5.60|<.0001
84467679|NCT04964063|168688570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-5.53|||ANOVA|||||-5.53|-6.62|<.0001
84467680|NCT04964063|168688572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.1091
84467681|NCT04964063|168688573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA|||||-0.06|-0.19|<.0001
84467682|NCT04964063|168688574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-0.23|<.0001
84467683|NCT04964063|168688575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.11|-0.24|<.0001
84467684|NCT04964063|168688576|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.13|-0.26|<.0001
84467685|NCT04964063|168688577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.18|||ANOVA|||||-0.18|-0.31|<.0001
84467686|NCT04964063|168688579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.45|||ANOVA|||||-1.45|-1.95|<.0001
84519396|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||1.37|0.89|0.374
84467687|NCT04964063|168688580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.44|||ANOVA|||||-2.44|-2.94|<.0001
84467688|NCT04964063|168688581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-2.84|||ANOVA|||||-2.84|-3.35|<.0001
84467689|NCT04964063|168688582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-3.19|||ANOVA|||||-3.19|-3.69|<.0001
84467690|NCT04964063|168688583|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.55|||ANOVA|||||-3.55|-4.06|<.0001
84467691|NCT04964063|168688584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-4.51|<.0001
84467692|NCT02853331|168688654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.84|0.56|0.00012
84519397|NCT01438060|168790766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.15||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||1.41|0.94|0.175
84467693|NCT02853331|168688655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.74|0.38|0.00005
84467694|NCT02853331|168688656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|29.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in % \>0|Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||29.9|17.2|<0.0001
84467695|NCT02853331|168688657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|17.0|||||Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||17.0|4.8|
84467696|NCT00257192|168688682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.67||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|P-value for final analysis is to be adjusted due to planned interim analysis (0.0462).||Sample size for 85% power 2-tailed 0.05 significance level based on expected difference of -5 with average within-group standard deviation=13 was 276 subjects (2 to 1 ratio of enrollment: 184 ziprasidone, 92 placebo). Interim analysis at 60 percent (%) enrollment (ITT population): may stop trial early for efficacy (2-sided p-value less than (\<) 0.0124) or for futility (2-sided p-value greater than (\>) 0.4772; The final analysis is to employ a 2-sided p-value \<0.0462.||0.67|-4.28|0.1530
84467697|NCT00257192|168688683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Difference from placebo||0.06|-0.48|0.1289
84467698|NCT00257192|168688684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.1987||95.0|-6.5|1.36||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Total score: difference from placebo||1.36|-6.50|0.1987
84467699|NCT00257192|168688685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Positive score: difference from placebo||-0.05|-2.61|0.0412
84467700|NCT00257192|168688685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.72||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Negative score: difference from placebo||0.72|-1.57|0.4661
84467701|NCT00257192|168688686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09||Mixed effects MMRM with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Difference from placebo||0.09|-0.47|0.1820
84467702|NCT00257192|168688694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.69||SAS PROC MIXED to fit a mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|Observed cases at Week 6.||Neurocognitive Index score at Week 6: difference from placebo||3.69|-1.01|0.2613
84467703|NCT02086565|168688710|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.56|
84467704|NCT02086565|168688711|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.68|||||Estimation parameter: Other. Group differences in expected 12 month change from baseline|||0.68|-0.27|
84467705|NCT02086565|168688712|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.21|
84467706|NCT02086565|168688713|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-1.08|
84467707|NCT02086565|168688714|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.24|
84467708|NCT00739297|168688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.08|-0.01|
84519398|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.88||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.92||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 1||1.92|0.41|0.753
84467709|NCT00739297|168688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.1||||||95.0|0.04|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.04|
84467710|NCT00739297|168688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|0.02|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|0.02|
84467711|NCT00739297|168688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
84467712|NCT00739297|168688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.04|0.13|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.04|
84467713|NCT00739297|168688716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.19||||||95.0|0.04|0.34|||||Repeated measures model with terms for treatment (Albuterol/Placebo), dose, treatment-by-dose interaction and baseline FEV1|||0.34|0.04|
84519399|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 2||1.32|0.62|0.600
84519400|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.93||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.31||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 3||1.31|0.65|0.673
84519401|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.83||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 4||1.14|0.60|0.255
84519402|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.99||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 6||1.33|0.74|0.958
84519403|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 8||1.19|0.71|0.525
84467714|NCT00739297|168688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.01|0.12|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.12|-0.01|
84467715|NCT00739297|168688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|0.0|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.00|
84467716|NCT00739297|168688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
84467717|NCT00739297|168688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.03|0.14|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.14|-0.03|
84467718|NCT00739297|168688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
84467719|NCT00739297|168688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.03|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.03|
84467720|NCT00739297|168688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.09||||||95.0|0.01|0.17|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.17|0.01|
84467721|NCT00739297|168688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.01|
84467722|NCT00739297|168688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|-0.02|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.02|
84467723|NCT00739297|168688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
84467724|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||||||Public insurance||0.92|0.54|
84467725|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.46||||||Diabetes support service available||2.46|1.50|
84467726|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.49||||||Baseline HbA1c \> 7.80 (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.49|1.38|
84467727|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.07||||||Baseline HbA1c missing (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.07|1.15|
84467728|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.88||||||Diabetes duration \> 11 years||1.88|1.13|
84467729|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Age (per year increase)||1.00|0.97|
84519404|NCT01438060|168790767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 10||1.40|0.82|0.602
84519405|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 1||||0.133
84519406|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 2||||0.282
84519407|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||||0.571
84467730|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|33.41||||||Baseline insulin therapy: combination||33.41|3.30|
84467731|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|18.37||||||Baseline insulin therapy: prandial only||18.37|1.77|
84467732|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|5.73||||||Baseline insulin therapy: pre-mixed only||5.73|3.02|
84467733|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. IPC ranges from 1-5 with higher scores indicating more discrimination.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||||||Discrimination domain of the IPC||0.65|0.39|
84467734|NCT01400971|168688719|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. Diabetes Distress Scale ranges from 1-6 with higher scores indicating more distress.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Diabetes Distress Scale total score \> 2||0.95|0.57|
84467735|NCT01041573|168688797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.641
84726563|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.8|-4.5|
84519408|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||||0.895
84726564|NCT03345407|169204830|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||4.0|-1.7|
84467736|NCT01041573|168688797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84467737|NCT04172831|168688804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
84467738|NCT04172831|168688805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.99|0.058
84467739|NCT04172831|168688806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.2|-7.5|0.007
84467740|NCT04172831|168688807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.1|-7.7|0.009
84467741|NCT04172831|168688808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.3|-4.5|<0.001
84467742|NCT04172831|168688809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-3.3|0.018
84467743|NCT04172831|168688810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
84467744|NCT01276847|168688829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.016
84467745|NCT01276847|168688829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.007
84467746|NCT01276847|168688829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00015||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.00015
84467747|NCT01276847|168688829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000184||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000184
84467748|NCT01276847|168688830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.397
84467749|NCT01276847|168688830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.010
84467750|NCT01276847|168688830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.002
84467751|NCT01276847|168688830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000215||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000215
84467752|NCT01276847|168688831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.787
84467753|NCT01276847|168688831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.577
84467754|NCT01276847|168688831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.053
84467755|NCT01276847|168688831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.098
84467756|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.2|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||32.20|13.00|<0.0001
84519409|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||||0.817
84467757|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|30.81|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||30.81|11.6|<0.0001
84467758|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|33.23|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||33.23|14.13|<0.0001
84467759|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.05|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||22.05|2.93|0.0107
84467760|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.23||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||8.23|-11.00|0.7772
84467761|NCT01899144|168688832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.59||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||-1.59|-20.80|0.0226
84467762|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
84519410|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||||0.795
84519411|NCT01438060|168790771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||||0.564
84519412|NCT01438060|168790773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at baseline||1.54|-1.08|0.733
84519413|NCT01438060|168790773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.54|||ANOVA|||Analysis at Week 10||-0.54|-2.16|0.001
84519414|NCT03499873|168790805|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with cure should be contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.124|0.073||||||||0.073|-0.124|
84519415|NCT03499873|168790805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
84519416|NCT03499873|168790805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
84467763|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.59|0.21|<0.0001
84467764|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
84467765|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.45|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.45|0.08|0.0062
84467766|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.14|-0.23|0.6342
84467767|NCT01899144|168688833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.00|-0.38|0.0488
84467768|NCT03596177|168688911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-4.15|0.011
84467769|NCT03596177|168688912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.777|-23.186|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-23.186|-67.777|0.002
84467770|NCT03596177|168688912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.323||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.74|-15.907|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-15.907|-66.740|0.011
84519417|NCT01149057|168790815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84519418|NCT01149057|168790816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of L1-L4 T-scores||||0.3778
84519419|NCT01149057|168790816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total spine T-score||||0.1541
84519420|NCT01149057|168790816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total hip - left T-score||||0.7890
84467771|NCT03596177|168688913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1551.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2190.515|-911.873|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-911.873|-2190.515|<0.001
84467772|NCT03596177|168688913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1332.515||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2187.711|-477.318|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-477.318|-2187.711|0.015
84467773|NCT03596177|168688914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.173||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.368|3.022|||ANCOVA|||||3.022|-9.368|0.384
84467774|NCT03596177|168688915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.039||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.287|8.209|||ANCOVA|||||8.209|-28.287|0.351
84467775|NCT03596177|168688916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.858|8.229|||ANCOVA|||||8.229|-7.858|0.968
84467776|NCT03596177|168688917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.867||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|3.545|||ANCOVA|||||3.545|-1.810|0.580
84467777|NCT03596177|168688918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.645||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.894|2.603|||ANCOVA|||||2.603|-9.894|0.324
84467778|NCT03596177|168688919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.672||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.415|6.072|||ANCOVA|||||6.072|-17.415|0.412
84467779|NCT03596177|168688920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.357||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.742|16.456|||ANCOVA|||||16.456|-1.742|0.177
84467780|NCT03596177|168688921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.186||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.151|33.523|||ANCOVA|||||33.523|-3.151|0.168
84467781|NCT03596177|168688922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-4.05|0.009
84467782|NCT03596177|168688923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.122||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.364|0.119|||ANCOVA|||||0.119|-10.364|0.107
84467783|NCT03596177|168688924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.848||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.605|-0.091|||ANCOVA|||||-0.091|-3.605|0.085
84467784|NCT03596177|168688925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.159||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.326|1.007|||ANCOVA|||||1.007|-7.326|0.204
84467785|NCT03596177|168688926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.041|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.041|0.145
84467786|NCT03596177|168688927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.801|-14.201|||ANCOVA|||||-14.201|-37.801|0.001
84467787|NCT03596177|168688928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.332||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.726|-4.938|||ANCOVA|||||-4.938|-19.726|0.010
84467788|NCT01301742|168688934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.77|165.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||165.53|151.77|
84467789|NCT01301742|168688935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.15|124.59|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||124.59|106.15|
84467790|NCT01301742|168688936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.41|165.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||165.49|151.41|
84467791|NCT04083222|168688937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
84467792|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.399
84467793|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.338
84467794|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.207
84467795|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.927
84467796|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.146
84467797|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.055
84519421|NCT01149057|168790816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Femoral neck - left T-scores.||||0.7094
84519422|NCT01149057|168790822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84467798|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||0.095
84467799|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||0.046
84467800|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||0.246
84467801|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||0.170
84467802|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||0.527
84519423|NCT01149057|168790822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84519424|NCT01149057|168790822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
84519425|NCT01149057|168790822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
84519426|NCT01149057|168790823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84467803|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||0.167
84467804|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.266
84467805|NCT04083222|168688938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.078
84467806|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.661
84467807|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
84467808|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
84467809|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
84467810|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
84467811|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
84467812|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
84467813|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
84467814|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||<0.001
84467815|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
84467816|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
84467817|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
84467818|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.106
84467819|NCT04083222|168688939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.318
84467820|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.609
84467821|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
84467822|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
84467823|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
84467824|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
84467825|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
84467826|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
84467827|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
84467828|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
84467829|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
84467830|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
84519427|NCT01149057|168790824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84519428|NCT01149057|168790825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84519429|NCT01149057|168790826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84519430|NCT01149057|168790827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84519431|NCT01149057|168790828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84519432|NCT01149057|168790829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
84519433|NCT01149057|168790830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
84519434|NCT01149057|168790830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
84519435|NCT01149057|168790830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
84519436|NCT01149057|168790830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
84519437|NCT03602339|168790837|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.562||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.562|0.347|< 0.0001
84519438|NCT03602339|168790838|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||=|0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.342||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.342|0.017|= 0.0151
84519439|NCT03602339|168790839|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.275||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.275|0.024|= 0.0100
84519440|NCT03602339|168790840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.35. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \> -0.35, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.176||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.176|-0.030|
84519441|NCT03602339|168790841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Accuracy Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||3.40|-3.40|
84519442|NCT03602339|168790841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.22|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Sensitivity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||5.22|-5.22|
84519443|NCT03602339|168790841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test. No continuity correction for calculation of the confidence interval was included. Zero cells lead to degenerated confidence interval.|Specificity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.00|0.00|
84519444|NCT03602339|168790842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.14||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.140|0.011|
84519445|NCT03602339|168790843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison of image quality between gadobutrol and gadoterate||0.11|-0.10|0.9149
84519446|NCT03602339|168790844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03491|-0.00445||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Relative score||-0.00445|-0.03491|
84519447|NCT03602339|168790844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00589|0.01762||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Full image score||0.01762|-0.00589|
84519448|NCT03602339|168790844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00471|0.00749||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Dice score||0.00749|-0.00471|
84519449|NCT03602339|168790846|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate), and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0049||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0049
84519450|NCT03602339|168790847|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0013||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0013
84540618|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|4.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.322|5.363|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||5.363|3.322|
84519451|NCT03602339|168790848|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0065||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0065
84519452|NCT00840281|168790859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|94.9|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|94.9|
84519453|NCT00840281|168790860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|98.6|
84519454|NCT00840281|168790861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|98.7|
84519455|NCT03306277|168790871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||This comparison is made to an assumed rate of zero 0 (or as low as 0.1%). By definition, children with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1 are never able to sit independently.||||<0.0001
84540619|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|6.62|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||6.620|4.243|
84467831|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.112
84467832|NCT04083222|168688940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.371
84467833|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.8|||ANOVA|Confidence interval (CIs) for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.80|-1.58|<0.0001
84467834|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.57|-1.33|<0.0001
84467835|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.59|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.59|-1.35|<0.0001
84467836|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.23|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.23|-0.98|0.0002
84467837|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.41||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.02|-0.79|0.0324
84467838|NCT00696657|168689010|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.09||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.28|-0.46|0.9772
84467839|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.06|-0.64|
84467840|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.18|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.18|-0.39|
84467841|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.16|-0.42|
84467842|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.52|-0.05|
84467843|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.73|0.15|
84467844|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||1.03|0.48|
84467845|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.56|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.8 mg - Placebo . The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.56|-1.12|
84467846|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.22|-0.80|
84519456|NCT03306277|168790872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This comparison is made against the results from the age and gender-matched control participants selected from existing natural history data sets (PNCR) \[Neurol. 2014; 83(9):810-817\].|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al,2014 - PubMed 25080519) where event-free survival was 6 out of 23 participants (26.1%) at 14 months of age.|||<0.0001
84519457|NCT00829452|168790883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.03||||||90.0|89.11|103.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.49|89.11|
84519458|NCT00829452|168790884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.34||||||90.0|90.82|100.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.09|90.82|
84519459|NCT00829452|168790885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.98||||||90.0|92.73|101.42|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.42|92.73|
84519460|NCT00829452|168790886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.78||||||90.0|89.34|109.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||109.23|89.34|
84467847|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.02|-0.56|
84467848|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.01|-0.58|
84467849|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.37|-0.22|
84467850|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.57|-0.02|
84467851|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.88|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.88|0.31|
84467852|NCT00696657|168689010|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.4|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.40|-0.97|
84467853|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobilin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
84467854|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p\<0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
84519461|NCT00829452|168790887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.59||||||90.0|94.62|100.66|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.66|94.62|
84519462|NCT01296841|168790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|We performed t-test statistics for univariate comparisons for continuous variables.||||||<0.05
84519463|NCT00957021|168790945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||KSS Pain/Motion and Function Score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2 and 5 year||||<.0001
84467855|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.178||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO..||||=0.178
84467856|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.016
84467857|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.033
84467858|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.935
84467859|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclaer.||||=0.463
84467860|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.392
84467861|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.597
84467862|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.162
84467863|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.186
84467864|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference.||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||0.624
84467865|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.732
84467866|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea Nitrogen clearance Revaclear vs Optiflux.||||0.427
84467867|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear..||||0.379
84467868|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.318
84467869|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.914
84467870|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.623|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.623
84467871|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.403
84467872|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.850
84467873|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.815
84467874|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of Phosphate Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.367
84467875|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs Elisio.||||=0.821
84519464|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Physical score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
84519465|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 1 year||||<.0001
84467876|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.364
84467877|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
84467878|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
84467879|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.254
84467880|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.079
84467881|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.086
84467882|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.888
84467883|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.663||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.663
84467884|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.391
84467885|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.214
84467886|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.918
84467887|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.394
84467888|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.211
84467889|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.222
84467890|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.162
84467891|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
84467892|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.025
84467893|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.903
84467894|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.003
84467895|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
84467896|NCT02433210|168689112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.472
84467897|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
84467898|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
84467899|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.952||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.952
84467900|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference|||||=|0.714||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
84467901|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.156
84467902|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.427||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.427
84467903|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.487||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.487
84519466|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 2 year||||0.0017
84519467|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 3 year||||0.0055
84726565|NCT04739306|169204857|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -3 letters to +3 letters|Estimated difference in LS means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|1.67|||ANCOVA|Analysis conducted for study eye. Primary endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment as a factor, baseline BCVA and country as covariates.||||1.67|-0.52|
84467904|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.111||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The difference in the median values between the two groups is not \> enough to exclude that the difference is due to random sampling variability||No significant difference||||=0.111
84467905|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.198||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.198
84467906|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Showed a significant difference||||=0.007
84467907|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.202
84467908|NCT02433210|168689113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.540
84467909|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.204
84467910|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.234
84467911|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the \<0.050 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used.||||||=0.015
84467912|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.413
84467913|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.314||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.314
84467914|NCT02433210|168689114|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.769||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.769
84467915|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.376
84467916|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||1.000
84467917|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||0.713
84519468|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 4 year||||0.0050
84519469|NCT00957021|168790946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 5 year||||0.0018
84519470|NCT00957021|168790948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LEAS score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
84519471|NCT01822119|168790952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
84467918|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.424
84519472|NCT01822119|168790953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
84519473|NCT01822119|168790954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant changes with the same value at 500 to 4000Hz||||<0.0001
84519474|NCT01822119|168790954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 6000Hz||||0.0499
84519475|NCT01822119|168790954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 8000Hz||||0.0632
84519476|NCT01822119|168790955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.39
84519477|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz||||0.79
84519478|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz||||0.26
84519479|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz||||0.24
84519480|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz||||0.83
84519481|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz||||0.026
84519482|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz||||0.0085
84519483|NCT01822119|168790956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||8000Hz||||0.13
84519484|NCT01822119|168790957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant improvement with the same value at all presentation levels.||||<0.0001
84519485|NCT01822119|168790958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||50dB||||0.55
84519486|NCT01822119|168790958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||60dB||||0.72
84519487|NCT01822119|168790958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||80dB||||0.28
84519488|NCT01822119|168790959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||<0.0001
84519489|NCT01822119|168790960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.0092
84519490|NCT01822119|168790961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Aversiveness||||0.59
84519491|NCT01822119|168790961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Ease of Communication||||0.71
84519492|NCT01822119|168790961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Reverberation||||0.59
84519493|NCT01822119|168790961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Background noise||||0.40
84519494|NCT01822119|168790961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Global score||||0.50
84467919|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.230
84467920|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.678
84467921|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.643
84467922|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.430
84519495|NCT03966911|168790972|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.0|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.05|89.95|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.95|86.05|<0.041
84519496|NCT03966911|168790972|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.96|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.13|89.8|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.80|86.13|<0.041
84519497|NCT03966911|168790972|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|84.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|82.02|87.17|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||87.17|82.02|0.041
84519498|NCT03966911|168790972|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|81.05|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|77.58|84.53|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||84.53|77.58|<0.041
84519499|NCT01395017|168790973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||The log-rank test was used to test OS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for OS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors - treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Using a 1-sided alpha=0.2, a population of 200 participants (100 GEM plus dasatinib and 100 GEM plus placebo) has 79% power to show an increase in median OS from 10 to 13.3 months (hazard ratio \[HR\] =0.75, assuming analysis of 135 deaths).||1.65|0.85|0.3864
84540620|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.407|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||1.407|1.033|
84540621|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|6.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.358|9.674|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||9.674|4.358|
84519500|NCT01395017|168790974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||The log-rank test was used to test PFS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for PFS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors: treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Trial has 88% power to show a median PFS increase from 5 to 7 months (with 1-sided alpha=0.15, total 176 events, HR=0.714).||1.34|0.73|0.6761
84467923|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.295
84467924|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.723
84467925|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.749
84467926|NCT02433210|168689115|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.967
84519501|NCT01131260|168791023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis on primary composite outcome as a whole.||1.98|0.87|0.20
84519502|NCT01131260|168791025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||||29.1|0.31|0.37
84519503|NCT01131260|168791026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.24|||Chi-squared|||||7.24|1.13|0.02
84519504|NCT01131260|168791027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||||3.38|0.17|1.0
84519505|NCT01131260|168791028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.10|0.13
84519506|NCT01131260|168791029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.97|0.07
84519507|NCT01131260|168791030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.0|||Fisher Exact|||||3.00|0.22|1.0
84519508|NCT01131260|168791031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.17
84519509|NCT01131260|168791032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The p value was calculated based on the entire study cohort.|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84467927|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.670
84467928|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.993
84467929|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.650
84467930|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.299
84467931|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.659
84467932|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
84467933|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.853
84467934|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.494
84467935|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.631
84467936|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.370
84467937|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.950
84467938|NCT02433210|168689116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.377
84467939|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
84467940|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.578
84467941|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.225
84467942|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.125
84467943|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.466
84467944|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
84519510|NCT01131260|168791034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.32
84519511|NCT01131260|168791035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
84519512|NCT01131260|168791036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
84519513|NCT01131260|168791037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
84467945|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.584
84467946|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.981
84467947|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.568
84467948|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.240
84519514|NCT01131260|168791038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.19
84519515|NCT01131260|168791039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
84519516|NCT01131260|168791040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
84519517|NCT01131260|168791041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84519518|NCT01131260|168791042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
84519519|NCT01131260|168791043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
84519520|NCT00874276|168791063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau-B|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.85||This is the primary outcome, and there is no adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a Wilcoxon test (and accompanying Kendal's Tau B) because these outcomes are outlier prone.||0.85|0.35|0.023
84519521|NCT00874276|168791064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the same analysis as the previous, except we use the day 5 pharmacogenetics on the amount of time needed to clear one-half of dose of the drug. This is for the environmental dose. A positive (negative) Kendall's Tau is associated with the EGT allele being faster (slower) than lacking EGT in terms of metabolization of DCA.||0.69|-0.23|0.42
84467949|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.724
84467950|NCT02433210|168689117|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.445
84467951|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.114
84467952|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.292
84467953|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
84467954|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
84467955|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.190
84467956|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY|||||||-0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||-0.009
84467957|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.911
84467958|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.388
84467959|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.337
84467960|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.575
84467961|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.880
84467962|NCT02433210|168689118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.731
84467963|NCT00059215|168689122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.933
84467964|NCT00059215|168689122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.590
84467965|NCT00059215|168689123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.945
84467966|NCT00059215|168689123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.260
84467967|NCT00059215|168689124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84467968|NCT00059215|168689124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.544
84467969|NCT00059215|168689125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
84519522|NCT00660387|168791103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
84519523|NCT00660387|168791104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
84467970|NCT04985799|168689127|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|28.5|||Chi-squared|||||28.5|1.1|0.04
84467971|NCT04985799|168689128|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|-6.2|0.29
84467972|NCT04985799|168689130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
84467973|NCT04494633|168689133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t-test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.482314
84467974|NCT04494633|168689134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.876964
84519524|NCT00660387|168791105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the CGI-Severity (CGI-S, see Baseline Characteristics module) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
84519525|NCT00660387|168791106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
84540622|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|5.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|8.665|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||8.665|3.430|
84467975|NCT04494633|168689135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.66602
84467976|NCT04494633|168689136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed unpaired t test comparing change for control (Pre to 2 weeks later) to case (Pre- to 2 weeks post) with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.726421
84467977|NCT04494633|168689137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The statistical test used was a 2 tailed, unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.908468
84467978|NCT04494633|168689138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The groups were compared using a two tailed unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.468104
84467979|NCT02369835|168689156|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8872
84467980|NCT02311478|168689159|OTHER|Given that this is a observational cohort design we do not use either non-inferiority or equivalence analysis. Using ANOVA we test for differences in the number of days per month of bleeding between the 90 days pre-insertion, the 90 days following insertion, and 91-180 days following insertion.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|df=2||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the number of days of bleeding per month at baseline and the days of bleeding per month during 90 days after insertion, and months or 91-180 days following insertion.||2.3|1.2|<0.05
84467981|NCT02311478|168689159|EQUIVALENCE|α of 0.05 or lower.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The estimation parameter compares the 90 days following to the 90 days prior.||1.5|0.36|<0.05
84467982|NCT03041116|168689169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|=|0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.51||p-value was derived from test of contrast between treatment effects using LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from Type III analysis. The test of contrast at Week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-1.69|=0.9115
84467983|NCT03041116|168689171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.78||p-value was derived from the test of contrast between treatment effects using the LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from the Type III analysis. The test of contrast at week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.78|-0.7|=0.1421
84467984|NCT00943319|168689173|OTHER||Median Survival time|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.0|305.0|||Product limit survival estimate|||||305|121|
84467985|NCT00943319|168689174|OTHER||Median Disease Free Survival Time|172.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|436.0||||||Estimated median survival time||436|85|
84467986|NCT02043301|168689175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|120.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.99|143.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||143.45|101.99|
84467987|NCT02043301|168689175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|112.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||112.38|80.20|
84467988|NCT02043301|168689176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.19|152.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||152.02|107.19|
84467989|NCT02043301|168689176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.49|102.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||102.40|72.49|
84467990|NCT02043301|168689177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|129.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.76|158.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||158.27|106.76|
84519526|NCT00660387|168791107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
84467991|NCT02043301|168689177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|100.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.54|121.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||121.82|82.54|
84467992|NCT02043301|168689182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.659|111.943|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||111.943|84.659|
84467993|NCT02043301|168689182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.405|119.557|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||119.557|90.405|
84467994|NCT02043301|168689183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
84467995|NCT02043301|168689183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
84519527|NCT00660387|168791108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
84467996|NCT02043301|168689184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
84540623|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|6.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.928|11.784|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||11.784|3.928|
84540624|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|76.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|82.68|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||82.68|69.10|
84467997|NCT02043301|168689184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
84467998|NCT02043301|168689186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|107.717|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.717|97.555|
84467999|NCT02043301|168689186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.131|107.151|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.151|97.131|
84468000|NCT02043301|168689187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
84468001|NCT02043301|168689187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
84468002|NCT02043301|168689188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
84468003|NCT02043301|168689188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
84468004|NCT02436577|168689205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|101.15|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.15|85.80|
84468005|NCT02436577|168689205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.88|99.84|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.84|87.88|
84468006|NCT02436577|168689205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.27|106.14|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||106.14|88.27|
84468007|NCT02436577|168689205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|100.23|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||100.23|85.04|
84468008|NCT02436577|168689206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|101.18|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.18|94.46|
84468009|NCT02436577|168689206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|96.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.24|99.63|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.63|93.24|
84468010|NCT02436577|168689206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.75|102.25|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.25|94.75|
84468011|NCT02436577|168689206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.59|98.85|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.85|91.59|
84468012|NCT02436577|168689207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.21|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.21|94.40|
84468013|NCT02436577|168689207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|99.8|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.80|93.31|
84468014|NCT02436577|168689207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.85|102.2|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.20|94.85|
84468015|NCT02436577|168689207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.99|99.08|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.08|91.99|
84468016|NCT03703375|168689221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.09|0.41|0.0541
84540625|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.29|83.67|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||83.67|70.29|
84468017|NCT03703375|168689222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Efron|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||0.96|0.32|0.0166
84468018|NCT03703375|168689223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.33|0.51|0.2139
84468019|NCT02531373|168689250|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-13.5|
84468020|NCT02531373|168689250|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-16.3|
84468021|NCT02531373|168689250|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.2||||||||3.2|-13.3|
84468022|NCT02531373|168689250|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.1||||||||5.1|-10.2|
84468023|NCT02531373|168689251|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
84468024|NCT02531373|168689251|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
84468025|NCT02531373|168689251|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-6.9|
84468026|NCT02531373|168689251|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-6.9|
84468027|NCT02531373|168689252|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.3|2.1|0.029
84468028|NCT02531373|168689252|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.1|4.3|0.016
84468029|NCT02531373|168689252|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|19.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.9|-17.7|0.908
84468030|NCT02531373|168689252|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.6|5.4|0.011
84468031|NCT02531373|168689253|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||12.9|-14.0|0.943
84468032|NCT02531373|168689253|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||11.2|-16.4|0.711
84468033|NCT02531373|168689253|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.4|-8.7|0.529
84468034|NCT02531373|168689253|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||18.2|-5.8|0.298
84468035|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||Serotype 1||1.10|0.61|
84468036|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.35||||||Serotype 3||2.35|1.33|
84468037|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.81||||||Serotype 4||1.81|0.91|
84468038|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51||||||Serotype 5||1.51|0.59|
84468039|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||||95.0|0.29|0.86||||||Serotype 6A||0.86|0.29|
84468040|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.1||||||Serotype 6B||2.10|0.58|
84468041|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||||||Serotype 7F||1.03|0.55|
84468042|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75||||||Serotype 9V||1.75|0.74|
84468043|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.27||||||Serotype 14||1.27|0.58|
84468044|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.43|0.92||||||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.43|
84468045|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||||||Serotype 19A||1.26|0.64|
84468046|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||Serotype 19F||1.11|0.62|
84468047|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|81.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.51|109.68||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||109.68|60.51|
84540626|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|35.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.47|43.74|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||43.74|27.47|
84468048|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.47||||||Serotype 23F||1.47|0.56|
84468049|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|22.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|41.97||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||41.97|11.77|
84468050|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23||||||Serotype 1||1.23|0.68|
84468051|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8||||||Serotype 3||2.80|1.60|
84468052|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.62||||||Serotype 4||1.62|0.82|
84519528|NCT00660387|168791109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
84519529|NCT00660387|168791110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
84519530|NCT00660387|168791111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
84519531|NCT00660387|168791112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
84468053|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||||||Serotype 5||1.31|0.53|
84468054|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.92||||||Serotype 6A||0.92|0.31|
84468055|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||||||Serotype 6B||1.50|0.42|
84468056|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||Serotype 7F||1.31|0.71|
84468057|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49||||||Serotype 9V||1.49|0.64|
84468058|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37||||||Serotype 14||1.37|0.63|
84468059|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||||||Serotype 18C||1.16|0.55|
84468060|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22||||||Serotype 19A||1.22|0.63|
84468061|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44||||||Serotype 19F||1.44|0.81|
84468062|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|89.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.02|120.51||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||120.51|67.02|
84468063|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.57||||||Serotype 23F||1.57|0.61|
84468064|NCT02531373|168689254|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|18.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|34.41||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||34.41|9.82|
84468065|NCT01996319|168689266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||null hypoth|0.2021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1583|0.246|||ANCOVA|||||0.2460|0.1583|<0.0001
84468066|NCT01996319|168689267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Null hypoth|36.7126||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7241|71.7011|||ANCOVA|||||71.7011|1.7241|0.0399
84468067|NCT00637273|168689274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.89|0.37|<.0001
84468068|NCT00637273|168689274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.57|0.06|0.0165
84468069|NCT00637273|168689275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
84468070|NCT00637273|168689275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0015
84519532|NCT00660387|168791113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
84468071|NCT00637273|168689276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
84468072|NCT00637273|168689276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0120
84468073|NCT00637273|168689277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1700
84468074|NCT00637273|168689277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0091
84468075|NCT00637273|168689278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.35|0.72|0.0002
84519533|NCT00660387|168791114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
84519534|NCT00660387|168791115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
84519535|NCT00660387|168791116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
84519536|NCT00660387|168791117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
84468076|NCT00637273|168689278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|5.91||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.91|4.28|<.0001
84468077|NCT00637273|168689279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||25.2|5.7|0.0038
84468078|NCT00637273|168689279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||14.2|-5.3|0.3729
84468079|NCT00637273|168689280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.3||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||6.3|1.3|0.0055
84468080|NCT00637273|168689280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||4.5|-0.5|0.1117
84468081|NCT00637273|168689281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.5|-0.4|0.1685
84468082|NCT00637273|168689281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.4|-2.6|0.1685
84468083|NCT00637273|168689282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.2686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||10.2|-2.8|0.2686
84468084|NCT00637273|168689282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||13.2|0.3|0.0814
84468085|NCT00637273|168689283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.5|-1.6|0.9546
84468086|NCT00637273|168689283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.7||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.7|2.6|<.0001
84519537|NCT00660387|168791118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
84519538|NCT00660387|168791119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
84468087|NCT00637273|168689284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.08|0.93|0.9718
84468088|NCT00637273|168689284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.96|0.82|0.0062
84468089|NCT03015610|168689320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8716
84468090|NCT03015610|168689321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2471
84468091|NCT03015610|168689322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
84468092|NCT03015610|168689323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2765
84468093|NCT03015610|168689324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.32||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.2|||Negative binomial regression|||||8.20|0.66|0.191
84468094|NCT03015610|168689325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.98|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.98|0.29|0.0435
84468095|NCT03015610|168689326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3808
84468096|NCT00570739|168689328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||-0.03|-0.27|0.0123
84468097|NCT00570739|168689328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-0.03|-0.33|0.0201
84468098|NCT00570739|168689328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.36|0.0239
84468099|NCT00570739|168689328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||-0.08|-0.42|0.0046
84468100|NCT00570739|168689329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||1.2|-11.3|0.1112
84468101|NCT00570739|168689329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||2.0|-8.6|0.2167
84468102|NCT00570739|168689329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||4.9|-7.0|0.7269
84468103|NCT00570739|168689329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.4|-8.4|0.4063
84468104|NCT00570739|168689329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||3.9|-8.0|0.4909
84519539|NCT00660387|168791120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
84519540|NCT00660387|168791121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
84519541|NCT00660387|168791122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
84519542|NCT00660387|168791123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
84468105|NCT00570739|168689330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.259|1.653||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||1.653|-2.259|0.7606
84468106|NCT00570739|168689330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.015||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|0.447||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||0.447|-2.477|0.1782
84468107|NCT00570739|168689330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.504||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|-0.121||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.121|-2.887|0.0332
84468108|NCT00570739|168689330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|2.158||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||2.158|-1.805|0.8610
84468109|NCT00570739|168689330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.019||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||2.019|-1.599|0.8196
84468110|NCT00570739|168689331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.034||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||0.034|-0.340|0.1078
84468111|NCT00570739|168689331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.035||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||0.035|-0.317|0.1146
84468112|NCT00570739|168689332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||9.4|-9.3|0.9933
84468113|NCT00570739|168689332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks LOCF||8.3|-10.5|0.8203
84468114|NCT00570739|168689333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|3.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.6|-17.5|0.1950
84468115|NCT00570739|168689333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.0|-18.3|0.1583
84468116|NCT00570739|168689334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.0|-16.1|0.3663
84468117|NCT00570739|168689334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.7|-17.9|0.2524
84468118|NCT00570739|168689335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.051||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.828|9.929||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.929|-7.828|0.8158
84468119|NCT00570739|168689335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.565||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|7.836||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.836|-10.966|0.7433
84468120|NCT00570739|168689336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.867||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.867|-0.437|0.5161
84468121|NCT00570739|168689336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.722||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.722|-0.581|0.8319
84468122|NCT00570739|168689337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|-13.76|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-13.76|-22.61|<0.0001
84468123|NCT00570739|168689337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-12.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-12.08|-22.09|<0.0001
84519543|NCT00660387|168791124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
84519544|NCT02583048|168791140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|2.0|14.8|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 1 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||14.8|2.0|
84519545|NCT02583048|168791140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|5.7|18.6|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 2 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||18.6|5.7|
84519546|NCT02583048|168791147|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|1.411|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.411|0.884|
84468124|NCT00570739|168689337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.96|-11.69|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-11.69|-20.96|<0.0001
84468125|NCT00570739|168689338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-8.81|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.81|-15.99|<0.0001
84468126|NCT00570739|168689338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-5.34|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.34|-13.23|<0.0001
84468127|NCT00570739|168689338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-4.67|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Week LOCF||-4.67|-11.98|<0.0001
84468128|NCT00570739|168689339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.7|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.70|-1.43|0.2026
84468129|NCT00570739|168689339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.75|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.75|-2.12|0.4506
84468130|NCT00570739|168689339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.97|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.97|-1.35|0.2609
84468131|NCT00570739|168689340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-6.08|-11.53|<0.0001
84468132|NCT00570739|168689340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.66|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.66|-10.23|<0.0001
84468133|NCT00570739|168689340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|-3.05|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.05|-9.14|0.0001
84468134|NCT00570739|168689341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|13.99||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 8 weeks||13.99|-0.33|0.0171
84468135|NCT00570739|168689341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.66|25.54||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||25.54|9.66|<0.0001
84468136|NCT00570739|168689341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|25.74||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||25.74|11.18|<0.0001
84468137|NCT00570739|168689342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.62|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||5.62|0.0|0.0496
84468138|NCT00570739|168689342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.47|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.47|0.82|0.0117
84468139|NCT00570739|168689342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|7.03|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.03|1.83|0.0009
84468140|NCT00570739|168689343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-8.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.38|-14.74|<0.0001
84468141|NCT00570739|168689343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-5.92|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.92|-13.14|0.0001
84468142|NCT00570739|168689343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.59|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.59|-11.35|<0.0001
84468143|NCT00570739|168689344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|19.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||19.38|5.76|0.0003
84519547|NCT02583048|168791147|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.461|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.461|0.989|
84519548|NCT02583048|168791147|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.187|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.187|0.774|
84519549|NCT02583048|168791148|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.215|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.215|0.801|
84468144|NCT00570739|168689344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|22.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||22.40|6.64|0.0003
84468145|NCT00570739|168689344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|22.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.20|7.95|<0.0001
84468146|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||13.24|0.44|0.0363
84468147|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|12.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||12.31|0.46|0.0347
84468148|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.81||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.81|0.80|0.0028
84468149|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.73|0.96|0.0010
84468150|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.21||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||11.21|3.10|0.0006
84468151|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||10.91|3.35|0.0003
84468152|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.29||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||1.29|-7.04|0.1750
84468153|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||0.63|-7.10|0.1007
84468154|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-199.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.9|-125.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-125.8|-272.9|<0.0001
84468155|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.9|-116.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-116.3|-255.9|0.0001
84468156|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-0.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||-0.2|-23.3|0.0466
84540627|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.25|92.29|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||92.29|76.25|
84468157|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.3|-21.8|0.0570
84468158|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-35.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-35.0|-120.3|0.0004
84468159|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.2|-29.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-29.3|-109.2|0.0007
84468160|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.8|-23.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-23.9|-195.8|0.0124
84468161|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|-26.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-26.0|-187.6|0.0098
84468162|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|3.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.2|-35.6|0.1020
84519550|NCT02583048|168791148|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.251|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.251|0.764|
84519551|NCT02583048|168791148|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|1.108|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.108|0.667|
84519552|NCT02583048|168791149|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|1.267|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.267|0.847|
84519553|NCT02583048|168791149|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.276|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.276|0.843|
84519554|NCT02583048|168791149|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.151|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.151|0.727|
84519555|NCT02583048|168791150|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.258|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.258|0.864|
84468163|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.0|-33.8|0.0997
84468164|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.6|-25.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-25.9|-161.6|0.0069
84468165|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.2|-27.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-27.5|-155.2|0.0052
84468166|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.90|-0.01|0.0524
84468167|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.91|0.10|0.0301
84468168|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.89||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.89|0.02|0.0416
84468169|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.88|0.04|0.0333
84468170|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.44|-0.05|0.0693
84468171|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.56||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.56|0.14|0.0187
84468172|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.75||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.75|-1.34|0.5765
84468173|NCT00570739|168689345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment group|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.63|-1.35|0.4762
84468174|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.57|-0.14|0.0652
84468175|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.92||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.92|0.57|0.0137
84468176|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotien Particles||0.09|-0.20|0.4726
84468177|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.10|-0.17|0.5715
84468178|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.02|0.0083
84468179|NCT00570739|168689346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.03|0.0022
84519556|NCT02583048|168791150|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.235|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.235|0.858|
84519557|NCT02583048|168791150|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.993|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.993|0.657|
84519558|NCT02583048|168791151|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.263|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.263|0.903|
84519559|NCT02583048|168791151|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.155|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.155|0.820|
84468180|NCT00570739|168689347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||43.5|8.6|0.0036
84468181|NCT00570739|168689347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|43.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||43.3|11.2|0.0010
84468182|NCT00570739|168689348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|47.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||47.0|12.5|0.0008
84468183|NCT00570739|168689348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|46.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||46.6|14.9|0.0002
84468184|NCT00570739|168689349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.3|0.9|0.0033
84468185|NCT00570739|168689349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.4|1.2|0.0008
84468186|NCT00570739|168689350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between the treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0035
84468187|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.5848
84468188|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8147
84468189|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.4957
84468190|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0467
84468191|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
84468192|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.10|1.38|0.0049
84468193|NCT00570739|168689351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.76|1.25|0.0092
84468194|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Startified by country||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.0008
84468195|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0280
84468196|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0414
84468197|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0840
84468198|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
84468199|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.96|1.21|0.0095
84468200|NCT00570739|168689352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.60|1.20|0.0088
84468201|NCT00570739|168689353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
84468202|NCT00570739|168689353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||<0.0001
84519560|NCT02583048|168791151|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|0.983|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.983|0.656|
84468203|NCT00570739|168689353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||<0.0001
84468204|NCT00570739|168689353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|11.23|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||11.23|2.78|<0.0001
84468205|NCT00570739|168689353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.10|2.53|<0.0001
84468206|NCT00570739|168689354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0004
84468207|NCT00570739|168689354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0326
84468208|NCT00570739|168689354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0157
84468209|NCT00570739|168689354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.07|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||7.07|0.88|0.0870
84468210|NCT00570739|168689354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.00439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.94|1.03|0.00439
84468211|NCT00570739|168689355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.72||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.72|-1.32|0.7959
84468212|NCT00570739|168689355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.57|-1.28|0.8371
84468213|NCT00570739|168689356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0122|0.0055||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0055|-0.0122|0.4584
84468214|NCT00570739|168689356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0118|0.0048||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0048|-0.0118|0.4039
84468215|NCT00570739|168689357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-10.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-10.11|-21.07|<0.0001
84468216|NCT00570739|168689358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|6.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.62|-27.53|0.2289
84468217|NCT00570739|168689358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.22|6.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||6.14|-29.22|0.1997
84468218|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|23.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.05|2.57|0.0144
84468219|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|23.61||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.61|4.63|0.0037
84468220|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|39.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.00|6.59|0.0060
84468221|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|39.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.73|9.71|0.0013
84468222|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|13.0|||ANCOVA|||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.00|3.71|0.0005
84519561|NCT02583048|168791152|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.881|1.248|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.248|0.881|
84468223|NCT00570739|168689359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.11|4.27|0.0001
84468224|NCT00570739|168689360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.34||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.34|0.63|0.8804
84468225|NCT00570739|168689360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.60|0.73|0.5525
84468226|NCT00570739|168689360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5648||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.5648
84468227|NCT00570739|168689360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.3170
84519562|NCT02583048|168791152|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.165|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.165|0.823|
84519563|NCT02583048|168791152|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.638|1.025|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.025|0.638|
84519564|NCT02583048|168791153|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.049|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.049|0.778|
84468228|NCT00570739|168689361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.06|0.66|0.9008
84468229|NCT00570739|168689361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.37||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.37|0.60|0.9035
84468230|NCT00570739|168689361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2874
84468231|NCT00570739|168689361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4344
84468232|NCT00570739|168689362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-14.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-14.63|-24.61|<0.0001
84468233|NCT00570739|168689362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-11.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-11.69|-23.24|<0.0001
84468234|NCT00570739|168689363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-8.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.69|-16.26|<0.0001
84468235|NCT00570739|168689363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-5.41||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.41|-15.15|<0.0001
84468236|NCT00570739|168689363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-4.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.42|-13.69|0.0002
84468237|NCT00570739|168689364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.66||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||7.66|0.27|0.0357
84468238|NCT00570739|168689364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.31|-5.01|0.6878
84468239|NCT00570739|168689364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.36||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.36|-4.37|0.7972
84468240|NCT00570739|168689365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.80|-12.02|<0.0001
84468241|NCT00570739|168689365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.26||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-4.26|-12.25|<0.0001
84468242|NCT00570739|168689365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-3.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.44|-11.03|0.0002
84519565|NCT02583048|168791153|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.315|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.315|0.944|
84540628|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|87.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.71|93.17|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||93.17|78.71|
84468243|NCT00570739|168689366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.57|0.43|0.0257
84468244|NCT00570739|168689366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.58||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||5.58|-1.32|0.2238
84468245|NCT00570739|168689366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|4.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.99|-1.44|0.2763
84468246|NCT00570739|168689367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.98||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.98|-13.68|<0.0001
84468247|NCT00570739|168689367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.94||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.94|-13.40|0.0004
84519566|NCT02583048|168791153|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.012|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.012|0.639|
84519567|NCT02583048|168791154|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.084|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.084|0.810|
84519568|NCT02583048|168791154|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.318|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.318|0.929|
84468248|NCT00570739|168689367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.68||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.68|-12.50|0.0004
84468249|NCT00570739|168689368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|21.74||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||21.74|5.87|0.0007
84468250|NCT00570739|168689368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|24.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||24.99|-1.83|0.0901
84468251|NCT00570739|168689368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|22.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.62|-1.71|0.0918
84468252|NCT00570739|168689369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|25.83||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 8 Weeks||25.83|6.27|0.0005
84468253|NCT00570739|168689369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.07||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|26.02||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||26.02|6.33|0.0011
84468254|NCT00570739|168689369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.33||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|23.84||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||23.84|5.11|0.0009
84468255|NCT00570739|168689370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.29||||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.32||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.32|-17.50|0.6523
84468256|NCT00570739|168689370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|8.77||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.77|-17.51|0.3934
84468257|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|8.84||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||8.84|-8.66|0.9838
84468258|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.7157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.79||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||9.79|-6.73|0.7157
84468259|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.63|1.25|<0.0001
84519569|NCT02583048|168791154|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|1.043|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.043|0.703|
84468260|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.51||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.51|1.27|<0.0001
84468261|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|10.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.24|-0.17|0.0577
84468262|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|10.22||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.22|0.27|0.0390
84468263|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-2.37||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-2.37|-12.61|0.0044
84468264|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-1.40|-11.09|0.0118
84468265|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.6||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.9|-11.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-11.3|-209.9|0.0293
84468266|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-112.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.6|-17.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-17.8|-207.6|0.0202
84468267|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|14.5|||ANCOVA|||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||14.5|-15.2|0.9629
84519570|NCT02583048|168791155|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.096|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.096|0.825|
84519571|NCT02583048|168791155|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.362|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.362|0.948|
84468268|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||11.9|-16.5|0.7485
84468269|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.6||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.7|12.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||12.5|-139.7|0.1007
84468270|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.8||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.6|6.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||6.9|-134.6|0.0768
84468271|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.7||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.7|67.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||67.3|-162.7|0.4143
84468272|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.1|63.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||63.3|-157.1|0.4020
84468273|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|17.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||17.9|-29.1|0.6378
84468274|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|15.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||15.6|-29.1|0.5528
84468275|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|50.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||50.8|-134.8|0.3730
84468276|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|49.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||49.0|-129.0|0.3764
84468277|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.17||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.17|-1.20|0.9807
84468278|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.03|-1.23|0.8615
84519572|NCT02583048|168791155|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.109|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.109|0.727|
84468279|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.14|0.04|0.0364
84468280|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.08|0.04|0.0340
84468281|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.07||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.07|-0.68|0.6587
84468282|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.00|-0.63|0.6554
84468283|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.42|-2.06|0.1957
84468284|NCT00570739|168689371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.34||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.34|-2.03|0.1622
84468285|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|8.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||8.48|3.51|<0.0001
84468286|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||7.63|3.00|<0.0001
84468287|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.05|-0.30|0.1742
84468288|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.06|-0.28|0.1870
84468289|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.03|0.0063
84468290|NCT00570739|168689372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.04|0.0020
84468291|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|39.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.9|8.9|0.0022
84468292|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.1|9.6|0.0013
84468293|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|41.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||41.0|11.5|0.0006
84519573|NCT02583048|168791156|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.094|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.094|0.806|
84519574|NCT02583048|168791156|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.352|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.352|0.864|
84468294|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|40.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||40.6|12.5|0.0003
84468295|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.5|-0.4|0.1257
84519575|NCT02583048|168791156|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.597|1.253|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.253|0.597|
84519576|NCT02583048|168791157|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.095|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.095|0.825|
84519577|NCT02583048|168791157|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.354|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.354|0.862|
84519578|NCT02583048|168791157|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.239|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.239|0.605|
84468296|NCT00570739|168689373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.3|-0.3|0.1054
84468297|NCT00570739|168689374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2971
84468298|NCT00570739|168689374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2567
84468299|NCT00570739|168689374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.01|-0.13|0.1081
84468300|NCT00570739|168689374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.01|-0.17|0.0790
84468301|NCT00570739|168689374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-0.01|-0.18|0.0206
84468302|NCT00570739|168689375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
84468303|NCT00570739|168689375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.5|-4.5|0.1184
84468304|NCT00570739|168689375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.1|-5.8|0.0615
84468305|NCT00570739|168689375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.6|-7.2|0.3617
84468306|NCT00570739|168689375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.7|-7.0|0.2372
84468307|NCT00570739|168689376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.921||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|2.663||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||2.663|-0.821|0.2982
84519579|NCT02583048|168791158|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.138|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.138|0.851|
84468308|NCT00570739|168689376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|1.848||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||1.848|-0.458|0.2361
84468309|NCT00570739|168689376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.218||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.388|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||-0.049|-2.388|0.0413
84468310|NCT00570739|168689376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.434||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.583|2.715|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.715|-3.583|0.7858
84468311|NCT00570739|168689376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.321|2.335|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.335|-3.321|0.7314
84468312|NCT00570739|168689377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.207||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.207|-0.385|0.5530
84468313|NCT00570739|168689377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105||||0.4554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.172||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.172|-0.383|0.4554
84468314|NCT00570739|168689378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||8.9|-10.7|0.8583
84468315|NCT00570739|168689378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.1|-10.5|0.7975
84468316|NCT00570739|168689379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.233||95.0|-18.5|4.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.5|-18.5|0.2330
84519580|NCT02583048|168791158|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.361|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.361|0.866|
84519581|NCT02583048|168791158|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.322|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.322|0.650|
84468317|NCT00570739|168689379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.8|-19.2|0.1412
84468318|NCT00570739|168689380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.8|-13.7|0.8192
84468319|NCT00570739|168689380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.7|-13.5|0.7513
84468320|NCT00570739|168689381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.156|10.336||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.336|-24.156|0.4301
84468321|NCT00570739|168689381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.661|11.321||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||11.321|-21.661|0.5369
84468322|NCT00570739|168689382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|0.765||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.765|-1.068|0.7447
84468323|NCT00570739|168689382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|0.911||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.911|-0.853|0.9476
84468324|NCT00570739|168689383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
84468325|NCT00570739|168689383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.58||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||13.58|2.06|0.0018
84468326|NCT00570739|168689383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|10.54||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.54|1.89|0.0019
84468327|NCT00570739|168689383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0005
84519582|NCT02155257|168791162|OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||Interaction between resting pupil diameter and correlation of cognitive-affective style to pain reporting. Note that this analysis is an INTERACTION between the primary outcome of this measure (pupil diameter) to that of the primary outcome measure of cognitive-affective style.||.76|-.39|0.540
84540375|NCT01499095|168831538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.119||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.119|-0.139|
84468328|NCT00570739|168689383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0007
84468329|NCT00570739|168689384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0104
84468330|NCT00570739|168689384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.39||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.39|0.53|0.2224
84468331|NCT00570739|168689384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.33||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.33|0.53|0.1990
84468332|NCT00570739|168689384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2778||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2778
84468333|NCT00570739|168689384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2785||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.2785
84468334|NCT00570739|168689385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.48|-2.84|0.5353
84468335|NCT00570739|168689385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.40|-2.64|0.5475
84468336|NCT00570739|168689386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0116||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0241|0.0009||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0009|-0.0241|0.0678
84468337|NCT00570739|168689386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0112||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0228|0.0004||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0004|-0.0228|0.0585
84519583|NCT02034513|168791167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.94|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 1: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.94|0.85|<0.0001
84519584|NCT02034513|168791168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.73|0.56|<0.0001
84519585|NCT02034513|168791169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in both the maintenance periods. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||||0.0016
84519586|NCT02034513|168791171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 437 (n=220 for IDeg and n=217 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before testing the primary endpoint, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as a prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM); treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates."||0.15|-0.10|
84468338|NCT00570739|168689387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|12.64||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||12.64|-18.64|0.7051
84468339|NCT00570739|168689387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.72|10.13||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.13|-19.72|0.5267
84468340|NCT00570739|168689388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.83||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.83|0.40|0.5882
84519587|NCT02034513|168791171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 410 (n=202 for IDeg and n=208 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on MMRM; treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates"||0.23|-0.00|
84519588|NCT02218541|168791239|OTHER|||||||1||||||threshold for significance will be p-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84519589|NCT02218541|168791240|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes bleeding|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||0.039
84519590|NCT02218541|168791241|EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was done as this was a pilot study.||||||1||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes Provisional Crown fit|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||1.0
84519591|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (LIA)|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||LIA (Lead Integrity Alert): Uploadable algorithm with the ability to increase the time between a lead fracture and potential delivery of an unnecessary shock.||||<0.0001
84519592|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (SVT Limit)|6.8|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||SVT (Supraventricular Tachycardia) Limit: The maximum cycle length that Wavelet and PR logic will be applied to arrhythmias.||||<0.0001
84519593|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID PP)|9.0|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||VF NID PP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for primary prevention (PP) patients.||||<0.0001
84519594|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID SP)|3.5||||0.0116|||||||McNemar|||VF NID SP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for secondary prevention (SP) patients.||||0.0116
84519595|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (Wavelet)|9.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Wavelet: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in single chamber ICDs.||||<0.0001
84468341|NCT00570739|168689388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.96|0.44|0.7098
84519596|NCT00856349|168791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (PR Logic)|3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||PR Logic: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in dual chamber ICDs and CRT-Ds.||||<0.0001
84519597|NCT02578641|168791259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||Between-treatment comparisons were assessed using stratified log-rank test stratified by country and disease stage per randomization stratification.|Log Rank|Log-rank test of Hazards Ration equals 1, using Cox proportional hazards regression.|Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.|||1.56|0.91|0.1942
84519598|NCT01513239|168791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.1||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-5.1|-16.4|<0.0001
84519599|NCT01513239|168791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.5|0.0003
84519600|NCT01513239|168791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||4.2|-5.9|0.3718
84519601|NCT01513239|168791310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|5.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||12.2|-1.8|0.0722
84519602|NCT01513239|168791310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||21.4|7.7|<0.0001
84519603|NCT01513239|168791310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.4||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||-2.7|-16.1|0.9969
84519604|NCT01513239|168791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-19.0|0.0006
84519605|NCT01513239|168791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-6.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-6.9|-20.4|<0.0001
84519606|NCT01513239|168791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.6||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.0||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||8.0|-4.6|0.6962
84718144|NCT04612244|169187168|NON_INFERIORITY|"PT will be deemed to be non-inferior to PC if it can be established that the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, where Ψeff is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate (under simulation) at level 0.05. In the absence of missing data, the posterior distributions for PT and PC would be conjugate Beta distributions."||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint for this study is Treatment Success, which will be analyzed as a test of non-inferiority of the event rate at 12 months using a noninferiority margin of 15%.~The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: PT ≤ PC - 0.15 versus HA: PT \> PC - 0.15 where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal (Control) Group."||||0.05
84519607|NCT01513239|168791312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo +SOC|||4.0|-9.8|0.408
84519608|NCT01513239|168791312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-9.2|0.517
84519609|NCT01513239|168791313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-3.8|0.931
84519610|NCT01513239|168791313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.6|-3.7|0.997
84519611|NCT01513239|168791314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||2.0|-0.8|0.328
84519612|NCT01513239|168791314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||0.7|-1.5|0.308
84519613|NCT01513239|168791315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
84519614|NCT01513239|168791315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
84519615|NCT01513239|168791316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.3|-4.2|
84519616|NCT01513239|168791316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2|||||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.7|
84519617|NCT00396162|168791323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84519618|NCT00396162|168791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
84519619|NCT01456962|168791347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84468342|NCT00570739|168689388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.6835
84468343|NCT00570739|168689388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.8461
84468344|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.2079
84468345|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4053||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4053
84468346|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5752||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.5752
84468347|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.29||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.29|0.25|0.7994
84468348|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.03||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.03|0.32|0.9960
84468349|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7783||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.7783
84468350|NCT00570739|168689389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9774||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.9774
84468351|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||<0.0001
84468352|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4058||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4058
84468353|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0254
84468354|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.55|0.74|0.1499
84468355|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.45||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.45|0.97|0.0420
84468356|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2240
84468357|NCT00570739|168689390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0593||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0593
84468358|NCT00570739|168689391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.4||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.40|0.31|0.4794
84540629|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|20.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|29.75|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||29.75|13.47|
84468359|NCT00570739|168689391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.55|0.37|0.6667
84468360|NCT00570739|168689391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2768||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2768
84468361|NCT00570739|168689391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4395
84468362|NCT00570739|168689392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.64||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.64|0.89|0.1375
84468363|NCT00570739|168689392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||5.82|0.85|0.1996
84468364|NCT00570739|168689392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0829||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0829
84468365|NCT00570739|168689392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1037||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.1037
84468366|NCT00325442|168689394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|11.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||22|0|0.072
84468367|NCT00325442|168689395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Borg dyspnea score from Baseline to Week 16||0.0|-1.0|0.062
84468368|NCT00325442|168689396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.491
84468369|NCT00325442|168689397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||Change in dyspnea-fatigue index from Baseline to Week 16||1.0|0.0|0.011
84468370|NCT00325442|168689399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 12||23.0|3.0|0.015
84468371|NCT00325442|168689400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|9.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 8||18.0|0.0|0.051
84468372|NCT00325442|168689401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann ( H-L)|4.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 4||12.0|-2.4|0.238
84468373|NCT00325442|168689402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|24.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||45|0|0.121
84468374|NCT00325442|168689403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|15.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||41|-7|0.069
84468375|NCT00325442|168689404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|4.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-15|0.889
84468376|NCT00325442|168689405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-23|0.966
84468377|NCT00325442|168689407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-16|0.853
84468378|NCT00325442|168689408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|7.0||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||21|-7|0.327
84468379|NCT00325442|168689409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|29.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||73|1|0.085
84468380|NCT00325442|168689410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-12|0.615
84468381|NCT00325442|168689411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|40.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||40|-6|0.230
84468382|NCT00325442|168689412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-6|0.209
84468383|NCT01729598|168689415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84468384|NCT01729598|168689416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84468385|NCT01729598|168689417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84468386|NCT01729598|168689418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
84468387|NCT01905397|168689419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.05||||0.27|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.27
84468388|NCT00844428|168689435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
84468389|NCT00844428|168689436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
84468390|NCT00844428|168689437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
84468391|NCT00844428|168689438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84468392|NCT00844428|168689439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
84468393|NCT00844428|168689440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
84468394|NCT00844428|168689441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
84468395|NCT00844428|168689442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
84468396|NCT00844428|168689443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
84468397|NCT00844428|168689444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
84468398|NCT00844428|168689445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
84468399|NCT00844428|168689446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
84468400|NCT01345786|168689468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|137.5||||||90.0|131.0|144.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||144.4|131|
84468401|NCT01345786|168689468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|111.8||||||90.0|107.5|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|107.5|
84468402|NCT01345786|168689469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|107.3||||||90.0|99.0|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|99|
84468403|NCT01345786|168689469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.6||||||90.0|99.2|108.2|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||108.2|99.2|
84468404|NCT01345786|168689470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|110.0||||||90.0|106.4|113.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUClast||113.7|106.4|
84468405|NCT01345786|168689470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.3||||||90.0|100.9|105.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC last||105.7|100.9|
84468406|NCT01345786|168689470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|108.1||||||90.0|104.7|111.6|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUC infinity||111.6|104.7|
84468407|NCT01345786|168689470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.1||||||90.0|100.5|105.8|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC infinity||105.8|100.5|
84468408|NCT01345786|168689471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.5||||||90.0|96.7|106.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||106.4|96.7|
84468409|NCT01345786|168689471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.3||||||90.0|98.1|104.7|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||104.7|98.1|
84468410|NCT04436510|168689478|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.237||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. verdiperstat slowed progression) was 0.57467. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.237|0.769|
84468411|NCT04436510|168689480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.32|-3.74|0.8875
84468412|NCT04436510|168689481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.848||0.3538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||11.13|-3.99|0.3538
84468413|NCT04436510|168689482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.318
84468414|NCT02389946|168689486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 12-month TLF rate for the Orsiro stent vs. the Xience stent was assessed as the primary endpoint. The null hypothesis H0 was that the Orsiro stent would have a primary endpoint (12-month TLF) rate equal to or exceeding that of the Xience group by the non-inferiority margin or more. The alternative hypothesis HA was that the Orsiro stent would have a 12-month TLF rate less than the Xience group rate plus the non-inferiority margin of 3.85%.|Posterior Probability of non-inferioriry|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Bayesian calculation using a hierarchical model to incorporate data from previous BIOFLOW-II and BIOFLOW-IV trials.||||
84468415|NCT02389946|168689487|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.415
84468416|NCT01605396|168689496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (HR) and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||1.72|0.81|0.565
84468417|NCT01605396|168689498|OTHER||Difference of Percentages|-10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to compare ORR between the two treatment arms (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm), and to calculate a p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.||8.0|-27.8|0.267
84468418|NCT01605396|168689499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||HR and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||4.13|0.46|0.562
84468419|NCT04598165|168689500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.92||The primary intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||1.92|0.81|0.314
84468420|NCT04598165|168689501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.21||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||2.21|0.84|0.217
84468421|NCT04598165|168689502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in early initiation of breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.08|1.00|0.064
84468422|NCT04598165|168689503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in exclusive breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.01|0.98|0.363
84468423|NCT04598165|168689504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.02|1.00|0.093
84468424|NCT04598165|168689505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.09||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.09|0.97|0.353
84468425|NCT04598165|168689506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.61||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.53 in provision of Kangaroo Mother Care assuming 25% in controls.||2.61|0.50|0.751
84468426|NCT04598165|168689507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.04 in number of danger signs correctly named assuming median of 3 in controls.||1.01|1.00|0.431
84468427|NCT04598165|168689508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in appropriate care seeking assuming 1 clinic visit in the 6-weeks postpartum for controls.||1.08|0.98|0.321
84519620|NCT01456962|168791347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change in CD4+:CD8+ T cells ratio|-9.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|12.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment group and time on antiretroviral therapy|Change based on a 1 log unit increase in genital:plasma drug ratio|Null hypothesis: Higher genital to plasma antiretroviral drug ratios are not associated with higher cervical CD4+:CD8+ T cell ratios.||12|-27.3|0.4
84519621|NCT02856594|168791348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.10|0.029
84519622|NCT02856594|168791350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||Regression, Linear|||||1.03|0.89|0.24
84519623|NCT06078501|168791390|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.695
84468428|NCT04598165|168689509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.76 in elevated depression symptoms assuming 19% in controls.||1.04|0.98|0.650
84468429|NCT04598165|168689510|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.18||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.18|-0.007|0.071
84468430|NCT04598165|168689511|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.02||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.04|-0.01|0.190
84468431|NCT01323673|168689520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center was used for analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.151
84468432|NCT04400318|168689528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|30.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio and p-value between the dupilumab and placebo group based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by ICS dose level (medium/high) and region (Eastern Europe/ROW).||30.82|3.13|<0.001
84468433|NCT04400318|168689529|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.022||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|51.25|||MMRM|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included study intervention, baseline value, region, ICS dose level, visits, study intervention by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction terms all as fixed effects. Region, ICS, study intervention and visits were considered as categorical parameters.||51.25|-7.73|0.138
84468434|NCT04400318|168689530|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.34|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of global lung UCSF mucus scoring, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-3.34|-6.50|<0.001
84468435|NCT04400318|168689531|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.562||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.09|25.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of trimmed distal \[s\]iRaw at TLC, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||25.19|-132.09|0.180
84468436|NCT03059810|168689572|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.9|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|A 95% Confidence Interval for the least squares mean difference between the follow up and baseline was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (at 12-16 days follow up) - Habitual (at baseline)|It was a single arm study and the subjects' overall vision was compared against the baseline with the habitual lens. Sample size was determined using Power procedure in SAS 9.4 using the input from historical data (alpha=0.05).||5.9|-4.6|
84468437|NCT00747617|168689573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84468438|NCT04657016|168689577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-26.1|<0.001
84468439|NCT04657016|168689578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.98|242.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||242.84|69.98|<0.001
84468440|NCT04657016|168689579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|263.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||263.55|39.17|<0.001
84468441|NCT04657016|168689580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|300.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||300.37|78.90|<0.001
84468442|NCT04657016|168689581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.65|333.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.21|62.65|<0.001
84468443|NCT04657016|168689582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.08|347.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||347.74|40.08|<0.001
84519624|NCT06078501|168791391|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.||||||0.91
84468444|NCT04657016|168689583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.3|-19.5|<0.001
84468445|NCT04657016|168689584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-26.9|<0.001
84468446|NCT04657016|168689585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.6|<0.001
84519625|NCT06078501|168791392|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84519626|NCT06078501|168791393|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84468447|NCT04657016|168689586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.1|-12.2|<0.001
84468448|NCT04657016|168689587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.2|<0.001
84468449|NCT04657016|168689588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.10|-10.40|<0.001
84468450|NCT04657016|168689589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|8.2|<0.001
84468451|NCT04657016|168689590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.53|-15.30|<0.001
84468452|NCT04657016|168689591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-32.1|<0.001
84468453|NCT04657016|168689592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.4|-32.3|<0.001
84468454|NCT04657016|168689593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.6|-28.4|<0.001
84468455|NCT04657016|168689594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-13.5|<0.001
84468456|NCT04657016|168689595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-0.53|<0.001
84519627|NCT06078501|168791394|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
84468457|NCT04657016|168689596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.7|-53.7|<0.001
84468458|NCT04657016|168689597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|2.8|<0.001
84468459|NCT04657016|168689598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|9.7|<0.001
84468460|NCT00738543|168689609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL, with a power of 80% and bilateral error of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the three medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used.||||<0.05
84468461|NCT00738543|168689611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the 3 medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used. The alpha level for significance was established at 5%. A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated for a power of 80%, and bilateral error of 5%.||||<0.05
84468462|NCT00051558|168689708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
84468463|NCT00051558|168689709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
84468464|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||P-value for Month 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.058
84468465|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468466|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468467|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468468|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468469|NCT00051558|168689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84519628|NCT06078501|168791395|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
84519629|NCT06078501|168791397|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84519630|NCT06078501|168791398|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||1.0
84519631|NCT06078501|168791399|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84468470|NCT00051558|168689711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value for 3 Months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.120
84468471|NCT00051558|168689711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468472|NCT00051558|168689711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468473|NCT00051558|168689711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468474|NCT00051558|168689712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
84468475|NCT00051558|168689712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468476|NCT00051558|168689712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468477|NCT00051558|168689713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36-month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
84519632|NCT01634139|168791406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.231|0.108|<0.0001
84519633|NCT01634139|168791406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.255|0.103|<0.0001
84468478|NCT00051558|168689713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468479|NCT00051558|168689713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
84468480|NCT00051558|168689713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.011
84468481|NCT00051558|168689713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
84468482|NCT00051558|168689714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
84468483|NCT00051558|168689714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468484|NCT00051558|168689714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468485|NCT00051558|168689714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.006
84468486|NCT00051558|168689714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
84468487|NCT00051558|168689715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468488|NCT00051558|168689715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
84468489|NCT00051558|168689715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
84468490|NCT00051558|168689715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468491|NCT00051558|168689716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.011
84468492|NCT00051558|168689716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
84468493|NCT00051558|168689716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468494|NCT00051558|168689716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
84468495|NCT00051558|168689717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468496|NCT00051558|168689717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468497|NCT00051558|168689717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468498|NCT00051558|168689717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84519634|NCT01634139|168791407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.186|0.046|0.0012
84468499|NCT00051558|168689718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468500|NCT00051558|168689718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468501|NCT00051558|168689718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.004
84468502|NCT00051558|168689718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.013
84468503|NCT00051558|168689719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468504|NCT00051558|168689719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468505|NCT00051558|168689719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468506|NCT00051558|168689719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468507|NCT00051558|168689720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468508|NCT00051558|168689720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468509|NCT00051558|168689720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468510|NCT00051558|168689720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468511|NCT00051558|168689721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84519635|NCT01634139|168791407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.188|0.048|0.0010
84468512|NCT00051558|168689721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468513|NCT00051558|168689721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468514|NCT00051558|168689721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
84468515|NCT00051558|168689722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||p-value for Any Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.212
84468516|NCT00051558|168689722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.843
84468517|NCT00051558|168689722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value for Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
84468518|NCT00051558|168689722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||p-value for Clinical Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
84468519|NCT00051558|168689722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fragility Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.256
84468520|NCT01808118|168689747|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84519636|NCT01634139|168791407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.142|0.001|0.0477
84519637|NCT01634139|168791407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.170|0.029|0.0059
84468521|NCT01808118|168689766|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Time to flare analysis showed statistically significant lower risk of flare in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group.||||<0.001
84468522|NCT01441440|168689828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.87||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.87|0.14|0.031
84468523|NCT01441440|168689828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||2.48|-0.24|0.106
84468524|NCT01441440|168689829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.0||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||5.00|0.77|0.008
84468525|NCT01441440|168689829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.74||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||4.74|0.54|0.014
84468526|NCT01441440|168689830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.49||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.49|0.03|0.025
84468527|NCT01441440|168689830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.032
84468528|NCT01441440|168689831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||1.97|0.39|0.004
84468529|NCT01441440|168689831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.85||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.85|0.28|0.008
84468530|NCT01441440|168689832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.53||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.53|0.48|0.004
84468531|NCT01441440|168689832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.79||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.79|-0.25|0.137
84468532|NCT01441440|168689833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.45||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.45|-0.02|0.073
84468533|NCT01441440|168689833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.034
84468534|NCT01993329|168689834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.108||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.673|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.673|0.734|0.616
84468535|NCT01993329|168689834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.016||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.534|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.534|0.673|0.939
84468536|NCT01993329|168689834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|0.917||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.384|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.384|0.607|0.671
84468537|NCT01993329|168689835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.008|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||0.008|-0.230|0.066
84468538|NCT01993329|168689835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.107|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.107|-0.131|0.843
84468539|NCT01993329|168689835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.02|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.020|-0.218|0.098
84468540|NCT05070429|168689836|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.035||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.657||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|generalized linear model (GLM)|generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link|Confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare average daily hours of hearing aid use at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the primary outcome.||0.657|-0.727|0.92
84468541|NCT05070429|168689837|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.011||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.125|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare treatment satisfaction at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.125|-0.147|0.87
84468542|NCT05070429|168689838|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|0.059||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.32|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare primary COSI goal achievement at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.320|-0.201|0.66
84468543|NCT05070429|168689839|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-1.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.349|2.435|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare hearing-specific quality of life at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||2.435|-6.349|0.38
84468544|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-5.4|3.7||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.7|-5.4|
84519638|NCT01634139|168791408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|0.062|<0.0001
84468545|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-14.2|3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-14.2|
84468546|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.7|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-3.7|
84468547|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.9||||||95.0|-6.9|0.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.7|-6.9|
84468548|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-3.0|
84468549|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.5||||||95.0|-6.1|0.6||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.6|-6.1|
84468550|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-6.3||||||95.0|-12.1|-0.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.7|-12.1|
84468551|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|3.4||||||95.0|-0.9|7.9||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.9|-0.9|
84468552|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.1|1.1||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-4.1|
84468553|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.0|6.4||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.4|-3.0|
84468554|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-5.8|6.7||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.7|-5.8|
84468555|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.2|1.2||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-3.2|
84468556|NCT00366548|168689849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-3.6|0.3||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.3|-3.6|
84468557|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||1.9|-2.1|
84468558|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.7|2.6||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||2.6|-1.7|
84468559|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
84519639|NCT01634139|168791408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.188|0.065|<0.0001
84725979|NCT03015220|169204146|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.33|0.23|0.1871
84468560|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.9|-2.1|
84468561|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.2|2.3||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.3|-1.2|
84468562|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.9|-2.0|
84468563|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-3.4|1.1||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-3.4|
84468564|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.8|3.0||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-0.8|
84468565|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-3.7|4.9||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.9|-3.7|
84468566|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
84468567|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-2.4|
84468568|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
84519640|NCT01634139|168791409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.212|0.095|<0.0001
84540630|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|67.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.69|77.07|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.07|55.69|
84468569|NCT00366548|168689850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
84468570|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
84468571|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|0.72|1.14||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.72|
84468572|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.85|
84468573|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.79|
84468574|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.98||||||95.0|0.86|1.13||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.86|
84468575|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.72|0.97||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.97|0.72|
84468576|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.71|0.98||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.71|
84468577|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.94||||||95.0|0.81|1.1||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.81|
84519641|NCT01634139|168791409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.215|0.098|<0.0001
84468578|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.04||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.83|
84468579|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.83|1.13||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.83|
84468580|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
84468581|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|1.05||||||95.0|0.93|1.18||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.93|
84468582|NCT00366548|168689853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.91||||||95.0|0.8|1.04||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.80|
84468583|NCT01984346|168689875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|33.2||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-square test|||||33.2|0.1|0.0472
84468584|NCT00372190|168689895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84468585|NCT01623531|168689899|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|386.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.5||0.908|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distributions of cumulative transfusion units did not differ significantly between patients receiving either RiaSTAP (median = 0, IQR = 0-1) or Placebo (median = 0, IQR = 0.1), U = 386, SE = 47.60, p = .908.|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the data were not normally distributed, and primary outcomes were zero inflated. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.908
84468586|NCT01623531|168689900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.047
84468587|NCT01623531|168689901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116||0.729|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.729
84519642|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.186|0.046|0.0012
84468588|NCT01623531|168689902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.699||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.93
84468589|NCT01623531|168689903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.471||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|||||.169
84468590|NCT01623531|168689904|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|450.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.163||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.035
84468591|NCT01623531|168689905|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|337.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.591||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.794
84468592|NCT01623531|168689906|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|335.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.957||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.828
84468593|NCT01623531|168689907|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|396.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.944||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.941
84468594|NCT01623531|168689908|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|494.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.783||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.09
84468595|NCT01623531|168689909|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|418.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.658
84468596|NCT01623531|168689910|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|472.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.727||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.182
84468597|NCT01623531|168689911|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|428.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.919||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.549
84468598|NCT01623531|168689912|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|530.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.816||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distribution of FIBTEM MCF (maximum clot firmness) was significantly different between RiaSTAP (median = 27 mm, IQR = 24, 30), and placebo (median = 23 mm, IQR = 22, 27) groups, U-test = 530.5, SE = 60.816, p = .022).|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the FIBTEM MCF data was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.022
84468599|NCT01623531|168689913|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.455
84468600|NCT01623531|168689914|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|432.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.819||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.5
84468601|NCT01623531|168689915|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Significance (2-sided) using Fisher's Exact Test.||||||1.0
84468602|NCT00623467|168689917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84540631|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|67.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.36|77.44|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.44|55.36|
84468603|NCT00623467|168689917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468604|NCT00623467|168689917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468605|NCT00623467|168689918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468606|NCT00623467|168689918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468607|NCT00623467|168689918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468608|NCT00623467|168689919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84519643|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.188|0.048|0.0010
84519644|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.201|0.076|<0.0001
84519645|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.213|0.088|<0.0001
84519646|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.211|0.084|<0.0001
84519647|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.210|0.084|<0.0001
84519648|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.226|0.101|<0.0001
84519649|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.231|0.106|<0.0001
84468609|NCT00623467|168689919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468610|NCT00623467|168689919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468611|NCT00623467|168689920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468612|NCT00623467|168689920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468613|NCT00623467|168689920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468614|NCT00623467|168689921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.31|||||||||||for BR1|||||
84468615|NCT00623467|168689921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.77|||||||||||for BR2|||||
84519650|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.240|0.116|<0.0001
84468616|NCT00623467|168689921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||||||||||for BR3|||||
84468617|NCT00623467|168689921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.704|||95% confidence interval for paired means||confidence interval provided for average reader, lower limit is compared to noninferiority margin|||0.704|-0.070|
84468618|NCT00623467|168689922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468619|NCT00623467|168689922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468620|NCT00623467|168689923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||||95.0|0.03|0.381|||||lower limit of the confidence interval is compared to the noninferiority margin|||0.381|0.030|
84468621|NCT00623467|168689924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468622|NCT00623467|168689924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468623|NCT00623467|168689924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468624|NCT00623467|168689925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468625|NCT00623467|168689925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468626|NCT00623467|168689925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.25|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468627|NCT00623467|168689926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.39|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468628|NCT00623467|168689926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468629|NCT00623467|168689926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468630|NCT00623467|168689927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468631|NCT00623467|168689927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468632|NCT00623467|168689927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468633|NCT00623467|168689928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468634|NCT00623467|168689928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
84468635|NCT00623467|168689928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468636|NCT00623467|168689929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468637|NCT00623467|168689929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84519651|NCT01634139|168791410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.238|0.114|<0.0001
84519652|NCT01634139|168791411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.184|0.036|0.0036
84519653|NCT01634139|168791411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.165|0.018|0.0152
84468638|NCT00623467|168689929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468639|NCT00623467|168689930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84519654|NCT01634139|168791411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.143|-0.005|0.0687
84540632|NCT04917861|168832494|OTHER||percentage difference|57.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.81|69.08|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||69.08|43.81|
84468640|NCT00623467|168689930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468641|NCT00623467|168689930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
84468642|NCT00623467|168689931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468643|NCT00623467|168689931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468644|NCT00623467|168689931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468645|NCT00623467|168689933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468646|NCT00623467|168689933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468647|NCT00623467|168689934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468648|NCT00623467|168689934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
84468649|NCT00623467|168689935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
84468650|NCT00623467|168689936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
84468651|NCT00623467|168689937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0285|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0285
84468652|NCT00623467|168689938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
84468653|NCT00623467|168689939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.0588|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0588
84468654|NCT00623467|168689940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0093|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0093
84468655|NCT00623467|168689941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0003
84468656|NCT00623467|168689942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
84468657|NCT00623467|168689943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0016
84468658|NCT00623467|168689944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
84468659|NCT00623467|168689945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
84468660|NCT00623467|168689946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468661|NCT00623467|168689947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
84468662|NCT04705597|168689974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|2.562|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.562|0.728|0.3312
84468663|NCT04705597|168689976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.574||||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|2.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 14||2.475|0.133|0.4561
84468664|NCT04705597|168689976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 28||1.282|0.212|0.1559
84468665|NCT04705597|168689976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.498||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.226|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.226|0.203|0.1293
84519655|NCT01634139|168791411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.126|-0.022|0.1666
84519656|NCT01634139|168791412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.171|0.013|0.0228
84519657|NCT01634139|168791412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
84519658|NCT01634139|168791412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.141|-0.017|0.1256
84519659|NCT01634139|168791412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.026|0.1880
84519660|NCT01634139|168791413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.172|0.037|0.0023
84519661|NCT01634139|168791413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.143|0.009|0.0255
84540633|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|75.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.12|81.49|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.49|68.12|
84468666|NCT04705597|168689977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2687|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis was only performed for Day 28. This is timeframe used for the primary endpoint||||0.2687
84468667|NCT04705597|168689978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3977|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3977
84468668|NCT04705597|168689979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2229
84468669|NCT04705597|168689980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|2.561|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.561|0.752|0.2941
84468670|NCT04705597|168689981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3325
84468671|NCT04705597|168689982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Change at Day 14|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.08|0.0254
84468672|NCT04705597|168689982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28||1.18|-0.12|0.1109
84468673|NCT04705597|168689982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 57||0.12|-0.10|0.8640
84468674|NCT04705597|168689983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.046||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.706|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.706|0.89|0.0919
84468675|NCT04705597|168689984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|-0.42|0.749
84468676|NCT04705597|168689985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|9.13|||ANCOVA|||||9.13|-1.75|0.1769
84468677|NCT04705597|168689986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.586|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.586|0.184|0.2621
84468678|NCT04705597|168689987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|7.37|||ANCOVA|||||7.37|-1.76|0.2265
84468679|NCT04705597|168689988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.364|0.633|0.5497
84468680|NCT04705597|168689989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|11.05|||ANCOVA|||||11.05|-1.27|0.1172
84468681|NCT04705597|168689990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.368|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.368|0.353|0.853
84468682|NCT04705597|168689991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-1.86|0.1991
84468683|NCT04705597|168689992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.293|13.027|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.027|1.293|0.0166
84468684|NCT04705597|168689993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|10.64|||ANCOVA|||||10.64|-1.51|0.1297
84468685|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.07|-0.35|0.1916
84468686|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 2||0.05|-0.44|0.1097
84468687|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 3||-0.04|-0.63|0.0276
84468688|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 4||-0.01|-0.71|0.0463
84468689|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 5||0.06|-0.71|0.0969
84468690|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 6||0.25|-0.57|0.4367
84468691|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 7||0.35|-0.54|0.6685
84468692|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 8||0.18|-0.73|0.2287
84468693|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 9||0.09|-0.96|0.1061
84468694|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 10||-0.02|-1.06|0.0415
84468695|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 11||0.12|-1.00|0.1236
84468696|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 12||-0.18|-1.23|0.0097
84468697|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 13||-0.11|-1.02|0.0157
84468698|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 14||-0.36|-1.32|0.0010
84468699|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Time of Discharge Visit||0.25|-0.40|0.6440
84468700|NCT04705597|168689994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Follow up Day 28||0.59|-0.60|0.9869
84468701|NCT04705597|168689995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.52|||ANCOVA|||||4.52|-1.14|0.2399
84468702|NCT04705597|168689996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.869||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.695|0.28|0.8081
84468703|NCT04705597|168689997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.436||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.929|0.704|0.3193
84468704|NCT03691623|168689998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-588.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-719.8|-456.35|||ANCOVA|||||-456.35|-719.8|< 0.001
84468705|NCT03691623|168689998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-564.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-689.23|-440.02|||ANCOVA|||||-440.02|-689.23|< 0.001
84468706|NCT03691623|168689998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-716.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-879.92|-552.24|||ANCOVA|||||-552.24|-879.92|< 0.001
84468707|NCT03691623|168689998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-736.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.36|-556.11|||ANCOVA|||||-556.11|-916.36|< 0.001
84468708|NCT03691623|168689999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-355.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.12|-205.69|||ANCOVA|||||-205.69|-506.12|< 0.001
84468709|NCT03691623|168689999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-326.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-469.68|-183.6|||ANCOVA|||||-183.6|-469.68|< 0.001
84468710|NCT03691623|168689999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-313.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.27|-133.69|||ANCOVA|||||-133.69|-494.27|= 0.001
84519662|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.171|0.013|0.0228
84468711|NCT03691623|168689999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-312.73|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-508.05|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||||-117.4|-508.05|= 0.003
84468712|NCT03691623|168690000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2|-5.3|< 0.001
84468713|NCT03691623|168690000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-5.5|< 0.001
84519663|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose.(Week 24)||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
84468714|NCT03691623|168690000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.9|= 0.002
84468715|NCT03691623|168690000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-4.9|= 0.006
84468716|NCT03691623|168690002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-2.09|= 0.199
84468717|NCT03691623|168690002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|-0.98|= 0.714
84468718|NCT03691623|168690002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||=|0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-2.15|= 0.844
84519664|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.150|0.006|0.0344
84468719|NCT03691623|168690002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-3.46|= 0.21
84468720|NCT03691623|168690003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.37|= 0.145
84468721|NCT03691623|168690003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||=|0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-2.03|= 0.352
84468722|NCT03691623|168690003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.55|= 0.002
84468723|NCT03691623|168690003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.19|< 0.001
84468724|NCT03691623|168690004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.081|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.554|-11.607|||ANCOVA|||||-11.607|-36.554|< 0.001
84468725|NCT03691623|168690004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.695|-14.213|||ANCOVA|||||-14.213|-37.695|< 0.001
84468726|NCT03691623|168690004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.176|-9.083|||ANCOVA|||||-9.083|-27.176|< 0.001
84468727|NCT03691623|168690004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.106|-9.552|||ANCOVA|||||-9.552|-29.106|< 0.001
84468728|NCT03691623|168690005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1292|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8491|-1.4093|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4093|-2.8491|< 0.001
84468729|NCT03691623|168690005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7938|-1.4319|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4319|-2.7938|< 0.001
84468730|NCT03691623|168690005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1915|-2.2467|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2467|-4.1915|< 0.001
84468731|NCT03691623|168690005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8522|-1.714|||ANCOVA|||||-1.714|-3.8522|< 0.001
84468732|NCT03691623|168690006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-2.67|< 0.001
84468733|NCT03691623|168690006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-2.4|< 0.001
84468734|NCT03691623|168690006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.43|= 0.009
84468735|NCT03691623|168690006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4|= 0.004
84468736|NCT03691623|168690007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.17|||ANCOVA|||||-1.17|-3.04|< 0.001
84468737|NCT03691623|168690007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.89|< 0.001
84468738|NCT03691623|168690007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-3.06|< 0.001
84468739|NCT03691623|168690007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.64|< 0.001
84468740|NCT03691623|168690008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84468741|NCT03691623|168690008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84468742|NCT03691623|168690008|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.001
84468743|NCT03691623|168690008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84468744|NCT00390780|168690032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025|one-sided test|||"Analyses for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
84468745|NCT00390780|168690033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|one-sided noninferiority test|||"Analysis for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
84468746|NCT00390780|168690034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.0974|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.0974
84468747|NCT00390780|168690034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|Compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.1115|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.1115
84468748|NCT00390780|168690035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.8787|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8787
84468749|NCT00390780|168690035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.7969|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.7969
84468750|NCT00390780|168690036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.882|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8820
84468751|NCT00390780|168690036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.9033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.9033
84468752|NCT00390780|168690037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.5816|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.5816
84519665|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.139|-0.005|0.0696
84519666|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.182|0.037|0.0032
84468753|NCT00390780|168690037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.4439|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.4439
84468754|NCT00390780|168690038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.8330
84468755|NCT00390780|168690038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.9738|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.9738
84468756|NCT00390780|168690043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Clotrimazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.1860
84468757|NCT00390780|168690043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Miconazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.9564
84468758|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.833|0.0126
84468759|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.966||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Body Mass Index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.944|0.0042
84468760|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.816|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at Baseline (BL) in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.816|0.656|<0.0001
84468761|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.109|1.347|<0.0001
84468762|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.442|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.442|0.843|0.4759
84468763|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.656||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine transaminase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.930|0.462|0.0180
84468764|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.742||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.965|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.965|0.570|0.0262
84468765|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.563|0.0069
84468766|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.067|1.056|<0.0001
84468767|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.107||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.191|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.191|1.029|0.0062
84468768|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.563|0.0295
84468769|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.166|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.329|0.083|<0.0001
84468770|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.084|1.015|0.0048
84519667|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.132|-0.012|0.1044
84540634|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|75.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.94|81.38|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.38|67.94|
84519668|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.186|0.039|0.0027
84519669|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.166|0.020|0.0130
84519670|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.190|0.041|0.0025
84519671|NCT01634139|168791414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.166|0.017|0.0156
84519672|NCT01634139|168791415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.051|-0.382|0.1349
84519673|NCT01634139|168791415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.008|-0.425|0.0588
84519674|NCT01634139|168791415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.065|-0.372|0.1675
84519675|NCT01634139|168791415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.017|-0.419|0.0709
84519676|NCT01634139|168791416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.012|-0.245|0.0749
84519677|NCT01634139|168791416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.013|-0.269|0.0305
84519678|NCT01634139|168791416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.004|-0.255|0.0581
84519679|NCT01634139|168791416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||-0.002|-0.260|0.0464
84519680|NCT01634139|168791417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.025|-0.217|0.1182
84519681|NCT01634139|168791417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.006|-0.246|0.0404
84519682|NCT01634139|168791417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.023|-0.221|0.1105
84519683|NCT01634139|168791417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.019|-0.224|0.0983
84519684|NCT01634139|168791418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|19.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||19.077|-2.063|0.1146
84519685|NCT01634139|168791418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.365||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.034|18.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||18.020|-3.034|0.1628
84519686|NCT01634139|168791418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.435||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|16.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||16.203|-5.127|0.3085
84519687|NCT01634139|168791418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.847|19.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||19.394|-1.847|0.1053
84519688|NCT01634139|168791419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.451||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|23.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||23.056|1.663|0.0236
84519689|NCT01634139|168791419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.427||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.497|24.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||24.794|3.497|0.0093
84519690|NCT01634139|168791419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.497||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.667|8.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||8.904|-12.667|0.7322
84519691|NCT01634139|168791419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.481||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.578|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||14.929|-6.578|0.4463
84468771|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.797||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|28.458|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||28.458|2.136|0.0019
84468772|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
84468773|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
84468774|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
84468775|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
84468776|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
84468777|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
84468778|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.047|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.065|1.029|<0.0001
84468779|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.971|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.971|0.827|0.0074
84468780|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.950|0.0088
84468781|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.803|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.803|0.643|<0.0001
84468782|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.346|2.106|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.106|1.346|<0.0001
84468783|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.453|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.453|0.848|0.4479
84468784|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.451|0.0123
84519692|NCT01634139|168791420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.775|2.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.299|-1.775|0.8008
84519693|NCT01634139|168791420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.875|2.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.208|-1.875|0.8731
84519694|NCT01634139|168791420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.058||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.803|2.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||2.346|-1.803|0.7975
84519695|NCT01634139|168791420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||1.498|-2.656|0.5845
84468785|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.937|0.553|0.0147
84519696|NCT01634139|168791421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.113|-0.075|0.6932
84519697|NCT01634139|168791421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.029|-0.158|0.1741
84519698|NCT01634139|168791421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.118|-0.071|0.6250
84519699|NCT01634139|168791421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.109|0.7597
84519700|NCT01634139|168791422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.073|-0.122|0.6166
84519701|NCT01634139|168791422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.021|-0.173|0.1267
84519702|NCT01634139|168791422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.105|-0.092|0.9000
84519703|NCT01634139|168791422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.055|-0.141|0.3897
84519704|NCT01634139|168791423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.022|-0.262|0.0975
84519705|NCT01634139|168791423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.041|-0.323|0.0116
84519706|NCT01634139|168791423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.078|-0.208|0.3732
84519707|NCT01634139|168791423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.049|-0.236|0.1985
84519708|NCT01634139|168791425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.316|0.035|0.0144
84519709|NCT01634139|168791425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.267|-0.013|0.0747
84519710|NCT01634139|168791425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.120|-0.163|0.7654
84519711|NCT01634139|168791425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.158|-0.124|0.8082
84519712|NCT01634139|168791426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.341|0.009|0.0392
84519713|NCT01634139|168791426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.292|-0.039|0.1351
84519714|NCT01634139|168791426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.149|-0.185|0.8291
84468786|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.718||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.914|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.914|0.564|0.0071
84468787|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.064|1.052|<0.0001
84468788|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.023|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.023|1.005|0.0019
84468789|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.701||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.539|0.0083
84468790|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.338|0.090|<0.0001
84468791|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.057||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.091|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.091|1.023|0.0008
84468792|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
84468793|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
84468794|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
84468795|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
84468796|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
84519715|NCT01634139|168791426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.171|-0.163|0.9655
84519716|NCT01634139|168791427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.343|0.039|0.0139
84519717|NCT01634139|168791427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.276|-0.026|0.1043
84725980|NCT03015220|169204147|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||4.72|0.76|0.1672
84540635|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|31.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.23|38.96|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||38.96|24.23|
84468797|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
84468798|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.822|0.0042
84468799|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.824||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.687|0.0363
84468800|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.944|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.944|0.751|0.0033
84468801|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.477||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.844|1.183|0.0006
84468802|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.477|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.477|0.862|0.3810
84468803|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.674|0.0279
84468804|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.972|75.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||75.299|27.972|<0.0001
84468805|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.129|51.434|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||51.434|20.129|<0.0001
84468806|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|11.188|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.188|4.291|<0.0001
84468807|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.564|0.0204
84468808|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.331|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.331|0.087|<0.0001
84468809|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.806||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.201|1.514|0.0010
84468810|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.443|0.0459
84468811|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|0.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.932|0.616|0.0087
84519718|NCT01634139|168791427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.187|-0.118|0.6547
84540636|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.87|85.85|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||85.85|66.87|
84468812|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|3.447|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.447|1.224|0.0064
84468813|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.461|1.077|0.0271
84468814|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|1.194|0.0039
84468815|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.565||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.829|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.829|0.386|0.0035
84468816|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.593|19.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||19.219|1.593|0.0071
84468817|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.964||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|7.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||7.114|0.542|0.3042
84468818|NCT01070550|168690067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.726||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.471|0.4100
84468819|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|1.538|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.538|1.236|<0.0001
84468820|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|1.004|0.0251
84468821|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.849|1.358|<0.0001
84468822|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.174|1.036|0.0317
84468823|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.493||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.048|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.048|1.089|0.0129
84468824|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.616||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.357|1.107|0.0128
84519719|NCT01634139|168791427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.222|-0.082|0.3648
84519720|NCT01634139|168791428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.312|0.020|0.0256
84519721|NCT01634139|168791428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.286|-0.004|0.0561
84468825|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.432|0.763|0.7809
84468826|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.976|0.962|<0.0001
84468827|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.298||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.273|14.512|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.512|1.273|0.0189
84468828|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
84468829|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
84468830|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
84468831|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
84468832|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.263|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.263|1.243|0.0007
84468833|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.384||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.641|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.641|1.166|0.0002
84468834|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.074|1.421|0.0002
84718145|NCT04612244|169187170|SUPERIORITY|"The null and alternative hypotheses are provided below. H0: PT ≤ PC versus HA: PT \> PC where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group, and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal Group.~Modeling will be identical primary endpoint and superiority concluded if the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, sup, where the threshold Ψeff,sup is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate at level 0.025."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The secondary effectiveness endpoint for the ADVENT Trial is Treatment Superiority uses the same definition as the primary effectiveness endpoint for Treatment Success, but the test is for superiority between MITT subjects in the PFA and Thermal Groups.||||0.025
84468835|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.288||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.588|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.588|0.141|0.0006
84519722|NCT01634139|168791428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.085|-0.208|0.4127
84540637|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|82.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.02|89.43|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||89.43|73.02|
84468836|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.579|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.579|0.106|0.0013
84468837|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.931|0.0062
84468838|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.881|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.881|0.568|0.0020
84468839|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|1.596|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.596|1.288|<0.0001
84468840|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.726|1.260|<0.0001
84468841|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.956|<0.0001
84468842|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.275|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.275|1.120|<0.0001
84468843|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
84468844|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
84468845|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
84519723|NCT01634139|168791428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.156|-0.136|0.8922
84718146|NCT03213457|169187200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.711|8.176||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||8.176|3.711|< 0.001
84519724|NCT01634139|168791430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.061|-0.080|0.7931
84519725|NCT01634139|168791430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.005|-0.145|0.0369
84718147|NCT03213457|169187200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.968|6.331||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||6.331|2.968|< 0.001
84718148|NCT03213457|169187201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.605||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.605|1.275|< 0.001
84718149|NCT03213457|169187201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.326||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.326|1.146|0.007
84468846|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
84468847|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|2.235|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.235|1.232|0.0009
84468848|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.467|1.073|0.0045
84468849|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.086||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|3.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.034|1.434|0.0001
84468850|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.318||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.630|0.160|0.0010
84468851|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.275||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.626|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.626|0.121|0.0021
84468852|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.962||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.935|0.0064
84468853|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|1.553|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.553|1.245|<0.0001
84468854|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.535|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.535|1.092|0.0029
84468855|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.236|0.050|<0.0001
84725981|NCT03015220|169204147|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.72|0.21|0.3391
84468856|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.645|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.645|0.159|0.0014
84468857|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|0.616|0.5390
84540638|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.41|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||17.41|4.63|
84468858|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.604||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|2.405|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.405|1.069|0.0223
84468859|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.444||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|12.766|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.766|1.547|0.0056
84468860|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.403||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.892|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.892|1.040|0.0267
84468861|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.226||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.575|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.575|0.089|0.0018
84468862|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.529||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.116|2.097|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.097|1.116|0.0083
84468863|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.285||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.515|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.515|1.090|0.0028
84468864|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.032|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.032|1.401|0.0002
84468865|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.662|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.662|0.162|0.0019
84468866|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.749|0.137|0.0086
84468867|NCT01070550|168690083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.441|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.441|0.138|<0.0001
84468868|NCT03480282|168690114|OTHER|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|This was an exploratory and descriptive study to learn if it was feasible to provide PCPs with their patients (aged 76-89) with information about their 10-year prognosis and engage in shared decision making around stopping screening. We measured among the 90 patients that the 45 PCPs saw whether their intentions to be screened declined after seeing their PCP.|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|||<0.001
84468869|NCT03480282|168690114|OTHER|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|||<0.001
84468870|NCT00109733|168690120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.177
84468871|NCT00109733|168690120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
84540639|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|72.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.56|80.83|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||80.83|61.56|
84726566|NCT04791917|169204907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.32, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.26
84468872|NCT00109733|168690121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
84468873|NCT00109733|168690121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
84468874|NCT00109733|168690122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.653
84468875|NCT00109733|168690122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.002
84468876|NCT00109733|168690123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.755
84468877|NCT00109733|168690123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
84468878|NCT00109733|168690124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.041
84468879|NCT00109733|168690124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.044
84468880|NCT02606045|168690138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90|2|0.039
84468881|NCT02606045|168690139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.7|0.998
84468882|NCT02606045|168690140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.0|0.168
84468883|NCT02606045|168690141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.055
84468884|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-4.8|0.681
84468885|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of physical health||7.6|-12.4|0.633
84468886|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of emotional health||15.3|-5.7|0.362
84468887|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Energy/fatigue||2.8|-7.4|0.375
84468888|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being||7.4|-0.3|0.068
84468889|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning||11.3|-2.3|0.189
84468890|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||4.5|-9.2|0.489
84468891|NCT02606045|168690142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health||4.3|-3.2|0.786
84468892|NCT02606045|168690143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physically Unhealthy Days||0.2|-2.3|0.098
84468893|NCT02606045|168690143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mentally Unhealthy Days||3.0|-1.6|0.557
84468894|NCT02606045|168690144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle Severity Rating||2.7|0.8|0.266
84468895|NCT01671085|168690161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.27|-29.7||P-value is for Day 43.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis|||||-29.70|-71.27|<0.001
84468896|NCT01671085|168690161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.91|-24.31||P-value is for Day 57.|Mixed Effects Models Analysis|||||-24.31|-65.91|<0.001
84468897|NCT00365716|168690163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|89.5||||||95.0|70.7|97.3|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.3|70.7|
84519726|NCT01634139|168791430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.041|-0.101|0.4086
84468898|NCT02759146|168690164|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.52||Adjusted for baseline and balancing factors used in the randomization|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||.52|-.36|.72
84468899|NCT02759146|168690164|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.15||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||.41|-.72|.58
84468900|NCT02759146|168690164|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||.34|-.81|.42
84468901|NCT02759146|168690165|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.42|-0.44|0.96
84468902|NCT02759146|168690165|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.35|-0.75|0.48
84468903|NCT02759146|168690165|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||0.38|-0.75|0.52
84468904|NCT02759146|168690166|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.67||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to meditative practices for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||3.86|-2.52|.68
84468905|NCT02759146|168690166|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||1.58|-6.64|.23
84468906|NCT02759146|168690166|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-3.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||1.01|-7.41|0.14
84468907|NCT02759146|168690167|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.39|-0.38|0.98
84468908|NCT02759146|168690167|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.25|-0.74|0.34
84468909|NCT02759146|168690167|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.25||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||0.26|-0.76|0.34
84468910|NCT02759146|168690168|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology to added meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continuing reflexology vs adding meditative practice||1.14|-.63|0.57
84468911|NCT02759146|168690168|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continuing meditative practice to adding reflexology|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing with meditative practice vs. adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.63|-0.64|0.39
84468912|NCT02759146|168690169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|1.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|7.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||7.04|-10.93|0.67
84519727|NCT01634139|168791430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.045|-0.097|0.4714
84468913|NCT02759146|168690169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.85||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||10.29|-6.59|0.66
84519728|NCT01634139|168791431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.092|-0.091|0.9880
84519729|NCT01634139|168791431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.010|-0.173|0.0794
84468914|NCT02759146|168690170|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.57|-0.95|0.62
84468915|NCT02759146|168690170|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.22|-1.15|0.95
84519730|NCT01634139|168791431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.145|0.2623
84540640|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|67.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.72|76.78|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||76.78|55.72|
84468916|NCT02759146|168690171|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.77|-1.04|0.77
84468917|NCT02759146|168690171|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.22||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12||0.80|-1.23|0.67
84468918|NCT02759146|168690172|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.37|-0.88|0.42
84468919|NCT02759146|168690172|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 5-12||0.29|-0.98|0.29
84468920|NCT02759146|168690173|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.42||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.15|-1.00|0.15
84468921|NCT02759146|168690173|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.39|-0.80|0.50
84468922|NCT02759146|168690174|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for week 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.28|-0.83|0.33
84468923|NCT02759146|168690174|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.21|-0.93|0.22
84468924|NCT02759146|168690175|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||1.52|-8.62|0.17
84468925|NCT02759146|168690175|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-4.48||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.70|-9.66|0.09
84468926|NCT00506077|168690176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained longitudinal data analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.939
84468927|NCT00506077|168690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-Value Comments (limit 250 characters): The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
84468928|NCT00506077|168690178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
84468929|NCT00506077|168690179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
84468930|NCT00316303|168690185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84468931|NCT00316303|168690186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84468932|NCT00316303|168690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84468933|NCT00316303|168690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84468934|NCT00316303|168690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84468935|NCT00385268|168690190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.14|||GEE model of repeated measures|GEE on repeated binary indicators of BE positive / negative test||||5.14|0.55|0.44
84468936|NCT00772967|168690193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611||||0.089||90.0|-1.36|0.14||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.14|-1.36|0.089
84468937|NCT00772967|168690193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.804||||0.043||90.0|-1.57|-0.04||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.04|-1.57|0.043
84468938|NCT00772967|168690194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.518||||0.048||90.0|-1.03|-0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.01|-1.03|0.048
84468939|NCT00772967|168690194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.001||90.0|-1.54|-0.53||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.53|-1.54|0.001
84519731|NCT01634139|168791431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.136|0.3552
84519732|NCT01634139|168791432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.058|-0.135|0.4359
84519733|NCT01634139|168791432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.037|-0.155|0.2293
84468940|NCT00772967|168690195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.658||||0.052||90.0|-1.32|0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.01|-1.32|0.052
84468941|NCT00772967|168690195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003||90.0|-1.81|-0.49||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.49|-1.81|0.003
84468942|NCT00772967|168690196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.875||||0.019||90.0|-1.56|-0.19||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.19|-1.56|0.019
84468943|NCT00772967|168690196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.007||90.0|-1.77|-0.37||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.37|-1.77|0.007
84468944|NCT00872833|168690215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84468945|NCT00872833|168690216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
84468946|NCT00337467|168690248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|33.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||33.7|11.9|
84468947|NCT00337467|168690249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|47.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||47.7|22.7|
84468948|NCT00337467|168690254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|109.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||109.8|12.3|
84468949|NCT00337467|168690255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|113.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||113.7|-7.1|
84468950|NCT00337467|168690256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|129.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||129.1|-4.0|
84468951|NCT00337467|168690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|14.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 48||14.6|2.5|
84468952|NCT00337467|168690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||8.8|-3.9|
84468953|NCT00337467|168690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||20.8|4.0|
84468954|NCT00337467|168690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 48||31.7|8.0|
84468955|NCT00337467|168690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|34.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 48||34.4|-0.4|
84468956|NCT00337467|168690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||||95.0|6.9|20.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 96||20.1|6.9|
84468957|NCT00337467|168690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.2|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||10.2|-6.0|
84468958|NCT00337467|168690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|28.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||28.4|10.3|
84468959|NCT00337467|168690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.0|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 96||42.0|15.3|
84468960|NCT00337467|168690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 96||41.6|-9.5|
84468961|NCT03141086|168690262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.762|||ANOVA|||||4.762|-1.340|0.1272
84468962|NCT03141086|168690263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.866||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|6.553|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours post dose||6.553|-0.821|0.0607
84468963|NCT03141086|168690263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.975||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5.5 hours post dose||4.973|-1.024|0.0919
84540641|NCT04917861|168832495|OTHER||percentage difference|63.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.75|74.0|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||74.00|50.75|
84468964|NCT03141086|168690263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.576||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|3.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7.5 hours post dose||3.848|-0.697|0.0811
84468965|NCT03141086|168690263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.879||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.268|3.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9.5 hours post dose||3.026|-1.268|0.2026
84468966|NCT04430582|168690276|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84468967|NCT04430582|168690277|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
84468968|NCT04430582|168690278|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84468969|NCT04430582|168690279|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
84468970|NCT04430582|168690280|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84468971|NCT04430582|168690281|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
84468972|NCT04430582|168690282|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84468973|NCT04430582|168690283|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
84468974|NCT04430582|168690284|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84468975|NCT04430582|168690285|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84468976|NCT04430582|168690286|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84468977|NCT04430582|168690287|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84468978|NCT04430582|168690288|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
84468979|NCT04430582|168690289|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
84468980|NCT04430582|168690290|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84468981|NCT01109004|168690300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.87
84468982|NCT01109004|168690300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.37
84468983|NCT01109004|168690300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.27
84468984|NCT01109004|168690301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.92
84468985|NCT01109004|168690301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.21
84468986|NCT01109004|168690301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.22
84468987|NCT01109004|168690302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.26
84468988|NCT01109004|168690302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.53
84468989|NCT01109004|168690302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.57
84468990|NCT01109004|168690303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.63
84468991|NCT01109004|168690303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.15
84468992|NCT01109004|168690303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.33
84468993|NCT02410902|168690310|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-4.98|0.038
84468994|NCT02410902|168690311|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-3.21|0.325
84468995|NCT00137436|168690320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.942
84519734|NCT01634139|168791432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.088|-0.108|0.8372
84468996|NCT00137436|168690320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.323
84468997|NCT00137436|168690320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.865
84468998|NCT00137436|168690320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.873
84468999|NCT00137436|168690321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.736
84469000|NCT00137436|168690321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.962
84469001|NCT00137436|168690321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.185
84469002|NCT00137436|168690321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||1.000
84469003|NCT00137436|168690322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.386
84519735|NCT01634139|168791432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.046|-0.148|0.3022
84540655|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Overall baseline score||||0.783
84519736|NCT01634139|168791433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.060|-0.122|0.5004
84469004|NCT00137436|168690322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.904
84469005|NCT00137436|168690322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.812
84469006|NCT00137436|168690322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.490
84469007|NCT00137436|168690323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.839
84469008|NCT00137436|168690323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.219
84469009|NCT00137436|168690323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.788
84469010|NCT00137436|168690323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.164
84469011|NCT00137436|168690324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.656
84469012|NCT00137436|168690324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.628
84469013|NCT00137436|168690324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.420
84469014|NCT00137436|168690324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
84469015|NCT00137436|168690325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.903
84469016|NCT00137436|168690325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.434
84469017|NCT00137436|168690325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.687
84469018|NCT00137436|168690325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
84469019|NCT00701727|168690330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84469020|NCT00701727|168690331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84469021|NCT00701727|168690332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84469022|NCT00701727|168690333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84519737|NCT01634139|168791433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.031|-0.149|0.1982
84519738|NCT01634139|168791433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.103|0.8019
84469023|NCT00701727|168690334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84469024|NCT00701727|168690335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84469025|NCT00701727|168690336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84469026|NCT05137041|168690338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84469027|NCT05137041|168690340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.137|||ANCOVA|The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).||||-0.137|-0.817|0.015
84469028|NCT05137041|168690341|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.661|0.828||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.828|-32.661|0.103
84469029|NCT05137041|168690342|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.581||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||1.581|0.511|<0.001
84469030|NCT05137041|168690343|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.976|0.25||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.250|-2.976|0.121
84469031|NCT05137041|168690344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The p-value is adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|Log Rank|||||||0.564
84469032|NCT05137041|168690345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.289
84469033|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1 Evening||||0.001
84469034|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Morning||||0.035
84469035|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Evening||||0.004
84469036|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Morning||||0.007
84469037|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Evening||||0.005
84469038|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Morning||||0.001
84469039|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Evening||||0.007
84469040|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5 Morning||||0.096
84469041|NCT05137041|168690346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||||0.015
84469042|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 1 Evening||||<0.001
84469043|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Morning||||0.001
84469044|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Evening||||<0.001
84469045|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Morning||||<0.001
84469046|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Evening||||<0.001
84469047|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Morning||||<0.001
84469048|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Evening||||<0.001
84469049|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5 Morning||||0.024
84469050|NCT05137041|168690347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5||||<0.001
84469051|NCT05137041|168690348|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|0.903|||ANCOVA|||||0.903|0.415|<0.001
84469052|NCT03470922|168690368|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by LAG-3 (≥ 1% vs \< 1%), BRAF (mutation positive vs mutation wild-type), AJCC M-stage (M0/M1any\[0\] vs M1any\[1\])||||0.92|0.62|0.0055
84469053|NCT02163993|168690392|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.24|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.24|-1.40|
84469054|NCT02163993|168690392|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.56|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.56|-1.06|
84469055|NCT02163993|168690392|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.29|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||-0.29|-2.02|
84469056|NCT02163993|168690392|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.27|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.27|-1.50|
84469057|NCT01345123|168690405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0019994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0400918||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0765899|0.080588716|||ANCOVA|Covariates: age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior year total medical costs pmpm||||.080588716|-.07658990|0.9602
84469058|NCT01345123|168690405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04018791||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0924947|0.06506063|||ANCOVA|||||0.06506063|-0.0924947|0.7329
84469059|NCT01345123|168690406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.0511||95.0|0.647|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates: Age, Gender, Charlson Comorbidity index, calculated risk of knee replacement, hip replacement, herniated disc surgery (score 1-99)||||1.001|0.647|0.0511
84519739|NCT01634139|168791433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.059|-0.123|0.4872
84469060|NCT01345123|168690409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31257||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06895|0.55618|||ANOVA|||||0.55618|0.06895|0.0106
84469061|NCT01345123|168690409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15982||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06477|0.38441|||ANOVA|||||0.38441|-0.06477|0.0106
84469062|NCT01345123|168690412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467091||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1008434|0.08259938|||ANCOVA|||||0.08259938|-0.1008434|0.8454
84469063|NCT01345123|168690412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0183548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04690321||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1102961|0.07358642|||ANCOVA|||||0.07358642|-0.1102961|0.6956
84469064|NCT00883558|168690413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of INSULIN-PH20 NP to insulin lispro was supported if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in blood glucose between the treatments did not exceed 21.6 mg/dL.|LS Mean Difference|3.06||||0.3217|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments included treatment, phase, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||A total of at least 40 participants were to be enrolled in the study, and 30 participants were expected to complete both treatment cycles. Assuming a standard deviation for blood glucose of 45 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) and a true difference between the treatments of 0 mg/dL, the study had approximately 80% power to show that INSULIN-PH20 NP was non-inferior to insulin lispro with respect to the overall two-hour postprandial blood glucose excursion.||14.11||0.3217
84469065|NCT04184622|168690434|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-14.6|<0.001
84469066|NCT04184622|168690434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.8|-20.0|<0.001
84469067|NCT04184622|168690434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.0|-21.2|<0.001
84469068|NCT04184622|168690435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.43|33.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.02|17.43|<0.001
84469069|NCT04184622|168690435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.98|115.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||115.39|46.98|<0.001
84469070|NCT04184622|168690435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.86|119.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.03|47.86|<0.001
84469071|NCT04184622|168690436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-11.2|<0.001
84469072|NCT04184622|168690437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|14.15|<0.001
84469073|NCT04184622|168690437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.75|61.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.45|31.75|<.001
84469074|NCT04184622|168690437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.94|93.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.77|45.94|<.001
84469075|NCT04184622|168690438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|24.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.66|11.83|<0.001
84469076|NCT04184622|168690438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.42|75.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.88|35.42|<0.001
84469077|NCT04184622|168690438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.23|98.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.16|45.23|<0.001
84469078|NCT04184622|168690439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|74.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||74.22|18.37|<0.001
84469079|NCT04184622|168690439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|219.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||219.81|54.50|<0.001
84469080|NCT04184622|168690439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.85|302.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||302.97|74.85|<0.001
84469081|NCT04184622|168690440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.0|-12.3|<0.001
84469082|NCT04184622|168690440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.2|<0.001
84469083|NCT04184622|168690440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.7|<0.001
84469084|NCT04184622|168690441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|1.6|<0.001
84469085|NCT04184622|168690442|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.8|-25.6|<0.001
84469086|NCT04184622|168690443|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.41|-6.40|<0.001
84469087|NCT04184622|168690444|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.49|5.85|<0.001
84469088|NCT04184622|168690445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-7.9|<0.001
84469089|NCT04184622|168690446|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.3|-44.9|<0.001
84469090|NCT04184622|168690447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.1|-15.3|<.0001
84469091|NCT04184622|168690447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-19.8|<.0001
84469092|NCT04184622|168690447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.6|-22.8|<.0001
84469093|NCT04184622|168690448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13|||Regression, Cox|||||0.13|0.03|<0.0001
84469094|NCT04184622|168690449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.21|||Regression, Cox|||||0.21|0.07|<0.0001
84469095|NCT04184622|168690450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-5.5|<0.001
84469096|NCT04184622|168690450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-7.7|<0.001
84469097|NCT04184622|168690450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-8.2|<0.001
84469098|NCT04184622|168690451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.36|<0.001
84469099|NCT04184622|168690451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.45|<0.001
84469100|NCT04184622|168690451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.48|<0.001
84469101|NCT04184622|168690452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.20|-9.97|<0.001
84469102|NCT04184622|168690452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.21|-11.98|<0.001
84469103|NCT04184622|168690452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.30|-12.80|<0.001
84469104|NCT04184622|168690453|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.75|-8.32|<0.001
84469105|NCT04184622|168690454|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.4|-26.1|<0.001
84469106|NCT04184622|168690455|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.2|-16.1|<0.001
84469107|NCT04184622|168690456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-5.0|<0.001
84469108|NCT04184622|168690457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.73|50.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.05|17.73|<.0001
84469109|NCT04184622|168690457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|59.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||59.53|20.63|<.0001
84469110|NCT04184622|168690457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.61|102.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||102.34|29.61|<.0001
84469111|NCT04184622|168690458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|9.8|||ANCOVA|||||9.8|5.6|<0.001
84469112|NCT04184622|168690458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||||12.8|8.6|<0.001
84469113|NCT04184622|168690458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.8|||ANCOVA|||||13.8|9.6|<0.001
84469114|NCT02795988|168690461|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard regression model|0.603||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.957||1-sided p-value was calculated from Log-rank test stratified by factor tumor stage which used for randomization at screening.|Log Rank|||||0.957|0.380|0.078
84469115|NCT02985450|168690470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|513.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Anti-HBs levels difference: high risk obesity group - low risk obesity group NAFLD patients|||||0.02
84469116|NCT00069576|168690472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.72|1.07|||Chi-squared|||For Total Composite End Point||1.07|0.72|0.14
84469117|NCT00069576|168690472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.73|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Hypoglycemia||1.53|0.73|0.75
84469118|NCT00069576|168690472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.49|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for hyperbilirubinemia||1.12|0.49|0.12
84469119|NCT00069576|168690472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.57|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for elevated cord-blood C-peptide level||1.05|0.57|0.07
84469120|NCT00069576|168690472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.1|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for birth trauma||2.20|0.10|0.33
84469121|NCT00069576|168690473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
84469122|NCT00069576|168690474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.32|0.76|||Chi-squared|||||0.76|0.32|<0.001
84469123|NCT00069576|168690475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.26|<0.001
84469124|NCT00069576|168690476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.53|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.53|0.27
84469125|NCT00069576|168690477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
84469126|NCT00069576|168690478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.7|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.99|0.70|0.49
84469127|NCT00069576|168690479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469128|NCT00069576|168690480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.51|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.51|0.19
84469129|NCT00069576|168690481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.44|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.44|0.32
84469130|NCT00069576|168690482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.26|0.33
84469131|NCT00069576|168690483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.81|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.81|0.86
84469132|NCT00069576|168690484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.64|0.02
84469133|NCT00069576|168690485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.14|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.14|0.02
84469134|NCT00069576|168690486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.22|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.22|0.02
84519740|NCT01634139|168791434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.048|-0.135|0.3498
84519741|NCT01634139|168791434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.015|-0.196|0.0222
84469135|NCT00069576|168690487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.42|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.42|0.01
84469136|NCT00069576|168690488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469137|NCT00069576|168690489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469138|NCT00069576|168690490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1||||||||1.10|0.71|
84469139|NCT00069576|168690491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
84469140|NCT00069576|168690492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05||||||||2.05|0.74|
84469141|NCT00069576|168690493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
84469142|NCT00069576|168690494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84469143|NCT00358917|168690519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (once daily \[QD\] minus twice daily \[BID\], based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.5||||0.413||95.0|-4.5|11.5|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 participants (300 participants in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided 83% power (with a type I error rate of 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||11.5|-4.5|0.413
84469144|NCT00358917|168690520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.8||||0.389||95.0|-4.3|11.9|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||||11.9|-4.3|0.389
84469145|NCT00358917|168690521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
84469146|NCT00358917|168690523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.222
84469147|NCT00053846|168690576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0576|||ANCOVA||Multiple Imputation (MI) used for estimates. MICE software in R was used to generate 100 imputed datasets. ANCOVA was run on each, and results were pooled.|H0: The true difference in means is equal to zero. Ha: The true difference in means is not equal to zero.||0.0576|-1.020|0.080
84519742|NCT01634139|168791434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.104|0.7990
84469148|NCT02650284|168690585|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.46||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.46
84469149|NCT02650284|168690585|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.23||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 6-week timepoint.||||0.23
84469150|NCT02650284|168690585|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.1||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 3-month timepoint.||||0.10
84469151|NCT02650284|168690585|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 12-month timepoint.||||0.98
84469152|NCT02650284|168690585|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.5||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 24-month timepoint.||||0.50
84469153|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.59||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D Index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.59
84469154|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 3-months between both groups.||||0.90
84469155|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 12-months between both groups.||||0.57
84519743|NCT01634139|168791434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.057|-0.126|0.4586
84469156|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.49||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 24-months between both groups.||||0.49
84469157|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means||||||0.65||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.65
84469158|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.3||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.30
84469159|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.06
84519744|NCT01634139|168791435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.065|-0.156|0.4221
84519745|NCT01634139|168791435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.017|-0.204|0.0959
84519746|NCT01634139|168791435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.114|-0.109|0.9627
84519747|NCT01634139|168791435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.058|-0.165|0.3457
84469160|NCT02650284|168690586|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.44||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.44
84469161|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.97||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.97
84469162|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.45||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 3-months between both groups.||||0.45
84469163|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.64||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 12-months between both groups.||||0.64
84469164|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.19||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 24-months between both groups.||||0.19
84469165|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.57
84469166|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 3-months between both groups.||||0.98
84519748|NCT01634139|168791436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.125|-0.043|0.3375
84519749|NCT01634139|168791436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.121|-0.047|0.3880
84519750|NCT01634139|168791436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.104|-0.066|0.6541
84469167|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.58||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 12-months between both groups.||||0.58
84469168|NCT02650284|168690587|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.16||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 24-months between both groups.||||0.16
84469169|NCT02650284|168690588|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.62||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score preoperatively between both groups.||||0.62
84469170|NCT02650284|168690588|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 3-months between both groups.||||0.06
84469171|NCT02650284|168690588|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.93||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 24-months between both groups.||||0.93
84469172|NCT02650284|168690589|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.57
84469173|NCT02650284|168690589|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.17||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.17
84469174|NCT02650284|168690589|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.8||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.80
84469175|NCT02650284|168690589|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.90
84469176|NCT02650284|168690591|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.81||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare length of hospital stay (number of nights) between both groups.||||0.81
84469177|NCT01417780|168690612|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
84469178|NCT01417780|168690613|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the frequency of Day 14 SOFA score less than or equal to 1 was not different among treatment groups.||||0.019
84469179|NCT01417780|168690614|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84469180|NCT01417780|168690615|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84469181|NCT01417780|168690616|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84469182|NCT00554294|168690617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.05||95.0|0.48|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|The Odds Ratio (OR) describes the probability ob beeing overweight of the intervention group compared to the control group (reference, denominator).||adjusted for overweight at baseline, age at baseline,sex and clustering by school||0.98|0.48|<0.05
84469183|NCT01929044|168690622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to the non-inferiority margin of 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) -repeated measures approach||0.04|-0.88|<0.0001
84469184|NCT01929044|168690622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.04|-0.88|0.0743
84469185|NCT01929044|168690623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.08|-0.70|0.1210
84469186|NCT01929044|168690624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.03|-0.82|0.0658
84469187|NCT01929044|168690625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.07|-0.85|0.0220
84519751|NCT01634139|168791436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.056|0.5089
84469188|NCT01929044|168690626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.09|-0.81|0.0149
84469189|NCT01929044|168690627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test stratifying for centre (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using modified ridit scores) was performed.||||||0.0113
84469190|NCT01929044|168690628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the response with treatment as fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate.|Exact 95% confidence interval obtained by Clopper and Pearson approach.|||1.09|0.37|0.0992
84469191|NCT05022004|168690629|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.91|-0.28|
84469192|NCT05022004|168690629|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.76|-0.39|
84469193|NCT05022004|168690629|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.50|-0.59|
84469194|NCT05022004|168690629|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.40|-0.64|
84469195|NCT05022004|168690630|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0015||||||P value reported for Left Eye at Week 2; 08:00 am|two-sample t-test|||||||0.0015
84469196|NCT05022004|168690630|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0008|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right Eye at Week 2; 08:00am||||||0.0008
84469197|NCT05022004|168690630|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for left eye at week 6, 08:00 am||||||<.0001
84469198|NCT05022004|168690630|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right eye at Week 6; 08:00 am||||||<.0001
84469199|NCT01555463|168690633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|center-adjusted||||||<.001
84469200|NCT01555463|168690634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F-test for treatment effect of the ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as the factors and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<.001
84469201|NCT00783705|168690756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Generalized estimating equation model on lesions (progressive disease vs. complete response/stable disease) was used to account for intra-patient correlation in the lesion-specific analysis.||3.0|0.7|0.39
84469202|NCT00783705|168690760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.10
84469203|NCT00783705|168690761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.03
84469204|NCT00783705|168690762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.58
84469205|NCT00783705|168690763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.06
84469206|NCT00783705|168690764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.63
84469207|NCT00783705|168690765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.22
84469208|NCT00783705|168690766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Total Glutathione level between arms.||||0.06
84469209|NCT00783705|168690767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.35
84469210|NCT00783705|168690768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CRP level between arms.||||0.80
84469211|NCT00783705|168690769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.22
84469212|NCT00783705|168690770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.74
84469213|NCT00783705|168690771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.55
84469214|NCT00783705|168690772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Nitrotyrosine level between arms.||||0.91
84469215|NCT00783705|168690773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.46
84469216|NCT00783705|168690774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.52
84469217|NCT00426751|168690775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups, a generalized model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for center, was applied.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||90.0|-8.5|12.8||||||||12.8|-8.5|
84469218|NCT00426751|168690776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups a generalised model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for centre, was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||||95.0|-3.0|16.6|||||Analysis based on the ITT population confirmed the results observed in the PP population.|||16.6|-3.0|
84469219|NCT01355068|168690822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|104.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||104.94|97.85|
84469220|NCT01355068|168690823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|107.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.47|97.18|
84469221|NCT01355068|168690824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|105.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.47|97.56|
84469222|NCT02279524|168690887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.09||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0655
84469223|NCT02279524|168690887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0450
84469224|NCT02279524|168690888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|22.66|||Regression, Logistic|The method used was a Baseline Adjusted Logistic Regression||||22.66|0.99|0.0514
84726567|NCT04791917|169204908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43) = 2.60, partial eta squared = .06||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.11
84469225|NCT02279524|168690888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.61|0.33|0.4955
84469226|NCT02279524|168690889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.04|0.70|0.2110
84469227|NCT02279524|168690889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.40|0.8425
84469228|NCT02279524|168690890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
84469229|NCT02279524|168690890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
84469230|NCT02279524|168690891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.447||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7063|-0.1877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1877|-0.7063|0.0008
84469231|NCT02279524|168690891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.362||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6196|-0.1043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1043|-0.6196|0.0061
84469232|NCT02279524|168690892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84469233|NCT02279524|168690892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
84469234|NCT02279524|168690893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.88|1.11|0.0279
84469235|NCT02279524|168690893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.46|0.89|0.0878
84469236|NCT02279524|168690894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||1.46|0.01|0.1008
84469237|NCT02279524|168690894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||3.05|0.13|0.5693
84469238|NCT03463941|168690940|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
84469239|NCT03463941|168690941|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
84469240|NCT03463941|168690943|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84469241|NCT03463941|168690944|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84469242|NCT03463941|168690945|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
84469243|NCT03463941|168690946|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84469244|NCT02273050|168690947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.689|||ANCOVA|||||-0.689|-1.080|<0.001
84469245|NCT02273050|168690947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.410|0.034
84469246|NCT02273050|168690948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||||46.0|29.0|<0.001
84469247|NCT02273050|168690948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|2.6|0.011
84469248|NCT02273050|168690949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-1.70|<0.001
84469249|NCT02273050|168690949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.63|0.046
84469250|NCT02273050|168690950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-416.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.3|-314.6|||ANCOVA|||||-314.6|-517.3|<0.001
84469251|NCT02273050|168690950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-169.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.7|-66.9|||ANCOVA|||||-66.9|-271.7|0.001
84469252|NCT02273050|168690951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.9|||Fisher Exact|||||43.9|26.0|<0.001
84469253|NCT02273050|168690951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||||20.9|2.3|0.020
84469254|NCT02273050|168690952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.25|-3.70|<0.001
84469255|NCT02273050|168690952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.88|0.002
84469256|NCT02273050|168690953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-4.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.5|-13.3|<0.001
84469257|NCT02273050|168690953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||||2.3|-2.3|>0.999
84469258|NCT02042404|168690961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84469259|NCT02042404|168690962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84469260|NCT02042404|168690963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84469261|NCT02042404|168690964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.0281
84469262|NCT03100942|168690966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.6||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|37.6||P-values were obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||37.6|-6.3|0.1597
84469263|NCT03100942|168690966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|38.3||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||38.3|-5.1|0.1694
84469264|NCT03100942|168690966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|29.4||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||29.4|-13.2|0.3309
84469265|NCT03100942|168690967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||MMRM|||Least Squares (LS) Means, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were obtained from Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||3.4|-0.7|0.2066
84469266|NCT03100942|168690967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.9|0.3998
84469267|NCT03100942|168690967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.7|-1.4|0.5113
84469268|NCT03100942|168690968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.0|-0.9|0.9446
84469269|NCT03100942|168690968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.3|0.3977
84469270|NCT03100942|168690968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.6|-1.2|0.4966
84469271|NCT03100942|168690969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.1|-2.2|0.9564
84469272|NCT03100942|168690969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-3.3|0.2788
84469273|NCT03100942|168690969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.3|-1.8|0.8047
84469274|NCT03100942|168690970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.1|0.6782
84469275|NCT03100942|168690970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-0.8|0.9171
84469276|NCT03100942|168690970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.2|0.4641
84469277|NCT01617681|168690980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-2.01|||ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-13.86|0.0096
84469278|NCT01617681|168690980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.07|0.6531
84469279|NCT01617681|168690981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.94|0.0030
84469280|NCT01617681|168690981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-8.98|0.0042
84469281|NCT01617681|168690982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.8|||ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.49|0.411
84469282|NCT01617681|168690982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.79|||ANCOVA|||||4.79|0.44|0.5443
84469283|NCT01617681|168690983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|0.16|0.2624
84469284|NCT01883440|168690984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||||||<0.037
84469285|NCT01883440|168690985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the material when all were included, there were a lot of persons with few symptoms in both Groups, which means that a larger study would be needed in order to detect significant differences.||||0.381
84519752|NCT01694563|168791437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary effectiveness hypothesis for this study was to demonstrate a superiority success rate at 36-months follow-up in patients treated with the AtriCure Synergy Ablation System compared to a pre-established performance goal.||||0.05
84519753|NCT01694563|168791438|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 12 months post-operatively.||||
84469286|NCT01405313|168690991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.022
84469287|NCT01405313|168690992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
84469288|NCT02262039|168691028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84469289|NCT02262039|168691029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84469290|NCT02262039|168691030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84469291|NCT02262039|168691031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
84469292|NCT02262039|168691032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84469293|NCT02262039|168691033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84469294|NCT02262039|168691034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
84469295|NCT04174638|168691035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p value was the value of the total score of the Fluid Control in Hemodialysis Patients Scale.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84469296|NCT04174638|168691036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84469297|NCT04174638|168691037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the knowledge sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
84469298|NCT04174638|168691037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the motivation sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
84469299|NCT04174638|168691041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the physical functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.297
84469300|NCT04174638|168691041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the mental functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.742
84469301|NCT04174638|168691041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the burden of kidney disease sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.719
84469302|NCT04174638|168691041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the symptoms/problems sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.063
84469303|NCT04174638|168691041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the effects of kidney disease on daily life sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
84469304|NCT00905307|168691050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.7||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.82||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.82|-10.2|0.2846
84519754|NCT01694563|168791438|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 24 months post-operatively.||||
84519755|NCT01694563|168791438|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 36 months post-operatively.|90% confidence interval using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
84469305|NCT00905307|168691050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.44||||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.07||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||4.07|-6.96|0.6066
84469306|NCT00905307|168691050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.86||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.59||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.59|-9.32|0.3293
84469307|NCT00905307|168691050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|4.62||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|12.12|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||12.12|-2.89|0.2263
84469308|NCT00905307|168691050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.64||||0.3074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.38|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||||3.38|-10.7|0.3074
84469309|NCT00905307|168691051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.61||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.97|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||3.97|-0.75|0.1807
84469310|NCT00905307|168691051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-3.24|0.1313
84469311|NCT00905307|168691051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.69|-1.96|0.8879
84469312|NCT00905307|168691051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.24||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.56|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.56|-3.05|0.1764
84469313|NCT00905307|168691051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.79||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-4.00|0.1111
84469314|NCT00905307|168691052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.86|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.86|-0.86|0.2896
84469315|NCT00905307|168691052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.72|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.72|-1.94|0.3701
84469316|NCT00905307|168691052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.35||||0.6074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.99|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.99|-1.69|0.6074
84469317|NCT00905307|168691052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.73||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.59|-2.05|0.2777
84519756|NCT00841659|168791503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.96||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84469318|NCT00905307|168691052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.59|-1.90|0.8611
84469319|NCT00905307|168691053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.36||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|2.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.85|-7.57|0.3726
84469320|NCT00905307|168691053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.8||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||7.85|-0.26|0.0664
84469321|NCT00905307|168691053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|6.32|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||6.32|-1.92|0.2944
84469322|NCT00905307|168691053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.86||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|7.89|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||7.89|-0.16|0.0596
84469323|NCT00905307|168691053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.25||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|8.03|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||8.03|-1.53|0.1819
84469324|NCT00905307|168691054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in CGI-S score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.79|-0.03|0.0685
84469325|NCT00905307|168691054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.05|-0.60|0.0989
84469326|NCT00905307|168691054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.28|-0.37|0.8006
84469327|NCT00905307|168691054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.04|-0.60|0.0898
84519757|NCT00841659|168791504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.58||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84469328|NCT00905307|168691054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.18|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.18|-0.59|0.2851
84469329|NCT00905307|168691055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.4008
84519758|NCT00841659|168791505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.29||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
84519759|NCT01322633|168791506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.93|0.24|
84469330|NCT00905307|168691055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.1117
84469331|NCT00905307|168691055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.2739
84469332|NCT00905307|168691055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1045
84469333|NCT00905307|168691055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1149
84469334|NCT00905307|168691056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.40|0.57|0.6200
84469335|NCT00905307|168691056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.19||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.48|0.95|0.1501
84469336|NCT00905307|168691056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.25|0.66|0.5271
84469337|NCT00905307|168691056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.34|0.78|0.8670
84469338|NCT00905307|168691056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.15||||0.3892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.56|0.85|0.3892
84469339|NCT00905307|168691057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.06||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.88||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.88|0.59|0.8540
84469340|NCT00905307|168691057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.38|0.49|0.4492
84469341|NCT00905307|168691057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.67||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.23||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.23|0.36|0.1854
84469342|NCT00905307|168691057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.61||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.10|0.33|0.0946
84726568|NCT04791917|169204909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 1.95, partial eta squared = .04||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol Pmax including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.17
84469343|NCT00905307|168691057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.63||||0.2133||95.0|0.3|1.34||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.34|0.30|0.2133
84469344|NCT00803244|168691109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49||||0.2344||95.0|-1.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.30|0.2344
84469345|NCT00803244|168691110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.09||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = -19.7|||0.00|-0.18|0.0401
84469346|NCT02873715|168691112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-2.29|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.29|-10.14|<0.05
84469347|NCT02873715|168691113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.26|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.26|-5.68|0.001
84469348|NCT02873715|168691115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5384||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|time x group analysis.||repeated measures analysis of variance for parent delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.65
84469349|NCT02873715|168691115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3913||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||time x group analysis|ANOVA|||repeated measures analysis of variance for child delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.87
84469350|NCT01254396|168691116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|41.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.4|52.76||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||52.76|32.40|
84469351|NCT01254396|168691118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|93.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|108.78||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||108.78|80.23|
84469352|NCT01254396|168691119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|87.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|98.99||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||98.99|77.62|
84469353|NCT04590937|168691156|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|101.67|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.67|94.89|
84469354|NCT04590937|168691157|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|123.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.22|134.98|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||134.98|112.22|
84469355|NCT04590937|168691158|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|117.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.57|125.34|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||125.34|110.57|
84519760|NCT01322633|168791507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.4||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.40|0.65|
84519761|NCT01322633|168791508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.21|0.93|
84469356|NCT04590937|168691159|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|170.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.73|201.76|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.76|143.73|
84469357|NCT04590937|168691160|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|91.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.04|94.93|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||94.93|88.04|
84519762|NCT02420353|168791509|OTHER|||||||0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model||||0.0498
84519763|NCT02420353|168791510|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.7024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7024
84519764|NCT02420353|168791511|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
84519765|NCT02420353|168791512|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.6836|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6836
84519766|NCT02420353|168791513|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.9271|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9271
84519767|NCT02420353|168791514|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.1576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1576
84519768|NCT02420353|168791515|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5586
84519769|NCT02420353|168791516|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
84519770|NCT02420353|168791517|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8573
84519771|NCT02420353|168791518|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0564
84469358|NCT04590937|168691161|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|139.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.29|155.51|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||155.51|124.29|
84469359|NCT04590937|168691162|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|112.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.26|124.11|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||124.11|101.26|
84469360|NCT04590937|168691163|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|161.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.17|201.39|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.39|129.17|
84469361|NCT04590937|168691164|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.86|101.73|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.73|94.86|
84469362|NCT04590937|168691165|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|118.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|129.4|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||129.40|108.83|
84469363|NCT04590937|168691166|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.93|120.56|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||120.56|107.93|
84469364|NCT04590937|168691167|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|173.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.9|212.8|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||212.80|141.90|
84469365|NCT02026271|168691169|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"MTD was not determined in this study. Dose escalation decision rules were based on a standard 3+3 design modified to independently evaluate the two stratified subject groups that may exhibit different safety and tolerability profiles.~The study was planned to explore 4 veledimex (V) dose cohorts of 20, 40, 80 and 120 mg once daily, and two doses of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 (2x10\^11vp and 1x10\^12vp). Dose cohorts were treated at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg of V. Only one dose of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 was explored (2x10\^11vp).~If ≥ 33% of subjects in the expansion cohort experience DLTs, additional subjects may be enrolled at the next lower dose, or at an intermediate dose, as recommended by the SRC.~Grp 1: After 20mg cohort, SRC approved 40mg, which was deemed the MAD due to DLTs. SRC approved 30mg cohort to determine MTD, but due to poor compliance, SRC opened a 20mg exp cohort and then an intermediate 10mg cohort. Based on V compliance and efficacy, 20mg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
84469366|NCT00374907|168691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|18.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|38.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||38.7|1.3|0.0350
84469367|NCT00374907|168691182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|27.9||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|57.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||57.1|4.2|0.0204
84469368|NCT00576693|168691248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical analysis was based on a comparison of the of the two treatment groups with respect to the time to a primary outcome using the logrank test.||||0.0252
84469369|NCT00540449|168691249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.9|5.2||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||5.2|-5.9|<0.0001
84469370|NCT00540449|168691250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||5.9|-5.4|<0.0001
84469371|NCT00540449|168691251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-3.2||||0.0055||95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||3.1|-9.4|0.0055
84469372|NCT00540449|168691252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.7||||0.0013||95.0|-8.0|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.||||4.5|-8.0|0.0013
84519772|NCT02420353|168791519|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7883|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7883
84519773|NCT02420353|168791520|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0901
84519774|NCT02420353|168791521|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6292
84519775|NCT02420353|168791522|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
84519776|NCT02420353|168791523|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.4437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4437
84519777|NCT02420353|168791524|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7325|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7325
84519778|NCT02420353|168791525|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.6291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6291
84469373|NCT03283163|168691267|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare PTSD severity from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.040
84519779|NCT02420353|168791526|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.3332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3332
84519780|NCT02420353|168791527|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84519781|NCT02420353|168791528|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4965
84725982|NCT03015220|169204147|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.62|0.02|0.0110
84469374|NCT03283163|168691268|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare degree of pain-related interference from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.69
84469375|NCT03283163|168691269|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare severity of pain catastrophizing from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.098
84469376|NCT03283163|168691270|OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of resting ALLO+PA levels from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.194
84469377|NCT03283163|168691271|OTHER|paired samples t-test||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of peak ALLO+PA levels (30 minutes post MAXEX) from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.343
84519782|NCT02420353|168791529|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1331|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1331
84519783|NCT02420353|168791530|OTHER|Mixed-model analysis||||||0.5251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5251
84519784|NCT02420353|168791531|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
84519785|NCT02420353|168791532|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4852
84519786|NCT02420353|168791533|OTHER|||||||0.7943|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7943
84519787|NCT02420353|168791534|OTHER|||||||0.0894|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0894
84519788|NCT02420353|168791535|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0673|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0673
84519789|NCT02420353|168791536|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0185
84519790|NCT02420353|168791537|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.6094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6094
84519791|NCT02420353|168791538|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.3279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3279
84519792|NCT02420353|168791539|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.2802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2802
84519793|NCT02420353|168791540|OTHER|||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
84519794|NCT02420353|168791541|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0509|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
84519795|NCT02420353|168791542|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1605
84519796|NCT02420353|168791543|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0357
84519797|NCT02420353|168791544|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0122
84519798|NCT02420353|168791545|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5853
84519799|NCT02420353|168791546|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6288|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6288
84519800|NCT02420353|168791547|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5022
84519801|NCT02420353|168791548|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7507|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7507
84519802|NCT02420353|168791549|OTHER|mixed effects model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84519803|NCT02420353|168791550|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
84519804|NCT02420353|168791551|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
84519805|NCT02420353|168791552|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
84519806|NCT01968551|168791562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 copies/mL at Week 24.|Difference in proportion|5.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.4|17.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) calculation was based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with standardized statistic.|||17.4|-3.4|0.23
84519807|NCT01968551|168791563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in proportion|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.001|3.5|33.0|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|||33.0|3.5|0.004
84519808|NCT02096705|168791574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.71||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.71|-1.09|<0.0001
84469378|NCT04238663|168691272|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.16|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.976|
84469379|NCT04238663|168691272|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.08||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.||1.08|0.897|
84469380|NCT04238663|168691272|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.01|||||For Ratio of geometric least square mean (GLSM): EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.01|0.851|
84469381|NCT04238663|168691273|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.14|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.14|1.00|
84469382|NCT04238663|168691273|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.944|
84469383|NCT04238663|168691273|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.988|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||0.988|0.884|
84469384|NCT00630812|168691369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.14||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|110.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.26|-1.97|0.059
84519809|NCT02096705|168791575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.76|-21.61|||Longitudinal repeated measure analysis|P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-21.61|-39.76|<0.0001
84519810|NCT02096705|168791576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.77||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.77|-1.98|<0.0001
84519811|NCT02096705|168791577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5171||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.42||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.42|-2.45|0.0059
84469385|NCT00630812|168691369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.8||Response defined as change of \>=100mL at week 26|Regression, Logistic|45.7% response on Mannitol 400mg, 35.5% on Control||||2.80|1.02|0.041
84469386|NCT00630812|168691370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.49||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|106.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||106.78|-19.8|0.177
84469387|NCT00630812|168691371|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.41|0.51|0.520
84469388|NCT00630812|168691372|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.33|0.42|0.328
84469389|NCT00630812|168691373|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Poisson regression|||||1.15|0.69|0.368
84469390|NCT00630812|168691374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.51|||ANCOVA|||||4.51|0.33|0.024
84469391|NCT00630812|168691375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.35||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|132.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.13|10.57|0.022
84469392|NCT00630812|168691376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.47|132.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.14|-63.47|0.49
84469393|NCT00630812|168691377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
84469394|NCT01234402|168691386|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.114|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||1.114|0.429|0.1315
84469395|NCT01234402|168691386|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|2.335|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||2.335|0.938|0.0851
84469396|NCT01234402|168691387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.833||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.169|||Log Rank|||||3.169|1.060|0.0283
84469397|NCT01234402|168691387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.468||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|2.501|||Log Rank|||||2.501|0.862|0.1550
84519812|NCT01046084|168791595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|86.5|
84469398|NCT01234402|168691388|OTHER|||||||0.6691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6691
84469399|NCT01234402|168691388|OTHER|||||||0.1743|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1743
84469400|NCT05761444|168691401|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-21.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.26|-13.19||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-29.26|<0.0001
84469401|NCT05761444|168691404|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|-8.36||The ANCOVA model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-23.56|<0.0001
84469402|NCT00752609|168691408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||-0.19|-0.65|
84469403|NCT00752609|168691408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.71|0.26|
84469404|NCT01757704|168691431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|56.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84519813|NCT01046084|168791596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|89.3|
84469405|NCT02749721|168691466|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84469406|NCT02749721|168691467|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
84469407|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.610
84469408|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.294||||0.288|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.288
84726569|NCT04791917|169204910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43)=.01, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol essential value including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.91
84469409|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.405||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.134
84469410|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.397||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.083
84469411|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.476||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.034
84469412|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.509||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 baseline scores||||0.031
84469413|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.500
84469414|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.376||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b baseline scores||||0.185
84469415|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.108||||0.659|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 baseline scores||||0.659
84469416|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a baseline scores||||0.611
84469417|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.111||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.671
84469418|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.026||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.931
84469419|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.516||||0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.155
84469420|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
84469421|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.184||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.494
84469422|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.065||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.811
84469423|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.877
84469424|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.246||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.557
84469425|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.182||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.500
84469426|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.288||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
84469427|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER|Differences in BNA scores between MDD and healthy subjects were analyzed for baseline visits using an ANCOVA model with group as a factor, and age as a covariate.|F statistic|0.318||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.575
84540656|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 1||||0.971
84469428|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.378||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.541
84469429|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.912
84469430|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|1.586||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.214
84469431|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.453||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.504
84469432|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.37||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.546
84469433|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.017||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.895
84469434|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.179||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.673
84469435|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|1.241||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.27
84469436|NCT02749721|168691468|OTHER||F statistic|0.042||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.837
84469437|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.359||||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.143
84469438|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.500
84469439|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.277||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.337
84469440|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.052||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (latency) baseline scores||||0.832
84469441|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.103||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (latency) baseline scores||||0.68
84469442|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.777
84469443|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.061||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.834
84469444|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.006||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.988
84469445|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.073||||0.788|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.788
84469446|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.375||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.168
84469447|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.392||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.108
84469448|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.415||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.124
84469449|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.362||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline scores||||0.185
84469450|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.923
84469451|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.071||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.77
84469452|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.097||||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.712
84469453|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.058||||0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.845
84469454|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.194||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.616
84469455|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.255||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.323
84469456|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.193||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.473
84469457|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|4.909||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.031
84469458|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|1.189||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.281
84469459|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|0.001||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.966
84469460|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|4.121||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.048
84469461|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|8.573||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.005
84469462|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|2.823||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.101
84469463|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|0.806||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.373
84469464|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|1.822||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.183
84469465|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|0.516||||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.475
84469466|NCT02749721|168691469|OTHER||F statistic|0.214||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.645
84469467|NCT02749721|168691470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84469468|NCT02749721|168691471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84469469|NCT02749721|168691472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84469470|NCT02749721|168691473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84469471|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.859
84469472|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.211||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3a (amplitude)||||0.451
84469473|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.015||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3b (amplitude)||||0.957
84469474|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.322||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P200 (amplitude)||||0.166
84469475|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.374||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P3a (amplitude)||||0.105
84469476|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.137||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.601
84469477|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.234||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.421
84469478|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.378||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.316
84469479|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.185||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.478
84469480|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.969
84469481|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.943
84469482|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.795|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.795
84469483|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.969
84469484|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.406
84469485|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.309||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.185
84469486|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.195||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.454
84469487|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.579
84469488|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.232||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
84469489|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.169||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.518
84469490|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.027||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.922
84469491|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.064||||0.796|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.796
84469492|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.506||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.054
84469493|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.995
84469494|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.102||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.668
84469495|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.037||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.875
84469496|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.049||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.852
84469497|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.34||||0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.234
84469498|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.056
84469499|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.297||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.248
84726570|NCT04791917|169204911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.24, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.14
84469500|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.179||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.507
84469501|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.049||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.841
84469502|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.185||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.508
84469503|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.916
84469504|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.345||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.147
84469505|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.284||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.225
84469506|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.868
84469507|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.18||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.537
84469508|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.476||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.195
84469509|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.594||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.015
84469510|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.009||||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.972
84469511|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.785
84469512|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.129||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.646
84469513|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.364||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.182
84469514|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.414||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.069
84469515|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.416||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.068
84469516|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.929
84469517|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.802
84469518|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.518||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.153
84469519|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.298
84469520|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.001||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
84469521|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.242||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.531
84469522|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.598||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.210
84469523|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.054||||0.899|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.899
84469524|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.087
84469525|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.087
84469526|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.550
84469527|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.158||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.766
84469528|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.406||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.498
84469529|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.221||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.599
84469530|NCT02749721|168691474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.679||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.064
84469531|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.038||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.881
84469532|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.299||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.279
84469533|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.538||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.039
84469534|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.940
84469535|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.107||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.65
84726571|NCT04791917|169204912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .04, partial eta squared = .001||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.83
84469536|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.247||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.340
84469537|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.819
84469538|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.321||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.400
84469539|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.279||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.278
84469540|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.136||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.614
84469541|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.999
84469542|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.193||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.491
84469543|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.567||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.028
84469544|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.900
84469545|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.141||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.55
84469546|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.373
84469547|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.019||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.949
84469548|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.122||||0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.754
84469549|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.176||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||0.176|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.499
84469550|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
84469551|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.126||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.617
84469552|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.1||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.722
84469553|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.249||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.371
84469554|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.072||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.764
84469555|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.225||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.34
84469556|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.148||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.570
84469557|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.228||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.434
84469558|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.22||||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.569
84469559|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.645||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.005
84469560|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.105||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.698
84469561|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.774
84469562|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline score||||0.024
84469563|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.603
84469564|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.326
84469565|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.68
84469566|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.774
84540376|NCT01499095|168831539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.99|0.61|0.0380
84469567|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.024
84469568|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.603
84469569|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.326
84469570|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.68
84469571|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.692
84469572|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.498||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.059
84469573|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.332||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.227
84469574|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.125||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.600
84469575|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.096||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.69
84469576|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.259||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.315
84469577|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
84469578|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.234||||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.544
84469579|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.455||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.066
84469580|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.28||||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.293
84469581|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.783||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.013
84469582|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.135||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.799
84469583|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.506||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.201
84469584|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.586
84469585|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.024||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.95
84469586|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.039||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.920
84469587|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.113||||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.831
84469588|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.230
84469589|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.602||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.115
84469590|NCT02749721|168691475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.313||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.450
84469591|NCT01519245|168691496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of primary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0493
84469592|NCT01519245|168691498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.1876
84469593|NCT01519245|168691499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0930
84469594|NCT01052012|168691523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.33|||ANCOVA|With pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.33|-2.11|0.1473
84469595|NCT01052012|168691523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.05|-2.16|0.0601
84469596|NCT01052012|168691523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.12|-0.80|0.1483
84469597|NCT01052012|168691524|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|52.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||52.0|-54.5|0.9901
84469598|NCT01052012|168691524|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-5.0||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||3.4|-14.0|0.2010
84469599|NCT01052012|168691524|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-3.0||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||8.0|-15.0|0.5897
84469600|NCT00872170|168691553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||This study had 80% power at level alpha=0.05 to detect a 60 m change in 6MWT among N=10 participants, assuming a 60 m standard deviation for 12-week change.||||0.97
84469601|NCT00872170|168691554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
84469602|NCT00872170|168691555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.005
84469603|NCT00872170|168691556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
84469604|NCT00872170|168691557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.05
84469605|NCT00872170|168691558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
84469606|NCT00872170|168691559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
84469607|NCT00872170|168691560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.33
84469608|NCT00872170|168691561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.18
84519814|NCT01046084|168791597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|92.5|
84469609|NCT00872170|168691562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.97
84469610|NCT00872170|168691563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.96
84469611|NCT00804193|168691564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% CI was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|18.85|||Wald's method, Yates|CI calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction.|The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||18.85|-0.69|
84469612|NCT00804193|168691565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|9.24|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||9.24|-7.08|0.001
84519815|NCT04476277|168791676|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469613|NCT00804193|168691566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|14.24|||Wald's method Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||14.24|-4.60|0.001
84469614|NCT04415489|168691567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
84469615|NCT04415489|168691568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84469616|NCT04415489|168691569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84469617|NCT04415489|168691570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
84469618|NCT04415489|168691571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
84469619|NCT04415489|168691575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84469620|NCT01193348|168691583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8||||||||82.8|40.7|
84469621|NCT01193348|168691584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|94.8||||||||94.8|59.7|
84469622|NCT01193348|168691585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
84469623|NCT01193348|168691586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
84469624|NCT01193348|168691587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|204.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.44|245.49|||ANOVA|||||245.49|164.44|<0.0001
84469625|NCT01193348|168691588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1||||||||86.1|45.1|
84469626|NCT01193348|168691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|98.9||||||||98.9|70.8|
84469627|NCT01193348|168691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
84469628|NCT01193348|168691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
84469629|NCT01193348|168691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|165.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.43|232.43|||ANOVA|||||232.43|98.43|<0.0001
84469630|NCT00968253|168691598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Everolimus measured in mg/day in combination with HyperCVAD|||||
84469631|NCT01721408|168691601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the 2 treatments were equally effective, with cure rates of 75 % at the TOC assessment, the study was powered to ensure with 90% probability that the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the true difference (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) in cure rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.4|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||-1.4|-12.0|0.0008
84469632|NCT01721408|168691602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in cure rate were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
84469633|NCT01721408|168691603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in eradication rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in eradication rates were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
84469634|NCT01721408|168691605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||0.8|-12.8|0.0040
84469635|NCT04160468|168691606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|12.4|||Fisher Exact|||||12.4|-33.6|0.392
84469636|NCT01187901|168691608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469637|NCT01187901|168691609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469638|NCT01187901|168691610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469639|NCT01187901|168691611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469640|NCT01187901|168691612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84469641|NCT01187901|168691613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84519816|NCT04476277|168791678|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
84519817|NCT04476277|168791679|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84519818|NCT04476277|168791680|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84519819|NCT04476277|168791681|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84519820|NCT04476277|168791682|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84519821|NCT04476277|168791683|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84519822|NCT04476277|168791684|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84519823|NCT04476277|168791685|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84519824|NCT04476277|168791686|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84519825|NCT04476277|168791687|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84519826|NCT04476277|168791688|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84519827|NCT04476277|168791689|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84519828|NCT01390948|168791695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|0.90|0.1292
84519829|NCT05740098|168791712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|12.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||12.689|2.278|<0.001
84469642|NCT01128972|168691639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|16.24||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||16.24|7.09|<0.0001
84469643|NCT01128972|168691639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|31.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||31.18|22.02|<0.0001
84519830|NCT05740098|168791712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.668||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.538|8.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||8.747|1.538|0.003
84519831|NCT05740098|168791712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|1.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||1.321|0.352|0.256
84519832|NCT05740098|168791712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||||<0.001
84519833|NCT05740098|168791713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.287
84519834|NCT05740098|168791713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.108
84519835|NCT05740098|168791713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.007
84519836|NCT05740098|168791713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.878
84519837|NCT05740098|168791714|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|6.909||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.009
84519838|NCT05740098|168791714|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|4.287||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.038
84519839|NCT05740098|168791714|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.392||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.531
84726572|NCT04791917|169204913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.20, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.15
84519840|NCT05740098|168791715|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.859||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 48-week follow-up||||0.145
84519841|NCT05740098|168791716|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.454||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.228
84519842|NCT05740098|168791716|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.10
84519843|NCT05740098|168791716|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.202||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.074
84519844|NCT05740098|168791716|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.491||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.484
84519845|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.063||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.302
84519846|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.788||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.375
84469644|NCT01128972|168691639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.59|41.74||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||41.74|32.59|<0.0001
84469645|NCT01128972|168691640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.15||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.15|1.07|0.0083
84469646|NCT01128972|168691640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|14.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.29|8.22|<0.0001
84469647|NCT01128972|168691640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|14.6||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.60|8.53|<0.0001
84469648|NCT01128972|168691641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|3.69||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR and Test dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.69|-5.46|0.7041
84469649|NCT01128972|168691641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|15.36||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.36|6.21|<0.0001
84469650|NCT01128972|168691641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|30.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||30.29|21.14|<0.0001
84519847|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.08||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.777
84469651|NCT01128972|168691641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|40.86||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||40.86|31.71|<0.0001
84469652|NCT01128972|168691642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.39||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.35||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Test dentifrice + Test MR to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-1.35|-7.43|0.0049
84519848|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.006||||0.937|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.937
84519849|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.172||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.678
84519850|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|7.99||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant interaction between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and treatment condition for 6-week abstinence outcome||||0.018
84726573|NCT04791917|169204914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.41, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.24
84469653|NCT01128972|168691642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2.76|-3.31|0.8571
84469654|NCT01128972|168691642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|9.9||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.90|3.83|<0.0001
84469655|NCT01128972|168691642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|10.21||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.21|4.14|<0.0001
84469656|NCT01128972|168691643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|19.51||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen andReference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||19.51|10.36|
84469657|NCT01128972|168691644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|10.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.18|4.11|<0.0001
84469658|NCT01678807|168691647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|30.3|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||30.3|-3.4|
84469659|NCT01678807|168691647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.4|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||27.4|-6.4|
84469660|NCT01678807|168691648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
84469661|NCT01678807|168691648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
84469662|NCT02574312|168691649|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Analysis of absolute value of mechanical axis alignment with NI margin of 1.5 degrees, using a 1-sided T-test with alpha of 0.05. Anticipated power was 95%.||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
84469663|NCT00074412|168691685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
84469664|NCT00074412|168691685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||3.6|1.3|
84469665|NCT00074412|168691685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.973||||0.049||95.0||||P-value has not been adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test|||Assuming the cumulative HIV infection rate in placebo group would be 4.2% (2.6 at 6 wk. \& 6.7 at 6 mon.), we estimated 1500 mother/infant pairs would provide 90% power to detect a reduction in HIV infection from 4.2% to 1.4% at 6 mon. with a Pearson χ² test statistic and a one-sided false positive error rate of 0.025. Rate of cumulative infection was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and rates between extended NVP group and placebo were done with the Z statistic.||||0.049
84469666|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.8|96.6|
84519851|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.177||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.674
84469667|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.0|95.5|
84519852|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.646||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.422
84469668|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.095||||0.274||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 6 months were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.274
84469669|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|96.2|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Greenwood's formula.||96.2|92.9|
84469670|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.1|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||95.1|91.5|
84469671|NCT00074412|168691687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|0.988||||0.323||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 18 months were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.323
84469672|NCT00074412|168691688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum HIV Infection (%)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||3.3|1.1|
84469673|NCT00074412|168691688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||4.4|1.9|
84469674|NCT00074412|168691688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.081||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV infection at 18 months were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared between arms using a Z statistic.||||0.280
84469675|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||7.4|2.0|
84469676|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||5.6|2.7|
84469677|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.247||||0.805||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of mortality at 6 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.805
84469678|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||2.0|0.4|
84469679|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
84469680|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.36||||0.719||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative mortality rates at 18 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.719
84469681|NCT00074412|168691689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||95.0|||||Log Rank|||We compared the cumulative mortality rates, as calculated using Kaplan-Meier, between the two study groups over all 18 months of the study follow-up using a log-rank test.||||0.611
84469682|NCT05113953|168691693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.21|-1.06|0.1893
84469683|NCT05113953|168691693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.57||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.57|-0.69|0.8502
84726574|NCT04791917|169204915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .001, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.97
84469684|NCT05113953|168691694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.54||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||-0.05|-1.02|0.0313
84469685|NCT05113953|168691694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.19||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||0.67|-0.30|0.4471
84469686|NCT02626819|168691712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
84469687|NCT02626819|168691713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data.||||||<0.05
84469688|NCT02626819|168691714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
84469689|NCT02626819|168691715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84469690|NCT02626819|168691716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84469691|NCT02626819|168691717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84469692|NCT02626819|168691718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84469693|NCT02626819|168691719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84469694|NCT02361762|168691720|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.36
84469695|NCT02361762|168691721|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.79
84725991|NCT00912964|169204163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Difference|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.16|-0.53|0.30
84469696|NCT02361762|168691722|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Congruent/Incongruent)||||||0.009
84469697|NCT02361762|168691723|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)|ANCOVA|Compared scores at post testing with baseline scores covaried.||||||.79
84469698|NCT02361762|168691724|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.61
84469699|NCT02361762|168691725|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)0.||||||0.68
84469700|NCT02361762|168691726|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.54
84469701|NCT02361762|168691727|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.08
84469702|NCT02361762|168691728|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.37
84469703|NCT02361762|168691730|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.62
84469704|NCT02361762|168691731|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Go/Nogo)||||||0.10
84519853|NCT05740098|168791717|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.846
84469705|NCT02361762|168691732|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.02
84469706|NCT00502307|168691746|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.2||||||||30.2|19.6|
84469707|NCT00502307|168691746|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|23.1||||||||23.1|13.6|
84469708|NCT00502307|168691747|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84469709|NCT00502307|168691747|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84469710|NCT00502307|168691748|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
84469711|NCT00502307|168691748|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
84469712|NCT00502307|168691749|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
84469713|NCT00502307|168691749|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
84469714|NCT04467164|168691757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.03
84469715|NCT04467164|168691757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.022
84469716|NCT04467164|168691757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.027
84469717|NCT04467164|168691758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change in BDI scale score between exhalatory-gated tVNS and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A repeated measures ANOVA controlled by baseline values was used to test this difference. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive difference indicates an increase in depressive symptomatology, whereas a negative difference indicates a reduction in depressive symptoms.||||0.03
84469718|NCT04467164|168691759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in percent HFn changes post-pre stimulation between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A General Linear Model (GLM) analysis adjusted by baseline values was used for evaluating differences in this measure between treatment groups. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive percent change value indicates an increase in cardiovagal activity, whereas a negative change indicates a reduction in cardiovagal activity.||||0.01
84469719|NCT00903032|168691775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Unpaired t tests were used to compare continuous variables, and χ2 testswere used to compare categorical variables across the intervention and usual care. We used a log-rank test to compare the hazardof first hospitalization for MI, revascularization, or death.We used a Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare PDCs between study arms. For all other outcomes, χ2 tests and t testswere used for comparisons, as appropriate.||||0.003
84519854|NCT01894230|168791748|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.0189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3986||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.96
84519855|NCT01894230|168791748|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.2468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4315||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
84519856|NCT01894230|168791749|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0482
84519857|NCT01894230|168791749|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
84469720|NCT01763905|168691778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.73|-32.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.99|-43.73|<0.001
84469721|NCT01763905|168691778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.16|-32.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.94|-42.16|<0.001
84469722|NCT01763905|168691779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.7|-77.9|<0.001
84469723|NCT01763905|168691779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|-60.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-60.7|-80.5|<0.001
84469724|NCT01763905|168691780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-57.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.5|-82.0|<0.001
84469725|NCT01763905|168691780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-58.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-58.4|-79.2|<0.001
84469726|NCT01763905|168691781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|53.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||53.4|30.9|<0.001
84469727|NCT01763905|168691781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|51.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||51.8|30.3|<0.001
84469728|NCT01763905|168691782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||57.8|35.0|<0.001
84519858|NCT01894230|168791750|EQUIVALENCE|MPR calculated from baseline to last patient follow-up (3 months or 8 months)|Slope|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6692|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6692
84519859|NCT01894230|168791751|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline to Month 3|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.025||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|3.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.929|1.043|0.0371
84519860|NCT01894230|168791751|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 to Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.8815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.687|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.687|0.265|0.8815
84519861|NCT01894230|168791752|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5965
84718150|NCT03213457|169187202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.809||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.809|-1.180|< 0.001
84519862|NCT01894230|168791752|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.4579|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4579
84519863|NCT01894230|168791753|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.5477|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5477
84519864|NCT01894230|168791753|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0429
84519865|NCT01894230|168791754|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.8106|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8106
84519866|NCT01894230|168791754|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.5233|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5233
84519867|NCT01894230|168791755|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.6001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.472||0.6841|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6841
84519868|NCT01894230|168791755|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.6658|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6658
84726575|NCT04791917|169204915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 4.86, partial eta squared = .11||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Time X Group interaction.||||.03
84469729|NCT01763905|168691782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|47.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||47.5|25.5|<0.001
84469730|NCT01763905|168691783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|-26.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.73|-36.34|<0.001
84469731|NCT01763905|168691783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-30.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.54|-38.63|<0.001
84469732|NCT01763905|168691784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|-26.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.90|-37.28|<0.001
84469733|NCT01763905|168691784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-28.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.79|-37.19|<0.001
84469734|NCT01763905|168691785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-27.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.49|-36.92|<0.001
84469735|NCT01763905|168691785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|-30.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.39|-39.59|<0.001
84469736|NCT01763905|168691786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-27.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.68|-38.04|<0.001
84469737|NCT01763905|168691786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-28.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.17|-38.04|<0.001
84469738|NCT01763905|168691787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-22.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.67|-32.11|<0.001
84469739|NCT01763905|168691787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-25.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.17|-34.72|<0.001
84469740|NCT01763905|168691788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|-21.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.15|-31.42|<0.001
84469741|NCT01763905|168691788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-23.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.43|-33.88|<0.001
84469742|NCT01763905|168691789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-29.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.88|-39.84|<0.001
84519869|NCT01894230|168791756|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal Logistic||||2.380|0.495|0.8384
84519870|NCT01894230|168791757|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 BMQ Necessity|Slope|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0486|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0486
84519871|NCT01894230|168791757|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Necessity|Slope|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7235|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7235
84519872|NCT01894230|168791757|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.2113|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2113
84469743|NCT01763905|168691789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.73|-31.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.01|-41.73|<0.001
84469744|NCT01763905|168691790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.05|-29.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.00|-40.05|<0.001
84469745|NCT01763905|168691790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.87|-28.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.39|-39.87|<0.001
84469746|NCT01763905|168691791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-16.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.54|-31.27|<0.001
84469747|NCT01763905|168691791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-16.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.77|-33.75|<0.001
84469748|NCT01763905|168691792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-17.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-17.33|-33.26|<0.001
84469749|NCT01763905|168691792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.21|-16.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.56|-39.21|<0.001
84469750|NCT01763905|168691793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|6.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.20|-11.38|0.97
84469751|NCT01763905|168691793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|3.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.71|-16.55|0.33
84469752|NCT01763905|168691794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|11.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.31|-8.14|0.97
84469753|NCT01763905|168691794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|7.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.67|-17.04|0.33
84469754|NCT01763905|168691795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.74|0.068
84469755|NCT01763905|168691795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.24|1.23|0.13
84469756|NCT01763905|168691796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.63|-1.49|0.068
84469757|NCT01763905|168691796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|9.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.81|-0.16|0.13
84519873|NCT01894230|168791757|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-1.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1739
84519874|NCT03086135|168791763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
84469758|NCT01763905|168691797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|6.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.75|-10.43|0.97
84469759|NCT01763905|168691797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|6.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.06|-13.12|0.33
84469760|NCT01763905|168691798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-9.96|0.97
84469761|NCT01763905|168691798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|11.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.39|-11.24|0.33
84469762|NCT01763905|168691799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-31.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-31.55|-42.26|<0.001
84469763|NCT01763905|168691799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.06|-34.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-34.22|-43.06|<0.001
84469764|NCT04346628|168691800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||The final test was performed at the alpha = 0.04999 level of significance, adjusted for age group and sex.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|||1.20|0.48|0.24
84469765|NCT04346628|168691802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in hospitalizations||||0.06
84469766|NCT04346628|168691802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in ED visits||||0.56
84469767|NCT04346628|168691804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until initial resolution of symptoms||1.29|0.54|0.43
84469768|NCT04346628|168691804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until sustained resolution of symptoms||1.45|0.52|0.59
84469769|NCT00681538|168691823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
84469770|NCT00681538|168691824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.731||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|4.694|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|30% responders||4.694|1.589|0.0003
84469771|NCT00681538|168691824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|2.777|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|50% Responders||2.777|0.977|0.0612
84469772|NCT00681538|168691825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-2.53||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.79|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasm frequency in favour of Sativex.|||-0.79|-4.27|0.0046
84469773|NCT00681538|168691826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in sleep disruption in favour of Sativex.|||-0.51|-1.25|<0.0001
84469774|NCT00681538|168691827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasticity in favour of Sativex.|||0.30|-3.80|0.0939
84469775|NCT00681538|168691828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-2.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|7.04|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Arm||7.04|-12.75|0.56
84469776|NCT00681538|168691828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.64|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For leg||2.64|-2.56|0.98
84469777|NCT00681538|168691829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-3.34||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.26|||ANCOVA||A negative treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||0.26|-6.95|0.0687
84469778|NCT00681538|168691830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.703||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.698|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.698|1.075|0.0234
84469779|NCT00681538|168691831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|4.443|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||4.443|1.297|0.0053
84726576|NCT04791917|169204916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 4.66, partial eta squared = .10||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.04
84469780|NCT00681538|168691832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.301|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.301|0.973|0.0613
84469781|NCT00681538|168691833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.958||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|3.112|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.112|1.232|0.0045
84469782|NCT00681538|168691834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Health State Index||0.07|-0.02|0.2836
84469783|NCT00681538|168691834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.24||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|5.5|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|Health Status VAS||5.50|-3.01|0.5644
84469784|NCT00681538|168691835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.49|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in depression in favour of Sativex.|||1.49|-1.62|0.9369
84469785|NCT04742907|168691851|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.12||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: hazard ratio (HR) = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.12|0.74|0.767
84469786|NCT04742907|168691851|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.44||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.44|0.95|0.107
84469787|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.13|0.71|0.780
84469788|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.34||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.34|0.84|0.330
84469789|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.11|0.73|0.788
84519875|NCT03086135|168791764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in noise at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
84519876|NCT03086135|168791765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519877|NCT03086135|168791765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469790|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.51||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.51|0.99|0.055
84469791|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.32||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.32|0.86|0.306
84469792|NCT04742907|168691852|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.35|0.88|0.243
84469793|NCT04742907|168691853|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.24|0.81|0.489
84469794|NCT04742907|168691853|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.42||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.42|0.93|0.138
84469795|NCT04742907|168691853|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.24|0.82|0.473
84519878|NCT03086135|168791765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519879|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry 250Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519880|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84725992|NCT00912964|169204163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.37||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.71|0.035
84469796|NCT04742907|168691853|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.53||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.53|1.01|0.045
84469797|NCT04742907|168691854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 15 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923
84469798|NCT04742907|168691854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 7.5 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84469799|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.42|0.44|0.434
84469800|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.59|0.51|0.710
84469801|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.02||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Chi-squared||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.02|0.75|0.410
84519881|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519882|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469802|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.81||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.81|1.03|0.037
84469803|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.55||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||1.55|0.46|0.579
84469804|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic|||For Day 3||1.21|0.33|0.167
84469805|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.86||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.86|0.21|0.400
84469806|NCT04742907|168691856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.18|0.07|0.083
84469807|NCT04742907|168691857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.14||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||4.14|0.43|0.621
84469808|NCT04742907|168691857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.46||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||3.46|0.31|0.962
84469809|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||2.05|0.66|0.604
84469810|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.99|0.63|0.693
84469811|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.78||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||3.78|0.85|0.122
84519883|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519884|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469812|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.67|0.36|0.518
84469813|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.53||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.53|0.46|0.528
84469814|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.07||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.07|0.40|0.689
84469815|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.7||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.70|0.12|0.653
84469816|NCT04742907|168691859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.25||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||9.25|0.37|0.452
84469817|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.6|-1.8|0.359
84519885|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84718151|NCT03213457|169187203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.845||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.845|-1.190|< 0.001
84469818|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.2|-1.3|0.907
84469819|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.6|-1.3|0.856
84469820|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.5|-2.7|0.180
84469821|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.4|-1.9|0.814
84469822|NCT04742907|168691860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.3|-3.2|0.409
84469823|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.40|0.46|0.430
84469824|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.96||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.96|0.62|0.739
84519886|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519887|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519888|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519889|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519890|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519891|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469825|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.2||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.20|0.25|0.130
84519892|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519893|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519894|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519895|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519896|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519897|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519898|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519899|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519900|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519901|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519902|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519903|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519904|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519905|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519906|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519907|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519908|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469826|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.13|0.24|0.099
84519909|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519910|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519911|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519912|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519913|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519914|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519915|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469827|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.63||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.63|0.23|0.686
84469828|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.56||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.56|0.22|0.644
84469829|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.18||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.18|0.09|0.498
84469830|NCT04742907|168691861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||4.05|0.12|0.700
84469831|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.919
84469832|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
84519916|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519917|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519918|NCT03086135|168791766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519919|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519920|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519921|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469833|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.0|-0.1|0.064
84469834|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-1.3|0.683
84469835|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.1|-1.0|0.462
84469836|NCT04742907|168691862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-2.3|0.343
84469837|NCT01005719|168691882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0242
84469838|NCT01005719|168691882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0270
84469839|NCT01005719|168691882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
84469840|NCT01005719|168691883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
84519922|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469841|NCT01005719|168691883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
84469842|NCT01005719|168691883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84469843|NCT01005719|168691884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84469844|NCT01005719|168691884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84469845|NCT01005719|168691884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84469846|NCT01005719|168691884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84469847|NCT03161678|168691935|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||<0.001
84519923|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469848|NCT03161678|168691935|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.24
84469849|NCT03161678|168691936|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.75
84469850|NCT03161678|168691936|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.011
84469851|NCT00829166|168691956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.771|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or greater than \[\>\] 1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.771|0.549|<0.0001
84469852|NCT00829166|168691958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.849|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.849|0.548|0.0006
84469853|NCT00829166|168691960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|0.877|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.877|0.639|0.0003
84469854|NCT00829166|168691964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.774|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.774|0.560|<0.0001
84469855|NCT00829166|168691965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|12.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test||The 95% CI for the difference in objective response rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the approximate normal method.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||19.4|6.0|0.0002
84469856|NCT00829166|168691967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference in clinical benefit rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the normal approximation method.|||20.9|7.0|
84469857|NCT00829166|168691969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.82|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.820|0.602|<0.0001
84519924|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469858|NCT00829166|168691971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.951|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.951|0.667|0.0121
84469859|NCT04525222|168691975|OTHER||Slope|0.42||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.74|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||"Treatment satisfaction items are reported on a Likert-type scale, with response choices ranging from not at all to very much. We used a linear regression adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), and Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5) to test for differences between arms."||0.74|0.10|0.0088
84469860|NCT04525222|168691976|OTHER||Slope|2.92||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|21.07|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||21.07|-15.22|0.75
84469861|NCT04525222|168691977|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.48|0.5|0.55
84469862|NCT04525222|168691978|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking \<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs, Baseline Depression Severity PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5||||3.32|0.80|0.17
84469863|NCT04525222|168691979|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.81|0.70|0.25
84519925|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519926|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519927|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469864|NCT04525222|168691980|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.72||Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.72|0.94|0.07
84469865|NCT04525222|168691981|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||5.85|1.00|0.04
84469866|NCT04525222|168691982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||2.89|0.75|0.25
84469867|NCT04525222|168691983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.12|0.77|0.17
84469868|NCT04525222|168691984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.73|0.77|0.15
84469869|NCT04525222|168691985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.86|0.41|0.68
84469870|NCT04525222|168691986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.46|0.75|0.21
84469871|NCT04525222|168691987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.19|0.63|0.30
84469872|NCT04525222|168691988|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.46|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||-0.46|-2.90|.0072
84469873|NCT04525222|168691989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.829||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.344|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.344|0.770|0.1770
84469874|NCT04525222|168691990|OTHER||Slope|3.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.95|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression, Baseline Activation Score||||5.95|1.28|0.0025
84469875|NCT01544595|168691991|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.42|0.22|<0.0001
84519928|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519929|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519930|NCT03086135|168791767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519931|NCT03086135|168791768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519932|NCT03086135|168791768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469876|NCT01544595|168691991|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.29|0.14|<0.0001
84469877|NCT03382899|168692053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on interactive web response system (IWRS). 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.5|0.5|0.7626
84469878|NCT03382899|168692054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.243|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.243|0.722|0.263
84469879|NCT03382899|168692055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.663|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|||1.663|0.571|0.20
84469880|NCT03382899|168692056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.3|0.5|0.9418
84519933|NCT03086135|168791768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519934|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84726577|NCT04791917|169204916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the DOMS group.||||.26
84469881|NCT03382899|168692057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|3.289|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.289|0.384|0.8312
84469882|NCT03302416|168692080|SUPERIORITY|Baseline scan VT vs. Post-hydrocortisone scan VT||||||0.005|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.005
84469883|NCT05319535|168692085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||6.1|-1.8|0.26
84469884|NCT05319535|168692086|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.4|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||3.4|0.9|0.11
84469885|NCT05319535|168692087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|93.3|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||93.3|-18.1|0.17
84469886|NCT05319535|168692088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||1.4|-0.1|0.10
84469887|NCT05319535|168692089|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||2.3|0.7|0.36
84469888|NCT05319535|168692090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model included the arm indicator variable.||18.5|0.6|0.17
84469889|NCT01064648|168692092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.95||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test by performance status and histology type.||||0.95|0.54|0.06
84469890|NCT01064648|168692093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.17||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by performance status and histology.||||1.17|0.65|0.28
84469891|NCT01064648|168692094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-square by performance status and histology.||||5.83|0.59|0.15
84519935|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519936|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519937|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.51
84519938|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519939|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519940|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519941|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519942|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.32
84519943|NCT03086135|168791769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519944|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive health state at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.026
84519945|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Vision attribute at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.50
84519946|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0008
84519947|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.082
84519948|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
84519949|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.9
84519950|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.43
84726578|NCT04791917|169204916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the DOMS group.||||.22
84519951|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.31
84519952|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.72
84519953|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive Health State attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
84519954|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Vision attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.23
84519955|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0026
84519956|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0024
84519957|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
84519958|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
84519959|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.85
84519960|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||1.0
84519961|NCT03086135|168791770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.56
84519962|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519963|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519964|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519965|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519966|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519967|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519968|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519969|NCT03086135|168791771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519970|NCT03086135|168791772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519971|NCT03086135|168791772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519972|NCT03086135|168791772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469892|NCT01064648|168692095|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.49||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.49|0.14|0.09
84469893|NCT01064648|168692096|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.3||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology.||||13.3|1.4|0.006
84469894|NCT01064648|168692097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.94|0.18|0.19
84469895|NCT05513391|168692100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was greater than (\>) 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.73||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||1.73|0.948|
84469896|NCT05513391|168692100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.3||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.30|1.93|
84519973|NCT03086135|168791772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519974|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.025
84519975|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.096
84519976|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.015
84469897|NCT05513391|168692100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.668||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.668|0.397|
84469898|NCT05513391|168692100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.30|0.799|
84469899|NCT05513391|168692101|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|15.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||15.7|-1.55|
84469900|NCT05513391|168692101|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|24.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||24.7|5.80|
84469901|NCT05513391|168692101|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|0.1||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.10|-14.02|
84469902|NCT05513391|168692101|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||13.6|-1.99|
84469903|NCT02429427|168692110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.17|0.80|0.751
84469904|NCT02429427|168692111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Log Rank|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.22|0.76|0.781
84469905|NCT06018350|168692195|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
84469906|NCT00458406|168692198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~Description of power calculation: The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 standard deviation (SD)."||||0.512
84469907|NCT00458406|168692199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
84469908|NCT00458406|168692200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
84519977|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
84519978|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.73
84519979|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
84519980|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0046
84519981|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469909|NCT00458406|168692201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-Square test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
84469910|NCT00458406|168692202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP. The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD.||||>0.05
84469911|NCT00458406|168692202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||<0.05
84469912|NCT00458406|168692204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
84469913|NCT00458406|168692205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
84469914|NCT03161938|168692210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Patients receiving 48 mg of preoperative dexamethasone have less postoperative pain. Power calculation: Acute pain is reduced from 70% to 35% for patients receiving 48 mg of dexamathesone, 80% power, 0.05 statistical significance level.||1.620|0.159|0.248
84469915|NCT03161938|168692211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.519
84519982|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519983|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84469916|NCT03161938|168692212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.468
84469917|NCT03161938|168692213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximal pain||||0.913
84469918|NCT03161938|168692213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average pain||||0.722
84469919|NCT03161938|168692214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|3.793|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.793|0.374|0.768
84469920|NCT03161938|168692215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.133
84469921|NCT03161938|168692216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, statistical level of significance 0.01 (bonferroni correction)|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0||||0.768
84469922|NCT03161938|168692216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1||||0.376
84469923|NCT03161938|168692216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2||||0.590
84469924|NCT03161938|168692216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3||||0.320
84469925|NCT03161938|168692216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.666
84469926|NCT03161938|168692217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0||||>0.999
84469927|NCT03161938|168692217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 1||||0.154
84469928|NCT03161938|168692217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2||||0.447
84469929|NCT03161938|168692217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 3||||0.678
84469930|NCT03161938|168692217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.604
84469931|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, sadness||||0.075
84469932|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, restlessness||||0.447
84469933|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0, fatigue||||0.703
84469934|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, sadness||||0.731
84469935|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, restlessness||||0.052
84469936|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, fatigue||||0.807
84469937|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, sadness||||0.371
84469938|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, restlessness||||0.064
84469939|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2, fatigue||||0.110
84469940|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, sadness||||0.531
84469941|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, restlessness||||0.954
84469942|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, fatigue||||0.526
84469943|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, sadness||||0.491
84469944|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, restlessness||||0.042
84469945|NCT03161938|168692218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, fatigue||||0.097
84469946|NCT03161938|168692219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.613
84519984|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
84469947|NCT04149899|168692221|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.14|-5.73|<0.001
84469948|NCT04149899|168692221|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-4.02||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.02|-6.14|<0.001
84469949|NCT04149899|168692221|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-4.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.07|-7.93|<0.001
84469950|NCT04149899|168692221|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.15% and Timolol 0.5%.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
84469951|NCT04149899|168692221|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.4% and Timolol 0.5%.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
84469952|NCT04149899|168692222|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
84469953|NCT04149899|168692222|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
84469954|NCT04149899|168692222|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.71||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.71|-2.39|0.283
84469955|NCT04149899|168692222|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.52||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.52|-2.56|0.189
84469956|NCT03456713|168692304|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.94||||||||1.94|1.12|
84469957|NCT03456713|168692305|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.81||||||||1.81|1.15|
84469958|NCT03456713|168692306|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.11||||||||2.11|1.31|
84469959|NCT03456713|168692307|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.23||||||||1.23|0.43|
84469960|NCT03456713|168692308|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.67||||||||1.67|0.58|
84469961|NCT03456713|168692309|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.2||||||||1.20|0.41|
84469962|NCT03848221|168692310|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
84469963|NCT03848221|168692311|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84469964|NCT00850759|168692358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84469965|NCT01753076|168692361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|7.9|||ANCOVA||A negative mean difference means that the direction of effect is in favor of placebo.|||7.9|-67.9|0.120
84469966|NCT01753076|168692362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-3.1|0.139
84469967|NCT01753076|168692363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Random coefficients analysis|||||0.05|-0.30|0.173
84469968|NCT01753076|168692364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.097|-0.351|0.265
84469969|NCT01753076|168692365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-18.7|0.125
84469970|NCT01753076|168692366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.36|0.393
84469971|NCT01753076|168692367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.89|||Regression, Cox||Week 48|||2.89|0.34|0.986
84469972|NCT01753076|168692367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.01|||Chi-squared||Week 60|||2.01|0.53|0.923
84469973|NCT01753076|168692368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.81|0.642
84519985|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.040
84469974|NCT01753076|168692369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.053||||||||0.053|-0.062|
84469975|NCT01753076|168692370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||||||||5.5|-2.8|
84469976|NCT02389816|168692381|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-0.70|-4.63|0.0080
84469977|NCT02389816|168692381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-1.10|-5.05|0.0023
84519986|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.037
84469978|NCT02389816|168692382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|2.533|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.533|1.037|0.0341
84469979|NCT02389816|168692382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.011||95.0|1.143|2.799|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.799|1.143|0.0110
84469980|NCT02389816|168692383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.839||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|3.054|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.054|1.107|0.0186
84469981|NCT02389816|168692383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.834|1.020|0.0418
84469982|NCT02389816|168692384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.332|||ANCOVA|||||-0.332|-3.290|0.0165
84469983|NCT02389816|168692384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.759||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|-0.295|||ANCOVA|||||-0.295|-3.278|0.0190
84469984|NCT02389816|168692385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.121|||ANCOVA|||||-0.121|-0.590|0.0031
84469985|NCT02389816|168692385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|-0.158|||ANCOVA|||||-0.158|-0.629|0.0011
84469986|NCT02389816|168692386|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.474|0.0609
84469987|NCT02389816|168692386|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.051|||ANCOVA|||||-0.051|-0.537|0.0179
84469988|NCT02389816|168692387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.564|-0.122|||ANCOVA|||||-0.122|-2.564|0.0311
84469989|NCT02389816|168692387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-0.339|||ANCOVA|||||-0.339|-2.807|0.0126
84469990|NCT02389816|168692388|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|0.968|||ANCOVA|||||0.968|-2.539|0.3793
84469991|NCT02389816|168692388|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|1.641|||ANCOVA|||||1.641|-1.862|0.9011
84469992|NCT02389816|168692389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.218|||ANCOVA|||||-0.218|-1.512|0.0089
84469993|NCT02389816|168692389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-0.619|||ANCOVA|||||-0.619|-1.922|0.0001
84469994|NCT00300469|168692390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84519987|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
84519988|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.34
84519989|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0048
84519990|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0008
84469995|NCT00300469|168692390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
84469996|NCT00300469|168692391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.005
84469997|NCT00300469|168692391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.010
84469998|NCT00300469|168692392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84469999|NCT00300469|168692392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
84470000|NCT00578864|168692410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.367
84470001|NCT00578864|168692413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
84470002|NCT00436969|168692468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.472||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|5.943||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||5.943|-8.888|0.696
84470003|NCT00436969|168692469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||15.1|-15.6|
84470004|NCT00436969|168692470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|9.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||9.1|-19.7|
84470005|NCT00436969|168692471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.698|6.957||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.957|-8.698|0.827
84470006|NCT00436969|168692472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.875||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.472|3.723||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.723|-9.472|0.392
84470007|NCT00436969|168692473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.932||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|5.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.396|-7.260|0.772
84470008|NCT00436969|168692474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.028||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.338|6.393||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.393|-4.338|0.707
84519991|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519992|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519993|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519994|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.10
84519995|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0007
84519996|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0003
84519997|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.11
84519998|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84519999|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0001
84520000|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520001|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520002|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520003|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84725993|NCT00912964|169204164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.07||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.01|-0.15|0.083
84520004|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.80
84520005|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520006|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520007|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0010
84520008|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520009|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520010|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520011|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520012|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520013|NCT03086135|168791773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520014|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.51
84520015|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
84520016|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.29
84520017|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.18
84520018|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.017
84520019|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.16
84520020|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.0051
84470009|NCT00436969|168692475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.866|5.227||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.227|-6.866|0.790
84470010|NCT00436969|168692476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.13||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.341|6.001||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.001|-4.341|0.685
84470011|NCT00436969|168692477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.317||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.249|13.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||13.386|1.249|0.018
84470012|NCT00436969|168692478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.361||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.801|7.522||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||7.522|-2.801|0.369
84470013|NCT00436969|168692479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.441|3.861||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||3.861|-9.441|0.410
84470014|NCT00436969|168692480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.617||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|8.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||8.460|-3.226|0.379
84520021|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
84520022|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.56
84470015|NCT00436969|168692481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.208||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.455|3.039||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.039|-7.455|0.409
84520023|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520024|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520025|NCT03086135|168791774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.041
84725994|NCT00912964|169204164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.22|<0.001
84520026|NCT03086135|168791775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520027|NCT03086135|168791775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520028|NCT03086135|168791775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520029|NCT03086135|168791775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
84520030|NCT01023061|168791787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.01
84470016|NCT00436969|168692482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.558||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.119|1.003||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||1.003|-4.119|0.232
84470017|NCT00436969|168692483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.343|1.887||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||1.887|-2.343|0.832
84470018|NCT00436969|168692484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.068||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.396|2.532||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.532|-2.396|0.957
84470019|NCT00436969|168692485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.22||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|3.378||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.378|-0.937|0.267
84470020|NCT00436969|168692486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|3.604||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||3.604|-1.225|0.333
84470021|NCT00436969|168692487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.771||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.881||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.881|-1.339|0.473
84470022|NCT00436969|168692488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.314|2.278||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.278|-2.314|0.988
84470023|NCT00436969|168692489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.467||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.692|2.627||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.627|-1.692|0.671
84470024|NCT00418262|168692494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.30|-0.21|
84470025|NCT00418262|168692494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.6|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.60|-0.42|
84520031|NCT00202839|168791792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1651
84520032|NCT00642993|168791794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means|0.41||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||1.03|-0.20|0.187
84520033|NCT00642993|168791795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||1.20|0.28|0.140
84520034|NCT00642993|168791796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||9.93|0.24|0.515
84520035|NCT00642993|168791797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.63|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.63|-1.20|0.543
84470026|NCT00418262|168692495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.11|
84470027|NCT00418262|168692495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.77|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.77|-0.23|
84470028|NCT00418262|168692496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
84470029|NCT00418262|168692496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
84470030|NCT00418262|168692497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
84470031|NCT00418262|168692497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
84470032|NCT00418262|168692498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
84470033|NCT00418262|168692498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
84470034|NCT00418262|168692499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
84520036|NCT00642993|168791798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.35|-0.09|0.231
84520037|NCT03123874|168791831|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.827||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial taxa in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.9
84540657|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 3||||0.206
84470035|NCT00418262|168692499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
84470036|NCT00418262|168692500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.24|
84470037|NCT00418262|168692500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.49|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.49|-0.49|
84470038|NCT00418262|168692501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.26|-0.28|
84470039|NCT00418262|168692501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.52|-0.56|
84470040|NCT00418262|168692502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.20|-0.32|
84470041|NCT00418262|168692502|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.64|
84520038|NCT03123874|168791832|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean Shannon Diversity Index in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups|||||0.3
84520039|NCT03123874|168791833|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first). Random effect was participant ID to account for multiple samples for each participant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial counts in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.0003
84520040|NCT02725515|168791876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|32.6|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||32.6|-6.6|0.1830
84520041|NCT02725515|168791877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|37.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||37.3|-3.7|0.1075
84718152|NCT03213457|169187204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.156|-0.823||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.823|-1.156|< 0.001
84470042|NCT00418262|168692503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.28|
84470043|NCT00418262|168692503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.47|-0.57|
84470044|NCT00418262|168692504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
84470045|NCT00418262|168692504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
84470046|NCT00418262|168692505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.13|-0.36|
84520042|NCT02725515|168791878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.30|0.0252
84520043|NCT02906917|168791917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD + IAsp OD was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||One-sided p-value for test of non-inferiority.|ANCOVA|Treatment, region, sex, previous insulin treatment and previous OAD treatment as categorical fixed effects and baseline response and age as covariate.||The response and change from baseline in response are analysed on 1000 complete, imputed data sets after multiple imputation for each treatment arm separately. A penalty of 0.4% is added to the week 26 values for all premature treatment discontinued subjects, and subject with missing HbA1c values at week 26 in the IDegAsp arm. Each of the imputed data sets are analysed through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.21|-0.06|<0.0001
84520044|NCT00687739|168791929|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared the GnRHAG + E2 and GnRHAG + PL groups, pooled across exercise status. It was acknowledged that the inclusion of exercisers could minimize the effects of GnRHAG but would be reflective of the effects of ovarian hormone suppression on sedentary and active women. Differences in changes across time between groups were tested using an analysis of covariance model conditioned on baseline.|||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the effect of PL vs E2 collapsed across exercise (2-group comparison). The analysis of effects of exercise was exploratory (evaluated within-group changes only).||||<0.05
84520045|NCT00687739|168791930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of within-group changes in the E2 and placebo groups for cortisol AUC in response to Dex/CRH and between-group differences in the changes. Within-group changes and between-group differences in changes were evaluated by linear contrast using an ANCOVA model with adjustment for pre-intervention values of outcomes.||||<0.05
84520046|NCT00687739|168791931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis compared the GnRHag+E2 and GnRHag+PL groups, pooled across exercise status. Differences in change over time between groups were tested by using an ANCOVA model, first with treatment group alone, and again adding FM and FFM to the model.||||<0.05
84520047|NCT02542462|168791934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||P value for the number of subjects with an increase of 1 mm or more of terminal ileum from pre to post was 0.2|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.2
84520048|NCT02542462|168791934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||P value for change in the number of subjects with an increase in number of lymph nodes from pre to post was 0.3.|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.3
84520049|NCT02312154|168791939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
84540658|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 6||||0.111
84520050|NCT02312154|168791940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
84520051|NCT02312154|168791941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
84520052|NCT02312154|168791942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
84520053|NCT02312154|168791943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
84520054|NCT02312154|168791944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
84520055|NCT01167829|168791945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|183.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84520056|NCT04442503|168791979|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-6.3|0.0007
84520057|NCT04442503|168791980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.4|-5.4|0.0008
84520058|NCT04442503|168791980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.244||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.5|-5.4|0.0203
84470047|NCT00418262|168692505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.27|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.27|-0.72|
84520059|NCT04442503|168791980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||-1.0|-6.0|0.0067
84520060|NCT04442503|168791981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
84520061|NCT04442503|168791982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.67||P-value are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.670|1.112|0.0209
84520062|NCT04442503|168791982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.534||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.812||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||2.812|0.837|0.1661
84520063|NCT04442503|168791983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|3.621||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.621|0.876|0.1110
84520064|NCT04442503|168791983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.083||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|3.915||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||3.915|1.108|0.0226
84520065|NCT04442503|168791984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.223|4.072|||MMRM|||Day 15||4.072|1.223|0.0089
84726579|NCT04791917|169204916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the sham DOMS group.||||.27
84520066|NCT04442503|168791985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.3|-4.2|0.0235
84520067|NCT04442503|168791986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-8.4|0.0034
84520068|NCT04442503|168791987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Core Subscale at Day 15||-1.2|-10.6|0.0151
84520069|NCT04442503|168791987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Anxiety Subscale at Day 15||-1.3|-10.2|0.0123
84470048|NCT00418262|168692506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
84470049|NCT00418262|168692506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
84470050|NCT00418262|168692507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-7.04|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-7.04|-7.76|
84470051|NCT00418262|168692507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.9|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-1.90|-3.03|
84470052|NCT00418262|168692508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
84470053|NCT00418262|168692508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
84470054|NCT01617434|168692528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment arms with regard to changes from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.99|-1.39|<0.0001
84470055|NCT01617434|168692529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.86|-1.70|<0.0001
84470056|NCT01617434|168692530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.18|-2.01|<0.0001
84520070|NCT04442503|168791987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-2.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Bech-6 Subscale at Day 15||-2.8|-14.5|0.0040
84470057|NCT01617434|168692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.37|-3.85|<0.0001
84470058|NCT01617434|168692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.45|14.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||14.59|5.45|<0.0001
84520071|NCT04442503|168791987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-2.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Meier Subscale at Day 15||-2.4|-12.7|0.0041
84520072|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||1.5|-1.0|0.6912
84520073|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||-0.1|-3.5|0.0410
84520074|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.0|-3.7|0.0444
84470059|NCT01617434|168692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.92|40.84|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||40.84|9.92|<0.0001
84470060|NCT00540436|168692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|33.49||||||95.0|15.231|51.744||||||||51.744|15.231|
84470061|NCT00540436|168692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|46.82||||||95.0|24.566|69.076||||||||69.076|24.566|
84470062|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/ Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M1)||1.20|0.83|0.9946
84470063|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo. \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M2)||1.27|0.72|0.7474
84470064|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg vs. Placebo))||1.31|0.81|0.7943
84470065|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.36|0.69|0.8518
84470066|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057977)||1.53|0.56|0.7660
84470067|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.55|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M1)||1.55|0.85|0.3612
84470068|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.4|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M2)||2.40|0.86|0.1610
84470069|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.47|0.71|0.9128
84470070|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.54|0.43|0.5276
84520075|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.2|-3.4|0.0811
84470071|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.72||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057977)||13.87|1.60|0.0048
84470072|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infections potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M1)||1.04|0.77|0.1526
84470073|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infection potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infection potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M2)||1.21|0.76|0.7430
84470074|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA-on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.04|0.69|0.1049
84520076|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.6|-3.3|0.1846
84470075|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057951)||1.17|0.67|0.3950
84470076|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.76|0.4429
84520077|NCT04442503|168791989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||0.1|-4.0|0.0625
84540659|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 9||||0.181
84540660|NCT00720382|168832538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from Baseline to Month 12/Early Term||||0.037
84470077|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M1)||1.13|0.70|0.3396
84470078|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M2)||1.08|0.46|0.1050
84470079|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.35|0.74|0.9919
84470080|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057951)||1.31|0.48|0.3634
84470081|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057977)||1.18|0.23|0.1177
84470082|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M1)||1.19|0.84|0.9992
84470083|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M2)||1.52|0.78|0.6274
84470084|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.19|0.79|0.7597
84470085|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057951)||1.57|0.74|0.7067
84470086|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.25|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057977)||2.25|0.56|0.7404
84470087|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.58|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M1)||1.58|0.92|0.1765
84470088|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M2)||1.66|0.90|0.1978
84470089|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||2.05|0.64|0.6561
84470090|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057951)||1.87|0.90|0.1699
84470091|NCT04937816|168692571|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.62|0.7944
84470092|NCT04937816|168692572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|||1.42|0.73|0.9276
84540377|NCT01499095|168831540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significant.||0.350|-0.438|0.8279
84470093|NCT04937816|168692572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|||1.60|0.45|0.6205
84470094|NCT04937816|168692572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Empagliflozin (10 mg + 25 mg) versus Placebo.||1.63|0.73|0.6768
84470095|NCT04937816|168692572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||1.59|0.34|0.4294
84470096|NCT04937816|168692572|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||3.47|0.39|0.7826
84520078|NCT03068780|168791991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3||P-value adjusted with CHW method using CMH test statistics based on a test stratified by EB subtype and target wound size class estimated separately before and after the interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.Threshold of superiority p\<0.05.|Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) approach|Primary efficacy endpoint was first assessed with the CMH test, but the final statistical analysis was performed based on the CHW approach.|The CMH test statistic from the data until the interim analysis (IA) and the CMH test statistic of the data after the IA must be calculated separately. The results are then combined using the CHW weighted approach to one test-statistic.|||3.30|1.02|0.013
84520079|NCT03068780|168791992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||Threshold of superiority is p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.302
84520080|NCT00474058|168791999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55||||0.0002||95.0|-5.37|-1.73||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple test procedure in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-1.73|-5.37|0.0002
84520081|NCT00474058|168792000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.08|-2.45||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple testing in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-2.45|-6.08|<0.0001
84520082|NCT00474058|168792001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0301||95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-0.04|-0.79|0.0301
84520083|NCT00474058|168792002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8842||95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||0.25|-0.29|0.8842
84520084|NCT00577655|168792059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.496||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|6.262||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||6.262|0.729|0.0138
84520085|NCT00577655|168792060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|10.618||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||10.618|0.244|0.0403
84520086|NCT00577655|168792061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.536||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.567|7.505||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||7.505|1.567|0.0031
84520087|NCT00577655|168792061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|6.094||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||6.094|0.041|0.0470
84520088|NCT00577655|168792062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.572||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|13.067||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||13.067|2.077|0.0074
84520089|NCT00577655|168792062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.782||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|9.397||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||9.397|-1.832|0.1843
84520090|NCT00577655|168792063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.707||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|19.445||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||19.445|-0.030|0.0507
84520091|NCT00577655|168792063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.892||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.634|19.419||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment and center|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||19.419|-17.634|0.9240
84520092|NCT00577655|168792064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.124||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.169|78.417||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||78.417|-18.169|0.2186
84520093|NCT00577655|168792064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.578||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.541|113.7||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||113.70|-28.541|0.2375
84520094|NCT00577655|168792065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.524||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.524|10.523||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 1||10.523|2.524|0.0017
84470097|NCT05281523|168692582|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
84470098|NCT05281523|168692583|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.03|-0.46|0.025
84470099|NCT05281523|168692584|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.18||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.05|-0.40|0.125
84470100|NCT05281523|168692585|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.07|-0.45|0.007
84470101|NCT05281523|168692586|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-4.4|<0.001
84470102|NCT05281523|168692587|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-9.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-17.9|0.015
84470103|NCT05281523|168692588|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
84470104|NCT05281523|168692589|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.0|-0.7|0.066
84470105|NCT05281523|168692590|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
84470106|NCT05281523|168692591|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
84520095|NCT00577655|168792065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.998||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|8.032||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 22||8.032|-0.037|0.0521
84520096|NCT00577655|168792066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.477||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.23||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||2.23|0.98|0.0647
84520097|NCT00577655|168792066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.088||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.15||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||3.15|1.38|0.0005
84520098|NCT00577655|168792067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.141||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.69||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||1.69|0.77|0.5059
84470107|NCT05281523|168692592|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1,\>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
84470108|NCT05281523|168692593|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses was performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis).||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
84470109|NCT05513053|168692594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.27||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||2.27|1.73|
84470110|NCT05513053|168692594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.87||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.87|2.76|
84470111|NCT05513053|168692594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.82||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||1.82|1.35|
84470112|NCT05513053|168692594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.37|1.09|
84470113|NCT05513053|168692595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|6.62||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||6.62|-2.78|
84470114|NCT05513053|168692595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.23||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.23|-4.41|
84470115|NCT05513053|168692595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.14||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||8.14|-1.57|
84470116|NCT05513053|168692595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|19.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||19.3|9.17|
84470117|NCT00418834|168692612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-16.0|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-11.7|-16.0|<0.001
84470118|NCT00418834|168692613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.8|-7.4|<0.001
84470119|NCT00418834|168692614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32|||<|0.001||95.0|4.52|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||8.84|4.52|<0.001
84470120|NCT00418834|168692615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.50|1.40|<0.001
84470121|NCT00418834|168692616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|3.98|7.55|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||7.55|3.98|<0.001
84470122|NCT00418834|168692617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.31|1.32|<0.001
84470123|NCT00418834|168692618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||3.5|0.3|<0.001
84470124|NCT00418834|168692619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.5|4.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.8|1.5|<0.001
84470125|NCT00418834|168692620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-14.2|-10.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.3|-14.2|<0.001
84520099|NCT00577655|168792067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.533||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||2.27|1.03|0.0333
84520100|NCT00577655|168792068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.3888
84520101|NCT00577655|168792068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1249||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.1249
84520102|NCT00577655|168792069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0343||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0343
84520103|NCT00577655|168792069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0962||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0962
84470126|NCT00418834|168692621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.7|-6.8|<0.001
84470127|NCT00418834|168692622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-6.5|-9.4|<0.001
84470128|NCT00418834|168692623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-3.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.2|-3.8|<0.001
84470129|NCT00418834|168692624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
84470130|NCT00418834|168692625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates~of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||1.0|-5.2|<0.001
84470131|NCT00418834|168692626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-11.0|<0.001
84470132|NCT00418834|168692627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-5.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.9|-5.5|<0.001
84470133|NCT00418834|168692628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.401||95.0|-0.9|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||2.1|-0.9|0.401
84470134|NCT00418834|168692629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.1|4.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.2|1.1|<0.001
84470135|NCT00418834|168692630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-10.7|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-10.7|<0.001
84470136|NCT00418834|168692631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
84470137|NCT00418834|168692632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-12.2|-17.0|<0.001
84470138|NCT00418834|168692633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.1|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.7|-10.1|<0.001
84470139|NCT00418834|168692634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.5|-11.6|<0.001
84470140|NCT00418834|168692635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
84470141|NCT00418834|168692636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.5|-15.3|<0.001
84470142|NCT00418834|168692637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.6|-9.8|<0.001
84470143|NCT00418834|168692638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.534||95.0|-11.9|6.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||6.4|-11.9|0.534
84470144|NCT00418834|168692639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.09||95.0|-15.6|1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||1.6|-15.6|0.090
84470145|NCT01953328|168692640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-73.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|-69.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.41|-78.54|<0.001
84520104|NCT00577655|168792070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0109
84520105|NCT00577655|168792070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0845
84470146|NCT01953328|168692640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.22|-68.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.57|-77.22|<0.001
84470147|NCT01953328|168692640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.21|-67.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-67.61|-81.21|<0.001
84470148|NCT01953328|168692640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.93|-69.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.60|-78.93|<0.001
84470149|NCT01953328|168692641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.22|-69.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.47|-80.22|<0.001
84470150|NCT01953328|168692641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-65.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.23|-74.60|<0.001
84470151|NCT01953328|168692641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.55|-68.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.15|-83.55|<0.001
84470152|NCT01953328|168692641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.88|-60.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.87|-72.88|<0.001
84470153|NCT01953328|168692642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.4|-80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.2|-98.4|<0.001
84470154|NCT01953328|168692642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-77.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-77.5|-95.1|<0.001
84470155|NCT01953328|168692642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-62.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.1|-75.3|<0.001
84470156|NCT01953328|168692642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.5|-64.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.6|-79.5|<0.001
84470157|NCT01953328|168692643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-90.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|-80.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.7|-100.9|<0.001
84520106|NCT00577655|168792071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0013
84520107|NCT00577655|168792071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0085
84718153|NCT03213457|169187205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|-0.08||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.080|-0.367|0.002
84470158|NCT01953328|168692643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.8|-92.5|<0.001
84470159|NCT01953328|168692643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-62.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.6|-76.5|<0.001
84470160|NCT01953328|168692643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-57.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.1|-73.8|<0.001
84470161|NCT01953328|168692644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.06|-64.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.27|-73.06|<0.001
84470162|NCT01953328|168692644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-62.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.16|-69.74|<0.001
84470163|NCT01953328|168692644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|-62.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.99|-73.30|<0.001
84470164|NCT01953328|168692644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.14|-63.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.42|-71.14|<0.001
84470165|NCT01953328|168692645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.96|-63.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.89|-73.96|<0.001
84470166|NCT01953328|168692645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-59.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.21|-67.96|<0.001
84470167|NCT01953328|168692645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-62.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.86|-74.79|<0.001
84718154|NCT03213457|169187206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.085||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.085|-0.329|< 0.001
84470168|NCT01953328|168692645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-55.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.99|-65.78|<0.001
84470169|NCT01953328|168692646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-60.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.39|-68.49|<0.001
84520108|NCT00577655|168792072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.122||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||0.122|-0.265|0.4674
84520109|NCT00577655|168792072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.023||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 2||0.023|-0.365|0.0840
84520110|NCT00577655|168792072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.059||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 3||0.059|-0.335|0.1699
84520111|NCT00577655|168792074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.926||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.256|23.108||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||23.108|-3.256|0.1391
84520112|NCT00577655|168792074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.923||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|24.124||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 2||24.124|-2.278|0.1043
84520113|NCT00577655|168792074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.546||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|22.798||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 3||22.798|-3.705|0.1570
84470170|NCT01953328|168692646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-55.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.17|-63.30|<0.001
84470171|NCT01953328|168692646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.87|-55.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.25|-64.87|<0.001
84470172|NCT01953328|168692646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.15|-59.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.62|-67.15|<0.001
84520114|NCT00577655|168792075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.989||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|2.099||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 1~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.099|-0.121|0.9846
84470173|NCT01953328|168692647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-60.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.79|-70.34|<0.001
84726012|NCT00866619|169204271|SUPERIORITY|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for study site as stratification factor for the analysis. Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|31.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.556|38.286|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||38.286|23.556|<0.0001
84470174|NCT01953328|168692647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.05|-52.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.40|-62.05|<0.001
84520115|NCT00577655|168792075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.961||||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|2.039||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 2~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.039|-0.116|0.9447
84520116|NCT00577655|168792075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.887||||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.885||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 3~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||1.885|-0.111|0.8326
84520117|NCT00672984|168792086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||||90.0|-4.52|-0.34||||||||-0.34|-4.52|
84520118|NCT00672984|168792086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87||||||90.0|11.45|16.29||||||||16.29|11.45|
84520119|NCT00672984|168792087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08||||||90.0|-11.37|-4.78||||||||-4.78|-11.37|
84520120|NCT00672984|168792087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.13||||||90.0|9.33|16.93||||||||16.93|9.33|
84520121|NCT00672984|168792088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||||90.0|-1.07|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.07|
84470175|NCT01953328|168692647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.91|-54.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.83|-65.91|<0.001
84470176|NCT01953328|168692647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.92|-51.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.39|-60.92|<0.001
84470177|NCT01953328|168692648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.35|-41.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.73|-49.35|<0.001
84470178|NCT01953328|168692648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.78|-40.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.08|-46.78|<0.001
84470179|NCT01953328|168692648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-37.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.08|-44.88|<0.001
84470180|NCT01953328|168692648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-39.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.80|-46.48|<0.001
84470181|NCT01953328|168692649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.83|-41.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.05|-49.83|<0.001
84470182|NCT01953328|168692649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.84|-37.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.85|-44.84|<0.001
84520122|NCT00672984|168792088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11||||||90.0|8.97|13.24||||||||13.24|8.97|
84520123|NCT00672984|168792089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||||90.0|-0.99|4.27||||||||4.27|-0.99|
84470183|NCT01953328|168692649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|-36.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.57|-45.35|<0.001
84470184|NCT01953328|168692649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-34.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.62|-42.26|<0.001
84470185|NCT01953328|168692650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.37|-50.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.17|-59.37|<0.001
84470186|NCT01953328|168692650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.95|-48.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.36|-56.95|<0.001
84520124|NCT00672984|168792089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||90.0|7.63|13.97||||||||13.97|7.63|
84520125|NCT00672984|168792090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76||||||90.0|-8.01|-5.51||||||||-5.51|-8.01|
84520126|NCT00672984|168792090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73||||||90.0|3.08|6.38||||||||6.38|3.08|
84520127|NCT00672984|168792091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.85||||||90.0|-21.92|-17.78||||||||-17.78|-21.92|
84520128|NCT00672984|168792091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44||||||90.0|1.77|5.11||||||||5.11|1.77|
84520129|NCT00672984|168792092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.32||||||90.0|11.75|18.89||||||||18.89|11.75|
84520130|NCT00672984|168792092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||||90.0|-2.77|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.77|
84520131|NCT00672984|168792093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.85||||||90.0|44.71|54.98||||||||54.98|44.71|
84520132|NCT00672984|168792093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||||90.0|-0.41|7.66||||||||7.66|-0.41|
84520133|NCT00380588|168792124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||P-value for response (Complete Response + Partial Response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.380
84520134|NCT00380588|168792125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.074
84470187|NCT01953328|168692650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.72|-46.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.93|-54.72|<0.001
84470188|NCT01953328|168692650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.74|-45.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.64|-53.74|<0.001
84470189|NCT01953328|168692651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-49.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-49.98|-60.93|<0.001
84470190|NCT01953328|168692651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.91|-46.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.00|-55.91|<0.001
84520135|NCT00380588|168792126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.136
84520136|NCT02377349|168792143|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PT antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|10.2|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||10.2|7.02|
84520137|NCT02377349|168792143|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-FHA antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|19.24|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||19.24|13.48|
84520138|NCT02377349|168792143|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PRN antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.86|26.88|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||26.88|15.86|
84520139|NCT02235870|168792159|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|3.28||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.24|0.0261
84520140|NCT02235870|168792160|SUPERIORITY||Exact Confidence Interval|64.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|71.7|||Exact Test|||Subjects in the Obalon Treatment group with at least 2 Balloons and balloon therapy for at least 18 weeks.||71.7|57.5|<0.0001
84520141|NCT02235870|168792161|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.5|||Chi-squared|||||42.5|23.1|<0.0001
84520142|NCT02670551|168792185|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.4|-4.6|0.0331
84470191|NCT01953328|168692651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-46.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.80|-55.93|<0.001
84520143|NCT02670551|168792185|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.9|-5.1|0.0103
84520144|NCT02670551|168792186|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||0.0|-0.5|0.0714
84520145|NCT02670551|168792186|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0662
84520146|NCT00714051|168792189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants who fell on the tripping trial in each group were compared using Chi-square analysis||||0.45
84520147|NCT03868631|168792194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||multilevel models for change|||Between-group differences at baseline were compared using independent t-tests. Multilevel models for change (MLM) were used to determine differences between groups over time for study outcomes. Age, sex, and number of sessions missed were included as covariates. Time and time by group interactions were examined. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. Significance was set at p\<0.05.||||<0.05
84520148|NCT02286466|168792198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.87||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in anxiety symptoms (HAM-A) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||3.87|-1.60|0.412
84520149|NCT02286466|168792199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|4.96||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in quality of life (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||4.96|-4.99|0.997
84520150|NCT02286466|168792200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report anxiety symptoms on the HADS-Anxiety Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||2.02|-0.46|0.215
84470192|NCT01953328|168692651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.08|-40.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.81|-50.08|<0.001
84470193|NCT01953328|168692652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.58|-62.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.36|-70.58|<0.001
84470194|NCT01953328|168692652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-59.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.66|-69.01|<0.001
84470195|NCT01953328|168692652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-59.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.20|-68.90|<0.001
84470196|NCT01953328|168692652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.36|-63.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.15|-71.36|<0.001
84470197|NCT01953328|168692653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75|-63.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.84|-72.75|<0.001
84470198|NCT01953328|168692653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.11|-56.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.94|-68.11|<0.001
84470199|NCT01953328|168692653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.44|-58.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-58.50|-69.44|<0.001
84520151|NCT02286466|168792200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.57||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report depression symptoms on the HADS-Depression Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.57|-0.60|0.379
84470200|NCT01953328|168692653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-55.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.51|<0.001
84520152|NCT02286466|168792201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.75||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in depression symptoms on the PHQ-9 from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.75|-1.45|0.852
84470201|NCT01953328|168692654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.8|<0.001
84470202|NCT01953328|168692654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|96.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||98.9|84.1|<0.001
84470203|NCT01953328|168692654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|83.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||83.4|57.1|<0.001
84470204|NCT01953328|168692654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||90.0|67.5|<0.001
84470205|NCT01953328|168692655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.7|<0.001
84470206|NCT01953328|168692655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|91.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|96.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||96.0|78.2|<0.001
84470207|NCT01953328|168692655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||85.0|59.3|<0.001
84470208|NCT01953328|168692655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|86.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||86.9|62.6|<0.001
84470209|NCT01953328|168692656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|-38.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.52|-63.88|<0.001
84470210|NCT01953328|168692656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-39.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.27|-58.89|<0.001
84470211|NCT01953328|168692656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-39.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.35|-59.74|<0.001
84470212|NCT01953328|168692656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-34.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.12|-53.75|<0.001
84470213|NCT01953328|168692657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-34.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.90|-65.25|<0.001
84470214|NCT01953328|168692657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.49|-37.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.05|-60.49|<0.001
84470215|NCT01953328|168692657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-41.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.30|-64.06|<0.001
84470216|NCT01953328|168692657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-29.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.48|-50.46|<0.001
84520153|NCT00835081|168792202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|95.9|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||110|95.9|
84470217|NCT01953328|168692658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-14.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.59|-41.27|<0.001
84470218|NCT01953328|168692658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.54|-11.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.35|-32.54|<0.001
84470219|NCT01953328|168692658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-10.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-10.43|-29.59|<0.001
84470220|NCT01953328|168692658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.18|-7.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-7.26|-34.18|0.010
84470221|NCT01953328|168692659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.33|-8.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.81|-46.33|<0.001
84520154|NCT00835081|168792203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|97.5|
84520155|NCT00835081|168792204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||102|97.4|
84520156|NCT01139762|168792205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.55|-2.27|0.001
84520157|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
84520158|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.02|-0.80|0.040
84520159|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 26 weeks|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.75|0.107
84520160|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.68||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.68|-1.69|<0.001
84726013|NCT01313663|169204348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.65|||||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator. The hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified log-rank test were adjusted for disease stage at Baseline only, due to sparse data.|||2.65|0.32|
84726014|NCT02367794|169204363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0006
84470222|NCT01953328|168692659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-8.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.25|-31.68|<0.001
84520161|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.46||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.46|-1.62|<0.001
84520162|NCT01139762|168792207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14||P-value is IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
84520163|NCT01139762|168792208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.50|<0.001
84520164|NCT01139762|168792208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.00|-0.38|0.051
84520165|NCT01139762|168792208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.04|-0.38|0.107
84520166|NCT01139762|168792209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|6.21||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.21|3.49|<0.001
84718155|NCT03213457|169187207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.050|-0.270|0.004
84470223|NCT01953328|168692659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-6.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-6.19|-28.15|<0.001
84470224|NCT01953328|168692659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-2.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.56|-31.29|0.010
84470225|NCT01953328|168692660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|17.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||17.27|7.39|<0.001
84470226|NCT01953328|168692660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|19.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.30|9.93|<0.001
84520167|NCT01139762|168792209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.6||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||5.60|2.55|<0.001
84520168|NCT01139762|168792209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.31||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.31|3.15|<0.001
84470227|NCT01953328|168692660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|20.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.60|10.12|<0.001
84470228|NCT01953328|168692660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|13.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||13.62|4.67|0.001
84470229|NCT01953328|168692661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.53|7.40|<0.001
84470230|NCT01953328|168692661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.87|20.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.52|9.87|<0.001
84470231|NCT01953328|168692661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|16.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|22.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||22.95|10.74|<0.001
84470232|NCT01953328|168692661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|15.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||15.55|4.85|0.001
84470233|NCT01953328|168692662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.37|-16.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-16.34|-39.37|<0.001
84470234|NCT01953328|168692662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.91|-12.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.39|-32.91|<0.001
84470235|NCT01953328|168692662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.77|-27.40|0.001
84470236|NCT01953328|168692662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|-15.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-15.01|-39.31|<0.001
84718156|NCT03213457|169187208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.283|-0.746||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.746|-4.283|0.005
84470237|NCT01953328|168692663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.48|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.36|-42.48|<0.001
84726015|NCT02367794|169204364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.73|0.1581
84470238|NCT01953328|168692663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|-9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-9.33|-32.29|<0.001
84470239|NCT01953328|168692663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|-4.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-4.39|-25.72|0.001
84470240|NCT01953328|168692663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.99|-36.70|<0.001
84470241|NCT01111539|168692692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses was performed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model included baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||3.3|-5.2|=0.644
84470242|NCT01111539|168692692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.7|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses will be performed by fitting an ANCOVA model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model will include baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||0.4|-7.8|=0.080
84470243|NCT01111539|168692693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||=|0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.366
84470244|NCT01111539|168692693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.138
84470245|NCT01111539|168692694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.2|=0.995
84470246|NCT01111539|168692694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.1|=0.118
84470247|NCT03628417|168692695|NON_INFERIORITY|Examined the objective response rate (ORR) that there was 20% difference between the 2 treatment arms at day 180. With a significance level of 0,05 and a power of 80% the study required 28 evaluable metastases.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4489629||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|53.3|||Fisher Exact|||After reviewing existing data from electrochemotherapy with intratumoral bleomycin on small cutaneous metastases ≤3cm , we estimated the expected response rate for electrochemotherapy to 85%. We have no clinical results for the treatment of calcium electroporation, but on the basis of preclinical studies, we decided to accept a difference in response of 20%. All statistical analysis were done using IBM SPSS v24.||53.30|-13.30|0.30
84470248|NCT02713230|168692698|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-117.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.896|-84.48|||ANOVA|||||-84.480|-150.896|<0.0001
84470249|NCT02713230|168692699|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.371|||ANOVA|||||0.371|0.131|<0.0001
84470250|NCT02713230|168692700|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.116||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.200|0.032|0.008
84470251|NCT02713230|168692701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84470252|NCT00769704|168692739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|19.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the durable response rate between the talimogene laherparepvec and control arms. Study success was defined as the rejection of this hypothesis such that talimogene laherparepvec was found to be superior to GM-CSF using the 2-sided Fisher's exact test, with a p-value of ≤ 0.0488.||19.0|9.3|<0.0001
84470253|NCT00769704|168692740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average death rate and a longer overall survival for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|The primary method for analysis of overall survival was an unadjusted log-rank test. Testing of overall survival was conditional on a statistically significance difference in the primary endpoint of durable response. Success was defined as a p-value ≤ 0.05.||1.00|0.62|0.0511
84470254|NCT00769704|168692741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|27.1||Descriptive|Fisher Exact|||||27.1|14.4|<0.0001
84470255|NCT00769704|168692742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.18||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average duration of response for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.18|0.14|0.0868
84470256|NCT00769704|168692743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a a higher average response onset rate for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.30|0.30|0.2020
84470257|NCT00769704|168692744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.54||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average time to treatment failure for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.54|0.32|<0.0001
84520169|NCT01139762|168792210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.40|0.61|<0.001
84726016|NCT02367794|169204365|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.4451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.231|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.231|0.623|0.4451
84470258|NCT00769704|168692745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer response interval for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.73|0.13|0.0050
84470259|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with atorvastatin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.30
84540378|NCT01499095|168831549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.415||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline (Month 6) HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.415|-0.152|
84726017|NCT02367794|169204365|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.335|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.335|0.664|0.7343
84470260|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with sulindac compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.60
84470261|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with oligofructose-enriched inulin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.92
84470262|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.59
84470263|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.12
84470264|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.54
84470265|NCT00335504|168692751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.41
84470266|NCT00335504|168692752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between atorvastatin and placebo.||||0.37
84470267|NCT00335504|168692752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between sulindac and placebo.||||1.00
84470268|NCT00335504|168692752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.58
84470269|NCT00335504|168692753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between atorvastatin calcium and placebo.||||0.26
84726018|NCT02367794|169204365|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.232|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.232|0.720|0.6610
84470270|NCT00335504|168692753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between sulindac and placebo.||||0.88
84470271|NCT00335504|168692753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.38
84470272|NCT01856595|168692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.93|11.38||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||11.38|-16.93|0.7457
84470273|NCT01856595|168692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.47|-7.81||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-7.81|-35.47|0.0108
84470274|NCT01856595|168692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-26.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.309||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.38|-12.8||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-12.80|-40.38|0.0018
84470275|NCT01856595|168692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.66|-18.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-18.99|-45.66|0.0001
84470276|NCT01856595|168692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-42.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.23|-28.55||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-28.55|-56.23|<0.0001
84470277|NCT01856595|168692792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.621||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|26.43||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||26.43|-5.50|0.2790
84470278|NCT01856595|168692792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.777||0.0299||90.0|-33.89|-4.76||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-4.76|-33.89|0.0299
84470279|NCT01856595|168692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-29.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.28|-16.57||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-16.57|-42.28|0.0005
84726019|NCT02367794|169204365|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.253||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.627|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.627|0.965|0.0893
84726020|NCT02367794|169204366|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||0.81|0.46|0.0006
84470280|NCT01856595|168692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.321||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.26|0.48||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.48|-24.26|0.1133
84470281|NCT01856595|168692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.89|0.8530
84470282|NCT01856595|168692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.95|0.77|0.0172
84470283|NCT01856595|168692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.94||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.94|0.77|0.0106
84470284|NCT01856595|168692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.9||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.90|0.74|0.0012
84470285|NCT01856595|168692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.85||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
84470286|NCT01856595|168692795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.87|0.7804
84470287|NCT01856595|168692795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
84470288|NCT01856595|168692796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.88||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.88|0.68|0.0027
84470289|NCT01856595|168692796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
84520170|NCT01139762|168792210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.51|0.61|<0.001
84470290|NCT01856595|168692800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.19|0.81|0.8723
84470291|NCT01856595|168692800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.76|0.5158
84470292|NCT01856595|168692800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.01|0.68|0.1258
84470293|NCT01856595|168692800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.07||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.07|0.74|0.2883
84470294|NCT01856595|168692800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.18|0.81|0.8437
84540661|NCT03713593|168832562|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|0.978|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.978|0.712|
84726021|NCT02367794|169204366|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
84470295|NCT01856595|168692801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.42|0.88|0.4405
84470296|NCT01856595|168692801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.37||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.37|0.87|0.5178
84470297|NCT01856595|168692802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.92|0.52|0.0340
84470298|NCT01856595|168692802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.173||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.58||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.58|0.92|0.2519
84470299|NCT01856595|168692803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.2||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.20|0.93|0.4579
84470300|NCT01856595|168692803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.11|0.87|0.8144
84470301|NCT01856595|168692803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.06||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.06|0.81|0.3425
84470302|NCT01856595|168692803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.88|0.9670
84470303|NCT01856595|168692803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.95|0.3190
84470304|NCT01856595|168692804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.32||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.32|0.98|0.1617
84470305|NCT01856595|168692804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.94|0.3703
84470306|NCT01856595|168692805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.15||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.15|0.79|0.6833
84470307|NCT01856595|168692805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.41||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.41|0.98|0.1318
84470308|NCT06150573|168692864|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.93|||ANOVA|||||0.93|-1.04|0.9141
84470309|NCT06150573|168692865|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.34|||ANOVA|||||1.34|-0.61|0.4583
84470310|NCT06150573|168692866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.06|-0.30|0.0042
84726022|NCT02367794|169204366|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.10|0.70|0.258
84726023|NCT02367794|169204366|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
84726024|NCT02367794|169204367|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.40|<.0001
84726025|NCT02367794|169204367|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.45|0.0018
84470311|NCT06150573|168692866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.17|-0.46|<0.0001
84470312|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.05|0.2478
84470313|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 24||0.01|-0.07|0.0957
84470314|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 12||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
84470315|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 24||-0.31|-0.89|<0.0001
84470316|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.03|0.1536
84470317|NCT06150573|168692867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 24||0.00|-0.02|0.1166
84520171|NCT01139762|168792210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.69|0.74|<0.001
84520172|NCT01139762|168792211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.47||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.47|1.18|<0.001
84520173|NCT01139762|168792211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.31||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.31|0.88|<0.001
84520174|NCT01139762|168792211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.73||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.73|1.23|<0.001
84520175|NCT01139762|168792212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.13|0.92|<0.001
84718157|NCT03213457|169187209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.088||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.088|-0.298|0.284
84470318|NCT06150573|168692868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.07|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.21|<0.0001
84470319|NCT06150573|168692868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.25|<0.0001
84520176|NCT01139762|168792212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.54||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.54|0.27|0.006
84470320|NCT06150573|168692869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.00|-0.13|0.0400
84470321|NCT06150573|168692869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.05|-0.20|0.0010
84470322|NCT01071044|168692870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|These data were initially analyzed with a one-way ANOVA.||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.005
84470323|NCT01071044|168692871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.008
84520177|NCT01139762|168792212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.74|0.41|0.002
84540662|NCT03713593|168832563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|0.997|||Log Rank|Onesided p-value based on logrank test stratified by geographic region, portal vein invasion/extrahepatic spread/both AFP status,ECOG status.|Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.997|0.708|0.0227
84470324|NCT01071044|168692872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.183
84470325|NCT01071044|168692873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.046
84470326|NCT01071044|168692874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.219
84470327|NCT01071044|168692875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.038
84470328|NCT01071044|168692876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.022
84470329|NCT00818324|168692883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470330|NCT00818324|168692883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470331|NCT00818324|168692883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470332|NCT00818324|168692883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470333|NCT00818324|168692884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470334|NCT00818324|168692884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470335|NCT00818324|168692884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470336|NCT00818324|168692884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84470337|NCT01212172|168692906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|21.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.1|-6.7|0.2879
84718158|NCT03213457|169187210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.083||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.083|-0.279|0.286
84470338|NCT01253044|168692908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.912
84470339|NCT01253044|168692909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.273
84470340|NCT02868216|168692937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.98|||ANOVA|||||3.98|0.63|0.05
84470341|NCT00962000|168692939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.024||There is no p values because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.024|-0.064|
84520178|NCT01139762|168792213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.25|0.61|<0.001
84470342|NCT00962000|168692940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.023||There is no p value for eKt/V because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.023|-0.051|
84470343|NCT00962000|168692941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03103||||95.0|-0.029|0.099||There is no p value for Kt/VID because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.099|-0.029|
84470344|NCT01125176|168692942|OTHER|Exact Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval for overall response rate.|Proportion (percent)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|100.0||||||||100.0|73.5|
84470345|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% confidential interval (CI) on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|19.28|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||19.28|8.99|
84470346|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|8.01|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||8.01|4.32|
84470347|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||26.78|12.07|
84470348|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||3.08|1.90|
84470349|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|8.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||8.61|4.68|
84470350|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|8.97|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||8.97|4.92|
84470351|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|12.83|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||12.83|6.91|
84470352|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|5.1|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||5.10|2.96|
84470353|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|62.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.16|96.12|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||96.12|40.16|
84470354|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|23.89|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||23.89|11.22|
84540663|NCT03713593|168832564|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||14.2|2.8|
84718159|NCT03213457|169187211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.066||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.066|-0.375|0.005
84726026|NCT02367794|169204368|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
84470355|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.22|
84470356|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|12.21|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||12.21|6.24|
84470357|NCT05372575|168692963|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.15|11.29|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||11.29|6.15|
84470358|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMR (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|9.86|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||9.86|2.32|
84470359|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||17.39|4.72|
84470360|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|33.05|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||33.05|6.25|
84726027|NCT02367794|169204368|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
84726028|NCT02367794|169204369|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.004|||Log Rank|||||1.004|0.524|0.0518
84470361|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|36.8|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||36.80|8.84|
84470362|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|33.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.33|80.13|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||80.13|14.33|
84470363|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|32.52|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||32.52|6.07|
84470364|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|36.76|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||36.76|7.85|
84470365|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|40.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||40.84|9.13|
84470366|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|23.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||23.10|4.74|
84470367|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||24.51|6.00|
84470368|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|51.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||51.10|10.94|
84470369|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|35.93|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||35.93|8.65|
84470370|NCT05372575|168692964|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|44.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|103.43|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||103.43|19.11|
84470371|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.42|0.16|
84470372|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.98|0.27|
84470373|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.19|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.19|0.21|
84470374|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.86|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.86|0.36|
84520179|NCT01139762|168792213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.14|0.44|<0.001
84520180|NCT01139762|168792213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.13|0.39|<0.001
84520181|NCT01139762|168792214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.034
84726029|NCT02367794|169204369|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.165|||Log Rank|||||1.165|0.594|0.2841
84470375|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.89|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.89|0.25|
84470376|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.07|0.27|
84470377|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.09|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.09|0.16|
84470378|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.81|0.35|
84520182|NCT01139762|168792215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Van Elteren test was stratified by region.||||||0.031
84726030|NCT02367794|169204370|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.129|||Log Rank|||||1.129|0.671|0.2956
84520183|NCT01139762|168792216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.328
84520184|NCT01139762|168792217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.157
84470379|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||2.24|0.20|
84470380|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.65|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.65|0.22|
84470381|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.93|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||3.93|0.61|
84470382|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.99|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||4.99|0.65|
84470383|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.31|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.31|0.17|
84470384|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.38|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.38|0.31|
84470385|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.24|0.40|
84470386|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.59|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||1.59|0.33|
84470387|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.25|0.52|
84470388|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.52|0.57|
84470389|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.47|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.47|0.95|
84470390|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.34|0.41|
84540664|NCT03713593|168832567|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.93|0.66|
84718160|NCT03213457|169187212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.773|-0.216||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.216|-4.773|0.032
84726031|NCT02367794|169204370|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.668|0.2473
84470391|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.57|0.34|
84470392|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.18|0.16|
84470393|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.4|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.40|0.25|
84470394|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.23|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||1.23|0.50|
84470395|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.18|0.60|
84470396|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.72|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.72|0.68|
84470397|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|43.49|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||43.49|2.44|
84470398|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.42|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||18.42|2.07|
84470399|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|80.37|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||80.37|4.35|
84470400|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.52|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||5.52|1.14|
84470401|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|11.8|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||11.80|2.33|
84470402|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.65|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||9.65|1.47|
84718161|NCT03213457|169187213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.774|-0.508||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.508|-1.774|< 0.001
84726032|NCT02367794|169204371|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.04|0.0248
84726033|NCT02367794|169204371|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.90|1.03|0.0308
84470403|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|21.36|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||21.36|1.65|
84470404|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.87|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||16.87|1.17|
84470405|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|494.56|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||494.56|16.67|
84470406|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|83.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||83.78|3.79|
84470407|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||18.30|3.60|
84470408|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|50.35|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||50.35|4.64|
84470409|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.25|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||10.25|1.72|
84470410|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|21.23|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||21.23|9.14|
84470411|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||8.24|4.17|
84470412|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|31.15|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||31.15|12.80|
84470413|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||3.24|1.87|
84470414|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|10.03|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||10.03|5.05|
84470415|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|10.92|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||10.92|5.54|
84726034|NCT02367794|169204372|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.689|||Log Rank|||||0.689|0.408|<.0001
84726035|NCT02367794|169204372|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Log Rank|||||0.831|0.493|0.0007
84470416|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||14.61|7.40|
84470417|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||5.47|3.04|
84470418|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|60.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|97.67|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||97.67|37.25|
84470419|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|26.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||26.47|11.37|
84470420|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.00|
84470421|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|14.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||14.08|6.65|
84470422|NCT05372575|168692965|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.64|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||13.64|6.90|
84470423|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.91|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.91|0.06|
84470424|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.92|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.92|0.10|
84470425|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.07|0.10|
84470426|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.75|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||11.75|0.27|
84540665|NCT03713593|168832568|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.94|0.68|
84718162|NCT03213457|169187214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.788||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.788|-1.978|< 0.001
84726036|NCT02367794|169204373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.06||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|7.61|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||7.61|-7.48|0.9871
84726037|NCT02367794|169204373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.93||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|13.26|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||13.26|-1.41|0.1133
84470427|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.65|0.03|
84470428|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||0.44|0.01|
84470429|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||2.65|0.56|
84470430|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.26|0.03|
84470431|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.55|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.55|0.08|
84470432|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.47|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||4.47|0.15|
84470433|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||9.44|0.19|
84470434|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|22.42|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||22.42|0.67|
84470435|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.52|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.52|0.05|
84470436|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.07|0.19|
84520185|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.98||P-value is for Question 3 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|0.49|<0.001
84718163|NCT03213457|169187215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.002|-0.915||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.915|-2.002|< 0.001
84470437|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.46|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.46|0.42|
84540666|NCT03713593|168832569|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||13.4|0.0|
84470438|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||3.73|0.05|
84470439|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||2.73|0.15|
84470440|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.99|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||6.99|0.11|
84470441|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|12.51|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||12.51|0.29|
84470442|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|17.43|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||17.43|0.34|
84470443|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.7|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||7.70|0.27|
84470444|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.41|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||17.41|0.30|
84470445|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||2.97|0.14|
84470446|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|8.21|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||8.21|0.28|
84470447|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.97|0.13|
84470448|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.24|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||10.24|0.15|
84520186|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.93||P-value is for Question 3 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.93|0.43|<0.001
84540667|NCT03713593|168832572|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.88|0.61|
84718164|NCT02951052|169187216|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 copies/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is not more than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||2.5|-1.2|
84726038|NCT02367794|169204373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.97||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.65|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||3.65|-11.60|0.3072
84470449|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|23.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||23.91|0.41|
84470450|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||17.39|1.45|
84470451|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|141.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||141.81|1.32|
84470452|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|380.54|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||380.54|6.16|
84470453|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|229.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||229.10|0.48|
84470454|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|19.83|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||19.83|0.02|
84470455|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|55.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||55.96|1.98|
84470456|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|56.82|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||56.82|0.19|
84470457|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|63.12|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||63.12|0.06|
84470458|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|123.48|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||123.48|2.15|
84470459|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|367.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||367.81|1.59|
84470460|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|691.01|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||691.01|13.08|
84470461|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|171.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||171.84|0.64|
84470462|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||10.96|2.15|
84470463|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.36|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||20.36|4.50|
84470464|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|34.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||34.51|5.20|
84470465|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|37.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||37.91|7.76|
84470466|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.16|106.65|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||106.65|15.16|
84470467|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|20.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|49.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||49.51|8.39|
84470468|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|21.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|52.07|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||52.07|8.65|
84470469|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|54.19|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||54.19|10.39|
84470470|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|30.22|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||30.22|5.46|
84470471|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|27.88|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||27.88|5.95|
84470472|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|63.58|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||63.58|11.46|
84470473|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|34.38|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||34.38|7.02|
84520187|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||P-value is for Question 3 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.02|0.48|<0.001
84520188|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||P-value is for Question 4 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.95|0.46|<0.001
84726039|NCT02367794|169204373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.21||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|8.42|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||8.42|-6.01|0.7430
84470474|NCT05372575|168692966|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.67|127.16|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||127.16|18.67|
84470475|NCT02538666|168692997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by response to ECOG PS (0vs1), gender (MvF), irradiation following chemotherapy (YorN) as entered in IVRS|based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model|nivolumab + ipilimumab over placebo||1.12|0.75|0.3693
84470476|NCT02538666|168692998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.97|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.97|0.68|
84470477|NCT02538666|168692998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab over China Placebo||1.66|0.53|
84470478|NCT02538666|168692999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global nivolumab||1.36|0.94|
84470479|NCT02538666|168692999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China nivolumab||1.79|0.56|
84470480|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global placebo||0.88|0.62|
84470481|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.79|0.55|
84470482|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab+ ipilimumab over nivolumab||1.35|0.94|
84470483|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China placebo||1.12|0.33|
84470484|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab over China placebo||0.85|0.24|
84470485|NCT02538666|168693000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.49|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China Nivolumab||2.49|0.72|
84470486|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.15|0.61|
84470487|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.04|0.55|
84470488|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.92|0.42|
84470489|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.93|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.93|0.44|
84470490|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.21|0.68|
84470491|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.18|0.66|
84470492|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.35|0.81|
84470493|NCT02538666|168693001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.20|0.72|
84520189|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.85||P-value is for Question 4 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.85|0.36|<0.001
84726040|NCT02367794|169204374|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.996|||Log Rank|||||0.996|0.638|0.0461
84470494|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.09|0.58|
84470495|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.92|0.50|
84470496|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.07|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.07|0.50|
84470497|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.95|0.46|
84470498|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.96|0.54|
84470499|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.49|
84470500|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.01|0.60|
84470501|NCT02538666|168693002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.53|
84470502|NCT02538666|168693003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over Global placebo||1.09|0.76|
84470503|NCT02538666|168693003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China placebo||1.67|0.52|
84470504|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|4.1||||||1 hour postdose||4.1|-0.4|
84470505|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|4.9||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.9|0.4|
84470506|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.4||||||2 hours postdose||4.4|-0.1|
84470507|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.7||||||3 hours postdose||1.7|-2.8|
84470508|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-1.8||||||4 hours postdose||-1.8|-6.3|
84470509|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-1.2||||||6 hours postdose||-1.2|-5.7|
84726041|NCT02367794|169204374|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.296|||Log Rank|||||1.296|0.834|0.7295
84470510|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-2.6||||||12 hours postdose||-2.6|-7.1|
84470511|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.4||||||24 hours postdose||1.4|-3.1|
84470512|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||1 hour postdose||3.1|-1.4|
84470513|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.2||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.2|-0.2|
84470514|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||2 hours postdose||3.1|-1.4|
84470515|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|0.7||||||3 hours postdose||0.7|-3.8|
84470516|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-1.5||||||4 hours postdose||-1.5|-5.9|
84470517|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|-0.1||||||6 hours postdose||-0.1|-4.6|
84470518|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-2.8||||||12 hours postdose||-2.8|-7.3|
84470519|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.1||||||24 hours postdose||2.1|-2.4|
84470520|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.6|14.0||||||1 hour postdose||14.0|7.6|
84470521|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.0|13.4||||||1.5 hours postdose||13.4|7.0|
84470522|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.0|14.4||||||2 hours postdose||14.4|8.0|
84470523|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.3|14.7||||||3 hours postdose||14.7|8.3|
84470524|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|6.5|12.8||||||4 hours postdose||12.8|6.5|
84470525|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.2|13.5||||||6 hours postdose||13.5|7.2|
84470526|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|4.1|10.4||||||12 hours postdose||10.4|4.1|
84470527|NCT03510663|168693004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|3.8|10.2||||||24 hours postdose||10.2|3.8|
84470528|NCT01943864|168693026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|10.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.7|||Exact Binomial Test|||||31.7|1.2|0.976
84470529|NCT01943864|168693027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|15.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|37.9|||Exact Binomial Test|||||37.9|3.2|0.909
84470530|NCT01943864|168693042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.1|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.1|4.6|
84470531|NCT01943864|168693043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.7|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.7|4.6|
84470532|NCT01943864|168693044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Survival|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.3||||||||39.3|6.2|
84470533|NCT01943864|168693045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||||||||16.8|0|
84470534|NCT01943864|168693046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|24.9||||||||24.9|0.1|
84470535|NCT00320385|168693051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||0.93|0.57|0.008
84470536|NCT00320385|168693052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.53|0.106
84470537|NCT00320385|168693053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||Fisher Exact||Responses were compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||3.9|0.6|0.460
84470538|NCT00320385|168693054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Clinical Benefit was compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||4.5|1.2|0.010
84470539|NCT04370028|168693059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|4.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test was performed||||4.72|4.42|<0.00001
84726042|NCT02367794|169204375|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.033|||Log Rank|||||1.033|0.663|0.0942
84470540|NCT04370028|168693060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|8.67|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<26 was assessed||8.67|6.01|<0.00001
84470541|NCT04370028|168693061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.64|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<17 was assessed||6.64|4.28|<0.00001
84470542|NCT04370028|168693062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.375|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.96|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.96|-0.21|<0.07
84470543|NCT04370028|168693062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|5.31|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.31|4.17|<0.01
84470544|NCT04370028|168693062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.55|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.94|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.94|4.16|<0.01
84470545|NCT04370028|168693062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.27|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.27|3.7|<0.01
84470546|NCT04370028|168693064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|0.321|0.0011
84470547|NCT02492750|168693066|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces DLT in at least one-third of patients. A total of 6 patients treated at the MTD will be sufficient to identify common toxicities at the MTD.|||||
84470548|NCT04743635|168693083|OTHER|"Performance goal.~Hypothesis:~Ho: D \< 1 Ha: D ≥ 1, where D = reduction in the CSS score from baseline to 3 months, and 1 is the performance goal. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 1 then we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude the device performs effectively."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean reduction in CSS was calculated along with the corresponding p-value (Student's t-test).||The endpoint tested the mean of the changes for each treated participant, not a 1-point change between mean score of the group at baseline versus 3 months. Success is achieved when the mean change across all treated participants is at least one point.||1.71|1.28|.0001
84470549|NCT04743635|168693084|OTHER|Performance goal. The hierarchal endpoint is met if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|95.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.6|99.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GAIS scale counted if at least two of the three evaluators selected it, otherwise the median between the three was counted (e.g., if improved, worse and much worse, worse was counted). A participant is considered improved if the GAIS assessment is improved (1), much improved (2) or very much improved (3)."||99.1|87.6|.0001
84470550|NCT04743635|168693087|OTHER|Performance goal. In order to meet the endpoint, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval had to be greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|72.1||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|82.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||82.3|59.9|.0264
84470551|NCT01954121|168693089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for the adjusted difference in seizure free proportion in the LEV minus the seizure free proportion in the CBZ-IR group was set to absolute -20% points.|adjusted difference in proportions|-22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-12.6||||||The adjusted absolute difference in treatment group seizure-free proportions (referenced as 'Adjusted difference in proportions' in 'Method of Estimation' below) was derived from the adjusted treatment group proportions of seizure-free subjects. The adjusted proportions were derived from a logistic regression model of seizure freedom using treatment and the categories for the number of seizures in the 3-month period prior to Visit 1 (≤2 seizures and \>2 seizures) as covariates.||-12.6|-33.1|
84470552|NCT01096446|168693121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Chi Square satistical calculation was used for analysis.||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Four infants(44%)in the control group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) while 100% of the infants in the experimental group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) during the first week of life.||||0.011
84470553|NCT04710862|168693140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
84470554|NCT04710862|168693141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
84470555|NCT04710862|168693142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
84470556|NCT04710862|168693143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84470557|NCT04710862|168693144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
84470558|NCT04710862|168693145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84470559|NCT04710862|168693146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.328
84470560|NCT01520324|168693147|OTHER|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.||||||||||||||||The number of detected neoplasiae for each patient was listed and summarised by descriptive statistics. Number and percentage of patients with intraepithelial neoplasiae was presented|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.|||
84470561|NCT01328249|168693155|OTHER|Fisher's Exact test||||||0.4422||||||Null hypothesis: The feasibility rates of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 are same.|Fisher Exact|Exploratory analysis comparing primary feasibilities between 2 cohorts, based on Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.4422
84470562|NCT00948818|168693161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.47|1.51|0.0004
84470563|NCT00948818|168693163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.88||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||5.88|2.26|<0.0001
84520190|NCT01139762|168792218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.89||P-value is for Question 4 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.89|0.35|<0.001
84520191|NCT02664415|168792244|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|This is to confirm that the p-value from Fisher's Exact test was 1.000.||||||1.000
84470564|NCT00948818|168693164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||1.91|1.04|0.0262
84470565|NCT00948818|168693165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.66||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||2.66|1.40|<0.0001
84470566|NCT02364947|168693183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.62||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-6.05|0.0001
84470567|NCT02364947|168693183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.32||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-6.05|0.0001
84470568|NCT02364947|168693184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.16|-5.69|<0.0001
84520192|NCT02664415|168792245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 20 copies/mL between arms.||||0.051
84520193|NCT02664415|168792245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 1000 copies/mL between arms.||||0.01
84520194|NCT02664415|168792246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||This is a p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at first detection between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
84520195|NCT02664415|168792246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588||||||This is p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at ART resumption between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
84520196|NCT02664415|168792247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
84470569|NCT02364947|168693184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-6.46|<0.0001
84520197|NCT02664415|168792249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.693
84470570|NCT02364947|168693185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total alcohol consumption (TAC) from baseline at Week 12||-7.13|-17.81|<0.0001
84520198|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.15
84520199|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.04
84520200|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.002
84520201|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.22
84520202|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA atbaseline ATI and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.05
84520203|NCT02664415|168792250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baeline ATI versus 6 months after ART resumption in the placebo arm||||0.22
84520204|NCT02664415|168792253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at baseline ATI||||0.961
84520205|NCT02664415|168792253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at ART resumption||||0.805
84520206|NCT02664415|168792253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within VRC01 arm.||||0.221
84520207|NCT02664415|168792253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within Placebo arm.||||0.500
84470571|NCT02364947|168693185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-18.72|<0.0001
84470572|NCT02364947|168693186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-16.77|0.0001
84470573|NCT02364947|168693186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-17.37|0.0003
84470574|NCT02364947|168693187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|13.6|<0.0001
84470575|NCT02364947|168693187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.5|0.0007
84470576|NCT02364947|168693188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|8.8|0.0002
84470577|NCT02364947|168693188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|30.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.8|10.4|0.0001
84470578|NCT02364947|168693189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|10.5|<0.0001
84470579|NCT02364947|168693189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|6.4|0.0002
84470580|NCT02364947|168693190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|2.9|0.0079
84470581|NCT02364947|168693190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|5.8|0.0010
84470582|NCT02364947|168693191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.3|3.5|0.0022
84470583|NCT02364947|168693191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.8|0.0016
84470584|NCT02364947|168693192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.9|6.2|0.0003
84470585|NCT02364947|168693192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|4.6|0.0013
84470586|NCT02364947|168693193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|7.1|0.0002
84470587|NCT02364947|168693193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.9|0.0001
84470588|NCT02364947|168693194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.7|-0.7|0.0724
84470589|NCT02364947|168693194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|9.9|0.0001
84470590|NCT02364947|168693195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|0.0002
84470591|NCT02364947|168693195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
84470592|NCT02364947|168693196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.48|<0.0001
84470593|NCT02364947|168693196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.0001
84470594|NCT02364947|168693197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.69|<0.0001
84470595|NCT02364947|168693197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.0001
84470596|NCT02364947|168693198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.70|<0.0001
84470597|NCT02364947|168693198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.0001
84470598|NCT02364947|168693199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|-0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.121|-0.262|<0.0001
84470599|NCT02364947|168693199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.080|-0.232|0.0001
84470600|NCT02364947|168693200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.088|-0.248|<0.0001
84470601|NCT02364947|168693200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.226|0.0017
84470602|NCT02364947|168693201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.130|0.0234
84470603|NCT02364947|168693201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.||0.016|-0.115|0.1374
84470604|NCT02364947|168693202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.005|-0.127|0.0348
84470605|NCT02364947|168693202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.116|0.1444
84470606|NCT01725152|168693241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4475|||||||Linear mixed-effect|||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in CGI-I will be assessed using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures, accounting for treatment (ganaxolone versus placebo) and period at a significant level of 0.05. A sample size of 30 participants in each arm/group was planned in the study will have 90% power to detect a modest effect size of 0.6 at level 0.05 in CGI-I. With a possible dropout rate of 15%, the power for testing the effect size becomes 84%.||||0.4475
84470607|NCT02808312|168693251|OTHER|Two-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated for the ratios of geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2885|2.4781||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||2.4781|1.2885|
84470608|NCT02808312|168693251|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6735|3.6954||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||3.6954|1.6735|
84470609|NCT02808312|168693251|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3675|9.1569||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||9.1569|4.3675|
84520208|NCT02664415|168792254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups at baseline ATI.||||0.522
84470610|NCT02808312|168693252|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.275|2.4374||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||2.4374|1.2750|
84470611|NCT02808312|168693252|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4559|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6531|3.6486||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||3.6486|1.6531|
84470612|NCT02808312|168693252|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.2497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2965|9.091||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||9.0910|4.2965|
84470613|NCT02808312|168693253|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.5703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0723|2.2995||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.2995|1.0723|
84470614|NCT02808312|168693253|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2193|2.4667||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.4667|1.2193|
84470615|NCT02808312|168693253|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.5369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7562|3.6648||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||3.6648|1.7562|
84470616|NCT02808312|168693264|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6827|1.1144||||||||1.1144|0.6827|
84470617|NCT02808312|168693264|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8295|1.3883||||||||1.3883|0.8295|
84470618|NCT02808312|168693264|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8783|1.4992||||||||1.4992|0.8783|
84470619|NCT02808312|168693265|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5837|1.1486||||||||1.1486|0.5837|
84470620|NCT02808312|168693265|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8772|1.4615||||||||1.4615|0.8772|
84470621|NCT02808312|168693265|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0468|1.7574||||||||1.7574|1.0468|
84470622|NCT02808312|168693266|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8275|1.3726||||||||1.3726|0.8275|
84470623|NCT02808312|168693266|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.2942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.7334||||||||1.7334|0.9663|
84520209|NCT02664415|168792254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison between groups at ART resumption.||||0.961
84470624|NCT02808312|168693266|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5479|1.2347||||||||1.2347|0.5479|
84470625|NCT02808312|168693267|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.4762||||||||1.4762|0.7910|
84470626|NCT02808312|168693267|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.9506||||||||1.9506|0.9663|
84470627|NCT02808312|168693267|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6142|1.3275||||||||1.3275|0.6142|
84470628|NCT01826422|168693268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84520210|NCT02664415|168792254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within VRC01 group.||||0.002
84470629|NCT01826422|168693269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84470630|NCT01826422|168693270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84470631|NCT01826422|168693271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84470632|NCT01826422|168693272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84470633|NCT01826422|168693273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470634|NCT01826422|168693274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84520211|NCT02664415|168792254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within Placebo group.||||0.043
84718165|NCT02951052|169187217|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is more than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||0.7|-6.7|
84470635|NCT01826422|168693275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84470636|NCT01826422|168693276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84470637|NCT01826422|168693277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84470638|NCT01826422|168693278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84470639|NCT01826422|168693279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
84470640|NCT01826422|168693280|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470641|NCT01826422|168693281|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470642|NCT01826422|168693282|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470643|NCT01826422|168693283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470644|NCT01826422|168693284|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
84470645|NCT01826422|168693285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84470646|NCT01826422|168693286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84470647|NCT01826422|168693287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84470648|NCT05151471|168693288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
84470649|NCT05151471|168693289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 72||||0.704
84718166|NCT02951052|169187291|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||2.2|-2.4|0.944
84470650|NCT05151471|168693289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 96||||0.131
84470651|NCT05151471|168693290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.954
84470652|NCT05151471|168693290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.591
84470653|NCT05151471|168693291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.513
84470654|NCT05151471|168693291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 84||||0.344
84470655|NCT05151471|168693291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.142
84470656|NCT04263142|168693295|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9263|1.0757|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0757|0.9263|
84470657|NCT04263142|168693296|OTHER||Ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9321|1.0781|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0781|0.9321|
84470658|NCT04263142|168693297|OTHER||Ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.208|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.2080|0.9885|
84470659|NCT04263142|168693299|OTHER||Ratio|2.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3703|3.6107|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.6107|2.3703|
84470660|NCT04263142|168693299|OTHER||Ratio|2.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1003|3.2038|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.2038|2.1003|
84470661|NCT04263142|168693300|OTHER||Ratio|3.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5925|3.8178|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.8178|2.5925|
84470662|NCT04263142|168693300|OTHER||Ratio|2.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2943|3.3807|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.3807|2.2943|
84470663|NCT04263142|168693301|OTHER||Ratio|4.101|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2442|5.183|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||5.1830|3.2442|
84470664|NCT04263142|168693301|OTHER||Ratio|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4359|3.8935|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.8935|2.4359|
84470665|NCT00115349|168693409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||0.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with treatment, time, and treatment x time interaction were used, allowing for random participant-specific intercepts and slopes.||The intended sample size of 86 patients (N=43 per arm) had 80% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF between the two arms after 1 year of treatment, assuming a standard deviation of change in LVEF of 7.46%, and 20% loss to follow-up. The study was stopped early by NHLBI when analysis of the interim data confirmed a required sample size of 86 that was not achievable within the required time frame within the participating or planned centres.||||0.89
84520212|NCT00183196|168792262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.997|||Regression, Cox|||||.997|.281|
84520213|NCT00183196|168792262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|percent heavy drinking days at baseline was used as a covariate in the analysis as it was a predictor of overall survival independent of group.||||||0.04
84470666|NCT03656926|168693448|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1 with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1, region (North America vs all other countries together), age (\<55 versus \>=55 years), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.|least square mean difference|-0.028||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.104||This is a 1-side p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||V9 - week 48||0.104|-0.160|0.6639
84470667|NCT00069095|168693450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.18||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.18|0.94|
84470668|NCT00069095|168693451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.05|1.42||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.42|1.05|
84470669|NCT00069095|168693452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.58|0.83|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
84470670|NCT00069095|168693453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in the 'on-treatment analysis', thus leading to reduced power. No formal statistical testing was therefore applied.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.07|1.44||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.44|1.07|
84470671|NCT00069095|168693454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
84470672|NCT00069095|168693455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.15||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.15|0.92|
84470673|NCT00069095|168693456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0015
84470674|NCT00069095|168693457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was not powered for testing non-inferiority of XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 with respect to overall survival and no margin could be derived following the effect retention concept. The same margins used for the PFS analysis \[Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin)\] were therefore applied to OS as well.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.14||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.14|0.84|
84520214|NCT00874822|168792310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Ho: The Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in patients planning hip or knee arthroplasty will be no different using current screening techniques than it was in a historical control group.~The prevalence of OSA in the study population is hypothesized to be at least 10% higher than the best previous estimate of 6.7%. Employing a two-sided hypothesis test with α of 0.05 and power of 0.85 yields a sample size of 163."||24.4|13.6|<0.0001
84520215|NCT02854800|168792312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A separate t-test for each row was used to compare dropouts and completers.||||<0.05
84520216|NCT02854800|168792314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean medication side effect ratings across the three arms/groups to determine whether one group had more severe symptoms that may have been related to study dropout.||||<0.05
84520217|NCT02854800|168792317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Mixed ANOVA was used with Study Week (1-12) as the within-subjects, repeated-measures factor and Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
84520218|NCT02854800|168792318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used for each side effect rating with Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
84520219|NCT02854800|168792319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
84520220|NCT02854800|168792321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
84520221|NCT01370863|168792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.452||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.054|16.149|||ANCOVA|||||16.149|-19.054|0.869
84470675|NCT00069095|168693458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented together with the 97.5% confidence interval.||1.09|0.72|0.1921
84470676|NCT00069095|168693459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0023
84470677|NCT00069095|168693460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66, where OR denotes Odds ratio.||1.09|0.72|
84470678|NCT00069095|168693461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.||1.14|0.71|0.3091
84470679|NCT00069095|168693462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab shall be concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.16||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66||1.16|0.76|
84470680|NCT00069095|168693463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX 4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%||1.28|0.78|0.9887
84470681|NCT00069095|168693464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.2||||||General approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.20|0.97|
84470682|NCT00069095|168693464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in analyses using the on-treatment approach than in the analyses using the general approach, thus leading to reduced power.Therefore, no formal statistical testing was performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.23||||||On-treatment Approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.23|0.98|
84470683|NCT00069095|168693465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|0.96|||Log Rank|||General approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.96|0.74|0.0030
84520222|NCT01370863|168792375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diference in LS means|0.264||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|-0.495|0.487
84520223|NCT01370863|168792376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.087||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.326|||ANCOVA|||||0.326|-0.501|0.637
84520224|NCT01852799|168792378|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bALP changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.002
84520225|NCT01852799|168792378|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||b-ALP changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
84520226|NCT01852799|168792378|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.005
84520227|NCT01852799|168792378|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
84520228|NCT00834561|168792410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.14||||||90.0|99.99|108.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.47|99.99|
84520229|NCT00834561|168792411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.07||||||90.0|101.33|106.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.89|101.33|
84520230|NCT00834561|168792412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.68||||||90.0|101.42|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.00|101.42|
84520231|NCT02442687|168792413|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.034
84470684|NCT00069095|168693465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||On treatment approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.92|0.70|0.0004
84470685|NCT00069095|168693468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was performed for duration of overall response.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.22|0.86|
84470686|NCT00069095|168693469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|1.01|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||1.01|0.66|0.0307
84470687|NCT00069095|168693470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.09|1.39||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.39|0.09|
84470688|NCT00069095|168693471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|7.05|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||7.05|0.20|0.8207
84470689|NCT02902172|168693497|NON_INFERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84470690|NCT01773135|168693517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||U statistic|||||||<0.001
84470691|NCT02702193|168693518|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|GEE allowed the examination of trajectories from baseline through the 12 month follow-up.||To determine sample size for the grant proposal we conducted simulation studies in Mplus (Muthén \& Muthén, 2010) following the procedure described by Muthén and Muthén (2002). Each simulation created 10,000 datasets, assuming a medium-size (d = .5) intervention effect, and attrition of 10% at each assessment. For α= .05, the power estimate was at or above 80% with a sample of 172 mothers.||||<.05
84470692|NCT01201798|168693532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.5 units, meaning that the upper limit of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval must have been less than 0.5 to establish noninferiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||A two-tailed 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference in change from baseline in anterior chamber cell grade at Day 14 (difluprednate minus prednisolone). The confidence interval was derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with investigative site included as a fixed effect to match the stratification used in the randomization process. Treatment and baseline anterior chamber cell grade were also included as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.53|
84470693|NCT05692154|168693554|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.23|-8.24|0.038
84470694|NCT05692154|168693555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.088||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.60|-8.90|0.025
84470695|NCT05692154|168693556|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.05|-12.95|0.048
84470696|NCT05692154|168693557|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-1.73|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-1.73|-13.21|0.011
84470697|NCT05692154|168693558|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.211||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|1.83|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TNSS (Day 1) as covariate.|||1.83|-38.74|0.074
84470698|NCT05692154|168693559|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.672||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|19.12|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Day 1) as covariate.|||19.12|-27.24|0.729
84470699|NCT00904826|168693573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between before treatment and one year after treatment.||||<0.0001
84470700|NCT00904826|168693575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made between baseline and after 12 months of treatment.||||0.0078
84470701|NCT00904826|168693579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 weeks and baseline.||||<0.0001
84470702|NCT00904826|168693579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 3 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
84470703|NCT00904826|168693579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 months and baseline||||0.0001
84470704|NCT00904826|168693579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 9 months and baseline.||||0.0001
84470705|NCT00904826|168693579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 12 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
84470706|NCT00904826|168693581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was between 3 months and baseline.||||0.0019
84470707|NCT02915367|168693597|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
84470708|NCT02915367|168693599|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
84470709|NCT03259334|168693607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.617
84470710|NCT03259334|168693607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.018
84470711|NCT03259334|168693608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.253
84520232|NCT02442687|168792413|OTHER|||||||0.1731||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1731
84520233|NCT02442687|168792414|OTHER|||||||0.5276||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.5276
84470712|NCT03259334|168693608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
84470713|NCT03259334|168693609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.764
84470714|NCT03259334|168693609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.080
84520234|NCT02442687|168792414|OTHER|||||||0.4968||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.4968
84520235|NCT02442687|168792415|OTHER|||||||0.2591||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2591
84520236|NCT02442687|168792415|OTHER|||||||0.1806||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1806
84520237|NCT02442687|168792416|OTHER|||||||0.0882||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.0882
84470715|NCT03259334|168693610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.440
84470716|NCT03259334|168693610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.002
84470717|NCT03259334|168693611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.286
84470718|NCT03259334|168693611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.005
84470719|NCT05138783|168693653|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = PRECISION1 minus BIOTRUE. Sign (either negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
84470720|NCT02429258|168693654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001||95.0|-36.1|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-36.1|<0.001
84470721|NCT02429258|168693655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.01||95.0|-26.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8|-26.8|0.010
84520238|NCT02442687|168792416|OTHER|||||||0.253||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2530
84540668|NCT03176134|168832620|OTHER||Estimated Difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|25.3|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||25.3|-12.2|
84470722|NCT02429258|168693656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.023||95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|0.1|0.023
84470723|NCT02429258|168693657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001||95.0|7.7|22.2|||ANCOVA|||||22.2|7.7|<0.001
84470724|NCT02429258|168693658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001||95.0|-23.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||||-8.7|-23.5|<0.001
84470725|NCT02429258|168693659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|<|0.001||95.0|-46.6|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-46.6|<0.001
84470726|NCT02429258|168693660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|<|0.001||95.0|-59.0|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-59.0|<0.001
84470727|NCT02429258|168693661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.024||95.0|-0.43|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.43|0.024
84470728|NCT02429258|168693662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.019||95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-19.9|0.019
84470729|NCT02429258|168693663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25|<|0.001||95.0|-54.7|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-54.7|<0.001
84470730|NCT02429258|168693664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.017||95.0|1.3|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|1.3|0.017
84470731|NCT03364335|168693672|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
84470732|NCT03364335|168693672|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0364|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0364
84520239|NCT02654145|168792440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.66||p-value is for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|||-0.66|-1.13|<0.001
84520240|NCT02654145|168792440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0||p- value for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used Xolair.|||-1.00|-1.68|<0.001
84520241|NCT02654145|168792442|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.47|||Generalised Estimating Equations||Analysis performed using generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a negative binomial distribution with a covariate of treatment period (pre-treatment , on- and off-treatment), logarithm of time as an offset variable|||0.47|0.28|<0.001
84470733|NCT03364335|168693672|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0156
84470734|NCT03364335|168693672|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0349
84470735|NCT03364335|168693673|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5348|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5348
84470736|NCT03364335|168693673|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0379
84470737|NCT03364335|168693673|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0215
84470738|NCT03364335|168693673|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0464|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0464
84470739|NCT03364335|168693674|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84470740|NCT03364335|168693674|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2646
84470741|NCT03364335|168693674|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0749
84470742|NCT03364335|168693674|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6758|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6758
84470743|NCT03364335|168693675|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9656|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9656
84470744|NCT03364335|168693675|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4254|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4254
84470745|NCT03364335|168693675|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1276|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1276
84470746|NCT03364335|168693675|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5937
84470747|NCT03364335|168693676|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
84470748|NCT03364335|168693676|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6513|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6513
84470749|NCT03364335|168693676|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4354|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4354
84470750|NCT03364335|168693676|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.031|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0310
84470751|NCT03364335|168693677|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4644|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4644
84470752|NCT03364335|168693677|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8573
84470753|NCT03364335|168693677|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8167|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8167
84470754|NCT03364335|168693677|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9223
84470755|NCT03364335|168693678|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6574|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6574
84470756|NCT03364335|168693678|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8971|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8971
84470757|NCT03364335|168693678|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
84520242|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2613|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.31||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. Comparing the incidence of anemia with VAC on ARST0531 to the historical rate of 0.40 with VAC on D9803. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.31||
84520243|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.027|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0449||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0449||
84470758|NCT03364335|168693678|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
84470759|NCT03364335|168693679|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3720
84470760|NCT03364335|168693679|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2302
84470761|NCT03364335|168693679|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1377
84470762|NCT03364335|168693679|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4295
84470763|NCT03364335|168693680|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6726|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6726
84470764|NCT03364335|168693680|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.7934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7934
84470765|NCT03364335|168693680|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5485|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5485
84470766|NCT03364335|168693680|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3676|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3676
84470767|NCT03364335|168693681|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1653|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1653
84540669|NCT03176134|168832620|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|3.7|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||3.7|-28.7|
84726043|NCT02367794|169204375|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.207|||Log Rank|||||1.207|0.776|0.7709
84470768|NCT03364335|168693681|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.197|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1970
84470769|NCT03364335|168693681|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0608|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0608
84470770|NCT03364335|168693681|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1583
84470771|NCT03364335|168693682|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0524|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0524
84470772|NCT03364335|168693682|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5221
84470773|NCT03364335|168693682|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3702
84470774|NCT03364335|168693682|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5426|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5426
84470775|NCT03364335|168693683|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1843|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1843
84470776|NCT03364335|168693683|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4411|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4411
84470777|NCT03364335|168693683|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6991|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6991
84470778|NCT03364335|168693683|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3721
84470779|NCT03364335|168693684|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0318
84470780|NCT03364335|168693684|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3827|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
84470781|NCT03364335|168693684|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0050
84470782|NCT03364335|168693684|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1045
84718167|NCT02951052|169187291|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||3.4|-1.3|0.385
84470783|NCT03987919|168693685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.64|<0.001
84470784|NCT03987919|168693685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.73|<0.001
84470785|NCT03987919|168693686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
84470786|NCT03987919|168693687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
84470787|NCT03987919|168693687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.0|<0.001
84470788|NCT03987919|168693687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-7.1|<0.001
84470789|NCT03987919|168693688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|1.06|0.023
84470790|NCT03987919|168693688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|1.44|<0.001
84470791|NCT03987919|168693688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.97|<0.001
84470792|NCT03987919|168693689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.7|0.001
84470793|NCT03987919|168693689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-17.4|<0.001
84470794|NCT03987919|168693689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-19.1|<0.001
84470795|NCT03987919|168693691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|1.20|0.001
84470796|NCT03987919|168693691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|2.57|<0.001
84470797|NCT03987919|168693691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|6.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.38|3.32|<0.001
84470798|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.03|-0.50|0.084
84470799|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.00|-0.54|0.050
84470800|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.12|-0.66|0.005
84470801|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.22|-0.33|0.688
84470802|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.26|-0.29|0.909
84470803|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.40|0.358
84470804|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.41|-0.62|0.701
84470805|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.27|-0.78|0.341
84470806|NCT03987919|168693692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.79|-0.26|0.321
84718168|NCT02951052|169187292|OTHER||Adjusted difference|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||7.1|2.8|<0.001
84470807|NCT03987919|168693694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|1.35|<0.001
84470808|NCT03987919|168693694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|5.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.39|2.88|<0.001
84470809|NCT03987919|168693694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.97|3.73|<0.001
84540670|NCT03176134|168832620|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84470810|NCT02330549|168693701|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment and presence or absence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.17|-0.62|0.2483
84470811|NCT02330549|168693701|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change form Baseline to Week 24||0.01|-0.83|0.053
84470812|NCT02330549|168693702|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-1.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.32||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||3.32|-6.33|0.5297
84470813|NCT02330549|168693702|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|3.2146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.83||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||8.83|-2.4|0.2522
84470814|NCT01156597|168693756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The percent change of HDL and triglycerides from baseline between groups was evaluated by ANOVA using baseline, 12 week and 24 week values||||||0.05
84470815|NCT02658994|168693802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.33|
84470816|NCT02658994|168693803|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.39|
84470817|NCT02658994|168693804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.33|
84718169|NCT02951052|169187292|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||8.8|4.0|<0.001
84470818|NCT02658994|168693805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.96||||||Child Bayley scaled receptive score||0.96|-0.19|
84470819|NCT02658994|168693805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.9||||||Child Bayley scaled fine motor score||0.90|-0.83|
84470820|NCT02658994|168693806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.05||||||||1.05|0.43|
84718170|NCT02951052|169187293|OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||9.1|1.4|0.008
84718171|NCT02951052|169187293|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.0||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA||||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|6.2|-2.2|0.347
84718172|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.2||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.7|-0.2|0.344
84718173|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.4|-0.6|0.785
84470821|NCT02658994|168693807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15||||||Length-for-age z-scores||0.15|-0.32|
84470822|NCT02658994|168693807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||||||Weight-for-age z-scores||0.10|-0.33|
84470823|NCT00262080|168693813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||95.0||||no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.037
84470824|NCT00262080|168693814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|||The analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.044
84470825|NCT00262080|168693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||The Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the two treatment groups.||||0.055
84520244|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.1351|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1729||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1729||
84520245|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.1216|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1577||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.1577||
84718174|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.676||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.909|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.909|-0.557|0.282
84470826|NCT03007485|168693826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Reported p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size and power calculation was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge. First level of analysis was the ITT, which included all the patients randomly assigned to an arm at the beginning of the study (excluding those who were found to not meet inclusion criteria for referral). The second included all the patients medically cleared and third included all the patients who were medically cleared and who had participated in at least 1 PR session.|"The primary outcome was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge (binary: yes/no). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary outcome in terms of the OR of event rates between the 2 arms, in 3 sets of models (per each of the 3 aforementioned level of analyses):~* Model 1: Treatment arm only with no other covariates added to the model~* Model 2: Treatment arm, adjusted for race and clinical site (stratification variables)~* Model 3: Treatment arm, adjusted for race, clinical site, and risk factors reported in the literature to be associated with the primary outcome, for explanatory purposes To examine the role of adherence on the primary outcome, we included adherence as a binary variable and as a continuous variable (percentage of sessions attended) in the 3 models."|||<.05
84470827|NCT01848054|168693831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
84470828|NCT01848054|168693838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
84470829|NCT02420223|168693841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.017
84470830|NCT02420223|168693841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.337
84470831|NCT02420223|168693844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84470832|NCT02420223|168693845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
84470833|NCT02420223|168693846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Likelihood ration Chi-Square test|||||||0.06
84470834|NCT04009096|168693855|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing controls with each vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1, 2 and 3 volunteers who completed CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls (unvaccinated) from CHMI study running in parallel (VAC069 study)||||0.14
84470835|NCT00520676|168693865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||The comparison was conducted at a 1-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Note that the 2-sided p-value for log rank is reported, which is \<0.001, hence 1-sided p-value is \<0.001.|Cox regression model is used for HR estimate.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
84470836|NCT00520676|168693866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.42|0.72|0.934
84470837|NCT00520676|168693867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.29||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.||||1.29|0.72|0.800
84470838|NCT00520676|168693868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.15||The comparison of tumor response rates was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Tumor response rate= # participants with a confirmed best response of CR or PR / # of participants who qualify for the analysis population.|Logistic regression model is used for odds ratio (OR) estimate.|||3.15|0.93|0.081
84470839|NCT00520676|168693869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.55|0.49|0.641
84470840|NCT00520676|168693870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.71|0.40|<0.001
84470841|NCT00520676|168693871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.66|0.35|<0.001
84470842|NCT03439748|168693893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.002
84470843|NCT03439748|168693894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||>.05
84470844|NCT03439748|168693895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.024
84520246|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0405|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0623||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0623||
84470845|NCT03439748|168693899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.922
84470846|NCT03439748|168693900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.049
84470847|NCT03439748|168693901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.591
84470848|NCT03439748|168693902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.004
84470849|NCT03439748|168693903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.030
84470850|NCT03439748|168693904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.029
84470851|NCT03439748|168693906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.494
84520247|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2798|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3329||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.3329||
84520248|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.0052|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0137||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0137||
84470852|NCT03439748|168693907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.231
84470853|NCT03439748|168693908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.344
84470854|NCT03439748|168693909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.267
84540671|NCT03176134|168832620|OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.4|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.4|-10.7|
84470855|NCT03439748|168693910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.051
84470856|NCT03696758|168693911|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
84470857|NCT03696758|168693912|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
84470858|NCT03696758|168693913|OTHER|descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
84470859|NCT03696758|168693914|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.1
84470860|NCT03696758|168693915|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.09||||||p value is 0.09 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.09
84470861|NCT03696758|168693916|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.10
84470862|NCT03696758|168693917|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.82||||||p value is 0.82 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.82
84470863|NCT03696758|168693918|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.3||||||p value is 0.30 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.30
84470864|NCT03696758|168693919|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
84470865|NCT03696758|168693920|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
84470866|NCT03696758|168693921|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.65||||||P-Value is 0.65 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.65
84470867|NCT03696758|168693922|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
84470868|NCT03696758|168693923|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.43||||||P-Value is 0.43 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.43
84470869|NCT03696758|168693924|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.66||||||P-Value is 0.66 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.66
84470870|NCT03696758|168693925|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
84470871|NCT03696758|168693926|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.57||||||P-Value is 0.57 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.57
84718175|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.635||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|1.907|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.907|-0.637|0.327
84470872|NCT03696758|168693927|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
84470873|NCT03696758|168693928|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.07||||||P-Value is 0.07 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.07
84470874|NCT03696758|168693929|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||P-Value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
84718176|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.697||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.494|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.494|-0.100|0.086
84470875|NCT03696758|168693930|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.91||||||P-Value is 0.91 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
84470876|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.215|<0.0001
84470877|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.129|0.031|0.0015
84470878|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.137|0.039|0.0005
84470879|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.324|0.224|<0.0001
84470880|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.138|0.039|0.0004
84470881|NCT01533935|168693954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.147|0.047|0.0001
84470882|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.206|1.065|<0.0001
84470883|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD as divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.182|1.045|0.0009
84470884|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.109|0.981|0.1807
84470885|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.193|1.054|0.0003
84470886|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.170|1.033|0.0029
84718177|NCT02951052|169187294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.696||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|1.505|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.505|-0.113|0.092
84470887|NCT01533935|168693955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.098|0.970|0.3240
84470888|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.004|<0.0001
84470889|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.003|0.0033
84470890|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.2306
84470891|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
84470892|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0010
84470893|NCT01533935|168693956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.000|-0.002|0.1206
84470894|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.364|0.294|<0.0001
84520249|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.0881|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1216||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1216||
84520250|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.3264|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3819||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.3819||
84718178|NCT02951052|169187297|OTHER||Adjusted difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||11.7|4.1|<0.001
84470895|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.169|0.099|<0.0001
84470896|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.170|0.100|<0.0001
84470897|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.340|0.269|<0.0001
84470898|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.075|<0.0001
84470899|NCT01533935|168693957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.146|0.076|<0.0001
84470900|NCT00210158|168694002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|42.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test for a difference of means, assuming independant samples and unequal variances||42.8|-23.4|0.5
84470901|NCT04716933|168694004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.97||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||0.97|0.48|
84470902|NCT04716933|168694005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||1.12|0.54|
84470903|NCT04716933|168694006|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|24.2||||||Comparision based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||24.2|-2.0|
84470904|NCT02913222|168694033|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||A priori criteria for success was that we would achieve 90% adherence to attending treatment sessions. Fisher's exact test compared patient adherence to treatment session rates by site and by group.||||1.0
84470905|NCT02913222|168694034|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||2.11|-6.51|0.32
84520251|NCT00354835|168792451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0104|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0224||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0224||
84726044|NCT02367794|169204377|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.102|||Log Rank|||||1.102|0.784|0.4007
84520252|NCT00354835|168792454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, with or without fever between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by the Fisher's exact test.||||0.99
84520253|NCT00354835|168792454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher diarrhea between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by Fisher's exact test.||||0.036
84520254|NCT00431041|168792468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84520255|NCT00431041|168792469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value represents overall comparison of severity of dry mouth.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
84520256|NCT02637141|168792472|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|11.83|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||11.83|-16.82|0.7271
84520257|NCT02637141|168792472|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|19.85|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.85|-7.07|0.3438
84520258|NCT02637141|168792473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.85||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|25.74|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||25.74|-54.39|0.4746
84520259|NCT02637141|168792473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.28|-3.2|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||-3.2|-79.28|0.0343
84520260|NCT02637141|168792475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4402.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1717.4||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|936.39|7868.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||7868.10|936.39|0.0140
84520261|NCT02637141|168792475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|944.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1167.22||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1410.65|3300.44|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||3300.44|-1410.65|0.4228
84520262|NCT02637141|168792476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|52.29|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||52.29|-16.68|0.3034
84520263|NCT02637141|168792476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.46||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.11|24.28|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||24.28|-38.11|0.6569
84520264|NCT02637141|168792476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.77||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.86|67.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgG||67.20|-40.86|0.6254
84520265|NCT02637141|168792476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.66||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|46.57|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP IgG||46.57|-40.84|0.8955
84520266|NCT02637141|168792477|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Analysis of Total Weekly Bowel Movements at Week 12||1.08|0.63|0.1610
84520267|NCT02637141|168792477|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||||1.32|0.81|0.7810
84520268|NCT02637141|168792479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.33||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.66|10.77|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||10.77|-37.66|0.2761
84520269|NCT02637141|168792479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.66||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|20.27|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||20.27|-25.51|0.8221
84520270|NCT02637141|168792480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||1.3|-6.89|0.1908
84520271|NCT02637141|168792480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.25|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||2.25|-5.53|0.4088
84520272|NCT01597791|168792505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
84520273|NCT03277248|168792532|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.509||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.784||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.784|0.330|0.0022
84520274|NCT03277248|168792533|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.064||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.064|0.019|<.0001
84726045|NCT00946998|169204387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
84520275|NCT03277248|168792534|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.136||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.136|0.073|<.0001
84520276|NCT03277248|168792536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|7.946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.917|12.841||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1-unenhancing, T2, Gd-enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.841|4.917|<.0001
84520277|NCT03277248|168792537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.862||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.246||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.246|0.596|0.4290
84520278|NCT03277248|168792538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.017||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.017|-0.053|0.3108
84470906|NCT02913222|168694035|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||1.99|-13.10|0.14
84470907|NCT02458690|168694077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.60
84470908|NCT02458690|168694078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||<0.01
84470909|NCT02458690|168694079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.81
84470910|NCT02458690|168694080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.20
84520279|NCT01451541|168792543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted pvalues|0.59|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
84520280|NCT01451541|168792543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted p-values.|0.47|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
84470911|NCT02458690|168694081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
84520281|NCT03555695|168792601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84520282|NCT01971554|168792612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|50.3|||||A constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||50.3|11.3|
84520283|NCT01971554|168792612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|51.9|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||51.9|20.0|
84520284|NCT01971554|168792612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.1|70.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||70.0|38.1|
84520285|NCT01971554|168792618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|38.4|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||38.4|6.2|
84520286|NCT01971554|168792618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|43.8|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||43.8|17.4|
84470912|NCT02458690|168694082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.23
84470913|NCT02458690|168694083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
84470914|NCT03345836|168694106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|25.8||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||25.8|10.0|<0.0001
84470915|NCT03345836|168694107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|37.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||37.0|25.5|<0.0001
84470916|NCT03345836|168694109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|33.1||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||33.1|18.7|<0.0001
84470917|NCT03345836|168694110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||21.6|12.0|<0.0001
84470918|NCT03345836|168694111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||34.0|11.1|0.0001
84470919|NCT03345836|168694112|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.8||P-value was calculated using mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||9.8|5.2|< 0.0001
84470920|NCT03345836|168694113|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|31.5||P-value was calculated using MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||31.5|17.2|< 0.0001
84470921|NCT03345836|168694114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|27.8||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||27.8|13.7|<0.0001
84470922|NCT03345836|168694115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|31.2||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||31.2|14.4|<0.0001
84470923|NCT03345836|168694116|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|12.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|19.5||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||19.5|4.7|0.0013
84470924|NCT03345836|168694117|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.6||||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.4||P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using Chi-squared test.|||2.4|-7.6|0.2834
84470925|NCT03345836|168694118|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|11.5||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.4||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||24.4|-1.5|0.0833
84470926|NCT02761993|168694139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.341
84470927|NCT02761993|168694139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.774
84470928|NCT02761993|168694140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.501
84470929|NCT02761993|168694140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.486
84470930|NCT02761993|168694141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.816
84470931|NCT02761993|168694141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.706
84470932|NCT01842620|168694142|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC (0-t) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-36)*100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|107.98|||||Ratio of AUC0-36= (AUC0-36 of Test)/ AUC 0-36 Reference)|Overall period||107.98|92.62|
84470933|NCT01842620|168694143|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC(0-inf) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-inf)*100|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.26|106.27|||||Ratio of AUC0-inf= (AUC0-inf of Test) / (AUC 0-inf of Reference)|For overall period||106.27|92.26|
84470934|NCT01842620|168694144|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for Cmax of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of Cmax)*100|98.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.54|109.22|||||Ratio of Cmax= (Cmax of Test) / (Cmax of Reference)|Overall period||109.22|88.54|
84470935|NCT01515306|168694155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.29|0.93|
84470936|NCT01515306|168694157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.13|0.83|
84470937|NCT04973228|168694163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 8||4.45|1.75|<0.0001
84470938|NCT04973228|168694164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||5.19|1.68|0.0001
84520287|NCT01971554|168792618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|62.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||62.0|35.6|
84520288|NCT01426854|168792619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84470939|NCT04973228|168694165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||4.67|1.47|0.0007
84470940|NCT04973228|168694166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.34|1.41|0.0016
84470941|NCT04973228|168694167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 2||3.84|1.54|0.0002
84470942|NCT04973228|168694168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 4||5.03|2.06|<0.0001
84470943|NCT04973228|168694169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Scaling Score of 0 at Week 8||3.73|1.56|<0.0001
84470944|NCT04973228|168694170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Erythema Score of 0 at Week 8||5.06|2.05|<0.0001
84470945|NCT05299983|168694175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
84470946|NCT05299983|168694176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84470947|NCT05299983|168694177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
84470948|NCT05299983|168694178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84470949|NCT02614287|168694179|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84470950|NCT02614287|168694183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive (TE ADA+)||||.215
84470951|NCT02614287|168694184|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.76|0.60
84470952|NCT02614287|168694185|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.72|.835
84470953|NCT02614287|168694186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.467||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|2.197|||CPLRM|CPLRM: Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model||||2.197|0.979|.063
84470954|NCT02614287|168694187|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.96|.937
84470955|NCT02614287|168694188|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.40|0.073
84470956|NCT02614287|168694189|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-4.65|.747
84470957|NCT02614287|168694190|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||5.03|-1.07|0.203
84470958|NCT02614287|168694190|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Restrictive Domain Score||4.98|-1.29|.247
84470959|NCT02614287|168694190|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Preventive Domain Score||4.19|-1.67|0.399
84470960|NCT02614287|168694190|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Function Domain Score||6.64|-0.46|0.88
84470961|NCT02891798|168694193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Total Score Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.003
84470962|NCT02891798|168694194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Continuous Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.001
84470963|NCT02891798|168694195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Intermittent Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.038
84470964|NCT02891798|168694196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at post-operative day 1 between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.009
84470965|NCT02891798|168694197|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the QoR-15 Total Score.||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.861
84470966|NCT02891798|168694198|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the Standing Balance test.||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Standing Balance Test score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.512
84470967|NCT02891798|168694199|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower rate for the Self-Selected Gait Speed test.||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Self-Selected Gait Speed rate at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.339
84470968|NCT02891798|168694200|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower time for the Repeated Chair Stand test.||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Repeated Chair Stand time at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.711
84470969|NCT01694420|168694208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Study data compared to data as cited in PubMed ID: 21487250|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84470970|NCT03725202|168694211|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||27.8|6.3|=0.0019
84470971|NCT03725202|168694211|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.1|||=|0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||24.6|-0.4|=0.0579
84470972|NCT03725202|168694212|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||30.2|11.3|<0.0001
84470973|NCT03725202|168694212|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.9|||=|0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||20.6|-0.8|=0.0699
84470974|NCT03725202|168694213|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
84470975|NCT03725202|168694213|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
84470976|NCT03725202|168694214|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|0.826|||Log-rank test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.826|0.399|=0.0025
84520289|NCT03505151|168792621|OTHER||Ratio T/R|44.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.9||||90.0|32.62|61.06|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Absolute bioavailability was evaluated using an Analysis of variance model (ANOVA) on BI 409306 AUC0-inf versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||61.06|32.62|
84520290|NCT03505151|168792622|OTHER||Ratio T/R|47.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.8||||90.0|27.38|81.55|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Ratios of BI 409306 for Cmax versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. was evaluated using ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||81.55|27.38|
84718179|NCT02951052|169187297|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||10.4|3.3|<0.001
84718180|NCT02951052|169187297|OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||14.4|7.1|<0.001
84718181|NCT00391443|169187322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.097|||Log Rank|||||1.097|0.658|0.2110
84718182|NCT00391443|169187323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk reduction|0.17||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39|||Fisher Exact|||||0.39|-0.13|0.2542
84470977|NCT03725202|168694214|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75|||=|0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.136|||Log-rank test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.136|0.499|=0.1778
84718183|NCT05934292|169187336|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.31|||||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.31|0.98|
84718184|NCT05934292|169187336|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.74|||Geometric Mean Ratio||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.74|0.74|
84470978|NCT03725202|168694215|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.74|0.29|=0.0014
84470979|NCT03725202|168694215|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.03|0.35|=0.0633
84470980|NCT03725202|168694216|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||40.2|20.4|<0.0001
84470981|NCT03725202|168694216|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
84470982|NCT03725202|168694217|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||31.9|9.7|=0.0002
84520291|NCT01942135|168792631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.56||The overall Type-I error rate was persevered at 1-sided 0.025 level for the analysis of the primary endpoint PFS by the Haybittle-Peto efficacy boundary. The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.00135.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||0.560|0.318|<0.000001
84520292|NCT01942135|168792633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814|||=|0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.029||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by the presence of visceral metastases and sensitivity to prior endocrine therapy per randomization.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||1.029|0.644|=0.0429
84520293|NCT01942135|168792635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|5.603||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||5.603|1.563|0.0001
84540379|NCT02548156|168831551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS mean|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||From ANCOVA of log transformed data: subject (random), treatment (fixed) and period (fixed) as factors, participant-level baseline and period-level baseline minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference from ANCOVA of log transformed data. This therefore represents the ratio of the first named treatment to the second named treatment. A ratio \>1 favors the first named treatment.|Test and Reference dentifrice combined vs. Comparator dentifrice||||<0.0001
84718185|NCT05934292|169187336|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.78|1.10|
84470983|NCT03725202|168694217|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2|||=|0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||16.0|-9.6|=0.6276
84470984|NCT03725202|168694218|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.7526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1981|=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3932|6.1119|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.1119|1.3932|=0.0019
84718186|NCT05934292|169187336|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.77|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.77|0.77|
84718187|NCT05934292|169187337|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.46|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.46|1.05|
84718188|NCT05934292|169187337|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.72|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.72|0.37|
84718189|NCT05934292|169187337|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.54|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.54|0.80|
84718190|NCT05934292|169187337|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.78|0.78|
84718191|NCT05934292|169187338|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.37|0.71|
84718192|NCT05934292|169187338|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.04|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.04|0.34|
84718193|NCT05934292|169187338|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.27|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.27|0.64|
84718194|NCT05934292|169187338|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.78|0.78|
84718195|NCT05934292|169187341|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.02|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.02|0.43|
84718196|NCT05934292|169187341|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.35|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.35|0.58|
84718197|NCT05934292|169187341|OTHER||Geomtric Mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.91|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.91|0.36|
84718198|NCT05934292|169187341|OTHER||Geomtric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.29|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.29|0.57|
84520294|NCT01942135|168792637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|4.565||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An odds ratio \> 1 means better clinical benefit response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||4.565|2.046|<0.0001
84520295|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.0||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for Global health status/ QoL||6.0|0.3|0.0313
84718199|NCT05934292|169187342|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.67|0.83|
84718200|NCT05934292|169187342|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.5|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.50|0.78|
84718201|NCT05934292|169187342|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.89|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.89|0.50|
84718202|NCT05934292|169187342|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.97|||||GMR and 90% CI for AUC0-inf were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.97|1.00|
84718203|NCT05934292|169187347|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
84718204|NCT05934292|169187347|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
84718205|NCT05934292|169187348|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
84718206|NCT05934292|169187348|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
84718207|NCT05934292|169187349|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.55|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.55|0.16|
84718208|NCT05934292|169187349|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.36|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.36|0.06|
84718209|NCT04121741|169187356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.864
84718210|NCT04121741|169187356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.913
84718211|NCT04121741|169187357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.290
84718212|NCT04121741|169187357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.462|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.462
84718213|NCT04121741|169187358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.005
84726046|NCT00946998|169204388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Represents the response outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
84726047|NCT00946998|169204388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Represents remission outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84726048|NCT00946998|169204389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
84726049|NCT00946998|169204390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84520296|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for physical functioning||3.5|-1.4|0.4000
84540672|NCT03176134|168832621|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84718214|NCT04121741|169187358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.570
84718215|NCT01084863|169187368|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence was predefined based on acceptance criteria, 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|116.78||||||||116.78|93.64|
84718216|NCT03473223|169187379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8126|1.0538||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0538|0.8126|0.121
84718217|NCT03473223|169187380|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.971||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8442|1.1171||1-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression model|||||1.1171|0.8442|0.341
84718218|NCT03473223|169187381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8132|1.0106||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0106|0.8132|0.038
84718219|NCT03473223|169187382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8511|1.0224||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0224|0.8511|0.069
84718220|NCT03473223|169187383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6399|1.0695||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0695|0.6399|0.074
84718221|NCT03473223|169187384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7801|1.0603||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0603|0.7801|0.113
84520297|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for role functioning||5.3|-1.5|0.2615
84520298|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.4||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for emotional functioning||7.4|1.7|0.0016
84520299|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for cognitive functioning||3.8|-1.4|0.3650
84718222|NCT03473223|169187385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7867|1.6886||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.6886|0.7867|0.767
84718223|NCT00220805|169187473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy comparison for the change in LogMAR from baseline to endpoint was a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment group and center as fixed factors (main effect model).||||0.49
84718224|NCT00220805|169187474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
84718225|NCT00220805|169187475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)||||||0.13
84718226|NCT00220805|169187476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.21|0.90
84718227|NCT00220805|169187478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted to centers||||||0.74
84718228|NCT02879318|169187549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.1.|Log Rank|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant therapy.||||1.25|0.71|0.72
84718229|NCT02879318|169187550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.29|0.75|0.91
84520300|NCT01942135|168792641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for social functioning||3.5|-3.4|0.9615
84718230|NCT02879318|169187551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy||||2.72|0.81|0.28
84718231|NCT05155306|169187561|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|99.7|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.067.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.7|79.5|
84718232|NCT05155306|169187561|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.9|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.022.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.9|94.4|
84726050|NCT00946998|169204391|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For death|Chi-squared|||||||>.99
84718233|NCT05155306|169187561|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.1|227.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.069.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||227.5|180.1|
84718234|NCT05155306|169187561|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|173.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.3|190.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.055.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||190.8|158.3|
84718235|NCT05155306|169187562|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|99.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.106.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.0|69.6|
84718236|NCT05155306|169187562|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|112.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.070.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.0|88.7|
84718237|NCT05155306|169187562|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|153.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|187.3|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.121.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.3|126.0|
84718238|NCT05155306|169187562|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|121.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.6|147.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.120.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||147.8|99.6|
84718239|NCT05155306|169187563|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|100.4|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.066.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.4|80.4|
84718240|NCT05155306|169187563|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|104.1|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.021.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.1|96.8|
84718241|NCT05155306|169187563|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.6|228.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.072.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||228.5|179.6|
84718242|NCT05155306|169187563|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|172.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.2|187.7|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.050.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.7|158.2|
84718243|NCT04098575|169187643|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84718244|NCT04098575|169187644|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.835
84718245|NCT04098575|169187645|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antihypertensive drugs||||<0.001
84718246|NCT04098575|169187645|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Lipid-lowering agents||||<0.001
84718247|NCT04098575|169187645|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antiplatelet, anticoagulant drugs||||<0.001
84718248|NCT04098575|169187645|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucose-lowering therapies||||<0.001
84718249|NCT04098575|169187646|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \< 65||||<0.001
84718250|NCT04098575|169187646|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 65 ≤ 75||||0.001
84718251|NCT04098575|169187646|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 75 - 80||||<0.001
84718252|NCT04098575|169187646|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \> 80||||<0.002
84718253|NCT04098575|169187647|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84718254|NCT04098575|169187648|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84718255|NCT04098575|169187649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84718256|NCT04098575|169187650|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
84718257|NCT04098575|169187651|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
84718258|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Insulin||||<0.001
84718259|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Metformin||||<0.001
84718260|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Acarbose||||0.157
84718261|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfonylurea||||<0.001
84718262|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors||||0.071
84718263|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists||||0.317
84718264|NCT04098575|169187652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sodium-glucose transport protein-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors other than empagliflozin||||<0.001
84718265|NCT04098575|169187653|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.002
84718266|NCT04098575|169187656|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.000
84718267|NCT05274321|169187657|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.22||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.22
84718268|NCT05274321|169187658|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval. .||||||0.02||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.02
84718269|NCT05274321|169187659|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.03||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.03
84718270|NCT05274321|169187660|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.25||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.25
84718271|NCT03260569|169187687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84718272|NCT02382003|169187720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, 0.030=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.833=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 7.053=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.366=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.005
84718273|NCT02382003|169187720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.449||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.799
84718274|NCT02382003|169187720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.085||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 0.026=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 0.094=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 0.170=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.136|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 7.328=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 4.722=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 3.547=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≤3.988|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.011
84718275|NCT02382003|169187721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.551||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||"=Positive\~No-training, 0.130=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.269=50/50\~No-training~Alpha = .05"|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=Positive\~No-training, 2=Positive\~50/50 training, 2=50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 4.075=Positive\~50/50 training, 2.630=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.003
84718276|NCT02382003|169187721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.933||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime||Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.140
84725903|NCT01159600|169203844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.81|-1.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-1.48|-13.81|0.0055
84718277|NCT02382003|169187721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.018||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,0.049=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.198,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.104,0.014=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.627=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,0.021=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.764=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≥0.067|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,6.041=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.240,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤4.534,8.525=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.933=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,7.686=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.537=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≤5.395|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.049
84718278|NCT02382003|169187722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\<0.001, 0.124=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 31.921=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.175=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
84718279|NCT02382003|169187722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.634||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.728
84718280|NCT02382003|169187722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 0.026=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 0.002=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 0.091=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≥ 0.081, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)\< 0.001|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 7.306=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 12.672=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 4.802=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≤5.037, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)≥16.239|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
84718281|NCT02382003|169187723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\< 0.001, 0.100=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 15.288=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.605=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||< 0.001
84718282|NCT02382003|169187723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.011||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.135
84718283|NCT02382003|169187723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.402||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx\<0.048, Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut\<0.001, 0.055=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.139, 0.034=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 0.340=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.087|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 6.076=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 14.525=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 5.811=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.950, 6.770=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 2.158=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≤4.876|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.009
84718284|NCT01983683|169187764|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||1.3|-10.7|
84718285|NCT01983683|169187764|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||2.3|-9.6|
84718286|NCT01983683|169187765|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.6|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||0.6|-10.4|
84726051|NCT00946998|169204391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||For comparison of dialysis initiation between groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
84520301|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for fatigue||1.5|-4.5|0.3200
84520302|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for nausea and vomiting||-0.2|-4.8|0.0369
84520303|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-2.1||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for pain||-2.1|-8.5|0.0011
84520304|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for dyspnoea||2.8|-3.7|0.7699
84520305|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for insomnia||1.6|-5.5|0.2721
84718287|NCT01983683|169187766|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||9.4|-6.1|
84718288|NCT01983683|169187767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.7794
84718289|NCT01983683|169187768|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.17|-0.26|0.6871
84718290|NCT01983683|169187768|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.025||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.20|-0.15|0.7833
84718291|NCT01983683|169187768|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.061||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the other symptoms domain scores||0.21|-0.09|0.4145
84520306|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for appetite loss||2.9|-4.1|0.7334
84718292|NCT01983683|169187769|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||4.2|-6.5|
84718293|NCT01983683|169187770|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||3.3|-6.5|
84718294|NCT01983683|169187771|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||16.4|1.1|
84520307|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for constipation||3.9|-2.5|0.6491
84520308|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for diarrhoea||1.7|-2.8|0.6293
84718295|NCT01983683|169187772|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.9|-5.5|
84718296|NCT03373916|169187814|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
84718297|NCT03373916|169187815|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84718298|NCT03373916|169187816|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84718299|NCT03373916|169187817|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84718300|NCT03373916|169187818|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
84718301|NCT02422615|169187837|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.593||||4.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.480|0.00000041
84718302|NCT02422615|169187838|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.724||||0.00455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.924|||Log Rank|||||0.924|0.568|0.00455
84718303|NCT02422615|169187839|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|0.703||||||||0.703|0.345|
84718304|NCT01288443|169187852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 100 mg Q2W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~5. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level"||||<0.0001
84718305|NCT01288443|169187852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84718306|NCT01288443|169187852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84718307|NCT01288443|169187852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84718308|NCT01288443|169187852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84718309|NCT04327843|169187861|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed||||||0.001
84718310|NCT04327843|169187862|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.43
84718311|NCT04327843|169187863|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.07||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.07
84718312|NCT04327843|169187864|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.10
84718313|NCT04327843|169187865|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
84718314|NCT04327843|169187866|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||1.00
84718315|NCT04327843|169187868|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
84718316|NCT04327843|169187869|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.14
84718317|NCT01617369|169187870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test performed. Null hypothesis is that no difference in clearance 30 min and 4 hr after HS inhalation exists||||<.05
84718318|NCT00692913|169187879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.12|<0.001
84718319|NCT00692913|169187880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-9.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.49|-4.93|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.93|-14.49|<0.001
84718320|NCT00692913|169187881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-7.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.95|-3.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.20|-10.95|<0.001
84718321|NCT00692913|169187882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.13|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.13|<0.001
84718322|NCT00692913|169187883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.01||||0.047||95.0|0.01|2.0|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Lumbar Spine.|||2.00|0.01|0.047
84718323|NCT00692913|169187883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82||||0.035||95.0|0.06|1.58|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Total Hip.|||1.58|0.06|0.035
84718324|NCT00692913|169187884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of falls (falls/patient-year)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.675||95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression|Adjusted by the terms for treatment, baseline 25(OH) D level stratum, age, and region and offset variable of log (total patient-years in the study).||||0.19|-0.12|0.675
84718325|NCT00692913|169187885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.35||||0.001||95.0|-13.19|-3.54|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.54|-13.19|0.001
84718326|NCT00692913|169187886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.94|-4.21|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.21|-11.94|<0.001
84718327|NCT05441449|169187945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84718328|NCT05441449|169187945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84718329|NCT05441449|169187945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84718330|NCT05441449|169187946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.043
84718331|NCT05441449|169187946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
84718332|NCT05441449|169187946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84718333|NCT05441449|169187947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
84718334|NCT05441449|169187947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84718335|NCT05441449|169187948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.374
84718336|NCT05441449|169187948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
84718337|NCT05441449|169187948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
84718338|NCT01074294|169187981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between Least Squares (LS) means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||3.19|-1.80|0.5845
84718339|NCT01074294|169187982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.18||The p-value was derived using ANCOVA model with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.18|-1.37|0.8832
84718340|NCT01074294|169187983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.86||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.86|-0.72|0.3864
84718341|NCT01074294|169187984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58||The p value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.58|0.10|0.0061
84718342|NCT01074294|169187985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.46||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.46|-1.64|0.6932
84718343|NCT01074294|169187986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.2781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.28||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.28|-0.66|0.2781
84718344|NCT01074294|169187986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.49||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.49|-1.15|0.4673
84718345|NCT01074294|169187986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.79||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.79|-1.54|0.5719
84718346|NCT01074294|169187986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.83||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||2.83|-1.70|0.6262
84718347|NCT01074294|169187986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.87||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.87|-1.06|0.2638
84718348|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.37|-0.52|0.3804
84718349|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.39||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.39|-0.86|0.6422
84718350|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.55|-1.00|0.6707
84520309|NCT01942135|168792642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for financial difficulties||3.6|-3.1|0.8812
84726052|NCT00946998|169204391|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Hospitalization other than dialysis initiation|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84726053|NCT00946998|169204391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||For comparison of acute suicidal intent.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84718351|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.64|-1.04|0.6638
84718352|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.36|-0.56|0.2252
84718353|NCT01074294|169187987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.7||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.70|-1.14|0.6970
84718354|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.11||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.11|-0.64|0.6008
84718355|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.27|-0.72|0.5859
84718356|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.34||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.34|-0.96|0.7406
84718357|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.37|-1.14|0.8568
84718358|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.64|-0.96|0.6044
84718359|NCT01074294|169187988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.66||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.66|-1.08|0.6772
84718360|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.15|-0.87|0.7881
84718361|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.19|-1.38|0.8841
84718362|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.17|-1.61|0.7589
84718363|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.93||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.93|-1.01|0.5375
84718364|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.08||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.08|-0.92|0.4456
84726054|NCT00946998|169204391|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For comparison of bleeding requiring blood transfusion or hospitalization.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84726055|NCT01857362|169204392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geomectric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.045|||ANOVA|||||1.045|0.988|
84718365|NCT01074294|169187989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.89||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.89|-1.21|0.6670
84718366|NCT01074294|169187990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.01||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.01|-0.97|0.9708
84718367|NCT01074294|169187990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.63||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.63|-0.65|0.3970
84718368|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 7||1.50|0.68|0.9568
84718369|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 9||1.31|0.63|0.6308
84718370|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 11||1.32|0.64|0.6698
84718371|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 7||1.15|0.50|0.2012
84718372|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 9||1.16|0.52|0.2365
84718373|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 11||0.96|0.44|0.0312
84520310|NCT01942135|168792643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for body image||5.2|-0.7|0.1386
84520311|NCT01942135|168792643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual functioning||1.6|-3.1|0.5235
84718374|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 7||1.81|0.69|0.6408
84718375|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 9||1.96|0.79|0.3467
84718376|NCT01074294|169187991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 11||1.59|0.65|0.9437
84718377|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.12|-1.30|0.6357
84540673|NCT03176134|168832621|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84718378|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.48||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.48|-1.56|0.6536
84718379|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.06||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.06|-2.20|0.9475
84718380|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.29||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||3.29|-1.31|0.3973
84718381|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|3.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.91|-0.96|0.2336
84718382|NCT01074294|169187992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.44||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||3.44|-1.55|0.4553
84520312|NCT01942135|168792643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual enjoyment||7.3|-4.4|0.6271
84718383|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.27|-0.70|0.5647
84718384|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.12|-1.15|0.9739
84718385|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.09|-1.40|0.8077
84718386|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.65||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.65|-0.98|0.6119
84718387|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.76||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.76|-0.94|0.5513
84718388|NCT01074294|169187993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.95||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.95|-0.81|0.4185
84718389|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.09|-0.80|0.7556
84718390|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.59||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.59|-0.60|0.3710
84726056|NCT01857362|169204393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|ratio of geometric means|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.945|
84718391|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.21|-0.99|0.8464
84718392|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.91|-0.53|0.2664
84718393|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.42||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.42|-0.17|0.0876
84718394|NCT01074294|169187994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.77||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.77|-0.89|0.5119
84718395|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-1.03|0.8986
84718396|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.55|-1.02|0.6850
84718397|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.1||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.10|-1.61|0.7108
84718398|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.36|-1.50|0.9236
84718399|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.61||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.61|-1.35|0.8576
84718400|NCT01074294|169187995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.37|-1.67|0.8483
84718401|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||0.15|-0.22|0.6976
84718402|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||0.17|-0.25|0.6986
84718403|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||0.19|-0.30|0.6507
84718404|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||0.20|-0.32|0.6550
84726580|NCT04791917|169204916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the sham DOMS group.||||.49
84718405|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||0.38|-0.15|0.3959
84718406|NCT01074294|169187996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||0.35|-0.23|0.6763
84718407|NCT01074294|169187997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.91|-0.37|0.4089
84718408|NCT01074294|169187998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||Week 11 data is included here. The planned sample size of 225 participants (150 in brexipiprazole arm and 75 in the placebo arm) yielded at least 80% power to detect effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test.|||0.20|-0.80|0.2331
84718409|NCT01074294|169187999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.00|-0.01|0.0670
84718410|NCT01074294|169188000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|1.98||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.98|-30.5|0.0849
84718411|NCT01074294|169188001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.6||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.60|-3.52|0.7663
84718412|NCT01074294|169188002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.51||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|33.29||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||33.29|1.73|0.0298
84718413|NCT01074294|169188003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2563
84718414|NCT01074294|169188004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.67||||0.6644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|20.06||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||20.06|-31.4|0.6644
84718415|NCT01074294|169188005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.45||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.45|-0.56|0.8418
84718416|NCT01074294|169188006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.18||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.18|-0.69|0.2513
84718417|NCT01074294|169188007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.71||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.71|-0.48|0.7037
84520313|NCT01942135|168792643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for future perspective||7.6|-0.5|0.0845
84520314|NCT01942135|168792644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for systemic therapy side effects||2.3|-1.6|0.7273
84718418|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||0.23|-0.17|0.7572
84718419|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||0.17|-0.28|0.6132
84718420|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||0.27|-0.25|0.9312
84718421|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||0.24|-0.30|0.8073
84718422|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||0.29|-0.26|0.9168
84718423|NCT01074294|169188008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||0.25|-0.34|0.7432
84718424|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.42|0.60|0.6014
84718425|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.63|0.64|0.9225
84520315|NCT01942135|168792644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for breast symptoms||0.7|-2.6|0.2671
84520316|NCT01942135|168792644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for arm symptoms||2.2|-2.6|0.8750
84520317|NCT01942135|168792644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for upset by hair loss||16.6|1.1|0.0255
84718426|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.3||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.30|0.58|0.4803
84718427|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.27|0.65|0.5876
84718428|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.18|0.64|0.3727
84540674|NCT03176134|168832621|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84718429|NCT01074294|169188009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.71|0.6265
84718430|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.03|0.40|0.8586
84718431|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.99||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.99|0.46|0.8984
84718432|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.74||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.74|0.57|0.9778
84718433|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.50|0.56|0.7315
84718434|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.6518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.42|0.57|0.6518
84718435|NCT01074294|169188010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.55|0.3472
84718436|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.16|0.44|0.9577
84718437|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.27|0.63|0.5864
84718438|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.6||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.60|0.57|0.8723
84718439|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.52|0.65|0.9872
84718440|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.23|0.52|0.3171
84718441|NCT01074294|169188011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.27|0.60|0.4782
84718442|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.19||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.19|0.45|0.7232
84718443|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.13|0.46|0.9860
84718444|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.95||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.95|0.52|0.9858
84718445|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.78||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.78|0.58|0.9466
84718446|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.0||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||2.00|0.63|0.6962
84718447|NCT01074294|169188012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.51||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.51|0.57|0.7637
84718448|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.33||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.33|0.73|0.3631
84718449|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.35|0.78|0.2786
84540675|NCT03176134|168832621|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
84718450|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.62||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.62|0.72|0.7062
84718451|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.35|0.67|0.7844
84718452|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.48||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.48|0.77|0.6940
84718453|NCT01074294|169188013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.39|0.76|0.8697
84718454|NCT00112359|169188016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.98||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|12.47||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||12.47|3.50|0.0006
84718455|NCT00112359|169188017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.43||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||11.43|1.22|0.0154
84718456|NCT00112359|169188020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.288|14.299||Analysis based on two-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of the methods used to control the family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.), and Day 0 FEV1. Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in percent change in FEV1 at Day 28.||14.299|6.288|<0.0001
84718457|NCT00112359|169188021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|-0.791||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change in log10 PA CFUs in sputum at Day 28.||-0.791|-2.115|< 0.0001
84718458|NCT00112359|169188022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2364||95.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment for proportion of subjects using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics at least once during study.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||0.2364
84718459|NCT00112359|169188023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|15.11||"Primary endpoint analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~A sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided approximately 77% power to detect an 8-point difference in CFQ-R RSS score between treatment groups, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 20 and a Type I error rate of 0.05."||15.11|4.31|0.0005
84718460|NCT00112359|169188024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment group for proportion of participants hospitalized at least once between Day 0 and Day 42 (or 14 days after last study dose).||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants hospitalized at least once during the study.||||0.0640
84520318|NCT01942135|168792645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.07|0.00|0.0308
84718461|NCT00312208|169188033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.978||95.0|0.86|1.16||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.978
84718462|NCT00312208|169188034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.371||95.0|0.75|1.11||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.75|0.371
84718463|NCT03593356|169188039|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.717
84718464|NCT03593356|169188042|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.789.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.784
84718465|NCT03593356|169188043|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.474
84718466|NCT03593356|169188050|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.791.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
84718467|NCT03593356|169188051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.646.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
84718468|NCT03593356|169188052|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.872
84718469|NCT03593356|169188055|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.184|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.184
84718470|NCT03593356|169188058|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.427.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.415
84718471|NCT03593356|169188059|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.567|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.541.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.567
84718472|NCT03275285|169188294|SUPERIORITY|For PFS, the nominal significance levels at primary analysis was determined using alpha-spending function in order to control overall 1-sided type 1 error at 2.5%. The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis (103 PFS events) was 0.005. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.318|0.889||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.005.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||0.889|0.318|0.0007
84520319|NCT01942135|168792646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.5|-1.9|0.5523
84718473|NCT03275285|169188295|SUPERIORITY|The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis was 0.004. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.317|0.948||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.004.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arm based on primary analysis.||0.948|0.317|0.0016
84718474|NCT03275285|169188296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.418|0.792|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.792|0.418|
84718475|NCT03275285|169188297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.424|0.832|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.832|0.424|
84540676|NCT03915652|168832622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and appointment nonadherence during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||1.02|-2.88|0.34
84718476|NCT03275285|169188298|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the Type I error rate from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints. No further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS and testing on subsequent endpoints were continued only if the null hypothesis for the previously tested endpoint was rejected.||||||0.193||||||One-sided p-value based on Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Threshold for statistical significance level at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on randomization factors according to IRT.||Statistical analysis for comparison of Overall Response between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||||0.1930
84718477|NCT03275285|169188305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.672|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.672|0.269|
84718478|NCT03275285|169188306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.757|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.757|0.324|
84470985|NCT03725202|168694218|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.6094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4185|=|0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|5.4028|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||5.4028|-0.1841|=0.0670
84470986|NCT03725202|168694219|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.8|0.4|0.0010
84470987|NCT03725202|168694219|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.8|||=|0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.2|0.6|=0.2722
84470988|NCT03725202|168694220|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.76|1.33|=0.0036
84470989|NCT03725202|168694220|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.70|0.27|=0.0338
84470990|NCT03725202|168694221|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.7325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9635|=|0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|8.567|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||8.5670|-3.1020|=0.3573
84470991|NCT03725202|168694221|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|5.4216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4785|=|0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4269|12.2701|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||12.2701|-1.4269|=0.1203
84520320|NCT01942135|168792647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.846||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided alpha=0.025. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Unstratified log-rank test (1-sided)|1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|Treatment with palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed TTD in pain symptom compared with placebo plus fulvestrant for unstratified analysis.||0.846|0.487|<0.001
84520321|NCT02535923|168792684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84520322|NCT02535923|168792684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
84718479|NCT03275285|169188307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.471|||||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|1.471|0.888|
84718480|NCT03275285|169188308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.233|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||1.233|0.740|
84470992|NCT03725202|168694222|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.6|0.8|=0.4371
84470993|NCT03725202|168694222|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.9|||=|0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.4|0.6|=0.7749
84470994|NCT00495495|168694223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.1126|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the HealOzone and Placebo devices in the proportion of teeth with lesion progression after 1 year.~Power calculation: the study was sized to have 90% power to detect a 15% difference between treatments in the percentage of teeth with lesion progression at one year (i.e., assuming 45% for the lesions treated with the Placebo device and 30% for the lesions treated with the HealOzone device) with a sample size of 258 subjects completing the study."||||0.1126
84470995|NCT00495495|168694224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.9777|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||.9777
84470996|NCT00495495|168694225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0416|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.0416
84470997|NCT00495495|168694226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.6585|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.6585
84470998|NCT00495495|168694227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.7666|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.7666
84470999|NCT02702518|168694228|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||<0.001
84520323|NCT02535923|168792685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
84520324|NCT02535923|168792686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
84520325|NCT02535923|168792687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.16
84471000|NCT02702518|168694228|OTHER|||||||0.2324||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2324
84718481|NCT03275285|169188309|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|[Stratified Hazard Ratio]|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.941|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.941|0.496|
84471001|NCT02702518|168694229|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||0.001
84471002|NCT02702518|168694229|OTHER|||||||0.2257||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2257
84471003|NCT01575197|168694247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
84471004|NCT01575197|168694248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84471005|NCT01575197|168694249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
84471006|NCT01575197|168694250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
84471007|NCT00833248|168694265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.14|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||FAS. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.14|-4.74|0.8942
84471008|NCT00833248|168694266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.52|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||PP analysis set. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.52|-5.05|0.9123
84520326|NCT02535923|168792688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
84520327|NCT02005562|168792707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
84520328|NCT02005562|168792708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6736
84520329|NCT02005562|168792709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2172
84520330|NCT02005562|168792710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4770
84520331|NCT02005562|168792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0764
84520332|NCT02005562|168792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.418
84520333|NCT02005562|168792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.841
84520334|NCT02005562|168792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.245
84520335|NCT02005562|168792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.637
84520336|NCT02005562|168792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.512
84520337|NCT02005562|168792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 52.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.718
84520338|NCT02005562|168792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.860
84520339|NCT01710358|168792775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
84471009|NCT04026412|168694303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.77|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.19|0.77|0.6460
84471010|NCT04026412|168694304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41||||||||1.41|0.87|
84471011|NCT04026412|168694304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
84471012|NCT04026412|168694304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
84471013|NCT04026412|168694305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
84471014|NCT04026412|168694305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||||||||1.42|0.93|
84471015|NCT04026412|168694306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.6||||||||10.6|-4.1|
84471016|NCT04026412|168694306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.8||||||||14.8|0.7|
84471017|NCT04026412|168694306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||||||||2.5|-11.8|
84471018|NCT04026412|168694309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||||1.23|0.82|
84471019|NCT04026412|168694309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||||||||1.05|0.70|
84471020|NCT04026412|168694309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44||||||||1.44|0.95|
84471021|NCT04026412|168694310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.1||||||||11.1|-4.1|
84471022|NCT04026412|168694310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-2.0|
84471023|NCT04026412|168694310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-9.5|
84471024|NCT04026412|168694313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.23||||||||1.23|0.76|
84520340|NCT01721772|168792810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.60|0.30|<0.0001
84471025|NCT04026412|168694313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||||||||1.06|0.65|
84471026|NCT04026412|168694313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||||||||1.49|0.91|
84471027|NCT00830037|168694316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The analysis of the primary outcome was intention to treat, if the patient received at least one dose of the randomized drug (which was the case for each subject). A linear mixed model was used with GFR as the outcome variable. Fixed effects were indicator variables for time (treated as a continuous variable), treatment, and their interaction. Random effects were subject and time with unstructured covariance; statistical inference was made using the maximum likelihood estimator.||2.3|-2.9|0.79
84471028|NCT00830037|168694317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.365||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The secondary analysis examined the mean change from baseline proteinuria (log protein to creatinine ratio) at 2 years. The between-groups difference in mean change from baseline is reported with a 95% confidence interval and the p-value from the Wald test.||0.365|-0.294|0.83
84471029|NCT02439281|168694322|OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
84471030|NCT02439281|168694323|OTHER|||||||0.8914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8914
84471031|NCT02439281|168694326|OTHER|||||||0.9531|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9531
84471032|NCT02439281|168694327|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7780
84471033|NCT02439281|168694328|OTHER|||||||0.5692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5692
84471034|NCT03280550|168694339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.69||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.69|-1.59|<0.0001
84471035|NCT03280550|168694340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.25|-0.84|0.0004
84471036|NCT03280550|168694341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.06|-0.60|0.0161
84471037|NCT03280550|168694342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.28|-0.84|0.0001
84520341|NCT01721772|168792811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.56|0.34|<0.0001
84520342|NCT01721772|168792813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|7.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.13|2.75|<0.0001
84520343|NCT01721772|168792814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.56|||||PD-L1 positive group|||0.56|0.24|
84471038|NCT03280550|168694343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.60|-1.43|<0.0001
84471039|NCT03280550|168694344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.31|-0.83|<0.0001
84471040|NCT03280550|168694345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-10.38||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-10.38|-21.86|<0.0001
84471041|NCT03280550|168694346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.70|0.0023
84471042|NCT03280550|168694347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
84471043|NCT03280550|168694348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.64||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||17.64|0.00|0.4815
84471044|NCT03280550|168694349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.71|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||13.71|1.00|0.0492
84471045|NCT03280550|168694350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
84471046|NCT03280550|168694351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|29.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||29.60|1.32|0.0209
84471047|NCT03280550|168694352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.96||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-0.96|-2.85|0.0001
84471048|NCT03280550|168694353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.24||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.24|1.38|0.0024
84471049|NCT02094586|168694389|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08||||||Lot A vs. Lot B||1.08|0.78|
84471050|NCT02094586|168694394|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||||||Lot B vs Lot C||1.20|0.87|
84471051|NCT02094586|168694395|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||Lot A vs. Lot C||1.10|0.80|
84471052|NCT00256867|168694396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Expressed as percent difference|-37.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.219|-32.879|||ANCOVA||Estimation parameter was Ratio to RSG Group expressed as percent difference from RSG group. Based on ANCOVA : Log(value) - log(baseline)= log(baseline) + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-32.879|-41.219|<0.0001
84471053|NCT00256867|168694397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Change = Baseline + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-0.55|-1.09|<0.0001
84520344|NCT01721772|168792814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8|||||PD-L1 negative group|||0.80|0.45|
84471054|NCT00256867|168694401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.52|79.85|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use) of having an LDL-c \< 100 mg/dL at Week 6 on All FDC RSG/SIMV groups compared to All RSG monotherapy groups|||79.85|16.52|<.0001
84471055|NCT00256867|168694402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.07|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression: log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an HbA1c \< 7% or reduction of HbA1c \>= 0.7% at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7.07|2.32|<0.0001
84471056|NCT00256867|168694403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.0|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an FPG \< 7.0 mmol/L or reduction of FPG \>= 1.67 mmol/L at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7|2.21|<0.0001
84471057|NCT02993224|168694418|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.89|0.75|<.0001
84471058|NCT02993224|168694419|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||McNemar|||Preference of deferasirox FCT vs deferasirox DT||0.88|0.65|<0.0001
84471059|NCT02993224|168694419|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox FCT vs previous iron chelation therapy||0.91|0.71|<0.0001
84471060|NCT02993224|168694420|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.77|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 4||0.77|0.51|< 0.0001
84471061|NCT02993224|168694420|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 24||0.72|0.44|< 0.0001
84471062|NCT02993224|168694422|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Compliance of deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.9|-8.1|0.1191
84471063|NCT00875017|168694433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-65.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-96.01|-35.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-35.49|-96.01|<0.001
84471064|NCT00875017|168694433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-125.65|||<|0.001||95.0|-155.91|-95.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-95.39|-155.91|<0.001
84471065|NCT00875017|168694433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-59.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-89.87|-29.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-29.93|-89.87|<0.001
84471066|NCT00875017|168694434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|71.9|||<|0.001||95.0|40.03|103.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Phosphorus binding was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||103.77|40.03|<0.001
84471067|NCT00875017|168694435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.67||||0.049||95.0|-41.22|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-0.13|-41.22|0.049
84718482|NCT03275285|169188310|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.895|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.895|0.491|
84471068|NCT00875017|168694435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.56||||0.133||95.0|-36.11|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||4.99|-36.11|0.133
84471069|NCT00875017|168694435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.11||||0.612||95.0|-15.24|25.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||25.47|-15.24|0.612
84471070|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84471071|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84471072|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84520345|NCT01721772|168792817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65||||||||0.65|0.41|
84471073|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.08
84471074|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,14)= 4.55||Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.05
84471075|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84471076|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84471077|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
84471078|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)||||>0.05
84471079|NCT03342469|168694440|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471080|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471081|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84520346|NCT04542694|168792820|SUPERIORITY||The difference in proportions|0.1313||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.2367|||Chi-squared|||A comparative analysis of the rate of clinical status improvement by 2 or more categories. The difference in percentages between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm (pa-pb)||0.2367|-0.0004|0.0372
84520347|NCT04542694|168792821|SUPERIORITY||The difference in days|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparative analysis of time to clinical status improvement by categorical ordinal clinical improvement scale between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm||||<0.0001
84520348|NCT04542694|168792822|SUPERIORITY||The difference in percentages|22.5||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00016
84471082|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1.14)= 4.88, p=0.04||"Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||0.04
84520349|NCT04542694|168792823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.052
84520350|NCT04542694|168792824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1953
84520351|NCT04542694|168792825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4975
84520352|NCT00840658|168792912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the odds of higher receptive needle sharing. (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in receptive needle sharing but the control group will not.)|To examine the receptive needle sharing outcome, we used ordinal logistic regression for correlated data via GEE with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final ordinal logistic regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.036
84520353|NCT00840658|168792913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the mean score IRI (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in the IRI but the control group will not.)|We used gamma regression for correlated data via GEE, with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final gamma regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.013
84520354|NCT05004649|168792932|OTHER|||||||0.024356||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024356
84471083|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84520355|NCT05004649|168792932|OTHER|||||||0.040382||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.040382
84520356|NCT05004649|168792932|OTHER|||||||0.90161||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.90161
84718483|NCT03400150|169188337|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.025
84718484|NCT02278185|169188404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test|This study did not meet it's target accrual goal and thus is underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference between the two groups.|||0.46
84539728|NCT00509795|168829386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.1|2.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 0.5Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||2.1|-5.1|
84725867|NCT00882050|169203813|SUPERIORITY|Demographic data analyzed with nominal data tested by chi-square, ordinal data by Mann-Whitney, and normal data by t-test. Further, a linear regression analysis to determine the effect of intervention dose on glucose level and typical confounders such as age, weight, and type of surgery was completed. Adverse and SAEs were analyzed by chi-square for occurrence.||||||0.05||||||Due to have 3 trial groups our p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons as a a priori threshold (if a single comparison) was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The regression (see above) is a secondary analysis. Groups had been stratified on diabetic (y/n) to balance this potential confounder||Primary t tests of glucose between the 3 groups at 90 minutes post. Secondary MANOVA to determine the effect over time. Change in mean glucose of 20 mg/dl between all groups detectable by 18 subjects per group assuming a SD of 20mg/dl., an 82% power with an alpha of 0.05. Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.||||0.05
84471084|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471085|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471086|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons"||||>0.05
84471087|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471088|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471089|NCT03342469|168694441|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471090|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,15) = 3.65, p = 0.08||"Difference in inattentive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471091|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in hyperactive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471092|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84540380|NCT03052751|168831555|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.7|||=|0.221|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline QMG score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.8||=0.221
84471093|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"inattentive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471094|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Hyperactive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471095|NCT03342469|168694442|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
84471096|NCT05515601|168694453|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.05||||||||1.05|0.929|
84471097|NCT05515601|168694454|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.08||||||||1.08|0.948|
84471098|NCT05515601|168694455|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.960|
84471099|NCT00088634|168694475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline BPRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
84471100|NCT00088634|168694476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline PANSS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
84520357|NCT00270634|168792980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.3|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|The 6-month BPAR rate was used to calculate an estimate of the difference in rates between each VCS group and TAC, combining across pooled investigative center strata, weighted by the number of patients in each of the pooled center strata. The overall standard error was estimated for the linear combination of proportions. Using this statistic and its standard error, the upper bound one-sided 95% C.I. was constructed for the difference in BPAR rates between groups (VCS - TAC).||1.3||
84540381|NCT03052751|168831556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.8|||=|0.089|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"MMRM ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline MG-composite score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.4||=0.089
84725868|NCT02158806|169203822|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Placebo group = reference group|Placebo group = reference group||1.13|0.64|0.246
84471101|NCT00088634|168694477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
84471102|NCT00088634|168694478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline MADRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
84725869|NCT02158806|169203823|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.76|0.073
84471103|NCT02426658|168694479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7044
84471104|NCT03453151|168694506|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.053
84471105|NCT03453151|168694507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84471106|NCT03453151|168694508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84471107|NCT03453151|168694509|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the resting cardiac index.||||||0.077
84471108|NCT03453151|168694509|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the peak exercise cardiac index.||||||0.069
84471109|NCT03453151|168694511|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to creatinine level.||||||0.250
84471110|NCT03453151|168694511|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to BUN level.||||||0.014
84471111|NCT02227329|168694512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84471112|NCT02592629|168694513|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84471113|NCT01204658|168694515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
84471114|NCT01204658|168694515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
84471115|NCT01204658|168694515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.62|0.003
84471116|NCT01204658|168694515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
84471117|NCT01204658|168694516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
84471118|NCT01204658|168694516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
84520358|NCT00270634|168792980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||10.8||
84520359|NCT00270634|168792980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||11.4||
84471119|NCT01204658|168694516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.66||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.66|-2.63|0.003
84471120|NCT01204658|168694516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
84471121|NCT04594239|168694543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|85.6||||||||85.6|66.3|
84471122|NCT04594239|168694543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|85.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|92.3||||||||92.3|70.5|
84471123|NCT04594239|168694543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|71.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|82.5||||||||82.5|55.2|
84471124|NCT04237207|168694549|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of AutoSense on the M90 processor compared to AutoSound on the Q90 processor for the AzBio sentence test in quiet mode based on a paired t-test. The primary efficacy analyses will test the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quiet mode (AutoSense on M90 - AutoSound on Q90) are less than or equal to -10 percentage points.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
84471125|NCT04237207|168694550|NON_INFERIORITY|The 1st secondary endpoint was to demonstrate that speech recognition in noise with AutoSense on a 301-M062 processor was no worse than speech recognition in noise with currently approved software on a Q90 processor.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
84471126|NCT04237207|168694551|NON_INFERIORITY|"The 2nd secondary endpoint was to demonstrate increased speech recognition in noise with the 301-M062 sound processor when comparing Omnidirectional program to AutoSense."|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84471127|NCT00091390|168694560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||hazard rate|0.0014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.003|||Z-test|One-sided.||The study is designed to test whether the 18-month late GU/GI toxicity following the protocol treatment is above 10% (hazard rate of 0.012/month). The sample size is determined so that the probability of rejecting the treatment because of excessive late toxicity is 90% if the true late toxicity rate is 20% (hazard rate of 0.025/month). Ninety-eight patients are required to with an additional 18 months of follow-up to have a statistical power of 90% with one-sided significance level of 0.05.||0.003|0|<0.0001
84471128|NCT03492463|168694568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Due to time and budget constraints a blinded decision was made and approved by the funding agency to limit further enrollment to the two conditions that provided nicotine patches. The primary (one-tailed) test compared Nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches to Non-nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches.||||0.01
84471129|NCT03492463|168694569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84471130|NCT03492463|168694570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
84471131|NCT00406640|168694572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.243||95.0|-0.46|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared with ESC||1.81|-0.46|0.243
84471132|NCT00406640|168694573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.608||||0.077||95.0|0.4|0.92|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.92|0.40|0.077
84471133|NCT00406640|168694574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.571||||0.0054||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.85|0.39|0.0054
84471134|NCT00406640|168694575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26||95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|DVS SR compared with ESC||0.33|-0.09|0.260
84520360|NCT00573313|168792988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means at 24 weeks.|0.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1615||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1853|0.4863||The data provided here are for changes in serum AST levels as representative of all clinical laboratory parameters measured.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance controlled for baseline data, e.g. AST.|Obtained median values and ranges and log transformations of SD.|Power calculation indicated that a sample size of 20 subjects per treatment arm would detect differences between groups of 0.9 within-subject standard deviations or higher at 80% power and 5% level of significance.||0.4863|-0.1853|0.36
84471135|NCT00406640|168694576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.239||95.0|-0.09|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|||0.37|-0.09|0.239
84471136|NCT00406640|168694577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.516||95.0|-0.75|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared to ESC||1.49|-0.75|0.516
84471137|NCT00406640|168694578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.635||95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, time and site as factors and baseline as covariant.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change|DVS SR compared to ESC||0.06|-0.03|0.635
84471138|NCT00406640|168694579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.702||95.0|0.63|2.0|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.00|0.63|0.702
84471139|NCT00406640|168694580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.234||95.0|0.83|2.16|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.16|0.83|0.234
84471140|NCT00406640|168694584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: end of therapy||||0.927
84471141|NCT00406640|168694584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 1 week of taper||||0.055
84471142|NCT00406640|168694584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 2 weeks of taper||||0.025
84471143|NCT00406640|168694584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after \> 2 weeks of taper||||0.653
84471144|NCT03050359|168694614|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|3.791||||||||3.791|-2.998|
84471145|NCT03050359|168694615|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-10%, the HP eradication rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.281|10.69||||||||10.690|-1.281|
84471146|NCT03050359|168694616|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.901|6.319||||||||6.319|-4.901|
84471147|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.579|7.344||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||7.344|-15.579|
84471148|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.422||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||8.422|-5.230|
84471149|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.338|9.401||||||Abdominal Bloating||9.401|-17.338|
84471150|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.334|7.815||||||Nausea/Vomiting||7.815|-26.334|
84471151|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.159|13.25||||||Heartburn||13.250|-4.159|
84520361|NCT00835588|168792989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|88.8||||||90.0|82.7|95.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.4|82.7|
84471152|NCT03050359|168694617|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.104|2.922||||||Lack of Appetite||2.922|-21.104|
84471153|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 3 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84471154|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 30 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84520362|NCT00835588|168792990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|93.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|93.4|
84471155|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 50 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84471156|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 115 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84471157|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 150 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84471158|NCT02020031|168694618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 180 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
84471159|NCT05209932|168694621|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84471160|NCT05209932|168694622|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84471161|NCT05209932|168694623|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84471162|NCT05209932|168694624|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84471163|NCT05209932|168694625|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84471164|NCT05209932|168694626|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84471165|NCT05209932|168694627|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84471166|NCT05209932|168694628|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84471167|NCT05209932|168694629|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84471168|NCT05209932|168694630|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84471169|NCT05209932|168694631|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
84471170|NCT05209932|168694632|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84471171|NCT05209932|168694633|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84471172|NCT05209932|168694634|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84471173|NCT05209932|168694635|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
84471174|NCT05209932|168694636|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84471175|NCT05209932|168694637|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84471176|NCT05209932|168694638|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
84471177|NCT05209932|168694639|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.97
84471178|NCT01728584|168694641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and body mass index (BMI)|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|Primary hypothesis - deep NMB improves surgeon's overall satisfaction with the surgical conditions compared to standard NMB||2.04|0.13|0.026
84471179|NCT01728584|168694641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is low versus standard pressure|||-2.05|-3.99|<0.001
84471180|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||5.02|2.30|
84520363|NCT00835588|168792991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|91.6|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|91.6|
84471181|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.91|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||0.91|-1.80|
84471182|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.36|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.36|0.57|
84471183|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-2.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-2.78|-5.42|
84471184|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.38|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-0.38|-3.01|
84471185|NCT01728584|168694642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.74|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.74|1.08|
84471186|NCT01728584|168694643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.35||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.84|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.84|-0.13|0.148
84540382|NCT03052751|168831557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.4|||=|0.036|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|ANCOVA||Estimate included treatment effect.|ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, covariate of Baseline MGADL score.||-0.1||=0.036
84471187|NCT01728584|168694643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.33||To control for multiple testing, this difference was formally tested only if comparison of surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions for deep versus standard NMB was significant at the 5% level, with greater satisfaction for deep NMB.|ANOVA|ANOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is low versus standard pressure|Key secondary hypothesis - low insufflation pressure improves overall average pain score in first 24 hours compared to standard insufflation pressure||0.33|-0.67|0.494
84471188|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.52|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.52|-0.92|
84471189|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||-0.02|-1.27|
84471190|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.53|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.53|-0.84|
84471191|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.26|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.26|-1.15|
84471192|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.78|-0.69|
84471193|NCT01728584|168694644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.16|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||1.16|-0.17|
84471194|NCT01728584|168694645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.91||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.87||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.87|-0.05|0.063
84471195|NCT01728584|168694646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.37|0.27|0.004
84471196|NCT01728584|168694647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.92||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.92|0.32|0.006
84471197|NCT01728584|168694648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.61||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.06||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.06|-1.27|0.073
84471198|NCT01728584|168694649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.28|0.19|0.009
84471199|NCT03207022|168694655|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84471200|NCT03207022|168694656|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84471201|NCT03207022|168694657|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84471202|NCT02336594|168694658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||120|95.2|
84471203|NCT02336594|168694660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.6|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||111|85.6|
84471204|NCT02336594|168694661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|115.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||115|87.3|
84471205|NCT02336594|168694663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|182.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.0|230.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||230|144|
84471206|NCT02336594|168694664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|140.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.0|163.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||163|121|
84471207|NCT02336594|168694665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|134.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|156.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||156|114|
84471208|NCT02336594|168694666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|94.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.2|66.4|
84520364|NCT00354159|168792993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month survival rate|90.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.7|||The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%. The comparison was made using the cumulative hazard \[e.g. log survival estimate\] for the variance.|Survival estimate at 6-months|The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%.||"Null hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months is greater than 80%."|||87.7|<0.001
84520365|NCT00354159|168792995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"The study was originally powered at 80% to detect a 25% risk reduction between the treatment arm and control arm with a type I error rate of 0.05. Under these assumptions 648 HF-related events from approximately 1300 subjects were required. The study stopped after 400 were randomized.~Null Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.61|0.61|0.978
84471209|NCT02336594|168694667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|98.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||98.8|73.9|
84471210|NCT02336594|168694668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.7|73.5|
84471211|NCT02403830|168694680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25|-90|0.261
84471212|NCT01980706|168694683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.018
84471213|NCT01980706|168694684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.028
84471214|NCT01980706|168694685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.52
84471215|NCT01980706|168694686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.43
84471216|NCT01980706|168694687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline|Estimated parameter is the overall treatment main effect F statistic from the fitted ANCOVA model assessing the null hypothesis of equal values across the three groups|||||0.60
84471217|NCT01980706|168694688|SUPERIORITY||Table probability for Fisher's Exact|0.002||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
84471218|NCT04490265|168694715|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471219|NCT04490265|168694716|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471220|NCT04490265|168694721|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging Subscale change from baseline to 12-weeks||||
84471221|NCT04490265|168694721|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging subscale Baseline to 6-months||||
84471222|NCT04490265|168694721|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 12-weeks||||
84471223|NCT04490265|168694721|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 6 months||||
84520366|NCT00354159|168792996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) = mu(Control) Alternative Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) ne mu(Control)~where mu is the percentage of hospitalized days for heart failure."||||0.574
84520367|NCT00354159|168792997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill Model||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.28|0.62|0.527
84520368|NCT00354159|168792998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The treatment and control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm|"Null Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.32|0.57|0.505
84520369|NCT00354159|168792999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||Andersen-Gill Model|The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The all cause event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The all cause event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.04|0.56|0.088
84520370|NCT00354159|168793000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54||P-value is from a proportional odds model comparing the distribution of composite endpoint response between the treatment arm and control arm.|Proportional odds model||Odds ratio represents the odds of improved score in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.54|0.73|0.758
84471224|NCT04490265|168694722|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 12-weeks||||
84471225|NCT04490265|168694722|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 6-months||||
84471226|NCT04490265|168694723|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471227|NCT04490265|168694724|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471228|NCT04490265|168694725|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471229|NCT04490265|168694726|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471230|NCT04490265|168694727|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471231|NCT04490265|168694728|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84471232|NCT04490265|168694729|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity||||
84471233|NCT04490265|168694729|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||interference||||
84471234|NCT04490265|168694730|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity Subscale||||
84471235|NCT04490265|168694730|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Interference subscale||||
84471236|NCT02512068|168694780|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.473|||ANCOVA|||||-0.473|-0.966|<0.0001
84471237|NCT02512068|168694783|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.18||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.180|-0.385|
84471238|NCT02512068|168694783|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.338||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.338|-0.621|
84471239|NCT02512068|168694783|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.367||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.367|-0.797|
84471240|NCT02512068|168694783|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.441||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.441|-0.975|
84471241|NCT02512068|168694783|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.948|-0.452||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.452|-0.948|
84471242|NCT02512068|168694784|OTHER||Point estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.598|9.919||||||The data of participants achieving \<6.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||9.919|-6.598|
84471243|NCT02512068|168694784|OTHER||Point estimate|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.194|51.66||||||The data of participants achieving \<7.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||51.660|14.194|
84471244|NCT02512068|168694784|OTHER||Point estimate|45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.528|75.7||||||The data of participants achieving \<8.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||75.700|15.528|
84471245|NCT02512068|168694785|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-6.88||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-6.88|-23.59|
84471246|NCT02512068|168694785|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|3.58||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||3.58|-20.98|
84471247|NCT02512068|168694785|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|2.11||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||2.11|-18.76|
84471248|NCT02512068|168694785|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.14|-4.03||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.03|-27.14|
84471249|NCT02512068|168694785|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.62||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.62|-26.67|
84471250|NCT02512068|168694786|OTHER||Point estimate|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.184|-1.34||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.340|-2.184|
84471251|NCT02512068|168694786|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.45||||||95.0|-3.03|-1.87||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.870|-3.030|
84471252|NCT02512068|168694786|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.289|-1.679||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.679|-3.289|
84471253|NCT02512068|168694786|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
84471254|NCT02512068|168694786|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
84471255|NCT04891770|168694801|OTHER||percentage difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||For Cohort 2A versus Cohort 2B, the percentage difference and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was calculated using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by HBsAg group (\> 3 and ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL).|||7.3|-2.3|
84471256|NCT04360187|168694817|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|-17.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|-8.27|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-8.27|-25.98|0.0002
84471257|NCT04360187|168694821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.1|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||23.1|2.8|0.0124
84471258|NCT04360187|168694822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.3|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||20.3|3.1|0.0078
84471259|NCT04360187|168694823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.33|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-0.33|-1.26|0.0009
84520371|NCT00354159|168793003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.06|||Regression, Cox|The treatment to control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate Cox Regression Model|Hazard ratio estimates the hazard of death in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized follow-up period is the same between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized period is different between the treatment and control groups."||2.06|0.29|0.599
84520372|NCT00354159|168793004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Negative-Binomial Regression|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of cardiovascular medication changes is the same between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.||||0.145
84725870|NCT02158806|169203824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Adjusted for baseline values.|ANCOVA|One participant in aspirin group had missing data for 24 week endpoint visit; we used the baseline value for imputation.|Placebo group = reference group.|||0.5|-1.9|0.25
84471260|NCT01798706|168694851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||-0.464|-0.81|< 0.0001
84471261|NCT01798706|168694852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-4.132||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at 0.05. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported.||-4.132|-5.96|< 0.0001
84471262|NCT01798706|168694853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value as a covariate.||-0.527|-1.39|< 0.0001
84520373|NCT00354159|168793005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the same between the Treatment and Control arms.~Alternative hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the different between the Treatment and Control arms."||||0.033
84471263|NCT01798706|168694854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|-0.769||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as a covariate.||-0.769|-1.862|< 0.0001
84471264|NCT01798706|168694855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|0.204||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value as a covariate.||0.204|-0.828|0.2347
84471265|NCT05896761|168694865|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.03||||||||1.03|0.831|
84471266|NCT05896761|168694865|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.816|1.06||||||||1.06|0.816|
84471267|NCT05896761|168694866|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.17||||||||1.17|0.966|
84471268|NCT05896761|168694866|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.29||||||||1.29|1.07|
84471269|NCT05896761|168694867|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.49||||||||1.49|1.22|
84471270|NCT05896761|168694867|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.24||||||||1.24|0.975|
84471271|NCT05896761|168694868|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4||||||||1.40|1.12|
84471272|NCT05896761|168694868|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28||||||||1.28|1.09|
84471273|NCT05896761|168694869|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.3||||||||1.30|1.13|
84520374|NCT00354159|168793006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is not different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period.~Alternative Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period."||||0.002
84471274|NCT05896761|168694869|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.20|1.00|
84520375|NCT00354159|168793007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96|||Proportional odds regression model||Direction for odds ratio is the odds of improvement in the Treatment arm versus the odds of improvement in the Control arm.|"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms."||1.96|0.82|0.292
84471275|NCT05896761|168694870|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.23||||||||1.23|1.07|
84471276|NCT05896761|168694870|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.38||||||||1.38|1.20|
84471277|NCT05896761|168694871|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.25||||||||1.25|1.08|
84471278|NCT05896761|168694871|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.09||||||||1.09|0.890|
84471279|NCT05896761|168694872|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.13||||||||1.13|0.991|
84471280|NCT05896761|168694872|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.12||||||||1.12|0.974|
84471281|NCT05896761|168694873|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.25||||||||1.25|1.11|
84471282|NCT05896761|168694873|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.14||||||||1.14|0.989|
84471283|NCT05896761|168694874|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.12||||||||1.12|1.03|
84471284|NCT05896761|168694874|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.08||||||||1.08|0.997|
84471285|NCT05896761|168694875|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.19||||||||1.19|1.08|
84471286|NCT05896761|168694875|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11||||||||1.11|0.97|
84471287|NCT05896761|168694876|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.11||||||||1.11|1.02|
84471288|NCT05896761|168694876|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.11||||||||1.11|1.01|
84471289|NCT01318083|168694899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.775||||||||-0.775|-1.097|
84471290|NCT01318083|168694899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.837||||||||-0.837|-1.160|
84471291|NCT01318083|168694900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.261|
84471292|NCT01318083|168694900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.154||||||||-0.154|-0.273|
84471293|NCT01318083|168694901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.312||||||||-0.312|-0.507|
84471294|NCT01318083|168694901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.547|
84471295|NCT01318083|168694902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.556||||||||-0.556|-0.834|
84471296|NCT01318083|168694902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|-0.629||||||||-0.629|-0.911|
84471297|NCT01318083|168694903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-10.83||||||||-10.83|-24.60|
84471298|NCT01318083|168694903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|-10.25||||||||-10.25|-24.93|
84471299|NCT01318083|168694904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-16.02||||||||-16.02|-30.33|
84471300|NCT01318083|168694904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.33|-17.43||||||||-17.43|-32.33|
84471301|NCT01318083|168694905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-19.91||||||||-19.91|-35.32|
84471302|NCT01318083|168694905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-14.69||||||||-14.69|-30.76|
84471303|NCT01318083|168694906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-19.59||||||||-19.59|-37.14|
84471304|NCT01318083|168694906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-13.54||||||||-13.54|-30.33|
84471305|NCT01318083|168694907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.58|-10.23||||||||-10.23|-36.58|
84471306|NCT01318083|168694907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-4.95||||||||-4.95|-33.40|
84471307|NCT03552549|168694913|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.77|||||Hazard ratio presented as PEG-Intron/INTRON A; HR \<1 indicates treatment effect in favor of PEG-Intron.|||1.77|0.28|
84471308|NCT00952289|168694949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analyzed with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.||||<0.0001
84471309|NCT02932475|168694967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.19|||||The odds ratio was calculated and adjusted for study site, timing of diabetes diagnosis, gestational age at randomization stratified at 18 weeks, and baseline maternal BMI.|The sample size gave adequate power over a range of expected primary outcome event rates, with type I error set at 0.044 (reduced from 0.05 for interim analysis), with reasonable power under a conservative scenario assuming that 20% of subjects immediately stopped taking study agent.||1.19|0.63|
84471310|NCT02932475|168694968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4
84471311|NCT02932475|168694969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||comparison of mean (sd) between groups|||||0.4
84471312|NCT02932475|168694970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84471313|NCT02932475|168694971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
84471314|NCT00777491|168694972|OTHER|There was no formal comparison of the two treatment arms.||||||||||||||||The confidence interval of the rate was calculated by Clopper-Pearson's exact binomial confidence intervals methods with one-sided type I error of 0.1. The study required 32 analyzable patients in each arm, which would warrant a 10% chance of observing a percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years of less than 75% if the true rate was 86%. With the actual number of evaluable patients, the study instead warrants a 13-14% chance.|If the percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years for either arm was greater than or equal to 75%, then it would be strongly considered as a potential arm in a subsequent phase III study, assuming treatment delivery and adverse events (AEs) were acceptable. If both arms met the criteria, then the treatment arm with less toxicity would be chosen.|||
84471315|NCT00777491|168694975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.881||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariate analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID Irradiation|||1.881|0.129|0.30
84471316|NCT00777491|168694976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|5.277||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariable analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID irradiation|||5.277|0.426|0.75
84471317|NCT00364845|168694981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.389||||||95.0|0.173|0.643||||||||0.643|0.173|
84471318|NCT00364845|168694981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.95||||||95.0|0.751|0.999||||||||0.999|0.751|
84471319|NCT03255291|168694997|SUPERIORITY|A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise at 90 day follow-up was higher in the exercise mental imagery condition than in the sleep mental imagery condition||||0.0288
84471320|NCT03255291|168694997|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.3329|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise differed among the three risk display formats: risk ladder, table, and alphanumeric text.||||0.3329
84471321|NCT03255291|168694997|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise was influenced by an interaction between risk display format and mental imagery behavior||||0.0215
84471322|NCT03255291|168694998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||-This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design and only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome. A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0333
84471323|NCT03255291|168694999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4946||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.4946
84471324|NCT03255291|168695000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1397|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.1397
84471325|NCT03255291|168695001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise maintenance self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0070
84520376|NCT00354159|168793008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is not different between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is different between the Treatment and Control Arms."||||0.996
84471326|NCT03255291|168695002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8793||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise recovery self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8793
84471327|NCT03255291|168695003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise affective attitudes). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.4673
84471328|NCT03255291|168695004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1916||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise unpleasant feelings). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1916
84471329|NCT03255291|168695005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8661||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise imagery vividness). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8661
84471330|NCT03255291|168695006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0711||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0711
84471331|NCT03255291|168695007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise coping planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0365
84471332|NCT03255291|168695008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1511
84471333|NCT04019093|168695027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46) = .001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.99
84471334|NCT04019093|168695027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=12.55||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
84471335|NCT04019093|168695027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=6.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.015
84471336|NCT04019093|168695028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.76
84471337|NCT04019093|168695028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,82)=.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X beverage condition interaction.||||.52
84471338|NCT04019093|168695028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=4.53, p=.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||.04
84520377|NCT00354159|168793009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is the same between the Treatment arm and Control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is different between the Treatment arm and Control arm."||||0.154
84471339|NCT04019093|168695028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=6.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.017
84471340|NCT04019093|168695028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=48.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||<.0001
84471341|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 82) = 0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level X group interaction.||||.50
84471342|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=1.58||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level interaction.||||.21
84471343|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=3.06||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.053
84471344|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.98
84471345|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||.71
84471346|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.71
84471347|NCT04019093|168695029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=55.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
84471348|NCT03229759|168695073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||||||Test on abdomen Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.08|0.88|
84471349|NCT03229759|168695073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.96||||||Tested on the abdomen Analysis was performed based on deferral letters from the FDA. Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||1.96|0.72|
84520378|NCT00354159|168793012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Response was change in MNLWHF score from baseline. Model adjusted for baseline MNLWHF score. Negative changes mean an improvement in MNLWHF score.||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm."||||0.583
84471350|NCT03229759|168695073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47||||||Groin||2.47|1.38|
84471351|NCT03229759|168695073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79||||||Groin||1.79|0.73|
84471352|NCT02669862|168695076|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline values were the covariate||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.555
84471353|NCT02669862|168695076|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.009
84471354|NCT02669862|168695078|OTHER|||||||0.9313||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||PVal\*- Chi-Square test used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group||||0.9313
84540677|NCT03915652|168832623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||0.39|-1.08|0.34
84471355|NCT02669862|168695078|OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.0236
84471356|NCT00762372|168695117|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to extubation = treatment group + surgical site +surgery time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-6.6|
84471357|NCT00762372|168695118|NON_INFERIORITY|"Adjusted means of time from the end of study drug inhalation to extubation in the BLM-240 N2O group and sevoflurane group, which were obtained by analysis of covariance with surgical site and surgery time as covariates, were used to verify the non-inferiority of BLM-240 to the comparator sevoflurane, with a delta = 1.0 (minute) and significance level alpha = 2.5% (one-sided)."||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1500
84471358|NCT00762372|168695119|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sample t-test||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84471359|NCT00762372|168695123|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||0.3113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3113
84471360|NCT00762372|168695125|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84471361|NCT02670915|168695129|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 1-Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value (s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|<0.001
84471362|NCT02670915|168695129|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 2-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||0.26|-0.01|<0.001
84471363|NCT02670915|168695129|SUPERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 3-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Superiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below 0.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for superiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|=0.007
84471364|NCT00818207|168695209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.18|1.23|0.0007
84471365|NCT00818207|168695210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.33|1.21|0.0018
84471366|NCT00818207|168695211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 39 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.90|0.82|0.2979
84471367|NCT00818207|168695211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.87|0.76|0.4388
84471368|NCT00818207|168695212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.2||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.20|1.35|<0.0001
84471369|NCT00818207|168695213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.62|0.81|0.4551
84471370|NCT01670656|168695265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-1.0|< 0.001
84471371|NCT01670656|168695265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
84471372|NCT01670656|168695265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
84471373|NCT01670656|168695265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
84540383|NCT01811472|168831583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|1.09|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 5mg/10mg was different from placebo.||1.09|-4.46|0.3128
84471374|NCT01670656|168695266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-3.0|= 0.002
84471375|NCT01670656|168695266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||cLDA|||||-0.6|-3.1|< 0.001
84471376|NCT01670656|168695266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||cLDA|||||-0.3|-2.9|= 0.003
84471377|NCT01670656|168695266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||cLDA|||||0.1|-2.5|= 0.024
84471378|NCT01670656|168695267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.4|= 0.026
84471379|NCT01670656|168695267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.3|= 0.036
84725871|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Physical Functioning||7.2|-5.0|0.714
84471380|NCT01670656|168695267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.5|||cLDA|||||-0.5|-4.1|= 0.002
84471381|NCT01670656|168695267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diffference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||cLDA|||||0.6|-3.0|= 0.1
84471382|NCT01670656|168695268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||cLDA|||||0.3|-0.6|= 0.447
84471383|NCT01670656|168695268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
84471384|NCT01670656|168695268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
84471385|NCT01670656|168695268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-0.7|= 0.156
84471386|NCT02622724|168695271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8219|||||||Van Elteren hypothesis test|||A non-parametric analysis has been used as the data distribution was skewed. This involved a generalised Wilcoxon rank sum-based stratification test which assigns ranks within strata and compares two treatments within strata (Van Elteren hypothesis test).||||0.8219
84471387|NCT02622724|168695278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4678|||||||Van Elteren p-values|||Van Elteren hypothesis test was used as the distribution was non-normal and negatively skewed by patients who are assigned scores of zero in the event of death.||||0.4678
84520379|NCT00354159|168793013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.5||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model which adjusts for multiple VT/VF episodes per subject.|Andersen-Gill Model|Andersen-Gill model included a term for Treatment Arm. This model adjusts for multiple events per subject.||"Null Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is the same between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is different between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm."||3.5|0.63|0.368
84471388|NCT02622724|168695283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Type III sums of squares with Treatment, Severity, and Country fixed effect factors, Baseline as covariate||||||<0.05
84471389|NCT02622724|168695286|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|31.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|99.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95% Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximum distance walked on Day 180.||99.9|-37.7|>0.05
84471390|NCT02622724|168695300|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL -1ra - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
84471391|NCT02622724|168695300|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL- 6 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
84471392|NCT02622724|168695300|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95% CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||FGF basic - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||<0.05
84471393|NCT02622724|168695300|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IP-10 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14.||||<0.05
84471394|NCT02622724|168695300|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||TNF-α - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
84471395|NCT02622724|168695301|OTHER||||||<|0.007||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.007
84471396|NCT02622724|168695304|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|28.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|110.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95 % Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximun distance walked on Day 360.||110.1|-54|>0.05
84471397|NCT01830543|168695343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.001
84471398|NCT01830543|168695343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.5|<0.001
84471399|NCT01830543|168695344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.33|0.234
84471400|NCT01830543|168695344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.28|0.114
84471401|NCT01830543|168695345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.2|0.144
84471402|NCT01830543|168695345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.2|0.134
84471403|NCT01830543|168695346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.47|<0.001
84471404|NCT01830543|168695346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.52|0.002
84471405|NCT01830543|168695347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.69|0.75
84471406|NCT01830543|168695347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.59|0.765
84471407|NCT01830543|168695348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.59|0.523
84471408|NCT01830543|168695348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.54|0.664
84471409|NCT01830543|168695349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.46|0.625
84471410|NCT01830543|168695349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.4|0.374
84471411|NCT01830543|168695350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.96|||Log Rank|||||2.96|0.39|0.891
84520380|NCT01929681|168793068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.049
84520381|NCT01929681|168793069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.182
84520382|NCT01929681|168793070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.449|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.449
84471412|NCT01830543|168695350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.58|||Log Rank|||||3.58|0.52|0.53
84471413|NCT01830543|168695351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.45|||Log Rank|||||4.45|0.32|0.79
84471414|NCT01830543|168695351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09|||Log Rank|||||5.09|0.4|0.574
84471415|NCT01151046|168695356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.11|0.003
84471416|NCT01151046|168695356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|0.69|0.349
84471417|NCT03446651|168695381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84471418|NCT03446651|168695383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84471419|NCT03446651|168695385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84520383|NCT01929681|168793071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.444|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.444
84471420|NCT03446651|168695386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84471421|NCT00960934|168695398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.56||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.16||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.16|-1.04|0.749
84471422|NCT00960934|168695398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.83||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.83|-0.60|0.333
84471423|NCT00960934|168695398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.35||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.84||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.84|-1.14|0.823
84471424|NCT00960934|168695398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.93||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.61|-0.75|0.457
84471425|NCT00960934|168695398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.50|-1.17|0.823
84471426|NCT00960934|168695399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.8|||<|0.001||95.0|56.5|80.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||80.0|56.5|<0.001
84471427|NCT00960934|168695399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|65.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||65.2|39.6|<0.001
84471428|NCT00960934|168695399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|42.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.4|17.6|<0.001
84471429|NCT00960934|168695399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.0|17.0|<0.001
84471430|NCT00960934|168695399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||14.4|-4.1|0.254
84471431|NCT00960934|168695400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||60.0|34.9|<0.001
84520384|NCT01929681|168793072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.182
84520385|NCT00087529|168793113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.093||Stratified using the following variables: Baseline EDSS (less than or equal to \[≤\] 4.0 versus \>4.0 points) and prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate.|Log Rank|||||1.093|0.546|0.1442
84540678|NCT03915652|168832624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|One sided t-test of percent of needs remaining from 100%.||Wave 1 and Wave 2 were combined and the quality metric at the end of the 12-month intervention was compared to the metric from the start of the intervention.||0.73|0.45|<0.001
84471432|NCT00960934|168695400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||48.5|24.1|<0.001
84471433|NCT00960934|168695400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||28.7|7.7|0.001
84520386|NCT00087529|168793115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-718.24||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1504.48|68.0|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||68.00|-1504.48|0.0008
84520387|NCT00087529|168793116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|7.34|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in LS means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the ANOVA model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||7.34|-9.49|0.6237
84520388|NCT04729101|168793188|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.94|46.02||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||46.02|31.94|
84520389|NCT04729101|168793188|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature|Least-squares mean difference|44.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.55|51.69||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||51.69|37.55|
84520390|NCT04729101|168793189|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.04||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||2.04|1.40|
84520391|NCT04729101|168793189|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.44||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||2.44|1.74|
84725872|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Physical||10.8|-8.0|0.768
84471434|NCT00960934|168695400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||18.2|-0.0|0.050
84520392|NCT02940522|168793197|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520393|NCT02940522|168793198|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520394|NCT02940522|168793199|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520395|NCT02940522|168793200|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520396|NCT02940522|168793201|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520397|NCT02940522|168793202|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
84520398|NCT00274625|168793203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
84520399|NCT00762411|168793204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.560
84520400|NCT00762411|168793205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.959
84520401|NCT00762411|168793206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
84520402|NCT00762411|168793207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.199
84520403|NCT00762411|168793208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.294
84520404|NCT00762411|168793209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.477
84725873|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Bodily Pain||8.4|-3.7|0.449
84725874|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in General Health||3.6|-4.3|0.873
84471435|NCT00960934|168695400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||4.2|-8.5|0.313
84471436|NCT00960934|168695401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.8|-5.8|>0.999
84471437|NCT00960934|168695401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
84471438|NCT00960934|168695401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
84520405|NCT00762411|168793210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.673
84520406|NCT00762411|168793211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.622
84520407|NCT00762411|168793212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.178
84520408|NCT00762411|168793213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.632
84520409|NCT00762411|168793214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
84520410|NCT00762411|168793215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.426
84520411|NCT00762411|168793216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.101
84471439|NCT00960934|168695401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.6|-4.2|0.313
84520412|NCT00762411|168793216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.772
84520413|NCT00762411|168793217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.326
84520414|NCT00762411|168793218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.117
84520415|NCT00762411|168793227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
84520416|NCT00762411|168793228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
84520417|NCT00762411|168793229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
84520418|NCT00762411|168793230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.417
84520419|NCT00762411|168793231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.805
84520420|NCT00762411|168793232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
84520421|NCT02959840|168793233|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
84520422|NCT02959840|168793233|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||5e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00005
84520423|NCT02959840|168793233|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
84520424|NCT02959840|168793234|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84520425|NCT02959840|168793234|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
84520426|NCT02959840|168793234|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
84520427|NCT02959840|168793235|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||4e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00004
84520428|NCT02959840|168793235|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
84520429|NCT02959840|168793235|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
84520430|NCT02959840|168793236|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
84520431|NCT02959840|168793236|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84520432|NCT02959840|168793236|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84520433|NCT02959840|168793237|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84520434|NCT02959840|168793237|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84520435|NCT02959840|168793237|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
84471440|NCT00960934|168695401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.4|-4.3|0.321
84471441|NCT00960934|168695403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.51||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.51|-1.03|0.959
84471442|NCT00960934|168695403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.08|0.971
84471443|NCT00960934|168695403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.42||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.42|-0.95|0.959
84520436|NCT02959840|168793238|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84520437|NCT02959840|168793238|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
84725875|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Vitality||8.5|-0.1|0.057
84471444|NCT00960934|168695403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.41||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.97||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.97|-1.78|0.915
84471445|NCT00960934|168695403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.60|0.959
84471446|NCT00960934|168695404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.58||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.37|-1.22|0.849
84520438|NCT02959840|168793238|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
84520439|NCT02959840|168793239|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84520440|NCT02959840|168793239|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
84520441|NCT02959840|168793239|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84520442|NCT02959840|168793240|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84520443|NCT02959840|168793240|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84520444|NCT02959840|168793240|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
84520445|NCT02959840|168793241|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
84520446|NCT02959840|168793241|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84520447|NCT02959840|168793241|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
84520448|NCT02959840|168793242|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84520449|NCT02959840|168793242|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
84520450|NCT02959840|168793242|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84520451|NCT02959840|168793243|SUPERIORITY|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84471447|NCT00960934|168695404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.47||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.47|-1.79|0.964
84471448|NCT00960934|168695404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.59||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.59|-1.27|0.964
84471449|NCT00960934|168695404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.48||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.27||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.27|-2.23|0.855
84471450|NCT00960934|168695404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.27||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|3.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.12|-0.58|0.287
84471451|NCT00960934|168695405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.77|-1.56|0.933
84471452|NCT00960934|168695405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.01||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.68|-1.69|0.999
84471453|NCT00960934|168695405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.05||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.93||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.93|-1.84|0.999
84471454|NCT00960934|168695405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.45||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.57|-1.67|0.959
84471455|NCT00960934|168695405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.08||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.94|-2.10|0.999
84471456|NCT00960934|168695406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.17||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.12|0.976
84520452|NCT02959840|168793243|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84471457|NCT00960934|168695406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.06||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.8||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.80|-0.93|0.982
84471458|NCT00960934|168695406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.53||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.49||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.49|-0.43|0.489
84520453|NCT02959840|168793243|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
84471459|NCT00960934|168695406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.78|-0.75|0.982
84471460|NCT00960934|168695406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-0.76|0.976
84471461|NCT00960934|168695407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.35||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-2.00|0.961
84471462|NCT00960934|168695407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.34||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.34|-1.90|0.961
84520454|NCT02959840|168793244|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84520455|NCT02959840|168793244|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
84520456|NCT02959840|168793244|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
84520457|NCT00377572|168793251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Maximum Symptom Day Comparison||||<0.001
84471463|NCT00960934|168695407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.66||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.33|-1.01|0.778
84471464|NCT00960934|168695407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.11||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.24||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.24|-1.45|0.961
84471465|NCT00960934|168695407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.25||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.26||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.26|-1.77|0.961
84471466|NCT00960934|168695408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.43||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.03|0.901
84471467|NCT00960934|168695408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.51||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.18|0.901
84471468|NCT00960934|168695408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.52||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.13||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.13|-2.17|0.901
84471469|NCT00960934|168695408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.03||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.35|-1.29|0.997
84520458|NCT00377572|168793252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.04
84471470|NCT00960934|168695408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.04||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-1.51|0.997
84471471|NCT00960934|168695409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.37||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.99||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.99|-2.73|0.979
84471472|NCT00960934|168695409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||4.95|-1.10|0.363
84471473|NCT00960934|168695409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.98||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.98|-2.18|0.979
84520459|NCT00377572|168793253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept (to account for within-subject correlation) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.1111
84471474|NCT00960934|168695409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.49||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.30|-3.27|0.979
84471475|NCT00960934|168695409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.51||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.37|-2.34|0.979
84471476|NCT00960934|168695410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|37.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.46|2.26|0.020
84471477|NCT00960934|168695410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.08||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|26.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||26.41|-6.16|0.357
84471478|NCT00960934|168695410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-2.83||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|9.14||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.14|-14.81|0.642
84471479|NCT00960934|168695410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.44||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|24.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.04|-7.09|0.434
84520460|NCT00377572|168793254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Childhood Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.007
84520461|NCT00377572|168793255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.54
84471480|NCT00960934|168695410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.72||||0.579||95.0|-8.62|20.1||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||20.10|-8.62|0.579
84471481|NCT00960934|168695411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|53.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||53.56|15.27|<0.001
84471482|NCT00960934|168695411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.57||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|38.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||38.02|3.28|0.014
84471483|NCT00960934|168695411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.97||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|25.7||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||25.70|-5.69|0.307
84471484|NCT00960934|168695411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.02||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|23.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||23.95|-5.85|0.307
84471485|NCT00960934|168695411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.5||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|11.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||11.92|-12.92|0.937
84471486|NCT00960934|168695412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|31.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||31.02|7.42|<0.001
84471487|NCT00960934|168695412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|23.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|35.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||35.82|11.02|<0.001
84471488|NCT00960934|168695412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.45||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|21.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.30|-0.37|0.061
84471489|NCT00960934|168695412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|6.31||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||16.45|-3.81|0.283
84471490|NCT00960934|168695412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.46||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|14.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||14.31|-3.39|0.283
84520462|NCT00377572|168793256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1 % of predicted value comparison||||0.30
84725876|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Social Functioning||7.0|-5.1|0.756
84471491|NCT00960934|168695413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|56.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.62|76.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||76.35|37.62|<.001
84471492|NCT00960934|168695413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|39.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.44|57.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||57.17|22.44|<.001
84520463|NCT00377572|168793257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1:FVC ×100 comparison||||0.81
84471493|NCT00960934|168695413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|35.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.78|5.72|0.003
84471494|NCT00960934|168695413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.59||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|22.05||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||22.05|-4.81|0.265
84471495|NCT00960934|168695413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.39||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|20.21||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||20.21|-3.40|0.265
84471496|NCT00960934|168695414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|53.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.83|68.53||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||68.53|37.83|<0.001
84520464|NCT00377572|168793258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
84471497|NCT00960934|168695414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|41.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|55.65||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||55.65|27.36|<0.001
84471498|NCT00960934|168695414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|24.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|37.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.33|12.39|<0.001
84471499|NCT00960934|168695414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|12.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|24.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.06|1.73|0.020
84471500|NCT00960934|168695414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|4.02||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|13.36||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||13.36|-5.31|0.397
84471501|NCT00980785|168695418|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.7||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
84471502|NCT00980785|168695418|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|90.6||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
84471503|NCT00980785|168695419|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84471504|NCT00980785|168695419|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84471505|NCT00980785|168695420|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
84471506|NCT00980785|168695420|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
84471507|NCT00980785|168695421|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
84520465|NCT00377572|168793259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Percent Adherence Comparison||||0.12
84471508|NCT00980785|168695421|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
84471509|NCT00922194|168695435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3|<|0.05||95.0|-9.03|-7.72|||Paired t test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-7.72|-9.03|<0.05
84471510|NCT00922194|168695436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-3.0|-3.5|<0.05
84471511|NCT00922194|168695437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||<|0.05||95.0|-8.37|-6.47|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-6.47|-8.37|<0.05
84471512|NCT00922194|168695438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|||<|0.05||95.0|-0.02|0.001|||Wilcoxon paired sign rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||0.001|-0.02|<0.05
84520466|NCT00377572|168793260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 1- 2 (mild asthma) Percent Comparison||||0.001
84725877|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Emotional||12.3|-4.9|0.400
84471513|NCT00922194|168695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|||<|0.05||95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-3.8|-5.2|<0.05
84471514|NCT00922194|168695440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.57|-2.38|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.38|-3.57|<0.05
84471515|NCT00922194|168695441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|||<|0.05||95.0|-2.65|-2.08|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.08|-2.65|<0.05
84471516|NCT04131517|168695442|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94156|1.1497||||||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1497|0.94156|
84471517|NCT04131517|168695443|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.89272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76892|1.0364||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0364|0.76892|
84471518|NCT04131517|168695446|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0276|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95544|1.1052||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1052|0.95544|
84520467|NCT00377572|168793261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 4 - 6 (severe asthma)percent comparison||||<0.001
84725878|NCT02158806|169203825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Mental Health||1.5|-6.2|0.236
84471519|NCT04131517|168695447|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL+ OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.88808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52185|1.5113||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.5113|0.52185|
84471520|NCT04131517|168695454|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96378|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85043|1.0922||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0922|0.85043|
84520468|NCT00377572|168793262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Inhaled glucocorticoids prescribed - mcg per day comparison||||<0.001
84520469|NCT00377572|168793263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Comparison percent prescribed long-acting beta 2 agonists||||0.003
84520470|NCT00377572|168793264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Hospitalizations were summed over the course of the double-blind \& analyzed with logistic regression (LR) of 'any' vs. 'none'. The LR was unadjusted.||||||0.02
84520471|NCT00377572|168793265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Exacerbations were summed over the course of the double-blind and analyzed with an LR of 'any' versus 'none'. LR adjusted for study site and dosing.||||||<0.001
84520472|NCT00377572|168793266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84520473|NCT00377572|168793267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84520474|NCT00769314|168793270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0685||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.1339||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared||Treatment difference was the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the acyclovir Lauriad group minus the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the placebo group.|||0.1339|0.0025|0.0419
84520475|NCT00769314|168793271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0683
84520476|NCT00769314|168793272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0033
84520477|NCT00769314|168793273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0098
84520478|NCT00769314|168793274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.8005
84520479|NCT00769314|168793275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.015
84471521|NCT04131517|168695456|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91888|1.0206||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0206|0.91888|
84520480|NCT00769314|168793276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0412
84520481|NCT00769314|168793277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0271
84520482|NCT00769314|168793278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 1 timepoint.||||0.5695
84471522|NCT05142332|168695461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|19.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.3|4.5|<0.001
84520483|NCT00769314|168793278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 3 timepoint||||0.1824
84520484|NCT00769314|168793278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 5 timepoint||||0.0078
84520485|NCT00769314|168793278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 7 timepoint||||0.3303
84520486|NCT00769314|168793278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6045||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 14 timepoint||||0.6045
84520487|NCT00769314|168793279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
84520488|NCT01863186|168793339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0166
84520489|NCT01863186|168793339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0033
84520490|NCT00452348|168793341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.04||||0.09||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.090
84520491|NCT01390415|168793364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0374
84471523|NCT05142332|168695462|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.1|1.7|<0.001
84471524|NCT01219959|168695466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
84471525|NCT01219959|168695466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
84471526|NCT01219959|168695467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
84471527|NCT01219959|168695467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
84471528|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
84471529|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
84471530|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
84471531|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
84471532|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
84471533|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
84471534|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
84471535|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
84471536|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
84471537|NCT01219959|168695469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
84471538|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
84471539|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
84471540|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
84471541|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
84471542|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
84471543|NCT01219959|168695470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
84471544|NCT01219959|168695471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
84471545|NCT01219959|168695471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
84471546|NCT01219959|168695471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
84471547|NCT01219959|168695471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
84471548|NCT01219959|168695472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
84471549|NCT01219959|168695472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
84471550|NCT01219959|168695473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
84471551|NCT01219959|168695474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
84471552|NCT01219959|168695474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
84471553|NCT01219959|168695474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
84471554|NCT01219959|168695474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
84471555|NCT01219959|168695475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
84471556|NCT01219959|168695475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
84471557|NCT01219959|168695475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
84471558|NCT01219959|168695475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
84520492|NCT01390415|168793365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0566
84471559|NCT01219959|168695476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
84471560|NCT01219959|168695476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
84471561|NCT01219959|168695477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
84471562|NCT01219959|168695477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
84471563|NCT01219959|168695478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
84471564|NCT01219959|168695478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
84471565|NCT01219959|168695479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
84471566|NCT01219959|168695480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
84471567|NCT01219959|168695480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
84471568|NCT01219959|168695480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
84520493|NCT02435433|168793383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.949|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.949|0.531|0.0199
84520494|NCT02435433|168793384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.603|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.603|0.339|<0.0001
84520495|NCT02435433|168793385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|0.582|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.582|0.313|<0.0001
84471569|NCT01219959|168695480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
84471570|NCT01219959|168695481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
84520496|NCT02435433|168793386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified analysis|||37.3|0.6|0.1697
84471571|NCT01219959|168695481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
84471572|NCT01219959|168695482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
84471573|NCT01219959|168695482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
84471574|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
84471575|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
84471576|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
84471577|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
84471578|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
84471579|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
84471580|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
84471581|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
84471582|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
84520497|NCT02435433|168793390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.171|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||1.171|0.545|0.2382
84520498|NCT02754492|168793442|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.950|
84540679|NCT03915652|168832625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.8|-19.8|0.51
84471583|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
84471584|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
84471585|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
84471586|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
84471587|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
84471588|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
84471589|NCT01219959|168695483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
84471590|NCT01219959|168695484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
84471591|NCT01219959|168695484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
84471592|NCT01219959|168695485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
84540384|NCT01811472|168831583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|-0.53|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 10mg/20mg was different from placebo.||-0.53|-5.25|0.0457
84471593|NCT01219959|168695485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
84471594|NCT01219959|168695486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
84471595|NCT01219959|168695486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
84471596|NCT01219959|168695487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
84471597|NCT02345252|168695510|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 275 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 85% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and FTC/RPV/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-4.2|3.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the FTC/RPV/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the FTC/RPV/TDF group.||3.7|-4.2|
84471598|NCT02345252|168695510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84471599|NCT02232087|168695529|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
84471600|NCT02232087|168695530|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
84471601|NCT02232087|168695531|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.4|-2.5|0.55
84471602|NCT02232087|168695531|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.53
84471603|NCT02232087|168695531|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.011
84471604|NCT02232087|168695532|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.10|-0.03|0.26
84471605|NCT02232087|168695532|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.06|-0.06|0.93
84471606|NCT02232087|168695532|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.08|-0.04|0.48
84471607|NCT02232087|168695533|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||||0.93
84471608|NCT02232087|168695533|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.093||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.093|-0.224|0.42
84471609|NCT02232087|168695533|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.016||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.016|-0.302|0.078
84471610|NCT02232087|168695534|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||5.7|-3.9|0.71
84471611|NCT02232087|168695534|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||4.7|-4.7|1.00
84520499|NCT02754492|168793442|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
84540385|NCT03288714|168831596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.814
84540386|NCT03288714|168831597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.872
84725879|NCT02158806|169203826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.0||Adjusted for baseline values|Regression, Linear|||||8.0|-1.3|0.156
84725880|NCT02158806|169203827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in social function||2.2|-5.2|0.438
84471612|NCT02232087|168695534|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||-1.1|-10.6|0.016
84471613|NCT04096326|168695540|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|40.6||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|57.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.6|23.6|0.0096
84471614|NCT04096326|168695540|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|46.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|64.9||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.9|28.0|0.0094
84471615|NCT04096326|168695540|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|52.2||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|80.8||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.8|23.6|0.0044
84471616|NCT04096326|168695540|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|63.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|91.5||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||91.5|35.2|0.0026
84471617|NCT04096326|168695540|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|85.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|100.0||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|64.2|0.0000
84471618|NCT04804033|168695546|OTHER||Difference in least square mean (LSM)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.12|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.12|-2.72|
84471619|NCT04804033|168695546|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.07|0.69|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.69|-2.07|
84471620|NCT04804033|168695547|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|28.8|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||28.8|4.4|
84471621|NCT04804033|168695547|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.6|18.9|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||18.9|-5.6|
84471622|NCT04804033|168695548|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.68|0.58|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.58|-2.68|
84471623|NCT04804033|168695548|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|1.31|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||1.31|-2.10|
84471624|NCT04804033|168695549|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.16|-0.42|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.42|-3.16|
84471625|NCT04804033|168695549|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.53|0.22|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.22|-2.53|
84471626|NCT04804033|168695550|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.59|0.05|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.05|-1.59|
84471627|NCT04804033|168695550|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.06|0.74|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.74|-1.06|
84725881|NCT02158806|169203827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in domestic activities||1.9|-4.5|0.408
84471628|NCT04804033|168695551|OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|9.39|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||9.39|-1.50|
84725882|NCT02158806|169203827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in cosmesis||3.1|-5.6|0.568
84471629|NCT04804033|168695551|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.66|5.86|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||5.86|-5.66|
84471630|NCT04804033|168695552|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.1|0.19|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.19|-18.10|
84471631|NCT04804033|168695552|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.95|0.41|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.41|-18.95|
84471632|NCT02435277|168695580|OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise Comparison using Control as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of HbA1c change from day 1-day 84 Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.0475
84471633|NCT02435277|168695580|OTHER|||||||0.0912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0912
84471634|NCT02435277|168695580|OTHER|||||||0.0458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0458
84471635|NCT02435277|168695581|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of Fssting Plasma Glucose change from day 1-day 84 in Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.26
84471636|NCT02435277|168695581|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0083
84471637|NCT02435277|168695581|OTHER|||||||0.0317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0317
84471638|NCT01067508|168695582|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 12 weeks minus baseline change in Fiji water group||||0.003
84471639|NCT01067508|168695582|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the 12 week minus baseline change in Aquafina (control) group||||0.68
84471640|NCT00962039|168695583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||Analyses were conducted over 8 week follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.12|0.92
84471641|NCT00962039|168695584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Chi-squared|||||-0.01|-0.15|0.034
84471642|NCT00962039|168695585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.07|0.261
84725883|NCT02158806|169203827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in emotional status||2.2|-8.1|0.257
84471643|NCT00962039|168695586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.18|-0.36|0.519
84471644|NCT00962039|168695587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.77|0.704
84471645|NCT00962039|168695588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.01|0.046
84471646|NCT00958308|168695594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculation was based on the incidence of AAD. A total of 255 patients was enrolled in order to obtain at least the required 225 evaluable patients.With expected AAD rates of at most 15% - 25% in the treatment groups; and 25% - 35% in the placebo group, these numbers were sufficient to detect the difference in the incidence of AAD between either of the treatment groups vs. placebo with a minimum of 86% statistical power.||||=0.02
84471647|NCT01552928|168695613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84471648|NCT01552928|168695613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471649|NCT01552928|168695613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471650|NCT01552928|168695614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471651|NCT01552928|168695614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471652|NCT01552928|168695614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84471653|NCT01552928|168695615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
84540387|NCT03288714|168831598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ||||.641
84471654|NCT01552928|168695615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
84471655|NCT01552928|168695615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471656|NCT01552928|168695616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471657|NCT01552928|168695616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471658|NCT01552928|168695616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471659|NCT01552928|168695617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
84471660|NCT01552928|168695617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471661|NCT01552928|168695617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
84471662|NCT01552928|168695622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471663|NCT01552928|168695622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471664|NCT01552928|168695622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471665|NCT01552928|168695623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471666|NCT01552928|168695623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471667|NCT01552928|168695623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84471668|NCT01552928|168695624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84471669|NCT01552928|168695624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471670|NCT01552928|168695624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471671|NCT01552928|168695625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.078
84471672|NCT01552928|168695625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471673|NCT01552928|168695625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.156
84471674|NCT01552928|168695626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.439
84471675|NCT01552928|168695626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.274
84471676|NCT01552928|168695626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84471677|NCT06704178|168695660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488445|||||||Multiple t-tests|||||||0.488445
84471678|NCT06704178|168695661|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison.||||||0.98317||||||Between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
84471679|NCT06704178|168695662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
84471680|NCT06704178|168695663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
84471681|NCT06704178|168695664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
84471682|NCT06704178|168695665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
84471683|NCT06704178|168695665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246176||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246176
84471684|NCT06704178|168695665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
84471685|NCT06704178|168695666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
84471686|NCT06704178|168695666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
84471687|NCT06704178|168695666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726742||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726742
84471688|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999216||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999216
84471689|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471690|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
84471691|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471692|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952545||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952545
84471693|NCT06704178|168695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
84471694|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84471695|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471696|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
84471697|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471698|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993223||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.993223
84540388|NCT03288714|168831599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.032
84540389|NCT03288714|168831600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.015
84520500|NCT02754492|168793442|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
84471699|NCT06704178|168695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
84471700|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84471701|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999838||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999838
84471702|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991697||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991697
84471703|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471704|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581904||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581904
84471705|NCT06704178|168695669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999866||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999866
84471706|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999835||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999835
84471707|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962016||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962016
84471708|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995044||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995044
84471709|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
84471710|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471711|NCT06704178|168695670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
84540390|NCT03288714|168831601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Alpha level: .05|Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||||||.028
84471712|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84471713|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999524||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999524
84471714|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
84471715|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772865||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772865
84471716|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91384||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91384
84471717|NCT06704178|168695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992841||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.992841
84471718|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999732||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999732
84540391|NCT03127514|168831657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A two-tailed P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope||||||0.03
84471719|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471720|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
84471721|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
84471722|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471723|NCT06704178|168695672|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
84471724|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84471725|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471726|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998326||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998326
84471727|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
84471728|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471729|NCT06704178|168695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
84471730|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999387||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999387
84471731|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471732|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
84471733|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471734|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471735|NCT06704178|168695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
84471736|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
84471737|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471738|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
84471739|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471740|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.960874||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960874
84471741|NCT06704178|168695675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
84471742|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981906||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.981906
84471743|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945027||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945027
84471744|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767795||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.767795
84471745|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996139||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996139
84471746|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
84471747|NCT06704178|168695676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
84471748|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55783||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55783
84471749|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987949||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987949
84471750|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
84471751|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
84471752|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
84471753|NCT06704178|168695677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
84471754|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795476||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795476
84471755|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
84471756|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
84471757|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997753||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997753
84471758|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
84471759|NCT06704178|168695678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988108||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988108
84471760|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995367||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995367
84520501|NCT02754492|168793443|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.950|
84471761|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471762|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974102||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974102
84471763|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
84471764|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471765|NCT06704178|168695679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
84540392|NCT02543944|168831666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.0944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|-0.72|0.77
84540393|NCT02543944|168831667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
84471766|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882016||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882016
84471767|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.860406||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.860406
84471768|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958944||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958944
84471769|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998816||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998816
84471770|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
84471771|NCT06704178|168695680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999296||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999296
84471772|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
84471773|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
84471774|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
84471775|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
84471776|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986557||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.986557
84471777|NCT06704178|168695681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
84471778|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
84471779|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471780|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
84471781|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998467||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998467
84471782|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471783|NCT06704178|168695682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
84471784|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
84471785|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
84471786|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
84471787|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963236||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963236
84471788|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
84471789|NCT06704178|168695683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737995||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737995
84471790|NCT06704178|168695684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84471791|NCT06704178|168695685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
84471792|NCT06704178|168695686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
84471793|NCT06704178|168695687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2137
84471794|NCT06704178|168695688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8639||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8639
84471795|NCT06704178|168695689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
84471796|NCT06704178|168695690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
84471797|NCT06704178|168695691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5738||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5738
84471798|NCT06704178|168695692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
84471799|NCT06704178|168695693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4942||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4942
84540394|NCT02543944|168831668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84540395|NCT02543944|168831669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84471800|NCT06704178|168695694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7419||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7419
84471801|NCT06704178|168695694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0033
84471802|NCT06704178|168695694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
84471803|NCT06704178|168695695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7708||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7708
84471804|NCT06704178|168695695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.239
84471805|NCT06704178|168695695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.006
84471806|NCT06704178|168695696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
84471807|NCT06704178|168695696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0001
84471808|NCT06704178|168695696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||<0.0001
84520502|NCT02754492|168793443|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
84520503|NCT02754492|168793443|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
84540396|NCT00629018|168831670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The minimal sample size for the study was calculated using a pre-specified power of 90% and P value of 0.05.||||0.01
84471809|NCT06704178|168695697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0695||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0695
84471810|NCT06704178|168695697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0124
84471811|NCT06704178|168695697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0016
84471812|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471813|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471814|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471815|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471816|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471817|NCT06704178|168695698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471818|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471819|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471820|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471821|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471822|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471823|NCT06704178|168695699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471824|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4598
84471825|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.23
84471826|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0806
84471827|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0969||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0969
84471828|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
84471829|NCT06704178|168695700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0369
84471830|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0384
84471831|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6328
84471832|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0026
84471833|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0012
84471834|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0118
84471835|NCT06704178|168695701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0221
84471836|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471837|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471838|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471839|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471840|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471841|NCT06704178|168695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471842|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471843|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471844|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471845|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471846|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471847|NCT06704178|168695703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471848|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471849|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471850|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471851|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471852|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471853|NCT06704178|168695704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471854|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471855|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471856|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471857|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471858|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471859|NCT06704178|168695705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84540397|NCT02413229|168831684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3571
84471860|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471861|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471862|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471863|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471864|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471865|NCT06704178|168695706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471866|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471867|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471868|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471869|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471870|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471871|NCT06704178|168695707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471872|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471873|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471874|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471875|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471876|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471877|NCT06704178|168695708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471878|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471879|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471880|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471881|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471882|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471883|NCT06704178|168695709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471884|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471885|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84540398|NCT02413229|168831684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5224|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5224
84520504|NCT02627963|168793468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94||A one-sided, log-rank test stratified for IMDC risk category and prior therapy (two VEGFR TKIs vs. a checkpoint inhibitor plus a VEGFR TKI vs. a VEGFR TKI plus any other systemic agent) at a significance level of α = 0.025 was used.|Log Rank|||||0.94|0.56|0.0165
84520505|NCT02627963|168793469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.75|0.8174
84520506|NCT05053360|168793480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||HIGH PAIN = score over 6 on a 0-10 pain scale (higher number indicating higher pain)||6.93|1.19|.019
84520507|NCT05053360|168793481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-3.47|.0002
84520508|NCT03405363|168793513|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|||1.47|0.98|
84520509|NCT03405363|168793514|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.74|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.74|0.90|
84520510|NCT03405363|168793515|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.36|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.36|0.71|
84520511|NCT03405363|168793516|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.87|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.87|0.79|
84520512|NCT03405363|168793517|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.56|0.64|
84520513|NCT03405363|168793518|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis was based on Propensity score-trimmed population of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) derived from the Danish Patient Registry.||1.84|1.44|
84520514|NCT03405363|168793518|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.78|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|"Analysis based on post-hoc population 1.~Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications, fixed-dose combinations of Short-Acting Beta2- Agonist and Short-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist and systemic antibacterials. COPD severity, number of: all-cause hospitalisations 365 and 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 and 90 days, COPD hospitalisations 180 and 90 days, and COPD exacerbations 90 days before index date."||1.78|1.23|
84520515|NCT03405363|168793518|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidende Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis based on post-hoc population 2. Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications. COPD severity, number of all-cause hospitalisations 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 days before cohort entry.||1.64|0.97|
84520516|NCT01328782|168793519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.074||95.0|1.4|2.94|||ANOVA|||||2.94|1.40|0.074
84471886|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3682||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3682
84471887|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
84471888|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471889|NCT06704178|168695710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471890|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471891|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5691
84471892|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471893|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471894|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
84471895|NCT06704178|168695711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471896|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
84471897|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471898|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5749
84471899|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4873
84471900|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9998||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9998
84471901|NCT06704178|168695712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
84520517|NCT01328782|168793519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.556||95.0|-1.12|2.08|||ANOVA|||||2.08|-1.12|0.556
84520518|NCT01328782|168793519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.244||95.0|-0.64|2.49|||ANOVA|||||2.49|-0.64|0.244
84520519|NCT01328782|168793520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.25|||ANOVA|||||3.25|0.38|0.014
84520520|NCT01328782|168793520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.832||95.0|-1.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||||1.61|-1.30|0.832
84520521|NCT01328782|168793520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.027||95.0|0.2|3.12|||ANOVA|||||3.12|0.20|0.027
84520522|NCT01328782|168793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
84520523|NCT01328782|168793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3767||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3767
84520524|NCT01328782|168793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
84520525|NCT01328782|168793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.008||95.0|0.008|0.076|||ANOVA|||||0.076|0.008|0.008
84471902|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471903|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471904|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8495||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8495
84471905|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||>0.9999
84471906|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1951
84471907|NCT06704178|168695713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.0806
84471908|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471909|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
84471910|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1062
84471911|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0333
84471912|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0734
84471913|NCT06704178|168695714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
84471914|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84520526|NCT01328782|168793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.078||95.0|-0.004|0.066|||ANOVA|||||0.066|-0.004|0.078
84520527|NCT01328782|168793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.5321||95.0|-0.024|0.045|||ANOVA|||||0.045|-0.024|0.5321
84520528|NCT01328782|168793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84471915|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471916|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471917|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471918|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471919|NCT06704178|168695715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84520529|NCT01328782|168793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84471920|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471921|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471922|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471923|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471924|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471925|NCT06704178|168695716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471926|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471927|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
84471928|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.091
84471929|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
84471930|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0204
84471931|NCT06704178|168695717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0256
84520530|NCT01328782|168793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.499
84520531|NCT02533466|168793529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.0|0.2673
84520532|NCT02533466|168793530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.8|0.0690
84520533|NCT02533466|168793531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-2.7|0.0680
84540399|NCT02413229|168831684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
84520534|NCT02533466|168793532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product"|||0.0|-3.0|0.0654
84520535|NCT02533466|168793533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|4.1||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||4.1|-6.8|0.6061
84520536|NCT02533466|168793534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product|||3.3|-7.9|0.4080
84520537|NCT02533466|168793535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||0.8|-0.4|0.4611
84520538|NCT02533466|168793536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.3939
84520539|NCT02533466|168793537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||2.8|-2.2|0.7829
84520540|NCT02533466|168793538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||1.4|-1.6|0.9121
84520541|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.309|0.252|<0.0001
84520542|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.087|<0.0001
84520543|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.139|0.082|<0.0001
84520544|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.306|0.249|<0.0001
84520545|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.083|<0.0001
84520546|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.152|0.096|<0.0001
84520547|NCT01559116|168793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.136|0.079|<0.0001
84520548|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.289|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.349|0.289|<0.0001
84520549|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.156|0.096|<0.0001
84520550|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.149|0.089|<0.0001
84520551|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.354|0.293|<0.0001
84520552|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.161|0.101|<0.0001
84540400|NCT02413229|168831684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0325
84540401|NCT02932462|168831685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4557
84520553|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.169|0.109|<0.0001
84520554|NCT01559116|168793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.093|<0.0001
84520555|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.273|0.212|<0.0001
84520556|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.133|0.074|<0.0001
84520557|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.132|0.072|<0.0001
84520558|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.262|0.201|<0.0001
84520559|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
84520560|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.080|<0.0001
84520561|NCT01559116|168793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.121|0.061|<0.0001
84520562|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.241|0.173|<0.0001
84520563|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.126|0.059|<0.0001
84520564|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.113|0.045|<0.0001
84520565|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.235|0.167|<0.0001
84520566|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.120|0.052|<0.0001
84540402|NCT02932462|168831686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8096|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8096
84540403|NCT02932462|168831687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7652
84471932|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9821||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9821
84471933|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0403
84471934|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0638||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0638
84471935|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7195
84471936|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1856||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1856
84471937|NCT06704178|168695718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1222
84471938|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471939|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471940|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471941|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471942|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471943|NCT06704178|168695719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471944|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84520567|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.135|0.067|<0.0001
84520568|NCT01559116|168793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.107|0.039|<0.0001
84520569|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.371|0.305|<0.0001
84520570|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.153|0.087|<0.0001
84520571|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.078|<0.0001
84520572|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.383|0.317|<0.0001
84520573|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.164|0.098|<0.0001
84520574|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.165|0.099|<0.0001
84520575|NCT01559116|168793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.155|0.089|<0.0001
84520576|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.477|0.389|<0.0001
84520577|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.253|0.166|<0.0001
84520578|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.221|0.133|<0.0001
84520579|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.441|0.352|<0.0001
84520580|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.217|0.129|<0.0001
84520581|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated. is calculated.|||0.203|0.115|<0.0001
84520582|NCT01559116|168793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.184|0.096|<0.0001
84520583|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.509|0.417|<0.0001
84520584|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.246|0.154|<0.0001
84520585|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.133|<0.0001
84520586|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.490|0.396|<0.0001
84520587|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.227|0.134|<0.0001
84520588|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.218|0.125|<0.0001
84520589|NCT01559116|168793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.206|0.113|<0.0001
84520590|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.453|0.355|<0.0001
84520591|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.267|0.170|<0.0001
84520592|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.223|0.126|<0.0001
84520593|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.400|0.301|<0.0001
84520594|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.214|0.117|<0.0001
84520595|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.197|0.099|<0.0001
84520596|NCT01559116|168793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
84520597|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.385|0.274|<0.0001
84520598|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.115|<0.0001
84520599|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.176|0.066|<0.0001
84520600|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.363|0.251|<0.0001
84520601|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.092|<0.0001
84520602|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.222|0.111|<0.0001
84520603|NCT01559116|168793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.043|<0.0001
84520604|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.516|0.408|<0.0001
84725884|NCT02158806|169203827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||1.5|-5.2|0.273
84725885|NCT02158806|169203828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.87|0.917
84725886|NCT02158806|169203829|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||IRR test statistic|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) test statistic compared to probability of the same obtained from standard normal distribution tables.||||1.7|0.7|0.71
84725887|NCT01898299|169203830|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d effectsize|0.48||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Control for Chlopromazine equivalents||||||0.036
84520605|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.212|0.105|<0.0001
84520606|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.205|0.098|<0.0001
84520607|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.507|0.398|<0.0001
84520608|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.095|<0.0001
84520609|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.216|0.107|<0.0001
84520610|NCT01559116|168793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.196|0.087|<0.0001
84520611|NCT04610580|168793555|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.1|110.0||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.0|82.1|
84520612|NCT04610580|168793556|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|96.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.384|107.227||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||107.227|86.384|
84520613|NCT04610580|168793557|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|110.5||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.5|81.6|
84520614|NCT04610580|168793558|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|145.1||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||145.1|70.6|
84520615|NCT04610580|168793559|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|109.9||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||109.9|89.3|
84520616|NCT01993940|168793565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.0||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||27.0|10.8|<0.0001
84520617|NCT01993940|168793566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.88|0.92|<0.0001
84520618|NCT01993940|168793567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.71|1.63|<0.0001
84520619|NCT01993940|168793568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.61|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.61|0.70|<0.0001
84520620|NCT01993940|168793569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.19|0.30|0.0011
84520621|NCT03922750|168793570|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.01||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.35|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||7.35|-5.33|0.7542
84520622|NCT03922750|168793570|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|7.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.93|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||13.93|1.83|0.0107
84725888|NCT02340806|169203831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.67
84725889|NCT02340806|169203832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
84520623|NCT01567527|168793592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.678|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|Significance level 0.05.||0.678|0.299|< 0.0001
84520624|NCT01567527|168793592|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|3.34|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||3.34|1.475|
84520625|NCT01567527|168793593|SUPERIORITY|Using a hierarchical procedure to preserve the overall Type I error rate at 0.05, after testing the primary outcome.|Percentage Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.5|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for any mood episode||-12.5|-36.7|< 0.0001
84520626|NCT01567527|168793594|SUPERIORITY|Using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach. Analyses included the categorically fixed effects of treatment, region, trial week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuously fixed covariates of baseline-score-by-week interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-subject errors and Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.17|||Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||-0.17|-0.69|= 0.0011
84520627|NCT01567527|168793595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.465|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|||0.465|0.04|= 0.0002
84520628|NCT01567527|168793595|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.151|24.865|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||24.865|2.151|
84520629|NCT03790137|168793660|OTHER|The frequency of HWE for each patient was reported as episodes/day, as determined by dividing the total number of seizures experienced over a given time period by the number of days for which seizures were recorded. Paired t-tests were performed to compare each patient's baseline seizure frequency to their seizure frequency in the last month of treatment. Change in seizure frequency is reported as percent change from baseline. An alpha of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84520630|NCT00556673|168793720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.51||"Linear mixed effect model fitting treatment, sequence and period as fixed factors, patient within sequence as a random factor and pre-dose FEV1 as covariate.~A significance level of 5% was used to determine statistical significance."|1-sided|||The primary hypothesis tested was that the change from period baseline of trough FEV1 for placebo and indacaterol/mometasone was equal. The one-sided alternative was that the increase from period baseline of trough FEV1 for indacaterol/mometasone was higher than for placebo.||0.51|0.28|< 0.0001
84520631|NCT00494013|168793735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.026||95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin determir, injected once or twice daily, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||-0.03|-0.39|0.026
84520632|NCT00494013|168793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
84520633|NCT00494013|168793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
84520634|NCT00494013|168793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
84520635|NCT00494013|168793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
84520636|NCT00494013|168793737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
84520637|NCT00494013|168793737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
84520638|NCT00494013|168793738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per Liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.107||95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The first gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to determir.||0.23|-0.02|0.107
84520639|NCT00494013|168793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||P-value for Average 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.952
84520640|NCT00494013|168793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||P-value for Average Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.856
84520641|NCT00494013|168793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Average Post-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.790
84520642|NCT00494013|168793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for Average Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.632
84520643|NCT00494013|168793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
84725890|NCT02340806|169203833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.21
84520644|NCT00494013|168793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84520645|NCT00494013|168793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
84520646|NCT00494013|168793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
84520647|NCT00494013|168793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
84520648|NCT00494013|168793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.226
84520649|NCT00494013|168793743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.93|2.06||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The second gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to detemir with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||2.06|0.93|<0.001
84520650|NCT00494013|168793744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.074
84520651|NCT00494013|168793745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.039
84520652|NCT00494013|168793746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
84520653|NCT00421304|168793747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.218
84520654|NCT00421304|168793747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.643
84520655|NCT00421304|168793747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.677
84520656|NCT00421304|168793748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.257
84520657|NCT00421304|168793748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.726
84520658|NCT00421304|168793748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.551
84520659|NCT00421304|168793749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.591
84725891|NCT02340806|169203834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
84725892|NCT02340806|169203835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.66
84520660|NCT00421304|168793749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.393
84520661|NCT00421304|168793749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.586
84520662|NCT00421304|168793750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.894
84520663|NCT00421304|168793750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.674
84520664|NCT00421304|168793750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.636
84520665|NCT00421304|168793751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.397
84520666|NCT00421304|168793751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.238
84520667|NCT00421304|168793751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.461
84520668|NCT00421304|168793752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.322
84520669|NCT00421304|168793752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.747
84520670|NCT00421304|168793752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.717
84520671|NCT00421304|168793753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.847
84520672|NCT00421304|168793753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
84520673|NCT00421304|168793753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
84520674|NCT00421304|168793754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.653
84520675|NCT00421304|168793754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.283
84520676|NCT00421304|168793754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.411
84520677|NCT00421304|168793755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.988
84520678|NCT00421304|168793755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.832
84520679|NCT00421304|168793755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.748
84520680|NCT00421304|168793756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.280
84520681|NCT00421304|168793756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.108
84520682|NCT00421304|168793756|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
84520683|NCT00421304|168793757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.742
84520684|NCT00421304|168793757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.486
84520685|NCT00421304|168793757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.490
84520686|NCT00421304|168793758|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
84520687|NCT00421304|168793759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.050
84520688|NCT00421304|168793760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.008
84520689|NCT00421304|168793761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.012
84520690|NCT00421304|168793762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||<0.001
84520691|NCT02614196|168793788|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-2.55|<.001
84520692|NCT02614196|168793788|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.44|<.001
84520693|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.32||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.32|2.03|
84725893|NCT02340806|169203837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
84725894|NCT02340806|169203838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.58
84725895|NCT02340806|169203839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.67
84725896|NCT02340806|169203840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.99
84725897|NCT02340806|169203841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.37
84725898|NCT02591056|169203842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=+7.45; df=26||||||<0.0001
84471945|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471946|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471947|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471948|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471949|NCT06704178|168695720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471950|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471951|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471952|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471953|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471954|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471955|NCT06704178|168695721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471956|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471957|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471958|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471959|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471960|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471961|NCT06704178|168695722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471962|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471963|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471964|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471965|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471966|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471967|NCT06704178|168695723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471968|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471969|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471970|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471971|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471972|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471973|NCT06704178|168695724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471974|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471975|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471976|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471977|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471978|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471979|NCT06704178|168695725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471980|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471981|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471982|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471983|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471984|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471985|NCT06704178|168695726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
84471986|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471987|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471988|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471989|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84726057|NCT01020487|169204411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|52.8|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.050. The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison between the paricalcitol capsules and placebo groups in the percentage of participants achieving 2 consecutive ≥ 30% reductions in iPTH from baseline regardless of CKD stage conducted using Fisher's exact test.||52.8|7.5|0.045
84520694|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.96|1.81|
84520695|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.06||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.06|1.78|
84520696|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.17||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.17|1.84|
84520697|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.12||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.12|1.50|
84520698|NCT02614196|168793789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.81||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.81|1.87|
84520699|NCT02614196|168793790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|11.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.31|6.33|<.001
84520700|NCT02614196|168793790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.90|4.88|<.001
84520701|NCT02614196|168793791|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.29|<.001
84520702|NCT02614196|168793791|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.001
84520703|NCT02614196|168793792|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.47|.002
84520704|NCT02614196|168793792|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.41|.012
84520705|NCT02614196|168793793|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-10.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.11|-20.27|<.001
84520706|NCT02614196|168793793|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-8.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.44|-18.67|<.001
84520707|NCT02614196|168793794|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.69|-12.61|<.001
84520708|NCT02614196|168793794|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.72|-11.71|<.001
84725899|NCT01159600|169203843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.17|-1.08||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.08|-2.17|<0.0001
84726058|NCT01020487|169204412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.128
84520709|NCT02614196|168793795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.001
84520710|NCT02614196|168793795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive||||<.001
84520711|NCT00919711|168793798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.0|1.2|<0.0001
84520712|NCT00919711|168793799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84520713|NCT00919711|168793800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||1.8|0.9|<0.0001
84520714|NCT00919711|168793801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.8|1.8|<0.0001
84520715|NCT04388787|168793805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84520716|NCT04388787|168793806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84520717|NCT00840840|168793826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.45||||||90.0|97.71|105.33|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.33|97.71|
84520718|NCT00840840|168793827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|103.05||||||90.0|101.25|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|101.25|
84520719|NCT00840840|168793828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.94||||||90.0|101.08|104.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.83|101.08|
84520720|NCT00840840|168793829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.68||||||90.0|92.41|107.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.52|92.41|
84520721|NCT00840840|168793830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.48||||||90.0|94.73|108.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.71|94.73|
84520722|NCT00840840|168793831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.17||||||90.0|91.95|109.13|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.13|91.95|
84520723|NCT05194202|168793832|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||one-sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test.||Our null hypothesis for the acceptability was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.622
84520724|NCT05194202|168793833|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||one sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test||Our null hypothesis for the acceptabnility of the ED-Heart was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.038
84520725|NCT04556734|168793874|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-14.14||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.933|10.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||10.648|-38.933|0.2579
84520726|NCT04556734|168793874|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-21.79||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.446|0.871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||0.871|-44.446|0.0592
84520727|NCT04556734|168793875|OTHER|F-test|Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-9.23||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.217|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||2.748|-21.217|0.1283
84520728|NCT04556734|168793875|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-8.99||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.936|1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||1.962|-19.936|0.1057
84520729|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|11.5||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|37.31||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||37.31|-14.22|0.4067
84520730|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|17.5||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|43.19||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||43.19|-8.23|0.2171
84520731|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|-0.8||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|21.48||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||21.48|-23.18|0.9425
84520732|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.9||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|32.94||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||32.94|-15.19|0.4959
84520733|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.6||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|16.59||P-values are based on the comparison of Etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||16.59|-5.39|0.3576
84520734|NCT04556734|168793876|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.3||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.12||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo.||20.12|-3.43|0.2904
84520735|NCT01680016|168793891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in children aged ≥6 to ≤17 years||1.02|0.69|
84520736|NCT01680016|168793892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in older adults aged ≥51 years||1.35|0.87|
84520737|NCT02846883|168793905|SUPERIORITY|These power estimates are based on linear regression of regulatory T-cell counts at each time point. These data will be summarized with the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error, minimum and maximum.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|See above|Estimates for the differences in the secondary endpoints will be used to perform a power estimation using a Monte Carlo simulation method.|The primary statistical evaluation for Aim 1 will focus on the chronologically increasing counts of T-regulatory cells over time following MSC administration in both delivery groups. Using the pattern of increased counts with time and the standard deviation reported by Ito and colleagues in healthy subjects, 36 subjects provides 81.0% power to detect such a change.A p value of \<0.05 will be considered significant.||||<0.05
84520738|NCT00603564|168793957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||endpoint was analyzed in terms of time by comparison of mean +- SD||||<0.001
84520739|NCT00603564|168793958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7e-06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.000007
84725995|NCT00912964|169204165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.67|0.004
84520740|NCT01453153|168793987|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0||||||||60|0|
84520741|NCT01453153|168793987|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|93.0||||||||93|7|
84520742|NCT01453153|168793987|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|64.0||||||||64|19|
84520743|NCT01453153|168793988|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|81.0||||||||81|1|
84520744|NCT01453153|168793988|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|100.0||||||||100|40|
84520745|NCT01453153|168793988|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.0||||||||88|46|
84540680|NCT03915652|168832626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared post to pre.||1.92|-0.43|0.17
84520746|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-37.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.99|-71.37|<0.0001
84520747|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-27.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.08|-61.28|<0.0001
84520748|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.35|-47.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.53|-81.35|<0.0001
84520749|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.282|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.36|-45.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.15|-78.36|<0.0001
84520750|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-72.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|-51.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-51.92|-92.40|<0.0001
84520751|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.59|-43.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.19|-84.59|<0.0001
84520752|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-88.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.39|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-68.00|-109.39|<0.0001
84520753|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.76|-64.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-64.54|-104.76|<0.0001
84520754|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.854|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-60.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.71|-96.22|<0.0001
84520755|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.51|-66.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.40|-102.51|<0.0001
84520756|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.12|-78.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-78.03|-114.12|<0.0001
84520757|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.703|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.8|-74.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.86|-109.80|<0.0001
84520758|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.51|-52.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.30|-90.51|<0.0001
84520759|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.659|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.37|-56.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.65|-95.37|<0.0001
84520760|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.18|-74.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.38|-113.18|<0.0001
84520761|NCT01243151|168794063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.35|-70.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-70.81|-108.35|<0.0001
84520762|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.99|-23.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.65|-43.99|<0.0001
84520763|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-17.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.51|-38.35|<0.0001
84520764|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.143|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|-29.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.28|-49.89|<0.0001
84520765|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-27.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.51|-47.75|<0.0001
84520766|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.78|-33.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-33.20|-58.78|<0.0001
84520767|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.74|-54.90|<0.0001
84520768|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.43|-43.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.27|-69.43|<0.0001
84520769|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.17|-40.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.74|-66.17|<0.0001
84520770|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.498|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-38.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.64|-60.70|<0.0001
84520771|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.592|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.14|-42.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-42.70|-65.14|<0.0001
84520772|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.81|-49.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.38|-71.81|<0.0001
84520773|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.53|-46.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.80|-68.53|<0.0001
84520774|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-32.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.57|-55.80|<0.0001
84520775|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.06|-35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.50|-59.06|<0.0001
84520776|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.53|-45.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.94|-69.53|<0.0001
84520777|NCT01243151|168794064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-43.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.54|-66.38|<0.0001
84520778|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.972||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|599.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||599.65|1.04|0.0472
84520779|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.815||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|305.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||305.54|0.46|0.1368
84520780|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.527||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|1198.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1198.29|1.89|0.0190
84520781|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.328||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|1103.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1103.73|1.86|0.0192
84520782|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.273||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|2014.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2014.67|2.74|0.0105
84520783|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.088||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|2389.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2389.27|3.10|0.0086
84520784|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.733||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|2449.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2449.11|3.14|0.0084
84520785|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.272||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|3097.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3097.22|4.07|0.0053
84520786|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.697||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|662.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||662.20|1.16|0.0403
84520787|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.247||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|733.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.32|1.25|0.0361
84520788|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|89.341||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|2326.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2326.44|3.43|0.0069
84520789|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.034||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|1875.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1875.15|3.08|0.0081
84520790|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||64.41|0.02|0.9931
84520791|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.943||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|975.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||975.84|1.55|0.0259
84520792|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.766||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|1477.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1477.88|2.26|0.0142
84726059|NCT01020487|169204413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenbce|-72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|-36.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-36.75|-108.05|< 0.001
84520793|NCT01243151|168794065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.734||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|1216.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1216.90|1.95|0.0179
84520794|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|353.058||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|12528.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||12528.19|9.95|0.0013
84520795|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.984||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|3808.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3808.21|4.44|0.0047
84520796|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|300.099||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|10787.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||10787.45|8.35|0.0018
84520797|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|190.835||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|5743.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||5743.12|6.34|0.0025
84520798|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|255.421||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|8290.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8290.22|7.87|0.0018
84520799|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.547||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|4291.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4291.89|5.28|0.0034
84520800|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|745.542||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|47929.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||47929.45|11.60|0.0018
84520801|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|146.296||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|3963.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3963.01|5.40|0.0031
84520802|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|213.512||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|6396.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6396.64|7.13|0.0020
84520803|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.439||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|3277.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3277.13|4.73|0.0038
84520804|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|622.309||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|36846.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||36846.03|10.51|0.0020
84520805|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.427||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|6598.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6598.00|7.63|0.0017
84520806|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.158||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|161.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||161.08|0.24|0.2751
84520807|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|152.977||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|4633.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4633.92|5.05|0.0038
84520808|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|756.203||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|51133.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||51133.53|11.18|0.0020
84520809|NCT01243151|168794066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|258.938||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|8902.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8902.61|7.53|0.0021
84725918|NCT01922102|169203909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.1||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure: H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively.||7.1|3.3|<0.001
84471990|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471991|NCT06704178|168695727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471992|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84471993|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9951||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9951
84471994|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.999
84471995|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9913
84471996|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4517
84471997|NCT06704178|168695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8187||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8187
84471998|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.998
84471999|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9591
84472000|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9994
84472001|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9936||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9936
84472002|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8526||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8526
84472003|NCT06704178|168695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4375
84472004|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84472005|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7477||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.7477
84472006|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
84472007|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
84472008|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
84472009|NCT06704178|168695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
84472010|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84472011|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84472012|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9188||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9188
84472013|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84472014|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
84472015|NCT06704178|168695731|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
84472016|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
84472017|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.004||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
84520810|NCT01243151|168794067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|52.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||52.79|0.02|0.9580
84520811|NCT01243151|168794067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.375||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|394.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||394.65|0.76|0.0732
84520812|NCT01243151|168794067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.86||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|1109.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1109.11|2.07|0.0159
84520813|NCT01243151|168794067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.246||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|733.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.62|1.51|0.0264
84520814|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|15.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.77|-4.77|0.2883
84520815|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.277||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|16.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.61|-4.51|0.2563
84520816|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-8.54|0.7149
84520817|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.174||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.30|-6.40|0.4480
84520818|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.94|2.06|0.0231
84520819|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.369||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|23.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.87|-1.62|0.0858
84520820|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.431||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|20.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.44|-5.30|0.2440
84520821|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.249||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|24.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.03|-0.98|0.0702
84520822|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.878||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|19.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.41|-0.13|0.0531
84520823|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.83|-0.96|0.0758
84520824|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.975||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|11.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.92|-8.01|0.6965
84520825|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.842||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|23.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.22|3.83|0.0071
84520826|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.155||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|21.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.52|0.88|0.0339
84520827|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|19.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.03|-1.92|0.1075
84520828|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.258||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.50|-4.54|0.2601
84520829|NCT01243151|168794068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|20.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.24|-0.31|0.0570
84520830|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.84|-42.93|<0.0001
84520831|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.34|-20.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.26|-41.34|<0.0001
84520832|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.18|-29.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.77|-50.18|<0.0001
84520833|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.54|-28.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.20|-48.54|<0.0001
84520834|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.73|-29.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.63|-54.73|<0.0001
84520835|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.72|-29.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.67|-55.72|<0.0001
84520836|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-41.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.67|-67.45|<0.0001
84520837|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.54|-39.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.25|-64.54|<0.0001
84520838|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.359||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-36.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.59|-58.10|95
84520839|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.24|-39.91|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.91|-62.24|<0.0001
84520840|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|-48.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.89|-70.89|<0.0001
84520841|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.377|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.83|-46.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.24|-67.83|<0.0001
84520842|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|-37.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.51|-60.61|<0.0001
84520843|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.974|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.48|-39.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.56|-63.48|<0.0001
84520844|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.901|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.04|-52.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.40|-76.04|<0.0001
84520845|NCT01243151|168794069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-48.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.42|-71.59|<0.0001
84726060|NCT01020487|169204413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-62.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-19.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-19.49|-105.60|0.006
84520846|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.54|-34.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.29|-75.54|<0.0001
84520847|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.21|-22.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.94|-65.21|<0.0001
84520848|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.547|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.92|-47.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.05|-88.92|<0.0001
84520849|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.11|-39.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.90|-81.11|<0.0001
84520850|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.02|-47.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.76|-89.02|<0.0001
84520851|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-39.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.27|-81.54|<0.0001
84520852|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.74|-65.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-65.46|-107.74|<0.0001
84520853|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-81.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.73|-60.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.52|-101.73|<0.0001
84520854|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.96|-59.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-59.37|-100.96|<0.0001
84520855|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.14|-61.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.87|-104.14|<0.0001
84520856|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.91|-83.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-83.62|-125.91|<0.0001
84520857|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.84|-69.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.63|-110.84|<0.0001
84520858|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.34|-50.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-50.75|-92.34|<0.0001
84520859|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-53.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-53.32|-95.59|<0.0001
84520860|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.49|-81.21|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-81.21|-123.49|<0.0001
84520861|NCT01243151|168794070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.76|-66.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.55|-107.76|<0.0001
84520862|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.90|-1.89|0.3064
84726061|NCT01020487|169204413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-68.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.39|-6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-6.47|-130.39|0.032
84520863|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.025||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.73|-1.38|0.1922
84520864|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.984||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.79|-3.16|0.6827
84520865|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.42|-1.52|0.2211
84520866|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|10.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.97|2.31|0.0033
84520867|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.57|0.60|0.0269
84520868|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.34|-0.61|0.0890
84520869|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.47|0.69|0.0242
84520870|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-0.95|0.1270
84520871|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.70|-0.91|0.1199
84520872|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.82|-3.79|0.8123
84520873|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.106||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.87|1.44|0.0095
84520874|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.99|-0.99|0.1141
84520875|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|8.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.73|-1.42|0.1552
84520876|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.547||0.5407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.67|-3.53|0.5407
84520877|NCT01243151|168794071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.53|1.58|0.0107
84520878|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.74|-43.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.97|-76.74|<0.0001
84520879|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.45|-35.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.61|-69.45|<0.0001
84520880|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-69.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.06|-52.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.86|-86.06|<0.0001
84520881|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.55|-49.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.94|-82.55|<0.0001
84520882|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.05|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.87|-100.05|<0.0001
84520883|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.43|-49.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.13|-93.43|<0.0001
84520884|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-91.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.92|-69.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.74|-113.92|<0.0001
84520885|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.03|-67.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-67.97|-111.03|<0.0001
84520886|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.452|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.73|-69.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.72|-103.73|<0.0001
84520887|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.57|-74.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.80|-109.57|<0.0001
84520888|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-106.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.34|-88.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-88.78|-123.34|<0.0001
84520889|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-99.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.95|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-82.40|-115.95|<0.0001
84520890|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-79.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-61.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.93|-96.22|<0.0001
84520891|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.4|-66.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.39|-101.40|<0.0001
84520892|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.13|-87.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-87.35|-122.13|<0.0001
84726062|NCT01020487|169204413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-70.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.82|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-2.37|-137.82|0.043
84520893|NCT01243151|168794072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.89|-80.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-80.11|-113.89|<0.0001
84520894|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|35.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.49|-80.08|0.4480
84520895|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|26.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.76|-91.80|0.2809
84520896|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.942||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|27.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.07|-90.90|0.2875
84540681|NCT03915652|168832627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared pre/post intervention||6.52|-4.92|0.72
84520897|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.38|41.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||41.33|-74.38|0.5743
84520898|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.62|37.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.96|-77.62|0.4997
84520899|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.78|37.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.78|-80.78|0.4756
84520900|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.73|42.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||42.26|-77.73|0.5610
84520901|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.27|36.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||36.44|-79.27|0.4667
84520902|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.45|28.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||28.06|-89.45|0.3045
84520903|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.06|35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.50|-83.06|0.4301
84520904|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.15|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.85|-112.15|0.0881
84520905|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.36|26.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.35|-89.36|0.2844
84520906|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.32|32.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||32.19|-85.32|0.3741
84520907|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.16|35.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.40|-83.16|0.4283
84520908|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.31|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.68|-116.31|0.0657
84520909|NCT01243151|168794073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.11|24.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.60|-91.11|0.2586
84520910|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.404||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|10.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.14|-3.49|0.3326
84520911|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.502||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.70|-3.32|0.2967
84520912|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.466||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-6.42|0.8812
84520913|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.30|-3.45|0.3227
84520914|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|18.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.46|1.56|0.0210
84520915|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.326||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|15.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.49|-1.82|0.1192
84520916|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.367||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|13.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.78|-3.69|0.2529
84520917|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|16.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.25|-0.73|0.0725
84520918|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.18|0.30|0.0405
84520919|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.80|-0.25|0.0593
84520920|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.33|-4.81|0.5936
84520921|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.192||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|16.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.17|3.38|0.0034
84520922|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|14.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.46|0.74|0.0305
84520923|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-1.55|0.1252
84520924|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.71|-3.28|0.2923
84520925|NCT01243151|168794074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.411||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.43|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.43|0.78|0.0297
84520926|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-18.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.10|-34.59|<0.0001
84520927|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.325|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.95|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-15.63|-32.95|<0.0001
84520928|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-22.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.83|-39.58|<0.0001
84520929|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-22.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.08|-38.78|<0.0001
84520930|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.42|-23.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.19|-43.42|<0.0001
84520931|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.63|-44.65|<0.0001
84520932|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.96|-32.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.18|-52.96|<0.0001
84520933|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-31.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.67|-52.07|<0.0001
84520934|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-29.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.05|-46.46|<0.0001
84520935|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.04|-31.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.93|-50.04|<0.0001
84520936|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.88|-38.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.08|-55.88|<0.0001
84520937|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-37.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.03|-54.52|<0.0001
84520938|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.85|-29.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.37|-47.85|<0.0001
84520939|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.78|-31.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.60|-50.78|<0.0001
84520940|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.722|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.30|-59.20|<0.0001
84520941|NCT01243151|168794075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.33|-38.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.76|-57.33|<0.0001
84520942|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-14.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-14.34|-31.06|<0.0001
84520943|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-10.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-10.03|-27.17|<0.0001
84520944|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|-19.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-19.49|-36.46|<0.0001
84520945|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.24|-16.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-16.54|-33.24|<0.0001
84520946|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.25|-20.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.53|-37.25|<0.0001
84520947|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|-17.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.79|-34.92|<0.0001
84520948|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|-27.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.33|-44.46|<0.0001
84520949|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.58|-25.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.88|-42.58|<0.0001
84520950|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.39|-25.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.53|-42.39|<0.0001
84472018|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.017||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
84472019|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
84472020|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.003||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.003
84472021|NCT00755846|168695737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.307||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.307
84472022|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
84472023|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
84472024|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.016||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.016
84472025|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.005
84520951|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-26.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.85|-43.98|<0.0001
84520952|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.85|-34.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.71|-51.85|<0.0001
84520953|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-29.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.65|-46.35|<0.0001
84520954|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-21.34|-38.19|<0.0001
84520955|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.79|-22.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.65|-39.79|<0.0001
84520956|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-32.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.78|-49.91|<0.0001
84520957|NCT01243151|168794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|-27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.69|-44.39|<0.0001
84520958|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.975||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|12.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.41|-3.53|0.2690
84520959|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.133||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.50|-3.07|0.2122
84520960|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.67|-7.59|0.8953
84520961|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.70|-2.51|0.1723
84520962|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.293||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|23.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.56|6.34|0.0010
84520963|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.451||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|19.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.78|1.95|0.0179
84520964|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.96|0.16|0.0462
84520965|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|20.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.52|3.05|0.0091
84520966|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.064||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|15.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.45|-0.83|0.0774
84520967|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.165||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|15.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.50|-1.18|0.0909
84520968|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.157||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.45|-6.20|0.6107
84520969|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|19.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.75|3.42|0.0062
84520970|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.712||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|18.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.13|-0.74|0.0702
84520971|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|16.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.32|-2.93|0.1692
84520972|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.819||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|13.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.96|-5.34|0.3751
84520973|NCT01243151|168794077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.709||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|23.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.08|4.23|0.0053
84520974|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.951|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-22.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.72|-38.56|<0.0001
84520975|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.44|-34.80|<0.0001
84520976|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.003|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|-27.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.24|-43.29|<0.0001
84520977|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-25.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.54|-41.30|<0.0001
84520978|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.34|-30.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-30.42|-52.34|<0.0001
84520979|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|-26.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.88|-49.36|<0.0001
84520980|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.64|-36.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.20|-58.64|<0.0001
84520981|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.87|-36.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.00|-57.87|<0.0001
84520982|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.96|-36.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.77|-53.96|<0.0001
84520983|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.374|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.58|-39.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.99|-57.58|<0.0001
84520984|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.346|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-45.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.75|-63.23|<0.0001
84520985|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.25|-43.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.26|-60.25|<0.0001
84520986|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.58|-32.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.07|-49.58|<0.0001
84520987|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.68|-34.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.81|-52.68|<0.0001
84520988|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.25|-43.48|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.48|-61.25|<0.0001
84520989|NCT01243151|168794078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.58|-41.31|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.31|-58.58|<0.0001
84520990|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.08|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||38.04|-39.08|0.9789
84520991|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.46|27.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.59|-51.46|0.5525
84718485|NCT02278185|169188404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome, the SPPB, the SHIM/FACT-P, and PSA were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was utilized to examine the difference between Month 1 and Month 12 SPPB scores. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the difference of SHIM/FACT-P scores and PSA between arms. These tests were chosen to account for the non-normal distributions of the continuous variables. The difference between PSA progression between arms was examined using the Fisher Exact Test. A heat map of scores ordered by the highest average score was also created. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|||0.46
84520992|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.979||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|25.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.96|-52.73|0.5035
84520993|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.81|34.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||34.39|-42.81|0.8302
84520994|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.01|27.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.10|-50.01|0.5590
84520995|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.36|27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.69|-51.36|0.5558
84520996|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|31.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||31.74|-48.34|0.6835
84520997|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|27.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.45|-49.75|0.5699
84520998|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.64|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.80|-56.64|0.3826
84520999|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.70|-52.35|0.5233
84521000|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.51|20.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.57|-59.51|0.3391
84521001|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|20.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.65|-56.55|0.3606
84521002|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.55|26.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.89|-51.55|0.5364
84521003|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|27.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.96|-51.08|0.5651
84521004|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.69|25.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.39|-54.69|0.4719
84521005|NCT01243151|168794079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.13|22.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||22.07|-55.13|0.3999
84521006|NCT02898740|168794098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|models were adjusted for age|treatment difference = Exercise - Health Education|||-0.0|-6.8|<0.05
84521007|NCT02655224|168794124|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|42.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.113|346.181|||Fisher's Exact Test||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||346.181|5.113|<0.0001
84521008|NCT02655224|168794125|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.555|239.478|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||239.478|3.555|
84521009|NCT02655224|168794126|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.069|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||0.069|-1.050|
84521010|NCT02655224|168794127|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.201|27.112|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||27.112|-3.201|
84521011|NCT02655224|168794128|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.605|19.709|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||19.709|1.605|
84521012|NCT02655224|168794128|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.784|34.955|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||34.955|2.784|
84521013|NCT02655224|168794129|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|27.609|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||27.609|1.071|
84521014|NCT02655224|168794129|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.603|62.88|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||62.880|2.603|
84521015|NCT02655224|168794130|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||0.745|-0.574|
84521016|NCT02655224|168794130|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.049|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||0.049|-1.190|
84521017|NCT02655224|168794130|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.074|-0.012|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||-0.012|-1.074|
84521018|NCT02655224|168794131|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.507|19.839|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||19.839|-11.507|
84521019|NCT02655224|168794131|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.098|28.494|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||28.494|-3.098|
84521020|NCT02655224|168794131|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.554|26.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||26.745|-3.554|
84521021|NCT02951195|168794143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.6|0.3|0.0207
84521022|NCT02951195|168794143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.9|5.0|0.0002
84521023|NCT02951195|168794143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.5|3.0|0.0019
84521024|NCT02951195|168794143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||18.7|-2.1|0.0540
84521025|NCT02951195|168794144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.7|0.0007
84521026|NCT02951195|168794145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-19.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-6.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-6.8|-32.2|0.0018
84521027|NCT02951195|168794145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-2.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.1|-25.0|0.0106
84521028|NCT02951195|168794145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-16.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-16.3|-38.6|<0.0001
84521029|NCT02951195|168794145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-9.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-9.7|-40.0|0.0017
84521030|NCT02951195|168794146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-14.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-14.1|-33.7|<0.0001
84521031|NCT02951195|168794147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||24.0|1.1|0.0166
84521032|NCT02951195|168794147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||31.4|11.2|<0.0001
84521033|NCT02951195|168794147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||27.8|6.3|0.0013
84521034|NCT02951195|168794147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|32.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||32.9|-3.8|0.0563
84521035|NCT02951195|168794148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.9|5.3|0.0012
84521036|NCT02951195|168794149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-2.6|0.0476
84521037|NCT02951195|168794149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|44.0|||ANCOVA|||||44.0|14.8|0.0001
84521038|NCT02951195|168794149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|41.1|||ANCOVA|||||41.1|11.3|0.0006
84521039|NCT02951195|168794149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|-11.6|0.2714
84521040|NCT02951195|168794150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|1.3|0.0138
84521041|NCT04281472|168794188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.614||||||||0.614|0.253|
84521042|NCT05109104|168794213|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84521043|NCT05109104|168794213|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84521044|NCT05109104|168794213|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84521045|NCT01717313|168794224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status, interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
84521046|NCT01717313|168794225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percentages vs. placebo|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|2.6||||||||2.6|-18.8|
84521047|NCT01717313|168794226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||||4.5|-3.1|
84521048|NCT01717313|168794227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-16.4|
84521049|NCT01717313|168794228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||||||||4.8|-3.5|
84521050|NCT01717313|168794229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|29.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||29.8|10.5|<0.001
84521051|NCT01717313|168794230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|11.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.6|4.8|0.001
84521052|NCT01717313|168794231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-10.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-0.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.7|-19.9|0.036
84521053|NCT01717313|168794232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.6||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|5.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||5.3|-28.6|0.177
84521054|NCT01717313|168794237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
84521055|NCT01717313|168794238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-2.7|-23.7|0.014
84521056|NCT01717313|168794239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-20.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-1.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-1.9|-39.0|0.031
84521057|NCT01097694|168794259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Our null hypothesis was that the mean of this ratio will be 0 after log2-transformed.~The target enrollment was 60 assuming 10% drop-out for 54 completions which gave us 80% power to detect a doubling-dose change in PC20."||||<0.05
84521058|NCT01097694|168794260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||<0.05
84521059|NCT01097694|168794261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.12
84521060|NCT01097694|168794262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.10
84521061|NCT01097694|168794263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.36
84521062|NCT01097694|168794264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline values||For FEV1 we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||<0.05
84521063|NCT01097694|168794265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||For FEV1% we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||0.06
84521064|NCT01097694|168794266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.38
84521065|NCT01097694|168794267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
84521066|NCT01097694|168794268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
84521067|NCT01097694|168794269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
84521068|NCT01097694|168794270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
84718486|NCT02278185|169188415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The results are presented in the following format: N Mean (Std Dev) Median (Q1, Q3). In all cases (Overall, Arm 1, and Arm 2) we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the samples come from the same population of scores at Month 1 versus Month 12 at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.5
84521069|NCT01097694|168794271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.62
84521070|NCT01097694|168794272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.57
84521071|NCT01097694|168794273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.15
84521072|NCT01097694|168794274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.33
84521073|NCT01097694|168794275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.11
84521074|NCT01097694|168794276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.07
84521075|NCT01097694|168794277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.94
84521076|NCT01097694|168794278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.13
84521077|NCT01097694|168794279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.25
84521078|NCT01097694|168794280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.54
84521079|NCT01097694|168794281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.18
84521080|NCT01097694|168794282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.56
84521081|NCT01097694|168794283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.47
84521082|NCT03480022|168794306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.002
84521083|NCT03480022|168794307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.006
84521084|NCT03480022|168794308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures nested design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
84521085|NCT03480022|168794309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||<0.002
84521086|NCT03480022|168794310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.007
84521087|NCT03480022|168794311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.049
84521088|NCT03480022|168794312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.011
84521089|NCT03480022|168794313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.038|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.038
84521090|NCT03480022|168794314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.048
84521091|NCT03480022|168794315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.018
84521092|NCT03480022|168794316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
84521093|NCT03480022|168794317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.034
84521094|NCT03480022|168794318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84521095|NCT03480022|168794319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
84521096|NCT03480022|168794320|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84521097|NCT03480022|168794321|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84521098|NCT03480022|168794322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.021
84521099|NCT03480022|168794323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.009
84521100|NCT03480022|168794324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
84521101|NCT03480022|168794325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
84521102|NCT03480022|168794326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.042|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.042
84521103|NCT03480022|168794327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.033|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.033
84521104|NCT03480022|168794328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84718487|NCT04977583|169188421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2625||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.904|0.679|0.6243
84521105|NCT03480022|168794329|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84521106|NCT03480022|168794330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.016
84521107|NCT03480022|168794331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
84521108|NCT03480022|168794332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
84521109|NCT03480022|168794333|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84521110|NCT03480022|168794334|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
84521111|NCT01949532|168794352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|132.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|249.63|||||The point estimates of the geometric mean ratios for the PK parameters were calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least-squares means between the renal impairment group (test) and participants with normal renal function (reference).|||249.63|70.60|
84521112|NCT01949532|168794353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|133.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|251.73||||||||251.73|70.93|
84718488|NCT04977583|169188421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2553||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|2.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test compares Arm 1 (screening) to arm 3 (assistance)||2.469|0.908|0.1146
84521113|NCT01277510|168794389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|35.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.76|62.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1-5). The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05. The four biochemical secondary endpoints were to be tested using Holm's method at 0.05 should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||62.24|8.76|0.017
84521114|NCT01277510|168794390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|3.46||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.58|29.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||29.51|-22.58|0.826
84521115|NCT01277510|168794391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||1.3|-8.6|0.147
84540682|NCT03915652|168832628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 are combined; pre/post survey analysis||10.22|-6.22|0.50
84521116|NCT01277510|168794392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||8.9|-19.4|0.454
84521117|NCT01277510|168794393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||2.6|-22.5|0.117
84521118|NCT01277510|168794394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||3.6|-3.1|0.896
84521119|NCT01277510|168794396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||7.9|-9.4|0.854
84521120|NCT00021541|168794399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
84521121|NCT00021541|168794399|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: tipifarnib group F=7.40||||0.015
84521122|NCT00021541|168794399|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: placebo group F=0.19||||0.66
84521123|NCT01874535|168794402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84521124|NCT00784095|168794403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.7|.04|.047
84521125|NCT00784095|168794403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||4.7|-1.1|
84521126|NCT00784095|168794404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.6||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.6|-3.2|
84521127|NCT00784095|168794404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||3.3|-5.6|
84521128|NCT00784095|168794405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||2.9|-6.2|
84521129|NCT00784095|168794405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.0||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||1.0|-8.2|
84521130|NCT00784095|168794406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.4|-4.5|
84521131|NCT00784095|168794406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.0||||||Intervention versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||3.0|-5.1|
84521132|NCT00784095|168794407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.7|-4.8|
84521133|NCT00784095|168794407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||6.7|-1.9|
84521134|NCT03828539|168794409|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||0.27|0.13|<.001
84521135|NCT03828539|168794410|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.71|2.06|<.001
84521136|NCT03828539|168794411|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.12|1.70|<.001
84521137|NCT03828539|168794412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||2.43|1.26|<0.001
84521138|NCT03828539|168794412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||2.69|1.29|0.005
84521139|NCT02616380|168794414|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
84521140|NCT02616380|168794415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84521141|NCT02616380|168794415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
84521142|NCT02616380|168794415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
84521143|NCT02616380|168794415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
84521144|NCT02616380|168794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
84521145|NCT02616380|168794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
84521146|NCT02616380|168794417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
84521147|NCT02616380|168794417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
84521148|NCT02616380|168794417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
84521149|NCT02616380|168794417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
84521150|NCT02616380|168794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
84521151|NCT00950300|168794427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) was greater than or equal to (≥) 0.8 for the geometric mean ratio.|Geometric mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.44|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|PK sample size calculations based on percentage of coefficient of variation (CV%) for Ctrough of trastuzumab from previous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early breast cancer (EBC) studies. Because pre-surgery situation was comparable to MBC setting, interpatient CV% of 60 percent (%) was assumed and 130 participants per arm (260 participants total) were needed to demonstrate Ctrough comparability with 80% power if the true means of the two formulations did not differ by greater than (\>) 5%.||1.44|1.24|
84521152|NCT00950300|168794428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was above -12.5% for the difference in response (pCR) rates.|Difference in response rates|4.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0||||||The one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in response (pCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|Assuming pCR rates of at least 40% in both arms, 552 participants were necessary to conclude non-inferiority in pCR rate with a power of 80% using a one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference of the response rates and a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|||-4.0|
84521153|NCT00950300|168794429|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.63|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.63|1.40|
84521154|NCT00950300|168794430|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.46|
84521155|NCT00950300|168794431|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.45|
84521156|NCT00950300|168794440|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|13.5|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (tpCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||13.5|-3.5|
84521157|NCT00950300|168794441|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (CR+PR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||4.2|-7.4|
84521158|NCT00950300|168794441|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||||OR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.46|0.50|
84521159|NCT00950300|168794444|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.29|0.74|0.8651
84521160|NCT00950300|168794446|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.45|0.61|0.7767
84521161|NCT00633022|168794459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term,|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID versus Placebo||0.06|-0.14|0.4519
84521162|NCT00633022|168794459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.5789
84521163|NCT00633022|168794460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily versus placebo||0.10|-0.15|0.6986
84521164|NCT00633022|168794460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.12|-0.13|0.9486
84521165|NCT01994980|168794469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84521166|NCT00122447|168794496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.435|1.552||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||1.552|-3.435|0.449
84521167|NCT00122447|168794496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.133|-0.221||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.221|-5.133|0.034
84521168|NCT00122447|168794496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.367|2.542||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||2.542|-2.367|0.943
84521169|NCT00122447|168794497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.023||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: no difference between active treatment group compared to placebo.||0.023|-0.025|0.943
84521170|NCT00122447|168794497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.039||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.012|0.280
84521171|NCT00122447|168794497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.037||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.037|-0.012|0.313
84521172|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84521173|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84521174|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84521175|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
84521176|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
84521177|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84521178|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, 2-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight subjects per ABT-333 group and 11 subjects in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a 2-sided 2-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
84521179|NCT01074008|168794501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.053
84521180|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84521181|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
84521182|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84521183|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
84521184|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84521185|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
84521186|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
84521187|NCT01074008|168794502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
84521188|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84718489|NCT04977583|169188422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.447|||Poisson|We used total needs as an offset||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.447|0.641|0.856
84521189|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
84718490|NCT04977583|169188422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1999||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.681|||Poisson|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 3 (assistance)||1.681|0.768|0.5248
84718491|NCT04977583|169188423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 2||1.400|0.536|.5582
84521190|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84521191|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84521192|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
84521193|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84521194|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84521195|NCT01074008|168794503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84521196|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84521197|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84521198|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84521199|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
84718492|NCT04977583|169188423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.381|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 3||1.381|0.528|0.5196
84521200|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.319
84521201|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
84718493|NCT04977583|169188424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2794||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.821|0.2105
84521202|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
84521203|NCT01074008|168794516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.074
84521204|NCT00578968|168794525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84521205|NCT00578968|168794526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84521206|NCT00578968|168794527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84521207|NCT00578968|168794528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84521208|NCT00578968|168794529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline resting.||||0.13
84521209|NCT00578968|168794529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between the two groups at baseline peak exercise||||<0.01
84521210|NCT00578968|168794530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84521211|NCT00578968|168794531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84521212|NCT00578968|168794532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84521213|NCT00578968|168794533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84521214|NCT00578968|168794534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
84521215|NCT00578968|168794535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84521216|NCT00578968|168794536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
84521217|NCT00578968|168794537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
84521218|NCT00578968|168794538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84521219|NCT00578968|168794539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84521220|NCT00578968|168794540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
84521221|NCT00578968|168794541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
84521222|NCT00578968|168794542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.65
84521223|NCT00578968|168794543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
84521224|NCT00578968|168794544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment resting time period.||||0.73
84521225|NCT00578968|168794544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment peak exercise time period.||||0.11
84521226|NCT00578968|168794545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
84521227|NCT00578968|168794546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84521228|NCT00578968|168794547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
84521229|NCT00578968|168794548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84521230|NCT00578968|168794549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84521231|NCT00578968|168794550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
84521232|NCT00578968|168794551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84521233|NCT00578968|168794552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84521234|NCT01350934|168794555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||3.1|0.8|<0.001
84521235|NCT01350934|168794556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
84521236|NCT01350934|168794557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-42.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.16|-36.67|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-36.67|-48.16|<0.001
84521237|NCT01350934|168794558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.04|-45.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.30|-59.04|<0.001
84521238|NCT01350934|168794559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.29|-44.99|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-44.99|-57.29|<0.001
84521239|NCT01350934|168794560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.77|-45.39|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.39|-58.77|<0.001
84521240|NCT01350934|168794561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0074|0.1048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio comparison of percentage of participants with \<20 ng/mL of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin (OH) D between Fosamax Plus group and Calcitriol group.||0.1048|0.0074|<0.001
84521241|NCT01435824|168794565|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.4||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.4|97.5|
84521242|NCT01435824|168794566|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.7||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.7|97.5|
84521243|NCT01435824|168794567|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.4|114.9||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||114.9|89.4|
84521244|NCT01435824|168794568|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|107.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|137.8||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||137.8|84.5|
84521245|NCT00117806|168794580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
84521246|NCT01765751|168794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.6|-0.1|
84521247|NCT01765751|168794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.9|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.9|0.1|
84521248|NCT01765751|168794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||2.7|-3.2|
84718494|NCT04977583|169188424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2816||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4574|1.379|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.379|0.4574|.4143
84718495|NCT04977583|169188425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9665|1.0336|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.0336|0.9665|0.9775
84718496|NCT04977583|169188425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9832|1.0534|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.0534|0.9832|0.3194
84521249|NCT01765751|168794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|29.7|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||29.7|1.6|
84521250|NCT01765751|168794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|23.3|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||23.3|-3.7|
84521251|NCT01765751|168794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|20.3|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||20.3|-8.6|
84521252|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.4|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||0.4|-8.1|
84521253|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6|||||Pain Interference - Medium vs Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||5.6|-2.6|
84521254|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.0|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||1.0|-9.8|
84521255|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8|||||Physical Function - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Function||3.8|-2.2|
84521256|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||||Physical Function - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Funtion||3.2|-2.9|
84521257|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Physical Function- High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population|Physical Function||3.7|-2.4|
84521258|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5|||||Fatigue - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||10.5|1.1|
84521259|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||||Fatigue - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||8.2|-1.5|
84521260|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||Fatigue - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||7.3|-2.3|
84521261|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||3.5|-0.9|
84521262|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||||Sleep Disturbance - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||0.9|-3.6|
84521263|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.0|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||5.0|0.4|
84521264|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||3.9|-4.5|
84521265|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||||Anxiety - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||5.1|-2.9|
84521266|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||2.9|-5.7|
84521267|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Depression - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||0.6|-6.7|
84521268|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||||Depression - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||2.6|-4.1|
84521269|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.4|||||Depression - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||1.4|-5.4|
84521270|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.9|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||4.9|-4.5|
84521271|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||7.7|-1.8|
84521272|NCT01765751|168794584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.0|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||2.0|-7.6|
84521273|NCT00059332|168794619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the primary efficacy analysis, data were analyzed to test the null hypothesis that the distribution of scores over all 7 levels of the modified Rankin Scale at Day 90 was identical in the magnesium sulfate and placebo groups, vs. the one-sided alternative that the distribution of scores is shifted lower in the active magnesium sulfate therapy group. The statistic used to test the primary hypothesis was the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistic stratified by transport vehicle.||||0.28
84521274|NCT00059332|168794620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||||1.20|0.81|0.87
84521275|NCT00059332|168794621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.81|0.87
84521276|NCT00059332|168794622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2760
84521277|NCT00059332|168794623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3912
84521278|NCT00059332|168794624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3230
84521279|NCT00059332|168794625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.87|0.95
84521280|NCT00059332|168794626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|0.34|0.12
84521281|NCT00059332|168794627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.76|0.95
84521282|NCT00323258|168794695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in proportion of participants adherent to triple therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample size of 286 patients(143 patients per group).Based on an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15% in the intervention group (eg, 85% in the intervention group, 70% in the control group), a 2-sided test with α level of .05, a 15% dropout rate, and power of 0.80.||||.50
84521283|NCT00323258|168794696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to combined beta-blocker and statin therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."|||||=|0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||=0.11
84521284|NCT00323258|168794697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to beta-blockers in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.03
84521285|NCT00323258|168794698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to statins in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.34
84521286|NCT03174158|168794704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori p value threshold \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84521287|NCT03174158|168794704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|a priori threshold p\<0.05||||||0.18
84521288|NCT03174158|168794704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
84521289|NCT02004691|168794714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7576|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.319|28.696||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-values were based on mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Derived % Predicted DLco adjusted for Hb and pressure, age, treatment group, visit, and study visit by treatment group as covariates.|||28.696|9.319|=0.0004
84521290|NCT02004691|168794716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.051|-32.803||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values were based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Spleen Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||-32.803|-47.051|<.0001
84521291|NCT02004691|168794718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3877|=|0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.302|8.538||Threshold for significance was 0.15.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Splenomegaly Related Score, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||8.538|-5.302|=0.6364
84521292|NCT02004691|168794723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.911|-19.281||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Liver Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-19.281|-33.911|<.0001
84718497|NCT04977583|169188426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1613||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4107|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.4107|0.7497|0.8623
84521293|NCT02004691|168794724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7822|=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.564|26.099||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Platelets, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||26.099|2.564|=0.0185
84540683|NCT03915652|168832629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||6.47|1.06|0.01
84718498|NCT04977583|169188426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9962|1.8844|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.8844|0.9962|0.0534
84521294|NCT02004691|168794725|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7384|=|0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.454||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline BFI item 3 (Worst Fatigue), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.454|-1.566|=0.9400
84521295|NCT01320722|168794821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8||||0.72
84521296|NCT01320722|168794822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.77
84521297|NCT01320722|168794823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.57
84521298|NCT01320722|168794824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.8
84521299|NCT01320722|168794824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
84521300|NCT01320722|168794825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
84521301|NCT01320722|168794825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.7
84521302|NCT01320722|168794826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.3
84521303|NCT01320722|168794826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.1
84521304|NCT01320722|168794827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.||Week 8||||0.35
84521305|NCT01320722|168794827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.7
84521306|NCT01320722|168794827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.06
84521307|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.92
84521308|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall DBP||||0.64
84521309|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.80
84521310|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP at Week 8||||0.97
84521311|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.34
84521312|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysi|||Overall DBP||||0.59
84521313|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBF||||0.57
84521314|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.08
84521315|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.59
84521316|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.53
84521317|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.55
84718499|NCT04977583|169188427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1304|40.5121|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||40.5121|0.1304|0.5701
84521318|NCT01320722|168794828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.80
84521319|NCT01320722|168794829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.98
84521320|NCT01320722|168794829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.07
84521321|NCT01320722|168794829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.97
84521322|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|19.1908|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and standard deviation (SD) from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521323|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0018|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521324|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521325|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|12.6852|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521326|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.1842|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521327|NCT03980522|168794830|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84540684|NCT03915652|168832630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, pre/post test||0.98|-1.27|0.77
84521328|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|34.1446|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521329|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.1326|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521330|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521331|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521332|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521333|NCT03980522|168794831|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521334|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|2.8139|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521335|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|6.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521336|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521337|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521338|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521339|NCT03980522|168794832|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
84521340|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|1.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521341|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.9047|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521342|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84540685|NCT03915652|168832631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||7.52|-3.23|0.37
84521343|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.7598|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521344|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|2.849|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521345|NCT03980522|168794833|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
84521346|NCT01091363|168794836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|12.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.99|1.67|<0.01
84521347|NCT01091363|168794837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model predicting a binary logistic outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.32|||Mediation Analysis|||Mediation analyses were performed to examine the effect of the intervention on abstinence via the three theoretic variables (attitudes, perceived family norms, and self-efficacy), using the Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model with a binary outcome variable (quitting vs. smoking).||6.32|0.34|0.02
84521348|NCT00936351|168794846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84521349|NCT01540045|168794854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.013
84521350|NCT01540045|168794855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated body fat before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.671
84521351|NCT01540045|168794855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated lean body mass before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.694
84521352|NCT01540045|168794856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
84521353|NCT01540045|168794857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) was used to assess and classify patients as having severe or moderate malnourishment (B or C) or as being well nourished (A).||||0.607
84521354|NCT01540045|168794858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds compared to \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.015
84521355|NCT01540045|168794858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||animal protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.010
84521356|NCT01540045|168794858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAT consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.004
84521357|NCT01540045|168794860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.28
84521358|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.889
84521359|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in functional role of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.293
84521360|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in emotional functioning of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.009
84521361|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in fatigue scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.213
84521362|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in appetite loss of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.595
84521363|NCT01540045|168794861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in constipation scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.068
84521364|NCT01540045|168794862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84521365|NCT01540045|168794863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peripheral neuropathy scale of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.240
84521366|NCT01540045|168794864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.036
84521367|NCT01540045|168794865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.312
84521368|NCT01540045|168794866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.608
84718500|NCT04977583|169188427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.467||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2571|80.8746|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||80.8746|0.2571|0.3016
84521369|NCT01540045|168794867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.035
84521370|NCT01540045|168794868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.402
84521371|NCT01540045|168794869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.109
84521372|NCT01540045|168794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.092
84521373|NCT01540045|168794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||We divide dilutions in two groups and dichotomized the patients into high and low sensibility to bitter taste. (PERCEPTION)||||0.022
84521374|NCT03407729|168794877|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a 1) Left Thalamus seed and 2) Left Middle Temporal Gyrus seed, cluster size was set at 50 voxels and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05. This was used to compare the differences between the two study groups in terms of number of activated voxels during during cognitive testing using the N-back.|||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 and statistical power was set at a minimum of 0.80.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84521375|NCT01849458|168794880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.0|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||40|25.2|0.0001
84521376|NCT01849458|168794881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|42.7|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||42.7|28.7|0.0001
84521377|NCT01849458|168794882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|50.1|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||50.1|37.4|0.0001
84521378|NCT01849458|168794883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|55.2|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||55.2|43.2|0.0001
84521379|NCT04387617|168794886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.8|0.5
84521380|NCT02413008|168794890|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The variations of the levels of FSH after treatment was studied in each women at baseline, week 3 and week12 weeks, the variation of levels between two arms were analysed using a non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.~The intra individual variation (differences between the pre study determinations screening and baseline) was compared to the variation between baseline and the values obtained at every study visit."||||0.10
84521381|NCT02413008|168794890|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The variations in the intensities for each one of the symptoms and signs of the vaginal atrophy, after 3 and 12 weeks, in each treatment arm, will be compared using the non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.||||0.413
84521382|NCT02413008|168794890|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
84521383|NCT02413008|168794891|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 1||||<0.05
84521384|NCT02413008|168794891|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 3||||<0.05
84521385|NCT02413008|168794891|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 8||||>0.05
84521386|NCT02413008|168794892|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 1||||>0.05
84521387|NCT02413008|168794892|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 3||||>0.05
84521388|NCT02413008|168794892|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 8||||>0.05
84521389|NCT02413008|168794892|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 12||||0.135
84718501|NCT04977583|169188428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2438||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.944|0.0870
84521390|NCT02413008|168794893|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.043
84521391|NCT02413008|168794893|OTHER|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.649
84521392|NCT02413008|168794893|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 8 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.588
84521393|NCT02413008|168794893|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.67
84521394|NCT02413008|168794894|OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.342
84521395|NCT02413008|168794894|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.523
84521396|NCT02413008|168794894|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 8||||0.523
84521397|NCT02413008|168794894|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 12||||0.163
84521398|NCT02413008|168794895|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 1||||0.418
84521399|NCT02413008|168794895|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 3||||0.642
84521400|NCT02413008|168794895|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 8||||0.175
84521401|NCT02413008|168794895|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 12||||0.084
84521402|NCT02413008|168794896|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 3||||<0.01
84521403|NCT02413008|168794896|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 12||||0.057
84521404|NCT02413008|168794897|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 3||||0.14
84521405|NCT02413008|168794897|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 12||||0.25
84521406|NCT02413008|168794898|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||0.28
84521407|NCT02413008|168794898|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||0.34
84521408|NCT02413008|168794899|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 3||||0.14
84521409|NCT02413008|168794899|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 12||||<0.01
84521410|NCT02413008|168794900|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 3||||0.03
84521411|NCT02413008|168794900|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 12||||0.04
84521412|NCT02413008|168794901|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||<0.001
84521413|NCT02413008|168794901|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa betweeen baseline and week 12||||<0.01
84521414|NCT02413008|168794902|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||0.13
84521415|NCT02413008|168794902|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 12||||<0.01
84521416|NCT02413008|168794903|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||<0.001
84521417|NCT02413008|168794903|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||<0.001
84521418|NCT02413008|168794904|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 3 and baseline||||<0.001
84521419|NCT02413008|168794904|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 12 and baseline||||<0.001
84521420|NCT02413008|168794905|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 3||||<0.0001
84521421|NCT02413008|168794905|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 12||||0.006
84521422|NCT03950674|168794907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.12511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.42||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.42|0.27|0.12511
84521423|NCT03950674|168794908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.03127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.15||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.15|0.07|0.03127
84521424|NCT01898598|168794917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Response Rates|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|32.1||||||The 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was computed using the exact unconditional confidence limits method.||32.1|-71.6|
84521425|NCT01898598|168794918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|14.2||||||||14.2|-85.3|
84521426|NCT02707276|168794934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|mean raw change active-sham; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in MADRS scores.||||<0.76
84521427|NCT02707276|168794934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline covariate|Pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.33
84521428|NCT02707276|168794935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw change active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline HARS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in HARS scores.||||<0.61
84521429|NCT02707276|168794935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.32
84521430|NCT02707276|168794936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores.||||<0.78
84521431|NCT02707276|168794936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.99
84521432|NCT00360490|168794961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
84521433|NCT00360490|168794962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|62.59|||<|0.001||95.0|50.56|74.61|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with successful treatment is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||74.61|50.56|<0.001
84521434|NCT00360490|168794963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-70.2|-28.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-28.3|-70.2|<0.001
84521435|NCT00360490|168794964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
84521436|NCT00360490|168794965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.8|-37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-37.4|-63.8|<0.001
84521437|NCT00360490|168794975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.06||||||95.0|14.75|37.36||||||A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the improvement rate will be provided for cycle 6||37.36|14.75|
84521438|NCT03460990|168795011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.5|7.4|< 0.0001
84521439|NCT03460990|168795012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-43.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-43.5|-53.9|<0.0001
84521440|NCT03460990|168795013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||18.3|8.8|<0.0001
84521441|NCT01958060|168795018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9901|1.1308|||||Dose proportionality was explored using linear regression model (ANOVA).The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually the SE of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for Cmax was analysed.||1.1308|0.9901|
84521442|NCT01958060|168795020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.5629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3426|1.7833|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the linear regression model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error of the mean is actually the standard error of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for AUClast was analysed.||1.7833|1.3426|
84521443|NCT01705717|168795024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
84521444|NCT01705717|168795025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84521445|NCT04980456|168795043|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = TOTAL30 minus Biofinity|||0.01||
84521446|NCT02293460|168795044|SUPERIORITY|The response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3%.|Responder rate|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|87.9||One-sided test at nominal level of significance alpha = 2.5 %|exact binomial Clopper-Pearson|||"For this single-arm study, the response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3% with a 1-sided Clopper-Pearson exact test at the nominal level of significance of 2.5% on the Full Analysis Set. The null and alternative hypotheses were as follows:~H0: pI10E \<= 33.3% H1: pI10E \> 33.3%"||87.9|60.5|<0.0001
84521447|NCT00706719|168795055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.118
84521448|NCT00706719|168795055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.006
84521449|NCT00706719|168795055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.009
84521450|NCT00706719|168795055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.0024
84521451|NCT00706719|168795056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.15
84521452|NCT00706719|168795056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.0067
84521453|NCT00706719|168795056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.10
84521454|NCT00706719|168795056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.26
84521455|NCT00706719|168795057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.880
84521456|NCT00706719|168795057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.612
84521457|NCT00706719|168795057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.488
84521458|NCT00706719|168795057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.054
84521459|NCT00706719|168795058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.705
84521460|NCT00706719|168795058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.013
84521461|NCT00706719|168795058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.004
84521462|NCT00706719|168795058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.808
84521463|NCT00706719|168795059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.008
84521464|NCT00706719|168795059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.015
84521465|NCT00706719|168795059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.003
84521466|NCT00706719|168795059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.109
84521467|NCT00500318|168795060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|116.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.113||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.28|195.61|||ANCOVA|||||195.610|37.280|0.0042
84540404|NCT01995513|168831688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.119||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 0 percent \[%\] to less than \[\<\] 30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.119|0.612|0.2176
84521468|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.49|||||"The Odds Ratio compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having an open encounter alert in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering.||1.49|0.97|
84521469|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||"The OR compares between having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.59|0.83|
84521470|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||||"The OR compares between having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patient's primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.16|0.61|
84521471|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.88|
84521472|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||||"The OR compares between having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||0.98|0.52|
84521473|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.89|
84521474|NCT04284553|168795066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||"The OR compares patients having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.19|0.55|
84521475|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|21.2|||||"The estimate compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having open encounter in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.2|-17.6|
84521476|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|17.5|||||"The estimate compares having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.5|-41.8|
84718502|NCT04977583|169188428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|3.264|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||3.264|1.048|0.0354
84718503|NCT04977583|169188429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|1.553|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.553|0.246|0.3063
84718504|NCT04977583|169188429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.803|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.803|.256|.4378
84521477|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|67.4|||||"The estimate compares having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||67.4|11.6|
84521478|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.9|||||"The estimate compares having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||26.9|-30.4|
84521479|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|17.4|||||"The estimate compares having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.4|-37.6|
84521480|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.5|||||"The estimate compares having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||32.5|-24.1|
84521481|NCT04284553|168795068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|21.5|||||"The estimate compares having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.5|-45.5|
84521482|NCT01196117|168795100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0009
84521483|NCT01196117|168795101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8938
84521484|NCT01196117|168795102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.014
84521485|NCT01196117|168795103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0200
84521486|NCT01196117|168795104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
84521487|NCT01196117|168795105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.2490
84521488|NCT01196117|168795106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5139
84521489|NCT01196117|168795107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0597
84521490|NCT01196117|168795108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2134
84521491|NCT03239496|168795111|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84521492|NCT03239496|168795112|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84521493|NCT03239496|168795113|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84540870|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|7.4|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||7.4|5.2|<0.001
84521494|NCT03239496|168795114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
84521495|NCT03239496|168795115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
84521496|NCT03239496|168795116|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84540871|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|594.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.5|2411.7|||Poisson Regression|||Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||2411.7|146.5|<0.001
84718505|NCT04977583|169188430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8265||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|2.5687|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.5687|0.1006|0.4134
84718506|NCT04977583|169188430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8283||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3588|9.223|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||9.2230|0.3588|0.4705
84718507|NCT04977583|169188431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|2.987|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||2.987|1.044|0.0347
84472026|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.008
84472027|NCT00755846|168695738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.321||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.321
84472028|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84472029|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84472030|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
84472031|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84521497|NCT03239496|168795117|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84521498|NCT03239496|168795118|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
84521499|NCT02153723|168795134|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84521500|NCT02153723|168795135|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84521501|NCT02153723|168795136|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84521502|NCT02153723|168795137|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84521503|NCT02153723|168795138|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84718508|NCT04977583|169188432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3489||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|3.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis compares arm 1 to arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and Arm 1 is the denominator|||3.436|0.875|0.1160
84718509|NCT04977583|169188432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3475||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.202|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.695|1.202|0.0134
84521504|NCT02153723|168795139|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84521505|NCT02274558|168795140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): valbenazine 80 mg vs. placebo.~* CGI-TD mean score: VBZ 80 mg vs. PBO.~* AIMS: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~* CGI-TD: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
84521506|NCT02274558|168795140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Nominal P-value, not adjusted for multiplicity. See comments in above statistical analysis overview regarding the fixed-sequence testing procedure to control for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.7|-3.0|0.0021
84521507|NCT02274558|168795141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0742
84521508|NCT02274558|168795141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0560
84521509|NCT02274558|168795142|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0200
84521510|NCT02274558|168795142|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84521511|NCT01157234|168795154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|55.53||||||||55.53|1.93|
84521512|NCT01157234|168795155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|29.12||||||||29.12|-12.58|
84521513|NCT01157234|168795156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|9.2||||||||9.20|-6.74|
84521514|NCT01157234|168795160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|23.4||||||||23.40|0.48|
84718510|NCT04977583|169188433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|16.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is denominator.|||16.570|1.512|0.0094
84718511|NCT04977583|169188433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6532||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|6.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is a comparison of arm 1 and arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||6.746|0.521|0.3377
84521515|NCT01157234|168795161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|69.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.83|||TWO_SIDED|99.7|12.71|126.37||||||||126.37|12.71|
84521516|NCT01157234|168795162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|68.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|13.02|123.36||||||||123.36|13.02|
84521517|NCT01157234|168795163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.32|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.25|51.03||||||||51.03|-48.25|
84521518|NCT01157234|168795164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.74|54.22||||||||54.22|-48.74|
84521519|NCT02733627|168795218|OTHER||Slope|3.8266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2155|4.4376||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.4376|3.2155|
84540872|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|14.4|||Poisson Regression|||Lung Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.4|7.8|<0.001
84521520|NCT02733627|168795219|OTHER||Slope|4.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5094|4.8527||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.8527|3.5094|
84521521|NCT02733627|168795220|OTHER||Slope|1.8868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2503|2.5234||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|2.5234|1.2503|
84521522|NCT02733627|168795221|OTHER||Slope|3.0677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0631|4.0723||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.0723|2.0631|
84521523|NCT00487695|168795229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Our hypothesis was that the yield for neoplasia would be higher using confocal laser endomicroscopy compared to standard endoscopy. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in yield for neoplasia when CLE is used compared to standard endoscopy. We estimated that the yield for neoplasia would increase from 10% to 40% using CLE and the calculated sample size was 37. We planned to enroll 48 patients to allow for possible dropouts.||||0.01
84521524|NCT00487695|168795230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared.||||0.89
84521525|NCT00487695|168795231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||0.002
84521526|NCT00487695|168795233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared. This analysis looks at the patients referred for Barrett's surveillance EGD (no suspected neoplasia).||||1.0
84521527|NCT00487695|168795234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||<0.0001
84521528|NCT02104817|168795235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.90|0.837
84521529|NCT02104817|168795236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.269
84521530|NCT02104817|168795237|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.93|0.402
84521531|NCT02104817|168795238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.87|0.940
84521532|NCT02104817|168795239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.81|0.092
84521533|NCT02104817|168795240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.75|0.016
84521534|NCT02104817|168795241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.90|0.372
84521535|NCT02104817|168795242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.89|0.336
84521536|NCT02104817|168795243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.97|0.112
84521537|NCT02104817|168795244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.97|0.091
84521538|NCT02104817|168795245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.83|0.408
84521539|NCT02104817|168795246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.63|0.233
84521540|NCT02104817|168795247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.81|0.770
84521541|NCT02104817|168795248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.90|0.278
84521542|NCT04633642|168795251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significances was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84521543|NCT04633642|168795252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84521544|NCT04633642|168795253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84521545|NCT04633642|168795254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical di↵erence of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.01
84521546|NCT04633642|168795255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistics significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84521547|NCT04633642|168795256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical difference of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.711
84521548|NCT01207752|168795279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
84521549|NCT01586039|168795280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity. Melatonin suppression is measured as the percentage of melatonin AUC relative to the AUC measured in dim light on the previous day. Higher values indicate more light-induced melatonin suppression.||||0.73
84521550|NCT01586039|168795280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity||||0.001
84521551|NCT01586039|168795281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.19
84521552|NCT01586039|168795283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||||0.17
84521553|NCT01586039|168795283|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test.||||||1.0
84521554|NCT01943435|168795296|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||2.2|-1.5|0.73
84521555|NCT01943435|168795296|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||-0.3|-3.9|0.02
84521556|NCT01943435|168795296|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||4.3|0.6|0.01
84521557|NCT01943435|168795297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|249.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||249.2|-75.2|0.29
84521558|NCT01943435|168795297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|129.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|286.6|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||286.6|-27.2|0.10
84521559|NCT01943435|168795297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.7||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.4|120.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||120.0|-205.4|0.61
84521560|NCT01943435|168795298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|57.9|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||57.9|3.1|0.03
84521561|NCT01943435|168795298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|45.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||45.0|-7.6|0.16
84521562|NCT01943435|168795298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|39.1|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||39.1|-15.6|0.40
84521563|NCT01728636|168795303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
84521564|NCT04535986|168795328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0551|0.1185||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1185|0.0551|<0.0001
84521565|NCT01196390|168795338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|Assuming a median DFS time of 15 months (Arm 2), hypothesized increase in DFS corresponding to median DFS time of 25 months (Arm 1). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 183 HER2-positive participants accrued over 5 years and followed for 3 years would result in 162 disease-free survival events and provide 90% statistical power to detect this difference with a 2-sided α of 0.05 and 2 interim analyses. See Limitations and Caveats section.||1.36|0.69|0.85
84521566|NCT01196390|168795339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.71
84521567|NCT01196390|168795340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|||1.47|0.69|0.95
84521568|NCT01196390|168795342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||6-8 weeks||||0.39
84521569|NCT01196390|168795342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||1 year||||0.78
84521570|NCT01196390|168795342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||2 years||||0.28
84521571|NCT01196390|168795345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to model the association of treatment arm (Arm 1 vs. 2 \[reference level(RL)\]), T stage (T3 vs.T1,T2 \[RL\]), Zubrod (1,2 vs. 0 \[RL\]), gender (male vs. female \[RL\]), presence of adenopathy (yes vs. no \[RL\]), and age (≥ 60 vs. \<60 \[RL\]) with the occurrence of any cardiac AE, using backwards step-wise model selection requiring p≤0.05 for a covariate to remain in the model. Final model covariates are reported. Age is reported here. No other covariates reported.||4.86|1.13|0.021
84521572|NCT01632215|168795351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84521573|NCT04561115|168795363|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|0.972||||||||0.972|0.926|
84521574|NCT04561115|168795364|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.021||||||||1.021|0.937|
84521575|NCT05068661|168795388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.40|0.486
84521576|NCT05068661|168795389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||This is adjusted P value for hypotension|Chi-squared|||||1.06|0.69|0.148
84521577|NCT05068661|168795390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||This is adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.98|>0.999
84521578|NCT05068661|168795391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.18||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||3.18|1.14|0.128
84521579|NCT05068661|168795392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.35|0.80|>0.999
84521580|NCT05068661|168795393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.97|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.93|>0.999
84521581|NCT05068661|168795394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.25|0.52|>0.999
84521582|NCT05068661|168795395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.58|>0.999
84521583|NCT05068661|168795396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.22|0.86|>0.999
84521584|NCT00697619|168795413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
84521585|NCT00697619|168795413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84521586|NCT00697619|168795413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84521587|NCT00288704|168795414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
84718512|NCT00979459|169188438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the AUC(0 to infinity) geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.99||||||||0.99|0.86|
84521588|NCT00288704|168795415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Subjects received rilonacept 160 mg for 9 weeks (weeks 6-15), and then were re-randomized 1:1 into either Placebo or rilonacept 160 mg. The endpoint for the period was 9 weeks later (week 24).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.001
84521589|NCT00288704|168795416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
84521590|NCT00288704|168795417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison P-Value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
84521591|NCT00288704|168795418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value is a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
84521592|NCT00288704|168795419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.0001
84521593|NCT00288704|168795420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.01
84521594|NCT00288704|168795421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
84521595|NCT00288704|168795422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
84521596|NCT00288704|168795423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
84521597|NCT01579006|168795444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521598|NCT01579006|168795445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521599|NCT01579006|168795446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521600|NCT01579006|168795448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521601|NCT01579006|168795449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521602|NCT01579006|168795455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521603|NCT01579006|168795456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521604|NCT01579006|168795457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521605|NCT01579006|168795458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521606|NCT01579006|168795459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84718513|NCT00979459|169188439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.24||||||||1.24|0.92|
84718514|NCT00786864|169188456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p=|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p=0.001
84718515|NCT00786864|169188457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
84718516|NCT00786864|169188458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
84718517|NCT00786864|169188459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.01
84521607|NCT01579006|168795461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84521608|NCT00799708|168795463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.345
84521609|NCT00799708|168795463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
84521610|NCT00799708|168795464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-0.16|0.120
84521611|NCT00880334|168795465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.49|||Log Rank|||The study was designed with 80% power to detect 60% improvement in median PFS from 18 to 28.8 weeks (Vandetanib+docetaxel/Placebo+docetaxel hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of Vandetanib while maintaining an overall significance level of 5% in a one-sided test. This assumed exponential distribution of events, accrual of 1.75 patients per week (7-8 patients per month) for 78 weeks with 34 weeks of additional follow-up (112 weeks total). Full information was 118 PFS events.||1.49|0.69|0.939
84521612|NCT00880334|168795467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.81|.873
84521613|NCT00880334|168795468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
84521614|NCT00880334|168795469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
84521615|NCT02048813|168795517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.22|<.001
84521616|NCT02048813|168795518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.05|<.001
84521617|NCT01708954|168795529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.25|0.53|||||Hazard ratio of Arm C/Arm A|||0.53|0.25|
84521618|NCT01708954|168795529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||0.55|0.27|
84521619|NCT01192776|168795537|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.98|0.76|
84521620|NCT01192776|168795537|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.87||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.87|0.78|
84521621|NCT01192776|168795537|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.53|
84521622|NCT01192776|168795538|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.49||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||8.49|0.55|
84521623|NCT01192776|168795538|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.95||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||5.95|1.06|
84521624|NCT01192776|168795538|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.31||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||4.31|0.79|
84521625|NCT01192776|168795543|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.38|0.64|
84521626|NCT01192776|168795543|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.90|0.36|
84521627|NCT01192776|168795543|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.57||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.57|0.26|
84521628|NCT01192776|168795545|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.77||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.77|0.63|
84521629|NCT01192776|168795545|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.04||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.04|0.09|
84521630|NCT01192776|168795545|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.99||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.99|0.20|
84521631|NCT01192776|168795546|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.01||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.01|0.14|
84521632|NCT01192776|168795546|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.91||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.91|0.44|
84521633|NCT01192776|168795546|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.89|0.03|
84521634|NCT01192776|168795547|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.07||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.07|0.37|
84521635|NCT01192776|168795547|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.35||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.30|
84521636|NCT01192776|168795547|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.64||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.64|0.13|
84521637|NCT01884844|168795562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
84521638|NCT01957150|168795621|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06|||||Treatment comparison for overall weeks|||0.06|-0.97|
84521639|NCT01957150|168795622|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.24|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||0.24|-1.17|
84521640|NCT01957150|168795623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.36|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.36|-1.16|
84521641|NCT01957150|168795624|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.13|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||-0.13|-1.90|
84521642|NCT01957150|168795625|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.78|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.78|-0.87|
84521643|NCT01957150|168795626|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.1|||||Overall week|||0.10|-1.11|
84521644|NCT01653405|168795640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
84521645|NCT01653405|168795641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||test of differences|||||||0.43
84521646|NCT01653405|168795642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||difference in differences|||||||<0.001
84521647|NCT01653405|168795643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
84521648|NCT01653405|168795644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||difference in differences|||||||0.002
84521649|NCT00283842|168795645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.084
84521650|NCT00283842|168795645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.084
84521651|NCT00283842|168795645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.001
84521652|NCT00283842|168795645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.027
84521653|NCT00283842|168795646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.375
84521654|NCT00283842|168795646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.342
84521655|NCT00283842|168795646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.342
84521656|NCT00283842|168795646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.375
84521657|NCT00550147|168795647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1933|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.72|-1.52|<0.05
84521658|NCT00550147|168795648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2056|<|0.05||95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.91|-1.75|<0.05
84521659|NCT00550147|168795649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06|<|0.05||95.0|-74.3|-20.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-20.2|-74.3|<0.05
84521660|NCT00550147|168795650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-1.29|-7.04|<0.05
84521661|NCT00550147|168795651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.05||95.0|-17.76|-8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-8.82|-17.76|<0.05
84521662|NCT01321177|168795708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0145
84521663|NCT00715676|168795732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.641
84521664|NCT00715676|168795732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.243
84521665|NCT00715676|168795733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
84521666|NCT00715676|168795733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.173
84521667|NCT00715676|168795734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
84521668|NCT00715676|168795734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.523
84521669|NCT00715676|168795735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.928
84521670|NCT00715676|168795735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
84521671|NCT00715676|168795736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173||||||90.0|0.164|0.181||||||||0.181|0.164|
84521672|NCT00715676|168795736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.582||||||90.0|0.573|0.591||||||||0.591|0.573|
84521673|NCT04892147|168795745|OTHER|"Mean value of Enjoyment (8-item summed scale) tested against the value of a Neutral Likert response (Neutral value = 3)."|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The reported value is a calculated -p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84718518|NCT01574716|169188488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.50|0.77|= 0.6562
84521674|NCT04892147|168795746|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.259
84521675|NCT04892147|168795747|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.711||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.711
84521676|NCT04892147|168795748|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.214||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.214
84521677|NCT04892147|168795749|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.317||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.317
84521678|NCT04892147|168795750|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.056||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.056
84521679|NCT04892147|168795751|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.562
84521680|NCT02760433|168795754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.03|0.337|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population. The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 45%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.337|0.030|0.004
84521681|NCT02760433|168795754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.038|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population .The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 is expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.353|0.038|0.0029
84521682|NCT02760433|168795755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.041|0.281|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.281|0.041|0.0021
84521683|NCT02760433|168795755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.139|0.396|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.396|0.139|<0.0001
84521684|NCT02760433|168795756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|=|0.1814|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.11||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.1814
84521685|NCT02760433|168795756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|=|0.0227|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.02||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.35|=0.0227
84521686|NCT02760433|168795757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.278||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.278|0.020|
84521687|NCT02760433|168795757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.294||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.294|0.027|
84521688|NCT02760433|168795758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.052|0.083||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.083|-0.052|
84521689|NCT02760433|168795758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.023|0.134||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.134|-0.023|
84521690|NCT00766493|168795759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.077||Reject H0 if z\<-1.96, or 1-sided p\<0.025.|One Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample normal approximation to the binomial test.|The 2-sided 95% CI is reported for descriptive purposes; the statistical hypothesis test is 1-sided.|"This study is designed to test the primary null hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome of all death, stroke, and/or MI when using the GORE Embolic Filter is equal to or higher than a Performance Goal (PG) of 6.4% established from published carotid stenting studies utilizing distal embolic protection, versus the alternative hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome is less than the performance goal.~The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a 1-sided Type I error rate of 0.025."||0.077|0.021|0.0001
84521691|NCT00830167|168795774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025. Actual significance level was calculated based on O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function of Lan and DeMets (1983).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0046
84521692|NCT00830167|168795775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was conducted using 2-sided test with the significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that there was a difference between the pregabalin and the placebo groups.||||0.0078
84718519|NCT01574716|169188489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.57|0.82|=0.4469
84718520|NCT01574716|169188490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.83|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.83|0.82|0.3153
84521693|NCT00830167|168795776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.85||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-5.85|-13.12|<0.0001
84521694|NCT00830167|168795777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.68||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||8.68|1.29|0.9958
84521695|NCT00830167|168795778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.21||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-1.21|-8.77|0.0049
84521696|NCT00830167|168795779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.47||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.47|0.11|0.0007
84521697|NCT00830167|168795780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|11.38||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||11.38|3.58|<0.0001
84521698|NCT00830167|168795781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|14.87||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||14.87|7.74|1.0000
84521699|NCT00830167|168795782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-0.33||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.33|-5.65|0.0137
84521700|NCT00830167|168795783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||2.35|0.90|0.0687
84521701|NCT00830167|168795784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.40|-1.06|<0.0001
84521702|NCT00830167|168795785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.35|-6.31|0.0144
84521703|NCT00830167|168795786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.03||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.03|-0.59|0.0376
84521704|NCT00830167|168795787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.15|-1.12|0.0052
84521705|NCT00830167|168795788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.40|-0.42|0.4768
84521706|NCT00830167|168795789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.11|-0.74|0.0729
84521707|NCT00830167|168795790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.00|-0.81|0.0238
84540873|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|87.5|||Poisson Regression|||Toxoplasmosis of brain: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||87.5|30.3|<0.001
84521708|NCT00830167|168795791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.10|-0.89|0.0075
84521709|NCT00830167|168795792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0023
84521710|NCT00830167|168795793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.29|-0.57|0.2568
84521711|NCT00830167|168795794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.15|-0.72|0.1011
84521712|NCT00830167|168795795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.35|-0.44|0.4165
84521713|NCT00830167|168795796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.88||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||6.88|1.70|0.0006
84521714|NCT00830167|168795797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.29|-1.93|0.1805
84521715|NCT00830167|168795798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.10|-0.81|0.0770
84521716|NCT00830167|168795799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.19||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||4.19|-0.54|0.0648
84521717|NCT00830167|168795800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.41||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.41|-2.23|0.2068
84521718|NCT00830167|168795801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.54||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||3.54|-4.00|0.5480
84521719|NCT00830167|168795802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.8||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||7.80|1.04|0.0052
84521720|NCT00830167|168795803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.37||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.37|-0.08|0.0287
84521721|NCT00830167|168795804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.01|-0.97|0.0262
84521722|NCT00830167|168795805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.27|-0.83|0.1561
84521723|NCT00830167|168795806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-2.18|-10.20|0.0013
84472032|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57||0.057||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.057
84472033|NCT00755846|168695739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.156||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.156
84472034|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between all doses of alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84472035|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.001
84472036|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.008
84472037|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84472038|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
84472039|NCT00755846|168695740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.073||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.073
84472040|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84521724|NCT02224053|168795807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.46|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||113.46|100.26|
84540874|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.9|||Poisson Regression|||Coccidiomycosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.9|3.0|<0.001
84521725|NCT02224053|168795808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|101.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.65|109.16|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||109.16|94.65|
84521726|NCT02224053|168795817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|101.21||||||AZ5104||101.21|88.77|
84521727|NCT02224053|168795817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geomteric mean ratio|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.89|95.91||||||AZ7550||95.91|83.89|
84521728|NCT02224053|168795818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|102.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|108.07|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|AZ5104||108.07|96.87|
84521729|NCT02224053|168795818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.92|98.33||||||AZ7550||98.33|89.92|
84521730|NCT02786927|168795851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84521731|NCT02786927|168795852|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84521732|NCT02786927|168795853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84521733|NCT01801917|168795854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.586||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
84521734|NCT01801917|168795854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.022||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
84521735|NCT01801917|168795854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.963||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
84521736|NCT01801917|168795854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.837||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
84521737|NCT03919695|168795865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.73|||GEE model specifying a logistic distribu||time x arm effect for the comparison at 6-month follow-up|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model specifying a logistic distribution examining the time x arm interaction||.73|.11|.002
84521738|NCT02416934|168795880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7176||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9761|-0.1022|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DSQ between Dexamethasone and Saline at Day 1 post-op||-.1022|-2.9761|0.036
84521739|NCT02416934|168795880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2543|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1151|-0.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Bazaz between Dexamethasone and Saline at 6 months post-op||-.0930|-1.1151|<.05
84521740|NCT02416934|168795881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1273|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5153|8.0902|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the changes in VNDI between Dexamethasone and Saline from baseline to last visit||8.0902|-4.5153|<.05
84521741|NCT02416934|168795882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Fisher's Exact Test|Fisher Exact|||||||.375
84521742|NCT00608634|168795884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
84521743|NCT00608634|168795884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84521744|NCT00608634|168795885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84521745|NCT02627001|168795894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<0.001
84521746|NCT03201003|168795923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||65.2|44.1|<0.0001
84521747|NCT03201003|168795924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|69.3|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||69.3|44.2|<0.0001
84521748|NCT03201003|168795925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|69.1|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||69.1|41.2|<0.0001
84521749|NCT03201003|168795926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (with equally spaced scores) stratified by country||Treatment difference in Maximum Severity||||<0.0001
84521750|NCT00834613|168795927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.45||||||90.0|99.87|107.15|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.15|99.87|
84521751|NCT00834613|168795928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.21|100.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.11|95.21|
84472041|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.01||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.010
84472042|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.002||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.002
84472043|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
84472044|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.006||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.006
84472045|NCT00755846|168695741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.117||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.117
84472046|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.014||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.014
84472047|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
84472048|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.022||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.022
84472049|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.004
84521752|NCT00834613|168795929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.22|100.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.1|95.22|
84521753|NCT03403439|168795958|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|222.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.47|242.49|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 14.2.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||242.49|203.47|
84521754|NCT03403439|168795959|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|127.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|139.17|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 13.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||139.17|117.65|
84521755|NCT03403439|168795960|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|229.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.82|252.93|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 15.9.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||252.93|207.82|
84521756|NCT04662710|168795966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|||1.00|0.71|.0244
84521757|NCT04662710|168795967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy|||1.01|0.75|0.0330
84521758|NCT04662710|168795968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.90|0.62|.0012
84521759|NCT04662710|168795969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.92|0.66|0.0019
84521760|NCT04662710|168795970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||21.5|6.9|<0.0001
84521761|NCT04662710|168795971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|20.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||20.6|7.7|<0.0001
84521762|NCT02339415|168795978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||0.21|-0.06|0.26
84521763|NCT02339415|168795979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
84521764|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.44||||||95.0|0.06|3.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||3.43|0.06|
84521765|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.7|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||1.70|0.25|
84521766|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.43||||||95.0|0.06|2.94|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||2.94|0.06|
84521767|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.51||||||95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||1.37|0.19|
84521768|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.59||||||95.0|0.13|2.65|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||2.65|0.13|
84472050|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.04||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.040
84472051|NCT00755846|168695742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.378||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.378
84472052|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.718||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
84472053|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.346||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.346
84472054|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.901||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.901
84472055|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.851||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.851
84472056|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.825||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.825
84472057|NCT00755846|168695743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.843||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.843
84472058|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.069||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.069
84521769|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.3|1.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||1.43|0.30|
84472059|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.018||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.018
84472060|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.258||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.258
84472061|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.299||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.299
84472062|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
84472063|NCT00755846|168695744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
84472064|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.689||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.689
84472065|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.742||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.742
84472066|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.22||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.220
84472067|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.348||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.348
84521770|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.96||||||95.0|0.18|5.12|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||5.12|0.18|
84521771|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.36|1.6|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||1.60|0.36|
84521772|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.16||||||95.0|0.23|5.79|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||5.79|0.23|
84521773|NCT05480800|168795983|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.9||||||95.0|0.44|1.84|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||1.84|0.44|
84521774|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.92||||||95.0|0.48|17.8|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||17.80|0.48|
84521775|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.41|2.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||2.19|0.41|
84521776|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|3.03||||||95.0|0.43|21.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||21.45|0.43|
84521777|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.89||||||95.0|0.33|2.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||2.45|0.33|
84521778|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.69||||||95.0|0.26|10.96|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||10.96|0.26|
84521779|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.29|2.0|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||2.00|0.29|
84521780|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.49||||||95.0|0.24|26.3|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||26.30|0.24|
84521781|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.74||||||95.0|0.26|2.11|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||2.11|0.26|
84521782|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.53||||||95.0|0.19|12.41|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||12.41|0.19|
84521783|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.85||||||95.0|0.34|2.15|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||2.15|0.34|
84521784|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.43||||||95.0|0.61|48.17|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||48.17|0.61|
84521785|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.19||||||95.0|0.43|3.26|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||3.26|0.43|
84521786|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.88||||||95.0|0.58|59.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||59.45|0.58|
84521787|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.35||||||95.0|0.41|4.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||4.45|0.41|
84521788|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|4.22||||||95.0|0.48|37.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||37.19|0.48|
84521789|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.13||||||95.0|0.37|3.48|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||3.48|0.37|
84521790|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|13.24||||||95.0|1.02|172.55|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||172.55|1.02|
84521791|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.24||||||95.0|0.4|3.88|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||3.88|0.40|
84521792|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.56||||||95.0|0.53|58.61|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||58.61|0.53|
84521793|NCT05480800|168795984|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.37||||||95.0|0.48|3.86|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||3.86|0.48|
84521794|NCT05480800|168795988|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.92||||||95.0|0.54|1.58|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 29||1.58|0.54|
84521795|NCT05480800|168795988|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.54|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 57||1.59|0.54|
84521796|NCT05480800|168795988|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.61|1.49|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 85||1.49|0.61|
84521797|NCT05480800|168795988|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.78||||||95.0|0.45|1.34|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 169||1.34|0.45|
84521798|NCT05480800|168795988|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.94||||||95.0|0.63|1.4|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 197||1.40|0.63|
84521799|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.32|0.69|
84521800|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.01||||||95.0|0.74|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.37|0.74|
84521801|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.04||||||95.0|0.77|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.41|0.77|
84521802|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.2||||||95.0|0.81|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.77|0.81|
84521803|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.65|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.44|0.65|
84521804|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.49|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||1.37|0.49|
84521805|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.59|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||1.59|0.59|
84521806|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||1.67|0.64|
84521807|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.56|1.54|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||1.54|0.56|
84521808|NCT05480800|168795989|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.33|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||1.33|0.51|
84521809|NCT00377156|168796033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.9|-14.4|||Fisher Exact||Cognitive deterioration, the primary end point in evaluable patients at 3 months, was less frequent after Arm I than Arm II (40/63 \[63.5%\] vs 44/48 \[91.7%\],\> respectively. The percent difference was -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P \< .001).|||-14.4|-41.9|<0.001
84521810|NCT00377156|168796034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.8|-29.0|<0.001
84521811|NCT00377156|168796035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.0|4.8|0.001
84521812|NCT00377156|168796036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The incidence of cognitive deterioration was less in Arm I than Arm II at 12 months (6/10 \[60%\] vs 17/18 \[94.4%\]. The percent difference was -34.4% (95% CI: -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04)|||5.5|-74.4|0.04
84521813|NCT00377156|168796037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.75|0.92
84521814|NCT05061992|168796042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in SF-8||||0.6
84521815|NCT05061992|168796042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||End of trial SF-8||||0.2
84521816|NCT05061992|168796043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in ANT||||0.001
84521817|NCT05061992|168796043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of trial ANT||||0.09
84521818|NCT05061992|168796044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
84521819|NCT05061992|168796045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84521820|NCT05061992|168796046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
84521821|NCT05061992|168796047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84521822|NCT03978598|168796056|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a 15% difference in our primary outcome for the non-inferiority margin as this is the upper end of the estimated prevalence of lactation failure in the literature and is consistent with previous studies (Neifert 2001, Gurtcheff 2011, Turok 2017).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|||||||To achieve 80% power with a 1-sided type 1 error of 5% utilizing the Z-test (unpooled), 62 participants would be required in each group, for a total of 124 participants. Accounting for expected loss to follow-up of 20%, we aimed to recruit 149 participants and rounded up to final recruitment goal of 150.|The risk-difference between immediate and standard placement in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mITT) was -0.6% with a -12.8% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval. In the mITT analysis, 78.3% (54/69) and 78.9% (45/57) of participants were breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively.||-16.7|
84718521|NCT01574716|169188491|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|Difference equal to (=) (MORAb 8.0 mg/kg + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel) minus (Placebo + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||10.9|-12.0|= 1.000
84521823|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby had trouble sucking or latching||||0.221
84521824|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby got sick||||0.786
84521825|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I was sick||||0.064
84521826|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Provider said baby was underweight||||0.044
84521827|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insufficient milk||||0.666
84521828|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I had trouble; breast issues||||0.006
84521829|NCT03978598|168796058|OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I quit breastfeeding; life issues||||0.476
84521830|NCT03978598|168796059|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respecting me as a person||||0.717
84521831|NCT03978598|168796059|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Letting me say what mattered to me about my birth control method||||0.808
84521832|NCT03978598|168796059|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Taking my preferences about my birth control seriously||||0.967
84521833|NCT03978598|168796059|OTHER|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Giving me enough information to make the best decision about my birth control method||||0.826
84521834|NCT03978598|168796060|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.264
84521835|NCT03978598|168796060|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.414
84521836|NCT03978598|168796060|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.482
84521837|NCT03978598|168796061|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.583
84521838|NCT03978598|168796061|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.062
84521839|NCT03978598|168796061|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 weeks postpartum||||0.705
84521840|NCT03978598|168796062|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.60
84521841|NCT03978598|168796062|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.07
84521842|NCT03978598|168796062|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.36
84521843|NCT03978598|168796063|OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0376
84521844|NCT05212948|168796078|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy|Efficacy|34.2||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|44.6||One-sided P-value was calculated to test the null hypothesis, vaccine efficacy ≤30%.|Poisson Regression Model|Robust Error Variance||Vaccine efficacy was calculated with its 95% confidence interval and defined as 1 minus the relative risk (S-268019-b versus placebo), which included the intervention group, baseline age (continuous) as factors as well as the log of the follow-up time as an offset.||44.6|21.9|0.2409
84521845|NCT05347693|168796095|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.29~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Two-group χ² test~ * Significance level (α): 5% (two-sided)~ * Power: 80%~* Assumed proportions with NK (K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L, inclusive) at 180 days post-discharge:~  * Arm A: 0.88~ * Arm B: 0.59~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model included response as the dependent variable, and randomised treatment and participant recruitment country as independent factors.|OR \>1 indicated increased odds of K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L on SZC compared to SoC.|||1.66|0.39|0.558
84521846|NCT05347693|168796096|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.262~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Log-Rank Test for Equality of Survival Curves~ * α: 5%~ * Power: 80%~* HR (SZC/SoC): 0.329~* Assumed proportions without the main secondary composite outcome (event-free) at 180 days post-discharge~  * Arm A: 83% (17% with the outcome/event of interest)~ * Arm B: 56.8% (43.2% with the outcome/event of interest)~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.51|0.56|0.743
84521847|NCT05347693|168796097|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.79|0.58|0.951
84521848|NCT05347693|168796098|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence rate ratio|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.53|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||2.53|0.86|0.152
84521849|NCT05347693|168796099|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.35|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||4.35|0.50|0.515
84521850|NCT05347693|168796100|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.83|0.07|0.258
84521851|NCT05347693|168796101|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence risk ratio|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.81|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||1.81|0.10|0.239
84521852|NCT03223909|168796102|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of groups in the baseline visit versus final visit"||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
84521853|NCT03223909|168796102|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis between groups in the final visit"||||||0.848|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.848
84521854|NCT03223909|168796103|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.468
84521855|NCT03223909|168796104|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
84521856|NCT03223909|168796104|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.650
84472068|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.627||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.627
84472069|NCT00755846|168695745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.418||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.418
84472070|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.617||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.617
84472071|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.052||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.052
84472072|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.906||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.906
84472073|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.628||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.628
84472074|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.749||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.749
84472075|NCT00755846|168695746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
84472076|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.269||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.269
84521857|NCT03223909|168796105|NON_INFERIORITY|"It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit."||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84521858|NCT03223909|168796105|NON_INFERIORITY|It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20% Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit.||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84521859|NCT03223909|168796106|NON_INFERIORITY|"the statistical analysis was carried out by intention to treat~It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%"||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.930
84521860|NCT03223909|168796107|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.548
84521861|NCT03223909|168796108|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.170
84521862|NCT03223909|168796109|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.085
84521863|NCT01856192|168796111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.03
84521864|NCT00098475|168796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The low-dose response would be considered unacceptable if the difference in response rates was 15% or greater (the upper confidence limit exceeds the 15% acceptable difference) regardless of a decrease in toxicity rate.|Difference in response rate between arms|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.052|0.162||||||The study was designed to determine if a reduced dose of dexamethasone in combination with CC-5013 reduced toxicity rate without reducing response rate. The standard-dose response was expected to be 70%. The low dose would be deemed unacceptable if the difference in response rate between arms was \>=15%. The null hypothesis was that response rates were equal and the alternative was that the low-dose response was no worse than 55%. The design had a 1-sided 0.10 type I error rate and 95% power.||0.162|0.052|
84521865|NCT01841073|168796144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
84521866|NCT01841073|168796145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
84521867|NCT01841073|168796146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84521868|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||feel more attractive||||0.02
84521869|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||tanning helps relax||||0.001
84521870|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||confident with a tan||||0.34
84521871|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Social activity||||0.0004
84521872|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Important to protect skin from the sun||||0.66
84521873|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Concern about develop skin cancer||||0.16
84521874|NCT04404907|168796151|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Chances of getting skin cancer are high||||0.29
84521875|NCT01067521|168796180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.799||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|"Relapses were estimated by a baseline-adjusted, Negative Binomial Regression with an offset based on the log of subject's exposure to treatment. The model included the following covariates: - Baseline EDSS score. - Log of the prior 2-year number of relapses. - Volume of T2 lesions at baseliner. - Status of Gd-enhancing T1 activity at baseline (=0 no Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline; =1 at least one Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline). - CGR."||0.799|0.539|<0.0001
84521876|NCT01067521|168796181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.78||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative binomial regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|Negative binomial regression||0.780|0.546|<.0001
84521877|NCT01067521|168796182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.699||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|||0.699|0.436|<0.0001
84521878|NCT01067521|168796183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.033||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|ANCOVA||GA 40 mg vs Placebo|||0.033|-0.154|0.2058
84521879|NCT01067521|168796184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0744||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6995|0.9925||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Entire Study The Negative Binomial Regression model covariates: • treatment group • PCBL (Placebo-Controlled Baseline) Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score as 1 degree of freedom variable • Log of the # of relapses in the 2 years prior to PCBL • Volume of T2 lesions at PCBL • Status of Gd-enhancing T1 lesion activity at PCBL (=0 if no Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at PCBL; =1 if at least one Gd-enhancing T1 lesion at PCBL) • Country or Geographical Region (CGR)||0.9925|0.6995|0.0409
84521880|NCT01067521|168796185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.914||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6 Negative binomial regression||0.914|0.592|0.0056
84521881|NCT01067521|168796185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.765||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12 Negative binomial regression||0.765|0.524|<0.0001
84521882|NCT01067521|168796185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.797||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36 Negative binomial regression||0.797|0.557|<0.0001
84521883|NCT01067521|168796186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.773||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||0.773|0.4|0.0005
84521884|NCT01067521|168796186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.679||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.679|0.388|<0.0001
84521885|NCT01067521|168796186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.854||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.854|0.514|0.0015
84521886|NCT01067521|168796187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|-0.003||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||-0.003|-0.166|0.0425
84521887|NCT01067521|168796187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.012||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.012|-0.184|0.0844
84718522|NCT01105975|169188509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.9|92.1|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.1|64.9|<0.001
84521888|NCT01067521|168796187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.225||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.225|-0.91|0.8701
84521889|NCT02151149|168796197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.21|0.84|0.9258
84521890|NCT02151149|168796204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81|||Stratified Log Rank|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||0.81|0.33|0.0036
84521891|NCT02151149|168796205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Stratified log-rank test|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.25|0.54|0.3537
84521892|NCT02151149|168796206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|2.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma)..||||2.511|0.971|0.0597
84521893|NCT02033317|168796221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.14
84521894|NCT02033317|168796222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.02
84521895|NCT02911935|168796233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.34||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||The primary analysis tested the statistical null hypothesis of equal recurrent wheeze rates between the azithromycin and placebo groups.||2.34|0.95|0.08
84521896|NCT02911935|168796233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||p-value is adjusted for race, parental history of asthma, ever exposed to smoke and ever exposed to pets. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.92|0.11
84521897|NCT02911935|168796234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.61||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||||4.61|0.83|0.12
84521898|NCT02911935|168796235|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.62|0.86|0.31
84521899|NCT02911935|168796236|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.48|0.6|0.57
84521900|NCT02911935|168796237|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.34||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.57||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.57|0.70|0.38
84521901|NCT02911935|168796238|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.22|0.7|0.56
84521902|NCT04979858|168796267|OTHER|The statistical analysis involved the use of a single-factor ANOVA test to assess the importance of the various factors associated with the design of the Focal Mask (the Treatment) that would impact its performance in reducing the spread of COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Bonferroni t-test was conducted post hoc to assess the statistical significance of the various factors.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84521903|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.61|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||2.61|0.39|
84521904|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.27|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.27|0.46|
84521905|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.15|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.15|0.73|
84521906|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.01|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||5.01|0.83|
84521907|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.66|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.66|0.35|
84521908|NCT04640194|168796287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.22|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.22|0.33|
84521909|NCT04640194|168796288|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.892|24.8734|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||24.8734|-10.892|
84521910|NCT04640194|168796288|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3075|43.6615|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||43.6615|2.3075|
84521911|NCT04640194|168796288|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.127|36.9012|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||36.9012|-24.127|
84521912|NCT04640194|168796289|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|5.5|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||5.5|-38.6|
84521913|NCT04640194|168796289|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|11.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||11.6|-35.1|
84521914|NCT04640194|168796289|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|12.9|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for treatment.||12.9|-51.1|0.2419
84521915|NCT04640194|168796290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|19.1|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.1|-37.1|
84521916|NCT04640194|168796290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.0|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.0|-37.2|
84521917|NCT04640194|168796290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.3|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline D-dimer status, age, days of NIV support and treatment.||39.3|-10.3|0.2523
84521918|NCT04640194|168796291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||10.6|-4.4|
84521919|NCT04640194|168796291|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.8|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||11.8|-3.2|
84521920|NCT04640194|168796292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|19.2|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.2|-29.0|
84521921|NCT04640194|168796292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|6.3|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||6.3|-36.8|
84521922|NCT04640194|168796293|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|52.33|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||52.33|-28.45|
84521923|NCT04640194|168796293|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|54.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|110.36|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||110.36|0.49|
84521924|NCT04640194|168796295|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.6|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||7.6|-7.5|0.9856
84521925|NCT04640194|168796295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.3|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level and age.||7.3|-8.5|0.8729
84521926|NCT04640194|168796296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|145.1|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||145.1|-3.3|0.0603
84521927|NCT04640194|168796296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|168.0|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level, baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and age.||168.0|6.3|0.0362
84521928|NCT00096460|168796310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|62.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|89.6||||||||89.6|43.8|
84521929|NCT00096460|168796310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|85.7||||||95.0|63.3|100.0||||||||100|63.3|
84521930|NCT05186415|168796311|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521931|NCT05186415|168796311|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521932|NCT05186415|168796311|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521933|NCT05186415|168796311|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.685|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521934|NCT05186415|168796312|OTHER||Intraclass Coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between non-contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521935|NCT05186415|168796312|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
84521936|NCT05186415|168796314|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between non-contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.419|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
84521937|NCT05186415|168796314|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
84521938|NCT01841736|168796324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.69|0.42|0.0005
84521939|NCT01841736|168796326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.51|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank||||1.51|0.84|0.7
84521940|NCT00676650|168796332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.097||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Disease Progression Base.|||1.097|0.762|0.1678
84521941|NCT00676650|168796333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.89||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model stratified by ECOG and Disease Progression Base.|||0.890|0.591|<0.001
84521942|NCT00676650|168796334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.561||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0||p-value from 2-sided Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||19.0|1.0|0.040
84521943|NCT05707403|168796341|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|73.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.32|79.48|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 8.8 %.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||79.48|67.32|
84521944|NCT05707403|168796342|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|33.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|38.36|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 14.1 %|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||38.36|29.40|
84521945|NCT04254198|168796343|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.0474|0.509||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, marital status, and overall health status.|The beta coefficient (0.231) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CES-D scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the Least Squares (LS) Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.509|-0.0474|0.0473
84521946|NCT04254198|168796344|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.0464|0.72||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and the interaction between cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (0.383) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CD-RISC scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the LS Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.720|0.0464|0.0067
84521947|NCT04254198|168796345|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.215|-0.28||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model with beta distribution, adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and interaction between arm and cohort.|The beta coefficient (-0.747) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on MOS-SS scores on a logit scale. The CIs for the LS Mean changes over time per arm were estimated via the delta method and are reported on the original MOS-SS scale.|||-0.280|-1.215|0.0002
84521948|NCT04254198|168796346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (-0.913) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on non-transformed PSS scores.|||2.00|-3.82|0.4510
84521949|NCT02152982|168796347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1673|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1673
84521950|NCT02152982|168796348|OTHER|Interaction test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Type 3 likelihood-ratio p-value|||||1.50|0.53|0.6659
84521951|NCT02152982|168796349|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.29|0.86|0.3164
84521952|NCT02152982|168796350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7018
84521953|NCT02152982|168796351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0003
84521954|NCT05661344|168796354|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.89|118.98|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.7"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||118.98|91.89|
84472077|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46||0.076||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.076
84540405|NCT01995513|168831689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.239||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.239|0.617|0.4500
84718523|NCT01105975|169188510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|-6.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.7|-21.2|0.002
84521955|NCT05661344|168796354|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|191.75|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.75|89.34|
84521956|NCT05661344|168796355|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|114.71|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 34.8"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.71|60.47|
84521957|NCT05661344|168796355|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|68.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|101.41|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||101.41|46.48|
84521958|NCT05661344|168796356|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|120.38|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.1"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||120.38|92.36|
84521959|NCT05661344|168796356|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|191.05|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 41.4"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.05|89.96|
84521960|NCT01405469|168796418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66|<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||this pilot study was created ro evaluate sample size for the following multicenter study, based on manometric outcomes. Mean values between baseline and follow-up were compared using Student ' s t -test for paired samples. P values less then 0.05, two-sided, were considered significant.R 2.13.1(R Development Core Team (2011). Subgroups (partial vs. complete myotomy) were compared using an analysis of variance test adjusted for initial values.||||<0.001
84521961|NCT00702507|168796428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.7|||||Percentage of participants with overall cure at the test-of-cure visit (Day 14) of the initial episode for participants in the MITT Population|||36.7|22.4|
84521962|NCT01499160|168796444|OTHER|Not done due to low accrual||||||||||||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|||
84521963|NCT03538262|168796459|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
84521964|NCT03538262|168796459|OTHER|Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84521965|NCT03538262|168796460|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.011
84521966|NCT03538262|168796460|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84718524|NCT01105975|169188511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|69.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||69.8|43.6|<0.001
84521967|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.007
84718525|NCT01105975|169188511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.001||90.0|84.5|110.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||110.8|84.5|<0.001
84718526|NCT01105975|169188511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|145.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||145.2|118.5|<0.001
84718527|NCT01105975|169188512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-10.5|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-10.5|-24.6|<0.001
84718528|NCT01105975|169188512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|-19.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-19.2|-33.2|<0.001
84521968|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
84521969|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.004
84521970|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
84521971|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
84521972|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
84521973|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
84521974|NCT03538262|168796461|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84521975|NCT03538262|168796462|OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.996
84521976|NCT03538262|168796462|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.054
84521977|NCT03538262|168796462|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.025
84521978|NCT03538262|168796462|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.006
84521979|NCT03538262|168796463|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.145
84521980|NCT03538262|168796463|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.029
84521981|NCT03538262|168796464|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<.001
84521982|NCT03538262|168796464|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84521983|NCT03538262|168796465|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.382
84521984|NCT03538262|168796465|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84521985|NCT03538262|168796466|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.688
84521986|NCT03538262|168796466|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.293
84521987|NCT03538262|168796467|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.446
84521988|NCT03538262|168796467|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.565
84521989|NCT03538262|168796468|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
84521990|NCT03538262|168796468|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.937
84521991|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.041
84521992|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
84521993|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
84521994|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
84521995|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
84521996|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
84521997|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
84521998|NCT03538262|168796469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84521999|NCT03538262|168796470|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.595
84522000|NCT03538262|168796470|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.440
84522001|NCT03538262|168796470|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.909
84522002|NCT03538262|168796470|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.068
84522003|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.074
84522004|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
84522005|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
84522006|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
84522007|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
84522008|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
84522009|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
84522010|NCT03538262|168796471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
84522011|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.200
84522012|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.888
84522013|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.837
84522014|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.394
84522015|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.268
84522016|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.039
84522017|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.979
84522018|NCT03538262|168796472|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.014
84522019|NCT03538262|168796473|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.285
84522020|NCT03538262|168796473|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.267
84522021|NCT03538262|168796473|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.564
84522022|NCT03538262|168796473|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.034
84522023|NCT03538262|168796474|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.409
84522024|NCT03538262|168796474|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 0.149||||0.149
84522025|NCT03566238|168796475|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.435||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2195|0.6551|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.6551|0.2195|0.0015
84472078|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.867||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.867
84472079|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.169||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.169
84472080|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.645||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.645
84472081|NCT00755846|168695747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.351||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.351
84472082|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
84472083|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
84472084|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
84472085|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
84472086|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.034||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.034
84522026|NCT03566238|168796475|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.211||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.4557|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.4557|0.021|0.0174
84522027|NCT03566238|168796476|SUPERIORITY|"Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|Least Square (LS) mean difference|28.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|46.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||46.64|9.83|0.0019
84522028|NCT03566238|168796476|SUPERIORITY|"An ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|LS mean difference|21.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|41.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||41.54|1.87|0.0163
84522029|NCT00860262|168796490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus Telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.3|-12.9|<0.0001
84472087|NCT00755846|168695748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.033||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.033
84472088|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.897||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.897
84472089|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.85||0.557||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.557
84472090|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.85||0.616||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.616
84472091|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.73||0.679||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.679
84472092|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.94||0.697||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.697
84472093|NCT00755846|168695749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.03||0.672||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.672
84522030|NCT00860262|168796490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.1|-6.7|0.0002
84522031|NCT00860262|168796491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.2|-13.1|<0.0001
84522032|NCT00860262|168796491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.3|0.0001
84522033|NCT00860262|168796492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-7.7|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-7.7|-12.6|<0.0001
84522034|NCT00860262|168796492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
84522035|NCT00860262|168796493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-5.4|-10.2|<0.0001
84522036|NCT00860262|168796493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.3|-7.0|0.0001
84522037|NCT00860262|168796494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
84522038|NCT00860262|168796494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-0.9|-5.7|0.0077
84522039|NCT00688844|168796560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655574|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.060658||0.692782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate BMI across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.692782
84522040|NCT00688844|168796561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005401|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0243|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate total body bone mineral density (BMD) one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||<0.001
84522041|NCT00688844|168796562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.419224|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4666||0.017941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % lean mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.017941
84522042|NCT00688844|168796563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.208889|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51967||0.026009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % fat mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.026009
84522043|NCT00688844|168796564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5187|STANDARD_DEVIATION|362.9412||0.303864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate plasma phenylalanine across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.303864
84522044|NCT00688844|168796565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9549|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.10814||0.00088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate protein intake (grams per day) across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.00088
84522045|NCT00688844|168796566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131676|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.797247||0.3811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate dietary phenylalanine intake across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.3811
84522046|NCT05718648|168796618|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.62|182.31|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||182.31|91.62|
84522047|NCT05718648|168796618|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.06|212.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||212.12|89.06|
84522048|NCT05718648|168796619|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|186.22|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||186.22|93.32|
84522049|NCT05718648|168796619|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|127.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.92|188.99|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||188.99|85.92|
84522050|NCT05718648|168796620|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|86.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.88|114.15|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 30.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.15|64.88|
84522051|NCT05718648|168796620|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.8|164.16|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 66.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||164.16|56.80|
84522052|NCT05718648|168796621|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|113.51|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||113.51|60.91|
84522053|NCT05718648|168796621|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|90.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|156.26|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 68.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||156.26|52.40|
84522054|NCT05718648|168796622|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|128.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|189.02|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||189.02|87.42|
84522055|NCT05718648|168796622|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|136.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.41|209.69|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||209.69|88.41|
84522056|NCT05718648|168796623|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|125.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|183.4|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||183.40|85.27|
84522057|NCT05718648|168796623|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|187.92|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||187.92|85.30|
84522058|NCT02459418|168796628|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|164.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.82|197.45||||||A mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. Least squares (LS) means and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||197.45|137.82|
84522059|NCT02459418|168796629|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|140.28||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||140.28|108.12|
84718529|NCT01105975|169188512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-32.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-32.7|-47.0|<0.001
84522060|NCT02459418|168796630|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-∞) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS mean ratio|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|174.49||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||174.49|102.42|
84522061|NCT02459418|168796631|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|11.5||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median differences and corresponding 90% CIs were calculated using an exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.5|4.5|
84522062|NCT02459418|168796633|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|163.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|282.67||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||282.67|94|
84540406|NCT01995513|168831690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.65||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|1.51||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=50% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||1.51|-4.82|0.3101
84718530|NCT01105975|169188513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.3|||<|0.001||90.0|66.2|92.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.4|66.2|<0.001
84472094|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.809||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.809
84472095|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.597||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.597
84472096|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.77||0.982||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.982
84472097|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.62||0.358||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.358
84472098|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.274||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.274
84472099|NCT00755846|168695750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.554||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.554
84472100|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2531
84472101|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0295|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
84472102|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1857
84472103|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8401||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5919|1.1925|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1925|0.5919|0.3297
84522063|NCT02459418|168796634|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|177.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.65|249.81||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||249.81|125.65|
84522064|NCT02459418|168796635|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|12.29||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median difference and corresponding 90% CIs were was calculated using an Exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate with an exact confidence interval.||12.29|-9.91|
84522065|NCT00653159|168796636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject completed the final study visit at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, study completion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4003
84522066|NCT00653159|168796637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4136|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced heavy bleeding. Under the null hypothesis, heavy bleeding rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4136
84522067|NCT00653159|168796638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject became pregnant within 6 months of IUD insertion. Under the null hypothesis, pregnancy rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4783
84522068|NCT00653159|168796639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2174|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced expulsion of the IUD. Under the null hypothesis, expulsion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.2174
84522069|NCT00653159|168796640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||"Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject reported being satisfied (happy or very happy) at the 6 month study visit. Under the null hypothesis, satisfaction rates are similar for both IUD types."||||1.0000
84522070|NCT03653026|168796679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|34.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||34.7|23.2|<0.001
84522071|NCT03653026|168796680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|41.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||41.6|28.6|<0.001
84522072|NCT03653026|168796681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||20.3|11.4|<0.001
84522073|NCT03653026|168796682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|57.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||57.1|41.7|<0.001
84522074|NCT03653026|168796683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|45.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||45.1|28.8|<0.001
84522075|NCT03653026|168796684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|36.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - placebo|||36.2|24.1|<0.001
84522076|NCT03653026|168796685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||35.3|19.0|<0.001
84540407|NCT01995513|168831690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-0.04||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.82||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=30% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||3.82|-3.90|0.9917
84522077|NCT03653026|168796686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|37.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.4|20.9|<0.001
84522078|NCT03653026|168796687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||46.1|29.8|<0.001
84522079|NCT03653026|168796688|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.98|37.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.36|24.98|<0.001
84522080|NCT03653026|168796689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|15.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||15.3|7.2|<0.001
84522081|NCT03653026|168796690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|7.73||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||7.73|4.19|<0.001
84522082|NCT01933919|168796725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Fluvoxamine-Placebo)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates and treatment as fixed effect.|The model included the fixed effects of treatment, with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates.|||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
84522083|NCT01358877|168796746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.68|0.0430
84522084|NCT01358877|168796749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.98|0.67|0.0327
84522085|NCT01358877|168796752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||The O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary of the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function for the first interim OS analysis was HR\<0.52; p\<0.00001.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.21|0.66|0.4673
84522086|NCT01358877|168796753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||The p-value threshold according to the alpha-spending function at this final analysis was 0.0496.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.69|0.0441
84522087|NCT01358877|168796756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.63|0.0430
84522088|NCT01358877|168796759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.04|0.64|0.1007
84522089|NCT01358877|168796762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.8|0.0|
84522090|NCT01358877|168796763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-0.1|
84522091|NCT01358877|168796764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.0|
84522092|NCT01358877|168796765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.1|
84522093|NCT01358877|168796766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.5|-0.3|
84522094|NCT01358877|168796767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.4|-0.4|
84522095|NCT01358877|168796783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.66|0.0446
84522096|NCT05552261|168796793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.2|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.2|-6.7|0.5158
84522097|NCT05552261|168796793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-9.2|0.0670
84522098|NCT05552261|168796793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.8|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||2.8|-4.4|0.6307
84522099|NCT05552261|168796793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-5.6|0.0357
84522100|NCT05552261|168796794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|1.743|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.743|-0.353|0.2836
84522101|NCT05552261|168796794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.539||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.628|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.628|-0.550|0.5153
84522102|NCT05552261|168796794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.295|0.527|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.527|-1.295|0.2530
84522103|NCT05552261|168796794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|0.451|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.451|-1.574|0.3828
84522104|NCT05552261|168796796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.064|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.064|-0.110|0.7450
84522105|NCT05552261|168796796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.177|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.177|0.071|<0.0001
84522106|NCT05552261|168796796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.021|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.021|-0.134|0.1619
84522107|NCT05552261|168796796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.154|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.154|0.020|0.0100
84522108|NCT02003222|168796801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||0.76|0.25|0.003
84522109|NCT02003222|168796802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: Blinatumomab + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy alone|||0.89|0.31|0.015
84522110|NCT02003222|168796803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.65|||Log Rank|||||2.65|0.22|0.67
84522111|NCT02003222|168796804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Log Rank|||||3.63|0.28|1.00
84522112|NCT02003222|168796805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.11|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||2.11|0.17|0.41
84522113|NCT03302078|168796859|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.15|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.5|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.15|98.31|
84522114|NCT03302078|168796860|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|79.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.96|89.4|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 16.0|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||89.40|69.96|
84522115|NCT03302078|168796861|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|107.3|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.9|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.30|97.80|
84522116|NCT01886872|168796862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.58||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm B (Ibrutinib) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.58|0.26|<0.001
84522117|NCT01886872|168796862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.59|0.25|<0.001
84522118|NCT01886872|168796862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.62||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm B (Ibrutinib)||1.62|0.62|0.49
84522119|NCT00979212|168796876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||One-sided test at significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis (H0) was that the experimental treatment was not effective vs the alternative hypothesis (HA) that it was. H0: OR ≤ 1 vs. HA: OR \> 1, where odds ratio (OR)= \[p2\*(1- p1)\]/ \[p1\*(1- p2)\], p1 denotes the mediastinal clearance rate (MCR) on Induction chemoradiation; p2 denotes the MCR on Induction chemoradiation + panitumumab. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the MCRs; the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method. 97 patients were required.||||0.96
84522120|NCT04269993|168796883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
84522121|NCT03807440|168796912|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522122|NCT03807440|168796913|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522123|NCT03807440|168796914|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522124|NCT03807440|168796915|OTHER|||||||0.8071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8071
84522125|NCT03807440|168796915|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7640
84522126|NCT03807440|168796916|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522127|NCT03807440|168796917|OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0042
84522128|NCT03807440|168796918|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522129|NCT03807440|168796919|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3990
84522130|NCT03807440|168796919|OTHER|||||||0.3842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3842
84522131|NCT03807440|168796920|OTHER|||||||0.0605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0605
84522132|NCT03807440|168796921|OTHER|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6329
84522133|NCT03807440|168796921|OTHER|||||||0.7181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7181
84522134|NCT03807440|168796922|OTHER|||||||0.5233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5233
84522135|NCT03807440|168796924|OTHER|||||||0.3662|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3662
84522136|NCT03807440|168796925|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5110
84522137|NCT03807440|168796926|OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0921
84522138|NCT03807440|168796927|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522139|NCT03807440|168796928|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522140|NCT03807440|168796929|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
84522141|NCT03807440|168796930|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522142|NCT03807440|168796931|OTHER|||||||0.3201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3201
84522143|NCT03807440|168796932|OTHER|||||||0.3288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3288
84522144|NCT03807440|168796932|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1710
84522145|NCT03807440|168796933|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0130
84522146|NCT03807440|168796934|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
84522147|NCT03807440|168796935|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3978
84522148|NCT03807440|168796936|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0055
84522149|NCT03807440|168796936|OTHER|||||||0.0041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0041
84522150|NCT03807440|168796937|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522151|NCT03807440|168796938|OTHER|||||||0.0399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0399
84522152|NCT03807440|168796938|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0401
84522153|NCT03807440|168796956|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522154|NCT03807440|168796957|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522155|NCT03807440|168796958|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0008
84522156|NCT03807440|168796960|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522157|NCT03807440|168796961|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84522158|NCT03807440|168796962|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522159|NCT03807440|168796963|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522160|NCT03807440|168796964|OTHER|||||||0.9184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9184
84522161|NCT03807440|168796964|OTHER|||||||0.9911|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9911
84522162|NCT03807440|168796965|OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6967
84522163|NCT03807440|168796965|OTHER|||||||0.6439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6439
84522164|NCT03807440|168796966|OTHER|||||||0.9414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9414
84522165|NCT03807440|168796966|OTHER|||||||0.8142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8142
84522166|NCT03807440|168796967|OTHER|||||||0.7837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7837
84522167|NCT03807440|168796967|OTHER|||||||0.7538|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7538
84522168|NCT03807440|168796968|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
84522169|NCT03807440|168796969|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522170|NCT03807440|168796970|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1906
84522171|NCT03807440|168796971|OTHER|||||||0.6198|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6198
84522172|NCT03807440|168796971|OTHER|||||||0.7297|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7297
84522173|NCT03807440|168796973|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522174|NCT03807440|168796974|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
84522175|NCT03807440|168796974|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
84522176|NCT03807440|168796975|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84522177|NCT03807440|168796978|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0030
84522178|NCT04010227|168797031|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.40|-0.23|0.60
84522179|NCT04010227|168797032|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.96
84522180|NCT04010227|168797033|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.75
84522181|NCT04010227|168797034|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.40|-0.23|0.33
84522182|NCT04010227|168797035|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.91
84522183|NCT04010227|168797036|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.74
84522184|NCT04010227|168797036|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.14||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.45|-0.18|0.24
84718531|NCT01105975|169188513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|101.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||101.8|75.2|<0.001
84522185|NCT04010227|168797036|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient existential quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.78
84522186|NCT04010227|168797036|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient social quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.44|-0.19|0.29
84522187|NCT04010227|168797037|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.35|-0.28|0.92
84522188|NCT04010227|168797037|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.79
84522189|NCT04010227|168797038|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.30|0.94
84522190|NCT02522780|168797050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.54||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||2.54|0.96|>0.05
84522191|NCT02522780|168797051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||The p-value was based on Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach with binary outcomes (clinical remission) and an unstructured working correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|Generalised estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 6 months.||2.03|0.76|>0.05
84522192|NCT02522780|168797052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.44||The p-value was based on log-rank test using pathway of randomization as the stratification factor, at a 0.05 significance level.|Log Rank|||Times to relapse were compared between treatment groups up to 6 months.||1.44|0.25|>0.05
84522193|NCT02522780|168797053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||0.79|0.19|<0.05
84522194|NCT02522780|168797054|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured correlation matrix , at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in CRP levels over 6 months was reported.||0.7|-2.7|>0.05
84522195|NCT02522780|168797055|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-66.92|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|6.36||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in fecal calprotectin levels over 6 months was reported.||6.36|-140.2|>0.05
84522196|NCT02522780|168797056|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.77||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in IBDQ total scores over 6 months was reported.||3.77|-4.41|>0.05
84522197|NCT00462839|168797082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post-hoc comparison of 500ml, 1000ml and 2000ml volumes were greater in the non-calibrated drape first group. Post-hoc comparisons made using Bonferroni correct t-test for 8 comparisons.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing all levels of blood estimation (P=0.0002). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrects t-tests.||||<0.05
84522198|NCT00462839|168797083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.76
84522199|NCT00462839|168797084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.72
84522200|NCT00462839|168797085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.89
84522201|NCT00420095|168797117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority hypothesis testing where paired t-test for equivalence of means was used to estimate the sample size.~Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. Adjusted means were presented.||Mixed model where period, sequence, treatment are fixed effects and patient within sequence are random effects.||0.10|-0.20|0.497
84522202|NCT00420095|168797118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.1|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.10|0.497
84522203|NCT00420095|168797119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.419||95.0|-0.48|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.48|0.419
84522204|NCT00420095|168797120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.741||95.0|-1.09|0.78||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.78|-1.09|0.741
84522205|NCT00420095|168797121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (7%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.644
84522206|NCT00420095|168797121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (6.5%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.672
84522207|NCT00420095|168797123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.67||95.0|-0.16|0.11||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.11|-0.16|0.670
84522208|NCT00393705|168797124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2519||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.2519
84522209|NCT00393705|168797125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7%. Additional statistically significant terms from the model below were baseline HbA1c and treatment by lead-in interaction.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0287
84522210|NCT00393705|168797125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0471||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%. Additional statistically significant term from the model below was baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0471
84522211|NCT00393705|168797127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
84522212|NCT00393705|168797128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0002
84522213|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||P-value for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0129
84522214|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Breakfast.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0027
84522215|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1947
84522216|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
84522217|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1885||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1885
84522218|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5525||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.5525
84522219|NCT00393705|168797129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4994||95.0||||P-value for 3:00 A.M.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.4994
84522220|NCT00393705|168797131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value for Total Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.7230
84522221|NCT00393705|168797131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0063
84522222|NCT00393705|168797131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.8876
84522223|NCT00393705|168797132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0009
84522224|NCT00393705|168797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0056
84522225|NCT00393705|168797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421||95.0||||P-value for Week 12|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0421
84522226|NCT01374451|168797151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.543|||Log Rank|||||1.543|0.636|0.488
84522227|NCT00178711|168797163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was a two-sided test assessing whether the induction of hypothermia modified the percentage of subjects with poor outcomes at 6 months after injury. Percentages in each group were compared using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution and log link function, logistic regression model with admission age and baseline GCS as covariates.||1.53|0.76|=0.67
84522228|NCT01475487|168797192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 21 participants per group was required to detect a 40% absolute difference in the complication rate between DP and US guided techniques assuming a 45% complication rate in the DP (control) group and using the Fisher's exact test for the comparison of independent proportions. A total of 23 and 24 participants were recruited in the DP and US group, respectively.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84522229|NCT01475487|168797193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.94|||Fisher Exact||Risk of injury ( none-mild vs moderate -severe) for all participants|||5.94|1.39|0.001
84522230|NCT01475487|168797193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Grade 3-4 comparison of None-mild and moderate-severe||||<0.001
84522231|NCT01475487|168797194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.72|||Fisher Exact||This is the risk ratio for 1 vs 2 attempts|||2.72|0.12|0.701
84522232|NCT01475487|168797195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|39.48|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Grade 3-4||39.48|0.79|0.043
84522233|NCT01745952|168797211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial model + overdispersion|||||||0.9819
84522234|NCT00683592|168797253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-2.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline MADRS total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.6|-4.4|0.009
84522235|NCT00683592|168797254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-D 17 total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.2|-3.1|0.026
84522236|NCT00683592|168797255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Improve|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with terms for treatment group and center. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
84522237|NCT00683592|168797256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-A total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-2.4|0.037
84522238|NCT00683592|168797257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.134||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS response rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.221|0.047|0.002
84522239|NCT00683592|168797258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.147|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS remission rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.147|-0.008|0.066
84522240|NCT02697617|168797261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.024
84522241|NCT02697617|168797262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.14
84522242|NCT02697617|168797264|OTHER||||||||||||||||||comparison by paired t-test|||
84522243|NCT02697617|168797265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.15
84522244|NCT02697617|168797266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|paired t test|||||||0.4
84522245|NCT00381849|168797274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.32
84522246|NCT00381849|168797274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.23
84522247|NCT00381849|168797274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.41
84522248|NCT00381849|168797274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.32
84522249|NCT00381849|168797275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.49
84522250|NCT00381849|168797275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.64
84522251|NCT00381849|168797275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.72
84522252|NCT00381849|168797275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.84
84522253|NCT00381849|168797278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.69
84522254|NCT00381849|168797278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.25
84522255|NCT00381849|168797278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.15
84522256|NCT00381849|168797278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.20
84522257|NCT00381849|168797279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.85
84522258|NCT00381849|168797279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.63
84522259|NCT00381849|168797279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.97
84522260|NCT00381849|168797279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.15
84522261|NCT00381849|168797280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.81
84522262|NCT00381849|168797280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.78
84522263|NCT00381849|168797280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.96
84522264|NCT00381849|168797280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.13
84522265|NCT00493792|168797299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||||1.77|0.29|0.47
84522266|NCT00493792|168797300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.23|0.06
84522267|NCT00493792|168797301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|.45|0.193
84522268|NCT02426541|168797307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||5.54|-2.18|0.3794
84522269|NCT02426541|168797308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.96|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||2.96|-5.60|0.5317
84522270|NCT02426541|168797309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.07|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||3.07|-3.07|0.9984
84522271|NCT00745134|168797312|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
84540408|NCT01995513|168831691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|-5.0||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|1.75||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR.||1.75|-11.75|0.1653
84522272|NCT00876265|168797333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% CI or the difference between LS mean (Belotero) and LS mean (Zyplast) lies entirely above -Δ, noninferiority of Belotero will be concluded (first step). If, in addition, the CI lies entirely above 0, superiority of Belotero over Zyplast will be concluded (second step).|Adjusted (LS) mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.323||Treatment term and all significant (p ≤ 0.10) covariate and covariate by treatment interactions will be retained in the final ANCOVA model. From the final ANCOVA model, adjusted (LS) means for Belotero and Zyplast was computed.|ANCOVA|||"The null, H0, and the alternative hypothesis, H1, are as follows:~H0(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ -Δ versus H1(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> -Δ H0(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ 0 versus H1(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> 0 The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions: Type I error α = 0.025 (one sided); Power = 90%; Non-inferiority margin Δ = 0.25; Estimated common standard deviation (SD) = 0.75. Under these assumptions, a total of 100 evaluable subjects were needed."||0.323|-0.228|0.733
84522273|NCT04443569|168797337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 1||||0.3
84522274|NCT04443569|168797337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 2||||0.9
84522275|NCT04443569|168797337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 3||||0.07
84522276|NCT04443569|168797337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 4||||0.09
84522277|NCT04443569|168797338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84522278|NCT00996437|168797339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference in Cumulative Prob|4.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||Log Rank|After adjusting for potential confounding factors, time to vitrectomy remained similar between treatment groups.||The cumulative probabilities of vitrectomy by 16 weeks in each group were computed using the life-table method. Treatment group comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. The treatment difference in cumulative probabilities and 95% confidence interval were reported.||13|-4|0.37
84522279|NCT00996437|168797340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value corresponds with recurrent vitreous hemorrhage evaluated on clinical exam between the two treatment arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84522280|NCT00996437|168797341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|1.03|0.05
84522281|NCT00996437|168797342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|GLM with GEE method|Number of subjects with baseline OCT ss=0 and OCT ss\>0 and no vitrectomy at follow up. A generalized GLM with GEE was used for treatment comparisons.||Signal strength was analyzed as a composite outcome defined as OCT signal strength \> = and no vitrectomy vs. OCT signal strength = 0.||||0.87
84522282|NCT00996437|168797343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparisons were performed using a longitudinal mixed model adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||||||.04
84522283|NCT00996437|168797345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value corresponds with the 12 week visit treatment comparison|Fisher Exact|At the each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact test.||||||.023
84522284|NCT00996437|168797346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|At each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact Test.||||||0.27
84522285|NCT01344018|168797386|SUPERIORITY|"Time assessment biases were taken into account for the primary endpoint:~* Surgery alone arm: abdominal recurrence occurring prior to week 14 assessment was counted as occurring at week 14; progression occurring after the week 14 was counted as occurring at week 24.~* Preoperative RT arm: abdominal recurrence occurring was counted as occurring at week 14; and any abdominal recurrence occurring after and prior to or during the week 24 will be counted as occurring at week 24."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|The time assessment biases correction described before was not applied to patients for whom death was the first event.|The arm having surgery alone was the reference arm.|Sample size was determined to provide 90% power for detecting a Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.52 (which corresponds to a 20% difference in ARFS rate at 5 years, from 50% in the surgery arm to 70% in the experimental arm) at a global 2-sided 5% significance level assuming ARFS followed an exponential distribution in both arms. This test required 102 events at the time of the statistical analysis.||1.44|0.71|0.955
84522286|NCT01344018|168797391|SUPERIORITY|ARFI was described using cumulative incidence curves. ARFI was compared between the two treatment arms using a Fine and Gray model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Fine and Gray model|||||1.60|0.74|0.658
84522287|NCT01344018|168797392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||||1.36|0.58|0.595
84522288|NCT01344018|168797393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.65|0.615
84522289|NCT05070754|168797394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
84522290|NCT05070754|168797395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
84522291|NCT05070754|168797396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
84522292|NCT05070754|168797397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84522293|NCT05070754|168797398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in median pain levels between SOC and NTAP treated lesions.||||0.142
84522294|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.308||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.60
84522295|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.367||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.56
84522296|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear regression||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.44
84522297|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.55||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.15
84522298|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.947||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.39
84522299|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.004||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
84522300|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regulation||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.483||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.53
84522301|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.543||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.19
84522302|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.32
84522303|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=32.844||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.11
84522304|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.559||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.31
84522305|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|F=14362.699||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.005
84522306|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.056||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
84522307|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.94
84522308|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.01||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.29
84522309|NCT03702816|168797403|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.173||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.72
84522310|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.424||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.54
84522311|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.447||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.53
84522312|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.773||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.23
84522313|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.615||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.01
84522314|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.039|||||||Regression, Linear|F=9.204||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.039
84522315|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.209||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.33
84522316|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.801||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.07
84522317|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|F=10.374||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.03
84522318|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.024||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.27
84522319|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|F=15.568||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.16
84522320|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.238||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.262
84522321|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|F=221.308||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.043
84522322|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.26
84522323|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.269||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.38
84522324|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=13.164||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
84522325|NCT03702816|168797404|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.312||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.37
84522326|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.233||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.64
84522327|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.011||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.92
84522328|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.790||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.22
84522329|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.720||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.42
84522330|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.305||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.61
84522331|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
84522332|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.435||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.55
84522333|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.787||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.43
84522334|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|F=316.379||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.036
84522335|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.032||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.39
84522336|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Linear|F=425.337||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.031
84522337|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.274|||||||Regression, Linear|F=4.739||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.274
84522338|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.263||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.66
84522339|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=12.244||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
84522340|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.762||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.48
84522341|NCT03702816|168797405|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|F=7.107||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.12
84522342|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.038||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.85
84522343|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.042||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.84
84522344|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.021||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.35
84522345|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.610||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.25
84718532|NCT01105975|169188514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|-4.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-4.2|-18.3|0.009
84522346|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.779||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.25
84522347|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.455||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
84718533|NCT01105975|169188514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-6.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.4|-20.6|0.002
84522348|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.650||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.47
84522349|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.131||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.74
84522350|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.075||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
84522351|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.831||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.41
84522352|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.079||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
84522353|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.879||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.52
84522354|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.001||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.98
84522355|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.95
84522356|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.733||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.32
84522357|NCT03702816|168797406|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.249||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.67
84522358|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.098||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.76
84522359|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.513||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.49
84522360|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.93
84522361|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.430||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
84522362|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.142||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.77
84522363|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.496||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.61
84522364|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=8.046||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.11
84522365|NCT03702816|168797407|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.051||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
84522366|NCT01881737|168797457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Paired t test|||Effect Size Cohen's d = -0.05||||0.848
84522367|NCT01881737|168797458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t test|Effect Size Cohen's d = 0.53||||||0.009
84522368|NCT01881737|168797459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||paired t test|Effect size Cohen's d = 0.38||||||0.38
84522369|NCT01881737|168797461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84522370|NCT00926367|168797501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.||||||>0.05
84472104|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5066||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8046|2.8209|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.8209|0.8046|0.2003
84472105|NCT04047121|168695752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4052||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8086|2.442|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4420|0.8086|0.2276
84472106|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8786
84472107|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1178
84472108|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5337
84472109|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0283||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5911|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7890|0.5911|0.9212
84472110|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7464||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.6482|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6482|0.3380|0.4693
84472111|NCT04047121|168695753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8212||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4239|1.591|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5910|0.4239|0.5593
84472112|NCT04047121|168695754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6205|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6205
84472113|NCT04047121|168695754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4924|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4924
84472114|NCT04047121|168695754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4982|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4982
84472115|NCT04047121|168695754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3182||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|3.257|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2570|0.5335|0.5494
84472116|NCT04047121|168695754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1664||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.4883|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4883|0.3900|0.7830
84472117|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3817
84472118|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7397
84472119|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7942
84472120|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0682||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6537|1.7455|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7455|0.6537|0.7924
84472121|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0414||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3997|2.7134|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7134|0.3997|0.9339
84472122|NCT04047121|168695755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8195||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.935|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9350|0.3470|0.6497
84472123|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7936|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7936
84472124|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5621
84472125|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6800
84472126|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1438||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7705|1.6978|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6978|0.7705|0.5051
84472127|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8576||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3781|1.9452|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9452|0.3781|0.7131
84472128|NCT04047121|168695756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8415||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4003|1.769|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7690|0.4003|0.6490
84472129|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
84472130|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
84472131|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
84472132|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1637||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7193|1.8827|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8827|0.7193|0.5368
84472133|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7757||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3904|1.5413|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5413|0.3904|0.4685
84522371|NCT00926367|168797503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
84718534|NCT04868617|169188526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.3|=0.015
84472134|NCT04047121|168695757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7354||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4057|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3330|0.4057|0.3112
84472135|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8122|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8122
84472136|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7766|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7766
84472137|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8305
84472138|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5814||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.2952|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2952|0.2610|0.1845
84472139|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5908||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|3.7936|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.7936|0.6671|0.2951
84472140|NCT04047121|168695758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3546||||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6584|2.787|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7870|0.6584|0.4907
84472141|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6006
84472142|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2941|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2941
84472143|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9610
84472144|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5571||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.9884|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9884|0.3140|0.0455
84472145|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1781||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0904|4.3506|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3506|1.0904|0.0274
84472146|NCT04047121|168695759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8896||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5114|1.5475|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5475|0.5114|0.6787
84472147|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
84472148|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8325
84472149|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9630
84472150|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0508||||0.7909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7284|1.516|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5160|0.7284|0.7909
84472151|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8117||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.7808|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7808|0.3700|0.6027
84472152|NCT04047121|168695760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1742||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5222|2.6404|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6404|0.5222|0.6978
84472153|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1736
84472154|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0195
84472155|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2104|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2104
84472156|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1723||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9357|1.4687|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4687|0.9357|0.1670
84472157|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7228||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4861|1.0747|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0747|0.4861|0.1087
84472158|NCT04047121|168695761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8402||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5957|1.1852|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1852|0.5957|0.3212
84472159|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9361
84472160|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3851
84472161|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5990
84472162|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9954||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|1.662|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6620|0.5962|0.9860
84472163|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2959||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5158|3.2558|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2558|0.5158|0.5813
84718535|NCT04868617|169188527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.5|=0.035
84472164|NCT04047121|168695762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8182||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7604|4.3473|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3473|0.7604|0.1789
84472165|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4009
84472166|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9765
84472167|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2849
84472168|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8252||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4538|1.5007|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5007|0.4538|0.5289
84472169|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9408||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2553|3.4678|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4678|0.2553|0.9270
84472170|NCT04047121|168695763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3968||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1456|1.0812|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0812|0.1456|0.0707
84472171|NCT04047121|168695764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2061
84472172|NCT04047121|168695764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1908|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1908
84472173|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8033
84472174|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6669
84472175|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6477
84472176|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7948||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3736|1.6907|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6907|0.3736|0.5509
84472177|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6814||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1486|3.125|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1250|0.1486|0.6216
84472178|NCT04047121|168695765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6974||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2135|2.2781|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2781|0.2135|0.5506
84472179|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1030
84472180|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9317
84472181|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2420
84472182|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7474||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9222|3.3107|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.3107|0.9222|0.0869
84472183|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3757|3.4266|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4266|0.3757|0.8228
84472184|NCT04047121|168695766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4446|5.5086|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.5086|0.4446|0.4855
84472185|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5092|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5092
84472186|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0201
84472187|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2799
84472188|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9021||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6281|1.2958|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2958|0.6281|0.5772
84472189|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3953||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7166|2.7169|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7169|0.7166|0.3272
84472190|NCT04047121|168695768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3527||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.3983|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3983|0.7630|0.3011
84472191|NCT04047121|168695769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2931
84472192|NCT04047121|168695769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3135
84472193|NCT04047121|168695769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84472194|NCT04047121|168695769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3618|1.9356|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9356|0.3618|0.6772
84472195|NCT04047121|168695769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.253||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9061|14.477|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||14.4770|1.9061|0.0013
84522372|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.38|
84522373|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.60|
84522374|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.70|
84522375|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.93|
84522376|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.69|
84522377|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.06||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.09|
84522378|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.27||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.94|
84522379|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.0||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.21|
84522380|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.03||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-1.24|
84522381|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.84|
84522382|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.01||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-1.53|
84522383|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.47||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-1.07|
84522384|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.08||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.65|
84522385|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.55||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.06|
84522386|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.15||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.72|
84522387|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.54||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.54|-1.05|
84522388|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.15||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.80|
84522389|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.61|-1.04|
84522390|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.65|
84522391|NCT02725411|168797547|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-0.88|
84522392|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.77|
84522393|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.14||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.96|
84522394|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.43||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-1.48|
84522395|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.51||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.51|-1.43|
84522396|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.91|-1.04|
84522397|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.44||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.44|-1.53|
84522398|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.05||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.05|-1.06|
84522399|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.53||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.53|-1.60|
84522400|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.88||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-1.71|
84522401|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.14||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.14|-1.47|
84522402|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.71||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-1.90|
84522403|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.25||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.25|-1.44|
84522404|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.28||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-2.43|
84522405|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.32||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.32|-1.41|
84718536|NCT02502526|169188558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84718537|NCT02502526|169188559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84522406|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.57||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-2.17|
84522407|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.64||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.64|-1.16|
84522408|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.35||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-2.37|
84522409|NCT02725411|168797549|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.42||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.42|-1.35|
84522410|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.3||||||Week 16: \>=30%||26.3|-0.8|
84522411|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.4||||||Week 16: \>=30%||12.4|-15.8|
84522412|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.0||||||Week 16: \>=50%||32.0|4.2|
84522413|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.3||||||Week 16: \>=50%||16.3|-10.7|
84522414|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|20.7||||||Week 16: \>=70%||20.7|0.6|
84522415|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.1||||||Week 16: \>=70%||18.1|-1.4|
84522416|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.5||||||Week 16: \>=90%||6.5|-4.3|
84522417|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.8||||||Week 16: \>=90%||7.8|-3.7|
84522418|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|25.7||||||Week 24: \>=30%||25.7|-2.3|
84522419|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.6||||||Week 24: \>=30%||12.6|-15.9|
84522420|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 24: \>=50%||25.8|-2.4|
84522421|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|18.9||||||Week 24: \>=50%||18.9|-9.1|
84522422|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.8||||||Week 24: \>=70%||24.8|2.9|
84522423|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|21.0||||||Week 24: \>=70%||21.0|-0.2|
84522424|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4||||||Week 24: \>=90%||11.4|-0.7|
84522425|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 24: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
84522426|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|30.9||||||Week 40: \>=30%||30.9|3.1|
84522427|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|13.7||||||Week 40: \>=30%||13.7|-14.8|
84522428|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.0||||||Week 40: \>=50%||31.0|3.0|
84522429|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.7||||||Week 40: \>=50%||18.7|-9.0|
84522430|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.4||||||Week 40: \>=70%||29.4|4.6|
84522431|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|18.9||||||Week 40: \>=70%||18.9|-4.5|
84522432|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.5||||||Week 40: \>=90%||13.5|1.4|
84522433|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.6||||||Week 40: \>=90%||10.6|-0.1|
84522434|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 56: \>=30%||25.8|-2.4|
84522435|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|10.5||||||Week 56: \>=30%||10.5|-17.9|
84522436|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|25.9||||||Week 56: \>=50%||25.9|-2.5|
84522437|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.4||||||Week 56: \>=50%||11.4|-16.5|
84522438|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|30.5||||||Week 56: \>=70%||30.5|5.6|
84718538|NCT02502526|169188559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
84522439|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|20.0||||||Week 56: \>=70%||20.0|-3.6|
84522440|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.4||||||Week 56: \>=90%||15.4|1.6|
84522441|NCT02725411|168797553|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 56: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
84522442|NCT02725411|168797569|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||4.1|-4.1|
84522443|NCT02725411|168797569|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||8.5|-2.2|
84522444|NCT01294449|168797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.161|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D group over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD group. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|The sample size for the analysis included subjects from the original MADIT-CRT IDE (NCT00180271) that did not participate in the Registry portion, these subjects are censored at the time of study conclusion, withdrawal or death during the IDE. This was done as the Registry is a post approval continuation of the follow-up from the MADIT-CRT IDE trial. This is not a pooled analysis from separate studies.||1.161|0.670|0.370
84522445|NCT01294449|168797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D arm over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD arm. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|These data represent the indicated sub population of left bundle branch block subjects only. (Left bundle branch block N= 110 ICD group: 181 CRT-D group)||0.960|0.484|0.028
84522446|NCT03259789|168797611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
84522447|NCT03259789|168797613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.86|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.86|-1.83|< 0.0001
84522448|NCT03259789|168797615|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-4.32|-9.83|< 0.0001
84522449|NCT03259789|168797616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.95||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 6 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||12.95|1.70|0.0014
84522450|NCT03259789|168797616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.92||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 12 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||8.92|1.96|0.0001
84522451|NCT03259789|168797616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.04||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 18 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||5.04|1.31|0.0030
84522452|NCT03259789|168797616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.58||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 24 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||7.58|1.99|< 0.0001
84522453|NCT03259789|168797618|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-1.57|-3.45|< 0.0001
84522454|NCT03259789|168797620|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.38||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 6 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.38|-0.74|< 0.0001
84522455|NCT03259789|168797620|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.46||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 12 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.46|-0.86|< 0.0001
84718539|NCT02502526|169188560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.520
84718540|NCT02502526|169188560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.817
84522456|NCT03259789|168797620|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 18 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.30|-0.69|< 0.0001
84522457|NCT03259789|168797620|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 24 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
84522458|NCT02063217|168797622|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (standard error), units = %. 17(7.2) increase in overnight amyloid-beta 40 concentrations over waking baseline between the sleep deprivation group and controls.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||0.07
84522459|NCT02063217|168797622|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean= 7%, standard error = 7.6%. 7% increase in overnight amyloid beta 40 concentrations over the waking baseline between the sleep induction group and control group.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||1.0
84522460|NCT00593827|168797659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
84522461|NCT00593827|168797660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
84522462|NCT00593827|168797663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84522463|NCT01160640|168797684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value for proportion of women who had clearance of anaerobic organisms from the endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
84522464|NCT01160640|168797686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value for proportion of women who did not have M. genitalium detected in the cervix or endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
84522465|NCT01160640|168797687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value for proportion of women who experienced resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of PID at the 3-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
84522466|NCT04718129|168797689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.085|||Regression, Linear|||||.085|.003|.048
84522467|NCT02212457|168797690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M14459 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||1.02|0.53|
84522468|NCT02212457|168797690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M07-0241084 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.94|0.54|
84522469|NCT02212457|168797690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain 96217 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.85|0.51|
84522470|NCT02212457|168797690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain NZ98/254 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.66|0.37|
84522471|NCT00749658|168797759|OTHER|Two tailed testing||||||0.07|||||||SAS|||||||0.07
84522472|NCT01525628|168797769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|251.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.54|307.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||307.43|205.54|1.0000
84522473|NCT01525628|168797769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|131.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.4|163.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||163.57|105.40|0.6514
84522474|NCT01525628|168797770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|381.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|317.01|458.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||458.19|317.01|1.0000
84522475|NCT01525628|168797770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|123.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0||0.4718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|161.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.51|94.66|0.4718
84522476|NCT01525628|168797771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|306.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|250.93|374.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||374.26|250.93|1.0000
84522477|NCT01525628|168797771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|129.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.26|161.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.71|104.26|0.6185
84522478|NCT01525628|168797772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|286.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.51|357.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||357.97|228.51|1.0000
84522479|NCT01525628|168797772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|150.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.1||0.821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.81|211.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||211.91|106.81|0.8210
84522480|NCT01525628|168797773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|349.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.12|454.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||454.93|269.12|1.0000
84522481|NCT01525628|168797773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|176.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.95|247.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||247.50|125.95|0.9533
84522482|NCT01525628|168797774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|322.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.24|406.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||406.34|256.24|1.0000
84522483|NCT01525628|168797774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|145.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.2||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.83|217.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||217.69|97.83|0.7461
84522484|NCT01525628|168797775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|355.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|298.13|422.83|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||422.83|298.13|1.0000
84522485|NCT01525628|168797775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|120.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.3||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.68|174.01|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||174.01|83.68|0.4337
84522486|NCT01525628|168797776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|397.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|330.79|478.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||478.22|330.79|1.0000
84540409|NCT01995513|168831691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|10.92||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|32.21||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR+SD.||32.21|-10.37|0.3216
84522487|NCT01525628|168797776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|142.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.1||0.7346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|203.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||203.44|99.49|0.7346
84522488|NCT01525628|168797777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|403.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|332.19|490.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||490.99|332.19|1.0000
84522489|NCT01525628|168797777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|116.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.1||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.38|181.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||181.47|75.38|0.3968
84522490|NCT01525628|168797778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|408.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.15|529.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||529.90|315.15|1.0000
84522491|NCT01525628|168797778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|301.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|204.61|443.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||443.35|204.61|0.9993
84522492|NCT01525628|168797779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|450.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|343.67|590.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||590.57|343.67|1.0000
84522493|NCT01525628|168797779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|341.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.1||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.22|510.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||510.13|229.22|0.9996
84522494|NCT01525628|168797780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|466.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|357.02|610.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||610.66|357.02|1.0000
84522495|NCT01525628|168797780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|298.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.2||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.22|476.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||476.15|187.22|0.9972
84522496|NCT01525628|168797781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|528.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|415.88|672.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||672.75|415.88|1.0000
84522497|NCT01525628|168797781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|384.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.2||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|251.56|586.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||586.16|251.56|0.9998
84522498|NCT01525628|168797782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|569.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.49|725.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||725.57|447.49|1.0000
84540410|NCT01995513|168831692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Progression Rate|9.09||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|25.87||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in Progression Rate was based upon normal approximation.|||25.87|-7.69|0.2963
84522499|NCT01525628|168797782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|441.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.9||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.81|680.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||680.82|286.81|0.9999
84522500|NCT01525628|168797783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|606.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|471.42|779.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||779.74|471.42|1.0000
84522501|NCT01525628|168797783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|377.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.0||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.48|611.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||611.91|233.48|0.9994
84522502|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|117.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||117.69|80.00|0.0500
84522503|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.37|118.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||118.79|79.37|0.0564
84522504|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|114.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|141.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.66|92.36|0.2375
84522505|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|139.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.63|159.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||159.00|121.63|0.9082
84522506|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|143.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||143.84|104.11|0.4111
84522507|NCT01525628|168797784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|121.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.24|141.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.45|104.24|0.3719
84522508|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|88.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.8||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.39|100.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||100.89|77.39|0.1037
84522509|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|159.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.8||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.06|227.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||227.93|111.06|0.8723
84522510|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|259.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.5||0.983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.65|447.21|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||447.21|150.65|0.9830
84540875|NCT01339403|168832841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Poisson Regression|||Histoplasmosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||23.1|7.4|<0.0001
84718541|NCT01371994|169188568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and Baseline daily pad usage (≤ 3 and \> 3).||The treatment difference in the primary efficacy variable was tested using a log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and by Baseline daily pad usage (≤3 and \>3) at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.1745
84718542|NCT01371994|169188569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4833|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 4||||0.4833
84718543|NCT01371994|169188569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5761|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 8||||0.5761
84472196|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
84472197|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
84472198|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
84472199|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8593||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5311|1.3902|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3902|0.5311|0.5368
84472200|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2892||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6488|2.5616|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.5616|0.6488|0.4685
84472201|NCT04047121|168695770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3598||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7502|2.4648|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4648|0.7502|0.3112
84472202|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4090
84472203|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
84472204|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0103
84472205|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1302||||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6741|0.7630|0.5415
84472206|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0118||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|4.1632|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.1632|0.9722|0.0596
84472207|NCT04047121|168695771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4823||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.793|6.7633|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.7633|1.7930|0.0002
84472208|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2361
84472209|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7474
84472210|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2118
84472211|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3811||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8449|2.2576|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2576|0.8449|0.1978
84472212|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0614||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4587|2.4559|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4559|0.4587|0.8893
84472213|NCT04047121|168695772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5811||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2748|1.2286|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2286|0.2748|0.1553
84472214|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6767
84472215|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1141
84472216|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1497
84472217|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8556||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5303|1.3804|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3804|0.5303|0.5228
84472218|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5125||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1062|5.7063|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.7063|1.1062|0.0277
84472219|NCT04047121|168695773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6993||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3435|1.4236|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4236|0.3435|0.3240
84472220|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6318
84472221|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3802
84472222|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2424
84472223|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0347||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0155|0.0848|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0848|-0.0155|0.1753
84522511|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.52|207.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||207.52|129.52|0.9689
84522512|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|219.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.84|314.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||314.26|153.84|0.9933
84522513|NCT01525628|168797785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|214.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.8||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.88|315.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||315.09|145.88|0.9865
84522514|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|96.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|105.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||105.13|87.77|0.0015
84522515|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|85.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.32|95.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||95.57|76.32|0.1617
84522516|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.03|82.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||82.54|65.03|0.8930
84522517|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.67|98.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||98.13|86.67|0.0005
84522518|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.55|83.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||83.39|65.55|0.8646
84522519|NCT01525628|168797786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|83.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.45|68.15|0.8378
84522520|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.15|106.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||106.91|90.15|0.0005
84522521|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|81.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.19|87.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||87.82|75.19|0.3638
84522522|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|83.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.22|60.44|0.8975
84540876|NCT01339403|168832842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.1|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.1|4.3|<0.001
84522523|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|86.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|96.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||96.11|77.62|0.1144
84522524|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|64.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.42|69.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||69.20|60.42|1.0000
84522525|NCT01525628|168797787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|63.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.3||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.19|71.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||71.07|57.19|0.9988
84522526|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|144.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.3|163.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||163.36|128.30|0.9749
84522527|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|152.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.6|181.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||181.89|128.60|0.9703
84522528|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.85|124.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||124.99|84.85|0.0500
84522529|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|124.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.91|142.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||142.99|107.91|0.4697
84522530|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|120.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.47|134.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||134.38|108.47|0.2906
84522531|NCT01525628|168797788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|93.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.33|109.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.86|80.33|0.0460
84522532|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|151.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5||0.9941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.79|170.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||170.64|134.79|0.9941
84522533|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.91|193.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||193.64|137.91|0.9926
84522534|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|118.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||118.63|81.20|0.0392
84718544|NCT01371994|169188569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0592|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 12||||0.0592
84718545|NCT01371994|169188569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||||0.0390
84522535|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.15|151.55|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||151.55|99.15|0.4374
84522536|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|130.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.57|158.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||158.18|107.57|0.6470
84522537|NCT01525628|168797789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.32|109.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.54|70.32|0.2372
84522538|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|130.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||130.00|106.49|0.1519
84522539|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.06|142.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day17 vs. Day 1||142.52|96.06|0.2827
84522540|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.6||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.38|114.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||114.07|74.38|0.1326
84522541|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|95.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.63|113.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||113.24|80.63|0.0432
84522542|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.64|88.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||88.82|63.64|0.7367
84522543|NCT01525628|168797790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.84|86.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||86.56|56.84|0.8547
84522544|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|135.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||135.39|77.89|0.1159
84522545|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|99.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|127.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||127.64|78.33|0.0651
84522546|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.5|98.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||98.07|62.50|0.5658
84540877|NCT01339403|168832843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|8.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||8.2|6.0|<0.001
84522547|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|108.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|133.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||133.99|87.46|0.1286
84522548|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.8||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.56|104.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||104.30|73.56|0.1898
84522549|NCT01525628|168797791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.3||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|99.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||99.51|61.81|0.5575
84522550|NCT01214239|168797848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.0001
84522551|NCT01214239|168797849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.527|-0.238|||ANCOVA|||||-0.238|-0.527|<0.0001
84522552|NCT01214239|168797850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.677|-0.323|||ANCOVA|||||-0.323|-0.677|<0.0001
84522553|NCT01214239|168797851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.705|-0.318|||ANCOVA|||||-0.318|-0.705|<0.0001
84522554|NCT01214239|168797852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
84522555|NCT01214239|168797853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0003||95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||||-5.2|-17.2|0.0003
84522556|NCT01214239|168797854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0086||95.0|-15.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-15.4|0.0086
84522557|NCT01214239|168797855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0135||95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-17.0|0.0135
84522558|NCT01214239|168797856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0113||95.0|-17.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.1|0.0113
84522559|NCT01214239|168797858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.552||||0.0021||95.0|1.407|4.629|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0%||4.629|1.407|0.0021
84522560|NCT01214239|168797860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.583||||0.25||95.0|0.724|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||3.46|0.724|0.2500
84522561|NCT01214239|168797861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.527||||0.0005||95.0|1.494|4.276|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||||4.276|1.494|0.0005
84522562|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual analog scale (VAS) ratings in the scanner. Measures of pain ratings to evoked stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the affected side.||||<0.05
84522563|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
84522564|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
84522565|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
84522566|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
84522567|NCT00243152|168797864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
84522568|NCT01049581|168797865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was used and the result reveled (F1, 17 = 7.565, η2= 0.308, p = 0.007)||||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in gross motor performance in pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.007
84522569|NCT01049581|168797866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA : p value 0.393|Mean Difference (Net)|1.762||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Effect Size η2~0.023"|ANCOVA|F1,17= 0.380||We hypothesize that Children with CP receiving PAT would have better outcomes in motor function and translate to ADL||||0.393
84522570|NCT01049581|168797867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in social participation between pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.332
84522571|NCT02625974|168797868|OTHER|A direct comparison|Difference in cure rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.2||||||||24.2|3.7|
84522572|NCT02625974|168797869|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.45|||||Person-year = 754|||3.45|1.21|
84522573|NCT02625974|168797874|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.16|||||Person-year = 379|||4.16|0.91|
84522574|NCT04773600|168797913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.962|5.183|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.183|1.962|<0.0001
84522575|NCT04773600|168797914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.996|5.687|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site|Stratified by pooled study site|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Baseline vIGA = 'Moderate'||5.687|1.996|<0.0001
84522576|NCT04773600|168797915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|8.658|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||8.658|2.281|<0.0001
84522577|NCT04773600|168797916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|4.782|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||4.782|0.832|0.1156
84522578|NCT04773600|168797917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|5.066|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 4||5.066|1.448|0.0014
84522579|NCT04773600|168797918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|7.927|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 2||7.927|1.591|0.0015
84522580|NCT04773600|168797919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|35.764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 1||35.764|1.717|0.0020
84522581|NCT04773600|168797920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|4.964|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.964|2.108|<0.0001
84522582|NCT04773600|168797921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.191|5.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.240|2.191|<0.0001
84522583|NCT04773600|168797922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|5.854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.854|2.097|<0.0001
84522584|NCT04773600|168797923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.312|4.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||4.993|1.312|0.0050
84522585|NCT00003404|168797926|OTHER||rate of occurance|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The local recurrence rate was estimated by dividing the number of recurrences by the total sample size. An exact 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for this rate was determined by binomial distribution.|||8|0|
84522586|NCT01848210|168797947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|10.51|||Regression, Linear|||||10.51|-19.81|0.531
84522587|NCT04592419|168797951|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-3.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||0.30|-3.11|.0004
84718546|NCT01371994|169188571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 4||0.38|-0.14|0.3604
84522588|NCT04592419|168797952|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-4.24|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, RVO subtype, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||-0.71|-4.24|.0243
84522589|NCT00685035|168797976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
84522590|NCT01503333|168798004|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at post-intervention. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at post-intervention.|parameter estimate|-0.08||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypotheses: Post-intervention, weighted mean minutes of MVPA/week will be greater by 16 minutes among girls in intervention than control schools. Mean minutes per week is determined by multiplying mean minutes/hour by 90 hours that girls are awake in a week (10 hours awake on each weekend day; 14 hours awake on each weekday).||0.05|-0.21|.207
84522591|NCT01503333|168798005|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on CV fitness according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline CV fitness, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, cardiovascular (CV) fitness will be higher among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.36|0.03|.018
84540411|NCT01995513|168831693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.204||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.204|0.616|0.3818
84522592|NCT01503333|168798006|OTHER|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on BMI-z according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models for BMI-z included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline BMI-z, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, BMI z-score will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.01|-0.05|.191
84522593|NCT01503333|168798007|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on % body fat according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline % body fat, age, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, percent body fat will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||-0.10|-0.64|.007
84522594|NCT01503333|168798008|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at 9-month follow up. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at follow up.|parameter estimate|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.21|.118
84522595|NCT01503333|168798009|OTHER||parameter estimate|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-square test p\>.05.26.||||
84522596|NCT01503333|168798010|OTHER||parameter estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
84522597|NCT01503333|168798011|OTHER||parameter estimate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
84522598|NCT01503333|168798012|OTHER||parameter estimate|30.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
84522599|NCT01503333|168798013|OTHER||parameter estimate|24.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
84522600|NCT01503333|168798014|OTHER||parameter estimate|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
84522601|NCT04241133|168798015|OTHER|The experimental and control groups were not compared due to the inability to collect post data with the control group because of stay at home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported P-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.||The experimental group was tested for significant difference in Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015) scores at baseline and 12 weeks. SAS macros provided by the National Cancer Institute were used to compute HEI-2015 scores for each dietary recall at pre- (baseline) and post-intervention (12 weeks) using the Simple HEI Scoring Algorithm.||||<0.05
84522602|NCT02344745|168798061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84522603|NCT02344745|168798062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
84522604|NCT02344745|168798063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84522605|NCT02344745|168798064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
84522606|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.9931||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Beta model fit.|Model assumption: 75% of max effect is achieved at 2 mg, 87.5% at 5 mg, 25% at 25 mg, max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809, scalar parameter = 26||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9931
84522607|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.9225||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9225
84522608|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.9287||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 25% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 75% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9287
84522609|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.7646||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.7646
84522610|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.9335||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear in log model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9335
84522611|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER|||||||0.8199||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 50% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.8199
84522612|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.18||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.18|-1.09|0.9340
84522613|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.44|-0.84|0.6041
84522614|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.9||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.90|-0.38|0.1926
84522615|NCT02788513|168798065|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.12||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.12|-1.16|0.9739
84522616|NCT02788513|168798066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.52||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||1.52|-1.48|0.979
84522617|NCT02788513|168798066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.0||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||2.00|-1.01|0.521
84522618|NCT02788513|168798066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.02||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.02|-3.04|0.047
84522619|NCT02788513|168798066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.67||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.67|-3.65|0.005
84522620|NCT02788513|168798067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.11|-0.32|0.343
84522621|NCT02788513|168798067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.16|-0.26|0.645
84522622|NCT02788513|168798067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.30|-0.13|0.448
84522623|NCT02788513|168798067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.32|-0.11|0.340
84522624|NCT04968925|168798173|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.54|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||22.54|0.80|
84522625|NCT04968925|168798174|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.16|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||10.16|1.16|
84522626|NCT04968925|168798175|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.76|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||6.76|1.05|
84522627|NCT04968925|168798176|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.09|2.83|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.83|1.09|
84522628|NCT04968925|168798177|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.66|1.02|2.28|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.28|1.02|
84522629|NCT04968925|168798178|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.03|0.77|
84522630|NCT02327325|168798197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between physical activity only and the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the physical activity group had greater improvement than the wait list group.||0.35|-6.24|0.08
84522631|NCT02327325|168798197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA \& CBT group to the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior on this outcome to the wait list group.||0.06|-6.69|0.06
84522632|NCT02327325|168798198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||0.64|-12.85|0.07
84522633|NCT02327325|168798198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||3.48|-11.69|0.28
84522634|NCT02327325|168798199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||7.96|-0.69|0.097
84522635|NCT02327325|168798199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||7.39|-1.55|0.196
84522636|NCT02327325|168798200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||-1.34|-6.85|<0.01
84522637|NCT02327325|168798200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||0.86|-4.85|0.17
84522638|NCT02327325|168798201|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||5.19|-4.86|0.95
84522639|NCT02327325|168798201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||1.07|-7.07|0.97
84522640|NCT00951093|168798219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons|Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||<0.001
84522641|NCT00951093|168798220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.002
84522642|NCT00951093|168798221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|||||||< 0.001
84522643|NCT00951093|168798222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.020
84522644|NCT00951093|168798223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
84522645|NCT00951093|168798224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.001
84522646|NCT00951093|168798225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
84522647|NCT01118026|168798226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9669
84522648|NCT00974350|168798261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.44|||ANOVA|LS Mean difference from SABER-Placebo||Pain Intensity on Movement AUCs1-72 hours Including Pain Assessed Upon Taking Opioid Rescue - ITT||-0.44|-1.84|0.0031
84522649|NCT00974350|168798262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study sites||Proportion of Patients Not Taking Any Supplemental Opioid Analgesic Medication||||0.0909
84522650|NCT01332968|168798268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.85|0.51|0.0012
84522651|NCT01332968|168798269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
84522652|NCT01332968|168798270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.65|0.0028
84522653|NCT01332968|168798271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.56|0.0118
84522654|NCT01332968|168798272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038||95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0038
84522655|NCT01332968|168798273|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|5.68|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.68|-2.02|0.30
84522656|NCT01332968|168798273|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||10.5|-1.8|0.17
84522657|NCT01332968|168798274|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.3|-2.0|0.33
84522658|NCT01332968|168798274|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.4|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.4|-2.3|0.17
84522659|NCT01332968|168798275|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-5.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.78|||Log Rank|||Without PET||-0.78|-10.2|0.02
84522660|NCT01332968|168798275|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|5.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Log Rank|||With PET||13.3|-2.8|0.32
84522661|NCT01332968|168798276|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-4.9||||0.02||95.0|-9.3|0.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||0.6|-9.3|0.02
84522662|NCT01332968|168798276|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.1||||0.33||95.0|-3.6|11.8|||Log Rank|||With PET||11.8|-3.6|0.33
84522663|NCT01332968|168798277|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.85|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.85|-0.19|0.052
84522664|NCT01332968|168798277|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.9|||Log Rank|||With PET||8.9|-2.3|0.30
84522665|NCT01332968|168798278|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.6|-0.3|0.049
84522666|NCT01332968|168798278|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.5|-1.7|0.22
84522667|NCT01332968|168798279|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.8|-3.5|0.58
84522668|NCT01332968|168798279|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4|||Log Rank|||||19.4|3.9|0.006
84522669|NCT01332968|168798280|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.5|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.5|-4.0|0.80
84522670|NCT01332968|168798280|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|10.1||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.6|||Log Rank|||With PET||17.6|2.6|0.009
84522671|NCT01332968|168798281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3577||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.63|0.3577
84522672|NCT01332968|168798282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.25||95.0|0.58|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.58|0.25
84522673|NCT01332968|168798283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.62|0.0015
84522674|NCT01332968|168798284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0004||95.0|0.56|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0004
84522675|NCT01332968|168798285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.71|
84522676|NCT01332968|168798286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19||||||||1.19|0.50|
84522677|NCT01332968|168798287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.63|
84522678|NCT01332968|168798288|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.88||||||||0.88|0.55|
84522679|NCT01332968|168798289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.001
84522680|NCT01332968|168798290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004||95.0|0.54|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.54|0.004
84522681|NCT01742208|168798316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.14||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.78|-7.49||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison of the 2 Expansion Groups was based on an ANCOVA model with covariates of baseline mean total daily bolus insulin, treatment group, factor used to stratify the randomization (screening A1C \<= 8%, \> 8%), and random effect of participant\*treatment group.||-7.49|-42.78|0.007
84522682|NCT00216060|168798342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.4|||Regression, Cox|||||8.40|0.51|0.3
84522683|NCT00216060|168798343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate analysis|||||||0.12
84522684|NCT00216060|168798345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84522685|NCT00216060|168798347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84522686|NCT00216060|168798348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.010
84522687|NCT00216060|168798349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84522688|NCT02174276|168798350|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.12|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.120|-0.155|0.805
84522689|NCT02174276|168798350|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.063||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.202|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.202|-0.075|0.370
84522690|NCT02174276|168798350|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.082|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.082|-0.194|0.426
84522691|NCT00434837|168798404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 3-year analysis.||||.27
84522692|NCT00434837|168798405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 7-year analysis.||||.08
84522693|NCT00434837|168798406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.22
84522694|NCT00434837|168798407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0078
84522695|NCT00434837|168798408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0018
84522696|NCT00434837|168798409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.015
84522697|NCT00434837|168798410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.003
84522698|NCT00434837|168798411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0006
84522699|NCT00434837|168798412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
84522700|NCT00434837|168798413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.34
84522701|NCT00434837|168798414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.17
84522702|NCT00434837|168798415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.25
84522703|NCT00434837|168798416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.61
84522704|NCT00434837|168798417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
84522705|NCT00434837|168798418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.53
84718547|NCT01371994|169188571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 8||0.52|-0.03|0.0761
84718548|NCT01371994|169188571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.64|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 12||0.64|0.07|0.0149
84718549|NCT01371994|169188571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.52|0.02|0.0325
84718550|NCT01371994|169188573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.19|-0.60|0.5186
84522706|NCT00434837|168798419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.82
84522707|NCT00434837|168798420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.03
84522708|NCT00434837|168798421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.67
84522709|NCT00434837|168798423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.051
84522710|NCT00434837|168798424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 15-year analysis.||||.14
84522711|NCT00434837|168798425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.067
84522712|NCT00434837|168798426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 7-year analysis.||||.54
84522713|NCT00434837|168798427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.08
84522714|NCT00345033|168798455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in total cholesterol is over 99%.||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
84522715|NCT00345033|168798456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in weight will be over 99%.||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
84522716|NCT00345033|168798457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Body Mass Index (BMI) will be over 99%.||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.229
84522717|NCT00345033|168798458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in glucose metabolism to be 90%.||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
84522718|NCT00345033|168798459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in triglycerides will be 81%.||||||0.982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.982
84522719|NCT00345033|168798460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Insulin Resistance will be 90%.||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
84522720|NCT02102932|168798461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.92|108.78||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.78|101.92|0.0000
84522721|NCT02102932|168798461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.91|106.65||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.65|99.91|0.0000
84522722|NCT02102932|168798461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|107.54||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.54|99.73|0.0000
84540412|NCT01995513|168831700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.399||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|2.025||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||2.025|0.967|0.0739
84540413|NCT01232452|168831705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.73|0.848
84522723|NCT02102932|168798461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.36|106.37||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.37|99.36|0.0000
84522724|NCT02102932|168798462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|112.07||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.07|97.56|0.0001
84522725|NCT02102932|168798462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.32|112.7||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.70|99.32|0.0001
84522726|NCT02102932|168798462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|109.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.63|98.18|0.0000
84522727|NCT02102932|168798462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|95.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|102.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||102.03|89.88|0.0000
84522728|NCT02102932|168798463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.44|112.8||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.80|100.44|0.0000
84522729|NCT02102932|168798463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|110.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.8|118.24||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||118.24|103.80|0.0021
84522730|NCT02102932|168798463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|101.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|108.39||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.39|94.82|0.0000
84522731|NCT02102932|168798463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|111.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.63|95.08|0.0002
84522732|NCT02102932|168798464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.29|110.86||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||110.86|99.29|0.0000
84540414|NCT01232452|168831706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.338
84472224|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0194||||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0553|0.0941|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0941|-0.0553|0.6114
84472225|NCT04047121|168695774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0345||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0304|0.0993|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0993|-0.0304|0.2977
84472226|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1473
84472227|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8747
84472228|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5265
84472229|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0457||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1239|0.0325|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0325|-0.1239|0.2522
84472230|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0278||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1559|-0.1003|0.6701
84472231|NCT04047121|168695775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1693||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.372|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3720|-0.0334|0.1017
84472232|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2246
84472233|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2101
84472234|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0030
84472235|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4231|1.2511|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2511|-0.4231|0.3324
84472236|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1712||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|2.7138|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7138|-0.3713|0.1367
84472237|NCT04047121|168695776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8099||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6219|2.9978|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9978|0.6219|0.0028
84522733|NCT02102932|168798464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.88||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||114.88|98.39|0.0008
84472238|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2667
84472239|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6570
84472240|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5403
84472241|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9159||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2283|2.06|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.0600|-0.2283|0.1167
84472242|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0336||||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9238|1.8567|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8567|-1.9238|0.9722
84472243|NCT04047121|168695777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2064||||0.8455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8689|2.2817|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2817|-1.8689|0.8455
84472244|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3142
84472245|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2465
84472246|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
84472247|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0089||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0716|0.0538|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0538|-0.0716|0.7815
84472248|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0337||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.1202|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1202|-0.0528|0.4446
84472249|NCT04047121|168695778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0333||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1243|0.0577|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0577|-0.1243|0.4733
84472250|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0658
84522734|NCT02102932|168798464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.68|112.82||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.82|96.68|0.0003
84522735|NCT02102932|168798464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|96.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|104.99||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||104.99|88.90|0.0004
84522736|NCT02102932|168798465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.97|108.45||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.45|101.97|0.0000
84522737|NCT02102932|168798465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.75|106.5||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.50|99.75|0.0000
84522738|NCT02102932|168798465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.37|107.04||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.04|99.37|0.0000
84522739|NCT02102932|168798465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.25||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.25|99.10|0.0000
84522740|NCT02102932|168798466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|111.68||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.68|99.34|0.0000
84522741|NCT02102932|168798466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|112.85||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.85|99.09|0.0001
84522742|NCT02102932|168798466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|109.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.03|97.11|0.0000
84522743|NCT02102932|168798466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|93.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|100.36||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||100.36|87.74|0.0002
84522744|NCT01658995|168798467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|-31.4|0.37
84522745|NCT01658995|168798468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
84522746|NCT02418754|168798501|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.22||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||1.22|-4.37|0.2052
84522747|NCT02418754|168798501|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||0.61|-4.00|0.0982
84522748|NCT04291508|168798527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.6|0.65
84522749|NCT04291508|168798527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.5|0.464
84522750|NCT04291508|168798528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|-12.0|0.26
84522751|NCT04291508|168798528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
84522752|NCT04291508|168798529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-1.0|0.35
84522753|NCT04291508|168798529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.4|0.45
84522754|NCT04291508|168798530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-1.9|0.83
84522755|NCT04291508|168798530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-0.8|0.10
84522756|NCT04291508|168798531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-1.2|0.55
84522757|NCT04291508|168798531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.7|-1.6|0.18
84522758|NCT04291508|168798532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-0.8|0.21
84718551|NCT01371994|169188573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.17|-0.52|0.4521
84522759|NCT04291508|168798532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-3.4|0.40
84522760|NCT04291508|168798533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-0.8|0.23
84522761|NCT04291508|168798533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.4|-2.2|0.22
84522762|NCT04291508|168798534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.6|0.58
84522763|NCT04291508|168798534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.5|-1.4|0.13
84522764|NCT04291508|168798535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|-11.8|0.26
84522765|NCT04291508|168798535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
84522766|NCT04291508|168798536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|-1.6|0.76
84522767|NCT04291508|168798536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.5|-4.9|0.78
84522768|NCT04291508|168798537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-2.3|0.84
84522769|NCT04291508|168798537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.0|-0.9|0.10
84522770|NCT04291508|168798538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.3|||Chi-squared|||||8.3|-10.9|0.79
84522771|NCT04291508|168798538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.3|-17.5|1.00
84522772|NCT04291508|168798539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Chi-squared|||||7.2|-3.7|0.53
84522773|NCT04291508|168798539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Fisher Exact|||||13.0|-17.0|1.00
84522774|NCT04291508|168798540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.9|0.70
84522775|NCT04291508|168798540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-2.7|0.96
84522776|NCT04291508|168798541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-2.3|1.00
84522777|NCT04291508|168798542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.2|-13.1|0.31
84522778|NCT04291508|168798542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
84522779|NCT04291508|168798543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.5|||Chi-squared|||||7.5|-8.5|0.90
84522780|NCT04291508|168798543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
84522781|NCT04291508|168798544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.4|||Chi-squared|||||-2.4|-12.2|0.003
84522782|NCT04291508|168798544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||||15.6|-2.3|0.52
84522783|NCT04291508|168798545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.2|0.68
84522784|NCT04291508|168798545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||0.4|-0.7|0.62
84522785|NCT04291508|168798546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.8|||Chi-squared|||||8.8|-7.8|0.90
84522786|NCT04291508|168798546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|8.9|||Chi-squared|||||8.9|-40.1|0.2
84522787|NCT04291508|168798547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.1|0.88
84522788|NCT04291508|168798547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.6|0.10
84522789|NCT03298880|168798548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.3|||mixed linear regression|||||5.3|2.1|<0.001
84522790|NCT03298880|168798548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8|||mixed linear regression|||||3.8|0.8|0.003
84522791|NCT01992094|168798551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H1N1||1.1|0.9|
84522792|NCT01992094|168798551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H3N2||1.1|0.9|
84522793|NCT01992094|168798551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.0|0.8|
84522794|NCT01992094|168798551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.0|0.9|
84522795|NCT01992094|168798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain H1N1||4.2|-5.3|
84522796|NCT01992094|168798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strainH3N2||1.9|-7.2|
84522797|NCT01992094|168798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||2.8|-6.2|
84522798|NCT01992094|168798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||0.2|-8.9|
84522799|NCT01992094|168798558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||0.7|0.6|
84522800|NCT01992094|168798559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||-15.5|-23.2|
84522801|NCT01992094|168798560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||0.5|0.5|
84522802|NCT01992094|168798561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||-17.7|-25.5|
84522803|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.22|74.08||||||TAK-272F: Least square mean (LS) mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for natural log-transformed data.||74.08|35.22|
84522804|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|117.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.32|171.07||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.07|81.32|
84522805|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.14|395.76||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.76|188.14|
84522806|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|183.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.36|265.81||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||265.81|126.36|
84522807|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.95|149.9||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.90|68.95|
84522808|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.23|200.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||200.50|92.23|
84522809|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|62.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.17|107.45||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||107.45|36.17|
84522810|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.08|160.64||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||160.64|54.08|
84522811|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|274.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.1|472.63||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||472.63|159.10|
84522812|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|261.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|151.5|450.05||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||450.05|151.50|
84522813|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|112.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.34|182.41||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||182.41|69.34|
84522814|NCT02367872|168798572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|176.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.97|286.67||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||286.67|108.97|
84522815|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|57.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.76|87.14||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||87.14|37.76|
84522816|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|77.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.72|117.03||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||117.03|50.72|
84522817|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|206.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.88|313.54||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||313.54|135.88|
84522818|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.21|217.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||217.39|94.21|
84522819|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|85.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.03|142.61||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||142.61|51.03|
84522820|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|131.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.74|220.04||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||220.04|78.74|
84522821|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.42|122.53||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||122.53|40.42|
84522822|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|55.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.61|95.81||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||95.81|31.61|
84522823|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|125.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.35|219.3||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||219.30|72.35|
84522824|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|103.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|180.95||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||180.95|59.70|
84522825|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|91.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.45|171.06||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.06|49.45|
84522826|NCT02367872|168798573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.91|259.15||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||259.15|74.91|
84522827|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.45|74.49||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||74.49|35.45|
84522828|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|171.68||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.68|81.70|
84522829|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.21|395.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.50|188.21|
84522830|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|184.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.02|266.91||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||266.91|127.02|
84522831|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.04|149.64||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.64|69.04|
84522832|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.78|201.09||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||201.09|92.78|
84522833|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|59.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|102.99||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.99|33.99|
84522834|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|168.9||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||168.90|55.75|
84522835|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|260.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.39|452.6||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||452.60|149.39|
84522836|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|319.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.31|555.34||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||555.34|183.31|
84522837|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|130.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.66|207.18||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.18|81.66|
84522838|NCT02367872|168798574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|192.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.94|306.83||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||306.83|120.94|
84522839|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.05|90.56||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||90.56|40.05|
84522840|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.77|146.46||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||146.46|64.77|
84522841|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.21|167.82||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.82|74.21|
84522842|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|138.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.29|208.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||208.70|92.29|
84522843|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.91|207.87||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.87|87.91|
84522844|NCT02367872|168798575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|323.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.54|497.85||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||497.85|210.54|
84522845|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|67.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.17|108.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||108.39|42.17|
84522846|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.73|102.12||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.12|39.73|
84522847|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|84.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.67|135.38||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||135.38|52.67|
84522848|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|108.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|174.01||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||174.01|67.70|
84718552|NCT01371994|169188575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.47|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||0.47|-0.07|0.1493
84522849|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|113.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.62|184.24||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||184.24|69.62|
84522850|NCT02367872|168798576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|312.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|192.34|509.0||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||509.00|192.34|
84522851|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|91.27||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||91.27|40.35|
84522852|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.17|147.41||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||147.41|65.17|
84522853|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.25|167.96||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.96|74.25|
84522854|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.88|210.11||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||210.11|92.88|
84522855|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.75|207.92||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.92|87.75|
84522856|NCT02367872|168798577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|325.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.32|500.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||500.70|211.32|
84522857|NCT02625298|168798589|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
84522858|NCT00835796|168798614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|94.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|94.2|
84522859|NCT00835796|168798615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.7||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|94.0|
84522860|NCT00835796|168798616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.8||||||90.0|94.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.5|
84522861|NCT01729026|168798748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.75||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.35||Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, subjects in the Adoption group had a mean improvement of 15.20 points on the PCL-5 compared to 7.77 points in the Wait-list group.|Mixed effects regression models|||The analyses were mixed effect regression models with repeated measures at randomization (baseline) and at the 3-month post-randomization follow-up using a 2 x 2 design. Treatment (Adoption group vs Wait-list group), time (baseline and 3-month follow-up) and their interaction were the fixed design effects. The treatment by time interaction tests the significance of the difference between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the Adoption and Wait-list groups.||0.35|-1.85|0.141
84522862|NCT01729026|168798749|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.982
84522863|NCT01729026|168798750|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.160
84522864|NCT01729026|168798751|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.36||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.23|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.23|-2.49|0.015
84522865|NCT01729026|168798752|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84522866|NCT01729026|168798753|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects regression models|-1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.31|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.31|-2.50|0.010
84522867|NCT01729026|168798754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
84472251|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3785
84472252|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
84472253|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0425||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1154|0.0303|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0303|-0.1154|0.2523
84472254|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0388||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1305|0.0529|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0529|-0.1305|0.4068
84472255|NCT04047121|168695779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0706||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1833|0.3244|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3244|-0.1833|0.5858
84472256|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3832
84472257|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4631
84472258|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
84472259|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5353||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5812|0.5107|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5107|-1.5812|0.3158
84522868|NCT01729026|168798755|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.188
84522869|NCT01729026|168798757|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|1.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects regression models|||||||0.031
84522870|NCT01729026|168798758|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.3||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||1.40|-0.80|0.541
84522871|NCT01729026|168798759|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||Please note that a minus number indicates an increase in pain ratings.||||0.139
84522872|NCT00407745|168798762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2||Significance was declared if the 2-tailed test for the difference between treatment groups was significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group is equal to the mean DAAC for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the placebo group differs from the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group.~ANCOVA model included baseline severity of pain and Baseline Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total Score as covariates and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors."||-0.20|-0.98|0.0032
84522873|NCT00407745|168798763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing procedure was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in a hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value was significant at 0.05 level (\<=0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline severity (pain) and baseline PCS as covariates and effects for treatment and pooled center as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0066
84522874|NCT00407745|168798764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|3.328||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used terms for baseline pain score and baseline PCS total score as covariate, and pooled center and treatment as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group||3.328|1.032|0.0390
84522875|NCT00407745|168798765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test was used with adjusting for pooled center.||Null hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was not equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group.||||0.0006
84522876|NCT00407745|168798766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.56||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline sleep interference score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.56|-1.60|<0.0001
84522877|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.05|-0.94|0.0295
84522878|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.22|-1.11|0.0033
84522879|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.09||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.09|-0.98|0.0185
84522880|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.10|0.0040
84540878|NCT01339403|168832844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|9.6|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.6|7.1|<0.001
84522881|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.26|0.0004
84522882|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.27||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.27|-1.17|0.0018
84522883|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.14|0.0027
84522884|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.11|0.0041
84522885|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
84522886|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.23||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.23|-1.14|0.0031
84522887|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.17|-1.08|0.0076
84522888|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.04|-0.95|0.0328
84522889|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.11|-1.02|0.0150
84522890|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
84522891|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.15|0.0030
84472260|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3543||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2669|2.9755|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9755|-0.2669|0.1016
84472261|NCT04047121|168695780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8677||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6347|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3700|-0.6347|0.2576
84472262|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
84472263|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3735
84472264|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3863
84472265|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.0337||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5858|0.5184|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5184|-2.5858|0.1918
84472266|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9749||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3864|1.4366|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4366|-3.3864|0.4281
84472267|NCT04047121|168695781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8599||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0854|0.3657|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3657|-4.0854|0.1014
84472268|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4555
84472269|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7164
84472270|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2456
84472271|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0568||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0101|0.1238|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1238|-0.0101|0.0962
84472272|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0432||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1405|0.0541|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0541|-0.1405|0.3844
84472273|NCT04047121|168695782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0233||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1082|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1082|-0.0615|0.5899
84472274|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4133
84472275|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7171
84472276|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8609
84472277|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0445||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2218|0.1327|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1327|-0.2218|0.6224
84472278|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0884||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2132|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2132|-0.3900|0.5655
84472279|NCT04047121|168695783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1809||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.6062|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.6062|-0.2444|0.4044
84472280|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0104
84472281|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5949
84472282|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0801
84472283|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.7075||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.411|-1.004|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-1.0040|-6.4110|0.0072
84472284|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4296||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.008|3.1489|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1489|-6.0080|0.5406
84472285|NCT04047121|168695784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.3527||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.279|3.5737|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.5737|-4.2790|0.8603
84472286|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6344
84472287|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3037
84472288|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1344
84540879|NCT01339403|168832845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|5.9|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.9|5.3|<0.001
84522892|NCT00407745|168798767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.3||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.30|-1.22|0.0011
84522893|NCT00407745|168798768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|4.546||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression used terms for treatment, baseline pain score as covariate, baseline PCS total score, and pooled center as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group.||4.546|1.103|0.0256
84522894|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.35||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
84522895|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.43||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.43|-1.31|<0.0001
84522896|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.24|0.0004
84522897|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.32||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.32|-1.20|0.0008
84522898|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.38|<0.0001
84522899|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.48|-1.37|<0.0001
84522900|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.35|<0.0001
84522901|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.46|-1.35|<0.0001
84522902|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.5||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.50|-1.39|<0.0001
84540880|NCT01339403|168832846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|35.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||35.2|11.2|<0.001
84540881|NCT04090125|168832847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.90|0.485
84522903|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
84522904|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.39|<0.0001
84522905|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.37|<0.0001
84522906|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.38|<0.0001
84522907|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.51||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.51|-1.41|<0.0001
84522908|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
84522909|NCT00407745|168798769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.61|-1.51|<0.0001
84522910|NCT00407745|168798770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline mBPI-10 Total Score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.02|-1.08|0.0438
84522911|NCT00407745|168798771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.72||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/above level: within 2 dermatomes above or below the neurological level of injury (NLI).~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.72|-1.06|0.7103
84522912|NCT00407745|168798771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level: more than 2 dermatomes below the NLI.~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.06|-1.28|0.0747
84522913|NCT00407745|168798772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.54||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.54|-0.97|0.5689
84540882|NCT04090125|168832848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.13|0.0887
84540883|NCT04090125|168832849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.05|0.296
84522914|NCT00407745|168798772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-0.87|0.4764
84522915|NCT00407745|168798773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.40|0.3362
84522916|NCT00407745|168798773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.31||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.31|-0.96|0.3113
84522917|NCT00407745|168798774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.67|0.2721
84522918|NCT00407745|168798774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.4906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.90|-0.43|0.4906
84522919|NCT00407745|168798775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.46|-1.42|0.3123
84522920|NCT00407745|168798775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.18|-1.28|0.1360
84522921|NCT00407745|168798776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.65||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.65|-1.53|0.4257
84522922|NCT00407745|168798776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.28|-1.34|0.2005
84522923|NCT00407745|168798777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - 12 Items Total Intensity Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.01|-0.09|0.1377
84522924|NCT00407745|168798778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Burning Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.11|0.3312
84540884|NCT04090125|168832850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.15|0.094
84540885|NCT04090125|168832851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|8.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-0.91|0.11
84540886|NCT04090125|168832852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.59|-4.10|0.55
84522925|NCT00407745|168798779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Pressing Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.00|-0.13|0.0440
84522926|NCT00407745|168798780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paroxysmal Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.02|-0.12|0.1370
84522927|NCT00407745|168798781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Evoked pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.05|-0.06|0.8911
84522928|NCT00407745|168798782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.10|0.3731
84522929|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 1 - Burning pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.13|0.3312
84522930|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.12||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 2 - Squeezing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.12|-1.37|0.0976
84522931|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 3 - Pain like pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.01|-1.54|0.0538
84522932|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 5 - Electric shocks~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.15|0.3239
84522933|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.25||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 6 - Stabbing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.25|-1.23|0.1912
84522934|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.85||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 8 - By light touching~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.85|-0.55|0.6720
84522935|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.56||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 9 - By pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.56|-0.74|0.7821
84540686|NCT05736861|168832632|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.17|0.96|
84522936|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.55||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 10 - By something cold~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.55|-0.84|0.6851
84522937|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 11 - Pins and needles~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-1.12|0.3610
84522938|NCT00407745|168798783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 12 - Tingling~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.52|-1.07|0.4915
84522939|NCT00407745|168798784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0536||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.0536
84522940|NCT00407745|168798785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3107||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.3107
84522941|NCT00407745|168798786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.59||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS 9-item Sleep Problems Index as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.59|-9.19|0.0262
84522942|NCT00407745|168798787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-2.78||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep disturbance as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-2.78|-14.55|0.0041
84522943|NCT00407745|168798788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.492||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|12.66||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Adequacy as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.66|-1.11|0.0998
84522944|NCT00407745|168798789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.501||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Snoring as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.61|-1.20|0.1048
84522945|NCT00407745|168798790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.417||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.37||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline MOS - Awaken Short of Breath or with headache as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.37|-9.91|0.0347
84522946|NCT00407745|168798791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.76||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Quantity as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.76|0.01|0.0436
84522947|NCT00407745|168798792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|8.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Somnolence as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||8.49|-2.44|0.2761
84540887|NCT04090125|168832853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.134
84522948|NCT00407745|168798793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|5.491||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model included Pooled Center and Treatment as the categorical factors, and Optimal Sleep Score at Baseline as the covariate.||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group.||5.491|1.443|0.0024
84522949|NCT00407745|168798794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Anxiety as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.17|-1.54|0.1164
84522950|NCT00407745|168798795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Depression as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.11|-1.87|0.0279
84522951|NCT00108082|168798796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.7651||95.0|-1.83|2.49|||ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses (tested hierarchically) were that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril on LV mass regression was no different than the effect of atenolol + lisinopril, and that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril was no different than the effect of lisinopril + lisinopril. The primary analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for treatment, stratification by hypertension class, region, and baseline value, at a 0.05 level of significance.||2.49|-1.83|0.7651
84522952|NCT00108082|168798796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.1711||95.0|-0.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-0.70|0.1711
84522953|NCT00955552|168798814|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of Ártico vs Cosamin DS® regarding the decrease of pain scale (VAS) in the PP population (N = 86).|||||<|0.05||||||For numeric variables Test -t student or ANOVA will be used. It will be considered statistically significant P-value less than 0,05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84522954|NCT03449199|168798820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||0.34|-0.44|0.7953
84522955|NCT03449199|168798820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0311
84522956|NCT03449199|168798821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|5.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||5.78|-2.35|0.4055
84522957|NCT03449199|168798821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|7.46|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||7.46|-0.62|0.0960
84522958|NCT03449199|168798822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-1.74|-3.13|<0.0001
84522959|NCT03449199|168798822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.54|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-2.54|-3.91|<0.0001
84522960|NCT03449199|168798823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-102.02||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.81|134.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||134.78|-338.81|0.3955
84522961|NCT03449199|168798823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-197.49||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.73|37.75|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||37.75|-432.73|0.0991
84522962|NCT03449199|168798824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Missing observations at Study Week 12 are imputed as nonresponse.|Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.2791
84522963|NCT03449199|168798824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.0507
84522964|NCT01628549|168798924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.53||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|5.38|||ANCOVA|||||5.38|-2.32|0.4344
84522965|NCT01628549|168798924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.46||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|0.52|0.0266
84522966|NCT01628549|168798924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.37||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||ANCOVA|||||8.36|0.39|0.0317
84522967|NCT01628549|168798925|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|3.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|14.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.38|-7.82|0.3300
84522968|NCT01628549|168798925|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|13.2||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.60|0.54|0.0159
84522969|NCT01628549|168798925|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|4.1||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|15.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.87|-7.44|0.4834
84522970|NCT04205162|168798933|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.331
84718553|NCT01371994|169188575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.44|-0.07|0.1499
84522971|NCT04205162|168798933|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.122
84522972|NCT04205162|168798934|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.130
84522973|NCT04205162|168798934|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.924
84522974|NCT02958319|168798936|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL OF REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.82
84522975|NCT00781079|168798948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.5
84522976|NCT00781079|168798949|SUPERIORITY||Z tests if Reg coeff are diff from 0|-0.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
84522977|NCT00781079|168798950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity. This is the calculated p value.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.05
84522978|NCT00781079|168798951|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff from 0|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.58
84522979|NCT00781079|168798952|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff than 0|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
84522980|NCT00781079|168798953|SUPERIORITY||Z test if ref coeff is diff than 0|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
84522981|NCT02058160|168798966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.397||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as covariates. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses.||-0.397|-0.633|<0.0001
84522982|NCT02058160|168798967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||32.10|18.94|<0.0001
84522983|NCT02058160|168798967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||25.62|13.90|<0.0001
84522984|NCT02058160|168798968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.925|-2.939||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate.||-2.939|-3.925|<0.0001
84522985|NCT02058160|168798969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.93|-1.808|<0.0001
84540687|NCT05736861|168832633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.6|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.6|0.4|
84540888|NCT04090125|168832854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.09
84718554|NCT01371994|169188577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.23|-0.16|0.1279
84718555|NCT01371994|169188577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.23|-0.11|0.1038
84472289|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2586||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4787|4.9958|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.9958|-2.4787|0.5092
84472290|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.7696||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8683|5.3292|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.3292|-6.8683|0.8047
84472291|NCT04047121|168695785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.094||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9628|6.1507|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.1507|-5.9628|0.9757
84472292|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0839
84472293|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9577
84472294|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9497
84472295|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.031||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1185|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0565|-0.1185|0.4873
84472296|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0312||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1783|0.1159|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1159|-0.1783|0.6780
84472297|NCT04047121|168695786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0099||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2207|0.2406|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2406|-0.2207|0.9327
84472298|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
84472299|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5396
84472300|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6121
84472301|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1895||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.0181|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-0.0181|-0.3610|0.0303
84472302|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1901||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4685|0.0883|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0883|-0.4685|0.1807
84472303|NCT04047121|168695787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1594||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7991|1.1178|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1178|-0.7991|0.7445
84472304|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
84472305|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5040
84472306|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1366
84472307|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.4084||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2497|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.4330|-7.2497|0.0820
84472308|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.5342||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0336|3.9652|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.9652|-7.0336|0.5845
84472309|NCT04047121|168695788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.583|6.557|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.5570|-4.5830|0.7284
84472310|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1125
84472311|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7156
84472312|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2056
84472313|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8061||||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2797|2.6675|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6675|-6.2797|0.4288
84472314|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.6946||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5962|5.2069|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.2069|-8.5962|0.6303
84540889|NCT04090125|168832855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.16|0.25
84522986|NCT02058160|168798970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.64|-1.154|<0.0001
84522987|NCT02058160|168798971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|20.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|26.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening.||26.66|14.98|<0.0001
84522988|NCT02058160|168798972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|1.246||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline daily insulin glargine dose-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||1.246|-1.762|0.7362
84522989|NCT01488448|168799044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84522990|NCT01488448|168799045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
84522991|NCT01488448|168799046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.97
84522992|NCT01488448|168799047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84522993|NCT01488448|168799048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84522994|NCT01488448|168799049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
84522995|NCT01488448|168799052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84522996|NCT00810602|168799054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.0||||||Hypothesis: The addition of vorinostat will reduce the incidence of grade 2-4 acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) to 25% or lower by day 100.||36|13|
84522997|NCT00810602|168799056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|30.0||||||||30|8|
84522998|NCT03429049|168799074|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The NRS least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.17|-0.84|0.1904
84522999|NCT03429049|168799075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC A least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.33|-5.07|0.0257
84523000|NCT03429049|168799076|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC B least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.13|-2.01|0.0855
84523001|NCT03429049|168799077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.096||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC C least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-15.86|0.0550
84523002|NCT01560819|168799086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||A power calculation was not done for this pilot study. Changes in PUCAI post-treatment were compared with baseline using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
84523003|NCT04412057|168799087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size provided greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 in the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure using a Chi-square exact test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05. This calculation assumed that the proportion alive and free of respiratory failure will be 0.60 in the placebo group and 0.85 in the CERC-002 group.||7.88|1.04|0.0440
84523004|NCT04412057|168799088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects alive at Day 28/ET in the CERC-002 group was compared to that in the placebo group using logistic regression methods. The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group. Model based point estimate (i.e., odds ratio \[OR\]), 90% confidence interval \[CI\], and one-sided p-value were reported.||6.82|0.59|0.1762
84540890|NCT04090125|168832856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.22|0.16
84523005|NCT02156154|168799094|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||significance criterion of P \< .044.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference = IV Acetaminophen - Placebo group|A total of 28 patients (5%) were missing monitoring data (14 patients in each group). Values for these patients were obtained using multivariable imputation with 5 imputation data sets. The imputation regression model included all of the baseline, intraoperative, surgical, and postanesthesia care unit variables and all of the secondary outcomes||0.11|-0.18|0.29
84523006|NCT02156154|168799095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.71|0.15||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.15|-0.71|0.07
84523007|NCT02156154|168799096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.51|0.29||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.29|-0.51|0.46
84523008|NCT02156154|168799097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.49|0.76||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.76|-0.49|0.56
84523009|NCT02156154|168799098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.29|0.13||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.13|-0.29|0.30
84523010|NCT02156154|168799099|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.94||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.63|1.39||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.39|0.63|0.65
84718556|NCT01371994|169188579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|3.63|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||3.63|-4.19|0.8876
84523011|NCT02156154|168799100|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.61|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.21|0.61|0.22
84523012|NCT02156154|168799101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.88|1.45||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||Risk ratio = Treatment/Placebo|||1.45|0.88|0.18
84523013|NCT02156154|168799102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.57|1.43||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||RR = Treatment/Placebo|||1.43|0.57|0.53
84523014|NCT02156154|168799103|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.39|0.36||Adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment effect is reported as median difference, estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift.|||0.36|-0.39|0.99
84523015|NCT02051595|168799104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate (beta) from mixed model|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.039||A priori threshold was set to p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses modeled change in vancomycin concentrations (independent variable defined by time). Analyses were adjusted for covariates.|Negative beta value indicates that vancomycin concentration decreased following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).|||-0.039|-0.098|<0.0001
84523016|NCT00412737|168799202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.283||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|The null hypothesis tested was that there was no difference between the proportions of participants who met the primary endpoint in the two treatment groups.||4.1|-2.3|0.772
84523017|NCT00412737|168799203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.37||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.5|-2.1|0.534
84523018|NCT00412737|168799204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.431||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.7|0.381
84523019|NCT00412737|168799205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.2|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.2|-0.6|
84523020|NCT00412737|168799206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.7|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.7|0.1|
84523021|NCT00412737|168799207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.9|
84523022|NCT00412737|168799208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.1|-1.4|
84523023|NCT00513617|168799236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0705||0.08||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from the Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.080
84540891|NCT04090125|168832857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|52.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.02|-9.29|0.167
84540892|NCT04090125|168832858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|63.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.14|-12.85|0.189
84523024|NCT00513617|168799236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.133||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.133
84523025|NCT00513617|168799238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.915||||||Alpha was set at 0.5|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.915
84523026|NCT00513617|168799238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1047||0.918||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.918
84523027|NCT00513617|168799239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1101||0.015||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.015
84523028|NCT00513617|168799239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1553||0.557||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.557
84523029|NCT01091103|168799246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9427
84523030|NCT01091103|168799247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3370
84718557|NCT01371994|169188579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.21|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||3.21|-8.10|0.3950
84718558|NCT01371994|169188581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|6.81|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.81|-2.82|0.4126
84523031|NCT02744755|168799297|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.27|-0.24|
84523032|NCT02744755|168799297|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.23||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.23|-0.19|
84523033|NCT02744755|168799298|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.27|-0.11|
84523034|NCT02744755|168799298|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.24|-0.08|
84523035|NCT00809965|168799332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.020
84523036|NCT00809965|168799332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.028
84523037|NCT00809965|168799333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.016
84523038|NCT00809965|168799333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.025
84523039|NCT00809965|168799334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.07|0.81|0.320
84523040|NCT00809965|168799334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.10|0.83|0.508
84523041|NCT00809965|168799335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.80|0.185
84523042|NCT00809965|168799335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.081
84523043|NCT00809965|168799336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.73|0.011
84523044|NCT00809965|168799336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.070
84523045|NCT02780167|168799337|OTHER||Estimate difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.4|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||4.4|-0.7|0.1210
84523046|NCT02780167|168799337|OTHER||Estimate difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.8|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||13.8|-1.8|0.1065
84523047|NCT02780167|168799337|OTHER||Estimate difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|37.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||37.6|5.5|0.0184
84523048|NCT02780167|168799337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|56.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||56.6|19.7|0.0032
84523049|NCT02780167|168799338|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.667||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.88|20.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with observed cases (OC)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||20.05|-11.88|0.6731
84523050|NCT02780167|168799338|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.474||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.16|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||10.13|-21.16|0.5610
84523051|NCT02780167|168799338|OTHER||LS mean difference|-23.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.043||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.76|-8.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-8.88|-38.76|0.0091
84523052|NCT02780167|168799338|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.23|-32.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-32.47|-62.23|<0.0001
84523053|NCT00337428|168799425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523054|NCT00337428|168799426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523055|NCT00337428|168799427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523056|NCT00337428|168799428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523057|NCT00337428|168799429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523058|NCT00337428|168799430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523059|NCT00337428|168799431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523060|NCT00337428|168799432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84718559|NCT01371994|169188581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.85|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.85|-3.92|0.6959
84523061|NCT00337428|168799433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523062|NCT00337428|168799434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523063|NCT00337428|168799435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523064|NCT00337428|168799436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523065|NCT00337428|168799437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
84523066|NCT00337428|168799438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523067|NCT00337428|168799439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523068|NCT00337428|168799440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523069|NCT00337428|168799441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
84523070|NCT02618382|168799443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
84523071|NCT02618382|168799444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Paired comparison of hematoma thickness at defined time point means determined by ANOVA for continuous variables.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
84523072|NCT02618382|168799445|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical values in grouped mRS scores.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
84523073|NCT00372996|168799448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.118|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value from an unstratified log-rank text|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.118|0.744|0.560
84523074|NCT00372996|168799449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.572|1.02||2-sided p-value from unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.020|0.572|0.331
84718560|NCT01371994|169188583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.91|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||8.91|-2.26|0.2402
84523075|NCT00372996|168799450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.6|||Pearson chi-square test|||||17.6|-8.0|0.463
84523076|NCT00721955|168799459|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84523077|NCT00721955|168799459|SUPERIORITY|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84523078|NCT00721955|168799460|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84523079|NCT00721955|168799460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84523080|NCT03496298|168799499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of efpeglenatide 4 mg+6 mg versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||One-sided p-value based on log rank test of hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|<.0001
84523081|NCT03496298|168799500|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|0.0069
84523082|NCT03496298|168799501|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.96|0.65|0.02
84523083|NCT03496298|168799502|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.794||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.794|0.574|<.0001
84540893|NCT04090125|168832863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||8.67|-3.65|0.42
84523084|NCT03222037|168799585|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for high lumniance low contrast|Comparison between the Test and the SCR treatments was carried out using 97.5% confidence intervals for the least-square mean differences.||-0.02|-0.09|
84523085|NCT03222037|168799585|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.06|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for Low luminance high contrast|||-0.01|-0.06|
84523086|NCT03222037|168799586|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance is declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 0 or if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is below 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - SCR.|Comparison between the Test and SCR treatments was carried out using least-square mean differences||0.08|0.01|0.0066
84523087|NCT05103657|168799592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.43|||Mixed Models for repeated measures||"Least Squares mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.43|-3.31|0.9726
84523088|NCT05103657|168799593|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.650|0.608|0.9945
84523089|NCT05103657|168799594|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.912||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.504|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.504|0.552|0.7167
84523090|NCT05103657|168799595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.32|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures||"Least Square mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Square (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.32|-3.00|0.7230
84523091|NCT01263561|168799608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size calculation determined that 52 eyes were required to detect a 2.0 mmHg IOP difference with a power of 80%.||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
84523092|NCT01263561|168799609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||.24
84523093|NCT01263561|168799610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only performed for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Above p is for number of subjects with any complication. P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.80
84523094|NCT01923311|168799645|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG AUCtau in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG AUCtau is 0.36 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|135.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.24|158.49||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieved similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||158.49|116.24|
84523095|NCT01923311|168799646|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG Cmax in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG Cmax is 0.28 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|146.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|168.94||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieves similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||168.94|127.35|
84523096|NCT02304406|168799668|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|0.80|0.1304
84523097|NCT02304406|168799669|OTHER|||||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6422
84523098|NCT02304406|168799670|OTHER|||||||0.4524|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4524
84523099|NCT02304406|168799671|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9010
84523100|NCT02304406|168799672|OTHER|||||||0.9067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9067
84523101|NCT02304406|168799673|OTHER|||||||0.8785|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8785
84523102|NCT02304406|168799674|OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9231
84523103|NCT02304406|168799675|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9780
84523104|NCT02304406|168799676|OTHER|||||||0.1144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
84523105|NCT02304406|168799677|OTHER|||||||0.0862|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0862
84523106|NCT02304406|168799678|OTHER|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0294
84523107|NCT02304406|168799679|OTHER|||||||0.6877|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6877
84523108|NCT00401245|168799703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.024
84523109|NCT00401245|168799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||< 0.001
84523110|NCT00401245|168799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
84523111|NCT00401245|168799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
84523112|NCT00401245|168799705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.092
84523113|NCT00401245|168799705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.997
84523114|NCT00401245|168799705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.009
84523115|NCT00401245|168799706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.078
84523116|NCT00401245|168799706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.005
84718561|NCT01371994|169188583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||6.70|-4.50|0.6980
84523117|NCT00401245|168799706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.929
84523118|NCT00401245|168799708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.017
84523119|NCT00401245|168799715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 4) value with 0.||||<0.001
84523120|NCT00401245|168799715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 8) value with 0.||||< 0.001
84523121|NCT00401245|168799715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the base value and post-baseline (Week 12) value with 0.||||<0.001
84523122|NCT00401245|168799715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 16) value with 0.||||<0.001
84523123|NCT01077817|168799740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to alendronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||1.5|0.7|
84523124|NCT01077817|168799740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to etidronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.0|0.9|
84523125|NCT01077817|168799740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to ibandronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||16.7|1.4|
84718562|NCT01371994|169188585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.89|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.89|-2.80|0.4067
84523126|NCT01077817|168799740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to risedronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.5|1.0|
84523127|NCT01077817|168799740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to raloxifene treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.2|0.2|
84523128|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||1.3|0.7|
84523129|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.8|
84523130|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of ibandronate~compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||3.4|0.5|
84523131|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risendronate~compared to non-initiators of risendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.9|
84523132|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.3|0.3|
84523133|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~alendronate compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.5|0.7|
84523134|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~etidronate compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.9|0.7|
84523135|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~ibandronate compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||11.1|0.8|
84523136|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~risedronate compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.0|1.1|
84523137|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~raloxifene compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.7|0.1|
84523138|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.6|0.5|
84523139|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.|Proportional hazards regression model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.0|0.6|
84540894|NCT04090125|168832863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||8.57|-6.29|0.76
84540895|NCT04090125|168832863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life subscale||6.12|-13.20|0.46
84540688|NCT05736861|168832636|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.8|0.6|
84472315|NCT04047121|168695789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9873||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0028|5.0281|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.0281|-7.0028|0.7477
84472316|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3919
84472317|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84472318|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
84472319|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.2232||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.5053|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a generalized linear model (GLM). Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5053|0.9940|0.0570
84472320|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.8479|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4378|2.3749|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3749|1.4378|<0.0001
84472321|NCT04047121|168695790|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.1868||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|1.4487|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4487|0.9722|0.0924
84472322|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
84472323|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1952
84472324|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1638
84472325|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9773||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8782|1.0875|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0875|0.8782|0.6732
84472326|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9629||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.1253|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1253|0.8240|0.6345
84472327|NCT04047121|168695791|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8327||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.9395|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9395|0.7380|0.0029
84472328|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3087
84472329|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
84472330|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0647
84472331|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9762||||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8316|1.146|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1460|0.8316|0.7684
84472332|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.3862||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1379|1.6886|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6886|1.1379|0.0012
84472333|NCT04047121|168695792|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.0065||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8452|1.1985|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1985|0.8452|0.9422
84472334|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0421
84472335|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8137
84472336|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9416
84472337|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9515||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.0493|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0493|0.8628|0.3190
84523140|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risedronate~compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.5|0.4|
84523141|NCT01077817|168799741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.9|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.9|0.2|
84523142|NCT01186016|168799742|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori threshold for the P-Value was.05 or less.|ANOVA|||The scores on the Genetic Knowledge Test for both groups between baseline and the end of the educational sessions were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.01
84523143|NCT01186016|168799743|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of .05 or less.|ANOVA|||Data for Self-Efficacy for Quitting/Resisting Smoking were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA using three time points: baseline, end of the educational sessions, and end of the smoking cessation sessions.||||0.44
84523144|NCT01186016|168799744|OTHER|Nominal data were analyzed with Chi Square.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold P-Value for statistical significance was .05 or less.|Chi-squared|||||||.88
84523145|NCT01386125|168799760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.22|0.0007
84523146|NCT01386125|168799761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference is LS Means|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|<0.0001
84523147|NCT03173560|168799762|NON_INFERIORITY|Odd ratio for ORR24W was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group and prior programmed cell death protein 1/ programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) treatment from IxRS data. Non-inferiority would be claimed if 1-sided P value is \<=0.045 at the final analysis for the non-inferiority test with the non-inferiority margin of the odd ratio =0.76.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.32|0.59|0.2676
84523148|NCT03173560|168799763|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of participants with intolerable Grade 2 or any Grade \>=Grade 3 TEAEs within 24 weeks was tested using CMH method at 2-sided α=0.05, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data. The treatment difference and 95% CI were also calculated based on asymptotic normal approximation.|Difference|3.2||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|-5.5|0.4763
84523149|NCT03173560|168799764|OTHER|The hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% CIs were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.86||||||||1.86|1.08|
84523150|NCT03173560|168799765|OTHER|Odd ratio for ORR was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using CMH method stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||||||||1.14|0.52|
84523151|NCT04254809|168799790|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regressing scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.25|-1.02|.001
84523152|NCT04254809|168799791|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Threshold for significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-month follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.23|-0.99|.002
84523153|NCT04254809|168799792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.05||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as -, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL.|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-.05|-0.86|.03
84523154|NCT01589601|168799807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8719||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0289|11.7728|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7728|-2.0289|0.1641
84523155|NCT01589601|168799807|SUPERIORITY|6 Months|Mean Difference (Net)|9.4938||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9406|18.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.0470|0.9406|0.0299
84523156|NCT01589601|168799808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7157||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3054|11.7368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7368|-6.3054|0.5531
84523157|NCT01589601|168799808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.773||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|22.7052|||Mixed Models Analysis|6 Months||||22.7052|0.8409|0.0350
84523158|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2436||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9817|0.4945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4945|-2.9817|0.1592
84523159|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7946||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5285|0.9393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9393|-2.5285|0.3657
84523160|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8269||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6375|-0.0164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0164|-3.6375|0.0480
84523161|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9097||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4253|0.6058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6058|-2.4253|0.2372
84523162|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6592||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2862|0.9678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9678|-2.2862|0.4237
84523163|NCT01589601|168799809|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9379||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5672|-0.3085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3085|-3.5672|0.0202
84523164|NCT01589601|168799811|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4666|4.3493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3493|-2.4666|0.5857
84523165|NCT01589601|168799811|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1174||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7246|4.9594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9594|-2.7246|0.5655
84523166|NCT01589601|168799811|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|3.9809||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4581|7.5036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5036|0.4581|0.0271
84523167|NCT01589601|168799813|SUPERIORITY|All-cause readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.56|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.56
84523168|NCT01589601|168799813|SUPERIORITY|Cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.8|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.80
84523169|NCT01589601|168799813|SUPERIORITY|Heart failure readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.92|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.92
84523170|NCT01589601|168799813|SUPERIORITY|Non-cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.12|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.12
84523171|NCT02250651|168799825|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
84523172|NCT02250651|168799825|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
84523173|NCT02250651|168799825|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
84523174|NCT02250651|168799825|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
84523175|NCT02250651|168799826|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382||95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
84523176|NCT02250651|168799826|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133||95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
84523177|NCT02250651|168799827|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013||95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
84523178|NCT02250651|168799827|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364||95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
84523179|NCT02250651|168799828|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304||95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
84523180|NCT02250651|168799828|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272||95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
84523181|NCT02250651|168799829|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038||95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
84523182|NCT02250651|168799829|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741||95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
84523183|NCT02250651|168799830|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738||95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
84523184|NCT02250651|168799830|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514||95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
84523185|NCT02250651|168799831|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401||95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
84523186|NCT02250651|168799831|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
84523187|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
84523188|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
84523189|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
84540689|NCT05736861|168832637|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.50|
84523190|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
84523191|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
84523192|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
84523193|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
84523194|NCT02250651|168799832|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
84523195|NCT02795676|168799837|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval for the treatment difference is above the non-inferiority margin, which was met. No p-value was calculated as this is not relevant for non-inferiority.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.444|1.726|||Regression, Linear|The primary efficacy analysis compared eGFR slope between the treatment arms using a 2-stage model with quantile regression.||||1.726|-2.444|
84523196|NCT01201486|168799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Percentage Sensitivity|||||||
84523197|NCT00108550|168799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.105||There was no need for multiple comparisons adjustment for the primary outcome, since there was only one. However, secondary analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of covariates (age, gender, etc) was evaluated (modeled as fixed effects) in secondary analyses.|The analysis was performed on transformed (rather than raw) Descriptor Differential Score Pain Intensity scores.|The null hypothesis was that Gabapentin is no better than placebo in reducing back pain. A mean-matching variance stabilizing transformation was applied to Descriptor Differential Scale Pain intensity (DDS) scores. Scores were modeled as a function of time (week) and group (gabapentin, placebo) in a mixed effects model. Random (subject-specific)intercept and slopes were fitted to the data. With alpha = .05 and N = 65 per group power is .8 to detect effect size =.4 standard deviations (SD).||0.105|-0.044|0.4237
84523198|NCT00108550|168799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.872||Primary analyses was multivariable linear regression with fixed and random effects. After the Bonferroni adjustment a p-value would have been considered significant at 0.05 level if \<0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a secondary analysis; the null hypothesis is that Gabapentin performs no better than placebo in reducing the Roland and Morris score.||0.872|-1.940|0.458
84523199|NCT04784637|168799861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
84523200|NCT04784637|168799861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84523201|NCT04784637|168799862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84523202|NCT04784637|168799862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84523203|NCT02020967|168799869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|39.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Predictor variable: Lips enlargement||39.11|1.38|0.0196
84523204|NCT04728620|168800032|SUPERIORITY|single group|mean|79.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is 71 or less."||||0.001
84523205|NCT04728620|168800034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84523206|NCT04728620|168800035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84523207|NCT04728620|168800036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended A1c monitoring frequency||||1
84523208|NCT04728620|168800036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended urine microalbumin screening frequency||||1
84523209|NCT04728620|168800036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended pneumonia vaccination frequency||||1
84523210|NCT04728620|168800036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended diabetes eye exam frequency||||1
84523211|NCT02030535|168800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.252||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation|Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Placebo.|||0.252|0.187|<0.0001
84523212|NCT02030535|168800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.284||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.|Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.220|<0.0001
84523213|NCT02030535|168800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.001|||||Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg.|Descriptive comparison. Statistical Analyses 1 \& 2 were included in the hierarchical testing sequence (alpha protected), and analysis 3 was not included in the hierarchical testing sequence (not alpha protected)||-0.001|-0.065|
84523214|NCT01557582|168800100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EDV percent difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.56|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EDV|||7.56|2.24|
84523215|NCT01557582|168800100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ESV percent difference|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.76|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for ESV|||4.76|-1.17|
84523216|NCT01557582|168800100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EF percent difference|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.33|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EF|||3.33|0.72|
84523217|NCT03203642|168800123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0082||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0217|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0112|-0.0217|0.5265
84523218|NCT03203642|168800124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0264|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0180|-0.0264|0.7076
84523219|NCT03203642|168800125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0404|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0160|-0.0404|0.3895
84523220|NCT03203642|168800126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0278|-0.0248|0.9093
84523221|NCT02413294|168800129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This t-test analyzes the change in mean between the midpoint interview immediately prior to the start of the intervention and the follow-up interview at the conclusion of the intervention.|Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.37
84523222|NCT02413294|168800130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.42
84523223|NCT02413294|168800131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.65
84523224|NCT02413294|168800132|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||1.0
84523225|NCT02413294|168800133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
84523226|NCT02413294|168800134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
84523227|NCT02413294|168800135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.94
84523228|NCT02413294|168800136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.81
84523229|NCT02413294|168800137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.40
84523230|NCT02413294|168800138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.46
84523231|NCT02413294|168800139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||<0.01
84523232|NCT02413294|168800140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.28
84523233|NCT02413294|168800141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.67
84523234|NCT02413294|168800142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.56
84523235|NCT02413294|168800143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.82
84523236|NCT00991510|168800155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.865|0.984|||ANOVA|||A total of 100 subjects were planned to be enrolled, allowing for 10% drop-out rate. Based on previous single dose studies, the intra-subject coefficients of variation were 14% and 50% for AUC and Cmax, respectively. Based on the literature similar intra subject coefficients of variation were observed in steady-state patients. With these expected CV(%) and an expected ratio of Cmax within 0.95 and 1.05, the study should have a power of at least 80 % to show bioequivalence with 80 subjects.||0.984|0.865|
84523237|NCT00991510|168800156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|1.023|||ANOVA|||||1.023|0.899|
84523238|NCT00991510|168800157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|0.968|||ANOVA|||||0.968|0.787|
84523239|NCT00991510|168800158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.106|||ANOVA|||||1.106|0.877|
84523240|NCT00988208|168800167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.0||p-value is based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.00|1.17|0.0017
84523241|NCT00988208|168800168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.66|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log-rank test||||1.66|1.05|0.0187
84523242|NCT00988208|168800169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.176|||Chi-squared|||||1.176|0.665|0.3975
84523243|NCT01796964|168800177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 12 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.19|1.93|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 12.||1.93|-4.19|
84523244|NCT01796964|168800178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 16 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|2.56|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 16.||2.56|-3.72|
84523245|NCT03180801|168800186|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.03
84523246|NCT03180801|168800186|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.07
84523247|NCT03180801|168800187|OTHER|One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rates of vaccine group is higher than the placebo group.||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if the TEAE rates pre-inoculation recorded for the treatment group are higher than for placebo.||||0.647
84523248|NCT03180801|168800187|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group recorded pre-inoculation is higher than placebo.||||1.00
84523249|NCT03180801|168800187|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.0240
84523250|NCT03180801|168800187|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.186
84523251|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.465|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.465
84523252|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.074
84523253|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms||||0.024
84523254|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms.||||0.230
84523255|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.09
84523256|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.22
84523257|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.23
84523258|NCT03180801|168800189|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.12
84523259|NCT03180801|168800190|OTHER|||||||0.0501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.0501
84523260|NCT03180801|168800190|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.3139
84523261|NCT03180801|168800191|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.102
84523262|NCT03180801|168800191|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has a smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.481
84523263|NCT03180801|168800192|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.128
84523264|NCT03180801|168800192|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.601
84523265|NCT03180801|168800193|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.142
84523266|NCT03180801|168800193|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.147
84523267|NCT03180801|168800194|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.080
84523268|NCT03180801|168800194|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.271
84523269|NCT03180801|168800195|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.099
84523270|NCT03180801|168800195|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.178
84523271|NCT03180801|168800196|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.064
84523272|NCT03180801|168800196|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.201
84523273|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison on day -2||||<0.001
84523274|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparion on day -2||||<0.001
84523275|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
84523276|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
84523277|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
84523278|NCT03180801|168800197|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
84523279|NCT03173170|168800198|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.0622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9569|1.1792||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.1792|0.9569|
84523280|NCT03173170|168800199|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.4892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3851|1.6012||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.6012|1.3851|
84523281|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in length z-score.||||0.857
84523282|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in weight z-score.||||0.901
84523283|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in head circumference z-score.||||0.807
84523284|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.595
84523285|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.016
84523286|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.347
84523287|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.040
84523288|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.892
84523289|NCT00868296|168800201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.006
84523290|NCT00112294|168800202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.069||Since only 1 primary comparison was conducted, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model, with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Primary analysis was comparison of PFS between arms performed by 2-sided alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that PFS was equal in both groups. Power calculations indicated that \>=510 events (IRRC progressions/deaths) would lead to \>=90% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.75.||1.069|0.761|0.2358
84523291|NCT00112294|168800203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.675||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.436|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||2.436|1.152|0.0066
84523292|NCT00112294|168800204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.741|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||1.741|0.918|0.1501
84523293|NCT00112294|168800207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.051||An interim analysis on survival was performed. Final p-value was adjusted using an alpha spending function. At the interim analysis (data not reported here) the type 1 error was 0.0001, and the rest is for the final look.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals were calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Analysis was a comparison of survival between groups by means of a 2-sided, alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that survival was equal in both treatment arms. Power calculations indicated that \>= 558 events would lead to at \>=75% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.051|0.754|0.1685
84523294|NCT00112294|168800208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement of symptoms was compared between groups by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||||0.26
84523295|NCT01142908|168800229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||3.1|-2.8|0.93
84523296|NCT01142908|168800230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||4.3|-1.5|0.34
84523297|NCT01142908|168800232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||1.8|-2.0|0.91
84523298|NCT01142908|168800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||2.2|-1.5|0.70
84523299|NCT01142908|168800234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-3.9|0.1
84523300|NCT01142908|168800235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||1.7|-2.4|0.74
84523301|NCT01142908|168800237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-0.4|0.87
84523302|NCT01142908|168800238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.5|-0.2|0.36
84523303|NCT01142908|168800240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.6|-10.3|0.08
84523304|NCT01142908|168800241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||5.0|-6.6|0.79
84523305|NCT01142908|168800243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.2|0.83
84523306|NCT01142908|168800244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.2|-0.4|0.54
84523307|NCT01142908|168800246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.6|0.29
84523308|NCT01142908|168800247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||0.4|-0.5|0.72
84718563|NCT01371994|169188585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.10|-4.21|0.8507
84523309|NCT02418455|168800251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-48.44||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||||-48.44|-73.56|< 0.0001
84523310|NCT02418455|168800259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test|||||||0.2655
84523311|NCT02418455|168800260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.22||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||-0.22|-1.77|0.0122
84523312|NCT02418455|168800260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.31||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||-0.31|-2.12|0.0086
84540896|NCT04090125|168832863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||6.69|-1.61|0.22
84718564|NCT01371994|169188586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center.||||||0.2700
84523313|NCT02418455|168800260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 48||-0.37|-1.58|0.0016
84523314|NCT02418455|168800260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.26||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.26|-1.41|0.1792
84523315|NCT02418455|168800260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.15||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.15|-0.85|0.1731
84523316|NCT02418455|168800261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.05||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||0.05|-0.78|0.0843
84523317|NCT02418455|168800261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.98||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||0.98|-1.03|0.9618
84523318|NCT02418455|168800261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Change at Week 48||0.61|-0.92|0.6954
84523319|NCT02418455|168800261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.93||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.93|-0.50|0.5492
84523320|NCT02418455|168800261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.42||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.42|-1.55|0.2618
84523321|NCT03235479|168800262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|0.5|0.0298
84523322|NCT03235479|168800263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|3.4|0.0016
84523323|NCT03235479|168800264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|4.4|0.0005
84523324|NCT03235479|168800265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|0.8|0.0299
84523325|NCT03235479|168800266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.2|4.4|0.0006
84523326|NCT03235479|168800267|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.9||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.4|0.1815
84523327|NCT03110380|168800278|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the two treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.8|1.0|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is at least 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL as determined by the US FDA-defined snapshot algorithm at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is less than 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48.||1.0|-2.8|
84523328|NCT03110380|168800278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84523329|NCT03110380|168800279|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to DTG+F/TAF if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -DTG+F/TAF group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.3|6.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.8|-2.3|
84523330|NCT03110380|168800280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-18.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|11.0|||ANOVA|P-value, difference in least squares means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.||||11|-46|0.23
84523331|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.78||||||Cmax Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.78|0.95|
84523332|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.83||||||Cmax Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.83|0.92|
84523333|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.37||||||Cmax Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.37|0.55|
84523334|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.71||||||Css Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.71|0.90|
84523335|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.8||||||Css Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.80|0.89|
84523336|NCT01546519|168800286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41||||||Css Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.41|0.55|
84523337|NCT01546519|168800287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.73||||||AUC0-24hr Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.73|0.89|
84523338|NCT01546519|168800287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.89||||||AUC0-24hr Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.89|0.91|
84523339|NCT01546519|168800287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39||||||AUC0-24hr Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.39|0.53|
84523340|NCT00779402|168800295|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.433|||Log Rank|Log Rank Test (two sided) stratified by Gleason Score and Radiation Therapy||||1.433|0.693|0.65
84523341|NCT00693225|168800307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84523342|NCT01315028|168800310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84523343|NCT01315028|168800311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Parametric and non-parametric descriptive data were summarised and presented. All data analyses were based on the Intention to Treat (ITT) principle. For the main analysis, Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was performed to identify signals suggesting treatment effects on the outcome measures. Effect sizes were also calculated in order to further examine suggestive trends in the data indicating appropriate outcomes for further research.||||0.996
84523344|NCT01315028|168800312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84523345|NCT01315028|168800313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84523346|NCT00452543|168800322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Results would be used to estimate effect size to set the stage for an adequately powered larger study in the future.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Threshold for significance was set a priori at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinking days.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
84523347|NCT00452543|168800323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p \<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per week.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
84523348|NCT00452543|168800324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis is discussed above."|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p\<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups."||||<0.05
84523349|NCT01098539|168800325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.15|-0.49|<0.0001
84523350|NCT04480307|168800389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.031||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.124|0.5084
84523351|NCT04480307|168800389|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.057|||Bayesian|Difference of change from baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.057|-0.121|
84523352|NCT04480307|168800390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.052|0.9472
84523353|NCT04480307|168800390|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori.||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.059|-0.036|
84523354|NCT04480307|168800391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.154||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.524|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T1 lesion volume parameter||0.524|-0.216|0.4027
84523355|NCT04480307|168800391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.071|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T2 lesion volume parameter||0.071|-0.051|0.7428
84523356|NCT04480307|168800392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.003||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.013|0.7314
84523357|NCT04480307|168800392|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.023|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.023|-0.010|
84523358|NCT04480307|168800393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|0|0.7662
84523359|NCT03604549|168800394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.25|||Chi-squared||Lipiodol UF is the numerator and Saline is the denominator for RR|||1.25|0.16|0.10
84523360|NCT03604549|168800395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference reported as Lipiodol UF - Saline|||1.68|-1.59|0.96
84523361|NCT02690935|168800405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642||||||No adjustment of the p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are similar H1: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are different||||0.642
84523362|NCT02690935|168800406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||No adjustment for multiplicity|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: 2LALERG and placebo have the same effect on the quality of life H1: 2LALERG and placebo do not have the same effect on the quality of life||||0.829
84523363|NCT04974580|168800413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.84||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is NRT receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving NRT.|Comparison of NRT vs. no-NRT in model adjusted for receipt of digital component||1.84|0.91|0.14
84523364|NCT04974580|168800413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is Digital receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving the Digital component.|Comparison of Digital vs. no Digital in model adjusted for receipt of NRT component||1.47|0.73|0.84
84523365|NCT01493596|168800425|OTHER|Comparison of event rates across dose groups.|percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||There were a total of 5 non-serious adverse events for an AE rate of 14.3%|Descriptive statistics for evaluation of AEs|Descriptive statistics of adverse events|||
84523366|NCT04381481|168800426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523367|NCT04381481|168800427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||snacks with warning compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523368|NCT04381481|168800428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523369|NCT04381481|168800429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523370|NCT04381481|168800430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
84523371|NCT04381481|168800431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523372|NCT04381481|168800432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523373|NCT04381481|168800433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523374|NCT04381481|168800434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523375|NCT04381481|168800435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
84523376|NCT04381481|168800436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
84523377|NCT04381481|168800437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523378|NCT04381481|168800438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523379|NCT04381481|168800439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
84523380|NCT04381481|168800440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523381|NCT04381481|168800441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523382|NCT04381481|168800442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523383|NCT04381481|168800443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523384|NCT04381481|168800444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523385|NCT04381481|168800445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523386|NCT04381481|168800446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523387|NCT04381481|168800447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523388|NCT04381481|168800448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523389|NCT04381481|168800449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523390|NCT04381481|168800450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523391|NCT04381481|168800451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523392|NCT04381481|168800452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84523393|NCT04381481|168800453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
84540690|NCT05736861|168832638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.39|
84523394|NCT02508116|168800463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size calculation was based on two factors: 1) the rate of pre-study prasugrel/ticagrelor use (\~20%) and 2) anticipated increase in prasugrel/ticagrelor prescribing based on the frequency CYP2C19 LOF variants (\~30-35%). We estimated a 15% difference in the use of prasugrel/ticagrelor in the two groups (35% in the genotyped group and 20% in the control group). A sample size of 138 per group (a total of 276) would provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 to detect this difference.||2.42|1.07|0.03
84523395|NCT02508116|168800465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||The incidence of first MACE between the groups were compared by use of Kaplan-Meier estimators; statistical tests were based on log-rank tests.||||0.27
84523396|NCT04234464|168800471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum percentage fall in post-dose pre-exercise FEV₁ up to 60 minutes post-exercise challenge is analyzed using a mixed effects model adjusted for treatment, treatment period, treatment sequence as categorical fixed effects, period-specific pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||16.94|10.09|<0.001
84523397|NCT04234464|168800472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.311|25.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model with logit link adjusted for treatment, treatment period and treatment sequence as fixed effects, pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||25.805|4.311|<0.001
84523398|NCT00476593|168800473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis: the use of diclofenac/dexamethasone does not influence macular thickness in treated eyes compared with untreated eyes of same subject.|t-test, 2 sided|The possible effect of both anti-inflammatory medications was tested in relation to participants' age and gender||Subjects who received diclofenac or dexamethasone eye drops in one eye. Macular thickness in both were compared between same subjects' eyes after 3 day's treatment. Diclofenac and dexamethasone treated eyes were not compared with each other, but with the contralateral eye of same subject by a paired Student's t-test in each medication group||||0.018
84523399|NCT00476593|168800473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient's healthy eyes were compared with sex and age matched healthy controls with Two Sample Student't t-test. Null hypothesis was that quiet, currently unaffected eyes of patients had same macular thickness as age and sex matched controls.||||0.024
84523400|NCT03635983|168800476|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.96|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||0.96|0.45|0.0311
84523401|NCT03635983|168800477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3988||95.0|0.89|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.89|0.3988
84523402|NCT03635983|168800478|SUPERIORITY|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.00071|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab.|||1.22|0.72|0.6361
84523403|NCT03635983|168800482|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||1.02|0.48|0.0626
84523404|NCT03635983|168800483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3713||95.0|0.9|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.90|0.3713
84523405|NCT03635983|168800487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.32|1.24|||||Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Negative: \<1%)||1.24|0.32|
84523406|NCT03635983|168800487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Interaction P-value|Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Positive: \>=1%)||1.02|0.39|0.9939
84523407|NCT03635983|168800488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.43|0.81|
84523408|NCT03635983|168800488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.83|1.51|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.51|0.83|
84523409|NCT03635983|168800489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.4|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.40|0.66|
84718565|NCT05601882|169188591|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||15.5|6.6|<0.0001
84523410|NCT03635983|168800489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.58|1.33|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.33|0.58|
84523411|NCT02578745|168800532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
84523412|NCT02578745|168800533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
84523413|NCT02578745|168800534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84718566|NCT05601882|169188592|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||24.2|12.5|<0.0001
84523414|NCT02578745|168800535|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84523415|NCT02578745|168800536|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84523416|NCT02578745|168800537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
84523417|NCT00330460|168800538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.22%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.7|<0.0001
84523418|NCT00330460|168800539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -2.29%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.7|<0.0001
84523419|NCT00330460|168800540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.65%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.6|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.6|<0.0001
84523420|NCT00330460|168800541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.04%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|1.0||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1|0.3|<0.0001
84523421|NCT00330460|168800542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.9||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.3|0.0001
84523422|NCT03712124|168800543|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-6.44||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.18|103.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Day 14 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||103.31|-116.18|0.9030
84523423|NCT03712124|168800544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|98.45||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.81|161.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Day 28 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||161.08|35.81|0.0042
84523424|NCT00373425|168800597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.104||If the primary analysis of DFS was not statistically significant, the hierarchical testing procedure would stop and all key secondary efficacy analyses would be nonsignificant; any further analysis of these outcomes would be considered exploratory.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio: erlotinib to placebo|The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. The primary analysis of DFS was performed when at least 410 events had accrued. If the result of the primary analysis of DFS was statistically significant favoring the erlotinib treatment arm, the null hypothesis of no treatment difference of key secondary efficacy variables was tested under a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.104|0.741|0.3235
84523425|NCT00373425|168800602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.144|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level.||1.144|0.780|0.5620
84523426|NCT00127166|168800627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.009||95.0|-5.66|-0.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period||||-0.84|-5.66|0.009
84523427|NCT00127166|168800628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-52.71||||0.006||95.0|-89.76|-15.66|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||-15.66|-89.76|0.006
84523428|NCT00127166|168800629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.58|5.64|||ANCOVA|Participant, treatment, period \& covariate for FEV1 %-predicted Treatment test is adjusted for period \& FEV1 %-predicted at pre-exercise baseline||||5.64|2.58|<0.001
84523429|NCT00127166|168800630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.035||95.0|1.02|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model terms: treatment and period|Dispersion not applicable to time to event data|||1.55|1.02|0.035
84523430|NCT00127166|168800631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|5.32|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||5.32|2.28|<0.001
84523431|NCT01396421|168800687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.4||Primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) which included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed.||-4.40|-12.0|<0.0001
84523432|NCT01396421|168800687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-3.30|-12.0|0.0006
84523433|NCT01396421|168800687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Traetment difference|-8.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-4.37|-13.1|<0.0001
84523434|NCT01396421|168800687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.89||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||2.49|-8.27|0.2910
84523435|NCT01396421|168800688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between the average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.56|0.0006
84523436|NCT01396421|168800688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.38||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.15|-0.61|0.0012
84523437|NCT01396421|168800688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
84523438|NCT01396421|168800688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||0.26|-0.31|0.8491
84523439|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.5||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.09|-3.09|0.0644
84523440|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.99||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.41||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||-0.41|-3.58|0.0139
84523441|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.35||||0.7231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.32||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||2.32|-1.61|0.7231
84523442|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.14||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-1.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-1.93|-8.36|0.0018
84523443|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.75||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-1.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.17|-6.33|0.0045
84523444|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.84||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|5.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||5.02|-1.34|0.2568
84523445|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.82||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.82|-6.97|0.0009
84523446|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.23|-6.67|0.0360
84523447|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.6||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||4.60|-4.53|0.9876
84523448|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-3.93|-11.3|<0.0001
84523449|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-1.47||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-1.47|-8.85|0.0062
84523450|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.93||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.9||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||5.90|-2.05|0.3407
84523451|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.86||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.86|-11.9|0.0001
84523452|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.14|-11.2|0.0005
84523453|NCT01396421|168800689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.12||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|3.83||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5|Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.|||3.83|-6.07|0.6570
84523454|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6553
84523455|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6170
84540897|NCT04090125|168832864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|7.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||7.85|-4.98|0.65
84523456|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates..|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.15|-0.10|0.6446
84523457|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-0.01|-0.29|0.0347
84523458|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasr squares mean|-0.12||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.27|0.0825
84523459|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||0.30|-0.05|0.1678
84523460|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.03|-0.39|0.0219
84523461|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.09||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.09|-0.27|0.3275
84523462|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.40|-0.04|0.1173
84523463|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.21||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-0.21|-0.63|<0.0001
84523464|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.19||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.01|-0.40|0.0662
84523465|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.22|-0.30|0.7587
84523466|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.17|-0.61|0.0006
84523467|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.34||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.11|-0.56|0.0032
84523468|NCT01396421|168800690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||0.23|-0.32|0.7619
84523469|NCT01396421|168800691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.46||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.98||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.98|-0.06|0.0557
84523470|NCT01396421|168800691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.42||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||5.42|0.37|0.0250
84523471|NCT01396421|168800691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.58||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.74||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.74|-1.58|0.3264
84523472|NCT01396421|168800692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.99||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-3.88|0.0010
84523473|NCT01396421|168800692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.22||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.77||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.67|0.0029
84523474|NCT01396421|168800692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.11||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.90|0.2227
84523475|NCT01396421|168800693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.39||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.44|0.0069
84523476|NCT01396421|168800693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.76||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.76|-2.81|0.0007
84523477|NCT01396421|168800693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatmetn difference|-1.07||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.2||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.33|0.0996
84523478|NCT01396421|168800694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.22||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.22|-0.77|0.0004
84523479|NCT01396421|168800694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0002
84523480|NCT01396421|168800694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.50|0.4505
84523481|NCT01396421|168800695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.91||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.14|0.0032
84523482|NCT01396421|168800695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|1.23|0.0004
84523483|NCT01396421|168800695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.27||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.76||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.76|0.92|0.1576
84523484|NCT01396421|168800696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-2.06|0.0246
84523485|NCT01396421|168800696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.26||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-2.19|0.0131
84523486|NCT01396421|168800696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.85||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-1.53|0.5706
84523487|NCT01396421|168800697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.39||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.||||0.85|0.18|0.0143
84523488|NCT01396421|168800697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.87||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.65||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.46|0.6606
84523489|NCT01396421|168800697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.77||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.35|0.5115
84523490|NCT01396421|168800698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.91||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.77|0.0014
84523491|NCT01396421|168800698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.47||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-3.91|0.0008
84523492|NCT01396421|168800698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.89||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.89||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-2.66|0.3263
84523493|NCT01396421|168800699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.25||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-2.35|0.0155
84523494|NCT01396421|168800699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.68||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.62||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.73|0.0019
84523495|NCT01396421|168800699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.86||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-2.17|0.1956
84523496|NCT01396421|168800700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
84523497|NCT01396421|168800700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.97||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-2.98|0.0001
84523498|NCT01396421|168800700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.52||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-1.96|0.2572
84523499|NCT01396421|168800701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.07||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.87|0.0085
84523500|NCT01396421|168800701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.08||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.88|0.0081
84523501|NCT01396421|168800701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.66||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-1.31|0.5172
84523502|NCT01396421|168800702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.35||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-1.03|0.3284
84540898|NCT04090125|168832864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||11.83|-3.93|0.32
84523503|NCT01396421|168800702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.65||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.34|0.0655
84523504|NCT01396421|168800702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.64||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-1.07|0.6251
84523505|NCT04511208|168800713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.7|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.001
84523506|NCT04511208|168800714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.26||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.08|-0.44|0.006
84523507|NCT04511208|168800715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.005|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.005|-0.45|0.046
84523508|NCT04511208|168800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.07||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B PST Score||2.38|-2.51|0.955
84523509|NCT04511208|168800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.62||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.71|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B VMT Score||3.71|-2.48|0.686
84523510|NCT04511208|168800717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.68|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||4.68|1.28|0.007
84523511|NCT04511208|168800717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.28|||Repeated measures linear model|||Sensitivity analysis||-0.28|-1.82|0.009
84523512|NCT04511208|168800718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.38|-1.75|0.004
84523513|NCT04511208|168800719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.13|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-2.13|-3.80|<0.001
84523514|NCT02248662|168800720|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted percentages for receipt of mastectomy were calculated by setting covariates to their observed mean values.|This group is the reference group.|Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||||<0.05
84523515|NCT02248662|168800720|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||1.56|0.71|<0.05
84523516|NCT02248662|168800720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|1.27|<0.05
84523517|NCT01835548|168800721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||||-8.20|-13.9|<0.0001
84523518|NCT01634854|168800741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84523519|NCT00987831|168800748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||Definition of Moderate Disease was \</= 3 BILAG B (moderate) organ scores, no A (severe) scores and SLEDAI \</=10. Severe disease was \> 3 BILAG B or \>/= BILAG A or SLEDAI \> 10 or meets definition for severe flare on the SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index|Log Rank|||||95|5|0.2738
84523520|NCT02875028|168800754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84523521|NCT05068284|168800766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||20.6|-6.3|
84523522|NCT05068284|168800766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.0|6.7|
84523523|NCT05068284|168800766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||52.2|4.9|
84523524|NCT05068284|168800766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||53.6|1.0|
84523525|NCT05068284|168800767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|43.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||43.6|-19.8|
84523526|NCT05068284|168800767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|63.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||63.8|-4.8|
84523527|NCT05068284|168800767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|51.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||51.8|-13.7|
84523528|NCT05068284|168800767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|60.3|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.3|-13.6|
84523529|NCT05068284|168800768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|41.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||41.0|-18.5|
84523530|NCT05068284|168800768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|71.9|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||71.9|5.0|
84523531|NCT05068284|168800768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|56.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||56.2|-7.0|
84523532|NCT05068284|168800768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|74.5|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||74.5|3.8|
84523533|NCT00109837|168800794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion in 1-year CCR|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.25|||||||The regimen would be of no further interest if the true 1-year continuous complete remission (CCR) rate was less than 45% (null). Sample size was chosen for an alternative of 65%, power of 92% and type-1 error of 4.6%.|||0.25|
84523534|NCT03941834|168800796|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||||||Analysis were performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.2|0.1|
84523535|NCT03941834|168800801|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline Penn-FPS-R as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||11.5|-6.8|
84523536|NCT03941834|168800802|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.9||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline pain disability index as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.9|-3.8|
84523537|NCT03941834|168800803|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; and participant as a random effect.||0.5|-0.7|
84523538|NCT03941834|168800804|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.4|0.1|
84523539|NCT03941834|168800805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|229.6||||||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and baseline NPRS score as a covariate.||229.6|0.7|
84523540|NCT02688387|168800833|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0667|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9657|1.1784|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.1784|0.9657|
84523541|NCT02688387|168800833|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.1534|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.1534|0.9293|
84523542|NCT02688387|168800833|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.0423|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0423|0.9288|
84523543|NCT02688387|168800833|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9151|1.0188|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0188|0.9151|
84523544|NCT02688387|168800834|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9965|1.0646|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0646|0.9965|
84523545|NCT02688387|168800834|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.0473|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0473|0.9820|
84523546|NCT02688387|168800834|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.0092|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0092|0.9310|
84523547|NCT02688387|168800834|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9553|1.0799|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0799|0.9553|
84523548|NCT02688387|168800835|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9943|1.0623|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0623|0.9943|
84523549|NCT02688387|168800835|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9832|1.0466|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0466|0.9832|
84523550|NCT02688387|168800835|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|0.9972|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||0.9972|0.9265|
84523551|NCT02688387|168800835|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9562|1.0715|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0715|0.9562|
84523552|NCT02688387|168800836|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9348|1.1027|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.1027|0.9348|
84523553|NCT02688387|168800836|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9044|1.0529|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0529|0.9044|
84523554|NCT02688387|168800837|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0168|1.0617|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0617|1.0168|
84523555|NCT02688387|168800837|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9106|1.056|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0560|0.9106|
84523556|NCT02688387|168800838|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0138|1.0596|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0596|1.0138|
84472338|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8991||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7815|1.0343|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0343|0.7815|0.1368
84472339|NCT04047121|168695793|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8514||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7411|0.9782|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9782|0.7411|0.0231
84472340|NCT02604810|168695799|NON_INFERIORITY|Method of estimation = least-squares means based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a mixed-effect model. The lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio (SC/IV) of the primary PK endpoint of steady state AUC0-7 days for the PK population should be above 0.80.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
84472341|NCT02922634|168695807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
84472342|NCT02922634|168695808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The chi-squared test for both males and females with and without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.720
84472343|NCT02922634|168695809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
84472344|NCT02922634|168695810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
84472345|NCT02922634|168695811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
84472346|NCT02922634|168695812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
84472347|NCT02922634|168695813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84472348|NCT02922634|168695814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84472349|NCT02922634|168695815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.101
84472350|NCT02922634|168695816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.192
84472351|NCT02922634|168695817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
84472352|NCT02922634|168695818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
84472353|NCT02922634|168695819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This is a chi-squared test between the FRAIL categories for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84472354|NCT02922634|168695820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This is a chi-squared test of the categories for levels of invasiveness for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
84472355|NCT03534063|168695849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparisons for opioid consumption and composite pain intensity were performed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline differences in groups||||||.047
84472356|NCT03534063|168695850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.638
84472357|NCT00078559|168695851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.34|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.34|0.01|
84472358|NCT00078559|168695852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
84472359|NCT00078559|168695853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.7|0.0|
84472360|NCT00078559|168695856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
84472361|NCT00078559|168695857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for all participants (n=10)||||0.3|0.0|
84472362|NCT00078559|168695858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
84472363|NCT00078559|168695858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
84472364|NCT00078559|168695859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
84472365|NCT00078559|168695859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
84472366|NCT01313520|168695865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
84472367|NCT01313520|168695866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
84472368|NCT01313520|168695867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84472369|NCT01313520|168695868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||||<0.0001
84472370|NCT01313520|168695869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.001
84472371|NCT01313520|168695870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
84472372|NCT01313520|168695871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.87||||||||1.87|0.92|
84472373|NCT01313520|168695872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.55||||||||1.55|0.64|
84472374|NCT01194804|168695879|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
84472375|NCT03621943|168695910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||Total score on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd ed.||5.37|-6.36|0.87
84472376|NCT01716533|168695937|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|1.53||||0.5746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|7.14||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1 (ANOVA model, T-test), groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|ELISA anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||7.14|0.33|0.5746
84523557|NCT02688387|168800838|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9145|1.0547|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0547|0.9145|
84523558|NCT02688387|168800839|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0166|1.2287|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.2287|1.0166|
84523559|NCT02688387|168800839|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1196|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0429|1.2019|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.2019|1.0429|
84523560|NCT02688387|168800840|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.071|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0710|1.0009|
84523561|NCT02688387|168800840|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.0834|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0834|0.9910|
84523562|NCT02688387|168800841|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0002|1.0713|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0713|1.0002|
84523563|NCT02688387|168800841|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9929|1.0734|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0734|0.9929|
84523564|NCT04100096|168800886|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.7||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), treatment group (TG), visit, ADT status, and TG by visit interaction (BVI), gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.70|-2.75|0.2430
84523565|NCT04100096|168800887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), TG, visit, ADT status, and TG BVI, gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7759
84523566|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 2||0.20|-0.32|0.6585
84523567|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 4||0.06|-0.57|0.1181
84523568|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 6||0.13|-0.51|0.2431
84523569|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 8||0.02|-0.61|0.0638
84523570|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 10||0.22|-0.44|0.5050
84523571|NCT04100096|168800888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 12||0.21|-0.48|0.4277
84523572|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.30|-0.18|0.6225
84523573|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.31|-0.35|0.9145
84523574|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.08|-0.52|0.1535
84540899|NCT04090125|168832864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|12.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||12.89|-9.61|0.77
84523575|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||0.10|-0.50|0.1922
84523576|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.25|-0.40|0.6488
84523577|NCT04100096|168800889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.23||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||0.23|-0.40|0.5992
84523578|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.19|-0.29|0.6579
84523579|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.16|-0.43|0.3728
84523580|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.09||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.09|-0.50|0.1684
84523581|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||-0.13|-0.74|0.0046
84523582|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.11|-0.51|0.2087
84523583|NCT04100096|168800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.64|0.0389
84523584|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.5||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.50|-0.14|0.2720
84523585|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.56|0.63|0
84523586|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||1.73|0.63|0
84523587|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.21||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||2.21|0.92|0
84523588|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||2.45|0.99|0
84523589|NCT04100096|168800895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.19|0.68|0.0002
84523590|NCT04100096|168800896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 12||2.68|-0.07|0.0620
84523591|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 2||0.17|-0.08|0.4613
84523592|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.55|0.21|0
84523593|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.61|0.21|0.0001
84523594|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.80|0.33|0
84523595|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.88|0.34|0
84523596|NCT04100096|168800897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.80|0.23|0.0004
84523597|NCT04100096|168800899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.25|-0.04|0.1687
84472377|NCT01716533|168695938|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio|1.65||||0.7124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|26.41||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1, groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA||GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|Serum F2 C-terminal anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||26.41|0.10|0.7124
84472378|NCT00165841|168695969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The primary analysis was on the ITT population using all observed data collected from Day 1 of the maintenance phase until the endpoint.||Efficacy analyses were based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, which was comprised of all patients in the safety-evaluable population who had a baseline and ≥1 post-randomization primary efficacy endpoint evaluation and who had received ≥1 dose of study medication during the maintenance phase.||||<0.0001
84472379|NCT00487084|168695981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample of 56 was estimated to have an 80% power to detect a 30% difference in the proportion of subjects with continuing analgesia in the MCS versus the SCM groups when 50% of the subjects in the SCM had requested supplemental analgesia. 28 subjects was added to compare the influence of time of morphine and 2-chloroprocaine administration to lidocaine-morphine analgesia. The primary outcome was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test.||||0.006
84472380|NCT00487084|168695981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
84472381|NCT00487084|168695981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.009
84472382|NCT00487084|168695982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84472383|NCT00487084|168695982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84472384|NCT00487084|168695983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
84472385|NCT00487084|168695983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
84472386|NCT00487084|168695984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.20
84472387|NCT02059213|168696008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid P-value||With 20 patients treated with ADT and 40 treated with ADT + palbociclib there is a 64.2% power to detect a 20% difference in proportions with a one-sided type I error of 0.10 using the mid p-value method of the Fisher's exact test.||||0.87
84472388|NCT02059213|168696010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84472389|NCT02059213|168696011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid p-value||||||0.50
84472390|NCT02059213|168696012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
84472391|NCT02059213|168696013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
84472392|NCT05439460|168696016|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in phenylephrine group||||0.9
84472393|NCT05439460|168696016|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in arginine vasopressin group||||0.3
84472394|NCT05439460|168696016|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in epinephrine group||||1
84472395|NCT00839423|168696034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-2.91||"A hierarchical hypothesis testing procedure was used. The comparison of 10 mg to placebo was primary.~Since p-value was \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6.~With 96 patients in each treatment arm and a standard deviation of 9 points, the power to detect a true effect of 3.7 points on the MADRS total score at Week 6 will be 80%."||-2.91|-8.49|<0.0001
84472396|NCT00839423|168696034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-3.17||"The hierarchical hypothesis testing meant that comparison of 5 mg to placebo was performed at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for the primary comparison of 10 mg to placebo.~Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing contd."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6."||-3.17|-8.64|<0.0001
84472397|NCT00839423|168696034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-3.72||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.72|-9.13|<0.0001
84472398|NCT00839423|168696035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.54||"The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was tested at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for both 10 and 5 mg at Week 6.~Since p-value was \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||0.54|-2.17|0.2377
84472399|NCT00839423|168696035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.11||The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was not tested since significance was not achieved for 10 mg at Week 1. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||1.11|-1.54|0.7489
84472400|NCT00839423|168696035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.85||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.85|-0.77|0.4142
84472401|NCT00839423|168696036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.69|<0.0001
84472402|NCT00839423|168696036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.79|<0.0001
84523598|NCT04100096|168800899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.29||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.29|-0.06|0.1874
84523599|NCT04100096|168800900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.02|-0.25|0.0974
84523600|NCT04100096|168800900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.08|-0.20|0.3910
84523601|NCT04100096|168800901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.04|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.26|0.04|0.0063
84523602|NCT04100096|168800901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.19|-0.01|0.0670
84523603|NCT01976728|168800910|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.012||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||The primary efficacy analysis compared the pooled ovulation rate of the LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group to placebo.||||0.0120
84523604|NCT01976728|168800911|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0553||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||P4 levels of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0553
84523605|NCT01976728|168800912|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses was tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0383||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Clinical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0383
84523606|NCT01976728|168800913|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0246||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Biochemical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0246
84523607|NCT01976728|168800914|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0011||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||LH surge detection of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0011
84523608|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1344
84523609|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2726
84523610|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
84523611|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1275||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1275
84523612|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1088||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1088
84523613|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
84523614|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.0796
84523615|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.1757
84523616|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0584||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0584
84523617|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
84523618|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0143
84523619|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0060
84523620|NCT01976728|168800915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1573
84523621|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
84523622|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
84523623|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2636||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2636
84523624|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4795
84523625|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
84523626|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
84523627|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
84523628|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0838||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0838
84523629|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
84523630|NCT01976728|168800916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3778||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3778
84540900|NCT04090125|168832864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|8.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||8.17|-1.67|0.19
84523631|NCT01976728|168800917|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|1.35||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.87||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||7.87|-5.16|0.6732
84523632|NCT01976728|168800917|SUPERIORITY||LSM|5.7||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|12.15||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||12.15|-0.76|0.0814
84523633|NCT01976728|168800917|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.55||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.93||p-value for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||13.93|1.16|0.0223
84523634|NCT01976728|168800918|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.679||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.404|4.762||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||4.762|-3.404|0.7355
84523635|NCT01976728|168800918|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.602||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.444|6.648||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||6.648|-1.444|0.1980
84523636|NCT01976728|168800918|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.88||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|8.882||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||8.882|0.878|0.0187
84523637|NCT01976728|168800919|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.03||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.46|-0.39|0.8772
84523638|NCT01976728|168800919|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.07||||0.7805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.44|0.7805
84523639|NCT01976728|168800919|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.12||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.35|0.6095
84523640|NCT01976728|168800920|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.51||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.22||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.22|-0.20|0.1520
84540901|NCT04090125|168832865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-4.92|0.191
84718567|NCT05601882|169188593|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||20.0|9.4|<0.0001
84523641|NCT01976728|168800920|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.93||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.72||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.72|0.14|0.0221
84523642|NCT01976728|168800920|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.76||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.44||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.44|0.07|0.0316
84523643|NCT01976728|168800922|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|73.0||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.66|218.65||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||218.65|-72.66|0.3147
84523644|NCT01976728|168800922|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|95.18||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.01|253.36||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||253.36|-63.01|0.2290
84523645|NCT01976728|168800922|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|46.99||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.64|189.61||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||189.61|-95.64|0.5066
84523646|NCT02000531|168800937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.61|>0.05
84523647|NCT02285634|168800939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
84523648|NCT02285634|168800939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
84523649|NCT02285634|168800939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
84523650|NCT02285634|168800940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84523651|NCT02285634|168800940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
84523652|NCT02285634|168800940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
84523653|NCT02285634|168800941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
84523654|NCT02285634|168800941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
84523655|NCT02285634|168800941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
84523656|NCT02285634|168800942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
84523657|NCT02285634|168800942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
84523658|NCT02285634|168800942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84523659|NCT00317642|168800943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.28|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.28|0.78|0.9951
84523660|NCT00317642|168800943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata remission after first pre-study induction regimen (CR1) \< 6 months||1.57|0.81|0.4674
84523661|NCT00317642|168800943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata CR1\>= 6 months||1.24|0.58|0.3963
84523662|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - overall remission (OR)||||<0.0001
84523663|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - Complete Remission (CR)||||0.0005
84523664|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0022
84523665|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0019
84523666|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0353
84523667|NCT00317642|168800944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0096
84523668|NCT00317642|168800949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.8|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.80|0.49|0.0001
84523669|NCT00317642|168800949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93|||Log Rank|Comparison P-value is from a log-rank test with no strata||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months||0.93|0.49|0.0131
84523670|NCT00317642|168800949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0022||95.0|0.4|0.83|||Log Rank|Comparison p-value is from a log-rank test with no strata.||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||0.83|0.40|0.0022
84523671|NCT00317642|168800950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.23|0.77|0.8209
84523672|NCT00317642|168800950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.81|0.5071
84523673|NCT00317642|168800950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.59|0.2906
84472403|NCT00839423|168696037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.33||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-5.27|0.0011
84472404|NCT00839423|168696037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.0||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.01|0.0034
84472405|NCT00839423|168696038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.28|<0.0001
84472406|NCT00839423|168696038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.34|<0.0001
84472407|NCT00839423|168696039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.90|0.0003
84472408|NCT00839423|168696039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.92|0.0003
84472409|NCT00839423|168696040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|21.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|34.92||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||34.92|8.89|0.002
84472410|NCT00839423|168696040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|23.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|36.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||36.43|10.05|0.001
84472411|NCT00839423|168696041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.74|35.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.07|9.74|0.001
84472412|NCT00839423|168696041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|35.28||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.28|9.39|0.001
84472413|NCT01332019|168696054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.755||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.957||q2w/q4w|negative binomial regression|||Based on negative binomial regression for each treatment group, with adjustment for EDSS (\<4 vs. \>=4), relapse rate (based on 1 year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and age (\<40 vs. \>=40) at 105MS302 baseline.||0.957|0.595|0.0203
84472414|NCT01332019|168696055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for EDSS (\<4 vs \>= 4), age (\<40 vs \>=40), relapse rate (based on one year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lesions (presence vs. absence) at 105MS302 baseline.|Cox proportion hazards model|||q2w/q4w||0.96|0.59|0.0201
84472415|NCT01332019|168696056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
84472416|NCT01332019|168696056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
84472417|NCT01332019|168696057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
84472418|NCT01332019|168696057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
84472419|NCT01332019|168696058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||<0.0001
84472420|NCT01332019|168696058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||<0.0001
84472421|NCT01332019|168696059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||0.0012
84472422|NCT01332019|168696059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||0.0026
84472423|NCT01332019|168696065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline EDSS and age (\<40 vs \>=40).|Cox Proportional Hazards model||q2w/q4w|||0.85|0.38|0.0060
84472424|NCT00401622|168696104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|22.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.36|-7.24|0.31
84472425|NCT00401622|168696105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||ANCOVA|Visit 1 A1c measurement used as the covariate||Change in A1C from baseline to week 52 between the OneTouch® Ultra®2 and control BGMS||0.04|-0.38|0.45
84472426|NCT01718509|168696137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.28|-2.04|<0.001
84472427|NCT01718509|168696138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84472428|NCT01718509|168696139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84472429|NCT01718509|168696140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-4.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-4.44|-6.39|<0.001
84472430|NCT01718509|168696141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-6.36|-9.51|<0.001
84472431|NCT01718509|168696142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.070|-0.321|0.002
84472432|NCT01718509|168696143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.205|0.234
84523674|NCT00317642|168800951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.79|0.49|<.0001
84523675|NCT00317642|168800951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.53|0.0486
84523676|NCT00317642|168800951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.37|0.0002
84523677|NCT00317642|168800952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||||<0.0001
84523678|NCT00317642|168800952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months.||||0.0088
84523679|NCT00317642|168800952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||||0.0017
84523680|NCT00317642|168800953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84523681|NCT00317642|168800953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0506
84523682|NCT00317642|168800953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84523683|NCT00418522|168800962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||A confidence interval (CI) approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||0|-0.38|<0.0001
84523684|NCT00418522|168800962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0516||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||0|-0.38|0.0516
84523685|NCT00418522|168800963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0052||95.0|1.22|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.22|0.0052
84523686|NCT00418522|168800964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0022||95.0|1.29|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.29|0.0022
84523687|NCT00418522|168800965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.248||95.0|0.4|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.40|0.2480
84523688|NCT00418522|168800966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6091||95.0|-7.31|12.46|||ANCOVA|||||12.46|-7.31|0.6091
84523689|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.96|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.66|43.25|||ANCOVA|||Time 0 (fasting) at Week 26.||43.25|22.66|<0.0001
84523690|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.55|40.59|||ANCOVA|||Time 30 at Week 26.||40.59|16.55|<0.0001
84523691|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.96||||0.0044||95.0|5.96|31.96|||ANCOVA|||Time 60 at Week 26.||31.96|5.96|0.0044
84523692|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69||||0.3168||95.0|-6.45|19.83|||ANCOVA|||Time 90 at Week 26.||19.83|-6.45|0.3168
84523693|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.9222||95.0|-12.12|13.39|||ANCOVA|||Time 120 at Week 26.||13.39|-12.12|0.9222
84523694|NCT00418522|168800967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.695||95.0|-14.51|9.69|||ANCOVA|||Time 180 at Week 26.||9.69|-14.51|0.6950
84523695|NCT00418522|168800968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.61||||0.1207||95.0|-21.76|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Breakfast, Week 26.||2.54|-21.76|0.1207
84523696|NCT00418522|168800968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-39.77|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Post-Lunch, Week 26.||-18.44|-39.77|<0.0001
84523697|NCT00418522|168800968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-44.17|-23.35|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dinner, Week 26.||-23.35|-44.17|<0.0001
84523698|NCT00418522|168800969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.0735||95.0|-0.5|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol at Week 26.||10.91|-0.50|0.0735
84523699|NCT00418522|168800969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0017||95.0|0.79|3.39|||ANCOVA|||HDL-c at Week 26.||3.39|0.79|0.0017
84523700|NCT00418522|168800969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.1369||95.0|-1.1|7.96|||ANCOVA|||LDL-c at Week 26.||7.96|-1.10|0.1369
84523701|NCT00418522|168800969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26||||0.5684||95.0|-10.4|18.92|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides at Week 26.||18.92|-10.40|0.5684
84523702|NCT00418522|168800970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.5673||95.0|-0.58|1.06|||ANCOVA|||hs-CRP at Week 26.||1.06|-0.58|0.5673
84523703|NCT00418522|168800970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.6099||95.0|-2.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Leptin at Week 26.||1.75|-2.97|0.6099
84523704|NCT00418522|168800970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28||||0.7684||95.0|-12.94|17.51|||ANCOVA|||Spot urine microalbumin at Week 26.||17.51|-12.94|0.7684
84523705|NCT00418522|168800971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.5005||95.0|-0.69|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Adiponectin at Week 26.||1.42|-0.69|0.5005
84523706|NCT00418522|168800971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ApoB at Week 26.||0.04|-0.03|0.6850
84523707|NCT00418522|168800972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.7||||0.1856||95.0|-43.37|160.77|||ANCOVA|||||160.77|-43.37|0.1856
84523708|NCT00418522|168800973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.72||||0.1862||95.0|-51.34|13.89|||ANCOVA|||||13.89|-51.34|0.1862
84523709|NCT00418522|168800979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0055||95.0|0.35|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.35|0.0055
84523710|NCT00418522|168800980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0053||95.0|0.12|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|0.12|0.0053
84540691|NCT05736861|168832639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.91|||||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|1.91|0.52|
84540902|NCT04090125|168832866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-8.28|0.0004
84523711|NCT00418522|168800982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||A CI approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||-0.08|-0.47|<0.0001
84523712|NCT00418522|168800982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0062||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||-0.08|-0.47|0.0062
84523713|NCT02695719|168800983|SUPERIORITY||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||No adjustment was made as there was only one primary comparison.|Van Elteren Test|The Van Elteren test is a stratified version of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test which provides approximate sample size for the van Elteren analysis.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|Assuming equal allocation, a power of 90%, an alpha level of 0.05 for a 2-sided test, a placebo mean of 4 (standard deviation of 2.7), and a treatment mean of 5.9 (standard deviation of 4) for SBM frequency at Week 1 and using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, a total sample size of 146 is required. Analysis was conducted using van Elteren test.||1.9|0.1|0.007
84523714|NCT01652729|168800998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2167||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
84523715|NCT01652729|168800998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.06|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.06|-0.70|0.0209
84523716|NCT01652729|168800998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2278||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.11|-0.79|0.1347
84523717|NCT01652729|168800999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0489
84523718|NCT01652729|168800999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0103
84523719|NCT01652729|168801000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.7|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||1.7|-21.8|0.0924
84523720|NCT01652729|168801000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.037||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-15.1|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-15.1|-46.7|0.0001
84523721|NCT01652729|168801001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4058||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.87|-0.73|0.8625
84523722|NCT01652729|168801001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5419||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.2||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.20|-2.34|0.0198
84523723|NCT01652729|168801002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.71||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|-4.68||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||-4.68|-67.23|0.0248
84523724|NCT01652729|168801002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.02|18.25||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||18.25|-60.02|0.2914
84523725|NCT00483548|168801003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.7921||95.0|-3.07|2.34||Due to planned interim analysis of primary endpoint, to control type I error at 2-sided alpha=0.05, a nominal 2-sided p-value ≤0.0476 needed at final analysis to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect.|ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|No other adjustment made for multiple comparisons since all comparisons, except for single primary comparison, are considered secondary.|Mixed-effects repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model: fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, mood stabilizer type, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.|N=141 per arm (282 total) needed for 85% power for 2-sided alpha=0.05 based on true mean difference=4.0 and standard deviation (SD)=11.0 for primary endpoint. Interim Analysis (IA) planned when 60% of subjects had completed study or discontinued prematurely to assess efficacy (nominal 2-sided p-value less than or equal to \[≤\] 0.0076) or futility (nominal 2-sided p-value greater than or equal to \[≥\] 0.5099).||2.34|-3.07|0.7921
84523726|NCT00483548|168801004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7223||95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|||Week 6; MMRM analysis of covariance model with fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.||0.36|-0.25|0.7223
84523727|NCT00483548|168801005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.846||||0.5029||95.0|0.52|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving remission (MADRS total score ≤ 12) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.38|0.52|0.5029
84540903|NCT03440840|168832886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment||||||0.40
84523728|NCT00483548|168801006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.949||||0.8266||95.0|0.59|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving response (≥ 50 % reduction in MADRS total score) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.52|0.59|0.8266
84523729|NCT00483548|168801007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.7924||95.0|0.59|1.5||Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.50|0.59|0.7924
84523730|NCT00483548|168801008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0594||95.0|-3.42|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-3.42|0.0594
84523731|NCT00483548|168801008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.223||95.0|-3.27|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.77|-3.27|0.2230
84523732|NCT00483548|168801008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.6971||95.0|-2.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.72|-2.57|0.6971
84523733|NCT00483548|168801008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5485||95.0|-2.89|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-2.89|0.5485
84523734|NCT00483548|168801008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.8322||95.0|-2.6|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.10|-2.60|0.8322
84523735|NCT00483548|168801009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1771||95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.29|0.1771
84523736|NCT00483548|168801009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1765||95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-0.37|0.1765
84523737|NCT00483548|168801009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6765||95.0|-0.27|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.27|0.6765
84523738|NCT00483548|168801009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.977||95.0|-0.24|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.24|0.9770
84523739|NCT00483548|168801009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7907||95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|-0.30|0.7907
84523740|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0392||95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0392
84523741|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2803||95.0|-0.38|0.11|||ANOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.38|0.2803
84523742|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9835||95.0|-0.26|0.26|||ANOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.26|0.9835
84523743|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7062||95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.7062
84523744|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9518||95.0|-0.31|0.29|||ANOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.31|0.9518
84523745|NCT00483548|168801010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4757||95.0|-0.2|0.42||Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Week 6; LOCF||0.42|-0.20|0.4757
84523746|NCT00483548|168801011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6362||95.0|-1.12|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.82|-1.12|0.6362
84523747|NCT00483548|168801011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.4565||95.0|-0.98|2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.17|-0.98|0.4565
84523748|NCT00483548|168801011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.477||95.0|-1.08|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.30|-1.08|0.4770
84523749|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1277||95.0|-0.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.60|-0.20|0.1277
84523750|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.2345||95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.68|-0.41|0.2345
84523751|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8337||95.0|-1.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.30|-1.05|0.8337
84523752|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4646||95.0|-0.73|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.59|-0.73|0.4646
84523753|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3993||95.0|-0.67|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.67|-0.67|0.3993
84523754|NCT00483548|168801012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7647||95.0|-1.08|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.46|-1.08|0.7647
84523755|NCT00483548|168801013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0108||95.0|0.99|7.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||7.50|0.99|0.0108
84523756|NCT00483548|168801014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.001||95.0|-7.24|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Total SDS: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||-1.87|-7.24|0.0010
84523757|NCT00483548|168801015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Days Lost: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.12|-1.00|0.1230
84523758|NCT00483548|168801015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Days Unproductive: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.50|-0.84|0.6232
84523759|NCT00483548|168801016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0096||95.0|0.04|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.31|0.04|0.0096
84523760|NCT00483548|168801016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8134||95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.13|0.8134
84523761|NCT00483548|168801016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0226||95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.29|0.02|0.0226
84523762|NCT00483548|168801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0193||95.0|0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|0.02|0.0193
84523763|NCT00483548|168801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4745||0.16|-0.07|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.07|0.4745
84523764|NCT00483548|168801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2613||95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.05|0.2613
84523765|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0271||95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.21|0.01|0.0271
84523766|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7462||95.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.07|0.7462
84523767|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9574||95.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.08|-0.08|0.9574
84523768|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0844||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.10|-0.01|0.0844
84523769|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.5779||95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.04|0.5779
84523770|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7455||95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.05|0.7455
84523771|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3278||95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.02|0.3278
84523772|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9097||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.03|-0.03|0.9097
84523773|NCT00483548|168801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9864||95.0|-0.04|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.04|0.9864
84540904|NCT03440840|168832887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
84523774|NCT00483548|168801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.5519||95.0|-3.5|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Q-LES-Q: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||6.53|-3.50|0.5519
84523775|NCT00483548|168801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5238||95.0|-0.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Medications: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.35|0.5238
84523776|NCT00483548|168801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.536||95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Overall life satisfaction: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.36|-0.19|0.5360
84523777|NCT01049412|168801030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
84523778|NCT01049412|168801031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.83|<0.001
84523779|NCT01049412|168801032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.05||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.28|0.242
84523780|NCT01049412|168801033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
84523781|NCT01049412|168801033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
84523782|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.88||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hour BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.28|0.392
84523783|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.3||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning FBG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.79|0.464
84523784|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-1.04|0.151
84523785|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.03||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.05|0.079
84523786|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.99|0.070
84523787|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.34||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.39|0.008
84523788|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.41||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.38|0.003
84523789|NCT01049412|168801035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.55||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.64|0.001
84523790|NCT01049412|168801040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.037
84523791|NCT01049412|168801041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|-0.25||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.69|<0.001
84523792|NCT03440424|168801046|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|157.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.18|210.87|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||210.87|118.18|
84523793|NCT03440424|168801046|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|163.24|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||163.24|91.49|
84523794|NCT03440424|168801047|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|151.17|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||151.17|98.95|
84523795|NCT03440424|168801047|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.53|127.61|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||127.61|83.53|
84523796|NCT03440424|168801048|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|162.16|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||162.16|96.76|
84523797|NCT03440424|168801048|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.98|149.13|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||149.13|88.98|
84523798|NCT03440424|168801049|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|131.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|180.4|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||180.40|96.46|
84523799|NCT03440424|168801049|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|149.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.34|204.47|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||204.47|109.34|
84523800|NCT03440424|168801050|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|177.74|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||177.74|87.96|
84523801|NCT03440424|168801050|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|153.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.39|221.66|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||221.66|106.39|
84472433|NCT01718509|168696144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.02|0.185
84472434|NCT01718509|168696145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84472435|NCT01718509|168696146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.69||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.69|-2.77|<0.001
84472436|NCT01718509|168696147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.24||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.24|0.29|0.011
84472437|NCT01718509|168696147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-2.76||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-2.76|-4.44|<0.001
84472438|NCT01718509|168696147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-3.33||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.33|-5.09|<0.001
84472439|NCT01718509|168696148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-7.12||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-7.12|-11.44|<0.001
84472440|NCT01718509|168696149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.85||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.77|0.298
84472441|NCT05906732|168696163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0030
84472442|NCT05906732|168696164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
84472443|NCT05906732|168696165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.8||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
84472444|NCT05906732|168696166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.9||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1106
84472445|NCT05906732|168696167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.2||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0908
84472446|NCT05906732|168696168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4038
84472447|NCT05906732|168696169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6255
84472448|NCT05906732|168696170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5140
84472449|NCT05906732|168696171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5675
84472450|NCT05906732|168696172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7640
84472451|NCT05906732|168696173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2437
84472452|NCT05906732|168696174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4229
84472453|NCT05906732|168696175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4887
84472454|NCT05906732|168696176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2042
84472455|NCT05906732|168696177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2644
84472456|NCT05906732|168696195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3169
84472457|NCT05906732|168696196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1066
84472458|NCT05906732|168696197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0443
84472459|NCT05906732|168696198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0815
84472460|NCT05906732|168696199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.67||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
84472461|NCT05906732|168696200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3539
84472462|NCT05906732|168696201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1377
84472463|NCT05906732|168696202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
84472464|NCT05906732|168696203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.6627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6627
84472465|NCT05906732|168696204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.78||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5276
84472466|NCT05906732|168696205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.17||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0399
84472467|NCT05906732|168696206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0747
84472468|NCT05906732|168696207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9584
84472469|NCT05906732|168696208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.72||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6531
84472470|NCT05906732|168696209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.61||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
84472471|NCT05906732|168696210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.22||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0667
84472472|NCT05906732|168696211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0131
84472473|NCT05906732|168696212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.36||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0141
84472474|NCT05906732|168696213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
84472475|NCT05906732|168696214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.69||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1108
84472476|NCT05906732|168696215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.81||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1840
84472477|NCT05906732|168696216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.33||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2019
84472478|NCT05906732|168696217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2808
84472479|NCT05906732|168696218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|110.39||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1644
84472480|NCT05906732|168696219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
84472481|NCT05906732|168696220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.87||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0306
84472482|NCT05906732|168696221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.42||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
84472483|NCT05906732|168696222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.25||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1378
84472484|NCT02175771|168696269|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.72|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||1.72|1.02|
84472485|NCT02175771|168696269|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.04|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||1.04|0.63|
84472486|NCT02175771|168696269|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.24|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||1.24|0.75|
84472487|NCT02175771|168696269|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.06|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||1.06|0.67|
84472488|NCT02175771|168696270|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.103|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||0.103|-0.084|0.8451
84472489|NCT02175771|168696270|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0479||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.081|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||0.081|-0.107|0.7877
84472490|NCT02175771|168696270|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.095|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||0.095|-0.095|0.9966
84472491|NCT02175771|168696270|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.15|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||0.150|-0.032|0.2056
84472492|NCT04124536|168696279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.9|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-7.9|-35.9|
84472493|NCT04124536|168696279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-20.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-20.8|-40.6|
84472494|NCT04124536|168696280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||2.8|-13.6|
84472495|NCT04124536|168696280|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The calculation of risk differences between study arms was originally planned. However, the linear-binomial model did not converge because of zero events in the intervention arm.|||
84472496|NCT04124536|168696284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|58.4|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||58.4|23.0|
84472497|NCT04124536|168696284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|36.0|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||36.0|10.7|
84472498|NCT01106625|168696293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||||-0.524|-0.904|<0.001
84472499|NCT01106625|168696293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.114|-0.732|||ANCOVA|||||-0.732|-1.114|<0.001
84472500|NCT01106625|168696294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.87|2.48|<0.001
84472501|NCT01106625|168696294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.95|4.86|<0.001
84472502|NCT01106625|168696295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.627|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.53|-13.16|||ANCOVA|||||-13.16|-31.53|<0.001
84472503|NCT01106625|168696295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-25.42|||ANCOVA|||||-25.42|-43.86|<0.001
84472504|NCT01106625|168696296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
84472505|NCT01106625|168696296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.7|<0.001
84472506|NCT01106625|168696297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.719|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|-4.719|0.077
84472507|NCT01106625|168696297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.111|0.866|||ANCOVA|||||0.866|-4.111|0.201
84472508|NCT01106625|168696298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-16.9|0.256
84523802|NCT03440424|168801051|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|128.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|188.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||188.02|88.35|
84523803|NCT03440424|168801051|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|166.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|246.99|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||246.99|112.31|
84523804|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|96.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|134.06|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||134.06|70.15|
84523805|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|72.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.12|99.6|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||99.60|52.12|
84523806|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|84.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|118.19|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||118.19|60.21|
84523807|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.89|92.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.05|46.89|
84523808|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.37|131.3|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||131.30|68.37|
84523809|NCT03440424|168801052|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.24|106.09|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||106.09|55.24|
84523810|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|99.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.91|127.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||127.81|76.91|
84523811|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|69.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.03|89.79|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||89.79|54.03|
84523812|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.88|99.21|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||99.21|62.88|
84523813|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.31|79.38|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||79.38|50.31|
84523814|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|130.51|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||130.51|68.50|
84523815|NCT03440424|168801054|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|71.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.03|99.12|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||99.12|52.03|
84523816|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|106.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.95|135.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||135.62|83.95|
84523817|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|85.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.41|108.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||108.90|67.41|
84523818|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.28|91.31|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||91.31|62.28|
84523819|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.76|92.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.02|62.76|
84523820|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|95.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.92|126.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||126.94|71.92|
84523821|NCT03440424|168801055|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.06|98.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||98.94|56.06|
84523822|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|113.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.16|150.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||150.05|85.16|
84523823|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|137.7|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||137.70|78.16|
84523824|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|98.78|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||98.78|62.57|
84523825|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.38|126.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||126.90|80.38|
84523826|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|109.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|147.88|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||147.88|81.07|
84523827|NCT03440424|168801056|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|142.08|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.08|77.89|
84523828|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|159.42|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||159.42|83.51|
84523829|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.66|161.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||161.62|84.66|
84523830|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|100.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||100.81|61.06|
84523831|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.95|151.56|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||151.56|89.95|
84523832|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|128.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||128.28|70.31|
84523833|NCT03440424|168801057|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.43|142.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.28|75.43|
84523834|NCT05966090|168801064|NON_INFERIORITY|Non - Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between the Control group (at Day 91) versus Co-administration group (at Day 91) for anti-gE Ab 1-month after the second HZ/su vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed concentration, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine, compared to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine administered alone.||1.42|1.08|
84523835|NCT05966090|168801065|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5|ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.35|0.97|
84523836|NCT05966090|168801066|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.15|0.84|
84523837|NCT02445287|168801082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.920
84523838|NCT02445287|168801083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
84523839|NCT02445287|168801084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval = (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
84523840|NCT02445287|168801085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
84523841|NCT03750695|168801102|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated measures linear regression||||<0.05
84523842|NCT01557920|168801138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||pathological swallows under anesthesia vs. wakefulness: 25.9% vs. 4.9%|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84523843|NCT01557920|168801138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of pathological swallow-rate increase by carbon-dioxide during anesthesia and wakefulness||||<0.001
84523844|NCT01557920|168801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The number of swallows per hour: 1.7±3.3 during anesthesia vs. 28.0±22.3 during wakefulness|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84523845|NCT00496262|168801153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.0001||90.0|||||2-sided, 1-sample t-test||The entire ITT population was used for a conservative analysis of the mean change in MCF. The mean change was set to 0 for any subject with missing MCF data.|This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between MCF pre-infusion and 1 hour post-infusion.||||<0.0001
84523846|NCT00559364|168801199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group and pooled site as fixed effects and wash-out phase CFA% value as covariate was used.||||<0.0001
84523847|NCT01235442|168801202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI(=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure(Yes or no).||||2.87|1.46|<0.001
84523848|NCT01235442|168801203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.75||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.75|1.40|<0.001
84523849|NCT01235442|168801204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.64||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.64|1.21|0.009
84523850|NCT01235442|168801205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No) with with modified ridit scores.||||||0.006
84523851|NCT01235442|168801206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|van Elteren test|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||||<0.001
84523852|NCT01235442|168801207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.85||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is adjusted for baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF (Yes or No).||||1.85|0.92|0.135
84523853|NCT01235442|168801208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||1.87|0.96|0.135
84523854|NCT02663882|168801237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.503
84523855|NCT02663882|168801238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.765
84523856|NCT02663882|168801239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.717
84523857|NCT02663882|168801240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.302
84523858|NCT04458467|168801241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
84523859|NCT04458467|168801242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84523860|NCT00551616|168801273|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.98|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.58%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||2.98|1.04|<0.001
84523861|NCT00551616|168801273|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.94|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.43%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||3.94|1.68|<0.001
84523862|NCT03314662|168801281|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.27|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||1.27|1.05|
84523863|NCT03314662|168801281|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log 10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - performed for strain A/H3N2||1.09|0.90|
84523864|NCT03314662|168801281|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Yamagata||1.08|0.90|
84523865|NCT03314662|168801281|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Victoria||1.08|0.89|
84523866|NCT03314662|168801282|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.76||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||7.76|-1.30|
84523867|NCT03314662|168801282|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.96||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H3N2||4.96|-4.23|
84523868|NCT03314662|168801282|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.27||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Yamagata||3.27|-5.13|
84523869|NCT03314662|168801282|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|Other [SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.55||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Victoria||2.55|-5.07|
84540692|NCT05736861|168832640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.25|0.82|
84523870|NCT03314662|168801285|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the Full Analysis Set (FAS) Immunogenicity comprised all subjects who were randomized, received at least 1 study vaccination, and provided immunogenicity data at Day 1 and Day 22.|GMT ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.7||||||B/Yamagata strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.70|0.58|
84472509|NCT01106625|168696298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-13.8|0.571
84472510|NCT01106625|168696299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.9|0.153
84472511|NCT01106625|168696299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||ANCOVA|||||6.8|-0.1|0.056
84472512|NCT01100307|168696301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|12.28||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories)||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||12.28|1.92|0.0003
84472513|NCT01100307|168696302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.94||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 6: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||3.94|1.10|0.0006
84472514|NCT01100307|168696302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.58||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 12: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||5.58|1.81|0.0001
84472515|NCT01100307|168696302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.65||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 18: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||4.65|0.65|0.0096
84472516|NCT01100307|168696302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.32||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 24: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||6.32|2.19|<0.0001
84472517|NCT03855137|168696345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.33||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.33|-3.48|0.0001
84472518|NCT03855137|168696345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.75||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.75|-2.89|0.0009
84472519|NCT03855137|168696346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.16||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.16|-3.31|0.0001
84472520|NCT03855137|168696346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.59|||MMRM|Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.59|-2.72|0.0024
84472521|NCT03855137|168696347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-1.26||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.26|-3.38|0.0001
84472522|NCT03855137|168696347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.81||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.81|-2.93|0.0009
84523871|NCT03314662|168801285|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|GMT ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||||||B/Victoria Strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.78|0.64|
84523872|NCT03314662|168801288|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-8.81||||||B/Yamagata Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-1 - aQIV).||-8.81|-15.12|
84523873|NCT03314662|168801288|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-8.11||||||B/Victoria Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-2 - aQIV)||-8.11|-13.54|
84523874|NCT01867606|168801296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
84523875|NCT01867606|168801298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
84523876|NCT00292227|168801315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||||90.0|-2.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.12|-2.63|
84523877|NCT00292227|168801316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||||90.0|-2.21|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.19|-2.21|
84523878|NCT00292227|168801317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||||90.0|-1.12|2.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.80|-1.12|
84523879|NCT00292227|168801318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||||90.0|-1.8|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.80|
84523880|NCT00292227|168801319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||90.0|-2.25|2.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.02|-2.25|
84523881|NCT00292227|168801320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||90.0|-2.14|2.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.28|-2.14|
84523882|NCT00292227|168801321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||||90.0|-2.84|1.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.72|-2.84|
84540693|NCT05736861|168832640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.23|0.78|
84523883|NCT00292227|168801322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||||90.0|-2.29|1.78|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.78|-2.29|
84523884|NCT00292227|168801323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||||90.0|-3.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.91|-3.25|
84523885|NCT00292227|168801324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||||90.0|-0.34|3.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.73|-0.34|
84523886|NCT00292227|168801325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||||90.0|-1.7|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.70|
84523887|NCT00292227|168801326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||90.0|-0.65|3.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.96|-0.65|
84523888|NCT00292227|168801327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||||90.0|-1.78|1.36|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.36|-1.78|
84523889|NCT00292227|168801328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||90.0|-2.37|1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.30|-2.37|
84523890|NCT00292227|168801329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||||90.0|-2.3|1.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.49|-2.30|
84523891|NCT00292227|168801330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||||90.0|-2.34|1.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.35|-2.34|
84540905|NCT03440840|168832888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of estimated marginal means, Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.37
84523892|NCT00292227|168801331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||||90.0|-1.76|2.17|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.17|-1.76|
84523893|NCT00292227|168801332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||||90.0|-2.99|0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.53|-2.99|
84523894|NCT00292227|168801333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||||90.0|-3.87|0.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.63|-3.87|
84523895|NCT00292227|168801334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||||90.0|-2.55|0.93|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.93|-2.55|
84523896|NCT00292227|168801335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||||90.0|-2.13|1.39|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.39|-2.13|
84523897|NCT00292227|168801336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.6|1.25|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.25|-2.60|
84523898|NCT00292227|168801337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||||90.0|-0.69|3.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.03|-0.69|
84523899|NCT00292227|168801338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||||90.0|-1.14|2.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.73|-1.14|
84523900|NCT00292227|168801339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||||90.0|-2.33|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.50|-2.33|
84540906|NCT03440840|168832889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences between estimated marginal means, Tukey correction for multiple comparisons.|||||0.61
84523901|NCT00292227|168801340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||||95.0|-1.04|1.71|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.71|-1.04|
84472523|NCT03855137|168696348|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.09|-3.20|0.0002
84472524|NCT03855137|168696348|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.67||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.67|-2.78|0.0024
84472525|NCT03855137|168696349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.63||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.63|-3.63|0.0001
84472526|NCT03855137|168696349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.13||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.13|-3.13|0.0009
84472527|NCT03855137|168696350|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.53||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.53|-3.52|0.0002
84472528|NCT03855137|168696350|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.1|||MMRM|||||-1.10|-3.09|0.0024
84472529|NCT03855137|168696351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.14||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.14|1.45|0.0003
84472530|NCT03855137|168696351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.0||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.00|1.38|0.0009
84472531|NCT03855137|168696352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.98||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.98|1.38|0.0006
84472532|NCT03855137|168696352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.79||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.79|1.29|0.0009
84472533|NCT03855137|168696353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|11.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||11.09|3.77|0.0006
84472534|NCT03855137|168696353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.41||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||9.41|2.15|0.0024
84472535|NCT03855137|168696354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-2.95||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.95|-6.75|0.0003
84472536|NCT03855137|168696354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.49||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.49|-5.27|0.0009
84523902|NCT00292227|168801341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||||95.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.68|-0.72|
84523903|NCT00292227|168801342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51||||||95.0|0.3|2.73|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||2.73|0.30|
84523904|NCT00292227|168801343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5||||||95.0|11.78|15.22|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||15.22|11.78|
84523905|NCT00292227|168801344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02||||||95.0|9.12|12.93|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.93|9.12|
84523906|NCT00292227|168801345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3||||||95.0|9.94|12.67|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.67|9.94|
84523907|NCT00292227|168801346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28||||||95.0|6.85|9.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.70|6.85|
84523908|NCT00292227|168801347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||||95.0|7.57|11.02|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||11.02|7.57|
84523909|NCT00292227|168801348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.87||||||95.0|7.47|10.28|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||10.28|7.47|
84523910|NCT00292227|168801349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6||||||95.0|7.25|9.96|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.96|7.25|
84523911|NCT00292227|168801350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.52||||||95.0|6.31|8.72|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.72|6.31|
84540694|NCT05736861|168832640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.41|0.82|
84718568|NCT05601882|169188594|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.0|10.2|<0.0001
84523912|NCT00292227|168801351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.58||||||95.0|6.21|8.95|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.95|6.21|
84523913|NCT00292227|168801352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.19||||||95.0|4.94|7.45|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||7.45|4.94|
84523914|NCT00739973|168801353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-7.12|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.12|-12.81|<0.001
84523915|NCT00739973|168801354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean Difference|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.94|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.94|-7.70|0.001
84523916|NCT00739973|168801355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|-11.0|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-11.0|-16.68|<0.001
84523917|NCT00739973|168801356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.04|-10.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-10.4|-16.04|<0.001
84523918|NCT00739973|168801357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.22|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.22|-7.77|<0.001
84523919|NCT00739973|168801358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-1.19|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.19|-4.77|0.001
84523920|NCT00739973|168801359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|-6.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.87|-10.39|<0.001
84523921|NCT00739973|168801360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.40|-9.94|<0.001
84523922|NCT00739973|168801361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Sqaure Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.53|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.53|-4.14|0.011
84472537|NCT03855137|168696355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-2.43||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.43|-5.95|0.0003
84472538|NCT03855137|168696355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
84523923|NCT00739973|168801362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-9.05|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.05|-12.57|<0.001
84523924|NCT00739973|168801363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-3.03|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.03|-6.56|<0.001
84523925|NCT00739973|168801364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.18|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-2.18|-5.78|<0.001
84523926|NCT00739973|168801365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-7.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.87|-11.41|<0.001
84523927|NCT00739973|168801366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.51|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.51|-8.00|<0.001
84523928|NCT00739973|168801367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.83|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.83|-4.42|0.004
84523929|NCT00739973|168801368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-9.35|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.35|-12.85|<0.001
84523930|NCT00739973|168801369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-0.07|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.07|-5.73|0.056
84472539|NCT03855137|168696356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.93|-4.67|0.0006
84472540|NCT03855137|168696356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.3|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.30|-4.02|0.0024
84472541|NCT00471445|168696360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.201|||ANCOVA|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.201|-0.548|0.363
84472542|NCT02065622|168696361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.0|-2.0|0.269
84472543|NCT02065622|168696361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.447
84472544|NCT02065622|168696361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||6.6|-2.0|0.301
84472545|NCT02065622|168696361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.502
84472546|NCT02065622|168696362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.6|-0.8|0.069
84472547|NCT02065622|168696362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.085
84472548|NCT02065622|168696362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.4|0.2|0.045
84472549|NCT02065622|168696362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.106
84472550|NCT02065622|168696363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.5|-2.0|0.181
84472551|NCT02065622|168696363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||9.7|-2.0|0.200
84472552|NCT02065622|168696364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.6|-2.6|0.300
84472553|NCT02065622|168696364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.4|-2.2|0.254
84472554|NCT02065622|168696365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.1|-0.0|0.050
84472555|NCT02065622|168696365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||11.0|-1.4|0.131
84472556|NCT02065622|168696366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.1|0.5|0.035
84472557|NCT02065622|168696366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||15.1|2.3|0.008
84523931|NCT00739973|168801370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001||95.0|-19.91|-14.3|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-14.3|-19.91|<0.001
84523932|NCT00739973|168801371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-3.62|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.62|-9.29|<0.001
84523933|NCT00739973|168801372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.11|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region asntwo factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.11|-8.90|<0.001
84523934|NCT00739973|168801373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-17.88|<0.001
84523935|NCT00739973|168801374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-5.02|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-5.02|-10.63|<0.001
84523936|NCT00739973|168801375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.73|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||0.73|-5.04|0.143
84523937|NCT00739973|168801376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|-13.6|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-13.6|-19.21|<0.001
84523938|NCT01989676|168801380|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the risk ratio of ORR of PF-05280014 versus that of trastuzumab-EU by Week 25 (+/-14 days) was within a pre-specified margin of 0.80 to 1.25.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.049||||||Risk Ratio and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are unstratified and based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.049|0.842|
84523939|NCT01989676|168801381|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the PFS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.26|0.80|0.505
84523940|NCT01989676|168801382|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the DOR distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.27|0.67|0.304
84523941|NCT01989676|168801383|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.929||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.316||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the OS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.316|0.656|0.339
84523942|NCT02190279|168801396|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANOVA|||At 1 hour post injection.||||0.0033
84523943|NCT02190279|168801396|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||At 2 hour post injection.||||0.012
84523944|NCT02190279|168801397|EQUIVALENCE|One way analysis variance.|||||<|0.05|||||||variance|||||||<0.05
84523945|NCT04403399|168801420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
84523946|NCT04403399|168801421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
84523947|NCT04403399|168801422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
84523948|NCT01115855|168801439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.36|0.53|
84523949|NCT01115855|168801440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.31|0.56|
84523950|NCT01115855|168801441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.87||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.87|0.81|
84523951|NCT01115855|168801442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.24||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||6.24|0.92|
84523952|NCT01115855|168801443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.44|
84523953|NCT01115855|168801444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.25|0.45|
84523954|NCT01115855|168801445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.45|
84523955|NCT01115855|168801446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=-50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.33|0.49|
84523956|NCT01115855|168801447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.10|0.45|
84523957|NCT01115855|168801448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.28|0.53|
84523958|NCT01115855|168801449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.53||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.53|0.18|
84523959|NCT01115855|168801450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.85||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||17.85|0.07|
84523960|NCT01115855|168801451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.56||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||11.56|0.39|
84523961|NCT01115855|168801452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.66||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||5.66|0.05|
84523962|NCT01115855|168801453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.04||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||8.04|0.16|
84523963|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.92|-9.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-9.94|-195.92|
84523964|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-95.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.51|-7.04||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-7.04|-184.51|
84523965|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-125.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.5|-54.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-54.68|-195.50|
84523966|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.77|-31.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-31.11|-232.77|
84523967|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-132.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-240.94|-23.84||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-23.84|-240.94|
84523968|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-117.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.49|-12.87||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-12.87|-221.49|
84523969|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-101.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.36|64.36||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.36|-267.36|
84523970|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-110.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.49|85.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||85.93|-307.49|
84523971|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-119.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|158.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2137.82|1898.59||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1898.59|-2137.82|
84523972|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-144.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2692.95|2403.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||2403.76|-2692.95|
84523973|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|966.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2131.88|1977.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1977.37|-2131.88|
84523974|NCT01115855|168801455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.61|-32.0||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-32.00|-172.61|
84523975|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-364.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|763.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1863.06|1133.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1133.76|-1863.06|
84540695|NCT05736861|168832640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.01|0.57|
84523976|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-247.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|711.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1642.43|1148.14||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1148.14|-1642.43|
84523977|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-370.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|699.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1742.51|1002.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1002.22|-1742.51|
84523978|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-664.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11059.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141189.93|139861.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||139861.75|-141189.93|
84523979|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-414.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3071.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39445.52|38615.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||38615.54|-39445.52|
84523980|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|23.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10794.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21649.89|21697.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21697.60|-21649.89|
84523981|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-245.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6698.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85358.69|84868.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||84868.22|-85358.69|
84523982|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|170.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10730.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21375.69|21716.66||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21716.66|-21375.69|
84523983|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-58.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12765.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30160.25|30042.7||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||30042.70|-30160.25|
84523984|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-212.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11073.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22723.82|22299.33||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||22299.33|-22723.82|
84523985|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11486.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146026.28|145865.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||145865.96|-146026.28|
84523986|NCT01115855|168801456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-187.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|240.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-662.67|287.23||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||287.23|-662.67|
84523987|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||3.96|-0.55|
84523988|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.42||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.42|0.07|
84523989|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.60|1.11|
84523990|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.9||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.90|1.81|
84523991|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|8.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.94|2.36|
84523992|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.75|0.12|
84523993|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.25|-0.06|
84523994|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.44|0.86|
84523995|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.68|0.02|
84523996|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||9.25|0.08|
84523997|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|10.07||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||10.07|-1.82|
84523998|NCT01115855|168801457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.8||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.80|0.56|
84523999|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-61.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.44|63.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||63.37|-186.44|
84524000|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.27|81.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||81.39|-131.27|
84524001|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.28|72.13||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||72.13|-97.28|
84524002|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.25|64.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.31|-221.25|
84524003|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-79.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.88|52.63||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||52.63|-211.88|
84524004|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.01|268.71||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||268.71|-230.01|
84524005|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.21|152.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 29: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||152.11|-194.21|
84524006|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.55|115.97||||||Change from baseline at Month 33: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||115.97|-197.55|
84524007|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.11|158.15||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.15|-247.11|
84524008|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-238.31|182.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||182.93|-238.31|
84524009|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.17|158.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 48: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.24|-221.17|
84524010|NCT01115855|168801458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|54.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||54.83|-58.91|
84524011|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.37|-0.21|
84524012|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.30|-0.34|
84524013|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 13: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.39|-0.27|
84524014|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.45||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.45|-0.41|
84524015|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.24|-0.56|
84524016|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.25|-0.55|
84524017|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.31|-0.49|
84524018|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.44|-0.57|
84524019|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.54|-0.50|
84524020|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.83|-0.44|
84524021|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.89||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.89|-0.63|
84524022|NCT01115855|168801460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11||||||Change from baseline at Week 4 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.11|-0.36|
84524023|NCT00966381|168801472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84524024|NCT00966381|168801473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84524025|NCT00966381|168801474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84524026|NCT02960438|168801486|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|2.2||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|24.46|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.46|-19.96|0.374
84524027|NCT02960438|168801486|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|11.1||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.64|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.64|-7.42|0.102
84524028|NCT02960438|168801486|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|9.3||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|27.77|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.77|-9.25|0.188
84524029|NCT03686150|168801508|OTHER|This was a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D.||||||||||||||||Part 1 of this study was to perform a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D in children who are overweight or obese and have asthma. Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|||
84524030|NCT03686150|168801509|OTHER|This is one-sample test of proportion testing the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants with 25(OH)D level \>= 40 ng/mL is 50%.||||||0.0001|||||||z-test|||This is a one-sample test of proportion.||||0.0001
84524031|NCT03404401|168801529|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84524032|NCT01844531|168801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.529|102.52||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.520|93.529|0.0000
84524033|NCT01844531|168801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.57|102.65||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with all effects as fixed.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.65|93.57|<.0001
84524034|NCT01844531|168801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|106.633||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500 , PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||106.633|99.077|0.0000
84524035|NCT01844531|168801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.36|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 (T2) : Empa5 + Met500 (R2), PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.36|98.78|<.0001
84524036|NCT01844531|168801535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.542|104.628|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.628|88.542|0.0006
84524037|NCT01844531|168801535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.41|105.68|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 (T1) : Empa12.5 + Met500 (R1), PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.68|89.41|0.0004
84524038|NCT01844531|168801535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.772|102.093|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.093|91.772|0.0000
84524039|NCT01844531|168801535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|102.32|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.32|91.79|<.0001
84524040|NCT01844531|168801536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|102.686|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.686|93.530|0.0000
84524041|NCT01844531|168801536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|102.81|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.81|93.55|<.0001
84524042|NCT01844531|168801536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.146|106.522|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.522|99.146|0.0000
84524043|NCT01844531|168801536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|106.25|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.25|98.85|<.0001
84524044|NCT01844531|168801537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.882|109.555|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.555|99.882|0.0000
84524045|NCT01844531|168801537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.76|109.53|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.53|99.76|<.0001
84524046|NCT01844531|168801537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.917|108.258|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.258|97.917|0.0000
84524047|NCT01844531|168801537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.72|108.14|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.14|97.72|<.0001
84524048|NCT01844531|168801538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.056|100.819|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.819|89.056|0.0001
84524049|NCT01844531|168801538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|100.54|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.54|88.64|0.0001
84524050|NCT01844531|168801538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.006|100.034|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.034|88.006|0.0002
84524051|NCT01844531|168801538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|100.43|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.43|87.94|0.0003
84524052|NCT01844531|168801539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.256|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.256|88.000|0.0008
84524053|NCT01844531|168801539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.78|105.41|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.41|88.78|0.0006
84524054|NCT01844531|168801539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.199|100.934|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.934|91.199|0.0000
84524055|NCT01844531|168801539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|101.19|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||101.19|91.28|<.0001
84524056|NCT04894084|168801541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.49|||Poisson loglinear model|||||0.49|0.07|<0.001
84524057|NCT04894084|168801542|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0||"Low degree + Very low degree / Not at all were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."||99|72|<0.0001
84524058|NCT04894084|168801543|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0||"Some degree, High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For reliability answered on a 5-point scale the answers some, high, or very high degree was considered acceptable and grouped against answers of 'low or very low' degree of reliability.||93|56|0.0106
84540696|NCT05736861|168832641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.32|0.92|
84524059|NCT04894084|168801544|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||"Same, Better and Much better were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. For ability to move with test product it was tested if the proportion evaluating same or better was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. The answers of 'same, better or much better' was grouped against the answers of 'worse or much worse' ability to move.||100|78|<0.0001
84524060|NCT04894084|168801545|OTHER|Users worry of leakage given on a 5-point scale was analyzed by a proportional odds ratio model taken the paired design into consideration to compare the results from V1 and V2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional odds ratio model|||||||<0.001
84524061|NCT04894084|168801546|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
84524062|NCT04894084|168801547|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|65.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|84.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||84|43|0.21
84524063|NCT04894084|168801548|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
84524064|NCT04894084|168801549|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.093
84524065|NCT04894084|168801550|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion with a positive response was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||100|78|<0.0001
84524066|NCT04894084|168801551|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion answering I felt more confident was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||99|72|<0.0001
84524067|NCT04894084|168801552|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|34.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|57.0||"Yes, to the better was tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||57|16|0.21
84524068|NCT04894084|168801553|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|47.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||69|27|1.00
84524069|NCT04894084|168801554|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|56.5||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|77.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||77|34|0.678
84524070|NCT04894084|168801556|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0||"High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.0931
84524071|NCT04894084|168801557|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|87.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|97.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||97|66|0.0005
84524072|NCT01573533|168801562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.49
84524073|NCT01573533|168801563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.41
84524074|NCT01573533|168801564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.06
84524075|NCT00255151|168801601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84524076|NCT00255151|168801601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84524077|NCT00255151|168801601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
84524078|NCT00255151|168801602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84524079|NCT00255151|168801602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84524080|NCT00255151|168801602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
84524081|NCT00255151|168801604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84524082|NCT00255151|168801604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84524083|NCT00255151|168801604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
84524084|NCT00255151|168801605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84524085|NCT00255151|168801605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84524086|NCT00255151|168801605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
84524087|NCT01239472|168801628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84524088|NCT01239472|168801629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84524089|NCT00263887|168801632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The main effect ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline to endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment and center as fixed factors, change in logarithm of total lung volume and baseline measurement as covariates.||||0.049
84524090|NCT01028911|168801701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|128.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|217.21||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||217.21|75.90|
84524091|NCT01028911|168801702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|119.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|189.16||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||189.16|75.90|
84524092|NCT01175473|168801741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-154.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.3|-128.54||Linear fixed effects model with fixed terms for treatment, study site and GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) at baseline as covariate was used (using Statistical Analysis System \[SAS®\] PROC MIXED procedure).|Linear fixed effects model|No alpha adjustment was performed.||To detect a difference of 100 or 150 h\*mg/dL in change from baseline to Day 28 in GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) between lixisenatide and liraglutide, 60 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 170 or 250 h\*mg/dL, respectively, with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-128.54|-180.30|<0.0001
84524093|NCT02630316|168801751|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|21.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|37.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||37.0|7.0|0.0043
84524094|NCT02630316|168801752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84524095|NCT02630316|168801753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||p-value is calculated with log-rank test stratified by baseline 6MWD category.|Log Rank||p-value was 0.0202 for the proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are calculated with proportional hazards model with treatment and Baseline 6MWD (continuous) as explanatory variables.|||0.92|0.40|0.0410
84524096|NCT02630316|168801754|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|20.0||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category|ANCOVA|||||34.0|7.0|0.0041
84524097|NCT02630316|168801755|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|15.0||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||29.0|0.0|0.0432
84524098|NCT05070390|168801763|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.44|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.44|0.62|
84524099|NCT05070390|168801764|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|4.83|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||4.83|0.55|
84524100|NCT05070390|168801765|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.99|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.99|0.70|
84524101|NCT05070390|168801768|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.62|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.62|0.41|
84524102|NCT05070390|168801769|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.42|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.42|0.60|
84524103|NCT05070390|168801772|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
84524104|NCT05070390|168801773|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
84524105|NCT05070390|168801774|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.13|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.13|0.13|
84524106|NCT02412722|168801777|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.76||||||||0.76|0.46|
84524107|NCT02412722|168801778|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.36||||||||1.36|0.59|
84524108|NCT02412722|168801779|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.49||||||||1.49|0.72|
84524109|NCT02412722|168801783|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.47||||||||1.47|0.78|
84524110|NCT02412722|168801784|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.68||||||||1.68|0.75|
84524111|NCT02412722|168801785|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.26||||||||1.26|0.67|
84524112|NCT03297294|168801814|SUPERIORITY|at week 12|least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.4|0.101
84524113|NCT03297294|168801815|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||At week 12||0.2|-1.3|0.168
84524114|NCT03297294|168801819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.9|0.7|0.255
84524115|NCT03297294|168801820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.6|0.8|0.100
84524116|NCT00605917|168801853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was starting dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of starting dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84524117|NCT00605917|168801854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.002
84524118|NCT00605917|168801855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was family history of psychiatric disorder. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without family history of psychiatric disorder in the participants of responders."||||0.032
84524119|NCT00605917|168801856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was smoking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of smoking status in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84524120|NCT00605917|168801857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84524121|NCT00605917|168801858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.001
84524122|NCT00605917|168801859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline in the participants of responders."||||0.028
84524123|NCT00605917|168801860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84524124|NCT00605917|168801861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."|Chi-squared|not adjusted, p=0.050||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.030
84524125|NCT00605917|168801862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.013
84524126|NCT00605917|168801863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.004
84524127|NCT00605917|168801864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was drinking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between five types of drinking status in the participants of responders."||||0.004
84524128|NCT01610063|168801865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for QIDS-C16||||<0.0001
84524129|NCT01610063|168801866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for HAMD-17||||<0.0001
84524130|NCT01610063|168801867|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for PHQ-9||||0.002
84524131|NCT00925301|168801878|SUPERIORITY||Difference|12.5||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex|The difference between the percentage of successes between migalastat and placebo treatment groups|||37.3|-13.4|0.2996
84524132|NCT00925301|168801881|OTHER|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach with fixed effects of treatment, time (Month 6 and Month 12), mutation type (amenable or non-amenable), time by treatment interaction, time by mutation type interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix to account for repeated measures within a participant was assumed.||||||0.014||||||Significant at the 0.050 level|MMRM|||||||0.014
84524133|NCT00925301|168801882|OTHER||Difference LSMeans|-0.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significant at the 0.010 level|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in the average number of kidney ICs was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with covariate adjustment for the baseline value and factors for treatment group and the treatment by baseline interaction.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0078
84524134|NCT01117766|168801892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.92|-1.29|0.7319
84524135|NCT01117766|168801892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.57|-1.61|0.3404
84524136|NCT01117766|168801893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.872||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.2|45.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||45.56|-70.20|0.6539
84524137|NCT01117766|168801893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.807||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|30.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||30.72|-78.54|0.3678
84524138|NCT01117766|168801894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.35|-1.84|0.0071
84524139|NCT01117766|168801894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.19|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.19|-1.36|0.1294
84524140|NCT01117766|168801895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.298||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.12|-6.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-6.96|-116.12|0.0300
84524141|NCT01117766|168801895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.501||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.67|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||7.55|-105.67|0.0844
84524142|NCT01117766|168801896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.14|-0.83|0.7506
84524143|NCT01117766|168801896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.64|-0.61|0.9673
84524144|NCT01117766|168801897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.5502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.78|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.78|-0.99|0.5502
84524145|NCT01117766|168801897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.96|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.96|-1.15|0.8536
84524146|NCT01117766|168801898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.34|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.34|-2.73|0.0132
84524147|NCT01117766|168801898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.05|-1.95|0.0403
84524148|NCT01117766|168801899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.74|-1.12|0.6631
84524149|NCT01117766|168801899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.59|-2.48|0.0022
84524150|NCT01117766|168801900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.53|-2.60|0.1753
84524151|NCT01117766|168801900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.27|-2.75|0.0198
84524152|NCT01117766|168801901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.292||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|8.54|||ANCOVA|||||8.54|-17.13|0.4999
84524153|NCT05766787|168801905|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, sequence, visit, and lens by visit interaction) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID022821 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.01||
84524154|NCT00438659|168801906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84524155|NCT00948792|168801935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (30-minutes post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.8
84524156|NCT00948792|168801936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (6-hour post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.26
84540697|NCT05736861|168832641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.83|
84524157|NCT00948792|168801937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the change in post-transfusion platelet counts (30 minutes and 6 hours post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.09
84524158|NCT00442546|168801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
84718569|NCT05601882|169188595|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||16.9|9.6|<0.0001
84718570|NCT05601882|169188596|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
84718571|NCT05601882|169188597|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||18.8|9.4|<0.0001
84718572|NCT05601882|169188598|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.3|13.9|<0.0001
84718573|NCT05601882|169188599|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||13.1|5.4|<0.0001
84718574|NCT00115934|169188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.013||95.0|-17.8|-2.4|||Fisher Exact||The risk difference is defined as the percent of subjects with events in the RVPAS group minus the percent of subjects with events in the MBTS group.|The original sample size of 456 was based on 85% power, with a two-sided, two sample test of proportions (anticipating 28% MBTS subjects with events, 16% RVPAS subjects with events), and an alpha of 0.05. The critical p-value was 0.044 because four interim analyses were performed. The target trial size was increased from 466 to 554 to account for crossovers. The stopping boundary was crossed at the 4th interim look; however, the trial was not halted, because all subjects were enrolled.||-2.4|-17.8|0.013
84718575|NCT00115934|169188601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
84718576|NCT00115934|169188602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
84718577|NCT00115934|169188603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
84718578|NCT00115934|169188604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
84718579|NCT00115934|169188605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84718580|NCT00115934|169188606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.004
84718581|NCT00115934|169188607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
84718582|NCT00115934|169188608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84718583|NCT00115934|169188609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
84718584|NCT00115934|169188610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
84718585|NCT00115934|169188611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84718586|NCT00115934|169188612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84718587|NCT00115934|169188613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in the poisson regression was the log of the number of patients in each treatment arm.||||||0.003
84718588|NCT00115934|169188614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.20
84718589|NCT00115934|169188615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.002
84718590|NCT00115934|169188616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.03
84718591|NCT00747565|169188618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETDRS line scores used for statistical comparisons with mean Snellen values reported above.||||<0.0001
84726063|NCT01020487|169204413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-88.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.04|-35.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-35.01|-142.04|0.002
84524159|NCT00442546|168801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the ANOVA model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
84524160|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.426||0.4091||95.0|-54.332|22.203|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.203|-54.332|0.4091
84524161|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.388||0.4234||95.0|-53.74|22.645|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.645|-53.740|0.4234
84524162|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.517||0.0284||95.0|-68.972|-3.884|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||-3.884|-68.972|0.0284
84524163|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.0816||95.0|-61.632|3.663|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||3.663|-61.632|0.0816
84524164|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.752||0.8147||95.0|-20.446|25.964|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||25.964|-20.446|0.8147
84524165|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.589||0.7187||95.0|-27.064|18.7|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||18.700|-27.064|0.7187
84524166|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.148||0.7416||95.0|-23.516|16.804|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||16.804|-23.516|0.7416
84524167|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.283||0.2577||95.0|-29.017|7.869|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||7.869|-29.017|0.2577
84524168|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.387||0.9982||95.0|-36.431|36.352|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||36.352|-36.431|0.9982
84524169|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.184||0.5552||95.0|-59.756|33.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||33.107|-59.756|0.5552
84524170|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.655||0.2032||95.0|-118.463|38.463|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||38.463|-118.463|0.2032
84718592|NCT03777657|169188619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94||The superiority boundary at the primary overall survival analysis was predefined using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary approximated using the Hwang-Shih-DeCani spending function at 0.0092.|One-sided Log Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank Test stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis (yes vs no).|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.94|0.59|0.0056
84524171|NCT00442546|168801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.661||0.0348||95.0|-258.354|-18.646|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||-18.646|-258.354|0.0348
84524172|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.499||0.3602||95.0|-4.79|13.062|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||13.062|-4.790|0.3602
84524173|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.637||0.7352||95.0|-7.626|10.771|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||10.771|-7.626|0.7352
84726064|NCT01020487|169204414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.327
84726065|NCT01020487|169204415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.194
84524174|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.156||0.6435||95.0|-9.392|15.111|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.111|-9.392|0.6435
84524175|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361||0.6123||95.0|-9.422|15.895|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.895|-9.422|0.6123
84524176|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.663||0.6356||95.0|-11.683|18.984|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||18.984|-11.683|0.6356
84524177|NCT00442546|168801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.747||0.907||95.0|-14.593|16.411|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||16.411|-14.593|0.9070
84524178|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1190.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.062||0.0656||95.0|-2754.304|373.004|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||373.004|-2754.304|0.0656
84524179|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.1||0.9277||95.0|-1789.352|1821.752|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||1821.752|-1789.352|0.9277
84524180|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.692||0.935||95.0|-263.972|275.515|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||275.515|-263.972|0.9350
84524181|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.33||0.6139||95.0|-164.494|216.98|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||216.980|-164.494|0.6139
84718593|NCT03777657|169188620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92||The one sided P value boundary for superiority of overall survival in all randomized participants at final analysis was 0.0226 based on 776 actual observed deaths.|One-Sided Log-Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank test stratified by region (Asia vs Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression (\<5% vs ≥5%), and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.92|0.70|0.0011
84718594|NCT03777657|169188621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.83|0.56|
84718595|NCT03777657|169188622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||||Odds ratio between arms weas calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||2.04|1.03|
84472558|NCT02065622|168696367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.6|-1.3|0.160
84472559|NCT02065622|168696367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.1|-1.2|0.166
84472560|NCT02065622|168696368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.7|1.9|0.011
84472561|NCT02065622|168696368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.0|0.9|0.025
84472562|NCT02065622|168696369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.9|-2.5|0.218
84472563|NCT02065622|168696369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.4||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.8|-4.0|0.456
84472564|NCT02065622|168696370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.5||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.8|-1.7|0.098
84472565|NCT02065622|168696370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.5|-0.7|0.066
84472566|NCT02065622|168696371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|21.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.||Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||35.4|7.6|0.002
84472567|NCT02065622|168696371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|19.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||32.7|6.6|0.003
84472568|NCT02065622|168696372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.0|-1.9|0.093
84472569|NCT02065622|168696372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-1.7|0.088
84524182|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.776||95.0|-25.451|19.611|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||19.611|-25.451|0.7760
84524183|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.833||0.819||95.0|-17.066|13.846|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||13.846|-17.066|0.8190
84524184|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|390.483||0.8603||95.0|-861.171|722.7|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||722.700|-861.171|0.8603
84524185|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.376||0.9642||95.0|-796.945|762.155|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||762.155|-796.945|0.9642
84524186|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|484.957||0.8476||95.0|-880.865|1068.251|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1068.251|-880.865|0.8476
84524187|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|457.374||0.8185||95.0|-813.584|1024.67|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1024.670|-813.584|0.8185
84524188|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-682.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|495.241||0.1792||95.0|-1696.759|332.15|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||332.150|-1696.759|0.1792
84524189|NCT00442546|168801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|501.808||0.6216||95.0|-1278.347|777.469|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||777.469|-1278.347|0.6216
84524190|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-494.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.253||0.1996||95.0|-1452.72|464.72|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||464.720|-1452.720|0.1996
84524191|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-195.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.958||0.6335||95.0|-1369.338|979.038|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||979.038|-1369.338|0.6335
84524192|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.355||0.929||95.0|-657.992|603.41|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||603.410|-657.992|0.9290
84524193|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.969||0.8937||95.0|-501.241|570.815|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||570.815|-501.241|0.8937
84718596|NCT03777657|169188623|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.90|0.67|
84524194|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|198.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|491.153||0.6912||95.0|-847.93|1245.804|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||1245.804|-847.930|0.6912
84524195|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|349.047||0.6024||95.0|-558.248|929.704|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||929.704|-558.248|0.6024
84524196|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-256.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|407.391||0.5372||95.0|-1120.551|606.709|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||606.709|-1120.551|0.5372
84524197|NCT00442546|168801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-287.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|328.227||0.3948||95.0|-982.843|408.778|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||408.778|-982.843|0.3948
84524198|NCT00442546|168801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1169.654||0.9341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14983.36|14740.362|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||14740.362|-14983.36|0.9341
84524199|NCT00442546|168801968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|302.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|302.9|302.9|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||302.900|302.900|<0.0001
84524200|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1661||95.0|-0.293|0.051|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.051|-0.293|0.1661
84524201|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3604||95.0|-0.254|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.093|-0.254|0.3604
84524202|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.1299||95.0|-0.29|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.037|-0.290|0.1299
84524203|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1167||95.0|-0.29|0.032|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.032|-0.290|0.1167
84718597|NCT03777657|169188624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||||Odds ratio between arms were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||1.72|1.03|
84524204|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5271||95.0|-0.234|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.234|0.5271
84524205|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6731||95.0|-0.215|0.139|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.139|-0.215|0.6731
84524206|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5936||95.0|-0.247|0.142|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.142|-0.247|0.5936
84524207|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8368||95.0|-0.206|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.167|-0.206|0.8368
84524208|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.8659||95.0|-0.242|0.204|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.204|-0.242|0.8659
84524209|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.7151||95.0|-0.266|0.184|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.184|-0.266|0.7151
84524210|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2121||95.0|-0.249|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.056|-0.249|0.2121
84524211|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5607||95.0|-0.197|0.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.107|-0.197|0.5607
84524212|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.7797||95.0|-0.13|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.173|-0.130|0.7797
84524213|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.8761||95.0|-0.143|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.167|-0.143|0.8761
84524214|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8619||95.0|-0.121|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.144|-0.121|0.8619
84524215|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7256||95.0|-0.111|0.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.159|-0.111|0.7256
84524216|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8659||95.0|-0.11|0.131|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.131|-0.110|0.8659
84524217|NCT00442546|168801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0203||95.0|0.023|0.27|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.270|0.023|0.0203
84524218|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5791||95.0|-0.187|0.105|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.105|-0.187|0.5791
84524219|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6829||95.0|-0.178|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.117|-0.178|0.6829
84524220|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4516||95.0|-0.19|0.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.085|-0.190|0.4516
84524221|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3014||95.0|-0.207|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.064|-0.207|0.3014
84524222|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7628||95.0|-0.171|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.125|-0.171|0.7628
84524223|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.711||95.0|-0.176|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.176|0.7110
84524224|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7382||95.0|-0.183|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.130|-0.183|0.7382
84524225|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.6586||95.0|-0.183|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.116|-0.183|0.6586
84524226|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.7691||95.0|-0.195|0.145|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.145|-0.195|0.7691
84524227|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.507||95.0|-0.229|0.115|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.115|-0.229|0.5070
84524228|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.5802||95.0|-0.166|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.093|-0.166|0.5802
84524229|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.919||95.0|-0.122|0.136|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.136|-0.122|0.9190
84524230|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.6559||95.0|-0.09|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.143|-0.090|0.6559
84524231|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8552||95.0|-0.108|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.130|-0.108|0.8552
84524232|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6364||95.0|-0.072|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.117|-0.072|0.6364
84524233|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2127||95.0|-0.035|0.157|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.157|-0.035|0.2127
84524234|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8746||95.0|-0.086|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.101|-0.086|0.8746
84524235|NCT00442546|168801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0286||95.0|0.011|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.202|0.011|0.0286
84524236|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1078||95.0|-0.367|0.036|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.036|-0.367|0.1078
84524237|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.6406||95.0|-0.252|0.155|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.155|-0.252|0.6406
84524238|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2404||95.0|-0.289|0.073|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.073|-0.289|0.2404
84524239|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1005||95.0|-0.327|0.029|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.029|-0.327|0.1005
84524240|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2109||95.0|-0.349|0.078|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.078|-0.349|0.2109
84524241|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2399||95.0|-0.342|0.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.086|-0.342|0.2399
84524242|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2272||95.0|-0.346|0.083|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.083|-0.346|0.2272
84524243|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.4417||95.0|-0.285|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.125|-0.285|0.4417
84524244|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.9502||95.0|-0.299|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.281|-0.299|0.9502
84524245|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.355||95.0|-0.426|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.156|-0.426|0.3550
84524246|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1888||95.0|-0.304|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.060|-0.304|0.1888
84524247|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3774||95.0|-0.262|0.1|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.100|-0.262|0.3774
84524248|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9452||95.0|-0.178|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.166|-0.178|0.9452
84524249|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7663||95.0|-0.201|0.148|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.148|-0.201|0.7663
84524250|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5777||95.0|-0.104|0.186|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.186|-0.104|0.5777
84524251|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2916||95.0|-0.069|0.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.227|-0.069|0.2916
84524252|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.8389||95.0|-0.15|0.122|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.122|-0.150|0.8389
84524253|NCT00442546|168801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0734||95.0|-0.012|0.266|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.266|-0.012|0.0734
84524254|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1949||95.0|-0.276|0.057|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.057|-0.276|0.1949
84524255|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.5431||95.0|-0.22|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.116|-0.220|0.5431
84524256|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2164||95.0|-0.247|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.056|-0.247|0.2164
84524257|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.1251||95.0|-0.266|0.033|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.033|-0.266|0.1251
84524258|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4079||95.0|-0.247|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.101|-0.247|0.4079
84524259|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4562||95.0|-0.24|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.108|-0.240|0.4562
84524260|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.4526||95.0|-0.254|0.114|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.114|-0.254|0.4526
84524261|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6186||95.0|-0.221|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.132|-0.221|0.6186
84524262|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8712||95.0|-0.237|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.202|-0.237|0.8712
84524263|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4784||95.0|-0.3|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.143|-0.300|0.4784
84524264|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2635||95.0|-0.232|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.064|-0.232|0.2635
84524265|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6009||95.0|-0.187|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.108|-0.187|0.6009
84524266|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.8559||95.0|-0.13|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.156|-0.130|0.8559
84524267|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.9841||95.0|-0.147|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.144|-0.147|0.9841
84524268|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.6771||95.0|-0.095|0.146|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.146|-0.095|0.6771
84524269|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.3717||95.0|-0.067|0.178|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.178|-0.067|0.3717
84524270|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9863||95.0|-0.114|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.116|-0.114|0.9863
84524271|NCT00442546|168801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0355||95.0|0.009|0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.243|0.009|0.0355
84524272|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.8071||95.0|-0.35|0.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.449|-0.350|0.8071
84524273|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.8282||95.0|-0.359|0.447|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.447|-0.359|0.8282
84524274|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.8972||95.0|-0.353|0.403|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.403|-0.353|0.8972
84524275|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8159||95.0|-0.329|0.418|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.418|-0.329|0.8159
84524276|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8577||95.0|-0.337|0.405|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.405|-0.337|0.8577
84524277|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8158||95.0|-0.415|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-0.415|0.8158
84524278|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4243||95.0|-0.229|0.541|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.541|-0.229|0.4243
84524279|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.2742||95.0|-0.164|0.574|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.574|-0.164|0.2742
84524280|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.5569||95.0|-0.302|0.165|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.165|-0.302|0.5569
84524281|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3762||95.0|-0.13|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.336|-0.130|0.3762
84524282|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.6203||95.0|-0.229|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.383|-0.229|0.6203
84524283|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.3343||95.0|-0.155|0.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.455|-0.155|0.3343
84524284|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2213||95.0|-0.096|0.41|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.410|-0.096|0.2213
84524285|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.2863||95.0|-0.118|0.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.399|-0.118|0.2863
84524286|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.305||95.0|-0.077|0.245|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.245|-0.077|0.3050
84524287|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0155||95.0|0.039|0.368|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.368|0.039|0.0155
84524288|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9243||95.0|-0.164|0.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.181|-0.164|0.9243
84524289|NCT00442546|168801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0201||95.0|0.033|0.386|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.386|0.033|0.0201
84524290|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1537||95.0|-1.093|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.173|-1.093|0.1537
84524291|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.2208||95.0|-1.038|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.241|-1.038|0.2208
84524292|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8355||95.0|-0.707|0.572|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.572|-0.707|0.8355
84524293|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.5024||95.0|-0.875|0.43|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.430|-0.875|0.5024
84524294|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.8116||95.0|-0.489|0.624|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.624|-0.489|0.8116
84524295|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.7325||95.0|-0.667|0.469|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.469|-0.667|0.7325
84524296|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.8133||95.0|-0.614|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.614|0.8133
84524297|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.9307||95.0|-0.588|0.538|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.538|-0.588|0.9307
84524298|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.2682||95.0|-1.364|0.385|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.385|-1.364|0.2682
84524299|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.4784||95.0|-1.116|0.528|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.528|-1.116|0.4784
84524300|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.0255||95.0|0.084|1.239|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.239|0.084|0.0255
84524301|NCT00442546|168801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1591||95.0|-0.18|1.076|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.076|-0.180|0.1591
84524302|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0359||95.0|-1.52|-0.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.052|-1.520|0.0359
84524303|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0161||95.0|-1.644|-0.17|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.170|-1.644|0.0161
84524304|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.7416||95.0|-0.733|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.523|-0.733|0.7416
84524305|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3527||95.0|-0.939|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.336|-0.939|0.3527
84524306|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5419||95.0|-0.776|0.409|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.409|-0.776|0.5419
84524307|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.9333||95.0|-0.628|0.577|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.577|-0.628|0.9333
84718598|NCT03777657|169188627|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.94|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 4||3.94|-0.33|
84524308|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.142||95.0|-0.827|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.120|-0.827|0.1420
84524309|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.829||95.0|-0.535|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.429|-0.535|0.8290
84524310|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.0138||95.0|-1.989|-0.233|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||-0.233|-1.989|0.0138
84524311|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.23||95.0|-1.332|0.325|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.325|-1.332|0.2300
84524312|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5151||95.0|-0.36|0.711|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||0.711|-0.360|0.5151
84524313|NCT00442546|168801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.146||95.0|-0.155|1.022|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.022|-0.155|0.1460
84524314|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.5786||95.0|-1.17|0.655|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.655|-1.170|0.5786
84524315|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.957||95.0|-0.895|0.946|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.946|-0.895|0.9570
84524316|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.986||95.0|-0.862|0.847|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.847|-0.862|0.9860
84718599|NCT03777657|169188627|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.74|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||4.74|0.29|
84524317|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.7336||95.0|-1.021|0.72|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.720|-1.021|0.7336
84524318|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.2939||95.0|-0.336|1.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.104|-0.336|0.2939
84524319|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.4615||95.0|-0.459|1.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.008|-0.459|0.4615
84524320|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.6433||95.0|-0.845|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.523|-0.845|0.6433
84524321|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9466||95.0|-0.678|0.726|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.726|-0.678|0.9466
84524322|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.4967||95.0|-1.66|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.812|-1.660|0.4967
84524323|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.8659||95.0|-1.06|1.257|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.257|-1.060|0.8659
84524324|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.0311||95.0|0.093|1.895|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.895|0.093|0.0311
84718600|NCT03777657|169188627|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.16||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 4||3.16|-0.27|
84524325|NCT00442546|168801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.0441||95.0|0.027|1.962|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.962|0.027|0.0441
84524326|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.0284||95.0|-1.835|-0.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.104|-1.835|0.0284
84524327|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.5516||95.0|-1.141|0.611|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.611|-1.141|0.5516
84524328|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.479||95.0|-1.02|0.48|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.480|-1.020|0.4790
84524329|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9947||95.0|-0.765|0.77|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.770|-0.765|0.9947
84524330|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.8943||95.0|-0.605|0.692|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.692|-0.605|0.8943
84524331|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.9767||95.0|-0.674|0.654|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.654|-0.674|0.9767
84524332|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8117||95.0|-0.59|0.752|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.752|-0.590|0.8117
84524333|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7216||95.0|-0.818|0.567|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.567|-0.818|0.7216
84524334|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.8558||95.0|-1.286|1.07|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.070|-1.286|0.8558
84524335|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.4501||95.0|-1.53|0.685|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.685|-1.530|0.4501
84524336|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4682||95.0|-0.57|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.570|0.4682
84524337|NCT00442546|168801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5347||95.0|-0.675|1.289|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.289|-0.675|0.5347
84524338|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0613||95.0|-1.568|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.037|-1.568|0.0613
84524339|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.023||95.0|-1.741|-0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.130|-1.741|0.0230
84524340|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8306||95.0|-0.703|0.875|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.875|-0.703|0.8306
84524341|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.2814||95.0|-1.242|0.363|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.363|-1.242|0.2814
84524342|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.8637||95.0|-0.636|0.757|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.757|-0.636|0.8637
84524343|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9585||95.0|-0.727|0.689|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.689|-0.727|0.9585
84524344|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3975||95.0|-0.906|0.361|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.361|-0.906|0.3975
84524345|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.6386||95.0|-0.799|0.491|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.491|-0.799|0.6386
84524346|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.0813||95.0|-1.493|0.089|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.089|-1.493|0.0813
84524347|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.31||95.0|-1.114|0.358|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.358|-1.114|0.3100
84524348|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0231||95.0|0.118|1.545|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.545|0.118|0.0231
84524349|NCT00442546|168801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.2367||95.0|-0.311|1.237|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.237|-0.311|0.2367
84524350|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.8868||95.0|-0.947|0.82|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.820|-0.947|0.8868
84524351|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5733||95.0|-1.142|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.634|-1.142|0.5733
84524352|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.7385||95.0|-0.884|0.628|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.628|-0.884|0.7385
84524353|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8353||95.0|-0.849|0.687|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.687|-0.849|0.8353
84524354|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.5737||95.0|-0.51|0.918|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.918|-0.510|0.5737
84524355|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.364||95.0|-1.06|0.391|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.391|-1.060|0.3640
84524356|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.4315||95.0|-0.393|0.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.917|-0.393|0.4315
84524357|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.6727||95.0|-0.525|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.812|-0.525|0.6727
84524358|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.3361||95.0|-1.496|0.517|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.517|-1.496|0.3361
84524359|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.9634||95.0|-0.955|0.912|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.912|-0.955|0.9634
84524360|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2098||95.0|-0.257|1.15|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.150|-0.257|0.2098
84524361|NCT00442546|168801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.49||95.0|-0.497|1.027|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.027|-0.497|0.4900
84524362|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.9912||95.0|-1.07|1.082|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||1.082|-1.070|0.9912
84524363|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8076||95.0|-1.227|0.957|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.957|-1.227|0.8076
84524364|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6978||95.0|-0.727|1.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.085|-0.727|0.6978
84524365|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5344||95.0|-1.219|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.634|-1.219|0.5344
84524366|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.8721||95.0|-0.819|0.695|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.695|-0.819|0.8721
84524367|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3179||95.0|-1.173|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.383|-1.173|0.3179
84524368|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.8037||95.0|-0.648|0.835|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.835|-0.648|0.8037
84524369|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7731||95.0|-0.656|0.881|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.881|-0.656|0.7731
84524370|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.4461||95.0|-1.684|0.748|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.748|-1.684|0.4461
84524371|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.3568||95.0|-1.679|0.612|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.612|-1.679|0.3568
84524372|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0623||95.0|-0.032|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.032|0.0623
84472570|NCT02065622|168696373|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.9||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.2|-6.3|0.161
84472571|NCT02065622|168696373|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||30.6|-9.8|0.312
84472572|NCT02065622|168696374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||34.4|-9.7|0.272
84472573|NCT02065622|168696374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.2|-14.6|0.600
84472574|NCT02065622|168696375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|23.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||49.9|-2.3|0.074
84472575|NCT02065622|168696375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.4|-8.5|0.210
84472576|NCT02065622|168696376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|20.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|47.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||47.3|-7.3|0.151
84472577|NCT02065622|168696376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.8||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||36.8|-11.3|0.299
84472578|NCT02065622|168696377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||15.3|-6.4|0.422
84472579|NCT02065622|168696377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||13.6|-6.8|0.513
84472580|NCT02065622|168696378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.4|-4.1|0.351
84524373|NCT00442546|168801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.3529||95.0|-0.364|1.005|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.005|-0.364|0.3529
84472581|NCT02065622|168696378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.1|-3.3|0.292
84472582|NCT02065622|168696379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.4||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.1|-1.4|0.121
84472583|NCT02065622|168696379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.8|0.1|0.046
84524374|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.1448||95.0|-1.434|0.212|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.212|-1.434|0.1448
84524375|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1148||95.0|-1.494|0.163|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.163|-1.494|0.1148
84524376|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.3285||95.0|-1.35|0.454|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.454|-1.350|0.3285
84524377|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.2205||95.0|-1.49|0.346|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.346|-1.490|0.2205
84524378|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.6266||95.0|-0.958|0.578|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.578|-0.958|0.6266
84524379|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.2077||95.0|-1.284|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.281|-1.284|0.2077
84524380|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.5626||95.0|-0.982|0.536|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.536|-0.982|0.5626
84524381|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3507||95.0|-1.145|0.408|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.408|-1.145|0.3507
84524382|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.7276||95.0|-1.498|1.05|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.050|-1.498|0.7276
84524383|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.353||95.0|-1.748|0.631|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.631|-1.748|0.3530
84524384|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.0283||95.0|0.13|2.242|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||2.242|0.130|0.0283
84524385|NCT00442546|168801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.6934||95.0|-0.918|1.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.372|-0.918|0.6934
84524386|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0476||95.0|-3.089|-0.017|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.017|-3.089|0.0476
84524387|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.0237||95.0|-3.293|-0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.243|-3.293|0.0237
84524388|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4925||95.0|-0.516|1.069|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||1.069|-0.516|0.4925
84524389|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8299||95.0|-0.727|0.905|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.905|-0.727|0.8299
84524390|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
84524391|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
84524392|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.4309||95.0|-0.538|1.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.254|-0.538|0.4309
84524393|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.9778||95.0|-0.895|0.921|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.921|-0.895|0.9778
84524394|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8503||95.0|-1.411|1.706|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.706|-1.411|0.8503
84524395|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.0183||95.0|-3.364|-0.326|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.326|-3.364|0.0183
84524396|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.286||95.0|-3.598|1.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||1.316|-3.598|0.2860
84524397|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856||0.204||95.0|-7.479|2.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.060|-7.479|0.2040
84524398|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.6332||95.0|-0.722|0.44|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.440|-0.722|0.6332
84524399|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.5183||95.0|-0.402|0.794|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.794|-0.402|0.5183
84524400|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.6341||95.0|-0.75|0.458|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.458|-0.750|0.6341
84524401|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4607||95.0|-0.868|0.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.395|-0.868|0.4607
84524402|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.7499||95.0|-0.541|0.75|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.750|-0.541|0.7499
84524403|NCT00442546|168801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.8231||95.0|-0.584|0.733|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.733|-0.584|0.8231
84472584|NCT02065622|168696380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.5||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-2.9|0.159
84472585|NCT02065622|168696380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-1.8|0.109
84472586|NCT02065622|168696381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.4||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-21.0|0.903
84472587|NCT02065622|168696381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.3||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||21.3|-18.8|0.901
84472588|NCT02065622|168696382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.4|-3.0|0.160
84472589|NCT02065622|168696382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||19.1|-0.9|0.076
84472590|NCT02065622|168696383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.6|-4.0|0.207
84472591|NCT02065622|168696383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||14.8|-6.4|0.440
84472592|NCT00488618|168696390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-3.3|-8.9|<0.0001
84472593|NCT00488618|168696391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.32|-0.97|0.0001
84472594|NCT02625324|168696405|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
84472595|NCT00967226|168696414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||intention to treat analysis||||0.77
84472596|NCT02320695|168696427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.05|-0.33|0.187
84472597|NCT02320695|168696427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.04|-0.42|0.101
84472598|NCT02320695|168696427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.10|-0.49|0.002
84524404|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709||0.1486||95.0|-2.452|0.379|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.379|-2.452|0.1486
84524405|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706||0.0089||95.0|-3.311|-0.494|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.494|-3.311|0.0089
84524406|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.8995||95.0|-0.635|0.722|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.722|-0.635|0.8995
84472599|NCT02320695|168696427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.12|-0.53|<0.001
84472600|NCT02320695|168696428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.05|-0.54|0.023
84472601|NCT02320695|168696428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.20|-0.32|0.522
84472602|NCT02320695|168696428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.16|-0.67|<0.001
84472603|NCT02320695|168696428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.07|-0.63|0.013
84472604|NCT00797797|168696445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The responder rates between 'No Treatment Added' and 'Milnacipran Added' groups were compared using a logistic regression model.||||<0.001
84472605|NCT00797797|168696446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-9.71|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.71|-18.99|
84472606|NCT01000727|168696447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.91|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.91|0.929
84472607|NCT01000727|168696448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.9|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.90|0.777
84472608|NCT01000727|168696449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.76|0.274
84472609|NCT01000727|168696450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.09|0.86|0.631
84472610|NCT01000727|168696451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.42|0.88|0.354
84472611|NCT01000727|168696452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.73|0.161
84472612|NCT01000727|168696453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.31|0.91|0.360
84472613|NCT01000727|168696454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.03|0.88|0.202
84472614|NCT01000727|168696455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.87|0.329
84472615|NCT01000727|168696456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.90|0.797
84472616|NCT01000727|168696457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.07|0.87|0.546
84472617|NCT01000727|168696458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.81|0.362
84472618|NCT02207478|168696466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
84472619|NCT02207478|168696467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total procedure time||||0.843
84472620|NCT02207478|168696467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total X-ray time||||0.233
84524407|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.3918||95.0|-1.0|0.394|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.394|-1.000|0.3918
84524408|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9942||95.0|-0.648|0.652|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.652|-0.648|0.9942
84524409|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.5352||95.0|-0.859|0.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.448|-0.859|0.5352
84524410|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.8055||95.0|-0.662|0.85|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.850|-0.662|0.8055
84524411|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.256||95.0|-1.22|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-1.220|0.2560
84524412|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.8744||95.0|-1.184|1.387|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.387|-1.184|0.8744
84524413|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.614|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.0115||95.0|-2.851|-0.378|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.378|-2.851|0.0115
84524414|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.9497||95.0|-3.047|2.893|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.893|-3.047|0.9497
84524415|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.992||0.5288||95.0|-6.467|3.773|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||3.773|-6.467|0.5288
84524416|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2595||95.0|-0.813|0.22|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.220|-0.813|0.2595
84524417|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9605||95.0|-0.546|0.519|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.519|-0.546|0.9605
84524418|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.4107||95.0|-0.702|0.288|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.288|-0.702|0.4107
84524419|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.2271||95.0|-0.836|0.2|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.200|-0.836|0.2271
84524420|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9552||95.0|-0.535|0.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.506|-0.535|0.9552
84718601|NCT03777657|169188627|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.43|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||4.43|0.49|
84524421|NCT00442546|168801986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.9899||95.0|-0.533|0.526|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.526|-0.533|0.9899
84524422|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471||0.2211||95.0|-0.35|1.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||1.506|-0.350|0.2211
84524423|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.0916||95.0|-1.75|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||0.132|-1.750|0.0916
84524424|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9312||95.0|-0.863|0.791|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.791|-0.863|0.9312
84524425|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1658||95.0|-1.428|0.247|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.247|-1.428|0.1658
84524426|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.9921||95.0|-0.958|0.948|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.948|-0.958|0.9921
84524427|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.1367||95.0|-1.66|0.229|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.229|-1.660|0.1367
84524428|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.3561||95.0|-1.053|0.38|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.380|-1.053|0.3561
84524429|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.426||95.0|-1.012|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.429|-1.012|0.4260
84524430|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7975||95.0|-0.703|0.914|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.914|-0.703|0.7975
84524431|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.6947||95.0|-0.65|0.974|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.974|-0.650|0.6947
84524432|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6954||95.0|-1.101|0.736|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.736|-1.101|0.6954
84472621|NCT02207478|168696467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration time for finding lesions||||<0.001
84472622|NCT02207478|168696467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||X-ray time for finding lesions||||<0.001
84472623|NCT01290445|168696468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.47||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.47|0.46|
84472624|NCT01290445|168696468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.42||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.45|
84472625|NCT01290445|168696469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.34||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.34|0.09|
84472626|NCT01290445|168696469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.67||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.67|0.09|
84472627|NCT01290445|168696470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.96|0.50|
84472628|NCT01290445|168696470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.97|0.51|
84472629|NCT01290445|168696471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.63|
84472630|NCT01290445|168696471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.37||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.37|0.61|
84472631|NCT01290445|168696472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
84472632|NCT01290445|168696472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
84472633|NCT02568345|168696482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||isotonic regression functions through PA|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The isotonic regression functions through PAVA algorithm were used (pooled adjacent violators algorithm), to determine the ED90, and bootstrapping to calculate the respective 95% confidence interval with the statistical program R||||||||
84472634|NCT00782418|168696559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.6|||<|0.001||90.0|1.29|1.92||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||1.92|1.29|<0.001
84472635|NCT00782418|168696559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.95|||<|0.001||90.0|0.66|1.24|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||1.24|0.66|<0.001
84718602|NCT03777657|169188628|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.15|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 4||1.15|-3.79|
84472636|NCT00782418|168696559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.32|||<|0.001||90.0|1.57|3.06|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||3.06|1.57|<0.001
84718603|NCT03777657|169188628|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.24|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 6||-0.24|-5.78|
84472637|NCT00782418|168696559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.38|||<|0.001||90.0|0.64|2.12|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha = 0.05||||2.12|0.64|<0.001
84472638|NCT00782418|168696560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|23.1|||<|0.001||90.0|19.2|27.0|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||27.0|19.2|<0.001
84472639|NCT00782418|168696560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|16.4|||<|0.001||90.0|12.6|20.1|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||20.1|12.6|<0.001
84472640|NCT00782418|168696561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|545.0|||<|0.001||90.0|451.4|638.7|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||638.7|451.4|<0.001
84472641|NCT00782418|168696561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|246.6|||<|0.001||90.0|160.9|323.3|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||323.3|160.9|<0.001
84472642|NCT01757405|168696580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence of treatment success proportions in all bleeding episodes for the two treatment groups was determined by comparing the 90% two-sided CI of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].|Ratio of success proportion|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.28|||Ratio of success proportion|||Equivalence test of successfully treated bleeding episodes (BEs) between or within treatment arms. Denoting the success rates in the two treatment groups by p1 and p2 , the null hypotheses of H01 : p1/p2 \< 0.83 and H02 : p1/p2 \> 1.20 was implicitly tested against the one-sided alternatives Ha1: 0.83 ≤ p1/p2 and Ha2 : p1/p2 ≤ 1.20, by comparing the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].||1.28|1.15|
84472643|NCT02190747|168696620|OTHER|||||||0.1664|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1664
84472644|NCT02190747|168696621|OTHER|||||||0.2335|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 6: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.2335
84472645|NCT02190747|168696621|OTHER|||||||0.0837|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 12: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.0837
84472646|NCT02190747|168696622|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.6984|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.6984
84472647|NCT02190747|168696622|OTHER||LS mean|-38.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.8811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.8811
84472648|NCT02190747|168696622|OTHER||LS mean|-764.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0017
84524433|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.8665||95.0|-1.032|0.87|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.870|-1.032|0.8665
84524434|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.4216||95.0|-0.45|1.072|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.072|-0.450|0.4216
84524435|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.4673||95.0|-0.487|1.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.056|-0.487|0.4673
84524436|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5624||95.0|-0.614|1.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||1.125|-0.614|0.5624
84524437|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.3705||95.0|-1.286|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||0.482|-1.286|0.3705
84524438|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.4539||95.0|-1.302|0.586|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||0.586|-1.302|0.4539
84524439|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.0373||95.0|-2.107|-0.065|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||-0.065|-2.107|0.0373
84524440|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.76||95.0|-0.796|1.087|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.087|-0.796|0.7600
84524441|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.2506||95.0|-1.507|0.397|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.397|-1.507|0.2506
84524442|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.2567||95.0|-0.77|2.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||2.823|-0.770|0.2567
84524443|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.882|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||0.0167||95.0|-3.408|-0.356|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||-0.356|-3.408|0.0167
84524444|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.6953||95.0|-1.456|2.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||2.159|-1.456|0.6953
84524445|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.894||0.208||95.0|-2.962|0.668|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||0.668|-2.962|0.2080
84524446|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975||0.3805||95.0|-1.116|2.849|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.849|-1.116|0.3805
84524447|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.89||95.0|-1.965|1.713|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.713|-1.965|0.8900
84524448|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.1821||95.0|-1.103|4.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||4.448|-1.103|0.1821
84524449|NCT00442546|168801987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.768||0.6505||95.0|-3.693|5.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||5.395|-3.693|0.6505
84524450|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0388||95.0|-2.004|-0.053|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.053|-2.004|0.0388
84524451|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.0004||95.0|-2.798|-0.822|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.822|-2.798|0.0004
84524452|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.6274||95.0|-0.995|0.601|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.601|-0.995|0.6274
84524453|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.135||95.0|-1.432|0.194|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.194|-1.432|0.1350
84524454|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.1106||95.0|-1.605|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.166|-1.605|0.1106
84524455|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.0248||95.0|-1.939|-0.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||-0.133|-1.939|0.0248
84524456|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.2335||95.0|-0.582|2.33|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.330|-0.582|0.2335
84524457|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.0258||95.0|-2.939|-0.198|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.198|-2.939|0.0258
84524458|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.3878||95.0|-3.207|6.939|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||6.939|-3.207|0.3878
84524459|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.1762||95.0|-3.74|15.559|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.559|-3.740|0.1762
84524460|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.1754||95.0|-1.261|0.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.231|-1.261|0.1754
84472649|NCT02190747|168696622|OTHER||LS mean|-703.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0094
84472650|NCT02190747|168696623|OTHER|||||||0.1503|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1503
84472651|NCT04322994|168696644|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any desaturation event.||||0.18
84472652|NCT04322994|168696644|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 desaturation event versus 2 or more events.||||0.26
84472653|NCT04322994|168696645|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.26
84472654|NCT04322994|168696645|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying desaturation event versus 2 or more qualifying events.||||0.08
84472655|NCT04322994|168696646|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any qualifying event.||||0.28
84472656|NCT04322994|168696646|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying event versus 2 or more events.||||0.38
84472657|NCT04322994|168696647|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.88
84472658|NCT04322994|168696648|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any surgical interruption.||||0.14
84472659|NCT04322994|168696648|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 surgical interruption versus 2 or more interruptions.||||0.21
84472660|NCT03664193|168696661|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 37.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|49.3||||||||49.3|14.7|
84472661|NCT03664193|168696661|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 40.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|65.7||||||||65.7|28.3|
84472662|NCT03664193|168696661|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 42.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.1||||||||22.1|0.8|
84472663|NCT03664193|168696661|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 45.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|34.7||||||||34.7|5.6|
84472664|NCT03664193|168696662|OTHER|Simple proportion and exact 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100.0|88.4|
84524461|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.1413||95.0|-1.329|0.191|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.191|-1.329|0.1413
84524462|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.1731||95.0|-1.023|0.185|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.185|-1.023|0.1731
84472665|NCT04507867|168696669|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival.||||||0.027|||||||Log Rank|||The total number of patients who did or did not survive to day 40 of follow-up.||||0.027
84472666|NCT04507867|168696671|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.495|||||||Log Rank|||the total number of patients who were intubated and survived at the end of day 40 follow-up.||||0.495
84472667|NCT04507867|168696673|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.186|||||||Log Rank|||total number of patients included in the study who progressed to mechanical ventilation during the first 10 days of hospital stay.||||0.186
84472668|NCT04507867|168696674|SUPERIORITY|Fisher exact test||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. It was categorized as follows: 1. normal bristol scale at day 3; 2. abnormal bristol scale at day 3.||||0.35
84472669|NCT04507867|168696675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.043
84472670|NCT04507867|168696676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.241
84472671|NCT04507867|168696677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the control group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.187
84472672|NCT04507867|168696677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the intervention group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.003
84472673|NCT04507867|168696678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.919
84472674|NCT04507867|168696678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.014
84472675|NCT04507867|168696679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intragroup analysis of the control group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.608
84472676|NCT04507867|168696679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the intervention group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.04
84472677|NCT04507867|168696680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intergroup analysis between both groups to evaluate the number of defecations measured at day 3.||||0.014
84524463|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6829||95.0|-0.747|0.49|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.490|-0.747|0.6829
84472678|NCT04507867|168696681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|the shapiro wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the data.||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.008
84472679|NCT04507867|168696683|SUPERIORITY|Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
84472680|NCT04507867|168696684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded||||0.098
84472681|NCT04507867|168696685|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group to analyze the presentation of post covid syndrome at the end of follow-up at day 40.||||0.195
84472682|NCT04507867|168696686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.135
84472683|NCT04507867|168696687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.266
84472684|NCT04507867|168696688|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84472685|NCT04507867|168696689|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
84472686|NCT04507867|168696690|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84472687|NCT04507867|168696691|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
84472688|NCT04507867|168696692|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
84472689|NCT04507867|168696693|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
84472690|NCT04507867|168696694|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
84524464|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2436||95.0|-0.943|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.241|-0.943|0.2436
84524465|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.119||95.0|-1.108|0.127|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.127|-1.108|0.1190
84472691|NCT00779324|168696736|OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.9|||Chi-squared|||||13.9|-14.7|0.9554
84472692|NCT00779324|168696737|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
84472693|NCT00779324|168696738|OTHER||Difference in percents|10.8||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|25.8|||Chi-squared|||||25.8|-4.2|0.1662
84472694|NCT00779324|168696739|OTHER|||||||0.3488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3488
84472695|NCT00779324|168696741|OTHER||Difference in percents|6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20|-7.2|0.38
84472696|NCT00779324|168696742|OTHER||Difference in percents|11.7||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|26.7|||Chi-squared|||||26.7|-3.3|0.1373
84472697|NCT00779324|168696743|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
84472698|NCT00779324|168696744|OTHER|||||||0.0353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
84472699|NCT00194025|168696751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
84472700|NCT00194025|168696752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.585
84472701|NCT00194025|168696753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
84472702|NCT00194025|168696754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.017
84472703|NCT00194025|168696755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.027
84472704|NCT00194025|168696756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.569
84472705|NCT00194025|168696757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.038
84472706|NCT00194025|168696758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.199
84472707|NCT00194025|168696759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was applied to the values at baseline vs. the values at 12 weeks.||||0.21
84472708|NCT00511342|168696765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.078||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.041||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for lumbar spine (L2-L4)|||0.041|-0.198|0.19
84472709|NCT00511342|168696765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.03||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.075||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for femoral neck|||0.075|-0.136|0.57
84472710|NCT01153763|168696781|OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|70.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or a confirmed PR.|||70.3|48.2|
84472711|NCT01153763|168696782|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a investigator assessed CR or PR.|||28.7|0.0|
84472712|NCT01153763|168696787|OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||29.8|11.6|
84472713|NCT01153763|168696788|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|34.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||34.6|2.2|
84472714|NCT03238235|168696806|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of the least square means|0.04||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||ANCOVA model was performed considering the difference between log of total fibrosis and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline value was included as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||total fibrosis at visit 11||0.38|-0.30|0.8282
84472715|NCT03238235|168696806|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model was performed considering the difference between log Visit 11 and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline as covariate, treatment was included as independent class variable and treatment by sequence interaction. The sequence of biopsy site (R-L, L-R) was included as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. If the treatment by sequence interaction was p\>0.10, then the model without the interaction term is presented.|Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.11||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model was fitted to the data in order to evaluate the difference in total fibrosis between biopsy sites||0.37|-0.59|0.6465
84472716|NCT03238235|168696807|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.05||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Vastus lateralis||0.03|-0.12|0.1991
84472717|NCT03238235|168696807|SUPERIORITY||difference of the least square means|-0.27||||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.69||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Soleus||1.69|-2.22|0.7849
84472718|NCT03238235|168696808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.35||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.28||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole thigh at visit 11||-0.28|-2.43|0.0149
84472719|NCT03238235|168696808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.96||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.75||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at visit 11||-0.75|-3.18|0.0022
84472720|NCT03238235|168696808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.58||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.08||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at visit 11||1.08|-2.24|0.4869
84472721|NCT03238235|168696808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.59||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.29||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||0.29|-3.47|0.0939
84472722|NCT03238235|168696808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.89||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.36||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis girdle at visit 11||0.36|-2.13|0.1579
84472723|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.4||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|3.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at visit 11||3.26|-2.45|0.7770
84472724|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.09||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.18|-1.35|0.8926
84472725|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.35||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.58||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||1.58|-0.88|0.5720
84472726|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.11||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||1.18|-0.97|0.8386
84472727|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.25||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.25|-2.68|0.8591
84472728|NCT03238235|168696809|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.32||||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||2.24|-1.60|0.7392
84472729|NCT03238235|168696810|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.37||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at Visit 11||2.65|0.08|0.0375
84472730|NCT03238235|168696810|SUPERIORITY||difference of least square means|0.63||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.27|-0.01|0.0528
84472731|NCT03238235|168696810|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.36||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.91||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||0.91|-0.20|0.2012
84472732|NCT03238235|168696810|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.75||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.83||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.83|-1.33|0.4676
84472733|NCT03238235|168696810|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.54||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||1.30|-0.21|0.1549
84472734|NCT03238235|168696811|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-619.2||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1872.37|633.98||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type II at Visit 11||633.98|-1872.37|0.3240
84472735|NCT03238235|168696811|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-572.54||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1690.73|545.64||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total CSA at Visit 11||545.64|-1690.73|0.3070
84472736|NCT03238235|168696812|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.27||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Fibers with nuclear centralizations (%) at Visit 11||0.06|-0.59|0.1055
84472737|NCT03238235|168696812|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.23||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|28.59||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers at Visit 11 (slide II)||28.59|-33.05|0.8846
84472738|NCT03238235|168696812|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.72||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|16.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers (Slide III)||16.06|-6.62|0.4054
84472739|NCT03238235|168696813|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|2.45||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|12.77||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||||12.77|-7.87|0.6340
84472740|NCT03238235|168696814|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.14||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.54|0.4893
84472741|NCT03238235|168696815|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.34||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.13||This model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.81|0.1498
84472742|NCT03238235|168696816|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.06||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Standing and transfers (D1) at Visit 11||0.13|-0.00|0.0602
84472743|NCT03238235|168696816|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Axial and proximal motor function (D2) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.5906
84472744|NCT03238235|168696816|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Distal motor function (D3) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.7799
84472745|NCT03238235|168696816|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score at Visit 11||0.03|-0.00|0.1116
84472746|NCT03238235|168696817|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.07||||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to Walk/Run 10 meters at Visit 11||0.10|-0.23|0.4346
84472747|NCT03238235|168696818|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.02||||0.8914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to climb 4 standard steps (sec) at visit 11||0.28|-0.32|0.8914
84524466|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.4117||95.0|-0.897|0.369|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.369|-0.897|0.4117
84472748|NCT03238235|168696819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.62||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.75||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to rise from floor at Visit 11||4.75|-3.51|0.7629
84472749|NCT03238235|168696820|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.01||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum distance walked after 6 minutes at Visit 11||0.08|-0.11|0.8106
84524467|NCT00442546|168801988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6294||95.0|-0.794|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.794|0.6294
84524468|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7958||95.0|-7.391|5.673|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||5.673|-7.391|0.7958
84524469|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.322||0.9733||95.0|-6.436|6.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||6.659|-6.436|0.9733
84524470|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.946||0.822||95.0|-6.898|8.675|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||8.675|-6.898|0.8220
84524471|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.917||0.4736||95.0|-10.542|4.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||4.917|-10.542|0.4736
84524472|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.5113||95.0|-10.639|5.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||5.316|-10.639|0.5113
84524473|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9266||95.0|-7.425|8.154|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||8.154|-7.425|0.9266
84524474|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347||0.9699||95.0|-8.423|8.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.751|-8.423|0.9699
84524475|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.232||0.9482||95.0|-8.085|8.635|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.635|-8.085|0.9482
84524476|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.391||0.7969||95.0|-16.842|13.012|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||13.012|-16.842|0.7969
84524477|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.1991||95.0|-25.533|5.487|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||5.487|-25.533|0.1991
84524478|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.737||0.0321||95.0|13.976|158.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||158.693|13.976|0.0321
84524479|NCT00442546|168801989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.295||0.0353||95.0|5.837|84.091|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||84.091|5.837|0.0353
84524480|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.055||0.5736||95.0|-30.792|17.169|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||17.169|-30.792|0.5736
84524481|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.786||0.8003||95.0|-26.438|20.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||20.455|-26.438|0.8003
84524482|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.371||0.5125||95.0|-27.369|13.74|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||13.740|-27.369|0.5125
84524483|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227||0.4773||95.0|-27.563|12.976|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||12.976|-27.563|0.4773
84524484|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.101||0.2142||95.0|-36.055|8.226|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.226|-36.055|0.2142
84524485|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.245||0.2989||95.0|-34.197|10.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||10.659|-34.197|0.2989
84524486|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.612||0.3829||95.0|-53.429|134.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||134.449|-53.429|0.3829
84524487|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.322||0.5531||95.0|-120.59|66.092|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||66.092|-120.59|0.5531
84524488|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.491||0.2738||95.0|-89.376|126.402|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||126.402|-89.376|0.2738
84524489|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519||0.7987||95.0|-4.343|5.63|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.630|-4.343|0.7987
84524490|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.8875||95.0|-5.177|4.485|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||4.485|-5.177|0.8875
84524491|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.949||0.4319||95.0|-2.324|5.398|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.398|-2.324|0.4319
84524492|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.407||95.0|-2.223|5.443|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.443|-2.223|0.4070
84524493|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.641||0.4968||95.0|-4.371|2.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.133|-4.371|0.4968
84524494|NCT00442546|168801990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.427||95.0|-1.972|4.626|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||4.626|-1.972|0.4270
84472750|NCT03238235|168696821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1626||||||P-value is obtained from the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test, stratified for concomitant steroid use at baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\<10% worsening at visit 11||||0.1626
84472751|NCT03238235|168696824|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.57||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|14.41||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||14.41|-7.27|0.5099
84472752|NCT03238235|168696824|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.16||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|8.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||8.06|-5.73|0.7355
84472753|NCT03238235|168696824|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.92||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|19.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||19.06|-11.22|0.6037
84472754|NCT03238235|168696824|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.1||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|20.55||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||20.55|-12.35|0.6178
84472755|NCT03238235|168696827|SUPERIORITY||log difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at visit 11||0.01|-0.06|0.1165
84472756|NCT03238235|168696828|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||0.12|-0.02|0.1939
84472757|NCT03238235|168696829|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type I||0.30|-0.29|0.9493
84472758|NCT03238235|168696830|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of Fibers at Visit 11 (slide I)||0.26|-0.16|0.6265
84472759|NCT03238235|168696830|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|-0.44||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.17||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Regenerative Fibers (%) at Visit 11||0.17|-1.05|0.1562
84472760|NCT04436822|168696831|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|90.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||90.7|87.1|<0.05
84472761|NCT04436822|168696831|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|89.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.7|85.4|<0.05
84472762|NCT04436822|168696831|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|89.9|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.9|85.8|<0.05
84472763|NCT02338492|168696863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the second co-primary endpoint will only be tested if the p-value for VAS improvement is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model employed, including the baseline VAS score. Missing values will be imputed.||Null hypothesis: Mean improvement in VAS over 90 days \<= 53.8 (i.e. 80% of reference based on historical control data). The study was powered to 80% with 68 evaluable subjects, a standard deviation of 13.3 at each visit, a true mean improvement from baseline VAS across post-baseline visits of 57 and a within-patient correlation of VAS of 0.4. The historical control data comes from 4 selected articles (Gregory et al. 2011, Kim et al. 2011, Deschamps et al. 2012, and Pretell et al. 2010).||||0.615
84472764|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|96|
84472765|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|96|
84472766|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||100|93|
84524495|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.7742||95.0|-6.775|5.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||5.052|-6.775|0.7742
84472767|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Safety Success||100|93|
84472768|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|93|
84524496|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.025||0.0996||95.0|-0.96|10.971|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||10.971|-0.960|0.0996
84524497|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.7738||95.0|-4.698|6.304|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||6.304|-4.698|0.7738
84524498|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.1328||95.0|-1.284|9.669|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.669|-1.284|0.1328
84524499|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.012||0.7585||95.0|-5.027|6.882|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||6.882|-5.027|0.7585
84524500|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.19||95.0|-1.979|9.871|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||9.871|-1.979|0.1900
84524501|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.693||0.2365||95.0|-3.004|11.865|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||11.865|-3.004|0.2365
84524502|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.1616||95.0|-2.202|12.814|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||12.814|-2.202|0.1616
84524503|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.911||0.8819||95.0|-17.98|15.838|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.838|-17.98|0.8819
84524504|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.4676||95.0|-37.7|19.558|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||19.558|-37.70|0.4676
84524505|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.195||0.3813||95.0|-2.403|6.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.254|-2.403|0.3813
84524506|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.2966||95.0|-2.07|6.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.751|-2.070|0.2966
84524507|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.4474||95.0|-3.122|7.046|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.046|-3.122|0.4474
84524508|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0416||95.0|0.204|10.427|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.427|0.204|0.0416
84524509|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.5935||95.0|-3.694|6.438|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||6.438|-3.694|0.5935
84524510|NCT00442546|168801991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674||0.3966||95.0|-3.006|7.551|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.551|-3.006|0.3966
84524511|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.631||0.5117||95.0|-3.457|6.916|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||6.916|-3.457|0.5117
84524512|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.675||0.0154||95.0|1.258|11.805|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||11.805|1.258|0.0154
84524513|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353||0.7022||95.0|-3.738|5.54|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||5.540|-3.738|0.7022
84524514|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.129|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.129|-0.110|0.0557
84524515|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.552||0.2161||95.0|-1.874|8.215|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.215|-1.874|0.2161
84524516|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0058||95.0|2.098|12.172|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||12.172|2.098|0.0058
84524517|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993||0.1283||95.0|-1.853|14.223|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||14.223|-1.853|0.1283
84524518|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.033||0.008||95.0|3.056|19.291|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||19.291|3.056|0.0080
84524519|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0018||95.0|7.414|18.468|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||18.468|7.414|0.0018
84524520|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533||0.0038||95.0|8.859|27.023|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||27.023|8.859|0.0038
84524521|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.5953||95.0|-3.045|5.296|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.296|-3.045|0.5953
84524522|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.1267||95.0|-0.952|7.613|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||7.613|-0.952|0.1267
84524523|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.339||0.2647||95.0|-1.997|7.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.231|-1.997|0.2647
84472769|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
84472770|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||99|90|
84472771|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Safety Success||99|90|
84472772|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||99|90|
84472773|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
84472774|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||98|86|
84472775|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|97.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Safety Success||97|85|
84472776|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||98|86|
84472777|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||99|88|
84472778|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||93|77|
84472779|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Safety Success||93|77|
84472780|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||96|83|
84472781|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||96|83|
84472782|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||90|73|
84472783|NCT02338492|168696865|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Safety Success||90|73|
84472784|NCT00120289|168696881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for gender and history of diabetes (randomization stratification factors).||||1.21|0.87|0.80
84472785|NCT00120289|168696882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.87|.49
84472786|NCT00120289|168696883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.90|.30
84524524|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0181||95.0|0.995|10.548|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.548|0.995|0.0181
84472787|NCT00120289|168696884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.76|0.47
84472788|NCT04348656|168696886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||wald test|||||1.43|0.94|0.18
84472789|NCT04348656|168696887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.89|0.30
84472790|NCT04348656|168696888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||0.7|-2.1|0.41
84472791|NCT04348656|168696889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||wald test|||||1.46|0.86|0.40
84472792|NCT04348656|168696890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-0.3|0.22
84472793|NCT04348656|168696891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||2.27|0.31|0.72
84472794|NCT04348656|168696894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||wald test|||||1.45|0.88|0.33
84472795|NCT04348656|168696895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|||1.35|0.76|0.91
84472796|NCT04348656|168696896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.80|0.18
84472797|NCT04348656|168696897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||wald test|||||2.26|1.04|0.03
84472798|NCT04348656|168696897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.69|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|The cumulative incidence of Grade 3 and 4 serious AEs is described as a hazard ratio.||2.69|1.08|0.02
84472799|NCT04348656|168696899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||wald test|||||1.57|1.02|0.03
84472800|NCT04348656|168696902|OTHER|Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life day gained (ICER)- this is a summary measure of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to the control group. This is calculated using the cost (derived from cost of the intervention and cost of hospital stay based on the payer's perspective) per patient and the quality-adjusted life days calculated using the EQ-5D-5L results.|ICER (CAD)|-44623.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525369.24|436123.22|||||ICER is reported in Canadian dollars. 95% CI is calculated by 1000 bootstrap sampling using bias-corrected accelerated method.|||436123.22|-525369.24|
84472801|NCT00543569|168696947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|23.9|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||23.9|3.2|
84472802|NCT00543569|168696947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||15.8|-3.6|
84472803|NCT00543569|168696947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3|||||A positive difference indicated a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||13.3|-5.3|
84472804|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|4.1||||||Patient survival at 6 months||4.1|-6.9|
84472805|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|5.8||||||Patient survival at 6 months||5.8|-3.5|
84472806|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|3.2||||||Patient survival at 6 months||3.2|-8.4|
84472807|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|12.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||12.8|-3.1|
84472808|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|9.2||||||Patient survival at 12 months||9.2|-8.3|
84472809|NCT00543569|168696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|10.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||10.8|-6.0|
84472810|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|3.1||||||Graft survival at 6 months||3.1|-8.5|
84472811|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|4.9||||||Graft survival at 6 months||4.9|-5.3|
84472812|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.2||||||Graft survival at 6 months||2.2|-10.0|
84524525|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.5507||95.0|-3.161|5.91|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||5.910|-3.161|0.5507
84524526|NCT00442546|168801992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.3164||95.0|-2.317|7.124|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.124|-2.317|0.3164
84472813|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|11.7||||||Graft survival at 12 months||11.7|-4.6|
84472814|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|8.1||||||Graft survival at 12 months||8.1|-9.9|
84472815|NCT00543569|168696949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|7.4||||||Graft survival at 12 months||7.4|-10.6|
84472816|NCT00543569|168696950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|24.6||||||||24.6|2.8|
84472817|NCT00543569|168696950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.0||||||||15.0|-5.4|
84472818|NCT00543569|168696950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|12.6||||||||12.6|-7.1|
84472819|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||BCAR at Month 6||19.5|1.8|
84472820|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
84472821|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
84472822|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|21.0||||||BCAR at Month 12||21.0|3.0|
84472823|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
84472824|NCT00543569|168696951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
84472825|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|22.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||22.5|2.0|
84472826|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||15.8|-3.6|
84472827|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||13.3|-5.3|
84472828|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|24.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||24.3|3.0|
84472829|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||14.6|-5.1|
84472830|NCT00543569|168696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|13.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||13.8|-5.6|
84524527|NCT00442546|168801993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4365||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4365
84472831|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|18.0||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||18.0|0.7|
84472832|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
84472833|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
84472834|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||19.5|1.8|
84472835|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
84472836|NCT00543569|168696953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
84472837|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|25.5||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||25.5|3.8|
84524528|NCT00442546|168801993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4023
84472838|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|17.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||17.8|-2.9|
84472839|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|18.2||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.2|-2.4|
84472840|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||20.4|-3.5|
84472841|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||15.8|-7.8|
84472842|NCT00543569|168696957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|15.9||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||15.9|-7.5|
84472843|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||20.4|0.9|
84472844|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|13.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||13.7|-4.5|
84472845|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|18.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.7|-0.4|
84472846|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||18.0|-4.0|
84472847|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|13.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||13.0|-8.3|
84524529|NCT00442546|168801994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4024
84472848|NCT00543569|168696958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|17.6||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||17.6|-4.2|
84472849|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||23.3|-1.1|
84472850|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.2||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||24.2|-0.7|
84472851|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|14.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||14.7|-8.9|
84472852|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-2.9|
84472853|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-3.3|
84472854|NCT00543569|168696968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|11.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||11.7|-13.3|
84472855|NCT00862849|168696971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.22|34.71||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||34.71|18.22|<0.0001
84472856|NCT00862849|168696971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.45|24.94||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed||||24.94|8.45|0.0015
84472857|NCT00677690|168696986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||"All data were expressed as the mean ± SD. The level of significance for all tests was set at p \< 0.05.~Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed using both paired and unpaired t tests for continuous variables and Chi squared for categorical variables."||||< 0.05
84472858|NCT00677690|168696987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84472859|NCT00677690|168696988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84472860|NCT00677690|168696989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84472861|NCT00677690|168696990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
84472862|NCT03615469|168697028|OTHER|t-test||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84472863|NCT01606761|168697061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.2|8.5|< 0.001
84472864|NCT01606761|168697061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|13.6|< 0.001
84472865|NCT01606761|168697062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.251|< 0.001
84472866|NCT01606761|168697062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||||-0.112|-0.275|< 0.001
84472867|NCT01606761|168697063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|6.4|< 0.001
84472868|NCT01606761|168697063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
84472869|NCT01606761|168697064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|5.5|< 0.001
84524530|NCT00442546|168801994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1910
84524531|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.497||0.3483||95.0|-2.573|7.268|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||7.268|-2.573|0.3483
84524532|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.2078||95.0|-1.766|8.077|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.077|-1.766|0.2078
84524533|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.436||0.4299||95.0|-7.836|18.088|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.088|-7.836|0.4299
84524534|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.726||0.4482||95.0|-8.4|18.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.693|-8.400|0.4482
84524535|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.426||0.6472||95.0|-6.818|10.89|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.890|-6.818|0.6472
84524536|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.642||0.4992||95.0|-6.129|12.442|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.442|-6.129|0.4992
84524537|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.149||0.6072||95.0|-7.578|12.891|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.891|-7.578|0.6072
84524538|NCT00442546|168801995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.906||0.3146||95.0|-4.789|14.714|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.714|-4.789|0.3146
84524539|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.0739||95.0|-0.407|8.76|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.760|-0.407|0.0739
84524540|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327||0.074||95.0|-0.409|8.761|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.761|-0.409|0.0740
84524541|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.418||0.2615||95.0|-5.628|20.224|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||20.224|-5.628|0.2615
84524542|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.707||0.6266||95.0|-10.22|16.795|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||16.795|-10.22|0.6266
84524543|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.2963||95.0|-3.747|12.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.086|-3.747|0.2963
84524544|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151||0.1375||95.0|-2.054|14.55|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||14.550|-2.054|0.1375
84524545|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.895||0.2703||95.0|-4.298|15.161|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||15.161|-4.298|0.2703
84524546|NCT00442546|168801996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.104||95.0|-1.607|16.933|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||16.933|-1.607|0.1040
84524547|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.8545||95.0|-5.635|6.793|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||6.793|-5.635|0.8545
84524548|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.155||0.5006||95.0|-4.088|8.344|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.344|-4.088|0.5006
84524549|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.248||0.7217||95.0|-13.66|19.569|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||19.569|-13.66|0.7217
84524550|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4203||95.0|-10.35|24.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||24.372|-10.35|0.4203
84524551|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.9859||95.0|-11.3|11.102|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.102|-11.30|0.9859
84524552|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.873||0.9915||95.0|-11.68|11.811|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.811|-11.68|0.9915
84524553|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.9843||95.0|-13.06|12.808|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.808|-13.06|0.9843
84524554|NCT00442546|168801997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.201||0.7055||95.0|-9.974|14.677|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.677|-9.974|0.7055
84524555|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.9405||95.0|-0.614|0.661|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.661|-0.614|0.9405
84524556|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.5641||95.0|-0.749|0.415|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.415|-0.749|0.5641
84524557|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
84718604|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.31|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 4||0.31|-2.53|
84524558|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
84524559|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.1925||95.0|-3.596|0.94|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.940|-3.596|0.1925
84524560|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.982||0.9654||95.0|-2.568|2.479|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||2.479|-2.568|0.9654
84524561|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.235||95.0|-6.712|2.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.008|-6.712|0.2350
84524562|NCT00442546|168801998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.742||95.0|-1.806|2.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.399|-1.806|0.7420
84524563|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5299||95.0|-0.458|0.874|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.874|-0.458|0.5299
84524564|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2442||95.0|-0.964|0.253|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.253|-0.964|0.2442
84524565|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
84524566|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
84524567|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.324||95.0|-3.751|1.512|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.512|-3.751|0.3240
84524568|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.9503||95.0|-2.853|3.003|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||3.003|-2.853|0.9503
84524569|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.3618||95.0|-6.379|2.712|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.712|-6.379|0.3618
84524570|NCT00442546|168801999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.7226||95.0|-1.859|2.525|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.525|-1.859|0.7226
84524571|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.2473
84524572|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.0239
84524573|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6118||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6118
84524574|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6730
84524575|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5954||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.5954
84524576|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.7784
84524577|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7293||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.7293
84524578|NCT00442546|168802000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5202||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.5202
84524579|NCT00442546|168802001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.1509
84524580|NCT00442546|168802001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3822||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.3822
84524581|NCT00442546|168802001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.2825
84524582|NCT00442546|168802001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7733||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.7733
84524583|NCT00831233|168802032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|1.61||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.61|-7.51|0.1973
84524584|NCT00831233|168802032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.291||PP analysis set.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||-0.291|-11.5|0.0398
84524585|NCT00831233|168802033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-6.58|0.2298
84524586|NCT00831233|168802033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.02|-5.98|0.6917
84472870|NCT01606761|168697064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|7.8|< 0.001
84472871|NCT05086289|168697065|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.89|
84472872|NCT05086289|168697066|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.85|
84472873|NCT05086289|168697067|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.68|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.68|-1.91|
84472874|NCT05086289|168697068|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-2.54|
84472875|NCT05086289|168697069|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.19|-0.44|
84472876|NCT05086289|168697070|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.14|-0.67|
84472877|NCT05086289|168697071|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-1.05|
84472878|NCT05086289|168697072|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.16|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.16|-1.17|
84472879|NCT05086289|168697073|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.27|-11.07|
84472880|NCT05086289|168697074|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|2.15|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.15|-11.73|
84472881|NCT05086289|168697075|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.21|-0.46|
84472882|NCT05086289|168697076|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|9.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.20|-6.20|
84472883|NCT05086289|168697077|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.06|
84472884|NCT05086289|168697078|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.10|-0.05|
84472885|NCT05086289|168697079|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|41.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.92|179.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||179.76|-95.92|
84472886|NCT05086289|168697080|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|9.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.11|170.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||170.52|-151.11|
84472887|NCT03150108|168697081|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% confidence interval (CI).|Geometric mean ratio|1.119|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.43||||||||1.430|0.875|
84472888|NCT03150108|168697081|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in Cmax per Dose Doubling|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.03|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted Cmax using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.03|1.52|
84472889|NCT03150108|168697083|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUClast values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
84472890|NCT03150108|168697083|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUClast per Dose Doubling|2.35||||||90.0|2.06|2.7|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUClast using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.70|2.06|
84472891|NCT03150108|168697084|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-8 values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.35||||||||1.35|0.87|
84472892|NCT03150108|168697084|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-8 per Dose Doubling|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|2.51|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-8 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.51|1.98|
84472893|NCT03150108|168697085|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-inf values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.33||||||||1.33|0.77|
84524587|NCT00831233|168802034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.553||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.22|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.22|-5.33|0.8151
84524588|NCT00831233|168802034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.38|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||5.38|-2.46|0.455
84524589|NCT00831233|168802034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.08|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||6.08|-2.04|0.3186
84524590|NCT00831233|168802035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|68.2|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||68.2|-37.8|0.5627
84524591|NCT00831233|168802035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|60.9|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||60.9|-49.1|0.8284
84524592|NCT00831233|168802035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|58.8|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||58.8|-34.4|0.5984
84472894|NCT03150108|168697085|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-inf per Dose Doubling|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.96|2.71|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-inf using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.71|1.96|
84472895|NCT03150108|168697091|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||||||||1.40|0.90|
84472896|NCT03150108|168697093|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25||||||||1.25|0.93|
84472897|NCT02402218|168697148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||For the primary and secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with the outcome in each group was compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was based on an estimated HCV treatment initiation rate of 50% in the UC group (based on a 33% rate observed during the interferon era) and 80% in the intervention groups, a significance level of 0.05, a desired ratio of participants in the intervention group compared to UC group of 3 to 2, and power of 80% to detect this difference between groups. The study was not powered to detect differences between the peer and cash groups.||||.11
84472898|NCT02402218|168697149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.22
84472899|NCT02402218|168697151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.||||0.33
84472900|NCT02402218|168697152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84472901|NCT03807739|168697154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1149|1.3951||||||||1.3951|1.1149|
84472902|NCT03807739|168697154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9864|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8531|1.1405||||||||1.1405|0.8531|
84472903|NCT03807739|168697156|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1175|1.3327||||||||1.3327|1.1175|
84524593|NCT00831233|168802036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-17.3|0.1018
84524594|NCT00784134|168802042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.115|||Chi-squared|||||0.115|-0.062|0.554
84524595|NCT00784134|168802042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87||Multivariable logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume.|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.87|0.75|0.465
84472904|NCT03807739|168697156|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8266|1.1968||||||||1.1968|0.8266|
84472905|NCT02371759|168697157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group||||<0.05
84472906|NCT02371759|168697158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472907|NCT02371759|168697174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472908|NCT02371759|168697175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472909|NCT02371759|168697176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84524596|NCT00784134|168802043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.25||Generalized ordered logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical) compares odds ratio for mRS score \> K v. \<= K for K = 1 - 4; Alt v. Sal.|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||1.25|0.63|0.484
84524597|NCT00784134|168802043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.71||The same generalized ordered logit model, adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical), compares odds ratio for mRS score greater than 5 versus mRS score equal or less than 5 (dead versus alive).|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||0.71|0.28|<0.001
84524598|NCT00784134|168802044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.111|||Chi-squared|||||0.111|-0.059|0.552
84524599|NCT00784134|168802044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||Multivariable logit model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.90|0.80|0.350
84524600|NCT00784134|168802045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8||Random effects model with site as random effect adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Random Effects Model|||||1.80|0.78|0.428
84524601|NCT00784134|168802046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 30 days||2.10|0.75|0.384
84524602|NCT00784134|168802046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 180 days||1.64|0.62|0.964
84524603|NCT00784134|168802047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0056
84524604|NCT00784134|168802048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||AUC/ Logit Model|||||||<0.001
84524605|NCT00784134|168802049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.771
84524606|NCT00784134|168802050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.098
84524607|NCT00784134|168802051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Linear Models|||||||0.450
84524608|NCT00784134|168802052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.501
84524609|NCT00784134|168802053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.795
84524610|NCT00784134|168802054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.784
84524611|NCT00784134|168802055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.592
84524612|NCT00784134|168802056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.105
84524613|NCT00784134|168802057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
84524614|NCT00784134|168802058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.055||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||||0.008|-0.111|0.055
84524615|NCT00784134|168802059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.035||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014|-0.084|0.202
84524616|NCT00784134|168802060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.030|-0.022|0.771
84524617|NCT00784134|168802061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.036|||Fisher Exact|||||0.036|-0.028|0.811
84524618|NCT00784134|168802062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.144||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.057|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.057|-0.230|0.0017
84524619|NCT00784134|168802063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||||0.86|0.41|0.006
84524620|NCT00784134|168802064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.217|||Chi-squared|||||0.217|-0.088|0.410
84524621|NCT00784134|168802065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Chi-squared|||||0.128|-0.096|0.781
84524622|NCT00784134|168802066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.152|||Chi-squared|||||0.152|-0.113|0.773
84524623|NCT00784134|168802067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|-0.085|0.587
84524624|NCT00784134|168802068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.121|||Chi-squared|||||0.121|-0.09|0.775
84524625|NCT00784134|168802069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.169|||Chi-squared|||||0.169|-0.132|0.808
84524626|NCT00784134|168802070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.099|||Chi-squared|||||0.099|-0.165|0.625
84524627|NCT00784134|168802071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.218|||Chi-squared|||||0.218|-0.043|0.191
84524628|NCT00784134|168802072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0066||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.211|||Chi-squared|||||0.211|-0.197|0.949
84524629|NCT00784134|168802073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.014||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.126|||Chi-squared|||||0.126|-0.098|0.812
84524630|NCT00784134|168802074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.194|||Chi-squared|||||0.194|-0.076|0.394
84524631|NCT00784134|168802075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.312
84524632|NCT00784134|168802076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.16||Analysis of dichotomous eGOS, comparing Upper Severe Disability scores to Lower Severe Disability scores|Chi-squared|||||0.160|-0.011|0.087
84524633|NCT00784134|168802076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43||Adjusted Multivariable Logit Model comparing eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or greater versus Lower Severe Disability and worse; Alteplase versus Saline|Multivariable Logit Model|||||2.43|0.98|0.064
84524634|NCT00784134|168802076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.89||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Moderate Disability or worse versus Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||2.89|0.70|0.336
84524635|NCT00784134|168802076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or worse versus Moderate Disability + Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||1.52|0.57|0.783
84524636|NCT00784134|168802077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84524637|NCT00784134|168802078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
84524638|NCT00784134|168802079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
84524639|NCT00784134|168802080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
84524640|NCT00784134|168802081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
84524641|NCT00784134|168802082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.255
84524642|NCT00784134|168802083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
84524643|NCT00784134|168802084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
84524644|NCT00784134|168802085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
84524645|NCT00784134|168802086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
84524646|NCT00784134|168802087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.376
84524647|NCT01316419|168802117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean SBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
84524648|NCT01316419|168802120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean DBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
84524649|NCT01316419|168802122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.1099
84524650|NCT01316419|168802123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0197
84472910|NCT02371759|168697177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472911|NCT02371759|168697178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84472912|NCT02371759|168697179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84524651|NCT01316419|168802124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4543
84524652|NCT01316419|168802125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0152
84524653|NCT01316419|168802126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0013
84524654|NCT01316419|168802127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the EQ VAS is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
84524655|NCT01316419|168802129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean LDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0006
84524656|NCT01316419|168802130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean HDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4248
84472913|NCT02371759|168697180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472914|NCT02371759|168697181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84472915|NCT02322320|168697182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.60
84524657|NCT01316419|168802131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean Triglyceride change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.5579
84524658|NCT01316419|168802132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean total cholesterol change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t-test|||||||0.0006
84524659|NCT00455962|168802137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using previously collected data from a group of 18 predominantly Caucasian women undergoing a similar infusion we determined that 22 women would be necessary to identify a 30% difference in peak LH levels, the primary outcome measure, between AAW and CW with 80% power at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.69
84524660|NCT03244475|168802163|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2||The corrected p-value of 0.01 was chosen after the standard cluster analysis for correcting family-wise error across different voxels.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||The analysis was performed for the voxel-wise delta-band activity from the frontal pole and inferior frontal gyri. Spatial smoothing and logarithm transformation (e-based) were performed. Resting-state MEG activity differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||2.2|1.1|0.01
84524661|NCT03244475|168802164|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84540698|NCT05736861|168832641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.83|
84524662|NCT03244475|168802165|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524663|NCT03244475|168802166|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524664|NCT03244475|168802167|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524665|NCT03244475|168802168|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524666|NCT03244475|168802169|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524667|NCT03244475|168802170|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524668|NCT03244475|168802171|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524669|NCT03244475|168802172|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524670|NCT03244475|168802173|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524671|NCT03244475|168802174|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
84524672|NCT04025684|168802182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA Model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.11|<.0001
84524673|NCT04025684|168802182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.1||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.10|-0.14|<0.0001
84524674|NCT04025684|168802182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
84524675|NCT04025684|168802182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
84718605|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.12|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 6||-0.12|-3.12|
84524676|NCT04025684|168802183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.37||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.37|-0.62|<0.0001
84524677|NCT04025684|168802183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.49||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.49|-0.75|<0.0001
84524678|NCT04025684|168802183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.42||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.42|-0.68|<0.0001
84524679|NCT04025684|168802183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.44||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
84524680|NCT03008837|168802199|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a right posterior insula seed, cluster size was set at 40 voxels, and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05 to compare the differences between the two groups in terms of connectivity between the right posterior insula and areas of the DMN identified based on a priori hypotheses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Standard therapy control (post-pre) was subtracted from PENFS (post-pre).|PENFS (post-pre) - Standard Therapy (post-pre)||||<0.05
84524681|NCT02070757|168802205|NON_INFERIORITY|Meropenem minus ceftolozane/tazobactam. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|7.39|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||7.39|-5.13|
84524682|NCT02070757|168802206|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical Response difference is calculated as ceftolozane/tazobactam minus meropenem. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -12.5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|8.29|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||8.29|-6.17|
84524683|NCT02070757|168802207|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|11.75|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||11.75|-2.83|
84524684|NCT02070757|168802208|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|7.67|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||7.67|-10.21|
84524685|NCT02070757|168802209|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.0||||||95.0|-5.11|18.93|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||18.93|-5.11|
84524686|NCT02070757|168802211|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.57|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||3.57|-6.41|
84524687|NCT02070757|168802212|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||6.04|-7.67|
84524688|NCT02070757|168802213|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|12.02|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||12.02|-8.91|
84540699|NCT05736861|168832641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Day 90|Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|1.10|0.72|
84524689|NCT02070757|168802214|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|10.44|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||10.44|-3.38|
84472916|NCT02322320|168697182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.35
84472917|NCT02322320|168697182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.68
84472918|NCT02322320|168697183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.57
84472919|NCT02322320|168697183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.38
84472920|NCT02322320|168697183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.77
84472921|NCT02322320|168697184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.67
84472922|NCT02322320|168697184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.20
84472923|NCT02322320|168697184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.40
84472924|NCT02322320|168697185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.43
84472925|NCT02322320|168697185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
84472926|NCT02322320|168697185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
84472927|NCT00430625|168697187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|3.141|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint was based solely on the 60 U/kg treatment arm||3.141|1.717|<0.0001
84524690|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) - Immediate memory||||0.861
84524691|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT - Delayed memory||||0.668
84524692|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT-Delayed corrected for immediate memory||||0.713
84524693|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Short-term memory||||0.028
84524694|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Total immediate memory||||0.227
84524695|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Learning Score||||0.130
84524696|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test- Delayed memory||||0.106
84524697|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Delayed corrected for total memory||||0.350
84524698|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Recognition||||0.093
84524699|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit Span forward - Short-term memory||||0.614
84524700|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Immediate memory||||0.111
84718606|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.11|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 4||0.11|-3.13|
84524701|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Delayed memory||||0.451
84524702|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time auditory response||||0.905
84524703|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time visual response||||0.502
84524704|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of omission errors||||0.531
84524705|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of commission errors||||0.681
84524706|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Reaction time for target stimuli||||0.713
84524707|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of omission errors||||0.229
84524708|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of commission errors||||0.329
84524709|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time tonic alertness||||0.192
84524710|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time phasic alertness||||0.164
84524711|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Semantic fluency||||0.536
84524712|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phonemic fluency||||0.572
84524713|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backward - Working memory||||0.632
84524714|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition A||||0.512
84524715|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition B||||0.861
84524716|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Condition B/A||||0.958
84524717|NCT01546922|168802218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social cognition||||0.819
84524718|NCT00934596|168802225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|57.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84472928|NCT00125658|168697219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Comparison (i.e., FTP vs. POWER) Data are reported as change scores, between the end of treatment block 1(10 weeks) and baseline; thus, this analysis directly compares FTP vs. Power. A negative value represents improvement (i.e., reduced trunk displacement) while a positive value represents an increase in compensatory trunk movement.||||<.001
84472929|NCT00125658|168697219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Order effect, testing OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). Change scores for trunk displacement at the end of both treatment blocks (20 weeks) relative to baseline (e.g., 20 weeks - baseline) were compared between OrderA and OrderB.||||.002
84472930|NCT00125658|168697220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests effect of FTP vs. Power. The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between baseline and the end of treatment Block 1 (i.e., 10 weeks).||||0.13
84472931|NCT00125658|168697220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.048
84472932|NCT00125658|168697221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compares FTP vs POWER by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||.004
84472933|NCT00125658|168697221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP) by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.034
84472934|NCT00125658|168697222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences between FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.056
84472935|NCT00125658|168697222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP))by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||.168
84472936|NCT00125658|168697223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests the effects of FTP vs. POWER on motor impairment (UE FMA) by comparing the change in FMA between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.564
84472937|NCT00125658|168697223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests for an effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in UE FMA between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.948
84472938|NCT00125658|168697224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences in FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in RPR between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.078
84472939|NCT00125658|168697224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests the effect of treatment order (Order A (FTP \> POWER) vs. Order B (POWER \> FTP)) by comparing the change in RPR between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.4
84472940|NCT00125658|168697225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment (FTP vs. POWER) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.085
84472941|NCT00125658|168697225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.635
84472942|NCT02876055|168697226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.542
84472943|NCT02876055|168697226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84472944|NCT02876055|168697226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84472945|NCT00369668|168697267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Greenhouse-Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment was not necessary.||Group by Test Session ANOVA with repeated measures on second factor.||37.4|22.5|<0.05
84472946|NCT04030104|168697297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Random Reader, Random Mass|Curve Fitting Method: Empirical||||||0.0268
84472947|NCT01683071|168697328|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|2.9||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|94.0|||ANCOVA|||||94|-88|0.9494
84472948|NCT01683071|168697328|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-103.3||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-192|0.0237
84472949|NCT01683071|168697328|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-94.3||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||||-5|-184|0.0386
84472950|NCT01683071|168697328|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-96.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA|||||-49|-144|<0.0001
84472951|NCT01683071|168697329|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.9||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.6182
84472952|NCT01683071|168697329|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.73||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|0.5|0.1097
84472953|NCT01683071|168697329|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.85||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.4046
84472954|NCT01683071|168697329|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|0.6|0.0016
84472955|NCT02397694|168697363|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of treatment with BIC + F/TAF relative to treatment with DTG + F/TAF. Noninferiority assessed using a conventional 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%|Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 copies/mL vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||14.2|-8.5|0.5
84472956|NCT00424528|168697383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84472957|NCT00424528|168697383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study Baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84472958|NCT00424528|168697383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary analysis:Group 2 vs 3. Key secondary analysis: Group 1 vs 3. Multiple comparisons for the analysis of the primary endpoint were controlled at the 5% level.|ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84472959|NCT00424528|168697384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84472960|NCT00424528|168697384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
84524719|NCT00934596|168802228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84524720|NCT00934596|168802233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As data for these small groups were non-parametric the median and quartiles were used for comparison of groups by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||<0.001
84524721|NCT00880087|168802237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||9.2|-14.5|0.63
84524722|NCT00880087|168802238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||13.7|-8.0|0.56
84524723|NCT00880087|168802239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.70
84524724|NCT00880087|168802240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.46
84524725|NCT01280617|168802246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Continuous variables analyzed using 2-tailed t test or Mann Whitney tes.. Categorical variables analyzed using Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact test||||||<0.05
84524726|NCT01280617|168802246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84524727|NCT00573170|168802248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Compares odds ratio.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||2.5|0.7|0.378
84524728|NCT00572039|168802271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve TVF functional reserve measures at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average TVF scores were examined, adjusting for baseline TVF score and the vision severity stratification variable. To approximate an interval scale and compensate for ceiling and floor effects, we linearized TVF scores using a logit transform. 106 PST and 112 ST participants provided data at 3 months.||0.29|-0.14|.47
84524729|NCT00572039|168802272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.77|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve NE-VFQ scores at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average NEI-VFQ scores were examined, adjusting for baseline score and the vision severity stratification variable.||2.77|-1.96|.7
84524730|NCT02147587|168802279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.033|1.424|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.424|1.033|
84524731|NCT02147587|168802280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.877|1.209|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.209|0.877|
84524732|NCT02147587|168802280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.924|1.294|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.294|0.924|
84524733|NCT02147587|168802281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.375|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.375|0.821|
84524734|NCT02147587|168802281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.967|1.618|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.618|0.967|
84524735|NCT02147587|168802281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.862|1.459|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.459|0.862|
84524736|NCT02147587|168802282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|20.56|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||20.56|-4.05|
84524737|NCT02147587|168802282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.57|26.03|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||26.03|1.57|
84524738|NCT02147587|168802282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.66|15.83|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||15.83|-10.66|
84524739|NCT00530348|168802348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariates was used.||1.23|0.40|0.2173
84524740|NCT00530348|168802349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
84540700|NCT05736861|168832642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.80|
84524741|NCT00530348|168802350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation, covariate adjustment for geographic region, was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||0.61|0.33|<0.0001
84524742|NCT00530348|168802351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.4188
84524743|NCT00530348|168802352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0115|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by MSFC. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.0115
84524744|NCT00530348|168802353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and baseline T2 lesion volume was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.3080
84524745|NCT04364763|168802354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||p-value is for Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0352
84524746|NCT04364763|168802354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||p-value is for Day 28|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison made for Day 7 and Day 28||||0.2350
84524747|NCT00346164|168802376|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
84524748|NCT00346164|168802377|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0049
84524749|NCT00346164|168802378|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
84524750|NCT00346164|168802379|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of the resection extent of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and histologic (POG) grade.||||0.0096
84524751|NCT00346164|168802380|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
84524752|NCT00346164|168802381|OTHER|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0228
84524753|NCT00346164|168802383|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.88||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.88|0.76|
84524754|NCT00346164|168802384|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.48|0.36|
84524755|NCT02260258|168802387|EQUIVALENCE|Time variable log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimate represents geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||A priori threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.7|0.82
84524756|NCT02260258|168802388|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out all patients (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)|Incidence rate ratio|1.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Negative binomial regression|||All patients analyzed (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)||1.9|1.0|0.09
84524757|NCT02260258|168802388|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out on ICU survivors alone (n = 14 in NMB and 14 in Control)|Incidence rate ratio|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Negative binomial regression|||ICU survivors alone analyzed (n = 14 in each arm)||2.0|0.8|0.35
84524758|NCT02260258|168802389|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes all patients (n=37 in NMB and n = 43 in control). Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the full data (n= 37 in NMB and 43 in Control)||1.9|0.9|0.18
84524759|NCT02260258|168802389|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes patients surviving to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (n=14 in each group). Two patients discharged from the hospital on mechanical ventilation have duration truncated at time of discharge and are considered survivors to extubation. Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the patients surviving to extubation (n= 14 in both groups)||2.9|0.7|0.32
84524760|NCT02260258|168802390|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|0.5|0.63
84524761|NCT02260258|168802391|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.6|0.35
84524762|NCT01506908|168802400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 5 minutes||-10.2|-21.6|<0.0001
84524763|NCT01506908|168802401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-4.2||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 1 minute.||0.0|-8.4|0.0511
84524764|NCT01506908|168802402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 3 minutes.||-6.4|-16.7|<0.0001
84524765|NCT01506908|168802403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 7 minutes.||-11.7|-23.8|<0.0001
84524766|NCT01506908|168802404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 10 minutes.||-11.4|-24.4|<0.0001
84524767|NCT01917968|168802469|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|6.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|13.2||Statistical significance is considered at 0.05 level.|Z statistics|P-value is calculated using a Z statistics from the propensity score adjusted estimates. Missing values are handled using multiple imputation.||||13.2|-0.2|0.056
84524768|NCT01917968|168802470|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 298 subjects (149 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 10%.|Adjusted difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.9|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||1.9|-2.7|
84524769|NCT01435928|168802483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.45|0.039
84524770|NCT01435928|168802484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.54|0.070
84524771|NCT01435928|168802485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.029
84524772|NCT01435928|168802486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.015
84524773|NCT01435928|168802487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.218
84524774|NCT01435928|168802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.021
84524775|NCT01435928|168802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.056
84524776|NCT02105701|168802507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524777|NCT02105701|168802507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524778|NCT02105701|168802507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524779|NCT02105701|168802507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524780|NCT02105701|168802510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524781|NCT02105701|168802510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524782|NCT02105701|168802510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524783|NCT02105701|168802510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
84524784|NCT03234608|168802511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.44|0.56
84524785|NCT03234608|168802512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.84|-1.28|0.73
84524786|NCT03234608|168802513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Individual Level Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale.||0.33|-0.35|0.94
84524787|NCT03234608|168802513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Relationship-Dependent Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale||0.52|-0.33|0.65
84524788|NCT03234608|168802514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.79|-1.25|0.66
84524789|NCT03234608|168802515|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.69|-1.40|0.85
84524790|NCT01362296|168802519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||P-value from the stratified log-rank was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|||1.75|0.75|0.5197
84524791|NCT00248170|168802546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3150
84524792|NCT00749411|168802570|NON_INFERIORITY|GSK233705/GW642444 were declared non-inferior to placebo for heart rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean heart rate was less than +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.5|||||Analysis performed using a Repeated Measures Model with covariates of baseline pulse rate, sex, age, smoking status, treatment and Day and Day by treatment and Day by baseline interactions.|||3.5|-5.5|
84472961|NCT00424528|168697385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
84472962|NCT00424528|168697385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84524793|NCT04947150|168802572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA were used.||||||.255
84524794|NCT04947150|168802573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.560
84524795|NCT04947150|168802574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.319
84524796|NCT04947150|168802575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.032
84472963|NCT00424528|168697386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.073
84472964|NCT00424528|168697386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.050
84472965|NCT00424528|168697389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 0 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0 comparisons||||0.060
84524797|NCT04947150|168802576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.044
84524798|NCT04947150|168802577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.010
84524799|NCT04947150|168802578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.073
84524800|NCT04947150|168802579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.872
84524801|NCT04947150|168802580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.145
84524802|NCT04947150|168802581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.173
84524803|NCT04947150|168802582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.012
84524804|NCT04947150|168802583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
84524805|NCT04947150|168802584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524806|NCT04947150|168802585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524807|NCT04947150|168802586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84472966|NCT00424528|168697389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0||||<0.001
84472967|NCT00424528|168697389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.004
84472968|NCT00424528|168697389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.002
84472969|NCT00424528|168697392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.206
84472970|NCT00424528|168697392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.025
84524808|NCT04947150|168802587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.382
84472971|NCT02115113|168697399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-4.86|0.3013
84472972|NCT00789191|168697406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001||95.0|-0.77|-0.33||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline HbA1c was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors||Null hypothesis: Difference between mean HbA1c in the two treatment arms is equal to zero. Power calculation: Assuming a standard deviation of 1.0 for HbA1c, 100 subjects in each treatment arm would be required to obtain a power of 80% for detecting a HbA1c difference of 0.4%||-0.33|-0.77|0.0010
84472973|NCT00789191|168697407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.001||95.0|1.65|6.19||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||6.19|1.65|0.0010
84472974|NCT00789191|168697408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008||95.0|1.26|4.81||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||4.81|1.26|0.0080
84472975|NCT00789191|168697409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.063||95.0|0.96|5.2||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.20|0.96|0.063
84472976|NCT00789191|168697410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.135||95.0|0.8|5.37||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate|Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.37|0.8|0.135
84472977|NCT00789191|168697411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.121||95.0|-0.07|0.63||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||0.63|-0.07|0.121
84472978|NCT00789191|168697412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.109||95.0|-0.19|1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||1.88|-0.19|0.109
84472979|NCT00789191|168697413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45||||0.001||95.0|-3.01|-1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||-1.88|-3.01|0.0010
84472980|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.51|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast|||-1.51|-2.50|
84472981|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-2.4|-0.89|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of breakfast|||-0.89|-2.40|
84472982|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-1.69|-0.35|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before lunch|||-0.35|-1.69|
84472983|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.05|-0.56|||Linear mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of lunch|||-0.56|-2.05|
84472984|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||||95.0|-1.58|0.05|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before dinner|||0.05|-1.58|
84472985|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of dinner|||-0.02|-1.75|
84472986|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||||95.0|-1.88|-0.2|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Bedtime|||-0.20|-1.88|
84472987|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||||95.0|-1.84|-0.49|||Linear Mixed Model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. At 03:00 a.m.|||-0.49|-1.84|
84472988|NCT00789191|168697417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||||95.0|-2.26|-1.34|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast the following day|||-1.34|-2.26|
84472989|NCT03736629|168697428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||4.81|-6.14|0.72
84472990|NCT03736629|168697429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|24.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.|||24.65|-35.98|0.59
84472991|NCT03736629|168697432|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||||1.0
84524809|NCT04947150|168802588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524810|NCT04947150|168802589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.178
84524811|NCT04947150|168802590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.081
84524812|NCT04947150|168802591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.343
84524813|NCT04947150|168802592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.369
84524814|NCT04947150|168802593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.055
84524815|NCT04947150|168802596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.001
84524816|NCT04947150|168802597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.079
84524817|NCT04947150|168802598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.581
84524818|NCT04947150|168802599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524819|NCT04947150|168802600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524820|NCT04947150|168802601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524821|NCT04947150|168802602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524822|NCT04947150|168802606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Sample T-test||||||<.05
84524823|NCT04947150|168802608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.006
84524824|NCT04947150|168802609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||<.001
84524825|NCT04947150|168802610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.220
84524826|NCT04947150|168802611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.623
84524827|NCT04947150|168802612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.577
84524828|NCT04947150|168802613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524829|NCT04947150|168802614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
84524830|NCT04947150|168802615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
84524831|NCT04947150|168802616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.601
84524832|NCT04947150|168802617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.088
84524833|NCT04947150|168802618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.210
84524834|NCT04947150|168802619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.060
84524835|NCT04947150|168802620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.370
84524836|NCT04947150|168802621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.556
84524837|NCT04947150|168802622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.913
84524838|NCT04947150|168802623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.241
84524839|NCT03581188|168802625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.0||||||Odds ratios report differences between groups at follow-up.||14|0.9|
84524840|NCT03581188|168802626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||||||||5.7|0.8|
84524841|NCT03581188|168802628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||||||||2.1|1.1|
84524842|NCT03581188|168802629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2|0.6|
84524843|NCT03581188|168802630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.0||||||For new melanoma diagnoses, we calculated the difference in proportions and confidence intervals using the χ2 method without continuity correction. We included baseline measurement of the outcome in the models as a covariate to estimate between group difference in change from baseline.||23|-2|
84524844|NCT03581188|168802631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|19.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at unscheduled visit||19|2|
84524845|NCT03581188|168802631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at scheduled visit||10|-9|
84524846|NCT03581188|168802632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||||3|-5.8|
84524847|NCT02760264|168802715|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84524848|NCT02760264|168802717|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84524849|NCT02760264|168802719|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84524850|NCT02760264|168802720|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84524851|NCT02760264|168802722|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84524852|NCT02760264|168802724|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
84472992|NCT03583372|168697459|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0||||||||-2.0|-2.9|
84472993|NCT03583372|168697459|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
84472994|NCT03583372|168697460|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-2.5|
84472995|NCT03583372|168697460|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||||||||-1.3|-2.0|
84472996|NCT03583372|168697461|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-4.0|
84472997|NCT03583372|168697461|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-4.0|
84472998|NCT03583372|168697462|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.2||||||||-2.2|-2.8|
84472999|NCT03583372|168697462|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||||||||-1.6|-2.3|
84473000|NCT03377244|168697501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of percent change in weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1013
84473001|NCT03377244|168697502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment.||||||0.4950
84473002|NCT03377244|168697503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.7416
84473003|NCT03377244|168697504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0702||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0702
84473004|NCT03377244|168697505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in eating habits self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0070
84473005|NCT03377244|168697506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in physical activity self-efficacy scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0009
84473006|NCT03377244|168697507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis for the probability of participants to engage in sufficient physical activity at 6 months post-intervention.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, employment status, and baseline physical activity.||||||0.3740
84473007|NCT03377244|168697508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9556||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' sugar-sweetened beverage consumption per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.9556
84473008|NCT03377244|168697509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1726||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' fruit and vegetable consumption scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1726
84473009|NCT03377244|168697510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0478
84473010|NCT00174785|168697511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason or death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.84|0.69|<0.0001
84473011|NCT00174785|168697512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.18||95.0|0.66|1.08||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||1.08|0.66|0.18
84473012|NCT00174785|168697513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.67|0.82||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
84524853|NCT05918822|168802733|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to log (ln)-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimate and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.31|90.91|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||90.91|74.31|
84524854|NCT05918822|168802733|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|57.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.18|63.84|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||63.84|52.18|
84524855|NCT05918822|168802733|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|49.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.07|60.0|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||60.00|40.07|
84524856|NCT05918822|168802734|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|104.2|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||104.20|91.39|
84524857|NCT05918822|168802734|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|87.61|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||87.61|76.84|
84524858|NCT05918822|168802734|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.11|81.51|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||81.51|60.11|
84524859|NCT05918822|168802735|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|99.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.12|106.11|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||106.11|94.12|
84524860|NCT05918822|168802735|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|81.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.93|86.73||||||Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||86.73|76.93|
84524861|NCT05918822|168802735|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|88.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.94|102.78|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||102.78|76.94|
84524862|NCT03346070|168802739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.1|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.10|1.18|0.0075
84524863|NCT03346070|168802739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|69.03|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||69.03|9.72|<0.0001
84524864|NCT03346070|168802739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|61.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|266.77|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||266.77|14.13|<0.0001
84524865|NCT03346070|168802739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.93|1.44|0.0005
84524866|NCT03346070|168802739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.01|1.50|<0.0001
84524867|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-9.6|0.602
84524868|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-13.4|0.969
84473013|NCT00174785|168697514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.025||95.0|0.51|0.96||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.96|0.51|0.025
84473014|NCT00174785|168697515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03||95.0|0.51|0.98||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of adjudicated cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.98|0.51|0.03
84473015|NCT02387372|168697516|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.56|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.56|1.21|
84473016|NCT02387372|168697516|OTHER||GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.29|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.29|1.03|
84473017|NCT02387372|168697519|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|1.96|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.96|1.50|
84473018|NCT02387372|168697519|OTHER||GMR|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.55|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.55|1.14|
84473019|NCT02387372|168697521|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.81|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.81|1.44|
84473020|NCT02387372|168697521|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.39|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.39|1.11|
84473021|NCT02387372|168697522|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|1.95|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.95|1.51|
84473022|NCT02387372|168697522|OTHER||GMR|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.33|1.09|
84524869|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.7|0.567
84524870|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.8|0.571
84473023|NCT04866303|168697538|OTHER|unadjusted logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate.||2.80|1.03|0.04
84473024|NCT04866303|168697539|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate||2.26|0.86|0.18
84473025|NCT01954251|168697552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison at one month after the last dose of HZ/su was performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non-inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMs between the Control and the Co-Ad group (Control over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) was below 1.5.|Adjusted Geometric mean concentration ra|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group in anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations GMCs at one month after last vaccine dose. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed concentrations of anti-gE. The fixed-effect model included the minimisation variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate.||1.20|0.97|
84473026|NCT01954251|168697553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||||||For the Flu A/California/7/2009 H1N1 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.22|0.88|
84524871|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.9|-11.6|0.950
84524872|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.9|-8.4|0.528
84524873|NCT03346070|168802740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|9.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.6|-6.8|0.709
84524874|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-12.3|0.738
84524875|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|26.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.3|-1.7|0.077
84524876|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.4|-12.0|0.717
84473027|NCT01954251|168697553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||||||For the Flu A/Texas/50/2012 H3N2 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.17|0.91|
84473028|NCT01954251|168697553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||||||For the Flu B/Brisbane/60/2008 Victoria strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.20|0.95|
84473029|NCT01954251|168697553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||||||For the Flu B/Massachusetts/2/2012 Yamagata strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.09|0.88|
84473030|NCT02504268|168697570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2359|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2359
84473031|NCT02504268|168697571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0112
84473032|NCT02504268|168697572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0021
84473033|NCT02504268|168697573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||rank-based ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84473034|NCT02504268|168697574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0006
84473035|NCT03025217|168697575|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.095
84473036|NCT03025217|168697576|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84524877|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.7|-9.9|0.486
84473037|NCT02344407|168697583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Bernards Exact Test Chi-square||Each active vaccine is compared to the placebo group||||0.68
84473038|NCT02344407|168697583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Barnard Exact Test Chi-square||||||0.68
84473039|NCT02344407|168697584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Linear regression (analysis of covariance) adjusted for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
84473040|NCT02344407|168697584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
84473041|NCT01496430|168697588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84473042|NCT01496430|168697588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
84524878|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||12.4|-16.2|0.849
84473043|NCT01496430|168697589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
84473044|NCT01496430|168697589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
84473045|NCT01580592|168697625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||for omalizumab 150mg|||||0.001
84473046|NCT01580592|168697625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84473047|NCT01580592|168697625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84473048|NCT01580592|168697626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.988
84524879|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-4.9||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-18.2|0.339
84524880|NCT03346070|168802741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|-2.6|0.149
84524881|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-13.9|0.299
84524882|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-9.9|>0.999
84524883|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.0|-13.7|0.326
84524884|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.5||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.1|-13.6|0.335
84524885|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||11.9|-11.1|0.935
84524886|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.3|-13.8|0.326
84524887|NCT03346070|168802742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.4||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.5|-7.5|0.299
84524888|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-12.7|
84524889|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.2|-19.6|
84524890|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.7|-8.1|
84524891|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-18.0|
84524892|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|19.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.2|-9.6|
84524893|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||17.0|-12.5|
84524894|NCT03346070|168802743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|7.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.8|-11.4|
84524895|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||9.1|-15.2|
84524896|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.3|-22.3|
84524897|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.8|-18.8|
84524898|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|1.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.8|-21.2|
84524899|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|10.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.5|-17.0|
84524900|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|15.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||15.5|-14.0|
84524901|NCT03346070|168802744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.2|-13.9|
84524902|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.3|-13.4|
84524903|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|10.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.8|-12.3|
84524904|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.0|-13.7|
84524905|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.7|-11.2|
84524906|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-11.5|
84524907|NCT03346070|168802745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.0|-11.0|
84524908|NCT03346070|168802746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|16.9|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||16.9|-10.8|
84524909|NCT03346070|168802746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.2|-57.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-57.6|-87.2|
84524910|NCT03346070|168802746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.8|-61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-61.1|-88.8|
84524911|NCT03346070|168802746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|14.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||14.2|-7.2|
84524912|NCT03346070|168802746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-4.8|
84524913|NCT03346070|168802747|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.86|0.48|
84524914|NCT03346070|168802747|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.12|0.06|
84524915|NCT03346070|168802747|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.19|0.10|
84524916|NCT03346070|168802747|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.71|0.40|
84524917|NCT03346070|168802747|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.48|
84524918|NCT03346070|168802748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.80|0.50|
84524919|NCT03346070|168802748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.13|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.13|0.07|
84524920|NCT03346070|168802748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.20|0.11|
84524921|NCT03346070|168802748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.44|
84524922|NCT03346070|168802748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.70|0.51|
84524923|NCT03346070|168802749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.81|0.54|
84524924|NCT03346070|168802749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.17|0.09|
84524925|NCT03346070|168802749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.27|0.14|
84524926|NCT03346070|168802749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.83|0.52|
84524927|NCT03346070|168802749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.77|0.57|
84524928|NCT03460158|168802816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1524||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the relative change in volume and relative change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 2 weeks post injection||||0.8822
84524929|NCT03460158|168802816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1466||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 4 weeks post injection||||0.2223
84524930|NCT03460158|168802816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 12 weeks post injection||||0.0015
84524931|NCT01011556|168802818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.489|-5.851|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-5.851|-8.489|<0.001
84524932|NCT01011556|168802818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.822|-6.144|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-6.144|-8.822|<0.001
84524933|NCT01011556|168802818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.448|-4.891|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-4.891|-7.448|<0.001
84524934|NCT01011556|168802819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.716|-3.452|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-3.452|-5.716|<0.001
84524935|NCT01011556|168802819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.006|-2.727|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.727|-5.006|<0.001
84524936|NCT01011556|168802819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|-2.464|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.464|-4.652|<0.001
84524937|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.663|-3.392||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-3.392|-5.663|<0.001
84524938|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.086|-2.8||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.800|-5.086|<0.001
84524939|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.627|-2.43||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.430|-4.627|<0.001
84524940|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.856|-6.151||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.151|-8.856|<0.001
84524941|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.835|-6.091||p-value for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.091|-8.835|0.001
84524942|NCT01011556|168802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.802||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|-4.86||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-4.860|-7.510|0.001
84524943|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524944|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524945|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524946|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
84524947|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
84524948|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.003
84524949|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
84524950|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
84524951|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.029
84524952|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
84524953|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
84524954|NCT01011556|168802821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.047
84524955|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.822
84524956|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.406
84524957|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.312
84524958|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
84524959|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
84524960|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.952
84524961|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
84524962|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.011
84524963|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.997
84524964|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.003
84524965|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.112
84524966|NCT01011556|168802822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.988
84524967|NCT01011556|168802823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524968|NCT01011556|168802823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524969|NCT01011556|168802823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
84524970|NCT01098110|168802834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-7.16||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-7.16|-15.42|<0.0001
84524971|NCT01098110|168802834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-9.12||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-9.12|-17.33|<0.0001
84524972|NCT01098110|168802835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.13|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.13|-4.80|<0.0001
84524973|NCT01098110|168802835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-2.46|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.46|-5.11|<0.0001
84524974|NCT01098110|168802836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.41|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.41|-3.53|<0.0001
84524975|NCT01098110|168802836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.97|-4.08|<0.0001
84524976|NCT01098110|168802837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-3.35|-7.56|<0.0001
84524977|NCT01098110|168802837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-4.44||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-4.44|-8.62|<0.0001
84524978|NCT01098110|168802838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.09|-4.72|<0.0001
84524979|NCT01098110|168802838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-2.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.35|-4.97|<0.0001
84524980|NCT01098110|168802839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.26|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.26|-3.47|<0.0001
84524981|NCT01098110|168802839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.84|-4.03|<0.0001
84524982|NCT01098110|168802840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.70|-3.73|<0.0001
84524983|NCT01098110|168802840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.08|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.08|-4.09|<0.0001
84524984|NCT01098110|168802841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.83|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.83|-2.41|<0.0001
84524985|NCT01098110|168802841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.47|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.47|-3.04|<0.0001
84524986|NCT01098110|168802842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.78|-2.04|<0.0001
84524987|NCT01098110|168802842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.91|-2.16|<0.0001
84524988|NCT01098110|168802843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|28.1||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||28.1|9.2|0.0001
84524989|NCT01098110|168802843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|32.6||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.6|13.7|<0.0001
84524990|NCT01098110|168802844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.28|-0.75|<0.0001
84524991|NCT01098110|168802844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.36|-0.82|<0.0001
84524992|NCT01098110|168802845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.4||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.4|12.0|<0.0001
84524993|NCT01098110|168802845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|38.8||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||38.8|18.9|<0.0001
84524994|NCT02438540|168802917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84524995|NCT02438540|168802918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84524996|NCT02438540|168802919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84524997|NCT02438540|168802920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84524998|NCT02438540|168802921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84524999|NCT02438540|168802922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|multiple comparatives||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
84525000|NCT02438540|168802922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.60±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
84525001|NCT02438540|168802922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.59±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
84525002|NCT02438540|168802923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525003|NCT02438540|168802924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525004|NCT02438540|168802925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525005|NCT02438540|168802926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525006|NCT02438540|168802927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525007|NCT02438540|168802928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525008|NCT02438540|168802929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525009|NCT02438540|168802930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525010|NCT02438540|168802931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525011|NCT02438540|168802932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525012|NCT02438540|168802933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525013|NCT02438540|168802934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525014|NCT02010996|168802935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84525015|NCT03420768|168802937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.7||||||||17.70|0.13|
84525016|NCT03420768|168802937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|20.23||||||||20.23|0.26|
84525017|NCT00983476|168802944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .27 (p=.08); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .29 (p=.06).|Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.11
84525018|NCT00983476|168802945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .40 (p=.02); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .44 (p=.01).|In the obese sample, difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.02
84525019|NCT00983476|168802946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was not statistically significant.|||||0.32
84525020|NCT00983476|168802947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.11
84525021|NCT00983476|168802948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.47
84525022|NCT00983476|168802949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.51
84525023|NCT00983476|168802950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.83
84525024|NCT04019054|168802959|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group.||||||0.518|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.518
84525025|NCT04019054|168802960|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is within-group differences.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05. Observed power η2=0.39.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
84525026|NCT04019054|168802960|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is between-group differences.|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84525027|NCT04019054|168802961|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is within-group difference over time.||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05. Result above describes within group testing over time. Observed power η2=0.43.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84525028|NCT04019054|168802961|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is the between-group comparison|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84525029|NCT04019054|168802962|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of skin conductance level (SCL) as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.01
84525030|NCT04019054|168802962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The second statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of skin conductance level (SCL) (as a function of step and timepoint).||||0.029
84525031|NCT04019054|168802963|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
84525032|NCT04019054|168802963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||0.63
84525033|NCT04019054|168802963|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
84525034|NCT04019054|168802963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<0.001
84525035|NCT04019054|168802963|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
84525036|NCT04019054|168802963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group.||||0.047
84525037|NCT04019054|168802964|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U statistic|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-sided Mann-Whitney U Test (nonparametric) utilized to compare the ability of the groups to tolerate treatment intensity.||||0.027
84525038|NCT04019054|168802966|OTHER|A pair of chi-square analyses were performed to validate blinding of the study (based on questionnaires completed by subjects and raters). Given the small sample size, Fisher's exact method was utilized. The number of correct and incorrect guesses for each group were examined once for the subject guesses and once for the rater's guesses.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|For the subjects, p=0.64 using Fisher's exact method. For the raters, p=1 using Fisher's exact method.||||||>.05
84525039|NCT04019054|168802967|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
84525040|NCT04019054|168802967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||>.05
84540701|NCT05736861|168832642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.25|0.78|
84718607|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.76|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 6||0.76|-2.31|
84525041|NCT04019054|168802967|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
84525042|NCT04019054|168802967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<.001
84473049|NCT01962714|168697629|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of non-inferiority of LKM relative to CPT-C was assessed using a non-inferiority margin of 5 points on the CAPS-5, which represents 0.5 SD of baseline PTSD symptoms based on data indicating the SD of baseline CAPS-5 scores is approximately 10 in a large sample (N=198) of treatment-seeking veterans.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.78|||||Non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||6.78|-2.59|
84473050|NCT01962714|168697630|NON_INFERIORITY|For depression, the non-inferiority margin was 4 points on the PROMIS depression measure, which has been defined as the minimally important difference and corresponds to a Cohen's d effect size of approximately 0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.2|||||Non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores from baseline for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||5.20|-0.52|
84473051|NCT01151579|168697631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of at least 400 treatemnts or 65 patients was required to achieve 94% power to determine a 1% change by treatment or a 5% change between groups to be significant at p-value of 0.01 and o.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference between groups in heart rate changes from baseline following treatment. Sample size calculation determined a need for at least 400 breathing treatments among 65 patients.||||0.01
84473052|NCT01151579|168697632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Analysis adjusted with Fischer exact chi-square for rare occurrences.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference in incidence of arrhythmias between groups within the total number of breathing treatments.||||0.05
84473053|NCT01151579|168697633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive|Descriptive statistics (frequency) used to report the number of participants experiencing an event.||To report on the number of events.||||0
84473054|NCT00608530|168697634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance compared differences between and within groups (CBT and Supportive Care) from baseline to end of treatment. Statistical testing was performed using 2-tailed tests and alpha level of .05 for declaring statistical significance. The trial was powered at the \>.80 level to detect differences between condition based on projected sample N = 130; given the N = 66 actually achieved our a priori power for detecting differences between groups was .63.||||.05
84473055|NCT00608530|168697635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary analyses consisted of modified intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants who attended at least 1 treatment session, with multiple imputation to address missing data. The study was powered at 80% to detect large effect sizes (\>.50SD) and alpha of .05 with a recruitment goal N = 140; with the N = 61 actually obtained, our a priori power was .55 to detect between group differences.||||.05
84473056|NCT00608530|168697636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing groups at baseline and end of treatment.||||>0.05
84525043|NCT04019054|168802967|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
84473057|NCT00608530|168697638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
84473058|NCT00077610|168697640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.215|0.223|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.223|-0.215|<0.0001
84525044|NCT04019054|168802967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and group.||||0.024
84525045|NCT01040793|168802968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|1.043|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.199|1.043|0.0018
84525046|NCT01040793|168802968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0052||95.0|1.03|1.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.184|1.030|0.0052
84525047|NCT01040793|168802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0155||95.0|0.016|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.152|0.016|0.0155
84525048|NCT01040793|168802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.098|<0.0001
84525049|NCT01040793|168802970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.1176||95.0|-0.757|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|-0.757|0.1176
84525050|NCT01040793|168802970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.7591||95.0|-0.486|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.355|-0.486|0.7591
84525051|NCT01040793|168802971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.094|<0.0001
84525052|NCT01040793|168802971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.265|0.125|<0.0001
84525053|NCT01040793|168802972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0245||95.0|0.01|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.146|0.010|0.0245
84525054|NCT01040793|168802972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.240|0.105|<0.0001
84525055|NCT01040793|168802973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2897||95.0|-0.211|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.063|-0.211|0.2897
84525056|NCT01040793|168802973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.7199||95.0|-0.162|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.162|0.7199
84525057|NCT01040793|168802974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5313||95.0|-0.196|0.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.379|-0.196|0.5313
84525058|NCT01040793|168802974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0198||95.0|0.055|0.628|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.628|0.055|0.0198
84525059|NCT01040793|168802975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1048||95.0|-0.19|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.018|-0.190|0.1048
84525060|NCT01040793|168802975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0246||95.0|-0.224|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.015|-0.224|0.0246
84525061|NCT01040793|168802976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.318|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.108|-0.318|<0.0001
84525062|NCT01040793|168802976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0005||95.0|-0.293|-0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.082|-0.293|0.0005
84525063|NCT01040793|168802977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.071|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.228|0.071|0.0002
84525064|NCT01040793|168802977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.076|0.0001
84525065|NCT01040793|168802978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.303|0.162|<0.0001
84525066|NCT01040793|168802978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.273|0.133|<0.0001
84525067|NCT01040793|168802979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3109||95.0|-0.053|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.166|-0.053|0.3109
84525068|NCT01040793|168802979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.608||95.0|-0.081|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.081|0.6080
84525069|NCT01040793|168802980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.6809||95.0|-0.087|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.133|-0.087|0.6809
84525070|NCT01040793|168802980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.858||95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.100|0.8580
84525071|NCT01040793|168802981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
84525072|NCT01040793|168802981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
84525073|NCT01040793|168802982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.151|<0.0001
84525074|NCT01040793|168802982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.236|0.153|<0.0001
84525075|NCT01040793|168802983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
84525076|NCT01040793|168802983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
84525077|NCT01040793|168802984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.333|0.196|<0.0001
84525078|NCT01040793|168802984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
84525079|NCT01040793|168802985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.405|0.156|<0.0001
84525080|NCT01040793|168802985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.416|0.166|<0.0001
84525081|NCT01040793|168802986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.441|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.719|0.441|<0.0001
84525082|NCT01040793|168802986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001||95.0|0.412|0.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.691|0.412|<0.0001
84525083|NCT03877926|168802998|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 2 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|0.93|
84525084|NCT03877926|168802998|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14||||||||1.14|0.96|
84525085|NCT03877926|168802998|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 2 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||||||||1.13|0.95|
84525086|NCT03877926|168803000|OTHER||Percentage of participants|66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|68.1||||||||68.1|64.5|
84525087|NCT03877926|168803001|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -15% was used for the difference in percentage of AV7909 participants (pooled from three AV7909 study groups \[Lot 1, 2, and 3\]) vs. BioThrax participants who achieved TNA NF50 ≥0.29 at Day 64. The success criterion was defined as the lower bound of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of AV7909 vs. BioThrax participants being greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|29.2||||||||29.2|20.0|
84525088|NCT03877926|168803002|OTHER|Relative risk of serious adverse events incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||6.5|0.9|
84525089|NCT03877926|168803003|OTHER|Success criteria was defined as the lower bound for the 95% CI for the proportion of participants pooled from all three AV7909 study groups with TNA NF50 ≥0.15 to be ≥67%.|Percentage of participants|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|98.3||||||||98.3|97.2|
84525090|NCT03877926|168803005|OTHER|Relative risk of adverse events of special interest (events of autoimmune etiology) incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.0|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||5.0|0.3|
84525091|NCT01352182|168803008|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84525092|NCT01352182|168803009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84525093|NCT01352182|168803010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
84525094|NCT01352182|168803011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
84525095|NCT01352182|168803012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84525096|NCT01352182|168803013|OTHER|linear regression|Slope|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3741||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
84525097|NCT00588731|168803014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
84525098|NCT00588731|168803015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
84525099|NCT00860743|168803025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
84525100|NCT00860743|168803026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
84525101|NCT02776553|168803027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84525102|NCT02776553|168803028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
84525103|NCT02776553|168803029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84525104|NCT04569786|168803042|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.34||1-sided|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA) method|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.34|0.63|0.649
84525105|NCT04569786|168803042|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.495||90.0|0.68|1.48||1-sided|LDA model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.48|0.68|0.495
84525106|NCT04569786|168803042|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.6||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.60|0.75|0.339
84525107|NCT04569786|168803042|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.28||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||3.28|1.56|<0.001
84525108|NCT01684878|168803051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.88||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||2 sided log-rank|||The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan vs paclitaxel), previous anti-angiogenic therapy (yes versus no), and progression-free interval (PFI) since platinum therapy (\< 3 months versus 3-6 months). A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the pertuzumab + chemotherapy treatment arm.||1.27|0.62|0.4983
84525109|NCT01684878|168803053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|6.06||||0.4102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.3|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% CI for difference of 2 rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||18.3|6.0|0.4102
84525110|NCT01684878|168803058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio (stratified)|0.9||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.32|||2 sided log-rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the Pertuzumab + Chemotherapy treatment group|The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan versus paclitaxel), previous angiogenic therapy (yes versus no) and PFI since platinum therapy (\<3 months versus 3-6 months).||1.32|0.61|0.5960
84525111|NCT00810888|168803059|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons as a prior hypothesis critical value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||1.00
84525112|NCT00810888|168803060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||Only the randomized subjects will be compared||||0.66
84525113|NCT00810888|168803061|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|38.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|64.6|||Fisher Exact|||||64.6|17.6|0.004
84525114|NCT00810888|168803062|SUPERIORITY||Specificity|94.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.6|98.1|||Fisher Exact|||||98.1|85.6|0.004
84525115|NCT00810888|168803063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
84525116|NCT00810888|168803064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
84525117|NCT00810888|168803065|OTHER|A Kappa test of overall agreement was used|Kappa|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||||A kappa of \>0.75 is considered excellent agreement|||0.93|0.61|
84525118|NCT00810888|168803066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Groups 1 and 2 only the spot positive subjects randomized to interventional drug or placebo||||0.25
84525119|NCT01955044|168803170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DHA levels||||0.05
84525120|NCT00104247|168803179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84525121|NCT01886937|168803194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84525122|NCT04230876|168803242|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.047|||=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Within the 28 participants, changes in the COSI scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.28).|ANOVA|||||||=0.269
84525123|NCT04230876|168803243|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.031|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the IOI-HA scores measured after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,23)=.733).|ANOVA|||||||=0.401
84525124|NCT04230876|168803244|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the APHAB benefit scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,25)=.002).|ANOVA|||||||=0.968
84525125|NCT04230876|168803245|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.028|||=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the SSQ-12 scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=.756).|ANOVA|||||||=0.392
84525126|NCT04230876|168803246|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Among the 28 participants, changes in the hours per day of hearing aid usage seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,26)=.131).|ANOVA|||||||=0.720
84525127|NCT04230876|168803247|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.052|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the NU-6 seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.43).|ANOVA|||||||=0.242
84540702|NCT05736861|168832642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.43|0.86|
84473059|NCT00077610|168697640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.3 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0997|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.173|0.275|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.275|-0.173|<0.0001
84473060|NCT00305253|168697653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Independent variables were selected on the basis of their significant association with EAO in bivariate analyses (t-tests and logistic regression).|Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|"Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for the primary outcome, Extreme Adverse Outcomes (EAO) - a combined measure of maternal mortality or severe mobidity.~To estimate the independent effect of the intervention net of the effects of other baseline characteristics, a multiple logistic regression model was used."||0.85|0.17|0.019
84473061|NCT00305253|168697654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Mean measured volume of blood loss in the drape was compared across phases with t-tests.||||<0.0001
84473062|NCT00305253|168697655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for emergency hysterectomy.||0.80|0.21|<0.05
84473063|NCT01098461|168697663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.57|-1.22|<0.0001
84473064|NCT01098461|168697663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.23|-1.88|<0.0001
84473065|NCT01098461|168697663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-1.43|<0.0001
84473066|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
84473067|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84473068|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84473069|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
84473070|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84473071|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84473072|NCT02841787|168697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84473073|NCT02841787|168697675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
84473074|NCT03491553|168697829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473075|NCT03491553|168697829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473076|NCT03491553|168697829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473077|NCT03491553|168697829|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
84473078|NCT03491553|168697830|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473079|NCT03491553|168697830|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473080|NCT03491553|168697830|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473081|NCT03491553|168697830|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473082|NCT03491553|168697831|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473083|NCT03491553|168697831|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473084|NCT03491553|168697831|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473085|NCT03491553|168697831|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473086|NCT03491553|168697832|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473087|NCT03491553|168697832|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473088|NCT03491553|168697832|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473089|NCT03491553|168697832|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473090|NCT03491553|168697833|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473091|NCT03491553|168697833|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473092|NCT03491553|168697833|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84473093|NCT03491553|168697833|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
84473094|NCT01975935|168697912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||This is the calculated p value and not the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84473095|NCT01975935|168697913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84473096|NCT01975935|168697914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84525128|NCT02093923|168803255|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
84525129|NCT02093923|168803255|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.77||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.18|-46.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-46.90|-97.18|0.0050
84525130|NCT02093923|168803255|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-91.08||||0.0012||95.0|-97.93|-61.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-61.57|-97.93|0.0012
84525131|NCT02093923|168803256|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
84525132|NCT02093923|168803256|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-84.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.07|-63.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-63.46|-93.07|<.0001
84525133|NCT02093923|168803256|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.81|-71.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-71.50|-94.81|<.0001
84525134|NCT02093923|168803257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
84525135|NCT02093923|168803257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-82.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-58.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-58.64|-92.50|<.0001
84525136|NCT02093923|168803257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.55|-69.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-69.06|-94.55|<.0001
84525137|NCT02093923|168803258|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
84525138|NCT02093923|168803258|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-85.24||||0.0141||95.0|-96.79|-32.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-32.03|-96.79|0.0141
84525139|NCT02093923|168803258|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-89.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.68|-51.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-51.13|-97.68|0.0040
84525140|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|16.82||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|3.5|0.0094
84525141|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
84525142|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-12.15||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-0.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5|-23.8|0.0198
84525143|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
84473097|NCT00243230|168697915|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg vs. Placebo|-0.98||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.37|-1.58|0.0017
84473098|NCT00243230|168697915|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg vs. Placebo|-0.93||||0.0026||95.0|-1.54|-0.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.33|-1.54|0.0026
84473099|NCT00243230|168697916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0052
84473100|NCT00243230|168697916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0190
84473101|NCT00243230|168697917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0007
84473102|NCT00243230|168697917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0028
84473103|NCT00243230|168697919|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30mg - Placebo|-1.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.48|-1.53|0.0002
84473104|NCT00243230|168697919|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-0.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.31|-1.36|0.0020
84473105|NCT00243230|168697920|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30 mg - Placebo|-1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.51|-1.69|0.0003
84473106|NCT00243230|168697920|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-1.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.49|-1.66|0.0004
84473107|NCT00243230|168697921|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|57.76||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|108.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||108.61|6.90|0.0264
84473108|NCT00243230|168697921|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|42.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|93.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||93.28|-8.55|0.1020
84473109|NCT00243230|168697922|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|38.12||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|90.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||90.56|-14.32|0.1525
84473110|NCT00243230|168697922|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|44.12||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|96.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||96.61|-8.38|0.0987
84473111|NCT00243230|168697923|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|37.32||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|102.68|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||102.68|-28.05|0.2603
84473112|NCT00243230|168697923|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|69.08||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|134.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||134.52|3.64|0.0387
84473113|NCT00243230|168697925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0031
84473114|NCT00243230|168697925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0480
84473115|NCT00243230|168697926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
84473116|NCT00243230|168697926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
84473117|NCT00243230|168697928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0225
84473118|NCT00243230|168697928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0582|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0582
84473119|NCT00243230|168697929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
84473120|NCT00243230|168697929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0038
84473121|NCT00243230|168697930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0002
84473122|NCT00243230|168697930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0004
84473123|NCT03483506|168697986|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.88|11.82|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||11.82|5.88|
84525144|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-21.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-8.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-35.1|0.0010
84525145|NCT00545688|168803262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0030
84525146|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||1.40|0.34|0.2983
84525147|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||2.30|0.68|0.4722
84525148|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||3.93|1.07|0.0268
84525149|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.27|0.28|0.1805
84525150|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.64|0.42|0.5901
84525151|NCT00545688|168803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||4.32|1.08|0.0250
84525152|NCT02449473|168803279|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group as fixed effect and baseline log-transformed airway submucosal eosinophils as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. All group comparisons from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|1.43||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in airway submucosal eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. The null hypothesis was that the change in airway submucosal eosinophils at Week 12 on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding change on placebo.||3.27|0.63|0.3862
84525153|NCT02449473|168803280|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.21||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood eosinophil count; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.48|1.00|0.0546
84525154|NCT02449473|168803281|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed differential sputum eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in differential sputum eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||6.00|0.06|0.6334
84525155|NCT02449473|168803282|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed blood free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.40|0.88|0.3769
84525156|NCT02449473|168803283|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed sputum free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in sputum free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.20|0.20|0.1126
84525157|NCT03407612|168803284|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the baseline HOS-ADL measures.||||0.67
84525158|NCT03407612|168803284|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.73
84525159|NCT03407612|168803284|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 12 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.87
84525160|NCT03407612|168803284|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 month postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.78
84525161|NCT03407612|168803285|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
84525162|NCT03407612|168803286|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84525163|NCT02551679|168803307|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.046||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|7.255|||ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of this study is that ACP-01 is superior to placebo in terms of the earlier time from treatment with Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) to either de-novo gangrene, or doubling of wound size, or major amputation, or death.||7.255|0.577|0.258
84525164|NCT03662308|168803320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84540703|NCT05736861|168832642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.66|
84525165|NCT01005329|168803327|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The rate of the acute specified AEs (adverse events) from previous (and prior to ClinicalTrials.gov requirements) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9708 of RT + cisplatin was 44% and the hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab to IMRT + cisplatin will not increase this rate beyond 60%. This study was designed with a 1-sided, upper bound confidence interval to estimate this AE rate. Twenty-seven evaluable patients were required to have 95% confidence that the true grade 3+ non-hematologic treatment-related AE rate is not greater than 60%. Please note that this is a 95% ONE-SIDED confidence bound which is equivalent to the upper bound of a two-sided 90% confidence interval.|||
84525166|NCT03852524|168803338|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The sample size (41 patients per study group; 82 patients total) for this superiority trial was calculated with a power of 90% (alpha = 0.05) and based on the assumption that 50% of subjects in the placebo group would experience a bowel movement by postoperative day 3, as compared to 85% in the treatment group. Additionally, a 10% lost-to-follow up rate was assumed.||||0.81
84525167|NCT03756883|168803342|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|111.94||||||||111.94|92.68|
84525168|NCT03756883|168803343|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|110.61||||||||110.61|87.10|
84525169|NCT03756883|168803344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of the test product over the placebo.||||<0.0001
84525170|NCT03756883|168803344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of Reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
84525171|NCT03756883|168803345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of test over placebo.||||<0.0001
84525172|NCT03756883|168803345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
84525173|NCT02973321|168803350|OTHER|The overall Type 1 error for multiple comparisons of the HbA1c and body weight was controlled by a Hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was performed in following sequence: 1. 1st trend test for HbA1c, 2. 1st trend test for body weight, 3. 2nd trend test for HbA1c, 4. 2nd trend test for body weight, 5. 3rd trend test for HbA1c, 6. 3rd trend test for body weight.|||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st trend test||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Overall 1st trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of +3, +1, -1, -3 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide. Here it is test 1 of testing order.||||< 0.0001
84525174|NCT02973321|168803350|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|-0.552||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Second Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, +1, 0, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 3 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.552|-1.359|< 0.0001
84525175|NCT02973321|168803350|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|-0.444||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Third Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, 0, +1, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 5 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.444|-1.264|< 0.0001
84525176|NCT02973321|168803351|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st Trend test||Placebo, SAR425899 0.12,0.16,0.20 mg: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 2 of hierarchical testing sequence.||||0.0012
84525177|NCT02973321|168803351|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant|LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.309|-1.832||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||SAR425899 0.16 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 4 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-1.832|-5.309|< 0.0001
84718608|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.2|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 4||-0.20|-4.26|
84718609|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.27|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 6||0.27|-4.03|
84718610|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.99|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 4||0.99|-2.85|
84540704|NCT05736861|168832643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.35|0.87|
84473124|NCT03483506|168697988|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.08|74.14|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||74.14|52.08|
84473125|NCT04570657|168698000|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.036||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.038|0.111||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.111|-0.038|0.267
84473126|NCT04570657|168698000|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.071|0.079||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.079|-0.071|0.473
84473127|NCT04570657|168698001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.012||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.086||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.086|-0.110|0.437
84473128|NCT04570657|168698001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.059||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.039|0.157||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.157|-0.039|0.221
84473129|NCT04570657|168698001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.038||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.136|0.06||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.060|-0.136|0.308
84473130|NCT04570657|168698001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.025||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.122|0.072||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.072|-0.122|0.372
84473131|NCT04570657|168698004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.215|0.154||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.154|-0.215|0.416
84473132|NCT04570657|168698004|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.047||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.231|0.137||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.137|-0.231|0.371
84473133|NCT04570657|168698005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.76|0.612
84473134|NCT04570657|168698005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|2.25|||Chi-squared|||||2.25|0.88|0.348
84473135|NCT04570657|168698006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.50|0.575
84473136|NCT04570657|168698006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.38|||Chi-squared|||||1.38|0.53|0.679
84473137|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.825|3.828||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||3.828|-3.825|0.500
84473138|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.364||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.198|2.47||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||2.470|-5.198|0.324
84473139|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.421||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.103|1.26||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||1.260|-4.103|0.248
84473140|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.694||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.383|0.996||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.996|-4.383|0.210
84473141|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.691||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.715|5.096||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||5.096|-3.715|0.420
84473142|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.15||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.579|1.28||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||1.280|-7.579|0.181
84473143|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.663||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.454|2.129||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||2.129|-3.454|0.380
84473144|NCT04570657|168698007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.896||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.694|0.903||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.903|-4.694|0.192
84473145|NCT04570657|168698008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.59|0.828
84473146|NCT04570657|168698008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.68|0.840
84473147|NCT04570657|168698009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.0||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||2.0|0.8|0.239
84473148|NCT04570657|168698009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.7||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||1.7|0.6|0.461
84473149|NCT04570657|168698010|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.36||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.36|0.56|0.346
84473150|NCT04570657|168698010|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.43|1.12||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.12|0.43|0.166
84473151|NCT04570657|168698011|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.869||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.791|0.956||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.956|0.791|0.029
84473152|NCT04570657|168698011|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.879||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|0.966||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.966|0.800|0.040
84473153|NCT04570657|168698012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.078|0.124||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.124|-0.078|0.385
84473154|NCT04570657|168698012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.123||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.224|-0.022||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||-0.022|-0.224|0.060
84473155|NCT04570657|168698012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.077||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.034|0.187||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.187|-0.034|0.186
84473156|NCT04570657|168698012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.212||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.322||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.322|0.102|0.007
84473157|NCT04570657|168698013|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.559|0.71||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.710|0.559|< 0.001
84473158|NCT04570657|168698013|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.599|0.76||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.760|0.599|< 0.001
84473159|NCT03209440|168698044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84473160|NCT03209440|168698044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
84473161|NCT03209440|168698045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
84473162|NCT03209440|168698045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
84473163|NCT03209440|168698046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
84473164|NCT03209440|168698046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
84473165|NCT03209440|168698047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.11
84473166|NCT03209440|168698047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
84473167|NCT03209440|168698048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.05
84473168|NCT03209440|168698048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.46
84473169|NCT00831441|168698055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard models|||A test of superiority at the one-sided α = 0.025 significance level for the primary efficacy outcome was performed.||1.11|0.80|0.5094
84473170|NCT00831441|168698056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.26|0.70|0.6702
84473171|NCT00831441|168698057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.40|0.57|0.6311
84473172|NCT00831441|168698058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.14|0.76|0.5086
84473173|NCT00831441|168698059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.12|0.47|0.1502
84473174|NCT00831441|168698060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.09|0.82|0.4317
84473175|NCT00831441|168698061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.83|0.8015
84473176|NCT00831441|168698062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.85|0.8948
84473177|NCT00831441|168698063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.46|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||A point estimate and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk, as measured by the hazard ratio and a p-value for the test of equality of rates (HR = 1) was calculated.||4.46|1.50|0.0006
84473178|NCT00831441|168698064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.58|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.58|1.72|<0.0001
84473179|NCT00831441|168698065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.72|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.72|1.87|<0.0001
84473180|NCT00831441|168698066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|2.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||2.70|2.06|<0.0001
84473181|NCT01640925|168698072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The number of patients needed to achieve 80% power was estimated at 171 using Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratio reduction of 0.66; 0.15 probability of infection with control) using a two-sided 5% significance.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.555||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.998|||Regression, Cox||Hypothesis: Compared to soap and water daily bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on ICU admission and every 48 hours during surgical ICU care will decrease the risk of acquiring four hospital-acquired infections in surgical ICU patients.|||0.998|0.309|0.049
84473182|NCT00442013|168698095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects model is robust to data that are missing at random that has characteristics similar to multiple imputation techniques.||All participants included in the analysis. The model includes the data (ACQ scores) from all time points including baseline. The treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 6 months is estimated from the model. Longitudinal models estimated the change from baseline to 6 months in a measurement using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured or exchangeable covariance matrix to adjust for repeated measures.||0.3|0.0|0.12
84473183|NCT00442013|168698096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.65
84473184|NCT00442013|168698097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0906||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.1|0.99
84473185|NCT00442013|168698098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||negative binomial|||||1.7|0.9|0.30
84473186|NCT00442013|168698099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Model includes the data from all time points. Treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 24 weeks is from the model.||||0.01|-0.07|0.14
84525178|NCT02973321|168803351|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.264|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||3rd Trend Test: SAR425899 0.12 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 6 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.77|-4.264|0.0047
84525179|NCT03476317|168803362|EQUIVALENCE|Median difference in calprotectin for controls from day 12 to baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84525180|NCT00436917|168803387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample of 60 participants was estimated to provide percentage statistics accuracy to within 13% with 95% confidence.||||0.01
84525181|NCT01439724|168803418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.158||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.498|||Chi-squared|||The primary end point of the study was the incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (OM) according to the WHO scale. Assuming an α =0.05 and a β = 0.20, with the estimates of proportion being 0.40 for placebo (P0) and 0.15 for LLLT (P1) a total of 94 patients were evaluated. One-sided test error was the basis for the sample size determination and all the reported P-values were derived from two-sided statistical tests. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||0.498|0.050|0.05
84525182|NCT00508027|168803449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: There is no change in plasma biomarker levels before and after simivastatin treatment. With 12 patients in each group and assuming a 5% risk of Type I error (two-tailed α = 0.05) and estimated SD for the change in NOx (or sVCAM-1) of 48%, power will be 80% to detect a 40% change from baseline for each group, and a 55% difference in the change in biomarker levels between dose groups. Matched paired t-tests were used to measure changes in biomarker levels from baseline.||||<0.05
84525183|NCT02240186|168803460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84525184|NCT02240186|168803461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84525185|NCT02240186|168803462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
84525186|NCT02740179|168803487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||P value for Change in Coronary Flow Reserve on Cardiac PET|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
84525187|NCT02740179|168803488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P value for Change in Stress Myocardial Blood Flow on Cardiac MRI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84525188|NCT02740179|168803489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
84525189|NCT02740179|168803490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
84525190|NCT02740179|168803491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed on log transformation of data||||||0.03
84525191|NCT02740179|168803492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P value for Change in Plasma IL-6|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.09
84525192|NCT02740179|168803493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P value for Change in Plasma hsCRP|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.36
84525193|NCT02740179|168803494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P value for Change in Plasma MCP-1|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.88
84525194|NCT02740179|168803495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P value for Change in Plasma sCD163|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.17
84525195|NCT02740179|168803496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.28
84525196|NCT02740179|168803497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
84525197|NCT02740179|168803498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84525198|NCT02740179|168803499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
84525199|NCT02740179|168803500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
84525200|NCT02740179|168803501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
84525201|NCT02740179|168803502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84525202|NCT00479388|168803569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006||95.0|-7.7|-1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline LDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||-1.3|-7.7|0.006
84525203|NCT00479388|168803570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|13.4|17.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline HDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||17.9|13.4|<=0.001
84525204|NCT00479388|168803571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<=|0.001||95.0|-19.2|-11.7|||Repeated measures analysis|ANCOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender, concomitant statin group and Tukey's normal score of baseline.||||-11.7|-19.2|<=0.001
84525205|NCT01876368|168803575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-4.73|<0.001
84525206|NCT02563769|168803597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
84525207|NCT02563769|168803597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
84525208|NCT04117945|168803618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.8874
84525209|NCT04117945|168803619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9683
84525210|NCT04117945|168803620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.0448
84525211|NCT04117945|168803621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9007
84525212|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.302
84525213|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
84525214|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.229
84525215|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.544
84525216|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.710
84525217|NCT00562120|168803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.816
84525218|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.269
84525219|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.097
84525220|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.252
84525221|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.479
84525222|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.521
84525223|NCT00562120|168803636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
84525224|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.130
84525225|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.663
84525226|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.138
84525227|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.124
84525228|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
84525229|NCT00562120|168803637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.978
84525230|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.357
84525231|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
84525232|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.480
84525233|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.043
84540705|NCT05736861|168832643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.57|0.96|
84525234|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.087
84525235|NCT00562120|168803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.753
84525236|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.011
84525237|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.127
84525238|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.103
84525239|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.218
84525240|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.905
84525241|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.273
84525242|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
84525243|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.055
84525244|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.012
84525245|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.048
84525246|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.496
84525247|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.190
84525248|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
84525249|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.019
84525250|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.009
84525251|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.061
84525252|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.778
84525253|NCT00562120|168803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.102
84525254|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
84525255|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
84525256|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
84525257|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.217
84525258|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.156
84525259|NCT00562120|168803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.848
84525260|NCT02148445|168803642|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%.||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
84525261|NCT02148445|168803643|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%. This sample size will provide comparable power for looking at 6 month sustained cessation.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
84525262|NCT02148445|168803644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
84525263|NCT02148445|168803645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84525264|NCT02148445|168803646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84525265|NCT02148445|168803647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
84525266|NCT02148445|168803648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
84525267|NCT02148445|168803649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
84525268|NCT02148445|168803650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
84525269|NCT02148445|168803652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 self-reported abstinence||||0.08
84525270|NCT02148445|168803652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 biochemically verified abstinence||||0.06
84525271|NCT02148445|168803652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, self-reported abstinence||||0.22
84525272|NCT02148445|168803652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, biochemically verified abstinence||||0.34
84525273|NCT02148445|168803652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12, self-reported abstinence||||0.66
84525274|NCT02148445|168803653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
84525275|NCT02148445|168803654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84525276|NCT02148445|168803655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84525277|NCT02148445|168803656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
84525278|NCT02148445|168803657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0918
84525279|NCT03450629|168803658|EQUIVALENCE|8 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
84525280|NCT03450629|168803658|EQUIVALENCE|10 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0291
84525281|NCT03450629|168803658|EQUIVALENCE|4 PM +/- 30 min||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84525282|NCT03200535|168803665|SUPERIORITY|Superiority analysis|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84525283|NCT03200535|168803666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84525284|NCT01181531|168803669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Unadjusted. Model contains baseline stratification factor for type of Vitamin D administered at the site|Mixed Models Analysis||Cinacalcet - Vitamin D|Null hypothesis: no difference in % change from baseline in PTH comparing the two treatment arms.||5.4|-15.4|0.346
84525285|NCT01181531|168803670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.29|0.92|0.110
84525286|NCT01181531|168803671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.39|0.74|0.346
84525287|NCT02339090|168803672|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance: annualized height velocity between somavaratan and daily rhGH ≤ -2.0 cm/year|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.24||||||An ANCOVA model will be used to determine the adjusted (least squares) means and standard error (SE) to determine the confidence interval (CI) of the difference. ANCOVA model included treatment group, region, and gender as fixed effects; with baseline age and baseline IGF-I SDS as covariates.||-0.24|-2.32|
84525288|NCT04243096|168803683|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|2.60|<0.0001
84525289|NCT04243096|168803684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
84525290|NCT04243096|168803685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.03|<0.0001
84718611|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.77|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 6||0.77|-3.42|
84718612|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.09|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 4||0.09|-3.28|
84718613|NCT03777657|169188629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.06|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 6||0.06|-3.55|
84718614|NCT00227266|169188668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman's correlation|0.93|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation|||MHFMS-Extend was not normally distributed at p=0.048. Test-retest reliability of MHFMS-Extend measurements from the first (S1) to the second (S2) screening visit was analyzed using Spearman's correlation.||||<0.001
84473187|NCT00442013|168698100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.1|0.20
84473188|NCT00485589|168698112|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.001
84473189|NCT00485589|168698112|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.0033|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.0033
84473190|NCT03072719|168698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.19||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff Sensitivity score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"H0 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is zero.~H1 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is not zero."||0.09|-0.46|0.1774
84473191|NCT03709810|168698178|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.3|||ANOVA|Log10 peanuts mass as response variable, study product and period as fixed explanatory effects, and participant as a random effect.|GMR=(Experimental denture adhesive/ No Adhesive)|||0.30|0.12|<0.0001
84473192|NCT02665364|168698183|SUPERIORITY||arithmetic mean|-30.2802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6653|-19.8951|||ANCOVA|||The percent of change from baseline to last available value between W24 and W36 of treatment in the expression of IFN-induced genes was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||-19.8951|-40.6653|< 0.0001
84473193|NCT02665364|168698184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.657|||Regression, Logistic|||Descriptive statistics for the response to treatment according to BICLA at week 36 were presented by treatment group. The response to treatment according to BICLA was analyzed using a logistic regression with the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.657|0.716|0.34
84473194|NCT02665364|168698185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The SRI-4 response was analyzed using a logistic regression using the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.329|0.602|0.6243
84473195|NCT02665364|168698186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
84473196|NCT02665364|168698187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to last available value between W24 and W36||||0.7946
84473197|NCT02665364|168698188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9224|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.9224
84473198|NCT02665364|168698189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3258|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.3258
84473199|NCT02665364|168698190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6169|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.6169
84473200|NCT02665364|168698191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.524|0.932|0.0796
84473201|NCT02665364|168698192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.574|0.938|0.0762
84473202|NCT02665364|168698195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.0097
84473203|NCT02665364|168698196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
84473204|NCT02665364|168698197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0396
84473205|NCT03888391|168698198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.72, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.20
84473206|NCT03888391|168698200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 44.47, df = 1/33||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||<.0001
84473207|NCT03888391|168698201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 15.74, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.0004
84473208|NCT03888391|168698202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .28, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.60
84473209|NCT03888391|168698203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.04, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.32
84473210|NCT03888391|168698204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.27, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.27
84473211|NCT01088438|168698238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis: proportion of encounters with contextual red flag in which appropriate treatment is planned is the same in the two groups.||||<0.001
84473212|NCT01088438|168698239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of contextual red flags probed in control and intervention groups.||||<.001
84473213|NCT01088438|168698240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 df||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of encounters probed in control and intervention groups.||||0.85
84473214|NCT02196038|168698287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||joint model|Joint model of ANCOVA plus survival||||2.0|0.9|<0.0001
84473215|NCT02196038|168698288|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Joint Model|Joint model of Poisson regression and survival||||1.19|0.66|0.59
84473216|NCT03471767|168698321|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to model daily reports of cigarettes smoked as a function of week, treatment (AXS-05 vs. bupropion), and the interaction between week and treatment. The contrast between the two treatment groups in change in smoking intensity from baseline to week 3 was estimated within the context of the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.65||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, because the primary hypothesis was established a-priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-2.75|0.05
84473217|NCT03471767|168698327|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84473218|NCT00678587|168698328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute difference in proportions|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.4|43.2|<0.0001
84473219|NCT00678587|168698329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-15.1|
84473220|NCT00678587|168698330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84473221|NCT02662985|168698361|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||GLOESS scores||-0.85|-5.52|0.0040
84473222|NCT02662985|168698362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression using non-responder imputation||Proportion of patients with ACR 20 response at Week 12 (FAS)||8.89|2.38|<0.0001
84473223|NCT02662985|168698363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of patients with ACR 50 response at Week 12 (FAS)||23.75|3.92|<0.0001
84473224|NCT02662985|168698364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean of treatment difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.043|||Regression, Logistic|||SPARCC||0.043|-1.374|0.0327
84473225|NCT01019486|168698365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis||||<0.05
84473226|NCT01019486|168698365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis.||||<0.05
84525291|NCT04243096|168803686|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.04|<0.0001
84473227|NCT01019486|168698365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between groups with two-tailed analysis||||<0.05
84473228|NCT01019486|168698366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If sufficient subjects were enrolled then it would be expected that the MRI measurement of myocardial blood flow MBF would similar or equivalent to the invasively measured CFR in response to intravenous regadenoson administration.|None insufficient data|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No analysis was performed due to limited data.||||0.05
84473229|NCT01019486|168698367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups using a two-tailed Student t test||||<.05
84473230|NCT05373706|168698370|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.20|0.76|0.68
84473231|NCT05373706|168698370|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.49|0.81|0.56
84473232|NCT05373706|168698371|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.33|0.64|0.68
84473233|NCT05373706|168698371|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.88|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.88|0.82|0.30
84473234|NCT05373706|168698372|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.15|0.69|0.36
84473235|NCT05373706|168698372|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.80|0.73
84525292|NCT04243096|168803687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.01|<0.0001
84525293|NCT04243096|168803688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0013
84473236|NCT05373706|168698373|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.04|0.66|0.11
84525294|NCT04243096|168803689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0003
84525295|NCT04243096|168803690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|0.02|<0.0001
84473237|NCT05373706|168698373|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.66|0.38
84473238|NCT01486784|168698380|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on the dose limiting toxicities occurring in each dosing cohort, a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) may be determined by assessing the highest dosing level presenting no dose limiting toxicities. An MTD of 17mg/m2 twice weekly was established.|||
84473239|NCT02724774|168698381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||All analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat, analyzing all 252 cases as randomly assigned to the PFR and control group (CG). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the treatment effect of PFR (0 = CG, 1 = PFR). Covariates included preferred language (0 = English, 1 = Spanish) and the baseline measure.||||.026
84473240|NCT02724774|168698382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.154
84473241|NCT02724774|168698383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.516
84473242|NCT02724774|168698384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84473243|NCT02724774|168698385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.094
84473244|NCT02724774|168698386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
84473245|NCT02724774|168698387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.389
84473246|NCT02724774|168698388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.747
84473247|NCT00516269|168698427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean difference in treat versus control|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||As a crossover study, the potential carryover effect was examined first. The pooled data (the 2-week treatment for each intervention i.e. period 1 \& period 2) was used to assess the treatment effect (A versus B).||||0.54
84473248|NCT00926796|168698428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|100.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.53||||Exact binomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence limit is \>=95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||98.53|<0.05
84473249|NCT00926796|168698435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|99.5|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.64||||Exact bionomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence interval is above 95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||97.64|<0.05
84473250|NCT01628016|168698437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
84473251|NCT01341652|168698439|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.97
84473252|NCT01341652|168698440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||.08
84473253|NCT01341652|168698442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8|||Regression, Cox|||||2.8|0.9|0.14
84473254|NCT01079962|168698452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.701||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.29||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in APP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||3.29|-1.89|0.5943
84473255|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8589||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.8589
84473256|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2223||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2223
84473257|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2443
84473258|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1481||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1481
84473259|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4188
84473260|NCT01079962|168698453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1586
84473261|NCT01079962|168698454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2987
84473262|NCT01079962|168698454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6584||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.6584
84473263|NCT01079962|168698455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2511||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2511
84525296|NCT04243096|168803691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|0.06|<0.0001
84718615|NCT00650078|169188673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.64||The p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment, geographic region, gender, and median age class as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.39|0.0010
84473264|NCT01079962|168698455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5007
84473265|NCT01079962|168698456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9943
84473266|NCT01079962|168698456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5230
84473267|NCT01079962|168698457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4447||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4447
84473268|NCT01079962|168698458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.3960
84473269|NCT01079962|168698458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1919
84473270|NCT01079962|168698458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1896||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1896
84473271|NCT01079962|168698459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9244||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9244
84473272|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9692||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9692
84473273|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4731||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4731
84473274|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2876
84473275|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.0420
84473276|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5100
84473277|NCT01079962|168698460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1207||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1207
84473278|NCT01079962|168698462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442||||0.7561||95.0|-2.36|3.24||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-2.36|0.7561
84473279|NCT01072539|168698465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Infection Sites: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||<0.0001
84473280|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatrc: \<65 Years Versus (VS) Geriatrc: \>=65 Years||||0.0067
84473281|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0412||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age categories: \<30 Years, 30 to 39 Years, 40 to 49 Years, 50 to 64 Years, and \>=65 Years.||||0.0412
84473282|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4792||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Male VS Sex: Female||||0.4792
84473283|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9669||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparson among Duration of Disease categories: \<3 Months, \>=3 Months and \<6 Months, and \>=6 Months||||0.9669
84473284|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of infection site: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||0.0064
84473285|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Satistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among severity of infection subgroups: Mild, Moderate, and Severe.||||<0.0001
84473286|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History: Yes VS General Medical History: No||||<0.0001
84473287|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Present): Yes VS General Medical History (Present): No||||<0.0001
84473288|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Past): Yes VS General Medical History (Past): No||||0.0006
84473289|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney Disorder: Yes VS Kidney Disorder: No||||<0.0001
84473290|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Liver Disorder: Yes VS Liver Disorder: No||||<0.0001
84473291|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among subgroups of Total Treatment Period of Tygacil: \<7 Days, 7 to 14 Days, and \>14 Days||||0.0153
84473292|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Mean Daily Dose of Tygacil: \<50 mg, 50 to \<100 mg, 100 to \<200 mg, and \>=200 mg.||||<0.0001
84473293|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0376||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past Medication and Therapy: Yes VS Past Medication and Therapy: No||||0.0376
84473294|NCT01072539|168698466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concomitant Medications: Yes VS Concomitant Medications: No||||<0.0001
84473295|NCT01008995|168698500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. Power calculations were based on two sample size assumptions: 220 (1:1 ratio) and 320 participants (1:1 ratio). Simulation studies evaluated the power to detect a treatment difference between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=65 kg vs \> 65 kg). The power was \>99% for both sample size assumptions.||||<0.001
84473296|NCT01008995|168698501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84473297|NCT01008995|168698502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84473298|NCT00621855|168698519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
84473299|NCT00621855|168698522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
84473300|NCT03675737|168698526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.87|0.70|<0.0001
84473301|NCT03675737|168698527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.84|0.65|<0.0001
84473302|NCT03675737|168698528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
84473303|NCT03675737|168698529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.85|0.67|<0.0001
84473304|NCT03675737|168698530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.82|0.63|<0.0001
84473305|NCT03675737|168698531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
84473306|NCT03675737|168698532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.3||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|14.1||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||14.1|4.4|0.00009
84473307|NCT03675737|168698533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.5||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.0||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||15.0|3.9|0.00041
84473308|NCT03675737|168698534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||25.5|9.3|0.00002
84473309|NCT02581865|168698599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-4.9|0.4326
84473310|NCT02581865|168698599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-6.2|0.1835
84473311|NCT02581865|168698600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.3812
84473312|NCT02581865|168698600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0146
84473313|NCT02581865|168698601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3065
84473314|NCT02581865|168698601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2052
84473315|NCT02581865|168698602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.7|0.2215
84473316|NCT02581865|168698602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.3|0.0566
84473317|NCT02581865|168698603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-9.8|0.5689
84473318|NCT02581865|168698603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-12.8|0.2320
84525297|NCT04243096|168803695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.31|6.60|<0.0001
84525298|NCT04243096|168803696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and presence of comorbidities.|Change from baseline to week 12|||16.48|9.65|<0.0001
84525299|NCT04243096|168803697|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.5||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-39.7|0.1196
84525300|NCT04243096|168803699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.04|<0.0001
84525301|NCT04243096|168803700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-5.76|<0.0001
84525302|NCT04243096|168803701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.46|<0.0001
84525303|NCT04243096|168803702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.22|<0.0001
84525304|NCT04243096|168803703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-3.37|<0.0001
84525305|NCT04243096|168803704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.11|1.31|0.0134
84525306|NCT04243096|168803705|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|1.16|<0.0001
84525307|NCT04243096|168803706|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.97|0.0030
84718616|NCT00650078|169188674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-6.1||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test p-value|Hodges-Lehman method|The difference between the treatment groups was assessed using the median and the 95% CI of the median computed using the Hodges Lehmann method.||||-6.1|-31.7|0.0015
84718617|NCT02549352|169188675|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.71|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||23.71|2.58|<0.001
84718618|NCT02549352|169188676|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.51|3.32|<0.001
84525308|NCT04243096|168803707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|0.23|<0.0001
84525309|NCT04243096|168803708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||51.67|18.70|<0.0001
84525310|NCT04243096|168803709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-2.57|<0.0001
84525311|NCT02792218|168803725|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.655|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.655|0.375|<0.001
84525312|NCT02792218|168803726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
84525313|NCT02792218|168803727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.956|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.956|0.445|0.029
84525314|NCT02792218|168803728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
84525315|NCT02792218|168803729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.930|0.396|0.022
84525316|NCT02792218|168803730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.952|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.952|0.952|0.092
84525317|NCT02792218|168803731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.983|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.983|0.709|0.516
84525318|NCT02792218|168803732|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.049|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.049|0.013|<.001
84525319|NCT02792218|168803733|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.33|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.33|0.21|<.001
84525320|NCT02792218|168803733|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.34|0.15|<.001
84525321|NCT02792218|168803733|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.22|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.22|0.15|<.001
84718619|NCT02549352|169188677|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.61|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||15.61|3.70|<0.001
84525322|NCT02792218|168803734|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.98|0.89|0.011
84525323|NCT02792218|168803734|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.77|0.69|<.001
84525324|NCT02792218|168803734|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.82|0.72|<.001
84525325|NCT02792218|168803735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.118
84525326|NCT02792218|168803738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||||0.847|0.486|0.002
84525327|NCT02792218|168803739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||||0.898|0.481|0.008
84525328|NCT01631682|168803782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after propranolol was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
84525329|NCT01631682|168803782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was initially presented (CS+R) and then followed by a series of extinction trials after a 10-min delay would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus (CS+N) that was not extinguished without a 10-min delay.||||>.05
84525330|NCT01631682|168803782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after mifepristone was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||<.05
84525331|NCT01631682|168803782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after intranasal oxytocin was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
84525332|NCT03535857|168803822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Pairwise t- test|||||||0.546
84525333|NCT01730040|168803833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.9|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-22.2|-55.9|< 0.0001
84525334|NCT01730040|168803833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.7|-6.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-6.5|-40.7|= 0.0004
84525335|NCT01730040|168803833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-65.0|-33.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-33.5|-65|< 0.0001
84525336|NCT01730040|168803833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.4|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.9|-48.4|< 0.0001
84525337|NCT01730040|168803833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.4|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-47.4|<0.0001
84525338|NCT01730040|168803834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-59.2|-25.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1% level.||-25.7|-59.2|< 0.0001
84525339|NCT01730040|168803834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.9|-7.8||Threshold for significance≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.8|-41.9|= 0.0002
84525340|NCT01730040|168803834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-69.2|-36.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-36.5|-69.2|< 0.0001
84525341|NCT01730040|168803834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.3|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
84525342|NCT01730040|168803834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.0|-16.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.8|-50.0|< 0.0001
84525343|NCT01730040|168803835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.0|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.6|-54|<0.0001
84525344|NCT01730040|168803835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.0|<0.0001
84525345|NCT01730040|168803835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.7|-24.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.3|-47.7|<0.0001
84525346|NCT01730040|168803835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.2|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-39.2|<0.0001
84525347|NCT01730040|168803835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.8|-8.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.9|-32.8|<0.0001
84525348|NCT01730040|168803836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-33.1|-55.8|<0.0001
84525349|NCT01730040|168803836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-38.0|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-38.0|<0.0001
84525350|NCT01730040|168803836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.1|-24.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.5|-48.1|<0.0001
84525351|NCT01730040|168803836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.6|-15.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.8|-39.6|<0.0001
84525352|NCT01730040|168803836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.2|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-32.2|<0.0001
84525353|NCT01730040|168803837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.6|-42.0|<0.0001
84525354|NCT01730040|168803837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-10.7|-36.6|<0.0001
84525355|NCT01730040|168803837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.8|-26.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-26.0|-50.8|<0.0001
84525356|NCT01730040|168803837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.2|-18.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-43.2|<0.0001
84525357|NCT01730040|168803837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.1|-15.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.1|-40.1|<0.0001
84525358|NCT01730040|168803838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.6|-20.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.6|-44.6|<0.0001
84525359|NCT01730040|168803838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-37.3|<0.0001
84525360|NCT01730040|168803838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.2|-25.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-25.4|-51.2|<0.0001
84525361|NCT01730040|168803838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.6|-17.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.1|-42.6|<0.0001
84525362|NCT01730040|168803838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-13.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.4|-39.4|<0.0001
84525363|NCT01730040|168803839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.7|-16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.1|-44.7|<0.0001
84525364|NCT01730040|168803839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.1|-7.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.1|-36.1|=0.0002
84525365|NCT01730040|168803839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.7|-27.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-27.5|-54.7|<0.0001
84525366|NCT01730040|168803839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.7|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.6|-43.7|<0.0001
84525367|NCT01730040|168803839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-40.3|<0.0001
84525368|NCT01730040|168803840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.0|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-19.0|-47.0|<0.0001
84525369|NCT01730040|168803840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-8.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.1|-36.6|<0.0001
84525370|NCT01730040|168803840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-57.4|-29.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-29.7|-57.4|<0.0001
84525371|NCT01730040|168803840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-46.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.3|-46.0|<0.0001
84525372|NCT01730040|168803840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.4|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.2|-41.4|<0.0001
84525373|NCT01730040|168803841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.9|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.2|-32.9|<0.0001
84525374|NCT01730040|168803841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.8|-5.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-5.8|-25.8|<0.0001
84525375|NCT01730040|168803841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-18.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.4|-39.4|<0.0001
84525376|NCT01730040|168803841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.4|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-32.4|<0.0001
84525377|NCT01730040|168803841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-29.1|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-29.1|<0.0001
84525378|NCT01730040|168803842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.6|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.3|-41.6|<0.0001
84525379|NCT01730040|168803842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.4|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-35.4|<0.0001
84525380|NCT01730040|168803842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.9|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-35.9|<0.0001
84525381|NCT01730040|168803842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.5|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.9|-31.5|<0.0001
84525382|NCT01730040|168803842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.2|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-6.6|-25.2|<0.0001
84525383|NCT01730040|168803843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.3|-21.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.6|-45.3|<0.0001
84525384|NCT01730040|168803843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-35.2|<0.0001
84525385|NCT01730040|168803843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.0|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.6|-39.0|<0.0001
84525386|NCT01730040|168803843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.3|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.7|-32.3|<0.0001
84525387|NCT01730040|168803843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.7|-4.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-4.9|-24.7|<0.0001
84525388|NCT01730040|168803844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.4|-13.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.8|-31.4|<0.0001
84525389|NCT01730040|168803844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.6|-7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.0|-24.6|<0.0001
84525390|NCT01730040|168803844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-26.9|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-26.9|<0.0001
84525391|NCT01730040|168803844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-23.3|-7.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.6|-23.3|<0.0001
84525392|NCT01730040|168803844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.7|-1.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-1.9|-17.7|=0.0015
84525393|NCT01730040|168803845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.9|71.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.7|3.9|<0.0001
84525394|NCT01730040|168803845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||14.6|0.8|=0.0284
84525395|NCT01730040|168803845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|11.6|596.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||596.8|11.6|<0.0001
84525396|NCT01730040|168803845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3|38.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||38.3|1.3|=0.0025
84525397|NCT01730040|168803845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|52.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||52.2|1.6|=0.0011
84525398|NCT01730040|168803846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|128.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.2|1157.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1157|14.2|<0.0001
84525399|NCT01730040|168803846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|75.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||75.4|1.6|=0.0015
84525400|NCT01730040|168803846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.7|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.8|101.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||101.1|1.8|=0.0008
84525401|NCT01730040|168803847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|116.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.7|927.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||927.5|14.7|<0.0001
84525402|NCT01730040|168803847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.5|68.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||68.8|2.5|<0.0001
84525403|NCT01730040|168803847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.9|51.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||51.9|1.9|=0.0004
84525404|NCT01730040|168803848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|17.3|1520.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1520.5|17.3|<0.0001
84525405|NCT01730040|168803848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.1|126.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||126.3|3.1|<0.0001
84525406|NCT01730040|168803848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.2|88.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||88.1|2.2|=0.0002
84525407|NCT01730040|168803849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.3|-5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.9|-36.3|=0.0004
84525408|NCT01730040|168803849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.2|<0.0001
84525409|NCT01730040|168803849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.6|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-45.6|<0.0001
84525410|NCT01730040|168803850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||=|0.4456|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.0|12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification).||12.9|-7.0|=0.4456
84525411|NCT03694808|168803860|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.89|0.8|
84525412|NCT03694808|168803860|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.38|0.66|
84525413|NCT03694808|168803861|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.15|0.88|
84525414|NCT03694808|168803861|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.4|0.53|
84525415|NCT03694808|168803862|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.79|1.23|
84525416|NCT03694808|168803862|NON_INFERIORITY|2-sided t-test performed on log-transformed titers; estimate and 95% confidence interval of log-scale difference exponentiated to generate GMT ratio and its 95% CI below.|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.26|0.61|
84525417|NCT03694808|168803863|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.308|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.308|-0.001|
84525418|NCT03694808|168803863|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.089|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.089|-0.2|
84525419|NCT03694808|168803864|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.373|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.373|0.063|
84525420|NCT03694808|168803864|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.123|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.123|-0.139|
84525421|NCT03694808|168803865|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.291|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.291|-0.019|
84525422|NCT03694808|168803865|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.164|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.164|-0.117|
84525423|NCT03694808|168803866|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.64|0.29|
84525424|NCT03694808|168803866|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.69|0.29|
84525425|NCT03694808|168803867|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.16|0.71|
84525426|NCT03694808|168803867|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.33|0.69|
84525427|NCT03694808|168803868|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.414|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||-0.414|-0.674|
84525428|NCT03694808|168803868|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|-0.025|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||-0.025|-0.311|
84525429|NCT03694808|168803869|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.013|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.013|-0.221|
84525430|NCT03694808|168803869|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference of proportions|-0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.015|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.015|-0.241|
84525431|NCT02322788|168803876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.29|1.52|<0.001
84525432|NCT02322788|168803876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.20|1.46|<0.001
84525433|NCT02322788|168803876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.13|0.75|
84525434|NCT02322788|168803876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.08|0.72|
84525435|NCT02631837|168803904|NON_INFERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that women would accept a higher conversion rate of 15% for vNOTESbased on a telephone interview of 10 women treated by total vaginal NOTES hysterectomy. Women were asked to choose among ﬁve cut-off rates (5, 10, 15, 20 or 25%). Most women indicated 15%. We would conclude non-inferiority when the upper limit of the one-sided 95% conﬁdence interval for the difference in the proportions of women between both comparisons would be below 15%.||||||0.0221||||||The Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority was performed with 5% significance level and yielded P = 0.0221 in a sensitivity analysis assuming one conversion in the vNOTES and 0 conversions in the laparoscopy group.|Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0221
84525436|NCT02631837|168803905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.13|-0.56|0.007
84525437|NCT02631837|168803905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84525438|NCT02631837|168803907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.8|||Mann-Whitney U test|Two-sided test||||-1.8|-10|0.006
84525439|NCT02631837|168803908|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
84525440|NCT02631837|168803909|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
84525441|NCT02631837|168803910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.10|-0.47|0.009
84525442|NCT02631837|168803911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
84525443|NCT02631837|168803912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||-22|-46|< 0.01
84473319|NCT02581865|168698604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.0|0.4515
84473320|NCT02581865|168698604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.6289
84473321|NCT02924688|168698629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.139||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.139|0.052|<0.001
84473322|NCT02924688|168698629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.153||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.153|0.066|<0.001
84473323|NCT02924688|168698629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.125||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.125|0.039|<0.001
84473324|NCT02924688|168698629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.135||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.135|0.049|<0.001
84473325|NCT02924688|168698630|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.17|0.81|0.778
84473326|NCT02924688|168698630|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.05|0.72|0.151
84473327|NCT02924688|168698631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
84473328|NCT02924688|168698631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.155||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.155|0.067|<0.001
84473329|NCT02924688|168698631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
84473330|NCT02924688|168698631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.001
84473331|NCT02924688|168698632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.01||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.010|-0.124|0.094
84473332|NCT02924688|168698632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|-0.023||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.023|-0.156|0.008
84473333|NCT02924688|168698633|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.47||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.47|-0.27|0.115
84473334|NCT02924688|168698633|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.05||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.05|-1.66|0.662
84473335|NCT02924688|168698634|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.23|-0.49|0.479
84473336|NCT02924688|168698634|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.06||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.06|-0.78|0.023
84473337|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.4|-2.5|0.172
84473338|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.9|-2.0|0.436
84473339|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.1|-0.9|0.426
84473340|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.2|-0.8|0.349
84473341|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||0.7|-1.5|0.482
84473342|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.9|-0.3|0.142
84473343|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.0|-1.2|0.806
84473344|NCT02924688|168698637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.5|-0.7|0.447
84473345|NCT02924688|168698638|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.5|0.1|0.034
84473346|NCT02924688|168698638|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.3|-1.1|0.839
84473347|NCT02924688|168698638|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.6|-1.8|0.349
84473348|NCT02924688|168698638|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.4|-1.0|0.768
84473349|NCT02370498|168698677|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.98358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.57||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.57|1.03|0.98358
84525444|NCT02631837|168803913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.7604
84525445|NCT02631837|168803914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3071
84525446|NCT02631837|168803915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4541
84525447|NCT02631837|168803916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4514||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4514
84525448|NCT02631837|168803917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
84525449|NCT02631837|168803918|SUPERIORITY|We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
84525450|NCT02631837|168803920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-555.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||36.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||36|-1,044|0.110
84525451|NCT04039919|168803931|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6513|0.9461||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9461|0.6513|
84525452|NCT04039919|168803932|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.8342|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6999|0.9942||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed ANOVA with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9942|0.6999|
84525453|NCT01197417|168803957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment||Null hypothesis of equal distributions of primary length of stay between treatment arms within all randomization strata||||0.24
84525454|NCT01197417|168803958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.12
84525455|NCT01197417|168803959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.39
84525456|NCT01197417|168803960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||<0.01
84473350|NCT02370498|168698678|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.03|0.66|0.04205
84473351|NCT02370498|168698679|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.77|1.25|0.99999
84473352|NCT02370498|168698680|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.24463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.12|0.79|0.24463
84473353|NCT02370498|168698681|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.21|0.79|0.41331
84473354|NCT02370498|168698682|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.97481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.42||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.42|1.00|0.97481
84473355|NCT02370498|168698683|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.80696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.38|0.89|0.80696
84525457|NCT01197417|168803961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.11
84525458|NCT01197417|168803962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.78
84473356|NCT02370498|168698684|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.99932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.60|1.12|0.99932
84525459|NCT01197417|168803963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.46
84540706|NCT05736861|168832643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.54|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.54|0.92|
84473357|NCT02370498|168698685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.99661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.89|1.11|0.99661
84473358|NCT02370498|168698686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||2.20|1.42|1.00000
84473359|NCT02370498|168698687|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.23|0.77|0.39280
84473360|NCT02370498|168698688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.97033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.47|1.00|0.97033
84473361|NCT02370498|168698689|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.28967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's (MN) method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.0|0.28967
84473362|NCT02370498|168698690|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.0||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||4.0|-6.5|0.69010
84473363|NCT02370498|168698691|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.8|0.33220
84473364|NCT02370498|168698692|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.0||||0.85922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.6||Stratification factors included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm is provided.||2.6|-8.5|0.85922
84473365|NCT02370498|168698698|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.2||||||Between-treatment differences (Pembrolizumab vs. Paclitaxel) in the percentage of participants with events and accompanying 95% confidence intervals were based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Negative values correspond to a greater percentage of events for Paclitaxel.||0.2|-6.9|
84473366|NCT00848250|168698721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
84473367|NCT00848250|168698722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.13
84473368|NCT00848250|168698723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.02
84473369|NCT00848250|168698724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.67
84473370|NCT00848250|168698726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is for comparison of chest tube output at 24 hours||||0.47
84473371|NCT00848250|168698727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
84473372|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0767
84473373|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8727||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8727
84473374|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6373
84473375|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473376|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473377|NCT01122030|168698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473378|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8982
84473379|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.4946
84473380|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9301
84473381|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0047
84473382|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473383|NCT01122030|168698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473384|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.1334
84473385|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.3320
84473386|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.9371
84473387|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
84473388|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473389|NCT01122030|168698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473390|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7978||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7978
84473391|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7143||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7143
84473392|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7531
84473393|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0283
84473394|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473395|NCT01122030|168698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473396|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6269
84473397|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7456
84473398|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.1968
84473399|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8708
84473400|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473401|NCT01122030|168698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
84473402|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6131
84473403|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9293
84473404|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7990
84473405|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7674
84473406|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473407|NCT01122030|168698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0018
84473408|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.92|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||3.92|0.42|0.7434
84473409|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.42|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||4.42|0.54|0.4449
84473410|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||2.72|0.27|0.8129
84473411|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|24.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||24.72|2.29|0.0005
84473412|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|31.89|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||31.89|3.09|<0.0001
84473413|NCT01122030|168698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|202272814.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
84473414|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.28|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.28|0.53|0.4923
84473415|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.06|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.06|0.52|0.5479
84473416|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.67|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||3.67|0.56|0.5060
84473417|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|23.9|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||23.90|2.27|0.0005
84473418|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||30.35|3.00|<0.0001
84473419|NCT01122030|168698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|192233779.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
84473420|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.45||||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|19.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||19.35|0.62|0.1523
84473421|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|27.07|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||27.07|0.76|0.0856
84525460|NCT01546142|168803988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.983|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.311|3.849|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||3.849|2.311|<0.001
84525461|NCT01546142|168803989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.908|13.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||13.520|2.908|<0.001
84525462|NCT01546142|168803990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.299|18.622|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||18.622|3.299|<0.001
84473422|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.98|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||10.98|0.30|0.5284
84473423|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|8.66|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||8.66|0.09|0.8594
84473424|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|59.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|537.38|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||537.38|6.55|<0.0001
84473425|NCT01122030|168698737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.99||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|52.57|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||52.57|2.30|0.0007
84473426|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.5054
84473427|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9688
84473428|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6963
84473429|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9599
84473430|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0001
84525463|NCT01546142|168803991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
84525464|NCT01332578|168803999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.31|-15.81|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was determined.|Null hypothesis was no difference between test hot drink and standard paracetamol tablets.||-15.81|-27.31|0.0004
84525465|NCT01002794|168804009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: The sample size calculation was based on the change in KOOS4 from baseline to two year follow-up. To detect a 10 point difference with a standard deviation of 15, with a level of power of 90%, level of significance of 0.05, and an estimated 15% dropout rate at two years, we determined that we would need 56 participants in each group. To allow for a 20% crossover rate, we randomised 140 participants.||||<0.05
84525466|NCT03614494|168804045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|36.4|||Chi-squared|||||36.4|26.2|<0.0001
84525467|NCT03614494|168804046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.197||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.906|||Logistic regression, Firth's bias reduct|||||0.906|0.021|0.036
84525468|NCT01311557|168804051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed around each of the ratios: Pertussis toxoid (PT) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.05||||||||1.05|0.843|
84525469|NCT01311557|168804051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.13||||||||1.13|0.944|
84473431|NCT01122030|168698739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
84525470|NCT01311557|168804051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: Anti-Pertactin (PRN) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.18||||||||1.18|0.928|
84525471|NCT01311557|168804051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2. The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.06||||||||1.06|0.731|
84525472|NCT03478865|168804064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.83||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||2.83|-7.91|0.259
84473432|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3441||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.3441
84473433|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0||||P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7159
84473434|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7342
84473435|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8714||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8714
84473436|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
84473437|NCT01122030|168698740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
84473438|NCT01205451|168698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-1.04||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.04|-1.38|<0.0001
84473439|NCT01205451|168698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.12||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.12|-1.54|<0.0001
84473440|NCT01205451|168698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.72||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.72|-1.04|<0.0001
84540707|NCT05736861|168832643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.71|
84473441|NCT01205451|168698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.91||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.91|-1.33|<0.0001
84473442|NCT03575884|168698776|SUPERIORITY||Study_arm timepoint interactions|-27.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.49|-2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-52.49|<0.05
84473443|NCT03607838|168698802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-14.1|0.0263
84718620|NCT02549352|169188678|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.36||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.36|0.25|<0.001
84473444|NCT03607838|168698803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-13.2|0.0558
84473445|NCT03607838|168698804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|4.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-55.7|0.0920
84473446|NCT03607838|168698805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.3||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.0|0.0336
84473447|NCT00798694|168698816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in tear break-up time between the group New to Meds and the group Currently on Xalatan at two months."||||0.005
84473448|NCT01774344|168698825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||=|1.7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.782|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified IVRS by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.782|0.498|= 0.000017
84473449|NCT01774344|168698825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.828|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified RAVE (Sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.828|0.527|= 0.000149
84473450|NCT01774344|168698825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||=|0.000107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.831|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for unstratified (sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.831|0.546|= 0.000107
84473451|NCT01774344|168698826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.439|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.542|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.542|0.355|< 0.000001
84473452|NCT01774344|168698826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.572|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.572|0.388|< 0.000001
84473453|NCT01774344|168698826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.509|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.509|0.334|< 0.000001
84473454|NCT01774344|168698826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.539|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.539|0.365|< 0.000001
84473455|NCT01774344|168698827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.453|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.555|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.555|0.369|< 0.000001
84473456|NCT01774344|168698827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.58|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.580|0.397|< 0.000001
84473457|NCT01774344|168698827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.522|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.522|0.347|< 0.000001
84473458|NCT01774344|168698827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.548|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.548|0.376|< 0.000001
84473459|NCT01774344|168698828|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.88|||=|0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-2.63|-11.13|= 0.003650
84473460|NCT01774344|168698828|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.15|||=|0.019991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-0.75|-7.55|= 0.019991
84473461|NCT01774344|168698829|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.31|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.52|-21.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-21.11|-37.52|< 0.000001
84473462|NCT01774344|168698829|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.39|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.57|-23.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-23.22|-39.57|< 0.000001
84473463|NCT03546413|168698831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||<0.001
84473464|NCT03546413|168698832|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.055|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||0.055
84473465|NCT03546413|168698833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84473466|NCT03546413|168698833|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.|||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84473467|NCT03546413|168698833|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.939|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.939
84473468|NCT03546413|168698833|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
84473469|NCT03546413|168698834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
84473470|NCT03546413|168698834|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick test with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.208|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.208
84473471|NCT03546413|168698834|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.587|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.587
84473472|NCT03546413|168698834|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.268
84473473|NCT03546413|168698835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
84473474|NCT03546413|168698835|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.371
84473475|NCT03546413|168698835|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.483|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.483
84473476|NCT03546413|168698835|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.643|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.643
84473477|NCT03546413|168698836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
84473478|NCT03546413|168698836|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.857|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.857
84473479|NCT03546413|168698836|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.870
84540708|NCT05736861|168832644|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.47|0.97|
84473480|NCT03546413|168698837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.658
84473481|NCT03546413|168698837|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.100
84473482|NCT03546413|168698837|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.502
84473483|NCT03546413|168698837|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.397|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.397
84473484|NCT03546413|168698838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.659
84473485|NCT03546413|168698838|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.260
84473486|NCT03546413|168698838|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.075
84473487|NCT03546413|168698838|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.192|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
84473488|NCT03546413|168698839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.729
84473489|NCT03546413|168698839|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.750
84473490|NCT03546413|168698839|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.155
84718621|NCT02760654|169188722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84473491|NCT03546413|168698839|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
84473492|NCT03546413|168698840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.330
84473493|NCT03546413|168698840|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
84473494|NCT03546413|168698840|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.502
84473495|NCT03546413|168698840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.732
84473496|NCT03546413|168698841|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.202
84473497|NCT03546413|168698841|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in older siblings.|||
84473498|NCT03546413|168698841|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in parents.|||
84473499|NCT03546413|168698842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.029
84525473|NCT03478865|168804064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||4.12|-4.66|0.818
84525474|NCT03478865|168804065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.56||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|6.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||6.12|-13.24|0.365
84525475|NCT03478865|168804065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|19.41||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||19.41|-12.94|0.480
84525476|NCT00619359|168804075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates (Fosaprepitant minus Aprepitant), calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the overall phase. Study had 90% power to detect non-inferiority for this outcome measure.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||||95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-4.1|
84718622|NCT02760654|169188723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84718623|NCT02760654|169188724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84473500|NCT03546413|168698842|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
84473501|NCT03546413|168698842|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of peanut-related adverse events in older siblings.|||
84473502|NCT01419665|168698870|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of + or - 12% was determined considering the variability of the point estimate of the add-on effect by taking a value lower than the lower boundary of the 95% CI for Rituximab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy obtained from historical data.|difference in overall response rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.14|||Binomial approximation|||||5.14|-5.94|
84473503|NCT01419665|168698873|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.97|
84473504|NCT01419665|168698874|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.55|
84473505|NCT03977727|168698880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|48.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||48.4|7.88|.008
84473506|NCT03977727|168698881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.22||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|39.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||39.46|-5.42|.136
84473507|NCT03977727|168698882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.73|.05|.029
84718624|NCT02760654|169188725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84718625|NCT02760654|169188726|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84473508|NCT03977727|168698883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||-0.31|-2.84|.016
84473509|NCT03977727|168698884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||2.32|.04|.045
84473510|NCT03977727|168698887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.16|-.59|.303
84473511|NCT03977727|168698888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||9.99|-10.32|.968
84473512|NCT03977727|168698889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||0|-.13|.059
84473513|NCT03731364|168698900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.276
84473514|NCT03731364|168698900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.651
84473515|NCT03731364|168698900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.556
84473516|NCT03731364|168698901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
84473517|NCT03731364|168698901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
84473518|NCT03731364|168698901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
84473519|NCT03731364|168698902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
84473520|NCT03731364|168698902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
84473521|NCT03731364|168698902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic||Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
84473522|NCT03731364|168698903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.306
84473523|NCT03731364|168698903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.595
84473524|NCT03731364|168698903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.242
84473525|NCT01934192|168698917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
84473526|NCT01934192|168698918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.9||||||||10.9|-6.5|
84473527|NCT01934192|168698919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
84473528|NCT01934192|168698920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|19.9||||||||19.9|-6.9|
84473529|NCT02768194|168698963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, participant as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.25|-0.46|0.5512
84473530|NCT02768194|168698963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.35||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.35|-0.36|0.9671
84473531|NCT02768194|168698963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.26|-0.46|0.5830
84473532|NCT00242385|168698965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-35d divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.002||||||||1.002|0.858|
84473533|NCT00242385|168698966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-infinity divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|1.021||||||||1.021|0.855|
84473534|NCT03095521|168698977|NON_INFERIORITY|two-sided 95% CIs estimation used to confirm non-inferior efficacy in primary endpoint. A non-inferiority conclusion was made relating to the primary parameter only.||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Arm Angal, Arm Antiangin||||0.028
84473535|NCT03095521|168698980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
84473536|NCT03095521|168698982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline, 2 groups||||0.072
84473537|NCT01536119|168698983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.38|||Chi-squared|||"Power analysis was conducted to a 15 % increase in exclusive breastfeeding rates (from 52% to 67%) with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. A 25% attrition rate waas added. 107 couples were needed per group. Intention to treat analysis conducted.~Exclusive breastfeeding at 12 weeks"||1.38|0.91|0.27
84473538|NCT01536119|168698984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.09||95.0|0.98|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.98|0.09
84718626|NCT02760654|169188727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84525477|NCT00619359|168804076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7.3 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the delayed phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-3.5|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.5|
84473539|NCT01536119|168698985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.06||95.0|1.0|1.13|||Fisher Exact|||||1.13|1.00|0.06
84473540|NCT01536119|168698986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.02||95.0|1.01|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|1.01|0.02
84473541|NCT01536119|168698987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief scale used||||0.25
84473542|NCT01536119|168698988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84473543|NCT01536119|168698989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84473544|NCT01536119|168698990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84473545|NCT01536119|168698991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84473546|NCT01536119|168698992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84473547|NCT02198651|168699081|OTHER|||||||0.943|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.943
84473548|NCT02198651|168699082|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.592
84473549|NCT02198651|168699083|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.688
84473550|NCT00961662|168699126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The HbA1c percent change at each study visit was calculated and then categorized as a binary response (i.e., responders and non-responders) for each subject based on the breakpoint to be used in the endpoint. Inferential statistics were prepared to compare the differences across the three treatments a using logistic regression model with the dose group and the HbA1c stratum included in the mode||||<0.05
84525478|NCT00619359|168804077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥8.2 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for No Vomiting in the overall phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-5.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-5.3|
84473551|NCT01042613|168699132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Binomial Proportions|0.02||||0.851||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.851
84473552|NCT01042613|168699133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.105
84473553|NCT01042613|168699134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
84473554|NCT00333619|168699135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
84473555|NCT00333619|168699136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84473556|NCT03006471|168699148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.755
84473557|NCT03006471|168699148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.046
84473558|NCT03006471|168699149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.752
84473559|NCT03006471|168699149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.582
84473560|NCT03006471|168699150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
84473561|NCT03006471|168699150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.220
84473562|NCT03006471|168699151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.624
84473563|NCT03006471|168699151|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||1.000
84473564|NCT03006471|168699152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.906
84473565|NCT03006471|168699152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.017
84473566|NCT03006471|168699153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.454
84473567|NCT03006471|168699153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.115
84473568|NCT03006471|168699154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.422
84473569|NCT03006471|168699154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.917
84473570|NCT03006471|168699155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.650
84473571|NCT03006471|168699155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.108
84473572|NCT03006471|168699156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.875
84473573|NCT03006471|168699156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference in dapagliflozin group||||0.196
84473574|NCT03006471|168699157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.552
84473575|NCT03006471|168699157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.087
84473576|NCT03006471|168699158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
84473577|NCT03006471|168699158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.463
84473578|NCT03006471|168699159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.530
84473579|NCT03006471|168699159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.507
84473580|NCT03006471|168699160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
84473581|NCT03006471|168699160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.972
84473582|NCT03006471|168699161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
84473583|NCT03006471|168699161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.158
84473584|NCT03006471|168699162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.944
84473585|NCT03006471|168699162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.650
84473586|NCT03006471|168699163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.087
84473587|NCT03006471|168699163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.345
84473588|NCT03006471|168699164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention group||||0.115
84473589|NCT03006471|168699165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.047
84473590|NCT03006471|168699166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.539
84473591|NCT03006471|168699167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.844
84473592|NCT03006471|168699167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.010
84473593|NCT03006471|168699168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
84473594|NCT03006471|168699168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
84473595|NCT03006471|168699169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.221
84473596|NCT03006471|168699169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.001
84473597|NCT03006471|168699170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.461
84473598|NCT03006471|168699170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
84473599|NCT03006471|168699171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.285
84718627|NCT02760654|169188728|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84473600|NCT03006471|168699171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.002
84473601|NCT03006471|168699172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.701
84473602|NCT03006471|168699172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.081
84473603|NCT03006471|168699173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.581
84473604|NCT03006471|168699173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-cholesterol on dapagliflozin group||||0.004
84473605|NCT03006471|168699174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.727
84473606|NCT03006471|168699174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.451
84473607|NCT03006471|168699175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.463
84473608|NCT03006471|168699175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.043
84473609|NCT03006471|168699176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.807
84473610|NCT03006471|168699176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.754
84473611|NCT03006471|168699177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.507
84473612|NCT03006471|168699177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.015
84473613|NCT03006471|168699178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.039
84473614|NCT03006471|168699179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.011
84473615|NCT03006471|168699180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.096
84473616|NCT03162055|168699219|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-117.0|-57.4|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-57.4|-117.0|0.9974
84473617|NCT03162055|168699220|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|25.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||25.9|-32.8|0.0002
84473618|NCT03162055|168699221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|ln (1/(1-p))=Treatment+baseline FEV1+BR a/s MDI+stratification factor (prior treatment)+region.p=percentage of participants with increase of \>=100 mL.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder in the GFF treatment group compared to the UV treatment group using a logistic regression.|||2.95|1.79|<0.0001
84473619|NCT03162055|168699222|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|22.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline IC + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||22.9|-53.4|0.0371
84473620|NCT03162055|168699223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -1.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||Repeated measures analysis|TDI focal score = Treatment + Baseline Dyspnea Index + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean TDI focal score over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-0.14|-0.59|<0.0001
84473621|NCT03162055|168699224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.078|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline EMSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.078|-0.011|0.0017
84525479|NCT05212883|168804078|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||Comparison of the likelihood to test before gathering for age \< 18 vs. age \>= 18.||1.3|0.8|
84525480|NCT02075606|168804090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Clinical symptomatic response as dependent variable and CTC presence at baseline as explanatory variable was used to perform the logistic regression analysis.||1.65|0.02|=0.126
84525481|NCT02013531|168804125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in the MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
84525482|NCT02013531|168804126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||<0.0001
84525483|NCT02013531|168804132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in Mean change from Baseline in HAM-A total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
84525484|NCT03396874|168804151|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|87.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.58|100.0||The exact p-value cannot be entered as it is equal to 2.2e-16.|Exact binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) (true positives / (true positives + false positives)) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence or absence of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology on a per-patient basis. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|81.58|<0.0000001
84525485|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|92.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||PPV, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100|90.0|<0.0000001
84525486|NCT03396874|168804152|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|95.29|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|Sensitivity|||Sensitivity, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.3|<0.0000001
84525487|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.1|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, prostate or prostate bed: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.2|<0.0000001
84525488|NCT03396874|168804152|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.72|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16 Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, prostate/prostate bed: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.74|<0.0000001
84473622|NCT03162055|168699225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline NiSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.090|-0.005|0.0088
84473623|NCT03162055|168699226|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline =Treatment + baseline rescue a/s MDI use + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.04|0.26|0.9995
84473624|NCT03162055|168699227|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 2.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline CAT score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.11|0.07|<0.0001
84473625|NCT03162055|168699228|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.5516|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|27.0|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||27.0|-30.3|0.5516
84525489|NCT03396874|168804152|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|90.78|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|85.74|<0.0000001
84525490|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|96.97|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In pelvic lymph nodes, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.20|<0.0000001
84525491|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|91.25|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.19|100.0||p-value = 2.9e-15|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, soft tissues: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|84.19|<0.0000001
84525492|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|93.59|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.99|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, soft tissues: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.99|<0.0000001
84525493|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|95.17|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.12|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, bone: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In bone tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|91.12|<0.0000001
84473626|NCT01295580|168699256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)~Alpha inflation was controlled using pre-planned stepwise hypotheses testing (1) WOMAC Pain over 18 weeks then (2) over 26 weeks, (3) WOMAC Physical Function over 18 weeks then (4) over 26 weeks, (5) Subject Global Assessment over 18 weeks then (6) over 26 weeks, (7) WOMAC Knee Stiffness over 18 weeks then (8) over 26 weeks."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the first step WOMAC pain over 18 week pain subscale primary analyses.||The second step is to test Durolane WOMAC pain non-inferior to Artz WOMAC pain over 26 weeks.||"Primary Hypothesis:~Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +1.6 units~Power Calculations:~Assume the over 18 weeks difference is 0mm, SD 20mm (5 on the Likert scale), 90% power, 2-sided test alpha 5%, and a 8mm non-inferiority margin (1.6 on the Likert scale), the sample size required is 132 subjects per group adjusted to 175 to hold power constant due to loss to follow-up and dropout."||0.39|-0.58|
84525494|NCT03396874|168804152|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|100.0|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.85|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, bone: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In bone, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|97.85|<0.0000001
84525495|NCT01998243|168804164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.6|||Chi-squared||risk ratio (RR)|||2.60|0.53|0.689
84525496|NCT01998243|168804165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.01|||Chi-squared||all in all balloon and postsurgical morbidity in group A vs. group B.|||3.01|0.84|0.144
84525497|NCT01998243|168804166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.937
84525498|NCT01998243|168804167|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84525499|NCT01998243|168804168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.673
84525500|NCT03291041|168804185|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|34.75||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0354
84525501|NCT03291041|168804186|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0168
84525502|NCT03291041|168804187|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|90.56||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0785
84525503|NCT03291041|168804188|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|78.45||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0225
84525504|NCT03291041|168804189|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0198
84525505|NCT03291041|168804190|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.55||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0347
84525506|NCT03291041|168804191|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.44||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0840
84525507|NCT03291041|168804192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0765
84525508|NCT04052698|168804208|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.10194|0.26558|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26558|0.10194|<0.0001
84525509|NCT04052698|168804210|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07664|0.25187|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25187|0.07664|<0.0001
84525510|NCT02756637|168804222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.11|0.98|
84525511|NCT02756637|168804222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.14|0.90|
84525512|NCT06442410|168804223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525513|NCT06442410|168804224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525514|NCT06442410|168804225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525515|NCT06442410|168804226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525516|NCT06442410|168804227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525517|NCT06442410|168804228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525518|NCT06442410|168804230|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525519|NCT06442410|168804231|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525520|NCT06442410|168804232|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525521|NCT06442410|168804233|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525522|NCT06442410|168804234|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84718628|NCT02760654|169188729|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) were calculated for the 7 items of the Adapted Acceptability E-Scale|Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84525523|NCT06442410|168804235|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525524|NCT06442410|168804236|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84525525|NCT04034355|168804261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.521||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0462|2.2113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2113|1.0462|0.0280
84525526|NCT00546910|168804285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||P-value is for Time Active overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Time Active was tested at rank 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.87|0.52|<0.001
84525527|NCT00546910|168804285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57||P-value is for Distance overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Distance was tested at rank 5.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.57|0.98|<0.001
84525528|NCT00546910|168804285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||P-value is for Area overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Area was tested at rank 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.81|<0.001
84525529|NCT00546910|168804285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22||P-value is for Microevents overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Microevents was tested at rank 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.22|0.78|<0.001
84525530|NCT00546910|168804285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value is for Motion Simplicity overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Motion Simplicity was tested at rank 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.58|0.18|<0.001
84525531|NCT00546910|168804286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.99||P-value for ADHD-RS Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||14.99|8.20|<0.001
84525532|NCT00546910|168804287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46||P-value for CGI-S ADHD score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||1.46|0.76|<0.001
84525533|NCT00546910|168804288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|7.92||P-value for Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||7.92|3.55|<0.001
84525534|NCT00546910|168804288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.44||P-value for Evening subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||5.44|2.49|0.001
84525535|NCT00546910|168804288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.93||P-value for Morning subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.93|0.42|<0.002
84718629|NCT02760654|169188730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84525536|NCT00546910|168804288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.93||P-value for Item 11 (difficulty falling asleep).|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.31|<0.001
84525537|NCT00546910|168804289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value is for Reaction Time Variation overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Reaction time variation was tested at rank 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.66|<0.001
84525538|NCT00546910|168804289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.93||P-value is for Omission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Omission error was tested at rank 7.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.46|<0.001
84525539|NCT00546910|168804289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||P-value is for Mean Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Mean reaction time was tested at rank 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.65|0.17|<0.001
84525540|NCT00546910|168804289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||P-value is for Normalized Variation of Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Normalized Variation of Reaction Time was tested at rank 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.73|0.26|<0.001
84525541|NCT00546910|168804290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.68||P-value is for Commission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Commission Error was tested at rank 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.68|0.31|<0.001
84473627|NCT01295580|168699257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first pain over 18 weeks then pain over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week pain subscale results.||The third ordered test is Durolane WOMAC physical function subscale non-inferior to Artz WOMAC physical function subscale over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +1.6 units||0.37|-0.56|
84473628|NCT01295580|168699258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.51||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week physical function results.||The fourth step is to test Durolane WOMAC physical function non-inferior to Artz physical function over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +5.44 units||0.51|-1.81|
84473629|NCT01295580|168699259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week physical function subscale results.||The fifth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz global assessment over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +5.44 units||0.53|-1.69|
84473630|NCT01295580|168699260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.45||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week subject global assessment results.||The sixth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz subject global assessment over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.45|-0.15|
84525542|NCT00546910|168804290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31||P-value is for Anticipatory Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Anticipatory Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.31|0.02|0.022
84525543|NCT00546910|168804291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||P-value is for Error Rate overall for morning, noon and evening. Error Rate was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.18|0.69|<0.001
84525544|NCT00546910|168804291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is for Multi Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Multi Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.28|0.05|0.178
84525545|NCT01552369|168804310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0396
84525546|NCT01552369|168804310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3|||Competing risk regression|Death was considered a competing risk.|The risk of CMV disease is 2.2x higher in the prophylaxis group when compared to the preemptive group|||7.3|1.01|0.048
84525547|NCT01552369|168804311|SUPERIORITY|log-rank test for equality of survivor functions||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
84525548|NCT01552369|168804312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of rejection in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||1.58|0.45|0.60
84718630|NCT02760654|169188731|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84718631|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 15% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.981
84525549|NCT01552369|168804313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.92|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of graft loss in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||6.92|0.13|0.96
84525550|NCT01552369|168804314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.69|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of late disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||8.69|1.21|0.014
84525551|NCT01552369|168804315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.23|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of bacterial infection in prophylaxis subjects compared to preemptive|||2.23|0.61|0.64
84525552|NCT01552369|168804316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.62|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of fungal disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||7.62|0.66|0.18
84525553|NCT01552369|168804317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
84525554|NCT01552369|168804318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84525555|NCT01552369|168804319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84525556|NCT01552369|168804320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
84525557|NCT00441350|168804321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84525558|NCT00441350|168804322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84525559|NCT00441350|168804323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84525560|NCT00441350|168804324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84525561|NCT02129647|168804355|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 122 (60 to 265)|||
84525562|NCT02129647|168804356|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 135 (100 to 240)|||
84525563|NCT02129647|168804357|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 12 (0 to 100)|||
84525564|NCT01833533|168804360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
84525565|NCT01833533|168804360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
84525566|NCT01833533|168804361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84525567|NCT01833533|168804362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
84525568|NCT01833533|168804362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
84539729|NCT00509795|168829386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.5|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 2.0Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||3.1|-4.5|
84525569|NCT01833533|168804362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI (calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution)for the difference in percentage of participants must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.5|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||-1.5|-12.0|
84525570|NCT03233958|168804372|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84473631|NCT01295580|168699261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week subject global assessment results.||The seventh step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.43|-0.16|
84525571|NCT03233958|168804373|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84525572|NCT03233958|168804374|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84525573|NCT03233958|168804375|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
84473632|NCT01295580|168699262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week knee stiffness subscale results.||The eight and last step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +0.64 units||0.05|-0.33|
84473633|NCT01295580|168699263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of 0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week knee stiffness subscale results.||This is the eighth and last pre-planned hypothesis test.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +0.64 units||0.03|-0.33|
84473634|NCT01940510|168699297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.8|30.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals.||30.1|23.8|
84473635|NCT01940510|168699298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|54.3|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||54.3|43.5|
84473636|NCT01940510|168699299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.0|202.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||202|158|
84525574|NCT03233958|168804376|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
84525575|NCT03233958|168804377|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.197
84473637|NCT01940510|168699300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|220.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|255.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||255|190|
84473638|NCT00424294|168699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
84473639|NCT00424294|168699315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 1: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.463
84473640|NCT00424294|168699315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 2: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.549
84473641|NCT00424294|168699315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.272
84473642|NCT00424294|168699315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.265
84473643|NCT00424294|168699316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.939
84525576|NCT03233958|168804378|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84473644|NCT00424294|168699316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.323
84473645|NCT00424294|168699316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.338
84473646|NCT00424294|168699317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.746
84473647|NCT00424294|168699318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.635
84473648|NCT00424294|168699318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.044
84473649|NCT00424294|168699318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.957
84473650|NCT00424294|168699318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.597
84473651|NCT00424294|168699318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.960
84473652|NCT00424294|168699319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.252
84473653|NCT00424294|168699319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.032
84473654|NCT00424294|168699319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.031
84473655|NCT00424294|168699319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.018
84473656|NCT00424294|168699319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.170
84473657|NCT00424294|168699320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.507
84473658|NCT00424294|168699320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.743
84473659|NCT00424294|168699320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.914
84473660|NCT00424294|168699320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.715
84473661|NCT00424294|168699320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.558
84473662|NCT00424294|168699321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.172
84473663|NCT00424294|168699321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.738
84473664|NCT00424294|168699321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
84473665|NCT00424294|168699321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.428
84473666|NCT00424294|168699321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.861
84473667|NCT00424294|168699322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.325
84473668|NCT00424294|168699322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.386
84473669|NCT00424294|168699322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.532
84473670|NCT00424294|168699322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.909
84473671|NCT00424294|168699322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.994
84473672|NCT00424294|168699323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.369
84473673|NCT00424294|168699323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.666
84473674|NCT00424294|168699323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.530
84473675|NCT00424294|168699323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.632
84473676|NCT00424294|168699323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.801
84473677|NCT00424294|168699324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.052
84473678|NCT00424294|168699324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.108
84473679|NCT00424294|168699324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.573
84473680|NCT00424294|168699324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.342
84473681|NCT00424294|168699324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.501
84473682|NCT00424294|168699325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.701
84473683|NCT00424294|168699325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.167
84473684|NCT00424294|168699325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
84473685|NCT00424294|168699325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.834
84473686|NCT00424294|168699325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.977
84473687|NCT00424294|168699326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.291
84473688|NCT00424294|168699326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.080
84473689|NCT00424294|168699326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.466
84473690|NCT00424294|168699326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.267
84473691|NCT00424294|168699326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.100
84473692|NCT04124042|168699352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.237||||||||1.237|0.347|
84473693|NCT04124042|168699352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.336||||||||1.336|0.381|
84473694|NCT04124042|168699353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.62|0.413
84473695|NCT04124042|168699353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.79|0.629
84473696|NCT04124042|168699358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|-0.16|0.1374
84473697|NCT04124042|168699358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-0.29|0.2807
84473698|NCT04124042|168699359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.14|0.346
84473699|NCT04124042|168699359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.27|0.968
84473700|NCT04124042|168699361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #10 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #12 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-0.75|-4.91|0.0081
84473701|NCT04124042|168699362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #11 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #13 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-2.34|-16.85|0.0101
84473702|NCT02130258|168699386|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
84473703|NCT02130258|168699387|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
84473704|NCT02130258|168699388|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
84473705|NCT00441103|168699391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) with effects for treatment and the absence/presence of Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline as factors|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84473706|NCT00441103|168699392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Mean difference was calculated by subtracting 'Day 1 up to Week 16' from 'Week 17 up to Week 40' and analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
84473707|NCT02951988|168699395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5305
84473708|NCT02951988|168699395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4628|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4628
84473709|NCT02951988|168699396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6153
84473710|NCT02951988|168699396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4123
84473711|NCT05836818|168699398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|33.2|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed effects logistic regression with a random center effect for within-center characteristics, and terms for calendar time and intervention||Adjusted difference 25.1 percentage points||33.2|17|<0.0001
84718632|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at self selected speed at 0%, 15% and 30% of body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern||||0.84
84473712|NCT00807846|168699402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|2.76|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was based on 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in mean change from baseline in SBP. Change from Baseline in BP was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms for treatment with baseline height, baseline weight, baseline age, and baseline SBP as covariates. No formal hypothesis testing was applied to the primary analysis.||2.76|-0.56|0.274
84473713|NCT00807846|168699403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.088||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.57|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||2.57|-0.39|0.148
84473714|NCT00807846|168699404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.837||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.46|||ANCOVA|||"For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in blood pressure was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates.~Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05."||3.46|0.21|0.027
84473715|NCT00807846|168699405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.207||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.26|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||0.26|-2.67|0.106
84473716|NCT00807846|168699406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.74|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.74|-1.30|0.776
84473717|NCT00807846|168699407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.33|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline blood pressure as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.33|-1.69|0.815
84473718|NCT00807846|168699408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.033||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||8.82|-2.76|0.303
84473719|NCT00807846|168699409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.079|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of subjects with at least a 30% improvement in Parent/Guardian's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.079|-0.202|0.392
84473720|NCT00807846|168699410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||5.69|-6.50|0.897
84473721|NCT00807846|168699411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.053|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of participants with at least a 30% improvement in participant's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.053|-0.257|0.200
84473722|NCT02491073|168699438|OTHER||geometric mean ratio|1.05||||1.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||geometric mean ration||The parameter dispersion type:Geometric coefficient of variation Dispersion Value: FT4: 0.220|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.09|0.98|1.05
84473723|NCT02491073|168699438|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||Geometric Mean Ratio||parameter dispersion type: Geometric Coefficient of Variation Dispersion Value : FT3: 0.178|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.22|1.09|
84473724|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.03|||||Parameter dispersion type: geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value 0.024|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.01|
84473725|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.04|||||parameter dispersion value - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.020|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.03|
84473726|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.06|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient variation dispersion value - 0.021|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.06|1.05|
84473727|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type -geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.040|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|0.99|
84473728|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geotmetric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.03|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.00|
84473729|NCT02491073|168699439|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.04|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.02|
84473730|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
84473731|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
84473732|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
84473733|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator.|1.02|0.99|
84473734|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.033|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|1.00|
84525577|NCT02502734|168804391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1217|0.0176||Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025,1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates period-level baseline and subject-level baseline lower-leg length, age, gender, treatment and period.||||0.0176|-0.1217|
84525578|NCT03095118|168804402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.001
84525579|NCT03095118|168804403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 12 month follow up values||||0.004
84473735|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.036|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.99|
84473736|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.047|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
84473737|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.043|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
84473738|NCT02491073|168699440|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.048|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.00|0.97|
84473739|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.148|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.16|1.06|
84473740|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.2|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.202|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.20|1.07|
84473741|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.18|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.18|1.04|
84473742|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.1|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.179|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.10|0.99|
84525580|NCT03095118|168804405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.15
84525581|NCT03095118|168804406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values comparted to 12 month follow up values||||0.16
84525582|NCT01483625|168804426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0516|0.1654|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Random:Patient. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||Tiotropium 18 mcg minus Placebo||0.1654|-0.0516|0.3025
84525583|NCT01483625|168804427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9053|1.078|||2sample t quantiles with pooled variance|||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo||1.0780|0.9053|0.7823
84525584|NCT01483625|168804428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.9025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1489|0.1686||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo at Week 12|Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Patient was random. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||||0.1686|-0.1489|0.9025
84525585|NCT01483625|168804431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0115||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0157|1.8938|||t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval is based on 2 sample t quantiles using pooled variance.||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo Over 12 Weeks||1.8938|-10.0157|0.1797
84525586|NCT00707447|168804469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||There was only one primary outcome variable, thus no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
84718633|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 30% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.16
84718634|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at fastest comfortable speeds with different amount of body weight supports will not affect the EMG pattern.||||0.073
84718635|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of non-paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have no effect on EMG pattern of paretic leg.||||<0.001
84718636|NCT00712179|169188739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have significant effect on EMG pattern of non-paretic leg.||||0.94
84718637|NCT02438137|169188778|SUPERIORITY|In multiple linear regression models, the effect of DMF treatment on mean RDI change (beta-coefficient) was -11.3 respiratory events per hour (p=0.0124).|beta-coefficient for treatment effect|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple linear regression models were used to calculate treatment effect (DMF or placebo) on mean RDI change, controlling for change in age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, and time spent in REM sleep.|A mixed effects model, which treated RDI as a repeated measure and used individual ID as random effect, adjusted for age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, was also conducted. In this model, the effect of DMF compared to placebo, controlling for all other covariates, is a 28% decrease in Month 4 RDI (p=0.033).|||0.0124
84718638|NCT00945321|169188780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels.|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.02|0.84|0.001
84718639|NCT00945321|169188780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.15|0.96|<0.001
84718640|NCT00945321|169188780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.76||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.76|1.23|
84718641|NCT00945321|169188780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.32||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.32|0.88|
84718642|NCT00945321|169188780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.46||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.46|1.01|
84718643|NCT00945321|169188780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.75||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.75|1.16|
84718644|NCT00945321|169188781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.56|1.13|
84718645|NCT00945321|169188781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.25|0.86|
84718646|NCT00945321|169188781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.34||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.34|0.96|
84718647|NCT00945321|169188781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.68||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.68|1.16|
84718648|NCT03614663|169188788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.321
84718649|NCT03614663|169188789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.149
84718650|NCT03614663|169188790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.607
84718651|NCT03614663|169188791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.426
84718652|NCT03614663|169188792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.02
84718653|NCT03614663|169188793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.091
84718654|NCT03614663|169188794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.135
84718655|NCT03614663|169188795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.056
84726066|NCT01020487|169204416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.14||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.53|-0.25|0.469
84473743|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.178|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.15|
84473744|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.224|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.33|
84473745|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.12|
84473746|NCT02491073|168699441|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.215|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.11|
84473747|NCT02491073|168699442|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
84473748|NCT02491073|168699442|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
84473749|NCT02491073|168699442|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
84473750|NCT01627067|168699456|NON_INFERIORITY|The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Data for PFS were censored at the time of a patient's removal from study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months. The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study.||0.76|0.08|0.015
84473751|NCT01627067|168699459|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.22|0.31
84473752|NCT04593940|168699467|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.122||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|0.987|0.0793
84473753|NCT04593940|168699467|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|.984|0.0864
84473754|NCT04593940|168699467|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.006||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.176|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.176|0.862|0.9354
84473755|NCT04593940|168699468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.647|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.647|1.041|0.0213
84473756|NCT04593940|168699468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.480|0.932|0.1732
84473757|NCT04593940|168699468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.944||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.243|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.243|0.717|0.6823
84473758|NCT04593940|168699469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.935|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.935|0.403|0.0229
84473759|NCT04593940|168699469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.951|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.951|0.416|0.0281
84473760|NCT04593940|168699469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.917|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.917|0.711|0.541
84473761|NCT04593940|168699470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.825|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.825|1.129|0.0032
84473762|NCT04593940|168699470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.338||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.718|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.718|1.041|0.0228
84473763|NCT04593940|168699470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.904||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.211|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.211|0.675|0.4994
84473764|NCT04593940|168699471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.632||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.090|0.367|0.0988
84473765|NCT04593940|168699471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||0.960|0.317|0.0354
84473766|NCT04593940|168699471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.287||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||2.355|0.703|0.4132
84473767|NCT04593940|168699472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.28|1.00|0.1601
84473768|NCT04593940|168699472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.24|0.97|0.3550
84473769|NCT04593940|168699472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.07|0.80|0.2386
84473770|NCT04593940|168699473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.1519
84473771|NCT04593940|168699473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.2605
84473772|NCT04593940|168699473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.13|0.83|0.4359
84473773|NCT04593940|168699474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.18|0.3210
84473774|NCT04593940|168699474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.09|0.5275
84473775|NCT04593940|168699474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.15|0.9993
84525587|NCT00707447|168804470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
84473776|NCT04593940|168699475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-0.13|0.4982
84473777|NCT04593940|168699475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.10|0.3491
84473778|NCT04593940|168699475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.25|0.9020
84473779|NCT04593940|168699476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.03|0.0842
84473780|NCT04593940|168699476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.19|0.5328
84473781|NCT04593940|168699476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.46|0.4727
84473782|NCT04593940|168699477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|0.01|0.0399
84473783|NCT04593940|168699477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-0.18|0.4515
84473784|NCT04593940|168699477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.43|0.6960
84473785|NCT04593940|168699478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.04|0.0903
84473786|NCT04593940|168699478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-0.16|0.3480
84473787|NCT04593940|168699478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.44|0.6984
84473788|NCT04593940|168699479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|0.01|0.0450
84473789|NCT04593940|168699479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.13|0.2462
84473790|NCT04593940|168699479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.61|0.2304
84473791|NCT04593940|168699480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|0.03|0.0313
84473792|NCT04593940|168699480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.01|0.0555
84473793|NCT04593940|168699480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2710
84473794|NCT04593940|168699481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
84473795|NCT04593940|168699481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.5|
84473796|NCT04593940|168699481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.7|-1.8|
84473797|NCT04593940|168699482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|53.7||||||||53.7|-0.4|
84473798|NCT04593940|168699482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|40.0||||||||40.0|-14.8|
84473799|NCT04593940|168699482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|26.6||||||||26.6|-38.7|
84473800|NCT04593940|168699483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3||||||||2.3|0.2|
84473801|NCT04593940|168699483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.1|
84473802|NCT04593940|168699483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||||||||0.6|-2.0|
84473803|NCT04593940|168699484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-14.0|
84473804|NCT04593940|168699484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4||||||||3.4|-11.1|
84525588|NCT00707447|168804471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525589|NCT00707447|168804472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525590|NCT00707447|168804473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525591|NCT00707447|168804474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84473805|NCT04593940|168699484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.1||||||||8.1|-10.1|
84525592|NCT00707447|168804475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525593|NCT00707447|168804476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525594|NCT00707447|168804477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84525595|NCT00707447|168804478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
84473806|NCT04593940|168699485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-0.1|
84473807|NCT04593940|168699485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.3|
84473808|NCT04593940|168699485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-2.0|
84473809|NCT04593940|168699486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-5.7|
84473810|NCT04593940|168699486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-6.0|
84473811|NCT04593940|168699486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||||||||8.0|-3.7|
84473812|NCT04593940|168699487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
84525596|NCT04625062|168804490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Traditional treatment condition - biofeedback treatment condition|||||.72
84525597|NCT03827018|168804586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.92||Comparison of KPL-301 and placebo with respect to time to flare calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata.|||0.92|0.15|0.0263
84525598|NCT03827018|168804587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|33.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|55.8||Two-sided p-value and 95% CI for the difference in sustained remission between two arms using normal approximation. Placebo arm is the reference.|normal approximation|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||55.8|10.7|0.0038
84473813|NCT04593940|168699487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.7|
84473814|NCT04593940|168699487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.3|
84525599|NCT03827018|168804588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.95|0.27|0.0277
84525600|NCT03827018|168804589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.98|0.19|0.0378
84525601|NCT03827018|168804590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||1.06|0.22|0.0651
84525602|NCT03827018|168804591|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-326.45||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-675.99|23.09||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.09|-675.99|0.0667
84525603|NCT03827018|168804592|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|31.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|50.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.8|11.1|0.0201
84525604|NCT03827018|168804593|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|9.5||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|27.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-8.7|0.5533
84473815|NCT04593940|168699488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.133|||Log Rank|||||1.133|0.680|0.3169
84473816|NCT04593940|168699488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.108|||Log Rank|||||1.108|0.672|0.2480
84473817|NCT04593940|168699488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.604|||Log Rank|||||1.604|0.885|0.2490
84473818|NCT04593940|168699489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.850|0.5175
84473819|NCT04593940|168699489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.179|||Log Rank|||||1.179|0.722|0.5216
84473820|NCT04593940|168699489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.424|||Log Rank|||||1.424|0.812|0.6135
84473821|NCT04593940|168699490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.565||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|1.931|||Log Rank|||||1.931|0.165|0.3628
84473822|NCT04593940|168699490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.948|||Log Rank|||||1.948|0.167|0.3701
84473823|NCT04593940|168699490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.988||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.211|11.251|||Log Rank|||||11.251|2.211|0.0001
84473824|NCT00403559|168699508|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority determined as the F-IGA, IGA, erythema, scaling, and pruritis scores when compared between groups. The Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified baseline seborrheic dermatitis (SD) severity.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
84473825|NCT04105244|168699520|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
84473826|NCT04105244|168699521|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
84473827|NCT04105244|168699522|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
84473828|NCT04105244|168699525|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
84473829|NCT04105244|168699526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84473830|NCT01029886|168699538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly with respect to change in HbA1c was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus liraglutide) was less than zero. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the CI was \<0.25%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A sample of 408 subjects in each treatment arm would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.25% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2 sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%. MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.33|0.08|0.002
84473831|NCT01029886|168699539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, in which HbA1c stratum, country, and background OAD served as stratification factors.||||0.011
84473832|NCT01029886|168699540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.66|0.05|0.021
84473833|NCT01029886|168699541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline body weight, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.40|0.39|<.001
84473834|NCT01029886|168699542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline total cholesterol, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.19|-0.01|0.079
84473835|NCT01029886|168699543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HDL-C, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.02|0.832
84473836|NCT01029886|168699544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting triglycerides were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM model with treatment, baseline fasting triglycerides, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.15|1.04|<.001
84473837|NCT01029886|168699545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline SBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||2.47|-0.53|0.205
84525605|NCT03827018|168804594|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Difference in percentages|39.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|61.3||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.3|17.2|0.0031
84525606|NCT03827018|168804595|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-380.82||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-919.66|158.02||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable|ANCOVA|||||158.02|-919.66|0.1629
84525607|NCT01043926|168804630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.43|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.43|0.74|
84539730|NCT00509795|168829387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|3.15||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.92|5.37||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||5.37|0.92|0.0054
84473838|NCT01029886|168699546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline DBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.98|-0.96|0.981
84473839|NCT02720016|168699552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.016
84473840|NCT02720016|168699552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.002
84473841|NCT02720016|168699552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.492
84473842|NCT02720016|168699557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.872
84473843|NCT02720016|168699557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.686
84473844|NCT02720016|168699557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.256||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.798
84473845|NCT02720016|168699562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.631
84473846|NCT02720016|168699562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.560
84473847|NCT02720016|168699562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.922
84473848|NCT01968954|168699594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-53.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-53.1|-61.0|<0.001
84473849|NCT01968954|168699595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-33.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-33.6|-38.8|<0.001
84525608|NCT01043926|168804631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Cmax GMR = Cmax GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ Cmax GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the Cmax GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the Cmax GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the Cmax of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the geometric mean Cmax is no more than 2.00."|Cmax Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.29|||ANCOVA|||"The GM for each participant group and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for Cmax using an ANCOVA model.~The Cmax GMR of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the Cmax of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.29|0.68|
84525609|NCT02598895|168804654|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary efficacy endpoint was percent patients achieving PSA decline of 50% or more from baseline (PSA50), assessed in the time prior to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or 1 year after the last study medication. The historical comparison was PSA50 of 26%. The target response rate was 60%. The study followed an optimal two-stage Simon design (Simon, 1989) where the null hypothesis that the true PSA response rate PSA50 was 0.26 was tested against a one-sided alternative.|See above|||
84525610|NCT01192399|168804656|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
84525611|NCT01523587|168804664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.956||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model without the randomization stratification variable was used for each subgroup category, along with the corresponding log-rank test.||0.956|0.693|0.0103
84525612|NCT01523587|168804665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.973||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by race, was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two treatment groups.||0.973|0.727|0.0193
84525613|NCT01523587|168804666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.32||Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.32|0.98|0.0551
84473850|NCT01968954|168699595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-31.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-31.7|-37.7|
84473851|NCT01968954|168699595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-25.7||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-25.7|-32.3|
84473852|NCT01968954|168699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-48.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-48.1|-55.2|<0.001
84473853|NCT01968954|168699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-46.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.4|-54.9|
84473854|NCT01968954|168699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-36.5||||||Week 52:LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.5|-45.8|
84473855|NCT01968954|168699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-47.9|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-47.9|-55.1|<0.001
84473856|NCT01968954|168699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-46.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.6|-54.6|
84525614|NCT01523587|168804667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.||||2.06|1.18|0.0020
84473857|NCT01968954|168699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-36.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.3|-45.2|
84473858|NCT01968954|168699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.55||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|29.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||29.5|-35.4|0.860
84473859|NCT01968954|168699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|51.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||51.4|-47.2|
84473860|NCT01968954|168699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|70.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||70.4|-44.5|
84473861|NCT01968954|168699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||7.0|2.4|<0.001
84473862|NCT01968954|168699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||9.1|4.5|
84473863|NCT01968954|168699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.8|0.9|
84525615|NCT01523587|168804668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|2.28|||ANCOVA||Mean was adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and race.|The analysis will compare the treatments using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for minimum sum of diameters, using baseline sum of diameters as a covariate. The randomization strata will be included as classification factors.||2.28|-4.67|0.500
84473864|NCT01968954|168699600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-54.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-54.8|-63.4|<0.001
84473865|NCT01968954|168699601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-39.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-39.3|-58.0|<0.001
84473866|NCT01968954|168699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-51.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-51.2|-60.8|
84473867|NCT01968954|168699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-41.0|-51.8|
84473868|NCT01968954|168699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-52.0||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-52.0|-63.1|
84473869|NCT01968954|168699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-41.5||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-41.5|-53.9|
84473870|NCT01968954|168699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-39.8||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-39.8|-58.9|
84473871|NCT01968954|168699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-30.1||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-30.1|-52.2|
84473872|NCT01968954|168699604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
84525616|NCT01523587|168804670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Coughing.||1.09|0.72|0.2562
84525617|NCT01523587|168804670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Dyspnoea||0.94|0.66|0.0078
84473873|NCT01968954|168699604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
84473874|NCT01968954|168699604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
84473875|NCT01968954|168699605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.7|1.8|
84473876|NCT01968954|168699605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||6.7|3.1|
84473877|NCT01968954|168699605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||4.6|0.7|
84473878|NCT01968954|168699606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||1.7|-1.9|
84473879|NCT01968954|168699606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.9|-0.1|
84473880|NCT01968954|168699606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.1|-1.0|
84473881|NCT01968954|168699607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
84473882|NCT01968954|168699607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
84473883|NCT01968954|168699607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
84525618|NCT01523587|168804670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Pain||1.18|0.82|0.8690
84473884|NCT01968954|168699608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.1|-59.2||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-59.2|-69.1|
84473885|NCT01968954|168699608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-47.7||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-47.7|-71.4|
84473886|NCT01968954|168699609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-58.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-58.8|-68.0|
84473887|NCT01968954|168699610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-67.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|-62.1||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-62.1|-72.2|
84473888|NCT01968954|168699611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.7|-64.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-64.6|-74.7|
84525619|NCT01523587|168804671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-0.88|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Coughing.||-0.88|-6.15|0.0091
84473889|NCT01968954|168699612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-43.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-43.8|-50.7|
84473890|NCT01968954|168699613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.3|-12.9|
84473891|NCT01968954|168699614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.5|1.4|
84473892|NCT01968954|168699615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
84473893|NCT01968954|168699615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
84525620|NCT01523587|168804671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-1.25|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Dyspnoea.||-1.25|-5.75|0.0024
84473894|NCT01968954|168699615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.0|-1.4|
84473895|NCT01968954|168699616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
84473896|NCT01968954|168699616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
84473897|NCT01968954|168699616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.2|-0.3|
84473898|NCT01968954|168699617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.86|41.64||||||Week 12||41.64|13.86|
84473899|NCT01968954|168699617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.32|23.56||||||Week 24||23.56|9.32|
84473900|NCT01968954|168699617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|15.24||||||Week 52||15.24|6.36|
84473901|NCT01968954|168699618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.09|173.91||||||Week 12||173.91|52.09|
84473902|NCT01968954|168699618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.81|225.52||||||Week 24||225.52|55.81|
84473903|NCT01968954|168699618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|49.49||||||Week 52||49.49|17.13|
84525621|NCT01523587|168804671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.15|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Pain.||-0.15|-5.33|0.0384
84525622|NCT01298778|168804672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||acute pain scores with movement at 24 hours||||0.05
84473904|NCT00751114|168699638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.42||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with the HbA1c change from baseline to last on-treatment measurement as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and the corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate|ANCOVA||Difference (Insulin glargine - Sitagliptin)|"H0: no difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~H1: difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~Assuming:~* Estimated standard deviation of the change in HbA1c of 1.3%~* Expected mean difference to be detected of 0.4%~* Alpha risk of 5% (two-sided)~* Power of 90%~* Equal sample size in each treatment group (1:1 randomization)~A total number of 446 evaluable patients (223 in each group) was required"||-0.42|-0.77|<0.0001
84473905|NCT05027516|168699661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.05||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.83|||Permutation testing|||||1.83|0.55|0.1026
84473906|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.12||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.19|||Permutation testing|||For aminoglycosides||2.19|0.47|1
84473907|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Permutation testing|||For betalactams||1.44|0.69|1
84473908|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|20.15|||Permutation testing|||For bacitracin||20.15|0.05|1
84473909|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.91|||Permutation testing|||For glycopeptides||1.91|0|1
84473910|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.15|||Permutation testing|||For trimethoprim||3.15|0.32|1
84473911|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|14.64|||Permutation testing|||For cationic antimicrobial peptides||14.64|0.07|1
84473912|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.34|||Permutation testing|||For mupirocin||5.34|0|1
84473913|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.22|||Permutation testing|||For metronidazole||3.22|0|1
84473914|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|6.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|46.02|||Permutation testing|||For fluoroquinolones||46.02|0.02|1
84473915|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|148.86|||Permutation testing|||For sulfonamides||148.86|0.01|1
84473916|NCT05027516|168699662|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Permutation testing|||For tetracyclines||1.27|0.79|0.5621
84473917|NCT05027516|168699663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.196
84473918|NCT05027516|168699663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.568
84473919|NCT05027516|168699663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.978
84473920|NCT05027516|168699663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.184
84726067|NCT01020487|169204416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||0.37|-0.39|0.975
84473921|NCT03655717|168699680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.184||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.184|-0.259|0.94
84473922|NCT03655717|168699680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.386||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.386|-0.421|0.94
84473923|NCT03655717|168699680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.568||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.568|-0.535|0.94
84539731|NCT00509795|168829387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.8||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.03|1.43||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.43|-3.03|0.4793
84473924|NCT03655717|168699681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.057||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.057|-0.384|0.94
84473925|NCT03655717|168699681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.237||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.237|-0.588|0.94
84473926|NCT03655717|168699681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.728||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.728|-0.354|0.94
84473927|NCT00592553|168699682|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.68||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.8|53.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||53.75|-114.8|0.4756
84473928|NCT00592553|168699682|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|147.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (\< 9 years vs. \>= 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||147.96|-22.66|0.1490
84473929|NCT01968187|168699739|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-2.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effect and HPWSQ-R total score at baseline as covariate.||||-2.2||0.0290
84473930|NCT01968187|168699740|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0233|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CGI-S score as a covariate.||||-0.3||0.0233
84473931|NCT01968187|168699741|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.1172|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Behavior||0.2||0.1172
84473932|NCT01968187|168699741|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1436|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Drive||0.3||0.1436
84473933|NCT01968187|168699741|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0248|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Severity||-0.5||0.0248
84473934|NCT01968187|168699742|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0047|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CY-BOCS total score at baseline as a covariate.||||-3.3||0.0047
84473935|NCT01968187|168699743|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.0132|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-1.9|||ANCOVA|Compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and Food Domain Score of Reiss Profile at baseline as a covariate.||||-1.9||0.0132
84473936|NCT01274338|168699759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||This design provides at least 80% power at a one sided type I error rate of 0.003.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.065
84473937|NCT01274338|168699760|SUPERIORITY|This design will provide 80% power to detect the difference between the two arms at a one-sided type I error rate of 0.022.||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.044
84473938|NCT01274338|168699762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||If low dose Ipi (LIP) vs. HDI is significant for OS at the 2.2% level, then we will compare high dose Ipi (HIP) vs. HDI at the 2.2% level.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.289
84473939|NCT03342937|168699775|SUPERIORITY|1-sided test of single exponential mean with historical null hypothesis of 5.5 months median PFS||||||0.02||||||Sample size of 35 patients was chosen based on detecting the difference between a historical median PFS of 5.5 months and experimental median of 7.3 months, a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 80% power (1-sided test of single exponential mean, α=0.2).|1-sided exponential test|||||||0.02
84473940|NCT01617655|168699795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-27.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.1|-51.1|<0.0001
84473941|NCT01617655|168699796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-26.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.9|-51|<0.0001
84473942|NCT01617655|168699797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.3|-51.4|<0.0001
84473943|NCT01617655|168699798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-51.4|<0.0001
84473944|NCT01617655|168699799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.9|-39.7|<0.0001
84473945|NCT01617655|168699800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-39.7|<0.0001
84473946|NCT01617655|168699801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.3|-46.3|<0.0001
84473947|NCT01617655|168699802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-24.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.9|-46.2|<0.0001
84473948|NCT01617655|168699803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-37.3|<0.0001
84473949|NCT01617655|168699804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-21.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.1|-39.2|<0.0001
84473950|NCT01617655|168699805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-24.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.1|-44.8|<0.0001
84525623|NCT00536484|168804680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, center and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction.|The LS mean difference \& 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline = 12.9 (centered baseline used in model)|Null hypothesis: the mean change from baseline in micturitions per 24 hours in the fesoterodine group is the same as in the placebo group at Week 12. A sample size of 350 in each arm had at least 85% power to detect a difference of 0.8 between flexible dose fesoterodine \& placebo assuming a standard deviation of 3.52 using a 2-sample t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level. Accounting for 10% of randomized subjects not having the primary endpoint data, 390 subjects were needed in each arm||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
84726068|NCT01020487|169204416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.56|-0.32|0.567
84525624|NCT00536484|168804681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0136||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment, baseline covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.8|0.0136
84473951|NCT01617655|168699806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-19.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.4|-36.2|<0.0001
84473952|NCT01617655|168699807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-24.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.6|-53.6|<0.0001
84473953|NCT01617655|168699808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||53.5|2.5|0.0016
84473954|NCT01617655|168699809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|54.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||54.9|2.6|0.0014
84473955|NCT01617655|168699810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.8||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-2.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.7|-26.9|0.0164
84473956|NCT01617655|168699811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|-2.9|0.2745
84473957|NCT00423735|168699839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided test||||||0.99
84473958|NCT01089582|168699841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors response on response rate: primary diagnosis severity. Participants were classified as responders if they were very much improved or much improved from baseline.||||0.0023
84473959|NCT01089582|168699842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: significant medical history. Participants were classified as responders if they were much improved or improved from baseline.||||0.0382
84473960|NCT01089582|168699843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.1805
84473961|NCT01089582|168699843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by participant.||||<0.0001
84473962|NCT01089582|168699843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
84473963|NCT01089582|168699844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.0137
84525625|NCT00536484|168804681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
84726069|NCT01020487|169204416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.3||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||1.12|-0.53|0.462
84473964|NCT01089582|168699844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by caregiver.||||<0.0001
84473965|NCT01089582|168699844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
84473966|NCT02108600|168699860|OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84473967|NCT00711269|168699893|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||ANOVA||\[Not specified\]|||1.3|-8.4|0.149
84525626|NCT00536484|168804682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1057||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.9|0.1057
84473968|NCT00711269|168699893|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-6.6|0.462
84473969|NCT00711269|168699893|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-4.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.2|-10.5|0.122
84473970|NCT00711269|168699893|SUPERIORITY|Maximum Contrast Method||||||0.235||||||Contrast Factors (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg): (-1, 0, 1) Adjusted P Value: 0.298|Maximum Contrast Method|Contrast (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg):(-2, 1, 1) Raw P Value: 0.108 Adjusted P Value: 0.145||||||0.235
84473971|NCT00711269|168699894|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-2.9|0.069
84473972|NCT00711269|168699894|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.287
84473973|NCT00711269|168699894|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-4.1|0.016
84473974|NCT00711269|168699895|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-2.0|0.289
84473975|NCT00711269|168699895|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.256
84473976|NCT00711269|168699895|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-2.3|0.352
84473977|NCT00711269|168699896|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-3.9|0.251
84473978|NCT00711269|168699896|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.2|||ANOVA|||||2.2|-2.7|0.847
84473979|NCT00711269|168699896|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.292
84473980|NCT04146467|168699946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84473981|NCT04146467|168699948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0004
84473982|NCT04146467|168699956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84473983|NCT00547378|168699961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for center, was used to test the difference in responder rates between the 2 groups||||||0.016
84473984|NCT04633473|168699987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.922
84473985|NCT04633473|168699988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.521
84473986|NCT04633473|168699989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.678
84473987|NCT04633473|168699990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.326
84473988|NCT04633473|168699991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.09
84473989|NCT04633473|168699992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.154
84473990|NCT04633473|168699993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.309
84473991|NCT04633473|168699995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.181|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.181
84473992|NCT04633473|168699996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.008
84473993|NCT01778127|168700016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
84473994|NCT01778127|168700016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
84473995|NCT01778127|168700016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84473996|NCT01778127|168700017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84473997|NCT01778127|168700017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84473998|NCT01778127|168700017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
84473999|NCT01778127|168700018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84474000|NCT01778127|168700018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
84474001|NCT01778127|168700018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84474002|NCT01778127|168700019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
84474003|NCT01778127|168700019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84474004|NCT01778127|168700019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84474005|NCT01778127|168700020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
84474006|NCT01778127|168700020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84474007|NCT01778127|168700020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84474008|NCT01778127|168700021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84474009|NCT01778127|168700021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84474010|NCT01778127|168700021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84474011|NCT01778127|168700022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84474012|NCT01778127|168700022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
84474013|NCT01778127|168700022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84474014|NCT01778127|168700023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84474015|NCT01778127|168700023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84474016|NCT01778127|168700023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
84474017|NCT01778127|168700024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
84474018|NCT01778127|168700024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84474019|NCT01778127|168700024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
84474020|NCT01778127|168700025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84474021|NCT01778127|168700025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
84474022|NCT01778127|168700025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84474023|NCT01778127|168700026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84474024|NCT01778127|168700026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84474025|NCT01778127|168700026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
84474026|NCT01778127|168700027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84474027|NCT01778127|168700027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84474028|NCT01778127|168700027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
84474029|NCT01348425|168700028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is +/- 10%, type I error is assumed to be 0.05, with a power of 0.8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.5||Schuirman's TOST equivalence test on change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents.|t-test, 2 sided|To test the hypothesis whether the percent change in stent length is contained within \[-10%, 10%\].||The alternative hypothesis is equivalence in mean change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents, i.e., the difference in mean change between the longer and shorter stents is close to 0. Thus, a small p-value indicates a 95% confidence interval covers 0.||3.5|-2.0|<0.01
84525627|NCT00536484|168804682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0338||95.0|-1.1|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-1.1|0.0338
84525628|NCT00536484|168804682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0003||95.0|-1.5|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.5|0.0003
84474030|NCT02365584|168700048|SUPERIORITY|"The assumptions required for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were to be tested as follows:~* The equality of variances was to verified using the Levene's test. If it was significant AUC values were to be properly transformed.~* The linear relationship of AUC with the basal total score within treatment group was to be tested by a regression analysis.~* The parallelism of the regression lines between groups and the slope non zero value with the appropriate F tests."|Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|=|0.5396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|25.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the AUC was the dependent and the independent was the baseline ESAS total score.||25|-47|=0.5396
84474031|NCT01185249|168700058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis-no difference in morning and evening weights on three consecutive days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51306|1.73806|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of within subjects design morning and evening weights. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between morning and evening weights.||1.73806|-0.51306|<.001
84474032|NCT01185249|168700058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
84474033|NCT02193815|168700062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Ratio|93.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.43|107.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.99|80.43|0.3465
84474034|NCT02193815|168700063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|165.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.12|192.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||192.25|143.12|<0.0001
84474035|NCT02193815|168700064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|65.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.46|75.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.81|56.46|<0.0001
84474036|NCT02193815|168700065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|93.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.3|107.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.81|80.30|0.3349
84474037|NCT02193815|168700065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|149.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.04|173.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.34|129.04|<0.0001
84474038|NCT02193815|168700065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|106.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.92|123.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.41|91.92|0.3991
84474039|NCT02193815|168700065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|71.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.08|83.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.36|62.08|<0.0001
84474040|NCT02193815|168700066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|96.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|124.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.64|74.00|0.7529
84474041|NCT02193815|168700066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|125.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.96|169.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||169.75|92.96|0.1318
84474042|NCT02193815|168700066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|103.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|134.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||134.68|79.30|0.8009
84474043|NCT02193815|168700066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|81.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|104.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.47|62.94|0.1012
84726070|NCT00674609|169204431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||-0.14|-1.21|0.014
84726071|NCT00674609|169204431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||0.22|-0.86|0.244
84474044|NCT00406783|168700074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84474045|NCT00406783|168700075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84474046|NCT00064350|168700081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the proportion of patients maintaining stable disease or objective response at 2 months after randomization between the two arms.||||0.005
84474047|NCT00064350|168700082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare PFS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.014
84474048|NCT00064350|168700083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare OS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.12
84474049|NCT03057951|168700155|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Cox regression, with terms for treatment, region, baseline status of diabetes, age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr) at baseline.~alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis)."||0.90|0.69|0.0003
84474050|NCT03057951|168700156|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.61|0.88|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, baseline LVEF, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, and treatment. eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction. alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis).||0.88|0.61|0.0009
84474051|NCT03057951|168700157|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.861|1.865|||Random intercept random coeff. model||Empa 10 mg vs. Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with factors age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), baseline LVEF as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline-by-time interaction, treatment-by-time interaction and treatment as fixed effects.~Only 'on-treatment' data from treated patients were used. alpha=0.001. covariance structure: Unstructured."||1.865|0.861|<0.0001
84474052|NCT03057951|168700158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.24|0.73|0.7243
84474053|NCT03057951|168700159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||0.83|0.60|<0.0001
84474054|NCT03057951|168700160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.09|0.76|0.2951
84474055|NCT03057951|168700161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.15|0.87|0.9893
84474056|NCT03057951|168700162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.07|0.65|0.1539
84474057|NCT03057951|168700163|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Comparison vs Placebo \[T-P\]|"Model includes age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, week reachable, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline KCCQ-Clinical-Summary-Score-by-visit interaction as fixed effect(s).~Unstructured covariance structure."||2.19|0.45|0.0028
84474058|NCT03057951|168700164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for the dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalisation and all-cause mortality was used. Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), treatment, region, baseline diabetes status and sex.||1.01|0.85|0.1012
84474059|NCT02064205|168700165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1000.0||0.2918|ONE_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to analyze the Energy Intakes (ad libitum lunch and daily) were done one-sided to evaluate the appetite suppressive effect after the pre-load snack (condition C versus D)||||0.2918
84474060|NCT02064205|168700166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC of hunger scores before preload intake for condition C versus D.||||0.0109
84474061|NCT02064205|168700167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0216||||||GLP-1|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to statistically analyze satiety hormones having Conditions and Time as a fixed factor and having Subject, Cohort, and Treatment Day as random factors.||||0.0216
84474062|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.012
84474063|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||<0.001
84474064|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.102
84474065|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.107|-0.053|0.507
84474066|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.136|-0.021|0.148
84474067|NCT02700919|168700168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.048|-0.109|0.443
84474068|NCT02700919|168700172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.399
84474069|NCT02700919|168700172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.091
84474070|NCT02700919|168700172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.437
84474071|NCT02700919|168700176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.720
84474072|NCT02700919|168700176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.298
84474073|NCT02700919|168700176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.470
84474074|NCT01708941|168700200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||The primary comparison was ipilimumab + HDI versus ipilimumab alone, across ipilimumab dose (Arms A \& C versus Arms B \& D)||||0.490
84474075|NCT01708941|168700201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|||PFS comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.144
84474076|NCT01708941|168700202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.691
84474077|NCT01708941|168700203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab across HDI status (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.868
84474078|NCT02883049|168700219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.413|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on HR B-ALL Arm A vs Arm B. With a total of 1800 patients accrued over 5 years with minimum follow up of 2 years, randomized 1:1 to the 2 arms, we will be able to detect an improvement in 5-year DFS from 90% to 94 (HR=0.5873) between IT MTX and ITT based regimens (2-sided log rank test, alpha=5%), with 84.2% power.||1.413|0.74|0.893
84474079|NCT02883049|168700220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.556|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.335|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Experimental Arm 1 /hazard rate for Control Arm|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on Control Arm vs. Experimental Arm 1. This study design will have 86.8% power (1-sided log rank test, adjusted alpha=0.025 for multiple comparisons) to detect an improvement in 4-year DFS from 70% to 79% (HR=0.661) between the control arm and the experimental arm.||1.335||0.556
84474080|NCT03004469|168700247|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.3|||Mixed linear model|||||21.3|5.8|<.001
84474081|NCT03004469|168700248|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|19.1|||Mixed linear model|||||19.1|6.5|<.001
84474082|NCT03004469|168700249|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.202|0.3971|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3971|-1.2020|0.322
84474083|NCT03004469|168700249|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47799||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|1.6657|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||1.6657|-0.2184|0.131
84474084|NCT03004469|168700250|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.2|-0.3|0.569
84474085|NCT03004469|168700250|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.1|-0.4|0.129
84474086|NCT03004469|168700251|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.708
84474087|NCT03004469|168700251|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.7|0.2|<.001
84474088|NCT03004469|168700252|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.1|-0.3|0.179
84474089|NCT03004469|168700252|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.4|-0.1|0.262
84474090|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 4||0.3|-3.7|0.103
84474091|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 8||1.5|-2.8|0.545
84474092|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 12||1.8|-2.2|0.842
84474093|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 24||1.2|-2.8|0.449
84474094|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 4||0.9|-0.2|0.272
84474095|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 8||0.8|-0.7|0.918
84474096|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 12||1.1|-0.1|0.078
84525629|NCT00536484|168804683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1666||95.0|-0.6|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.6|0.1666
84525630|NCT00536484|168804683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506||95.0|-0.8|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.8|0.0506
84474097|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.593
84474098|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.295
84474099|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 8||0.4|-0.5|0.926
84474100|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.183
84474101|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.4|0.981
84474102|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 4||-0.1|-2.7|0.041
84474103|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.9|-1.7|0.562
84474104|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 12||1.0|-1.6|0.642
84474105|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-2.2|0.156
84474106|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 4||0.5|-0.6|0.824
84474107|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.7|-0.5|0.713
84525631|NCT00536484|168804683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0014||95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.2|-1.0|0.0014
84474108|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 12||0.6|-0.6|0.993
84474109|NCT03004469|168700253|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-0.8|0.550
84474110|NCT01722487|168700343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.09|<0.0001
84474111|NCT01722487|168700344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.05|0.0010
84474112|NCT01722487|168700345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84474113|NCT01722487|168700346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84474114|NCT01722487|168700347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84474115|NCT01722487|168700348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0009
84474116|NCT01722487|168700349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0054
84474117|NCT04069156|168700368|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point assessing non-inferiority of placebo was considered met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the difference in the composite success rate between treatment arms (placebo minus aspirin) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-10%) by the Farrington-Manning test at 12-months in the principal analysis population.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.6||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-1.6|<0.0001
84474118|NCT03943953|168700406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.018
84474119|NCT03943953|168700408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.001
84474120|NCT03943953|168700410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.006
84474121|NCT03943953|168700412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.035
84474122|NCT03943953|168700414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.39
84474123|NCT01102218|168700417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84474124|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.3|<0.001
84474125|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.1|6.8|<0.001
84474126|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.8|7.7|<0.001
84474127|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||16.5|10.3|<0.001
84474128|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||7.4|1.8|0.001
84474129|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||6.9|1.3|0.004
84474130|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||12.5|6.9|<0.001
84474131|NCT01021852|168700443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.9|<0.001
84474132|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.4|-43.2|<0.001
84474133|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-20.1|-44.9|<0.001
84474134|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.7|-43.2|<0.001
84474135|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-33.5|-58.0|<0.001
84474136|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-4.4|-26.7|0.006
84474137|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.1|-24.4|0.020
84474138|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.5|-36.8|<0.001
84474139|NCT01021852|168700444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.8|-41.2|<0.001
84474140|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-1.5|-18.9|0.022
84525632|NCT00536484|168804684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2054||95.0|-0.4|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.4|0.2054
84726072|NCT00674609|169204432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.31||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.34|-0.97|0.346
84474141|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-7.0|-24.5|<0.001
84474142|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.9|-32.1|<0.001
84474143|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-11.7|-29.0|<0.001
84474144|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.2|-18.0|0.055
84474145|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.4|-17.8|0.060
84474146|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-10.4|-28.6|<0.001
84474147|NCT01021852|168700445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.2|-20.5|0.015
84474148|NCT01021852|168700446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||12.2|-9.5|
84474149|NCT01021852|168700446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||11.2|-10.3|
84474150|NCT01021852|168700446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||18.3|-4.2|
84474151|NCT01021852|168700446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||20.4|-2.3|
84474152|NCT01021852|168700447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||10.2|-1.0|
84474153|NCT01021852|168700447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||4.8|-3.6|
84474154|NCT01021852|168700447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.6||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||6.6|-2.7|
84474155|NCT01021852|168700447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||2.3|-4.5|
84474156|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Neoplasm||||0.881
84474157|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Tobacco use||||0.517
84474158|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||BMI(kg/mˆ2)\>30||||0.053
84474159|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Diabetes mellitus||||0.289
84474160|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Immunosuppression/Corticosteroids||||1.000
84474161|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Anemia (Hb\<9gr/dL)||||0.169
84474162|NCT00906074|168700476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Malnutrition (hypoalbuminemia)||||0.637
84474163|NCT00906074|168700477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||1.000
84474164|NCT00906074|168700478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.873
84474165|NCT00906074|168700483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.156
84474166|NCT00906074|168700484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
84474167|NCT02856269|168700532|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum tests, X2 tests, Fisher exact tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Cohen's D value|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Cohen's d is calculated after Box-Cox transformation. Small effect \<= 0.2, Medium effect \[0.3, 0.8\]; Large effect \>0.8|||||
84474168|NCT00127062|168700534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84474169|NCT00127062|168700534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84474170|NCT00099359|168700564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Overall comparison of 3 KM curves using an extension of the M-H test was performed. Results indicated a significant difference therefore a 2nd stage analysis was done to compare each pair of transmission rates, using 2-sample Mantel-Haenzel tests.|multiple comparison|Hochberg's modified Bonferroni method was used to adjust the significance level for comparisons between arms.||||||.046
84474171|NCT00099359|168700565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0001
84474172|NCT00099359|168700566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|||||||multiple comparison|||||||.2432
84474173|NCT00099359|168700567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84474174|NCT00099359|168700570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds ratio for treatment arm C (ZDV+3TC/NFV) association with Intrapartum Infection Status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference group||||1.01|0.24|0.05
84525633|NCT00536484|168804684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0225||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-0.6|0.0225
84474175|NCT00099359|168700570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82||Adjusted odds ratio for association of treatment arm B (ZDV+NVP) with intrapartum infection status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.19|0.01
84474176|NCT00099359|168700570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|"Adjusted odds ratio for association of illegal substance use during pregnancy and intrapartum HIV infection status with NO being reference group."||||5.86|1.08|0.03
84474177|NCT00099359|168700570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.35||Adjusted odds ratio for the association of continuous log10 viral load with intrapartum infection status|Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.56|<0.0001
84474178|NCT02104804|168700572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.72|<0.001
84474179|NCT02104804|168700573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6133.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|781.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7668.5|-4597.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4597.9|-7668.5|<0.001
84474180|NCT02104804|168700574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-39.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-28.82|||ANCOVA|||||-28.82|-49.41|<0.001
84474181|NCT02104804|168700575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.6|||Difference in proportions|||||12.6|3.1|0.002
84474182|NCT02104804|168700576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-10.22|||ANCOVA|||||-10.22|-21.53|<0.001
84474183|NCT02104804|168700577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.44|0.430
84474184|NCT04501679|168700578|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|48.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.5|26.3|<0.0001
84474185|NCT04501679|168700579|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|38.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.2|18.8|<0.0001
84540709|NCT05736861|168832644|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.33|0.84|
84474186|NCT04501679|168700580|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||42.4|24.3|<0.0001
84474187|NCT04501679|168700581|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|38.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.6|21.3|<0.0001
84474188|NCT04501679|168700582|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|43.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||43.2|20.7|<0.0001
84474189|NCT04501679|168700583|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.|Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|37.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|||37.5|18.4|<0.0001
84474190|NCT04501679|168700584|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|25.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.7|12.0|<0.0001
84474191|NCT02121756|168700589|OTHER|The sCD14 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD14||||||0.822|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8220
84474192|NCT02121756|168700590|OTHER|The sCD163 is measured in ng/ml and the median change is shown in ng/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD163.||||||0.0869|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0869
84474193|NCT02121756|168700591|OTHER|The IL-6 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma IL-6.||||||0.5027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5027
84474194|NCT02121756|168700592|OTHER|||||||0.4548|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4548
84474195|NCT02121756|168700594|OTHER|||||||0.7556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7556
84474196|NCT02121756|168700595|OTHER|||||||0.2075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2075
84474197|NCT02121756|168700596|OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0315
84474198|NCT02121756|168700597|OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7376
84474199|NCT02121756|168700598|OTHER|||||||0.2343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2343
84474200|NCT02121756|168700599|OTHER|||||||0.7598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7598
84474201|NCT02121756|168700600|OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9830
84525634|NCT00536484|168804684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0167||95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.6|0.0167
84474202|NCT02121756|168700601|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3317
84474203|NCT02121756|168700602|OTHER|||||||0.6121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6121
84474204|NCT02121756|168700603|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5620
84474205|NCT00838916|168700604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.04|
84474206|NCT00838916|168700604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%||||||0.0086||||||p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0086
84474207|NCT00838916|168700604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1463||||||p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to zero.||||||0.1463
84474208|NCT01927419|168700615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|61.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|61.8|31.4|
84474209|NCT01927419|168700615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|52.55|||Fisher Exact|||||52.55|3.79|
84474210|NCT01927419|168700616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.59|0.21|
84474211|NCT01927419|168700617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|64.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|64.8|8.2|
84474212|NCT01927419|168700617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|511.89|||Fisher Exact|||||511.89|1.07|
84474213|NCT01927419|168700618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.97|0.14|
84474214|NCT00115765|168700637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.011||95.0|1.06|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.52|1.06|0.011
84474215|NCT00115765|168700638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.005||95.0|1.11|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.83|1.11|0.005
84474216|NCT00115765|168700642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.738||95.0|0.6|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.05|0.60|0.738
84474217|NCT00115765|168700643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.257||95.0|0.77|2.62|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.62|0.77|0.257
84474218|NCT00115765|168700645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|1.04|1.77||||||||1.77|1.04|
84474219|NCT00115765|168700646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.91|1.71||||||||1.71|0.91|
84474220|NCT00115765|168700647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||||95.0|1.3|2.75||||||||2.75|1.30|
84474221|NCT00115765|168700648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||||95.0|0.67|1.54||||||||1.54|0.67|
84474222|NCT00115765|168700649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||||95.0|0.61|2.66||||||||2.66|0.61|
84474223|NCT00115765|168700650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||||95.0|0.28|1.67||||||||1.67|0.28|
84474224|NCT01244191|168700671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.149|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval from stratified Cox-regression model (adjusting for number of prior therapies, gender, and smoking history).|||1.149|0.841|0.8086
84525635|NCT00536484|168804685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8019||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8019
84474225|NCT01752842|168700679|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.04||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of cardiac diastolic function adjusting for body fat percent, baseline values of BMI, diastolic/systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose, triglycerides, ethnicity, gender and race.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of cardiac diastolic function as measured by E' (cm/s) between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.04|-1.56|0.07
84474226|NCT01752842|168700680|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0058||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0418|0.0543||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of fractional shortening percent between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.0543|-0.0418|0.8128
84474227|NCT01752842|168700681|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.65||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.||Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of C24:0/C16:0 ceramide ratio between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|-0.65|-2.93|0.0034
84474228|NCT03260205|168700694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-5.9||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|-0.78|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV preschool version total score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline ADHD-RS-IV and baseline ADHD-RS-IV score-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.78|-11.01|0.0242
84474229|NCT03260205|168700695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Mean Square|-0.6||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline Visits, with the CGI-I score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline CGI-S as covariate.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0074
84474230|NCT04095286|168700706|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.11|0.96|
84474231|NCT04095286|168700706|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.98|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||0.98|0.85|
84474232|NCT04095286|168700709|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.09|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.09|1.02|
84474233|NCT04095286|168700709|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.00|
84474234|NCT04095286|168700710|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.02|
84474235|NCT04095286|168700710|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.07|1.01|
84474236|NCT01511107|168700742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|-0.091||||||The null hypothesis that amoxicillin-clavulanate 5 days, placebo 5 days (reduced duration) is inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate 10 days (standard duration) is tested against the alternative that reduced duration treatment is noninferior. Assuming failure rates of 15% and 25% in the standard and reduced duration groups, respectively, a 2-sided significance level of .05 and 10% attrition, it was calculated that 300 participants per group, would provide power of 95% for finding inferiority.||-.091|-.253|
84474237|NCT01511107|168700743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.096|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.016||||||||.016|-.209|
84474238|NCT01511107|168700744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are negative for AOM pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.45
84474239|NCT01511107|168700745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is negative for AOM pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.95
84474240|NCT01511107|168700746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.59
84474241|NCT01511107|168700747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||>0.99
84474242|NCT01511107|168700748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.47
84474243|NCT01511107|168700749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.05
84474244|NCT01511107|168700750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the culture result at enrollment.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of subjects whose NP isolates at enrollment are pathogen-negative or positive only for at least one susceptible pathogen who become colonized with penicillin non-susceptible pathogens at any time over the course of follow-up||||0.58
84474245|NCT01511107|168700751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 6 week follow-up, non-illness visits at which a penicillin-nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||||0.74
84474246|NCT01511107|168700752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible S pn isolate.||||0.72
84525636|NCT00536484|168804685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3881||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3881
84474247|NCT01511107|168700753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.05
84474248|NCT01511107|168700754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible H flu isolate.||||0.47
84474249|NCT01511107|168700755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.69
84474250|NCT01511107|168700756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children followed greater than 60 days having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.16
84474251|NCT01511107|168700757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within the entire respiratory season.||||0.32
84474252|NCT01511107|168700758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.23
84474253|NCT01511107|168700759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within the entire respiratory season.||||0.22
84474254|NCT01511107|168700760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables and for length of follow-up.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean number of days a systemic antibiotic was received during the respiratory season.||||<.001
84474255|NCT01511107|168700761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, episode, day of the diary and AOM-SOS score at the episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||0.07
84474256|NCT01511107|168700762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||||0.70
84474257|NCT01511107|168700763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||||0.86
84474258|NCT00975195|168700768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) \<1.2 indicates non-inferiority of Fluticasone withdrawal compared with Fluticasone maintenance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.189||Two-sided p-value to test superiority of fluticasone maintenance over fluticasone withdrawal if non-inferiority shown.|Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.189|0.941|0.3497
84474259|NCT00975195|168700769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4441
84474260|NCT00975195|168700770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2269
84474261|NCT00975195|168700771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.481|||Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.481|0.975|0.0849
84474262|NCT00975195|168700772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.45|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.45|0.92|0.2291
84474263|NCT00975195|168700773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2083
84474264|NCT00975195|168700774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.5562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.16|||Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.923|0.5562
84474265|NCT00975195|168700775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4342
84474266|NCT00975195|168700776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3155
84525637|NCT00536484|168804685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.324||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3240
84474267|NCT00975195|168700778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.017|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.017|-0.069|0.0014
84474268|NCT00975195|168700779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.131|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.131|-0.004|0.0632
84474269|NCT00975195|168700780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.096|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.096|-0.122|0.8137
84474270|NCT00975195|168700781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.69|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.69|-9.74|0.2663
84474271|NCT00975195|168700782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.27|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.27|0.05|0.0033
84525638|NCT00536484|168804686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8279||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8279
84474272|NCT00975195|168700783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.499||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.91|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.91|-3.98|0.4914
84474273|NCT00975195|168700784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.71|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.71|-4.84|0.3490
84474274|NCT00975195|168700785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.04|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||3.04|-2.77|0.9262
84474275|NCT00975195|168700786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.01|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||6.01|-0.73|0.1241
84474276|NCT00975195|168700787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|-0.024|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.024|-0.073|<0.0001
84474277|NCT00975195|168700788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0255||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.006|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.006|-0.094|0.0855
84474278|NCT00975195|168700789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.073|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.073|-0.249|0.0004
84474279|NCT00975195|168700790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.4|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.40|-0.46|0.1838
84474280|NCT00975195|168700791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.72|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.72|-0.03|0.0551
84474281|NCT00975195|168700792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.25|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.25|-1.06|0.4804
84474282|NCT00975195|168700793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.43|0.02|0.0467
84474283|NCT00975195|168700794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.02|-0.21|0.0223
84474284|NCT05195359|168700823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||<0.0001
84474285|NCT05195359|168700824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0003
84474286|NCT05195359|168700825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0002
84474287|NCT05195359|168700826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0606
84474288|NCT05195359|168700827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.2056
84474289|NCT05195359|168700827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4186|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.4186
84474290|NCT05195359|168700828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0754|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0754
84474291|NCT05195359|168700829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0137
84474292|NCT05195359|168700830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0152
84474293|NCT05195359|168700831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8148|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.8148
84474294|NCT05195359|168700831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.0523
84474295|NCT05195359|168700832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0729|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0729
84474296|NCT01146951|168700834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-26.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.3|-11.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-11.80|-40.30|0.003
84474297|NCT01146951|168700835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.074
84474298|NCT01146951|168700836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.1|-17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-17.00|-47.10|<0.001
84474299|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-57.15||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.5|-17.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Partial Seizure Frequency||-17.30|-104.50|0.025
84474300|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-28.65||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of atypical absence seizure frequency||0.90|-72.00|0.128
84474301|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-54.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.6|-15.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for myoclonic seizure frequency||-15.40|-126.60|0.021
84474302|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-23.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-5.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of tonic seizure frequency||-5.60|-40.70|0.031
84474303|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-71.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-464.7|30.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Tonic-clonic seizure frequency||30.50|-464.70|0.107
84474304|NCT01146951|168700837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-52.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.1|10.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Atonic seizure frequency||10.80|-89.10|0.221
84474305|NCT01146951|168700838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Week 12 of the Treatment Period||||0.041
84474306|NCT01146951|168700838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of final assessment (LOCF)||||0.007
84474307|NCT03224585|168700846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||This analysis compared the change in pain scores between baseline and 6 hours||||0.0121
84474308|NCT03224585|168700847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0025
84474309|NCT01175213|168700848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.02|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.045||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||||0.045||<0.0001
84474310|NCT01921634|168700872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||McNemar||The odds ratio was generated from a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations with a logit link and represents a comparison of modified (numerator) vs standard (denominator).|||1.7|1.1|0.01
84474311|NCT05136170|168700873|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis was defined on this endpoint: the proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) was lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis was rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value was lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.498||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.165|33.356||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \> 10 mm/5 min at Week 4 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||33.356|2.165|0.002
84474312|NCT05136170|168700874|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Adjusted means difference|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.801|8.981||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the global SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline global SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||8.981|-7.801|0.890
84474313|NCT05136170|168700875|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10 mm/5 min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.648||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|33.808|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||33.808|1.307|0.022
84474314|NCT05136170|168700876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.221||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.934|9.377||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the severity SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline severity SANDE score as qualitative independent variables.Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.377|-8.934|0.962
84474315|NCT05136170|168700877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.164||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.221|9.549||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the frequency SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline frequency SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.549|-9.221|0.973
84474316|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|2.378||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|9.625||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 4||9.625|-4.869|0.52
84474317|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|7.11||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|14.873||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 12||14.873|-0.653|0.073
84474318|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-4.166||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.322|3.989||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 4||3.989|-12.322|0.317
84474319|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixedmodel for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|LS means difference|1.058||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.786|8.901||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 12||8.901|-6.786|0.792
84474320|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|-3.907||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.948|7.135||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 4||7.135|-14.948|0.488
84474321|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.284||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.998|9.431||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 12||9.431|-9.998|0.954
84474322|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEl module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.049||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.658|7.559||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 4||7.559|-7.658|0.99
84474323|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|1.976||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.065|9.017||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 12||9.017|-5.065|0.582
84474324|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|5.232||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.457|11.922||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 4||11.922|-1.457|0.125
84474325|NCT05136170|168700878|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.156||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.912|6.6||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 12||6.6|-6.912|0.964
84474326|NCT05136170|168700879|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.795||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.748||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 4 was reported."||1.748|-0.157|0.102
84474327|NCT05136170|168700879|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.051||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.991||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 8.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 8 was reported."||0.991|-1.094|0.923
84525639|NCT00536484|168804686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5059
84474328|NCT05136170|168700879|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.136||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.12||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 12|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 12 was reported."||1.12|-0.849|0.787
84474329|NCT05136170|168700880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||<0.001
84474330|NCT05136170|168700880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||<0.001
84474331|NCT05136170|168700880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.014
84474332|NCT05136170|168700880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||Not statistically significant result. p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.095
84474333|NCT05136170|168700881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.02
84474334|NCT05136170|168700881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.328
84474335|NCT05136170|168700881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.287
84474336|NCT05136170|168700881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.777
84474337|NCT05136170|168700882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.126
84474338|NCT05136170|168700882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.968
84474339|NCT05136170|168700882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.613
84474340|NCT05136170|168700882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.805
84474341|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.543
84474342|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.677
84474343|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.914
84474344|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.874
84474345|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.945
84474346|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.727
84474347|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.342
84474348|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.821
84474349|NCT05136170|168700883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.926
84474350|NCT05136170|168700884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0344
84525640|NCT00536484|168804686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0806||95.0|-0.4|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.4|0.0806
84474351|NCT05136170|168700884|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||1
84474352|NCT05136170|168700884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0235
84474353|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.888
84474354|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.651
84474355|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.267
84474356|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.459
84474357|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.192
84525641|NCT00536484|168804687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0203||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.3|-3.2|0.0203
84525642|NCT00536484|168804687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0007||95.0|-4.2|-1.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
84525643|NCT00536484|168804687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-1.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-1.7|-4.9|<0.0001
84525644|NCT00536484|168804688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-10.7|-4.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-4.9|-10.7|<0.0001
84525645|NCT00536484|168804689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|5.3|11.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Concern domain"||11.5|5.3|<0.0001
84525646|NCT00536484|168804689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|3.9|10.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Coping domain"||10.2|3.9|<0.0001
84525647|NCT00536484|168804689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0036||95.0|1.5|7.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate||"Week 12 minus Baseline~Sleep domain"||7.8|1.5|0.0036
84525648|NCT00536484|168804689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007||95.0|1.6|5.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Social interaction domain"||5.8|1.6|0.0007
84525649|NCT00536484|168804689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001||95.0|3.6|8.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~HRQL scale score total"||8.9|3.6|<0.0001
84525650|NCT00536484|168804690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0087
84474358|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.568
84474359|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.871
84474360|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.85
84474361|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.364
84474362|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.646
84474363|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.739
84474364|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.664
84474365|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.846
84474366|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.248
84474367|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.341
84474368|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.413
84474369|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.927
84474370|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.914
84474371|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.564
84474372|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.489
84474373|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 4||||0.082
84474374|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 8 was reported.||||0.848
84474375|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 12 was reported.||||0.805
84474376|NCT05136170|168700885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 16 was reported.||||0.833
84474377|NCT05136170|168700888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84474378|NCT05136170|168700889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
84474379|NCT05136170|168700890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84474380|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 2 was reported||||0.017
84474381|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 4 was reported||||0.339
84474382|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 2 was reported.||||0.004
84474383|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 4 was reported.||||0.292
84474384|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 2 was reported.||||0.09
84474385|NCT05136170|168700891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 4 was reported.||||0.54
84474386|NCT05136170|168700892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) was reported.||||0.0064
84474387|NCT05136170|168700892|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% was reported.||||1
84474388|NCT05136170|168700892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 was reported.||||0.0034
84474389|NCT05136170|168700893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84474390|NCT01735617|168700975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means|563.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|162.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The pharmacokinetic profile was characterised by an overnight rise in cortisol levels reaching a maximal concentration approximately 8 hours post dosing.||||
84474391|NCT04570332|168700985|SUPERIORITY||rate %|25.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|41.2|||one-sided test for binomial endpoint|||The null hypothesis was H0: ORR=10% (p0) and was tested against H1: ORR\>10% at one-sided 5% significance level. Assuming an effect size of ORR=25% (pA), 40 participants provided a power of at least 80%. The minimal statistically significant ORR was 20%.||41.20|12.69|<0.01
84474392|NCT05025787|168701002|SUPERIORITY||model treatment coefficient|-1.774|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.639||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.033|-0.514||A 95% confidence interval for the treatment coefficient in the linear mixed-effect model was (-3.033, -0.514), where the reference level was the active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean WOMAC-A pain between CNTX-6970 and Placebo. Linear mixed-effect models were used with block, period, sex, age, and KL-grade as covariates and treatment group as factor, with random effects for sites and subjects nested within sites. The test was performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).~Power was computed for effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 using Monte Carlo simulation, and exceeded 80%."||-0.514|-3.033|.006
84474393|NCT05600309|168701013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.59|0.3914
84474394|NCT05600309|168701014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.92|0.78|0.8091
84474395|NCT05600309|168701015|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.3||One-sided nominal p-value for testing.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|-2.3|0.0502
84474396|NCT05822830|168701023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9||||||||-4.9|-8.1|
84474397|NCT05822830|168701028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.6||||||||-3.6|-7.1|
84474398|NCT05822830|168701030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-3.2|
84474399|NCT05822830|168701031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.7||||||||-4.7|-8.0|
84474400|NCT05127044|168701032|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.81438645|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol-Correlation Coefficient-R Value||||
84474401|NCT05127044|168701032|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.85442277|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
84474402|NCT05127044|168701032|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.0758872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
84474403|NCT05127044|168701032|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.7929338|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
84474404|NCT05127044|168701032|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.86294585|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
84474405|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.2184||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.1544
84474406|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.3909||||0.0087|||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0087
84474407|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0252||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3038
84474408|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0213||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6434
84474409|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0477||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1544
84474410|NCT05127044|168701033|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.1528||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0087
84474411|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.1552||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.3143
84474412|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0832||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.5914
84474413|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.000665||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.868
84474414|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.574||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
84474415|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0241||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3143
84525651|NCT00536484|168804690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0008
84474416|NCT05127044|168701034|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0069||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5914
84474417|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0353||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.8203
84474418|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.595||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0001
84474419|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0363||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2156
84474420|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.2172||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0066
84474421|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.00124||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8203
84474422|NCT05127044|168701035|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.354||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
84474423|NCT03589326|168701076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.29||P-value is based on CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to randomization strata (age): 18 through \<45 years, ≥45 through \<60 years, and ≥60 years.|Chi-squared||Risk difference and 95% CI: adjusted percent ponatinib - adjusted percent imatinib and its 95% CI.|||0.29|0.06|=0.0021
84474424|NCT05441592|168701090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
84474425|NCT05441592|168701092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.234
84474426|NCT01586156|168701118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84474427|NCT01586156|168701119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
84474428|NCT01586156|168701120|OTHER|Pearson's correlation test of association of alprenolol binding changes to dose carvedilol.||||||0.02||||||Correlation of the change in alprenolol binding relative to dose carvedilol.|Pearson|||||||0.02
84474429|NCT01586156|168701121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
84474430|NCT01586156|168701123|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84474431|NCT01586156|168701124|NON_INFERIORITY|Carvedilol did not lead to worse cardiac output as compared to placebo.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
84474432|NCT00414960|168701125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|5.83||P-value is for comparison of change from baseline between enzastaurin and placebo group.|2-sample pooled t-test||Using placebo as a reference group, the mean difference = enzastaurin minus placebo.|||5.83|-10.64|0.556
84474433|NCT05291949|168701135|OTHER|Bland-Altman|Bias|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bland-Altman||||Lower 95% Limit of agreement (LoA) value = -0.34 Upper 95% LoA = 0.94|||
84474434|NCT02164513|168701208|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.81|0.70|<0.001
84474435|NCT02164513|168701208|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.9||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.90|0.80|<0.001
84525652|NCT00536484|168804690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
84474436|NCT02164513|168701209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.109||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI versus (vs) FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.109|0.085|<0.001
84474437|NCT02164513|168701210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
84474438|NCT02164513|168701211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.80|<0.001
84474439|NCT02164513|168701211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
84474440|NCT02164513|168701212|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.75|||Negative binomial Model|||||0.75|0.62|<0.001
84474441|NCT02164513|168701213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.85|0.70|<0.001
84474442|NCT02164513|168701214|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||||1.01|0.76|0.064
84474443|NCT02164513|168701214|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||Negative binomial model|||||0.78|0.56|<0.001
84474444|NCT02598661|168701227|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|36.89||The p-value was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 versus\[vs.\]\>6 units RBC) \& international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||36.89|9.90|<0.001
84474445|NCT02598661|168701229|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.64|34.18||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||34.18|12.64|<0.001
84474446|NCT02598661|168701232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.586||The p-value (2-sided) was calculated using the stratified log-rank test for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.586|0.105|<0.001
84474447|NCT02598661|168701233|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|27.56||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score Method.|||27.56|-4.10|0.112
84474448|NCT02598661|168701236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.823||P value (two-sided) for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio was calculated using stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.823|0.526|0.949
84474449|NCT03003403|168701260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||bootstrap resampling|||||1.20|0.82|0.97
84474450|NCT03003403|168701261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-1.24|0.83
84474451|NCT03003403|168701262|SUPERIORITY|Difference in systolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.6|0.34
84474452|NCT03003403|168701262|SUPERIORITY|Difference in diastolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.323
84474453|NCT03003403|168701263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.8|0.991
84474454|NCT04857593|168701264|OTHER||Mean change in EPDS score|5.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
84474455|NCT05458011|168701279|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-2.66|<0.0001
84474456|NCT04124692|168701315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84474457|NCT04124692|168701316|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.0043
84474458|NCT04124692|168701316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84474459|NCT00205699|168701344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value refers to the time by treatment condition interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA % fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6 and 12 weeks) and medication group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC). The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.0001
84474460|NCT00205699|168701345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84474461|NCT00205699|168701346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
84474462|NCT00205699|168701347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
84474463|NCT00205699|168701348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
84474464|NCT00205699|168701349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for the main effect of time on the outcome, and to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.003
84474465|NCT00205699|168701349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|Contrast|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.003
84474466|NCT00205699|168701349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|ANCOVA|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.002
84474467|NCT05168813|168701371|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.77|0.44|< .001
84474468|NCT05168813|168701372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.78|0.29|0.003
84474469|NCT05168813|168701373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.04|0.07|0.056
84474470|NCT05168813|168701374|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.15|0.73|0.449
84474471|NCT05168813|168701375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.87|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||8.87|0.59|0.23
84474472|NCT05168813|168701385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.73|0.43|< .001
84474473|NCT05168813|168701386|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.68|0.27|< .001
84474474|NCT05168813|168701387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.82|0.09|0.02
84474475|NCT05168813|168701388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.09|0.67|0.218
84474476|NCT05168813|168701389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||3.77|0.84|0.135
84474477|NCT06964165|168701396|OTHER||Difference in pre-IDS ORR|-39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.8|-17.7||||||||-17.7|-56.8|
84474478|NCT01658579|168701462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.179||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.614|5.124|||Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis was performed using a linear mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects, and participant as random effect.||5.124|-3.614|0.7304
84474479|NCT04397718|168701481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||3.06|0.46|0.667
84474480|NCT04397718|168701482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||1.49|0.58|0.876
84474481|NCT04397718|168701483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.92|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||2.92|0.31|0.991
84474482|NCT04397718|168701484|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.11|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||4.11|-2.03|0.841
84474483|NCT04397718|168701485|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||0|0|0.746
84474484|NCT04397718|168701486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.39|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||7.39|0.72|0.1
84474485|NCT04397718|168701487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.0|||Fisher Exact||||Logistical regression adjusted for age, hypertension, COPD, and baseline severity score.|2|0.33|0.425
84474486|NCT04397718|168701488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.42|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||3.42|0.44|0.688
84474487|NCT05388656|168701489|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
84474488|NCT05388656|168701490|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
84474489|NCT05388656|168701491|OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0108
84474490|NCT03201965|168701492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|8.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.16|3.22|<0.0001
84474491|NCT02128763|168701537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value refers to difference between group on change in overall OSDI score (Row 1).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
84474492|NCT02128763|168701538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
84474493|NCT02128763|168701539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Pos hoc application of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment||||||0.77
84474494|NCT02128763|168701540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
84474495|NCT02128763|168701541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.051
84474496|NCT02128763|168701542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84474497|NCT02128763|168701543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
84474498|NCT02128763|168701544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
84474499|NCT02128763|168701545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
84474500|NCT02128763|168701546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
84474501|NCT02128763|168701547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.25
84474502|NCT02128763|168701548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
84474503|NCT02128763|168701549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
84474504|NCT02128763|168701550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.60
84474505|NCT02128763|168701551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.17
84474506|NCT02128763|168701552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84474507|NCT02128763|168701553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.71
84474508|NCT02128763|168701554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
84474509|NCT02128763|168701555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
84474510|NCT03259490|168701556|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.36|105.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.83|100.36|
84474511|NCT03259490|168701557|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|104.77|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.77|96.11|
84474512|NCT03259490|168701558|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|104.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.10|96.65|
84474513|NCT03259490|168701559|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|99.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.52|105.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.70|94.52|
84474514|NCT03259490|168701560|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|107.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.52|113.31|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||113.31|102.52|
84474515|NCT03259490|168701561|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|101.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||101.93|92.63|
84474516|NCT03259490|168701562|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.38|105.92|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.92|100.38|
84474517|NCT03259490|168701563|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.68|104.86|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.86|95.68|
84474518|NCT03259490|168701564|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.65|103.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||103.29|91.65|
84474519|NCT01963208|168701569|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|3.52||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the distributions of the two treatment groups with respect to percent change in seizure frequency.|Rank ANCOVA|||||3.52|-17.44|0.1788
84474520|NCT05301322|168701609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.951|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV A||0.951|0.785|
84525653|NCT00536484|168804691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0129
84474521|NCT05301322|168701609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|0.943|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV B||0.943|0.766|
84474522|NCT05301322|168701610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.963|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H1N1 A/Victoria||0.963|0.769|
84474523|NCT05301322|168701610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.866|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin||0.866|0.680|
84474524|NCT05301322|168701610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.019|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Austria||1.019|0.789|
84474525|NCT05301322|168701610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|0.964|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Phuket||0.964|0.779|
84474526|NCT04971785|168701615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.7||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|14.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each pair of treatment groups were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) category as stratification factors.|||14.9|-3.6|0.2289
84474527|NCT04971785|168701616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||7.4|-11.1|0.6959
84474528|NCT04971785|168701617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented are from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||52.6|18.8|<0.0001
84474529|NCT04971785|168701618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|40.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||40.9|11.3|0.0006
84474530|NCT03829332|168701624|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||Hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||0.95|0.64|0.00624
84474531|NCT03829332|168701625|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.79744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region, and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||1.39|0.87|0.79744
84474532|NCT03829332|168701626|OTHER||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||20.1|5.4|0.00037
84474533|NCT03829332|168701629|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.9||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-0.47|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||-0.47|-7.34|0.0262
84474534|NCT03829332|168701630|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-4.5||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.|cLDA model|||||-0.08|-8.91|0.0461
84525654|NCT00536484|168804691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0100
84474535|NCT03829332|168701631|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-1.1||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.59|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||2.59|-4.78|0.5596
84474536|NCT03829332|168701632|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-0.88||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|3.74|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||3.74|-5.49|0.7088
84474537|NCT03829332|168701633|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.7|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||0.70|-6.71|0.1116
84474538|NCT03829332|168701634|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.33|0.75|0.9601
84474539|NCT03829332|168701635|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||0.88|0.42|0.0079
84474540|NCT03829332|168701636|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.56|0.73|0.7457
84474541|NCT03829332|168701637|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.44|0.75|0.8122
84474542|NCT03829332|168701638|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.67|0.92|0.1480
84474543|NCT03829332|168701639|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
84474544|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|0.99|
84474545|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||0.89|0.59|
84474546|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.44|1.96|
84474547|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.86|2.22|
84474548|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|1.10|
84525655|NCT00536484|168804691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0009
84525656|NCT00536484|168804692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
84474549|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.74|1.12|
84474550|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.24|1.59|
84525657|NCT00536484|168804692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
84525658|NCT00536484|168804692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
84474551|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.23|0.77|
84525659|NCT02597582|168804718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A previous study found that the mean operation time was 165 minutes for patients undergoing LigaSure vessel sealing system-assisted total laryngectomy plus neck dissection and 195 minutes for those receiving conventional hemostasis.~With a difference in operative duration of 30 minutes between the two groups,9 the estimated sample size needed to demonstrate a two-sided significance level of 0.05 with 80% power should be at least 18 participants in each treatment arm."||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
84718656|NCT00336505|169188820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.5667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||8.9|-4.8|0.5667
84718657|NCT00336505|169188822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||>|0.9999||95.0|-4.5|5.1|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||5.1|-4.5|>0.9999
84718658|NCT00246805|169188833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0|||Z-test for proportions|||VRS ON vs. VRS OFF||61|36|<0.0001
84718659|NCT04191824|169188848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.1||In order to maintain an overall alpha of 0.05 and account for two interim analyses, a two-sided alpha of 0.0492 was used for assessing the statistical significance in the final analysis of this primary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-2.7|0.7769
84718660|NCT04191824|169188849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.061|<0.0001
84525660|NCT02597582|168804719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
84525661|NCT02597582|168804720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
84525662|NCT02597582|168804722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
84525663|NCT02597582|168804723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
84525664|NCT02065713|168804728|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.026
84525665|NCT02997657|168804729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84525666|NCT02997657|168804730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
84525667|NCT02997657|168804731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
84525668|NCT02997657|168804732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
84525669|NCT02997657|168804733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84525670|NCT02997657|168804734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84525671|NCT02997657|168804735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84525672|NCT01117337|168804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
84525673|NCT01117337|168804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
84525674|NCT01045993|168804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
84718661|NCT04191824|169188850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.12|||Chi-squared|||||0.120|-0.006|0.0753
84718662|NCT04191824|169188851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.016|||Chi-squared|||||0.016|-0.013|0.8044
84718663|NCT04191824|169188852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.002|||Chi-squared|||||0.002|-0.105|0.0570
84718664|NCT04191824|169188853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.072|||Chi-squared|||||0.072|0.018|0.0012
84718665|NCT04191824|169188854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.006||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.055|||Chi-squared|||||0.055|-0.066|0.8483
84718666|NCT01324310|169188862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2|140.5|||ANOVA||"Geometric means ratio (Romidepsin + Ketoconazole/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||140.5|110.2|
84718667|NCT01324310|169188863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.6|139.6|||ANOVA|||||139.6|109.6|
84718668|NCT01324310|169188864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|124.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|142.4|||ANOVA|||||142.4|109.0|
84474552|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.86|1.61|
84474553|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.92|1.81|
84474554|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.79|1.42|
84474555|NCT01646398|168701645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.49|1.84|
84474556|NCT01646398|168701646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.0||||||Difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) expressed as a percentage presented along with exact, 2-sided 95%CI. Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.||34.0|19.3|
84474557|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|0.99|
84474558|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||0.89|0.59|
84474559|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.44|1.96|
84474560|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.86|2.22|
84474561|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|1.10|
84474562|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.74|1.12|
84474563|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.24|1.59|
84474564|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.23|0.77|
84525675|NCT01045993|168804751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical alternative hypothesis tested is that the survival curves of time to first perceptible relief confirmed by meaningful relief are not identical between two treatment groups, or equivalently, the hazard ratio between two treatment groups is not equal to 1.||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
84718669|NCT01324310|169188865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|109.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|126.4|||ANOVA|||||126.4|94.9|
84718670|NCT01324310|169188866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|0.095|||Wilcoxon signed- rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + ketoconazole minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||0.095|-0.485|0.7422
84718671|NCT03170882|169188871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.341|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,international staging system(ISS),prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better PFS in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.341|0.535|=0.477
84474565|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.86|1.61|
84474566|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.92|1.81|
84474567|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.79|1.42|
84474568|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.49|1.84|
84474569|NCT01646398|168701647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 2.0.||4.14|2.38|
84474570|NCT03292952|168701665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84474571|NCT04656418|168701667|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical Testing H01) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84474572|NCT04656418|168701668|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
84474573|NCT04656418|168701669|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
84474574|NCT04656418|168701669|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474575|NCT04656418|168701669|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474576|NCT04656418|168701670|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
84474577|NCT04656418|168701670|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474578|NCT04656418|168701670|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474579|NCT04656418|168701671|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474580|NCT04656418|168701671|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
84474581|NCT04656418|168701672|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical testing H02) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84474582|NCT02475850|168701680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||p\<0.05 threshold (primary outcome)|Regression, Cox|multistate model accounting for death as a semi-competing risk||||1.06|0.80|0.245
84474583|NCT02475850|168701681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|0.99||p\< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.83|0.004
84474584|NCT02475850|168701683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squared means across|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.309|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.1|2.54||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||2.54|-1.10|0.309
84474585|NCT02475850|168701684|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.59||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.8|0.93||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||0.93|-1.80|0.528
84474586|NCT02475850|168701685|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.037|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|0.2||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months/24 months)|||0.20|-2.00|0.037
84474587|NCT02475850|168701686|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.009|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.36|-0.02||p\<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||-0.02|-2.36|0.009
84474588|NCT02475850|168701687|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.897|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.38|1.25||p \<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months, 24 months)|||1.25|-1.38|0.897
84474589|NCT01746940|168701688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.1088
84474590|NCT01746940|168701688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.0005
84474591|NCT00781963|168701703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep onset latency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-3.0|-28.7|<.001
84474592|NCT00781963|168701704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in wake after sleep onset from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||5.9|-26.3|0.21
84474593|NCT00781963|168701705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in total wake time from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-11.7|-62.2|0.004
84474594|NCT00781963|168701706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||11.3|2.0|.005
84474595|NCT00781963|168701707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency (from wrist actigraphy) from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||0.5|-3.3|0.15
84474596|NCT00781963|168701708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in PSQI score from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-1.3|-3.5|<.001
84474597|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-12.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.01|-16.54|<0.001
84474598|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-10.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.91|-15.41|<0.001
84474599|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-4.44|0.009
84474600|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.25|<0.001
84474601|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-3.31|0.136
84474602|NCT00696436|168701713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-5.12|0.001
84474603|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|-11.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.76|-18.07|<0.001
84474604|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.40|-17.71|<0.001
84718672|NCT03170882|169188872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.427|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|2.677|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. HR \<1 was deemed to indicate longer survival time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm as compared to Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||2.677|0.761|=0.265
84474605|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-0.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-6.17|0.008
84474606|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.09|<0.001
84474607|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-5.81|0.018
84474608|NCT00696436|168701714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-7.73|<0.001
84474609|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-7.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.81|-10.91|<0.001
84525676|NCT01045993|168804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment term only in the model.||||||<0.001
84525677|NCT01045993|168804753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.002
84525678|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
84474610|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-7.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.04|-10.12|<0.001
84474611|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-2.99|0.011
84474612|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-3.67|<0.001
84474613|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.19|0.166
84474614|NCT00696436|168701715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.88|0.020
84474615|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-5.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.69|-9.33|<0.001
84474616|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-4.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.39|-8.03|<0.001
84474617|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.69|0.005
84474618|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-4.69|<0.001
84474619|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-2.39|0.257
84525679|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.016
84525680|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
84474620|NCT00696436|168701716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.33||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-3.39|0.017
84474621|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-12.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.54|-17.30|<0.001
84474622|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.27|-15.99|<0.001
84474623|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-4.85|0.005
84474624|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-6.80|<0.001
84474625|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-3.55|0.119
84474626|NCT00696436|168701717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-1.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.49|<0.001
84474627|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-8.13||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.13|-11.48|<0.001
84474628|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-7.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.30|-10.63|<0.001
84474629|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.58||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.39|0.006
84474630|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.00|<0.001
84474631|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-2.53|0.107
84474632|NCT00696436|168701718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.30|-3.15|0.017
84525681|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.002
84525682|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
84525683|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
84525684|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.003
84525685|NCT01045993|168804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.001
84525686|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
84525687|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.002
84525688|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||0.033
84474633|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-10.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-15.56|<0.001
84525689|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.096
84525690|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||0.002
84525691|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||0.005
84525692|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.008
84474634|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-9.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-14.51|<0.001
84474635|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-3.56|0.194
84474636|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.84|0.001
84474637|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-2.51|0.720
84718673|NCT03170882|169188873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR was based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable and age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. OR \>1 was deemed to indicate better response in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.90|0.43|=0.634
84474638|NCT00696436|168701719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-4.79|0.018
84474639|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.87|-10.42|<0.001
84474640|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.99|-9.52|<0.001
84474641|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.21|0.341
84474642|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.80|0.003
84474643|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.30|0.821
84474644|NCT00696436|168701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-2.89|0.071
84474645|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.96|-12.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-17.96|<0.001
84474646|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-11.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.43|-16.42|<0.001
84474647|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-1.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.22|-5.42|0.002
84474648|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-2.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.97|-7.26|<0.001
84474649|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-3.88|0.091
84474650|NCT00696436|168701721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.72|<0.001
84474651|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-8.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-11.92|<0.001
84474652|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-7.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-10.94|<0.001
84525693|NCT01045993|168804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.004
84474653|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-3.81|0.002
84474654|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-4.24|<0.001
84474655|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.14|-2.82|0.076
84474656|NCT00696436|168701722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-3.25|0.024
84474657|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-10.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.02|-15.66|<0.001
84474658|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-9.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-14.72|<0.001
84474659|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-4.10|0.149
84474660|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-6.65|<0.001
84474661|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-3.16|0.494
84474662|NCT00696436|168701723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.93||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-5.72|0.007
84474663|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-5.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.79|-10.03|<0.001
84474664|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-5.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.88|-10.10|<0.001
84474665|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.14|0.691
84474666|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-4.20|0.010
84474667|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.625
84474668|NCT00696436|168701724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.27|0.008
84474669|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|7.88||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|3.15|<0.001
84474670|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.37||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.37|2.94|<0.001
84474671|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|1.03|0.032
84474672|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.06||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|1.04|0.029
84474673|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.89||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.96|0.080
84474674|NCT00696436|168701725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.92||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.97|0.071
84474675|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.15||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.10|<0.001
84525694|NCT01045993|168804757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.268
84474676|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.54||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.86|<0.001
84474677|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.83|0.306
84525695|NCT01045993|168804757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.419
84474678|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.92|0.132
84474679|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.58||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.74|0.695
84525696|NCT01045993|168804757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.086
84525697|NCT01045993|168804758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.067
84525698|NCT01045993|168804758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.757
84525699|NCT01045993|168804758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.219
84525700|NCT01045993|168804759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.043
84525701|NCT01045993|168804759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.388
84525702|NCT01045993|168804759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.039
84525703|NCT01045993|168804760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.797
84525704|NCT01045993|168804761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.371
84525705|NCT01045993|168804762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.122
84525706|NCT01045993|168804763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.355
84525707|NCT01045993|168804763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.371
84525708|NCT01045993|168804763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-values from ANOVA model with treatment treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.216
84525709|NCT01045993|168804764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.054
84525710|NCT01045993|168804764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.600
84718674|NCT03170882|169188875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.073|||||HR was obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS, prior lines of therapy. HR \>1 was deemed to indicate quicker response time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||1.073|0.288|
84525711|NCT01045993|168804764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.294
84525712|NCT01045993|168804765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.088
84525713|NCT01045993|168804765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.625
84525714|NCT01045993|168804765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.034
84525715|NCT01045993|168804766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores.||||||<0.001
84525716|NCT01659736|168804767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the condition (active TMS versus Sham) by time (pre, post, 3-month follow-up) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
84540710|NCT05736861|168832644|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.95|
84525717|NCT00474851|168804774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + conjugated estrogens)=0.05 p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.65 p (between the two groups)=0.10|RMANOVA|||"Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.10
84525718|NCT00474851|168804775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + estrogens)=0.0001 p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.31 p (between groups)=0.02|RMANOVA|||"The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.02
84525719|NCT01746264|168804777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.59
84525720|NCT01746264|168804778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow up visit.||||<0.001
84525721|NCT01746264|168804779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||<0.01
84525722|NCT01746264|168804781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
84525723|NCT01746264|168804782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up.||||0.21
84525724|NCT01746264|168804783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.02
84525725|NCT01746264|168804784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.0123
84525726|NCT01746264|168804785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.09
84525727|NCT01746264|168804786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.27
84525728|NCT01746264|168804787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.18
84525729|NCT01746264|168804788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.33
84525730|NCT01746264|168804789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.05
84525731|NCT01746264|168804790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.41
84525732|NCT01746264|168804791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
84525733|NCT01746264|168804792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.47
84525734|NCT02791893|168804793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.47
84525735|NCT02791893|168804793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase are not included limiting the sample to 10 subjects in each condition (N=20). Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
84525736|NCT02791893|168804794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.||"A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase were assigned a score of 1 indicating no change in their condition. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions."||||0.23
84525737|NCT02791893|168804794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.|Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions.||||0.23
84525738|NCT02791893|168804795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.13
84525739|NCT02791893|168804795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.12
84525740|NCT02791893|168804796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
84525741|NCT02791893|168804796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.49
84525742|NCT02791893|168804797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.18
84525743|NCT02791893|168804797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.25
84525744|NCT02791893|168804798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a dependent t-test comparing pre-intervention scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase had their most recent score carried forward. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.004
84525745|NCT02791893|168804798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||This was a dependent t-test comparing baseline scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase were excluded. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.005
84525746|NCT02462486|168804814|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||2.4|-5.0|
84525747|NCT02462486|168804814|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||-0.5|-9.0|
84525748|NCT02462486|168804815|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.4|2.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.0|-2.4|
84525749|NCT02462486|168804815|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|0.6|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-3.8|
84525750|NCT02462486|168804816|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.1|14.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.0|-7.1|
84525751|NCT02462486|168804816|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|16.5|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||16.5|-4.7|
84525752|NCT02462486|168804817|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||8.4|-5.5|
84525753|NCT02462486|168804817|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||4.5|-9.1|
84474680|NCT00696436|168701726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.81|0.381
84474681|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.41||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.41|3.20|<0.001
84474682|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|7.19||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.19|2.73|<0.001
84474683|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.99|0.056
84474684|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|1.02|0.036
84474685|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.66||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.85|0.317
84474686|NCT00696436|168701727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.87|0.234
84474687|NCT01517412|168701730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error: non-inferiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day versus lixisenatide prior to breakfast was tested first. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day over lixisenatide prior to breakfast was to be performed. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI at a level of ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.242|||||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.242|-0.067|
84474688|NCT01517412|168701730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error. The superiority was assessed by comparing the p-value at significance level = 0.05.||||0.2664
84474689|NCT03353753|168701740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.25||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.25|0.09|<0.0001
84474690|NCT03353753|168701741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
84474691|NCT03353753|168701743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.62||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR and OS.|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.62|0.21|0.0004
84474692|NCT03353753|168701744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.001
84474693|NCT03353753|168701745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.004
84474694|NCT03353753|168701746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
84474695|NCT02093234|168701885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84474696|NCT02093234|168701886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84474697|NCT02093234|168701887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84474698|NCT02093234|168701888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.02
84474699|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|22.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-4.4|48.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.4|-4.4|0.046
84474700|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|67.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|41.6|94.2|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||94.2|41.6|<0.001
84525754|NCT02462486|168804818|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.5|0.3|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-3.5|
84525755|NCT02462486|168804818|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.9|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-3.9|
84525756|NCT02310763|168804845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7343|3.32||The significance level is 0.05.|ANCOVA||Least square mean difference was calculated by placebo minus domagrozumab.|||3.3200|-0.7343|0.2088
84525757|NCT02310763|168804849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0845||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7354|1.5663||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.5663|-1.7354|0.9191
84525758|NCT02310763|168804849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5837||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2978|4.4652||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4652|-3.2978|0.7642
84525759|NCT02310763|168804849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2712||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3799|7.9223||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.9223|-7.3799|0.9423
84525760|NCT02310763|168804850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0693||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||0.0693|-0.0693|0.9993
84525761|NCT02310763|168804850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0259||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1107|0.0589||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||0.0589|-0.1107|0.5464
84525762|NCT02310763|168804850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1227|0.0386||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||0.0386|-0.1227|0.3041
84525763|NCT02310763|168804851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||2.5|-0.9|0.3522
84525764|NCT02310763|168804851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.2|0.7|0.0061
84525765|NCT02310763|168804851|SUPERIORITY|Week 49|Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|||3.8|-0.5|0.1268
84525766|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 17||2.1|-2.9|0.7337
84525767|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 33||2.7|-2.4|0.8893
84525768|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 49||1.3|-4.3|0.2939
84525769|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 17||3.6|-2.1|0.5995
84525770|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 33||5.6|0.2|0.0385
84525771|NCT02310763|168804852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 49||3.2|-3.3|0.9927
84525772|NCT02310763|168804853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.0|-1.7|0.6049
84525773|NCT02310763|168804853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4|-1.0|0.2065
84525774|NCT02310763|168804853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||1.2|-1.3|0.9391
84525775|NCT02310763|168804854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|20.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||20.3|-16.7|0.8499
84525776|NCT02310763|168804854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||29.8|-12.0|0.4008
84525777|NCT02310763|168804854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|27.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||27.0|-30.0|0.9160
84525778|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.517||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 17||0.517|-0.287|0.5726
84525779|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.248||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 33||0.248|-0.574|0.4334
84525780|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.321||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 49||0.321|-0.573|0.5767
84525781|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.446||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 17||0.446|-0.489|0.9274
84525782|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|-0.006||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 33||-0.006|-0.872|0.0469
84525783|NCT02310763|168804855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.255||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 49||0.255|-0.587|0.4362
84525784|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.156||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.367||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 17||0.367|-0.679|0.5557
84525785|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.303||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.235||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 33||0.235|-0.841|0.2669
84525786|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.276||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 49||0.276|-0.598|0.4665
84525787|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.399||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 17||0.399|-0.564|0.7335
84474701|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|94.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|67.8|121.0|||General linear model|Each dose of dutasteride independently analyzed for comparison against placebo using a general linear model.|Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||121.0|67.8|<0.001
84474702|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|34.4|88.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||88.4|34.4|<0.001
84474703|NCT01231607|168701925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001||99.165|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
84474704|NCT01231607|168701925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.28||99.165|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.28
84525788|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.361||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.156||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 33||0.156|-0.877|0.1695
84525789|NCT02310763|168804856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.234||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 49||0.234|-0.612|0.3783
84525790|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.586||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.13||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 17||0.130|-1.303|0.1078
84525791|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.746||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 33||0.746|-0.654|0.8967
84525792|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.378||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.371||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 49||0.371|-1.128|0.3196
84525793|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.689||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.386|0.008||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 17||0.008|-1.386|0.0526
84525794|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.41||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 33||0.410|-1.082|0.3739
84525795|NCT02310763|168804857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.079|0.436||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 49||0.436|-1.079|0.4019
84525796|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.107||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.61||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 17||0.610|-0.825|0.7676
84525797|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.454||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 33||0.454|-1.098|0.4127
84525798|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|0.919||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 49||0.919|-0.693|0.7815
84525799|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 17||0.451|-0.924|0.4975
84525800|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.294|0.359||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 33||0.359|-1.294|0.2646
84525801|NCT02310763|168804858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.149||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|0.71||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 49||0.710|-1.008|0.7320
84525802|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.437||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.437|-0.525|0.8569
84525803|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|0.355||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 33||0.355|-0.663|0.5495
84474705|NCT01231607|168701925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.002||99.165|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.002
84474706|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
84474707|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.56
84474708|NCT01231607|168701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.33|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.003
84474709|NCT01677507|168701947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Actually these are 2 sided paired t-tests.||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.4|0.0001
84474710|NCT01677507|168701947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye treated vs. untreated||3.2|2.5|0.0001
84474711|NCT01677507|168701947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.4|2.5|0.0001
84474712|NCT01677507|168701947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.5|0.0001
84474713|NCT01677507|168701948|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated to untreated||1.3|0.9|0.0001
84474714|NCT01677507|168701948|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||1.1|0.7|0.0001
84474715|NCT01677507|168701948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.2|0.94
84474716|NCT01677507|168701948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.1|0.54
84525804|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.521||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.521|-0.566|0.9340
84525805|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.239||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.239|-0.711|0.3279
84525806|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.757||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|-0.196||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 33||-0.196|-1.318|0.0086
84474717|NCT01677507|168701949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.7|0.01|0.04
84474718|NCT01677507|168701949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.1|0.15
84474719|NCT01677507|168701949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.3|0.52
84474720|NCT01677507|168701949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.4|-0.4|0.88
84474721|NCT03779334|168701950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|Performance Criterion = 5%||||||<0.0001
84474722|NCT06533475|168701978|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9624|1.076|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.076|0.9624|
84525807|NCT02310763|168804859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.165|0.286||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.286|-1.165|0.2328
84525808|NCT02310763|168804860|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.211||||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8353|3.2573|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||3.2573|-2.8353|0.8908
84525809|NCT02310763|168804861|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.819||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4514|3.0895|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||3.0895|-1.4514|0.4748
84525810|NCT02310763|168804862|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0097||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0692|0.0887|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0.0887|-0.0692|0.8070
84525811|NCT02310763|168804863|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0506||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0594|0.1607|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||0.1607|-0.0594|0.3643
84525812|NCT02310763|168804864|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0|-5.7|0.0483
84474723|NCT06533475|168701978|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.024|1.13|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.130|1.024|
84474724|NCT06533475|168701979|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9649|1.078|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.078|0.9649|
84474725|NCT06533475|168701979|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.021|1.127|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.127|1.021|
84474726|NCT06533475|168701980|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.9771||||||90.0|0.7966|1.199|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.199|0.7966|
84474727|NCT06533475|168701980|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.299|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fed)/ Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)|||1.299|0.7940|
84474728|NCT00363246|168702006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.049
84474729|NCT00363246|168702006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.013
84474730|NCT00363246|168702006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.0001
84474731|NCT00363246|168702006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.009
84474732|NCT00363246|168702007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|We used chi-squared test for categorical variable (most variables) and t-test (2-sided) for continuous variables (few variables).||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.033
84474733|NCT00363246|168702007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.013
84474734|NCT00363246|168702007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||<0.001
84474735|NCT00363246|168702007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.007
84474736|NCT00230100|168702055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
84474737|NCT00230100|168702056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
84474738|NCT00230100|168702057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
84525813|NCT02310763|168804865|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-0.8|-7.0|0.0146
84525814|NCT02310763|168804866|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.6||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||13.6|-76.9|0.1669
84525815|NCT02310763|168804867|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.3||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.5|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-8.1|-124.5|0.0267
84525816|NCT02310763|168804868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0692||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4345|0.2961||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.2961|-0.4345|0.7033
84525817|NCT02310763|168804868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2114||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8472|1.27||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.27|-0.8472|0.6893
84525818|NCT02310763|168804868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6439||||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4292|9.1414||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||9.1414|-14.4292|0.6469
84525819|NCT02310763|168804869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3289||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7649|0.1072||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1072|-0.7649|0.1353
84525820|NCT02310763|168804869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3457||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9614|2.6528||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||2.6528|-1.9614|0.7648
84525821|NCT02310763|168804869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.2893||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6409|26.2194||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||26.2194|-9.6409|0.3562
84525822|NCT02310763|168804870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5582||||0.1163||95.0|-1.2615|0.1451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1451|-1.2615|0.1163
84525823|NCT02310763|168804870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0944||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0798|3.2686||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2686|-3.0798|0.9503
84525824|NCT02310763|168804870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2881||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8328|10.2566||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||10.2566|-32.8328|0.2947
84525825|NCT02310763|168804871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0159||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.1588||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1588|-0.1270|0.8229
84525826|NCT02310763|168804871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0132||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.0772||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||0.0772|-0.1036|0.7709
84525827|NCT02310763|168804871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0889||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.2996||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.2996|-0.1219|0.3746
84525828|NCT02310763|168804872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0934||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0613||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0613|-0.2481|0.2294
84525829|NCT02310763|168804872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0117||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1105||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.1105|-0.1339|0.8485
84525830|NCT02310763|168804872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0562||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2187|0.3312||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3312|-0.2187|0.6645
84525831|NCT02310763|168804873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1013||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2622|0.0597||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0597|-0.2622|0.2101
84718675|NCT03170882|169188876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.361|||Log Rank||HR: obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,ISS,prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better disease progression prevention in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.361|0.506|=0.459
84525832|NCT02310763|168804873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0359||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1326|0.0608||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.0608|-0.1326|0.4603
84525833|NCT02310763|168804873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1039||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1386|0.3463||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3463|-0.1386|0.3739
84525834|NCT02310763|168804874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.9|-4.5|0.8925
84525835|NCT02310763|168804874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2|-0.7|0.2107
84525836|NCT02310763|168804874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.5|-0.9|0.2298
84525837|NCT02310763|168804875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||7.1|-0.1|0.0554
84525838|NCT02310763|168804875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||4.0|-0.9|0.2027
84525839|NCT02310763|168804875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||6.3|-0.5|0.0926
84525840|NCT02310763|168804876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||6.3|-2.4|0.3597
84718676|NCT04027439|169188887|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.138|<0.0001
84718677|NCT04027439|169188887|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.088|<0.0001
84718678|NCT04027439|169188887|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.089|<0.0001
84474739|NCT00230100|168702058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was hypothesized that the single-gender group composition and women-focused group content (WRG) would result in better substance abuse treatment outcomes (lower ASI alcohol composite scores) than standard mixed-gender group treatment (GDC).||||<0.05
84474740|NCT00230100|168702059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.009
84474741|NCT00547638|168702064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of DERMABOND HVD successful subjects) does not exceed 8%.|Difference in Proportion of Successes|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Gart-Nam||The value for the Estimated Parameter is expressed as a percentage and is defined as the difference in the proportion of sucesses between study groups.|||1.0|-17.7|
84474742|NCT00547638|168702065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The total mHCS scores are summarized as proportion of subjects with good outcome (total scores of zero) and a comparison of treatment groups by Fisher Exact Test was performed to confirm differences in groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.457
84474743|NCT00547638|168702066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 14 and Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84474744|NCT00547638|168702066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84474745|NCT00547638|168702067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
84474746|NCT00547638|168702067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
84474747|NCT00547638|168702068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84474748|NCT00438399|168702070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.0003
84474749|NCT00438399|168702070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.007
84474750|NCT00438399|168702070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||<0.0001
84474751|NCT00723073|168702074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.89|0.96
84474752|NCT00723073|168702075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.70|0.38|>0.99
84474753|NCT00723073|168702076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.44|>0.99
84474754|NCT00723073|168702077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.07|||Fisher Exact|||||2.07|0.61|0.48
84474755|NCT00723073|168702078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.10|0.57
84474756|NCT00723073|168702079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84474757|NCT00723073|168702082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
84474758|NCT00723073|168702083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
84474759|NCT03334396|168702107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.17|0.020
84474760|NCT03334396|168702107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.70|1.93|<0.001
84474761|NCT03334396|168702108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|1.23|0.014
84474762|NCT03334396|168702109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|1.06|0.032
84474763|NCT03334396|168702109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.67|1.29|0.006
84474764|NCT03334396|168702109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.01|<0.001
84474765|NCT03334396|168702110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|0.74|0.210
84474766|NCT03334396|168702110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.70|1.10|0.029
84474767|NCT03334396|168702110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|1.91|<0.001
84474768|NCT03334396|168702111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-24.77|0.021
84718679|NCT04027439|169188887|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.084||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.128|||ANCOVA|||||1.128|1.041|0.0001
84718680|NCT04027439|169188888|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.105|0.0004
84718681|NCT04027439|169188888|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.104|0.0004
84718682|NCT04027439|169188888|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.196||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.326|||ANCOVA|||||1.326|1.080|0.0012
84718683|NCT04027439|169188888|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.121||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.009|0.0348
84718684|NCT04027439|169188888|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.055||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.172|||ANCOVA|||||1.172|0.949|0.3106
84718685|NCT04027439|169188889|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.154||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.301|||ANCOVA|||||1.301|1.024|0.0208
84474769|NCT03334396|168702111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.10|-28.05|0.002
84474770|NCT03334396|168702111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.24|-34.84|<0.001
84474771|NCT03334396|168702112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.24|1.20|0.025
84474772|NCT03334396|168702112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|20.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.99|1.79|0.004
84474773|NCT03334396|168702112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.58|2.68|<0.001
84474774|NCT03334396|168702113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|0.72|0.246
84474775|NCT03334396|168702113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.79|0.169
84474776|NCT03334396|168702113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.18|1.82|<0.001
84474777|NCT03334396|168702114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.82|0.103
84474778|NCT03334396|168702114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.65|0.352
84474779|NCT03334396|168702114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.00|0.006
84474780|NCT03334396|168702115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.84|0.005
84474781|NCT03334396|168702115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.48|0.051
84474782|NCT03334396|168702115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.79|0.002
84474783|NCT03334396|168702116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.25|1.11|0.019
84474784|NCT03334396|168702116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.44|<0.001
84474785|NCT03334396|168702116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.96|2.51|<0.001
84474786|NCT03334396|168702117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.63|0.37|0.424
84474787|NCT03334396|168702117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.75|0.61|0.182
84474788|NCT03334396|168702117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|0.36|0.441
84474789|NCT03334396|168702118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-11.57|0.093
84474790|NCT03334396|168702118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-14.01|0.010
84474791|NCT03334396|168702118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-20.46|<0.001
84474792|NCT03334396|168702119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|7.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.77|0.17|0.874
84474793|NCT03334396|168702119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.36|0.62|0.176
84474794|NCT03334396|168702119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.65|0.59|0.201
84474795|NCT03334396|168702120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-11.67|0.039
84474796|NCT03334396|168702120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-10.86|0.058
84474797|NCT03334396|168702120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|-5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.98|-16.33|<0.001
84474798|NCT03334396|168702121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
84474799|NCT03334396|168702121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
84474800|NCT03334396|168702121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.782
84474801|NCT03334396|168702122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.81|-33.69|0.009
84474802|NCT03334396|168702122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|-3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.35|-31.43|0.015
84474803|NCT03334396|168702122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.71|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.30|-37.71|<0.001
84474804|NCT03334396|168702123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-4.98|0.028
84474805|NCT03334396|168702123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-5.89|0.003
84474806|NCT03334396|168702123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.99|-7.33|<0.001
84474807|NCT03334396|168702124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.069
84474808|NCT03334396|168702124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.066
84474809|NCT03334396|168702124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
84474810|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.41|-1.30|0.305
84718686|NCT04027439|169188889|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.353|||ANCOVA|||||1.353|1.064|0.0041
84718687|NCT04027439|169188889|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.167||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.311|||ANCOVA|||||1.311|1.039|0.0108
84474811|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.77|0.029
84474812|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.36|-1.93|0.004
84474813|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.16|-1.51|0.113
84474814|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.22|-1.85|0.014
84474815|NCT03334396|168702125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.37|-1.91|0.004
84474816|NCT03334396|168702126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-3.92|0.015
84474817|NCT03334396|168702126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-3.56|0.036
84474818|NCT03334396|168702126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.69|-5.91|<0.001
84474819|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.29|-9.39|0.136
84474820|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||5.10|-5.81|0.898
84474821|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.52|-8.32|0.174
84474822|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||1.41|-15.13|0.104
84474823|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-0.19|-17.09|0.045
84474824|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.97|-4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-4.59|-19.97|0.002
84474825|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||0.57|-17.89|0.066
84474826|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.91|-15.89|0.175
84474827|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||-2.72|-19.84|0.010
84474828|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.70|-13.93|0.030
84474829|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.39|-11.65|0.122
84474830|NCT03334396|168702127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-10.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-10.41|-22.64|<0.001
84474831|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.061
84474832|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.060
84474833|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.12|0.04|<0.001
84474834|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|0.00|0.046
84474835|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|-0.00|0.059
84474836|NCT03334396|168702128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.16|0.06|<0.001
84474837|NCT03334396|168702129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||9.30|-3.36|0.356
84474838|NCT03334396|168702129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.50|-4.81|0.668
84474839|NCT03334396|168702129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|12.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||12.86|1.25|0.017
84718688|NCT04027439|169188889|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.225|||ANCOVA|||||1.225|0.965|0.1641
84525841|NCT02310763|168804876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.3|-2.3|0.7345
84525842|NCT02310763|168804876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||7.7|0.4|0.0320
84525843|NCT02310763|168804877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.8|-1.3|0.3345
84525844|NCT02310763|168804877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.4|-2.9|0.1400
84525845|NCT02310763|168804877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.6|-5.4|0.6764
84525846|NCT02310763|168804878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|14.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||14.2|-1.2|0.0970
84525847|NCT02310763|168804878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||1.3|-1.9|0.6919
84525848|NCT02310763|168804878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.9|-5.8|0.6736
84525849|NCT02310763|168804879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||1.5|-1.5|0.9582
84525850|NCT02310763|168804879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.5|-1.8|0.8629
84525851|NCT02310763|168804879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.7|-5.5|0.6746
84525852|NCT02310763|168804880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||30.7|-42.4|0.7483
84525853|NCT02310763|168804880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|21.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||21.2|-23.9|0.9053
84525854|NCT02310763|168804880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|79.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||79.7|-53.4|0.6896
84525855|NCT02310763|168804881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|27.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||27.5|-34.8|0.8117
84525856|NCT02310763|168804881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|35.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||35.2|-20.6|0.6018
84525857|NCT02310763|168804881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3||||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|106.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||106.0|-73.4|0.7152
84525858|NCT02310763|168804882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|46.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||46.1|-32.1|0.7190
84525859|NCT02310763|168804882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|27.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||27.3|-58.9|0.4634
84525860|NCT02310763|168804882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|108.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||108.5|-100.7|0.9400
84525861|NCT02310763|168804886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.945||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|5.1309||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||5.1309|0.7597|0.0087
84525862|NCT02310763|168804886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.918||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0461|5.8811||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.8811|-0.0461|0.0536
84525863|NCT02310763|168804886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.087||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4069|7.7677||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.7677|0.4069|0.0298
84525864|NCT02310763|168804887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.575||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1213|3.2715||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||3.2715|-0.1213|0.0684
84525865|NCT02310763|168804887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.612||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1521|5.0711||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.0711|0.1521|0.0376
84525866|NCT02310763|168804887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.208||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1318|6.2844||The significance level is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||6.2844|0.1318|0.0411
84525867|NCT01103479|168804940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.38||Random effects model adjusting for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|0.62|0.32
84718689|NCT04027439|169188890|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.229||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|1.369|||ANCOVA|||||1.369|1.102|0.0005
84525868|NCT01103479|168804941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.2||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.53|0.28
84525869|NCT01103479|168804942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43||Random effects model adjusted for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|0.60|0.42
84525870|NCT01103479|168804943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|0.94|0.38
84525871|NCT01770431|168804944|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|14.7315||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84525872|NCT01770431|168804945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||||0.81|0.55|<0.0001
84525873|NCT02610816|168804975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity, since a single primary endpoint is analyzed|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment of degrees of freedom is needed.||The primary treatment comparison was to compare change in PEESS V2.0 scores of 1FED versus 4FED. The primary null hypothesis was 4FED would be no more effective than 1FED. This was designed as a superiority trial.||||0.04
84525874|NCT02610816|168804976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84525875|NCT02610816|168804976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84525876|NCT02610816|168804977|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84525877|NCT02610816|168804980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
84525878|NCT02610816|168804981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
84525879|NCT02610816|168804982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
84525880|NCT00842530|168804997|SUPERIORITY|The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|56.6||||||Vaccine efficacy of CYD dengue vaccine: The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||56.6|-13.4|
84525881|NCT00842530|168804998|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|75.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against severe VCD (IDMC)||99.6|-377|
84525882|NCT00842530|168804998|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|50.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.0|96.4||||||Vaccine efficacy of against severe VCD (WHO 1999)||96.4|-585|
84525883|NCT00842530|168804999|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|74.9||||||Vaccine efficacy:- 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to Inj. 3||74.9|-38.4|
84525884|NCT00842530|168804999|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|56.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to end of Active Phase||56.5|3.3|
84525885|NCT00842530|168805005|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|53.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 1 up to end of Active Phase||53.5|4.1|
84525886|NCT00842530|168805005|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|54.3||||||Vaccine efficacy: Day 0 up to end of Active Phase||54.3|6.7|
84525887|NCT00440115|168805011|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations demonstrated that 250 participants per group would have 95% power to compare combined high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||(High-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management) vs pharmacotherapy management|||1.61|0.78|0.54
84525888|NCT00440115|168805011|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations indicated that 250 participants per group would have 80% power to compare high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||High-intensity disease management vs moderate-intensity disease management|||2.02|0.88|0.18
84525889|NCT02377063|168805014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Firmicutes after juice consumption||||0.014
84525890|NCT02377063|168805014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Bacteroidetes after juice consumption||||0.026
84525891|NCT02409329|168805031|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.313||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.017||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.017|-0.610|.0493
84525892|NCT02409329|168805031|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.240|-0.380|0.260
84525893|NCT02409329|168805032|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.615||A priori threshold p\<.05.|Wald statistic|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.615|0.196|<.001
84525894|NCT02409329|168805032|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.45||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.450|-0.031|0.003
84525895|NCT02409329|168805033|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.54||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|1.09||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.090|-0.012|0.376
84525896|NCT02409329|168805033|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.278||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.875||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.875|-0.319|0.434
84525897|NCT02409329|168805034|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.399||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.637||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations||0.637|0.160|0.0012
84525898|NCT02409329|168805034|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.152||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.426||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.426|-0.121|0.003
84718690|NCT04027439|169188890|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.231||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.372|||ANCOVA|||||1.372|1.104|0.0005
84718691|NCT04027439|169188890|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.188||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.320|1.070|0.0022
84525899|NCT02409329|168805035|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.061||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.095||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.095|-0.218|0.632
84525900|NCT02409329|168805035|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.005||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.1||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.100|-0.202|0.572
84525901|NCT02409329|168805036|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|369.0||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|881.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||881|-142|0.703
84525902|NCT02409329|168805036|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|26.0||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.0|511.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||511|-459|0.465
84525903|NCT02409329|168805037|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.12|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.12|-1.38|
84525904|NCT02409329|168805037|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.39|-1.00|
84525905|NCT02409329|168805037|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH\_FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.05|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.05|-1.26|
84525906|NCT02409329|168805037|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH+FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.51|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.51|-0.96|
84525907|NCT03078478|168805054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment rate ratio|0.88||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||The number of episodes is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model includes treatment, number of OADs, region, sex and dosing time as fixed factors, and age as a covariate. Missing values are imputed through multiple imputation by treatment arm, based on a Poisson model.||1.06|0.73|0.1715
84525908|NCT04184999|168805070|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|207.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
84540711|NCT05736861|168832644|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.19|0.73|
84525909|NCT01172821|168805071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.264|0.159|<0.0001
84525910|NCT01172821|168805071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.222|0.116|<0.0001
84525911|NCT01172821|168805072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.120|<0.0001
84525912|NCT01172821|168805072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.190|0.076|<0.0001
84525913|NCT01172821|168805073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.168|0.052|0.0002
84525914|NCT01172821|168805073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.147|0.030|0.0031
84525915|NCT01172821|168805074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.149|0.025|0.0061
84525916|NCT01172821|168805074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.146|0.021|0.0093
84525917|NCT01172821|168805075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.252|0.150|<0.0001
84525918|NCT01172821|168805075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.112|<0.0001
84525919|NCT01172821|168805076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.052|0.0002
84525920|NCT01172821|168805076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.145|0.033|0.0019
84525921|NCT01172821|168805077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.025|38.494|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||38.494|19.025|<0.0001
84718692|NCT04027439|169188890|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.106||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.233|||ANCOVA|||||1.233|0.993|0.0658
84525922|NCT01172821|168805077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.985|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.401|37.956|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||37.956|18.401|<0.0001
84525923|NCT01172821|168805078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.144|-0.122|0.8700
84525924|NCT01172821|168805078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.9612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.130|-0.137|0.9612
84525925|NCT01172821|168805079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.012|-0.241|0.0305
84525926|NCT01172821|168805079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.033|-0.198|0.1602
84525927|NCT01172821|168805080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.74|0.81|0.4012
84525928|NCT01172821|168805080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.42|0.67|1.1727
84525929|NCT01172821|168805081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.795|29.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||29.431|11.795|<0.0001
84525930|NCT01172821|168805081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.513|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.907|33.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.607|15.907|<0.0001
84525931|NCT01172821|168805082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.547||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.074|24.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||24.908|7.074|0.0004
84525932|NCT01172821|168805082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.302|30.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||30.193|12.302|<0.0001
84525933|NCT01172821|168805083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.220|-2.125|0.1114
84525934|NCT01172821|168805083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.999|-1.355|0.7665
84525935|NCT01172821|168805084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.018|0.0111
84718693|NCT04027439|169188898|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.183|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.234|||ANCOVA|||||1.234|1.134|<0.0001
84474840|NCT03334396|168702130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.41|0.603
84474841|NCT03334396|168702130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.12|1.50|0.006
84474842|NCT03334396|168702130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|12.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.55|1.78|0.002
84474843|NCT03011450|168702170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474844|NCT03011450|168702171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474845|NCT03011450|168702172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474846|NCT03011450|168702173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0156
84474847|NCT03011450|168702174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474848|NCT03011450|168702175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474849|NCT03011450|168702176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474850|NCT03011450|168702177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
84474851|NCT03011450|168702178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474852|NCT03011450|168702179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5380
84474853|NCT03011450|168702180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474854|NCT03011450|168702181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1165
84474855|NCT03011450|168702182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0142
84474856|NCT03011450|168702183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474857|NCT03011450|168702184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474858|NCT03011450|168702185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474859|NCT03011450|168702186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4589
84474860|NCT03011450|168702187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474861|NCT03011450|168702188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474862|NCT03011450|168702189|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474863|NCT03011450|168702190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2486|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2486
84474864|NCT03011450|168702191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474865|NCT03011450|168702192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474866|NCT03011450|168702193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474867|NCT03011450|168702194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474868|NCT03011450|168702195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
84474869|NCT03011450|168702196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2763|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2763
84474870|NCT03011450|168702197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474871|NCT03011450|168702198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474872|NCT03011450|168702199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474873|NCT03011450|168702200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474874|NCT03011450|168702201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1651
84474875|NCT03011450|168702202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474876|NCT03011450|168702203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474877|NCT03011450|168702204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474878|NCT03011450|168702205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474879|NCT03011450|168702206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5107
84474880|NCT03011450|168702207|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||0.0018|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0018
84474881|NCT03011450|168702208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0742
84474882|NCT03011450|168702209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474883|NCT03011450|168702210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2707|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2707
84474884|NCT03011450|168702211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0009
84474885|NCT03011450|168702212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2879|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2879
84474886|NCT03011450|168702213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9786
84474887|NCT03011450|168702214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0075
84474888|NCT03011450|168702215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0241
84474889|NCT03011450|168702216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474890|NCT03011450|168702217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0502
84474891|NCT03011450|168702218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474892|NCT03011450|168702219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
84474893|NCT03011450|168702220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0209
84474894|NCT03011450|168702221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474895|NCT03011450|168702222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474896|NCT03011450|168702223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474897|NCT03011450|168702224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474898|NCT03011450|168702225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
84474899|NCT03011450|168702226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
84474900|NCT00383721|168702284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84474901|NCT00383721|168702284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84474902|NCT00383721|168702285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.062
84474903|NCT00383721|168702285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.583
84474904|NCT00383721|168702286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
84474905|NCT00383721|168702286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84474906|NCT03519516|168702309|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.749
84525936|NCT01172821|168805084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.003|0.0395
84525937|NCT01172821|168805085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.131|0.005|0.0357
84525938|NCT01172821|168805085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.129|0.002|0.0422
84525939|NCT01172821|168805086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.086|-0.427|0.1927
84525940|NCT01172821|168805086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.367|-0.148|0.4053
84525941|NCT01172821|168805087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.028|-0.079|0.3501
84525942|NCT01172821|168805087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.061|-0.047|0.8045
84525943|NCT01172821|168805088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
84525944|NCT01172821|168805088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
84525945|NCT02953678|168805092|OTHER||Exact method for binomial distributions|54.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|66.8||||||||66.8|42.7|
84525946|NCT03064438|168805104|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|5.727|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.727|-2.162|0.366
84525947|NCT03064438|168805105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 2||||0.1099
84525948|NCT03064438|168805105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 4||||0.1653
84525949|NCT03064438|168805105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8437|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 8||||0.8437
84525950|NCT03064438|168805105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4644|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 12||||0.4644
84525951|NCT03064438|168805106|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84525952|NCT03064438|168805107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|5.211|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||5.211|-2.571|0.495
84525953|NCT03064438|168805107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.014|2.045|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.045|-5.014|0.399
84525954|NCT03064438|168805107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|6.407|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.407|-1.965|0.290
84525955|NCT03064438|168805107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.953|5.469|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.469|-1.953|0.343
84525956|NCT03064438|168805108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|2.155|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||2.155|-0.894|0.407
84525957|NCT03064438|168805108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|1.109|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||1.109|-0.342|0.291
84525958|NCT03064438|168805108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||1.073|-0.763|0.734
84525959|NCT03064438|168805108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.197|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in pustule lesions at Week 12||1.197|-1.128|0.952
84525960|NCT03064438|168805109|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.069|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||0.069|-0.215|0.313
84525961|NCT03064438|168805109|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||0.152|-0.141|0.942
84525962|NCT03064438|168805109|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.226|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in nodule lesions at Week 8||0.226|-0.067|0.284
84525963|NCT03064438|168805109|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.105|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||0.105|-0.198|0.542
84525964|NCT03064438|168805110|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.135|6.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||6.139|-2.135|0.333
84525965|NCT03064438|168805110|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|2.822|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.822|-4.882|0.591
84525966|NCT03064438|168805110|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|6.758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.758|-1.840|0.254
84525967|NCT03064438|168805110|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.131|5.779|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.779|-2.131|0.356
84525968|NCT00107042|168805139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2954|||||||Fisher Exact|||The study wasn't powered to compare the 2 arms but to detect a large difference. A quantitative antibody (a'body) response was measured, but for sample size and power considerations, the outcome was considered to be binary. The primary analysis involved straightforward computation of point estimates and exact confidence intervals of immunogenicity in each arm. The data for primary analysis used the Intent-to-Treat for subjects who were vaccinated at least once. Missing titers were not imputed.||||0.2954
84525969|NCT00107042|168805139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|87.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.26|95.17|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||95.17|74.26|
84525970|NCT00107042|168805139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|94.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.88|98.86|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the 'Twinrix arm is presented here."||98.86|84.88|
84525971|NCT00107042|168805140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included an assessment of quantitative titer values in each of the two arms using confidence intervals and examining the frequency distributions of the titers in each arm. Transformations were considered (log10) for the titers based on the distributional properties observed in the sample, with the goal of attaining approximate normality of the transformed data.||||0.0608
84525972|NCT00107042|168805140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean response|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.53|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||2.53|2.05|
84525973|NCT00107042|168805140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.76|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Twinrix arm is presented here."||2.76|2.40|
84525974|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.1667|||||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of treatment arm (Recombivax vs. Twinrix) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.1667
84525975|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficent|-0.0025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1792||0.989||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of site effect(Other sites vs. Baltimore) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.9890
84525976|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|0.2053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1885||0.2796||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age(15 - 17 year old particpants vs. 12 - 14 year old participants) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2796
84525977|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regresssion coeffcient|-0.4726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1734||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of gender(Females vs. Males) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0080
84525978|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1905||0.2543||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Hispanic ethnicity (Not Hispanic vs. Hispanic) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2543
84525979|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3292||0.3661||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Other/Mixed Race is presented.||||0.3661
84525980|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3497||0.9812||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Black/African American is presented.||||0.9812
84525981|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2314||0.7766||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Females(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7766
84525982|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.2929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2508||0.2492||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Males(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2492
84718694|NCT04027439|169188898|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.092|<0.0001
84718695|NCT04027439|169188898|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.131|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.084|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.180|1.084|<0.0001
84474907|NCT03519516|168702310|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
84474908|NCT03519516|168702311|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
84474909|NCT03519516|168702312|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.495
84474910|NCT03519516|168702313|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.492||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with green lissamine|Chi-squared|||||||0.492
84474911|NCT03519516|168702313|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.238||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with fluorescein|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.238
84474912|NCT03519516|168702314|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
84474913|NCT03519516|168702316|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.741|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.741
84474914|NCT03519516|168702318|NON_INFERIORITY|The study drug is considered non-inferior with respect to the comparator if there are no differences above twenty percent||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
84474915|NCT02300077|168702319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
84474916|NCT02300077|168702320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84474917|NCT02300077|168702321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84474918|NCT02300077|168702322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
84474919|NCT05757427|168702323|OTHER|"The sample size is calculated solely for the first primary endpoint, no minimal number of benign nor malignant lesions was set.~The sample size is calculated for this trial design, assuming a p1 = 75% and p0 = 60% for power (1-beta) of 80%, and an alpha level of 5%.~We will conclude that the Wavelia # 2 Microwave Breast Imaging system is effective in detecting breast lesions if more than 43 of the 62 subjects' lesions are detected."|Proportion of detected lesions|90.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.45|95.49||||||||95.49|80.45|
84474920|NCT05757427|168702325|OTHER|The percentage of malignant and benign breast lesions correctly detected by Wavelia MWBI on patients that did not have a biopsy clip marking the lesion position in the breast, will be presented with 95% confidence interval.|Proportion of detected lesions|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.66|96.71||||||||96.71|65.66|
84474921|NCT05757427|168702326|OTHER||Proportion of patients with AEs|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84474922|NCT01179347|168702329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.092||95.0|-0.27|3.55||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing procedure was applied for both co-primary endpoints to maintain the overall alpha level. If and only if statistical superiority of the Tio R5 qd compared to Placebo in FEV1 AUC0-4h was demonstrated at the 1 sided alpha level of 0.025, confirmatory comparison in the second co-primary endpoint, at the same alpha level of 0.025 could be done .||3.55|-0.27|0.092
84718696|NCT04027439|169188898|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.08||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.036|0.0004
84474923|NCT01179347|168702330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15||95.0|-0.5|3.3||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful,||3.30|-0.50|0.15
84474924|NCT01179347|168702331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.23||95.0|-0.68|2.86||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||2.86|-0.68|0.23
84474925|NCT01179347|168702332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.19||95.0|-0.62|3.02||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||3.02|-0.62|0.19
84474926|NCT01179347|168702333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.62||95.0|-2.59|4.32||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||4.32|-2.59|0.62
84474927|NCT01179347|168702334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.84||95.0|0.453|2.633||Two-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, age group, baseline weight and baseline FEV1 percent predicted.|Tio R5 qd versus Placebo.|||2.633|0.453|0.84
84474928|NCT01299610|168702336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.70|-1.46|0.480
84474929|NCT01299610|168702336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed model for repeated measures|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.23|-2.00|0.118
84474930|NCT01299610|168702336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.36|-2.65|0.011
84474931|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.42|-0.24|0.581
84474932|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.27|-0.42|0.655
84474933|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.336||95.0|-0.52|0.18|||Mixed model repeated measures|||FP, 0.05% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.18|-0.52|0.336
84474934|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 3||0.63|-0.58|0.923
84718697|NCT04027439|169188899|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.169|||ANCOVA|||||1.169|1.078|<0.0001
84525983|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|-0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1826||0.0877||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) vs. Overweight and Obsese (\>= 25.0)) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0877
84525984|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0113||0.0117||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(continuous variable) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers.||||0.0117
84525985|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2163||0.7899||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of smokng cigarettes(Never Smoked vs. Has Smoked) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7899
84525986|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.5339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.0607||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of sexual identity(Straight (heterosexual) vs. Gay (homosexual), Bi (bisexual), and Not Sure or Undecided) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0607
84525987|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2779||0.167||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which the subject first had unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15-17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. \<= 14 year olds is presented."||||0.1670
84525988|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2065||0.8682||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which subject had first unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15 - 17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. 15-17 year olds is presented."||||0.8682
84525989|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1896||0.4219||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of total number of lifetime sex partners (0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4219
84525990|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.7752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0020
84525991|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2086||0.1659||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.1659
84525992|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-1.6163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2839||0||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0000
84525993|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2463||0.4701||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4701
84525994|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3488||0.7572||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.7572
84525995|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1809||0.8657||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever drank alcohol (No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.8657
84525996|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.0917||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever smoked marijuana(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0917
84525997|NCT00107042|168805143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3924||0.3788||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever used drugs not prescribed(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.3788
84525998|NCT00107042|168805144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Recombivax' group.|||10.76|0.60|0.2068
84525999|NCT00107042|168805145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.01|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Other Sites' group.|||6.01|0.38|0.5524
84526000|NCT00107042|168805146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.36|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the '15-17 year' age group|||9.36|0.36|0.4646
84526001|NCT00107042|168805147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Female' group.|||2.30|0.09|0.3390
84526002|NCT00107042|168805148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|29.78|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Hispanic: NO' group.|||29.78|1.58|0.0102
84526003|NCT00107042|168805148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|34.95||Since Hispanic (no, yes) was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Hispanic: NO group."|||34.95|1.56|0.0118
84526004|NCT00107042|168805149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.84|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||3.84|0.04|0.4241
84526005|NCT00107042|168805149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|50.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||50.76|0.34|0.2685
84526006|NCT00107042|168805150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|15.44|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Stage 5' group.|||15.44|0.05|0.9390
84526007|NCT00107042|168805151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.39|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Stage 5 group."|||7.39|0.30|0.6181
84526008|NCT00107042|168805152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) group."|||1.60|0.10|0.1943
84526009|NCT00107042|168805153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked cigarettes: NO group."|||1.86|0.10|0.2542
84526010|NCT00107042|168805154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.69|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.69|0.03|0.0161
84526011|NCT00107042|168805154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74||Since sexual identity was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.74|0.02|0.0222
84526012|NCT00107042|168805155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|11.83|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex)group."|||11.83|0.12|0.8945
84526013|NCT00107042|168805155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.7|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex) group."|||0.70|0.02|0.0190
84526014|NCT00107042|168805156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.48|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group"|||0.48|0.01|0.0042
84526015|NCT00107042|168805156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.6893||95.0|||||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group.~Two sided 95% confidence interval: Lower Limit = 0.17; upper limit = infinity"|||||0.6893
84526016|NCT00107042|168805157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is hte 0 Partners group."|||0.19|0.00|0.0003
84526017|NCT00107042|168805157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.01|||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||10.01|0.00|1.0000
84526018|NCT00107042|168805158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||4.86|0.05|0.5503
84526019|NCT00107042|168805158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.46|||Univariate Regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group."|||10.46|0.13|0.8904
84526020|NCT00107042|168805159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.92|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever drank alcohol: NO group."|||1.92|0.12|0.3010
84526021|NCT00107042|168805160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked marijuana: NO group."|||1.00|0.06|0.0501
84526022|NCT00107042|168805161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.61|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever used drugs not prescribed: NO group."|||3.61|0.04|0.3846
84526023|NCT00107042|168805162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3827
84526024|NCT00107042|168805162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.84|92.04|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||92.04|68.84|
84526025|NCT00107042|168805162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|95.47|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||95.47|75.69|
84526026|NCT00107042|168805163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding rate|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.74|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% CI|||||99.95|89.74|
84526027|NCT00107042|168805164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|91.49||||||95.0|79.62|97.63||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95 % confidence interval|||||97.63|79.62|
84526028|NCT00107042|168805165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.93|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% confidence interval||"For overall response, if a subject is reactive at either 1-month or 12-month, then the overall response is considered Positive. If a subject is non-reactive at both 1-month and 12-month, then the overall response for this subject is Negative."|||99.95|89.93|
84526029|NCT00107042|168805166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2938
84526030|NCT00107042|168805166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.83|94.43|||95 % confidence interval|||||94.43|70.83|
84526031|NCT00107042|168805166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|93.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.46|98.66|||95% confidence interval|||||98.66|82.46|
84540712|NCT05736861|168832645|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.86|
84718698|NCT04027439|169188899|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.122|||ANCOVA|||||1.122|1.035|0.0004
84526032|NCT03919448|168805168|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|101.55||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.19|114.34||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.34|90.19|0.9766
84526033|NCT03919448|168805168|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.95||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|113.55||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||113.55|89.75|0.9766
84526034|NCT03919448|168805168|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.59||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|114.77|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.77|88.16|0.9766
84526035|NCT03919448|168805169|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.82||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|101.57||Power of ANOVA: 0,95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.57|81.21|0.3617
84526036|NCT03919448|168805169|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|94.87||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|105.99||Power of ANOVA: 0.95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||105.99|84.91|0.3617
84526037|NCT03919448|168805169|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.73||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|108.05|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||108.05|84.82|0.3617
84526038|NCT03919448|168805170|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.46||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.64|101.47||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.47|80.64|0.3529
84526039|NCT03919448|168805170|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.02||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|106.49||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||||106.49|84.80|0.3529
84526040|NCT03919448|168805170|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.19||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.17|107.67|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||107.67|84.17|0.3529
84526041|NCT01221090|168805181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|||We used a multilevel statistical model including time (in days) as a continuous variable, where 0=baseline. The lowest level of the hierarchy was repeated measurements of HbA1c on each subject, with participants themselves constituting the 2nd level. Forward selection was utilized, in which powers of time were added one at a time to the base model including treatment group effects. Interaction terms between time \& treatment effects were added gradually and evaluated with likelihood ratio tests.||||0.771
84526042|NCT01221090|168805182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimates.||||||0.2176
84526043|NCT01221090|168805183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.572
84526044|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar."||||0.26
84526045|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar the recommended times."||||0.21
84526046|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Exercise at least 30 minutes."||||0.53
84526047|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Participate in a specific exercise session."||||0.24
84526048|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Check feet."||||0.18
84526049|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Wash feet."||||0.19
84526050|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Soak feet."||||0.87
84526051|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Dry between toes."||||0.53
84526052|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Inspect inside of shoes."||||0.32
84526053|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Follow healthful eating plan."||||0.37
84526054|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Space carbohydrates."||||0.72
84526055|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat 5+ servings of fruits and vegetables."||||0.59
84526056|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat high-fat foods."||||<0.004
84526057|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat packaged foods (e.g., sweets and desserts)."||||0.66
84526058|NCT01221090|168805184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Followed a healthful eating plan."||||0.68
84526059|NCT01221090|168805185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust Variance Estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days physical health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.685
84526060|NCT01221090|168805185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days mental health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.997
84526061|NCT01221090|168805185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days poor physical/mental health prevented usual activity in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.3067
84526062|NCT00440466|168805186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment of -0.3 g/dL between QW and Q2W groups, a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 200 subjects (100 per group) would provide 90% power to demonstrate that Q2W group would not inferior to QW group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.153|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-2-weeks (Q2W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.153|-0.208|
84526063|NCT00440466|168805186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the same assumptions in the sample size calculation for the QW and the Q2W, 100 subjects would be needed for the Q4W. However, because Study EPO-AKD-3001 and the current study both included QW and Q2W groups, the sample size would add up to 200 for each group if combined, the sample size in the Q4W group in the current study was increased to 200 subjects in order to enroll a comparable and sufficiently large number of subjects in each of the 3 extended dosing groups across the 2 studies.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.063|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-4-weeks (Q4W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.063|-0.249|
84526064|NCT00440466|168805188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.7|||95% Confidence Interval|||||21.7|0.1|
84526065|NCT00440466|168805188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||11.2|-9.1|
84526066|NCT00440466|168805189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.372|||ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.113|
84526067|NCT00440466|168805189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.320|-0.098|
84526068|NCT00440466|168805190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|18.3|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||18.3|-2.0|
84526069|NCT00440466|168805190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.3||||||95.0|1.5|19.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.2|1.5|
84526070|NCT00440466|168805191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.1|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.1|-7.7|
84526071|NCT00440466|168805191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.6|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||20.6|-2.5|
84526072|NCT00440466|168805192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|9.5|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||9.5|-15.8|
84526073|NCT00440466|168805192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||8.0|-13.9|
84526074|NCT00440466|168805193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.08||||||95.0|-0.367|0.208|||ANOVA|||||0.208|-0.367|
84526075|NCT00440466|168805193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.289|||ANOVA|||||0.289|-0.206|
84526076|NCT02062801|168805206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84526077|NCT02062801|168805207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
84526078|NCT02062801|168805208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
84526079|NCT03702049|168805232|OTHER|Change in score at 3 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in score at 3 months||||0.603
84526080|NCT03702049|168805232|OTHER|Change at 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.805
84526081|NCT03702049|168805233|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||3 month outcome||1.79|0.39|0.672
84526082|NCT03702049|168805233|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month outcome||1.34|0.18|0.165
84526083|NCT03702049|168805234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month outcome||||0.719
84526084|NCT03702049|168805234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.626
84526085|NCT03702049|168805235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.36|0.1668
84526086|NCT03702049|168805236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|32.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 month outcome||32.7|-29.6|0.9198
84526087|NCT03702049|168805236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|50.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month||50.7|-25.6|0.5015
84526088|NCT01715896|168805256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-3.5||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|9.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||9.8|-16.8|0.666
84526089|NCT01715896|168805257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|4.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||4.8|-22.0|0.293
84526090|NCT01715896|168805258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|1.4|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||1.4|-21.1|0.156
84526091|NCT01715896|168805259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||0.0|-23.2|0.108
84526092|NCT01715896|168805260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-10.3||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|3.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||3.0|-23.7|0.2080
84526093|NCT01715896|168805267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|-7.42||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.24|2.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term.|||2.40|-17.24|0.213
84526094|NCT01715896|168805269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 90% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor.|||1.04|0.36|0.129
84526095|NCT01715896|168805270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108||90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||0.0|-23.2|0.108
84526096|NCT01715896|168805270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||1.4|-24.8|0.145
84526097|NCT01715896|168805271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using the Log rank test.||||||0.328
84526098|NCT01715896|168805272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weibull model|P-value was calculated using an Weibull model.||||||0.003
84526099|NCT01715896|168805273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.7||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|9.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|P-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||9.0|-12.4|0.795
84526100|NCT01715896|168805274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-2.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-2.5|-21.0|0.048
84526101|NCT01715896|168805275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-3.1|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-3.1|-20.6|0.035
84526102|NCT01715896|168805276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-7.5||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|-1.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-1.5|-13.6|0.061
84526103|NCT01715896|168805277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|1.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||1.32|-1.33|0.993
84526104|NCT01715896|168805277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.23||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in Tender joint count at Day 169.||3.77|-1.31|0.424
84718699|NCT04027439|169188899|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.081||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|1.039|0.0002
84526105|NCT01715896|168805278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|12.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||12.24|-2.46|0.272
84526106|NCT01715896|168805279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.46||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|11.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||11.84|-2.92|0.319
84526107|NCT01715896|168805280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.74|-0.42|0.640
84526108|NCT01715896|168805281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.34|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.34|0.03|0.055
84526109|NCT01715896|168805282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.41|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.41|0.79|0.752
84526110|NCT01715896|168805283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.3|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.30|0.84|0.725
84526111|NCT04578886|168805297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.4|2.3|0.22
84526112|NCT04578886|168805297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3307||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0571|1.6751||unadjusted for covariates|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: The administration of guanfacine in critically ill patients in the intensive unit has no effect on the duration of delirium.~Continuous variables will be summarized using sample mean and sample variance whereas categorical variables will be summarized as proportions. Logistic regression models will examine whether age, gender, or comorbities associated with incidence of delirium when Guanfacine is administered."||1.6751|1.0571|0.0150
84526113|NCT03005067|168805319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.553||P-value was based on the Wald statistic Chi-Square test, from an ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and Day 1 dosing time stratification as factors and baseline NSS (Day 1 prior to the first dose) as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference of LS mean is 1146A Formulation Nasal Spray - Placebo Nasal Spray. 95% CI is for difference of LS means.|||0.553|-0.279|0.516
84526114|NCT00296491|168805323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.001||95.0|12.5|33.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = FSC - MON|||33.8|12.5|<0.001
84526115|NCT00296491|168805324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given estimates, and assuming a significance level of a=0.05, a sample size of 133 subjects per treatment was determined to be sufficient to provide 80% power to show equivalance.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.127||95.0|-24.6|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference=FSC+MON-FSC|||6.9|-24.6|<0.127
84526116|NCT02296853|168805339|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|54.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.98|69.56|||||Here, GLSM is geometric least square mean.|TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||69.56|41.98|
84526117|NCT02296853|168805339|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|63.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.9|92.7||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||92.70|42.90|
84526118|NCT02296853|168805339|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|94.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|122.99||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||122.99|72.48|
84526119|NCT02296853|168805340|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.66|64.25||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||64.25|31.66|
84526120|NCT02296853|168805340|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.77|124.72||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||124.72|64.77|
84526121|NCT02296853|168805340|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|82.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|119.31||"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.31|56.58|
84526122|NCT02296853|168805341|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|51.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|65.36||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||65.36|40.11|
84718700|NCT04027439|169188899|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.041||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.083|||ANCOVA|||||1.083|1.001|0.0437
84526123|NCT02296853|168805341|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|62.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|91.82||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||91.82|41.92|
84526124|NCT02296853|168805341|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.62|119.8||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.8|72.62|
84526125|NCT02646917|168805373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Goodman and Baron's qualitative acne scar severity scores. Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.||||<0.008
84526126|NCT02646917|168805374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxen signed-rank test|||Null hypothesis 4 (no change).||||<.001
84526127|NCT02646917|168805375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero||||<0.01
84526128|NCT02646917|168805376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 0 (no change in the appearance of acne scars).||||<0.01
84526129|NCT02646917|168805377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||||<0.01
84526130|NCT00680186|168805393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0002||95.0|0.69|1.85||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference (RD) (at day 180) and for the HR (up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on primary endpoint|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||Hazard ratio (HR) vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.85|0.69|0.0002
84526131|NCT00680186|168805393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the RD based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|1.3||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the RD (at day 180) and for the HR (events up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.3|-1.0|<0.0001
84526132|NCT00680186|168805393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||||95.0|0.64|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the earliest of last contact date or day 180.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE. This analysis was performed as sensitivity analysis for statistical analysis 1.||1.8|0.64|
84526133|NCT00680186|168805394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.6932||95.0|-1.1|1.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.6|-1.1|0.6932
84526134|NCT00680186|168805394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6383||95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.60|0.75|0.6383
84526135|NCT00680186|168805395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.6||||0.1703||95.0|-0.3|1.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.5|-0.3|0.1703
84526136|NCT00680186|168805395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.1054||95.0|0.9|3.01|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.01|0.90|0.1054
84526137|NCT00680186|168805396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.4||||0.2283||95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.1|0.2283
84526138|NCT00680186|168805396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.2101||95.0|0.26|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.35|0.26|0.2101
84526139|NCT00680186|168805397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2||||0.083||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.5|0.0|0.0830
84474935|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 3||0.77|-0.49|0.657
84474936|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.36|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 3||0.36|-0.93|0.386
84474937|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.67|-1.15|0.601
84474938|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.35|-1.54|0.212
84474939|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.32|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 7||-0.32|-2.26|0.010
84474940|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.68|-1.17|0.602
84474941|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.31|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.31|-1.61|0.180
84474942|NCT01299610|168702337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 14||-0.40|-2.37|0.006
84474943|NCT00880763|168702441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|82.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||82.8|37.0|<0.001
84474944|NCT00880763|168702441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|89.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||89.0|47.6|<0.001
84474945|NCT00880763|168702441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|76.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||76.0|24.9|<0.001
84474946|NCT00880763|168702442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-11.3|
84474947|NCT00880763|168702442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.4|
84474948|NCT00880763|168702442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.0|
84474949|NCT00880763|168702443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|36.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.2|-2.5|
84474950|NCT00880763|168702443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|36.3|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.3|-3.4|
84474951|NCT00880763|168702443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|36.1|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.1|-3.3|
84474952|NCT00880763|168702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.2|-2.3|
84474953|NCT00880763|168702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.3|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.3|-2.4|
84474954|NCT00880763|168702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.1|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.1|-2.2|
84474955|NCT02928380|168702521|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.02||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model with weight of the peanut particle (food occlusion) as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment is such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is no different from using no adhesive H01: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is different from using no adhesive.||0.00|-0.05|0.0987
84474956|NCT00421603|168702591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized patients. All statistical tests were 2-tailed and employed at a significance level of 5%, unless otherwise stated. The original sample size of 120 patients was chosen to ensure sufficient power (at least 80%) of a two-sided test with level of significance α=0.05 for detecting difference between the two experimental treatments with respect to the percentage of subjects who achieve continuous 3-weeks abstinence.|||||=|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The dichotomous primary outcome was analyzed using logistic regression with independent predictors: treatment (MAS-ER and topiramate vs. placebo) and adjusted for baseline severity of cocaine use (total number of cocaine use days in the 28 days prior to randomization).||||=.05
84474957|NCT05137730|168702592|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7109|0.8611|||||Least squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8611|0.7109|
84474958|NCT05137730|168702593|OTHER||Dose effect|1.5395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2929|1.7862||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.7862|1.2929|
84526140|NCT00680186|168805398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.7348||95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.0|-0.7|0.7348
84526141|NCT00680186|168805398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8939||95.0|0.61|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.77|0.61|0.8939
84718701|NCT04027439|169188900|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.139|||ANCOVA|||||1.139|1.038|0.0006
84474959|NCT05137730|168702594|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7576|0.9375|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.9375|0.7576|
84474960|NCT05137730|168702595|OTHER||Dose effect|1.2823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0431|1.5215||||||A linear regression model using was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.5215|1.0431|
84474961|NCT05137730|168702596|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7462|0.8893|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8893|0.7462|
84474962|NCT05137730|168702597|OTHER||Dose effect|1.0937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0763|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.2493||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.2493|0.9380|
84474963|NCT01840228|168702602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.63|0.74
84474964|NCT01840228|168702603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.36|||Fisher Exact|||||1.36|0.14|0.13
84474965|NCT01840228|168702604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.71
84474966|NCT01840228|168702605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
84474967|NCT02802878|168702621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for two observations per subject.|Regression, Linear|Side treated as a repeated factor||||||.67
84474968|NCT01599754|168702626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.147|||Log Rank|||||1.147|0.660|0.3211
84474969|NCT01599754|168702627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.756|||Log Rank|||||1.756|0.600|0.9246
84474970|NCT01551758|168702641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.92|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.99|0.85|=0.025
84474971|NCT01551758|168702642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Calculated as % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group|||1.5|0.9|
84474972|NCT01551758|168702643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.08||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||Generalized linear model|||||1.47|0.79|0.632
84474973|NCT01551758|168702644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.83|=0.439
84526142|NCT00680186|168805399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic fatal and non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.0|0.3210
84474974|NCT01551758|168702645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.06||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Generalized linear model|||||1.27|0.89|0.488
84474975|NCT01551758|168702646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.98||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||Generalized linear model|||||1.05|0.92|0.622
84474976|NCT01551758|168702647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.05||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.15|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.15|0.95|0.336
84474977|NCT01551758|168702648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.2|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.20|1.05|<0.001
84474978|NCT01551758|168702649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.23|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care.|||2.23|1.60|<0.001
84474979|NCT01551758|168702650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||Cox proprotional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||0.66|0.37|<0.001
84474980|NCT01551758|168702651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Cox porportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.02|0.85|0.111
84474981|NCT01551758|168702652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cox porportional hazards model|||||1.01|0.84|0.081
84474982|NCT01551758|168702653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.66|0.98|0.075
84474983|NCT00753935|168702702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.005
84474984|NCT03970395|168702703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|23.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.5|Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.41 (IC 95; 0.25-0.53)|||23.84|2.46|0.01
84474985|NCT03970395|168702704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|13.27|||Relative Risk (RR)||Risk Difference 0.47 (IC 95; 0.31-0.64)|||13.27|2.36|0.01
84474986|NCT03970395|168702705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|23.18|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.44 (IC 95%; 0.27-0.60)|||23.18|2.42|0.01
84474987|NCT03970395|168702706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.91||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.38|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.54 (IC 95; 0.36-0.72)|||11.38|2.12|0.01
84718702|NCT04027439|169188900|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.083||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.135|||ANCOVA|||||1.135|1.034|0.0010
84526143|NCT00680186|168805399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.29|0.3021
84526144|NCT00680186|168805400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.36|1.32|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of MBE was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.32|0.36|
84526145|NCT00680186|168805400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.81|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of any bleeding was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
84526146|NCT00285584|168805444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
84526147|NCT00285584|168805445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank test||||0.3
84526148|NCT00285584|168805446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of cumulative incidence proportions||27.8|0.4|0.3
84526149|NCT00285584|168805447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
84526150|NCT04070287|168805486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84526151|NCT04070287|168805487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84526152|NCT04070287|168805488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84718703|NCT04027439|169188900|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.096||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.149|||ANCOVA|||||1.149|1.047|0.0002
84526153|NCT04070287|168805489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84526154|NCT04070287|168805490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84526155|NCT04070287|168805491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84526156|NCT02709486|168805494|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0088
84526157|NCT02709486|168805494|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.97|0.0006
84526158|NCT02709486|168805495|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.93|0.0008
84526159|NCT02709486|168805495|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.05|<.0001
84540713|NCT05736861|168832645|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.85|
84718704|NCT04027439|169188900|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.039||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.088|||ANCOVA|||||1.088|0.993|0.0971
84718705|NCT04027439|169188901|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.106|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.106|<0.0001
84526160|NCT02709486|168805496|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.1092
84526161|NCT02709486|168805496|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0051
84526162|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.94|<.0001
84526163|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.61|0.0149
84526164|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.08|<.0001
84526165|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.07|<.0001
84526166|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.92|<.0001
84526167|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.07|<.0001
84526168|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
84526169|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.09|<.0001
84526170|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.93|0.0005
84526171|NCT02709486|168805497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.93|0.0004
84526172|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.95|<.0001
84474988|NCT00929734|168702794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.292
84474989|NCT00929734|168702795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.462
84474990|NCT00929734|168702796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of hs-CRP (ln hs-CRP)|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
84474991|NCT00929734|168702797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of interleukin 6 (ln IL6)|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
84474992|NCT04348591|168702846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.029||This p value corresponds to the main effect for experimental group; a-priori threshold was .012|Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined main effects of experimental group, instruction provided, headache, racial background, and type of neurostimulation administered. HF-HRV was transformed using an lg function for normality.||.029|-.12|.221
84474993|NCT04348591|168702846|SUPERIORITY|This is a within subject analysis that uses data across groups, controlling for the effect of neurostimulation alone, coil to cortex distance, and racial background|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison between sham neurostimulation and high frequency neurostimulation||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided||.103|.016|.008
84474994|NCT04348591|168702846|SUPERIORITY|The analysis controls for coil to cortex distance, racial background and effect of neurostimulation alone. It compares sham stimulation with low frequency neurostimulation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided.||.111|.029|.001
84474995|NCT04348591|168702847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the result for the main effect found of group (emotion dysregulation group versus misophonia)|A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.689|-.243|.34
84474996|NCT04348591|168702847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation condition. Specifically here we show the difference in estimated marginal means between sham and HF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.787|.198|.001
84474997|NCT04348591|168702847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation administered, specifically comparing estimated marginal means for sham and LF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.757|.182|.002
84474998|NCT04348591|168702847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference between sham and HF-rTMS for misophonia participants only when downregulating misophonic sounds|The investigators tested the interaction between experimental neurostimulation (sham, active high frequency rTMS, active low frequency rTMS), instruction provided (listen to neutral sound; listen to aversive sound, listen to misophonic sound, downregulate aversive sound, downregulate misophonic sound), and group (misophonic, clinical control) as part of the same MMANOVA analysis described above (i.e., controlling for coil-to-cortex distance, racial background, baseline, \& presence of headache).||||.0005
84474999|NCT04348591|168702849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09853||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14149|0.25411|||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in BOLD bilateral dlPFC signal during the regulation of misophonic versus aversive sounds. One outlier was removed from the misophonia group to avoid violating the normality assumption.||.25411|-.14149|.57
84475000|NCT04348591|168702850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131419||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22667|0.301257|||t-test, 2 sided|50 degrees of freedom||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in vmPFC activation that was greater when downregulating misophonic versus non-misophonic distress. One participant from each group was excluded for being an outlier||0.301257|-0.226670|.778
84475001|NCT04348591|168702851|SUPERIORITY||z score|4.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects whole-brain using cluster|||Mixed effects (FSL's FLAME 1; Oxford Univ., UK) whole brain analyses using cluster correction following a voxel-wise Z-score threshold of 2.3.||||<.05
84475002|NCT04348591|168702852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect from the MMANOVA analysis for group difference.||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.372|-.766|.49
84475003|NCT04348591|168702852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97||This p-value corresponds to the difference between sham and HF-rTMS stimulation|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||1.97|.62|<.0000001
84526173|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.70|0.0014
84526174|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.09|<.0001
84526175|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.08|<.0001
84526176|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.93|<.0001
84526177|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
84526178|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.11|<.0001
84526179|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.15|<.0001
84526180|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.00|<.0001
84526181|NCT02709486|168805499|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.00|<.0001
84526182|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.33|<.0001
84526183|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.27|0.0022
84526184|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.35|<.0001
84526185|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.43|<.0001
84718706|NCT04027439|169188901|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.109|<0.0001
84718707|NCT04027439|169188901|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.062|<0.0001
84526186|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0029
84526187|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.37|<.0001
84526188|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.40|<.0001
84526189|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<.0001
84526190|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0352
84526191|NCT02709486|168805501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<.0001
84526192|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.59|<.0001
84526193|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.12|0.0085
84526194|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.88|1.89|<.0001
84526195|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.28|1.62|<.0001
84526196|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.33|0.0005
84526197|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.73|1.32|0.0005
84526198|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|1.31|0.0009
84526199|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.32|0.0008
84526200|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|1.41|0.0002
84526201|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.57|1.23|0.0022
84718708|NCT04027439|169188901|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.052|<0.0001
84526202|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.54|1.21|0.0032
84526203|NCT02709486|168805503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.69|1.27|0.0013
84526204|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.30|0.0006
84526205|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.08|0.0160
84526206|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
84526207|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.5118
84526208|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.81|1.25|0.0093
84526209|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|0.71|0.3017
84526210|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.58|0.60|0.2160
84526211|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.08|0.29|0.7174
84526212|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.45|<.0001
84718709|NCT04027439|169188902|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.113|<0.0001
84526213|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.29|0.0006
84526214|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.23|0.0024
84526215|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.49|<.0001
84526216|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.04|0.0373
84526217|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.27|0.0046
84526218|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.47|0.92|0.0683
84718710|NCT04027439|169188902|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.109|<0.0001
84718711|NCT04027439|169188902|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.144|||ANCOVA|||||1.144|1.071|<0.0001
84718712|NCT04027439|169188902|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.13|||ANCOVA|||||1.130|1.059|<0.0001
84475004|NCT04348591|168702852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.605||The test corresponds to the difference between sham and LF-rTMS|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.605|.057|.018
84475005|NCT04348591|168702852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||For participants with misophonia difference in distress produced by a misophonic sound when downregulating misophonic sounds while receiving sham vs.HF-rTMS|The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the interaction effect of group by neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||||<.000001
84475006|NCT04348591|168702853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the result corresponding to the main effect of time in the repeated measures ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||<.001
84475007|NCT04348591|168702853|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.012|||||||ANCOVA|This analysis corresponds to the main effect of group.||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||>.012
84475008|NCT04348591|168702854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Anxiety subscale||||.78
84475009|NCT04348591|168702854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Depression subscale||||.29
84475010|NCT04348591|168702854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Fatigue subscale||||.64
84475011|NCT04348591|168702854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Sleep disturbance subscale||||.16
84475012|NCT04348591|168702854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Ability to partake in social roles subscale||||.56
84475013|NCT00186056|168702880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.26|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of HAMD \* medication group F(2,26)=1.38, eta sq = .05||||||<.26
84475014|NCT04465396|168702917|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.83|113.8|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in statistical software suite (SAS), with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.80|104.83|
84475015|NCT04465396|168702917|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.32|119.95|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||119.95|108.32|
84475016|NCT04465396|168702918|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.5|109.11|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||109.11|88.50|
84475017|NCT04465396|168702918|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|102.05|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||102.05|83.80|
84475018|NCT04465396|168702919|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.51|113.51|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.51|105.51|
84475019|NCT04465396|168702919|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|124.83|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||124.83|112.31|
84475020|NCT00302718|168702961|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
84475021|NCT00302718|168702963|OTHER|||||||0.2114|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2114
84475022|NCT00302718|168702965|OTHER|||||||0.6954|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6954
84475023|NCT00302718|168702967|OTHER|||||||0.9895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9895
84475024|NCT00738374|168702968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis compared responders and non-responders.||||0.0008
84475025|NCT00738374|168702969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0795
84475026|NCT00738374|168702985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2712
84526219|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.66|1.22|0.0214
84526220|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.30|0.0006
84526221|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.28|1.16|0.0048
84526222|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.27|0.0012
84526223|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.47|1.68|<.0001
84526224|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|0.99|0.0537
84526225|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|1.58|0.0001
84526226|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.27|0.82|0.1155
84526227|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.96|1.13|0.0271
84526228|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.30|0.0007
84526229|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.26|0.0011
84526230|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.27|0.0009
84526231|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.91|1.47|<.0001
84526232|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.18|0.0064
84475027|NCT00884221|168703028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, ITT|2.2||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin-recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||8.6|-4.2|0.499
84475028|NCT00884221|168703029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Estradiol||||<0.001
84475029|NCT00884221|168703030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||FSH||||<0.001
84475030|NCT00884221|168703031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Free Androgen Index||||<0.001
84475031|NCT00884221|168703032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Luteinizing hormone||||<0.001
84475032|NCT00884221|168703033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Progesterone||||0.630
84718713|NCT04027439|169188903|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.141|||ANCOVA|||||1.141|1.066|<0.0001
84475033|NCT00884221|168703034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, PP|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.8||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin - recombinant FSH, PP|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||9.8|-3.8|0.387
84475034|NCT00884221|168703035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Prolactin||||0.047
84475035|NCT00884221|168703036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Sex hormone binding globulin||||0.009
84475036|NCT00884221|168703037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Testosterone||||<0.001
84475037|NCT00884221|168703038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>= 12 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.025
84475038|NCT00884221|168703038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 12-14 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.024
84475039|NCT00884221|168703038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 15-16 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.728
84475040|NCT00884221|168703038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>=17 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.285
84475041|NCT00884221|168703039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who underwent the oocyte retrieval procedure were included in the analysis||Treatments were compared using the Wilcoxon test for the average number of oocytes retrieved.||||<0.001
84475042|NCT00884221|168703040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who had oocytes retrieved were included in the analysis.||||||0.969
84475043|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 1 / 2pn||||0.406
84475044|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 2 / 2pn||||0.232
84475045|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 3 / 2pn||||0.412
84475046|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 4 / 2pn||||0.438
84475047|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 5 / 2pn||||0.390
84475048|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 4AA / 2pn||||0.958
84475049|NCT00884221|168703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 5AA / 2pn||||0.954
84475050|NCT00884221|168703042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|0.398||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.1|-3.6|0.398
84475051|NCT00884221|168703043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|1.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.2|-5.6|0.686
84475052|NCT02757092|168703045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475053|NCT02757092|168703046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475054|NCT02757092|168703047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475055|NCT02757092|168703048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475056|NCT02757092|168703049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475057|NCT02757092|168703050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475058|NCT02757092|168703051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475059|NCT02757092|168703052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475060|NCT02757092|168703053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475061|NCT02757092|168703054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475062|NCT02757092|168703055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475063|NCT02757092|168703056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range depending on the nature and distribution of the variables||||0.05
84475064|NCT02757092|168703057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475065|NCT02757092|168703058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475066|NCT02757092|168703059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475067|NCT02757092|168703060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475068|NCT02757092|168703062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475069|NCT02757092|168703063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475070|NCT02757092|168703064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475071|NCT02757092|168703065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475072|NCT02757092|168703066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475073|NCT02757092|168703067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475074|NCT02757092|168703068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475075|NCT02757092|168703069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
84475076|NCT02757092|168703071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475077|NCT02757092|168703072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475078|NCT02757092|168703073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475079|NCT01975246|168703075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.0001
84475080|NCT01975246|168703076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.0001
84475081|NCT01975246|168703077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment and center as fixed effects.||"The Non-completers considered failure (NCF) method was applied for missing data, where missing data due to early discontinuation will be replaced as failure up to the planned final visit to be reached by all patients."||3.4|1.2|<0.0051
84475082|NCT01263093|168703080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.83|0.72|
84475083|NCT01263093|168703081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.67|0.53|
84475084|NCT01263093|168703083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Paired Differences|0.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|0.00|0.3303
84475085|NCT02667457|168703151|OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0095
84475086|NCT02667457|168703151|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0029
84475087|NCT02667457|168703152|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
84475088|NCT02667457|168703152|OTHER|||||||0.0334||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0334
84475089|NCT02667457|168703153|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
84475090|NCT02667457|168703153|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0301
84475091|NCT02667457|168703154|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
84475092|NCT02667457|168703154|OTHER|||||||0.0387||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0387
84475093|NCT02667457|168703155|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0359
84475094|NCT02667457|168703155|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0022
84475095|NCT00680953|168703163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.343||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.606|||Log Rank|||||0.606|0.194|0.0001
84475096|NCT00680953|168703164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9951
84475097|NCT00680953|168703165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1568|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1568
84475098|NCT00751179|168703185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
84475099|NCT00751179|168703186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
84475100|NCT00751179|168703188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
84475101|NCT00751179|168703190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
84475102|NCT00915538|168703206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The expected results for non-inferiority would be +/- 5% of difference between the two groups in the primary efficacy parameter.|AUC|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross-over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment. The AUC of FEV-1 was measured in each subject for each treatment arm and the mean of this data was compared.||||0.76
84475103|NCT00915538|168703206|OTHER|Two sample T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
84475104|NCT00915538|168703207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation was not done for secondary parameter. The comparison was for the FEV-1/FVC expressed as fraction at each time point||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment||||0.76
84475105|NCT01253187|168703208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.03||||||90.0|98.86|113.72||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.72|98.86|
84475106|NCT01253187|168703209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|103.47||||||90.0|99.16|107.98||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.98|99.16|
84475107|NCT01253187|168703210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|105.24||||||90.0|97.3|113.83||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.83|97.30|
84475108|NCT01253187|168703211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.48||||||90.0|97.28|103.79||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.79|97.28|
84475109|NCT01253187|168703212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|91.24|109.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||109.34|91.24|
84475110|NCT01253187|168703213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.16||||||90.0|93.95|102.57||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.57|93.95|
84475111|NCT01253187|168703214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.28||||||90.0|93.15|107.95||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.95|93.15|
84526233|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.09|0.0180
84718714|NCT04027439|169188903|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|1.042|<0.0001
84718715|NCT04027439|169188903|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.067||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.104|||ANCOVA|||||1.104|1.032|0.0002
84475112|NCT01253187|168703215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|95.38|104.58||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.58|95.38|
84475113|NCT01253187|168703217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|97.65|103.02||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|32 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 34 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.02|97.65|
84475114|NCT01293006|168703230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.91|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.91|-0.12|
84475115|NCT01293006|168703233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.36|||Difference of the Least Means Squares|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.36|-1.30|
84475116|NCT01293006|168703233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.08|
84475117|NCT01293006|168703233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|7.41|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||7.41|-5.77|
84475118|NCT01293006|168703233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.63|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.63|0.00|
84475119|NCT01293006|168703234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.04|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.04|-0.60|
84475120|NCT01293006|168703234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|3.77|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.77|0.33|
84475121|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.47|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.47|-0.41|
84475122|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.27|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.27|-0.53|
84475123|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.18|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.18|-0.61|
84475124|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.98|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.98|-0.32|
84475125|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.78|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.78|-0.26|
84475126|NCT01293006|168703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.8|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.80|0.10|
84475127|NCT01293006|168703236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.31|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.31|-0.50|
84475128|NCT01494987|168703237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, prior antihyperglycemia therapy, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
84475129|NCT02062463|168703252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||6.95|2.05|<0.001
84475130|NCT02062463|168703253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||1.98|0.80|0.316
84475131|NCT00600028|168703286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||0.001
84475132|NCT00600028|168703287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||.0001
84475133|NCT03172481|168703288|OTHER|The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom SKAMP-C scores from each time point as the dependent variable. The repeated measures model adjusted means (LS-means) for PRC-063 and placebo were compared statistically using a t-test with an overall 5% significance level to evaluate efficacy. The LS-means estimate an overall treatment effect across the entire 13-hour classroom evaluation.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84475134|NCT01709786|168703319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bland-Altman Analysis|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Limits of agreement||Limits of agreement are -2.02 to 5.00. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
84526234|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||15.08|2.09|0.0006
84475135|NCT01709786|168703320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Limits of agreement|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Bland-Altman Analysis||Limits of agreement are -3.44 to 2.18. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
84475136|NCT01170702|168703321|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin is clinically important reduction in 24 hour hydromorphone consumption of 25%, 37.5% and 50% absolute reduction, compared with control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.975|1.25|1.25|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.25|1.25|.05
84475137|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.140|-0.052|0.567
84475138|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.209|0.018|0.015
84475139|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.188|-0.003|0.059
84475140|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.011|0.090
84475141|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.129|-0.031|0.231
84475142|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.059|-0.101|0.612
84475143|NCT03084718|168703339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.180|0.023|0.011
84475144|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.097|-0.060|0.647
84475145|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.196|0.039|0.004
84475146|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.149|-0.008|0.076
84475147|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.179|0.020|0.014
84526235|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.13|1.64|0.0034
84526236|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0022
84526237|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.25|0.0014
84526238|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.33|0.0003
84526239|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.36|1.19|0.0030
84526240|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.24|0.96|0.0754
84526241|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.06|0.0253
84526242|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.83|1.30|0.0098
84718716|NCT04027439|169188903|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.048||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|1.013|0.0066
84718717|NCT01830595|169188922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
84475148|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.131|-0.026|0.192
84475149|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.032|-0.126|0.244
84475150|NCT03084718|168703340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.151|-0.003|0.060
84475151|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.098|-0.074|0.780
84475152|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.162|-0.011|0.086
84475153|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.129|-0.043|0.324
84475154|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.024|0.153
84475155|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.117|-0.055|0.482
84475156|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.054|-0.119|0.463
84475157|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.117|-0.052|0.453
84475158|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.123|-0.064|0.533
84475159|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.199|0.011|0.029
84475160|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.146|-0.041|0.274
84475161|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.169|-0.019|0.119
84475162|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.116|-0.071|0.638
84475163|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.042|-0.147|0.274
84475164|NCT03084718|168703341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.171|-0.013|0.092
84475165|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.00|-0.31|0.053
84475166|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.11|-0.42|0.001
84475167|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.06|-0.37|0.006
84475168|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.26|0.176
84475169|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.09|-0.22|0.423
84475170|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.20|-0.11|0.574
84475171|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.35|0.011
84475172|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||0.06|-0.27|0.215
84475173|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.32|0.070
84475174|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.07|-0.40|0.005
84718718|NCT01830595|169188924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
84526243|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|0.72|0.2230
84526244|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.12|1.07|0.0201
84526245|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0021
84526246|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
84475175|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.12|-0.21|0.566
84475176|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.04|-0.29|0.124
84475177|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.08|-0.25|0.336
84475178|NCT03084718|168703342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
84475179|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.38|0.067
84475180|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.53|< 0.001
84475181|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.40|0.038
84475182|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.35|0.130
84475183|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.17|-0.22|0.811
84475184|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.33|-0.07|0.202
84475185|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.39|0.044
84475186|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.11|-0.37|0.283
84475187|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.13|-0.60|0.003
84475188|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.50|0.027
84475189|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.00|-0.48|0.054
84475190|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.10|-0.38|0.258
84475191|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.34|-0.14|0.423
84526247|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.32|0.0004
84526248|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.01|0.86|0.2031
84718719|NCT01830595|169188925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84718720|NCT05501600|169188990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
84475192|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.04|-0.42|0.111
84475193|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.05|-0.36|0.135
84475194|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.56|< 0.001
84475195|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.44|0.024
84475196|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.01|-0.40|0.067
84475197|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.13|-0.29|0.444
84475198|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.32|-0.09|0.285
84475199|NCT03084718|168703343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.40|0.060
84475200|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.0|-1.1|0.115
84475201|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|2.0|0.008
84475202|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-0.9|0.099
84475203|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.5|0.275
84475204|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.8|-5.4|0.943
84475205|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.7|-8.6|0.308
84475206|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.7|0.8|0.024
84475207|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.0|-1.4|0.129
84475208|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.2|2.8|0.004
84475209|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|-0.3|0.061
84475210|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.5|-2.0|0.180
84475211|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.4|-5.1|0.721
84475212|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-9.4|0.328
84475213|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|1.0|0.022
84475214|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-0.9|0.101
84475215|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|2.8|0.003
84475216|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.8|-0.2|0.061
84718721|NCT05501600|169188991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081616
84718722|NCT02722434|169189040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
84526249|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|0.95|0.0867
84526250|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.22|0.77|0.1746
84526251|NCT02709486|168805505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.57|0.87|0.1039
84526252|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|1.33|0.0003
84526253|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|1.04|0.0286
84526254|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.27|0.93|0.1031
84526255|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|0.85|0.2033
84526256|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.86|1.34|0.0064
84526257|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.65|0.3706
84526258|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.41|0.61|0.2121
84526259|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.11|0.39|0.4859
84526260|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.17|1.60|<.0001
84526261|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.50|<.0001
84526262|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.27|0.0020
84526263|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.53|<.0001
84526264|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.14|1.21|0.0107
84526265|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.02|1.18|0.0126
84526266|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||10.26|0.70|0.1516
84526267|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|16.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||16.05|1.25|0.0210
84526268|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.18|0.0034
84526269|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.26|0.0010
84526270|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.71|1.27|0.0014
84475217|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.3|-1.9|0.196
84475218|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.3|-4.9|0.814
84475219|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.6|-8.6|0.291
84475220|NCT03084718|168703344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|1.3|0.016
84475221|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475222|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475223|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475224|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.913
84475225|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.871
84475226|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.958
84475227|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475228|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.010
84475229|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.011
84475230|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
84475231|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.996
84475232|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.632
84475233|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.630
84475234|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475235|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
84475236|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.001
84526271|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.46|<.0001
84526272|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.55|1.49|0.0007
84526273|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.24|1.39|0.0018
84526274|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.79|1.31|0.0150
84526275|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.78|1.22|0.0211
84526276|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.84|1.43|<.0001
84526277|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.55|<.0001
84526278|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.00|1.47|<.0001
84718723|NCT02722434|169189041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84475237|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475238|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.960
84475239|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.725
84475240|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.764
84475241|NCT03084718|168703345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
84475242|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.7|-2.8|0.316
84475243|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.7|-0.9|0.097
84475244|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-1.3|0.128
84475245|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.8|-3.9|0.511
84475246|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.3|-4.3|0.610
84475247|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.4|-6.3|0.882
84475248|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|1.5|0.013
84475249|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.2|-2.8|0.219
84718724|NCT02722434|169189042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sensory Subscale||||0.79
84718725|NCT02722434|169189042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motor Subscale||||0.43
84526279|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.46|<.0001
84526280|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.10|0.0180
84526281|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.18|0.0072
84526282|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.84||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||47.22|2.49|0.0015
84526283|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|37.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||37.96|1.96|0.0044
84526284|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0018
84526285|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.26|0.0011
84526286|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.38|1.19|0.0035
84526287|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
84526288|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.11|0.0155
84526289|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.20|0.88|0.1549
84718726|NCT02722434|169189042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Autonomic Subscale||||0.97
84526290|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.37|1.18|0.0212
84526291|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.57|1.06|0.0373
84526292|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.29|0.0006
84526293|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.51|<.0001
84526294|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.09|0.0152
84526295|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.23|0.0018
84718727|NCT00366249|169189051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railker|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.0|0.1|||||Adjusted for Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation (PEDIS) score|Analysis provided for Cure||0.1|-11.0|
84526296|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|0.93|0.0970
84526297|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.98|0.79|0.3435
84526298|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.27|1.17|0.0236
84526299|NCT02709486|168805506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||8.81|1.12|0.0296
84526300|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.90|1.17|0.0132
84526301|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|0.87|0.1274
84526302|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.76|1.44|0.0016
84526303|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.03|1.84|<.0001
84526304|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.20|0.0089
84526305|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.10|1.42|0.0012
84526306|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.98|1.45|0.0006
84526307|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.21|1.92|<.0001
84526308|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.10|0.0203
84526309|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.86|1.77|<.0001
84526310|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.55|0.95|0.0775
84526311|NCT02709486|168805508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.21|1.21|0.0064
84526312|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.70|<.0001
84526313|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.58|0.0009
84526314|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.00|<.0001
84526315|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.77|0.0001
84526316|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.06|<.0001
84526317|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.77|0.0006
84526318|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.20|<.0001
84526319|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
84526320|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.59|-1.20|<.0001
84526321|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.25|<.0001
84526322|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.93|0.0001
84526323|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.13|<.0001
84526324|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
84526325|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.10|<.0001
84540714|NCT05736861|168832645|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.34|0.85|
84718728|NCT00366249|169189053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.7||||||95.0|-12.3|-1.1|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|Analysis provided for Cure||-1.1|-12.3|
84526326|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.06|<.0001
84526327|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.13|<.0001
84526328|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.87|0.0040
84526329|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0005
84526330|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
84526331|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|0.0002
84526332|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.78|0.0506
84526333|NCT02709486|168805509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.91|0.0086
84526334|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.07|<.0001
84526335|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.94|<.0001
84526336|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.03|<.0001
84526337|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.15|<.0001
84526338|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.91|0.0004
84526339|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.31|<.0001
84526340|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.14|<.0001
84526341|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.18|<.0001
84526342|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.00|0.0002
84526343|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.12|<.0001
84526344|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.99|0.0013
84526345|NCT02709486|168805511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.25|<.0001
84526346|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.96|<.0001
84526347|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.73|0.0004
84526348|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.04|<.0001
84526349|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.08|<.0001
84526350|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.90|<.0001
84526351|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.13|<.0001
84526352|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.09|<.0001
84540715|NCT05736861|168832645|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.80|
84475250|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.8|-2.2|0.166
84475251|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|-2.0|0.151
84475252|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.2|-6.9|0.871
84475253|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.3|-6.8|0.837
84475254|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||7.7|-7.4|0.966
84475255|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.9|2.1|0.012
84475256|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-2.5|0.233
84475257|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.4|-1.2|0.113
84475258|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-1.3|0.120
84475259|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.6|-5.1|0.691
84475260|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.5|-5.2|0.722
84475261|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.2|-6.5|0.966
84475262|NCT03084718|168703346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.5|2.2|0.008
84475263|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||7.9|-3.4|0.426
84475264|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-0.1|0.055
84475265|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.1|-0.2|0.059
84475266|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.0|-2.5|0.263
84475267|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.6|0.280
84475268|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.6|-5.9|0.965
84475269|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.3|2.2|0.007
84475270|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-3.5|0.308
84475271|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|-1.6|0.124
84475272|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.3|-0.4|0.063
84475273|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-5.5|0.602
84475274|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.6|-4.3|0.402
84718729|NCT00366249|169189055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.3||||||95.0|-13.6|1.0|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|||1.0|-13.6|
84475275|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||8.6|-6.3|0.753
84475276|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||17.4|2.9|0.006
84475277|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.2|-3.1|0.331
84475278|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-0.5|0.073
84475279|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.4|0.1|0.048
84475280|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.9|-3.6|0.410
84475281|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-3.1|0.320
84475282|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.8|-5.7|0.867
84475283|NCT03084718|168703347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.0|2.9|0.004
84475284|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-3.2|0.260
84475285|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.9|-4.2|0.387
84475286|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.4|0.574
84475287|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.7|-8.6|0.799
84475288|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.5|-9.8|0.577
84475289|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.5|-8.8|0.764
84475290|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.8|-1.1|0.097
84475291|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.8|-9.9|0.908
84475292|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.5|-2.2|0.135
84475293|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||8.1|-10.7|0.786
84475294|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||17.1|-1.7|0.109
84475295|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.7|-10.1|0.876
84475296|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||1.0|-17.9|0.080
84475297|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.3|-3.2|0.202
84475298|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.9|0.635
84475299|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|-2.6|0.191
84475300|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.3|-7.4|0.914
84526353|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.12|<.0001
84526354|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.95|0.0001
84526355|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
84526356|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.89|0.0015
84526357|NCT02709486|168805513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.07|<.0001
84526358|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-0.96|<.0001
84526359|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.67|0.0139
84526360|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.13|<.0001
84526361|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.16|<.0001
84526362|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.91|0.0003
84526363|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.04|<.0001
84526364|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
84526365|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.14|<.0001
84526366|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0006
84526367|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
84526368|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.78|0.0377
84526369|NCT02709486|168805515|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.96|0.0019
84526370|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.99|<.0001
84526371|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.87|0.0002
84526372|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.29|<.0001
84526373|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.28|<.0001
84526374|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.11|<.0001
84526375|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.35|<.0001
84526376|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.11|<.0001
84526377|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.23|<.0001
84526378|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.03|0.0005
84475301|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||11.3|-4.6|0.407
84475302|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.4|-9.4|0.718
84475303|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-12.7|0.235
84475304|NCT03084718|168703348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|-1.6|0.118
84475305|NCT02806947|168703355|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 28 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 90% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.223|0.059|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 28 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|The primary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 28 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 90% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.059|-0.223|
84475306|NCT02806947|168703355|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 56 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 95% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.011|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 56 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|A secondary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 56 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 95% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.011|-0.315|
84475307|NCT02806947|168703356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with CR/PR and steroid dose of 0.25mg/kg/day or less at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||< 0.001
84475308|NCT02806947|168703357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 28 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.320
84475309|NCT02806947|168703357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 56 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.014
84475310|NCT02806947|168703358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||Statistical significance was determine using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.078
84475311|NCT02806947|168703358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 56 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.068
84475312|NCT02806947|168703359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with overall survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.785
84475313|NCT02806947|168703360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with disease-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.340
84475314|NCT02806947|168703361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with event-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.713
84475315|NCT02806947|168703362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with non-relapse mortality between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with malignancy relapse treated as a competing risk for non-relapse mortality. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.726
84540716|NCT05736861|168832646|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.88|
84526379|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.13|<.0001
84526380|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.82|0.0246
84526381|NCT02709486|168805517|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
84526382|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.29|-3.90|0.6427
84526383|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.04|-7.22|0.4208
84526384|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.79|-6.03|0.8204
84526385|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.13|-10.16|0.1157
84526386|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.47|-6.12|0.5845
84526387|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.11|-7.97|0.2514
84526388|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-13.97|0.0717
84526389|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-5.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-5.26|-20.11|0.0010
84526390|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-2.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.77|-17.85|0.0079
84526391|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|-2.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.63|-18.49|0.0096
84526392|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|4.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.41|-12.97|0.3302
84526393|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.30|-11.78|0.5483
84718730|NCT01561300|169189056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.17|-2.16|0.09
84475316|NCT02806947|168703363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with malignancy relapse between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for malignancy relapse. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.402
84475317|NCT02806947|168703364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death and malignancy relapse treated as competing risks for chronic GVHD. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.296
84475318|NCT02806947|168703365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.936
84475319|NCT02806947|168703365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.598
84475320|NCT02806947|168703366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with serious infections between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for serious infection. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.221
84475321|NCT00865189|168703367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) for each treatment arm.||||0.015
84475322|NCT00865189|168703367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% CI and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) using for each treatment arm.||||0.906
84475323|NCT00084929|168703379|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.933||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated with the use of data pooled from the radiologists because of the small number of positive cases reviewed by each radiologist.||0.933|0.853|
84475324|NCT00084929|168703379|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.96|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|"Sensitivity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients with lesions that were larger than or equal to the prespecified threshold and that were detected on both colonoscopy and CT colonography.~The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated."||0.96|0.838|
84475325|NCT00084929|168703379|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.9|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Specificity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients who did not have lesions larger than the prespecified threshold on colonoscopy as well as CT colonography The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated.||0.9|0.813|
84475326|NCT00084929|168703379|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Positive Predictive Value (PPV) the positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with CT colonographic findings that were also seen on colonoscopy||0.273|0.194|
84475327|NCT00084929|168703379|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Negative Predictive Value (NPV) the negative predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with no CT colonographic findings larger than the prespecified threshold that were not detected on colonoscopy.||0.998|0.990|
84475328|NCT00084929|168703380|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.93||||||"Accuracy: ROC analysis CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.93|0.853|
84475329|NCT00084929|168703380|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|0.96|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|"Sensitivity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.96|0.832|
84526394|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.76|-14.26|0.0774
84526395|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-4.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-4.81|-20.15|0.0017
84526396|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-1.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-1.99|-16.83|0.0135
84526397|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.17|-17.91|0.0129
84526398|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.96|-12.66|0.3869
84526399|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|7.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||7.08|-11.31|0.6485
84526400|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|-3.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.03|-9.34|0.0001
84526401|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-6.00|-12.26|<.0001
84526402|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.50|-9.51|0.0008
84526403|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.51|-10.44|<.0001
84526404|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-6.76|0.1004
84526405|NCT02709486|168805520|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect||-1.30|-8.59|0.0079
84526406|NCT02709486|168805535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.46|0.02|0.0027
84526407|NCT02709486|168805535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.54|0.05|0.0033
84526408|NCT02709486|168805536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0002
84526409|NCT02709486|168805536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0007
84526410|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.59|0.29|<.0001
84526411|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.78|0.38|0.0010
84540717|NCT05736861|168832646|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.79|
84526412|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.70|0.36|<.0001
84526413|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.88|0.44|0.0067
84526414|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.89|0.45|0.0087
84526415|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.53|0.0787
84526416|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0129
84526417|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0124
84526418|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.98|0.50|0.0399
84526419|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.87|0.45|0.0060
84526420|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.42|0.72|0.9449
84526421|NCT02709486|168805537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.18|0.60|0.3238
84526422|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Least square (LS) Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.54|0.0001
84526423|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.61|0.0067
84526424|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.51|0.0003
84526425|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.93|0.58|0.0112
84526426|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.56|0.0093
84718731|NCT01561300|169189057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea- Control|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||1.66|-2.44|0.70
84718732|NCT01561300|169189058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.75||Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.75|-1.15|0.66
84526427|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.96|0.59|0.0237
84718733|NCT01185600|169189080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
84718734|NCT01185600|169189081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0391
84718735|NCT01185600|169189082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.372
84526428|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.98|0.56|0.0374
84526429|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.57|0.0468
84526430|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.03|0.59|0.0751
84526431|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.06|0.61|0.1305
84526432|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.63|0.3057
84526433|NCT02709486|168805539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.11|0.61|0.2056
84526434|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.99|0.39|0.0441
84526435|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.17|0.46|0.1895
84526436|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.01|0.35|0.0567
84526437|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.44|0.2960
84526438|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.12|0.37|0.1215
84526439|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.34|0.44|0.3569
84526440|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.25|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.25|0.36|0.2096
84718736|NCT01185600|169189083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1007
84526441|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.37|0.2387
84526442|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.29|0.39|0.2627
84526443|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group||1.31|0.40|0.2863
84526444|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.58|0.43|0.5560
84718737|NCT01185600|169189084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0964
84718738|NCT01185600|169189085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1739
84718739|NCT01185600|169189086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7205|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7205
84526445|NCT02709486|168805541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.53|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.53|0.42|0.5076
84526446|NCT00606502|168805560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||||||||1.14|0.61|
84526447|NCT02443545|168805579|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
84526448|NCT02443545|168805579|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
84526449|NCT02443545|168805579|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
84526450|NCT02443545|168805580|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.3146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.3146
84526451|NCT02443545|168805580|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.9454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.9454
84526452|NCT02443545|168805580|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI 2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.4336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.4336
84526453|NCT02443545|168805581|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.9952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.9952
84526454|NCT02443545|168805581|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0008
84526455|NCT02443545|168805581|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0420
84526456|NCT02139124|168805595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.6||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo."||2.6|-6.6|0.6750
84526457|NCT02139124|168805595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.2||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo||-2.2|-11.5|0.0013
84526458|NCT02139124|168805595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||2.7|-6.8|0.6720
84526459|NCT02139124|168805595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.2||The model include terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||-3.2|-12.9|0.0002
84526460|NCT02691741|168805596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029||||||||-0.029|-0.093|
84526461|NCT02691741|168805597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||-0.029|-0.093|0.002
84526462|NCT02691741|168805598|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.019|
84526463|NCT02691741|168805598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.455
84526464|NCT02691741|168805599|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|-0.023||||||||-0.023|-0.078|
84526465|NCT02691741|168805599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.003
84526466|NCT02697773|168805619|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
84540718|NCT05736861|168832646|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.09|0.75|
84526467|NCT02697773|168805619|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
84526468|NCT02697773|168805620|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed data sets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0065
84526469|NCT02697773|168805620|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.37|0.0002
84526470|NCT02697773|168805621|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0109
84526471|NCT02697773|168805621|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0038
84526472|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0020
84526473|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.10|0.0014
84526474|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.31|<.0001
84526475|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.30|<.0001
84526476|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.03|0.0085
84475330|NCT00084929|168703380|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|0.902|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|"Specificity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.902|0.817|
84475331|NCT00084929|168703380|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.292||||||"Positive Predictive Value (PPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.292|0.209|
84475332|NCT00084929|168703380|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998||||||"Negative Predictive Value (NPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.998|0.990|
84475333|NCT00084929|168703381|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|0.913||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.913|0.842|
84475334|NCT00084929|168703381|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.929|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.929|0.803|
84475335|NCT00084929|168703381|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.909|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.909|0.825|
84475336|NCT00084929|168703381|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.355||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.355|0.256|
84475337|NCT00084929|168703381|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.994||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.994|0.984|
84475338|NCT00084929|168703382|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.902||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.902|0.833|
84475339|NCT00084929|168703382|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.912|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.912|0.776|
84475340|NCT00084929|168703382|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|0.914|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.914|0.831|
84475341|NCT00084929|168703382|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.397||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.397|0.299|
84475342|NCT00084929|168703382|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.992||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.992|0.980|
84475343|NCT00084929|168703383|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.878||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.878|0.810|
84475344|NCT00084929|168703383|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.849|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.849|0.711|
84475345|NCT00084929|168703383|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.92|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.92|0.840|
84475346|NCT00084929|168703383|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.463||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.463|0.335|
84475347|NCT00084929|168703383|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.984||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.984|0.971|
84475348|NCT00084929|168703384|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.828||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.828|0.763|
84475349|NCT00084929|168703384|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.727|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.727|0.579|
84475350|NCT00084929|168703384|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.923|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.923|0.851|
84475351|NCT00084929|168703384|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.513||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.513|0.389|
84475352|NCT00084929|168703384|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.965||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.965|0.941|
84475353|NCT00084929|168703385|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=10mm))||||
84526477|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0657
84475354|NCT00084929|168703386|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=9mm))||||
84475355|NCT00084929|168703387|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=8mm)||||
84475356|NCT00084929|168703388|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=7mm)||||
84475357|NCT00084929|168703389|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=6mm)||||
84475358|NCT00084929|168703390|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=5mm)||||
84475359|NCT00091026|168703393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|14.0|||Chi-squared|||||14|-13|0.22
84475360|NCT00091026|168703394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
84475361|NCT00091026|168703395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.86
84475362|NCT00980980|168703404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Proportional-hazards models|Proportional-hazards models with shared frailties accounted for clustering within hospitals.||||||0.01
84526478|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-1.25|0.0012
84526479|NCT02697773|168805622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
84526480|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.17|0.0004
84526481|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.33|<.0001
84526482|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.45|<.0001
84526483|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.53|<.0001
84526484|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.07|0.0057
84526485|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.02|0.0114
84526486|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
84526487|NCT02697773|168805624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.52|<.0001
84526488|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.32|0.0236
84526489|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.27|0.0958
84526490|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.40|0.0007
84526491|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.36|0.0040
84526492|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.31|0.0498
84526493|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.24|0.2380
84526494|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.34|0.0426
84526495|NCT02697773|168805626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.45|0.0014
84526496|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.61|1.22|0.0027
84526497|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.36|0.0004
84526498|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.95|1.33|0.0008
84526499|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.37|0.0004
84526500|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.87|0.86|0.2283
84526501|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.03|0.93|0.1066
84526502|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.10|0.0154
84526503|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|1.38|0.0006
84526504|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.07|0.92|0.1139
84526505|NCT02697773|168805628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.31|0.0014
84526506|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.30|0.0009
84475363|NCT04390568|168703429|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the area under the concentration-time curve of Spesolimap in plasma over the time interval from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.268|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.268|0.979|
84475364|NCT04390568|168703430|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the maximum measured concentration of the Spesolimap in plasma (Cmax) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.183|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.183|0.961|
84475365|NCT03245723|168703433|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.38
84475366|NCT03245723|168703434|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.12
84475367|NCT00077376|168703435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|58.0||||||||58|26|
84475368|NCT00077376|168703436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|58.0||||||||58|31|
84475369|NCT01283997|168703444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the fingertip||0.24|-0.13|0.54
84475370|NCT01283997|168703444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the palm||0.23|-0.13|0.60
84475371|NCT01283997|168703444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the forearm||0.15|-0.40|0.37
84475372|NCT01283997|168703445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in Numbness severity at baseline and week 10.||0.59|-2.06|0.56
84475373|NCT01337167|168703462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|14.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1.0 μg/mL||14.83|4.83|<0.001
84475374|NCT01337167|168703462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
84475375|NCT01337167|168703462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419-Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary Analysis: Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
84475376|NCT01337167|168703463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.74|-0.35|<0.001
84475377|NCT01337167|168703464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-3.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|0.66|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.66|-8.02|0.002
84475378|NCT01337167|168703465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.74|-0.28|<0.001
84475379|NCT01337167|168703466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.60|-1.80|<0.001
84475380|NCT01337167|168703467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-4.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.97|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.97|-8.14|0.001
84475381|NCT01337167|168703468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.23|-7.27|<0.001
84475382|NCT01337167|168703469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.28|0.23|<0.001
84475383|NCT01337167|168703470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.59|0.85|<0.001
84475384|NCT01337167|168703470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
84526507|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.90|1.36|0.0004
84526508|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.29|0.0015
84526509|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
84526510|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.07|0.0251
84526511|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.06|0.0276
84526512|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.71|1.03|0.0404
84526513|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|0.70|0.3486
84526514|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.42|0.0002
84526515|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.32|0.0006
84526516|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.05|1.41|0.0002
84526517|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.15|1.46|<.0001
84526518|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.18|1.28|0.0024
84526519|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.34|1.35|0.0011
84526520|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0172
84526521|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0173
84526522|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0118
84526523|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.32|1.10|0.0132
84526524|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.92|1.35|0.0005
84526525|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.13|0.0100
84526526|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.12|1.28|0.0023
84526527|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.04|0.0322
84526528|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|0.81|0.2005
84526529|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|0.82|0.1923
84526530|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.28|0.0013
84526531|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.73|1.68|<.0001
84526532|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.45|<.0001
84526533|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|1.26|0.0014
84526534|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.99|1.33|0.0008
84526535|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.37|0.0005
84526536|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.16|0.0127
84526537|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.64|1.22|0.0075
84526538|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.17|0.0061
84526539|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.88|1.33|0.0007
84526540|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.29|0.0010
84526541|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.02|0.0411
84540719|NCT05736861|168832646|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.93|
84475385|NCT01337167|168703471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.42|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|-0.22|<0.001
84475386|NCT01337167|168703471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
84475387|NCT01337167|168703472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.41|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.41|-0.24|<0.001
84475388|NCT01337167|168703472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.53|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.53|<0.001
84475389|NCT01337167|168703473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.38|1.20|<0.001
84475390|NCT01337167|168703474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.64||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.70|0.59|0.786
84475391|NCT01337167|168703475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.73|<0.001
84475392|NCT01337167|168703476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|1.15|<0.001
84475393|NCT01337167|168703477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.18|0.39|<0.001
84475394|NCT01337167|168703478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.78|-1.67|<0.001
84475395|NCT01337167|168703479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.10|-3.46|<0.001
84475396|NCT01337167|168703480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||9.78|3.26|<0.001
84475397|NCT01337167|168703481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.52|1.28|<0.001
84475398|NCT01337167|168703482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.10|0.91|<0.001
84475399|NCT01337167|168703483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.78||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.89|0.68|0.014
84475400|NCT01337167|168703484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.78|1.41|<0.001
84475401|NCT01337167|168703485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.32|<0.001
84475402|NCT01337167|168703486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|0.83|<0.001
84475403|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \<38°C||-7.7|-18.4|
84475404|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||9.5|0.5|
84526542|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.14|0.0090
84526543|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|0.89|0.1149
84526544|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|0.87|0.1351
84526545|NCT02697773|168805629|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.48|<.0001
84526546|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.11|1.45|0.0001
84526547|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.59|<.0001
84526548|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.04|0.0312
84526549|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.19|1.40|0.0003
84526550|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.01|1.48|0.0005
84526551|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.94|1.45|0.0006
84526552|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.32|1.02|0.0436
84526553|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.69|0.84|0.1348
84526554|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.58|<.0001
84526555|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.46|<.0001
84526556|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.57|1.62|<.0001
84526557|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.74|<.0001
84526558|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.70|1.47|0.0003
84475405|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.2|2.8|
84475406|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.6|
84475407|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \<38°C||-7.7|-18.6|
84475408|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||10.8|1.9|
84475409|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||10.7|2.4|
84475410|NCT01337167|168703490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.4|-0.3|
84475411|NCT04172701|168703493|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
84475412|NCT04172701|168703494|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84475413|NCT04172701|168703495|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84475414|NCT04172701|168703496|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|1.663|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model.The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.663|1.308|<0.0001
84475415|NCT04172701|168703497|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.0003
84475416|NCT04172701|168703498|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.001
84475417|NCT04172701|168703499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.237|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.237|1.059|0.0006
84475418|NCT04172701|168703500|OTHER|||||||0.00074|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.00074
84475419|NCT04172701|168703501|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
84475420|NCT04172701|168703502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.601|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|1.826|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.826|1.404|<0.0001
84475421|NCT04172701|168703503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
84475422|NCT04172701|168703504|OTHER|||||||0.2875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2875
84475423|NCT04172701|168703505|OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4602
84540720|NCT05736861|168832647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.15|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||-0.15|-0.82|
84475424|NCT04172701|168703506|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
84475425|NCT04172701|168703507|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0002
84475426|NCT04172701|168703508|OTHER|||||||0.4907|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4907
84475427|NCT04172701|168703509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
84475428|NCT04172701|168703510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84475429|NCT04172701|168703511|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.543
84475430|NCT04172701|168703512|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
84475431|NCT04172701|168703513|OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.363
84475432|NCT04172701|168703514|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84475433|NCT04172701|168703515|OTHER|||||||0.0494|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0494
84475434|NCT04172701|168703516|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0091
84475435|NCT04172701|168703517|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84475436|NCT04172701|168703518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84475437|NCT04172701|168703519|OTHER|||||||0.7298|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7298
84475438|NCT04172701|168703520|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0093
84475439|NCT04172701|168703521|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
84475440|NCT04172701|168703522|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.255|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.255|1.104|<0.0001
84475441|NCT04172701|168703523|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.194||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.367|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.367|1.043|0.0103
84475442|NCT04172701|168703524|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.104||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.178|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.178|1.034|0.0030
84475443|NCT04172701|168703525|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.221|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.221|1.130|<0.0001
84475444|NCT04172701|168703526|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.346|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.346|1.134|<0.0001
84526559|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.89|1.55|0.0001
84526560|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.07|0.0310
84526561|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.34|1.24|0.0088
84526562|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.03|0.0360
84526563|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.51|1.19|0.0039
84526564|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.13|1.43|0.0002
84526565|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.20|0.0040
84526566|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|1.10|0.0175
84526567|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.19|0.0065
84526568|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.94|0.0796
84526569|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|0.95|0.0718
84526570|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.36|0.0004
84526571|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.93|1.78|<.0001
84526572|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.44|0.0001
84526573|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.42|0.0002
84526574|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|1.41|0.0003
84526575|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.46|1.52|<.0001
84526576|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.68|1.18|0.0113
84526577|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.85|1.25|0.0064
84526578|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.07|0.0200
84526579|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.43|0.0002
84526580|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.34|0.0005
84526581|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.11|0.0141
84526582|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.26|0.0022
84526583|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|0.80|0.2286
84526584|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|0.84|0.1808
84526585|NCT02697773|168805631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.57|<.0001
84526586|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.34|0.88|0.1463
84526587|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.62|0.60|0.9644
84526588|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.02|0.0422
84526589|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|0.85|0.1995
84526590|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.84|0.75|0.4878
84526591|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.67|0.68|0.7856
84526592|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.00|0.0476
84526593|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.12|0.0124
84526594|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.05|0.0307
84526595|NCT02697773|168805633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|0.95|0.0846
84526596|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0319
84526597|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.68|0.0139
84526598|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0011
84526599|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.93|0.0053
84526600|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0014
84526601|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.17|0.0002
84526602|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.33|<.0001
84526603|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-1.36|<.0001
84526604|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.16|0.0015
84526605|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0023
84526606|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.89|0.0512
84526607|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0693
84526608|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.14|0.0043
84540721|NCT05736861|168832648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.99|0.18|
84526609|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.13|0.0041
84526610|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.19|0.0024
84526611|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.22|0.0015
84526612|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.16|0.0063
84526613|NCT02697773|168805634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.30|0.0008
84526614|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.47|<.0001
84526615|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.47|<.0001
84526616|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.67|<.0001
84526617|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.66|<.0001
84526618|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.25|0.0007
84526619|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.20|0.0013
84526620|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.51|<.0001
84526621|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.67|<.0001
84540736|NCT03718832|168832707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.12548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.550462||0.1708328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.703702|31.95466||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||31.95466|-5.703702|0.1708328
84526622|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0007
84526623|NCT02697773|168805636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<.0001
84526624|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.22|<.0001
84526625|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.29|<.0001
84526626|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.46|<.0001
84526627|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.49|<.0001
84526628|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0024
84526629|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0078
84526630|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.35|0.0002
84526631|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.57|-1.50|<.0001
84526632|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.16|0.0034
84526633|NCT02697773|168805638|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.33|0.0003
84526634|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.10|0.0026
84526635|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.10|0.0023
84526636|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
84526637|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.35|<.0001
84526638|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0066
84526639|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.79|0.1506
84526640|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.25|0.0021
84526641|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0008
84526642|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.09|0.0167
84526643|NCT02697773|168805640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.17|0.0073
84526644|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
84526645|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.31|0.0002
84526646|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.44|<.0001
84526647|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.56|<.0001
84526648|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.0091
84526649|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.92|0.0668
84526650|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.36|0.0011
84526651|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.48|0.0002
84526652|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0059
84526653|NCT02697773|168805642|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.39|0.0005
84526654|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.70|-2.48|0.6984
84526655|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.48|-4.84|0.2953
84526656|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.74|-13.59|0.1911
84526657|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.71|-13.89|0.1857
84526658|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.52|-14.12|0.1707
84718740|NCT01185600|169189087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Binomial|1.64||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided||"Using Negative Binomial Regression the following ratio and corresponding 95% CI were obtained:~(# of AE's, Unwashed Group / (# of AE's, Washed Group) = 1.64 95% C.I. = \[1.06 - 2.55\]"|||2.55|1.06|0.0176
84718741|NCT03455985|169189126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
84718742|NCT03455985|169189127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
84526659|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.07|-14.85|0.1380
84718743|NCT03455985|169189128|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84718744|NCT03455985|169189129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
84726073|NCT00674609|169204432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.68|-0.64|0.95
84526660|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.94|-8.58|0.1151
84526661|NCT02697773|168805645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.98|-8.51|0.1195
84526662|NCT02697773|168805656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.18|0.1444
84526663|NCT02697773|168805656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.09|0.0335
84526664|NCT02697773|168805657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0809
84526665|NCT02697773|168805657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0239
84526666|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.48|0.0761
84526667|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.96|0.44|0.0312
84526668|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.95|0.45|0.0262
84526669|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.79|0.37|0.0013
84526670|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.64|0.6706
84526671|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.43|0.69|0.9720
84526672|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.61|0.5311
84526673|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.12|0.53|0.1712
84526674|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.54|0.73|0.7475
84526675|NCT02697773|168805658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.63|0.6564
84526676|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.73|0.4833
84526677|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||||1.03|0.65|0.0942
84526678|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.67|0.3371
84526679|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.58|0.0508
84526680|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.71|0.7280
84526681|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.65|0.3244
84526682|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.65|0.5681
84526683|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.09|0.55|0.1387
84526684|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.48|0.76|0.7275
84526685|NCT02697773|168805660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.31|0.67|0.7090
84526686|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.62|0.58|0.9164
84526687|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.47|0.3542
84526688|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.68|0.51|0.8065
84526689|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.20|0.36|0.1752
84526690|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.73|0.48|0.7837
84526691|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.52|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.52|0.43|0.5062
84526692|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.82|0.40|0.6821
84526693|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.65|0.36|0.5032
84526694|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.61|0.58|0.5796
84526695|NCT02697773|168805662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.00|0.44|0.8725
84540737|NCT03718832|168832707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59479||0.2801138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.422762|32.3743||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||32.3743|-9.422762|0.2801138
84526696|NCT02243293|168805681|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared to historical control (in genotype 2 (GT2) DAA-naive participants in Part 4, arm S) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|96.5|
84526697|NCT03069417|168805685|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at post-treatment time point.||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84526698|NCT03069417|168805685|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at 3-month follow-up time point.||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
84526699|NCT03069417|168805686|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time calculated at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.29|-3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.15|-22.29|< 0.05
84526700|NCT03069417|168805687|SUPERIORITY|Interaction evaluated at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-11.1|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-3.83||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.83|-18.41|< 0.005
84526701|NCT03069417|168805687|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-13.8|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-22.50|< 0.005
84526702|NCT03069417|168805689|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-10.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-19.58|< 0.05
84526703|NCT03069417|168805689|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-22.14|< 0.01
84526704|NCT03069417|168805690|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.88|0.50|< 0.05
84526705|NCT01769274|168805704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
84526706|NCT01769274|168805704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
84526707|NCT00118378|168805719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84526708|NCT00118378|168805720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84526709|NCT00118378|168805721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 4 CD4 cell count||||.150
84526710|NCT00118378|168805722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.459
84526711|NCT02516410|168805723|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.2|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.6|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||2.6|-0.3|= 0.1176
84526712|NCT01252719|168805735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10%, the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.7||||||||4.7|-5.5|
84526713|NCT01252719|168805736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the non-inferiority (NI) of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||||||||8.4|-1.6|
84526714|NCT01252719|168805737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.5|
84526715|NCT03135899|168805753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.048|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.165|-0.048|
84526716|NCT03135899|168805753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.144|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.070|-0.144|
84526717|NCT03135899|168805753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.266|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||-0.047|-0.266|
84526718|NCT03135899|168805755|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.977|0.595|
84540738|NCT03718832|168832708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.135585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.325031||0.1991028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57023|4.299061||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.299061|-20.57023|0.1991028
84526719|NCT03135899|168805755|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.199|0.715|
84526720|NCT03135899|168805755|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|1.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.095|0.651|
84526721|NCT03135899|168805757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.95|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.95|1.31|
84526722|NCT03135899|168805757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.53|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.53|1.22|
84526723|NCT03135899|168805757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.47|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||4.47|1.50|
84526724|NCT04146363|168805758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|21.6|<0.000001
84526725|NCT04146363|168805759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|33.3|<0.000001
84526726|NCT04146363|168805760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.218644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|-0.6|0.218644
84526727|NCT04146363|168805761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.000498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|5.7|0.000498
84526728|NCT04146363|168805762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.4|22.1|<0.000001
84526729|NCT04146363|168805763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|21.3|<0.000001
84526730|NCT04146363|168805764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-38.1|<0.000001
84526731|NCT04146363|168805765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.3|24.6|<0.000001
84526732|NCT04146363|168805766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.9|26.3|<0.000001
84526733|NCT04146363|168805767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-30.2|||ANCOVA|||||-30.2|-46.4|<0.000001
84526734|NCT04146363|168805768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-22.4|<0.000001
84526735|NCT04146363|168805769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.000412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|6.2|0.000412
84526736|NCT04146363|168805770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.1|<0.000001
84526737|NCT04146363|168805771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|28.3|<0.000001
84526738|NCT04146363|168805772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|52.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.3|31.2|<0.000001
84526739|NCT04146363|168805773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-42.6|<0.000001
84526740|NCT04146363|168805774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-0.9|<0.000001
84526741|NCT04146363|168805775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.0|26.2|<0.000001
84526742|NCT04146363|168805776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.275529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.9|-0.8|0.275529
84526743|NCT04146363|168805777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.016656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|1.9|0.016656
84526744|NCT04146363|168805778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|13.7|0.000003
84526745|NCT04146363|168805779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.244105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-0.8|0.244105
84526746|NCT04146363|168805780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.01445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.4|2.2|0.014450
84526747|NCT04146363|168805781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|14.9|0.000002
84526748|NCT04146363|168805782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.59|-24.0|||ANCOVA|||||-24.00|-36.59|<0.000001
84526749|NCT04146363|168805784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.072375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|-2.3|0.072375
84526750|NCT04146363|168805784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.106653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|-4.5|0.106653
84526751|NCT04146363|168805785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.029857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|2.8|0.029857
84526752|NCT04146363|168805785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.019744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|4.6|0.019744
84526753|NCT04146363|168805786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.268265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|-12.2|0.268265
84526754|NCT04146363|168805786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
84526755|NCT04146363|168805787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.185361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.6|-9.3|0.185361
84526756|NCT04146363|168805787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
84526757|NCT04146363|168805788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.756||0.714208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-11.15|0.714208
84526758|NCT04146363|168805788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4748||0.237855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|-15.01|0.237855
84526759|NCT04146363|168805789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.2|0.1|<0.000001
84526760|NCT04146363|168805789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.1|<0.000001
84718745|NCT01500200|169189130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.014
84526761|NCT04146363|168805790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.0|<0.000001
84526762|NCT04146363|168805791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-8.9|<0.000001
84526763|NCT04146363|168805792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.716224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.80|-6.93|0.716224
84526764|NCT04146363|168805793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.089275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-9.73|0.089275
84526765|NCT04146363|168805794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.88|0.000040
84526766|NCT04146363|168805795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.000127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-4.07|0.000127
84526767|NCT04146363|168805796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.455291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.455291
84526768|NCT04146363|168805797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||6.9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-10.1|0.000069
84526769|NCT03660241|168805798|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|204.61|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group.||204.61|93.74|
84526770|NCT03660241|168805798|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.3|171.43|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||171.43|57.30|
84526771|NCT03660241|168805799|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|182.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|285.71|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.71|117.09|
84526772|NCT03660241|168805799|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|215.41|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||215.41|68.32|
84526773|NCT03660241|168805800|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|165.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||165.57|59.80|
84526774|NCT03660241|168805800|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|167.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|289.64|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||289.64|97.20|
84526775|NCT03660241|168805801|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|226.26|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||226.26|105.11|
84526776|NCT03660241|168805801|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|287.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.72|418.89|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||418.89|196.72|
84526777|NCT03660241|168805802|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.82|176.81|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||176.81|106.82|
84526778|NCT03660241|168805802|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|177.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.91|232.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||232.92|135.91|
84526779|NCT03660241|168805803|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|269.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.61|370.18|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||370.18|196.61|
84526780|NCT03660241|168805803|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|571.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.27|730.05|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||730.05|447.27|
84526781|NCT03660241|168805808|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.45|174.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||174.92|102.45|
84526782|NCT03660241|168805808|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|180.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||180.57|92.86|
84526783|NCT03660241|168805809|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|210.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.6|285.8|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.80|154.60|
84526784|NCT03660241|168805809|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|290.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|217.39|388.69|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||388.69|217.39|
84526785|NCT02914236|168805811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the mean improvement in NOSE score exceeded 15 points||||||<0.0001
84526786|NCT02914236|168805812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial test|Success threshold required at least 55% of subjects to be responders||||||<0.0001
84526787|NCT00836719|168805845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.01||95.0|3.4|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Anisotropic power spatial covariance matrix with terms for time and the registered voxel. Kenward Rogers approx. for degrees of freedom.|Dependent variable: NAA. Main effect: visit. Covariates Cre, %GM, %WM, %CSF and %lesion in the voxel.|N-Acetylaspartate acid (NAA) levels were measured at baseline and exit (6 months). Voxels with less than 30% error in NAA and Creatine (Cre) were used.NAA, Cre and Proton Density were log transformed.||16.2|3.4|<0.01
84526788|NCT01567826|168805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
84526789|NCT01567826|168805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84526790|NCT01612884|168805860|OTHER|Student's T-test||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
84526791|NCT01612884|168805861|OTHER|Chi-Square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
84526792|NCT01612884|168805862|OTHER|Chi-Square|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84526793|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|0.7716||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8397|2.3828||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Primary analysis of the treatment effect at the Week 24 visit on the intent to treat population (ITT) Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.3828|-0.8397|0.3449
84526794|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.0053||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.0807||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 in the intent to treat population (ITT), Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.0807|-0.0700|0.0667
84526795|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.2258||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|2.4438||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Secondary analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 on the per protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.4438|0.0078|0.0486
84526796|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|2.6628||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|5.5325||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor ppFEV1 (\<70% or ≥70%) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup ≥70%, n=29 (LAU-7b), n=27 (Placebo)"||5.5325|-0.2069|0.0687
84526797|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.391||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|3.7041||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor co-administration of CFTR modulator (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving CFTR modulators, n=41 (LAU-7b), n=46 (Placebo)"||3.7041|-0.9220|0.236
84526798|NCT03265288|168805867|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.1302||||0.5323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4447|4.7052||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for à priori defined subgroup co-administration of ETI - elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving ETI, n=18 (LAU-7b), n=23 (Placebo)"||4.7052|-2.4447|0.5323
84526799|NCT03265288|168805869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5036||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2199|1.1532||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Arachidonic Acid (AA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.1532|0.2199|0.1047
84526800|NCT03265288|168805869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8773||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3793|2.0291||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT, null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.0291|0.3793|0.7596
84526801|NCT03265288|168805869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0532||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5209|2.1296||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of AA/DHA ratio during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.1296|0.5209|0.8852
84526802|NCT03265288|168805872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3025
84526803|NCT03265288|168805873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.8||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Protocol-Defined IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||3.80|0.63|0.3366
84526804|NCT03265288|168805873|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.64||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|ALL IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.64|0.68|0.3936
84526805|NCT03265288|168805873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Combined IV- or Oral antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.79|0.75|0.5011
84526806|NCT03265288|168805874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1955|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1955
84526807|NCT03265288|168805875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.12||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b|Number per subject of intravenous antibiotic treatments required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.12|0.86|0.1909
84526808|NCT03265288|168805876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.04||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b or placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b|Number of days of intravenous antibiotics required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.04|0.60|0.7473
84526809|NCT03265288|168805877|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.89||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.154|0.374||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.374|-6.154|0.0822
84526810|NCT03265288|168805877|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-576.0||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1177.0|25.4||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||25.4|-1177|0.0603
84526811|NCT03265288|168805877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.853||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.297|-0.408||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||-0.408|-7.297|0.0287
84526812|NCT03265288|168805877|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-620.0||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1228.0|12.0||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||12|-1228|0.0459
84526813|NCT03265288|168805878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.39||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body weight, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.08|-0.86|0.1006
84526814|NCT03265288|168805879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.137||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.038||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body mass index, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.038|-0.312|0.1246
84526815|NCT03265288|168805880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||alpha is set to 0.05|ANOVA|||Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||||0.7640
84526816|NCT03265288|168805881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.758||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|2.482||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||CFQ-R Respiratory subscore, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.482|-7.998|0.2996
84526817|NCT02790034|168805886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3184||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.741|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||17.157|-27.741|0.6411
84526818|NCT02790034|168805886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1869||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.119|9.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||9.186|-43.119|0.2011
84526819|NCT02678442|168805888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84526820|NCT02678442|168805890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84526821|NCT02678442|168805891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84526822|NCT02678442|168805892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
84526823|NCT03575871|168805896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|9.6|0.0008
84526824|NCT03575871|168805896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|18.6|<0.0001
84526825|NCT03575871|168805897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|44.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|23.3|<0.0001
84526826|NCT03575871|168805897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|60.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.9|40.0|<0.0001
84526827|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|11.0|0.0002
84526828|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|40.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.2|22.3|<0.0001
84526829|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|18.9|<0.0001
84526830|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|55.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.7|37.2|<0.0001
84526831|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|38.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.0|16.8|<0.0001
84526832|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|28.9|<0.0001
84526833|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.6|18.9|<0.0001
84526834|NCT03575871|168805898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|49.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.1|28.1|<0.0001
84526835|NCT03575871|168805899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
84526836|NCT03575871|168805899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-2.8|<0.0001
84526837|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.9|2.8|0.0150
84526838|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|15.0|<0.0001
84526839|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|10.9|0.0004
84526840|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|53.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|34.8|<0.0001
84475445|NCT04172701|168703527|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.214||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.431|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.431|1.029|0.0212
84475446|NCT04172701|168703528|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.026||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.105|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.105|0.952|0.5024
84475447|NCT04172701|168703529|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.369|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.369|1.243|<0.0001
84475448|NCT04172701|168703530|OTHER|||||||0.7198|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.7198
84475449|NCT04172701|168703531|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.598|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.598|0.719|0.7341
84475450|NCT04172701|168703532|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
84475451|NCT04172701|168703533|OTHER|||||||0.9985|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.9985
84475452|NCT04172701|168703534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.289|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.289|0.600|0.5097
84475453|NCT04172701|168703535|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
84475454|NCT04172701|168703536|OTHER|||||||0.6069|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.6069
84475455|NCT04172701|168703537|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.490|0.705|0.8960
84475456|NCT04172701|168703538|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
84475457|NCT04172701|168703539|OTHER|||||||0.1354|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.1354
84475458|NCT04172701|168703540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|1.139|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.139|0.305|0.1158
84475459|NCT04172701|168703541|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
84475460|NCT02126670|168703542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
84475461|NCT03097614|168703578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84475462|NCT03864536|168703589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84475463|NCT03864536|168703590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84526841|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|41.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|19.7|<0.0001
84475464|NCT04058158|168703591|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[-337.2 to 337.2\].|Least squares mean difference|34.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.66|116.62||||||||116.62|-47.66|
84475465|NCT04058158|168703592|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.77 to 1.29\].|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||||||||1.23|0.95|
84475466|NCT02215616|168703593|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.78||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.98||Threshold for significance at 0.045 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures model (MMRM) with treatment group (3 levels: placebo, laquinimod 0.5 mg and laquinimod 1 mg), categorical week (4 levels: Weeks 4, 13, 26, and 52), treatment by week interaction, country, TMS baseline value and TMS baseline by week interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the initial model.||2.98|-1.42|0.4853
84475467|NCT01634113|168703595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.152||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.152|-0.312|0.4963
84475468|NCT01634113|168703595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.195||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.195|-0.292|0.6936
84475469|NCT01634113|168703597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.394||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.394|-0.229|0.5995
84475470|NCT01634113|168703597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.333||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.333|-0.303|0.9251
84475471|NCT01634113|168703598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.324||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.243|22.743||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||22.743|-18.243|0.8279
84475472|NCT01634113|168703598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.826||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.987|18.994||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||18.994|-23.987|0.8181
84475473|NCT01634113|168703600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.283||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.283|-0.161|0.5869
84475474|NCT01634113|168703600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.156||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.156|-0.305|0.5230
84475475|NCT01956240|168703670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A 1-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess for possible differences among evaluations in each group separately for pectoralis minor length.||||||<0.05
84475476|NCT01956240|168703671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Separate 2-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test for interactions of angle x evaluation (1,2,3) and for main effects of evaluation.||||||>0.05
84475477|NCT01061736|168703689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.64||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. The multiplicity issues were addressed by using the Hommel-procedure.||4.64|0.85|0.1155
84475478|NCT01061736|168703689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|9.63||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.63|1.53|0.0041
84475479|NCT01061736|168703689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.61||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.61|0.52|0.7119
84475480|NCT01061736|168703689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.35||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.35|1.06|0.0363
84475481|NCT01061736|168703689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.29||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.29|1.03|0.0426
84475482|NCT01061736|168703690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|3.703||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo was derived. The multiplicity issues for part B were addressed by using a Bonferroni correction for each dose together with a hierarchical testing procedure across the 3 co-primary and the main secondary endpoints. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||3.703|2.077|<0.0001
84475483|NCT01061736|168703690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.957|5.344||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.344|2.957|<0.0001
84475484|NCT01061736|168703691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.157||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Differences in least square (LS) mean between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.157|-0.312|<0.0001
84475485|NCT01061736|168703691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|-0.181||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.181|-0.336|<0.0001
84475486|NCT01061736|168703692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using two-sided rank-based ANCOVA model. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||||<0.0001
84475487|NCT01061736|168703692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84475488|NCT01061736|168703693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|8.863||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||8.863|2.451|<0.0001
84475489|NCT01061736|168703693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.946|10.515||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.515|2.946|<0.0001
84475490|NCT01093755|168703698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.30
84475491|NCT01093755|168703698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.52
84475492|NCT01093755|168703699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.70
84475493|NCT01093755|168703699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.64
84475494|NCT03115112|168703700|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 0.35% was determined based on a reference clinical trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of sitagliptin, 100 mg, compared to placebo on HbA1c reduction in subjects with type 2 DM. A margin of 0.35% was selected to be approximately half of sitagliptin effect and remained clinically meaningful.|Difference of LS Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.|||0.22|-0.07|
84475495|NCT03115112|168703701|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Covariate includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline FPG value as a fixed effect covariate.||||-0.05|-0.70|0.0123
84475496|NCT03115112|168703702|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.92|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.||||-1.92|-3.15|<0.0001
84475497|NCT03115112|168703703|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.05|||t-test, 1 sided|p value was presented based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.|||0.05|-4.70|0.0276
84475498|NCT01546285|168703704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.22|||Compare the mean difference with 5mmHg|||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4 mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5 mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is at least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10 mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-0.22|-2.58|
84475499|NCT01546285|168703704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.66||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.66|-3.95|
84475500|NCT01546285|168703704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-2.67||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.67|-4.73|
84475501|NCT00654953|168703735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom for medication group = 2 (group)||The analysis tested the null hypothesis of no difference among groups in terms of the # of days to relapse (first two conseqcutively positive urines) using ANOVA.||||0.05
84475502|NCT00664755|168703736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.59|1.17|0.011
84475503|NCT01978509|168703788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
84475504|NCT03641547|168703792|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 6|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.165||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.165|0|
84475505|NCT03641547|168703793|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 4|0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.397||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.397|0.042|
84475506|NCT00065442|168703813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.979|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment, PSA (ln), and LDH (ln) as the independent variables, stratified by randomization strata.|sipuleucel-T/placebo|||0.979|0.614|0.032
84475507|NCT00065442|168703813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.965|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata.|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata (sipuleucel-T/placebo)|||0.965|0.608|0.023
84475508|NCT00065442|168703814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.169|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata|||1.169|0.773|0.628
84475509|NCT01797965|168703831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.5937
84526842|NCT03575871|168805901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|36.8|<0.0001
84475510|NCT01797965|168703831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.6233
84475511|NCT01797965|168703831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.1884
84475512|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.0204
84475513|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.0805
84475514|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2535|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2535
84475515|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.4738
84526843|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.2|0.0459
84475516|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.2302
84475517|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8522|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8522
84526844|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.5|7.8|0.0005
84526845|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.9||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.3|0.0019
84526846|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|39.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.9|23.6|<0.0001
84526847|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.4|2.4|0.0246
84526848|NCT03575871|168805902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.9|17.0|<0.0001
84526849|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value was not estimable since there were no events.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
84526850|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2262
84526851|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2223
84526852|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0597
84526853|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
84526854|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0586
84526855|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
84718746|NCT01500200|169189130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.699
84718747|NCT00857766|169189142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.42||||0.065||95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference is calculated as FSC 250/50 minus Placebo and is adjusted for treatment, investigator, sex, smoking status, age, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, treatment by sex interaction, age by BMI interaction, and baseline value.|||0.03|-0.88|0.065
84526856|NCT03575871|168805903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.3||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.4|1.2|0.0244
84526857|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.2|14.8|<0.0001
84526858|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.6|33.9|<0.0001
84718748|NCT00857766|169189143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.469||95.0|-2.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-2.3|0.469
84718749|NCT00857766|169189144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|127.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.5|<|0.001||95.0|57.0|197.0|||ANCOVA|||||197|57|<0.001
84718750|NCT01961609|169189145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.375|52.4|76.7|||two-sided binomial exact test||A Bonferroni adjustment adjusting for 8 analyses have been applied.|||76.7|52.4|<0.0001
84475518|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.0431
84475519|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.0339
84475520|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3195|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.3195
84475521|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2119|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.2119
84475522|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3619|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.3619
84475523|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.0170
84475524|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.0170
84475525|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.0849
84475526|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.0057
84475527|NCT01797965|168703832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.3960
84475528|NCT01797965|168703834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|2.473|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use (yes/no), baseline EDSS (\<=2.5 vs \>2.5) and baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35).||||2.473|0.329|0.8417
84475529|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3813|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.3813
84475530|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.1679
84475531|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.5634
84475532|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7003|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 144||||0.7003
84475533|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7812|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 168||||0.7812
84475534|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3246|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 192||||0.3246
84475535|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6423|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 216||||0.6423
84475536|NCT01797965|168703856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 240||||0.0288
84475537|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2567|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.2567
84475538|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6152|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.6152
84475539|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2024
84475540|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9988|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.9988
84475541|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.7962
84475542|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8486|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8486
84475543|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.4478
84475544|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.3250
84475545|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.1290
84475546|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7295|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.7295
84526859|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|42.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|17.5|<0.0001
84526860|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|61.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|37.8|<0.0001
84526861|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.3|18.8|<0.0001
84526862|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.6|35.7|<0.0001
84526863|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|60.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.1|37.2|<0.0001
84526864|NCT03575871|168805904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|71.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.0|49.1|<0.0001
84526865|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.5||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.8|-1.7|0.1623
84526866|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.7|3.4|0.0070
84526867|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.4|4.0|0.0049
84526868|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|30.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|15.5|<0.0001
84526869|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|22.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.0|7.2|0.0013
84718751|NCT01988402|169189162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84526870|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.1|23.1|<0.0001
84526871|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|11.9|0.0001
84526872|NCT03575871|168805905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.6|<0.0001
84526873|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
84526874|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.8|0.3261
84726074|NCT00674609|169204433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.11
84526875|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.7|0.3207
84526876|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.8|0.0810
84526877|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
84526878|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-0.7|0.0810
84526879|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
84526880|NCT03575871|168805906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.2|1.8|0.0180
84526881|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-22.3|-38.1|<0.0001
84526882|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-34.4|-50.3|<0.0001
84526883|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.7|-38.1|<0.0001
84526884|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.3|-52.8|<0.0001
84526885|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-36.2|<0.0001
84526886|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-30.4|-50.0|<0.0001
84526887|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-19.7|-43.1|<0.0001
84526888|NCT03575871|168805907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.0|-56.4|<0.0001
84526889|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.5|-35.5|<0.0001
84526890|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-25.1|-43.1|<0.0001
84526891|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-20.4|-39.0|<0.0001
84526892|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.1|-49.8|<0.0001
84526893|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.2|-44.6|<0.0001
84526894|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-28.9|-52.2|<0.0001
84526895|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-27.4|-51.8|<0.0001
84526896|NCT03575871|168805908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.0|-60.4|<0.0001
84526897|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2353
84526898|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.8|0.8|0.0332
84526899|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.4|0.0227
84526900|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.1|0.0001
84526901|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.3|7.7|0.0008
84526902|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|18.1|<0.0001
84526903|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|26.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.5|10.5|0.0003
84526904|NCT03575871|168805909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.4|<0.0001
84526905|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.9|6.5|0.0011
84526906|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|40.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.6|24.6|<0.0001
84526907|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|38.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.2|18.5|<0.0001
84526908|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|43.2|<0.0001
84526909|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|17.0|<0.0001
84526910|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|57.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||57.1|35.2|<0.0001
84526911|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|47.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.1|25.4|<0.0001
84526912|NCT03575871|168805910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|60.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.3|38.9|<0.0001
84526913|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2261
84526914|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.3|0.0451
84526915|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.8|0.0171
84526916|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|24.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.5|10.9|<0.0001
84526917|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.5|5.5|0.0018
84526918|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
84526919|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|8.8|0.0005
84526920|NCT03575871|168805911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|19.3|<0.0001
84526921|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
84526922|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.5|<0.0001
84526923|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.6|<0.0001
84526924|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.5|-3.8|<0.0001
84526925|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
84526926|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.3|<0.0001
84526927|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.2|0.0006
84526928|NCT03575871|168805912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-3.0|<0.0001
84526929|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|<0.0001
84526930|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
84526931|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
84526932|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.6|<0.0001
84526933|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
84526934|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
84526935|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0164
84526936|NCT03575871|168805913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.5|<0.0001
84526937|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-26.6|<0.0001
84526938|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.4|-37.9|<0.0001
84526939|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.2|-28.1|<0.0001
84526940|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.4|-42.3|<0.0001
84718752|NCT00571649|169189189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.771||||0.0211||95.0|0.618|0.962||Hochberg procedure: A 2-sided p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the 1-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.025, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (91.4% for superiority) with 4% event rate at day 35 for comparator and 40% relative risk reduction.||0.962|0.618|0.0211
84526941|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-12.1|-26.8|<0.0001
84526942|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.3|-41.0|<0.0001
84526943|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.9|-32.3|<0.0001
84526944|NCT03575871|168805914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-24.3|-42.6|<0.0001
84526945|NCT00391079|168805916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.17||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The change in pain NRS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.29|-0.62|0.468
84526946|NCT00391079|168805917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.038|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each Sativex and placebo.||2.038|0.840|0.2338
84526947|NCT00391079|168805918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-1.83||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.72|||ANOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The change in NPS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||1.72|-5.39|0.3103
84526948|NCT00391079|168805919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.24||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates a reduction in breakthrough analgesic medication in favour of Sativex.|The change in average number of tablets taken daily from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.09|-0.57|0.1567
84526949|NCT00391079|168805920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.29|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated means indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|||0.29|-0.53|0.5643
84526950|NCT00391079|168805921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.47||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.179|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of greater than 1 indicates and improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.179|0.991|0.0552
84526951|NCT00391079|168805922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.48|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates an improvement in sleep quality in favour of Sativex.|||0.48|-0.39|0.8330
84526952|NCT01138826|168805960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|105.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.09|113.61||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||113.61|98.09|
84526953|NCT01138826|168805960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|115.69||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||115.69|99.98|
84526954|NCT01138826|168805960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|109.6||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||109.60|94.70|
84526955|NCT01138826|168805961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.27|110.94||||||||110.94|97.27|
84526956|NCT01138826|168805961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.67|111.3||||||||111.30|97.67|
84526957|NCT01138826|168805961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|107.15||||||||107.15|94.02|
84526958|NCT01138826|168805962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.05|106.33||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||106.33|91.05|
84539732|NCT00509795|168829387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares Means|0.26||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.97|2.49||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.49|-1.97|0.8179
84526959|NCT01138826|168805962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|95.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|102.84||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||102.84|88.16|
84526960|NCT01138826|168805962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|104.54||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||104.54|89.58|
84526961|NCT03360916|168805978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|125.59||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.9530
84526962|NCT03360916|168805978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|130.12||0.7908|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.7908
84526963|NCT03360916|168805978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.19||0.1344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.1344
84526964|NCT03360916|168805979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0005
84526965|NCT03360916|168805979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0021
84526966|NCT03360916|168805979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0025
84526967|NCT00754442|168805980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|95%||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at baseline||||0.1
84526968|NCT00754442|168805980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 4 hours||||0.002
84526969|NCT00754442|168805980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 8 hrs||||0.003
84526970|NCT03053583|168805984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Posthoc analysis of POGO scores were compared using the Kruskall Wallis test with Mann-WHitney test for pairwise comparisons||||<0.05
84526971|NCT00484419|168806016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0061
84526972|NCT00484419|168806016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.1090
84526973|NCT00484419|168806016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
84526974|NCT00484419|168806017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0234
84526975|NCT00484419|168806017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
84526976|NCT00484419|168806017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0011
84526977|NCT00484419|168806020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0077
84526978|NCT00484419|168806020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
84526979|NCT00484419|168806020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0483||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0483
84526980|NCT00484419|168806021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0133
84526981|NCT00484419|168806021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
84526982|NCT00484419|168806021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0125
84526983|NCT00484419|168806024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8596||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.8596
84526984|NCT00484419|168806024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0257
84475547|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8647|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.8647
84475548|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2183|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.2183
84475549|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.3945
84475550|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5068|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.5068
84475551|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1669|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.1669
84475552|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5038|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.5038
84475553|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 303||||0.6001
84475554|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8617|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 168 for 303||||0.8617
84475555|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 192 for 303||||0.2590
84475556|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5159|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 216 for 303||||0.5159
84475557|NCT01797965|168703857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6123|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 240 for 303||||0.6123
84475558|NCT00973921|168703870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Wilson|||The 95% confidence Interval (CI) of the primary outcome has been calculated using the Wilson method of estimating the CI of a single proportion||1.0|0.86|<0.01
84475559|NCT00973921|168703871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Bland Altman|||||||<0.0001
84475560|NCT00973921|168703873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.5||||0.0034|||||||Bland-Altman|||||||0.0034
84475561|NCT03282357|168703955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 10 percent (%). The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-13.1|
84475562|NCT03282357|168703956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 15%. The two-sided 95% CI for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-9.8|
84475563|NCT00094887|168703978|OTHER||||||=|0.8085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.8085
84475564|NCT04093258|168703990|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.85|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test/Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||6.85|0.33|
84475565|NCT04093258|168703991|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.19|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||1.19|0.10|
84475566|NCT04093258|168703992|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least square mean difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|0.52|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.52|-12.48|
84475567|NCT04268004|168704014|OTHER|Chi-squared test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.|||||=|0.64|||||||Chi-squared|df=(1, 19)||Chi-square test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.||||=.64
84475568|NCT01082367|168704019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|99.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.52|4.67|<0.001
84475569|NCT02307838|168704074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.59||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.07|0.0155
84475570|NCT01413542|168704106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of ACE inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p\<0.001). Other comparisons: Effect of DPP4 inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p=0.89); Effect of ACE (p=0.16), DPP4 (p=0.82), or combined inhibition (p=0.35) on FBF response to sub P.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Effect of DPP4 inhibition on vasodilator response to GLP-1 (p=0.14) or BNP (p=0.85).~p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance."||"Group 1: The effect of treatment (placebo, ACE or DPP4 inhibitor, or the combination) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as forearm blood flow was determined.~Group 2: The effect of treatment (placebo, DPP4 inhibitor) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as percent change in forearm blood flow was determined."||||<0.001
84475571|NCT01413542|168704107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p=0.02 vs. placebo).Effect of ACE inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p\<0.001); effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P and (p=0.001 vs. ACE inhibition alone).|Mixed Models Analysis|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance||||||0.02
84475572|NCT01413542|168704108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined ACE and DPP4 inhibition on change in heart rate in response to max dose substance P (p=0.011 vs placebo; ).|Wilcoxon signed rank|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.011
84526985|NCT00484419|168806024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1862
84526986|NCT00484419|168806025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.7094
84526987|NCT00484419|168806025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1394||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1394
84526988|NCT00484419|168806025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.4528
84526989|NCT00484419|168806027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0374
84526990|NCT00484419|168806027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
84526991|NCT00484419|168806027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0001
84526992|NCT00484419|168806028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2701||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2701
84526993|NCT00484419|168806028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.6117
84526994|NCT00484419|168806028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2007
84526995|NCT00484419|168806030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
84526996|NCT00484419|168806030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1864
84526997|NCT00484419|168806030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0999
84526998|NCT00484419|168806031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
84526999|NCT00484419|168806031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0566
84527000|NCT00484419|168806031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0217
84527001|NCT03208673|168806085|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric mean|0.5628||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4395|0.7204|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7204|0.4395|.001
84527002|NCT03208673|168806086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal||||0.025
84527003|NCT03208673|168806086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Temporal||||0.312
84527004|NCT03208673|168806087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comfort||||<0.001
84527005|NCT03208673|168806087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Dry||||<0.001
84527006|NCT03208673|168806087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gritty||||<0.001
84527007|NCT03208673|168806087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Vision||||<0.001
84527008|NCT03891329|168806088|OTHER|No comparison of two groups, just single arm design|SADE-free rate in the study group|0.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Cor Family devices until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint.~The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||1|0.9|0.05
84527009|NCT03891329|168806089|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method|||||||||||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method will be applied to estimate the 3-month SADE-free rate at 92 days after implantation (sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint) and the 12-month SADE-free rate at 365 days after implantation.|||
84527010|NCT03176784|168806092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.66
84527011|NCT03176784|168806092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|.85
84527012|NCT03176784|168806092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|1.00
84527013|NCT03176784|168806093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.8|.44
84527014|NCT03176784|168806093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.8|.61
84527015|NCT03176784|168806093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||2.0|0.9|.12
84527016|NCT03176784|168806094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.43
84527017|NCT03176784|168806094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.37
84527018|NCT03176784|168806094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.7|.81
84527019|NCT03176784|168806095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.65
84527020|NCT03176784|168806095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.60
84527021|NCT03176784|168806095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.5|0.7|.86
84475573|NCT01413542|168704109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with placebo.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.05
84475574|NCT01413542|168704109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with ACE inhibition alone (p=0.007).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.007
84475575|NCT01413542|168704110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during placebo (p=0.01).|wilxocon signed rank test|||||||0.01
84475576|NCT01413542|168704110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during sitagliptin (p=0.01).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.01
84475577|NCT01413542|168704110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on venous GLP-1 levels at high dose of intra-arterial GLP-1 (p=0.04 vs. placebo).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.04
84475578|NCT01148563|168704111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||bootstrapping||The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk), with the tele-monitoring group value as the relative risk numerator and the control group value as the denominator. The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|||0.05|-0.65|0.094
84475579|NCT01148563|168704112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.08|||bootstrapping|The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk) with the tele-monitoring group value as the numerator and the control group as the denominator.|||1.08|0.45|0.105
84475580|NCT01879319|168704113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-11.2|
84475581|NCT01879319|168704114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-2.9|
84475582|NCT01668030|168704115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0853
84475583|NCT04724733|168704116|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84475584|NCT04724733|168704116|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84475585|NCT04724733|168704116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0172
84475586|NCT04724733|168704117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.0320
84475587|NCT04724733|168704117|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
84475588|NCT04724733|168704117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
84475589|NCT03372603|168704134|OTHER||Ratio|1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.847|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK2798745 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 90% credible interval is presented.|||1.847|0.965|
84475590|NCT00844649|168704222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.835||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test stratified by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine/gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.835|0.617|<0.0001
84475591|NCT00844649|168704223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.821||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis (yes vs no)|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.821|0.581|<0.0001
84475592|NCT00844649|168704224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.178|4.662|||Chi-squared||Response rate ratio: albumin-bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine /gemcitabine alone|PA+G/PG = response rate ratio of albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine.||4.662|2.178|<0.0001
84475593|NCT02767856|168704234|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not enroll enough samples. The stats here are only for reference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and primary visit outcome||0.16|-0.08|0.48
84475594|NCT02767856|168704235|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. the stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.99|-0.75|0.26
84475595|NCT02767856|168704236|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||74.20|-21.75|0.26
84475596|NCT02767856|168704237|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|19.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-41.3|0.44
84475597|NCT00418379|168704240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84475598|NCT00418379|168704240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
84475599|NCT01594333|168704241|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone)|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.25|0.82|0.91
84475600|NCT01594333|168704242|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.16|0.79|0.67
84475601|NCT01594333|168704243|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.56|0.87|0.32
84527022|NCT02990806|168806096|EQUIVALENCE|A test for equivalence was carried out using an asymmetric margin (-12%, 15%) pre-specified in protocol and a two 1-sided test (TOST) analysis with α=0.05 for each 1-sided statistical test.|Percentage difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5||||||||11.5|-4.3|
84527023|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a responder rate (π) of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant delta (Δ) of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.0986
84527024|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.5682
84527025|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.8543
84527026|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.9167
84527027|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.6052
84527028|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.5369
84527029|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.7732
84527030|NCT01682148|168806147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.1758
84527031|NCT01682148|168806149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.1324||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3531|0.0884||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment, spasticity pattern, country and MAS baseline score.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0884|-0.3531|0.2400
84527032|NCT01682148|168806150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 4.||||0.9448
84527033|NCT01682148|168806150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5458|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 12.||||0.5458
84527034|NCT01682148|168806151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4006|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country.||||||0.4006
84527035|NCT01682148|168806152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.5747
84527036|NCT01682148|168806153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1802|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.1802
84527037|NCT01056640|168806155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|2.297|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, 2-sample t-test and Chi-square analysis were all used.||All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat method. Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sample t test, or Chi-Square analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics. The primary end points of combined and individual percentages of hospitalizations and ED visits were compared using Chi-Square test. Statistical adjustment was planned only if there were statistical differences in clinical variables between the groups. All tests for significance used a 2-sided P value of .05.||2.297|0.747|0.05
84527038|NCT00350402|168806163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.147|11.362|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 38; t = 3.576|Treatment effect size: Cohen's D =1.142|Hypothesis: Parkinson patients assigned to high intensity IMST will show greater improvement in facial movement (entropy) relative to those undergoing Sham IMST.||11.362|3.147|< 0.001
84527039|NCT00350402|168806164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.955|<|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Scores on PDQ-39 would show bigger change for the IMST group than the Sham treatment group. The sample size was not powered for the PDQ-39 (but rather for the primary outcome variable).||3.68|-16.41|<0.459
84527040|NCT00350402|168806165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221|<|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.874|18.978|||t-test, 2 sided|t-value = 2.47, with 37 df||Hypothesis: Changes in MIP following treatment would be greater for participants in the IMST versus the Sham treatment group. This is a validity check on for the IMST intervention.||18.978|1.874|<0.018
84527041|NCT00350402|168806166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|<|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0834|10.17||No adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|38 df, t= 2.058 However, due to inequality of variance (Levine test), the adjusted p-value = \<0.049, and adjusted df = 27.3||Hypothesis: Facial entropy changes would be greater in IMST group than sham treatment group. Sample size was based on preliminary data suggesting total N of 40 would be adequate for detecting change in entropy (of approximately 50%).||10.17|.0834|<0.047
84527042|NCT04844021|168806168|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.31|0.13|
84527043|NCT04844021|168806168|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.61||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.61|0.37|
84527044|NCT00645944|168806174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-7.5|0.039
84527045|NCT04179019|168806216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.96
84527046|NCT04179019|168806217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, plasma aldosterone concentration following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment aldosterone concentration. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the plasma aldosterone value. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.29
84527047|NCT04179019|168806218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, change in plasma aldosterone concentration in response to an acute dose of amlodipine (6h post-dose) was compared to the baseline pre-treatment response to an acute dose of amlodipine. The null hypothesis was that an acute amlodipine dose would result in no acute change in the plasma aldosterone levels. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.83
84527048|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.41|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-1.59|-5.41|
84527049|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.18|-1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-1.89|-5.18|
84527050|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|-2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-2.43|-5.77|
84527051|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.14|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-1.28|-5.14|
84527052|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.41|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.51|-4.41|
84527053|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.03|-2.84|
84475602|NCT01594333|168704244|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.81|0.57
84475603|NCT01594333|168704245|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, type of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.31|0.60|0.54
84475604|NCT01594333|168704246|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time since qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.14|0.84|0.80
84475605|NCT01594333|168704248|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.22|0.53|0.31
84475606|NCT01594333|168704249|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.75|0.38
84475607|NCT01764256|168704254|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event (related or unrelated)||||0.44
84475608|NCT01764256|168704254|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.7446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event: potentially related||||0.7446
84475609|NCT01764256|168704255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.5694|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.5694
84475610|NCT01764256|168704255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1.0000
84475611|NCT01764256|168704255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
84475612|NCT01764256|168704256|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.6004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.6004
84475613|NCT01764256|168704256|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1
84475614|NCT01764256|168704256|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.00
84475615|NCT01764256|168704257|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
84475616|NCT01764256|168704257|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
84475617|NCT01764256|168704257|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
84475618|NCT01764256|168704258|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
84475619|NCT01764256|168704258|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
84475620|NCT01764256|168704258|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
84475621|NCT00304915|168704263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.37|0.003
84475622|NCT03428997|168704294|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects model, where the test material/negative control is a fixed effect and the subject is a random effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.274|||||||2-sided t-test|||Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal between the compared treatments.||||0.274
84475623|NCT01397448|168704308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Log Rank|||||0.31|0.04|<0.001
84475624|NCT01397448|168704308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.23|0.01|<0.001
84475625|NCT02180217|168704317|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|53.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.44|3.73|<.001
84475626|NCT00239837|168704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wald χ2|7.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Data analyzed using repeated logistic regression model (generalized estimating equations). Domain X EV Level X Group interaction tested.|We began the analyses with a full-factorial model regressing choice on domain (gain=1, loss=0), the EV of the risky choice relative to the safe option (EV; range = -.38 to +.38), and dummy-coded treatment groups (Control= -1, Intervention =1).|||||.008
84475627|NCT01709981|168704408|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.31
84475628|NCT01369212|168704413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wald test|Proportion with HBsAg loss at week 240 in each group is estimated by Kaplan-Meier and then equality of proportion is tested using Wald test.||||||0.72
84527054|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||1.29|-2.53|
84527055|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||1.99|-1.84|
84527056|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.22|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||1.10|-3.22|
84527057|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.57|-4.88|
84527058|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.32|-3.77|
84527059|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.33|-1.90|
84527060|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.11|-5.56|
84527061|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||1.25|-2.75|
84527062|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.38|-1.49|
84527063|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||4.58|0.58|
84527064|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||4.98|0.73|
84527065|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.85|6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||6.03|1.85|
84527066|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.61|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.95|3.61|
84527067|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.99|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||8.89|4.99|
84527068|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||5.34|0.93|
84527069|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.40|-0.23|
84527070|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.30|-0.57|
84527071|NCT03465436|168806225|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.63|-2.21|
84527072|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.03|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.60|5.03|
84527073|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.47|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||14.10|10.47|
84527074|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.54|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||13.00|9.54|
84527075|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.97|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.87|9.97|
84527076|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.17|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.79|9.17|
84527077|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||13.87|10.10|
84527078|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.32|14.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.05|10.32|
84527079|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.83|13.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.52|9.83|
84527080|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.39|6.10|
84527081|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.07|5.66|
84527082|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.38|4.32|
84527083|NCT03465436|168806225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.38|3.88|
84527084|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.52|-6.47|
84527085|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.42|-7.18|
84527086|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.57|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-3.82|-7.57|
84527087|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.30|-6.64|
84527088|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-2.19|-6.87|
84527089|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-0.59|-4.90|
84527090|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.86|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.39|-3.86|
84527091|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.44|-3.77|
84527092|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.94|-3.17|
84527093|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.35|-4.58|
84527094|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.43|-3.87|
84527095|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.72|-1.14|
84527096|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.57|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.71|-6.57|
84527097|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-0.39|-4.59|
84527098|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||1.09|-3.02|
84527099|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||3.73|-0.46|
84527100|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||3.81|-0.59|
84527101|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||4.57|0.25|
84527102|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.12|2.48|
84527103|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.02|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||7.27|3.02|
84527104|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||4.79|0.75|
84527105|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.05|-0.55|
84527106|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.69|-0.19|
84527107|NCT03465436|168806226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.48|-2.44|
84527108|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.72|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.41|4.72|
84527109|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.94|13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||13.69|9.94|
84527110|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.16|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||12.74|9.16|
84527111|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.43|9.5|
84527112|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.71|8.9|
84527113|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.42|14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||14.28|10.42|
84527114|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.76|14.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.54|10.76|
84527115|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.23|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.10|9.23|
84527116|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.22|6.02|
84527117|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.01|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.19|6.01|
84527118|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.28|4.23|
84527119|NCT03465436|168806226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.47|8.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.01|3.47|
84527120|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.5|54.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||54.28|11.50|
84527121|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.81|122.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.50|77.81|
84527122|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|107.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|130.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||130.91|83.31|
84527123|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.32|92.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||92.63|56.32|
84527124|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.77|109.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||109.61|68.77|
84527125|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.41|94.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||94.55|55.41|
84527126|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.03|69.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||69.63|36.03|
84527127|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.86|59.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||59.35|24.86|
84527128|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.39|82.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||82.83|42.39|
84527129|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.49|79.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||79.61|32.49|
84527130|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.79|59.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||59.63|11.79|
84527131|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.66|15.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||15.47|-24.66|
84527132|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|76.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||76.35|36.72|
84527133|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|122.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.72|83.88|
84527134|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|94.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.15|113.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||113.26|75.15|
84527135|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|83.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|99.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||99.00|67.98|
84527136|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||120.00|87.28|
84527137|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||107.29|71.24|
84527138|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|65.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|82.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||82.30|48.28|
84527139|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.1|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||69.60|36.10|
84725996|NCT00912964|169204165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.69|0.002
84527140|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|86.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|105.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||105.82|66.36|
84527141|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.32|101.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||101.91|58.32|
84527142|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|67.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|90.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||90.51|44.64|
84527143|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.01|25.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||25.55|-10.01|
84527144|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.44|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-5.60|-38.44|
84527145|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-38.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.15|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-20.60|-57.15|
84527146|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.35|-4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.91|-39.35|
84527147|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.15|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.56|-32.15|
84527148|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.17|16.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||16.12|-18.17|
84527149|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.81|12.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||12.27|-21.81|
84527150|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.36|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.24|-33.36|
84527151|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.94|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.37|-32.94|
84527152|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|23.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||23.11|-10.86|
84527153|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.25|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||19.80|-15.25|
84527154|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.46|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||9.56|-33.46|
84527155|NCT03465436|168806227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.32|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||16.69|-17.32|
84527156|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.41|-0.37|
84527157|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.15|-0.61|
84527158|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.23|-0.47|
84527159|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-0.07|-0.81|
84527160|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.15|-0.95|
84527161|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.00|-0.77|
84527162|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.10|-0.72|
84527163|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.66|
84527164|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.09|-0.98|
84527165|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.31|-0.58|
84527166|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.12|-0.70|
84527167|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.84|0.01|
84527168|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.21|-0.59|
84527169|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.89|0.06|
84527170|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.93|0.19|
84527171|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.77|0.02|
84527172|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.88|0.13|
84527173|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.71|-0.05|
84527174|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.67|-0.02|
84527175|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.84|0.16|
84527176|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.36|-0.56|
84527177|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.33|-0.56|
84527178|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.06|-0.84|
84527179|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.45|-0.37|
84527180|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.28|-0.45|
84527181|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.46|
84527182|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.60|-0.10|
84527183|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.40|-0.38|
84527184|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.37|-0.34|
84527185|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.25|-0.44|
84527186|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.76|
84527187|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.73|
84527188|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.17|-1.03|
84527189|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.04|-0.82|
84527190|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.09|-0.70|
84527191|NCT03465436|168806228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.61|-0.23|
84527192|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-0.16|-2.90|
84527193|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.88|-6.29|
84527194|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.32|-6.81|
84527195|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.01|-5.00|
84527196|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|-3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-3.65|-5.91|
84527197|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.08|-5.20|
84527198|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.01|-3.87|
84527199|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-1.42|-3.42|
84527200|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-3.06|-6.17|
84527201|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-2.26|-5.38|
84527202|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.97|-4.33|
84527203|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.46|-1.22|
84527204|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|-2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.02|-4.16|
84527205|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.65|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-4.58|-6.65|
84527206|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.35|-6.42|
84527207|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.55|-3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.72|-5.55|
84527208|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.77|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-4.87|-6.77|
84527209|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.96|-6.03|
84527210|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.71|-4.68|
84527211|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.21|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-2.17|-4.21|
84527212|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.83|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-4.95|-7.83|
84527213|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.73|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-4.02|-6.73|
84527214|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-3.17|-6.25|
84527215|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.63|-1.74|
84527216|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||2.33|0.32|
84527217|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||3.40|1.19|
84527218|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.28|0.31|
84527219|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||1.97|0.17|
84527220|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||1.23|-0.81|
84527221|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.56|-0.50|
84527222|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||2.44|0.29|
84527223|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.34|0.09|
84527224|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.99|-1.97|
84527225|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.83|-1.54|
84527226|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||2.34|-0.87|
84527227|NCT03465436|168806229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.04|-1.29|
84527228|NCT00710749|168806301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
84527229|NCT00710749|168806301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
84527230|NCT00710749|168806301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
84527231|NCT02985879|168806302|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||2.63|-2.63|=0.998
84527232|NCT02985879|168806302|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.58|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.58|-1.63|=0.464
84527233|NCT02985879|168806304|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.93|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1.93|-1.52|=0.812
84527234|NCT02985879|168806304|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.16|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.16|-0.30|=0.104
84527235|NCT02985879|168806305|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.36|=0.756
84527236|NCT02985879|168806305|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.18|-0.44|=0.409
84527237|NCT02985879|168806306|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.54|=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|19.53|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||19.53|-33.86|=0.597
84527238|NCT02985879|168806306|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.56|=|0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|20.42|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||20.42|-33.04|=0.642
84539733|NCT00509795|168829388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|14.1||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||14.1|-1.0|0.1042
84475629|NCT01369212|168704414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The cumulative percentages with HBsAg loss at week 192 were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and then the equality is tested using Wald test.|Wald Test|||||||0.09
84475630|NCT01369212|168704415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
84475631|NCT01369212|168704416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84475632|NCT01369212|168704417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
84475633|NCT01369212|168704418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
84475634|NCT01369212|168704419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84475635|NCT01369212|168704420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
84475636|NCT01369212|168704421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
84475637|NCT01369212|168704422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
84475638|NCT01369212|168704423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84475639|NCT01369212|168704424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
84475640|NCT01369212|168704425|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
84475641|NCT01369212|168704426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
84475642|NCT01369212|168704427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84475643|NCT01369212|168704428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
84475644|NCT01369212|168704430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
84475645|NCT01369212|168704431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84475646|NCT02007954|168704442|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Shapiro-Wilk test was run for normality. Baseline and follow-up AFP compared using two-tailed Student's t-test.||||.01
84475647|NCT03784027|168704446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|9.9|||Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||9.9|7.4|<0.001
84475648|NCT03784027|168704447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-7.1||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-7.1|-9.9|<0.001
84475649|NCT03784027|168704448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
84475650|NCT03784027|168704449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-4.9|<0.001
84475651|NCT03784027|168704450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.8||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-9.8|-14.8|<0.001
84475652|NCT03784027|168704451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.4|0.74
84475653|NCT03784027|168704452|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.8|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-4.8|-7.6|
84475654|NCT03784027|168704453|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values. Differences in percents are shown in percentage points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.05|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.05|-1.5|
84475655|NCT03784027|168704454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.1|-0.1|
84475656|NCT03784027|168704455|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-0.6|-1.6|
84475657|NCT03784027|168704456|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.009|-0.006|
84527239|NCT02985879|168806307|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|7.51|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||7.51|-2.48|=0.323
84475658|NCT03784027|168704457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Based on a longitudinal model adjusting for baseline value and period as fixed effects. The model accounts for correlated data from the same subject.||||0.03|-0.02|0.75
84475659|NCT03784027|168704458|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||||(For total daily insulin use) Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.8|-0.1|
84475660|NCT01512108|168704497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.27||||0.0026||95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANOVA|||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0026
84475661|NCT01512108|168704498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.3||||0.0458||95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||ANOVA|||||-0.01|-0.60|0.0458
84475662|NCT02455388|168704569|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin set.|||||<|0.001|||||||Intraclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.001
84475663|NCT02455388|168704570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84475664|NCT02455388|168704571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
84475665|NCT04847141|168704572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.4|-14.6|0.5167
84475666|NCT04847141|168704572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 2 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||12.0|-9.6|0.8197
84475667|NCT04847141|168704573|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.44|-0.24|0.5756
84475668|NCT04847141|168704573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.17|-0.52|0.3289
84475669|NCT04847141|168704573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.34|-0.12|0.3418
84475670|NCT04847141|168704573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.13|-0.34|0.3688
84475671|NCT04847141|168704574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||1.2|-4.7|0.1506
84475672|NCT04847141|168704574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||4.6|-1.3|0.1655
84475673|NCT04847141|168704574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||1.7|-6.5|0.2337
84475674|NCT04847141|168704574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||4.2|-6.1|0.7212
84475675|NCT04847141|168704574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.1||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||3.1|-7.8|0.3897
84527240|NCT02985879|168806307|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.02|-4.86|=0.974
84527241|NCT02985879|168806312|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.23|-0.31|=0.761
84527242|NCT02985879|168806312|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.32|=0.678
84527243|NCT02985879|168806313|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.653
84527244|NCT02985879|168806313|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.748
84527245|NCT02985879|168806314|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.74|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-0.60|=0.828
84527246|NCT02985879|168806314|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.87|-0.46|=0.543
84527247|NCT02985879|168806315|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.44|=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|44.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||44.63|-55.66|=0.829
84527248|NCT02985879|168806315|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.92|=|0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.94|18.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||18.23|-83.94|=0.206
84527249|NCT02985879|168806316|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|11.65|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||11.65|-3.65|=0.304
84539734|NCT00509795|168829388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.2|1.2||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||1.2|-13.2|0.1037
84527250|NCT02985879|168806316|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|12.19|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||12.19|-3.11|=0.243
84527251|NCT02985879|168806317|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.86||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.76|79.94|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||79.94|-132.76|0.625
84527252|NCT02985879|168806317|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.47|=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.34|142.71|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||142.71|-76.34|=0.550
84527253|NCT02985879|168806318|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1739.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2502.95|=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3201.75|6680.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||6680.02|-3201.75|=0.488
84527254|NCT02985879|168806318|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|3684.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2487.32|=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1225.46|8595.29|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||8595.29|-1225.46|=0.140
84527255|NCT02985879|168806319|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|207.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.68|=|0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.98|1378.88|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1378.88|-962.98|=0.726
84527256|NCT02985879|168806319|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|133.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|611.91|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1075.26|1342.4|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||1342.40|-1075.26|=0.828
84527257|NCT03821272|168806323|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.45||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.17|0.31
84527258|NCT03821272|168806324|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.31
84527259|NCT03821272|168806325|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.21|0.58
84527260|NCT03821272|168806326|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.58
84527261|NCT05626803|168806333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527262|NCT05626803|168806333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527263|NCT05626803|168806333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0003
84527264|NCT05626803|168806335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527265|NCT05626803|168806335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527266|NCT05626803|168806335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527267|NCT05626803|168806337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527268|NCT05626803|168806337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527269|NCT05626803|168806337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0017
84527270|NCT05626803|168806339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527271|NCT05626803|168806339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527272|NCT05626803|168806339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527273|NCT05626803|168806341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0059
84527274|NCT05626803|168806341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
84527275|NCT05626803|168806341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.1899
84527276|NCT05626803|168806343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527277|NCT05626803|168806343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
84527278|NCT05626803|168806343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
84527279|NCT03959527|168806358|NON_INFERIORITY|A single oral 3 g dose of zoliflodacin would be considered as non-inferior to a combination of a single IM 500 mg dose of ceftriaxone and a single 1 g oral dose of azithromycin if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the microbiological cure rate of the combination therapy minus zoliflodacin was less than 12% (prespecified non-inferiority \[NI\] margin for the primary endpoint).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.65|||||95% CI of the treatment difference of ceftriaxone+ azithromycin combination minus zoliflodacin|Point estimate for the treatment difference in proportion of ceftriaxone/azithromycin combination and zoliflodacin with microbiological cure and 2-sided 95% CI calculated by Newcombe score method.||8.65|1.38|
84527280|NCT00380692|168806448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.0|-3.4||P-value for treatment group differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-10.0|<0.001
84527281|NCT00380692|168806449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.921||95.0|-0.5|0.4||P-value for treatment differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.5|0.921
84527282|NCT00380692|168806450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.369||95.0|-1.8|0.7||P-value for treatment differences in Oppositional Score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.8|0.369
84527283|NCT00380692|168806450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.024||95.0|-3.7|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.024
84527284|NCT00380692|168806450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.179||95.0|-1.7|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Cognititve/Attention score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.7|0.179
84527285|NCT00380692|168806450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.077||95.0|-5.6|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in ADHD score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-5.6|0.077
84527286|NCT00380692|168806452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for treatment differences in Time to fall asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
84527287|NCT00380692|168806452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.407||95.0|-0.3|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Difficulty falling asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.407
84527288|NCT00380692|168806452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.652||95.0|-0.6|0.4||P-value for treatment differences in Total hours of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.652
84527289|NCT00380692|168806452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.112||95.0|-1.7|0.2||P-value for treatment differences in Quality of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.7|0.112
84527290|NCT00380692|168806452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.188||95.0|-2.9|0.6||P-value for treatment differences in Functional outcome during day score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.9|0.188
84527291|NCT00380692|168806453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.452||95.0|-3.5|1.6||P-value for treatment differences in Irritability score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-3.5|0.452
84527292|NCT00380692|168806453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.85||95.0|-2.4|2.0||P-value for treatment differences in Lethargy score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|-2.4|0.850
84527293|NCT00380692|168806453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.014||95.0|-2.8|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Stereotypic score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.8|0.014
84527294|NCT00380692|168806453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.01||95.0|-7.8|-1.1||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-7.8|0.010
84527295|NCT00380692|168806453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.045||95.0|-1.7|0.0||P-value for treatment differences in Inappropriate speech score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.045
84527296|NCT00380692|168806454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.069||95.0|-8.1|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-8.1|0.069
84527297|NCT00380692|168806455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.598||95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.6|0.598
84527298|NCT00380692|168806456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.318||95.0|-33.3|11.0||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||11.0|-33.3|0.318
84527299|NCT00380692|168806457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.948||95.0|-5.5|5.2||P-value for treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|-5.5|0.948
84527300|NCT00380692|168806457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.399||95.0|-9.7|3.9||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-9.7|0.399
84527301|NCT00380692|168806457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.57||95.0|-4.3|7.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate relevant nontargets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-4.3|0.570
84527302|NCT00380692|168806458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.0||0.352||95.0|-193.5|69.8||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.8|-193.5|0.352
84527303|NCT00380692|168806458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.3||0.553||95.0|-160.3|86.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.2|-160.3|0.553
84527304|NCT00380692|168806458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7||0.904||95.0|-107.1|121.1||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||121.1|-107.1|0.904
84527305|NCT00380692|168806459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.9||0.748||95.0|-152.8|110.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.3|-152.8|0.748
84527306|NCT00380692|168806459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.5||0.299||95.0|-234.3|72.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||72.5|-234.3|0.299
84527307|NCT00380692|168806459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.1||0.84||95.0|-119.3|146.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.5|-119.3|0.840
84527308|NCT00380692|168806460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.126||95.0|-1.2|9.9||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-1.2|0.126
84527309|NCT00380692|168806460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.297||95.0|-5.2|1.6||P-value for Treatment\*Error Rate absent over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-5.2|0.297
84527310|NCT00380692|168806460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.023||95.0|-9.4|-0.7||P-value for Treatment\*Targets Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.4|0.023
84527311|NCT00380692|168806461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.7||0.228||95.0|-230.4|56.0||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.0|-230.4|0.228
84527312|NCT00380692|168806461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.3||0.26||95.0|-65.6|240.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||240.8|-65.6|0.260
84527313|NCT00380692|168806461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.5||0.239||95.0|-47.3|188.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.2|-47.3|0.239
84527314|NCT00380692|168806461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.1||0.128||95.0|-35.9|281.4||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||281.4|-35.9|0.128
84527315|NCT00380692|168806462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.0||0.051||95.0|-351.5|0.5||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-351.5|0.051
84527316|NCT00380692|168806462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|218.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.8||0.018||95.0|38.0|398.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.2|38.0|0.018
84527317|NCT00380692|168806462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|173.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6||0.103||95.0|-35.7|383.0||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||383.0|-35.7|0.103
84527318|NCT00380692|168806462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|205.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.9||0.042||95.0|7.5|403.6||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||403.6|7.5|0.042
84527319|NCT00380692|168806463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.128||95.0|-16.9|2.3||P-value for Treatment difference in Accuracy over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-16.9|0.128
84527320|NCT00380692|168806464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.022||95.0|-11.2|-1.0||P-value for Treatment difference in Stability of Movement over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-11.2|0.022
84527321|NCT00380692|168806465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.43||95.0|-2.4|5.7||P-value for Treatment difference in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-2.4|0.430
84527322|NCT00380692|168806465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.005||95.0|-11.8|-2.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-11.8|0.005
84527323|NCT00380692|168806466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.221||95.0|-9.6|2.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rates over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-9.6|0.221
84527324|NCT00380692|168806466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.307||95.0|-2.1|6.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rates compatible signals over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.307
84527325|NCT00380692|168806467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.9||0.752||95.0|-163.1|119.1||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.1|-163.1|0.752
84475676|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||13.3|-7.1|0.5489
84475677|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.4||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||14.7|-5.8|0.3920
84475678|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.9||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||12.9|-9.5|0.7632
84475679|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||19.2|-3.6|0.1702
84475680|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|9.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||9.4|-13.3|0.7316
84475681|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||18.0|-4.2|0.2104
84475682|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||13.2|-2.9|0.2059
84475683|NCT04847141|168704575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||10.3|-6.5|0.6463
84475684|NCT04847141|168704576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9033|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9033
84475685|NCT04847141|168704576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5456
84527326|NCT00380692|168806467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.9||0.564||95.0|-47.0|84.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||84.3|-47.0|0.564
84475686|NCT04847141|168704577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.79||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.6|-2.9|0.6311
84475687|NCT04847141|168704577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.6||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.3|-1.2|0.1441
84475688|NCT04847141|168704578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.02||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 1 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.27|-0.23|0.8555
84475689|NCT04847141|168704578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 2 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.28|-0.22|0.8108
84475690|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.07|-0.00|0.0692
84475691|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.05|-0.02|0.4956
84527327|NCT01286558|168806538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||||95.0|-0.22|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-0.22|
84475692|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.03|-0.13|0.2200
84475693|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.01||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.01|-0.14|0.0906
84475694|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||-0.00|-0.07|0.0439
84475695|NCT04847141|168704580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.02|-0.05|0.4128
84475696|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.27|-0.28|0.9713
84475697|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.35|-0.20|0.5985
84475698|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.28|-0.25|0.9209
84475699|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.25|-0.28|0.9181
84475700|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.41|-0.11|0.2443
84475701|NCT04847141|168704582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.39|-0.13|0.3233
84475702|NCT04847141|168704583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||11.5|-5.3|0.4676
84475703|NCT04847141|168704583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||13.4|-3.6|0.2507
84475704|NCT04847141|168704584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.0|-3.8|0.9744
84475705|NCT04847141|168704584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.7||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.5|-1.6|0.1878
84475706|NCT04847141|168704585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.40|-0.38|0.9485
84475707|NCT04847141|168704585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.54|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.54|-0.25|0.4734
84527328|NCT01286558|168806539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||||95.0|-0.36|4.64|||ANCOVA|||||4.64|-0.36|
84527329|NCT01286558|168806540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||||95.0|-2.58|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-2.58|
84527330|NCT01286558|168806541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-4.16|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-4.16|
84527331|NCT01286558|168806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||||95.0|-2.57|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-2.57|
84527332|NCT01286558|168806543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-4.27|0.99|||ANCOVA|||||0.99|-4.27|
84527333|NCT01287039|168806579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3726|0.6737||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6737|0.3726|<0.0001
84527334|NCT01287039|168806580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.198|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.198|0.076|<0.0001
84527335|NCT01287039|168806581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.428|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.428|0.048|0.0143
84527336|NCT01287039|168806582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0681||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.132|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||-0.132|-0.399|0.0001
84527337|NCT01287039|168806583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.575|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.750|0.440|<0.0001
84527338|NCT01287039|168806584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.083|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.083|0.034|<0.0001
84527339|NCT01287039|168806585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1632||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.045|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, OCS use at enrollment as fixed factors, and covariate for baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.045|-0.597|0.0919
84726075|NCT00674609|169204433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.46||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.05|-0.13|0.126
84475708|NCT04847141|168704586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
84475709|NCT04847141|168704586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
84475710|NCT04847141|168704587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.12|-0.07|0.5780
84475711|NCT04847141|168704587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.10|-0.09|0.9065
84475712|NCT04847141|168704591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
84527340|NCT01287039|168806586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 16 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.418|-0.514|<0.0001
84527341|NCT01287039|168806586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|-0.419|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 52 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.419|-0.491|<0.0001
84527342|NCT01287039|168806588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3255|0.622||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6220|0.3255|<0.0001
84527343|NCT01287039|168806588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.6595||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.355||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.3550|0.3210|0.2572
84527344|NCT03923699|168806645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.85|0.41
84527345|NCT03923699|168806646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.10|0.92|0.92
84527346|NCT03923699|168806647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.09|0.89|0.68
84527347|NCT03923699|168806648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.92|0.42
84527348|NCT03923699|168806649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.99
84527349|NCT03923699|168806650|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.95|0.95
84527350|NCT03923699|168806651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.00|0.29
84527351|NCT03923699|168806652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.01|0.37
84527352|NCT03923699|168806653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.95|0.30
84527353|NCT03923699|168806654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.85
84527354|NCT03923699|168806655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, poisson|||||1.02|0.97|0.51
84527355|NCT03438396|168806659|OTHER|The statistical hypotheses was tested to address ORR \<= 11% vs. ORR \> 11%.||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided exact test|||||||0.0002
84527356|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527357|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527358|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527359|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.003||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.003
84527360|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527361|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.071||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.071
84527362|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527363|NCT00262041|168806672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
84527364|NCT00834652|168806677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84527365|NCT01173471|168806692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||12.6|-15.2|0.822
84527366|NCT01173471|168806692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||4.3|-10.1|0.413
84527367|NCT01173471|168806694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||3.7|-4.8|0.758
84527368|NCT01173471|168806694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||1.2|-2.5|0.467
84527369|NCT04060719|168806723|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|11.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.28|9.74|
84527370|NCT04060719|168806724|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|30.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.76|35.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 25.2.|Relative bioavailability||35.02|25.76|
84527371|NCT04060719|168806725|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.66|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.18|9.66|
84527372|NCT06005597|168806751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-48.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.33|-38.89|||ANCOVA|||||-38.89|-58.33|<.0001
84527373|NCT06005597|168806752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.893|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-18.35|||ANCOVA|||||-18.35|-37.53|<.0001
84527374|NCT06005597|168806753|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-16.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.918||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-7.12|||ANCOVA|||||-7.12|-26.40|0.0007
84527375|NCT06005597|168806754|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.993|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.64|-22.07|||ANCOVA|||||-22.07|-41.64|<.0001
84527376|NCT06005597|168806755|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.84|||ANCOVA|||||-36.84|-53.43|<.0001
84527377|NCT06005597|168806756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.99|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.40|-35.99|<.0001
84527378|NCT06005597|168806757|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|-21.53|||ANCOVA|||||-21.53|-38.28|<.0001
84527379|NCT06005597|168806758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-12.82|||ANCOVA|||||-12.82|-26.73|<.0001
84527380|NCT06005597|168806759|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|-17.22|||ANCOVA|||||-17.22|-33.67|<.0001
84527381|NCT06005597|168806760|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-7.36|||ANCOVA|||||-7.36|-21.06|<.0001
84527382|NCT06005597|168806761|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.236||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-6.93|||ANCOVA|||||-6.93|-23.53|0.0003
84527383|NCT06005597|168806762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.493||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-2.57|||ANCOVA|||||-2.57|-16.26|0.007
84527384|NCT03998436|168806763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.17|||Chi-squared|||||4.17|1.08|0.0276
84527385|NCT03998436|168806764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.708||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.99|||Chi-squared|||||5.99|1.22|0.0126
84527386|NCT02654587|168806844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91||OS in patients with ICI secondary resistance|t-test, 2 sided||p=0.017|||0.91|0.38|<0.05
84527387|NCT02654587|168806844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||OS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary resistance)||1.19|0.62|0.36
84527388|NCT02654587|168806845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.79|0.27|0.004
84527389|NCT02654587|168806845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.83|0.39|0.0035
84527390|NCT02654587|168806846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS \>1 in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.80|0.23|0.006
84527391|NCT02654587|168806846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.92|0.35|0.02
84527392|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.045|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ C30 Global Health Status in Patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
84527393|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Physical functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.07
84527394|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Role functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
84527395|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Emotional functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.36
84527396|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.24||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Cognitive functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.24
84527397|NCT02654587|168806847|SUPERIORITY|QLQ-C30 Social functioning|P Value|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
84527398|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.06||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Fatigue in ICI secondary resistance||||0.06
84527399|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0003||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Constipation in ICI secondary resistance||||0.0003
84527400|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.8||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Dyspnea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.80
84527401|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting in ICI secondary resistance||||0.21
84527402|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Pain in ICI secondary resistance||||0.45
84527403|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Insomnia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.87
84527404|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.59||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Appetite loss in ICI secondary resistance||||0.59
84527405|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Diarrhea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.88
84527406|NCT02654587|168806848|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Financial difficulties in ICI secondary resistance||||0.37
84527407|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Alopecia in ICI secondary resistance||||<0.0001
84527408|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Peripheral neuropathy in ICI secondary resistance||||0.03
84527409|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Sore mouth in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
84527410|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
84527411|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.35||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in arm and shoulder||||0.35
84527412|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in chest in ICI secondary resistance||||0.43
84527413|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.78||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in other parts||||0.78
84527414|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Hemoptysis in ICI secondary resistance||||0.23
84527415|NCT02654587|168806849|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Coughing in ICI secondary resistance||||0.54
84527416|NCT02654587|168806850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.75|0.43|0.87
84527417|NCT02654587|168806850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||1.46|0.36|0.37
84527418|NCT02654587|168806851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.0|0.82|0.29
84527419|NCT02654587|168806851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||2.28|1.18|<0.05
84527420|NCT02654587|168806852|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ICI secondary resistance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.11|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.11|0.10|0.07
84527421|NCT02654587|168806852|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.002
84527422|NCT02654587|168806853|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response at 6 months in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.3|||Regression, Cox|||||5.30|0.25|0.88
84527423|NCT02654587|168806853|SUPERIORITY|Duration of Response at 6 months in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Cox|||||4.60|0.43|0.57
84527424|NCT02654587|168806854|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.31|||Regression, Cox|||||3.31|1.03|0.04
84527425|NCT02654587|168806854|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.07|0.02
84527426|NCT02654587|168806855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.86|1.00|<0.05
84527427|NCT00904748|168806857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.03|105.82|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.82|92.03|
84527428|NCT00904748|168806857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.67|104.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.26|90.67|
84527429|NCT00904748|168806858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|80.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.38|90.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||90.26|72.38|
84527430|NCT00904748|168806858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.53|87.96|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||87.96|70.53|
84527431|NCT00904748|168806859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|105.93|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.93|92.76|
84527432|NCT00904748|168806859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.56|104.56|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.56|91.56|
84527433|NCT00904748|168806860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.50|-0.14|
84527434|NCT00904748|168806860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.28|-0.27|
84527435|NCT02377921|168806899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.74||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.09||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model includes change from Baseline (BL) as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and BL values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||3.09|-1.61|0.5387
84527436|NCT02377921|168806900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.58||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||1.58|-2.38|0.6938
84527437|NCT02377921|168806901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||2.86|-5.83|0.5023
84527438|NCT02377921|168806902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.57||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||0.57|-2.01|0.2739
84527439|NCT02377921|168806903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-6.27|0.1235
84527440|NCT02377921|168806904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.55||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.55|-1.40|0.3907
84527441|NCT02377921|168806905|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.98||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|5.68||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||5.68|-27.64|0.1964
84527442|NCT02377921|168806906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER - placebo|||0.86|-3.66|0.2241
84527443|NCT02377921|168806907|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-1.39|0.5608
84527444|NCT00595335|168807001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' CAS score at 6 months.||||0.73
84527445|NCT00595335|168807002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 6 months.||||0.75
84527446|NCT00595335|168807002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
84527447|NCT00595335|168807004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in proptosis in the right eye at 12 months.||||0.97
84527448|NCT00595335|168807004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in change in proptosis in left eye at 12 months.||||0.86
84527449|NCT00595335|168807005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the right eye between the two groups.||||0.98
84527450|NCT00595335|168807005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the left eye between the two groups.||||0.49
84527451|NCT00595335|168807006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 6 months.||||0.21
84527452|NCT00595335|168807006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 12 months.||||0.64
84527453|NCT00595335|168807007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 6 months.||||0.36
84527454|NCT00595335|168807007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 6 months.||||0.91
84527455|NCT00595335|168807007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 12 months.||||0.29
84527456|NCT00595335|168807007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 12 months.||||0.18
84527457|NCT00595335|168807008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
84527458|NCT04843566|168807049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
84527459|NCT04843566|168807049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
84527460|NCT04843566|168807049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
84527461|NCT04843566|168807050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Pain||||0.002
84527462|NCT04843566|168807050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Discomfort||||0.05
84527463|NCT04843566|168807050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Pain||||<0.0001
84527464|NCT04843566|168807050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Discomfort||||0.07
84527465|NCT04843566|168807051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
84527466|NCT04843566|168807052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||Gleason grade \>=2||||0.59
84527467|NCT04843566|168807053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
84527468|NCT04843566|168807053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
84527469|NCT04843566|168807053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
84527470|NCT01131299|168807123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum sample size to detect an 8 mg/dl change in total plasma cholesterol between the placebo and alpha cyclodextrin periods is 62 subjects. The power is 80% by using the normal approximation to a one-sample (paired) two-tail t-test at an alpha of 0.05.||||0.82
84527471|NCT01131299|168807124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84527472|NCT01131299|168807125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84527473|NCT01131299|168807126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84527474|NCT01642914|168807164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0054
84527475|NCT01642914|168807164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0012
84527476|NCT01642914|168807177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.193||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.3||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.300|.086|0.0006
84527477|NCT01642914|168807177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.227||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.227|.064|0.0022
84527478|NCT01642914|168807178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.72|1.09|.0054
84527479|NCT01642914|168807178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.55|0.99|0.0470
84527480|NCT01642914|168807184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.56||p-values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.56|1.09|0.0264
84527481|NCT02566993|168807185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.148|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.148|0.815|0.9029
84527482|NCT02566993|168807186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2826|||||||Normal test|||||||0.2826
84527483|NCT02566993|168807187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6216|||||||Normal test|||||||0.6216
84527484|NCT02566993|168807188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9708|||||||Normal test|||||||0.9708
84527485|NCT02566993|168807189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.996|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||0.996|0.693|0.3257
84527486|NCT02566993|168807190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0851
84527487|NCT02566993|168807191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0129
84527488|NCT02566993|168807193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6616|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.6616
84527489|NCT02566993|168807194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.812|||Log Rank|||||0.812|0.416|0.0012
84527490|NCT02566993|168807195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.14||||||||1.140|0.744|
84527491|NCT02566993|168807196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.863||||||||0.863|0.549|
84527492|NCT02566993|168807198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.376||||||||1.376|0.616|
84527493|NCT02566993|168807199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.736||||||||0.736|0.346|
84527494|NCT02566993|168807200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||||||||1.500|0.840|
84527495|NCT02566993|168807201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.786||||||||1.786|0.955|
84527496|NCT02566993|168807203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|1.843||||||||1.843|0.455|
84527497|NCT02566993|168807204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|2.36||||||||2.360|0.506|
84527498|NCT02566993|168807205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.113||||||||1.113|0.765|
84527499|NCT02566993|168807206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.961||||||||0.961|0.645|
84527500|NCT02566993|168807208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.307||||||||1.307|0.624|
84527501|NCT02566993|168807209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.799||||||||0.799|0.392|
84527502|NCT02566993|168807210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.99||||||||1.990|0.838|
84527503|NCT02566993|168807211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.019||||||||2.019|0.824|
84527504|NCT02566993|168807213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.641||||||||2.641|0.403|
84527505|NCT02566993|168807214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|2.75||||||||2.750|0.373|
84527506|NCT04323098|168807215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||P-value was based on two-sided t-test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0057
84527507|NCT05611996|168807242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|-0.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.||-0.230|-3.336|0.025
84527508|NCT05611996|168807242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.057|-0.784||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.||-0.784|-4.057|0.005
84527509|NCT05611996|168807242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9039|-0.1897||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference of the PHQ-9 score by each unit increase of the time(each week increase)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores over time for all study participants.||-0.1897|-0.9039|0.0040
84527510|NCT04479475|168807252|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical test. We used it to assess repeated measures of missed methadone doses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact p-value reported due to small sample size|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||We opted not to include the 95% confidence interval due to the non-parametric nature of the data.|||||0.0094
84527511|NCT01300052|168807273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|21.8||||||Difference in percentage was calculated as values of AN2728 Ointment, 2% group minus values of AN2728 Ointment, Vehicle group.||21.8|-14.3|
84527512|NCT04572243|168807280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.01|-28.14||||||||-28.14|-144.01|
84527513|NCT04572243|168807281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|44.35||||||||44.35|0.81|
84527514|NCT01231373|168807288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.04|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of polidocanol treatment groups versus placebo (absolute change from baseline to week 8 in patient assessment of symptoms of varicose veins (VVSymQ) score.||-2.04|-4.63|<0.0001
84527515|NCT01231373|168807288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-5.26|<0.0001
84527516|NCT01231373|168807288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-4.33|<0.0001
84527517|NCT01231373|168807289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.0001
84527518|NCT01231373|168807289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
84527519|NCT01231373|168807289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.97|<0.0001
84527520|NCT01231373|168807290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.59|<0.0001
84527521|NCT01231373|168807290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.90|<0.0001
84527522|NCT01231373|168807290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-1.83|<0.0001
84527523|NCT02278718|168807309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|||Wilcoxon test statistic was estimated using generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan test stratified by center group, age group, % TBSA group, proportion of FT area group and number of TWs group. A negative (positive) statistic is associated with longer (shorter) time to the event when treated with NexoBrid vs. Standard of Care. P-value was calculated using the re-randomization test.||||0.0008
84527524|NCT02278718|168807310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||Incidence of Surgical Excision for Eschar Removal for NexoBrid vs SOC||0.090|0.007|<0.0001
84527525|NCT02278718|168807311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1374
84527526|NCT02278718|168807312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5045
84527527|NCT02278718|168807313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.054|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.054|0.163|0.0545
84527528|NCT04440449|168807314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84527529|NCT04440449|168807315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
84527530|NCT05444543|168807333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
84527531|NCT05444543|168807334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
84527532|NCT04740931|168807362|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|
84527533|NCT04740931|168807362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Tested at a two-sided p\<0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept (at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|0.6715
84475713|NCT04847141|168704591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
84475714|NCT02528253|168704612|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.66|0.1117
84475715|NCT02528253|168704612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.76|0.0281
84475716|NCT02528253|168704613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
84475717|NCT02528253|168704613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
84475718|NCT02528253|168704614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.50|0.3118
84475719|NCT02528253|168704614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.60|0.0958
84475720|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0015
84475721|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.65|0.0004
84475722|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.39|0.0959
84475723|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0370
84527534|NCT04740931|168807364|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.4|
84475724|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.76|0.0008
84475725|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.96|<.0001
84475726|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0711
84475727|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0661
84527535|NCT04740931|168807380|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.7|
84527536|NCT01949116|168807467|NON_INFERIORITY|The P-value for the risk difference is from an asymptotic non-inferiority analysis for the proportion (risk) difference with a 15% non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.072||||0.0367|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.134|||Farrington-Manning score (exact)||LDMTX - Placebo|||0.134||0.0367
84527537|NCT01949116|168807468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by Statin Use (study stratification factor)||||0.85|-0.67|0.55
84527538|NCT03399318|168807481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. A t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.|t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis of the primary outcome variable, Tmax, involved fitting an analysis of 206 covariance model with treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. The estimated 208 treatment effect and associated 95% confidence interval, as well as a t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.||||<0.0001
84527539|NCT03399318|168807482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Seizure occurrence defined as a three-level ordinal variable was analyzed using a 223 multinomial logistic regression model because there was evidence that the proportional odds 224 assumption did not hold. This model included treatment group as the factor of interest and 225 country and disease severity as stratification factors. The adjusted treatment group odds ratio, 226 and its associated 95% confidence interval were derived from this model.||.27|.03|<0.05
84527540|NCT03399318|168807483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.7||The covariance matrix for the within-participant observations was 232 modeled using an unstructured pattern.|ANCOVA|Time to parasite clearance was 235 evaluated using a discrete-time proportional hazards model with a complementary log-log link.|The adjusted treatment group difference in mean area 233 under the log10(HRP2 level) × time curve was estimated using appropriate contrasts among the 234 treatment group means over time that quantify this comparison.|Parasite clearance measured by log10 (HRP2 level) was analyzed with a repeated 228 measures analysis of covariance model (mixed model repeated measures)35 with terms for 229 treatment group, country, disease severity, log10(HRP2 level) at admission, time (treated as a 230 categorical variable), and interaction terms for admission log10(HRP2 level) and time, and for 231 treatment group and time.|The model included terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity.|17.7|-5.1|<0.05
84527541|NCT03399318|168807484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.52||An ordinal logistic regression model assuming 216 proportional odds with terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity as covariates was used to derive the estimated adjusted treatment group odds ratio and 95%CI|Regression, Logistic|Sensitivity analyses with best-case and worst-case imputation were 219 performed to accommodate missing data||A secondary efficacy measure included fever exposure as measured by the area under 214 the temperature × time curve for T≥38.5°C during the 72-hour follow-up period, categorized as 215 0, \> 0 and \< 2, and ≥ 2 degree-hours.||.52|.20|<0.05
84527542|NCT01138111|168807502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0001
84527543|NCT01138111|168807502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 12 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0011
84527544|NCT01138111|168807502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 24 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0008
84527545|NCT00515034|168807516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|26.8|||normal approximation to the binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem/cilastatin) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are provided.||26.8|-54.4|
84527546|NCT00515034|168807517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|50.6|||normal approximation to binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are presented.||50.6|-13.2|
84527547|NCT02858726|168807518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
84527548|NCT02858726|168807518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||0.2|-1.9|0.107
84527549|NCT02858726|168807518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.2|-2.3|0.019
84527550|NCT02858726|168807519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-4.8|-16.0|<0.001
84527551|NCT02858726|168807519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-1.4|-13.1|0.016
84527552|NCT02858726|168807519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-12.8|0.026
84527553|NCT02508259|168807521|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that before and after treatment ADOS scores were equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.9|-2.3|0.0028
84527554|NCT02508259|168807522|EQUIVALENCE|The child-specific difference in EOWPVT scores were compared for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||6.1|-14.5|0.32
84527555|NCT02508259|168807523|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was tested that the child-specific ABC subscores for stereotypy were unchanged before and after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-1.1|-6.9|0.019
84527556|NCT02508259|168807524|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, we tested the equivalence of the child-specific ATEC subscore for language before and 6-weeks after treatment with suramin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.49|-2.7|0.034
84527557|NCT02508259|168807525|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, overall ASD symptom scores, measured by CGI were compared between suramin and placebo groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.15|||ANOVA|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.15|-3.4|0.05
84527558|NCT02508259|168807526|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the child-specific RBQ score was tested for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||4.0|-10.4|0.28
84527559|NCT01036490|168807531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84527560|NCT01036490|168807532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
84527561|NCT01036490|168807535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84527562|NCT01036490|168807536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
84527563|NCT03861481|168807558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Rozimab - Placebo)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|0.788|||||MMRM analysis (fixed effect terms: treatment, baseline iRODS score, prior Ig therapy administration route, assessment week, treatment by week interaction; random effect term: study participant). LS Mean Difference \> 0 favours rozanolixizumab.|||0.788|-0.892|
84527564|NCT00773734|168807559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.7|||Chi-squared|||||13.7|-2.6|0.1846
84527565|NCT00773734|168807559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7|||Chi-squared|||||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
84527566|NCT00773734|168807559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|46.6|||Chi-squared|||||46.6|23.9|<0.0001
84527567|NCT00773734|168807561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.8|-0.4|0.0590
84527568|NCT00773734|168807561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|36.0|||Chi-squared|||||36.0|8.3|0.0023
84527569|NCT00773734|168807561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|48.9|||Chi-squared|||||48.9|21.6|<0.0001
84527570|NCT00773734|168807563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||Chi-squared|||||8.2|-1.5|0.1776
84527571|NCT00773734|168807563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.5|||Chi-squared|||||14.5|1.6|0.0158
84527572|NCT00773734|168807563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|17.2|||Chi-squared|||||17.2|3.2|0.0051
84527573|NCT00773734|168807568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.6|-24.8|0.0156
84527574|NCT00773734|168807568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-13.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-13.9|-36.4|<0.0001
84527575|NCT00773734|168807568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-21.7|-44.0|<0.0001
84527576|NCT00773734|168807570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.3|||Chi-squared|||||7.3|-11.7|0.6541
84527577|NCT00773734|168807570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Chi-squared|||||24.1|0.6|0.0402
84527578|NCT00773734|168807570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|8.8|0.0011
84475728|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.70|0.0009
84475729|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.84|0.0008
84475730|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.00|<.0001
84475731|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.61|0.0274
84475732|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.50|0.1495
84475733|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.65|0.0123
84475734|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.71|0.0307
84475735|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.91|0.0009
84475736|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.51|0.2103
84475737|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.48|0.2656
84475738|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.68|0.0152
84527579|NCT00773734|168807574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-7.5|-33.0|0.0020
84527580|NCT00773734|168807574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-17.0|||ANCOVA|based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-17.0|-42.9|<0.0001
84475739|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.50|0.5164
84475740|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.66|0.1488
84475741|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.60|0.2431
84475742|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2428
84527581|NCT00773734|168807574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-42.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||-29.5|-55.2|<0.0001
84527582|NCT00773734|168807576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-3.1|0.1322
84527583|NCT00773734|168807576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.3|-5.9|<0.0001
84527584|NCT00773734|168807576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0047
84527585|NCT00773734|168807578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||5.8|0.9|0.0078
84527586|NCT00773734|168807578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.5||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.0|1.0|0.0068
84527587|NCT00773734|168807578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.6||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.1|1.1|0.0045
84527588|NCT00773734|168807579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.8|-1.6|0.6097
84527589|NCT00773734|168807579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.6|-0.9|0.2424
84527590|NCT00773734|168807579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.9528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.3|-2.2|0.9528
84527591|NCT02119286|168807709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.152|0.091|<0.001
84527592|NCT02119286|168807709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.141|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.141|0.081|<0.001
84527593|NCT02119286|168807710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.179|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.179|0.114|<0.001
84527594|NCT02119286|168807710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.167|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.167|0.103|<0.001
84527595|NCT01272921|168807717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||Z score|||||0.54|0.49|<0.001
84527596|NCT01272921|168807717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.21|||Z score|||||0.21|0.18|<0.001
84527597|NCT01272921|168807718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.0||Post hoc comparison were made against the 30-mL volume group and corrected for 6 comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-17.00|0.05
84527598|NCT01272921|168807718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-15.00|0.05
84527599|NCT01272921|168807718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-4.00|-10.00|0.05
84527600|NCT01272921|168807718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-2.00|-7.00|0.05
84527601|NCT01744093|168807756|OTHER|Descriptive proportion|Proportion (percent)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|45.6|||||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|||45.6|4.0|
84527602|NCT01744093|168807757|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (percent)|6.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|30.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|Null hypothesis adverse event rate (grade 2 or higher toxicity) = 45.5%||30.2|0.16|0.002
84527603|NCT02006628|168807762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-2.8||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the response variable, treatment as fixed effect, and individual baseline subscore and age as covariates.||||0.9|-6.5|0.1332
84527604|NCT02006628|168807763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|Responder (yes/no) is the dependent variable with treatment included as factor and age and baseline P, G, and N scores included as covariates.||||8.00|0.86|0.0896
84527605|NCT02006628|168807764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.4||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.5|0.0188
84527606|NCT02006628|168807765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|0.0||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|0.9647
84527607|NCT02006628|168807766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.3||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.2|0.1963
84718753|NCT00571649|169189190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI (Confidence Interval) was less than 1.5|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.968||||0.0025||95.0|0.713|1.314||Hochberg procedure: A 1-sided p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant, if the 2-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.05, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.0125 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (98.6% power for non-inferiority) with 1.8% event rate at day 10 for comparator and 35% relative risk reduction.||1.314|0.713|0.0025
84475743|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.54|0.4561
84475744|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.56|0.3523
84475745|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.53|0.4403
84475746|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.58|0.3205
84475747|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.51|0.5763
84475748|NCT02528253|168704615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.61|0.2887
84527608|NCT02006628|168807767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-3.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-7.9|0.1167
84527609|NCT02006628|168807768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.3||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0443
84527610|NCT02006628|168807769|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.5||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0182
84527611|NCT02006628|168807770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|1.31||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-0.10|0.0677
84475749|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.50|0.0121
84527612|NCT01939496|168807780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|-6.743|0.062
84527613|NCT01939496|168807780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.382|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||||-1.469|-8.382|0.006
84527614|NCT02384941|168807795|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||<0.001
84527615|NCT02384941|168807795|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||< 0.001
84527616|NCT02384941|168807796|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|19.36||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint of each treatment comparison was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||19.36|4.28|0.002
84527617|NCT02384941|168807796|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.64||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||29.64|14.10|< 0.001
84527618|NCT02384941|168807797|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.85||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.85|-2.85|< 0.001
84527619|NCT02384941|168807797|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.94||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-2.94|-3.95|< 0.001
84527620|NCT02384941|168807798|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.30|-3.30|0.10
84527621|NCT02384941|168807798|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.50|-5.09|< 0.001
84527622|NCT02384941|168807799|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.48||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.48|-1.50|< 0.001
84527623|NCT02384941|168807800|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||3.3|1.8|< 0.001
84527624|NCT02384941|168807801|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
84527625|NCT02493777|168807803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84527626|NCT02493777|168807804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
84527627|NCT00468728|168807805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.8||||||H0: C(OPT-80) - C(VAN) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||6.8|-4.8|
84527628|NCT00468728|168807806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.0|||Chi-squared|||||-7.0|-21.6|<0.001
84527629|NCT00468728|168807807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.001||95.0|5.4|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|5.4|0.001
84527630|NCT03028740|168807814|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|-8.2|0.2067
84527631|NCT03028740|168807814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6341|1.1044|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1044|0.6341|
84527632|NCT03028740|168807816|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.5||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-4.8|0.2827
84527633|NCT03028740|168807816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5032|1.2229|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.2229|0.5032|
84527634|NCT03028740|168807817|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.3|-8.7|0.4054
84527635|NCT03028740|168807817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6709|1.1744|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1744|0.6709|
84527636|NCT03212794|168807829|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.87
84527637|NCT03212794|168807830|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.82||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.82
84527638|NCT03212794|168807831|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.92
84527639|NCT03212794|168807832|OTHER||||||=|0.85||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.85
84527640|NCT05528861|168807833|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-3.6|0.8174
84527641|NCT05528861|168807834|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.6|0.5857
84527642|NCT05528861|168807835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-2.2|0.9633
84527643|NCT05528861|168807836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.25||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.78|||Fisher Exact|||||23.78|-11.40|0.1201
84527644|NCT01602172|168807850|EQUIVALENCE|Results of the regression models were used to reject null hypotheses of equivalence with p-values of comparisons across groups in changes in alcohol related measures using p-values \< 0.05 as significant.||||||0.05||||||First, significance of the regression model was viewed. When the overall model was significant, tests of the co-efficients were viewed. Primary effects of interest were the treatment group X time interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Measures were compared with linear mixed effects regression models to compare impact of BI compared to usual care conditions. Analyses reported here included only those that completed the 6 month interview (71/82 baseline participants).||||.05
84527645|NCT03438227|168807862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
84527646|NCT03438227|168807863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
84527647|NCT03438227|168807864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84527648|NCT03438227|168807865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
84527649|NCT03438227|168807866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
84527650|NCT03438227|168807867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.194
84475750|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-2.05|<.0001
84475751|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.89|0.3697
84475752|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.16|0.0658
84475753|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.70|0.0004
84475754|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.96|0.0013
84475755|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.21|-2.70|<.0001
84475756|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.99|0.3906
84475757|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.60|0.0082
84475758|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.34|<.0001
84475759|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-2.15|0.0006
84527651|NCT03438227|168807868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
84527652|NCT03438227|168807869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
84527653|NCT03438227|168807870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
84527654|NCT03438227|168807871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84527655|NCT03438227|168807872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
84475760|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.73|<.0001
84475761|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-1.47|0.0385
84475762|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-2.06|0.0003
84527656|NCT03438227|168807873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
84527657|NCT03438227|168807874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
84527658|NCT03438227|168807875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
84527659|NCT02994355|168807876|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||||1.52|1.16|<0.05
84527660|NCT02994355|168807877|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.3|||Poisson regression|||||1.30|1.15|<0.05
84527661|NCT02994355|168807878|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|3.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.55|||Poisson regression|||||4.55|2.29|<0.05
84527662|NCT03050918|168807883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||we used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
84527663|NCT03050918|168807884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84475763|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
84475764|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
84475765|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-1.09|0.5412
84475766|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.87|0.0107
84475767|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-2.29|0.0004
84475768|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.94|0.0464
84475769|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.37|-2.30|0.0068
84475770|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-1.70|0.1485
84475771|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.94|0.0507
84475772|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.41|-1.60|0.2480
84475773|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-1.71|0.1605
84475774|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.50|0.3654
84475775|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-1.71|0.1782
84475776|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.58|-1.47|0.3981
84475777|NCT02528253|168704617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-1.84|0.1089
84475778|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1472
84475779|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0135
84527664|NCT03050918|168807884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
84527665|NCT03050918|168807885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84527666|NCT03050918|168807885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
84527667|NCT03050918|168807886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
84527668|NCT03050918|168807887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84527669|NCT03050918|168807888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84527670|NCT03050918|168807890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84527671|NCT03832738|168807894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.8||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|0.39|0.558
84527672|NCT03832738|168807894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.1||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.10|1.07|0.035
84527673|NCT03832738|168807895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.89|0.086
84527674|NCT03832738|168807895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.75|1.45|0.006
84527675|NCT03832738|168807896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.25||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.25|0.06|>0.999
84527676|NCT03832738|168807896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|41.2||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.20|0.36|0.244
84527677|NCT03832738|168807898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|19.62||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.62|1.38|0.009
84527678|NCT03832738|168807898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|29.08||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|1.86|0.002
84527679|NCT03852459|168807908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4272|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4272
84527680|NCT00430950|168807920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.2648||95.0|-1.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||"The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect and baseline mean trough sitting dBP as covariate.~Significance level alpha = 5%. Power = 80%.~The following statistical superiority hypothesis was tested:~Superiority of OM/HCTZ combination therapy 40/25 mg over OM/HCTZ 20/25 mg"||0.42|-1.51|0.2648
84527681|NCT00430950|168807921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.4246||95.0|-1.26|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-1.26|0.4246
84527682|NCT00430950|168807922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7019||95.0|-1.84|1.24|||ANCOVA||refers to 8 week change; from week 8 to week 16|||1.24|-1.84|0.7019
84527683|NCT00430950|168807922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7328||95.0|-1.71|1.21|||ANCOVA||refers to 4 week change; from week 8 to week 12|||1.21|-1.71|0.7328
84527684|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0016||95.0|-2.58|-0.6|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.60|-2.58|0.0016
84527685|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031||95.0|-2.61|-0.53|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.53|-2.61|0.0031
84527686|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0073||95.0|-2.58|-0.4|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.40|-2.58|0.0073
84527687|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0021||95.0|-3.71|-0.82|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.82|-3.71|0.0021
84527688|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0031||95.0|-3.76|-0.76|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.76|-3.76|0.0031
84527689|NCT00430950|168807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.0104||95.0|-3.61|-0.48|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.48|-3.61|0.0104
84527690|NCT00430950|168807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.85|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.85|
84527691|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0234
84527692|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0740
84527693|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.4698
84527694|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1180
84527695|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0311||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0311
84527696|NCT00703508|168807947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1586
84527697|NCT01564459|168807967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.587||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|0.464|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.464|-1.637|0.269
84527698|NCT01564459|168807968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.687||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.527|0.154|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.154|-1.527|0.108
84527699|NCT00486018|168807971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
84527700|NCT00486018|168807971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|10.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.6|13.6||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||13.6|7.6|<0.0001
84527701|NCT00486018|168807972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|15.6|<0.0001
84527702|NCT00486018|168807972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.1|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.6|20.1|<0.0001
84527703|NCT00486018|168807973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.0141||95.0|1.6|9.9|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||9.9|1.6|0.0141
84527704|NCT00486018|168807973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.2815||95.0|-1.5|8.3|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||8.3|-1.5|0.2815
84527705|NCT00486018|168807974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.0|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||55.0|36.0|<0.0001
84527706|NCT00486018|168807974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.9|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||50.2|29.9|<0.0001
84527707|NCT00486018|168807975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-148.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-183.6|-113.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-113.8|-183.6|<0.0001
84527708|NCT00486018|168807975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-134.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-172.7|-96.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-96.8|-172.7|<0.0001
84527709|NCT00486018|168807976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0214||95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.6|0.0214
84527710|NCT00486018|168807976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.4||||0.0002||95.0|3.0|9.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.8|3.0|0.0002
84527711|NCT00486018|168807977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|3.8||||0.0248||95.0|0.5|7.0|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.0|0.5|0.0248
84527712|NCT00486018|168807977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.1||||0.0014||95.0|2.0|8.3|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||8.3|2.0|0.0014
84527713|NCT00560937|168808037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone vs. placebo post-treatment compared to baseline.||||.048
84527714|NCT00560937|168808038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
84527715|NCT00560937|168808039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
84527716|NCT00560937|168808040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone compared to placebo post-treatment vs. pre-randomization.||||1.0
84527717|NCT00560937|168808041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
84527718|NCT03545191|168808062|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.435|-6.961||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.961|-17.435|<0.0001
84527719|NCT03545191|168808062|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-22.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.996|-17.567||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-17.567|-27.996|<0.0001
84475780|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.18|0.0893
84475781|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.23|0.0044
84475782|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0025
84475783|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
84475784|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8348
84475785|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0020
84475786|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.30|0.0001
84475787|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0272
84475788|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.31|0.0009
84475789|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1680
84475790|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.16|0.2968
84527720|NCT03545191|168808063|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.494|-6.23||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.23|-17.494|<0.0001
84475791|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.23|0.0219
84475792|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.25|0.0717
84475793|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.29|0.0207
84475794|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.11|0.8399
84475795|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0299
84527721|NCT03545191|168808063|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.945|-12.661||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-12.661|-23.945|<0.0001
84527722|NCT03545191|168808064|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-8.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.014|-3.629||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.629|-13.014|0.0005
84527723|NCT03545191|168808064|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.022|-6.687||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.687|-16.022|<0.0001
84527724|NCT03545191|168808065|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-7.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.265|-2.923||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.923|-12.265|0.0015
84527725|NCT03545191|168808065|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.348|-6.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.994|-16.348|<0.0001
84527726|NCT03545191|168808066|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|12.62|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.953|20.288||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||20.288|4.953|= 0.0013
84527727|NCT03545191|168808066|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|22.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.405|29.708||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||29.708|14.405|< 0.0001
84527728|NCT03545191|168808067|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|9.93|||=|0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|19.082||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||19.082|0.782|= 0.0334
84527729|NCT03545191|168808067|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|19.77|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.623|28.918||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||28.918|10.623|< .00001
84527730|NCT03545191|168808068|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|0.015||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.015|-1.515|= 0.0547
84527731|NCT03545191|168808068|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.75|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.508|-0.983||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.983|-2.508|< .00001
84527732|NCT03545191|168808069|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.99||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.014||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.014|-1.990|0.0534
84527733|NCT03545191|168808069|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|-0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.905|-2.905|= 0.0002
84527734|NCT03545191|168808070|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.90|0.70|0.0003
84527735|NCT03545191|168808070|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.82|0.65|<0.0001
84527736|NCT03545191|168808071|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.89|0.68|0.0002
84527737|NCT03545191|168808071|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.83|0.64|<0.0001
84527738|NCT03179163|168808075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A priori power analysis (power = 0.80,a= 0.05) confirmed a sample size of n= 10 was needed to determine a meaningful difference of 10% in the (flux/MAP)\*logAch(mol/L) . All data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA . When appropriate, post hoc Tukey-Kramer corrections were applied to correct for multiple comparisons. Significance was set a priori at a\<0.05.||||=0.01
84527739|NCT01277718|168808078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.02|124.99|||||LS mean was calculated from Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124.99|98.02|
84527740|NCT01277718|168808078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|108.77|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||108.77|85.06|
84527741|NCT01277718|168808078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|119.91|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||119.91|94.53|
84527742|NCT01277718|168808079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|118.03|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||118.03|85.09|
84527743|NCT01277718|168808079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.51|101.33|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.33|72.51|
84527744|NCT01277718|168808079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|101.17|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.17|72.94|
84527745|NCT02149121|168808081|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.08|106.99|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||106.99|88.08|
84527746|NCT02149121|168808081|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|103.86|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||103.86|85.40|
84527747|NCT02149121|168808081|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|113.85|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.85|93.32|
84527748|NCT02149121|168808082|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|105.04|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||105.04|87.39|
84527749|NCT02149121|168808082|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.85|98.72|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||98.72|81.85|
84527750|NCT02149121|168808082|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|117.08|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||117.08|97.03|
84527751|NCT02149121|168808083|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|100.55|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||100.55|89.61|
84527752|NCT02149121|168808083|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.01|94.28|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||94.28|84.01|
84527753|NCT02149121|168808083|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.56|113.13|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.13|100.56|
84527754|NCT02149121|168808084|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the treatment difference in the change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 24 was entirely within the equivalence margin of ±0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.2|||||Adjusted least squares means and standard error, estimate of treatment difference \[CT-P10 - (Rituxan + MabThera)\] and 2-sided 90% confidence interval calculated from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status at baseline (intolerance case versus inadequate response), and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||0.20|-0.22|
84527755|NCT02149121|168808089|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|113.33||||||Secondary PD analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with results as the response, treatment group, as fixed effect and baseline values, gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti-TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.|Estimate of Geometric Least Square Mean and ratio of Geometric Least Square Means (CT-P10/reference products) were obtained from back transforming the least square means from the ANCOVA.|113.33|92.46|
84527756|NCT03166124|168808095|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.953|
84527757|NCT03166124|168808095|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|0.974|
84527758|NCT03166124|168808096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.12|0.96|
84527759|NCT03166124|168808096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.94|
84527760|NCT00788593|168808098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.023||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|2.701|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on LS mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which included participant as random effect, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and placebo baseline CFA value as covariate.||2.701|-0.656|0.228
84527761|NCT00788593|168808099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84527762|NCT00788593|168808099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84527763|NCT00788593|168808100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84527764|NCT00788593|168808100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84527765|NCT02655016|168808106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.755||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.755|0.502|<0.0001
84718754|NCT00571649|169189191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.931||||0.3758||95.0|0.795|1.091||Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the two primary efficacy outcome measures were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.091|0.795|0.3758
84527766|NCT02655016|168808107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.106||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.106|0.442|0.1238
84527767|NCT02655016|168808108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.802||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.802|0.521|0.0001
84527768|NCT02655016|168808109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.139||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.139|0.577|0.2242
84527769|NCT02312713|168808192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.12|-6.84|0.06
84527770|NCT02312713|168808192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.08|-5.26|0.39
84527771|NCT02312713|168808192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.85|-6.24|0.14
84527772|NCT02312713|168808192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.11|-6.37|0.17
84527773|NCT02312713|168808192|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.56|-2.23|0.65
84527774|NCT02312713|168808192|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.05|-4.13|0.51
84718755|NCT00571649|169189192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.991||||0.9473||95.0|0.753|1.304||"Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the 2 primary efficacy outcomes and for Composite endpoint of VTE (any DVT, non fatal PE) and all-cause mortality up to Day 35 + 6 days were significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.304|0.753|0.9473
84527775|NCT02312713|168808193|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.98|0.15|0.01
84527776|NCT02312713|168808193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.65|-0.19|0.28
84527777|NCT02312713|168808193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.49|-0.35|0.75
84527778|NCT02312713|168808193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.7|-0.16|0.22
84527779|NCT02312713|168808193|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||-0.16|-0.84|0.00
84527780|NCT02312713|168808193|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.39|-0.31|0.83
84527781|NCT02312713|168808194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|15.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||15.07|0.43|0.04
84718756|NCT00571649|169189201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|3.251||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.251|1.854|<0.0001
84527782|NCT02312713|168808194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.82|-6.59|0.78
84527783|NCT02312713|168808194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||12.33|-2.56|0.20
84527784|NCT02312713|168808194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.99|-6.74|.78
84527785|NCT02312713|168808194|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||3.21|-8.94|0.35
84527786|NCT02312713|168808194|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||6.42|-6.40|1.00
84527787|NCT02312713|168808195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.30|-1.56|0.19
84527788|NCT02312713|168808195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.98|-0.89|0.93
84527789|NCT02312713|168808195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.93|-0.97|0.97
84527790|NCT02312713|168808195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time||1|-0.91|0.93
84527791|NCT02312713|168808195|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||1.38|-0.16|0.12
84527792|NCT02312713|168808195|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.77|-0.78|1.00
84527793|NCT02312713|168808196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||.94|-1.55|0.63
84527794|NCT02312713|168808196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||0.6|-1.58|0.37
84527795|NCT02312713|168808196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.59|-0.95|0.62
84527796|NCT02312713|168808196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.35|-0.87|0.67
84527797|NCT02312713|168808196|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.66|-0.40|0.23
84527798|NCT02312713|168808196|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.64|-0.17|0.11
84527799|NCT02312713|168808197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.8|-1.58|0.52
84527800|NCT02312713|168808197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.85|-1.86|0.46
84527801|NCT02312713|168808197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.58|-1.85|0.3
84527802|NCT02312713|168808197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.16|-2.61|0.08
84527803|NCT02312713|168808197|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.74|-1.23|0.63
84527804|NCT02312713|168808197|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.41|-1.85|0.21
84527805|NCT02312713|168808198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.02|-1.59|0.05
84527806|NCT02312713|168808198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.02|-1.82|0.05
84527807|NCT02312713|168808198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.27|-1.37|0.19
84527808|NCT02312713|168808198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.05|-1.83|0.06
84527809|NCT02312713|168808198|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||0.89|-0.43|0.49
84527810|NCT02312713|168808198|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.78|-0.77|0.99
84527811|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||4.92|-1.77|0.36
84527812|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||6.14|-1.11|0.17
84527813|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.94||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||8.06|-0.19|0.06
84527814|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||7.79|-1.08|0.14
84527815|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||6.4|-1.67|0.25
84527816|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||5.18|-3.48|0.70
84527817|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||1.79|-4.43|0.40
84527818|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||3.59|-2.93|0.84
84527819|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 month for KOOS ADL.||5.94|-1.73|0.28
84527820|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 month for KOOS ADL.||6.77|-1.2|0.17
84527821|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||7.18|-0.32|0.07
84527822|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||6.34|-1.44|0.22
84527823|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||4.06|-4.47|.92
84527824|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||5.24|-4.15|.82
84527825|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9|-1.59|0.17
84527826|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.74|0.29|0.04
84527827|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9.1|-1.28|0.14
84527828|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.03|-0.1|0.05
84527829|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||3.96|-3.29|.86
84527830|NCT02312713|168808199|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||6.13|-0.96|0.15
84527831|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||8.11|-0.85|0.11
84527832|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||12.08|3.39|0
84527833|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||7.67|-1.08|0.14
84527834|NCT02312713|168808199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||9.37|0.92|0.02
84527835|NCT02312713|168808200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.5|-4.67|0.02
84527836|NCT02312713|168808200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.09|-3.22|0.33
84527837|NCT02312713|168808200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.74|-2.52|0.72
84527838|NCT02312713|168808200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.86|-1.56|0.56
84527839|NCT02312713|168808200|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.9|0.48|0.01
84527840|NCT02312713|168808200|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||3.52|-0.1|0.06
84527841|NCT02312713|168808201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.26|-4.67|0.03
84527842|NCT02312713|168808201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||-0.55|-4.31|0.01
84527843|NCT02312713|168808201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.27|-3.24|0.39
84527844|NCT02312713|168808201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.29|-3.58|0.1
84527845|NCT02312713|168808201|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.29|-0.33|0.11
84527846|NCT02312713|168808201|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.37|-0.8|0.33
84527847|NCT02312713|168808202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.04|-1.62|0.06
84527848|NCT02312713|168808202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.77|-0.77|1.00
84527849|NCT02312713|168808202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.41|-1.29|0.31
84527850|NCT02312713|168808202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.57|-1.01|0.58
84527851|NCT02312713|168808202|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||1.03|-0.33|0.32
84527852|NCT02312713|168808202|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.43|-0.86|0.51
84527853|NCT02312713|168808203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||26.22|-12.31|0.48
84527854|NCT02312713|168808203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|23.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||23.91|-9.69|0.41
84527855|NCT02312713|168808203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.82||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||12.91|-26.55|0.50
84527856|NCT02312713|168808203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|24.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||24.35|-10.31|0.43
84527857|NCT02312713|168808203|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||2.19|-29.73|0.09
84527858|NCT02312713|168808203|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|14.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||14.23|-14.41|0.99
84527859|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises||2.66|0.05|0.04
84527860|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.6|-0.18|0.09
84527861|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.19|-0.49|0.22
84527862|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.78|-0.08|0.06
84527863|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Strength.||0.58|-1.6|0.36
84527864|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Strength.||1.31|-1.03|0.81
84527865|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||3.03|0.67|0.00
84527866|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||2.68|0.55|0.00
84527867|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||2.57|0.16|0.03
84527868|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||3.16|0.98|0.00
84527869|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Stretching.||0.5|-1.46|0.33
84527870|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Stretching.||1.34|-0.44|0.32
84527871|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.8|-0.61|0.21
84527872|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||4|0.13|0.04
84527873|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.62|0.15|0.03
84527874|NCT02312713|168808204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.97|0.01|0.05
84527875|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.2|-0.62|0.27
84527876|NCT02312713|168808204|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||1.54|-1.69|0.93
84527877|NCT01763918|168808210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.11|-53.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.35|-65.11|<0.001
84527878|NCT01763918|168808210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.55|-69.00|<0.001
84527879|NCT01763918|168808211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.83|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-65.83|<0.001
84527880|NCT01763918|168808211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.27|-59.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.83|-71.27|<0.001
84527881|NCT01763918|168808212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.1|-85.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-85.2|-105.1|<0.001
84527882|NCT01763918|168808212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-97.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-87.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-87.7|-107.1|<0.001
84718757|NCT00571649|169189202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.628|3.171||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.171|1.628|<0.0001
84527883|NCT01763918|168808213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-92.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.9|-82.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-82.8|-102.9|<0.001
84527884|NCT01763918|168808213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-78.9|-103.8|<0.001
84527885|NCT01763918|168808214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|73.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||73.4|52.8|<0.001
84527886|NCT01763918|168808214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|85.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||85.1|66.9|<0.001
84527887|NCT01763918|168808215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use||||74.6|53.7|<0.001
84527888|NCT01763918|168808215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|69.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||69.8|47.6|<0.001
84527889|NCT01763918|168808216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.41|-50.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.59|-61.41|<0.001
84527890|NCT01763918|168808216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.24|-54.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.77|-65.24|<0.001
84527891|NCT01763918|168808217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.47|-49.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.12|-60.47|<0.001
84527892|NCT01763918|168808217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.95|-47.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.96|-61.95|<0.001
84527893|NCT01763918|168808218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-44.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.46|-54.32|<0.001
84527894|NCT01763918|168808218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|-50.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.38|-59.58|<0.001
84527895|NCT01763918|168808219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-43.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.63|-54.55|<0.001
84527896|NCT01763918|168808219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.73|-43.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.10|-55.73|<0.001
84527897|NCT01763918|168808220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.43|-41.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.76|-51.43|<0.001
84527898|NCT01763918|168808220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.21|-44.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.11|-54.21|<0.001
84527899|NCT01763918|168808221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-40.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.88|-51.27|<0.001
84718758|NCT03066609|169189205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.02|438.67|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||438.67|54.02|<0.0001
84527900|NCT01763918|168808221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.86|-37.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.98|-52.86|<0.001
84527901|NCT01763918|168808222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-47.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.99|-58.35|<0.001
84527902|NCT01763918|168808222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-61.08|<0.001
84527903|NCT01763918|168808223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.16|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.41|-60.16|<0.001
84527904|NCT01763918|168808223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.14|-40.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.96|-58.14|<0.001
84527905|NCT01763918|168808224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-24.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.41|-38.33|<0.001
84527906|NCT01763918|168808224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-24.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.09|-37.91|<0.001
84527907|NCT01763918|168808225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.28|-23.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.87|-39.28|<0.001
84527908|NCT01763918|168808225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.61|-20.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.88|-35.61|<0.001
84527909|NCT01763918|168808226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-15.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.24|-29.48|<0.001
84527910|NCT01763918|168808226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.05|-24.43|<0.001
84527911|NCT01763918|168808227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.26|-27.92|<0.001
84527912|NCT01763918|168808227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-1.74|-21.38|<0.001
84527913|NCT01763918|168808228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|12.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.40|4.36|<0.001
84527914|NCT01763918|168808228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|13.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.85|5.10|<0.001
84527915|NCT01763918|168808229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|13.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.74|4.66|<0.001
84718759|NCT03066609|169189205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|557.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.2|1663.4|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||1663.4|187.2|<0.0001
84475796|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0060
84475797|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.24|0.1974
84475798|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.22|0.2780
84475799|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.21|0.4330
84475800|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4946
84475801|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.25|0.1884
84475802|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.20|0.5210
84475803|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.23|0.3329
84475804|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.21|0.5173
84475805|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.25|0.2346
84475806|NCT02528253|168704619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.23|0.3634
84475807|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.26|0.0007
84475808|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|1.29|0.0004
84475809|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.87|0.3456
84475810|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.89|0.2771
84475811|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.41|0.98|0.0594
84475812|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.75|1.14|0.0105
84475813|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|0.85|0.2360
84475814|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|0.81|0.3746
84475815|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.94|0.0974
84527916|NCT01763918|168808229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1466.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||1466|3.48|<0.001
84527917|NCT01763918|168808230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|-15.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.81|-29.46|<0.001
84527918|NCT01763918|168808230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.25|-7.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.84|-23.25|<0.001
84527919|NCT01763918|168808231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.29|-12.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.66|-29.29|<0.001
84527920|NCT01763918|168808231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|0.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.68|-19.01|<0.001
84527921|NCT01553747|168808232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
84527922|NCT01553747|168808232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
84527923|NCT01553747|168808233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.001
84527924|NCT01553747|168808233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
84527925|NCT01490931|168808266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527926|NCT01490931|168808270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527927|NCT01490931|168808271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527928|NCT01490931|168808272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527929|NCT01490931|168808273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527930|NCT01490931|168808274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0001
84527931|NCT01490931|168808275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527932|NCT01490931|168808276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84527933|NCT01490931|168808277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
84718760|NCT03066609|169189206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.81|222.72|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||222.72|25.81|<0.0001
84718761|NCT03066609|169189206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|149.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.83|432.42|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||432.42|51.83|<0.0001
84475816|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.08|0.92|0.0806
84475817|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.47|1.03|0.0407
84475818|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.58|0.58|0.5966
84475819|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.96|0.85|0.1492
84475820|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.24|0.95|0.0720
84475821|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.00|0.25|0.9926
84475822|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.04|0.51|0.3726
84475823|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.22|0.7874
84475824|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.46|0.32|0.7950
84475825|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.68|0.66|0.2065
84527934|NCT00754494|168808290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.762
84718762|NCT03066609|169189207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|489.59|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||489.59|26.94|<0.0001
84475826|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.17|1.23|0.0006
84475827|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.72|1.55|<.0001
84475828|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.01|0.0387
84475829|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0903
84475830|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0006
84475831|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.09|1.08|0.0166
84475832|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.62|1.36|0.0001
84718763|NCT03066609|169189207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|246.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.41|1037.1|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||1037.1|58.41|<0.0001
84475833|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.73|0.93|0.1389
84475834|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2504
84475835|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.12|0.0057
84475836|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.93|1.14|0.0126
84718764|NCT03983434|169189218|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
84527935|NCT00754494|168808290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.125
84527936|NCT00754494|168808290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.855
84527937|NCT00754494|168808291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.369
84527938|NCT00754494|168808291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.085
84527939|NCT00754494|168808291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.233
84527940|NCT00754494|168808292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.651
84527941|NCT00754494|168808292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
84527942|NCT00754494|168808292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.261
84527943|NCT00754494|168808293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.654
84527944|NCT00754494|168808293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
84718765|NCT03983434|169189219|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84527945|NCT00754494|168808293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.083
84527946|NCT00518882|168808334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test is below 0.4%|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.18||No multiplicity concerns|ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA with treatment, country and previous OAD treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.~2 hypotheses were tested: H01: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide + Δ, HA1: µliraglutide \< µexenatide + Δ; Δ=0.4%. If non-inferiority was concluded, a test for superiority was established by a 1-sided test of the hypothesis H02: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide against HA2: µliraglutide \< µexenatide. Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was below 0%."||-0.18|-0.47|<.0001
84718766|NCT03983434|169189220|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84527947|NCT00518882|168808335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.803|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.364|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.139|<0.0001
84527948|NCT00518882|168808335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.924||0.9872||95.0|-1.36|0.134|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.134|-1.36|0.9872
84527949|NCT00518882|168808336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.119|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.137|-0.823|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.823|-1.137|<0.0001
84527950|NCT00518882|168808336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.105|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.687|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the exenatide→liraglutide group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.687|-1.010|<0.0001
84527951|NCT00518882|168808339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.2235||95.0|-0.99|0.23||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the body weight in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.23|-0.99|0.2235
84527952|NCT00518882|168808340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.24||0.0793||95.0|-0.86|0.05|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.05|-0.86|0.0793
84527953|NCT00518882|168808340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.67||0.0075||95.0|-1.26|-0.2|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.20|-1.26|0.0075
84527954|NCT00518882|168808341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.63|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-2.61|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.61|-3.90|<0.0001
84527955|NCT00518882|168808341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.44|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.55|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.55|-3.85|<0.0001
84527956|NCT00518882|168808342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.37|-0.65||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the fasting plasma glucose in the liraglutide and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.65|-1.37|<0.0001
84527957|NCT00518882|168808343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|1.0|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.00|0.48|<0.0001
84527958|NCT00518882|168808343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.4864||95.0|-0.48|0.23|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.23|-0.48|0.4864
84527959|NCT00518882|168808344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.62|-0.92|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.92|-1.62|<0.0001
84527960|NCT00518882|168808344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.23|-0.42|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.42|-1.23|<0.0001
84527961|NCT00518882|168808345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.8|1.86||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.86|0.80|<.0001
84718767|NCT03983434|169189221|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.079|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.079
84527962|NCT00518882|168808346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.9849||95.0|-0.52|0.53||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.53|-0.52|0.9849
84527963|NCT00518882|168808347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.01||||0.0005||95.0|0.44|1.57||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.57|0.44|0.0005
84527964|NCT00518882|168808348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.866||0.2972||95.0|-0.626|0.192|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.192|-0.626|0.2972
84527965|NCT00518882|168808348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.253|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|1.637|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.637|0.660|<0.0001
84527966|NCT00518882|168808349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.307||0.8396||95.0|-0.424|0.521|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.521|-0.424|0.8396
84527967|NCT00518882|168808349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.419||0.7278||95.0|-0.604|0.423|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.423|-0.604|0.7278
84527968|NCT00518882|168808350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.053||0.3271||95.0|-0.219|0.654|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.654|-0.219|0.3271
84527969|NCT00518882|168808350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.775||0.0003||95.0|0.497|1.634|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.634|0.497|0.0003
84527970|NCT00518882|168808351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.662|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.605|-0.562|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.562|-1.605|<0.0001
84527971|NCT00518882|168808351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.467||0.0003||95.0|-1.517|-0.458|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.458|-1.517|0.0003
84527972|NCT00518882|168808352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.158||0.3859||95.0|-0.331|0.853|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.853|-0.331|0.3859
84527973|NCT00518882|168808352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.838||0.2119||95.0|-0.956|0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.214|-0.956|0.2119
84527974|NCT00518882|168808353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.975||0.229||95.0|-0.917|0.2211|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.2211|-0.917|0.2290
84527975|NCT00518882|168808353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23||0.0002||95.0|-1.449|-0.459|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.459|-1.449|0.0002
84527976|NCT00518882|168808354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.73||||0.0124||95.0|0.16|1.31||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.31|0.16|0.0124
84718768|NCT03983434|169189222|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
84718769|NCT03983434|169189224|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
84527977|NCT00518882|168808355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.39||||0.143||95.0|-0.91|0.13||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.13|-0.91|0.1430
84527978|NCT00518882|168808356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.54||||0.038||95.0|0.03|1.05||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.05|0.03|0.0380
84527979|NCT00518882|168808357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.827||0.77||95.0|-0.344|0.463|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.463|-0.344|0.7700
84527980|NCT00518882|168808357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.27||0.0042||95.0|0.23|1.212|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.212|0.230|0.0042
84527981|NCT00518882|168808358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.041||0.0026||95.0|0.238|1.106|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.106|0.238|0.0026
84527982|NCT00518882|168808358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.989||0.6845||95.0|-0.541|0.356|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.356|-0.541|0.6845
84527983|NCT00518882|168808359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.705||0.1041||95.0|-0.066|0.706|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.706|-0.066|0.1041
84527984|NCT00518882|168808359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.114||0.0151||95.0|0.114|1.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.052|0.114|0.0151
84527985|NCT00518882|168808360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.857|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.861|-2.763|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.763|-3.861|<0.0001
84527986|NCT00518882|168808360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.56|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.673|-2.589|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.589|-3.673|<0.0001
84527987|NCT00518882|168808361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.703|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.457|-1.403|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.403|-2.457|<0.0001
84527988|NCT00518882|168808361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.654|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.731|-1.618|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.618|-2.731|<0.0001
84527989|NCT00518882|168808362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.752|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.747|-1.676|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.676|-2.747|<0.0001
84527990|NCT00518882|168808362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.625|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.104|-1.997|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.997|-3.104|<0.0001
84527991|NCT00518882|168808363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|29.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.81|41.93||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||41.93|16.81|<.0001
84718770|NCT03983434|169189225|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
84527992|NCT00518882|168808364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-18.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.811|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.988|-9.382|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-9.382|-26.988|<0.0001
84527993|NCT00518882|168808364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.997||0.5304||95.0|-5.327|10.307|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||10.307|-5.327|0.5304
84527994|NCT00518882|168808365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|24.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.326|<|0.0001||95.0|16.348|33.374|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||33.374|16.348|<0.0001
84527995|NCT00518882|168808365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|11.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.145||0.092||95.0|-1.835|24.093|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||24.093|-1.835|0.0920
84527996|NCT00518882|168808366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.0946||95.0|-0.23|0.02||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.02|-0.23|0.0946
84527997|NCT00518882|168808367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.774||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.216|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.001|0.0513
84527998|NCT00518882|168808367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.804||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.233|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.233|-0.001|0.0513
84527999|NCT00518882|168808368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.859||0.2764||95.0|-0.187|0.054|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.054|-0.187|0.2764
84528000|NCT00518882|168808368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.1911||95.0|-0.043|0.216|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.043|0.1911
84528001|NCT00518882|168808369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.04||||0.4412||95.0|-0.15|0.06||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.06|-0.15|0.4412
84528002|NCT00518882|168808370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.606||0.4746||95.0|-0.054|0.115|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.115|-0.054|0.4746
84528003|NCT00518882|168808370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.1281||95.0|-0.024|0.188|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.188|-0.024|0.1281
84528004|NCT00518882|168808371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.604|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.39|-0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.214|-0.390|<0.0001
84528005|NCT00518882|168808371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.647|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.303|-0.11|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.110|-0.303|<0.0001
84528006|NCT00518882|168808372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0277||95.0|-0.13|-0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.01|-0.13|0.0277
84718771|NCT03983434|169189226|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.074
84718772|NCT03983434|169189227|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84528007|NCT00518882|168808373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.003||95.0|0.021|0.102|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.102|0.021|0.0030
84528008|NCT00518882|168808373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.1452||95.0|-0.012|0.079|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.079|-0.012|0.1452
84528009|NCT00518882|168808374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306|<|0.0001||95.0|0.223|0.315|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.315|0.223|<0.0001
84528010|NCT00518882|168808374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|0.259|0.364|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.259|<0.0001
84528011|NCT00518882|168808375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.5105||95.0|-0.02|0.04||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.04|-0.02|0.5105
84528012|NCT00518882|168808376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.222||95.0|-0.034|0.008|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.008|-0.034|0.2220
84528013|NCT00518882|168808376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.141||0.7923||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.024|-0.018|0.7923
84528014|NCT00518882|168808377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159||0.0254||95.0|-0.05|-0.003|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.003|-0.050|0.0254
84528015|NCT00518882|168808377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.165||0.2244||95.0|-0.04|0.009|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.009|-0.040|0.2244
84528016|NCT00518882|168808378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.18||||0.0485||95.0|-0.37|0.0||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.00|-0.37|0.0485
84528017|NCT00518882|168808379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.1161||95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.21|-0.02|0.1161
84528018|NCT00518882|168808379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.7888||95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.12|-0.16|0.7888
84528019|NCT00518882|168808380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||0.0003||95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.13|-0.43|0.0003
84528020|NCT00518882|168808380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.2078||95.0|-0.35|0.08|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.08|-0.35|0.2078
84528021|NCT00518882|168808381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0014||95.0|-0.11|-0.03||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.03|-0.11|0.0014
84718773|NCT03983434|169189228|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
84718774|NCT03983434|169189229|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
84528022|NCT00518882|168808382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.269||0.0018||95.0|0.023|0.098|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.098|0.023|0.0018
84528023|NCT00518882|168808382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.272||0.5499||95.0|-0.028|0.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.052|-0.028|0.5499
84528024|NCT00518882|168808383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.273|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|-0.062|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.062|-0.140|<0.0001
84528025|NCT00518882|168808383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.302||0.0012||95.0|-0.118|-0.03|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.030|-0.118|0.0012
84528026|NCT00518882|168808384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02||||0.1119||95.0|-0.05|0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.01|-0.05|0.1119
84528027|NCT00518882|168808385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168||0.1342||95.0|-0.041|0.006|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.006|-0.041|0.1342
84528028|NCT00518882|168808385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.189||0.0344||95.0|-0.057|-0.002|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.002|-0.057|0.0344
84528029|NCT00518882|168808386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.176|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.105|-0.056|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.056|-0.105|<0.0001
84528030|NCT00518882|168808386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.192|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.094|-0.038|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.038|-0.094|<0.0001
84528031|NCT02696031|168808394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.7||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.70|1.09|0.0197
84528032|NCT02696031|168808394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.76|1.12|0.0146
84528033|NCT02696031|168808395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.63||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||3.63|1.35|0.0017
84528034|NCT02696031|168808395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.36||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||4.36|1.64|<.0001
84528035|NCT02696031|168808396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.74|1.14|0.0108
84528036|NCT02696031|168808396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.78|1.16|0.0087
84528037|NCT02696031|168808396|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.49||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.49|1.34|0.0016
84528038|NCT02696031|168808396|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Median Difference (Net)|2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.19||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|4.19|1.62|<.0001
84528039|NCT02696031|168808397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.43|1.06|0.0260
84528040|NCT02696031|168808397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.54|1.11|0.0149
84528041|NCT02696031|168808398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.58||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.58|1.43|0.0005
84528042|NCT02696031|168808398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.94||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.94|1.16|0.0094
84528043|NCT02696031|168808399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.39||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.39|1.95|<.0001
84718775|NCT00811941|169189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.35|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. Null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.35|-2.10|0.160
84718776|NCT00811941|169189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|2.23|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||2.23|-9.17|0.232
84718777|NCT00811941|169189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.41|0.59|0.689
84528044|NCT02696031|168808399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.1||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.10|1.87|0.0001
84528045|NCT02696031|168808400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.24|-1.26|0.0041
84528046|NCT02696031|168808400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.13||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.13|-1.15|0.0143
84528047|NCT02696031|168808401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.07||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|4.07|1.58|0.0001
84528048|NCT02696031|168808401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.89||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.89|1.51|0.0002
84718778|NCT00811941|169189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.37|0.046
84718779|NCT00811941|169189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.08|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.36|0.217
84726076|NCT00674609|169204434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.65||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.28|0.01|0.045
84528049|NCT02696031|168808401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.24||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.24|1.22|0.0056
84528050|NCT02696031|168808401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.78|1.45|0.0005
84528051|NCT02696031|168808402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.38||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.38|-1.39|0.0006
84528052|NCT02696031|168808402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.47||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.47|-1.47|0.0002
84528053|NCT02696031|168808403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.67||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.67|-2.54|0.0008
84528054|NCT02696031|168808403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.84|-2.72|0.0002
84528055|NCT02696031|168808404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||0.0012
84528056|NCT02696031|168808404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
84528057|NCT02696031|168808405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|3.45|0.98|0.0577
84528058|NCT02696031|168808405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.41||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|5.41|1.65|0.0003
84528059|NCT02696031|168808406|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance|0.84|0.58|0.0002
84528060|NCT02696031|168808406|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002||95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance structure.|0.84|0.58|0.0002
84528061|NCT02696031|168808407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.34||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.34|1.20|0.0006
84528062|NCT02696031|168808407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.22||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.22|1.06|0.0011
84528063|NCT02696031|168808408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
84528064|NCT02696031|168808408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
84528065|NCT02696031|168808409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
84528066|NCT02696031|168808409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
84528067|NCT01258101|168808414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to Arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|53.5||||||||53.5|10.5|
84528068|NCT01258101|168808414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.0|
84528069|NCT01258101|168808414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|19.1||||||||19.1|-4.7|
84528070|NCT01258101|168808414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-42.2|
84528071|NCT01258101|168808416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||||0.2|-1.0|
84528072|NCT01258101|168808416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-6.4|
84528073|NCT01258101|168808416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||||1.4|-1.4|
84528074|NCT01258101|168808416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.5|
84528075|NCT01258101|168808424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2667
84528076|NCT01258101|168808424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9999
84528077|NCT01258101|168808424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9891|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9891
84528078|NCT00063882|168808426|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Greenwood's T||Reference level = Brachytherapy only|Target sample size was 586; 532 patients were needed to test hypothesis of better FFP in the EBRT + Brachytherapy arm over the Brachytherapy Only arm. The trial is designed to detect a 10% improvement in 5-year FFP with 90% power, 1-sided alpha of 0.025. The Z-test statistic for the difference between the 2 5-year FFP rates with the standard errors estimated by Greenwood's method will be used.||1.12|0.60|0.21
84528079|NCT00063882|168808427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.54|0.63|0.95
84528080|NCT00063882|168808428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.58|0.64|0.97
84528081|NCT00063882|168808429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.9||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.90|0.36|0.77
84528082|NCT00063882|168808430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.13|0.33|0.99
84528083|NCT00063882|168808431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.76||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||2.76|0.46|0.81
84718780|NCT00811941|169189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.93||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 319 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.05|0.83|0.273
84528084|NCT00063882|168808432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.17|0.51|0.22
84528085|NCT00063882|168808433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ GU/GI||1.67|0.76|0.53
84528086|NCT00063882|168808433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ Overall||1.53|0.73|0.73
84528087|NCT00063882|168808433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.19||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||2.19|0.54|0.81
84528088|NCT00063882|168808433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.69||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||1.69|0.51|0.82
84528089|NCT00063882|168808434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.68||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||4.68|1.20|0.01
84528090|NCT00063882|168808434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.1||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||3.10|1.06|0.029
84528091|NCT00063882|168808435|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||<0.0001
84528092|NCT00063882|168808435|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary- Incontinence||||0.33
84528093|NCT00063882|168808435|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
84528094|NCT00063882|168808435|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||0.001
84528095|NCT00063882|168808435|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.12||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sexual|Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|||0.23
84528096|NCT00063882|168808436|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||0.0002
84528097|NCT00063882|168808436|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Incontinence||||0.42
84528098|NCT00063882|168808436|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
84528099|NCT00063882|168808436|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||<0.0001
84528100|NCT00063882|168808436|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.27||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Sexual||||0.0072
84528101|NCT00700817|168808468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6||||0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.43||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority.||-0.43|-0.77|0.0001
84528102|NCT00700817|168808468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.34||||0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.16||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority. Liraglutide 1.2 mg versus sitagliptin only tested if liraglutide 1.8 mg was superior to sitagliptin.||-0.16|-0.51|0.0001
84528103|NCT00700817|168808469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.63||||0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.44||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.8 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.44|-0.81|0.0001
84528104|NCT00700817|168808469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.59|-0.22||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.2 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.22|-0.59|0.0001
84528105|NCT00700817|168808471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.07|-0.41|0.0060
84528106|NCT00700817|168808471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.23||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.23|-0.67|0.0001
84528107|NCT00767520|168808544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.148|||||||Un-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.148
84528108|NCT01338987|168808568|OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||||||0.0075
84528109|NCT02480582|168808602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.01
84475837|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.22|1.71|<.0001
84475838|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.79|0.3485
84475839|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.98|0.0642
84475840|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.48|<.0001
84475841|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|0.42|0.9819
84475842|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|0.62|0.4333
84475843|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.41|0.8140
84475844|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|0.49|0.8331
84475845|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.73|0.2682
84475846|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.29|1.31|0.0001
84475847|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.61|1.49|<.0001
84528110|NCT02480582|168808603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in wanting for high fat foods between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.05
84475848|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0071
84475849|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.95|0.1187
84475850|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.08|0.0110
84475851|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.30|0.0003
84475852|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.87|1.57|<.0001
84475853|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.11|0.0069
84475854|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.91|0.2076
84475855|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.10|0.0072
84475856|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.97|0.0694
84475857|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.36|1.53|<.0001
84475858|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.92|0.1210
84475859|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.76|0.6706
84528111|NCT02480582|168808604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in hunger AUC between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.001
84475860|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.20|0.0022
84475861|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.56|0.7546
84475862|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|0.57|0.7347
84475863|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|0.50|0.9029
84475864|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.18|0.62|0.6402
84475865|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|0.62|0.6199
84475866|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.05|0.0229
84475867|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.30|1.30|0.0002
84475868|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.47|0.88|0.3150
84475869|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.94|0.1370
84475870|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.17|0.0018
84475871|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0342
84475872|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|1.27|0.0003
84475873|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2561
84475874|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2358
84475875|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.87|1.13|0.0040
84475876|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.97|0.0723
84475877|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|1.45|<.0001
84475878|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.94|0.98|0.0653
84475879|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.74|0.9177
84475880|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.11|0.0088
84475881|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|0.89|0.1197
84475882|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|0.92|0.0913
84475883|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.72|0.4317
84475884|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|0.77|0.3498
84475885|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|0.80|0.2768
84475886|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|1.09|0.0101
84475887|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.13|0.0054
84475888|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5493
84475889|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0269
84475890|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0144
84475891|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.97|0.0846
84475892|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.09|0.0101
84475893|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.97|0.0848
84475894|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.32|0.79|0.8732
84475895|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2734
84475896|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.86|0.2839
84475897|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.07|1.05|0.0238
84475898|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.81|0.5212
84475899|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.80|0.5954
84528112|NCT02480582|168808605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||"Energy intake measured by ad-libitum test meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) during each intervention condition.~Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in total energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food."||||<0.05
84475900|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|0.98|0.0638
84475901|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|0.78|0.2661
84475902|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.21|0.69|0.4717
84475903|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.68|0.5798
84475904|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|0.72|0.5027
84475905|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.64|0.8165
84475906|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.52|0.92|0.1996
84528113|NCT00720226|168808614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants demonstrating 5-35% emphysema on baseline CT scan||||0.06
84528114|NCT00720226|168808615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with 5-35% emphysema at baseline||||0.55
84528115|NCT00279955|168808675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.292||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.67|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 6 month visit, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE)/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) at 6 months, and Diuretics at 6 month.|||3.67|1.17|0.0119
84528116|NCT00279955|168808676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.277||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.27|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, NYHA class at 6 month visit, ACE/ARB at 6 months, and and at least one day where CRT pacing \<90% in last 21 days of DREP.|||3.27|1.11|0.0185
84528117|NCT00279955|168808677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.31|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model has been used here, and the estimated parameter has been adjusted by including covariates age, gender, and NYHA class at 6 months.|||3.31|0.98|0.0578
84528118|NCT03856593|168808696|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly MME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|Please note that 10% of means in the pre-intervention period were trimmed to remove outliers.||-0.07|-0.20|<0.05
84528119|NCT03856593|168808697|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly VME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|||-0.02|-0.15|<0.05
84528120|NCT04632706|168808700|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.803
84528121|NCT04632706|168808702|OTHER|||||||0.689||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.689
84528122|NCT01392326|168808745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|8.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.85|3.46|<0.0001
84528123|NCT01392326|168808745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.62|3.37|<0.0001
84528124|NCT02340221|168808755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.56|0.0037
84528125|NCT02340221|168808756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.0008
84528126|NCT02340221|168808757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.6|0.0002
84528127|NCT02340221|168808758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.7|<0.0001
84528128|NCT02340221|168808759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.58|0.4151
84528129|NCT02340221|168808760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.75|0.9974
84528130|NCT02340221|168808761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9||||||||2.9|1.2|
84528131|NCT02340221|168808762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||||||||3.0|1.2|
84528132|NCT02340221|168808763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.59|||Log Rank|||||2.59|0.23|0.6708
84528133|NCT02340221|168808764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.35|0.51|0.8286
84528134|NCT02340221|168808765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.51|0.0023
84528135|NCT02340221|168808766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.0095
84528136|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.87|-1.14|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 25 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.14|-2.87|
84528137|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||||95.0|-3.49|-1.8|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 75 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.80|-3.49|
84528138|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||||95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 250 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.90|-3.90|
84528139|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38||||||95.0|-4.59|-2.17|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 500 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.17|-4.59|
84528140|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73||||||95.0|-5.15|-4.31|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 700 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-4.31|-5.15|
84528141|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.93||||||95.0|-2.68|-1.18|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 125 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.18|-2.68|
84528142|NCT00518622|168808774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||||95.0|-2.78|-2.13|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 600 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.13|-2.78|
84528143|NCT00603291|168808790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline body weight, baseline HbA1c stratum, and prior antihyperglycemic medication stratum||||4.80|2.05|<0.0001
84528144|NCT00603291|168808791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-3.92|<0.0001
84540739|NCT03718832|168832708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.493798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761916||0.0480884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0295297|6.958066||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||6.958066|0.0295297|0.0480884
84475907|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0074
84475908|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.45|0.87|0.3557
84475909|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|1.06|0.0170
84475910|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.38|0.76|0.8641
84475911|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1768
84475912|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.55|0.7696
84475913|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.78|0.66|0.7433
84475914|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0562
84475915|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.03|0.0274
84475916|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.95|0.1206
84475917|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.69|1.02|0.0365
84475918|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.96|0.0964
84475919|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2515
84528145|NCT04495283|168808804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-114.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.65|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-80.01|||ANOVA|||||-80.01||<0.001
84528146|NCT04495283|168808805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.549|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-42.32|||ANOVA|||||-42.32||<0.001
84528147|NCT03692312|168808817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.875||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.51|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||3.51|-0.01|0.0514
84475920|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.66|0.8122
84475921|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.13|0.86|0.1848
84475922|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2622
84475923|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1579
84475924|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.89|0.2773
84475925|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.96|0.1032
84475926|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.84|0.4418
84475927|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.92|0.1608
84475928|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.83|0.2628
84475929|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.01|0.0447
84528148|NCT03692312|168808818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.88|-0.20|0.2124
84475930|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2560
84475931|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.93|0.1741
84475932|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1647
84475933|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0619
84475934|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.61|0.90|0.2025
84475935|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.88|0.2601
84475936|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.73|0.5635
84475937|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.11|0.91|0.1338
84475938|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.91|0.2137
84475939|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.04|0.0256
84528149|NCT03692312|168808819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||6.96|2.51|<0.0001
84475940|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.87|0.3531
84475941|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0358
84475942|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1840
84475943|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|0.94|0.1250
84475944|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.61|0.8266
84475945|NCT02528253|168704622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.74|0.5673
84475946|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|1.12|0.0076
84475947|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.69|1.46|<.0001
84475948|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|0.98|0.0700
84475949|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.89|0.2655
84475950|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.16|0.0022
84475951|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0125
84475952|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.21|0.0032
84475953|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|0.91|0.1528
84475954|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.90|0.1863
84475955|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|0.98|0.0667
84475956|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.39|1.18|0.0101
84475957|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.13|0.0162
84475958|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.69|0.5599
84475959|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.68|1.09|0.0202
84475960|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.57|1.04|0.0335
84475961|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.17|1.04|0.0416
84475962|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||7.69|1.37|0.0075
84475963|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.34|0.53|0.5374
84475964|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.89|0.92|0.0820
84528150|NCT03692312|168808820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.39|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||5.39|0.96|0.0059
84475965|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.81|1.23|0.0108
84475966|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.24|0.0006
84475967|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.59|1.47|<.0001
84475968|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.96|0.0963
84475969|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0332
84475970|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0007
84475971|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.64|1.37|0.0001
84475972|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.05|1.60|<.0001
84475973|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.05|0.0235
84475974|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.76|1.01|0.0459
84528151|NCT03692312|168808821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.14|-0.30|0.4634
84475975|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.04|1.17|0.0020
84475976|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.91|1.27|0.0019
84475977|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.62|1.62|<.0001
84475978|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.72|0.6765
84475979|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.23|0.0022
84475980|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.15|1.56|<.0001
84475981|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.63|1.08|0.0270
84475982|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.38|1.35|0.0030
84475983|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.38|0.3770
84475984|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.79|1.49|0.0009
84475985|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.78|1.87|<.0001
84475986|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.10|1.20|0.0011
84475987|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.41|<.0001
84475988|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.03|0.0273
84475989|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1736
84475990|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.09|0.0092
84475991|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.20|0.0015
84475992|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.63|1.45|<.0001
84475993|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.06|0.0164
84475994|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.89|0.2857
84475995|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0149
84475996|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|1.43|0.0001
84475997|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.28|1.57|<.0001
84528152|NCT03692312|168808822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.79|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.79|-1.49|0.5385
84528153|NCT03692312|168808825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.83|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||1.83|-1.26|0.7110
84528154|NCT03692312|168808826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.75|-0.57|0.7861
84528155|NCT03692312|168808827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.31|-0.19|0.6282
84528156|NCT03692312|168808828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
84528157|NCT03692312|168808829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.98|0.60|0.0379
84528158|NCT03692312|168808831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.078
84528159|NCT03692312|168808833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.29
84528160|NCT03692312|168808835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline (absolute value); two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.077
84528161|NCT03692312|168808836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to placebo group for mean Raw Score; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.071
84528162|NCT01013649|168808868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|A total of 200 deaths between the arms will provide 80% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 28.8 months and 90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 30.6 months (HRs of 0.76 and 0.72, respectively, in favor of the erlotinib arm) with the addition of erlotinib and a 1-sided alpha of 0.15||1.38|0.79|0.62
84528163|NCT01013649|168808869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.18||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm III|316 deaths from step 2 randomized patients provides 80% power, with 0.05 1-sided alpha, to detect an OS increase (HR=0.76 in favor of arm IV), corresponding to increasing median OS from 17 to 22.5 months with the addition of RT. For analysis triggered by patients having 5 years potential follow-up from step 2 randomization, it is projected that at least 265 events will be observed, providing at least 72% power. The trigger used for the primary analysis was 5-years of follow-up (270 deaths).||1.18|0.79|0.38
84528164|NCT01013649|168808870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31|||||Reference level = Arm I|||1.31|0.80|
84528165|NCT01013649|168808871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||||Reference level = Arm III|||0.99|0.68|
84528166|NCT04285567|168808877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||40.87|12.33|0.0004
84528167|NCT04285567|168808879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|20.78||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||34.90|6.66|0.0053
84528168|NCT04285567|168808880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|31.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.55|46.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||46.71|16.55|< .0001
84528169|NCT04285567|168808881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.68||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|21.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||21.41|-2.05|0.1119
84528170|NCT04285567|168808882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.44||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|32.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||32.93|1.96|0.0154
84528171|NCT04285567|168808883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|18.93||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|36.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||36.95|0.91|0.0054
84528172|NCT04285567|168808884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.79||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|49.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||49.72|3.86|0.0038
84528173|NCT04285567|168808886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.05||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|11.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||11.84|-5.73|0.4199
84528174|NCT02287909|168808910|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-6.9|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|985.0|-38.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|-38|>0.05
84475998|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|0.93|0.1180
84475999|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.14|1.13|0.0062
84476000|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.24|0.0009
84476001|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.61|1.56|0.0003
84476002|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.28|1.82|<.0001
84476003|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|0.76|0.3120
84476004|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.30|0.0019
84476005|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.59|1.52|0.0001
84476006|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.12|0.0064
84476007|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.32|0.0001
84476008|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2757
84476009|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0575
84476010|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.96|1.17|0.0015
84476011|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
84476012|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.31|0.0001
84476013|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.07|0.0124
84476014|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.15|0.0025
84476015|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.51|1.33|0.0002
84476016|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.79|1.48|<.0001
84476017|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.80|0.5701
84476018|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|1.26|0.0004
84476019|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.46|1.40|<.0001
84476020|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.17|1.35|0.0008
84476021|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|1.19|0.0059
84528175|NCT02246439|168808918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6081||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0194|2.5368||"This P-Value is for the All ages group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||The odds ratio and p-value were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. For the 'All ages' category, the odds ratio and p-value were stratified by age.||2.5368|1.0194|0.0406
84528176|NCT02246439|168808918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|27.2024||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2024|0.8470|0.0729
84528177|NCT02246439|168808918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4755||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.3741||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age and older group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3741|0.9170|0.1089
84528178|NCT02246439|168808919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8647|2.1216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.1216|0.8647|0.1843
84528179|NCT02246439|168808920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.752||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1058|2.776|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.7760|1.1058|0.0166
84528180|NCT02246439|168808921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6677||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4093|1.0892|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.0892|0.4093|0.1049
84528181|NCT02246439|168808922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6566||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3826|1.1268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.1268|0.3826|0.1235
84528182|NCT02246439|168808924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||This P-Value is for the BSS=7 group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5890
84528183|NCT02246439|168808925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9782||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7803|1.2264||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cox proportioanl hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.2264|0.7803|0.8487
84528184|NCT02246439|168808925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4756||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6549|3.325||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.3250|0.6549|0.3479
84528185|NCT02246439|168808925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9445||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7469|1.1943||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age of older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.1943|0.7469|0.6332
84528186|NCT02246439|168808926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0275||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8036|1.3138||"This P-Value was for the All ages group."|Cox proportional hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.3138|0.8036|0.8289
84528187|NCT02246439|168808926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5744||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6388|3.8802||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.8802|0.6388|0.3241
84528188|NCT02246439|168808926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7688|1.2801||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.2801|0.7688|0.9511
84528189|NCT02246439|168808927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3012||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6221|8.5129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5129|0.6221|0.2005
84528190|NCT02246439|168808928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6674||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1638|2.7191|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7191|0.1638|0.5720
84528191|NCT02246439|168808929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1591||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|9.7735||"This P-Value is for the No nausea or mild nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||9.7735|0.4770|0.3186
84528192|NCT02246439|168808929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.575||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6096|4.0696||"This P-Value is for the Moderate nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0696|0.6096|0.3473
84528193|NCT02246439|168808929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0971||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|4.5747||"This P-Value is for the Severe nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.5747|0.9614|0.0633
84528194|NCT02246439|168808929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6397||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6649|4.0437||"This P-Value is for the Nausea as bad as it could have been group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0437|0.6649|0.2797
84528195|NCT02246439|168808930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8673||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1572|3.0131||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||3.0131|1.1572|0.0103
84528196|NCT02246439|168808930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0934
84528197|NCT02246439|168808930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
84528198|NCT02246439|168808931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0924
84528199|NCT02246439|168808931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
84528200|NCT02246439|168808932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7922||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1188|2.871|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8710|1.1188|0.0152
84528201|NCT02246439|168808933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0789||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2676|3.4095|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4095|1.2676|0.0037
84528202|NCT03439852|168808934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for repeated measures was conducted to compare 2 conditions over time. The model included group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||1.39|0.26|<0.05
84528203|NCT03439852|168808935|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.64||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling conducted for repeated measures comparing minutes per week of light-to-moderate physical activity for participants in two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||2.64|-0.37|0.05
84528204|NCT03439852|168808936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||0.88|-2.31|0.05
84718781|NCT00811941|169189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 318 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.10|0.90|0.916
84476022|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.60|0.7741
84476023|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.50|<.0001
84476024|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.90|1.32|0.0008
84476025|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0890
84476026|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0067
84476027|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|1.10|0.0072
84476028|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.06|1.23|0.0004
84476029|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|1.20|0.0013
84476030|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.34|<.0001
84476031|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.30|1.51|<.0001
84476032|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.71|1.72|<.0001
84476033|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.98|0.0732
84476034|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.68|1.01|0.0399
84476035|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|1.00|0.0536
84476036|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.12|0.0043
84476037|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.07|0.0143
84476038|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
84476039|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.38|1.17|0.0050
84476040|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.18|0.0043
84476041|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2777
84476042|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0326
84476043|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.92|0.1823
84476044|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0350
84476045|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.07|0.0164
84476046|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|1.04|0.0257
84476047|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.14|0.0070
84476048|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.13|0.0085
84476049|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.85|0.4925
84476050|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1534
84476051|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1202
84476052|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1222
84476053|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.90|1.06|0.0179
84476054|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.12|0.0065
84528205|NCT03439852|168808937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation.||4.60|-2.67|<0.05
84528206|NCT03439852|168808938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.11|<0.05
84528207|NCT03439852|168808939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.15|<0.05
84476055|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.06|0.0223
84476056|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.17|0.0045
84476057|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.28|0.77|0.9385
84476058|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.95|0.1093
84476059|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.93|0.1631
84476060|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0285
84476061|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0389
84476062|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.04|0.0240
84476063|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.34|1.15|0.0063
84476064|NCT02528253|168704623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.22|0.0021
84528208|NCT03439852|168808940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures generalized linear model test effects of time/group, \& interaction rate met MVPA, adjusting for within subject correlation.||||1.11|-2.10|<0.05
84528209|NCT04271735|168808951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84528210|NCT03197558|168808952|SUPERIORITY|Upper confidence limit of mean VAS score hypothesized to be less than (superior) to a performance goal of 45 mm.|Bootstrap method|14.35|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.35||||||Mean VAS score compared to performance goal using a bootstrap method test at 2.5% significance.||14.35||
84528211|NCT01936519|168808960|EQUIVALENCE|Mann Whitney U Test was performed|Mean Difference (Net)|27.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.61||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|70.8||Cockcroft-Gault Clearance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Cockcroft Gault Creatinine clearance 2 year data.||70.80|-16.17|0.283
84528212|NCT01936519|168808961|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Median Difference (Final Values)|34.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|58.21|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the MDRD Clearance 2 year data row data.||58.21|9.95|0.013
84528213|NCT01936519|168808962|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|47.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Iothalamate Clearance 2 year data.||47.72|-3.28|0.099
84528214|NCT01936519|168808962|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric statistical tests were used for all analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous outcomes and Pearson's chi-square test for binary outcomes. Univariate statistical tests were used for all comparisons. Cohen's d was utilized for all comparisons to provide information about effect size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.29||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|57.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power and sample size. The assumption was made that eGFR would improve from 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 43 mL/min/1.73 m2. It was determined that a sample size of 12 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of -9.0 (the difference between a group 1 mean of 34.0 and a group 2 mean of 43.0) assuming that the common standard deviation was 7.5 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Data from the 2 year time point was used for analysis."||57.1|1.04|.032
84528215|NCT01936519|168808962|EQUIVALENCE|Difference of zero hypothesized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on 2 year data time point.||-0.003|-1.11|0.015
84528216|NCT01421342|168809017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75||Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results from largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmenting Antidepressant+Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.75|0.97|0.076
84718782|NCT00811941|169189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.29|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-2.85|0.017
84528217|NCT01421342|168809017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.89||Co-primary hypothesis: Second ordered test after ordering largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||1.89|1.06|0.018
84528218|NCT01421342|168809017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|If either if the first two hypothesis tests for the co-primary hypotheses were significant, perform the test of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.||1.48|0.84|0.46
84528219|NCT01421342|168809018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.39|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||2.39|0.78|0.70
84528220|NCT01421342|168809018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.94|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.94|0.65|0.68
84528221|NCT01421342|168809018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.59|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.59|0.58|0.87
84528222|NCT01421342|168809019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.||1.50|0.89|0.28
84539735|NCT00509795|168829388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.7|7.0||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as VEGF Trap-Eye minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors VEGF Trap-Eye 2.0Q8.|The pairwise The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||7.0|-7.7|0.93
84528223|NCT01421342|168809019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center (site)|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.33|<0.0001
84528224|NCT01421342|168809019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.05||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||2.05|1.17|0.002
84528225|NCT01421342|168809020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68||After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|||1.68|0.95|0.11
84528226|NCT01421342|168809020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.26|<0.001
84528227|NCT01421342|168809020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.86||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.86|1.01|0.043
84528228|NCT02274844|168809058|SUPERIORITY|The outcomes were all continuous or ordinal measures, thus unadjusted hypothesis tests used t-tests or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate, and statistical modeling used linear regression. ANCOVA was used to adjust for baseline covariates with imbalance across treatment arms (race) and baseline values of the measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05||The main hypotheses tested were that intervention participants would have higher medication adherence and significantly greater improvement in A1c, BP, LDL-C, and measures of quality of life, and self-efficacy compared to control participants.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in physiologic risk factors; it had four primary outcomes.Power estimates accounted for clustering of patients within towns, using a variance inflation factor, conservatively estimating power for ICC=0.01-0.05. Process measures were selected to understand which aspects of the intervention were particularly effective, assessing both program satisfaction and peer coach effectiveness.||0.05|-0.23|0.22
84528229|NCT02712333|168809077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|7.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|10.41||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels (presented as relative intensities in high perfomance liquid chromatography-mass spectrum) by treatments (intervention group vs control group)||10.41|4.65|<0.05
84528230|NCT02712333|168809077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
84528231|NCT02712333|168809078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|3.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.54||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisone levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||5.54|1.85|<0.01
84528232|NCT02712333|168809078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
84528233|NCT02712333|168809079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|5.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.14||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum epinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||7.14|3.21|<0.01
84528234|NCT02712333|168809079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
84528235|NCT02712333|168809080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|11.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|15.21||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum norepinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||15.21|7.37|<0.01
84528236|NCT02712333|168809080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.57|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
84528237|NCT02712333|168809081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum SBP levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||1.59|0.09|<0.01
84528238|NCT02712333|168809082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||0.96|-1.59|>0.05
84528239|NCT02712333|168809083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||3.63|-1.14|>0.05
84528240|NCT03463993|168809084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The p-value above is the calculated P value based on hematocrit.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA) 10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.549
84528241|NCT03463993|168809084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||This is the calculated p-value based on hemoglobin .|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA)10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.138
84528242|NCT03463993|168809085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||0.789 is the calculated p-value for visually estimated blood loss: Visually estimated blood loss (ml): Group A mean 483.73 (standard deviation182.56); Group B 479.61 (139.49); p-value 0.789|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
84528243|NCT03463993|168809085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||0.968 is the calculated p-value based on hematocrit. Hematocrit-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml): Group A mean 650.06 (standard deviation 631.50); Group B 653.05 (796.03); p-value 0.968|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
84528244|NCT03463993|168809085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||Hemoglobin-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml) mean(standard deviation): Group A 644.30 (692.27); Group B 707.68 (948.01); p-value 0.447|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
84528245|NCT03463993|168809086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84528246|NCT03463993|168809087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84528247|NCT01610453|168809097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A sample size calculation with alpha 0.05, power 0.8, and cut-off level of HPD at 40 mm. 146 women should be included. The calculation was based from a previous study, in which 93% with HPD ≤40 mm and 57% of with HPD \> 40 mm delivered vaginally.|Chi-squared|||Women were categorized in accordance to fetal descent measured by ultrasound. Head-perineum distance ≤40 mm was used as cut-off level. Vaginal delivery was the primary outcome measure.||||<0.01
84528248|NCT01610453|168809098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84528249|NCT01064323|168809136|OTHER|Paired T-test to detect if there was a change from baseline to 5 minutes into intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.02
84528250|NCT01064323|168809143|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
84528251|NCT00775684|168809175|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t test||||=0.1
84528252|NCT00775684|168809175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measure (baseline and 6 months)||||< 0.05
84528253|NCT00775684|168809176|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within group changes over 6 months (delta= final - baseline) were compared.||||>0.1
84528254|NCT00775684|168809177|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||To determine if exenatide or sitagliptin induced significant changes from baseline, the change for each measure (Δ = final - baseline) for each group was compared with the change in the glimepiride group using independent Student t tests||||>0.1
84528255|NCT00775684|168809178|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
84528256|NCT02025751|168809180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.597
84528257|NCT00653991|168809182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84528258|NCT01568866|168809188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.651|||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|"The PFS interim analysis was to be performed using a group sequential monitoring plan.~The monitoring plan included an O'Brien-Fleming type of efficacy stopping boundary constructed using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function to ensure a 1-sided Type I error rate ≤ 0.025."||0.651|0.437|< 0.0001
84528259|NCT01568866|168809189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.964||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|The second interim analysis of overall survival was to be conducted after 394 events had been reached. A one-sided significance level was determined using the O'Brien-Fleming-type α spending function based on the actual number of events (α=0.0123).||0.964|0.648|0.0100
84528260|NCT01568866|168809190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|2.718||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|||2.718|1.519|< 0.0001
84528261|NCT01568866|168809192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.21||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using the unconditional Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||0.210|0.089|<0.0001
84528262|NCT03864042|168809196|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.40|0.978|
84528263|NCT03864042|168809196|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.215|0.308|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.308|0.215|
84528264|NCT03864042|168809197|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.998|
84528265|NCT03864042|168809197|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.40|1.12|
84528266|NCT03864042|168809198|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.62|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.62|1.12|
84528267|NCT03864042|168809198|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.517|0.748|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.748|0.517|
84528268|NCT03864042|168809199|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.975|
84528269|NCT03864042|168809199|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.16|
84528270|NCT03864042|168809200|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.2|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.20|0.922|
84528271|NCT03864042|168809200|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.29|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.29|0.992|
84528272|NCT03864042|168809201|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.19|0.990|
84528273|NCT03864042|168809201|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.22|1.00|
84528274|NCT03864042|168809202|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.08|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.08|0.741|
84528275|NCT03864042|168809202|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.573|0.835|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.835|0.573|
84528276|NCT03864042|168809203|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|2.04|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.04|0.861|
84528277|NCT03864042|168809203|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|1.56|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.56|0.659|
84528278|NCT03864042|168809204|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.33|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.33|0.762|
84528279|NCT03864042|168809204|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.948|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.948|0.543|
84528280|NCT03864042|168809205|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|6.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||6.40|2.94|
84528281|NCT03864042|168809205|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|3.96|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||3.96|1.82|
84528282|NCT03864042|168809206|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.954|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.954|0.595|
84528283|NCT03864042|168809206|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.596|0.957|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.957|0.596|
84528284|NCT03864042|168809207|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.27|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.27|0.864|
84528285|NCT03864042|168809207|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.72|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.72|1.17|
84528286|NCT03864042|168809208|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.920|
84528287|NCT03864042|168809208|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.204|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.204|0.151|
84528288|NCT03864042|168809209|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.38|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.38|1.18|
84528289|NCT03864042|168809209|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.14|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.14|0.974|
84528290|NCT03864042|168809210|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.43|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.43|1.09|
84528291|NCT03864042|168809210|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.449|0.587|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.587|0.449|
84528292|NCT03864042|168809211|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|1.17|
84528293|NCT03864042|168809211|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.16|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.16|0.979|
84528294|NCT03864042|168809212|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.26|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.26|0.947|
84528295|NCT03864042|168809212|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.10|
84528296|NCT03864042|168809213|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|1.02|
84528297|NCT03864042|168809213|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.38|1.14|
84528298|NCT03864042|168809214|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.12|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.12|0.721|
84528299|NCT03864042|168809214|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.544|0.848|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.848|0.544|
84528300|NCT03864042|168809215|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.98|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.98|0.800|
84528301|NCT03864042|168809215|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|1.3|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.30|0.526|
84528302|NCT03864042|168809216|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|0.688|
84528303|NCT03864042|168809216|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|0.9|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.900|0.445|
84528304|NCT03864042|168809217|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.74|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||3.74|2.08|
84528305|NCT03864042|168809217|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|2.11|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||2.11|1.17|
84528306|NCT03864042|168809218|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.928|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.928|0.637|
84528307|NCT03864042|168809218|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.736|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.889|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.889|0.610|
84528308|NCT03864042|168809219|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.803|
84528309|NCT03864042|168809219|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.83|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.83|1.20|
84528310|NCT03864042|168809220|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.32|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.32|0.902|
84528311|NCT03864042|168809220|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.93|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.93|0.720|
84528312|NCT03864042|168809221|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.36|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.36|0.915|
84528313|NCT03864042|168809221|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.519|1.39|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.39|0.519|
84528314|NCT03864042|168809222|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.87|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.87|0.775|
84528315|NCT03864042|168809222|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.593|1.49|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.49|0.593|
84528316|NCT03864042|168809223|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.67|0.830|
84528317|NCT03864042|168809223|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.41|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.41|0.680|
84528318|NCT03864042|168809224|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|1.09|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.09|0.585|
84528319|NCT03864042|168809225|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.11|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.11|0.935|
84528320|NCT03864042|168809226|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|0.945|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||0.945|0.613|
84528321|NCT03864042|168809227|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.22|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.22|0.929|
84528322|NCT01698775|168809345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.33||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.63|0.035
84528323|NCT01698775|168809346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|8.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||8.8|-16.3|
84528324|NCT01698775|168809347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||7.2|-2.6|
84528325|NCT01698775|168809348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||10.3|-12.2|
84528326|NCT01698775|168809349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.8||||||||9.8|-3.6|
84528327|NCT01698775|168809350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.7|-16.5|0.540
84528328|NCT01698775|168809353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||cLDA|||||1.9|-2.7|0.720
84528329|NCT01244061|168809360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|11.55||The statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis firstly for CAR Weeks 9-12, and then secondly for CAR Weeks 9-52 until a p-value \> 0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis would be declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The study was conducted on a sample size to achieve at least 90% power for the treatment comparison in the primary efficacy endpoint assuming an odds ratio of 3.36 with a placebo abstinence rate of 12% and varenicline abstinence rate of 31%. The intent of the primary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment.||11.55|4.34|<0.0001
84528330|NCT01244061|168809361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|20.41||Statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis in the order above until a p-value \>0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis was declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The sample size was sufficient to achieve 80% power for the treatment comparison in the key secondary end point for an odds ratio of 2.55 with a placebo abstinence rate of 6% and varenicline abstinence rate of 14%. The intent of the key secondary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation from Week 9 to the end of non-treatment follow up period at Week 52.||20.41|3.97|<0.0001
84528331|NCT01244061|168809362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|10.44||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||||10.44|3.25|<0.0001
84528332|NCT01244061|168809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.51||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12 assessment||12.51|4.92|<0.0001
84528333|NCT01244061|168809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.64||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24 assessment||4.64|1.86|<0.0001
84528334|NCT01244061|168809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.97||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 52 assessment||4.97|1.88|<0.0001
84726077|NCT00674609|169204434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.62||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|-0.01|0.053
84528335|NCT04551911|168809426|OTHER|||||||0.7856|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as the main effect, and baseline aggregate symptom score, baseline 25D level, and body weight as covariates||||||0.7856
84528336|NCT01383421|168809438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
84528337|NCT01383421|168809440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.058
84528338|NCT01383421|168809442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84528339|NCT01383421|168809444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.027
84528340|NCT01383421|168809444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.006
84528341|NCT01383421|168809444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.018
84528342|NCT01383421|168809445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.059
84528343|NCT01383421|168809445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.003
84528344|NCT01383421|168809445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.010
84528345|NCT01383421|168809446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.023
84528346|NCT01383421|168809446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.002
84528347|NCT01383421|168809446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.002
84528348|NCT01383421|168809450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.625|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.625
84528349|NCT01383421|168809450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.736|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.736
84528350|NCT01383421|168809450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.700
84528351|NCT01383421|168809450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.561||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.023
84528352|NCT01383421|168809451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.736||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.890
84528353|NCT01383421|168809451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.835
84528354|NCT01383421|168809451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.883|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.883
84528355|NCT01383421|168809451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.019
84528356|NCT01383421|168809452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.873|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.873
84528357|NCT01383421|168809452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.598||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.753
84528358|NCT01383421|168809452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.159||0.461|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.461
84528359|NCT01383421|168809452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.624|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||<0.001
84528360|NCT01383421|168809453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.017
84528361|NCT01383421|168809453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.164
84528362|NCT01383421|168809453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.003
84528363|NCT01383421|168809453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.335
84528364|NCT01383421|168809454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.021
84528365|NCT01383421|168809454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.106
84528366|NCT01383421|168809454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.002
84528367|NCT01383421|168809454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.269
84528368|NCT01383421|168809455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.049
84528369|NCT01383421|168809455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.011
84528370|NCT01383421|168809455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||<0.001
84528371|NCT01383421|168809455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.657||0.272|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.272
84528372|NCT01383421|168809456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.154|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.154
84528373|NCT01383421|168809456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.198|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.198
84528374|NCT01383421|168809456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.131|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.131
84528375|NCT01383421|168809460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Necessity||||0.019
84528376|NCT01383421|168809460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Concern||||0.560
84528377|NCT02177136|168809467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0434
84528378|NCT02177136|168809467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0665
84528379|NCT03573505|168809500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.73|||Log Rank|||A cox proportional hazards model with terms for treatment (BG00011 vs. placebo) and randomization stratification factor is used. A stratified log-rank test is used to compare the 2 treatment groups using randomization stratus as the stratification factor. An HR (Hazard Ratio) \< 1 indicates lower risk of event for the BG00011 group where HR is based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment (Placebo, BG00011) as the categorical covariate.||4.73|0.85|0.112
84528380|NCT02040779|168809527|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.116||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.185||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. If the 2-sided p-value resulting from the ANCOVA model for comparing beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 160 mcg/day versus placebo was less than 0.05, then the comparison of the 80 mcg/day versus placebo was to be interpreted inferentially.||0.185|0.048|0.0010
84528381|NCT02040779|168809527|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.124||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.193||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|||0.193|0.054|0.0005
84718783|NCT00811941|169189259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-0.42|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.42|-12.53|0.036
84528382|NCT02040779|168809528|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.911||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|15.621||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||15.621|0.202|0.0443
84528383|NCT02040779|168809528|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|13.645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.843|21.446||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||21.446|5.843|0.0007
84528384|NCT02040779|168809529|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.405||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|13.715||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||13.715|-2.905|0.2014
84528385|NCT02040779|168809529|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|10.902||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.303||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||19.303|2.500|0.0112
84528386|NCT02040779|168809530|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.068||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.068|-0.708|0.0175
84528387|NCT02040779|168809530|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.358||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.038||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.038|-0.678|0.0285
84528388|NCT02040779|168809531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.137||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.011||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.011|-0.263|0.0335
84528389|NCT02040779|168809531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.127||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.001||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||0.001|-0.255|0.0509
84528390|NCT02040779|168809533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2384
84528391|NCT02040779|168809533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0208
84528392|NCT00866658|168809547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.65||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%),sulfonylurea use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 145 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided t test at 5% significance level.||-0.650|-1.116|<0.0001
84528393|NCT00076804|168809591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.42
84528394|NCT00076804|168809592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.89
84528395|NCT00076804|168809593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.14
84528396|NCT00076804|168809594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.61
84718784|NCT00811941|169189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.52|0.67|0.976
84528397|NCT00354341|168809595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with last observation carry forward (LOCF) method.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8811
84528398|NCT00354341|168809596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8864
84528399|NCT00354341|168809597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.5681
84528400|NCT00354341|168809598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.1578
84528401|NCT00354341|168809599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.2913
84528402|NCT00354341|168809600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
84528403|NCT01901874|168809669|OTHER|"Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=16.9% with 95.1% confidence.~Wa = expected weight (proportion) anatomic = 35% Pa = CEA expected anatomic MAE = 11% Wc = expected weight (proportion) comorbid = 65% Pc = CEA expected comorbid MAE = 14% D = noninferiority delta = 4%~PG = 0.35 x 11% + 0.65 x 14% + 4% = 16.9%"|Weighted binomial proportion|0.0448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0241|<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0846||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.049 (from simulation) to ensure overall type-1 error rate ≤ 0.05.|Binomial test (normal approximation)||Weighted by expected fractions of anatomic and comorbid high risk subjects (35% and 65%, respectively). Standard error based on H0.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or greater proportion with 1-year MAE compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≥ 16.9% vs H1: P \< 16.9%, where P is the true proportion of CAS subjects with 1-year MAE and 16.9% is the PG based on outcomes reported for patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).~N=280 subjects provide ≥90% power to exclude PG with 95.1% confidence if P=10.2% under H1."||0.0846||<0.00001
84528404|NCT01901874|168809677|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.047|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.047|0.007|
84528405|NCT01901874|168809678|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.052|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.052|0.009|
84528406|NCT02728752|168809727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-4.6|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16 for Total Activity Score||-4.6|-11.5|<0.0001
84528407|NCT02728752|168809733|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||12.8|4.4|0.0001
84528408|NCT02728752|168809734|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
84528409|NCT02728752|168809740|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.5|-1.9|0.0010
84528410|NCT02220725|168809777|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-70.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.43|-65.91|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-65.91|-85.43|<0.0001
84528411|NCT02220725|168809777|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.95|-47.03|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-47.03|-57.95|<0.0001
84528412|NCT02220725|168809778|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.92|-64.45|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-64.45|-78.92|<0.0001
84528413|NCT02220725|168809780|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Shift|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-12.73|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-12.73|-23.05|<0.0001
84528414|NCT02220725|168809781|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1142.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1006.1|1281.4|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1281.40|1006.10|<0.0001
84528415|NCT02220725|168809781|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1205.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1034.17|1400.79|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1400.79|1034.17|<0.0001
84528416|NCT03020719|168809804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081||||0.2521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥ -0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 weight-for-age z-score, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.059|-0.221|0.2521
84528417|NCT03020719|168809805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.01|-0.18|0.0890
84528418|NCT03020719|168809806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted from randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.15|-0.28|0.5730
84528419|NCT03020719|168809807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.40|-0.17|0.4259
84528420|NCT03020719|168809808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.96|||ANCOVA|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).||||0.96|-2.06|0.4666
84528421|NCT03020719|168809809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||13.6|-13.6|1.0000
84528422|NCT03020719|168809809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-13.3||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|2.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||2.9|-30.5|0.1945
84528423|NCT03020719|168809810|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.21||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||1.52|0.96|0.1087
84528424|NCT03020719|168809810|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.12||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||0.67|0.01|0.0122
84528425|NCT02960893|168809847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||Significance was evaluated at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: treatment, baseline (BL) gait severity, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction; Covariate: BL Total SARA score; Random effect: subject||||0.9|-0.5|0.519
84528426|NCT06204887|168809853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
84528427|NCT02054130|168809866|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.63|0.23|<0.001
84528428|NCT02054130|168809866|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
84528429|NCT02054130|168809866|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Negative bnomial regression|||||0.58|0.20|<0.001
84528430|NCT00364949|168809924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84528431|NCT00364949|168809925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
84528432|NCT00364949|168809926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
84528433|NCT00364949|168809927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
84528434|NCT00364949|168809928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
84528435|NCT00094458|168809931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
84528436|NCT00094458|168809931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.006
84528437|NCT00094458|168809931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.022
84528438|NCT00094458|168809932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
84528439|NCT00094458|168809932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.023
84528440|NCT00094458|168809932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.055
84528441|NCT02130583|168809940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.034
84528442|NCT03247517|168809961|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0232
84528443|NCT03247517|168809961|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0091
84528444|NCT03247517|168809962|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0042
84528445|NCT03247517|168809962|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.9|0.0003
84528446|NCT03247517|168809963|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.6854
84528447|NCT03247517|168809963|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-5.8|0.0518
84528448|NCT03247517|168809964|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.2062
84528449|NCT03247517|168809964|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.23|0.0519
84528450|NCT03247517|168809965|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.2|5.5|0.0068
84528451|NCT03247517|168809965|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|30.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.5|4.6|0.0095
84528452|NCT03247517|168809966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-9.1|0.7629
84528453|NCT03247517|168809966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-12.1|0.7648
84528454|NCT03247517|168809967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.7|-4.6|0.0069
84528455|NCT03247517|168809967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.5|-5.2|0.0005
84528456|NCT03247517|168809967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.2|0.0424
84528457|NCT03247517|168809967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.1|0.0390
84528458|NCT03247517|168809968|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-3.4|0.3813
84528459|NCT03247517|168809968|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-2.4|0.9506
84528460|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0254
84528461|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0899
84528462|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0070
84528463|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0031
84528464|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0065
84528465|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0070
84528466|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0063
84528467|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0123
84528468|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0003
84528469|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0001
84528470|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0025
84528471|NCT03247517|168809969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0033
84528472|NCT03623386|168809987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
84528473|NCT03623386|168809988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
84528474|NCT03623386|168809989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||>0.05
84528475|NCT03623386|168809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p value reflects the effect of time.|ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||0.026
84528476|NCT00515541|168809997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A P-value \<0.05 when compared to baseline is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group B baseline vs. Group B Week 12||||0.01
84528477|NCT00515541|168809998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 6.||||<0.001
84528478|NCT00515541|168809998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 12.||||<0.001
84528479|NCT00922272|168810002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84528480|NCT00922272|168810004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-3.4|0.4182
84528481|NCT00922272|168810005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6705
84528482|NCT00922272|168810006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affective Flattening||||<0.0001
84528483|NCT00922272|168810006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Alogia||||<0.0001
84528484|NCT00922272|168810006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Avolition-Apathy||||<0.0001
84528485|NCT00922272|168810006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anhedonia-Asociality||||<0.0001
84528486|NCT00922272|168810006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention||||<0.0001
84528487|NCT00922272|168810007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Affective Flattening||0.5|-0.4|0.8771
84528488|NCT00922272|168810007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Alogia||1.1|0.0|0.0584
84528489|NCT00922272|168810007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Avolition-Apathy||0.6|-0.3|0.5215
84528490|NCT00922272|168810007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Anhedonia-Asociality||0.7|-0.3|0.4835
84528491|NCT00922272|168810007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Attention||0.7|-0.4|0.5723
84528492|NCT00922272|168810008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive subscale||||<0.0001
84528493|NCT00922272|168810008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative subscale||||<0.0001
84528494|NCT00922272|168810008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Psychopathology subscale||||<0.0001
84528495|NCT00922272|168810009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Positive subscale||1.5|-0.3|0.1975
84528496|NCT00922272|168810009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Negative subscale||2.3|-0.3|0.1228
84528497|NCT00922272|168810009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||General Psychopathology subscale||3.9|-0.4|0.1115
84528498|NCT00922272|168810016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0307||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0307
84528499|NCT00922272|168810017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|||||6.2|-0.6|0.1072
84528500|NCT00922272|168810018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.366||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3660
84528501|NCT00922272|168810019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-5.0|0.4347
84528502|NCT00922272|168810020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4312||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4312
84528503|NCT00922272|168810021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.4|0.0874
84528504|NCT00922272|168810022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Skills||||<0.0001
84528505|NCT00922272|168810022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication Skills||||0.0002
84528506|NCT00922272|168810022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Financial Skills||||0.0028
84528507|NCT00922272|168810023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Skills||2.4|-5.3|0.4637
84528508|NCT00922272|168810023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Communication Skills||2.4|-4.1|0.6137
84528509|NCT00922272|168810023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Financial Skills||1.3|-3.5|0.3482
84528510|NCT00922272|168810024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0174||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||0.0174
84528511|NCT00922272|168810024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0461||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||0.0461
84528512|NCT00922272|168810024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Metacognition Index||||0.0146
84528513|NCT00922272|168810025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||2.7|-3.8|0.7418
84528514|NCT00922272|168810025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Recognition Index||4.1|-2.6|0.6429
84528515|NCT00922272|168810025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||2.1|-4.8|0.4364
84528516|NCT02588950|168810039|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|1.08|
84528517|NCT02588950|168810043|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.761|
84528518|NCT02588950|168810044|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.6||||||||2.60|-1.60|
84528519|NCT02072824|168810057|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||0.42|-0.19|0.4606
84528520|NCT02072824|168810057|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||-0.06|-0.80|0.0223
84528521|NCT02072824|168810058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||1.373|0.284|0.2418
84528522|NCT02072824|168810058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|4.086|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||4.086|0.644|0.3050
84528523|NCT02011113|168810106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis(H0: p = 0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||0.0027
84528524|NCT01338649|168810117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test on two groups of differences||||||0.0211
84528525|NCT00986180|168810158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was recalculated due to Amendment INT-1. The non-inferiority margin for SPID120 was set as 120. The common standard deviation for the SPID120 data was estimated to be 230. Seventy nine subjects in each arm would have 90% power to demonstrate the non-inferiority of NUCYNTA to oxycodone IR with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This would have required enrollment of total 158 mITT subjects for each stratum. The original sample size (292 mITT subjects) was derived for SPID72.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-32.1|0.9703
84528526|NCT00986180|168810159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-10.1|0.7691
84528527|NCT00986180|168810160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|-17.3|0.9282
84528528|NCT00986180|168810161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.75||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|56.8|||ANCOVA|||||56.8|-60.1|0.9562
84528529|NCT00986180|168810162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.4|||ANCOVA|||||10.4|-13.5|0.7973
84528530|NCT00986180|168810163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|15.8|||ANCOVA|||||15.8|-20.8|0.7882
84528531|NCT00986180|168810164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.82||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|26.0|||ANCOVA|||||26.0|-36.1|0.7491
84528532|NCT00986180|168810165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.03||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|45.4|||ANCOVA|||||45.4|-68.6|0.6897
84528533|NCT00986180|168810166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||||15.4|-12.2|0.8226
84528534|NCT00986180|168810167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8880
84528535|NCT00986180|168810168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4115
84528536|NCT00986180|168810169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8495
84528537|NCT00986180|168810170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7846
84528538|NCT00986180|168810171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4790
84528539|NCT00986180|168810172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3147
84528540|NCT00986180|168810173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5411|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5411
84528541|NCT00986180|168810174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6137
84528542|NCT00986180|168810175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7246
84528543|NCT00986180|168810176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4882
84528544|NCT00986180|168810177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7201
84528545|NCT00986180|168810179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
84528546|NCT00986180|168810181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0401
84528547|NCT00986180|168810183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4679|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4679
84528548|NCT00986180|168810185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1454
84528549|NCT00986180|168810186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1541
84528550|NCT00986180|168810188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.06|0.92|
84528551|NCT00986180|168810189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|1.17|
84528552|NCT00986180|168810190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.11|1.45|
84528553|NCT00986180|168810191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.67|0.54|
84528554|NCT00986180|168810192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5828
84528555|NCT00986180|168810193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
84528556|NCT03261960|168810194|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84528557|NCT04295135|168810202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.05
84528558|NCT04295135|168810203|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
84528559|NCT04295135|168810204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
84528560|NCT04295135|168810205|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
84528561|NCT04295135|168810206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
84528562|NCT04295135|168810207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
84528563|NCT01517659|168810252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.27||||||||3.27|2.23|
84528564|NCT03395639|168810281|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major or CRNM bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.18|
84528565|NCT03395639|168810281|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
84528566|NCT03395639|168810281|OTHER|Difference in all adjudicated bleeding (major, CRNM, minor) rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.24|
84528567|NCT00942331|168810289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||1.06|0.72|0.1707
84528568|NCT03407118|168810332|SUPERIORITY||ratio of least square means|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.17||||||||1.17|0.803|
84528569|NCT04017754|168810334|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant for at difference in frequency of low p-MBL level(\<500 ug/l) between groups.|Prevalence proportion ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.38|||Chi-squared||The numerator is the risk of low p-MBL in the study sample with RPL patients and the denominator is the risk of low p-MBL in control group 1 of female blood donors.|Comparing the risk of low p-MBL level between RPL patients and MBL reference group. We hypothesized that more RPL patients had a low p-MBL level; thus, the null hypothesis was that no difference existed.||2.38|1.34|<0.001
84528570|NCT03508687|168810358|OTHER|||||||0.517||||||paired t test; baseline vs. week 12 (n = 5)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
84528571|NCT03508687|168810358|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (n = 5)||||||0.345
84528572|NCT02999477|168810396|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05. The margin is zero.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
84528573|NCT02999477|168810396|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel or pembrolizumab. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
84528574|NCT01583218|168810409|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.209||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.366|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.366|0.013|0.038
84528575|NCT01583218|168810410|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.216||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.359|0.041|0.018
84528576|NCT01583218|168810411|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.254||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.387|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.387|0.092|0.003
84528577|NCT01583218|168810412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.554
84528578|NCT01583218|168810413|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.326||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.576|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.576|-0.069|0.092
84476065|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.75|0.0003
84476066|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.85|<.0001
84476067|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.47|0.0615
84476068|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.50|0.0356
84476069|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.60|0.0032
84476070|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.88|0.0003
84476071|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.08|<.0001
84476072|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.54|0.0844
84476073|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.60|0.0258
84476074|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.80|0.0004
84476075|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.78|0.0079
84476076|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.08|<.0001
84528579|NCT01583218|168810414|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.295||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.542|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.542|-0.085|0.11
84476077|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.0977
84476078|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.50|0.2150
84528580|NCT01583218|168810415|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.358||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.580|0.020|0.039
84528581|NCT00856973|168810425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|19.83|||ANCOVA|Bonferroni adjustment was use for multiple comparisons|Difference calculated as Eszopiclone minus placebo|This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment grou||19.83|-5.17|>0.05
84528582|NCT00856973|168810425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.23|14.65|||ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment group.||14.65|-10.23|>0.05
84528583|NCT01796912|168810457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84528584|NCT01796912|168810458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84528585|NCT01796912|168810459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84528586|NCT01796912|168810460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84528587|NCT01796912|168810461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84528588|NCT01796912|168810462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84528589|NCT01796912|168810463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
84528590|NCT00841906|168810464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
84528591|NCT01196078|168810468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.88||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|26.19||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group \[ECOG\] status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in tumor response rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||26.19|-0.22|0.0388
84528592|NCT01196078|168810469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.79||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|31.33||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for the difference in the disease control rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||31.33|-3.54|0.1061
84528593|NCT01196078|168810470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9505
84528594|NCT01196078|168810472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.2314
84528595|NCT01196078|168810474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.9894
84528596|NCT01196078|168810476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||PWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.0060
84528597|NCT01196078|168810476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6871|||||||ANOVA|||SWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.6871
84528598|NCT01196078|168810476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5104|||||||ANOVA|||EWB Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.5104
84528599|NCT01196078|168810476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9927|||||||ANOVA|||FWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.9927
84528600|NCT01196078|168810476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|||||||ANOVA|||LCS, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.3581
84528601|NCT04397445|168810483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is 0 (-6.9 to 0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.54
84528602|NCT04397445|168810483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is -1.1 (-9.1 to 11.5) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.71
84528603|NCT04397445|168810484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 9.3 (3.8 to 25.0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.005
84528604|NCT04397445|168810484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 6.4 (0 to 23.4) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.007
84540740|NCT03718832|168832708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.681804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34136||0.1276817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15188|2.788269||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.788269|-22.15188|0.1276817
84726078|NCT00674609|169204435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.51|0.16|0.016
84476079|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.79|0.0016
84476080|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.0058
84476081|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.91|0.0038
84476082|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.58|0.1707
84476083|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.62|0.1083
84476084|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.64|0.0734
84476085|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.56|0.4603
84476086|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.74|0.0799
84476087|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.66|0.2339
84476088|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.73|0.1199
84476089|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.60|0.3840
84476090|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.68|0.2000
84528605|NCT04397445|168810485|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.01|0.87|0.92
84476091|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2997
84476092|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.71|0.1778
84718785|NCT00811941|169189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.44|0.056
84718786|NCT00811941|169189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029||95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-0.50|0.029
84476093|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.65|0.3438
84476094|NCT02528253|168704625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.71|0.1876
84476095|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.72|0.0002
84476096|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.79|<.0001
84476097|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.50|0.0193
84476098|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.42|0.0845
84476099|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.49|0.0212
84476100|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.81|0.0003
84476101|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.99|<.0001
84476102|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.50|0.0790
84476103|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.55|0.0336
84476104|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.73|0.0008
84476105|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.77|0.0034
84528606|NCT04397445|168810485|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.1||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.10|0.81|0.74
84528607|NCT04397445|168810485|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.23|0.90|0.52
84528608|NCT04397445|168810485|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.19|0.93|0.42
84528609|NCT04397445|168810486|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.91|0.72|0.001
84528610|NCT04397445|168810488|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.11||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.11|0.91|0.46
84528611|NCT04397445|168810488|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|1.25|0.80|0.49
84528612|NCT04397445|168810488|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||0.95|0.67|0.02
84528613|NCT04397445|168810488|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.98|0.65|0.03
84528614|NCT04397445|168810489|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator).|As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||0.89|0.66|0.002
84718787|NCT00811941|169189263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 98 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.90|0.67|0.001
84528615|NCT01429051|168810490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model with episode baseline PI as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||||1.179|0.41|0.002
84528616|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Analysis of Variance(ANOVA)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
84528617|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
84528618|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
84528619|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
84528620|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
84528621|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
84528622|NCT03728634|168810554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
84528623|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
84528624|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
84528625|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
84528626|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
84528627|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
84528628|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
84528629|NCT03728634|168810555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Exact Test (2-sided)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
84528630|NCT04688931|168810576|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.68|0.29|
84718788|NCT00811941|169189264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.99|0.79|0.037
84528631|NCT04688931|168810577|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.70|0.30|
84528632|NCT04688931|168810579|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.86|0.24|
84528633|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VI at α = 0.05.||||0.051
84528634|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31% response in the Group I at α = 0.05.||||0.073
84528635|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group III at α = 0.05.||||0.093
84528636|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups VII vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VII at α = 0.05.||||0.465
84528637|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group II at α = 0.05.||||0.872
84528638|NCT00361335|168810586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the combined group (I and III) at α = 0.05.||||0.175
84528639|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
84528640|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.032
84528641|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528642|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.795
84528643|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.844
84528644|NCT00361335|168810587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.540
84528645|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528646|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528647|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528648|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
84528649|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.043
84528650|NCT00361335|168810588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528651|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528652|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84718789|NCT03885232|169189265|SUPERIORITY|We applied a mixed zero-inflated beta regression model that included a fixed binary factor for treatment arm, a random effect for clinic to account for correlation within clinics, and unbalanced parent demographics across study arms.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.6|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Generalized linear mixed effects regression models||||1.60|0.68|0.9
84528653|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528654|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84528655|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.003
84528656|NCT00361335|168810589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.001
84528657|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.005
84528658|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
84528659|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
84528660|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I and VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.996
84528661|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.738
84528662|NCT00361335|168810590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity|2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.788
84528663|NCT01765582|168810591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease versus non liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right versus left) after correction post-randomization.||2.71|0.96|0.132
84528664|NCT01765582|168810592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease vs. non-liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right vs. left) after correction post-randomization.||0.88|0.53|0.005
84528665|NCT00688376|168810618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values, least squares (LS) mean, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as covariate.||4.8|-3.22|0.694
84528666|NCT00688376|168810619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|4.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.09|-4.38|0.9458
84528667|NCT00688376|168810620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|6.85|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.85|-9.56|0.743
84528668|NCT00688376|168810620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|7.84|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.84|-7.42|0.9561
84476106|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.01|<.0001
84476107|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.59|0.0361
84476108|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.44|0.2786
84476109|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.68|0.0058
84476110|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.71|0.0365
84476111|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.80|0.0092
84476112|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.49|0.2923
84476113|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.51|0.2231
84476114|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.0724
84476115|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.50|0.4776
84476116|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.64|0.1482
84476117|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.56|0.3249
84476118|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.62|0.1997
84476119|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.53|0.4823
84476120|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2754
84476121|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.50|0.5861
84476122|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.54|0.4346
84476123|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.36|-0.42|0.8752
84476124|NCT02528253|168704627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2663
84476125|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.77|0.0013
84476126|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.87|0.0001
84476127|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.43|0.2272
84476128|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0209
84476129|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.67|0.0029
84476130|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.92|0.0002
84476131|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.10|<.0001
84476132|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.53|0.1198
84476133|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.66|0.0160
84476134|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.85|0.0003
84476135|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0091
84476136|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0007
84476137|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.48|0.2264
84528669|NCT00688376|168810620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.04|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||9.04|-3.97|0.4385
84528670|NCT00688376|168810620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.0|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6|-6.74|0.9088
84528671|NCT00688376|168810621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite Score Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.96|-1.5|0.2886
84528672|NCT00688376|168810621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.69|-1.54|0.2555
84528673|NCT00688376|168810621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.99|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.99|-1.63|0.3155
84528674|NCT00688376|168810621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Working Memory Scale Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.16|-3.55|0.9075
84528675|NCT00557076|168810622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Because 50% of the planned sample size was randomized, achieved power for the DOCS is 0.51.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|21.9|||t-test, 1 sided|DOCS scores were transformed to interval level measures using a many-faceted Rasch model anchored to values from a larger validation data set|The mean difference between the baseline and endpoint DOCS test was compared between the FAST and Sham groups.|The planned sample of 15 per group provided 80% power for a one-sided t-test to detect be-tween group endpoint differences in DOCS averages equivalent to an effect size of .91 (9 units). Clinically, this assumes that the FAST protocol would facilitate progression from one clinical state to another (e.g., vegetative (VS) to minimally conscious (MCS) states). The hypothesized effect was based on average DOCS change for a severe TBI sample receiving three weeks of acute rehabilitation.||21.9|-11.1|.465
84528676|NCT00557076|168810623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.00493|||t-test, 1 sided|CNC scores were transformed to interval level measures using Rasch partial credit and Facets models. We then re-scaled these logits to 0-100 scales.|The mean difference was calculated for each group using the eighth CNC measure minus the Baseline CNC measure.|Power was not calculated for the CNC because the effect size was not published.||-.00493|-1.51|0.049
84528677|NCT00557076|168810623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||To confirm that CNC results were not an anomaly at the final measurement and that the overall CNC response pattern was consistent, mixed-effect longitudinal models were conducted.|t-test, 1 sided||The Baseline CNC measure and seven post-Baseline CNC measures (for a total of eight CNC measures) were used to calculate the slope.|||||.0022
84528678|NCT00886288|168810634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84528679|NCT04972123|168810642|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||||||0.521||||||The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.|Large sample Z-test for population prop|The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||Primary endpoint -- ITT primary endpoint analysis||||0.521
84528680|NCT04972123|168810643|SUPERIORITY|Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.||||||0.574||||||Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Secondary endpoint -- Time to event for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.574
84528681|NCT04972123|168810644|SUPERIORITY|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||||||1||||||Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||Secondary endpoint -- Incidence of asystolic pause \> 3 seconds for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||1.000
84528682|NCT04972123|168810645|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 1 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.732||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.732
84528683|NCT04972123|168810645|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 4 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.591||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.591
84528684|NCT04972123|168810645|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 8 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.034||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.034
84528685|NCT03835325|168810654|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size calculation was based on the following hypothesis test:~H0: there is no improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~H1: there is an improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~or H0: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS) ≤ 0 H1: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS)\> 0"||||<0.001
84528686|NCT00472797|168810667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean|2.73|||<|0.001||97.5|2.73|2.73||P-Value denotes percent change from baseline to week 12 for all combined subjects.|t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test across all subjects by combining the titrated and non-titrated new formulation groups was performed.||2.73|2.73|<0.001
84476138|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.56|0.0961
84476139|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0121
84476140|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.77|0.0270
84476141|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.94|0.0019
84476142|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.48|0.3906
84476143|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.59|0.1209
84476144|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0107
84476145|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.61|0.2396
84718790|NCT03885232|169189266|SUPERIORITY||Other|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Calculated individual survey means for vaccine hesitant parents who participated in the survey. Survey consisted of 15 questions with a 7-point Likert scale. We then created a dichotomous variable where 1 = mean \> or equal to 6; 0 = mean \< 6.||||<0.05
84476146|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.69|0.1088
84476147|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.65|0.1673
84476148|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.66|0.1751
84476149|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3164
84476150|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.62|0.2253
84528687|NCT00472797|168810668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||||||P-value denotes difference between treatment groups|ANOVA|||||||0.466
84528688|NCT00472797|168810668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
84528689|NCT00472797|168810668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.003
84528690|NCT00472797|168810669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value refers to change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ for all subjects combined.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test for change from baseline to week 12||Change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all subjects combined. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response||||<0.001
84528691|NCT00472797|168810669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value refers to differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluated differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response.||||0.110
84528692|NCT00472797|168810670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value refers to differneces in total score from baseline to week 12 between treatment groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates total score from baseline to week 12 for differences between each treatment group.||||0.302
84528693|NCT00472797|168810672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value denotes differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.||||0.899
84528694|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 12||||<0.001
84528695|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 36||||0.234
84528696|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.001
84528697|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.004
84528698|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Exisit Visit LOCF||||0.036
84528699|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 12||||0.002
84528700|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 36||||0.468
84528701|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.602
84528702|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.414
84528703|NCT00472797|168810673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Exit Visit LOCF||||0.991
84528704|NCT00706381|168810687|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|7.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.0001
84528705|NCT00706381|168810687|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
84528706|NCT00706381|168810687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Percent change from placebo|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.89
84528707|NCT00706381|168810687|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.41
84528708|NCT00706381|168810688|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.8||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.096
84528709|NCT00706381|168810688|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|260.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|191.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
84528710|NCT00706381|168810688|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.3||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.83
84528711|NCT00706381|168810688|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|125.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
84528712|NCT01194973|168810696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|117.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.77|142.59|||ANOVA|||||142.59|92.77|<0.0001
84528713|NCT01194973|168810702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|102.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.15|136.82|||ANOVA|||||136.82|68.15|<0.0001
84528714|NCT01846273|168810703|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5 letters|Least Squares Mean|3.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.38||||ANCOVA||||||0.38|<0.001
84528715|NCT01846273|168810704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84528716|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-3.0|
84528717|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.8|-1.4|
84528718|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.1|-1.1|
84528719|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.6|
84528720|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0789|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.8|-2.4|
84528721|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
84528722|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-7.2|
84528723|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-5.4|
84528724|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
84528725|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-6.7|
84540741|NCT03718832|168832708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.658257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706497||0.3318554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698022|5.014535||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||5.014535|-1.698022|0.3318554
84528726|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.6|-2.4|
84528727|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.4|
84528728|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-4.2|
84528729|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0276|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-2.8|
84528730|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-4.6|
84528731|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-6.9|
84528732|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-3.6|
84528733|NCT02037165|168810727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-5.0|
84528734|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-4.6|
84540742|NCT03718832|168832709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8749266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9355095||0.3502313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714084|0.9642311||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9642311|-2.714084|0.3502313
84528735|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-6.5|
84528736|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-6.7|
84528737|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.0|-5.3|
84528738|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-3.5|
84528739|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-3.0|
84528740|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.8|
84528741|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-5.0|
84528742|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-4.5|
84528743|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.7|
84540743|NCT03718832|168832709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5608222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2708671||0.0390797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0282451|1.093399||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.093399|0.0282451|0.0390797
84476151|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3408
84476152|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3391
84476153|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.50|0.5818
84476154|NCT02528253|168704629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2562
84476155|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0137
84476156|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.76|0.0044
84476157|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.35|0.6194
84476158|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0271
84476159|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.66|0.0085
84476160|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.87|0.0027
84476161|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.13|<.0001
84476162|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.54|0.1859
84476163|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.63|0.0573
84476164|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.88|0.0005
84476165|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.66|0.0841
84528744|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.4|-7.6|
84528745|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-6.0|
84528746|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-4.9|
84528747|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.825|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-5.3|
84528748|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-3.8|
84528749|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-5.0|
84528750|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-6.2|
84528751|NCT02037165|168810728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.3|-3.9|
84528752|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.8|
84540744|NCT03718832|168832709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.450197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9508997||0.1281032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.320109|0.419716||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.419716|-3.320109|0.1281032
84528753|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.9|-0.5|
84528754|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.7|
84528755|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-1.4|
84528756|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-2.0|
84528757|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.3|
84528758|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-4.3|
84528759|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-4.2|
84528760|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-3.5|
84540745|NCT03718832|168832709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2794625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2717457||0.3044732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2549974|0.8139224||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.8139224|-0.2549974|0.3044732
84718791|NCT03885232|169189267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.64|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Adjusted for: study arm, study period (pre vs. post), years in practice, provider type, interaction between study arm and study period||"1. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians using presumptive and Motivational Interviewing techniques between intervention and control.~2. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians time spent talking to vaccine hesitant parents between intervention and control."||5.64|0.66|<0.05
84528761|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-4.2|
84528762|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.5|
84528763|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.8|
84528764|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.9|
84528765|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.2|-2.0|
84528766|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.6|
84528767|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.7|
84528768|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.2|
84528769|NCT02037165|168810729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-2.9|
84726079|NCT00674609|169204435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.66||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.33|-0.02|0.056
84528770|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.4|
84528771|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.4|
84718792|NCT02397096|169189268|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) once daily (QD) ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-3.784|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|0.31|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|0.310|-7.877|
84528772|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-4.1|
84528773|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
84528774|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-2.1|
84528775|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.1|
84528776|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
84539736|NCT00509795|168829389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences Least Squares means|1.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.73|3.28||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||3.28|-0.73|0.2090
84718793|NCT02397096|169189269|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.92|-10.38|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-10.38|-18.92|<0.0001
84718794|NCT02397096|169189270|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.05|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-18.05|-28.00|<0.0001
84528777|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
84528778|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
84528779|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-3.7|
84528780|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.3|
84528781|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
84528782|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.3|
84528783|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-3.1|
84528784|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.0|
84528785|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
84540746|NCT03718832|168832710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.768353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.933945||0.1007463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907847|21.44455||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||21.44455|-1.907847|0.1007463
84528786|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-4.1|
84528787|NCT02037165|168810730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.6|
84528788|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-1.5|
84528789|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
84528790|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-0.2|
84528791|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.6|-1.0|
84528792|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.2|
84528793|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.9|
84539737|NCT00509795|168829389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.67||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.69|1.35||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.35|-2.69|0.5128
84718795|NCT02397096|169189271|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.706|2.952|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|2.952|-4.706|
84528794|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-3.7|
84528795|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.1|
84528796|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-1.9|
84528797|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.0|
84528798|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
84528799|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.2|-0.4|
84528800|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-1.0|
84528801|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.6|
84528802|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference of 200 mg BI mi|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.7|
84718796|NCT02397096|169189272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|23.5|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||23.5|-31.6|
84718797|NCT02397096|169189273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|15.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals were based on t-distribution.|||15.4|-41.1|
84528803|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.0|
84528804|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-2.2|
84528805|NCT02037165|168810731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.6|-3.0|
84528806|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.7|
84528807|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.2|
84528808|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.7|
84528809|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
84528810|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
84528811|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
84718798|NCT02397096|169189274|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.977|0.864|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||0.864|-7.977|
84718799|NCT02397096|169189275|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.591|3.738|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||3.738|-4.591|
84528812|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-3.7|
84718800|NCT02397096|169189276|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -4 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.529|2.064|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||2.064|-2.529|
84476166|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.85|0.0074
84476167|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.49|0.3160
84476168|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.47|0.3763
84476169|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.65|0.0505
84476170|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.88|0.0118
84476171|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
84476172|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.54|0.2966
84476173|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.66|0.0956
84476174|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.0117
84476175|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.57|0.3732
84476176|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1922
84476177|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.63|0.2986
84476178|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.65|0.2584
84528813|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
84528814|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
84528815|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.5|
84528816|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.2|-4.5|
84476179|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.57|0.5195
84476180|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.60|0.3752
84476181|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5157
84476182|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5065
84476183|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.47|0.8373
84476184|NCT02528253|168704631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5146
84476185|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.76|0.0059
84476186|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.93|0.0002
84476187|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.56|0.0756
84528817|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.6|
84528818|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.5|
84528819|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0983|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-3.3|
84528820|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-2.8|
84528821|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-3.7|
84528822|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.1|
84528823|NCT02037165|168810732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.4|
84528824|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.2|-12.5|
84528825|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.6|
84540747|NCT03718832|168832710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.472004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.150772||0.3859868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66534|14.60935||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||14.60935|-5.66534|0.3859868
84528826|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.0|-13.3|
84528827|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.3|-8.9|
84528828|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-10.7|
84528829|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.4|
84528830|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-8.7|
84528831|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7688|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-10.3|
84528832|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-7.0|
84528833|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.07|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-.07|-13.2|
84528834|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-10.9|
84718801|NCT01447706|169189291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.18|0.007
84718802|NCT01447706|169189291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.98|||Log Rank|||||2.98|1.08|0.023
84718803|NCT00918203|169189292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|0.86|0.2133
84528835|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.1|
84528836|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.2|-7.8|
84528837|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.1|-6.2|
84528838|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.1|
84528839|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-8.8|
84528840|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-11.2|
84528841|NCT02037165|168810733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-8.7|
84528842|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-8.9|
84528843|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.3|-9.8|
84540748|NCT03718832|168832710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5461143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.440905||0.9324908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22545|12.13323||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||12.13323|-13.22545|0.9324908
84718804|NCT00918203|169189295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.68|0.8731
84528844|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.3|-11.9|
84528845|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4987|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.1|-13.8|
84528846|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-12.6|
84528847|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-11.9|
84528848|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-10.5|
84528849|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.186|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.5|-12.1|
84528850|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.1|-9.5|
84528851|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5461|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.4|-8.7|
84528852|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-7.4|
84540749|NCT03718832|168832710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.752831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754947||0.6328075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08487|8.579205||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||8.579205|-14.08487|0.6328075
84718805|NCT00918203|169189296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
84528853|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-9.0|
84528854|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4569|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-9.8|
84528855|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.5|-7.0|
84528856|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.8|-9.4|
84528857|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-11.5|
84528858|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||8.8|-7.7|
84528859|NCT02037165|168810734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-8.8|
84528860|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-29.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.3|29.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.0|-88.3|
84528861|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-16.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.8613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.5|42.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||42.9|-75.5|
84540750|NCT03718832|168832711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.352141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.663846||0.0743062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8250086|17.52929||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||17.52929|-0.8250086|0.0743062
84528862|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|57.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||57.5|-42.2|
84528863|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.311|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.7|25.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||25.8|-66.7|
84528864|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.1894|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|33.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||33.4|-58.6|
84528865|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.7285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|46.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||46.5|-47.8|
84528866|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-19.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.6359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|35.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||35.7|-74.3|
84528867|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-25.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.5524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|29.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.5|-79.9|
84528868|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|36.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||36.5|-70.9|
84528869|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|18.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||18.5|-97.7|
84528870|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-37.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5797|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|21.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||21.6|-95.7|
84718806|NCT02678689|169189330|SUPERIORITY|The two-sample T-test with unequal variance was conducted at a significance level of 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||< 0.0001
84718807|NCT02678689|169189331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.393|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.393|0.021|<.0001
84528871|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-52.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.8429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-3.1|-101.8|
84528872|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.0541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-14.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-14.1|-105.6|
84528873|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.9336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|5.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.5|-85.5|
84528874|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-38.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4683|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.6|7.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.6|-85.6|
84528875|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-63.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.1|-9.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-9.3|-118.1|
84528876|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.2866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.6|-7.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-7.2|-115.6|
84528877|NCT02037165|168810735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.7541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-102.6|
84528878|NCT03431974|168810736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of LD-AMT established using a step-down analysis approach with one-sided Fisher's exact tests. First, the analysis for subjects attaining PASI 75 will be performed, then, if that analysis shows a significant treatment effect, analysis for subjects attaining a sPGA success will be performed.||||0.43
84528879|NCT02192164|168810740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.757334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.916307|0.401638||||||||0.401638|-5.916307|
84528880|NCT02192164|168810741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.911449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73847|1.915572||||||||1.915572|-3.73847|
84528881|NCT00359788|168810751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
84528882|NCT00359788|168810752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0042||95.0|-0.032|0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.072|-0.032|0.0042
84718808|NCT02678689|169189332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.000|0.000|0.0032
84528883|NCT00359788|168810753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
84718809|NCT02678689|169189333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
84718810|NCT02678689|169189334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
84528884|NCT00359788|168810754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.114|-0.046|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.046|-0.114|<0.0001
84528885|NCT00359788|168810755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.0447||95.0|0.001|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.106|0.001|0.0447
84528886|NCT00359788|168810756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.171|-0.092|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.092|-0.171|<0.0001
84528887|NCT00359788|168810757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.152|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|-0.113|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.113|-0.19|<0.0001
84528888|NCT00359788|168810758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.175|<0.0001
84528889|NCT00359788|168810759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
84528890|NCT00359788|168810760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.835||95.0|-0.092|0.114|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.114|-0.092|0.835
84528891|NCT00359788|168810761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
84528892|NCT00359788|168810762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.236|-0.078|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.078|-0.236|<0.0001
84528893|NCT00359788|168810763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.4386||95.0|-0.059|0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.137|-0.059|0.4386
84528894|NCT00359788|168810764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.0001||95.0|-0.374|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||||-0.191|-0.374|0.0001
84528895|NCT00359788|168810765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.274|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.274|-0.449|<0.0001
84528896|NCT00359788|168810766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.375|-0.196|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.196|-0.375|<0.0001
84528897|NCT00359788|168810767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.207|-0.142|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.142|-0.207|<0.0001
84528898|NCT00359788|168810768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.205|-0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.131|-0.205|<0.0001
84528899|NCT00359788|168810769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.221|-0.143|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.143|-0.221|<0.0001
84528900|NCT00359788|168810770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.097|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.097|-0.175|<0.0001
84528901|NCT00359788|168810771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.125|-0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.044|-0.125|<0.0001
84528902|NCT00359788|168810772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.0997||95.0|-0.076|0.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.007|-0.076|0.0997
84528903|NCT00359788|168810773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.101||95.0|-0.007|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.08|-0.007|0.101
84528904|NCT00359788|168810774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
84528905|NCT00359788|168810775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0411||95.0|-0.108|-0.002|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.002|-0.108|0.0411
84528906|NCT00359788|168810776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.0354||95.0|-0.116|-0.004|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.004|-0.116|0.0354
84528907|NCT00359788|168810777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.041||95.0|-0.121|-0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.003|-0.121|0.041
84528908|NCT00359788|168810778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.5387||95.0|-0.076|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.04|-0.076|0.5387
84528909|NCT00359788|168810779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.0372||95.0|0.004|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|0.004|0.0372
84528910|NCT00359788|168810780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.066|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|0.066|<0.0001
84528911|NCT00359788|168810781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.216|0.108|<0.0001
84528912|NCT00359788|168810782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
84528913|NCT00359788|168810783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0023||95.0|-0.136|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.136|0.0023
84528914|NCT00359788|168810784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087||||0.0019||95.0|-0.142|-0.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.033|-0.142|0.0019
84528915|NCT00359788|168810785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0044||95.0|-0.139|-0.026|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.026|-0.139|0.0044
84528916|NCT00359788|168810786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.1182||95.0|-0.103|0.012|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.012|-0.103|0.1182
84528917|NCT00359788|168810787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.4814||95.0|-0.037|0.078||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.078|-0.037|0.4814
84528918|NCT00359788|168810788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.129|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.129|0.019|0.008
84528919|NCT00359788|168810789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|0.082|<0.0001
84528920|NCT00359788|168810790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.29|-0.449|<0.0001
84528921|NCT00359788|168810791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.44|-0.272|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.272|-0.44|<0.0001
84528922|NCT00359788|168810792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.451|-0.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.264|-0.451|<0.0001
84528923|NCT00359788|168810793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.285|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.376|-0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.194|-0.376|<0.0001
84528924|NCT00359788|168810794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0003||95.0|-0.261|-0.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.079|-0.261|0.0003
84528925|NCT00359788|168810795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.2992||95.0|-0.143|0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.044|-0.143|0.2992
84528926|NCT00359788|168810796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.0984||95.0|-0.015|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|-0.015|0.0984
84528927|NCT00359788|168810797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
84528928|NCT00359788|168810798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0004||95.0|-0.293|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.293|0.0004
84528929|NCT00359788|168810799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0003||95.0|-0.314|-0.095|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.095|-0.314|0.0003
84528930|NCT00359788|168810800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832||||0.012||95.0|-0.293|-0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.072|-0.293|0.012
84528931|NCT00359788|168810801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.044||95.0|-0.219|0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.003|-0.219|0.044
84528932|NCT00359788|168810802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3634||95.0|-0.058|0.158|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.158|-0.058|0.3634
84718811|NCT02678689|169189335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.209||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.735|||Cox Model Wald Test|The p value is a test that the hazard ratio equal to 1.|"Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group.~Hazard Ratio (HR) 190-203 vs DEM-CHILD."|||0.735|0.059|0.0081
84528933|NCT00359788|168810803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.0032||95.0|0.055|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.27|0.055|0.0032
84528934|NCT00359788|168810804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.378|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.378|0.173|<0.0001
84528935|NCT00359788|168810805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
84528936|NCT00359788|168810806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.0002||95.0|-0.296|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.296|0.0002
84528937|NCT00359788|168810807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.323|-0.108|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.108|-0.323|<0.0001
84528938|NCT00359788|168810808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.198||||0.0006||95.0|-0.309|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.309|0.0006
84528939|NCT00359788|168810809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.0896||95.0|-0.21|0.015|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.015|-0.21|0.0896
84528940|NCT00359788|168810810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8937||95.0|-0.103|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|-0.103|0.8937
84528941|NCT00359788|168810811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.0269||95.0|0.014|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|0.014|0.0269
84528942|NCT00359788|168810812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.335|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.335|0.111|0.0001
84528943|NCT00359788|168810813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042||||0.7196||95.0|-0.275|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.275|0.7196
84528944|NCT00359788|168810814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069||||0.6189||95.0|-0.343|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.343|0.6189
84528945|NCT00359788|168810815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.6197||95.0|-0.36|0.215|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.215|-0.36|0.6197
84528946|NCT00359788|168810816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112||||0.4582||95.0|-0.408|0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.184|-0.408|0.4582
84528947|NCT00359788|168810817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6538||95.0|-0.376|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|-0.376|0.6538
84528948|NCT00359788|168810818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.4145||95.0|-0.495|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.495|0.4145
84528949|NCT00359788|168810819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.6048||95.0|-0.408|0.238|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.238|-0.408|0.6048
84528950|NCT00359788|168810820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3137||95.0|-0.503|0.162|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.162|-0.503|0.3137
84528951|NCT00359788|168810821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.7195||95.0|-0.395|0.273|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.273|-0.395|0.7195
84528952|NCT00359788|168810822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.7947||95.0|-0.367|0.282|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.282|-0.367|0.7947
84528953|NCT00359788|168810823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.6049||95.0|-0.446|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.26|-0.446|0.6049
84528954|NCT00359788|168810824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.8109||95.0|-0.437|0.342|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.342|-0.437|0.8109
84528955|NCT00359788|168810825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527||||0.1471||95.0|-0.186|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.186|0.1471
84528956|NCT00359788|168810826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265||||0.3192||95.0|-0.258|0.788|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.788|-0.258|0.3192
84528957|NCT00359788|168810827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351||||0.182||95.0|-0.165|0.867|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.867|-0.165|0.182
84528958|NCT00359788|168810828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1777||95.0|-0.166|0.893|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.893|-0.166|0.1777
84528959|NCT00359788|168810829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1805||95.0|-0.169|0.895|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.895|-0.169|0.1805
84528960|NCT00359788|168810830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.1777||95.0|-0.17|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.913|-0.17|0.1777
84528961|NCT00359788|168810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.5725||95.0|-0.395|0.714|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.714|-0.395|0.5725
84528962|NCT00359788|168810832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.6765||95.0|-0.449|0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.69|-0.449|0.6765
84528963|NCT00359788|168810833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247||||0.3943||95.0|-0.323|0.818|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.818|-0.323|0.3943
84528964|NCT00359788|168810834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291||||0.3091||95.0|-0.271|0.852|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.852|-0.271|0.3091
84528965|NCT00359788|168810835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317||||0.2911||95.0|-0.273|0.907|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.907|-0.273|0.2911
84528966|NCT00359788|168810836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.7458||95.0|-0.549|0.766|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.766|-0.549|0.7458
84528967|NCT00359788|168810837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.698||||0.0004||95.0|4.836|16.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.56|4.836|0.0004
84528968|NCT00359788|168810838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.257||||0.0023||95.0|4.055|18.458|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||18.458|4.055|0.0023
84528969|NCT00359788|168810839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.772||||0.0015||95.0|4.942|20.602|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.602|4.942|0.0015
84528970|NCT00359788|168810840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.568||||0.0013||95.0|5.342|21.795|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.795|5.342|0.0013
84528971|NCT00359788|168810841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.052||||0.005||95.0|3.676|20.428|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.428|3.676|0.005
84528972|NCT00359788|168810842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.107||||0.0159||95.0|2.095|20.119|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.119|2.095|0.0159
84528973|NCT00359788|168810843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.057||||0.0219||95.0|1.613|20.501|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.501|1.613|0.0219
84528974|NCT00359788|168810844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.655||||0.0048||95.0|4.207|23.104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||23.104|4.207|0.0048
84528975|NCT00359788|168810845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.231||||0.0058||95.0|4.153|24.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||24.31|4.153|0.0058
84528976|NCT00359788|168810846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.597||||0.0248||95.0|1.483|21.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.71|1.483|0.0248
84528977|NCT00359788|168810847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.001||||0.0325||95.0|0.924|21.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.079|0.924|0.0325
84528978|NCT00359788|168810848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.074||||0.0153||95.0|2.726|25.422|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||25.422|2.726|0.0153
84528979|NCT00359788|168810849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.755||||0.6105||95.0|-8.532|5.022|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||5.022|-8.532|0.6105
84528980|NCT00359788|168810850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.8249||95.0|-6.642|8.326|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.326|-6.642|0.8249
84528981|NCT00359788|168810851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.4896||95.0|-5.001|10.421|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.421|-5.001|0.4896
84528982|NCT00359788|168810852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.898||||0.0935||95.0|-1.172|14.968|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.968|-1.172|0.0935
84528983|NCT00359788|168810853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.419||||0.4339||95.0|-5.17|12.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||12.007|-5.17|0.4339
84476188|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.47|0.2197
84476189|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.63|0.0208
84476190|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
84528984|NCT00359788|168810854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.845||95.0|-10.74|8.799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.799|-10.74|0.845
84528985|NCT00359788|168810855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194||||0.9696||95.0|-9.811|10.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.199|-9.811|0.9696
84528986|NCT00359788|168810856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129||||0.3252||95.0|-5.117|15.376|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||15.376|-5.117|0.3252
84528987|NCT00359788|168810857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.062||||0.452||95.0|-6.558|14.683|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.683|-6.558|0.452
84528988|NCT00359788|168810858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14||||0.4388||95.0|-6.372|14.651|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.651|-6.372|0.4388
84528989|NCT00359788|168810859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.185||||0.8288||95.0|-9.595|11.964|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||11.964|-9.595|0.8288
84528990|NCT00359788|168810860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.204||||0.4929||95.0|-7.857|16.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.264|-7.857|0.4929
84528991|NCT00359788|168810861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.0754||95.0|-0.021|0.429|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.429|-0.021|0.0754
84528992|NCT00359788|168810862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.0765||95.0|-0.027|0.528|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.528|-0.027|0.0765
84528993|NCT00359788|168810863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151||||0.163||95.0|-0.061|0.363|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.363|-0.061|0.163
84528994|NCT00359788|168810864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285||||0.0085||95.0|0.073|0.496|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.496|0.073|0.0085
84528995|NCT04932941|168810871|SUPERIORITY||Common risk difference|-0.276||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.634|11.081|||Mantel Haenszel||Strata-adjusted Mantel Haenszel (MH) method for difference in proportions controlling for stratification factors (COVID-19 severity: moderate, severe, and age group: less than or equal to 65 years, greater than 65 years).|||11.081|-11.634|0.962
84540751|NCT03718832|168832711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.971188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.902349||0.1270654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709219|13.65159||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||13.65159|-1.709219|0.1270654
84528996|NCT00103402|168810896|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|The exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test was used to control for clustering by clinical center.||Sample-size calculations were based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference of 20 between response rates (40% placebo and 60% alfuzosin) for the Fisher's exact test. We calculated that a total sample of 270 participants would be required (135 per study group). This proposed sample size included a 20% increase to adjust for clustering within clinical sites and a 5% increase for interim monitoring.||11.0|-11.2|0.99
84528997|NCT00103402|168810897|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Marked or moderate improvement at 12 weeks Absolute Difference in Rates % (95% CI)||2.5|-9.0|0.90
84528998|NCT00103402|168810898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Total score (0-43) change from baseline||1.5|-2.7|0.70
84528999|NCT00103402|168810898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain score (0-21) change from baseline||0.8|-1.4|0.64
84529000|NCT00103402|168810898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Urinary score (0-10) change from baseline||0.4|-0.8|0.62
84476191|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
84476192|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.1873
84476193|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.66|0.0305
84476194|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.84|0.0013
84476195|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.78|0.0158
84476196|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.91|0.0015
84476197|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.45|0.4173
84476198|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0659
84529001|NCT00103402|168810898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life score (0-12) change from baseline||0.4|-0.4|.99
84529002|NCT00103402|168810899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Total Score||1.2|-1.8|0.45
84529003|NCT00103402|168810899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Sensory Score||1.0|-1.4|0.47
84529004|NCT00103402|168810899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Affective Score||0.4|-0.6|0.89
84529005|NCT00103402|168810900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical component summary (0-100) change in scores||1.3|-2.3|0.60
84529006|NCT00103402|168810900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental component summary (0-100) Absolute Difference between Groups (95% CI)||4.6|-0.4|0.16
84529007|NCT00103402|168810901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-2.4|0.08
84529008|NCT00103402|168810902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.0|-2.6|0.94
84529009|NCT00103402|168810903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.3|0.06
84529010|NCT01673698|168810913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0041
84529011|NCT01673698|168810914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84529012|NCT01673698|168810915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5610
84529013|NCT03182582|168811027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t test|||A sample size of 22 patients was required to achieve 80% power, using a two-tailed test with α = 0.05.||||0.003
84476199|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
84476200|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.72|0.0737
84476201|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.97|0.0021
84476202|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.48|0.4535
84476203|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.56|0.2271
84476204|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0086
84476205|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.63|0.2243
84476206|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.81|0.0331
84476207|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1838
84476208|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.75|0.0795
84476209|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.63|0.2847
84476210|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0745
84476211|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3110
84476212|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.70|0.1375
84529014|NCT03334721|168811033|SUPERIORITY|"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term. Analysis used Linear Mixed Modeling with Fixed Factors."|Test III Tests of Fixed Effects (F)|0.141||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Condition Factor (0 = Placebo, 1 = Gabapentin)|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1, 20.183|||"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term."|||0.711
84529015|NCT01663727|168811035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.91|0.51|0.0007
84529016|NCT01663727|168811035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.55|0.97|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis.||0.97|0.55|0.0046
84529017|NCT01663727|168811035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|||A stratified multivariate Cox regression model, including treatment, VEGF-A level, and interaction between treatment and VEGF-A level (low, high) as factors was used to estimate the interaction p-value of the treatment with VEGF-A level for PFS. Analysis for the interaction of treatment effect with the plasma VEGF-A levels was a secondary objective.||||0.4619
84529018|NCT01663727|168811037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.75|0.5877
84529019|NCT01663727|168811037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.21|0.78|0.8004
84529020|NCT01663727|168811039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.14|0.63|0.2745
84529021|NCT01663727|168811039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.17|0.65|0.3616
84529022|NCT01663727|168811040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|20.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|30.11|||Fisher|||||30.11|11.45|<0.0001
84529023|NCT01663727|168811042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.88|0.47|0.0038
84529024|NCT01663727|168811042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.5|0.93|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis.||0.93|0.50|0.0101
84529025|NCT01663727|168811043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|21.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.32|||Fisher|||||34.32|8.73|0.0017
84529026|NCT01663727|168811044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.19|0.54|0.2737
84529027|NCT01663727|168811044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.19|0.56|0.2959
84529028|NCT01663727|168811045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.41|0.1783
84529029|NCT01663727|168811045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.22|0.45|0.2429
84529030|NCT01232491|168811052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.49||||0.132||95.0|-0.15|1.13||If the p-value for the two-sided test was less than 5%, and D (the estimated treatment difference \[dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention\]) was less than 0 then superiority for dietary intervention was considered confirmed.|Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors and age and weight at baseline as covariates. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference (dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0 kg.||1.13|-0.15|0.132
84529031|NCT01232491|168811053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.17||||0.137||95.0|-0.05|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors, and age and BMI at baseline as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.137
84529032|NCT01232491|168811054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.053||95.0|0.0|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and HbA1c at baseline as covariate.||0.26|-0.00|0.053
84529033|NCT01232491|168811055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.07||||0.674||95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and FPG at baseline as covariate.||0.39|-0.25|0.674
84529034|NCT00605865|168811115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84529035|NCT00605865|168811116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.039
84529036|NCT00605865|168811117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.011
84529037|NCT00605865|168811118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||0.010
84529038|NCT00605865|168811119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84529039|NCT00605865|168811120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without suicidal ideation(including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.014
84529040|NCT00605865|168811121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.021
84529041|NCT00605865|168811122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was target disease severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three grade of target disease severity in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84529042|NCT00605865|168811123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was history of treatment prior to Sertralin. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to Sertralin in the participants of responders."||||0.003
84529043|NCT00605865|168811124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was outpatient or inpatient. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between outpatient or inpatient in the participants of responders."||||0.012
84529044|NCT00605865|168811125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.019
84529045|NCT00605865|168811126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.010
84529046|NCT00605865|168811127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between four groups of age in the participants of responders."||||0.015
84718812|NCT02798471|169189363|NON_INFERIORITY|The edoxaban-to-comparator hazard ratio will be computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) (two-sided) based on this model. Edoxaban will be considered non-inferior to comparator if the upper limit of the 95% CI is ≤1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.719|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for the composite primary efficacy endpoint||1.719|0.594|0.9694
84529047|NCT00605865|168811128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
84529048|NCT01030341|168811168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<50 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
84529049|NCT01030341|168811168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<70 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
84529050|NCT01030341|168811168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of euglycemic excursions (70-180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.005
84529051|NCT01030341|168811168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.04
84529052|NCT01030341|168811168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>300 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
84529053|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529054|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529055|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529056|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529057|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529058|NCT01030341|168811169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
84529059|NCT01461226|168811185|OTHER|Mixed models analysis|mixed models|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
84529060|NCT01461226|168811185|OTHER||mixed models|0.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline difference between groups|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
84529061|NCT01461226|168811185|OTHER|Mixed models|Slope|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
84529062|NCT01461226|168811185|OTHER|mixed models|mixed models|4.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||change after 10 months between groups||||0.04
84529063|NCT02856880|168811188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|40.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.37|47.99||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque Glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||47.99|32.37|<0.0001
84718813|NCT04503681|169189389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|-1.1|0.473
84476213|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.58|0.4036
84476214|NCT02528253|168704633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.79|0.0641
84476215|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.0037
84529064|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|33.88||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||33.88|18.94|<0.0001
84529065|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|5.37||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||5.37|-11.18|0.4823
84529066|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|18.59||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||18.59|3.13|0.0072
84529067|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|21.53||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||21.53|6.01|0.0009
84529068|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.44||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|15.95||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||15.95|0.93|0.0286
84529069|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.32||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|12.79||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||12.79|-2.15|0.1573
84476216|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
84476217|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.53|0.1712
84718814|NCT04503681|169189390|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.8|0.338
84718815|NCT01128595|169189444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.701||||||||0.701|0.330|
84529070|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-21.43||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||-21.43|-37.20|<0.0001
84529071|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|31.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.18|39.3||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||39.30|24.18|<0.0001
84529072|NCT02856880|168811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.42||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|9.92||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||9.92|-5.08|0.5174
84529073|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-233.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-332.88|-133.55||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-133.55|-332.88|<0.0001
84529074|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.53||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|140.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||140.96|-69.90|0.5018
84529075|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.73||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.07|78.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||78.61|-128.07|0.6325
84529076|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.26||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.72|42.21||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||42.21|-162.72|0.2427
84529077|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|102.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||102.61|-100.50|0.9834
84529078|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-61.31||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.14|38.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||38.52|-161.14|0.2226
84529079|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|268.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.98|371.51||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is second named treatment(non-SLS negative control) minus first named treatment (SLS negative control) such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque|||371.51|165.98|<0.0001
84529080|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-293.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.03|-190.91||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-190.91|-396.03|<0.0001
84529081|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-294.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.43|-193.62||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-193.62|-395.43|<0.0001
84529082|NCT02856880|168811190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-25.78||||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.53|74.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||74.96|-126.53|0.6086
84718816|NCT01128595|169189444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.73||||||||0.730|0.355|
84718817|NCT01128595|169189444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.388||||||||0.388|0.001|
84529083|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-273.92||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1550.45|1002.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1002.61|-1550.45|0.6664
84529084|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|674.06||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-692.21|2040.33||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2040.33|-692.21|0.3249
84529085|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|677.09||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-784.16|2138.35||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2138.35|-784.16|0.3544
84529086|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1469.45|1475.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1475.52|-1469.45|0.9967
84529087|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|766.64||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.26|2236.54||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2236.54|-703.26|0.2976
84529088|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-763.6||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2144.45|617.25||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||617.25|-2144.45|0.2702
84529089|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|947.97||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.95|2257.9||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2257.90|-361.95|0.1511
84529090|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-270.88||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1680.58|1138.82||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1138.82|-1680.58|0.6998
84529091|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1037.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2361.33|286.29||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant -level pre-treatment values and period minus participant -level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||286.29|-2361.33|0.1210
84529092|NCT02856880|168811191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-89.54||||0.8935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1439.5|1260.41||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1260.41|-1439.50|0.8935
84529093|NCT01032018|168811247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of back-transformed means.|-3.5||||0.01||95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The trial was powered to detect a between-group difference in the 6-month change in depression symptoms. Assuming 5% attrition rate, we estimated that a sample of 150 patients would be needed to have 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful differential change in depression scores between groups of 0.46 SD.||-0.7|-6.1|0.01
84529094|NCT01388166|168811311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84529095|NCT01388166|168811312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84529096|NCT01388166|168811313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84529097|NCT00714493|168811333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84529098|NCT00714493|168811334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
84529099|NCT00251719|168811352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|2.34||||0.234||95.0|-1.45|6.14||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.14|-1.45|0.234
84540752|NCT03718832|168832711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.637485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443227||0.553277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.110146|11.38512||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||11.38512|-6.110146|0.553277
84529100|NCT00251719|168811352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|4.85||||0.019||95.0|1.2|8.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.50|1.20|0.019
84529101|NCT00251719|168811352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
84529102|NCT00251719|168811353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.768
84529103|NCT00251719|168811353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.064
84529104|NCT00251719|168811353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
84529105|NCT00251719|168811354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.727
84529106|NCT00251719|168811354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.064
84529107|NCT00251719|168811354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.174
84529108|NCT00251719|168811355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|1.65||||0.167||95.0|-1.65|4.96||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||4.96|-1.65|0.167
84529109|NCT00251719|168811355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|3.39||||0.03||95.0|0.27|6.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||6.50|0.27|0.030
84529110|NCT00251719|168811355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.413
84529111|NCT00251719|168811356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
84529112|NCT00251719|168811356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.125
84529113|NCT00251719|168811356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.993
84529114|NCT00251719|168811357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.117
84529115|NCT00251719|168811357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.124
84529116|NCT00251719|168811357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.949
84529117|NCT02792959|168811400|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
84529118|NCT02792959|168811401|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
84529119|NCT02792959|168811402|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
84529120|NCT02792959|168811403|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.091||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
84529121|NCT02792959|168811404|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
84529122|NCT02792959|168811405|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
84529123|NCT02792959|168811406|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
84529124|NCT02792959|168811407|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
84529125|NCT02792959|168811408|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
84529126|NCT02792959|168811409|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
84529127|NCT02792959|168811410|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
84529128|NCT02792959|168811411|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.705||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.192
84529129|NCT02408068|168811429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|77.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.89|84.86|||ANOVA|||Results obtained using a mixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for study period, sequence, treatment and subject (sequence) (excl. tmax).||84.86|70.89|
84529130|NCT02408068|168811430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|108.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|114.72|||ANOVA|||||114.72|102.30|
84529131|NCT02408068|168811431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.75|1.25|0.0005
84529132|NCT02408068|168811432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|83.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.58|91.74||||||||91.74|75.58|
84529133|NCT02408068|168811433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|118.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.58|126.54||||||||126.54|111.58|
84529134|NCT02408068|168811434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.38|2.25|0.0014
84529135|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|9.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||9.0|-29.3|
84529136|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.6|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||24.6|-18.1|
84529137|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|39.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||39.3|-7.7|
84529138|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.1|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||42.1|-4.1|
84529139|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||26.5|-13.2|
84529140|NCT04168190|168811446|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||22.8|-16.0|
84529141|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
84529142|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
84529143|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||28.3|-7.4|
84529144|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.2|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||20.2|-13.1|
84529145|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|33.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||33.8|-7.5|
84529146|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|37.3|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||37.3|-4.6|
84529147|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|34.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||34.5|-8.5|
84529148|NCT04168190|168811447|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|23.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||23.8|-17.2|
84529149|NCT04168190|168811448|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
84529150|NCT04168190|168811448|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
84529151|NCT04168190|168811449|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||6.8|-2.8|
84529152|NCT04168190|168811449|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.1|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||17.1|0.1|
84529153|NCT04168190|168811449|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||8.4|-2.0|
84529154|NCT04168190|168811450|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||13.5|0.8|
84529155|NCT04168190|168811450|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||3.8|-3.8|
84529156|NCT04168190|168811450|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.0|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||7.0|-3.8|
84529157|NCT04168190|168811450|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.9|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Headache||9.9|-2.7|
84529158|NCT04168190|168811451|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|||1.5|-1.5|
84540753|NCT03718832|168832711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925307||0.519562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.198658|10.26164||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||10.26164|-5.198658|0.519562
84476218|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.60|0.0686
84476219|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.66|0.0289
84476220|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0003
84476221|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.22|<.0001
84476222|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.55|0.2056
84476223|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0084
84476224|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.98|0.0002
84476225|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
84476226|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.09|0.0002
84476227|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.63|0.1155
84476228|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.59|0.1652
84476229|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.78|0.0129
84476230|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.87|0.0236
84476231|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.93|0.0136
84476232|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.47|0.6624
84540754|NCT03718832|168832712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.555117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427417||0.6976216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.363839|2.253605||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.253605|-3.363839|0.6976216
84718818|NCT01128595|169189444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.143||||||||0.143|-0.198|
84476233|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0468
84476234|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.81|0.0250
84476235|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.72|0.1539
84476236|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.91|0.0169
84476237|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.77|0.1049
84476238|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.82|0.0599
84476239|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.3041
84476240|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.83|0.0737
84476241|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.71|0.2293
84476242|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.82|0.0806
84476243|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.62|0.3680
84476244|NCT02528253|168704635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.79|0.0893
84476245|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.88|0.0007
84476246|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.03|<.0001
84476247|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.53|0.1291
84718819|NCT01128595|169189444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.501||||||||0.501|0.140|
84718820|NCT01128595|169189447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.636||||||||0.636|0.332|
84718821|NCT01128595|169189447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.638||||||||0.638|0.330|
84476248|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0290
84476249|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.77|0.0015
84476250|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
84476251|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.25|<.0001
84476252|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.55|0.1799
84476253|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0696
84476254|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
84476255|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0387
84476256|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0005
84476257|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.51|0.2768
84476258|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.53|0.2408
84476259|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.78|0.0064
84476260|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.90|0.0115
84476261|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.08|0.0006
84476262|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.59|0.2028
84718822|NCT01128595|169189447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.327||||||||0.327|0.009|
84476263|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.1351
84476264|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.0133
84476265|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.65|0.2157
84476266|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0781
84476267|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.62|0.3527
84476268|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2994
84476269|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.63|0.3326
84476270|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.65|0.2822
84476271|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.57|0.4932
84476272|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.58|0.4571
84476273|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.56|0.5586
84476274|NCT02528253|168704637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.67|0.2664
84476275|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.36|1.36|0.0010
84476276|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||4.16|1.73|<.0001
84476277|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.51|1.05|0.0300
84476278|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.86|1.44|<.0001
84476279|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.32|1.69|<.0001
84529159|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.22|0.82|<0.001
84529160|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.56|0.95|<0.001
84529161|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.41|0.90|<0.001
84529162|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.16|<0.001
84529163|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.24|0.71|<0.001
84529164|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.21|0.80|<0.001
84529165|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.47|0.87|<0.001
84529166|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.93|<0.001
84529167|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.90|1.78|<0.001
84529168|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.55|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.55|1.86|<0.001
84529169|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.24|<0.001
84529170|NCT04168190|168811452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.36|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.36|1.43|<0.001
84529171|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|4.23|<0.001
84529172|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|5.37|<0.001
84718823|NCT01128595|169189447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14||||||||0.140|-0.140|
84718824|NCT01128595|169189447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.464||||||||0.464|0.168|
84718825|NCT01128595|169189448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.393||||||||0.393|0.031|
84529173|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.90|2.31|<0.001
84529174|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|18.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.98|25.57|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||25.57|12.98|<0.001
84529175|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|19.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|29.4|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.40|12.87|<0.001
84529176|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|29.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.72|43.09|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||43.09|20.72|<0.001
84529177|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|32.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.83|44.89|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||44.89|22.83|<0.001
84529178|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|50.23|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||50.23|24.25|<0.001
84529179|NCT04168190|168811453|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|11.26|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||11.26|7.19|<0.001
84529180|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.42|0.58|
84529181|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.76|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.76|0.71|
84529182|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.99|0.63|
84529183|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.84|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||3.84|1.19|
84529184|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.21|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.21|0.74|
84529185|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||3.63|1.19|
84529186|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.46|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||1.46|0.37|
84529187|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||2.00|0.50|
84529188|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.41|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.41|0.40|
84529189|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.48|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||2.48|0.70|
84529190|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.37|
84529191|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.69|0.58|
84529192|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||1.85|0.57|
84718826|NCT01128595|169189448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.536||||||||0.536|0.147|
84476280|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.99|1.04|0.0290
84476281|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.47|1.31|0.0003
84476282|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.03|1.62|<.0001
84476283|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.10|1.16|0.0033
84476284|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.88|1.06|0.0179
84476285|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.08|1.18|0.0021
84476286|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.38|0.81|0.6629
84476287|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.75|1.04|0.0251
84476288|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.59|0.94|0.1278
84476289|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.65|0.98|0.0749
84476290|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.66|0.99|0.0633
84476291|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.67|0.99|0.0626
84476292|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.51|0.89|0.2727
84476293|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.57|0.92|0.1749
84476294|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.42|0.84|0.5239
84476295|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.49|0.87|0.3336
84476296|NCT02528253|168704639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.54|0.91|0.2163
84476297|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.08|0.78|0.3260
84476298|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.56|1.01|0.0445
84476299|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.61|0.65|0.9263
84476300|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.81|0.3194
84718827|NCT01128595|169189448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.672||||||||0.672|0.282|
84718828|NCT01128595|169189448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.463||||||||0.463|0.066|
84529193|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.97|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.97|0.90|
84529194|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.32|0.67|
84529195|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.45|0.98|
84529196|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.38|0.42|
84529197|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||2.91|0.87|
84529198|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.17|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||2.17|0.50|
84529199|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.50|1.02|
84529200|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.68|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.68|1.21|
84529201|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||5.03|1.64|
84529202|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.93|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.93|0.93|
84529203|NCT04168190|168811454|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.43|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||3.43|1.07|
84476301|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.38|1.04|0.0308
84476302|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.69|1.20|0.0048
84476303|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.51|1.12|0.0114
84476304|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.71|0.7857
84529204|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.25|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||9.25|1.99|
84529205|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|11.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||11.91|2.53|
84529206|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|9.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||9.85|2.59|
84529207|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|17.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||17.50|4.55|
84529208|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||8.15|2.38|
84529209|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|9.16|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||9.16|2.64|
84529210|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||5.91|1.97|
84529211|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|11.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.45|3.78|
84529212|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.4|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.40|4.35|
84718829|NCT01128595|169189448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.343||||||||0.343|-0.072|
84529213|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.62|4.34|
84529214|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.05|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||6.05|1.95|
84529215|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||8.45|2.69|
84529216|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|19.35|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||19.35|3.36|
84529217|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|39.01|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||39.01|6.68|
84529218|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|16.95|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||16.95|4.93|
84529219|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|25.32|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||25.32|7.28|
84529220|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|15.36|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||15.36|5.56|
84529221|NCT04168190|168811455|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|20.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||20.87|7.49|
84529222|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.47|0.67|
84529223|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.57|0.72|
84529224|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.54|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.42|0.54|
84529225|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.80|0.68|
84529226|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||1.54|0.59|
84529227|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.15|0.81|
84529228|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.23|0.85|
84529229|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.96|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.96|1.03|
84529230|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.67|0.44|
84529231|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||3.69|0.97|
84529232|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.46|
84529233|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.38|0.58|
84529234|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.15|0.62|
84529235|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.04|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.04|0.58|
84529236|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.71|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.71|0.90|
84529237|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.23|1.08|
84476305|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.44|1.18|0.0041
84476306|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.28|1.11|0.0109
84476307|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.27|1.03|0.0363
84476308|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.59|1.20|0.0040
84476309|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.84|0.88|0.1992
84476310|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.70|0.85|0.3084
84476311|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.99|0.0586
84476312|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.97|0.98|0.0630
84476313|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.04|1.03|0.0347
84476314|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.33|0.69|0.7900
84476315|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.00|1.06|0.0207
84476316|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.07|1.11|0.0093
84476317|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.91|1.02|0.0400
84476318|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.65|0.88|0.2478
84476319|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.96|1.03|0.0304
84476320|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.81|0.4763
84476321|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.01|1.07|0.0178
84718830|NCT01128595|169189449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.215||||||||0.215|-0.037|
84476322|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.53|0.80|0.5223
84476323|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.72|0.91|0.1708
84476324|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.50|0.79|0.6022
84476325|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.81|0.96|0.0846
84476326|NCT02528253|168704640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.39|0.73|0.9626
84718831|NCT01128595|169189449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.371||||||||0.371|0.101|
84718832|NCT01128595|169189449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.398||||||||0.398|0.127|
84718833|NCT01128595|169189449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.312||||||||0.312|0.036|
84476327|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.98|-2.49|0.6508
84476328|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.18|-3.33|0.9629
84476329|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.69|-2.48|0.7007
84476330|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.88|-3.32|0.8902
84476331|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.15|-3.89|0.5698
84476332|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.72|-3.32|0.8464
84476333|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.66|-8.72|0.0919
84476334|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-9.47|0.0477
84476335|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|2.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.87|-6.17|0.4735
84476336|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.06|-6.82|0.2935
84476337|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.35|-7.56|0.1714
84476338|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.56|-6.30|0.7521
84476339|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.61|-8.24|0.3078
84476340|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-8.78|0.1090
84476341|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-10.27|0.0289
84476342|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.91|-6.41|0.4613
84476343|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.38|-6.78|0.3460
84476344|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|-8.26|0.1179
84476345|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.92|-7.78|0.5151
84476346|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.46|-9.22|0.2550
84718834|NCT01128595|169189449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.171||||||||0.171|-0.118|
84476347|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-7.57|0.0157
84476348|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-7.57|0.0159
84476349|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-5.94|0.0896
84476350|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.72|-4.57|0.3749
84476351|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.71|-4.55|0.3733
84476352|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.73|-4.80|0.8056
84476353|NCT02528253|168704644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.93|-5.25|0.5764
84476354|NCT02528253|168704645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.62|0.7366
84476355|NCT02528253|168704645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.71|0.7710
84476356|NCT02528253|168704646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.4724
84476357|NCT02528253|168704646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7142|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.7142
84476358|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.87|0.3960
84476359|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.20|0.73|0.5932
84476360|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.88|0.3326
84476361|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.08|0.65|0.1765
84476362|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5619
84476363|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.16|0.69|0.3909
84476364|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7562
84476365|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.31|0.78|0.9476
84476366|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.36|0.79|0.7746
84476367|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.23|0.71|0.6377
84476368|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.79|0.8532
84476369|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.83|0.5644
84476370|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|0.769|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7690
84529238|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.49|0.53|
84718835|NCT00372775|169189453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.8|||||Two-Sided Confidence Interval (CI) from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||8.8|0.0|
84476371|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.85|0.4321
84476372|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7714
84476373|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.34|0.79|0.8389
84476374|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.29|0.76|0.9383
84476375|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.78|0.8800
84476376|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.26|0.74|0.7946
84476377|NCT02528253|168704647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.25|0.74|0.7803
84476378|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.41|0.96|0.1272
84476379|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.86|0.6322
84476380|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.36|0.89|0.3559
84476381|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.18|0.77|0.6798
84476382|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.44|0.90|0.2670
84476383|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.19|0.74|0.5865
84476384|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.13||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.47|0.88|0.3378
84476385|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.71|0.5510
84476386|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.90|0.2088
84476387|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.30|0.73|0.8692
84476388|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.35|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.35|0.78|0.8444
84476389|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.78|0.8936
84476390|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.28|0.75|0.8716
84476391|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.29|0.75|0.8827
84529239|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.87|0.66|
84529240|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||3.27|0.89|
84718836|NCT00372775|169189455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR (percent)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.9|||||Two-Sided CI from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||21.9|0.1|
84529241|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.62|1.24|
84529242|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.34|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.34|1.16|
84529243|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.51|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.51|1.21|
84529244|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||1.91|0.77|
84529245|NCT04168190|168811456|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.45|0.99|
84529246|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|33.1|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||33.10|5.90|
84529247|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|34.35|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||34.35|6.05|
84529248|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.39||||||95.0|4.29|12.75|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||12.75|4.29|
84529249|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|16.28|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||16.28|5.42|
84718837|NCT00372775|169189458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.3|||||Probability of survival along with the corresponding 2-sided confidence interval for the log \[-log(one-year survival rate)\] calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a confidence interval for the one-year survival|||34.3|14.0|
84529250|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||3.63|1.25|
84529251|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.79|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||4.79|1.64|
84529252|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||7.67|1.88|
84529253|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|11.94|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.94|2.88|
84529254|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|33.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||33.32|5.68|
84529255|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.91|47.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||47.00|7.91|
84529256|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|65.82|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||65.82|8.64|
84529257|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|39.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|109.65|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||109.65|14.15|
84529258|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|43.74|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||43.74|9.03|
84529259|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|69.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||69.03|13.98|
84529260|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|57.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.15|132.78|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||132.78|25.15|
84529261|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|58.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|134.33|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||134.33|25.10|
84529262|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||10.80|4.45|
84529263|NCT04168190|168811457|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|12.24|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||12.24|5.00|
84718838|NCT00724126|169189477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.03
84476392|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.77|0.8996
84476393|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.4880
84476394|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.73|0.7938
84476395|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.5092
84476396|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.22|0.71|0.6148
84476397|NCT02528253|168704649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.13|0.66|0.2844
84476398|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.73|0.70|0.6764
84476399|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.65|0.9351
84476400|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.64|0.8731
84476401|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.72|0.75|0.5370
84476402|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.59|0.70|0.8031
84476403|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.55|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.55|0.57|0.8192
84476404|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.54|0.6345
84476405|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.40|0.56|0.6103
84476406|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.67|0.7949
84476407|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.57|0.63|0.9920
84476408|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.55|0.8772
84476409|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.53|0.7614
84476410|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.43|0.52|0.5629
84476411|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.85|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.85|0.67|0.6821
84476412|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.77|0.64|0.8049
84476413|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.62|0.47|0.6673
84476414|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.43|0.4475
84476415|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.50|0.49|0.5925
84476416|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.79|0.58|0.9486
84476417|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.61|0.52|0.7673
84476418|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.20|0.56|0.7635
84476419|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.94|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.94|0.50|0.9564
84476420|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.75|0.50|0.8359
84476421|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.21|0.64|0.5914
84476422|NCT02528253|168704651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.95|0.56|0.8826
84476423|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|10.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.97|3.07|0.0005
84476424|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|10.15|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.15|2.26|0.0021
84476425|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.42|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.42|1.02|0.0125
84476426|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|-1.36|0.2176
84476427|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|5.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.14|-2.16|0.4235
84476428|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.11|2.50|0.0143
84476429|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|22.35|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.35|2.76|0.0124
84476430|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|12.36|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||12.36|-4.60|0.3675
84476431|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|16.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.11|0.74|0.0319
84476432|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.38|0.97|0.0276
84476433|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.27|-0.14|0.0627
84476434|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|0.54|0.0187
84476435|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.06|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.06|-1.03|0.2419
84476436|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.56|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||3.56|-1.46|0.4124
84476437|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.24|-0.76|0.1730
84476438|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|9.08|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||9.08|1.77|0.0037
84476439|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|7.39|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||7.39|0.09|0.0449
84529264|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.30|0.90|<0.001
84529265|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.99|<0.001
84529266|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|1.02|<0.001
84529267|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.75|1.06|<0.001
84529268|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.06|0.69|<0.001
84529269|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.18|0.78|<0.001
84529270|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.64|1.04|<0.001
84529271|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.32|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.32|1.44|<0.001
84529272|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
84529273|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.04|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.04|1.75|<0.001
84529274|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.22|1.49|<0.001
84529275|NCT04168190|168811460|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.83|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.83|1.81|<0.001
84529276|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.84|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.84|2.95|<0.001
84529277|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|9.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||9.64|6.12|<0.001
84718839|NCT00724126|169189478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.02
84718840|NCT05405244|169189482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snack intake||||0.45
84529278|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.17|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.17|2.60|<0.001
84529279|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|10.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||10.41|7.19|<0.001
84529280|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|9.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model||9.90|6.20|<0.001
84529281|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|5.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.94|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||6.94|4.53|<0.001
84529282|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|29.74|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.74|19.35|<0.001
84529283|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|12.33|||P-value was estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||12.33|8.32|<0.001
84529284|NCT04168190|168811461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|18.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|21.45|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||21.45|15.59|<0.001
84529285|NCT03127644|168811480|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00571|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00420|-0.00571|<0.0001
84529286|NCT03127644|168811480|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00337|-0.00185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00185|-0.00337|<0.001
84529287|NCT03127644|168811481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.142|213.152|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||213.152|10.142|<0.0001
84529288|NCT03127644|168811481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.497|382.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||382.337|13.497|<0.0001
84529289|NCT03127644|168811482|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000645||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00359|-0.00104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00104|-0.00359|0.0004
84529290|NCT03127644|168811482|OTHER||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000637|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00527|-0.00275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00275|-0.00527|<0.0001
84529291|NCT03127644|168811483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.329|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||4.329|0.419|0.6167
84529292|NCT03127644|168811483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.006|58.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||58.697|4.006|<0.0001
84529293|NCT03127644|168811487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0586
84529294|NCT03127644|168811487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0006
84529295|NCT03127644|168811488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0250
84529296|NCT03127644|168811488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0064
84529297|NCT05070546|168811494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.6|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.60|1.25|
84718841|NCT05405244|169189482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Milkshake intake||||0.28
84718842|NCT05405244|169189483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pleasantness||||0.89
84529298|NCT05070546|168811494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohort 2 (Group 3 in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.78|1.34|
84529299|NCT05070546|168811495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.9|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.9|0.3|
84529300|NCT05070546|168811495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.5|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.5|-1.6|
84529301|NCT00534794|168811537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.532
84529302|NCT00534794|168811538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.927
84529303|NCT00507546|168811561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.70
84529304|NCT00507546|168811562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.35
84476440|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.65|-1.21|0.2038
84476441|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.59|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.59|-0.19|0.0644
84476442|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.9|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.90|-1.86|0.3775
84476443|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.60|-3.70|0.5806
84476444|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|6.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.27|-3.68|0.6084
84529305|NCT00986453|168811573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4697||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4697
84529306|NCT00986453|168811574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1470
84529307|NCT00986453|168811575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
84529308|NCT00986453|168811576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0776
84529309|NCT00986453|168811577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
84529310|NCT03512262|168811578|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LSM) Means Difference|7.3165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|5.0668|9.5663||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||9.5663|5.0668|<0.0001
84529311|NCT03512262|168811579|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.1209|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9948|3.2469||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||3.2469|0.9948|<0.0001
84529312|NCT03512262|168811580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.8221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3972|4.2471||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||4.2471|1.3972|<0.0001
84529313|NCT00375492|168811596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0030
84529314|NCT00375492|168811597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
84529315|NCT00375492|168811599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1985||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.1985
84529316|NCT00375492|168811600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1827
84529317|NCT00375492|168811601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1584
84529318|NCT00375492|168811602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8279
84529319|NCT00375492|168811603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8334
84529320|NCT00375492|168811604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2881||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2881
84529321|NCT00375492|168811605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0654
84529322|NCT00375492|168811606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.728
84529323|NCT00375492|168811607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
84529324|NCT04319718|168811619|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.025
84529325|NCT04319718|168811620|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
84529326|NCT04319718|168811624|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
84529327|NCT04319718|168811625|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.51
84529328|NCT04319718|168811626|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.09
84529329|NCT04319718|168811627|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
84529330|NCT04319718|168811627|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.24
84529331|NCT04319718|168811627|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
84529332|NCT02307266|168811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
84529333|NCT02307266|168811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0206
84529334|NCT02944383|168811678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-4.25|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.25|-33.07|0.0063
84718843|NCT05405244|169189483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desire to consume||||<0.001
84476445|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|16.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.99|-11.56|0.6991
84476446|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.68|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||24.68|1.66|0.0265
84476447|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.21|-3.61|0.8795
84476448|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|5.87|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.87|-1.68|0.2758
84476449|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.0|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.00|-0.92|0.1197
84476450|NCT02528253|168704660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|8.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.24|-0.39|0.0743
84476451|NCT01357980|168704678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.39||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.39|-3.47|0.11
84476452|NCT01357980|168704678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.61||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.05||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.05|-1.27|0.07
84476453|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|219.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.6|369.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||369.5|69.6|<0.01
84476454|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|224.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.9|307.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||307.4|140.9|<0.01
84476455|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|117.0||||0.09||95.0|-20.0|254.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||254.0|-20.0|0.09
84476456|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|223.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|353.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||353.1|94.3|<0.01
84476457|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|138.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|242.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||242.2|34.7|0.01
84476458|NCT01357980|168704679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|186.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|319.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||319.4|53.2|<0.01
84476459|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-23.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|18.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||18.9|-66.6|0.25
84476460|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-67.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-21.2|-112.9|<0.01
84476461|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-35.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-4.6|-65.6|0.03
84476462|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-51.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-12.4|-89.5|0.01
84476463|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-32.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-11.0|-53.7|<0.01
84476464|NCT01357980|168704680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-14.1|-76.6|<0.01
84476465|NCT01357980|168704681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.05||95.0|||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
84476466|NCT01357980|168704681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
84476467|NCT01357980|168704682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3||||0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.01
84718844|NCT03577106|169189510|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||t(20)=3.3, p\<0.005|paired t-test|||Mean difference using a paired t-test||||<0.005
84529335|NCT02944383|168811678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|7.05|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||7.05|-25.88|0.2350
84529336|NCT02944383|168811679|OTHER|||||||0.1663||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1663
84529337|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6195||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6195
84529338|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0436||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0436
84529339|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5000
84529340|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0007
84529341|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1161||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1161
84718845|NCT03601715|169189522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
84476468|NCT01357980|168704682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.8|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
84476469|NCT01357980|168704683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.9||||0.05|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
84476470|NCT01357980|168704683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
84529342|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1830
84529343|NCT02944383|168811679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8762
84529344|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1780
84529345|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7615
84529346|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0162
84529347|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.3710
84529348|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
84529349|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0988||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0988
84529350|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2594||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2594
84529351|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9099||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9099
84529352|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0219
84476471|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.35|-1.91|<0.01
84476472|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.90|-1.26|0.7
84476473|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.56|0.3
84476474|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.48||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.47|0.3
84476475|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.73|-2.02|<0.01
84476476|NCT01357980|168704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.55|-1.35|0.4
84476477|NCT02513771|168704720|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by screening CD4 count (\<= or \> 350 cells/mm\^3) and statin use.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in sCD14 from baseline to week 15/16.||||1.000
84476478|NCT01595438|168704736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
84476479|NCT01595438|168704737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
84476480|NCT01595438|168704738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
84476481|NCT01595438|168704739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
84476482|NCT01595438|168704740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
84476483|NCT01595438|168704741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
84476484|NCT01595438|168704742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
84476485|NCT01595438|168704743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
84476486|NCT01595438|168704744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
84476487|NCT01595438|168704745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
84476488|NCT01595438|168704746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
84476489|NCT01595438|168704747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
84476490|NCT01595438|168704748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
84476491|NCT01595438|168704749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
84476492|NCT01595438|168704750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
84476493|NCT01595438|168704751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
84476494|NCT01595438|168704752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
84529353|NCT02944383|168811680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3494
84529354|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0391
84529355|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2455||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2455
84529356|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0260
84529357|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5704||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5704
84529358|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
84529359|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0846||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0846
84529360|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1763||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1763
84529361|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5576||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5576
84718846|NCT03601715|169189523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
84529362|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.66||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-4.39||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.39|-24.68|0.0086
84529363|NCT02944383|168811681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.06||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|3.64||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.64|-15.02|0.1516
84529364|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0386
84529365|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1206
84529366|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0364
84529367|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4312||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4312
84529368|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
84529369|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0407
84529370|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1433
84529371|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2866||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2866
84529372|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0056
84529373|NCT02944383|168811682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0789
84529374|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0277
84476495|NCT01595438|168704753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
84476496|NCT01595438|168704754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
84476497|NCT01595438|168704755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
84476498|NCT01595438|168704756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
84476499|NCT01595438|168704757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
84476500|NCT01595438|168704758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
84476501|NCT01595438|168704759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
84476502|NCT01595438|168704760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
84476503|NCT01595438|168704761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
84476504|NCT01595438|168704762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
84476505|NCT01595438|168704763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
84476506|NCT01595438|168704764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
84476507|NCT01595438|168704765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
84476508|NCT01595438|168704766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
84476509|NCT01595438|168704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
84476510|NCT01595438|168704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
84476511|NCT04295356|168704823|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of Cmax was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.08|111.9|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in Cmax between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||111.90|94.08|
84529375|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2502
84529376|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0161
84529377|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6567||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6567
84529378|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
84476512|NCT04295356|168704824|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-inf was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.98|114.29|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-inf between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||114.29|93.98|
84476513|NCT04295356|168704825|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-last was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|121.86|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-last between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||121.86|91.09|
84476514|NCT01784588|168704833|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|7.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||7.4|-8.2|
84476515|NCT01784588|168704833|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Unadjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||8.4|-5.4|
84476516|NCT00961441|168704838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|1.0271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8817|1.1964|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for Cmax normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.1964|0.8817|
84476517|NCT00961441|168704839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|0.9914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.2118|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for AUCtau normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.2118|0.8110|
84476518|NCT03807245|168704845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 25mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
84476519|NCT03807245|168704845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 50mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
84476520|NCT04904614|168704882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84476521|NCT04904614|168704883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
84476522|NCT04904614|168704884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
84476523|NCT04904614|168704886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
84476524|NCT03341923|168704888|NON_INFERIORITY|"Difference (DT1MF-AMMF) of percentage of subjects rated as Optimal was provided with two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of CI was above -10% as non-inferiority criteria, non-inferiority was to be demonstrated."|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
84476525|NCT03341923|168704888|SUPERIORITY|After demonstrating noninferiority, if lower limit of CI was above 0% as superiority criteria, superiority was to be demonstrated.|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
84476526|NCT04511819|168704889|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.174|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.174|-0.347|0.8762
84476527|NCT00589979|168704898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.1006||95.0|0.89|3.55||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Cox frailty model|Model included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carryover as fixed effects and frailty; patient nested within sequence was frailty.|The Hazard Ratio (HR) provided is the ratio of Placebo to Lidoderm.|The two treatments were compared by time-varying relative hazards, associated P values, and 95% confidence intervals. Appropriate survival or hazard functions were calculated.||3.55|0.89|0.1006
84476528|NCT00589979|168704900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1272||95.0|0.86|4.02||The logistic regression model for repeated measures used for this analysis included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carry-over as fixed effects and repeated measures taken on patients nested within sequence.|Regression, Logistic|The results presented are reported in terms of odds ratios, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and P-values for each fixed effect in the model.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|The proportion of patients who exited from the current treatment period prior to the 4-week planned duration was analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures.||4.02|0.86|0.1272
84529379|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1257
84529380|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1440
84476529|NCT00589979|168704901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.0224||95.0|-1.01|-0.08||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
84476530|NCT00589979|168704902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2747||95.0|-0.31|1.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects regression||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||1.09|-0.31|0.2747
84476531|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4498||95.0|-0.8|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.80|0.4498
84476532|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.1065||95.0|-1.11|0.11||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sharp: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.11|-1.11|0.1065
84476533|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.0484||95.0|-0.94|0.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Hot: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.00|-0.94|0.0484
84476534|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.4973||95.0|-0.93|0.46||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Dull: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.46|-0.93|0.4973
84476535|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3966||95.0|-0.16|0.41||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cold: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.41|-0.16|0.3966
84476536|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6941||95.0|-0.53|0.35||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sensitive: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.35|-0.53|0.6941
84529381|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7642
84540755|NCT03718832|168832712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4977997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041102||0.6329035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.546815|1.551216||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.551216|-2.546815|0.6329035
84476537|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5664||95.0|-0.45|0.82||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tender: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.82|-0.45|0.5664
84476538|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6871||95.0|-0.55|0.37||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Itchy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.37|-0.55|0.6871
84476539|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.2318||95.0|-1.08|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Shocking: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.08|0.2318
84476540|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3383||95.0|-0.64|0.22||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Numb: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.22|-0.64|0.3383
84476541|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.874||95.0|-0.63|0.73||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Electrical: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.73|-0.63|0.8740
84476542|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tingling: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.54|-0.54|0.9990
84476543|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.4183||95.0|-0.85|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cramping: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.85|0.4183
84476544|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.8227||95.0|-0.71|0.57||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Radiating: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.57|-0.71|0.8227
84529382|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.31|-4.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.51|-28.31|0.0107
84476545|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.587||95.0|-0.48|0.85||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Throbbing: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.85|-0.48|0.5870
84476546|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2181||95.0|-1.15|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Aching: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.15|0.2181
84476547|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.6276||95.0|-0.68|0.42||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Heavy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.42|-0.68|0.6276
84476548|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0917||95.0|-1.23|0.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Overall unpleasantness: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.09|-1.23|0.0917
84476549|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2089||95.0|-1.13|0.25||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.25|-1.13|0.2089
84476550|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4188||95.0|-0.75|0.31||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.31|-0.75|0.4188
84476551|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.6959||95.0|-0.32|0.21||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.21|-0.32|0.6959
84476552|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.4806||95.0|-0.64|0.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.30|-0.64|0.4806
84529383|NCT02944383|168811683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.32||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|5.52||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.52|-16.73|0.2466
84529384|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0211
84529385|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1304||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1304
84529386|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0318
84529387|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4607||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4607
84529388|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0012
84529389|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0592
84529390|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1170
84529391|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3138
84529392|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0090
84529393|NCT02944383|168811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1317||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1317
84529394|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2395||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2395
84529395|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6380
84529396|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7468||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7468
84529397|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8483||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8483
84529398|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0008
84529399|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0938
84529400|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3201||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3201
84529401|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9010
84529402|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.31||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-1.49||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.49|-39.06|0.0156
84529403|NCT02944383|168811685|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.98||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|17.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||17.26|-28.51|0.3456
84529404|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.3714
84529405|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4415||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4415
84529406|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7902||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7902
84529407|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6999
84529408|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0015
84529409|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0796
84529410|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4225||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4225
84529411|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7687||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7687
84529412|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0437
84529413|NCT02944383|168811686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2735
84529414|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1042
84529415|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6204||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6204
84529416|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8659
84529417|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9658||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9658
84529418|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8238||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8238
84529419|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4874||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4874
84529420|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9467
84529421|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7467
84529422|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|10.75||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||10.75|-10.77|0.9081
84529423|NCT02944383|168811687|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|6.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.86|-11.82|0.5480
84529424|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1485||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1485
84529425|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6008
84529426|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9409
84529427|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9292||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9292
84529428|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8455||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8455
84529429|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5256||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5256
84529430|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9217
84529431|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7401||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7401
84529432|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9386||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9386
84529433|NCT02944383|168811688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6352||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6352
84529434|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0165
84529435|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3075
84529436|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1069||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1069
84529437|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6101||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6101
84529438|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-12.04||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-1.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.08|-23.79|0.0351
84529439|NCT02944383|168811689|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|4.25||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.25|-9.86|0.3746
84529440|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0133
84529441|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2044||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2044
84529442|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0855
84529443|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5114||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5114
84529444|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0289
84529445|NCT02944383|168811690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2950
84529446|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1992
84529447|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9945||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9945
84529448|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5139
84529449|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8085
84529450|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|4.85||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.85|-6.31|0.7644
84529451|NCT02944383|168811691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.66||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.66|-4.34|0.9499
84529452|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1521
84529453|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8982||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8982
84529454|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6228||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6228
84529455|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9622
84529456|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6643||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6643
84718847|NCT03601715|169189524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
84529457|NCT02944383|168811692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9071
84529458|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5647
84529459|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1073
84529460|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3858||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3858
84529461|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0916||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0916
84529462|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|5.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.26|-5.56|0.9473
84718848|NCT02347332|169189525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.8329
84718849|NCT02347332|169189526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3576
84529463|NCT02944383|168811693|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.54||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.95||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||9.95|-1.83|0.0911
84529464|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4623||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4623
84529465|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1678||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1678
84529466|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4390
84529467|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1290
84529468|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9627||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9627
84529469|NCT02944383|168811694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0911
84529470|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2882
84529471|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4474
84529472|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7875||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7875
84476553|NCT00589979|168704903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2291||95.0|-0.74|0.18||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average paroxysmal pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.18|-0.74|0.2291
84476554|NCT00589979|168704904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3185||95.0|0.77|2.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.27|0.77|0.3185
84529473|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0600
84529474|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.9832
84529475|NCT02944383|168811695|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.1352
84529476|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2857
84529477|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4486||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4486
84529478|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7640
84476555|NCT00589979|168704905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4748||95.0|0.72|2.06||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.06|0.72|0.4748
84476556|NCT00589979|168704906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7839||95.0|-0.74|0.98||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.98|-0.74|0.7839
84476557|NCT00589979|168704908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3773||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.04|-0.02|0.3773
84476558|NCT00589979|168704909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2605||95.0|0.38|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.38|0.2605
84476559|NCT00589979|168704910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3193||95.0|0.44|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.44|0.3193
84476560|NCT00589979|168704911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.1378||95.0|-0.57|4.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates||4.04|-0.57|0.1378
84476561|NCT00589979|168704912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6833||95.0|0.47|1.65||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|||1.65|0.47|0.6833
84476562|NCT00589979|168704913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.16||||0.1143||95.0|-5.48|49.8||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Disturbance: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||49.8|-5.48|0.1143
84476563|NCT00589979|168704913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.9108||95.0|-19.8|22.2||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Effectiveness: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||22.2|-19.8|0.9108
84529479|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0560
84529480|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9954
84718850|NCT02347332|169189527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.467
84476564|NCT00589979|168704913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31||||0.3769||95.0|-10.3|27.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Supplementation: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||27.0|-10.3|0.3769
84476565|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.973||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models fit via maximum likelihood to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction. We used separate models to assess the intervention effects across the 8-week intervention period as well as the complete 16-week follow-up period.|The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.973
84476566|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.005
84476567|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.004
84476568|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.627
84476569|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.359||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.359
84476570|NCT03373110|168704921|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.597
84476571|NCT00400712|168704989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||||0.44
84476572|NCT00400712|168704990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
84476573|NCT00400712|168704991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA - comparing absolute measures and including baseline as co-variate||||0.45
84476574|NCT00400712|168704992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values||||||0.72
84476575|NCT00400712|168704993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlled for baseline values||||||0.60
84476576|NCT00400712|168704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
84476577|NCT00400712|168704995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
84476578|NCT02466412|168704996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|63.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6045|82.3991|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for Cmax. Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||82.3991|49.6045|
84476579|NCT02466412|168704997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|60.0052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9517|80.0997|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for AUC(0-last). Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||80.0997|44.9517|
84476580|NCT02553317|168705001|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0099||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Log Rank|||Time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm and placebo arm was compared by conducting a two-sided stratified log-rank test based on a KM analysis, with severity of neurological involvement (according to the Glasgow coma scale \[GCS\] category, stratification factor used in randomization: ≤12 / 13-15) as stratification factor.||||= 0.0099
84476581|NCT02553317|168705001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.195|||||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model.|Time to platelet count response was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with time to platelet count response as dependent variable, and treatment group and GCS category as independent variables. The hazard (or platelet count normalization rate) ratio from the Cox model was reported along with 95% CI.||2.195|1.095|
84476582|NCT02553317|168705002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||< 0.0001
84476583|NCT02553317|168705003|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0004
84476584|NCT02553317|168705004|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0572||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0572
84476585|NCT03483116|168705011|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%.|Response rate|0.1553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.272||||||||0.272|0.039|
84476586|NCT03483116|168705011|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Response rate|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.117||||||||0.117|-0.115|
84476587|NCT03483116|168705011|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Difference Response rate|0.1543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.27||||||Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%||0.270|0.038|
84476588|NCT01181102|168705021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"(non-inferiority) When analyzed using the Z test at a one-sided 0.025 significance level, with the addition of a non-inferiority margin of 5% to the incidence in the enoxaparin group.~(superiority) The incidence of thromboembolic events for the FAS was compared using the χ2 test (two-sided significance level: 0.05)"|Cox Proportional Hazard|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.6||non-inferiority:P \< 0.001 superiority:P = 0.010|non-inferiority:Z test. superiority:χ2 t|||The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the DU-176b group (P˅DU) = The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (5%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (level of significance, 0.025; one-sided). If the null hypothesis H˅01 was rejected, the following analysis had to be sequentially performed using the χ2 test statistic. Null hypothesis H˅02: P˅DU = P˅E Alternative hypothesis H˅12: P˅DU ≠ P˅E (level of significance, 0.05; two-sided).||-1.6|-11.5|<0.001
84476589|NCT01181102|168705022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||χ2 test|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-0.8|
84476590|NCT01315002|168705023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of error percentage in the antisaccade task between nicotine and placebo. An ANOVA model was used with treatment (nicotine, placebo) as a within-subjects factor. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided). Results showed significantly better antisaccade performance (i.e. less antisaccade errors) in the nicotine condition.||||<0.05
84476591|NCT01529385|168705043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476592|NCT01529385|168705044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84476593|NCT01529385|168705045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<.05
84476594|NCT01529385|168705046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476595|NCT01529385|168705047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476596|NCT01529385|168705048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476597|NCT01529385|168705050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476598|NCT01529385|168705051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476599|NCT01529385|168705052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84476600|NCT04009213|168705053|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: δT - δC ≥ 0.9 Ha: δT - δC \< 0.9|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.025
84476601|NCT04009213|168705054|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: qT - qC ≥ 10% H1: qT - qC \< 10%|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
84476602|NCT04009213|168705055|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: pC - pT ≥ 10% H1: pC - pT \< 10%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.025
84529481|NCT02944383|168811696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1298
84529482|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
84529483|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1806
84529484|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2657||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2657
84529485|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5996
84529486|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-11.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|2.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.08|-28.81|0.0270
84529487|NCT02944383|168811697|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|15.5||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||15.50|-16.88|0.5263
84529488|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0345
84529489|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2709||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2709
84529490|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3255||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3255
84529491|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7391
84529492|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0808||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0808
84529493|NCT02944383|168811698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6509||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6509
84718851|NCT02347332|169189528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.243
84529494|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0004
84529495|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0412
84529496|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1937||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1937
84529497|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4740
84529498|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.32||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.13|3.89||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.89|-34.13|0.0116
84529499|NCT02944383|168811699|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|14.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.26|-23.85|0.1109
84718852|NCT02347332|169189529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.6289
84529500|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0002
84529501|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
84529502|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3043
84529503|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4639||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4639
84529504|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0210
84529505|NCT02944383|168811700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0992
84529506|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1512
84529507|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8400
84529508|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0244||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0244
84529509|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1803||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1803
84529510|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-24.41||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.73|-9.94||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-9.94|-42.73|0.0307
84529511|NCT02944383|168811701|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|7.68||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.68|-23.33|0.5326
84529512|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1705
84529513|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9193||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9193
84529514|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0224
84529515|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2387
84529516|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0600
84529517|NCT02944383|168811702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6878||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6878
84529518|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0298
84529519|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0196
84476603|NCT04009213|168705056|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: πC - πT ≥ 15% H1: πC - πT \< 15%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
84476604|NCT00862121|168705060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.683|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio (OR) for Baseline CDAI measures the effect of an increase of one unit on the outcome. The OR \[95% CI\] and p-value (likelihood-based) are for Pentasa versus placebo estimated in a logistic regression analysis including TREATMENT and CDAI at baseline as covariates. Power to demonstrate superiority of PENTASA Sachet 6 g/day over placebo in the primary efficacy analysis was 90% for a planned sample size of 255 participants per treatment arm (assuming 10% nonassessable participants).||2.683|0.017|0.231
84476605|NCT00640146|168705078|OTHER|||||||0.0213|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 2 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0213
84476606|NCT00640146|168705079|OTHER|||||||0.0463|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 4 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0463
84476607|NCT01016678|168705138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (active) to percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (placebo)||||0.0038
84476608|NCT01016678|168705139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|8.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1294
84476609|NCT00132314|168705146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2|||Log Rank|||Time-to-event analysis; The primary outcome hypothesis is tested using a two-sided log-rank test to compare the hazard rate for the IM treatment group to that for the oral treatment group.||1.20|0.63|0.39
84476610|NCT00132314|168705147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2||95% Confidence Interval: 0.63 to 1.20|Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.63|
84476611|NCT00225147|168705194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84476612|NCT00225147|168705194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84476613|NCT00225147|168705195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
84476614|NCT00225147|168705195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84476615|NCT03532776|168705199|EQUIVALENCE|BE limits: -20.0% to 20.0%|Equivalence ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|7.0||||||||7|-12|
84476616|NCT01114373|168705266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0269
84476617|NCT01114373|168705266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
84476618|NCT01114373|168705267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0492
84476619|NCT01114373|168705267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
84476620|NCT01114373|168705268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
84476621|NCT01114373|168705269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
84476622|NCT01114373|168705270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84476623|NCT01114373|168705271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84476624|NCT01114373|168705272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
84476625|NCT01114373|168705273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
84476626|NCT01114373|168705274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
84476627|NCT01114373|168705275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.21
84476628|NCT01114373|168705276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.41
84476629|NCT01114373|168705277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
84476630|NCT01114373|168705278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
84476631|NCT01114373|168705279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
84476632|NCT03444870|168705280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition Subscale 13 (ADAS-Cog13) Score + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.05|-0.66|0.0954
84476633|NCT03444870|168705282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.02|-2.52|0.0544
84476634|NCT03444870|168705283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.70|-0.48|0.1729
84476635|NCT03444870|168705284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.03|-1.68|0.0425
84476636|NCT03444870|168705285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.93|-0.28|0.2904
84476637|NCT03444870|168705286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.20|-2.14|0.1036
84529520|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2219
84529521|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4078
84476638|NCT03444870|168705287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.65|-0.79|0.8468
84529522|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.34||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|1.3||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||1.30|-31.68|0.0605
84529523|NCT02944383|168811703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|7.32||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.32|-19.91|0.1768
84529524|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0084
84529525|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0047
84529526|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1574
84476639|NCT03444870|168705288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.74|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.74|-1.35|0.8030
84529527|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3235||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3235
84529528|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0367
84529529|NCT02944383|168811704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0948||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0948
84529530|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0037
84476640|NCT03444870|168705289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.34|-0.34|0.1439
84529531|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1328||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1328
84529532|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4364||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4364
84529533|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8129
84529534|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.29||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.54|2.35||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.35|-36.54|0.0347
84540756|NCT03718832|168832712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.386111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812939||0.445181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.954999|2.182777||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.182777|-4.954999|0.445181
84476641|NCT03444870|168705296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-66.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.71|-58.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-58.16|-74.71|<.0001
84476642|NCT03444870|168705297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
84476643|NCT03444870|168705297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
84476644|NCT03444870|168705297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
84476645|NCT03444870|168705297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
84476646|NCT03444870|168705298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||||<.001
84476647|NCT03444870|168705299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84476648|NCT03444870|168705300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.396
84476649|NCT03444870|168705301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84476650|NCT00868166|168705318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.71
84476651|NCT00868166|168705319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.83
84476652|NCT00868166|168705319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.73
84476653|NCT00868166|168705321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.21
84476654|NCT00868166|168705321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.20
84476655|NCT00868166|168705323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.56
84476656|NCT02034552|168705329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109||||||\[80% CI\]: \[10.1%- 39.6%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||0.0109
84476657|NCT02034552|168705329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[40.8% - 73.7%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
84476658|NCT02034552|168705329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[31.8% - 68.2%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
84476659|NCT00698035|168705338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
84476660|NCT00698035|168705338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||singificant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of week 4 estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
84476661|NCT00698035|168705341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.021
84476662|NCT00698035|168705341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
84476663|NCT00698035|168705341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.0228
84476664|NCT00698035|168705341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
84476665|NCT00698035|168705342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.004
84476666|NCT00698035|168705342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.139
84476667|NCT00698035|168705343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, petechiae, mucosal thinning and dryness between baseline and week 12||||<0.001
84476668|NCT00698035|168705343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, mucosal thinning, and dryness from baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
84476669|NCT00698035|168705343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in petechiae between baseline and week 12||||0.0061
84476670|NCT00074802|168705344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.43||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.05|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-15.05|.267
84726080|NCT00674609|169204436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|0.10|0.021
84476671|NCT00074802|168705345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of responder status.||||.018
84476672|NCT00074802|168705345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of remitter status.||||.034
84476673|NCT00074802|168705346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-5.02|.0005
84476674|NCT00074802|168705347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-11.84|.0775
84476675|NCT00074802|168705348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Paroxetine+CBT \> Paroxetine alone in BFNE change.|||-2.35|-8.70|.0006
84476676|NCT00074802|168705349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-2.16|.871
84476677|NCT00074802|168705350|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|12.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.76|-11.95|.949
84476678|NCT01797445|168705386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.||7.1|-1.0|0.13
84476679|NCT04547998|168705405|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) was tested for superiority of RECELL treatment (with a 10% superiority margin). For the null hypothesis to be rejected and super-superiority of RECELL to Control to be established, the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) had to be greater than 10%.||||||0.012|||||||continuity-corrected method|Liu et al 2002||||||0.012
84476680|NCT04547998|168705406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Wilcoxon signed rank test at 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was based on the following repigmentation categories: 0% to 25%, 26% to 50%, 51% to 79%, and 80% to 100%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84476681|NCT04547998|168705407|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided (0.05 significance level), based on 19 participants with assessable color matching outcomes for both treatments|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84476682|NCT01878097|168705408|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84476683|NCT01878097|168705409|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
84476684|NCT03783442|168705422|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.80|0.54|<0.0001
84476685|NCT03783442|168705423|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
84476686|NCT03783442|168705424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|Odds ratio was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|||3.27|1.73|<0.0001
84476687|NCT03783442|168705425|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.87|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.87|0.44|0.0029
84476688|NCT03783442|168705427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.4||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia Score at Cycle 6||10.3|-1.4|0.1372
84476689|NCT03783442|168705427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Eating Score at Cycle 6||3.7|-2.5|0.7130
84476690|NCT03783442|168705427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux Score at Cycle 6||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
84529535|NCT02944383|168811705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|23.62||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||23.62|-25.78|0.3617
84529536|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0085
84529537|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2112
84529538|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7301||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7301
84529539|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6283
84529540|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0919||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0919
84529541|NCT02944383|168811706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5497||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.5497
84476691|NCT03783442|168705427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain Score at Cycle 6||0.2|-3.9|
84476692|NCT03783442|168705427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Index Score at Cycle 6||1.4|-2.1|
84476693|NCT03783442|168705428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||6.2|0.4|
84476694|NCT03783442|168705428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.1|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||5.1|0.0|
84476695|NCT03783442|168705429|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.9|-4.7|
84476696|NCT00168064|168705432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The PG formulation was determined to be non-inferior to the AP formulation if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the ratio of the response rates (PG/AP) was \> = 0.75.|ratio of proportions|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.552|||ANCOVA||ratio is response rate of PG formulation divided by response rate of AP formulation|||1.552|0.974|
84476697|NCT01309841|168705436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.795|1.062|0.015
84476698|NCT01309841|168705436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.509||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|1.949|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.949|1.168|0.001
84476699|NCT01309841|168705437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.479||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.107||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.107|1.038|0.028
84476700|NCT01309841|168705437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.691||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.373||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.373|1.205|0.002
84529542|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
84529543|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0351
84529544|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1561||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1561
84476701|NCT01309841|168705439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.86|0.24|<0.001
84476702|NCT01309841|168705439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.13|0.51|<0.001
84476703|NCT01309841|168705440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.04|-0.23|0.176
84476704|NCT01309841|168705440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
84476705|NCT01309841|168705441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.23|-0.12|0.564
84476706|NCT01309841|168705441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.36|0.01|0.042
84476707|NCT01309841|168705442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||8.39|-0.66|0.094
84476708|NCT01309841|168705442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|13.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||13.14|4.04|<0.001
84476709|NCT01309841|168705443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.96|0.12|0.011
84476710|NCT01309841|168705443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.41|0.57|<0.001
84476711|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.21|0.273
84476712|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.26|0.089
84529545|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0268
84476713|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.17|-0.14|0.849
84476714|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.13|-0.18|0.749
84476715|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.062
84476716|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.07||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.35|0.003
84476717|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.29|0.202
84476718|NCT01309841|168705445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.34|0.072
84476719|NCT01309841|168705446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.20|-0.25|0.831
84476720|NCT01309841|168705446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.06|-0.41|0.141
84476721|NCT01906866|168705454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|62.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.26|2.38|=0.035
84476722|NCT01906866|168705455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.787|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.8|-44.61|=0.011
84476723|NCT01906866|168705458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||MMRM|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis||||0.053
84476724|NCT01906866|168705458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||MI analysis|||||||0.039
84476725|NCT01906866|168705460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||MMRM|||||||0.077
84476726|NCT01906866|168705461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84476727|NCT02475395|168705486|OTHER||Sensitivity|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|95.3|||||Sensitivity estimates the percent true positive results obtained by Trak. Positive results are less than 15 M/mL sperm concentration and are part of a sub fertile diagnostic assessment.|||95.3|79.9|
84476728|NCT02475395|168705486|OTHER||Specificity|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|96.1|||||Specificity is calculated by the percentage of true negative results obtained using Trak compared to reference method. Negative (for subfertility) results are greater than 15 M/mL.|||96.1|88.7|
84476729|NCT02475395|168705487|OTHER||Sensitivity|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.3||||||||98.3|86.3|
84476730|NCT02475395|168705487|OTHER||Specificity|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|97.3||||||||97.3|90.6|
84476731|NCT02475395|168705488|OTHER||Sensitivity|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|99.1||||||||99.1|88.7|
84529546|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-22.3||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.96|-1.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.67|-42.96|0.0516
84476732|NCT02475395|168705488|OTHER||Specificity|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5||||||||96.5|89.2|
84476733|NCT00594204|168705517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.97|7.68||p-values are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||7.68|2.97|<0.0001
84726081|NCT00674609|169204436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|0.64||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.22|0.07|0.028
84476734|NCT00594204|168705518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.3|7.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 12||7.5|3.3|<0.0001
84476735|NCT00594204|168705518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.8|6.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 24||6.5|2.8|<0.0001
84476736|NCT00594204|168705519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.74|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|p-value are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||8.88|3.74|<0.0001
84476737|NCT01401465|168705523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|88.235|||<|0.0001||||||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Two-sided Signed Rank Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Total Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. For the primary endpoint of the Total Preference Score, assuming an SD of 40, a sample size of 155 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level.||||<0.0001
84476738|NCT01401465|168705524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|16.58||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||16.58|11.22|<0.0001
84476739|NCT01401465|168705524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.56||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||7.56|2.20|<0.0001
84529547|NCT02944383|168811707|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.06||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|4.88||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.88|-32.83|0.0125
84529548|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0023
84476740|NCT01401465|168705525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|88.889|||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided signed-rank test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Treatment Process Composite Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. Assuming an SD of 40, as observed in Study 060-301, a sample size of 128 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significant level||||<0.0001
84476741|NCT01401465|168705526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI of the LS mean difference of ciclesonide nasal aerosol minus mometasone aqueous nasal spray was calculated from the ANCOVA model, and the upper bound of the CI was compared to the non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI of this difference was \< 0.5.|Difference in LS Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||f both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Site, treatment, period, treatment sequence as fixed effects, subject nested within sequence as a random effect, and baseline rTNSS as a covariate.|Ciclesonide 74 mcg minus Mometasone 200 mcg|The null hypothesis is that the change from baseline in rTNSS for ciclesonide 74 mcg nasal aerosol minus the change from baseline in rTNSS for mometasone AQ 200 mcg is greater than 0.5.||0.1|-0.3|
84476742|NCT01115738|168705554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.24||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|55.47||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||55.47|-10.98|0.188
84476743|NCT01115738|168705554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|36.07||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||36.07|-28.20|0.809
84476744|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|54.12||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||54.12|-20.26|0.370
84476745|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.89||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|72.06||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||72.06|-0.29|0.052
84476746|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|58.45||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||58.45|-39.55|0.703
84476747|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|53.44||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||53.44|-42.53|0.823
84476748|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.69||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|57.84||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||57.84|-0.47|0.054
84476749|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|39.9||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||39.90|-17.29|0.436
84476750|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.87||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|32.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||32.71|-14.96|0.463
84476751|NCT01115738|168705555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.62|19.94||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||19.94|-26.62|0.777
84476752|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.48||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||6.48|-13.10|0.505
84476753|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.27||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.27|-14.74|0.278
84476754|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|14.02||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||14.02|-19.44|0.749
84476755|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|17.53||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||17.53|-15.24|0.890
84476756|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|4.24||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.24|-18.02|0.223
84476757|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|12.1||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||12.10|-9.44|0.808
84476758|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-0.04||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||-0.04|-20.11|0.049
84476759|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|8.86||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.86|-10.85|0.842
84476760|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|3.52||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||3.52|-13.58|0.247
84476761|NCT01115738|168705558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|8.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.71|-8.09|0.942
84476762|NCT01115738|168705561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.449||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.81|45.71|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values at baseline for clopidogrel treated participants as response and CYP2C19 metabolizer status as covariate of main interest.||45.71|-38.81|0.8711
84529549|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0356
84529550|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2284||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2284
84529551|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0213
84476763|NCT01115738|168705562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.714||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.78|55.36|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours post Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||55.36|-72.78|0.7875
84476764|NCT01115738|168705562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.435||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|46.37|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||46.37|-53.23|0.8913
84476765|NCT01115738|168705562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.43|58.83|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||58.83|-35.43|0.6229
84529552|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0330
84529553|NCT02944383|168811708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0221
84529554|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.67||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||5.67|-10.17|0.2632
84529555|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.71||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||9.71|-6.77|0.5382
84529556|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||1.01|-0.51|0.1727
84529557|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||0.51|-0.51|0.4567
84529558|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.47||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.47|-1.21|0.6142
84529559|NCT02944383|168811709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.29||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.29|-2.23|0.2409
84529560|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.2721
84529561|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5669||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.5669
84529562|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.1686
84529563|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.4308
84529564|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.5495
84529565|NCT02944383|168811710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.2384
84529566|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.99||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.76|2.55||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||2.55|-33.76|0.0781
84529567|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|19.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||19.01|-19.36|0.9901
84529568|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-25.23||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.62|-5.1||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||-5.10|-43.62|0.0717
84529569|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.09||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|3.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||3.76|-36.78|0.1548
84718853|NCT01478594|169189533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.718|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|An interim futility analysis was to be performed when approximately 83 PFS events (50% of the total PFS events) were observed. The Lans DeMets beta spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary was used to derive the futility boundary. If the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was greater than 1.0581, enrollment was to be stopped. With this futility stopping rule, the adjusted study power was 78.6%.||1.718|0.693|0.706
84476766|NCT02921763|168705572|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0533|||||||Sign test|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, frequency of increase and decrease was summarized and the sign test was performed separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers."||||=0.0533
84476767|NCT02921763|168705574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.7328
84476768|NCT02921763|168705574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.1193
84476769|NCT02921763|168705575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.7221
84476770|NCT02921763|168705575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.0861
84476771|NCT02921763|168705579|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0020
84476772|NCT02921763|168705579|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0001
84476773|NCT02921763|168705579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
84476774|NCT02921763|168705579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
84476775|NCT02921763|168705579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
84476776|NCT02921763|168705580|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0024
84476777|NCT02921763|168705580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476778|NCT02921763|168705580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476779|NCT02921763|168705580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476780|NCT02921763|168705580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476781|NCT02921763|168705581|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0037
84476782|NCT02921763|168705581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476783|NCT02921763|168705581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84529570|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-47.16||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.58|-5.78||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||-5.78|-119.58|0.0428
84529571|NCT02944383|168811711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.13||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.44|19.48||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||19.48|-121.44|0.1836
84529572|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1251||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.1251
84529573|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.9047
84529574|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.0788
84529575|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.1222
84529576|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.0734
84529577|NCT02944383|168811712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.4210
84529578|NCT02944383|168811713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|9.07||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||9.07|-8.12|0.9672
84529579|NCT02944383|168811713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.69|-5.31|0.7993
84529580|NCT02944383|168811714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8602||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8602
84529581|NCT02944383|168811714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8555
84529582|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0583
84529583|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2289
84529584|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0416
84529585|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0150
84529586|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.21||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-1.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.26|-54.29|0.0718
84529587|NCT02944383|168811715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.68||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|7.31||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.31|-50.00|0.1248
84529588|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2397
84529589|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5399
84529590|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0409
84529591|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0073
84529592|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0976
84529593|NCT02944383|168811716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1899
84529594|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1747||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1747
84529595|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4576||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4576
84529596|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1549
84529597|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2427
84529598|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.51||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|8.73||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.73|-6.26|0.1379
84529599|NCT02944383|168811717|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.51|-13.10|0.2490
84529600|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1550
84529601|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6604||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6604
84529602|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0952
84529603|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3006||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3006
84529604|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0642
84529605|NCT02944383|168811718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3185||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3185
84529606|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0679
84529607|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4126||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4126
84529608|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0095
84529609|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0172
84529610|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-23.23||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.54|-3.64||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-3.64|-41.54|0.0359
84529611|NCT02944383|168811719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|5.61||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.61|-38.62|0.0812
84529612|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1362||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1362
84529613|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6458||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6458
84529614|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0209
84529615|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0822||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0822
84529616|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0504
84529617|NCT02944383|168811720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1315
84529618|NCT02944383|168811721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0843
84529619|NCT02944383|168811721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3587
84529620|NCT02944383|168811721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.99||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|25.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.51|-0.54|0.0843
84529621|NCT02944383|168811721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.39||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||21.39|-3.70|0.3587
84529622|NCT02944383|168811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0768
84529623|NCT02944383|168811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4346
84529624|NCT02944383|168811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0768
84529625|NCT02944383|168811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4346
84529626|NCT02944383|168811723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5411||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5411
84529627|NCT02944383|168811723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2574
84476784|NCT02921763|168705581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
84476785|NCT02921763|168705581|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0003
84476786|NCT02921763|168705582|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8035
84476787|NCT02921763|168705583|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8185
84476788|NCT02659605|168705584|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.572|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.572
84476789|NCT02659605|168705585|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.849|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.849
84476790|NCT02659605|168705586|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.886|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.886
84476791|NCT02659605|168705587|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.612|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.612
84476792|NCT02659605|168705588|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.728|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.728
84476793|NCT02659605|168705589|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.584|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.584
84476794|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.55|-65.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.29|-77.55|<0.001
84476795|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-52.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.38|-65.94|<0.001
84476796|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.81|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.40|-45.81|<0.001
84476797|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-34.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-34.37|-47.83|<0.001
84529628|NCT02944383|168811723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|14.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.86|-9.59|0.5411
84529629|NCT02944383|168811723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.31||||0.2574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|5.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.76|-19.30|0.2574
84529630|NCT02944383|168811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3998
84529631|NCT02944383|168811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3659
84529632|NCT02944383|168811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3998
84529633|NCT02944383|168811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3659
84529634|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8823||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8823
84529635|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3788
84529636|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1091||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1091
84529637|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6867||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6867
84529638|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.07||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|36.34||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||36.34|-12.22|0.3156
84529639|NCT02944383|168811725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|25.43||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.43|-24.58|0.9734
84529640|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9772||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9772
84529641|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5213
84529642|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1582||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1582
84718854|NCT01478594|169189535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|2.218|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||2.218|0.561|0.754
84529643|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4588||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4588
84529644|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4264||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4264
84529645|NCT02944383|168811726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8107||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.8107
84529646|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|19.08||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||19.08|1.51|0.0093
84529647|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.07||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||8.07|0.82|0.1070
84529648|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.53||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.87|0.0865
84529649|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 12||4.48|0.55|0.3990
84529650|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.42||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.42|0.90|0.0772
84529651|NCT02944383|168811727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.48|0.53|0.4315
84529652|NCT00609518|168811797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||Linear probability model|||||0.28|-0.10|
84529653|NCT00609518|168811798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4902||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4902
84529654|NCT00609518|168811799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6791||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6791
84529655|NCT00609518|168811799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.49|0.54|
84529656|NCT00609518|168811800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5870
84529657|NCT00609518|168811800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.38|0.57|
84529658|NCT05855616|168811801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.533||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|5.892|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5.892|0.048|1.00
84529659|NCT05855616|168811802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.176||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.790|0.039|0.013
84529660|NCT05855616|168811804|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.137
84529661|NCT05855616|168811805|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.764
84529662|NCT05855616|168811806|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.055
84529663|NCT00985712|168811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model details are given in the section of Measure Description.||Superiority criterion is met if the upper limit of Confidence Interval (CI) is below zero.||0.26|-0.17|0.6692
84529664|NCT00985712|168811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3551||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3551
84529665|NCT00985712|168811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.5%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2026
84529666|NCT00985712|168811918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adjusted for baseline values.||||||0.9070
84529667|NCT00985712|168811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9817
84529668|NCT00985712|168811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1187
84529669|NCT04700280|168812043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-6.2|0.617
84529670|NCT04700280|168812045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.41|-1.70|0.3089
84529671|NCT04700280|168812045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.43|-1.97|0.2834
84529672|NCT04700280|168812045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.30|-2.02|0.7109
84529673|NCT04700280|168812046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.859
84529674|NCT04700280|168812046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||4.8|-3.8|0.837
84529675|NCT01843348|168812048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|Least square mean|-9.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.88|||ANOVA|||The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin||-4.88|-13.82|<0.0001
84539738|NCT00509795|168829389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.6||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.61|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-2.61|0.5579
84529676|NCT01843348|168812048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin|Least squares mean|-5.56||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.55||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.55|-9.56|0.0067
84529677|NCT01843348|168812049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.093||||||TAC+Certican - TAC+MPA - difference between groups||0.093|-0.029|
84529678|NCT01843348|168812049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.221||||||CycA+Certican -Tac+MPA - difference between groups||0.221|0.076|
84529679|NCT01843348|168812053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.028|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.087|||Pearson's chi-square test|||BPAR - treatment differences at Month 12||0.087|-0.032|< 0.001
84529680|NCT00251641|168812059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||The treatment comparison for this endpoint was carried at the 4.9% level of significance.||||<0.001
84529681|NCT00251641|168812060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
84529682|NCT00251641|168812061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
84529683|NCT00251641|168812062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
84529684|NCT00257920|168812063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.67||95.0|-0.023|0.015||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<= 0.050 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the mean calcium absorption fraction between Zemplar Injection and Hectorol Injection. The power calculation applied to the primary efficacy analysis.||0.015|-0.023|0.670
84529685|NCT00257920|168812064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.573||95.0|-0.024|0.014||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<=0.050 were considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in mean calcium absorption between Zemplar and Hectorol. Approximately 42 subjects were to be randomized assuming 36 subjects would available in the per-protocol set. A sample size of 36 subjects has 80% power to detect a mean difference of -0.018 assuming the Zemplar group mean is 0.139, the Hectorol group mean is 0.157 and the STD is 0.037. The ANOVA model included effects for sequence, subject-within-sequence, period and treatment regimen.||0.014|-0.024|0.573
84529686|NCT01189500|168812083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.7|104.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||104.85|96.70|
84718855|NCT01478594|169189536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).||||||0.718
84718856|NCT01478594|169189537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.389||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|3.194|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||3.194|0.604|0.437
84529687|NCT01189500|168812085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|105.17|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||105.17|94.02|
84529688|NCT01189500|168812090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|92.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|100.0|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||100.00|84.71|
84529689|NCT01189500|168812096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|112.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.44|116.9|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||116.90|107.44|
84529690|NCT01189500|168812101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|111.81|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||111.81|99.74|
84529691|NCT01189500|168812102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.51|113.67|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||113.67|103.51|
84529692|NCT01000493|168812123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.65||The mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score and the treatment by week and Baseline. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 12.|||6.65|-17.9|0.3624
84529693|NCT01000493|168812124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.76|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||6.76|0.54|0.3156
84529694|NCT01000493|168812124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.3024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.5|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||1.50|0.27|0.3024
84529695|NCT01000493|168812124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.28|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 8. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||7.28|0.79|0.1208
84529696|NCT01000493|168812124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||15.4|0.70|0.1331
84529697|NCT01000493|168812126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|3.61||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||3.61|-5.35|0.7015
84529698|NCT01000493|168812126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|9.84||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||9.84|-4.22|0.4292
84529699|NCT01000493|168812126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.62||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.62|-14.9|0.3702
84529700|NCT01000493|168812127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.82|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||5.82|0.04|0.5719
84529701|NCT01000493|168812127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.908||95.0|0.07|20.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||20.1|0.07|0.9080
84529702|NCT01000493|168812127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||12.5|0.07|0.9486
84529703|NCT01000493|168812129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.85||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||2.85|-1.51|0.5426
84529704|NCT01000493|168812129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||3.75|-2.73|0.7552
84529705|NCT01000493|168812129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||2.83|-7.27|0.3827
84529706|NCT01000493|168812129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.75|-7.71|0.4915
84529707|NCT01000493|168812130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.74||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||1.74|-1.93|0.9190
84529708|NCT01000493|168812130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.0||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||4.00|-1.37|0.3326
84529709|NCT01000493|168812130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.77||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||3.77|-3.91|0.9712
84529710|NCT01000493|168812130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.6711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.39||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.39|-5.22|0.6711
84529711|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.92||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scales (CGI-S) score.|Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||6.92|0.36|0.5532
84529712|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||3.93|0.54|0.4508
84529713|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||2.62|0.42|0.9234
84529714|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.53|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||6.53|0.94|0.0662
84529715|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.48|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.48|0.61|0.2767
84476798|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.87|-65.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.72|-86.87|<0.001
84476799|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.81|-61.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.20|-79.81|<0.001
84476800|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.54|-36.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.86|-57.54|<0.001
84476801|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-29.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-29.56|-48.21|<0.001
84476802|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.72|-61.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.70|-74.72|<0.001
84476803|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-58.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.14|-70.84|<0.001
84476804|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.04|-59.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.57|-77.04|<0.001
84476805|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.31|-44.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.65|-65.31|<0.001
84476806|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|-64.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.41|-76.72|<0.001
84476807|NCT01763866|168705603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.11|-51.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.72|-69.11|<0.001
84529716|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|10.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||10.5|0.96|0.0588
84529717|NCT01000493|168812131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||14.1|0.78|0.1032
84529718|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||0.05|-0.29|0.1743
84529719|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||0.05|-0.46|0.1181
84529720|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.34|-0.35|0.9698
84529721|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.09||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.69|0.1341
84529722|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||-0.18|-1.04|0.0064
84529723|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.10|-0.98|0.1095
84529724|NCT01000493|168812132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.27||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||0.27|-0.90|0.2814
84529725|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.5||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||-0.50|-3.33|0.0083
84529726|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||-0.18|-3.71|0.0311
84529727|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.47||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.47|-4.26|0.1155
84529728|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.45||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||-0.45|-5.33|0.0210
84529729|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||0.10|-5.83|0.0582
84529730|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.49||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.49|-6.25|0.0927
84529731|NCT01000493|168812139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|3.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.83|-4.36|0.8954
84529732|NCT03629028|168812146|NON_INFERIORITY|Data compared to meta-analysis conducted in Sardo et al., 2017||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared or Fisher's test statistic was used to compare the categorical variables.||The sample size was calculated based on the study of Sardo et al. The website http://powerandsamplesize.com/Calculators was used. As a result of the sample size calculation with 90% power and 0.05 alpha error, it was planned to include 141 patients in each group.||||0.05
84529733|NCT01635062|168812152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower plasma renin activity (PRA), when sodium restricted, when compared to placebo.||||0.69
84718857|NCT01478594|169189538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.358|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||1.358|0.746|0.967
84529734|NCT01635062|168812153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would raise renal plasma flow, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.89
84529735|NCT01635062|168812154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower urine protein, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.80
84529736|NCT01929031|168812166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.767|49.708|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||49.708|33.767|<0.0001
84529737|NCT01929031|168812166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.497|44.437|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||44.437|28.497|<0.0001
84529738|NCT01929031|168812166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.868|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.493|17.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||17.759|6.493|<0.0001
84529739|NCT01929031|168812167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.937|10.113|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||10.113|6.937|<0.0001
84529740|NCT01929031|168812167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.384|9.559|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||9.559|6.384|<0.0001
84529741|NCT01929031|168812167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.472|4.716|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||4.716|2.472|<0.0001
84529742|NCT01929031|168812168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
84529743|NCT01929031|168812168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
84529744|NCT01929031|168812168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.2389
84529745|NCT01929031|168812169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
84529746|NCT01929031|168812169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
84529747|NCT01929031|168812169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.0001
84529748|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||0.89|0.79|
84529749|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.99|0.93|
84529750|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||1.00|0.96|
84529751|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||0.84|0.69|
84529752|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||1.00|0.97|
84529753|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.95|0.83|
84529754|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||0.98|0.90|
84529755|NCT01366443|168812174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||1.00|0.94|
84529756|NCT00912093|168812238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
84529757|NCT00912093|168812239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
84529758|NCT00912093|168812240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Peto Peto Wilcoxon|||||||0.012
84529759|NCT00912093|168812241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
84529760|NCT00912093|168812242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
84529761|NCT00450619|168812281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.041
84529762|NCT00450619|168812281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Hazard Ratio|||||||0.046
84529763|NCT00450619|168812285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.35|0.37|0.30
84529764|NCT02836496|168812296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline oral corticosteroid (OCS) (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
84529765|NCT02836496|168812296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.64|0.12|0.003
84529766|NCT02836496|168812297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region||||||0.020
84529767|NCT02836496|168812297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.85|0.13|0.022
84529768|NCT02836496|168812298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67||Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Regression, Cox||Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented. Hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.67|0.18|0.002
84529769|NCT02836496|168812299|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg/day, \>20 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using rate ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Rate ratio \<1 indicates a lower flare rate with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.63|0.19|0.002
84529770|NCT02836496|168812300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.036
84529771|NCT00063635|168812301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
84529772|NCT00063635|168812301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
84529773|NCT00063635|168812302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
84529774|NCT00063635|168812302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
84529775|NCT00063635|168812303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
84529776|NCT00063635|168812303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
84529777|NCT00063635|168812304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
84529778|NCT00063635|168812304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
84529779|NCT00063635|168812305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
84529780|NCT00063635|168812305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84529781|NCT00063635|168812306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84529782|NCT00063635|168812306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
84529783|NCT00063635|168812307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84529784|NCT00063635|168812307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84529785|NCT00063635|168812308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.77
84529786|NCT00063635|168812308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
84529787|NCT00063635|168812309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84529788|NCT00063635|168812309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
84529789|NCT00063635|168812310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
84529790|NCT00063635|168812310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
84529791|NCT00063635|168812311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
84529792|NCT00063635|168812311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
84529793|NCT03914950|168812322|OTHER|"The calculation of power and sample size is based on a formula that selects the sample size so that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval by the expected specificity of the new method most probably exceeds the specificity value of the current method.~Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of the values of SUVmax of the early and delayed images with and without TOF of all pancreatic lesions was done in correlation with the histopathological findings."||||||0.78|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||It was calculated that 118 participants would have at least 90% power to demonstrate an improvement in specificity of 25% (to 70%) with the new method assuming a specificity of the current method of 45% at a prevalence of malignant lesions of 70% (corresponding to 30% benign lesions). Assumptions included a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.78
84529794|NCT03914950|168812322|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||0.95
84529795|NCT00894738|168812325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that mean DEXA total percent fat is similar between the two groups of interest. The primary statistical model consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor (AP-Treated Vs Non-AP Treated) and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) was the dependent variable.||||0.49
84529796|NCT00894738|168812326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor variable and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. An interaction term between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat was also generated. Hepatic triglyceride content was the dependent variable. DEXA total percent fat was found to be significant while treatment group and the interaction between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat were not significant.||||<0.0001
84529797|NCT01340768|168812341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.94||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.94|0.29|0.028
84529798|NCT01340768|168812342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.83|0.29|0.006
84529799|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.236||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1519 )= -2.19, d = 0.15.||-0.18|-3.34|0.03
84529800|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to- treat data for SDS scores, t(160)= -15.74, d = 2.97.||-6.11|-10.12|<.001
84529801|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(160) = -12.72, d = 1.86.||-6.11|-8.35|<0.001
84529802|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = -0.90, d = 0.05.||0.86|-2.13|0.49
84529803|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 2.11, d = 0.11.||2.17|0.06|<0.001
84529804|NCT03056157|168812357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 3.45, d = 0.18||2.81|0.75|<0.001
84529805|NCT03056157|168812358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.56|1.01|0.03
84529806|NCT03056157|168812358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.71|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced improvement from baseline to post-treatment in SDS in AD-MIL versus PCT.||0.71|0|0.01
84529807|NCT03056157|168812358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.87|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced no change in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.87|0.35|.69
84529808|NCT03056157|168812358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|5.83|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced deterioration in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.83|0|0.50
84529809|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.93, d = 0.10.||3.79|-10.57|0.35
84529810|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for BIPF scores, t(116) = -3.27, d = 0.61.||-3.44|-13.83|0.001
84529811|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
84529812|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -1.79, d = 0.20.||0.52|-10.86|0.08
84529813|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -2.72, d = 0.30.||-1.57|-9.72|0.007
84529814|NCT03056157|168812359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.23, d = 0.03.||3.50|-4.44|0.82
84529815|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.32, d = 0.03.||3.36|-4.68|0.75
84529816|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.01, d = 1.97.||-6.12|-12.12|<0.001
84529817|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.11, d = 2.01.||-5.76|-11.16|<0.001
84529818|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.28||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.59, d = 0.06.||5.52|-10.08|0.56
84529819|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|10.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.25, d = 0.13.||10.92|-0.24|0.22
84529820|NCT03056157|168812360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 3.18, d = 0.33.||10.69|2.52|0.002
84529821|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = 0.10, d = 0.01.||10.69|-9.60|0.92
84529822|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.64|-8.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.23, d = 1.39.||-8.52|-23.64|<0.001
84529823|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.77, d = 1.57.||-9.72|-23.40|<0.001
84529824|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-26.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-9.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = -3.15, d = 0.33.||-9.84|-42.60|0.002
84529825|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-18.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -2.67, d = 0.28.||-4.92|-32.40|0.01
84529826|NCT03056157|168812361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B- IPF scores, the Pre-Post PCT Time slope was -5.25 \[95% CI = -10.21, -0.29\], p-value = 0.04, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
84529827|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = -1.69, d = 0.48.||1.22|-13.97|0.10
84529828|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -4.71, d = 1.67.||-7.62|-18.96|<0.001
84529829|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.92||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -2.75, d = 0.97.||-1.87|-11.96|0.001
84529830|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.22||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.97, d = 0.28.||16.05|-5.60|0.34
84529831|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.93||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|14.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 1.40, d = 0.40.||14.41|-2.55|0.17
84529832|NCT03056157|168812362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.21, d = 0.06.||7.44|-6.04|0.83
84529833|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 0.30, d = 0.03.||4.20|-3.12|0.76
84529834|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.14, d = 1.03.||-1.56|-6.96|0.002
84529835|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.88, d = 1.27.||-2.40|-7.32|<0.001
84529836|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -1.50, d = 0.16.||1.44|-11.16|0.13
84529837|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.87, d = 0.09.||3.00|-7.68|0.38
84529838|NCT03056157|168812363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.42, d = 0.15.||5.88|-0.96|0.26
84529839|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -3.65, d = 0.39.||-3.07|-10.23|<0.001
84529840|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -9.14, d = 1.60.||-9.32|-14.43|<0.001
84529841|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -4.10, d = 0.72.||-2.72|-7.74|<0.001
84529842|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.87, d = 0.09.||4.45|-1.73|0.39
84529843|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.07, d = 0.001.||2.26|-2.10|0.94
84529844|NCT03056157|168812364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.28||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -1.15, d = 0.12.||0.91|-3.48|0.25
84529845|NCT03056157|168812365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|63.18|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||63.18|1.29|0.01
84529846|NCT03056157|168812365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced improvement in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||3.75|0.61|0.40
84529847|NCT03056157|168812365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced no change in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.70|0.36|0.58
84529848|NCT03056157|168812365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|1.2|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced deterioration in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.20|0.003|0.06
84529849|NCT03056157|168812366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with a PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.06|0.22|0.07
84529850|NCT03056157|168812366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 3MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.56|0.28|0.33
84529851|NCT03056157|168812366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 6MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.08|0.15|0.05
84529852|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -3.01, d = 0.13.||-2.10|-7.16|.003
84529853|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -11.50, d = 1.81.||-10.80|-14.43|<0.001
84529854|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -7.40, d = 1.16.||-6.20|-9.77|<0.001
84529855|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -0.45, d = 0.02.||2.52|-4.01|0.65
84529856|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 1.94, d = 0.10.||4.63|-0.03|0.05
84529857|NCT03056157|168812367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 2.61, d = 0.13.||5.34|0.75|0.001
84529858|NCT03056157|168812368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.84|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing probable recovery in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.84|1.01|0.04
84529859|NCT03056157|168812368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.95|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing improvement in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.95|0.25|0.49
84529860|NCT03056157|168812368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing no change in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.32|0.25|0.18
84529861|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = -1.46, d = 0.07||0.34|-2.29|0.14
84529862|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -12.41, d = 1.96.||-4.90|-6.80|<0.001
84529863|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -10.29, d = 1.62.||-3.94|-5.82|<0.001
84529864|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 0.42, d = 0.02.||1.53|-0.99|0.68
84529865|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 3.02, d = 0.15.||2.24|0.48|0.003
84529866|NCT03056157|168812369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 2.37, d = 0.12.||1.99|0.19|0.02
84529867|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = -1.35, d = 0.15.||0.09|-0.49|0.18
84529868|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -2.44, d = 0.46.||-0.05|-0.47|0.02
84529869|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.69, d = 0.12.||0.14|-0.26|0.62
84529870|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = 1.34, d = 0.15.||0.39|-0.07|0.18
84529871|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = 1.49, d = 0.28.||0.30|-0.04|0.14
84529872|NCT03056157|168812370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.38, d = 0.07.||0.13|-0.19|0.71
84529873|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = -3.41, d = 0.39.||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
84529874|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -6.41, d = 1.20.||-0.44|-0.83|<0.001
84529875|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -1.83, d = 0.34.||0.02|-0.36|0.07
84529876|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = 3.13, d = 0.06.||0.57|0.13|0.002
84529877|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = 2.21, d = 0.42.||0.34|0.02|0.03
84529878|NCT03056157|168812371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -2.22, d = 0.42.||-0.02|-0.32|0.03
84529879|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = 2.46, d = 0.28.||0.57|0.06|0.01
84529880|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.001||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.06, d = 0.01.||0.18|-0.17|0.95
84529881|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -3.32, d = 0.62.||-0.13|-0.50|0.01
84529882|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = -2.02, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.41|0.04
84529883|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -2.18, d = 0.03.||-0.02|-0.30|0.03
84529884|NCT03056157|168812372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.70, d = 0.13.||0.20|-0.09|0.48
84529885|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = 0.76, d = 0.09.||2.52|-1.12|0.45
84529886|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -1.79, d = 0.34.||0.12|-2.52|0.08
84529887|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -3.00, d = 0.56.||-0.66|-3.15|0.003
84529888|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||standardized effect size of the slope|-0.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.39, d = 0.04.||1.17|-1.75|0.70
84529889|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -1.11, d = 0.12.||0.46|-1.64|0.27
84529890|NCT03056157|168812373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.57, d = 0.06.||0.72|-1.32|0.57
84529891|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 2.35, d = 0.26.||6.25|0.56|0.02
84718858|NCT01478594|169189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|2.375|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.375|0.746|
84529892|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = -6.53, d = 1.21.||8.90|4.78|<0.001
84529893|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = 3.44, d = 0.64.||5.40|1.47|0.001
84529894|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 0.66, d = 0.07.||3.03|-1.50|0.51
84529895|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -0.32, d = 0.04.||1.35|-1.89|0.75
84529896|NCT03056157|168812374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -1.28, d = 0.14.||0.55|-2.61|0.20
84529897|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 2.93, d = 0.33.||0.43|0.08|0.004
84529898|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 5.56, d = 1.04.||0.48|0.23|<0.001
84529899|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 1.61, d = 0.30.||0.22|-0.02|0.11
84529900|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.10, d = 0.10.||0.15|-0.13|0.92
84718859|NCT01478594|169189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|1.16|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.160|0.285|
84529901|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.31, d = 0.03.||0.12|-0.08|0.75
84529902|NCT03056157|168812375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.18, d = 0.02.||0.11|-0.09|0.86
84529903|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.56||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.43, d = 0.16.||0.97|-6.10|0.15
84529904|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -4.07, d = 0.76||-2.73|-7.83|<0.001
84529905|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -2.19, d = 0.41.||-0.28|-5.16|0.03
84529906|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.38||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.97, d = 0.11.||1.42|-4.17|0.33
84529907|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.51, d = 0.17.||0.46|-3.54|0.13
84529908|NCT03056157|168812376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.17, d = 0.02.||1.79|-2.12|0.87
84529909|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -2.03, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.72|0.04
84529910|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116)= -6.40, d = 1.19.||-0.58|-1.09|<0.001
84529911|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116) = -3.78, d = 0.70.||-0.22|-0.71|0.002
84529912|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.56, d = 0.06.||0.21|-0.37|0.58
84529913|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.96, d = 0.11.||0.11|-0.31|0.34
84529914|NCT03056157|168812377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.19, d = 0.02.||0.18|-0.22|0.85
84529915|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY|We log-transformed CTS2 scores because they were heavily positively skewed in conjunction with zero-inflation.|Slope|-0.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319)= -1.82, d = 0.20.||0.02|-0.48|0.07
84529916|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = -1.39, d = 0.16.||-0.05|-0.31|0.17
84529917|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = 1.18, d = 0.13.||0.27|-0.07|0.24
84529918|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.37, d = 0.04.||0.15|-0.23|0.71
84529919|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -1.00, d = 0.11.||0.07|-0.21|0.32
84529920|NCT03056157|168812378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.51, d = 0.06.||0.10|-0.17|0.61
84529921|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(318) = -0.33, d = 0.04||0.36|-0.50|0.74
84529922|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.77, d = 0.14.||0.19|-0.43|0.44
84529923|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.34, d = 0.06.||0.24|-0.35|0.74
84529924|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.57, d = 0.11.||0.25|-0.45|0.57
84529925|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.22|-0.28|0.82
84529926|NCT03056157|168812379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = 0.58, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.17|0.57
84529927|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -1.42, d = 0.16.||0.43|-2.63|0.16
84529928|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114)= -1.35, d = 0.25.||0.35|-1.87|0.18
84529929|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 0.63, d = 0.12.||1.39|-0.71|0.53
84529930|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -0.89, d = 0.12.||0.73|-1.93|.37
84529931|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = -0.08, d = 0.02.||0.92|-1.00|0.94
84529932|NCT03056157|168812380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 1.21, d = 0.23.||1.48|-0.35|0.23
84529933|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 2.49, d = 0.28.||7.13|0.83|0.01
84529934|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 4.16, d = 0.78.||7.13|2.55|<0.001
84529935|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.85||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 0.78, d = 0.15.||3.02|-1.31|0.44
84529936|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.17, d = 0.02.||2.75|-2.32|0.88
84529937|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.60, d = 0.07.||2.37|-1.27|0.55
84529938|NCT03056157|168812381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.38, d = 0.04.||2.10|-1.42|0.70
84529939|NCT03056157|168812382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(318) = -0.25, d = 0.03.||0.25|-0.32|0.80
84529940|NCT03056157|168812382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = 0.57, d = 0.11.||0.16|-0.09|0.57
84529941|NCT03056157|168812382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
84529942|NCT03056157|168812382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(320) = 0.57, d = 0.06.||0.23|-0.13|0.57
84529943|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 3.16, d = 0.32.||6.35|1.48|0.002
84529944|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 4.66, d = 0.85.||5.92|2.41|<0.001
84529945|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 0.63, d = 0.11.||1.94|-1.44|0.78
84529946|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = -0.34, d = 0.01.||0.24|-0.34|0.73
84529947|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 0.56, d = 0.06.||0.27|-0.15|0.58
84529948|NCT03056157|168812383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 1.07, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.10|0.28
84529949|NCT00140426|168812386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74|||Regression, Cox|Time to reaching ease of eating level 3 assessed using Cox regression as some patients did not reach it during the study.|The hazard ratio is for the placebo group versus the treatment group. A hazard ratio \<1 implies that the placebo group had a lower risk of achieving EOE level 3, although not statistically significant. Achieving EOE level 3 was the desired endpoint.|||1.74|0.41|0.55
84529950|NCT00140426|168812390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
84718860|NCT01478594|169189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|4.073|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.073|0.635|
84529951|NCT00140426|168812390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84529952|NCT00140426|168812392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference was for placebo - risperidone.|Null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline to end of treatment for CAPT total score||0.33|-0.71|0.47
84529953|NCT00140426|168812393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84529954|NCT00140426|168812394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
84529955|NCT00140426|168812395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84529956|NCT00140426|168812396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84529957|NCT01675661|168812402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|OR=1.00||For the primary outcome measure, a repeated-measures logistic regression model was used to analyze the odds of a negative urine cannabinoid test as an indicator of abstinence across all 12 weeks of treatment. A generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to adjust for this correlation with multiple samples per participant. The model for the primary analysis included the main effect of treatment, main effect of time, site effects, effect of smoking tobacco, and timeXtreatment interaction.||1.59|0.63|0.985
84529958|NCT02992418|168812438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was greater than (\>) 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.997||||||Anti-PT||0.997|0.721|
84529959|NCT02992418|168812438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.18||||||Anti-FHA||1.18|0.892|
84529960|NCT02992418|168812438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.46||||||Anti-PRN||1.46|0.836|
84529961|NCT02992418|168812438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.33||||||Anti-FIM2+3||1.33|0.827|
84529962|NCT02992418|168812439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.04||||||Anti-D||5.04|-4.53|
84529963|NCT02992418|168812439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.37||||||Anti-T||1.37|-2.87|
84529964|NCT02992418|168812440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.44||||||Serotype 1||1.44|0.862|
84718861|NCT01478594|169189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.521|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.521|0.375|
84529965|NCT02992418|168812440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||||||Serotype 2||1.47|0.97|
84529966|NCT02992418|168812440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.16||||||Serotype 3||1.16|0.739|
84529967|NCT02992418|168812440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.999||||||Serotype 4||0.999|0.644|
84529968|NCT00289536|168812453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1662|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log initial recovery will be the same in each dose group.||||0.1662
84529969|NCT00289536|168812454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0965||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log AUC/dose will be the same in each dose group.||||0.0965
84529970|NCT00289536|168812455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean terminal half-life will be the same in each dose group.||||0.5057
84529971|NCT00289536|168812463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7048||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: Relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.7048
84529972|NCT00289536|168812463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||.0322
84529973|NCT00289536|168812463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.0056
84529974|NCT00289536|168812464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3696||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.3696
84529975|NCT00289536|168812464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.0001
84529976|NCT00289536|168812464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||<0.0001
84529977|NCT01156142|168812515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.1|-6.7|<0.001
84529978|NCT01156142|168812516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.1|0.1|0.0018
84529979|NCT01156142|168812517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.3|2.9|0.001
84529980|NCT01156142|168812518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|-1.2|0.0297
84529981|NCT01156142|168812519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||Chi-squared|||At 2 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.1392
84529982|NCT01156142|168812519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6989|||||||Chi-squared|||At 4 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.6989
84529983|NCT01156142|168812520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0018
84529984|NCT02337959|168812562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
84529985|NCT02337959|168812563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Both the predicate and investigational images were randomized for the monitors. Predicate images could display on the left or the right and vice versa with the investigational. There were formulas in the spreadsheet that gave the preferences a numerical value, and subsequently became part of the analysis.||||0.000
84529986|NCT04988152|168812580|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
84529987|NCT04988152|168812581|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.1908|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.1908|0.9281|
84529988|NCT04988152|168812584|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
84529989|NCT04988152|168812585|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1236|2.2413|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.2413|1.1236|
84529990|NCT04988152|168812600|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
84529991|NCT04988152|168812602|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9286|1.2268|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.2268|0.9286|
84718862|NCT01478594|169189543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.366|
84529992|NCT04988152|168812606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
84529993|NCT04988152|168812608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1777|2.1106|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates|||2.1106|1.1777|
84529994|NCT01640873|168812642|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|30.4||The posterior probability that the reduction in FPG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is 0.06, and hence, the FPG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||30.4|-47.4|0.356
84529995|NCT01640873|168812644|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19||The posterior probability that the reduction in 24h-WMG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is \< 0.01, and hence, the 24h- WMG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|0.92|0.2714
84529996|NCT01640873|168812645|OTHER|Day 1|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.55|0.99|0.060
84529997|NCT01640873|168812645|OTHER|Day 3|Geometric mean Ratio|1.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.47|0.98|0.065
84529998|NCT01640873|168812645|OTHER|Day 16|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.37|0.89|0.217
84529999|NCT02749292|168812647|EQUIVALENCE|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.9|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant. Both rows were included and combined in the statistical analysis (ANCA-PR3 and ANCA-MPO) to assess the difference in treatment strategies.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses."||0.90|0.15|0.045
84530000|NCT02749292|168812648|OTHER|chi square test||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in the proportion of patients with SAEs in each arm"||||0.87
84530001|NCT02749292|168812653|OTHER||||||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the mean number of infusions per patient in each arm.||||<0001
84530002|NCT02749292|168812654|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean change from baseline Vasculitis Damage Index between each arm. A t-test was used.||-0.06|-0.34|0.17
84530003|NCT02749292|168812655|OTHER|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.36|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses"||5.36|0.50|0.42
84530004|NCT00876018|168812657|OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.004
84530005|NCT00876018|168812657|OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.147
84530006|NCT00876018|168812658|OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.002
84530007|NCT00876018|168812658|OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.003
84530008|NCT00876018|168812659|OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.153
84530009|NCT00876018|168812659|OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.903
84530010|NCT00876018|168812660|OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.143
84530011|NCT00876018|168812660|OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.678
84530012|NCT00888459|168812673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.432
84530013|NCT01144364|168812689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.254
84530014|NCT01144364|168812691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||Overall DFS|Cox proportional-hazards|Adjusted for randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||||1.12|0.31|0.105
84530015|NCT01144364|168812692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
84530016|NCT01144364|168812693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
84530017|NCT01144364|168812695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||Cox proportional-hazards|||Analysis of overall PFS with Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for the randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||1.05|0.38|0.079
84530018|NCT01144364|168812698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09||Univariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Cox model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.09|0.40|0.103
84530019|NCT01144364|168812698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||Multivariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, FL International prognostic index (FLIPI) score.||||1.04|0.37|0.071
84530020|NCT01144364|168812699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06||Univariate analysis|Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.06|0.39|0.084
84530021|NCT01144364|168812699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and FLIPI score||||1.00|0.38|0.052
84540757|NCT03718832|168832712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.101914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.860687||0.5542241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.765783|2.561956||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.561956|-4.765783|0.5542241
84530022|NCT03456960|168812700|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square means (LSM) between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.034|0.0458||||||||0.0458|-0.0340|
84530023|NCT03456960|168812701|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0079|0.1096||||||||0.1096|-0.0079|
84530024|NCT03456960|168812702|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0941|0.2034||||||||0.2034|-0.0941|
84530025|NCT03456960|168812702|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model will include a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0399|0.1424||||||||0.1424|0.0399|
84530026|NCT03456960|168812703|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.133|0.3162||||||||0.3162|-0.1330|
84530027|NCT03456960|168812703|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1519|0.3068||||||||0.3068|0.1519|
84530028|NCT03456960|168812704|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0299|0.05||||||||0.0500|-0.0299|
84530029|NCT03456960|168812705|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0281|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1662|0.11||||||||0.1100|-0.1662|
84530030|NCT03456960|168812706|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0448|0.0149||||||||0.0149|-0.0448|
84530031|NCT03456960|168812707|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0676|0.0286||||||||0.0286|-0.0676|
84530032|NCT03456960|168812708|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0547|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0937|0.2032||||||||0.2032|-0.0937|
84530033|NCT03456960|168812708|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0141|0.1167||||||||0.1167|0.0141|
84530034|NCT03456960|168812709|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2478|-0.0443||||||||-0.0443|-0.2478|
84530035|NCT03456960|168812709|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1674|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2084|-0.1264||||||||-0.1264|-0.2084|
84718863|NCT01478594|169189543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|2.646|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.646|0.614|
84530036|NCT03456960|168812710|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2179|-0.0206||||||||-0.0206|-0.2179|
84530037|NCT03456960|168812710|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1366|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.173|-0.1002||||||||-0.1002|-0.1730|
84530038|NCT03456960|168812711|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0734|0.103||||||||0.1030|-0.0734|
84530039|NCT03456960|168812711|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0463|0.0424||||||||0.0424|-0.0463|
84530040|NCT03456960|168812712|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1609|0.2667||||||||0.2667|0.1609|
84530041|NCT03456960|168812713|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1652|0.2671||||||||0.2671|0.1652|
84530042|NCT03456960|168812714|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1675|0.2706||||||||0.2706|0.1675|
84530043|NCT03456960|168812715|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.3653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.218|0.5126||||||||0.5126|0.2180|
84530044|NCT03456960|168812718|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0061|0.4239||||||||0.4239|-0.0061|
84718864|NCT01478594|169189544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.507|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.507|0.345|
84530045|NCT03456960|168812718|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0639|0.0918||||||||0.0918|-0.0639|
84530046|NCT03456960|168812719|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0048|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0048|
84530047|NCT03456960|168812719|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0712|0.0986||||||||0.0986|-0.0712|
84540758|NCT03718832|168832713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.55812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.74244||0.2045348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35316|57.4694||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||57.4694|-12.35316|0.2045348
84718865|NCT01478594|169189544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.795|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.795|0.672|
84530048|NCT03456960|168812720|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0054|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0054|
84530049|NCT03456960|168812720|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.1092||||||||0.1092|-0.0690|
84530050|NCT03456960|168812721|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.4058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0803|0.7312||||||||0.7312|0.0803|
84530051|NCT03456960|168812721|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.1969|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1065|0.2873||||||||0.2873|0.1065|
84530052|NCT00321594|168812731|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD was not reached and the maximum dose of 1400 mg/m2 is used in Phase II portion|MTD is defined as the dose below which \>=2 of 3 or \>= 2 of 6 patients experience DLT||||
84530053|NCT03736213|168812733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Ultrasound biofeedback treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower normalized acoustic values, a negative difference indicates an advantage for US biofeedback.|||||.13
84530054|NCT00609466|168812734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|70.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|35.9|105.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||105.6|35.9|<0.0001
84530055|NCT00609466|168812735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for time (in hours) to first rescue medication use. No multiplicity adjustment.|Log Rank|Adjusted for site||||||<0.0001
84530056|NCT00609466|168812736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|37.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.7|52.2||No multiplicity adjustment used|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.2|22.7|<0.0001
84530057|NCT00609466|168812737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|9.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|13.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||13.6|6.2|<0.0001
84530058|NCT00609466|168812738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.2|28.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||28.0|13.2|<0.0001
84530059|NCT00609466|168812739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|36.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.7|52.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.0|20.7|<0.0001
84530060|NCT00609466|168812740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|108.2||||0.0002||95.0|51.9|164.5||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||164.5|51.9|0.0002
84530061|NCT00586482|168812771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided p value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.12
84530062|NCT00586482|168812772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84530063|NCT00586482|168812773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84530064|NCT00586482|168812774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
84530065|NCT00586482|168812775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84530066|NCT00290251|168812776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|performed on log-transformed delta change in total fibroid volume from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.43
84530067|NCT00290251|168812776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Performed on log-transformed delta change||Ulipristal acetate groups one and two were first compared and found to be similar (see statistical analysis 1), so they were combined into a single treatment group for comparison to placebo group||||0.003
84530068|NCT00290251|168812777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Delta of scores from treatment end to baseline was used to compare by ANOVA.|ANOVA|Adjustment for age||No sample size calculation was made.||||< 0.05
84530069|NCT04221789|168812778|OTHER|differences in proportions|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2||Statistical significance threshold p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||Ho no difference in treatment success between groups. The study was originally powered to detect a 15% difference between groups||1.20|1.02|0.049
84530070|NCT04221789|168812779|OTHER|comparison of proportions and relative risk with 95% CI|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||<|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||statistical significance if p value \<0.05|Chi-squared||intervention / control|Ho No difference between arms. 80% power to detect a 10% difference||0.97|0.50|<0.043
84530071|NCT03696953|168812808|OTHER|t test comparing||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84530072|NCT03696953|168812809|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
84530073|NCT03696953|168812809|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84530074|NCT03696953|168812810|OTHER|T test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 36 week AP-GI-SA Scores between probiotic and placebo groups at 36 weeks||||0.01
84530075|NCT03696953|168812811|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84530076|NCT03696953|168812812|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84530077|NCT00461253|168812846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at menarche and physical activity (primary analysis)|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.12|0.88|
84530078|NCT00461253|168812846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD, crude|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.17|0.93|
84530079|NCT00461253|168812846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at first menarche, physical activity (primary analysis)"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.39|0.52|
84530080|NCT00461253|168812846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis, crude"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.41|0.58|
84530081|NCT02766374|168812847|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE regression|||||||>0.1
84530082|NCT00852969|168812848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.41|-10.79|0.71
84530083|NCT00852969|168812849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.24|-7.20|0.29
84476808|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.38|-64.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.51|-75.38|<0.001
84530084|NCT02440022|168812850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0562
84530085|NCT02440022|168812851|NON_INFERIORITY|Where δ = 10% is the non-inferiority margin, which is the range of difference that is considered not clinically important. A non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Test was used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025. In addition to the p-value of the test, the confidence intervals of the rate in each group and the difference between the two groups is calculated.||||||0.002|||||||Binary Analysis|||"H0: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 ≤ p2 - δ)~H1: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is non-inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 \> p2 - δ)"||||0.002
84530086|NCT02440022|168812857|OTHER|||||||0.716||||||P-value was type 3 test of the interaction of treatment group and pre-dilation balloon type.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.7160
84530087|NCT02358343|168812860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood ratio test obtained from logistic regression analysis adjusting for site||||||0.77
84530088|NCT02358343|168812861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.13||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Wald Test|The Wald test is for the week 12 comparative treatment effect from a longitudinal model of QIDS-C adjusting for clinical site.|The week 12 mean difference estimated from the longitudinal model is the difference between antidepressant drug therapy (drug) and the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) at 12 weeks, (drug - CBT).|All participants randomized to treatment (N=120) were included in the pre-specified longitudinal model of QIDS-C used to estimate comparative treatment effect at 12 weeks (primary outcome). The model adjustment for clinical site and included baseline, 6 week and 12 week QIDS-C scores. Week 0 (baseline) and week 6 measurements are not pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes. The Observational Cohort arm was not included in the analysis.||-0.13|-3.54|0.035
84530089|NCT02358343|168812862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood Ratio Test from logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical site.||||||0.96
84530090|NCT02358343|168812863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.02|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.02|-7.4|
84530091|NCT02358343|168812864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.8|-3.1|
84530092|NCT02358343|168812865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.1|-6.2|
84530093|NCT02358343|168812866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.0|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||19.0|1.3|
84530094|NCT02358343|168812867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||1.4|-0.2|
84530095|NCT02358343|168812868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||5.1|0.1|
84530096|NCT02358343|168812869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.5|-0.5|
84530097|NCT02358343|168812871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.7|-0.5|
84476809|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.06|-56.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-56.57|-69.06|<0.001
84530098|NCT02358343|168812872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from a negative binomial model adjusted for clinical site. It is the rate of sessions skipped/shortened in the Drug group (numerator) compared to CBT (denominator).|||1.10|0.55|
84530099|NCT02358343|168812873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.34|-0.54|
84530100|NCT02358343|168812874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.75|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.75|-0.25|
84530101|NCT00807248|168812875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-2.34|0.6405
84530102|NCT00807248|168812875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.35|||ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.41|0.6227
84530103|NCT00807248|168812876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.11|||ANCOVA|||||-3.11|-7.98|<0.0001
84530104|NCT00807248|168812876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-7.53|<0.0001
84530105|NCT00807248|168812876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-8.43|<0.0001
84530106|NCT00807248|168812877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.84|||ANCOVA|||||-2.84|-7.13|<0.0001
84530107|NCT00807248|168812877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.32|||ANCOVA|||||-2.32|-6.60|<0.0001
84530108|NCT00807248|168812877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.13|||ANCOVA|||||-3.13|-7.41|<0.0001
84530109|NCT00807248|168812878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
84530110|NCT00807248|168812878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.15|0.0006
84530111|NCT00807248|168812878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.10|-5.13|<0.0001
84530112|NCT00807248|168812879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.85|<0.0001
84718866|NCT01478594|169189545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.564|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.564|0.580|
84530113|NCT00807248|168812879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.72|0.0004
84530114|NCT00807248|168812879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.87|<0.0001
84530115|NCT00807248|168812880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.72|0.0007
84530116|NCT00807248|168812880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.69|0.0013
84530117|NCT00807248|168812880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.92|<0.0001
84530118|NCT00807248|168812881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.82|0.0002
84530119|NCT00807248|168812881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.72|0.0006
84530120|NCT00807248|168812881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-2.00|<0.0001
84530121|NCT00807248|168812882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.89|<0.0001
84530122|NCT00807248|168812882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
84530123|NCT00807248|168812882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
84530124|NCT00807248|168812883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
84530125|NCT00807248|168812883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.0001
84530126|NCT00807248|168812883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.97|<0.0001
84530127|NCT03716076|168812888|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression|||||||||||||||||To compare time values to baseline, post-hoc Tukey's test was applied|||
84530128|NCT01276301|168812903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|107.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||107.02|98.87|
84530129|NCT01276301|168812904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.38|99.97|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||99.97|85.38|
84530130|NCT01276301|168812905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|106.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||106.83|98.87|
84530131|NCT00903448|168812955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The least squares treatment means, i.e. adjusted treatment means, and standard errors were computed from the analysis of variance models.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study enrolled 40 subjects in order to complete a target of at least 30 evaluable subjects. For the purpose of determination of sample size, it was assumed that at least 30 subjects would have complete data for all 3 treatment periods. Assuming the true mean difference in % time that gastric pH \> 4.0 between Prilosec OTC and Prevacid was at least 6.5, it was estimated that there would be at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference in 2-sided testing at the 5% significance level.||||< 0.0001
84530132|NCT03687658|168812965|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.066|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.066
84530133|NCT03687658|168812966|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.273|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.273
84530134|NCT03687658|168812967|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Poisson distribution using a log link function||||||0.403|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.403
84530135|NCT00270257|168812971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||||||||2.8|0.7|
84530136|NCT00270257|168812971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.7||||||||3.7|1.2|
84530137|NCT00270257|168812971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.694||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.562|||Regression, Cox|||||1.562|0.308|0.3769
84530138|NCT00270257|168812972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.289||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104.|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for site||||1.289|0.553|0.4325
84530139|NCT00270257|168812973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.194||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.194|0.536|0.2749
84530140|NCT00270257|168812974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.746||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.369||Analysis is done for visit 104|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site||||1.369|0.407|0.3446
84530141|NCT00270257|168812975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8712||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6477|1.1718||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only. See the estimation comments for the other visits|Generalized linear model|adjusted for site.||||1.1718|0.6477|0.3620
84530142|NCT00270257|168812976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.6|||||29 events over 132 person-years|||31.6|14.7|
84530143|NCT00270257|168812976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||||8 events over 174 person-years|||9.0|2.0|
84530144|NCT00270257|168812977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.08|||||9 events over 336 person-years|||5.08|1.22|
84530145|NCT00270257|168812977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1|||||0 events over 37 person-years|||10.1|0.00|
84530146|NCT02920918|168812982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||We expected a baseline peak oxygen consumption (VO2) of 14.5 mL/kg/min. A sample size of 40 patients per group (total of 80 patients) provided sufficient power to detect a mean difference in the interval change in peak VO2 of 1.50±1.76 mL/kg/min (primary endpoint) expected with Canagliflozin compared to Sitagliptin, which we predict to have no significant effect on peak VO2 (0±1.76 mL/kg/min).||||0.083
84530147|NCT02920918|168812983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
84530148|NCT03537274|168812984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.078
84530149|NCT03537274|168812984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
84530150|NCT03537274|168812984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
84530151|NCT03537274|168812985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.128
84530152|NCT03537274|168812985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84530153|NCT03537274|168812985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84530154|NCT04442490|168813044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.0141
84530155|NCT04442490|168813045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217 or placebo), baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||0.0|-0.4|0.1193
84530156|NCT04442490|168813046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 3||-2.0|-4.0|<0.0001
84530157|NCT04442490|168813046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 8||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
84530158|NCT04442490|168813046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 42||0.6|-2.4|0.2344
84530159|NCT04442490|168813047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||Day 15|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.98|0.99|0.0599
84530160|NCT04442490|168813047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure.Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.94|0.95|0.0889
84530161|NCT04442490|168813048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||GEE Model|||Day 15|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.66|0.76|0.5495
84530162|NCT04442490|168813048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.60|0.74|0.6790
84530163|NCT04442490|168813049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.16|||GEE Model|||Placebo, SAGE-217|Model used was a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S baseline score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having CGI-I response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|2.16|1.07|0.0191
84530164|NCT04442490|168813050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.3|-4.4|0.0238
84530165|NCT04442490|168813051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Model used was MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.2|-2.5|0.0199
84530166|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.5|-0.5|0.3216
84530167|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.8|-0.2|0.1247
84530168|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.0|-0.2|0.1111
84530169|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.0|-0.3|0.1449
84530170|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.0|-1.3|0.8242
84530171|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.1|-1.4|0.8329
84530172|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.1|-1.4|0.8127
84530173|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.5435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||1.6|-0.9|0.5435
84530174|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.8|-0.7|0.3551
84530175|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.6|-1.1|0.7495
84530176|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.7|-1.1|0.6471
84530177|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.5|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.5|-0.5|0.1832
84530178|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||2.2|0.2|0.0168
84530179|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||2.0|-0.1|0.0787
84530180|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.6|-0.7|0.4273
84530181|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.2|-0.2|0.0938
84530182|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||4.3|0.9|0.0033
84530183|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||5.1|1.1|0.0029
84530184|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.9|-0.2|0.0791
84530185|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.2|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.2|-0.2|0.0761
84530186|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.1|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.1|-0.5|0.1568
84530187|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.0|-0.9|0.2807
84530188|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.4|-1.8|0.7751
84530189|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.9|-0.3|0.0913
84530190|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.2|-0.9|0.2863
84530191|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.7|-0.7|0.1801
84530192|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
84530193|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.6|-1.2|0.3274
84530194|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.4|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.4|-0.2|0.0873
84530195|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.9|-0.3|0.0871
84530196|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.3|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.3|-1.1|0.3095
84530197|NCT04442490|168813053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.0|-0.6|0.1477
84530198|NCT04442490|168813054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 8||0.1|-2.1|0.0828
84530199|NCT04442490|168813054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.1|-2.4|0.0606
84530200|NCT04442490|168813054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.2|-2.3|0.1079
84530201|NCT04442490|168813054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 42||0.7|-1.9|0.3951
84530202|NCT03347422|168813070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|88.04||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by baseline hemoglobin (\< median versus \>=median) and geographic region (Asia/Other, North America, and Europe).|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||88.04|2.88|<0.001
84530203|NCT03347422|168813072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.38||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||3.38|1.75|<0.001
84476810|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.03|-32.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.03|-43.03|<0.001
84476811|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-37.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-37.28|-49.70|<0.001
84476812|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.49|-65.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.35|-84.49|<0.001
84530204|NCT03347422|168813073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|13.85||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||13.85|4.00|<0.001
84530205|NCT03709823|168813088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-20.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.141|-9.821||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-9.821|-31.141|0.0002
84530206|NCT03709823|168813088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-22.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.791|-11.342||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-11.342|-32.791|< 0.0001
84530207|NCT03709823|168813088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-5.9||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.463|4.66||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||4.660|-16.463|0.2708
84530208|NCT03709823|168813088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-2.81||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.438|7.82||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||7.820|-13.438|0.6018
84530209|NCT03709823|168813088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Commercial Sched.|-12.17||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.869|2.535||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||2.535|-26.869|0.1025
84530210|NCT03709823|168813089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-14.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.216|-6.009||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-6.009|-23.216|0.0010
84530211|NCT03709823|168813089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-16.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.862|-7.548||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-7.548|-24.862|0.0003
84530212|NCT03709823|168813090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-12.41||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.695|-3.135||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-3.135|-21.695|0.0091
84530213|NCT03709823|168813090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-9.3||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.667|0.075||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||0.075|-18.667|0.0518
84530214|NCT02737332|168813147|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|1.019||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.077||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.077|0.964|0.4879
84530215|NCT02737332|168813148|OTHER|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.994||||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0451|2.192||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.192|0.0451|0.3642
84530216|NCT02737332|168813148|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.338|1.939||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.939|0.338|0.4069
84530217|NCT02737332|168813148|EQUIVALENCE|One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|Geometric mean ratio|1.039||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|2.617||The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.617|0.412|0.7186
84476813|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-66.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-66.62|-83.00|<0.001
84530218|NCT02737332|168813149|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84530219|NCT02737332|168813150|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.999||||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.018||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.||ANOVA-model-based Least-Square Mean|1.018|0.980|0.9211
84530220|NCT02737332|168813150|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.168||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.515||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.515|0.900|0.3037
84476814|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-35.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.57|-54.32|<0.001
84530221|NCT02737332|168813150|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.000|1.000|
84530222|NCT02737332|168813151|OTHER|||||||0.5495|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5495
84530223|NCT02737332|168813151|OTHER|||||||0.2616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2616
84530224|NCT02737332|168813151|OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3632
84530225|NCT02737332|168813151|OTHER|||||||0.3393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3393
84530226|NCT02737332|168813155|OTHER|||||||0.1917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1917
84530227|NCT02618408|168813157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.08||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.22|-15.38|0.0916
84530228|NCT02618408|168813157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|8.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on the results of a prespecified interim analysis, the enrollment of the low dose SPN-810 arm was halted, and this treatment arm was dropped. Accordingly, all analysis of primary and secondary endpoints focused on the comparison of SPN-810 high dose and placebo||8.27|-11.78|0.7136
84530229|NCT02618408|168813158|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.46|0.0238
84476815|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.06|-35.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.55|-52.06|<0.001
84530230|NCT02618408|168813158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.02|-0.47|0.0683
84530231|NCT02618408|168813158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.02|-0.51|0.0742
84530232|NCT02618408|168813159|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.3713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.30|0.3713
84530233|NCT02618408|168813159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.06|-0.45|0.1367
84530234|NCT02618408|168813159|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.09|-0.49|0.1729
84530235|NCT02618408|168813160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.456||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the physical functioning summary score at Visit 6.||5.02|-0.72|0.1407
84530236|NCT02618408|168813160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.24|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the psychosocial health summary score at Visit 6||1.24|-2.29|0.5586
84530237|NCT02618408|168813161|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.45|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Stress summary score Visit 6.||3.45|-4.70|0.7637
84530238|NCT02618408|168813161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.58|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.58|-1.95|0.8365
84530239|NCT02618408|168813161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.02|-2.24|0.4606
84530240|NCT02618408|168813161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.46|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||1.46|-1.84|0.8222
84718867|NCT01478594|169189545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.531|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.531|0.397|
84530241|NCT02618408|168813162|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.43|0.1031
84530242|NCT02618408|168813162|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 5|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.56|0.0250
84530243|NCT02618408|168813162|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 6|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0384
84530244|NCT02618408|168813163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the inattention subscale at Visit 6.||0.06|-0.27|0.1935
84530245|NCT02618408|168813163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.05|-0.32|0.1445
84530246|NCT02618408|168813163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the oppositional defiant disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.03|-0.36|0.1064
84530247|NCT02618408|168813163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the combined scale score at Visit 6||0.04|-0.28|0.1418
84530248|NCT01155024|168813166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 participants required to detect one value change in rating for the SCS scale, with 80% power.|||||>|0.4||95.0||||Two-Sided|t-test, 2 sided|||Alpha level of 0.05||||>0.4
84530249|NCT02397408|168813183|OTHER||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.008
84476816|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.67|-61.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.08|-72.67|<0.001
84476817|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-60.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.56|-72.60|<0.001
84476818|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.19|-58.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.12|-73.19|<0.001
84476819|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-71.37|<0.001
84476820|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.86|-64.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.01|-74.86|<0.001
84476821|NCT01763866|168705604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.68|-60.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.22|-76.68|<0.001
84476822|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-74.6|-92.6|<0.001
84476823|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.2|-69.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-69.2|-90.2|<0.001
84476824|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-35.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.3|-53.4|<0.001
84476825|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-44.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.6|-65.4|<0.001
84476826|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.8|-81.9|<0.001
84476827|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|-56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.7|-74.5|<0.001
84476828|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-33.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.9|-57.7|<0.001
84530250|NCT01524679|168813196|SUPERIORITY|The Fisher Test with asymptotic test statistic provided by the analysis software was used.|||||<|0.0001||||||This was the only a priori defined primary endpoint. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|There was no adjustment for other variables intended for the primary analysis. Confounding variables were analysed in subsequent analyses.||Nullhypothesis was the equality of response rates of the treatment group and the control group. Treatments were compared by a two-sided Fisher test on a level of significance of 0.05. The study was appropriately powered (80%) for this analysis.||||<0.0001
84530251|NCT01524679|168813197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7525||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5382|1.0521|||ANCOVA|||||1.0521|0.5382|0.0957
84530252|NCT01524679|168813198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4621|0.7106|||ANCOVA|||||0.7106|0.4621|0.0005
84530253|NCT03801265|168813203|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.770
84530254|NCT03801265|168813204|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.826
84530255|NCT03801265|168813205|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.859
84530256|NCT03801265|168813206|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.904
84530257|NCT03801265|168813207|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
84530258|NCT03801265|168813208|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.379
84530259|NCT03801265|168813209|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.881|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.881
84530260|NCT03801265|168813210|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.818
84530261|NCT03801265|168813211|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.678
84530262|NCT03801265|168813212|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
84530263|NCT03801265|168813213|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
84530264|NCT03801265|168813214|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.271
84530265|NCT03801265|168813215|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.810
84530266|NCT03801265|168813216|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.676
84530267|NCT03801265|168813217|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.908
84530268|NCT03801265|168813218|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.270
84530269|NCT03801265|168813219|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
84530270|NCT03801265|168813220|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.203
84530271|NCT03801265|168813221|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.672
84530272|NCT00899470|168813234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate bioequivalence (BE) of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.940|
84530273|NCT00899470|168813234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs Reference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.075||||Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|0.929|
84530274|NCT00899470|168813235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.993|
84530275|NCT00899470|168813235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.058|0.986|
84530276|NCT00899470|168813236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.990|
84718868|NCT01478594|169189546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|5.956|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||5.956|0.636|
84530277|NCT00899470|168813236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio Test vs. Reference|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin and metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.060|0.985|
84530278|NCT00899470|168813238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted and fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin, respectively.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.084|0.939|
84530279|NCT00899470|168813238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.111|0.962|
84530280|NCT00899470|168813239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.964|
84530281|NCT00899470|168813239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.108|0.981|
84530282|NCT00899470|168813240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted ), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.973|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.973|
84539739|NCT00509795|168829390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.33||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.04|0.38||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.38|-1.04|0.3575
84718869|NCT01478594|169189546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.538|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.538|0.422|
84530283|NCT00899470|168813240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.102|0.986|
84530284|NCT00532935|168813259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.||||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
84530285|NCT00532935|168813260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-22.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-22.4|-32.7|<0.001
84530286|NCT00532935|168813261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-8.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline 2-hour PMG value.||||-8.3|-32.1|<0.001
84530287|NCT00532935|168813262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-4.9|-19.0|<0.001
84530288|NCT00532935|168813263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|||2.8|1.3|<0.001
84530289|NCT01301508|168813270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2898 Topical Ointment, 1% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.008
84530290|NCT01301508|168813270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2728 Topical Ointment, 2% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.017
84530291|NCT03123861|168813302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84530292|NCT03123861|168813303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84530293|NCT03123861|168813304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
84530294|NCT03123861|168813305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
84530295|NCT00922987|168813339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84530296|NCT03107026|168813447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.66|0.1187
84530297|NCT03107026|168813447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-0.93|0.0045
84530298|NCT03107026|168813448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.68|0.0256
84530299|NCT03107026|168813448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.83|0.0025
84530300|NCT03107026|168813449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.854|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.854|0.726|0.5342
84530301|NCT03107026|168813449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.882|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.882|0.738|0.4905
84530302|NCT03107026|168813450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-4.16|0.0154
84530303|NCT03107026|168813450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.969||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-5.31|0.0005
84530304|NCT00062010|168813461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|21.3||||||The study was designed to have adequate (90%) power to distinguish a true response rate of 50% from a null rate of 35% assuming total accrual of 76 patients in two stages. The design mandated that at least 13 objective responses be observed among 34 patients in the first stage in order to continue to the second stage. These were not observed, so the study stopped after the first stage. 90% exact binomial confidence intervals are provided for the response rate.||21.3|2.4|
84530305|NCT02504671|168813561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|24.52|||Regression, Logistic||95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.52|0.18|0.547
84530306|NCT02504671|168813561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|62.44|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.44|0.81|0.077
84530307|NCT02504671|168813561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|72.14|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||72.14|0.98|0.053
84530308|NCT02504671|168813561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.4|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.40|0.63|0.122
84530309|NCT02504671|168813561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|48.83|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.83|0.60|0.134
84530310|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|8.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CRP, Week 12|||8.05|-7.13|0.905
84530311|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.28|-11.00|0.387
84476829|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.9|-47.8|<0.001
84476830|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-83.9|<0.001
84476831|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-67.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.8|-88.0|<0.001
84476832|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-48.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.4|-63.1|<0.001
84476833|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.6|-60.6|<0.001
84476834|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-70.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.0|-86.2|<0.001
84476835|NCT01763866|168705605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.7|-68.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-68.6|-91.7|<0.001
84476836|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-85.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-75.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-75.9|-95.2|<0.001
84476837|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.8|-64.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-64.9|-86.8|<0.001
84476838|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-37.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.1|-56.6|<0.001
84476839|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
84476840|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.4|-59.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-59.0|-84.4|<0.001
84476841|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-52.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.0|-71.6|<0.001
84530312|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.87|-10.04|0.495
84476842|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-36.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.6|-61.5|<0.001
84530313|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.68||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|2.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||2.55|-17.92|0.140
84718870|NCT01478594|169189547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.991|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.991|0.303|
84530314|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|-3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-3.52|-23.85|0.009
84530315|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-7.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.35|-27.44|<0.001
84530316|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.62|-5.45|0.118
84530317|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-0.14|-6.20|0.041
84530318|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.003
84530319|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TC28, Week 12|||1.01|-5.61|0.172
84530320|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.62|-7.22|0.020
84530321|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-2.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-2.45|-8.98|<0.001
84530322|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.12|-10.13|0.518
84530323|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.49|-9.50|0.599
84530324|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-2.48|-22.78|0.015
84530325|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-7.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.10|-27.27|<0.001
84530326|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.054
84530327|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.05|<0.001
84530328|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.33|-6.92|0.031
84530329|NCT02504671|168813562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.61|<0.001
84530330|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530331|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
84530332|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||1.9|-12.7|
84530333|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
84530334|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530335|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530336|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530337|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530338|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530339|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
84530340|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530341|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530342|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|41.3|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.3|12.7|
84530343|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84476843|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-25.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.5|-45.2|<0.001
84476844|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-67.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.9|-86.2|<0.001
84476845|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.3|-65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-65.3|-86.3|<0.001
84476846|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-49.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.4|-65.1|<0.001
84476847|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.4|-55.9|<0.001
84476848|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-70.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.4|-87.5|<0.001
84476849|NCT01763866|168705606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.8|-60.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-60.0|-83.8|<0.001
84476850|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.29|-55.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.27|-65.29|<0.001
84476851|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-51.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.51|-63.23|<0.001
84476852|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|-27.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.70|-37.84|<0.001
84476853|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.34|-33.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.71|-45.34|<0.001
84476854|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.78|-56.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.56|-73.78|<0.001
84476855|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.32|-57.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.19|-72.32|<0.001
84476856|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-29.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.81|-46.68|<0.001
84476857|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.15|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.90|-45.15|<0.001
84476858|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.73|-54.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.48|-64.73|<0.001
84530344|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530345|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530346|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530347|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530348|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530349|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530350|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530351|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530352|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530353|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530354|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530355|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530356|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530357|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530358|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530359|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530360|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530361|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530362|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530363|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530364|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530365|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530366|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530367|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530368|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530369|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530370|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530371|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530372|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530373|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530374|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530375|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530376|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
84530377|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
84530378|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530379|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530380|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530381|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530382|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530383|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84530384|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530385|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530386|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530387|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530388|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530389|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530390|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530391|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530392|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530393|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530394|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530395|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|38.1|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.1|10.5|
84530396|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530397|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530398|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530399|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84476859|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-53.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.60|-64.80|<0.001
84476860|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-51.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.94|-64.60|<0.001
84530400|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530401|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530402|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530403|NCT02504671|168813563|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530404|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.01|-0.64|0.046
84530405|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||0.03|-0.62|0.071
84530406|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.05|-0.69|0.022
84530407|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.11|-0.67|0.160
84530408|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.07|-0.71|0.103
84530409|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.80|0.034
84530410|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||0.07|-0.87|0.096
84530411|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.09|-1.02|0.020
84530412|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.29|-1.22|0.001
84530413|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.10|-0.93|0.110
84530414|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
84530415|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.10|-1.11|0.020
84530416|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||0.12|-0.97|0.128
84530417|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.24|-1.33|0.005
84530418|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.29|-1.36|0.003
84530419|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||0.12|-1.17|0.110
84530420|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.23|-1.53|0.008
84530421|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.60|-1.88|<0.001
84530422|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.56|-1.15|0.500
84530423|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
84530424|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.18|-1.83|0.017
84530425|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.83|-0.98|0.871
84718871|NCT01478594|169189547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.501|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.501|0.615|
84530426|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.29|-1.46|0.190
84530427|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.20|-1.51|0.130
84530428|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.20|-2.24|0.019
84530429|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.55|-2.51|0.002
84718872|NCT01478594|169189548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|2.63|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.630|0.343|
84530430|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.43|-2.34|0.005
84530431|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
84530432|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.17|-0.80|0.003
84530433|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.09|-0.86|0.017
84530434|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.13|-0.90|0.009
84530435|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.20|-1.13|0.005
84530436|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.55|-1.48|<0.001
84530437|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.04|-0.99|0.073
84530438|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.34|-1.36|0.001
84530439|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.35|-1.43|0.001
84530440|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.56|-1.65|<0.001
84530441|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.03|-1.32|0.039
84530442|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.63|-1.91|<0.001
84530443|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.07|-1.61|0.073
84530444|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.30|-1.91|0.007
84530445|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.10|-1.65|0.083
84530446|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.03|-1.63|0.059
84530447|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.50|-2.46|0.003
84530448|NCT02504671|168813564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.89|-2.75|<0.001
84530449|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.4|1.1|0.037
84530450|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|10.8||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|0.144
84530451|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|0.033
84530452|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|22.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||22.2|-11.3|0.437
84530453|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|2.7||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||18.9|-13.5|0.755
84530454|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|0.023
84530455|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.006
84530456|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|0.039
84530457|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.008
84530458|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|0.044
84530459|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||40.0|-2.2|0.083
84476861|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.29|-50.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.32|-64.29|<0.001
84476862|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.18|<0.001
84476863|NCT01763866|168705607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|-55.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-55.42|-70.22|<0.001
84476864|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.25|-56.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.03|-67.25|<0.001
84476865|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-48.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.46|-61.40|<0.001
84476866|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.79|-29.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.44|-40.79|<0.001
84476867|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.15|-31.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.30|-44.15|<0.001
84476868|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.88|-57.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.39|-75.88|<0.001
84476869|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-51.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.52|-68.49|<0.001
84476870|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-31.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.47|-49.55|<0.001
84476871|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-24.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.28|-41.30|<0.001
84476872|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-54.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.13|-65.78|<0.001
84476873|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-51.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.57|-63.27|<0.001
84476874|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-52.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.21|-66.95|<0.001
84530460|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|48.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.3|5.8|
84476875|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.26|-41.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.27|-58.26|<0.001
84530461|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.8|-11.2|
84530462|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
84530463|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|54.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||54.0|10.9|
84530464|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
84530465|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|50.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||50.6|8.9|
84530466|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|66.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||66.0|25.9|
84530467|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
84530468|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|53.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||53.3|11.6|
84718873|NCT01478594|169189548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.918|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.918|0.503|
84476876|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.24|-66.57|<0.001
84476877|NCT01763866|168705608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.63|-48.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-48.62|-64.63|<0.001
84476878|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-53.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.89|-63.10|<0.001
84476879|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-47.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.01|-57.49|<0.001
84530469|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|58.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||58.5|17.2|
84530470|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|38.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.4|-0.5|
84530471|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
84530472|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|68.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.1|29.2|
84530473|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|35.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.4|-3.0|
84530474|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
84530475|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
84530476|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530477|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530478|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530479|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84718874|NCT01478594|169189549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.214|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.214|0.468|
84718875|NCT01478594|169189549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|3.396|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.396|0.447|
84530480|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530481|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84476880|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-28.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.98|-38.33|<0.001
84476881|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-34.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.74|-45.27|<0.001
84476882|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.61|-52.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.07|-66.61|<0.001
84476883|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.56|-51.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.93|-65.56|<0.001
84476884|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-27.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.75|-42.09|<0.001
84476885|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.57|-32.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.71|-46.57|<0.001
84476886|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-59.66|<0.001
84476887|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-51.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.61|-60.66|<0.001
84476888|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.72|-44.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.83|-56.72|<0.001
84476889|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.11|-48.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.76|-61.11|<0.001
84530482|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84476890|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.94|-50.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.74|-59.94|<0.001
84476891|NCT01763866|168705609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-50.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.46|-63.27|<0.001
84476892|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.03|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.55|-64.03|<0.001
84476893|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-41.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.52|-53.20|<0.001
84476894|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-29.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.60|-40.23|<0.001
84530483|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84476895|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.06|-30.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.35|-42.06|<0.001
84476896|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.27|-53.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.54|-69.27|<0.001
84476897|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-45.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-45.25|-60.77|<0.001
84476898|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.17|-29.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.74|-45.17|<0.001
84476899|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.15|-26.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.47|-42.15|<0.001
84476900|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.40|-61.60|<0.001
84476901|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.29|-48.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.13|-58.29|<0.001
84476902|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.06|-43.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.99|-57.06|<0.001
84476903|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.43|-39.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.47|-54.43|<0.001
84476904|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.47|-51.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.14|-61.47|<0.001
84476905|NCT01763866|168705610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-46.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-46.06|-59.40|<0.001
84476906|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.66|-42.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.15|-50.66|<0.001
84476907|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|-39.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.63|-49.75|<0.001
84476908|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-21.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.75|-30.36|<0.001
84476909|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.61|-26.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.57|-36.61|<0.001
84476910|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.69|-38.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.27|-50.69|<0.001
84530484|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84476911|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.48|-41.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.21|-52.48|<0.001
84476912|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.21|-34.39|<0.001
84476913|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-22.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.50|-33.86|<0.001
84476914|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.97|-49.50|<0.001
84476915|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|-41.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.57|-52.46|<0.001
84476916|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.38|-35.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.79|-45.38|<0.001
84476917|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-34.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.66|-46.00|<0.001
84476918|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.76|-42.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.35|-51.76|<0.001
84476919|NCT01763866|168705611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-42.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-42.98|-54.27|<0.001
84476920|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-41.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.94|-51.73|<0.001
84476921|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-37.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.30|-48.43|<0.001
84476922|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-23.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.65|-33.56|<0.001
84476923|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.74|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.70|-35.74|<0.001
84530485|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530486|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530487|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84476924|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.54|-51.66|<0.001
84476925|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.01|-35.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.85|-49.01|<0.001
84530488|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530489|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530490|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530491|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530492|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530493|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530494|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530495|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530496|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530497|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530498|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|37.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.7|5.6|
84530499|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|37.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.6|0.2|
84530500|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|
84530501|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
84530502|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
84530503|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
84530504|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|61.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||61.2|19.9|
84530505|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
84530506|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|56.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.5|13.8|
84530507|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|47.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||47.9|6.2|
84530508|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|73.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.2|34.9|
84530509|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
84530510|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|70.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|31.8|
84530511|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
84530512|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|75.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||75.4|38.2|
84530513|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
84530514|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|73.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.0|35.1|
84530515|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530516|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|75.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.4|89.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||89.9|61.4|
84530517|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530518|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
84530519|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530520|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
84530521|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530522|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
84530523|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530524|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
84530525|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530526|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
84530527|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530528|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
84530529|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530530|NCT02504671|168813566|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
84530531|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530532|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530533|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530534|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 1, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530535|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530536|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530537|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
84530538|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718876|NCT01478594|169189550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.307|
84530539|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530540|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530541|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
84530542|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.7|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.7|9.3|
84530543|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
84530544|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
84530545|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
84530546|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
84530547|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84476926|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|-23.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.84|-36.68|<0.001
84476927|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-18.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.59|-31.79|<0.001
84476928|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.77|-37.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.74|-48.77|<0.001
84476929|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.04|-39.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.61|-51.04|<0.001
84476930|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-35.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.61|-46.65|<0.001
84476931|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-28.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.25|-41.72|<0.001
84476932|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|-42.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.25|-51.83|<0.001
84476933|NCT01763866|168705612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-38.54|-50.67|<0.001
84476934|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-55.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.03|-64.91|<0.001
84476935|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.57|-48.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.64|-59.57|<0.001
84476936|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-32.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.77|-42.80|<0.001
84476937|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.34|-36.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.67|-47.34|<0.001
84476938|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.22|-49.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.59|-64.22|<0.001
84476939|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.68|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.29|-68.68|<0.001
84476940|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.48|-30.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.04|-44.48|<0.001
84530548|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
84530549|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|27.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||27.9|-11.7|
84530550|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
84530551|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|7.0|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.0|-17.8|
84530552|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|10.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.6|-16.0|
84530553|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
84530554|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530555|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530556|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
84530557|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
84530558|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
84530559|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530560|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530561|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530562|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530563|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84718877|NCT01478594|169189550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|3.873|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.873|0.585|
84530564|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530565|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|42.7|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|6.0|
84530566|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
84530567|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
84530568|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
84530569|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
84530570|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
84530571|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
84530572|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530573|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530574|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.4|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.4|-5.4|
84530575|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
84530576|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
84530577|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
84476941|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.07|-36.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.51|-50.07|<0.001
84476942|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.79|-49.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.79|-60.79|<0.001
84476943|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.16|-54.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.32|-64.16|<0.001
84476944|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.82|-44.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.45|-56.82|<0.001
84476945|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|-49.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.64|-63.91|<0.001
84476946|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.51|-52.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.99|-62.51|<0.001
84476947|NCT01763866|168705613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.85|-50.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.27|-61.85|<0.001
84476948|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.65|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.65|<0.001
84476949|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.23|-42.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.65|-54.23|<0.001
84476950|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.09|-34.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.23|-45.09|<0.001
84476951|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-31.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.52|-43.12|<0.001
84476952|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-49.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.99|-65.55|<0.001
84476953|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-49.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.60|-64.91|<0.001
84476954|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.53|-32.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.26|-47.53|<0.001
84718878|NCT01478594|169189551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|2.385|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.385|0.356|
84476955|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.26|-30.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.88|-46.26|<0.001
84530578|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
84476956|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.99|-48.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.82|-59.99|<0.001
84476957|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.58|-50.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.68|-61.58|<0.001
84476958|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-42.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.53|-55.80|<0.001
84476959|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.21|-40.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.40|-57.21|<0.001
84476960|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|-52.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.65|-62.82|<0.001
84476961|NCT01763866|168705614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-45.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-45.98|-58.10|<0.001
84476962|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|88.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.5|70.2|<0.001
84476963|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|86.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||86.8|67.9|<0.001
84476964|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|78.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||78.1|53.1|<0.001
84476965|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|78.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||78.5|54.8|<0.001
84476966|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.3|88.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.3|67.3|<0.001
84476967|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|89.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.6|70.7|<0.001
84476968|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||56.7|29.5|<0.001
84476969|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||44.2|16.7|<0.001
84476970|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|88.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.0|69.5|<0.001
84476971|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|90.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.2|73.1|<0.001
84476972|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|66.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||66.9|39.8|<0.001
84530579|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
84530580|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
84530581|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530582|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530583|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
84530584|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
84530585|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
84530586|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
84530587|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
84530588|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
84530589|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
84718879|NCT01478594|169189551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.22|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.220|0.462|
84530590|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
84530591|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530592|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.5|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.5|-6.9|
84530593|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
84530594|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|62.6|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.6|23.8|
84530595|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
84530596|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
84530597|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.7|1.1|
84530598|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
84530599|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530600|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
84530601|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530602|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530603|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530604|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530605|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530606|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530607|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530608|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530609|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530610|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530611|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530612|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530613|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530614|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530615|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530616|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530617|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530618|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530619|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530620|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530621|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530622|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530623|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530624|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530625|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530626|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84530627|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530628|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530629|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530630|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
84530631|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530632|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530633|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530634|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530635|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530636|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530637|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530638|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530639|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530640|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530641|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84718880|NCT01478594|169189552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|2.512|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.512|0.334|
84530642|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530643|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530644|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84530645|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530646|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530647|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530648|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530649|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530650|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530651|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530652|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84718881|NCT01478594|169189552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|3.455|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.455|0.554|
84530653|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84530654|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530655|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530656|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530657|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530658|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530659|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530660|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530661|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84476973|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||76.6|51.0|<0.001
84476974|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.6|95.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.3|81.6|<0.001
84476975|NCT01763866|168705615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.8|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.0|72.8|<0.001
84476976|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|89.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.2|71.9|<0.001
84476977|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|85.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.3|65.2|<0.001
84476978|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||73.9|47.3|<0.001
84476979|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|75.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||75.2|49.8|<0.001
84476980|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|87.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.9|65.8|<0.001
84476981|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.1|67.9|<0.001
84476982|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||55.1|26.4|<0.001
84476983|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|49.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||49.3|20.7|<0.001
84476984|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|84.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||84.7|63.9|<0.001
84476985|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|87.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.5|68.8|<0.001
84476986|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|52.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||65.3|37.6|<0.001
84476987|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||75.5|49.1|<0.001
84476988|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|92.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|95.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.9|82.3|<0.001
84476989|NCT01763866|168705616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|85.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.4|64.9|<0.001
84476990|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-25.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.11|-39.06|<0.001
84530662|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
84530663|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530664|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530665|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530666|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84476991|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.03|-29.70|<0.001
84476992|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|-20.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.38|-34.53|<0.001
84476993|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-21.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.62|-37.36|<0.001
84476994|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-13.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.33|-27.71|<0.001
84476995|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-20.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.92|-37.01|<0.001
84476996|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|-24.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.93|-39.11|<0.001
84530667|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530668|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530669|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530670|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530671|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530672|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530673|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530674|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84530675|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|46.8|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.8|12.7|
84530676|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|55.4|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.4|20.3|
84530677|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530678|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84476997|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-29.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.23|-45.61|<0.001
84476998|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-28.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.38|-42.94|<0.001
84476999|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|-18.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.27|-35.36|<0.001
84477000|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.74|-26.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.37|-40.74|<0.001
84477001|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-23.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.58|-40.80|<0.001
84477002|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-21.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.23|-34.91|<0.001
84477003|NCT01763866|168705617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-19.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.73|-34.59|<0.001
84477004|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-25.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.60|-40.81|<0.001
84477005|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.72|-27.92|<0.001
84477006|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-21.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.44|-36.87|<0.001
84477007|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-19.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.32|-35.56|<0.001
84477008|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.36|-30.39|<0.001
84477009|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.62|-19.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.58|-36.62|<0.001
84477010|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.46|-24.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.78|-40.46|<0.001
84477011|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.52|-26.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.25|-43.52|<0.001
84530679|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
84530680|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
84530681|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
84530682|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
84530683|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530684|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
84530685|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|45.2|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.2|3.5|
84530686|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
84530687|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
84718882|NCT01478594|169189553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|4.32|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.320|0.548|
84530688|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530689|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530690|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|52.4|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||52.4|12.4|
84530691|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
84530692|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
84530693|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530694|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530695|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
84530696|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
84530697|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
84530698|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
84530699|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
84530700|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
84530701|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
84530702|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
84530703|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
84530704|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
84530705|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
84530706|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
84530707|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
84718883|NCT01478594|169189553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.85|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.850|0.299|
84477012|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.69|-28.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.30|-44.69|<0.001
84477013|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|-16.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.49|-34.19|<0.001
84477014|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.95|-29.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.02|-43.95|<0.001
84477015|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.61|-21.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.74|-42.61|<0.001
84477016|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-24.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.10|-38.40|<0.001
84477017|NCT01763866|168705618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.79|-19.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.55|-36.79|<0.001
84477018|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-2.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.58|-21.63|0.20
84477019|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.13|-11.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.97|-33.13|0.003
84477020|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|7.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.19|-12.09|1.00
84477021|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.46|-4.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.44|-25.46|0.053
84477022|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-5.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.79|-25.06|0.073
84477023|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-3.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.92|-24.90|0.027
84477024|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.30|-10.63|1.00
84477025|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|9.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.11|-12.12|0.63
84530708|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|63.0|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||63.0|23.5|
84477026|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.54|-32.90|<0.001
84530709|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
84530710|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
84530711|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|
84530712|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530713|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
84477027|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-8.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.28|-30.76|0.007
84477028|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-8.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.46|-26.71|0.002
84477029|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-16.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.59|-35.76|<0.001
84477030|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.38|-9.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.55|-32.38|<0.001
84477031|NCT01763866|168705619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|-18.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.57|-40.84|<0.001
84477032|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|0.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.57|-24.69|0.20
84477033|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.86|-13.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.35|-41.86|0.003
84477034|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|9.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.43|-16.16|1.00
84477035|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-3.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.99|-32.28|0.053
84477036|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-6.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.10|-27.34|0.073
84477037|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|3.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.29|-21.92|0.027
84477038|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|7.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.72|-13.05|1.00
84477039|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|14.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.69|-10.66|0.63
84477040|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-4.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.04|-32.03|<0.001
84530714|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|65.2|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.2|26.7|
84530715|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.6|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.6|-3.6|
84530716|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
84530717|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84530718|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
84718884|NCT01970007|169189564|OTHER||Freedom from MAE rate (%)|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|98.6|||One-sided Exact binomial test||One-sided Exact binomial test|||98.6|93.5|<0.0001
84477041|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.96|-32.71|0.007
84477042|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-5.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.26|-27.84|0.002
84477043|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-9.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.98|-31.04|<0.001
84477044|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.68|-32.88|<0.001
84477045|NCT01763866|168705620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.62|-44.10|<0.001
84477046|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-4.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.74|-21.99|0.088
84477047|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.98|-10.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.64|-31.98|0.005
84477048|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|7.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.27|-10.27|1.00
84477049|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.17|-2.91||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.91|-24.17|0.056
84477050|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|-5.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.54|-24.88|0.073
84477051|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.97|-4.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.42|-24.97|0.027
84477052|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.05|-9.94|1.00
84477053|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.16|-10.66|0.62
84477054|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.64|-15.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.50|-34.64|<0.001
84530719|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84477055|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.77|-30.81|0.007
84477056|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.27|-7.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.03|-25.27|0.005
84477057|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-14.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.25|-32.11|<0.001
84477058|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-13.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.43|-33.00|<0.001
84477059|NCT01763866|168705621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-22.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-22.14|-43.60|<0.001
84477060|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.16|-4.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.78|-24.16|0.088
84477061|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.71|-12.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.24|-40.71|0.005
84477062|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|8.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.32|-11.41|1.00
84477063|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-0.97|-29.40|0.056
84477064|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.80|-27.05|0.073
84477065|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.48|-21.68|0.027
84477066|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-12.16|1.00
84477067|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|17.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||17.14|-7.25|0.62
84477068|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.24|-9.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.73|-34.24|<0.001
84477069|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.90|-31.60|0.007
84477070|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.46|-4.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.92|-27.46|0.005
84530720|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|64.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|80.8|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||80.8|48.9|
84477071|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-8.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.05|-29.04|<0.001
84477072|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|-11.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.81|-33.09|<0.001
84477073|NCT01763866|168705622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.96|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-24.70|-48.96|<0.001
84477074|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.15|2.91|0.034
84477075|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|12.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.79|3.43|0.017
84477076|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.34|3.00|0.001
84477077|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|13.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.22|3.93|0.006
84477078|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.09|-0.19|0.85
84477079|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|13.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.58|4.68|<0.001
84477080|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.64|3.51|0.003
84477081|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|12.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.84|3.86|0.003
84477082|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|9.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.04|1.68|<0.001
84477083|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|14.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.80|2.51|0.010
84530721|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84477084|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.23|1.69|0.013
84477085|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.10|2.40|0.002
84477086|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|15.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.32|5.13|<0.001
84477087|NCT01763866|168705623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|12.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||12.97|4.73|<0.001
84477088|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|10.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.99|2.66|0.034
84477089|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|12.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.73|3.01|0.017
84477090|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|13.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.03|4.58|0.001
84477091|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.11|3.46|0.006
84477092|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.57|-0.42|0.85
84477093|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|11.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.89|2.22|<0.001
84477094|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|12.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.87|4.07|0.003
84477095|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.99|2.29|0.003
84477096|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|7.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.73|-1.33|<0.001
84477097|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.72|0.97|0.010
84477098|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.52|0.013
84477099|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.60|0.07|0.002
84477100|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|15.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.51|4.05|<0.001
84477101|NCT01763866|168705624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||13.72|4.40|<0.001
84477102|NCT00804843|168705625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.27||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.78|||ANOVA|||||0.78|-0.24|0.811
84477103|NCT00804843|168705626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.64||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|8.36|||ANOVA|||||8.36|-1.09|0.898
84477104|NCT02016898|168705666|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.67|0.7
84477105|NCT02016898|168705667|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.539
84477106|NCT04015440|168705674|OTHER|Linear Regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84477107|NCT04015440|168705675|OTHER|Regression||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.027
84530722|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
84477108|NCT04015440|168705676|OTHER|Logistic Regression||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
84477109|NCT02505542|168705678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.605|38.864||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||38.864|9.605|<0.001
84477110|NCT02505542|168705678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.395|27.955||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||27.955|7.395|<0.001
84477111|NCT02505542|168705682|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q2W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
84477112|NCT02505542|168705682|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q4W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
84477113|NCT02505542|168705684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|35.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||35.961|8.950|<0.001
84477114|NCT02505542|168705684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.952|21.778|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||21.778|5.952|<0.001
84477115|NCT02505542|168705684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.653|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.333|37.399|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||37.399|8.333|<0.001
84477116|NCT02505542|168705684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.863|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|24.822|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||24.822|5.670|<0.001
84477117|NCT02505542|168705685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.205|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.851|41.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||41.439|9.851|<0.001
84477118|NCT02505542|168705685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.275|23.218|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.218|6.275|<0.001
84477119|NCT02505542|168705686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|42.744|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||42.744|10.210|<0.001
84477120|NCT02505542|168705686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.456|19.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||19.738|5.456|<0.001
84477121|NCT02505542|168705687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|34.785|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.785|8.211|<0.001
84477122|NCT02505542|168705687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.954|24.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||24.476|5.954|<0.001
84477123|NCT02505542|168705688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.561|34.085|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.085|8.561|<0.001
84477124|NCT02505542|168705688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.939|22.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||22.278|5.939|<0.001
84477125|NCT02505542|168705689|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-1.66|<0.001
84530723|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84718885|NCT01970007|169189565|OTHER||12-month quantitative patency rate (%)|89.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|93.4|||Binomial test for one proportion||Binomial test for one proportion|||93.4|85.1|<0.0001
84530724|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530725|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530726|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
84530727|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530728|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|42.7|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|11.4|
84530729|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530730|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84718886|NCT01970007|169189566|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.6||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity|paired t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05.||||-2.6|-3.5|<0.0001
84530731|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530732|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
84530733|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530734|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
84530735|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
84530736|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84718887|NCT01970007|169189567|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.7||p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|pair t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05||||-3.7|-4.7|<0.0001
84530737|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530738|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
84530739|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530740|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.7|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.7|13.8|
84530741|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530742|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530743|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530744|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
84530745|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530746|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.6|18.7|
84530747|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530748|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
84718888|NCT05230433|169189579|OTHER||Percent Consumed|86.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||High fat agents were weighed pre- and post- providing the shake to the participant. All containers were tared to take into account straw, lid, and glass weight. Percentage of high-fat challenge consumed was calculated by post-shake weight / pre-shake weight. 13 out of 15 partcipants drank \>75% of the shake.||||0.15
84530749|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530750|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|70.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|37.3|
84530751|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84477126|NCT02505542|168705689|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.001
84477127|NCT02505542|168705690|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.94|-2.99|<0.001
84477128|NCT02505542|168705690|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.72|-2.77|<0.001
84477129|NCT02505542|168705691|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.11|-2.04|<0.001
84477130|NCT02505542|168705691|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.90|<0.001
84477131|NCT02505542|168705692|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.42|=0.074
84477132|NCT02505542|168705692|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.46|=0.036
84477133|NCT02505542|168705693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.084|36.898|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||36.898|9.084|<0.001
84477134|NCT02505542|168705693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.255|23.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.098|6.255|<0.001
84477135|NCT02505542|168705694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.51|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.51|-2.50|=0.195
84477136|NCT02505542|168705694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.91|-2.11|=0.432
84477137|NCT02505542|168705695|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||-0.02|-0.78|=0.040
84530752|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
84530753|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530754|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|34.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.9|8.4|
84530755|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530756|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
84530757|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530758|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
84530759|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84718889|NCT05230433|169189580|OTHER|No test vs. control groups.||||||0.65||||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Pearson Correlation|||Fold change from 60 to 180 minutes of average medium chain acylcarnitine was calculated for each participant. Pearson correlation between BMI percentile and fold change was calculated.|Pearson Correlation between both secondary outcomes reported: BMI percentile and fold change between acylcarnitine at 60 minutes and 180 minutes post the high fat challenge.|||0.65
84530760|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530761|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530762|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|57.3|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.3|23.7|
84530763|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
84530764|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
84530765|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
84530766|NCT02504671|168813567|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
84530767|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718890|NCT00754065|169189583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F-statistic|9.3218||||0.0024||||||Comparison of EV/DNG vs. EE/NGM|ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA model with treatment and pain strata (headache and pelvic pain) as factors||||0.0024
84530768|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530769|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530770|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530771|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530772|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530773|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530774|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530775|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530776|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530777|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530778|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530779|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530780|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530781|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530782|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530783|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530784|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84718891|NCT04353492|169189702|OTHER|tested by a lower tailed test at 0.05 significance level|||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regresion|||The null hypothesis (H0): ARR \>= 0.18||||<0.0001
84530785|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530786|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530787|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530788|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530789|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530790|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530791|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530792|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530793|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530794|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530795|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530796|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530797|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530798|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530799|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530800|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530801|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530802|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530803|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718892|NCT04250194|169189704|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 10%.|absolute difference in percentage points|5.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|One-sided two-sample z-test||Difference in diagnostic accuracy = navigational bronchoscopy % - transthoracic biopsy %|||17.2|-6.5|0.003
84718893|NCT00174252|169189770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|93.7|||||95% CI was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to no."||93.7|74.2|
84530804|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530805|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530806|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530807|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84718894|NCT00174252|169189770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.0||||||95.0|6.3|25.8|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to yes."||25.8|6.3|
84477138|NCT02505542|168705695|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.03|-0.73|=0.074
84477139|NCT01804036|168705728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
84477140|NCT01804036|168705729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
84477141|NCT01804036|168705730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
84477142|NCT01804036|168705731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
84477143|NCT01804036|168705732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
84477144|NCT01804036|168705733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84477145|NCT01804036|168705734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.52
84477146|NCT01804036|168705735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
84477147|NCT01804036|168705736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
84477148|NCT01804036|168705737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
84477149|NCT01804036|168705738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84477150|NCT01804036|168705739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84477151|NCT01804036|168705740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84477152|NCT01804036|168705741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
84477153|NCT00830960|168705742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference in PRU|-183.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|-137.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-137|-229|<0.0001
84477154|NCT00830960|168705742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-139.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|-102.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-102|-177|<0.0001
84477155|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-57.0||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-17.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-17|-97|0.0058
84477156|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-2.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel"|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-2|-68|0.0365
84477157|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-68.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|-32.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-32|-104|0.0004
84477158|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-160.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|-110.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-110|-211|<0.0001
84477159|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-115.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-73.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-156|<0.0001
84477160|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-171.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.0|-125.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-125|-216|<0.0001
84530808|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530809|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530810|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530811|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530812|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-2.5|
84530813|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|68.2|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|-1.9|
84530814|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84718895|NCT00174252|169189784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.002
84530815|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530816|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530817|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530818|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530819|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530820|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530821|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530822|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530823|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530824|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530825|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530826|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530827|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530828|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530829|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530830|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530831|NCT02504671|168813568|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530832|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718896|NCT00174252|169189785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.023||95.0||||Bilateral test multiple comparison threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.023
84718897|NCT00174252|169189786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.708
84718898|NCT00174252|169189787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.325||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.325
84530833|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530834|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530835|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530836|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530837|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530838|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530839|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84718899|NCT06688357|169189801|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.920. Only 1 comparison with 2 means, thus no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample t-test conducted to examine difference in pre-post intervention change scores for the active vs sham intervention groups. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.077
84530840|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530841|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530842|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530843|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530844|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530845|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530846|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530847|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530848|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530849|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530850|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530851|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530852|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
84530853|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530854|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530855|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530856|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530857|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718900|NCT06688357|169189802|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.779||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.504; only 1 comparison of 2 values, thus no adjustment is necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test; Cohen's d effect size||||.159
84477161|NCT00830960|168705743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-212.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.0|-167.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-167|-259|<0.0001
84477162|NCT00830960|168705744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-119.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.0|-73.0||"P-value for 30 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|LS Mean Difference in PRU|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-166|<0.0001
84477163|NCT00830960|168705744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-113.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|-73.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-154|<0.0001
84477164|NCT00830960|168705744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-85.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-48.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-48|-121|<0.0001
84477165|NCT00830960|168705744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|2.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||2|-72|0.0647
84477166|NCT00830960|168705744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-57.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-57|-143|<0.0001
84477167|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|15.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|4|0.0072
84477168|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|9.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||18|-1|0.0647
84477169|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||19|3|0.0054
84477170|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|66.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||66|36|<0.0001
84477171|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|48.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||48|23|<0.0001
84477172|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||61|36|<0.0001
84477173|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|76.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||76|47|<0.0001
84477174|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|59.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||59|36|<0.0001
84530858|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530859|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530860|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718901|NCT06688357|169189803|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.356||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 0.688; only 1 comparison, adjustment not necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent samples t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.503
84718902|NCT06688357|169189804|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.922||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.893; only one comparison of 2 scores, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Independent sample t-test used to examine pre-post intervention change scores in active vs sham groups; Cohen's d was calculated to estimate effect size||||0.08
84718903|NCT06688357|169189805|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.793||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.533; only 1 comparison, no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen d effect size||||.149
84477175|NCT00830960|168705745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|68.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||68|44|<0.0001
84477176|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|27|<0.0001
84477177|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|42.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||42|21|<0.0001
84477178|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|17.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||28|6|0.0026
84477179|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|24|<0.0001
84477180|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|35.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|52.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||52|18|0.0001
84477181|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|28.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|44.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||44|13|0.0005
84477182|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|27.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|-5|0.1898
84477183|NCT00830960|168705746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|45.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||45|18|<0.0001
84477184|NCT00830960|168705748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-110.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-76.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-76|-143|<0.0001
84477185|NCT00830960|168705748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-92.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.0|-60.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-60|-123|<0.0001
84530861|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530862|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530863|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530864|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530865|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530866|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84718904|NCT06688357|169189806|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.905||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.749; only 1 comparison with 2 values, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Post-Pre intervention change in the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size was estimated using Cohen's d.||||.104
84530867|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530868|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530869|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530870|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530871|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530872|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530873|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530874|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530875|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530876|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530877|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530878|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530879|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84718905|NCT06688357|169189807|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.267||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -.516; only 1 comparison of 2 means, no adjustment needed|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-tests examining Post-Baseline differences for the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size computed using Cohen's d score||||.614
84530880|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530881|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530882|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530883|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530884|NCT02504671|168813569|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84718906|NCT06688357|169189808|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.652||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -1.260; only 1 comparison of 2 values, no need for adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||independent samples t-test, effect size computation (cohen's d)||||.230
84718907|NCT04057820|169189814|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.65|0.46|<0.0001
84718908|NCT04057820|169189815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.47|||Mixed-effect Poisson w/ robust err var|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.47|0.30|<0.0001
84477186|NCT00830960|168705748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-51.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-19.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-19|-83|0.0020
84477187|NCT00830960|168705755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
84477188|NCT00830960|168705755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
84477189|NCT00830960|168705755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
84477190|NCT00830960|168705755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.034
84477191|NCT05053126|168705772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||31.65|<0.0001
84477192|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.2469|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||3.4||0.2469
84477193|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1756|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||2.5||0.1756
84477194|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||4.3||0.0001
84477195|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||8.0||0.0099
84477196|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9888|ONE_SIDED|95.0||23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||23.4||0.9888
84477197|NCT05053126|168705772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||27.1||0.9997
84477198|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.79|85.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.42|65.79|<0.0001
84477199|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.03|54.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54.65|35.03|<0.0001
84477200|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.12|59.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.75|40.12|<0.0001
84477201|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.99|90.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90.61|70.99|<0.0001
84477202|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.09|91.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.73|72.09|<0.0001
84477203|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|-20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.9|-40.6|<0.0001
84477204|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-35.5|<0.0001
84477205|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|-4.62|0.3829
84477206|NCT05053126|168705773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|16.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.11|-3.50|0.2896
84477207|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.77|27.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.17|19.77|<0.0001
84477208|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.09|6.71|<0.0001
84477209|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.59|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.99|7.59|<0.0001
84477210|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.62|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.03|20.62|<0.0001
84718909|NCT04057820|169189816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-0.4|
84530885|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 4, Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530886|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530887|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530888|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530889|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530890|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84718910|NCT04057820|169189817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|37.9||||||||37.9|8.1|
84530891|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
84530892|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
84530893|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530894|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530895|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
84530896|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530897|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84718911|NCT04057820|169189818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76||||||||1.76|0.37|
84718912|NCT04057820|169189819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.3|
84530898|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530899|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530900|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530901|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530902|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530903|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530904|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530905|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530906|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530907|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530908|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530909|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84718913|NCT04057820|169189820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.99||||||||3.99|0.94|
84718914|NCT04057820|169189821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.48||||||||2.48|1.13|
84718915|NCT04057820|169189822|SUPERIORITY||Incidence ratio ratio (IRR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.64|0.49|
84718916|NCT04057820|169189824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||||||||1.47|0.71|
84530910|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530911|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530912|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530913|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530914|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530915|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84718917|NCT03211247|169189837|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.36|44.49|||Wald test||The 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates was calculated.|Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Farrignton-Manning 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||44.49|22.36|<0.001
84530916|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530917|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530918|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530919|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530920|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530921|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.6|||7.9|-2.5|
84530922|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530923|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530924|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530925|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530926|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
84530927|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
84530928|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530929|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||5.4|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530930|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
84530931|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530932|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530933|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530934|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530935|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530936|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530937|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530938|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530939|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530940|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
84530941|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530942|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84718918|NCT02415127|169189843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442||||||From a repeated-measures ANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit with baseline score and investigative site as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix, testing ACTIMMUNE® vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a hierarchical manner. Each endpoint was tested in sequential order and the current endpoint must have shown statistical significance (p \< 0.05) prior to performing testing the next endpoint. The primary endpoint, FARS-mNeuro, was to be tested first, followed by the key secondary endpoint, ADL, followed by the other secondary endpoints, T25FW, FARS-mNeuro responder rate, and FARStot.||||0.5442
84530943|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
84530944|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530945|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530946|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
84530947|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530948|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
84530949|NCT02504671|168813570|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
84530950|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, SDAI|||0.00|-8.18|0.050
84530951|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||0.52|-7.84|0.086
84530952|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.23|-8.43|0.038
84530953|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||1.05|-9.18|0.119
84530954|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.72||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|0.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||0.40|-9.85|0.071
84530955|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-0.42|-10.53|0.034
84530956|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.78||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-0.94|-12.61|0.023
84530957|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.28||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|-1.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-1.47|-13.09|0.014
84530958|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|-3.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-3.47|-14.99|0.002
84530959|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.65||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||0.32|-11.62|0.063
84530960|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.30|-12.28|0.040
84530961|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.90|-12.69|0.024
84530962|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-0.01|-13.15|0.050
84530963|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.60|-15.71|0.006
84530964|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.41|-15.32|0.007
84530965|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|0.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||0.68|-14.49|0.074
84530966|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-2.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.74|-17.99|0.008
84530967|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|-6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-6.67|-21.64|<0.001
84718919|NCT05048394|169189882|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84530968|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||6.43|-10.19|0.656
84530969|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||1.19|-15.19|0.093
84530970|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||0.78|-15.30|0.076
84530971|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||9.74|-8.14|0.860
84530972|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.99|-14.40|0.196
84530973|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.48|-14.48|0.164
84530974|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.65||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|0.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||0.69|-21.99|0.066
84530975|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.49|-27.25|0.003
84530976|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.03|-26.30|0.004
84530977|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.65|-8.91|0.024
84530978|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-3.70|-11.84|<0.001
84530979|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-1.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.60|-11.74|0.010
84530980|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-1.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.78|-11.91|0.008
84530981|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-2.67|-14.20|0.004
84530982|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-6.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-6.75|-18.26|<0.001
84530983|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-1.01|-12.99|0.022
84530984|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-4.24|-16.07|<0.001
84530985|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-4.66|-17.70|<0.001
84530986|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-7.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-7.44|-20.57|<0.001
84718920|NCT05048394|169189883|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.||||||0.14||||||Threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
84530987|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-2.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.11|-17.26|0.013
84530988|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-9.32|-24.39|<0.001
84530989|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.03||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|2.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||2.18|-14.24|0.149
84530990|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-1.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||-1.55|-17.32|0.019
84530991|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|2.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.14|-15.32|0.138
84530992|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||-0.42|-16.99|0.040
84530993|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|-4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-4.98|-26.77|0.005
84530994|NCT02504671|168813571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-10.53||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-10.53|-31.20|<0.001
84530995|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.20|-7.89|0.063
84530996|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.28|-7.95|0.067
84530997|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-0.39|-8.46|0.032
84530998|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|0.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||0.84|-9.17|0.102
84530999|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||1.49|-8.43|0.170
84531000|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-0.27|-10.13|0.039
84531001|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.57|-12.82|0.012
84531002|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.16|-12.30|0.018
84531003|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|-3.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-3.66|-14.73|0.001
84531004|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.35|-11.31|0.065
84531005|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.00|-11.69|0.050
84531006|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.87|-12.38|0.024
84531007|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||0.02|-12.84|0.051
84531008|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|-2.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.22|-14.97|0.008
84531009|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-2.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.43|-15.06|0.007
84531010|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||0.58|-14.19|0.071
84531011|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|-2.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.44|-17.17|0.009
84531012|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|-6.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-6.59|-21.17|<0.001
84531013|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||6.26|-9.63|0.676
84531014|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.33||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|1.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.44|-14.11|0.110
84531015|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.23|-14.12|0.099
84531016|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|9.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||9.69|-7.61|0.812
84531017|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.39||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|2.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.96|-13.75|0.204
84531018|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.30|-14.09|0.157
84718921|NCT00490139|169189884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.00|0.71|0.048
84718922|NCT00490139|169189884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.13|0.81|0.610
84531019|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.37||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|1.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||1.42|-20.15|0.088
84531020|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.83|-25.40|0.004
84531021|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.80|-25.01|0.004
84531022|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.17|-7.96|0.060
84531023|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-3.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-3.36|-11.42|<0.001
84531024|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-1.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.14|-11.06|0.016
84531025|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|-1.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.91|-11.78|0.007
84531026|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-2.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-2.37|-13.48|0.005
84531027|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-6.64|-17.74|<0.001
84531028|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.21|-11.45|0.059
84531029|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-4.38|-15.97|<0.001
84531030|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-4.00|-16.75|0.002
84531031|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-7.41|-20.18|<0.001
84531032|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-2.31||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.31|-17.03|0.010
84531033|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.97|-9.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-9.30|-23.97|<0.001
84531034|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||2.30|-13.37|0.165
84531035|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.85||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||-1.32|-16.39|0.022
84531036|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||1.89|-14.99|0.127
84531037|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.67||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|-0.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||-0.67|-16.67|0.034
84531038|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|-5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-5.07|-25.78|0.004
84531039|NCT02504671|168813572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-10.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-10.06|-29.70|<0.001
84531040|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.16|-0.14|0.938
84531041|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.15|-0.15|0.981
84531042|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.16|0.857
84531043|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.13|0.592
84531044|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.18|-0.16|0.917
84531045|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.23|0.545
84531046|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.24|-0.16|0.707
84531047|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.15|0.603
84531048|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.27|0.473
84718923|NCT00490139|169189885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.02|0.77|
84531049|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.21|0.987
84531050|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.25|0.713
84531051|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.31|0.357
84531052|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.19|0.748
84531053|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.34|0.327
84531054|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.32|0.395
84531055|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.710
84531056|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.740
84531057|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.36|0.398
84531058|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.52|-0.19|0.364
84531059|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.46|-0.23|0.503
84531060|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.647
84531061|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.33|-0.37|0.910
84531062|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.660
84531063|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.50|0.340
84531064|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.39|-0.34|0.902
84531065|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.28|-0.42|0.687
84531066|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.25||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.25|-0.44|0.599
84531067|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.19|0.588
84531068|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.06|-0.23|0.259
84531069|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.358
84531070|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.325
84531071|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.28|0.473
84531072|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.38|0.085
84531073|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.23|-0.20|0.897
84531074|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
84531075|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.36|0.238
84531076|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.44|0.071
84531077|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.38|0.340
84531078|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.49|0.059
84531079|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.44|-0.26|0.607
84531080|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.32|-0.34|0.959
84531081|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.20|-0.49|0.401
84531082|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.54|0.207
84531083|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.27|-0.44|0.637
84531084|NCT02504671|168813573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.53|0.251
84531085|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.90|-9.81|0.511
84531086|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.60|-10.13|0.461
84531087|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||-0.39|-15.03|0.039
84531088|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|5.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||5.01|-10.86|0.469
84531089|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|1.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||1.85|-13.82|0.133
84531090|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.23|-15.40|0.057
84531091|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.03||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||5.61|-11.67|0.490
84718924|NCT00490139|169189885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.05|0.80|
84531092|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-0.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-0.86|-17.91|0.031
84531093|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.67|-3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-3.74|-20.67|0.005
84531094|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|4.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||4.85|-13.83|0.345
84531095|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.26|-17.30|0.090
84531096|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.36||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||0.83|-17.55|0.074
84531097|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|4.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||4.34|-15.57|0.268
84531098|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.70|-24.43|0.004
84531099|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-4.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.16|-23.72|0.005
84531100|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.02||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|3.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||3.32|-17.36|0.182
84531101|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-3.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-3.87|-24.42|0.007
84531102|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|-8.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-8.01|-28.35|<0.001
84531103|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|10.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||10.36|-20.15|0.527
84531104|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.95||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.72|-1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||-1.19|-30.72|0.034
84531105|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|0.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||0.70|-28.42|0.062
84531106|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|13.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||13.47|-14.85|0.924
84531107|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.82|0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||0.48|-26.82|0.058
84531108|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-0.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.08|-26.91|0.049
84531109|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|10.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||10.07|-22.84|0.445
84531110|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.14||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|5.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||5.58|-25.87|0.205
84531111|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|3.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||3.41|-27.55|0.125
84531112|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||2.41|-12.26|0.187
84531113|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|1.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||1.67|-12.93|0.130
84531114|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.03|-15.72|0.051
84531115|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||-2.60|-18.27|0.009
84531116|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.94||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||0.58|-16.47|0.068
84531117|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-5.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-5.44|-22.47|0.001
84531118|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.36||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.89|-16.62|0.118
84531119|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||-3.19|-21.68|0.009
84531120|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|-6.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-6.65|-26.38|0.001
84531121|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.27|-10.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-10.52|-30.27|<0.001
84531122|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27|-1.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-1.73|-22.27|0.022
84531123|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-7.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-7.70|-28.18|<0.001
84531124|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|1.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||1.79|-28.18|0.084
84531125|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.87||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|2.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||2.27|-26.02|0.099
84531126|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.91||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.68|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.14|-27.68|0.048
84531127|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.13|-26.32|0.048
84531128|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|2.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||2.64|-29.11|0.102
84531129|NCT02504671|168813574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-1.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||-1.62|-31.79|0.030
84531130|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||3.52|-2.31|0.683
84531131|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||6.07|0.31|0.030
84531132|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.47|-0.25|0.074
84531133|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||4.80|-1.88|0.390
84531134|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.75|-0.91|0.154
84531135|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.02|-1.56|0.302
84531136|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.88|-3.50|0.521
84531137|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|6.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.20|-3.63|0.606
84531138|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.32|-2.41|0.320
84531139|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.64|-4.65|0.811
84531140|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.55|-3.65|0.830
84531141|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.54|-4.61|0.795
84531142|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.64|-3.00|0.548
84718925|NCT00490139|169189886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.62|0.078
84531143|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.77|-2.85|0.505
84531144|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|5.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.39|-3.15|0.605
84531145|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||6.90|-6.03|0.895
84531146|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||8.42|-3.84|0.461
84531147|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||4.99|-7.10|0.732
84531148|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||2.88|-3.11|0.941
84531149|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||6.67|0.78|0.013
84531150|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.92||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||5.84|-0.01|0.051
84531151|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.12|-2.07|0.403
84531152|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||6.40|-0.76|0.122
84531153|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.62|-1.45|0.247
84531154|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.32|-3.61|0.384
84531155|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||11.16|-1.07|0.105
84531156|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|9.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.17|-2.76|0.290
84531157|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||2.50|-3.52|0.738
84531158|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.97|-1.99|0.513
84531159|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.08|-2.83|0.934
84531160|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.68|-2.43|0.687
84531161|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||4.91|-1.20|0.233
84531162|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.59|-2.44|0.708
84531163|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.93|-2.34|0.250
84531164|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.76||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|8.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.09|-2.57|0.307
84718926|NCT00490139|169189886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.16|0.71|0.433
84531165|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|7.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||7.79|-2.74|0.345
84531166|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||0.52|-0.19|0.950
84531167|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||4.87|-3.11|0.664
84531168|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||3.96|-3.99|0.994
84531169|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.03|-1.84|0.250
84531170|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.64|-1.22|0.154
84531171|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||6.89|-1.88|0.262
84531172|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|7.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||7.93|-5.28|0.693
84531173|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.28||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|9.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||9.54|-2.98|0.302
84531174|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||6.77|-5.54|0.844
84531175|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.04|-2.71|0.698
84531176|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||5.70|-0.94|0.159
84531177|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.83|-1.76|0.360
84531178|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.69|-1.04|0.151
84531179|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.86|-0.83|0.124
84531180|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|6.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.80|-0.79|0.120
84531181|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.70|-5.98|0.814
84531182|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|4.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.67|-5.49|0.873
84531183|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||5.26|-4.80|0.928
84531184|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.86|-5.44|0.541
84531185|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.81|-5.39|0.535
84531186|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||3.05|-5.10|0.620
84531187|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.76|-4.08|0.881
84531188|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,Role Emotional|||5.07|-3.74|0.767
84718927|NCT00490139|169189887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.70|
84718928|NCT00490139|169189887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.04|0.71|
84531189|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.61|-4.12|0.913
84531190|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||7.63|-5.81|0.790
84531191|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|6.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||6.87|-5.86|0.876
84531192|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||4.99|-7.59|0.684
84531193|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||4.01|-2.28|0.588
84531194|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.00|-1.21|0.229
84531195|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.49|-0.67|0.125
84531196|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|4.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.12|-2.92|0.736
84531197|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||5.23|-1.80|0.338
84531198|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.40|-2.55|0.600
84531199|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.86|-4.34|0.657
84531200|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|5.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||5.17|-5.41|0.965
84531201|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|6.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.37|-4.14|0.675
84531202|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|3.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||3.89|-4.54|0.880
84531203|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.33|-1.00|0.135
84531204|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.71||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||4.71|-3.56|0.785
84531205|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.80|-3.69|0.797
84531206|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.23|-4.23|>0.999
84531207|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|4.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.46|-3.91|0.896
84531208|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||4.24|-10.02|0.424
84531209|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|6.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.29|-7.16|0.898
84531210|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|2.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||2.84|-10.42|0.260
84531211|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||4.90|-2.85|0.603
84531212|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.39|-0.26|0.068
84531213|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||6.43|-1.17|0.174
84531214|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||5.98|-2.04|0.334
84531215|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.91|-1.09|0.153
84531216|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|6.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.13|-1.78|0.279
84531217|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|8.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,Vitality|||8.91|-5.04|0.584
84531218|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.73|-3.44|0.346
84531219|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.48|-3.55|0.370
84531220|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.83|0.06|0.045
84531221|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||7.01|1.22|0.006
84531222|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||5.23|-1.44|0.264
84531223|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.55||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||6.88|0.22|0.037
84531224|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.14|-2.81|0.392
84531225|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for PCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.39|-3.09|0.493
84531226|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||5.26|-2.94|0.577
84531227|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.20|-4.01|0.964
84531228|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||6.28|-2.35|0.370
84531229|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||7.54|-1.05|0.138
84531230|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.667
84531231|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.203
84531232|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||6.41|0.49|0.023
84531233|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||8.03|2.14|<0.001
84531234|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||5.70|-1.49|0.249
84531235|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|6.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||6.99|-0.13|0.059
84531236|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|10.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.90|-1.47|0.134
84531237|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|10.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.97|-0.58|0.078
84531238|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|4.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.62|-1.32|0.275
84718929|NCT00490139|169189888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96||||||||0.96|0.68|
84531239|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.91|-1.03|0.199
84531240|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||3.74|-2.36|0.654
84531241|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||5.33|-0.74|0.138
84531242|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||7.17|-3.62|0.516
84531243|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||8.46|-1.77|0.198
84531244|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|3.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||3.84|-4.15|0.941
84531245|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||4.05|-3.94|0.979
84531246|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||6.84|-2.03|0.287
84531247|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|7.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||7.85|-0.96|0.125
84531248|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|8.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Mental health|||8.49|-4.18|0.503
84531249|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.01||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|10.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24,Mental health|||10.98|-0.96|0.099
84531250|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.21|-1.45|0.268
84531251|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.77|-0.87|0.147
84531252|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|6.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||6.73|-0.99|0.145
84531253|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.54||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||8.61|0.97|0.014
84531254|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.61|-4.66|0.856
84531255|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.55|-4.24|0.793
84718930|NCT00490139|169189888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||||||||1.10|0.79|
84718931|NCT00490139|169189889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
84477211|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.65|26.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.04|18.65|<0.0001
84477212|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-16.8|<0.0001
84477213|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.47|-15.9|<0.0001
84477214|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.57|-2.86|0.7051
84477215|NCT05053126|168705774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.57|-4.82|0.6160
84477216|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.235|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.31|25.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.67|18.31|<0.0001
84477217|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.227||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.73|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|2.73|0.0042
84477218|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.12|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.48|6.12|<0.0001
84477219|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.44|24.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.81|17.44|<0.0001
84477220|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.59|24.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.95|17.59|<0.0001
84477221|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-19.3|<0.0001
84477222|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.50|-15.9|<0.0001
84477223|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-4.56|0.7001
84477224|NCT05053126|168705775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.7479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.96|-4.40|0.7479
84477225|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|30.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.19|25.45|<0.0001
84477226|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.17|16.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.89|12.17|<0.0001
84477227|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.49|20.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.22|15.49|<0.0001
84477228|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|36.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.77|34.40|<0.0001
84477229|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.47|41.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.21|36.47|<0.0001
84477230|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.9|-15.6|<0.0001
84477231|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-12.3|<0.0001
84477232|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.94|4.22|<0.0001
84477233|NCT05053126|168705776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.65|13.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.38|8.65|<0.0001
84477234|NCT05127421|168705779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the stratification factor (face and/or neck Investigator's Global Assessment \[IGA\] score of 2 or 3 at screening).||||9.47|0.83|0.091
84477235|NCT05127421|168705779|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed based on a large-sample normal approximation with continuity correction.|||39.6|-0.5|
84477236|NCT01802554|168705791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
84477237|NCT01802554|168705792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.701
84477238|NCT01802554|168705793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
84477239|NCT01802554|168705794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
84477240|NCT01802554|168705795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.021
84477241|NCT01632735|168705796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations regression examined primary relapse (measured by urinalysis) over time by condition, controlling for age and gender.||||0.99|0.57|<0.05
84477242|NCT01632735|168705797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (timexcondition)|0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the primary outcome measures of recovery behaviors mean days over time (baseline, discharge, 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.248|0.219|<0.001
84477243|NCT01632735|168705798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (time x condition)|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated-measures model tested for effects of treatment vs. control on recovery self-confidence over time controlling for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of recovery confidence mean score over time.||0.123|0.106|<0.001
84531256|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||4.69|-3.51|0.778
84531257|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||3.50|-4.70|0.773
84531258|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||5.49|-3.34|0.631
84531259|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||7.07|-1.71|0.230
84531260|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||6.84|-6.03|0.901
84531261|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|8.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||8.59|-3.54|0.412
84531262|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||4.98|-1.22|0.234
84531263|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.66||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||5.77|-0.46|0.094
84718932|NCT00490139|169189889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|0.81|
84718933|NCT00490139|169189890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
84531264|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||4.94|-2.08|0.423
84531265|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||6.86|-0.16|0.061
84531266|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|6.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||6.57|-4.16|0.657
84531267|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|5.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||5.95|-4.22|0.737
84531268|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.11|-1.22|0.165
84531269|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.56|-0.77|0.109
84531270|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|6.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||6.21|-2.26|0.359
84531271|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|8.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||8.56|0.14|0.043
84531272|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|6.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.49|-7.15|0.923
84531273|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.70|-6.11|0.927
84531274|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||8.46|0.82|0.018
84718934|NCT00490139|169189890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
84531275|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.17|-0.49|0.087
84531276|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.64|-1.35|0.193
84531277|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|7.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||7.95|-0.01|0.051
84531278|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||10.02|-3.31|0.321
84531279|NCT02504671|168813575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|9.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.44|-3.18|0.328
84477244|NCT01632735|168705799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta effect (timexcondition)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of self-help utilization (mean days in past month) over the study period (baseline, discharge, and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.233|0.2|<0.001
84477245|NCT01056341|168705813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiplicity. An Independent Committee conducted this analysis to determine the most efficacious of all arms with a good safety profile.~P-value linked to the 3 mg/kg/day 6 months selected arm ."|One-sided Z-tests|One-sided Z-tests for proportions (contrasts tests on placebo) with pooled variance||The interim analysis was carried out after the first 188 patients have completed their W24 visit or been withdrawn prematurely from study therapy. For each propranolol arm, individual hypotheses H0,i: θi≤0||||< 0.0001
84477246|NCT01056341|168705814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The methodology used guaranteed that the familywise type I error rate was below the nominal one-sided significance level of 0.005.|combination tests|Superiority was tested using the closed testing procedure and combination tests for all intersection hypotheses using Simes' adjustment.||"The objective is to test the superiority of the selected arm using the approach of Posch et al.~The primary analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population: all treated patients in Stage 1 and all treated patients in stage 2 randomized to placebo or the selected arm."||||< 0.0001
84477247|NCT04111107|168705831|OTHER|||||||0.966|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank (2 sided)|||H0: Progression-free ratio = 1||||0.966
84477248|NCT04111107|168705834|OTHER|Single proportion was estimated.|proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.1|||||exact binomial confidence interval|The proportion with a complete or partial response was estimated and an exact binomial confidence interval was calculated||21.1|0.1|
84477249|NCT03956225|168705835|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in change from baseline in MGS was declared if the lower confidence limit (LCL) was greater than -5.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed effects repeated measures||Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean is presented. Least squares mean difference (iLux minus LipiFlow). Lower Confidence Limit is presented.||||-2.2|
84477250|NCT00321269|168705843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis- Treatment Arm X Time F (2, 116)=0.09, P\>F=0.90.||||0.90
84477251|NCT00321269|168705844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,110)=2.08; P=0.13||||||0.13
84477252|NCT00599027|168705921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Endpoint after 28 days of treatment|ANCOVA|Overall treatment effect tested using F-test(alpha=0.05;two-sided). Diff between least square means of the 2 groups calculated with two-sided 95% C.I||||||0.001
84477253|NCT00475540|168705927|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 software. One patient did not receive the assigned mesh treatment because the surgeon felt there was inadequate vaginal caliber, so non mesh repair was performed. This subject was analyzed in the non mesh group for the 3-month and 1-year outcomes rather than intent-to-treat approach. This subject was lost to follow-up after 12 months and not included in the 3-year analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-tests, Wilcoxon signed rank, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests continuous variables; X2 for categorical variables. Combined cure outcomes Fisher's exact test||Sample size primary outcome 1 year: 45 participants per arm, 20% difference success (70% no mesh and 90% mesh), alpha of .05 and 80% power, 15% loss to follow-up.||||<0.05
84477254|NCT01669811|168705959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|32.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||32.6|14.9|<0.0001
84477255|NCT01669811|168705960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|42.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||42.6|21.9|<0.0001
84477256|NCT01669811|168705961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.83|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||1.83|0.91|0.1452
84477257|NCT01669811|168705962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.18|0.97|0.0837
84477258|NCT01669811|168705963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.26|0.80|0.2678
84477259|NCT01669811|168705964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.12|0.62|0.6389
84477260|NCT01669811|168705965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.38|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.38|0.80|0.4485
84477261|NCT03337139|168705966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week weight loss, prior to randomization.||||.98
84477262|NCT03337139|168705966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 26 week weight loss||||.75
84531280|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||2.67|-3.97|0.701
84531281|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|4.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||4.78|-1.79|0.370
84531282|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|5.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||5.81|-0.71|0.125
84531283|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||5.50|-1.66|0.292
84531284|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT sscore|||6.11|-1.04|0.163
84531285|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||6.61|-0.46|0.087
84531286|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.92||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.92|-5.40|0.808
84531287|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||5.38|-6.31|0.874
84531288|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|4.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,FACIT score|||4.95|-6.58|0.780
84531289|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.85|0.29|0.033
84531290|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.10|-0.48|0.094
84531291|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||7.49|0.34|0.032
84531292|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|8.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||8.89|1.77|0.004
84531293|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.64|-5.19|0.808
84531294|NCT02504671|168813576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||7.48|-3.74|0.511
84531295|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.90|-1.04|0.888
84531296|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.46|-1.46|0.307
84531297|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.04|-1.95|0.041
84531298|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||0.32|-1.60|0.191
84531299|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.24|-2.16|0.014
84531300|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.45|-2.34|0.004
84531301|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.23|-1.94|0.656
84531302|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.57|-1.43|0.928
84531303|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.28|-1.68|0.788
84531304|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.30|-2.22|0.010
84531305|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.03|-1.89|0.059
84531306|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.48|-2.40|0.003
84531307|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.62|-2.53|0.001
84531308|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.76|-2.28|0.324
84531309|NCT02504671|168813577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.87|-2.02|0.432
84531310|NCT01951885|168813589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|47 patients per arm were needed to detect a 25% improvement in mucositis based on a one-sided test with 5% significance and 80% power.||||||0.05
84531311|NCT01951885|168813592|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative incidence methods are compared using the Gray test with a p-value \<0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84531312|NCT01951885|168813593|NON_INFERIORITY|Hospital stay will be compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p value of 0.05.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
84531313|NCT01951885|168813594|NON_INFERIORITY|TPN use will be compared using the Chi-square test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84531314|NCT01951885|168813595|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84531315|NCT01951885|168813596|NON_INFERIORITY|Progression-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
84531316|NCT01951885|168813599|NON_INFERIORITY|Infusion times will be compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84531317|NCT01951885|168813600|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531318|NCT01951885|168813601|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531319|NCT01951885|168813602|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84531320|NCT01951885|168813603|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531321|NCT01951885|168813605|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531322|NCT01951885|168813606|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531323|NCT01951885|168813607|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
84531324|NCT01687478|168813644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.8|||||The Confidence Interval is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between Olanzapine + Fluoxetine and Placebo + Fluoxetine.|||1.80|-5.04|
84531325|NCT01462318|168813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.153|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.153|0.894|
84531326|NCT01462318|168813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.063|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.063|0.951|
84531327|NCT01462318|168813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.127|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.127|0.880|
84531328|NCT01462318|168813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.145|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of maximum observed concentration \[Cmax\]).||1.145|0.930|
84531329|NCT01462318|168813675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.342|||||test/reference = dextromethorphan+DAC HYP/dextromethorphan|Pairwise comparison: dextromethorphan. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.342|0.764|
84531330|NCT01462318|168813683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.276|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.276|0.912|
84531331|NCT01462318|168813683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.075|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.075|0.952|
84531332|NCT01462318|168813683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.392|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.392|0.804|
84531333|NCT01462318|168813683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|1.238|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of Cmax).||1.238|1.005|
84531334|NCT01462318|168813685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.105|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.105|0.697|
84531335|NCT02227147|168813699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.4|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|66.6|||Chi-squared|||||66.6|14.2|=0.006
84531336|NCT02227147|168813700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.1|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|62.7|||Chi-squared|||||62.7|9.4|=0.013
84531337|NCT02227147|168813701|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|47.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - central reviewer||47.1|-9.0|=0.191
84531338|NCT02227147|168813701|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.7|||=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|39.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - central reviewer||39.1|-17.7|=0.464
84531339|NCT02227147|168813701|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|14.9|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|43.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - investigator||43.1|-13.4|=0.308
84531340|NCT02227147|168813701|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|23.6|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|51.3|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||51.3|-4.2|=0.106
84531341|NCT02227147|168813702|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|9.5|||=|0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.9|-6.9|=0.255
84531342|NCT02227147|168813702|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.8|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6||17.1|-15.6|=0.927
84531343|NCT02227147|168813702|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|18.6|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|37.8|||Chi-squared|||week 8||37.8|-0.7|=0.062
84531344|NCT02227147|168813703|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.1|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-5.6|=0.745
84531345|NCT02227147|168813704|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.8|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|13.7|||Chi-squared|||week 4||13.7|-21.3|=0.672
84531346|NCT02227147|168813704|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.5|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.6|||Chi-squared|||week 6||19.6|-18.5|=0.955
84531347|NCT02227147|168813704|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.6|||=|0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||week 8||16.7|-23.9|=0.727
84531348|NCT02227147|168813705|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.6|||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.4|=0.207
84531349|NCT02227147|168813706|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-13.3|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-30.5|=0.110
84531350|NCT00158600|168813709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.12||||0.0347||95.0|2.07|54.17||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in distance walked from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||54.17|2.07|0.0347
84531351|NCT00158600|168813710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.4||||0.0055||95.0|1.03|5.77||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in % predicted FVC from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||5.77|1.03|0.0055
84531352|NCT00158600|168813711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.18||||0.1093||95.0|-0.73|7.08||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in QMT from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||7.08|-0.73|0.1093
84531353|NCT00158600|168813712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.37||||0.8333||95.0|-3.83|3.09||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in PCS from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||3.09|-3.83|0.8333
84531354|NCT04078126|168813757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.054|0.3450
84531355|NCT04078126|168813758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.054|0.3675
84531356|NCT04078126|168813759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.047|0.7563
84531357|NCT04078126|168813760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.139|0.5419
84531358|NCT04078126|168813761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.18|-8.39|0.1337
84531359|NCT04078126|168813762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.29|0.0431
84531360|NCT04078126|168813763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||||1.81|-4.87|0.3625
84531361|NCT04078126|168813764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|0.003|0.0375
84531362|NCT04078126|168813765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.096|||ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.086|0.9089
84531363|NCT02149108|168813767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 favors Nintedanib.|||0.69|0.49|<0.0001
84531364|NCT02149108|168813768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio below 1 favors Nintedanib.|||1.19|0.86|0.8659
84531365|NCT02149108|168813770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.47||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomization in the trial (less than 24 months vs. 24 months or more) and region.|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates benefit to Nintedanib.|||4.47|2.00|<0.0001
84531366|NCT04561375|168813815|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds ratio|0.37||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07|||proportional odds logistic regression|In the analysis, 100 µg and 150 µg were merged as one level since too few cases used 150 µg.||||1.07|0.13|0.067
84531367|NCT04561375|168813816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.8|26.0|||Regression, Linear|||||26|-5.8|0.147
84531368|NCT04561375|168813817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|34.0|||Regression, Linear|||||34|-18|0.463
84531369|NCT04561375|168813818|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-25|0.032
84531370|NCT00988442|168813832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Two-sided 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants with virologic suppression, defined as HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies/mL at week 48 between the standard of care and standard of care + enhanced telephone support groups.||||1.000
84531371|NCT02623348|168813876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|linear mixed modeling|||||||<0.01
84531372|NCT04620135|168813887|SUPERIORITY||The least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.31||Analyzed as ANCOVA with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with MCMC and regression-based multiple imputation to impute missing data.|ANCOVA||||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint employed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and regression based multiple imputation (MI) techniques to impute missing data. The least squares (LS) mean difference (netarsudil - ripasudil) was presented with a 2-sided p-value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A success criterion for the superiority of netarsudil to ripasudil was defined as the 2-sided p value ≤ 0.05 for testing the difference (netarsudil QD - ripasudil BID) to 0 and the point estimate of the LS mean difference of \< 0.|-1.31|-2.17|<0.00001
84531373|NCT00535587|168813910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.94|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
84531374|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.88|1.17|
84531375|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.35|0.91|
84531376|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.74|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.93|
84531377|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.63|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.63|1.55|
84531378|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.13|2.21|
84531379|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.18|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.07|
84531380|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.||2.97|1.36|
84540759|NCT03718832|168832713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.49781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.95579||0.3675252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93658|42.9322||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||42.9322|-15.93658|0.3675252
84531381|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.73|
84531382|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.50|1.42|
84531383|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.2|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.20|1.43|
84531384|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.17|
84531385|NCT00546572|168813914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.09|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.09|2.69|
84531386|NCT00546572|168813915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|49.9|||||Exact 2-sided CI (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS expressed as a percentage.|"Serotype 6A: difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS, expressed as a percentage.~Statistical significance was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) was \> 0."||49.9|37.4|
84718935|NCT06140290|169189927|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|115.94|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||115.94|101.20|
84531387|NCT00546572|168813916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.26|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||13.26|7.00|
84531388|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.85|
84531389|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.11|0.91|
84531390|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.92|0.68|
84540760|NCT03718832|168832713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.35256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.69115||0.6709307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8992|41.19407||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||41.19407|-63.8992|0.6709307
84477263|NCT03337139|168705966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 52 week weight loss||||.02
84477264|NCT03337139|168705967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week MVPA||||.12
84477265|NCT03337139|168705967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for changes in Phase I MVPA||Comparing groups on 52 week MVPA||||.16
84477266|NCT03337139|168705968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 26 week retention rates||||.43
84477267|NCT03337139|168705968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 52 week retention rates.||||.48
84477268|NCT03337139|168705969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on phone calls completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.64
84477269|NCT03337139|168705969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on text messages completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.499
84477270|NCT03337139|168705970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on TAQ scores at 52 weeks||||.86
84477271|NCT03337139|168705971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of weight during Phase II||||.002
84477272|NCT03337139|168705971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of eating during Phase II||||.001
84477273|NCT03337139|168705971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of physical activity during Phase II||||.25
84477274|NCT03337139|168705972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I perceived supportive accountability||Comparing groups on changes in perceived accountability during Phase II||||.005
84477275|NCT02373371|168706003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Main analysis:~* nbDPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with DPDT compared to the inclusion layer,~* nbCPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with conventional blue light,~The primary endpoint is:~differenceM3 = nbDPKAdispM3 - nbCPKAdispM3 The main analysis will consist of a signed Wilcoxon rank test for matched data testing whether difference M3 is significantly different from 0"||||0.8460
84477276|NCT02373371|168706005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
84477277|NCT02373371|168706006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
84477278|NCT03127852|168706024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 physical component summary score.||||.48
84477279|NCT03127852|168706024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 mental component summary score.||||.73
84477280|NCT03127852|168706025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of hospital visits.||||.02
84477281|NCT03127852|168706025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported emergency department visits.||||.12
84477282|NCT03127852|168706025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of clinic visits.||||.39
84477283|NCT03127852|168706025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of family physician visits.||||.28
84477284|NCT03127852|168706026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI maintenance sub-scale.||||.74
84477285|NCT03127852|168706026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI management sub-scale.||||.67
84477286|NCT03127852|168706026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI confidence sub-scale.||||.92
84477287|NCT03127852|168706027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ total score.||||.67
84477288|NCT03127852|168706027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ physical domain score.||||.43
84477289|NCT03127852|168706027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ emotional domain score.||||.64
84477290|NCT03127852|168706028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS anxiety sub-scale.||||.06
84477291|NCT03127852|168706028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS depression sub-scale.||||.77
84477292|NCT03127852|168706029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SEMCD6.||||.13
84477293|NCT01306032|168706049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.034
84477294|NCT01306032|168706049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.68
84477295|NCT00835003|168706054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations estimated a sample size of 1272 women with an estimated proportion of 8% in the 39 weeks Group and 14% in the 38 weeks group|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.65|0.31
84477296|NCT03859960|168706063|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.006
84477297|NCT03859960|168706063|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.23
84477298|NCT03859960|168706064|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.001
84477299|NCT03859960|168706064|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.731
84477300|NCT03859960|168706065|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.214
84477301|NCT03859960|168706065|OTHER|||||||0.993||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.993
84477302|NCT03859960|168706066|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.41
84718936|NCT06140290|169189928|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.02|134.22|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||134.22|108.02|
84477303|NCT03859960|168706066|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.676
84477304|NCT03859960|168706067|OTHER|||||||0.511||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.511
84477305|NCT03859960|168706067|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.248
84477306|NCT03859960|168706068|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.654
84477307|NCT03859960|168706068|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.025
84477308|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||These statistics refer to Day 7 and primary eye||9.2|0.2|0.040
84477309|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.0||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and primary eye||9.0|-4.1|0.457
84477310|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and primary eye||11.5|-3.5|0.283
84477311|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Least square means difference|3.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.3|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 7 and secondary eye||8.3|-1.3|0.147
84477312|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|3.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.4|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and secondary eye||10.4|-4.4|0.421
84477313|NCT02855450|168706070|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|4.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|13.0|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and secondary eye||13.0|-4.4|0.327
84477314|NCT01376245|168706075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.191|0.089|<0.001
84477315|NCT01376245|168706075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.230|0.129|<0.001
84477316|NCT01376245|168706075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.245|0.143|<0.001
84477317|NCT02219087|168706116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
84477318|NCT02219087|168706117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
84477319|NCT02219087|168706118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
84477320|NCT02219087|168706119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
84477321|NCT02219087|168706120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.843
84477322|NCT02219087|168706121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
84477323|NCT00138424|168706138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.24||||0.57|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.57
84477324|NCT00138424|168706138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.26||||0.53|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.53
84477325|NCT00138424|168706138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.3||||0.62|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.62
84477326|NCT00138424|168706138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.8||||0.1|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.10
84477327|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.07||||0.87|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.87
84477328|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.31||||0.46|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.46
84477329|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.41||||0.49|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.49
84477330|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.87||||0.05|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.05
84477331|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12||||0.78|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.78
84477332|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.52||||0.18|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.18
84477333|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
84477334|NCT00138424|168706139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
84477335|NCT02431468|168706172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||LSM and two-sided 80% CI were provided for treatment group differences and estimated endpoint values. A true mean difference in change from baseline in the SIB (one-sided at α=0.10) of at least 6.5 points in favor of bryostatin groups was assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary statistical objective for efficacy was to estimate the effect of bryostatin on the mean change in the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) after 12 weeks of treatment. A linear model was used for both estimation and significance testing. Primary analysis populations were defined as the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
84477336|NCT02431468|168706172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from baseline in SIB in the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
84477337|NCT03589885|168706192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1014.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|14940.62|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||14940.62|68.83|<0.0001
84477338|NCT03589885|168706192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.22|537.78|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||537.78|17.22|<0.0001
84477339|NCT03589885|168706193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|221.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||221.64|11.95|<0.0001
84477340|NCT03589885|168706193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.38|119.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.57|7.38|<0.0001
84477341|NCT03589885|168706194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|484.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||484.52|16.15|<0.0001
84477342|NCT03589885|168706194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|189.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.01|7.60|<0.0001
84477343|NCT01583452|168706198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||With a confidence interval of 95%, an alpha risk of 5% and a desired power of 80%; expecting a 24hrs difference between the intervention and the control group, we estimated 20 patients for each one of them.||||0.665
84477344|NCT01583452|168706199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.094
84531391|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.94|0.73|
84477345|NCT01583452|168706200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.059
84477346|NCT01583452|168706201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.830
84477347|NCT02157506|168706203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||=0.0059
84477348|NCT02157506|168706203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0001
84477349|NCT02157506|168706203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0062
84477350|NCT02157506|168706203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0086
84477351|NCT02157506|168706204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0076
84477352|NCT02157506|168706204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0052
84477353|NCT02157506|168706204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1064
84477354|NCT02157506|168706204|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1151
84477355|NCT02157506|168706205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4241
84477356|NCT02157506|168706205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4035
84477357|NCT02157506|168706205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8308
84477358|NCT02157506|168706205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1180
84477359|NCT02157506|168706206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0048
84477360|NCT02157506|168706206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0022
84477361|NCT02157506|168706206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0045
84477362|NCT02157506|168706206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0294
84477363|NCT02157506|168706207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2022
84477364|NCT02157506|168706207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0658
84477365|NCT02157506|168706207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0741
84477366|NCT02157506|168706207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0497
84531392|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.40|1.03|
84531393|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.35|1.02|
84531394|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.65|
84531395|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
84531396|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.79|
84531397|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.23|0.97|
84531398|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.89|
84531399|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.83|
84531400|NCT00546572|168813917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.14|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.14|1.60|
84531401|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|1.10|
84531402|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.34|0.91|
84531403|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.25|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.25|1.66|
84531404|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.21|
84531405|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.07|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.07|2.78|
84531406|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.67|0.80|
84531407|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.62|1.18|
84531408|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.13|0.62|
84531409|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.69|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.53|
84531410|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.1|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|1.37|
84531411|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.93|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|1.09|
84531412|NCT00546572|168813918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|9.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||9.82|5.36|
84531413|NCT00546572|168813919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.92|16.44|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||16.44|8.92|
84531414|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-5.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.6|-17.3|<0.001
84531415|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-9.1|0.129
84531416|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.3|-11.3|0.002
84531417|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.3|0.028
84531418|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-7.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-7.0|-18.5|<0.001
84531419|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-10.2|0.048
84531420|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-5.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.1|-14.2|<0.001
84531421|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.7|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.7|-7.9|<0.001
84531422|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chan & Zhang|-6.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-14.0|0.062
84531423|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||3.3|-11.3|0.284
84531424|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-10.6|-21.7|<0.001
84531425|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-3.5|0.539
84718937|NCT06140290|169189929|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.17|126.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||126.38|105.17|
84531426|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-11.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-11.1|-23.1|<0.001
84531427|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-9.0|-20.8|<0.001
84531428|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.4|-4.8|0.020
84531429|NCT00546572|168813920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1|||Limitation of arm movement: any; differe||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-4.9|0.042
84531430|NCT00546572|168813925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|New generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-15.2|0.034
84718938|NCT06140290|169189930|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|114.73|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||114.73|99.33|
84531431|NCT00546572|168813925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Aggravated generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-13.6|0.039
84531432|NCT00988065|168813930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
84531433|NCT00988065|168813930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.3|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||9.3|2.1|
84531434|NCT00988065|168813931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
84531435|NCT00988065|168813931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||2.5|-2.5|
84531436|NCT00988065|168813932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.0||||||95.0|-0.5|5.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||5.7|-0.5|
84531437|NCT00988065|168813932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||2.5|-2.5|
84531438|NCT03979820|168813935|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|544.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|340.57|870.09|||ANOVA||"The arm Phenelzine/Phenelzine + Tyramine represented the numerator. The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||870.09|340.57|
84531439|NCT03979820|168813935|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|123.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.09|196.95|||ANOVA||"The arm 10 mg BI 1467335/10 mg BI 1467335 + Tyramine represented the numerator.~The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||196.95|77.09|
84531440|NCT01229735|168813936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value is from likelihood ratio test of treatment group regression coefficient against 0.|Regression, Logistic|||The Odds Ratio (OR) for LEV vs TPM is based on logistic regression modeling of subject retention by treatment and center pooling category. A profile likelihood confidence interval for the OR is presented.||1.7|0.7|=0.7007
84531441|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the anxiety domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.52
84531442|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the depression domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.12
84531443|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the fatigue domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.54
84531444|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the pain interference domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.006
84531445|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the physical function domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.044
84531446|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the satisfaction with social role domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.85
84531447|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the sleep disturbances domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.88
84531448|NCT01565616|168813982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in raw scores of the pain intensity domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.53
84531449|NCT03176459|168813986|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment difference|-16.5||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-30.8|0.0117
84531450|NCT03176459|168813987|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 36|LSM treatment difference (SE)|-30.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|14.7|||ANCOVA|||||14.7|-75.9|0.0020
84531451|NCT03176459|168813988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557|7.906|||LSM probability from logistic regression|||||7.906|1.557|0.0012
84531452|NCT03176459|168813989|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-3.2||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0543
84531453|NCT03176459|168813990|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-11.4||||0.0096|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0096
84531454|NCT03176459|168813991|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-22.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0175
84531455|NCT03176459|168813992|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-19.6||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0542
84531456|NCT03176459|168813993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7536|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.7536
84531457|NCT03176459|168813994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3609
84531458|NCT00446199|168813995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531459|NCT00446199|168813995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531460|NCT00446199|168813995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
84718939|NCT06140290|169189931|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|108.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) model with treatment as a fixed effect.||108.38|77.76|
84718940|NCT06140290|169189931|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.33|122.19|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||122.19|86.33|
84531461|NCT00446199|168813996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/ van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531462|NCT00446199|168813996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531463|NCT00446199|168813996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531464|NCT00446199|168813997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531465|NCT00446199|168813997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531466|NCT00446199|168813997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0096
84531467|NCT00446199|168813998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531468|NCT00446199|168813998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531469|NCT00446199|168813998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
84531470|NCT00446199|168813999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531471|NCT00446199|168813999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531472|NCT00446199|168813999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3 mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531473|NCT00446199|168814000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531474|NCT00446199|168814000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531475|NCT00446199|168814000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
84531476|NCT00446199|168814001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0314
84531477|NCT00446199|168814001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8780
84531478|NCT00446199|168814001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.5908
84531479|NCT00446199|168814002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0027
84531480|NCT00446199|168814002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4463
84531481|NCT00446199|168814002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0303
84531482|NCT00446199|168814003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4397||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4397
84726082|NCT00674609|169204437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|2.47||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|8.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||8.81|-3.87|0.443
84531483|NCT00446199|168814003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0132
84531484|NCT00446199|168814003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.3250
84531485|NCT00446199|168814004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9555||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.9555
84531486|NCT00446199|168814004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1743||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.1743
84531487|NCT00446199|168814004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4395
84531488|NCT00446199|168814005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8966||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8966
84531489|NCT00446199|168814005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7512||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.7512
84531490|NCT00446199|168814005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8751||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8751
84531491|NCT00446199|168814006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1067||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.1067
84531492|NCT00446199|168814006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.6011
84531493|NCT00446199|168814006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4408||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.4408
84531494|NCT00446199|168814007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.0144
84531495|NCT00446199|168814007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5589
84531496|NCT00446199|168814007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5500
84531497|NCT00446199|168814008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.2179
84531498|NCT00446199|168814008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7749||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.7749
84531499|NCT00446199|168814008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8307||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.8307
84531500|NCT00446199|168814009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.2|-22.0||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-22.0|-33.2|<0.0001
84531501|NCT00446199|168814009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.8|-16.6||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-16.6|-27.8|<0.0001
84531502|NCT00446199|168814009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0007||95.0|-15.4|-4.2||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline||-4.2|-15.4|0.0007
84531503|NCT00446199|168814010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.9|17.8||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||17.8|-29.9|<0.0001
84531504|NCT00446199|168814010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.2|-8.1||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-8.1|-20.2|<0.0001
84531505|NCT00446199|168814010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0054||95.0|-14.6|-2.5||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-2.5|-14.6|0.0054
84531506|NCT00446199|168814011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.859||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.859|-1.280|<0.0001
84531507|NCT00446199|168814011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.013|-0.593||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.593|-1.013|<0.0001
84540761|NCT03718832|168832713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.912496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.34891||0.6766844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.95358|33.12859||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||33.12859|-50.95358|0.6766844
84531508|NCT00446199|168814011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361||||0.0007||95.0|-0.57|-0.152||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.152|-0.570|0.0007
84531509|NCT00446199|168814012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.458||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.458|-0.813|<0.0001
84531510|NCT00446199|168814012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.205||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.205|-0.560|<0.0001
84531511|NCT00446199|168814012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0233||95.0|-0.381|-0.028||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between E2 (0.3) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.028|-0.381|0.0233
84531512|NCT04394351|168814034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|392.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||392.82|7.37|<0.0001
84531513|NCT04394351|168814034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|399.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||399.54|5.47|<0.0001
84531514|NCT04394351|168814035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|178.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.84|1682.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1682.4|18.84|<0.0001
84531515|NCT04394351|168814035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|410.23||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||410.23|7.45|<0.0001
84531516|NCT04394351|168814036|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-107.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.249|-74.9|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-74.900|-139.249|<0.0001
84531517|NCT04394351|168814036|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-98.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.463|-65.37||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-65.370|-132.463|<0.0001
84531518|NCT04394351|168814037|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0325|-0.7714|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7714|-1.0325|<0.0001
84531519|NCT04394351|168814037|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|-0.644||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6440|-0.9170|<0.0001
84531520|NCT04394351|168814038|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0095|-0.7568|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7568|-1.0095|<0.0001
84531521|NCT04394351|168814038|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.769|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9013|-0.6362||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6362|-0.9013|<0.0001
84531522|NCT04394351|168814039|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9500|-2.4400|<0.0001
84531523|NCT04394351|168814039|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.82||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.8200|-2.4500|<0.0001
84531524|NCT04394351|168814040|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.96|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9600|-3.3500|<0.0001
84531525|NCT04394351|168814040|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.62||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.6200|-3.3100|<0.0001
84531526|NCT04394351|168814041|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-2.63|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.63|-4.94|<0.0001
84531527|NCT04394351|168814041|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.1||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.10|-4.59|<0.0001
84531528|NCT04394351|168814042|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.038|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.038|-0.244|0.1526
84531529|NCT04394351|168814042|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.146||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.146|-0.155|0.9533
84531530|NCT04394351|168814043|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.527|3.422||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||3.422|-0.527|0.1507
84531531|NCT04394351|168814043|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.107|2.117||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||2.117|-2.107|0.9965
84531532|NCT04394351|168814044|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.03||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.030|-0.139|0.2064
84531533|NCT04394351|168814044|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.112||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.112|-0.069|0.6361
84531534|NCT04394351|168814045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.330|-0.072|0.2086
84531535|NCT04394351|168814045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.286||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.286|-0.088|0.2975
84531536|NCT04394351|168814046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.615|1.007||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.007|-4.615|0.2085
84531537|NCT04394351|168814046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.972|1.26||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.260|-3.972|0.3098
84531538|NCT04394351|168814047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.186||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.186|-0.046|0.2360
84531539|NCT04394351|168814047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.181||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.181|-0.037|0.1939
84531540|NCT03188666|168814106|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.6||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-51.8|0.0741
84531541|NCT03188666|168814107|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.9||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|30.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.9|-80.8|0.3726
84531542|NCT03188666|168814108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
84531543|NCT03188666|168814109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.6||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-53.9|0.0756
84531544|NCT03188666|168814110|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.8||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.1|30.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.5|-86.1|0.3407
84531545|NCT03188666|168814111|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.96|0.2656
84531546|NCT03188666|168814112|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.01|0.2651
84531547|NCT03188666|168814119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
84531548|NCT03188666|168814120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0027
84531549|NCT03188666|168814121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0047
84531550|NCT03188666|168814124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3663||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3663
84531551|NCT03188666|168814125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0010
84531552|NCT03188666|168814131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total new lesion volume per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
84531553|NCT03188666|168814132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total lesion activity per participant in new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0273
84531554|NCT03188666|168814133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2123||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2123
84531555|NCT03188666|168814134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1528
84531556|NCT02297438|168814172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.867||1-sided p-value from the adjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral vs. non-visceral) per Randomization.||0.867|0.529|0.0012
84531557|NCT02297438|168814173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.14778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.139||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.139|0.651|0.14778
84531558|NCT02297438|168814174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.1||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.100|0.805|0.154
84531559|NCT02297438|168814175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.066||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.066|0.762|0.206
84531560|NCT02297438|168814176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.315||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.095||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.095|0.825|0.135
84531561|NCT02297438|168814177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.392||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.346||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.346|0.825|0.117
84531562|NCT02297438|168814180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.673||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.673|0.533|0.471
84531563|NCT02297438|168814181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.621||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.621|0.474|0.383
84531564|NCT02297438|168814182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.082||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.082|0.725|0.248
84531565|NCT02297438|168814183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.349||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|2.509||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.509|0.731|0.189
84531566|NCT02297438|168814184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.36502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.286||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Log Rank||Assuming Cox proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.286|0.698|0.36502
84531567|NCT02297438|168814191|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.031||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.08|-0.02|0.1914
84531568|NCT02297438|168814192|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.358||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.83|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||5.83|0.88|0.0078
84531569|NCT02297438|168814193|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.476||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.92|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.92|-2.97|0.7862
84718941|NCT06140290|169189932|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.42|107.37|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.37|69.42|
84477367|NCT02157506|168706208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1842
84477368|NCT02157506|168706208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.3328
84477369|NCT02157506|168706208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1465
84477370|NCT02157506|168706208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2799
84477371|NCT02157506|168706209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2499|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2499
84477372|NCT02157506|168706209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8281
84477373|NCT02157506|168706209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4121
84531570|NCT00759902|168814247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|123.0||||||90.0|112.9|134.1|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||134.1|112.9|
84477374|NCT02157506|168706209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8592|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8592
84477375|NCT02157506|168706210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1391
84477376|NCT02157506|168706210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1724
84477377|NCT02157506|168706210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1245
84477378|NCT02157506|168706210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1690
84477379|NCT02157506|168706211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4936
84477380|NCT02157506|168706211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9920
84477381|NCT02157506|168706211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2789
84477382|NCT02157506|168706211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9100
84477383|NCT03103906|168706217|OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.56||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|25.07|||Chi-squared|||||25.07|-19.99|0.3334
84477384|NCT00764478|168706225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.7||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.7|-6.3|0.0136
84477385|NCT00764478|168706225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.2||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.2|-6.9|0.0100
84477386|NCT00764478|168706226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.8|0.0100
84477387|NCT00764478|168706226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
84477388|NCT00764478|168706227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5352||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5352
84477389|NCT00764478|168706227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4274
84477390|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
84477391|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.3|-4.4|0.0003
84477392|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.8|-5.4|<0.0001
84477393|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.9|-5.5|<0.0001
84477394|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-1.3|-5.7|0.0021
84477395|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-2.0|-6.4|0.0002
84531571|NCT00759902|168814249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|98.5|104.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||104.9|98.5|
84531572|NCT00759902|168814250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|102.9||||||90.0|99.3|106.5|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||106.5|99.3|
84477396|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-4.4|0.1907
84477397|NCT00764478|168706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.4|-5.8|0.0238
84477398|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.2922
84477399|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.1001
84477400|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
84477401|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
84477402|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0194
84477403|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0841|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0841
84477404|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.4858
84477405|NCT00764478|168706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2496|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2496
84477406|NCT00764478|168706230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2912
84477407|NCT00764478|168706230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1151
84477408|NCT00764478|168706232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0019
84477409|NCT00764478|168706232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0045
84477410|NCT00764478|168706232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0112
84477411|NCT00764478|168706232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0021
84477412|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.4|<0.0001
84477413|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.3|0.0076
84477414|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
84477415|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.0040
84477416|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0061
84477417|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
84477418|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.5|0.1086
84477419|NCT00764478|168706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.0|-0.6|0.0376
84477420|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0005
84477421|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0026
84477422|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0007
84477423|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0002
84477424|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0387
84477425|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0059
84477426|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.3110
84477427|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0613
84477428|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0640
84477429|NCT00764478|168706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0139
84477430|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9708|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.9708
84477431|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.7891
84477432|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5222|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.5222
84477433|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8686|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.8686
84477434|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0696
84477435|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0049
84477436|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0196
84477437|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0032
84477438|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0061
84477439|NCT00764478|168706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0012
84477440|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0147
84477441|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0720
84477442|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1213|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1213
84477443|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0588|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0588
84531573|NCT05071313|168814274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||||||A/Victoria||1.14|0.89|
84531574|NCT05071313|168814274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28||||||A/Tasmania||1.28|0.97|
84531575|NCT05071313|168814274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05||||||B/Washington||1.05|0.79|
84531576|NCT05071313|168814274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||B/Phuket||1.10|0.85|
84531577|NCT04280705|168814290|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|1.12|<0.001
84531578|NCT04280705|168814314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.058
84531579|NCT04280705|168814315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.010
84531580|NCT04280705|168814327|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|1.08|0.002
84531581|NCT04280705|168814328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|1.12|<0.001
84531582|NCT04280705|168814329|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|1.10|<0.001
84531583|NCT04280705|168814330|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58||||||This analysis is for Asian participants||1.58|0.73|
84531584|NCT04280705|168814330|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants||1.72|0.91|
84531585|NCT04280705|168814330|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.57||||||This analysis is for White participants||1.57|1.06|
84531586|NCT04280705|168814330|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.58||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||2.58|1.10|
84531587|NCT04280705|168814331|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.55|1.10|
84531588|NCT04280705|168814331|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants||1.73|0.94|
84531589|NCT04280705|168814332|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||This analysis is for Male participants||1.56|1.09|
84531590|NCT04280705|168814332|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.66||||||This analysis is for Female participants||1.66|1.03|
84531591|NCT03222583|168814333|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 96% if the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage was \> 90%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.9||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||98.9|95.5|
84531592|NCT03222583|168814334|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT1-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 97% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 91%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|98.3|
84531593|NCT03222583|168814335|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT2-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 95% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 89%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|95.4|
84531594|NCT00292188|168814353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.01||95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline mean pain score and pooled country||The study is powered to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 between treatment groups in the weekly mean pain score. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in weekly mean pain scores between pregabalin and placebo.||-0.15|-1.09|0.010
84531595|NCT00292188|168814354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.031||95.0|-1.6|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.08|-1.60|0.031
84531596|NCT00292188|168814355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003||95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.33|-1.61|0.003
84531597|NCT00292188|168814356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.099||95.0|-3.69|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||0.32|-3.69|0.099
84531598|NCT00292188|168814357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.819||95.0|-1.87|2.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.34|-1.87|0.819
84531599|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.099||95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 1||0.05|-0.56|0.099
84531600|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.15||95.0|-0.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 2: FAS||0.10|-0.62|0.150
84531601|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01||95.0|-0.93|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 3: FAS||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
84531602|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.137||95.0|-0.74|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 4: FAS||0.10|-0.74|0.137
84531603|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.041||95.0|-0.9|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 5: FAS||-0.02|-0.90|0.041
84531604|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.009||95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 6: FAS||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
84531605|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.035||95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 7: FAS||-0.04|-1.01|0.035
84531606|NCT00292188|168814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.019||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 8: FAS||-0.10|-1.10|0.019
84531607|NCT00292188|168814359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.032||95.0|1.05|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||30% responder||3.21|1.05|0.032
84531608|NCT00292188|168814359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.088||95.0|0.92|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||50% responder||3.46|0.92|0.088
84531609|NCT00292188|168814360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|-1.25|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.34|-1.25|0.001
84531610|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0||95.0|-15.89|-5.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Disturbance||-5.55|-15.89|0.000
84531611|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.7||95.0|-4.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Snoring||6.40|-4.30|0.700
84531612|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.04||95.0|-11.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Awaken Short of Breath/Headache||-0.28|-11.62|0.040
84531613|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.846||95.0|-0.92|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Quantity||0.76|-0.92|0.846
84726083|NCT00674609|169204437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.84||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||7.13|-5.46|0.793
84531614|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.001||95.0|4.19|17.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Adequacy||17.07|4.19|0.001
84531615|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.324||95.0|-2.3|6.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Somnolence||6.92|-2.30|0.324
84531616|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0||95.0|-14.71|-4.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-6||-4.33|-14.71|0.000
84531617|NCT00292188|168814361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0||95.0|-11.52|-3.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-9||-3.56|-11.52|0.000
84531618|NCT00292188|168814362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.267||95.0|0.76|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.64|0.76|0.267
84531619|NCT00292188|168814370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.09||95.0|-8.28|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-8.28|0.090
84531620|NCT04709835|168814380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.27|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.27|-0.49|0.7144
84531621|NCT04709835|168814380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.3373|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.74|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.74|-0.11|0.3373
84531622|NCT04709835|168814380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.16|-0.66|0.4260
84531623|NCT04709835|168814381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.74|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.74|0.53|
84531624|NCT04709835|168814381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|2.32|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.32|0.76|
84531625|NCT04709835|168814382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44|1.7|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.70|0.44|
84531626|NCT04709835|168814382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|2.03|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.03|0.56|
84531627|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|10.16|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||10.16|-0.16|
84531628|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|5.41|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||5.41|-9.20|
84531629|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.82|16.4|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||16.40|-4.82|
84531630|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.4|10.65|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||10.65|-12.40|
84531631|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.64|15.42|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||15.42|-10.64|
84531632|NCT04709835|168814383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|12.88|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||12.88|-13.39|
84531633|NCT04709835|168814395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.7351|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.28|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.28|-0.48|0.7351
84531634|NCT04709835|168814395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.30|-0.50|0.7524
84531635|NCT04709835|168814395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.33|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.33|-0.48|0.8083
84531636|NCT00368979|168814433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.003||95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.7|0.003
84718942|NCT06140290|169189932|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|124.7|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.70|76.99|
84531637|NCT00974974|168814438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
84531638|NCT00974974|168814439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
84531639|NCT01659866|168814468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84531640|NCT00415194|168814506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.082
84531641|NCT00415194|168814507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.166
84531642|NCT00415194|168814508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Unadjusted normal distribution|p-value is based on an unadjusted, normal distribution approximation for differences in rates.||||||0.061
84531643|NCT00415194|168814509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.811
84531644|NCT00415194|168814510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.07|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.07|0.69|0.20
84531645|NCT01297465|168814512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and country|The primary efficacy variable was to be analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, adjusted for treatment and country.|The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes is less than (-3) or greater than (+3) between the two treatment arm. The alternate hypothesis was that the difference is between (-3) and (+3). The study had 80% power to show that the group randomized to Pergoveris® has an absolute difference of no more than 3 oocytes retrieved in comparison to the group randomized to GONAL-f®/Pergoveris®||0.59|-3.15|
84531646|NCT01971970|168814549|EQUIVALENCE|The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,FDR 1.5fold,FDRvalue≤ 0.05|||The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.||||< 0.05
84531647|NCT01971970|168814550|OTHER|||||||0.2616||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults on continued anti-TNF therapy over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding continued anti-TNF therapy, reflecting maintenance of response at 12 and 18 months.||||0.2616
84531648|NCT01971970|168814551|OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults with therapy intensification over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding the escalation of anti-TNF therapy (dose increase above 5 mg/kg and/or interval shortening to less than 8 weeks)||||0.0177
84531649|NCT00117325|168814569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.67|0.050
84531650|NCT00117325|168814570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Week 1-4|ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.05|-0.74|0.027
84531651|NCT00117325|168814571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatment.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis.|Effectiveness of study medication for relieving non-allergic rhinitis symptoms over the entire treatment period (Total response) was analyzed.|||0.184
84531652|NCT00117325|168814572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.70|0.051
84531653|NCT00117325|168814573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.304||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis||0.03|-0.64|0.076
84531654|NCT00117325|168814574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.75|-9.77|0.093
84531655|NCT00117325|168814575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.372||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.90|-11.8|0.023
84531656|NCT00117325|168814576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.01|-0.24|0.061
84531657|NCT00117325|168814576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal Congestion||0.01|-0.25|0.061
84531658|NCT00117325|168814576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.03|-0.22|0.138
84531659|NCT00117325|168814577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.02|-0.24|0.087
84531660|NCT00117325|168814577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
84531661|NCT00117325|168814577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.25|0.106
84531662|NCT00117325|168814578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rhinorrhea||-0.00|-0.26|0.048
84531663|NCT00117325|168814578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal congestion||0.01|-0.26|0.076
84718943|NCT06140290|169189933|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.1|107.68|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.68|73.10|
84531664|NCT00117325|168814578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg for post-nasal drip||0.04|-0.22|0.164
84531665|NCT00117325|168814579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.03|-0.22|0.136
84531666|NCT00117325|168814579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1||95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||0.02|-0.24|0.100
84531667|NCT00117325|168814579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.24|0.100
84531668|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 1||-0.10|-0.80|0.011
84531669|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 2||0.05|-0.70|0.089
84531670|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 3||0.00|-0.79|0.052
84531671|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 4||0.13|-0.65|0.187
84531672|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.298||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 5||0.12|-0.72|0.164
84531673|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 6||-0.15|-1.00|0.008
84531674|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 7||0.05|-0.80|0.082
84531675|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 8||0.20|-0.67|0.296
84531676|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 9||0.24|-0.62|0.383
84531677|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 10||-0.00|-0.92|0.048
84531678|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.172||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 11||0.29|-0.64|0.469
84531679|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 12||0.12|-0.80|0.151
84531680|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 13||0.12|-0.81|0.145
84531681|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 14||0.21|-0.68|0.297
84531682|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 15||0.07|-0.82|0.094
84531683|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 16||0.03|-0.89|0.064
84531684|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.563||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 17||-0.09|-1.03|0.019
84718944|NCT06140290|169189933|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.74|120.83|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||120.83|78.74|
84531685|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.457||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 18||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
84531686|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.633||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 19||-0.17|-1.09|0.007
84531687|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 20||0.24|-0.69|0.348
84531688|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.76|0.243
84531689|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 22||-0.12|-1.07|0.014
84531690|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.474||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 23||0.01|-0.96|0.055
84531691|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 24||0.02|-0.95|0.062
84531692|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 25||0.05|-0.91|0.079
84531693|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 26||-0.10|-1.06|0.019
84531694|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 27||0.01|-0.97|0.056
84531695|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 28||-0.11|-1.20|0.018
84531696|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 1||0.1|-0.56|0.194
84531697|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 2||0.08|-0.61|0.134
84531698|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 3||0.05|-0.67|0.091
84531699|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 4||0.08|-0.64|0.131
84531700|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 5||0.23|-0.49|0.483
84531701|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 6||0.10|-0.70|0.137
84531702|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 7||0.10|-0.69|0.142
84531703|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 8||0.15|-0.64|0.220
84531704|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.79|0.081
84531705|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 10||-0.04|-0.87|0.034
84531706|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 11||0.11|-0.74|0.150
84531707|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.333||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 12||0.08|-0.74|0.111
84531708|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 13||0.19|-0.69|0.261
84531709|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 14||0.09|-0.78|0.123
84531710|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 15||0.01|-0.84|0.056
84531711|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.566||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 16||-0.13|-1.00|0.011
84531712|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 17||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
84531713|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 18||0.13|-0.74|0.175
84531714|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.449||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 19||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
84531715|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.315||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 20||0.12|-0.75|0.152
84531716|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.424||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 21||0.02|-0.87|0.063
84531717|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.454||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 22||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
84531718|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 23||0.14|-0.77|0.179
84531719|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 24||-0.04|-0.92|0.034
84531720|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 25||0.31|-0.62|0.505
84531721|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.317||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 26||0.15|-0.79|0.186
84531722|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.283||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 27||0.18|-0.75|0.234
84531723|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 28||-0.12|-1.17|0.017
84531724|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 1||0.06|-0.70|0.095
84531725|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 2||0.15|-0.61|0.236
84531726|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.255||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 3||0.14|-0.65|0.205
84531727|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 4||0.05|-0.73|0.084
84531728|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 5||0.26|-0.55|0.475
84531729|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 6||0.14|-0.73|0.178
84531730|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 7||0.04|-0.85|0.071
84531731|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 8||0.33|-0.55|0.621
84531732|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 9||0.25|-0.66|0.372
84531733|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
84531734|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 11||0.14|-0.75|0.183
84531735|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.226||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 12||0.22|-0.67|0.320
84531736|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.188||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 13||0.28|-0.66|0.431
84477444|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0200
84477445|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0017
84477446|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2401
84477447|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0009
84477448|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0525|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0525
84477449|NCT00764478|168706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0025
84477450|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0377|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0377
84477451|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0771
84477452|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1264
84477453|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0280
84477454|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0583|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0583
84477455|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0021
84477456|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0866
84531737|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 14||0.15|-0.75|0.191
84477457|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0048
84477458|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0147
84477459|NCT00764478|168706237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0030
84477460|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0104
84477461|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0005
84477462|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0692
84477463|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0128
84477464|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0809|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0809
84477465|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0260
84477466|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2576|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2576
84477467|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0077
84477468|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.3960
84477469|NCT00764478|168706238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0141|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0141
84477470|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.9|-5.1|0.0056
84477471|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.8|-5.0|0.0068
84477472|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-5.0|0.0743
84477473|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-5.9|0.0177
84477474|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-1.0|-6.6|0.0081
84477475|NCT00764478|168706239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-6.1|0.0247
84477476|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-0.6|0.9808
84477477|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-0.9|0.2830
84477478|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.6|-0.6|0.9751
84477479|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.7879
84477480|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-0.8|0.9654
84477481|NCT00764478|168706240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-0.4|0.3917
84477482|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.8|0.0120
84477483|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.5|-2.2|0.0011
84477484|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-1.2|0.6885
84531738|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 15||-0.02|-0.94|0.043
84477485|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-2.1|0.0398
84477486|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-2.1|0.0258
84477487|NCT00764478|168706241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.5|-2.5|0.0031
84477488|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.6|-3.2|0.0033
84477489|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-2.5|0.0622
84477490|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-3.6|0.0083
84477491|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-3.8|0.0064
84477492|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.9|-4.3|0.0022
84477493|NCT00764478|168706242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-3.7|0.0196
84477494|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.1883
84477495|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.3|0.1684
84477496|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.9|0.9522
84477497|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.0|-1.8|0.0514
84477498|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.0|-1.8|0.0531
84477499|NCT00764478|168706243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.2|0.0078
84477500|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.5|-0.7|0.7746
84477501|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.0|0.2754
84477502|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.9109
84477503|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.6|0.7295
84477504|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.8|-0.7|0.9800
84477505|NCT00764478|168706244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.5|0.5122
84477506|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.9|0.2191
84477507|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.0|-1.1|0.0589
84477508|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.0|0.3683
84477509|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.3|0.0982
84477510|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.3|0.1969
84477511|NCT00764478|168706245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.0|0.5615
84477512|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0101
84477513|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0146
84477514|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.4|0.0861
84477515|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-1.6|0.0342
84531739|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.619||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
84531740|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.495||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.02|-0.97|0.040
84531741|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 18||0.18|-0.71|0.249
84531742|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 19||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
84531743|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 20||0.23|-0.71|0.321
84531744|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.568||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 21||-0.09|-1.04|0.019
84531745|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.419||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 22||0.07|-0.91|0.092
84531746|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 23||0.28|-0.69|0.404
84531747|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.546||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 24||-0.06|-1.03|0.027
84531748|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 25||0.26|-0.71|0.357
84531749|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 26||0.10|-0.90|0.114
84531750|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 27||0.19|-0.81|0.228
84718945|NCT06140290|169189934|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.01|112.17|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||112.17|79.01|
84531751|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.16|-1.29|0.012
84531752|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 1||0.30|-0.49|0.643
84531753|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 2||0.10|-0.66|0.150
84531754|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 3||0.12|-0.70|0.162
84531755|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 4||0.17|-0.65|0.242
84531756|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.223||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 5||0.18|-0.63|0.278
84531757|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.282||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 6||0.15|-0.71|0.200
84531758|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 7||0.27|-0.60|0.456
84531759|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 8||0.04|-0.81|0.076
84531760|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.396||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.85|0.084
84531761|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.481||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.02|-0.94|0.040
84531762|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 11||0.06|-0.87|0.090
84531763|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.432||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 12||0.02|-0.88|0.060
84531764|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.277||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 13||0.20|-0.75|0.252
84531765|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 14||0.19|-0.79|0.229
84531766|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 15||0.08|-0.83|0.109
84531767|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.01|-0.96|
84531768|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.23|-1.17|0.003
84531769|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 18||0.15|-0.81|0.182
84531770|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 19||0.15|-0.75|0.194
84531771|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 20||0.10|-0.80|0.129
84531772|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.292||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.77|0.232
84531773|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 22||-0.02|-0.98|0.042
84531774|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.356||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 23||0.13|-0.84|0.150
84531775|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.398||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 24||0.06|-0.86|0.090
84531776|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 25||0.46|-0.52|0.909
84531777|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 26||0.26|-0.73|0.354
84531778|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 27||0.20|-0.78|0.245
84531779|NCT00117325|168814580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.601||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.03|-1.17|0.038
84531780|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Overall comparison of treatment groups for incidence of ILI|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84531781|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparision of ILI incidence in subjects age 50 and older at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84531782|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Comparison of ILI in subjects age \< 50 at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84531783|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84531784|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects not vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
84531785|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in male subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84531786|NCT00895947|168814581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in female subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
84531787|NCT00895947|168814582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting any cold/flu symptoms during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
84531788|NCT00895947|168814582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe feverishness|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84531789|NCT00895947|168814582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe head congestion|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84531790|NCT00895947|168814582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe sore throat|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
84531791|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to think clearly|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
84531792|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to sleep well|Chi-squared|||||||0.15
84531793|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to breathe easily|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84531794|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to walk, climb stairs and exercise|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
84531795|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to perform daily activities|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
84477516|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-2.0|0.0037
84477517|NCT00764478|168706246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-1.9|0.0096
84477518|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.4|-1.7|0.0019
84477519|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-1.2|0.0791
84477520|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-2.0|0.0006
84477521|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.2|-1.6|0.0123
84531796|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work outside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
84531797|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work inside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84531798|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to interact with others|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
84531799|NCT00895947|168814583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to live personal life|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
84531800|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they felt sick|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
84531801|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they missed work|Chi-squared|||||||0.88
84531802|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the doctor|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
84531803|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the pharmacy|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
84477522|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.0|0.0054
84477523|NCT00764478|168706247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-1.7|0.0350
84477524|NCT00643604|168706252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||0.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.69
84477525|NCT00643604|168706253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477526|NCT00643604|168706254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
84531804|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they took cold/flu medication|Chi-squared|||||||0.24
84531805|NCT00895947|168814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they skipped a planned activity|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
84531806|NCT00895947|168814585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a confirmed viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.61
84531807|NCT00895947|168814585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84531808|NCT00895947|168814585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe influenza infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84531809|NCT00895947|168814585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection other than influenza|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84531810|NCT00895947|168814586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting the definition of acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
84531811|NCT00895947|168814586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting with moderate/severe acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.06
84531812|NCT00895947|168814586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe febrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
84531813|NCT00895947|168814586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe afebrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84531814|NCT05472662|168814596|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|1.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||4.20|-0.48|0.113
84531815|NCT05472662|168814597|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.58||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.25|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||2.25|-1.10|0.483
84531816|NCT05472662|168814597|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.23||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.90|-1.45|0.782
84531817|NCT05472662|168814597|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.16|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.16|-1.97|0.599
84531818|NCT05472662|168814597|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.99|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.99|-1.24|0.815
84531819|NCT05472662|168814597|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.64|-2.01|0.294
84531820|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.061|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.061|-0.032|0.519
84531821|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.130|-0.009|0.085
84531822|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.054|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.054|-0.045|0.858
84531823|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.011||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.036|-0.058|0.632
84531824|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.003||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.031|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.031|-0.038|0.846
84531825|NCT05472662|168814598|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.021|-0.068|0.282
84531826|NCT04647721|168814610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.5. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was constructed using the repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.07|
84531827|NCT04647721|168814611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|6.35||||||||6.35|-6.35|
84531828|NCT04647721|168814612|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.74||||||||6.74|-3.08|
84531829|NCT02666352|168814616|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
84531830|NCT02666352|168814616|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
84531831|NCT02666352|168814617|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.31||||||||2.31|0.88|
84531832|NCT02666352|168814617|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15||||||90.0|1.33|3.48||||||||3.48|1.33|
84531833|NCT02666352|168814618|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
84531834|NCT02666352|168814618|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
84531835|NCT02666352|168814619|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.15||||||||2.15|0.81|
84531836|NCT02666352|168814619|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
84531837|NCT02666352|168814625|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
84531838|NCT02666352|168814625|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.16||||||||1.16|0.61|
84531839|NCT02666352|168814626|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.11||||||||1.11|0.58|
84531840|NCT02666352|168814626|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.86||||||90.0|0.62|1.18||||||||1.18|0.62|
84531841|NCT02666352|168814627|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.05||||||||1.05|0.57|
84531842|NCT02666352|168814627|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.99||||||||0.99|0.54|
84531843|NCT02666352|168814628|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.13||||||||1.13|0.61|
84531844|NCT02666352|168814628|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.01||||||||1.01|0.55|
84531845|NCT02666352|168814629|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||||1.15|0.60|
84531846|NCT02666352|168814629|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.13||||||||1.13|0.59|
84531847|NCT02666352|168814633|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.9||||||||0.90|0.52|
84531848|NCT02666352|168814633|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.86||||||||0.86|0.50|
84531849|NCT02666352|168814634|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.86||||||||0.86|0.48|
84531850|NCT02666352|168814634|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.61||||||90.0|0.46|0.82||||||||0.82|0.46|
84531851|NCT02666352|168814635|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.01||||||||1.01|0.62|
84531852|NCT02666352|168814635|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.02||||||||1.02|0.63|
84531853|NCT02666352|168814636|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.05||||||||1.05|0.61|
84531854|NCT02666352|168814636|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
84531855|NCT02666352|168814637|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.89||||||||0.89|0.57|
84531856|NCT02666352|168814637|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.91||||||||0.91|0.58|
84531857|NCT02666352|168814640|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.58||||||||1.58|0.85|
84531858|NCT02666352|168814640|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.85||||||||1.85|1.00|
84531859|NCT02666352|168814641|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.68||||||||1.68|0.91|
84531860|NCT02666352|168814641|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.58||||||90.0|1.17|2.14||||||||2.14|1.17|
84531861|NCT02666352|168814642|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.33||||||||1.33|0.60|
84531862|NCT02666352|168814642|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.34||||||||1.34|0.60|
84531863|NCT02666352|168814643|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.30|0.45|
84531864|NCT02666352|168814643|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.14||||||||1.14|0.40|
84531865|NCT02666352|168814644|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.6||||||||1.60|0.90|
84531866|NCT02666352|168814644|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.87||||||||1.87|1.06|
84531867|NCT02701413|168814651|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84531868|NCT02701413|168814655|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84531869|NCT04795908|168814667|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.1997|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1997
84531870|NCT04795908|168814668|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
84531871|NCT04795908|168814669|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.6228|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6228
84531872|NCT04795908|168814670|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8984
84531873|NCT04795908|168814671|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8188|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8188
84531874|NCT04795908|168814672|NON_INFERIORITY|Looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0288|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0288
84531875|NCT04795908|168814673|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0524|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0524
84531876|NCT00311311|168814677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.07||P-value and 95% CI for least square (LS) mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.070|0.001|0.0445
84531877|NCT00311311|168814677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.064||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||0.064|0.004|0.0288
84531878|NCT00311311|168814677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.060|0.004|0.0269
84531879|NCT00311311|168814677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.060|-0.005|0.0970
84531880|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 12 Months Post-transplant||1.09|0.39|<.0001
84531881|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.67|0.15|0.0022
84531882|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.19||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.19|-0.03|0.1612
84531883|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 12 Months Post-transplant||0.86|0.26|0.0005
84531884|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 18 Months Post-transplant||1.02|0.30|0.0006
84531885|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.61|0.08|0.0126
84531886|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.17|-0.04|0.2380
84531887|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 18 Months Post-transplant||0.88|0.27|0.0003
84531888|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 24 Months Post-transplant||1.00|0.17|0.0065
84531889|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.60|-0.04|0.0845
84531890|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.06|0.3742
84531891|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 24 Months Post-transplant||0.92|0.27|0.0006
84531892|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.03||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 36 Months Post-transplant||1.03|-0.16|0.1488
84531893|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.62||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.62|-0.33|0.5460
84531894|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.12|0.7511
84531895|NCT00311311|168814680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 36 Months Post-transplant||1.06|0.20|0.0048
84531896|NCT00311311|168814681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.91||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.91|-0.36|0.1757
84531897|NCT00311311|168814681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.89||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.89|-0.00|0.0509
84531898|NCT00311311|168814681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.31||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.31|-0.09|0.0683
84531899|NCT00311311|168814682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.47||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|30.85||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.85|-105.79|0.2741
84531900|NCT00311311|168814682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.97||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.48|37.53||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||37.53|-77.48|0.4865
84531901|NCT00311311|168814682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.54|57.59||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||57.59|-62.54|0.9339
84531902|NCT00311311|168814683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.011||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.011|-0.005|0.4892
84718946|NCT06140290|169189934|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.04|124.16|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.16|86.04|
84718947|NCT03301467|169189942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.9|0.9670
84531903|NCT00311311|168814683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.012||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||0.012|-0.000|0.0514
84531904|NCT00311311|168814683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.020|-0.002|0.1180
84531905|NCT00311311|168814684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.93||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||8.93|2.20|0.0016
84531906|NCT00311311|168814684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||6.80|1.01|0.0091
84718948|NCT03301467|169189943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test||"Test for normality showed that mean change and mean percent change were not normally distributed. As per SAP, Van Elteren's test was then applied to test mean percent change.~SAP=Statistical Analysis Protocol"|||||0.3083
84540762|NCT03718832|168832714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.870464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024497||0.356123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851219|2.110291||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.110291|-5.851219|0.356123
84718949|NCT03301467|169189944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.4591
84531907|NCT00311311|168814684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||6.10|-1.60|0.2468
84531908|NCT00311311|168814685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.94||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||3.94|-2.05|0.5282
84718950|NCT03301467|169189945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.3106
84718951|NCT03301467|169189946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.5|0.3368
84531909|NCT00311311|168814685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.07||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||5.07|-2.53|0.5057
84531910|NCT00311311|168814685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|7.18||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.18|-4.00|0.5701
84531911|NCT00311311|168814687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||12 months post-transplant||0.48|0.03|0.0280
84531912|NCT00311311|168814687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||24 months post-transplant||0.48|0.04|0.0190
84531913|NCT00311311|168814687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||36 months post-transplant||0.60|-0.07|0.1182
84531914|NCT00311311|168814688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.49||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.49|-2.09|0.7361
84531915|NCT00311311|168814688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.26||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.26|-2.32|0.5549
84531916|NCT00311311|168814688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|2.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.17|-3.69|0.6058
84531917|NCT00311311|168814689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.84||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||2.84|-1.63|0.5902
84531918|NCT00311311|168814689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.7536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.95||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.95|-2.68|0.7536
84531919|NCT00311311|168814689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|1.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||1.86|-4.53|0.4066
84531920|NCT00311311|168814690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.47||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|30.4||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.40|-11.46|0.3678
84718952|NCT03301467|169189947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0401
84718953|NCT03301467|169189948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|21.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||21.85|-0.16|0.0534
84718954|NCT03301467|169189949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.67||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||19.78|1.56|0.0221
84531921|NCT00311311|168814690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.72||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|27.97||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||27.97|-6.53|0.2179
84531922|NCT00311311|168814690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|38.32||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||38.32|-14.39|0.3663
84531923|NCT00311311|168814691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.8|0.0|0.0410
84531924|NCT00311311|168814691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.6|0.0|0.0275
84531925|NCT00311311|168814691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.6|-0.1|0.1841
84531926|NCT00311311|168814692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.3||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|6.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||12 months post-transplant||6.3|-108.9|0.0797
84531927|NCT00311311|168814692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.2341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|22.2||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||22.2|-88.7|0.2341
84531928|NCT00311311|168814692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|59.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||59.8|-90.3|0.6854
84531929|NCT00311311|168814693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.6|-36.9||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||-36.9|-108.6|0.0002
84531930|NCT00311311|168814693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|-26.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||-26.6|-108.5|0.0017
84531931|NCT00311311|168814693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.2|-6.5||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||-6.5|-118.2|0.0293
84531932|NCT00311311|168814695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Consent to Conversion||||0.2573
84531933|NCT00311311|168814695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Conversion to Month 12||||0.6386
84531934|NCT00311311|168814695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 12 to Month 24||||0.0709
84531935|NCT00311311|168814695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
84531936|NCT00311311|168814696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Consent to Conversion||||0.4286
84531937|NCT00311311|168814696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Conversion to Month 12||||1.0000
84531938|NCT00311311|168814696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 12 to Month 24||||1.0000
84531939|NCT00311311|168814696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
84531940|NCT00311311|168814697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|14.7||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||14.7|-50.7|0.2718
84718955|NCT03301467|169189950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|11.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||11.08|-3.08|0.2638
84531941|NCT00311311|168814697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|12.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||12.1|-41.6|0.2729
84531942|NCT00311311|168814697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|7.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.3|-23.8|0.2902
84531943|NCT02615171|168814714|OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0106
84531944|NCT02615171|168814715|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0027
84531945|NCT02615171|168814716|OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7829
84531946|NCT04764630|168814727|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.95||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.28|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 10-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (10, 12.5, and 15 min). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.28|0.002
84531947|NCT04764630|168814728|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.98||||0.018|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.03|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.03|0.018
84531948|NCT04764630|168814729|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.69||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.06|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.06|0.013
84531949|NCT04764630|168814730|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.00|0.78|0.10
84539740|NCT00509795|168829390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.71||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.01|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 0.5Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-0.01|0.0507
84718956|NCT03301467|169189951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||9.77|-2.14|0.2069
84531950|NCT04764630|168814730|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.92|0.65|0.018
84531951|NCT04764630|168814730|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.01|0.75|0.12
84531952|NCT04764630|168814731|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.91|0.76|0.002
84531953|NCT04764630|168814731|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.81|0.70|<0.001
84531954|NCT04764630|168814731|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.97|0.85|0.014
84531955|NCT04764630|168814732|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.89|0.75|0.001
84531956|NCT04764630|168814732|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.80|0.69|<0.001
84718957|NCT03301467|169189952|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.98||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.45|0.67|0.9284
84531957|NCT04764630|168814732|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.96|0.85|0.014
84531958|NCT00741936|168814742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84531959|NCT00741936|168814743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
84531960|NCT00741936|168814744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline||||||<0.05
84531961|NCT00741936|168814745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
84531962|NCT00741936|168814746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between two treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
84531963|NCT00741936|168814747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||simple percentage|||||||0
84531964|NCT00741936|168814748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84531965|NCT00741936|168814749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-samples t-test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84531966|NCT00741936|168814750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84531967|NCT00741936|168814751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84531968|NCT00741936|168814752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
84531969|NCT00369382|168814753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.004
84531970|NCT00369382|168814755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.018
84531971|NCT00369382|168814755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<.001
84531972|NCT00369382|168814755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.012
84531973|NCT00369382|168814755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.072
84531974|NCT00369382|168814755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.175
84531975|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.031
84531976|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
84718958|NCT03301467|169189953|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.86||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.21|0.60|0.3778
84718959|NCT03301467|169189954|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.76||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.04|0.55|0.0810
84531977|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.020
84531978|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.151
84531979|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.295
84531980|NCT00369382|168814756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.010
84531981|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.009
84531982|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
84531983|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.002
84531984|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.030
84531985|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.121
84531986|NCT00369382|168814758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.001
84531987|NCT00369382|168814760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference (CNI - SRL)|-2.311||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.282|0.66||alpha is unadjusted|Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with each participant's creatinine clearance function of time on treatment; intra-subject regression coefficients considered random.|||0.660|-5.282|0.126
84531988|NCT00369382|168814762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||For-cause Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.206
84531989|NCT00369382|168814762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||Standard of Care Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.476
84531990|NCT05011123|168814773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||1.8|-3.4|
84531991|NCT05011123|168814774|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.0|-4.0|
84531992|NCT04732221|168814808|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-9.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.9||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||2.9|-21.3|0.068
84531993|NCT04732221|168814808|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-10.3|-33.7|<0.001
84531994|NCT04732221|168814808|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-6.4||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-6.4|-33.4|0.002
84531995|NCT01106014|168814829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.46|0.78||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set by a one-sided unstratified log-rank test||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
84531996|NCT01106014|168814830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|24.0||One-sided p-value of the nonparametric ANCOVA, adjusted for 6-minute walk distance at baseline|ANCOVA||Point estimate and 2-sided 99% CI for location shift using the HodgesLehmann method|Non-parametric ANCOVA with 6MWD as covariate at baseline. Missing values were imputed based on the following imputation rules: 1) if patient was unable to walk at week 26, 0 meter was imputed, 2) if rule 1 did not apply, the second lowest observed 6MWD value (10 meters) at Week 26 was imputed. Missing values were imputed for 21.6% of the subjects.||24|1|0.0027
84531997|NCT01106014|168814831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|It was assumed that the probabilities for absence of worsening in WHO FC at Week 26 were the same for both treatment groups|Odds Ratio, log|1.161||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.811|1.664||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by WHO FC at baseline. For patients with missing NYHA/WHO FC at Week 26, the NYHA/WHO FC is considered as having worsened from baseline at Week 26. Missing values were imputed for 18.3% of subjects .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.664|0.811|0.2843
84531998|NCT04763564|168814842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05. Significance level liraglutide vs. placebo in percent reduction of bowel frequency at week 4 vs. baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||<0.03
84531999|NCT04763564|168814845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||0.01
84532000|NCT03182244|168814858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.00152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.832|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per interactive response technology (IRT).|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.832|0.451|0.00152
84540763|NCT03718832|168832714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8636408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.941141||0.6566494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.681041|2.95376||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.95376|-4.681041|0.6566494
84532001|NCT03182244|168814859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.792|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.792|0.438|0.00005
84532002|NCT03182244|168814860|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.9||||0.04256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||17.5|0.3|0.04256
84532003|NCT03182244|168814861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|10.338|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||10.338|0.131|0.88710
84532004|NCT03182244|168814862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.55969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|2.414|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||2.414|0.209|0.55969
84532005|NCT03182244|168814863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.583||||0.66261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|13.048|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||13.048|0.192|0.66261
84532006|NCT03182244|168814864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.55731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.999|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.999|0.286|0.55731
84532007|NCT03182244|168814865|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|17.7||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||27.5|7.9|0.00049
84532008|NCT03182244|168814867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.56944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.487|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.487|0.494|0.56944
84532009|NCT03182244|168814868|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|31.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||42.3|20.2|<0.00001
84532010|NCT03182244|168814874|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.7||||0.00055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||22.8|6.5|0.00055
84532011|NCT03182244|168814875|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.6||||0.14841||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. LS Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.|ANCOVA|||||||0.14841
84532012|NCT00824616|168814883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.58|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|||||0.58|-0.81|0.745
84532013|NCT00824616|168814884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|5.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Between-treatment difference (MK-0941 group minus Placebo group) in the percentage of participants who experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia.||25.4|-13.7|0.537
84532014|NCT04711902|168814885|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|39.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|68.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.95|10.87|
84532015|NCT04711902|168814886|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|11.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|30.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.91|-7.18|
84532016|NCT04711902|168814887|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.68|
84532017|NCT04711902|168814888|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.35|
84532018|NCT04711902|168814889|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated scores (MMRM)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|7.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.46|0.94|
84532019|NCT04711902|168814890|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.58|
84532020|NCT04870138|168814891|OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84532021|NCT04870138|168814893|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided single sample t-test with alpha=0.05||Null hypothesis: The proportion of the strain in the inoculum = 0.5||||<0.0001
84532022|NCT02633488|168814919|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence defined as less that 2 SD in FMD between 2 treatments|||||>|0.05||||||FMD % change exceeded the threshold of our statistical significance test, i.e. the null hypothesis that there was no effect of metformin remained tenable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84532023|NCT01383135|168814924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||GraphPad (GraphPad Software, San Diego, Calif) was used for the paired two-sample t test and was performed to compare SUVmax values. P \< .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison made between baseline tumor values and tumor values 6-weeks post-bevacizumab therapy||||.034
84532024|NCT03167723|168814926|NON_INFERIORITY|15% Non-Inferiority||||||0.036|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.036
84532025|NCT03397771|168814946|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.963
84532026|NCT03397771|168814947|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was conducted according to the nul hypothesis, assuming no difference between treatment arms||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
84532027|NCT04040322|168814949|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference in change|-1.26||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.4210
84532028|NCT01831765|168814969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixed effect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.07|-0.23|
84532029|NCT01831765|168814969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixedeffect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.12|-0.04|
84532030|NCT02605993|168815007|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 253 for Cohorts 1 to 4, with an estimated standard deviation (SD) of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
84532031|NCT02605993|168815007|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 281 for Cohort 4 only, with an estimated SD of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
84532032|NCT02605993|168815008|OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0214
84532033|NCT02605993|168815008|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.0313
84532034|NCT02605993|168815009|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||tatistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0625
84532035|NCT02605993|168815009|OTHER|MMRM||||||0.5||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.||||0.5000
84532036|NCT02605993|168815010|OTHER|||||||0.4871||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.4871
84532037|NCT02605993|168815010|OTHER|||||||0.4688||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.4688
84532038|NCT02605993|168815011|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0023
84532039|NCT02605993|168815012|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0029
84532040|NCT02605993|168815012|OTHER|||||||0.125||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.1250
84532041|NCT03493386|168815024|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.07|0.97|
84532042|NCT03493386|168815024|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC(0-inf)|||1.07|0.97|
84532043|NCT03493386|168815025|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Cmax|||1.12|0.97|
84532044|NCT03493386|168815032|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.01|0.82|
84532045|NCT03493386|168815032|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-inf)|||1.01|0.82|
84532046|NCT03493386|168815033|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geomtric mean|0.89||||||90.0|0.73|1.08||||||||1.08|0.73|
84532047|NCT00271154|168815120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 1 = mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 2.||||<0.0001
84532048|NCT00271154|168815121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Percentage worsened in CRT OFF group = Percentage worsened in CRT ON group||||0.10
84532049|NCT01992523|168815122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or medians (quartiles) as appropriate, and categorical data as proportions (%). Data were compared by means of the chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables, as appropriate. A P value \< .05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.||||0.006
84532050|NCT04536935|168815126|SUPERIORITY|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the PHQ-9 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-1.8|<.001
84532051|NCT04536935|168815127|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the GAD-7 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-1.6|<.001
84532052|NCT04536935|168815128|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the DERS and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.73
84532053|NCT04536935|168815129|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
84532054|NCT04536935|168815130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.22
84532055|NCT04536935|168815131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||.48
84532056|NCT04536935|168815132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
84532057|NCT00759187|168815145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors)|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84532058|NCT00296231|168815148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Student's t-test was used to compare pre and post intervention pCO2 values.||||0.011
84532059|NCT02731326|168815150|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05). Kaplan-Meier curves were created for recurrence detection in the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period. Differences in time to recurrence between groups were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline variables that differed significantly between groups were included as covariates and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed.||2.30|1.06|0.05
84532060|NCT02731326|168815151|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|Kaplan-Meier curves were created for assessing time to treatment for intervention and control groups. Time to treatment was defined as the time interval from detection of a recurrent arrhythmia to treatment for that arrhythmia.||0.58|0.09|0.05
84532061|NCT02731326|168815152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.19|<.0001
84532062|NCT02731326|168815153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
84532063|NCT02731326|168815154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
84532064|NCT01442688|168815161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.995|
84532065|NCT01442688|168815162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.940|
84532066|NCT04380090|168815167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.86|0.65|0.41
84532067|NCT04380090|168815168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.24|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.24|0.28|0.66
84532068|NCT04380090|168815169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.63|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||3.63|0.45|0.65
84532069|NCT04380090|168815170|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84532070|NCT04380090|168815171|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
84532071|NCT01974440|168815172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.037|||Log Rank|||||1.037|0.626|0.0922
84532072|NCT01974440|168815173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.682|||Log Rank|||||1.682|0.312|0.4505
84532073|NCT00302081|168815188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.041||95.0|-0.1|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks)\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks)\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 1.5-dose group and 0.643 (144/224 subjects) in the 1.0-dose group, for a risk difference of -0.02.||This is an evaluation of the effect of the peginterferon alfa-2b dose (1.0 vs 1.5 micrograms/kg/week) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.10|0.041
84532074|NCT00302081|168815188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.495||95.0|-0.17|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 24-week group and 0.566 (129/228 subjects) in the 16-week group, for a risk difference of -0.10.||This is an evaluation of the effect of treatment duration (24 weeks vs 16 weeks) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.17|0.495
84532075|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||2.6|0.8|
84532076|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.2|1.1|
84532077|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.4||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.4|1.6|
84532078|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||4.6|1.4|
84532079|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.0|0.9|
84532080|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.0|2.2|
84532081|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.4||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||28.4|9.5|<0.001
84532082|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|76.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|118.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||118.6|49.5|<0.001
84532083|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|115.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||115.6|40.1|<0.001
84532084|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|70.7||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||70.7|23.8|<0.001
84532085|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|128.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|190.3||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||190.3|87.0|<0.001
84532086|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|126.1||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||126.1|30.5|<0.001
84532087|NCT01986010|168815271|OTHER||GMT Ratio|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|124.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||124.6|31.9|<0.001
84532088|NCT00536263|168815280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.008||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.079||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.079|-0.063|0.860
84532089|NCT00536263|168815280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.217||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.217|0.061|<0.001
84532090|NCT00536263|168815280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks with respect to PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks was to be concluded if the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference of the rates (PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks minus PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks) was greater than the noninferiority margin of -10%.|Pairwise rate difference|-0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|-0.065||||||||-0.065|-0.198|
84532091|NCT00536263|168815281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.011||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.052|-0.074|0.700
84532092|NCT00536263|168815281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.123|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.123|-0.014|0.125
84532093|NCT00536263|168815281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.122|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.122|
84532094|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.016||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.047|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.047|-0.078|0.598
84532095|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.041||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.108|-0.027|0.24
84532096|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.112|-0.001||||||End of treatment||-0.001|-0.112|
84718960|NCT03301467|169189955|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.87||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.15|0.66|0.3233
84532097|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.006||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.063|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.063|-0.075|0.830
84532098|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.208|0.053|0.001
84532099|NCT00536263|168815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.136||||||90.0|-0.201|-0.071||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.071|-0.201|
84532100|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.072||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.151|-0.007|0.076
84532101|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.135||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.053|0.001
84532102|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.009||||||End of treatment||0.009|-0.135|
84718961|NCT03301467|169189956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.9|-4.6|0.6025
84718962|NCT03301467|169189956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0422||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1043|0.0198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0198|-0.1043|0.1797
84532103|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.017||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.092|-0.058|0.662
84532104|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.220|0.059|<0.001
84532105|NCT00536263|168815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.053||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.053|-0.191|
84532106|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.019||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.061|-0.023|0.373
84718963|NCT03301467|169189957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||3.8|-7.9|0.4898
84718964|NCT03301467|169189957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0199||||0.4826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0757|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0360|-0.0757|0.4826
84532107|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.049||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.096|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.096|0.003|0.040
84532108|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.072|0.011||||||End of treatment||0.011|-0.072|
84532109|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.043|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.043|-0.041|0.969
84532110|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.045||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.094|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.094|-0.004|0.074
84532111|NCT00536263|168815284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.085|-0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.003|-0.085|
84532112|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.019|-0.027|0.724
84532113|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.048|-0.012|0.243
84532114|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||End of treatment||0.002|-0.046|
84532115|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.019|-0.027|0.724
84532116|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.048|-0.012|0.232
84532117|NCT00536263|168815285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.002|-0.046|
84532118|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.056||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.145|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.145|-0.033|0.219
84532119|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.126||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.037|0.006
84532120|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.006||||||End of treatment||0.006|-0.148|
84532121|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.082||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.168|-0.004|0.067
84532122|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.268|0.092|<0.001
84532123|NCT00536263|168815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.174|-0.021||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.021|-0.174|
84532124|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.041|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.041|-0.039|0.995
84532125|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.103|0.005|0.031
84532126|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.094|-0.012||||||End of treatment||-0.012|-0.094|
84532127|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.024||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.078|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.078|-0.030|0.389
84718965|NCT03301467|169189958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4019||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0402|3.844|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.8440|-3.0402|0.8161
84532128|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.184|0.058|<0.001
84532129|NCT00536263|168815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|-0.041||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.041|-0.152|
84532130|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.012|-0.012|0.991
84532131|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.033|-0.006|0.181
84532132|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.030|
84718966|NCT03301467|169189958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0052||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5994|4.6099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||4.6099|-4.5994|0.9982
84532133|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.012|-0.012|0.971
84532134|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.033|-0.006|0.179
84532135|NCT00536263|168815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.003|-0.030|
84532136|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||End of treatment||||0.991
84532137|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.004||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.013|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.013|-0.004|0.322
84718967|NCT03301467|169189959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1518||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3192|3.0156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.0156|-3.3192|0.9242
84718968|NCT03301467|169189959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0283||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4972|5.5537|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||5.5537|-3.4972|0.6534
84718969|NCT02195232|169190014|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84532138|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.012|
84532139|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||24 weeks after EOT||||0.991
84532140|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.009||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.021|-0.003|0.157
84532141|NCT00536263|168815289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.001||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.001|-0.019|
84532142|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.014
84532143|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||<0.001
84532144|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.010
84532145|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.2|0.631
84532146|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.3||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.4|0.617
84532147|NCT00536263|168815290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.1|
84532148|NCT02994940|168815295|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|21.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|44.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||44.2|-2.5|0.127
84532149|NCT02994940|168815296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.851
84532150|NCT02994940|168815297|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-1.0|0.109
84532151|NCT02994940|168815298|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|7.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|4.0|0.0001
84532152|NCT01941940|168815340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532153|NCT01941940|168815346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532154|NCT01941940|168815348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532155|NCT01941940|168815348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532156|NCT01941940|168815348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532157|NCT01941940|168815349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532158|NCT01941940|168815349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532159|NCT01941940|168815349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532160|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532161|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532162|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532163|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532164|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532165|NCT01941940|168815352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532166|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532167|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84718970|NCT01499849|169190073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.7|1.3|<0.001
84532168|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532169|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532170|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532171|NCT01941940|168815353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532172|NCT01941940|168815354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532173|NCT01941940|168815354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532174|NCT01941940|168815354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532175|NCT01941940|168815355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532176|NCT01941940|168815355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532177|NCT01941940|168815355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532178|NCT01941940|168815356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532179|NCT01941940|168815356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532180|NCT01941940|168815356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532181|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532182|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532183|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532184|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532185|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532186|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532187|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 52||||0.0004
84532188|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 52||||0.0004
84532189|NCT01941940|168815357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 52||||0.0004
84532190|NCT01941940|168815358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532191|NCT01941940|168815358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532192|NCT01941940|168815358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532193|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532194|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532195|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532196|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532197|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532198|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532199|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532200|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532201|NCT01941940|168815359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532202|NCT01941940|168815360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
84718971|NCT01499849|169190074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.8|1.2|0.005
84532203|NCT01941940|168815360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532204|NCT01941940|168815360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532205|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532206|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532207|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532208|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532209|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532210|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532211|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532212|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532213|NCT01941940|168815361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
84532214|NCT01941940|168815362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
84532215|NCT01941940|168815362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
84532216|NCT01941940|168815362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||0.0016
84532217|NCT01941940|168815365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532218|NCT01941940|168815365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532219|NCT01941940|168815365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532220|NCT01941940|168815366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532221|NCT01941940|168815366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532222|NCT01941940|168815366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532223|NCT01941940|168815367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532224|NCT01941940|168815367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532225|NCT01941940|168815367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532226|NCT01941940|168815368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532227|NCT01941940|168815368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532228|NCT01941940|168815368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532229|NCT01941940|168815370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532230|NCT01941940|168815370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532231|NCT01941940|168815370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
84532232|NCT01941940|168815371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.0045
84532233|NCT01941940|168815371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1992|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.1992
84532234|NCT03118570|168815387|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.644
84532235|NCT03118570|168815387|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
84532236|NCT03118570|168815387|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
84532237|NCT03118570|168815388|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
84532238|NCT03118570|168815388|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.190
84532239|NCT03118570|168815388|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.704
84532240|NCT03118570|168815389|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84532241|NCT03118570|168815389|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
84532242|NCT03118570|168815389|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.756
84532243|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.329||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.329
84532244|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.953||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.953
84532245|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
84532246|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.644
84532247|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.485
84532248|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.404
84532249|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.827||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.827
84532250|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.459||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.459
84532251|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.022||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.022
84532252|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.821||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.821
84532253|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.911||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.911
84532254|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.152||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.152
84532255|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.668||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.668
84532256|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.109
84532257|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.358||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.358
84532258|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.742||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.742
84532259|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.567||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.567
84532260|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.430
84532261|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.634||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.634
84532262|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.146||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.146
84532263|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.521||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.521
84532264|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.991||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.991
84532265|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.069||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.069
84532266|NCT03118570|168815390|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.625||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.625
84532267|NCT03118570|168815391|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
84532268|NCT03118570|168815391|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.376||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.376
84532269|NCT03118570|168815391|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.259||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.259
84532270|NCT03118570|168815391|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.253||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.253
84532271|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.064||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.064
84532272|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.019||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.019
84532273|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.845||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.845
84532274|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.006
84532275|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.190
84532276|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.704
84532277|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.002
84532278|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.021||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.021
84532279|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.504||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.504
84532280|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.462||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.462
84718972|NCT01499849|169190075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.6|1.3|0.001
84718973|NCT03802994|169190080|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test||||<0.05
84532281|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.134||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.134
84532282|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.086
84532283|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.199||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.199
84532284|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.219||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.219
84532285|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.112||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.112
84532286|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.086
84532287|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.245||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.245
84718974|NCT03802994|169190080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84532288|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.232||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.232
84718975|NCT03802994|169190080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84718976|NCT03802994|169190081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84718977|NCT03802994|169190081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84718978|NCT03802994|169190082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84718979|NCT03802994|169190083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84532289|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.237||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.237
84532290|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.088
84532291|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.302||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.302
84532292|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.626||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.626
84532293|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.517||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.517
84532294|NCT03118570|168815392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.262
84532295|NCT03118570|168815393|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
84532296|NCT03118570|168815393|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.004
84532297|NCT03118570|168815393|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.080
84532298|NCT03118570|168815393|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
84718980|NCT00622700|169190087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.869||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure, starting with the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo was used. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.869|0.379|0.0087
84532299|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.06||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.060
84532300|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.015
84532301|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
84532302|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.011
84532303|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.047
84532304|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.756
84532305|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.006
84532306|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.137||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.137
84532307|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.639||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.639
84532308|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.325||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.325
84532309|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.108||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.108
84532310|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.078
84532311|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.106||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.106
84532312|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.236||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.236
84532313|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.164||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.164
84532314|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
84532315|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.224||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.224
84532316|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.291||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.291
84532317|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
84718981|NCT00622700|169190087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.949||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The second step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to CDMS. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.949|0.416|0.0271
84532318|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.188||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.188
84532319|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.503||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.503
84532320|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.385
84532321|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.727||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.727
84532322|NCT03118570|168815394|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.338||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.338
84532323|NCT03118570|168815395|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
84532324|NCT03118570|168815395|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||< 0.001
84532325|NCT03118570|168815395|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||< 0.001
84532326|NCT03118570|168815395|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
84532327|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532328|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532329|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.080
84532330|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
84532331|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
84532332|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.035
84532333|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.687||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.687
84532334|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.107||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.107
84532335|NCT03118570|168815397|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.128||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.128
84532336|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532337|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532338|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.088
84532339|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.184||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.184
84532340|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.144||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.144
84532341|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.028||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.028
84532342|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.694||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.694
84532343|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.143||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.143
84532344|NCT03118570|168815398|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.111||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.111
84532345|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532346|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532347|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.026||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.026
84532348|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.007
84532349|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.004
84532350|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.085||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.085
84532351|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.040
84532352|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.061||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.061
84532353|NCT03118570|168815399|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.189||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.189
84532354|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532355|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
84532356|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.035
84532357|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
84532358|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
84532359|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.088
84532360|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.016||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.016
84718982|NCT00622700|169190088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.822||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The third step was the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.822|0.515|0.0003
84532361|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.068
84532362|NCT03118570|168815400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.16||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.160
84532363|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.065||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.065
84532364|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.405||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.405
84532365|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.966||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.966
84532366|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.003
84532367|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.229||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.229
84532368|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.807||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.807
84532369|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.042||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.042
84532370|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.283
84532371|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.536||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.536
84532372|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.765||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.765
84532373|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.247||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.247
84532374|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.050
84532375|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.037
84532376|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.174||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.174
84532377|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.558||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.558
84532378|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.02||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.020
84532379|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.346||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.346
84532380|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.387||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.387
84532381|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.093||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.093
84532382|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.156||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.156
84532383|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
84532384|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.92||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.920
84532385|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.040
84532386|NCT03118570|168815401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.643||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.643
84532387|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.285||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.285
84532388|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.544||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.544
84532389|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
84532390|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.179||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.179
84532391|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.513||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.513
84532392|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.849||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.849
84532393|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.037
84532394|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.88||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.880
84477527|NCT00643604|168706255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p value for Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Changes in mean CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
84477528|NCT00643604|168706255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||p value for Activity Score.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Activity Score N=5; Baseline component score could not be calculated for one subject. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477529|NCT00643604|168706255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Quality of Life Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
84477530|NCT00643604|168706255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Total Score N=5; Baseline Activity component score could not be calculated for one subject. Total Score could not be calculated for this subject.~Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values."||||0.13
84477531|NCT00643604|168706256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Effectiveness Score Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
84477532|NCT00643604|168706256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Side-Effects Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
84477533|NCT00643604|168706256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Convenience Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
84477534|NCT00643604|168706256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Global Satisfaction Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
84477535|NCT00643604|168706257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Gather/Set-up. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
84477536|NCT00643604|168706257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Prepare Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.06
84477537|NCT00643604|168706257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Connect Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.63
84477538|NCT00643604|168706257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change Dressing. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
84477539|NCT00643604|168706257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Total Time. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
84477540|NCT00643604|168706258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.5
84532395|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.153||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.153
84532396|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.073||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.073
84532397|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.007
84532398|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.791||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.791
84532399|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.01||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.010
84532400|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.553||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.553
84532401|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.652||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.652
84532402|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
84718983|NCT00622700|169190088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.871||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The fourth step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.871|0.540|0.0020
84477541|NCT00643604|168706259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
84477542|NCT00643604|168706260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477543|NCT00643604|168706261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
84477544|NCT00643604|168706262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477545|NCT00643604|168706263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477546|NCT00643604|168706264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
84477547|NCT02702011|168706266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.29|86.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 2.5 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||86.90|43.29|<0.0001
84477548|NCT02702011|168706266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|103.58|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 10 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||103.58|58.80|<0.0001
84532403|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.482
84532404|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.685||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.685
84532405|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.002
84532406|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.672||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.672
84532407|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.377||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.377
84532408|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.015
84532409|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.086
84477549|NCT02702011|168706266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.91|120.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 25 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||120.31|75.91|<0.0001
84477550|NCT02555657|168706290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.57|0.0574
84477551|NCT02555657|168706291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.69|0.0728
84477552|NCT02555657|168706292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.82|0.3802
84477553|NCT02555657|168706293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.3||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.4|-1.4|0.0457
84477554|NCT02555657|168706294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.2|-3.3|0.1752
84477555|NCT02555657|168706295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.8|-5.9|0.6629
84477556|NCT02555657|168706296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||||1.59|0.82|0.7936
84477557|NCT02555657|168706297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|1.08|0.9964
84477558|NCT02555657|168706298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.92|||Regression, Cox|||||1.92|1.33|1.0000
84477559|NCT02555657|168706302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.3||||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-8.7|0.3388
84477560|NCT02555657|168706303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.6||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-8.6|0.6701
84477561|NCT02555657|168706304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.5||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-0.8|-12.2|0.9877
84477562|NCT01948141|168706311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.59
84477563|NCT01948141|168706314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
84477564|NCT00676793|168706347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.078
84477565|NCT00676793|168706348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.094||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.094
84477566|NCT02554253|168706381|SUPERIORITY|Pilot study||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Raw scores converted to z-scores using published references. Percentage of patients experiencing a decline of \> 1 standard deviation was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. The outcome of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) was defined a-priori as a decline of decline of \>1 standard deviation (i.e. z-score decline of \> 1) on at least 2 neurocognitive tests and was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test.||||0.23
84477567|NCT02554253|168706382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
84477568|NCT02554253|168706383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84477569|NCT02559206|168706396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
84477570|NCT02559206|168706396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.297||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.942|0.3661
84477571|NCT02559206|168706396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.286||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.936|0.363|||MMRM|||||0.363|-0.936|0.3869
84477572|NCT02559206|168706396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.771||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.419|-0.123|||MMRM|||||-0.123|-1.419|0.0199
84477573|NCT02559206|168706396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0276
84477574|NCT02559206|168706397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||MMRM|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
84477575|NCT02559206|168706397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.455||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.191|||MMRM|||||0.191|-1.102|0.1669
84477576|NCT02559206|168706397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.299||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.947|0.3637
84477577|NCT02559206|168706397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.258||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.905|0.389|||MMRM|||||0.389|-0.905|0.4333
84532410|NCT03118570|168815402|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.712||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.712
84532411|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.045||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.045
84532412|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.101||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.101
84532413|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.482
84532414|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.011
84532415|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.508||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.508
84532416|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.563
84532417|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.917||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.917
84532418|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.789||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.789
84532419|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.262
84532420|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.426||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.426
84532421|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.871||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.871
84532422|NCT03118570|168815404|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.113||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.113
84532423|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
84718984|NCT03611556|169190115|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-8.0||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|12.1||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by cluster of differentiation 73 (CD73) level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -20.9 to 5.2|12.1|-27.6|0.3614
84532424|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
84718985|NCT03611556|169190115|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|3.8||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.7||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by CD73 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -7.4 to 15.0|20.7|-13.2|0.6503
84532425|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.984||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||0.984
84532426|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||< 0.001
84532427|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
84532428|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.857||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.857
84532429|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.001
84718986|NCT03611556|169190122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.983|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.983|0.790|
84532430|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.079||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.079
84532431|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.912||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.912
84532432|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.054||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.054
84532433|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.95||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.950
84532434|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.555||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.555
84532435|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.221||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.221
84532436|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.393||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.393
84532437|NCT03118570|168815405|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.385
84532438|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
84532439|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
84718987|NCT03611556|169190122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.131|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.131|0.498|
84532440|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
84532441|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.003
84718988|NCT03611556|169190124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.837|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.837|0.726|
84532442|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
84532443|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.006
84532444|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.519||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.519
84532445|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.226||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.226
84532446|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.190
84532447|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.388||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.388
84532448|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.109
84718989|NCT03611556|169190124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.105|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.105|0.468|
84718990|NCT03611556|169190128|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|21.9||||||||21.9|-25.2|
84718991|NCT03611556|169190128|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|27.0||||||||27.0|-12.6|
84532449|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.204
84477578|NCT02559206|168706397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5528||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.5528
84477579|NCT02559206|168706398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
84477580|NCT02559206|168706398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.048||||0.9013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.812|||MMRM|||||0.812|-0.716|0.9013
84477581|NCT02559206|168706398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.299||||0.4447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|1.067|||MMRM|||||1.067|-0.469|0.4447
84477582|NCT02559206|168706398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.662||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.428|||MMRM|||||1.428|-0.104|0.0904
84477583|NCT02559206|168706398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0700
84477584|NCT02559206|168706399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
84477585|NCT02559206|168706399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.161||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.925|||MMRM|||||0.925|-0.604|0.6801
84477586|NCT02559206|168706399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.095||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.67|||MMRM|||||0.670|-0.861|0.8069
84477587|NCT02559206|168706399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.246||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|0.519|||MMRM|||||0.519|-1.011|0.5275
84477588|NCT02559206|168706399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.4201
84477589|NCT02559206|168706400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
84477590|NCT02559206|168706400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.61|0.4399
84477591|NCT02559206|168706400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.85|0.57|0.5540
84477592|NCT02559206|168706400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.19|1.10|0.0262
84477593|NCT02559206|168706400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.0249
84477594|NCT02559206|168706401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
84477595|NCT02559206|168706401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.49|0.7710
84477596|NCT02559206|168706401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.48|0.8021
84477597|NCT02559206|168706401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.37|0.8011
84477598|NCT02559206|168706401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.8578
84477599|NCT05263921|168706457|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.66|115.64||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||115.64|99.66|
84477600|NCT05263921|168706457|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|130.03||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.03|112.09|
84477601|NCT05263921|168706457|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.08|134.69||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||134.69|116.08|
84477602|NCT05263921|168706458|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|117.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||117.14|101.06|
84477603|NCT05263921|168706458|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.36|130.2||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.20|112.36|
84477604|NCT05263921|168706458|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|127.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.32|137.15||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||137.15|118.32|
84477605|NCT05263921|168706459|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|115.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.03|127.34||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||127.34|104.03|
84477606|NCT05263921|168706459|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.68|160.99||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||160.99|131.68|
84477607|NCT05263921|168706459|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.95|178.66||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||178.66|145.95|
84477608|NCT05263921|168706460|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|128.82||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.82|95.38|
84477609|NCT05263921|168706460|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|123.73||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||123.73|91.76|
84718992|NCT03611556|169190128|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|13.9||||||||13.9|-58.3|
84532450|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.119||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.119
84532451|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.925||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.925
84532452|NCT03118570|168815406|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.204
84532453|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.588||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.588
84532454|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.697||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.697
84532455|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.283
84532456|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.354||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.354
84532457|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.430
84532458|NCT03118570|168815407|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.091||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.091
84532459|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.527||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.527
84532460|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.738||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.738
84532461|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.465||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.465
84532462|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.068
84532463|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.328||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.328
84532464|NCT03118570|168815408|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.277||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.277
84532465|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.092||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.092
84532466|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.31||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.310
84532467|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.304||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.304
84532468|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.155||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.155
84532469|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.392||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.392
84532470|NCT03118570|168815409|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.464||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.464
84532471|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.15||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.150
84718993|NCT03611556|169190128|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|26.6||||||||26.6|-39.1|
84532472|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.468||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.468
84532473|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.8||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.800
84532474|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.563
84532475|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.839||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.839
84532476|NCT03118570|168815410|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.186||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.186
84532477|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.278||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.278
84532478|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.292||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.292
84532479|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.115||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.115
84532480|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.356||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.356
84532481|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.205||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.205
84532482|NCT03118570|168815411|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.078
84532483|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.037
84532484|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.342||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.342
84532485|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.515||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.515
84532486|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.786||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.786
84532487|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.212||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.212
84532488|NCT03118570|168815412|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.655||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.655
84718994|NCT03611556|169190129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.985|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.985|0.676|
84532489|NCT00006721|168815415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||1.05|0.6|0.11
84532490|NCT00006721|168815419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.54|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||2.54|0.95|0.08
84532491|NCT03653507|168815421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.86|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.860|0.552|0.0005
84532492|NCT03653507|168815422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.936|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.936|0.622|0.0047
84718995|NCT03611556|169190129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.968|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.968|0.377|
84532493|NCT03653507|168815423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.328|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.328|0.772|0.4654
84532494|NCT03653507|168815424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.577|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.577|0.673|0.4478
84532495|NCT03653507|168815425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.153|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.153|0.655|0.1670
84532496|NCT03653507|168815426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2219
84532497|NCT03653507|168815427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.105|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.105|0.552|0.0826
84532498|NCT05205772|168815436|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84532499|NCT05205772|168815436|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
84532500|NCT05205772|168815436|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84532501|NCT05205772|168815436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
84532502|NCT05205772|168815436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
84532503|NCT05205772|168815436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
84532504|NCT05205772|168815437|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
84532505|NCT05205772|168815438|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
84532506|NCT05205772|168815439|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
84532507|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.6||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.60|1.46|< 0.0001
84532508|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.58||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.58|0.36|<0.0001
84532509|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.78||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.78|1.65|<0.0001
84532510|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.87||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.87|1.76|<0.0001
84532511|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.64|0.42|<0.0001
84539741|NCT00509795|168829390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.86||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.15|1.58||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q8|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.58|0.15|0.0173
84539742|NCT02766283|168829410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
84532512|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.11||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.11|1.95|<0.0001
84532513|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|2.72||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.72|2.56|<0.0001
84532514|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|1.96||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.96|1.68|<0.0001
84532515|NCT03986138|168815447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|2.41||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.41|2.26|<0.0001
84532516|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.05|-0.05|<0.0001
84532517|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.10|-0.05|<0.0001
84532518|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.01|-0.10|<0.0001
84532519|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.05|-0.06|<0.0001
84532520|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.07|-0.07|<0.0001
84539743|NCT02766283|168829411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
84532521|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.02|-0.08|<0.0001
84532522|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.09|-0.06|<0.0001
84532523|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.07|<0.0001
84532524|NCT03986138|168815448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
84532525|NCT00792935|168815482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|||Using a standard deviation of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of at least 65 participants per treatment group would be required to have an 80% power to detect a true difference of 12.5 mg/dL between MK-0941 and glimepiride as measured by change from baseline in 24-hour WMG at Week 6.||9.6|-7.9|0.847
84532526|NCT00792935|168815483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|-7.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.||The estimated value represents the difference in percentages, MK-0941 minus Glimepiride.|||8.7|-23.6|0.361
84532527|NCT00667810|168815525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.05||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model for repeated-measures (MMRM). The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||0.05|-3.71|0.057
84532528|NCT00667810|168815525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||2.10|-1.73|0.848
84532529|NCT00667810|168815526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.49||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.49|-2.48|0.459
84532530|NCT00667810|168815526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.07||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.07|-3.04|0.623
84532531|NCT00667810|168815527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.186 unit advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||0.09|-0.15|0.654
84532532|NCT00667810|168815528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 15 ng/L advantage in p-tau for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||1.02|-15.38|0.085
84532533|NCT00667810|168815529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.57|-1.55|0.437
84532534|NCT00667810|168815529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.66|-1.54|0.423
84532535|NCT00667810|168815530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-3.40|0.212
84532536|NCT00667810|168815530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.52|-1.76|0.725
84532537|NCT00667810|168815531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-1.15|0.149
84532538|NCT00667810|168815531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.46|-2.44|0.375
84532539|NCT00667810|168815532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not specifed.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
84532540|NCT00667810|168815532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.567
84532541|NCT00667810|168815533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.079
84532542|NCT00667810|168815533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.675
84532543|NCT00667810|168815534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Not spsecified.||||0.846
84532544|NCT00667810|168815534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.797
84532545|NCT00667810|168815535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.933
84532546|NCT00667810|168815535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
84532547|NCT00667810|168815537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.277
84532548|NCT00667810|168815537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.996
84532549|NCT00667810|168815539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.855
84532550|NCT00667810|168815539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
84532551|NCT00667810|168815540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.33|-0.65|0.516
84532552|NCT00667810|168815540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
84532553|NCT00667810|168815541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.24|-0.96|0.238
84532554|NCT00667810|168815541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.43|-0.78|0.564
84532555|NCT01355159|168815626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.90|0.37
84532556|NCT01355159|168815628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28|||Chi-squared|||||2.28|0.74|0.37
84532557|NCT01355159|168815629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.31|0.21
84532558|NCT01355159|168815630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.82|0.71
84532559|NCT01355159|168815631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.86|0.87
84532560|NCT01355159|168815632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Chi-squared|||||3.96|0.37|0.75
84532561|NCT01355159|168815633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|0.81|0.19
84532562|NCT01355159|168815634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.63|-0.96|0.61
84532563|NCT01355159|168815635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.30|0.14
84532564|NCT01355159|168815636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.41|0.37
84532565|NCT01355159|168815637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.81|0.82
84532566|NCT01355159|168815638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
84532567|NCT01355159|168815639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||Chi-squared|||||1.05|0.37|0.07
84532568|NCT01355159|168815640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.54|0.65
84532569|NCT01355159|168815641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.09|0.10
84532570|NCT01355159|168815642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.57|||Chi-squared|||||8.57|0.49|0.33
84532571|NCT01355159|168815643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.00|0.47|0.94
84532572|NCT01355159|168815644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.97|0.06
84532573|NCT01355159|168815645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Chi-squared|||||9.14|0.61|0.21
84532574|NCT01355159|168815646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.80|0.38
84532575|NCT01355159|168815647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-5.84|046
84532576|NCT01355159|168815648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
84532577|NCT01355159|168815649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||Chi-squared|||||10.92|0.37|0.42
84532578|NCT03276221|168815651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.215
84540415|NCT01750190|168831721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.735|1.967|||ANCOVA|MI (Multiple Imputation) ANCOVA|Roxadustat - Placebo Treatment Difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as covariates and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 milliliters \[mL\]/minutes \[min\]/1.73 meters \[m\]\^2), as fixed effects.||1.967|1.735|<0.0001
84532579|NCT03276221|168815652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of picking the correct box for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate better memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.495
84532580|NCT03276221|168815653|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.050
84532581|NCT03276221|168815654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.532|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.532
84532582|NCT03276221|168815655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.226
84532583|NCT03276221|168815656|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.369|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.369
84532584|NCT03276221|168815657|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.647|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.647
84532585|NCT03276221|168815658|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.511|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.511
84718996|NCT03611556|169190129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.917|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.917|0.622|
84540416|NCT01750190|168831722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.73|134.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/Placebo Odds ratio|||134.48|44.73|<0.0001
84718997|NCT03611556|169190129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|3.576|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.576|0.638|
84532586|NCT03276221|168815659|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.312
84532587|NCT03276221|168815660|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.836
84532588|NCT03276221|168815661|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median incongruency cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for incongruent trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.898
84532589|NCT03276221|168815662|SUPERIORITY||Slope|16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the multitasking cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for multitasking trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.068
84532590|NCT03276221|168815663|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct response for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher accuracy for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.150
84532591|NCT03276221|168815664|SUPERIORITY||Slope|179.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|281.76||0.525|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.525
84532592|NCT03276221|168815665|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the stop signal task module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the inhibition latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower inhibition for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.038
84532593|NCT03276221|168815666|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.576|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.576
84532594|NCT03276221|168815667|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of trials with strategic responding for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher rates of strategic responding for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.296
84532595|NCT03276221|168815668|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the discriminability measure for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher discriminability rates for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.650
84532596|NCT03276221|168815669|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.223
84532597|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.14|36.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.02|24.14|<0.001
84532598|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|9.8|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||9.80|1.51|0.008
84532599|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||18.97|10.55|<0.001
84532600|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||30.35|18.50|<0.001
84532601|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|21.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||21.29|9.35|<0.001
84532602|NCT02912650|168815677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.31|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||13.31|4.90|<0.001
84532603|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|11.94|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.94|6.59|<0.001
84532604|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.84||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.71|-0.03|0.053
84532605|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.49|3.69|<0.001
84532606|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|10.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.09|4.75|<0.001
84532607|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.36|0.98|0.008
84532608|NCT02912650|168815678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.64|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|1.85|<0.001
84532609|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|15.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.71|10.39|<0.001
84532610|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.86|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.86|1.15|0.002
84532611|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|8.83|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.83|5.06|<0.001
84532612|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.7|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.70|7.39|<0.001
84532613|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.78|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.78|3.44|<0.001
84532614|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.81|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.81|2.06|<0.001
84532615|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|5.05|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.05|2.63|<0.001
84532616|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.23|0.013
84532617|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.55|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.55|1.83|<0.001
84532618|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.98|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.98|1.56|<0.001
84532619|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.37|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.37|-0.07|0.064
84532620|NCT02912650|168815679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.47|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|0.76|<0.001
84532621|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532622|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.069
84532623|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532624|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532625|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532626|NCT02912650|168815680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.005
84532627|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
84532628|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
84532629|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||ANOVA|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
84532630|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
84532631|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
84532632|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
84532633|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
84532634|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
84532635|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
84532636|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
84532637|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
84532638|NCT02912650|168815681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
84532639|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532640|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.003
84532641|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.031
84532642|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532643|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532644|NCT02912650|168815682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.631
84532645|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532646|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.088
84532647|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.133
84532648|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532649|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
84532650|NCT02912650|168815683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.887
84532651|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.14|<0.001
84532652|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.034
84532653|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.13|0.963
84532654|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.01|0.062
84532655|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.13|0.001
84532656|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.01|-0.28|0.040
84532657|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
84532658|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.03|0.095
84532659|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.29|-0.12|0.414
84532660|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.52|<0.001
84532661|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.61|<0.001
84532662|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.29|0.406
84532663|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.09|1.40|<0.001
84532664|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.10|0.006
84532665|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.57|0.08|0.009
84532666|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|1.07|<0.001
84532667|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.77|1.08|<0.001
84532668|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.23|-0.26|0.908
84532669|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.35|1.64|<0.001
84532670|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.15|0.002
84532671|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.82|0.32|<0.001
84532672|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.95|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|1.25|<0.001
84532673|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.78|1.07|<0.001
84532674|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.07|0.157
84532675|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.48|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.48|1.73|<0.001
84718998|NCT03611556|169190131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.693|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.693|0.584|
84532676|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|0.11|0.005
84532677|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.52|<0.001
84532678|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.10|1.36|<0.001
84532679|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
84532680|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.15|0.002
84532681|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.45|1.67|<0.001
84532682|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.13|0.004
84532683|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.82|<0.001
84532684|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.04|1.27|<0.001
84532685|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.58|<0.001
84532686|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.96|0.42|<0.001
84532687|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.40|1.60|<0.001
84532688|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|0.16|0.002
84532689|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.88|<0.001
84532690|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.96|1.16|<0.001
84532691|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.44|<0.001
84532692|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.44|<0.001
84532693|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.31|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.50|<0.001
84532694|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.74|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.74|0.18|0.001
84532695|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.85|<0.001
84532696|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.85|1.04|<0.001
84532697|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.17|0.36|<0.001
84532698|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|0.39|<0.001
84532699|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.98|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.98|1.13|<0.001
84532700|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.017
84718999|NCT03611556|169190131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.973|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.973|0.366|
84719000|NCT03611556|169190131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|5.437|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||5.437|0.716|
84532701|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.77|<0.001
84532702|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.78|<0.001
84532703|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.06|0.026
84532704|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.01|0.42|<0.001
84532705|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.84|<0.001
84532706|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.017
84532707|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.60|<0.001
84532708|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.48|<0.001
84532709|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.80|-0.06|0.089
84532710|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
84532711|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.60|<0.001
84719001|NCT03611556|169190131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.707|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.707|0.550|
84719002|NCT02646618|169190155|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.6|0.0038
84532712|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
84532713|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.02|0.42|<0.001
84532714|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.25|0.002
84532715|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|-0.12|0.163
84532716|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.016
84532717|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.26|0.002
84532718|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.19|0.496
84532719|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.16|0.003
84532720|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.15|0.008
84532721|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.21|0.315
84532722|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.06|0.019
84532723|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.87|0.02|0.038
84532724|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.28|0.918
84532725|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.55|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|-0.05|0.105
84532726|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.85|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.01|0.045
84532727|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.22|0.355
84532728|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.07|0.127
84532729|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.12|0.171
84532730|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.25|0.790
84532731|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.47|-0.12|0.235
84532732|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|-0.16|0.236
84532733|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.30|0.599
84532734|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.15|0.353
84532735|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.19|0.293
84532736|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.28|0.986
84532737|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|-0.18|0.459
84532738|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.18|0.287
84532739|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.30|0.600
84532740|NCT02912650|168815684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.17|0.447
84532741|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|0.23|0.001
84532742|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.39|-0.12|0.297
84532743|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.16|-0.35|0.457
84532744|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.82|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.82|0.10|0.012
84532745|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|0.33|<0.001
84532746|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.02|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.02|-0.49|0.076
84532747|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.63|1.42|<0.001
84532748|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.93|0.10|0.016
84532749|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.64|-0.21|0.330
84532750|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.11|0.91|<0.001
84532751|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.42|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|1.21|<0.001
84532752|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.12|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.12|-0.73|0.163
84532753|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|4.65|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.65|3.18|<0.001
84532754|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.35|0.001
84532755|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.31|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.31|0.26|0.003
84532756|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.79|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.79|2.32|<0.001
84532757|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|3.87|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.87|2.39|<0.001
84532758|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.44|-0.60|0.769
84532759|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|5.42|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.42|3.88|<0.001
84532760|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.40|0.32|0.002
84532761|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.93|0.83|<0.001
84532762|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.56|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.56|3.02|<0.001
84532763|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.04|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.04|2.49|<0.001
84532764|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|-0.03|0.062
84532765|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.64|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|4.01|<0.001
84532766|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.33|0.19|0.009
84532767|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.33|1.17|<0.001
84532768|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|4.88|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.88|3.25|<0.001
84532769|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.90|2.26|<0.001
84532770|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.41|<0.001
84532771|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|5.52|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.52|3.82|<0.001
84532772|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.19|0.010
84719003|NCT02646618|169190156|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.4|0.1485
84719004|NCT02646618|169190158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2480
84532773|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.01|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.01|1.81|<0.001
84532774|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|4.74|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.74|3.04|<0.001
84532775|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.11|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.11|1.40|<0.001
84532776|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.23|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.23|1.02|<0.001
84532777|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.4|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.40|3.65|<0.001
84532778|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.43|0.21|0.009
84719005|NCT02646618|169190163|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.0||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|237.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||237|-50|0.2025
84532779|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.04|1.79|<0.001
84532780|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.58|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.58|2.83|<0.001
84532781|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.99|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.99|1.23|<0.001
84532782|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.22|0.97|<0.001
84532783|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.17|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.17|3.37|<0.001
84532784|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.44|0.18|0.012
84532785|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.0|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.00|1.72|<0.001
84532786|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.36|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.36|2.57|<0.001
84532787|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.82|1.00|<0.001
84532788|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.19|0.92|<0.001
84532789|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.6|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.60|2.76|<0.001
84532790|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.27|-0.01|0.055
84532791|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.84|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.54|<0.001
84532792|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.97|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.97|2.14|<0.001
84532793|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.42|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|0.57|0.002
84532794|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.21|0.91|<0.001
84532795|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.03|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.03|2.17|<0.001
84532796|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.30|0.00|0.049
84532797|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.59|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.59|1.27|<0.001
84532798|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.37|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.37|1.52|<0.001
84532799|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.10|0.23|0.015
84532800|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.62|<0.001
84532801|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.40|1.56|<0.001
84532802|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.2|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.20|-0.08|0.087
84532803|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.82|<0.001
84532804|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.00|<0.001
84532805|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.94|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.09|0.032
84532806|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.26|0.006
84532807|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.66|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.66|0.85|<0.001
84532808|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.77|-0.49|0.669
84532809|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|0.24|0.007
84532810|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.52|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.52|0.71|<0.001
84532811|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.78|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.78|-0.05|0.063
84532812|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.39|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|0.11|0.022
84532813|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.32|0.008
84532814|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.68|-0.58|0.876
84532815|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.13|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.13|-0.15|0.134
84532816|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.07|0.27|0.011
84532817|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.64|-0.17|0.112
84532818|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.08|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.08|-0.20|0.179
84532819|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.85|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.85|0.09|0.032
84532820|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.67|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.67|-0.56|0.850
84532821|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.95|-0.30|0.311
84532822|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.79|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.79|0.03|0.043
84532823|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.154||95.0|-0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|-0.24|0.154
84532824|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.89|-0.36|0.408
84532825|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.68|-0.05|0.065
84532826|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.55|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.55|-0.66|0.862
84532827|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.9|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.90|-0.32|0.352
84532828|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.73|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.73|0.00|0.049
84532829|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.39|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|-0.35|0.239
84532830|NCT02912650|168815685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.96|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|-0.27|0.270
84532831|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.031
84532832|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.06|0.527
84532833|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.05|-0.14|0.386
84532834|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.25|-0.02|0.084
84532835|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|0.06|0.006
84532836|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.02|-0.17|0.135
84532837|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
84532838|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.27|-0.01|0.062
84532839|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.14|0.977
84532840|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.21|<0.001
84532841|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
84532842|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.01|-0.27|0.069
84532843|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.90|<0.001
84532844|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.46|0.12|<0.001
84532845|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|0.05|0.011
84532846|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.61|< 0.001
84532847|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.16|0.67|<0.001
84532848|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.1|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.10|-0.24|0.427
84532849|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.60|1.11|<0.001
84532850|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.10|0.002
84532851|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.23|<0.001
84532852|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.84|<0.001
84532853|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.70|<0.001
84532854|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.04|0.123
84532855|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.67|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|1.14|<0.001
84719006|NCT02646618|169190164|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|77.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77|-226|0.3323
84532856|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.05|0.012
84532857|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.75|0.38|<0.001
84532858|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.90|<0.001
84532859|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
84532860|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|0.14|<0.001
84532861|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|1.11|<0.001
84532862|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.48|0.11|0.002
84532863|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.56|<0.001
84532864|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.82|<0.001
84532865|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|0.35|<0.001
84532866|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.27|<0.001
84532867|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|1.06|<0.001
84532868|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.49|0.10|0.003
84532869|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.98|0.58|<0.001
84532870|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|0.76|<0.001
84532871|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|<0.001
84532872|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.29|<0.001
84532873|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|1.00|<0.001
84532874|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.50|0.10|0.003
84532875|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.51|<0.001
84532876|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
84532877|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.29|<0.001
84719007|NCT02646618|169190166|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.3905|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.3905
84532878|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
84532879|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.81|<0.001
84532880|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.014
84532881|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.45|<0.001
84532882|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.13|0.56|<0.001
84532883|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.15|0.003
84532884|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
84532885|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.62|<0.001
84532886|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.01|0.041
84532887|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.76|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.35|<0.001
84532888|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.99|0.41|<0.001
84532889|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
84532890|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|0.14|0.001
84532891|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.48|<0.001
84532892|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|0.00|0.045
84532893|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.24|<0.001
84532894|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|< 0.001
84532895|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.04|0.027
84532896|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.04|0.020
84532897|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.29|<0.001
84532898|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.11|0.374
84532899|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.54|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|0.14|<0.001
84532900|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.20|<0.001
84532901|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.106
84532902|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.013
84532903|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.67|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.11|0.006
84532904|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.22|-0.17|0.796
84532905|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.36|-0.03|0.104
84532906|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.09|0.010
84532907|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.114
84532908|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.34|-0.06|0.168
84532909|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.59|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.59|0.05|0.022
84532910|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.24|-0.14|0.620
84532911|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.06|0.164
84532912|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|-0.00|0.052
84532913|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.45|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|-0.09|0.196
84532914|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.10|0.364
84532915|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.52|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.02|0.071
84532916|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865||95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.20|0.865
84532917|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.30|-0.08|0.238
84532918|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.53|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.00|0.054
84532919|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.14|0.335
84532920|NCT02912650|168815686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.06|0.176
84532921|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.77|0.18|0.002
84532922|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.38|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.38|-0.03|0.098
84532923|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.25|0.719
84532924|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.00|0.048
84532925|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.81|0.21|<0.001
84532926|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.00|-0.42|0.046
84532927|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.99|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.99|1.05|<0.001
84532928|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|-0.02|0.069
84532929|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|-0.24|0.604
84532930|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.69|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.75|<0.001
84532931|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.90|0.96|<0.001
84532932|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.11|-0.54|0.200
84532933|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.46|2.32|<0.001
84532934|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
84532935|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.14|0.008
84532936|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.83|1.69|<0.001
84532937|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.91|1.77|<0.001
84532938|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.32|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.49|0.685
84532939|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|3.93|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.93|2.77|<0.001
84532940|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.07|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.07|0.26|0.001
84532941|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.39|0.57|<0.001
84532942|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.27|2.11|<0.001
84532943|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.96|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.79|<0.001
84532944|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.73|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|-0.10|0.132
84532945|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.13|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.13|2.88|<0.001
84532946|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.17|0.007
84532947|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.8|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.80|0.91|<0.001
84532948|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.52|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.52|2.27|<0.001
84532949|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.79|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.79|1.52|<0.001
84532950|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.30|0.001
84532951|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.09|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.09|2.79|<0.001
84532952|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.15|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.15|0.24|0.003
84532953|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.31|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.39|<0.001
84532954|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.39|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.39|2.10|<0.001
84532955|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|0.94|< 0.001
84532956|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.69|<0.001
84532957|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|2.67|<0.001
84532958|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.2|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.27|0.002
84532959|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.41|1.47|<0.001
84532960|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.26|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|1.93|<0.001
84532961|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.07|0.73|<0.001
84532962|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.67|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|0.73|<0.001
84532963|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|3.87|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.87|2.51|<0.001
84532964|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.23|0.29|0.002
84532965|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.33|1.37|< 0.001
84532966|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.11|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.11|1.75|<0.001
84532967|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.03|0.66|<0.001
84532968|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.56|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.56|0.61|<0.001
84532969|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.35|1.95|<0.001
84532970|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
84532971|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.22|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.22|1.24|<0.001
84532972|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.74|1.35|<0.001
84532973|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.22|0.010
84532974|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.63|<0.001
84532975|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.88|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.88|1.47|<0.001
84532976|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.06|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.06|0.08|0.022
84532977|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|0.95|<0.001
84532978|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.30|0.90|<0.001
84532979|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.02|0.045
84532980|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.38|<0.001
84532981|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.47|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|1.09|<0.001
84532982|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.04|0.07|0.024
84532983|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|0.67|<0.001
84532984|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.92|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.54|<0.001
84532985|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.32|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|-0.07|0.079
84532986|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
84532987|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.56|<0.001
84532988|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.67|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|-0.29|0.438
84532989|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.29|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.29|0.31|0.001
84532990|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.75|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|0.37|0.003
84532991|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.25|0.204
84532992|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.12|0.014
84532993|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.53|0.15|0.018
84532994|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.52|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.44|0.867
84532995|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
84532996|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.49|0.11|0.024
84532997|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.27|0.228
84532998|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|-0.12|0.136
84532999|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.28|-0.07|0.078
84533000|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.56|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.56|-0.38|0.716
84533001|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.79|-0.16|0.197
84533002|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|-0.15|0.131
84533003|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|-0.39|0.399
84533004|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.25|0.349
84533005|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.12|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.20|0.169
84533006|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|-0.48|0.937
84533007|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.69|-0.25|0.351
84533008|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.14|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.18|0.151
84533009|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.9|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.42|0.476
84533010|NCT02912650|168815687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.71|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|-0.22|0.310
84533011|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|8.61|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||8.61|6.09|<0.001
84533012|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.28|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.28|0.53|0.002
84533013|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.88|1.09|<0.001
84533014|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|7.2|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.20|4.69|<0.001
84533015|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.63|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.63|4.10|<0.001
84726084|NCT00674609|169204438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.04||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||3.15|-5.23|0.619
84533016|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.47|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.47|-0.31|0.203
84533017|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|28.9|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||28.90|20.10|<0.001
84533018|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.52|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.52|1.37|0.005
84533019|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|14.48|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||14.48|8.23|<0.001
84533020|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|24.45|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||24.45|15.66|<0.001
84533021|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|17.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.57|8.71|<0.001
84533022|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.04|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.04|3.80|<0.001
84533023|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.09|43.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||43.57|26.09|<0.001
84533024|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|11.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.95|-0.25|0.060
84533025|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|22.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||22.95|10.54|<0.001
84533026|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|37.71|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||37.71|20.26|<0.001
84533027|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.08|||<|0.001||95.0|9.29|26.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||26.88|9.29|<0.001
84533028|NCT02912650|168815688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|17.1|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.10|4.70|<0.001
84533029|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.51|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.51|1.72|<0.001
84533030|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|0.16|0.002
84533031|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.86|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.30|<0.001
84533032|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.08|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.08|1.29|<0.001
84533033|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.93|1.14|<0.001
84533034|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.13|0.303
84533035|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|8.58|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.58|5.86|<0.001
84533036|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.53|0.63|0.001
84533037|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.45|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.45|2.52|<0.001
84533038|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.99|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.99|4.28|<0.001
84533039|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.1|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.10|2.37|<0.001
84533040|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.86|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.86|0.95|<0.001
84533041|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|10.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|7.08|<0.001
84533042|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.26|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|0.73|0.002
84533043|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.77|3.20|<0.001
84533044|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|8.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.71|5.08|<0.001
84533045|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.24|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.24|2.58|<0.001
84533046|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.77|1.21|<0.001
84533047|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|13.08|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||13.08|7.76|<0.001
84533048|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.0|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|0.28|0.024
84533049|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|7.12|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.12|3.35|<0.001
84533050|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|10.93|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.93|5.62|<0.001
84533051|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.86|2.51|<0.001
84533052|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.97|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.97|1.22|0.001
84533053|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.59|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.59|1.95|<0.001
84533054|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.09|0.023
84533055|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|1.07|<0.001
84533056|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.92|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.92|1.29|<0.001
84533057|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.94|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.29|0.008
84533058|NCT02912650|168815689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.57|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|0.41|<0.001
84533059|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.82|||ANOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.82|2.68|<0.001
84533060|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour:Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
84533061|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.46|<0.001
84533062|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.19|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.19|2.05|<0.001
84533063|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.81|<0.001
84533064|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.17|0.258
84533065|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.74|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.74|8.79|<0.001
84533066|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.67|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.67|0.91|0.001
84533067|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|6.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.73|3.93|<0.001
84533068|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.44|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.44|6.51|<0.001
84533069|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|7.42|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.42|3.46|<0.001
84533070|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.43|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.43|1.65|<0.001
84533071|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|18.62|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.62|10.74|<0.001
84533072|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.16||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.91|0.41|0.024
84533073|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|10.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.73|5.15|<0.001
84533074|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.59|15.45|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.45|7.59|<0.001
84533075|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.79|10.71|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|2.79|<0.001
84533076|NCT02912650|168815690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.56|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.56|2.0|<0.001
84533077|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|6.32|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.32|4.42|<0.001
84533078|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.74|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.74|0.40|0.002
84533079|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.13|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.13|0.77|<0.001
84533080|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|5.25|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.25|3.35|<0.001
84533081|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.88|2.96|<0.001
84533082|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.05|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|-0.29|0.268
84533083|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|21.28|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.28|14.69|<0.001
84533084|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.17|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.17|1.57|<0.001
84533085|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|11.15|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||11.15|6.48|<0.001
84533086|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.83|17.4|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.40|10.83|<0.001
84533087|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|5.86|<0.001
84533088|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.27|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.27|2.62|<0.001
84533089|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|26.37|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.37|17.52|<0.001
84533090|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.09|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.09|1.91|0.002
84533091|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|14.56|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.56|8.29|<0.001
84533092|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.53|21.36|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.36|12.53|<0.001
84533093|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|14.97|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.97|6.07|<0.001
84533094|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.55|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.55|3.30|<0.001
84533095|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.57|31.63|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||31.63|18.57|<0.001
84533096|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.86|0.74|0.023
84533097|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|17.8|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.80|8.55|<0.001
84533098|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|26.31|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.31|13.28|<0.001
84533099|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|18.49|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.49|5.36|<0.001
84533100|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|3.27|<0.001
84533101|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|8.62|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.62|4.61|<0.001
84533102|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.14|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.14|0.34|0.015
84533103|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.76|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.76|2.92|<0.001
84533104|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.88|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.88|2.87|<0.001
84533105|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.28|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.28|0.25|0.028
84533106|NCT02912650|168815691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.02|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.02|1.19|<0.001
84533107|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-23.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.71|-49.41|<0.001
84719008|NCT02646618|169190167|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.4741|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.4741
84533108|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.95||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.56|-8.45|0.086
84533109|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.71||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.86|-8.28|0.112
84533110|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.86|-19.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.17|-45.86|<0.001
84533111|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.22|-19.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.55|-46.22|<0.001
84533112|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.11||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.42|-5.20|0.968
84533113|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.18|-34.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-34.58|-61.18|<0.001
84533114|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.84|-11.61|0.023
84533115|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-0.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.73|-11.73|0.026
84719009|NCT04035447|169190221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapy (ST)||||0.519
84719010|NCT04035447|169190221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapist (SWT)||||0.150
84533116|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-27.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.52|-55.51|<0.001
84533117|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|-27.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.89|-55.65|<0.001
84533118|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.16||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.23|-6.56|0.960
84533119|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.81|-42.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-42.65|-68.81|<0.001
84533120|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.16||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.13|-12.46|0.055
84533121|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.70|-18.70|0.001
84533122|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-49.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.21|-35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-35.60|-63.21|<0.001
84533123|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|-30.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-30.55|-58.04|<0.001
84533124|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.69||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.08|-13.46|0.151
84719011|NCT04035447|169190221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Improvement (Item 13)||||0.309
84533125|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|-43.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-43.91|-69.96|<0.001
84533126|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.19|-15.80|0.010
84533127|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.97|-12.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.24|-27.97|<0.001
84533128|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.64|-33.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.83|-61.64|<0.001
84533129|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-37.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.40|-50.96|<0.001
84533130|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.19||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.36|-20.02|0.013
84533131|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-58.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.03|-45.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-45.26|-71.03|<0.001
84533132|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|-3.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.06|-17.24|0.005
84719012|NCT04035447|169190223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.696
84719013|NCT04035447|169190224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
84719014|NCT04035447|169190225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.274
84719015|NCT04035447|169190226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.600
84533133|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-18.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-18.44|-35.10|<0.001
84533134|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.76|-33.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.72|-61.76|<0.001
84533135|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-31.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.76|-45.61|<0.001
84533136|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.42|-26.10|<0.001
84533137|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
84533138|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
84533139|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
84477610|NCT05263921|168706460|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|125.21||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.21|92.70|
84533140|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
84533141|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
84533142|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
84533143|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.06|-39.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-39.75|-66.06|<0.001
84533144|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.34|-17.53|0.042
84719016|NCT04035447|169190227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.1848
84477611|NCT05263921|168706461|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.51|128.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.47|94.51|
84477612|NCT05263921|168706461|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|124.86||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||124.86|92.00|
84533145|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-17.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.86|-36.65|<0.001
84533146|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-43.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.83|-29.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-29.72|-57.83|<0.001
84533147|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.93|-11.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-11.57|-39.93|<0.001
84533148|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-8.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-8.59|-28.39|<0.001
84719017|NCT04035447|169190228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.07||||||0.6153
84533149|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
84533150|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
84533151|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
84533152|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
84533153|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
84533154|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
84533155|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-34.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-20.21|-48.21|<0.001
84533156|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.97||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.19|-17.12|0.179
84533157|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-10.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-10.35|-31.04|<0.001
84533158|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.44|-12.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.96|-41.44|<0.001
84533159|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.04|-27.84|0.051
84533160|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.31|-24.21|0.010
84533161|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-23.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.31|-9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-9.20|-37.31|0.001
84533162|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-2.22||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|8.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.19|-12.63|0.676
84477613|NCT05263921|168706461|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.48|125.72||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.72|92.48|
84533163|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.74|-23.57|0.013
84533164|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.94||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.18|-6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-6.69|-35.18|0.004
84719018|NCT04035447|169190229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.28||||||0.0563
84477614|NCT05263921|168706462|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|132.32||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||132.32|89.32|
84477615|NCT05263921|168706462|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.05|133.0||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||133.00|90.05|
84719019|NCT04035447|169190230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.0265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.31||||||0.0265
84719020|NCT04035447|169190230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.2084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.2084
84477616|NCT05263921|168706462|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.37|142.77||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||142.77|96.37|
84477617|NCT02678312|168706496|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0655||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6589|1.7232||The adjusted hazard ratio and the p-values are based on a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by modified age group with treatment and NYHA/ROSS class group included as factor.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.7232|0.6589|0.7958
84477618|NCT04507776|168706507|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.75
84477619|NCT04507776|168706507|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
84477620|NCT04507776|168706507|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||<0.05
84477621|NCT04507776|168706507|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.43
84477622|NCT04507776|168706508|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
84477623|NCT04507776|168706508|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.247
84477624|NCT04507776|168706509|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.21
84477625|NCT04507776|168706509|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
84477626|NCT04507776|168706509|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||0.62
84477627|NCT04507776|168706509|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.18
84477628|NCT04507776|168706510|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
84477629|NCT04507776|168706510|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.003
84477630|NCT00223652|168706560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.001
84477631|NCT00223652|168706560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
84477632|NCT00223652|168706560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
84477633|NCT00223652|168706561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
84477634|NCT00223652|168706562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
84477635|NCT00223652|168706562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
84477636|NCT00223652|168706562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
84477637|NCT00223652|168706563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||<0.0001
84477638|NCT00223652|168706563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.12
84477639|NCT00223652|168706563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.86
84477640|NCT00223652|168706564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
84477641|NCT00223652|168706565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||>0.37
84477642|NCT00092677|168706566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.591||95.0|0.826|1.115|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.115|0.826|0.591
84477643|NCT00092677|168706567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.732||95.0|0.833|1.137|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.137|0.833|0.732
84477644|NCT00092677|168706568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.024||95.0|0.628|0.967|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.967|0.628|0.024
84477645|NCT00092677|168706569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.344||95.0|0.563|1.222|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.222|0.563|0.344
84477646|NCT00092677|168706570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.968||95.0|0.842|1.179|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.179|0.842|0.968
84477647|NCT00092677|168706571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.771||95.0|0.617|1.917|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.917|0.617|0.771
84477648|NCT00092677|168706572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.147||95.0|0.345|1.173|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.173|0.345|0.147
84477649|NCT00092677|168706573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.015||95.0|0.503|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.929|0.503|0.015
84719021|NCT04035447|169190231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.3512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of -0.13||||||0.3512
84533165|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.39||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.40|-24.19|0.140
84533166|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-0.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.61|-21.51|0.038
84533167|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-17.9||||0.013||95.0|-32.13|-3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-3.79|-32.13|0.013
84533168|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.85||||0.467||95.0|-14.23|6.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.53|-14.23|0.467
84533169|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.38||||0.049||95.0|-20.73|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.02|-20.73|0.049
84533170|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-14.1||||0.05||95.0|-28.22|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.02|-28.22|0.050
84533171|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.99||||0.255||95.0|-21.73|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||5.76|-21.73|0.255
84533172|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.57||||0.212||95.0|-16.89|3.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.75|-16.89|0.212
84533173|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-15.68||||0.027||95.0|-29.59|-1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-1.77|-29.59|0.027
84533174|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-4.39||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.82|-14.59|0.399
84533175|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.5||||0.152||95.0|-17.76|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.77|-17.76|0.152
84533176|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.40|-25.05|0.106
84533177|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.59||||0.21||95.0|-22.0|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.83|-22.00|0.210
84533178|NCT02912650|168815692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.13||||0.545||95.0|-13.26|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||7.00|-13.26|0.545
84533179|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|20.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||30.94|10.54|<0.001
84533180|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.52||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.86|-4.81|0.342
84533181|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.62||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.22|-5.98|0.459
84477650|NCT00092677|168706574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||||95.0|0.197|1.057||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.057|0.197|
84533182|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|26.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||26.17|6.24|0.001
84477651|NCT00092677|168706575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||||95.0|0.199|1.86||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.860|0.199|
84477652|NCT00092677|168706576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.647||95.0|0.682|1.85|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.850|0.682|0.647
84477653|NCT00092677|168706577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.799||95.0|0.788|1.363|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.363|0.788|0.799
84477654|NCT00092677|168706578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.667||||0.052||95.0|0.996|2.791|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.791|0.996|0.052
84477655|NCT00092677|168706579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.008||95.0|1.111|2.035|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.035|1.111|0.008
84477656|NCT00092677|168706580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.829||95.0|-0.063|0.051|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||0.051|-0.063|0.829
84477657|NCT00092677|168706581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<=|0.001||95.0|-33.3|-31.0|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-31.0|-33.3|<=0.001
84477658|NCT00092677|168706582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-51.8|-48.2|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-48.2|-51.8|<=0.001
84477659|NCT00092677|168706583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<=|0.001||95.0|2.4|5.5|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||5.5|2.4|<=0.001
84477660|NCT00092677|168706584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<=|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-17.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-17.3|-22.6|<=0.001
84477661|NCT00873288|168706591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||> 0.05
84477662|NCT00873288|168706593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Chi-squared|The Pearson Chi-squared value = 1.590||||||0.207
84477663|NCT00873288|168706594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84477664|NCT00093470|168706613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.072||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \<0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of DFS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.072|0.538|0.026
84477665|NCT00093470|168706614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.155||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \< 0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of OS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.155|0.567|0.056
84477666|NCT00010803|168706615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||Log Rank|Time to dementia in Ginkgo vs placebo groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios and log-rank tests.||The null hypothesis is that the instantaneous hazard rate for Ginkgo biloba and placebo are the same. Assumptions were based on 4%/yr dementia and 6%/yr mortality and dropout combined. A sample size of 3000 with an average follow up of 5 years resulted in 96% power to detecting a 30% reduction in the rate of dementia at a 2-sided significance level of 0.5.||1.33|0.94|0.21
84477667|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Log Rank|||Total Mortality||1.27|0.85|0.70
84477668|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||Atherosclerotic CHD mortality||1.62|0.70|0.78
84477669|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||Incident Myocardial Infarction||1.58|0.79|0.54
84477670|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident Angina||1.18|0.61|0.32
84477671|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Log Rank|||Incident CHD||1.23|0.72|0.66
84477672|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident CHF||1.18|0.71|0.48
84477673|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident Stroke||1.45|0.52|0.25
84477674|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident TIA||1.45|0.52|0.59
84477675|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Log Rank|||Incident CVD||1.50|0.84|0.42
84477676|NCT00010803|168706616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Log Rank|||Total CHD and CVD combined||1.25|0.80|0.98
84477677|NCT00010803|168706617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment X Time interaction|-0.002||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models comparing rates of change in global cognition scores (z-scores) by treatment group||0.005|-0.009|.65
84533183|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|17.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|27.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.31|7.42|<0.001
84533184|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.91||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.42|-10.2|0.849
84533185|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.53|62.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||62.62|39.53|<0.001
84533186|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|5.16||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.30|-4.97|0.318
84533187|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.21|-0.49|0.062
84533188|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|57.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.76|33.45|<0.001
84719022|NCT00980954|169190257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.68||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|Sample size calculations are based on the primary hypothesis that 4 additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel following concurrent radiation and weekly cisplatin will increase 4-year DFS from 80% to 90% for patients with cervical carcinoma with positive nodes and/or positive margins after a radical hysterectomy. One-sided alpha=0.05, statistical power=80%, 5.5 years of accrual with 4 years of follow-up, 2 interim significance tests. 50 DFS events are required to trigger this analysis.||1.68|0.65|0.56
84533189|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|53.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||53.38|28.76|<0.001
84533190|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.74||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.17|-5.70|0.374
84533191|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.93|72.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.26|47.93|<0.001
84533192|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.81|-4.22|0.323
84533193|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|18.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.86|0.86|0.032
84533194|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.11|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||68.20|43.11|<0.001
84533195|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.71|63.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.05|37.71|<0.001
84533196|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.61||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.80|-3.58|0.232
84533197|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.39|72.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.46|47.39|<0.001
84533198|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.51||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.53|-2.52|0.179
84719023|NCT00980954|169190258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.69||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||The 4-year overall survival rate for the control arm is expected to be approximately 85%. The overall survival will be compared between the two arms. The final targeted sample size of 235 patients with the longer accrual time, will provide 64% and 78% power to detect an increase in overall survival to 92% and 93% respectively, with a 1- sided alpha of 0.05.||1.69|0.49|0.40
84533199|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.10|4.65|0.003
84533200|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
84533201|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
84533202|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533203|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.99|73.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||73.03|47.99|<0.001
84533204|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.08||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.89|0.135
84533205|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.64|5.30|0.002
84533206|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
84533207|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
84533208|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533209|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533210|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533211|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533212|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533213|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533214|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533215|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533216|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533217|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533218|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533219|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533220|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533221|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533222|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533223|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533224|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533225|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533226|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533227|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533228|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533229|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533230|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533231|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533232|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533233|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533234|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533235|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533236|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84477678|NCT02514772|168706630|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
84477679|NCT02514772|168706631|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
84477680|NCT02514772|168706632|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|17.6||||||||17.6|-21.2|
84477681|NCT02514772|168706633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|13.3||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after first infusion (i.e. on study day 1 or on study day 2).||13.3|-24.2|
84477682|NCT02514772|168706633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|13.6||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after second infusion (i.e. on study day 14 or on study day 15).||13.6|-24.5|
84477683|NCT02514772|168706633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.4||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions overall on day(s) of or day(s) after either infusion (i.e. on day 1 or 2 and on day 14 or day 15).||11.4|-26.0|
84477684|NCT00877006|168706644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, region, preassigned standard treatment, and lymphoma type as factors and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of interest is superiority of BR over standard treatment.||||0.0005
84477685|NCT00877006|168706645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by preassigned standard treatment and lymphoma type.|BR/RCHOP-RCVP|||1.68|0.58|0.9677
84477686|NCT04131933|168706685|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that there would be a 50% reduction in Oncotype DX assay requests following the intervention.||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test to compare number of patients with Oncotype DX ordered at 0-6 months (pre-intervention) vs 7-12 months (post-intervention)||Pre-Intervention (Period 1 and Period 2) vs Post-Intervention (Period 3 and Period 4)||||0.37
84477687|NCT03004976|168706737|OTHER||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Odds|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55||Wilcoxon Two Sample Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary efficacy analysis (mRS shift from baseline to 90 days)||1.55|0.53|0.71
84477688|NCT03004976|168706737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Cumulative Logit Proportional Odds Model|||Additional analysis of the primary endpoint (mRS score at 90 days), adjusted for baseline mRS, baseline NIHSS, and institution.||2.3|0.4|0.87
84477689|NCT01106391|168706766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of technical success (%)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|96.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||96.2|79.5|
84477690|NCT01106391|168706767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of achieved primary safety(%)|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|99.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||99.6|88.1|
84477691|NCT00150345|168706776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.755|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event IFI=yes is modeled.|Hypothesis: H0: rv - rp = 0 vs H1: rv - rp does not equal 0, where ri is rate of IFI (i=v for voriconazole group, i=p for deferred voriconazole group). Logit model (including important covariates) used. The adjusted odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for adjusted odds ratio calculated. If 95% CI around odds ratio does not contain a value of 1, then the null hypothesis of equal rates of IFI between immediate voriconazole and deferred voriconazole to be rejected.||1.755|0.129|0.258
84477692|NCT00150345|168706777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.696|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.696|0.398|0.596
84477693|NCT00150345|168706778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|1.988|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.988|0.441|0.864
84477694|NCT00150345|168706779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.955
84477695|NCT00150345|168706781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % participants that died|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.78|||||Approximate 2-sided confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole versus (vs) deferred voriconazole treatment||16.78|-5.08|
84477696|NCT00150345|168706782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.190
84477697|NCT00150345|168706783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.888||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.004|-0.059||SAS PROC REG with SELECTION=STEPWISE option of SLENTRY=0.05 and SLSTAY=0.10 utilized. Stepwise option combined forward stepping (with a 0.05 level to enter) with elimination of variables already in model that do not stay significant at 0.10 level.|Regression, Linear|Variables: association with age, c-reactive protein, and time to continuous defervescence not significant at 0.05 level; not included in final model||Continuous defervescence achieved=Yes||-0.059|-44.004|0.049
84477698|NCT00150345|168706803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|19.97||||||Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole vs deferred voriconazole treatment||19.97|-14.96|
84477699|NCT05034614|168706805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
84477700|NCT01807949|168706820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.62||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.06|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than \[\<\] 18 versus greater than equal to \[\>=\]18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.06|1.18|0.0004
84477701|NCT01807949|168706820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.44|1.56|<0.0001
84533237|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533238|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533239|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533240|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533241|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533242|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533243|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|< 0.001
84533244|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533245|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001||95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.00|45.24|< 0.001
84533246|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533247|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|< 0.001
84533248|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533249|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533250|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533251|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533252|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533253|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533254|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533255|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533256|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533257|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533258|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533259|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533260|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533261|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533262|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533263|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
84533264|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
84533265|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
84533266|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533267|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533268|NCT02912650|168815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533269|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.75|-0.44|0.156
84533270|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.76|-0.44|0.155
84533271|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.68||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||1.90|-3.27|0.605
84533272|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.84||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.89|-0.21|0.079
84533273|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-1.85||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.21|-3.90|0.078
84533274|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|27.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.62|15.33|<0.001
84533275|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|7.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|15.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.77|-0.19|0.056
84533276|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.37||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.43|-9.18|0.934
84533277|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|18.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.77|8.58|<0.001
84533278|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|28.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||28.28|15.64|<0.001
84533279|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.01|-16.40|0.050
84533280|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.05|64.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.73|47.05|<0.001
84533281|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|12.99||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.49|2.50|0.015
84533282|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.16||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|17.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.82|-3.51|0.188
84533283|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.85|51.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||51.38|33.85|<0.001
84533284|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.63|57.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.54|39.63|<0.001
84533285|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.98||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.55|-16.51|0.266
84533286|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.90|49.63|<0.001
84533287|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|18.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.69|-1.46|0.094
84533288|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.43||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|20.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.72|0.15|0.047
84533289|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.40|40.50|<0.001
84533290|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.79|59.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.89|38.79|<0.001
84533291|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.79||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|12.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.14|-8.56|0.734
84533292|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.88|70.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.03|46.88|<0.001
84533293|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.01||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|16.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.59|-2.57|0.152
84533294|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|19.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||19.82|-0.83|0.073
84533295|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.38|63.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.21|39.38|<0.001
84533296|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5|61.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.47|37.50|<0.001
84533297|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.99||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|11.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||11.89|-7.91|0.694
84533298|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.37|72.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.84|48.37|<0.001
84533299|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.58||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.20|-2.05|0.135
84533300|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|14.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|5.50|0.002
84533301|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.31|66.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.32|41.31|<0.001
84533302|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|58.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.66|33.21|<0.001
84533303|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.69|-1.32|0.091
84533304|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.59|72.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.42|47.59|<0.001
84533305|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.03||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|14.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.43|-2.36|0.159
84533306|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|24.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.41|6.23|<0.001
84533307|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|66.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.50|41.08|<0.001
84533308|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.72|57.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.81|31.72|<0.001
84533309|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.28||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.64|-0.08|0.052
84533310|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.75|70.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.39|44.75|<0.001
84533311|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.06||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|14.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.25|-2.13|0.147
84533312|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|24.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.21|6.39|<0.001
84533313|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.16|64.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.48|38.16|<0.001
84533314|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.74|55.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||55.82|28.74|<0.001
84533315|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.27||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.49|0.04|0.049
84533316|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
84533317|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
84533318|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
84533319|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
84533320|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
84533321|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
84533322|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
84533323|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
84533324|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
84533325|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
84533326|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
84533327|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
84533328|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.49|45.93|<0.001
84533329|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||14.67|-1.38|0.105
84533330|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|6.48|<0.001
84533331|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001||95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
84533332|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|57.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.07|30.15|<0.001
84533333|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.61||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.76|-0.55|0.065
84533334|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
84533335|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
84533336|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
84533337|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
84533338|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.89|||<|0.001||95.0|31.51|58.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.26|31.51|<0.001
84533339|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.45|-1.73|0.113
84533340|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
84533341|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
84533342|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
84533343|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533344|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533345|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533346|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
84533347|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
84533348|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
84533349|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533350|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533351|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533352|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
84533353|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
84533354|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
84533355|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
84533356|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
84533357|NCT02912650|168815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
84533358|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
84533359|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.004
84533360|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
84533361|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
84533362|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
84533363|NCT02912650|168815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.003
84533364|NCT00975286|168815710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|-0.171||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and TZD use (yes/no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 225 patients in each arm would provide a power of 98% (or 90%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.171|-0.463|<0.0001
84719024|NCT03500549|169190286|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using a mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean Hb changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.34||Superiority was tested at the 5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||5.34|2.33|<0.0001
84533365|NCT01674647|168815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.73|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.02% (0.40% - 2.34%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.73|0.15|
84533366|NCT01674647|168815727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.67|||no test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.26% - 1.27%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.80% (0.27% - 2.00%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.67|0.21|
84533367|NCT01674647|168815728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.0|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.20% (0.04% - 0.71%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.00|0.06|
84533368|NCT01674647|168815729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.55|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.27% - 1.29%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.22% (0.53% - 2.51%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.55|0.16|
84533369|NCT01674647|168815734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.47|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.41% (0.14% - 1.02%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.41% (0.07% - 1.41%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||5.47|0.18|
84533370|NCT01674647|168815735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.49|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||3.49|0.20|
84533371|NCT04135196|168815744|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Regression, Linear|||"The power analysis for the overall study was based on 12-month change in UD iBMC. The power calculation, based on pilot data, determined that 20 participants per group would have 80% power to detect a 1.0±1.1% change.~The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group."|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.101, F=2.244, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.119~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.374, t=2.114, p=0.041, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.030\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.221, t=1.247, p=0.220, 95% CI of B: \[-0.005, 0.022\]"|||0.119
84533372|NCT04135196|168815744|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.438, F=12.836, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.599, t=4.050, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.018, 0.055\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.041, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.678, t=4.589, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.023, 0.060\]"|||<0.01
84533373|NCT04135196|168815745|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.011, F=0.213, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.809~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=0.039, t=0.209, p=0.836, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.014\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=-0.077, t=-0.412, p=0.682, 95% CI of B: \[-0.015, 0.010\]"|||0.809
84533374|NCT04135196|168815745|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.107, F=1.971, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.155~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.284, t=1.526, p=0.137, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.027\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.342, t=1.837, p=0.075, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.030\]"|||0.155
84533375|NCT04135196|168815746|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=\<0.001, F=0.009, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.991~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.025, t=0.133, p=0.894, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.018\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.012, t=0.063, p=0.950, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.017\]"|||0.991
84533376|NCT04135196|168815746|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.216, F=4.548, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.455, t=2.607, p=0.014, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.447, t=2.563, p=0.015, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]"|||0.018
84540764|NCT03718832|168832714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.772051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905125||0.0484944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.519021|-0.0250809||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0250809|-7.519021|0.0484944
84533377|NCT04135196|168815747|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.090, F=1.968, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.153~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.352, t=1.973, p=0.055, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.013\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.156, t=0.874, p=0.387, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.009\]"|||0.153
84533378|NCT04135196|168815747|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.331, F=8.152, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.473, t=2.930, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.020\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.617, t=3.828, p=0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.008, 0.025\]"|||0.001
84533379|NCT04135196|168815748|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.009, F=0.176, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.840~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.091, t=0.489, p=0.628, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.101, t=0.544, p=0.589, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]"|||0.840
84533380|NCT04135196|168815748|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.563, F=21.225, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.739, t=5.669, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.716, t=5.495, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]"|||<0.001
84533381|NCT04135196|168815749|OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.077, F=1.665, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.202~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.005, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.303, t=-1.689, p=0.099, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.001\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.266, t=-1.484, p=0.146, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.002\]"|||0.202
84533382|NCT04135196|168815749|OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.057, F=0.995, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.381~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.254, t=1.327, p=0.194, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.011\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.038, t=0.200, p=0.843, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.008\]"|||0.381
84533383|NCT04135196|168815750|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.018, F=0.365, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.697~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.158, t=-0.854, p=0.398, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.005\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.078, t=-0.423, p=0.675, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.006\]"|||0.697
84533384|NCT04135196|168815750|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.215, F=4.516, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.484, t=2.773, p=0.009, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.0524\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.406, t=2.325, p=0.026, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.022\]"|||0.018
84533385|NCT04135196|168815751|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.123, F=2.799, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.073~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.413, t=2.361, p=0.023, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.006\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.198, t=1.129, p=0.265, 95% CI of B: \[-0.001, 0.004\]"|||0.073
84533386|NCT04135196|168815751|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.480, F=15.256, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.590, t=4.153, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.734, t=5.164, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.014\]"|||<0.001
84533387|NCT04135196|168815752|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.108, F=2.428, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.101~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.053, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.024, Beta=0.388, t=2.200, p=0.034, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.101\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.022, Beta=0.226, t=1.280, p=0.208, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.074\]"|||0.101
84533388|NCT04135196|168815752|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=01.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
84533389|NCT04135196|168815753|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.019, F=0.395, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.676~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.146, t=0.787, p=0.436, 95% CI of B: \[-0.019, 0.042\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.014, Beta=0.013, t=0.070, p=0.945, 95% CI of B: \[-0.028, 0.029\]"|||0.676
84533390|NCT04135196|168815753|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|Overall model fit: R\^2=0.072, F=1.288, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.289 Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.154, t=0.814, p=0.422, 95% CI of B: \[-0.022, 0.051\] Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.304, t=1.604, p=0.118, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.066\]|||0.289
84533391|NCT04135196|168815754|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.111, F=2.491, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.096~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.026, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.391, t=2.222, p=0.032, 95% CI of B: \[0.032, 0.049\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.240, t=1.362, p=0.181, 95% CI of B: \[-0.007, 0.037\]"|||0.096
84533392|NCT04135196|168815754|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=1.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
84533393|NCT04135196|168815755|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=1.132, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.332~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.271, t=1.493, p=0.143, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.039\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.010, Beta=0.115, t=635, p=0.529, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.028\]"|||0.332
84533394|NCT04135196|168815755|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=0.946, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.399~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.119, t=0.619, p=0.540, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.032\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.017, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.264, t=1.375, p=0.178, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.042\]"|||0.399
84533395|NCT04135196|168815756|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~There were no significant relationships found between change in cortical thickness and strain magnitude group at any time point (p\>0.05)."|||
84719025|NCT03500549|169190287|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified non-inferiority margins (NIM) and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of -20%. Stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified (Miettinen-Nurminen) method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.7677||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level.|Miettinen-Nurminen|||||0.7677|0.4830|<0.0001
84533396|NCT04135196|168815756|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 3 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in cortical thickness and strain rate group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the high strain rate group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 3 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.258, F=4.519, df1=2, df2=26, p=0.021~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.574, t=2.967, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.011, 0.061\]"|||
84533397|NCT04135196|168815757|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 9 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in BV/TV and strain magnitude group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the low strain magnitude group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 9 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.240, F=5.057, df1=2, df2=32, p=0.012~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.562, t=3.180, p=0.003, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.006\]"|||
84533398|NCT04135196|168815757|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.|||>0.05
84533399|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.09|-0.11|
84533400|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.38|
84533401|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.16|-0.37|
84533402|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.46|0.13|
84533403|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.29|-0.04|
84533404|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-0.01|-0.33|
84533405|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
84533406|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
84533407|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.10|-0.10|
84533408|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.09|-0.15|
84533409|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.16|
84533410|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.11|-0.13|
84533411|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.07|-0.13|
84533412|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.03|-0.23|
84533413|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.00|-0.20|
84533414|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.01|-0.22|
84533415|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.23|-0.44|
84533416|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.11|-0.33|
84533417|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.16|
84533418|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.31|0.04|
84533419|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.34|0.07|
84533420|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.01|-0.23|
84533421|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||-0.04|-0.28|
84533422|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.17|
84533423|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
84533424|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.07|-0.28|
84533425|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
84533426|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.37|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.37|0.13|
84533427|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.12|-0.12|
84533428|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.13|-0.37|
84533429|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.25|0.02|
84533430|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.24|0.01|
84533431|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.11|-0.13|
84719026|NCT03500549|169190288|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 10.|LS mean difference|-163.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.91|-137.3||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-137.30|-189.91|<0.0001
84533432|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.10|-0.09|
84533433|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.14|
84533434|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.15|
84533435|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.03|-0.19|
84533436|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.09|-0.12|
84533437|NCT00444457|168815765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.17|-0.05|
84533438|NCT00444457|168815766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus toxoid: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.3|
84533439|NCT00444457|168815767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 1: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-2.1|
84533440|NCT00444457|168815767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 2: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.4|
84533441|NCT00444457|168815767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 3: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-1.5|
84533442|NCT00444457|168815768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-2.4|
84533443|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|4.75||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||4.75|-0.51|
84533444|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.10|-3.09|
84533445|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.58||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.58|-5.58|
84533446|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|9.19||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||9.19|1.55|
84533447|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.66||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||3.66|-2.77|
84533448|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-1.10|-8.82|
84533449|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.83||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.83|-3.13|
84533450|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.73||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.73|-3.97|
84533451|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.88||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.88|-3.81|
84533452|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.95||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.95|-1.27|
84533453|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.01||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||3.01|-0.60|
84533454|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.76|-1.04|
84533455|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.74||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.74|-0.38|
84533456|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.99||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.99|-2.33|
84533457|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.23||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.23|-4.89|
84533458|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.6||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.60|-1.93|
84533459|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.28||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.28|-3.46|
84533460|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.02||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.02|-3.87|
84533461|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||7.46|-1.03|
84533462|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|8.39||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||8.39|-0.27|
84533463|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|5.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.46|-3.75|
84533464|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||3.18|-1.48|
84533465|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.34||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.34|-2.78|
84533466|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.67||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.67|-3.77|
84533467|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|2.45||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.45|-10.27|
84533468|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-4.57||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-4.57|-16.80|
84533469|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-0.74||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.74|-12.76|
84533470|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.69||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.69|0.15|
84533471|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|3.09||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||3.09|-3.52|
84533472|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|-0.36||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.36|-7.92|
84533473|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.23||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||5.23|0.12|
84533474|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.86||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.86|-2.22|
84533475|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.27||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||-0.27|-5.39|
84533476|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.3||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.30|-0.47|
84533477|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.18|-1.12|
84533478|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.52||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.52|-2.30|
84533479|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.8||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.80|-2.91|
84533480|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.19||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.19|-2.69|
84533481|NCT00444457|168815769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.04||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.04|-1.40|
84533482|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.81|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.81|-1.61|
84533483|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.23|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.23|-2.39|
84533484|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.20|-2.54|
84533485|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.11|-1.02|
84533486|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.04|-1.03|
84533487|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.13|
84533488|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.37|-1.25|
84533489|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.76|
84533490|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.87|
84533491|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.62|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.62|-0.74|
84533492|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.04|-1.03|
84533493|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.76|-1.61|
84533494|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||2.39|-1.52|
84533495|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.04|-2.30|
84533496|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.74|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.74|-2.87|
84533497|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.5|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.50|-2.55|
84533498|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.57|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.57|-3.06|
84533499|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.00|-2.44|
84533500|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.05|-1.21|
84533501|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||3.16|-0.52|
84533502|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.87|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.87|-1.05|
84533503|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.53|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.53|-0.17|
84533504|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.44|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.44|-0.20|
84533505|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.66|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.66|-1.79|
84533506|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-2.85|
84533507|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|0.21|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.21|-9.99|
84533508|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-2.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-2.37|-13.14|
84533509|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.84|-1.00|
84533510|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.3|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.30|-1.27|
84533511|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.02|-1.84|
84533512|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.08|-1.04|
84533513|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.76|
84533514|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.83|
84533515|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.09|-0.47|
84533516|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.00|-0.48|
84533517|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.49|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.49|-1.59|
84533518|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.09|-1.04|
84533519|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.04|-1.05|
84533520|NCT00444457|168815770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.07|-1.09|
84533521|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|3.63|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.63|-6.52|
84533522|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.15|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-2.15|-11.30|
84533523|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.79|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.79|-9.85|
84533524|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||2.07|-1.19|
84533525|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.69|
84533526|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.75|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.75|-2.27|
84533527|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|1.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.82|-9.46|
84533528|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.76|-10.24|
84533529|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.41|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||4.41|-6.30|
84533530|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.73|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.73|-2.14|
84533531|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.39|-1.69|
84533532|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.59|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.59|-1.46|
84533533|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.20|-11.17|
84533534|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|-4.7|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-4.70|-15.31|
84533535|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.46|-9.55|
84533536|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.52|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.52|-4.23|
84533537|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.40|-6.35|
84533538|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.33|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.33|-5.44|
84533539|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|4.8|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.80|-3.67|
84533540|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|6.28|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||6.28|-2.38|
84533541|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|5.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.82|-3.06|
84533542|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||5.08|-3.34|
84533543|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.18|-6.39|
84533544|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.46|-7.45|
84533545|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-5.20|
84533546|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|2.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.16|-11.79|
84533547|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|0.54|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.54|-13.51|
84533548|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.13|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.13|-0.84|
84533549|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||4.11|-3.14|
84533550|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.40|-6.72|
84533551|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||3.02|-0.87|
84533552|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.71|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.71|-1.62|
84533553|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.92|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.92|-3.00|
84533554|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.67|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||4.67|-0.62|
84533555|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.55|-2.67|
84533556|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.01|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||-0.01|-5.11|
84533557|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.1|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.10|-0.45|
84533558|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.58|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.58|-0.75|
84533559|NCT00444457|168815772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.05|-1.86|
84533560|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.13|-0.10|
84533561|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.41|
84533562|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.19|-0.43|
84533563|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.30|0.06|
84533564|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.23|-0.00|
84533565|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.06|-0.18|
84533566|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
84533567|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.07|-0.15|
84533568|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
84533569|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.06|-0.19|
84533570|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.17|
84533571|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.15|-0.11|
84533572|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.00|-0.25|
84533573|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.12|-0.37|
84533574|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.01|-0.25|
84533575|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.11|-0.18|
84533576|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.22|-0.51|
84533577|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.20|-0.47|
84533578|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.17|
84533579|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.22|-0.07|
84533580|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.25|-0.03|
84533581|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.20|
84533582|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.03|-0.21|
84533583|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.11|-0.15|
84533584|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.18|-0.06|
84533585|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.04|-0.18|
84533586|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.01|-0.25|
84533587|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.28|0.05|
84533588|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.21|-0.00|
84533589|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.05|-0.17|
84719027|NCT03500549|169190289|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 20.|LS mean difference|-4.63||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.3|172.04||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||172.04|-181.30|0.9557
84533590|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.19|-0.04|
84533591|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.21|-0.02|
84533592|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.14|-0.10|
84533593|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.15|-0.10|
84533594|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.07|-0.17|
84533595|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.05|-0.20|
84533596|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.13|-0.11|
84533597|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.10|-0.14|
84533598|NCT00444457|168815773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.08|-0.15|
84533599|NCT01822574|168815933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
84533600|NCT01822574|168815934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
84533601|NCT01822574|168815935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.240
84533602|NCT00321737|168815948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84533603|NCT00321737|168815948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
84533604|NCT00321737|168815948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99999
84533605|NCT00321737|168815949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84533606|NCT00321737|168815949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84533607|NCT00321737|168815949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06730
84533608|NCT00321737|168815951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84533609|NCT00321737|168815951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
84533610|NCT00321737|168815951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13932||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.13932
84533611|NCT00321737|168815952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84533612|NCT00321737|168815952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
84533613|NCT00321737|168815952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11257
84533614|NCT01769339|168815976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84533615|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.308
84533616|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.415
84533617|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.335
84533618|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.120
84533619|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
84533620|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.031
84533621|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.131
84533622|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.202
84533623|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.484
84533624|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.047
84533625|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.285
84533626|NCT01195272|168815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.315
84533627|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.288
84533628|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.318
84533629|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.400
84533630|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.317
84533631|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.137
84533632|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.052
84533633|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.354
84533634|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.266
84533635|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.378
84533636|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.422
84533637|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.444
84533638|NCT01195272|168815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.345
84533639|NCT01195272|168815980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.39
84533640|NCT01195272|168815980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.08
84533641|NCT01195272|168815980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
84533642|NCT01195272|168815981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
84533643|NCT01195272|168815981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.30
84533644|NCT01195272|168815981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.34
84533645|NCT01195272|168815982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
84533646|NCT01195272|168815982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.44
84533647|NCT01195272|168815982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.23
84533648|NCT01195272|168815983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
84533649|NCT01195272|168815983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.46
84533650|NCT01195272|168815983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.24
84533651|NCT01195272|168815984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.05
84533652|NCT01195272|168815984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.01
84533653|NCT01195272|168815984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
84533654|NCT01195272|168815985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
84533655|NCT01195272|168815985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.43
84533656|NCT01195272|168815985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.44
84533657|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.313
84533658|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.083
84533659|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.092
84533660|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.145
84533661|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.398
84533662|NCT01195272|168815986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.138
84533663|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.467
84533664|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.250
84533665|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.060
84533666|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.149
84533667|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
84533668|NCT01195272|168815987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.047
84533669|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.169
84533670|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.165
84533671|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.471
84533672|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.243
84533673|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.396
84533674|NCT01195272|168815988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.375
84533675|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.496
84533676|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.122
84533677|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.070
84533678|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.135
84533679|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.082
84533680|NCT01195272|168815989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.461
84533681|NCT05091307|168816045|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||ANOVA|||A/Victoria (H1N1): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.53|1.09|
84533682|NCT05091307|168816045|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.45|||ANOVA|||A/Cambodia (H3N2): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.45|1.05|
84533683|NCT05091307|168816045|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANOVA|||B/Victoria (B/Victoria): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.19|0.84|
84533684|NCT05091307|168816045|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||ANOVA|||B/Phuket (B/Yamagata): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.21|0.88|
84533685|NCT05091307|168816046|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||ANOVA|||Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.26|0.97|
84533686|NCT03611543|168816059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Information related to the INVESTIGATIONAL group.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||<0.0001
84533687|NCT02752906|168816073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non- inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|9.38||||||Serogroup A||9.38|0.735|
84533688|NCT02752906|168816073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|8.76||||||Serogroup C||8.76|2.16|
84533689|NCT02752906|168816073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.907|4.55||||||Serogroup Y||4.55|-0.907|
84533690|NCT02752906|168816073|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.9||||||Serogroup W||10.9|4.30|
84533691|NCT02213510|168816128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84533692|NCT02213510|168816129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.655
84533693|NCT02213510|168816130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
84533694|NCT02213510|168816131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84533695|NCT02213510|168816132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
84533696|NCT02213510|168816133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.646
84533697|NCT02213510|168816134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
84533698|NCT02213510|168816135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.651
84533699|NCT02213510|168816136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.588
84533700|NCT02213510|168816137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.858
84533701|NCT02213510|168816138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
84533702|NCT03954834|168816156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-2.18|<0.001
84533703|NCT03954834|168816156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-2.21|<0.001
84533704|NCT03954834|168816156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
84533705|NCT03954834|168816157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.7|-7.8|<0.001
84533706|NCT03954834|168816157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.6|<0.001
84533707|NCT03954834|168816157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-10.3|<0.001
84533708|NCT03954834|168816158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.12|113.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.67|21.12|<0.001
84533709|NCT03954834|168816158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|203.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||203.19|31.80|<0.001
84533710|NCT03954834|168816158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|125.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||125.73|22.30|<0.001
84533711|NCT03954834|168816159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-11.9|0.776
84533712|NCT03954834|168816159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-13.0|0.622
84533713|NCT03954834|168816159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-11.1|0.908
84533714|NCT03954834|168816160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|209.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||209.71|7.74|<0.001
84533715|NCT03954834|168816160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|178.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.19|6.53|<0.001
84533716|NCT03954834|168816160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|443.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||443.13|16.36|<0.001
84533717|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-31.2|-44.1|<0.001
84533718|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-32.2|-45.1|<0.001
84533719|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-29.8|-43.1|<0.001
84533720|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-47.4|-68.4|<0.001
84533721|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-39.2|-60.3|<0.001
84533722|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-46.4|-68.1|<0.001
84533723|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-32.2|-49.6|<0.001
84533724|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.2|-48.6|<0.001
84533725|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.1|-49.0|<0.001
84533726|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-40.4|-62.5|<0.001
84533727|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-36.2|-58.4|<0.001
84533728|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-39.3|-62.1|<0.001
84533729|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.4|-47.6|<0.001
84533730|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-30.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.6|-47.9|<0.001
84533731|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-27.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-27.5|-45.3|<0.001
84533732|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.1|-63.2|<0.001
84533733|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.9|-64.1|<0.001
84533734|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-41.3|-65.1|<0.001
84533735|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|-37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-37.4|-58.6|<0.001
84533736|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-40.1|-61.3|<0.001
84533737|NCT03954834|168816161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
84533738|NCT03954834|168816162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|23.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.94|6.43|<0.001
84533739|NCT03954834|168816162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|42.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.18|10.59|<0.001
84533740|NCT03954834|168816162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|40.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.04|10.09|<0.001
84533741|NCT01404923|168816167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
84533742|NCT00505375|168816194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.0014
84533743|NCT03688282|168816195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84533744|NCT04796779|168816205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84533745|NCT04796779|168816206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
84533746|NCT04796779|168816207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84533747|NCT04796779|168816208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
84533748|NCT04796779|168816209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||0.57
84533749|NCT01055132|168816257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|-0.0013|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear, period and lens were included as fixed effects; site, patient, eye\*patient, period\*patient and period\*eye\*patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference(test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for monocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.0013|-0.041|
84533750|NCT01055132|168816258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|-0.003|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear,lens period and lens were included in the model as fixed effects; site, patient, period\*patient were included as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Binocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.003|-0.027|
84533751|NCT01055132|168816259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|19.79|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and Site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for comfort at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||19.79|4.05|
84533752|NCT01055132|168816260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|least-square mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.8|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for overall quality of vision at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||14.80|0.58|
84533753|NCT00655876|168816295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Log Rank|||The sample size was based on the primary hypothesis of a 29% reduction in the hazard rate of death with cetuximab, corresponding to an increase in 2-year overall survival (OS) from 41% to 53% and a hazard ratio (λ\[exp\]/λ\[cont\]) of 0.71 in favor of the cetuximab arm. Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 400 patients were required to reach 281 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.025, 4.5 years of accrual, 2 years of follow-up, and 4 interim analyses.||1.16|0.70|0.47
84533754|NCT00655876|168816296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||1.28|0.66|0.65
84533755|NCT00655876|168816298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||||0.66
84533756|NCT00655876|168816299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||6-8 weeks post-treatment||||0.04
84533757|NCT00655876|168816299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||1 year||||0.77
84533758|NCT00655876|168816299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||2 years||||0.17
84533759|NCT01243112|168816338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis is that no difference would be measured between treatment arms.||||0.359
84533760|NCT01243112|168816339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.490
84533761|NCT01059344|168816342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
84533762|NCT01059344|168816343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84533763|NCT01059344|168816344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84533764|NCT01059344|168816345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
84533765|NCT01059344|168816346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84533766|NCT01059344|168816347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84533767|NCT01059344|168816348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
84533768|NCT01739348|168816349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.9|0.6287
84533769|NCT01739348|168816349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.8|1.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.8|0.4625
84533770|NCT01739348|168816350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.1|0.4925
84533771|NCT01739348|168816350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|2.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.9|0.3221
84533772|NCT01739348|168816357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.4|0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8426
84533773|NCT01739348|168816357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.8264
84533774|NCT01739348|168816358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0005
84533775|NCT01739348|168816358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|-0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
84533776|NCT01739348|168816359|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.95||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.87|0.2138
84533777|NCT01739348|168816359|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.97||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.90|0.4330
84533778|NCT01739348|168816360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.03||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0066
84533779|NCT01739348|168816360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
84533780|NCT01739348|168816362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-0.6|0.2949
84533781|NCT01739348|168816362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.6|-0.4|0.1372
84533782|NCT01739348|168816363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.4721
84533783|NCT01739348|168816363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.0|0.0|0.0599
84533784|NCT01447420|168816368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Participants without measurement at the end of the 24 week untreated follow-up period were considered as non-responders.||IL28B Genotypes (CC, CT or TT)||||0.0007
84533785|NCT01447420|168816371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.14|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia after the first month of treatment vs No anemia||4.14|0.69|
84533786|NCT01447420|168816371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.59|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia in the first month of treatment vs No anemia||2.59|0.28|
84533787|NCT01447420|168816371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.12|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs CT||13.12|2.27|
84533788|NCT01447420|168816371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|13.61|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs TT||13.61|1.19|
84533789|NCT04562155|168816378|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0345||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=30) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0345
84533790|NCT04562155|168816378|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0376||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=50) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0376
84533791|NCT04562155|168816378|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0319||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=30, h=3) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0319
84719028|NCT03500549|169190290|OTHER|Non-inferiority was not assessed because of the prespecified hierarchical testing. Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|18.25||MRMM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||18.25|5.49|0.0005
84533792|NCT04562155|168816378|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0603||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=60, h=5) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0603
84533793|NCT00790335|168816387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for extent of DVT and for clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. Primary outcome = no statistically significant difference between the two arms.|||1.11|0.82|0.56
84533794|NCT00790335|168816388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.98|0.17|0.38
84533795|NCT00790335|168816389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for thrombus extent and clinical center|No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.09|0.80|0.39
84533796|NCT00790335|168816390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of DVT and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||0.98|0.54|0.04
84533797|NCT00790335|168816391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.18||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|49.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. More major bleeding was observed in the PCDT Arm.|||49.2|0.78|0.049
84533798|NCT00790335|168816392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||3.01|0.76|0.23
84533799|NCT00790335|168816393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm. Bleeding was more frequent in the PCDT Arm.|||6.68|1.04|0.03
84533800|NCT00790335|168816394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||1.89|0.85|0.25
84533801|NCT00790335|168816395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm|||5.28|0.44|0.50
84533802|NCT00790335|168816396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||2.29|0.94|0.09
84533803|NCT00790335|168816398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.44|0.33|0.83
84533804|NCT00790335|168816399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
84533805|NCT00790335|168816400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
84533806|NCT00790335|168816401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
84533807|NCT00790335|168816402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.005
84533808|NCT00790335|168816403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
84533809|NCT00790335|168816404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.01
84533810|NCT00790335|168816405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
84533811|NCT00790335|168816406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.03
84533812|NCT00790335|168816407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference was seen in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.37
84533813|NCT00790335|168816408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No difference was observed in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months in the two treatment groups.|||||0.99
84533814|NCT00790335|168816409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference in the change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.08
84533815|NCT00790335|168816410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
84533816|NCT00790335|168816411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.03
84533817|NCT00790335|168816412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
84533818|NCT00790335|168816413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.05
84533819|NCT01096368|168816511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.627|1.197||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|The study was designed to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test. The planned sample size was 160 subjects per arm. 85 EFS events were needed, which were expected after 8 years of accrual and 2 years of follow-up. At 5% type 1 error, the study had 93% power to detect an increase in 2-year EFS from 75% (RT alone) to 87% (RT+maintenance). The design also incorporated interim analyses for futility and efficacy.||1.197|0.627|0.229
84533820|NCT01096368|168816512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.463|1.238||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|It was planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test using the planned sample size of 160 subjects per arm which was optimized for the EFS outcome. A one-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison as well.||1.238|0.463|0.172
84533821|NCT01096368|168816513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.068||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.068|0.461|0.096
84533822|NCT01096368|168816514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.684||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|7.175||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||7.175|1.004|0.041
84533823|NCT01096368|168816515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.053||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over death of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.053|0.284|0.067
84533824|NCT01096368|168816516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.601||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|17.902||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||17.902|0.724|0.094
84533825|NCT06354998|168816521|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.245|||||GMR was a secondary endpoint.|GMR (mRNA-1273.815 versus licensed Spikevax) at Day 15 and its 95% CI was calculated based on the t-distribution for the mean difference of log-transformed antibody values and then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.||1.245|0.662|
84533826|NCT01568320|168816535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Freedom from Major adverse events (%)|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||82|59|
84533827|NCT01568320|168816536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Survival rate (%)|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||99|87|
84533828|NCT01394952|168816559|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.33% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.0 (after adjustment for the interim analysis).~Once superiority was achieved for the primary endpoint, multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.33|0.79|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Primary CV endpoint||0.99|0.79|0.026
84533829|NCT01394952|168816560|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Death from CV causes||1.06|0.78|0.211
84533830|NCT01394952|168816560|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal MI||1.16|0.79|0.652
84533831|NCT01394952|168816560|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal stroke||0.95|0.61|0.017
84533832|NCT01394952|168816561|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Time to all cause mortality||1.01|0.80|0.067
84533833|NCT01394952|168816562|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||microvascular endpoint||0.93|0.79|<0.001
84533834|NCT01394952|168816563|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure clinic visit||1.12|0.77|0.456
84533835|NCT01394952|168816564|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hospitalization for unstable angina||1.54|0.84|0.413
84533836|NCT00643565|168816608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.41|0.61|0.7189
84533837|NCT00643565|168816609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.25|0.51|0.3211
84533838|NCT02283983|168816633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
84533839|NCT03055650|168816634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
84533840|NCT03055650|168816634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
84533841|NCT03055650|168816635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Week 1||||<0.0001
84533842|NCT03055650|168816635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Month 1||||<0.0001
84533843|NCT03055650|168816636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
84533844|NCT03055650|168816636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
84533845|NCT03055650|168816637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||||||<0.0001
84533846|NCT01791153|168816657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|18.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (less than or equal to \[\</=\] 30 mg/day, greater than \[\>\] 30 mg/day).||66.00|18.00|<0.0001
84533847|NCT01791153|168816657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|39.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|12.46|65.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||65.66|12.46|< 0.0001
84533848|NCT01791153|168816658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||< 0.0001
84533849|NCT01791153|168816658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|38.35|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|17.89|58.81||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||58.81|17.89|
84533850|NCT01791153|168816658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||0.0002
84533851|NCT01791153|168816658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|10.41|60.41||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||60.41|10.41|
84533852|NCT01791153|168816659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|0.46|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.46|0.11|<0.0001
84533853|NCT01791153|168816659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.18|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.82|0.18|0.0011
84533854|NCT01791153|168816659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.66|0.12|0.0001
84533855|NCT01791153|168816659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||1.16|0.20|0.0316
84533856|NCT01791153|168816660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
84719029|NCT03500549|169190291|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5452|0.8039|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.8039|0.5452|
84533857|NCT01791153|168816660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
84533858|NCT01791153|168816660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day).||||0.0003
84533859|NCT01791153|168816660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
84533860|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.61||||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-5.86|7.07|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.07|-5.86|0.8067
84533861|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.44||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.69|9.56|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.56|-0.69|0.0252
84533862|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.56||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.64|6.53|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.53|-7.64|0.8374
84533863|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.27||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.59|9.14|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.14|-2.59|0.1468
84533864|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.58|10.34|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.34|-1.58|0.0570
84533865|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|5.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|10.32|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.32|0.86|0.0024
84533866|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.04||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.43|9.51|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.51|-3.43|0.2218
84533867|NCT01791153|168816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.25||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.14|9.64|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.64|-1.14|0.0412
84533868|NCT01791153|168816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-15.6||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-34.3|3.1|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.1|-34.3|0.0312
84533869|NCT01791153|168816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.8||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-27.2|3.6|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.6|-27.2|0.0476
84533870|NCT01791153|168816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-21.9||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.4|-1.4|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-1.4|-42.4|0.0059
84533871|NCT01791153|168816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-18.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.8|-0.5|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-0.5|-35.8|0.0081
84533872|NCT01150890|168816672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1941|||||||Overall Trend test|||The primary null hypothesis was tested sequentially using a linear trend test at the significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) using logistic regression modeling.||||0.1941
84533873|NCT01150890|168816672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.09|1.0000
84533874|NCT01150890|168816672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1203||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||Chi-squared|||||0.26|-0.02|0.0966
84533875|NCT01150890|168816672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0597||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||Chi-squared|||||0.17|-0.06|0.3208
84533876|NCT01150890|168816673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0363||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Chi-squared|||||0.21|-0.14|0.6831
84533877|NCT01150890|168816673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1477||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|-0.04|0.1396
84533878|NCT01150890|168816673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0265||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||Chi-squared|||||0.19|-0.14|0.7588
84533879|NCT01150890|168816674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.4161
84533880|NCT01150890|168816674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8094|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.8094
84533881|NCT01150890|168816674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.3040
84533882|NCT03970837|168816680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.53|1.87|<0.0001
84533883|NCT03970837|168816680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.50|1.85|<0.0001
84533884|NCT03970837|168816680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||7.90|3.66|<0.0001
84533885|NCT03970837|168816680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
84533886|NCT03970837|168816680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
84533887|NCT03970837|168816684|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-8.1|-21.3|
84533888|NCT03970837|168816684|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-10.6|-23.9|
84533889|NCT03786718|168816890|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One sample median test|||Due to nonnormality, we used nonparametric tests to analyze the data. This analysis is a one sample median test of participants' median SUS score compared to the threshold score of 68 indicative of 'above average' usability.||||<0.001
84533890|NCT03786718|168816894|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.77
84533891|NCT03786718|168816895|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in General Diet sub-scale score||||0.02
84533892|NCT03786718|168816895|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Specific Diet sub-scale score||||0.13
84533893|NCT03786718|168816895|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Exercise sub-scale score||||0.35
84533894|NCT03786718|168816895|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Blood-glucose Testing sub-scale score||||0.67
84533895|NCT03786718|168816895|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Foot Care sub-scale score||||0.65
84533896|NCT03786718|168816896|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.001
84533897|NCT03786718|168816897|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.86
84533898|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.30
84533899|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||1.00
84533900|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.63
84533901|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.02
84533902|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.55
84533903|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.0009
84533904|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
84533905|NCT03786718|168816898|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||1.00
84533906|NCT03786718|168816899|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.15
84533907|NCT03786718|168816900|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.23
84533908|NCT03786718|168816900|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||1.00
84533909|NCT03786718|168816900|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.'||||0.51
84533910|NCT03786718|168816900|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.63
84533911|NCT03786718|168816901|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.01
84533912|NCT00945100|168816905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference (unadjusted)|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|35.0|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||35|8|0.003
84533913|NCT00945100|168816906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included interocular difference at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.1|0.01
84533914|NCT00945100|168816908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||1.0|0.3|0.002
84533915|NCT00945100|168816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within gender was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and gender in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.04
84533916|NCT00945100|168816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within race/ethnicity was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and race/ethnicity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.89
84533917|NCT00945100|168816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within age at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and age in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.49
84533918|NCT00945100|168816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect within amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and visual acuity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for the main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.37
84533919|NCT00945100|168816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within cause of amblyopia was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and amblyopia cause in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.50
84533920|NCT00945100|168816914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.04|
84533921|NCT00945100|168816922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the 10-week exam.||||>0.99
84533922|NCT00945100|168816924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the final exam.||||0.12
84533923|NCT00945100|168816928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.28
84533924|NCT00945100|168816931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.45
84533925|NCT03244644|168816937|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.0|||||The Bayesian posterior probability of superiority was 0.99136. This value exceeded the pre-specified threshold of 0.9750338 (nominal 0.025 one-sided level).|A hierarchical, closed-testing procedure (Bayesian hierarchical model) was utilized for the primary endpoint. The Bayesian hierarchical model formally incorporated data from the previous Phase 2B study (NCT02299570) of RBX2660. This analysis tested the hypothesis that the response rate of RBX2660 was superior to Placebo and was performed at the nominal 0.00125 and 0.025 one-sided levels.||24.0|2.3|
84533926|NCT03244644|168816938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||P-value for secondary outcome evaluated from baseline through 6 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.156
84533927|NCT01781481|168816942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Inter-rater reliability|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inter rater reliability for a subset of 40 patients whose Pediatric INTERMED was scored by two trained raters. The median inter-rater reliability coefficient was .87.|||||
84533928|NCT01781481|168816942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's Alpha|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Overall internal consistency of the overall Pediatric INTERMED scale (34 items).|||||
84533929|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Correlation between the biological and psychological domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED. The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.05
84533930|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Social domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED.||||<0.01
84533931|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533932|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Biological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533933|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Psychology and Social Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533934|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.01
84533935|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533936|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533937|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533938|NCT01781481|168816943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Family/Caregiver and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
84533939|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis||||>0.05
84533940|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity (at time of Study Participation).||||<0.01
84533941|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (child rating).||||<0.01
84533942|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (parent rating).||||<0.01
84533943|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being scale.||||<0.01
84533944|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
84533945|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
84533946|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of Immunomodulators.||||>0.05
84533947|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of ant-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
84533948|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis.||||>0.05
84533949|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview).||||>0.05
84533950|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Report)||||>0.05
84533951|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent)||||<0.01
84533952|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being.||||>0.05
84533953|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
84533954|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
84533955|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\< 0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficent|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)||||<0.05
84533956|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and use of anti-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
84533957|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84533958|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.01
84533959|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (child rating)."||||<0.01
84533960|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||<0.01
84533961|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
84533962|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Surgeries"||||>0.05
84533963|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
84533964|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators."||||>0.05
84533965|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
84533966|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05. The P-Value indicated above was found for all the correlations which were examined.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlations between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic Dilemma Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent) and each of the following variables: Disease Severity at Diagnosis, Disease Severity at Interview, Functional Disability Index - Child, Functional Disability Index- Parent, Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being, Number of Surgeries, Number of Courses of Prednisone, Use of Immunomodulators, Use of Anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
84533967|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84533968|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.05
84533969|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)"||||<0.05
84533970|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||>0.05
84533971|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of LIfe: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
84533972|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
84533973|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
84533974|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators. ."||||>0.05
84533975|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications"||||>0.05
84533976|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84533977|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview)."||||>0.05
84533978|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||>0.05
84533979|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||>0.05
84533980|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being"||||>0.05
84533981|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
84533982|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone since diagnosis."||||<0.05
84533983|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significiance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.01
84533984|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The Threshold for significance is p\<0.05)|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of ant-TNFa Medications (infliximab or adalimumab)."||||<0.01
84533985|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at diagnosis."||||>0.05
84533986|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at study participation."||||<0.05
84533987|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||<0.01
84533988|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||<0.01
84533989|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being Scale."||||<0.05
84533990|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
84533991|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
84533992|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.05
84533993|NCT01781481|168816957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
84533994|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84533995|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84533996|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
84533997|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
84533998|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
84533999|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||0.01
84534000|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.05
84534001|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534002|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
84534003|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.05
84534004|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
84534005|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
84534006|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534007|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534008|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
84534009|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
84534010|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
84534011|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534012|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534013|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534014|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
84534015|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
84534016|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
84534017|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
84534018|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534019|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534020|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
84534021|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||>0.05
84534022|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
84534023|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534024|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534025|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
84534026|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
84534027|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
84534028|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
84719030|NCT03500549|169190292|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5309|0.7968|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.7968|0.5309|
84534029|NCT01781481|168816958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
84534030|NCT01781481|168816959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|34.47||||||||34.47|2.02|
84534031|NCT01781481|168816960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|43.02||||||||43.02|1.70|
84534032|NCT01781481|168816961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|24.36||||||||24.36|2.17|
84534033|NCT01781481|168816962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|122.84||||||||122.84|5.00|
84534034|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Hospital Services involved in the child's care.||||<0.01
84534035|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Inpatient Hospitalizations since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
84534036|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Surgeries since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
84534037|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Family Financial Well Being||||<0.01
84534038|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
84534039|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||<0.01
84534040|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Diagnosis."||||<0.01
84534041|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
84534042|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
84534043|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534044|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since child's diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534045|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||>0.05
84534046|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
84534047|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534048|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534049|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
84534050|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
84534051|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534052|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534053|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well Being."||||>0.05
84534054|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
84534055|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis. Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
84534056|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
84534057|NCT01781481|168816963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
84534058|NCT01781481|168816964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 Threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
84534059|NCT01781481|168816965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.01|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of calls to the IBD Nurse. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
84534060|NCT01781481|168816966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of extra appointments with the IBD team. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3).||||<0.01
84534061|NCT01781481|168816967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of ER Visits. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.05
84534062|NCT01781481|168816968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
84540765|NCT03718832|168832714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.167034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821244||0.234947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749627|1.415558||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.415558|-5.749627|0.234947
84534063|NCT00372411|168816969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|4.58||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||4.58|-0.23|0.08
84534064|NCT00372411|168816969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||5.18|0.57|0.02
84534065|NCT00372411|168816969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.65||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||2.65|-2.94|0.92
84534066|NCT00372411|168816969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.81||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||1.81|-2.97|0.63
84534067|NCT00372411|168816970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.24||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||13.24|2.03|0.009
84534068|NCT00372411|168816970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.56||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||11.56|0.34|0.04
84534069|NCT00372411|168816970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.94||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.94|-3.87|0.81
84534070|NCT00372411|168816970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.12||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||5.12|-2.74|0.55
84534071|NCT00372411|168816971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|2.7||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||2.70|-11.52|0.22
84534072|NCT00372411|168816971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.6||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||-2.60|-13.61|0.005
84534073|NCT00372411|168816971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|8.89||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||8.89|-7.03|0.82
84534074|NCT00372411|168816971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.93||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.93|-9.20|0.55
84540417|NCT01750190|168831723|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2), as fixed effects.||2.037|1.730|<0.0001
84534075|NCT00372411|168816972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.11||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.11|-1.73|0.08
84534076|NCT00372411|168816972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.06||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||-0.06|-1.62|0.03
84534077|NCT00372411|168816973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.26|-0.25|0.95
84534078|NCT00372411|168816973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||0.04|-0.42|0.10
84534079|NCT03514641|168816978|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
84534080|NCT03514641|168816979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.54|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.54|-4.32|0.0117
84534081|NCT03514641|168816980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83||Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP|Covariance|||||1.83|0.92|0.1317
84534082|NCT03514641|168816981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.3|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.30|1.11|0.0113
84534083|NCT03514641|168816982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|-2.42|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-2.42|-6.83|<0.0001
84534084|NCT03514641|168816983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.62|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.62|1.32|0.0004
84534085|NCT03514641|168816984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.12|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.12|-1.79|0.0863
84534086|NCT03514641|168816985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.08|1.06|0.0232
84534087|NCT03514641|168816986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.91|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.91|1.13|0.0140
84534088|NCT03514641|168816987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.92|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.92|-3.70|0.0011
84534089|NCT03514641|168816988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.35|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.35|1.13|0.0094
84534090|NCT03514641|168816989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-0.83|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.83|-5.57|0.0083
84534091|NCT03514641|168816990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.19|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.19|-1.87|0.1085
84534092|NCT03514641|168816991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.17|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.17|-2.67|0.0837
84534093|NCT00642694|168816999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84534094|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.3|<0.0001
84534095|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
84534096|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
84534097|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
84534098|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
84534099|NCT02906930|168817008|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
84534100|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
84534101|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-1.9|0.0866
84539744|NCT06360081|168829422|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|99.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.78||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||102.78|97.08|<0.0001
84534102|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.8|-0.9|0.8692
84534103|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.7075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.0|0.7075
84534104|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.8|0.0138
84534105|NCT02906930|168817009|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.4|<0.0001
84534106|NCT02906930|168817032|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.78|0.26|0.0043
84534107|NCT02906930|168817032|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.59|0.18|0.0002
84534108|NCT02906930|168817032|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.60|0.19|0.0002
84534109|NCT02906930|168817033|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.93|0.25|0.0300
84534110|NCT02906930|168817033|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.36|0.04|0.0001
84534111|NCT02906930|168817033|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg /Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.01|0.0001
84534112|NCT00910091|168817080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.1895
84534113|NCT00910091|168817081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0203
84534114|NCT00910091|168817083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.6980
84534115|NCT00910091|168817084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.3078
84534116|NCT00910091|168817085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0484
84534117|NCT01007942|168817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.65|0.0067
84534118|NCT04492020|168817107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.69|1.63|<.0001
84534119|NCT04492020|168817108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.78|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.78|1.63|<.0001
84534120|NCT04492020|168817109|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.96|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||1.96|1.40|<.0001
84534121|NCT04492020|168817110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.66|1.39|<.0001
84534122|NCT01175811|168817152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.14|
84534123|NCT01175811|168817153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.15|
84534124|NCT01175811|168817154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
84534125|NCT01175811|168817154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.822
84534126|NCT01175811|168817154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.417
84534127|NCT01175811|168817154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
84534128|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|||HHT-D reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
84534129|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|||HHT-G reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
84534130|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-D was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-D and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<.0001
84534131|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-G was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-G and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||0.0001
84534132|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-D was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
84534133|NCT02109419|168817162|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-G was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
84534134|NCT00552578|168817191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.523||95.0|0.0098|2.8215|||Fisher Exact|||Intent to treat||2.8215|0.0098|0.523
84534135|NCT00552578|168817193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||No adjustment|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used and tested the hypothesis that neither group would be more likely to complete the study protocol.||||0.015
84534136|NCT04091659|168817205|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.49|||SEM||||The control group, standard education was the reference for this model.|0.49|-0.85|0.65
84534137|NCT04091659|168817206|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.5|||SEM||The control group, standard education, was the reference|||0.50|0.02|0.02
84534138|NCT00626392|168817207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
84534139|NCT04558918|168817245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|338.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|4564.14||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||4564.14|25.07|<0.0001
84534140|NCT04558918|168817245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in marginal proportion|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|87.6||||||||87.6|71.2|
84534141|NCT04558918|168817246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|495.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.41|10066.53||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||10066.53|24.41|<0.0001
84534142|NCT04558918|168817246|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|76.9||||||||76.9|56.4|
84534143|NCT04558918|168817249|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.53|
84534144|NCT04558918|168817250|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.68||||||||1.68|-4.01|
84534145|NCT04558918|168817251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|108.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.25|681.24||two sided unadjusted p-value|Conditional logistic regression|||||681.24|17.25|<0.0001
84534146|NCT04558918|168817251|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|83.9||||||logistic regression model||83.9|51.4|
84534147|NCT04558918|168817252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean diff.|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|4.12||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||4.12|3.20|<0.0001
84534148|NCT04558918|168817253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|11.29||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||11.29|5.28|<0.0001
84534149|NCT04558918|168817254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.04|-100.26||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-100.26|-132.04|<0.0001
84534150|NCT04558918|168817255|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.10|0.89|0.8361
84534151|NCT04558918|168817256|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.1||||0.01183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.61||two sided unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model|||||0.61|0.02|0.01183
84534152|NCT04558918|168817256|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.04||||||||0.04|-1.24|
84534153|NCT04558918|168817257|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.03||||0.31731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Poisson model|||||0.10|-0.03|0.31731
84534154|NCT04558918|168817258|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|20.23||||||||20.23|-16.86|
84534155|NCT04558918|168817259|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3||||||||1.30|0.97|
84534156|NCT05187013|168817282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final SBP, i.e., Final SBP - Baseline SBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final SBP - Baseline SBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -7.16 and 21.40, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 83.16%||-1.73|-12.59|0.006
84534157|NCT05187013|168817282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final DBP, i.e., Final DBP - Baseline DBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final DBP - Baseline DBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -2.15 and 10.49, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 51.48%||0.49|-4.79|0.056
84534158|NCT05187013|168817282|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was considered to be 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|7.42|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in SBP for the general health education arm - the change in SBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in SBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||7.42|-8.76|0.87
84534159|NCT05187013|168817282|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.98|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline DBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in DBP for the general health education arm - the change in DBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in DBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||4.98|-3.02|0.63
84534160|NCT05187013|168817283|EQUIVALENCE|The margin is taken to be 0|Odds Ratio, log|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|A mixed effect model with study arm as a fixed effect and subject-specific random effect.|For OR: the general education arm was taken as the baseline (denominator)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in medicine adherence between the two groups||2.29|-0.26|0.14
84534161|NCT05187013|168817284|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Regression, Logistic|Binomial regression for appointment attended/appointment scheduled.|The baseline (denominator) was taken to be the general education arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference in appointment adherence between the study arms||0.19|-0.58|0.32
84534162|NCT02737748|168817287|OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2217
84534163|NCT02737748|168817288|OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0324
84534164|NCT02737748|168817289|OTHER|||||||0.3975|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3975
84534165|NCT01948986|168817359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|132.27|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.27|80.32|
84534166|NCT01948986|168817359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|156.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.83|191.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||191.23|127.83|
84534167|NCT01948986|168817359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|170.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.02|207.98|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||207.98|139.02|
84534168|NCT01948986|168817359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|155.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.38|193.8|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||193.80|124.38|
84534169|NCT01948986|168817360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.66|132.61|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.61|80.66|
84534170|NCT01948986|168817360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|151.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.05|185.34|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||185.34|124.05|
84534171|NCT01948986|168817360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|168.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.53|205.49|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||205.49|137.53|
84534172|NCT01948986|168817360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|151.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.69|189.36|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||189.36|121.69|
84534173|NCT01948986|168817362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|101.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|130.87|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||130.87|78.83|
84534174|NCT01948986|168817362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|143.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.15|176.37|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||176.37|117.15|
84534175|NCT01948986|168817362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|140.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.4|172.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||172.23|114.40|
84534176|NCT01948986|168817362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|90.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|112.96|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||112.96|71.99|
84534177|NCT01948986|168817369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|80.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.41|108.76|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||108.76|59.41|
84534178|NCT01948986|168817369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|53.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.64|68.63|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||68.63|41.64|
84534179|NCT01948986|168817369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|43.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.85|55.78|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||55.78|33.85|
84534180|NCT01948986|168817369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.04|38.21|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||38.21|22.04|
84534181|NCT01948986|168817386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mild Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|76.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.58|121.19|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||121.19|48.58|
84534182|NCT01948986|168817386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mod. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|136.65|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||136.65|54.78|
84534183|NCT01948986|168817386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Sev. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|72.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.63|118.58|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||118.58|44.63|
84534184|NCT01948986|168817388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|49.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.22|90.93|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||90.93|27.22|
84534185|NCT01948986|168817388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.85|69.64|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||69.64|20.85|
84534186|NCT01948986|168817388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Sev. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.32|26.58|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||26.58|7.32|
84534187|NCT04305496|168817398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
84534188|NCT04305496|168817399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
84534189|NCT04305496|168817400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
84534190|NCT04305496|168817401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
84534191|NCT04305496|168817402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
84534192|NCT04305496|168817403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
84534193|NCT04305496|168817404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
84534194|NCT04305496|168817405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
84534195|NCT02980874|168817432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.0|-15.2|0.187
84534196|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-6.28||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.28|-9.79|
84534197|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.68||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-2.68|-7.36|
84534198|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|-4.47||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-4.47|-7.42|
84534199|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-0.27|-3.37|
84534200|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-2.2||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-2.20|-5.99|
84534201|NCT01753336|168817448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.81||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.81|-3.11|
84534202|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-9.56||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-9.56|-13.38|
84534203|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-6.71||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.71|-11.08|
84534204|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-12.11||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-12.11|-16.74|
84534205|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-8.22||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-8.22|-12.92|
84534206|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-12.1||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-12.10|-17.18|
84534207|NCT01753336|168817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|-9.39||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-9.39|-14.02|
84534208|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-2.52||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.52|-4.46|
84534209|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.7||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.70|-2.81|
84534210|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.23||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-2.23|-3.75|
84534211|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.27|-1.33|
84534212|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.83||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-1.83|-3.64|
84534213|NCT01753336|168817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.02||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-0.02|-2.00|
84719031|NCT03500549|169190293|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.3043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1493|0.4593|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.4593|0.1493|
84534214|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-2.12||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.12|-3.64|
84534215|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.86||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.86|-2.79|
84534216|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.04||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-1.04|-2.44|
84534217|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.12||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.12|-1.55|
84534218|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.12||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.12|-1.45|
84534219|NCT01753336|168817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.7||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.70|-0.85|
84534220|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.92||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.92|-2.39|
84534221|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.66||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.66|-2.22|
84534222|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.58||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4.The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.58|-1.84|
84534223|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.18||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.18|-1.08|
84534224|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.19||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.19|-1.57|
84534225|NCT01753336|168817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.73|-0.85|
84534226|NCT01121666|168817454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.|Shuirmann's TOST|||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved.||||0.0003
84534227|NCT01121666|168817455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 12 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2357
84534228|NCT01121666|168817455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 15 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1395
84719032|NCT03500549|169190294|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-21.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|-11.36||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-11.36|-32.49|0.0002
84534229|NCT01121666|168817455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 17 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3992
84534230|NCT01121666|168817457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9638
84534231|NCT01121666|168817462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8926
84534232|NCT01121666|168817469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Shuirmann's TOST|||||||0.0003
84534233|NCT01629966|168817479|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.17|||MMRM|||||0.17|-2.71|0.0830
84534234|NCT01629966|168817479|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.34|||MMRM|||||-0.34|-3.26|0.0156
84534235|NCT01629966|168817480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.02|||MMRM|||||0.02|-2.75|0.0536
84534236|NCT01629966|168817480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.11|||MMRM|||||-0.11|-2.94|0.0349
84534237|NCT02304991|168817518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.002
84534238|NCT02304991|168817519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.0005
84534239|NCT02304991|168817520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84534240|NCT02304991|168817521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||0.01
84534241|NCT02304991|168817522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||<0.0001
84534242|NCT02304991|168817523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
84534243|NCT03801382|168817524|EQUIVALENCE|Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|||>.05
84534244|NCT04682730|168817548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
84534245|NCT04682730|168817550|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total program costs in 2021 dollars|7845.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6378.0|9312.0|||||An opportunity cost approach was used. Costs estimated: Develop workbook- guideline, EHR data analyses, survey, evidence review- \& print; facilitator training/delivery/program tailoring; staff time; implemented strategies; dental sealant placements.|Mean Total Program costs per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||9312|6378|
84534246|NCT04682730|168817554|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total costs/per clinic per sealant|1321.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1245.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|845.0|3208.0|||||Total cost per sealant calculated as quotient of total intervention costs ($125,521) \& total sealants placed (95), is = to mean cost/sealant across each clinic ($7845/5.938).|Mean Total Program costs per sealant per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||3208|845|
84534247|NCT04682730|168817556|OTHER|descriptive analysis|percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||89/89 treatment plans completed by the end of the period.|||
84534248|NCT02081209|168817586|OTHER||sucess percentage|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.3||||||||87.3|76.4|
84534249|NCT02081209|168817586|OTHER||sucess percentage|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|85.1||||||||85.1|68.1|
84534250|NCT02081209|168817586|OTHER||sucess percentage|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|89.5||||||||89.5|65.0|
84534251|NCT02081209|168817586|OTHER||sucess percentage|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.6|98.8||||||||98.8|84.6|
84534252|NCT02081209|168817587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84534253|NCT02081209|168817587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||||2.1|0.5|
84534254|NCT02081209|168817587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||||||||4.1|2.0|
84534255|NCT02081209|168817588|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Data from the 16-week follow-up questionnaire were tabulated for all subjects with completed questionnaires.. All confidence intervals were calculated at 95%. Alpha was calculated to be 0.05, critical probability (p\*) was calculated to be 0.975. Assuming normal distribution of survey recipients, a standard deviation of 1.96 is used to calculate the standard margin of error.|||
84534256|NCT02022748|168817594|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|151.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.03|203.86|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||203.86|112.03|
84534257|NCT02022748|168817594|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|161.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.52|212.58|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||212.58|122.52|
84534258|NCT02022748|168817594|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.07|103.98|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||103.98|78.07|
84534259|NCT02022748|168817595|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|117.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|162.22|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||162.22|84.51|
84534260|NCT02022748|168817595|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|194.7|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||194.70|95.38|
84534261|NCT02022748|168817595|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|82.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.43|98.96|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||98.96|68.43|
84534262|NCT02022748|168817596|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|137.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.7|179.52|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||179.52|105.70|
84534263|NCT02022748|168817596|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|148.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.07|192.32|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||192.32|115.07|
84534264|NCT02022748|168817596|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.55|105.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||105.27|77.55|
84534265|NCT02022748|168817597|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|112.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.61|143.42|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.42|88.61|
84534266|NCT02022748|168817597|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|143.45|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.45|91.19|
84534267|NCT02022748|168817597|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|93.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.31|108.0|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||108.00|80.31|
84534268|NCT02022748|168817598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.75|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.75|-0.97|
84534269|NCT02022748|168817598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.52|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||1.52|-0.96|
84534270|NCT02022748|168817598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|1.02|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||1.02|-1.73|
84534271|NCT02022748|168817599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|0.48|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.48|-2.62|
84534272|NCT02022748|168817599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.37|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||0.37|-2.46|
84534273|NCT02022748|168817599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||0.27|-1.27|
84534274|NCT06378749|168817617|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
84534275|NCT06378749|168817618|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84534276|NCT06378749|168817619|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84534277|NCT06378749|168817620|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84534278|NCT06378749|168817621|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84534279|NCT05538065|168817623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.78|1.10|0.002
84534280|NCT05538065|168817623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.57|1.01|0.039
84534281|NCT05538065|168817624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|94.6||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||94.6|-36.6|0.386
84534282|NCT05538065|168817624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|106.1||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||106.1|-29.9|272
84534283|NCT05538065|168817625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|47.0||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||47.0|-74.5|0.657
84534284|NCT05538065|168817625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|91.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for multiple testing||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||91.0|-60.7|0.696
84534285|NCT04994483|168817626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.37|0.4308
84534286|NCT04994483|168817627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.4034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-0.68|0.4034
84534287|NCT04228783|168817648|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
84534288|NCT04228783|168817648|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
84534289|NCT04228783|168817648|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
84534290|NCT04228783|168817649|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|0.8|
84534291|NCT04228783|168817649|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
84534292|NCT04228783|168817649|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
84534293|NCT03151811|168817661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0311|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0311
84534294|NCT00123474|168817695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6||||||6 Month Analysis||11.6|-6.0|
84534295|NCT00123474|168817696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6||||||||10.6|-6.8|
84534296|NCT00123474|168817696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg total daily dose relative to 140 mg total daily dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.9|
84534297|NCT00123474|168817707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|15.3||||||6 Month Analysis||15.3|-11.7|
84534298|NCT00123474|168817707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.6||||||6 Month Analysis||17.6|-9.3|
84534299|NCT00123474|168817707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
84534300|NCT00123474|168817707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
84534301|NCT03149445|168817736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-12.3|0.1045
84534302|NCT03149445|168817736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-4.0|0.7422
84534303|NCT03149445|168817736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.1|0.0460
84534304|NCT03149445|168817736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.8||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||17.8|-9.2|0.3847
84534305|NCT03149445|168817737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||2.5|-14.9|0.1326
84534306|NCT03149445|168817737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-2.9|0.5148
84534307|NCT03149445|168817737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.4||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-0.3|0.0605
84534308|NCT03149445|168817737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||14.0|-8.8|0.5198
84534309|NCT03149445|168817738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.6||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.5|0.0058
84534310|NCT03149445|168817738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.5142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.5|-5.3|0.5142
84719033|NCT03500549|169190295|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-0.01|-0.28|0.0369
84719034|NCT03500549|169190296|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|59.1||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|101.32||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||101.32|16.88|0.0069
84534311|NCT03149445|168817738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.3|-5.1|0.3794
84534312|NCT03149445|168817738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.1|0.6850
84534313|NCT02699060|168817755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
84534314|NCT04916444|168817761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the TWSTRS scores.||||0.691
84719035|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|18.62||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|37.13||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Global Health Status/QoL: Difference in LS mean||37.13|0.12|0.0486
84719036|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|12.86||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|20.86||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning: Difference in LS mean||20.86|4.86|0.0023
84719037|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|24.43||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|40.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Role functioning: Difference in LS mean||40.01|8.84|0.0027
84719038|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|4.11||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|19.8||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Emotional functioning: Difference in LS mean||19.80|-11.58|0.6013
84719039|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|9.56||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|23.64||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning: Difference in LS mean||23.64|-4.52|0.1792
84534315|NCT04916444|168817762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the BDI scores.||||0.816
84534316|NCT04916444|168817763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.167
84534317|NCT04916444|168817764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.507
84534318|NCT04916444|168817765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.056
84534319|NCT04916444|168817766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.646
84534320|NCT04005352|168817767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||with significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84534321|NCT04005352|168817768|NON_INFERIORITY|4 letter margin (1-sided)|Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.3|<0.0001
84534322|NCT04005352|168817769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84534323|NCT04005352|168817770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84534324|NCT04005352|168817771|SUPERIORITY|Week 14|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||2.7|0.9|0.0510
84719040|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.27||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|24.92||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Social functioning: Difference in LS mean||24.92|-2.38|0.1039
84534325|NCT04005352|168817771|SUPERIORITY|Week 16|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
84534326|NCT04005352|168817774|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||p-value for treatment difference|ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.9|0.8137
84534327|NCT04005352|168817775|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.3|0.7|0.4106
84534328|NCT04005352|168817775|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.4|0.7|0.4667
84534329|NCT04005352|168817776|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.7|0.8|0.2397
84534330|NCT04005352|168817776|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.8|0.9|0.1150
84534331|NCT04005352|168817777|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 28 and 32|Difference|-26.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-7.5|||ANOVA|||||-7.5|-46.3|0.0066
84534332|NCT04005352|168817777|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 60 and 64|Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-37.6|0.1714
84534333|NCT04005352|168817780|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.193
84534334|NCT04005352|168817780|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.9|0.052
84534335|NCT04005352|168817781|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|2.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-0.3|0.081
84534336|NCT04005352|168817781|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.590
84534337|NCT04005352|168817782|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.77||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-1.8|0.558
84534338|NCT04005352|168817782|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.138
84534339|NCT04005352|168817783|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-1.4|0.287
84534340|NCT04005352|168817783|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.2|0.070
84534341|NCT04005352|168817784|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.4|0.602
84534342|NCT04005352|168817784|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.086
84534343|NCT04005352|168817785|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.7|0.174
84534344|NCT04005352|168817785|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.8|0.210
84534345|NCT04005352|168817786|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.8|0.499
84534346|NCT04005352|168817786|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-5.4|0.147
84534347|NCT04005352|168817787|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.88||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-2.8|0.643
84534348|NCT04005352|168817787|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-5.0|0.507
84534349|NCT04005352|168817788|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3.0|-2.0|0.700
84534350|NCT04005352|168817788|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.0|0.070
84534351|NCT04005352|168817789|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-3.6|0.741
84534352|NCT04005352|168817789|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-6.6|0.494
84534353|NCT04005352|168817790|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.76||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-0.0|0.054
84534354|NCT04005352|168817790|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.331
84534355|NCT04005352|168817791|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-1.6|0.394
84534356|NCT04005352|168817791|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-3.6|0.728
84539745|NCT06360081|168829423|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|100.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.44||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||105.44|96.43|<0.0001
84539746|NCT02664181|168829499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Partial remission rate was compared between both arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in partial remission rate between the two arms, with a p-value of \< 0.05 indicating significance||||0.05
84539747|NCT02664181|168829500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.13|0.06
84534357|NCT06017479|168817794|OTHER|"Chi-square test as the study used chi-square analysis to compare the incidence of UTIs between the groups (p = 0.660) For this non-inferiority analysis, the study demonstrated that the odds ratio (OR) between the two groups was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating no significant difference. Further details are provided in the study's discussion section."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.125||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there were no multiple outcome measures being compared in this analysis. The significance threshold (alpha) was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared||"The standard deviations (SD) for the groups are as follows:~For the group receiving 3g fosfomycin: 19.08 For the group receiving 500mg levofloxacin: 17.17"|This randomized controlled trial compared the incidence of UTI between two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and patients receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin one hour before a urodynamic study. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in UTI incidence between the two groups. The power calculation was based on a sample size of 126 patients.|A chi-square test was performed to compare the incidence of UTIs between the two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and those receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin, both administered one hour before the urodynamic study (UDS). The result showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.660). An odds ratio was also calculated (OR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating a slightly lower likelihood of UTI in the fosfomycin group, but the difference was not significant.|1.95|0.4|0.660
84534358|NCT05005312|168817795|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|140.11|||ANOVA|||||140.11|74.20|
84534359|NCT05005312|168817796|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.81|139.21|||ANOVA|||||139.21|70.81|
84534360|NCT05005312|168817797|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|138.12|||ANOVA|||||138.12|70.65|
84534361|NCT02695537|168817815|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
84534362|NCT02695537|168817816|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
84534363|NCT02792699|168817817|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|152371.4|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534364|NCT02792699|168817817|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|159236.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534365|NCT02792699|168817817|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|172213.2|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534366|NCT02792699|168817817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|1.0323||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0323|0.8870|
84534367|NCT02792699|168817817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8204|0.9542||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9542|0.8204|
84539748|NCT02664181|168829501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.62|||Log Rank||Data from Kaplan-Meier analyses|||1.62|0.11|0.19
84539749|NCT01565356|168829505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa statistic|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||Cohen's (simple) kappa statistic||1.00|1.00|
84719041|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-20.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.29|-6.19||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue: Difference in LS mean||-6.19|-35.29|0.0062
84534368|NCT02792699|168817817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8575|0.997||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9970|0.8575|
84534369|NCT02792699|168817818|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|368.43|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534370|NCT02792699|168817818|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|374.44|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534371|NCT02792699|168817818|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|393.29|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534372|NCT02792699|168817818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9356|1.0348||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0348|0.9356|
84534373|NCT02792699|168817818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9368|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8912|0.9848||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9848|0.8912|
84534374|NCT02792699|168817818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9521|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9055|1.001||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0010|0.9055|
84534375|NCT02792699|168817819|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|42203.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534376|NCT02792699|168817819|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|43378.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534377|NCT02792699|168817819|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|44925.3|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534378|NCT02792699|168817819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9174|1.0318||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0318|0.9174|
84534379|NCT02792699|168817819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9394|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8863|0.9958||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9958|0.8863|
84534380|NCT02792699|168817819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9104|1.024||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0240|0.9104|
84534381|NCT02792699|168817820|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|149590.5|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534382|NCT02792699|168817820|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|155778.7|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534383|NCT02792699|168817820|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|166811.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534384|NCT02792699|168817820|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.0303||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0303|0.8950|
84539750|NCT03668808|168829507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-140mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84534385|NCT02792699|168817820|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8363|0.9616||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9616|0.8363|
84534386|NCT02792699|168817820|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8707|1.0016||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0016|0.8707|
84534387|NCT02792699|168817821|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|304.04|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534388|NCT02792699|168817821|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|305.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534389|NCT02792699|168817821|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|320.87|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
84534390|NCT02792699|168817821|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9461|1.0448||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0448|0.9461|
84534391|NCT02792699|168817821|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9021|0.9953||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9953|0.9021|
84534392|NCT02792699|168817821|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.0015||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0015|0.9070|
84534393|NCT02792699|168817830|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the change from baseline at week 24 of DAS28-CRP between ABP 798 and rituximab with an equivalence margin of (-0.6, 0.6).|LS Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.264||||||If PK similarity was established between rituximab (US) and rituximab (EU), the 2 rituximab arms were to be combined into a single reference group for the primary assessment of clinical equivalence of DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 using a repeated measures analysis with DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and the stratification variables, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline DAS28-CRP as predictors, and unstructured covariance matrix in the model.||0.264|-0.225|
84534394|NCT02792699|168817830|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.353|0.213||||||||0.213|-0.353|
84534395|NCT02792699|168817830|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.171|0.392||||||||0.392|-0.171|
84534396|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.203|0.33||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.330|-0.203|
84534397|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.411|0.117||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.117|-0.411|
84534398|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.772||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.772|0.233|
84534399|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.539||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.539|0.000|
84534400|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.55||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.550|-0.040|
84534401|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.455||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.455|-0.135|
84534402|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.564||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.564|-0.040|
84534403|NCT02792699|168817831|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.216|0.376||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.376|-0.216|
84477702|NCT01807949|168706821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||6.98|1.86|0.0007
84477703|NCT01807949|168706821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.81|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.81|2.69|<0.0001
84477704|NCT01807949|168706822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.59|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.59|0.23|<0.0001
84477705|NCT01807949|168706822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.54|0.17|0.0001
84477706|NCT01807949|168706823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.21||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.33|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||5.33|-0.91|0.1651
84477707|NCT01807949|168706823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.85||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|5.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||5.98|-0.27|0.0736
84477708|NCT01807949|168706824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9568|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8829|4.6431||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.6431|1.8829|<0.0001
84477709|NCT01807949|168706824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3834||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5234|3.7286||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.7286|1.5234|0.0001
84477710|NCT01807949|168706825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6912||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5187|0.9209||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9209|0.5187|0.0116
84477711|NCT01807949|168706825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.5659||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.7641||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.7641|0.4191|0.0002
84477712|NCT01807949|168706826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||1.64|0.62|<0.0001
84477713|NCT01807949|168706826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.46|0.43|0.0003
84477714|NCT01807949|168706827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2313||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1037|0.3589|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.3589|0.1037|0.0005
84477715|NCT01807949|168706827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2217||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0961|0.3473|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.3473|0.0961|0.0006
84477716|NCT01807949|168706828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0384
84477717|NCT01807949|168706828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0003
84477718|NCT01807949|168706829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6373||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.9764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||0.9764|0.4160|0.0393
84477719|NCT01807949|168706829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4429||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2863|0.6851|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.6851|0.2863|0.0002
84477720|NCT01807949|168706830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0028||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|0.0156|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0156|-0.0211|0.7679
84477721|NCT01807949|168706830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0009||||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.0174|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0174|-0.0192|0.9214
84534404|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7696|1.1332||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1332|0.7696|
84534405|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1495|0.0775||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0775|-0.1495|
84534406|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8436|1.2801||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2801|0.8436|
84534407|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.091|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0910|
84477722|NCT01807949|168706831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||5.3|-0.5|0.1034
84477723|NCT01807949|168706831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.2|0.4|0.0262
84477724|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|13.51|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||13.51|3.77|0.0005
84477725|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|16.48|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||16.48|6.75|<0.0001
84477726|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-0.14|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-0.14|-6.21|0.0403
84477727|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-1.28|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.28|-7.31|0.0054
84477728|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.07|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.07|-4.07|1.0000
84477729|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.37|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.37|-3.74|0.8777
84477730|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.64||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|9.61|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||9.61|-0.32|0.0668
84477731|NCT01807949|168706832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|12.08|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||12.08|2.23|0.0045
84477732|NCT02666508|168706839|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in DPIA from pre to post.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
84477733|NCT02666508|168706840|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of the difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in hsCRP|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.32|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.69|0.459
84477734|NCT01148693|168706863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Adding gentamicin to contrast medium during ERCP has no relation with postERCP cholangitis Power calculation: 80%||||<0.05
84477735|NCT01357889|168706921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3 (P3) to Process 2 (P2) geometric least squares means (LSMs) for AUC (0-inf) must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.042|||ANOVA|||||1.042|0.842|
84477736|NCT01357889|168706922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3:Process 2 geometric least squares means for Cmax must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.813|
84477737|NCT01170221|168706923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (early clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit) between the tedizolid group and the linezolid group was calculated using the ITT analysis set. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||||95.0|-6.1|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to tedizolid clinical response rate minus linezolid clinical response rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.|The primary objective is to determine the noninferiority in the early clinical response rate of oral tedizolid phosphate compared with that of oral linezolid treatment at the 48-72 Hour Visit in the ITT Analysis Set in patients with ABSSSI.||6.2|-6.1|
84534408|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7573|1.0179||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0179|0.7573|
84477738|NCT01170221|168706924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI will be calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.2|-9.6|
84477739|NCT01170221|168706925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||5.4|-7.7|
84477740|NCT01170221|168706926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||4.9|-5.8|
84477741|NCT01170221|168706927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||3.0|-4.6|
84477742|NCT01170221|168706928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.5|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||8.5|-1.4|
84477743|NCT01170221|168706929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||6.4|-2.8|
84477744|NCT01714817|168706933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7077|1.6421|||Stratified logistic regression||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV 95%CI for Odds Ratio|||1.6421|0.7077|0.7264
84477745|NCT01714817|168706934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4148|1.5956|||||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV|||1.5956|0.4148|
84477746|NCT01714817|168706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.42|-0.76|0.571
84477747|NCT01714817|168706936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.09||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.22|-0.41|0.561
84477748|NCT01714817|168706939|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|1.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.595828|10.897784||||||CR - Day 365||10.897784|-7.595828|
84477749|NCT01714817|168706939|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.848056|7.082461||||||PR - Day 365||7.082461|-8.848056|
84477750|NCT01714817|168706939|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.7682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.446714|8.910353||||||NR - Day 365||8.910353|-10.446714|
84477751|NCT01714817|168706948|SUPERIORITY|Day 365|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3251|6.2849||||||||6.2849|0.3251|
84477752|NCT01714817|168706948|SUPERIORITY|Day 729|Estimate of Difference vs Drug|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.1||||||||15.1|-8.4|
84477753|NCT01714817|168706968|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.9682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.760178|2.823876||||||Lupus treatment failure - Day 365||2.823876|-4.760178|
84477754|NCT01714817|168706968|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.4707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.588691|3.647365||||||Overall treatment failure - Day 365||3.647365|-4.588691|
84477755|NCT01714817|168706968|SUPERIORITY|Lupus treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.1||||||||6.1|-4.5|
84477756|NCT01714817|168706968|SUPERIORITY|Overall treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8||||||||8.8|-3.3|
84477757|NCT01617187|168707005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.6|-6.1|0.6043
84477758|NCT01617187|168707005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.0|-10.1|0.0356
84477759|NCT01617187|168707005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-11.1|0.0587
84477760|NCT01617187|168707006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.3|-0.3|0.9083
84477761|NCT01617187|168707006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.0|-0.6|0.0601
84477762|NCT01617187|168707006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-0.5|0.3898
84477763|NCT01617187|168707007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.3700
84477764|NCT01617187|168707007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1708||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.1708
84477765|NCT01617187|168707007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2620
84477766|NCT01617187|168707008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.4|0.0491
84477767|NCT01617187|168707008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.3|0.0491
84477768|NCT01617187|168707008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||2.0|-0.0|0.0567
84477769|NCT01617187|168707008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||1.9|0.0|0.0391
84477770|NCT01617187|168707008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.3|1.0|0.0003
84477771|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||2.9|-1.4|0.4849
84477772|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-2.2|0.8902
84477773|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.5826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-3.4|0.5826
84477774|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||3.0|-3.3|0.9271
84477775|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-5.1|0.1902
84477776|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.7|-6.2|0.2710
84477777|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||4.3|-2.8|0.6773
84477778|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.6|-5.2|0.2895
84477779|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.6|-6.0|0.4261
84477780|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||5.5|-2.9|0.5505
84477781|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.4|-5.6|0.4286
84477782|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.1|-7.0|0.4423
84477783|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||7.7|-1.4|0.1691
84477784|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.7|-5.8|0.4682
84477785|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||3.5|-7.2|0.4961
84477786|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||2.8|-6.1|0.4697
84534409|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0794|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1834|0.0247||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0247|-0.1834|
84534410|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.2394||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2394|0.8770|
84477787|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-7.8|0.0947
84477788|NCT01617187|168707009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-10.2|0.0675
84477789|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
84477790|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
84477791|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.2850
84477792|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.3290
84477793|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6938||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.6938
84477794|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1105
84477795|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6804||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6804
84477796|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9704||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.9704
84477797|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6604||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6604
84477798|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2447||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.2447
84477799|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4834||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4834
84477800|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9189||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.9189
84477801|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.437||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.4370
84477802|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2894||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.2894
84477803|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6953||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.6953
84477804|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4892||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.4892
84477805|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1954||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.1954
84477806|NCT01617187|168707010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.7990
84477807|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.2|-0.1|0.4255
84477808|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.1|0.9564
84477809|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.2|0.6363
84477810|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.8759
84477811|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9598
84477812|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9789
84477813|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.3|0.4671
84477814|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.3|0.6359
84477815|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.4|0.5454
84534411|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0758|0.1454||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1454|-0.0758|
84534412|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8743|1.1671||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1671|0.8743|
84534413|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0835|0.1234||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1234|-0.0835|
84534414|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0793|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9244|1.2601||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2601|0.9244|
84534415|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0493|0.1615||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1615|-0.0493|
84534416|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7759|1.0091||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0091|0.7759|
84534417|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1789|0.0237||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0237|-0.1789|
84534418|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.1605||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1605|0.8585|
84534419|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1038|0.1054||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1054|-0.1038|
84534420|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|0.9196||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9196|0.6722|
84719042|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|8.35||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and vomiting: Difference in LS mean||8.35|-8.38|0.9975
84534421|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3066|-0.0941||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0941|-0.3066|
84534422|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7587|1.0215||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0215|0.7587|
84534423|NCT02792699|168817832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2066|-0.0007||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0007|-0.2066|
84534424|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.3388||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3388|0.6400|
84534425|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.0847||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0847|-0.1209|
84534426|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7328|1.6119||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6119|0.7328|
84534427|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0803|0.1205||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1205|-0.0803|
84534428|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5387|0.9346||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9346|0.5387|
84534429|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1109|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2231|0.0013||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0013|-0.2231|
84534430|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7829|1.5127||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.5127|0.7829|
84534431|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0626|0.1508||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1508|-0.0626|
84534432|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7273|1.2705||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2705|0.7273|
84534433|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1081|0.1122||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1122|-0.1081|
84534434|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.3305||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3305|0.7560|
84534435|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1056|0.1135||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1135|-0.1056|
84534436|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6797|1.0316||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0316|0.6797|
84534437|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2029|0.0302||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0302|-0.2029|
84534438|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.878|1.4264||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4264|0.8780|
84719043|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|14.85||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Pain: Difference in LS mean||14.85|-20.36|0.7554
84534439|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0288|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0827|
84719044|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-14.57||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.76||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea: Difference in LS mean||0.76|-29.90|0.0620
84534440|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8376|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6807|1.0307||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0307|0.6807|
84534441|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2014|0.0452||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0452|-0.2014|
84534442|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|1.3321||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3321|0.8351|
84534443|NCT02792699|168817833|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1021|0.1303||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1303|-0.1021|
84534444|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2818|1.2462||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2462|0.2818|
84534445|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1285|0.0136||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0136|-0.1285|
84534446|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3383|1.6519||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6519|0.3383|
84477816|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.4|-0.2|0.4188
84477817|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.3|0.5318
84477818|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.5683
84477819|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.4|-0.1|0.2972
84477820|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.2|-0.4|0.4820
84477821|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
84477822|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-0.4|0.6682
84477823|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.1111
84477824|NCT01617187|168707011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.2400
84477825|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6205||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.6205
84477826|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.4829
84477827|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3945||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.3945
84477828|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4076||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.4076
84477829|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.9690
84477830|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1170
84477831|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.5088
84477832|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3426||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.3426
84477833|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0762||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0762
84477834|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5531||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.5531
84477835|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4875||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4875
84477836|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0692
84477837|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7482||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.7482
84477838|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8037||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.8037
84477839|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0859||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.0859
84477840|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.585||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.5850
84477841|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9698||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.9698
84477842|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.0132
84477843|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7129||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.7129
84477844|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.5074
84477845|NCT01617187|168707012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.0040
84477846|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.8829
84477847|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5488
84477848|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.1|0.7830
84477849|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.0|0.8070
84534447|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0962|0.0308||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0308|-0.0962|
84534448|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3704|1.0872||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0872|0.3704|
84534449|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1448|0.031||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0310|-0.1448|
84534450|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.3874||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3874|0.4450|
84534451|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1237.0|0.0403||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0403|-1237|
84534452|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5772|1.4838||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4838|0.5772|
84534453|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|0.1092||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1092|-0.0780|
84534454|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8398||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.8398|0.6722|
84477850|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5280
84477851|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.6|0.4025
84477852|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.2|-0.8|0.6471
84477853|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.5|0.2504
84477854|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.9223
84477855|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-1.0|0.8839
84477856|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.2|0.8077
84477857|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-1.0|0.6216
84477858|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.7|0.4248
84477859|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.3|0.7667
84477860|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-1.1|0.6282
84477861|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.9|0.3150
84477862|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-2.0|0.1908
84477863|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.3|0.3128
84477864|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.3|-1.5|0.8812
84477865|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-2.4|0.1143
84477866|NCT01617187|168707013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.0|-2.3|0.4418
84477867|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.3|-0.3|0.2160
84477868|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.9494
84477869|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.3|-1.6|0.1834
84477870|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.3|-0.8|0.6347
84477871|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.2|0.6917
84477872|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-2.3|0.1431
84477873|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-0.9|0.6267
84477874|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.3|0.7260
84477875|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-2.2|0.3326
84477876|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.9|-0.9|0.4575
84477877|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.8|0.4930
84477878|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.6|-2.8|0.1886
84477879|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2643
84477880|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.8|-2.2|0.3516
84477881|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.7|-3.1|0.2068
84477882|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.9|-1.3|0.7284
84477883|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.4|0.2698
84477884|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-3.3|0.1510
84477885|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.8039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.5|-2.0|0.8039
84477886|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.2|-3.5|0.0306
84477887|NCT01617187|168707014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.1|-4.1|0.0406
84477888|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-1.1|0.7819
84477889|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-1.5|0.7030
84477890|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.6|-1.7|0.9520
84477891|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.6|-2.1|0.7907
84477892|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-3.1|0.1391
84477893|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.5|-3.1|0.4901
84477894|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.2|-1.7|0.8079
84477895|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-2.7|0.3889
84477896|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-3.4|0.3907
84477897|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.5363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.0|-1.5|0.5363
84477898|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-2.9|0.5075
84477899|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-3.7|0.4526
84477900|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||4.3|-0.7|0.1548
84477901|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-2.9|0.6589
84477902|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.0|-3.9|0.5171
84477903|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-3.6|0.3133
84477904|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-3.8|0.1723
84477905|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-5.4|0.0663
84477906|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.7|-3.5|0.5128
84477907|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-4.6|0.0842
84477908|NCT01617187|168707015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-5.4|0.1217
84477909|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-0.0|0.0584
84477910|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5197
84477911|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.9|0.9693
84477912|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.4|-0.8|0.6161
84477913|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.2|0.7880
84477914|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-1.8|0.5526
84477915|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-1.1|0.7647
84477916|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.8900
84477917|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.9|0.7097
84477918|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.1|-0.9|0.4601
84477919|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.8|0.6288
84477920|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.3|-2.3|0.6099
84477921|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2790
84477922|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.1|0.4253
84477923|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.9|0.3014
84477924|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.7|-1.7|0.9720
84477925|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-2.2|0.4758
84477926|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-2.8|0.4419
84477927|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-2.4|0.4762
84477928|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-3.1|0.1046
84477929|NCT01617187|168707016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-3.7|0.1411
84477930|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2754
84477931|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.8|0.8500
84477932|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.9|-1.1|0.8439
84477933|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.4|0.4741
84477934|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-1.6|0.2158
84477935|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.7|0.5060
84477936|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.1|0.9956
84477937|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.3|-1.8|0.1624
84477938|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.5|0.7662
84477939|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.3|0.8363
84477940|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.8|0.2388
84477941|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-1.5|0.9435
84477942|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-0.8|0.4267
84477943|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.6|0.6810
84477944|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-1.4|0.7673
84477945|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.9|-1.9|0.4830
84477946|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.1|0.2128
84477947|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.8|0.1756
84477948|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||2.0|-0.8|0.4246
84477949|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-2.1|0.2873
84477950|NCT01617187|168707017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.4|-1.9|0.7308
84477951|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.2|0.2116
84477952|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.6|0.9039
84477953|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2959
84477954|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5909
84477955|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.4|0.1489
84477956|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-2.0|0.1000
84477957|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-0.8|0.7830
84477958|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.4|0.2679
84534455|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.1119||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1119|-0.0630|
84477959|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.5|-1.9|0.2321
84477960|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.3|0.7368
84477961|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-1.4|0.4606
84477962|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-2.0|0.3241
84477963|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-1.1|0.9860
84477964|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-1.8|0.1890
84477965|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-2.0|0.3030
84477966|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.0|-2.3|0.0550
84477967|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.0|-2.2|0.0415
84477968|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.6|-3.3|0.0058
84477969|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.1|-2.3|0.0691
84477970|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.5|-2.7|0.0063
84477971|NCT01617187|168707018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.6|-3.4|0.0056
84477972|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.6|0.7847
84477973|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.5|0.5859
84477974|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.6|-1.0|0.6413
84477975|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7307
84477976|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7176
84477977|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.3|0.4860
84477978|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.8|0.9321
84477979|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.7|0.7691
84477980|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-1.3|0.5694
84477981|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-0.6|0.5583
84477982|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.7|0.7307
84477983|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.8|0.1715
84477984|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.5|-0.6|0.4219
84477985|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.2|-0.9|0.7437
84477986|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-1.9|0.3110
84477987|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.0|0.9805
84534456|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6675|1.4384||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4384|0.6675|
84534457|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0707|0.1456||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1456|-0.0707|
84534458|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.787||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7870|0.7833|
84534459|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0752|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0297|0.1802||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1802|-0.0297|
84534460|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.0017||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0017|0.4930|
84534461|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.0294||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0294|-0.2110|
84534462|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7601|1.7246||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7246|0.7601|
84534463|NCT02792699|168817834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0804|0.1357||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1357|-0.0804|
84534464|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.673|3.675||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.675|-7.673|
84534465|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.185|6.274||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.274|-5.185|
84477988|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.8|-1.0|0.8741
84534466|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.102|-2.346||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||-2.346|-14.102|
84534467|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.052|3.933||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.933|-8.052|
84477989|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.7|0.3288
84477990|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.9336
84477991|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-1.7|0.1722
84477992|NCT01617187|168707019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.4|-2.1|0.1909
84477993|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.7|0.9851
84477994|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.5|-0.9|0.4912
84477995|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.0|0.8559
84477996|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.1|-0.6|0.5635
84477997|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.2321
84477998|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.1|0.8867
84477999|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.4|-0.2|0.1499
84478000|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.2|0.2860
84478001|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.1|0.8978
84478002|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.8|0.1|0.0283
84478003|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-0.7|0.8667
84478004|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-0.7|0.5044
84478005|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.4|0.5|0.0040
84478006|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-0.7|0.6330
84478007|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.5|0.2981
84478008|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.1|-0.7|0.6556
84478009|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-1.3|0.2889
84478010|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.1|0.9399
84478011|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.8955
84478012|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-1.5|0.3681
84478013|NCT01617187|168707020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.4|0.8215
84478014|NCT01998269|168707032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation||r= 0.60, p-value\<0.001. P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|We examined correlations between patient scores on the Measure of Medication Self-Management (MeDS) and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence questionnaire.||||<.001
84478015|NCT01316939|168707047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.8||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.8|-12.9|
84478016|NCT01316939|168707047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.6||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg BID at Week 28 and 52||1.6|-14.8|
84478017|NCT01316939|168707048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.2||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.2|-12.2|
84478018|NCT01316939|168707048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-13.1|
84478019|NCT01432457|168707072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.69|0.44|0.006
84478020|NCT01432457|168707072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.08||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||3.08|0.84|< 0.001
84478021|NCT01432457|168707073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.36||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.45|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.45|0.28|0.014
84478022|NCT01432457|168707073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.74|0.59|0.002
84478023|NCT01432457|168707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.029
84478024|NCT01432457|168707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||< 0.001
84534468|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|4.979||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||4.979|-7.620|
84478025|NCT01432457|168707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|0.05|0.009
84478026|NCT01432457|168707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.43|0.13|< 0.001
84478027|NCT01432457|168707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|-0.01|0.062
84478028|NCT01432457|168707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.39|0.04|0.014
84478029|NCT01432457|168707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.242||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.726|0.893|0.198
84478030|NCT01432457|168707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.378||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.910|0.995|0.054
84478031|NCT01432457|168707078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.105||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.631|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.631|0.749|0.615
84478032|NCT01432457|168707078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.412||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|2.057|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.057|0.969|0.072
84478033|NCT01432457|168707079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.80|-0.98|0.837
84478034|NCT01432457|168707079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.55||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.55|-1.19|0.471
84478035|NCT04134728|168707080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.76|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||2.48|0.76|0.2868
84478036|NCT04134728|168707080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.98|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the percentage of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the percentage of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||3.15|0.98|0.0596
84478037|NCT04134728|168707080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.29|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||4.23|1.29|0.0049
84478038|NCT04134728|168707080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.36|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||0.95|0.36|0.0293
84534469|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.691|7.15||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||7.150|-5.691|
84534470|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.207|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.562|1.417||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||1.417|-8.562|
84534471|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.497|6.424||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.424|-6.497|
84534472|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.455|0.197||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.197|-13.455|
84534473|NCT02792699|168817835|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.883|3.691||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.691|-9.883|
84534474|NCT02792699|168817836|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1083|0.0593|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0593|-0.1083|
84534475|NCT02792699|168817836|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.0984|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0984|-0.0610|
84534476|NCT04420273|168817841|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||1-month survey||||<0.001
84534477|NCT04420273|168817841|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||2- months||||<0.001
84534478|NCT04420273|168817841|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||3-months||||<0.001
84534479|NCT04420273|168817842|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84534480|NCT04420273|168817843|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.1
84534481|NCT04420273|168817844|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84534482|NCT04420273|168817845|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84534483|NCT04420273|168817846|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.459
84534484|NCT04420273|168817846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84534485|NCT04420273|168817847|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84534486|NCT02256436|168817856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - All Participants||1.19|0.81|0.41648
84534487|NCT02256436|168817857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - All Participants (Note: ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status)||0.91|0.59|0.00224
84534488|NCT02256436|168817858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.26443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - PD-L1 positive participants||1.24|0.68|0.26443
84534489|NCT02256436|168817859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - PD-L1 positive participants||0.86|0.43|0.00239
84534490|NCT02256436|168817860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.23958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||1.28|0.61|0.23958
84534491|NCT02256436|168817861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.00483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||0.88|0.37|0.00483
84534492|NCT02256436|168817864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|17.2||||0.00061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.4||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||29.4|6.8|0.00061
84534493|NCT02256436|168817865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|15.6||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.7||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - PD-L1 Positive Participants||25.7|6.5|0.00049
84534494|NCT02256436|168817866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.00068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|16.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - All Participants||16.2|3.9|0.00068
84534495|NCT02256436|168817867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.07066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.11|0.53|0.07066
84534496|NCT02256436|168817868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.08745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.10|0.60|0.08745
84534497|NCT02256436|168817869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.05328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - All Participants||1.04|0.71|0.05328
84534498|NCT02256436|168817870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.5||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|34.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||34.2|10.1|0.00009
84534499|NCT02256436|168817871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.5||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||31.5|11.1|0.00002
84534500|NCT02256436|168817872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|13.8||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|20.3||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - All Participants||20.3|7.4|0.00001
84534501|NCT02970318|168817877|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.49||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.49|0.20|<0.0001
84534502|NCT02970318|168817878|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.38||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.38|0.20|<0.0001
84534503|NCT02970318|168817879|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||14.9|-3.3|0.2248
84534504|NCT02970318|168817880|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||7.0|-9.6|0.7340
84534505|NCT02970318|168817881|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Log Rank|Log-Rank Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data: presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Cox proportional hazard analysis stratified (Arm A vs. Arm B) by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).||1.04|0.46|0.0783
84534506|NCT02970318|168817882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.59||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.59|0.19|<0.0001
84534507|NCT02970318|168817883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.33|0.16|<0.0001
84534508|NCT02970318|168817884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.40|0.21|<0.0001
84534509|NCT02500641|168817889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5298
84534510|NCT03233230|168817890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.84|0.1746
84534511|NCT03233230|168817890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.61|0.8283
84534512|NCT03233230|168817890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.88|0.1298
84534513|NCT03233230|168817891|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0077
84534514|NCT03233230|168817891|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.17||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.07|0.0013
84534515|NCT03233230|168817891|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0080
84534516|NCT03233230|168817892|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0056
84534517|NCT03233230|168817892|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0050
84534518|NCT03233230|168817892|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0053
84534519|NCT03233230|168817893|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.03|0.1419
84534520|NCT03233230|168817893|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2202
84534521|NCT03233230|168817893|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2328
84534522|NCT03233230|168817894|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.06||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.02|0.1232
84534523|NCT03233230|168817894|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.14|-0.03|0.1725
84534524|NCT03233230|168817894|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.03|0.1795
84534525|NCT03233230|168817902|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
84534526|NCT03233230|168817902|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
84534527|NCT03233230|168817902|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
84534528|NCT03233230|168817903|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.02|
84534529|NCT03233230|168817903|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.00|
84534530|NCT03233230|168817903|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.03|
84534531|NCT03233230|168817904|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
84534532|NCT03233230|168817904|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.10|0.00|
84534533|NCT03233230|168817904|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
84534534|NCT03233230|168817905|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.03|
84534535|NCT03233230|168817905|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.02|
84534536|NCT03233230|168817905|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||||||||0.31|0.05|
84534537|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.81|2.14||LSD=Least Significant Difference|Fisher LSD method|||||2.14|-21.81|0.091
84534538|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|8.23|||Fisher LSD method|||||8.23|-20.39|0.338
84534539|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|17.33|||Fisher LSD method|||||17.33|-9.83|0.524
84534540|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.46|-1.24|||Fisher LSD method|||||-1.24|-24.46|0.031
84534541|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-5.38|||Fisher LSD method|||||-5.38|-28.06|0.005
84534542|NCT01584843|168817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|7.47|||Fisher LSD method|||||7.47|-15.21|0.490
84534543|NCT00392236|168817995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
84534544|NCT03275064|168818015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|31.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.69|-30.73|
84534545|NCT03275064|168818015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.04|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.40|-27.04|
84534546|NCT03275064|168818016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|31.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.08|-27.70|
84534547|NCT03275064|168818016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.03|34.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.97|-23.03|
84534548|NCT03275064|168818017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.27|49.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||49.04|-47.27|
84534549|NCT03275064|168818017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.11|47.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||47.65|-43.11|
84534550|NCT03275064|168818018|SUPERIORITY|Week 29|Mean Difference (Net)|200.18||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|345.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||345.83|54.53|0.0131
84534551|NCT03275064|168818018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|141.87||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|287.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||287.56|-3.83|0.0544
84534552|NCT03275064|168818018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|228.27||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.87|375.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||375.67|80.87|0.0067
84534553|NCT03275064|168818018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|116.21||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|261.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||261.94|-29.52|0.0931
84534554|NCT03275064|168818019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.10|-0.00|0.0574
84534555|NCT03275064|168818019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.11|0.01|0.0248
84534556|NCT03275064|168818019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.07|-0.05|0.3864
84534557|NCT03275064|168818019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.08|-0.05|0.3290
84534558|NCT03275064|168818020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.36|30.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||30.85|-21.36|0.6184
84534559|NCT03275064|168818020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.16|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||18.53|-33.16|0.3194
84534560|NCT03275064|168818021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.72|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||8.47|-1.72|
84534561|NCT03275064|168818021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.01|-5.22|
84534562|NCT03275064|168818021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||4.15|-6.42|
84534563|NCT03275064|168818021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.20|-12.68|
84534564|NCT03275064|168818022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||7.66|-3.49|
84534565|NCT03275064|168818022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||6.45|-4.82|
84534566|NCT03275064|168818022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||8.11|-3.54|
84534567|NCT03275064|168818022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-0.10|-11.81|
84534568|NCT03275064|168818023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|9.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||9.15|-2.21|
84534569|NCT03275064|168818023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.04|-6.31|
84534570|NCT03275064|168818023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.07|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||2.82|-8.07|
84534571|NCT03275064|168818023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.72|-13.61|
84534572|NCT00513682|168818061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0013
84534573|NCT00513682|168818062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
84534574|NCT04156620|168818063|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|25.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||25.71|10.12|<0.0001
84534575|NCT04156620|168818064|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|20.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|26.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.44|14.45|<0.0001
84534576|NCT04156620|168818065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.64|-1.38|<0.0001
84534577|NCT04156620|168818066|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|22.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|29.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.95|14.36|<0.0001
84534578|NCT04156620|168818067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.56|-1.33|<0.0001
84534579|NCT04156620|168818068|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||4.22|1.80|<0.0001
84534580|NCT04156620|168818069|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-1.04|-2.51|<0.0001
84534581|NCT04156620|168818070|SUPERIORITY||Relative LS mean change|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.51|0.37|<0.0001
84534582|NCT04156620|168818071|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|23.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.61|31.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.66|15.61|<0.0001
84534583|NCT04156620|168818072|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|12.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||17.19|7.96|<0.0001
84534584|NCT04156620|168818073|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|15.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.47|5.64|<0.0001
84534585|NCT04156620|168818074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.09|-1.24|0.0234
84534586|NCT02450526|168818075|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|94.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|97.7||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||97.7|90.8|<0.0001
84534587|NCT02450526|168818076|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|92.4||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||92.4|82.5|<0.0001
84534588|NCT02450526|168818077|NON_INFERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||The non-inferiority of Dysport® to Botox on the ILA at maximum frown was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model||1.9|-6.7|
84534589|NCT02450526|168818078|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|73.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|88.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.4|59.1|<0.0001
84534590|NCT02450526|168818079|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between mean scores of SGA at Treatment Cycle 1, Day 29 is based on 2 separate linear mixed models, adjusting on the two stratification parameters, gender and baseline ILA severity score, and the centre.|Treatment Difference|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|2.878||The test was two-sided at the significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a linear mixed model.||2.878|2.327|<0.0001
84534591|NCT02450526|168818080|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.7|78.7|<0.0001
84534592|NCT01672970|168818110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534593|NCT01672970|168818110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534594|NCT01672970|168818111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.001
84534595|NCT01672970|168818111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.005
84534596|NCT01672970|168818112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534597|NCT01672970|168818112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534598|NCT01672970|168818113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534599|NCT01672970|168818113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
84534600|NCT01672970|168818116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534601|NCT01672970|168818116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534602|NCT01672970|168818117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534603|NCT01672970|168818117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534604|NCT01672970|168818122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534605|NCT01672970|168818122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534606|NCT01672970|168818123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534607|NCT01672970|168818123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534608|NCT01672970|168818124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534609|NCT01672970|168818124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534610|NCT01672970|168818125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534611|NCT01672970|168818125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534612|NCT01672970|168818126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534613|NCT01672970|168818126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534614|NCT01672970|168818127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
84534615|NCT01672970|168818127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
84534616|NCT04568031|168818128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534617|NCT04568031|168818128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534618|NCT04568031|168818133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534619|NCT04568031|168818133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534620|NCT04568031|168818136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534621|NCT04568031|168818136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
84534622|NCT04874636|168818140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.75|-0.59|
84534623|NCT04874636|168818141|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.00|-1.02|
84534624|NCT04874636|168818142|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.27|
84534625|NCT04874636|168818143|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.02|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.02|-0.43|
84534626|NCT04874636|168818144|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|16.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||16.14|-0.32|
84534627|NCT04874636|168818145|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.65|
84534628|NCT04874636|168818146|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-34.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.34|106.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||106.69|-176.34|
84534629|NCT04874636|168818147|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-0.10|
84534630|NCT01770392|168818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|50.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.155|53.275||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)"|||53.275|47.155|1.0000
84534631|NCT01770392|168818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|59.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.829|66.348||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||66.348|53.829|1.0000
84534632|NCT01770392|168818150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|49.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.886|53.286||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||53.286|46.886|1.0000
84534633|NCT03258853|168818174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.001
84534634|NCT03258853|168818175|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Secondary outcomes were adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
84534635|NCT03258853|168818176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Secondary outcomes are adjusted for multiple comparisons|paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.04
84534636|NCT03258853|168818177|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wicoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
84534637|NCT03258853|168818178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
84534638|NCT03258853|168818179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
84534639|NCT03258853|168818180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.14
84534640|NCT03258853|168818181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
84534641|NCT03258853|168818182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
84534642|NCT03258853|168818183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||McNemar|||||||0.08
84534643|NCT03258853|168818184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
84534644|NCT03258853|168818185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
84534645|NCT03258853|168818186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||McNemar|||||||0.15
84534646|NCT00786994|168818192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||A vs C/D||||0.60
84534647|NCT00786994|168818192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||B vs. C/D||||0.83
84534648|NCT03753763|168818213|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||6.5|-6.3|0.9697
84534649|NCT03753763|168818214|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.5||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate||4.1|-3.1|0.7751
84534650|NCT03753763|168818215|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.2||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.7|-3.3|0.9076
84534651|NCT03753763|168818216|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.1||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.6|-4.8|0.5386
84534652|NCT03753763|168818217|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in MSA-QoL scale.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||18.6|-6.5|0.3364
84534653|NCT03753763|168818218|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA included change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||1.5|-1.1|0.7574
84534654|NCT03753763|168818219|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change from baseline in UDRS.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.0|-2.5|0.6393
84534655|NCT03589768|168818279|OTHER|N/A, Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|10.3|||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||10.3|-11.9|
84534656|NCT03589768|168818280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.62||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|15.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||15.5|-6.25|0.559
84534657|NCT03589768|168818281|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.8|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|9.8|-9.3|
84534658|NCT03589768|168818282|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|15.9|||Fisher Exact||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|15.9|-3.82|0.290
84534659|NCT03589768|168818284|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|7.3|-6.4|
84534660|NCT03589768|168818285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth day timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|10.7|4.6|<0.0001
84534661|NCT03589768|168818285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for Prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|7.3|3.2|<0.0001
84534662|NCT03589768|168818285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|4.8|1.8|<0.0001
84534663|NCT03589768|168818285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.7|0.1|0.0068
84534664|NCT03589768|168818285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares differences in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.5|0.1|0.0003
84534665|NCT03589768|168818286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.7|0.7102
84534666|NCT03589768|168818286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|12.0|6.2|<0.0001
84534667|NCT03589768|168818286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|6.6|3.3|<0.0001
84534668|NCT03589768|168818286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|5.2|2.1|<0.0001
84534669|NCT03589768|168818287|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.8|0.7039
84478039|NCT04134728|168707080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.47|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||1.20|0.47|0.2308
84478040|NCT01019252|168707219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||7.21|3.28|<.0001
84478041|NCT01019252|168707220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||1.39|.94|<.0001
84478042|NCT01019252|168707221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.93|12.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||12.93|8.93|<.0001
84478043|NCT01779648|168707222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.785
84478044|NCT01779648|168707223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.195
84478045|NCT01779648|168707224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.722
84478046|NCT01779648|168707225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.158
84478047|NCT01779648|168707226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.301
84478048|NCT01779648|168707227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline TVF (total volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
84478049|NCT01779648|168707228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PVF (peak volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
84478050|NCT01779648|168707229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PV (peak velocity)are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.929
84478051|NCT01779648|168707231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline peak volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.008
84478052|NCT01779648|168707232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline total volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.132
84478053|NCT03351478|168707238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.62|< 0.0001
84478054|NCT03351478|168707238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.28|-0.04|0.145
84478055|NCT03351478|168707239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.76|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.76|-4.87|0.1529
84478056|NCT03351478|168707239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.55|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||3.55|-1.21|0.3377
84478057|NCT03351478|168707240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-0.5|-1.33|<0.0001
84478058|NCT03351478|168707240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.3|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||0.3|-0.37|0.8397
84534670|NCT03589768|168818287|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|24.3|14.0|<0.0001
84534671|NCT03589768|168818287|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|13.7|8.1|<0.0001
84534672|NCT03589768|168818287|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.||Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|11.1|5.0|<0.0001
84534673|NCT03589768|168818288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.8|0.8|0.2897
84534674|NCT03589768|168818288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|82.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|82.4|35.6|<0.0001
84534675|NCT03589768|168818288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|49.7|20.6|<0.0001
84534676|NCT03589768|168818288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|34.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|34.2|10.4|<0.0001
84534677|NCT03589768|168818289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.6|0.8370
84534678|NCT03589768|168818289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|<0.0001
84534679|NCT03589768|168818289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0050
84534680|NCT03589768|168818289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.8||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.6|0.0689
84534681|NCT03589768|168818290|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.6|0.7|0.8361
84534682|NCT03589768|168818290|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5136
84478059|NCT03351478|168707241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.35|-1.25|0.0005
84534683|NCT03589768|168818290|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.6|0.4237
84534684|NCT03589768|168818290|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.4|0.1607
84534685|NCT03589768|168818291|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|18.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|18.3|10.2|<0.0001
84534686|NCT03589768|168818291|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|14.5|8.0|<0.0001
84534687|NCT03589768|168818291|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio. Test compares difference in log values.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|15.2|6.9|<0.0001
84534688|NCT03589768|168818291|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|3.0|1.4|0.0002
84534689|NCT03589768|168818291|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.7|0.8|0.4828
84534690|NCT03589768|168818292|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|81.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|81.0|26.6|<0.0001
84534691|NCT03589768|168818292|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|65.0|24.0|<0.0001
84534692|NCT03589768|168818292|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|17.9|6.1|<0.0001
84534693|NCT03589768|168818292|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0746
84534694|NCT03589768|168818292|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.5|0.1532
84534695|NCT03589768|168818293|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0022
84534696|NCT03589768|168818293|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|0.0008
84534697|NCT03589768|168818293|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.5|0.0261
84534698|NCT03589768|168818293|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0532
84534699|NCT03589768|168818293|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.5|0.5587
84534700|NCT03589768|168818294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5056
84534701|NCT03589768|168818294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.7|0.9466
84534702|NCT03589768|168818294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.6|0.6911
84534703|NCT03589768|168818294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0952
84534704|NCT03589768|168818294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.8|0.4134
84534705|NCT03589768|168818295|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.6|0.9|0.0859
84534706|NCT03589768|168818295|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.3|0.8|0.2040
84534707|NCT03589768|168818295|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.7|1.0|0.0763
84534708|NCT03589768|168818295|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.2|0.0836
84534709|NCT03589768|168818295|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0672
84534710|NCT04663295|168818297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.9||One-sided test at significant level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed rank test comparing baseline and study period.||||7.9|3.3|<0.001
84534711|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<0.001
84534712|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome.The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<0.001
84534713|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
84534714|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.10
84534715|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
84534716|NCT05958888|168818316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.25
84534717|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
84534718|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
84534719|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
84534720|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.12
84534721|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
84534722|NCT05958888|168818317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
84534723|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||.01
84534724|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||.23
84534725|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.01
84534726|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.58
84534727|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.85
84534728|NCT05958888|168818318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.58
84534729|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||>.99
84534730|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||>.99
84534731|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.47
84534732|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||>.99
84534733|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.45
84534734|NCT05958888|168818319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.70
84534735|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
84534736|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
84534737|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
84534738|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
84534739|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
84534740|NCT05958888|168818320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.72
84534741|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
84534742|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
84534743|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
84534744|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
84534745|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
84534746|NCT05958888|168818321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
84534747|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
84534748|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
84534749|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
84534750|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.43
84534751|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.81
84534752|NCT05958888|168818322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.81
84534753|NCT04715932|168818352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression).||||3.69|0.60|0.3849
84534754|NCT04715932|168818353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.88|0.71|0.3139
84534755|NCT04715932|168818354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.14|0.65|0.5886
84534756|NCT04715932|168818355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.27|0.38|0.2328
84534757|NCT04715932|168818356|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression).||||1.37|0.95|0.1560
84534758|NCT04715932|168818357|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.33|0.84|0.6233
84534759|NCT04715932|168818358|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.37|0.78|0.8290
84534760|NCT04715932|168818359|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.40|0.69|0.9222
84534761|NCT04715932|168818360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8834
84534762|NCT04715932|168818361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.77|0.59|0.9416
84534763|NCT04715932|168818362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.55|0.49|0.6296
84534764|NCT04715932|168818363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.41|0.3711
84534765|NCT04715932|168818364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.61|0.42|0.5696
84534766|NCT04715932|168818365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.26|0.7583
84534767|NCT04715932|168818366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.58|0.20|0.8091
84534768|NCT04715932|168818367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||9.42|0.30|0.5591
84534769|NCT04715932|168818368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||||0.9983
84534770|NCT04715932|168818369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.82|0.90|0.1068
84534771|NCT04715932|168818370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.98|0.57|0.8382
84534772|NCT04715932|168818371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.51|0.59|0.5912
84534773|NCT04715932|168818373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.35|0.45|0.3686
84534774|NCT04715932|168818374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.86|0.59|0.8711
84534775|NCT04715932|168818375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.87|0.57|0.9124
84534776|NCT04715932|168818376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.37|0.36|0.2952
84534777|NCT04715932|168818377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.62|0.5894
84534778|NCT04715932|168818378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.89|0.45|0.7887
84534779|NCT04715932|168818379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.70|0.20|0.6348
84534780|NCT04715932|168818380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.92|0.04|0.4257
84534781|NCT04715932|168818381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.11|0.89|0.1113
84534782|NCT04715932|168818382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.47|0.71|0.2613
84534783|NCT04715932|168818383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.49|0.27|0.7273
84534784|NCT04715932|168818384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.19|0.19|0.8909
84534785|NCT04715932|168818385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.87|0.1438
84534786|NCT04715932|168818386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.68|0.71|0.3440
84534787|NCT04715932|168818387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.56|0.58|0.5968
84534788|NCT04715932|168818388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.76|0.62|0.3620
84534789|NCT04715932|168818389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.27|0.91|0.0875
84534790|NCT04715932|168818390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.32|0.36|0.8397
84534791|NCT04715932|168818391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.40|0.6265
84534792|NCT04715932|168818392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||8.91|0.16|0.8528
84534793|NCT04715932|168818393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.35|0.77|0.2983
84534794|NCT04715932|168818394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.66|0.5611
84534795|NCT04715932|168818395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.58|0.65|0.4643
84534796|NCT04715932|168818396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.62|0.53|0.5063
84534797|NCT04715932|168818397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.47|0.80|0.2292
84534798|NCT04715932|168818398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.07|0.65|0.6097
84534799|NCT04715932|168818399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.54|0.8389
84534800|NCT04715932|168818400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.17|0.45|0.9764
84534801|NCT04715932|168818401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.46|0.4403
84534802|NCT04715932|168818402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.60|0.39|0.5112
84534803|NCT04715932|168818403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.46|0.9306
84534804|NCT04715932|168818404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.23|0.6046
84534805|NCT04715932|168818405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.57|0.6963
84534806|NCT04715932|168818406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.88|0.22|0.4250
84534807|NCT04715932|168818407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.27|0.8797
84534808|NCT04715932|168818408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|37.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||37.03|0.37|0.2634
84534809|NCT04715932|168818409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.06|0.73|0.2710
84534810|NCT04715932|168818410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.30|0.77|0.1748
84534811|NCT04715932|168818411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.63|0.34|0.8513
84534812|NCT04715932|168818412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||5.07|0.29|0.7906
84534813|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2841|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2841
84534814|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.3042
84534815|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1259
84534816|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8214
84534817|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4315|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.4315
84534818|NCT02393248|168818425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2595
84534819|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8577|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8577
84534820|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7238|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7238
84534821|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5923
84534822|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7634|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7634
84534823|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5749
84534824|NCT02393248|168818429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6877
84534825|NCT02393248|168818433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.143
84534826|NCT02393248|168818434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.0013
84534827|NCT02393248|168818435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.319
84534828|NCT02393248|168818436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.128
84534829|NCT02393248|168818437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
84534830|NCT02393248|168818438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
84534831|NCT02393248|168818439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.772
84534832|NCT03560986|168818452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.17||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||1.17|-0.31|0.2522
84534833|NCT02603393|168818459|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference lies entirely to the right of (higher than) -50 mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0404||95.0|-0.053|0.001||1 sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0404
84534834|NCT02603393|168818460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5802||95.0|0.83|1.4||2 sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.40|0.83|0.5802
84534835|NCT02603393|168818461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.43||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.43|0.82|0.5651
84534836|NCT02603393|168818462|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.02||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.34||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||2.34|0.44|0.9665
84534837|NCT02603393|168818463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0573||95.0|-0.053|0.001||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0573
84534838|NCT02603393|168818464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0022||95.0|0.7|3.0||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||3.0|0.7|0.0022
84534839|NCT02603393|168818465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated measures Analys|||||2.6|0.2|0.0221
84534840|NCT02603393|168818466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.1724||95.0|-0.587|0.105|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.105|-0.587|0.1724
84534841|NCT02603393|168818467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.1055||95.0|-0.638|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repated Measures Analysi|||||0.061|-0.638|0.1055
84534842|NCT02603393|168818468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.0641||95.0|-0.01|0.365||2-Sided|Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.365|-0.010|0.0641
84534843|NCT02603393|168818469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.061|-0.025|0.4107
84534844|NCT01783548|168818474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||Based on other studies, the standard deviation for the change from baseline over the first 6 weeks of treatment in the average of AM and PM rTNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 450 subjects aged 6 to 11 years (300 on active treatment of BDP and 150 on placebo) provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in rTNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.24|-1.08|0.002
84534845|NCT01783548|168818475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.18||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.18|-0.99|0.004
84534846|NCT01783548|168818476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.23|-1.00|0.002
84534847|NCT01783548|168818477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.17|-0.91|0.004
84534848|NCT00110136|168818505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Paired t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|paired t-test||The difference is post minus pre so negative values represents fewer hot flashes after treatment.|Analysis of the change in hot flash frequency from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||0.74|-2.36|0.2629
84534849|NCT00110136|168818506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|1.72||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||Difference in hot flash score is post minus pre so a negative value represents a decrease in the frequency and/or severity of the hot flashes.|Assessment of the change in the hot flash score over time||1.72|-10.45|0.1365
84534850|NCT00110136|168818508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.92||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre) so values greater than zero reflect improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks in patients receiving St. John's wort.||5.92|-4.84|0.8320
84534851|NCT00110136|168818509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.43||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|5.71||Paired t-test on the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre), so positive numbers represent improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||5.71|-5.71|0.9995
84534852|NCT00110136|168818510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.12||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|9.822||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in mood from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre). Mood is scored so that higher numbers represent better mood so positive changes represent an improvement in mood.|Assess the change in mood from baseline to four weeks. Null hypothesis is no change.||9.822|-1.12|0.1042
84534853|NCT04540406|168818516|OTHER|We employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test to assess the overall gut microbiota structural change. These tests are generally neither superiority, non-inferiority, nor equivalence tests. Instead, they are used to detect and evaluate overall differences in the microbial community structure between groups or conditions.||||||||||||||||PCoA (Principal Coordinates Analysis) + PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance) are exploratory multivariate techniques commonly used in microbiome research to assess and visualize differences in community composition. The null hypothesis for PERMANOVA is that there are no differences in the centroids (multivariate means) of the groups being compared. The microbial communities in different groups or conditions are not significantly different from each other.|To assess the overall structural changes in gut microbiota, we employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test. PCoA, an exploratory multivariate technique, helps visualize and interpret patterns in complex microbiome data by reducing dimensionality, with the first principal coordinate (PC1) capturing the largest variation among samples. PERMANOVA, which does not rely on standard parametric assumptions, was used to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the overall composition of microbial communities between groups based on a chosen distance metric. Our analysis aimed to explore whether microbial community compositions differed significantly between Day 0 and Day 28 within the Treatment group, accounting for inter-individual variability. Similarly, we investigated if such differences existed over the same time points in the Control group. The unit of measure was distance metrics.|||
84534854|NCT02885181|168818534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means of Differences|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.76|- 0.74|0.978
84534855|NCT02885181|168818534|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|- 0.36|0.300
84534856|NCT02885181|168818534|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||- 0.43|- 1.92|0.002
84534857|NCT02885181|168818535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|-36.0|0.660
84534858|NCT02885181|168818535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-15.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|-44.7|0.277
84534859|NCT02885181|168818535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|40.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|65.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|10.7|0.009
84534860|NCT02885181|168818536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.853
84534861|NCT02885181|168818536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.852
84534862|NCT02885181|168818536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|-6.6|0.092
84534863|NCT02885181|168818537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-8.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|-37.9|0.360
84534864|NCT02885181|168818537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|-28.0|0.896
84478060|NCT03351478|168707241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||0.7|-0.09|0.1339
84534865|NCT02885181|168818537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|50.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.1|-6.6|0.072
84534866|NCT02885181|168818538|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.12||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|-0.49|0.528
84534867|NCT02885181|168818538|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.57|-0.17|0.293
84534868|NCT02885181|168818538|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.33||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.03|-0.70|0.072
84534869|NCT01517373|168818551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.17||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment,duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM),time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects,baseline as the covariate,time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.17|-0.21|0.4468
84534870|NCT01517373|168818551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|-0.11||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.11|-0.48|0.0218
84534871|NCT01517373|168818551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.28||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.28|-0.65|0.0006
84534872|NCT01517373|168818551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.65||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.65|-1.02|<0.0001
84534873|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.14|-0.09|0.6112
84534874|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.03||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.25|0.0550
84534875|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|-0.13||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80%CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.35|0.0032
84534876|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|-0.33||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.33|-0.55|<0.0001
84534877|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.16||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.16|-0.10|0.6146
84534878|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.19|0.2606
84534879|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0006
84534880|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.44||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
84534881|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6618|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.20|-0.10|0.6618
84534882|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|-0.01||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0878
84534883|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.19||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.19|-0.49|0.0022
84534884|NCT01517373|168818552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.51||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.51|-0.81|<0.0001
84534885|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.222||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|4.62||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.62|-8.80|0.3446
84534886|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.81|0.57||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-12.81|0.1204
84534887|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.166||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.37|-7.1||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.10|-20.37|0.0041
84534888|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.01|-14.67||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-14.67|-28.01|<0.0001
84534889|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.8|1.53||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.53|-11.80|0.1616
84534890|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.219||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.15|2.26||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.26|-11.15|0.1974
84534891|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.22|-5.02||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.02|-18.22|0.0122
84534892|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.37|-18.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-18.20|-31.37|<0.0001
84534893|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.674||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.26|5.32||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.32|-9.26|0.3645
84534894|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.676||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|5.36||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.22|0.3672
84534895|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.598||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.69|-0.31||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.31|-14.69|0.0906
84534896|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.624||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.91|-12.46||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.46|-26.91|0.0003
84534897|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|1.93||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.93|-12.29|0.1748
84534898|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.69|-3.38||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.38|-17.69|0.0297
84540766|NCT03718832|168832715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5561156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086759||0.6091477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693002|1.58077||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.58077|-2.693002|0.6091477
84534899|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.469||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.47|-5.41||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.41|-19.47|0.0118
84534900|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.04|-19.96||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-19.96|-34.04|<0.0001
84534901|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.281||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.1|0.04||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-16.10|0.1012
84534902|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.287||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.07|-2.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.91|-19.07|0.0409
84534903|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.88|-6.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-6.86|-22.88|0.0089
84534904|NCT01517373|168818553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.93|-17.92||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-17.92|-33.93|<0.0001
84534905|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.59||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|0.08|0.0898
84534906|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|0.12|0.0555
84534907|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.61||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.61|0.12|0.0585
84534908|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.64||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.64|0.14|0.0454
84534909|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.55||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-0.05|0.2819
84534910|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.81||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.81|0.20|0.0319
84534911|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.6||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.60|0.01|0.1835
84534912|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.22||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.22|0.63|0.0001
84534913|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.33||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.33|-0.35|0.9689
84719045|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|16.3||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia: Difference in LS mean||16.30|-15.67|0.9686
84534914|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.67||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.02|0.2221
84534915|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.05|0.2774
84534916|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.43||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.43|0.76|<0.0001
84534917|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|0.98||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.98|0.17|0.0667
84534918|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.19||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.19|0.38|0.0133
84534919|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.08||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|0.29|0.0260
84534920|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.23|2.02||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.02|1.23|<0.0001
84534921|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.28||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.28|0.32|0.0335
84534922|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|1.01||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.01|0.05|0.1557
84534923|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.39||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.39|0.45|0.0132
84534924|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2|3.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.15|2.20|<0.0001
84534925|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.46||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.46|0.45|0.0158
84534926|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.01|0.99||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.99|-0.01|0.2132
84534927|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.36||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.36|0.37|0.0263
84534928|NCT01517373|168818561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.12|3.12||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|2.12|<0.0001
84534929|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
84534930|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.17||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||4.95|-4.62|0.95
84534931|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.09||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.56|-2.39|0.95
84534932|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.98|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.98|-2.31|0.88
84534933|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.13||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.88
84534934|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
84534935|NCT04154631|168818568|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.26||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
84534936|NCT04154631|168818569|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Acceptability Intervention Measure (AIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.77
84534937|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
84534938|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.26||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|5.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||5.56|-5.04|0.92
84534939|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.24|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.24|-2.04|0.92
84534940|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.39||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.78
84534941|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.75|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.75|-2.35|0.78
84534942|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.43||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.8|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||3.80|-4.66|0.84
84534943|NCT04154631|168818570|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.58|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.58|-1.94|0.84
84534944|NCT04154631|168818571|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||<0.001
84534945|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
84534946|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-1.66|-4.58|<0.001
84534947|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-2.22|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-2.22|-5.41|<0.001
84534948|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.92|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.92|-1.78|0.94
84534949|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.25|-1.16|0.94
84534950|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.37|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.37|-0.30|0.85
84534951|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.23||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.95|-1.41|0.70
84534952|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
84534953|NCT04154631|168818572|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.54|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.54|-0.68|0.82
84534954|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||<0.001
84534955|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.21|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.21|-3.93|0.08
84534956|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.44|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.44|-4.58|0.02
84534957|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.08|-1.99|0.97
84534958|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.19|-0.18|0.97
84534959|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.30|-0.27|0.90
84534960|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.2|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.20|-0.19|0.94
84534961|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.19||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.28|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.28|-1.67|0.80
84534962|NCT04154631|168818573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.33|0.77
84534963|NCT04154631|168818574|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.94
84534964|NCT04154631|168818575|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.34
84534965|NCT00724048|168818627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.13|-2.47|0.078
84534966|NCT00724048|168818627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.16||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 45 mg BID (90 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.16|-2.53|0.084
84534967|NCT00724048|168818627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.32||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 22.5 mg BID (45 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||1.32|-1.35|0.982
84534968|NCT00206323|168818653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Primary variable change of TTS/YGTSS at the BSL to Day 70. Changes of YGTSS compared using analysis of covariance with score at day 1 as a covariate. Groups compared for incidence of AE's and of AESI based on Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were two-sided at the 5% level of significance.~The Total Tic Score is a summation of the Total Motor Tic and Total Phonic Tic Scores. The Overall Impairment Rating is rated on a 50-point scale anchored by 0 (No impairment) and 50 (Severe impairment)"||||0.0259
84534969|NCT03657342|168818665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.214||1-sided p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at V9.||0.214|-0.405|0.7310
84534970|NCT03657342|168818666|SUPERIORITY||least suare mean difference|-0.064||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.084||1-sided p value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimates were from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1/FVC with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1/FVC, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1/FVC, region (North America versus all other countries together), underlying indication for lung transplant (COPD versus all others), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.||0.084|-0.212|0.8041
84534971|NCT03657342|168818667|SUPERIORITY||adjusted hazard ratio|2.601||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|16.585||1-sided p value. Adjusted Hazard Ratio calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of Treatment, Baseline FEV1, with Efron's method of tie handling.|Regression, Cox|||||16.585|0.408|0.1559
84534972|NCT01898650|168818706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. the threshold for significance was set a priori at 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was that blood flow would be equivalent on the unaffected and affected sides.||||0.004
84534973|NCT03923530|168818710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.12
84534974|NCT03923530|168818711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.49
84534975|NCT03923530|168818712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.03
84534976|NCT03923530|168818713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.27
84534977|NCT03923530|168818714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.18
84534978|NCT03923530|168818715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8
84534979|NCT03923530|168818716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.76
84534980|NCT04430855|168818804|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|27.2|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo = upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved HiSCR response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (25%). The historical placebo rate of 25% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||27.2|-0.6|0.018
84534981|NCT04430855|168818804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo HiSCR data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic HiSCR was 29.2%.||25.9|-7.6|0.142
84534982|NCT04430855|168818804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||36.0|-6.6|0.087
84534983|NCT04430855|168818805|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|30.3|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo (upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo)|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved NRS30 response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (22.5%). The historical placebo rate of 22.5% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||30.3|-2.5|0.028
84534984|NCT04430855|168818805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|4.5||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo NRS30 data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic NRS30 was 31.3%.||23.5|-14.6|0.323
84534985|NCT04430855|168818805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|2.2||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||24.0|-19.6|0.421
84534986|NCT04188301|168818813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
84534987|NCT04188301|168818813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
84534988|NCT04188301|168818813|SUPERIORITY|IA vs IDA treatment groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||||2.15|0.97|0.068
84534989|NCT04188301|168818813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
84534990|NCT04188301|168818816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
84534991|NCT04188301|168818816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
84534992|NCT04188301|168818816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.15|0.97|0.068
84534993|NCT04188301|168818816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
84534994|NCT04188301|168818819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.21||Adjusted p values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person. Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA in fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.21|0.85|0.134
84534995|NCT04188301|168818819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.44||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||4.44|1.12|0.023
84534996|NCT04188301|168818819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.85||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA1 vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.85|.64|0.430
84534997|NCT04188301|168818819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.34||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA treatment groups for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.34|1.09|0.023
84534998|NCT00620659|168818836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.615
84534999|NCT00620659|168818837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.92|-2.3||||||||-2.30|-5.92|
84478061|NCT03351478|168707242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.54|-2.95|<0.0001
84478062|NCT03351478|168707242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||1.19|-0.17|0.1407
84478063|NCT03351478|168707243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.17|-3.89|0.0325
84478064|NCT03351478|168707243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.63|-0.42|0.1565
84478065|NCT03351478|168707244|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|8.1||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|12.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||12.89|3.36|0.0048
84478066|NCT03351478|168707245|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|24.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||24.52|9.26|0.0001
84478067|NCT03657810|168707261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
84478068|NCT03657810|168707262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
84478069|NCT03325556|168707335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3676||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.727||1-sided p-value reported. The protocol-defined O'Brien Flemming stopping boundary for the planned IA was a 1-sided p-value equal to 0.0033|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.727|0.172|0.0023
84478070|NCT03325556|168707336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2812||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.785||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.785|0.261|0.0024
84478071|NCT02119026|168707348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.967
84478072|NCT02119026|168707349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.474
84478073|NCT02119026|168707350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.464
84478074|NCT02119026|168707351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.854
84478075|NCT02119026|168707352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.728
84478076|NCT02119026|168707353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.668
84478077|NCT02119026|168707354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.618
84478078|NCT02119026|168707355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.792
84478079|NCT02119026|168707356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
84478080|NCT00762268|168707369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
84478081|NCT00762268|168707370|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Change from intake scores.||||0.05
84478082|NCT00762268|168707371|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84478083|NCT00291499|168707372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
84478084|NCT00291499|168707373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84478085|NCT00291499|168707374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Threshold p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.043
84478086|NCT00291499|168707375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
84478087|NCT00291499|168707376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
84478088|NCT00291499|168707377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84478089|NCT04426890|168707400|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was entirely within an equivalence margin of \[-2.5, 2.0\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.63||||||The statistical analysis of mean change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12 between CT-P39 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 1) and Xolair 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 2), using ANCOVA with multiple imputation based on the MAR assumption was performed for the mITT Set.||1.63|-0.22|
84478090|NCT03892707|168707449|SUPERIORITY|The between-group comparison on primary endpoint - change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 10 days after the start of treatment was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The difference between pain intensity at 10 days after the start of treatment and baseline (V3-V1) as response variable, treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was included into the model.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Since the superiority of one treatment over the other is investigated and taking into consideration that smaller negative values of the primary variable correspond to the greater reduction of pain, the statistical hypotheses are:~Null hypothesis (H0):~H0: μ2 - μ1 ≥ 0~Alternative hypothesis (HA):~HA: μ2 - μ1 \< 0, where μ1 и μ2 are the mean changes from baseline in pain intensity for (1) modern NSAIDs therapy and for (2) modern NSAIDs + Milgamma\\ Milgamma compositum therapy, correspondingly."||||<0.001
84478091|NCT03892707|168707450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes from baseline in pain intensity measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 5, 24 and 38 days after were compared between groups using ANCOVA models similar to those used for the analysis of the primary variable.||||<0.001
84478092|NCT03892707|168707451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84478093|NCT03892707|168707452|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 2 (5 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 2)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
84478094|NCT03892707|168707452|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 3 (10 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 3)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
84478095|NCT03892707|168707452|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 4 (24 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 4)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||0.061
84478096|NCT03892707|168707453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in pain-related disability as measured by Roland Morris disability questionnaire at 10 days after the start of treatment was compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline value disability score as a covariate.||||<0.001
84478097|NCT03892707|168707454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Episode of pain flare-up was defined as presence of at least 1 day with pain following a period without pain lasting at least 4 weeks . The denominator for the proportion was the number of FAS patients who had at least one pain-free period with approximately 4 weeks duration registered during the study.||||<0.001
84478098|NCT03892707|168707455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.7||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in consultancy with physician||60.7|-3.6|
84478099|NCT03892707|168707455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|17.4||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in disruption of daily activity||17.4|-51.6|
84478100|NCT03892707|168707455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|55.5||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in NSAIDs intake||55.5|-4.1|
84478101|NCT03892707|168707456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NSAIDs intake during the study was analyzed. In order to calculate the total number of treatment days with NSAIDs, first, intersecting or adjacent records were collapsed, irrespective of the specific drug used; the duration of each of the resulting intake periods was determined as (End date - Start date + 1) and, finally, all individual duration values were summed up. In case medication intake was ongoing at the end of study, end date was imputed by the date of study completion.||||0.986
84478102|NCT03892707|168707459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 5 days since the start of study treatment.||||0.921
84478103|NCT03892707|168707459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 10 days since the start of study treatment||||0.051
84478104|NCT03892707|168707459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 38 days since the start of study treatment||||0.651
84478105|NCT03892707|168707459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 3 months since the start of study treatment||||0.106
84478106|NCT04190186|168707471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.594|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
84478107|NCT02141217|168707482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.0||||||||8.0|-4.9|
84478108|NCT02141217|168707483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.4||||||||7.4|-5.6|
84478109|NCT02141217|168707484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.0||||||||9.0|-4.4|
84535000|NCT00620659|168818838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|-2.38||||||||-2.38|-5.23|
84535001|NCT00620659|168818839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.079
84535002|NCT00620659|168818840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.003
84535003|NCT01193127|168818841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.6|1.1||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model|All data time points collected used in the analysis.|OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||1.1|0.6|0.0000
84535004|NCT01193127|168818841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.5|0.9||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model|OMS302 - ketorolac tromethamine||||0.9|0.5|0.0000
84535005|NCT01193127|168818842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0421||95.0|-8.9|-0.2||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model||OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||-0.2|-8.9|0.0421
84535006|NCT01193127|168818842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0093||95.0|-10.3|-1.5||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model||OMS302 - PE|||-1.5|-10.3|0.0093
84535007|NCT01193127|168818843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.630
84535008|NCT01193127|168818843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.769
84535009|NCT01193127|168818843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
84535010|NCT01193127|168818844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
84535011|NCT01193127|168818844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
84535012|NCT01193127|168818844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
84535013|NCT01193127|168818845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.177
84535014|NCT01193127|168818845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.051
84535015|NCT01193127|168818845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.497
84535016|NCT01193127|168818846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
84535017|NCT01193127|168818846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.090
84535018|NCT01193127|168818846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.439
84535019|NCT01193127|168818847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.812
84535020|NCT01193127|168818847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
84535021|NCT01193127|168818847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
84535022|NCT01193127|168818848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.085
84535023|NCT01193127|168818848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.742
84535024|NCT01193127|168818848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.021
84535025|NCT01193127|168818849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.081
84535026|NCT01193127|168818849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
84478110|NCT01457924|168707496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||Note: There is a discrepancy in the number of par. in ITT populations at Wk 24 and Wk 48: 228 and 229 respectively. This resulted from a data issue: one par was incorrectly excluded from ITT pop. at Wk 24, but correctly included in Wk 48. This error affects all source tables, analyses relating to ITT and per protocol populations, primary endpoint and secondary MRI endpoints reported at Wk 24. This discrepancy affects all statistical analyses, but not summary statistics.||0.548|0.221|<0.001
84478111|NCT01457924|168707496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
84478112|NCT01457924|168707496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
84478113|NCT01457924|168707496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
84478114|NCT01457924|168707497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
84478115|NCT01457924|168707497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
84478116|NCT01457924|168707497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.65|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.65|0.19|0.001
84478117|NCT01457924|168707497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.39|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.39|0.13|<0.001
84478118|NCT01457924|168707500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.60|0.16|<0.001
84478119|NCT01457924|168707500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.06|0.29|0.075
84478120|NCT01457924|168707500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.51||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.95|0.27|0.035
84478121|NCT01457924|168707500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.55|0.19|<0.001
84478122|NCT01457924|168707501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.84|0.06|0.026
84478123|NCT01457924|168707501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.49||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.86|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.86|0.13|0.296
84478124|NCT01457924|168707501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.78|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.78|0.14|0.285
84478125|NCT01457924|168707501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.71|0.09|0.009
84478126|NCT01457924|168707502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.05|0.004
84478127|NCT01457924|168707502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.63|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.63|0.15|0.248
84478128|NCT01457924|168707502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.46||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.43|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.43|0.15|0.181
84478129|NCT01457924|168707502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.62|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.62|0.10|0.003
84478130|NCT01457924|168707503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.15|<0.001
84478131|NCT01457924|168707503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.68|0.17|0.002
84478132|NCT01457924|168707503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.77|0.21|0.006
84478133|NCT01457924|168707503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.35|0.11|<0.001
84478134|NCT01226706|168707516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||"A sample of 16 subjects per group was required to detect a mean difference of 50 mL in maximum capacity at cystoscopy between botulinum toxin and placebo at 90% power with a two-sided type I error of 5%.~Difference scores were computed for the primary outcome, which were then compared using the Wilcoxon- Mann-Whitney U test. This type of analysis was used to identify both between group differences and within group differences (over time) while using non-parametric statistics."||||.016
84478135|NCT01226706|168707517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.152
84478136|NCT01226706|168707518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
84478137|NCT01226706|168707519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.067
84478138|NCT01226706|168707523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
84478139|NCT01226706|168707524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
84478140|NCT01226706|168707525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
84478141|NCT01226706|168707529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.904
84478142|NCT01226706|168707530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.080
84478143|NCT01226706|168707531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
84478144|NCT01226706|168707535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.2|-2.1|0.021
84478145|NCT01226706|168707536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.5|-2.1|0.007
84478146|NCT01226706|168707537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.4|-2.0|0.013
84478147|NCT01226706|168707538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.173
84535027|NCT01193127|168818849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.606
84535028|NCT01193127|168818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.893
84535029|NCT01193127|168818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.553
84535030|NCT01193127|168818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.412
84535031|NCT01193127|168818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.186
84535032|NCT01193127|168818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.191
84535033|NCT01193127|168818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.167
84535034|NCT01193127|168818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.663
84535035|NCT01193127|168818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.326
84535036|NCT01193127|168818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
84535037|NCT01193127|168818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.106
84535038|NCT01193127|168818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.519
84535039|NCT01193127|168818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.039
84535040|NCT01193127|168818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
84535041|NCT01193127|168818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.029
84535042|NCT01193127|168818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.525
84535043|NCT01193127|168818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.642
84535044|NCT01193127|168818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
84535045|NCT01193127|168818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.467
84535046|NCT01193127|168818856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.695
84535047|NCT01193127|168818856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
84535048|NCT01193127|168818856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.369
84535049|NCT01193127|168818857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.124
84535050|NCT01193127|168818857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
84535051|NCT01193127|168818857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
84535052|NCT01193127|168818858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.825
84535053|NCT01193127|168818858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.211
84535054|NCT01193127|168818858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.589
84535055|NCT01193127|168818859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
84535056|NCT01193127|168818859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.200
84478148|NCT01226706|168707539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
84478149|NCT01226706|168707540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
84478150|NCT01226706|168707541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.557
84478151|NCT01226706|168707542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.029
84478152|NCT01226706|168707543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
84478153|NCT01226706|168707544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.085
84478154|NCT01226706|168707545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.099
84478155|NCT01226706|168707546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
84478156|NCT01226706|168707547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.072
84478157|NCT01226706|168707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
84478158|NCT01226706|168707549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.314
84478159|NCT01226706|168707550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.013
84478160|NCT01226706|168707551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.888
84478161|NCT01899677|168707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mann whitney U|||Mann Whitney U test was used to compare cytokine levels between groups.||||0.32
84478162|NCT01899677|168707567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.73
84478163|NCT01899677|168707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.66
84478164|NCT01899677|168707569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.76
84478165|NCT05067452|168707589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-1.59|0.900
84478166|NCT05067452|168707590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-0.478|0.146
84478167|NCT05067452|168707591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.677|||ANCOVA|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.677|-0.207|0.281
84478168|NCT05067452|168707592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.768|-0.060|0.094
84478169|NCT05067452|168707593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-7.83|0.669
84478170|NCT05067452|168707594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.743|-0.695|0.949
84478171|NCT05067452|168707595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.679|-1.58|0.308
84478172|NCT05067452|168707596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.499|-4.77|0.593
84478173|NCT05067452|168707597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.611|-5.86|0.112
84478174|NCT05067452|168707600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|-8.25|0.349
84478175|NCT00067470|168707601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.0||0.025||95.0|11.0|172.0|||Regression, Linear|||||172|11|0.025
84478176|NCT00067470|168707602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.053||95.0|-0.1|11.5|||Regression, Linear|The raw data were adjusted for the observed differences in baseline between the groups and fitted to a longitudinal repeated measures linear model.||||11.5|-0.1|0.053
84478177|NCT01135017|168707604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-59.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.322|-29.457||No adjustment for multiplicity was made. The priori threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data with treatment arm as a fixed effect term and baseline log-transformed AF burden as a covariate|"Percent change in AF burden with dronedarone relative to placebo~LS Mean difference from the ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data was exponentiated to convert back to percent change."|"The planned sample size of 286 participants was estimated to have 70% power to detect a reduction in mean AF burden of 30% relative to the placebo group.~Due to the smaller-than-planned sample size, the power to detect this difference was estimated to be only 44%, based on the original assumption. However, the power to detect larger treatment effects (\>40% reduction) remained high and the posthoc power to detect a 60% reduction in AF burden was 99%."||-29.457|-76.322|0.0015
84478178|NCT02703987|168707614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-0.04|0.0801
84478179|NCT02703987|168707615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-0.03|0.0714
84478180|NCT02703987|168707616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|-0.48|0.0609
84478181|NCT01192204|168707647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change intrapatient pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|We used a 2-tailed Mann Whitney U test to evaluate these data.||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (intrapatient pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.048
84478182|NCT01192204|168707647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.50
84478183|NCT01192204|168707648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|specifically, we used the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||<0.002
84478184|NCT01192204|168707648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.036
84478185|NCT01192204|168707649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||2-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.002
84478186|NCT01192204|168707649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||two-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.16
84478187|NCT01167582|168707657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 Post Randomization||||<0.001
84478188|NCT01167582|168707657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 2 Post Randomization||||<0.001
84478189|NCT01167582|168707657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 Post Randomization||||<0.001
84478190|NCT01167582|168707658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84478191|NCT01167582|168707659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.73|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||5.73|0.99|
84478192|NCT01167582|168707660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||||95.0|-5.3|24.7|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||24.7|-5.3|
84478193|NCT01167582|168707661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|56.02|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Mortality||56.02|0.91|
84478194|NCT01167582|168707661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.22|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Myocardial Infarction||4.22|0.48|
84478195|NCT00039741|168707692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.11|-0.41|0.26
84478196|NCT00039741|168707692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.32|-0.20|0.56
84478197|NCT00476996|168707728|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.9|12.8|< 0.0001
84478198|NCT00476996|168707728|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|17.7|< 0.0001
84478199|NCT00476996|168707728|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||36.6|21.6|< 0.0001
84478200|NCT00476996|168707728|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||37.7|22.8|< 0.0001
84478201|NCT00476996|168707729|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|2.1||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.2|-1.0|0.1885
84478202|NCT00476996|168707729|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|3.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||6.8|0.3|0.0330
84478203|NCT00476996|168707730|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.6|0.7|0.0175
84478204|NCT00476996|168707730|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.8|0.9|0.0134
84478205|NCT00476996|168707730|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.8|6.2|< 0.0001
84478206|NCT00476996|168707730|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.7|6.2|< 0.0001
84478207|NCT00476996|168707731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.3|-0.8|< 0.0001
84478208|NCT00476996|168707731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
84478209|NCT00476996|168707731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
84478210|NCT00476996|168707731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
84478211|NCT00476996|168707732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.66|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||3.66|1.85|< 0.0001
84478212|NCT00476996|168707732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.91|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||4.91|2.49|< 0.0001
84535057|NCT01193127|168818859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.478
84535058|NCT01193127|168818860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
84535059|NCT01193127|168818860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.521
84535060|NCT01193127|168818860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.432
84535061|NCT01193127|168818861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
84535062|NCT01193127|168818861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
84535063|NCT01193127|168818861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.381
84535064|NCT01193127|168818862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.646
84535065|NCT01193127|168818862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.950
84535066|NCT01193127|168818862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
84535067|NCT01193127|168818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84535068|NCT01193127|168818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
84535069|NCT01193127|168818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.303
84535070|NCT01193127|168818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.789
84535071|NCT01193127|168818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.977
84535072|NCT01193127|168818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
84535073|NCT01193127|168818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.632
84535074|NCT01193127|168818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
84535075|NCT01193127|168818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
84535076|NCT01193127|168818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
84535077|NCT01193127|168818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
84535078|NCT01193127|168818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.353
84535079|NCT01193127|168818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.463
84535080|NCT01193127|168818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.406
84535081|NCT01193127|168818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
84535082|NCT01193127|168818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.945
84535083|NCT01193127|168818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.438
84535084|NCT01193127|168818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.596
84535085|NCT01193127|168818869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.811
84535086|NCT01193127|168818869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.552
84535087|NCT01193127|168818869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.549
84535088|NCT01193127|168818870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
84535089|NCT01193127|168818870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
84535090|NCT01193127|168818870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
84535091|NCT01193127|168818871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.681
84535092|NCT01193127|168818871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
84535093|NCT01193127|168818871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.306
84535094|NCT01193127|168818872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
84535095|NCT01193127|168818872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.602
84535096|NCT01193127|168818872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.290
84535097|NCT01193127|168818873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.244
84535098|NCT01193127|168818873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.122
84535099|NCT01193127|168818873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.790
84535100|NCT01193127|168818874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.752
84535101|NCT01193127|168818874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
84535102|NCT01193127|168818874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
84535103|NCT01193127|168818875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.228
84535104|NCT01193127|168818875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.564
84535105|NCT01193127|168818875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.755
84535106|NCT01193127|168818876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
84535107|NCT01193127|168818876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
84535108|NCT01193127|168818876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
84535109|NCT01193127|168818877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.271
84535110|NCT01193127|168818877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.345
84535111|NCT01193127|168818877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.096
84535112|NCT01193127|168818878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.320
84535113|NCT01193127|168818878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.390
84535114|NCT01193127|168818878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.230
84535115|NCT01193127|168818879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
84535116|NCT01193127|168818879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.348
84535117|NCT01193127|168818879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.477
84535118|NCT01193127|168818880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.374
84535119|NCT01193127|168818880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
84535120|NCT01193127|168818880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.555
84535121|NCT01193127|168818881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
84535122|NCT01193127|168818881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.059
84535123|NCT01193127|168818881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.472
84535124|NCT01193127|168818882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
84535125|NCT01193127|168818882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.169
84535126|NCT01193127|168818882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.310
84535127|NCT01193127|168818883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.075
84535128|NCT01193127|168818883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
84535129|NCT01193127|168818883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.078
84535130|NCT01193127|168818884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
84535131|NCT01193127|168818884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.357
84535132|NCT01193127|168818884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
84535133|NCT01193127|168818885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.172
84535134|NCT01193127|168818885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.547
84535135|NCT01193127|168818885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.921
84535136|NCT01193127|168818886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.701
84535137|NCT01193127|168818886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.089
84535138|NCT01193127|168818886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.095
84535139|NCT01193127|168818887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
84535140|NCT01193127|168818887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.092
84535141|NCT01193127|168818887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.120
84535142|NCT01193127|168818888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.626
84535143|NCT01193127|168818888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.736
84535144|NCT01193127|168818888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.725
84535145|NCT01193127|168818889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.220
84535146|NCT01193127|168818889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.903
84535147|NCT01193127|168818889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.463
84535148|NCT01193127|168818890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.675
84535149|NCT01193127|168818890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|WIlcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.825
84535150|NCT01193127|168818890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.668
84535151|NCT01193127|168818891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
84535152|NCT01193127|168818891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
84535153|NCT01193127|168818891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5263
84535154|NCT01193127|168818892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4222||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4222
84535155|NCT01193127|168818892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2712
84535156|NCT01193127|168818892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8819||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8819
84535157|NCT01193127|168818893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0510
84535158|NCT01193127|168818893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8084
84535159|NCT01193127|168818893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1495||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1495
84535160|NCT01193127|168818894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4099||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4099
84535161|NCT01193127|168818894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6499||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6499
84535162|NCT01193127|168818894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0765
84535163|NCT01193127|168818895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0688
84535164|NCT01193127|168818895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0314
84535165|NCT01193127|168818895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0775||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0775
84535166|NCT01193127|168818896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5369
84535167|NCT01193127|168818896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3763||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.3763
84535168|NCT01193127|168818896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6144||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6144
84535169|NCT01193127|168818897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1374
84535170|NCT01193127|168818897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.9146
84535171|NCT01193127|168818897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.7599
84535172|NCT01193127|168818898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
84535173|NCT01193127|168818898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
84535174|NCT01193127|168818898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84535175|NCT01193127|168818899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
84535176|NCT01193127|168818899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.647
84535177|NCT01193127|168818899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
84535178|NCT01193127|168818900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
84535179|NCT01193127|168818900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.335
84535180|NCT01193127|168818900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
84535181|NCT01193127|168818901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84535182|NCT01193127|168818901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
84535183|NCT01193127|168818901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
84535184|NCT01193127|168818902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.824
84535185|NCT01193127|168818902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
84535186|NCT01193127|168818902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.281
84535187|NCT01193127|168818903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.842
84535188|NCT01193127|168818903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.619
84535189|NCT01193127|168818903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
84535190|NCT01193127|168818904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
84535191|NCT01193127|168818904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
84535192|NCT01193127|168818904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.787
84535193|NCT01193127|168818905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
84535194|NCT01193127|168818905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.166
84535195|NCT01193127|168818905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.987
84535196|NCT01193127|168818906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.134
84535197|NCT01193127|168818906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.710
84535198|NCT01193127|168818906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.310
84535199|NCT01193127|168818907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
84535200|NCT01193127|168818907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.183
84535201|NCT01193127|168818907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.029
84535202|NCT01193127|168818908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.206
84535203|NCT01193127|168818908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.021
84535204|NCT01193127|168818908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.026
84535205|NCT01193127|168818909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.822
84535206|NCT01193127|168818909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.424
84535207|NCT01193127|168818909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
84535208|NCT01193127|168818910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.489
84535209|NCT01193127|168818910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.459
84535210|NCT01193127|168818910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.990
84478213|NCT00476996|168707732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.96|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.96|2.93|< 0.0001
84478214|NCT00476996|168707732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|7.18|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.18|3.54|< 0.0001
84478215|NCT00476996|168707733|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||19.1|7.4|< 0.0001
84478216|NCT00476996|168707733|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||22.1|10.2|< 0.0001
84478217|NCT00476996|168707733|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||25.6|12.9|< 0.0001
84478218|NCT00476996|168707733|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.1|14.5|< 0.0001
84478219|NCT00476996|168707734|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.6||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||8.5|0.7|0.0203
84478220|NCT00476996|168707734|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||10.8|2.6|0.0014
84478221|NCT00476996|168707734|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||11.2|2.1|0.0042
84478222|NCT00476996|168707734|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||18.6|8.2|< 0.0001
84478223|NCT00476996|168707735|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.5|11.3|< 0.0001
84478224|NCT00476996|168707735|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|16.8|< 0.0001
84478225|NCT00476996|168707735|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||34.9|19.5|< 0.0001
84478226|NCT00476996|168707735|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||35.3|20.0|< 0.0001
84478227|NCT01769469|168707744|OTHER|||||||0.2085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of difference at Week 48 from baseline||||0.2085
84478228|NCT01769469|168707748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2452|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2452
84478229|NCT01769469|168707756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||.0806
84478230|NCT01769469|168707767|OTHER|||||||0.6545|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.6545
84478231|NCT01769469|168707771|OTHER|||||||0.8739|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8739
84478232|NCT01769469|168707779|OTHER|||||||0.5014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5014
84535211|NCT01193127|168818912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4575
84535212|NCT01193127|168818912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8318
84535213|NCT01193127|168818912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8946
84535214|NCT01193127|168818913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
84535215|NCT01193127|168818913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0839||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
84535216|NCT01193127|168818913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0920
84535217|NCT01193127|168818914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
84535218|NCT01193127|168818914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.253
84535219|NCT01193127|168818914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
84535220|NCT03564444|168818917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
84535221|NCT03246646|168818923|SUPERIORITY||Z test of proportions|0.66|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Z test of independent proportions|||||||>.05
84535222|NCT02569112|168818924|SUPERIORITY|A significant improvement in skin laxity reduction is defined as a mean average increase in grade of 1 as per the GAIS.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Used Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test||The null hypothesis was that the addition of the multipolar radiofrequency with varipulse technology treatment to the cryolipolysis treatment would not show visual improvement.||||<0.01
84535223|NCT02352779|168818925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4843||0.1666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1666
84535224|NCT02352779|168818925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4567||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1329
84535225|NCT02352779|168818925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8065||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.9826
84535226|NCT02352779|168818925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5448||0.4016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.4016
84535227|NCT01540773|168818935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
84535228|NCT01540773|168818936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
84535229|NCT01104779|168818938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-2.4|-11.3|0.0029
84535230|NCT01104779|168818938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-5.3|-14.5|<0.0001
84535231|NCT01104779|168818939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0115
84535232|NCT01104779|168818939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
84535233|NCT03867097|168818940|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference in change|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|7.49|||ANCOVA||The Shapiro-Wilk normality test of residuals indicated that the data did not have a normal distribution (p-value 0.0108).|"Treatment comparison of change versus placebo. LS mean difference in change. When a subject had no RP attacks in the past 24 hours, the frequency was considered as zero for that day.~The LS means, SEs, CIs, and p-values came from an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment group and use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors at screening (yes, no) as factors and baseline as a covariate."||7.49|-9.04|0.8498
84535234|NCT03867097|168818940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|9.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Change in the Weekly Frequency of Symptomatic Raynaud's Phenomenon Attacks From Baseline to the Double-Blind Endpoint Using Nonparametric Analysis - Modified Intent-to-Treat Population.~Treatment comparison of change versus placebo."||9.32|-9.97|0.9729
84535235|NCT01372774|168818941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.35|<0.0001
84535236|NCT01372774|168818942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.76|0.70
84535237|NCT01372774|168818943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00068||||||Intracranial Brain Control Rates estimated via 1-Cumulative Incidence Rate from Competing Risk survival analysis of time to the specific recurrence type. Deaths without recurrence are censored at time of death.|Gray's K-sample|||||||0.00068
84535238|NCT01372774|168818945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
84535239|NCT01398943|168818948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84535240|NCT01398943|168818948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84535241|NCT01398943|168818949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84535242|NCT01398943|168818949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
84535243|NCT03610516|168818983|OTHER|A repeated measures mixed model was fitted with factors for treatment group (CFZ533 or placebo) and visit.|Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|0.579||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.256||one-sided p-value|Repeated measures Mixed Model|||||1.256|0.267|0.0788
84478233|NCT01769469|168707780|OTHER|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2431
84478234|NCT01769469|168707781|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7209
84478235|NCT01769469|168707782|OTHER|||||||0.5379|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5379
84478236|NCT01769469|168707783|OTHER|||||||0.7986|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7986
84478237|NCT01769469|168707803|OTHER|||||||0.8507|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8507
84478238|NCT01769469|168707804|OTHER|||||||0.3483|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3483
84478239|NCT01769469|168707811|OTHER|||||||0.4043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4043
84478240|NCT01769469|168707812|OTHER|||||||0.2927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2927
84478241|NCT01769469|168707813|OTHER|||||||0.1134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1134
84478242|NCT01769469|168707814|OTHER|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5782
84478243|NCT01769469|168707815|OTHER|||||||0.8658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8658
84478244|NCT01769469|168707816|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
84478245|NCT01769469|168707817|OTHER|||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
84478246|NCT01769469|168707818|OTHER|||||||0.1172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1172
84478247|NCT01769469|168707819|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1220
84478248|NCT01769469|168707820|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84478249|NCT01769469|168707822|OTHER|||||||0.7785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7785
84478250|NCT01769469|168707823|OTHER|||||||0.4933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4933
84478251|NCT01769469|168707824|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
84478252|NCT01769469|168707825|OTHER|||||||0.5161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5161
84478253|NCT01769469|168707826|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5990
84478254|NCT01769469|168707827|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8579
84478255|NCT01769469|168707828|OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0719
84478256|NCT01769469|168707829|OTHER|||||||0.3148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3148
84478257|NCT01769469|168707830|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1390
84478258|NCT01769469|168707831|OTHER|||||||0.2726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2726
84478259|NCT01769469|168707832|OTHER|||||||0.537|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5370
84478260|NCT01769469|168707833|OTHER|||||||0.2926|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2926
84478261|NCT01769469|168707834|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1906
84478262|NCT01769469|168707835|OTHER|||||||0.2255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2255
84478263|NCT01769469|168707836|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6285
84478264|NCT01769469|168707837|OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0148
84478265|NCT01769469|168707838|OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0166
84478266|NCT01769469|168707839|OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0277
84478267|NCT01769469|168707840|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2610
84478268|NCT01769469|168707841|OTHER|||||||0.4154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4154
84478269|NCT01769469|168707842|OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7125
84478270|NCT02151682|168707895|NON_INFERIORITY|A logistic regression model was fitted to the response using baseline pain, age group, treatment, and underlying pain condition as explanatory variables, followed by a Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority, based on Full Analysis Set.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||The p-value is based on Farrington-Manning variance estimator using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2. A 1-sided alpha of 0.1 was used. A p-value \<0.1 represents non-inferiority.|Farrington-Manning test|Non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release has been demonstrated.|A confidence interval for the risk difference (RD) completely above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2 represents non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release.|||0.06|-0.19|0.0790
84478271|NCT00618995|168707914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.8|1.18||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.18|0.8|
84478272|NCT00618995|168707914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.77|1.14||||||||1.14|0.77|
84478273|NCT00618995|168707914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
84478274|NCT00618995|168707914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84||||||90.0|0.69|1.02||||||||1.02|0.69|
84478275|NCT00618995|168707914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.76|1.13||||||||1.13|0.76|
84478276|NCT00618995|168707914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.74|1.09||||||||1.09|0.74|
84478277|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.06||||||||1.06|0.84|
84478278|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
84478279|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
84478280|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.54||||||90.0|0.48|0.6||||||||0.60|0.48|
84478281|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.6||||||90.0|0.54|0.67||||||||0.67|0.54|
84478282|NCT00618995|168707915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
84478283|NCT02988219|168707916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||Chi-squared|||Bradycardia during surgery||||0.3861
84478284|NCT02988219|168707916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2591|||||||Chi-squared|||No bradycardia observed in the perioperative period||||0.2591
84478285|NCT02988219|168707917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||Arrhythmia before surgery||||0.597
84478286|NCT02988219|168707917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia during surgery||||0.4
84478287|NCT02988219|168707917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6544|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia after surgery||||0.6544
84478288|NCT02988219|168707917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.45s after surgery||||0.077
84535244|NCT01555671|168819005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
84535245|NCT02684630|168819008|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
84535246|NCT02684630|168819009|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
84535247|NCT00000378|168819018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||actual calculation|Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression and mixed effects model||||<0.05
84535248|NCT01284361|168819032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|97.5|||||Seventy five of the 82 subjects (91.5%) preferred the longer commercially available catheter over the experimental 30 cm catheter.|The sample size of 81 subjects provides a 10.8% margin of error.||97.5|84.5|
84535249|NCT00325195|168819076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84535250|NCT00325195|168819076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84535251|NCT00325195|168819077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.002
84535252|NCT00325195|168819077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
84535253|NCT00325195|168819078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q2 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.007
84535254|NCT00325195|168819078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q4 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.321
84535255|NCT00325195|168819079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
84535256|NCT00325195|168819079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
84535257|NCT00325195|168819080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
84535258|NCT00325195|168819080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
84535259|NCT00806286|168819082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
84478289|NCT02988219|168707917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.24 s in the perioperative time||||0.0174
84478290|NCT01522443|168707926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) was stratified by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||0.773
84535260|NCT00806286|168819082|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.579||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Regression, Cox|||||2.5|1.0|0.0499
84535261|NCT00806286|168819083|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
84535262|NCT00699374|168819115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and tumor invasion condition.|Log Rank|||||1.50|1.14|0.9993
84535263|NCT00699374|168819116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE, and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.99|0.8857
84535264|NCT00699374|168819117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.98|0.8459
84535265|NCT00593736|168819130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.646
84478291|NCT01522443|168707927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by baslined Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||<0.001
84478292|NCT01522443|168707928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||1.10|0.44|0.121
84478293|NCT05014542|168707945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC total analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478294|NCT05014542|168707946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC pain analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<.001
84478295|NCT05014542|168707947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC stiffness between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478296|NCT05014542|168707948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC functional disability between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with a power of 95 % and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment (the mid-spread).||||<0.001
84478297|NCT05014542|168707949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS of group A in Week 15) - mean (VAS of group C in Week 15)|Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was compared between groups at Week 15, when the acupuncture of group A ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) presented the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478298|NCT05014542|168707950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ of group A in Week 15) - mean (KDSQ of group C in Week 15)|The Kidney Deficiency Syndrome Questionnaire (KDSQ) was compared between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were used to analyse the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||<0.001
84478299|NCT05014542|168707951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-774.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG of A group in Week 15) - mean (DRUG of C group in Week 15)|In Week 15, DRUG was compared between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478300|NCT05014542|168707952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group L knee in Week 15) - mean (C group L knee in Week 15)|Active extension of left (L) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.8493
84478301|NCT05014542|168707952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107||||0.69654|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group R knee in Week 15) - mean (C group R knee in Week 15)|Active extension of the right (R) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.69654
84478302|NCT05014542|168707953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion L knee of group C at Week 15)|L knee flexion between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.490
84478303|NCT05014542|168707953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion R knee of group C at Week 15)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.517
84478304|NCT05014542|168707954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||0.083
84535266|NCT00593736|168819130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.084
84535267|NCT00593736|168819130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.929
84535268|NCT00593736|168819131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.854
84535269|NCT00593736|168819131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.383
84535270|NCT00593736|168819131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.883
84535271|NCT00593736|168819132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
84535272|NCT00593736|168819132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
84535273|NCT00593736|168819132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.269
84535274|NCT00593736|168819133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.920
84535275|NCT00593736|168819133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.382
84535276|NCT00593736|168819133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.439
84535277|NCT00593736|168819134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.973
84535278|NCT00593736|168819134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
84535279|NCT00593736|168819134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.816
84535280|NCT00593736|168819135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.661
84535281|NCT00593736|168819135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.341
84535282|NCT00593736|168819135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
84535283|NCT00593736|168819136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
84535284|NCT00593736|168819136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
84535285|NCT00593736|168819136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.268
84535286|NCT00593736|168819137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.900
84535287|NCT00593736|168819137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.525
84535288|NCT00593736|168819137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.418
84535289|NCT00593736|168819138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.051
84535290|NCT00593736|168819138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.926
84535291|NCT00593736|168819138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.166
84535292|NCT00593736|168819139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.511
84535293|NCT00593736|168819139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
84535294|NCT00593736|168819139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.188
84535295|NCT00593736|168819140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.691
84535296|NCT00593736|168819140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.323
84535297|NCT00593736|168819140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.324
84535298|NCT00593736|168819141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.197
84535299|NCT00593736|168819141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.871
84535300|NCT00593736|168819141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.737
84535301|NCT00593736|168819142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.972
84535302|NCT00593736|168819142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
84535303|NCT00593736|168819142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.811
84535304|NCT00593736|168819143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.659
84535305|NCT00593736|168819143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.337
84535306|NCT00593736|168819143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
84535307|NCT00593736|168819144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
84535308|NCT00593736|168819144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.495
84535309|NCT00593736|168819144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.800
84535310|NCT00593736|168819145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
84535311|NCT00593736|168819145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.134
84535312|NCT00593736|168819145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.130
84535313|NCT00593736|168819146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.063
84535314|NCT00593736|168819146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
84535315|NCT00593736|168819146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.521
84535316|NCT00593736|168819147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.675
84535317|NCT00593736|168819147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
84535318|NCT00593736|168819147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.205
84535319|NCT00593736|168819148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.643
84535320|NCT00593736|168819148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.032
84535321|NCT00593736|168819148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.875
84535322|NCT00593736|168819149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.286
84535323|NCT00593736|168819149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.318
84535324|NCT00593736|168819149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.483
84535325|NCT00593736|168819150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.040
84535326|NCT00593736|168819150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.610
84535327|NCT00593736|168819150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.368
84535328|NCT00593736|168819151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.352
84535329|NCT00593736|168819151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
84535330|NCT00593736|168819151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.297
84535331|NCT00593736|168819152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.053
84535332|NCT00593736|168819152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
84535333|NCT00593736|168819152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.783
84535334|NCT00593736|168819153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
84535335|NCT00593736|168819153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.543
84535336|NCT00593736|168819153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.847
84535337|NCT00593736|168819154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.356
84535338|NCT00593736|168819154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.964
84535339|NCT00593736|168819154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.799
84535340|NCT00593736|168819155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.698
84535341|NCT00593736|168819155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.385
84535342|NCT00593736|168819155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.641
84535343|NCT00593736|168819156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.979
84535344|NCT00593736|168819156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
84535345|NCT00593736|168819156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
84535346|NCT00593736|168819157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.975
84535347|NCT00593736|168819157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.639
84535348|NCT00593736|168819157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.109
84535349|NCT00593736|168819158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.823
84535350|NCT00593736|168819158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
84535351|NCT00593736|168819158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.296
84535352|NCT00593736|168819159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.092
84535353|NCT00593736|168819159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.025
84535354|NCT00593736|168819159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.732
84535355|NCT00593736|168819160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.298
84535356|NCT00593736|168819160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.276
84535357|NCT00593736|168819160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.430
84535358|NCT00593736|168819161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.349
84535359|NCT00593736|168819161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.203
84535360|NCT00593736|168819161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.444
84535361|NCT00593736|168819162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.581
84535362|NCT00593736|168819162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.257
84535363|NCT00593736|168819162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.688
84535364|NCT00593736|168819163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.561
84535365|NCT00593736|168819163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.595
84535366|NCT00593736|168819163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.795
84535367|NCT00593736|168819164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
84535368|NCT00593736|168819164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.177
84535369|NCT00593736|168819164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.044
84535370|NCT00593736|168819165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.475
84535371|NCT00593736|168819165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.635
84535372|NCT00593736|168819165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.782
84535373|NCT00593736|168819166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.192
84535374|NCT00593736|168819166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.618
84535375|NCT00593736|168819166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.152
84535376|NCT00593736|168819167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.379
84535377|NCT00593736|168819167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.057
84535378|NCT00593736|168819167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.808
84535379|NCT00593736|168819168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.284
84535380|NCT00593736|168819168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.344
84535381|NCT00593736|168819168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.558
84535382|NCT00593736|168819169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.867
84535383|NCT00593736|168819169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.244
84535384|NCT00593736|168819169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.620
84535385|NCT00593736|168819170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
84535386|NCT00593736|168819170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.559
84535387|NCT00593736|168819170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.074
84535388|NCT00593736|168819171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.796
84535389|NCT00593736|168819171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.546
84535390|NCT00593736|168819171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.479
84478305|NCT05014542|168707954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.084
84478306|NCT05014542|168707955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) knee in Week 15 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.341
84478307|NCT05014542|168707955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) knee in between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.317
84478308|NCT05014542|168707956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 24) -mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC total was analysed in Week 24 between groups, nine weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality of the distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478309|NCT05014542|168707957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 24) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 24)|WOMAC pain was analysed between groups 9 weeks after acupuncture ended in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data (the mid-spread).||||<.001
84478310|NCT05014542|168707958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC stiffness between groups A and C in Week 24, 9 weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of distribution. Group comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478311|NCT05014542|168707959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC functional disability at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
84478312|NCT05014542|168707960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 24 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 24 of group C)|VAS was compared between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
84478313|NCT05014542|168707961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group C)|KDSQ between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
84478314|NCT05014542|168707962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-581.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group C)|The DRUG between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
84478315|NCT05014542|168707963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext L of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext L of C group in Week 24)|Left (L) knee analysis between groups A and C in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% statistical power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessment.||||
84535391|NCT00593736|168819172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.766
84535392|NCT00593736|168819172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.912
84535393|NCT00593736|168819172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.952
84535394|NCT00593736|168819173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.722
84535395|NCT00593736|168819173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.262
84535396|NCT00593736|168819173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.717
84535397|NCT00593736|168819174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.498
84535398|NCT00593736|168819174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.664
84535399|NCT00593736|168819174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.428
84535400|NCT00593736|168819175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.519
84535401|NCT00593736|168819175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.179
84535402|NCT00593736|168819175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.935
84535403|NCT00593736|168819176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.425
84535404|NCT00593736|168819176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.406
84535405|NCT00593736|168819176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.720
84535406|NCT00593736|168819177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.294
84535407|NCT00593736|168819177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.474
84535408|NCT00593736|168819177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.999
84535409|NCT00593736|168819178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
84535410|NCT00593736|168819178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.331
84535411|NCT00593736|168819178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.362
84535412|NCT00593736|168819179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.684
84535413|NCT00593736|168819179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.399
84535414|NCT00593736|168819179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.611
84535415|NCT00593736|168819180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.157
84478316|NCT05014542|168707963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext R knee of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext R knee of C group in Week 24)|Right (R) knee analysis between groups at Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability between groups was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment.||||
84478317|NCT05014542|168707964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (L knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (L knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Left (L) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at a specified assessment (time-point).||||0.953
84478318|NCT05014542|168707964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (R knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (R knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.491
84478319|NCT05014542|168707965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of a distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of groups comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.261
84478320|NCT05014542|168707965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the R upper leg between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (null hypothesis) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.273
84478321|NCT05014542|168707966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of left (L) knees in Week 24, in between-groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.445
84478322|NCT05014542|168707966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of right (R) knees at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.260
84478323|NCT05014542|168707967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 39) - mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 0)|Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline assessment by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The null hypothesis at weeks 0 and 39 was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the sample.||||<0.001
84478324|NCT05014542|168707967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC total in Week 0 of group C).|WOMAC total of group C in Week 39 was tested for the significance level and mean difference by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. WOMAC total at Week 0 (pre-experimental baseline assessment) and Week 39 were compared to test the null hypothesis of group comparability by the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of a sample.||||< 0.001
84535416|NCT00593736|168819180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.463
84535417|NCT00593736|168819180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.774
84535418|NCT00593736|168819181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.413
84535419|NCT00593736|168819181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.093
84535420|NCT00593736|168819181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.982
84535421|NCT00593736|168819182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.441
84535422|NCT00593736|168819182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
84535423|NCT00593736|168819182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.549
84535424|NCT00593736|168819183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
84535425|NCT00593736|168819183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.997
84535426|NCT00593736|168819183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.834
84535427|NCT00593736|168819184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
84535428|NCT00593736|168819184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.321
84535429|NCT00593736|168819184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.978
84535430|NCT00593736|168819185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.513
84535431|NCT00593736|168819185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.751
84535432|NCT00593736|168819185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.242
84535433|NCT00593736|168819186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.307
84535434|NCT00593736|168819186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.765
84535435|NCT00593736|168819186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.727
84535436|NCT00593736|168819187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.902
84535437|NCT00593736|168819187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.590
84535438|NCT00593736|168819187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.290
84535439|NCT00593736|168819188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.685
84535440|NCT00593736|168819188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.214
84535441|NCT00593736|168819188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.055
84535442|NCT00593736|168819189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.589
84535443|NCT00593736|168819189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
84535444|NCT00593736|168819189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.041
84535445|NCT01853930|168819190|SUPERIORITY|The purpose of the superiority test is to show if laboratory based training is superior to an independent home-based training option.||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.157 df= 30||||||0.876
84535446|NCT00265395|168819218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR Rate Difference|-4.9||||0.6445||95.0|-20.4|10.6|||Asymptotic Z-test|||||10.6|-20.4|0.6445
84535447|NCT01955837|168819219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.62|0.035
84535448|NCT01955837|168819220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
84535449|NCT01955837|168819221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||Log Rank|||||0.58|0.37|<0.001
84535450|NCT01955837|168819222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|1.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.4|-0.1|0.554
84535451|NCT01955837|168819223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
84535452|NCT01955837|168819224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
84535453|NCT01955837|168819227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.57|0.083
84535454|NCT01955837|168819228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.57|0.228
84535455|NCT01955837|168819229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59||||||||0.59|0.32|
84535456|NCT01955837|168819230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||||||||0.65|0.31|
84535457|NCT02563106|168819231|OTHER|The analysis of the primary endpoint was based on the mITT analysis set. Per-protocol and worse case analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses.The P-value was based on a one-sided z-test for the comparison of the treatment difference between the SYN-004 group and the Placebo group.|Relative Risk Reduction (%)|71.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|94.0||Study was designed to provide 80% power to detect treatment effect with one-sided alpha = 0.05 on the primary endpoint. Based on the pre-specified z-test the one-sided P=0.045.|z-test|1-sided P=0.045.|Relative Risk Reduction in SYN-004 group compared to Placebo group.|The Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) analysis set included randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of subjects with CDI, imputing early termination without CDI as not being treatment failures.||94.0|-35.9|0.045
84535458|NCT05084716|168819276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.13|2.08|<.0001
84535459|NCT05084716|168819276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|16.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.59|3.48|<.0001
84535460|NCT05084716|168819277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|27.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.85|5.96|<.0001
84535461|NCT05084716|168819277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.26|.001
84535462|NCT05084716|168819278|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d for difference in proportions|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Odds Ratio is undefined and p-value from Fisher's Exact test is reported because 0% of PrEP users had ≥80% medication coverage pre-intervention.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
84535463|NCT05084716|168819278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.34|0.16|<.0001
84535464|NCT01081834|168819289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.088|-0.729|||ANCOVA|||||-0.729|-1.088|<0.001
84535465|NCT01081834|168819289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.342|-0.985|||ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-1.342|<0.001
84535466|NCT01081834|168819291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.23|3.10|<0.001
84535467|NCT01081834|168819291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|26.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.25|8.14|<0.001
84719046|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.95||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|7.33||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss: Difference in LS mean||7.33|-23.23|0.3002
84719047|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|1.79||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.29||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Constipation: Difference in LS mean||19.29|-15.70|0.8374
84719048|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|16.52||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea: Difference in LS mean||16.52|-19.28|0.8775
84719049|NCT03500549|169190297|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.4||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|6.95||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Financial difficulties: Difference in LS mean||6.95|-21.76|0.3066
84719050|NCT03500549|169190298|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test P-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% CI is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||4.0|2.0|<0.0001
84719051|NCT00979121|169190312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in % of pts alive at 60 days|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2||The monitoring boundaries were designed to have a low probability of stopping for futility before 750 patients. The maximum sample size was 1000 patients. Efficacy stopping was based on mortality; futility stopping was based on mortality and VFDs.|Proc lifetest|Proc lifetest was used to calculate mortality mean and variance due to one subject lost to follow up who was censored.||Hospital mortality to day 60 was estimated using the Kaplan Meier estimate, with patients discharged home before day 60 considered alive at day 60. The analysis was stratified by co-enrolled treatment assignments for 81 patients also enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of two different nutritional strategies. A maximum of 1000 patients were to be enrolled, providing a 92% probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for the effect on mortality if a true difference in mortality was 9%.||10.2|-2.3|0.21
84719052|NCT00979121|169190313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96||95.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Ventilator, ICU free, and organ failure free days were analyzed by analysis of variance, utilizing treatment assignment where applicable.||1.5|-1.6|0.96
84719053|NCT01532999|169190356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks. Data structure involved repeated measures over time nested within participant, who in turn, was nested within a therapy group. Models included a random intercept, a random slope, and fixed effects for treatment condition, time, and the stratification variable (site). Rejection of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect if this interaction was statistically significant (two-tailed α = .05).||||0.5
84719054|NCT01532999|169190357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.57
84719055|NCT01532999|169190359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
84719056|NCT01532999|169190360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.8
84719057|NCT01532999|169190361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
84719058|NCT01532999|169190362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.35
84719059|NCT01532999|169190363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.3
84719060|NCT01532999|169190364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.7
84719061|NCT03333109|169190376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.77|0.002
84719062|NCT03333109|169190376|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
84535468|NCT01081834|168819292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-28.78|||ANCOVA|||||-28.78|-42.22|<0.001
84719063|NCT03333109|169190377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||2.07|1.12|0.007
84719064|NCT03333109|169190377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||3.15|1.55|<0.001
84719065|NCT03333109|169190378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.07|<0.001
84719066|NCT03333109|169190378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.71|<0.001
84719067|NCT03333109|169190379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-2.99|0.004
84719068|NCT03333109|169190379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-4.07|<0.001
84719069|NCT00859781|169190411|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.52|||Fisher Exact||Direction = 177Lu-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases minus 111ln-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases.|||0.52|0.008|0.08
84719070|NCT03280030|169190414|OTHER|Success criteria is considered based on point estimated Hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio, log|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|2.818||||||||2.818|0.624|
84719071|NCT04538352|169190444|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.||||||0.009||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||0.009
84719072|NCT04538352|169190445|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.|||||<|0.001||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||<0.001
84719073|NCT05630833|169190450|OTHER||Lower 10th percentile (%)|48.2|||||||||||||Lower 10th percentile of therapeutic successes was calculated from the predictive distribution.|As defined in Statistical Analysis Plan, consistency with the global studies is demonstrated if the success criterion for gepotidacin is set to require a therapeutic response rate greater than lower 10th percentile value of the predictive distribution.||||
84719074|NCT00065182|169190556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.248|||Log Rank||Unadjusted hazard ratio.|||1.248|0.813|0.9460
84719075|NCT00065182|169190556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.21|||||Adjusted hazard ratio.|||1.210|0.788|
84719076|NCT03442777|169190577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99||controlled for type of ward (ICU/Non-ICU)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.41|0.04
84719077|NCT03801148|169190581|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log (ln)-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric least square mean (LSM) ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9171|1.0473||||||||1.0473|0.9171|
84535469|NCT01081834|168819292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-43.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.06|-36.69|||ANCOVA|||||-36.69|-50.06|<0.001
84719078|NCT03801148|169190581|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0025|1.1501||||||||1.1501|1.0025|
84719079|NCT03801148|169190582|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0455|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.0855||||||||1.0855|1.0070|
84719080|NCT03801148|169190582|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0192|1.1046||||||||1.1046|1.0192|
84535470|NCT01081834|168819293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-36.99|||ANCOVA|||||-36.99|-59.12|<0.001
84535471|NCT01081834|168819293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-64.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.02|-52.94|||ANCOVA|||||-52.94|-75.02|<0.001
84719081|NCT03801148|169190583|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0186|1.0933||||||||1.0933|1.0186|
84719082|NCT03801148|169190583|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|GMR|1.0468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0027|1.0929||||||||1.0929|1.0027|
84719083|NCT03801148|169190584|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0188|1.0935||||||||1.0935|1.0188|
84719084|NCT03801148|169190584|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0472|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0029|1.0934||||||||1.0934|1.0029|
84719085|NCT03244800|169190627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84719086|NCT03244800|169190628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84719087|NCT03244800|169190629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84719088|NCT03244800|169190630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
84719089|NCT03244800|169190631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
84719090|NCT03244800|169190632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|72.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.03|1.61|0.040
84719091|NCT02941549|169190667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|20.7|||ANCOVA|||||20.7|-34.5|0.5946
84719092|NCT02941549|169190667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|16.8|||ANCOVA|||||16.8|-36.9|0.7309
84719093|NCT02941549|169190668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.308||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-2.11|0.0763
84719094|NCT02941549|169190668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.727||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.100|-1.554|0.0058
84719095|NCT04033445|169190706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||46.3|20.9|< 0.001
84719096|NCT04033445|169190706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|45.4|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||45.4|20.8|< 0.001
84719097|NCT04033445|169190707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|19.9|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||19.9|9.9|< 0.001
84535472|NCT01081834|168819294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.9|<0.001
84535473|NCT01081834|168819294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-4.0|<0.001
84535474|NCT01081834|168819295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.568|||ANCOVA|||||-1.568|-5.860|<0.001
84719098|NCT04033445|169190708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||33.9|16.4|< 0.001
84719099|NCT04033445|169190708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||38.1|20.9|< 0.001
84719100|NCT01536093|169190761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84719101|NCT01536093|169190762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
84719102|NCT01536093|169190763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
84719103|NCT01536093|169190764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
84719104|NCT01536093|169190765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
84719105|NCT01536093|169190766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
84719106|NCT01759862|169190819|SUPERIORITY|Our calculations showed that by enrolling 50 patients we will be able to detect a 25cc/min absolute difference in eGFR between the two arms with power above 80%, and a two-sided Type I probability error of \<0.05.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to treat analysis||||0.32
84719107|NCT01759862|169190820|SUPERIORITY|Enrolling 25 patients in each group will allow us to detect a difference of 200ng/mg cr in urinary NGAL levels between the two groups with a power of 80% and a two-sided type I probability error of 0.05.||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
84719108|NCT01759862|169190821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
84719109|NCT03466411|169190842|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|124.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|158.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||158.7|89.8|<0.001
84719110|NCT03466411|169190842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|102.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|136.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||136.9|68.5|<0.001
84719111|NCT03466411|169190842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|108.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|143.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||143.5|73.9|<0.001
84719112|NCT03466411|169190843|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|48.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||48.9|27.3|<0.001
84719113|NCT03466411|169190843|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|53.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||53.9|31.6|<0.001
84719114|NCT03466411|169190844|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|43.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||43.2|24.1|<0.001
84719115|NCT03466411|169190844|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|42.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||42.4|23.5|<0.001
84719116|NCT03466411|169190845|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|45.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||45.3|23.2|<0.001
84719117|NCT03466411|169190845|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.5|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||46.5|23.5|<0.001
84719118|NCT03466411|169190846|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||37.1|18.7|<0.001
84719119|NCT03466411|169190846|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||40.3|21.3|<0.001
84719120|NCT03466411|169190847|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.2|14.1|<0.001
84719121|NCT03466411|169190848|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|36.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.1|19.3|<0.001
84719122|NCT03466411|169190849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|41.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||41.3|21.1|<0.001
84719123|NCT03466411|169190850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||31.9|12.2|<0.001
84719124|NCT05580003|169190911|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.71|107.18|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||107.18|95.71|
84535475|NCT01081834|168819295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.556|-3.28|||ANCOVA|||||-3.280|-7.556|<0.001
84719125|NCT05580003|169190911|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|108.5|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||108.50|97.28|
84719126|NCT05580003|169190911|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|104.8|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||104.80|91.32|
84719127|NCT05580003|169190911|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|109.7|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||109.70|95.60|
84535476|NCT01081834|168819296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-14.8|0.267
84535477|NCT01081834|168819296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-19.6|0.034
84719128|NCT05580003|169190912|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.13|77.65|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||77.65|58.13|
84719129|NCT05580003|169190912|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.14|85.67|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||85.67|64.14|
84719130|NCT05580003|169190948|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.98|87.09|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||87.09|60.98|
84719131|NCT05580003|169190948|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.35|85.52|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||85.52|68.35|
84719132|NCT05580003|169190948|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.7|82.27|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||82.27|65.70|
84719133|NCT05580003|169190948|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|85.13|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||85.13|66.36|
84719134|NCT05580003|169190949|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|97.75|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||97.75|60.21|
84719135|NCT05580003|169190949|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.7|93.67|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||93.67|53.70|
84719136|NCT02392234|169190996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||5.8|3.7|< 0.0001
84719137|NCT02392234|169190996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||7.8|5.7|< 0.0001
84719138|NCT02392234|169190997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||12.2|7.2|<0.0001
84719139|NCT02392234|169190997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.6|8.7|<0.0001
84719140|NCT02392234|169190999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||9.9|6.3|<0.0001
84719141|NCT02392234|169190999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.2|9.6|<0.0001
84719142|NCT02392234|169191000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-2.3|-6.7|<0.0001
84719143|NCT02392234|169191000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-7.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-7.3|-11.7|<0.0001
84719144|NCT02029235|169191003|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No difference between groups~Power analysis: A sample size of 16 in each group had an 80% power to detect a difference in means of 10 mm."||||0.24
84719145|NCT02029235|169191004|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference between groups||||0.06
84719146|NCT03170648|169191025|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||T2 (post) vs.T1(pre)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84719147|NCT05509816|169191041|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the geometric least square means (GLSMs) and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.02|0.849|
84719148|NCT05509816|169191042|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the GLSMs and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% CI for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.16|0.989|
84719149|NCT05509816|169191043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||0.868|0.777|
84719150|NCT05509816|169191044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.12|0.828|
84719151|NCT02130557|169191057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.547||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.233||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|A total sample size of 500 Ph+ participants is required for the study to provide \>= 90% power to detect at least 15% difference (assuming 25% in the imatinib vs 40% in the bosutinib arm) in the MMR rates at 12 months (48 weeks) with a 1-sided alpha of 2.5%, and 2 interim futility analyses at 33% and 66% of patients with adequate follow-up with early stopping for futility only (non-binding, O'Brien-Fleming analog beta spending function).||2.233|1.072|0.0100
84719152|NCT02130557|169191058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.418||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|2.037||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.037|0.986|0.0303
84719153|NCT02130557|169191059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.44|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||2.44|0.49|
84719154|NCT02130557|169191060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.61||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.610|1.160|0.0037
84719155|NCT02130557|169191061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||1.13|0.14|
84719156|NCT02130557|169191062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.17||1-sided p-value based on Gray's test for comparing cumulative incidence function between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3). Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Gray's test||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the proportional subdistribution hazards model stratified by Sokal risk group and region.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.17|0.35|0.0749
84719157|NCT02130557|169191063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test for comparing survival curves between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group and region. OS was not tested as EFS was not significant.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.73|0.37|0.2827
84719158|NCT04066075|169191073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The p-value represents the difference between telerehabilitation and usual care.|Multilevel linear regression model|||Multilevel modeling in linear regression analyses accounted for within-patient correlations for the 3 assessments at baseline, 1-month and 4-months. Rasch analysis using the method of successive dichotomizations was applied to estimate person measures. Power calculation: a matched pairs t-test revealed 18 subjects per group would detect a within-subject mean improvement of 0.14-logits with 0.17-logits standard deviation for the differences, 0.80 power and 0.05 type 1 error probability.||||0.73
84719159|NCT05120856|169191089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.106369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4985347||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083479|-0.129259||This is the p value for the overall group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model compared groups' change across all time points Time was coded as a continuous variable (i.e., 0, 4, 8, and 16).|This is the effect estimate for the group x time interaction.|||-0.129259|-2.083479|.026
84719160|NCT05120856|169191089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.737||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.098|22.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||planned between-group post-hoc comparison at 4-week follow-up||22.149|-12.098|.565
84719161|NCT05120856|169191089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.891||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.774|14.077|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 8-week follow-up||14.077|-20.774|.706
84719162|NCT05120856|169191089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.332|11.491|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 16-week follow-up||11.491|-25.332|.461
84719163|NCT05120856|169191089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4798||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0229626|-0.1419329||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||In an additional sensitivity analysis, past-week alcohol use data was excluded if a participant reported having been in residential/inpatient treatment where they could not access alcohol for the whole of the past week at the time of follow-up. This resulted in data for one participant in the ApBM group being excluded at week 8, and 1 control being excluded at week 16.||-0.1419329|-2.0229626|.0252
84719164|NCT05120856|169191090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05||This is the p value for the time x group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the test for the overall CEQ-F scores||0.05|-0.08|.633
84719165|NCT05120856|169191090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||This is for the time x group interaction for the intensity subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the test of the CEQ-F Intensity subscale score||0.05|-0.11|.411
84719166|NCT05120856|169191090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||p value for the time x group interaction for Imagery subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of CEQ-F Imagery subscale score||0.06|-0.08|.808
84719167|NCT05120856|169191090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||This is the p value for the time x group interaction for the Intrusiveness subscale score|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the analysis of the CEQ-F Intrusiveness subscale score||0.08|-0.09|.886
84719168|NCT05120856|169191091|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.212||This is the p value for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.212|-0.046|.207
84719169|NCT05120856|169191092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.3||This is the p value for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.352|.876
84719170|NCT05120856|169191093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.004||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.004|-0.142|.064
84719171|NCT05120856|169191094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.22||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.220|-0.338|.679
84719172|NCT05120856|169191096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.24||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.240|-0.097|.403
84719173|NCT05120856|169191097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.021||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of psychological well-being ratings.||0.021|-0.126|.161
84719174|NCT05120856|169191097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.042||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of physical well-being ratings||0.042|-0.099|.425
84478325|NCT05014542|168707968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group A)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with baseline by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<0.001
84478326|NCT05014542|168707968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group C)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
84719175|NCT05120856|169191097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.027||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of quality of life ratings||0.027|-0.106|.247
84719176|NCT05120856|169191098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.369||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|23.97||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.97|-16.68|.725
84719177|NCT05890794|169191103|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.842|58.858||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PPi.||58.858|22.842|0.0005
84719178|NCT05890794|169191103|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error|Difference in LS Means|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-5.82||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for PPi.||-5.82|-16.52|<0.0001
84719179|NCT05890794|169191104|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.831|40.941||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PLP.||40.941|20.831|<0.0001
84719180|NCT05890794|169191104|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.289||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-9.2||Significant test: two-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PLP.||-9.20|-35.81|0.0024
84719181|NCT05890794|169191105|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4335.66||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6652.753|-2018.576||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for ALP activity.||-2018.576|-6652.753|0.0019
84535478|NCT01081834|168819297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|2.9|<0.001
84719182|NCT05890794|169191106|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.25||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|48.812||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for urine PEA.||48.812|-2.319|0.0693
84719183|NCT05890794|169191106|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.986||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.88|40.35||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for urine PEA.||40.35|-57.88|0.7086
84719184|NCT05890794|169191107|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.43||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.516|338.344||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL.||338.344|36.516|0.0199
84719185|NCT05890794|169191107|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.767||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|6.89||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL.||6.89|-31.92|0.2034
84719186|NCT05890794|169191108|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.868|2.084||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in fold change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL/PLP ratio.||2.084|-3.868|0.5195
84719187|NCT05890794|169191108|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of fold change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in fold change form baseline (LS Means) between dose levels of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL/PLP ratio.||1.33|0.69|<0.0001
84535479|NCT01081834|168819297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|2.2|0.002
84719188|NCT03905694|169191110|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-71.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.52|-66.42|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6) and baseline spot urinary oxalate:creatine ratio as fixed effects. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient error.||-66.42|-77.52|
84719189|NCT04440228|169191166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Assumptions of ANOVA were violated, so we conducted a Related-Samples Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks|ANOVA|F=6.54, df=3||Repeated measures ANOVA examining change over time across the three partner school districts.||||0.088
84719190|NCT04440228|169191167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.373|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.373|0.036|<0.05
84719191|NCT04440228|169191168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.219|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.219|-0.064|.277
84719192|NCT04440228|169191169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.083|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.083|-0.082|0.996
84719193|NCT02232737|169191186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
84719194|NCT02232737|169191186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
84719195|NCT02866942|169191201|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||McNemar|||||||0.26
84719196|NCT00918333|169191203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84719197|NCT04732000|169191217|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1373||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Mann Whitney test, 2-sided|||||||0.5490
84719198|NCT01946204|169191259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.335|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.335|0.219|<0.0001
84719199|NCT01946204|169191259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.342|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
84719200|NCT01946204|169191260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|0.356|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.356|0.238|<0.0001
84719201|NCT01946204|169191260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.364|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (EX-US Regulatory)||0.364|0.247|<0.0001
84719202|NCT01946204|169191261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.634|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for Time to Symptomatic Progression||0.634|0.315|<0.0001
84535480|NCT05502081|168819325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719203|NCT01946204|169191264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.346|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.346|0.227|<0.0001
84719204|NCT01946204|169191264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.362|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.362|0.244|<0.0001
84719205|NCT03509909|169191289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
84719206|NCT03414684|169191360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that hazard ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||1.84|0.49|0.88
84535481|NCT05502081|168819325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.176
84535482|NCT05502081|168819325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535483|NCT05502081|168819325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535484|NCT05502081|168819326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
84535485|NCT05502081|168819326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.021
84535486|NCT05502081|168819326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.42
84719207|NCT03414684|169191361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.18|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||4.18|0.29|1
84719208|NCT03414684|169191363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.50|0.43|0.49
84719209|NCT03414684|169191364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.43|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.32|1
84719210|NCT03414684|169191365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.12|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.12|0.13|0.36
84719211|NCT03414684|169191366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.43|0.68
84719212|NCT03414684|169191367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.62|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.62|0.18|0.27
84719213|NCT03414684|169191368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.78|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||7.78|0.08|1
84719214|NCT03414684|169191370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.16|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.16|0.26|0.61
84719215|NCT03414684|169191371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.93|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||5.93|0.10|1
84719216|NCT03414684|169191373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.89|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.89|0.14|0.73
84719217|NCT03160885|169191402|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||16.4|5.8|<0.001
84719218|NCT03160885|169191403|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||27.3|15.8|<0.001
84719219|NCT03160885|169191404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|20.9||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance||20.9|10.3|<0.001
84719220|NCT03160885|169191405|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-10.1|-18.0|<0.001
84719221|NCT03160885|169191406|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.001
84719222|NCT03160885|169191407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|54.9||Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||54.9|13.4|0.004
84719223|NCT03160885|169191407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|40.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||40.9|-1.2|0.084
84535487|NCT05502081|168819326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
84535488|NCT05502081|168819327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
84535489|NCT05502081|168819328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
84535490|NCT05502081|168819328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
84535491|NCT05502081|168819328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84719224|NCT03160885|169191408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|50.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||50.0|17.3|<0.001
84719225|NCT03160885|169191408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|46.4||Test not evaluated for statistical significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||46.4|13.7|0.001
84719226|NCT03160885|169191411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|36.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||36.1|22.5|<0.001
84719227|NCT03160885|169191412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.0||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||17.0|8.3|<0.001
84719228|NCT03160885|169191413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-7.5|-12.2|<0.001
84719229|NCT03160885|169191414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||11.6|4.4|<0.001
84719230|NCT03160885|169191415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|25.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||25.1|12.8|<0.001
84719231|NCT03160885|169191416|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.8|-1.7|<0.001
84535492|NCT05502081|168819328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84719232|NCT03160885|169191417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.2||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||26.2|13.9|<0.001
84719233|NCT03160885|169191418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|36.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||36.3|21.4|<0.001
84719234|NCT02307682|169191419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.5|0.0003
84719235|NCT02307682|169191419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.8|-2.1|<0.0001
84719236|NCT02307682|169191420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.4|0.0001
84535493|NCT05502081|168819329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535494|NCT05502081|168819329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.119
84535495|NCT05502081|168819329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535496|NCT05502081|168819329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535497|NCT05502081|168819330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.933
84719237|NCT02307682|169191420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.9|-1.9|<0.0001
84719238|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.9|-1.4|
84719239|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.1|-1.4|
84719240|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.4|
84719241|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.7|
84719242|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.2|-1.8|
84719243|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.6|-1.5|
84719244|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||1.5|-1.8|
84719245|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||2.1|-1.1|
84719246|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.0|-2.2|
84719247|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.2|-2.2|
84719248|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.3|-2.1|
84719249|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.6|-1.9|
84719250|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||1.7|-1.9|
84719251|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||2.2|-1.4|
84719252|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||1.3|-2.4|
84719253|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||2.5|-1.2|
84719254|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.8|-2.9|
84719255|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||1.6|-2.1|
84719256|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||1.6|-2.2|
84719257|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||2.1|-1.9|
84719258|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||1.9|-2.1|
84719259|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||2.2|-1.8|
84719260|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.3|-2.5|
84719261|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.8|-2.1|
84719262|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.8|-2.2|
84719263|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.9|-2.2|
84719264|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.5|-2.5|
84719265|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.4|-2.7|
84719266|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.1|
84719267|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.2|
84719268|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.7|-2.3|
84719269|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.9|-2.2|
84719270|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||2.0|-2.1|
84719271|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.9|-2.2|
84719272|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||2.3|-2.0|
84719273|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.8|-2.4|
84719274|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.4|-1.8|
84719275|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.1|-2.1|
84719276|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.7|-1.5|
84719277|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.8|-1.4|
84719278|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.7|-1.5|
84719279|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.4|-1.8|
84719280|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.5|-1.8|
84719281|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.4|-1.9|
84719282|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.9|
84719283|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.8|
84535498|NCT05502081|168819331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
84719284|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.5|-1.9|
84719285|NCT02307682|169191425|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.6|
84719286|NCT02307682|169191426|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.1|-1.9|
84719287|NCT02307682|169191426|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.6|-1.5|
84719288|NCT02307682|169191426|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.6|-1.8|
84719289|NCT02307682|169191426|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.8|-1.7|
84719290|NCT02307682|169191427|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.2|-2.0|
84719291|NCT02307682|169191427|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.8|-1.6|
84535499|NCT05502081|168819331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
84535500|NCT05502081|168819331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.185
84535501|NCT05502081|168819331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84535502|NCT05502081|168819332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535503|NCT05502081|168819332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84719292|NCT02307682|169191427|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.7|-1.9|
84719293|NCT02307682|169191427|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.9|-1.7|
84719294|NCT02307682|169191428|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
84719295|NCT02307682|169191428|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
84719296|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.2|-4.2|
84719297|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.8|-2.8|
84719298|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.9|-4.4|
84719299|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||10.0|-1.2|
84719300|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-5.9|
84719301|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||11.0|-0.5|
84719302|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.0|-3.7|
84719303|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.3|-3.8|
84719304|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.1|-5.9|
84719305|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.4|
84719306|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||7.3|-4.2|
84719307|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||13.4|0.8|
84719308|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.5|-4.3|
84719309|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.4|-3.4|
84719310|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.2|-5.0|
84719311|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||14.4|1.5|
84719312|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.0|-5.4|
84719313|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||14.5|2.1|
84719314|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||8.1|-4.4|
84719315|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||15.1|2.0|
84719316|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.1|-5.2|
84719317|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.8|0.7|
84719318|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-6.8|
84719319|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||15.0|2.2|
84719320|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||9.2|-3.9|
84719321|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||11.4|-1.5|
84719322|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.1|-5.9|
84719323|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||9.7|-3.1|
84719324|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.5|-6.5|
84719325|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.4|-1.3|
84719326|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.2|-2.9|
84535504|NCT05502081|168819332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719327|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||12.3|-0.4|
84719328|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.0|-4.2|
84719329|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||11.9|-0.2|
84719330|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.9|-3.0|
84719331|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||11.4|-1.1|
84719332|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||12.8|-1.5|
84719333|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||11.6|-1.0|
84719334|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.6|-5.1|
84719335|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||15.4|2.7|
84719336|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.4|-3.7|
84719337|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.3|-2.2|
84719338|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.9|-3.0|
84719339|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||14.6|1.9|
84719340|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.1|
84719341|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.5|-0.0|
84719342|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.3|-1.2|
84719343|NCT02307682|169191429|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||13.8|1.4|
84535505|NCT05502081|168819332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719344|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.9|-4.3|
84719345|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||12.2|0.6|
84719346|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.7|-6.6|
84719347|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||8.0|-4.7|
84719348|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.1|-6.2|
84719349|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||12.7|-0.8|
84478327|NCT05014542|168707969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group A)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84535506|NCT05502081|168819333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719350|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||7.7|-6.0|
84719351|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||12.2|-1.5|
84719352|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.0|-6.5|
84719353|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.2|-1.8|
84719354|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||9.5|-4.0|
84719355|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||11.3|-3.5|
84719356|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.2|-5.9|
84719357|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||11.2|-3.4|
84719358|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-8.2|
84535507|NCT05502081|168819333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.758
84719359|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.5|-3.2|
84719360|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-7.3|
84719361|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.6|-5.2|
84719362|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.6|-7.8|
84719363|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||10.0|-4.8|
84719364|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.2|-4.4|
84719365|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.2|-7.1|
84719366|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.9|
84719367|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||9.2|-4.5|
84719368|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-6.8|
84719369|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.4|-5.8|
84719370|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.2|-6.1|
84719371|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.6|-8.6|
84719372|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||7.1|-7.0|
84719373|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.0|-3.5|
84719374|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.8|-3.0|
84719375|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||13.0|-1.4|
84535508|NCT05502081|168819333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719376|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.5|-4.1|
84719377|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.7|-4.8|
84719378|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||12.3|-1.6|
84719379|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.6|-5.4|
84719380|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.4|-4.8|
84719381|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.2|-5.0|
84719382|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||7.4|-6.9|
84719383|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.5|-5.1|
84719384|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.1|-3.9|
84719385|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.1|-5.0|
84719386|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||11.8|-2.5|
84719387|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.6|-3.4|
84719388|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.2|-1.6|
84719389|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.2|-3.0|
84719390|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.7|-1.9|
84719391|NCT02307682|169191430|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.6|-1.0|
84719392|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.0|-7.7|
84535509|NCT05502081|168819333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535510|NCT05502081|168819334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.412
84719393|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||8.7|-5.3|
84719394|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-7.4|
84719395|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.3|-8.9|
84719396|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-8.1|
84719397|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||8.8|-4.8|
84719398|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.7|-9.8|
84719399|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.6|-5.3|
84719400|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.6|-9.7|
84478328|NCT05014542|168707969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group C)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
84535511|NCT05502081|168819335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.106
84719401|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-11.4|
84719402|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.1|-7.6|
84719403|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||10.0|-4.4|
84719404|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.9|-7.2|
84719405|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.8|-6.3|
84719406|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||9.2|-4.7|
84719407|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.3|-3.9|
84719408|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-12.6|
84719409|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.9|-12.7|
84719410|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.1|
84719411|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||7.9|-6.2|
84719412|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.9|-9.6|
84719413|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.4|-9.1|
84719414|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.1|-11.1|
84719415|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.5|-10.4|
84719416|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
84719417|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-9.7|
84719418|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.9|-5.5|
84719419|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.5|-7.2|
84719420|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||8.4|-5.8|
84535512|NCT05502081|168819336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84719421|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.9|-7.2|
84719422|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.5|-7.9|
84719423|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-6.6|
84719424|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-9.4|
84535513|NCT05502081|168819336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
84535514|NCT05502081|168819336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.156
84535515|NCT05502081|168819336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84535516|NCT05502081|168819337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.219
84719425|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-10.0|
84719426|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.2|-6.2|
84719427|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.3|-5.5|
84719428|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.6|-5.1|
84719429|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.9|-5.0|
84719430|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.3|-3.9|
84719431|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.1|-6.1|
84719432|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.9|-5.1|
84719433|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.4|-5.9|
84719434|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.8|-8.5|
84719435|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.7|-9.7|
84719436|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-7.9|
84719437|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-9.1|
84719438|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||11.2|-2.9|
84719439|NCT02307682|169191431|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.0|-6.6|
84719440|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-1.4|
84535517|NCT05502081|168819338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.298
84535518|NCT05502081|168819339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84535519|NCT05502081|168819339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
84535520|NCT05502081|168819339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84535521|NCT05502081|168819339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
84719441|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.0|-0.5|
84719442|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.5|-2.6|
84719443|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-1.7|
84719444|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-3.3|
84719445|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.7|-3.2|
84719446|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.4|-3.0|
84719447|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.1|-2.4|
84719448|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-2.2|
84719449|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||5.3|-0.3|
84719450|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.2|-2.6|
84719451|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||4.6|-1.8|
84719452|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.3|-2.9|
84719453|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.6|-2.3|
84719454|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.1|-2.0|
84719455|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.7|-1.0|
84719456|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-1.5|
84719457|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.5|0.0|
84535522|NCT05502081|168819340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
84535523|NCT05502081|168819340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
84719458|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-2.1|
84719459|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.3|-0.7|
84719460|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-2.2|
84719461|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.2|-1.4|
84719462|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.9|-3.2|
84719463|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.3|-2.7|
84719464|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-3.3|
84719465|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-2.5|
84719466|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.6|-2.4|
84719467|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.3|-1.5|
84719468|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.6|-3.5|
84535524|NCT05502081|168819340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84535525|NCT05502081|168819340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
84535526|NCT05502081|168819341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
84535527|NCT05502081|168819341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.557
84535528|NCT05502081|168819341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84535529|NCT05502081|168819341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84535530|NCT05502081|168819342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719469|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.9|-2.9|
84719470|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-2.4|
84719471|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.7|-1.3|
84719472|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-3.1|
84719473|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-2.9|
84719474|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-2.6|
84719475|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.3|-2.7|
84719476|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.1|
84719477|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.0|-2.1|
84719478|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-4.8|
84719479|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.9|-4.6|
84719480|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.4|-2.6|
84719481|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-3.7|
84719482|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.4|-3.7|
84478329|NCT05014542|168707970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group A) - mean(WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group A)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84478330|NCT05014542|168707970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group C)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84535531|NCT05502081|168819342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
84535532|NCT05502081|168819342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535533|NCT05502081|168819342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719483|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-4.1|
84719484|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-2.2|
84719485|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-3.0|
84719486|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.9|-2.9|
84719487|NCT02307682|169191432|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-3.6|
84719488|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-3.7|
84719489|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.4|-2.6|
84719490|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.3|-3.3|
84719491|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-3.0|
84719492|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-4.6|
84719493|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.6|-3.5|
84719494|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.9|-4.2|
84719495|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.0|-5.0|
84719496|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-4.1|
84535534|NCT05502081|168819343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535535|NCT05502081|168819343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.891
84535536|NCT05502081|168819343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535537|NCT05502081|168819343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535538|NCT05502081|168819344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.516
84719497|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.7|-2.3|
84719498|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.1|-3.9|
84719499|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.2|-1.8|
84719500|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.7|-3.5|
84719501|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.4|-3.6|
84719502|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.6|-3.2|
84719503|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-3.2|
84719504|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.3|-2.6|
84719505|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.9|-2.1|
84719506|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-4.3|
84719507|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.8|-3.6|
84719508|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.8|-3.7|
84719509|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.7|-3.7|
84719510|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-2.2|
84719511|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.3|-2.9|
84719512|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-3.5|
84478331|NCT05014542|168707971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group A)|VAS of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84719513|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.3|-1.6|
84719514|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-2.3|
84719515|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.7|-2.2|
84719516|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-4.8|
84719517|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.9|-3.8|
84719518|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-3.1|
84719519|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.4|-2.8|
84719520|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-3.4|
84719521|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.6|-2.8|
84719522|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.5|-6.6|
84719523|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.8|-6.1|
84719524|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.1|-5.6|
84719525|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.9|-2.9|
84719526|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-5.8|
84719527|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.5|-3.2|
84719528|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.0|-4.2|
84719529|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.7|-3.2|
84719530|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-5.8|
84719531|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.6|-5.2|
84719532|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.1|-5.5|
84719533|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.4|-5.3|
84719534|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.4|-5.7|
84719535|NCT02307682|169191433|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.3|-3.4|
84719536|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.5|-2.4|
84719537|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.8|-1.8|
84719538|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.8|-4.1|
84719539|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-1.7|
84719540|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||6.5|-2.3|
84719541|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.9|-0.9|
84719542|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.0|-5.4|
84719543|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.2|-6.2|
84719544|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-5.4|
84719545|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.4|-2.9|
84719546|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.9|-5.2|
84719547|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||8.8|-1.4|
84719548|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-6.8|
84719549|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.8|-4.7|
84719550|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.4|-5.0|
84719551|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-6.1|
84719552|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.7|-1.8|
84719553|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-2.7|
84719554|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.0|-5.9|
84719555|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.9|-4.7|
84719556|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.5|-5.7|
84719557|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.3|-6.5|
84719558|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.9|-2.7|
84719559|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.4|-4.3|
84719560|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.3|-4.6|
84719561|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.6|-3.9|
84719562|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-4.0|
84719563|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-3.8|
84719564|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.6|-4.5|
84719565|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.8|-3.8|
84719566|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.3|-2.9|
84719567|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-2.8|
84535539|NCT05502081|168819345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
84719568|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-5.5|
84719569|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.3|-5.1|
84719570|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||6.7|-4.3|
84535540|NCT05502081|168819346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535541|NCT05502081|168819346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.256
84535542|NCT05502081|168819346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535543|NCT05502081|168819346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535544|NCT05502081|168819347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
84535545|NCT05502081|168819347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.797
84719571|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-5.2|
84719572|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-4.6|
84719573|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.3|-4.7|
84719574|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
84719575|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
84719576|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.7|-3.1|
84719577|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.7|-2.9|
84719578|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.5|
84719579|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.6|
84719580|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.9|-4.5|
84719581|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.4|-4.5|
84719582|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.7|-3.1|
84719583|NCT02307682|169191434|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.2|-4.7|
84719584|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-7.7|
84719585|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.8|-8.5|
84719586|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.6|-8.9|
84719587|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.6|-7.7|
84535546|NCT05502081|168819347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84719588|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-8.9|
84719589|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.0|-10.0|
84719590|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.5|-6.3|
84719591|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.4|-6.2|
84719592|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.0|-10.4|
84719593|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-9.4|
84719594|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.9|-4.6|
84719595|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||5.7|-6.6|
84719596|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.7|-6.5|
84719597|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.4|-4.9|
84719598|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.5|-3.9|
84719599|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||11.5|-1.0|
84719600|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.4|-8.5|
84719601|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.4|-6.0|
84719602|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.4|-5.2|
84719603|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.0|-7.4|
84719604|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.5|-8.8|
84535547|NCT05502081|168819347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84719605|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-8.4|
84719606|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.3|-9.5|
84719607|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.6|-8.6|
84719608|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-8.8|
84719609|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.1|-6.8|
84719610|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-5.9|
84719611|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.0|-6.6|
84719612|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.4|-5.7|
84719613|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.1|-9.0|
84719614|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 64||5.5|-7.2|
84719615|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-6.6|
84719616|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.3|-4.3|
84719617|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.1|-6.3|
84535548|NCT05502081|168819348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84719618|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-7.2|
84719619|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-8.5|
84719620|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||10.2|-2.4|
84719621|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.8|-5.1|
84719622|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.6|-2.5|
84719623|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.0|-3.5|
84719624|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.0|-3.0|
84719625|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.4|-5.8|
84719626|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.5|-6.6|
84719627|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.1|-6.0|
84719628|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||9.5|-2.8|
84719629|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-4.3|
84719630|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.8|-4.7|
84719631|NCT02307682|169191435|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||9.0|-3.8|
84719632|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||8.4|-24.2|
84719633|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-1.1|-31.9|
84478332|NCT05014542|168707971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group C) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group C)|VAS of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||< 0.001
84719634|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||3.0|-30.4|
84719635|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-2.9|-35.0|
84719636|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-3.1|-36.3|
84719637|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-8.3|-40.7|
84719638|NCT02307682|169191436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-1.7||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-1.7|-38.0|0.0159
84535549|NCT05502081|168819349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719639|NCT02307682|169191436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-10.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-10.5|-45.1|0.0008
84719640|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|22.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||22.3|-11.8|
84719641|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|20.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.5|-14.1|
84719642|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-7.2|-44.3|
84719643|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-11.6|-47.5|
84719644|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.9|-29.2|
84719645|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.5|-29.8|
84719646|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-0.7|-39.6|
84719647|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-4.2|-42.1|
84719648|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.7|-35.5|
84719649|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-1.7|-37.6|
84719650|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-8.0|-46.6|
84719651|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-10.9|-48.2|
84719652|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||8.9|-27.5|
84719653|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.5|-30.3|
84719654|NCT02307682|169191436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-4.6||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-4.6|-43.1|0.0075
84719655|NCT02307682|169191436|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-10.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-10.4|-47.6|0.0012
84719656|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||2.4|-33.6|
84535550|NCT05502081|168819349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.982
84719657|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||3.3|-33.4|
84719658|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-1.1|-38.9|
84719659|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-0.7|-39.4|
84719660|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-0.5|-37.0|
84719661|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||6.1|-31.4|
84719662|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-7.6|-46.7|
84719663|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-3.4|-41.6|
84719664|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||3.9|-33.8|
84719665|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||6.2|-32.6|
84535551|NCT05502081|168819349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719666|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-10.5|-49.3|
84719667|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-6.8|-46.0|
84719668|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-0.4|-38.2|
84719669|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||3.7|-35.0|
84719670|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-4.5|-45.0|
84719671|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-3.4|-43.9|
84719672|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-0.5|-38.4|
84719673|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||8.0|-31.5|
84719674|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-7.4|-47.3|
84535552|NCT05502081|168819349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535553|NCT05502081|168819350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84535554|NCT05502081|168819350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.136
84719675|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-4.2|-44.3|
84719676|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||3.9|-34.2|
84719677|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||7.1|-32.1|
84719678|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-11.3|-50.6|
84719679|NCT02307682|169191436|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-5.9|-46.2|
84719680|NCT02307682|169191437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-1.2||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-1.2|-37.7|0.0183
84719681|NCT02307682|169191437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-4.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.4|-40.4|0.0075
84719682|NCT02307682|169191438|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.1|-42.4|
84719683|NCT02307682|169191438|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-38.3|
84719684|NCT02307682|169191439|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.7|-32.6|
84719685|NCT02307682|169191439|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-3.3|-36.5|
84719686|NCT02307682|169191439|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.5|-36.4|
84719687|NCT02307682|169191439|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.8|-36.9|
84719688|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.1|-0.8|
84719689|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-0.2|-1.0|
84719690|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-0.2|-1.1|
84719691|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.0|-0.9|
84719692|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.3|
84719693|NCT02307682|169191440|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.1|
84719694|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|17.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||17.5|-3.3|
84719695|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||10.9|-10.2|
84719696|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||12.6|-8.4|
84719697|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||9.2|-12.5|
84719698|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||10.0|-11.2|
84719699|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||7.9|-13.9|
84719700|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||11.4|-11.1|
84719701|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.5|-16.1|
84719702|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.3|-1.6|
84719703|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||18.5|-3.4|
84719704|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||7.6|-14.7|
84719705|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||5.3|-17.9|
84719706|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||12.9|-8.8|
84719707|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||13.8|-8.7|
84719708|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||14.1|-8.4|
84719709|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||11.5|-11.7|
84719710|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|13.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||13.6|-8.8|
84719711|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||10.9|-12.2|
84719712|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||11.7|-10.7|
84719713|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||7.8|-15.0|
84719714|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||15.9|-6.1|
84719715|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||13.1|-10.0|
84719716|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||12.1|-10.5|
84719717|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||11.1|-12.2|
84719718|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.2|-9.5|
84719719|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.1|-10.6|
84719720|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||12.4|-10.6|
84719721|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||13.5|-10.4|
84719722|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||11.2|-11.9|
84719723|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||14.6|-9.7|
84719724|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.3|-11.7|
84719725|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.7|-12.2|
84719726|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||13.9|-9.3|
84719727|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||14.0|-9.8|
84719728|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||8.7|-14.5|
84719729|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||10.1|-13.7|
84719730|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||13.7|-10.0|
84719731|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||11.8|-12.2|
84719732|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||14.7|-9.1|
84719733|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||12.3|-11.3|
84719734|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.5|-11.9|
84719735|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.7|-12.0|
84719736|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|9.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||9.8|-13.2|
84719737|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||11.0|-12.6|
84719738|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||13.3|-9.8|
84719739|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||12.8|-11.1|
84719740|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.6|-15.6|
84719741|NCT02307682|169191441|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||8.0|-15.8|
84719742|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-3.3|-16.4|
84719743|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-7.3|-21.3|
84719744|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-14.6|
84719745|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-9.5|-20.9|
84719746|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.4|-13.8|
84719747|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-8.7|-18.9|
84478333|NCT05014542|168707972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group A)|KDSQ of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84719748|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-3.7|-16.8|
84719749|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-13.4|-25.8|
84719750|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.0|
84719751|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.9|-4.3|
84719752|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-6.0|-19.1|
84719753|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-17.6|-29.7|
84719754|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.4|-8.7|
84719755|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.4|-11.2|
84719756|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-1.0|-14.3|
84719757|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-6.2|-19.3|
84719758|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.2|-13.2|
84719759|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-4.9|-15.9|
84719760|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||0.9|-11.5|
84719761|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.6|-17.7|
84719762|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.7|-5.1|
84719763|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||2.4|-8.7|
84535555|NCT05502081|168819350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.062
84535556|NCT05502081|168819350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
84535557|NCT05502081|168819351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
84535558|NCT05502081|168819352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.687
84719764|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-5.5|-17.8|
84719765|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-9.7|-21.2|
84719766|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.0|-8.0|
84719767|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||-3.4|-13.7|
84719768|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.7|-12.6|
84719769|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-3.8|-16.0|
84719770|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||0.7|-9.9|
84719771|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-3.4|-13.9|
84719772|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.2|-13.1|
84719773|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-6.0|-17.8|
84719774|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-2.5|
84719775|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.7|-6.7|
84719776|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.6|-12.8|
84719777|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-7.0|-18.2|
84719778|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.5|-7.0|
84719779|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.7|-11.4|
84719780|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.1|-11.8|
84719781|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-6.4|-17.0|
84719782|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.1|-10.1|
84719783|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.0|-10.0|
84719784|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.5|-11.7|
84719785|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-6.3|-17.3|
84719786|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-4.0|
84719787|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||-0.3|-9.7|
84719788|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.1|-11.4|
84719789|NCT02307682|169191442|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.2|-16.4|
84719790|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.9|
84719791|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||7.4|-4.1|
84719792|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.3|-10.0|
84719793|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||4.5|-7.7|
84719794|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.3|-7.6|
84719795|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.8|-5.4|
84719796|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.6|-8.3|
84719797|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.9|-10.0|
84719798|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||16.2|5.0|
84719799|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||15.4|4.7|
84719800|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.7|-9.8|
84719801|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.0|-14.9|
84719802|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.4|-2.1|
84719803|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.1|-6.3|
84719804|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||6.1|-5.8|
84719805|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-8.4|
84719806|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-6.4|
84719807|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.0|-7.8|
84719808|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.7|-9.6|
84719809|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-10.2|
84719810|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.9|-1.0|
84719811|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.5|-3.3|
84719812|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.1|-6.2|
84478334|NCT05014542|168707972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group C) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group C)|KDSQ of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
84535559|NCT05502081|168819353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
84535560|NCT05502081|168819354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
84535561|NCT05502081|168819355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.574
84719813|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.5|-6.4|
84719814|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.7|-2.2|
84719815|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.4|-3.2|
84719816|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.1|-3.5|
84719817|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.8|-5.8|
84719818|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-6.6|
84719819|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.1|-5.8|
84719820|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-6.4|
84719821|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.6|-8.7|
84719822|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||10.7|0.3|
84719823|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.2|-3.2|
84719824|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-6.1|
84719825|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||1.9|-9.0|
84719826|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.1|-1.9|
84719827|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-3.9|
84719828|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-4.7|
84719829|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-5.2|
84535562|NCT05502081|168819356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84719830|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.3|-3.3|
84719831|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.8|-5.7|
84719832|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||9.7|-1.7|
84719833|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.6|-5.3|
84719834|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.9|-1.3|
84719835|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.0|-4.3|
84719836|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.2|-6.4|
84719837|NCT02307682|169191443|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.9|-10.8|
84719838|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.7|
84719839|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.4|-11.4|
84719840|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.3|
84719841|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.8|
84719842|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.5|-11.5|
84719843|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.3|-12.8|
84719844|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-1.1|-11.8|
84719845|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.9|-14.4|
84719846|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||8.3|-2.8|
84719847|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.5|-3.4|
84719848|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||0.9|-9.7|
84719849|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-1.3|-12.3|
84719850|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.2|-4.2|
84719851|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||1.7|-8.4|
84719852|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.2|-6.2|
84719853|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.4|-7.5|
84719854|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.7|-9.5|
84719855|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.6|-10.6|
84719856|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.3|-10.2|
84719857|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.8|-12.2|
84719858|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.3|-6.6|
84719859|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||0.1|-10.0|
84719860|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||1.4|-9.4|
84719861|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-2.7|-13.6|
84719862|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-5.1|
84535563|NCT05502081|168819356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84535564|NCT05502081|168819356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.041
84535565|NCT05502081|168819356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.616
84535566|NCT05502081|168819357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
84535567|NCT05502081|168819358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719863|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.8|-6.2|
84719864|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||1.2|-9.4|
84719865|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.8|-11.5|
84719866|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.0|-7.3|
84719867|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.1|-7.9|
84719868|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.7|-10.5|
84719869|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.8|-12.5|
84719870|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-6.0|
84719871|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.9|-6.3|
84719872|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-0.4|-10.1|
84719873|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-2.3|-12.2|
84719874|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.3|-5.2|
84719875|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.5|-5.8|
84719876|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.8|-8.4|
84719877|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.5|-8.5|
84719878|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.2|-9.8|
84719879|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.7|-10.4|
84535568|NCT05502081|168819358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
84719880|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.0|-7.4|
84719881|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-1.1|-11.0|
84719882|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-4.9|
84719883|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||1.4|-7.6|
84719884|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.1|-5.3|
84719885|NCT02307682|169191444|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.8|-8.5|
84719886|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.1|
84719887|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-15.3|
84719888|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-16.6|
84719889|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-5.4|-19.7|
84719890|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.6|-14.8|
84719891|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-3.9|-17.4|
84719892|NCT02307682|169191445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.5|-17.3|0.0030
84719893|NCT02307682|169191445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-10.9||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-10.9|-25.3|<0.0001
84719894|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||19.0|5.2|
84719895|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||18.2|3.8|
84719896|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-17.7|
84719897|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-16.1|-30.5|
84719898|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.0|-4.8|
84719899|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-11.8|
84719900|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.1|-12.0|
84719901|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.2|-18.0|
84719902|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.8|-12.5|
84719903|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.4|-16.2|
84719904|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.6|-15.7|
84719905|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.5|-20.5|
84719906|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.0|-0.8|
84719907|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.6|-7.5|
84719908|NCT02307682|169191445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.3|-17.4|0.0020
84719909|NCT02307682|169191445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.1||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-6.1|-20.7|0.0001
84719910|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-5.4|
84719911|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||1.2|-11.8|
84719912|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.7|-10.3|
84719913|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.4|-14.1|
84535569|NCT05502081|168819358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84719914|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.3|-10.1|
84719915|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.6|-14.0|
84719916|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-0.1|-14.7|
84719917|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-5.4|-19.5|
84719918|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||13.5|0.3|
84719919|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-4.9|
84719920|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.7|-15.7|
84719921|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-5.6|-19.8|
84719922|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-5.9|
84719923|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||2.6|-9.8|
84719924|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||2.5|-11.2|
84719925|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-1.0|-15.3|
84719926|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.6|-8.9|
84719927|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||1.7|-11.2|
84719928|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.7|-10.8|
84719929|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-3.5|-17.3|
84719930|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.0|-2.3|
84535570|NCT05502081|168819358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84535571|NCT05502081|168819359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.088
84719931|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-9.8|
84719932|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.7|-13.2|
84719933|NCT02307682|169191445|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.6|-19.7|
84719934|NCT02307682|169191446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0574
84719935|NCT02307682|169191446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0012
84719936|NCT02307682|169191447|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-6.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||0.3|-13.2|0.0331
84719937|NCT02307682|169191447|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||-3.5|-17.1|0.0013
84719938|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.3|-0.5|
84719939|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.1|-0.9|
84719940|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.8|
84719941|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.9|
84719942|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.9|-1.6|
84719943|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.7|-1.9|
84719944|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.2|
84719945|NCT02307682|169191448|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|nalyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||3.0|-0.9|
84719946|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-5.95|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-1.954|||ANCOVA|||||-1.954|-9.946|= 0.004
84719947|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.161|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.161|10.161|||ANCOVA|||||10.161|2.161|= 0.003
84719948|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|25.936|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.317|31.556|||ANCOVA|||||31.556|20.317|< 0.001
84719949|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.476|||=|0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.457|||ANCOVA|||||3.457|-10.41|= 0.325
84719950|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.211|||=|0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.798|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-3.798|= 0.918
84719951|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|32.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.484|37.71|||ANCOVA|||||37.71|26.484|< 0.001
84719952|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.753|28.166|||ANCOVA|||||28.166|16.753|< 0.001
84719953|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|26.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.529|31.765|||ANCOVA|||||31.765|20.529|< 0.001
84719954|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|28.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.921|34.32|||ANCOVA|||||34.32|22.921|< 0.001
84719955|NCT05485805|169191467|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.966|28.375|||ANCOVA|||||28.375|16.966|< 0.001
84719956|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.602|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.548|-0.656|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.656|-2.548|< 0.001
84719957|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.976|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|1.923|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.923|0.029|= 0.043
84719958|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.766|7.427|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.427|4.766|< 0.001
84719959|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.31|||=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.951|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.951|-1.332|= 0.711
84719960|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.626|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.575|0.323|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.323|-1.575|= 0.196
84719961|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.744|8.402|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.402|5.744|< 0.001
84719962|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|7.757|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.757|5.055|< 0.001
84719963|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.141|6.801|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||6.801|4.141|< 0.001
84719964|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.383|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.033|8.732|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.732|6.033|< 0.001
84719965|NCT05485805|169191468|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|7.131|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.131|4.43|< 0.001
84719966|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.269|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.269|-0.903|< 0.001
84719967|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.454|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.771|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.771|0.136|= 0.005
84719968|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|2.815|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.815|1.923|< 0.001
84719969|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.169|||=|0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.719|0.382|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.382|-0.719|= 0.548
84719970|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.132|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.186|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.186|-0.451|= 0.415
84719971|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.377|3.268|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.268|2.377|< 0.001
84719972|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.654|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.654|1.748|< 0.001
84719973|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|2.683|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.683|1.791|< 0.001
84719974|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.654|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.202|3.106|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.106|2.202|< 0.001
84719975|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|2.521|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.521|1.615|< 0.001
84719976|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.133|-0.542|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||-0.542|-2.133|< 0.001
84719977|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.016|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.813|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||1.813|0.22|= 0.012
84719978|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.982|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|7.101|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.101|4.864|< 0.001
84719979|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.048|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.428|0.332|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.332|-2.428|= 0.136
84719980|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.321|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.477|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.477|-1.119|= 0.43
84719981|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.999|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|8.116|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||8.116|5.881|< 0.001
84719982|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.934|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.798|6.07|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.07|3.798|< 0.001
84719983|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.543|6.779|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.779|4.543|< 0.001
84719984|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.951|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.816|7.085|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.085|4.816|< 0.001
84535572|NCT05502081|168819360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84535573|NCT05502081|168819361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
84719985|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.613|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.478|5.749|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||5.749|3.478|< 0.001
84719986|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.963|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.254|-0.673|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||-0.673|-3.254|= 0.003
84719987|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.641|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.933|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||2.933|0.35|= 0.013
84719988|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.377|11.006|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.006|7.377|< 0.001
84719989|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.642|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.881|0.597|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.597|-3.881|= 0.15
84719990|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.322|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|0.972|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.972|-1.617|= 0.625
84719991|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|10.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|12.645|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||12.645|9.02|< 0.001
84719992|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.707|9.392|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.392|5.707|< 0.001
84719993|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|8.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.055|10.683|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||10.683|7.055|< 0.001
84719994|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.351|11.031|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.031|7.351|< 0.001
84719995|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.386|9.07|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.07|5.386|< 0.001
84719996|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.398|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.185|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||-0.61|-4.185|= 0.009
84719997|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.189|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||4.189|0.61|= 0.009
84719998|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.898|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.384|14.412|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.412|9.384|< 0.001
84719999|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.225|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.327|0.877|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||0.877|-5.327|= 0.159
84720000|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.002|||=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.795|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||1.795|-1.792|= 0.998
84720001|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|14.298|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.787|16.809|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||16.809|11.787|< 0.001
84720002|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|12.226|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.226|7.12|< 0.001
84720003|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.387|14.413|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.413|9.387|< 0.001
84720004|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|12.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.523|14.623|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.623|9.523|< 0.001
84720005|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.123|12.227|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.227|7.123|< 0.001
84720006|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.949|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.803|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||-0.095|-5.803|= 0.043
84720007|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|3.694|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|6.55|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||6.55|0.837|= 0.011
84720008|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.504|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|20.517|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.517|12.49|< 0.001
84720009|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.437|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.389|1.515|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||1.515|-8.389|= 0.173
84720010|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.744|||=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|3.608|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||3.608|-2.119|= 0.61
84720011|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.189|24.206|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||24.206|16.189|< 0.001
84478335|NCT05014542|168707973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-361.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group A)|The DRUG of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.204
84720012|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.992|17.143|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.143|8.992|< 0.001
84720013|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|17.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.236|21.261|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||21.261|13.236|< 0.001
84720014|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.761|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|20.831|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.831|12.69|< 0.001
84720015|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.738|17.886|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.886|9.738|< 0.001
84720016|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.312|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.635|4.011|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.011|-8.635|= 0.473
84720017|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|27.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.188|35.973|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||35.973|18.188|< 0.001
84720018|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-6.928|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.044|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.044|-17.9|= 0.215
84720019|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.468|||=|0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.876|8.813|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||8.813|-3.876|= 0.445
84720020|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.122|29.183|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||29.183|11.122|< 0.001
84720021|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|24.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.914|33.952|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||33.952|15.914|< 0.001
84720022|NCT05485805|169191469|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.594|31.648|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||31.648|13.594|< 0.001
84535574|NCT05502081|168819361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.151
84720023|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||=|0.963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.963
84720024|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.118
84720025|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720026|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||=|0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.244
84720027|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||=|0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.139
84720028|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720029|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720030|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720031|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720032|NCT05485805|169191470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720033|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||=|0.647|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.647
84720034|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||=|0.714|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.714
84720035|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.065
84720036|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||=|0.742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.742
84720037|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720038|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720039|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720040|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720041|NCT05485805|169191472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720042|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
84720043|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
84720044|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720045|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
84720046|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720047|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720048|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720049|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720050|NCT05485805|169191473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720051|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
84720052|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
84720053|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720054|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
84720055|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||=|0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.772
84720056|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720057|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720058|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720059|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720060|NCT05485805|169191474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
84720061|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.14|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.44|= 0.334
84720062|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|0.04|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.25|= 0.783
84720063|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.08|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.5|= 0.687
84720064|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.53|= 0.927
84720065|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.4|= 0.492
84720066|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.04|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.46|= 0.836
84720067|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.11|||=|0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.53|= 0.611
84720068|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.19|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.6|= 0.371
84720069|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.07|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.49|= 0.752
84720070|NCT05485805|169191477|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.21|||=|0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|= 0.321
84720071|NCT04218357|169191485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equation with standard errors, and an unstructured correlation matrix with medication and time as within-subject factors.||All outcomes were assessed in real-time in the laboratory testing probenecid compared to placebo condition during the alcohol administration procedure.||||0.05
84720072|NCT04640974|169191518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84720073|NCT04640974|169191519|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84720074|NCT04640974|169191520|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84720075|NCT04484623|169191523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.73||P-Value presented to 3 decimal places from one-sided stratified Log-Rank test adjusting for the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata with a covariate of treatment.|||0.73|0.37|<0.001
84720076|NCT05037513|169191552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
84720077|NCT05037513|169191553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
84720078|NCT05886777|169191560|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.782|1.249|||||GMRs and 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.249|0.782|
84720079|NCT05886777|169191561|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.697|1.162|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.162|0.697|
84720080|NCT05886777|169191562|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.605|1.168|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.168|0.605|
84720081|NCT05886777|169191563|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.618|1.014|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.014|0.618|
84720082|NCT05886777|169191564|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.785|1.423|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.423|0.785|
84720083|NCT05886777|169191565|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|1.402|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.402|0.909|
84720084|NCT05886777|169191566|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.773|1.434|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.434|0.773|
84720085|NCT05886777|169191567|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.807|1.515|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.515|0.807|
84720086|NCT05886777|169191568|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.288|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.288|0.769|
84720087|NCT05886777|169191569|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.836|1.429|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.429|0.836|
84720088|NCT05886777|169191570|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.594|1.19|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.190|0.594|
84720089|NCT05886777|169191571|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|1.125|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.125|0.632|
84720090|NCT05886777|169191572|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.123|1.801|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.801|1.123|
84720091|NCT05886777|169191573|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.977|1.651|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.651|0.977|
84535575|NCT05502081|168819361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84720092|NCT05886777|169191574|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.208|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.208|0.610|
84535576|NCT05502081|168819361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
84535577|NCT05502081|168819362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
84535578|NCT05502081|168819362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.997
84535579|NCT05502081|168819362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
84535580|NCT05502081|168819362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
84535581|NCT05502081|168819363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84720093|NCT05886777|169191575|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.764|1.34|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.340|0.764|
84720094|NCT05886777|169191576|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.914|3.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||3.232|1.914|
84720095|NCT05886777|169191577|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.049|1.612|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.612|1.049|
84720096|NCT05886777|169191578|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.155|2.165|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||2.165|1.155|
84720097|NCT05886777|169191579|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|4.604|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||4.604|2.640|
84720098|NCT05886777|169191580|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.131|1.808|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.808|1.131|
84720099|NCT05886777|169191581|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.773|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.773|1.060|
84720100|NCT05886777|169191582|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.673|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.300|0.673|
84720101|NCT05886777|169191583|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.281|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.281|0.740|
84720102|NCT03367156|169191600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Linear Model|||||0.7|-0.8|0.48
84720103|NCT03367156|169191601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1|-0.7|>0.99
84720104|NCT03367156|169191602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Linear Model|||||1.6|-0.7|0.97
84720105|NCT03367156|169191603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1.0|-0.8|0.78
84720106|NCT03367156|169191604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||Linear Model|||||9.6|-10.6|0.93
84535582|NCT05502081|168819364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.047
84720107|NCT03367156|169191605|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Linear Model|||||1.8|-0.6|0.93
84720108|NCT03367156|169191606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Linear Model|||||1.1|-0.9|0.82
84720109|NCT03367156|169191607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.9|||Linear Model|||||6.9|-17.9|0.38
84720110|NCT02036970|169191636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|12.74||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PAH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated and compared with placebo through 16 weeks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk16 as primary endpoint.||12.74|-16.22|0.8133
84720111|NCT02036970|169191636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|17.2||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary hypertension (PH)|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated \& compared with placebo through 16 wks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment \& visit as fixed factors. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 were used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk 16 as the primary endpoint||17.20|-23.54|0.759
84720112|NCT02298842|169191637|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
84720113|NCT02298842|169191638|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Bionomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
84720114|NCT02298842|169191639|NON_INFERIORITY|If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.099|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6367|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||16.738|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selectin's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||16.738||
84720115|NCT02298842|169191640|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.418|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5531|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.544||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-1.544|
84720116|NCT02298842|169191641|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7882|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.499||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-2.499|
84720117|NCT02298842|169191642|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.056|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.02||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||40.020|
84720118|NCT02298842|169191643|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.314|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.981|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selection's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||13.981||
84720119|NCT02298842|169191644|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.407||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.407|
84720120|NCT02298842|169191645|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.389|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0544|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.915||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.915|
84720121|NCT02298842|169191646|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.821||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||36.821|
84720122|NCT06212752|169191658|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||||GMR and associated 96% confidence interval (Cl) were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.27|0.95|
84720123|NCT06212752|169191659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.88|||||GMR and associated 95% CI were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.88|1.14|
84720124|NCT02568215|169191683|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|42.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||42.6|-45.1|0.70
84720125|NCT02568215|169191683|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|35.5||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||35.5|-85.3|
84720126|NCT02568215|169191683|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|59.3||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||59.3|-30.7|
84720127|NCT02568215|169191685|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|94.4||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||94.4|17.3|
84720128|NCT02568215|169191685|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.5|70.2||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||70.2|-187.5|
84720129|NCT02568215|169191685|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|43.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||43.3|-83.1|
84720130|NCT05966155|169191710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-1.54|0.677
84720131|NCT05966155|169191711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1264
84720132|NCT05966155|169191712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The by-group means and the estimated mean difference are independently rounded to the nearest tenth. As a result, the mean difference it not exactly equivalent to the difference in the two reported means.|||1.1|-0.4|0.3692
84720133|NCT05966155|169191713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8492|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8492
84720134|NCT05966155|169191714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0246
84535583|NCT05502081|168819364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
84535584|NCT05502081|168819364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
84535585|NCT05502081|168819364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
84535586|NCT05502081|168819365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84535587|NCT05502081|168819365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
84535588|NCT05502081|168819365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
84535589|NCT05502081|168819365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
84535590|NCT05502081|168819366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.814
84535591|NCT05502081|168819367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84535592|NCT05502081|168819368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535593|NCT05502081|168819368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535594|NCT05502081|168819368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84720135|NCT05966155|169191715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
84720136|NCT05966155|169191716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0776
84720137|NCT05966155|169191717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
84720138|NCT02628626|169191760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
84720139|NCT02628626|169191761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.24
84720140|NCT02628626|169191762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.44
84720141|NCT02628626|169191763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
84720142|NCT02628626|169191764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.56
84720143|NCT02628626|169191765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
84720144|NCT02628626|169191766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||Small (staining only)||||0.11
84720145|NCT02628626|169191766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Moderate (requires change of underwear)||||0.06
84720146|NCT02628626|169191766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Large (requires complete change of clothes)||||0.36
84720147|NCT02628626|169191767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
84720148|NCT02628626|169191768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84720149|NCT02628626|169191769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
84720150|NCT02628626|169191770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
84720151|NCT02628626|169191771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
84720152|NCT02628626|169191772|SUPERIORITY|approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
84720153|NCT02628626|169191773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||Lifestyle Score||||0.67
84535595|NCT05502081|168819368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.971
84720154|NCT02628626|169191773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Coping Score||||0.80
84720155|NCT02628626|169191773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||Depression Score||||0.49
84720156|NCT02628626|169191773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Embarrassment Score||||0.60
84720157|NCT02628626|169191774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||0.78
84535596|NCT05502081|168819369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84535597|NCT05502081|168819369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535598|NCT05502081|168819370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
84535599|NCT05502081|168819370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84535600|NCT05502081|168819370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.452
84535601|NCT05502081|168819370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
84535602|NCT05502081|168819371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84535603|NCT05502081|168819372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
84535604|NCT05502081|168819372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
84535605|NCT05502081|168819372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
84535606|NCT05502081|168819372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84720158|NCT01855750|169191835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.180|0.720|0.5167
84720159|NCT01855750|169191836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.279|||Log Rank|||||1.279|0.704|0.7311
84720160|NCT01855750|169191837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.183|||Log Rank|||||1.183|0.710|0.5027
84720161|NCT01855750|169191838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.296|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square|||||1.296|0.722|0.8229
84720162|NCT01855750|169191839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.407|||Log Rank|||||1.407|0.754|0.8549
84720163|NCT01855750|169191840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.358||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.654|||Log Rank|||||1.654|1.115|0.0021
84720164|NCT03044158|169191928|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01||||||||2.01|1.21|
84720165|NCT03044158|169191929|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66||||||||1.66|0.99|
84720166|NCT03044158|169191930|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||||||||0.62|0.39|
84720167|NCT03044158|169191931|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.12||||||||2.12|1.04|
84720168|NCT03044158|169191932|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.56||||||||0.56|0.21|
84720169|NCT03044158|169191933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.35||||||||1.35|0.44|
84720170|NCT00092534|169192028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent relative risk reduction|96.6||||||95.0|88.2|99.6|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||99.6|88.2|
84720171|NCT03849937|169192082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84720172|NCT03849937|169192082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Time 1 to Time 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
84720173|NCT03849937|169192082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Time 2 to Time 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84720174|NCT03849937|169192083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effective Communication||||<.001
84720175|NCT03849937|169192083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Appropriate Communication||||<.001
84720176|NCT03849937|169192083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes elderspeak||||<.001
84720177|NCT03849937|169192083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes person-centered communication||||<.001
84720178|NCT04162210|169192090|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.47|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, ISS staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|HR was estimated using the Cox Proportional Hazards. HR stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, international staging system (ISS) staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|||1.47|0.72|0.558
84720179|NCT00291694|169192171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84720180|NCT00291694|169192172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups, two-sided. Endpoint not specifically powered for effect.||||0.053
84720181|NCT00291694|169192173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84720182|NCT00291694|169192174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84720183|NCT00291694|169192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84720184|NCT03683576|169192191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.142|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.142|0.398|0.1425
84720185|NCT03683576|169192191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.677||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.149|0.399|0.1482
84720186|NCT03683576|169192191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.651||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.100|0.385|0.1086
84720187|NCT03683576|169192192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.06|-0.36|0.1647
84720188|NCT03683576|169192192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.07|-0.37|0.1737
84720189|NCT03683576|169192192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.03|-0.40|0.0879
84720190|NCT03683576|169192193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016||||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.123|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.123|-0.091|0.7718
84720191|NCT03683576|169192193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.149|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.149|-0.067|0.4562
84720192|NCT03683576|169192193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.180|-0.030|0.1631
84720193|NCT03683576|169192194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|0.995|||Regression, Cox||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.995|0.519|0.0466
84720194|NCT03683576|169192194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.071|||Regression, Cox||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.071|0.558|0.1222
84720195|NCT03683576|169192194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.967|||Regression, Cox||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.967|0.505|0.0304
84720196|NCT03683576|169192195|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.797||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.268|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.268|0.501|0.3382
84720197|NCT03683576|169192195|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.748||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.195|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.195|0.469|0.2248
84720198|NCT03683576|169192195|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.889||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.397|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.397|0.565|0.6090
84720199|NCT03683576|169192196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.081|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.081|-0.127|0.6645
84720200|NCT03683576|169192196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.144|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.144|-0.074|0.5288
84720201|NCT03683576|169192196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.182|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.182|-0.025|0.1362
84720202|NCT03683576|169192197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.122||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.007|20.251|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||20.251|-8.007|0.3957
84720203|NCT03683576|169192197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.948||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|28.474|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||28.474|-0.578|0.0598
84720204|NCT03683576|169192197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.588||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.522|19.698|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||19.698|-8.522|0.4376
84720205|NCT02350634|169192205|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
84720206|NCT02350634|169192206|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.681|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
84720207|NCT02350634|169192207|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.644||||0.00278|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.00278
84720208|NCT02350634|169192208|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.437||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.12
84720209|NCT02350634|169192209|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.324||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0712
84720210|NCT02350634|169192210|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.564||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0958
84720211|NCT02350634|169192211|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|-0.189||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.558
84720212|NCT04241848|169192217|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
84720213|NCT04241848|169192217|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.240
84720214|NCT04241848|169192217|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.04
84720215|NCT04241848|169192220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.129
84720216|NCT04241848|169192220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.250
84720217|NCT04241848|169192220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.073
84720218|NCT04241848|169192221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.091|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.091
84720219|NCT04241848|169192221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.296
84720220|NCT04241848|169192221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.427
84720221|NCT04241848|169192222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.063
84720222|NCT04241848|169192222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.447
84720223|NCT04241848|169192222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.096
84720224|NCT04241848|169192223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.035
84720225|NCT04241848|169192223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.677|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.677
84720226|NCT04241848|169192223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.022
84720227|NCT04241848|169192224|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.098
84720228|NCT04241848|169192224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.666
84720229|NCT04241848|169192224|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
84720230|NCT04241848|169192225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.001
84720231|NCT04241848|169192225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.009
84720232|NCT04241848|169192225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.018
84720233|NCT03102034|169192283|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.0|90.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||90|56|
84720234|NCT03102034|169192283|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||47|3|
84720235|NCT03102034|169192284|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|44.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||44|10|
84720236|NCT03102034|169192284|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|36.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||36|0|
84720237|NCT03102034|169192289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84720238|NCT03102034|169192290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84720239|NCT02063659|169192298|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-53.955|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.955|-25.119|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-25.119|-84.955|< 0.001
84720240|NCT02063659|169192298|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-89.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.104|-63.863|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-63.863|-113.104|< 0.001
84720241|NCT03371017|169192346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.73|0.5891
84720242|NCT03371017|169192347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.76|0.6139
84720243|NCT03371017|169192348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.69||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|13.51|||Z-test|||||13.51|-8.14|0.6264
84720244|NCT03371017|169192349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.76||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|14.07|||Z-test|||||14.07|-6.55|0.4750
84720245|NCT03371017|169192350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.15||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|11.75|||Z-test|||||11.75|-9.45|0.8315
84720246|NCT03371017|169192351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.37||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|10.69|||Z-test|||||10.69|-7.96|0.7738
84720247|NCT03371017|169192352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1387
84720248|NCT03371017|169192353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7317
84720249|NCT03371017|169192354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.31||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|22.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.37|0.24|0.0337
84720250|NCT03371017|169192355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.15||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.34|-11.63|0.9755
84720251|NCT03371017|169192356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.48|0.1359
84720252|NCT03371017|169192357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.63|0.8225
84720253|NCT03371017|169192360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.67||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|21.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.87|1.47|0.0172
84720254|NCT03371017|169192361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.18||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||9.77|-9.41|0.8679
84720255|NCT03371017|169192362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.46|0.2846
84720256|NCT03371017|169192363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.61|0.9853
84720257|NCT03371017|169192364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.21|0.63|0.4117
84720258|NCT03371017|169192365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.30|0.68|0.7215
84720259|NCT05116163|169192387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Difference in the mean of percent of quality metrics achieved in the intervention arm minus the control arm.|||||<0.001
84720260|NCT05116163|169192388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1164
84720261|NCT05116163|169192389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.6781
84720262|NCT05116163|169192390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.4795
84720263|NCT05116163|169192391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of 3-month vs. baseline adherence scores in patients of providers in the intervention arm vs. control||||0.056
84720264|NCT05116163|169192392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
84720265|NCT05116163|169192393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean from intervention arm - control arm.|||||0.3957
84720266|NCT05116163|169192394|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||||||Comparing the incidence rate of ED visits for the intervention vs. control arms.||1.64|0.63|
84720267|NCT05116163|169192395|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing incidence rates of outpatient visits in the intervention vs. control arms.||1.36|1.07|
84720268|NCT05116163|169192396|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.73||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing the incidence rates of hospitalizations in the intervention vs. control arm patients.||9.73|1.69|
84720269|NCT05116163|169192397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs. pre IAT d-scores comparing the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.3882
84720270|NCT05116163|169192398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs. pre IAT d-scores between the intervention and control groups.||||0.3615
84720271|NCT05116163|169192399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs pre IAT d-scores in the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.9432
84720272|NCT05116163|169192400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs pre IAT d-scores for the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.1453
84720273|NCT01958021|169192457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||3.29e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.720|0.429|0.00000329
84478336|NCT05014542|168707973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-305.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group C) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group C)|The DRUG of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.134
84535607|NCT05502081|168819373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.423
84720274|NCT01958021|169192458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.932|||Log Rank|||||0.932|0.628|0.004
84720275|NCT01958021|169192459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.000155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000155
84720276|NCT01958021|169192460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
84720277|NCT05256797|169192468|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.71||||||Hazard ratio||0.71|0.66|
84720278|NCT04649047|169192483|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-5.6|0.036
84720279|NCT04649047|169192484|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.02|-0.77
84720280|NCT04649047|169192485|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42||||-0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-7.69|-0.51
84720281|NCT04649047|169192486|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.32|0.49
84720282|NCT04649047|169192487|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||-0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.82|-19.9|-0.48
84720283|NCT04649047|169192488|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.46||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|384.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||384.7|-256|0.13
84720284|NCT04649047|169192489|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|0.98|0.88
84720285|NCT04649047|169192490|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
84720286|NCT04649047|169192491|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.18|0.82|0.78
84720287|NCT04649047|169192492|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.16|-0.32|0.58
84720288|NCT04649047|169192493|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
84720289|NCT04649047|169192494|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.16|-1.50|0.46
84720290|NCT04649047|169192495|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.73|0.43|0.71
84720291|NCT04649047|169192496|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||-0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-8.12|-0.52
84720292|NCT03762850|169192529|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.51|<0.0001
84720293|NCT03762850|169192530|OTHER||Slope difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.03|0.0582
84720294|NCT03762850|169192531|OTHER||Slope difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.07|0.0369
84720295|NCT00705406|169192583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.188|||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-value is from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI are based the Cox Regression Model including parameters for treatment, controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|||1.188|0.723|0.222
84720296|NCT00705406|169192584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value for comparisons at all time points. P-value was based on the van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||>0.05
84720297|NCT00705406|169192585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value is based on van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.421
84720298|NCT00705406|169192586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-values are from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.885
84720299|NCT00705406|169192587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.306
84720300|NCT02927249|169192637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||||||||1.56|0.91|
84720301|NCT02927249|169192638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||||||||1.69|0.74|
84720302|NCT02927249|169192639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52||||||||1.52|0.83|
84720303|NCT00975585|169192676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.058|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have non-inferior (less than or equal to) average corneal staining than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.031|-0.058|
84720304|NCT00975585|169192677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.25|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.021|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior (less than or equal to)in visual acuity to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.010|-0.021|
84720305|NCT00975585|169192678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|0.117|0.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have a higher rating of overall comfort than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.402|0.117|
84720306|NCT00975585|169192679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.218|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is lotrafilcon B at 2 weeks minus lotrafilcon B at 4 weeks. Analysis adjusted for duration of wear, stie, duration of wear by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that lotrafilcon B contact lenses have a lower rating of overall comfort after 4 weeks of wear compared to after 2 weeks of wear.||0.098|-0.218|
84720307|NCT00975585|169192680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.123|-0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in limbal redness 5 to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.051|-0.123|
84720308|NCT00975585|169192681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.068|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in bulbar redness to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||0.008|-0.068|
84720309|NCT00975585|169192682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.411|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by stie interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have less frequency of dryness than lotrafilcon B contact lenes after two weeks of wear.||-0.117|-0.411|
84720310|NCT00683800|169192696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.98|-3.80|<0.001
84720311|NCT00683800|169192697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.82|-3.77|<0.001
84720312|NCT00683800|169192698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.16|-0.40|<0.001
84720313|NCT00683800|169192699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
84720314|NCT00683800|169192700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|0.72|||||The 90% CI for excess risk was obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk of DVS SR 100 mg over placebo per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||0.72|-2.86|
84720315|NCT00683800|169192701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving a response as defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 12 was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||<0.001
84720316|NCT00683800|169192702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.36|2.24|<0.001
84720317|NCT00683800|169192702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.10|1.75|<0.001
84720318|NCT00683800|169192703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.81|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||7.81|2.47|<0.001
84720319|NCT00683800|169192703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.09|1.96|<0.001
84720320|NCT00683800|169192704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A log-rank test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720321|NCT00683800|169192705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-1.00|-3.07|<0.001
84720322|NCT00683800|169192705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-1.51|-4.12|<0.001
84720323|NCT00683800|169192706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-0.12|-0.51|0.002
84720324|NCT00683800|169192706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-0.11|-0.54|0.003
84720325|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.64|-3.05|<0.001
84720326|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
84720327|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
84720328|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.02|-0.13|0.162
84720329|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 was outcome variable, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-1.84|<0.001
84535608|NCT05502081|168819374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
84535609|NCT05502081|168819375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
84535610|NCT05502081|168819376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.222
84535611|NCT05502081|168819377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.252
84535612|NCT05502081|168819378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84535613|NCT05502081|168819379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
84535614|NCT05502081|168819379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.382
84535615|NCT05502081|168819379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
84720330|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.46|0.066
84720331|NCT00683800|169192707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.50|-0.79|<0.001
84720332|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.18|-2.57|<0.001
84720333|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.41|-0.90|<0.001
84720334|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
84720335|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.13|0.282
84720336|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.82|-1.66|<0.001
84720337|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.41|0.140
84720338|NCT00683800|169192708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
84720339|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-2.42|<0.001
84720340|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.30|-0.81|<0.001
84720341|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.40|-0.83|<0.001
84720342|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.17|0.082
84720343|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.75|-1.61|<0.001
84720344|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.25|0.865
84720345|NCT00683800|169192709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.29|-0.61|<0.001
84720346|NCT00683800|169192710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720347|NCT00683800|169192711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720348|NCT00683800|169192712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720349|NCT00683800|169192713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720350|NCT00683800|169192714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720351|NCT00683800|169192715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720352|NCT00683800|169192716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720353|NCT00683800|169192717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720354|NCT00683800|169192718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720355|NCT00683800|169192719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720356|NCT00683800|169192720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720357|NCT00683800|169192721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
84720358|NCT00683800|169192722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|2.9|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||2.9|-0.68|
84720359|NCT00683800|169192724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|6.71|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||6.71|-2.08|
84720360|NCT00683800|169192725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|3.67|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||3.67|-3.51|
84720361|NCT00853593|169192774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.951|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.906||||||The Model 4396 lead will be considered safe if the proportion of subjects free of Model 4396 lead-related complications at one month post-implant is greater than 80% (i.e. the one sided 95% lower confidence bound must be at least 80%).||||.906|
84720362|NCT00853593|169192775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||||||||1.8||
84720363|NCT00853593|169192776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.7||||||||2.7||
84720364|NCT00853593|169192777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.967||||||||.967|.887|
84720365|NCT00853593|169192778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.993||||||||.993|.944|
84720366|NCT00853593|169192779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.987||||||||.987|.930|
84720367|NCT00853593|169192780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|0.979||||||||.979|.917|
84720368|NCT00853593|169192786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||||||||2.7||
84720369|NCT04200664|169192803|OTHER|Kendall tau b correlation analysis test was performed between the number of cognitive domains affected and the both ears 3-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2kHz) or both ears 4-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2/4kHz).|Kendall Tau-b|0.462||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Kendall tau-b|Kendall tau b non-parametric correlation analysis was performed.||||||0.176
84720370|NCT06193590|169192806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
84720371|NCT06193590|169192807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1
84720372|NCT06193590|169192809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
84720373|NCT01367236|169192831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||24 weeks||||0.68
84720374|NCT01367236|169192831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||48 weeks||||0.43
84720375|NCT01367236|169192832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0009
84720376|NCT04038580|169192871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would have the same SCS||||0.553
84720377|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Frustration sub-scale||||||0.536|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would be the same||||0.536
84720378|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Perceived Response||||||0.598|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.598
84720379|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Social Burden||||||0.072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
84720380|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Ambulation Sub-scale||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
84720381|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Prosthesis Utility||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
84720382|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Residual Limb Health||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.254
84720383|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Appearance||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.032
84720384|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Sounds||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
84720385|NCT04038580|169192872|SUPERIORITY|Well-being||||||0.077|||||||ANOVA|||||||.077
84720386|NCT04038580|169192873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and participant as random factor||||||0.95
84720387|NCT04038580|169192874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with sockets as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||||||.853
84720388|NCT04038580|169192875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||0.565
84720389|NCT04038580|169192877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and subjects as random factor||||||.374
84720390|NCT04038580|169192879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||.574
84720391|NCT05251363|169192908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Ho: SADE-free rate ≤ 87.5% Ha: SADE-free rate \> 87.5% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall SADE-free rate through 3 months) to the performance goal of 87.5%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall SADE-free rate must be greater than 87.5% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the SADE-free rate is significantly higher than 87.5%.||||<0.0001
84720392|NCT05251363|169192909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||H0: Implant Success Rate ≤ 80% Ha: Implant Success Rate \> 80% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (implant success rate) to the performance goal of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall implant success rate must be greater than 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the rate of successful Solia S LBBA implants is significantly higher than 80.0%.||||< 0.0001
84720393|NCT05251363|169192910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale ≤ 2.8 Ha: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale \> 2.8 Exact one-sample t-test comparing mean improvement in QOL from baseline to 12-mo post-implant to a goal of +2.8. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the improvement in QOL must be \> +2.8 to reject H0.||||<0.001
84720394|NCT03835754|169192922|OTHER|Confidence internal is 88.8%, upper bound limit 99.2%|Clopper Pearson exact confidence interva|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|99.2||||||||99.2|88.8|
84720395|NCT02921555|169192929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84720396|NCT02921555|169192929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84720397|NCT03861052|169192937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.27|<0.001
84720398|NCT03861052|169192937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.45|<0.001
84720399|NCT03861052|169192937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-1.71|<0.001
84720400|NCT03861052|169192938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|21.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.55|4.53|<0.001
84720401|NCT03861052|169192938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|54.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.71|7.73|<0.001
84720402|NCT03861052|169192938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|460.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||460.58|15.80|<0.001
84720403|NCT03861052|169192939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.1|-30.7|<0.001
84720404|NCT03861052|169192939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.8|-37.5|<0.001
84720405|NCT03861052|169192939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|-40.6|<0.001
84720406|NCT03861052|169192940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||||-13.2|-21.4|<0.001
84720407|NCT03861052|169192940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-26.1|<0.001
84720408|NCT03861052|169192940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.2|||ANCOVA|||||-22.2|-30.5|<0.001
84720409|NCT03861052|169192941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1|-6.4|<0.001
84720410|NCT03861052|169192941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-9.1|<0.001
84720411|NCT03861052|169192941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-11.3|<0.001
84720412|NCT03861052|169192942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|26.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.46|7.88|<0.001
84720413|NCT03861052|169192942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.12|87.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.45|23.12|<0.001
84720414|NCT03861052|169192942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|171.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||171.52|39.84|<0.001
84720415|NCT03861052|169192943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-3.67|<0.001
84720416|NCT03861052|169192943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-4.43|<0.001
84720417|NCT03861052|169192943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-4.55|<0.001
84535616|NCT05502081|168819379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
84535617|NCT05502081|168819380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.457
84535618|NCT05502081|168819381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84535619|NCT05502081|168819382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84535620|NCT05502081|168819382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.605
84535621|NCT05502081|168819382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84535622|NCT05502081|168819382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
84535623|NCT05502081|168819383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.293
84720418|NCT03861052|169192944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
84720419|NCT03861052|169192944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
84720420|NCT03861052|169192944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
84720421|NCT03861052|169192945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.4|10.7|<0.001
84720422|NCT03861052|169192945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.3|14.9|<0.001
84535624|NCT05502081|168819384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
84535625|NCT05502081|168819385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
84535626|NCT05502081|168819386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.404
84535627|NCT05502081|168819387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535628|NCT05502081|168819387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.234
84535629|NCT05502081|168819387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535630|NCT05502081|168819387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535631|NCT05502081|168819388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535632|NCT05502081|168819388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
84535633|NCT05502081|168819388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535634|NCT05502081|168819388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535635|NCT05502081|168819389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535636|NCT05502081|168819389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
84535637|NCT05502081|168819389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535638|NCT05502081|168819389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.213
84535639|NCT05502081|168819390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535640|NCT05502081|168819390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.478
84535641|NCT05502081|168819390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535642|NCT05502081|168819390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535643|NCT05502081|168819391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535644|NCT05502081|168819391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.413
84535645|NCT05502081|168819391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535646|NCT05502081|168819391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535647|NCT05502081|168819392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
84535648|NCT05502081|168819392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.155
84535649|NCT05502081|168819392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
84535650|NCT05502081|168819392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
84535651|NCT05502081|168819393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84535652|NCT05502081|168819394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535653|NCT05502081|168819394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
84535654|NCT05502081|168819394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
84535655|NCT05502081|168819394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
84535656|NCT05502081|168819395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
84535657|NCT05502081|168819396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
84535658|NCT03464630|168819409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
84535659|NCT03464630|168819410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84535660|NCT03464630|168819411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.059
84535661|NCT03464630|168819412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.702
84535662|NCT03464630|168819413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.08
84535663|NCT03464630|168819414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.09
84535664|NCT03464630|168819415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.898
84535665|NCT03464630|168819416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.349
84535666|NCT03464630|168819417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
84535667|NCT00998309|168819429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participatns of responders."||||=0.001
84535668|NCT00998309|168819430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535669|NCT00998309|168819431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was type of infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental and Oral Surgery Infection in the participatns of responders."||||<0.001
84720423|NCT03861052|169192945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7|18.1|<0.001
84720424|NCT03861052|169192946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.2|11.7|<0.001
84720425|NCT03861052|169192946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.0|18.0|<0.001
84720426|NCT03861052|169192946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.4|22.0|<0.001
84720427|NCT01700205|169193028|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363|-0.0002|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0002|-0.0363|<0.05
84720428|NCT01700205|169193029|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos). We provide below the parameter estimates for WLZ scores only.|Slope|-0.023||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0362|-0.0093|||Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE analysis conducted on each type of Z score separately with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age; 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0093|-0.0362|0.001
84720429|NCT01700205|169193030|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.02||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.019|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction||||0.019|-0.058|0.32
84720430|NCT01700205|169193031|OTHER|ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor were conducted on intent-to-treat sample|||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|We conducted a ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subject factor.||ANOVAs were conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.05
84720431|NCT01700205|169193032|OTHER|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor||||0.72
84720432|NCT01700205|169193033|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.72
84720433|NCT01700205|169193034|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.02|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.02
84720434|NCT01728324|169193036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.34|85.87|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.|The adjusted response rate was tested against the historical control SVR rate of 68% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 76.3, 85.9).|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 24 weeks of treatment with DBV/FDV/RBV in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||85.87|76.34|<0.0001
84720435|NCT01728324|169193036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|75.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.63|81.14|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.||The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 16 weeks of treatment of non-cirrhotic and 24 weeks of treatment of cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||81.14|70.63|0.0020
84720436|NCT01728324|169193037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR12 Rates difference|6.4||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.2|||Koch's method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch's method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||14.2|-1.4|0.0532
84720437|NCT01728324|169193038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR4 Rates difference|3.6||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.9|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||10.9|-3.7|0.1671
84535670|NCT00998309|168819432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, and severe infection in the participatns of responders."||||=0.556
84535671|NCT00998309|168819433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was hepatic dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without hepatic dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=0.074
84535672|NCT00998309|168819434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535673|NCT00998309|168819435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past medical history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535674|NCT00998309|168819436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535675|NCT00998309|168819437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535676|NCT00998309|168819438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the participatns of responders."||||=0.470
84535677|NCT00998309|168819439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
84535678|NCT00998309|168819442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.657|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.657
84535679|NCT00998309|168819443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years or \>=65 in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.145
84535680|NCT00998309|168819444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Type of Infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental or Oral Surgery Infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.005
84535681|NCT00998309|168819445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, or severe infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.213
84535682|NCT00998309|168819446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=1.000
84535683|NCT00998309|168819447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.116
84535684|NCT00998309|168819448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past Medical History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past Medical History in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||<0.001
84535685|NCT00998309|168819449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.645
84535686|NCT00998309|168819450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.679|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history (PATH). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history (PTH) in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.679
84535687|NCT00998309|168819451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.234
84535688|NCT00998309|168819452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.039
84535689|NCT00998309|168819453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Pregnancy in Female. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Pregnancy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs) in Female."||||=0.605
84535690|NCT00555152|168819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84535691|NCT02922738|168819509|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.70|0.54
84535692|NCT02922738|168819510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84535693|NCT06077149|168819518|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
84535694|NCT06077149|168819519|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84535695|NCT06077149|168819520|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
84720438|NCT01728324|169193039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR24 Rates difference|-6.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.1|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||1.1|-14.8|0.0447
84720439|NCT01619059|169193041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||Tested at alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
84720440|NCT01619059|169193042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.576||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.1||Secondary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.05, applying the hierarchical order for the sequential testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-14.9|0.2014
84720441|NCT01619059|169193043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.6||||||||3.6|-11.0|
84720442|NCT01619059|169193044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0||||||||21.0|3.4|
84720443|NCT01787032|169193049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|373.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|346.029|403.507|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||403.507|346.029|
84720444|NCT01787032|169193049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|243.267|292.914|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.914|243.267|
84720445|NCT01787032|169193050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|261.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.692|322.633|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||322.633|211.692|
84720446|NCT01787032|169193050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|213.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.783|259.051|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||259.051|175.783|
84720447|NCT01787032|169193051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|372.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|345.456|402.477|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||402.477|345.456|
84720448|NCT01787032|169193051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|242.955|292.456|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.456|242.955|
84720449|NCT03229408|169193095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.004
84720450|NCT03229408|169193096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.03
84720451|NCT03229408|169193097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||0.180
84720452|NCT03229408|169193098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.002
84720453|NCT03229408|169193099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.04
84535696|NCT06077149|168819521|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
84720454|NCT03229408|169193100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.003
84720455|NCT03229408|169193101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.0004
84720456|NCT03229408|169193102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.007
84720457|NCT01706159|169193112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.3056||90.0|0.01|3.05||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||A sample size of 90 subjects, with a 2:1 (active:placebo) randomization ratio, would ensure 80% power to detect a difference between active treatment and placebo at Week 8 with a 2-sided significance level of 10% based on a Fisher's exact test.||3.05|0.01|0.3056
84720458|NCT01701401|169193147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84720459|NCT01701401|169193147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84720460|NCT01701401|169193147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84720461|NCT01701401|169193147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84720462|NCT02962102|169193157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
84720463|NCT02962102|169193157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
84720464|NCT02962102|169193158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84720465|NCT02962102|169193158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
84720466|NCT02962102|169193159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
84720467|NCT02962102|169193159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
84720468|NCT02823028|169193169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.779
84720469|NCT05785832|169193179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
84720470|NCT05785832|169193180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||17|11|<0.001
84720471|NCT05785832|169193181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-15.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-15|-26|<0.001
84720472|NCT05785832|169193182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-11|-17|<0.001
84720473|NCT05785832|169193183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.6|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-6.6|-11.7|<0.001
84720474|NCT05785832|169193184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
84720475|NCT05785832|169193185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||A hierarchical procedure was used to control for the overall type I error. Since the P value for this outcome was more than 0.05, no additional P values are provided for subsequent secondary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.1|-0.4|
84720476|NCT05785832|169193186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.04|-0.09|
84535697|NCT02800213|168819536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.280
84535698|NCT04159935|168819537|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
84535699|NCT04159935|168819538|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
84720477|NCT05785832|169193187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.0|-0.1|
84720478|NCT05785832|169193188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||1.2|-0.5|
84720479|NCT05785832|169193189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||21|1|
84720480|NCT05785832|169193190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|2|
84720481|NCT05785832|169193191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|12|
84720482|NCT05785832|169193192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||38|11|
84720483|NCT05785832|169193193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|11|
84720484|NCT05785832|169193194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|10|
84720485|NCT05785832|169193195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||31|9|
84720486|NCT05785832|169193196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||12|7|
84720487|NCT05785832|169193197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
84720488|NCT05785832|169193198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.01|-0.07|
84720489|NCT05785832|169193199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-6.0|
84720490|NCT05785832|169193200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-10|-18|
84720491|NCT05785832|169193201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-5.2|
84720492|NCT05785832|169193202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||24|8|
84720493|NCT05785832|169193203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|41.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||41|12|
84535700|NCT04159935|168819539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
84535701|NCT04159935|168819541|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
84535702|NCT04159935|168819542|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
84720494|NCT05785832|169193204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|45.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||45|21|
84720495|NCT05785832|169193207|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|22.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||22|8|
84720496|NCT05785832|169193208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0|-20|
84720497|NCT05785832|169193209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.4|-4.4|
84720498|NCT05785832|169193210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||2.5|0.5|
84720499|NCT05785832|169193211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4.7|-2.5|
84720500|NCT05785832|169193212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0.7|-3.4|
84720501|NCT05785832|169193213|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.7|0.5|
84720502|NCT05785832|169193214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.1||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||11.1|-1.4|
84720503|NCT05785832|169193215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|4.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4|-45|
84720504|NCT05613907|169193242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.885||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.005
84720505|NCT05613907|169193242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.895|-0.705|||ANOVA|||||-0.705|-34.895|0.040
84720506|NCT05613907|169193242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|13.429|||ANOVA|||||13.429|-5.829|0.940
84720507|NCT05613907|169193243|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.862||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in the EuroQol 5-D domains at 1 year compared to baseline.||||0.388
84720508|NCT05613907|169193244|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.033||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistical difference in patient self-reported ability to perform basic self-care||||0.974
84720509|NCT05613907|169193245|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.564||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is no improvement in ability to perform usual activities at 1 year.||||0.118
84720510|NCT05613907|169193246|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-2.364||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.018
84720511|NCT05613907|169193247|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.311||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in anxiety and/or depression compared to the initial visit.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.190
84720512|NCT05613907|169193248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.604||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.762|-2.39|||ANOVA|||||-2.390|-50.762|0.027
84720513|NCT05613907|169193248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.715||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.837|-3.394|||ANOVA|||||-3.394|-51.837|0.024
84720514|NCT05613907|169193248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.374|11.836|||ANOVA|||||11.836|-13.374|1.000
84535703|NCT04159935|168819543|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
84720515|NCT05613907|169193249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.048
84720516|NCT05613907|169193249|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.893|13.751|||ANOVA|||||13.751|-12.893|1.000
84720517|NCT05613907|169193249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.186||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.762|29.333|||ANOVA|||||29.333|-4.762|0.163
84720518|NCT05080777|169193254|EQUIVALENCE|Group, Time, and Group x Time effect tests were performed using MLM.||||||0.295||||||.P-value shown is based on the Group x Time F statistic used in multilevel modeling (MLM)|Multilevel modeling (MLM)|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.295
84720519|NCT05080777|169193255|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and group x time effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.57||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.570
84720520|NCT05080777|169193256|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and time x group effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.461||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.461
84720521|NCT03789656|169193290|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||The primary efficacy endpoint was completed with the Efficacy Analysis Set (EAS), which included all treated subjects in Group 1. The median (Interquartile range) for change from baseline in IGF-1xULN to Week 13/EoT and p-value from the Wilcoxon signed rank test were presented. Baseline was defined as the mean of all IGF-1xULN values prior to first dose. Last on treatment assessment was used for EoT if subject discontinued before Week 13.||||0.6285
84720522|NCT03789656|169193291|OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||exact binomial test assuming the null pr|Null proportion = 0.5||||||0.3877
84720523|NCT01586104|169193296|OTHER|With 20 patients, there is 80% power to detect a difference of 100% with Standard lung RT versus 93% with IMRT assuming a standard deviation of 8 (as seen for the whole heart), a one tailed test and a Bonferroni correction for 4 statistical tests so that each test is done at p\<0.0125.|||||<|0.0125||||||The reported p value was calculated. The statistical analysis performed is attached to the outcome measure reported.|Bonferroni corrected at p<0.0125|||Feasibility will be defined as an enrolled patient receiving the IMRT treatment as planned. It is expected that the treatment will be feasible in at least 90% of patients. If the treatment is feasible in 16 or more out of 20 patients, then the treatment will be declared feasible. If the true feasibility rate is 90%, then there is a 4.3% chance that 15 or fewer feasible patients will be observed.|Lung-metastases-free survival will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (minimum period of six months).|||<0.0125
84720524|NCT06214052|169193311|OTHER||Emax|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||||||||||||||
84720525|NCT06214052|169193311|OTHER||EC50|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.0||||||||||||||||
84535704|NCT04159935|168819544|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
84720526|NCT05325294|169193315|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||0.1|-0.2|0.133
84535705|NCT04159935|168819545|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
84535706|NCT04159935|168819547|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
84535707|NCT04159935|168819548|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.700
84535708|NCT04159935|168819549|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
84720527|NCT05325294|169193315|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
84720528|NCT05325294|169193316|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
84720529|NCT05325294|169193316|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
84720530|NCT05325294|169193317|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.5|0.3|<0.001
84720531|NCT05325294|169193317|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.3|0.2|<0.001
84720532|NCT05325294|169193318|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
84720533|NCT05325294|169193318|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
84720534|NCT04701203|169193321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary efficacy endpoint, the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by etiology of hypoparathyroidism (postsurgical or other) was used to compare the proportion of participants meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus placebo groups. Participants without week 26 albumin-adjusted serum calcium or with \>25% (ie, \>7 days) missing diary data of active vitamin D or elemental calcium during the 4 weeks before week 26 were considered non-responders.||||<0.0001
84720535|NCT04701203|169193322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0038
84720536|NCT04701203|169193323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0055
84720537|NCT04701203|169193324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0046
84720538|NCT04701203|169193325|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0061
84720539|NCT04701203|169193326|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0347
84720540|NCT05293717|169193337|OTHER|This is an open-label study. No power calculation was performed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84720541|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7695||95.0|-0.856|1.15||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician treatment arm."||1.15|-.856|.7695
84720542|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.0878||95.0|-1.88|0.13||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm."||.13|-1.88|.0878
84720543|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.635||95.0|-0.76|1.25||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/physician treatment arm."||1.25|-.76|.635
84720544|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.897||95.0|-1.0709|0.9394||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the older adult treatment arm."||.9394|-1.0709|.897
84720545|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.9823||95.0|-1.0164|0.9939||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician/older adult treatment arm."||.9939|-1.0164|.9823
84720546|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.3337||95.0|-1.4979|0.5124||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm."||.5124|-1.4979|.3337
84720547|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.694||95.0|-0.8049|1.2054||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult/physician treatment arm."||1.2054|-.8049|.694
84720548|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Actual Intercept value|54.9056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077|<|0.0001||95.0|53.9003|55.9109||this is the Intercept value for the GLMM evaluating all combinations of treatment and time- in other words, this is the mean well-being t-score across all combinations of tx and time. Estimates in these analyses are deviations from this intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the intercept (all tx=0).||55.9109|53.9003|<.0001
84720549|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1152||95.0|-0.1254|0.01383||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This test evaluates the effect of time (measured as weeks since baseline).||.01383|-.1254|.1152
84720550|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.3555||95.0|-0.1022|0.03699|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician treatment arm\*time."||.03699|-.1022|.3555
84535709|NCT02036775|168819556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|110.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|122.69|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||122.69|99.84|
84720551|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.0546||95.0|-0.00136|0.1379||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm\*time."||.1379|-.00136|.0546
84720552|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4616||95.0|-0.04364|0.09557||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.09557|-.04364|.4616
84720553|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1592||95.0|-0.0198|0.1194||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.1194|-.0198|.1592
84535710|NCT02036775|168819556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
84720554|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4899||95.0|-0.09396|0.04526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician/Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.04526|-.09396|.4899
84720555|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.000697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.9842||95.0|-0.06891|0.0703||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm\*time."||.0703|-.06891|.9842
84720556|NCT04837937|169193350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.7217||95.0|-0.08216|0.05705||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Older Adult/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.05705|-.08216|.7217
84720557|NCT04837937|169193351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55||0.21||95.0|-1.9|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|2-sided paired t-Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Anxiety score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.42|-1.90|.21
84720558|NCT04837937|169193352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.0021||95.0|-5.28|-1.2||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Zarit Caregiver Burden Score, Baseline to 1-month post-intervention. Test was a 2-sided dependent samples t-test.||-1.20|-5.28|.0021
84720559|NCT04837937|169193353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.1||95.0|-2.62|0.25||Alpha for statistical significance was 0.05|2-Sided Paired T Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Fatigue score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.25|-2.62|.10
84720560|NCT04837937|169193354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.83||0.9754||95.0|-1.36|1.41|||2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in PROMIS short form General Self Efficacy T-Score, baseline to one month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test.||1.41|-1.36|.9754
84720561|NCT04837937|169193356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.91||0.77||95.0|-0.74|1.0||Threshold for significance is 0.05|2-sided Paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-Score between baseline and 1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired t-test.||1.00|-.74|.77
84720562|NCT04837937|169193357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7618|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.1694||95.0|-0.33|1.85||alpha threshold for significance was 0.05.|two-sided paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-score between baseline and one month post-intervention. Test is a two-sided paired t-test.||1.85|-.33|.1694
84720563|NCT04837937|169193362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.44||0.76||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Avoiding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.76
84720564|NCT04837937|169193362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.33||0.13||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Compromising Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.13
84720565|NCT04837937|169193362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.76|<|0.0001||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Forcing Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||<.0001
84720566|NCT04837937|169193362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.62||0.86||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Problem Solving Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.86
84720567|NCT04837937|169193362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.32||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Yielding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.32
84720568|NCT04837937|169193363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.18||0.0012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in total Negotiation Knowledge score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0012
84720569|NCT04837937|169193363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.933|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.33||0.0018||||||alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Interests score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0018
84720570|NCT04837937|169193363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.69||0.91||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Power score, Baseline 1-month.||||.91
84720571|NCT04837937|169193363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.35||0.11||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Rights score, Baseline 1-month.||||.11
84720572|NCT04837937|169193365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.73|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.09|-1.07||Threshold for significance is alpha=0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in negative affect score, baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2 sided dependent sample t-test.||-1.07|-3.09|<.0001
84720573|NCT04837937|169193365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86||0.4305||95.0|-0.52|1.21|||2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA of change in positive affect score between baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided dependent sample t-test.||1.21|-.52|.4305
84720574|NCT04172675|169193369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61|||Unstratified Log rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||0.61|0.13|=0.0007
84720575|NCT03070392|169193380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.37|<0.0001
84720576|NCT03070392|169193382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.0139
84720577|NCT00378898|169193425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
84720578|NCT02372799|169193436|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.4||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.27|||MMRM|||||2.27|-3.08|0.7662
84720579|NCT02372799|169193436|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.39||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.81|||MMRM|||||0.81|-5.60|0.1433
84720580|NCT02372799|169193437|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.04||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-0.31|0.7387
84720581|NCT02372799|169193437|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.2||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.12|-0.52|0.2158
84720582|NCT01354444|169193438|OTHER||Coefficient|1.48||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.796|6.761|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compares immediate recall before and after 6 months between the treatment and placebo group.||6.761|-3.796|0.565
84720583|NCT01354444|169193439|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in total Tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.481
84720584|NCT01354444|169193439|OTHER|||||||0.0562|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in Abeta42 between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.0562
84720585|NCT01354444|169193439|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in p-tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.314
84720586|NCT01354444|169193439|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in oligomeric Abeta between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.438
84720587|NCT01613417|169193461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.6||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||5.6|-4.6|0.8516
84720588|NCT01613417|169193461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||3.8|-3.8|1.0
84720589|NCT01613417|169193461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||1.5|-0.5|1.0
84720590|NCT01613417|169193462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720591|NCT01613417|169193462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720592|NCT01613417|169193462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720593|NCT01613417|169193463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720594|NCT01613417|169193463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6875
84720595|NCT01613417|169193463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720596|NCT01613417|169193464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720597|NCT01613417|169193464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720598|NCT01613417|169193464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720599|NCT01613417|169193465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720600|NCT01613417|169193465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720601|NCT01613417|169193465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
84720602|NCT01613417|169193466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.2758
84720603|NCT01613417|169193466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.0676
84720604|NCT01613417|169193466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.5267
84720605|NCT01613417|169193467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.6201
84720606|NCT01613417|169193467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.4514
84720607|NCT01613417|169193467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7722|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.7722
84720608|NCT01613417|169193468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.3173
84720609|NCT01613417|169193468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.5637
84720610|NCT01613417|169193468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.0455
84720611|NCT01613417|169193469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.6949
84720612|NCT01613417|169193469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.1317
84720613|NCT01613417|169193469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.0124
84720614|NCT00853580|169193536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
84720615|NCT00853580|169193537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84720616|NCT00853580|169193538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
84720617|NCT00853580|169193539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
84720618|NCT00853580|169193540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84720619|NCT00853580|169193541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
84720620|NCT00853580|169193542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
84720621|NCT00853580|169193543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84720622|NCT00853580|169193544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
84720623|NCT00853580|169193545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
84720624|NCT00853580|169193546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
84720625|NCT00853580|169193547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
84720626|NCT00853580|169193548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
84720627|NCT00853580|169193549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
84720628|NCT00853580|169193550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
84720629|NCT00853580|169193551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
84720630|NCT00853580|169193552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
84720631|NCT00853580|169193553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
84720632|NCT00853580|169193554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
84720633|NCT00853580|169193555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
84720634|NCT01767467|169193557|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A vaccine over placebo) for anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations at Month 2 was greater than (\>) 3.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Concentration|29.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|41.96||The p-value is relative to the null hypothesis Ho: Vaccine / Placebo = 1|Repeated measurement model|||The objective aimed to evaluate anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2 following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo, in subjects with haematologic malignancies excluding subjects with Non-Hodgkin B-cell Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.||41.96|21.09|<0.0001
84720635|NCT03542305|169193578|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.73|136.31|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||136.31|79.73|
84720636|NCT03542305|169193578|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|118.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.43|154.24|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||154.24|91.43|
84720637|NCT03542305|169193578|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|141.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|203.66|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||203.66|97.82|
84720638|NCT03542305|169193579|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.48|152.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||152.02|66.48|
84720639|NCT03542305|169193579|OTHER||Slope|88.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|123.06|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||123.06|64.18|
84720640|NCT03542305|169193579|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|150.63|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||150.63|56.58|
84720641|NCT01335867|169193590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.14
84720642|NCT01335867|169193592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.24
84720643|NCT01335867|169193593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.20
84720644|NCT01335867|169193594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.64
84720645|NCT00176202|169193600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84720646|NCT00176202|169193600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84720647|NCT00176202|169193601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
84720648|NCT00176202|169193601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
84720649|NCT00176202|169193602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|-1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||In case of both risperidone and divalproex sodium.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84720650|NCT00176202|169193602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84720651|NCT00176202|169193603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||baseline is compared to LOCF to determine the p value.||||<0.01
84720652|NCT00176202|169193603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
84720653|NCT00731614|169193604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||Conducted a repeated measures ANOVA comparing CBT+mirror retraining with Supportive Therapy across 11 time points. The primary hypothesis was a group by time interaction. Due to missing data, a total of 9 and 14 participants, respectively could be included in analyses.||||.322
84725900|NCT01159600|169203843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.56|-1.46||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.46|-2.56|<0.0001
84720654|NCT04941482|169193622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.2|-1.9|<0.05
84720655|NCT04941482|169193623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Fatigue Severity Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|2.5|-7.6|<0.05
84720656|NCT04941482|169193624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Mini-Mental State Examinationscore before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|1.3|-5.4|<0.05
84720657|NCT04941482|169193625|SUPERIORITY|Over 6 months, the number of patients who losted to follow-up of intervention and control group were respectively 9:0 (after 1 month), 9:0 (after 3 months), and 9:3 (after 6 months).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Barthel Index score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|14.7|-14.5|<0.05
84720658|NCT04941482|169193626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|3.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Physical domain score of Stroke Impact Scale before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.7|-18.8|<0.05
84720659|NCT04941482|169193627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-3.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Stroke Impact Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|-0.3|-15.2|<0.05
84720660|NCT02434328|169193671|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
84720661|NCT02434328|169193672|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||0.5|-2.8|0.0003
84720662|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.0|-2.0|
84720663|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||0.2|-2.2|
84720664|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.4|-2.4|
84720665|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||0.6|-2.3|
84720666|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||0.0|-3.0|
84720667|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||0.6|-2.5|
84720668|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||0.5|-2.7|
84720669|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||0.7|-2.5|
84535711|NCT02036775|168819556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.29|114.02|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||114.02|100.29|
84720670|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.4|-2.9|
84720671|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||0.5|-2.9|
84720672|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||0.1|-3.2|
84720673|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.0|-2.4|
84720674|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.1|-2.5|
84720675|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.1|-2.5|
84720676|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.0|-2.7|
84540767|NCT03718832|168832715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3787962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032547||0.713942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409379|1.651786||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.651786|-2.409379|0.713942
84720677|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.2|-2.5|
84720678|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.2|-2.5|
84720679|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.1|-2.8|
84720680|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||1.4|-2.5|
84720681|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||1.8|-2.1|
84720682|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||1.1|-2.9|
84720683|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||1.3|-2.6|
84720684|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||1.6|-2.4|
84720685|NCT02434328|169193677|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||1.6|-2.5|
84535712|NCT02036775|168819557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|93.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||93.25|76.96|
84720686|NCT02434328|169193678|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.3|-2.4|
84720687|NCT02434328|169193678|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||0.7|-2.4|
84720688|NCT02434328|169193679|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||0.4|-2.5|
84720689|NCT02434328|169193679|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.||Week 12 to Week 96|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|0.8|-2.4|
84720690|NCT02434328|169193680|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.4|-2.5|
84720691|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.9|-5.1|
84720692|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.0|-9.5|
84720693|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||0.3|-10.5|
84720694|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.7|-8.4|
84720695|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-8.8|
84720696|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.7|-5.2|
84720697|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-9.9|
84720698|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.7|-10.5|
84720699|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-11.6|
84720700|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-11.5|
84720701|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||1.8|-11.3|
84720702|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.8|-7.1|
84720703|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.5|-7.0|
84720704|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.4|-7.7|
84720705|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-8.3|
84720706|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-7.9|
84720707|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.1|-9.9|
84720708|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.3|-10.2|
84720709|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.0|-8.8|
84720710|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.5|-9.0|
84720711|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.8|-9.9|
84720712|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.3|-11.8|
84720713|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.5|-7.9|
84720714|NCT02434328|169193681|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.8|
84720715|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.8|-7.6|
84720716|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||0.1|-13.0|
84720717|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-10.1|
84720718|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.3|-7.3|
84720719|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.2|-11.2|
84720720|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.0|-10.7|
84720721|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.0|-9.6|
84720722|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-9.4|
84720723|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.1|-12.1|
84720724|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.5|-9.9|
84720725|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-10.3|
84720726|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.7|-8.7|
84720727|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
84720728|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.3|-9.8|
84720729|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-9.6|
84720730|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-8.8|
84720731|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.0|-8.4|
84720732|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.9|-10.4|
84720733|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-6.5|
84720734|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-7.5|
84720735|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.1|-10.4|
84720736|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-9.6|
84720737|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.0|
84720738|NCT02434328|169193682|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||6.8|-7.0|
84720739|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-10.4|
84720740|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-10.2|
84720741|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.3|-10.7|
84720742|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.7|-8.4|
84720743|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||1.5|-12.3|
84720744|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.7|-9.9|
84720745|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.7|-12.8|
84720746|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.8|-8.2|
84720747|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-9.2|
84720748|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.2|
84720749|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-8.5|
84720750|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.4|
84720751|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-9.8|
84720752|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.8|-8.6|
84720753|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.1|-7.8|
84720754|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||9.2|-4.5|
84720755|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-8.6|
84720756|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||7.5|-5.8|
84720757|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.4|-5.1|
84720758|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.9|-2.8|
84720759|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-9.3|
84720760|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||7.7|-6.1|
84720761|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||10.4|-3.0|
84720762|NCT02434328|169193683|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||10.0|-3.9|
84720763|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.4|-1.6|
84720764|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.1|-2.3|
84720765|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2 mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-1.9|
84720766|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.3|-2.1|
84720767|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-2.0|
84720768|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.2|-3.0|
84720769|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-3.0|
84720770|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.5|-3.2|
84720771|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.3|-2.3|
84720772|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.6|-1.7|
84535713|NCT02036775|168819557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|113.31|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||113.31|95.22|
84720773|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.4|-2.7|
84720774|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-3.9|
84720775|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.3|-4.3|
84720776|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.9|-2.8|
84720777|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-2.5|
84720778|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.5|-2.7|
84720779|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.6|-4.2|
84720780|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-2.5|
84720781|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.4|-2.5|
84720782|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.6|-2.4|
84720783|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-3.1|
84720784|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-3.5|
84720785|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.3|-3.8|
84720786|NCT02434328|169193684|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.3|-3.8|
84720787|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-2.6|
84720788|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.1|-2.2|
84720789|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-2.8|
84720790|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.7|-4.4|
84720791|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.9|-1.7|
84720792|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.8|-3.9|
84720793|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.8|-3.2|
84720794|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-3.8|
84720795|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-3.0|
84540768|NCT03718832|168832715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4989275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053869||0.6362064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573807|2.571662||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.571662|-1.573807|0.6362064
84720796|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.1|-2.4|
84720797|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.5|-1.1|
84720798|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.3|-4.0|
84720799|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.7|-2.8|
84720800|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.5|-2.8|
84720801|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference of proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.7|-2.6|
84720802|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.3|-4.0|
84720803|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.6|-4.2|
84720804|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.7|-4.0|
84720805|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.7|-3.5|
84720806|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.4|-4.5|
84720807|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-3.6|
84720808|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-4.5|
84720809|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-5.7|
84720810|NCT02434328|169193685|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.2|-4.9|
84720811|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-3.5|
84540769|NCT03718832|168832715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.146286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048105||0.2748884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9154561|3.208027||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3.208027|-0.9154561|0.2748884
84720812|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.4|-4.4|
84720813|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.1|-5.0|
84720814|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.2|-1.9|
84720815|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.8|-0.4|
84720816|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Number of subjects with \>=5 letter loss from baseline in BCVA (letters read) at each post-baseline visit - Week 24||7.8|-1.3|
84720817|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.3|-1.7|
84720818|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-3.2|
84720819|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.3|-0.7|
84720820|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-3.8|
84720821|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.0|-1.4|
84720822|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.7|-5.1|
84720823|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.7|-2.5|
84720824|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.4|-2.8|
84720825|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.8|-3.6|
84540770|NCT03718832|168832716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3232407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3695066||0.3823224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4036366|1.050118||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.050118|-0.4036366|0.3823224
84720826|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-4.0|
84720827|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.4|-2.8|
84720828|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.7|-4.3|
84720829|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.8|-4.4|
84720830|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.6|-6.0|
84720831|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-5.2|
84720832|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-5.7|
84720833|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.4|-6.5|
84720834|NCT02434328|169193686|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.8|-5.1|
84720835|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-9.2|
84720836|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-8.1|
84720837|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.5|-8.4|
84720838|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.7|-5.4|
84720839|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.0|-8.2|
84720840|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.3|-9.0|
84720841|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-9.3|
84720842|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.8|-9.6|
84720843|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||2.2|-9.6|
84720844|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.2|-7.6|
84720845|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-7.5|
84720846|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-5.4|
84720847|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-7.7|
84720848|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.0|-7.7|
84720849|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.4|-10.8|
84720850|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||3.2|-8.9|
84720851|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.9|-9.5|
84720852|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-7.9|
84720853|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.1|-8.1|
84720854|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-5.6|
84720855|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.8|-8.3|
84720856|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.5|-7.4|
84720857|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.8|-6.5|
84720858|NCT02434328|169193687|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.1|
84720859|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-2.9|-32.6|
84535714|NCT02036775|168819557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|88.62|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||88.62|73.92|
84720860|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-13.4|-45.6|
84720861|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-13.7|-46.9|
84720862|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-21.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-21.6|-58.9|
84720863|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||15.0|-20.9|
84720864|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-29.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-29.3|-66.3|
84720865|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||-5.4|-42.0|
84720866|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-15.0|-52.4|
84720867|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-12.9|-48.0|
84720868|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-25.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-25.9|-63.5|
84720869|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||-1.1|-37.3|
84720870|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-30.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-30.9|-68.9|
84720871|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||-10.4|-45.8|
84720872|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-23.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-23.7|-62.4|
84720873|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-12.8|-49.5|
84720874|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-26.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-26.8|-64.9|
84720875|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||-5.4|-42.0|
84720876|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-28.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-28.3|-66.4|
84720877|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-9.5|-46.5|
84720878|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-21.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-21.4|-60.4|
84720879|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-12.4|-49.6|
84720880|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-23.3|-61.9|
84720881|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||-10.3|-47.9|
84720882|NCT02434328|169193688|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-23.3|-62.0|
84720883|NCT02434328|169193689|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-18.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-18.1|-54.0|
84720884|NCT02434328|169193690|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-17.6|-55.1|
84720885|NCT02434328|169193691|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-14.1|-47.6|
84720886|NCT02434328|169193691|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-16.1|-50.8|
84720887|NCT02434328|169193692|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.7|0.0|
84720888|NCT02434328|169193692|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.6|-0.1|
84720889|NCT02434328|169193692|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||0.6|0.0|
84720890|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||7.3|-11.6|
84720891|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||6.0|-13.6|
84720892|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||5.3|-14.3|
84720893|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.4|-13.7|
84720894|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||14.6|-5.5|
84535715|NCT02036775|168819558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|88.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.87|98.15|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||98.15|79.87|
84720895|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||4.7|-16.3|
84720896|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||7.0|-13.1|
84720897|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||8.5|-12.6|
84720898|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||5.1|-15.2|
84720899|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||3.8|-17.0|
84720900|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.9|-13.4|
84720901|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||3.7|-17.6|
84720902|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||7.5|-12.9|
84720903|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||5.4|-15.4|
84720904|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||5.9|-14.3|
84720905|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||6.4|-14.2|
84720906|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||9.6|-10.7|
84720907|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||5.7|-14.8|
84720908|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||7.4|-13.1|
84720909|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||6.8|-14.1|
84720910|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||7.3|-13.5|
84720911|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||6.5|-14.6|
84720912|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.0|||ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||8.0|-12.6|
84720913|NCT02434328|169193693|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.7|-13.6|
84720914|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-13.2|
84720915|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-3.0|-13.8|
84720916|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.7|-12.2|
84720917|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-8.3|-20.8|
84720918|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.6|-2.9|
84720919|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.0|-25.5|
84720920|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||-0.4|-11.6|
84720921|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.5|-16.5|
84720922|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.5|-13.6|
84720923|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.4|-21.5|
84720924|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.4|-3.2|
84720925|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-10.4|-22.4|
84720926|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.1|-8.5|
84720927|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.9|-15.7|
84720928|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.2|-9.8|
84720929|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.4|-21.3|
84720930|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.2|-6.1|
84720931|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-10.5|-22.6|
84720932|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.1|-7.0|
84720933|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-5.0|-17.4|
84720934|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.7|-11.3|
84720935|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-5.9|-18.9|
84720936|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.0|-11.4|
84720937|NCT02434328|169193694|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-8.3|-20.3|
84720938|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.4|-2.5|
84720939|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.7|-6.1|
84720940|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-5.3|
84720941|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.4|-4.5|
84720942|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.8|3.9|
84720943|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.2|-7.9|
84720944|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.4|-1.0|
84720945|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-5.5|
84720946|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.8|-5.6|
84720947|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.1|-6.0|
84720948|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.0|-0.5|
84720949|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-6.2|
84720950|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.1|-2.5|
84720951|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.1|-5.9|
84720952|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.4|-4.4|
84720953|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.1|-6.2|
84720954|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.5|-1.2|
84720955|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-4.2|
84720956|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.5|
84720957|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.3|-4.8|
84720958|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.2|-3.3|
84720959|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-4.5|
84720960|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-0.1|
84720961|NCT02434328|169193695|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-4.3|
84720962|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.5|-8.9|
84720963|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.5|-7.6|
84720964|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.7|-6.9|
84720965|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.7|-13.0|
84720966|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.2|-3.6|
84720967|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-12.6|
84720968|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.7|-6.8|
84720969|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-0.3|-10.5|
84720970|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.4|-10.3|
84720971|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.5|-11.2|
84720972|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.6|-4.8|
84720973|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.9|-13.8|
84720974|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.5|-7.1|
84720975|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.1|-11.1|
84720976|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.5|-10.9|
84720977|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.6|-10.9|
84720978|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||-0.1|-11.0|
84720979|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.2|-12.5|
84720980|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.3|-10.7|
84720981|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.9|-12.4|
84720982|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-7.0|
84720983|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||1.3|-10.5|
84720984|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.5|-11.4|
84720985|NCT02434328|169193696|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.3|-11.5|
84720986|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.2|
84720987|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.5|-15.5|
84720988|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.6|-15.0|
84720989|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-9.0|-22.9|
84720990|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||14.8|0.9|
84720991|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.1|-27.3|
84720992|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.4|-10.4|
84720993|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-2.5|-16.7|
84720994|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-3.4|-15.8|
84720995|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.6|-23.4|
84720996|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||10.4|-3.3|
84720997|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-11.8|-24.9|
84720998|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-9.2|
84720999|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.8|-16.3|
84721000|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.1|-12.5|
84721001|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.5|-21.9|
84721002|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.5|-5.9|
84721003|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-8.1|-21.4|
84721004|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.4|-7.5|
84721005|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-3.4|-17.2|
84721006|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.3|-11.4|
84721007|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-4.1|-18.2|
84721008|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.5|-9.4|
84721009|NCT02434328|169193697|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-7.2|-21.3|
84721010|NCT02949297|169193726|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|Clopper-Pearson|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0|||||One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|||95||
84721011|NCT00458783|169193741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) distinct-effects model||||1.2|0.50|0.08
84721012|NCT00458783|169193742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.6||||||||1.6|0.25|
84721013|NCT00458783|169193743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.0||||||||2.0|0.26|
84721014|NCT00458783|169193744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.4||||||||1.4|0.59|
84721015|NCT00458783|169193745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.8||||||||1.8|0.43|
84721016|NCT00458783|169193746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.8||||||||2.8|0.24|
84721017|NCT00458783|169193747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.5|0.80|
84721018|NCT00458783|169193748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.1||||||||1.1|0.16|
84721019|NCT00458783|169193749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.7||||||||1.7|0.39|
84721020|NCT00458783|169193750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.50|
84721021|NCT00458783|169193751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||||3.2|0.18|
84721022|NCT00458783|169193752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.29|0.94|0.9
84721023|NCT00458783|169193753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.18|0.85|0.07
84721024|NCT01737398|169193754|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.73||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|-13.03|||MMRM|||||-13.03|-26.43|0.00000004
84721025|NCT01737398|169193755|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.06|||MMRM|||||-5.06|-18.29|0.0006
84721026|NCT06307457|169193775|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.031
84721027|NCT06307457|169193776|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.012
84721028|NCT06307457|169193777|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.061
84721029|NCT06307457|169193778|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.080
84721030|NCT06307457|169193779|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.2
84721031|NCT06307457|169193780|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.093
84721032|NCT06307457|169193781|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||>0.9
84721033|NCT06307457|169193781|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.9
84721034|NCT06307457|169193781|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.4
84721035|NCT06307457|169193782|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
84721036|NCT06307457|169193782|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.3
84721037|NCT06307457|169193782|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
84721038|NCT06307457|169193783|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
84721039|NCT06307457|169193784|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
84721040|NCT06307457|169193785|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.14
84721041|NCT06307457|169193786|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.2
84721042|NCT06307457|169193787|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.047
84721043|NCT06307457|169193788|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.041
84721044|NCT00089609|169193796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
84721045|NCT00357994|169193836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
84721046|NCT00357994|169193837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
84721047|NCT00357994|169193838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
84721048|NCT00357994|169193839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
84721049|NCT00357994|169193840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
84721050|NCT00357994|169193841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
84721051|NCT00357994|169193842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
84721052|NCT00357994|169193843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
84721053|NCT00357994|169193844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
84721054|NCT00357994|169193845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
84721055|NCT00357994|169193846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
84721056|NCT00357994|169193847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
84721057|NCT00357994|169193848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
84721058|NCT00357994|169193849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
84721059|NCT00357994|169193850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
84721060|NCT00357994|169193851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
84721061|NCT00357994|169193852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
84721062|NCT00357994|169193853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
84721063|NCT00357994|169193854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
84721064|NCT00357994|169193855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
84721065|NCT00357994|169193856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
84721066|NCT00357994|169193857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
84721067|NCT03559205|169193864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||0.70|-0.74|0.96
84721068|NCT03559205|169193865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.04|-2.31|0.90
84721069|NCT03559205|169193865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||5.19|-1.17|0.21
84721070|NCT03559205|169193865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||4.83|-2.95|0.63
84721071|NCT03559205|169193866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||6.26|-1.00|0.15
84721072|NCT03559205|169193866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2 analysis||6.45|-2.02|0.30
84721073|NCT03559205|169193866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||5.90|-4.89|0.85
84721074|NCT03559205|169193867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Care and respect||0.74|-0.51|0.72
84721075|NCT03559205|169193867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Understanding \& engagement||0.83|-0.38|0.46
84721076|NCT03559205|169193868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||2-weeks||0.42|-0.13|0.30
84721077|NCT03559205|169193868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-months||0.52|-0.20|0.38
84721078|NCT03559205|169193869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-1.48|0.61
84721079|NCT03345979|169193949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84721080|NCT03345979|169193949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
84721081|NCT00734578|169193971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.5||||0.002||95.0|-7.5|-1.4||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-1.4|-7.5|0.002
84721082|NCT00734578|169193971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.3|-2.3||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-2.3|-8.3|<0.001
84721083|NCT00734578|169193972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.024
84721084|NCT00734578|169193972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.003
84721085|NCT00734578|169193973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.013
84721086|NCT00734578|169193973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
84721087|NCT00734578|169193974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-1.7||||0.019||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.3|-3.2|0.019
84721088|NCT00734578|169193974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-1.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.1|-4.0|<0.001
84721089|NCT00734578|169193975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.002||95.0|-4.0|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-4.0|0.002
84721090|NCT00734578|169193975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-1.5||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
84721091|NCT00734578|169193976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
84721092|NCT00734578|169193976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
84721093|NCT00734578|169193977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.001||95.0|-3.9|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-3.9|0.001
84721094|NCT00734578|169193977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.2||||0.003||95.0|-3.6|-0.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.7|-3.6|0.003
84721095|NCT00734578|169193978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-2.2|-8.0|<0.001
84721096|NCT00734578|169193978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.7||||0.002||95.0|-7.6|-1.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.7|-7.6|0.002
84721097|NCT00734578|169193979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.971||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.971
84721098|NCT00734578|169193979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.502||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.502
84721099|NCT02095145|169193981|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.190
84721100|NCT02095145|169193981|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
84721101|NCT02095145|169193984|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.948
84721102|NCT02095145|169193984|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.711
84721103|NCT02095145|169193984|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.038
84721104|NCT02095145|169193984|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.445
84721105|NCT02095145|169193985|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.743
84721106|NCT02095145|169193985|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.305
84721107|NCT02095145|169193985|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.111
84721108|NCT02095145|169193985|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.395
84721109|NCT02095145|169193986|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 13||||0.743
84721110|NCT02095145|169193986|OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 26||||0.527
84721111|NCT02095145|169193986|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 39||||0.879
84721112|NCT02095145|169193986|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 52||||0.810
84721113|NCT02095145|169193987|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Comparison of both arms at baseline||||0.556
84721114|NCT02095145|169193987|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at Week 26||||0.647
84721115|NCT02095145|169193987|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at end of study, week 52||||0.948
84721116|NCT02095145|169193988|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.580
84721117|NCT02095145|169193989|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Benign core p-value||||0.344
84721118|NCT02095145|169193989|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Adjacent core p-value||||0.371
84721119|NCT02095145|169193989|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Tumor core p-value||||0.766
84721120|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Nuc)||||0.304
84721121|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Nuc)||||0.230
84721122|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Nuc)||||0.298
84721123|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cyt)||||0.247
84721124|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cyt)||||0.093
84721125|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cyt)||||0.066
84721126|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cell)||||0.247
84721127|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cell)||||0.128
84721128|NCT02095145|169193990|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cell)||||0.128
84721129|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.297
84721130|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.233
84721131|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.371
84721132|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.198
84721133|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.233
84721134|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.074
84721135|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.234
84721136|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.233
84721137|NCT02095145|169193991|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.233
84721138|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.167
84721139|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.391
84721140|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.713
84721141|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.452
84721142|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.391
84721143|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.713
84721144|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.344
84721145|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.391
84721146|NCT02095145|169193992|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.713
84721147|NCT02095145|169193993|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.865
84721148|NCT02095145|169193993|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||1.000
84721149|NCT02095145|169193993|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.066
84721150|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||1.000
84721151|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.903
84721152|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||1.000
84721153|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.269
84721154|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
84721155|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||1.000
84721156|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.425
84721157|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.270
84721158|NCT02095145|169193994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||1.000
84721159|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.625
84721160|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.128
84721161|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.045
84721162|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.105
84721163|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
84721164|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.005
84721165|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.129
84721166|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.066
84721167|NCT02095145|169193995|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.013
84721168|NCT02095145|169193996|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.143
84721169|NCT02095145|169193996|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||0.037
84721170|NCT02095145|169193996|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.111
84721171|NCT02095145|169193997|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||0.068
84721172|NCT02095145|169193997|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.004
84721173|NCT02095145|169193997|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.002
84721174|NCT02095145|169193997|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||<0.001
84721175|NCT02095145|169193998|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||1.000
84721176|NCT02095145|169193998|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.180
84721177|NCT02095145|169193998|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.620
84721178|NCT02095145|169193998|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||0.536
84721179|NCT02095145|169194000|OTHER|||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Tumor Volume from baseline to end of study per arm||||0.231
84721180|NCT03335488|169194030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|0.0|1.0000
84721181|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 1||||0.8464
84721182|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 2||||0.1040
84721183|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 3||||0.0979
84721184|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9808|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 0 Hr||||0.9808
84721185|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 4 Hr||||0.8329
84721186|NCT03335488|169194032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2544|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 8 Hr||||0.2544
84721187|NCT03335488|169194033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8579||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.8579
84721188|NCT03335488|169194034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7155||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.7155
84721189|NCT03758742|169194055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
84721190|NCT03387189|169194124|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||0.91|0.17|0.031
84721191|NCT03387189|169194125|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.03|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||4.03|0.53|0.465
84721192|NCT03387189|169194126|SUPERIORITY|alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.5|-20.4|0.01
84721193|NCT03387189|169194127|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-76.0|0.75
84721194|NCT03387189|169194128|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
84721195|NCT03387189|169194131|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.116||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.01|0.10
84721196|NCT03387189|169194133|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|17.8|||Fisher Exact|||||17.8|-0.12|0.81
84721197|NCT03387189|169194134|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||0.13|-0.11|1.0
84721198|NCT02502461|169194177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7||Bonferroni correction|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|0.1|0.04
84721199|NCT03697603|169194179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.1|-2.7|0.0312
84721200|NCT03697603|169194179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.4|-3.0|0.0089
84721201|NCT03697603|169194180|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.8|-2.8|0.1964
84721202|NCT03697603|169194180|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.7|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.7|-2.8|0.1969
84721203|NCT04119063|169194187|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
84721204|NCT04119063|169194188|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84721205|NCT04119063|169194189|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
84721206|NCT04119063|169194190|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
84721207|NCT04119063|169194191|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
84721208|NCT00145470|169194214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257||||||P-value based on the difference in the least squares (LS) means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0257
84721209|NCT00145470|169194217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 42||||0.0210
84721210|NCT00145470|169194218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0073
84721211|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3928
84721212|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.7923
84721213|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.0701
84721214|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1634|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.1634
84721215|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0370
84721216|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0488
84721217|NCT00145470|169194219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0152
84721218|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3709|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3709
84721219|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.8837
84721220|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.1153
84721221|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.0158
84721222|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0143
84721223|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0196
84721224|NCT00145470|169194220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0148
84721225|NCT00145470|169194221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0046
84721226|NCT00145470|169194222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0006
84721227|NCT00145470|169194223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3497
84721228|NCT00145470|169194224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7753||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.7753
84721229|NCT00145470|169194225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0073
84721230|NCT00145470|169194226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0102
84721231|NCT00145470|169194227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3684||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3684
84721232|NCT00145470|169194228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9370
84721233|NCT00145470|169194229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2492||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.2492
84721234|NCT00145470|169194230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4683
84721235|NCT00145470|169194231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.5683
84721236|NCT00145470|169194232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9693
84721237|NCT00145470|169194233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6136||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.6136
84721238|NCT00145470|169194234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1586||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1586
84721239|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.0550
84721240|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7469
84721241|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3253||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 21||||0.3253
84721242|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 21||||0.3885
84721243|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5975||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 21||||0.5975
84721244|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 21||||0.0690
84721245|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7970
84721246|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 21||||0.8339
84721247|NCT00145470|169194235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.2101
84721248|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6914||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.6914
84721249|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8805||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8805
84721250|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4878||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 84||||0.4878
84721251|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8051||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 84||||0.8051
84721252|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1925||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 84||||0.1925
84721253|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 84||||0.0514
84721254|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9898||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.9898
84721255|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 84||||0.5683
84721256|NCT00145470|169194236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8907||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8907
84721257|NCT00145470|169194237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0613
84721258|NCT00145470|169194238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7493||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.7493
84721259|NCT00145470|169194239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4884
84721260|NCT00145470|169194240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.1280
84721261|NCT00145470|169194240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0215
84721262|NCT00145470|169194241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1331
84721263|NCT00145470|169194241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.2024
84721264|NCT04762277|169194242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.4|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||23.4|-31.7|
84721265|NCT04762277|169194243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.5|-38.8|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-38.8|-154.5|
84721266|NCT04762277|169194244|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.339|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.339|-0.129|
84721267|NCT04762277|169194245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-2.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.3|-25.6|
84721268|NCT04762277|169194246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-2.7|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as : Spesolimab- Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.7|-36.9|
84721269|NCT04762277|169194247|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.186|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.186|-0.132|
84721270|NCT04762277|169194248|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.338|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.338|-0.067|
84721271|NCT04762277|169194249|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.375|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.375|-0.079|
84721272|NCT04762277|169194250|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.089|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.089|-0.331|
84721273|NCT04762277|169194251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||4.3|-4.4|
84721274|NCT04762277|169194252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.9|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||6.9|-9.5|
84721275|NCT03147287|169194279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.55||We reported two-sided p-values corresponding to two-sided α level of 0.10. The test statistic and p-value were taken from the Cox proportional hazards model score test.|Log Rank|The SAP intended stratified tests and models, however one stratum was only 9 patients making implementation of stratification questionable.|We checked the proportional hazards assumption by visually assessing the plot of log( log(survival)) vs log of survival times according to treatment assignment for parallelism. This was done overall and according to stratum.|The primary objective was investigated by comparing the PFS distributions between two treatment arms using a logrank test with one-sided α level of 0.05 (H0: PFS1≤PFS2; HA: PFS1\>PFS2). Hazard ratios were estimated from a Cox PH model (F+P / F, so that HR\<1 indicates reduced hazard of PFS event with F+P), with two sided 90% CIs (Wald) to align with the design and testing.||1.55|0.79|0.62
84721276|NCT03147287|169194280|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is two sided, for hypothesis test with two-sided α=0.10|Fisher Exact|||The objective response was reported with two-sided 90% CI and compared between two treatment arms using a (unstratified) Fisher's exact test;||||1.000
84721277|NCT00047385|169194326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|0.932||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||"Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduces lung cancer mortality relative to chest x-ray.~Power: 90% for a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality."||0.932|0.733|0.004
84721278|NCT00047385|169194327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.988||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Only one analysis performed.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduced all-cause mortality relative to chest x-ray.||0.988|0.864|0.02
84721279|NCT00047385|169194328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.23|||||Denominator: LDCT Group Numerator: CXR Group|||1.23|1.03|
84721280|NCT01009645|169194351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The first contrast assessed whether or not the three newly created messages (Fact Only (FO), Fact/Myth (FM), and Fact/Myth/Refutation (FMR)) were as a group significantly different than the control message.||||<0.05
84721281|NCT01009645|169194351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The second contrast assessed whether the FO and FMR conditions were significantly different from the FM message.||||<0.05
84721282|NCT01009645|169194351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The third contrast assessed whether the FO and the FMR message conditions were significantly different.||||<0.05
84721283|NCT01009645|169194352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|used Scheffe's post-hoc analysis||||||<0.05
84721284|NCT03883724|169194362|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in NPi pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||0.3
84721285|NCT03883724|169194363|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome|||||<|0.01||||||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between groups BBTI vs IC|ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||<.01
84721286|NCT03883724|169194364|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||0.3
84721287|NCT00229970|169194399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.022||95.0|0.01|0.16|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.16|0.01|0.022
84721288|NCT00229970|169194399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.24|0.09|<0.001
84721289|NCT03739866|169194400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84721290|NCT03739866|169194400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84721291|NCT03739866|169194400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84721292|NCT03739866|169194400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84721293|NCT03739866|169194400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84721294|NCT01968967|169194414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-54.0|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-54.0|-58.3|<0.001
84721295|NCT01968967|169194415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-33.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.5|-36.5|<0.001
84721296|NCT01968967|169194415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-29.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.8|-33.3|
84721297|NCT01968967|169194415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-22.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.8|-26.6|
84721298|NCT01968967|169194416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-48.8|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.8|-52.9|<0.001
84721299|NCT01968967|169194416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-43.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.8|-48.5|
84721300|NCT01968967|169194416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-33.6||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.6|-38.6|
84721301|NCT01968967|169194417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-48.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-52.1|<0.001
84721302|NCT01968967|169194417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-43.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.1|-47.9|
84721303|NCT01968967|169194417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-33.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.3|-38.5|
84721304|NCT01968967|169194418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-55.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.2|-60.2|<0.001
84721305|NCT01968967|169194418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-50.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-50.0|-56.1|
84721306|NCT01968967|169194418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-46.2|
84721307|NCT01968967|169194419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-47.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-47.7|-55.9|<0.001
84721308|NCT01968967|169194419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-38.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-38.8|-49.1|
84721309|NCT01968967|169194419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-29.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.0|-40.2|
84721310|NCT01968967|169194420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.5|-34.4|<0.001
84721311|NCT01968967|169194420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-21.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.5|-40.6|
84721312|NCT01968967|169194420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-13.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.7|-36.8|
84721313|NCT01968967|169194421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.0|4.5|<0.001
84721314|NCT01968967|169194421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|6.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.8|4.2|
84721315|NCT01968967|169194421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.7|3.7|
84721316|NCT01968967|169194422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-48.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-53.3|
84721317|NCT01968967|169194422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-37.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-37.8|-43.5|
84721318|NCT01968967|169194423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
84721319|NCT01968967|169194423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
84721320|NCT01968967|169194423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
84721321|NCT01968967|169194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.3|2.4|
84721322|NCT01968967|169194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|4.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.5|2.5|
84721323|NCT01968967|169194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.9||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.9|2.7|
84721324|NCT01968967|169194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||1.4|-0.9|
84721325|NCT01968967|169194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.3|-0.1|
84721326|NCT01968967|169194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|0.3|
84721327|NCT01968967|169194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
84721328|NCT01968967|169194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
84721329|NCT01968967|169194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
84721330|NCT01968967|169194427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-57.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.6|-63.1|
84721331|NCT01968967|169194428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-57.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.3|-68.3|
84721332|NCT01968967|169194429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-58.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-58.5|-63.5|
84721333|NCT01968967|169194430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|-60.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.9|-66.6|
84535716|NCT02036775|168819558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
84721334|NCT01968967|169194431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-63.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.6|-69.3|
84721335|NCT01968967|169194432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-43.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.9|-47.7|
84721336|NCT01968967|169194433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-9.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.3|-11.8|
84721337|NCT01968967|169194434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.3|2.1|
84721338|NCT01968967|169194435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.6|
84721339|NCT01968967|169194435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.5|
84721340|NCT01968967|169194435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.0|-1.2|
84721341|NCT01968967|169194436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
84721342|NCT01968967|169194436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
84721343|NCT01968967|169194436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.3|
84721344|NCT01968967|169194437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|38.02||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||38.02|19.21|
84721345|NCT01968967|169194437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|16.86||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||16.86|9.84|
84721346|NCT01968967|169194437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|8.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||8.06|4.99|
84721347|NCT01968967|169194438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.74|121.25||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||121.25|61.74|
84721348|NCT01968967|169194438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.83|47.96||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||47.96|26.83|
84721349|NCT01968967|169194438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|34.47||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||34.47|18.90|
84721350|NCT01604824|169194460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.486|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.31|-28.12||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.12|-79.31|= 0.0009
84721351|NCT01604824|169194460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.965|=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.21|17.35||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||17.35|-69.21|= 0.0056
84721352|NCT01604824|169194461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.39|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||-22.7|-76.39|= 0.0021
84721353|NCT01604824|169194461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876|=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.36|18.92||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||18.92|-70.36|= 0.0045
84721354|NCT01604824|169194462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.487|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.96|-23.77||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-23.77|-74.96|= 0.0016
84721355|NCT01604824|169194462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.471|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.12|15.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||15.60|-65.12|= 0.0063
84721356|NCT01604824|169194463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.224|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.85|-14.66||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-14.66|-46.85|= 0.0017
84721357|NCT01604824|169194463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294|=|0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-7.34||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-37.11|= 0.0096
84721358|NCT01604824|169194464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.867|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.71|-27.74||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.74|-71.71|= 0.0005
84721359|NCT01604824|169194464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.545|=|0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.63|-22.03||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-22.03|-76.63|= 0.0037
84721360|NCT04218864|169194522|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Linear Mixed regression models (LMM) have been used to identify any difference between the intervention and the control groups over time with regards to the continuous outcomes. Group (intervention vs. control), a 5-category time (baseline, 6 week, 3 month, 6 month, 12 month) and group-by-time interaction are covariates in the model. A random subject intercept is used to account for clustering within subject.||||>0.05
84721361|NCT04218864|169194523|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
84721362|NCT04218864|169194524|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
84721363|NCT04218864|169194525|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome.||||>0.05
84721364|NCT04218864|169194526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical Analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome measure.||||>0.05
84721365|NCT00989196|169194668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the comparison of the PK profile of Human-cl rhFVIII with Kogenate, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio or log-ratio of Human-cl rhFVIII over Kogenate for selected, dose independent or dose adjusted, PK parameters will be presented. In addition a formal statistical procedure will test whether the ratio of mean AUCs is within a 80 to 125% range to show bioequivalence.|Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.107||||||||1.107|0.874|
84721366|NCT02409680|169194692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on preterm delivery.||0.98|0.81|0.012
84721367|NCT02409680|169194693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.94|0.299
84721368|NCT02409680|169194694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|0.171
84721369|NCT02409680|169194695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.048
84721370|NCT02409680|169194696|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.73|0.125
84721371|NCT02409680|169194697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.60|0.900
84721372|NCT02409680|169194698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.84|0.274
84721373|NCT02409680|169194699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.78|0.32|0.512
84721374|NCT02409680|169194700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.31|0.45|0.331
84721375|NCT02409680|169194702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.85|0.17|0.015
84721376|NCT02409680|169194703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.61|0.039
84721377|NCT02409680|169194704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.87|0.073
84721378|NCT02409680|169194705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.57|0.084
84721379|NCT02409680|169194706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.039
84721380|NCT02409680|169194707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.10|0.70|0.261
84721381|NCT02409680|169194708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.68|0.141
84721382|NCT02409680|169194709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.88|0.157
84721383|NCT06072170|169194739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|0.998||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.998|0.659|
84721384|NCT06072170|169194739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.843|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.973||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.973|0.713|
84721385|NCT06072170|169194739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.984||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.984|0.637|
84721386|NCT06072170|169194739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.814|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.994||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.994|0.633|
84721387|NCT06072170|169194739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.039||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.039|0.720|
84721388|NCT06072170|169194741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.123||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.123|0.768|
84721389|NCT06072170|169194741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.821|
84721390|NCT06072170|169194741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.249||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.249|0.901|
84721391|NCT06072170|169194741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.222||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.222|0.870|
84721392|NCT06072170|169194741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.178||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.178|0.844|
84721393|NCT06072170|169194742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.143||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.143|0.775|
84721394|NCT06072170|169194742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.815|
84721395|NCT06072170|169194742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.207||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.207|0.866|
84721396|NCT06072170|169194742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.145||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.145|0.790|
84721397|NCT06072170|169194742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|1.191||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.191|0.859|
84721398|NCT06072170|169194746|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|30.78||||||||30.78|6.16|
84721399|NCT06072170|169194749|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squared Mean|45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|61.67|||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for High Visual Analog Scale (Emax)||61.67|30.20|<0.001
84721400|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|0.939|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.939|0.485|
84721401|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.911|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.911|0.467|
84721402|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.051|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||1.051|0.517|
84721403|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.02|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||1.020|0.497|
84721404|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.973|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.973|0.567|
84721405|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.943|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.943|0.547|
84721406|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.896|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.896|0.353|
84721407|NCT03678688|169194750|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.871|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.871|0.338|
84721408|NCT03678688|169194790|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|3.175|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||3.175|0.626|
84721409|NCT03678688|169194790|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.151|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.151|0.362|
84721410|NCT03678688|169194790|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.656|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||2.656|0.736|
84721411|NCT03678688|169194790|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|2.206|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.206|0.564|
84721412|NCT02962284|169194852|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
84721413|NCT01767688|169194857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.11|0.79|
84721414|NCT01767688|169194858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.10|0.81|
84721415|NCT01767688|169194859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.28|0.51|
84721416|NCT01767688|169194860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.15|0.93|
84721417|NCT00982072|169194888|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
84721418|NCT01583166|169194894|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.837
84721419|NCT00887224|169194897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Significance declared if p-value ≤0.05. The estimated probability obtained via Kaplan-Meier estimate.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84721420|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.08|-0.09|0.9627
84721421|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.21|-0.02|0.1046
84721422|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.25|0.02|0.0228
84721423|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||0.29|0.05|0.0064
84721424|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||0.39|0.11|<0.001
84721425|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.43||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||0.43|0.12|<0.001
84721426|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||0.47|0.19|<0.001
84721427|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||0.49|0.17|<0.001
84721428|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.62||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||0.62|0.25|<0.001
84721429|NCT00887224|169194899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||0.61|0.28|<0.001
84721430|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.47|-0.41|0.8853
84721431|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.52||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||1.52|0.23|0.0081
84721432|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||1.47|0.28|0.0038
84721433|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||2.03|0.76|<0.001
84721434|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||2.39|0.86|<0.001
84721435|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.54||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||2.54|0.83|<0.001
84721436|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.86||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||2.86|1.23|<0.001
84721437|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.84||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||2.84|1.06|<0.001
84721438|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.3||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||3.30|1.31|<0.001
84721439|NCT00887224|169194900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||3.32|1.39|<0.001
84721440|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.27|-0.24|0.9142
84721441|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.91|0.15|0.0069
84721442|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.95||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.95|0.21|0.0023
84721443|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||1.28|0.49|<0.001
84721444|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||1.32|0.43|<0.001
84721445|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||1.58|0.58|<0.001
84721446|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||1.58|0.66|<0.001
84721447|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||1.83|0.76|<0.001
84721448|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||1.76|0.70|<0.001
84721449|NCT00887224|169194901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||1.79|0.75|<0.001
84721450|NCT00887224|169194902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted odds ratio|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.2||Obtained from logistic regression analysis using Remission (Yes/No) at each time point as a response variable; logistic model with treatment and sites as factors and baseline HAM-D17 total score as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Wald 95% CI for adjusted odds ratio.||4.20|1.93|<0.0001
84721451|NCT00887224|169194903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||-1.24|-3.03|<0.001
84721452|NCT00887224|169194903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.34||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||-1.34|-3.29|<0.001
84721453|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|5.87||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Absenteeism||5.87|-3.82|0.6772
84721454|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Absenteeism||5.24|-5.91|0.9059
84721455|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.91||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.55||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Presenteeism||13.55|0.27|0.0414
84721456|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|14.71||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Presenteeism||14.71|1.77|0.0129
84721457|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Work Productivity Loss||14.61|0.34|0.0402
84721458|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|15.53||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Work Productivity Loss||15.53|1.43|0.0187
84721459|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.8||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Activity Impairment||11.80|3.33|<0.001
84721460|NCT00887224|169194904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|12.1||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Activity Impairment||12.10|3.14|<0.001
84721461|NCT01429454|169194912|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.51
84721462|NCT01429454|169194913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
84721463|NCT02000752|169194914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|7.59||||t-test, 1 sided||||||7.59|<0.001
84721464|NCT02000752|169194915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84721465|NCT02000752|169194916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|2.13||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.01||||t-test, 1 sided||||||1.01|0.16
84721466|NCT02000752|169194917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.84||||t-test, 2 sided||||||0.84|0.2
84721467|NCT00790699|169194924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||RM-ANOVA|||The results were evaluated to determine if any statistically significant changes in any of these measures between the first and final visit occurred and if these changes were associated with membership in the treatment or control group.||||>.05
84721468|NCT03732807|169194925|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.11|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.17|37.91|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.91|21.17|<0.000001
84721469|NCT03732807|169194925|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.78|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|29.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||29.18|13.65|<0.000001
84721470|NCT03732807|169194925|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|21.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|30.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||30.23|14.65|<0.000001
84721471|NCT03732807|169194925|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.75||||0.000154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|20.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||20.36|6.69|0.000154
84721472|NCT03732807|169194926|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|19.75|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.91|27.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||27.59|11.91|<0.000001
84721473|NCT03732807|169194926|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.33||||0.000526||95.0|4.93|17.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||17.74|4.93|0.000526
84721474|NCT03732807|169194926|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.88||||0.000311||95.0|5.42|18.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||18.33|5.42|0.000311
84721475|NCT03732807|169194926|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.09||||0.002922||95.0|3.1|15.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||15.07|3.10|0.002922
84721476|NCT03732807|169194927|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.24|||<|1e-06||95.0|13.23|28.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.49|13.23|<0.000001
84721477|NCT03732807|169194927|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.68||||0.000337||95.0|5.82|19.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.07|5.82|0.000337
84721478|NCT03732807|169194927|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.17||||0.000228||95.0|6.27|19.53|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.53|6.27|0.000228
84721479|NCT03732807|169194927|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.39||||0.001875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|16.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.46|3.86|0.001875
84721480|NCT03732807|169194928|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|42.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.68|54.25|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||54.25|31.68|<0.000001
84721481|NCT03732807|169194928|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|36.18|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.22|47.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||47.14|25.22|<0.000001
84721482|NCT03732807|169194928|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|39.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|51.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||51.06|28.85|<0.000001
84721483|NCT03732807|169194928|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|32.72|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|43.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||43.50|21.95|<0.000001
84721484|NCT03392194|169194948|OTHER|The purpose of this small pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess feasibility and acceptability of conducting community based sleep hygiene and yoga interventions, to be scaled and tested in a future, larger RCT.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|50.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Due to main findings, analysis to explore potential mediators of effect were not pursued, despite original plan to explore explanatory variables.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in change in sleep duration between the two intervention arms.||50.39|-46.35|0.932
84721485|NCT01079806|169194957|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|20.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||31.4|9.1|0.0049
84721486|NCT01079806|169194958|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|54.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||54.2|29.4|<0.0001
84721487|NCT01079806|169194959|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.2|61.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||61.2|29.2|<0.0001
84721488|NCT01079806|169194960|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|50.5|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||50.5|25.9|<0.0001
84721489|NCT01079806|169194961|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|12.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|25.7|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||25.7|-1.5|0.11
84721490|NCT05553366|169194979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84721491|NCT05553366|169194980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
84721492|NCT05553366|169194981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0016
84721493|NCT05553366|169194982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1315
84721494|NCT05553366|169194983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0343
84721495|NCT05553366|169194984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0014
84721496|NCT05553366|169194985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
84721497|NCT05553366|169194986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8592
84721498|NCT05553366|169194987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9143
84721499|NCT05553366|169194988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0205
84721500|NCT03274076|169195004|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|8.33|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib.||8.33|0.19|
84721501|NCT03274076|169195005|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.71|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Tofacitinib||1.71|0.25|
84721502|NCT03274076|169195005|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|1.07|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Tofacitinib||1.07|0.26|
84721503|NCT03274076|169195005|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.49|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||1.49|0.49|
84721504|NCT03274076|169195005|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.52|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||1.52|0.52|
84721505|NCT03274076|169195006|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|21.77|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||21.77|0.68|
84721506|NCT03274076|169195006|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5169|6.7652|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||6.7652|0.5169|
84721507|NCT03274076|169195007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1978|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.1978
84721508|NCT03274076|169195007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4665|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4665
84721509|NCT03274076|169195007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in Tofacitinib.||||0.3063
84721510|NCT03274076|169195007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.6000
84721511|NCT03274076|169195008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4535|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 12 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4535
84721512|NCT03274076|169195008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8392|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 24 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.8392
84721513|NCT03274076|169195008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 48 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.9212
84721514|NCT02909959|169195009|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.331|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.331
84721515|NCT02909959|169195010|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.98
84721516|NCT02909959|169195011|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.797|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.797
84721517|NCT02909959|169195012|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.442
84721518|NCT02909959|169195013|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.373|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.373
84721519|NCT01034306|169195072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||normal approximation to the binomial test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0352
84721520|NCT01034306|169195073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2472
84721521|NCT01034306|169195074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1972
84721522|NCT01953692|169195081|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||>0.9999
84721523|NCT01953692|169195082|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||>0.9999
84721524|NCT01953692|169195083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||0.0306
84721525|NCT01953692|169195084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7696||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||0.7696
84721526|NCT02157948|169195181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Testing: The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for assessing non-inferiority.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
84721527|NCT02157948|169195181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Testing: The lower and upper bounds of the same 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference were compared with the equivalence margin of ±1.44% for assessing equivalence.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||Two-sided p-value based on the prespecified equivalence margin of ±1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
84721528|NCT03617835|169195186|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.48|111.8|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||111.80|78.48|
84721529|NCT03617835|169195186|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.26|167.03|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.03|117.26|
84721530|NCT03617835|169195187|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.08|145.41|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.41|102.08|
84721531|NCT03617835|169195188|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|117.39|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||117.39|83.77|
84721532|NCT03617835|169195188|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|156.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.95|184.9|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||184.90|131.95|
84721533|NCT03617835|169195189|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|138.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.87|163.77|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||163.77|116.87|
84721534|NCT03617835|169195190|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.11|112.11|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||112.11|78.11|
84721535|NCT03617835|169195190|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.64|167.4|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.40|116.64|
84721536|NCT03617835|169195191|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.28|145.37|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.37|101.28|
84721537|NCT04248803|169195204|NON_INFERIORITY|From the above mentioned non inferiority clinical trial it is hypothesized that GLUMA application will reduce postoperative sensitivity during dental restorative procedures.||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was estimated to be 504 using G Power software with 95% power and alpha value set to 0.05. The participants were randomly divided to 6 groups with randomizer.org. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 23 software to compare the mean pain scores between the six study groups using kruskal Wallis test.||||0.05
84721538|NCT00799409|169195350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-22.3||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.3|-35.0|<0.0001
84721539|NCT00799409|169195351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.2|-34.4|<0.0001
84721540|NCT00799409|169195352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.4||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||7.4|4.3|<0.0001
84721541|NCT00799409|169195353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|6.5||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||6.5|3.8|<0.0001
84721542|NCT00799409|169195354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.3||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||13.3|8.7|<0.0001
84721543|NCT00799409|169195355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.59||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.59|-3.72|<0.0001
84721544|NCT00799409|169195356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-16.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|-12.06||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-12.06|-19.99|<0.0001
84721545|NCT00799409|169195357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-17.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-17.47|-27.43|<0.0001
84721546|NCT00799409|169195358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.16||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.16|-1.69|0.1800
84721547|NCT00799409|169195359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.4||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.40|-2.25|0.0057
84721548|NCT00799409|169195360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|1.44||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||1.44|-14.05|0.1091
84721549|NCT00799409|169195361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.20|-0.70|0.2653
84721550|NCT00799409|169195362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-2.17||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.17|-10.81|0.0038
84721551|NCT00799409|169195363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.75||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-2.53||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.53|-6.96|0.0001
84721552|NCT00799409|169195364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-1.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-1.47|-10.04|0.0092
84721553|NCT00799409|169195365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.33|-0.37|0.9195
84721554|NCT00799409|169195366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-19.39||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-19.39|-59.70|0.0002
84721555|NCT00799409|169195367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.04||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.04|-0.13|0.0002
84721556|NCT00799409|169195368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.03|-0.07|0.4625
84721557|NCT00799409|169195369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.05|-0.09|0.6262
84721558|NCT00799409|169195370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.08|-0.08|0.9980
84721559|NCT00799409|169195371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.02|-0.19|0.0151
84721560|NCT00799409|169195372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.03|-0.15|0.0043
84721561|NCT00799409|169195373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.00|-0.08|0.0371
84721562|NCT00799409|169195374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.01|-0.06|0.0965
84721563|NCT03137459|169195375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.105|||||Analysis performed using GEE to account for clustering of participants within practices.|||.105|.014|
84721564|NCT03137459|169195375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||||Determined using mixed effects models, accounting for clustering of participants in practices and adjusting for unbalanced covariates: education, employment, stage of change for each ACP behavior|||2.93|1.14|
84721565|NCT03137459|169195376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.15|||||Adjusted for clustering|||.150|.014|
84721566|NCT03137459|169195376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.0|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as described in primary outcome|||2.0|.96|
84721567|NCT03137459|169195377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.201|||||Accounting for clustering|||.201|.066|
84721568|NCT03137459|169195377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as presenting for primary outcome|||2.47|1.22|
84721569|NCT03137459|169195378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.188||||||||.188|-.05|
84721570|NCT03137459|169195378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.85|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusting for covariates as described for primary outcome|||1.85|.72|
84721571|NCT04323800|169195379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value|Restricted Mean Survival Test statistic|||||||0.42
84721572|NCT04323800|169195380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.0|||Chi-squared|||||19|-31|0.67
84721573|NCT04323800|169195381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-47.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-100|0.06
84721574|NCT00731692|169195383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.80|0.544
84721575|NCT04921358|169195398|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% Tumor Cells (TC) vs \>=1% TC).|||1.39|0.75|
84721576|NCT04921358|169195399|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||1.07|0.62|
84721577|NCT04921358|169195400|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||0.83|0.50|
84721578|NCT02310581|169195423|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2433||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.13|184.81|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||184.81|25.13|0.012
84721579|NCT02310581|169195423|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5385||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|162.69|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||162.69|9.94|0.028
84721580|NCT02310581|169195423|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2459||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|144.33|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||144.33|-15.36|0.110
84721581|NCT02310581|169195426|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.739||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|24.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||24.04|4.76|0.005
84721582|NCT02310581|169195426|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5331||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|17.28|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||17.28|-1.17|0.085
84721583|NCT02310581|169195426|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7393||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|19.7|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||19.70|0.42|0.041
84721584|NCT02310581|169195427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1991||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|43.35|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||43.35|9.98|0003
84721585|NCT02310581|169195427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8429||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|37.56|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||37.56|5.65|0.009
84721586|NCT02310581|169195427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1997||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|38.83|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||38.83|5.46|0.011
84721587|NCT02310581|169195428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3971||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.45|101.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||101.31|26.45|0.001
84721588|NCT02310581|169195428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5979||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|86.09|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||86.09|14.48|0.007
84721589|NCT02310581|169195428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3984||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.45|94.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||94.31|19.45|0.004
84721590|NCT01256359|169195433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.498|1.138||p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.|Regression, Cox||HR is Adjusted for M status, performance status|||1.138|0.498|0.130
84721591|NCT01256359|169195433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.723||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.465|1.123|||Regression, Cox||This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome. This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status||1.123|0.465|0.113
84721592|NCT01256359|169195433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||This analysis assesses if allowing for interval censoring is consistent with the primary outcome results.|Generalised log-rank|Generalised log-rank taking into account interval censoring, analysed using SAS package version 9.2. Method by Zhao and Sun, 2004||This is a sensitivity analysis, including all 83 randomised patients. Patients are assessed periodically for the response (progression), the time when the event occurred is not directly observed but is known to take place within some time interval. Progression is known only to have occurred at some time between visits, the exact time is not known. We carried out interval censored analysis to demonstrate if allowing for interval censoring gives a different interpretation of the primary outcome.||||0.3016
84721593|NCT01256359|169195433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.348||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.602|3.016|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted for centre|Sensitivity analysis adjusting for centre. All 83 randomised patients were included in analysis. Centres were the three biggest recruiters and all other 13 centres are combined.||3.016|0.602|0.305
84721594|NCT01256359|169195434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|31.4|||Log Rank||This is the estimated difference in PFS rate i.e. % difference between arms|||31.4|-3.4|0.187
84721595|NCT01256359|169195435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|2.369|||Regression, Cox|p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.||||2.369|0.797|0.169
84721596|NCT01256359|169195436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Objective response rate calculated as number of patients with CR or PR over all patients randomised.||||0.059
84721597|NCT01256359|169195437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score||1.84|0.71|0.318
84721598|NCT01256359|169195475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.649|1.612|||Regression, Cox||Analysis Adjusted for M status, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome.||1.612|0.649|0.468
84721599|NCT01256359|169195476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.468|1.109|||Regression, Cox||Analysis was adjusted for mstatus, performance status|This is the per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome.||1.109|0.468|0.106
84721600|NCT01256359|169195477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.53||p-value is for the interaction term|Regression, Cox||HRs (95% CI) between treatment groups are given for Wild type and NRAS mutated separately. The above HR is for WT.|Model with interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables||1.53|0.25|0.824
84721601|NCT01256359|169195478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.6||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.60|0.16|0.072
84721602|NCT01256359|169195478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.33|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.33|0.73|
84721603|NCT01256359|169195480|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.68|0.348
84721604|NCT01256359|169195481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.58||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.58|0.24|0.797
84721605|NCT01256359|169195481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.45|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||1.45|0.350|
84721606|NCT01256359|169195482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97||Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables. p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox||"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.97|0.18|0.120
84721607|NCT01256359|169195482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.38|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.38|0.73|
84721608|NCT03960645|169195484|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|41.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.71|46.32||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio (%).||46.32|36.71|
84721609|NCT03960645|169195484|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.04|49.79||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.79|40.04|
84721610|NCT03960645|169195484|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|40.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.77|44.76||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||44.76|36.77|
84721611|NCT03960645|169195484|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.95|49.34||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.34|39.95|
84721612|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.45|71.56||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||71.56|63.45|
84721613|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.95|67.75||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||67.75|60.95|
84721614|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.88|72.66||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||72.66|65.88|
84535717|NCT02036775|168819558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|85.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|91.22|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||91.22|80.23|
84721615|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|65.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.79|68.57||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.57|61.79|
84721616|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|92.14||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||92.14|65.40|
84721617|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.76|76.96||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||76.96|50.76|
84721618|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.57|82.88||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.88|58.57|
84721619|NCT03960645|169195485|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|56.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|68.96||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.96|46.32|
84721620|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|51.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|57.97||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||57.97|46.48|
84721621|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.48|63.36||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||63.36|52.48|
84721622|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.03|53.94||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||53.94|43.03|
84721623|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|54.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.39|61.21||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||61.21|48.39|
84721624|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|75.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.7|85.7||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.70|66.70|
84721625|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.76|88.05||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||88.05|68.76|
84721626|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|85.29||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.29|70.33|
84721627|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|85.15||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.15|69.78|
84721628|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.16|87.0||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||87.00|56.16|
84721629|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.79|82.34||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.34|53.79|
84721630|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.04|70.91||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.91|46.04|
84721631|NCT03960645|169195487|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|55.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.65|68.42||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.42|44.65|
84721632|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.45|31.93||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||31.93|21.45|
84721633|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.23|32.78||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.78|22.23|
84721634|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.74|32.74||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.74|25.74|
84721635|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.47|33.93||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||33.93|26.47|
84721636|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.63|75.49||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||75.49|54.63|
84721637|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|42.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.55|50.34||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||50.34|36.55|
84721638|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|70.61||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.61|59.30|
84721639|NCT03960645|169195488|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.57|55.64||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||55.64|39.57|
84721640|NCT04938453|169195497|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|106.69|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.69|90.87|
84721641|NCT04938453|169195498|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|100.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.05|118.24|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||118.24|85.05|
84721642|NCT04938453|169195499|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.35|107.12|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.12|91.35|
84721643|NCT00487240|169195515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a two-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 with 90% power assuming a 1.1 Standard Deviations (SD)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.332||95.0|-0.29|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|Hypothesis: basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), is inferior to basal analog insulin detemir, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint.||0.10|-0.29|0.332
84721644|NCT00487240|169195516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.718||95.0|-0.22|0.15||P-value for 8 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference=Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.22|0.718
84721645|NCT00487240|169195516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.187||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.07|-0.34|0.187
84721646|NCT00487240|169195516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.704||95.0|-0.25|0.17||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.17|-0.25|0.704
84721647|NCT00487240|169195516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.599||95.0|-0.27|0.15||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.27|0.599
84721648|NCT00487240|169195517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84721649|NCT00487240|169195517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84721650|NCT00487240|169195517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
84721651|NCT00487240|169195517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
84721652|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.259
84721653|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.468
84721654|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.395
84721655|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning and Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.414
84721656|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.275
84721657|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.611
84721658|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.763
84721659|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.977
84721660|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.586
84721661|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.093
84721662|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.516
84721663|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.576
84721664|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||P-value for Midday SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.876
84721665|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for Evening SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.261
84721666|NCT00487240|169195518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.567
84721667|NCT00487240|169195519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.8 mmol/L was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||||95.0|-0.03|0.75|||||Least Squares Mean difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension - Detemir|If the primary analysis achieves statistical significance at a 0.05 level (that is, the null hypothesis for the primary analysis \[primary outcome measure\] is rejected), then the first secondary hypothesis (glycemic variability) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||0.75|-0.03|
84721668|NCT00487240|169195519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for M-Value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.132
84721669|NCT00487240|169195519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value for MODD|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.179
84721670|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
84721671|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
84721672|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
84721673|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
84721674|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.664
84721675|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.730
84721676|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
84535718|NCT02036775|168819559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.1|82.4|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||82.40|71.10|
84540771|NCT03718832|168832716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2619965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3729922||0.4829339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4718566|0.9958495||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9958495|-0.4718566|0.4829339
84721677|NCT00487240|169195520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.081
84721678|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.280
84721679|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.193
84721680|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.042
84721681|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.001
84721682|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.579
84721683|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.531
84721684|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.017
84721685|NCT00487240|169195521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.038
84721686|NCT00487240|169195523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 1.5 kg was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.003||95.0|0.34|1.6||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|If the first secondary null hypothesis (glycemic variability) is rejected, then the second secondary hypothesis (weight change) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||1.60|0.34|0.003
84721687|NCT00487240|169195524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.023
84721688|NCT00487240|169195524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.004
84721689|NCT00487240|169195524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.282
84721690|NCT00487240|169195525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.82
84721691|NCT00487240|169195525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.19
84721692|NCT00487240|169195525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.416
84721693|NCT04237792|169195549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|0.03|<0.001
84721694|NCT04237792|169195550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.82|0.04|0.022
84721695|NCT04237792|169195550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.26|0.01|<0.001
84721696|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.02|0.006
84721697|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|11.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.27|0.25|0.597
84721698|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.07|0.14|0.374
84721699|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.44|0.02|0.001
84721700|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.81|0.13|0.015
84721701|NCT04237792|169195551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.87|0.10|0.024
84721702|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84721703|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
84721704|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
84721705|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
84721706|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84721707|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
84721708|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
84721709|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84721710|NCT04237792|169195552|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
84721711|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
84721712|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
84721713|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.368
84721714|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.358|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.358
84721715|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
84721716|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
84721717|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
84721718|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
84721719|NCT04237792|169195553|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
84721720|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.884
84721721|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
84721722|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.236
84721723|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.733
84721724|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.128
84721725|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
84721726|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.752
84721727|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.139
84721728|NCT04237792|169195554|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.051
84721729|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
84721730|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.186
84721731|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.470
84721732|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.845
84721733|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.621
84721734|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
84721735|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
84721736|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.181
84721737|NCT04237792|169195556|OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.984
84721738|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
84721739|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.106
84721740|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
84721741|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
84721742|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.824
84721743|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
84721744|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
84721745|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.160
84721746|NCT04237792|169195557|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
84721747|NCT00910962|169195568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.38|0.46|0.4110
84721748|NCT00910962|169195568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.74|0.60|0.9318
84721749|NCT00910962|169195568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.46|0.56|0.6805
84721750|NCT00910962|169195569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.39|0.2990
84721751|NCT00910962|169195569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.90|0.60|0.8235
84721752|NCT00910962|169195569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.51|0.52|0.6590
84721753|NCT00910962|169195575|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.59|0.151
84721754|NCT00910962|169195575|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.70|0.744
84721755|NCT00910962|169195575|SUPERIORITY||test to treatment ratio|0.87||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.66|0.317
84721756|NCT00910962|169195576|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.80|0.83
84721757|NCT00910962|169195576|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||ANCOVA|||||1.39|0.84|0.56
84721758|NCT00910962|169195576|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.84|0.65
84721759|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||Test to reference ratio|0.77||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.99|0.60|0.040
84721760|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.85|0.52|0.001
84721761|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.89|0.57|0.003
84721762|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 48 hours||0.78|0.40|<0.001
84721763|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 48 hours||0.65|0.33|<0.001
84721764|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 48 hours||0.69|0.38|<0.001
84721765|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.01|0.45|0.059
84721766|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||0.90|0.40|0.013
84721767|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||0.92|0.45|0.015
84721768|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||1.03|0.48|0.073
84721769|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.04|0.48|0.075
84721770|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||0.99|0.50|0.044
84721771|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.78||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 4||1.10|0.55|0.157
84721772|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 4||1.28|0.63|0.548
84540418|NCT01750190|168831724|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|2.143|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates , and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2 ), as fixed effects.||2.143|1.663|<0.0001
84721773|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.83||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 4||1.14|0.61|0.253
84721774|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 8||1.13|0.58|0.204
84721775|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.39|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 8||1.39|0.71|0.965
84721776|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 8||1.20|0.66|0.457
84721777|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 14||2.22|1.13|0.008
84721778|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.38|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 14||2.38|1.21|0.002
84721779|NCT00910962|169195577|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 14||2.21|1.21|0.001
84721780|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.69|0.43|<0.001
84721781|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.82|0.50|<0.001
84721782|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.73|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.73|0.48|<0.001
84721783|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||0.98|0.59|0.031
84721784|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.88||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.13|0.68|0.315
84721785|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.82||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||1.02|0.65|0.075
84721786|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||1.02|0.65|0.068
84721787|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.97||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.22|0.78|0.824
84721788|NCT00910962|169195578|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||1.09|0.73|0.246
84721789|NCT00910962|169195579|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.21|0.89|0.66
84721790|NCT00910962|169195579|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||1.25|0.92|0.39
84721791|NCT00910962|169195579|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||1.21|0.92|0.47
84721792|NCT00910962|169195580|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.78|0.92
84721793|NCT00910962|169195580|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.85|0.52
84721794|NCT00910962|169195580|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.84|0.76
84721795|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.93||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.20|0.72|0.57
84721796|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.18|0.72|0.52
84721797|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.16|0.74|0.50
84721798|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.96|0.55|0.03
84721799|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.07|0.61|0.14
84721800|NCT00910962|169195581|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.98|0.60|0.04
84721801|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|1.41|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||1.41|-5.25|0.254
84721802|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.62|-6.29|0.106
84721803|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.69|-5.44|0.126
84721804|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.92|-4.74|0.184
84721805|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.43|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||0.43|-5.37|0.093
84721806|NCT00910962|169195582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.40|-4.78|0.096
84721807|NCT00910962|169195583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||9.62|-1.18|0.124
84721808|NCT00910962|169195583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|11.47|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||11.47|0.63|0.029
84721809|NCT00910962|169195583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.00|0.28|0.039
84540419|NCT01750190|168831725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|22.189|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/placebo odds ratio|||22.189|10.79|<0.0001
84721810|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|-2.79|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVEDV||-2.79|-40.27|0.025
84721811|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.58|0.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVEDV||0.29|-37.58|0.053
84721812|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.09||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-3.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVEDV||-3.18|-37.01|0.021
84721813|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|-2.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVESV||-2.14|-29.51|0.024
84721814|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-3.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVESV||-3.29|-31.14|0.016
84721815|NCT00910962|169195584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-4.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVESV||-4.13|-28.91|0.010
84721816|NCT00910962|169195585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.21||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.51|5.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||5.09|-49.51|0.109
84721817|NCT00910962|169195585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.22|20.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||20.96|-35.22|0.614
84721818|NCT00910962|169195585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.52|10.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.18|-39.52|0.243
84721819|NCT00910962|169195586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.44|0.023
84721820|NCT00910962|169195586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.45|0.021
84721821|NCT00910962|169195586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.42|0.011
84721822|NCT00910962|169195587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.137
84721823|NCT00910962|169195587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.32|0.036
84721824|NCT00910962|169195587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.28|0.047
84721825|NCT03057600|169195601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.2252
84721826|NCT03057600|169195601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.9437
84721827|NCT03057600|169195601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.5797
84721828|NCT03057600|169195601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.0243
84721829|NCT04399837|169195638|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.041||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: Dose effect is linear with the increase of dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
84721830|NCT04399837|169195638|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.033||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 95% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
84721831|NCT04399837|169195638|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.088||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
84721832|NCT04399837|169195638|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|2.977||||0.003|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 35% of the maximum effect is achieved at medium dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.003
84721833|NCT04399837|169195638|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 12 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|1.064||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: one-sided p-value ≤ 0.01875."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% Confidence Interval are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||1.064|0.206|0.0269
84721834|NCT04399837|169195638|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.157||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.541||"One-sided p-value is computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: One-sided p-value ≤0.0125."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||0.541|0.046|0.0005
84721835|NCT04399837|169195639|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: The proportion of patients who do not experience a GPP flare up to week 48 on BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks ≤ Placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.159||"One-sided p-value was computed from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference=Spesolimab high dose-Placebo.|||-0.159|-0.621|0.0013
84721836|NCT04399837|169195640|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to first worsening of PSS up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.914||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.||0.914|0.197|0.0134
84721837|NCT04399837|169195641|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first worsening of DLQI up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.62||One sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|"Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"||0.620|0.109|0.0010
84721838|NCT02060487|169195644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 20 mg TID versus sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.31|1.49|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.49|0.31|
84721839|NCT02060487|169195644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|1.21|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.22|
84721840|NCT02060487|169195644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 20 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR is less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.3|1.84|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.84|0.30|
84721841|NCT02060487|169195645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.33|1.21|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.33|0.035
84721842|NCT02060487|169195645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|0.89|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||0.89|0.22|<0.001
84721843|NCT02060487|169195645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.34|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.52|0.34|0.195
84721844|NCT02060487|169195646|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|15.0||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|30.81|||MMRM|||||30.81|-0.80|0.0627
84721845|NCT02060487|169195646|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|18.9||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|34.86|||MMRM|||||34.86|2.99|0.0201
84721846|NCT02060487|169195646|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|3.9||||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|19.68|||MMRM|||||19.68|-11.85|0.6254
84721847|NCT02060487|169195647|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|21.3||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|40.45|||MMRM|||||40.45|2.25|0.0286
84721848|NCT02060487|169195647|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|20.5||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|39.65|||MMRM|||||39.65|1.30|0.0364
84721849|NCT02060487|169195647|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|-0.9||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|18.19|||MMRM|||||18.19|-19.94|0.9283
84721850|NCT02222493|169195725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|5.11||||||Score statistic method||5.11|-9.92|
84721851|NCT02222493|169195725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|4.02||||||Score statistic method||4.02|-8.75|
84721852|NCT01000805|169195777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This p-value is for the main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
84721853|NCT01000805|169195778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-5.83|<0.001
84721854|NCT01000805|169195779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.11||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.03|0.112
84721855|NCT01000805|169195779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.22||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-1.24|0.005
84721856|NCT01000805|169195779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.02||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-1.04|0.040
84721857|NCT01000805|169195779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.29||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-3.20|0.019
84721858|NCT01000805|169195780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84721859|NCT01000805|169195781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||This is the third gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0082
84721860|NCT01000805|169195782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.11||This is the fourth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-5.20|<0.001
84721861|NCT01000805|169195783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.89||This is the fifth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-3.50|0.001
84721862|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.97|<0.001
84721863|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
84721864|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
84721865|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
84721866|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
84721867|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.37||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.09|<0.001
84721868|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.79|0.009
84721869|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.91|0.002
84721870|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.35||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.06|<0.001
84721871|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.01||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.76|0.042
84721872|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
84721873|NCT01000805|169195784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Mean Pain Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.88|<0.001
84721874|NCT01000805|169195785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
84721875|NCT01000805|169195786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for suicidal ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
84721876|NCT01000805|169195787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
84721877|NCT01000805|169195788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.51|1.34|<0.001
84721878|NCT01000805|169195788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.83||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.83|0.97|0.001
84721879|NCT01000805|169195789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.04||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-0.25|0.083
84721880|NCT01000805|169195789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.9||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-0.95|0.513
84721881|NCT01000805|169195789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.47||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.42|0.124
84721882|NCT01000805|169195789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.6||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.98|0.638
84721883|NCT01000805|169195790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.001
84721884|NCT01000805|169195790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
84721885|NCT02542943|169195791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.13||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.134||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.134|-0.400|0.4350
84721886|NCT02542943|169195791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.34||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.340|-0.192|0.7605
84721887|NCT02542943|169195792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.031||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.031|-0.445|0.0873
84721888|NCT02542943|169195793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.130|-0.270|0.4921
84721889|NCT02542943|169195793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.216||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.216|-0.183|0.8728
84721890|NCT02542943|169195793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.115||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.115|-0.287|0.4003
84721891|NCT02542943|169195794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8106
84721892|NCT02542943|169195794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.1656
84721893|NCT02542943|169195794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.1419
84721894|NCT02542943|169195795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.5631
84721895|NCT02542943|169195795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8423
84721896|NCT02542943|169195795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.4390
84721897|NCT02542943|169195796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.308||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.308|-0.611|0.5170
84721898|NCT02542943|169195796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.633||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.633|-0.284|0.4538
84721899|NCT02542943|169195796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.788|0.136||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.136|-0.788|0.1663
84721900|NCT02542943|169195797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|0.453||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.453|-0.661|0.7137
84721901|NCT02542943|169195797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.651||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.651|-0.460|0.7353
84721902|NCT02542943|169195797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.361||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.361|-0.760|0.4843
84721903|NCT05986617|169195798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06429||||||2-tail t-test with non-equivalent variances|t-test, 2 sided|||Power calculation: 2 factor (group, time) ANOVA design with a group\*time interaction term to estimate the proposed sample size. Using a Cohen's effect size estimate for 2 groups with 5 time-points, a sample size of 40 per group will provide \>90% to detect a moderate effect size (0.25) for group, for time and for the group\*time interaction.||||.06429
84721904|NCT00768716|169195829|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
84721905|NCT00768716|169195830|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
84721906|NCT00768716|169195831|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
84721907|NCT00768716|169195833|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84721908|NCT00768716|169195834|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84721909|NCT00768716|169195835|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
84721910|NCT05643885|169195838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
84721911|NCT05643885|169195839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
84721912|NCT05643885|169195840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
84721913|NCT05643885|169195841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
84721914|NCT05643885|169195842|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2303|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2303
84721915|NCT05643885|169195843|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7403|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7403
84721916|NCT05643885|169195844|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2414|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2414
84721917|NCT05643885|169195845|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2592|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2592
84721918|NCT05643885|169195846|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4837|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.4837
84721919|NCT05643885|169195847|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1355|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.1355
84721920|NCT05643885|169195848|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6066|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6066
84721921|NCT05643885|169195849|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3795|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.3795
84721922|NCT05643885|169195850|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6618|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6618
84721923|NCT05643885|169195851|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2337|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2337
84721924|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||<0.0001
84721925|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||<0.0001
84721926|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||laboratory or pathology visits||||<0.0001
84721927|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||<0.0001
84721928|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||<0.0001
84721929|NCT05643885|169195852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary/other services||||<0.0001
84721930|NCT05643885|169195853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
84721931|NCT05643885|169195854|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.729|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7290
84721932|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3686|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.3686
84721933|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2747|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.2747
84721934|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1049|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.1049
84721935|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.8425
84721936|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9755|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.9755
84721937|NCT05643885|169195855|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0582|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.0582
84721938|NCT05643885|169195856|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9796|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.9796
84721939|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0379|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0379
84721940|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9034|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.9034
84721941|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5452|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.5452
84721942|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1644|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.1644
84721943|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.0650
84721944|NCT05643885|169195857|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3866|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.3866
84721945|NCT05643885|169195858|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.5660
84721946|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0425
84721947|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8634|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.8634
84721948|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0399|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.0399
84721949|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0996|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.0996
84721950|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7655|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.7655
84721951|NCT05643885|169195859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1499|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.1499
84721952|NCT05349721|169195865|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.86||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|27.59|||ANCOVA|Estimates were derived from the ANCOVA model (following multiple imputation), where participant ranks served as the response variable.||||27.59|-13.86|0.516
84721953|NCT03926026|169195978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.5|0.0471
84721954|NCT02824198|169195989|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.79||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.79|0.998|
84721955|NCT02824198|169195989|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.829||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.829|0.439|
84721956|NCT02824198|169195989|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.28||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.28|0.746|
84721957|NCT02824198|169195989|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.75|0.918|
84721958|NCT03883828|169196002|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Linear Regression|-0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.15||Two-sided p-values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||-0.15|-0.75|0.004
84721959|NCT03883828|169196003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Symptoms Domain||||||0.20
84721960|NCT03883828|169196003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Emotions Domain||||||0.05
84721961|NCT03883828|169196003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Functioning Domain||||||0.73
84721962|NCT03737110|169196024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at Run-In Baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.18|0.01|<0.0001
84721963|NCT03737110|169196025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.727||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.438|66.428||95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.428|2.438|0.0002
84721964|NCT03737110|169196025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|85.2|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||85.2|36.7|
84721965|NCT03737110|169196026|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||68.0|34.5|< 0.0001
84721966|NCT03737110|169196027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|46.826||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.826|2.136|0.0006
84721967|NCT03737110|169196027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|81.3|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||81.3|30.6|
84721968|NCT03737110|169196028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|53.188||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.188|1.317|0.0022
84721969|NCT03737110|169196029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.051|38.981||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.981|3.051|< 0.0001
84721970|NCT03737110|169196030|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|70.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||70.1|33.8|< 0.0001
84721971|NCT03737110|169196031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|55.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||55.8|25.3|< 0.0001
84721972|NCT03737110|169196032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.522||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.262|218.552||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||218.552|4.262|0.0002
84721973|NCT03737110|169196033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.439|60.574||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.574|3.439|< 0.0001
84535719|NCT02036775|168819559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.69|106.58|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||106.58|94.69|
84721974|NCT03737110|169196034|SUPERIORITY||Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|94.6|||normal approximation|||||94.6|56.8|< 0.0001
84721975|NCT03737110|169196035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.32|0.05|< 0.0001
84721976|NCT03737110|169196036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.22|0.02|< 0.0001
84721977|NCT03737110|169196037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.46||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||4.46|0.12|0.7447
84721978|NCT03737110|169196038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.87||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||1.87|0.07|0.2066
84721979|NCT03737110|169196039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not estimable due to low number of participants with an event.|Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||||||0.00|0.0059
84721980|NCT03737110|169196051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.108||Two-sided p value calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjudicated by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who used ORT, corticosteroids or bailout rilonacept during the RW Period||0.108|0.002|< 0.0001
84721981|NCT00195819|169196124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1||||0.06||95.0|-0.5|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|-0.5|0.060
84721982|NCT00195819|169196167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.387||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
84726085|NCT00674609|169204438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||-0.05|-8.10|0.048
84721983|NCT00822900|169196201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||Regression, Generalized linear|Adjusting for injury severity, sex, and age. the binomial distribution with the log link is used to estimate treatment effect as relative risk.|A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of less than 1.00 indicating fewer favorable outcomes in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms). Standard multiple imputation methods are used to account for missing data. The primary outcome measure is based on the stratified dichotomy approach.||1.06|0.85|0.35
84721984|NCT00822900|169196202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||||A hazard ratio of more than 1.00 indicating higher hazard of death from the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|The Cox proportional hazards model is used to compare these curves after adjustment for age, sex and injury severity.||1.63|0.86|
84721985|NCT00822900|169196204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.66|||||A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of more than 1.00 indicating more events in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|||4.66|1.96|
84721986|NCT03822832|169196267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||3.7|-54.9|0.1492
84721987|NCT03822832|169196269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||7.0|-5.7|0.8613
84721988|NCT03822832|169196270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.8|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||21.4|-25.8|0.8754
84721989|NCT03822832|169196271|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.176||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.176|-0.254|
84721990|NCT03822832|169196271|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.396||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.396|0.053|
84721991|NCT03822832|169196272|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.204|0.117||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.117|-0.204|
84721992|NCT03822832|169196272|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.232||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Pl|Risk difference at week 16||0.232|-0.080|
84721993|NCT03822832|169196273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||14.8|-14.6|0.9900
84721994|NCT03822832|169196274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||5.5|-35.2|0.2266
84721995|NCT03822832|169196275|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.159|0.12||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.120|-0.159|
84721996|NCT03822832|169196275|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.207||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.207|-0.050|
84721997|NCT01321073|169196281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sample exact test for Poisson rate|||The rate of catheter-related complications per 1000 patient-days was compared to a pre-specified value of 2.5 / 1000 days. This was calculated based on published complication rates in PAH that included central venous catheter systemic bloodstream infections (0.43-1.13), site infections (0.26-0.87), and complications from catheter thrombosis, mechanical dysfunction, or catheter dislocation in the general central venous catheter population (0.36-0.51). The sum of the upper rates is 2.5.||||<0.0001
84535720|NCT02036775|168819559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.92|81.93|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||81.93|69.92|
84535721|NCT02472223|168819567|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|90.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
84721998|NCT03212638|169196282|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.15||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.15|0.946|
84721999|NCT03212638|169196282|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.14||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.14|0.944|
84722000|NCT03212638|169196282|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.74||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||0.740|0.617|
84722001|NCT03212638|169196283|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.963|
84722002|NCT03212638|169196283|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of s single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.995|
84540420|NCT01750190|168831726|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|-13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat- placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-13.87|-20.65|<0.0001
84722003|NCT03212638|169196283|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.01||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.01|0.936|
84722004|NCT03212638|169196284|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.996|
84722005|NCT03212638|169196284|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.966|
84722006|NCT03212638|169196284|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.02||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.02|0.941|
84722007|NCT02831816|169196285|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.18||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.180|-0.221|
84722008|NCT02831816|169196285|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.76||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.76|2.15|
84722009|NCT02831816|169196286|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2085|0.1215||||||Abdomen 10 minutes average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.1215|-0.2085|
84722010|NCT02831816|169196286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.25|1.70|
84722011|NCT02686658|169196287|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0072
84722012|NCT02686658|169196287|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0051
84539751|NCT03668808|168829508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-180mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84722013|NCT02686658|169196288|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.3464
84722014|NCT02686658|169196288|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8830
84722015|NCT02686658|169196289|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8405
84722016|NCT02686658|169196289|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.5017
84722017|NCT00108355|169196360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Initial estimation: median time to recurrence of ascites of 38 days in the study group and 20 days in the control group in a fixed duration of 6 months (5% type-I error (2 sided) and an 80% power). However, due to low accrual and based on randomized trials using vasoconstrictors in the prevention of PCD and a study that showed that midodrine leads to a significant improvement in effective arterial blood volume, each of which had sample sizes of 24-25 patients,we decided on a sample size of 30.||||<0.05
84722018|NCT01823224|169196399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated analysis of variance|||||||0.875
84722019|NCT01823224|169196400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Manova|||||||> 0.05
84722020|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Kaplan-Meier|||The phase III part planned to randomize 485 patients, about 243 per arm (actual 241 patients per arm), over an estimated period of 24 months. Final analysis would occur at approximately 424 deaths, which was expected to be observed about 43 months after the accrual of the first patient. A stratified log rank analysis would have 90% power to detect a 27.5% reduction in the risk of death, i.e., a hazard ratio of 0.725, between Arm A and Arm C.||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
84722021|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.35||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: No (i.e., de novo) vs Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD"||1.35|0.86|<0.0249
84722022|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY|Effects of treatments compared in AML patients with baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.57|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.19||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline peripheral WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L"||2.19|1.12|<0.0249
84722023|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% vs Blast percentage ≤ 50%"||1.32|0.77|<0.0249
84722024|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Unfavorable cytogenetics risk by SWOG (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Unfavorable cytogenetics vs other"||1.73|0.94|<0.0249
84722025|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.222|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Region (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: EU vs US"||||<0.0249
84722026|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Age (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: ≥ 75 years old vs ≤ 75 years old"||||<0.0249
84722027|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.956|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Gender (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Male vs Female"||||<0.0249
84722028|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): ECOG status (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Status 2 vs \< 2"||||<0.0249
84722029|NCT01303796|169196413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): HCT-CI score (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: HCT-CI score 0-2 vs HCT-CI score \>2"||||<0.0249
84722030|NCT01303796|169196414|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|2.782|||Fisher Exact|||||2.782|0.645|0.1468
84722031|NCT01303796|169196419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0416
84722032|NCT01303796|169196420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1568
84540421|NCT01750190|168831727|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|1.245|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|||1.245|-0.827|0.6924
84722033|NCT01303796|169196421|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Log Rank|||||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
84722034|NCT02148705|169196427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|288.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.549|13984.356|||Fisher Exact|||||13984.356|35.549|<0.0001
84722035|NCT02148705|169196428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.044|||Chi-squared|||||0.044|0.003|<0.0001
84722036|NCT02148705|169196429|SUPERIORITY||Test Statistics|23.1429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|Analysis is adjusted for Overall TW Depths, TBSA Group, Center Group, and Number of TWs||||||<0.0001
84722037|NCT02148705|169196430|SUPERIORITY||estimate|6505.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|269.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5974.41|7037.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon tests pooled using Rubin´s rule||||7037.19|5974.41|<0.0001
84722038|NCT01711294|169196438|SUPERIORITY|Sample sizes were calculated using two-sample t-test for the primary endpoint and z-test for the secondary endpoint with power of 80% and two-sided alpha of 0.05. Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.84||||||Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used instead of t-test because the data was not normally distributed.||Study hypothesizes that aspiration % in the 19G Flex and 19G arms would be superior by at least 10% to 22G arm, and aspiration success rate of 19G Flex would be at least 16% greater than 22G and 19G arms. Sample size calculation was performed based on the above hypotheses reached by a consensus of all collaborators and adjusted a priori.||||0.84
84722039|NCT02605174|169196454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|1.1|0.003
84722040|NCT02605174|169196454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
84722041|NCT02605174|169196454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
84722042|NCT02605174|169196455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.009
84722043|NCT02605174|169196455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
84722044|NCT02605174|169196455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.4|<0.001
84722045|NCT02605174|169196456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
84722046|NCT02605174|169196456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.9|1.7|<0.001
84722047|NCT02605174|169196456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
84722048|NCT02605174|169196458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9|0.5|0.002
84722049|NCT02605174|169196458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7|0.4|<0.001
84722050|NCT02605174|169196458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.3|<0.001
84722051|NCT02605174|169196459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.7|0.917
84722052|NCT02605174|169196459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.129
84722053|NCT02605174|169196459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.6|0.456
84722054|NCT02605174|169196461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2|0.7|0.522
84722055|NCT02605174|169196461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4|0.8|0.622
84722056|NCT02605174|169196461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.8|0.992
84722057|NCT02605174|169196462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.008
84722058|NCT02605174|169196462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
84722059|NCT02605174|169196462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
84722060|NCT02605174|169196463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.007
84722061|NCT02605174|169196463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
84722062|NCT02605174|169196463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.3|1.4|<0.001
84722063|NCT03068312|169196484|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.10|
84722064|NCT00273052|169196485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-8.026||||0.0141||95.0|-15.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA||Median difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||-0.67|-15.35|0.0141
84722065|NCT00273052|169196486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.6068||95.0|-2.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||3.9|-2.4|0.6068
84722066|NCT01852045|169196501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.545|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.545|-0.549|0.9949
84722067|NCT01852045|169196501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.602|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.602|-0.673|0.9123
84722068|NCT01852045|169196503|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.694||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|52.064|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||52.064|-26.120|0.5117
84722069|NCT01852045|169196503|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|65.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.101||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.711|111.421|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||111.421|19.711|0.0055
84722070|NCT01852045|169196505|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.673||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.605|25.626|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||25.626|-52.605|0.4948
84722071|NCT01852045|169196505|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.382||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.012|45.991|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||45.991|-43.012|0.9471
84722072|NCT01852045|169196506|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.7||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\<12 years or \>=12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<=6 or \>6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.14|0.45|0.2027
84722073|NCT01852045|169196506|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.8||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from a 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\< 12 years or \>= 12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<= 6 or \> 6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.21|0.40|0.1564
84722074|NCT01852045|169196507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.488||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.648|10.669|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||10.669|-19.648|0.5524
84722075|NCT01852045|169196507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.181||0.8313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.427|22.795|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||22.795|-18.427|0.8313
84722076|NCT01852045|169196508|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.653|3.238|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||3.238|-17.653|0.1737
84722077|NCT01852045|169196508|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.061|-2.793|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||-2.793|-26.061|0.0157
84722078|NCT02736188|169196517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.77||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Week 8||2.77|-1.17|0.4287
84722079|NCT02736188|169196517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.21|-1.49|0.7031
84722080|NCT02736188|169196517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.32||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.32|-3.14|0.4253
84722081|NCT02736188|169196517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.38||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.38|-3.49|0.9747
84722082|NCT02736188|169196518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.47||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.47|-1.01|0.4721
84722083|NCT02736188|169196518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.64||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.64|-1.02|0.6611
84722084|NCT02736188|169196518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.35|||GEE model|Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.||Week 24||0.35|-1.22|0.2760
84722085|NCT02736188|169196518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.13||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.13|-1.69|0.6977
84722086|NCT02736188|169196519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.45|-0.04|0.0648
84722087|NCT02736188|169196519|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.55|-0.06|0.0692
84722088|NCT02736188|169196519|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.44||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.52|-0.65|0.4317
84722089|NCT02736188|169196519|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.34||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.1||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.10|-1.78|0.6416
84722090|NCT02736188|169196520|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.78||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.22||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||4.22|-2.65|0.6546
84722091|NCT02736188|169196520|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.69|-3.97|0.7054
84722092|NCT02736188|169196520|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.5||||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||4.45|-5.45|0.8441
84722093|NCT02736188|169196520|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|8.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||8.90|-0.59|0.0864
84722094|NCT02736188|169196521|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.06||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.78||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.78|-0.65|0.8603
84722095|NCT02736188|169196521|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.51|-0.86|0.6154
84722096|NCT02736188|169196521|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.47||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.2||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.20|-0.25|0.1999
84722097|NCT02736188|169196521|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.03||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.18||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.18|-1.25|0.9568
84722098|NCT02736188|169196522|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.45||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.90|-1.00|0.5447
84539752|NCT03668808|168829509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Mean ± SD CGM glucose (mg/dl) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84722099|NCT02736188|169196522|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.56||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.09||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.09|-2.22|0.5051
84722100|NCT02736188|169196522|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.27||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.90|-1.36|0.7478
84722101|NCT02736188|169196522|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.41||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||2.04|-2.86|0.7429
84722102|NCT02736188|169196523|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.0||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|10.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||10.49|-6.48|0.6434
84722103|NCT02736188|169196523|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.99||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|8.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||8.55|-12.53|0.7118
84722104|NCT02736188|169196523|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|14.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||14.69|-6.39|0.4399
84722105|NCT02736188|169196523|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.98||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|28.37||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||28.37|-12.41|0.4430
84722106|NCT02736188|169196524|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.28||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.46||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.46|-0.90|0.6428
84722107|NCT02736188|169196524|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.25||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.21|-1.72|0.7334
84722108|NCT02736188|169196524|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.58||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.04|-0.89|0.4409
84722109|NCT02736188|169196524|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.99||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.68||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.68|-1.69|0.4687
84722110|NCT02736188|169196525|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.14||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||2.69|-0.41|0.1502
84722111|NCT02736188|169196525|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|-1.89|-1.89|1.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.49|-1.89|0.8188
84722112|NCT02736188|169196525|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.17||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||3.17|-1.58|0.5122
84722113|NCT02736188|169196525|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.72||||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|4.4||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||4.40|-2.96|0.7022
84722114|NCT02736188|169196526|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.6||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.60|-1.22|0.7906
84722115|NCT02736188|169196526|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.66||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.07||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.07|-0.74|0.3531
84722116|NCT02736188|169196526|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.15||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.23||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.23|-1.92|0.8846
84722117|NCT02736188|169196526|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.08||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.79||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.79|0.38|0.0168
84722118|NCT00768755|169196601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). Hazard ratio (HR): the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.360|0.508|0.3037
84722119|NCT00768755|169196601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.546|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.546|0.580|0.3565
84722120|NCT00768755|169196602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.69|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.690|0.648|0.5785
84722121|NCT00768755|169196602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.449||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|2.285|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||2.285|0.919|0.9392
84722122|NCT00768755|169196603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.753||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.935|1.047|0.0143
84722123|NCT00768755|169196603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.512||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.626|0.870|0.0665
84722124|NCT00670488|169196609|OTHER||AUC0-48hr GMR|3.26||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722125|NCT00670488|169196609|OTHER||AUC 0-48hr GMR|3.18||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722126|NCT00670488|169196610|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.59||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722127|NCT00670488|169196610|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.67||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722128|NCT00670488|169196611|OTHER||C48hr GMR|4.33||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722129|NCT00670488|169196611|OTHER||C48hr GMR|3.58||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
84722130|NCT00670488|169196614|OTHER||AUC0-168hr GMR|1.91||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
84722131|NCT00670488|169196614|OTHER||AUC 0-168hr GMR|1.54||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
84722132|NCT00670488|169196615|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.95||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
84722133|NCT00670488|169196615|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.33||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
84722134|NCT00670488|169196616|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.61||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
84722135|NCT00670488|169196616|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.86||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
84722136|NCT00670488|169196616|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.49||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
84722137|NCT00670488|169196619|OTHER||GMR|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.347||||||"pAkt Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)~= Day 15 Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Baseline GM"||0.347|0.051|
84722138|NCT03052517|169196630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.00|0.74|
84722139|NCT03052517|169196630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.72|
84722140|NCT03052517|169196630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.09|0.87|
84722141|NCT03052517|169196631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.02|0.76|
84722142|NCT03052517|169196631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.99|0.73|
84722143|NCT03052517|169196631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.08|0.86|
84722144|NCT03052517|169196632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.51|
84722145|NCT03052517|169196632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.39|
84722146|NCT03052517|169196632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.14|0.54|
84722147|NCT03052517|169196633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.54|
84722148|NCT03052517|169196633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.41|
84722149|NCT03052517|169196633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.11|0.55|
84722150|NCT03052517|169196634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.23|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.23|0.47|
84722151|NCT03052517|169196634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.64|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.64|0.59|
84722152|NCT03052517|169196634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||2.10|0.70|
84722153|NCT03052517|169196635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.56|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.56|0.56|
84722154|NCT03052517|169196635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.95|0.67|
84722155|NCT03052517|169196635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.96|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.96|0.70|
84722156|NCT03052517|169196636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.047|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.047|0.626|
84722157|NCT03052517|169196636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.038|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.038|0.622|
84722158|NCT03052517|169196636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.200|0.821|
84722159|NCT03052517|169196637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.125|0.667|
84722160|NCT03052517|169196637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.082|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.082|0.643|
84722161|NCT03052517|169196637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.167|0.794|
84722162|NCT05794191|169196658|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|22.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.425|36.391||||||||36.391|5.425|
84722163|NCT05794191|169196659|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|34.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.249|51.275||||||||51.275|13.249|
84722164|NCT05794191|169196660|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.408|26.302||||||||26.302|-50.408|
84722165|NCT05794191|169196661|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.883|43.961||||||||43.961|-46.883|
84722166|NCT05794191|169196662|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|17.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.994|28.536||||||||28.536|3.994|
84722167|NCT05794191|169196663|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|25.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|38.781||||||||38.781|9.400|
84722168|NCT05794191|169196664|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-7.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.076|18.569||||||||18.569|-42.076|
84722169|NCT05794191|169196665|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.916|41.871||||||||41.871|-34.916|
84722170|NCT05794191|169196666|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|8.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.705|11.086||||||||11.086|5.705|
84722171|NCT05794191|169196667|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.089|14.679||||||||14.679|8.089|
84722172|NCT05794191|169196668|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.427|12.493||||||||12.493|1.427|
84722173|NCT05794191|169196669|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-3.716|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.626|4.488||||||||4.488|-12.626|
84722174|NCT05794191|169196670|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.213|17.022||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||17.022|10.213|
84722175|NCT05794191|169196670|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|13.261||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.261|1.707|
84722176|NCT05794191|169196670|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.691|3.26||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.260|-15.691|
84722177|NCT05794191|169196670|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.056|12.66||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.660|7.056|
84722178|NCT05794191|169196671|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.149|16.978||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||16.978|10.149|
84722179|NCT05794191|169196671|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|13.276||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.276|1.708|
84722180|NCT05794191|169196671|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.809|3.166||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.166|-15.809|
84722181|NCT05794191|169196671|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.617||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.617|7.000|
84722182|NCT03418545|169196771|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|82.0||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 5 imputed datasets using PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation. The p-value and 95% CI for each imputed data set is based on the Fisher's exact test and the Wald test, respectively.|Fisher Exact|||||82.0|52.9|<0.0001
84722183|NCT03418545|169196772|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.2|86.8|||||The 95% CI is based on the Wald test.|||86.8|60.2|
84722184|NCT03418545|169196774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level was performed to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at Month 3 was statistically greater than that at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84722185|NCT02356198|169196809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
84722186|NCT02356198|169196810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
84722187|NCT02356198|169196811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
84722188|NCT02356198|169196812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.454
84722189|NCT02356198|169196813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
84722190|NCT03162614|169196814|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (AduFx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
84722191|NCT03162614|169196814|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|76.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as double full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th double dose at Month 7 (2Ped Fx Group versus Control Group).||89|49|<.001
84722192|NCT03162614|169196814|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (PedFx Group versus Control Group).||79|37|<.001
84722193|NCT03162614|169196814|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 1 and Month 7 (Adu2Fx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
84722194|NCT03162614|169196814|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|29.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (Adu1Fx Group versus Control Group).||46|6|0.009
84722195|NCT00087022|169196833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.737
84722196|NCT00087022|169196834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.012|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.012
84722197|NCT00087022|169196837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.022
84722198|NCT01957163|169196838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.154|0.093|< 0.001
84722199|NCT01957163|169196838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.159|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.159|0.098|<0.001
84722200|NCT01957163|169196839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.187|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.187|0.118|<0.001
84722201|NCT01957163|169196839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.175|0.106|<0.001
84722202|NCT05200416|169196853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|7.83|<0.001
84722203|NCT05200416|169196854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-6.69|0.001
84722204|NCT02609048|169196869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-60.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.85|-49.13||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-49.13|-72.85|<0.0001
84722205|NCT02609048|169196869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-51.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-39.44||Difference in mean,p-value, and confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-39.44|-63.30|<0.0001
84722206|NCT02609048|169196869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-9.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|2.54||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-21.79|0.1167
84722207|NCT02609048|169196870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84722208|NCT02609048|169196870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0036
84722209|NCT02609048|169196870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1045||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing Seladelpar 200mg versus 50 mg.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1045
84722210|NCT02609048|169196871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|234.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.647||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.28|448.14||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||448.14|21.28|0.0322
84722211|NCT02609048|169196871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|132.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.015||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|328.65||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||328.65|-63.00|0.1764
84722212|NCT02609048|169196871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|101.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.504||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.21|312.98||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||312.98|-109.21|0.3326
84722213|NCT02609048|169196872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|185.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.379||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|398.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline ALT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||398.66|-27.10|0.0849
84722214|NCT02609048|169196872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|116.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.437||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.22|315.23||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||315.23|-82.22|0.2409
84722215|NCT02609048|169196872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|69.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.295||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.47|284.03||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||284.03|-145.47|0.5154
84722216|NCT02609048|169196873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.112||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.04|-20.64||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-20.64|-70.04|0.0007
84722217|NCT02609048|169196873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-40.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.033||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|-18.28||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-18.28|-63.28|0.0008
84722218|NCT02609048|169196873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.401||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|20.73||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||20.73|-29.85|0.7155
84722219|NCT02609048|169196874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.342||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-11.14||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-11.14|-57.40|0.0050
84722220|NCT02609048|169196874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-24.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.116||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.47|-4.21||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-45.47|0.0199
84722221|NCT02609048|169196874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.442||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.77|13.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.90|-32.77|0.4161
84722222|NCT02609048|169196875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.626||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.79||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.79|-11.40|0.4780
84722223|NCT02609048|169196875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.043||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.41||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-28.40|0.1459
84722224|NCT02609048|169196875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|18.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.521||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|35.57||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||35.57|0.82|0.0407
84722225|NCT02609048|169196876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|31.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.831||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|59.67||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||59.67|3.26|0.0300
84722226|NCT02609048|169196876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.883||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|17.44||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||17.44|-35.11|0.4979
84722227|NCT02609048|169196876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.591||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|68.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated for Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||68.02|12.58|0.0058
84540422|NCT01750190|168831728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.406||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||||0.406|0.165|<0.0001
84722228|NCT02609048|169196877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.362||0.7244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|14.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||14.08|-20.03|0.7244
84722229|NCT02609048|169196877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.819||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|1.8||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-30.10|0.0800
84722230|NCT02609048|169196877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|28.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||28.08|-5.73|0.1874
84722231|NCT02609048|169196878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-32.42||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-32.42|-59.50|<0.0001
84722232|NCT02609048|169196878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-21.48||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-21.48|-47.83|<0.0001
84722233|NCT02609048|169196878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|1.97||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|-24.58|0.0924
84722234|NCT02609048|169196879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.807||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|11.97||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||11.97|-40.27|0.2777
84722235|NCT02609048|169196879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-37.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.946||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.67|-12.95||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-12.95|-61.67|0.0039
84722236|NCT02609048|169196879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|23.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.498||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|48.65||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||48.65|-2.33|0.0734
84722237|NCT02609048|169196880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.433||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-7.07||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-7.07|-25.16|0.0010
84722238|NCT02609048|169196880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.992||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|0.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-16.27|0.0504
84722239|NCT02609048|169196880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.317||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|0.81||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-16.80|0.0738
84722240|NCT02609048|169196881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-5.46||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-5.46|-29.32|0.0057
84722241|NCT02609048|169196881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|10.08||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||10.08|-11.85|0.8703
84722242|NCT02609048|169196881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-4.71||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.71|-28.30|0.0076
84722243|NCT02609048|169196882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-2.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-27.05|0.0186
84722244|NCT02609048|169196882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-10.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|1.06||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-21.17|0.0745
84722245|NCT02609048|169196882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.0||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||7.00|-16.60|0.4131
84722246|NCT02609048|169196883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
84722247|NCT02609048|169196883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
84722248|NCT02609048|169196884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
84722249|NCT02609048|169196884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0537||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
84722250|NCT02609048|169196884|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84722251|NCT02609048|169196885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
84722252|NCT02609048|169196885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0198
84722253|NCT02609048|169196885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5165||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5165
84722254|NCT02609048|169196886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
84722255|NCT02609048|169196886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0055
84722256|NCT02609048|169196886|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
84722257|NCT02609048|169196888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.8|0.5379
84722258|NCT02609048|169196888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-3.3|0.8949
84722259|NCT02609048|169196888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-4.9|0.4431
84722260|NCT02609048|169196889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|13.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-28.0|0.4674
84722261|NCT02609048|169196889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|9.4||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-27.4|0.3236
84722262|NCT02609048|169196889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|21.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||21.9|-18.7|0.8723
84722263|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||6.0|0.8|0.0115
84722264|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.0|-0.5|0.1256
84722265|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.2|-0.9|0.1842
84722266|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||7.2|0.1|0.0420
84722267|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||3.9|-2.4|0.6384
84722268|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.5||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||6.5|-0.6|0.1035
84722269|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.4|-1.6|0.6967
84722270|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.2|-1.3|0.6164
84722271|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||1.9|-2.0|0.9548
84722272|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.9|-2.4|0.8286
84722273|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.8||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||7.8|0.6|0.0226
84722274|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||1.4|-6.6|0.1861
84722275|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||5.7|-2.4|0.4159
84722276|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||2.6|-1.3|0.4848
84722277|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.3|-3.1|0.4048
84722278|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.7|0.6|0.0141
84722279|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.2|0.5|0.0138
84722280|NCT02609048|169196890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||2.3|-1.8|0.7911
84722281|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Erythema||0.141|-0.216|
84722282|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Swelling||0.141|-0.216|
84722283|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|ALT Increased||0.119|-0.135|
84722284|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Hemoglobin Decreased||0.119|-0.135|
84722285|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.121|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Leukocytosis||0.121|-0.205|
84722286|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.111|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|PTT Prolonged||0.111|-0.127|
84535722|NCT00911807|168819597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Square (Factor Treatment)|19.59||||0.6348||||||ANCOVA F-test. The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the week 28 ADAS-cog+ change score as dependent variable and the ADAS-cog+ baseline score as a covariate.||The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the three treatment groups regarding the mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog+ at week 28. A sample size of approximately 60 evaluable patients per treatment arm was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of two points in ADAS-cog+ week 28 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 3.3) between the three groups with a power of \> 80% and a probability level of alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.6348
84722287|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.134|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Thrombocytopenia||0.134|0.022|
84722288|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fever||0.118|0.018|
84722289|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.089|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Headache||0.089|-0.203|
84722290|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.275|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Rash||0.275|0.016|
84722291|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.126|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Arthralgia||0.126|0.030|
84722292|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fatigue||0.118|-0.155|
84722293|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.105|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Myalgia||0.105|-0.105|
84722294|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.114|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Nausea||0.114|-0.160|
84722295|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Photophobia||0.141|-0.216|
84722296|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.088|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Retro-orbital Pain||0.088|-0.142|
84722297|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Decrease in Activity||0.141|-0.216|
84722298|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Loss of Appetite||0.141|-0.216|
84722299|NCT02678455|169196923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.218|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Vomiting||0.218|-0.165|
84722300|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|88.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|76|
84722301|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|96|
84722302|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm|percentage seropositive|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|92|
84722303|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|92.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|81|
84722304|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722305|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722306|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722307|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722308|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
84722309|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
84722310|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722311|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722312|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
84722313|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
84722314|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
84722315|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
84722316|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
84722317|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
84722318|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722319|NCT02678455|169196924|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|98.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|82|
84722320|NCT02678455|169196926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison between experienced vs dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-1 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||<0.001
84722321|NCT02678455|169196926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-2 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
84722322|NCT02678455|169196926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-3 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||0.070
84722323|NCT02678455|169196926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-4 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
84722324|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
84722325|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
84722326|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
84722327|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
84722328|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
84722329|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
84722330|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
84722331|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
84722332|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at stud day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
84722333|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722334|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84722335|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84722336|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722337|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722338|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
84722339|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
84722340|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722341|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84722342|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722343|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84722344|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
84722345|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|36.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||36|10|
84722346|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
84722347|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
84722348|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
84722349|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
84722350|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
84722351|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|77.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||77|46|
84722352|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 a study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||42|14|
84722353|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
84722354|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
84722355|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
84722356|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
84722357|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
84722358|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|62.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||62|30|
84722359|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|51.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||51|21|
84722360|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
84722361|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722362|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722363|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722364|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
84722365|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
84722366|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|54.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|23|
84722367|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84535723|NCT00911807|168819597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.583||95.0|-2.891|1.63||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'||1.630|-2.891|0.5830
84535724|NCT00911807|168819597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3434||95.0|-3.324|1.163||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.163|-3.324|0.3434
84722368|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
84722369|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
84722370|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
84722371|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
84722372|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
84722373|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||10|0|
84722374|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
84722375|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
84722376|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
84722377|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
84722378|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
84722379|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
84722380|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
84722381|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
84722382|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|75.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||75|45|
84722383|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
84722384|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
84722385|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
84722386|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|54.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|22|
84722387|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|50.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||50|20|
84722388|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722389|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
84722390|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722391|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
84722392|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
84722393|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|73.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||73|42|
84722394|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|52.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||52|22|
84722395|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722396|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
84722397|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
84722398|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
84722399|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
84722400|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
84722401|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
84722402|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
84722403|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
84722404|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|60.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||60|30|
84722405|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722406|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
84722407|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||35|10|
84722408|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
84722409|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
84722410|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
84722411|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|68.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||68|37|
84722412|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722413|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722414|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722415|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
84722416|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
84722417|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722418|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
84722419|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
84722420|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|Slope|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
84722421|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
84722422|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|22.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||22|3|
84722423|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
84722424|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
84722425|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|66.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||66|34|
84722426|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
84722427|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
84722428|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
84722429|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||14|0|
84722430|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
84722431|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|56|
84722432|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|63.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||63|32|
84722433|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722434|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
84722435|NCT02678455|169196927|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|38.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||38|12|
84722436|NCT04924608|169196929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|The ORR will be compared at the end of Cycle 16 between selumetinib vs placebo with the 2-sided significance level 0.047.||||||0.0112
84722437|NCT04924608|169196930|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||0.1|-1.6|0.070
84722438|NCT04924608|169196931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||nominal|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||supplementary analysis is not controlled for multiplicity.||-0.1|-1.3|0.024
84722439|NCT04924608|169196932|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||1.1|-1.2|0.918
84722440|NCT02660086|169196967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.6|0.70
84722441|NCT02660086|169196968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.3|0.20
84722442|NCT02660086|169196969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 12 months||0.9|-3.6|0.24
84722443|NCT02660086|169196969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 24 months||3.7|-0.7|0.19
84722444|NCT02660086|169196969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 12 months||0.1|-3.2|0.07
84722445|NCT02660086|169196969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 24 months||1.6|-1.5|0.94
84722446|NCT02660086|169196970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 12 months||2.9|-5.6|0.54
84722447|NCT02660086|169196970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 24 months||6.7|-3.5|0.53
84722448|NCT02660086|169196971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 12 months||2.4|-4.8|0.51
84722449|NCT02660086|169196971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 24 months||5.7|-3.4|0.60
84722450|NCT02660086|169196972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 12 months||5.1|-10.8|0.48
84722451|NCT02660086|169196972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 24 months||11.5|-3.4|0.29
84722452|NCT02660086|169196973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 12 months||1.5|-1.9|0.80
84722453|NCT02660086|169196973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 24 months||1.3|-1.9|0.72
84722454|NCT02660086|169196974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 12 months||0.1|-0.1|0.62
84722455|NCT02660086|169196974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 24 months||0.1|0.0|0.40
84722456|NCT02660086|169196975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||9.3|5.4|<0.001
84722457|NCT02660086|169196975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green-labeled purhases during 12 month follow-up (months 13-24) compared to 12 month baseline||6.8|2.9|<0.001
84722458|NCT02660086|169196976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.7|-5.0|<0.001
84722459|NCT02660086|169196976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12-month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.0|-4.3|<0.001
84722460|NCT02660086|169196977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in healthy purchasing score during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||7.0|4.2|<0.001
84722461|NCT02660086|169196977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Healthy Purchasing Score during 12 month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||5.3|2.6|<0.001
84722462|NCT02660086|169196978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||||||Change in HEI scores at 12 months.||4.1|-0.6|
84722463|NCT02660086|169196978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Change in HEI scores at 24 months||3.8|-0.7|
84722464|NCT01653509|169196979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-911.48||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2712.65|889.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||889.69|-2712.65|0.3061
84722465|NCT01653509|169196979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-150.99||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.97|215.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments for MEV.||215.99|-517.97|0.4035
84722466|NCT01653509|169196980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV (Day 1 to day 10).||4.93|0.02|0.0486
84722467|NCT01653509|169196980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||0.82|-0.05|0.0799
84722468|NCT01653509|169196981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||5.35|-1.06|0.1790
84722469|NCT01653509|169196981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||1.00|-0.27|0.2446
84722470|NCT01214200|169196988|OTHER|For the analysis of differences between pre and post treatment a student's t-test was used and was checked with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.01
84722471|NCT03928743|169196997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.87|1.71|<0.001
84722472|NCT03928743|169196998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.59|<0.001
84722473|NCT03928743|169196999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.65|<0.001
84722474|NCT03928743|169197000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.59|-1.48|<0.001
84722475|NCT03928743|169197001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.39|1.93|<0.001
84722476|NCT03928743|169197002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|2.67|<0.001
84722477|NCT03928743|169197003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|4.65|2.51|7.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.57|2.51|<0.001
84722478|NCT03928743|169197004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.63|-1.48|<0.001
84722479|NCT03928743|169197005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.96|-2.00|<0.001
84722480|NCT03928743|169197006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.68|-2.36|<0.001
84722481|NCT03928743|169197007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.67|<0.001
84722482|NCT03928743|169197008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.28||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.08|-0.47|0.006
84722483|NCT03928743|169197009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.38|-1.79|0.003
84722484|NCT03928743|169197010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.68|1.30|0.006
84722485|NCT00403494|169197029|SUPERIORITY|PWT was transformed to the log ratio at Week 24:Baseline for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.379||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.097|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the means of the natural log-transformed ratios between the 2 treatment groups.|||0.097|-0.138|0.727
84722486|NCT04658784|169197040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.92||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||1.92|0.13|0.32
84722487|NCT04658784|169197041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.65||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||5.65|0.04|1.0
84722488|NCT04658784|169197044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6- weeks.||8.7|-3.5|1.0
84722489|NCT04658784|169197044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.2||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6-months.||3.2|-5.6|
84722490|NCT04658784|169197045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.9||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-weeks.||6.9|-6.6|1.0
84722491|NCT04658784|169197045|SUPERIORITY|Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-months.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.6||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||||8.6|-3.1|1
84722492|NCT04658784|169197046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6 months.||1.3|-4.4|1.0
84722493|NCT00240994|169197098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with graft loss or death|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.192|||95% Confidence Interval|95% CI using an exact binomial method||The proportion of participants with graft loss or death within 12 months post kidney transplantation is descriptively summarized with a 95% confidence interval using an exact binomial method.||0.192|0.007|
84722494|NCT01640288|169197191|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84722495|NCT01640288|169197192|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84722496|NCT02234141|169197194|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.214||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving {1, 2, or greater than or equal to \[≥\] 3}).||||= 0.214
84722497|NCT02234141|169197194|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.27||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.270
84722498|NCT02234141|169197194|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.604||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test)|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.604
84722499|NCT02095678|169197217|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
84722500|NCT02095678|169197220|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84722501|NCT02095678|169197221|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84722502|NCT04660799|169197227|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of Ctrough SC versus Ctrough IV.|Ratio Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.79||||||Geometric mean ratio of Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.79|1.28|
84722503|NCT04660799|169197228|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of AUCsc versus AUCiv.|Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.42||||||Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.42|1.10|
84722504|NCT04660799|169197233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|45.45||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||45.45|-8.92|
84722505|NCT04660799|169197234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR Investigator|17.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|42.11||||||Investigator; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||42.11|-6.86|
84722506|NCT04660799|169197234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR IRC|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|40.88||||||IRC; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||40.88|-12.68|
84722507|NCT04660799|169197235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.49|36.59||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||36.59|-22.49|
84722508|NCT04660799|169197236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|46.73||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||46.73|-9.55|
84722509|NCT01228734|169197246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.498|<0.001
84722510|NCT00659373|169197265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84722511|NCT01934452|169197282|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.8|2.2|<0.001
84722512|NCT01934452|169197283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84722513|NCT01934452|169197284|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extended or partial nephrectomy||||1.000
84722514|NCT01934452|169197284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without adrenalectomy||||0.809
84722515|NCT01934452|169197284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without curettage||||0.019
84722516|NCT01934452|169197284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||Open or laparoscopic nephrectomy||||0.734
84722517|NCT01934452|169197285|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-3.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-13.2|0.230
84722518|NCT01934452|169197286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid contingent||||0.695
84722519|NCT01934452|169197287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||Chi-squared|||M class||||0.316
84722520|NCT01934452|169197288|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-2.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-22.0|0.778
84722521|NCT01934452|169197289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
84722522|NCT01934452|169197290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.77|||Chi-squared|||Presence of necrosis||6.77|0.90|0.077
84722523|NCT01934452|169197290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.52|||Chi-squared|||Vascular embolism||3.52|0.44|0.673
84722524|NCT01934452|169197290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.97|||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid component||3.97|0.27|1.000
84722525|NCT01934452|169197291|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-1.5|0.865
84722526|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||Lung||||0.011
84722527|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||Bones||||0.132
84722528|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver||||0.473
84722529|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adrenal glands||||0.101
84722530|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pancreas||||0.445
84722531|NCT01934452|169197292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.040
84722532|NCT01934452|169197293|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Supradiaphragmatic||||1.000
84722533|NCT01934452|169197293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infradiaphragmatic||||0.295
84722534|NCT01934452|169197294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
84722535|NCT01934452|169197295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
84722536|NCT01934452|169197296|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.0|-1.0|<0.001
84722537|NCT01934452|169197297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
84722538|NCT01543204|169197352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|35.97|||Wald asymptotic test|||||35.97|-15.97|0.4505
84722539|NCT02449902|169197400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84722540|NCT02449902|169197401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
84722541|NCT02449902|169197402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
84722542|NCT02449902|169197403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
84722543|NCT02449902|169197404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9951
84722544|NCT02449902|169197405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1429
84722545|NCT02449902|169197406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1945
84722546|NCT02449902|169197407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
84722547|NCT02449902|169197408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
84722548|NCT02449902|169197409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0401
84722549|NCT02037568|169197416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
84722550|NCT02037568|169197417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
84722551|NCT02037568|169197418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
84722552|NCT02037568|169197419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84722553|NCT02037568|169197420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
84722554|NCT02037568|169197421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
84722555|NCT02037568|169197422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
84722556|NCT02037568|169197423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
84722557|NCT02037568|169197424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
84722558|NCT00721734|169197425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.607||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.129|0.914|||Regression, Linear|||"In order to estimate a possible effect of renal function, the relationship between the clearance of carfilzomib and creatinine clearance (CrCl) was explored using a mixed-effects model that included CrCl.~The slope of the regression of CL as a function of CrCL at Cycle 1, Day 1 was evaluated using a linear regression model that included CrCL as continuous variables (excluding the hemodialysis group)."||0.914|-2.129|0.4114
84722559|NCT04278833|169197462|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
84722560|NCT04278833|169197462|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||<0.001
84722561|NCT04278833|169197462|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||<0.001
84722562|NCT04278833|169197463|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.280
84722563|NCT04278833|169197463|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.070
84722564|NCT04278833|169197463|OTHER|||||||0.851||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.851
84722565|NCT04278833|169197464|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
84722566|NCT04278833|169197464|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.021
84722567|NCT04278833|169197464|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.044
84722568|NCT04278833|169197465|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.226
84722569|NCT04278833|169197465|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.071
84722570|NCT04278833|169197465|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.382
84722571|NCT04278833|169197466|OTHER|||||||0.152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.152
84722572|NCT04278833|169197466|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3.||||0.261
84722573|NCT04278833|169197466|OTHER|||||||0.437||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6.||||0.437
84722574|NCT04278833|169197467|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
84722575|NCT04278833|169197467|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84722576|NCT04278833|169197468|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
84722577|NCT04278833|169197468|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84722578|NCT03769090|169197484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.879|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDA MDI treatment.||0.879|0.611|<0.001
84722579|NCT03769090|169197484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = Null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDI MDI treatment.||0.992|0.702|0.041
84722580|NCT03769090|169197485|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.93|0.62|0.008
84722581|NCT03769090|169197485|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.98|0.66|0.028
84722582|NCT03769090|169197486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.002
84722583|NCT03769090|169197486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.06
84722584|NCT03769090|169197487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.467|1.016|0.033
84722585|NCT03769090|169197487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.353|0.946|0.175
84722586|NCT03769090|169197488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.475|1.022|0.028
84722587|NCT03769090|169197488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.335|0.925|0.26
84722588|NCT03964974|169197489|SUPERIORITY|2-sided hypothesis tests were utilized to compare ISI score over time in the two treatment conditions.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-1.104||This is the calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Persons in the CBTI-CB condition were hypothesized as realizing greater reduction in insomnia severity as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over time compared to the Sleep Hygiene Education (SHE) condition. 80% power was estimated to detect a medium or larger effect size (d\>0.52) on sleep- and functioning-related outcomes, even with a more conservative alpha set at 0.017 (i.e., 0.05/3 for the 3 outcomes).|Parameter is estimated difference in final means, CBTi-CB - Control. Minus sign denotes greater decrease for CBTi-CB. Effect size for Time X Condition = 0.81|-1.104|-7.510|0.0041
84722589|NCT02713594|169197498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-4.5|||Abstinence Risk Difference|||||-4.5|-11.28|<.0001
84722590|NCT02713594|169197499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test value = 196.1, with 5 degrees of freedom.||||||<.0001
84722591|NCT00413283|169197508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.972
84722592|NCT00413283|169197508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.725
84722593|NCT00413283|169197508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.312
84722594|NCT00413283|169197509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722595|NCT00413283|169197509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722596|NCT00413283|169197509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722597|NCT00413283|169197510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722598|NCT00413283|169197510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722599|NCT00413283|169197510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
84722600|NCT00413283|169197511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.454
84722601|NCT00413283|169197511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.101
84722602|NCT00413283|169197511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.199
84722603|NCT00413283|169197512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
84722604|NCT00413283|169197512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
84722605|NCT00413283|169197512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
84722606|NCT01450007|169197524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84722607|NCT01450007|169197525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84722608|NCT01450007|169197526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
84722609|NCT01450007|169197527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 24 hours.||||0.61
84722610|NCT01450007|169197527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 48 hours.||||0.13
84722611|NCT01450007|169197527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 1 week.||||0.25
84722612|NCT02224755|169197528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.1||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-2.1|<0.001
84722613|NCT02224755|169197529|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.8||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||9.8|<0.001
84722614|NCT02224755|169197530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Based on data in the Sponsor's device tracking database, 7% of patients with the HeartMate II LVAS receive a pump replacement by 24 months. The expected proportion of patients with the HeartMate 3 LVAS to receive a pump replacement by 24 months was assumed to be 3%. We estimated that to demonstrate superiority of HeartMate 3 to HeartMate II with a power of 80% and α = 0.05 (2-sided), a total of 1028 patients (514 per arm) were required using the Fisher's exact test.||.38|.11|<0.001
84722615|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||||<0.001
84722616|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-HBsAg ≥10 mIU/mL||||<0.001
84722617|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Diphtheria ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
84722618|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Tetanus ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
84722619|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PT seroresponse||||<0.001
84722620|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FHA seroresponse||||<0.001
84722621|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FIM seroresponse||||<0.001
84722622|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRN seroresponse||||<0.001
84722623|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV1 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
84722624|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV2 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
84722625|NCT01480258|169197557|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV3 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
84722626|NCT01480258|169197558|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06||Stratification by country.|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
84722627|NCT01480258|169197559|SUPERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0, it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was superior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratification by country.||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
84722628|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in PRP response rate (based on Ab titre ≥1.0 μg/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-inferiority for PRP||2.52|-5.13|<0.001
84722629|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in HBsAg response rate (based on Ab titre ≥10 mIU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|ifference in percentages|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for HBsAg||1.35|-2.66|<0.001
84722630|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Diphtheria response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Diptheria||-0.22|-2.54|<0.001
84722631|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Tetanus response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Tetanus||0.50|-0.95|<0.001
84722632|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PT was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PT||0.49|-1.75|<0.001
84722633|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for FHA was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.26|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for FHA||-0.26|-3.47|<0.001
84722634|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PRN was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PRN||0.39|-3.42|<0.001
84722635|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV1 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV1||0.34|-1.59|<0.001
84722636|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV2 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV2||0.49|-0.96|<0.001
84722637|NCT01480258|169197560|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV3 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV3||0.82|-1.20|<0.001
84722638|NCT01480258|169197561|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate for anti-rotavirus IgA GMT ratio (PR5I group/INFANRIX hexa group) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value and 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was greater than 0.50 (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that the Rotarix antigen response in the PR5I group was not inferior to the Rotarix antigen response in the INFANRIX hexa group.|Geometric Mean Titre (GMT) ratio|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|0.54|0.011
84722639|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||ISR or systemic AE||1.4|-0.7|
84722640|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||||95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||ISR or V-related systemic AE||2.0|-0.3|
84722641|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.0||||||At least 1 ISR||6.0|-0.7|
84722642|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9||||||At least 1 solicited ISR||5.9|-0.9|
84722643|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||||||At least 1 systemic AE||1.4|-1.1|
84722644|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
84722645|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 solicited systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
84722646|NCT01480258|169197562|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.3||||||At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE||2.3|-0.4|
84722647|NCT01480258|169197563|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.3||||||Injection-site erythema||13.3|3.0|
84722648|NCT01480258|169197563|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3||||||Injection-site pain||8.3|-1.5|
84722649|NCT01480258|169197563|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||||95.0|2.1|12.9||||||Injection-site swelling||12.9|2.1|
84722650|NCT01480258|169197564|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Injection-site bruising||0.3|-2.5|
84722651|NCT01480258|169197564|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||||||Injection-site haemorrhage||1.6|-1.5|
84722652|NCT01480258|169197564|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.4||||||Injection-site induration||6.4|-1.2|
84722653|NCT01480258|169197564|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||||||Injection-site nodule||1.5|-0.8|
84722654|NCT01480258|169197564|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7||||||Injection-site warmth||2.7|-0.4|
84722655|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.7||||||Crying||5.7|-1.3|
84722656|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.8||||||Decreased appetite||8.8|-1.6|
84722657|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4||||||Irritability||5.4|-1.0|
84722658|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.3||||||Pyrexia||11.3|1.5|
84722659|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.8||||||Somnolence||9.8|1.7|
84722660|NCT01480258|169197565|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.9||||||Vomiting||6.9|-3.2|
84722661|NCT01482091|169197566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
84722662|NCT01482091|169197568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.05
84722663|NCT01482091|169197569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84722664|NCT01482091|169197572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.68
84722665|NCT01482091|169197573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84722666|NCT01482091|169197574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84722667|NCT01482091|169197578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84722668|NCT02362789|169197605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-5.59|||ANCOVA|||||-5.59|-31.01|0.0055
84722669|NCT02684136|169197606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|baseline used as covariate||||||<0.05
84722670|NCT02684136|169197607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||baseline used as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84722671|NCT00621842|169197618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|df=53||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-18.0|<.01
84722672|NCT00621842|169197620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-17.5|<.01
84722673|NCT00621842|169197621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.88|-1.82|.49
84722674|NCT00621842|169197622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-1.68|-2.43|<.01
84722675|NCT00621842|169197623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.28|-.36|.80
84722676|NCT00621842|169197624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.36||95.0|-0.97|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||2.62|-.97|.36
84722677|NCT00621842|169197626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.09|-1.67|.08
84722678|NCT00621842|169197627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04||95.0|-1.03|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-.04|-1.03|.04
84722679|NCT05270460|169197641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons were made using Dunnett's test at the overall alpha = 0.05 significance level|ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
84722680|NCT05270460|169197642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
84722681|NCT05270460|169197643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84722682|NCT05270460|169197644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84722683|NCT05270460|169197645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84722684|NCT05270460|169197646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84722685|NCT05270460|169197647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84722686|NCT05270460|169197648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84722687|NCT05270460|169197649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84722688|NCT05270460|169197650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
84722689|NCT00380250|169197651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.117
84722690|NCT00380250|169197652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.006
84722691|NCT00380250|169197653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.050
84722692|NCT00380250|169197654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.159
84722693|NCT00380250|169197655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.378
84722694|NCT00380250|169197656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for clinical site||||||0.588
84722695|NCT00380250|169197657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||90% statistical power to detect 70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone||||0.029
84722696|NCT00380250|169197658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.028
84722697|NCT00380250|169197659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.069
84722698|NCT00380250|169197660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.098
84722699|NCT00380250|169197661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.286
84722700|NCT00380250|169197662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.337|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.337
84722701|NCT00380250|169197663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.334
84722702|NCT00380250|169197664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.242
84722703|NCT00380250|169197665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.030
84722704|NCT00380250|169197666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.130
84722705|NCT00380250|169197667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.049
84722706|NCT00380250|169197668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.348|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.348
84722707|NCT00380250|169197669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.064
84722708|NCT00380250|169197670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.111
84722709|NCT00380250|169197671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.144
84722710|NCT00380250|169197672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by pooled center||||||0.168
84722711|NCT00380250|169197673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|||||||van Elteren nonparametic test|Adjusted for center||||||0.615
84722712|NCT00380250|169197674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.108
84722713|NCT00380250|169197675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.483
84722714|NCT00380250|169197676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.491
84722715|NCT00380250|169197677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
84722716|NCT00380250|169197678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
84722717|NCT00380250|169197679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
84722718|NCT02833948|169197686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact probability test was used to compare the percentages of patients with the primary end point between the treatment groups.||||||0.01
84722719|NCT02833948|169197690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
84722720|NCT02397707|169197696|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM)Ratio%|411.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.72|789.08||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||789.08|214.72|
84722721|NCT02397707|169197696|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|644.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|364.67|1137.82||||||An ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1137.82|364.67|
84722722|NCT02397707|169197697|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|399.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|210.89|755.81||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||755.81|210.89|
84722723|NCT02397707|169197697|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|599.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|342.36|1050.22||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1050.22|342.36|
84722724|NCT02397707|169197698|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|338.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.96|677.79||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||677.79|168.96|
84722725|NCT02397707|169197698|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|713.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|384.07|1327.06||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1327.06|384.07|
84722726|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.09|60.57|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||60.57|-63.09|
84722727|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.24|36.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||36.97|-91.24|
84722728|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.19|119.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||119.62|-32.19|
84722729|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|129.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||129.35|-6.38|
84722730|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.51|191.23|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||191.23|60.51|
84722731|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|227.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||227.45|84.99|
84722732|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|106.41|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||106.41|-3.57|
84722733|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|202.72|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||202.72|82.76|
84722734|NCT02691702|169197736|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.11|234.69|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||234.69|115.11|
84722735|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.09|-9.43|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||-9.43|-133.09|
84722736|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.24|51.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||51.97|-76.24|
84722737|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.81|164.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||164.62|12.81|
84722738|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.38|114.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||114.35|-21.38|
84722739|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.94|152.66|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||152.66|21.94|
84722740|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.99|197.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||197.45|54.99|
84722741|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.51|151.21|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||151.21|33.51|
84722742|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.31|167.27|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||167.27|47.31|
84722743|NCT02691702|169197737|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.91|203.3|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||203.30|77.91|
84722744|NCT05613088|169197750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Log Rank|||||2.00|0.76|0.4063
84722745|NCT01638000|169197787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for difference of adjusted change from baseline between solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg was \> -0.20. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg. Overall power calculation was 80% for a 1-sided test and significance level of 0.025.|least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicated superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||The non-inferiority of mirabegron vs. solifencacin on the change from baseline to final visit in the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours.||0.06|-0.42|0.15
84722746|NCT01638000|169197788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.25||If P \<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the smallest percentage of participants with at least 1 TEAE of dry mouth, constipation or blurred vision during the double-blind period at the final visit.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥ 2) and geographic region as factors.||Difference vs Mirabegron. Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of mirabegron 50 mg group from the percentage of solifenacin 5 mg group.||2.25|1.04|0.030
84722747|NCT01638000|169197789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.27|-0.19|0.71
84722748|NCT01638000|169197789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.47|0.053
84722749|NCT01638000|169197789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.44|0.12
84722750|NCT01638000|169197790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.9||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.11|0.73|0.33
84722751|NCT01638000|169197790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.10|0.64|0.21
84722752|NCT01638000|169197790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.32|0.71|0.83
84722753|NCT01638000|169197790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.24|0.68|0.57
84722754|NCT01638000|169197791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.25|0.36
84722755|NCT01638000|169197791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.48|0.12
84722756|NCT01638000|169197791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.07|-0.57|0.47
84722757|NCT01638000|169197792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.14|0.74|0.44
84722758|NCT01638000|169197792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.06|0.60|0.11
84722759|NCT01638000|169197792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.45|0.76|0.78
84722760|NCT01638000|169197792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.33||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.33|0.71|0.85
84722761|NCT01638000|169197793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.14|-0.18|0.66
84722762|NCT01638000|169197793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.03|-0.31|0.17
84722763|NCT01638000|169197793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.02|-0.24|0.66
84722764|NCT01638000|169197794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.19|-0.44|0.43
84722765|NCT01638000|169197794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.04|-0.66|0.027
84722766|NCT01638000|169197794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.64|0.053
84722767|NCT01638000|169197794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.09|-0.55|0.16
84722768|NCT01638000|169197795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.05|0.99
84722769|NCT01638000|169197795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.07|0.47
84722770|NCT01638000|169197795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.06|-0.06|0.99
84722771|NCT01638000|169197795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.07|-0.05|0.74
84722772|NCT01638000|169197796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.20|0.89|0.67
84722773|NCT01638000|169197796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.99|0.073
84722774|NCT01638000|169197796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.37|0.92|0.25
84722775|NCT01638000|169197796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.31|0.90|0.40
84722776|NCT01638000|169197797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.20|-0.25|0.84
84722777|NCT01638000|169197797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.15|-0.24|0.63
84722778|NCT01638000|169197797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16||if p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.16|-0.28|0.59
84722779|NCT01638000|169197798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|1.00|0.068
84722780|NCT01638000|169197798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|0.98|0.21
84722781|NCT01638000|169197798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.95|0.52
84722782|NCT01638000|169197798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.96|0.44
84722783|NCT01638000|169197799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.18|-0.00|0.058
84722784|NCT01638000|169197799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.12|-0.06|0.50
84722785|NCT01638000|169197799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.08|0.81
84722786|NCT01638000|169197800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.28|0.85|0.67
84722787|NCT01638000|169197800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.03|0.026
84722788|NCT01638000|169197800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.97|0.11
84722789|NCT01638000|169197800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final Visit Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.43|0.97|0.093
84722790|NCT01638000|169197801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.48|0.76|0.74
84722791|NCT01638000|169197801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.63|0.71|0.74
84722792|NCT01638000|169197801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||2.00|0.81|0.29
84722793|NCT01638000|169197801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.90|0.82|0.29
84722794|NCT01638000|169197802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.67||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.67|0.90|0.20
84722795|NCT01638000|169197802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.26|0.65|0.57
84722796|NCT01638000|169197802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.69|0.92
84722797|NCT01638000|169197802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.42|0.73|0.90
84722798|NCT01638000|169197823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.08||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.08|-3.29|0.039
84722799|NCT01638000|169197823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.13|-3.46|0.034
84722800|NCT01638000|169197823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.30|-3.90|0.022
84722801|NCT01638000|169197823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-3.68|0.043
84722802|NCT01638000|169197824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||2.65|-0.37|0.14
84722803|NCT01638000|169197824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.13|-0.03|0.055
84722804|NCT01638000|169197824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.25||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.25|-0.15|0.074
84722805|NCT01638000|169197824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.12|-0.30|0.11
84722806|NCT01638000|169197825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.01|-0.19|0.070
84722807|NCT01638000|169197825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
84722808|NCT01638000|169197825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron.Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.03|-0.26|0.015
84722809|NCT01638000|169197825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.02|-0.25|0.021
84722810|NCT01638000|169197826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.15|0.002
84722811|NCT01638000|169197826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.14|0.003
84722812|NCT01638000|169197827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean diffrence|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.02|0.027
84722813|NCT01638000|169197827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.01|0.034
84722814|NCT01638000|169197828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.81|1.08|0.010
84722815|NCT01638000|169197828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.75|1.07|0.011
84722816|NCT01638000|169197829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.62|1.02|0.037
84722817|NCT01638000|169197829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|1.01|0.045
84722818|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06||Iif p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.06|1.11|0.009
84722819|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.65|0.99|0.065
84722820|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.55|1.00|0.051
84722821|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.47|0.95|0.14
84722822|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.40|0.75|0.89
84722823|NCT01638000|169197830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Week 12 (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
84722824|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.93|1.07|0.016
84722825|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.62|0.99|0.063
84722826|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.00|0.054
84722827|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.46||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.46|0.95|0.15
84722828|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.77|0.75
84722829|NCT01638000|169197831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Final visit (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
84722830|NCT01638000|169197832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|0.97|0.082
84722831|NCT01638000|169197832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.49||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.49|0.94|0.15
84722832|NCT01638000|169197833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|0.99|0.058
84722833|NCT01638000|169197833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visitI|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.50|0.99|0.069
84722834|NCT03652610|169197839|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A is \> 0.5|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted human serum bactericidal assay (hSBA) Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.20|0.64|
84722835|NCT03652610|169197840|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||1.68|0.84|
84722836|NCT03652610|169197840|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||1.58|0.96|
84722837|NCT03652610|169197840|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||1.58|0.90|
84722838|NCT03652610|169197842|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.52|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||1.52|-9.30|
84722839|NCT03652610|169197842|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.43|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||8.43|-4.70|
84722840|NCT03652610|169197842|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.01|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||11.01|-1.97|
84722841|NCT03652610|169197842|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||11.57|-1.11|
84722842|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.49|-6.47|
84722843|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|5.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.83|-6.99|
84722844|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|0.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.47|-12.33|
84722845|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.76|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||2.76|-8.30|
84722846|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|1.21|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||1.21|-8.65|
84722847|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|5.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.33|-6.12|
84722848|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|6.02|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||6.02|-5.49|
84722849|NCT03652610|169197843|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|6.62|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.62|-4.33|
84722850|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|1.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.37|-7.24|
84722851|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.16|-7.34|
84722852|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.50|-12.35|
84722853|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|3.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||3.06|-8.15|
84722854|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|0.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||0.96|-8.87|
84722855|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.65|-5.52|
84722856|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||5.57|-5.92|
84722857|NCT03652610|169197844|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.90|-4.89|
84722858|NCT03775213|169197850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.58||||||||2.58|.91|
84722859|NCT03775213|169197851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||||||Active Monitoring||1.88|.49|
84722860|NCT03775213|169197851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.41||||||Lumpectomy||1.41|.79|
84722861|NCT03775213|169197851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||Lumpectomy with Radiation||1.30|.62|
84722862|NCT03775213|169197851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.47||||||Mastectomy||1.47|.48|
84722863|NCT03775213|169197852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.98||||||||1.98|.59|
84722864|NCT03775213|169197853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.45||||||||1.45|.65|
84722865|NCT03775213|169197854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||||.38|-.20|
84722866|NCT00786188|169197871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Week 4 frequency|Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.0177
84722867|NCT00786188|169197871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541||||||Week 8 frequency|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0541
84722868|NCT00786188|169197872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||||||Week 4 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0644
84722869|NCT00786188|169197872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364||||||Week 8 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0364
84722870|NCT01742832|169197931|OTHER|Linear repeated measures regression models were constructed to assess trends over time between groups where the dependent variable was outcome measure (MADRS score) and independent variables included visit, treatment group, visit by treatment group interaction, and any baseline variables that were significant between groups.||||||0.342||||||P-value for linear regression assessing outcome measure (MADRS score) and treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
84722871|NCT03787628|169197933|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.703||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 67).|||||0.41
84722872|NCT03787628|169197934|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of spontaneous craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on spontaneous craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.99
84722873|NCT03787628|169197935|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of state anxiety.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on state anxiety (degrees of freedom = 1, 550)|||||0.84
84722874|NCT03787628|169197936|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of negative affect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on negative affect (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.60
84722875|NCT02485925|169197953|OTHER||Proportion of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|86.4|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|86.4|73.9|
84722876|NCT02485925|169197954|OTHER||Proportion of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|100.0|97.2|
84722877|NCT06922643|169197958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|27.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.8|1.63|0.008
84722878|NCT06943638|169197963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84722879|NCT02786966|169197993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and sex||||0.6|0.2|0.0007
84722880|NCT02786966|169197994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and sex.|0.80|0.47|0.0007
84722881|NCT02786966|169197995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age and sex||||0.91|0.52|0.0093
84722882|NCT01190124|169198017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning HIV-RNA levels at baseline||||<0.001
84722883|NCT01190124|169198020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at baseline||||<0.001
84722884|NCT01190124|169198033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 24||||0.007
84722885|NCT01190124|169198034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 48||||0.001
84722886|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.101
84722887|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.168
84722888|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.930
84722889|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.487
84722890|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.914
84722891|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.977
84722892|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.109
84722893|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.291
84722894|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.984
84722895|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.373
84722896|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.623
84722897|NCT00070707|169198036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.978
84722898|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.023
84722899|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.693
84722900|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.483
84722901|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.088
84722902|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.210
84722903|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.178
84722904|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.055
84722905|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.915
84722906|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.471
84722907|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.110
84722908|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.305
84535725|NCT00911807|168819597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.6962||95.0|-2.719|1.819||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.819|-2.719|0.6962
84722909|NCT00070707|169198037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.461
84722910|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.068
84722911|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.116
84722912|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.749
84535726|NCT04036799|168819649|OTHER|Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions.|Cumulative proportion of events at 5 yrs|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
84722913|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.289|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.289
84722914|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.982
84722915|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.941|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.941
84722916|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.128
84722917|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.484
84722918|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.673
84722919|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.250
84722920|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.450
84722921|NCT00070707|169198038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.774
84722922|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.078
84722923|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.492
84722924|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.945
84722925|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.359
84722926|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.802
84722927|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.716
84722928|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.158
84722929|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.281
84722930|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.901
84722931|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.433
84722932|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.730
84722933|NCT00070707|169198039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.819|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.819
84722934|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.629
84722935|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.038
84722936|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.182
84722937|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.149
84722938|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.035
84722939|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.056
84722940|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.711|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.711
84722941|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.098
84722942|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.356
84722943|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.529
84722944|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.617
84722945|NCT00070707|169198040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.422
84722946|NCT00070707|169198041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline||||||0.532|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
84722947|NCT00070707|169198041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 15||||||0.739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
84722948|NCT00070707|169198041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 29||||||0.227|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.227
84722949|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.104
84722950|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.022
84722951|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.012
84722952|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
84722953|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.033
84722954|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.047
84722955|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.269
84722956|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.308|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.308
84722957|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.050
84722958|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.014
84722959|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.100
84722960|NCT00070707|169198042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.139
84722961|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.136
84722962|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.126
84722963|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.107
84535727|NCT04240392|168819650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|4.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||4.055|0.462|0.5340
84722964|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.006
84722965|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.030
84722966|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.037
84722967|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.146
84722968|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.426
84722969|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.259
84722970|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.026
84722971|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.022
84722972|NCT00070707|169198043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.043
84722973|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.181
84722974|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
84722975|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
84722976|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.002
84722977|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.027
84722978|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.069
84722979|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.373
84722980|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.148
84722981|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.009
84722982|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.016
84722983|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.113
84722984|NCT00070707|169198044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.173
84722985|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.089
84722986|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
84722987|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
84722988|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
84722989|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.041
84722990|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.036
84722991|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.170
84722992|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.237
84722993|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.019
84722994|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.018
84722995|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.149
84722996|NCT00070707|169198045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.231
84722997|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.745
84722998|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.250
84722999|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (AM)||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.202
84723000|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (AM)||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.104
84723001|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (AM)||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
84723002|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (AM)||||||0.355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
84723003|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline (PM)||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.851
84723004|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 1 (PM)||||||0.993|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.993
84723005|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (PM)||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
84723006|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (PM)||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.149
84723007|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (PM)||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.616
84723008|NCT00070707|169198046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (PM)||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
84723009|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.116
84723010|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.994
84723011|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.961
84723012|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.183
84723013|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.440
84723014|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.838
84723015|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.096
84723016|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.362
84723017|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.693
84723018|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.603
84723019|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.579
84723020|NCT00070707|169198047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.413
84723021|NCT00070707|169198048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
84723022|NCT00070707|169198048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.744
84723023|NCT00070707|169198048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.675
84723024|NCT00070707|169198049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.693
84723025|NCT00070707|169198049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.818
84723026|NCT00070707|169198049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.915
84723027|NCT00070707|169198050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
84535728|NCT04240392|168819651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.979|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At delivery||1.979|0.326|0.600
84723028|NCT00070707|169198050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.202
84723029|NCT00070707|169198050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.199
84723030|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.375
84723031|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.710
84723032|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.597|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.597
84723033|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.242
84723034|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.696
84723035|NCT00070707|169198051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.670
84723036|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.865
84723037|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.025
84723038|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.288
84723039|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.790
84723040|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.211
84723041|NCT00070707|169198052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.136
84723042|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.667
84723043|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.656
84723044|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.458
84723045|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.220
84723046|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.775
84723047|NCT00070707|169198053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.994
84723048|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.363
84723049|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.262
84723050|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.386
84723051|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.167
84723052|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.505
84723053|NCT00070707|169198054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.725
84723054|NCT00070707|169198055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 15||||0.954
84723055|NCT00070707|169198055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 29||||0.295
84723056|NCT00070707|169198056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 15||||0.268
84723057|NCT00070707|169198056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 29||||0.154
84723058|NCT01523392|169198062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.9|-153.3||Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects and a random effect for patient within sequence|Mixed Models Analysis||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-153.3|-213.9|<0.001
84723059|NCT01523392|169198063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-65.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after loading dose||-65.0|-142.5|<0.001
84723060|NCT01523392|169198063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-165.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.4|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after loading dose||-133.3|-197.4|<0.001
84723061|NCT01523392|169198064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.4|-109.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-109.5|-160.4|<0.001
84723062|NCT01523392|169198064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.9|-92.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-92.2|-143.9|<0.001
84723063|NCT01523392|169198064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-133.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.7|-107.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-107.1|-159.7|<0.001
84723064|NCT01928732|169198072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Response Odds Ratio (OR). Response is defined as greater than or equal to 10 point improvement in severity.||1.65|1.00|
84723065|NCT01928732|169198072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Loss of Diagnosis Odds Ratio (OR). Loss of Diagnosis is defined as Response, plus no longer meeting DSM-5 symptom criteria and severity less than 25.||1.74|1.12|
84723066|NCT01928732|169198072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Remission Odds Ratio (OR). Remission is defined as loss of diagnosis plus severity less than 12.||2.00|1.24|
84723067|NCT01185340|169198080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.751
84723068|NCT01719172|169198099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percent (%) success in obtaining hemostasis at the Target Bleeding Site (TBS) within 5 minutes following Veriset™ application. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true success percentage was calculated. Subjects who received rescue therapy on the target bleeding site prior to obtaining hemostasis were considered failures.||||<0.0001
84723069|NCT01719172|169198100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 1 minute were presented. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage was calculated.||||0.0214
84723070|NCT01719172|169198101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.0||||||Time to achieve hemostasis was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis. Additionally, A 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence interval for the median was computed based on the sign test.||1.0||
84723071|NCT01093690|169198125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||No adjustment.|Chi-squared|1-sided test||the study had 80 percent power to detect an absolute difference of 20 percent in complete response (70% for metoclopramide group vs 50% for control group)||||0.41
84723072|NCT00246129|169198127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.467
84723073|NCT00246129|169198128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.138
84478337|NCT05014542|168707974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of A group) - mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of C group)|The Lequesne index in Week 24 compared two confirmed comparable groups (at baseline), 9 weeks after acupuncture treatment in group A ended, while the C group was still a control. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The between-group comparability test at Week 24 was provided to accept or reject the null hypothesis by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion.||||< 0.001
84723074|NCT03740737|169198136|OTHER||Treatment difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|67.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||67.1|55.5|<0.001
84723075|NCT03740737|169198137|OTHER||Treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|33.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||33.7|22.5|<0.001
84723076|NCT03740737|169198141|OTHER||Treatment difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|36.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||36.0|24.7|<0.001
84723077|NCT03740737|169198141|OTHER||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|72.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||72.1|61.2|<0.001
84723078|NCT03740737|169198142|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|34.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||34.6|23.4|<0.001
84723079|NCT03740737|169198142|OTHER||Treatment difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|69.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||69.1|57.5|<0.001
84723080|NCT03740737|169198144|OTHER||Treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|39.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||39.2|28.1|<0.001
84723081|NCT03740737|169198144|OTHER||Treatment difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|76.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||76.2|65.3|<0.001
84723082|NCT03740737|169198156|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84723083|NCT03740737|169198157|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84723084|NCT03740737|169198158|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.220
84723085|NCT03740737|169198159|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
84723086|NCT02005172|169198214|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis used the TOST procedure for equivalence. A difference of less than 10% between devices on the proportion of diagnostic days during the monitoring period was considered to be equivalent. We hypothesized that the percentage of diagnostic days for the ELR and the KM would be 20% and 15%, respectively.||||||||||||||||For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence.|"Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation (SD), percentages) were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. The total number of tracings and the percentage of tracings with arrhythmias for each device were also calculated.~For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. Patients were asked to use both devices for the same duration. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence. The primary hypothesis was that the KM"|||
84723087|NCT02236611|169198215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus glycopyrronium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to glycopyrronium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to glycopyrronium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.005|0.100
84723088|NCT01335061|169198239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
84723089|NCT03302091|169198273|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.83|386.94|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||386.94|101.83|
84723090|NCT03302091|169198274|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.56|337.78|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||337.78|116.56|
84723091|NCT03302091|169198275|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|226.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.35|327.53|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||327.53|156.35|
84723092|NCT03302091|169198276|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|140.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.06|182.43|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||182.43|108.06|
84723093|NCT03302091|169198277|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|165.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.51|255.17|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||255.17|107.51|
84723094|NCT03302091|169198278|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|128.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|165.57|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||165.57|99.64|
84535729|NCT04240392|168819651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|1.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At 3 months post partum||1.975|0.254|0.471
84723095|NCT01536704|169198279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.88|
84723096|NCT01536704|169198279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.05|0.98|
84723097|NCT01536704|169198280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.85|
84723098|NCT01536704|169198280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.02|0.93|
84723099|NCT01536704|169198281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.88|0.95|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.95|0.88|
84723100|NCT01536704|169198281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.06|0.98|
84723101|NCT01536704|169198282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0006||||0.1491||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.1491
84723102|NCT01536704|169198282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.6790
84723103|NCT01536704|169198283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0641||||0.5619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5619
84723104|NCT01536704|169198283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538||||0.4523||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.4523
84723105|NCT01536704|169198284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0025||||0.5113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5113
84723106|NCT01536704|169198284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0042||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5370
84723107|NCT00308308|169198302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 15% dropout rate, 589 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.08|
84723108|NCT00308308|169198303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-1.0|-2.7|<0.0001
84723109|NCT00308308|169198304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.3|||ANCOVA|||||-6.3|-35.4|0.0052
84723110|NCT00308308|169198305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.652|0.536|0.8311
84723111|NCT00308308|169198306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.856|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.856|0.278|0.0124
84723112|NCT00308308|169198307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.169|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||1.169|0.582|0.2786
84723113|NCT00308308|169198308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1193|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.1193
84535730|NCT04240392|168819652|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|1.53||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At week 36||6.19|-3.13|0.518
84723114|NCT00308308|169198309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2131|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.2131
84723115|NCT02551224|169198317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.99|0.51|<0.0001
84723116|NCT02551224|169198318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.61|0.21|<0.0001
84723117|NCT01802333|169198319|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.84
84723118|NCT01802333|169198319|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm II was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.42
84723119|NCT01802333|169198320|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test, 1-sided|||||||<0.0001
84723120|NCT01802333|169198322|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm II using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1).||||0.52
84723121|NCT00089791|169198380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.26|0.41||Logistic regression was used to generate the p-value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.41|0.26|<0.0001
84723122|NCT00089791|169198381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0106||95.0|0.67|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.67|0.0106
84723123|NCT00089791|169198382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0362||95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.37|0.0362
84723124|NCT05074433|169198390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.393|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.393|0.093|
84723125|NCT05074433|169198390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|2.929|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||2.929|0.072|
84723126|NCT05074433|169198390|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|3.668|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.668|0.101|
84723127|NCT01989793|169198464|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 8||||0.97
84723128|NCT01989793|169198465|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 16||||0.48
84723129|NCT01989793|169198466|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 24||||0.59
84535731|NCT04240392|168819652|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.32||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At 3 months post partum||5.06|-4.41|0.893
84723130|NCT01989793|169198467|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 8||||0.212
84723131|NCT01989793|169198468|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 16||||0.271
84723132|NCT01989793|169198469|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 24||||0.203
84723133|NCT01989793|169198470|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.82
84723134|NCT01989793|169198471|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
84535732|NCT00191113|168819653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interaction terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Randomized Humatrope minus As-Randomized Control"|This component of the primary analysis is inferential i.e. to ascertain definitively whether Humatrope treatment affects change in Height SDS (NCHS). Null hypothesis is no effect of Humatrope treatment.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
84723135|NCT01989793|169198472|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
84723136|NCT00849485|169198481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0||||||90.0|94.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.5|
84723137|NCT00849485|169198482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9||||||90.0|97.6|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|97.6|
84723138|NCT00849485|169198483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|98.1|
84723139|NCT01235936|169198484|OTHER|The primary endpoint was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0020
84723140|NCT01235936|169198485|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0156
84723141|NCT01235936|169198486|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0098
84723142|NCT01235936|169198487|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0195
84723143|NCT01235936|169198488|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.8262|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.8262
84723144|NCT01235936|169198494|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0020
84723145|NCT01235936|169198495|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.2383|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.2383
84723146|NCT01235936|169198496|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
84723147|NCT01235936|169198497|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
84723148|NCT00556478|169198504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (over 3 months/Baseline)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|2.29|<0.0001
84723149|NCT00556478|169198505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|6.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of IPE domain ejaculatory control||6.34|3.61|<0.0001
84723150|NCT00556478|169198505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.84|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain sexual satisfaction||5.84|3.30|<0.0001
84723151|NCT00556478|169198505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.2|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain distress||3.20|1.86|<0.0001
84723152|NCT03205488|169198517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3626|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 150 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3626
84723153|NCT03205488|169198517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3895|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 300 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3895
84723154|NCT03205488|169198518|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p2, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p2||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 150 group and the Placebo group.||||||1.00
84723155|NCT03205488|169198518|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ2, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ2|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4977||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0451|5.489|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 150 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.489|0.0451|0.5689
84723156|NCT03205488|169198518|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p3, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p3||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 300 group and the Placebo group.||||||0.61
84723157|NCT03205488|169198518|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ3, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ3|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5206||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0472|5.7409|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 300 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.7409|0.0472|0.5940
84535733|NCT00191113|168819654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interactions terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Treated Growth Hormone minus As-Treated No Growth Hormone"|Estimation analysis of the magnitude of effect of treatment with growth hormone upon Final Height. Null hypothesis is no effect of growth hormone upon attained height standard deviation score (National Center for Health Statistics).||1.2|0.9|<0.001
84535734|NCT00191113|168819655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
84723158|NCT03205488|169198519|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 150 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|1.05||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.78||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.78|0.0001
84723159|NCT03205488|169198519|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 300 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|0.93||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.89||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.89|0.0001
84723160|NCT03205488|169198519|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 1 month for the three treatment groups.||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #1 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 1 month.|In order to assess which group may be driving these findings, pairwise comparisons were also utilized (Nilotinib 150 vs PBO at 1 Month, Nilotinib 300 vs PBO at 1 month, Nilotinib 300 vs Nilotinib 150 at 1 month).|||0.031
84726086|NCT00674609|169204439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.16|-0.25|0.688
84535735|NCT00191113|168819656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001||95.0|5.7|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|5.7|<0.001
84535736|NCT00191113|168819657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84535737|NCT00191113|168819658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
84535738|NCT00191113|168819659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
84535739|NCT00191113|168819660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patients with any category of hearing loss between As-Treated Growth Hormone group and As-Treated No Growth Hormone.||||>0.999
84723161|NCT03205488|169198519|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. For this analysis, a separate LMM was constructed, modeling the change from final visit on study drug to the 30 and 60 day follow up visits, while adjusting for the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON scores at the final visit on study drug as well as the Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each visit.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #2 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between the final visit on study drug and 30 days off study drug.||||0.47
84723162|NCT03205488|169198519|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 6 months.|Pairwise comparisons were also examined for trends (Active 150 vs PBO at 6 Months, Active 300 vs PBO at 6 months).|||0.077
84723163|NCT03205488|169198519|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using a similar LMM as in the key secondary analysis, except simplified to only include baseline, month 3 and month 6, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III OFF score between baseline and 6 months.||||0.17
84723164|NCT00824408|169198520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.045||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|3.292|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||3.292|1.271|0.0030
84723165|NCT00824408|169198520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.771|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||1.771|0.735|0.2804
84723166|NCT00824408|169198521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
84723167|NCT00824408|169198521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2596|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2596
84723168|NCT00824408|169198522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.140|0.538|0.8406
84723169|NCT00824408|169198522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.081||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.949|||Log Rank|||||1.949|0.599|0.3960
84723170|NCT04821271|169198536|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.91|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.91
84723171|NCT04821271|169198537|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.47|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.47
84723172|NCT04821271|169198538|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.14|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.14
84723173|NCT04821271|169198539|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.12|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.12
84723174|NCT04821271|169198540|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.69|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.69
84723175|NCT04821271|169198541|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.73|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.73
84723176|NCT04821271|169198542|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.28|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.28
84723177|NCT01450397|169198567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0013
84723178|NCT00286325|169198572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0156||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon comparing week zero antibody value in units to week 24 antibody value in units||||=0.0156
84723179|NCT00286325|169198573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0078|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of B cell number at week 0 to b cell number in participants at week 24||||=0.0078
84723180|NCT01332266|169198625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46||||||||1.46|0.54|
84723181|NCT01332266|169198627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.73||||||||1.73|0.61|
84723182|NCT01332266|169198628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.37||||||||1.37|0.53|
84723183|NCT01947491|169198630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84723184|NCT02935673|169198694|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.24|-0.89|
84723185|NCT02935673|169198694|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.62|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.62|-1.33|
84723186|NCT01836523|169198729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.07||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.32|
84723187|NCT01836523|169198729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.03|-0.27|
84723188|NCT01836523|169198729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||0.03|-0.21|
84723189|NCT01836523|169198730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-4.16|-5.65|<0.0001
84723190|NCT01836523|169198730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-2.81|-4.29|<0.0001
84723191|NCT01836523|169198730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-1.47|-2.91|<0.0001
84723192|NCT01836523|169198731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.96|0.88|<0.0001
84723193|NCT01836523|169198731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.95||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.99|0.91|0.0148
84723194|NCT01836523|169198731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||1.04|0.96|0.9615
84723195|NCT01836523|169198732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.31||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.59|1.07|0.0081
84723196|NCT01836523|169198732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.55|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.55|1.03|0.0219
84723197|NCT01836523|169198732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.43|0.97|0.1079
84723198|NCT03775915|169198733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||p-value calculated for interaction between group and day|Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for baseline, F(2,46) = 1.061, p \>0.05||||||>0.05
84723199|NCT03775915|169198734|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
84723200|NCT04492475|169198775|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.87|0.880
84723201|NCT04492475|169198792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.4||||||||13.4|0.9|
84723202|NCT04492475|169198792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|43.9||||||||43.9|0.0|
84723203|NCT04492475|169198793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.2|
84723204|NCT04492475|169198793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|54.2||||||||54.2|12.3|
84723205|NCT04492475|169198817|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
84723206|NCT04492475|169198817|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66||||||||0.66|0.21|
84723207|NCT04492475|169198818|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
84723208|NCT04492475|169198818|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.82||||||||0.82|0.24|
84723209|NCT04492475|169198819|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
84723210|NCT04492475|169198819|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.72||||||||0.72|0.21|
84723211|NCT04492475|169198820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
84723212|NCT04492475|169198821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.45|0.59|
84723213|NCT04492475|169198821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27||||||This analysis is for Black and African American participants.||1.27|0.66|
84723214|NCT04492475|169198821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.21|0.86|
84723215|NCT04492475|169198821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.19||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||1.19|0.59|
84723216|NCT04492475|169198822|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.19|0.86|
84723217|NCT04492475|169198822|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.05|0.65|
84723218|NCT04492475|169198823|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.10|0.78|
84723219|NCT04492475|169198823|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.29|0.86|
84723220|NCT02233998|169198848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.202||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.202|-0.266|<0.001
84723221|NCT02233998|169198848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.165||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.165|-0.228|<0.001
84723222|NCT02233998|169198849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.413||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.413|-0.526|<0.001
84723223|NCT02233998|169198849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.322||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.322|-0.435|<0.001
84723224|NCT02233998|169198850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.019||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.019|-0.042|<0.001
84723225|NCT02233998|169198850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|-0.014||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.014|-0.038|<0.001
84723226|NCT02233998|169198851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.75|25.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||25.85|20.75|<0.001
84723227|NCT02233998|169198851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.09|22.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||22.22|17.09|<0.001
84723228|NCT02233998|169198852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
84723229|NCT02233998|169198852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
84723230|NCT02233998|169198853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|1.30|<0.001
84723231|NCT02233998|169198853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.06|0.93|<0.001
84723232|NCT02233998|169198854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.316||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|0.00|0.016
84723233|NCT02233998|169198854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|0.926||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||1.85|-0.16|0.197
84723234|NCT02233998|169198855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|28.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||28.77|18.21|<0.001
84723235|NCT02233998|169198855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|23.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||23.81|13.69|<0.001
84535740|NCT00191113|168819661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.492||||0.419||95.0|-8.631|3.646|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||3.646|-8.631|0.419
84535741|NCT00191113|168819663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.545
84535742|NCT00191113|168819665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84535743|NCT00191113|168819667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84535744|NCT00191113|168819668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.945||95.0|-0.199|0.186|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||0.186|-0.199|0.945
84723236|NCT02233998|169198856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
84723237|NCT02233998|169198856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
84723238|NCT05163353|169198863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|74.4||||||||74.4|45.6|
84723239|NCT03292692|169198889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.465|||Regression, Linear|Multi-level regression|Slope of intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.465|0.279|<0.001
84723240|NCT03292692|169198890|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.235|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear modeling|Slope of the intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.235|0.105|<0.001
84723241|NCT03292692|169198891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.974|-1.324|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear regression|Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre-post.|||-1.324|-2.974|<0.001
84723242|NCT03292692|169198892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.144||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.871|-0.417|||Regression, Linear||Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre to post.|||-0.417|-1.871|0.002
84723243|NCT05640167|169198896|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 17||||||0.015
84723244|NCT05640167|169198897|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Positive p = 0.114 Health-directed p = 0.028 Skill and Technique p = 0.013 Constructive attitudes p = 0.003 Self-monitoring \& insight p = 0.001 Health service navigation p = 0.077 Social Integration p = 0.126 Emotional well-being p = 0.093|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
84723245|NCT05640167|169198898|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84723246|NCT05640167|169198899|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84723247|NCT05640167|169198900|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.309
84723248|NCT05640167|169198901|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.827
84723249|NCT04083781|169198902|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of count endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as an offset with randomised treatment regimen, type of haemophilia (HAwI or HBwI) and bleeding frequency (less than 9 or greater than or equal to 9 bleeding episodes during the past 24 weeks prior to screening) as factors comparing arm 1 (on-demand treatment) and arm 2.|Annualised bleeding rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Two-sided test of no difference from 1|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
84723250|NCT02203032|169198938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
84723251|NCT02203032|169198939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
84723252|NCT02203032|169198940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
84723253|NCT02203032|169198941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.001
84723254|NCT01213940|169198957|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limit from standard deviation of mean|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||one -way ANOVA was used for the analysis||||<0.05
84723255|NCT02334215|169198980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.32
84723256|NCT02334215|169198980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.32
84723257|NCT02334215|169198981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of Interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual Conditions||||.001
84723258|NCT02334215|169198981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.84
84723259|NCT02334215|169198982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.11
84723260|NCT02334215|169198982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.55
84723261|NCT02334215|169198983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.55
84723262|NCT02334215|169198983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.57
84723263|NCT02334215|169198984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.997
84723264|NCT02334215|169198984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.26
84723265|NCT02334215|169198985|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.663|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||.663
84723266|NCT02334215|169198985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.33
84723267|NCT02334215|169198986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.007
84723268|NCT02334215|169198986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.76
84723269|NCT02334215|169198987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.60
84723270|NCT02334215|169198987|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||1.0
84723271|NCT02334215|169198988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.09
84723272|NCT02334215|169198988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
84723273|NCT02334215|169198989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.013
84723274|NCT02334215|169198989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.71
84723275|NCT02334215|169198990|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.32
84723276|NCT02334215|169198990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.85
84723277|NCT02334215|169198991|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.10
84723278|NCT02334215|169198991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
84723279|NCT02334215|169198992|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.42
84723280|NCT02334215|169198992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.42
84723281|NCT02334215|169198993|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.28|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.28
84723282|NCT02334215|169198993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.44
84723283|NCT02334215|169198994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.61
84723284|NCT02334215|169198994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.72
84723285|NCT02334215|169198995|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.71
84723286|NCT02334215|169198995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.86
84723287|NCT01836445|169199002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.76|0.20
84723288|NCT01836445|169199003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.95||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.80|0.60
84723289|NCT01836445|169199004|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.70|0.04
84723290|NCT01836445|169199006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||Z-test|||||0.95|0.38|0.01
84723291|NCT01836445|169199007|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.150
84723292|NCT01836445|169199008|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.374|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.374
84723293|NCT01836445|169199009|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.919|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.919
84723294|NCT01836445|169199009|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.493|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norms items||||0.493
84723295|NCT01836445|169199009|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.002
84723296|NCT01836445|169199010|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.067
84723297|NCT01836445|169199010|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.135|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.135
84723298|NCT01836445|169199010|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.025
84723299|NCT01836445|169199011|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.138|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.138
84723300|NCT01836445|169199012|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.173
84723301|NCT01836445|169199013|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.567|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.567
84723302|NCT01836445|169199014|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.861|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for motivation items||||0.861
84723303|NCT01836445|169199014|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for social norms items||||0.628
84723304|NCT01836445|169199014|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.151|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for behavioral skills items||||0.151
84723305|NCT01836445|169199015|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.001
84723306|NCT01836445|169199015|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.067
84723307|NCT01836445|169199015|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.637|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.637
84723308|NCT01836445|169199016|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.862|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.862
84723309|NCT01836445|169199017|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.762|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.762
84723310|NCT01836445|169199018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.043
84723311|NCT01836445|169199018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norm items||||0.617
84723312|NCT01836445|169199018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.570
84723313|NCT01836445|169199019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.036
84723314|NCT01836445|169199019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.837
84723315|NCT01836445|169199019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.953
84723316|NCT01836445|169199020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.719
84723317|NCT03365622|169199052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.379||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.242|20.854|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the total opioid dose administered intraoperatively and postoperatively, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||20.854|-8.242|0.3938
84723318|NCT03365622|169199053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.666|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.666|-0.451|0.7051
84723319|NCT03365622|169199054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.901|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.901|-0.349|0.3852
84723320|NCT03365622|169199055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.816||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.088|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||6.088|-5.02|0.8498
84723321|NCT03365622|169199056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.007||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.579|4.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||4.28|-7.579|0.5839
84723322|NCT03365622|169199057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.078|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.078|-0.280|0.2479
84723323|NCT03365622|169199058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|1.145|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.145|-0.177|0.1502
84723324|NCT03365622|169199059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.955|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op surgical pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.955|-0.278|0.2797
84535745|NCT00191113|168819670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0||||P-value cannot be computed since no patients had abnormal result in either comparison group.|Fisher Exact|||||||
84535746|NCT04086407|168819671|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
84535747|NCT04086407|168819672|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
84723325|NCT03365622|169199060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.125|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to first narcotic use, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.125|-1.792|0.6527
84723326|NCT03365622|169199061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.||A logistic regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and incidence of nausea, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.000|0.217|0.0499
84723327|NCT03365622|169199062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.165||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.321|60.304|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to discharge from PACU, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||60.304|-11.321|0.179
84723328|NCT03365622|169199063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.773|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.773|-0.226|0.2811
84723329|NCT00210236|169199069|EQUIVALENCE|The two groups will be considered equivalent if the 5-year survival rate for group B (without lymph node dissection) is not less than 92%. This corresponds to hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1.6.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.067||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.7|||Log Rank|||||6.7|1.4|0.013
84723330|NCT04181788|169199133|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|231.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.09|281.21||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||281.21|190.09|
84723331|NCT04181788|169199134|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|111.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.31|143.99||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||143.99|86.31|
84723332|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.249|-0.149|0.3393
84723333|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.068|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.316|-0.068|0.1433
84723334|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.335|-0.036|0.0922
84723335|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.158|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.225|-0.158|0.3864
84723336|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.131|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.253|-0.131|0.3005
84723337|NCT01276509|169199219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.176|-0.198|0.5385
84723338|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.299|-0.052|0.1234
84723339|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.234|-0.092|0.2378
84723340|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.062|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.266|-0.062|0.1529
84535748|NCT04086407|168819673|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||
84723341|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.146|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.222|-0.146|0.3661
84723342|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.136|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.246|-0.136|0.3169
84723343|NCT01276509|169199222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.116|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.248|-0.116|0.2755
84723344|NCT00535626|169199244|OTHER|"To test if revision rate at 5 years is less than 10% (Ha - Alternative Hypothesis).~Note: All cases enrolled in the study had to undergo revision whether from their primary procedure or a previous revision. Based on literature, 10% is the expected rate of another revision occurring in this cohort of enrolled patients."|Revision or Pending Revision Rate|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|5.46|||||The estimated 2.43% revision rate was obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method.|||5.46|1.07|
84535749|NCT04086407|168819674|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
84723345|NCT00535626|169199245|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84723346|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Physical Score compared to each post-operative SF-36 Physical score is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84723347|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 month SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0139
84723348|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 1 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0254
84723349|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 2 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.1506
84723350|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0936
84723351|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 4 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0909
84723352|NCT00535626|169199246|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 5 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.048
84723353|NCT00535626|169199249|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS Score compared to the 3 month LEAS Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0011
84723354|NCT00535626|169199249|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 1, 2 and 3 year LEAS are statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to pre-op to 1, 2 and 3 year intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
84723355|NCT00535626|169199249|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 4 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0002
84723356|NCT00535626|169199249|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 5 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0009
84723357|NCT01277302|169199254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated interaction effect|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.5091||||||This is the p-value of the treatment by time interaction in the longitudinal model. Analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there was only 1 comparison. p \< 0.05 (2-sided) was required for significance.|Longitudinal mixed model|The analysis was stratified by disease (BRVO or CRVO), randomization month, and randomization BCVA score category (≤35, \>35 to ≤50, or \>50 letters).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the trend of change from Baseline in the visual acuity scores from Month 7 to Month 15 between the 2 treatment groups as assessed by the interaction term of treatment by time in a longitudinal model.||||0.5091
84723358|NCT02507297|169199295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.367
84723359|NCT02507297|169199295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.48
84723360|NCT02507297|169199296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.136
84535750|NCT03047330|168819681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
84723361|NCT02507297|169199296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.324
84723362|NCT02507297|169199297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.916
84723363|NCT02507297|169199297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.752
84723364|NCT02507297|169199298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.568
84723365|NCT02507297|169199298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.568
84535751|NCT03047330|168819681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84535752|NCT03047330|168819682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
84535753|NCT03047330|168819682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
84535754|NCT00631657|168819683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|62.5|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline TST as covariate.|||62.5|35.0|<0.0001
84723366|NCT02507297|169199299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.486
84723367|NCT02489799|169199301|EQUIVALENCE|The study was powered based on two former studies utilizing RIAS, (both powered =.8 and alpha =.05). With a 0.6 effect size, the required sample size is 72 patients (36 per group) for a one-tailed test of study hypotheses (power =.8 and alpha =.05).|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Poisson model using GEE|We fit a Poisson model using generalized estimating equations. No adjustments were made for degrees of freedom.|The incidence rate ratio compares intervention to control.|We employed two ways of interpreting this data. The first treats the outcome continuously, which is described in the results section. Here we describe the outcome treating it as a ratio. We created a variable representing the numerator of the ratio (type 1) and the denominator of the ratio (type 2) thereby treating the information in both the numerator and denominator as random (each a Poisson variable).||1.30|0.87|0.545
84723368|NCT01377844|169199358|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
84723369|NCT01377844|169199359|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline systolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-3.04|-8.02|< 0.0001
84723370|NCT01377844|169199359|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline diastolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-1.04|-4.30|0.0015
84723371|NCT01377844|169199360|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.93||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.93|-2.52|< 0.0001
84723372|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.21||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 2||-0.21|-0.42|< 0.0001
84723373|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.41||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.41|-0.78|< 0.0001
84723374|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.0001
84723375|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.44|-0.97|< 0.0001
84723376|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
84723377|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.66||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 36||-0.66|-1.21|< 0.0001
84723378|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.7||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 48||-0.70|-1.28|< 0.0001
84723379|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.68||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 60||-0.68|-1.27|< 0.0001
84723380|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.64||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 72||-0.64|-1.22|< 0.0001
84723381|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 84||-0.69|-1.27|< 0.0001
84723382|NCT01377844|169199361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 96||-0.73|-1.31|< 0.0001
84723383|NCT01377844|169199362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.7||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 2, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.70|-2.79|< 0.0001
84723384|NCT01377844|169199362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.81||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 6, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.81|-3.09|< 0.0001
84723385|NCT01377844|169199362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.77||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 12, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.77|-3.06|< 0.0001
84723386|NCT01377844|169199362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.11||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 18, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.11|-3.30|< 0.0001
84723387|NCT01377844|169199362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-2.02||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 24, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.02|-3.24|< 0.0001
84723388|NCT00087516|169199365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-0.96|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.62|-0.96|<0.001
84723389|NCT00087516|169199365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-1.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.77|-1.11|<0.001
84723390|NCT00087516|169199366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0|-24.1|-10.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-10.1|-24.1|<0.001
84723391|NCT00087516|169199366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0|-28.2|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-14.4|-28.2|<0.001
84723392|NCT00087516|169199367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001||95.0|-59.4|-34.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-34.1|-59.4|<0.001
84723393|NCT00087516|169199367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001||95.0|-66.7|-41.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-41.6|-66.7|<0.001
84723394|NCT00770874|169199378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.125
84723395|NCT00770874|169199379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.48|<0.001
84723396|NCT00569166|169199403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.3679
84723397|NCT00569166|169199403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.4715
84723398|NCT02746107|169199412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|details provided in the protocol. Noninferiority margin=+/-5%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4|||Chi-squared|||||5.4|-4|0.83
84723399|NCT02746107|169199413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||Chi-squared||(risk on 5y) - (risk on 1y)|details provided in protocol;||8.1|-1.3|0.187
84723400|NCT02746107|169199414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|20.0|||Chi-squared||patient - (physicians themselves)|||20|10.8|<0.001
84723401|NCT02746107|169199414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|adjustment for age, gender, CHA2D2s-VASC score, nr of diagrams, nr of years, presence of someone close with stroke, graduation year, speciality||||4.78|2.25|<0.001
84723402|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|positive value means higher proportion of prescription, CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||17|1.2|0.034
84723403|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||||17|1.2|0.033
84723404|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.1|||Chi-squared|||||20.1|4.7|0.003
84723405|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|18.8|||Chi-squared|||||18.8|3.2|0.009
84723406|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference, adjusted for nr diagrams, nr years, age, gender, smb close with stroke, speciality, professional degree||CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||3.07|1.08|0.024
84723407|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator: CHADS-VASC 1|||2.98|1.06|0.03
84723408|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator = CHADS-VASC 1|||4.09|1.37|0.002
84723409|NCT02746107|169199415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator=CHADS-VASC 1|||2.56|1.14|0.004
84723410|NCT01853384|169199416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Analysis adjusted for sites, with significance being at P \< 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.5348
84723411|NCT01853384|169199417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.9456
84723412|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6194||||||Treatment Week 01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.6194
84723413|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||||||Treatment Week 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.7930
84723414|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362||||||Treatment Week 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3362
84723415|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5263
84723416|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1997||||||Treatment Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1997
84723417|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617||||||Treatment Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1617
84723418|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611||||||Treatment Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2611
84723419|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7232||||||Treatment Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7232
84723420|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405||||||Treatment Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4405
84723421|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516||||||Treatment Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3516
84723422|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2821||||||Treatment Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2821
84723423|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||||||Treatment Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3722
84723424|NCT01853384|169199419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Week 12 - Primary Endpoint|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5348
84723425|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5909||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.5909
84723426|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
84723427|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1556||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.1556
84535755|NCT00631657|168819686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.9||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.8|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline SL as covariate.|||2.8|-12.6|0.2145
84723428|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3487||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.3487
84723429|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1064||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.1064
84723430|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.2888
84723431|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.6095
84723432|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.1566
84723433|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.4216
84723434|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8166||||||Week10|ANCOVA|||||||0.8166
84535756|NCT00631657|168819687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline WASO as covariate.|||-15.4|-34.5|<0.0001
84535757|NCT05773794|168819708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
84535758|NCT05773794|168819708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
84535759|NCT05773794|168819708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84535760|NCT05773794|168819709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
84723435|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9114||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.9114
84723436|NCT01853384|169199421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.9733
84723437|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.7439
84723438|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6992||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.6992
84723439|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.0867
84723440|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.5739
84723441|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6497||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.6497
84723442|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.1427
84723443|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
84723444|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.0161
84723445|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.0973
84723446|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4661||||||Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||0.4661
84723447|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
84723448|NCT01853384|169199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3369
84723449|NCT00704340|169199431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was selected to provide sufficient precision for 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of neurosurgical complications in each arm. The sample size was selected so that the half-width of the normal approximation-based intervals would be no more than 0.05 percentage points. This requires a sample size of 114 evaluable patients in each arm. To allow for loss to follow-up, the sample size was increased to 125 randomized patients in each treatment arm, or a total of 250 patients.||||.613
84723450|NCT00704340|169199432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.681
84723451|NCT00704340|169199433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.619
84723452|NCT00486954|169199435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.64|0.2088
84723453|NCT03316170|169199485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-1.75|.06
84723454|NCT00321971|169199497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention-to-treat model|The CES-D data were log-transformed for analysis|Hypothesis: The experimental intervention group will endorse lower mean levels of depressive symptoms during follow-up than the study group receiving the comparison intervention.||0.657|0.208|<.05
84723455|NCT00854594|169199532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.26
84723456|NCT00854594|169199533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: post-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.74
84723457|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.77||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.77|-0.33|
84723458|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.43||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-0.50|
84723459|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.11||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.11|-0.27|
84723460|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.53||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.53|-0.52|
84723461|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.5|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.50|-1.35|
84723462|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.24||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-1.18|
84723463|NCT00749944|169199535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-1.37|
84723464|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.39||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.39|-0.15|
84723465|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.07||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.07|-0.24|
84723466|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.22||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.22|-0.26|
84723467|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.06||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.18|
84723468|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.78||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.58|
84723469|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.92||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.48|
84723470|NCT00749944|169199536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.72||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.72|-0.26|
84723471|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.24||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-0.00|
84723472|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.29|0.18|
84723473|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.30|0.02|
84723474|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.05||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.19|
84723475|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.05||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.09|
84723476|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.06||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.28|
84535761|NCT05773794|168819709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84723477|NCT00749944|169199537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.47|
84535762|NCT05773794|168819709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
84535763|NCT05773794|168819710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0196
84535764|NCT05773794|168819710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84535765|NCT05773794|168819710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
84723478|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.72|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.72|-0.02|
84723479|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.54|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.54|0.16|
84723480|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|0.39|
84723481|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.52|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.52|0.14|
84723482|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.09|-0.06|
84723483|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|0.05|
84723484|NCT00749944|169199538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.88|-0.12|
84723485|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.43|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-3.07|
84723486|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|-2.47|
84723487|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.89|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.89|-5.19|
84723488|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|-3.67|
84723489|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.26|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.26|-0.36|
84723490|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.3|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.30|-3.32|
84723491|NCT00749944|169199539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.97|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.97|-1.80|
84723492|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.32|-0.29|
84723493|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-0.17|
84723494|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.55|
84723495|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.99|-0.46|
84723496|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.37|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.37|-0.19|
84723497|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.76|-0.91|
84723498|NCT00749944|169199540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.85|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.85|-0.65|
84723499|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.20|
84723500|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.17|
84723501|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.23|
84535766|NCT03469336|168819750|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2364|4.3226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.3226|0.2364|0.9883
84535767|NCT03469336|168819750|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2334|4.2671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.2671|0.2334|0.9977
84723502|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.41|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.41|-0.37|
84723503|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.59|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.59|-0.41|
84723504|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-0.44|
84723505|NCT00749944|169199541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.58|
84723506|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.10|-0.66|
84540423|NCT01750190|168831729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.267||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (\<=8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus \>=30 mL/min/1.73m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 24 Weeks of Treatment||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
84723507|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.35|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.35|-0.46|
84723508|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.71|-1.16|
84723509|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.73|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.73|-0.68|
84535768|NCT03469336|168819750|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2662|4.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.8670|0.2662|0.8600
84535769|NCT03469336|168819755|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.9763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8588|1.1594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.1594|0.8588|0.9763
84535770|NCT03469336|168819755|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.0752|0.8686|0.5081
84535771|NCT03469336|168819755|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0157|1.2252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.2252|1.0157|0.0249
84535772|NCT03469336|168819756|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1858|3.3977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3977|0.1858|0.7540
84535773|NCT03469336|168819756|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1834|3.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3540|0.1834|0.7407
84535774|NCT03469336|168819756|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.8946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2092|3.8256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.8256|0.2092|0.8793
84535775|NCT03469336|168819757|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.081321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25287|4.623941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.623941|0.25287|<0.0001
84535776|NCT03469336|168819757|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.067453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249631|4.564555|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.564555|0.249631|<0.0001
84535777|NCT03469336|168819757|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.217483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284708|5.206258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||5.206258|0.284708|<0.0001
84723510|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.96|-0.79|
84535778|NCT02740699|168819778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0256
84535779|NCT02740699|168819779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0254
84535780|NCT02740699|168819780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
84535781|NCT02740699|168819781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84535782|NCT02740699|168819782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
84535783|NCT02740699|168819783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
84535784|NCT02585934|168819786|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.22|-0.95|0.2249
84535785|NCT02585934|168819787|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.72||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.72|-0.90|0.8260
84535786|NCT02585934|168819788|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.02||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||-0.02|-0.22|0.0234
84535787|NCT02585934|168819789|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.12||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.32|-0.07|0.2096
84535788|NCT02585934|168819790|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.80|-1.09|0.7650
84535789|NCT02585934|168819791|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.38||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.27||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.27|-1.03|0.2472
84535790|NCT04713553|168819793|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.13|0.91|
84535791|NCT04713553|168819793|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.04|0.83|
84723511|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.82|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.82|-1.69|
84535792|NCT04713553|168819793|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.03|0.82|
84535793|NCT04713553|168819794|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.07|0.84|
84535794|NCT04713553|168819795|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of the 20 mcg dose to the corresponding 30 mcg dose was said to be achieved if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||GMRs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group|||1.02|0.84|
84535795|NCT02338193|168819851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.032|||||||ANOVA|||One Way ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast if p\>0.05||||<0.032
84535796|NCT02338193|168819852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One Way ANOVA with Bonferoni contrast test||||||<0.05
84535797|NCT02338193|168819853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.01
84535798|NCT02338193|168819854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
84535799|NCT02338193|168819855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.007
84535800|NCT02338193|168819856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||0.023
84535801|NCT02338193|168819857|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
84535802|NCT02338193|168819858|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
84723512|NCT00749944|169199542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.68|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.68|-0.86|
84535803|NCT02338193|168819859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||<0.001
84535804|NCT02338193|168819860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.001
84535805|NCT02338193|168819861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.004
84535806|NCT02338193|168819862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.02
84535807|NCT02338193|168819863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
84535808|NCT02338193|168819864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||>0.05
84535809|NCT02338193|168819865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.028
84535810|NCT02338193|168819866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<.03
84535811|NCT00936897|168819896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
84535812|NCT00936897|168819897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
84535813|NCT00936897|168819898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.7|0.7|<0.0001
84535814|NCT00936897|168819899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||2.5|1.5|<0.0001
84535815|NCT04058067|168819905|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-3.7|0.013
84535816|NCT04058067|168819906|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-4.2|0.035
84535817|NCT04058067|168819908|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-3.0|
84535818|NCT04058067|168819909|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.0|
84535819|NCT04058067|168819910|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.3|
84535820|NCT04058067|168819913|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.7|-13.7|
84535821|NCT04058067|168819913|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||9.4|-14.7|
84535822|NCT04058067|168819913|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.9|-15.5|
84535823|NCT04058067|168819917|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||4.4|-4.2|
84535824|NCT04058067|168819917|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||3.8|-1.6|
84535825|NCT04058067|168819917|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||2.3|-2.2|
84535826|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 4|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||8.6|-7.9|
84535827|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 6|Difference - %|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||2.9|-14.3|
84535828|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 8|Difference - %|-4.0||||||95.0|-13.3|4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||4.4|-13.3|
84535829|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 12|Difference - %|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 12||2.3|-16.4|
84535830|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 16|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||-0.0|-19.2|
84535831|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 18|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||-0.0|-19.0|
84535832|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 20|Difference - %|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|3.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||3.9|-15.8|
84535833|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 24|Difference - %|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-3.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||-3.1|-23.9|
84535834|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-2.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||-2.1|-22.0|
84535835|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 32|Difference - %|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||-4.8|-26.0|
84535836|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 36|Difference - %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-8.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||Week 36||-8.9|-29.5|
84535837|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 40|Difference - %|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||-8.6|-28.7|
84535838|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 44|Difference - %|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||-4.4|-25.6|
84535839|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 48|Difference - %|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||-3.4|-23.6|
84535840|NCT04058067|168819918|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||-2.9|-23.5|
84535841|NCT04058067|168819919|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|11.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||11.2|-13.6|
84535842|NCT04058067|168819921|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|17.0|||ANOVA|||||17.0|-37.3|
84535843|NCT04058067|168819922|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|21.9|||ANOVA|||||21.9|-26.8|
84535844|NCT04058067|168819923|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|13.2|||ANOVA|||||13.2|-30.3|
84535845|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||13.5|-3.3|
84535846|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|20.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||20.6|1.4|
84535847|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||25.3|3.9|
84535848|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method||Proportion estimates (%) = 39.3|Week 12||24.9|2.8|
84535849|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.8||||||95.0|5.1|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||28.6|5.1|
84535850|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|26.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||26.6|3.1|
84535851|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|27.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||27.1|3.5|
84535852|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||30.2|7.2|
84535853|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|27.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||27.9|4.9|
84535854|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|24.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||24.4|0.4|
84535855|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 36||18.0|-5.9|
84535856|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|26.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||26.1|3.3|
84535857|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||25.7|1.9|
84535858|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||23.6|-0.8|
84535859|NCT04058067|168819924|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|30.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||30.5|5.8|
84535860|NCT04058067|168819925|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||3.6|0.8|
84535861|NCT04058067|168819926|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||4.6|-13.2|
84535862|NCT04058067|168819927|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||12.4|-10.5|
84535863|NCT04058067|168819932|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||8.8|-13.9|
84535864|NCT04058067|168819932|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|9.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.0|-14.1|
84535865|NCT04058067|168819934|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||12.6|-4.1|
84535866|NCT04058067|168819934|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.3|-10.5|
84535867|NCT04058067|168819936|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
84535868|NCT04058067|168819938|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
84535869|NCT04058067|168819939|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.1|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||2.3|-4.1|
84535870|NCT04058067|168819939|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.3|-3.1|
84535871|NCT00176423|168819985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84535872|NCT00176423|168819986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84535873|NCT00176423|168819987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84535874|NCT00176423|168819988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
84535875|NCT04623086|168819997|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For our power calculations, we assumed the true change in TIR to be 0% for the bridging group and 15% for the direct-conversion group, and we assumed a common standard deviation of 15% (meaning the distributions of change in TIR are separated by 1 standard-deviation unit), and thereby obtained that 20 patients in each group would provide 87% power to observe a statistically significant (at the two-sided level of .05) difference in mean change of TIR.||||0.14
84535876|NCT04623086|168819998|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84535877|NCT04623086|168819999|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|12.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
84535878|NCT04623086|168820000|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
84535879|NCT04623086|168820001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
84535880|NCT04623086|168820002|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
84535881|NCT04623086|168820003|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84535882|NCT04623086|168820004|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
84535883|NCT01755767|168820005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8006|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.8006
84535884|NCT01755767|168820005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9682||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7483|1.2529|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox Regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2529|0.7483|0.8061
84535885|NCT01755767|168820007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.7509
84535886|NCT01755767|168820007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9557||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7487|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2200|0.7487|0.7160
84535887|NCT00191165|168820010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.34||95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||1.40|-0.50|0.340
84535888|NCT00191165|168820011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.388||95.0|-0.21|0.53||P-value for 12-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.53|-0.21|0.388
84535889|NCT00191165|168820011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.061||95.0|-0.02|0.99||P-value for 24-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.99|-0.02|0.061
84535890|NCT00191165|168820012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.088||95.0|-0.18|2.44|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||2.44|-0.18|0.088
84535891|NCT00715624|168820013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.174||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|To control type I error, a step-down procedure described by Hochberg and Tomhane was applied.||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.174|-0.550|0.0002
84535892|NCT03200912|168820025|EQUIVALENCE|Primary Efficacy Endpoint - AK Complete Clearance Rates at Day 57 (PP and mITT Populations)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|12.14||||||||12.14|-7.55|
84535893|NCT02309138|168820046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.903||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.538|1.516||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.|A relative risk \< 1 represents a benefit in the direction of the IADPSG group, while a value \> 1 represents a benefit towards the CC group.|Co-primary hypotheses #1: women diagnosed using the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those diagnosed using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.||1.516|0.538|0.668
84535894|NCT02309138|168820046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.853||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.493|1.475||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.||"Co-primary hypothesis #2: women classified as no gestational diabetes by the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those classified in the Carpenter-Coustan criteria."||1.475|0.493|0.853
84535895|NCT02309138|168820047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.046||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.291|0.847|0.6669
84535896|NCT02309138|168820047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.033||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.307|0.816|0.8394
84535897|NCT02309138|168820048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.987||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.318|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.740|0.9335
84535898|NCT02309138|168820048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.022||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.407|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.407|0.742|0.9260
84535899|NCT02309138|168820049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|1.909|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.909|1.027|0.0322
84535900|NCT02309138|168820049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.760|0.864|0.2643
84535901|NCT01997229|168820066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|0.96|||ANCOVA|||||0.96|-24.33|0.0698
84535902|NCT02304458|168820093|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is 3 mg/kg Nivolumab|||||
84535903|NCT00390221|168820110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.668||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.668|0.318|<0.0001
84535904|NCT00390221|168820110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.503||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.721||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.721|0.352|0.0002
84540772|NCT03718832|168832716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6983982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3476441||0.045506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382737|-0.0140597||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0140597|-1.382737|0.045506
84535905|NCT00390221|168820111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.97|86.35|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||86.35|65.97|<0.0001
84535906|NCT00390221|168820111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|69.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|80.41|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||80.41|52.40|<0.0001
84535907|NCT00390221|168820112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.33|84.22|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||84.22|71.33|<0.0001
84535908|NCT00390221|168820112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|70.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.94|77.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||77.88|59.94|<0.0001
84535909|NCT00390221|168820113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio|0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.72||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.72|0.33|0.0003
84535910|NCT00390221|168820113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.67||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.67|0.30|<0.0001
84535911|NCT00390221|168820114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-1.93||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.56||Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.|Analysis of Variance|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.56|-4.42|0.1284
84535912|NCT00390221|168820114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-4.27||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.78|||Analysis of Variance|Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||-1.78|-6.76|0.0008
84535913|NCT03582826|168820138|SUPERIORITY|Paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests|Median Difference (Final Values)|79.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|163.0||Original p-value for dermatological bacteria was 6e-05. It was adjusted first by applying centered log-ratio (CLR) transformation approach then by false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons by using Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||163|26|0.02
84535914|NCT00319982|168820140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in E' Velocity comparing baseline and final study visits||||0.75
84535915|NCT00319982|168820141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Adverse Events||||0.99
84535916|NCT00319982|168820142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||>0.06
84535917|NCT00319982|168820143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in LV End-Diastolic Diameter z-score from baseline to final visit||||<0.001
84535918|NCT00319982|168820145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage adherent to study medication||||0.08
84535919|NCT00319982|168820146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||0.15
84535920|NCT00758680|168820150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|37.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|62.68|||Mixed Effect Model|||||62.68|12.58|0.015
84535921|NCT00758680|168820150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.56|117.04|||Mixed Effect Model|||||117.04|67.56|<0.001
84535922|NCT01565850|168820161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 150 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio to 2 groups, would achieve 56% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 0.88 for both arms, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and the significance level of the test at a one-sided 0.025 level were assumed.|Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|18.1||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 24; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.||18.1|-11.4|0.64
84535923|NCT01565850|168820162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|-6.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|||7.4|-19.9|0.35
84535924|NCT01565850|168820163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21||The p-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.14|0.67
84535925|NCT01565850|168820164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.11|0.50
84535926|NCT01565850|168820165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|45.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|101.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||101|-10|0.11
84535927|NCT01565850|168820166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|18.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|72.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||72|-35|0.50
84535928|NCT03783039|168820249|NON_INFERIORITY|10% margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0605|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.0189|||Testing whether the group difference in proportion of successes is \>-0.1 (Test Group - Control Group)|Farrington-Manning method||||||-0.0189|<0.0001
84535929|NCT03783039|168820250|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|0.1906|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.1906|0.0078|
84535930|NCT03783039|168820251|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0312|0.0863|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.0863|-0.0312|
84535931|NCT00918138|168820255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.2||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|With at least 36 participants per treatment group (72 total), there is 90% power to detect a difference of 18 mg/dL between the two treatment groups. Assuming approximately 20% of participants will discontinue without any valid post-randomization assessment at Week 4, a total of 90 participants (45 participants per treatment group) needed to be randomized.||3.2|-24.8|0.1278
84535932|NCT00918138|168820256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-7.7||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg.|||-7.7|-54.6|
84535933|NCT00918138|168820257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.5||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|||8.5|-20.0|
84535934|NCT03400943|168820277|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 41 (Vilaprisan) / 20 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.78|0.33|<.0001
84540424|NCT01750190|168831729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.276||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 52 Weeks of Treatment||0.276|0.138|<0.0001
84540425|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.89
84535935|NCT00537303|168820284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the full analysis set and the per protocol set|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.606||95.0|-0.17|0.29||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|Regimen, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.29|-0.17|0.606
84535936|NCT00537303|168820285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the Full Analysis Set and the Per Protocol set.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.816||95.0|-0.21|0.26||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.26|-0.21|0.816
84535937|NCT03839823|168820290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.87|||one-sided stratified logrank test|||||0.870|0.429|0.003
84535938|NCT03839823|168820291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497||||||95.0|0.363|0.68||||||||0.680|0.363|
84535939|NCT03839823|168820292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
84535940|NCT03839823|168820293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.255
84535941|NCT03839823|168820294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.116
84535942|NCT03839823|168820295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.064||||||||1.064|0.546|
84535943|NCT04314648|168820319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|16.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.48|2.38|<.001
84535944|NCT04314648|168820320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|17.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.86|1.86|<.01
84535945|NCT04314648|168820321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||2.64|.21|.64
84535946|NCT04314648|168820322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.51|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||20.51|.35|.35
84535947|NCT04314648|168820323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a linear regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.43
84535948|NCT04314648|168820324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a liner regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.44
84535949|NCT04314648|168820325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|.39|.77
84535950|NCT00492024|168820335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.189
84535951|NCT00492024|168820340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||p-value adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.075
84535952|NCT02704403|168820355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.09|||Regression, Logistic|test is 2-sided, alpha=0.01||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference in the response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups.||0.090|-0.003|0.0659
84535953|NCT02704403|168820356|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.457|||||No formal test due to the early termination of the study.|||1.457|0.619|
84535954|NCT03421730|168820379|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6; D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
84535955|NCT03421730|168820379|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
84535956|NCT03421730|168820379|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
84535957|NCT03421730|168820380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|13.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%.|||
84535958|NCT03421730|168820380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|35.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
84535959|NCT03421730|168820380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
84535960|NCT03421730|168820381|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
84535961|NCT03421730|168820381|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|32.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
84535962|NCT03421730|168820381|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
84535963|NCT01338870|168820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.08|0.7606
84535964|NCT01338870|168820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.46|0.0266
84535965|NCT01338870|168820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.06|-0.42|0.0440
84535966|NCT01338870|168820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.71|0.0001
84535967|NCT01338870|168820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.25|-0.60|0.0013
84535968|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.98|-16.40|0.3611
84535969|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.61|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.71|-20.61|0.0969
84535970|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.11|-19.30|0.1566
84535971|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.678||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.06|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.77|-27.06|0.0052
84535972|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.712||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-9.88|-32.30|0.0002
84535973|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.852||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.56|-11.41|0.9893
84535974|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814||0.4767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.27|-15.55|0.4767
84535975|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|8.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.55|-14.28|0.6222
84535976|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.744||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.61|-25.16|0.0159
84535977|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.735||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.44|-29.95|0.0012
84535978|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.895||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|15.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||15.43|-7.71|0.5125
84535979|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.815||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.94|-19.89|0.1455
84535980|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.794||0.8712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.31|-10.43|0.8712
84535981|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.707||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|-8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.36|-30.77|0.0006
84540426|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.88
84535982|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.696||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.90|-30.26|0.0008
84535983|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.055||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|18.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.87|-4.90|0.2488
84535984|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.004||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.23|-19.34|0.2084
84535985|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.971||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.43|-11.01|0.9053
84535986|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.853||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|-3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.81|-26.79|0.0091
84535987|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.15|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.09|-30.15|0.0016
84535988|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.217||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.70|-5.71|0.2963
84535989|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.40|-21.82|0.1159
84535990|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.103||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|16.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||16.68|-7.28|0.4413
84535991|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.918||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.68|-26.91|0.0099
84535992|NCT01338870|168820401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.21|-26.69|0.0126
84535993|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1797
84535994|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.04|-0.19|0.0234
84535995|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.18|0.0400
84535996|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1568
84723513|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.08|-0.55|
84535997|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.11|-0.25|0.0010
84535998|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0695
84535999|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0636
84536000|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0512
84536001|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.26|0.0051
84536002|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.30|0.0009
84536003|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.05|-0.19|0.2392
84536004|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0308
84536005|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.38|0.0019
84536006|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.36|0.0034
84536007|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.44|0.0002
84536008|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7854|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.26|-0.06|0.7854
84536009|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.33|0.0778
84536010|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.46|0.0065
84536011|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0011
84540427|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.82
84540428|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.65
84536012|NCT01338870|168820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0013
84536013|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.69|0.5636
84536014|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.72|-0.35|0.4889
84536015|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.39|-0.68|0.5849
84536016|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.70|0.5104
84536017|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-0.83|0.2640
84536018|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-1.42|0.0464
84536019|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.56|-0.83|0.7107
84536020|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-1.19|0.1564
84536021|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.98|0.3834
84536022|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.15|-1.21|0.1279
84536023|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.28|-1.06|0.2520
84536024|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.03|-0.30|0.2772
84536025|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.7038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.53|-0.79|0.7038
84536026|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-1.07|0.2031
84536027|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.78|0.6948
84536028|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.07|0.5691
84536029|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.21|-0.42|0.3447
84536030|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.58|-1.04|0.5769
84536031|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-1.16|0.3599
84536032|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.50|-1.10|0.4600
84536033|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.39|0.4253
84536034|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.4349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.37|-0.59|0.4349
84536035|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.76|-1.18|0.6697
84536036|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.65|-1.22|0.5501
84536037|NCT01338870|168820404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-1.35|0.4081
84536038|NCT01955083|168820420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|48.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that pillar implant provide a better efficacy in the treatment of snoring than radiofrequency surgery. The sample size was estimated using the primary outcome effects (VAS) in two previously published studies (Friedman 2008; Fang 2004). Using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (normal parent distribution; effect size, 1.0; type I error, 0.05; power, 80%), we got a sample size of 11. For considering a 20% drop-out rate, we needed at least 14 participants.||48.4|-14.4|<0.05
84536039|NCT01955083|168820421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536040|NCT01955083|168820422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536041|NCT01955083|168820423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536042|NCT01955083|168820424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536043|NCT01955083|168820425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536044|NCT01955083|168820426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536045|NCT01955083|168820427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536046|NCT01955083|168820428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536047|NCT01955083|168820429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536048|NCT01955083|168820430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536049|NCT01955083|168820431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84536050|NCT01955083|168820432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84536051|NCT01559389|168820436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21||P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|The method was a paired t-test||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS score between females with UUI and their male partners||0.21|-1.23|.16
84536052|NCT01559389|168820437|SUPERIORITY||z-score|2.97||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between responders and non-responders of solifenacin treatment|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between those who respond and do not respond to treatment with solifenacin.||||.003
84536053|NCT01559389|168820438|SUPERIORITY||z-score|0.89||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between the two groups|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between male partners of female participants who respond to solifenacin and male partners of female participants who do not respond to solifenacin||||.37
84536054|NCT02871492|168820439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4294
84536055|NCT03201445|168820479|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.7|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||0.7|-16.3|
84536056|NCT03201445|168820481|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1.8|-2.1|
84536057|NCT03201445|168820483|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|24.7|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||24.7|-13.4|
84536058|NCT03201445|168820485|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4.9|-2.8|
84536059|NCT03201445|168820487|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.3|-0.1|
84536060|NCT03201445|168820489|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4|0|
84536061|NCT01346293|168820517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Pertussis toxoid antigen between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.2||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||10.2|0.7|
84536062|NCT01346293|168820517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Filamentous Haemagglutinin between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.5||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||21.5|2.5|
84536063|NCT01346293|168820517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|3.7|-0.2|7.9||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||7.9|-0.2|
84536064|NCT01346293|168820517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.1||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||9.1|0.9|
84536065|NCT01346293|168820518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertussis Toxoid antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.31||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each Pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.31|1.68|
84536066|NCT01346293|168820518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Filamentous Haemagglutinin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.88||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.88|1.30|
84536067|NCT01346293|168820518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.79||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.79|1.27|
84536068|NCT01346293|168820518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL® ) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.60|1.12|
84536069|NCT02687217|168820528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
84536070|NCT02687217|168820529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84536071|NCT02687217|168820530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
84536072|NCT01844505|168820531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.43|0.76|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipimlimumab.|||0.76|0.43|<0.0001
84536073|NCT01844505|168820531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.31|0.57|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
84536074|NCT01844505|168820532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.5|0.78|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||0.78|0.50|<0.0001
84536075|NCT01844505|168820532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.42|0.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.72|0.42|<0.0001
84536076|NCT01844505|168820535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||0.96|0.65|
84536077|NCT01844505|168820536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.05|0.69|
84536078|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab.|||5.16|2.49|<0.0001
84536079|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|9.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||9.22|4.38|<0.0001
84536080|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.8|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab - Ipilimumab.|||32.8|19.1|
84536081|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|45.9|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Ipilimumab.|||45.9|32.2|
84536082|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.42|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||2.42|1.26|
84536083|NCT01844505|168820537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|20.7|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Nivolumab.|||20.7|5.7|
84536084|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.85|0.46|
84536085|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.54|0.28|
84536086|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.87|0.45|
84536087|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.59|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.59|0.34|
84536088|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.53|0.30|
84536089|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.21|0.66|
84536090|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.71|0.45|
84536091|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.53|0.33|
84536092|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.94|0.57|
84536093|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.60|0.27|
84536094|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.54|0.22|
84536095|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.38|0.54|
84536096|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.67|0.43|
84536097|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.54|0.34|
84536098|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.01|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.01|0.63|
84536099|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.73|0.28|
84536100|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.49|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.49|0.16|
84536101|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.09|0.34|
84536102|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.52|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.52|0.49|
84536103|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.89|0.30|
84536104|NCT01844505|168820538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.09|0.33|
84536105|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.05|0.57|
84536106|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.81|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.81|0.43|
84536107|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||||95.0|0.55|1.04|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.04|0.55|
84536108|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.68|0.39|
84536109|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.67|0.38|
84536110|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.31|0.72|
84536111|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.78|0.49|
84536112|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.66|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.66|0.41|
84536113|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||1.08|0.66|
84536114|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.41|
84536115|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.38|
84536116|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.53|0.62|
84536117|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.75|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.75|0.48|
84536118|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.68|0.43|
84536119|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.14|0.71|
84536120|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.10|0.44|
84536121|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.91|0.32|
84536122|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.32|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.32|0.45|
84536123|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.34|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.34|0.37|
84723514|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.46|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.46|-0.39|
84536124|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.91|0.26|
84536125|NCT01844505|168820539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.39|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.39|0.34|
84536126|NCT02730351|168820546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.39||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-3.76|0.109
84536127|NCT02730351|168820547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.01||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-4.31|0.051
84536128|NCT02730351|168820548|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method. Covariates of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, and period baseline FEV1 were included.|Regression, Logistic||12 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.26|0.80|0.266
84536129|NCT02730351|168820548|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method|Regression, Logistic||23 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.58|0.73|0.322
84536130|NCT02730351|168820549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.71||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||12 hrs post-dose|||0.71|-2.01|0.342
84536131|NCT02730351|168820549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.07||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values.|Mixed Models Analysis||23 hrs post-dose|||-0.07|-3.42|0.041
84536132|NCT00311402|168820560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-event rates after 1 year in the Aggrenox group and ASA group are estimated at 94.0% and 91.5%, respectively. The non-inferiority margin was set to 2%. Under these conditions, 500 patients per group were supposed to be enough to detect the non-inferiority of Aggrenox with over 80% power.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.47||||0.097||95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.31|0.93|0.097
84536133|NCT00311402|168820561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.79||||0.223||95.0|0.7|4.54|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.54|0.70|0.223
84536134|NCT00311402|168820562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.0||||0.998|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||0|0.998
84536135|NCT00311402|168820563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.977||95.0|0.21|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.21|0.977
84536136|NCT00311402|168820564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.192||95.0|0.26|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.31|0.26|0.192
84536137|NCT00311402|168820565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.88||||0.215||95.0|0.69|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.69|0.215
84536138|NCT00311402|168820566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.443||95.0|0.79|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.69|0.79|0.443
84536139|NCT00311402|168820567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.52||||0.043||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.29|1.01|0.043
84536140|NCT00311402|168820568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.919||95.0|0.48|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.25|0.48|0.919
84536141|NCT00311402|168820569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.101||95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.91|0.94|0.101
84536142|NCT00838435|168820570|OTHER|Coefficient estimates from a random coefficient model and associated p-values.|Slope|-0.5768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6004|0.4468|||||The slope shown above is based on a 2-year window.|A random coefficient model was used to calculate the slope (per year) of FSIQ over the entire study period. Factors in the model included visit and testing sequence, with change in FSIQ score as the dependent variable. Random terms include both intercept and visit. The treatment was considered successful if the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean change excluded a decline of greater than 5 points over a 2-year window.||0.4468|-1.6004|
84536143|NCT02640053|168820580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
84536144|NCT02640053|168820581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
84536145|NCT02640053|168820582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
84536146|NCT02640053|168820583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
84536147|NCT02640053|168820584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
84536148|NCT02640053|168820585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84536149|NCT02640053|168820586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84536150|NCT02640053|168820587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
84536151|NCT04181723|168820595|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.6|-5.7|0.0175
84536152|NCT04181723|168820596|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0030
84536153|NCT04181723|168820597|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.7|0.3|0.0064
84536154|NCT04181723|168820598|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-13.8|0.3376
84536155|NCT04181723|168820599|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.3649
84536156|NCT04181723|168820600|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.2114
84536157|NCT04181723|168820601|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.0|-0.6|0.0257
84536158|NCT04181723|168820602|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-0.2|0.9799
84536159|NCT04181723|168820603|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.1|0.5304
84536160|NCT04181723|168820604|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.5|0.5855
84536161|NCT04181723|168820605|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-0.1|0.2507
84536162|NCT00678886|168820629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||Mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide AUC, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.08|-0.06|0.813
84536163|NCT00678886|168820630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||1.70|0.47|0.737
84536164|NCT00678886|168820630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.39|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||1.39|0.42|0.737
84536165|NCT00678886|168820630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||1.46|0.45|0.481
84536166|NCT00678886|168820631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.01|-0.07|0.281
84536167|NCT00678886|168820631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.05|-0.05|0.969
84536168|NCT00678886|168820631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.02|-0.08|0.272
84536169|NCT00678886|168820632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.52|-0.16|0.289
84536170|NCT00678886|168820632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.49|-0.15|0.538
84536171|NCT00678886|168820632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.36|-0.19|0.538
84536172|NCT00678886|168820641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.11|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||3.11|-0.88|0.540
84536173|NCT00678886|168820641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.56|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||3.56|-1.89|0.546
84536174|NCT00678886|168820641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.42|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||3.42|-1.56|0.462
84536175|NCT00678886|168820642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.957
84536176|NCT00678886|168820642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.957
84536177|NCT00678886|168820643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.653
84536178|NCT00678886|168820643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.653
84536179|NCT03480386|168820661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Light Physical Activity||||0.0788
84536180|NCT03480386|168820661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Moderate Physical Activity||||0.0742
84536181|NCT03480386|168820662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0113
84536182|NCT03480386|168820663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
84536183|NCT03480386|168820664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2216|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2216
84536184|NCT03480386|168820665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4762
84536185|NCT03480386|168820666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0068
84536186|NCT03480386|168820667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1548
84536187|NCT00574912|168820669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84536188|NCT01282723|168820670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of True Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly greater than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly greater than SureCALL®."||1.95|1.10|0.0093
84536189|NCT01282723|168820670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of False Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly less than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly less than SureCALL®."||1.17|0.61|0.3204
84536190|NCT02629354|168820702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|113.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|130.75|||ANOVA||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was provided.||130.75|98.99|
84536191|NCT02629354|168820703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|125.97|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||125.97|96.32|
84536192|NCT02629354|168820704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|112.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|128.94|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||128.94|98.49|
84536193|NCT02629354|168820705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.61|100.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.19|94.61|
84536194|NCT02629354|168820706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|99.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||99.28|93.74|
84536195|NCT02629354|168820707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|102.8|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.80|92.57|
84540429|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.77
84540430|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.76
84536196|NCT02629354|168820708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|100.73|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.73|94.50|
84536197|NCT02629354|168820709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|102.46|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.46|92.22|
84536198|NCT02629354|168820710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.75|100.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.01|93.75|
84536199|NCT03433755|168820749|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.98|-63.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-63.48|-77.98|< 0.0001
84536200|NCT03433755|168820749|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-69.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.51|-62.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-62.97|-76.51|< 0.0001
84536201|NCT03433755|168820750|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.47|-62.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-62.27|-79.47|< 0.0001
84536202|NCT03433755|168820750|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.97|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.66|-73.97|< 0.0001
84536203|NCT03433755|168820751|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-76.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.6|-66.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-66.4|-86.6|< 0.0001
84536204|NCT03433755|168820751|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.7|-66.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-66.7|-87.7|< 0.0001
84536205|NCT03433755|168820752|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-75.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.1|-64.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-64.7|-87.1|< 0.0001
84536206|NCT03433755|168820752|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-73.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-61.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-61.8|-84.1|< 0.0001
84536207|NCT03433755|168820753|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.04|-54.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.37|-68.04|< 0.0001
84536208|NCT03433755|168820753|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-62.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.97|-56.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-56.32|-67.97|< 0.0001
84536209|NCT03433755|168820754|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.25|-53.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.65|-69.25|< 0.0001
84536210|NCT03433755|168820754|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-56.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.66|-49.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.63|-63.66|< 0.0001
84723515|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-1.08|
84536211|NCT03433755|168820755|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-56.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|-50.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-50.07|-62.44|< 0.0001
84536212|NCT03433755|168820755|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.35|-51.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.65|-62.35|< 0.0001
84536213|NCT03433755|168820756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.98|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-48.41|-62.98|< 0.0001
84536214|NCT03433755|168820756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-51.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|-44.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-44.37|-58.06|< 0.0001
84536215|NCT03433755|168820757|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-42.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.06|-37.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.41|-48.06|< 0.0001
84536216|NCT03433755|168820757|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.02|-39.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-39.58|-49.02|< 0.0001
84536217|NCT03433755|168820758|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-43.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.09|-37.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.00|-49.09|< 0.0001
84536218|NCT03433755|168820758|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.98|-34.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-34.87|-45.98|< 0.0001
84536219|NCT03433755|168820759|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|92.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||92.8|72.6|< 0.0001
84536220|NCT03433755|168820759|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|96.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||96.1|76.9|< 0.0001
84536221|NCT03433755|168820760|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||95.6|76.6|< 0.0001
84536222|NCT03433755|168820760|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|85.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|91.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||91.9|68.2|< 0.0001
84536223|NCT03433755|168820761|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|93.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||93.0|73.3|< 0.0001
84536224|NCT03433755|168820761|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|88.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|94.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||94.0|73.5|< 0.0001
84536225|NCT03433755|168820762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.8|90.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||90.1|67.8|< 0.0001
84536226|NCT03433755|168820762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|89.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||89.7|64.8|< 0.0001
84536227|NCT03433755|168820763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-48.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|-39.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.11|-57.78|< 0.0001
84540431|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
84540432|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.71
84536228|NCT03433755|168820763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|-32.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.24|-48.62|< 0.0001
84536229|NCT03433755|168820764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76|-34.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-34.65|-54.76|< 0.0001
84536230|NCT03433755|168820764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-26.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-26.59|-49.94|< 0.0001
84536231|NCT03433755|168820765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.44|-5.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.75|-24.44|0.008
84536232|NCT03433755|168820765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-11.05|-28.30|< 0.0001
84536233|NCT03433755|168820766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-5.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.69|-29.42|0.008
84536234|NCT03433755|168820766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|-1.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-1.67|-23.04|< 0.0001
84536235|NCT03433755|168820767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|13.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.52|3.35|0.008
84536236|NCT03433755|168820767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.50|2.10|0.017
84536237|NCT03433755|168820768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|13.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.71|2.18|0.008
84536238|NCT03433755|168820768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|11.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.92|0.42|0.017
84536239|NCT03433755|168820769|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-12.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-12.81|-33.12|0.0002
84536240|NCT03433755|168820769|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-19.02|-36.60|< 0.0001
84536241|NCT03433755|168820770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|-9.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-9.25|-34.31|0.0002
84536242|NCT03433755|168820770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.31|-5.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.18|-26.31|< 0.0001
84723516|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.90|-0.62|
84536243|NCT05307510|168820798|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is under powered. N is too low.||||||0.135||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at rest||||0.135
84536244|NCT05307510|168820798|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low||||||0.716||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at Night||||.716
84536245|NCT05307510|168820798|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis underpowered. N is too small.||||||0.509||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain in use||||.509
84536246|NCT05307510|168820799|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
84536247|NCT05307510|168820800|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.635||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Palmar abduction of surgical hand||||.635
84536248|NCT05307510|168820800|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Radial Abduction Surgical Hand||7.4|-13.6|.521
84536249|NCT05307510|168820801|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.42||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||32.0|-16.16|.495
84536250|NCT05307510|168820802|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Buttoning Buttons||||.953
84536251|NCT05307510|168820802|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.947||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Lacing and tying a shoe||||.947
84536252|NCT05307510|168820802|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.828||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Opening and closing safety pins||||.828
84536253|NCT05307510|168820802|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.169||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Managing coins||||.169
84536254|NCT05307510|168820803|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis underpowered. N too small.||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
84536255|NCT05307510|168820803|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too small||||||0.837||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.837
84536256|NCT01635218|168820825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.0|3.1|<0.05
84536257|NCT01635218|168820825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.25||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.25|1.31|<0.05
84536258|NCT01635218|168820826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|7.61||The statistical significant ANOVA result (p\<0.05) suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.61|-0.73|0.14
84536259|NCT01635218|168820826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|5.5||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.5|-2.93|0.99
84536260|NCT01635218|168820827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|0.03|<0.05
84536261|NCT01635218|168820827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||Chi-squared|||||0.56|0.06|<0.05
84536262|NCT01635218|168820828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.52||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||14.52|2.72|0.002
84536263|NCT01635218|168820828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.6||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||9.6|-2.33|0.424
84536264|NCT01635218|168820829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.1||95.0|0.05|1.32|||Chi-squared|||||1.32|0.05|0.10
84536265|NCT01635218|168820829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.05|0.11
84536266|NCT04516759|168820838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.32|0.9|0.1854
84536267|NCT04516759|168820839|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Baseline p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0286
84536268|NCT04516759|168820839|OTHER|||||||0.0786||||||Day 7 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0786
84536269|NCT04516759|168820839|OTHER|||||||0.2169||||||Day 14 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2169
84536270|NCT04516759|168820839|OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Day 21 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.1860
84536271|NCT04516759|168820839|OTHER|||||||0.2256||||||Study Drug Discontinuation (SDD) p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2256
84536272|NCT04516759|168820840|OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4006
84536273|NCT04516759|168820840|OTHER|||||||0.7482||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7482
84536274|NCT04516759|168820840|OTHER|||||||0.6949||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6949
84536275|NCT04516759|168820840|OTHER|||||||0.5521||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5521
84536276|NCT04516759|168820841|OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5875
84536277|NCT04516759|168820842|OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1129
84536278|NCT04516759|168820843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1556|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1556
84536279|NCT04516759|168820844|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.26|||Fisher Exact|The p-value is assessed by means of an Fisher's exact test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.26|0.13|0.0903
84536280|NCT04516759|168820845|OTHER|||||||0.6144|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.6144
84536281|NCT04516759|168820846|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0105
84536282|NCT04516759|168820847|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.062
84536283|NCT01994291|168820848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.27|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.37|-4.27|0.1271
84536284|NCT01994291|168820848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.73|-4.24|0.0699
84536285|NCT01994291|168820848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.91|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.91|-3.91|0.0399
84536286|NCT01994291|168820849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1416||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2483|-0.0467|||Barnard test|||||-0.0467|-0.2483|0.0218
84536287|NCT01994291|168820849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0442||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1217|0.0261|||Barnard test.|||baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||0.0261|-0.1217|0.4209
84536288|NCT01994291|168820849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0849||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1516|-0.0168|||Barnard test.|||||-0.0168|-0.1516|0.0778
84536289|NCT01994291|168820850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|88.56|139.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.59|88.56|<0.0001
84536290|NCT01994291|168820850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.36||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.2|89.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.43|42.20|0.0004
84536291|NCT01994291|168820850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|87.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|67.45|107.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.19|67.45|<0.0001
84536292|NCT01994291|168820851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.13|9.83|||ANCOVA|||||9.83|6.13|<0.0001
84536293|NCT01994291|168820851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.7|7.98|||ANCOVA|||||7.98|4.70|<0.0001
84536294|NCT01994291|168820851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.66|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|5.66|<0.0001
84536295|NCT01994291|168820852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|0.13|0.0423
84536296|NCT01994291|168820852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.36|0.0004
84536297|NCT01994291|168820852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|0.30|0.0004
84536298|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean Difference|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.2|4.8|0.0001
84536299|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-27.6||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-27.6|-37.0|<0.0001
84536300|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.8|4.5|0.0002
84723517|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.95|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.95|-0.94|
84536301|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|-5.0|0.8806
84536302|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|46.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.1|36.8|<0.0001
84536303|NCT01775189|168820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|46.4||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|37.1|<0.0001
84536304|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-4.0|0.2176
84723518|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.51|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.51|-1.57|
84536305|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-44.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-44.1|-65.1|<0.0001
84536306|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|15.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.5|-5.6|0.3502
84536307|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.9|-12.1|0.7624
84536308|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|70.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|49.0|<0.0001
84536309|NCT01775189|168820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|71.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.7|50.6|<0.0001
84536310|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.3|13.8|<0.0001
84536311|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-50.9|-72.6|<0.0001
84536312|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|29.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.1|7.4|0.0012
84536313|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|4.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.5|-17.2|0.2507
84536314|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|79.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.2|90.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.7|69.2|<0.0001
84536315|NCT01775189|168820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|97.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.1|75.4|<0.0001
84536316|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|43.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.1|10.6|0.0015
84536317|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.7|-93.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-93.0|-125.7|<0.0001
84536318|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.4||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|37.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|5.1|0.0109
84536319|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|10.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-21.8|0.5117
84536320|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|130.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|147.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.0|114.5|<0.0001
84536321|NCT01775189|168820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|136.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.8|152.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||152.5|119.8|<0.0001
84536322|NCT00856375|168820919|OTHER|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.041|||Log Rank|||||1.041|0.4|= 0.07
84536323|NCT00856375|168820920|OTHER|Hazard ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.486|||Log Rank|||||1.486|0.557|= 0.706
84536324|NCT00856375|168820921|OTHER|ORR 95% CI based on Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits. Odds ratio 95% CI based on asymptotic confidence limits.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054|||=|0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|11.9|||Fisher Exact|||||11.9|0.355|= 0.676
84536325|NCT00856375|168820922|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.018
84536326|NCT00118534|168820955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||The target sample size (n=1400)was designed to have 90% power to detect the difference between 6% and 11% prolonged abstinence rates in SCC and IC, respectively, using a 2-sided .05 level Chi-square test. Final enrollment was 943. The recruitment period was not extended because the achieved sample size provided 78% power to detect the hypothesized prolonged abstinence rates, and the study continued to the end of planned follow-up.||3.59|1.22|0.007
84536327|NCT00118534|168820956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|1.58|<0.001
84536328|NCT02348723|168821015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD) %|-5.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||The risk difference between dabigatran etexilate vs. warfarin, its 2-sided 95% CI, and corresponding p-value are presented.||-2.2|-8.4|0.0009
84536329|NCT01798316|168821019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
84536330|NCT03496610|168821050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed given non-normal distribution of data by Shapiro Wilks Test. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in oral morphine equivalent consumption between the two groups in the first 24hrs after surgery. Original sample size calculation based on α=0.05, β=0.8, difference in means=2, and effect size of 1.0.||||0.81
84536331|NCT03496610|168821051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pain on postoperative day 7.||||0.40
84536332|NCT03496610|168821052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in bloating severity between the two groups.||||0.74
84536333|NCT03496610|168821053|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Compared using the Likelihood ratio test with α=0.05. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups.||||0.38
84536334|NCT04693416|168821069|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.252
84536335|NCT04693416|168821070|OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.546
84536336|NCT04693416|168821071|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.005
84536337|NCT04693416|168821072|OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.188
84536338|NCT04693416|168821073|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.049
84536339|NCT04693416|168821074|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.036
84536340|NCT00474266|168821084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78||||||||6.78|0.29|
84536341|NCT00474266|168821084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.78|
84536342|NCT00474266|168821084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.79|
84536343|NCT00474266|168821084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.06|
84536344|NCT00474266|168821085|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.17||||||||3.17|-1.06|
84536345|NCT00474266|168821086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|12.46||||||||12.46|-2.82|
84536346|NCT00474266|168821087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.06|
84536347|NCT00474266|168821088|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|9.5||||||||9.5|-0.28|
84536348|NCT01695863|168821120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.816|||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Colon||0.816|0.269|<0.0001
84536349|NCT01695863|168821120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||Transverse Colon||0.655|0.122|0.005
84536350|NCT01695863|168821120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.484|||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Colon||0.484|-0.029|0.08
84536351|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calcium||||0.093
84536352|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glucose||||0.801
84536353|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood Urea Nitrogen||||0.599
84536354|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Creatinine||||0.696
84536355|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sodium||||.042
84536356|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Potassium||||0.596
84536357|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Chloride||||0.107
84536358|NCT01695863|168821121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bicarbonate||||0.351
84536359|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0438||||0.772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nausea||||0.772
84536360|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2821||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vomiting||||0.028
84536361|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2102||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bloating||||0.235
84536362|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0547||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal pain or cramping||||0.707
84536363|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0269||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ability to complete entire prep||||0.773
84536364|NCT01695863|168821122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difficulty/Inconvenience in completing prep||||0.766
84540433|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.60
84540434|NCT04584684|168831733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
84536365|NCT01687244|168821148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.8|53.6||Not applicable: the primary analysis was a calculation of a confidence interval||||The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion||53.6|16.8|
84536366|NCT01687244|168821148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.8|58.2|||||The proportion of subjects achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months|The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion.||58.2|18.8|
84536367|NCT01330420|168821161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
84536368|NCT01330420|168821162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
84536369|NCT01330420|168821163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
84536370|NCT01330420|168821165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
84536371|NCT02373189|168821174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value indicated above is calculated.|paired t-test|means at pre and post treatment were compared within subject.||||||0.05
84536372|NCT02373189|168821175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84536373|NCT03095638|168821176|OTHER||Ratio|1.0084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8626|1.1789||||||||1.1789|0.8626|
84536374|NCT03095638|168821177|OTHER||Ratio|1.0121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8648|1.1845||||||||1.1845|0.8648|
84536375|NCT03095638|168821178|OTHER||Ration|1.0329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8623|1.2373||||||||1.2373|0.8623|
84536376|NCT03095638|168821179|OTHER||Ratio|1.6242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4986|1.7604||||||||1.7604|1.4986|
84536377|NCT03095638|168821179|OTHER||Ratio|1.5448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4253|1.6743||||||||1.6743|1.4253|
84536378|NCT03095638|168821180|OTHER||Ratio|1.6292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.503|1.7661||||||||1.7661|1.5030|
84536379|NCT03095638|168821180|OTHER||Ratio|1.5519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4317|1.6822||||||||1.6822|1.4317|
84536380|NCT03095638|168821181|OTHER||Ratio|1.7933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6226|1.9819||||||||1.9819|1.6226|
84536381|NCT03095638|168821181|OTHER||Ratio|1.7974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6263|1.9865||||||||1.9865|1.6263|
84536382|NCT06281171|168821232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
84536383|NCT06281171|168821233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.996
84536384|NCT06281171|168821234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
84536385|NCT06281171|168821235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54
84536386|NCT06281171|168821236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
84536387|NCT06281171|168821237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30
84536388|NCT06281171|168821238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
84536389|NCT01158573|168821239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Hypothesis that leptin levels in OA is not different from the other 3 groups.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84536390|NCT01158573|168821240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84536391|NCT01158573|168821241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
84536392|NCT01158573|168821242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
84536393|NCT00073021|168821243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|12.543||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|24.12|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that true rate of improvement for 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (alpha = 0.05), and power of 80%, 120 patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis were required per group to complete the study.||24.12|0.96|0.0357
84536394|NCT00073021|168821244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Between Means|-0.5||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-1.28|0.1594
84536395|NCT00073021|168821244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
84536396|NCT00073021|168821244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Teh 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
84536397|NCT00073021|168821245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|3.75||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|16.93|||Chi-squared|||||16.93|-9.43|0.5774
84536398|NCT00073021|168821246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|6.19||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|17.86|||Chi-squared|||||17.86|-5.47|0.2991
84536399|NCT00073021|168821247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|2.74||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|14.73|||Chi-squared|||||14.73|-9.25|0.6543
84536400|NCT00073021|168821248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|1.05||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.29|||Chi-squared|||||12.29|-10.19|0.8542
84536401|NCT00073021|168821249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|-0.96||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|12.17|||Chi-squared|||||12.17|-14.09|0.8859
84536402|NCT00073021|168821250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.73||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|20.4|||Chi-squared|||||20.40|-0.94|0.0758
84536403|NCT00073021|168821251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8308
84536404|NCT00073021|168821251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84536405|NCT00073021|168821251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84536406|NCT00073021|168821252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5340
84536407|NCT00073021|168821252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84536408|NCT00073021|168821252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84536409|NCT00073021|168821253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|11.1||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|24.14|||Chi-squared|||||24.14|-1.87|0.0966
84536410|NCT00073021|168821254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.75||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|21.89|||Chi-squared|||||21.89|-2.39|0.1173
84536411|NCT02288182|168821333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test comparing the group means was planned and performed (successfully). However, due to some outliers, the central tendencies have been reported as medians (instead of arithmetic means). Therefore an additional non-parameteric test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was performed.||||0.001
84536412|NCT02823652|168821348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
84536413|NCT02823652|168821349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
84536414|NCT02823652|168821350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
84536415|NCT02823652|168821351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
84536416|NCT01197755|168821366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.28|0.05|0.004
84536417|NCT01197755|168821366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.07||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|-0.03|0.168
84536418|NCT01197755|168821367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.16|<0.001
84536419|NCT01197755|168821368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.02|0.014
84536420|NCT01197755|168821368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.02|0.180
84536421|NCT01197755|168821369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.06|<0.001
84536422|NCT01197755|168821369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.04|-0.04|0.891
84536423|NCT01197755|168821370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|||||0.01||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.010
84536424|NCT01197755|168821370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.019
84536425|NCT01197755|168821371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.91|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||13.91|1.21|0.023
84540435|NCT02955212|168831748|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|30.5|<0.001
84536426|NCT01197755|168821371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.23||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.23|0.65|0.197
84536427|NCT01197755|168821372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.92|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||10.92|1.54|0.005
84536428|NCT01197755|168821372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.3||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||12.30|1.79|0.002
84536429|NCT01197755|168821373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|5.76||Nominal p value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||5.76|1.86|<0.001
84536430|NCT01197755|168821373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.31||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||3.31|1.07|0.028
84536431|NCT01197755|168821374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.45|1.33|0.004
84536432|NCT01197755|168821374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.79||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.79|0.82|0.186
84536433|NCT01197755|168821375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.729
84536434|NCT01197755|168821375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.019
84536435|NCT01197755|168821376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.6||||0.009||95.0|0.65|4.56|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.56|0.65|0.009
84536436|NCT01197755|168821376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.44|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.44|-0.39|0.118
84723519|NCT00749944|169199543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.75|-0.91|
84723520|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-1.76|
84536437|NCT01197755|168821377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.67||||0.487||95.0|-1.23|2.58|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.58|-1.23|0.487
84536438|NCT01197755|168821377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.62||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.51|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.51|-1.26|0.516
84536439|NCT04428333|168821378|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
84536440|NCT04428333|168821379|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 20 vs 1≤ CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
84536441|NCT04428333|168821380|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
84536442|NCT04428333|168821381|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
84536443|NCT04428333|168821384|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-20.8|
84536444|NCT04428333|168821385|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-21.4|
84536445|NCT04428333|168821386|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|13.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.1|-22.2|
84536446|NCT04428333|168821387|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.3|-22.8|
84540436|NCT02955212|168831749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.36|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.36|-1.86|<0.001
84723521|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.17|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.17|-0.96|
84723522|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.91|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.91|-1.94|
84536447|NCT04428333|168821404|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.71||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.71|0.42|0.329
84536448|NCT04428333|168821405|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.69||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.69|0.40|0.302
84536449|NCT04428333|168821406|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.11||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.11|0.44|0.472
84536450|NCT04428333|168821407|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.90|0.36|0.335
84536451|NCT00469911|168821473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84536452|NCT01328379|168821511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.196||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.196|-0.088|0.457
84536453|NCT01328379|168821511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0732||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.262|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.262|-0.026|0.107
84536454|NCT01328379|168821511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.207|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.207|-0.078|0.375
84536455|NCT01328379|168821512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.117||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.117|-0.145|0.832
84536456|NCT01328379|168821512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0674||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.226|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.226|-0.039|0.167
84536457|NCT01328379|168821512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.238|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.238|-0.024|0.108
84536458|NCT01328379|168821513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lease Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.25|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||4.25|-5.05|0.866
84536459|NCT01328379|168821513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|2.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.15|-7.26|0.286
84536460|NCT01328379|168821513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.366||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.49|-6.81|0.362
84536461|NCT01328379|168821514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|5.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||5.24|-3.56|0.708
84536462|NCT01328379|168821514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||4.06|-4.81|0.868
84536463|NCT01328379|168821514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|3.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||3.18|-5.61|0.588
84536464|NCT01328379|168821515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|103.7|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||103.7|-33.0|0.308
84536465|NCT01328379|168821515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|87.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.9||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|156.1|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||156.1|18.2|0.014
84536466|NCT01328379|168821515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.21||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|119.3|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||119.3|-15.9|0.133
84536467|NCT01328379|168821516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.1|-0.0|0.320
84536468|NCT01328379|168821516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.734
84536469|NCT01328379|168821516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.185
84536470|NCT01328379|168821517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||0.1|-7.0|0.055
84536471|NCT01328379|168821517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||2.4|-4.7|0.530
84536472|NCT01328379|168821517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||5.8|-1.2|0.203
84536473|NCT03151408|168821528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||P-value stratified by cytogenetic risk factor and ECOG performance status|Log Rank|||||||0.8275
84536474|NCT03151408|168821529|OTHER|||||||0.1244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1244
84536475|NCT03151408|168821530|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1430
84536476|NCT03151408|168821531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9977|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9977
84536477|NCT03151408|168821532|OTHER|||||||0.9959|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9959
84536478|NCT03151408|168821533|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3502
84536479|NCT03151408|168821534|OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0502
84536480|NCT03151408|168821536|OTHER|||||||0.4656|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4656
84536481|NCT03151408|168821537|OTHER|||||||0.7063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7063
84536482|NCT03151408|168821538|OTHER|||||||0.0592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0592
84536483|NCT03151408|168821539|OTHER|||||||0.3835|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3835
84536484|NCT03151408|168821540|OTHER|||||||0.7099|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7099
84536485|NCT02784444|168821541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.81||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||1.81|0.44|0.747
84536486|NCT02784444|168821541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.48|0.60|0.575
84536487|NCT02784444|168821541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.27||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.27|0.83|0.158
84536488|NCT02784444|168821542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.42||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.42|0.49|0.828
84536489|NCT02784444|168821542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.21||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.21|0.70|0.299
84536490|NCT02784444|168821542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.82||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.82|0.86|0.116
84536491|NCT02784444|168821543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.55||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.55|0.55|0.657
84536492|NCT02784444|168821543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.06||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.06|0.69|0.332
84536493|NCT02784444|168821543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.16||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.16|0.72|0.270
84536494|NCT02784444|168821544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.7|0.392
84536495|NCT02784444|168821544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
84536496|NCT02784444|168821544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
84536497|NCT02784444|168821545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.224
84536498|NCT02784444|168821545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.4|0.096
84536499|NCT02784444|168821545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-0.6|0.007
84536500|NCT02784444|168821546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.1|0.488
84536501|NCT02784444|168821546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.3|0.291
84540437|NCT02955212|168831750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.33|-0.55|<0.001
84536502|NCT02784444|168821546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.595
84536503|NCT02784444|168821547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.4|0.416
84536504|NCT02784444|168821547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.5|0.056
84536505|NCT02784444|168821547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.220
84536506|NCT02784444|168821548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.3|0.928
84536507|NCT02784444|168821548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.244
84536508|NCT02784444|168821548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.228
84536509|NCT03262038|168821549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.412
84536510|NCT03262038|168821550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.633
84536511|NCT03262038|168821551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
84536512|NCT03262038|168821552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.634
84536513|NCT01473524|168821578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
84536514|NCT01473524|168821580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
84536515|NCT01473524|168821581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
84536516|NCT01473524|168821582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
84536517|NCT01473524|168821583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84723523|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.18|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.18|-1.18|
84536518|NCT01473524|168821583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536519|NCT01473524|168821584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0004
84536520|NCT01473524|168821584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536521|NCT01473524|168821585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536522|NCT01473524|168821585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536523|NCT01473524|168821586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84723524|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.07|-0.85|
84536524|NCT01473524|168821586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536525|NCT01473524|168821587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0003
84536526|NCT01473524|168821587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor||||||<0.0001
84536527|NCT01473524|168821588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536528|NCT01473524|168821588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
84536529|NCT02045147|168821592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|10.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.65|-4.98|0.463
84536530|NCT02045147|168821592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.49|-5.23|0.634
84536531|NCT02045147|168821592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|13.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.32|-3.74|0.259
84536532|NCT02045147|168821592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.84|-3.21|0.472
84536533|NCT02045147|168821593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.5|-8.5|0.532
84536534|NCT02045147|168821593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-7.5|0.574
84536535|NCT02045147|168821593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-12.3|0.254
84536536|NCT02045147|168821593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-6.3|0.759
84536537|NCT02045147|168821594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-2.1|0.153
84723525|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.79|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||6.79|-2.60|
84536538|NCT02045147|168821594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-7.9|0.729
84723526|NCT00749944|169199544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.96|-0.70|
84536539|NCT02045147|168821594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-6.6|0.886
84536540|NCT02045147|168821594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-8.7|0.446
84536541|NCT02045147|168821595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|-5.7|0.521
84536542|NCT02045147|168821595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.5|-1.5|0.146
84536543|NCT02045147|168821595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-8.5|0.926
84536544|NCT02045147|168821595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-6.4|0.526
84536545|NCT02045147|168821596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-9.2|0.776
84536546|NCT02045147|168821596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.7|-1.6|0.135
84536547|NCT02045147|168821596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.0|-10.9|0.556
84536548|NCT02045147|168821596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.9|-2.9|0.361
84536549|NCT02045147|168821597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.6|-6.4|0.564
84536550|NCT02045147|168821597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-3.0|0.307
84536551|NCT02045147|168821597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-6.7|0.768
84536552|NCT02045147|168821597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-4.2|0.785
84536553|NCT02045147|168821598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-7.5|0.917
84536554|NCT02045147|168821598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-2.2|0.181
84536555|NCT02045147|168821598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-6.3|0.772
84536556|NCT02045147|168821598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-3.8|0.526
84723527|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.26|
84536557|NCT02045147|168821599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.9|-.8|0.872
84536558|NCT02045147|168821599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.34|-.87|0.387
84536559|NCT02045147|168821599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.81|-.37|0.916
84536560|NCT02045147|168821599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.94|-.19|0.189
84536561|NCT02045147|168821600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.13|-.21|0.627
84536562|NCT02045147|168821600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.09|-.11|0.840
84536563|NCT02045147|168821600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.22|0.049
84536564|NCT02045147|168821600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.06|-.06|0.952
84536565|NCT02045147|168821601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|25.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.00|-11.07|.436
84536566|NCT02045147|168821601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-25.24|.088
84536567|NCT02045147|168821601|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.86|4.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.77|-25.86|0.169
84536568|NCT02045147|168821601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-12.79|0.416
84536569|NCT02383810|168821616|SUPERIORITY|The overall hypothesis system was represented by the following pool of partial hypothesis systems: Hok: πGi = πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j HAk: πGi ≠πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j where πG is the probability of absence of Grade ≥2 CID for the Group. Each Ho involved 2 groups.|||||<|0.1||||||Overall alpha level 0.10 was maintained by correction for multiplicity according to Hommel's procedure.|Chi-squared|||Overall null hypothesis: All elsiglutide dose groups had equal proportion of subjects with max Grade≥2 diarrhea and this was equal to the one in the placebo group. This includes 6 individual hypotheses (i.e., 3 to compare each dose group vs. placebo and 3 to compare dose groups vs. each other). Raw p-values from Chi square tests were corrected for multiplicity according to the Hommel's procedure. Each of 6 hypotheses was then evaluated based on corrected p-value at alpha 0.10 (two-sided).||||<0.1
84536570|NCT00926783|168821686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||The p-value was based on Fisher's exact test. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that rates of free from atrial arrhythmia for the two arms, Targeted and Generalized, are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the rates are not the same. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.048
84536571|NCT00926783|168821687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times for both arms are equal. The alternative hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times are not equal. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.002
84536572|NCT00696787|168821692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.38||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.42|0.471
84536573|NCT00696787|168821692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.28||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-1.33|0.604
84536574|NCT00696787|168821693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.35||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.42|0.510
84536575|NCT00696787|168821693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.64|0.317
84536576|NCT04040192|168821697|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.0034
84536577|NCT04040192|168821699|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed effects of treatment group, age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Least square mean difference|34.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.274||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|66.64|||ANCOVA|||||66.64|2.53|0.0346
84536578|NCT04040192|168821700|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value was estimated by Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference and 95%CI were estimated using Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.00|-1.00|0.0042
84536579|NCT04040192|168821701|OTHER|||||||0.6815||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.6815
84536580|NCT04040192|168821701|OTHER|||||||0.1518||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.1518
84536581|NCT04040192|168821702|OTHER|||||||0.1933||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization|Log Rank|||||||0.1933
84536582|NCT04040192|168821703|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.3778|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction||||0.3778
84536583|NCT04040192|168821703|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.487|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction||||0.4870
84536584|NCT04040192|168821704|OTHER|||||||0.1159||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.1159
84536585|NCT04040192|168821705|OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||DLQI for participants \>=16 years of age||||0.6973
84723528|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.29|-0.25|
84536586|NCT04040192|168821705|OTHER|||||||0.7456||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Children's DLQI: participants 4-\<16 yrs of age||||0.7456
84536587|NCT04040192|168821706|OTHER|||||||0.0513||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||POEM||||0.0513
84536588|NCT04040192|168821706|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Proxy POEM||||0.0217
84536589|NCT00469144|168821799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.9
84536590|NCT00469144|168821799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.4
84536591|NCT00469144|168821799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.7
84536592|NCT00469144|168821799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.05
84536593|NCT01292226|168821821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA)||||||0.4505
84536594|NCT01292226|168821821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7322
84536595|NCT01292226|168821821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6798||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6798
84536596|NCT01292226|168821821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5410
84536597|NCT01292226|168821822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3892||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3892
84723529|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.37|
84723530|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.17|
84536598|NCT01292226|168821822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6564||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6564
84536599|NCT01292226|168821822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7772||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7772
84536600|NCT01292226|168821822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0958
84536601|NCT01292226|168821823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5796||||||Time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5796
84536602|NCT01292226|168821823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3428||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3428
84536603|NCT01292226|168821824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9372
84536604|NCT01292226|168821824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9904
84536605|NCT01292226|168821824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3658
84536606|NCT01292226|168821824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.2987
84536607|NCT01292226|168821825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||||||time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7455
84536608|NCT01292226|168821825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8504||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.8504
84536609|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847||||||IMPDH I, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6847
84536610|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3184||||||IMPDH I, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3184
84536611|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862||||||IMPDH II, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3862
84536612|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||IMPDH II, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9040
84536613|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907||||||IMPDH activity, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0907
84536614|NCT01292226|168821826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||||||IMPDH activity, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9630
84536615|NCT01292226|168821827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.4130
84536616|NCT01292226|168821827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.3823
84536617|NCT01292226|168821828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.0316
84536618|NCT01292226|168821828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.9440
84536619|NCT01292226|168821829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.1328
84536620|NCT01292226|168821829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.5760
84536621|NCT01292226|168821830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7332||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7332
84536622|NCT01292226|168821830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.2681
84536623|NCT01292226|168821830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7087||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7087
84536624|NCT01292226|168821831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9432||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.9432
84536625|NCT01292226|168821831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5177||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.5177
84536626|NCT01292226|168821831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6398||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.6398
84536627|NCT01292226|168821832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0656||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0656
84536628|NCT01292226|168821832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0131
84536629|NCT01292226|168821832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0515||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0515
84723531|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.48|-0.40|
84536630|NCT02151877|168821866|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||This test applies to the first marker, cardiac troponin I.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null: mean cardiac troponin I changes in the NO group = mean cardiac troponin I changes in the control||||>0.05
84536631|NCT02151877|168821867|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null: NO group fluid balances are the same as the control||||>0.05
84536632|NCT04080544|168821915|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to episodic memory.||0.18|-3.03|.081
84536633|NCT04080544|168821915|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of episodic memory.||0.19|-0.32|.604
84536634|NCT04080544|168821916|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between amyloid accumulation (annualized change score for amyloid SUVR) to temporal tau SUVR.||3.39|0.15|.033
84536635|NCT04080544|168821917|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.66||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to speed of processing.||1.66|-1.12|.699
84536636|NCT04080544|168821917|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in the prediction of speed of processing.||0.38|-0.06|.154
84536637|NCT04080544|168821918|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.36||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to reasoning function.||0.36|-2.58|.137
84536638|NCT04080544|168821918|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of reasoning.||0.37|-0.16|.428
84536639|NCT04080544|168821919|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.86||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to working memory.||0.86|-2.25|.376
84536640|NCT04080544|168821919|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of working memory.||0.53|0.01|.039
84536641|NCT04080544|168821919|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD below the mean for amyloid||||.091
84536642|NCT04080544|168821919|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.296
84536643|NCT04080544|168821919|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD above the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.695
84536644|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.004||A prior threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.004|0.0004|.012
84536645|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.000005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000009|0.00008||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.00008|-0.000009|.905
84536646|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to inferior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.006
84536647|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to middle temporal gyrus SUVR.||0.003|0.0003|.018
84536648|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to middle temporal SUVR.||0.00006|-0.0001|.579
84536649|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to middle temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.008
84536650|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age to superior temporal SUVR.||0.001|-0.001|.897
84536651|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00007|0.00003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to superior temporal SUVR.||0.00003|-0.00007|.539
84536652|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to superior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.973
84536653|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.003|-0.001|.200
84536654|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00005||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|0.0001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.0001|-0.00005|.346
84536655|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.283|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing relationship of age(growth model) to entorhinal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.283
84536656|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.003|0.0004|.011
84536657|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00009||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.00009|-0.00004|.536
84536658|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to parahippocampal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.013
84536659|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to fusiform SUVR.||0.003|0.001|<.001
84536660|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to fusiform SUVR.||0.00006|-0.00004|.692
84723532|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.78|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.44|
84723533|NCT00749944|169199545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.40|-0.14|
84536661|NCT04080544|168821920|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to fusiform SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||<.001
84536662|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to inferior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.53|-0.18|.331
84536663|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.39|-0.24|.636
84536664|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to superior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.70|0.05|.024
84536665|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to parahippocampal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.18|-0.73|.235
84723534|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.90|-1.09|
84536666|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to entorhinal gyrus cortical thickness.||1.01|-0.63|.639
84536667|NCT04080544|168821921|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to fusiform gyrus cortical thickness.||0.50|-0.13|.252
84536668|NCT04080544|168821922|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-233.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|469.31||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1163.28|695.79||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to hippocampal volume.||695.79|-1163.28|.619
84536669|NCT04080544|168821923|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|9260.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3836.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1660.52|16859.51||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to volume of white matter hypointensities.||16859.51|1660.52|.017
84536670|NCT04080544|168821924|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to activation of inferior frontal gyrus (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.99|-0.41|.411
84536671|NCT04080544|168821924|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.81||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.81|-0.34|.412
84536672|NCT04080544|168821924|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.09||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to precuneus gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||1.09|-0.48|.438
84536673|NCT04080544|168821925|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.14||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to resting-state system segregation.||-0.14|-2.12|.026
84536674|NCT03316378|168821927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||0.44
84536675|NCT03316378|168821927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.08
84536676|NCT03316378|168821928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||<0.001
84536677|NCT03316378|168821928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.012
84536678|NCT03316378|168821929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||1.0
84536679|NCT03316378|168821929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||1.0
84536680|NCT04853992|168821941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint, change from baseline in post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score (UASprovo) to the end of the treatment period, was compared between treatments with the null hypothesis that they are equal against the alternative that they are different. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed model, containing treatment, period and carryover effects, the factor site and additionally the value of UASprovo at baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-1.69|0.277
84536681|NCT01094886|168821943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.05|.008
84536682|NCT01094886|168821944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.1||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.219|-2.048|0.111
84536683|NCT01094886|168821945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.977||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-2.77|0.87
84536684|NCT01094886|168821946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.316|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.01|-22.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-22.26|-48.01|<0.001
84536685|NCT00371397|168821950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||hsCRP dichotomized as undetectable/detectable. Logistic regression w/generalized estimating equations(GEE)s to determine odds ratio. Assessed hsCRP at baseline at each of the three visits; 43% of the values (n = 65) were below the assay's detectable lower bound of .3 mg/dL, and thus hsCRP was dichotomized as undetectable/detectable.||||.009
84536686|NCT01284621|168821964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|96.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.05|100.18|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||100.18|93.05|
84536687|NCT01284621|168821965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|104.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|111.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||111.77|97.65|
84536688|NCT01284621|168821966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|108.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.51|116.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||116.35|100.51|
84536689|NCT01284621|168821967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|103.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|119.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||119.64|89.73|
84536690|NCT01284621|168821968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|98.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|101.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||101.42|96.00|
84536691|NCT01284621|168821969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|98.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.67|104.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||104.25|92.67|
84536692|NCT02293863|168822005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.40|0.83|0.6050
84536693|NCT02293863|168822005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.51|0.85|0.2028
84536694|NCT02293863|168822007|OTHER||Difference in event rates|10.19||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.52|-0.15|0.1905
84536695|NCT02293863|168822007|OTHER||Difference in event rates|7.91||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|18.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.47|-2.64|0.3168
84536696|NCT02293863|168822008|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-7.92||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.5|11.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.66|-27.50|0.6043
84536697|NCT02293863|168822008|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-14.58||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.13|6.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.97|-36.13|0.3865
84536698|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
84536699|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.97||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|13.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||13.05|-3.12|0.2189
84536700|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.14||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|10.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||10.31|-6.04|0.6594
84536701|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|3.54||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.24|12.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||12.31|-5.24|0.5013
84536702|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.21||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|10.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.69|-6.28|0.6849
84536703|NCT02293863|168822009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.68||||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.38|10.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.74|-7.38|0.7633
84536704|NCT02293863|168822010|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|-1.06|||ANOVA|||||-1.06|-6.41|0.2407
84536705|NCT02293863|168822010|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|-3.49|0.8339
84536706|NCT02293863|168822011|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.2790
84536707|NCT02293863|168822011|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.70|0.1909
84536708|NCT02293863|168822012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.77|0.7413
84536709|NCT02293863|168822012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.77|0.99|0.4763
84536710|NCT02293863|168822013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.78|0.8806
84536711|NCT02293863|168822013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.80|0.5447
84536712|NCT02293863|168822014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|1.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.03|0.47|0.4171
84536713|NCT02293863|168822014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.34|0.61|0.8322
84536714|NCT02293863|168822015|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.61|7.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.76|-10.61|0.8240
84536715|NCT02293863|168822015|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.6||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.48|8.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.28|-11.48|0.8111
84536716|NCT02293863|168822016|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.42||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.96|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.80|-6.96|0.7219
84536717|NCT02293863|168822016|OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.67||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.29|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|-9.29|0.9225
84536718|NCT02293863|168822017|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
84536719|NCT02293863|168822017|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.85||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.88|6.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.88|0.3667
84536720|NCT02293863|168822018|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.07|0.41|0.7827
84536721|NCT02293863|168822018|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|0.36|0.2522
84536722|NCT03982199|168822033|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|80.0||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|52.2|92.9|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 1||92.9|52.2|0.00004
84536723|NCT03982199|168822033|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|75.0||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|50.1|88.5|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 2||88.5|50.1|0.00001
84536724|NCT03982199|168822033|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|69.8||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|43.7|84.7|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 3||84.7|43.7|0.00004
84540438|NCT02955212|168831751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|7.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and stratification factor of country as fixed effects and Baseline value as covariate|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.01|4.13|<0.001
84536725|NCT03395405|168822050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.|HR estimated from a Cox model|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||1.64|0.33|0.459
84536726|NCT03395405|168822052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Titer values were log-transformed||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.735
84536727|NCT03395405|168822056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until first negative viral load between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||4.06|0.19|0.873
84536728|NCT00324649|168822077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0014
84536729|NCT00324649|168822078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9713
84536730|NCT00324649|168822079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9725
84536731|NCT00324649|168822080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0078
84536732|NCT00324649|168822081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6984||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6984
84536733|NCT00324649|168822082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.1165||95.0|-0.9|29.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.|The difference is for Truvada minus zidovudine/lamivudine. The 95% confidence interval on the mean difference between treatment groups is based on the normal approximation.|"Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response.~Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response."||29.4|-0.9|0.1165
84536734|NCT00324649|168822085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0789
84536735|NCT00324649|168822086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9633
84536736|NCT00324649|168822087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9686||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9686
84723535|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.71|-1.54|
84536737|NCT00324649|168822088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6638||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6638
84536738|NCT00324649|168822089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2907||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.2907
84536739|NCT00324649|168822090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0072
84536740|NCT00324649|168822091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0006
84536741|NCT00324649|168822092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.1785
84540439|NCT02955212|168831752|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|23.4|<0.001
84536742|NCT04684238|168822095|OTHER|Least square means of the difference between the treatment groups, including a 2-sided 95% confidence interval was reported in the statistical analysis. The noninferiority criterion was a relative difference of less than 15% between treatment groups.|Least square means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|22.13||Noninferiority was defined as the entire 95% CI for the difference being above the noninferiority margin for the relative difference of -15%. Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.13|-8.99|
84536743|NCT04684238|168822096|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set to a relative difference of -15%.|Least square means|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|21.17||Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.||||||21.17|-10.48|
84536744|NCT04684238|168822097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.8|0.0004
84536745|NCT04684238|168822098|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on an analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline opioid dose as covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.69|0.096
84536746|NCT04684238|168822099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.07|||Regression, Cox|||Time to extubation||7.07|1.54|0.0021
84536747|NCT04684238|168822100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||ANOVA|||Spontaneous breathing efforts. Results display a comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a mixed effects analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect.||0.25|-0.15|0.636
84536748|NCT04684238|168822101|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a Wilcoxon ranksum test.||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at ≤24 hours.||||0.55
84536749|NCT04684238|168822101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at \>24 hours.||||0.637
84723536|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.60|-2.47|
84723537|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.15|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.15|-1.57|
84723538|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.36|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.36|-2.23|
84723539|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.33|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.33|-2.81|
84723540|NCT00749944|169199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-1.78|
84536750|NCT02152605|168822113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-6.28|<0.001
84536751|NCT02152605|168822114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.172|0.071|<0.001
84536752|NCT02152605|168822115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
84536753|NCT02657928|168822120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5004
84536754|NCT02657928|168822121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9127
84536755|NCT01564537|168822127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.939|||Log Rank||HR is estimated from Cox Regression.|||0.939|0.587|0.012
84536756|NCT01564537|168822128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||=|0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.125|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.125|0.784|=0.495
84536757|NCT01564537|168822129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.626|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.626|0.516|=0.764
84723541|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.19|-0.04|
84536758|NCT01564537|168822141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.45||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve), and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is from logistic regression model with prognostic factors: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve),and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III). Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib.|||2.45|0.69|=0.332
84536759|NCT03323437|168822204|OTHER|two way anova|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
84536760|NCT03323437|168822205|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||||||.68
84536761|NCT03323437|168822206|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
84536762|NCT03323437|168822207|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
84536763|NCT03323437|168822208|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.59
84723542|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.11|
84536764|NCT03323437|168822209|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
84536765|NCT03323437|168822210|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||.32
84536766|NCT03323437|168822211|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||.60
84536767|NCT03323437|168822212|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||.34
84536768|NCT03323437|168822213|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
84536769|NCT03323437|168822214|OTHER|fisher's exact||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.66
84536770|NCT03323437|168822215|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
84536771|NCT03323437|168822216|OTHER|fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
84536772|NCT00843479|168822217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84536773|NCT00843479|168822218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84536774|NCT00843479|168822219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
84723543|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.06|
84536775|NCT00843479|168822220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84536776|NCT00843479|168822221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84536777|NCT00843479|168822222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
84536778|NCT01235195|168822223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.12|109.83|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-72) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||109.83|100.12|
84536779|NCT01235195|168822224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|112.69|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed Cmax analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.69|98.46|
84536780|NCT01235195|168822226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.16|112.39|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-∞) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.39|100.16|
84723544|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
84536781|NCT01544179|168822230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.13|0.65|0.273
84536782|NCT01544179|168822233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.52|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.52|1.05|0.029
84536783|NCT01544179|168822234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.55|0.760
84536784|NCT01544179|168822235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.74|0.308
84536785|NCT01544179|168822236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.53|0.770
84536786|NCT01544179|168822237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.21|0.68|0.507
84536787|NCT01544179|168822238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.54|0.725
84536788|NCT01544179|168822239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.23|0.69|0.575
84536789|NCT01544179|168822240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.61|0.959
84536790|NCT01544179|168822241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.20|0.66|0.437
84536791|NCT01386983|168822242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.406||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|8.941|||Regression, Cox|||||8.941|1.297|0.0128
84536792|NCT01386983|168822243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Generalized linear model|Gamma distribution with log-link function was used.||||||0.0002
84536793|NCT00049530|168822244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||bionomial proportion test|||It is of interest to test the null hypothesis of 10% plasma b-FGF response rate versus the alternative hypothesis of 30% response rate. Based on the sample size of 30 eligible patients, there will be 84% power to detect this 20% difference in b-FGF response rates. This was based on a two-sided type I error of .05, using the one-sample binomial test.||||<0.001
84536794|NCT01917214|168822261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0308
84540440|NCT02955212|168831753|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|24.3|16.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.9|16.6|<0.001
84536795|NCT03257865|168822278|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.62|||=|0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.32|||mixed-effect model repeated measure||"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||0.32|-3.56|=0.1011
84536796|NCT03857750|168822280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|124.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing onset time of rocuronium||124|40|<0.001
84536797|NCT03857750|168822280|OTHER||Odds|19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95 % confidence interval is 7.63 to infinity|82||||<0.001
84536798|NCT03857750|168822282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|48.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||48|14|<0.001
84536799|NCT03857750|168822282|OTHER||Odds|6.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95% Confidence interval is 2.59 to infinity.|Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||||0.001
84536800|NCT01934335|168822288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
84536801|NCT01934335|168822289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
84536802|NCT01934335|168822290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
84536803|NCT05384171|168822294|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.02||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.617
84536804|NCT05384171|168822296|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.089||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group intention follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline intention scores and age)||||.214
84536805|NCT05384171|168822296|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group attitude follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline attitude scores and age)||||.894
84536806|NCT05384171|168822296|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.053||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group social norms follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline social norms scores and age)||||.359
84536807|NCT05384171|168822296|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.058||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group perceived behavioral control follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline perceived behavioral control scores and age)||||.322
84536808|NCT05384171|168822297|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.891
84536809|NCT01421511|168822299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the early clinical response rates at 48 to 72 Hours after the first infusion of study drug using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid responder rate minus the linezolid responder rate.|||8.2|-3.0|
84536810|NCT01421511|168822300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the programmatic clinical response at the EOT visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.1|-6.1|
84723545|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.01|-0.27|
84536811|NCT01421511|168822301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the EOT Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||0.3|-8.8|
84536812|NCT01421511|168822302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||5.3|-4.8|
84536813|NCT01421511|168822303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|0.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||0.2|-7.7|
84536814|NCT01421511|168822304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||5.6|-3.3|
84536815|NCT01421511|168822305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||4.9|-3.2|
84536816|NCT00811928|168822346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in incidence defined as (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100% (posaconazole minus fluconazole) had to be \< 4 in order to be considered non-inferior. IFI occurred: proven+probable|Difference for the incidence|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|0.25|||||Posaconazole minus fluconazole|||0.25|-12.21|
84536817|NCT00811928|168822347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.7|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||9.7|1.4|
84536818|NCT00811928|168822347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.3|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||21.3|8.0|
84536819|NCT00811928|168822350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|31.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|40.9|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%.|||40.9|23.3|
84536820|NCT00811928|168822350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|41.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|51.4|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||51.4|32.8|
84536821|NCT00811928|168822351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||7.3|0.5|
84536822|NCT00811928|168822351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.9|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||11.9|2.4|
84536823|NCT00423319|168822359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.54|0.22|<0.0001
84536824|NCT00423319|168822359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|1.5||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||1.50|-3.54|<0.0001
84536825|NCT00423319|168822360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.8||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.80|0.15|<0.0001
84536826|NCT00423319|168822360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-0.68||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.17||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Chi-squared||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||-0.17|-1.27|0.0054
84536827|NCT00423319|168822362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.15||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.64||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.64|-0.33|0.54
84536828|NCT00423319|168822362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.44||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.66||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.53|0.43
84536829|NCT00423319|168822362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.95||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major or CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.95|-1.38|0.72
84536830|NCT00423319|168822362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rate|-0.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.9||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Any bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.90|-2.61|0.34
84536831|NCT00423319|168822372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI/stroke|||0.26|-0.34|
84536832|NCT00423319|168822372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI|||0.34|-0.17|
84536833|NCT00423319|168822372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Stroke|||0.07|-0.35|
84536834|NCT00423319|168822372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Thrombocytopenia|||0.17|-0.26|
84536835|NCT02639052|168822373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Baseline assessment of itch VAS after itch induction but prior to Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.9704
84536836|NCT02639052|168822374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 week (Visit 2) was the first assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
84536837|NCT02639052|168822375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant difference in mean itch VAS between the two treatments (Botox mean=2.45 versus saline mean=3.20, p\<0.0001). Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 month (Visit 3) was the second assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
84536838|NCT02639052|168822376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare treatment (Botox vs saline), time, and interaction effect between treatment \& time||3 months (Visit 4) was the third assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.0004
84536839|NCT02639052|168822377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1306||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and visit, and interaction effect between treatment and visit.||||0.1306
84540441|NCT02955212|168831754|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.9|15.6|<0.001
84536840|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||<0.0001
84536841|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0002
84536842|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0004
84536843|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84536844|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
84536845|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2510
84536846|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3433||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3433
84536847|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4503
84536848|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2122
84536849|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2232||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2232
84536850|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4207
84723546|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.21|
84536851|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.5375
84536852|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6633||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.6633
84536853|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3667
84536854|NCT00673387|168822425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3720
84536855|NCT00673387|168822429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate||||0.0404
84536856|NCT00673387|168822429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0265
84536857|NCT00673387|168822429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1357
84536858|NCT00673387|168822429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0409
84536859|NCT00673387|168822429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0082
84536860|NCT00673387|168822433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0464
84536861|NCT00673387|168822433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0647
84536862|NCT00673387|168822433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0690
84723547|NCT00749944|169199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.03|-0.17|
84536863|NCT00673387|168822433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.3717
84536864|NCT00673387|168822433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0327
84536865|NCT00673387|168822434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0049
84536866|NCT00673387|168822434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0047
84536867|NCT00673387|168822434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0046
84536868|NCT00673387|168822434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0257
84536869|NCT00673387|168822434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0014
84536870|NCT00673387|168822435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0222
84536871|NCT00673387|168822435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0128
84536872|NCT00673387|168822435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0122
84536873|NCT00673387|168822435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0073
84536874|NCT00673387|168822435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0034
84536875|NCT00960115|168822452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.479||This trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance of treatment differences with respect to a statistical test, i.e., the p value being lower than a significance level of alpha (α) = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.479|0.614|0.828
84536876|NCT02092467|168822489|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.09|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||2.09|1.04|
84536877|NCT02092467|168822489|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||||Secondary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.43|0.70|
84536878|NCT02092467|168822489|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|1.00|
84536879|NCT02092467|168822489|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.19|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.19|1.00|
84536880|NCT02092467|168822490|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||1.94|0.91|
84536881|NCT02092467|168822490|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||||Secondary Comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \<2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.71|0.77|
84536882|NCT02092467|168822490|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||1.91|0.81|
84536883|NCT02092467|168822490|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|0.94|
84723548|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.03|
84536884|NCT04308226|168822570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84536885|NCT04308226|168822572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84536886|NCT00213135|168822573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.35|<0.001
84536887|NCT00213135|168822573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
84536888|NCT01908907|168822577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|28.7|||Regression, Linear|Outcome was transformed using a natural logarithm transformation. Models included gestational age group since the randomization was blocked.|Since analyzed on the log scale, estimates provide are % change rather than absolute change between group.|All analyses used the intent-to-treat study population. A linear mixed model was used to assess differences in time to full feeds, days on study drug, and gestational age at discharge. These models included a random effect for multiples, which was maintained in the model after testing. Fixed effects included treatment and GA group for time to full feeds and days on study drug and treatment effect for gestational age at discharge.||28.7|0.2|0.07
84536889|NCT01908907|168822578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|This is a complex regression model including linear and quadratic growth and interactions as specified above.||Linear mixed models were used to explore growth over time (weight, length and head circumference). These models included a random effect for intercepts and slopes to account for subject specific growth over time as well as a random effect for possible correlation between twins and triplets present in the data set. Fixed effects included both a linear and quadratic time effect, GA at birth, treatment group, full feeds (yes/no), and interactions. Non-significant interactions were eliminated.||||0.048
84540442|NCT02955212|168831755|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|24.0|<0.001
84536890|NCT00660907|168822585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferior margin delta = 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||Significant at alpha=0.025 (1-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \>= delta versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \< delta (with alpha = 0.025, one-sided)||0.11|-0.11|<0.0001
84536891|NCT00660907|168822586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2483|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-4.17||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) =/= 0||-4.17|-5.14|<0.0001
84536892|NCT00660907|168822587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-32.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||-32.2|-42.3|<0.0001
84536893|NCT00660907|168822588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||35.7|26.0|<0.0001
84536894|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER|||||||0.2073||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.2073
84536895|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0046
84536896|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0860
84536897|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER|||||||0.4005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4005
84536898|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is presented for Day 26-29 timepoint. P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84536899|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84536900|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84536901|NCT00761657|168822603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84536902|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0507
84536903|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|||||||0.4502||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4502
84536904|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||||||0.1603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.1603
84536905|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|||||||0.9816||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.9816
84536906|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0139
84536907|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84723549|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.08|
84536908|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0001
84536909|NCT00761657|168822604|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
84536910|NCT00618332|168822622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
84536911|NCT00618332|168822623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.775
84536912|NCT00618332|168822624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
84536913|NCT00618332|168822625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.117
84536914|NCT00618332|168822626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
84536915|NCT00618332|168822627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
84536916|NCT00618332|168822628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
84536917|NCT00618332|168822629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
84536918|NCT00618332|168822630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
84536919|NCT00826007|168822653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||.18|.09|<0.001
84536920|NCT01056289|168822664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.83|-0.51|
84536921|NCT01056289|168822664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference: DVS SR 25 mg versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.35|-1.03|
84536922|NCT01056289|168822664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 25 mg||1.89|-0.88|
84536923|NCT01917916|168822668|OTHER||Slope|2.4386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7504|3.1267|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1267|1.7504|
84536924|NCT01917916|168822669|OTHER||Slope|2.6033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0993|3.1073|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1073|2.0993|
84536925|NCT01917916|168822670|OTHER||Slope|3.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3395|3.9187|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-tz, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.9187|2.3395|
84536926|NCT00270855|168822684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in ARE)||||>0.05
84536927|NCT00270855|168822684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in FESLCE)||||>0.05
84536928|NCT00270855|168822685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536929|NCT00270855|168822685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536930|NCT00270855|168822686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group.||||0.519
84536931|NCT00270855|168822686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536932|NCT00270855|168822687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||0.615
84536933|NCT00270855|168822687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536934|NCT00270855|168822688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536935|NCT00270855|168822688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536936|NCT00270855|168822689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536937|NCT00270855|168822690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536938|NCT00270855|168822691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536939|NCT00270855|168822692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536940|NCT00270855|168822693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536941|NCT00270855|168822694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536942|NCT00270855|168822694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536943|NCT00270855|168822695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536944|NCT00270855|168822695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536945|NCT00270855|168822696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536946|NCT00270855|168822696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536947|NCT00270855|168822697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536948|NCT00270855|168822697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536949|NCT00270855|168822698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536950|NCT00270855|168822698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536951|NCT00270855|168822699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536952|NCT00270855|168822699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536953|NCT00270855|168822700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536954|NCT00270855|168822700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536955|NCT00270855|168822701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536956|NCT00270855|168822702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536957|NCT00270855|168822703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536958|NCT00270855|168822704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536959|NCT00270855|168822705|OTHER|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536960|NCT00270855|168822706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a Mann-Whitney U test.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||we evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536961|NCT00270855|168822707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mann-whitney u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536962|NCT00270855|168822708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
84536963|NCT00270855|168822708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
84536964|NCT00270855|168822709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
84536965|NCT02618759|168822739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0745
84536966|NCT02618759|168822740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2310
84536967|NCT02618759|168822741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1059
84536968|NCT02618759|168822742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6962
84536969|NCT02618759|168822743|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
84536970|NCT02618759|168822744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1044|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1044
84536971|NCT01988129|168822745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'sick' days||||0.66
84536972|NCT01988129|168822745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'disability/injury' days||||0.033
84536973|NCT01988129|168822745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with nested random effects for possible station-level and station-pairing correlation (3-level hierarchical linear model)||Mixed model analysis was conducted for 'disability/injury' days||||0.003
84536974|NCT01988129|168822746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
84536975|NCT01988129|168822747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||The Odds Ratio analyses compared the odds of reporting at least one injury during the study between those who did (n=560) and did not (n=629) attend the education sessions, regardless of station assignment (intervention or control).|||0.98|0.60|0.31
84536976|NCT01988129|168822748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Of the 100 participants who completed both the pre- and post-study survey (see Patient Flow), only 62 completed answered the question about sleep duration at both time points||||0.22
84536977|NCT01988129|168822749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.65
84536978|NCT01988129|168822750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.71
84536979|NCT01988129|168822752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screened|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of any sleep disorders; there is no comparison group||||
84536980|NCT01988129|168822752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of obstructive sleep apnea only; there is no comparison group||||
84536981|NCT01988129|168822752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of insomnia; there is no comparison group||||
84536982|NCT01988129|168822752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of restless legs syndrome only; there is no comparison group||||
84536983|NCT01988129|168822752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of shiftwork disorder only; there is no comparison group||||
84536984|NCT01988129|168822753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.31
84536985|NCT01988129|168822754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||Sleeping while stopped in traffic||||0.16
84536986|NCT01988129|168822755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.46
84536987|NCT02500043|168822757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6917||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|0.8548||One-sided P-Value.|Log Rank|||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox's proportional hazard (CPH) model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.8548|0.5597|0.0003
84536988|NCT02500043|168822758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4674|0.7008||||||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified CPH model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.7008|0.4674|
84536989|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536990|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536991|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536992|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536993|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536994|NCT01371747|168822765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536995|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536996|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536997|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536998|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84536999|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537000|NCT01371747|168822766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537001|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537002|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537003|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537004|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537005|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537006|NCT01371747|168822767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
84537007|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537008|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537009|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537010|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537011|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537012|NCT01371747|168822768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537013|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537014|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537015|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537016|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537017|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537018|NCT01371747|168822769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
84537019|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100.0|94.3|
84537020|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|94.5|
84537021|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|91.6|
84537022|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
84537023|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|78.9|
84537024|NCT01371747|168822770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|77.2|
84537025|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.0|86.7|
84537026|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|96.5|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.5|81.0|
84537027|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|89.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||89.9|69.5|
84537028|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|92.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.9|57.8|
84537029|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
84537030|NCT01371747|168822771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|77.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|92.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.2|54.6|
84537031|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|94.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||94.3|73.7|
84537032|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|91.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||91.2|68.0|
84537033|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|96.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.3|75.9|
84537034|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.3|59.5|
84537035|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|98.7|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.7|66.9|
84537036|NCT01371747|168822773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.8|68.1|
84537037|NCT03022084|168822781|NON_INFERIORITY|The probability that Desyncra is non-inferior to CBT, defined by the sponsor as the event that mean TQ score change from baseline in the Desyncra arm is no more than 3.5 points worse than the mean TQ change in the CBT arm.|||||||||||||Bayesian|Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||
84537038|NCT01701011|168822782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the primary outcome, anxiety. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
84537039|NCT01701011|168822782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the difference in psychological well-being between three groups with a power of 95%,a ¼ 0.05 and a medium effect size ( f ¼ 0.25), a total of 297 participants were required (99 patients per group). Taking into account a 20% attrition rate, at least 124 women had to be recruited in each group.||||<0.05
84537040|NCT01701011|168822783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the secondary outcome, depression. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
84537041|NCT02932306|168822784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
84537042|NCT02932306|168822785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
84537043|NCT02932306|168822786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||<0.001
84537044|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.52|||Bayesian|||||-0.52|-1.05|0.459
84537045|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.54|||Bayesian|||||-0.54|-1.07|0.511
84537046|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.89|||Bayesian|||||-0.89|-1.41|0.988
84537047|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.78|||Bayesian|||||-0.78|-1.30|0.934
84537048|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.61|||Bayesian|||||0.61|0.08|0.373
84537049|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.59|||Bayesian|||||0.59|0.07|0.433
84537050|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.24|||Bayesian|||||0.24|-0.28|0.978
84537051|NCT02119819|168822807|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.35|||Bayesian|||||0.35|-0.17|0.904
84537052|NCT00314951|168822843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||||||H0: C(fidaxomicin) - C(Vancomycin) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||8.0|-2.9|
84537053|NCT00314951|168822844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Chi-squared|||||-2.5|-16.2|0.008
84537054|NCT00314951|168822845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|2.8|0.007
84537055|NCT01651793|168822851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value reference to the beverage x time interaction effect|ANCOVA|||Hypotheses were tested using a series (all outcome variables) of 2 Treatment x 4 Time point, repeated measures ANCOVAs that controlled for the prior night's sleep. Primary interests were the presence of statistically significant interactions of time and either cocoa versus placebo, cocoa + caffeine versus cocoa, or cocoa + caffeine versus caffeine-only. Significant interactions were decomposed using one-way ANOVAs and t-tests with familywise error controlled using LSD post-hoc tests.||||0.05
84537056|NCT00468650|168822866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|10.0|11.93||"Statistical significance will be declared if the p-value is \<0.05.~Change from Baseline: Week 6 (LOCF) minus Baseline"|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Primary hypothesis to be tested is whether there is a significant improvement in the IIEF EF domain at the end of the 100 mg period, as compared to the baseline (Week 0) score. Sample size (N=115) provides more than 90% power to detect a change from baseline of 10 in the primary efficacy variable, assuming a standard deviation of 9, using the two-sided, single-sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||11.93|10.00|<0.001
84537057|NCT00468650|168822867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|6.17|8.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||8.11|6.17|<0.001
84537058|NCT00468650|168822867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.43|<|0.001||95.0|9.56|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||11.59|9.56|<0.001
84537059|NCT00468650|168822867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|<|0.001||95.0|9.93|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||11.92|9.93|<0.001
84537060|NCT00468650|168822867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|9.97|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 endpoint minus baseline||11.92|9.97|<0.001
84537061|NCT00468650|168822868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.001||95.0|2.74|4.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.23|2.74|<0.001
84537062|NCT00468650|168822868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.05|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.71|3.05|<0.001
84537063|NCT00468650|168822868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
84537064|NCT00468650|168822868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
84537065|NCT00468650|168822869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.34||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||2.34|1.45|<0.001
84537066|NCT00468650|168822869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|<|0.001||95.0|2.02|2.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.89|2.02|<0.001
84537067|NCT00468650|168822869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.13|3.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||3.05|2.13|<0.001
84537068|NCT00468650|168822869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.17|3.08||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||3.08|2.17|<0.001
84537069|NCT00468650|168822869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.14|3.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||3.04|2.14|<0.001
84537070|NCT00468650|168822870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|<|0.001||95.0|0.32|0.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.89|0.32|<0.001
84537071|NCT00468650|168822870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.02||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.02|0.47|<0.001
84723550|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.11|-0.04|
84723551|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.05|-0.08|
84723552|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.06|-0.22|
84537072|NCT00468650|168822870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
84537073|NCT00468650|168822870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
84537074|NCT00468650|168822871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|<|0.001||95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||1.78|1.09|<0.001
84537075|NCT00468650|168822871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|<|0.001||95.0|1.65|2.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.35|1.65|<0.001
84537076|NCT00468650|168822871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.89|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||2.62|1.89|<0.001
84537077|NCT00468650|168822871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|<|0.001||95.0|1.9|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||2.62|1.90|<0.001
84537078|NCT00468650|168822871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|1.91|2.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||2.64|1.91|<0.001
84537079|NCT00468650|168822872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|<|0.001||95.0|0.29|0.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.82|0.29|<0.001
84537080|NCT00468650|168822872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.001||95.0|0.53|1.09||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.09|0.53|<0.001
84537081|NCT00468650|168822872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
84537082|NCT00468650|168822872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
84537083|NCT00468650|168822873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.73|3.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.63|2.73|<0.001
84537084|NCT00468650|168822873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.001||95.0|3.94|4.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.83|3.94|<0.001
84537085|NCT00468650|168822873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.21|4.25|<0.001
84537086|NCT00468650|168822873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.17|4.23|<0.001
84537087|NCT00468650|168822873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.19|4.25|<0.001
84537088|NCT00468650|168822874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.59|0.80|<0.001
84537089|NCT00468650|168822874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.95|1.12|<0.001
84537090|NCT00468650|168822874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
84537091|NCT00468650|168822874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
84537092|NCT00468650|168822875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|<|0.001||95.0|2.28|3.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.17|2.28|<0.001
84537093|NCT00468650|168822875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.2|4.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.14|3.20|<0.001
84537094|NCT00468650|168822875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||4.40|3.44|<0.001
84537095|NCT00468650|168822875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||4.38|3.44|<0.001
84537096|NCT00468650|168822875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.42|4.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||4.37|3.42|<0.001
84537097|NCT00468650|168822876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88|<|0.001||95.0|0.62|1.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.32|0.62|<0.001
84537098|NCT00468650|168822876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.001||95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.57|0.85|<0.001
84537099|NCT00468650|168822876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
84537100|NCT00468650|168822876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
84537101|NCT00468650|168822877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.36|<|0.001||95.0|27.98|37.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||37.43|27.98|<0.001
84723553|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.14|
84537102|NCT00468650|168822877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|46.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.27|<|0.001||95.0|41.29|51.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||51.12|41.29|<0.001
84537103|NCT00468650|168822877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.96|<|0.001||95.0|40.44|50.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||50.63|40.44|<0.001
84537104|NCT00468650|168822877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.01|<|0.001||95.0|40.25|50.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||50.31|40.25|<0.001
84723554|NCT00749944|169199550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
84723555|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.20|
84537105|NCT00468650|168822877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.02|<|0.001||95.0|39.99|50.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||50.11|39.99|<0.001
84537106|NCT00468650|168822878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.001||95.0|9.89|17.79||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||17.79|9.89|<0.001
84537107|NCT00468650|168822878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.25|<|0.001||95.0|8.49|17.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||17.65|8.49|<0.001
84537108|NCT00468650|168822878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
84537109|NCT00468650|168822878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
84537110|NCT00468650|168822879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|4.59|6.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||6.23|4.59|<0.001
84537111|NCT00468650|168822879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.001||95.0|7.92|9.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||9.78|7.92|<0.001
84537112|NCT00468650|168822879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|8.23|10.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||10.19|8.23|<0.001
84537113|NCT00468650|168822879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14|<|0.001||95.0|8.32|10.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||10.24|8.32|<0.001
84537114|NCT00468650|168822879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.15|<|0.001||95.0|8.28|10.22||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||10.22|8.28|<0.001
84537115|NCT00468650|168822880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|2.78|4.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.24|2.78|<0.001
84537116|NCT00468650|168822880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.41|<|0.001||95.0|3.08|4.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||4.74|3.08|<0.001
84537117|NCT00468650|168822880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
84537118|NCT00468650|168822880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
84537119|NCT00468650|168822881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.001||95.0|5.77|7.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||7.59|5.77|<0.001
84537120|NCT00468650|168822881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|8.96|10.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||10.91|8.96|<0.001
84537121|NCT00468650|168822881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|<|0.001||95.0|9.62|11.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||11.56|9.62|<0.001
84537122|NCT00468650|168822881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.03|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||11.58|9.68|<0.001
84537123|NCT00468650|168822881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||11.59|9.68|<0.001
84537124|NCT00468650|168822882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.05|2.52|<0.001
84537125|NCT00468650|168822882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.09|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|5.0||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.00|3.06|<0.001
84537126|NCT00468650|168822882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
84537127|NCT00468650|168822882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
84537128|NCT00468650|168822883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.33|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.24|2.33|<0.001
84537129|NCT00468650|168822883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56|<|0.001||95.0|3.74|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.71|3.74|<0.001
84537130|NCT00468650|168822883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.84|<|0.001||95.0|4.2|5.28||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.28|4.20|<0.001
84537131|NCT00468650|168822883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.31|4.25|<0.001
84537132|NCT00468650|168822883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.3||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.30|4.23|<0.001
84537133|NCT00468650|168822884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.85|1.13|<0.001
84537134|NCT00468650|168822884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|<|0.001||95.0|1.57|2.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.36|1.57|<0.001
84537135|NCT00468650|168822884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
84537136|NCT00468650|168822884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
84537137|NCT00468650|168822885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|8.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.7||0.0016||95.0|3.42|14.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||14.26|3.42|0.0016
84537138|NCT00468650|168822885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.51|<|0.001||95.0|4.93|15.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||15.43|4.93|<0.001
84537139|NCT00468650|168822885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.88|<|0.001||95.0|6.7|17.88||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||17.88|6.70|<0.001
84537140|NCT00468650|168822885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.33|<|0.001||95.0|6.61|17.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||17.32|6.61|<0.001
84537141|NCT00468650|168822885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.55|<|0.001||95.0|6.51|17.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||17.40|6.51|<0.001
84537142|NCT00468650|168822886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.85||0.3324||95.0|-1.42|4.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.17|-1.42|0.3324
84537143|NCT00468650|168822886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.26||0.0249||95.0|0.4|5.84||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.84|0.40|0.0249
84537144|NCT00468650|168822886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.0249||95.0|0.37|5.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||5.58|0.37|0.0249
84723556|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.15|
84537145|NCT00468650|168822886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.0249||95.0|0.39|5.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||5.68|0.39|0.0249
84537146|NCT00468650|168822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.51|<|0.001||95.0|9.38|21.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||21.36|9.38|<0.001
84537147|NCT00468650|168822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.22|<|0.001||95.0|10.76|23.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||23.55|10.76|<0.001
84537148|NCT00468650|168822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.44|<|0.001||95.0|11.68|24.76||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||24.76|11.68|<0.001
84537149|NCT00468650|168822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.87|<|0.001||95.0|11.07|23.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||23.59|11.07|<0.001
84537150|NCT00468650|168822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1|<|0.001||95.0|11.31|24.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||24.04|11.31|<0.001
84537151|NCT00468650|168822888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.1061||95.0|-0.32|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||3.24|-0.32|0.1061
84537152|NCT00468650|168822888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.33||0.3237||95.0|-1.18|3.54||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||3.54|-1.18|0.3237
84537153|NCT00468650|168822888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05||0.3236||95.0|-1.13|3.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||3.38|-1.13|0.3236
84537154|NCT00468650|168822888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16||0.3236||95.0|-1.15|3.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||3.45|-1.15|0.3236
84537155|NCT00468650|168822889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
84537156|NCT00468650|168822889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
84537157|NCT00468650|168822889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
84537158|NCT00468650|168822889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
84537159|NCT00468650|168822889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
84537160|NCT00468650|168822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
84537161|NCT00468650|168822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
84537162|NCT00468650|168822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
84537163|NCT00468650|168822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
84537164|NCT00468650|168822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.24|<|0.001||95.0|50.48|66.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||66.68|50.48|<0.001
84537165|NCT00468650|168822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|76.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.21|<|0.001||95.0|68.9|83.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||83.67|68.90|<0.001
84537166|NCT00468650|168822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|77.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.26|<|0.001||95.0|70.18|85.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||85.21|70.18|<0.001
84537167|NCT00468650|168822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.65|<|0.001||95.0|71.59|85.99||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||85.99|71.59|<0.001
84537168|NCT00468650|168822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.89|<|0.001||95.0|71.04|85.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||85.68|71.04|<0.001
84537169|NCT00468650|168822892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.63|<|0.001||95.0|10.98|24.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||24.83|10.98|<0.001
84537170|NCT00468650|168822892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.84|<|0.001||95.0|12.44|26.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||26.56|12.44|<0.001
84537171|NCT00468650|168822892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.99|<|0.001||95.0|12.59|26.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||26.45|12.59|<0.001
84537172|NCT00468650|168822892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.23|<|0.001||95.0|12.84|26.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||26.91|12.84|<0.001
84537173|NCT00468650|168822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.6|<|0.001||95.0|48.93|65.75||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||65.75|48.93|<0.001
84537174|NCT00468650|168822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001||95.0|62.72|78.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||78.71|62.72|<0.001
84537175|NCT00468650|168822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.78|<|0.001||95.0|62.41|78.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.85|62.41|<0.001
84537176|NCT00468650|168822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.27|<|0.001||95.0|64.16|79.98||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.98|64.16|<0.001
84537177|NCT00468650|168822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.48|<|0.001||95.0|63.48|79.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||79.55|63.48|<0.001
84537178|NCT00468650|168822894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.11|<|0.001||95.0|7.58|18.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||18.63|7.58|<0.001
84537179|NCT00468650|168822894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.53|<|0.001||95.0|7.84|20.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.37|7.84|<0.001
84537180|NCT00468650|168822894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.92|<|0.001||95.0|7.47|19.47||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||19.47|7.47|<0.001
84537181|NCT00468650|168822894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.16|<|0.001||95.0|7.61|19.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||19.82|7.61|<0.001
84537182|NCT00468650|168822895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
84537183|NCT00468650|168822895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
84537184|NCT00468650|168822895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
84537185|NCT00468650|168822895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
84537186|NCT00468650|168822895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
84537187|NCT00468650|168822896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
84537188|NCT00468650|168822896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
84537189|NCT00468650|168822896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
84537190|NCT00468650|168822896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
84537191|NCT00468650|168822897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.001||95.0|-19.96|-5.2||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-5.20|-19.96|0.0010
84537192|NCT00468650|168822897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.04|<|0.001||95.0|-27.47|-13.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-13.64|-27.47|<0.001
84537193|NCT00468650|168822897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.64|<|0.001||95.0|-29.88|-15.18||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-15.18|-29.88|<0.001
84537194|NCT00468650|168822897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.06|<|0.001||95.0|-28.49|-14.39||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-14.39|-28.49|<0.001
84723557|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.15|
84537195|NCT00468650|168822897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.29|<|0.001||95.0|-29.03|-14.7||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-14.70|-29.03|<0.001
84537196|NCT00468650|168822898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.58||0.0021||95.0|-11.06|-2.52||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-2.52|-11.06|0.0021
84537197|NCT00468650|168822898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.02||0.0027||95.0|-11.26|-2.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-2.43|-11.26|0.0027
84537198|NCT00468650|168822898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.0015||95.0|-11.97|-2.9||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-2.90|-11.97|0.0015
84537199|NCT00468650|168822898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0015||95.0|-12.18|-2.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-2.96|-12.18|0.0015
84537200|NCT00468650|168822899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.44||0.0045||95.0|-16.6|-3.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-3.14|-16.60|0.0045
84537201|NCT00468650|168822899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|<|0.001||95.0|-18.22|-5.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-5.27|-18.22|<0.001
84537202|NCT00468650|168822899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.56|<|0.001||95.0|-19.51|-6.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-6.05|-19.51|<0.001
84537203|NCT00468650|168822899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.94|<|0.001||95.0|-19.76|-6.5||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-6.50|-19.76|<0.001
84537204|NCT00468650|168822899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.13|<|0.001||95.0|-18.94|-5.86||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-5.86|-18.94|<0.001
84537205|NCT00468650|168822900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0||0.2567||95.0|-6.55|1.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.77|-6.55|0.2567
84537206|NCT00468650|168822900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.73||0.3435||95.0|-5.88|2.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.07|-5.88|0.3435
84537207|NCT00468650|168822900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.28||0.2||95.0|-6.89|1.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.46|-6.89|0.2000
84537208|NCT00468650|168822900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.48||0.2||95.0|-7.01|1.48||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.48|-7.01|0.2000
84537209|NCT00468650|168822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.75||0.0558||95.0|-21.91|0.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||0.27|-21.91|0.0558
84537210|NCT00468650|168822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.81|<|0.001||95.0|-40.96|-17.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-17.35|-40.96|<0.001
84537211|NCT00468650|168822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.9|<|0.001||95.0|-43.0|-18.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-18.58|-43.00|<0.001
84537212|NCT00468650|168822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.7|<|0.001||95.0|-42.33|-18.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-18.21|-42.33|<0.001
84537213|NCT00468650|168822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.54|<|0.001||95.0|-42.82|-18.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-18.92|-42.82|<0.001
84537214|NCT00468650|168822902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.03|<|0.001||95.0|-27.05|-9.66||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-9.66|-27.05|<0.001
84537215|NCT00468650|168822902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.24|<|0.001||95.0|-30.84|-13.49||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-13.49|-30.84|<0.001
84537216|NCT00468650|168822902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.86|<|0.001||95.0|-28.87|-11.69||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-11.69|-28.87|<0.001
84537217|NCT00468650|168822902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.2|<|0.001||95.0|-29.38|-11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-11.92|-29.38|<0.001
84537218|NCT00468650|168822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.43|<|0.001||95.0|25.17|41.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||41.36|25.17|<0.001
84537219|NCT00468650|168822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.77|<|0.001||95.0|52.61|70.29||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||70.29|52.61|<0.001
84537220|NCT00468650|168822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.15|<|0.001||95.0|57.05|75.16||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||75.16|57.05|<0.001
84537221|NCT00468650|168822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|64.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|<|0.001||95.0|55.91|73.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||73.77|55.91|<0.001
84537222|NCT00468650|168822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.56|<|0.001||95.0|56.14|74.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||74.12|56.14|<0.001
84537223|NCT00468650|168822904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.19|<|0.001||95.0|19.94|35.13||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||35.13|19.94|<0.001
84537224|NCT00468650|168822904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|<|0.001||95.0|22.89|38.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||38.95|22.89|<0.001
84537225|NCT00468650|168822904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.88|<|0.001||95.0|22.59|38.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||38.27|22.59|<0.001
84537226|NCT00468650|168822904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.06|<|0.001||95.0|23.04|38.93||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||38.93|23.04|<0.001
84537227|NCT00468650|168822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.1|<|0.001||95.0|13.44|31.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||31.46|13.44|<0.001
84537228|NCT00468650|168822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.15|<|0.001||95.0|23.97|40.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||40.62|23.97|<0.001
84537229|NCT00468650|168822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.52|<|0.001||95.0|26.59|44.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||44.04|26.59|<0.001
84537230|NCT00468650|168822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.48|<|0.001||95.0|26.07|43.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||43.07|26.07|<0.001
84537231|NCT00468650|168822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.29|<|0.001||95.0|25.72|42.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||42.81|25.72|<0.001
84537232|NCT00468650|168822906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.45||0.0014||95.0|3.61|14.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||14.74|3.61|0.0014
84537233|NCT00468650|168822906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26||0.0025||95.0|3.15|14.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||14.36|3.15|0.0025
84537234|NCT00468650|168822906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.11|<|0.001||95.0|4.32|15.97||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||15.97|4.32|<0.001
84537235|NCT00468650|168822906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.36|<|0.001||95.0|4.41|16.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||16.26|4.41|<0.001
84537236|NCT03203564|168822923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|14.12|||||Parameter estimate is done for Placebo-corrected change-from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) for Modufolin 500 mg/m2 at end of infusion.|"The primary analysis of QTcF was based on a linear mixed-effects model with change-from-baseline QTcF as the dependent variable, time (categorical), treatment, and time-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The least-squares (LS) mean and 2-sided 90 % CIs have been calculated for the contrast Modufolin® versus placebo at each dose of Modufolin® and each post-dose time point."||14.12|0.68|
84537237|NCT00789737|168822949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||least squares mean; 80% power to detect a 0.3% change||||0.0369
84537238|NCT00789737|168822950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0373
84537239|NCT00789737|168822955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.00001
84537240|NCT04630158|168822967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|11.7||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||11.7|-8.5|0.930
84723558|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.20|
84537241|NCT04630158|168822967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|13.8||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||13.8|-6.4|0.699
84537242|NCT05162014|168822984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression models based on time-to-first acute pancreatitis used to estimate the hazard ratios.||||1.02|0.76|
84537243|NCT01943994|168823035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|23.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.26|1.99|0.003
84537244|NCT03322930|168823045|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||calculated from data|t-test, 2 sided||||mean sensitivity for group; Coefficient of Repeatability for multiple tests per patient|||<0.05
84537245|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.747|-0.148||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.148|-0.747|<0.001
84537246|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.207||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.207|-0.804|<0.001
84537247|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.244||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.244|-0.841|<0.001
84537248|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.006|-0.405||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.405|-1.006|<0.001
84537249|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.432||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.432|-1.029|<0.001
84537250|NCT00642278|168823046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|-0.265||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.265|-0.862|<0.001
84537251|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
84537252|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.92|-1.98|<0.001
84537253|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.27|-2.33|<0.001
84537254|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.26|-2.32|<0.001
84537255|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.19|-2.25|<0.001
84537256|NCT00642278|168823047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.46|-1.51|<0.001
84537257|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.07|46.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||46.13|26.07|<0.001
84537258|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|59.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.34|39.17|<0.001
84537259|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.98|58.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||58.42|37.98|<0.001
84537260|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.91|59.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.01|38.91|<0.001
84537261|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|60.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.17|70.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||70.35|50.17|<0.001
84537262|NCT00642278|168823049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|6.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||6.67|-13.33|0.513
84537263|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.3|-2.2|0.009
84537264|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
84537265|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and mixed meal tolerance test.||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
84537266|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
84537267|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
84537268|NCT00642278|168823051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||1.4|-0.5|0.371
84537269|NCT03713619|168823057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.73|1.12|0.0070
84537270|NCT03713619|168823057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.32|0.95|0.0418
84537271|NCT03713619|168823058|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean Difference|-23.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-12.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-12.21|-33.90|<0.0001
84537272|NCT03713619|168823058|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-18.46||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-7.60|-29.32|0.0004
84537273|NCT03713619|168823059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||0.73|0.25|0.0010
84537274|NCT03713619|168823059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||1.17|0.43|0.0926
84537275|NCT03713619|168823060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||3.40|1.00|0.0248
84537276|NCT03713619|168823060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.77||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||2.0|1.15|0.0044
84537277|NCT01758588|168823061|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A statistical comparison and analysis of the clinical improvement (CI) proportions cannot be made because the sample size (n=5 in treatment arm, n=3 in observation arm) is too small|||
84537278|NCT02552212|168823064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.336|31.623|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/C- Reactive Protein (MRI/CRP) classification.||31.623|7.336|<0.001
84537279|NCT02552212|168823065|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.127|13.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||13.401|4.127|<0.001
84537280|NCT02552212|168823075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.286|12.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region MRI/CRP classification.||12.636|4.286|<0.001
84537281|NCT02552212|168823076|OTHER||Difference|-1.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.282|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.282|-2.110|<0.001
84537282|NCT02552212|168823077|OTHER||Difference|-1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.132|-1.038|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.038|-2.132|<0.0001
84537283|NCT02552212|168823078|OTHER||Difference|-1.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.388|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.388|-2.250|<0.001
84537284|NCT02552212|168823079|OTHER||Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.909|-0.672|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.672|-1.909|<0.001
84537285|NCT02552212|168823080|OTHER||Difference|-4.8687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4014|-3.336|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-3.3360|-6.4014|<0.001
84537286|NCT02552212|168823081|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.191|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||10.191|3.800|<0.001
84537287|NCT02552212|168823082|OTHER||Difference|-0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.117|-0.250|<0.001
84537288|NCT02552212|168823090|OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.18|-2.62|<0.001
84537289|NCT02552212|168823091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|1.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/PBO and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||1.653|0.142|=0.247
84537290|NCT04400682|168823106|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean ratio|1.015||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9897|1.041|||ANOVA||||Ln(AUClast) : 0.989- 1.0410|1.0410|0.9897|0.0000
84537291|NCT04400682|168823107|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean ratio|1.0361||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9294|1.1551|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9294 - 1.1551|1.1551|0.9294|0.0033
84537292|NCT04400682|168823108|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean ratio|1.0108||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.0366|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9856 - 1.0366|1.0366|0.9856|0.0000
84537293|NCT02105974|168823110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.055|0.014|0.001
84537294|NCT02105974|168823111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-0.35|0.084
84537295|NCT02105974|168823112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.43|<0.001
84537296|NCT02968849|168823116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.30|0.81|0.84
84537297|NCT02968849|168823116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.31|0.81|0.83
84537298|NCT02968849|168823127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.28|0.85|0.66
84537299|NCT02968849|168823127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.23|0.81|0.98
84537300|NCT02968849|168823129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.58|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.58|0.84|0.39
84537301|NCT02968849|168823129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.54|0.81|0.50
84537302|NCT02968849|168823140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.33|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.33|0.80|0.82
84537303|NCT02968849|168823141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.98|0.50|0.98
84537304|NCT02968849|168823142|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.47|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.47|0.80|0.60
84537305|NCT02968849|168823143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.46|0.58|0.71
84537306|NCT00070499|168823195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
84537307|NCT00070499|168823195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
84537308|NCT00070499|168823197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.29
84537309|NCT00070499|168823197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.55
84537310|NCT00070499|168823198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.074
84537311|NCT00070499|168823198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.29
84537312|NCT03785600|168823203|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
84537313|NCT01392963|168823221|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84537314|NCT00580788|168823233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTHrP 2 and PTHrP 5 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84537315|NCT00580788|168823233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p value corresponds to a decrease by Day 8 compared to baseline in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
84537316|NCT00580788|168823235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to all Arms/Groups at all time points compared to baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.61
84540443|NCT02955212|168831756|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.5|11.0|<0.001
84537317|NCT00580788|168823236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Value The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
84537318|NCT00580788|168823237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
84537319|NCT00580788|168823238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time from baseline for all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
84537320|NCT00580788|168823239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
84537321|NCT00580788|168823239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84537322|NCT00580788|168823240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84537323|NCT00580788|168823240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
84537324|NCT00580788|168823241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
84537325|NCT00580788|168823241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
84537326|NCT00580788|168823242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value correspond to the decrease compared to baseline over time in the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.001
84537327|NCT00580788|168823242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p=value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
84537328|NCT00580788|168823243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.05
84537329|NCT00580788|168823244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase comapred to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
84540444|NCT02955212|168831757|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.0|12.1|<0.001
84723559|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.17|
84537330|NCT03301649|168823248|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|7.8||||||If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||7.8|-3.9|
84537331|NCT03301649|168823249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] method).||||<0.0001
84537332|NCT03301649|168823249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
84537333|NCT03301649|168823250|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.5||||||If the 90% CI for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||4.5|-2.6|
84537334|NCT03301649|168823251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
84537335|NCT03301649|168823251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
84537336|NCT01403051|168823252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||2-sided test with type I error rate of 5%, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test for differences between the two treatment groups, stratified by the screening 25-OH vitamin (\<=20 vs. \>20 ng/mL)||The study was sized to have 80% power to detect a 2 % difference in BMD of the hip from baseline to week 48.||||0.001
84537337|NCT00591773|168823277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.54|-13.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-18.54|<0.001
84537338|NCT00591773|168823277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|-12.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.76|-18.13|<0.001
84537339|NCT00591773|168823278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-10.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.99|-17.81|<0.001
84537340|NCT00591773|168823278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-9.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-16.10|<0.001
84537341|NCT00591773|168823279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-8.56||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.56|-12.02|<0.001
84537342|NCT00591773|168823279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|-8.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.76|-12.23|<0.001
84537343|NCT00591773|168823280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-5.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.25|-9.25|<0.001
84537344|NCT00591773|168823280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-5.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.05|-9.06|<0.001
84537345|NCT00591773|168823281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-14.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.04|-19.56|<0.001
84537346|NCT00591773|168823281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|-13.47||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.47|-19.01|<0.001
84537347|NCT00591773|168823282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|-9.18||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.18|-12.86|<0.001
84537348|NCT00591773|168823282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-9.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.35|-13.04|<0.001
84537349|NCT00591773|168823283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-9.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.94|-15.92|<0.001
84537350|NCT00591773|168823283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|-9.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.84|-15.83|<0.001
84537351|NCT00591773|168823284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.14|<0.001
84537352|NCT00591773|168823284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.15|<0.001
84537353|NCT00591773|168823285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-14.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.64|-20.39|<0.001
84537354|NCT00591773|168823285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-14.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.05|-19.84|<0.001
84537355|NCT00591773|168823286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|-9.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.59|-13.49|<0.001
84537356|NCT00591773|168823286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-9.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.72|-13.64|<0.001
84537357|NCT00591773|168823287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|-10.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.94|-17.13|<0.001
84537358|NCT00591773|168823287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-10.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.37|-16.58|<0.001
84537359|NCT00591773|168823288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-7.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-11.65|<0.001
84723560|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.21|
84537360|NCT00591773|168823288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-7.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.46|-11.92|<0.001
84537361|NCT00591773|168823289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.03|2.38|<0.001
84537362|NCT00591773|168823289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.82|<0.001
84537363|NCT00591773|168823290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.27||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.27|1.90|<0.001
84537364|NCT00591773|168823290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.0||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.00|1.46|0.002
84537365|NCT00591773|168823291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.64||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.64|2.41|<0.001
84537366|NCT00591773|168823291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.79||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.79|1.83|<0.001
84537367|NCT02135614|168823292|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.43||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score, and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.20|0.46
84537368|NCT02135614|168823293|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including the baseline value, CFS score and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.00|0.046
84537369|NCT02135614|168823294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with the stratification factor as covariate.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.39
84537370|NCT02135614|168823295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from the negative binomial model comparing the rate ratio between treatment groups, adjusted for the stratification factor.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.004
84723561|NCT00749944|169199551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.07|-0.17|
84537371|NCT00605540|168823309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All data were analyzed using SigmaStat 3.2 (Inc., USA) software. Mean ± SD or median interquartile range (25-75%) was used depending on the data distribution. Wilcoxon test was applied to compare the characteristics at baseline to those observed after 3 years.||||0.09
84537372|NCT01696058|168823350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.135|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.135|0.078|<.0001
84537373|NCT01696058|168823351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550).||0.065|0.014|0.0029
84537374|NCT01696058|168823352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.757|-0.951|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from ANCOVA model. Fixed effects include study, treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (1055), Tio+Olo 5ug (1039)."||-0.951|-2.757|<.0001
84537375|NCT01696058|168823353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.129|0.071|<.0001
84537376|NCT01696058|168823354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.164|0.072|<.0001
84537377|NCT01696058|168823355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.152|0.057|<.0001
84537378|NCT01696058|168823356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.076|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550)."||0.076|-0.008|0.1156
84537379|NCT01696058|168823357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.145||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.028|11.446|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (552)."||11.446|3.028|0.0008
84537380|NCT01696058|168823358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.336|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.336|-0.800|<.0001
84537381|NCT01696058|168823359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 1|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.001|-0.178|0.0467
84537382|NCT01696058|168823360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.298|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.298|-0.668|<.0001
84537383|NCT00106964|168823402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0440
84537384|NCT00106964|168823402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0157
84537385|NCT00106964|168823406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5822||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.5822
84723562|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.02|-0.58|
84537386|NCT00106964|168823406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8698||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.8698
84537387|NCT00106964|168823407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio (OR) Odds ratio depends on CD4 count resulting from interaction. For example, OR=0.29 for CD4 count = 0; OR= 2.91 for CD4 count = 460 (median CD4 count for the evaluable study population).|||1.19|0.07|0.0853
84537388|NCT00106964|168823407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.63|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio|||3.63|1.09|0.0244
84537389|NCT04746794|168823408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
84537390|NCT04746794|168823409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84723563|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.19|-0.69|
84537391|NCT03207243|168823415|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||0.99|0.66|
84537392|NCT03207243|168823420|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||1.01|0.44|
84537393|NCT03207243|168823421|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
84537394|NCT03207243|168823465|OTHER||Percent change|-93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-91.7||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-91.7|-94.9|<0.001
84537395|NCT03207243|168823465|OTHER||Percent change|-92.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-90.3||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.3|-94.8|<0.001
84537396|NCT03207243|168823465|OTHER||Percent change|-93.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-90.0||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.0|-95.4|<0.001
84537397|NCT03207243|168823465|OTHER||Percent change|-93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|-90.4||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.4|-95.3|<0.001
84537398|NCT03207243|168823466|OTHER||Percent change|2300.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1833.9|2879.3||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||2879.3|1833.9|<0.001
84537399|NCT03207243|168823466|OTHER||Percent change|2507.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1924.2|3259.4||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3259.4|1924.2|<0.001
84537400|NCT03207243|168823466|OTHER||Percent change|2162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1489.1|3120.3||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3120.3|1489.1|<0.001
84537401|NCT03207243|168823466|OTHER||Percent change|2663.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1994.6|3544.8||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3544.8|1994.6|<0.001
84537402|NCT00168818|168823474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.7||||0.5648||95.0|-2.9|1.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.6|-2.9|0.5648
84537403|NCT00168818|168823474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1339||95.0|-0.6|4.4||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.4|-0.6|0.1339
84537404|NCT00168818|168823475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.3256||95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.8|-2.5|0.3256
84537405|NCT00168818|168823475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4||||0.7052||95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.2|-1.5|0.7052
84537406|NCT00168818|168823476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.1863||95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.5|-2.7|0.1863
84537407|NCT00168818|168823476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.702||95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.1|-1.4|0.7020
84537408|NCT00168818|168823477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.3173||95.0|-3.3|1.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.1|-3.3|0.3173
84537409|NCT00168818|168823477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1274||95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.3|-0.5|0.1274
84537410|NCT00168818|168823478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0694||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0694
84537411|NCT00168818|168823478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0212
84537412|NCT00168818|168823479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5062
84537413|NCT00168818|168823479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.3717
84537414|NCT00168818|168823480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1240
84537415|NCT00168818|168823480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.2497
84537416|NCT00168818|168823482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4352
84537417|NCT00168818|168823482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6037||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6037
84537418|NCT00603837|168823501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.445
84537419|NCT02960490|168823550|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-4.7||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|16.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.46|-25.85|0.621
84537420|NCT03344861|168823574|OTHER|No comparator arm.|Clopper-Pearson (binomial proportion)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion|Adverse events will be listed, coded by MedDRA, by system organ class and preferred term.||||<0.05
84537421|NCT03344861|168823599|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage, calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.||"All adverse event terms are coded using MedDRA Dictionary version 21.1. NCS (Non-Clinical Significant) events were not included in the summary because their CTCAE grade and relationship were not collected. Subjects are counted once within each system organ class and each preferred term. An AE is defined as treatment related if its relationship to the study drug is recorded as reasonable possibility on the CRF (Case Report Form)."||||<0.05
84537422|NCT02728843|168823617|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537423|NCT02728843|168823618|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537424|NCT02728843|168823619|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537425|NCT02728843|168823620|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537426|NCT02728843|168823621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537427|NCT02728843|168823622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537428|NCT02728843|168823623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
84537429|NCT01595386|168823632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study sample size was powered to detect a 60% difference in LCOS between groups at α 0.05 and β 0.70, assuming the prevalence of LCOS after neonatal bypass of 65% (based on retrospective data of patients who died, required rescue steroids, ECMO, or epinephrine \> 0.1 μg/kg/min).||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
84537430|NCT01595386|168823633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
84537431|NCT01595386|168823634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
84537432|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84537433|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||interleukin-6 at 12, 24, and 48 hour. A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84537434|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||TNF-alpha at 12, 24, and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
84537435|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin1-beta at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84537436|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin-8 at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84537437|NCT01595386|168823635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL-10 at 4 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84537438|NCT01595386|168823636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
84537439|NCT01595386|168823637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84537440|NCT01595386|168823638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
84537441|NCT01595386|168823639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
84537442|NCT01595386|168823640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
84537443|NCT01595386|168823641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
84537444|NCT01595386|168823642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
84537445|NCT01595386|168823642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||post-operative cortisol.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84537446|NCT01595386|168823642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adrenal Insufficiency after bypass.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
84537447|NCT01595386|168823642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Development of Low cardiac output syndrome in subjects with Adrenal Insufficiency.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
84537448|NCT02952898|168823643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of GDC 695 gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
84537449|NCT02952898|168823643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of Diclofenac sodium gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
84537450|NCT03452137|168823705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, human papillomavirus (HPV) status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.26|0.70|0.6804
84537451|NCT03452137|168823706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.36|0.68|0.8371
84537452|NCT03452137|168823707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.32|0.73|0.9115
84537453|NCT03452137|168823708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.67||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|8.11|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||8.11|-9.45|0.8816
84537454|NCT03452137|168823708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.46||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|9.78|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||9.78|-8.86|0.9234
84537455|NCT03452137|168823708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.19||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|10.88|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||10.88|-8.49|0.8090
84537456|NCT03452137|168823708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.01||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|10.19|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||10.19|-10.17|0.9985
84537457|NCT03452137|168823709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.17||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|13.79|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||13.79|-3.44|0.2393
84537458|NCT03452137|168823709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.61||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|12.9|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||12.90|-5.69|0.4472
84537459|NCT03452137|168823709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.14||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|12.77|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||12.77|-6.49|0.5222
84537460|NCT03452137|168823709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.31||||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|11.26|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||11.26|-8.64|0.7967
84537461|NCT03452137|168823710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.77||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|10.49|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||10.49|-4.95|0.4819
84537462|NCT03452137|168823710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.25||||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|7.47|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||7.47|-9.97|0.7783
84537463|NCT03452137|168823710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.07||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|14.42|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||14.42|-16.56|0.8924
84537464|NCT02856802|168823743|NON_INFERIORITY|Assumption that 15% of placebo and 42% of DFN 02 10 mg (treated) subjects would be pain-free at 2 hours. A sample size of 50 subjects in each DB1 dosing arm provided 86% power to detect this assumed difference between placebo and DFN-02 10 mg at a 5% (2-sided) level of significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the statistical analysis system (SAS)® software package (version 9.3).||6.83|1.05|0.044
84537465|NCT02856802|168823744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority conducted as specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||||||0.007||||||The corresponding p-values from Fisher's exact test were computed for the comparison between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
84537466|NCT02856802|168823745|NON_INFERIORITY|No assumptions made.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SAS® software package (version 9.3).||3.30|0.52|0.642
84537467|NCT00261443|168823756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.893||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of mood episode|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.893|0.332|0.014
84537468|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, difference in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.15|-0.16|0.911
84537469|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.18|-0.09|0.557
84537470|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.18|0.596
84537471|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.05||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.11|-0.22|0.522
84537472|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.04|-0.30|0.142
84537473|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.03|-0.35|0.092
84537474|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
84537475|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.00|-0.43|0.050
84537476|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.40|0.064
84537477|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.05|-0.46|0.017
84537478|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.01|-0.43|0.039
84537479|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.05|-0.48|0.015
84537480|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.07|-0.50|0.009
84537481|NCT00261443|168823757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.28||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.50|0.013
84537482|NCT00261443|168823758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.829||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode.|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.829|0.146|0.013
84537483|NCT00261443|168823759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|1.479||Stratified Log-rank Test P-value for Equality of Survival Curves|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||1.479|0.364|0.384
84537484|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.77||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.77|-0.73|0.955
84537485|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.06||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.95|-0.83|0.895
84537486|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.69||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.24|-1.61|0.144
84537487|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||-0.01|-2.19|0.047
84537488|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||-0.25|-2.52|0.017
84537489|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.68||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||-0.68|-3.15|0.003
84540445|NCT01311687|168831766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.35|<0.001
84537490|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.89||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.89|-3.47|<0.001
84537491|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.19||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-1.19|-4.06|<0.001
84537492|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.95|-3.70|<0.001
84537493|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.37||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-1.37|-4.19|<0.001
84537494|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-1.29|-4.13|<0.001
84537495|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.46||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-1.46|-4.38|<0.001
84537496|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.57||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-1.57|-4.59|<0.001
84537497|NCT00261443|168823761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.54||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-1.54|-4.55|<0.001
84537498|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.94|-0.54|0.590
84537499|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.6||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.60|-1.59|0.371
84537500|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.04||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.25||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.25|-2.33|0.113
84537501|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.29||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.29|-2.28|0.128
84537502|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.85||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.47|-2.16|0.205
84537503|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.13||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.32||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.32|-2.59|0.125
84537504|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.43||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.06|-2.92|0.061
84537505|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.06|-3.07|0.060
84537506|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.03|-3.21|0.046
84537507|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.47|-2.77|0.164
84537508|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.53||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.10|-3.16|0.066
84537509|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.57||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.10|-3.24|0.066
84537510|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.08||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.43||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.43|-3.73|0.014
84537511|NCT00261443|168823763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.01||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.34||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.34|-3.68|0.019
84537512|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.22|-0.13|0.597
84537513|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.21|-0.17|0.838
84537514|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.32|0.291
84723564|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.20|-0.47|
84537515|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.08|-0.37|0.219
84537516|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.05|-0.41|0.133
84537517|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.04|-0.46|0.092
84537518|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.05|-0.56|0.018
84537519|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.56|0.029
84537520|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.04|-0.57|0.024
84537521|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.035
84537522|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.038
84537523|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
84537524|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.12|-0.67|0.006
84537525|NCT00261443|168823765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.35||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
84537526|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.16|-0.09|0.588
84537527|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.16|-0.18|0.922
84537528|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.08|-0.30|0.266
84537529|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.06|-0.34|0.159
84537530|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.10|-0.31|0.305
84537531|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.09|-0.35|0.251
84537532|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.05|-0.40|0.135
84537533|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.02|-0.46|0.073
84537534|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.26||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.02|-0.50|0.034
84537535|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.07|-0.41|0.174
84537536|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.06|-0.43|0.132
84537537|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.07|-0.42|0.152
84537538|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.01|-0.48|0.060
84537539|NCT00261443|168823767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.46|0.085
84537540|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.33|-0.25|0.774
84537541|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.11|-0.49|0.213
84537542|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.465
84537543|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.02|-0.59|0.068
84537544|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.05|-0.58|0.095
84537545|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.082
84537546|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.69|0.033
84537547|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.02|-0.64|0.062
84537548|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.43||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.10|-0.76|0.011
84537549|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
84537550|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.04|-0.71|0.029
84537551|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.06|-0.74|0.022
84537552|NCT00261443|168823770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.75|0.023
84537553|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.09||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.36|-0.17|0.486
84537554|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.23|-0.30|0.793
84537555|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.22|-0.34|0.665
84537556|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.22|-0.35|0.650
84537557|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.23|-0.34|0.705
84537558|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.08||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.21|-0.38|0.572
84537559|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.18|-0.43|0.418
84537560|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.10|-0.51|0.185
84537561|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.1||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.21|-0.41|0.536
84537562|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.24|-0.39|0.637
84537563|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.29|-0.34|0.875
84537564|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.17||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.17|-0.46|0.378
84537565|NCT00261443|168823772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.474
84537566|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.40|-0.19|0.488
84537567|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.15||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.16|-0.46|0.349
84537568|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.25|-0.39|0.653
84537569|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.24||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.08|-0.56|0.141
84537570|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.11|-0.54|0.196
84537571|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.088
84537572|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.01|-0.68|0.047
84537573|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.67|0.057
84537574|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.02|-0.68|0.063
84537575|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.05|-0.65|0.091
84537576|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.06|-0.64|0.105
84537577|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.01|-0.72|0.047
84537578|NCT00261443|168823774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.69|0.073
84537579|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 4||1.08|0.92|0.910
84537580|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 8||1.11|0.97|0.300
84537581|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.01||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 12||1.08|0.95|0.744
84537582|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 16||1.17|1.02|0.015
84537583|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 20||1.14|0.97|0.264
84537584|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 24||1.11|0.99|0.090
84537585|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.08||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 28||1.17|1.00|0.056
84537586|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 32||1.05|0.93|0.756
84537587|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 36||1.13|0.98|0.177
84537588|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 40||1.13|1.01|0.021
84537589|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 44||1.16|0.96|0.216
84537590|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 48||1.15|1.01|0.017
84537591|NCT00261443|168823775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 52||1.13|0.99|0.083
84537592|NCT00261443|168823776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified Log Rank Test p-value for equality of survival curves.||||1.08|0.56|0.132
84537593|NCT00261443|168823817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.640
84537594|NCT00261443|168823817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.423
84537595|NCT00261443|168823817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.297
84537596|NCT00261443|168823817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
84537597|NCT00261443|168823818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.656
84537598|NCT00261443|168823818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.045
84537599|NCT00261443|168823818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.532
84537600|NCT00261443|168823818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.578
84537601|NCT00261443|168823819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.619
84537602|NCT00261443|168823819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.868
84537603|NCT00261443|168823819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.284
84537604|NCT00261443|168823819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.481
84537605|NCT00261443|168823820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.184
84537606|NCT00261443|168823820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.073
84537607|NCT00261443|168823820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.020
84537608|NCT00261443|168823820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.206
84537609|NCT00261443|168823821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.142
84537610|NCT00261443|168823821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.110
84537611|NCT00261443|168823821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.022
84537612|NCT00261443|168823821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.542
84537613|NCT00261443|168823822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.916||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.916
84537614|NCT00261443|168823822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
84537615|NCT00261443|168823822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.665
84537616|NCT00261443|168823822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.757
84537617|NCT00261443|168823823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.871
84537618|NCT00261443|168823823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.362
84537619|NCT00261443|168823823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.295
84537620|NCT00261443|168823823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.519||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.519
84537621|NCT00261443|168823824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.935
84537622|NCT00261443|168823824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.174
84537623|NCT00261443|168823824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.527
84537624|NCT00261443|168823824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.753
84537625|NCT00261443|168823825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.850
84537626|NCT00261443|168823825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.709
84537627|NCT00261443|168823825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.326
84537628|NCT00261443|168823825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.201
84537629|NCT00261443|168823826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Difference||1.81|-0.87|0.491
84537630|NCT00261443|168823826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.12||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value Treatment Difference||1.12|-1.21|0.945
84537631|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.279
84537632|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.247||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.247
84537633|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.329
84537634|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.928||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.928
84537635|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.09||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||2.09|0.66|0.584
84537636|NCT00261443|168823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||2.08|0.76|0.369
84537637|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.685
84537638|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.792
84537639|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.805
84537640|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.533
84537641|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.74||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||1.74|0.35|0.545
84537642|NCT00261443|168823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||1.86|0.54|0.987
84537643|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.646||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Treatment Comparison Baseline||||0.646
84537644|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.006
84537645|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.485
84537646|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.325
84537647|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.374
84537648|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||||0.064
84537649|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.310
84537650|NCT00261443|168823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.046
84537651|NCT00261443|168823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALP||||0.331
84537652|NCT00261443|168823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in ALP at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
84537653|NCT00261443|168823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.298||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALP Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.298
84537654|NCT00261443|168823832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALT||||0.111
84537655|NCT00261443|168823832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in ALT at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.948
84537656|NCT00261443|168823832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALT Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.559
84537657|NCT00261443|168823833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline AST||||0.077
84537658|NCT00261443|168823833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in AST at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.255
84537659|NCT00261443|168823833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.918||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison AST Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.918
84537660|NCT00261443|168823834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline BUN||||0.118
84537661|NCT00261443|168823834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in BUN at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.532
84537662|NCT00261443|168823834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison BUN Highest Value of Change During Phase 3||||0.169
84537663|NCT00261443|168823835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.878
84537664|NCT00261443|168823835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Total Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.544
84537665|NCT00261443|168823835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.658||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Cholesterol (fasting) in Phase 3||||0.658
84537666|NCT00261443|168823836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatine Kinase||||0.043
84537667|NCT00261443|168823836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from baseline in Creatine Kinase at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.019
84537668|NCT00261443|168823836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatine Kinase During Phase 3||||0.176
84537669|NCT00261443|168823837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatinine||||0.105
84537670|NCT00261443|168823837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.634||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Creatinine at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.634
84537671|NCT00261443|168823837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatinine During Phase 3||||0.958
84537672|NCT00261443|168823838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Eosinophils (relative)||||0.507
84537673|NCT00261443|168823838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.834||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Eosinophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.834
84537674|NCT00261443|168823838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.511||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Eosinophils (relative) During Phase 3||||0.511
84537675|NCT00261443|168823839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Glucose (fasting)||||0.741
84537676|NCT00261443|168823839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.962||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Glucose (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.962
84537677|NCT00261443|168823839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in Glucose (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.592
84537678|NCT00261443|168823840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hemoglobin||||0.080
84537679|NCT00261443|168823840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.868
84537680|NCT00261443|168823840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Change Value in Hemoglobin During Phase 3||||0.299
84537681|NCT00261443|168823841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hematocrit||||0.187
84537682|NCT00261443|168823841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hematocrit During Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.377
84537683|NCT00261443|168823841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Hematocrit During Phase 3||||0.494
84537684|NCT00261443|168823842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.180
84537685|NCT00261443|168823842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.950
84537686|NCT00261443|168823842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.342
84537687|NCT00261443|168823843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-Percent Beta||||0.349
84537688|NCT00261443|168823843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.624||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-Percent Beta at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.624
84537689|NCT00261443|168823843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value in HOMA2-Percent Beta During Phase 3||||0.329
84537690|NCT00261443|168823844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-IR||||0.550
84537691|NCT00261443|168823844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-IR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.554
84537692|NCT00261443|168823844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in HOMA2-IR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.870
84537693|NCT00261443|168823845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.004
84537694|NCT00261443|168823845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.034
84537695|NCT00261443|168823845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Lactate Dehydrogenase During Phase 3||||0.091
84537696|NCT00261443|168823846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.808
84537697|NCT00261443|168823846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.507
84537698|NCT00261443|168823846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.948
84537699|NCT00261443|168823847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.967||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Neutrophils (relative)||||0.967
84537700|NCT00261443|168823847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.486||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison in change from Baseline in Neutrophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.486
84537701|NCT00261443|168823847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Neutrophils (relative), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.323
84537702|NCT00261443|168823848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline in Platelet Count||||0.663
84537703|NCT00261443|168823848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.322
84537704|NCT00261443|168823848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.358||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.358
84537705|NCT00261443|168823848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.541||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.541
84537706|NCT00261443|168823849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.412||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Prolactin||||0.412
84537707|NCT00261443|168823849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||<0.001
84537708|NCT00261443|168823849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.004
84537709|NCT00261443|168823850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Bilirubin||||0.630
84537710|NCT00261443|168823850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.675
84537711|NCT00261443|168823850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Bilirubin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.592
84537712|NCT00261443|168823851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Triglycerides (fasting)||||0.273
84537713|NCT00261443|168823851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.489
84537714|NCT00261443|168823851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Triglycerides (fasting), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.415
84537715|NCT00261443|168823852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Uric Acid||||0.189
84537716|NCT00261443|168823852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.350
84537717|NCT00261443|168823852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Uric Acid, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.799
84537718|NCT00261443|168823853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.124||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Leukocytes||||0.124
84537719|NCT00261443|168823853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.295
84537720|NCT00261443|168823853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.735
84537721|NCT00261443|168823853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.505
84537722|NCT00261443|168823855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc Bazett||||0.213
84537723|NCT00261443|168823855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc Bazett at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.708
84537724|NCT00261443|168823855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc Bazett, Phase 3||||0.107
84537725|NCT00261443|168823856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc (0.33)||||0.205
84537726|NCT00261443|168823856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.669||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc (0.33) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.669
84537727|NCT00261443|168823856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc (0.33), Phase 3||||0.072
84537728|NCT00261443|168823857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline PR||||0.012
84537729|NCT00261443|168823857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in PR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.027
84537730|NCT00261443|168823857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in PR, Phase 3||||0.128
84537731|NCT00261443|168823858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.571||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline RR||||0.571
84537732|NCT00261443|168823858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in RR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
84537733|NCT00261443|168823858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in RR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.204
84537734|NCT00261443|168823858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.435
84537735|NCT00261443|168823859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QRS||||0.826
84537736|NCT00261443|168823859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QRS at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.545
84537737|NCT00261443|168823859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QRS, Phase 3||||0.372
84537738|NCT00261443|168823860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.27|-0.07|0.235
84537739|NCT00261443|168823860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value in Change Treatment Difference||0.64|0.08|0.012
84537740|NCT00261443|168823861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.587||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Heart Rate||||0.587
84537741|NCT00261443|168823861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in Heart Rate at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.386
84537742|NCT00261443|168823861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.405||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.405
84537743|NCT00261443|168823861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.253
84537744|NCT00261443|168823862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.23|-0.12|0.514
84537745|NCT00261443|168823862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.38|-0.14|0.362
84537746|NCT00261443|168823863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.04|0.904
84537747|NCT00261443|168823863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.11|-0.03|0.222
84537748|NCT00261443|168823864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.03|0.808
84540446|NCT01311687|168831767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.61|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.61|0.39|<0.001
84537749|NCT00261443|168823864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.771||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||||0.771
84537750|NCT00261443|168823865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.03|-0.05|0.576
84537751|NCT00261443|168823865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value treatment Difference||0.08|-0.05|0.636
84537752|NCT00261443|168823866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.08|-0.06|0.774
84537753|NCT00261443|168823866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change, Treatment Difference||0.14|-0.06|0.444
84537754|NCT02755649|168823880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.87|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||42.05|16.87|< 0.0001
84537755|NCT02755649|168823880|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.41|45.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||45.57|20.41|< 0.0001
84537756|NCT02755649|168823881|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-24.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI w/p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs placebo) of LS mean percent change using multiple imputation (MI) w/ANCOVA model w/baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-24.3|-38.85|< 0.0001
84537757|NCT02755649|168823881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-25.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue \& then imputed by MI.||-25.88|-40.42|< 0.0001
84537758|NCT02755649|168823882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.07|-17.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-17.41|-35.07|< 0.0001
84537759|NCT02755649|168823882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference]|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|-19.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-19.68|-37.34|< 0.0001
84537760|NCT02755649|168823883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-21.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-21.93|-35.56|< 0.0001
84540447|NCT01311687|168831769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.74|0.37|<0.001
84537761|NCT02755649|168823883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-26.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-26.06|-39.7|< 0.0001
84537762|NCT02755649|168823884|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.89|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||38.39|13.89|< 0.0001
84537763|NCT02755649|168823884|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.08|43.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||43.83|19.08|< 0.0001
84537764|NCT02755649|168823885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.706|-13.197||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value is based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-13.197|-22.706|< 0.0001
84537765|NCT02755649|168823885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.431|-14.895||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-14.895|-24.431|< 0.0001
84537766|NCT02755649|168823886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|36.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||36.41|13.99|< 0.0001
84537767|NCT02755649|168823886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.95|37.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||37.65|14.95|< 0.0001
84537768|NCT02755649|168823887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.04|-5.6|< 0.0001
84537769|NCT02755649|168823887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.74|-6.31|< 0.0001
84537770|NCT02755649|168823888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-5.47||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.47|-8.78|< 0.0001
84537771|NCT02755649|168823888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.97|-9.29|< 0.0001
84537772|NCT02755649|168823889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|30.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|45.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||45.64|14.63|= 0.0002
84537773|NCT02755649|168823889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|31.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.11|47.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||47.05|16.11|= 0.0001
84537774|NCT02755649|168823890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-3.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.51|-11.64|= 0.0003
84537775|NCT02755649|168823890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|-5.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.95|-14.15|< 0.0001
84537776|NCT02755649|168823891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-1.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.43|-4.41|= 0.0001
84537777|NCT02755649|168823891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-2.4|-5.38|< 0.0001
84537778|NCT02755649|168823892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|41.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||41.96|17.1|< 0.0001
84537779|NCT02755649|168823892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.24|52.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||52.61|28.24|< 0.0001
84537780|NCT02755649|168823893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-16.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab group vs. placebo)of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\])as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-16.88|-31.63|< 0.0001
84537781|NCT02755649|168823893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.49|-18.86||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata (disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-18.86|-33.49|< 0.0001
84537782|NCT02755649|168823894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.66|-15.8|= 0.0017
84537783|NCT02755649|168823894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-1.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.06|-13.31|= 0.0214
84537784|NCT02755649|168823895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.7|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||1.58|-10.97|= 0.1486
84537785|NCT02755649|168823895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5|||=|0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||-0.65|-12.27|= 0.0319
84537786|NCT02755649|168823896|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.53|-3.6|= 0.9829
84537787|NCT02755649|168823896|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.63|-3.6|= 1
84537788|NCT02755649|168823897|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.9|||=|0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.97|-2.19|= 0.5619
84537789|NCT02755649|168823897|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.9|||=|0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||0.88|-2.73|= 0.3241
84537790|NCT02755649|168823898|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.4|||=|0.9518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||11.9|-12.6|= 0.9518
84537791|NCT02755649|168823898|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|2.5|||=|0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||14.68|-9.64|= 0.6833
84537792|NCT02089659|168823907|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.35|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.35|0.72|
84537793|NCT02089659|168823908|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.24|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.24|0.66|
84537794|NCT02089659|168823909|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.18|0.74|
84537795|NCT02089659|168823910|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.33|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.33|0.74|
84537796|NCT02126826|168823912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6193|0.9537|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9537|0.6193|
84537797|NCT02126826|168823912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8378|1.1964|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.1964|0.8378|
84537798|NCT02126826|168823914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7654|1.1367|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1367|0.7654|
84537799|NCT02126826|168823914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0834|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8655|1.3013|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3013|0.8655|
84537800|NCT02126826|168823916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6235|0.9428|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9428|0.6235|
84537801|NCT02126826|168823916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8593|1.2137|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.2137|0.8593|
84537802|NCT02126826|168823918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7744|1.1122|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1122|0.7744|
84537803|NCT02126826|168823918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8583|1.3037|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3037|0.8583|
84537804|NCT03092219|168823919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|For this outcome measure, missing data were imputed using a LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) method.||||||0.0001
84537805|NCT02549027|168823976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.47|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.47|0.12|
84537806|NCT02549027|168823976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.41|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.41|0.10|
84537807|NCT02549027|168823976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.30|0.08|
84537808|NCT02549027|168823977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.11|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio.||0.11|0.02|
84537809|NCT02549027|168823980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.07|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||1.07|0.67|
84537810|NCT02549027|168823980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.86|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.86|0.54|
84537811|NCT02549027|168823980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.95|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.95|0.60|
84537812|NCT02549027|168823981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.79|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio.||0.79|0.50|
84537813|NCT02549027|168823982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.01|17.2|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||17.20|-12.01|
84537814|NCT02549027|168823982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.33|19.88|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||19.88|-9.33|
84537815|NCT02549027|168823982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|20.98|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||20.98|-8.23|
84537816|NCT02549027|168823983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.7|||||Difference is MK-6096 - placebo|Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed.||25.70|-7.10|
84537817|NCT03578549|168823998|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
84540448|NCT01311687|168831770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.92|0.54|0.009
84537818|NCT04414345|168823999|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.188||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. CNM-Au8 slowed progression) was 0.59059. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by CNM-Au8 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||"The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality.~The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes."|1.188|0.797|
84537819|NCT04414345|168824001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.68|-4.25|0.6570
84537820|NCT04414345|168824002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.403||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||3.58|-9.78|0.3621
84537821|NCT04414345|168824003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7398|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7398
84537822|NCT00875797|168824004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84537823|NCT00875797|168824005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|χ2 test|percentage of infection|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.05
84537824|NCT00875797|168824006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of survivers|80.0|||<|0.05||95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|2-degrees of freedom||Chi-square||||<0.05
84537825|NCT00741286|168824008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model for a repeated measures covariance pattern model with unstructured covariances within subjects was used. Two fixed effects were included: 1 between-subjects treatment effect (group: cilostazol, control) and 1 within-subject time effect (time: baseline, 14 days, 90 days). A possible difference in treatment across 14- and 90-day follow-up was analyzed by time x treatment interactions.||||<0.05
84537826|NCT00741286|168824008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine between-group differences of changes in the PIs at 14 and 90 days from the baseline study.||||<0.05
84537827|NCT00741286|168824009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84537828|NCT01590797|168824018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.001
84537829|NCT01590797|168824019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
84537830|NCT01590797|168824020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-14.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline 2-hr Post- Meal Glucose (mg/dL) as a covariate.||||-14.7|-38.4|<0.001
84537831|NCT04411914|168824097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0009
84537832|NCT04411914|168824098|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|"Spearman Correlation Coefficient, N=9 Prob \> \|r\| under H0: Rho=0"||||||0.0053
84537833|NCT01120704|168824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.906||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.998|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||.998|.822|.045
84537834|NCT01120704|168824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.982||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.081|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.081|.892|.705
84537835|NCT01120704|168824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.044||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.149|.948|.382
84537836|NCT01120704|168824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.050|.867|.339
84537837|NCT01120704|168824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.945||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.040|.858|.248
84537838|NCT01120704|168824107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.821|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., 8 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum vs. 26 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.821|1.080|.011
84540449|NCT01311687|168831771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.91|0.60|0.005
84540450|NCT01311687|168831772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|17.77|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone : high dose dexamethasone|||17.77|3.19|< 0.001
84537839|NCT01120704|168824107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.321|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Maintenance Counseling vs. Maintenance Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.321|.769|.956
84537840|NCT01120704|168824107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.301|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling vs. Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.301|.797|.885
84537841|NCT01120704|168824107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.852||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Without Feedback vs. Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Plus Feedback) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.092|.664|.205
84537842|NCT01120704|168824107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.411|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls vs. Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.411|.842|.514
84537843|NCT00345943|168824135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.|BN versus HC group effect|Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in cortical thickness (CT) at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in CT over time; and the persistence of group differences in CT over time.||||.03
84537844|NCT00345943|168824135|OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.||Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in conflict-related BOLD signal at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in conflict-related BOLD signal over time; and the persistence of group differences in conflict-related BOLD signal over time.||0.15|-0.04|<.05
84537845|NCT02458287|168824155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-54.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-value are from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction as covariates.||-54.7|-72.0|<0.001
84537846|NCT02458287|168824164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-34.0|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.0|-51.9|<0.001
84723565|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.09|-0.61|
84537847|NCT02458287|168824165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.1|-45.4|<0.001
84537848|NCT02458287|168824165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-20.8|-32.5|<0.001
84537849|NCT02458287|168824166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-49.5|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-49.5|-66.2|<0.001
84537850|NCT02458287|168824166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-27.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-27.1|-44.4|<0.001
84537851|NCT02458287|168824167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.7|-48.6|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-48.6|-63.7|<0.001
84723566|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.07|-0.83|
84723567|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.50|
84537852|NCT02458287|168824167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-29.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-29.3|-45.0|<0.001
84537853|NCT03020589|168824201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||||2.05|0.67|0.58
84537854|NCT03020589|168824202|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.02|||Fisher Exact|||||2.02|0.72|0.46
84537855|NCT00351533|168824213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
84537856|NCT00351533|168824214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84537857|NCT00351533|168824215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
84537858|NCT00351533|168824216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
84537859|NCT00351533|168824217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84723568|NCT00749944|169199552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.57|
84537860|NCT00351533|168824218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84537861|NCT00351533|168824219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
84537862|NCT00351533|168824220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84537863|NCT00351533|168824221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
84537864|NCT00351533|168824222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
84537865|NCT00351533|168824223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
84537866|NCT00351533|168824224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
84537867|NCT00351533|168824225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
84537868|NCT00351533|168824226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
84723569|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
84537869|NCT00351533|168824227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
84537870|NCT00351533|168824228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84537871|NCT00351533|168824229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
84537872|NCT00351533|168824230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
84723570|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
84723571|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.04|
84537873|NCT00351533|168824231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
84537874|NCT00351533|168824232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
84537875|NCT00351533|168824233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84537876|NCT00351533|168824234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
84537877|NCT00351533|168824235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
84537878|NCT00351533|168824236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
84537879|NCT00351533|168824237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
84537880|NCT00351533|168824238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
84537881|NCT00351533|168824239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
84537882|NCT00351533|168824240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
84537883|NCT03185013|168824241|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in percentage|11.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|21.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||21.2|-0.4|0.029
84537884|NCT03185013|168824243|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.6|
84537885|NCT03185013|168824244|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|29.4||||||||29.4|5.1|
84537886|NCT03185013|168824245|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|23.5||||||||23.5|1.7|
84537887|NCT03185013|168824246|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.3||||||||20.3|1.5|
84537888|NCT03185013|168824247|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-11.5|
84537889|NCT03185013|168824248|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|20.1||||||||20.1|-0.5|
84537890|NCT03185013|168824249|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||224.0|24.0|
84537891|NCT03185013|168824249|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||0.0|0.0|
84537892|NCT03185013|168824249|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2000.0|6050.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6050.0|2000.0|
84537893|NCT03185013|168824249|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|74.0|
84537894|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|20.0||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||20.00|8.33|
84537895|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
84537896|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||15.00|5.00|
84537897|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||10.00|1.67|
84537898|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|50.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.67|66.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||66.67|31.67|
84537899|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|38.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|51.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||51.67|18.33|
84537900|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|14.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|18.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||18.33|6.67|
84537901|NCT03185013|168824250|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||15.00|5.00|
84537902|NCT03185013|168824251|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.046||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.046|0.002|
84537903|NCT03185013|168824251|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.014||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.014|0.000|
84537904|NCT03185013|168824251|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.058||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.058|0.017|
84537905|NCT00197496|168824259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|19.6|||Regression, Linear|||||19.6|-72.1|<0.05
84537906|NCT00197496|168824262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.2|||Regression, Linear|||||9.2|-3.6|0.40
84537907|NCT01175031|168824323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||signed-rank tests|||||||0.003
84537908|NCT00658021|168824327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline HbA1c, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-1.01|0.444
84537909|NCT00658021|168824329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.562
84537910|NCT00658021|168824329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.621
84537911|NCT00658021|168824329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.229
84537912|NCT00658021|168824330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 4:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||-0.28|-1.58|0.005
84537913|NCT00658021|168824330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 12:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.65|-2.00|0.314
84537914|NCT00658021|168824330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 20:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.50|-2.24|0.692
84537915|NCT00658021|168824330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 28:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.68|-2.56|0.679
84537916|NCT00658021|168824331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|1.052|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.052|-1.614|0.679
84540451|NCT01311687|168831773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|21.42|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||21.42|3.32|< 0.001
84537917|NCT00658021|168824332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5151||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|1.199|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for pre-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.199|-0.821|0.714
84537918|NCT00658021|168824332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5245||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|1.541|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.541|-0.516|0.329
84537919|NCT00658021|168824332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4015||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.997|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-prandial excursion SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||0.997|-0.577|0.601
84537920|NCT00658021|168824332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4749||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|1.248|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for overall SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.248|-0.615|0.505
84537921|NCT00658021|168824333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.187||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.48|73.84|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum insulin, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||73.84|-95.48|0.802
84537922|NCT00658021|168824334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.542||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|32.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-B: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-B, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||32.51|-40.19|0.836
84537923|NCT00658021|168824334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.846||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-S: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-S, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||7.26|-7.82|0.941
84537924|NCT02091466|168824365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for repeated measures (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline values, compared tympanic temperatures between the groups. Statistical significance was established at p \< 0.05, and the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 20.||||<0.05
84537925|NCT04324073|168824388|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|12.2||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||12.2|-11.7|
84537926|NCT04324073|168824389|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.74||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||1.74|0.69|
84537927|NCT04324073|168824390|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|8.7||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence Interval is %Credible Interval here. Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||8.7|-22.5|
84537928|NCT04324073|168824391|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.07||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.07|0.55|
84537929|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY|Day 14|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||||2.03|0.23|
84537930|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.59|0.27|
84537931|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.31|
84537932|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Day 14||2.25|0.40|
84537933|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.96|0.40|
84537934|NCT04324073|168824392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.35|
84537935|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.34|0.53|
84537936|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.08|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||2.08|0.49|
84537937|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.47|0.42|
84537938|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.02|0.38|
84537939|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.4|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||2.40|0.47|
84537940|NCT04324073|168824393|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.57|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 90||2.57|0.50|
84537941|NCT04324073|168824394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||||adjusted on age and centre||||3.9|-6.1|
84537942|NCT04324073|168824395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.57|0.72|
84537943|NCT04324073|168824395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.25|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.25|0.74|
84537944|NCT04324073|168824395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.44|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.44|0.59|
84537945|NCT04324073|168824395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.55|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.55|0.74|
84537946|NCT04324073|168824396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.75|0.81|
84537947|NCT04324073|168824396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||1.67|0.80|
84537948|NCT04324073|168824396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.66|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.66|0.55|
84537949|NCT04324073|168824396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.37|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.37|0.71|
84537950|NCT04324073|168824397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.44|0.42|
84537951|NCT04324073|168824397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.47|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.47|0.49|
84537952|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrilysin (P09237) was analyzed.||||= 0.001
84537953|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.002||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of von Willebrand factor (P04275) was analyzed.||||= 0.002
84537954|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 4 (O95388) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
84537955|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta-1 proprotein (P01137) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
84537956|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.127||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta receptor type 3 (Q03167) was analyzed.||||= 0.127
84537957|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.21||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of IL-15 receptor subunit alpha (Q13261) was analyzed.||||= 0.210
84537958|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (P01033) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
84723572|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.07|
84537959|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Pappalysin-1 (Q13219) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
84537960|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.745||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Proto-oncogene c-Src (P12931) was analyzed.||||= 0.745
84540452|NCT01311687|168831774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, diseases population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.36|< 0.001
84723573|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.15|
84537961|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Protein AMBP (P02760) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
84537962|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Uromodulin (P07911) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
84537963|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Aminopeptidase N (P15144) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
84537964|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TNFRSF1A (P19438) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
84537965|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (P05121) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
84537966|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 2 (P29279) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
84537967|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of uPAR (Q03405) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
84537968|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 14 (Q16627) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
84537969|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 16 (O15467) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537970|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Collagen alpha-1(I) chain (P02452) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537971|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Decorin (P07585) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537972|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 2 (P13500) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537973|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (P14780) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84540453|NCT01342081|168831805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.1|< 0.001
84537974|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of E-selectin (P16581) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537975|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Thrombospondin-2 (P35442) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537976|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of RARRES2 (Q99969) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537977|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-X-C motif chemokine 16 (Q9H2A7) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537978|NCT05013008|168824463|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Dickkopf-related protein 3 (Q9UBP4) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
84537979|NCT00264550|168824478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group 1 is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Assuming greater than 90 % power, ACR 20 response for Group I, Group III and Group IV (120, 80, and 80 participants, respectively) as 35 % for Group I and 55 % for Groups III and IV.||||<0.001
84537980|NCT00264550|168824478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||0.001
84537981|NCT00264550|168824478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||<0.001
84537982|NCT00264550|168824478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This null hypothesis is tested only if a positive test for null hypothesis Statistical Analysis 1.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I with respect of ACR 20 at Wk 14. Superiority of golimumab alone vs MTX alone will be demonstrated if 2-sided test is significant. Sample of 120 patients in each Group I \& II provides \>85% power assuming 35% ACR 20 response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 in Group II.||||0.059
84537983|NCT00264550|168824479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84537984|NCT00264550|168824479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
84537985|NCT00264550|168824479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84537986|NCT00264550|168824479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
84537987|NCT00264550|168824480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group I is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and Combined Golimumab + Methotrexate (MTX) at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84537988|NCT00264550|168824480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and III at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84723574|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|0.01|
84537989|NCT00264550|168824480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
84537990|NCT00264550|168824480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and II at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.240
84537991|NCT00264550|168824481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84537992|NCT00264550|168824481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84537993|NCT00264550|168824481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84537994|NCT00264550|168824481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.187
84537995|NCT00264550|168824482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden noramal|||||||<0.001
84537996|NCT00264550|168824482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
84537997|NCT00264550|168824482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
84537998|NCT00264550|168824482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.097
84537999|NCT00264550|168824483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal|||||||0.551
84538000|NCT00264550|168824483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.953
84538001|NCT00264550|168824483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||ANOVA on van der waerden normal scores|||||||0.293
84538002|NCT00264550|168824483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.361
84538003|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538004|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538005|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 500 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538006|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 100 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538007|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538008|NCT02597127|168824504|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538009|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.669|-0.5485|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5485|-1.6690|<0.0001
84538010|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7315|-0.609|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6090|-1.7315|<0.0001
84538011|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7718||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2616|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2820|-1.2616|0.0020
84538012|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3563||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8445|0.1319|||ANCOVA|||||0.1319|-0.8445|0.1524
84538013|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4918||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.0025|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0025|-0.9810|0.0488
84538014|NCT02318303|168824524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7133||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2031|-0.2235|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2235|-1.2031|0.0043
84538015|NCT02667067|168824529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
84538016|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538017|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538018|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538019|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538020|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538021|NCT01333397|168824561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
84538022|NCT05084924|168824606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 3.32||||||0.049
84538023|NCT05084924|168824607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 6.67|ANOVA|||||||0.004
84538024|NCT03774407|168824608|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This P value reported was for bladder urinary frequency change from baseline to 9 months|p value|||||||0.002
84538025|NCT00182325|168824611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84538026|NCT00182325|168824612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
84538027|NCT00182325|168824613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
84538028|NCT00182325|168824614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84538029|NCT00182325|168824615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84538030|NCT00182325|168824616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
84538031|NCT00182325|168824617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
84538032|NCT00182325|168824618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
84538033|NCT00182325|168824619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
84538034|NCT00182325|168824620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
84538035|NCT03485365|168824634|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||-0.20|-2.15|
84538036|NCT03485365|168824635|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.612|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.12|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||0.12|-2.29|
84538037|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|2.33||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.33|-8.08|
84538038|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|8.65||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||8.65|-9.93|
84538039|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|2.26||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.26|-8.07|
84538040|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.68||||||95.0|-4.96|6.16||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.16|-4.96|
84538041|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.25||||||95.0|-8.18|2.36||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.36|-8.18|
84538042|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-4.84|6.32||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.32|-4.84|
84538043|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.69||||||95.0|-7.75|5.86||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.86|-7.75|
84538044|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|72.87||||||95.0|63.32|81.07||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||81.07|63.32|
84538045|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|84.92||||||95.0|76.73|91.05||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||91.05|76.73|
84538046|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|57.94||||||95.0|48.01|67.42||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||67.42|48.01|
84538047|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|62.81||||||95.0|52.33|72.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||72.20|52.33|
84538048|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|92.27||||||95.0|85.26|96.54||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||96.54|85.26|
84538049|NCT00205803|168824671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.61||||||95.0|1.23|11.86||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||11.86|1.23|
84538050|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|3.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.6|-7.9|
84538051|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
84538052|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-6.9|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-6.9|
84538053|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
84538054|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.7|3.9||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.9|-4.7|
84538055|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
84538056|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-2.6|7.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.7|-2.6|
84538057|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|97.8||||||95.0|92.3|99.7||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||99.7|92.3|
84538058|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|83.6||||||95.0|73.2|90.8||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||90.8|73.2|
84538059|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.5||||||95.0|19.7|40.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||40.9|19.7|
84538060|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0||||||95.0|5.9|20.4||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||20.4|5.9|
84538061|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|94.1||||||95.0|86.8|98.1||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||98.1|86.8|
84538062|NCT00205803|168824672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
84538063|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76||||||95.0|0.59|0.96||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.59|
84538064|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.62|1.48||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.48|0.62|
84538065|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.85||||||95.0|0.69|1.05||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.05|0.69|
84538066|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.6|1.11||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.11|0.60|
84538067|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.49|0.79||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.79|0.49|
84538068|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.67|1.09||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.67|
84538069|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.59|1.0||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.59|
84538070|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|39.78||||||95.0|27.47|57.63||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||57.63|27.47|
84538071|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|15.56||||||95.0|11.63|20.81||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||20.81|11.63|
84538072|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|8.67||||||95.0|6.65|11.29||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||11.29|6.65|
84538073|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|9.6||||||95.0|7.07|13.04||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||13.04|7.07|
84538074|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|26.78||||||95.0|20.97|34.22||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||34.22|20.97|
84538075|NCT00205803|168824673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.71||||||95.0|1.36|2.16||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.16|1.36|
84538076|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.08||||||95.0|-7.22|13.73||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.73|-7.22|
84538077|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.02||||||95.0|-7.28|21.14||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||21.14|-7.28|
84538078|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
84538079|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
84538080|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-5.97|5.68||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||5.68|-5.97|
84538081|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.24||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.24|-8.80|
84538082|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.21||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.21|-8.80|
84538083|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Hepatitis b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 10 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
84538084|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.74||||||95.0|-11.0|6.99||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 82.00 EU/MI threshold was calculated||6.99|-11.00|
84538085|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.36||||||95.0|-17.03|3.16||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 43.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.16|-17.03|
84538086|NCT00205803|168824675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.33||||||95.0|-6.79|9.68||||||For Pertussis - Pertactin the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 18.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||9.68|-6.79|
84723575|NCT00749944|169199553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.08|
84538087|NCT00205803|168824676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.14||||||||2.14|0.69|
84538088|NCT00205803|168824677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48||||||||1.48|0.63|
84538089|NCT00205803|168824678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.21||||||||1.21|0.57|
84538090|NCT00205803|168824679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53||||||Polio Type 1||1.53|0.66|
84723576|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.28|-0.05|
84538091|NCT00205803|168824679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49||||||Polio Type 2||1.49|0.56|
84538092|NCT00205803|168824679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.84||||||Polio Type 3||1.84|0.69|
84538093|NCT00205803|168824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Pertussis - FHA||1.15|0.74|
84538094|NCT00205803|168824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||||||Pertussis - PT||1.25|0.83|
84538095|NCT00205803|168824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44||||||Pertussis - Pertactin||1.44|0.76|
84538096|NCT02056392|168824696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
84538097|NCT02056392|168824696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||7.7|4.4|
84538098|NCT02056392|168824697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.3|-2.0|
84538099|NCT02056392|168824697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.8|7.6|
84538100|NCT02056392|168824698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.5|-0.7|
84540454|NCT01342081|168831805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. Non-inferiority was claimed if the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference is 1.5 mmHg or less.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Non-inferiority was evaluated after superiority to tafluprost was confirmed.||0.1|-0.7|
84538101|NCT02056392|168824698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.5|8.3|
84538102|NCT02056392|168824699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.0|-1.2|
84538103|NCT02056392|168824699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.8|8.5|
84538104|NCT02056392|168824700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
84538105|NCT02056392|168824700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||||90.0|10.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||13.6|10.3|
84538106|NCT02056392|168824701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.2|-3.1|
84538107|NCT02056392|168824701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||12.5|9.2|
84538108|NCT02056392|168824702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.1|-3.4|
84538109|NCT02056392|168824702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.4|7.1|
84538110|NCT02056392|168824703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.4|-2.9|
84538111|NCT02056392|168824703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.5|7.2|
84538112|NCT02056392|168824704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-3.1|-6.4|
84538113|NCT02056392|168824704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||9.3|6.0|
84538114|NCT02056392|168824705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.9|-4.1|
84723577|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.19|
84538115|NCT02056392|168824705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||5.7|2.4|
84538116|NCT00555360|168824706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.77|-4.62|.975
84538117|NCT00555360|168824707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|-5.78|.349
84538118|NCT00555360|168824708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|24.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.2|3.9|.007
84538119|NCT05819203|168824716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||0.0013
84538120|NCT05819203|168824717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of common cold during the study between both groups.||||0.0209
84538121|NCT05819203|168824718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0399|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of impact of common cold on quality of life during the study between both groups.||||0.0399
84538122|NCT05819203|168824719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0015
84538123|NCT05819203|168824720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Poisson regression|||||||>0.05
84538124|NCT05819203|168824721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0029
84538125|NCT05819203|168824722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0006
84538126|NCT05819203|168824723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0513
84538127|NCT05819203|168824724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0789
84538128|NCT05819203|168824725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson regression|||||||<0.0001
84538129|NCT05819203|168824726|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
84538130|NCT04784533|168824735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|26.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||26.8|5.5|
84538131|NCT04784533|168824735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.9|1.3|
84538132|NCT04784533|168824735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||37.5|15.4|
84538133|NCT04784533|168824735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|31.3|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.3|8.5|
84538134|NCT04784533|168824736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 8||3.9|-2.7|
84538135|NCT04784533|168824736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||17.9|3.3|
84538136|NCT04784533|168824736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.8|5.3|
84538137|NCT04784533|168824736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|29.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||29.5|9.2|
84538138|NCT04784533|168824736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|31.7|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.7|9.8|
84538139|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||||LS means,standard error(SE),and confidence intervals(CIs) are based on mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)analysis with effects for treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,and baseline value.The Model uses an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 4||1.8|-2.8|
84538140|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-2.7|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 8||-2.7|-11.9|
84538141|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-5.5|-19.3|
84538142|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.9|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-6.9|-22.2|
84538143|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-7.2|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-7.2|-23.7|
84538144|NCT04784533|168824737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.8|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-6.8|-24.0|
84538145|NCT04784533|168824738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|31.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||31.8|9.9|
84538146|NCT04784533|168824738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.2|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||25.2|2.5|
84538147|NCT04784533|168824738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|27.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||27.0|4.1|
84538148|NCT04784533|168824738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||25.9|2.9|
84538149|NCT04784533|168824739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||34.0|11.9|
84538150|NCT04784533|168824739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|33.1|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||33.1|10.7|
84538151|NCT04784533|168824739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|33.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||33.9|11.2|
84538152|NCT04784533|168824739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.0|8.1|
84538153|NCT04784533|168824740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|
84538154|NCT04784533|168824740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.4|-1.1|
84538155|NCT04784533|168824740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.4|-1.2|
84538156|NCT04784533|168824740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|
84538157|NCT04784533|168824741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|
84538158|NCT04784533|168824741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.3|-1.0|
84538159|NCT04784533|168824741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.5|-1.2|
84538160|NCT04784533|168824741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.4|-1.2|
84538161|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
84538162|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
84538163|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
84538164|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.2|-0.8|
84538165|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.3|-0.8|
84538166|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.3|-0.7|
84538167|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
84538168|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
84538169|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.2|-0.8|
84538170|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.1|-0.6|
84538171|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.1|-0.7|
84538172|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.2|-0.7|
84538173|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
84538174|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
84538175|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.2|-0.7|
84538176|NCT04784533|168824742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
84538177|NCT04123561|168824749|SUPERIORITY|"The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the change from Injection 1 Baseline in WOMAC Pain on a normalized scale of 0-4 at Week 12 between the randomized TLC599 12mg and Placebo groups.~The least-squares mean, alongside its corresponding 95% confidence interval, was used to estimate the treatment difference between TLC599 and Placebo, utilizing two-sided p-values."|Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Parameters estimated via REML using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, and the Kenward-Roger method calculates denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.010|-0.331|0.0372
84538178|NCT02203331|168824770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2925||0.3875|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3875
84538179|NCT02203331|168824770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2975||0.2676|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.2676
84723578|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.22|-0.29|
84538180|NCT02203331|168824770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.1995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2922||0.3211|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3211
84723579|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.20|
84538181|NCT02203331|168824770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2994||0.1721|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1721
84538182|NCT02203331|168824771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.2736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2878||0.231|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.231
84538183|NCT02203331|168824771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.3234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2927||0.1865|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1865
84538184|NCT02203331|168824771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.3081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2875||0.1955|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1955
84538185|NCT02203331|168824771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2944||0.1416|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1416
84538186|NCT02203331|168824772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.0081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.5794|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5794
84538187|NCT02203331|168824772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.1148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.4301|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.4301
84538188|NCT02203331|168824772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.0401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2829||0.5337|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5337
84538189|NCT02203331|168824772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.1835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2899||0.3396|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3396
84538190|NCT02682927|168824784|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.72|72.8|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||72.80|47.72|
84538191|NCT02682927|168824784|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|64.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.85|74.19|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||74.19|51.85|
84538192|NCT02682927|168824785|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|32.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.19|51.33|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||51.33|6.19|
84538193|NCT02682927|168824785|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|49.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.31|63.43|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||63.43|31.31|
84538194|NCT02682927|168824787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.773||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|15.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.450|1.475|0.009
84538195|NCT02682927|168824787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.484|49.915|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.915|4.484|<0.001
84538196|NCT02682927|168824787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|49.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.8|3.6|0.0001
84538197|NCT02682927|168824787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|220.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||220.5|12.9|<0.0001
84723580|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.40|
84538198|NCT02682927|168824790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
84723581|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.42|
84538199|NCT02682927|168824790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
84538200|NCT02682927|168824790|SUPERIORITY||Comparing active with placebo|||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0002
84538201|NCT02682927|168824790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
84538202|NCT03462459|168824813|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional tests (Chi-squared) compared the episodes of C. difficile. Log-rank tests (Kaplan-Meier) were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression determined if treatment, age, and number of previous C. difficile episodes were predictors of recurrence.|See comments|-0.11||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|8.0|||Chi-squared||Proportional tests compared episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks (vancomycin vs. placebo) using Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests compared the non-recurrence proportions within 8 weeks with the Kaplan-Meier method.||"Statistical analyses are primarily reported for the population who were randomized in the study (as randomized). The secondary statistical analyses are reported for the population who completed all three visits (as completed treatment). Proportional tests were conducted to compare the episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks following the completion of the study intervention in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo using the Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo with the Kaplan-Meier method. A nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare distributions of the number of days to the first recurrence of CDI after starting oral vancomycin or placebo. The significance level was set to be ≤0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R statistical software (version 4.4.0; R Core Team, 2024)"|8.0|-35.1|0.22
84538203|NCT03462459|168824815|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional difference tests comparing the proportion of patients with VRE colonization at Visit 3, compared to baseline. Significance level was set to 0.10.||||||0.1|||||||Proportional difference test|||||||0.10
84538204|NCT05833139|168824834|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.3|157.7|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.0|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-∞ was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||157.7|126.3|
84538205|NCT05833139|168824835|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|126.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.6|151.0|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 28.7|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. Cmax was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||151.0|106.6|
84538206|NCT05833139|168824836|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|142.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|161.9|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 20.4|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-tz was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||161.9|126.0|
84538207|NCT00369486|168824847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline central subfield thickness|repeated measures least sq. regression|Models adjusted for baseline values and for correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of change in central subfield thickening from baseline to 34 weeks in all five groups.||||0.46
84538208|NCT00369486|168824848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|1.0|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection + laser groups to compare with laser only.||1.0|0.2|0.04
84538209|NCT00369486|168824848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.63||95.0|0.5|2.9|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection only groups to compare with laser only treatment group.||2.9|0.5|0.63
84538210|NCT00369486|168824849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||repeated measures least sq. regression|Adjusted for baseline values and for the correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of the mean change in visual acuity letter score among the five groups at 34 weeks. Negative changes represent a worsening in visual acuity.||||0.94
84538211|NCT02640482|168824911|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of using a single binomial proportion a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
84538212|NCT02640482|168824912|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 95% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion using a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
84538213|NCT00113763|168824923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||<0.0001
84538214|NCT00113763|168824924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.806||||||This analysis was conducted contingent on a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, and adjusted to an a priori threshold for statistical significance at a 4% level for a multiple comparison involving objective tumor response|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||0.806
84538215|NCT03743415|168824933|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of the symptom index, adjusting for baseline value.|Mean of SMSH alone minus mean of SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.96|-2.50|.81
84538216|NCT03743415|168824933|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included adjustment for baseline value of the symptom index.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||3.49|-4.65|.78
84538217|NCT03743415|168824933|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.32|-0.66|.27
84538218|NCT03743415|168824933|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.39|-0.88|.19
84540455|NCT00535405|168831867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-12.0||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-12.0|-17.5|<0.001
84538219|NCT03743415|168824934|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.36||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||6.36|-3.30|.53
84538220|NCT03743415|168824934|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||9.68|-5.70|.97
84538221|NCT03743415|168824934|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|5.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||5.75|-1.83|.31
84538222|NCT03743415|168824934|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|8.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||8.74|-2.13|.61
84538223|NCT03743415|168824935|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the difference between arms at week 13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.35|-3.12|.44
84538224|NCT03743415|168824935|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.||2.18|-2.32|.95
84538225|NCT03743415|168824935|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.93|-1.85|.97
84538226|NCT03743415|168824935|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.20|-1.56|.74
84540456|NCT00535405|168831867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.3|-4.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-4.8|-10.3|<0.001
84723582|NCT00749944|169199554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||008|-0.22|
84723583|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.3|0.6|
84538227|NCT03743415|168824936|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|4.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus mean of SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.58|-4.49|.98
84538228|NCT03743415|168824936|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.68|-5.48|.70
84538229|NCT03743415|168824936|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.62|-5.62|.27
84538230|NCT03743415|168824936|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.81|-3.40|.91
84538231|NCT03743415|168824937|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.19|-3.98|.06
84538232|NCT03743415|168824937|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.11|-3.81|.09
84538233|NCT03743415|168824937|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.04|-1.77|.89
84538234|NCT03743415|168824937|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.58|-1.20|.47
84538235|NCT03743415|168824938|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.39|-5.22|.45
84538236|NCT03743415|168824938|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.12||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.12|-3.59|.82
84539753|NCT03668808|168829510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \<70 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84538237|NCT03743415|168824938|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.23||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.23|-3.13|.77
84538238|NCT03743415|168824938|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.34||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.34|-3.98|.86
84538239|NCT00094861|168824940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.8553||||0.355||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 2 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3550
84538240|NCT00094861|168824941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9936||||0.3189||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3189
84538241|NCT00094861|168824942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.437||||0.5086||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade 5 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.5086
84538242|NCT00094861|168824943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.46||||0.4976||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 3 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.4976
84538243|NCT00094861|168824944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|-2.5325||||0.1115||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants who never received radiotherapy were assumed to have unplanned breaks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1115
84538244|NCT00094861|168824945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.4812||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for mean score difference using modified ridit score. Participants without any ECOG assessment post baseline were assumed to have ECOG status of 5 in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.0621
84538245|NCT00094861|168824946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0294||||0.8639||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.8639
84538246|NCT00094861|168824947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.1414||||0.1996||||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1996
84538247|NCT02462291|168824957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||5.4|-7.9|1
84538248|NCT02462291|168824957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|40.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||40.2|26.4|<0.01
84538249|NCT02462291|168824957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-24.8|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-24.8|-38.2|<0.01
84538250|NCT02462291|168824957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||9.9|-3.7|1
84538251|NCT02462291|168824958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.5|-0.8|1
84538252|NCT02462291|168824958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||-1.2|-2.6|<0.01
84538253|NCT02462291|168824958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.61|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.61|0.28|<0.01
84538254|NCT02462291|168824958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.17|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.17|-1.52|<0.01
84538255|NCT02462291|168824959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.1|-3.6|= 0.84
84538256|NCT02462291|168824959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.7|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.7|-4.3|= 0.9
84538257|NCT02462291|168824959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.69|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.69|-3.14|0.88
84538258|NCT02462291|168824959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.16|-3.73|0.89
84538259|NCT02462291|168824960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|2.73|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.73|-5.48|0.9
84538260|NCT02462291|168824960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||6.90|-1.60|0.59
84538261|NCT02462291|168824960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|1.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.16|-7.15|0.34
84538262|NCT02462291|168824960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|5.23|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||5.23|-3.17|0.9
84538263|NCT02462291|168824961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.14|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.14|-1.41|0.83
84538264|NCT02462291|168824961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.53|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||4.53|0.84|<0.01
84538265|NCT02462291|168824961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.34|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.34|-3.94|0.010
84538266|NCT02462291|168824961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.0|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.00|-1.64|0.84
84538267|NCT02462291|168824962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|2.95|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.95|-0.16|0.11
84538268|NCT02462291|168824962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.41|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||2.41|-0.81|0.7
84538269|NCT02462291|168824962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.98|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.98|-1.17|0.88
84538270|NCT02462291|168824962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.39|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.39|-1.78|0.95
84538271|NCT02462291|168824963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.40|-0.67|0.95
84538272|NCT02462291|168824963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||0.99|-0.12|0.23
84538273|NCT02462291|168824963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.44|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.44|-0.65|0.96
84538274|NCT02462291|168824963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.01|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.01|-0.08|0.15
84538275|NCT02462291|168824964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.27|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.27|-1.14|0.84
84538276|NCT02462291|168824964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.54|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.54|-0.96|0.81
84538277|NCT02462291|168824964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.74|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.74|-1.71|0.86
84538278|NCT02462291|168824964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.97|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.97|-1.49|0.75
84538279|NCT02462291|168824965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|44.9|||ANOVA|||Baseline||44.9|-74.4|0.94
84538280|NCT02462291|168824965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|70.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||70.20|-53.47|0.87
84538281|NCT02462291|168824965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.19|30.78|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||30.78|-90.19|0.78
84538282|NCT02462291|168824965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.7|54.5|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||54.5|-67.7|0.84
84538283|NCT02462291|168824966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|4.56|||ANOVA|||Baseline||4.56|-3.73|0.74
84538284|NCT02462291|168824966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.04|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.04|-5.54|0.82
84538285|NCT02462291|168824966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|4.82|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||4.82|-3.57|0.59
84538286|NCT02462291|168824966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|3.19|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||3.19|-5.28|0.69
84538287|NCT02462291|168824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.09|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.09|-0.64|0.9
84538288|NCT02462291|168824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.76|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.76|1.96|<0.01
84538289|NCT02462291|168824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.04|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-2.04|-3.80|<0.01
84538290|NCT02462291|168824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.59|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.59|-1.17|0.88
84538291|NCT02462291|168824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.37|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.37|-0.72|0.83
84538292|NCT02462291|168824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.29|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.29|0.15|0.005
84538293|NCT02462291|168824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.09|-1.21|0.013
84538294|NCT02462291|168824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.81|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.81|-0.31|0.87
84538295|NCT02462291|168824969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.542|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.082; 3 degrees of freedom|||||= 0.910
84538296|NCT02462291|168824970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|17.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.965; 3 degrees of freedom|||||<0.001
84538297|NCT02462291|168824971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|5.749||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.488; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.124
84538298|NCT02462291|168824972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.050; 3 degrees of freedom|||||1
84538299|NCT02462291|168824973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|1.049||||0.789|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.116; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.789
84538300|NCT02814890|168824976|OTHER|difference test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size: Based on our previous data, pain score at rest 48 hours postoperatively when using ropivacaine only was of 2.8 with a standard deviation of 1.4. Assuming a decrease of pain score by 1.1 being clinically significant, twenty six patents in each group would be required for a study power of 80% (α=0.05,β=0.2). Considering possible dropouts, we aimed at recruiting 30 patients in each group with a total of 60 patients.||||0.001
84538301|NCT02814890|168824977|OTHER|difference test|Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
84538302|NCT02814890|168824979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
84538303|NCT02052011|168824989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.08|
84538304|NCT00000620|168824990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.03|0.81|0.12
84538305|NCT00000620|168824991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.38||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.38|1.03|0.02
84538306|NCT00000620|168824992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Blood PressureTrial was designed to enroll 4200 participant to have 94% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the intensive-therapy group as compared with the standard-therapy group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 4% per year in the standard-therapy group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.06|0.73|0.20
84538307|NCT00000620|168824993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||0.89|0.39|0.01
84538308|NCT00000620|168824994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Glycemia Trial was designed to enroll 5800 participant to have 87% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the fenofibrate group as compared with the placebo group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 2.4% per year in the placebo group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.08|0.79|0.32
84538309|NCT00000620|168824995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||1.05|0.85|0.30
84538310|NCT01851330|168824998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84538311|NCT01851330|168824998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84538312|NCT01851330|168824998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
84538313|NCT01851330|168824998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|1.8|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||1.8|-8.3|
84538314|NCT01851330|168824998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|2.5|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||2.5|-7.2|
84538315|NCT01851330|168824998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||5.7|-3.9|
84538316|NCT02368314|168825011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
84538317|NCT01266031|168825030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Null hypothesis is: PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is: progression free survival (PFS) 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.||||0.26
84538318|NCT03106987|168825047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|0.868|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.868|0.372|0.0220
84538319|NCT03106987|168825047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.708|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.708|0.264|0.0023
84538320|NCT01256944|168825083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538321|NCT01256944|168825084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538322|NCT01256944|168825085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538323|NCT01256944|168825087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538324|NCT01256944|168825088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538325|NCT01256944|168825089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538326|NCT01256944|168825090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538327|NCT01256944|168825092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84538328|NCT01256944|168825093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
84723584|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
84538329|NCT00005957|168825094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) estimation is for Standard Breast Irradiation arm versus Breast Radiation plus regional radiation arm.|It was estimated that the actuarial five year survival of patients on the control arm of this trial would be 80% and a 5% increase in five year survival with experiment arm is clinically interesting to detect. A sample size of 1832 will ensure 80% power to detect such a difference with two-sided alpha of 0.05.||1.13|0.72|0.38
84538330|NCT00005957|168825095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.61|0.01
84538331|NCT02047734|168825096|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.768||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.768|0.506|<0.0001
84538332|NCT02047734|168825096|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.791||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.958||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.958|0.652|0.0167
84538333|NCT02047734|168825097|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.714||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.714|0.465|<0.0001
84538334|NCT02047734|168825097|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.657||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.813||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.813|0.531|0.0001
84538335|NCT02047734|168825098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.471||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.725||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.725|0.306|0.0006
84538336|NCT02047734|168825098|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.528||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.805||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model,|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.805|0.346|0.0030
84538337|NCT02047734|168825099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.537||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World) age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.537|0.711|0.8224
84538338|NCT02047734|168825099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.206||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.206|0.528|0.2849
84538339|NCT02047734|168825100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.435||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.305||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||2.305|0.893|0.1353
84538340|NCT02047734|168825100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.815||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.815|0.664|0.7154
84538341|NCT02047734|168825101|SUPERIORITY||Difference|9.4||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||15.8|2.9|0.0047
84538342|NCT02047734|168825101|SUPERIORITY||Difference|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||13.6|0.6|0.0320
84723585|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.1|0.4|
84538343|NCT02047734|168825102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.4||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.8|0.0|0.0466
84538344|NCT02047734|168825102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.1||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.5|-0.3|0.0581
84538345|NCT02047734|168825103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.244|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.363||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.363|0.125|<0.0001
84538346|NCT02047734|168825103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.224||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.342||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.342|0.106|0.0002
84538347|NCT02047734|168825104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.043||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.116|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means are based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.116|-0.030|0.2480
84538348|NCT02047734|168825104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.093||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.165|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.165|0.020|0.0123
84538349|NCT02047734|168825105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.345||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|2.943|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||2.943|-0.252|0.0988
84538350|NCT02047734|168825105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.849||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.44|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||3.440|0.258|0.0228
84538351|NCT02047734|168825105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.38||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.553|2.313|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.313|-1.553|0.6997
84538352|NCT02047734|168825105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.587||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.513|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.513|-1.339|0.5501
84538353|NCT02047734|168825107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
84538354|NCT02047734|168825107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
84538355|NCT01890434|168825125|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|16.7||||9e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||9.3|0.00009
84538356|NCT01890434|168825125|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|26.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.2||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||18.2|<0.0001
84538357|NCT01890434|168825125|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|32.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|24.5||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||24.5|<0.0001
84538358|NCT01890434|168825126|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.0||||5e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|12.1||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||12.1|0.00005
84538359|NCT01890434|168825126|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|36.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||26.3|<0.0001
84538360|NCT01890434|168825126|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|41.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.8||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||31.8|<0.0001
84538361|NCT01890434|168825131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.4|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI.||28.4|12.9|<0.0001
84538362|NCT01890434|168825131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|27.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 10%||||27.2|14.2|<0.0001
84538363|NCT01890434|168825133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%|Sensitivity Difference|5.7||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|14.9|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by majority BR.||14.9|-5.4|0.2733
84538364|NCT01890434|168825133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Sensitivity Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by investigator.||7.2|-8.6|1.0000
84538365|NCT01890434|168825135|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.0|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by majority BR.||17.0|4.1|0.0010
84538366|NCT01890434|168825135|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|7.8||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by investigator.||13.2|1.6|0.0094
84538367|NCT03898908|168825156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and Week 8||||0.015
84538368|NCT03898908|168825157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and W24||||0.754
84538369|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.9||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.9|-0.9|||MMRM analysis|||Comparison of adjusted means||-0.9|-2.9|0.0182
84538370|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.4|-0.2|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.2|-2.4|0.1205
84538371|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0931
84538372|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|0.6||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.7|||MMRM analysis|||||1.7|-0.5|0.4994
84538373|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|1.0||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|2.1|||MMRM analysis|||||2.1|-0.1|0.2295
84538374|NCT05199090|168825166|OTHER||adjusted means|-0.7||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM analysis|||||0.0|-1.3|0.2114
84538375|NCT03332979|168825220|OTHER|Multivariable regression analysis will be used to enable us to explore the impact of modifiable factors reflecting preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear||||Multivariable regression will be used to explore preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF. The analyses will use the MMCGI-SF as the dependent variable with five predictor variables (dementia knowledge \[DKAS\], Social support \[HLQ1\], Communication with healthcare professionals \[HLW4\], advance decisions and knowledge of end of life wishes of person with dementia. There will also be 10 confounders included in the model (gender of caregiver, living arrangement of person with dementia \[at home of a care home\], aged of person with dementia, dementia severity \[CDR\], change in closeness, religiosity \[DURAL\], deprivation and relationship of the carer to the person with dementia).|||<0.05
84538376|NCT05147324|168825232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84538377|NCT05147324|168825233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84538378|NCT05147324|168825241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
84538379|NCT02714426|168825268|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,33) = 5.57, p = .024, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. First-order Autoregressive was best (which specifies homogeneous variance over time but allows one correlation between occasions).||||.024
84538380|NCT02714426|168825269|OTHER|||||||0.333||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.96, p = .333, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.333
84538381|NCT02714426|168825271|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-8) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31.069) = 15.046, p = .001, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.001
84538382|NCT02714426|168825272|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.589, p = .0.448, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.448
84538383|NCT02714426|168825273|OTHER|||||||0.439||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31) = 0.616, p = 0.439, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.439
84538384|NCT01727726|168825274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.39|-2.56|0.0078
84538385|NCT01727726|168825274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||1.04|-1.63|0.6642
84538386|NCT01727726|168825275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.07|-0.52|0.1334
84538387|NCT01727726|168825275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.78|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.78|0.06|0.0237
84538388|NCT01727726|168825276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.76|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 2||-0.76|-2.29|0.0001
84538389|NCT01727726|168825276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.29|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 2||-0.29|-2.15|0.0103
84538390|NCT01727726|168825276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 4||-0.20|-2.15|0.0185
84538391|NCT01727726|168825276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.11|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 4||1.11|-1.27|0.8949
84538392|NCT01727726|168825277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||-0.01|-0.29|0.0350
84538393|NCT01727726|168825277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||0.12|-0.22|0.5601
84538394|NCT01727726|168825277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||-0.04|-0.35|0.0146
84538395|NCT01727726|168825277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||0.15|-0.23|0.7127
84538396|NCT01727726|168825278|OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.84|0.78|0.2242
84538397|NCT01727726|168825278|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.98|0.53|0.5998
84538398|NCT01727726|168825279|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||3.49|0.66|0.3321
84538399|NCT01727726|168825279|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.51||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.46|0.11|0.3917
84538400|NCT01727726|168825280|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.66|1.10|0.0032
84538401|NCT01727726|168825280|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.24||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.59|0.98|0.0898
84538402|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.56|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||0.56|-0.25|0.4480
84538403|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.02|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||1.02|0.03|0.0380
84538404|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||-0.01|-0.66|0.0436
84538405|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||0.84|0.03|0.0350
84538406|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0424
84538407|NCT01727726|168825282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||0.75|-0.09|0.1230
84538408|NCT00863772|168825287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||1.01|-0.44|0.434
84538409|NCT00863772|168825287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.79|-0.68|0.883
84538410|NCT00863772|168825288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.86|-0.59|0.720
84538411|NCT00863772|168825288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.74|-0.73|0.985
84538412|NCT00086281|168825328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.009
84538413|NCT00086281|168825328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0244
84538414|NCT00086281|168825328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0119
84538415|NCT00086281|168825328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5055||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.5055
84538416|NCT00086281|168825328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.3132
84538417|NCT02260570|168825423|SUPERIORITY||F value|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,1,60) = 24.1, p \< 0.0001, adjusted r\^2 = 0.275||||||<0.0001
84538418|NCT02260570|168825424|SUPERIORITY||F value|6.23||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,30) = 6.23, p = 0.0184, adjusted r\^2 = 0.144||||||0.0184
84538419|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.88||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.88|1.76|<.0001
84540457|NCT00535405|168831867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-5.5||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-5.5|-11.0|<0.001
84538420|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.0||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.00|1.81|<.0001
84538421|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.44||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.44|1.29|<.0001
84538422|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.33||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.33|2.20|<.0001
84538423|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|1.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.85|1.69|<.0001
84538424|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.06||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.06|1.85|<.0001
84538425|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|2.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.85|2.69|<.0001
84538426|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|2.67||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement - Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.67|2.49|<.0001
84538427|NCT03996447|168825425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|2.95||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.95|2.84|<.0001
84539754|NCT03668808|168829511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time 70-180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84538428|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
84538429|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.11|-0.04|<0.0001
84538430|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3||0.05|-0.01|<0.0001
84538431|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.03|-0.04|<0.0001
84538432|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.09|-0.05|<0.0001
84538433|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.08|0.01|<0.0001
84538434|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.07|-0.04|0.0001
84538435|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.03|<0.0001
84538436|NCT03996447|168825426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.15|0.03|<0.0001
84538437|NCT03888066|168825450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|-0.067|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Difference in adjusted mean changes (SE)||-0.067|-0.128|< 0.001
84538438|NCT03888066|168825451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
84538439|NCT03888066|168825452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
84538440|NCT03888066|168825453|SUPERIORITY||Annualized event rate ratio|0.658|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.81|||Negative binomial model adjusted for cov|||"NBMAC Annualized event RR patiromer vs placebo.~NBMAC adjusted for geographical region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR. Rate ratio less than 1 favors patiromer.~NBMAC=Negative binomial model adjusted for covariates; RR=Rate Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.81|0.534|< 0.001
84538441|NCT03888066|168825454|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.526|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|1.906|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers."||1.906|1.231|<0.001
84538442|NCT03888066|168825454|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|0.914|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.578|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio CV death and hospitalization.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.578|0.526|= 0.744
84540458|NCT00535405|168831868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001||95.0|7.64|20.83||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|"Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.~Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)"|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||20.83|7.64|<0.001
84538443|NCT03888066|168825455|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.248|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.564|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.564|1.003|= 0.048
84538444|NCT02207634|168825456|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.19, calculated as 20% of the observed common standard deviation, which was estimated from observations in the placebo group by a repeated measured mixed-effect linear model with visit as a covariate. If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between the placebo and evolocumab group in mean change from baseline for Z score averaged across the visits was less than the non-inferiority margin non-inferiority criteria were met.|Treatment Difference|0.0072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0664|0.0808||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \[LDL-C\] and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM strategy index Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0808|-0.0664|
84538445|NCT02207634|168825457|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.1045||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM between-errors Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1045|-0.0378|
84538446|NCT02207634|168825458|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.0873||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline PAL total errors adjusted Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0873|-0.0422|
84538447|NCT02207634|168825459|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.1477||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference ( placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline RTI median 5-choice reaction time Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1477|-0.0022|
84538448|NCT02129608|168825479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
84538449|NCT02129608|168825479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.436
84538450|NCT02129608|168825480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070
84538451|NCT02129608|168825480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.950
84538452|NCT00451204|168825481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 mo, time since dx, previous glatiramer acetate tx, and previous interferon beta tx.||||1.05|0.37|0.077
84538453|NCT00451204|168825482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.08|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.08|0.39|0.098
84538454|NCT00451204|168825483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.09|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.09|0.36|0.096
84538455|NCT00451204|168825484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.17|0.42|0.179
84538456|NCT00451204|168825485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.88|0.28|0.016
84538457|NCT00451204|168825486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.86|0.31|0.012
84538458|NCT00976911|168825512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8||||||||24.8|6.5|
84538459|NCT00976911|168825512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|unstratified analysis||||||0.0010
84538460|NCT00976911|168825512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
84538461|NCT00976911|168825513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.9||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by unstratified Cox regression model.|||0.900|0.225|0.0202
84538462|NCT00976911|168825513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0081
84538463|NCT00976911|168825515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.485|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (less than \[\<\] 3 or 3-6 months). Cox regression model was used to determine the hazard ratio.|||0.485|0.296|<0.0001
84538464|NCT00976911|168825515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.577|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.577|0.366|<0.0001
84538465|NCT00976911|168825515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Unstratified analysis||||||<0.0001
84538466|NCT00976911|168825515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval.||||||<0.0001
84538467|NCT00976911|168825516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.059||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.059|0.655|0.1360
84538468|NCT00976911|168825516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|||||Unstratified analysis|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0715
84538469|NCT00976911|168825516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.116||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Log Rank|||||1.116|0.678|0.2711
84538470|NCT00976911|168825516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0890
84538471|NCT00976911|168825517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus Week 8/9||21.4|-3.8|0.1859
84538472|NCT00976911|168825517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|3.5||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 16/18||20.9|-14|0.8309
84538473|NCT00976911|168825517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|9.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|34.1|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 24||34.1|-15|0.5790
84538474|NCT00976911|168825517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.8||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|30.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 30||30.6|-40|0.7339
84538475|NCT01191944|168825518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin of -4 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9192|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.047|2.566||one-sided test relative to NI margin of -4|ANCOVA|adjusted for treatment, centre and baseline|Pramipexole IR minus Pramipexole ER, Pramipexole ER non inferior to Pramipexole IR if lower limit of confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is higher than NI margin.|The null hypothesis (H0) states that the mean change from baseline to Week 18 (or last observation carried forward \[LOCF\]) in the UPDRS II+III score for the treatment group pramipexole ER is inferior to the mean change for the treatment group pramipexole IR.||2.566|-1.047|<0.0001
84538476|NCT01191944|168825519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1836||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.787|3.826|||ANCOVA|||||3.826|-4.787|0.8261
84538477|NCT01191944|168825520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.8698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.592|||ANCOVA|||||0.592|-0.699|0.8698
84538478|NCT01191944|168825521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7902||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7902
84538479|NCT01191944|168825522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7845||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.255|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-8.255|0.3223
84538480|NCT01191944|168825523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5581||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|6.583|||ANCOVA|||||6.583|0.437|0.0254
84538481|NCT01191944|168825524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2658||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.090|-3.848|0.7843
84538482|NCT01191944|168825525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4901||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|1.335|||ANCOVA|||||1.335|-0.598|0.4529
84538483|NCT01191944|168825526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4437||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|0.345|||ANCOVA|||||0.345|-1.405|0.2338
84538484|NCT01191944|168825527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2509||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.067|0.0263
84538485|NCT01191944|168825528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3727||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.766|||ANCOVA|||||0.766|-0.704|0.9337
84538486|NCT01191944|168825529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0798||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.188|||ANCOVA|||||0.188|-0.127|0.6995
84538487|NCT01191944|168825530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3170
84538488|NCT01191944|168825531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4756
84538489|NCT01191944|168825532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1051
84538490|NCT01191944|168825533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3138||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.771|||ANCOVA|||||0.771|-0.463|0.6237
84538491|NCT01191944|168825535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7088||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|2.021|||ANCOVA|||||2.021|-0.765|0.3760
84538492|NCT02114385|168825552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.45|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 6||1.45|1.04|<0.001
84538493|NCT02114385|168825552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 11||1.04|0.76|<0.001
84538494|NCT02114385|168825552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.21|0.89|<0.001
84538495|NCT02114385|168825552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.37|0.91|<0.001
84538496|NCT02892149|168825673|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.23|
84538497|NCT02892149|168825674|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.117|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.117|0.828|0.4745
84538498|NCT02892149|168825674|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
84538499|NCT02892149|168825675|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.12||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.12|-0.25|
84538500|NCT02892149|168825676|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.097|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.097|0.832|0.3718
84538501|NCT02892149|168825676|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
84538502|NCT02892149|168825677|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.131|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.131|0.777|0.3875
84538503|NCT02892149|168825677|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
84538504|NCT02892149|168825678|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.203|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.203|0.761|0.6281
84538505|NCT02892149|168825678|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
84538506|NCT02892149|168825679|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.136|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.136|0.816|0.5811
84538507|NCT02892149|168825679|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
84538508|NCT00711880|168825751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||The change in Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain scores was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain score as a covariate.||-0.32|-1.59|0.004
84538509|NCT00711880|168825752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-2.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in Neuropathic Pain Scale scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Neuropathic Pain Scale score as a covariate.||-2.23|-13.83|0.007
84538510|NCT00711880|168825753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change in sleep disturbance scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline sleep disturbance score as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.67|0.001
84538511|NCT00711880|168825754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in total Pain Disability Index scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total Pain Disability Index score as a covariate.||-2.09|-9.62|0.003
84538512|NCT00711880|168825755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change in Dynamic Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Dynamic Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.60|0.042
84538513|NCT00711880|168825756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|12.73||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in Static Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Static Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||29.85|-4.40|0.144
84538514|NCT00711880|168825757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.75||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in total General Health Questionnaire score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total General Health Questionnaire score as a covariate.||1.35|-2.84|0.483
84538515|NCT00711880|168825758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change in selective reminding test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline selective reminding test score as a covariate.||0.50|-0.46|0.924
84538516|NCT00711880|168825759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.53||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in 10/36 spatial recall test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline 10/36 spatial recall test score as a covariate.||1.38|-0.31|0.214
84538517|NCT00711880|168825760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.15||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in symbol digit modalities test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline symbol digit modalities test score as a covariate.||0.85|-5.15|0.158
84538518|NCT00711880|168825761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.28||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|7.04|||ANCOVA|||The change in paced auditory serial addition task score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline paced auditory serial addition task test score as a covariate.||7.04|-4.47|0.656
84538519|NCT00711880|168825762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.39|||ANCOVA|||The change in word list generation test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline word list generation test score as a covariate.||3.39|-3.56|0.962
84538520|NCT00711880|168825763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|48.12|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||48.12|16.40|<0.001
84538521|NCT00711880|168825765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|29.03||||0.001||95.0|13.39|44.67|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||44.67|13.39|0.001
84538522|NCT04841577|168825767|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine is ≤ (equal to or smaller than) 1.5.|Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.44||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-A Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-A neutralizing antibodies The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.44|1.12|
84538523|NCT04841577|168825768|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35||||||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.35|1.02|
84538524|NCT04841577|168825768|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44||||||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.44|1.03|
84723586|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
84538525|NCT04841577|168825768|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||||||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.32|1.04|
84538526|NCT04841577|168825768|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26||||||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.26|0.95|
84723587|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
84538527|NCT04841577|168825769|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.30|-4.13|
84538528|NCT04841577|168825769|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|9.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.83|-0.77|
84538529|NCT04841577|168825769|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|10.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||10.28|-2.21|
84538530|NCT04841577|168825769|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||6.90|-6.07|
84538531|NCT04841577|168825771|OTHER||Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-B Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-B neutralizing antibodies. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.51|1.09|
84538532|NCT02054338|168825782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm to describe time-dependent parameters. Stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the 2 treatment arms. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression were applied to the progression-free survival and to the tumour response, respectively.||1.20|0.91|0.54
84538533|NCT02054338|168825783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.87|0.86
84538534|NCT02054338|168825784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.4|||Log Rank|||||14.4|8.7|0.10
84538535|NCT03837743|168825809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 4)||||0.022
84538536|NCT03837743|168825809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 8)||||0.296
84538537|NCT02257385|168825815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis:the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium/vilanterol minus indacaterol + tiotropium bromide) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium/vilanterol may be deemed statistically non-inferior to indacaterol plus tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, statistical superiority would have been established.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.030|-0.029|0.964
84538538|NCT02257385|168825816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.008|-0.054|0.145
84538539|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.5|93.67|
84538540|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100|96.65|
84538541|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
84538542|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
84538543|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.71|98.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||98.02|89.71|
84538544|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||98.56|90.94|
84538545|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.47|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.47|
84538546|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
84538547|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
84538548|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|99.83|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||99.83|94.80|
84538549|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.02|91.93|
84538550|NCT03968978|168825833|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
84538551|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.50|93.67|
84538552|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.65|
84538553|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
84538554|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
84538555|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.04|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.04|92.80|
84538556|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.85|99.83|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.83|94.85|
84538557|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.46|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.46|
84538558|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.38|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.38|
84538559|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
84538560|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.44|100.0|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.44|
84538561|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||100.00|96.37|
84538562|NCT03968978|168825834|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.37|
84538563|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.33|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||6.33|0.50|
84538564|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.35|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||3.35|0|
84538565|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||3.37|0|
84538566|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||3.37|0|
84538567|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.92|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||7.92|0.96|
84538568|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.15|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||5.15|0.17|
84538569|NCT03968978|168825835|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.53|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||3.53|0|
84538570|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.99|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||7.99|0.97|
84538571|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.68|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||6.68|0.52|
84538572|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.56|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||3.56|0|
84538573|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||3.63|0|
84538574|NCT03968978|168825835|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||3.63|0|
84538575|NCT01004003|168825856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.565|||||"Hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.565|0.805|
84538576|NCT01004003|168825859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.343|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.343|0.779|
84538577|NCT01004003|168825860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.473|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.473|0.522|
84538578|NCT00315731|168825870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-120)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Ratio of AUC(0-120) is the ratio of AUC(0-120) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.12|0.85|
84538579|NCT00315731|168825871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-168)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.11|||||Ratio of AUC(0-168) is the ratio of AUC(0-168) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.11|0.83|
84538580|NCT00315731|168825872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0 to infinity)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.1||||||||1.10|0.78|
84538581|NCT00315731|168825873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of Cmax|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||||||||1.11|0.87|
84538582|NCT03597464|168825882|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||4.05|1.30|0.004
84538583|NCT03597464|168825882|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||3.83|1.25|0.006
84538584|NCT03597464|168825882|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||3.16|1.04|0.035
84538585|NCT03597464|168825882|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.92|1.28|0.005
84538586|NCT03597464|168825882|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||3.03|1.00|0.051
84538587|NCT03597464|168825883|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||8.46|1.88|<0.001
84538588|NCT03597464|168825883|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||4.88|1.28|0.008
84538589|NCT03597464|168825883|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||4.91|1.46|0.001
84538590|NCT03597464|168825883|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.34|1.03|0.040
84538591|NCT03597464|168825883|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||2.58|0.75|0.290
84538592|NCT03597464|168825884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Number of subjects with adequate renal response. This model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline urine protein creatinine ratio (UPCR), biopsy class, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use at baseline and region. An odds ratio \< unity indicates benefit for voclosporin.||0.99|0.32|0.045
84538593|NCT03597464|168825885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.8||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.5|-2.1|0.238
84538594|NCT03597464|168825885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.4|-1.8|0.215
84538595|NCT03597464|168825885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.5|-1.8|0.246
84538596|NCT03597464|168825886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.26|-1.05|0.001
84538597|NCT03597464|168825886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.63||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.07|-1.20|0.029
84538598|NCT03597464|168825886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.29|-1.24|0.002
84538599|NCT03597464|168825886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-0.33|-1.49|0.002
84538600|NCT03597464|168825886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-0.10|-1.06|0.106
84538601|NCT03597464|168825887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.1|-5.3|0.041
84538602|NCT03597464|168825887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-1.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.6|-5.1|0.292
84538603|NCT03597464|168825887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||1.8|-6.1|0.282
84538604|NCT03597464|168825887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.9||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||5.1|-3.2|0.659
84538605|NCT03597464|168825887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|1.8||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||6.4|-2.8|0.438
84538606|NCT03597464|168825888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-67.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.4|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-25.1|-110.4|0.002
84538607|NCT03597464|168825888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-87.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.2|-24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-24.2|-151.2|0.007
84538608|NCT03597464|168825888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-47.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.8|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-3.3|-90.8|0.035
84538609|NCT03597464|168825888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-73.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.5|-22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-22.6|-123.5|0.005
84538610|NCT03597464|168825888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-19.0||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.7|41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||41.7|-79.7|0.537
84538611|NCT03597464|168825889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||0.134|0.035|<0.001
84538612|NCT03597464|168825889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.051||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.131|-0.029|0.209
84538613|NCT03597464|168825889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.057||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.178|-0.064|0.353
84538614|NCT03597464|168825889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.036||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||0.105|-0.176|0.616
84538615|NCT03597464|168825889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.077||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.094|-0.248|0.372
84538616|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER|||||||0.158|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to BRFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis on BRFS was based on 61 BR events (comprised of 35 BR events in the active surveillance arm and 26 BR events in the triptorelin arm).|||0.158
84538617|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute hazards ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||1.09|0.38|0.100
84538618|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.79|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between countries: Russia compared to China.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and country: p=0.970.|4.79|0.46|0.502
84538619|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and centre: p=0.241.|||0.671
84538620|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of =7 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and Gleason score: p=0.272.|6.39|0.87|0.093
84538621|NCT01753297|168825914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.55|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of ≥8 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||5.55|0.74|0.168
84538622|NCT01753297|168825916|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to EFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 2 EFS events in the active surveillance arm and 3 EFS events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.639
84538623|NCT01753297|168825916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.59|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||9.59|0.24|0.653
84538624|NCT01753297|168825916|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.999
84538625|NCT01753297|168825916|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||1.000
84538626|NCT01753297|168825916|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.583
84538627|NCT01753297|168825918|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to OS between both treatment groups.|1 death occurred in the active surveillance arm and 2 deaths occurred in the triptorelin arm.|||0.557
84538628|NCT01753297|168825921|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare PSADT between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 9 PSADT events in the active surveillance arm and 6 PSADT events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.525
84538629|NCT01753297|168825921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.73|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||6.73|0.44|0.435
84538630|NCT01753297|168825921|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.761
84538631|NCT01753297|168825921|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.652
84538632|NCT01753297|168825921|OTHER|||||||0.726|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.726
84538633|NCT00230178|168825927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|21.0||||0.0009||95.0|8.6|32.7|||Wilson's method|||||32.7|8.6|0.0009
84538634|NCT00230178|168825927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|12.3||||0.0632||95.0|-0.9|25.0|||Wilson's method|||||25.0|-0.9|0.0632
84538635|NCT00230178|168825928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84538636|NCT00230178|168825928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
84538637|NCT00447876|168825953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Fisher Exact|||The responders rate at Week 6 was compared between treatment groups by a two-sided Fisher exact test.||0.46|-0.06|=0.182
84538638|NCT00447876|168825954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Gerbershagen's Global scores were compared at Week 18 using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis of variance statistic with adjustment to the baseline score.||||=0.222
84538639|NCT00447876|168825956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.837|||=|0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|13.266|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||13.266|-30.940|=0.423
84538640|NCT00447876|168825958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.173|||=|0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.294|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||16.294|-24.640|=0.682
84538641|NCT00447876|168825960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.066|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|12.779|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pain threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||12.779|-28.910|=0.438
84538642|NCT00447876|168825962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.594|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.575|15.762|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pressure threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||15.762|-14.575|=0.937
84538643|NCT00447876|168825963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.3||The difference (most affected side - control side) in ROM for the dorsal extension was analyzed using a fixed effect ANCOVA, using Week 18 results as the dependent variable and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-6.8|=0.800
84538644|NCT00447876|168825964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.862|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.862
84538645|NCT00447876|168825964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.317
84538646|NCT00447876|168825964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.525|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.525
84538647|NCT00447876|168825964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.931
84538648|NCT00447876|168825964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.353|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.353
84538649|NCT00447876|168825965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.882|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.882
84538650|NCT00447876|168825965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.489|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.489
84538651|NCT00447876|168825965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.66|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.660
84538652|NCT00447876|168825965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.485|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.485
84538653|NCT00447876|168825965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.392|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.392
84538654|NCT00789035|168825985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.29||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo|||-0.29|-0.74|<0.0001
84538655|NCT00789035|168825985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.35|-0.80|<0.0001
84538656|NCT00789035|168825985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.5||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.94|<0.0001
84538657|NCT01778634|168826020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|22.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.27|2.53|<0.0001
84538658|NCT01778634|168826021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link|||0.29|-0.08|0.28
84538659|NCT01778634|168826022|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins||||||0.11|||||||GEE|||||||0.11
84538660|NCT01778634|168826023|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins. The counts provided refer to to the numbers actually observed. The analysis to determine the p value accounted for the missing 11 patients using multiple imputation.||||||0.62|||||||GEE with multiple imputation|||||||0.62
84538661|NCT01778634|168826024|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84538662|NCT01778634|168826025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
84538663|NCT01778634|168826026|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|26.0||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon test after multiple outputation||Bootstrap|||26|-15|0.94
84538664|NCT01778634|168826027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
84538665|NCT01778634|168826028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.44|0.88
84538666|NCT01778634|168826029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
84538667|NCT01778634|168826031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
84538668|NCT01778634|168826032|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84538669|NCT01778634|168826033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
84538670|NCT01778634|168826034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
84538671|NCT01778634|168826035|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84538672|NCT01778634|168826036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.33
84538673|NCT01778634|168826037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84538674|NCT00687830|168826041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84538675|NCT00687830|168826042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
84538676|NCT00101283|168826089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|41.7|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Carboplatin arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||41.7|5.4|
84538677|NCT00101283|168826089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|20.6|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Gemcitabine arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||20.6|0.0|
84538678|NCT00704132|168826116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Mean|-111.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-158.0|-63.9|||ANCOVA||Sitagliptin minus Placebo|||-63.9|-158.0|<0.001
84538679|NCT02585778|168826212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-35.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-35.0|-60.7|<0.0001
84538680|NCT02585778|168826212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-43.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-43.6|-54.4|<0.0001
84538681|NCT02585778|168826214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing procedure was followed for T1DM and T2DM participants separately.||-37.9|-63.4|<0.0001
84538682|NCT02585778|168826214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-46.4|-56.9|<0.0001
84538683|NCT02585778|168826215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-35.5|-61.2|<0.0001
84538684|NCT02585778|168826215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-40.4|-50.9|<0.0001
84538685|NCT02585778|168826216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-32.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.8|-56.9|<0.0001
84538686|NCT02585778|168826216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-45.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-45.3|-55.2|<0.0001
84538687|NCT02585778|168826217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-30.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-30.5|-54.9|<0.0001
84538688|NCT02585778|168826217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
84538689|NCT02585778|168826218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-31.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-31.3|-54.2|<0.0001
84538690|NCT02585778|168826218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-33.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-33.9|-43.4|<0.0001
84538691|NCT02585778|168826219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-28.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-28.7|-49.4|<0.0001
84538692|NCT02585778|168826219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-32.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.5|-40.9|<0.0001
84538693|NCT02585778|168826220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-20.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-20.7|-37.8|<0.0001
84538694|NCT02585778|168826220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-24.1|-31.2|<0.0001
84538695|NCT02585778|168826221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|1041.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||1041.8|13.1|<0.0001
84538696|NCT02585778|168826221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|196.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||196.1|36.5|<0.0001
84538697|NCT02585778|168826222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|168.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||168.3|16.6|<0.0001
84538698|NCT02585778|168826223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|137.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||137.4|8.0|<0.0001
84538699|NCT02585778|168826223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|51.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||51.5|14.2|<0.0001
84538700|NCT02585778|168826224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|473.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||473.7|6.5|0.0002
84538701|NCT02585778|168826224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|103.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|433.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||433.1|24.6|<0.0001
84538702|NCT02585778|168826225|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-6.0|-31.4|0.0039
84538703|NCT02585778|168826225|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-13.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-13.2|-23.7|<0.0001
84538704|NCT02585778|168826226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||12.0|-4.2|0.3434
84538705|NCT02585778|168826226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||7.7|1.1|0.0100
84538706|NCT02585778|168826227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||0.9|-12.3|0.0902
84538707|NCT01044264|168826251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|BE of the test to reference in the per protocol population|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.47|113.54|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||113.54|92.47|
84538708|NCT02686138|168826283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538709|NCT02686138|168826284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538710|NCT02686138|168826285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
84538711|NCT02686138|168826286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84538712|NCT02686138|168826287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
84538713|NCT02686138|168826288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
84538714|NCT02686138|168826289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538715|NCT02686138|168826290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538716|NCT02686138|168826291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
84538717|NCT01685840|168826292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||A sample size of 1100 patients was expected to provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference in the primary endpoint with an assumed type I error rate of 0.05, 2-sided. Analysis was adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, NT-proBNP and DM.|Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.79|0.88
84538718|NCT01685840|168826293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.62|0.37
84538719|NCT01685840|168826294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|39.0|||Bang-Tsiatis Partitioned Estimator|||||39|-20|0.53
84538720|NCT01685840|168826295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.65|0.75
84538721|NCT01685840|168826296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.82|0.76
84538722|NCT01685840|168826297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Anderson-Gill Intensity Model|||||1.72|0.97|0.08
84538723|NCT01685840|168826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.636
84538724|NCT01685840|168826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||||0.628
84538725|NCT01685840|168826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||||0.586
84538726|NCT01685840|168826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||||0.669
84538727|NCT01685840|168826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||||0.949
84538728|NCT01685840|168826299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|2.947||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.947|-1.188|0.404
84538729|NCT01685840|168826299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|3.836||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.836|-0.881|0.219
84538730|NCT01685840|168826299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.099||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|4.63||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.630|-0.433|0.104
84538731|NCT01685840|168826299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.999||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.253|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.250|-1.253|0.228
84538732|NCT01685840|168826300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.06||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.060|-0.025|0.421
84538733|NCT01685840|168826300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.074||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||0.074|-0.018|0.239
84538734|NCT01685840|168826300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||0.070|-0.028|0.402
84538735|NCT01685840|168826300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.076||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||0.076|-0.057|0.780
84538736|NCT01685840|168826301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.902|1.64||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.640|-5.902|0.268
84538737|NCT01685840|168826301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.069||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.921|5.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||5.058|-2.921|0.599
84538738|NCT01685840|168826301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|3.707||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.707|-4.486|0.852
84538739|NCT01685840|168826301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.343||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.708|2.022||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||2.022|-8.708|0.221
84538740|NCT01685840|168826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.816||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.999|2.367||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.367|-3.999|0.615
84538741|NCT01685840|168826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.977|3.482||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.482|-2.977|0.878
84538742|NCT01685840|168826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.406||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.989|2.178||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.178|-4.989|0.441
84538743|NCT01685840|168826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.091||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.673|5.856||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.856|-3.673|0.653
84538744|NCT01685840|168826303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.226||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.097|0.645||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.645|-3.097|0.199
84538745|NCT01685840|168826303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.742||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.735|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||1.250|-2.735|0.465
84538746|NCT01685840|168826303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|1.97||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||1.970|-2.119|0.943
84538747|NCT01685840|168826303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|4.241||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||4.241|-1.286|0.294
84538748|NCT01685840|168826304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.579||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.527|1.369||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.369|-4.527|0.294
84538749|NCT01685840|168826304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.946||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|2.203||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.203|-4.096|0.555
84538750|NCT01685840|168826304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.798||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.178|2.583||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.583|-4.178|0.643
84538751|NCT01685840|168826304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.767|3.472||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||3.472|-4.767|0.757
84538752|NCT01685840|168826305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.102|4.133||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||4.133|-5.102|0.837
84538753|NCT01685840|168826305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.693||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.662|2.276||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.276|-7.662|0.288
84538754|NCT01685840|168826305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.539||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|3.732||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.732|-6.810|0.567
84538755|NCT01685840|168826305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.512||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.394|9.419||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||9.419|-4.394|0.475
84538756|NCT01685840|168826306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.057||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.364||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||6.364|-4.250|0.696
84538757|NCT01685840|168826306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.966||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.715|7.647||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.647|-3.715|0.497
84538758|NCT01685840|168826306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.564||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|12.673||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||12.673|0.456|0.035
84538759|NCT01685840|168826306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.247|10.961||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||10.961|-5.247|0.488
84538760|NCT01685840|168826307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.383|3.417||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.417|-3.383|0.992
84538761|NCT01685840|168826307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.409|3.969||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.969|-3.409|0.882
84538762|NCT01685840|168826307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.973|4.782||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.782|-2.973|0.647
84538763|NCT01685840|168826307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.322||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.894|5.538||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.538|-4.894|0.903
84538764|NCT01685840|168826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospitalizations||||0.74
84538765|NCT01685840|168826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ER only events||||0.45
84538766|NCT01685840|168826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rehab facilities||||0.67
84538767|NCT01685840|168826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total admissions||||0.47
84538768|NCT01685840|168826309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital Costs||||0.88
84538769|NCT01685840|168826309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physician Fees||||0.69
84538770|NCT01685840|168826309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cost||||0.88
84538771|NCT02027428|168826358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.19|0.61|0.3486
84538772|NCT02027428|168826359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0365
84538773|NCT02027428|168826360|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|1.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.519||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. The rate ratio and its 95% CI were based on the non-stratified analysis.||1.519|0.948|0.0870
84538774|NCT02027428|168826361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.22|0.62|0.4164
84540459|NCT00535405|168831868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001||95.0|2.51|5.85||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.85|2.51|<0.001
84538775|NCT02027428|168826362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0381
84538776|NCT02027428|168826363|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|3.15||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|13.574||5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|||13.574|0.733|0.0978
84538777|NCT02027428|168826364|SUPERIORITY||disease control rate ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.007|||||Disease control rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|The rate ratio and its 95% confidence interval are based on non-stratified analysis.||1.007|0.978|
84538778|NCT02027428|168826366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.47|||||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.47|0.59|
84538779|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sevoflurane administration in developing postoperative headache||5.13|2.04|0.001
84538780|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Smoking as a factor for developing postoperative headache||2.84|1.19|0.006
84538781|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative hypotension associated with postoperative headache in total sample||3.66|1.22|0.008
84538782|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Female gender as a factor for developing postoperative headache||3.15|1.08|0.024
84538783|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of female gender and postoperative headache||13.17|1.58|0.005
84538784|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative headache||9.72|1.48|0.006
84538785|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of caffeine consumption and postoperative headache||14.06|1.06|0.041
84538786|NCT02374346|168826380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test.Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of sevoflurane administration and postoperative headache||9.95|1.82|0.001
84538787|NCT02391987|168826381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.73
84538788|NCT02391987|168826382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
84538789|NCT02391987|168826383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
84538790|NCT03097991|168826384|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.32
84538791|NCT03097991|168826384|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.53
84538792|NCT03097991|168826385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.07
84538793|NCT03097991|168826385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Group Effect|||.69
84538794|NCT03097991|168826386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.22
84538795|NCT03097991|168826386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect|||||.53
84538796|NCT03097991|168826387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.33
84538797|NCT03097991|168826387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.69
84538798|NCT03097991|168826388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
84538799|NCT03097991|168826388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
84538800|NCT03097991|168826389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
84538801|NCT03097991|168826389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.85
84538802|NCT03097991|168826390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
84538803|NCT03097991|168826390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
84538804|NCT03097991|168826391|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint effect|||||.85
84538805|NCT03097991|168826391|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
84538806|NCT03097991|168826392|SUPERIORITY||Slope|21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.001
84538807|NCT03097991|168826392|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
84538808|NCT03097991|168826393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects|Group|||||<.05
84538809|NCT03097991|168826393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.05
84538810|NCT03097991|168826394|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|"We analyzed the CTS scales Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault. Inspection of the latter in the raw data and descriptives showed extremely consistent selection of the lowest value of the scale (no incidents of assault) across all respondents, so we did not conduct inferential tests."||||.39
84538811|NCT03097991|168826394|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||<.005
84538812|NCT03097991|168826395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.24
84538813|NCT03097991|168826395|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA found a main effect of group, F(1, 155) = 6.85, p \< .05, η2G = .04.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Group|||||<.05
84538814|NCT03097991|168826396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.02
84538815|NCT03097991|168826396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.56
84538816|NCT03097991|168826397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.30
84538817|NCT03097991|168826397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.36
84538818|NCT03097991|168826398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.17
84538819|NCT03097991|168826398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
84538820|NCT03097991|168826399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
84538821|NCT03097991|168826399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||.38
84538822|NCT03097991|168826400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.07
84538823|NCT03097991|168826400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
84538824|NCT03097991|168826401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.92
84538825|NCT03097991|168826401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.05
84538826|NCT03097991|168826402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.81
84538827|NCT03097991|168826402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.34
84538828|NCT03097991|168826403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.76
84538829|NCT03097991|168826403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.53
84538830|NCT03097991|168826404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
84538831|NCT03097991|168826404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.95
84538832|NCT03097991|168826405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.47
84538833|NCT03097991|168826405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
84538834|NCT03097991|168826406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.68
84538835|NCT03097991|168826406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
84538836|NCT03097991|168826407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.65
84538837|NCT03097991|168826407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.50
84538838|NCT03097991|168826408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
84538839|NCT03097991|168826408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.27
84538840|NCT03097991|168826409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.01
84538841|NCT03097991|168826409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.58
84538842|NCT01613313|168826508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||No p value||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power justification has been implemented. Descriptive data provided for each arm.||||
84538843|NCT01613313|168826509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power of justification was implemented. Descriptive statistics was provided for each arm only.||||
84538844|NCT00708227|168826632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
84538845|NCT00708227|168826633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
84538846|NCT00708227|168826634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
84538847|NCT04007991|168826638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-0.79||Change from baseline in YGTSS score as a continuous variable was based on mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured covariance matrix.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-6.09|=0.011
84538848|NCT03104400|168826743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|40.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.7|28.2|<0.0001
84538849|NCT03104400|168826743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|36.3|<0.0001
84538850|NCT03104400|168826744|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.35|<0.0001
84538851|NCT03104400|168826744|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.27|-0.40|<0.0001
84538852|NCT03104400|168826745|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|24.7|<0.0001
84538853|NCT03104400|168826745|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|36.7|<0.0001
84538854|NCT03104400|168826746|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.8|32.8|<0.0001
84538855|NCT03104400|168826746|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|32.5|<0.0001
84538856|NCT03104400|168826747|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.44|0.0002
84723588|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
84723589|NCT00749944|169199555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
84538857|NCT03104400|168826747|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.0069
84538858|NCT03104400|168826748|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|29.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.8|18.8|<0.0001
84538859|NCT03104400|168826748|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.8|27.4|<0.0001
84538860|NCT03104400|168826749|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.7|13.0|<0.0001
84538861|NCT03104400|168826749|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|16.9|<0.0001
84538862|NCT03104400|168826750|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|119.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.987|147.942|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||147.942|97.987|<0.0001
84538863|NCT03104400|168826750|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|146.604|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.817|180.398|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||180.398|122.817|<0.0001
84538864|NCT03104400|168826751|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.67|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.67|3.67|<0.0001
84538865|NCT03104400|168826751|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|6.72|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.72|4.71|<0.0001
84538866|NCT03104400|168826752|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.7|2.4|<0.0001
84538867|NCT03104400|168826752|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.5|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.5|3.1|<0.0001
84538868|NCT03104400|168826753|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|5.6||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||11.8|-0.6|0.0815
84538869|NCT03104400|168826753|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||19.4|7.5|<0.0001
84538870|NCT03104400|168826754|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|47.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.9|25.7|<0.0001
84538871|NCT03104400|168826754|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|50.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|28.8|<0.0001
84538872|NCT03104400|168826755|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.3|-0.3|0.8970
84538873|NCT03104400|168826755|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
84538874|NCT03104400|168826756|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.01|-0.15|0.0162
84538875|NCT03104400|168826756|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.07|-0.20|<0.0001
84538876|NCT03104400|168826757|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.6||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-14.6|-19.6|<0.0001
84538877|NCT03104400|168826757|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-17.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.3|-22.3|<0.0001
84538878|NCT03104400|168826758|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|29.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.7|<0.0001
84538879|NCT03104400|168826758|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|32.8|<0.0001
84538880|NCT03104400|168826759|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|17.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.0|9.5|<0.0001
84538881|NCT03104400|168826759|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|18.5|<0.0001
84538882|NCT03104400|168826760|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|21.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|10.9|<0.0001
84538883|NCT03104400|168826760|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|20.7|<0.0001
84538884|NCT01549405|168826777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.002
84538885|NCT01549405|168826778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.0||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.98|132.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||132.4|52.98|0.000
84538886|NCT04315506|168826847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72||The analysis was a two-intervention arm comparison. Adjustments for multiple tests and outcomes were not required.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of quitting in Enuf Snuff group (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|||1.72|0.75|0.5384
84538887|NCT04315506|168826848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1057||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5808|0.3693||P-value above is for the treatment-by-time squared term in the statistical model for longitudinal data; quadratic change in outcome determined, compared trajectory of outcome change in EnufSnuff (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted.|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.3693|-0.5808|0.6624
84538888|NCT04315506|168826849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0946||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0609|0.2501||A multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was applied. The p-value provided above was for the treatment-by-time effect used to test for differences in the trajectory of change in craving reduction between the two treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted. (trajectory analysis)|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.2501|-0.0609|0.2320
84538889|NCT02661217|168826850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.896||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.021|0.786|0.099
84538890|NCT02661217|168826851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.906||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.993|0.827|0.034
84538891|NCT02661217|168826852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.006|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.006|0.916|0.089
84538892|NCT02032680|168826863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The two treatments were compared to see whether participants in one achieved a higher level on their goals (i.e., the maximum level achieved on the goal).||||0.3749
84538893|NCT00719615|168826868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only risk factors significant at the 0.10 level in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model.|Fisher Exact|||Patient characteristics for each group were assessed using descriptive statistics, including medians, range, frequencies, and proportions. Categorical outcomes were compared between the 3 groups using a Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression modeling procedure was used to compare the odds of a low vitamin D levels between patient groups while adjusting for other risk factors: gender, age, BMI, season, and TNM staging.||||<0.05
84538894|NCT04238650|168826869|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.11||||||||1.11|0.981|
84538895|NCT04238650|168826870|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.24||||||||1.24|1.03|
84538896|NCT04238650|168826871|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUClast was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.11||||||||1.11|0.997|
84538897|NCT03633825|168826878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|1.03|=.02
84538898|NCT03633825|168826879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.91|=.19
84538899|NCT05246670|168826880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|5.74||||||||5.74|-1.33|
84538900|NCT05246670|168826880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|5.41||||||||5.41|-5.23|
84538901|NCT05246670|168826880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.09||||||||7.09|-2.87|
84538902|NCT05124691|168826908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
84538903|NCT05124691|168826908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
84538904|NCT05124691|168826908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
84538905|NCT05124691|168826911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||<0.0001
84538906|NCT05124691|168826911|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||=0.0007
84538907|NCT05124691|168826914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
84538908|NCT05124691|168826914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538909|NCT05124691|168826914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538910|NCT00428116|168827017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||WAZ-score comparison at 18 months||||0.15
84538911|NCT00428116|168827017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAZ score at 18 months||||0.45
84538912|NCT00428116|168827018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||log rank or Cox regression|incidence with Cox regression utilized Anderson-Gill method to handle recurrent events||SAEs||||0.39
84538913|NCT00428116|168827018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox regression Anderson Gill|||Pneumonia||||0.60
84538914|NCT00428116|168827018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Pneumonia||||0.60
84538915|NCT00428116|168827018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Diarrhea||||0.77
84538916|NCT00428116|168827018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Death||||0.29
84538917|NCT00384930|168827039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus Baseline.|Permutation Test|||This is the principal inferential analysis of the primary outcome.||||<0.001
84538918|NCT00384930|168827040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.025||95.0|-1.08|-0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
84538919|NCT00384930|168827040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.4||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|<0.001
84538920|NCT00384930|168827040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.46|-1.45|<0.001
84538921|NCT00384930|168827040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.58|-0.57||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
84538922|NCT00384930|168827041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.008||95.0|-1.69|-0.26||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.26|-1.69|0.008
84538923|NCT00384930|168827041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.4|-0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.98|-2.40|<0.001
84538924|NCT00384930|168827041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.18||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
84538925|NCT00384930|168827041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.59|-1.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.15|-2.59|<0.001
84538926|NCT00384930|168827042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.503||95.0|-0.28|0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.14|-0.28|0.503
84538927|NCT00384930|168827042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.206||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.07|-0.34|0.206
84538928|NCT00384930|168827042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.452||95.0|-0.28|0.13||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.13|-0.28|0.452
84538929|NCT00384930|168827042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.012||95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.06|-0.47|0.012
84538930|NCT00384930|168827043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
84538931|NCT00384930|168827043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.002||95.0|-0.6|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.14|-0.60|0.002
84538932|NCT00384930|168827043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.66|-0.19||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.19|-0.66|<0.001
84538933|NCT00384930|168827043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-0.64|<0.001
84538934|NCT00384930|168827044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.583||95.0|-0.58|0.33||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.33|-0.58|0.583
84538935|NCT00384930|168827044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.013||95.0|-1.03|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.12|-1.03|0.013
84538936|NCT00384930|168827044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.016||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.10|-1.00|0.016
84538937|NCT00384930|168827044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.007||95.0|-1.08|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-1.08|0.007
84538938|NCT00384930|168827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.133
84538939|NCT00384930|168827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
84538940|NCT00384930|168827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84538941|NCT00384930|168827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84723590|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||10.4|0.6|
84538942|NCT00384930|168827046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.735||95.0|-0.69|0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.98|-0.69|0.735
84538943|NCT00384930|168827046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.355||95.0|-0.44|1.23||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.23|-0.44|0.355
84723591|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||11.8|0.7|
84538944|NCT00384930|168827046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.433||95.0|-0.5|1.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.17|-0.50|0.433
84538945|NCT00384930|168827046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.089||95.0|-0.11|1.59||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.59|-0.11|0.089
84538946|NCT00384930|168827047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|5.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||5.17|1.56|<0.001
84538947|NCT00384930|168827047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|6.54||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||6.54|2.95|<0.001
84538948|NCT00384930|168827047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|7.62||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.62|4.04|<0.001
84538949|NCT00384930|168827047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|7.95||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.95|4.35|<0.001
84538950|NCT00384930|168827048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.005||95.0|-2.68|-0.48||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-0.48|-2.68|0.005
84538951|NCT00384930|168827048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.51||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.51|-3.69|<0.001
84538952|NCT00384930|168827048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.99|-1.81||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.81|-3.99|<0.001
84538953|NCT00384930|168827048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.04|-1.84||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.84|-4.04|<0.001
84538954|NCT01307748|168827104|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA with time (stress, post-stress) as a within factor and aroma (lavender, coconut, water) as a between-group factor was used.||The null hypothesis stated that there were no differences between the groups in cortisol level trajectory over time.||||.005
84538955|NCT01307748|168827106|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate|ANCOVA|A 3 (lavender, coconut, water) by 2 ( prime, no prime) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with years of education as a covariate was used.||||||.01
84538956|NCT01252277|168827111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84538957|NCT01252277|168827112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
84538958|NCT01252277|168827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84538959|NCT01252277|168827114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
84538960|NCT00345631|168827136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-12.31||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The mean time to hemostasis for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-12.31|-19.04|<0.0001
84538961|NCT00345631|168827137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.87||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The mean time to ambulation for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-1.87|-5.53|0.0028
84723592|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
84538962|NCT00345631|168827138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is adequate to rule out a 4% or larger disadvantage for VCD vs. MC (null hypothesis: 2.5% MC vs. 6.5% VCD) in the incidence of major complications for VCD vs. MC using a 95% upper confidence bound for the VCD - MC difference with 80% power and a 5% one-sided Type I error|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.14||P-value was calculated using unconditional exact test of non-inferiority for difference of two binomial proportions (VCD vs. MC) with a margin of 4%.|unconditional exact test|||Based on pre-planned hypotheses, a minimum sample size of 390 randomized patients (260 VCD patients and 130 MC patients) would demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary safety endpoint and superiority for both co-primary effectiveness endpoints in comparing VCD vs. MC.||1.14||0.0006
84538963|NCT00345631|168827139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to eligibility for hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||0.45|-7.84|0.1540
84538964|NCT00345631|168827140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||2.31|-7.46|0.3612
84723593|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||7.8|0.4|
84723594|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||9.2|0.5|
84723595|NCT00749944|169199556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.2|0.4|
84723596|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
84723597|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.7|
84723598|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.4|0.7|
84723599|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.0|0.5|
84723600|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||6.8|0.8|
84723601|NCT00749944|169199557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.8|
84723602|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.9|0.5|
84723603|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.0|0.4|
84723604|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
84723605|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.4|
84723606|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.3|
84723607|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
84723608|NCT00749944|169199558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
84538965|NCT00345631|168827143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.7||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The percentages of patients achieving procedure success between the vascular closure device and manual compression arms are equal.||7.4|-4.8|0.85
84723609|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.3|
84723610|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.9|0.4|
84538966|NCT00517556|168827145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
84538967|NCT03390426|168827164|SUPERIORITY|"this is a superiority study and the non-inferiority or equivalence analysis is not required"|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons were made using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.||We determined 30 subjects were needed to detect a 50% difference in THN incidence between the two groups using a one-sided Fisher's exact test with alpha = 0.05 and 80% power while allowing up to 20% drop-out. For primary and secondary outcomes, comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
84538968|NCT03301623|168827197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Test is on interaction term between time (pre/post intervention) and treatment group (CDSvsPEAT) dummy variables in the regression model.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing pain interference over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.52|-2.9|.541
84538969|NCT03301623|168827198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|There were 69 providers with at least one CG-CAHPS response.|The interaction term describes the change in the PEAT group's scores in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving how satisfied patients feel over time after communicating with their physician about chronic pain treatment risks and benefits?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||7.31|1.20|.019
84538970|NCT03301623|168827199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving physical function over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.88|-2.73|.719
84538971|NCT03301623|168827200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing opioid prescriptions of more than 90 morphine milligrams equivalent (MME) over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||2.36|1.13|.010
84538972|NCT03301623|168827201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?||1.71|.34|.510
84538973|NCT03301623|168827202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|We employed robust standard errors clustered at the participant level. Time was controlled for using a fixed effect.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|PHQ-9 was categorized by assigning scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the response categories (not at all: several days, more than half the days, nearly every day, respectively) and then summing. Scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represent cutpoints for mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. The analysis was conducted as a multilevel ordered logistic regression.||2.34|.76|.260
84538974|NCT04614246|168827224|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.14|-2.13|
84538975|NCT04614246|168827224|OTHER||LS-Mean|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.66|-1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.61|-2.66|
84538976|NCT04614246|168827224|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.43|-2.48|
84538977|NCT04614246|168827224|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.44|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.45|-2.44|
84538978|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.35|-0.77|
84538979|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.91||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.91|-1.27|
84538980|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.17|1.02||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.02|-1.17|
84538981|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.98||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.98|-0.4|
84723611|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
84723612|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.6|0.5|
84723613|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.5|
84723614|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.7|0.6|
84723615|NCT00749944|169199559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.8|0.5|
84723616|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
84723617|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
84723618|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.6|0.3|
84723619|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
84723620|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
84723621|NCT00749944|169199561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.7|0.3|
84723622|NCT00749944|169199562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||23.6|0.2|
84723623|NCT00923078|169199596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||4.23|0.17|<0.05
84538982|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.53||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.53|-0.89|
84538983|NCT04614246|168827225|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.79|0.64||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.64|-0.79|
84538984|NCT02521376|168827227|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|43.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.59|77.62||||||||77.62|24.59|
84723624|NCT00923078|169199596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.31|-2.75|0.48
84723625|NCT00923078|169199596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.90|-4.95|<0.01
84538985|NCT02521376|168827227|OTHER||GMR|233.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.85|384.79||||||||384.79|141.85|
84538986|NCT02521376|168827227|OTHER||GMR|219.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.74|343.84||||||||343.84|139.74|
84538987|NCT02521376|168827227|OTHER||GMR|108.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|152.48||||||||152.48|77.20|
84538988|NCT02521376|168827228|OTHER||GMR|55.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|89.42||||||||89.42|34.70|
84538989|NCT02521376|168827228|OTHER||GMR|211.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.49|339.03||||||||339.03|132.49|
84723626|NCT00923078|169199597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.25|0.08|<0.05
84723627|NCT00923078|169199597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.09|-0.08|0.09
84723628|NCT00923078|169199597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.43|-0.75|0.59
84723629|NCT00923078|169199598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-0.52||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.52|-3.53|<0.01
84723630|NCT00923078|169199598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.94||Post-test scores following Visual Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.94|-3.95|0.01
84723631|NCT00923078|169199598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.08||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to Visual Cognitive Training, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.08|-1.93|0.58
84723632|NCT00923078|169199599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.18|-6.02|0.06
84723633|NCT00923078|169199599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.14|-6.34|< 0.05
84723634|NCT00923078|169199599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.78|-3.42|0.84
84723635|NCT00923078|169199600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.69|-1.45|0.55
84723636|NCT00923078|169199600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.07|-2.02|0.98
84538990|NCT02521376|168827228|OTHER||GMR|171.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.17|271.37||||||||271.37|108.17|
84538991|NCT02521376|168827228|OTHER||GMR|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|158.51||||||||158.51|72.71|
84538992|NCT00676780|168827231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.027
84538993|NCT00676780|168827232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
84538994|NCT00676780|168827233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is no change, i.e. median change = 0.0||||<0.001
84538995|NCT03975491|168827265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|76.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||76.2|-17.1|0.32
84538996|NCT03975491|168827266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||34.0|-7.5|0.25
84538997|NCT03975491|168827267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||7.7|-13.7|0.52
84538998|NCT03975491|168827268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||1.51|-0.33|0.21
84538999|NCT03975491|168827270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0034|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||0.0034|-0.0024|0.73
84539000|NCT03922529|168827273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5430
84539001|NCT03922529|168827274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7625
84539002|NCT03922529|168827275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8842
84539003|NCT03922529|168827276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.4086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4086
84539004|NCT03922529|168827277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.3841
84539005|NCT03922529|168827278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1393|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|||The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||0.1393
84539006|NCT03922529|168827279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.9257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9257
84539007|NCT03922529|168827280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8||0.6588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6588
84539008|NCT03922529|168827281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9920
84539009|NCT03922529|168827282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9504|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9504
84539010|NCT03922529|168827283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6228
84539011|NCT03922529|168827284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7966
84539012|NCT03922529|168827285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5071
84539013|NCT03922529|168827286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5553|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5553
84723637|NCT00923078|169199600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.47|-2.66|0.57
84723638|NCT00923078|169199601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.93|-3.14|0.63
84723639|NCT00923078|169199601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.61|-3.45|0.47
84723640|NCT00923078|169199601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.22|-2.85|0.80
84723641|NCT00923078|169199602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.85|-3.06|0.26
84723642|NCT00923078|169199602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.46|-3.41|0.13
84723643|NCT00923078|169199602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.58|-2.32|0.71
84723644|NCT01102426|169199603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.885||Cox regression: HR p=0.0062|Log Rank|||||0.885|0.447|=0.0054
84723645|NCT01102426|169199604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0618
84723646|NCT01102426|169199605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.686||Cox regression HR: p\<0.0001|Log Rank|||||0.686|0.382|< 0.0001
84723647|NCT01102426|169199606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0002
84723648|NCT01102426|169199607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||=|0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.067||Cox regression HR: p=0.1273|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||1.067|0.596|=0.1261
84539014|NCT03922529|168827287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1194|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1194
84539015|NCT03922529|168827288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9012
84539016|NCT03922529|168827289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4279
84723649|NCT01102426|169199608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3625|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.3625
84723650|NCT01102426|169199609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.1037
84723651|NCT01102426|169199610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.384|||=|0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.303||Cox regression HR: 0.1247|Log Rank|||||1.303|0.113|=0.1015
84723652|NCT01102426|169199612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.043|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.479||Cox regression HR: 0.0105|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||0.479|0.004|=0.0001
84723653|NCT01102426|169199615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84723654|NCT01102426|169199616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0085
84723655|NCT01102426|169199618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84723656|NCT01102426|169199619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
84723657|NCT01393964|169199620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.096||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.983|124.576|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||124.576|86.983|0.704
84723658|NCT01393964|169199620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.454||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.453|119.488|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||119.488|84.453|0.965
84723659|NCT01393964|169199621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|126.596||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.52|167.783|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||167.783|95.52|0.164
84723660|NCT01393964|169199621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|116.123||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.458|152.439|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||152.439|88.458|0.355
84723661|NCT01393964|169199621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|129.858||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.366|186.609|||ANOVA|||AUC (INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||186.609|90.366|0.228
84723662|NCT01393964|169199621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|110.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.825|158.647|||ANOVA|||AUC(INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||158.647|76.825|0.642
84723663|NCT04679675|169199632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||1.36|1.23|0.05
84723664|NCT04679675|169199632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.12|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.12|1.02|.05
84723665|NCT04679675|169199632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.16|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Overdue (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||2.16|1.68|.05
84723666|NCT04679675|169199632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.25|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Unknown (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.25|1.03|.05
84723667|NCT03265132|169199643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.00|0.42|0.0022
84723668|NCT01702259|169199693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84723669|NCT01702259|169199694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84723670|NCT01702259|169199695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84723671|NCT01702259|169199696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84723672|NCT01263496|169199713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.184||||||||-0.184|-0.618|
84723673|NCT01263496|169199713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.739|
84723674|NCT01263496|169199713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|-0.401||||||||-0.401|-0.779|
84723675|NCT01263496|169199713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|-0.522||||||||-0.522|-0.894|
84723676|NCT01263496|169199714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.093||||||||-0.093|-0.538|
84723677|NCT01263496|169199714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.684|-0.302||||||||-0.302|-0.684|
84723678|NCT01263496|169199714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.706|
84723679|NCT01263496|169199714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.461||||||||-0.461|-0.834|
84723680|NCT01263496|169199715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|-0.047||||||||-0.047|-0.479|
84723681|NCT01263496|169199715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|-0.192||||||||-0.192|-0.598|
84723682|NCT01263496|169199715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.195||||||||-0.195|-0.616|
84723683|NCT01263496|169199715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.780|
84723684|NCT01263496|169199716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.065||||||||0.065|-0.410|
84723685|NCT01263496|169199716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.088||||||||-0.088|-0.550|
84723686|NCT01263496|169199716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.139||||||||-0.139|-0.601|
84723687|NCT01263496|169199716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.752|
84723688|NCT01263496|169199717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.166||||||||0.166|-0.323|
84723689|NCT01263496|169199717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.011||||||||-0.011|-0.471|
84723690|NCT01263496|169199717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.124||||||||-0.124|-0.590|
84723691|NCT01263496|169199717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.242||||||||-0.242|-0.692|
84723692|NCT01263496|169199718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.321|
84723693|NCT01263496|169199718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.046||||||||-0.046|-0.542|
84723694|NCT01263496|169199718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.579|
84723695|NCT01263496|169199718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.722|
84723696|NCT01263496|169199719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.182||||||||0.182|-0.279|
84723697|NCT01263496|169199719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.023||||||||0.023|-0.491|
84723698|NCT01263496|169199719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.145||||||||-0.145|-0.605|
84723699|NCT01263496|169199719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.724|
84723700|NCT01263496|169199720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.169||||||||0.169|-0.270|
84723701|NCT01263496|169199720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.067||||||||0.067|-0.453|
84723702|NCT01263496|169199720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.152||||||||-0.152|-0.596|
84723703|NCT01263496|169199720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|-0.256||||||||-0.256|-0.723|
84723704|NCT01263496|169199721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.160|
84723705|NCT01263496|169199721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.005||||||||0.005|-0.477|
84723706|NCT01263496|169199721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|-0.113||||||||-0.113|-0.608|
84723707|NCT01263496|169199721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.191||||||||-0.191|-0.679|
84723708|NCT01263496|169199722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.262|
84723709|NCT01263496|169199722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.516|
84723710|NCT01263496|169199722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.614|
84723711|NCT01263496|169199722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.174||||||||-0.174|-0.690|
84723712|NCT01263496|169199723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.346|
84723713|NCT01263496|169199723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.015||||||||-0.015|-0.539|
84723714|NCT01263496|169199723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.109||||||||-0.109|-0.637|
84723715|NCT01263496|169199723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.213||||||||-0.213|-0.741|
84723716|NCT01263496|169199724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.055||||||||0.055|-0.416|
84723717|NCT01263496|169199724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.003||||||||0.003|-0.492|
84723718|NCT01263496|169199724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.161||||||||-0.161|-0.654|
84723719|NCT01263496|169199724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.874|-0.402||||||||-0.402|-0.874|
84723720|NCT01263496|169199725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|0.54||||||||0.54|-17.56|
84723721|NCT01263496|169199725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.18||||||||-4.18|-19.23|
84723722|NCT01263496|169199725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-6.15||||||||-6.15|-20.68|
84723723|NCT01263496|169199725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-11.83||||||||-11.83|-26.93|
84723724|NCT01263496|169199726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|3.8||||||||3.80|-12.67|
84723725|NCT01263496|169199726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.3||||||||-1.30|-17.48|
84723726|NCT01263496|169199726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|-2.54||||||||-2.54|-18.58|
84723727|NCT01263496|169199726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|-3.31||||||||-3.31|-21.44|
84723728|NCT01263496|169199727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|1.86||||||||1.86|-15.66|
84723729|NCT01263496|169199727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-2.49||||||||-2.49|-18.97|
84723730|NCT01263496|169199727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.23||||||||-1.23|-17.20|
84723731|NCT01263496|169199727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|-6.72||||||||-6.72|-24.27|
84723732|NCT01263496|169199728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|6.67||||||||6.67|-11.22|
84723733|NCT01263496|169199728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|5.44||||||||5.44|-12.16|
84723734|NCT01263496|169199728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.44||||||||2.44|-13.30|
84723735|NCT01263496|169199728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|-3.06||||||||-3.06|-20.74|
84723736|NCT01263496|169199729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|7.08||||||||7.08|-11.97|
84723737|NCT01263496|169199729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|3.35||||||||3.35|-15.84|
84723738|NCT01263496|169199729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.41||||||||1.41|-15.28|
84723739|NCT01263496|169199729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-2.78||||||||-2.78|-22.67|
84723740|NCT01263496|169199730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|2.31||||||||2.31|-13.19|
84723741|NCT01263496|169199730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|5.99||||||||5.99|-13.53|
84723742|NCT01263496|169199730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|2.67||||||||2.67|-14.36|
84723743|NCT01263496|169199730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.72|-1.73||||||||-1.73|-20.72|
84723744|NCT01263496|169199731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.9||||||||5.90|-10.42|
84723745|NCT01263496|169199731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|3.84||||||||3.84|-15.64|
84723746|NCT01263496|169199731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-16.52|
84723747|NCT01263496|169199731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|-2.76||||||||-2.76|-22.18|
84723748|NCT01263496|169199732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.77||||||||7.77|-7.10|
84723749|NCT01263496|169199732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.21||||||||8.21|-10.16|
84723750|NCT01263496|169199732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|5.95||||||||5.95|-9.71|
84723751|NCT01263496|169199732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-0.18||||||||-0.18|-18.59|
84723752|NCT01263496|169199733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.75||||||||6.75|-10.20|
84723753|NCT01263496|169199733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|5.7||||||||5.70|-13.10|
84723754|NCT01263496|169199733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|5.0||||||||5.00|-12.94|
84723755|NCT01263496|169199733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-19.40|
84723756|NCT01263496|169199734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.15||||||||6.15|-11.00|
84723757|NCT01263496|169199734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.53|1.94||||||||1.94|-16.53|
84723758|NCT01263496|169199734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|-0.67||||||||-0.67|-17.93|
84723759|NCT01263496|169199734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.83|-1.93||||||||-1.93|-21.83|
84723760|NCT01263496|169199735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|7.27||||||||7.27|-9.68|
84723761|NCT01263496|169199735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|2.24||||||||2.24|-16.34|
84723762|NCT01263496|169199735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-17.47|
84723763|NCT01263496|169199735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|-3.89||||||||-3.89|-23.12|
84723764|NCT01263496|169199736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.8||||||||6.80|-10.09|
84723765|NCT01263496|169199736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|2.25||||||||2.25|-15.66|
84723766|NCT01263496|169199736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|0.07||||||||0.07|-16.64|
84723767|NCT01263496|169199736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-10.24||||||||-10.24|-27.39|
84723768|NCT01263496|169199737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.219|
84723769|NCT01263496|169199737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.451||||||||0.451|0.002|
84723770|NCT01263496|169199737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.453||||||||0.453|0.008|
84723771|NCT01263496|169199737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.524||||||||0.524|0.041|
84723772|NCT01263496|169199738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.353||||||||0.353|-0.173|
84723773|NCT01263496|169199738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.467||||||||0.467|-0.010|
84723774|NCT01263496|169199738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.584||||||||0.584|0.095|
84723775|NCT01263496|169199738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.752||||||||0.752|0.184|
84723776|NCT01263496|169199739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.57||||||||0.570|0.064|
84723777|NCT01263496|169199739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.786||||||||0.786|0.236|
84723778|NCT01263496|169199739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.685||||||||0.685|0.190|
84723779|NCT01263496|169199739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.022||||||||1.022|0.413|
84723780|NCT01263496|169199740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.481||||||||0.481|-0.029|
84723781|NCT01263496|169199740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.612||||||||0.612|0.104|
84723782|NCT01263496|169199740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.54||||||||0.540|0.076|
84723783|NCT01263496|169199740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.565||||||||0.565|0.098|
84723784|NCT01263496|169199741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||||||||0.410|-0.130|
84723785|NCT01263496|169199741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.516||||||||0.516|-0.026|
84723786|NCT01263496|169199741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.552||||||||0.552|0.035|
84723787|NCT01263496|169199741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.626||||||||0.626|0.032|
84723788|NCT01263496|169199742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349||||||||0.349|-0.252|
84723789|NCT01263496|169199742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.703||||||||0.703|0.138|
84723790|NCT01263496|169199742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.742||||||||0.742|0.178|
84723791|NCT01263496|169199742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.683||||||||0.683|0.085|
84723792|NCT01263496|169199743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.326||||||||0.326|-0.257|
84723793|NCT01263496|169199743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.542||||||||0.542|-0.043|
84723794|NCT01263496|169199743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.417||||||||0.417|-0.196|
84723795|NCT01263496|169199743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.656||||||||0.656|0.010|
84723796|NCT01263496|169199744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.233||||||||0.233|-0.769|
84723797|NCT01263496|169199744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.855||||||||0.855|-0.156|
84723798|NCT01263496|169199744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.577||||||||0.577|-0.297|
84723799|NCT01263496|169199744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.69||||||||0.690|-0.075|
84723800|NCT01263496|169199745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.928||||||||0.928|-0.367|
84723801|NCT01263496|169199745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.194||||||||1.194|-0.035|
84723802|NCT01263496|169199745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.241||||||||1.241|0.054|
84723803|NCT01263496|169199745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.785||||||||0.785|-0.280|
84723804|NCT01263496|169199746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.646||||||||0.646|-1.246|
84723805|NCT01263496|169199746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|1.591||||||||1.591|-0.305|
84723806|NCT01263496|169199746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.888||||||||0.888|-0.599|
84723807|NCT01263496|169199746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|1.173||||||||1.173|-0.673|
84723808|NCT01263496|169199747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|2.562||||||||2.562|-4.462|
84723809|NCT01263496|169199747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.712|2.779||||||||2.779|-2.712|
84723810|NCT01263496|169199747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.273|2.073||||||||2.073|-3.273|
84723811|NCT01263496|169199747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|2.074||||||||2.074|-2.874|
84723812|NCT01263496|169199748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.458||||||||0.458|-0.140|
84723813|NCT01263496|169199748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.52||||||||0.520|-0.001|
84723814|NCT01263496|169199748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.398||||||||0.398|-0.126|
84723815|NCT01263496|169199748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.553||||||||0.553|0.042|
84723816|NCT01263496|169199749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|7.99||||||||7.99|-11.82|
84723817|NCT01263496|169199749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|6.4||||||||6.40|-12.45|
84539017|NCT03922529|168827290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1932
84539018|NCT03922529|168827291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2723|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2723
84723818|NCT01263496|169199749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|1.96||||||||1.96|-18.77|
84723819|NCT01263496|169199749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|0.44||||||||0.44|-18.35|
84723820|NCT01263496|169199750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.19||||||||19.19|-3.88|
84723821|NCT01263496|169199750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|9.24||||||||9.24|-11.41|
84723822|NCT01263496|169199750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|10.75||||||||10.75|-12.91|
84723823|NCT01263496|169199750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|9.99||||||||9.99|-11.32|
84723824|NCT01263496|169199751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|16.49||||||||16.49|-7.09|
84723825|NCT01263496|169199751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|11.89||||||||11.89|-8.63|
84723826|NCT01263496|169199751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|7.98||||||||7.98|-13.36|
84723827|NCT01263496|169199751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|2.17||||||||2.17|-20.58|
84723828|NCT01263496|169199752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|9.84||||||||9.84|-11.44|
84723829|NCT01263496|169199752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.66||||||||7.66|-11.74|
84723830|NCT01263496|169199752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|4.75||||||||4.75|-15.62|
84723831|NCT01263496|169199752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.83|-2.74||||||||-2.74|-23.83|
84723832|NCT01263496|169199753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|14.1||||||||14.10|-28.15|
84723833|NCT01263496|169199753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|13.02||||||||13.02|-23.93|
84723834|NCT01263496|169199753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-35.46|
84723835|NCT01263496|169199753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-13.41||||||||-13.41|-47.75|
84723836|NCT01263496|169199754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|42.09||||||||42.09|-5.18|
84723837|NCT01263496|169199754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||||||||33.28|-13.56|
84723838|NCT01263496|169199754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|15.37||||||||15.37|-30.25|
84723839|NCT01263496|169199754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.75|9.15||||||||9.15|-34.75|
84723840|NCT01263496|169199755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|25.58||||||||25.58|-13.90|
84723841|NCT01263496|169199755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|24.9||||||||24.90|-18.20|
84723842|NCT01263496|169199755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|18.74||||||||18.74|-26.03|
84723843|NCT01263496|169199755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.08|0.34||||||||0.34|-47.08|
84723844|NCT01263496|169199756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|24.71||||||||24.71|-18.77|
84723845|NCT01263496|169199756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.21|23.94||||||||23.94|-21.21|
84723846|NCT01263496|169199756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.69|10.3||||||||10.30|-32.69|
84723847|NCT01263496|169199756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.85|-12.96||||||||-12.96|-56.85|
84723848|NCT01263496|169199757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.535||||||||1.535|0.375|
84723849|NCT01263496|169199757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.965||||||||1.965|0.752|
84723850|NCT01263496|169199757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.975||||||||1.975|0.724|
84723851|NCT01263496|169199757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.955||||||||1.955|0.804|
84723852|NCT01263496|169199758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.723||||||||1.723|0.344|
84723853|NCT01263496|169199758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.115||||||||2.115|0.780|
84723854|NCT01263496|169199758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.87||||||||1.870|0.616|
84723855|NCT01263496|169199758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.136||||||||2.136|0.827|
84723856|NCT01263496|169199759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|4.188||||||||4.188|-4.088|
84723857|NCT01263496|169199759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.476|6.647||||||||6.647|-3.476|
84723858|NCT01263496|169199759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.151|9.184||||||||9.184|-8.151|
84723859|NCT01263496|169199759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|4.744||||||||4.744|-2.191|
84723860|NCT01263496|169199760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|1.443||||||||1.443|0.239|
84723861|NCT01263496|169199760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.304|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.93||||||||1.930|0.679|
84723862|NCT01263496|169199760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.585||||||||1.585|0.400|
84723863|NCT01263496|169199760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.853||||||||1.853|0.674|
84723864|NCT01263496|169199761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.597|22.184||||||||22.184|9.597|
84723865|NCT01263496|169199761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.466|23.585||||||||23.585|12.466|
84723866|NCT01263496|169199761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.379|25.297||||||||25.297|14.379|
84723867|NCT01263496|169199761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.677|22.06||||||||22.060|8.677|
84723868|NCT01263496|169199762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.567|22.079||||||||22.079|6.567|
84723869|NCT01263496|169199762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.563|26.864||||||||26.864|14.563|
84723870|NCT01263496|169199762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.125|25.002||||||||25.002|13.125|
84723871|NCT01263496|169199762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.618|23.847||||||||23.847|6.618|
84723872|NCT01263496|169199763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|14.924||||||||14.924|1.169|
84723873|NCT01263496|169199763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.767|20.133||||||||20.133|7.767|
84723874|NCT01263496|169199763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.191|21.251||||||||21.251|9.191|
84723875|NCT01263496|169199763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.847|20.885||||||||20.885|5.847|
84723876|NCT01263496|169199764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.657|13.782||||||||13.782|1.657|
84723877|NCT01263496|169199764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.556|18.399||||||||18.399|7.556|
84723878|NCT01263496|169199764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.808|20.345||||||||20.345|9.808|
84723879|NCT01263496|169199764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.561|19.614||||||||19.614|6.561|
84723880|NCT01263496|169199765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.55||||||||20.55|-7.03|
84723881|NCT01263496|169199765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|25.19||||||||25.19|-1.49|
84723882|NCT01263496|169199765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|24.56||||||||24.56|-5.12|
84723883|NCT01263496|169199765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|14.9||||||||14.90|-13.26|
84723884|NCT01263496|169199766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|22.91||||||||22.91|-11.11|
84723885|NCT01263496|169199766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|28.35||||||||28.35|-7.21|
84723886|NCT01263496|169199766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|26.98||||||||26.98|-10.08|
84723887|NCT01263496|169199766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|24.3||||||||24.30|-10.67|
84723888|NCT01263496|169199767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|21.13||||||||21.13|-14.95|
84723889|NCT01263496|169199767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|20.57||||||||20.57|-15.61|
84723890|NCT01263496|169199767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|19.68||||||||19.68|-21.00|
84723891|NCT01263496|169199767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|20.05||||||||20.05|-17.47|
84723892|NCT01263496|169199768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.86||||||||19.86|-11.70|
84723893|NCT01263496|169199768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|21.03||||||||21.03|-11.14|
84723894|NCT01263496|169199768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|21.73||||||||21.73|-14.42|
84723895|NCT01263496|169199768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|15.89||||||||15.89|-17.24|
84723896|NCT00046475|169199769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84723897|NCT00046475|169199770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
84723898|NCT00046475|169199771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
84723899|NCT00046475|169199771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||0.002
84723900|NCT00046475|169199771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.004
84723901|NCT00046475|169199771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 5 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 5||||0.026
84723902|NCT00046475|169199771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 6 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 6||||0.226
84723903|NCT00046475|169199772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment composite symptom score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
84723904|NCT00046475|169199773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 1||||<0.001
84723905|NCT00046475|169199773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
84723906|NCT00046475|169199773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||<0.001
84723907|NCT00046475|169199773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.001
84723908|NCT00046475|169199774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment global daily activity score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84723909|NCT00046475|169199777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing systolic blood pressure||||0.002
84723910|NCT00046475|169199777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing diastolic blood pressure||||0.010
84539019|NCT03922529|168827292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8951
84723911|NCT00046475|169199778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine systolic blood pressure||||<0.001
84723912|NCT00046475|169199778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine diastolic blood pressure||||0.002
84723913|NCT00046475|169199779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 general health score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of general health||||0.569
84723914|NCT00046475|169199779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 physical functioning score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of physical functioning||||0.578
84723915|NCT00046475|169199783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with mild or moderate disease severity||||0.370
84723916|NCT00046475|169199784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with marked or severe disease severity||||0.007
84723917|NCT03242863|169199800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84723918|NCT03242863|169199801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
84723919|NCT03242863|169199802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84723920|NCT03242863|169199803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84723921|NCT01686152|169199838|EQUIVALENCE|The test product was determined to be bioequivalent to the reference product if the 90% confidence interval was within -0.20 to 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0913||||||||0.0913|-0.0663|
84723922|NCT04803734|169199856|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.862||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.922|||ANOVA|||||0.922|0.807|0.0328
84723923|NCT04803734|169199857|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-t).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.941|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.909|0.976|||ANOVA|||||0.976|0.909|<0.0001
84723924|NCT04803734|169199858|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-inf).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.975|||ANOVA|||||0.975|0.910|<0.0001
84723925|NCT00080119|169199904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0492|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.44|0.67|0.93
84723926|NCT00080119|169199905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0493|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.30|0.55|0.43
84723927|NCT00949234|169199914|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||There was no power calculation for this analysis. The study was mainly descriptive, but Chi-square tests were used to determine if there were differences between individuals who were retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit from individuals who were not retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit.||||<0.05
84723928|NCT00508183|169199915|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
84723929|NCT00508183|169199916|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84723930|NCT00508183|169199917|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
84723931|NCT00508183|169199919|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
84723932|NCT03785756|169199920|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis was based on a two-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. The treatment difference is presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|41.38|||ANCOVA|Estimates from an ANCOVA model with SPID12 score as the dependent variable. Terms for treatment and baseline pain score were included as covariates.||The primary efficacy hypothesis was that SPID12 for placebo was equal to SPID12 for ibuprofen 2 × 300 mg PR tablets.||41.38|26.72|<0.0001
84723933|NCT02291861|169199999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.79||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~The primary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group."||-0.79|-3.09|0.001
84539020|NCT03922529|168827293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2574|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2574
84723934|NCT02291861|169199999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.63||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence."||-0.63|-3.00|0.003
84723935|NCT02291861|169199999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||0.42|-1.84|0.217
84723936|NCT02291861|169200000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.645|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline use of dopamine receptor antagonist (DRAs).|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence."||4.645|0.960|0.059
84723937|NCT02291861|169200000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|6.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||6.052|1.211|0.014
84723938|NCT02291861|169200000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the sixth (last) analysis in the fixed-sequence."||2.610|0.509|0.734
84723939|NCT02291861|169200001|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.6||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|2.0||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.00|-9.18|0.207
84723940|NCT02291861|169200001|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|2.59||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.59|-8.86|0.281
84723941|NCT02291861|169200001|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.3||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.79||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||6.79|-4.10|0.627
84723942|NCT02291861|169200002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|3.285||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.285|0.694|0.296
84723943|NCT02291861|169200002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.994||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.994|0.826|0.134
84723944|NCT02291861|169200002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|1.563||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||1.563|0.302|0.372
84723945|NCT02291861|169200003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.359||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.359|1.395|0.007
84723946|NCT02291861|169200003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.716||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.716|1.460|0.005
84723947|NCT02291861|169200003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.316||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.316|0.383|0.829
84723948|NCT02291861|169200004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.44|-9.52||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-9.52|-33.44|<0.001
84723949|NCT02291861|169200004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|-7.92||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-7.92|-32.57|0.001
84723950|NCT02291861|169200004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|3.34||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||3.34|-20.15|0.160
84539021|NCT03922529|168827294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8307|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8307
84723951|NCT04332991|169200007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group.|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.42|0.73|
84723952|NCT04332991|169200008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.81|0.90|
84723953|NCT04332991|169200009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.84|
84723954|NCT04332991|169200010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.38|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure is adjusted for : age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.38|0.69|
84723955|NCT04332991|169200011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.57|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.57|0.68|
84723956|NCT04332991|169200012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.09|0.54|
84723957|NCT04332991|169200013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.14|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.14|0.60|
84723958|NCT04332991|169200014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.34|0.68|
84723959|NCT04332991|169200015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.08|0.76|
84723960|NCT04332991|169200016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.72|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.72|0.61|
84723961|NCT04332991|169200017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.88|0.84|
84723962|NCT04332991|169200018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.85|
84723963|NCT04332991|169200019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.0|
84723964|NCT04332991|169200020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.02|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.02|0.61|
84723965|NCT04332991|169200021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
84723966|NCT04332991|169200022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.12|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||8.12|0.78|
84723967|NCT04332991|169200023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.05|0.45|
84539022|NCT03922529|168827295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6140
84539023|NCT03922529|168827296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.7327|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7327
84539024|NCT03922529|168827297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7651|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.7651
84723968|NCT04332991|169200024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
84723969|NCT04332991|169200025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.59|0.59|
84723970|NCT04332991|169200026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.58|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.58|0.30|
84723971|NCT04332991|169200027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.18|0.48|
84723972|NCT04332991|169200028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.96|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.96|0.24|
84723973|NCT04332991|169200029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.53|0.73|
84539025|NCT03922529|168827298|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.15||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||Negative binomial regression models|||||1.59|0.83|0.3974
84723974|NCT04332991|169200030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.89|0.92|
84723975|NCT04332991|169200031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.94|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.94|0.21|
84723976|NCT04332991|169200032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.74|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||15.74|0.06|
84723977|NCT04332991|169200033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.35|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.35|0.69|
84723978|NCT03879538|169200034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.28||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of pain score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up after end of treatment for Nitrous Oxide group equals that assessed at same time points for the Control group.||0.28|-1.42|0.19
84723979|NCT03879538|169200035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of physical health Z-score between two study groups: mean of physical health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.43|-0.16|0.36
84723980|NCT03879538|169200035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.48||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of mental health Z-score between two study groups: mean of mental health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.48|-0.31|0.66
84723981|NCT03879538|169200036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.46||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of PGIC scale assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up time points for Nitrous Oxide patients is equal to that assessed at the same time points for Control patients.||0.46|-1.85|0.23
84723982|NCT02336958|169200038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84723983|NCT02336958|169200039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
84723984|NCT03547154|169200040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.322
84723985|NCT03547154|169200041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||>0.999
84723986|NCT03547154|169200042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||||||Analysis of Complete Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.588
84723987|NCT03547154|169200043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.721|||||Overall survival was analyzed using the log-rank statistic. The HR and 95% CI for the HR were obtained using Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.721|0.429|
84723988|NCT01918033|169200071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.09||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.31|-0.49|0.661
84723989|NCT01918033|169200071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.32|-0.48|0.707
84723990|NCT01918033|169200074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.11|-0.84|0.010
84723991|NCT01918033|169200074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.46||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.10|-0.82|0.013
84723992|NCT01918033|169200074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.53|-0.29|0.569
84723993|NCT01918033|169200074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.09||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.50|-0.33|0.685
84723994|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.15|0.547
84723995|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.01|-0.22|0.067
84723996|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.13|-0.15|0.895
84723997|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.17|-0.10|0.627
84723998|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.09|0.535
84723999|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.10|0.557
84724000|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.11||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.03|-0.25|0.119
84724001|NCT01918033|169200075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.403
84724002|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.07|-0.20|0.376
84724003|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.11|-0.16|0.714
84724004|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.725
84724005|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.708
84724006|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.16|-0.10|0.680
84724007|NCT01918033|169200076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.19|-0.07|0.373
84724008|NCT01918033|169200077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.12|-0.14|0.849
84724009|NCT01918033|169200077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.20|0.260
84724010|NCT01918033|169200078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.826||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.223|0.558|0.340
84724011|NCT01918033|169200078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.116|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.116|0.510|0.159
84724012|NCT01918033|169200079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.14|-0.09|0.705
84724013|NCT01918033|169200079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.10|-0.13|0.782
84724014|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.04|-0.24|0.175
84724015|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.12||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.02|-0.26|0.098
84724016|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.27|-0.04|0.130
84724017|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.22|-0.08|0.375
84724018|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.08||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.24|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.24|-0.07|0.285
84724019|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.05||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.21|-0.10|0.490
84724020|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.08|-0.23|0.345
84724021|NCT01918033|169200080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.699
84724022|NCT01918033|169200081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.414
84724023|NCT01918033|169200081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.22|0.281
84724024|NCT00666705|169200121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|85.76||||||90.0|79.89|92.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 99% power that the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the area under the plasma concentration-time profile over the dosing interval (AUCτ) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||92.07|79.89|
84724025|NCT00666705|169200122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|79.48||||||90.0|67.19|94.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 91% power that the 90% CI for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the maximum concentration (Cmax) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||94.02|67.19|
84724026|NCT00666705|169200123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|63.25||||||90.0|44.27|90.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.205) on the natural log scale for AUCτ, with 90% coverage probability.||90.39|44.27|
84724027|NCT00666705|169200124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|90.33||||||90.0|85.28|95.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups.||95.68|85.28|
84724028|NCT00666705|169200125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|66.77||||||90.0|41.22|108.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.293) on the natural log scale for Cmax, with 90% coverage probability.||108.15|41.22|
84724029|NCT00666705|169200126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio (percent)|72.42||||||90.0|57.82|90.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|||90.71|57.82|
84724030|NCT01762982|169200132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0654||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0654
84724031|NCT01762982|169200135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0078||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0078
84724032|NCT01762982|169200136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0547||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0547
84724033|NCT01029704|169200149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-16.923||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.076|3.23||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.230|-37.076|0.0989
84724034|NCT01029704|169200149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-17.834||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.909|3.242||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.242|-38.909|0.0964
84724035|NCT01029704|169200149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-19.991||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-0.312||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.312|-39.670|0.0465
84724036|NCT01029704|169200149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-32.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.487|-12.533||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-12.533|-51.487|0.0015
84724037|NCT01029704|169200151|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.434||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|-0.52||P-values are from a two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.520|-2.349|0.0025
84724038|NCT01029704|169200151|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.037||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|-0.122||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.122|-1.952|0.0269
84724039|NCT01029704|169200151|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.938|-1.17||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-1.170|-2.938|< 0.0001
84724040|NCT01029704|169200151|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.172||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.044|-0.301||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.301|-2.044|0.0090
84724041|NCT01029704|169200152|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.353||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.039||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.039|-0.668|0.0281
84724042|NCT01029704|169200152|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.155||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.154||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.154|-0.464|0.3215
84724043|NCT01029704|169200152|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.004||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.295||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.295|-0.304|0.9776
84724044|NCT01029704|169200152|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.344||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|-0.046||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.046|-0.642|0.0242
84724045|NCT01029704|169200154|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.688||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|42.587||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||42.587|-7.210|0.1613
84724046|NCT01029704|169200154|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.091||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|43.877||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||43.877|-9.696|0.2079
84724047|NCT01029704|169200154|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|24.379||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|47.731||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||47.731|1.028|0.0410
84724048|NCT01029704|169200154|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|20.749||||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.019|44.518||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||44.518|-3.019|0.0862
84724049|NCT03845517|169200156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.5||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.5|-24.5|0.8076
84724050|NCT03845517|169200156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|18.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|-7.9|0.2189
84724051|NCT03845517|169200156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|15.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|-11.8|0.4010
84724052|NCT03845517|169200157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|14.9||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-19.1|0.5950
84724053|NCT03845517|169200157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-5.3|0.1125
84724054|NCT03845517|169200157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|23.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-4.4|0.0891
84724055|NCT01109979|169200181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
84724056|NCT03136861|169200194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||Average Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.33|1.08|0.0264
84724057|NCT03136861|169200194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Total Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.10|0.95|0.0720
84724058|NCT03136861|169200194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Nocturnal Spinal Pain Score||4.31|1.31|0.0043
84724059|NCT03136861|169200195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||BASDAI Score \<4 at Week 8||3.04|1.01|0.0466
84724060|NCT00186446|169200200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(19)= -8.93||||||<.001
84724061|NCT01262456|169200203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
84724062|NCT01262456|169200203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.17||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.17|-0.57|0.0003
84724063|NCT01262456|169200204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.03||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||3.03|1.38|0.0004
84724064|NCT01262456|169200204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.96||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||2.96|1.32|0.0009
84724065|NCT01262456|169200205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.12|-0.57|0.0029
84724066|NCT01262456|169200205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.06|-0.52|0.0128
84724067|NCT01262456|169200206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||3.02|1.08|0.0233
84724068|NCT01262456|169200206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.87||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||2.87|1.03|0.0386
84724069|NCT01262456|169200207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.76||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|70.51||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||70.51|15.02|0.0026
84724070|NCT01262456|169200207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.95||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.03|66.88||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||66.88|11.03|0.0064
84724071|NCT01262456|169200208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.17||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.69|-28.64||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-28.64|-143.69|0.0034
84724072|NCT01262456|169200208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.8||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.7|-19.89||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-19.89|-135.70|0.0086
84724073|NCT01262456|169200209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.31||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.94|63.32||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||63.32|-153.94|0.4126
84724074|NCT01262456|169200209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.79||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.99|90.41||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||90.41|-127.99|0.7353
84724075|NCT01860079|169200220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Categorical data were analyzed with χ2.Comparisons were also analyzed by χ2 between the early discharge and standard treatment arm for the primary outcomes.||||<0.05
84724076|NCT01323790|169200221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.188||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.548|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.548|0.911|0.202
84724077|NCT01323790|169200221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.348||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.739|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.739|1.045|0.021
84724078|NCT01323790|169200222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.884||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.884|0.967|0.074
84724079|NCT01323790|169200222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.489||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|2.058||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.058|1.078|0.014
84724080|NCT01323790|169200224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.69|0.09|0.010
84724081|NCT01323790|169200224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.37|<0.001
84724082|NCT01323790|169200225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.005
84724083|NCT01323790|169200225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.45|<0.001
84724084|NCT01323790|169200226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.45|0.12|0.001
84724085|NCT01323790|169200226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.62|0.29|<0.001
84724086|NCT01323790|169200227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||11.06|2.37|0.002
84724087|NCT01323790|169200227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||14.84|6.03|<0.001
84724088|NCT01323790|169200228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.06|0.028
84724089|NCT01323790|169200228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.51|0.58|<0.001
84724090|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.080
84724091|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.32|0.011
84724092|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.20|-0.11|0.552
84724093|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.25|-0.06|0.236
84724094|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.095
84724095|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
84724096|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.44|0.002
84724097|NCT01323790|169200230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.56|<0.001
84724098|NCT01323790|169200231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.54|0.011
84724099|NCT01323790|169200231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.73|<0.001
84724100|NCT02725372|169200289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|26.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.45|-22.47|0.87
84724101|NCT02725372|169200290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
84724102|NCT02725372|169200292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-156.0|0.01
84724103|NCT02725372|169200293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.89|0.47
84724104|NCT02725372|169200294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.48|0.26
84724105|NCT01513447|169200300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
84724106|NCT01513447|169200301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.0|171.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||171|-230|0.29
84724107|NCT03141177|169200323|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.64|0.41|<0.0001
84539026|NCT03922529|168827299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2727|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2727
84724108|NCT03141177|169200324|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.89|0.4|0.89|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.89|0.40|0.0010
84724109|NCT03141177|169200325|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.95|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.95|2.51|<0.0001
84724110|NCT03141177|169200325|OTHER|Treatment A - Treatment C|Difference of Objective Response Rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|35.6|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate (Nivolumab+Cabozantinib - Sunitinib) based on DerSimonian and Laird.|||35.6|21.7|
84724111|NCT03854734|169200338|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of Tdap||1.25|1.00|
84724112|NCT03854734|169200338|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of MCV||1.29|1.00|
84724113|NCT03854734|169200338|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of HPV||1.14|0.96|
84724114|NCT01205126|169200368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.3|0.855
84724115|NCT01205126|169200369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.6|-1.0|0.615
84724116|NCT01205126|169200370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.7|-1.1|0.621
84724117|NCT01205126|169200371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||||0.832
84724118|NCT01205126|169200372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29||||||0.304
84724119|NCT01205126|169200373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||rank sum test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
84724120|NCT00805792|169200375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
84724121|NCT00805792|169200376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
84724122|NCT00805792|169200377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
84724123|NCT04471805|169200381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
84724124|NCT04471805|169200382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
84724125|NCT01393600|169200384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5880
84724126|NCT01393600|169200384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-3.8|0.4184
84724127|NCT01393600|169200386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-2.4|0.6761
84724128|NCT01393600|169200386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-6.6|0.0015
84724129|NCT01072149|169200387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.287|0.179|<0.001
84724130|NCT01072149|169200387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|0.165|<0.001
84724131|NCT01072149|169200387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.291|0.181|<0.001
84724132|NCT01163214|169200395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84724133|NCT01163214|169200395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
84724134|NCT01163214|169200396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
84724135|NCT01163214|169200396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
84724136|NCT01163214|169200397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for intraoperative narcotic use.||||<0.001
84724137|NCT01163214|169200397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on day of surgery as needed.||||<0.001
84724138|NCT01163214|169200397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 1 as needed.||||0.17
84724139|NCT01163214|169200397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 2 as needed.||||0.51
84724140|NCT01163214|169200398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 morning.||||<0.001
84724141|NCT01163214|169200398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 afternoon.||||<0.001
84724142|NCT01163214|169200398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 morning.||||0.002
84724143|NCT01163214|169200398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 afternoon.||||0.97
84724144|NCT01163214|169200399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for length of stay in the hospital.||||0.02
84724145|NCT01163214|169200400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral nerve.||||0.49
84724146|NCT01163214|169200400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for common peroneal nerve.||||0.01
84724147|NCT01163214|169200400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for tibial nerve.||||0.62
84724148|NCT01163214|169200400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral, peroneal, or tibial nerves.||||0.009
84724149|NCT00988429|169200415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
84724150|NCT00988429|169200415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
84724151|NCT00988429|169200416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.068
84724152|NCT00988429|169200416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84724153|NCT02964234|169200420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|56.31||We clustered by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status (education, income, insurance status) baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regressions, clustering by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusting for age, education, income, insurance status, baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention. The null hypothesis was there would be no study arm differences. A priori power analysis suggested that a sample size of 150, assuming alpha = .05, power = .80 would lead us to detect medium/large effects (OR = 2.8).||56.31|2.01|.005
84724154|NCT02964234|169200421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|With GEE. Models had exchangeable correlation structure, a gamma distribution, and log link.||Analyses were conducted using GEE with an exchangeable correlation structure and a gamma distribution with log link. All models included study arm, time, and the study arm\*time. Covariates included age, education, and mammography history. With 150 Latinas, alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, ICC = 0.0-0.05, we expected to detect small/medium interaction effects.||-0.04|-0.34|0.03
84724155|NCT02964234|169200422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|13.32||Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size.|Ordinal regression|||We used ordinal regression, given the non-normal distribution revealed by preliminary analyses. Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size. Power analyses suggested that with 150 Latinas, alpha = .05, power = .80, we would be able to detect a small effect (Cohen's f = 0.05).||13.32|2.82|<0.0001
84724156|NCT01799993|169200424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.841||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.277|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.277|0.554|0.4263
84724157|NCT01799993|169200425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6421|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6421
84724158|NCT01799993|169200426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7984
84724159|NCT01799993|169200427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7144
84724160|NCT01799993|169200428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4278
84724161|NCT04405180|169200438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data|ANCOVA|||||||0.9017
84724162|NCT04405180|169200439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.4215|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.4215
84724163|NCT04405180|169200440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0||0.9024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||.9024
84724164|NCT04405180|169200441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.0||0.1646|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.1646
84724165|NCT04405180|169200442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.9814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.9814
84724166|NCT04405180|169200443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6217
84539027|NCT03922529|168827300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.4269|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4269
84724167|NCT04405180|169200444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7981|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.7981
84724168|NCT04405180|169200445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6677|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6677
84724169|NCT04405180|169200446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.3745
84724170|NCT04405180|169200447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|243.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.0||0.5496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.5496
84724171|NCT02580799|169200449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site B variability assessment||||=0.137
84724172|NCT02580799|169200449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site C variability assessment||||=0.454
84724173|NCT02580799|169200449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site D variability assessment||||=0.211
84724174|NCT02580799|169200449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site E variability assessment||||=0.294
84724175|NCT02580799|169200451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site C variability assessment||||=0.054
84724176|NCT02580799|169200451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site D variability assessment||||=1.000
84724177|NCT02580799|169200451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site E variability assessment||||=0.968
84724178|NCT02580799|169200464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site D variability assessment||||=0.246
84724179|NCT02580799|169200464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site E variability assessment||||=0.032
84724180|NCT02580799|169200464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site D: Site E variability assessment||||=0.007
84724181|NCT02580799|169200466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site A variability assessment||||=0.988
84724182|NCT02580799|169200466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site B variability assessment||||=0.008
84724183|NCT02580799|169200466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site C variability assessment||||=0.031
84724184|NCT02580799|169200466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site D variability assessment||||=0.554
84724185|NCT02580799|169200466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site E variability assessment||||=0.709
84724186|NCT01328756|169200504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to LOTA value was assessed for differences from zero using a 2-sided, 1 sample t-test at a 0.05 significance level.||||< 0.001
84724187|NCT00257309|169200508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.23||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.38|0.21
84724188|NCT03692871|169200509|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||12.8|2.8|= 0.003
84724189|NCT03692871|169200509|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||4.0|-5.0|= 0.882
84724190|NCT03692871|169200509|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||11.3|1.3|= 0.014
84724191|NCT03692871|169200509|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.6|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||8.9|0.0|= 0.051
84724192|NCT03692871|169200510|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.5|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||10.5|0.4|= 0.033
84724193|NCT03692871|169200510|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.6|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||10.5|1.0|= 0.016
84724194|NCT03692871|169200510|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||=|0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||5.6|-4.7|= 0.878
84724195|NCT03692871|169200510|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||1.5|-3.8|= 0.503
84724196|NCT03692871|169200511|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Percentage of participants with a vaccine-related SAE||0.4|-0.8|
84724197|NCT00257894|169200516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Effect size close to zero (eta squared of .01)|ANOVA|Interaction effect term from group by time ANOVA||||||.57
84724198|NCT00257894|169200517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Effect size about zero (eta squared = .01)|ANOVA|Interaction term from a group by time ANOVA||||||.60
84724199|NCT00257894|169200518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Effect size (eta squared) = 0|ANOVA|Interaction term of a group by time ANOVA||||||.79
84724200|NCT00257894|169200519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||For test of drug by time interaction effect|ANOVA|Medium effect size, eta squared = .061||Analysis of variance, group by time (Day 0 vs. Day 10).||||.21
84724201|NCT02852824|169200522|OTHER||Slope|0.9058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7973|1.0142||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used a statistical method.||1.0142|0.7973|
84724202|NCT02852824|169200523|OTHER||Slope|0.9528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8581|1.0475||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0475|0.8581|
84724203|NCT02852824|169200524|OTHER||Slope|0.9439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8697|1.0182||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0182|0.8697|
84724204|NCT02852824|169200525|OTHER||Slope|0.9708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8975|1.044||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0440|0.8975|
84724205|NCT01316913|169200526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.072|-0.027|0.377
84724206|NCT01316913|169200526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.06||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.109||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.109|0.010|0.018
84724207|NCT01316913|169200526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.037||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.087|-0.012|0.142
84724208|NCT01316913|169200526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.123|0.025|0.003
84724209|NCT04867382|169200529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.63
84724210|NCT04867382|169200530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84724211|NCT04867382|169200531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
84724212|NCT04867382|169200532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|0.86|.12
84724213|NCT02102724|169200533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypotheses were that there are no differences between the two groups' change scores for any study outcomes. The power analysis was based on a study of krill oil for reducing CRP levels in persons with arthritis (N = 90) that yielded an effect size (Cohen's d) of 1.2. A sample size of 37 was determined to yield a power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of 1.0 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05.|The change scores of the two groups (week 12 minus baseline) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.|||< 0.05
84724214|NCT02008916|169200540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.69|1.24|0.0093
84724215|NCT02008916|169200540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.38|0.0037
84724216|NCT02008916|169200541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.26|0.0100
84724217|NCT02008916|169200541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.36|0.0051
84724218|NCT02008916|169200542|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
84724219|NCT02008916|169200542|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.60|0.33|<0.0001
84724220|NCT02008916|169200543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.92|2.01|0.0002
84724221|NCT02008916|169200543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.38|1.89|0.0004
84724222|NCT02008916|169200544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.60|0.0347
84724223|NCT02008916|169200544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-2.00|0.0018
84724224|NCT02008916|169200548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|64.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.42|0.92|0.0593
84724225|NCT02008916|169200548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.39||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|150.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||150.79|2.49|0.0046
84724226|NCT01915914|169200563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.4993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1113|44.325|||Log Rank|||||44.3250|4.1113|<0.0001
84724227|NCT01915914|169200564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4258|10.1105|||Log Rank|||||10.1105|2.4258|<0.0001
84724228|NCT01915914|169200565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84724229|NCT01915914|169200566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
84724230|NCT01915914|169200568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84724231|NCT01915914|169200569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84724232|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Week 20, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7010
84724233|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||Week 20, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
84724234|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Week 20, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0810
84724235|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0||||Week 32, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2799
84724236|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1375||95.0||||Week 32, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1375
84724237|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Week 32, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1100
84724238|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394||95.0||||Week 20, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0394
84724239|NCT01915914|169200574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2237||95.0||||Week 32, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
84724240|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.20359|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.20359
84724241|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.50068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50068
84724242|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.05512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.05512
84724243|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.50382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50382
84724244|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.04760
84724245|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.2142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.21420
84724246|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.42542|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.42542
84724247|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.73573|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.73573
84724248|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.35754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.35754
84724249|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|0.59903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.59903
84724250|NCT02432274|169200608|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=1.00000
84724251|NCT01736475|169200613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of means|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Regression, Negative binomial|||Ratio Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) Prophylaxis/On-demand: Prophylaxis treatment w ill be considered to be successful if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the ratio between treatment regimen does not exceed 0.5 (corresponding to a 50% reduction of the mean ABR compared to the on-demand treatment). H01: μ1 ≥0.5\*μ2 Ha1: μ1\<0.5\*μ2 w here μ1 and μ2 are the mean ABRs in on prophylaxis and on-demand, respectively||0.19|0.06|<0.0001
84724252|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.04|0.70|
84724253|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.70|0.46|
84724254|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.36|0.95|
84724255|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
84726087|NCT00674609|169204439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.22|-0.19|0.899
84724256|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.75|0.50|
84724257|NCT00264576|169200663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.57|1.09|
84724258|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.03|0.70|
84724259|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.76|0.52|
84724260|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.38|0.98|
84724261|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
84724262|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.83|0.57|
84724263|NCT00264576|169200669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.58|1.13|
84724264|NCT00092456|169200688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
84726406|NCT03444298|169204712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
84726407|NCT03444298|169204713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
84726408|NCT03444298|169204714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
84539028|NCT03922529|168827301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4354
84724265|NCT00092456|169200688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2)|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
84724266|NCT00092456|169200688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANCOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
84724267|NCT01241448|169200715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.01||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.01|-0.58|0.094
84724268|NCT01241448|169200715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
84724269|NCT01241448|169200715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.48|-1.05|<0.01
84724270|NCT02065895|169200732|OTHER|ANOVA was used to first tests the hypothesis that there is a difference among the three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|80.3||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Sidak's correction. A priori the pimary outcome was defined as blood glucose AUC from 8 am - 12pm; however we used blood glucose AUC from 8am - 2pm to capture the entire meal response.|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA using Sidak's correction for multiple comparisons. All subjects were analyzed as a single group, no comparison group.||80.3|33.4|0.0011
84724271|NCT02065895|169200733|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
84724272|NCT03137784|169200735|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
84724273|NCT03137784|169200735|OTHER||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
84724274|NCT03137784|169200736|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.203|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.203|0.127|<0.001
84724275|NCT03137784|169200736|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.206|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.206|0.129|<0.001
84724276|NCT03137784|169200737|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.212|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.212|0.141|<0.001
84724277|NCT03137784|169200737|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.215|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.215|0.144|<0.001
84724278|NCT03137784|169200738|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.173|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.173|0.106|<0.001
84724279|NCT03137784|169200738|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.179|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.179|0.112|<0.001
84724280|NCT03137784|169200739|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.201|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.201|0.127|<0.001
84724281|NCT03137784|169200739|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.211|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.211|0.137|<0.001
84724282|NCT03137784|169200740|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.036||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.077|-0.004|0.079
84724283|NCT03137784|169200740|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.058||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.099|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.099|0.017|0.006
84724284|NCT03137784|169200742|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|25.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.22|31.79|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||31.79|19.22|<0.001
84724285|NCT03137784|169200742|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|24.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|30.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||||30.59|17.99|<0.001
84724286|NCT03137784|169200743|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|36.82|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||36.82|25.07|<0.001
84724287|NCT03137784|169200743|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.47|35.26|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||35.26|23.47|<0.001
84724288|NCT03137784|169200744|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.00|-0.31|0.053
84724289|NCT03137784|169200744|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.05|-0.27|0.163
84724290|NCT03331978|169200747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|14.61|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant sex, which was found to be significantly associated with adherence in a similar repeated measures model.|Values entered are for regression coefficient for intervention indicator (versus control) and represents the adjusted difference across all follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and continuous adherence measured at baseline. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||14.61|-0.82|.08
84724291|NCT03331978|169200748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.6||Per above, p-value is from repeated measures logistic regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline dichotomous adherence. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||3.60|1.09|.0257
84724292|NCT03331978|169200749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.18||As mentioned above, p-value comes from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention measurements were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of viral suppression data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline viral suppression. Model included all viral suppression data (a) at baseline and (b) close to either of the two follow-up surveys.||5.18|0.64|.26
84724293|NCT03331978|169200750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0||As mentioned above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||1.00|0.32|.05
84724294|NCT03331978|169200751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|-0.034||As described above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant|Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is the regression coefficient for intervention indicator (vs. control) and represents the adjusted difference across both follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||-0.034|-0.395|.0199
84724295|NCT02753075|169200781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.09||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.461||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.461|-0.289|0.8290
84724296|NCT02753075|169200781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.362||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.362|-0.372|0.9993
84724297|NCT02753075|169200782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.424|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.424|-0.242|0.5892
84724298|NCT02753075|169200783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.396|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.396|-0.116|0.2825
84724299|NCT02753075|169200783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.28|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.280|-0.229|0.8448
84724300|NCT02753075|169200783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.371|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.371|-0.141|0.3784
84724301|NCT02753075|169200784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-10.00|0.1688
84724302|NCT02753075|169200784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.4380
84724303|NCT02753075|169200784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.5693
84724304|NCT02753075|169200785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7789
84724305|NCT02753075|169200785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7214
84724306|NCT02753075|169200785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|-5.000|0.8960
84724307|NCT02753075|169200786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.987|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.987|-0.084|0.0978
84724308|NCT02753075|169200786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.732|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.732|-0.333|0.4607
84724309|NCT02753075|169200786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.787|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.787|-0.283|0.3542
84724310|NCT02753075|169200787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|0.711|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.711|-0.665|0.9474
84724311|NCT02753075|169200787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.586|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.586|-0.760|0.7987
84724312|NCT02753075|169200787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.798|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.798|-0.578|0.7525
84724313|NCT00687297|169200803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test with two-sided Type I error of 5% was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between arms.||||1.00
84724314|NCT00687297|169200804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.07||p-value from Wald test|Regression, Cox|The model was adjusted for gender (male vs. female) and stage (Stage IIIB vs. Stage IV/Recurrent)||There was 80% power to detect a 50% improvement in median progression-free survival, using a stratified log-rank test with one-sided Type I error of 10%.||2.07|1.07|0.02
84724315|NCT02206607|169200840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.09|34.8||||||||34.80|28.09|
84724316|NCT02206607|169200840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|25.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.11|28.27||||||||28.27|23.11|
84724317|NCT02206607|169200840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|32.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.93|35.49||||||||35.49|28.93|
84724318|NCT02206607|169200841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|15.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.357||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.39|20.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.06|11.39|1.0000
84724319|NCT02206607|169200841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.399||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.93|20.7||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.70|11.93|1.000
84724320|NCT02206607|169200841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.13|24.62||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.62|16.13|1.0000
84724321|NCT02206607|169200842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.28|27.31||||||||27.31|23.28|
84724322|NCT02206607|169200842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|26.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|28.57||||||||28.57|24.36|
84724323|NCT02206607|169200842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.09|40.02||||||||40.02|34.09|
84724324|NCT02206607|169200848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.28|34.1||||||||34.10|28.28|
84724325|NCT02206607|169200848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.73|27.4||||||||27.40|22.73|
84724326|NCT02206607|169200848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|31.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.86|34.81||||||||34.81|28.86|
84724327|NCT04604652|169200868|OTHER||||||=|0.077|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A t-test was performed to test for the percent change from baseline to Week 12. This analysis was based on observed data without imputation. Testing was one sided using a 5% alpha level. No multiplicity adjustment was used, and the p-values reported for the endpoints were descriptive in nature.||||=0.077
84724328|NCT00337610|169200875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.36|-0.67|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) \[medication\] (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.67|-1.36|<0.001
84724329|NCT00337610|169200876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2|<|0.001||95.0|-37.7|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-13.3|-37.7|<0.001
84724330|NCT00337610|169200877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8|<|0.001||95.0|-74.7|-33.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-33.6|-74.7|<0.001
84724331|NCT00337610|169200878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
84724332|NCT01326455|169200888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Lancaster et. al. (2004) quoted the number 30 as a general sample size for a pilot study. Each arm of this study had 25 people (due to time constraints), giving a total of 75 people. The data were analyzed using t-tests for equality of means, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi-square. Significance was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.25
84724333|NCT01326455|169200889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
84724334|NCT01326455|169200890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
84724335|NCT01326455|169200890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84724336|NCT01326455|169200890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.144
84724337|NCT01326455|169200891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.372
84724338|NCT01326455|169200892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.468
84724339|NCT03055988|169200898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|1.705|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation. H0: Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Tiotropium + Olodaterol) = Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol)||1.705|-2.779|0.6331
84724340|NCT03055988|169200899|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.074|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.074|-0.072|0.9817
84724341|NCT03055988|169200900|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.995||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.719|5.279|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.279|-2.719|0.5238
84724342|NCT03055988|169200901|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|5.779|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.779|-1.640|0.2687
84724343|NCT03055988|169200902|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.264|3.082|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||3.082|-2.264|0.7604
84539029|NCT03922529|168827302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8695
84539030|NCT03922529|168827303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7075
84724344|NCT03055988|169200903|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.341|2.702|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||2.702|-3.341|0.8330
84724345|NCT03055988|169200904|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.865|-3.05|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||-3.050|-12.865|0.0019
84724346|NCT03055988|169200905|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.240|0.121|<0.0001
84726409|NCT03444298|169204715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
84724347|NCT03055988|169200906|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.400|0.171|<0.0001
84724348|NCT01528605|169200907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
84724349|NCT01528605|169200908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
84724350|NCT01528605|169200909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis is no group difference"||||>0.05
84724351|NCT02326220|169200980|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.833||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|"Analysis was performed using the ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline frequency of the apheresis procedure (QW or Q2W) and Lp(a) levels (normal or elevated) as fixed effect and the baseline LDL-C level as a covariate. Hodges-Lehmann estimator of median difference (median of all pairwise differences; CI is Moses distribution free CI.~p-value is derived from the rank-based ANCOVA model. The model includes the baseline LDL-C value and stratification factors per IVRS."||0.833|0.667|< 0.0001
84724352|NCT02326220|169200981|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|-47.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-47.5|-63.0|< 0.0001
84724353|NCT02326220|169200982|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.000|0.500|<.0001
84724354|NCT02326220|169200983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-36.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
84724355|NCT02326220|169200984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-42.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.7|-57.3|< 0.0001
84724356|NCT02326220|169200985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-33.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.2|-45.6|< 0.0001
84724357|NCT02326220|169200986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.3|-3.9|0.3012
84724358|NCT02699099|169201003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
84724359|NCT02699099|169201008|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate of the anti-measles antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.89|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seroconversion rates against measles antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the measles vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||5.89|-1.29|
84724360|NCT02699099|169201011|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rates of the anti-rubella antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||"Difference in seroconversion rates against Rubella antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the rubella vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered.~with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049."||2.78|-1.29|
84539031|NCT03922529|168827304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8936
84539032|NCT03922529|168827305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2794|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2794
84539033|NCT03922529|168827306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6177
84539034|NCT03922529|168827307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1440
84539035|NCT03922529|168827308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1122|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1122
84539036|NCT03922529|168827309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.63|0.9653
84539037|NCT01277601|168827310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
84539038|NCT01277601|168827310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||0.002
84539039|NCT04034927|168827326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|2.068|||||The numerator is the experimental arm (odds of response) and the denominator is the control arm (odds of response).|Odds ratio for experimental arm (O + T) response compared to control arm (O) response.||2.068|0.241|
84539040|NCT02291510|168827329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.27|38.74|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||38.74|32.27|<0.001
84539041|NCT02291510|168827329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.77|57.36|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||57.36|47.77|<0.001
84539042|NCT02291510|168827329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.3|35.18|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||35.18|29.30|<0.001
84539043|NCT02291510|168827329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.38|52.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||52.09|43.38|<0.001
84539044|NCT02291510|168827329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|110.1||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.68|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||120.68|100.50|0.0832
84539045|NCT02291510|168827330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.43|39.77|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||39.77|32.43|<0.001
84539046|NCT02291510|168827330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.88|58.71|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||58.71|47.88|<0.001
84539047|NCT02291510|168827330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.88|50.13|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||50.13|40.88|<0.001
84539048|NCT02291510|168827330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|74.0|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||74.00|60.34|<0.001
84539049|NCT02291510|168827330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|79.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.65|87.86|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||87.86|71.65|0.0004
84539050|NCT00459355|168827331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84539051|NCT00459355|168827332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<.0001
84539052|NCT00459355|168827333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||.002
84539053|NCT00180661|168827362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
84539054|NCT00180661|168827363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
84539055|NCT05992623|168827384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
84539056|NCT05992623|168827385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.617
84539057|NCT05992623|168827386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
84539058|NCT02111603|168827397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of on-treatment total fecal bile acid excretion with baseline total fecal bile acid excretion.||||0.012
84539059|NCT02652611|168827438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||We reported the average pain and function from 6 to 24 months postinjury with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and summarized pain and function at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postinjury with means and standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges.||1.4|-0.8|=0.57
84539060|NCT02652611|168827439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.3|-2.9|0.21
84539061|NCT02237092|168827442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84539062|NCT02237092|168827443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
84539063|NCT02237092|168827444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
84539064|NCT02237092|168827445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||NNT|||||2.58|1.05|<0.05
84539065|NCT03577301|168827446|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3 months.||||||0.35
84539066|NCT03577301|168827446|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.97||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6 months.||||||0.58
84539067|NCT03577301|168827446|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 9 months.||||||0.64
84539068|NCT03577301|168827446|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 12 months.||||||0.76
84539069|NCT03577301|168827447|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3 months.||||||0.38
84539070|NCT03577301|168827447|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6 months.||||||0.74
84539071|NCT03577301|168827447|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.27||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9 months.||||||0.74
84539072|NCT03577301|168827447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.66||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12 months.||||||0.300
84539073|NCT03577301|168827448|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3 months.||||||0.73
84539074|NCT03577301|168827448|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6 months.||||||0.64
84539075|NCT03577301|168827448|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|0.64||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9 months.||||||0.89
84539076|NCT03577301|168827448|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12 months.||||||0.78
84539077|NCT03577301|168827449|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3 months.||||||0.50
84539078|NCT03577301|168827449|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.98||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6 months.||||||0.34
84539079|NCT03577301|168827449|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.59||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9 months.||||||0.66
84539080|NCT03577301|168827449|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12 months.||||||0.43
84539081|NCT00794339|168827469|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the the median survival was compared between the 2 groups.||||0.4883
84539082|NCT00794339|168827470|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin|Slope|-0.1235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6988||0.1924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Modeling Complete Metabolic Response by T/M Ratio||||0.1924
84539083|NCT00794339|168827471|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0||||||0.309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups: those at or above the median for T/M Ratio (7.3) vs. those below, and the time to primary tumor recurrence was compared between the 2 goups.||||0.3090
84539084|NCT00794339|168827472|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.5291|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake ratio as a Predictor of PELVIC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.5291
84539085|NCT00794339|168827472|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.9684|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of COMMON ILIAC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.9684
84539086|NCT00794339|168827472|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.7327|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of Para Aortic Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.7327
84539087|NCT00794339|168827482|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the time to observe new distant metastases was compared between the groups||||.4981
84539088|NCT02952586|168827495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.573||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.573|0.928|0.9199
84539089|NCT02952586|168827496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.849||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.849|0.927|0.9372
84539090|NCT02952586|168827498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.694||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.694|0.930|0.9316
84539091|NCT02952586|168827499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.352||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test. The 3 stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.352|0.663|0.6229
84539092|NCT02952586|168827500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.624||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.624|0.909|0.9061
84539093|NCT01931878|168827520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mean RLS Scale scores between 21 incoA and 21 saline injections||||0.031
84539094|NCT01931878|168827521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0088
84539095|NCT01931878|168827522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0855
84539096|NCT02075515|168827532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.86|
84539097|NCT02075515|168827532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjustd GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.85|
84539098|NCT02075515|168827532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.88|
84539099|NCT01297985|168827542|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||"This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime; and that intervention participants would report greater increases in hopefulness than controls, also maintained longitudinally~This first model reports on Recovery over time."||||.013
84539100|NCT01297985|168827543|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this first model included depressive symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes depressive symptoms as the moderator (High depressive symptoms X time X study condition)"||||0.01
84539101|NCT01297985|168827543|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this second model included anxiety symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes anxiety as the moderator (high anxiety X time X study condition)"||||0.01
84539102|NCT01297985|168827543|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this third model included the general symptom distress as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes general symptom distress as the moderator (high symptom distress X time X study condition)"||||.022
84539103|NCT01297985|168827544|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in Hopefulness that would be maintained longitudinally||||<.01
84539104|NCT01297985|168827545|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This analysis Mixed Effects Random Regression Modeling to test whether self-advocacy scores changed overtime by study condition status. Reported below are findings for the self-advocacy assertiveness sub scale.||||<0.01
84539105|NCT01297985|168827546|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.017
84539106|NCT03593395|168827549|OTHER|Estimation only|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.34|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||3.34|1.81|
84539107|NCT03593395|168827549|OTHER|Estimation only.|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.19|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||4.19|2.09|
84539108|NCT03713632|168827562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.05|0.0149
84539109|NCT03713632|168827562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.96||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|1.22|0.0022
84539110|NCT03713632|168827563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.33||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.79|-3.88||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-28.79|0.0051
84539111|NCT03713632|168827563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-10.63||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-10.63|-35.24|0.0001
84539112|NCT03713632|168827564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.41|0.0732
84539113|NCT03713632|168827564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.29|0.0049
84539114|NCT03713632|168827565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.09||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.28|0.0026
84726410|NCT03444298|169204716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
84726411|NCT03444298|169204717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
84539115|NCT03713632|168827565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.37||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.03|0.0206
84539116|NCT02995408|168827577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.65||p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-2.63|.23
84539117|NCT02995408|168827578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.78||.05 is the threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||We examined between group (3RP treatment versus wait-list) differences in pre-post change scores of resiliency.||10.78|.78|0.024
84539118|NCT02995408|168827579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.12||p=.05 is the threshold for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.12|3.45|0.001
84539119|NCT00295061|168827641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 20 subjects could demonstrate comparability of an AUC(0-7days) with 90% power up to a standard deviation of 0.288 of the difference in the log scale, expected mean treatment difference of 0 (= ratio of 1), a lower equivalence limit of -0.223 (= log 0.8), upper limit of 0.223 (= log 1.25) and a one-sided alpha of 0.05 (90% CI).|Geometric least square means ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.97|1.09||||||To compare AUC 0-7 days between the two treatments (Alpha-1 MP vs. Prolastin),natural log-transformed AUC 0-7 days values were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).||1.09|0.97|
84539120|NCT00606632|168827649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
84724361|NCT02699099|169201014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates of the anti-yellow fever antibody , being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seropositivity rates against Yellow Fever antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the YF vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||3.65|-2.30|
84724362|NCT02699099|169201040|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
84724363|NCT01094106|169201042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In a previous non-randomised study at our institution, the mean oxycodone consumption in the control group was 60.7 mg (SD, 22.2 mg) during the first 48 h after caesarean section. At α = 0.05, 31 patients would be needed in each group to achieve a power of 90% for detecting a 30% reduction in the need for rescue opioids, which we considered a clinically meaningful effect. We decided to enrol 70 patients. The final study population was 67 patients.||||0.10
84724364|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 0-6 h||||0.08
84724365|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 6-12 h||||0.86
84724366|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 12-24 h||||0.66
84724367|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 24-36 h||||0.79
84724368|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 36-48 h||||0.20
84724369|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 0-6 h||||0.36
84724370|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 6-12 h||||0.43
84724371|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 12-24 h||||0.68
84724372|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 24-36 h||||0.37
84724373|NCT01094106|169201043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 36-48 h||||0.06
84724374|NCT01094106|169201044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
84724375|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724376|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724377|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724378|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
84724379|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724380|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724381|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724382|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724383|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.9||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-15.7|
84724384|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724385|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724386|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84539121|NCT00606632|168827649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
84724387|NCT00824850|169201059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724388|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.5||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||25.5|-5.6|
84724389|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724390|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
84724391|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||19.2|-4.2|
84724392|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
84724393|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724394|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724395|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
84724396|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.4||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||23.4|-7.4|
84724397|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724398|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724399|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724400|NCT00824850|169201060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724401|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
84724402|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724403|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724404|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724405|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724406|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
84724407|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724408|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|15.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.3|-6.7|
84724409|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724410|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.6|-15.0|
84724411|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724412|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724413|NCT00824850|169201061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
84724414|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
84724415|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
84724416|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724417|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
84724418|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724419|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-16.8|
84724420|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
84724421|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|15.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.0|-7.1|
84724422|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
84724423|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|18.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||18.2|-14.8|
84724424|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724425|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.8||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.8|-6.8|
84724426|NCT00824850|169201062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
84724427|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|29.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|49.33|||||Confidence intervals (CI) for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||49.33|17.61|
84724428|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|15.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.13|8.49|
84724429|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.67|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.67|4.06|
84724430|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|71.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.74|124.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||124.08|40.74|
84724431|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.73|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.73|4.92|
84724432|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|2.87|
84724433|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|10.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.42|4.51|
84724434|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|17.64|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||17.64|6.98|
84724435|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.07|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.07|1.37|
84724436|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.9|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.90|1.52|
84724437|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|12.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.42|4.77|
84724438|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|10.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.48|4.95|
84724439|NCT00824850|169201063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.10|2.23|
84724440|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|38.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||38.77|9.99|
84724441|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||8.33|3.90|
84724442|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.16|
84724443|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.17|41.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.79|13.17|
84724444|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|20.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||20.92|8.94|
84724445|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.97|6.21|
84724446|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|13.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.72|5.91|
84724447|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|10.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.72|5.36|
84724448|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.86|1.30|
84724449|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.60|1.43|
84539122|NCT00396565|168827658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.16|-8.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline score as a covariate||||-8.25|-17.16|<0.0001
84539123|NCT00396565|168827659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.17|-2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate.||||-2.51|-5.17|<0.0001
84539124|NCT00396565|168827660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.71|-1.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate||||-1.33|-3.71|<0.0001
84539125|NCT00396565|168827661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.58|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and with baseline score as a covariate||||-3.80|-8.58|<0.0001
84539126|NCT00396565|168827662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
84539127|NCT00396565|168827663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.0001
84539128|NCT03516513|168827664|SUPERIORITY|t-tests||||||0.905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.905
84539129|NCT03516513|168827664|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.320
84539130|NCT03516513|168827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.155
84539131|NCT03516513|168827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.974
84539132|NCT03516513|168827667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.212
84539133|NCT03516513|168827668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.507
84539134|NCT03516513|168827669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
84539135|NCT00754546|168827734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between mode of exercise and treatment effect.~Twenty patients were considered adequate to provide a power of 85% with an alpha of 0.05."||||< 0.05
84539136|NCT00754546|168827734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing arformoterol with placebo with treadmill exercise||||0.024
84539137|NCT00754546|168827734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arformoterol versus normal saline with cycle exercise||||0.038
84726412|NCT03444298|169204718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
84539138|NCT05026177|168827763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.96|0.5335
84539139|NCT05026177|168827763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.99|0.5836
84539140|NCT05026177|168827764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-3.30|0.0763
84539141|NCT05026177|168827764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.93|0.1530
84539142|NCT03956355|168827779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84539143|NCT03956355|168827780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
84539144|NCT03956355|168827781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
84539145|NCT03956355|168827782|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84539146|NCT03956355|168827783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
84539147|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.99||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|Linear ANCOVA model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.99|0.08|0.045
84539148|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.73||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||4.73|-2.42|0.507
84539149|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.83|1.14|0.014
84539150|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.42||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.42|-1.66|0.237
84540460|NCT00535405|168831868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001||95.0|2.39|5.6|||Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.60|2.39|<0.001
84726413|NCT02680314|169204740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
84724450|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.45|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.45|3.09|
84539151|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.7||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.70|-2.80|0.486
84539152|NCT03355469|168827784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.19|-0.53|0.081
84539153|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0073||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0093|0.024||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0240|-0.0093|0.373
84539154|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0055|0.025||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0250|-0.0055|0.198
84539155|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0041||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0211||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0211|-0.0129|0.622
84539156|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0088||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0088|-0.0136|0.666
84539157|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0032||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0169|0.0104||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0104|-0.0169|0.634
84539158|NCT03355469|168827785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0056||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0062|-0.0174|0.336
84539159|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.69||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.69|-5.68|0.671
84539160|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.19|-11.84|0.170
84540461|NCT00535405|168831869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001||95.0|2.04|4.55||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.55|2.04|<0.001
84724451|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.75|3.65|
84724452|NCT00824850|169201064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.28|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.28|2.49|
84724453|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|27.46|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.46|9.16|
84724454|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.16|3.50|
84724455|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.09|2.93|
84724456|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|27.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.79|11.11|
84724457|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.23|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.23|2.86|
84724458|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.62|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.62|1.78|
84724459|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.19|2.86|
84724460|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|6.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.42|2.79|
84724461|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.05|1.30|
84724462|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.14|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.14|1.30|
84724463|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|5.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.42|2.39|
84724464|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.82|2.42|
84724465|NCT00824850|169201065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.26|1.60|
84724466|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.56|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.56|4.50|
84724467|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.16|1.78|
84724468|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.49|1.63|
84724469|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|10.15|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.15|4.31|
84724470|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|3.34|
84724471|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.08|
84724472|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.83|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.83|2.08|
84724473|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.13|2.80|
84724474|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.57|1.11|
84724475|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.61|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.61|1.05|
84724476|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.75|1.51|
84724477|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.77|2.19|
84724478|NCT00824850|169201066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.39|1.59|
84724479|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|201.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.11|739.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||739.05|55.11|
84724480|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|26.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||26.10|5.20|
84724481|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|156.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|501.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||501.86|48.72|
84724482|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|102.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||102.31|13.71|
84724483|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.99|284.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||284.31|30.99|
84724484|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.27|101.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||101.97|23.27|
84724485|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|85.81|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||85.81|11.99|
84724486|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|120.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.94|50.42|
84724487|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.72|6.80|
84724488|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.75|116.34|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||116.34|32.75|
84724489|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|536.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.04|1357.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1357.19|212.04|
84724490|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.28|410.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||410.33|33.28|
84724491|NCT00824850|169201067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|53.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||53.42|11.30|
84724492|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|168.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|1409.76|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1409.76|20.22|
84724493|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.97|148.44|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||148.44|10.97|
84724494|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|203.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.72|18.83|
84724495|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|73.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.84|9.67|
84724496|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|226.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|645.29|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||645.29|79.81|
84724497|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.54|250.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||250.13|54.54|
84724498|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|481.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|207.01|1117.69|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1117.69|207.01|
84539161|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|5.97||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.97|-7.29|0.839
84539162|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.8||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||11.80|0.86|0.024
84539163|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|2.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.83|-7.16|0.385
84539164|NCT03355469|168827786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.86||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.86|-0.53|0.080
84539165|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.005||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.005|-0.069|0.088
84539166|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.062|-0.059|0.960
84539167|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.006||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.006|-0.109|0.075
84539168|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.028||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.028|-0.094|0.258
84539169|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.075|0.443
84539170|NCT03355469|168827787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.02||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.020|-0.126|0.144
84539171|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.017|0.147
84724499|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.8|105.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||105.75|41.80|
84724500|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|13.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.94|5.36|
84724501|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.38|147.8|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||147.80|41.38|
84724502|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|438.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|169.52|1132.43|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1132.43|169.52|
84724503|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.28|274.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||274.82|23.28|
84724504|NCT00824850|169201068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|131.76|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.76|28.73|
84724505|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|281.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.65|1035.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1035.49|76.65|
84724506|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|16.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||16.75|3.47|
84724507|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|151.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.01|545.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||545.84|42.01|
84724508|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|64.54|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||64.54|8.67|
84724509|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|325.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||325.40|32.00|
84724510|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|76.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||76.13|12.71|
84539172|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.017||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.017|-0.016|0.943
84724511|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|51.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||51.39|6.82|
84724512|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.33|111.18|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||111.18|37.33|
84724513|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|18.52|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||18.52|6.64|
84539173|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.027|0.108
84539174|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.009||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.009|-0.024|0.319
84539175|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.01||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.010|-0.019|0.496
84539176|NCT03355469|168827788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.007||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.007|-0.031|0.187
84539177|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.495|0.086
84539178|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.574||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.574|-0.354|0.608
84539179|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.344||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|0.09||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.090|-0.779|0.110
84539180|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|0.137||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.137|-0.818|0.145
84539181|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|0.309||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.309|-0.538|0.565
84539182|NCT03355469|168827789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|0.116||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.116|-1.025|0.110
84539183|NCT02731638|168827790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|Bias-corrected logistic regression, accounting for baseline culture status||||5.23|0.65|0.26
84539184|NCT02731638|168827791|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|1.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.4|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicated worsened visual acuity|||4.4|-1.2|0.25
84539185|NCT02731638|168827791|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicate worsened visual acuity|||3.6|-2.6|0.75
84539186|NCT02454608|168827800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
84539187|NCT02454608|168827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
84539188|NCT02454608|168827802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
84539189|NCT02454608|168827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
84539190|NCT02454608|168827804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
84724514|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|73.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.48|23.09|
84724515|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|479.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|171.63|1339.96|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1339.96|171.63|
84724516|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|76.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|270.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||270.02|21.63|
84724517|NCT00824850|169201069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|41.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.08|7.61|
84724518|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|170.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.24|1301.79|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1301.79|22.24|
84724519|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|59.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||59.91|5.27|
84724520|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|249.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||249.02|18.45|
84724521|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|61.88|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||61.88|7.94|
84724522|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|205.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.04|602.78|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||602.78|70.04|
84724523|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.28|203.27|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.27|40.28|
84724524|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.25|232.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||232.13|36.25|
84724525|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.32|120.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.91|47.32|
84724526|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|14.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||14.40|5.21|
84724527|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.06|115.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||115.92|31.06|
84724528|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|269.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.09|692.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||692.60|105.09|
84539191|NCT02454608|168827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
84539192|NCT02454608|168827806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
84724529|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|131.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.09|10.85|
84724530|NCT00824850|169201070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|44.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|94.01|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||94.01|21.31|
84724531|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.95|1.31|
84724532|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.90|1.78|
84724533|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.75|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.75|1.25|
84724534|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.53|1.11|
84724535|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.38|
84724536|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.50|
84724537|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.48|
84724538|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.96|
84724539|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.96|0.79|
84724540|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.54|
84724541|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.34|0.98|
84724542|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.83|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.83|1.05|
84724543|NCT00824850|169201071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.67|
84724544|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.79|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.79|1.26|
84724545|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||5.32|1.84|
84724546|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.51|1.13|
84724547|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.07|0.95|
84724548|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.51|
84724549|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.66|0.93|
84724550|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.73|0.97|
84724551|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.39|0.83|
84724552|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.34|0.89|
84724553|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.68|
84724554|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.35|1.05|
84724555|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.90|
84724556|NCT00824850|169201072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.75|
84724557|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.50|
84724558|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.73|0.70|
84724559|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
84724560|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.56|
84724561|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.51|
84724562|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.12|0.32|
84724563|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
84724564|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.75|
84724565|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.61|0.82|
84724566|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.36|
84724567|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.55|
84724568|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.70|0.73|
84724569|NCT00824850|169201073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.50|
84724570|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.35|
84724571|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.77|
84724572|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.54|
84724573|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.95|0.38|
84724574|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.91|0.64|
84724575|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.28|
84724576|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.81|0.68|
84724577|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.77|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.77|0.53|
84724578|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.81|0.69|
84724579|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.85|0.32|
84724580|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.36|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.36|0.80|
84724581|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.65|
84724582|NCT00824850|169201074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.57|0.46|
84724583|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
84724584|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724585|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724586|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724587|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724588|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724589|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724590|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724591|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724592|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
84724593|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724594|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724595|NCT00824850|169201077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724596|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
84724597|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
84724598|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724599|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
84724600|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724601|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.5||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.5|-10.1|
84724602|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
84724603|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
84724604|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
84724605|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|17.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-8.6|
84724606|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724607|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|10.6||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-9.7|
84724608|NCT00824850|169201078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
84724609|NCT01075152|169201083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.82||A Lan-DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries was proposed to control the type-I error resulting from multiple interim analyses.|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio describes the risk of earlier HIV therapy in comparison to deferred HIV therapy initiation as the reference group.|"We compared the randomization arms for the primary endpoint of survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models by the intention-to-treat principle, based on two-sided type-I error with alpha=0.05.~The trial was statistically powered to detect a 25% relative survival benefit (15% absolute benefit) with 90% power and overall two-sided alpha=0.05 with an intended sample size of 500 participants. The trial was halted early by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board."||2.82|1.06|0.03
84724610|NCT01075152|169201084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.32
84724611|NCT01075152|169201085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.06
84724612|NCT01075152|169201086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.98
84724613|NCT01075152|169201087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||We compared the randomization arms for survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models.||2.68|1.03|0.04
84724614|NCT01075152|169201088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.26
84724615|NCT01075152|169201089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.23
84724616|NCT01075152|169201090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||repeated measure analysis|||The overall change from baseline in Karnofsky performance status scores was compared between groups via a repeated measure analysis, unstructured covariance matrix, adjusted for baseline value.||||0.34
84724617|NCT01075152|169201091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance||To describe early fungicidal activity, a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance of log10 colony forming units (CFU) of Cryptococcus, per mL of CSF per day, for all participants with \>2 cultures obtained.||||0.44
84724618|NCT01075152|169201092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||This is the interaction p-value for CSF white cell count at randomization (implying there is a statistical difference in the outcome by arm based on this parameter).|Regression, Cox|||Pre-specified subgroups formed by baseline characteristics were compared for 26 week survival with models including an interaction term between treatment arm and subgroup.||||0.02
84724619|NCT02144285|169201105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Bioavailability|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.6||||||||0.60|0.34|
84724620|NCT03659136|169201126|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.59|||Log-rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||2.59|0.55|0.6534
84724621|NCT03659136|169201127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Log rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.40|0.18|0.1797
84724622|NCT03659136|169201128|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.86|0.60|0.4932
84724623|NCT03659136|169201130|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||4.43|0.34|0.7759
84724624|NCT03659136|169201131|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.76|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison versus Placebo+everolimus+exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.76|0.54|0.9279
84724625|NCT03786471|169201138|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.78||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.18|0.33
84724626|NCT03786471|169201138|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.62||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.61|0.37||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-1.61|0.33
84724627|NCT03786471|169201138|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.33||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|0.67||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-1.32|0.46
84724628|NCT03786471|169201145|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.25||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.66||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.16|0.54
84724629|NCT03786471|169201145|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|0.74||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.94|0.79
84724630|NCT03786471|169201145|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.14||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.99||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.70|0.79
84724631|NCT03786471|169201152|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.52||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.13||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-.09|0.48
84724632|NCT03786471|169201152|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.45||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-2.07|0.62
84724633|NCT03786471|169201152|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-1.33||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.07||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-2.58|0.23
84724634|NCT03786471|169201159|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.54|.01|0.23
84724635|NCT03786471|169201159|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.55||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-.53|.98
84724636|NCT03786471|169201159|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.27||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.81|0.65
84724637|NCT03786471|169201164|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.37|0.62
84724638|NCT03786471|169201164|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.14||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.26|0.01
84724639|NCT03786471|169201164|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.29||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.42|0.001
84724640|NCT03346200|169201187|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was based on the proportion of responders and was set to 17%. That is, we defined non-inferiority to mean that the proportion of responders in the non-referent study arms is not less than one third of the responders in the 20 mg group (50% minus 33% = 17%)|Median Difference (Final Values)|52.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.9|100.0|||one-sided Wald tests|P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Non-inferiority p-values were declared if less than a=0.025||||100|41.9|<0.01
84724641|NCT04351243|169201196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||one-sided p value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.06|0.1885
84724642|NCT01301183|169201263|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.109||||||Adjusted for baseline age, height, bone density and 12-month weight change|ANCOVA|||||||.109
84724643|NCT01301183|169201264|OTHER|||||||0.344||||||Adjusted for age, height, baseline trabecular number and change in weight over 12 months|ANCOVA|||||||0.344
84724644|NCT04540952|169201278|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis indicated that with a sample size of 34 per arm, would provide 81% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 (0.7\*SD of fluid deficit) with a two-sided, two sample t test (a=0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.7|283.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||283.4|-260.7|0.93
84724645|NCT01215253|169201281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.67|0.117
84724646|NCT01215253|169201282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.76|0.891
84539193|NCT04856930|168827823|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.7841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.73||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|Linear repeated measures model (LRMM)|||||1.73|-2.42|0.7841
84724647|NCT01215253|169201283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Anderson-Gill analysis|||||0.96|0.51|0.028
84724648|NCT01215253|169201284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.38|0.398
84724649|NCT01215253|169201285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.91|0.316
84724650|NCT01215253|169201286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.84|0.577
84724651|NCT01215253|169201287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.871
84724652|NCT01215253|169201288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.508
84724653|NCT01215253|169201289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.948
84724654|NCT01215253|169201290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.55|0.038
84724655|NCT01215253|169201291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.73|0.947
84724656|NCT01215253|169201292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52|||Anderdon-Gill analysis|||||1.52|0.36|0.414
84724657|NCT02137785|169201301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||A hierarchical procedure was used to control the level of significance. If the primary analysis was sig (p≤0.05), then AKCR at Week 12 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the AKCR at Week 8 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the CCR at Week 8 was to be compared.||||0.0001
84724658|NCT02137785|169201302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
84724659|NCT02137785|169201303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
84724660|NCT02137785|169201304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||||||0.0001
84724661|NCT02584257|169201352|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.732|3.61||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||3.610|2.732|<0.0001
84724662|NCT02584257|169201352|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.384|4.263||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.263|3.384|<0.0001
84724663|NCT02584257|169201352|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.876|3.764||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL.||||3.764|2.876|<0.0001
84539194|NCT04856930|168827823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|3.4||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||3.40|-0.74|0.2885
84539195|NCT04856930|168827824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|10.07||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||10.07|-19.66|0.5939
84539196|NCT04856930|168827824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|18.29||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.29|-11.38|0.7002
84539197|NCT04856930|168827825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|23.4|||||Estimate parameter and 90% CI was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional confidence intervals (CI).|||23.4|-13.3|
84539198|NCT04856930|168827825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|21.0|||||Estimate parameter and 90% C was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional CIs.|||21.0|-14.6|
84539199|NCT04856930|168827826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.7||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.70|-1.08|0.7282
84539200|NCT04856930|168827826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.53||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.53|-1.25|0.5019
84539201|NCT04856930|168827827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.67||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.67|-0.96|0.7698
84539202|NCT04856930|168827827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.65||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.65|-0.97|0.7468
84539203|NCT04856930|168827828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.46||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.57|13.14||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||13.14|-64.57|0.2750
84539204|NCT04856930|168827828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.81||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|18.28||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.28|-60.60|0.3757
84539205|NCT04856930|168827829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.04||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.22|15.05||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||15.05|-28.22|0.6146
84539206|NCT04856930|168827829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.35|12.62||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||12.62|-30.35|0.4951
84539207|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4656|0.2477|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2477|-0.4656|0.6102
84539208|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4758|0.2225|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2225|-0.4758|0.5452
84539209|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2055||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5139|0.1775|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.1775|-0.5139|0.4178
84539210|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8375|-0.1395|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.1395|-0.8375|0.0233
84539211|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3613|0.3259|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.3259|-0.3613|0.9314
84724664|NCT02584257|169201352|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.315||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.315|3.430|<0.0001
84724665|NCT02584257|169201352|EQUIVALENCE|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 60 patients completed all treatment visits which determined that 80 subjects would be sufficient to complete the study with 90% power.|Frel|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.48|||||Frel is the relative bioavailability of the test versus reference product. The CI was a bias corrected and accelerated CI based on a bootstrapping procedure. The FDA acceptable CI was between 0.67 and 1.50.|An Emax model was developed and the 90% confidence interval of Frel was a bias corrected accelerated confidence interval based on a bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrapping procedure used for this analysis was residual resampling. The Per-Protocol population was the primary population for bioequivalence analysis. Patients in the PP population must have completed at least 2 treatment periods with valid PC20FEV1 measurements and had no major protocol deviations within those intervals.||1.48|0.93|
84724666|NCT03403153|169201411|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
84724667|NCT03403153|169201412|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724668|NCT03403153|169201413|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724669|NCT03403153|169201414|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724670|NCT03403153|169201415|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724671|NCT03403153|169201416|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724672|NCT03403153|169201417|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
84724673|NCT01137682|169201430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||3.32|0.0006
84724674|NCT01137682|169201430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||4.72|<0.0001
84724675|NCT02791308|169201455|EQUIVALENCE|Proportion of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15|Other|0.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.57|3.53||||||Percentage of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15||3.53|-15.57|
84724676|NCT00674765|169201469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.87||||||.388
84724677|NCT00248794|169201472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.97
84724678|NCT00248794|169201473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||.77
84539212|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2045||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4032|0.2847|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2847|-0.4032|0.7734
84724679|NCT03449979|169201477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 3.119||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the depressed group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.0852
84724680|NCT03449979|169201477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6676|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 0.187||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the healthy group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.6676
84724681|NCT03449979|169201477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||degrees of freedom = (1,41); F-statistic = 0.008|ANOVA|||Main effect of alpha-tACS on session (before and after) on left frontal alpha oscillations across both groups (healthy and patient).||||0.929
84539213|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7232|-0.036|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0360|-0.7232|0.0702
84724682|NCT03449979|169201477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = -0.08789||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the depressed cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) with the hypothesis to decrease pathologically elevate left frontal alpha oscillations||||0.1950
84724683|NCT03449979|169201477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8603|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = 1.1117||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the healthy cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) run as a control analysis||||0.8603
84724684|NCT00700999|169201495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.38|.001
84724685|NCT00700999|169201495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.99|-.84|.869
84724686|NCT02379078|169201496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
84724687|NCT02379078|169201497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
84724688|NCT02379078|169201498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84724689|NCT02379078|169201499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.468
84724690|NCT02379078|169201500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
84724691|NCT00244751|169201501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3608
84724692|NCT00244751|169201501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3575|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3575
84724693|NCT00244751|169201502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9157|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9157
84724694|NCT00244751|169201502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9501|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9501
84724695|NCT00244751|169201503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (fibrosis)||||0.6483
84724696|NCT00244751|169201503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (necrosis)||||0.1776
84724697|NCT00068107|169201566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR measured pre-study was compared to eGFR during the study||||0.01
84724698|NCT00068107|169201566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Average Delay in time to ESRD|166.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|323.8|||||The average delay in end stage renal disease (ESRD) calculated from the eGFR values and represents the estimated difference in time to ESRD between Relagal administered every 2 weeks and Relagal administered weekly. Units = months|||323.8|8.4|
84724699|NCT00090519|169201573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.686|||ANOVA|||||0.686|-0.714|0.969
84724700|NCT00090519|169201574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.97||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|0.21|0.015
84724701|NCT00090519|169201575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||P-value is for first occurrence of focal/grid photocoagulation yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||||0.577
84724702|NCT00090519|169201576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|0.02|0.041
84724703|NCT00090519|169201577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value is for progression of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (DR) by seven-field stereo fundus photography progression versus no progression.|Chi-squared|||||||0.475
84724704|NCT00090519|169201578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.92||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.92|-0.87|0.211
84724705|NCT00090519|169201579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.22||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.68|200.12||P-value is for change from baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||200.12|-73.68|0.365
84724706|NCT00090519|169201580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.66||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.66|0.38|0.009
84724707|NCT00090519|169201582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12||P-value is for occurrence of sustained moderate visual loss (SMVL) in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) study eye yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.20|0.081
84724708|NCT01782209|169201590|OTHER||Incidence|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|21.8|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval|||21.8|13.4|
84724709|NCT01079949|169201591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5739
84724710|NCT01079949|169201596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.1734
84724711|NCT01079949|169201597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0642
84724712|NCT01079949|169201601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4080
84724713|NCT01079949|169201604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0648
84724714|NCT01079949|169201605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6799||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.6799
84724715|NCT01079949|169201606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0634
84724716|NCT01079949|169201608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0166
84724717|NCT01079949|169201609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8812||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.8812
84724718|NCT04620733|169201619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|53.4||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and ≥ 350 U/L; baseline Pruritus NRS: \< 4 and ≥ 4).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.4|27.7|< 0.0001
84724719|NCT04620733|169201622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; baseline pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4).|||33.2|18.3|< 0.0001
84724720|NCT04620733|169201623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||||-0.5|-2.5|0.0047
84724721|NCT02221934|169201624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.283|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Responders between groups presented.|||0.283|0.070|0.002
84724722|NCT01250717|169201652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|0|
84724723|NCT02164578|169201659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||The hypothesis H0 is tested against the one-sided alternative hypothesis H1 H0: µ∆FBF,Riva, week 20 ≤ µ∆FBF, ASA, week 20 versus H1: µΔFBF, Riva, week 20 \> µΔFBF, ASA, week 20 by test procedures for continuous data.||||0.004
84724724|NCT02164578|169201660|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
84724725|NCT02164578|169201661|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||||||0.045
84724726|NCT02164578|169201662|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
84724727|NCT02164578|169201663|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
84724728|NCT02164578|169201664|OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
84724729|NCT01366976|169201697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that acetaminophen would reduce peak isofuran concentrations by 22 pg/mL (40% reduction from peak concentrations). If the true difference in the acetaminophen and placebo group means is 22 pg/mL (SD=30 pg/mL), we would need to study 30 experimental subjects and 30 control subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the acetaminophen and placebo groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8.||||0.05
84724730|NCT01366976|169201699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
84724731|NCT00307489|169201704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.544
84724732|NCT00307489|169201705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.208
84724733|NCT00307489|169201706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.712
84724734|NCT00307489|169201707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.988
84724735|NCT00307489|169201708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
84724736|NCT00307489|169201709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.109
84724737|NCT00307489|169201710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.||||||0.952
84724738|NCT00307489|169201711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.655
84724739|NCT00307489|169201712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
84724740|NCT00307489|169201713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
84724741|NCT00307489|169201714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.103
84724742|NCT00307489|169201715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.999
84724743|NCT00307489|169201716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.781
84724744|NCT00307489|169201717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.936
84724745|NCT00307489|169201718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.784
84724746|NCT00307489|169201719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.703
84724747|NCT00307489|169201720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
84724748|NCT00307489|169201721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
84724749|NCT00307489|169201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.878
84724750|NCT01286311|169201751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.86|0.54|0.99
84724751|NCT01286311|169201752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.85|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.85|0.84|0.27
84724752|NCT01286311|169201753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.32|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||4.32|1.05|0.038
84724753|NCT01286311|169201754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.1|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||10.1|0.73|0.13
84539214|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3768|0.2937|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2937|-0.3768|0.8359
84724754|NCT01286311|169201755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||9.5|0.50|0.30
84724755|NCT03034863|169201756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
84724756|NCT03034863|169201757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.69
84724757|NCT03034863|169201758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||All p-values are two-tailed|Fisher Exact|Compares veterans who reported 1+ attempts at any follow-up wave out of total number of veterans in each group (i.e., 0/19 for SAFER; 2/20 for I-SPI).||||||.49
84724758|NCT03034863|169201759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
84724759|NCT03034863|169201760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.87
84724760|NCT03034863|169201761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
84724761|NCT03034863|169201762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
84724762|NCT03034863|169201763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.81
84724763|NCT03034863|169201764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.55
84724764|NCT03034863|169201765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.64
84724765|NCT03034863|169201766|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.62
84724766|NCT03034863|169201767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
84724767|NCT00759681|169201832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.314|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Effectiveness: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the lower limit of the difference was greater than 10%.||Effectiveness was evaluated using a superiority hypothesis, comparing treatment sites with regards to the proportion achieving immediate suture line sealing between the groups. Effectiveness was based on a two-tailed, 0.05 hypothesis test, with a minimum effect size set at 10%. The mean difference in the proportion of sites achieving immediate suture line sealing was compared between the Control and Investigation Device groups.||0.314|0.103|0.05
84724768|NCT00759681|169201833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety was evaluated using non-inferiority hypothesis evaluating the proportion of cases with any instance of sign. bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response. Safety based on one-tailed, 0.05 alpha, with equivalence limit set at 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.003|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Safety: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the upper limit of the difference was less than or equal to 15%.|The cumulative incidence of safety endpoints for the Investigational Treatment group was an average of 13.5% less than for the Control group.|The mean difference is equivalent to the proportion of Investigational Device patients minus the proportion of Control patients experiencing any instance of significant bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response.||-0.003||0.05
84724769|NCT00267956|169201865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The study is designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by subject's prior anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05. Sample Size and power: With 70 partcipants in each treatment group, 5000 repetitions. Assuming a 20% ACR20 response in placebo participants regardless of prior anti-TNF exposure and a 35% ACR 20 and 45% ACR20 response in ustekinumab group for participants who had prior anti-TNF exposure, and who had no prior anti-TNF exposures, the power to detect the treatment difference is 0.85.||||<0.001
84724770|NCT00267956|169201866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.004
84724771|NCT00267956|169201867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.005
84724772|NCT00267956|169201868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84724773|NCT00267956|169201869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84724774|NCT00267956|169201870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at asignificant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84724775|NCT01263223|169201871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.0||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.0|7.4|<0.0001
84724776|NCT01263223|169201871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|17.9|<0.0001
84724777|NCT01263223|169201872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
84539215|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6962|-0.0275|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0275|-0.6962|0.0759
84724778|NCT01263223|169201872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|2.6|0.0025
84724779|NCT01263223|169201872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|7.21||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.21|3.81|<0.0001
84724780|NCT01263223|169201872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|9.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.20|2.13|0.0020
84724781|NCT01263223|169201873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|5.38||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.418|0.0224
84539216|NCT01009814|168827916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6555|0.0149|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.0149|-0.6555|0.1155
84724782|NCT01263223|169201873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|7.29||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|-1.88|0.2453
84724783|NCT01263223|169201873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|6.82||P-value if for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.82|3.37|<0.0001
84724784|NCT01263223|169201873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|10.1||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|2.95|0.0005
84724785|NCT01263223|169201874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|16.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.9|8.7|<0.0001
84724786|NCT01263223|169201874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|34.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.5|11.4|0.0001
84724787|NCT01263223|169201875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.2120
84724788|NCT01263223|169201875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.5|-0.4|0.0640
84724789|NCT01263223|169201875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|0.5|0.0211
84724790|NCT01263223|169201875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.8|-5.7|0.8719
84724791|NCT01263223|169201876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.3|0.7133
84724792|NCT01263223|169201876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|7.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-17.2|0.4638
84724793|NCT01263223|169201877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|15.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|11.3|<0.0001
84724794|NCT01263223|169201877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.2|21.1|<0.0001
84724795|NCT01263223|169201878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.9|0.9609
84724796|NCT01263223|169201878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-3.9|0.2731
84724797|NCT01263223|169201878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-4.8|0.3779
84724798|NCT01263223|169201878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-12.8|0.0828
84724799|NCT02246647|169201879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
84724800|NCT04387773|169201894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
84724801|NCT04387773|169201895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
84724802|NCT04387773|169201896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2393.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
84724803|NCT04387773|169201897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
84724804|NCT04387773|169201898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84724805|NCT01584648|169201944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.91|0.59|
84724806|NCT01584648|169201945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.02|0.64|
84724807|NCT02009332|169201966|OTHER||maximum deliverable dose (MDD)|400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum deliverable dose (MDD) was not reached in the Phase 1 study as no DLTs were observed in any of the dose groups up to ABI-009 400 mg/week.|||||
84724808|NCT03386344|169201986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.250|-0.649|<0.0001
84724809|NCT03386344|169201986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.235|-0.634|<0.0001
84724810|NCT03386344|169201987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.590|-1.070|0.5707
84724811|NCT03386344|169201987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.674|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.674|-0.969|0.7247
84724812|NCT03386344|169201988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.745|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.745|-0.462|0.6454
84724813|NCT03386344|169201988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.798|-0.410|0.5289
84724814|NCT03386344|169201989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.654|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.654|-0.157|0.1050
84724815|NCT03386344|169201989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.226|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.226|-0.577|0.4804
84724816|NCT03386344|169201990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.568|-1.252|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.252|-2.568|<0.0001
84724817|NCT03386344|169201990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.046|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.046|-2.360|<0.0001
84724818|NCT03386344|169201991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8605|-9.9205|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-9.9205|-27.8605|<0.0001
84724819|NCT03386344|169201991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3294|-12.336|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-12.3360|-30.3294|<0.0001
84724820|NCT03386344|169201992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|2.095|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.095|-3.705|0.5864
84724821|NCT03386344|169201992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.058|1.734|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.734|-4.058|0.4315
84724822|NCT03386344|169201993|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.5||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||19.23|1.78|0.0172
84724823|NCT03386344|169201993|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||20.86|3.23|0.0076
84539217|NCT04933383|168827982|SUPERIORITY||difference/ratio of least square means|180.6||||0.000813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.42|306.48|||ANCOVA|||"The primary efficacy endpoint is the change from baseline in PC20 after each treatment period (baseline is defined at Visit 1).~For primary efficacy analysis, the mean PC20 changes from baseline between AQ001S and the comparator were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for crossover design. A p-value was calculated for the difference of the parameter between AQ001S and the comparator.~Additionally, an adjusted 95%-CI for the mean difference was obtained by the ANCOVA."||306.48|106.42|0.000813
84724824|NCT00795639|169201995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.0||Significance test performed using non-parametric analysis of covariance controlling for Baseline 6MWD and PAH etiology and PAH not secondary to a connective tissue disease (other).|ANCOVA||Missing value at Week 12 assigned as zero if the subject had a predefined clinical worsening event, otherwise, missing value at Week 12 imputed with the last non-missing 6MWD based on LOCF.|||26|3|0.0104
84724825|NCT00795639|169201996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance tests of WHO Functional Class performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by Baseline 6MWD (less than 310 meters and greater than or equal to 310 meters) and PAH Etiology (Connective Tissue Disease and others).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores, and the p-value corresponding to ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistics were used.||Week 12||||0.2908
84724826|NCT04421456|169201998|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|2.84|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.84|-6.35|0.4528
84724827|NCT04421456|169201998|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.85|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.85|-6.76|0.4226
84724828|NCT04421456|169201999|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.0|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.00|-2.25|0.4479
84724829|NCT04421456|169201999|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.49|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.49|-2.92|0.1616
84724830|NCT04421456|169202000|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.18|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.18|-1.80|0.6787
84724831|NCT04421456|169202000|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.30|-0.79|0.3351
84724832|NCT04421456|169202001|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-3.96|0.4504
84724833|NCT04421456|169202001|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-4.22|0.4195
84724834|NCT04421456|169202002|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.30|-0.35|0.8850
84724835|NCT04421456|169202002|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.27|-0.36|0.7808
84724836|NCT04421456|169202003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|6.924|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.924|0.288|0.6707
84724837|NCT04421456|169202003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.744|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.744|0.121|0.4883
84724838|NCT03989232|169202026|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||On-treatment without rescue medication observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by multiple imputation (MI) assuming that missing data were missed at random (MAR). The imputation was performed separately within each treatment group defined by randomised treatment.||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
84724839|NCT03989232|169202026|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||In-trial observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by MI assuming that missing data were missed at random. The imputation was performed by imputing missing week 40 data separately within groups defined by randomised treatment and treatment status at week 40.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0098
84724840|NCT03031782|169202081|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Log Rank|Hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and analysis factors||Survival analysis of time to flare - TP2 (FAS2)||0.63|0.13|<0.001
84724841|NCT01930188|169202092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-baseline responses analysed with mixed model for repeated measurements-treatment \& country (fixed) \& baseline (covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.91|-1.21|<0.0001
84724842|NCT01930188|169202092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis done with mixed model for repeated measurements (treatment \& country as fixed factors \& baseline value as covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.62|-1.21|<0.0001
84724843|NCT03122860|169202104|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.13|0.179
84724844|NCT03122860|169202104|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-1.34|0.031
84724845|NCT03122860|169202104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.81|0.675
84724846|NCT03122860|169202104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.022
84724847|NCT03122860|169202104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.79|0.780
84724848|NCT03122860|169202105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|4.91|||ANCOVA|||||4.91|-8.32|0.612
84724849|NCT03122860|169202105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|-10.47|0.223
84724850|NCT03122860|169202105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.57|||ANCOVA|||||8.57|-4.89|0.590
84724851|NCT03122860|169202105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-14.03|0.031
84724852|NCT03122860|169202105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.92|||ANCOVA|||||3.92|-9.70|0.403
84724853|NCT03122860|169202106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|-9.04|0.432
84724854|NCT03122860|169202106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.02|||ANCOVA|||||2.02|-10.69|0.180
84724855|NCT03122860|169202106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.72|||ANCOVA|||||7.72|-5.33|0.718
84724856|NCT03122860|169202106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-14.54|0.017
84724857|NCT03122860|169202106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|5.29|||ANCOVA|||||5.29|-8.06|0.682
84724858|NCT03122860|169202107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.16|0.822
84724859|NCT03122860|169202107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.27|0.162
84539218|NCT00919126|168828058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.||The dose of propofol adjusted to BSA and maintenance duration was expected to be 4.0 mg/m².min in the control group, 2.8 mg/m².min in one xenon group and 3.0 mg/m².min in the other xenon group. With an expected common standard deviation of 2.0 mg/m².min, a type I error of 0.05 (two-sided) and a power of 0.80, the sample size required to show a statistically significant difference between the three groups was estimated to be 48 patients per group, resulting in a total of 144 randomised patients.||||<0.0001
84724860|NCT03122860|169202107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.34|0.267
84724861|NCT03122860|169202107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.685
84724862|NCT03122860|169202107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.09|0.342
84724863|NCT03122860|169202108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-8.36|0.500
84724864|NCT03122860|169202108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-11.80|0.082
84724865|NCT03122860|169202108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-8.36|0.552
84724866|NCT03122860|169202108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-13.16|0.033
84724867|NCT03122860|169202108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-5.79|0.887
84724868|NCT03122860|169202109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|3.72|||ANCOVA|||||3.72|-7.99|0.473
84724869|NCT03122860|169202109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-12.33|0.040
84724870|NCT03122860|169202109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.79|||ANCOVA|||||7.79|-4.35|0.577
84724871|NCT03122860|169202109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||||-3.01|-14.90|0.003
84724872|NCT03122860|169202109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|5.96|||ANCOVA|||||5.96|-6.37|0.947
84724873|NCT03122860|169202110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|2.73|||ANCOVA|||||2.73|-8.83|0.299
84724874|NCT03122860|169202110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-13.24|0.021
84724875|NCT03122860|169202110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|-4.75|0.675
84724876|NCT03122860|169202110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.55|||ANCOVA|||||-2.55|-14.70|0.006
84724877|NCT03122860|169202110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|6.59|||ANCOVA|||||6.59|-5.99|0.925
84724878|NCT03122860|169202111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.18|0.062
84724879|NCT03122860|169202111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.54|0.001
84724880|NCT03122860|169202111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.75|0.693
84724881|NCT03122860|169202111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.39|0.012
84724882|NCT03122860|169202111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.49|0.697
84724883|NCT03122860|169202112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-9.04|0.254
84724884|NCT03122860|169202112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-13.10|0.031
84724885|NCT03122860|169202112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.28|||ANCOVA|||||4.28|-7.20|0.616
84724886|NCT03122860|169202112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||||-1.82|-13.41|0.010
84724887|NCT03122860|169202112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.46|||ANCOVA|||||5.46|-5.74|0.961
84724888|NCT01138657|169202113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.70|0.36|<0.001
84724889|NCT01138657|169202113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.76|0.40|< 0.001
84724890|NCT01138657|169202114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.07|-0.51|0.011
84724891|NCT01138657|169202114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations (from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.04|-0.46|0.019
84724892|NCT01138657|169202115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
84724893|NCT01138657|169202115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
84724894|NCT01138657|169202116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.11|0.003
84724895|NCT01138657|169202116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.10|0.008
84724896|NCT01138657|169202117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.26|0.39|0.231
84724897|NCT01138657|169202117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.21|0.38|0.191
84724898|NCT01138657|169202118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-1.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-1.8|-20.9|0.020
84724899|NCT01138657|169202118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.5|-17.7|0.428
84539219|NCT00919126|168828058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.328|3.724||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.724|2.328|<0.0001
84724900|NCT01138657|169202119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.38|1.02|0.010
84724901|NCT01138657|169202119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.71|0.62|0.019
84724902|NCT01138657|169202120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.86||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.75|-2.03|0.346
84724903|NCT01138657|169202120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.31||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.09|-2.47|0.496
84724904|NCT01138657|169202121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|5.12||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||9.90|0.34|0.036
84724905|NCT01138657|169202121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|8.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||8.72|-0.45|0.077
84724906|NCT01138657|169202122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||15.19|4.86|<0.001
84724907|NCT01138657|169202122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|13.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%||13.79|3.88|<0.001
84724908|NCT00346398|169202133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.5||Odds Ratios are calculated using a logistic regression with a Wald chi square test. Experimental group participants had a higher proportion of allergic sensitization than participants who received placebo|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||10.5|0.5|0.28
84724909|NCT00346398|169202134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1||Odds Ratios are calculated using unadjusted exact logistic regression with mid p-value to adjust for the discreteness of the distribution|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||6.1|0.2|0.85
84724910|NCT00346398|169202135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value is calculated using a log-rank test|Regression, Logistic||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using an unadjusted Cox regression|||5.6|0.6|0.28
84724911|NCT03979040|169202136|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||P value = .025 (one-sided) and sign test below|Sign test|||||||.025
84724912|NCT03979040|169202137|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
84724913|NCT03979040|169202138|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
84539220|NCT00919126|168828058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.011||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 50% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.011|1.570|<0.0001
84724914|NCT04012970|169202139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.05
84724915|NCT04012970|169202139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
84724916|NCT04012970|169202140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
84724917|NCT04012970|169202140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
84724918|NCT04012970|169202141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
84724919|NCT04012970|169202141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
84724920|NCT04012970|169202142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
84724921|NCT04012970|169202142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
84724922|NCT04012970|169202143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
84724923|NCT04012970|169202144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.001
84724924|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0882||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0882
84724925|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8032
84724926|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9003||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9003
84724927|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9523||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9523
84724928|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9071
84724929|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7509
84724930|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2824
84724931|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4017
84724932|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4497
84724933|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.1650
84724934|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3494
84724935|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4781||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4781
84724936|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9847||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9847
84724937|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9731||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9731
84724938|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6984||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6984
84724939|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6265||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6265
84724940|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7848
84724941|NCT02978183|169202151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5789
84724942|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8165
84724943|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6590
84724944|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7455
84724945|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9212
84724946|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9509
84724947|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7897||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7897
84724948|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3183
84539221|NCT00919126|168828058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7351||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.432||Pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Xenon 50% in Oxygen was assessed|||1.432|0.038|0.0365
84724949|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.7604
84724950|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7343
84724951|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1530
84724952|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3307||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3307
84724953|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3399
84724954|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5137
84724955|NCT02978183|169202152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9962||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9962
84724956|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3259
84724957|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9785
84724958|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5112||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5112
84724959|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7771
84724960|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6232
84724961|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8895||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8895
84724962|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8974
84724963|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.9604
84724964|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.5301
84724965|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0386
84724966|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1034
84724967|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0985
84724968|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2342
84724969|NCT02978183|169202153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3016
84724970|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4927
84724971|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8686||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8686
84724972|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5772||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5772
84724973|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9700
84724974|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
84724975|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9532
84724976|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7522||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7522
84724977|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6804||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6804
84724978|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6267||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6267
84724979|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0976
84724980|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4687|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4687
84724981|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0421
84724982|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6085||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6085
84724983|NCT02978183|169202154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9634
84724984|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3322||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3322
84724985|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8026||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.8026
84724986|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9981||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.9981
84724987|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5645||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5645
84724988|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5455
84724989|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6980
84724990|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6115||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6115
84724991|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4528||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.4528
84724992|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7551
84724993|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5318||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5318
84724994|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9748||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9748
84724995|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7706
84724996|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3414||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3414
84724997|NCT02978183|169202155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4361||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4361
84724998|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0603
84724999|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4857||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.4857
84725000|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9815||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9815
84725001|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6213||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6213
84725002|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1831||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1831
84725003|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6489
84725004|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2622||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2622
84725005|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.2397
84725006|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3202||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3202
84725007|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2663
84725008|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5672
84725009|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5055
84725010|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8143
84725011|NCT02978183|169202156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6901||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6901
84725012|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4032
84725013|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2946||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2946
84725014|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2863||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2863
84725015|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0891||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0891
84725016|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5347||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5347
84725017|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3733||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3733
84725018|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2506
84725019|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8667||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8667
84725020|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7640
84725021|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8008||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8008
84725022|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4729
84725023|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4742||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4742
84725024|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2922||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2922
84725025|NCT02978183|169202157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3657||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3657
84725026|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.6600
84725027|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.6877
84725028|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3340
84725029|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7874
84725030|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3812||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3812
84725031|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6987|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6987
84725032|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6832||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6832
84725033|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8521
84725034|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
84725035|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6252||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6252
84725036|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8321
84539222|NCT02604407|168828087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 12.5 mg and Placebo.|||-4.4|-11.7|<0.001
84725037|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8173||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8173
84725038|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5445||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5445
84725039|NCT02978183|169202158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6810
84725040|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0111
84539223|NCT02604407|168828087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-9.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 37.5 mg and Placebo.|||-9.7|-17.1|<0.001
84539224|NCT03277066|168828122|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.011||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0110
84725041|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
84725042|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2390
84725043|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3068
84725044|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4914
84725045|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5185||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5185
84725046|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5262
84725047|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6098
84725048|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8849||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8849
84725049|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6941||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6941
84725050|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5728
84725051|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5931||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5931
84725052|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7513||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7513
84725053|NCT02978183|169202159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7297
84725054|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.1259
84725055|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9234||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9234
84725056|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8816
84725057|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5703
84725058|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5428
84725059|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7454
84725060|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8195||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8195
84725061|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.0909
84725062|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4881
84725063|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
84725064|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6065||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6065
84725065|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3393||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3393
84725066|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8364
84725067|NCT02978183|169202160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8858||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8858
84725068|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8818||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8818
84725069|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8679
84725070|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7856||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7856
84725071|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7507
84725072|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8189
84725073|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9206
84725074|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9591
84725075|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.5302
84725076|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7591
84725077|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8978||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8978
84725078|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7179||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7179
84725079|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7262
84725080|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8275
84725081|NCT02978183|169202161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6180
84725082|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725083|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725084|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84539225|NCT03277066|168828122|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.2835||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2835
84539226|NCT03126435|168828129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6647|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.6647
84725085|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7312||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.7312
84725086|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 30 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725087|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725088|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725089|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
84725090|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.4297
84725091|NCT02978183|169202162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4791||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 30 minutes post-CAC||||0.4791
84725092|NCT01974102|169202197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.015
84725093|NCT01974102|169202198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
84725094|NCT02033174|169202225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
84725095|NCT02834624|169202252|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Sample size calculations used a Chi-square for independence, u = 1, p =.05, power = .80, effect size = .60, which required 22 total subjects.||||<.05
84725096|NCT02834624|169202254|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
84725097|NCT05066230|169202255|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|31.3|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||48.1|31.3|<0.0001
84725098|NCT05066230|169202256|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-26.2|-11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-11.2|-26.2|<0.0001
84725099|NCT05066230|169202257|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|5.6||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.02|1.6|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53), HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||9.5|1.6|0.0058
84725100|NCT05066230|169202258|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-6.5||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-11.8|-1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-1.3|-11.8|0.0149
84725101|NCT03072238|169202270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.61|0.0335
84725102|NCT03072238|169202271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.71|0.0431
84725103|NCT03072238|169202272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.76|0.5698
84725104|NCT03072238|169202273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2515
84725105|NCT03072238|169202274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.58|0.6010
84725106|NCT03072238|169202275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.72|0.1723
84725107|NCT03072238|169202276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.65|0.1566
84725108|NCT03072238|169202277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.0419
84725109|NCT03072238|169202278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.89|0.3198
84725110|NCT03072238|169202279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|1.06|0.0071
84725111|NCT03072238|169202280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.59|0.0045
84725112|NCT03072238|169202281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.61|< 0.0001
84725113|NCT03072238|169202282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.1359
84725114|NCT03072238|169202283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.68|0.1398
84725115|NCT03072238|169202284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.61|0.8239
84725116|NCT03072238|169202285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.66|0.6018
84725117|NCT03072238|169202286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|20.93||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|35.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.65|6.20|0.0030
84539227|NCT03126435|168828130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4345|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.4345
84725118|NCT03072238|169202287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|16.46||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|26.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.27|6.66|0.0008
84725119|NCT03072238|169202290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|11.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.29|4.34|0.0012
84725120|NCT03072238|169202291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|5.87||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.90|0.83|0.0178
84725121|NCT03072238|169202292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.45|0.0246
84539228|NCT03126435|168828131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records||||||0.2632
84539229|NCT03126435|168828133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1002|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.1002
84725122|NCT01690000|169202312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was calculated||||<0.05
84725123|NCT00813709|169202317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|0.816|||Log Rank|||||0.816|0.378|0.002
84725124|NCT00813709|169202317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.839|||Log Rank|||||0.839|0.391|0.006
84725125|NCT00813709|169202317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.510|0.654|0.941
84725126|NCT00813709|169202318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.205
84725127|NCT00813709|169202318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.263
84725128|NCT00813709|169202318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.629
84725129|NCT01877720|169202485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
84725130|NCT01877720|169202486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
84725131|NCT01877720|169202487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.74
84725132|NCT01877720|169202488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
84725133|NCT01877720|169202489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.002
84725134|NCT01877720|169202490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
84725135|NCT01877720|169202491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
84725136|NCT01877720|169202492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.67
84725137|NCT01877720|169202493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84725138|NCT01877720|169202494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
84725139|NCT01129011|169202502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||17.1|7.9|0.001
84725140|NCT01129011|169202503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84725141|NCT01129011|169202504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
84725142|NCT01129011|169202505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
84725143|NCT01129011|169202506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
84725144|NCT01494467|169202521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84725145|NCT01494467|169202522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-6.25|||ANCOVA|||||-6.25|-10.18|<0.001
84725146|NCT01494467|169202523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
84725147|NCT02410278|169202526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.931||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|20.832|||weighted logistic regression model|||Odds ratio is the odds of an event in the Montelukast treatment group divided by the odds of an event in the placebo treatment group. P-value is from the likelihood ratio test that the odds ratio is 1. CI = profile likelihood confidence interval.||20.832|0.938|0.0617
84725148|NCT02410278|169202527|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.084||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Results are obtained from an ANCOVA model for comparing average change of the GSRS score in the two treatment groups, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Weights, defined as the proportions of days with GSRS score recorded during the Day 1 - Day 10 period are applied to adjust for missing data.||0.273|-0.104|0.3753
84725149|NCT02410278|169202528|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.081||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.158|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Week 10.||0.158|0.005|0.0376
84725150|NCT02410278|169202529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.164|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||2.164|0.554|0.7952
84725151|NCT02410278|169202530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.589|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||1.589|0.563|0.8328
84725152|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.115||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.283|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 1: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.283|-0.052|0.1743
84725153|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.079||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.221|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 2: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.221|-0.063|0.2677
84725154|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.085||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.211|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 3: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.211|-0.040|0.1788
84725155|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.216|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 4: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.216|-0.015|0.0866
84725156|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.201|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 5: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.201|-0.000|0.0509
84725157|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.182|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 6: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.182|-0.006|0.0649
84725158|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.176|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 7: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.176|0.001|0.0479
84725159|NCT02410278|169202531|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.082||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.166|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 8: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.166|-0.001|0.0540
84725160|NCT02410278|169202532|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.129||||0.2469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.349|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight (kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has unstructured variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Day 3.||0.349|-0.092|0.2469
84725161|NCT02410278|169202533|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
84725162|NCT02410278|169202534|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||1.0000
84725163|NCT02410278|169202535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2604
84725164|NCT01180400|169202563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.73||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-1.86|0.944
84725165|NCT01180400|169202564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.66|0.61|0.974
84725166|NCT01180400|169202565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.53|0.84|0.184
84725167|NCT01180400|169202566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.55|0.461
84725168|NCT01180400|169202567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.75|0.43|0.689
84725169|NCT01180400|169202568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.32|0.35|0.831
84725170|NCT01180400|169202569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.89|-0.96|0.525
84725171|NCT01180400|169202570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.964||95.0|-0.28|0.26|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.964
84725172|NCT01180400|169202571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.58|0.54|0.783
84725173|NCT01180400|169202572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-0.89|0.832
84725174|NCT01180400|169202573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.82|-0.84|0.468
84725175|NCT01180400|169202574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.52|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.52|-0.49|0.187
84725176|NCT01180400|169202575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|-0.44|0.145
84725177|NCT01180400|169202576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.549|1.466||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.466|-1.549|0.956
84725178|NCT01180400|169202577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.21|-0.98|0.201
84725179|NCT01180400|169202578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.45|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.45|-0.62|0.756
84539230|NCT03126435|168828134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.9882
84539231|NCT03971474|168828137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.92||If either P value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||0.92|0.51|0.05
84539232|NCT03971474|168828137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||If either p-value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|||Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.15
84539233|NCT03971474|168828138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
84539234|NCT03971474|168828139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
84539235|NCT03971474|168828142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|1.14|||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of IA-PFS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||1.14|0.66|0.25
84539236|NCT03971474|168828142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a weighted log-rank test.||Comparison of IA-PFS between the RP and SOC arms was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.14
84539237|NCT03971474|168828143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.1||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.10|0.50|0.16
84539238|NCT03971474|168828143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.97||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.97|0.45|0.08
84539239|NCT03971474|168828143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.65||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.65|0.28|0.005
84539240|NCT03971474|168828143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.35||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.35|0.67|0.43
84539241|NCT03971474|168828144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.22||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.22|0.58|0.28
84539242|NCT03971474|168828144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.95||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.95|0.48|0.07
84539243|NCT03971474|168828144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.8||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.80|0.38|0.02
84539244|NCT03971474|168828144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.29||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.29|0.69|0.41
84539245|NCT02370238|168828150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.81|0.71|0.589
84539246|NCT02370238|168828151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.64|0.897
84539247|NCT02370238|168828152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4909|3.963||P-value is based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios.|Zelen's test|||||3.963|0.4909|0.667
84539248|NCT02370238|168828154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||For the All Patients group, p-value was based on a log-rank test stratified by actual sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||||0.767
84539249|NCT02370238|168828155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.101||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.79||P-value was based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios|Zelen's test|||||2.790|0.437|0.667
84539250|NCT01807065|168828158|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
84539251|NCT01153425|168828161|OTHER|unpaired t-test for the difference of the means between the two arms|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test for change from baseline to 24 months||||>0.05
84539252|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.336|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.336|0.261|<0.0001
84539253|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.141|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.141|0.069|<0.0001
84539254|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.323|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.323|0.246|<0.0001
84539255|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
84539256|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.232|0.156|<0.0001
84539257|NCT02006732|168828228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.051|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.051|-0.023|0.4499
84539258|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.203|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
84539259|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.076|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.076|0.002|0.0395
84539260|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.207|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.207|0.132|<0.0001
84539261|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.079|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.079|0.005|0.0269
84539262|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.090|<0.0001
84539263|NCT02006732|168828229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.034|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.034|-0.040|0.8669
84539264|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|-2.629|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.629|-6.499|<0.0001
84539265|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.628|0.193|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.193|-3.628|0.0780
84539266|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.611|-1.721|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.721|-5.611|0.0002
84539267|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.102|-2.741|0.4028
84539268|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.796|-0.897|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.897|-4.796|0.0042
84539269|NCT02006732|168828230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|1.008|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.008|-2.804|0.3555
84539270|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-3.276|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.276|-6.060|<0.0001
84539271|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|-0.723|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.723|-3.471|0.0028
84539272|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.451|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.451|-5.240|<0.0001
84539273|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.651|0.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.102|-2.651|0.0696
84539274|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|-1.171|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.171|-3.971|0.0003
84539275|NCT02006732|168828231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.698||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|0.546|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.546|-2.191|0.2387
84539276|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.317|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.317|0.187|<0.0001
84539277|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.125|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.125|-0.003|0.0614
84539278|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.370|0.240|<0.0001
84539279|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.178|0.049|0.0005
84539280|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|0.126|<0.0001
84539281|NCT02006732|168828232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.012|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.012|-0.117|0.1089
84539282|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.725|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.725|0.665|<0.0001
84539283|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.106|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.106|0.058|0.0296
84539284|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.796|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.796|0.730|<0.0001
84539285|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.178|0.122|0.0159
84539286|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.148|0.078|0.0248
84539287|NCT02006732|168828233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.454|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.454|-0.590|0.7984
84539288|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|2.0|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.000|1.245|<0.0001
84539289|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.967|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.967|0.220|0.0019
84539290|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|1.989|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.989|1.232|<0.0001
84539291|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.956|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.956|0.207|0.0023
84539292|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.41|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.410|0.649|<0.0001
84539293|NCT02006732|168828234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.383|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.383|-0.359|0.9494
84539294|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.498|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.498|0.366|<0.0001
84539295|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.212|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.212|0.084|<0.0001
84539296|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.522|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.522|0.387|<0.0001
84539297|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.236|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.236|0.105|<0.0001
84539298|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.35|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.350|0.217|<0.0001
84539299|NCT02006732|168828235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.042|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.042|-0.087|0.4974
84539300|NCT02211417|168828236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.057
84539301|NCT01198132|168828246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Poisson log-linear model|||||1.32|0.48|0.3797
84539302|NCT01277211|168828256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Pearl Indices|0.61||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29|||Poisson distribution method|Differences between treatment groups was explored using an exact 95% CI for the ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||Differences between the two treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) were explored using an exact 95% CI for the Ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||2.29|0.19|0.531
84539303|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-3.0||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||3.1|-9.9|0.346
84539304|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-6.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-12.7|0.029
84539305|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-5.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.9|-11.8|0.019
84539306|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.9|-14.0|0.001
84539307|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.6|-6.4|0.556
84539308|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-9.5|0.089
84539309|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-3.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.8|-9.4|0.110
84539310|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-4.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-9.8|0.049
84539311|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.9|-6.2|0.621
84539312|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-4.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-10.0|0.041
84539313|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-3.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.9|0.046
84539314|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-4.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-9.9|0.037
84539315|NCT01277211|168828257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-10.4|0.048
84539316|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-6.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.1|-12.0|0.015
84539317|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-4.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-10.1|0.012
84539318|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.2|-12.0|0.002
84539319|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-3.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
84539320|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.5|-5.7|0.609
84539321|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.2|-9.3|0.062
84539322|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-4.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-9.0|0.019
84539323|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-1.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||1.6|-6.7|0.308
84725180|NCT01180400|169202579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.68|-0.40|0.620
84539324|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-4.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.4|-9.3|0.027
84539325|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-2.9||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-7.6|0.098
84539326|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-9.4|0.009
84539327|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.1|-11.7|0.002
84539328|NCT01277211|168828258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-10.2|0.043
84539329|NCT01130597|168828358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.4|96.4|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||96.4|80.4|
84539330|NCT01130597|168828363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|92.1|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||92.1|72.7|
84539331|NCT04140032|168828397|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in B|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant||||-0.06|-0.31|0.003
84539332|NCT04140032|168828398|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||4.91|.034|0.7
84539333|NCT04140032|168828399|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in f|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.58|0.3
84539334|NCT04140032|168828403|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
84539335|NCT04140032|168828403|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
84539336|NCT04205812|168828420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||The p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test at an overall 1-sided 2.5% level of significance, using O'Brien and Fleming boundary to adjust for alpha spending at interim analysis.|Log Rank||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.93|0.60|0.0042
84539337|NCT04205812|168828421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test for PFS.|A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
84539338|NCT04205812|168828422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value was calculated at the 1-sided 2.5% level from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
84539339|NCT03367572|168828495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7056||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
84539340|NCT03367572|168828495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1486|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
84539341|NCT03367572|168828496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4468||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
84539342|NCT03367572|168828496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
84725181|NCT01180400|169202580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.981|3.286|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.286|-2.981|0.924
84539343|NCT03367572|168828497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Secondary Aim 1 is to determine if olanzapine is more effective than prochlorperazine in controlling nausea at Cycle 2 in participants who experienced CINV at Cycle 1 when used in combination with netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone.~This will be assessed by estimating the contrast D = (3 - 1) - (2 - 1), where 3 is the Arm 3 mean, 2 is the Arm 2 mean, and 1 is the Control mean, and testing whether D = 0 versus the one-sided alternative hypothesis that D \> 0."||||0.019
84539344|NCT03367572|168828498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|2.66||prochlorperazine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.65|0.386
84539345|NCT03367572|168828498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|1.13||olanzapine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.02|0.036
84539346|NCT00733005|168828531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.102
84539347|NCT00733005|168828532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
84539348|NCT01769456|168828534|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Reported p-value is the calculated value provided by SAS output.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||< 0.0001
84539349|NCT01769456|168828535|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
84539350|NCT01769456|168828536|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0003
84539351|NCT01769456|168828537|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
84539352|NCT01983566|168828582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|115.8||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.52|211.11||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% confidence interval (CI) based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. The estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||211.11|63.52|0.3944
84539755|NCT03668808|168829512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \>180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84539353|NCT01983566|168828583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.83||||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.803|176.281||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% CI based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. This estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||176.281|74.803|0.3674
84539354|NCT02794870|168828594|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|78.0||||||||78|39|
84539355|NCT02794870|168828594|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|56.0||||||||56|8|
84539356|NCT02794870|168828595|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|56.0||||||||56|18|
84539357|NCT02794870|168828595|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0||||||||47|3|
84539358|NCT02794870|168828600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
84539359|NCT02794870|168828601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
84539360|NCT01495702|168828626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|5.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.0|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||12.0|-0.5|0.066
84539361|NCT02422797|168828634|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.2|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI).|||4.2|-3.9|
84539362|NCT02422797|168828636|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.8|-4.0|
84539363|NCT02422797|168828647|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
84539364|NCT02422797|168828647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.861||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|0.967||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.967|0.767|0.011
84539365|NCT02422797|168828647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.085||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||1.085|0.943|0.745
84539366|NCT02422797|168828647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.977||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.977|0.787|0.018
84539367|NCT02422797|168828649|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
84539368|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.773||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.773|0.686|<.001
84725182|NCT01180400|169202581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.10|-0.30|0.345
84539369|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.954||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.954|0.785|0.004
84539370|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.864||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.864|0.719|<.001
84539371|NCT02422797|168828649|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
84539372|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.867|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.914||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.914|0.823|<.001
84539373|NCT02422797|168828649|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
84539374|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.91||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.910|0.799|<.001
84539375|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.987||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.987|0.796|0.028
84539376|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.822||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.822|0.672|<.001
84539377|NCT02422797|168828649|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
84539378|NCT02422797|168828649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.891||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.891|0.751|<.001
84539379|NCT02422797|168828662|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.179
84539380|NCT02422797|168828662|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||8.6|-1.6|
84539381|NCT02422797|168828662|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.4|||||INSTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||7.4|-12.1|
84539382|NCT02422797|168828662|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|3.1|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||3.1|-13.9|
84539383|NCT02422797|168828670|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.430
84539384|NCT02422797|168828670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.239||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.414|-0.064||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.064|-2.414|0.039
84539385|NCT02422797|168828670|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.542
84539386|NCT02422797|168828670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|0.84||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.840|-1.896|0.448
84539387|NCT02422797|168828670|OTHER|||||||0.402||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.402
84539388|NCT02422797|168828670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.037||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|0.426||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.426|-2.501|0.164
84539389|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.037
84539390|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.101
84539391|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.042
84539392|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.132
84539393|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.022
84539394|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.004
84539395|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.076
84539396|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
84539397|NCT02422797|168828673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.547
84539398|NCT05044195|168828715|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.871||||||A/H1N1||0.871|0.738|
84539399|NCT05044195|168828715|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|0.989||||||A/H3N2||0.989|0.819|
84539400|NCT05044195|168828715|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.012||||||B/Yamagata||1.012|0.880|
84539401|NCT05044195|168828715|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.067||||||B/Victoria||1.067|0.923|
84539402|NCT05044195|168828716|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-0.74||||||A/H1N1||-0.74|-7.97|
84539403|NCT05044195|168828716|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|2.48||||||A/H3N2||2.48|-6.14|
84539404|NCT05044195|168828716|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|2.0||||||B/Yamagata||2.00|-6.77|
84539405|NCT05044195|168828716|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.45||||||B/Victoria||0.45|-8.31|
84539406|NCT05044195|168828717|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.876||||||A/H1N1||0.876|0.745|
84539407|NCT05044195|168828717|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|0.998||||||A/H3N2||0.998|0.829|
84539408|NCT05044195|168828717|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.014||||||B/Yamagata||1.014|0.884|
84539409|NCT05044195|168828717|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.075||||||B/Victoria||1.075|0.931|
84539410|NCT05044195|168828718|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.944||||||A/H1N1||0.944|0.803|
84539411|NCT05044195|168828718|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.032||||||A/H3N2||1.032|0.880|
84539412|NCT05044195|168828718|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.077||||||B/Yamagata||1.077|0.953|
84539413|NCT05044195|168828718|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.098||||||B/Victoria||1.098|0.963|
84539414|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.936||||||A/H1N1 (50 to 59 years)||0.936|0.751|
84539415|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.04||||||A/H3N2 (50 to 59 years)||1.040|0.821|
84539416|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.015||||||B/Yamagata (50 to 59 years)||1.015|0.845|
84539417|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.087||||||B/Victoria (50 to 59 years)||1.087|0.901|
84539418|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.864||||||A/H1N1 (60 to 64 years)||0.864|0.681|
84539419|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.033||||||A/H3N2 (60 to 64 years)||1.033|0.766|
84539420|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.079||||||B/Yamagata (60 to 64 years)||1.079|0.879|
84539421|NCT05044195|168828726|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.133||||||B/Victoria (60 to 64 years)||1.133|0.905|
84539422|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.935||||||A/H1N1 (yes)||0.935|0.761|
84539423|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.128||||||A/H3N2 (yes)||1.128|0.904|
84539424|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.016||||||B/Yamagata (yes)||1.016|0.883|
84539425|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.073||||||B/Victoria (yes)||1.073|0.926|
84539426|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.88||||||A/H1N1 (no)||0.880|0.677|
84539427|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.941||||||A/H3N2 (no)||0.941|0.683|
84539428|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.076||||||B/Yamagata (no)||1.076|0.831|
84539429|NCT05044195|168828727|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.151||||||B/Victoria (no)||1.151|0.881|
84539430|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.894||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||0.894|0.752|
84539431|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.029||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.029|0.846|
84539432|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMTratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.046||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.046|0.904|
84539433|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.094||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.094|0.938|
84539434|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.902||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.902|0.553|
84539435|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.982||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.982|0.549|
84539436|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.935||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.935|0.638|
84539437|NCT05044195|168828728|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.107||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||1.107|0.739|
84539438|NCT01937871|168828732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.57||||||||-0.57|-2.25|
84539439|NCT01937871|168828736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.18||||||||0.18|-1.87|
84539440|NCT02652949|168828762|SUPERIORITY||Event rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
84539441|NCT00699816|168828770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.43|0.01
84539442|NCT00699816|168828771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.06|0.008
84539443|NCT00699816|168828772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.04|0.02
84539444|NCT01569295|168828776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio is estimated using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.45|0.27|< 0.0001
84539445|NCT01569295|168828777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|4.62||Odds ratio,p-value and 95% Confidence Interval(CI) were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factor in EDC(del17p/TP53,immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region(IgHV) mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.62|1.98|<0.0001
84539446|NCT01569295|168828778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|79.02||Odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||79.02|10.50|<0.0001
84539447|NCT01569295|168828779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.03|0.59|0.098
84539448|NCT01569295|168828780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|76.81||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.81|1.19|0.011
84539449|NCT01406444|168828808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.03
84539450|NCT01406444|168828809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.002
84539451|NCT01406444|168828809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.04
84539452|NCT02800642|168828819|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at Week 76 is ≤ 40% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||<0.0001
84539453|NCT02800642|168828820|OTHER||||||=|0.8822|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a mean treatment interval of ≥ 8 weeks is ≤ 50% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||=0.8822
84539454|NCT00490841|168828905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided exact binomial test|||"objective is to demonstrate the binary restenosis rate at 9 months is \< 28.6% OPC. Assumptions for the primary endpoint analysis:~* H0: Restenosis Rate ≥ 28.6%~* HA: Restenosis Rate \< 28.6%~* Assumed binary restenosis rate = 20%~* Power = 80%~* One-sided type I error = 5%~With the above assumptions, 161 samples would be required. To account for approximately 20% lost to follow-up rate, 202 subjects will be enrolled in the study. The sample size calculation was performed using PASS 2005."||||< 0.0001
84539455|NCT03452943|168828922|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-4.1|0.692
84539456|NCT00307437|168828930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84539457|NCT00307437|168828930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 1200 participants (400 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84539458|NCT00307437|168828931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
84539459|NCT00307437|168828931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint need to be significant first.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significancd level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84539460|NCT00307437|168828932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
84539461|NCT00307437|168828932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of varianceon van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤90 kg vs \>90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
84539462|NCT00307437|168828933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.468
84539463|NCT00307437|168828933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.210
84539464|NCT00307437|168828933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined q8 group and the combined q12 group, 45 mg q8 and 45 mg q12, 90 mg q8 and 90 mg q12 at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.014
84539465|NCT02374138|168828950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Months||||0.93
84539466|NCT02374138|168828951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 month follow up||||0.87
84539467|NCT02374138|168828951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.25
84539468|NCT02374138|168828953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.35
84539469|NCT02374138|168828953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.34
84539470|NCT02374138|168828953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA Use at 6 Months||||0.35
84539471|NCT02374138|168828953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
84539472|NCT02374138|168828954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED visits over 6 months||||0.63
84539473|NCT02374138|168828954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED Visits between 6 and 12 Month follow up||||0.44
84539474|NCT02374138|168828955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids over 6 months||||0.98
84539475|NCT02374138|168828955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids between 6m and 12m FU||||0.48
84539476|NCT02374138|168828956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.32
84539477|NCT02374138|168828956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.06
84539478|NCT02374138|168828957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month follow up||||0.32
84539479|NCT02374138|168828957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.44
84539480|NCT02374138|168828958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.70
84539481|NCT02374138|168828958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.80
84539482|NCT02374138|168828959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.53
84539483|NCT02374138|168828959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||12 Month Follow up||||0.77
84539484|NCT02374138|168828960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 6 Month Follow up||||0.53
84539485|NCT02374138|168828960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 12 Month Follow up||||0.57
84539486|NCT02374138|168828961|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
84539487|NCT02374138|168828964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on Brief COPE at 12 Months||||0.58
84539488|NCT02374138|168828966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.46
84539489|NCT02374138|168828966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
84539490|NCT02374138|168828968|SUPERIORITY|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.35|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||||0.35
84539491|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Daytime asthma symptoms in prior 14d at 6-month follow up||||||0.54|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.54
84539492|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Daytime Asthma Symptoms at 12 month follow up||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.11
84539493|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 6 month follow up||||||0.82|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.82
84539494|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 12 month follow up||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.84
84539495|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 6 month follow up||||||0.7|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.70
84539496|NCT02374138|168828969|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 12 month follow up||||||0.58|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.58
84539497|NCT02374138|168828970|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Parent education||||0.20
84539498|NCT02374138|168828971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS exposure at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.91
84539499|NCT02374138|168828971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS Exposure at 12 Month Follow up||||0.98
84539500|NCT02374138|168828972|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
84539501|NCT02374138|168828973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 6 Months||||0.02
84539502|NCT02374138|168828973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 12 Months||||0.85
84539503|NCT02374138|168828974|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
84539504|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration within the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84539505|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.04
84539506|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
84539507|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.46
84539508|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
84539509|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
84539510|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
84539511|NCT02933255|168828981|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
84539512|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.064
84539513|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
84539514|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
84539515|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
84539516|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
84539517|NCT02933255|168828983|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
84539518|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
84539519|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
84539520|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.233
84539521|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
84539522|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.055
84539523|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.203
84539524|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539525|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
84539526|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539527|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
84539528|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
84539529|NCT02933255|168828984|OTHER|||||||0.129||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.129
84539530|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
84539531|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.037
84539532|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.009
84539533|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
84539534|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.204||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.204
84539535|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
84539536|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
84539537|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
84539538|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539539|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
84539540|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
84539541|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.695
84539542|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
84539543|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.301
84539544|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
84539545|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.014
84539546|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.791
84539547|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
84539548|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
84539549|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
84539550|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
84539551|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
84539552|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
84539553|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
84539554|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539555|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
84539556|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.47
84539557|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
84539558|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
84539559|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
84539560|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
84539561|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.232
84539562|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539563|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.131||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.131
84539564|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
84539565|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.438||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.438
84539566|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
84539567|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
84539568|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.569||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.569
84539569|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
84539570|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
84539571|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.677
84539572|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
84539573|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.432||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.432
84539574|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
84539575|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
84539576|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
84539577|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.557||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.557
84539578|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
84539579|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
84539580|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
84539581|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.922||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.922
84539582|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
84539583|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
84539584|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
84539585|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.563||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
84539586|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
84539587|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
84539588|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
84539589|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
84539590|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
84539591|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.021
84539592|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
84539593|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
84539594|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
84539595|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
84539596|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
84539597|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.846||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.846
84539598|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
84539599|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
84539600|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
84539601|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.492
84539602|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.11
84539603|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.02
84539604|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
84539605|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
84539606|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
84539607|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
84539608|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
84539609|NCT02933255|168828986|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
84539610|NCT04803305|168829025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.18|||||Week 4|||1.18|-2.38|
84539611|NCT04803305|168829026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|3.15|||||Week 1|||3.15|-0.75|
84539612|NCT04803305|168829026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.49|||||Week 2|||2.49|-0.28|
84539613|NCT04803305|168829026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.99|||||Week 3|||2.99|-0.93|
84539614|NCT04803305|168829026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.02|||||Week 5|||2.02|-2.02|
84539615|NCT04803305|168829026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.51|||||Week 6|||1.51|-3.11|
84539616|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|3.53|||||Week 1|||3.53|-4.18|
84539617|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|1.16|||||Week 2|||1.16|-5.49|
84539618|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|2.06|||||Week 3|||2.06|-0.62|
84539619|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.2|||||Week 4|||2.20|-1.29|
84539620|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||||Week 5|||2.57|-1.21|
84539621|NCT04803305|168829027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|3.39|||||Week 6|||3.39|0.34|
84539622|NCT03765788|168829117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|26.29|||||Odd Ratio (posterior median) median and 95% credibility interval calculated using the Bayesian inference|Odds Ratio||26.29|3.54|
84539623|NCT00486525|168829159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.039|-0.19|0.20
84539624|NCT00486525|168829159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.015|-0.25|0.027
84539625|NCT00486525|168829159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.018|-0.060|0.28
84725183|NCT01180400|169202582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.19|-0.20|0.942
84539626|NCT00486525|168829159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.0021|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0021|-0.079|0.063
84539627|NCT00486525|168829160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.042|-0.2|0.2
84539628|NCT00486525|168829160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.031|-0.28|0.015
84539629|NCT00486525|168829160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.019|-0.063|0.3
84539630|NCT00486525|168829160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.013|-0.098|0.01
84539631|NCT00486525|168829161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.11|-0.31|0.33
84540462|NCT00535405|168831869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.039||95.0|1.02|2.32||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.32|1.02|0.039
84725184|NCT01180400|169202583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0279||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0279|-0.0500|0.576
84725185|NCT01180400|169202583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|3.73||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.73|-4.58|0.842
84725186|NCT01694199|169202617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3529|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3529
84725187|NCT01694199|169202618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2766|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2766
84725188|NCT01694199|169202619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1467|||||||ANOVA|||P=0.1467||||0.1467
84725189|NCT01694199|169202620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5009|||||||ANOVA|||P = 0.5009||||0.5009
84725190|NCT01694199|169202621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9038
84725191|NCT01133678|169202643|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||A recommendation to stop the trial early was stipulated if the conditional power at the interim analysis (after 50 patients) was \<10% using a stochastic curtailment approach.. This would occur if the interim test statistic is t \< -0.287.|t-test, 2 sided|t-statistic = -1.330, exceeding threshold (\<-0.287, conditional power\<10%) for early termination.||||||0.190
84725192|NCT00424476|169202652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006||95.0|1.3|2.59||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.59|1.30|0.0006
84725193|NCT00424476|169202652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05).|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.19|1.10|0.0129
84725194|NCT00424476|169202653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.41|1.21|0.0024
84725195|NCT00424476|169202653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.14|1.07|0.0189
84725196|NCT00424476|169202654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.0003
84725197|NCT00424476|169202654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.2712
84725198|NCT00424476|169202655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8870
84725199|NCT00424476|169202655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8127
84725200|NCT00424476|169202656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.08|0.99|0.0526
84725201|NCT00424476|169202656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.31|1.08|0.0252
84725202|NCT02607956|169202678|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-7.9|1.0|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.0|-7.9|
84725203|NCT02607956|169202678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.12
84725204|NCT02607956|169202679|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.2|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.2|-7.9|
84725205|NCT02607956|169202679|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.41
84725206|NCT02607956|169202680|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.9|-7.8|
84725207|NCT02607956|169202680|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.52
84725208|NCT02607956|169202681|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.5|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.5|-9.4|
84725209|NCT02607956|169202681|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.16
84725210|NCT02607956|169202682|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.8|-8.8|
84725211|NCT02607956|169202682|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.44
84725212|NCT02607956|169202683|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.3|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.3|-7.4|
84725213|NCT02607956|169202683|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.74
84725214|NCT02607956|169202684|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.17|-0.01|0.081
84725215|NCT02607956|169202685|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.15|-0.03|0.18
84725216|NCT02607956|169202686|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.09||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.18|0.00|0.054
84725217|NCT02607956|169202687|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-23.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|4.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4|-49|0.096
84725218|NCT02607956|169202688|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-47.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|-12.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||-12|-81|0.008
84725219|NCT02607956|169202689|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-14.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|25.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||25|-52|0.48
84725220|NCT03032965|169202709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan Meier log rank||||||.83
84725221|NCT03032965|169202710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
84725222|NCT03032965|169202712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
84725223|NCT02707952|169202728|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Rate Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.9|-2.8|
84725224|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-13.17|-8.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.34|-13.17|<0.001
84725225|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-9.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.67|-14.48|<0.001
84725226|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-10.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.81|-15.62|<0.001
84725227|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.55|0.687
84725228|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-2.87|0.352
84725229|NCT00696241|169202733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.00|0.038
84725230|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-9.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.00|-15.45|<0.001
84725231|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-9.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.20|-15.64|<0.001
84725232|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.74|-12.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.31|-18.74|<0.001
84725233|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.22|-2.05|0.662
84725234|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.03||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.24|0.768
84725235|NCT00696241|169202734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.34|0.043
84725236|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.34|<0.001
84725237|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-6.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.24|<0.001
84725238|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.36||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-9.47|<0.001
84725239|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.99|0.679
84725240|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.62||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-1.89|0.319
84725241|NCT00696241|169202735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.38||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.13|0.172
84725242|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.83|<0.001
84725243|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-5.27||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.27|-8.87|<0.001
84725244|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.82||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.82|-10.42|<0.001
84725245|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.56||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.56|-1.39|0.908
84725246|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-1.43|0.956
84725247|NCT00696241|169202736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-2.98|0.044
84725248|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-8.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.48|-13.59|<0.001
84725249|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-9.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.65|-14.75|<0.001
84725250|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-10.86||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-15.97|<0.001
84725251|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.22|-1.90|0.879
84725252|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.04|-3.07|0.334
84725253|NCT00696241|169202737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.16||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-4.28|0.034
84725254|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.45|-8.79|<0.001
84725255|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.18|-9.51|<0.001
84725256|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.61||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-9.94|<0.001
84725257|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.24|0.877
84725258|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.96|0.369
84725259|NCT00696241|169202738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.3||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-2.39|0.126
84725260|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-7.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-12.79|<0.001
84725261|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-8.78||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.78|-14.07|<0.001
84725262|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-9.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.73|-15.03|<0.001
84725263|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.18|-1.12|0.346
84725264|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.88||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-2.40|0.811
84725265|NCT00696241|169202739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.93||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-3.35|0.267
84725266|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-4.21||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-7.84|<0.001
84725267|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-5.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.13|-8.75|<0.001
84725268|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-5.03||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-8.65|<0.001
84725269|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.1||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.83|0.394
84725270|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.19||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.19|-1.74|0.712
84725271|NCT00696241|169202740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-1.63|0.818
84725272|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|-8.64||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.64|-14.05|<0.001
84725273|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|-9.98||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.98|-15.38|<0.001
84725274|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-11.11||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.11|-16.51|<0.001
84725275|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.54||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-1.83|0.750
84725276|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.2||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.16|0.378
84725277|NCT00696241|169202741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-4.28|0.059
84725278|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-5.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-9.02|<0.001
84725279|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-6.4||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.40|-9.92|<0.001
84725280|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.65|-10.17|<0.001
84725281|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.57|-1.29|0.845
84725282|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.19|0.290
84725283|NCT00696241|169202742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.41||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-2.44|0.161
84725284|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|-8.0||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.00|-13.88|<0.001
84725285|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-8.24||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.24|-14.11|<0.001
84725286|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-9.28||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.28|-15.15|<0.001
84725287|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.33||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-3.43|0.385
84725288|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-3.66|0.285
84725289|NCT00696241|169202743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-4.70|0.054
84725290|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-4.75||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-8.93|<0.001
84725291|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-4.72||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.72|-8.89|<0.001
84725292|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-5.47||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.47|-9.64|<0.001
84725293|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-2.09|0.642
84725294|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.32||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.05|0.672
84725295|NCT00696241|169202744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-2.80|0.196
84725296|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.39||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|2.71|<0.001
84725297|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|8.2||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.20|3.01|<0.001
84725298|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.79||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.79|3.95|<0.001
84725299|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.57|0.173
84725300|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.63|0.449
84725301|NCT00696241|169202745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.83|0.402
84725302|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|4.48||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.82|<0.001
84725303|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|2.15|<0.001
84725304|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.41|<0.001
84725305|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.52|0.177
84725306|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.61|0.628
84725307|NCT00696241|169202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.68|0.928
84725308|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|7.72||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.72|2.66|<0.001
84725309|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.58||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.58|2.96|<0.001
84725310|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|11.48||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.48|3.96|<0.001
84725311|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.58|0.217
84725312|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.64|0.537
84725313|NCT00696241|169202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.68||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.86|0.276
84725314|NCT01297595|169202766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|108.87||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||108.87|91.08|
84725315|NCT01297595|169202768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.51|109.07||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||109.07|90.51|
84725316|NCT01297595|169202769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|96.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|106.32||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||106.32|88.22|
84725317|NCT01047709|169202780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of control night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
84725318|NCT01047709|169202780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0||0.011||95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of intervention night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
84725319|NCT01970527|169202792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
84725320|NCT01970527|169202794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
84725321|NCT03060525|169202795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in weight change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.41|-6.32|0.026
84725322|NCT03060525|169202796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.12|-2.42|0.03
84725323|NCT03060525|169202797|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|247.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in amount of physical activity = 6-month MET-minutes/week - baseline MET-minutes/week (change from pre to post intervention), using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. IPAQ score is a continuous measure and reports median MET-minutes per week (a combination of walking met-minutes/week + moderate activity MET-minutes/week + vigorous activity MET-minutes/week). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||||0.63
84725324|NCT01574105|169202836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes of 26 in heparin resistant group and 26 in heparin sensitive group achieve 90% power at the 0.025 level of significance to detect a non-inferiority using a one-sided two-sample t-test, assuming a noninferiority margin is 200 milliliters in the postoperative chest tube loss.|||||<|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For the analysis of the patient characteristics Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fischer's exact tests were used. An upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between resistant and sensitive groups for all values of chest tube losses was computed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and compared with pre-specified noninferiority limits. Covariates in the ANCOVA model included patient characteristics differing between two groups with a p-value \<0.1.||||<0.1
84725325|NCT00608959|169202838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.563|<|0.001||95.0|-2.55|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.26|-2.55|<0.001
84725326|NCT00608959|169202838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.656|<|0.001||95.0|-2.57|-1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.17|-2.57|<0.001
84725327|NCT01416285|169202841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||All-cause death||||0.004
84725328|NCT01416285|169202841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||Heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||0.003
84725329|NCT01416285|169202841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||a composite outcome of both death and heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||<0.001
84725330|NCT01248715|169202848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.460
84725331|NCT01248715|169202849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
84725332|NCT01248715|169202850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.732
84725333|NCT01248715|169202851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
84725334|NCT01248715|169202852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
84725335|NCT01248715|169202853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.796
84725336|NCT01248715|169202854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
84725337|NCT03884478|169202899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.0001
84725338|NCT03884478|169202899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.005
84725339|NCT03884478|169202899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol Only Arm.||||.25
84725340|NCT03884478|169202900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.025
84725341|NCT03884478|169202900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.11
84725342|NCT03884478|169202900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.66
84725343|NCT03884478|169202901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
84725344|NCT03884478|169202901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
84725345|NCT03884478|169202901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.88
84725346|NCT03884478|169202902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.03
84725347|NCT03884478|169202902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.059
84725348|NCT03884478|169202902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.71
84725349|NCT03884478|169202903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
84725350|NCT03884478|169202903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
84725351|NCT03884478|169202903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.87
84725352|NCT03884478|169202904|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
84725353|NCT03884478|169202904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.002
84725354|NCT03884478|169202904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.43
84725355|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.37|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. The 3-month PFS estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.||0.37|0.14|
84725356|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.27|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.27|0.07|
84725357|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.39|0.18|
84725358|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.2|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.2|0.04|
84725359|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.92||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using a logrank test.||1.92|0.91|
84725360|NCT00828139|169202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|2.1||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using log-rank test.||2.10|1.08|
84725361|NCT02068352|169202954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|11.93||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|23.95||P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.95|-0.08|0.0690
84725362|NCT02068352|169202954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|18.23||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|31.46||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.46|4.99|0.0165
84725363|NCT02068352|169202954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|24.53||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.53|0.06|0.0617
84539756|NCT03668808|168829513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM - Coefficient of Variation (CV) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
84725364|NCT02068352|169202955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, and interaction of treatment by visit as terms, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.84|0.0128
84725365|NCT02068352|169202955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.81|0.0134
84725366|NCT02068352|169202956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.85|0.0048
84725367|NCT02068352|169202956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.84|0.0045
84725368|NCT02068352|169202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|21.52||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.52|-8.99|0.4173
84725369|NCT02068352|169202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|20.36||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.36|-9.43|0.4895
84725370|NCT02068352|169202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.19||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|25.12||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.12|-6.74|0.2677
84725371|NCT02068352|169202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|25.87||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.87|-5.63|0.2319
84725372|NCT02068352|169202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.11|-3.33|0.3213
84725373|NCT02068352|169202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.08|-4.27|0.0594
84725374|NCT02068352|169202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.37|-3.43|0.396
84725375|NCT02068352|169202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.46|-4.26|0.1135
84725376|NCT02068352|169202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.65|-3.63|0.1703
84725377|NCT02068352|169202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.45|-4.67|0.0176
84725378|NCT02068352|169202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.95|-3.78|0.2381
84725379|NCT02068352|169202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.03|-4.68|0.047
84725380|NCT02068352|169202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||10.7|-13.5|0.8196
84725381|NCT02068352|169202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.83||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.02|-23.69|0.0503
84725382|NCT02068352|169202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||9.85|-17.22|0.5902
84540463|NCT00535405|168831869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.023||95.0|1.14|2.87||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.87|1.14|0.023
84725383|NCT02068352|169202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.11|-26.73|0.0482
84725384|NCT02068352|169202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|10.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.48|-12.48|0.8633
84725385|NCT02068352|169202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.25|-22.83|0.0452
84725386|NCT02068352|169202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|10.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.12|-15.58|0.6746
84725387|NCT02068352|169202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.4|-25.69|0.0432
84725388|NCT03745651|169202965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.125|21.202||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||21.202|4.125|< 0.0001
84725389|NCT03745651|169202965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.354|38.061||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||38.061|7.354|< 0.0001
84725390|NCT03745651|169202966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|13.184||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.184|3.723|< 0.0001
84725391|NCT03745651|169202966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|20.732||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||20.732|5.775|< 0.0001
84725392|NCT03745651|169202967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|9.036||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||9.036|2.045|< 0.0001
84725393|NCT03745651|169202967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.833|12.657||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||12.657|2.833|< 0.0001
84725394|NCT03745651|169202968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.094||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.094|0.598|0.8553
84725395|NCT03745651|169202968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.741||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.741|0.805|0.2359
84725396|NCT03745651|169202969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|3.342||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.342|0.827|0.1784
84725397|NCT03745651|169202969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|4.0||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.000|1.007|0.0472
84725398|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.57|-22.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-22.25|-41.57|<0.0001
84725399|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.81|-25.44|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-25.44|-44.81|<0.0001
84725400|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-35.92|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.92|-53.19|<0.0001
84725401|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-37.26|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-37.26|-54.55|<0.0001
84725402|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-35.98|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-35.98|-53.08|<0.0001
84725403|NCT03745651|169202979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.51|-37.48|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-37.48|-54.51|<0.0001
84725404|NCT03745651|169202980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-32.38|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-32.38|-46.48|<0.0001
84725405|NCT03745651|169202980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.51|-36.53|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-36.53|-50.51|<0.0001
84725406|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.01|-2.02|<0.0001
84725407|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.24|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.24|-2.24|<0.0001
84725408|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.23|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.23|-2.36|<0.0001
84725409|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.40|-2.53|<0.0001
84725410|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.29|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.29|-2.49|<0.0001
84725411|NCT03745651|169202981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.10|-2.30|<0.0001
84725412|NCT03745651|169202983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.97|-1.94|<0.0001
84725413|NCT03745651|169202983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.76|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.76|-1.72|<0.0001
84725414|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.51|-1.71|0.2903
84725415|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.13|-2.09|0.0837
84725416|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.91|-1.50|0.6272
84725417|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.34|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.34|-2.07|0.1609
84725418|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.73|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.73|-2.13|0.3362
84725419|NCT03745651|169202986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.62|-2.23|0.2690
84725420|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.13|0.0482
84725421|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.14|-2.26|0.0271
84725422|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.42|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.42|-1.94|0.2091
84725423|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.71|0.0111
84725424|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.14|-2.51|0.0802
84725425|NCT03745651|169202987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.09|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.09|-2.56|0.0666
84725426|NCT03745651|169202990|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.97|-4.84|<0.0001
84725427|NCT03745651|169202990|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-3.63|-5.47|<0.0001
84725428|NCT03745651|169202992|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-4.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.86|-7.38|<0.0001
84725429|NCT03745651|169202992|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-4.67|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.67|-7.17|<0.0001
84725430|NCT03745651|169202994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.32|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.32|-4.19|<0.0001
84725431|NCT03745651|169202994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.83|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-1.83|-3.67|<0.0001
84725432|NCT03745651|169202996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-1.03|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.03|-7.24|0.0099
84725433|NCT03745651|169202996|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||0.06|-6.30|0.0542
84725434|NCT03745651|169203000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.987|9.049||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||9.049|2.987|<0.0001
84725435|NCT03745651|169203000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|13.415||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||13.415|4.230|<0.0001
84725436|NCT03745651|169203001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||7.86|0.85|0.0150
84725437|NCT03745651|169203001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.54|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.54|1.59|0.0044
84725438|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|1.89|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.89|-13.12|0.1420
84725439|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-0.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-0.47|-15.51|0.0375
84539632|NCT00486525|168829161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.014|-0.44|0.037
84539633|NCT00486525|168829161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.035|-0.10|0.33
84539634|NCT00486525|168829161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.0074|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.0074|-0.15|0.03
84539635|NCT00486525|168829162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.15|-8.5|0.058
84725440|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-3.63|-14.48|0.0012
84725441|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-1.77|-12.58|0.0095
84725442|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.73|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.73|-22.69|<0.0001
84725443|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-5.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.18|-20.10|0.0010
84725444|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|-7.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.95|-16.18|<0.0001
84725445|NCT03745651|169203002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-6.37|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.37|-14.53|<0.0001
84725446|NCT01322347|169203014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
84725447|NCT04883541|169203032|SUPERIORITY|the t-test in independent groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
84725448|NCT02823574|169203033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.5|0.33|1.43|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.43|0.33|0.2897
84725449|NCT02823574|169203038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PD-L1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
84725450|NCT02823574|169203039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
84725451|NCT02823574|169203040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.36|0.87|
84725452|NCT02823574|169203041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.45|0.81|
84725453|NCT02823574|169203042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.61|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.61|0.81|
84725454|NCT02823574|169203067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.29|0.32|
84725455|NCT01580306|169203072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.58|310.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||310.17|41.58|
84725456|NCT01580306|169203072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|178.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.23|373.03|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||373.03|85.23|
84725457|NCT01580306|169203072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|169.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.19|391.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||391.17|73.19|
84725458|NCT01580306|169203073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.16|327.01|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||327.01|35.16|
84540773|NCT03718832|168832716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6239824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336405||0.0625551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.280906|0.0329412||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0329412|-1.280906|0.0625551
84725459|NCT01580306|169203073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|344.06|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||344.06|89.55|
84725460|NCT01580306|169203073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|115.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.257|309.736|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||309.736|47.257|
84725461|NCT03693989|169203095|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.065
84725462|NCT03693989|169203096|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
84725463|NCT03693989|169203097|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.621
84539636|NCT00486525|168829162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-2.7|-11.4|0.002
84539637|NCT00486525|168829162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF Fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.28|-3.1|0.019
84539638|NCT00486525|168829162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-1.4|-4.2|0.0001
84539639|NCT00486525|168829163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.4|1.4|0.01
84539640|NCT00486525|168829163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.6|1.5|0.01
84539641|NCT00486525|168829163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||3.75|0.40|0.016
84539642|NCT00486525|168829163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||4.14|0.77|0.0045
84539643|NCT00486525|168829164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.88|-3.0|0.28
84539644|NCT00486525|168829164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.69|-3.2|0.21
84539645|NCT00486525|168829164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CES-D for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0039|-1.3|0.051
84539646|NCT00486525|168829164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CESD for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.10|-1.2|0.098
84725464|NCT03693989|169203098|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
84725465|NCT03693989|169203099|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
84539647|NCT03860974|168829178|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the non-inferiority of serratus block compared with PVB using the 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average PACU pain scores was greater than -1.25 , we would conclude non-inferiority. The non-inferiority of serratus blocks with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested to a predefined non-inferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."|Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
84539648|NCT02969382|168829202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.9|0.001
84539649|NCT02969382|168829203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
84539650|NCT02969382|168829204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.019
84539651|NCT02969382|168829205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.008
84539652|NCT02969382|168829206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-6.6|<0.001
84539653|NCT02969382|168829207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.8|<0.001
84539654|NCT02969382|168829208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.020
84539655|NCT02969382|168829209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|4.921|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.921|1.422|0.002
84539656|NCT02969382|168829211|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
84539657|NCT02969382|168829212|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
84539658|NCT02969382|168829213|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
84539659|NCT04152863|168829220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.9||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|32.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||32.5|-9.5|0.1812
84539660|NCT04152863|168829220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.2|25.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||25.5|-16.2|0.3548
84539661|NCT04152863|168829220|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|28.2||||||||28.2|-14.6|
84539662|NCT04152863|168829221|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.27||||||||2.27|0.50|
84539663|NCT04152863|168829221|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.29||||||||2.29|0.51|
84539664|NCT04152863|168829221|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04||||||||2.04|0.50|
84539665|NCT04152863|168829223|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
84539666|NCT04152863|168829223|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
84539667|NCT04152863|168829223|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|21.2||||||||21.2|-21.2|
84539668|NCT04152863|168829224|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.02||||||||3.02|0.70|
84539669|NCT04152863|168829224|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.68||||||||2.68|0.62|
84539670|NCT04152863|168829224|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22||||||||2.22|0.60|
84539671|NCT04152863|168829226|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.79||||||||3.79|0.71|
84539672|NCT04152863|168829226|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||||||||2.68|0.47|
84539673|NCT04152863|168829226|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.02||||||||3.02|0.64|
84539674|NCT01644617|168829229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-2.39|-4.85|<0.001
84539675|NCT01644617|168829229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.72|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.72|-3.24|0.003
84539676|NCT01644617|168829230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.03|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.03|-3.14|<0.001
84539677|NCT01644617|168829230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.23||||0.032||95.0|-2.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-2.36|0.032
84539678|NCT01644617|168829231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.39|-2.34|0.007
84539679|NCT01644617|168829231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.54||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.29|-1.38|0.198
84539680|NCT01644617|168829232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-3.09|-6.59|<0.001
84539681|NCT01644617|168829232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.95|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.95|-4.35|0.003
84539682|NCT01644617|168829233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.13|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.13|-4.12|<0.001
84539683|NCT01644617|168829233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-2.96|0.091
84539684|NCT01644617|168829234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.64|-3.30|0.004
84539685|NCT01644617|168829234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.83||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.4|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.40|-2.06|0.181
84539686|NCT01644617|168829235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.62|-1.92|<0.001
84539687|NCT01644617|168829235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.77||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-1.43|0.023
84539688|NCT01644617|168829236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.53||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.07|-1.13|0.082
84539689|NCT01644617|168829236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|-0.79|0.691
84539690|NCT01644617|168829237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.09|-1.14|0.023
84539691|NCT01644617|168829237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.34||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-0.90|0.235
84539692|NCT01644617|168829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.68|0.43|<0.001
84539693|NCT01644617|168829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.52|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|0.33|<0.001
84539694|NCT01644617|168829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.64|0.41|<0.001
84539695|NCT01644617|168829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.48|0.30|<0.001
84539696|NCT01644617|168829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.13|<0.001
84539697|NCT01644617|168829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.25|0.12|<0.001
84539698|NCT01644617|168829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.42|0.23|<0.001
84539699|NCT01644617|168829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.16|<0.001
84539700|NCT01644617|168829242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|12.4||||||95.0|-3.6|28.9|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||28.9|-3.6|
84539701|NCT01644617|168829242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|26.6|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.0|
84539702|NCT01644617|168829243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|6.7|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.7|-22.6|
84539703|NCT01644617|168829243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-5.4|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-5.4|-28.5|
84539704|NCT02276807|168829244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
84539705|NCT02276807|168829245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (time: Baseline vs. week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
84539706|NCT02276807|168829246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
84539707|NCT02276807|168829247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
84478338|NCT00318565|168707987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial distribution|93.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|90.1||||Exact binomial distribution|||An acute success rate of 88% is anticipated and the one-sided 95% lower confidence bound will be compared to 80%. The statistical hypothesis for the primary efficacy endpoint is evaluated as a one-tailed hypothesis at a = 0.05.|||90.1|.05
84478339|NCT00318565|168707988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Distribution|1.5||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.0|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||The anticipated rate of the CSAE is 2.7% and the one-sided 95% upper confidence bound will be compared to 7%||7||.05
84478340|NCT04446299|168708034|NON_INFERIORITY|The predetermined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|8.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.52|-1.68|<0.001
84478341|NCT01700985|168708037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84478342|NCT01700985|168708038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84478343|NCT01700985|168708039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
84478344|NCT04024072|168708104|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.93|
84539708|NCT02276807|168829248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
84539709|NCT03417778|168829264|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|161.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|321.48||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the geometric least-squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||321.48|80.77|
84539710|NCT03417778|168829265|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.67|213.89||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||213.89|69.67|
84539711|NCT03417778|168829266|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|159.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.22|308.06||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||308.06|82.22|
84539712|NCT03417778|168829267|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.9|214.07||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||214.07|69.90|
84539713|NCT03417778|168829268|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.75|228.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||228.98|58.75|
84725466|NCT03693989|169203100|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
84478345|NCT04024072|168708104|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.70|
84478346|NCT04024072|168708104|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.74|
84478347|NCT04024072|168708104|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.51|
84478348|NCT03970824|168708145|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|115.16||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||115.16|97.19|
84478349|NCT03970824|168708145|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|100.61||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||100.61|85.29|
84478350|NCT03970824|168708145|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.06|106.63||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.63|90.06|
84478351|NCT03970824|168708146|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|117.13||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||117.13|98.29|
84539714|NCT03417778|168829269|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.12|175.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||175.98|60.12|
84539715|NCT00247676|168829287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||clinical benefit response rate|37.8||||||95.0|22.5|55.2|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed CR, confirmed PR, or SD for at least 12 weeks according to RECIST, relative to total treated patients.|||55.2|22.5|
84539716|NCT00247676|168829292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||objective response rate|2.7||||||95.0|0.1|14.2|||||percentage of patients with confirmed CR or confirmed PR according to RECIST, relative to the total number of treated patients.|||14.2|0.1|
84539717|NCT00247676|168829296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.324||||||95.0|0.168|0.479|||||probability derived from Kaplan-Meier estimate.|||0.479|0.168|
84539718|NCT00911300|168829315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the absolute percent difference between Fondaparinux and UFH/VKA.|||3.1|-2.0|1.000
84539719|NCT03901092|168829329|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.91||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.91|0.83|
84539720|NCT03901092|168829332|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.88|0.80|
84539721|NCT03901092|168829333|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.95|0.85|
84725467|NCT03693989|169203101|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.300
84725468|NCT03693989|169203102|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
84725469|NCT03693989|169203103|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||burning eyes comparison||||0.346
84725470|NCT03693989|169203103|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.489|||||||Fisher Exact|||Itching eyes comparison||||0.489
84725471|NCT03693989|169203103|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||foreign body sensation eyes comparison||||0.497
84725472|NCT03693989|169203103|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||blurred vision comparison||||1.000
84725473|NCT02077374|169203115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in mean change in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-2.5|-30.7|0.0195
84725474|NCT02077374|169203117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) from baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||11.2|-14.5|0.8724
84725475|NCT02077374|169203118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-336.0|55.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for cCK18/M30 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||55|-336|0.1149
84725476|NCT02077374|169203119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-250.0||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.0|63.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for caspase 3/7 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||63|-590|0.1365
84725477|NCT02077374|169203120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-327.0||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.0|-7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis of the difference in the change in full-length cytokeratine 18 (flCK18/M65) from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-7|-628|0.0471
84725478|NCT00886834|169203128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
84725479|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.99|0.81|
84539722|NCT03901092|168829334|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 1||1.00|0.69|
84539723|NCT03901092|168829334|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 2||1.00|0.41|
84539724|NCT03901092|168829334|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.95||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 3||0.95|0.24|
84725480|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.93|
84725481|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.27|1.03|
84725482|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.98|0.78|
84725483|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.1|0.88|
84725484|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.26|1.0|
84725485|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.04||||||95.0|0.88|1.23|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.88|
84725486|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.81|
84725487|NCT00657709|169203130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98 /254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||"The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98~/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0)."||1.08|0.78|
84725997|NCT00912964|169204166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.1||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.10|-0.76|0.13
84725488|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third vaccination, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
84725489|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
84725490|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
84725491|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
84725492|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
84725493|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
84725494|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||8|-2|
84725495|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ 98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot difference in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dise, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||4|-6|
84725496|NCT00657709|169203132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided (5% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-9|
84725497|NCT00657709|169203135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (FHA) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.94|0.76|
84725498|NCT00657709|169203135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis component (Pertactin) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.89|0.67|
84725499|NCT00657709|169203135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIS.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (PT) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.91|0.71|
84725500|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age,would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-1|
84725501|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-12|
84725502|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-2|
84725503|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-9|
84725504|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 1 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBV-IPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
84725505|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 2 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBVIPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||-1|-11|
84725506|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 3 of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2,4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
84725507|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the hepatitis B surface antigen component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT ≥10.0 mIU/ml was greater than -10%||-1|-5|
84726414|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.61|||Generalized linear model, repeat measure|Generalized linear model (GLM) fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group arm, visit, interaction term (arm\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.61|0.23|0.32
84725508|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferiority that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥0.15 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||1|-3|
84725509|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥1.0 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||7|-7|
84725510|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL was, for the pneumococcal antigen PnC4.||0|-4|
84725511|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 6B antigen greater than -10%.||8|-4|
84725512|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa\_HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 9V, greater than -10%.||1|-2|
84725513|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 vaccine when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC14 antigen, greater than -10%.||3|-4|
84725514|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 18C antigen greater than -10%.||1|-3|
84725515|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 19F antigen, greater than -10%.||4|-3|
84725516|NCT00657709|169203136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 23F antigen, greater than -10%.||2|-8|
84725517|NCT00657709|169203137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the FHA antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||4|-9|
84725518|NCT00657709|169203137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the Pertactin antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||-3|-16|
84725519|NCT00657709|169203137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PT antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||2|-7|
84539725|NCT03901092|168829334|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 4||1.00|0.67|
84725520|NCT03875729|169203155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1253|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0852|0.1653||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = Teplizumab - Placebo|This study was designed to show a difference of at least a 40% in C-peptide response between teplizumab and placebo. In geometric means, this translates to a value of (1.4×0.28) = 0.392. Consequently, approximately 300 participants were planned for enrollment, assuming 2-sided α=0.05, 90% power, 2:1 randomization, and a 10% dropout rate.||0.1653|0.0852|<0.001
84725521|NCT03875729|169203155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.1776||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = teplizumab - placebo|||0.1776|0.0994|<0.001
84725522|NCT03875729|169203156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.018||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.018|-0.280|0.085
84725523|NCT03875729|169203156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.078||PP: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||-0.078|-0.256|<0.001
84725524|NCT03875729|169203157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.42|0.606
84725525|NCT03875729|169203157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||PP: ANOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.20|-0.46|0.454
84725526|NCT03875729|169203158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|11.15||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||11.15|-1.72|0.151
84725527|NCT03875729|169203158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|12.22||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||12.22|0.13|0.045
84725528|NCT03875729|169203159|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||ITT: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.64|0.74|0.634
84725529|NCT03875729|169203159|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65||PP: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Rate ratio||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.65|0.72|0.690
84725530|NCT01280656|169203179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
84725531|NCT01280656|169203180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.693
84725532|NCT01280656|169203182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.573
84725533|NCT01280656|169203184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at the site||||0.982
84725534|NCT01280656|169203184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at home||||0.012
84725535|NCT01280656|169203185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.476
84725536|NCT01280656|169203185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.320
84725537|NCT01280656|169203186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.792
84725538|NCT01280656|169203187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
84725539|NCT01280656|169203188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.921
84725540|NCT01280656|169203189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
84725541|NCT01280656|169203190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total||||0.973
84725542|NCT05265247|169203195|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the point estimate for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.0673||||||||1.0673|0.8510|
84725543|NCT05265247|169203196|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9538|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.0132||||||||1.0132|0.8980|
84725544|NCT02516202|169203206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.25
84725545|NCT02516202|169203206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.31
84725546|NCT02516202|169203207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.99
84725547|NCT02516202|169203207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.05
84725548|NCT02516202|169203208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.64
84725549|NCT02516202|169203208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.17
84725550|NCT02516202|169203210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value calculation includes 195 participants with known responses at week 12.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
84725551|NCT02516202|169203211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84725552|NCT02516202|169203211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
84539726|NCT03901092|168829334|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 5||1.00|0.52|
84725553|NCT02516202|169203212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
84725554|NCT02516202|169203212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
84725555|NCT02841449|169203213|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.886
84725556|NCT02841449|169203213|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial, p = 0.627; time, p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.430
84725557|NCT02841449|169203214|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.369
84725558|NCT02841449|169203214|OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.200; time p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.859
84725559|NCT02841449|169203215|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||<0.001
84725560|NCT02841449|169203215|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.002; time p = 0.282|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.261
84725561|NCT02841449|169203216|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.736
84725562|NCT02841449|169203217|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.542
84725563|NCT02841449|169203218|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.400
84725564|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Visual analogue scale for thirst||||0.646
84725565|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for savoury||||0.403
84725566|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for salt||||0.022
84725567|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for hunger||||0.849
84725568|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fullness||||0.062
84725569|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for how much participants felt they could eat||||0.549
84725570|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for sweet desire||||0.402
84725571|NCT02841449|169203219|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fatty food desire||||0.138
84725572|NCT02841449|169203220|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Above is trial\*time effect. trial p = 0.135; time p = 0.011|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.055
84725573|NCT02841449|169203221|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.226
84725574|NCT02841449|169203222|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||< 0.001
84725575|NCT02159352|169203227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.348|0.423||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.423|0.348|
84725576|NCT02159352|169203227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|0.371||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.371|0.306|
84725577|NCT02159352|169203228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.75||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.750|0.658|
84725578|NCT02159352|169203228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.535|0.622||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.622|0.535|
84725579|NCT02159352|169203231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|0.846||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.846|0.697|
84725580|NCT02159352|169203231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.611|0.742||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.742|0.611|
84725581|NCT02159352|169203232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.317|1.501||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.501|1.317|
84725582|NCT02159352|169203232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.244||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.244|1.070|
84725583|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.2||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Unadjusted)||9.2|-0.9|
84725584|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.3||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.3|-0.4|
84725585|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.6||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Unadjusted)||5.6|-6.2|
84725586|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Unadjusted)||3.5|-4.0|
84725587|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.9||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Unadjusted)||8.9|-1.9|
84725588|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.0||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.0|-2.1|
84725589|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.8||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Adjusted)||9.8|-0.4|
84725590|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.5||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Adjusted)||6.5|0.6|
84725591|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Adjusted)||6.9|-5.0|
84725592|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Adjusted)||4.9|-2.8|
84725593|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.0||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Adjusted)||10.0|-0.4|
84725594|NCT01020435|169203238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Adjusted)||5.8|-1.2|
84725595|NCT01294644|169203304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||4.43|1.52|<0.001
84725596|NCT01294644|169203304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.36|1.83|<0.001
84725597|NCT01294644|169203305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|92.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||92.67|1.48|0.020
84725598|NCT01294644|169203305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|91.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||91.24|1.46|0.021
84725599|NCT01294644|169203306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.44|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.44|3.06|<0.001
84725600|NCT01294644|169203306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.04|2.65|<0.001
84725601|NCT01294644|169203307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.001
84725602|NCT01294644|169203307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
84725603|NCT01294644|169203308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.75|0.97|<0.001
84725604|NCT01294644|169203308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.65|0.87|<0.001
84725605|NCT01294644|169203309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||0.13|-1.72|0.090
84725606|NCT01294644|169203309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.05|-1.89|0.040
84725607|NCT01294644|169203310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.009
84725608|NCT01294644|169203310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.001
84725609|NCT02548585|169203323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted by baseline value.||||||< 0.0001
84725610|NCT02548585|169203324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using ANCOVA adjusted by baseline value.||||||0.0008
84725611|NCT04919499|169203405|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1048|0.0545|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0545|-0.1048|
84725612|NCT04919499|169203406|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0422|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0422|-0.0625|
84725613|NCT04919499|169203407|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0536|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0536|-0.0504|
84725614|NCT04919499|169203408|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||||"Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]~Results were rounded to one decimal place."|||5.0|-4.7|
84725615|NCT00507429|169203442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.223
84725616|NCT03557307|169203452|OTHER||percentage|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.86|66.76|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieved 100% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||66.76|58.86|
84725617|NCT03557307|169203453|OTHER||percentage|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.62|84.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve 100% reduction or a daily OCS dose of \<=5mg, if reason for no further OCS reduction is Adrenal Insufficiency, that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.94|78.62|
84725618|NCT03557307|169203454|OTHER||percentage|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.94|93.58|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve a daily OCS dose of ≤5 mg (regardless of reason for no further OCS reduction), that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||93.58|88.94|
84725619|NCT03557307|169203455|OTHER||percentage|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.06|67.9|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (≥90% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=90% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||67.90|60.06|
84725620|NCT03557307|169203455|OTHER||percentage|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.02|72.59|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=75% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=75% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||72.59|65.02|
84725621|NCT03557307|169203455|OTHER||percentage|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.44|84.79|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=50% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=50% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.79|78.44|
84725622|NCT03557307|169203456|OTHER||percentage change from baseline|-76.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|-73.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage change from baseline in daily OCS dose at the end of OCS reduction phase|||-73.94|-79.90|
84725623|NCT03456856|169203466|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||repeated measures linear model|||The estimated mean treatment difference (95% CI) takes into account a presumed -5 bpm change from baseline heart rate in the absence of ivabradine (as seen in the placebo group in the SHIFT study, (NCT02441218, PMID 20801500).||-1.0|-8.0|0.013
84725624|NCT00113529|169203467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||55.1|21.5|
84725625|NCT00113529|169203473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|82.4||||||95.0|64.9|91.7||||||||91.7|64.9|
84725626|NCT00113529|169203482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.075
84725627|NCT00113529|169203482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.749
84725628|NCT00113529|169203482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.834
84725629|NCT00113529|169203482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
84725630|NCT00113529|169203482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.332
84725631|NCT00113529|169203483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.473
84725632|NCT00113529|169203483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.286
84725633|NCT00113529|169203483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.277
84725634|NCT00113529|169203483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.956
84725635|NCT00113529|169203483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.278
84725636|NCT00113529|169203484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.275
84725637|NCT00113529|169203484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.227
84725638|NCT00113529|169203484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.029
84725639|NCT00113529|169203484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
84725640|NCT00113529|169203484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||1.000
84725641|NCT00113529|169203485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.435
84725642|NCT00113529|169203485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.722
84725643|NCT00113529|169203485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.645
84725644|NCT00113529|169203485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.140
84725645|NCT00113529|169203485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.046
84725646|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
84725647|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
84725648|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
84725649|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
84725650|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
84725651|NCT00113529|169203486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
84725652|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
84725653|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
84725654|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
84725655|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
84725656|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
84725657|NCT00113529|169203487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
84725658|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
84725659|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
84725660|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
84725661|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
84725662|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
84725663|NCT00113529|169203488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
84725664|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
84725665|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
84725666|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
84725667|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
84725668|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
84725669|NCT00113529|169203489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
84725670|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
84725671|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
84725672|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
84725673|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
84725674|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
84725675|NCT00113529|169203490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
84725676|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
84725677|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
84725678|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
84725679|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
84725680|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
84725681|NCT00113529|169203491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
84725682|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
84725683|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
84725684|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
84539880|NCT00839254|168829945|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
84539881|NCT00839254|168829946|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
84539882|NCT00207883|168830031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
84539883|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
84539884|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
84539885|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
84539886|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
84539887|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.041
84539888|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.668
84539889|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.437
84539890|NCT00993421|168830049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.249
84539891|NCT00352417|168830069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.97
84539892|NCT00352417|168830070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.37
84539893|NCT00352417|168830071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
84539894|NCT00352417|168830072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on the natural log transformed data||||||<0.01
84539895|NCT00352417|168830073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
84539896|NCT03631199|168830127|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.00164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Log Rank|||Chest pain||0.86|0.45|0.00164
84539897|NCT03631199|168830127|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Log Rank|||Cough||0.82|0.43|0.00069
84539898|NCT03631199|168830127|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||0.84|0.51|0.00045
84539899|NCT03631199|168830128|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1|||Log Rank|||Quality of Life||1.10|0.66|0.113
84539900|NCT03631199|168830128|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank|||Shortness of Breath||0.91|0.51|0.00433
84539901|NCT03631199|168830128|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|||Pain||1.20|0.72|0.294
84539902|NCT03573830|168830143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|0.04|0.002
84539903|NCT03573830|168830144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.07|0.000
84539904|NCT03573830|168830145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.03|0.352
84539923|NCT01027702|168830428|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~* If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~* If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~* If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
84539924|NCT01027702|168830429|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
84539925|NCT00403585|168830431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 156.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
84539926|NCT02964312|168830437|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.5|93.9||||||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of responders at 6 months would be 50%. Since there was not direct comparison group, the hypothesis was set as a superiority comparison to a target proportion (66%) with a power level \>90%.||93.9|83.5|
84539927|NCT02964312|168830440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P values are based on paired t-tests for change from baseline with p\<0.05 indicating significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
84539928|NCT01023035|168830504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||Mantel-Haenszel, modified Koch method|||The modified Koch method was used to calculate the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) difference between the SVR rates for the Erythropoietin Use Arm versus the Ribavirin Dose Reduction Arm and corresponding 95% confidence interval with continuity correction.||7.2|-8.6|
84539929|NCT05219448|168830590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.0||Unadjusted p value presented. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same when compared to children in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||18.0|-3.2|0.17
84539930|NCT05219448|168830591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|14.0||Unadjusted P-value. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community A arm when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||14.0|-24.3|0.60
84539931|NCT05219448|168830591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-5.4||The P-value is unadjusted. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community B when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||-5.4|-44.1|0.013
84539932|NCT03022370|168830592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.62|=0.686
84539933|NCT03022370|168830592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.51|=0.032
84539934|NCT03022370|168830593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.64|0.555
84539935|NCT03022370|168830593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.03|0.54|0.072
84539936|NCT03022370|168830594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.66|0.672
84539937|NCT03022370|168830594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.52|0.019
84539938|NCT03022370|168830595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.88|0.984
84539939|NCT03022370|168830595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63|||Regression, Linear|||||0.63|-0.51|0.839
84539940|NCT03022370|168830596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Tobit|Log + 1 performed on data||||1.51|0.43|<0.0001
84539941|NCT03022370|168830596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.83|||Tobit|Log plus 1 to transform data||||0.83|-0.42|0.521
84539942|NCT03022370|168830597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.58|||Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-1.09|0.718
84539943|NCT03022370|168830597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.28|||Regression, Linear|||||1.28|-1.87|0.712
84539944|NCT03022370|168830598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-3.14|0.067
84539945|NCT03022370|168830598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-2.48|0.398
84539946|NCT03022370|168830599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.85|0.228
84539947|NCT03022370|168830599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.53|0.558
84539948|NCT03022370|168830600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.52|0.679
84539949|NCT03022370|168830600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.16|||Regression, Linear|||||1.16|-0.07|0.08
84540584|NCT02730663|168832415|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and percentage of patients who achieved clinical success at the time of stent removal are presented. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is to be calculated to confirm the degree of non-inferiority for the reference value (96%) and the difference (Investigational device - reference value) and if the lower limit of the confidence interval is -10% or higher, the noninferiority will be considered to be confirmed.|Reference value|-0.07||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||A two-tail test was performed for statistics at a significance level of 0.05 unless otherwise specified.|t-test, 2 sided|||The clinical success rate at the time point of stent removal is reported 86.2% according to the approval data of the commercially available AXIOS stent submitted to the US FDA. The clinical success rates of EUS-guided transluminal drainage using a lumen-appending stent were 93.3% (29 cases), 100% (8 cases) and 100% (7 cases) respectively in the studies performed afterwards by Shah RJ (2015), Gornals JB (2012) and Moon JH (2014). The weighted average calculated for each study was about 96%.||||0.05
84540585|NCT00866359|168832422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.9|-2.4|<0.0001
84540586|NCT00866359|168832423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-18.0|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the oral ulcer pain VAS at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline oral ulcer pain VAS as a covariate.|||-18.0|-35.5|<0.0001
84540587|NCT00866359|168832426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.32|-54.82||The last post-baseline observation was carried forward to Day 85 for participants who discontinued the study before Day 85. For participants who did not have Day 85 visit on the targeted date, the total AUC was adjusted by the actual study days.|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-54.82|-125.32|<0.0001
84540588|NCT00866359|168832429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.8|-2.7|0.0007
84540589|NCT00866359|168832430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||adjusted difference (percentage)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|54.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for gender.|Adjusted difference in proportions = weighted average of treatment differences across gender with the CMH weights.|||54.5|23.6|<0.0001
84540590|NCT00866359|168832431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Based on an Ancova model for change from baseline with treatment group, gender and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.5|-1.7|0.0007
84540591|NCT01625091|168832446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
84540592|NCT01625091|168832447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
84540593|NCT01625091|168832448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
84540594|NCT01625091|168832449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
84540595|NCT04182334|168832473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
84540596|NCT04182334|168832474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
84540597|NCT04182334|168832475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
84540598|NCT04182334|168832476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
84540599|NCT04182334|168832477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.463
84540600|NCT04182334|168832478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
84540601|NCT04182334|168832479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
84540602|NCT04182334|168832480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
84540603|NCT04182334|168832481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
84540604|NCT04182334|168832482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
84540605|NCT01959295|168832483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The superiority of ASP2151 200mg to ASP2151 placebo was assessed by Mantel-Haenszel method, adjusted by disease type (labial/facial herpes and recurrent genital herpes) .||||0.5086
84540606|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|7.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.451|8.992|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||8.992|5.451|
84540607|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|7.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.467|9.279|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||9.279|5.467|
84540608|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|2.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.961|3.646|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.646|1.961|
84540609|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|7.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.428|9.571|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||9.571|5.428|
84540610|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|7.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.106|10.425|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||10.425|6.106|
84540611|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|1.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|1.869|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||1.869|1.229|
84540612|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|6.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.562|10.092|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||10.092|4.562|
84540613|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|6.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|9.909|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||9.909|4.030|
84540614|NCT04917861|168832492|OTHER||GMR|7.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.056|12.18|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||12.180|4.056|
84540615|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|5.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.149|6.802|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.802|4.149|
84540616|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|5.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.128|6.922|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.922|4.128|
84540617|NCT04917861|168832493|OTHER||GMR|2.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.721|3.14|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.140|1.721|
84540722|NCT00879255|168832671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.42||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority analysis|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.42|-11.92|> .05
84540723|NCT00879255|168832672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|2.13||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority design|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.13|-11.65|> .05
84540724|NCT00879255|168832673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|5.14||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority test|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||5.14|-16.26|> .05
84540725|NCT02099786|168832701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with ASHA-significant threshold shifts between treatment arms.||8.8|.55|.27
84540726|NCT02099786|168832701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with CTCAE grade 1 or greater hearing loss between treatment arms.||5.9|.3|.67
84540727|NCT02099786|168832702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis is no difference in audiology clinic use between treatment arms.||2.9|.29|.88
84540728|NCT02099786|168832703|NON_INFERIORITY|We require a non-inferiority margin of no more than 1.1 mortality odds among COMP-VA patients relative to Usual Care patients. This means that the upper 95% confidence bound for the fitted odds ratio must be less than 1.1 to reject the null hypothesis that COMP-VA induces extra mortality risk.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
84540729|NCT02099786|168832704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
84540730|NCT03718832|168832705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0333487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943638||0.8638688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415628|0.3489306||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.3489306|-0.415628|0.8638688
84540731|NCT03718832|168832705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0066385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1853917||0.9714571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371329|0.358052||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.358052|-0.371329|0.9714571
84540732|NCT03718832|168832706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1409446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106711||0.5039565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2735162|0.5554053||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5554053|-0.2735162|0.5039565
84540733|NCT03718832|168832706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1213915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2126328||0.5684854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2970052|0.5397882||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5397882|-0.2970052|0.5684854
84540734|NCT03718832|168832707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.26835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.90353||0.2247426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.73804|8.201347||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||8.201347|-34.73804|0.2247426
84540735|NCT03718832|168832707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.20164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25555||0.2794015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.37119|9.9679||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||9.9679|-34.37119|0.2794015
84725685|NCT00113529|169203492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
84725764|NCT03246724|169203692|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. A 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||As a sensitivity analysis, an ANCOVA model will be fit to the data adjusting for factors that are out of balance following randomization. The mean difference between the adjusted means will be calculated.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Testable hypothesis: Patient satisfaction mean will be non-inferior when given oral triazolam in comparison to IV midazolam during all basic cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that the oral sedation group will have a primary endpoint mean equal to or less than that of the IV sedation group by the non-inferiority margin or more."||||<0.05
84725765|NCT03246724|169203693|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Surgeon satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
84725766|NCT03246724|169203694|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures."||||<0.05
84725767|NCT03246724|169203695|OTHER|Additional anesthesia intervention will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures"||||<0.05
84725768|NCT03246724|169203696|OTHER|Surgical complications will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
84725769|NCT02978716|169203697|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global family-wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses in the strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.5|-0.8|0.7048
84725770|NCT02978716|169203697|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.3||2-sided p-value was calculated using a ANCOVA with study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of lines of systemic therapy, liver involvement and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.3|-0.6|0.3364
84725771|NCT02978716|169203698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2762||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.559||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|Modified Poisson method|||Number of participants with SN in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.559|0.386|0.7048
84725772|NCT02978716|169203698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.019||The p-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Number of participants with SN in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.019|0.457|0.9154
84725773|NCT02978716|169203701|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 3 vs Group 1.||0.74|0.22|0.0004
84725904|NCT01159600|169203844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.55|-6.19||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.19|-18.55|<0.0001
84725905|NCT01159600|169203844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.72|-4.32||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-4.32|-15.72|<0.0001
84725906|NCT01159600|169203844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.15|-6.98||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.98|-19.15|<0.0001
84725907|NCT01159600|169203845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.42||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR (renal function), geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.42|-0.72|<0.0001
84725908|NCT01159600|169203845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
84725909|NCT01159600|169203845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.49|-0.79|<0.0001
84725910|NCT01159600|169203845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|-0.44||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.44|-0.74|<0.0001
84725911|NCT00760877|169203847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|5.738|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.738|0.766|0.1083
84725912|NCT01074229|169203903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Using Dunns test with Bonferroni conrrection for individual comparisons.||||||.05
84725913|NCT01074229|169203903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.0|||Dunns test|Bonferonni correction||||37|9|.05
84725914|NCT01074229|169203903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0|||Dunns Test|Bonferroni correction||||42|14|.05
84725915|NCT01074229|169203904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|With Dunns test and Bonferonni correction.||||||.05
84725916|NCT01074229|169203904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||Dunns test|||||15|3|0.003
84725917|NCT01074229|169203904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Dunns test|||||12|-1|0.14
84725971|NCT02006641|169204112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.92||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.92|-1.10|1.000
84725972|NCT02006641|169204112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.65||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.65|-0.38|0.2223
84725973|NCT02006641|169204113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.46||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.46|-1.11|1.000
84725974|NCT02006641|169204113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.33||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.33|-1.27|1.000
84725975|NCT02006641|169204114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.10|-0.23|1.000
84725976|NCT02006641|169204114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.21||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.21|-0.12|1.000
84725977|NCT03015220|169204146|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.20|0.70|0.2963
84725978|NCT03015220|169204146|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.83||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.83|0.35|0.5997
84725983|NCT00912964|169204159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.74|0.005
84725984|NCT00912964|169204159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.001
84725985|NCT00912964|169204160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.8||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||10.8|-1.6|0.15
84725986|NCT00912964|169204160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|18.6||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.6|6.3|<0.001
84725987|NCT00912964|169204161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.82|0.007
84725988|NCT00912964|169204161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
84725989|NCT00912964|169204162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.01|-0.68|0.039
84725990|NCT00912964|169204162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.17|-0.85|<0.001
84726415|NCT04454125|169204798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||2.76|0.03|0.29
84726088|NCT00234832|169204442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.162||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.311||No adjustment for multiple testing or interim analysis was performed. The primary outcome was tested at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||The Cox model included factors for treatment, country, gender, and age (continuous) at Lead-in Period baseline. For the calculation of risk, the sibutramine arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator.|For the sample size calculation, a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 was used along with power of 90%. The annual composite event rate in the placebo arm was assumed to be 7.0%. A sample of 3983 subjects in each of the 2 groups, corrected for a 30% noncompliance rate (15% in Year 1 and 6.3% in each year, Years 2 to 4), followed for at least 3 years was expected to have 90% power to detect a relative risk reduction of 15% with sibutramine relative to placebo.||1.311|1.029|0.015
84726089|NCT00234832|169204442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.384|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with DM only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.384|0.738|0.948
84726090|NCT00234832|169204442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.776|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.776|0.916|0.149
84726091|NCT00234832|169204442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.182||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.365|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV + DM in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.365|1.024|0.022
84726092|NCT00234832|169204443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.043||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.196|||Log Rank|||||1.196|0.910|0.543
84726093|NCT00234832|169204444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.097||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.999|0.051
84726094|NCT00234832|169204445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.571|||Log Rank|||||1.571|1.036|0.022
84726095|NCT00234832|169204446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.355||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.767|||Log Rank|||||1.767|1.038|0.025
84726096|NCT00234832|169204447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.582||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|4.081|||Log Rank|||||4.081|0.613|0.343
84726097|NCT00234832|169204448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.988||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.188|||Log Rank|||||1.188|0.822|0.899
84726098|NCT02301299|169204494|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the early hospital arrival would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG.||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly early hospital arrival rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05.|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly early arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
84726099|NCT02301299|169204495|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the EMS use would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly EMS use rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. The effect size is measured in slope of change over time (negative values indicate a decrease while positive values indicate an increase in % EMS use/month).|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly EMS arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
84726100|NCT03512041|169204497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.172
84726101|NCT03512041|169204498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
84726102|NCT03512041|169204499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
84726103|NCT05361304|169204542|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under HLLC.||0.000|-0.040|
84726385|NCT02291549|169204647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.06||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|Where appropriate, confidence intervals of the difference were constructed using the estimate of the least-squares means||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.39|0.0074
84726386|NCT02291549|169204648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.09||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.||The between treatment group difference was estimated using the ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the bilateral polyp grade compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.09|-0.60|0.0073
84726387|NCT02291549|169204649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.44||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted p-value is presented.||Test: H0: OR = 1 vs. OR ≠ 1 by Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test||4.44|1.63|0.0004
84726388|NCT02291549|169204650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.83||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.The null hypothesis was H0: β1 = 0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Although the alternative hypothesis was specified as 2-sided, only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 constituted evidence of effectiveness. The 2-sided alpha for this test was 0.05.||-3.83|-12.10|0.0007
84726389|NCT02291549|169204651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.07|-0.48|0.0248
84726390|NCT02291549|169204652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.06||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The adjusted p-value is presentenced.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.85|0.0470
84726391|NCT02291549|169204653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||||0.9130
84726392|NCT02138838|169204661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|8.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||29.9|-13.7|0.48
84726393|NCT02138838|169204662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-9.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline age group (6-\<12 years, 12-\<18 years)|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints. The primary endpoint was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The secondary endpoints were tested using Holm's method at 0.05 (2-sided) should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||13.4|-33.3|0.42
84726394|NCT02138838|169204663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-10.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||6.8|-27.7|0.25
84726395|NCT02138838|169204664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|50.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||50.5|-12.5|0.23
84726396|NCT02138838|169204665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.||||0.01|-0.70|0.059
84726397|NCT02138838|169204666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||1.48|0.04|0.039
84726398|NCT03444298|169204706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
84726399|NCT03444298|169204707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
84726400|NCT03444298|169204708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
84726401|NCT03444298|169204709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
84726402|NCT03444298|169204710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
84726403|NCT03444298|169204710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
84726404|NCT03444298|169204711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
84726405|NCT03444298|169204711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
84726581|NCT01989156|169204919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|17.05||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarkers of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||17.05|9.27|<0.001
84726582|NCT01989156|169204920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|45.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.22|53.41||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||53.41|39.22|<0.001
84726583|NCT01989156|169204921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|16.58||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.58|9.54|<0.001
84726584|NCT01989156|169204922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.31|40.26||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||40.26|17.31|<0.001
84726585|NCT01989156|169204923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|38.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.24|42.47||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||42.47|34.24|<0.001
84726586|NCT00850993|169204924|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for each Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo.|LS Mean Difference|-13.45|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Least-squares means are from an ANCOVA model for adjusted TSB with treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline adjusted TSB as a covariate. TSB is calculated as \[(TSB - Phototherapy(PT) threshold)/ PT threshold \] X 100%.||-0.62|-26.27|=0.040
84726587|NCT00850993|169204924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.02|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|2.58|||ANCOVA|||||2.58|-22.61|=0.117
84726588|NCT00850993|169204924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.93|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-30.31|=0.057
84726589|NCT00850993|169204925|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.09|-3.71|=0.061
84726590|NCT00850993|169204925|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.56|-3.24|=0.163
